Mark McGwire finally admitted to using steroids. In other mind-boggling news, Ron Wilson has come out publicly saying that he hopes the Leafs can start winning more.
It's been known for a long time that McGwire used the stuff. Look at the way he dodged the questions that Congress asked him a few years ago, stumbling through some bullshit about "I'm not here to talk about the past." Well too bad, juiceface, the government summoned you to talk about it. Being all rebellious and saying that you'd rather talk about "positive" things doesn't look good.
Should it really surprise anyone now that he's admitting it? Maybe I'm just cynical but when Alex Roidriguez confessed, I wasn't surprised at all. A-Roid's confession was a load of crap and crocodile tears - he only used it for a year or so? Again, bullshit. There was evidence against him based on the drug test from that year, so he didn't really give up much by admitting it and he couldn't man up by saying that he had used it at other times. Anyone who believes that is an idiot or a Yankees fan, groups that clearly are not mutually exclusive.
McGwire today tried to justify his abuse of steroids by saying that he would have hit just as many home runs without it. What?! I mean, he didn't even concede that it may have helped with a single home run. And now he's trying to convince everyone he's a good guy who just made a decision that he had to do... for his health. Again, what?!?! Is it the heart attack at 40 you're looking for or the shrunken balls you want? I can't see much good coming out of this statement - let's just wait for the next wave of boneheads at gyms across the continent looking to poke each other in the butts with needles, "'cuz Mark McGwire said it's healthy". No, I didn't happen to catch his entire statement and learn what he meant with his "health" comment but then again, neither would most of these boneheads.
I wasn't sure whether to laugh or shake my head at how he tried to play the falsely pious/spiritual card by saying that his talent was given to him by God. I don't have a problem with giving credit to the Man Upstairs but if you're that talented, why screw up and mess with your legacy and reputation? And that's what this is all about. Notice that the confession came just after the Hall of Fame vote - during which he was left out again.
I hope he never gets in, actually. I thought the hype around the home run record chase was overrated when it was happening - it was clearly a function of the era, which we now know was saturated with 'roids. Now that I know it was completely dirty - McGwire, Bonds and Sosa all have been confirmed users - I don't think any higher of that era. And McGwire seems like a bigger jerk than ever before with his half-assed, twisted-truth confession.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Link: A Short Piece Worth Reading
Click Here!
Mr. Hayhurst has a career in broadcasting or writing waiting for him when his days as a pitcher come to an end, which I hope isn't going to be for a while. Actually, I think his career as a writer has already started. I'd wish him luck on this endeavour of his but I know he doesn't need any.
Mr. Hayhurst has a career in broadcasting or writing waiting for him when his days as a pitcher come to an end, which I hope isn't going to be for a while. Actually, I think his career as a writer has already started. I'd wish him luck on this endeavour of his but I know he doesn't need any.
Friday, January 8, 2010
His Room Was Always A Mess As A Child
Adam Lind doesn't like hitting fourth. He's OK with any other spot in the order, apparently, but he refuses to be the cleanup man.
That's hilarious.
Here we are admiring a young baseball player who has broken out all of a sudden with 35 HR, 114 RBI and a .932 OPS, a 26-year-old left-handed batter who isn't awful against lefties, who can hit with 2 strikes, who has the patience to draw a walk and a swing that hits for average and power.
And he reveals that he doesn't like batting fourth.
It's bizarre because no matter where you're hitting, the idea is pretty much the same - try not to make an out, and if the pitcher gives you an opportunity, hit the ball hard. I mean it's not like he's talking about lacking protection here - he stated that he'd be fine hitting 6th. The guy in the 7-hole on the Jays isn't usually a guy who'll offer the most protection.
No, it's a psychological issue that he's apparently always had. If he never gets over it and settles into a 5-hitter who can put up a .900 OPS each year, there's not much to complain about. I just hope Cito doesn't incomprehensibly decide to make John Buck his semi-regular cleanup man this year, the way Millar was last year.
As for who's going to slot in around him, I'm not going to spend too much time speculating now. However, I will say that I do like Aaron Hill hitting third. The guy in the 3-hole often comes up in the first with 2 out and none on, meaning a quick ding-dong would do a team a lot of good, both psychologically and scoreboard-ically. And he'll have lots of opportunities throughout a game to hit with runners on, assuming that the top 2 guys have the ability to get on base, and use that power. I think that seeing him as a lock for 30 HR year in and year out is a little foolish, but there's no question at all that he has the power to be consistently near that mark. What I think he will end up doing is being a little more conservative with his swinging. In his rookie season, he walked 34 times while having 361 AB, a far better rate than his 42:682 last year. Seeing as how players tend to become more patient as they mature, there's no reason why he can't get back up to a respectable walk rate. All this will mean is that by chasing fewer bad pitches, Hill will make fewer outs without compromising his power numbers, as those are fueled mostly by hittable pitches.
I don't know if that will be the long term plan for him but I won't worry too much. They Jays seem to have good options in Snider and Wallace (maybe even Encarnacion and Wells, if they get back to doing what they've shown in the past) to fill out the rest of the heart of the order and it's a certainty that Anthopoulos isn't done looking for more pieces to help round it out. This is a comfort rarely experienced in the past few years with the Jays and makes it really easy to poke fun at Lind's phobia.
That's hilarious.
Here we are admiring a young baseball player who has broken out all of a sudden with 35 HR, 114 RBI and a .932 OPS, a 26-year-old left-handed batter who isn't awful against lefties, who can hit with 2 strikes, who has the patience to draw a walk and a swing that hits for average and power.
And he reveals that he doesn't like batting fourth.
It's bizarre because no matter where you're hitting, the idea is pretty much the same - try not to make an out, and if the pitcher gives you an opportunity, hit the ball hard. I mean it's not like he's talking about lacking protection here - he stated that he'd be fine hitting 6th. The guy in the 7-hole on the Jays isn't usually a guy who'll offer the most protection.
No, it's a psychological issue that he's apparently always had. If he never gets over it and settles into a 5-hitter who can put up a .900 OPS each year, there's not much to complain about. I just hope Cito doesn't incomprehensibly decide to make John Buck his semi-regular cleanup man this year, the way Millar was last year.
As for who's going to slot in around him, I'm not going to spend too much time speculating now. However, I will say that I do like Aaron Hill hitting third. The guy in the 3-hole often comes up in the first with 2 out and none on, meaning a quick ding-dong would do a team a lot of good, both psychologically and scoreboard-ically. And he'll have lots of opportunities throughout a game to hit with runners on, assuming that the top 2 guys have the ability to get on base, and use that power. I think that seeing him as a lock for 30 HR year in and year out is a little foolish, but there's no question at all that he has the power to be consistently near that mark. What I think he will end up doing is being a little more conservative with his swinging. In his rookie season, he walked 34 times while having 361 AB, a far better rate than his 42:682 last year. Seeing as how players tend to become more patient as they mature, there's no reason why he can't get back up to a respectable walk rate. All this will mean is that by chasing fewer bad pitches, Hill will make fewer outs without compromising his power numbers, as those are fueled mostly by hittable pitches.
I don't know if that will be the long term plan for him but I won't worry too much. They Jays seem to have good options in Snider and Wallace (maybe even Encarnacion and Wells, if they get back to doing what they've shown in the past) to fill out the rest of the heart of the order and it's a certainty that Anthopoulos isn't done looking for more pieces to help round it out. This is a comfort rarely experienced in the past few years with the Jays and makes it really easy to poke fun at Lind's phobia.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
As Sarah Palin Would Say, "We Should Get Him"
I don't know if she would say that. Whatever, ignore the title.
Maybe it's because I'm looking in all the wrong places, but I'm not seeing a lot of mainstream media attention here in Canada on Aroldis Chapman. I can understand TSN and their "let's go all hockey-saturated and mention only in passing the Halladay trade when it occurred" mentality (well, kind of... no, not really actually. Even hockey fans would care about Halladay being traded, right?). But at the exciting beginning of an era for the Blue Jays and Rogers - and the potential signing of a potentially really really exciting player in Chapman - why isn't Sportsnet creating any noise about it? At the very least, the publicity that the Jays are going hard after a high-risk, high-reward player can't hurt. And it's exciting stuff that makes for good television.
With regards to the player - a young, left-handed 100 mph pitcher? And you say that he might be controllable through 2018? And at $5 million/year for the first 5 years? That's very, very reasonable, no matter how you slice it. Brad Penny is getting $7.5 million this year. He of the 1.53 WHIP while with the Red Sox this year. The Jays' unspectacular starting SS next year, Alex Gonzalez, is set to make around $3 million. Boring players who are barely good enough to have a regular job filling out a major league roster are costing teams millions and millions - and below-average pitchers are easily making more than Chapman's estimated high-end of $5 million a year. If he could turn out to be anything like another lefty fireballing starter, then the deal will have been a ridiculous bargain, costing a few spare dollars (less than half that was remaining on Rios' salary, to put that in perspective). If he ends up "meh"-ing and turns into a pretty average innings eater, it'll STILL be a good deal.
Now let's say he completely busts by 2014. His major league numbers are making Josh Towers giggle and his minor league stats could be bested by his pitching coach. For one, his potential will still have generated enough publicity that it wouldn't have been completely worthless. And even then, he'll still only be 25 and I'm sure some other GM somewhere would be willing to take a chance on a guy still under control for a few seasons - dealing maybe a prospect or two.
Thing is, you can't really worry so much about things not working out that you don't take a chance on greatness. That's one thing that the Ricciardi regime never did too well, avoiding major international signings and drafting high-school players in early rounds (they did get Snider and, well, that's not looking like a bad gamble so far). You don't win in this division by signing average players for $5 million/year, knowing that they are likely going to give you what they always have. You win by taking advantage of rare talents, especially if they'll cost you only $5 million a year. It's pretty straightforward, pretty exciting and the media should be hyping it up just a little more.
Maybe it's because I'm looking in all the wrong places, but I'm not seeing a lot of mainstream media attention here in Canada on Aroldis Chapman. I can understand TSN and their "let's go all hockey-saturated and mention only in passing the Halladay trade when it occurred" mentality (well, kind of... no, not really actually. Even hockey fans would care about Halladay being traded, right?). But at the exciting beginning of an era for the Blue Jays and Rogers - and the potential signing of a potentially really really exciting player in Chapman - why isn't Sportsnet creating any noise about it? At the very least, the publicity that the Jays are going hard after a high-risk, high-reward player can't hurt. And it's exciting stuff that makes for good television.
With regards to the player - a young, left-handed 100 mph pitcher? And you say that he might be controllable through 2018? And at $5 million/year for the first 5 years? That's very, very reasonable, no matter how you slice it. Brad Penny is getting $7.5 million this year. He of the 1.53 WHIP while with the Red Sox this year. The Jays' unspectacular starting SS next year, Alex Gonzalez, is set to make around $3 million. Boring players who are barely good enough to have a regular job filling out a major league roster are costing teams millions and millions - and below-average pitchers are easily making more than Chapman's estimated high-end of $5 million a year. If he could turn out to be anything like another lefty fireballing starter, then the deal will have been a ridiculous bargain, costing a few spare dollars (less than half that was remaining on Rios' salary, to put that in perspective). If he ends up "meh"-ing and turns into a pretty average innings eater, it'll STILL be a good deal.
Now let's say he completely busts by 2014. His major league numbers are making Josh Towers giggle and his minor league stats could be bested by his pitching coach. For one, his potential will still have generated enough publicity that it wouldn't have been completely worthless. And even then, he'll still only be 25 and I'm sure some other GM somewhere would be willing to take a chance on a guy still under control for a few seasons - dealing maybe a prospect or two.
Thing is, you can't really worry so much about things not working out that you don't take a chance on greatness. That's one thing that the Ricciardi regime never did too well, avoiding major international signings and drafting high-school players in early rounds (they did get Snider and, well, that's not looking like a bad gamble so far). You don't win in this division by signing average players for $5 million/year, knowing that they are likely going to give you what they always have. You win by taking advantage of rare talents, especially if they'll cost you only $5 million a year. It's pretty straightforward, pretty exciting and the media should be hyping it up just a little more.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Watching The Leafs Can Be Entertaining
I can still remember the days when the Leafs fought for first place in the conference, when "playoffs" weren't merely part of a Leafs joke punchline. I remember the energy of the crowd, the excitement in the atmosphere that could be felt even through the television screen, the hundred-dollar tickets that were almost kind of worth buying.
Opening Day seems like such a distant memory. And the earlier part of the decade when the Leafs were allowed to make the playoffs feels like a different lifetime. I'm not old enough to remember 1967.
Still, it can sometimes be entertaining to watch the Leafs. I'll admit, I haven't really been watching them too often recently, and when I have, they've lost. I'm looking right now at a 2-0 game, Leafs trailing the Philadelphia Junkmail. 3-0 now. OK, that's something to add to the list before the list even starts - pretty goal there by the other team. That can sometimes be kind of enjoyable when you don't have much hope for your own team to begin with.
Why no hope? Well, they've sucked this season, for one. But they've sucked even more when I've watched:
Oct 1: OTL 3-4... Oct 3: L 4-6... Oct 10: L 2-5... Oct: 13 L 1-4... Oct 24 L 1-3... Oct 26 W 6-3... Oct 28 OTL 3-4... Nov 3 OTL 1-2... Nov 13 L 2-3... Nov 19 OTL 5-6... Nov 30 L 0-3... Dec 5 L 2-7... Dec 9 W 3-2... Dec 10 L 2-5... Dec 16... L 3-6... Dec 21 OTL 2-3... Dec 26 OTL 2-3... Jan 2 L 1-3.
Tally it up and they're 2-10-6 when I've watched. A total of 10/36 possible points. That's kind of depressing...
---
OK, I took a break from writing this, and between then and now, the Leafs took advantage of a 5-on-3 by learning which net to shoot on (aiming at it once or twice) and promptly forgetting (after Gustavsson strangely headed a puck, Stempniak appeared to try to knock the rebound in, much to the pleasure of the vacuous Philadelphia Adware fans (I'm not referring to the attendance). Sweet. Another kind-of-interesting thing to watch.
Other things of note: not sure who the TSN announcers are, but one of them seems to insist on anglicizing every European player's name. I can see why you'd say, "Alex Ponikarovsky", but "Rick Wallin" is stretching it a little, especially when followed by "Michael Grabovski" and "Nicholas Kulemin". And a big semi-demi- truly halfhearted laugh at how he declared Jonas Gustavsson "by far the best Leaf tonight" and then calling "Rick Wallin", just minutes later, "the best Leaf tonight by far".
On second thought, I kind of wish the Leafs were competitive once again. If I wanted to make observations about crappy announcers, I wouldn't have cheered when Jamie Campbell got demoted. And if I wanted to sort of laugh at things that aren't really all the funny, I'd go rent a garbage John Hughes movie.
---
Another break, and the game has ironically become truly interesting. A bunch of quick goals traded between the two teams, some fights (to me, looks like the Philadelphia Phisher players generally got the worst of that). And the Philadelphia Spam just scored again. Apparently, some idiot Philadelphia fans (yes, a redundancy, which is grammatically incorrect, but whatever) threw their hats onto the ice. You guys gotta wait 'til one guy scores three times in one game. That's the rule, like it or not. I'd like to give them mthe benefit of the doubt and assume that they can count to three. Or '93.
Opening Day seems like such a distant memory. And the earlier part of the decade when the Leafs were allowed to make the playoffs feels like a different lifetime. I'm not old enough to remember 1967.
Still, it can sometimes be entertaining to watch the Leafs. I'll admit, I haven't really been watching them too often recently, and when I have, they've lost. I'm looking right now at a 2-0 game, Leafs trailing the Philadelphia Junkmail. 3-0 now. OK, that's something to add to the list before the list even starts - pretty goal there by the other team. That can sometimes be kind of enjoyable when you don't have much hope for your own team to begin with.
Why no hope? Well, they've sucked this season, for one. But they've sucked even more when I've watched:
Oct 1: OTL 3-4... Oct 3: L 4-6... Oct 10: L 2-5... Oct: 13 L 1-4... Oct 24 L 1-3... Oct 26 W 6-3... Oct 28 OTL 3-4... Nov 3 OTL 1-2... Nov 13 L 2-3... Nov 19 OTL 5-6... Nov 30 L 0-3... Dec 5 L 2-7... Dec 9 W 3-2... Dec 10 L 2-5... Dec 16... L 3-6... Dec 21 OTL 2-3... Dec 26 OTL 2-3... Jan 2 L 1-3.
Tally it up and they're 2-10-6 when I've watched. A total of 10/36 possible points. That's kind of depressing...
---
OK, I took a break from writing this, and between then and now, the Leafs took advantage of a 5-on-3 by learning which net to shoot on (aiming at it once or twice) and promptly forgetting (after Gustavsson strangely headed a puck, Stempniak appeared to try to knock the rebound in, much to the pleasure of the vacuous Philadelphia Adware fans (I'm not referring to the attendance). Sweet. Another kind-of-interesting thing to watch.
Other things of note: not sure who the TSN announcers are, but one of them seems to insist on anglicizing every European player's name. I can see why you'd say, "Alex Ponikarovsky", but "Rick Wallin" is stretching it a little, especially when followed by "Michael Grabovski" and "Nicholas Kulemin". And a big semi-demi- truly halfhearted laugh at how he declared Jonas Gustavsson "by far the best Leaf tonight" and then calling "Rick Wallin", just minutes later, "the best Leaf tonight by far".
On second thought, I kind of wish the Leafs were competitive once again. If I wanted to make observations about crappy announcers, I wouldn't have cheered when Jamie Campbell got demoted. And if I wanted to sort of laugh at things that aren't really all the funny, I'd go rent a garbage John Hughes movie.
---
Another break, and the game has ironically become truly interesting. A bunch of quick goals traded between the two teams, some fights (to me, looks like the Philadelphia Phisher players generally got the worst of that). And the Philadelphia Spam just scored again. Apparently, some idiot Philadelphia fans (yes, a redundancy, which is grammatically incorrect, but whatever) threw their hats onto the ice. You guys gotta wait 'til one guy scores three times in one game. That's the rule, like it or not. I'd like to give them mthe benefit of the doubt and assume that they can count to three. Or '93.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Pepsi™ Cheer Nation® ©PepsiCo Canada ULC, 2009
Can we get all of Canada to fall in line, march to the beat of a drum pounded by the sticky fingers of an American - fine, multinational (but that's not any better, is it?) corporation?
In fall 2009, I laughed at the notion that a mega-corporation could successfully convince a proud hockey nation that we're less united than Australia or the United States, both of whom have their own cheers that everyone's supposed to know. I laughed because it was a ridiculous proposition for a nation that is united by our love of hockey. I found it stupefying that anyone could cheer proudly when the cheer is followed by the small font of
All slogans and chants are property of PepsiCo and may not be reproduced without prior written consent
And you know what, quite frankly, I made fun of how bad the "finalists" for corporate cheer to unite a clueless nation® were.
But wait a second. Now Pepsi is telling us that the first million fans to register get to have their names written in the Hockey Hall of Fame? Million fans. That means that not only are they expecting us to fall in line to their demands, but they're also letting us know that there'll be a lot of people doing it; why aren't you?
Now I'm starting to think, even though I still hate the idea of having my national cheer be a freaking marketing ploy initiated by a company with origins in New Bern, North Carolina, that this may turn out to be quite the effective marketing initiative. They've clearly put a lot of thought into this. By noticing that there's no obvious "Canada" cheer (other than Ca-na-da, I suppose) attacking our supposed American inferiority complex by displaying the U-S-A chant, and then enlisting the help of a figure of hockey authority - the Hockey Hall of Fame, a lot of pressure is being put on the zombie television-watching army. While public opinion may still ultimately turn against this strategy, the fact that opinions are forming must mean something. All publicity is good publicity, right?
Maybe this Pepsi Cheer will catch on eventually. Personally, I think they'll be successful in getting people to write their names so that they see it when they visit the HHOF. But honestly, I wouldn't be caught dead at a sporting event even whispering a crappy Ramones rip-off chant: "Eh O' Canada Go® or © or ™". A friend of mine found the phrase too unwieldy with all its syllables. I don't share that opinion, but I think I'll have trouble pronouncing the ®, © or ™ part.
In fall 2009, I laughed at the notion that a mega-corporation could successfully convince a proud hockey nation that we're less united than Australia or the United States, both of whom have their own cheers that everyone's supposed to know. I laughed because it was a ridiculous proposition for a nation that is united by our love of hockey. I found it stupefying that anyone could cheer proudly when the cheer is followed by the small font of
All slogans and chants are property of PepsiCo and may not be reproduced without prior written consent
And you know what, quite frankly, I made fun of how bad the "finalists" for corporate cheer to unite a clueless nation® were.
But wait a second. Now Pepsi is telling us that the first million fans to register get to have their names written in the Hockey Hall of Fame? Million fans. That means that not only are they expecting us to fall in line to their demands, but they're also letting us know that there'll be a lot of people doing it; why aren't you?
Now I'm starting to think, even though I still hate the idea of having my national cheer be a freaking marketing ploy initiated by a company with origins in New Bern, North Carolina, that this may turn out to be quite the effective marketing initiative. They've clearly put a lot of thought into this. By noticing that there's no obvious "Canada" cheer (other than Ca-na-da, I suppose) attacking our supposed American inferiority complex by displaying the U-S-A chant, and then enlisting the help of a figure of hockey authority - the Hockey Hall of Fame, a lot of pressure is being put on the zombie television-watching army. While public opinion may still ultimately turn against this strategy, the fact that opinions are forming must mean something. All publicity is good publicity, right?
Maybe this Pepsi Cheer will catch on eventually. Personally, I think they'll be successful in getting people to write their names so that they see it when they visit the HHOF. But honestly, I wouldn't be caught dead at a sporting event even whispering a crappy Ramones rip-off chant: "Eh O' Canada Go® or © or ™". A friend of mine found the phrase too unwieldy with all its syllables. I don't share that opinion, but I think I'll have trouble pronouncing the ®, © or ™ part.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Best and Worst Toronto Sports Moments of the Decade; Grading Toronto
To be honest, I nearly forgot that we’re fast approaching the end of the decade. That being said, I’m glad it’s coming to a close. So you can sort of see that I started writing this before the new year, but I’ve been busy and there are more important things to do on new year’s eve. What’s another day or two anyways so I’m going to review how Toronto fared this decade. We had our share of good moments and lots of bad moments so I’ll go over our sports franchises, other than the Argos, cause I couldn’t care less about them. This past decade has shown us the franchise draining powers of our friends at MLSE and lacklustre performance by the Jays.
Leafs
Without a doubt, the first half of the decade was a lot better than the latter half. At least we were somewhat competitive. We even had a 100 point season way back in 2000 if anyone still remembers. Also, I loved watching the Leafs beating those damn Senators every year despite the odds. The turning point of the decade though has to be the NHL lockout. In addition to missing out a whole season, the new rules destroyed our now illegal defence. We haven’t made the playoffs in four years now, soon to be five unless you believe in some sort of miraculous surge. We’ve also been missing a captain for more than a season but on the plus side, we seem to be trending up under Burke and making the playoffs next season doesn’t seem too farfetched.
Grade: C
Raptors
It seems that the Raptors also peaked early, with the team getting to the second round of the playoffs in 2001, and almost the third round against the 76ers. Of course, in 2003 we ended up drafting Chris Bosh, our current (and hopefully future) franchise player. The thing that still haunts the Raptors though, is the trade of Vince Carter and his play towards the end. He played without motivation and effort, and the same could be said our GM in trying to trade him. We received two very average players and a washed up pro that didn’t even show up for arguably the best player in franchise history. The past few seasons have been up and down, Bargnani was an ok pick and we won in the Atlantic Division title in 07 but lost to the Nets led by Vince Carter and then Orlando the next year. Missing the playoffs last year was disappointing, but this season looks somewhat promising at least.
Grade: C+
Jays
I’ll be honest, I don’t know much about baseball, but no playoffs in 10 years even with baseball’s screwed up playoff system is a disappointment, even though we had one of the best pitchers in the game for several years. Of course, we ended up trading him to the Phillies and we seem to like letting some of our other better players run off, such as Burnett and Lilly. We also liked signing some terrible contracts as evidenced by the contracts to Frank Thomas, BJ Ryan and Vernon Wells. I think the Wells contract is one of the worst of the decade, he’s now a below average player making over 20 million for the next 4 years. In fact, I might have to mention this again at the end of this decade.
Grade: D
The Rest
As I mentioned earlier, I didn’t really want to grade the Argos, but there are still other Toronto teams, like the Rock and Toronto FC. I haven’t been paying attention, but I will assume there is a reason for that, and assign a grade appropriately.
Grade: F
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)