Don’t be surprised if Landry Fields stays with the Knicks

The Toronto Raptors in one of the more devious offseason moves in some time decided to sign Landry Fields for 20 million dollars over three years.[1] They did this so the Knicks couldn’t use Landry Fields in a sign-and-trade with Phoenix Suns to acquire Steve Nash.  The Raptors really wanted to sign the 38-year-old Canadian native and that’s probably why they haven’t been relevant since Vince Carter was considered a superstar.

While on no planet is Landry Fields worth 20 million dollars, do not be surprised if the Knicks match the Raptors offer sheet. If the Knicks have proven one thing over the last decade it’s that they’re not afraid to pay a luxury tax. Fields’ expiring 10 million dollar contract in 3 years would actually give the Knicks more flexibility to trade for a useful player.

It’s really only a matter of money. The Knicks are above the salary cap so it’s not like they’re going to be able to sign anyone with the money they’d use on Fields’. You could do a lot worse than Landry Fields’ as a bench player, especially since Iman Shumpert isn’t coming back until January at the earliest. While saying his season last year was atrocious is an understatement, he’s still only 24 and has shown flashes of brilliance at times.

It’s totally unclear why Fields’ decided to tinker with his jump shot after shooting .393% from 3-point range in his rookie season. He shot .256% last season and was almost unplayable with Carmelo Anthony and Amare Stoudemire because of his complete inability to shoot from the outside. If the Knicks feel like last season was just an aberration and that Fields’ can give them a presence from the outside like he did his rookie season, they should absolutely match the offer.

Fields’ is only a mediocre defender but he’s 6’7 and can play small forward for a few minutes a game when Anthony needs to rest or if Woodson decides to go with a smaller line up with Anthony at power forward. For a guy who went to Stanford it’s kind of unbelievable how poor his decision-making can be on both sides of the ball, but especially with his defensive rotations.  He’s had Mike D’Antoni as his coach for most of his career though, so I assume the only defensive coaching he received was a D’Antoni “Lets go! Lets go!.”[2]

I like Landry Fields’ but I totally understand if the Knicks don’t see enough in him to bring him back for 20 million. If money really not an issue for the Knicks though they’d be fools to let him go. The worst thing that can happen with Fields’ is that he ends up being a fringe bench guy and they trade his expiring contract for someone who can contribute in his last season. The best-case scenario they found their starting shooting guard for 3 years and there are certainly worse players in the league to cheer for than Landry Fields.

---

[1] Can you imagine what the story would’ve been if a relevant basketball franchise did this to another team? If the Knicks ever did this it would’ve been a headline story but nobody cares about the Raptors or what they do.

[2] D’Antoni had to break the record last year for saying, “Let’s go!” Everytime the camera ever panned to him that’s what he was screaming. I’m not even sure if he did any other coaching or if his mustache actually coached the team. 

The Brooklyn Nets are not Contenders

The Brooklyn Nets aren’t ready to compete yet. I know that’s not the narrative you’re going to be hearing on ESPN or the New York area as the media tries to milk this Brooklyn-Manhattan rivalry as much as humanly possibly, but it’s the truth. I live 5 minutes from the Barclay Center and as much as I’d love to stroll down Atlantic Avenue and watch a contender play, I just don’t see it happening. This team quite frankly has a lot of holes and relies on stars I’m not totally sold on.

Deron Williams - Superstar?

This is a team that is going to be as successful as Deron Williams makes them and I’m just not sure how successful that is.  Eclipsed by the inconsistent season that Carmelo Anthony had across the river was the poor season that Deron Williams had. To Williams defense the Nets were atrocious and really put nothing around him outside of a mid-season trade that gave up their lottery 1^st round pick for Gerald Wallace. While Williams stat line looks as good as ever at 21 PPG – 8.7 APG – 3.3 RPG – 1.2 SPG, he did it while shooting the most he’s ever shot in his career 17.5 FGA while shooting .407% from the field.

Those aren’t very efficient numbers and Williams’ is a .455% shooter from the floor in his career so I would expect him to shoot more efficiently next season. This doesn’t mean there isn’t reason for concern though because what this shows is that when Williams has to carry the load, he's not as effective. He also has not been nearly as efficient as he was in Utah since he’s been a Net. Considering Williams is most certainly Brooklyn’s crunch time scorer, this is something we might be reminded of throughout the year.

One thing completely ignored about Deron Williams is his lack of initiative to play defense. While he certainly has the big lengthy frame to defend pretty much any point guard in the NBA he sometimes lacks effort to get through screens and just plays rather lethargic.[1] Notably he defended Jeremy Lin when “Linsanity” broke out by allowing Lin to get to the basket at will scoring 25 points on .526% shooting. Williams did torch Lin the next time the two met for 38 points but he still allowed Lin to score 21. Mario Chalmers absolutely shut down Lin when the Knicks played against the Heat so I'm not sure what that says for Williams' defensive ability. 

It also has to be taken into account that Williams had a falling out with legendary coach Jerry Sloan in Utah and hasn't always been the most agreeable guy. I have to think that Williams re-signed with the Nets in some kind of promise that he'd be playing with not just Joe Johnson, but Dwight Howard. How will he react to Howard not becoming a Net and how will he react if this team struggles to make the playoffs?

I really like Williams and he’s a great player to build a franchise around but I’m not sold on him being able to get the better of James, Wade, Rose, Anthony, Rondo or even Pierce at the end of a game. Until he proves that he can do that, the Nets are missing a big component in what it takes to win an NBA title. For a guy who's supposed to be a superstar, when's the last relevant basketball moment of his you remember?

Joe Johnson - Right Hand Man? 

Luckily for Williams his supporting cast should be quite a bit better than what he was dealing with last season. This is in part to the Net’s big trade acquisition of Joe Johnson. Johnson is a good and sometimes great shooting guard and will definitely open the floor for Williams with his solid outside shooting. Johnson has incredibly solid career numbers at 17.8 PPG – 4.4 APG – 4.2 RPG on .444% shooting from the field. He’s also a career .368% 3-point shooter, so that should help spread the court for Williams quite a bit.

Johnson’s downside mostly comes with his defense, age and contract. He’s 30 and if you’ve watched him play the last few years he appears to be declining rather than getting any better. Gone are the days of him averaging over 20 points a game and the Nets have him signed until he’s 34, when I don’t really know if he’ll still be the same kind of productive player. His contract is also absolutely ridiculous at almost 90 million over 4 years, including the last 2 years at 23 and 25 million. Joe Johnson is a good player but he’s simply not worth that kind of money.

The Nets acquired Johnson to win now but I’m just not sure if he brings the intensity on defense to win. I certainly don’t trust Johnson guarding Wade throughout a game and if you’re trying to win the championship in the East, this is something you’re going to have to do. He’s also one of those players whose attitude on the court never seems to match what’s going on in the game. Ask any Hawks fan you can find about him and you’ll see they mostly had an issue with his miserable looking facial expressions and body language.[2]


Maybe Joe Johnson will be a suitable side kick for Deron Williams but he's in no way shape or form a superstar. His track record with the Hawks certainly shows that he can't lead a team on a playoff run or put people in the seats, so why exactly did the Nets trade for him? He's your classic overpaid B level superstar. Joe Johnson's not a bad player but in similar fashion to Williams, can you remember one relevant basketball moment Joe Johnson's has had his entire career? It's not a good sign when your two highest paid players and "superstars" haven't been relevant in years.


Brook Lopez and Gerald Wallace - What will they give you?

If the Nets stand any chance to contend next year they’ll certainly need big years from the previously mentioned Deron Williams and Joe Johnson, but also from their young recently re-signed center, Brook Lopez. Lopez has tremendous upside being a 24 year old 7 footer with the career stat line of 17.4 PPG – 7.5 RPG – 1.6 BPG. He can score, he’s a willing passer and it’s hard not to love everything you see out of him on the offensive end. He might be the most skilled offensive center in the game outside of Andrew Bynum and that’s saying something. Despite this, he’s been relatively forgotten in the Dwight Howard madness and because he missed all but 12 games last year with a broken ankle.

The question surrounding Brook Lopez is that while he gives you a ton of offense and can block some shots on defense, can he rebound or be the defensive enforcer in the middle like a Dwight Howard or Tyson Chandler? In today’s NBA, I would argue that these are much more important than being a productive offensive center. While he does block a few shots, he doesn’t really alter the way offenses attack you. When you have to find a way to defend guys who are prolific drivers like the East has, this could be a problem. He’s also been criticized in the past of being a bit soft and a nice guy, I never like to hear that regarding 7 footers.

While Lopez’s low career rebounding totals and questions on defense are certainly huge questions, it’s hard to argue he’s not among the top 5 centers in the league. Is that worth the 60 million dollar max contract he just received? We’ll have to wait and see but the Nets contention status is definitely going to have a lot to do with Lopez’s development this year. This is especially true because of the lack of front line depth the Nets have going into this year.

The Nets gave up their lottery pick in the NBA Draft to acquire Gerald Wallace from the Trail Blazers last year. They then went on to sign Wallace to a 4 year 40 million dollar deal making him a cornerstone of their team for years to come. Wallace had been a consistently underrated player for the Bobcats for years giving them elite defense from the 3-4 positions. Wallace can also score and his career line looks like 13.5 PPG – 2.1 APG – 6.3 RPG – 1.5 SPG.

While I’ve always found Gerald Wallace to be one of my favorite hidden gems in the NBA, he’s sadly on the downside of his career.  Wallace used to be one of the most athletic players in the NBA and entering his 12^th season in the NBA this athleticism is fading fast. He is only 29 but he’s been in the league forever and wasted his extremely athletic years playing for the Bobcats and not a contending team. Wallace is still an incredibly useful player capable of guarding bigger 3’s and pretty much any 4 but with him losing that athleticism, he’s really not an elite defender anymore.

Wallace has always struggled with his outside shot and has an awful shooting form that will allow defenses to really play off him and towards Williams, Johnson, and Lopez. While he will give you a big plus on the boards and on defense he might really hurt the Nets offensive efficiency, as teams will definitely live with Wallace trying to shoot jumpers. He also absolutely could not guard Carmelo Anthony whatsoever when the two teams met in April, which is a big reason why the Nets brought him on board. If he can’t guard Anthony what chance does he have to match up with Lebron James? Wallace is still a versatile 3-4 who can match up with a lot of guys but his days of guarding elite 3’s are behind him and that is potentially a huge issue for the Nets.

Wallace and Brook Lopez will be expected to have huge seasons in order for the Nets to be successful and just like their "superstar" teammates have not played relevant minutes in the NBA. I'm not just sure what you're going to get out of either of those players and that's going to be a huge problem for a team looking to contend this year.

And then there's the rest...

Those are the 4 players on the Nets who you can pencil in right now as starters. The remaining players on their roster are Mirza Teletovic, Reggie Evans, Jerry Stackhouse, MarShon Brooks, and Tyshawn Taylor. Obviously, the Nets may also re-sign Kris Humphries and will most definitely try to bring in some more pieces. MarShon Brooks is looking like he will end up somewhere else and there’s not any room for him at shooting guard with Joe Johnson stationed there for the next 4 years.

I’m not sure what Brooklyn is going to get out of Mirza Teletovic as he has really good numbers playing for his Bosnian team but he seems as a pretty unknown commodity at this point. Is he power forward or a small forward? He averaged 6 rebounds in Europe last year so I doubt he’s going to help with that need. At 3 years 15 million the Nets must love what they see in him and he’s a real wild card going into this season. It’s tough for me to say he will be a key piece to their team this year though when he hasn’t played a minute in the NBA yet.

The Nets have a pretty good foundation of players as of now but this team is not a contender yet. I don’t think Reggie Evans and Brook Lopez are scaring anyone from the paint and that is probably the biggest issue when you have Deron Williams and Joe Johnson defending opposing teams guards. Their bench is pretty much an unknown quantity at this point but as the Knicks found out with Jeremy Lin and Steve Novak, you can find some gems on the waiver wire.

Brooklyn still needs more size, rebounding, defense and depth at all positions really. MarShon Brooks looks like he could real in some quality pieces and there’s always the chance of picking someone up around the trade deadline, so this team is a work in progress. They also need ensure they get someone who can handle the ball when Williams is resting or they’re going to run him into the ground trying to make the playoffs.

So, what can we expect?

This is a team that is going to be better than the 22-44 team last year, but it depends on what they do from here before we determine by how much. Even if they do manage to solidify their bench and pick up some size and rebounding I can’t put them in the upper tier of the Eastern Conference. They have too many holes, unproven stars, and have to deal with trying to gel after having their roster completely overturned.

The Nets have failed to improve enough for the window they have on Joe Johnson and Gerald Wallace’s effectiveness. They’re locked in a path where I can’t say the ceiling on this team is much higher than the 2^nd round of the Eastern Conference Playoffs. Unless they are able to pull of something dramatic with their remaining pieces, I think you’re going to see the Nets have a very similar season to what the Knicks had last year or maybe worse.

So are the Brooklyn Nets close to becoming contender this year? As much as I'd like them to be, I just can’t say I like the outlook of this franchise because they put a ton of weight in Joe Johnson being a 2^nd superstar. They just need a tremendous effort from him this year and I don’t think you’re going to see him raise his level of play, because he's just not a superstar. Outside of the holes I've mentioned, Deron Williams, Joe Johnson, Brook Lopez, and Gerald Wallace need to shore up the holes in their games and that’s not something you can count on. The Nets will also have just about no flexibility going into the future outside of whatever MarShon Brooks can get them in a trade. They have made some bold moves so far this offseason but I don’t think it’s in the right direction and ultimately; I don’t think they're even close to becoming a contender.

---

[1] A nice little compilation of Williams’ defensive woes

[2] Just look at his ESPN photo. This is pretty much what he looks like all the time.

Major League Baseball is completely clueless to what fans want

When asked to address instant replay at a recent BBWAA conference Bud Selig and Joe Torre said some pretty outlandish things. We’ll start with Selig because his words are the most prominent and furthest reaching, he said,

"We're going to expand instant replay when we have the technology to do it… Among all the people I talk to, nobody is anxious to increase instant replay. And I concur with that. That doesn't mean we won't continue to review it. Baseball is a game of pace. We've got to be very sensitive and careful in the way we proceed. I can tell you that the appetite for more instant replay in the sport is very low. There are some people who think we've gone too far already." 

This statement is so absurd you have to look at it sentence by sentence.

We're going to expand instant replay when we have the technology to do it…

How in the world does the MLB not have the technology to implement a proper replay system? Do they really think it's tougher to track what's going on in baseball than football? God forbid they install a few more cameras to give the umpires a better angle.

Among all the people I talk to, nobody is anxious to increase instant replay. And I concur with that

Who exactly do you talk to Bud? I don’t think I’ve spoken to anyone who agrees with that statement. Maybe people who are also ancient and need to find another job agree with you, but the fans do not. We’re sick and tired of routine calls being blown and know there’s a better way.

Baseball is a game of pace. We've got to be very sensitive and careful in the way we proceed.

If baseball is a game of pace then what is basketball, football, hockey, and soccer? Baseball is the game least reliant on pace of every major sport. I’m so confused by that statement and I would like to hear one logical argument explaining why replay would destroy the “pace” of MLB.

I can tell you that the appetite for more instant replay in the sport is very low. There are some people who think we've gone too far already.

Again, how out of touch are baseball officials if they think the appetite for more replay is low? Who doesn’t want more replay? The umpires? I haven’t read one article or heard any argument against the current replay outside of the fact that the majority thinking it needs to be expanded. These statements seem borderline insane to me.

To be fair to the MLB they are talking about expanding replay to include trapped balls in the infield (what?) and fair and foul balls. They just don’t know if they’ll have the technology in place to do this right now. I’m so confused what new fancy technology they have to put in place in order to get this system together. I think that’s just a crap way of saying we haven’t looked into all the details yet. Also, who has been demanding that we replay trapped balls in the infield, when does that ever happen or get called incorrectly?

Joe Torre also attended at this meeting as executive vice president of baseball operations and while he said one thing that made sense he also appeared to be way too senile to be doing the job he’s doing. (He has looked that way since 2005, when he was managing the Yankees) The only thing I agreed with that he said was that baseball was considering putting an umpire in the press box or installing a centralized location where the umpires can go watch replays. I vote for the latter but I’ve stated this kind of sentiment a million times because I hate stoppage in the game to watch officials go look at a replay we’ve already seen five times. I would consider most of the other stuff Torre said pretty insane though.

"It seems like replay comes up on whatever play happened last night,'' Torre said, "Because of technology we feel we can fix something quickly, but that's not the case.

I still don’t understand what this magical technology baseball needs to work out in order for us to get a proper replay in the sport but I’m very interested to know what it is. All Bud Selig and Joe Torre can tell us is that it revolves around adding more cameras. What else do they need to consider? Please someone enlighten me! The next quote from Torre is what is really bothersome though.

"The game is imperfect. For all of us who want everything to be right all the time, it's not going to happen. I don't know why we want everything to be perfect. It's an imperfect game. Life isn't perfect and this is a game of life."

This is total nonsense Joe Torre. You can make this argument about absolutely anything at all. “Well I didn’t fix the toilet because there’s no such thing as a perfect toilet, so let’s just the toilet overflow. I mean life’s not perfect and there’s no such thing as a perfect toilet, so why should our toilet be perfect.”

Nobody thinks we can officiate anything 100% correctly all the time but why would the goal be anything less? This falls into the realm of the “human element” and this argument just doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The games not perfect so let’s just blow calls on the base paths routinely for no reason. This is not about getting it perfect, this is about not being totally incompetent like the MLB Umpires are right now.

This whole conference was just a painful thing to watch and read about. These guys are old and totally out of touch with what the fans want. Despite a poll on ESPN showing that 60% of over 9,000 fans support an expansion of replay (evidence) we have the commissioner saying nobody is anxious to expand it. Maybe they’re not clamoring for it inside of MLB but outside of it, the people who actually pay your salaries and consume your product are asking, “What has taken so long?”

These guys had the audacity to say that the MLB is in a “golden age” right now. Yeah, baseball is in a golden age after you just tainted an entire era of your sport with a senseless PED witch-hunt and absolutely refuse to officiate your games to the standard of other professional sports. Yeah, I don’t know if we have the technology right now to determine whether this is a “golden age” or not, but we’ll get back to you on that Bud Selig.

We can't pitch so let's trade away our best pitchers!

This article by Tony Massarotti titled “Time for Red Sox to put Josh Beckett and Jon Lester on the trading block,” just makes my head hurt. It’s so ridiculous I have to break it down paragraph by paragraph.

The New York Yankees were without their ace, C.C. Sabathia, and so now we can say it definitively and without any hesitation: the Red Sox simply do not have an answer. Not for Sabathia and, apparently, not for anyone else.

The Red Sox lost 3 of 4 games to the hottest team in baseball with half their team on the DL. They’re still 43-43 and 2 ½ games out of the wild card. The season series between the Red Sox and Yankees seem to even out every year, but let’s panic!

Aren't we being a bit dramatic saying they don't have an answer for anyone else? The Red Sox have had an answer for seemingly most pitchers they've faced this year considering they have the 2nd most runs in all of baseball. 

What the Red Sox can do about this should be the focus of all internal discussions approaching the annual July 31 trading deadline.

Possessors of a 40-35 record roughly 10 days ago, the Red Sox limped into the All-Star break late Sunday night on the heels of a 7-3 defeat to the Yankees at Fenway Park. With loss, the Sox dropped to a perfectly mediocre 43-43. But before we make this too much of a big-picture issue, let's focus on the two men who absolutely needed to step up in the weekend series against New York and who jointly fell on their faces.

Josh Beckett and Jon Lester.

Can we stop acting like this was a huge series for either team? It’s early July for the love of god. Yes, the Yankees are 9.5 games up but it’s not like we’ve never seen a team collapse from being that far ahead, right Sox fans?

I know Josh Beckett and Jon Lester struggled over the weekend but Fenway is a hitter’s park and the Yankees have one of the better offenses in baseball. It happens, sometimes your best guys just struggle with a team. Neither Lester nor Beckett have looked too good against the Yankees this year but its baseball, it’ll probably even out.

Here's the most meaningful statistic of this Red Sox season to date, folks: the Red Sox are 12-20 in games started by the men who should be their two best starting pitchers. Were the Sox even, say, 16-16 in those games, they would be in possession of that suddenly coveted fifth-best record in the American League. And if they were, say, something more like the 20-12 they should be, they would be 51-35, nipping at the heels of the Yankees for the far more desirable lead in the AL East.

That is not a meaningful statistic because measuring a pitchers success based on whether their team wins and loses is illogical. It’s obviously illogical because the pitcher does not control how his team hits. Beckett and Lester haven’t been great this year but it's unfair to say if they were 20-12 when they pitched the Sox would be right in the hunt. Here’s where Tony really goes off the deep end though.

Please, no whining about run support, of which Beckett (27th among 41 qualifying AL starters) and Lester (28th) have had relatively little. Front-end starters, particularly those in big markets, are paid to win the lower-scoring games. Beckett and Lester also rank 28th and 30th among the same 41 pitchers in ERA, making it all the more curious that the Sox would allow chicken-fried running mate John Lackey to be joining the team on road trips despite the fact that he will not pitch for at least the majority of this season.

Know who ranks last in the American League in run support? Detroit Tigers righthander Justin Verlander, who is nonetheless 9-5. The Tigers are 11-7 in his starts. Verlander is 29, just three years younger than Beckett, one year older than Lester.

What are you fucking high? What do you mean no whining about run support? You honestly don’t think that had anything to do with the Red Sox being 12-20 in their starts? Come on, clearly it’s not just them but a combination of them pitching below their high standards and the rest of the team not hitting when they pitch. It's really more of a by product of abysmal luck the Red Sox have had this year and not because Beckett and Lester are "not clutch" and incapable of being ace caliber pitchers. You win as a team, not because you have two good pitchers.

And who gives a shit about what Justin Verlander has done this year? What does he have to do with this? Beckett and Lester are not Justin Verlander and if you thought they were going into the season I want some of whatever this drug is that you’re clearly high on.

I’m also confused as to what John Lackey hanging around has anything to do with this. His presence alone causes chaos and losing baseball apparently. Beckett and Lester just can’t help but crack open beers and eat bad food when Lackey’s around. Give me a break. What are the Red Sox supposed to do with him, pretend he’s not on the team anymore?

Massarotti goes on to quote Cody Ross for 3 paragraphs for some reason, so I’ll skip ahead. (Maybe Cody Ross being an essential piece of your team is part of the reason you’re 500, just a suggestion though. Let’s get back to tar and feathering Beckett and Lester)

Weak. Weak, weak, weak. If Ben Cherington and the Red Sox are smart - and assuming they are not doing so already - they should be exploring any and all deals for either Beckett or Lester (but not both) as we approach the trading deadline set for the end of this month. Lester is obviously the more desirable to keep, but he would probably fetch more in return.

Why? Why? Why? Why? What would this accomplish? Why would you trade them at their lowest possible trade value? This is why you’re not general manager, because you would trade away your best pitchers on a team that’s struggling with its pitching. Guess what? They’ll probably pitch better in the second half then you can trade them when their value is actually not in the cellar. That’s if you think they’re the big problem with the Red Sox still.

Entering the weekend's series against the Yankees, the importance for the Red Sox was clear. The Sox trailed the Yankees by 7 1/2 games in the division. They were coming off a bad road trip. They had Beckett and Lester lined up to pitch the series opener and finale, and New York was without both Sabathia and Andy Pettitte, who have been arguably the team's two best starters. Add in the relative desperation with which the Sox were (allegedly) playing, and the factors were in place for a productive Red Sox weekend.

Instead, the opposite happened, neither Beckett nor Lester (nor anyone else for that matter) were capable of enduring even the first inning without digging the Red Sox a hole.

I get it, this was the most important series ever for the Red Sox and since Beckett and Lester both had poor outings one of them needs to go. You still haven’t explained how this would make the Red Sox a better team or why exactly you’d trade away either of those guys. You also lost 3 of 4 to the Yankees, not the Royals or the Twins, so let’s keep our pants from combusting here.

Nearly four years ago, following the 2008 season, Sabathia was a free agent. The Red Sox expressed little or no real interest at the time, partly because their pitching was in good shape, partly because they had concerns over Sabathia's knees. The Yankees subsequently signed Sabathia and then re-signed him three years later, all because the Yankees recognized they needed a truc ace at the front of their rotation.

In 2009, Sabathia's first season in New York, the Yankees went 22-12 in Sabathia's 34 starts, then won the World Series. In the next two seasons, they went 23-11 and 22-11. This year, they are 11-4. Add it all up and the Yankees are 78-38 in Sabathia's 116 career starts with the team, the kind of winning percentage a team should have anytime a true, front-end starter takes the mound.

I dont understand what your point is. Do you think getting rid of those guys will allow the Red Sox to get an ace pitcher? I don’t think anyone has been questioning the value of CC Sabathia or doubting that he's better than Jon Lester and Josh Beckett. What exactly are you trying to say? Those pitchers are not CC Sabathia so the Red Sox need to get rid of them? CC is one of the best pitchers of this generation and pretty much a lock to be in the Hall of Fame, so let’s not be unfair to your guys here.

Again, with Beckett or Lester starting, the Red Sox this season are 12-20.

Again, how does trading them make the Red Sox better or help the team? Do you want Franklin Morales to be your ace instead?

Sooner or later, somehow, the Red Sox really need to do something about that.

So your thesis is that since the Red Sox are 12-20 in games pitched by Lester and Beckett this year and since they had bad starts against the team with the best record in baseball, that one of these guys needs to be traded. You fail to explain how this would make the Red Sox better in the slightest way or whom they could even get for these guys.

You compare them stupidly to CC Sabathia and Justin Verlander and want to trade them because they are not as good as those guys. It’s just completely unreasonable to think the Red Sox really need to do something about that. Do what? Get an ace? Do you not think every team in baseball would kill to have CC Sabathia or Justin Verlander? I think most teams would be pretty happy having Jon Lester or Josh Beckett in their rotation as well for that matter.

You know what would be really stupid? Trading one of your two best pitchers when you are in the bottom half of the league in ERA. Even stupider? Thinking the year is over because you’re 43-43 with 76 games to go. This is some ridiculous hysterical writing that can’t possibly be considered sports journalism. It's articles like this that explain why people make fun of the Boston media and Boston sports fans, just thought you should know.

The Yankees and Red Sox All-Star Break Narratives are Bullshit

It seems despite the same things happening every year we completely forget how baseball works. We rule teams dead every year before the all-star break and crown the champions of each division in the same fashion. It’s like we have complete amnesia to how a 162 game season works. Each narrative written before August just seems more ridiculous than the next and this holds especially true with the media in Boston and New York.

In May the Yankees were too old to compete, Brian Cashman made a gigantic mistake trading away their “superstar” prospect for a pitcher with a torn labrum, Phil Hughes’ career was over, they couldn’t get “clutch” hits, and Alex Rodriguez was still old and dating buff celebrities. Now at the All-Star break and after a few months of being ridiculously hot, they sit on top of the AL-East with the best record in baseball. Now we’re ready to just give them the Pennant despite them being in the deepest division in perhaps the history of baseball.

While I do think the Yankees are one of the best teams in baseball, (It’d be kind of stupid to say they are not, even in May) crazier things have happened than a team blowing a 7 game lead with 77 games to go. Crazier than saying the Yankees are going to win it all at the All-Star break though is saying that the Red Sox are done.

The Red Sox are 43-43 and despite having half of their team injured they have the 4th best run differential in the AL and 8^th in all of baseball. An atrocious start, bad luck, and injuries have all heavily contributed to the Red Sox’s struggles but this is still an immensely talented roster that’s only going to get better when Pedroia, Crawford, Ellsbury, Dice-K, Middlebrooks, and Buccholz come off the DL. They have scored the 2^nd most runs in baseball despite all these injuries and endured rough first halves from Jon Lester and Josh Beckett. While a 4.30 ERA pitcher might just be what Beckett is now, it'd only be logical to think Lester will have much stronger second half and pitch closer to his career numbers.

If you just read ESPN or Boston.com you’d think the Red Sox are 13 games under 500. (That’s where the Phillies are but you don’t hear the same negative stories.) There are even talks that maybe the Red Sox should look to trade off some of their players before the trade deadline. This to me is absolutely crazy.

They’re 2 ½ games out of the final Wild Card spot and they’re going to blow up their team? Can you name five rosters as talented as the Red Sox? I sure as hell can’t. If any fan base should know anything could happen in the second half of a baseball season, it should be Red Sox fans. I understand the frustration of watching teams with huge payrolls underperform like this but the Red Sox are playing in the toughest division in baseball and are right in the hunt. The St. Louis Cardinals won the World Series last year and weren’t ever considered a front-runner and I feel this Red Sox team, if it ever can get healthy, has more talent than that team.

I understand the negativity that is boiling over in Boston after last years September collapse and I get how tough it must be to cheer for a team with so many uncharismatic players. Despite the team being unlikable, they’re still pretty good and really only need to go a couple of hot streaks before they’re in Al-East contention again. I just cannot see the Red Sox playing under 500 the rest of the season and I feel like much worse teams have gone on to win the World Series. While we’re going to hear a hundred stories from now until the end of the All-Star break about how the Sox are done and need to blow the whole thing up, I think they are a trade or two away from being serious contenders.

The media has to have something to write about and highly sensationalized stories are what catch the public’s eye but that’s not good journalism. Instead of looking at it objectively and saying the Red Sox have actually played well to overcome a terrible start, the media has to hit the panic button. Anyone writing a story like that is just writing based on hype and not facts. It’s this kind of journalism that has led to there being so many unknowledgeable and prisoner of the moment sports fans out there and Boston and New York are chalked full of them. 

Let's Not Pretend Billy King is a Genius

I came across this article from Ian O’Connor, which is basically calling Billy King a mastermind for the roster he’s put together in Brooklyn. I will tear this apart in one sentence, Billy King traded for Joe Johnson instead of waiting for Dwight Howard. Yes, I understand that Chris Broussard and ESPN are trumpeting the idea that Brooklyn will still manage to get Howard with a deal of Marshon Brooks, Brook Lopez, and three number one picks but I cannot imagine on what planet the Magic would accept this for the best center in the NBA.

The thing I keep hearing is that the Nets will simply sign Howard as a free agent next year but the only possibly way the Nets could afford to sign Howard is through a contract extension if they traded for him. Any other scenario would put them way over the cap because of a slew of savvy signings from “the genius” Billy King including Gerald Wallace for 40 million, Mirza Teletovic for 15 million, and the trade for Joe Johnson and his near 90 million dollar contract. Once you go over the cap in the NBA you basically only have your mid-level exception to sign players and I don’t see Dwight Howard signing for 5 million dollars.

So essentially the ship has sailed for getting Dwight Howard in Brooklyn because Billy King really wanted Joe Johnson. Let me remind you that Joe Johnson was a player NOBODY was trading for because he has the worst contract in the NBA. He’s barely an All-Star caliber player, just turned 31, is owed almost 30 million dollars a year, and as Brooklyn fans will find out, he hates playing basketball for a living. The idea anyone would actually trade for him is beyond absurd to me, especially when you lost all your flexibility to get one of the best players in the league. The worst part about this deal is there was absolutely no hurry to make this happen. Did Billy King honestly think that Joe Johnson was going to make Deron Williams sign?

The Nets now have a roster of Deron Williams, Joe Johnson, Marshon Brooks, Brook Lopez, Mirza Teletovic, Kris Humphries and Gerald Wallace. That’s obviously a better team than last year but without any roster flexibility for the next three years because of Joe Johnson’s ridiculous contract. While Ian O’Connor is trumpeting that King has it all together, it’s very obvious that without Dwight Howard, the Nets will not be a contender.

Not only does this team not stand a chance of competing with the Heat, Celtics, and Bulls but also I don’t think it makes them the best team in New York either. Say what you will about Amare Stoudemire and Carmelo Anthony but they both had the worst seasons of the respective careers last year and were better than Joe Johnson. It’s pretty much a given that both those guys will play better next year despite all the media negativity surrounding them.

So let’s congratulate Billy King for turning the Brooklyn Nets into a 6-8 seed with a huge payroll. Seriously, the guy is a freaking genius for trading for a guy nobody else in the league remotely wanted instead of waiting for one of the best players in the NBA. If the Nets somehow land Dwight Howard I’ll be eating these words but the league should just retract the Orlando Magic franchise if they trade for two non-all-star players and 3 low first round draft picks.

Strange Replay Ruling in Yankees-Mariners

In the ninth inning of the Yankees-Mariners game there was a particularly strange replay ruling. The play on the field was ruled a home run and there was a runner on first base. The umpires deliberated and ruled that it was a double and that the runner from first base should score. I don’t see how this makes any sense at all.

How can they assume the runner from first would score? If you go back and watch the replay it’s clear that the runner was rounding third as the ball came into the infield so how can the umpires assume the runner would’ve scored?

If I were the umpire in this situation I would’ve awarded each player two bases and had runners on second and third. This has to be the call in this situation because you can’t assume the runner would’ve scored. The play had been signaled a home run and the runner from first wasn’t running hard so none of what happened during the play after that should be taken into account. If baseball’s interpreted like this then a ground rule double would always come down to a subjective call of whether the runner from first would’ve scored or not.

I’ve tried to research whether there is any precedent ruling like this and could not find anything. It seems like if the MLB put a replay system in place they couldn’t possibly just let the umpires subjectively put runner where they think they would’ve went. That’s a stupid system and the ground rule double rule completely contradicts it. I thought it was incorrectly called and I think we’re going to see a lot more calls like this made as the MLB (hopefully) incorporates a rational replay system.