I'm going to continue with the "three things" theme from last week. This week it's three players from the big three sports...Parker from my favorite NBA team the Spurs, Trout from my favorite MLB team the Angels, and Flacco who just became the highest paid player in NFL history.
Is Joe Flacco worth the contract he got? I would say no, but it's hard to fault the Raven's organization for being willing to pay 120.6 million for 6 years to the QB that just led you to a Super Bowl win.
In an article titled, I'm Worth What I'm Worth, on the Los Angeles Times website, Flacco said "Listen, winning the Super Bowl and winning the Super Bowl MVP doesn't make me as valueable as I am." I'm disagreeing with Flacco on that point. If he doesn't win the Super Bowl and the MVP, Flacco doesn't get this contract...I'm positive on that.
Flacco does have a few accomplishments to back him up. He tied Joe Montana for the best TD/INT performance in a playoffs with 11 TDs and 0 INTs. No QB has won a playoff game in his first 5 seasons...except Flacco. No QB has won more road games in the playoffs (6). He is tied with Brady with 9 playoff wins in his first five seasons. He hasn't missed a start and 63 regular season wins is the highest total for any QB over the last 5 years.
On the other hand, Flacco has "only" a 60.2 career completion percentage, never passed for over 4000 yards, and never thrown for more than 25 TDs in a season. In the current passing era, that doesn't put you in the status of top QBs in the league. His TD-to-INT numbers are 102/56. The most surprising thing I saw was that Flacco has never been voted to the Pro Bowl.
Does those last two paragraphs add up to the highest paid NFL player ever? Not in my book. I like the guy, but he's now going to have to face the pressure of living up to that contract.
From a guy that I feel got too much, to a guy I feel didn't get enough. Mike Trout was considered the best player on the Angels team in 2012...that's something considering the Angels had signed Albert Pujols in the off season. He was the AL Rookie of the Year and finished 2nd in the MVP voting. That got Trout a raise from 490,000 to $510,000. I know that $20 grand is a lot and that I would love to have that annual salary, but in the bizarro world of Sports contracts, Trout was robbed. Yea, I know that the Angels organization was well in their rights under the current Collective Bargaining Agreement, but it isn't unprecedented for a player to get paid over the minimum allowed in his 2nd season. Check this list of rookie of the year contracts...considering that Trout was also an MVP candidate wouldn't you think the Angels would have given him more?
Sports Illustrated showed Mike Trout's 2013 Salary in Perspective on SI.com...it's almost laughable when you consider what the players mentioned in the article will make and compare that to what Trout contributed to the Angels. With the exception of Cabrera (and remember that Trout was runner-up to him in the MVP race), Trout contributed more to the Angels. As an Angel fan who criticized the Vernon Wells signing, it makes me ill to see Trout's salary compared to what Wells will make.
To Trout's credit, he's got a great attitude towards the contract (his agent isn't happy though). "I'm just happy to be in the lineup," was Trout's response when pestered about his contract by the media at the Angel's spring training complex yesterday. Before a team meeting, Trout said "I mean, my time will come. I just have to keep putting up numbers and concentrating on one thing, and that's getting to the postseason."
You gotta love a player like that...which is even more reason the Angels should have rewarded him with more dollars.
For years I've been saying that the Spurs only go as far in the playoffs as Tony Parker can take them. Yes, Tim Duncan is still the foundation of this team, but he is no longer the guy that can carry the Spurs to the promise land. The Spurs' can't win a Championship without Duncan...but neither can they do it without Parker.
So you would think I would be on the side of those predicting gloom and doom for the Spurs since Parker hurt his ankle on Friday and is expected to be out four weeks (the prognosis is a grade 2 sprain, whatever that means). Yes, Parker has been the Spurs best player this season and has even garnered some MVP talk (although I feel that's a two horse race between James and Durant), but the Spurs will make the Playoffs...the question is, what seed will they be?
If Parker misses the entire month of March he'll miss 13 games. Eight of those games are against playoff teams. As I write this, the Spurs have a 3 game lead over the Thunder and a 4 1/2 game edge on the Clippers...in March, they play OKC twice (home and away) and LAC in San Antonio. It's going to be tough to beat OKC and LAC with Westbrook and Paul without Parker...so lets say they lose those games. They also play the Heat at home, a game they could have lost with Parker in the lineup. That's 4 losses. The Spurs proved yesterday that they can beat (and dominate) the lesser teams in the league without Parker by routing the Pistons 114-75, so I'm going to count 5 wins. That leaves 4 games...Bulls, Warriors, Jazz at home, and the Rockets on the road. If they hold their home games, that would make them 8-5. In order for the Thunder to catch them, OKC would have to go 11-2...the Clippers would need to go 13-0. As long as Parker comes back healthy on April 1st, I think the Spurs will hold on to the #1 seed.
No comments:
Post a Comment