Arms Race

It needs to be said: Brian Cashman is really good at his job. A little more than week after the Red Sox inked John Lackey, Cashman went out and landed Javier Vazquez in exchange for Melky Cabrera, hard-throwing lefty reliever Mike Dunn and the highly regarded pitching prospect Arodys Vizcaino. Hardly a king’s ransom, although not exactly the broad-day mugging some pundits claim. You’ll probably disagree, but I think the trade is a pretty equitable exchange of talent, with the Yankees benefiting more in the immediate future than the Braves, who will likely reap their rewards a few years down the line. A case could be even made that the Braves got a better package of prospects for Vazquez than the Phillies got in return for Cliff Lee. That’s obviously debatable, and I’m not exactly prepared to argue either way. Prospects are prospects, after all.

Still, this was a move Cashman was right to make. A few nitwits are in a panic over Vazquez’s second tour of duty with the Yankees, probably because of this. That’s just silly. Granted, Vazquez was pretty awful after the All-Star Game and downright horrendous in the playoffs, but he was reportedly pitching with a strained shoulder, and has shown more than enough talent throughout his career to be dismissed on such a small, albeit ugly, sample size. Vazquez has pitched at least 200 innings in nine of the last 10 seasons. (He pitched 198 innings in 2004). At the same time, he racked up 1,027 strikeouts. 1,000 innings, 1,000 strike outs. The only other pitcher to match this output is Mets ace Johan Santana. What’s more, Vazquez was sixth last season in the National League with a 2.87 ERA, a career best. Now, this number is sure to jump up at least a run in the American League, but his low ERA and high strike out rate isn’t why Cashman went out and got him.

"We’re bringing Javy Vazquez to pitch toward the back end of our rotation," Cashman said. “We’re not here to say he’s going to win 20 games and lead us.”

With Vazquez back in the fold, the Yankees' starting rotation, fresh off an impressive postseason run, becomes all the more formidable, arguably the best in the Majors. His addition also gives the Yankees the opportunity to decide, maybe once and for all, the final landing spot for Joba Chamberlain and Phil Hughes. One or the other will now most likely spend the season as Rivera's set-up man, which will go a long way in shoring up the bullpen, especially if Damaso Marte and David Robertson can repeat their postseason performances during the regular season.

Make no mistake. Cashman made this move in direct response to the Lackey signing. He knew the Sox had gained a pretty significant edge in starting pitching, and recognized the need to strike back. That he was able to do so without sacrificing the team's immediate pool of talent is impressive. What can I say, the man is really good at his job.

BEN:

Well, I agree, and I don't. No question this was a move that improves the Yankees in the near-term without making any definite long-term sacrifices. From what I understand, Vizcaino was the key to the deal for the Braves, and if he turns into a career ace, and Vazquez is bad, or doesn't last long, this deal could end up looking quite different in hindsight. That scenario isn't all that likely, though. I agree that Vazquez is a durable pitcher with excellent stuff, even if he's been criticized as a "national league pitcher," or someone who doesn't possess a killer instinct. The latter criticism seems more valid to me than the former, but for a #3/#4 starter, these are pretty small points of worry. One thing I haven't heard said about this move is the wonders it may do for the bullpen, not only because Chamberlain is better suited as a full-time reliever but also because a 200-inning #4 starter takes a tremendous burden off of the relief corp over the length of the season. I wouldn't be at all surprised if guys like Aceves and Melancon had markedly better years as a result of the reduced workload.

As for how much of a genius Cashman is, well, I'm not going to say he's average. But this trade is a salary dump, something you see less of in the offseason (and some curious management of assets by the Braves, who subsequently spent some of their money on the injured and aging Troy Glaus.) But I'd argue that if this same trade were made at the deadline, it would look less ingenious on Cashman's part. He has the advantage of being able to replace guys like Melky Cabrera and Mike Dunn without really ever working at it--he can just go sign Damaso Marte or Xavier Nady/Nick Swisher at any moment.

(This isn't to say the Sox can't do the same thing 75% of the time; just to point out that the way in which an organization the size of the Yankees manages assets like Cabrera and Dunn is very different from that of most teams, and it leverages them not only in free-agent signings like last year's, but also in trading situations and in the draft.)

But there's one hidden piece of leverage here: only the Yankees can afford to pay Vazquez. The Braves, who were reportedly trying to shed salary in the form of Derek Lowe, could find no takers. And so when they went to move the $11.5m Vazquez, who was there left to deal with? The Sox reportedly have only a few million dollars left to spend; the Angels have already let several major free agents go; the Mets and Cardinals appear tied up with Bay and Holliday, respectively; and the Cubs have already traded Milton Bradley to shed costs. Maybe some other dark-horse club could've stepped up--the Tigers, the Astros, the Dodgers--but I suspect most teams are trying to get smaller, save the ones who feel they can win next year. So, where does that leave the Braves, who were so desperate to be rid of the cost? They had to compromise with the Yankees. And lo, here is your 200-inning 4th starter.

Not a bad bit of negotiating by Cashman--I'm not knocking him. But perhaps not all about sleight of hand and preternatural savvy, either.

MILES:

All valid points. Still, Cashman did unload Melky's $4-million salary, which means the addition of Vazquez only adds $8 million to the payroll. I understand that this is not an insignificant number. I honestly do. But there are teams that could carry this, most notably the ones you mentioned above. Whether they want to, is another issue.

Look, I know Cashman has some seriously deep pockets, which affords him an unquestionable advantage in building and maintaining a team. But this alone doesn't guarantee anything. The Mets and, to a lesser extent, the Cubs and Tigers are good examples of how a high payroll doesn't necessarily translate into successful seasons. More often than not, particularly in recent years, Cashman's used his resources judiciously, refusing, for instance, to give up Melky, Ian Kennedy and Phil Hughes for Johan Santana in 2007. Instead, he waited until the end of the 2008 season to sign Sabathia, and, a year later, swap Kennedy et al. for Curtis Granderson, and Melky (and Vizcaino and Dunn) for Vazquez. You might not agree, but I think this is where Cashman demonstrates an acumen more sophisticated than a series of blank checks. He usually reads the market correctly, and is more than willing to give up talent (and take on salary), as long as the price is right, so to speak. Which is a lot more than I can say for the other teams mentioned above.

That said, I still believe Theo is as good, if not better, than Cashman in putting together a team. Six or one-half dozen the other, really. I mean, it's no accident the Yankees and the Red Sox are usually battling it out for the AL East, and are annually among the top teams in the Majors. As a baseball fan, I can't wait for the upcoming 2010 season, which promises to be a really good one, due in no small part to Theo's work this offseason and Cashman's quick move in response.

Also, as an aside, I shouldn't discount the work Jack Zduriencik has done rebuilding the Mariners, adding talent, pitching depth and salary to his team. A man after my own heart, it seems.

BEN:

Jack Zduriencik has game.

Playoff Time

I think it's gotten to be time for us to deal with some NFL playoff scenarios. Now that our heated debate about the Patriots and Jets is back down to a low simmer, we can safely turn our attention to the rest of the standings.

I'm just going to trot out my predictions sans explanation, and we can argue over the details when you've done the same. Here, by the way, is the current playoff picture, if the season ended today.

(Home teams are in CAPS.)

Wild Card weekend

Ravens over BENGALS
PATRIOTS over Broncos

Giants over EAGLES
Packers over CARDINALS

Conference Semifinals

COLTS over Patriots
CHARGERS over Ravens

VIKINGS over Packers (again)
SAINTS over Giants

Conference Finals

Chargers over COLTS
SAINTS over Vikings

Super Bowl

Saints over Chargers

...ok, that's a lot of predicting, and I'm sure most of these picks will go horribly wrong. But, there you have it. Drew Brees goes 19-0, and the national media go crazy, and a lot of this happens.

MILES:

Wild Card weekend

BENGALS (3) over Patriots (6)
Broncos (5) over DOLPHINS (4)

EAGLES (3) over Giants (6)
Packers (5) over CARDINALS (4)

Conference Semifinals

COLTS (1) over Broncos (5)
CHARGERS (2) over Bengals (3)

Eagles (3) over VIKINGS (2)  
SAINTS (1) over Packers (5)

Conference Finals

Chargers (2) over COLTS (1)
SAINTS (1) over Eagles (3)

Super Bowl

Saints over Chargers

BEN:

All right then. Lots to disagree on here...for starters, the Dolphins winning the AFC East. I know that this is still a meaningful possibility, but the Patriots have the tiebreakers unless they lose at Buffalo this weekend. I don't think that's likely, with the bad weather, the strength of the Patriots ground game lately, and Buffalo's track record against the run (worst in the NFL). Provided Brady and co. can pull out that win, all the Patriots really need to do is split their last two games. I do think Miami has a legitimate shot at a playoff spot, but to me the important battle is between them and the Ravens.

Baltimore has easy games against the Bears and Raiders, along with the confusing Steelers, left on its schedule, and I think they're good for a minimum of nine wins. They've got a better conference record and are a better bad-weather team. Bottom line: Miami is toast unless they win out, and I don't think they'll do that without Ronnie Brown.

Without even agreeing on which teams are involved, the AFC wild card matchups are a bit of a wash. But in the NFC, you've got the Eagles taking out the Giants, who seem destined for a playoff spot even though it's hard to argue they've earned it. I will be the first to admit that the Eagles are a better team, but I just have a hard time imagining them sweeping all three games against New York this year. Jackson and McNabb are playing great football right now, but all Philadelphians know that it doesn't take much to upset McNabb's mentality. A stiff breeze, a few key drops, a little pressure from the ends, and he could wind up in trouble.

I won't mess too much with the late-round picks, as there is way too much guesswork involved. I do think it's interesting that we both picked San Diego to make the Super Bowl. If the season re-started today I would pick the Colts to finish about 12-4--that's about how good I think they are. But what Peyton Manning is doing this year is truly astonishing, and even though I've picked against him, it's hard to be sure when his magic will run out. San Diego is dangerous, but we know they're inconsistent. I think that game, if it happens, may come down to little more than luck.

MILES:  

I binged on football this weekend, watching/listening close to 9 hours of football. I feel sick, hungover from, among other things, yet another brutal Jets' loss. More on that later, I guess, but suffice it to say: it's rather unpleasant waiting for the bottom to fall out for 40-odd minutes or so. I knew it was going to end badly; it was just a question of when and how, like the feeling you get before the last round of drinks at a 2-1 special in Chinatown. 

What I took away from my ill-advised, daylong funneling of the NFL's seasonal brew is, there are a ton of crappy teams in the league. There are six teams in the AFC log jammed at 7-7, including the Dolphins, who blew up my postseason prediction with an overtime loss to the Tennessee Titans, also 7-7. The aforementioned Jets, god rest their souls, the Jaguars, the Texans, and the Steelers, believe it or not, round out the conference's melange of mediocrity. Even worse, you could argue that the 8-6 Broncos, losers of six of eight, including yesterday's loss to the woeful and, arguably, criminal Raiders, also belong in this group.

Your AFC Wild Card predictions are obviously much more likely than mine to pan out, although I really liked what I saw from the Bengals yesterday against the really good (and uncharacteristically resilient) Chargers. I like the Bengals to hold serve against the Ravens. At the very least, their first-round contest should be a classic. As for the Patriots, I have no idea who they're going to play. Could be Jacksonville. Could be Miami. Regardless, the Pats should be able to advance into the second round. 

Over in the NFC, the Cowboys' upset over the previously undefeated Saints makes it a bit tougher for the Giants to sneak into the playoffs. It's perhaps fitting that the 4-9 Redskins, with remaining games against the 'Boys and the G-Men, will play a big role in determining the conference's final playoff team. Mediocrity seems to be the norm this year, and way too many playoff-contending teams fall victim to squads with losing records. It's almost enough to make me want to detox between now and the start of the postseason.  

BEN:

Yeah, it's a total mess. To make matters worse, the Broncos are playing the Eagles in Philadelphia next week, and the Ravens are taking on the Steelers. It would take some major upsets for things to shake out this way, but it's actually possible for there to be a seven-way tie after next week, at the prestigious mark of 8-7. Baltimore and Denver are in the best shape; if I'm not mistaken, they'd each have to lose twice to miss the playoffs. That's probably not going to happen, and so it will come down to seeding to decide who gets the Patriots and who gets Cincinnati. The Bengals are likely the best of this lot, but any of the four could beat any other, and all are at least a step below Indianapolis and San Diego. I'd be surprised if the Colts or Chargers don't play in the Super Bowl, but as usual, you just never know.

The Giants do appear to be in trouble. Big win for Dallas on Saturday, and it may have knocked them out. I still think the Saints, who seemed a little shaken up after the loss, will recover by the time the playoffs start, and ultimately win the Super Bowl.

Theo Goes Shopping

Don't worry, we'll get to that other trade in due course.

Last week we discussed the viability of the Sox trading third baseman Mike Lowell to the Rangers. With that deal still pending, and without apparent concern that it may not happen, Theo Epstein has taken his shopping cart elsewhere.

In what turned out to be a busy day for baseball, the Red Sox procured themselves a short-term left fielder in Mike Cameron, as well as a long-term starter in John Lackey. Cameron, who will be 37 on opening day, is going to be earning about $15m over two years; and Lackey has signed a 5-year, $85m agreement. Both deals, in my opinion, are on the expensive side, even for a big-market team (and I'm sure my colleague here will have something to say about that), but what's more interesting to me are the implications of these moves for the opening day roster.

First off, the Cameron deal all but eliminates the possibility of Jason Bay returning to Boston. Reports on those negotiations were leaning in that direction anyway, but this more or less ices it. (Along the same lines, I don't think we'll be seeing any sign of Matt Holliday, either.) Cameron projects as the 2010 starting left fielder, and the Sox hope that the recently-acquired Jeremy Hermida will project as a longer-term solution there. There are question marks about both players, but under the circumstances, this is a defense-first, relatively (and I do mean relatively) inexpensive way to plug the hole created by Bay's departure.

The Lackey signing is perhaps more interesting. With Lowell likely on the way out, the Sox have now enabled themselves to move their blue-chip starter, Clay Buchholz, who has been asked for by virtually every team they've attempted to make a deal with in the last two years. With Buchholz having pitched well down the stretch last season, and four or five more years of cheap productivity ahead of him, he is as tradeable a commodity as the team has. The Sox also continue to have a hole at whatever position Kevin Youkilis isn't playing, whether that be first base or third, and are going to need to do something this offseason to plug it. Worst-case scenario for Theo and company, at this point, is to have Mike Lowell playing third base for another season.

If Lowell's deal to the Rangers doesn't happen due to medical issues, he's going to become a difficult player to move. The Sox appear willing to eat his salary for next season, and I'd bet their plan is to bench him either way. I think their second-worst-scenario is to sign Adrian Beltre, a move that would shore up the infield defensively and convert the $12m Lowell into a pinch-hitter and occasional DH. So much for inexpensive.

Theo appears to covet Padres first baseman Adrian Gonzalez, an ideal Red Sox-type player who would fill that terrible void in the middle of the team's lineup. With Bay gone, there is no question at all that the Sox need a player of his caliber. But will Buchholz be enough to land him? My bet is no. The Sox need to add another prospect to seal the deal, and San Diego, which is now operated by very-recently-ex-Red Sox Assistant GM Jed Hoyer, will not let Gonzalez go without either Ryan Westmoreland or Casey Kelly. I may be wrong, but I don't think this is a price the Sox are willing to pay.

Hoyer's ties to the Sox organization will never give him more leverage than he has right now, with complete knowledge of the players at every level of the organization. Theo may know how to push his buttons, and may be the better negotiator here, but we have no real way of knowing. I think the Sox would be better suited to spin Buchholz elsewhere--like Milwaukee.

So, here is my prediction/hope: Buchholz and a second prospect (Lars Anderson?) to Milwaukee for Prince Fielder. It would hurt to lose Anderson, who has middle-of-the-order potential, and of course Buchholz could emerge as a legitimate #1. But both have their issues, and in either case, Fielder is a major slugger with 5-8 more years of 40-homer, 1.000 OPS productivity ahead of him. The Sox need that kind of player now that no one recognizes David Ortiz, and this may be their best chance to get him.

Plus he's a vegetarian, which I like.

MILES:

I imagine it would take more than Buchholz and Lars Anderson to land Prince Fielder. I wouldn't be in a rush to ship out Buchholz, though. If last year taught the Sox anything, it was just how quickly a pitching surplus can become a deficit. 

Lackey's a solid pick up, and Cameron makes sense, too. Their addition certainly makes the Sox a better team defensively. I'm just relieved Theo didn't also decide to bag himself Halladay, while out on his little shopping spree. 

Quick question: wouldn't Cameron make more sense in center or right, with Ellsbury in rightor center and Drew in left? Cameron's skill set seems like a waste in front of the Monster. 

BEN:

Yeah, they'd probably need to add a third prospect, but Anderson's upside is allegedly 40-HR power, which would make him and Buchholz a pretty good haul if he panned out.

For whatever it's worth, I think Lackey is more than a solid pickup. He's a front of the rotation starter, probably one of the top 20 in all of baseball, and he has a dramatic effect on this rotation. You're right that a surplus of pitching can quickly dwindle, but Lackey, regardless of nagging questions about his elbow, is dramatically more durable than Penny or Smoltz. And with no WBC this year, I think it's safe to assume they'll get a full season of Daisuke Matsuzaka (whatever that means). That leaves the Sox with three innings-eaters at the front of their rotation, topped off with Buchholz, Matsuzaka, and whatever one expects from Tim Wakefield. If they move Buchholz (or anyone else...), I'd think they'd look into using Boof Bonser as a spot starter to go alongside Wakefield, Junichi Tazawa, and Michael Bowden.

According to Bob Ryan, the Sox plan to use Cameron and Hermida as a lefty-righty platoon. That's a *very* expensive 100 games for Cameron at his age, but it does have the plus of giving Hermida a chance to prove himself as an everyday player. I personally like Ellsbury in centerfield, even though reports on his abilities there vary from outstanding to just above average--but Cameron will get some opportunities to roam in right when JD Drew inevitably gets injured.

Interesting side note: provided he plays in center, FanGraphs actually thinks Cameron is a better player than Jason Bay.

MILES:

Fair enough. Lackey is a very good pickup. He'll give you wins and, more importantly, innings, which will only help your relievers. The pen, if I remember correctly, kind of fell apart late. This deterioration might just be limited to Ramon Ramirez. I can't remember. Regardless, a 1-2-3 of Lester, Beckett and Lackey is pretty damn formidable, arguably the best in the Majors. 

As for Gonzalez, call me crazy, but I just don't get it. The Sox, I think, would be better off if they kept Buchholz as their fourth starter. I don't trust Dice-K at all, and Wakefield is practically biblical at this point. As for Boof, if he ends up pitching anything close to 100 innings, things have gone horribly, horribly wrong up on Yawkey Way. 

Look, Theo obviously knows what he's doing, and seems to believe Gonzalez is the perfect fit for his team. He's probably right. If I were a Sox fan, though, I'd be worried about him inadvertently creating a bunch of different holes in his dogged pursuit of Gonzalez, especially if getting him would cost the team both Buchholz and Ellsbury. 

Who Do You Say That I Am?

I think we’re both in agreement that John Wall is one hell of basketball player. Last night, while watching him take over Madison Square Garden, I couldn’t help but wonder, like many others, if Wall isn’t already the most talented college basketball player I’ve seen in my lifetime. He very well might be, even nine games into his collegiate career and albeit still neck-and-neck-tattoo with Allen Iverson. (Shaq remains arguably the most impressive, if only because of his size and freakish athleticism; while LeBron and maybe Garnett would have been equally impressive if they hadn’t jumped right to the NBA). 

This morning, the Sporting News’ Dan Shanoff pointed out the very same thing, writing that Wall is already more captivating than Carmelo Anthony, Kevin Durant and Michael Beasley were in their one-and-done Freshman year. While touting Wall, Shanoff also asks an interesting question: Does the Kentucky Wildcat and future overall No. 1 pick need a nickname? 

What do you think? 

This is a tough one, particularly because John Wall already sounds like a nickname. I doubt very much anyone anywhere will ever refer to him exclusively by his monosyllabic surname, as if Wall and his otherworldly basketball talents could somehow be camouflaged as just another member of a functioning five-man unit. This is unacceptable.

Also unacceptable is JW. Too proper, too close in vicinity to J.D. for a man of Wall’s explosiveness and unpredictability. He’s not a stuffy, practiced man of letters; he’s a budding basketball deity. And deserves better.

In a different era, when college basketball was followed almost exclusively via the radio, some charismatic announcer or Midwest-based, ink-stained wretch would have christened Wall “the Kentucky Waltz” or “Mr. Bluegrass” or some such provincial moniker. Alas, those bygone days have, well, gone by. Gone too are the 1960s, when Earl Monroe and Lew Alcinder rose to form. Back then, Wall would have been known simply as “Black Jesus.” A decade later, he would have been called “Black Power,” while in the 1980s, he would haven been tagged with an unfortunate marketing slogan, like Wall Inc., or the Wall of Honor or, in a less democratic society, the Great Wall.

The 1990s would have bestowed upon him some variation of veracity or divine right: the Truth; the Answer; the One; Diddy. It’s a shame that period is behind us, because Wall’s high school, Word of God, fits him like a suit.

Today, in the age of Obama, I’m inclined to label Wall with some post-millennial, post-racial nickname, something entirely new. Something onomatopoeic. Something like Crunk or Zwar or Zounds. Or maybe he could do like Prince and go with an unpronounceable symbol, like the Nike swoosh, which somehow seems appropriate.

The name I keep coming back to, though, is e pluribus unum. In fact, I'm now convinced of it. 

BEN:

I kind of like "The Great Wall." Is it too soon to give up on that? Who cares if it makes sense--it has a nice ring. Or, while we're dwelling on cultural references that have no bearing whatsoever on his identity, how about The Walrus?

The Stove Heats Up

Baseball's winter meetings are underway, and, for a change, there seems to be some real activity this year. The Yankees have already made a move to get Tigers CF Curtis Granderson in exchange for Phil Coke and some upper-middle-class prospects, certainly a good move in the near future and likely for the long term as well.

This has of course prompted the standard media calls for the Red Sox to "react," as if the number of offseason maneuvers were its own statistic. And now, for what I assume are better reasons than that, they appear close to moving Mike Lowell to the Rangers for Max Ramirez, a young offense-first catcher. I think this is the right move on a couple of levels:

First off, Lowell was almost inevitably going to miss 10-20 games because of his need to rest his bones; it's pretty obvious by now that his hip surgery significantly impacted last year, and going on 36 years old, there isn't much reason to think he's going to bounce back this year. 140 starts actually feels like a pretty bullish estimate. Secondly, he is set to make $12m this year. Now, from the sounds of things, the Sox are going to be spending $9m of that just to have him play elsewhere, and that's a steep price. But they're also filling an organizational need by bringing in another catcher--we all know Varitek is not long for this lineup, even if he does get to keep a roster spot. He's earned that much. And while Lowell's leadership may be an asset for the young Rangers, the Sox have a strong core of established players who can pick up the slack there. Better to move Lowell now than risk having him be injured, or unproductive, until the trading deadline, and end up getting nothing at the end of the year.

It's a tough move, PR-wise. Ramirez is far from a guaranteed talent, and most Sox fans have never even heard of him. Not only that, Lowell is viewed as one of the classiest and most likeable guys in the Sox organization. But this kind of hit is temporary--people are always sad to lose an established player, especially one who's been a big part of a championship team. I still say you've got to pull the trigger. Youkilis needs a full-time position, the team needs a young catcher, and they could stand to clear some salary, too, if they plan to re-sign Jason Bay. Or go get Adrian Beltre. Or both.

I want it read into the record that I do not think this trade is in any way a "response" to the Granderson deal. The Yankees, by the way, seem to me to have clearly improved their team this offseason, after winning the world series. Let no one think I am happy about this.

MILES:

I've always liked Mike Lowell. He did, after all, come up through the Yankees' system. He's always comported himself professionally, performed acts of wizardry at the hot corner, and given my chosen team fits at the plate, both as member of the 2003 World Series Champions Florida Marlins and the 2007 Sox, who, rumor has it, won a game or two or 11 that postseason. That said, I think this is the right move for the organization. I know nothing about this young catcher (I assumed he was an infielder), but Lowell is in the twilight of his career. The Sox had to move on; their fans understand that.  

I'm starting to come around on the Granderson trade. Initially, I was concerned about his platoon splits, his defensive decline, and his alarming propensity to strike out. But Jim Leyland and just about everybody else in the Majors swears by his character, his love for the game, and his ability to figure out lefties. This, like the Sox's impending trade of Lowell, makes a whole lot of sense. 

I'd be remiss, though, if I didn't point out that the Sox will end up paying Mike Lowell more money not to play than the Yankees will pay Granderson to patrol the most famous real estate in sports. 

BEN:

Max Ramirez has been periodically mentioned as a possible Red Sox option at catcher over the last year or so. It's the right move for the Rangers, who are stacked at that position, and get a good clubhouse presence and reliable (when healthy) bat for $3m. The Sox, in return, are getting a player who has big upside as a hitter, even if his defense has been questioned. One hopes he'll grow up as a defensive player. I think it's a win for both sides at this point.

By the way, the Yankees closed down the most famous real estate in sports. Granderson will be patrolling the ground hallowed by Melky Cabrera and Brett Gardner.

MILES:

That's World Series champions Melky Cabrera and Brett Gardner, sir.  

Deto-Nate

Since Mike D’Antoni benched Nate Robinson, the Knicks have won three of four, including three straight (OK, 2.5) against the Hawks, the Nets, and the Ail Blazers. The team, now operating almost exclusively as an 8-man rotation, is playing much more cohesively and competitively. Granted, four games isn’t a great sample size, but this statistic speaks volumes about Robinson’s value to the team: When Lil’ Him logs less than 15 minutes of game time, the Knicks are a respectable 7-6, compared to a truly pathetic 0-15 when Kryptonate gets more than 15 minutes of burn. Robinson, a fan favorite, for reasons I’ve never quite figured out, literally brings more nicknames—and traffic violations—to the team than actual wins. Nate, for all his hops and marketing chops, isn’t exactly long for the Knicks. It’s now just a matter of time before Walsh, with the full endorsement of D’Antoni, sends Robinson packing.

My question is, what do you think the organization could get for him? Before you answer, keep in mind Robinson is an unrestricted free agent at the end of the season, which could either be attractive to a team or prohibitive, depending on their finances.

I like to think Orlando would send us back a first-round pick for Robinson. He’ll give them instant offense off the bench, and is, in my opinion, a much better option than JJ Redick. As The Post’s Mike Vaccaro, one of my favorite sports writers of all time, wrote this morning, “in his highest evolution and most useful form, Robinson would be Vinnie Johnson Lite, instant spurts of offense on a good team who could be locked away if he shows up cold on any given night." 

Orlando seems like the perfect fit for him.  

BEN:

Interesting stat. You mean 0-9, right? Not 0-15? Anyway, worth a little more examination. Nate-Rob sat out the first six games of November, a stretch during which the Knicks went 1-5; clearly, they didn't have anyone to fill his shoes and it hurt them. More recently, he's been intentionally benched by D'Antoni, and the team has been 3-1 since that decision. Whatever it is--morale, chemistry, a specific in-game strategy--the team has clearly changed its relationship to its fan-favorite scorer who somehow isn't popular with the fans. There's no doubt that not playing Robinson, for a while, is the right thing for this team. But I have to question whether this is going to work long term; I suspect the balance on this stat will shift. One thing seems clear, though: they are not a good team when they have to rely on him.

What can you get for a talented scorer with an attitude problem? At $4m in cap space, I don't know he has enough to offer Orlando. Yes, they're light on shooting guards behind Vince Carter, but they've got a legitimate shot at a title this year; and if I were them I'd hesitate to bring in someone with such potential to mess with their success. What about more of a dark-horse team, with a similar depth problem, and a money issue to worry about at the same time? The Houston Rockets have almost $40m invested in Yao Ming and Tracy McGrady. Who better than they to take on a problem child who can save them money long-term? They're the best fit I can think of.

Is he worth a first-round pick? It's possible. I don't have the sense that next year's draft will be exceptionally strong (behind the basketball genius of John Wall, that is), so maybe they'd take a flier. Then again, if D'Antoni is desperate to move him, that price may come down. One thing we can agree on: Nate-Rob's days in New York are likely numbered, and I don't think he's going to be missed.

Did someone say they wanted to watch more John Wall highlights? Very well, if you insist:



MILES:

I read the 0-15 stat in a bunch of different dailies and websites. I'll defer to Howard Beck, who wrote yesterday morning the Knicks are "0-9 when he plays at least 19 minutes and 7-6 when he plays 12 or fewer." I credit the Knicks' mini-run to Larry Hughes. He's been great this month, believe it or not, both on the defensive end and running the offense. I actually wouldn't mind bringing him back next year, for the right price, of course. I doubt, though, he'd be willing to take the minimum to stay in New York. 

The Rockets are also interesting trading partners. What are the chances Daryl Morey would be interested in Jared Jeffries, Eddy Curry, Nate and $3 million for McGrady? We'll gladly take back McGrady for three months to clear enough cap space to sign Lebron and Chris Bosh in the offseason. I'd say this scenario is about as likely to happen as John Wall returning to Kentucky for his sophomore season. 

Fin.

Sure, Tom Brady and Co. will most likely hold on to win the pitiful AFC East, but yesterday's loss, the team's third in four weeks, pretty much put to rest our weeks-long debate. The Pats, as presently constructed, ain't very good. 

The slide toward mediocrity continues. Next stop: irrelevancy.   

BEN:

No surprise, but I've gotta disagree with you here. I think the conversation over the last two weeks has been more about your perceptions of the meaning of the New England Patriots' role in the NFL than any substantive discussion about how good this year's team actually is. They looked very good a few weeks ago and are having a bad stretch. Is there more to say about it than that? Yes, maybe. They failed some big tests, and have repeatedly created the impression of not being closers this year. That's new. Probably not going to return to 2007 form any time this year or next.

They were mediocre yesterday--that's certainly the word. Key turnovers, too many penalties, letting themselves get beat by an inferior team. But it's odd to me how thoroughly you're willing to presume that the team is going to self-destruct. (The only evidence you've cited for this idea, so far, is the 2005-08 Yankees, an odd comparison for numerous reasons). I mean, really, this "mighty have fallen" stuff is not meaningless, but it only goes so far. Here's a question for you: what part of this team is *actually* on the downward slide?

Brady and co. have not willed their way to victory this year. I've spotted some bad decisions along the way, and, if I'm being honest, I don't think they're likely to get it done in the playoffs. Is this because he no longer has the ability to play football? I seriously doubt it. His numbers, despite the 4 INTs in the last two weeks, have been outstanding this year. Welker--who is 28 years old and entering his prime--looks likely to lead the NFL in both receptions and yards, despite playing only 14 games. (Welker is technically 2nd in the league in yards, behind Randy Moss.) Brady has an expiration date, sure, but there's no reason to think he's not going to be excellent for several more years. Ditto for Moss, who has been surprisingly quiet about having an extremely productive year.

The defense has been completely rebuilt. They're not winning enough of their key battles, but almost every key player involved in it, save maybe Adalius Thomas, should improve next year. Mayo, Guyton, Merriweather, McGowan, Butler, Chung, Wilfork--all should improve next year, and look like long-term keepers. Bodden, Warren, Green, and Banta-Cain are a bit older, but have plenty of productivity ahead of them. They need another pass-rusher--Adalius Thomas and Derrick Burgess aren't enough--but that's easily addressed in the draft. The team also needs another running back to supplement Maroney (who I think has improved this year), but again, is that why you think this team is going to be irrelevant?

I haven't given up on 2009, either. They may not win the Super Bowl--or even a playoff game. But they've got a lot of talent and a favorable December schedule, a great quarterback and a smart coach. At the beginning of this season, the Steelers were the odds-on favorite to win it all. This time last year, the Cardinals looked like the worst team in the playoffs. Six weeks ago, the Titans were utterly helpless. I'm just saying--in the NFL, you never know.

Clever title, though--I'll give you that.

Net Losses

Well, the new era of basketball futility is upon us, courtesy of the New Jersey Nets. I won't trot out the trademark hostility of this blog to beat on the woebegone Nets, who after all are not the team of my colleague (or, as it turns out, anyone, really). With the recent swoons of the Giants and Jets, teams that call New Jersey home are a collective 5-29 since October 1st. And the Nets are doing nothing to help.

Without a legitimate go-to threat and five starting players who would likely be backups on the league's elite teams, there simply isn't much to work with here. They all knew it would be a rebuilding year, but the problem is that there's no indication when this struggle is going to end. Is the rumored move to Brooklyn sufficient incentive to bring in the high-priced talent, when next season's attractive crop of free agents becomes available? Who wants to come to the rescue of this organization? Where is the revenue going to come from?

These are big-picture concerns that the patchwork team must do its best to tune out. The question for the moment is: when will the first win come? This weekend provides two decent chances, with home games against the Bobcats and Knicks.

What say you, comrade? When will the Nets break out? Will it be your Knicks coming to the rescue?

MILES:

Meh. I've always been, at best, ambivalent about the Nets. In my lifetime, the organization, even when at the top, has been kind of irrelevant, like the state of Delaware or Paul Tsongas. Does anyone, besides Jay-Z, really care about the Nets? The media coverage of the team's historic futility has been largely perfunctory, a collective shrug from the Frank Bascombes of the world. 

Even at 0-18, the Nets can't even lose with panache. Which is to say, they aren't entirely dysfunctional. These ain't the 1962 Mets. Before last night, for instance, the Nets, to their credit, have played hard in every game, losing four games by a combined nine points, including this back-breaker against the Heat. They lost to the Celtics by 10, and the Knicks by seven. And it's not like the team is without talent. Brook Lopez is averaging 18 and 9, and Chris Douglas-Roberts is putting up close to 17 points a game. At the same time, their best player, Devin Harris, has only played in eight games this season, while the mysteriously tantalizing Yi has only laced up his size 17s a whopping four times. I'm rambling, I know. My point is, I think, the Nets aren't charmingly hopeless or even lovable losers. They're not even as bad as their record. Granted, they're not much better, but they should probably have two or three wins this season. 

With that said, I still say they won't pick up their first win of the season until they host the Golden State Warriors on Wednesday. Charlotte's just a better team, and the Knicks have actually been playing pretty well offensively in recent weeks, although the noon tipoff time worries me a bit. The Nets might steal one from the Bulls, who seem to have trouble scoring, but I think they'll end their streak against the entertainingly dysfunctional Warriors, who will be in the middle of a five-game road trip. 

The Big Easy

All biases aside, Drew Brees was simply amazing last night. He was so good, so cold-blooded efficient, he would have probably given the 2000 Ravens or even the 1985 Bears fits, although those two defenses would have forced him to work a little bit harder than the Pats’ defense did. Brees completed 18 of 23 passes for 371 yards, an average of 20 yards per completion. He tossed five touchdown passes to five different receivers and finished with a perfect quarterback rating of 158.3. The man had as many touchdowns as he did incomplete passes. An incredible performance. 

His 38-yard touchdown pass to Robert Meachem was one of the best throws I’ve ever seen. How the hell did he fit that pass in there?

On the other side of the ball, the Saints put a choke hold on the Patriots' vaunted offense, picking off Tom Brady twice and limiting Randy Moss and the Slot Machine to nine catches between them. Brady, who failed to throw a touchdown pass for the first time since the Jets kept him out of the end zone in Week 2, put a nice little bow on last night's game. ''There's obviously a big gap between us,'' he said. ''It wasn't nearly as competitive as we all were expecting.''

I’ve been giving the Pats are a hard time lately, mostly because they haven’t won a real road game or racked up a signature win this season, but last night I actually felt kind of bad for them. They were entirely outclassed in every facet of the game. That doesn't happen often--about as often as Bill Belichick goes out of his way to congratulate an opponent. 

BEN:

I think you'd probably be better off pitying some team that's actually struggling, as opposed to one that's "only" in the league's top 7 or 8.

The Saints beat the hell out of my team, no question about that, but I'm a long way from despairing. The young defense got totally embarrassed, by an extremely impressive offense, and they have some learning to do. But I still like the way they're constituted, and continue to be impressed with Belichick's ability to keep his team in the game while giving the defense a makeover. The offense is supposed to carry the torch while they're getting their reps in, and Monday night, they didn't execute. Still, they've got some incredible weapons, and they're going to get their stats.

Ok, sure, this week's game did not inspire confidence for those late-round playoff games. That's a monkey on their back, clearly. But they're still in great position to win 10+ games for the seventh consecutive year, as well as the AFC East. And I should point out, while we're harping on intangibles and matters of mystique, that pretty much every team's resume--except for these Saints--has some kind of problem with it. The Chargers and Cowboys are dynamic and talented, but frequently play way below their potential. The Bengals lost an embarrassing game to the Raiders, and no one seems sure whether they're for real. The Vikings have no signature wins and a very soft schedule. Even the Colts seem to get away with murder every week; most people suspect it will catch up to them.

What does it all add up to? My bet would be a Saints championship; but then again, all it takes is a team getting hot at the right time. I'm not sure it feels like a Super Bowl year for the Pats, but then again, neither did 2001, until it did. I still think they have the tools to win, if they get it together. And, anyway, I'd rather have this "off year" than, say, an actual losing season.

I see that you are continuing to care a great deal what Bill Belichick does in the 60 seconds after his games end. I wish you well in that pursuit.

MILES:

I feel sorry for your team because the Patriots are slowly but surely turning into the 2005-2008 Yankees. You've been so thoroughly spoiled by the Pats' recent string of success, you're having a hard time seeing the forest for the trees. I understand what you're up against. As a fan, you want to believe the Pats will figure out a way to win it all, just like in years past. The talent's there, you'll find yourself repeating, year after year after year. Belichick, you'll assure yourself, knows what he's doing. The defense, you'll insist, will get it together when it matters most. We've won the AFC East seven (or eight or nine or 10) years in row, and we still have Tom Brady and Randy Moss, you'll say. That first-round match up doesn't worry me at all, you'll swear. Nobody wants to play us, damn it! By the time the playoffs roll around each year, you will have convinced yourself the Patriots are world beaters. 

Trust me, though, this won't end well. In fact, it's only going to get worse before it gets better. 

Payback

What a difference Wes Welker makes. The Slot Machine, who was so dearly missed during the Jets' Week 2 win in the Meadowlands, came up huge for the Patriots in a crucial division game this afternoon. Now that the game has gone final, and with the Patriots winning so handily, it is easy to forget just how much was on the line today. The Jets, who have been in an absolute tailspin since their hot start, had a chance to turn it all around. A win would've brought them to .500; restored the team's shattered confidence; made a statement to the league; and put them one game behind the Patriots in the division, both in terms of overall record and division record.

And don't think the players and coaches didn't know it. After their home loss to the Jaguars last week, Mark Sanchize reminded us that there was "no more wiggle room," and the local press billed it as the team's last hope. A different outcome yesterday would have profoundly affected both teams' seasons.

But the Jets didn't show up. Their league-best running game produced just 104 yards, 38 of which came on their final drive of the game, in what was effectively garbage time. Their vaunted defense surrendered 410 yards and allowed the Patriots to possess the ball for nearly 40 minutes. But no shortcoming was as significant as that of Sanchez, who produced one of the worst games of his rocky season, throwing 4 interceptions, and losing a fumble.

But even just the turnovers, which alone were probably enough to cost the Jets any chance at the game, don't tell the story of just how far Sanchez has fallen. The young stud, who at the start of the season was drawing comparisons to Namath, is now one of the worst starting quarterbacks in the league. He has thrown 16 INTs in 10 games, trailing only Jay Cutler for most in the League. And he's completing just 52% of his passes, ranking him just behind Kerry Collins and just ahead of JaMarcus Russell, both of whom have been benched for poor performance. In fact, Sanchez's accuracy and 61.1 passer rating is the worst in the league for anyone currently with a starting job.

And the Jets are not making up for it. Now 4-6 overall and 1-4 in the AFC East, they've effectively put their season on ice. While not yet mathematically eliminated from playoff contention, the Jets would need a series of miracles to climb back into it, and appear to have given up hope.

The Patriots, on the other, showed some resolve, bouncing back from last week's heartbreaking loss in Indianapolis, and exacting revenge for the events of Week 2, chronicled in these pages. Brady was his usual hall-of-fame self, throwing another 300 yard game and connecting with Randy Moss for a touchdown pass. Welker--of course--had a monster game, catching 15 passes for 192 yards, and even the maligned Laurence Maroney, with two TD runs, came up big.

Now, they're on to perhaps the season's toughest test, attempting to tackle the unbeaten Saints in New Orleans. It will be a tough game, but they'll go into this key week of practice coming off a crucial win.

MILES:

Well, at least Wes Welker has a terrible nickname. I was beginning to think the man was without fault, or weakness. He was great yesterday, finding holes in the Jets' defense whenever the Pats needed a big play, or just wanted to throw to him, for that matter. Rex Ryan and his vaunted defense just didn't have an answer for him, which struck me as odd because Darrelle Revis was more than holding his own against Randy Moss. Someone should have been free to shadow Welker. No one did. Or could. 

The story of this game, though, was the horrendous play of Mark Sanchez. With five turnovers (4 INTs, 1 fumble), Sanchez, the cornerstone of the franchise, handed the Patriots 17 points. That just can't happen. I'm going to have to practice some patience with the 23-year-old, but I can't pretend he's not maddeningly frustrating. Statistically, he's a total mess; while emotionally, he's about as sturdy as Kevin Garnett's surgically repaired right knee. 

Still, I'm not about to write him off. The young stud, as you like to call him, is still very much a work in progress, as is, evidently, the entire Jets team. Sanchez does have a ton of talent; he just has to learn how to take care of the football. If he can do that, everything else, I hope, should fall into place. It probably won't be this season, but I remain optimistic about his future, despite his present struggles. 

BEN:

No, I wouldn't write him off either, and while I think he's potentially got a bright future, there is also plenty of cause for concern. The "aw shucks, I'm just a rich handsome quarterback from a powerhouse school" routine worked while things were rosy, but in losses, Sanchez has also occasionally been petulant and easily rattled. These may very well be rookie qualities, and maybe, like Peyton Manning, he'll outgrow them. On the other hand, there are players with all the talent who never mature enough to be effective. Where are you now, Ryan Leaf? How's that starting job treating you, Matt Leinart? Are you glad you got your trade, Jay Cutler?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Sanchez is a bust--it's much, much too early to make a call like that. But his future is far from decided; and at some point the growing pains are going to have to stop.

One last thing: I think your read of the Revis/Moss battle is a little stingy. I'll admit Revis did a great job, but one reason Welker was open so much is that Kerry Rhodes was very often helping over the top on Moss. (In fact, on Welker's longest reception of the day, three of the team's four DBs converged on Moss, allowing the little man to get his release.) And, while Revis was highly effective, he STILL surrendered five catches and a touchdown, and if not for a Brady overthrow, would've surrendered a 60-yard bomb for a second score.

I won't overstate the case--he's an elite corner, and he kept Moss at bay for most of the day, no mean feat. But I think your version of the events is a bit revisionist, and on this blog, we must speak our minds.

By the way, can I take a straw poll of you readers on whether "The Slot Machine" is terrible? Better or worse than "Sanchize"? Anyone? Come on, it's cheeky! He's small and amusing!

MILES:

You seem quite taken with Senor Sanchez's looks. Maybe if he looked more like, say, Eli Manning, you'd be better inclined to cut the kid some slack. Eli, if you remember correctly, got off to a terrible start in New York (1-7 in his first eight starts, with 9 INTs and a 55.1 quarterback rating) before wining a Super Bowl Most Valuable Player award. 

Sanchez will never be confused with Brady or Peyton, but he will be fine. It's just going to take some time. 

As for the Revis-Moss debate, I'm not a revisionist. Five catches for 34 yards is hardly vintage Moss; reads more like a Jericho Cotchery line to me. On Welker's longest catch, four DBs went to jam both Moss and Welker at the line of scrimmage, according to reporters who understand these things better than I. They all missed Welker, and either Revis or, I think, Eric Smith (possibly Kerry Rhodes) didn't cover over top. The Jets just blew the coverage; they weren't trying to triple Moss. 

Give me a break, though. Revis is one of the few Jets I don't have to worry about. Don't try to take that away from me. In return, I'm willing to concede that "Sanchize" is a terrible nickname. I just think Welker deserves a better nickname than Slot Machine. 

The Question

According to reports, it's starting to look likely that Allen Iverson, lately of the Memphis Grizzlies, is coming to New York.

Is this the right move for the Knicks? It almost doesn't matter. In NYT reporter Howard Beck's uncontroversial opinion, the team is "in free fall" (though they did get their second win last night, to improve to 2-9.) The team has gotten past the expensive and unpleasant Stephon Marbury situation, as well as the Isiah Thomas situation, but now, undistracted, they've simply got to assemble enough talent to win, and it hasn't happened yet.

Head coach Mike D'Antoni was brought in to install his "system," a run-and-gun offensive scheme that leads to more scoring for both teams. But the Knicks don't have the personnel that made it so successful with the Phoenix Suns. Forward David Lee is aggressive, but nowhere near as dynamic as Amare Stoudemire. Danilo Gallinari, who went 0-2 in 17 minutes last night, is a great shooter, but his game hasn't shown much depth. And Chris Duhon, while not a bad point guard, is no Steve Nash.

Enter Allen Iverson, who was too unhappy to stay with Memphis. Iverson has long been known as a one-man show, and while his career numbers are spectacular, he's also been a difficult teammate. In the long run, there's very little reason to think that Iverson, at 34 years old and coming off a truncated season, will turn this team into a winner. Most people have been pretty clear that this is an asses-in-the-seats maneuver. With rumors that Iverson may cost several million to bring on board, the question must be asked: have the Knicks already given up on this season?

On an unrelated note, here is a beautiful video.



MILES:

It appears the Knicks are going to pass on Iverson. I think, ultimately, this is the right call. Believe me, I went back and forth about this all week. Wednesday night, for instance, after the Knicks knocked off the Pacers, I thought the addition of AI would help kick start the Knicks' season.  Yesterday, however, I started to wonder if he would even make a difference. My ambivalence leads me to believe that AI's addition would probably, at best, end up a wash. Sure, he might get the team, maybe, 5-10 additional wins, but so what? Is there really a difference between 20 wins and 25? Thanks to Isiah, the Knicks don't have a draft pick this year, so it really doesn't matter how many games they win or lose. I'd rather see the young guys play, mainly Toney Douglas, who is already more effective than Chris Duhon; Wilson Chandler; Gallo; and Jordan Hill. I'm also interested in watching the gradual progress of Eddy Curry. The guy's been through so much in recent years; it would be an absolute shame to see him piss everything away, including his last chance. 

To answer your question, though, I do think D'Antoni and Walsh have resigned themselves to a subpar, possibly horrible, season, at least to an extent. Since they arrived in New York, they have been (rightfully?) almost exclusively focused on 2010. Whether they'll admit it or not, I think the coach and general manager are willing to take their beatings this year, with the intention of going all out for one or two premiere free agents this summer. Recently, D'Antoni called his players "zombies." He was technically referring to their recent play, but considering that about 85 percent of the roster won't be back next season, the nickname probably revealed a little bit more than he intended. 

Does this team really need, then, a zombie Allen Iverson? I shudder to think. 

Reality Check

No, not the Jets, silly. The Patriots.

Lost amidst the ongoing debate about Bill Belichick’s ridiculous decision to go for it on fourth down, is the fact that the Patriots blew a 17-point, 4th-quarter lead against the Colts last night. Even worse, they were up 13 with two-and-a-half minutes to play. It’s been said good teams don’t blow leads late. Which kind of begs the question, are the Patriots a good team?

I’m not so sure. At 6-3, the Pats are significantly better than the Jets, who are in a total tailspin. What’s more, the Pats sit atop the AFC East and are an absolute lock to make the playoffs.

But so what? Despite their record and place in the standings, the Pats have yet to beat this season what the kids today call a good team. The Pats' six wins have come against the lowly Buffalo Bills (3-6), the inconsistent Miami Dolphins (4-5), the truly awful Tampa Bay Buccaneers (1-8), the mediocre Baltimore Ravens (4-4), the so-so Atlantic Falcons (5-4) and the reeling Tennessee Titans (3-6), who wanted absolutely nothing do with the Patriots or the snow. For those keeping score at home, the Pats’ wins have come against teams with a combined record of 20-33, about 10 games below even the most liberal definition of mediocrity.

Granted, the Patriots can only play the teams they play. And, besides the Jets in Week 2, the Patriots have beaten the teams they’re supposed to beat. At the same time, though, the Pats are 1-2 against teams with a winning record, including their home win against the Falcons. They got outplayed in Denver, and just flat out blew last night’s game against the Colts.

Critics can slam Belichick all they want, and Pats fans can point out that the odds backed him up. But, if I counted myself among them, I’d be more concerned as a New England fan with the very real possibility that the 2009 Patriots, like their Red Sox counterparts, are simply a second-tier team. Which, knowing Pats fans, is probably more excruciating than Jets fans having to endure yet another lost season.

If Pats fans need any advice on how to handle adversity, I'd suggest looking elsewhere besides Belichick and his handlers. They make Obama's Secret Service detail look like a bunch of bathroom attendants. 

BEN:

I find this post surprisingly comforting. It's nice to know, while you are busy licking your wounds from what can only be described as an excruciating loss, that somewhere, somehow, a New York fan will find a way to totally misinterpret and overstate the consequences of the loss.

Here's an obvious point, for starters: they put up 34 points against the defense averaging the least points per game in the NFL. Here's another one: they lost by one point, on the road, to an undefeated team, and by most accounts outplayed them for about 55 minutes. I'd say those are both signs of a pretty damn good team.

Come on. Could you really watch that game and not see it as a contest between two elite teams? I'm sure you won't question the legit-ness of the Patriots offense. (Or will you? One never knows, I guess.) And their kicking game, also strong. The defense? Yeah, they got pretty chewed up there at the end of the game, but they were also down to their backup-backups on the defensive line. And overall, they've performed very well this season. Both stats and analysts say so.

As far as their alleged problem of winning only against bad teams. This strikes me as particularly revisionist. Just a reminder: the Patriots played exclusively undefeated teams until week 6.

The quality of NFL competition is not a fixed quantity. Teams, like for instance the Jets and Giants, to take two random examples, can look like world-beaters one minute and also-rans the next. When the Ravens came into Foxborough, they were out for blood, and, as noted elsewhere in this blog, seen as one of the top teams in the NFL. Do their subsequent struggles retroactively mean that they weren't good? Of course not, and there are lots of reasons why. Game plans develop over the season. Players get injured. Weather conditions change. You have to rely on what's happening in front of your face. And watching that game, I could see it was two good teams gutting it out.

The Jets have made it easier on me today. As down-and-out as they've been lately, a win against a thoroughly mediocre Jaguars team--at home, coming off their bye week--would have put them back to within one game of the division lead. And could have made this weekend's divisional rematch and all-the-marbles kind of game. But Rex Ryan didn't have his team ready.

By the way, don't let anyone fool you into thinking that the Jaguars' mediocrity is similar to think "mediocrity" of the Falcons and Ravens, both considered to be playoff contenders. The Jags have slouched their way to a 5-4 record while allowing 39 more points than they've scored. The Falcons are 5-4 at +27; the Ravens are 4-4 at +52. (While we're at it, the Jets are +41, and the Patriots are +109). If you prefer gambling metrics, how about if I note that the supposedly-mediocre Ravens are favored by a point against the Colts?

But I suppose I digress. What was your point again? You feel that the Patriots, by virtue of a last-second one-point loss against an undefeated team, have shown themselves to be second-rate. This must also apply to the Bengals, who gave up a crazy game-winning TD to the undefeated Broncos. And to the Steelers, who gave up a game-winning TD to the Bengals. And to the Vikings, whose two turnovers in the 4th quarter clinched a win for the Steelers. Is the facile-ness of this argument self-evident yet? The only two teams you CAN'T say it about are the Saints and Colts, because they haven't lost. So is your point that the Pats aren't one of the top two teams in the NFL right now? If so, I concede.

MILES:

We got a good one going here. 

I'd just like to point out that the Patriots, at 6-3, have the same record as the Arizona Cardinals and Dallas Cowboys, hardly beasts of the National Football League. The Pats also share the same record as the the Kyle Orton-led Denver Broncos and Norv Turner's San Diego Chargers. 

Further, the Pats's six wins include one--I repeat, one-- road win, against the 1-8 Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who have allowed 99 more points than they've scored. Speaking of the +/- system, four of the Pats six wins have come against teams that have allowed more points than they've scored: the Bills (-70); the Dolphins (-9); the Titans (-66); and the aforementioned Bucs (-99). Only the Ravens and the Falcons have played in positive numbers. 

To be fair, I guess you could argue that beating the Ravens in Foxboro in Week 4 qualifies as a signature win, but I wouldn't be so quick to hang your hat on it. Here's how NFL.com describes that game's decisive play:

Baltimore's potential game-winning drive stalled as Mark Clayton dropped a perfect fourth-down pass that would have given the Ravens a first-and-goal. The Patriots took a knee and ran out the remaining 28 seconds off the clock.

More fortunate than convincing, wouldn't you say? Kind of like the gift Buffalo handed you in Week 1. Think about it for a second: 6-3 could easily, easily, be 5-4 or even 4-5. It's not, but I'm making the point, not entirely unfounded, I believe, that the Pats are a soft 6-win team. Not that they are themselves soft, mind you; only their record. They success thus far is primarily the result of a superior offense, a weak, borderline pathetic division, and a less-than-taxing schedule. All of these factors have helped camouflage some of the team's biggest weaknesses. That they are the Patriots, I think, analysts and commentators have been loathe to call them on it. These talking heads are letting the past success define, or at least color, their perceptions of this year's Patriots team. 

I don't think the team stands up to closer scrutiny.  Take, for instance, the Pats' vaunted +109 point differential. On the surface, it's pretty impressive. However, a 59-0 rout of a truly deplorable and dysfunctional Titans team, who entered that contest losers of back-to-back games by 20 and 22 points, respectively, will do wonders to a team's statistics. As will playing the hapless Bucs.

Which is why I prefer to look at a team's record. As Bill Parcells likes to remind us, "You are what your record says you are." At 6-3, the Pats are squarely in the middle of the pack, jostling for position against the Broncos, the Chargers, and the Steelers, the AFC's second-tier teams. The Pats could eventually break free and make a strong run into the playoffs, based almost entirely on the team's offensive talent, but I don't see that happening. The defense is suspect, particularly in the 4th quarter, a pretty big bugaboo. Just ask Bill Belichick. He doesn't even believe in them.     

Finally, I can't let this one go unnoticed: "the Patriots played exclusively undefeated teams until week 6." Seriously? You're really calling the 0-0 Bills undefeated? Sure, the Jets, coming off their Week 1 against the Texans, were, technically, undefeated, as were the 2-0 Falcons. The 3-0 Ravens, thanks to Mark Clayton, literally let a win slip through their fingers. In Week 5, the previously undefeated Broncos beat you, as noted above. As did the undefeated Colts this week. 

The Pats are a good team, vastly superior to the Jets--and most other teams in the NFL. I'll give you that. All I'm saying is, they aren't one of the league's elite teams, and I'd be surprised, almost shocked, if they got out of the second round of the playoffs. 

BEN:

You're right that they could have lost to the Bills or Ravens. But they could equally well have beaten the Broncos (to whom they lost in overtime, on the road, after losing the coin toss) and the Colts (obviously). If those things had happened, they'd be 8-1 and we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. The fact that they didn't win those games is no more or less indicative of their character than the near-losses against Buffalo and Baltimore.

The NFL provides a much smaller sample size than baseball. Each statistic, but particularly wins and losses, is hugely impacted by single games. You know I love stats, but this one doesn't really come down to them. I don't think the Patriots should be punished for beating bad teams, but sure, their mettle is tested against the good ones.

If you feel, as you seem to, that the Steelers, Chargers, Patriots, and Broncos comprise the AFC's second tier, then I presume what you're saying is that the top tier consists only of two teams--the Colts and Bengals. And, I mean, sure, as far as that goes, I'll agree. Despite the allegation that "the media" are loathe to criticize the Patriots (an odd point to make, I'd submit, in view of the three links you included at the top of this post), I think most people have had questions about the team all year long: about Brady's return to form, about the youth of the defense, etc.

To return once more, to whatever your point is: I am happy to agree that the Patriots are not clearly better than the Steelers or Chargers. I think all three teams have a shot at the Super Bowl. You'd be shocked if the Patriots made it out of the second round of the playoffs. Meaning what? That they might not be among the top 4 teams in the NFL? Is this what a "reality check" looks like? I think this is kind of a small criticism, and not even clearly an accurate one. I'll say this: I don't think the Colts have any more desire to play us in January than they did three days ago.

MILES:

See, I think that's just it. There's this prevailing notion that the Pats still loom over the league, that the road to the Super Bowl goes through Foxborough. They don't, and it doesn't. Why wouldn't the Colts have any more desire to play the Pats in January than they did three days ago? The Colts won, coming back from 17 down in the 4th quarter. As a fan, you have every right to remain optimistic about the Pats' chances, but you also have to consider the very real likelihood that, this year, the Pats simply don't have it, even if you're not yet ready to admit it.  

BEN:

Do I really need to explain why the Colts don't feel differently about the Patriots? I would think the answer is obvious: because they won in the last seconds by one point and needed a miracle comeback. Why would they feel sure that would happen again? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Pats are better than they are. (Or that the "road to the Super Bowl comes through Foxborough.") But I am saying that nothing about the game was definitive.

I don't think you need to get creative to feel that this Pats team, while not the best in the league, is good enough to beat anyone. Most people seem to agree; if you think this is part of a pro-Patriots media conspiracy, well, which one of us is letting his biases get in the way?

MILES:

I stand by my missive, biased or not.  

Getting it Started

The Celtics are off to a 3rd consecutive hot start, with their league-best 8-1 record, the lone loss coming to a resurgent Suns team. Three straight seasons of early success have actually put the Celtics into the record books; since the Garnett and Allen trades, they are an astonishing 57-6 in games played before Christmas.

They've still got about 90% of the season left to play, but the first few weeks have been very auspicious. Garnett's knee injury appears to be nothing but a memory. The team has given a lucrative contract to Rajon Rondo, who has been earning his money two years now, and continues to be one of the elite point guards in the league, ranking 4th in assists and 1st in steals. Pierce, Allen, and Perkins are doing their thing, too.

The defense is 1st in the league in fewest points allowed; the team has won at home and on the road, on short rest and long. They made an early statement with their season opener in Cleveland. Tonight's big game in Atlanta will be another test. Things in the Atlantic Division seem pretty free and clear, too, at this early stage.

Things are not looking quite so good for the Knicks, who have managed just one win so far in nine attempts. But, hey, at least they're not the Nets...

MILES:

Yours is a very good team, particularly the starting five. 94-25, when healthy, is ridiculous. The pre-Christmas record, though, is incidental, as much a byproduct of the utter crapiness of their division competition as it is of the team's talent level. But who cares? That's kind of like parsing Obama's campaign strategy against McCain in the San Francisco Bay Area. It doesn't matter. The Celtics are just that freaking good, and are a total nightmare for any team in the NBA, including the Lakers. A wise man once told me not to bet against the toughness of Paul Pierce. It's like denying the Holocaust, or something. 

Fish in a Barrel

The gap in the AFC East continues to widen. The Patriots did what the Jets just couldn't pull off: they took care of the Dolphins. In yesterday's 27-17 win, the Pats made key adjustments to handle another new wrinkle from the Dolphins, the so-called "Pistol" formation. With the Jets idle, the Patriots extended their division lead to two games in the AFC East, and got a crucial divisional win.

In the wake of a dismal 1-4 stretch, and with their brash head coach beginning to draw criticism, the Jets are using their week off to lick their wounds and prepare for a lenient schedule in the month of November, including games against the Jaguars, Bills, Panthers, and Buccaneers. The Pats, on the other hand, have a very tough month ahead: both of the league's last two undefeated teams lie ahead, and both are road games. The Pats are good enough to win either game, but it will take a serious effort. The divisional race will almost certainly tighten.

Notwithstanding a bludgeoning of a terrible Raiders team, (and hot dog-gate) the Jets are absolutely reeling. They are inconsistent, undisciplined, and injured right now, and it remains to be seen whether they can bounce back. If they can't get a win against the hapless Jags coming off a bye week, your boy Rex Ryan is going to start hearing it from the media.

Still, as much as we New Englanders would like to feel otherwise, much will hang on the crucial November 22 showdown with the Jets in Foxborough. There's still much to be determined before that game is played, but I will say this: I think Bill Belichick is going to be out for blood.

MILES:

The Yankees won the World Series. 

BEN:

You can't hide from football forever, Doyle. I haven't even pointed out that the Celtics have opened a 6.5-game lead over the Knicks in the first seven games of the season.

MILES:

I understand. I just didn't watch a single minute of football this week. The National Football League still feels like a homework assignment, and I took full advantage of the Jets’ much-needed bye. The next couple of weeks should be interesting for both teams. While the Jets take on Jacksonville and Carolina at home, sandwiched by a road game at Foxboro, the Patriots play at Indianapolis, host the Jets, and then travel to New Orleans. If the Jets are going to make a run at the division title, they probably need to win the next three games. Unlikely, given their recent state of play, but it should be interesting to see how Rex Ryan and the boys respond.

As for the Knicks. I’ve got nothing. The only reason they’re “only” six games behind the Celtics is because the Knicks, a truly bad team, have only played seven games. They’ll be 20 games out before the All-Star Game.

The Empire Strikes Back

The Yankees are World Series champs. Even in California, the approximate midpoint of the Yankees' Empire, this just feels right. Andy was dandy. Matsui went out with a bang. Marte finally earned his pinstripes. And Mo was Mo, the greatest of all time. It was a resounding victory: the Yankees put to bed early any lingering doubts about whether or not they could close out the gritty Phillies, jumping ahead 2-0 in the second behind World Series MVP Hideki Matsui's 2-run blast of Pedro Martinez, before finally pulling away in the fifth. After Mo got Shane Victorino to ground out to Robinson Cano, the Yankees celebrated their 27th World Series title in their new home, and their second title this decade. So much for curses. Either one.

Last night's victory raises an interesting and, per this blog, a somewhat provocative question: Are the Yankees the team of the decade? I'll spare you the suspense. Fuck yeah, they are. The numbers don't lie. The Yankees won a MLB-best 965 regular seasons games from 2000-2009, 45 more than the second-winningest team, the Boston Red Sox. They also captured eight American League East titles, also a league best. Further, the Yankees appeared in nine out of 10 postseasons, also a league best, winning 11 total series, again, a league best. I'm sensing a trend here. In the process, the Yankees captured four American League Pennants and two World Series championships. Not bad for a decade's work.

So, Ben, what do you think? Are you ready to concede the millennium's first decade to the Evil Empire?

BEN:

Ah well. We regular folks had to know this day was coming. The Yankees have been loaded with unlucky or malfunctioning talent for eight years; they had to get it together sooner or later. And, as one Yankees fan unironically said to me a few weeks ago, they finally got another star player to take the pressure off A-Rod.

I have to concede. They were baseball's best team this year, and they earned the title, getting hot in June and never really looking back. This is really the team they tried so gregariously to put together for the last eight years, and it finally clicked.

I find "Team of the Decade" to be a bit of a silly debate--it ultimately doesn't have a whole lot of impact. (Do we all instantly remember the team of the 70s? 80s? 90s? Does it matter?) But since we're debating, I guess it depends what "Team of the Decade" means. A lot of people would probably say that it means the best overall team during the ten-year period, in which case, how could I disagree that it's the Yankees? The numbers don't lie.

But there's at least one other thing it could mean. Maybe it's similar to, say, "Man of the Year," in which case it means the team with the most cultural significance, or the most memorable team. And I think that distinction belongs to Boston. The Sox did things never before accomplished in MLB history, as opposed to things only very nearly accomplished since 2000. They also completely changed the entire culture of their organization, and, in their way, rewrote the history of the game. Witness, for instance, how you indulged in seeking out some "curses" that the Yankees reversed. How much meaning would those have without the original?

I'm not sure I ultimately care that much who is "Team of the Decade." I was overjoyed when the Sox won in 2004, and again when they won in 2007. Can't that be enough? Isn't this kind of grandstanding exactly why people hate the Yankees?

Damon's Two-For-One Special

For years, the Yankees have been celebrated for their ability to work the count. Take, for instance, Paul O'Neill's epic 10-pitch at-bat against Mets closer Armando Benitez in the 2000 World Series. After fouling off pitch after pitch after pitch, O'Neill finally drew a walk, setting into motion a series of events that would, eventually, lead to a Yankees come-from-behind win in Game 1. The Yankees, as we all know, would then go on to win the World Series in five games. In hindsight, O'Neill's at-bat was, really, the turning point of that series, and the high-water mark of the Yankees' last championship team.

Cut to last night. Top of the ninth. Johnny Damon against Brad Lidge. For nine pitches, Damon battled Lidge, fouling off three pretty nasty 2-strike pitches before finally lining an hard-earned, opposite field single to left. Damon's at-bat was every bit as impressive as O'Neill's. Not only did Damon make Lidge throw more pitchers than he would have liked, Damon kept the inning alive for the heart of the Yankees' line up. Exactly what the No. 2 hitter is supposed to do.

What Damon pulled off on the base pads, though, was even more important, even more memorable, than what he did in the batter's box. After easily swiping second, Damon immediately took off for third, taking advantage of the Phillies' defensive shift against Mark Teixeira. The double-steal seemed to rattle Lidge, who quickly drilled Texiera before serving up a go-ahead double to Alex Rodriguez. It's no accident that A-Rod saw two fastballs during his at-bat. Lidge, it seemed, was not about to throw his slider with a man on third. He couldn't risk a wild pitch. Damon changed the whole complexity of the game, as they like to say in the FOX broadcasting booth.

With a gritty at-bat and some heads-up base running, Damon put the Yankees in a position to capture their 27 World Series Championship. In Yankeeland, Damon's at-bat will always rival O'Neill's and, like it or not, his double-steal will go down as one of the most famous stolen bases in postseason play, certainly the most famous since 2004.

BEN:

Sure, I guess. If ever there's a discussion of "the postseason's most famous stolen bases," I feel sure it would be on there. It was a heads-up play in a tight inning in the World Series, and lord knows the media loves to talk about those things. (By the way, does anyone doubt that if Jeter, rather than Damon, had made that play, it would be the only thing we heard about this morning? That at least one columnist would've claimed that no player but Jeter is capable of such magic?) But I digress. So: should we give Johnny Damon the Dave Roberts Memorial Stolen Base Award? Ok, I'll agree to that. For me, though, the narrative of that inning takes place inside Brad Lidge's head. He's made his career--such as it once was--on throwing that slider for strikes. To be too scared to throw it with a runner on third, that says more to me about why he can't get it done than about Damon's steal. Ever since that Pujols homer, Lidge has been scared of the big hitters, and it's a shame Philadelphia doesn't have anyone better to turn to.

If hindsight is what we're speaking about, I have to say, I don't think anyone will remember this as a close series. Maybe something like "Yankees 4, Cliff Lee 2." (If they even win tonight.) Or "The October of A-Rod." Personally, I'm disappointed that the Phillies haven't put up more of a fight these last three games--I think they're the only National League team good enough to beat the Yankees on a good day.

There's really nothing any Yankee team can do that will ever rival the momentousness of that 2004 series. 86 years, the Bambino the 3-0 lead, Ortiz's pyrotechnic clutch hitting--come on now. But, yes, a very heads-up play, another big situation in which Brad Lidge didn't come up with it. And a great at-bat by Damon, forcing Lidge to display his full arsenal, and not even get an out.

You don't want to jump to conclusions--they still have to play at least one more game--but I admit I'm disappointed in this series so far. It's never fun for a Sox fan, especially one living in New York, to watch the Yankees win it all, but at least the Phillies could've made a race of it. But who knows, maybe Cliff Lee can turn it around tonight.

MILES:

I just arrived in sunny California. Specifically, sunny San Francisco. I have to say, it's not a bad place to visit. A man can get used to this.

I'll admit, too, that this World Series isn't particularly exciting. Nobody in the Golden State seems to care. At least not so far. This, of course, could very well change if Pedro comes up big tomorrow night, and, following that, either Cole Hamels and his 25-cent head or J.A. Happ come through in Game 7. Unlikely, I think. That's simply too many "ifs."

Speaking of which, if it weren't for Cliff and Chase Utley, this series would have been over Sunday night. I'm not trying to be reductive or dismissive of the Phillies. They are, like you pointed out, a very good baseball team, and the idea of Ryan Howard finding his swing somewhere along the Jersey Turnpike sends shivers down my spine, just as much as the specter of the Jersey Devil. But, outside of Lee and Utley, the Phillies have yet to rise to the occasion, or have yet to take advantage of the Yankees' so-so play.

Somehow I don't see that changing tomorrow night. I wonder, though, if a World Series is won in the Bronx, and there's no one in California to witness it, does it, in fact, happen? I'm going to have to ponder that down on Haight-Ashbury.