Are You Not Entertained?

The Alabama Crimson Tide returns to Tuscaloosa for their first home game of 2019, following their resounding, if uninspiring, season-opening victory over Duke.  While the Dukies seemed overmatched by the time the 4^thquarter rolled around, that’s nothing compared to this week’s tackle fodder.  The New Mexico State Aggies arrive in T-Town as a 55-1/2 point underdog.  You read that right.  The 130^th-ranked team in the FBS (that’s out of 130 teams, if you’re keeping track) is expected to lose this game by nearly 7 touchdowns.

Now what could possibly compel the Aggies to schedule a game with perennial powerhouse Alabama?  Ah, that would be $1.7 million that New Mexico State is being paid to get their collective heads handed to them.  Seems very “lambs-to-the-slaughter” but when you’re a team that’s already been bounced from the Sun Belt conference, you take games where you can get them.

No, my real question is this: what is Alabama doing playing a team like New Mexico State?  There’s always the old adage that you can’t simulate game speed.  True, but what if the team you’re scheduled to play just isn’t as fast as the scout team defense you line up against every afternoon?  I dare say that if the Tide simply played a game against their second-team units, it would be a more competitive game.

This isn’t an issue specific to Alabama.  Plenty of Power 5 schools pad their early-season schedules with directional schools (Northern This or Southeast That), FCS opponents, and the like.  And upsets do happen!  But Vegas seems to think the only upset this week will be if the student section for Alabama comes back for the second half.

Striking Out

The Major League Baseball trade deadline has come and gone.  And with it, so, too, has the chance for the Yankees to fix the gaping holes in their starting rotation.  We've heard the excuses: the price was too high, our prospects are untouchable, we just got outbid.  That's all well and good, but a team that wants to get better -- NEEDS to get better -- either gets better or it doesn't.  The Yankees did not get better today.  Brian Cashman swung and missed.

To be fair, the Yankees are on a pace to win 104 games this season.  They have an 8-game lead in the AL East.  Outside of a remarkable collapse, this team is going to the playoffs.  But as we've seen year after year, playoff baseball is different.  Good pitching beats good hitting.  A team built around hitting 3 home runs a game, for whatever reason, doesn't hit them in October.  The Yankees needed a top-flight starter and didn't get him.

We're not inside Cashman's office. We don't know what other teams were asking in return for their pitchers.  But we do know what it looks like when a team goes all in:

• The Cubs parted with Gleyber Torres, who blossomed into an All-Star, in return for Aroldis Chapman.  Chapman closed it out as the Cubs won the World Series
• The Astros took a chance on Justin Verlander.  All he did was pitch Houston to a World Series title
•  And today, the Astros pushed their chips to the center of the table and came away with Zach Greinke.  They are now the favorites to win again

It's easy today to chastise Cashman for not making a move.  But the season isn't over.  The Yankees might somehow win the World Series and Cashman will look like a genius for hanging on to his prize prospects.

But there remains a very real possibility that the Yankees' flawed rotation pitches like they have over the past few weeks and the Yankees make an early exit.  Clint Frazier or Deivi Garcia are not going to help them in 2019.  Who knows what 2020 or beyond will hold?  Just ask the Nationals about the perils of misjudging a championship window.

Fortunately, it will be very easy to judge how Brian Cashman handled the trade deadline come October.  The Yankees should either be holding a World Series trophy, or interviews for their next GM.

Lotto Blotto

No, I'm not happy with the results of the NBA Draft Lottery. And yes, that's primarily due to the fact that I am one of the unfortunate souls who call themselves fans of the New York Knicks.  While the Knicks did manage to avoid total disaster -- they had a 48% chance to end up with the 5th pick -- I'm not sure that landing the 3rd pick in the draft signifies that the curse has been broken.

But as much as we mourn the loss of Zion and will soon grapple with the choices around that 3rd pick (TRADE IT!), this column is more about the NBA Draft Lottery as a whole.  Specifically, is the system "working" when the three worst teams in the league end up with the 3rd, 5th and 6th picks?

We know that "tanking" is anathema to the league, and the NBA took steps this year to make it less attractive to lose.  Gone was the incentive to finish dead last: instead of a 25% chance for the #1 pick, the team with the worst record only had a 14% chance at the top spot, the same chances as the two teams finishing ahead of (behind?) them in the standings.

So when the balls dropped, so did the league's worst teams: the Suns fell from the 3rd spot to the 6th, the Cavs from 2nd to 5th, and of course, the league-worst Knicks took home the bronze at #3. We are led to believe that these results make Adam Silver happy.  "Take that losers!"

But even if we acknowledge that losing on purpose is bad, has the NBA found the right solution?  Take a look at the bottom of the league:

Absent a lottery system, with the 5th-worst record in the league, the Hawks would pick 5th.  As a result of the lottery, though, the Cavaliers will pick there instead. Let's even assume that the Cavs made no effort to win this past season and were content to finish with 19 wins. The Hawks were bad and only won 29 games, but that's still TEN GAMES better than the Cavs. What could Cleveland have done to win an extra 10 games with the team they put out on the floor? The same applies to the Suns, who had the same 19 wins but are picking 6th after losing a coin flip.

With all that in mind, will teams next season make every effort to win? Or is it still worth finishing in the bottom three for a chance at striking it rich? While these changes certainly curtail the incentive to flat-out lose, the NBA may have inadvertently hampered the league's worst teams from getting significantly better. Maybe there's no great solution, and I doubt we've seen the last change to the rules. Only time will tell how it all works out.

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?