Today's 2 major deals in LA
PostPosted:Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:51 am
The two major sports related deals in LA makes me think some writers just write for the sake of sounding different from the consensus.
First, the LA Angels signed Pujols for $250 million in 10 years. I have no idea if that money is worth it for his output. Maybe, maybe not. But I'm pretty sure he wasn't signed for his WORP or whatever the current cool stat is. I'm not sure who the NL MVP is but I know Albert Pujols is supposed to be some kind of living legend. The Angels clearly signed him to try to pass up the Dodgers since in LA, you need star power to be a successful team, and you'd need a lot of star power to make up for the fact that the LA Angels actualy aren't located in LA. Is this going to work out? I have no idea, but it's not because Pujols's whatever stat is 5% below someone else's stat.
Next, the LA Lakers traded Gasol and Odom for Chris Paul, and this trade was blocked by the commissioner presumably because that'd create another super team like the Miami Heat. And of course there are some obligatory experts saying how LA might be worse off anyway because they lose frontcourt depth or something. I guess in their world in an NBA game they just measure how tall your frontcourt is and hand the victory to the taller team. Sure fundamentals count a lot but the Lakers' frontcourt didn't do much good against the Mavs last year. NBA is a star-driven league where one guy can literally decide the outcome, so having two Superstars is generally thought of better than having 1 superstar, 1 all star, and 1 borderline guy. Is it always true? Of course not, that's why you play the game instead of just add power levels. It's a gamble but it's a pretty reasonable one to make. The Miami Heat are still the favorites to win the title and their center is Joel Anthony who is pretty much an average joe, and LeBron isn't exactly a post player either despite his size, so if you go by conventional wisdom the Miami Heat shouldn't be that great, but having 2 superstars + 1 all star makes you pretty different from conventional wisdom.
First, the LA Angels signed Pujols for $250 million in 10 years. I have no idea if that money is worth it for his output. Maybe, maybe not. But I'm pretty sure he wasn't signed for his WORP or whatever the current cool stat is. I'm not sure who the NL MVP is but I know Albert Pujols is supposed to be some kind of living legend. The Angels clearly signed him to try to pass up the Dodgers since in LA, you need star power to be a successful team, and you'd need a lot of star power to make up for the fact that the LA Angels actualy aren't located in LA. Is this going to work out? I have no idea, but it's not because Pujols's whatever stat is 5% below someone else's stat.
Next, the LA Lakers traded Gasol and Odom for Chris Paul, and this trade was blocked by the commissioner presumably because that'd create another super team like the Miami Heat. And of course there are some obligatory experts saying how LA might be worse off anyway because they lose frontcourt depth or something. I guess in their world in an NBA game they just measure how tall your frontcourt is and hand the victory to the taller team. Sure fundamentals count a lot but the Lakers' frontcourt didn't do much good against the Mavs last year. NBA is a star-driven league where one guy can literally decide the outcome, so having two Superstars is generally thought of better than having 1 superstar, 1 all star, and 1 borderline guy. Is it always true? Of course not, that's why you play the game instead of just add power levels. It's a gamble but it's a pretty reasonable one to make. The Miami Heat are still the favorites to win the title and their center is Joel Anthony who is pretty much an average joe, and LeBron isn't exactly a post player either despite his size, so if you go by conventional wisdom the Miami Heat shouldn't be that great, but having 2 superstars + 1 all star makes you pretty different from conventional wisdom.