Take a Halladay

I think there's been more hype about the MLB trading deadline this year than any I can remember. It could be just that I'm currently in first place in my 19 team pay fantasy league and I could really use an outfielder so I'm paying extra attention looking for backups that trades may force into the lineup. Of course the prize of this mid season contest is Roy "Doc" Halladay. The guy's been my #1 fantasy pitcher all season so I think I can speak for him. He wants to be in Philadelphia, he needs to be in Philadelphia. The same can actually be said for Milwaukee. The real question around is whether this is a good trade for either of the sides to make. The answer: its a no-brainer for both sides. To get Milwaukee out of the picture, the logic they used last year should be more than enough to justify that they should make this trade. Does it make a difference that they are already short Matt Laporta from the C.C. deal? I don't think so. This is a better deal (we'll get to that). The Cardinals got them self a Holliday today and if the Brewers don't offer half the farm they'll be taking their holiday in October this year. With the best back to back hitters in the league in Ryan Braun and Prince Fielder they definitely have enough offense to make Halladay a 25 game winner next year as well as move them past the Cardinals this year. From what we've heard the Phillies are the more likely candidate but won't part with Kyle Drabek. What? We won't trade our really good double A pitcher to get your Cy Young pitcher when we have likely the best offense in the league? That's more bullcrapously ridiculous than Barry Bonds being the all-time homerun leader. So why would they say this? Only because, they are hoping they won't have to. This hope is fueled by the idea that this trade is good for the Blue Jays too. Why? Because they suck. Well, actually, because they have no chance of winning the AL East anytime soon unless they have 6 minor league studs all coming up at the same time in addition to a few all-star veteran's. How can they make this happen? Trade Roy Halladay. The irony in it all is if they trade for Kyle Drabek and a true stud outfielder they might actually have a chance at signing Roy Halladay as a free agent after next season, because then they might actually have a chance at contending with those guys and Doc and the rest of their current players. I think Doc is a better deal this year than Sabathia was last year. First of all I think Doc is a more consistent pitcher. On their best days they might be on the same level, but day in and day out you want Roy Halladay. He just allowed 4 hits over 9 innings and fanned 10 while I was writing this, of course for the reward of a no decision. More importantly he has another year on his contract and I get the feeling that if you go to postseason two years in a row with him, he's likely to stick around and finish out his career. J.P. Ricciardi is bluffing when he says this deal isn't going down. The Jays benefit from trading him and the other teams definitely want him. This deal is going down or these people need to step down and give me or "That's it" their job. The Blue Jays are going to get there best deals on the table and there going to accept one either right before the imaginary July 28th deadline or on the 31st. I'll stake my lack of reputation on it.

What did I miss?

This is a post about posts. Its basically just an idiotic bunch of thoughts I've had when I was researching the post on winners and losers by watching my son's little league season. It just finished tonight and I'd have to say never been more proud of my oldest son as when he started crying after the loss. It wasn't that pussy crying either, it was that manly grimace that says just because tears are rolling down my face doesn't mean I'm crying. So he lost and he cried and as a first year player at age 8 (which to my surprise is a bit of a rarity now) he did bat towards the end of the lineup. Seems like a loser to me by the accounts of one "That's It." I consider myself pretty self aware and if my kid was a loser I think I could admit that, particularly with the defense that it would in this case be mostly his father's fault who's honed his son's Halo skills much more than his long ball. So I may lose the friendship of "That's It" by saying this, but surprising even to me, I support the trophies for everyone idea (to a point). I support telling everyone they are a winner if they go out there and really give it their best. I know what it means to be a winner and a loser, maybe one more than the other. The thing is we know who the best players on the team are. We know who the worst players on the team are. We don't necessarily needed to be reminded before the high school years. I was appalled by this everyone's a winner idea when I first heard about it. After one season of little league I realize the real losers are the coaches that our look like their heads our about to burst like a super volcano as they are screaming at their 8 year old kids for missing a ball even though he's obviously the best player on the team because he practices 2 hours everyday. In my boat that coach is in the same league as the kid (loser) I saw laugh after every swing before whiffing at the 6th strike (yes 6!!!) and then laughed all the way to the dugout. So if my son is crying because he can't play baseball anymore this year, well that in itself makes him a winner in my book. So long as he doesn't make everybody at the ballpark look at me.

Sign of the Apocalypse

I am currently in not 1, but 2 fantasy fishing leagues. I don't know shit about fishing.

Pujols and the Triple Crown

Here is a chronological list of players who have won the triple crown:

1. Paul Hines (NL) - 1878
2. Tip O'Neill (AA) - 1887
3. Hugh Duffy (NL) - 1894
4. Nap Lajoie (AL) - 1901
5. Ty Cobb (AL) - 1909
6. Rogers Hornsby (NL) - 1922 & 1925
7. Chuck Klein (NL) - 1933
8. Jimmie Foxx (AL) - 1933
9. Lou Gehrig (AL) - 1934
10. Joe Medwick (NL) - 1937
11. Ted Williams (AL) - 1942 & 1947
12. Mickey Mantle (AL) - 1956
13. Frank Robinson (AL) - 1966
14. Carl Yastrzemski (AL) - 1967

All but Paul Hines and Tip O'Neill are in the baseball hall of fame. Excluding those 2 players, of the 12 remaining, only Mantle, Williams ('42), Gehrig, Hornsby ('25), Cobb, and Duffy lead the entire league in the triple crown categories. As you can see from the above, no one since 1967 has won the triple crown. The last player I can remember coming close to the feat was Larry Walker in 1997. Of course, I have my doubts about the real value of simply looking at batting averages, runs batted in, and home runs. In the age of intentional walks, a player's batting average becomes a generic statistic that tells you very little about a player. If you're measuring a player's offensive value, it goes without saying that his OBP or OPS are better yardsticks. I'm sure there are better metrics out there than even those 2. For all the reasons everyone else has cited, e.g., he'll see 2 or 3 different pitchers a night, he'll be pitched around and walked, and he'll have to rely to on some average players to be on base when he steps to the plate, Pujols will not win the triple crown. In any event, it's interesting to follow so I thought we might keep tabs on Pujols to see if he can win the damn thing. Pujols as of 7/22/09:

• BA - .328 (2nd behind Hanley's .348)
• HR - 34 (in 1st and 2nd place at 25)
• RBI - 90 (in 1st and 2nd place 86)

Is winning at a young age more imporant? A retort...

Let's start with a few background facts. 1) "That's It" and I are former classmates. 2) I consider "That's It" to be one of my best friends. 3) "That's It" is the single most competitive person I've ever come into contact with. 4) I consider myself to be the 2nd most competitive person on that same list. 5) I've had to bite my tongue numerous times when competing with "That's It," or risk saying something I would regret. Keep those in mind as I "argue" with the point "That's It" brought up in his most recent post. The origination of this point comes from a time when "That's It" and I were playing a game of Madden against one another. "That's It" is good at Madden. At the time, I had never played. "That's It" used his best team, while I chose a team I thought would be decent. It wasn't. Or, at the least, "That's It" ensured that it wasn't good enough. In the first quarter, I threw 3 INT's. He led, 28-0 (or so). I was getting frustrated, and it was showing. After one run where I managed (not skill, but pure luck) to get into scoring position, I got up to use the restroom while the replays were going on the game. When I came back, to my surprise, it was now 1st and 30, because "That's It" didn't hit start for me. Instead, he allowed the play clock to run out over and over again, with the included 5 yard penalty, all while laughing hysterically. (As an update / reminder: it was 35-0 at this point and not yet halftime; I had never played before, and "That's It" was using his best team). After that, I quit. I felt it was poor sportsmanship to play that way, that it was cheap, especially against a friend who had never played again, and it wasn't something I wanted to experience again. In short, I was angry. "That's It," on the other hand, said that it wasn't his responsibility to hit start for me, that it was my job to keep him from scoring, and that it wasn't his fault that he could score at will. While all of those are true, it begs the question: is winning more important? Or is there a point where sportsmanship should take precedence? "That's It" brings up the idea that in life, there are always winners and losers. Always. This is a valid point. There is always a group who is "cool" as you grow up, and there is always a group of "losers." One may argue that teaching kids this well-known fact is important as they age, so they aren't quite so devastated when they aren't picked for kickball over recess. Yet there is also the point that sports, at least at a young age, should be about learning the game, having fun, and growing a sense of camaraderie amongst your peers. Beating the bejesus out of a 5-year old isn't proving anything, only that the losing 5-year old isn't as coordinated as the winning one. "That's It" has a point in that at some point during a child's upbringing, children understand that they are better than another child. Similarly, many parents see that their child is either much better or much worse than the next, and there comes a time when the two groups should split. But unless they are old enough to understand that baseball is still a game, or that football won't be their career, should winning ever become the end-all in a child's game? Not to say that coaches shouldn't get in the teenager's face, to remind him that a blown assignment can cost the team a game, but is winning 100-0 in basketball proving anything? Should a child, or a teenager for that matter, ever be in the position to face that prospect? My point is this: in life, surely there are winners a losers. In sports, there are also winners and losers. But in sports, winning is often about one's athletic ability, about one's ability to play a game. In life, those two rarely come into play. So why should we put kids in the position to pull themselves up from a beatdown, purely for the lesson that life has winners and losers? Won't they learn that elsewhere? As for "That's It" and myself: I kicked his ass in ping pong not long after that. We still don't play Madden, but at least I had some sort of bragging rights after having my ass handed to me in that stupid game.

Lawyers vs. Car Salesmen: A Comparative Analysis

Car salesmen think pinstripes make a suit look expensive and generally wear excessive amounts of jewelry, including gold bracelets. Lawyers think pinstripes make them look like partners, sometimes wear excessive amounts of jewelry, and buy watches that are worth more than their suits so they can look at them constantly though they have no particular place to be. Car salesmen often have weird haircuts. Lawyers often have weird haircuts. Popular styles include comb-overs, toupees, frosted tips, femullets, man-perms, and dapper dan oil slicks. These are the kinds of guys who carry combs in their pockets. Car salesmen are notorious liars. Lawyers notoriously twist facts. Not much of a difference. Car salesmen overvalue the vehicle your buying, and in the appropriate case, do the same for your trade-in. Lawyers overvalue your case and try to convince you that it was the judge's fault when their strategies fail. Car salesmen try to convince you not to leave the dealership without making a deal. They're willing to say or do almost anything to keep you on the lot. Lawyers try to convince you not to disregard their asinine arguments. They're willing to put almost anything in a brief. Most car salesmen are borderline arrogant. Lawyers are. No borderlines. More often than not, arrogance is part of the car salesmen's hustle. You won't buy anything from him unless he can convince you he's giving you the greatest deal ever and knows just about everything there is to know about the car. Lawyers are arrogant because they think a post-graduate degree clearly means they are more intelligent than the next individual. Most everyone dreads buying a car because they'll have to deal with the salesmen. Everyone hates having to deal with a lawyer. It doesn't matter what the circumstances are. The above brings to mind the line from an old country song: "Momma's don't let your babies grow up to be [insert lawyers, car salesmen, or cowboys]."

Mike Vick

Why, oh why, are people so hung up on Mike Vick returning to the NFL? What did he do that is so wrong? And spare me this pity-party on how he killed a bunch of dogs. I've heard that all before. Instead, what I'm wanting to know is why his transgressions are suddenly so horrible that we need to ban him from the NFL suddenly. What about those players that own snakes? When they feed a snake a mouse, do we ban them? What about those players who beat their wives? Do we ban them? Are we really judging one life, that of a dog, as more valuable than another animal? Aren't dogs pets anyways? Listen, what Vick did was horrible. It was a really, really bad thing to do. But this guy's been put in jail, he's paid his debt to society, and now it's time to give him his second chance. Period. I say we let Vick come back, continue to be a joke at the QB position (he's what, a 50% career passer?), and move along in 3 years when he's finally cut for good because he's not actually that great. What's so wrong with that?