Springtime Storylines: Is character and passion enough for the Arizona Diamondbacks?

7 Comments

Between now and Opening Day, HBT will take a look at each of the 30 teams, asking the key questions, the not-so-key questions, and generally breaking down their chances for the 2011 season. Next up: The new-look Arizona Diamondbacks.

The Big Question: Is character and passion enough for the Diamondbacks?

This is Kirk Gibson’s team now, and it only took me two days around Diamondbacks camp at the end of February to get that there is a new sheriff in town. A lot of managers talk about “playing the game the right way” and stuff, but Gibson lives it and breathes it. One gets the sense that, from the time he wakes up in the morning until the time he goes to bed at night — assuming he sleeps — that he’s making eliminating horsesh– baseball his overriding goal. Gibson doesn’t seem to be addicted to Ecksteinian grinders or anything, but clearly values a certain attitude. And he hates bad defense. Oh, and cell phones. Dude HATES cell phones.

There is a real emphasis on character on the Diamondbacks, and it’s not just a Kirk Gibson thing. GM Kevin Towers gave an interview to ESPN’s Jerry Crasnick last week in which extolled the virtues of “character, passion and desire.” And in terms of how good and how respected they were as players themselves, the Dbacks may have the most notable coaching staff in baseball. Matt Williams, Alan Trammell, Don Baylor, Eric Young and Gibson himself were all guys that Gibson would have loved to manage and who, at one time or another, were likely described as men who “played the game the right way.”

But will this make any difference? Hard to see how, because with a couple of exceptions we’ll mention below, this is the same Diamondbacks team that lost 97 games last year. They shipped out two guys who didn’t fit the new mold in Dan Haren and Mark Reynolds, but those guys actually have some baseball value too. They brought in some veteran presence, but that veteran presence — Melvin Mora, Xavier Nady, Henry Blanco and Geoff Blum — isn’t exactly going to make a competitive difference.

Which isn’t to say that the team didn’t need an attitude adjustment. Indeed, based on a lot of the stories that came out of the A.J. Hinch-era Dbacks, an attitude adjustment was necessary.  But it’s certainly not sufficient, and I fail to see how, exactly, the Dbacks are all that better off from a competitive perspective in 2011 than they were in 2010.  And I imagine in an unguarded moment that Kirk Gibson would admit that. Not that Kirk Gibson ever has any unguarded moments.

So what else is going on?

  • There are a lot of new faces at the corners, with first base looking to be some combination of Juan Miranda and Russell Branyan, third base some combination of Melvin Mora and Geoff Blum and left field some combination of Xavier Nady, Brandon Allen and, heck maybe even Wily Mo Pena.  Given how much Gibson is said to disdain strikeouts and bad defense, you might guess who among those guys will see the most playing time.
  • Ian Kennedy is probably going to be the Opening Day starter. Probably would have been Joe Saunders if he hadn’t missed time for being sick.  Not exactly an inspiring one-two punch. Really, though, Daniel Hudson — who I love — is poised to be the team’s ace.  This is a rotation that will miss having Dan Haren and Edwin Jackson around. It’s a staff that’s gonna get beat up a lot.
  • The bullpen was a crime against humanity last year. Thankfully, Kevin Towers has shown over the course of his career that he may be the best bullpen-building GM in the game. Adding J.J. Putz as the closer will certainly help, but he can’t do it all.  Towers’ kung-fu notwithstanding, the pen still looks to be a pretty weak spot.
  • Justin Upton took a step back in 2010, mostly in the power department. There are rumblings that he’s going to try to use more of the field this year rather than pull the ball and that he’s going to run more.  He’s still only 23, so it’s not surprising his power is still a bit erratic. I just hope this focusing on other stuff isn’t an effort to deemphasize his power game.

So how are they gonna do?

Badly! Last place in the NL West. But they’ll be playing badly The Right Way. And who could ask for anything more?

Major League Baseball considering expansion, radical realignment

Don Ryan/Associated Press
Leave a comment

Tracy Ringolsby of Baseball America wrote yesterday about a “growing consensus” within baseball that expansion and realignment are inevitable. The likely expansion cities: Portland and Montreal. The 32-team league would then undergo a radical realignment that would also involve reducing the season from 162 to 156 games while expanding the playoffs to 12 teams.

To be clear, Ringolsby’s actual reporting here is limited to that “growing consensus” about expansion, and the most likely cities involved, not regarding the specific realignment or game reduction plan. That I take to be speculative — he refers to it as “one proposal” — though it seems like reasonable and informed speculation. The general idea is that, if you expand, you have to realign, and if you realign you have to change the playoff structure lest too many teams in any one division become also-rans. That, combined with the near impossibility of changing the early-April-to-late-October footprint of the season and the desire of players to have less arduous travel schedules and some extra time off, leads to the shorter season.

The details of the plan:

  • The American and National Leagues would be disposed of, with MLB putting all 32 teams into four, eight-team, regionally-based divisions: East, North, Midwest, West. This is designed to (a) maintain regional and traditional rivalries while (b) cutting way back on cross-time zone travel. Both New York teams and Boston are in the “North,” both Chicago teams and St. Louis are in the “Midwest,” etc. Texas and Houston are in the “Midwest” too, but we’ll let the Texans get mad about that later.
  • The playoffs would feature a LOT of play-in games. Specifically, Ringolsby would have the four division winners go to the Division Series, where they would play the winner of four different Wild Card games, the participants in which would come from the eight non-division winners with the best records, regardless of which division they came from.
  • The schedule would go back to 156 games, giving every team an off-day every week. Between that and the more compact, almost all single-time-zone divisions, the travel schedules would be far less taxing, with shorter flights and more flights which could leave the day after a night game as opposed to directly after a night game, causing teams to arrive in the next city in the wee hours of the morning.

Thoughts:

  • Obviously this would piss off the purists.  The elimination of the traditional leagues, the shorter season, a (slightly) altered standard for records and milestones, and a doubling of one-and-done playoff series would make a lot of fans dizzy. On the one hand, I could argue that baseball has NEVER been as pure and unchanging as people like to pretend it is so maybe people shouldn’t get too bent out of shape over this, but it’s simply unavoidable that this would rattle a lot of baseball fans, and not just the ones hopelessly stuck in the past. Baseball should not be slavishly devoted to its history, but it needs to recognize that its history is a selling point and an important touchstone for many, many fans.
  • Ringolsby’s specific realignment idea is kind of fun, but will inevitably lead to some winners and losers. For example, many traditional rivalries or regional rivalries would be maintained — Chicago and St. Louis and Boston and New York would remain division rivals — but other, less-sexy but very real rivalries would be disposed of. The Mets, for example, would have no old NL rivals in their division. There will also be some teams which get screwed logistically. Here, all of Minnesota’s division rivals would be Eastern Time Zone teams, so all of its road games would be played in a different time zone. You could fix that somehow, but someone else would likely be inconvenienced. There isn’t a perfect way to do it. As such, implementation could be pretty messy, with some owners opposing it, possibly vehemently.
  • The playoff idea would make for a lot of drama with four play-in games, but I don’t think it’s a sustainable model. Yes, division winners would all be guaranteed a five-game playoff series, but having two-thirds of all of the playoff teams subjected to a random one-and-done game as opposed to the current four of ten would inevitably lead to calls for longer Wild Card series. And it would likely, over time, diminish the cachet of the Wild Card itself. Now most people think of Wild Card teams as having made the playoffs, With this plan, I suspect fewer people will think of it that way as opposed to some sort of weird, non-quite-the-playoffs limbo, thus hurting late season interest among fans of non-division winners.
  • A 156-game season wouldn’t be the end of the world. We had a 154-game season for a little over half a century total and a 162 game season for 56 seasons so far. Changing it might cause people to get grumpy about records and milestones, but other changes in the game, be it pitcher usage patterns or juiced baseballs or integration or night games or any number of other things have already changed the context in such a way that such standards were never as set-in-stone as people tend to believe. At the same time, extra off days might very well improve the caliber of play as players are more rested and therefore sharper.

In the end, it’s important to recognize that Ringolsby’s article is, in all likelihood, a trial balloon leaked by Major League Baseball, so don’t take any one aspect of it too seriously, even if we should all take the idea of some radical shift involving expansion and realignment in the not-too-distant future seriously.

Why? Money mostly. There are huge financial incentives for baseball to do this. Part of this involves the cost-savings which would result from better scheduling and less travel that Ringolsby mentions. A much greater incentive would come from the franchise fees the owners of the two new teams would pay the 30 current owners in order to be allowed into the MLB fraternity.  In the last round of expansion, the Diamondbacks and Devil Rays owners paid $150 million each for their teams. Given that franchises have gone up in value by a factor of ten twenty, it’s not inconceivable that new owners in Montreal and Portland would have to fork over well north of a billion dollars each to enter the league. That’s a check for $66 million written to each owner in exchange for simply voting “yes” at some meeting in Scottsdale on some fine December afternoon.

So, while there may be no uncertainly on the “how” of it all, the very fact of expansion and subsequent realignment seems inevitable. Now is a good time for us to start thinking about how the details of it all would work.