Compete With Your Feet Up

The brackets are out and March Madness is in the air!  So let's talk about college football.  Specifically, an article with a headline that immediately caught my eye:

Harbaugh breaks down quarterback depth chart for spring

The accompanying blurb was even more eye-catching, or head-scratching:

"There's no possible way Shea Patterson will be able to put his feet up, in my opinion," Harbaugh noted.

I am all for competition, and certainly having a teammate push you along will ultimately make you a better player.  But having to look over your shoulder every time you make a mistake is not conducive to success.  So when Jim Harbaugh implied that Shea Patterson, Michigan's starting QB last season, will now be treated to a quarterback competition, it comes as an unwelcome surprise.

Patterson was impressive when he took over the offense in 2018. He only got better as the season went along, growing more comfortable each week in the Michigan system.  (Of course, that growth met an abrupt end against OSU and Florida, but let's not speak of these games.)

Why, then, would Harbaugh not just name Patterson his starting QB and let Dylan McCaffrey and Joe Milton duke it out for the backup role?  Does anyone other than Ed McCaffrey want to see Dylan under center against Middle Tennessee?

But why take my word for it?  Why not ask Wilton Speight, a guy who knows a little something about playing QB in Ann Arbor:

“I don’t know what y’all’s question marks were with Shea; I know everyone was super excited when he committed, and then leading up to the season.  When he was able to rip the ball down the field, he was pretty successful, right?  Correct me if I’m wrong.  He was airing it out.  Those guys were going up and getting the ball."

Thanks, Wilton.  Airing it out, indeed.  Something the Michigan program hadn't seen in quite some time.  (No offense, Wilton.)  Now comes the news that the Michigan offense will be more up-tempo under Josh Gattis.  That's an even more compelling reason to let Patterson simply work on learning the new offense without worrying about about who's coming for his job.

At this point, I'm willing to chalk this up to Jim Harbaugh being Jim Harbaugh, motivating his players during spring practice (even if some of those players may not require said motivation).  But when fall camp opens, I'd better hear a lot of "Shea is doing a really great job mastering Josh's new offense" and nothing about how the QB depth chart is in flux.

Pays of Future Past

Apologies for the headline pun, and kudos to the inspiration, but when talking about the latest astronomical baseball contracts, one must look simultaneously at the past while predicting the future.

Do I know for sure that the Padres absolutely overpaid for Manny Machado? Or that the Phillies will certainly regret the size and scope of the contract they gave to Bryce Harper? No, of course not.

But I do know that historically speaking, most of the baseball contracts of the 10-year, 9-figure variety that teams have handed out were mistakes for the teams that proffered them. As reference, here is a list of the five players in in baseball history who had signed a deal worth $240 million or more prior to this off-season:

Notice a trend? Stanton, traded. A-Rod: first deal, traded, second deal, released. Cano, just traded. Doesn't seem like a ringing endorsement on behalf of management.

What about the other two still with the teams that signed them? One could argue that after a slow start, Pujols has been a good player for the Angels. But maybe Anaheim thought they were paying $24 million annually for the All-Star with 11 top-five MVP finishes, including three trophies, instead of the solid contributor who managed to crack the top 20 only twice since. Less could be said for Cabrera, who has struggled with injuries and age since signing that bank-breaking extension in 2014.

Yet a mega-deal's impact can extend beyond just on-field performance. For that, we can look to Zack Greinke.  

Even with the enormous payouts to Harper and Machado, Greinke still owns the title as highest-paid player: his six-year, $206.5 million contract with the Diamondbacks works out to $34.4 million per year. Relatively speaking, he's been worth it: Greinke has a 45-25 record and a 3.53 E.R.A for Arizona over three seasons. But that doesn't tell the real story.

Arizona's gamble on Greinke -- an ace leading an ascendant team into post-season glory -- hasn't panned out. Essentially admitting defeat this off-season, the D-backs shipped All-Star Paul Goldschmidt to St. Louis and lost A.J. Pollock and Patrick Corbin to free agency. That has left the team's payroll "comically top-heavy":

Greinke will make nearly five times the salary of any of his teammates; the next highest-paid Diamondback is outfielder David Peralta, at $7 million. Hall said the Greinke contract had made it harder to afford other premium talent, but the team was still happy to have him.

And there it is: despite the fact that Greinke has essentially lived up to the outsized expectations of his contract, the Diamondbacks haven't won. And now they can no longer afford to try.

If the Phillies win the World Series before they inevitably have to trade Harper, then the deal is a winner. You can't put a price on a championship. The same applies for San Diego, though maybe even making a playoff appearance or two and being relevant would be enough return for the Padres before Machado gets shipped out. But the more likely scenarios, those that have played out with near regularity, don't come with a storybook ending.

Catch as Catch Can

Once you get past the names Machado and Harper, it seems like the player getting the most ink this Hot Stove season is J.T. Realmuto, who, as of today, is still the catcher for the Marlins.  An All-Star last season, Realmuto is thought by many to be the one of the best catchers in baseball.  For argument's sake, let's say he's the best.  It still doesn't make sense to me why he is more sought out than the Sankara stones.

Why?  Realmuto is a catcher.  Catchers, by dint of the position they play, are everyday* players with an asterisk.  Even the heartiest among them can't play in every game.  (Willson Contreras led the majors last season with only 123 starts behind the plate.). Compare that to Manny Machado, though much-maligned for his supposed lack of hustle, he still managed to play in 162 games for two different teams last season.  That enabled Machado to tally 632 at-bats, compared to only 477 AB's that Realmuto collected in 125 games (112 at catcher) last year.

The way teams are talking about Realmuto -- especially the Mets -- make you think he is a game-changer along the same lines as superstars that can play every day (injuries aside).  But a player who is only going to appear in 6 out of every 7 games just can't have the same impact.  That's why the notion of offering up Noah Syndergaard -- one of baseball's best starting pitchers -- makes me scratch my head.

No one is saying that Realmuto isn't a good player, or that adding him to the roster won't make a team better.  However, based on the position he plays, the return on investment needs to be taken into account before any trades are consummated.

It's Now or Never

In a surprising move, Urban Meyer announced that he will be stepping down as the coach of Ohio State after the Rose Bowl and will retire from coaching.  I won't even argue that Meyer isn't one of the greatest coaches in college football history, if only because he also served as one of its greatest villains.  But this column isn't really about Meyer.

If there is anyone happier than Michigan's Jim Harbaugh this morning, please let me know.  Sure, there's the old competitive "I wanna beat that guy" mantra.  But there's also the "This guy completely has my number" lament, too.

Immediately following Michigan's disastrous 62-39 loss to Meyer and his Buckeyes, the cottage industry called "What's next for Harbaugh"revved up again.  A season spent avenging losses to Wisconsin, Michigan State and Penn State was suddenly clouded by another defeat to the team in scarlet and grey.  

While I understood that criticism -- that was Harbaugh's fourth loss to Ohio State in as many tries -- it is hard to look at Michigan's season as anything other than a success when viewed from an objective lens: a 10-2 season, including a 10-game winning streak.  Decisive wins against conference foes.  The only two losses against top 10 teams, played on the road.  Another New Year's Six bowl game appearance.

With with Meyer's departure, though, I'm switching camps.  Michigan was the #3-ranked team in the country with the nation's best defense.  Their ticket to the College Football Playoff was written; all they needed to do was beat the Buckeyes.  They couldn't do it.  Harbaugh couldn't do it.  Without Meyer, Ohio State is still a good football team.  But Ryan Day is not Urban Meyer.  Next season, Jim Harbaugh needs to defeat Ohio State or he needs to move on.  That's a pretty big ultimatum, but where else is there to go?

Only Time Will Tell

True to his word, Yankees' GM Brian Cashman accomplished one of his off-season priorities by acquiring starting pitcher James Paxton from the Seattle Mariners.  As part of the deal for the hard-throwing left-hander, the Yanks sent over Justus Sheffield, their top pitching prospect.  (Also included were two other prospects, right-hander Erik Swanson and outfielder Dom Thompson-Williams). Reaction was quick and generally positive.

Of course, "generally" is not "universally".  With any big trade, there are opinions on both sides.  What to make of it?  The way I see it, there are three likely outcomes that would determine the success of this trade:

First Scenario: The Yankees win a World Series in one of the next two seasons while Paxton is under contract and he contributes to the title. 

This is the best-case Yankee scenario, obviously.  It also negates anything that Sheffield does over the next two years, or frankly, for his career.  Sure, if Sheffield becomes the next Max Scherzer, that's another story.  But short of that, landing Paxton and a world championship makes this a win for New York.

Second Scenario: The Yankees don't win a title in the next two years and Paxton, effective or otherwise, signs elsewhere as a free agent.  Sheffield fails to put it all together and ends up no better than a middling #3 starting pitcher. 

In this case, the trade is a wash.  The Yankees took a shot, it didn't pay off, but it doesn't appear to to have cost them anything.  Can't blame them for trying.

Third Scenario: The Yankees don't win, Paxton doesn't do much of anything and Sheffield becomes a top major league starter. 

This would be the Yanks' worst nightmare.  Trading a top prospect for veteran help in order to put a good team over the top is always risky business.  But to come away empty-handed only to see that prospect blossom into a star is devastating (see Smoltz, John).  

I think option #2 is the most likely scenario.  I don't think Sheffield is going to be a star, but I also don't think Paxton is going to become Chris Sale and lead the Yankees to a title.  That's not to say that scenario #1 is out of the question: the Yanks do have enough talent throughout their lineup to compete with anyone.  If Paxton does pan out as a #1 or a solid #2, they have a shot.

Ultimately, sizing up a trade before anyone plays another game is simply Hot Stove chatter.  By October 2020, we should have a pretty good idea about who we can call this trade's winners and losers.

Premature Calculation

The pre-season college football rankings were released today.  On August 7th.  Over three weeks before the first real games are even played.  Are they really necessary in today's game?

I've always had issues with ranking teams so early.  After all, how is anyone supposed to gauge how 18- and 19-year olds are going to perform on college football's biggest stages?  In fact, pre-season poll numbers may only serve to prop up some teams that really aren't that good.  After all, if a #2 team survives a lackluster opener, how far would they really fall?  They're the #2 team, after all, even if the lower-ranked teams behind them might be better teams.

But more to the point, these rankings never seemed less relevant.  In past seasons, before the era of the Bowl Championship Series, pre-season rankings were the only way to gauge title contenders.  An early-season loss by a top-ranked team meant not only a tumble in the standings but a short-circuit to national title hopes.

But with the advent of the BCS came changes; most notably, the first actual BCS ranking wasn't released until late October.  That meant that all the prior poll results didn't explicitly count -- they merely factored into the ranking that determined the BCS score.  Even so, poll position was a key component of the BCS ranking.

While the BCS was an improvement over choosing a national champion by vote, it had its flaws and detractors.  That ultimately led to the creation of the College Football Playoff and the committee that makes the selections.  That CFP Committee uses strength-of-schedule as one of the key factors in determining their ranks.  In fact, there is very little reliance on polls, but rather how a team has been playing.  The end result is that an early-season loss carries much less penalty than a loss in November.

So if the Playoff Committee doesn't go by the polls, and the first ranking don't even come out until mid-season, then what exactly is the value of a pre-season poll?  I suppose fans need something to argue about until the real games begin.

Maybe Stanton Can Pitch?

This is my "I know it, you know it,
but what am I supposed to say?" face

With the non-waiver trade deadline approaching, baseball insiders have flooded us with impending trade rumors.  Some haven't panned out, but as an actual trade gets closer, the information becomes more reliable.  So it was with a grain of salt that I read the Yankees were making a push for Zach Britton, the Orioles closer.

A closer?  Did I miss the season-ending injury to Aroldis Chapman? No, okay, so another setup man?  Are the Yankees such a perfect machine that the only part that needed tinkering was to improve their bullpen from the left side?

Brian Cashman spent the off-season by trading for Giancarlo Stanton, to upgrade their already outstanding right-handed power-hitting and stacked outfield.  In other words, nice, but decidedly unnecessary.

Instead, the Yanks went to war with a rotation of Luis Severino, Masahiro Tanaka, CC Sabathia, Sonny Gray and Jordan Montgomery.  As we know, Montgomery was quickly injured, and his replacements pitched about as well as Sonny Gray.  With Tanaka on the DL for a stretch, Yankee starters were stretched thin.  Enter... Britton?

After the game, news of the deal reached the manager's office.  A bemused Aaron Boone had this to say of his club's most recent acquisition:

"Any time you can add to a strength, cover up a weakness or whatever, when you can add good players to your team, obviously that's a good thing."

Or, roughly translated, "Whatever this was, even though it doesn't actually address a need we have, it's not a bad thing.  Besides, I'm not going to sit here and second-guess my boss."

Meanwhile, the team with the best record in baseball and an already formidable starting rotation added another piece: the Red Sox traded for former Yankee Nate Eovaldi.  Now, I won't sit here and tell you that Eovaldi is that much better than Gray, since neither one has excelled in pinstripes.  Nor do I think that Eovaldi makes the Red Sox much better, though how much better can you be than on pace for 111 wins?

Acquiring Britton does not preclude the Yankees from getting that missing starter.  And a Britton-fortified bullpen is a better bullpen than it was yesterday.  But I don't think that this trade alone helps the Yankees catch Boston.  We'll see what the future holds in New York.