(Disclaimer: I know nothing about football, I'm simply using the same analytical techniques that apply to baseball and using them elsewhere. I could be completely off the mark here, but I doubt I am.)
Yesterday, in a move that only Bill Stoneman could truly appreciate, the Eagles cut Terrell Owens. This is another case of chemistry being valued over results, and getting mass approval. Who does this move hurt? Does it hurt Owens? Not really, he'll sign a contract with a team that understands having a talented wide receiver helps the team. Does it hurt the Eagles? Certainly, Owens is one of the best players in the league. Brilliant move there.
Listening to Mason and Ireland on Friday, there was a guest on that argued that the Eagles were actually a better team without Owens, citing the fact that they passed the ball 73 percent of the time, and this would make them run more. This is not a well thought out statement. If the Eagles were actually talented at running the ball, wouldn't they do it more? Most certainly. Running the ball doesn't score points, it is simply a means to an end, just because you run more doesn't mean you score more. Whenever talent takes a back seat to chemistry, the only thing that is hurt is the team.
What does this have to do with the Dodgers? They are about to do the same thing with Milton Bradley. The current rumor is that Bradley is being sent off to the Yankees. I have to ask, what could the Yankees possibly give us that is worth Bradley. Assuming money is no object, the following players would actually be worth a 28 year old outfielder who has good patience, power, and good speed.
Alex Rodriguez
Derek Jeter
Jason Giambi
Gary Sheffield
Hideki Matsui
Mariano Rivera
Randy Johnson
The following are not worth it
Chein-Ming Wang - Doesn't strike anyone out (3.69 K/9) doesn't have a good K/BB ratio (1.43) the only thing he does well is avoid the home run. If he didn't pitch for the Yankees, no one would be talking about him.
Carl Pavano - A 30 year old with a total of two above average seasons.
Eric Duncan - Do the Dodgers really need another third base prospect?
Now to introduce reality into the trade
Sheffield - He's not coming to the Dodgers.
Matsui - Going to be a free agent in a week.
Rivera - The Yankees wouldn't trade him.
Johnson - Will make 16 million dollars when he is 43.
This leaves Jeter, Rodriguez, and Giambi. These three players made a combined 59 million dollars this year. In other words, they aren't coming to the Dodgers either.
Unless the Dodgers get a very big wad of money, trading a player as good is Bradley is simply disastrous. Here's hoping that the Dodgers are able to look past something as unimportant as chemistry.
Categories: Dodgers General
I don't think the two are equivalent.
ReplyDeleteFootball is a far more team-oriented game than baseball. Furthermore, Owens' behavior is the latest of a constant stream of "me first, team second" confrontations. He was dumped from the 49ers for slamming the talent of his quarterback and his coaches. He insisted on getting a new contract from the Eagles when he first signed, then one year later demanded a new contract, sitting out the pre-season to force them to give him one (it didn't work).
The Eagles are hurt by cutting him... but they're also hurt by keeping him. In Philly, it's essentially become a question of do you keep McNabb or T.O. -- which super-star do you want? (If Gary Sheffield and Derek Jeter got into an on-going tussle in New York, that would be a more equivalent situation).
ok, I'll take the bait and disagree. Chemistry counts much less in baseball than it does in any other sport. But what Owens has done would impact even the best of teams in baseball - things are so bad that he apparently got in a fist fight with a teammate.
ReplyDeleteBaseball is chock full of stories of teammates who did not get along (ever hear of two guys named Babe and Lou?). But in other sports, when there is a complete breakdown in chemistry, the team generally falls apart (see LA Lakers circa 2004).
All that said, I don't think Bradley has been anywhere near as bad as Owens and the Dodgers would be fools to trade him - unless they include Izturis in the deal and get Jeter.
To address your point of the Eagles being better or worse - short term, they are worse off, but they also went to three straight NFC title games with out him (and won a fourth while he was injured). But long term, they will be better off, they will be able to trade him in the offseason who will be able to perform at a high level within the system.
It doesnt really matter that football is a more team oriented sport than baseball. When TO plays he plays hard and being a good teammate on the field means you catch the ball when thrown to you, block down field and produce.
ReplyDeleteIf its a distraction off the field, who cares? The players dont have to answer question during practice or during the games so this shouldnt be an issue.
To answer your question anon - apparently, his teammates. You are also overlooking the human factor - having played team sports for most of my life, it's incredibly difficult to perform as well as you should when you don't get along with teammates.
ReplyDeleteAs Yogi once said, "the game is 90% mental, the other half is physical"
we are all missing the point.
ReplyDeletedebating about trades and signing free agents, and chemistry of the team stuff means very little at this juncture of our beloved dodgers.
the truth is, we are all suckers that feed McCourt's greed.
He is the New Donald Sterling of Los Angeles.(and true one at that since the real donald actually is sending money now) as long as fools like us ( including myself) continue to support the team no matter how bad things get, he will make money off of the dodger tradition and its loyal fans.
if we show up to the stadium and fill the seats no matter how bad we play, and continue to spend millions of dollars on jerseys and bobbleheads of insignificant players, Frank will NEVER have any reasons to spend money on good players.
we are like a teenager boy in love with a golddigging bitch, and gets abused and thrown off to the side when it's over.
To KG,
ReplyDeleteI have played sports for most of my "growing up" years and not that it means anything but i was quite good and if i played better or worse depending on my teammates I dont think i'd be satisfied with myself.
I've had plenty of teammates i didnt like and plenty i loved but none of them helped me hit a hole or hit a pitch.
The truth of matter is team chemistry is some abstract concept that some writer made up. Honestly who other than a player on the team truely knows what whether a team that gets along well. You have to literally be there 100% of time to truely know who are shadey cats, the assholes, the headcases and the team players. Even the manger will only know so much. So I'm asking, how in the hell does a writer or anyone else know which teams have good chemistry if team chemistry even exists?!?! Are they playing the games, around the players when the players are being themselves, hearing the gossip and shit talking or seeing the assholes truely at work??? I dont think so. So I'm saying, even if this team chemistry exist, how the hell the would anyone really know which team has good chemistry? They don't.
ReplyDeleteThe Dodgers are about to give him to the Yankees for NOTHING...If no one is willing to trade for him, the Dodgers are not going to offer him a contract- doesn't that seem weird??? Well, the truth of the matter is- Milton Bradley is talented, however he clearly is such a distracting and negatice force, nobody wants him. The Indians did the exact same thing with him, once two franchises dump a 30 year old outfielder with speed, power, good defense and the ability to hit for average...you know there is something seriously wrong with him
ReplyDeletetrade kent.
ReplyDeletekeep bradley.
bradley will bring nothing if traded.
kent can bring in a starting pitcher if traded.
only kent have beef with bradley in the team.
nobody gets along with kent.
what's the problem, then?
trade KENT !!!!!!