It's been a long sabbatical, but I'm back baby. I left last discussing the trials present and the patience necessary to be a Toronto sports fan. Allow me to continue on that long (and likely painful) train:
The Toronto Maple Leafs. In the Buds' case, there have been many reasons for deep exhales and aspirin. Although we've been a tremendously successful regular season team under the coaching of Pat Quinn over the past few years, it isn't enough in a loyal, hockey-mad market where anything short of a Stanley Cup is a failure. Therein lies a big problem: Leafs Nation hasn't seen a championship ring since Lester B. Pearson was in office. While perhaps a bit melodramatic, the list of Leaf fans that were alive and remember the last Cup is growing shorter by the season.
The Leafs have some glaring similarities to another team near to my heart, the Boston Red Sox (insert cringe here, Jays fans). Both teams play in markets that are rabid for their respective sports, both have cantankerous fans that the rest of the sporting world hate and few sympathize with, and both teams have violently loyal followers with nearby historical and cultural rivalries (the Montreal Canadiens and Bronx Bombers, respectively). The biggest difference? BoSox fans got their redemption in 2004. Granted, they waited a shitload longer - virtually no one was around to see when the Sox last won in 1918 - but their "Curse" is now over. Leafs fans have to continue to be patient.
To make it worse, I think we'll have to be patient for some time. In the early stages of the '06-07 season, Toronto has shown some bright spots. Under new youthful coach Paul Maurice, the Buds haven't shown this much energy on the ice for quite some time. New goaltender Andrew Raycroft is playing very well, and every game veteran center Mats Sundin further cements himself as a Hogtown legend. However, I think this year's Leafs simply don't have enough talent to be left standing in the early summer.
It's a constant struggle being in a division with the speedy and skilled Buffalo Sabres and Montreal Canadiens, as well as the regular-season juggernaut (but wait 'til you see 'em in the playoffs - hahaha!) Ottawa Senators. Even if GM John Ferguson can nab someone around the trade deadline, I'm not sure if the Leafs will have enough biscuit-firing chaps for championship success.
The Leafs were best-geared for a Cup in the past few years under Quinn. We had the pieces, and at times got very close; the Eastern Conference title is the closest we got against the Carolina Hurricanes in 2002 and the Los Angeles Kings in 1993. These latest Buds won't be short on heart and guts, but you need a little more than that for real success - and the Leafs just don't have it. With a lot of the fundamental talent on the team not getting any younger (Sundin maybe has two more good seasons in him, Darcy Tucker and defensemen Bryan McCabe and Tomas Kaberle certainly aren't spritely) there are elements of experience on this team melded with elements of youth. A youth overhaul has already begun under Maurice, and I can only see it leading to more patience for Leaf fans.
To continue this wave of misery, let's discuss the Toronto Raptors. But it'll have to wait - if Toronto sports fans need patience, then so do the handful (a small handful...maybe a child's hand or a carnie's hand) of readers.
TO BE CONTINUED
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Thursday, September 14, 2006
"Woe is me." - The Torontonian PART ONE
I really don't suggest being a pessimistic person. It's a real buzz-kill. Sadly, being a Toronto-area sports fan, I can't think about the future of our city's pro sports franchises without getting more grim than the Brothers of the same handle. Could humans be living on Mars when a Toronto franchise next wins a championship? I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility.
Let's start with the Toronto Blue Jays. Jays' GM J.P. Ricciardi is a man who has always stuck behind a definitive plan. Jays' brass and Toronto baseball fans alike have given J.P. a long leash these past couple years, because the Jays have made interesting acquisitions and seem to have moved in a legitimately good direction. I don't blame J.P. for Toronto being out of the pennant race yet again in 2006, I more lament the fact that being in the American League East division is a constant uphill battle.
There's the New York Yankees. Many say that owner George Steinbrenner's bottomless wallet can't last forever. To the extent of a $200 million+ payroll, it might not have to. The Yankees have had some dynamite young players emerge on their 2006 team to supplement their stable of overpaid superstars. Look at Chien Ming-Wang, Melky Cabrera, Robinson Cano and Andy Phillips. These youthful dudes have played a significant role in a season where the NYY will take the AL East. The possibility that the Pinstripes could land Barry Bonds next season, not only turns my stomach, it proves that the Bronx Bombers can continue to plug in high-paid players to gang up with the domestic talent. I don't see the Yankees dropping off the map maybe until Steinbrenner kicks the can and some tight-wad takes the ownership reins.
The Boston Red Sox. Currently, the chowdah eatahs have the best-hitting duo in baseball in David "Big Papi" Ortiz and Manny Ramirez. Boston's purse-strings cannot compare to New York's, but they still easily make Toronto look like they should be shopping at Bi-Way. They have a prodigy closer in the young Jonathan Papelbon and some emerging young pitchers in Manny Delcarmen, Craig Hansen, Kyle Snyder and already-intimidating World Series winner Josh Beckett. Kevin Youkilis will be a long-dangerous corner infielder and the Sox have enough elements to, at the very least, be a thorn in the Jays' side and inhibit their development in the division for the forseeable future. As long as Ortiz is crushing game-winning taters at a scary rate, no one likes playing Boston.
The Baltimore Orioles have dynamic young (largely Canadian) arms in Erik Bedard, Adam Loewen and Daniel Cabrera, who simply throws jet fuel. If the O's pitching continues to evolve they will at least be a tough team to sweep and will roll with the punches in this Division from Hell.
It must be REALLY trying being a Tampa Bay Devil Rays fan, but at least we can say that they have a young team with plenty of vigor. They will probably eventually lose young studs like Carl Crawford, Rocco Baldelli and B.J. Upton, but if they got an infusion of cash and could keep that young core together, there would be something else fun to do in Tampa other than jet-ski and weave around crippled snowbirds at the Lightning game.
It's not that the Blue Jays have a bad team. They've added some neat aspects over the recent years and, when healthy, have a more balanced team than they've had in aeons. It's just so hard to get ahead in a division where Steinbrenner won't take losing, Red Sox brass has to placate a rabid New England baseball market and the other teams have factories of young prospects.
Whew. Then there's the Toronto Maple Leafs. This rant will have...
TO BE CONTINUED
Let's start with the Toronto Blue Jays. Jays' GM J.P. Ricciardi is a man who has always stuck behind a definitive plan. Jays' brass and Toronto baseball fans alike have given J.P. a long leash these past couple years, because the Jays have made interesting acquisitions and seem to have moved in a legitimately good direction. I don't blame J.P. for Toronto being out of the pennant race yet again in 2006, I more lament the fact that being in the American League East division is a constant uphill battle.
There's the New York Yankees. Many say that owner George Steinbrenner's bottomless wallet can't last forever. To the extent of a $200 million+ payroll, it might not have to. The Yankees have had some dynamite young players emerge on their 2006 team to supplement their stable of overpaid superstars. Look at Chien Ming-Wang, Melky Cabrera, Robinson Cano and Andy Phillips. These youthful dudes have played a significant role in a season where the NYY will take the AL East. The possibility that the Pinstripes could land Barry Bonds next season, not only turns my stomach, it proves that the Bronx Bombers can continue to plug in high-paid players to gang up with the domestic talent. I don't see the Yankees dropping off the map maybe until Steinbrenner kicks the can and some tight-wad takes the ownership reins.
The Boston Red Sox. Currently, the chowdah eatahs have the best-hitting duo in baseball in David "Big Papi" Ortiz and Manny Ramirez. Boston's purse-strings cannot compare to New York's, but they still easily make Toronto look like they should be shopping at Bi-Way. They have a prodigy closer in the young Jonathan Papelbon and some emerging young pitchers in Manny Delcarmen, Craig Hansen, Kyle Snyder and already-intimidating World Series winner Josh Beckett. Kevin Youkilis will be a long-dangerous corner infielder and the Sox have enough elements to, at the very least, be a thorn in the Jays' side and inhibit their development in the division for the forseeable future. As long as Ortiz is crushing game-winning taters at a scary rate, no one likes playing Boston.
The Baltimore Orioles have dynamic young (largely Canadian) arms in Erik Bedard, Adam Loewen and Daniel Cabrera, who simply throws jet fuel. If the O's pitching continues to evolve they will at least be a tough team to sweep and will roll with the punches in this Division from Hell.
It must be REALLY trying being a Tampa Bay Devil Rays fan, but at least we can say that they have a young team with plenty of vigor. They will probably eventually lose young studs like Carl Crawford, Rocco Baldelli and B.J. Upton, but if they got an infusion of cash and could keep that young core together, there would be something else fun to do in Tampa other than jet-ski and weave around crippled snowbirds at the Lightning game.
It's not that the Blue Jays have a bad team. They've added some neat aspects over the recent years and, when healthy, have a more balanced team than they've had in aeons. It's just so hard to get ahead in a division where Steinbrenner won't take losing, Red Sox brass has to placate a rabid New England baseball market and the other teams have factories of young prospects.
Whew. Then there's the Toronto Maple Leafs. This rant will have...
TO BE CONTINUED
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Why I Reached for Reuben
While it's no surprise that I would reach for a reuben sandwich, the more devout members of the Gazette football pool were both surprised and entertained that I reached for Cleveland Browns tailback Reuben Droughns with my second-round pick in the draft.
I'll start by conceding that yes, it was a tremendous reach. Droughns would have been available in the fifth round and maybe the sixth round, so bearing that in mind I cannot argue it was a foolish pick to make by the traditional logic of fantasy sports. However, there were three reasons why I was compelled to nab Droughns ASAP.
Firstly, I am one of those shallow, rookie-esque, egotistical fantasy participants - in that I like to choose young up-and-comers I feel will bust out in the coming NFL season. In last year's pool, two picks I made that came to mind were Carson Palmer and Redskins TE Chris Cooley, both of which paid dividends. I feel very strongly that Reuben Droughns is a candidate to bust out in 2006.
I not only think that Droughns is going to be vastly improved over last season, I think he will have a strong season by anyone's standards, best-case scenario even warranting the second-round selection. Over the last two seasons, Droughns has ran for over four yards a clip and over 1,200 yards. True, the fact he hasn't reached the end zone often makes him pedestrian in the eyes of fantasy owners. But, Droughns has shown he can be a guy that is durable and runs with both anger and purpose (similar to a consensus top-two pick, Chiefs RB Larry Johnson). The Browns added the best center in the league, poaching LeCharles Bentley from the Saints. His mauling blocks will open holes between-the-tackles and I think his presence will jell the rest of Cleveland's line.
Droughns is a productive, underrated receiver out of the backfield. He can wear a defense down over a game, and Cleveland will have to lean on Droughns as the wrinkles are ironed out with young pivot Charlie Frye. He may face loaded fronts until the Browns prove they can pass, but Droughns produced quality yards in the same situation last year with a lesser O-line. All this considered, I don't think it's crazy that he might go for 1,400 yards and close to double-digit TDs, and you can probably toss 30 receptions in there too. Anything could happen, but I'm higher on Droughns than Keith Richards is on everything.
Finally, in a fantasy draft I'm often compelled to select players I like. Although fantasy football makes the sport more interesting week in, week out, it's tough for me to cheer on arch-rivals just because it'll boost my spot in the standings. I find that element of fantasy sports counter-intuitive, and it's why I probably will never be on the same page as fantasy visionaries such as Matthew Larkin. I don't even always stick to my rule (I took the Steelers' defense, for Christ's sake) but whenever I can I like to take someone I can roundly root for. The Browns are pretty cool, Droughns is cooler, and this was another reason why I nabbed him.
So, although I may have pulled a John Holmes-sized boner with this second-rounder, there was some limited method to my madness, even if it is still inexcusable. In the grand scheme of things, I'll be having fun watching and rooting for my team members and ultimately I think Reuben Droughns will put up some juicy stats.
I'll start by conceding that yes, it was a tremendous reach. Droughns would have been available in the fifth round and maybe the sixth round, so bearing that in mind I cannot argue it was a foolish pick to make by the traditional logic of fantasy sports. However, there were three reasons why I was compelled to nab Droughns ASAP.
Firstly, I am one of those shallow, rookie-esque, egotistical fantasy participants - in that I like to choose young up-and-comers I feel will bust out in the coming NFL season. In last year's pool, two picks I made that came to mind were Carson Palmer and Redskins TE Chris Cooley, both of which paid dividends. I feel very strongly that Reuben Droughns is a candidate to bust out in 2006.
I not only think that Droughns is going to be vastly improved over last season, I think he will have a strong season by anyone's standards, best-case scenario even warranting the second-round selection. Over the last two seasons, Droughns has ran for over four yards a clip and over 1,200 yards. True, the fact he hasn't reached the end zone often makes him pedestrian in the eyes of fantasy owners. But, Droughns has shown he can be a guy that is durable and runs with both anger and purpose (similar to a consensus top-two pick, Chiefs RB Larry Johnson). The Browns added the best center in the league, poaching LeCharles Bentley from the Saints. His mauling blocks will open holes between-the-tackles and I think his presence will jell the rest of Cleveland's line.
Droughns is a productive, underrated receiver out of the backfield. He can wear a defense down over a game, and Cleveland will have to lean on Droughns as the wrinkles are ironed out with young pivot Charlie Frye. He may face loaded fronts until the Browns prove they can pass, but Droughns produced quality yards in the same situation last year with a lesser O-line. All this considered, I don't think it's crazy that he might go for 1,400 yards and close to double-digit TDs, and you can probably toss 30 receptions in there too. Anything could happen, but I'm higher on Droughns than Keith Richards is on everything.
Finally, in a fantasy draft I'm often compelled to select players I like. Although fantasy football makes the sport more interesting week in, week out, it's tough for me to cheer on arch-rivals just because it'll boost my spot in the standings. I find that element of fantasy sports counter-intuitive, and it's why I probably will never be on the same page as fantasy visionaries such as Matthew Larkin. I don't even always stick to my rule (I took the Steelers' defense, for Christ's sake) but whenever I can I like to take someone I can roundly root for. The Browns are pretty cool, Droughns is cooler, and this was another reason why I nabbed him.
So, although I may have pulled a John Holmes-sized boner with this second-rounder, there was some limited method to my madness, even if it is still inexcusable. In the grand scheme of things, I'll be having fun watching and rooting for my team members and ultimately I think Reuben Droughns will put up some juicy stats.
Friday, July 07, 2006
This isn't OJ....is Concentrated Better?
To clear the air, I'd like to establish that I am a tremendous Tropicana fan, and any orange juice from concentrate is tepid compared to the sweet nectar that is Tropicana Grovestand.
That established, what I'm referring to with the title of this entry is wealth distribution in the world. I don't doubt that any people that fashion themselves as any kind of a (big or small "L") Liberal are ready to jump down my throat right now. While I understand the polarized views on this topic, I recently had a brainwave that made me take a more optimistic stance on the concentration of wealth in the world.
Different experts will tell you that between ten and 20 per cent of the world's population possess 80% of its material wealth. As a bare statistic, this is appalling. Humans all have basic needs and a fundamental level of materials in order to be able to live a fulfilling life. In many areas of the globe, this fundamental level is woefully short. While the investment banker buys a $50,000 vehicle for his/her "winter beater," the surgeon takes yet another trip to Bermuda and the pro athlete "scales down" to an 8,000 square foot home in the Hamptons in the developed world, millions of people are malnourished elsewhere. The nature of capitalism forecasts that wealth progressively gets funnelled into the hands of fewer and fewer, and it does seem to be a gloomy prospect in a world where one hopes human nature is compassionate and sharing.
However, many of the pundits don't understand that a more equitable share of capital would be disastrous for our environment. It is not debatable that our planet is already stretched thin in terms of diminishing natural resources, and it is debatable (but widely argued) that global warming and other pollution-related problems are reaching grave new levels of severity.
If wealth were re-allocated so that all Westerners were placed at or slightly above the "poverty line" in developed nations (roughly $40,000-50,000/year for a family of four), and in turn all the world's dire poor were brought up to or slightly above a developed nation's poverty line - environmental problems would balloon exponentially. There would be millions of more vehicles on the road, there would be a tremendously higher demand for agricultural land (and in turn much more water pollution from pesticides, etc) industrial output would skyrocket and waste would multiply beyond our wildest dreams. Could you imagine if there were even one car per family in nations like China? India? Indonesia? Pakistan? Kenya? Even with Westerners scaling their lives down, demand for environmentally-damaging goods would be unfathomable.
Maybe this is easy for me to say, because I've been lucky enough to grow up in a comfortable community in the developed world, with every opportunity available to me. But most of those out there who criticize the greedy and lament the condition of the world's poor, would themselves also want to be tough on environmental regulation. These are mutually exclusive.
It's true that so many of us privileged (myself included) take things for granted, and put the blinders on when it comes to other's plight. The developed world will eventually have to adjust to a more ecologically friendly lifestyle when economics or crisis forces its hand. But in the end, wealth and poverty are evaluated by capitalists, where the evaluation equates to the level of consumption. That being so, if self-preservation as a species is in our interests, then a more equitable distribution of the world's wealth would never be the answer.
That established, what I'm referring to with the title of this entry is wealth distribution in the world. I don't doubt that any people that fashion themselves as any kind of a (big or small "L") Liberal are ready to jump down my throat right now. While I understand the polarized views on this topic, I recently had a brainwave that made me take a more optimistic stance on the concentration of wealth in the world.
Different experts will tell you that between ten and 20 per cent of the world's population possess 80% of its material wealth. As a bare statistic, this is appalling. Humans all have basic needs and a fundamental level of materials in order to be able to live a fulfilling life. In many areas of the globe, this fundamental level is woefully short. While the investment banker buys a $50,000 vehicle for his/her "winter beater," the surgeon takes yet another trip to Bermuda and the pro athlete "scales down" to an 8,000 square foot home in the Hamptons in the developed world, millions of people are malnourished elsewhere. The nature of capitalism forecasts that wealth progressively gets funnelled into the hands of fewer and fewer, and it does seem to be a gloomy prospect in a world where one hopes human nature is compassionate and sharing.
However, many of the pundits don't understand that a more equitable share of capital would be disastrous for our environment. It is not debatable that our planet is already stretched thin in terms of diminishing natural resources, and it is debatable (but widely argued) that global warming and other pollution-related problems are reaching grave new levels of severity.
If wealth were re-allocated so that all Westerners were placed at or slightly above the "poverty line" in developed nations (roughly $40,000-50,000/year for a family of four), and in turn all the world's dire poor were brought up to or slightly above a developed nation's poverty line - environmental problems would balloon exponentially. There would be millions of more vehicles on the road, there would be a tremendously higher demand for agricultural land (and in turn much more water pollution from pesticides, etc) industrial output would skyrocket and waste would multiply beyond our wildest dreams. Could you imagine if there were even one car per family in nations like China? India? Indonesia? Pakistan? Kenya? Even with Westerners scaling their lives down, demand for environmentally-damaging goods would be unfathomable.
Maybe this is easy for me to say, because I've been lucky enough to grow up in a comfortable community in the developed world, with every opportunity available to me. But most of those out there who criticize the greedy and lament the condition of the world's poor, would themselves also want to be tough on environmental regulation. These are mutually exclusive.
It's true that so many of us privileged (myself included) take things for granted, and put the blinders on when it comes to other's plight. The developed world will eventually have to adjust to a more ecologically friendly lifestyle when economics or crisis forces its hand. But in the end, wealth and poverty are evaluated by capitalists, where the evaluation equates to the level of consumption. That being so, if self-preservation as a species is in our interests, then a more equitable distribution of the world's wealth would never be the answer.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Freeney or Henry? Battle of the Atlantic?
I was listening to two of my roommates drunkenly argue (a complete rarity, you can bet) when an interesting conflict arose. A UEFA match was on TV, and it showed Arsenal's Thierry Henry streaking down the pitch. My one roommate, gridiron-loving 100% pure beef N. American Kyle McKenzie, thinks that Indianapolis Colts' DE Dwight Freeney would beat the Flying Frenchman in a 10-yard dash. The other dude, Mexican physics geek and lover of the Score's "Sportsworld" Dwane Francisco Valenzo, thinks McKenz is an idiot, and Henry would easily beat Freeney. Anyone care to weigh in here?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)