Anyone notice this in today's Cafardo column? It's his list of top-ten lineups. </p>
All I can think of is that this is Cafardo's way of supporting the Myers-for-Shields trade, which most of the baseball world panned.
This annoys me for some reason. I guess I feel like a good commentator should explain baseball the way it is, point out nuances that may have gone overlooked or reveal ways of looking at the game that enhance our enjoyment of the sport. Instead, by putting the Royals at an extremely unrealistic 10, he got political on us. Calling a team good even though it isn't because he dislikes the kind of analysis that panned a particular trade...
[Edited out code...]
What a bizarre choice for no. 10. I mean, the White Sox are a better team, not to mention Tampa, Oakland, Texas, Philly, Milwaukee, and Arizona. I realize I'm being nit-picky, and it's likely he just wanted to bring attention to an interesting team that essentially has to win a playoff spot this year or its front office is toast, but at this point on paper the Royals are like the 20th best team.10. Kansas City Royals — A talented, athletic group of young, core players is coming together. They finally have a bona fide No. 1 starter in James Shields. You can’t be completely sold on the rotation, but on paper it’s better than it has been in years. The bullpen has some outstanding arms. The Royals may make the leap over .500 and into contention.
All I can think of is that this is Cafardo's way of supporting the Myers-for-Shields trade, which most of the baseball world panned.
This annoys me for some reason. I guess I feel like a good commentator should explain baseball the way it is, point out nuances that may have gone overlooked or reveal ways of looking at the game that enhance our enjoyment of the sport. Instead, by putting the Royals at an extremely unrealistic 10, he got political on us. Calling a team good even though it isn't because he dislikes the kind of analysis that panned a particular trade...
[Edited out code...]