SURPRISE, Ariz.
I will know it's spring the first time I hear the high pitch of Rusty Kuntz screaming SUP PLAYER.
I will know it's spring the first time I hear a baseball player talk about his offseason training.
I will know it's spring the first time I hear Ned Yost disgustedly scoff at a question, only to eventually work his way around to supporting the premise.
I will know it's spring the first time I see Sal Perez play some goofy joke on a teammate, or Mike Jirschele ask about my kids, or Danny Duffy talk about Lompoc.
I will know it's spring when I hear the catchers mitts popping on the side, the bats cracking in the cages, and a scout telling me who to look out for.
I will know it's spring when a conversation with Dayton Moore or Gene Watson or Rene Francisco or J.J. Picollo makes me reconsider, and think, you know, these guys really do have a chance.
I will know it's spring when I feel my face burning a little because I forgot sunscreen, and when I see the kids lined up for autographs, and the players' families waiting patiently for postgame workouts to end.
There is literally not one single day that passes that I don't recognize how good I have it. I'm a sports columnist at the paper was delivered to my house before I was old enough to read it, supporting a woman I've loved since I was 14 and two hilarious and smart and crazy kids by writing about sports. This job has taken me to virtually every major American city, overseas for Olympics, behind the curtains for major events, and into the houses and lives of some fascinating, brilliant, tough, and driven people.
But my favorite part of most years is the time at spring training. The days can be monotonous, and my friend Rustin Dodd once perfectly described Surprise as a series of chain restaurants and urgent care facilities, but I love it just the same. It's simple. It's streamlined. It's clean. It's hopeful. It's fun. There's so much time to talk, to think, to imagine.
I only have three days here this year, but I'm in the best shape of my life, and expect to make the most of it.
This week's eating recommendation is pepperoni and onion at Caddyshack (even though they callously refuse to deliver to my neighborhood), and the reading recommendation is Amanda Shapiro on a day in the life of a line cook.
Please give me a follow on Facebook and Twitter, and as always, thanks for your help and thanks for reading.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Big 12 has been known as one of the best leagues all year, but I don't see any team making a deep run in the NCAA. What is the realistic expectation for the Big 12? Two in Elite Eight? One team in FF?</p>— Mike Rouse (@Turnksu) <a href="https://twitter.com/Turnksu/status/970679308296450051?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
We talked a little about this last week, and I know this is semantics on some level, but the title of Best League in the Country is a different thing than League Most Likely to Produce Final Four Teams.
When people call the Big 12 the country's best league, they're usually referring to RPI, which has the Big 12 ranked first, same as it's had the Big 12 in 2016, and 2015, and 2014. But the Big 12 has typically been strongest in the middle and bottom.
With algorithms, that kind of thing matters. With public perception, it is mostly irrelevant.
So when you talk about deep runs in the NCAA Tournament, usually you're asking about strength at the top, and this year I don't know that anyone would argue the Big 12 is better at the top than the Big Ten or ACC, for instance.
Kansas could make a Final Four run. Absolutely they could. Last Saturday in Stillwater notwithstanding, KU is generally playing its best of the season, it has talent and experience on the perimeter and a big that most teams can't match up with. One of its biggest weaknesses, depth, tends not to matter as much in the postseason. Defense is a concern, but if they shoot their way out of a close game or two, sure, nobody would be surprised to see them in the Final Four.
Texas Tech could make a Final Four run. Absolutely it could. That recent four-game losing streak notwithstanding, Tech is the Big 12's best defensive team, perhaps its toughest team, and I'll always wonder if Keenan Evans' toe injury was the difference in the league race. But if it's true that defense travels and doesn't take a night off, Tech can beat anybody. Zhaire Smith gives them some dynamism, Evans is a star if he's healthy, and Jarrett Culver is a problem for opponents.
After that, in an uncertain tournament, Jevon Carter and Sagaba Konate give West Virginia a chance to play into the second weekend. K-State has enough talent to do the same. Baylor can be inconsistent, but is always a goofy matchup for teams. TCU, Texas if they get in, even Oklahoma, all of these teams could be difficult outs.
So, we're all guessing here, and I'm not sure why it actually matters to debate one conference or the other, but the Big 12 this season feels like the Big 12 in most seasons: a lot of capable programs, not a lot of teams you'd bet on to make the Final Four.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">What is your tournament prediction for KU, K-State, and Mizzou? That is, they all do make it.</p>— Colby Rapp (@colby_rapp) <a href="https://twitter.com/colby_rapp/status/970683032528216064?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Predictions after we see the brackets aren't worth much*, which means predictions before we know the brackets are worth roughly the same as the mud we clean from our kids shoes after they play in the dirt pile in front of our house**.
*And ARE coming next week!
**If I accomplish nothing in 2018 other than growing grass in that pile of mud where a tree used to be, shutting down what the kids keep calling their construction site, and forcing them to play with toys or do something else that won't turn their shoes into an ad for household cleaners then I will consider this year an unquestionable success.
So, obviously, here come some predictions.
Kansas: a loss in the Elite Eight, because that seems to be how this goes.
K-State: a win in an 8-9 game, and then a 14-point loss to the No. 1 seed because the Wildcats couldn't score.
Mizzou: a win in a 7-10 game, an upset over a No. 2 seed whose coach complains about having to play Michael Porter Jr. in the second round, and then a loss in the Sweet 16 because the shots didn't fall.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">What makes the Big 12 tournament so amazing</p>— Paul Walsh (@Leahoodpaul) <a href="https://twitter.com/Leahoodpaul/status/970680111472226304?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Well, I liked it more when I lived downtown, and I liked it more when Mizzou was in the league*, but it really is my favorite event in Kansas City every year. Your question may or may not be sarcastic, but that's how I feel.
*I'm all in on talking about Mizzou in the Big 12 the way your great-grandfather talked about houses costing $500. Recruits may have no real memory of Mizzou being in the Big 12, but I can promise you nostalgic middle-aged sports writers do.
Part of this is that, despite the Big 12, I love the Big 12. It's at least a weird cousin of the league I grew up with, the league that made me love college sports, and if I squint hard enough I can see some of that come back for a weekend every March.
No event brings together so many fans from so many different places, all easily identifiable by their hats and sweatshirts and pullovers. You know the jokes will work with strangers. You all have something in common.
The tournament is competitive, so people are interested and intense, but it's also the week before the NCAA Tournament so the edge isn't as sharp if your team loses. You can still walk across the street for a beer.
I also love what it does for Kansas City. The place comes alive. It's the one weekend a year I'd be comfortable taking my mom to Power & Light, and if I had a real job it would be the first time my kids would be allowed at a bar past 7 p.m. or so.
I don't have anything to compare this to. I've never been to the ACC Tournament, never been to the SEC Tournament, never been to the Big Ten, or Big East. Been to Arch Madness a few times, and it's fun, but nothing like the Big 12.
Maybe the ACC in Brooklyn will be just as fun (though I'd rather see it in Greensboro). I'd love to see the SEC tournament in St. Louis this weekend, and I'm sure the Big East at Madison Square Garden has a unique appeal.
But to me, the Big 12 has always represented where I grew up, and where I live, and the conference basketball tournament has usually represented some of the best qualities. Strangers are nice, jokes are made, fun is had. What's not to like?
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">If Kansas faces Missouri in the NCAA tournament and loses, will this force Kansas hand to play a series with Mizzou in KC? Is it fair for the committee to place them in the same bracket?</p>— Kian Davenport (@kiandavenport) <a href="https://twitter.com/kiandavenport/status/970736250624802817?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Nothing short of Bill Self changing his mind will force KU to play a series with Mizzou, and I don't expect Self to change his mind, which is why I believe the series will be possible only after Self retires or leaves for the NBA.
I wish the answer was different. I've said this way too many times already, but I believe Kansas is acting petty, that enough time has passed, that the series started before the teams were in the same league and should continue with them in different leagues. I believe the idea that KU fans don't care about the rivalry is laughable, the idea that KU can't find room in the schedule silly, and the idea that the series wouldn't be good for fans delusional.
But, you know, onward.
Also: yes, of course, it would be fair.
Why would it not be fair?
The committee has enough variables to worry about without thinking about hurt feelings around what would be a terrifically interesting basketball game.
And if your response to any of this is that the selection committee will make sure that KU and Mizzou play each other, well, I can only speak as a sports columnist in Kansas City:
God, I hope so.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Kassius Robertson has been a warrior for Mizzou. Playing almost 40 minutes a game, while often filling in at PG despite having no experience at the position. Yet he’s maybe the No. 3 storyline for Mizzou this year behind MPJ and Cuonzo. Thoughts?</p>— Clinton Thomas (@ClintT13) <a href="https://twitter.com/ClintT13/status/970704225830428672?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Well, yeah, and depending on how you want to look at it I would listen to an argument that the development of Jeremiah Tillmon and especially Jontay Porter has been as good a storyline as Robertson.
This is all fairly remarkable, and it's hard to think of any ways Cuonzo Martin could've been more effective.
Robertson was supposed to be a spot-up shooter, a guy who could give you 10 or so a game, maybe more if his shot was falling, but definitely a player who needed others to create space and opportunities. Instead, he's the best shooter in the league, and Mizzou's best player most nights.
Tillmon has steadily improved, growing into that strength and potential, using the footwork he was blessed with and coached on to create some needed consistency and presence as the season wore on.
Porter's ability assimilate to the college game so quickly and relatively easily is a hell of an accomplishment on its own, and even as much as Robertson, Porter's emergence is the story of how this team has had success.
More than all of that, it's nice to see something positive at Mizzou, and in basketball specifically. I get annoyed when people trash talk a fan base for not showing up. It's such a lazy thought, an empty slam, and for a lot of reasons. It's not a fan's responsibility to spend his or her time and money supporting a team. It's a team's responsibility to be worth that fan's time and money, and for the last three years Mizzou basketball has not been worth the time of anyone who wasn't being paid.
The stands (and, it should be noted, web traffic) showed that, but it's hard to blame anyone for finding other interests.
Never meant that Mizzou fans had given up, or walked away. Just meant they wanted something worth their time and belief.
They have it, finally, and the most encouraging piece is that it looks sustainable. When Michael Porter Jr. signed, there was a fear that this was empty calories, that his (presumed) one season on campus would be fun and occasionally spectacular but the last two No. 1 picks missed the NCAA Tournament and, besides, one year or one star can't make a program.
Well, nobody could have anticipated this. Martin has instilled a credibility, confidence, and toughness that the program was missing. He's made massive progress in recruiting, most notably in St. Louis, and no matter what happens with either Porter there's enough in and around Mizzou basketball now that you'd expect some sustainability.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">How long do you think the Royals rebuild takes? Why is their farm system so bad right now?</p>— Ethan Kanke (@Ethan_Kanke) <a href="https://twitter.com/Ethan_Kanke/status/970680098578944000?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
If your definition is a winning season, maybe three years?
If your definition is playoff success, maybe four or five?
I don't know, those guesses are probably on the short end, if anything. The last one took seven years for a winning season, and eight for playoff success, and judged purely by talent in the organization, the Royals probably have more good players now but had more potential stars back then.
This is the opposite of a sexy storyline, but this summer's draft will absolutely define the organization for years. The Royals have four picks in the top 40, and with the current CBA, that's the best and most efficient way to build back up.
This is all so fluid, because the first time around, most of us figured Wil Myers would be a central part of the rebuild as a player, not a trade chip, but generally speaking the Royals need to draft and develop some stars to join a nucleus of guys already in the system who could become good players:
Cheslor Cuthbert, Jorge Bonifacio, and Hunter Dozier are all essentially prospects with some level of big-league experience. The Royals probably need two of them to become good players.
Raul Mondesi, Bubba Starling, Khalil Lee, and Nicky Lopez are all essentially prospects with no or bad big-league experience. The Royals probably need two of them to become good players.
Sal Perez is a commodity. Danny Duffy is a commodity. Whit Merrifield is a commodity. Nobody can say whether their contributions to the next rebuild will be on the field or as trade chips, but these are all decisions the Royals need to get right.
One lesson I'll absolutely take from the first rebuild: the margin for error isn't zero. The Royals can make mistakes, sometimes big mistakes like Christian Colon over Chris Sale, or $36 million of security for Jose Guillen to play for Trey Hillman. But they need to get most of them right, they need some luck to break their way, and they need to maintain faith through the storms.
It's all possible, but even with the track record of Moore and his front office, you can't say it's likely that any particular team's push will end in a parade. We tend to talk a lot about what the Royals did, and what the Cubs did, and the Astros.
But the Mariners have been trying this for a long time. The Padres have been trying this for a long time. The Rangers, the Rockies, the White Sox, the Nationals. We could go on and on.
Your second question, about the farm system, there are primarily two things at work here. The first is the Royals have had three years in a row drafting toward the bottom, and with some notable exceptions, teams that draft toward the bottom tend to have less productive drafts.
The second, and more important element, is that they've just missed on some picks. Bubba Starling still has a chance to be a good player, but he's been lapped by guys picked after him, including Anthony Rendon and Francisco Lindor. How much different would the farm system look if it had produced Rendon or Lindor?
In 2009, they took Aaron Crow when Mike Trout was still on the board. In 2012, they look Kyle Zimmer ahead of Addison Russell, Corey Seager, and Marcus Stroman.
You can play this game with any franchise, in any draft, so some of this is unfair but it's also true that the Royals have to get these decisions right.
Again, it's not a sexy story to tell, but all this talk about David Glass spending or Dayton Moore's trades or Sal Perez's contract or anything else ONLY matter if Lonnie Goldberg and the scouting department draft well.
If they kill it with all the picks this summer, and current prospects like Lee and Lopez and Pratto turn into stars, then none of this other stuff matters because there will be too much talent not to win.
If they flop and don't get players this summer, and the guys they've drafted recently don't turn into good big-leaguers, then none of the other stuff matters because there won't be enough talent to have a chance.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">So these fan rankings of the top 50 Royals of all time are pretty bad, right? Can you list your top 5?</p>— Cody K. (@notcodyk) <a href="https://twitter.com/notcodyk/status/970681348036886528?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Ohmygoodness, the list is objectively terrible. I mean, I get it. It's a fan vote. Popularity wins. Recency bias is everywhere. All good. But Jarrod Dyson was never a full-time starter for the Royals, and now he's one of the best 50 players of all-time? Zack Greinke is one of three pitchers to win the Cy Young Award, and pitched the greatest season in franchise history, but he's only 36th? Behind Yordano Ventura, Greg Holland, Alcides Escobar, and Steve Balboni?
Anyway ... a list?
A list!
5. Carlos Beltran. The most easily argued against on the list, because of longevity, but anyone who saw him play in Kansas City remembers him like a comet across the sky. His 2003 season is one of the greatest non-Brett seasons in franchise history: .307/.389/.522 with 26 homers, 100 RBIs, 102 runs, and 41 steals in 45 tries. And his 2001 season may have been better. In 2004, when he was traded to Houston, he hit 38 homers with 42 steals and 36 doubles and when he turned the postseason into his own highlight reel people across baseball asked Kansas City writers if they knew he was this good, and the answer always came back the same: yes.
4. Bret Saberhagen. The only two-time Cy Young winner in franchise history, and the MVP of the 1985 World Series when he was plainly dominant — two complete games, one earned run, 10 strikeouts and one walk.
3. Amos Otis. I've always been struck with how reverential Royals fans and teammates who saw him play speak of his career. He was the reason Willie Wilson played so much left field in his career. He's third all-time in Baseball Reference's WAR. There's a case that Otis, particularly now with recency bias, is the most underrated player in franchise history.
2. Frank White. Eight Gold Gloves, five All-Star teams, production and some speed from a position that typically didn't provide much of it.
1. George Brett. This one is so easy, but did you know Brett had fewer strikeouts in 11,625 plate appearances than Brandon Moss has had in 3,521?
Honorable mention: Willie Wilson, Lorenzo Cain, Kevin Appier, and I think we all understand this list is for humans, which is why Bo Jackson didn't make it.
<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/comment_embed.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FKCmellinger%2Fposts%2F1859561820729263%3Fcomment_id%3D1859613340724111&include_parent=false" width="560" height="181" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true"></iframe>
It's a great deal if you're judging it by dollars spent vs. production anticipated. The last three healthy seasons, Duda has hit 30, 27, and 30 homers. That's pretty dang good for Major League Baseball's version of $50,000 per year.
It's a puzzling deal if you're judging it like me, and thinking that the Royals are probably going to lose a lot of games no matter what, so why not use that spot in the lineup to ensure regular plate appearances for Hunter Dozier?
The way it looks at the moment, if Duda is the everyday first baseman, and Cuthbert is at third, maybe Dozier finds time at DH? The Royals do and should want Jorge Bonifacio to hit regularly, and they still want to see if Jorge Soler is salvageable, so being able to play Dozier at first would've allowed more opportunities there, too.
The explanation of the trade would make more sense if Duda was a great defender, because then you could sell it as help for the other infielders and pitching staff.
Duda is a good hitter, and the Royals really wanted a lefty, and I don't discount the notion that he brings some credibility and Professional At Bats to a young lineup. Maybe it's easier for guys like Cuthbert and Bonifacio with Duda in the middle somewhere. That's a credible argument, too.
But, I wouldn't expect the Royals to be able to flip him for much. Usually you only get a good return for trading stars.
<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/comment_embed.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FKCmellinger%2Fposts%2F1859561820729263%3Fcomment_id%3D1859578607394251&include_parent=false" width="560" height="141" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true"></iframe>
This is my biggest surprise of the offseason. The story all winter has been about the cold market for players, and the lopsided CBA, and the speculation of collusion* and to me the availability of a 29-year-old free agent coming off a franchise-record home run season, with proven postseason success, a good reputation as a teammate, and solid defense at a difficult position has been very surprising.
*The baseball kind!
People want to blame Boras, and maybe there was a deal that Moustakas turned down or didn't get, but even if you take the stance that this is all Boras' fault then you also better acknowledge that his track record is the best in the business.
Moose has been the victim of circumstance, at least to some degree. The Angels made the most sense, but they prioritized positional flexibility and athleticism in trading for Zack Cozart. The Giants made sense, but they traded for Evan Longoria, a star and objectively better player.
The Yankees made a whole lot of sense — that ballpark, and even the division, are perfect for Moose's swing — but they wanted to stay under the luxury tax and eventually traded for Brandon Drury.
Moose is in a rough spot, too, because at this point his best offer may be short-term and that would be bad for him in at least two ways.
First, and perhaps most obvious, free agents' younger seasons are the most valuable and the best leverage they have for the stability and bigger total compensation. If Moose — or any free agent — signs a one-year deal, he's giving up that leverage and his best chance at a huge deal.
Second, if he signs a one-year deal he becomes at best the No. 2 or 3 player at his position in next year's market. Josh Donaldson says he expects to become a free agent, and depending on how teams look at Manny Machado, that would be two third basemen clearly better than Moose.
The Royals, to me, don't make much sense. For either side. The team is trying to shed payroll — Jason Hammel, Kelvin Herrera, Danny Duffy and others are available for the right price — and wants to see Cuthbert at third. After Eric Hosmer signed with the Padres, Dayton Moore said that chapter of franchise history was in the past. He also recently said he'd never rule anything out, but it's hard to see how signing Moustakas fits what they've said they're trying to do.
For Moose, I would assume he'd want to be somewhere else, even for the same money. Kauffman Stadium is terrible for his swing, the Royals couldn't promise much lineup protection or RBI opportunities, and most of the guys he came up with and popped champagne with are gone.
Anything is possible. But it's hard to see how it makes sense.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">As the mentor of <a href="https://twitter.com/rustindodd?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@rustindodd</a>, are you responsible for the jean jacket?</p>— Joel Goldberg (@goldbergkc) <a href="https://twitter.com/goldbergkc/status/970679302382604289?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Any young whippersnapper fortunate enough to be mentored by my fashion sense would stack his closet with long sleeved T-shirts, jeans, and hats, too many of which would end up with some sort of Kansas City on it.
That whippersnapper, in other words, would look fly af.
Look, I'm not one for fashion advice. Obviously. The other day, we're going out to eat, and my wife bullied me into changing my shirt and then my shoes.
But choosing denim as your fashion identity is a bit of a strange move, like wanting to be known as the guy who eats toast for every meal.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Who hits more HRs this year, the Yankees 3, 4, 5 hitters or the Royals? <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/mellingerminutes?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#mellingerminutes</a></p>— Andy Turner (@andydturner) <a href="https://twitter.com/andydturner/status/970742822923128833?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
You might be joking, at least a little bit, but here's something that's true:
Last year, the Royals hit 193 home runs. That's a lot! Broke the franchise record, by a bunch. Also, Mike Moustakas hit 38 of those. Eric Hosmer hit 25. Brandon Moss 22. Lorenzo Cain 15. That's 100 home runs, gone.
Even if you credit the Royals back 30 home runs, which was Lucas Duda's total last year, now we're at 123 home runs.
Last year, Aaron Judge, Giancarlo Stanton and Gary Sanchez combined for 144 home runs.
Now, some of this is fuzzy math. Cheslor Cuthbert isn't going to hit 38 homers like Moustakas, but he'll hit more than his two from a year ago, because he'll have more opportunities.
But, well, yeah. This might turn out ugly for the Royals.
Unless you get them off on a technicality, because Judge is likely to hit second for the Yankees this year.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Now that Brooklyn BBQ is taking over the world...and the Chiefs are going young, by trading a 25 year old cornerback, which of these two would surprise you less.Bruce Weber wins the big 12 next season, or Bob Sutton returns the Chiefs to a top 15 defensive unit?</p>— Jimmy (@jimmyjay555) <a href="https://twitter.com/jimmyjay555/status/970754325906640896?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
You're not expecting this but: neither would surprise me at all.
Many variables exist on both sides. Dean Wade's decision is the most obvious. His progress has been one of the joys of watching the league the last few years. You saw flashes of his ability almost immediately, but never the consistency until this year. He's a mismatch for most any college team, the classic too-big-for-your-guards, too-skilled-for-your-bigs player who scored double figures in every league game this season.
If he returns, he should be the Big 12's preseason player of the year, and joined by Barry Brown on the preseason first team. Mix in Kam Stokes, Cartier Diarra, Xavier Sneed and others, and this is the team Bruce Weber has been building toward since he kicked Marcus Foster off the team and was granted a chance to try again.
This is a non-controversial statement: if Wade returns, K-State will be better than the 2013 team that shared the conference title with Kansas.
The Chiefs' defense is a little different, because Marcus Peters is gone, and you can't be sure if you'll get a full season from Justin Houston or Eric Berry, but your question is whether it can be a top 15 defense which isn't a very high bar.
Last year, the Dolphins ranked 15th in Football Outsiders' DVOA. The Chargers ranked 15th in the more traditional total defense. You might remember that the Chargers gave up 54 points to the Chiefs, and were worst in football at 4.9 yards per rush against. The Dolphins gave up 40 points to the Ravens — the RAVENS! — and forced just 15 turnovers.
Those are not good numbers.
But the Chiefs have good players. Chris Jones is an emerging star. Kendall Fuller was rated the sixth-best cornerback in the NFL last year by Pro Football Focus. Eric Berry will be back, and presumably healthy.
If Justin Houston plays a full season at something close to full strength, there will not be many more disruptive players in the league. Reggie Ragland is a hell of a bridge from Derrick Johnson to the future. Dee Ford will be back, Tanoh Kpassagnon will be unveiled, you can see where this defense should be better depending on health.
So, really, truly, both of these could happen.
If you're asking which would surprise me less, I'll say the Chiefs, mostly because it's a lower bar and Kansas will be loaded enough that 15-3 in the league could happen.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Why should anyone buy Chiefs season tickets?</p>— Steven Wood (@swood40) <a href="https://twitter.com/swood40/status/970718865155153922?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
This feels like a point you're making about the Marcus Peters trade, and what sure feels like a message from the front office that they're not serious about winning in 2018. If that's what you're saying, I get it, I agree. But that's not a full stop, Chiefs suck, let's all ignore them.
One of the lines you may be sick of me saying is that I'll never tell anyone how to spend their money, and there are certainly more reasons — many more — to not buy season tickets than to buy them. Going to games can be a hassle. It takes up the whole Sunday, and when the games are on Mondays or Thursdays it can be difficult for fans with real jobs. I know there are complaints about fan behavior, there are fights in the stands every year, and perhaps more than all of that the viewing experience can be better at home.
The biggest reason not to buy season tickets: that's a lot of money.
But there are so many reasons to do it, too. Games are fun. The parking lot before a Chiefs game is the happiest place in Kansas City. Adults across Kansas City and beyond consider games with their families among their best childhood memories. I have seen sports heal broken relationships, and spark new relationships, and strengthen good relationships. What's the price for that?
If we're just talking about football, well, the most obvious reason is Patrick Mahomes. This is the player many Chiefs fans have been waiting for since, literally, Len Dawson's retirement. He is young, wildly talented, by all accounts a hard worker. Lots of guys can say they love football, and care about it, but not many can say they walked away from a sport many thought was a better fit and potentially worth millions.
Tyreek Hill is one of the most electrifying players in the world. Travis Kelce is one of the best tight ends of his generation. Eric Berry should be back and presumably healthy. Justin Houston, when right, is an amazingly effective and versatile defender. You can never be sure how these things will go, but there is a real chance that one or more of these guys will be in the Hall of Fame someday.
Those are all good reasons to spend, if you have the money.
But if you'd rather buy a huge TV, or save up for a boat, or simply not be house poor for football tickets, well, nobody should tell you what to do either way.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">will SKC score any goals this season?</p>— Drew Champlin (@DrewChamplin) <a href="https://twitter.com/DrewChamplin/status/970678685513773056?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Don't be ridiculous. By April or certainly May, you have to believe they'll get at least one by the keeper.
OK. I do believe Sporting will score more than it did a year ago. I believe for a few reasons, including that the team created more chances than should be required for 40 goals last year, and that Peter Vermes added a striker, two wings, and a top midfielder.
They didn't add the high-dollar striker that both made sense and many fans wanted, but still. They should at least be closer to the middle of the league in goals.
Sporting has always been about organization. It's always been a whole-is-greater-than-the-sum sort of system, even more than most other clubs, so it's fair to give this some time before coming to any real judgments.
But, for one night, that was as bad as you could imagine.
They produced, what, three shots? At home?
That's not good enough, not by a long ways.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">How often would you go to VAR if it was available for parenting?</p>— Corey Anglemyer (@canglem) <a href="https://twitter.com/canglem/status/970680194473357313?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The other day, I went upstairs to get some shoes or something, and when I came down the 1 year old was laying on his back crying and the 4 year old was standing nearby with a look on his face. He said it was an accident, that his little brother just tripped, but I'm not sure how to trust that.
The other night, the 4 year old started screaming in the middle of the night. My wife goes in, rubs his back, he falls asleep immediately. Ten minutes or so later, more screaming. I go in, rub his back, same thing. Two minutes after that, same thing, so I go back in, he says his foot hurts, I make the terrible 3 a.m. decision to sleep in his bed and catch him smiling before we both fall asleep. I don't know how, but I assume VAR could've helped me there.
Oh, gosh, potty training. You don't think VAR could help with that? Or correcting a mistake like starting a toddler riot because you didn't think the stuffed mouse needed an adult-sized blanket?
I would use it six times a day, easy.
This week, I'm particularly grateful for my health. My sister broke her leg chasing one of her sons, and my dad flew out to help her and then had shoulder surgery a few days after getting back. I've never dealt with anything like that, and understand that's not common and not something I've ensured by the safest decisions. I've also gone running or to the gym more often in the last month or so, and am reminded one more time how much better I feel. Health doesn't stay with us forever, and I need to do a better job of taking advantage of it when I have it.
This story was originally published March 06, 2018 10:14 AM.