The Republic of Sport

stewart2525

stewart2525's Comments

Posted Tuesday July 22, 2008, About: Favre-Vikings deal could be win-win

BTW, I'm happy to see my fellow Vikings fans rise above the personal cheap shots and leave Favre's personal painkiller problems alone. Real classy. </sarcasm>

If you don't like Favre, that's fine. Don't get personal about it. It's a frickin' game people.

Posted Tuesday July 22, 2008, About: Favre-Vikings deal could be win-win

Jackson has not earned my trust yet. His record last year was more due to AP or the defense more than his play. At best he was serviceable. If you think Favre isn't an upgrade, you're delusional. I don't think T-Jack will ever be a star in this league. I'll be glad to be surprised and proven wrong, but I don't expect it. He's at best of the "not going to kill us" ilk. Maybe we can win some games with that, but I don't see T-Jack winning the Super Bowl.

That said, I'm okay with the Vikings not picking up Favre. I think he'd have one good "I'll show 'em" year, and that'd be it. It's probably not in the team's long-term interest to sign him.

However, if they were to sign Favre, somehow, it'd be hilarious to watch the Packer fans go apoplectic. High entertainment value.

In a nutshell: I'd take a flyer, if the price were right and it were doable, but the real value for me would be the annoyance of the Cheeseheads. I don't think Favre is a long-term option for any team by this point in his career.

Posted Monday July 21, 2008, About: Favre-Vikings deal could be win-win

I don't trust the Vikings to not overpay, but fortunately the "don't trade within the division" rule seems to make too much sense for the Packers and Vikings to ignore it. I do suspect the Packers are loving the idea of punishing the Vikings for "tampering" (which if they did, the Vikings coach(es) involved should be fired for extreme stupidity). But the Packers' management team isn't stupid enough to just release Favre. Even if they don't see him as more than a backup, they know that for the other teams in the division Favre would be an immediate (on paper) improvement. If others see value in him, the Packers may as well try to get something in return.

That said, I'd take Favre on the Vikings, if the price is right, just for the sheer entertainment of watching him run out of that Lambeau field tunnel week 1 wearing purple. I think that'd be as close as we'd get to seeing heads literally explode. Plus, it's not like the Vikings don't already have ex-Packers on the roster. It's a business, and whoever gets the team the most wins is okay with me regardless of where they played before.

Posted Thursday July 17, 2008, About: Packers file tampering charges over Favre

I'm not sold on T-Jack, but I also would not be a fan of Favre heading to this side of the river. Is Favre better? Um, yes. One arm behind his back and all that, T-Jack's not in the same league. I'm just not sure the Vikings need yet one more distraction when things are finally starting to look a bit more hopeful.

That said, it'd be extremely fun to watch the angst in Cheddarville USA were Favre to roll out of the Lambeau tunnel for that first game wearing purple. I don't know that I'd trust Favre would be the savior for the Vikings, but watching Packer fans upset is high entertainment.

Really, I hope the Packers & Favre drag this out a lot longer. I hope the tampering charge is even shown to be true; a couple of draft picks is small potatos to getting the rivalry revved up a bit more:)

(Yes, that last was tongue in cheek. We'll leave the cheating to the Pat's.)

Posted Wednesday July 16, 2008, About: Rockies in no hurry to trade Holliday

Too bad if that's true - I'd like to see Atkins with my Twins club:)

Posted Wednesday July 16, 2008, About: Twins talk to Seattle about Beltre

I'd rather have Garrett Atkins. Slightly younger, numbers as good on offense, if not as good defensively. Contract is much lower too, I think, although Atkins is a free agent at year's end if the info I read is correct. If Atkins is a rent-a-player for whom the Rox already have an in-house replacement, the trade cost may not be as high either.

Either one, though, would improve the lineup.

Posted Friday April 18, 2008, About: Vikings, Bucs eye disgruntled Chief

Can you imagine this guy next to the Williams gents? It'd be nice for the Vikings to have someone to take off some pressure from their secondary. Nobody's done that in years.

I still don't trust TJack as QB though; if AP gets hurt the Vikings offense will struggle mightily, and no defense can withstand as much time on the field as the Vikings offense would force upon them with all the 3 & outs. Allen and a healthy AP - that's my wish for Christmas.

Posted Friday February 29, 2008, About: Vikings pursued Texans QB

Saying Carr is better than who the Vikings have isn't necessarily saying much for Carr. Rosenfels is a good backup, better than the team has had in a while, but I don't know that I'd give more than a 3rd round pick for a backup. And he's no long-term solution at starter if you want a top-tier playmaker at the position.

Posted Monday February 04, 2008, About: Twins interested in Rockies righty

KCMAC929 - you're reading my mind. I don't want Fogg; I want Atkins.

I just don't see it happening.

Unfortunately.

He'd be an upgrade at 3B over anyone we've had since Koskie, and depending on his durability on turf, even better than that. Adding someone like that to the lineup helps protect these young pitchers while they develop under the proverbial fire.

Posted Tuesday January 29, 2008, About: Mets, Twins agree on Santana trade

Um, Mixin? Pohlad tried to contract our local squad. That kinda cancels out the "saving the Twins from moving to Florida" thing.

I was against the taxpayers paying ANYTHING for that stadium; I'm just glad I don't live in Hennepin county where I'd have to chip in. If he were interested in winning, he'd have put his $ where it counts. To date all he's done is ask us to fund his playground despite having seen his investment increase quite nicely since he bought the squad back in the day.

I'm a Twins fan, but I can't say I have anything against the AL East "big market" boys. They choose to operate their businesses in a way that seems to make them successful. Just because Pohlad (who has more net wealth than other owners) chooses not to isn't their fault.

Posted Friday January 04, 2008, About: Steinbrenners at odds over Santana

Respectable is in the eye of the beholder.

Competitive...all salaries are competitive. Players make what the market (and/or arbitrator) dictate. Nobody holds a gun to anyone's head. Players are getting what they can. The wisdom of paying a player a certain amount is often not fully understood until after the fact, hindsight = 20/20 and all. All teams make mistakes, and at times most teams get relative bargains. The Yankees are no more/less guilty of this than anyone else.

And while I personally think that pro athletes tend to be vastly overpaid (they're not curing cancer here) the market for pro sports is what it is.

I don't blame the Yankees for choosing to try and do what it takes to sign the players they feel are the best fit, or that help their team. Just because the other teams don't doesn't mean the Yankees are evil. If there are only scraps for the rest of the teams, that's because the other teams prefer the scraps to paying what the Yankees did. It's their choice, not the Yankees' mandate.

Posted Friday January 04, 2008, About: Steinbrenners at odds over Santana

That's the opposite of my point, if you were addressing me. The problem isn't the Steinbrenners...it's the Pohlads.

Posted Friday January 04, 2008, About: Steinbrenners at odds over Santana

"and the yankees offered more to the better free agents than most other clubs can afford"

No, they offered up more than most other clubs choose to pay. Pohlad has more $ than Steinbrenner, yet chooses not to spend it. That's not the Yankees' fault, nor is it their problem.

Posted Friday January 04, 2008, About: Steinbrenners at odds over Santana

I, as a Twins fan, have no problem with how the Yankees, Red Sox, or any other team run their teams. It is not cheating to spend money trying to get a championship; the point has already been made that even if you spent a ton of money you may not win. That's one of the beauties of baseball. And the owners have paid for the teams, take the business risks and face the ire of fans. It's their money, they can spend it how they want. And what the Yankees et al do is well within the rules and ethics of the league. Whether the Yankees are home-grown or built on FA doesn't matter; they have the right to use whatever business model they deem fit.

And of late, I think their baseball folks have been smarter than in the past. Frankly, I'd prefer they go after more FA's who bust myself as it reducse the competition for the Twins:)

No, they can't "buy" a WS even if they wanted to. Paying more increases your chances, but it doesn't guarantee anything.

What bothers me is when guys like Pohlad gladly take revenue sharing money and then don't put it right back into payroll. True, basic economics might say that'd just push up salaries further, but I see no reason that the Yankees can play by the rules, albeit aggressively because they want to win, but should still subsidize teams (like my club) whose owner(s) don't really care about winning.

And I'm tired of the Twins talking about "being competitive." Stop setting expectations low. Start talking about, and planning to, win the whole thing. Some people may think it's a difference without a distinction, but the nuance is important. Want to win? Then don't settle for being "competitive."

Posted Thursday January 03, 2008, About: Kentucky fans boo Gillispie

Don't over-react. Gillespie needs more than one year to build his program. Tubby needs more than one year to clear out the sub-par talent he was left at Minnie. Both can coach, and both can recruit. Both teams will be fine.

And anyone who'd take a 2-25 team over a 20-12 team...just because of who the coach is? I mean, c'mon. What kind of a fan would prefer his team loses at that rate? Shouldn't you, you know, kinda want your team to win if you're a fan, regardless of what another team does?

Besides...at least this year I don't see my Gophers winning 20.

Posted Monday December 31, 2007, About: Kentucky fans boo Gillispie

My apologies. I didn't realize there was a major distinction between KU and UK. To me both are hoops schools that rarely matter in other endeavors;-)

Kidding!

It was a matter of typing faster than I should have.

Posted Monday December 31, 2007, About: Vikings may dump receiver

I can't believe anyone thought this kid could be even 1/4 the receiver Moss was, baggage or no. He's not even the receiver Ferguson is.

Time to see if he can get a fresh start somewhere else.

That game yesterday sealed it, if it weren't sealed before.

Posted Monday December 31, 2007, About: Vikings coach a psych job

Yes, these motivational tactics have been soooo successful that the team has followed their "leader" to two losses and an almost loss. It has been rare this year to see the team play with any kind of passion that makes me think that Childress has any ability to lead people. Bad enough he's not competent as a field general (c'mon, I mean adjust mid-game for once). But if the guys don't buy his vision, he's not a leader either. Just a guy walking in the woods by himself.

Posted Monday December 31, 2007, About: Kentucky fans boo Gillispie

His "inability to recruit" has landed him the best recruiting class the Gophers have had in a long time, and that w/out a full season. And he took over a program that was in a bigger mess than KU is this season and has them playing better. So far I'm not seeing anything to indicate that Tubby can neither recruit nor coach.

What I am seeing is that my old impressions of KU fans as being knowledgeable about basketball are in need of re-evaluation. Booing Gillespie when "it's all Tubby's fault for leaving the program in shambles"...y'all need to get your stories straight.

Frankly, I think Gillespie will do fine at KU, meaning about the same as Tubby. And Tubby will have the Gophers near the top of the Big 10. Three years from now, they'll have eerily similar programs. And KU fans will talk about how they both suck.

Posted Saturday December 29, 2007, About: Why Sox really bid on Santana

#1 - True, present value is greater than future value when talking about money. But a dollar can't blow out an elbow or suffer a hitting slump. In sports, the results of trades aren't realized until down the road. And players can depreciate or appreciate in skill level based on non-economic factors. There's only so far your analogy can take you.

#2 works both ways. A current "in the system prospect" can get hurt or bust as easily as a 2008 draft pick. In my eyes, the surest thing in any of the deals mentioned is Santana. I'm not sold on anyone else yet b/c the sample size of their careers is too small. But that's just me.

#3 - And Santana takes a risk by turning down the current offer. Of course people take risk into account. But it is quite possible, and if I were making the call it would be certain, that the Twins would rather risk losing Santana after '08 for draft picks than take what they (and I) perceive as a sub-standard offer. There's no mandate to trade him, ergo no need to take something lower than how I value Santana currently.

#5 - This is speculative because we don't know that Hughes will reach what people think is his potential. Or that he wouldn't get hurt.

Besides, psychology comes into play, and Smith would be a fool in this market to change his mind now that he's been clear on what he expects to receive for Santana. The PR would be a nightmare, and that is bad business.

"Baseball is a business, and business principles apply."

But the business is unique, as is the psychology around it. Players aren't stocks, they are (in business terms) assets with their own individual quirks and sociology. The more apt analogy would be Apple and Microsoft trading engineers. I just don't really think that what's being offered outweighs the value/risk equation of keeping Santana through '08. That's the beauty of this, though, and why we keep discussing it. Everyone calculates that in different ways.

Posted Friday December 28, 2007, About: Vikings may have to chase McNabb

McNabb is a big step up from T-Jack, and a big step down from Brady and Manning. So, if I'm the Vikings, I don't have any problems trading for the guy if the price is right. And two first-rounders is about two first-rounders too high.

T-Jack has good physical skills, but he hasn't shown much progress unless you count "well, for five games he didn't kill the team" as progress. Which promptly disappeared the next two games. That could be as much luck as any growth on his part.

The Vikings don't need a star QB or receiver. They need competent QB/WR so that they can keep defenses honest. Jackson may turn out to be competent; the jury's still out. But right now he's not competent enough, and the window for success in the NFL can be mightly short. Why wasted the current D/running game on a learning curve QB gamble?