Shawn Bradley?

I also think that this year's draft class is very weak, which is why he's ranked so high. Every prospect has weaknesses. I just think that for a #1 ranked prospect he's got more uncertainties and negatives than others in previous years. Also, having watched just about every game he's played in this year before he got hurt, there's just something about his game that I don't feel translates well in the NBA unless he's in the perfect system.

I guess we'll just wait and see, but if I'm betting man I would not put my money on him being the next great NBA center.

Ibaka was picked 24th. So it wasn't a risky gamble. Would you spend a #1 pick on someone who project to be the next Serge Ibaka?

Yes, but if you just need a big body, you can find one from the scrap pile like the Heat did with Chris Andersen. If the Cavs are taking Noel because they believe in his potential and think he can be a franchise center, I have no problem with that. But if they're taking him solely because of his size, I think that's a mistake.

It's not, but I do worry how he's going to hold up banging bodies in the NBA for 82 games a year. And if the Cavs take him, he's going to be playing a bunch of those games against the Bulls and Pacers. I guess we'll just have to wait and see, but personally I'm not as high on him as others.

It also depends how early these bigs come into the NBA. Guys like Ewing, Olajuwon, Duncan, Robinson, and Shaq all came into the NBA having played college ball for at least 3 years. They were all good in the NBA immediately.

I agree. Noel is going #1 purely on potential. He's going to be a project that takes a couple years to develop. He could also become a total bust like Greg Oden. A #1 pick shouldn't have this much risk and uncertainty involved. If I were the Cavs I would try to trade the pick and stock up on some more future draft picks. Next year's draft class is going to be far superior to this year's.

Don't forget also that Lillard played 4 years of college ball. It shouldn't be that surprising that Lillard is further along in his development. AD just turned 20 last month. Let's wait 5 years and see how these two turn out. I think both will be very good players in the league.

Don't just look at the height. The wingspan is what scouts are looking more at now. Davis may only be 6'10" but he's got a wingspan of 7'4", which is comparable to a lot of 7-footers out there.

I don't see how bringing in a 70-yr old Tony Larussa is the long-term solution. In a few years you're going to have to look for another manager again. And no chance on getting Friedman from Tampa unless you give him more than just a GM title.

I'd like to see how the Rangers front office does with Tampa's payroll. I think they're very good, but I wouldn't say best in baseball.

Well, they did have Jose Molina.

It shouldn't because that's much more common and happens more for logistical reasons. Spring training stats are often misleading and hardly an indication for how the season is going to go for a player. Also, young players know that even if they have a great spring it doesn't guarantee them a spot on the roster if they're blocked by someone else who is out of minor league options and can't be sent down. Another reason is the service time issue. Many teams don't like to bring up their stud prospects until at least May in order to preserve an extra year of control of that player.

Sending him down in the middle of the season when he's playing well is much more detrimental to the player's psyche.

I don't know how appealing that's going to be when there's basically zero name recognition. For the hardcore baseball purists that may not matter, but they're the minority compared to the bigger masses that MLB is trying to sell this tournament to.

Those owners have no one to blame but themselves. The WBC is sanctioned by MLB. That couldn't have happened without a majority vote by the owners. I'm sure Selig and other officials did a great job selling it to the owners, but in the end the owners were on board thinking that globalizing the sport means more cash in their pockets in the long run. So they have no right to cry about injured players now when they knew of the risks from the very beginning.

I don't think WBC is a bad idea per say, especially since Baseball is no longer part of the Olympics. Every other country but the US takes it seriously. And you do see a passion in the players playing for their own countries that's different than playing for their professional teams. I do, however think that March is not the right time for this event. After the World Series in November is probably a better time. They can play the games in warm cities/countries or indoor stadiums. The players are already in shape so that should minimize injuries. And outside of devastating, major injuries, the players have the entire offseason to rest up and be ready for the following season.

Well, he's getting it regardless, if not from the Yankees it'll be some other team who's got money to spend. So it's really a moot point. Players with worse issues have gotten big contracts. So I don't think that many teams will be scared off by Cano come next offseason.

You can go either way. I wouldn't argue with you if you want to let him go in order to have payroll flexibility. Obviously what you give up then is probably 4 more good years from Cano. And some other team will benefit from his services if you choose to let him walk. Cano, as you said, has not been a great postseason player. However, the counter point is that he will absolutely help you get there. And you can't worry about the postseason if you don't get there first. The second counter point I would make is that while it is good to be wary of the backend of an 8-year contract for Cano, what exactly is the Yankees backup plan at 2B if they let him go? There's nobody on the market that's remotely close to Cano in terms of his offensive production and defensive prowess. It's one thing replacing Russel Martin with Chris Stewart. You can probably get by with that. It's another replacing Cano with a Nick Punto. I think letting Cano go would make much more sense if the Yankees had a 2B prospect in the minors that's ready to come up. Lastly, if Cano starts his decline in year 5-8 of the contract (~age 35), that would be in 2018. ARod, Tex, CC, Jeter, Pettite, and Rivera will all be off the books by then. So their payroll situation by then may not be that bad if Cano's contract is the only potentially bad one at that point. Again, I'm not learning one way or another. Just playing devil's advocate.


Your point is well taken about not wanting the team to be locked down by these big contracts. That's perfectly legit. However, I would argue that the Yankees more than most other teams can afford to have a couple of these contracts. And in some cases, it may be unavoidable given the fact that the Yankees are never going to have a top rated farm system given that they draft at the bottom every year. If I'm the Yankees GM, I can't rely completely on building from within and small, short-term deals. I don't think that would work for the Yankees. It needs to be a combination between developing a good, young core of players, having solid inexpensive, role players, and complement that with a few big name stars. Finding that balance would be the best approach for a team like the Yankees IMO.

Good points. I'm curious to see how the Red Sox will do moving forward now that they've adopted this new philosophy to stay away from big long-term FA contracts and only sign players to short 3 year or less deals.

The Yankees are in a lose-lose situation. Cano is their one good player that's still in his prime. The rest of the roster are over the hill veterans or non-impact role players. If they let him walk, which may be the correct financial decision, then the Yankees are basically in a transition mode for the next few years until those other albatross contracts come off the book. There's nobody they can sign or trade for that even comes close to replacing Cano.

If they do give him the 8 years that Boras would want, then the Yankees are still a viable playoffs contender for the next few years. However, the backend of the contract will suck. Any of these long-term contracts have a trade off. The question is would your rather have an all-star player in his prime for the first half of the contract and then just accept the fact that the second half of the contract the player will be overpaid. Or do you give up those 4 prime years and let the player walk. It's not an easy decision to make. It really depends on what the organizational philosophy is. Is it to win now at all costs or to try to build a viable team for the long haul and not take too many risks.

We can all agree that ARod's contract is a joke. However, the Yankees probably don't win in '09 without him. So if you're a Yankee fan, would you give up the '09 title in exchange for getting rid of ARod's contract? Is one World Series title more important or the payroll flexibility? I'm not sure the answer would be unanimous. I personally would lean towards giving up the title.

He's not the one smoking. Only NFL players hold out. NBA, NHL, and MLB players all have guaranteed contracts. It's guaranteed in both directions. It can't increase or decrease, save for specific clauses included in the contract originally for stuff like performance bonuses or health issues.

Watch Belichek try to trade for him now so he can't hurt them anymore.