Before the MLB trade deadline, I wrote a post about how the Tigers needed to be sellers and restock their joke of a farm system. They traded away both David Price and Yoenis Cespedes and in return got five players, all of them pitchers. And these aren't pitchers that are all five years away from being in the bigs, they will be ready in the next year or two. Daniel Norris (the highest rated of all five) is already in the rotation. They even traded away Joakim Soria to the Pirates for a batter that will have an impact two to three years from now. Sorry I don't remember all the names, but I'm not writing to analyze the trades (they were necessary and extremely helpful), I'm writing because it's going to be both frustrating and exciting for Tigers fans in the next two to three years.
It's funny because MLB analysts can't exactly agree on the trades. Some like to point to the fact that the Tigers, at the time of the trade deadline, were only three games out of the second wildcard spot. And they could have been buyers at the deadline and made a push for the playoffs. They go to the Kansas City Royals and San Fransisco Giants are evidence that all you have to do is make it into the playoffs and then anything can happen. Here's the flaw in their arguments, the Tigers aren't the Royals or the Giants from last year. This year, they have not shown the ability to rattle off ten or eleven wins in a row since the first two weeks of the year.
Some analysts point to the fact that the Tigers needed to pull the trades off because they needed something in return for them. Both Price and Cespedes are free agents at the end of the year. So, instead of getting nothing for them (think Max Scherzer), they got a return in their investment. They traded for them last year in the hopes of getting to the World Series. People who are big picture people understand that the Tigers needed to do this in order to stay relevant not this year or even next, but three and four and five years down the road. That is the hope anyway. And that is how I looked at these trades. You never want to give up on the hopes of making the playoffs, but even if they had made it to the post season, I didn't see them making a deep run. This is for the better of the team and for the fans. They just have to practice the one thing that fans don't practice: patience.
It is going to be frustrating because the fan base has become accustomed to winning. They are use to see the team play into the end of September. They are also becoming entitled (the fans, not the players) because they are familiar with winning. I feel as though not all of them were cheering for the Tigers in 2003. I feel as though they remembered the team right around 2006. And have been fans ever since! It is going to be frustrating because the Tigers are going to lose more than they have over the past nine years.
It is going to be exciting because the future is coming. Even if two or three of the five pitchers pan out, it will be looked at as a good trade for the team. The trades needed to happen. Both Price and Cespedes were not going to sign with the Tigers in the offseason, in my opinion. They are the types of players that want to win. Plus, with the Tigers trading them away, they avoid big contracts. There are some mid-level free agents that they can sign in the offseason that can help bridge the gap between the present and the future.
Personally, I'm excited to see what happens with these players. For the first time in a long time, the farm system has players that can make an impact. They aren't just filler for an injured player. They are part of the plan. They are the future. And the future is a little bit brighter than it was at the beginning of the season. And look, is it disappointing that in this nine year span the Tigers didn't win a World Series? Yes. Obviously. No one really likes saying 'hey, at least we made it!' But if we always got what we wanted, the Tigers would be winning the World Series year after year, I would be the head curator at the Baseball Hall of Fame, and I would have three or four thirty year old bottles of scotch in my house.
21 August 2015
18 August 2015
Old Pair of Shoes
Everyone has a pair of shoes that they have had for a long time. A pair of shoes that you may have worn day in and day out for seven or eight years. And while they are comfortable, and you comfortable in them, they start to lose their appeal. You find a different pair of shoes and are excited about them. But in the back of your mind, you still think about those shoes. Those shoes were practically your identity. And when you get a chance, you slip those shoes back on and everything feels. You all get that the shoes were a metaphor for work right? Right?
I was given an opportunity to work with food again. Still within the same company and store I am in now, so no big move or anything like that. They are realigning how the departments are overseen and the furniture department is being reworked. So, I get a chance to get back into a food department. It feels like I have never really left working with it. It's nice because I work early in the morning, can listen to my own music for the majority of my shift, and have the afternoon to do whatever I want. Mostly sit around and nap. But there's times when productivity will come into play.
The store has already seen improvements within the department in terms of sales and stocking, so that's a plus. I have had many people at work ask me how I like it. And I tell them it's like I've never left. It's like an old broken in, comfortable pair of shoes you wore for so long that when you left them in the closet for a year and a half, you almost forgot about them. The metaphor might make more sense now, but whatever.
I was given an opportunity to work with food again. Still within the same company and store I am in now, so no big move or anything like that. They are realigning how the departments are overseen and the furniture department is being reworked. So, I get a chance to get back into a food department. It feels like I have never really left working with it. It's nice because I work early in the morning, can listen to my own music for the majority of my shift, and have the afternoon to do whatever I want. Mostly sit around and nap. But there's times when productivity will come into play.
The store has already seen improvements within the department in terms of sales and stocking, so that's a plus. I have had many people at work ask me how I like it. And I tell them it's like I've never left. It's like an old broken in, comfortable pair of shoes you wore for so long that when you left them in the closet for a year and a half, you almost forgot about them. The metaphor might make more sense now, but whatever.
12 August 2015
Put it Down, it's Okay
I do my best to read. I am not a quick reader. My wife and I joke back and forth with the phrase 'you're still reading that book?'. And when I say it to her, it's because she is reading her third book to my one. When she says it to me, it's because it takes me months to get through one book. I only read a chapter or two before bed. She can read for hours on end.
I am currently reading Norman Mailer's 'The Deer Park'. And I gotta tell you, I am struggling. I am about 120 pages into it and am struggling to stay focused. I don't know if it's the writing style, if it's the plot, or if it's something else. I read a chapter, put the book down, and think 'meh'. At what point, do you think about giving up on a book? I'm about a third of the way through the book right now. I have a few books that I have put down because I couldn't get into them. But it's usually within the first one hundred pages. I am determined to get through it because there are moments in the book that get me hooked. It is just followed by a couple of chapters that cannot keep my interest.
A few of the books have been 'classics' or classic authors. The two that come to mind are 'Tropic of Cancer' and 'The Dubliners'. And I know that a lot of people say that James Joyce is hard to read. But I am determined to give it another try in the future. I tried reading 'Tropic of Cancer' twice. Got about fifty pages into and just didn't enjoy it. You can always make the argument that you have to get to a certain point of a book before you start to enjoy it, but shouldn't that be within the first fifty to one hundred pages? You need to hook the reader.
I never want to give up on a book, because some don't start to get really interesting until halfway through. Like every single Cormac McCarthy book I have ever read. But with his books, I know that. And they are all beautifully written so if you aren't hooked by the story line, you can read beautiful prose. If it's an author I have not read, it's hard to give up on a book. I want to believe that the plot will get better. I want to believe the the author is just being an asshole and keeping the reader going. But sometimes, you just got to walk away from a book. And that's okay. There is no shame in not finishing a book.
I am currently reading Norman Mailer's 'The Deer Park'. And I gotta tell you, I am struggling. I am about 120 pages into it and am struggling to stay focused. I don't know if it's the writing style, if it's the plot, or if it's something else. I read a chapter, put the book down, and think 'meh'. At what point, do you think about giving up on a book? I'm about a third of the way through the book right now. I have a few books that I have put down because I couldn't get into them. But it's usually within the first one hundred pages. I am determined to get through it because there are moments in the book that get me hooked. It is just followed by a couple of chapters that cannot keep my interest.
A few of the books have been 'classics' or classic authors. The two that come to mind are 'Tropic of Cancer' and 'The Dubliners'. And I know that a lot of people say that James Joyce is hard to read. But I am determined to give it another try in the future. I tried reading 'Tropic of Cancer' twice. Got about fifty pages into and just didn't enjoy it. You can always make the argument that you have to get to a certain point of a book before you start to enjoy it, but shouldn't that be within the first fifty to one hundred pages? You need to hook the reader.
I never want to give up on a book, because some don't start to get really interesting until halfway through. Like every single Cormac McCarthy book I have ever read. But with his books, I know that. And they are all beautifully written so if you aren't hooked by the story line, you can read beautiful prose. If it's an author I have not read, it's hard to give up on a book. I want to believe that the plot will get better. I want to believe the the author is just being an asshole and keeping the reader going. But sometimes, you just got to walk away from a book. And that's okay. There is no shame in not finishing a book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)