A Couple of Spring NFL Notes

As we approach the opening of Major League Baseball season, the National Football League almost incredibly remains in the headlines. And the news, even more incredibly, doesn't even really involve Brett Favre. It just sort of involves Brett Favre. It turns out that the Philadelphia Eagles are entertaining trading longtime quarterback Donovan McNabb. It also has been rumored that the Minnesota Vikings are McNabb's first choice if he is indeed traded. This, of course, is where Brett Favre comes in. We are now firmly entrenched in the "Brett Favre Will He/Won't He Retire Game" and waiting with baited breath for his decision. We all know that Favre, if he decides to return, will not make this announcement until mid-August at the earliest. In fact, I would not put it past Favre to announce he is willing to return to the Vikings at precisely 1 hour prior to kickoff before the first regular-season game.

You know, if Donovan McNabb is truly available to the Vikings, it would truly be nice to know if Favre is returning sooner than later. This, I realize, is impossible. There is no way Favre goes to Mankato. No way. McNabb, on the other hand, would look good in purple. He's a mere youth at 33 years old and has plenty of experience losing big games. And, I don't think a Viking quarterback has actually thrown up in the huddle since Tommy Kramer - and that was for different reasons. If Favre is truly "retiring (nod, nod, wink, wink)," McNabb would be the next best choice for this team. Unfortunately, I don't believe there is any way that Favre will make a decision quickly enough to pull the trigger on McNabb. I just hope the Vikings don't lose out on both Favre and McNabb and end up with the T-Jack/Rosenfelds combo.

In other big NFL news, the rules of overtime have been changed. Here is a good article that outlines the new rules that will take affect this fall. Basically, the NFL didn't like the fact that many teams lose in overtime without actually getting the opportunity to touch the ball. You may remember a team that experienced this phenomenon last January. Not that there is really a need to rehash the gory details, but for those of you who might have been in a coma, the Vikes were driving for the winning score at the end of regulation when Favre threw an interception (the blood is rushing to my head right now). The game went into overtime and we all know that there is cosmically no chance the Vikings would win the coin flip. Sure enough, the Saints had a nice kickoff return and had to drive about 15 yards to kick the winning field goal. Game and season over for the Vikes.

Now, with the new rule changes, if one team kicks a field goal in overtime, the other team actually gets a chance to receive the ball and either tie the game or win on a touchdown. One would think that I, and other Viking fans, would be happy about this.

No.

I (here is the angst part, Free) personally look at these new overtime rules as providing the Minnesota Vikings with about 576 new ways to lose a game in overtime. Mark my words right now - next year Donovan McFavre will drive the Vikings to a field goal in their first drive in the playoffs. They will then, because of the new rules, be forced to kick to the other team (probably the Packers) and that team will return the kickoff for a touchdown. The Vikings will become the first team in history to lose a playoff game in which they scored first. This is just one of the many new overtime losing scenarios that I have been able to come up with in my brain this morning. I'd throw a few more at you, but we have plans later today.

In addition, the new rules also provide Brad Childress with the about 1,038 new ways to blow a strategery call. This, I believe, is why Zygi Wilf actually voted against the rule changes. I believe Wilf had a mental image of Childress standing on the sidelines with the big playcard with that befuddled look that says "What the hell do I do now?" And he voted "NO." He's no dummy.

On the positive side, I am not going to waste any more time thinking about this until fall. After all, it's baseball season. Less angst in baseball.

Jeff

No More Conundrum

Joe Mauer resigns with the Twins for 8 years - $184 million dollars. And with a no-trade clause for the length of the contract.

Monopoly money, but less than what he could have got on the open market.

A good deal for the Twins organization, and an indication of the impact of Target Field.

Let's play ball.

The Joe Mauer Conundrum

As you may have heard, Minnesota Twins catcher and reigning American League Most Valuable Player Joe Mauer has one year left on his contract. After 2010, he is free to sign with any team in Major League Baseball, i.e. the New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox or Washington Nationals. With the season opener only a couple of weeks away, people around these parts are starting to get a tad bit nervous about the fact that Mauer (a local St. Paul kid) has not yet signed on the dotted line with the Twins. Speculation is starting to mount that Joe might be lured away by the bright lights of New York or Boston and the huge endorsement opportunities that might come with playing in those cities. Some articles are starting to pop up such as this and this and especially this on the subject.

Conventional wisdom points to Joe Mauer staying in Minnesota. Just walk around any street and ask somebody what they think and you will hear the following:

1. Joe will never leave Minnesota. He is from St. Paul. His entire family attends every game. he has cabin Up North that is more of a Castle Up North that he would not want to abandon during the baseball season.

2. His brother, Billy Mauer, just opened a car dealership. If Joe left, this would piss people off and sabotage his brother's new business.

3. Joe will take less money to stay with the Twins than he would with Boston or New York because he wants the Twins to be able to build a winning team around him.

4. Joe has great friends on the Twins such as Justin Morneau and J.J. Hardy that he would not want to part ways with.

Now, I am not going to pretend to know if any of these points are true or false or hold any type of validity at all. I hope they are at least partially true. I have come to a conclusion regarding the whole process about signing Mauer, however:

Signing Joe Mauer is actually far more important "off the field" than it is "on the field."

Let's start with "on the field" Joe Mauer. The dude is the reigning AL MVP and a three time batting champion. He is a gold glove winner. He is excellent defensively and, according to Twins pitchers, calls a great game. What worries me, however, is that he is literally so good that the Twins have no leverage in these contract negotiations. He can command virtually any salary he asks for, probably in the $25-30 million per year range. If the Twins succumb to this demand, Joe Mauer will account for nearly 30% of the Twins entire payroll. If he gets injured (as he has in the past), 30% of the payroll is on the DL. And remember that he is 6'4" and playing catcher - a position that is very hard on the knees and body. The whole situation smacks of the Timberwolves and Kevin Garnett in the late 90's when they were basically the best player in basketball and five stiffs. They were good enough to make the playoffs, but couldn't compete once they did. Then again, once the Wolves traded Garnett, they became the worst team in basketball, which could serve as a cautionary tale for the Twins.

Would the Twins be better off trading Mauer, as Jim Souhan suggests in his article? That depends on what they receive in return, which is not always equal value (see Johan Santana trade). It is intriguing to speculate what the Twins could receive from Boston or New York for Mauer. In addition, one of the top-5 prospects in the Twins farm system is a catcher - Wison Ramos. Now, don't get me wrong, even as I offer these points I believe that the Twins are a better team on the field with Joe Mauer than without him, but it is not as clear cut as people think. And signing him is not without it's negative ramifications for a team that cannot afford a limitless payroll.

On the other hand is the "off the field" impact of Joe Mauer. This, in my opinion, is where the Twins absolutely cannot afford to lose Joe Mauer. The public relations hit that they would take is immeasurable. I simply cannot imagine the backlash from the general public towards the Twins if they do not resign Mauer. They would get publicly raked over the coals like no organization has ever been raked. The mere fact that Target Field, a ballpark built with public funds "to allow the Twins to retain their talent" opens this spring. Bad timing to lose your best player who grew up 10 miles away. People would cancel their season tickets. Nearly 11,345 teenage girls would no longer buy Twins t-shirts with the number 7 on the back. And I don't think they would buy Jon Rausch t-shirts instead. All of this is lost revenue for the Twins organization. In addition, the impact on revenue from the bad press and negative public reaction would be huge. From an off-field perspective, the Minnesota Twins have no choice but to sign Joe Mauer, which leads to the aforementioned positives and negatives "on the field."

Thus, we have the Joe Mauer Conundrum.

What do you think will happen?

So Much For The Closer

Well, it took until exactly March 9th this year for the Minnesota Twins to endure their first shit-storm of the year. It has been learned through an MRI that All-Star closer Joe Nathan has "a significant tear of the Ulnar Collateral Ligament in his right elbow," which may not only end his season, it may end his career. After all, the dude is 35 (a mere 8 years younger than Old Man Thompson). This may require Tommy John surgery, which usually can shelve a pitcher for about 2 years. Returning to baseball at 37 may be tough for Joe Nathan.

I wondered late last year what was wrong with Joe Nathan. He seemed to morph into a junk-balling pitcher who relied on his slider rather than a power-pitcher who blew batters away with an over-powering fastball. He looked like he was going to die on the mound every time he pitched (even more than usual). He admitted after the season ended that his elbow bothered him and had some "minor" surgery to remove some junk or other. It turns out that the problem was much larger than that. Now, you may or may not believe this, but I was ready to write a blog post the other day and declare that Joe Nathan was my pick "Twin I Am Most Concerned About." I was worried that his late season performance in 2009 would carry over into 2010. Well, we don't have to worry about that anymore. The trouble is, there is no Plan B when it comes to a closer for the Minnesota Twins.

There are some options, however. The Twins can trade an player (Glen Perkins?) for a closer or relief pitcher from another team. The problem is that I don't think Mariano Rivera is currently available. I would guess that a closer may become available from a non-contending team around the trading deadline in the summer. For this to be an option, however, the Twins had better hope they are in contention until the trading deadline. Until then, they would have to live with "closing by committee" with the current relief staff. Here are some of the pro's and con's of the current staff:

Jesse Crain: All con. The next coming of Ron Davis. JC instead of RD. Crain throws the straightest fastball that I have ever seen that often sails 430 feet the other way when hit.

Pat Neshek: Neshek has great stuff and a submarine-style way of pitching that is often unhittable. He is a possibility. And, oh yeah, he hasn't pitched in 2 years because of Tommy John (him again) surgery.

Jon Rauch: Rauch is my dark-horse to be the closer, at least at the beginning of the season. The thing I like about Rauch is that, while he is supposedly a great guy, he looks crazy. He is 6'11" and has one of those creepy neck tattoos. He has this vacant, zombie-like stare and throws hard. All of this is great for a closer. And, he actually had the role with the Washington National for a while, which is like being the lead singer for Spandau Ballet. I mean, who really cares? While Rauch looks the part, nobody knows if he can get anybody out in the closer role on a winning team in a pennant race.

Matt Guerrier: Guerrier is a great set-up guy and eats a lot of innings in relief. I am not sure if it would benefit the team to remove him from this role. Also, he seems like a laid-back kind of dude who may not have the closer mentality. Kind of like having the Big Lebowski close for your team.

Jose Mijares: I don't know. Nasty stuff, but Mijares will most certainly walk the first batter he faces each game. This is not good for a closer. Also, he seems to have Visa and weight issues. You may have to summon him from Hrbek's Pub rather than the bullpen when it's time to pitch.

Oddly enough, 3 of the last 4 great closers that the Twins have had began their careers as starters. Rick Aguileria, Eddie Guardado and Joe Nathan were all starters when they came to the Twins. Jeff Reardon, I believe, was always a closer. Maybe the team's next closer is a starter, which brings up.......

Francisco Liriano: The Twins want Liriano to start, but closing may not be a bad role for him if starting does not work out. Liriano's starts usually go pretty well for about 3 innings before his mechanics change and he gets wild. Most closers only have to pitch one inning, so this may not be an issue. Liriano, however, is another relief pitcher that may not have the mentality for the closer role.

Alas, I do not know the answer. My guess is that the Twins will try the "closer by committee" and then pick up a mid-level closer from another team at the trading deadline. Hopefully, Joe Nathan's injury is not something that will derail what promises to be a very good season. Hopefully, it is the only shit-storm for awhile.

Jeff

38 Days and Counting....

It all started to sink in yesterday. I met Freealonzo, Shane and Snyder at Stub & Herb's near the U campus to select our portion of the half-season ticket plan we purchased (thanks to Snyder!). In addition, our group was able to purchase tickets to the season-opener against Boston, which is now only 38 days away. It is now starting to sink in that, after a decade of watching the Legislative battle over financing and writing countless letters to the editor and e-mails to politicians, that this ballpark is really going to open.

There was a point (well, many points) that I thought it would never happen. Thank God that the calmer, wiser voices prevailed and people realized that this project could get done. Thank God that we didn't listen to the cynics and naysayers. Would we be better off without Target Field? Would downtown Minneapolis be better off? I defy anybody in Hennepin County or the state of Minnesota to show me how their finances have been negatively impacted by the building of this stadium. I am not talking about a few dollars here and there, I am talking about a serious financial impact like the naysayers predicted. I don't think anyone can.

I came across a recent editorial written by Garrison Keillor for The New York Times on this subject. Here is what Keillor had to say:

"The beauty part of my week (not that you asked) was a visit to the warehouse district north of downtown Minneapolis where, in my boyhood, I used to ride my bike past printing plants and barrelworks, small factories, a slaughterhouse, lumberyards, auto salvage yards, fascinated by the sight of men at work, and where, now, a new ballpark has arisen where, on April 12, though we are still knee-deep in snow, the Minnesota Twins will open the 2010 campaign, against the mighty Red Sox and their nation.

On Monday I snuck into the park through a door left ajar and attached myself to a group of suits on tour and got to see the whole joint, the steep left-field bleachers, the spruce trees in deep center, the skyboxes (each with a porch, so the nabobs can get fresh air), down to the locker room (with batting cage and pitching machine nearby, just like at a carnival), and to me, a skeptic when it comes to public works, this looks to be the Eighth Wonder of the World, a temple on the order of Wrigley or Fenway or the Acropolis, a beautiful little bandbox of a ballpark tucked snugly into streets of old warehouses and the Burlington railyards, with commuter trains running to its front door, a sight that fills me with unmitigated dizzy delight.

We Minnesotans have been watching baseball in a basement for 28 years, under a fabric dome on a plastic field designed for football, and come April, we’ll be sitting in sunlight, or under the stars, with the handsome towers of downtown Minneapolis just beyond center field, and we’ll mill on the great concourse just behind the loge seats and eyeball the game while ordering a steak sandwich or an old-fashioned Schweigert hot dog. Hallelujah. Wowser.

That this beauty was accomplished through public financing — $392 million of the $544 million total paid through a sales tax approved by the legislature — is some sort of triumph, and to an old Democrat like me, who believes that government can indeed do some good things right and is not a blight upon the land, this ballpark is an enormous pleasure..."

Amen. I really didn't intend to turn this post into a debate on public financing of projects. I joke that I am a guy who is "for everything" when it comes to public financing. Stadiums, theatres, trains, etc. I think these things add to the public landscape and make cities more desirable, livable places. I realize this does not make me popular with the "no tax" crowd. As I have stated in the past, I have a hard time envisioning the Twin Cities without the Xcel Energy Center, Target Field, the Guthrie, etc. But, this is a debate for another post.

For now, I'm just happy that we're down to 38 days and counting.

Jeff