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.