My 'Other' Day Job: Sportswriting

Chapter 13 of My Life and Times and Purdue University

The following article was posted up at UpperDeckReport.com soon to be moved to Armchairreport.com

Angels go ALL IN on 2 Free Agents

Christmas time 2011: As the Europeans try once again to unite their causes to fight (of all things) a debt crisis, the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (yeah, hate it too) decided that $330 million is about the right debt load to acquire Albert Pujols and C.J. Wilson. For Angels fans, this must be heaven and Christmas come early - to land the marquee free agent, and a legit #2 starter in one fell swoop. But to baseball analysts, it shows a propensity to overpay for talent, and the Angels will know only years down the road how flawed these deals may be. Luckily, with a $3 Billion dollar, 20-year TV contract, 'Fat Albert' will be on TV for years to come, whether he's any good to watch, or not.
Pujols came into the league in 2001, and has done what no mortal baseball player has ever done. He has paced the MLB world in every key statistic that matters; like Tiger Woods used to do in golf. Pujols is truly a gifted player, the likes of a Ruth, DiMaggio, Mantle, or a Mays, only at first base. And that small fact might be irrelevant too as the Angels will put him to the chore of swinging a bat four or five times a game, and little else, for at least 50% of the season. Does Albert stay healthy enough to surpass Bonds, as fellow Upper Deck writer Jason Bond discussed in Home Runs: Who Will Be The Next King?

It is possible. But is he worth $25.4 million per year, on average, with a no-trade deal for a 31-year old slugger? (Angels owner Arte Moreno paid only $184 million to acquire the Big A franchise in Anaheim.) To answer that question involves the discussion of the following:

• Does Fat Albert boost ticket sales (and pricing) to cover the ground a contract to another 1B would have had? (Angels drew plenty at home (5th), but were dead last in road attendance. Some monetary incentive to improve that likely exists. But how much is it?)
• Is his on-the-field performance the sole difference in winning the division and playoff success, for say, 50% of his contract?
• Will he recover to pre-2011 form? (He was down across the board from his lifetime dominance of 4th all-time in slugging and a .328 lifetime BA.)
• Is the next best option at his position, 1B, so inferior, that the money could not be spent to do other things? (Again, the Angels drew well in excess of 3,000,000 fans - if Albert adds 100,000 x ($60 per fan), and 10% of 250,000 on the road ($50) - $7,250,000 total - is that worth his price tag of 25M? Could a successful post season be had in another way? Making more profit too?)
• The television revenue deal predated Pujols. So why go this route to build a competitive team? (Texas jealousy???)

Dave Cameron of Fan Graphs (and the WS Journal) lucid argument on these questions further supports this writer's underlying and implied conclusion: building through exorbitant contracts is like buying an iPad II for a 4-year old. Or going all out for a mediocre relative in this season just to know they will be the same curmudgeonly Scrooge they have always been. Contracts like these have never worked long-term - at least the analysis consistently weighs to the negative.

Going back to the 1970s, the free agent market consistently (and by various more profound and professorial sources) has disappointed many teams - great big market franchises and the small markets shops. Small markets have been burnt the most. Colorado great shopping spree for Mike Hampton and Denny Neagle. Texas and A-Rod. Cincinnati and Ken Griffey, Jr. San Francisco and  Barry Zito. (San Fran hit big on Cain and Lincecum.) Chicago and Alfonso Soriano. Boston (so far) with Gonzalez and Carl Crawford, as we (the fans or the analysts) will have to give that buy some time. But time and again, to be cliché, these high-end (and long-term) deals get no where close to being a successful merger, turning out more like AOL and Time Warner than anything Apple touches lately.

At this holiday season, Pujols has to be smilling and saying, "Hey! Hey! Hey!" or "Ho! Ho! Ho!" to all his friends and family. Because, when you look at the history, the ghosts of contracts past, the evidence is fairly dooming for the Angels. The chains of cash, the debt load, usually snap, and ownerships that behaved like a reformed Scrooge giving Bob & Co. gifts galore, will soon be uttering "Bah humbug!!!" once again.

Ah, tis the hot stove season.

To reinforce the debt problem: C.J. Wilson is due $20 million in 2016 at age 36. So is Jered Weaver, the Angels #1 starter. Albert adds (I'm assuming), at least $25 million. So $65 million for 3 players, two of which, pitch every fifth day. (Assuming healthy too.)

2011 Angels payroll: $138 Million. 22 others to be hand for $75 million. (Cincinnati paid this for their payroll.) Right now, they pay $32 million to 3 other pitching starters - bringing the total to $97 Million. Vernon Wells is also on a long contract that will expire before 2016, but it is also backloaded. Figure another $20 million. We are at $117 Million for 5 pitching starters, 2 positions, leaving 18 positions. Angels move easily across the $200 million payroll barrier without question, joining the Yankees by 2013-14.

Is this good for baseball?

I suppose money spent at the holidays leaves a hangover of debt for months and years to come. It is the American (and European) way. Albert Pujols may indeed perform to his contract - but the odds are he'd be a restructuring-of-debt candidate, if he was a country. Chances are, Pujols can buy his own country (or large island) now.

Owners and their new toys: Fun for a while, until the break, or a new shiny object flashes to their delight.

Tis the Xmas season...Ho!Ho!Ho!

TimeLine: From the Baseball Project

Using Powerpoint, I made this little image related to my project. It's a bit sloppy looking here, but it should impart some information. Hopefully it spells out some of what has happen in baseball history. The Presidents are guideposts to chapters I wrote. Either they were in office at the start of the period or more closely tied to the era that existed...Just my opinion.

Marriage: A 5-year deal, then Free Agency

This may be a controversial solution to what has become a rather interesting institution: Marriage. I firmly believe we would be best suited to sign a 5 year contract with stipulations both ways which could allow people to void a marriage after that time. Now, this smacks against all things religious and the sanctity of the forever bond. But let's face it: 50% of these life-long partnerships will wind up in a divorce court either in a backwater somewhere or maybe in front of some TV judge that has more quips than questions.
For those that are married, it very well is a workable, highly energetic, fruitful relationship. That it works so well is a testament to your work and resolve. But since the 1970's most of these unions are lost. So, why not have a stipulated time frame to work in? Much like professional sports - namely baseball - where a contract is guaranteed for a determined length. After that, the parties can reup for much longer (or shorter...) duration. Each would get certain things ( a prenump) in the initial bonding of the two souls. Kids, Career, Living arrangements, Income split and material goods would be bartered for. I think this would be good for Hollywood types, YUPPIES, DINKS (Dual Income No Kids) and any other bonding of "equals."

I confess that I have not been married; and will I likely not do that "I do." Not because I enjoy some lascivious lifestyle, but because of things are fairly cemented in my heart, and I am not given to see it going very far askew from that slope.

A marriage is supposed to be based on tremendous love of another. But under that I see four posts, which are:

1. Money. It is a fairly rare couple that does not discuss finances - as it pertains to each other and the relationship. Lack of it certainly stresses the fabric of a relationship, whether due to career advancement, unfortunate circumstances (Layoff, medical or natural forces) or bad deals made out of lack of knowledge. Money was a distant reason why my parents were unable to succeed.


2. Time. Couples have to spend time together (and apart) for well being. Each person has their comfort level as to that amount. Some lose each other if they are never around, passing in the night due to work or otherwise preoccupied. Without a rational amount of time together, I've seen some friends really lose their "loves."


3. Communication. Interrelated to Time, but seperate, is the art of communication. It is an art form; that I've never seemed to have master with a female. Whether You believe in John Gray's book or not, the ability to share rational thoughts and our feelings is the likely the most important of these poles.
4. Sex. Similar to Time, the needs (or wants) of the two people vary. People are not always compatible in bed. Generally the greater the difference in amount, variety and what have you, the worse the relationship is further along. From what I've read, each partner feels manipulated or beholden to the other's sexual desires.

I don't think we are necessarily meant to marry for life. Just the probability of meeting the best partner for us has to be fairly slim. Adaptability and fidelity to the relationship is also a very mutable situation. But the pillars to achieving a love in marriage I feel start with the above.
5 years is much longer than most can commit to a career - which is usually the 2nd most important deal any of us dive into nowadays. And how interrelated our jobs become to our marriage, it is no great wonder that marriages fail. Careers are no longer stable as baby boomers found out and Generation X and Y and whatever the new generation is called are finding and adapting too.
Women are getting married much later. (Or binomially; either 18-21 or over 31-35, due to career first orientation.) Men are no longer supreme bread winners; the time element is first to go south in a relationship. With a fast-paced world, people are even wasting time on computer relationships instead of REAL world meetings. So it is complex.

You no longer meet your wife in school alone; or a sock hop; or shortly before a war- with life or death in the balance. Even with more opportunities to meet whomever, like minded or not, I don't see it getting better. Add to that the same sex couplings and the "death do us part" is quite overblown.
Well, at least I know I'm a FREE AGENT.