The Simmons Site

I had thought it was hopelessly random until watching the same pitcher own in two consecutive postseasons. And who knows how much better he might be in this one, now in the other league.

 

C'mon Devil you are much smarter than this. Rowand and Zito had nothing to do with the Giants winning, nothing. The old rings argument is just ridiculous. People win spite of players sometimes, not because of them. Zito didn't not even make the post season roster for Chirst sakes.

 

It's tough for me to call anything a mistake when the sum of everything that was done resulted in a championship.

Here is a "what if..."

Go back one year and Michael Vick is on the market and Pittsburgh and Green Bay are both interested in him, especially Green Bay for whatever reason.

Would you erase the 2010 season for Green Bay for the chance to have Michael Vick as your backup QB or as an overall athlete on your offense? This means his presence could cost you the 2010 Super Bowl or it could give you the 2010 Super Bowl and make you a better team for 2011.

Would Dallas give away the 2011 title for a chance to sign LeBron instead of (or trading for) Peja?

Some may say they want the superior player and roll the dice again. Me, I want the title.

Sorry if that is a bad analogy, but that is how my brain works on this.

 

93, you're a good guy, but you really don't know how to argue your points and you make the most ridiculous and convoluted analogies. You seem to think that no matter how bad a signing may be, it's okay if the team wins a championship. There's no nuance there whatsoever. What if that signing then cripples the team for years afterward? There are lots of scenarios like that where even though the team won a championship, they may have made moves that can easily be called bad decisions.

 

Like the Celtics?

 

What does that mean?

 

Another example could be the Steelers should have drafted Logan Mankins instead of Heath Miller in 2005. Mankins is a three time Pro Bowler and an All Pro once. Miller has only been to one Pro Bowl.

But the Steeers have won two Super Bowls with Miller, and the Pats have won none with Mankins. Would I take Mankins over Miller in a do over? No.

 

Another terrible analogy as Miller has contributed a great deal to the Steelers, Rownad and Zito have not.

I still don't get your Celtics comment.

 

In about two years the Celtics are going to be a very bad team. Unless they can work some serious free agent magic, they are going to stink.

A few years ago they had a young team of Al Jefferson, Rondo, Delonte West and Pierce plus a #6 overall coming in a year or two, but they broke that up for Garnett and Allen, knowing those players only had a little bit of life left, but that life gave them a title. I would not call those trades bad, but when you look at their roster in a couple of years, those trades are not going to look so great.

 

Again, those guys contributed, and contributed immensely. Zito and Rowand did nothing. Apples and Oranges.

 

The Celtics won a championship, the next year got to the semis (I think) without Garnett, got to game seven against the Lakers the following year, and made it to the semifinals again this year with that same Big Three. The Celtics trade wasn't ever really a "win now" trade, not like, for instance, the Expos acquiring Colon. (Funny how we only ever remember the ones that work.)

 

So this is going to drive you nuts, but I think almost anything you do prior to a title run, gets a pass. Even signings like Rowland and Zito, which would be awful if the Pirates did it, get a pass in my book.