Fun Thoughts

I haven't written here in a while. And this isn't going to be in the traditional column format. But I have a lot to get off my chest, so without further ado, here goes...

Baseball

Aaron Rowand signs a 5 year, $60 million contract with the Giants

This is a solid baseball move by the Giants. No, Aaron Rowand isn’t worth 60 million; nor is he worth five guaranteed years. But in this age of inflated contracts, who is? Don’t expect Rowand to match last year’s impressive numbers – he was in a much more productive lineup (Rollins, Utley, Howard, and even Burrell would instantly become the Giants best hitter) and a bandbox of a ballpark (Citizens Bank is one of the best hitters’ parks in baseball). He’s not really a middle of the lineup anchor, and would be best suited in a complementary run-producing role, as opposed to the focal point of the offense.

But this Rowand signing makes sense for a lot of reasons. First, the Giants need a bat – they need to start somewhere, and they didn’t have to give up a young arm to acquire one (trading for the aging Hideki Matsui would have been a poor decision). Moreover, Rowand is a gritty, tough player, the exact type of player the Giants have lacked for the last several years. His maximum effort performance will set a good example for a Giants team transitioning to younger players over the next several seasons.

Lastly, and this may be the most overlooked factor when evaluating this decision, is his defensive impact. In a market where it is expensive to acquire big name hitters and nearly impossible to acquire quality pitching, defense is a cost-efficient way of improving a club. Omar Vizquel, Bengie Molina, and Aaron Rowand will anchor one of the best defenses up the middle. And with the subtraction of the beloved #25 in left field, Dave Roberts should be able to team with Rowand and Randy Winn to patrol the spacious outfield with ease. Winn, incidentally, has become the best defensive right fielder the Giants have had, with his ability to play the high wall effectively. If the Giants resign defensive whiz (whoda thunk it!) Pedro Feliz and give time to Kevin Frandsen over Ray Durham at second (the weakest defensive link on the team), this will be a very good defensive club.

Brian Sabean declines to trade Tim Lincecum for Alex Rios

Sometimes it's the moves you don't make. In a non-move tied to the signing of Rowand, Sabean made one of his best decisions in a while by declining the standing offer of Tim Lincecum for Alex Rios.

Rios is a very nice player, don’t get me wrong. He has the potential to be a perennial All-Star, and would instantly become the Giants’ best bat. He is also a very well-rounded player – an excellent defender with above average speed, solid plate discipline and decent power. He’s entering his peak offensive years, so I would expect some of those doubles to turn into home runs as he becomes a consistent 30-20 threat.

That said, I don’t think Rios is an impact anchor for the lineup. While he is a very good player and will likely continue to improve, his ceiling is much lower than Lincecum’s. Lincecum has the chance to become an impact ace in the league, and it’s difficult to trade away that type of potential. There are concerns about his size, durability, and unorthodox motion, but the bottom line is that the Giants have two starting pitchers (Cain and Lincecum) that other teams would die for. Because pitching is valued more than hitting, I think that the inclusion of Lincecum would only make sense if the Giants were getting a superstar in return (i.e. Hanley Ramirez).

Sabean did the right thing, in my opinion, by holding onto his big chip here. Lincecum’s value should only continue to rise (barring injury). I think that Sabean should continue to be open about listening to offers – if he has the opportunity to replenish the farm system with top prospects or acquire a superstar position player, he needs to listen. But selling Lincecum now, for Rios, would be both premature and conservative.

Dan Haren traded to Diamondbacks for six prospects

On the other side of the Bay, we have a GM who has always been ahead of the curve. Until now. The A’s, for the first time in nearly a decade, will not have a realistic shot at contending this season. Usually, Beane makes a move before the situation turns this dire, but injuries and circumstances have placed him behind the 8-ball.

I like the Haren trade, but I don’t think it’s a sure thing that it will pay off. When I heard about the Mulder trade (for Haren, Kiko Calero, and Daric Barton) – I was 95% sure it would swing in the A’s favor. I didn’t think Mulder would implode, but Barton looked like a future star, Calero was a solid addition, and I thought Haren would mature into a very good starter (Blanton-esque though, not the ace that he has become).

I’m not as excited about this trade. While Carlos Gonzalez, the headliner, is a top prospect, I’m not sure his hitting approach fits the A’s style. He’s much more of a free swinger. Still, it’s hard to pass up on one of the best prospects in baseball. I’m highly partial to Brett Anderson, as he’s a member of my minor league farm system in my Dynasty league, but he could turn into a potential Blanton type (good control, innings eater, smart pitcher). Dana Eveland has bounced around a little bit, and I don’t know a whole lot about the other prospects besides Chris Carter’s big-time power potential.

But I think the key here is the depth of the prospects the A’s received. When making a trade like this, it becomes important to obtain as many quality prospects as possible, and hope that a few of them pan out. It can be difficult to project minor leaguers, so it becomes important to acquire as many quality ones as possible, to improve the odds of success. Beane understands this concept well; it’s one that Brian Sabean has absolutely no clue about. Beane recognizes that the farm system has to stay well-stocked to provide consistent opportunities at success (for a small-market team anyway), whereas Sabean complains about his farm system, but doesn’t have the foresight or stomach to replenish it (by refusing to trade his big names).

The next step is to trade Joe Blanton. There is little reason to keep him around anymore. Likewise, if Rich Harden and/or Huston Street demonstrate good health, Beane could pull the trigger on these two as well. Acquiring young players with lots of potential (i.e. Matt Kemp) would be worth dealing away someone like Blanton.

Johan Santana trade proposals

First off, the Red Sox proposal is highly overrated. Jon Lester is a nice pitcher, but he’s nothing special (and not nearly as good as Hughes or Buchholz). Likewise with Jacoby Ellsbury – from his skill set and minor league production, I see his ceiling as a Kenny Lofton/Johnny Damon type. How exactly is that worth the best pitcher in baseball – especially when you’re only getting one of those two!

The Yankees offer is (in my opinion) better. Hughes has the potential to be an ace, Cabrera is serviceable, but it doesn’t look like there’s any depth in the other prospects being offered.

If I’m the Twins, I wait until May or June when some team is flipping out about its playoff chances, and pounce for a big package.

Miscellaneous

Steroid scandal

There’s really not much to say here, except that I’m shocked… that Bret Boone never tested positive for steroids. His home run totals absolutely blew up in a pitcher’s park for two seasons, then he dropped off the face of the earth. Plus he was about 5’9 with Marcus Giles-type power. How the hell did he not take steroids?

Other than that, the Mitchell Report really shouldn’t come as much of a shock. There were many players – both good and bad – who took steroids. To be honest, I derived a lot of pleasure from just reading a lot of names I hadn’t heard in a long time (Mike Lansing, Josias Manzanillo, etc.). It’s not that I don’t care who used steroids. But in my opinion, the entire concept of the game, and everyone’s stats were skewed by the widespread use. Both a “clean” player and a “dirty” player will be affected by the usage in the game.

However, before I completely disregard this report, I do recognize that there are two important points:

First, this is important for the public. Seeing that Alex Sanchez has taken steroids is not going to rock the world. But seeing roughly 90 players, both All-Stars and journeymen lefties, take steroids, highlights the rampant use of performance enhancing drugs. This will effect some change, for the better, in baseball.

Next, I loved seeing Roger Clemens in the report. Seriously, Roger Clemens has to be one of the five worst people in baseball. At least Barry Bonds shows up for work everyday. He may be disliked, but let’s see here. Clemens: 1) is hated as well and 2) doesn’t even show up until halfway through every season. Not only that, but he destroys the team chemistry by requesting his personal flights back to Houston, is a mercenary in the worst sense (goes from Boston to Toronto to New York to Houston to New York – all bad, bad cities), and gets paid roughly $1 million to throw 5 innings. Oh, and he used steroids too.

I think the major conclusion is that there was steroid era in baseball, and that all statistics were a byproduct of that culture. I don’t think anything should be asterisked, or that these actions should be completely held against certain players (Bonds, Clemens were Hall of Famers even before their steroid use). To asterisk or throw out statistics would be an injustice; would we do the same for statistics before Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier, or before the mound was lowered after Bob Gibson’s dominant season? Or the dead ball era in the early 20^th century, or the Black Sox cheating scandal? How about Pete Rose’s betting on baseball – surely that influenced some outcomes? Barry Bonds is a jerk, Ty Cobb was a blatant racist – do we judge those two the same?

The point is that the game of baseball has changed over time. There have been several “eras”; the steroid era is one of them. Records should not be changed, asterisks should not be given. It is simply a part of the history of the game.

Curt Schilling campaigning for John McClain

I hate this guy. Here’s what ticks me off about him.

1) I have to hear his opinion about subjects (politics) that I don’t want to hear his opinion about. He doesn’t have any specific credentials for what he’s saying; it’s only because he’s famous that he gets to be heard. Likewise, I would not want Dick Cheney analyzing the chances of the Kansas City Royals this year.

2) He’s self-serving. Everything has to be about him. Even when Mike Lowell, a decidedly solid individual, decided to resign with the Red Sox, Schilling made it a huge deal by lavishing his own spin on it.

3) He is a stupid businessman. Signed with Boston for well under what he could have gotten. 1 year, $8 million. Weight bonus clauses? C’mon. I respect that he gave Boston a hometown discount… except that he did it out of stupidity. They would have paid him more, if he wasn’t so egotistical as to represent himself. And Boston isn’t exactly hurting for cash… it’s not like the money saved is going somewhere else.

I feel like Schilling will run for office when his baseball career ends. I will never vote for him.

Shut up Curt.

College Football

Karl Dorrell firing

It was time. It was pretty apparent that UCLA would probably be mired in mediocrity, with the occasional good season thrown in. I think Dorrell did an adequate job, but the bottom line is that he simply wasn’t good enough to take the program to the next level. He had his positive moments, but you can’t go 6-6 with 20 returning starters, even with a plethora of injuries.

I think there were two major problems during the Dorrell era. First, he was unable (until the end of tenure, ironically) to attract top talent. I have always thought that the team simply didn’t have the talent to compete with the top programs. Second, he couldn’t keep his team focused to win important road games. Our road record was dismal, and we lost to teams that we should have beaten. That’s a no-no.

Dorrell did okay. Okay is not good enough at UCLA. He got blamed for much more than he should have, but the truth is that it’s difficult envisioning the Bruins becoming a national power under his leadership. His time had come.

UCLA head coaching search

I don’t really know what to think here. Chris Petersen would have been fun, but he doesn’t want to leave a growing, rabid fan base (Boise St.?) for a fickle, horrible fan base (UCLA). Mike Leach runs an interesting offense. As does June Jones. Both have head coaching experience; not sure how either would fit in with the UCLA climate. Steve Mariucci would be a great hire, but I’m not sure his priority would lie with the long-term health of the program (I still remember him bailing from Cal after one season).

Going to the more realistic candidates… Norm Chow would undoubtedly be a great schemer and very familiar with USC, but I’m not sure about his leadership and recruiting qualities. DeWayne Walker has done a great job with the defense, but would need a big time (Chow-like) coordinator to run the offense. Rick Neuheisel frankly comes in with too much baggage for my liking, and could potentially ruin the clean infrastructure Karl Dorrell built. John Harbaugh? Please.

Who knows – let’s just get it done.

Minority candidates

There’s been a lot of talk about the lack of minority coaches in college football. But, evaluating the UCLA coaching search, you can start to trace the origins of this trend. I don’t doubt that there are some racial undertones that play a significant role. However, consider the Bruins’ current search.

1) Alumni want a proven leader with head coaching experience.

2) There are very few minority candidates with any head coaching experience.

3) Thus, there are no minority candidates considered for the position.

Pretty easy to see why this vicious cycle keeps repeating.

College Basketball

UCLA Player Evaluation

This being the fourth year of my rabid watching of UCLA basketball, I think I’ve got a pretty good handle of the strengths and weakness of our players. First, the ones with a shot at the NBA.

Darren Collison - The All-American candidate and potential lottery pick makes us go. He's lightning quick, a force defensively, with excellent penetration and solid finishing skills. He's definitely gotten bigger and stronger, being able to take more contact on his finishes. DC is money from 3. The real question mark here is his that knee will hold up - if he's unable to regain his full explosion, we won't be nearly as effective.

Russell Westbrook - Russ has the most NBA potential of any player on our team. He is an athletic freak, with an improving jumper and an excellent mid-range game. Russ has a very nice hesitation move to create separation, can get to the basket at will, and is a natural scorer. Think a developing Gilbert Arenas (great finisher and athlete, big-time scorer, but inconsistent from 3... oh and #0). If he gets big minutes at the 2, he'd quickly become one of the nation's top scorers. Luckily, his point guard and distributing skills have improved immensely as well; when he stays under control as the lead guard, he can be effective at creating for others. The wing position allows him to be more explosive. Lastly, and most importantly for a defensive-minded UCLA squad, he has the ability to be a shutdown defender. Just ask Stephen Curry.

Josh Shipp - I'm not sure what to make of Josh. He's an excellent finisher, particularly in the lane, and is tough enough to take contact. He's a solid, if unspectacular, rebounder for his size, particularly on the offensive glass. He has a great nose for the ball, but can be a bit selfish at times and has questionable decision-making. Shipp is not very quick laterally, and I think he lacks the desire to compete on defense all the time. While his jumper from 3 has improved, he's still fairly streaky.

Luc Richard Mbah a Moute - Luc does the little things amazingly well; the ultimate glue guy. He's still struggling to gain some consistency on that jumper, and he disappears at stretches. I'm not really sure how his game translates to the NBA; he doesn't shoot well enough to be a 3, and he's not big enough for a 4. He does have excellent ball-handling skills and is a versatile passer. Luc doesn't need the ball to run through him to be effective, and he's an excellent defender with his length and agility. Personally, I feel he's much more effective as a 4 than a 3 in college. If he can knock down the jumper with consistency, he'll find a permanent home in the NBA.

Lorenzo Mata - Hey, it's a bit of a stretch. But conceivable. And who would have thought that a few years ago? He's great defensively, though too short to stick in the NBA. Takes charges well, rebounds actively and has pretty good ups. His offensive game is a work in progress, but his hook shot (sometimes, not always... sometimes) is remarkably reliable. The quintessential garbage man.

Kevin Love - I love his intensity. His passing skills are tremendous for a big man, and his outlet passes have been as good as advertised. Love has a very polished low post game, and can handle the ball and shoot it very well for a big man. That said, there are some glaring deficiencies that can keep him from reaching his full impact in the NBA. First, his defense is a bit of a problem. Love's lateral movement is a bit slow, and he falls for a variety of upfakes (to be expected of a freshman). He doesn't have very good jumping ability, particularly on the second time. He rebounds extremely well, but it is mostly a byproduct of his physical nature and good positioning. These are lethal qualities when used in conjunction with his outlet pass. But on the offensive end, he's going to need to learn to take it up strong and finish, as he gets swatted from behind a lot from his inability to elevate to the rim. He certainly has the acting skills down on foul calls.

And the rest ...

Alfred Aboya - Every team needs someone like Aboya. Someone to take charges, rebound, and physically pound the crap out of the other team's opposing big men. Do yourself a favor and watch Aboya do two things: 1) take charges, and 2) hedge on a screen. He is so unbelievably athletic and physical on the point guard coming off the pick, that I have never seen anyone defend so well defensively on that play. It is truly a joy to watch. Appreciate him.

Michael Roll - Mike Who? Oh, Mike Roll. A good shooter, his main problem is his release. It's a bit slow and keeps him from being a true gunner. Fans are way too hard on him, expecting him to shoot upwards of 50%, which simply isn't realistic. He's okay defensively, a good passer, and doesn't usually mess up. He's an efficient player, but won't be carrying the load on a given night. He'll benefit most from working on his midrange game - he's learned to bait the defender with an upfake on his 3, but hasn't been able to convert often on the resulting shorter jumper.

Nikola Dragovic - The Serbian gunner can't really defend worth a lick, but he sure loves to shoot those rainbows. We'll see how much time he gets...

Chace Stanback - I think Chace could be a nice player down the road. He has a good feel for the game, though, like most freshmen, he tends to press a bit. He seems to have good ballhandling skills, and adequate length to be a disruptive defender. His progression will definitely be linked to his in-game playing time.


James Keefe - Well, he's getting 8. Other than that, I'd like to see some improvement on that jumper. If he could step back and hit it, it would open up the floor for everyone else. He's got the Jordan Farmar hands up defense, which usually is code for "I can't really keep up with you off the dribble." In all seriousness, as long as he's active defensively and hits the glass, his offensive game will develop just fine.

That's all for now!

Basketball

Warriors run

Captain Jack is the heart... Monta can run for days... Big Al looks like a turtle... Croshere a white boy... Biedrins can shoot free throws?... Buke was a great find... Barnes does a little of everything... Mbenga/Bellinelli/O'Bryant/Wright/Hudson... and BA-RON IS KING.

Thanks Mully and Nellie.