Each week, the readers take over GarySheltonsports.com and play Ask Gary. They send in a question, or a couple, on Thursday night or Friday morning and we all talk about the world of sports. Think of it as a radio show where you don't have to be on hold. Join us and ask a question, make a comment or be funny. Send the questions to GarySheltonsports@gmail.com).
Saturday, 4 a.m.
The Lightning have made deep runs in the playoffs in three of the last four years, which shows they are one of the top teams in hockey but still need something to push them over the top. What approach would benefit the team more this offseason? Stand pat and tweak the roster here and there? Or, make some big changes to add players with size and muscle?
Larry Beller
Larry, I wrote about this earlier in the week, and we've talked a lot. Personally, I'd make changes short of blowing the roster up, I'd try to bring in some bigger guys, even if it cost me a Tyler Johnson and a Yanni Gourde. Those guys are great regular season players, where you can find some ice, but I wonder if they're always going to create matchup problems.
You don't take a Final Four team and try to reinvent things. The sky isn't falling, but it's cracked. Odds are always greater you make a bad play than a good one. But the fact the Lightning are home now suggests that there are shortcomings. I don't think the Bolts can stand pat completely and tussle everyone's hair and wait for another 90-plus game journey.
Content beyond this point is for members only.
Already a member? To view the rest of this column, sign in using the handy "Sign In" button located in the upper right corner of the GarySheltonSports.com blog (it's at the far right of the navigation bar under Gary's photo)!
Not a member? It's easy to subscribe so you can view the rest of this column and all other premium content on GarySheltonSports.com.
They've established they're pretty good. But this is all about lifting the Cup, isn't it? So what happens next year? Washington is still bigger. Boston is still bigger (but slower). The Penguins are still skilled. This should be a playoff team, of course, but in the big tournament, it would take a lot things to go just right for Tampa Bay to win it. And that's the goal, isn't it?
Look, Bolt fans should be appreciative. They really did get a nice little season as a reward. Heck, if championships didn't matter, I'd say let's take them all out for Snow Cones.
But championships do matter. So some disappointment is allowed, too. The team lost three home games in a series. It didn't score for almost eight periods at the end. There are enough things to fix that the team should be better for a while.
Getting close is better than a lot of the bad seasons the team has had. No doubt about it. But it isn' t as good as anyone wants. So I'd tweak, and I'd try to upgrade.
It's a shame that we're an all-or-nothing society, but we are. No one is going to be happy with a Final Four finish. Getting close is more frustrating, in some ways, than being lousy.
So let's fix it. Right?
Currently, in MLB, there are 30 everyday players (non-pitchers) with $100 million or greater long-term contracts. The average 2018 yearly salary for these players is $21 million. Eleven of those 30 players are currently on the disabled list or completely gone from baseball (e.g. Prince Fielder). The inactive/active player ratio for the $100 million club is 11/19 which equals 58%.
The total number of non-pitchers on MLB rosters currently is about 375. The average 2018 yearly salary for all of MLB is $4.5 million. The total number of non-pitchers in MLB currently on the disabled list is 76. If that same 58% ratio of the $100 million non-pitchers maintained for all non-pitchers MLB wide, the number of non-pitchers on the disabled list would be 58% x 375 = 218, which is 2.9 times greater than the actual number of 76.
So, in summary, the $100 million club non-pitchers whose yearly salary is 4.7 times as much as the average MLB player, are almost 3 times more likely to be on the disabled list.
Why is that?
Scott Myers
Why are they on the disabled list? Because to build a resume to get that kind of money, it takes a lot of years. I bet if you took the average age of when players hit that big dough, they'd be 33-34 years old. That's when a body gets brittle. Ten day injuries turn into four-week injuries. Four-weekers turn into half-seasons. And so forth.
Why do they make so much then? The word "greed" comes to mind. Owners become so enamored of a player that they think they can't live without him. So they pay as a suggestion they're "doing all they can" to win.
To me, baseball would be better off with a salary cap that would help teams avoid the silly-number contract. With a cap, teams would have been more careful about taking on guys at the ends of their career.
As you point out, it often doesn't help. If a team missed on, say, Prince Fielder, well, what did it really cost them? A place in the standings? A few more butts in the seats? Certainly, it didn't cost them a championship.
Scott, you are a master of this. You amaze me with your salary abuse observations. I mean that sincerely.
So, maybe the problem isn't that the Rays pay too little. It's that everyone else pays too much. (Of course, both statements could be true, now that I think about it.) Especially, teams pay too much when they get impressed with the back of a guy's baseball card. You can sign Sandy Koufax because of what he did; it just isn't going to do you much good.
I've been stunned throughout the years to find out that Mets were still paying Bobby Bonilla, who played long ago. He still makes more than $1 million a year, and will until 2035. Other players have the same deferred type of deal.
When I was a kid, I wanted to be a player. Now that I'm older, I want to be an ex-player. Is that too much to ask?
I have a 20th anniversary Rays jersey and get to have a name put on it. Of all the young players on the Rays these days, who do you think might be around the longest with the Rays – both from a productivity standpoint and the least likely to be traded?
Cecil DeBald
Cecil, if I were you, I'd put my own name on it. You're far too valuable to be traded, man. I see you as a cornerstone.
If you really want a player, though, I might go with Kevin Kiermaier. He's locked into a contract until 2023. Naturally, the Rays could move him, but there are problems with that.
Kiermaier is never going to be a thumper. He's a gazelle in center field, a guy who can make a breathtaking catch, but he's been a little brittle. Do other teams trade for brittle-outfielders who don't hit a lot? Not much.
After that, I'd look at the young players. Willie Adames, who was just up for a little while, comes to mind. I think he can be a cornerstone player. Blake Snell may grow into the type of pitcher the Rays have always envisioned Chris Archer to be. Daniel Robertson may be here for a few years.
If you don't like that idea, how about putting the name of a Rays' great on the back of the jersey. How about Carl Crawford? How about Wade Boggs? Fred McGriff? John Flaherty? Old favorites never get traded, you know.
It's an interesting question, because it doesn't take long for your mind to wrap itself around the minor leagues. Adames. Honeywell. Bauer. It's a comment on the instability of the Rays.
Maybe you could buy one that said "Sternberg" on it.
Peter Kerasotis
Peter: One question. What deadline are you under when the anthem plays? Man, that's tough.
Seriously, I certainly agree that the NFL botched their latest decision. Every time the kneeling controversy seems ready to die down, someone (Trump, the owners) does something to keep the wounds fresh.
You're right. They don't play the anthem at concerts or a day at the beach or an art gallery. They don't play it at the Post Office or the Social Security office or your local Honda dealership. On the other hand, it isn't a tradition there, either.
Back when the flag didn't incite such feelings, I remember asking the same question: Why do they play it? A lot of the fans were trying to order a beer at the time, or they were lost in conversations. Somehow, however, the National Anthem has become a tradition, and NFL owners see profit in placating the fans.
Me? I stand for every anthem. When a Canadian team is in town, I stand. When I was at the Olympics, I remember how beautiful the Israeli anthem was on the night it won its first gold medal as a nation. I stand for Russia and for China and for Norway. Not because I embrace any of their policies -- I'm an American -- but out of respect for those who love their anthem.
But the NFL's protestors, really, didn't bother me. They were just trying to draw attention to a cause. I thought fans really over-reacted. I was never a Colin Kaepernick guy -- he won three games his final two seasons -- but he had the right to protest. I wouldn't want him quarterbacking my team, because I thought he was closer to Josh Freeman than he was to Joe Montana. But his protests didn't bother me.
So why do we play the anthem? Turns out, it started being played daily in World War I. A lot of men had died during the war, and a bomb had gone off in Chicago, and things felt grim. Then, during a seventh-inning stretch of a game between Boston and Chicago, the Anthem was played. An infielder named Fred Thomas saluted the flag, and the crowd applauded wildly. Soon, it was played everywhere.
I don't see the owners of any sport surrendering and stopping its play at this point. I've suggested this: Play it 20 minutes before the game, before the players are out. If you really care about the anthem, what do you care if the players aren't there. Or play it at halftime. There are enough minutes in a game to satisfy both sides.
The NFL -- and other leagues -- want to stand with the Armed Forces, and with the police, and with the veterans. That makes it part of the establishment, and what gets protested in hard times but the establishment?
Let me ask you this, Peter: When a fan hears the anthem, is he really thinking of Washington crossing the Delaware and Lincoln writing the Gettysburg Address or the flag-raising at Iwo Jima? Probably not. He's wondering if his team is going to be able to run the ball.
Again, in the midst of controversy, I don't see the owners saying "well, we just won't play it again." But there are certainly better compromises than the one the NFL came to, aren't there?
Of course we will. There is nothing more vicious than a disappointed fan, and the more they believe in their players, the more likely they are to blame the coaching staff. It doesn't mean it's fair, or it's right. But it's convenient.< The one thing that might save Cooper is that hockey's beauty is that it's a free-flow, ad-lib game. Most other sports have a period where play stops and the coach thinks of a strategy (a bootleg, a reverse, a hit-and-run, a pick-and-roll). Often they are the decisions that drive fans crazy.< I defended Dungy against those who suggested "he can't win the big one." And he did win (with Indianapolis). You can argue he should have won more, but if fans are going to dissect a man's character and decide that he can't win the big one, he did win one. But fans cheered for this team for a full season, and for some of its players for longer. Are they likely to be more angry at Nikita Kucherov or Cooper? Steven Stamkos or Cooper? Victor Hedman or Cooper?
{ 0 comments… read it below or Subscriptions }