Why did Arizona give up on Max Scherzer?

Leave a comment

To me the most surprising aspect of the big three-team Curtis Granderson trade is that the Diamondbacks were willing to give up on Max Scherzer, who just moments before the deal was talked up by Arizona manager A.J. Hinch as a future ace and has always looked to me like a potentially dominant starter.
Scherzer is 25 years old with a mid-90s fastball, makes the minimum salary, is under team control through 2015, and has a 3.86 ERA with 240 strikeouts in 226 career innings. So why would the Diamondbacks essentially swap him for Edwin Jackson, who’s a year older, about 20 times more expensive, eligible for free agency after 2011, and coming off a career-year that included a 3.62 ERA and 161 strikeouts in 214 innings?
ESPN.com’s Buster Olney has a possible explanation:

If the Diamondbacks viewed Max Scherzer as a can’t-miss, front-line type of pitcher, there is no chance they would have traded him early in his major league service time. Rather, there is some sentiment inside (and outside) the organization that with his unusual head-snapping mechanics, Scherzer is going to be at high risk for injury, and that eventually, he would probably have to be moved to short relief.

Along those lines, Steve Henson of Yahoo! Sports writes that the Diamondbacks dealt Scherzer “because they thought he lacked durability” before amusingly noting that “the Dodgers said same thing about Pedro Martinez in 1993.” I’m not ready to declare Scherzer the next Pedro, but it is odd that Arizona would make him the 11th pick in the 2006 draft, watch him blitz through the minors and rack up 240 strikeouts through 226 innings in the majors … and then deal him because he might break down or end up in the bullpen.
My prediction: Scherzer will win at least twice as many games for Detroit as Jackson will for Arizona, and he’ll do so while being significantly cheaper.

Imagine the Cleveland baseball club in green

Getty Images
12 Comments

Everyone talks about getting rid of Chief Wahoo but nobody does anything about it.

Well, that’s not totally true. As we’ve noted, Major League Baseball and the Indians are slowly doing something about it. But the thing they’re doing — a slow phase-out of Wahoo, hopefully in a manner no one really notices — is likely going to anger just as many as it pleases. Such is the nature of a compromise. Such is the nature of trying to do the right thing but being afraid to state the reason why they’re doing it.

A bold move would be a lot more interesting. Not just getting rid of the logo, but totally rebranding the Indians in a cool and exciting way that would inspire people to buy in to the new team identity as opposed to merely lament or accept the abandonment of the old one. To that end, a man named Nick Kendall came up with a super fun and super great-looking redesign and rebranding of the Indians over the weekend.

Kendall, who is not really a big baseball fan but who has spent a lot of time thinking about uniforms and design, went back to 1871 and Cleveland’s first professional baseball team, the Forest Citys (yes, that’s how it was spelled). He took their logo — an interlocked F and C — and built an entire set of uniforms out of it and some aesthetic choices of his own. The new color scheme is a dark green and white. He even includes two alternate, solid-jersey designs. All of it is done in a great looking mockup. Really, go check it out and tell me that’s not cool.

I like it for a couple of reasons. Mostly because the uniforms just look fantastic. I love the design and would love to see a team with that kind of look in the game. We have too many reds and blues. Green is woefully underused in Major League Baseball and it’d be good to see some more green around.

Also, as Kendall notes, and as soccer shows us, the “[city] [mascot]” name construction isn’t the only way to approach team names, and so the name — Forest Citys, or some derivation of it — would be unique in baseball. Maybe it’s be “The Cleveland Forest Citys/Cities.”  Maybe “Forest City B.C.” would be a way to go? Maybe, as so often happened with baseball teams in the past — the Indians included — the nickname could develop over time. It’s certainly preferable to the option a lot of people point to — The Cleveland Spiders — which (a) evokes the worst baseball team in history’ and (b) sounds like something a 1990s NBA marketing team would come up with.

If the Indians are going to get rid of Chief Wahoo — and they are — why not do something fun and new and exciting?