Simply put, the Minnesota Twins dropped the ball.
If you believe that statement refers the fact that the Twins pulled the trigger on only one deal at the Trade Deadline involving Drew Butera, you could possibly be right. If you believe that statement refers to the fact that Justin Morneau wasn't traded at the deadline, you could also possibly be right. However, if you believe that statement refers to the fact that Morneau began the 2013 season WITH the Twins, and wasn't traded during the offseason, you absolutely would be correct!
As the clock ticked down to the 4pm Eastern deadline for non-waiver trades, there was speculation the Twins would deal Morneau, but no trade was finalized. Many in the Twins' media brigade attributed this to the lack of a market for the first baseman. In fact, a few concluded that Morneau's rankings among all Major League first basemen were simply just too low to warrant any substantial value in return. The only thing they all seemed to miss was that, frankly, any deal for Morneau shouldn't have been made at the Trade Deadline, but rather during this past offseason.
Surely, if you look at the numbers, many "experts" were correct. Morneau's numbers simply don't justify much for trade value. There were plenty of teams looking for a bat at the deadline, but few looking to offer up what the Twins were more than likely asking for. But therein lies the problem. The Twins waited far too long to ask for the level of talent they were looking for should they decide to deal Morneau. And, as a result, with visions of Delmon Young in their heads, they missed yet another opportunity to trade a player at their peak value.
After suffering the concussion he did during the 2010 season, it was almost an absolute certainty that Morneau would never again be the same player. With concussions being as prominent in sports as they are today, it truly is difficult to gauge who has come back from them successfully and who has not. Sure, there may have been players in the '70s, '80s, and '90s that suffered concussions and found themselves playing again, probably because they didn't realize what actually happened. But in today's game, there is a much bigger spotlight on them.
If the Terry Ryan were as intelligent a general manager as many Minnesota sports writers believe him to be, he would've realized that we, no doubt, would never see Morneau regain the same form that led him to the 2006 American League MVP. Taking that into account, the moment Morneau began to even resemble a glimpse of his former self, he should've been shopped to potential suiters immediately! That point was after his first full injury-free season since the concussion, which was his 2012 campaign. Knowing a contract would be looming after the 2013 season, Ryan never should have entered this year holding out hope that Morneau would once again become an MVP threat. Instead, he should have attempted to bolster the Twins' already poor pitching staff by finding a taker for Morneau, who at the end of last season ranked 16th in Avg, 13th in OBP, 18th in SLG, 19th in HR, and 16th in RBI among all Major League first basemen. Instead...by not pulling the trigger during the offseason, Ryan went into the Trade Deadline fielding calls about Morneau, who entering the morning of July 31st ranked 13th in Avg, 19th in OBP, 24th in SLG, 29th in HR, and 14th in RBI among first basemen. And to make matters more difficult, he was no doubt trying to trade the 2006 MVP, and not the 2013 shadow of that MVP.
All told, the Twins stand pat at the deadline with their current Major League roster, not addressing any needs, and putting themselves in a position to now have to negotiate a deal with Morneau come the 2013 offseason. Given their current rebuilding mindset, Morneau should've been dealt, if for no other reason than to give his playing time to a younger, up-and-coming potential replacement at first base, whoever that may have been. Instead, Twins fans will have to watch their "power-hitting" first baseman struggle to reach 15 HRs during the final two months of the regular season.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Monday, July 22, 2013
Should We Just Embrace PED's? Think Before You Answer.
What exactly does it mean to "gain an advantage?" How does that differ from "cheating?" Why is it that professional athletes who are doing something to gain an advantage are actually considered "cheaters?"
When you look long and hard at the world of professional sports, there has always been one constant through the years: Things change. Players change. Technology changes. Rules change. Expectations change. As fans, we cheer for our favorite teams, our favorite players, and our favorite games. So, why is it that we find ourselves with feelings of anger and betrayal when we see players get caught trying to improve themselves?
Ryan Braun's suspension for the remainder of the 2013 MLB season is just the latest in what has been a decade-long battle to "clean up" the game of baseball. Other sports have also "improved" their performance-enhancing substance testing in an effort to purify their games. But the microscope remains fixated on the game of baseball. But why?
It's not a popular opinion by any stretch of the imagination, but realistically, there's one question that continues to cross my mind as I see big names and All-Stars continue to find themselves on the wrong side of baseball law:
Should we really care?
Sports purists will argue that performance-enhancing substances "change" their respective games for the worse. Mostly, their angst is centered around the record books. Nowhere is this more evident than Major League Baseball, whose record book is considered almost biblical to some. But why keep record books if we're afraid to have the records within them broken? And, if we're being honest, a lot of the records being broken were aided by some sort of "change."
Babe Ruth used a bat that was 40 ounces in weight during the 1927 season when he hit 60 home runs, setting the record which would stand for 34 years before being broken by Roger Maris. Strangely, what people don't talk about is the advantages that Maris had. Sure, they bring up the additional eight games added to the schedule, which is one advantage. But no one brings up the fact that the Yankee Stadium dimensions changed from the time Ruth played to the time Maris played. In 1927, Babe Ruth was hitting balls to center and right field walls that were 520 and 425 feet from home plate, respectively. In 1961, those same walls were only 461 and 407 feet from home plate. Ruth used a bat that weighed 40 ounces and was 35 inches in length. In 1961, Maris's bat was one inch longer (36) and weighed 4-5 ounces less, allowing him to swing it faster. Needless to say, there were other factors to Roger Maris breaking Babe Ruth's home run record than just an additional eight games.
In today's game, similar changes have been made. Bats weight less than before and are made of different material. Many suggest they're actually weaker pieces of lumber than were used throughout 50's, 60's, and even 70's. The baseballs themselves are manufactured and woven differently than 50 or 60 years ago. Similar to the dimension changes made at Yankee Stadium throughout the years, many ballparks have brought their fences in to increase offense.
Couldn't performance-enhancing substances just be considered another "change" in the game? Why not embrace them and regulate them rather than fear them? If everyone is allowed to play the game the same way, is it possible that no true advantage would be had? And, is it possible the game may actually be better off?
Records were made to be broken. If sports continue to improve their games by altering equipment, changing rules, and expanding leagues, the records we've all grown accustomed to are truly not the same as they were. So, what is one more change? If it provides fans with a better product and a more exciting experience, who are we to judge?
I, for one, would prefer a game where I don't have to guess who is using a substance to gain an advantage, but rather a game where I don't have to concern myself with it and can just enjoy being a fan.
Should we really care otherwise?
When you look long and hard at the world of professional sports, there has always been one constant through the years: Things change. Players change. Technology changes. Rules change. Expectations change. As fans, we cheer for our favorite teams, our favorite players, and our favorite games. So, why is it that we find ourselves with feelings of anger and betrayal when we see players get caught trying to improve themselves?
Ryan Braun's suspension for the remainder of the 2013 MLB season is just the latest in what has been a decade-long battle to "clean up" the game of baseball. Other sports have also "improved" their performance-enhancing substance testing in an effort to purify their games. But the microscope remains fixated on the game of baseball. But why?
It's not a popular opinion by any stretch of the imagination, but realistically, there's one question that continues to cross my mind as I see big names and All-Stars continue to find themselves on the wrong side of baseball law:
Should we really care?
Sports purists will argue that performance-enhancing substances "change" their respective games for the worse. Mostly, their angst is centered around the record books. Nowhere is this more evident than Major League Baseball, whose record book is considered almost biblical to some. But why keep record books if we're afraid to have the records within them broken? And, if we're being honest, a lot of the records being broken were aided by some sort of "change."
Babe Ruth used a bat that was 40 ounces in weight during the 1927 season when he hit 60 home runs, setting the record which would stand for 34 years before being broken by Roger Maris. Strangely, what people don't talk about is the advantages that Maris had. Sure, they bring up the additional eight games added to the schedule, which is one advantage. But no one brings up the fact that the Yankee Stadium dimensions changed from the time Ruth played to the time Maris played. In 1927, Babe Ruth was hitting balls to center and right field walls that were 520 and 425 feet from home plate, respectively. In 1961, those same walls were only 461 and 407 feet from home plate. Ruth used a bat that weighed 40 ounces and was 35 inches in length. In 1961, Maris's bat was one inch longer (36) and weighed 4-5 ounces less, allowing him to swing it faster. Needless to say, there were other factors to Roger Maris breaking Babe Ruth's home run record than just an additional eight games.
In today's game, similar changes have been made. Bats weight less than before and are made of different material. Many suggest they're actually weaker pieces of lumber than were used throughout 50's, 60's, and even 70's. The baseballs themselves are manufactured and woven differently than 50 or 60 years ago. Similar to the dimension changes made at Yankee Stadium throughout the years, many ballparks have brought their fences in to increase offense.
Couldn't performance-enhancing substances just be considered another "change" in the game? Why not embrace them and regulate them rather than fear them? If everyone is allowed to play the game the same way, is it possible that no true advantage would be had? And, is it possible the game may actually be better off?
Records were made to be broken. If sports continue to improve their games by altering equipment, changing rules, and expanding leagues, the records we've all grown accustomed to are truly not the same as they were. So, what is one more change? If it provides fans with a better product and a more exciting experience, who are we to judge?
I, for one, would prefer a game where I don't have to guess who is using a substance to gain an advantage, but rather a game where I don't have to concern myself with it and can just enjoy being a fan.
Should we really care otherwise?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)