Best of 2006 - Part 1
Another year is almost complete, so of course that means it's time to start rolling out this year's list. It seemed to start out a little slowly, but I'd say it turned out to be a pretty good year for new music...not that many great albums, but a lot of good stuff. In fact, it was difficult narrowing this down to only a top 50, but here goes...
50. Califone - Roots and Crowns
49. Joseph Arthur - Nuclear Daydream
48. Pernice Brothers - Live a Little
47. Ms. John Soda - Notes and the Like
46. Alejandro Escovedo - The Boxing Mirror
45. Richard Buckner - Meadow
44. M. Ward - Post-War
43. Envelopes - Demon
42. Beth Orton - Comfort of Strangers
41. Roseanne Cash - Black Cadillac
Yes, there are three artists in the 50-41 range who used to be mainstays in my top 10, and who account for 3 of my previous 10 #1 albums. What can I say? Times change, my tastes change, and old favorites remain close to my heart despite the fact that new ones have grabbed most of the attention...kind of like when your parents told you they don't love you any less after your younger sibling was born. Actually, I wouldn't know, since I'm that younger sibling.
Stay tuned for the rest of the list...
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
The MVP is a joke
I'm not referring to Justin Morneau or Ryan Howard. I honestly couldn't care less. Maybe that's the point...I just don't care. The MVP has turned into nothing more than a debate over what the criteria should be...this guy doesn't deserve it because his team didn't contend, this guy isn't that valuable because he has too much of a supporting cast, pitchers have their own award, etc.
Speaking of pitchers, I'll give you an award that has meaning...the Cy Young. It goes to the best pitcher in his respective league. Sure, you could debate whether or not Brandon Webb was that guy, and maybe the team he's on enters into the argument a little. Webb won 16 games for a sub-.500 team while Chris Carpenter, for example, won 15 games for....well, never mind. That's another tangent all to itself. My point is that 50% of the time the winner is absolutely cut and dried (Santana - 2006, Carpenter -2005, Santana - 2004).
Alright, I'll admit that maybe that's because great pitchers tend to really stand out above the competition, but if we were discussing who was the best offensive player in each league this year, I would come down to these guys...Ryan Howard and Albert Pujols in the NL, David Ortiz in the AL. Travis Hafner would have given Ortiz a run for his money if he hadn't got hurt, and Lance Berkman and Jermaine Dye both deserve honorable mention, but those three guys were clearly the best offensive players in baseball this year.
What am I suggesting? Nothing really. Alternatives would be to redefine the MVP as the top offensive performer, do away with the award completely and replace it with something comparable to the Cy Young (I prefer the Babe Ruth award), or to add the "Babe Ruth Award" to the current system. MLB currently is toying with the fan-voted Hank Aaron award. Personally, I think it should be named after an iconic player from earlier in the game's history, but regardless, this seems the most likely possibility.
Anyway...I'm going to get down off my high horse and give out Charles Simone's first annual Babe Ruth Awards:
NL - Albert Pujols, St. Louis Cardinals
AL - David Ortiz, Boston Red Sox
"It all adds up to a funky situation."
-W. Drayton
I'm not referring to Justin Morneau or Ryan Howard. I honestly couldn't care less. Maybe that's the point...I just don't care. The MVP has turned into nothing more than a debate over what the criteria should be...this guy doesn't deserve it because his team didn't contend, this guy isn't that valuable because he has too much of a supporting cast, pitchers have their own award, etc.
Speaking of pitchers, I'll give you an award that has meaning...the Cy Young. It goes to the best pitcher in his respective league. Sure, you could debate whether or not Brandon Webb was that guy, and maybe the team he's on enters into the argument a little. Webb won 16 games for a sub-.500 team while Chris Carpenter, for example, won 15 games for....well, never mind. That's another tangent all to itself. My point is that 50% of the time the winner is absolutely cut and dried (Santana - 2006, Carpenter -2005, Santana - 2004).
Alright, I'll admit that maybe that's because great pitchers tend to really stand out above the competition, but if we were discussing who was the best offensive player in each league this year, I would come down to these guys...Ryan Howard and Albert Pujols in the NL, David Ortiz in the AL. Travis Hafner would have given Ortiz a run for his money if he hadn't got hurt, and Lance Berkman and Jermaine Dye both deserve honorable mention, but those three guys were clearly the best offensive players in baseball this year.
What am I suggesting? Nothing really. Alternatives would be to redefine the MVP as the top offensive performer, do away with the award completely and replace it with something comparable to the Cy Young (I prefer the Babe Ruth award), or to add the "Babe Ruth Award" to the current system. MLB currently is toying with the fan-voted Hank Aaron award. Personally, I think it should be named after an iconic player from earlier in the game's history, but regardless, this seems the most likely possibility.
Anyway...I'm going to get down off my high horse and give out Charles Simone's first annual Babe Ruth Awards:
NL - Albert Pujols, St. Louis Cardinals
AL - David Ortiz, Boston Red Sox
"It all adds up to a funky situation."
-W. Drayton
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
I just don't get it...
$51 million just for the rights to negotiate with a player who probably won't be willing to sign for more than three years because he'll want to hit the free agent market while he's still young? I just can't seem to figure out how this could be a good deal.
I understand the value of keeping him away from the Yankees (and don't confuse my confusion with sour grapes), but let's do the math. If the Red Sox sign Daisuke Matsuzaka, the Japanese phenom, to a three-year deal, they'll already be paying $17 million per year to his former team. He gets none of this, so even if they pay him "only" $8 million per year, that's a total of $25 million.
Johan Santana, inarguably the best pitcher in baseball, makes $10 million per year. How can this guy be worth 2 1/2 times what Santana is worth? I realize Santana signed his extension two years ago, after his first Cy Young (he wins his second tomorrow), and, of course, the market has changed since then, but I still don't understand this move. If they can get him to sign for four years, then maybe they can offer him as much as $10 million per, but if the guy truly is worth this much then this reinforces the fact that he won't sign for more than three years.
Of course, the Red Sox don't have to pay the money if they don't sign him, but I've read that they have to negotiate in good faith or else they'll do major damage to MLB's relationship with the Japanese leagues. My theory is that they're going to offer him more money per year the longer the contract he signs...something like $6 million per for three years, $10 million for four, $12 million for five. In each of these scenarios they're still paying him in the $22-$23 million per year range.
Or, maybe they're counting on the fact that Scott Boras is such a difficult agent to deal with, and they plan on playing hardball and hoping that whatever their final offer is, it doesn't get accepted. Then, they don't have to be on the hook for an "out of this world" salary, and they can rest easy knowing that the Yankees didn't get him either.
$51 million just for the rights to negotiate with a player who probably won't be willing to sign for more than three years because he'll want to hit the free agent market while he's still young? I just can't seem to figure out how this could be a good deal.
I understand the value of keeping him away from the Yankees (and don't confuse my confusion with sour grapes), but let's do the math. If the Red Sox sign Daisuke Matsuzaka, the Japanese phenom, to a three-year deal, they'll already be paying $17 million per year to his former team. He gets none of this, so even if they pay him "only" $8 million per year, that's a total of $25 million.
Johan Santana, inarguably the best pitcher in baseball, makes $10 million per year. How can this guy be worth 2 1/2 times what Santana is worth? I realize Santana signed his extension two years ago, after his first Cy Young (he wins his second tomorrow), and, of course, the market has changed since then, but I still don't understand this move. If they can get him to sign for four years, then maybe they can offer him as much as $10 million per, but if the guy truly is worth this much then this reinforces the fact that he won't sign for more than three years.
Of course, the Red Sox don't have to pay the money if they don't sign him, but I've read that they have to negotiate in good faith or else they'll do major damage to MLB's relationship with the Japanese leagues. My theory is that they're going to offer him more money per year the longer the contract he signs...something like $6 million per for three years, $10 million for four, $12 million for five. In each of these scenarios they're still paying him in the $22-$23 million per year range.
Or, maybe they're counting on the fact that Scott Boras is such a difficult agent to deal with, and they plan on playing hardball and hoping that whatever their final offer is, it doesn't get accepted. Then, they don't have to be on the hook for an "out of this world" salary, and they can rest easy knowing that the Yankees didn't get him either.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Re-thinking 2005 (well, sort of) ...
Sitting in the coffee shop this morning, I was motivated to turn off my iPod and listen to what they had playing on their stereo. It was Matt Pond PA - Several Arrows Later, one that barely made my top 50 last year. As I stuck around to listen to almost the entire album, I realized that there wasn't even a single moment that I didn't enjoy.
This got me to thinking...last year I may have been a little too wrapped up in what the critics liked. From what I remember (Metacritic's archives are down right now), that album was pretty much universally panned by critics of the indie-snob variety. I have to admit that I may have let this affect my evaluation of it. Although, in my defense (from my own self-induced criticism), I realize, looking back on the entire list, that there are quite a few that didn't receive good press. Also, the aforementioned Matt Pond PA album still made the list, despite the fact that it was "boring emo crap" or whatever, so I wasn't a complete slave to the critics' opinions.
I feel like this year, things have been different. My attitude has been "screw the critics and the music snobs, I like what I like, and that's that". I still read the reviews and sometimes the fact that an album is critically acclaimed might cause me to listen to it three times rather than dismiss it after one (if I feel it's worth it), but if something I like is not well received, so be it.
I have occasionally had to be veered back on course, though. A couple weeks ago, in describing the new Midlake album to my friend Jud, I called it a cross between America and the Alan Parsons Project, but better than any album those two bands had ever produced. He called me on my snobbery, and I want to thank him for this. I'm still not a big fan of "Muskrat Love", but a lot of those America songs were truly 70's folk-pop gems. An indie band that could reproduce that magic would really be accomplishing something. Well, this album is actually better (to me) than anything by America, but not because America wasn't good, but because "The Trials of Van Occupanther" is absolutely a tremendous album.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not about to go pick up the latest Killers album, but I'm not going to waste my time listening to Grizzly Bear several times wondering why I just don't get it.
Sitting in the coffee shop this morning, I was motivated to turn off my iPod and listen to what they had playing on their stereo. It was Matt Pond PA - Several Arrows Later, one that barely made my top 50 last year. As I stuck around to listen to almost the entire album, I realized that there wasn't even a single moment that I didn't enjoy.
This got me to thinking...last year I may have been a little too wrapped up in what the critics liked. From what I remember (Metacritic's archives are down right now), that album was pretty much universally panned by critics of the indie-snob variety. I have to admit that I may have let this affect my evaluation of it. Although, in my defense (from my own self-induced criticism), I realize, looking back on the entire list, that there are quite a few that didn't receive good press. Also, the aforementioned Matt Pond PA album still made the list, despite the fact that it was "boring emo crap" or whatever, so I wasn't a complete slave to the critics' opinions.
I feel like this year, things have been different. My attitude has been "screw the critics and the music snobs, I like what I like, and that's that". I still read the reviews and sometimes the fact that an album is critically acclaimed might cause me to listen to it three times rather than dismiss it after one (if I feel it's worth it), but if something I like is not well received, so be it.
I have occasionally had to be veered back on course, though. A couple weeks ago, in describing the new Midlake album to my friend Jud, I called it a cross between America and the Alan Parsons Project, but better than any album those two bands had ever produced. He called me on my snobbery, and I want to thank him for this. I'm still not a big fan of "Muskrat Love", but a lot of those America songs were truly 70's folk-pop gems. An indie band that could reproduce that magic would really be accomplishing something. Well, this album is actually better (to me) than anything by America, but not because America wasn't good, but because "The Trials of Van Occupanther" is absolutely a tremendous album.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not about to go pick up the latest Killers album, but I'm not going to waste my time listening to Grizzly Bear several times wondering why I just don't get it.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
With their Hometown Heroes promotion, Major League Baseball is asking the fans to vote for the greatest player in the history of each current franchise. I'm going to take a crack at this, a few at a time.
Arizona Diamondbacks: Not much of a history here...Luis Gonzalez is in his 8th year with the club, and is the franchise leader in most significant offensive categories, including Runs (687), Hits (1178), HR (209), RBI (701), and Batting Average (.302). However, Randy Johnson won 4 Cy Young Awards in 5 seasons, and leads all-time in the following categories: ERA (2.65), Wins (103), Innings (1390), Strikeouts (1832), Complete Games (36), Shutouts (14), and Won-Loss % (103-49, .678). He is clearly the choice.
Baltimore Orioles: You could make a pretty strong case for Brooks Robinson or Eddie Murray (who played less than 2/3 of his career for the O's), but to me it comes down to Cal Ripken or Jim Palmer. While Palmer had a tremendous career, with 268 Wins, 3948 Innings, 2212 Strikeouts, 211 Complete Games, 53 Shutouts (all franchise records), Ripken edges him out with the "Face of the Franchise" tag. Oh, and he also leads the club all-time in Games, of course (3001), Runs (1647), Hits (3184), HR (431), and RBI (1695).
Arizona Diamondbacks: Not much of a history here...Luis Gonzalez is in his 8th year with the club, and is the franchise leader in most significant offensive categories, including Runs (687), Hits (1178), HR (209), RBI (701), and Batting Average (.302). However, Randy Johnson won 4 Cy Young Awards in 5 seasons, and leads all-time in the following categories: ERA (2.65), Wins (103), Innings (1390), Strikeouts (1832), Complete Games (36), Shutouts (14), and Won-Loss % (103-49, .678). He is clearly the choice.
Baltimore Orioles: You could make a pretty strong case for Brooks Robinson or Eddie Murray (who played less than 2/3 of his career for the O's), but to me it comes down to Cal Ripken or Jim Palmer. While Palmer had a tremendous career, with 268 Wins, 3948 Innings, 2212 Strikeouts, 211 Complete Games, 53 Shutouts (all franchise records), Ripken edges him out with the "Face of the Franchise" tag. Oh, and he also leads the club all-time in Games, of course (3001), Runs (1647), Hits (3184), HR (431), and RBI (1695).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
