You're Wrong About Everything: A Boston-New York Sports Blog

Offensive

2010-09-14T13:07:00.004-04:00

Disappointment arrives early this season for Jets fans. After last night’s horrific performance, I tried in good faith to put down my scrambled thoughts about the maddening, limp play of Mark Sanchez. A single word for every yard the inexperienced and frightened quarterback managed to put up against the Baltimore Ravens defense, absent future Hall of Fame cornerback Ed Reed. Pen to paper, I started in a fit—only to exceed the word count.

Sanchez and Schotty Sitting In a Tree

2010-08-26T13:33:00.006-04:00

The Jets' PR team is working overtime this offseason. To wit, this afternoon's fawning New York Times profile of Mark Sanchez's and Brian Schottenheimer's growing bromance.

Some highlights:

The offensive coordinator of the Jets and his latest pupil seem like kindred spirits, not friends exactly but men inspired by each other, driven by each other and bonded by a mutual obsession: the finer points of playing quarterback.

Each day, Sanchez spends as much time with Schottenheimer as he does with anyone else in the organization. They go out for steak dinners and quote lines from Adam Sandler comedies. They act, according to Schottenheimer’s wife, Gemmi, like her third and fourth children, football-lost boys, fully grown.

“They started to develop a relationship beyond coach-player,” Cavanaugh said. “There’s a legitimate friendship there.”

“All off-season he was teaching, teaching, teaching,” Sanchez said. “But not just like a coach. More like a friend, like a father, like a brother. That’s the way our bond is now.”

In the off-season Sanchez and Schottenheimer attended baseball’s All-Star Game and an N.B.A. finals game. They developed inside jokes and sometimes seem like they’re speaking their own language.

Now, Sanchez finishes Schottenheimer’s play calls as well as sentences.

Evidence of the importance of their relationship is displayed in Schottenheimer’s basement. Each year, Gemmi frames an autographed jersey from one of her husband’s favorite players. Last year, she added a Sanchez jersey to a collection that includes those of Brees, Chad Pennington, Philip Rivers and Brett Favre.

The most cringe-worthy part of the article, at least for me, is Schottenheimer's likening of Sanchez to Super Bowl MVP Drew Brees. Oh dear.

BEN:

I think we all know the NYT is not a great place for sports coverage. the numerous embarrassing hagiographies of Mariano Rivera; the pointless speculations of Murray Chass and Jack Curry; the seemingly willful lack of interest in what fans are actually thinking or doing.

But: every local paper runs a story like this, especially when they've got a young player with potential. Heaven help the Boston Globe and their poetic waxings about Jacoby Ellsbury. Yes, they're stupid, yes, they're pointless, yes, they're frequently filled with idiotic predictions and comparisons. But I guess this is how we enjoy the game--it's not always just about watching them play.

These stories all conform to various archetypes: how many stories have there been about LaDainian Tomlinson "feeling young again"? How many about Jonathan Papelbon adding a new pitch? There are all kinds of variations on this theme. Players who watch a lot of video, teams that have a guru for some specific activity, teammates who get along, teammates who are willful and solitary. Etc. Etc. The presumption in all of these articles is that the rest of the league is simply treading water, or just kind of lollygagging along. Of course the NFL and MLB and (possibly) the NBA are filled with ultracompetitive people who know nothing other than to practice and learn about their sport. Rare is the person who truly isn't putting in the work, and, well, we've seen what that looks like.

As to the specific matter of Mark Sanchez, he may (or may not) improve hugely this year. I do have my doubts whether, if he throws a key interception, anyone will say "Impossible! He and Brian Schottenheimer are friends!"

But, then again, these stories aren't meant to be remembered, or even taken seriously, really. I can't think of the last time anyone called Ellsbury a "Native American warrior," but I don't think it was this year.

Let's Go Ahead and Get Started

2010-08-12T11:14:00.005-04:00

Blogging's been a little light around here this summer, to say the least. For the past two months, I've had my hands full at work, while Ben's been busy publishing one of the fall season's best novels, among other promising titles. (Get bent, Jonathan Franzen.) Our dereliction of duty was so egregious that Rockies ace Ubaldo Jimenez has given up 35 runs since our wager, four times as many runs than he had at the time of our handshake. His total for the year now sits at a good-but-not-great 44, which works to my advantage. Jimenez actually trails third-place Boston's emerging ace Clay Buchholz in runs allowed by 9, which fills me with dread and an unhealthy amount of irrational anger. (I have a creeping suspicion that this Red Sox team is a lot like this year's Celtics. A September run strikes me as inevitable.)

Also during our absence, LeBron took his talents to South Beach. I've since come to terms with his Decision (TM), and for the first time in a decade, I'm actually excited about the Knicks. All signs point to the playoffs. (Get bent, Isiah.) A bunch of other events took place (The Big Leprechaun!), but they are far too legion to list here. Suffice it to say, Ben and I are committed to keeping this blog going, at least in theory. With the MLB playoffs around the corner and NFL training camp underway (Sign the contract, Revis), now's as good a time as any.

Here, then, is a clip of Rex Ryan addressing the Jets at the start of training camp. I'm breaking my longstanding rule about discussing football before Week 1 because this clip, taken from last night's "Hard Knocks" premiere, is awesome. Viewer discretion advised. Say what you will about Ryan's stated goals of the Jets leading the NFL in victories or winning the Super Bowl, he knows how to work a room--and a PowerPoint presentation. It's easy to see why players like playing under him. Win or lose, he keeps things interesting.

BEN:

Yeah, I let the whole summer pass. I let LeBron's decision and Cleveland's response pass. I let David Ortiz's win in the home run derby--likely Boston's only baseball triumph of the year--sail by. I never said a proper goodbye to Rasheed Wallace, or even the Celtics' almost-realized dreams of a championship--that one stung. I did not inveigh against A-Rod and his 600 dubious home runs. (Although, in fairness, the rest of the media handled that for me.)

It has been a long baseball season, even for someone as patient as me. Buchholz has been a revelation, Lackey a disappointment, and Ellsbury a baby. Beckett and Matsuzaka have been enigmatic. I will say that I think this is the best Dice-K has ever pitched, oddly. Pedroia is back, but it's hard to know what to expect from him. And all signs point to the Sox being left out of the playoff hunt. As you say, a late-season run seems possible. But at this point, I don't think it's likely to result in a playoff appearance.

Which leads me to the Patriots, and the Jets. We saw what they did to Eli Manning last night, and against what I think may be a pretty weak Giants team, the Gang Green sure did look tough. I'll give you my diagnosis: they're the Cowboys North. A penchant for signing the most famous player at every available position. Loudmouth, brash, not playing well with others. And real tough to beat.

But I think they also have some of the Cowboys' foibles. A tendency to underachieve for their talent level. An inability to get their big guns to fall in line. (Welcome to Revis Island). Also, a fat coach.

I think the Jets are the favorite to win the AFC East, and believe me, I don't like the way it feels to say that. As for Skinny Rex's goal of leading the league in wins, though, I'm not biting. The Ravens and Colts are big threats in the AFC. The Vikings, Saints, and Packers in the NFC. And then there are the Patriots.

I think this is one of the most likable teams the Pats have fielded since the heyday of Bruschi and Vrabel. A ton of young talent itching to get out and prove itself, the same old stud at QB (with a different 'do), and a new look all around. They might not be ready--we'll see. But I can't quench my homer optimism: I think they have a ton of potential. Besides--almost all of them are older than Mark Sanchez.

Yeah, ok, I blew it this summer. But fall is just around the corner. And guess who's back early?

MILES:

Sadly, the Jets don't enjoy nearly the cultural cache as the Cowboys, but I see your point. For better of for worse, this is a defining season for the Jets. Any result besides a return trip to the AFC Championship will be considered a disappointment, maybe even a, gulp, disaster. Some quarters would argue anything less than a Super Bowl victory will usher in Armageddon. Remember, this is a franchise that doesn't deal well with success, and there are about 1,001 things that could go wrong this season. Every week is going to be operatic.

Numbers Game

2010-06-07T17:55:00.007-04:00

Behold Ubaldo Jimenez. We knew he was talented, but no one could've counted on a season like this. After 12 starts, Jimenez's ERA remains less than 1 run per 9 innings, and he matched his season high for runs allowed in last night's game: 2. Jimenez is on the season-opening tear of all time, averaging 7.2 innings per start, racking up 78 strikeouts, and an 11-1 record. It's stunning that he's even lost a game, having his team come up empty-handed against the Dodgers, while he allowed just one run over seven innings. (By Jimenez's standards, this is actually a below-average start: only seven innings, and allowing a run. Shame on you, Ubaldo.)

But the number that stands out most to me is this one: 9 runs. Total. For the whole season. Daisuke Matsuzaka sneezes 9 runs. Alex Rodriguez can drive in 9 runs without even using steroids. This is, by any standard, an insane number.

Now. There is no possible way that Jimenez can keep a sub-1 ERA going for the whole season. It has never happened in the history of baseball. And he may get injured, in which case all these expectations go out the window. But, assuming he doesn't--how many runs will he allow this year?

Care to venture a guess, Miles? Or better yet, set an Over/Under? This blog is in desperate need of another bet.

For reference, Zack Greinke allowed 55 runs last year. Pedro Martinez allowed 42 in his insane 2000 season. Greg Maddux, circa 1995, allowed 38. With this ERA, over 200 innings, Jimenez would allow 21 runs.

Again, no one is expecting him to do that. But it's worth asking the question--and making the bet--what DO we expect?

So. How about it?

MILES:

Since I picked Colorado to win the NL West, I'm perhaps more invested in Jimenez's continued brilliance than is probably wise. I'm with you, though: His sub-prime ERA, like Helen Thomas, just can't last forever. As of this morning, his BABIP, a stat I only pretend to understand, sits Indian style at .229. To put that into perspective, Bob Gibson sported a .240 BABIP in 1968, when he pitched to a 1.12 ERA and allowed only 49 runs all season. Gibson's season-long run is still considered to be the greatest pitching performance in baseball's modern era. (Incidentally, in 2000, Pedro sported a .253 BABIP.) We can look, then, at Jimenez's early dominance as a looming historical feat or a likely statistical anomaly. I'm pretty sure it's the latter. The kid's good, but odds are he's not that good. Eventually, that average on balls put into play is going to rise, and with it will come an inevitable increase in runs allowed.

Some other things to consider before I answer your question. Jimenez is likely to face the Blue Jays, Twins, Red Sox and Angles in his next four starts. A quick run through the American League will, in all probability, inflate his run total in quick succession. Also, he pitched 198 innings in 2008 and 218 inning last year. This year, as the Rocks battle the Padres, Giants and Dodgers in a tight pennant race, he's likely to pitch around 225 innings, if not more, which only increases the likelihood of more runs crossing the plate. A few dunks one week, followed by a few more the next (hello, Mr. BABIP) should eventually trip him up.

This isn't to say he's going to wither away completely in the second half. He'll still dominate, not just to the tune of 21 runs allowed over 200 innings. In the end, I think he'll allow no more than 70 earned runs this year en route to his first Cy Young Award and, hopefully, a division title.

BEN:

I don't know if I'm willing to bet the over on 70 runs. That would mean--just trust me here--my betting on an ERA higher than 4.00 over the remainder of the season. Jimenez hasn't done that over the course a full season yet. And while I agree that his peripheral stats (like BABIP) are likely to rise, I don't think he's headed for that much of a change.

In fact, notwithstanding our NL West picks (we're both wrong so far, thanks to the San Diego Padres), it sounds like you're more skeptical about Jimenez than I am. So, I'll make you a deal: let's drop the over/under to 60, and I'll take the under. Are you in?

MILES:

Deal. I'll take the over.

Role Model

2010-05-29T11:25:00.009-04:00

SI's Ian Thomsen dissects Nate Robinson's Game 6 performance:

Robinson had been a disappointment ever since the Celtics had dealt Eddie House and Bill Walker to New York for him in hope of receiving a burst of needed energy at the February trade deadline. He had proved to be neither a reliable defender nor a true point guard. He wasn't on the bench so much as he'd been buried six feet under it, which is a great depth for someone three inches shorter than six feet. But now the Celtics had no choice. The second quarter began with Rondo lying on his stomach along the sideline, Larry Bird style. He was looking up -- and not having to look up very high -- to see 5-foot-9 Robinson in his place.

"During the playoffs at every single practice, I made a point of going over to him," said Rivers, who then recited his daily speech to Robinson: "Stay engaged. At some point you're going to win a game for us. I can't tell you when you're going to play, I can't tell you if you're going to play, on what night at least, but at some point you're going to win a game for us."

This was that game. The Celtics were up by a scant nine points just before Robinson let go of a well-spun three off the dribble and yelled out to the crowd, forcing an Orlando timeout. Moments later he was bounce-passing to Garnett for a cutting dunk. Then Robinson pulled up in transition for another three and backed away nodding and nodding.

Jameer Nelson lost his dribble in the frontcourt to the harrassment of Robinson for an over-and-back turnover. When he canned another jumper off the dribble to balloon his Celtics ahead by 48-27, Robinson blew at his fingers to cool them off. His glorious 8 minutes and 46 seconds culminated with a drive in which he really did appear to believe he could dunk over the 6-10 Howard, much as Howard had allowed him to do in the slam dunk contest two seasons ago. This time Howard went up to block the shot and fouled him hard as Robinson strutted away.

I've always said Nate is a talented player. That's what's so frustrating about him. Like David Lee, or Eddie House, for that matter, Nate's not, nor should he be, a team's first, second or third option. Nate, Lee and House are very good, even excellent, complimentary players: They possess enough talent to take over a game every once in awhile, but none can do it nightly, despite what they--or their agents--might tell the press. Surrounded by true superstars, though, they can become valuable contributors to teams with real championship aspirations, as Nate proved in spades last night against Orlando.

Celtics Wobbled

2010-05-27T10:19:00.009-04:00

Is it possible two Boston sports teams can blow consecutive 3-0 leads, in less than three weeks?

The Bruins already took one on the chin, and the Celtics are struggling

just to get up off the mat after two decisive blows from a rejuvenated Orlando team.

Game 6, in Boston, is going to be epic.

It would be even more epic if NBA playoff games weren't fixed.

BEN:

Strangely, I don't disagree with any of this.

Red Sox I Hate: #23: Jeremy McDonald Van Every Hall

2010-05-18T14:47:00.009-04:00

It is with some reluctance I even take on this four-headed, AAAA Jabberwocky. At the start of the season, as far as I can tell, only Jeremy Hermida, freshly dispatched from the Florida Marlins, even factored into the Red Sox’s 2010 plans. And his role was defined as a fourth outfielder and an occasional late-inning pinch hitter. Nothing more. Darnell McDonald and Jon Van Every, meanwhile, two minor league journeymen, offered, at best, some organizational depth, however shallow. Bill Hall is really just a failed infielder masquerading as a super utility man, pulling spot duty this season at short, second, center field, left field and right field: A jack of all trades, master of none. Other than Hermida, none really deserve more than an extended stint on the Sox's 25-man roster.

Early unforeseen and unfortunate injuries to outfielders Jacoby Ellsbury and Mike Cameron, however, unceremoniously ushered in the ignominious Jeremy McDonald Van Every Hall era, a 30-game stretch of remote control shatteringly bad baseball. To wit: Hermida’s early misadventure in left last night and McDonald’s rumbling, bumbling, stumbling in center cost the Red Sox at least four runs between them, and probably sent to his knees Theo Epstein, loyal supplicant to the high church of run prevention, before a make-shift, sweat-stained shrine to the four ghosts of Trot Nixon, Mark Bellhorn, Troy O'Leary, and Brian Daubach.

Taken individually, then, Hermida, McDonald, Van Every and Hall would hardly get my attention, let alone my goat. Collectively, though, the quartet rises to a level of annoyance roughly on par with the likes of, say, Gary Matthews Jr.

Reasons to Like Them:

Hermida hit a grand slam in his first Major League at bat. McDonald made quite a splash in his Red Sox debut, while Van Every has one career strike out as a pitcher. On Mother's Day 2006, Bill Hall, using a specialized pink bat, hit a walk-off home run against the Mets, with his mother in attendance. He later auctioned the bat to raise money for breast cancer awareness.

Reasons to Hate Them:

Hermida's beard makes him look Amish. McDonald was suspended in 2005 for violating the Minor League Drug Prevention and Treatment Program. Van Every struck out Brett Gardner. And Hall, while still an everyday player with the Milwaukee Brewers, appeared on an episode of The Young and the Restless, with his then teammates J.J. Hardy, Jeff Suppan and Chris Capuano. There are no small parts; only small ballplayers.

Overall Hate Rating:

4. One degree each, like an Orlando-based Boy Band.

Yankees I Hate #21: Francisco Cervelli

2010-05-10T10:34:00.002-04:00

A week ago, Cervelli was quite a bit less relevant. Even in my angriest moments, a backup catcher is still just a backup catcher, and so Cervelli checks in at #21. But the quotient is higher than it used to be with Cervelli, who drove in 5 runs in Saturday's miserable 14-3 drubbing of the Red Sox. Cervelli is exactly the kind of backup receiver the Sox have been looking for over the past few years--a hardworking, athletic guy who plays good defense and doesn't carp about at-bats or try to do too much. The Yankees signed him in 2003 out of Venezuela, and at the time he'd never once played catcher. He fit the profile of what they wanted, and they all but manufactured him into an effective player.

He may not ever be starting material, but he's a very useful guy for them to have around, especially with Posada nearing age 60. He plays ball, and if he's not a world-igniting talent, he never makes anything harder for the team, and there's a lot to be said for that (by Yankees fans).

Reasons to like him:

Well, he's not Jorge Posada, who I have seen more than enough from over the last 15 years. And um. He seems nice?

He plays small ball. Lays down bunts and makes extra throws to pick off runners. These are fan- and announcer-favorite-type qualities.

He's an Italian Venezuelan American.

Reasons to hate him:

The aforementioned 5 RBI game. I could have done without that.

He's a bridge between Posada and several blue chip young catchers the Yankees have in the minors, most notably Jesus Montero. He forces me to contemplate the idea that the Yankees have a key position locked up for the next 10 years, and that is not a neutral feeling.

I know he got hit in the head, but that oversized helmet is like a metaphor for all the scrappy, David Eckstein-like stuff that he evokes in the hearts of Yankee fans. It also makes me feel like I'm rooting against a little kid, which isn't really playing fair.

Overall hate rating:

3.5 out of 10. I'm warming up.

Red Sox I Hate #24: Daniel Bard

2010-05-07T15:21:00.004-04:00

Forgive me, if you will, a Ray Babbit moment:

98.

97.

98.

99.

98.

92.

99.

Although I understand one’s temptation to assume the above series of cardinal numbers is a back-of-the-napkin calculation of the Yankees’ and Ray’s magic numbers for clinching a playoff birth, they are, upon closer inspection, the speed, measured in miles-per-hour, of Danield Bard’s last 10 fastballs. Eight of which he threw for strikes. Not. Bad.

Another of the Sox's preternatural talents, Bard employs one of the best fastballs in the majors—even if it’s sometimes as straight as Yawkey Way—coupled with a very impressive curve ball.

After the Sox drafted him 28th overall in 2006, the young flamethrower struggled through his first season in professional ball, going 3-7, with a 7.08 ERA between Class A and Class High A. He also walked 78 batters in 75 innings, while striking out a Delcarmen-esque 47. Which goes a long way in explaining why the front office decided the bullpen was probably his natural habitat. The move paid off, almost immediately. Following a much-needed intervention by team shrink Bob Tewksbury, Bard posted an ERA of 1.78 in 38 games, logged between Class A and AA, notching 89 strikeouts to go with only 23 walks in 65.2 innings.

Since making it to the show, Bard's racked up 85 strike outs in 66 scant innings, while walking 26. The kid's come a long way since Greenville. I respect that, and his talent. Also, his aw-shucks charm seems to repel every conceivable form of animus. Seriously, the kid sat for engagement photos.

Reasons to Like Him:
He lets his stuff speak for itself. If you told me he has full use of his voice box, I’d believe you, but not without hesitation.

An easy, effortless delivery.

Triple-digit fastballs are sexy. As are power curves.

He's not against the occasional Tex Message.

He's not Curt Schilling.

Reasons to Hate Him:
After the Yankees drafted him out of high school in 2003, Bard opted for Tar Hell Blue over the pinstripes. Unrequited love.

Following Bill Simmons' lead, some Sox fans have started expressing their growing appreciation for the young pitcher through the boorish exclamation, “I've got a Bard-on.”

He looks like a front office intern, not the bullpen’s best arm. I mean, really, cheese that good ought to come with a mullet.

Overall Hate Rating:
2 out of 10. The kid’s got talent, but hasn’t yet figured out the Yankees. If and when he starts to best the Bombers, or puts one in A-Rod's back, I'll react accordingly.

Red Sox I Hate #25: Jon Lester

2010-04-27T14:10:00.010-04:00

Is it just a coincidence the member of the Red Sox I find the least objectionable is also the team’s purest talent? Hardly. One of my longstanding complaints about the Sox and, more specifically, a huge chunk of their fan base (present company excluded) is the Nation’s near-fetishistic elevation of grit, gumption and gamesmanship over God-given ability.

“Our boys aren’t a traveling team of All-Stars," the Nation likes to say, perhaps in response to the franchise’s recent spat of success, and, yes, spike in payroll. “They’re local boys made good, dirty overachievers, every last one of them.” To a man, then, the scrappy, small market Sawx are marketed and celebrated as the lunch-pail antithesis of their more polished counterparts in Pinstripes, as evidenced by the Nation's near-veneration of Peddy’s dirt-stained uniform, Youk’s unkempt ‘stache and Tek's hard-earned, and Citgo-sized C.

Such over-the-top devotion almost makes it impossible for a non-Sox fan to appreciate the natural brilliance of Jon Lester. Almost. Lester's talent, a once-in-a-generation gem, still manages to shine through all that dirty water.

Drafted in the second round of the 2002 amateur draft, Lester rocketed through the Sox’s minor league system, making his major league debut four years later, in 2006. He became the first lefty rookie in Sox history to win his first five decisions, including a 1-0 win over the Kansas City Royals in which he pitched eight innings of a one-hit ball.

A few moths later, though, Lester’s baseball career almost came to end, when he was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkins lymphoma, the bad Hodgkin's. After a number of rounds of chemotherapy, Lester was pronounced cancer free, and was assigned soon thereafter to the Sox’s minor league affiliate to start his long road back. He returned to the Majors on July 23 against the Cleveland Indians, a 6-inning win. He finished the 2007 regular season with a 4-0 record in 11 starts and a 4.57 ERA. In the playoffs, Lester had two relief appearances in Cleveland before starting Game 4 of the World Series against the Colorado Rockies. My sources tell me the Red Sox won, although the only thing I recall about that game was the news of Alex Rodriguez opting out of his contract.

On May 19, 2008, Lester pitched a no-hitter against the Kansas City Royals, one of my favorite non-Yankee baseball moments of all time.

Reasons to Like Him:

He beat cancer and pitched a no-hitter within two calendar years. He’s also a lefty, with four quality pitches, most notably a powerful four-seamer and a killer hook. When on, he also sports a near-flawless delivery, as near to perfect as humanely possible.

In 2008, Major League Baseball presented him with Hutch Award, which recognizes a player who exemplifies the competitive fire of Fred Hutchinson, a former pitcher and manger who died of cancer at the age of 45, in 1964. Fittingly, Lester received most of his treatment at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, in Seattle, Wash., a 35-minute drive from his childhood hometown of Tacoma.

He's not Curt Schilling.

Reasons to Hate Him:
A Larry Craig-like wide stance, and a Nugent-esque thirst for animal flesh, coupled with a 3.47 career strike out-to-walk ratio and a ridiculous 1.017 strike out-to-hit ratio against the Yankees.

Overall Hate Rating:
Negligible. The kid’s as good as the game.

Yankees I Hate #22: Curtis Granderson

2010-04-25T22:19:00.002-04:00

One of the better-rounded outfielders in the American League, Granderson came to New York on the heels of a very successful run with the Tigers. His 2007 season saw him crack the apparently-a-thing "20-20-20 club," reserved for ballplayers who have managed 20 triples, 20 homers, and 20 steals in a single season. He continued to hit for average until 2009, when he sacrificed contact for power, hitting 30 homers and becoming an all-star despite hitting under .250. I wish I could say that the Yankees gave him a fat contract to lure him away from Detroit, but the fact is he came by what looks to me like a pretty shrewd trade: the Yankees parting with various useful players, but no one that would've defined the team; and they brought in a guy who is going to be a thorn in my side for what looks like a long time. Granderson has the speed and on-base ability to bat leadoff, and gives them yet another player (I count eight) capable of hitting 20+ homers on a regular basis, especially in that launching pad of a stadium. As you can imagine, this is incredibly annoying.

Reasons to like him:
Granderson is a unique situation. Nothing would make me happier than to hate him, but it's really hard. He's outwardly affable, has never made any trouble, contributes to his team. He is an ambassador for MLB international, representing the game in far-flung locations like China and South Africa. He created a foundation, Grand Kids, that does outreach to inner city children and helps get troubled kids into school. Bud Selig wrote a letter to Granderson, thanking him for being a model citizen and saying "no one is better suited to represent our national pastime."

You can see my dilemma here. This is more or less unverifiable, but I also remember watching a telecast a few years ago when one of the announcers claimed that Jim Leyland, Granderson's then-manager with the Tigers, wanted him to marry his daughter.

Etc.

Reasons to hate him:

Well, he's talented, and plays for the Yankees. What do you want me to say? I have to be allowed to root against him in important situations. Plus I'm vexed that I can't hate him more.

The worst thing I can dig up is that he changed his uniform number, 28, to 14 so that Joe Girardi could start wearing it. The reason being that Girardi wants to symbolize the Yankees' pursuit of a 28th championship. Come on, that's really lame. No, it is.

I can hear you objecting that it wasn't his idea, and this shows a team-first mentality. But it's still lame.

Overall hate rating:

2 out of 10. I reserve the right to increase this if he does anything that really ruins the Red Sox' hopes, which seems all too possible.

Alexander's Sack of Bradenia

2010-04-23T15:12:00.006-04:00

I can't help but wonder how this latest A-Rod kerfuffle affects his position on your list. Personally, I'm just relieved, in this rare instance, A-Rod, the Sultan of Slap, comes off as the more level-headed combatant. Me thinks Dallas Braden's raised hackles would give even Billy Martin pause.

(Brilliant image via Flip Flop Fly Ball)

BEN:

I don't want to spoil what's ahead, but since I'm counting from the least-hated to most, let's put it this way: it'll be a while before I get to A-Rod in these rankings.

As far as this baseball non-story goes, sure, I'll side with Dallas Braden. I mean, no one cares, but this is the exact kind of thing A-Rod gets wrong so consistently: little, petulant things that annoy people. This happens all the time in the baseball media, these attempts to codify the game's unwritten rules, who can throw what at whom, and when. The fact is, there's a lot of gray area here, and if you want to say something bad about either of these guys, the material is there. 20 years ago, or even five, we wouldn't even be talking about this. People do annoying things, people overreact, life goes on. But, since we're here, yes--I do think A-Rod should've gone around, or better yet, turned back once the play was dead. Why did he keep running to third? He's always had immature mannerisms, little cues that make him hard to like (for those trying), and they are in evidence in the video of the incident. I'm glad it happened, if only to get us that brilliant graphic, but I'm ready to move on, at least until I get higher up the hate-meter.

Yankees I Hate #23: Sergio Mitre

2010-04-19T23:25:00.004-04:00

Mitre has the distinction of being the lowest-ranked (ie least hated) Yankee who was on the team last year. Why? Well, for starters, he was suspended for 50 games for testing positive for Andro (the steroidlike substance famously abused by Mark McGwire in the epic 1998 home run chase with Sammy Sosa). Mitre appeared in 12 games in '09, making nine starts, and was a not-particularly-passable fifth starter who got left off the postseason roster. He returns for 2010 in relief duty, primarily so he can use up pointless innings. He pitched reasonably well in his only appearance so far this year, giving up a run on two hits in 2 1/3 innings, while the Yankees were losing by 5 runs to the Rays. Everyone in America is basically fine with this.

Reasons to like him:

You don't run across that many Mexican-Americans in the majors, even though the league has a large Hispanic population. So that's nice. He also was the very welcome spot starter whose arrival coincided the decline of Chien-Ming Wang, a Yankee I was just getting started on really not liking at all. You don't want to wish ill on a man's livelihood, but when you're a baseball fan you also kind of do. Anyway I was extremely not looking forward to 200 innings of Wang's weird give-up-a-hit-and-then-get-a-double-play tactics frustrating the hell out of me. So, sure, welcome aboard, Sergio.

Reasons to hate him:

Well, he did take steroids. But so did everyone. And he took them while he was trying to recover from famously difficult surgery--a Tommy John operation on his shoulder. It is slightly hinky that he served his 50 game suspension while still on the disabled list from Tommy John surgery. But that's Bud Selig's fault as much as anyone's, for having such a porous anti-drug policy.

Honestly? That's about all I can think of. This is not a player most Sox fans really think about.

Overall hate rating:

2 out of 10. I mean, who has time? The Red Sox are 4-9, and I have bigger fish to fry.

Yankees I Hate #24: Marcus Thames

2010-04-14T09:53:00.002-04:00

A seemingly-recent prospect who is somehow already 33 years old, Thames famously hit a home run, off future Hall of Famer Randy Johnson, on the first pitch of his first major league at bat. He has of course never lived up to that potential, routinely letting pitches go by without hitting them for home runs off future Hall of Famers. (Zing.) But speaking more broadly, it's pretty safe to say that Thames, who broke in with the Yankees and has since played most of his career in backup roles for the Tigers, never realized his promise as a hitter. He's had a couple of years with 20+ homers but is otherwise a prototypical bench player: solid defense, a little speed, situational power. I wouldn't write home about him if he came to the Red Sox; but I could see myself texting someone.

Reasons to like him:
His last name is pronounced something like "Tims," unlike the London river of same spelling, which is more like "Tems." Noted WFAN sports radio caller Jerome from Manhattan somewhat memorably pronounced the name "Thaymes," during one of his amusingly infantile rants. Tough to assign points for why this is enjoyable, but I've always liked it. Thames is toolsy without ever getting in anyone's way, and according to Wikipedia his nickname is Slick. All good stuff in my book.

He is much inspired by his mother, who was paralyzed in a car accident in 1982.

Reasons to hate him:
Hit a monster home run off Daisuke Matsuzaka in 2008. I'm too busy to go around hating everyone who's done something good against Dice-K, though.

Overall hate rating:
None, really. Carries himself well, plays baseball, seems to be an upstanding guy. One of the few guys I could see being traded from New York to Boston without anyone feeling weird about it. Score: 1 out of 10.

Top Gun

2010-04-12T10:28:00.004-04:00

We interrupt this broadcast with news that the New York Jets have acquired Santonio “It Wasn’t Me” Holmes from the Pittsburgh Steelers for a fifth round draft pick. Holmes, a former first round pick out of the Ohio State University, is a 26-year-old Super Bowl MVP fresh off a career best 79-catch, 1,248-yard season.

Like every Jets move this offseason, the Holmes acquisition is not without controversy. Holmes is a troubled talent, to say the least. In May 2006, he was arrested for disorderly conduct. A month later, he was changed with domestic violence and assault. Both misdemeanors were later dismissed. He was picked up again in 2008, this time for possession of marijuana. Because of this, Steelers coach Mike Tomlin benched Holmes for one game, although Holmes did bounce back in time to make one of the greatest catches in Super Bowl history. Second only to this.

Holmes, who is known to be a little too friendly with digital cameras, will also likely have to sit out the first four games of the 2010 season for violating the National Football League’s substance abuse policy. His pending suspension goes a long way in explaining how the Jets were able to steal him for a fifth round pick.

Holmes joins a roster of, umm, interesting characters. Fellow receiver Braylon Edwards is still dealing with some lingering legal issues, while Antonio Cromartie, the Jets’ recently acquired defensive back, has a O-line's worth of paternity suits pending against him and roughly seven times as many illegitimate kids as Tom Brady.

Still, the addition of Holmes unquestionably makes the Jets a very dangerous team, like a barrel of gasoline. As ESPN points out, in a span of six months, the Jets receiving core has gone from Jerricho Cotchery, Chansi Stuckey and David Clowney to Edwards, Holmes and Cotchery. That’s quite an upgrade. Add to that the late-season emergence of Shonn Greene as the team’s No. 1 back, the promise of tight end Dustin Keller, the eventual return of Leon Washington, the ghost of LaDainian Tomlinson and a formidable offensive line, and you get a Jets offense more or less on par with the league’s best. The rehabilitating Mark Sanchez, a few months removed from an impressive playoff performance, must be eager to play with his new shiny toys.

And then there’s that Jets defense. If the Jets can add a bona fide pass rusher, either through free agency or the draft, I very much like the team's chances of reaching the Super Bowl. As SI's Peter King notes:

the Jets are amazing. They've become a little like the old Raiders (we're afraid of taking no one on our team), a little like the Yankees (we'll sign anyone to win), and a little like the Dan Snyder Redskins (we love headlines!) in the last year. With any luck, they'll sign all-decade player Jason Taylor to be a designated pass-rusher by Wednesday. And with all the additions, they've retained their first- and second-round picks, 29th and 61st overall. If they don't implode, they're going to a damn good team.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Yankees I Hate #25: Chan Ho Park

2010-04-11T22:50:00.006-04:00

A fifteen-year veteran of the major leagues, Chan Ho Park has spent most of his career pitching harmlessly for the likes of the Dodgers, Rangers, and a fairly random assortment of National League teams. Once among the first wave of elite Asian pitchers to come to MLB, Park had three or four strong seasons, then became a solidly mid-rotation starter. It's not fair of me to say that he overachieved for 25% percent of his MLB career, but damn if that's not my opinion anyway. Park will be best remembered by this editor for serving up the valedictory home run to Cal Ripken Jr. in the 2001 All-Star Game. Ripken was in his final season, and far from deserving of an all-star spot, but it was nice for him to go out on a high note.

Reasons to like him:
Park was part of the years-long mediocrity of Texas' starting rotation, something I always somehow found amusing. He never had any meaningful run-in with the Sox, and seemed more or less content to do his thing outside the spotlight. All this being very decent of him. The Ripken homer was a stand-up thing to do, even if it's not perfectly clear that it was intentional in his only all-star appearance; and in his World-Series-losing 2009 campaign with the Phillies, he wore a much-loved beard.

Reasons to hate him:
The loss of the beard. Joe Girardi's me-too rule against facial hair in the Bronx is a little lame, and a little annoying, but I don't hold that against Park. He did (Park) turn down a $3m chance to stay with the Phillies midway through last year, which turned out to be neither popular nor smart--he's making a third of that now. Still, these are minor sins, barely visible in the scheme of things.

Overall hate rating:
Minimal. He seems to have a sense of humor about himself, solid veteran pitcher with a respectable public personality. I don't mind Park at all, maybe even like him a little bit. Score: 1 out of 10 on the anti-Yankee meter.

Yankees I Hate: An Original Series

2010-04-09T12:07:00.004-04:00

Spring has come to New York. The cherry blossoms are in bloom, the line at the Shake Shack is filling up the webcam. Etc. And, like every year, I am really annoyed at the Yankees just for existing.

In these times we live in, hating a team can be just as confusing as rooting for one. Players come and go, occasionally from good to evil (and sometimes to irrelevant), but the fact that the Yankees are the bad guys remains, in my world, an inarguable fact.

With the new season underway, I think it's important that we Red Sox people get our ducks in a row. Just who are the worst Yankees, and who are the best (or least bad)? How does one explain the subtle differences that make Bernie Williams an ok guy but Paul O'Neill unbearable to look at?

These are the essential questions of being a fan.

So, over the next few weeks, You're Wrong About Everything will be ranking the Yankees from least hated to most, starting today. I will try to keep the gloves up, because I know Miles will be badgering me about the awfulness of Jason Varitek.

Stay tuned for the unveiling of the least-hated Yankee of 2010.

Play Ball

2010-04-04T13:24:00.008-04:00

With less than six hours until the first pitch of the 2010 MLB season, I thought I should throw out my predictions for the upcoming season. Why should my other failed prognostications wither alone on the vine?

On paper, the Yankees look like the team to beat. A ton of things can happen between Opening Day and October, but it's hard not to feel bullish about an everyday lineup of Derek Jeter, Nick Johnson, Mark Teixeira, A-Rod, Robinson Cano, Jorge Posada, Curtis Granderson, Nick Swisher and Brett Gardner; a starting rotation of CC Sabathia, A.J. Burnett, Andy Pettitte, Javier Vazquez and Phil Hughes; and a bullpen of Alfredo Aceves, Damaso Marte, Chan Ho Park, Joba, David Robertson and the incomparable and seemingly ageless Mariano. That's a championship-calibre team. On paper, at least. We'll find out whether or not the 162-game season bears this out.

I have to admit, I don't know what to think about the Sox. I'm inclined to argue they don't have enough pieces to make the postseason, while the Rays look set for a bounce back year. That said, I think the total difference among these three AL East teams will be less than or equal to 10 games, with the Yankees capturing the division late. Right now, I give a marginal advantage to the Rays over the Sox because Tampa possesses a superior offense and a comparable defense. If the Sox add Adrian Gonzalez, though, pencil in the Sox and Yanks for an epic ALCS. If not, the Rays should have enough for the Wild Card, but not enough to get past the Yankees in the postseason.

In the AL Central, I like the Twins, even without Nathan. Mauer and Morneau are far, far superior to any other tandem in the division. Out West, I think the Rangers slug their way to a division title behind a healthy and rejuvenated AL MVP Josh Hamilton, holding off a stubborn Angels team and the much improved--but ultimately punchless--Mariners.

All won't be lost for the Mariners, though: Felix Hernandez will win his first of many Cy Young Awards.

In the senior league, no NL East team will come close to catching Cy Young Award winner Roy Halladay and the Phillies, although I do like the Braves' chances of winning the Wild Card. The NL Central, per usual, belongs to the Cardinals, while the sneaky good Rockies, led by NL MVP Troy Tulowitzki, will knock off the Dodgers before capturing the National League pennant.

In the Fall Classic, the Yankees will beat the Rockies, 4 games to 2.

American League:
Yankees
Twins
Rangers
Rays (Wild Card)

MVP: Josh Hamilton
Cy Young: Felix Hernandez

ALDS:

Yanks over Rangers

Rays over Twins

ALCS:

Yanks over Rays

National League:
Phillies
Cardinals
Rockies
Braves (Wild Card)

MVP: Troy Tulowitzki
Cy Young: Roy Halladay

ALDS:

Phillies over Cardinals

Rockies over Braves

ALCS:

Rockies over Phillies

World Series:
Yankees over Rockies

BEN:

Well that was a good one last night. Not a sterling performance by either team really; but of course I'm pleased with any Red Sox win. And as a baseball fan, I'm just glad that the wait is over. We gutted it out through a winter of mediocre Celtics games and the Lakers looking, for a while anyway, like clear favorites. And I am glad to be on the other side.

I've got to say, I love the Red Sox' new arrivals. I still don't think they're dethroning the Yankees, whose lineup is frankly just too damn stacked. (Am I the only one who thinks Brett Gardner just looks odd coming up to the plate next to all these career all-stars?) But I think these are the best two teams in all of baseball, and like every year, it's going to be a dogfight.

I've got to disagree with you about the Sox/Rays debate. Sure, the Sox may lack a second elite hitter behind Youkilis--and I don't think our beloved Mr. Ortiz is going to return to his '07 form--but they are an extremely deep team, with a long lineup, and I don't buy into this idea that they can't hit with the Rays. Unless BJ Upton, now 25, finally has his break-out year, I'd say the Sox are actually the better offense. They have hitters who work the count, hit for power, and get on base up and down the lineup. There's no easy out anywhere on their roster, something you can't say about the Rays, as talented as they are. Gabe Kapler is an average hitter on his best days, and let's not forget that this lineup saw huge career years for Ben Zobrist and Jason Bartlett last season; a repeat performance is possible but certainly not guaranteed. Plus, although he's hugely talented and may break out at any time, let's recall that B.J. Upton went .241-11-55 last year.

All that, plus the fact that the Sox have better pitching, says to me that they're headed for the AL Wild Card this year. I will agree, for whatever it's worth, that this is an extremely competitive three-team race, and nothing is guaranteed.

Before I get to the predictions themselves, I would like to point out that you are suffering from some wrongnesses in other divisions. The Twins are still a strong team, but I think it's going to be a weird year for them. Not having a closer is an adventure, and not in a good way--you can lose a lot of games you thought you had (as we saw with the Yankees last night). I think we tend to underrate the importance of bullpens this time of year. Plus we don't know how they'll perform outside of the very home-friendly Metrodome. (They were under .500 on the road each of the last two years.) Which is why I'm taking the White Sox to win the Central. Best starting rotation and best bullpen in the division. Pitching wins championships, isn't that what they say?

I also think the Rangers are a too-fashionable pick to win the AL West, a division that in my mind still belongs to Anaheim. They did get worse in the offseason, but Morales and Kendrick are coming into their own as hitters, and they did add Matsui, still a great hitter when he's healthy, and being kept safely away from fielding duties. (I can already feel myself starting to like him now that he's not a Yankee).

Anyway, the predictions.

American League:
Yankees
White Sox
Angels
Red Sox (wild card)

MVP: Evan Longoria
Cy Young: Felix Hernandez

National League:
Phillies
Cardinals
Giants
Dodgers (wild card)

MVP: Albert Pujols
Cy Young: Adam Wainwright

ALDS:
Yankees over White Sox
Red Sox over Angels

ALCS:
Yankees over Red Sox (lord help me)

NLDS:
Phillies over Dodgers
Cardinals over Giants

NLCS:
Cardinals over Phillies

World Series:
Yankees over Cardinals

MILES:

All solid picks. Should be a good, competitive season throughout the Majors. I'm excited.

BEN:

The camera has recorded the first instance of the Jonathan Papelbon face in 2010.

March Madness Picks

2010-03-18T10:00:00.007-04:00

Like just about everyone I know, I'm in a bunch of different March Madness pools this year. It gets to the point where you just start making picks because you did the opposite on a different bracket. I've invested a modest amount of money in these projects, but the only return I expect is the abstract pleasure of keeping score; that, I suppose, and the 5-10% chance that I'll actually win something.

Anyway, this is the first time in the history of March Madness that I've had a sports blog, and I figure it's the right location for my real, uncompromised predictions about college basketball. I repeat, here are my actual predictions, based on upwards of 2-3 hours of vague thinking about this topic without any real dedication.

I'm not going to reproduce a whole bracket, but just go from the Sweet 16 onwards. So, to wit:

MIDWEST
Kansas
Michigan State
Georgetown
Ohio State

WEST
Syracuse
Butler
Xavier
Kansas State

SOUTH
Duke
Texas A&M
Baylor
Villanova

EAST
Kentucky
Wisconsin
New Mexico
West Virginia

Final Four
Kansas
Kansas State
Baylor
Kentucky

Championship
Kansas over Kentucky

MILES:

SWEET SIXTEEN

MIDWEST
Kansas
Michigan State
Georgetown
Ohio State

WEST
Syracuse
UTEP
Xavier
Kansas State

SOUTH
Duke
Utah State
Baylor
St. Mary's

EAST
Kentucky
Wisconsin
Washington
West Virginia

ELITE EIGHT

MIDWEST
Kansas
Georgetown

WEST
Syracuse
Kansas St.

SOUTH

Dukee

Baylor

EAST
Wisconsin
West Virginia

FINAL FOUR
Kansas
Kansas State
Duke
West Virginia

Championship
Kansas over Duke

The Hirsute of Greatness

2010-03-10T12:22:00.008-05:00

In the long, storied history of Major League Baseball, a number of handsome, heroic-looking men have taken the field in pursuit of glory and/or a big, fat paycheck, depending on the player and the era.

Kevin Youkilis is not one of them.

It’s the rare occasion I agree with Matt Taibbi, but his devastating description of Youkilis’ unfortunate physical appearance, which ran in Men’s Journal last year, is, as the Pulitzer committee would say, spot on. Allow me to quote in full:

Then there’s Kevin Youkilis. Youk has only three body parts, all hideously oversized: an enormous set of gnomish, bushy forearms; a massive, casaba melon–size white head; and a cauldronlike belly. He has a truly awesome bristle of thick red chin hair that makes his face look like a cross between a vagina and something out of The Hobbit. At the plate he disgustingly gushes sweat by some means previously unknown to science in which the moisture travels upward along his body, racing in a cascade from his balls and armpits up his neck, over his head, and back down over the bill of his helmet to shower the plate. Whereas a guy like Teixeira was born with a swing so gorgeous you want to paint it, Youkilis fighting a middle reliever to a nine-pitch walk looks like a rhinoceros trying to fuck a washing machine.

Suffice to say, despite his cameo in Milk Money, Youkilis will never be mistaken for Ed Harris, the star of the film.

As ballplayers go, though, Youkilis is one of the better ones. His at-bats, usually drawn out over 5 or 10 tense minutes, are at once admirable and effective, sapping the opposing pitcher of valuable energy and patience. Not to mention the hurler’s sacrosanct pitch count. I'm not going to front: Youkilis is a ball player, plain and simple, and I respect his game. (I still maintain he was a more worthy AL MVP candidate, in 2008, than teammate Dustin Pedroria). If it weren’t for his ugly mug and Lou Albino facial hair, I’d gladly welcome Youkilis on the Yankees, a team for which handsomeness, manscaping and musculature are requirements for position players seemingly on par with OPS, UZR and WARP. While that particular pipedream will most likely never come to pass, I can still enjoy Youk from a far, unlike the fackers over here who harbor an irrational, albeit good-humored, hatred of the man known in parts up North simply as Youk.

Although, like most baseball fans, I recognize Youkilis' immense talents, what I admire most about him, I think, is the fact that he seems to take his Neanderthal-like looks in knuckle-dragging stride. "It is what it is," he once said, although, in fairness, he could have been talking about anything, from a league-imposed preseason trip to Japan to his recent dust up with Tigers pitcher--and Jersey native--Rick Porcello. His looks, or total lack thereof, are the last thing on his mind. To wit, this season, Youkilis is letting fans decide how he should shape his man-bush for only a buck a vote.

I actually love this idea. Although not my particular cup of tea, facial hair-- like Cracker Jacks, Tim McCarver, the Wave, and HGH--is, for better of for worse, a longstanding baseball tradition. We might as well embrace it, even if the idea of coming into contact with Youkilis' sweaty, hairy maw is about as appealing as a day-night double header in Pittsburgh. At present, I'm leaning toward No. 2, which just screams "man with a van,"and would probably prohibit Youkilis' re-entrance into the United States after a weekend series against the Jays.

Proceeds go to Youk’s foundation, Hits for Kids, a worthy cause.

BEN:

I'm late in responding to this post because I've been away in Florida, during which time I caught the first 7 innings of the Sox' spring training game against the Rays. For those who haven't experienced it, it will come as no surprise that spring training baseball can be a pretty desultory affair: a very pleasant outdoor atmosphere, peanuts and cracker jacks, and, by and large, a game whose outcome doesn't matter, and form which the big-name players depart by the third inning. And I will say that that's mostly how it felt: a relaxing afternoon, but not really a traditional sports experience.

But one player, even in the senior-citizen-laden, low-impact environment like this one, cannot fail to rouse a passionate fan response: Kevin Youkilis. As quiet as the crowd was, each time Youk came to bat, he was greeted by a full stanza worth of rehearsed, coordinated chanting, culiminating in the loudly bellowed word "Youkilis." Apparently the low and lusty bass notes of "Yooooouuk" weren't enough.

Why bring this up? Because, no matter how focused he may be on grinding out at bats, there is simply no way Youkilis could've missed this chant. He may not have understood it--I certainly didn't--but he had to know it was intended for him. And when you're a public figure, what choice do you really have? You've got to embrace your image.

So it's comforting to hear that Youkilis is embracing the baseball world's odd relationship to his physical appearance. Yours is not the first Boston-hating voice to speak up on the subject of Youk's yeti-ish mien. And it's not hard for me to see why he'd be totally infuriating to all but the Boston faithful. As I've said to friends before, Youkilis is far and away the baseball player most likey to bring a pet tarantula to the clubhouse. This is somehow apparent from the way he runs. And I can't explain it any better than that.

I must disagree with your friend Mr. Taibbi about one thing: Youkilis is defined by his massive ass, not his belly. I'm actually not even convinced he *has* a belly; only the extreme front of his ass. But I suppose this is a digression.

As for the facial hair? I'll say mustache, which is really the only inspired choice on the board. I'll take my act over to Hits for Kids and see if I can't make this happen.

Use this Space to Hype the Fact That Athletes Work Out

2010-03-04T10:09:00.005-05:00

This morning's pie-eyed story about Red Sox pitching prospect Casey Kelly, along with the NY Post's assiduous coverage of the Yankees' evening of pre-teen entertainment, is a reminder that the time has dawned for pointless stories about people getting ready.

I love baseball as much as the next--usually more, in fact--and I have I'm extremely excited to go see my first-ever Spring Training baseball game in Fort Myers next week. But it's good to keep in mind that every spring we read the same stories--players having lost weight, trying out a new pitch, or even just "feeling good"--and they are not predictive of...anything.

The fantasy blog RotoWire kept a good list of last year's so-called Spring Training Cliches, a nice thing to revisit a year later. Here are some of my favorite useless stories from this time last year:

*Last spring: Brian Bruney looked fit. During the season: saw his ERA spike by 2 runs and was demoted from 8th inning duties. Gave up 2 runs on 3 hits while recording just one out in his only postseason appearance.

*Last spring: Jacoby Ellsbury looked "jacked". During the season: saw his home runs decrease from 9 to 8; doubles went from 22 to 27.

*Last spring: Francisco Liriano worked on his changeup. During the season: Went 5-13 with a 5.80 ERA.

Lord knows there were others. So far this season, we've got Casey Kelly retiring three Boston College baseball players in order, and Boof Bonser feeling healthy except for a blister. Look out, world.

I'll do my best to keep a running list of things that athletes have been doing in the offseason. We can turn back to this post around the All-Star break and see what hindsight yields.

MILES:

Cabalitto!

Wait till Next Year

2010-02-26T12:08:00.007-05:00

I'm going to go ahead and say it--this year's Celtics don't have it. Not enough Garnett, not enough Pierce. Ray Allen and Rondo can't do it alone. I think it's nice that Danny Ainge tried, bringing in Nate Robinson, and maybe that experiment will work out. Hey--never say never. But last night's fold in the 3rd and 4th quarters against Cleveland was a reminder of something we've been seeing for two months now: this team does not have the energy to persevere when the going gets tough.

They're still fun to watch, particularly Rondo, who now seems destined for many years of stardom, but they're a dark horse right now. The Lakers, Magic, Mavs, Cavs, Nuggets--I wouldn't feel good about my team in a seven-game series with any of them. With that in mind, I thought it would be worth a look, however unpleasant, at what the future holds for this time.

The Celtics are a long way from having a Knicks-style bidding war this coming summer. Even with Ray Allen's expensive contract coming off their books, the C's don't have much wiggle room. They'll have to decide whether to re-sign Allen, how much money to give to Pierce, who is all but untouchable in the eyes of the fans, and how to fill out their roster with the limited funds they have leftover. Will Allen agree to come back for a reduced paycheck? Is Nate Robinson worth another $4-$5 million? And which scrubs will replace Tony Allen and Brian Scalabrine for half the money?

We know Pierce and Garnett will be around, probably until they retire. Rondo and Rasheed Wallace aren't going anywhere either. But whither Glen Davis, whose contract is up after next year? And will the team bring back the useful Marquis Daniels? I hope we'll see more of Daniels, and less of Davis, whose attitude and trouble against taller players seem like serious demerits. I also hope the team has the financial creativity to bring in a quality player in the rich free agent market this summer, and has a solid draft. This was a great team for almost two years, but we've always known it might not be pretty in the end. And I'm worried that the cracks are starting to show.

MILES:

You think the Celtics have problems? The Knicks haven't won since February 3, the last time Al Harrington passed up a shot.

OK. The Knicks pulled one out last night. They are now 1-3 since McGrady joined the team. Even more troubling than the record, though, is Gallinari's gradual regression. In four games with McGrady, Gallo's averaging a pathetic 6.75 points a game on just six shots. He's made one three pointer in 142 minutes. The Knicks' offense has become almost exclusively Lee, Harrington and McGrady, with Gallinari hanging out on the wings--a frustrating combination of his teammates' selfishness and Gallo's reluctance to call for the ball.

As for the Celts, I really wouldn't worry too much. Rondo, Pierce and Perkins make for a very solid core, while Garnett, even on one leg, is better than 75 percent of the league's power forwards. If I were Danny Ainge, I'd let Ray Allen walk, re-sign Marquis Daniels (I'm pretty sure the Celts own his Bird rights) and offer Mike Miller the mid-level exemption. There are good options in the draft, too. Ainge could either go big (Dexter Pittman) or draft a back up point guard, like Kalin Lucas or Sherron Collins.

Nate is not worth the long-term investment. Like not at all. I'm so relieved I don't have to get worked up about him anymore. I can now focus my animosity exclusively on Al Harrington.

BEN:

I think this weekend's loss to the Nets kind of puts an exclamation point on things. I've been persuaded for a while now that real coaching happens on the court, in basketball even more than in other sports, and the loss of Garnett's intensity, which seemed to get injured along with his knee, has turned this into a MUCH weaker team. I don't mind Doc Rivers--the players seem to like him and want to make him happy--but he's just not enough to take a team over the top by himself.

After that embarrassment, which I will remind our readers took place at home, there is bound to be some scrutiny. We've all been waiting for the playoffs before we start getting interested, especially since there have been injuries all year. But now there is pressure to perform. Daniels, Wallace, and Robinson need to start scoring; Pierce and Garnett need to get healthy, and Ray Allen needs to improve his consistency. If those things happen, there is plenty of hope left for this team. But if they don't respond to some media pressure now, it's not going to happen later either.

I love Collins' energy, and would love to see him in green next year. But I think the lack of a scoring big man is a huge problem for the second unit. Glen Davis should be a mid-range jump shooter who hustles for rebounds, not a back-to-the-basket forward; and Rasheed Wallace needs to stop teeing off three-pointers, or at least needs to start making them. Perkins is an acquired taste, but I have come to love his game. Still, the C's don't have a legitimate low-post scoring threat when Garnett is on the bench--which is to say, 15 minutes a game. I am worried about Pittman's toughness, but the draft always provides hope, as long as you aren't picking up J.R. Giddens.

The Knicks will be fine; better than fine a year from now. They probably won't make the playoffs, and it will be a shame that their 1% chance of drafting John Wall will belong to another team. But you are going to be buying season tickets when Dwyane Wade is in the house next November. And Al Harrington will disintegrate into thin air, like a K-Mart sneaker.

Open Trade Post

2010-02-17T13:28:00.009-05:00

With so much swirling around about the NBA trading deadline, I think maybe it's best to just keep a running dialogue here.

Some thoughts:

*I think the Knicks are going to land McGrady, AND shed Jeffries' contract. But I'm not sure they can beat out the Bulls in this competition without giving up their 2012 pick. Is it the right move? If they get a one of the top three free agents this summer--Wade, Carmelo, or LeBron--then yes. Even if they don't land a second max contract, I think they can use their free money to reconstitute an effective team around their go-to guy. If they get burned this summer, though, YIKES. They'll have to spend money just to fill out a lineup card every night. And being without a #1 pick until 2013 is not good.

*This business about Nate Robinson coming to the Celtics. It may happen, but I don't like it. I know he has energy and isn't expensive, but I have never liked Robinson, either for his attitude or his style of play. This is a team that needs to play good defense and work together, and while it's possible that Robinson will stir things up in a good way, I don't want to feel depressed every time he jacks up a 35-footer just because he can. Win or lose, I just don't like the way he plays.

*For whatever it's worth, I think the Cavs should sit tight rather than trade for Jamison.

MILES:

Thanks for creating a new post. The other one was getting unwieldy.

As for the Knicks, if Walsh can protect the 2012 pick, I'm 100 percent behind the move. If he can't, I'm 95 percent behind it. His plan has always been to free up enough cap space to go hard after free agents this summer. If he unloads Jeffries, well, mission accomplished, Jordan Hill be damned. It's nice to see Walsh double down on his ability to land the league's biggest names.

Even if he fails to sign two max free agents, or even one, he can still field a competitive team, one that is far superior than this current Knicks bunch. It really is an impressive list of talent. To wit: Luke Ridnour, Marcus Camby and Udonis Haslem would work well with Douglas, Chandler and Gallo. Although it's far, far from ideal, I don't see anything wrong with having a ton of cap space moving forward, even at the expense of future picks. Being over the cap was basically the root of the organization's problems, dating all the way back to the Ewing trade. Having to trade dollar-for-dollar really limits a team's ability to improve. Walsh understands this. I trust him to sign the right players at the right price. He's not Isiah.

I'm happy to see Nate go, if the rumored trade does in fact go through, as expected. He's going to drive you crazy, and will probably single-handedly cost Boston about as many games as he wins them. But if the price is only House and a 2nd round pick, it's worth Ainge taking a shot.

The Cavs should stand pat. I think Danny Ferry is freaking out about LeBron leaving.

By the way, if Steve Kerr trades Stoudemire for J.J. Hickson, Z's expiring contract and a pick, he deserves to get fired.

For the record, Carmelo is not a free agent this summer.

I don't know what to make of this update via Chris Sheridan:

Lots of info and misinformation out there regarding the potential Nate Robinson-to-Boston trade. I have been told there are many moving parts, with some of the principals mentioned as coming to New York including Marquis Daniels, Bill Walker, J.R. Giddens and possibly Eddie House. Robinson's base-year compensation status is a complicating factor, but not insurmountable.

I don't know, just doesn't seem like it's worth the hassle for either team.

BEN:

Agreed. It makes me wonder if there is a third team, or some other contingency lurking. That being said, if Donnie Walsh wants to give up Nate Robinson for Bill Walker instead of Eddie House, more power to him.

I continue to be confused by the faith everyone has in J.R. Giddens. Say what you want about Nate Robinson (and I will), at least he's proven he can score.

MILES:

Is the Cavs' acquisition of Jamison good for the Knicks? Not so much. The Cavs are, by most objective standards, now the odds-on favorite to win the East, possibly the NBA championship. Which would mean LeBron is more likely than ever to stick around next year, instead of jumping ship to New York. Danny Ferry, not surprisingly, out-maneuvered Steve Kerr and Ernie Grunfield to land the one player in the league that best complemented LeBron and his Cavs, demonstrating to his star asset that he's willing to surround him with talent, while cutting no expense in trying to win a title. Basically, everything I was afraid Ferry would do between now and July 1.

It's now up to LeBron to decide where he wants to play next season. Ferry's officially off the hook. Well played, sir.

Also, Darko for Brian Cardinal. Walsh just saved the Dolans $2 million this year. Another job, well, done.

BEN:

Seems like some shit is gonna go down today. I agree with you that Jamison helps Ferry make his case, but look--if LeBron wants to be in a major media market, the Knicks are his chance. The pressure is now on Walsh to put together a team that could legitimately win if LeBron makes the move. If the Knicks move Jeffries today and bring in McGrady--which I think they will--then they'll be in great position this summer. All they have to do is assemble quality pieces, and it seems like, for the first time in 15 years, there is someone with a brain making decisions in their front offices. But a lot is going to come down to what's in LeBron's head, and that's something we may not know even after his next contract is signed.

I think Dwyane Wade would come to New York in a heartbeat, though.

It doesn't sound like the Celtics are going to get their man today. In general, I respect Danny Ainge's talents as a GM, but he still makes me anxious. Ray Allen's expiring contract is at the absolute peak of its value right now. I'm not saying they have to make a deal for him--and I love Ray Allen and would be sad to see him leave--but for a team that was always known to have a brief window to compete in, they better damn well have a plan this summer other than re-signing their aging veterans.

I really hope Darko gets some good minutes with the T'Wolves. I really think he might be the worst draft pick ever. Say what you want about Sam Bowie, at least he never threatened to move to Europe.

A Modest Proposal

2010-02-10T11:16:00.011-05:00

UPDATE, MILES:

As Stuart Scott would say: "Booyah!" Just protect the 2012 pick, Donnie, then pull the trigger. Two max free agents are coming to New York this summer. The only question is, which two? LeBron and Bosh? Wade and Bosh? Johnson and Bosh? Wade and LeBron? For my dashed-off hagiography of the great Donnie Walsh, click here.

That is all.

I've had it with the Knickerbockers. Last night's loss, a blown 15-point, 4th-quarter lead to the Sacramento Kings, was the clincher. This team needs to be scrubbed clean. No longer in contention for the playoffs, the Knicks are nonetheless facing an important 8-day stretch between now and the NBA's trade deadline. To remain real players in this summer's free agent bonanza, it is imperative for Donnie Walsh to unload Jared Jeffries's contract, a complete albatross for the Knicks, but an otherwise reasonable deal for teams not looking to sign one or two max free agents this summer.

Somewhat serendipitously, then, Yahoo!'s Adrian Wojnarowski reports this morning the Knicks are in semi-serious talks with the Houston Rockets about acquiring the Player Formerly Known As Tracy McGrady, as part of a three-way trade with the Washington Wizards. "The centerpieces of the trade," Wojnarowski reports, "would include the Washington Wizards shipping forward Caron Butler and center Brendan Haywood to the Rockets. The Knicks would send Al Harrington to the Wizards." Wojo also explains the Wizards would need to add another player for the trade to work under the league's Collective Bargaining Agreement. The Wizards might also want a draft pick.

Here's what I'm thinking. The Knicks should send Jeffries, a very good defensive player, to Houston and Darko Milicic's expiring contract, along with the aforementioned Harrington, to Washington, a franchise desperately trying to shed salary. Since Houston, currently in a dog-fight for the playoffs, clearly gets the upper hand in talent (Butler et. al), they'd send their first-round draft pick to Washington. Everybody wins: the Rockets immediately get better, while simultaneously gearing up for Yao's return next season; the Knicks clear some much-needed cap space; and the Wizards start in earnest their much-needed rebuilding phase.

What do you think?

UPDATE: I just read this morning that Jared Jeffries has a $3-million trade kicker in his contract, which somewhat complicates my proposed trade. I'm not sure, though, if the trade kicker would be a total deal breaker.

BEN:

Chris Sheridan has been reporting that Jeffries is a big impediment to a Knicks-TMac deal. From what little I know on the topic, I think McGrady finding his way to MSG is pretty likely, but they may not be lucky enough to move Jeffries. Houston knows they have a valuable commodity, and unless the Knicks are giving them something they can't get anywhere else, I don't see why they would take on an expensive bench player like Jeffries, especially if they're hoping to win next year. If I were running the Rockets, I'd rather have the flexibility to go get the 7th man I needed, rather than the one the Knicks are desperate to be rid of.

That being said, I don't think it's cosmically impossible. After all, the Knicks do need to move more than just Harrington if they want the trade to work under the CBA; and I don't think an extra $3m to Jeffries means much to the Dolans, if they're persuaded that they can go get a player like Bosh or LeBron.

I don't know the NBA trade market like I know baseball, but I'd be pretty damn shocked if McGrady didn't have a new address starting next week. So, why not the Knicks?

MILES:

Well, talk about pouring cold water on a boy's dream. Wojnarowski is now reporting that Washington is in serious talks with Boston about swapping Caron Butler and Antawn Jamison for Ray Allen, Brian Scalabrine and J.R. Giddens. This is a much better deal for Washington than the rumored three-way deal with Houston and New York. Washington gets out from under $24 million next season (as opposed to only $10.5 million in the Houston-New York rumored deal). As for Boston, they get some serious talent in exchange for taking on two pretty serious contracts.

This sounds like a no-brainer to me. Why would either team say no?

This doesn't necessarily preclude the Knicks from working out a deal with the Rockets for McGrady. You're right about that. It does, however, make a possible transaction between Houston and New York that much more difficult. Why would the Rockets want to exchange expiring contracts, especially those of Al Harrington and Larry Hughes? It doesn't make much sense from either a business or basketball perspective. They'd have every right to ask for more talent. And, if I were Donnie Walsh, I would not even consider parting with Jordan Hill or Wilson Chandler or a future draft pick just to get three months of a rickety Tracy McGrady.

BEN:

I would not complain if that happened. Does that mean Jamison would be coming off the bench? And 'Sheed would be the 7th or 8th man? It's been 20 years since the Celtics had that kind of depth.

You're right about the Rockets deal, but don't forget that they still have to make a move, and not every team has a $10m expiring contract to move. So anybody looking to be in on this summer's talent sweepstakes should keep the Knicks high up in their rolodex. I could see another team coming into the negotiations--there are more than a few that are ready to start rebuilding.

Words of Advice

2010-02-07T15:03:00.004-05:00

I've been know to harbor some ill will toward Master Belichick. His Op-Ed, though, which ran in the New York Times in January 2003, prior to Super Bowl XXXVII, demonstrates a softer side to the normally irascible man in the cut-off hoodie.

Enjoy.

O.K., Champ, Now Comes the Hard Part
By Bill Belichick
Published: January 26, 2003

FOXBORO, Mass.— Thirty-seven thoughts for the victorious coach on today's national holiday:

I. Congratulations, Champion. Yes. Champion.

II. You'll hug your family. But this time, 800 million people will be watching you. Try to remember to fix your hair.

III. You might think back 30 years, when your gofer job entailed picking up Raiders or Oilers game film at the airport at 1 a.m., and then smile because you're at work and there's confetti stuck to your face.

IV. You'll fly home to fans lining the highways and overpasses to greet your team buses.

V. You'll have a downtown parade. It might be raining; you won't notice.

VI. You'll chat with a governor, hear a mayor, dine with the speaker of the house.

VII. Motivational-speaking agencies will guarantee you corporate gigs every week until training camp.

VIII. Maybe the people from the Eclipse Awards (horse racing's Oscars) will invite you to be a presenter.

IX. You'll go through a typical interview, but this time it'll be on the lawn at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. (I hope the president will remember your name, though.)

X. Maybe you'll be the second man in N.F.L. history to coach a long snapper to celebrity status.

XI. Would you do the previously unthinkable and leave Nantucket to spend two days in transit for one night at the ESPY awards in Los Angeles?

XII. You'll get your shot on radio, doing half an inning for the A's or Devil Rays (mine came at Fenway).

XIII. They'll give you the highest honor possible for alumni at your alma mater.

XIV. Maybe you too will hear from your fourth-grade teacher and so many other old friends reminding you of special times.

XV. Then you'll wonder how you could have forgotten the names of so many others who claim to be old friends.

XVI. You're the best, and few can ever say that. Wait until you see the ring! You can count on one hand the moments that top putting that baby on.

Then, suddenly . . .

XVII. You'll try and fail to convince yourself that the work you usually do in late January and February isn't that important.

XVIII. Several of your players (and their agents) will come looking for a little extra at contract time. After all, didn't they make Fantasyland possible? Of course they did. Be ready.

XIX. You'll tiptoe on the line between helping your players forget that they're the champions and helping them remember why they're the champions.

XX. You'll drink your last Hurricane (or whatever they serve in San Diego bars), go to sleep, wake up and find yourself in training camp, consoling a weeping veteran player who, the night before, decided to retire.

XXI. You'll start to worry about your depth at guard, your sixth cornerback, your backup swing tackle.

XXII. You'll stand in front of your team and talk about how different it is being champs, even though you can't truly know the difference yourself yet.

XXIII. Two words, Champ: Last. Year. Get used to them. You may hear them after wins, but you'll be able to set your watch to them after losses.

XXIV. You'll notice that all your opponents know your team a little better than they did this season: they'll hit you a little harder and play a little better when you show up. Deal with it.

XXV. Your players will stick together, sacrifice, do everything you could ask, and your assistant coaches and scouts will work as hard as they did on the way to Fantasyland.

XXVI. But, impossible as it may seem right now, there could be a time when that's not good enough. No really, it's true.

XXII. Then again, maybe it is good enough. Maybe you're even better than everyone thinks right now and you'll do it again. In Fantasyland II, they'll put you up there with Lombardi, maybe even Einstein.

XXVIII. But maybe not. Maybe next season you'll finish tied for first place in the division, but you'll go home anyway because you lost the third tie-breaker.

XXIX. Don't kid yourself, though. That third tie-breaker is a poor excuse.

XXX. Your own shortcomings are real. Red zone problems against Denver. Can't run at Miami. Penalties versus Green Bay. Forget that tie-breaker.

XXXI. You'll hear that the mayor, governor and speaker of the house are all out of office now. You'll think about that reporter, the one who covered your team, when you sit in the sixth row at his funeral. You'll realize how fleeting Fantasyland can be.

XXXII. Remember, the Smart Coach/Moron Coach Meter, which is currently way off the charts in the right direction, can be very moody.

XXXIII. Enjoy the ride, Champ. You're a coach, which means you're incapable of straying too far from the VCR. You're not a Fantasyland guy anyway, so you'll do pretty much what you did when you were 5-11.

XXXIV. You'll do your job because you know in about five minutes you're right back in the pack with the other 31 of us.

XXXV. We're envious, but not of Fantasyland. We're envious because we lost, and you can count on one hand all the things worse than losing.

XXXVI. So, Champ, congratulations.

XXXVII. Now, good luck.

BEN:

This is really all I have to add.

Last Pick of the NFL Season

2010-02-05T14:20:00.004-05:00

Ok: Super Bowl time. I thought this would be a good moment to revisit our original playoff picks, which are about as wrong as picks can be. Granted, we made these picks before the playoffs were set, but that only broadens the scope of the wrongness we visited upon our readers. We both incorrectly thought that the Giants and Broncos would make the playoffs; you also added the Dolphins to the mix. There was only even one matchup in the entire playoffs that either or both of us accurately projected: Packers vs. Cardinals on wild card weekend. And we both guessed the outcome wrong.

So, there you have it. A combined 0 for the playoffs. I'll be the one to say it: we were both wrong about everything.

ZING.

With that in mind, let's take another stab, this time at the Super Bowl.

We all know the storylines here. Peyton Manning vs. the imaginary standard for greatest qb ever; the Saints vs. basically everyone; Dwight Freeney vs. Dwight Freeney's ankle; who can win the turnover battle, who can rush the passer, who can be efficient in the red zone. Etc.

It goes against my usual approach, but I'm not going to bog down in which matchups favor which team, not this time. I think this game will be incredibly entertaining, and basically boils down to a war of wills: Manning vs. the group mentality of the Saints. I know New Orleans has been less than bulletproof over the last two months, but it only takes one game to get that swagger back. We all know they score points in bunches, and what they need is a little early momentum to get going.

Can I prove this is going to happen? No, not really. I could play out some scenarios where they slow things down with the running game, get a nice lead and try to get after the ball on defense--whatever. Here's what I think, finally. Peyton Manning has had some incredible games this year, and more than a few times, he's gotten away with a slow start. Well, I'm saying it stops this time. I'm saying the Colts take a while to hit their stride, and they turn the game into a shootout, but the Saints have the upper hand. Too many early touchdowns, too much firepower. This isn't Detroit, after all. This is the Super Bowl.

Saints 42, Colts 38

MILES:

Count me among the legions of those who've imbibed the Peyton Manning Kool-Aid. ("Once it hits your lips, it's so good.") Maybe it's because I watched him slice-and-dice my Jets, like Sam the Butcher against Priest Vallon. Or maybe, like Bill Simmons, the poet laureate of Boston sports, I just enjoy watching an athlete master his game. Probably both. Either way, though, Peyton Manning has been nothing short of remarkable this postseason. And I fully expect him to excel on Sunday, too, against a New Orleans defense that yielded 310 passing yards and 150 rushing yards last week against a Vikings offense that is about half as efficient as Manning and the Colts.

On the other side of the ball, I think Indianapolis' defense is up to the challenge of containing New Orleans' explosive offense--with or without Dwight Freeney. Like the Vikings, the Colts are fast, and hungry. Last week, we saw Minnesota frustrate Drew Brees and company all afternoon. That it took five Minnesota turnovers (four in the second half, including one killer, career-ending interception) for the Saints to pull out the win--at home, mind you-- speaks volumes about their chances this week against the Colts. Unlike the Vikings, the Colts won't turn the ball over five times.

Nor will the offensive line allow Manning to be put on the ground as often as Favre was last week. Manning just gets rid of the ball too quickly for that to happen. And when he gets rid of the ball, big things usually happen for the Colts. Just ask John Harbaugh or Rex Ryan. Or Bill Belichik. Or any other head coach in the National Football League. Manning is just that good.

Don't get me wrong. I think this is going to be a fun, competitive game. At least early. I'm even going to be rooting for the Saints to keep it close. I just don't see them pulling out the win. Indianapolis is just a better team, in almost every facet of the game, especially at the quarterback position. As good as Brees is, this is simply Manning's year.

Colts 34 Saints 24

A Bird in the Hand

2010-02-01T11:40:00.004-05:00

I have to say, while I'm not exactly fine with Rex's not-so rexy gesture, I'm not so sure it's as offensive as some in the national media or the National Football League would lead us to believe. I mean, I doubt very much Rex offended the sensibilities of people in attendance at an MMA match in Florida. These are the same people, after all, who paid top dollar to watch a former Heisman Trophy winner beat the crap out of some dude. The group at the wrong end of Rex's fat finger probably enjoyed the gesture. I feel I'm qualified to judge. I once passed Glen Sather in a crowded corridor of Madison Square Garden after a particularly brutal Rangers loss. I told him to fire then-head coach Tom Renney. He responded, "Shut up, you asshole." It's the give-and-take of professional sports I enjoy the most.

BEN:

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty," - that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

--John Keats

The Truth

2010-01-28T10:00:00.002-05:00

It's a slow week around here. Here's a picture to consider while you wait.

All Good Things...

2010-01-25T10:43:00.008-05:00

For 27 minutes yesterday, I was convinced the New York Jets were going to the Super Bowl. The defense had done an admirable, effective job containing Peyton Manning, sacking him twice in the first quarter, knocking him out of sync. And Mark Sanchez, the Jets’ embattled rookie quarterback, looked good, Super Bowl good. When Sanchez found Dustin Keller in the end zone near the end of the first half, the Jets were up 17-6, seemingly in control. 30+ minutes away from the Super Bowl

But then Peyton Manning remembered he was Peyton Manning. From right before the end of the first half to the final gun, Manning was, in a word, magnificent. Truly. In 80 seconds, Manning changed the game, marching the Colts the length of the field for a quick-strike touchdown. A drive that included a spectacular, impossible 46-yard strike to Austin Collie, which somehow zipped past the outstretched fingers of Jets cornerback Drew Coleman. A perfect throw.

A few plays later, the score was 17-13 Jets; it just felt like 23-10 Colts. The bar crowd was uneasy. I was nervous, holding out hope that the Jets would make adjustments at the half to contain a suddenly dangerous Manning. "Why not?" I reasoned. "They held Phillip Rivers to negligible yardage in the third quarter of the divisional game last week. They could do it again." My friend Garcia arched his eyebrow and said ominously, "I don’t know man. Peyton Manning is not Phillip Rivers."

I hate being wrong. The second half, I have to admit, was kind of a blur. Shonn Greene’s injury. Feely’s second miss. Short field. Pierre Garcon. Austin Collie. Peyton Manning. Peyton Manning again. And Peyton Manning once more for good measure. Rex Ryan and the Jets’ D threw everything they had at him. Man-to-man. Zone. Blitzes. Nothing mattered. Manning had an answer for everything. A truly remarkable, clinical performance by one of the greatest quarterbacks to ever play the game.

In the end, the Jets fell 30-17 to a superior Colts team. That’s it. That’s the story of the game, really. I’m not surprised. Disappointed, yes. But not surprised. A few things here and there kept me awake last night. The early groin injury to Donald Strickland. The aforementioned rib injury to Shonn Greene. Ryan’s decision to try the field goal instead of punting. Reggie Wayne second-half fumble that bounced three times on the turf before landing back in his gut. If just two of things, I told myself last night around 4 a.m., had played out differently, Gang Green might have been able to pull off another upset. In the clear light of the morning, though, I realize the Jets, for all their recent success, just aren’t as good as the Colts. That’s not a knock. It’s just the truth.

BEN:

Finally, a good day of NFL playoffs. I asked for the teams to leave it all on the field, and every one of them did. Clearly a tough loss for the Jets, but Rex Ryan will be predicting a division win in 2010 before you know it. And it's like you said--they were outmatched by a superior opponent.

I don't know what's left to say about Peyton Manning. That guy is a beast. It's not just about distributing the ball away from Wayne and Clark, against whom the Jets were clearly prepared; it's about his level of understanding of the defense. I don't think Manning's slow start was as much attributable to poor execution/bad luck as to a learning curve; he was just figuring out what they were up to.

One of the favorite talking points of commentators during this Jets playoff run has been the success of rushing/defensive teams come playoff time; they'll often add, with a note of lamentation, that the NFL "these days" is a passing league. It may be much to the dismay of certain commentators, who grew up on the old NFL, where passing was a novelty and running the lifeblood of a team; but I don't think there's any question that elite quarterbacks are the single best predictor of wins in this league. And Manning is the best of the best.

But grieving Jets fans need look no further than the NFC Championship game to find out just how easy they have it. Losing by 13, with the momentum shifting before halftime? It's a luxury cruise compared to what happened to the Vikings. Seemingly hundreds of fumbles, a wild, up-and-down game for 3.99 quarters, only to arrive at the edge of field goal range, with the score tied and 20 seconds left. What more could you ask?

Well, you could ask for one fewer idiot penalty and something, ANYTHING, as an alternative to Favre's absurdly poor decision to heave the ball back across the field, into traffic, against a ball-hawking defense, on the final play where he could possibly have screwed it up for the kicker, resulting in the overtime-clinching interception.

As many Jets fans will remember, this is the third consecutive season in which Favre has eliminated his own team by throwing an interception as his final act. The golden arm giveth, and the golden arm taketh away.

Favre's 4th-quarter mistake not only dashed his teams' Super Bowl dreams but threw into question the whole future of the organization. Favre seems headed for retirement (again), and let's just say there's some question about his successor. Much of the team is intact, but this team just isn't the same without a strong QB.

The Jets have one or two aging players--Alan Faneca and Thomas Jones probably being the most likely to depreciate--but on the whole they're a young team with a lot of talent. And you know I don't like saying that.

Just be grateful you didn't have to hear this. I'm sorry, Vikings fans, I really am.

Take Four

2010-01-22T15:09:00.004-05:00

So it comes down to this. Four teams, two games. I have to admit, this time last month, I wasn’t even thinking about a playoff appearance for the Jets. Never in my wildest dream did I think Gang Green would be 60 tantalizing minutes away from the Super Bowl, their first since Joe “Willy” Namath shared a shower stall with Farrah Fawcett.

But here we are. You might not agree, but the Jets, once left for dead, earned their place in the AFC Championship. Even if you and I don’t see eye-to-eye on this particular issue, I don’t care. I respect this team, critics and skeptics be damned.

As for the Saints and Vikings, I think they are, by far, the two best teams in the NFC. Their contest, slated to kick off 30 minutes after the Jets-Colts game, should be a good one. I’m not sure I’ll be watching, though. So much depends on what occurs earlier that afternoon, specifically how much I imbibe beforehand. Like certain Jets players and coaches, I, too, have my playoff superstitions, most of which consist of facial hair, chicken wings, cigarettes, and about one-and-a-half gallons of lager. Or an average night out for Nick Mangold.

But I digress. Without any further ado, here are my picks. Home teams, as always, are in CAPS.

SAINTS over Vikings.

Offensively, these two teams share a lot in common. Defensively, too. Where New Orleans has a sizable advantage, though, is the coaching staff. Hands down, Sean Peyton is a better coach than Brad Childress, who, according to numerous reports, isn’t even calling the shots in Minnesota. That responsibility belongs to the ageless wonder Brett Favre. Advantage, too, to Gregg Williams over Leslie Frazier, whose defensive schemes rely heavily on the admittedly talented Jared Allen making big plays. Not a terrible strategy, really, but I’ll put my money on Peyton figuring out a way to get Drew Brees going early against Minnesotta’s defensive front, while Favre, playing from behind, will revert to his old gunslinging ways and, more likely than not, cost his team the game with an interception or two.

Saints 31 Vikings 23

COLTS over Jets.

Let it never be said that my fandom colors my objectivity. Most pundits think this game will come down to a battle between the Colts offense and the Jets defense. Call me a contrarian, but I think the game's outcome is predicated on the performance of the Colts defense. So far this postseason, the Jets offensive line has worn down the defensive lines of, first, the Bengals and, last week, the Chargers. The O-lines’ effort, which they liken to chopping down a tree, has kept the Jets within striking distance of both Cincy and San Diego until they were able to spring Shonn Green for long touchdown runs. That could still work, obviously, but I think the speed and athleticism of the Colts defense, specifically linebacker Gary Brackett, and pass rushers Dwight Feeney and Robert Mathis will neutralize the Jets’ celebrated “ground-and-pound” game plan, just as they did against Baltimore and Ray Rice last week.

Manning will, of course, get his, but the Colts offense has been, on average, somewhat more methodical than explosive this season. Sure, they can still strike quickly (see Ravens, Baltimore), but they are more likely to eat up yards on shorter passes. I wouldn’t quite call it dink and dunk, as Bill Cowher did, but I’m not overly concerned with a four-quarter aerial assault either. The Jets defense, anchored by the peerless Darrelle Revis, will keep this game close, but the Jets offense unfortunately won’t be able to keep pace.

Look, I hope I’m wrong. And I very well could be, because the Jets' offensive line and defense are that good. Their exceptional play will always give the Jets at least a fighter’s chance in every game. This week, though, I think the Colts defense will ultimately get the best of the front five, and Gang Green's unexpected and exciting playoff run will finally meet its end in Indianapolis.

Colts 17 Jets 9

BEN:

Say it ain't so! I never thought I'd see you pick against the Jets, not at this late date, with so many big wins behind them. Could it be that you fear a jinx? Or are you really setting aside your heart in favor of objectivity. The truth may be unknowable.

Whether the Jets earned their spot in the AFC Championship Game: sure. I mean, you could argue that they didn't earn their playoff spot, with the Colts obligingly stepping aside in week 16. And I'm on record as having said that the Chargers blew their home game last week. This latter point I think is beyond debate--but it doesn't mean the Jets didn't play well enough to get here. They played a good game in San Diego, better than their opponent. And what more can you ask of them, really?

Are they one of the four best teams in the NFL, by whatever objective measure you can produce? No, I don't think so. In addition to Indianapolis, Minnesota, and New Orleans--clearly the NFL's top three--there's also Dallas, Green Bay, Philadelphia, New England, and San Diego, all of whom have more talent and, if the season re-started next week, all of whom I'd pick to finish ahead of the Jets. But the games count too, and I have to give Rex Ryan and co. credit for what they've done.

There. Now, onto the picks:

SAINTS over Vikings

I'd love to say something different here, just to be contrary. But with Harvin potentially sidelined, and the Vikings a thoroughly mediocre road team, I just can't see it happening. Reggie Bush's breakout week against Arizona creates a new problem for Minnesota, even against one of the league's top rushing defenses. And couple that with Pierre Thomas, Drew Brees, and the rest of the Saints attack, I think it's too much for Jared Allen to handle alone.

As I said earlier this week, Dallas' embarrassing loss last week was partially a result of Tony Romo's mistakes, a favor I don't think the Saints will be getting from Brees. Between that and the home-field advantage, plus the quick-strike abilities of the Saints, I think they come through this one with a win.

Saints 35 Vikings 28

COLTS over Jets

I have a terrible track record predicting, on this blog and everywhere else. And in all honesty I'm a little scared of the Jets this week. The game plan is clear: rush against a middle-of-the-pack run defense, keep the ball away from Manning, and try to steal the game on special teams or with a few big plays. Everyone knows that.

The Colts, for their part, will use Manning to beat the blitzes--something he does very well--and try to get ahead early. I agree with you that they haven't been as high-flying as the Colts of old this year, but Manning always seems to score when he needs to, this year more than ever. (This, incidentally, is why I'm 100% convinced he deserved the MVP.) And he needs to score early, force the Jets to play from behind, and let Freeney and Mathis take care of Sanchez.

I think this Jets defense is highly predicated on Revis' ability to play single coverage on the go-to receiver. But Manning is the best in the league at distributing the ball elsewhere--he uses Austin Collie and especially Dallas Clark to pick up first downs and even big plays when they need them. San Diego had a good thing going with Antonio Gates, but didn't use him enough, and failed to get the ball to Malcolm Floyd. I don't think the Colts will have that problem.

The Chargers let the Jets hang around, and in the end their defense caved first. But Rivers was only a few plays--those Kaeding field goals, those interceptions, that onsides kick--away from 6, 10, even 14 more points. It's certainly not guaranteed, but if Manning can read and react to the Jets coverages, I think the Colts will come out with a win.

Colts 23 Jets 14

MILES:

Truth be told, I'm establishing my objectivity in advance so I won't be accused of homerism later this summer, when I predict an NBA title for the LeBron-led Knicks.

Playoff Predictions, Take Three

2010-01-15T14:24:00.006-05:00

Let's try this again, shall we?

This weekend is, by far, the best weekend of the NFL's season. The conference championships and Super Bowl are, historically speaking, pretty anti-climactic. It's all down hill after Sunday night, unless, of course, the Jets upset the Chargers. In that case, I'm going all in, stupid with excitement.

With that said, here's my take on the NFL's round of eight.

(Per our house style, home teams are in CAPS.)

SAINTS over Cardinals.

If last week's Cardinals game taught us anything, it's that Arizona's defense is strictly voluntary. I expect Drew Brees and Co. to absolutely light up the scoreboard, while the Saints' defense will get more than enough stops to make this one non-competitive pretty early.

Saints 45 Cards 27

COLTS over Ravens.

A lot of people are all about the Ravens, based on their overwhelming performance last week against the Pats. Me thinks that's a bit of fool's gold. The Ravens took it to an uncharacteristically unprepared and woefully disinterested Patriots team. I don't see the admittedly charged-up Ravens manhandling a rested, ready and healthy Manning-helmed Colts team, like they did the Pats. Nor do I see Ray Rice breaking one for 80+ yards. Add to that the fact that Joe Flacco doesn't look like he can move, let alone scramble, and I really like the Colts to win this one.

Colts 24 Ravens 13

Cowboys over VIKINGS

Would you fault me if I said I do not care who wins this game? What about if I copped to an unreasonable hatred for both teams? I'm loathe to do this two weeks in a row, but I think the Cowboys' D, which, according to SI's Peter King, has yielded only two touchdowns in the past 12 quarters, will stave off Brett Favre and limit Adrian Peterson's effectiveness just enough to give Tony Romo and Wade Phillips the second playoff victories of their careers.

Cowboys 21 Vikings 17

Jets over CHARGERS

Yeah, I'm going there. I recognize about half-a-dozen things need to break right for the Jets to pull off a pretty big upset. Not the least of which is limiting the truly dynamic San Diego offense. Limit; not stop. That's not going to happen. What is going to happen, though, is this: like last week, the Jets will run until they run out of ground, and the Jets' defense, behind the collective efforts of Darrelle Revis (against Vincent Jackson) and Kerry Rhodes (over the top against Antonio Gates), will do just enough for the Jets to steal one late.

Jets 23 Chargers 20.

BEN:

Not a bad weekend for you, prognostication-wise. I missed my chance, but would've said you were right on all these, except I think the Jets pick, which I still maintain (even after the fact) that it's motivated not by analysis but homerism. It's more like...hey, maybe this could happen?

I think the Chargers pretty well pissed this one away. When you said things had to "break right," any chance you were referring to Nate Kaeding's kicks?

There were also some dubious coaching decisions (I didn't like Turner's decision to onsides kick), a bad interception by Rivers, too many penalties, and an offensive scheme that I thought underutilized Gates and Sproles. This was their game to lose, and they lost it.

As for the Cowboys, well, they finally got one of Romo's infamous chokes. This will go down as Favre's game, and that's not wrong, but I also think Romo has an amazing ability to inspire confidence and then crumble. And this year, it took not one but three clutch wins before anyone believed in him. And then...well, you saw the score.

If this was the best weekend of the NFL playoffs, color me disappointed. The Jets have their cinderella story going, but other than that, these playoffs have been one blowout after another. Now we've whittled down the league's competition to the three teams, and three quarterbacks, who have been all but untouchable this year. It's been a post-season of no-shows: New England, Cincinnati, and Philadelphia in round 1; Baltimore, Arizona, Dallas, to go with San Diego's sloppy performance in round 2; and now we're left with the best. I'll be sorely disappointed if we don't finally see some high-level football this week. Time to leave it all on the field.

The Johnny Damon Anti-Sweepstakes

2010-01-12T12:24:00.004-05:00

It's been a strange road for Johnny Damon. After spurning first Kansas City and then Oakland, he arrived in Boston, grew his hair, became an icon, and won the World Series. Then his home team wouldn't bid enough to keep him around, so he went to New York, cut his hair, played better than expected, and won the World Series again. And now, once again, we're hearing that his home team won't bid enough to keep him around. These, I suppose, are the perils of signing with Scott Boras.

It's an odd situation for a guy good for 145+ games a year and who hasn't scored fewer than 93 runs since 1997.

But at 36 years old and with practically every other player of his caliber signed to a contract, Damon finds himself a man without a country. The Yankees have repeatedly denied interest in bringing him back, though it seems to be a matter of price. His former employers in Boston let Jason Bay walk, but then signed Mike Cameron and Jeremy Hermida to replace him. Boras is firmly asking for a two-year commitment, which is an awkward fit with almost any National League team. Damon's defense has deteriorated over the years, and seems destined for the DH spot. But who is there, really, left to sign him? Eliminate the National League. Assume the Sox and Yankees are out. Baltimore has a stocked outfield; so does Tampa Bay. The Royals, a longshot to begin with, have (somewhat dubiously) cast their lot with Scott Podsednik. The Tigers, Twins, and Indians appear to have their outfields set. Every team in the AL West has signed a new OF/DH this offseason: Guerrero to the Rangers, Coco Crisp to the A's, Hideki Matsui to the Angels, and Milton Bradley to the M's. It's hard to believe any of those teams, none of whom are flush with extra cash this winter, will spend enough to land Damon at market price.

That leaves the White Sox and Blue Jays. Both teams have large commitments to contracts signed by J.P. Ricciardi, and the White Sox have added Andruw Jones as a fourth outfielder. Their current left fielder, Juan Pierre, may have less than a chokehold on the position, but with Jones in the fold, adding Damon would mean getting rid of Mark Kotsay, to whom they re-committed in November.

The Blue Jays look like the best fit to me. They lack a 4th outfielder or a true DH, and Travis Snider, though he has great potential, may not be ready to hold down a corner spot in their outfield. The question is, do they have the money to pay what Damon is asking? If not, I think he'll be hard-pressed to get that second year, and may have to settle for the one-year $5m-type contract Bobby Abreu signed with the Angels last season. It would be a steal for the Jays if they got it; but at this point, how many options do Damon and his superagent really have?

MILES:

Toronto would be a good spot for Damon, if it weren't for the Roger Centre's unforgiving turf. I can't foresee Damon's balky knees holding up there for 65+ games. If they envision him as a full-time designated hitter, they might be a good match.

We should also consider the Tampa Rays. If they could come up with $5 million, and Damon's willing to be a full-time DH, Tampa would be a desirable place for Damon, especially if no other team is willing to give him an everyday job.

Oy

2010-01-11T09:20:00.003-05:00

Well, I'll just go ahead and get it out of the way. That was as bad a wild card weekend as I could possibly have. The Patriots went down in flames. They've only lost a handful of games that convincingly since Belichick took over; and never a playoff game. It will be a very interesting offseason, with so many wounds to be dressed, and multiple key players with contracts to negotiate. But we can look at that another time.

Meanwhile, the Jets won decisively, I went 0 for 4 in my picks, and the remaining AFC teams, one of whom will be in the Super Bowl, are all Patriots rivals. It's a sad day for Boston fans when the Colts look like the good guys. If I have to pick a team I'm rooting for, I suppose it's the Saints (though based on my picks they shouldn't be happy about it.)

Maybe we'll get 'em next year. Six weeks 'till pitchers and catchers report.

MILES:

I have to admit, that was fun to watch. Brady's either got three cracked vertebrae or he doesn't trust anyone other than Welker. I guess it doesn't help matters when you got 250-pounds of nasty knocking you around the yard all day.

As for the Jets, I'm very much excited about next week's game. I have no idea if they can win in San Diego, but I expect it to be a competitive game, especially since the Bolts went a surprising 2-2 against playoff teams. And while they were a healthy 6-2 at home overall, they only won one of those games by more than 10 points, crushing Kansas City by 29. They also seem to have problems against the run, which should give Gang Green an early advantage. Whether or not they can capitalize on it is another story. Whether or not the can contain San Diego's prolific passing game will be the story of the game. Still, I'm surprisingly confident. I can't wait. Should be a good one, as should all the other games.

Playoff Predictions, Take Two

2010-01-08T16:27:00.003-05:00

Last month's predictions didn't exactly bear out. Still, I'm willing to give it another try, if only to make a semi-closing statement about the Jets, whose up-and-down-and-up season somehow continues, almost in spite of themselves.

(Home teams are in CAPS.)

Wild Card weekend

Jets over BENGALS

I understand the Jets are not the favorites to win the Super Bowl, no matter what our zaftig, possibly manic head coach seems to think. One playoff win, though, isn't asking too much of him and his crew.

I like this Jets defense, and I respect the team's offensive line, which should give Thomas Jones, Shon Greene and, yes, Brad Smith just enough room to run against Cincinnati's defense. A strong showing on the ground will, of course, take the pressure off Mark Sanchez, and open up the possibility of some nice play-action passes for the turnover-prone rookie. As long as he throws it to the guy with the GREEN helmet, he should have a pretty good day.

Although tomorrow's contest won't be anywhere near as easy as last week's 37-point romp against the Bengals, I think the Jets will, against all odds, find a way to pull one out on the road, a tremendous first step for a team on the rise.

Jets 20 Bengals 13

PATRIOTS over Ravens

The Pats are almost impossible to beat in Foxboro, even sans Welker. You have no idea how badly I want to pick the Ravens. I just don't see it happening. This one ain't going to be pretty, but the Pats should advance into the second round behind Brady and Moss.

Pats 27 Ravens 23

COWBOYS over Eagles

This one is going to come back and bite me. Maybe the Eagles pulled back a little bit last week. Maybe the Cowboys are going to fall apart when it matters most--again. Maybe the Eagles have a long postseason run in them. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. I still like the way Dallas has looked the past couple of weeks, and Romo is bound to get out of the first round eventually, right? This should be the year. Eat your heart out, Joe Simpson.

Cowboys 34 Eagles 17

Packers over CARDINALS

Aaron Rodgers seems to have this quarterbacking thing down. Provided, of course, he can stay off his back. In the Packers' first eight games, Rodgers was sacked 37 times. Since then, his protection has yielded only 13 sacks. If they can continue to keep Rodgers upright, I love Green Bay's chances of knocking off the defending (and considerably banged up) NFC champions and, eventually, representing the conference in this year's Super Bowl.

Packers 37 Cardinals 27

BEN:

I'm pressed for time, but let me get my picks out there and I'll do my best to flesh out the thinking behind them before the games get started.

BENGALS over Jets
PATRIOTS over Ravens
Eagles over COWBOYS
Packers over CARDINALS

I may live to regret this Eagles pick, but then again I may live to regret all these picks. It's a pretty wide open field out there, all postseason long. I just hope someone knocks off the Chargers, who have it coming.

Hail to the Redskins?

2010-01-06T15:22:00.012-05:00

In my younger and more vulnerable years, my father gave me some advice that I’ve been turning over in my head ever since.

“Whenever you feel like criticizing the Redskins,” he told me, “just remember that they are a well-run organization.”

He said this, of course, during the team’s salad days, back when Joe Gibbs was calling plays, Darrell Green was the fastest man in the National Football League, Art Monk’s mustache ruled the day, and Jack Kent Cooke was still amongst the living.

This was also back when my father and I were still on speaking terms, which was a very long time ago and perhaps helps explain why I no longer follow the ‘Skins.

That and Daniel Snyder.

Under Snyder’s watch, the Redskins are an abysmal 82-99, 17 games under .500. The highlight of his tenure is two lousy playoff victories, with his teams sitting out January football eight times in 11 seasons. He’s spent an exorbitant amount of money on big name players in pursuit of the quick fix over the future. Washington, for instance, went without a first-round pick in 2003, 2006 and 2008.

Snyder’s also burned through countless assistants, front office executives and six head coaches, including Norv Turner, Steve Spurrier, Joe Gibbs and, most recently, Jim Zorn, who was hired only after every other available candidate passed on the job once considered one of the best in all of professional football.

In fairness, Zorn deserved to be fired. During his two seasons, the ‘Skins went 12-20, losing 18 of their last 24 games. This year, Zorn’s squad finished 4-12, their worst record since 1994, Turner’s first year. And, halfway through the year, Zorn was forced to hand over the playcalling duties—a skill set he was specifically hired for—to a man two weeks’ removed from calling bingo games at a senior center.

Not only have Daniel Snyder’s Redskins been bad, they’ve devolved into a league-wide joke. A shame, really, given their storied history. A franchise with a fight song as kick-ass as this deserves better. Much better.

This morning, though, brought word that Snyder hired Mike Shanahan as head coach, his seventh—seventh!—since 1999. (Snyder is also expected to name Shanahan vice president of football operations).

Speculation abounds that Shanahan will bring with him to the nation’s capitol his son, Kyle, currently the offensive coordinator of the Houston Texans, and Mike Zimmer, the Cincinnati Bengals defensive coordinator. A league source told the Washington Post that Bob Slowik, Shanahan’s defensive coordinator in 2008 in Denver, would likely join Shanahan’s staff, though not as a coordinator.

Is this the start of something good for the ‘Skins? Does this mean Snyder’s finally willing to step aside and let someone who knows how to build a football team take over?

Some seem to think so. Some have even gone so far as to predict a fourth Lombardi Trophy for Washington.

Count me among the skeptics.

Look, Shanahan is a solid coach, and his track record as an executive is respectable, if not not exactly remarkable. I understand that. But he’s also 58, more than a decade removed from his second Super Bowl victory, and only 12 months removed from three-straight disappointing seasons in Denver, a string of failures that ultimately led to his termination.

He’s also been forced into a working relationship with Bruce Allen, son of former Redskins coach George Allen and the team’s recently hired executive vice president and general manager. (Believe it or not, Allen is the first person to hold the title of GM during Snyder’s reign of terror). It remains to be seen if Shanahan and Allen can work in concert. To wit: Shanahan reportedly has final say on all football decisions, according to ESPN. Does this mean he has the right to overrule Allen at any point, including during the 2010 NFL Draft?

Speaking of which, Washington owns only five picks this year, about half-a-dozen picks or so short of being able to address even their most basic needs: quarterback, offensive line, defensive line, running back, secondary, and special teams, in no particular order.

No small feat, this rebuilding of the Redskins.

Shanahan is also faced with the unenviable task of dealing with the vague eccentricities of his uber-rich, petulant owner. Who’s to say, for instance, Snyder wouldn’t fire Shanahan 24 hours after the conclusion of the 2011 season, if the Redskins finish under .500. Or if some other high-profile coach, like Bill Cowher, bats his eyes in Snyder’s general direction?

Therein lies the rub. The Redskins’ fortunes rise and fall with Snyder, arguably the worst—and most impatient—owner in all of sports, demonstrably more so than the Steinbrenners, Jim Dolan or Jerry Jones. Snyder will continue to throw bad money after bad money, refreshing the franchise every few years with new personnel, repeating the same mistakes again and again and again, regardless of how many times he makes them. As far as I’m concerned the Shanahan hiring is no different than the Gibbs hiring or the Spurrier hiring, just as Albert Haynesworth is no different than Bruce Smith, or Deion Sanders, or Adam Archuletta.

I could be wrong. A few years from now, history might show that Snyder finally got it right with Shanahan. Seventh time has to be the charm, right? But, as of this morning, I’m more inclined to think Shanahan’s tenure, like Gibbs’ second go-round, will end not with the bang of a Super Bowl victory but with the whimper of 9-7 seasons, as longsuffering ‘Skins fans beat on, awaiting their franchise’s return to glory, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

BEN:

Well, I'm reluctant to persuade an angry fan to hope. I know how it feels to start hoping for a championship even while preparing to lose it again. I believe it's what Fitzgerald called "the orgiastic future that year by year recedes before us." But, still--you sound like a fan in pain. And the thing is, the Redskins aren't THAT bad.

They needed to fire Zorn. Unquestionably. He was never qualified to be the coach in the first place. Yes, it certainly does look like a bad pattern, but Shannahan is a very successful coach with a good mind for offense. Plus, Haynesworth easily has 4-5 more productive years ahead of him, and likely more; and the defense, though probably exhausted from constantly jogging back onto the field after a three-and-out, was still one of the better ones in the NFC. Taking into account the depth at quarterback in this year's draft, and the Redskins' high draft position, it's not so hard to imagine a marquee player being added to the team next year. The Rams and Browns will get first crack at the position, but many prognosticators see the Browns drafting for defense. This means Washington could get one of Sam Bradford or Jimmy Clausen, both of whom show elite potential in the NFL.

Is that enough to make the playoffs? No, not really, not in the NFC East. But a little momentum--a winning season, even--could really help this team turn things around. Shannahan may not be a miracle-worker, but he's a damn sight better than Zorn; and in my opinion he's better than all of the other coaches Snyder has tried over the last decade. (This is said with deference to Joe Gibbs' first go as a coach, which was very different from his second one.)

They'll still need a running back, another wideout, and probably some help on the offensive line. But the defensive nucleus is there, with Haynesworth, Smoot, Hall, and Orakpo. And I think they've got a shot at a legitimate quarterback this year. Maybe they won't win today, and maybe not tomorrow, but I think they're headed in the right direction.

MILES:

I'm feeling oddly nostalgic this week. Here's a collection of highlights from Super Bowl XXVI, featuring MVP Mark Rypien, Pat Summeral and John Madden, the best in the business.

Is this worth $10 Million?

2010-01-06T08:38:00.000-05:00

I say yes.

The Thing with Avatar

2010-01-05T08:16:00.010-05:00

I'm going to step outside the traditional editorial purview of this blog today because I didn't like Avatar. You might say this just proves I have an axe to grind; I would add that this is the only blog I have, so, where else am I supposed to grind my axe? And hey, Miles, maybe you'll disagree. After all, we call this blog You're Wrong About Everything, not just sports.

It's pretty well established that James Cameron spent a lot of time and (the studio's) money to produce this movie over a period of about ten years. He invented new software which, we are told, is going to change the way action movies are made. That certainly does sound important, and it is very clearly true that the blue people in Avatar are much more fully realized, and tolerable than some of the CGI characters of recent memory (we're looking at you, Jar Jar Binks.) This is a major accomplishment and should not be overlooked. Ok.

So I went and saw the movie, which I'm more or less required to like, and here's the thing: it's not a very good movie. All right, I'll back up: it's visually extremely beautiful. The big lush forests, the floating islands in the sky, the Alice-in-Wonderland-ish creatures that roam across the screen. And I did appreciate that, I really did. But it's not, to my eye, as lovely as the stunning landscapes of New Zealand all over the Lord of the Rings movies; nor the forests of Terence Malik's The New World (not that anyone bothered to see it), which, incidentally, tells the same Pocahontas story so lazily adapted by Cameron for his blockbuster.

Which brings me to the main point. Although the movie is visually spectacular, the software newly minted, and the budget even larger than the Yankees' payroll, the movie falls short in almost every other imaginable capacity.

Tell me: when was the last time you saw Sigourney Weaver looking this wooden? It's almost as if, like the title character, she's re-learning to act before our eyes. Her gruff persona seems to come from nowhere, and disappears at the convenience of the story. Truth be told, she has very little to do--it's hard to fault her for that.

The other actors? Giovanni Ribisi is his strange and uncoachable self. I appreciated him. But the generic leading man (Sam Worthington), despite giving an intermittent voiceover, manages to conjure almost no internal conflict or pathos. The angry Colonel Quaritch gives an almost ingeniously one-note performance; his scarred head and unflinching demeanor are the stuff of comic books. "Hello, viewer," he seems to say, "I'm crazy and angry and I will be your villain tonight." He belongs in Spider-man, or GI Joe, not a movie as ostensibly cerebral as this one.

"Cerebral" may be the watchword for the problems here. Why--oh, why?--has James Cameron encumbered this movie with a political critique? This has got to be the least useful bit of Hollywood politicking since The Day After Tomorrow. And that's saying something. I mean, seriously--did I really hear a character describe the villain's military strategy with the words "shock and awe"? Interpreting the movie's message as anything more detailed or thoughtful than "the Iraq war is bad" would be generous; but also probably tedious and uncalled for. Several critics have noted the irony that Cameron's Transcendentalist vision arrives in the form of a fabulously expensive big-budget movie, complete with plastic-wrapped 3D glasses and marked-up tickets. The movie only uses the absurdly-named element "unobtainium" as a macguffin, but I suspect that if it were real, you'd need a lot of it to make Avatar.

All right, where was I. The story: sloppy, generic, totally predictable. I defy you to name a single surprising thing that happens. Or better yet, name anything less certain to happen than the climax of Cameron's last movie. Why even bother? If it took Cameron ten years to produce the software, raise the money, and film the movie, could he not have spared an extra month somewhere to revise the script?

Am I crazy? The characters are short on motivation. The dialogue wants for detail, subtlety, and emotion. The movie's alleged scientific experts: do not even get me started. This is a separate essay all its own.

Hey, look--I'm not trying to ruin the party. I didn't *hate* this movie, I'm just a little disappointed in our standards for what makes an instant classic. I'm not looking for Citizen Kane, here, but give me Jaws, Jurassic Park, The Matrix. All three are better on almost every count I've mentioned. Am I wrong? If the emperor isn't completely unclothed here, he's showing a lot more thigh than I'd like.

MILES:

Does this mean I can now post my review of Did You Hear About The Morgans? I haven't been that disappointed in a film since Music and Lyrics. I mean, what happened to Hugh Grant, besides the hooker and Sandra Bullock? I re-watched Four Weddings and a Funeral (again), and he was just delightful. Such a shame.

Seriously, though, I have no problem with your post. Just as I have no intention of seeing Avatar, or James Cameron's next magnum opus, for that matter. Let the record show, I still haven't seen Titanic or Terminator 3 either-- although I did enjoy The Abyss and, in the interest of full disclosure, True Lies. Otherwise, Cameron, more specifically, Cameron's films never really did much for me. Beautifully shot, yes; but also emotionally hollow, like the hull of the ship that killed Leo. You're probably right on the money about his latest effort, which looks even more jejune than Dancing with Wolves. I'd rather spend the time watching The Hurt Locker, which, from what I've read, says more about the war in Iraq in one scene than Cameron could apparently muster with a billion-dollar budget and a warehouse full of new technologies.

Since we both seem to be on the same page about Cameron, I would be remiss if I didn't share with you Dana Goodyear's description of the man, which appeared in The New Yorker a few weeks back.

The director James Cameron is six feet two and fair, with paper-white hair and turbid blue-green eyes. He is a screamer—righteous, withering, aggrieved. “Do you want Paul Verhoeven to finish this motherfucker?” he shouted, an inch from Arnold Schwarzenegger’s face, after the actor went AWOL from the set of “True Lies,” a James Bond spoof that Cameron was shooting in Washington, D.C. (Schwarzenegger had been giving the other actors a tour of the Capitol.) Cameron has mastered every job on set, and has even been known to grab a brush out of a makeup artist’s hand. “I always do makeup touch-ups myself, especially for blood, wounds, and dirt,” he says. “It saves so much time.” His evaluations of others’ abilities are colorful riddles. “Hiring you is like firing two good men,” he says, or “Watching him light is like watching two monkeys fuck a football.” A small, loyal band of cast and crew works with him repeatedly; they call the dark side of his personality Mij—Jim backward.

Cameron might very well be good at what he does, but that kind of Strum und Drang approach to filmmaking is usually reserved for directors of a higher ilk: Orson Welles, William Friedkin, Stanley Kubrick. Cameron, despite his box office success, has no business in such company.

BEN:

No, you may not review Did You Hear About the Morgans, unless you plan on explaining to me what the hell anyone was thinking when they made it. To be honest, I probably shouldn't have reviewed Avatar--it's thoroughly inconsistent with everything we've built over here in these several months of occasional low-intensity labor. But, it needed saying, so I said it.

I do not, in principle, have a problem with James Cameron. His Aliens and Terminator movies are canonical; and I'm not one of those people who gushes over Titanic, but it's pretty tough to argue with. That profile of him, though, is about as damning as it could be. Anyone as successful as he is should be prepared for a good lambasting. I'm just glad there are a few good souls out there willing to deliver it.

Cock and Bull

2010-01-04T11:19:00.005-05:00

We'll get to the NFL playoffs soon enough, but in deference to Wes Welker's unfortunate injury and the Jets' slightly uninspiring postseason qualification, I thought I'd turn the blog's attention to the suddenly surging Knicks. Once left for dead, my Knickerbockers have won 10 of their last 15. What's more, they currently sit one game out of the 8th--and final-- playoff spot, which would likely put them in line to face [Ed. Note: "lose to"] the Celtics in the first round.

That's a long way away, though, and I harbor higher aspirations for my team, who, believe it or not, are only 2.5 games behind the Toronto Raptors for the 6th spot, and 3.5 games behind the Miami Heat, the Eastern Conference's current 5th seed. I'm surprisingly optimistic, especially after last night's 43-point destruction of the admittedly depleted and exhausted Indiana Pacers, a game that saw Danilo Gallinari do this to former Georgetown Hoya Roy Hibbert.

Nella sua faccia!

As of this morning, Gallinari is averaging a hard 14.6 points per game. Which, of course, means our bet probably won't be decided until April, at the earliest, hopefully when the Knicks are still in the playoff hunt. Until then, I'm more than happy to enjoy watching my team play again. It's been a very long time coming.

BEN:

Yeah, they're surging. And I have no idea what to make of Nate-Rob and his 41-point outburst. Is he really a changed man? I am not close enough to the facts to make a judgment.

It is good to see that Dano is continuing the Knick tradition of being big and effective without ever looking graceful. Somewhere, Ewing, Mason, and Willis Reed's knee are giddy with excitement.

MILES:

And somewhere Bernard King's knees weep with what could have been.

Arms Race

2009-12-23T14:29:00.010-05:00

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

2009-12-18T10:38:00.007-05:00

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

2009-12-15T08:17:00.009-05:00

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?

2009-12-10T14:11:00.008-05:00

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

2009-12-10T10:04:00.005-05:00

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

2009-12-08T14:10:00.003-05:00

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.

2009-12-07T14:31:00.008-05:00

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

2009-12-03T09:45:00.003-05:00

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

2009-12-01T15:20:00.008-05:00

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

2009-11-22T20:38:00.008-05:00

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

2009-11-19T08:21:00.005-05:00

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

2009-11-16T15:52:00.013-05:00

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

2009-11-13T08:29:00.003-05:00

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

2009-11-08T23:27:00.007-05:00

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

2009-11-05T13:54:00.007-05:00

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

2009-11-02T14:48:00.011-05:00

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.

Trouble in the Meadowlands

2009-11-01T16:54:00.003-05:00

Most New Yorkers are understandably busy with the Yankees these days, but all is not quiet on the football front. The once-invincible Giants, after rattling off 5 straight wins to start the season, have dropped to 5-3 and lost control of the NFC East. The change in the winds may have something to do with the quality of their competition--4 of those 5 wins came against teams that currently have a combined record of 5-24--but may also be attributable to injuries that have hampered Eli Manning and Mario Manningham, a QB-WR duo that recently looked like one of the top tandems in the NFC.

But even these stumbling Giants, who have a home date with the schizophrenic Chargers this weekend, are looking like the best New Jersey has to offer lately. The New York Jets, who only a month ago anointed themselves Super Bowl champions, have dropped 4 out of 5 games, including two straight to the Dolphins, and one devastating home loss against the Bills. The throaty-in-every-possible-sense Rex Ryan, who feuded with the Dolphins in the offseason and renewed his arrogant vows last week, will have to wait until next year to get his licks in against this self-appointed nemesis. Despite a couple better-looking performances from Mark Sanchez, the Jets have failed to cash in on a string of weak opponents. There's no doubt that this team is reeling.

With the Patriots having coasted comfortably into their bye week against two (formerly) winless teams, they've now got a solid 1.5-game lead in the division. The next few weeks will keep it interesting, with the Pats taking on, in order, Miami, Indianapolis, the Jets, New Orleans, and Miami again. With road games against the last two undefeated teams in the NFL, they've got their work cut out for them. And, at the same time, the Jets are looking at a minimum of four more easy games: Jacksonville, Carolina, Buffalo, and Tampa Bay, interrupted only by a big game in Foxboro against the Patriots. Despite the embarrassing losses of the past month, the Jets have a chance to get back into the divisional race if they can sweep up against crappy teams. But, with their overly emotional personality and inconsistent play, it's got to be gut-check time going into the bye. One more of these "oops" games, and they're going to be in trouble.

Who's Your Daddy?

2009-10-29T12:14:00.009-04:00

Later tonight, the Yankees will try to rebound from Game 1's drubbing. Thankfully, mercifully, Cliff Lee is not pitching for the Phillies. In his place steps Pedro Martinez, the former face, arm, mouth and jheri curl of the Boston Red Sox. There was a time, back in the late 90s and early 2000s, when Pedro, one of the greatest pitching talents of all time, terrified Yankee fans and silenced Yankee bats. In 1999, during his heyday, Pedro struck out 17 Yankees in a dominating one-hitter at the old Yankee Stadium, before out pitching Roger Clemens in Game 3 of the American League Championship Series.

As dominating as Pedro could be, his stellar performances weren’t why Yankee fans—and many members of those Yankee teams-- disliked, even hated, Pedro. When Pedro wasn’t blowing fastballs past the Yankees, he was throwing at them. In 2003, for instance, he hit Derek Jeter and, in that same game, Alfonso Soriano, sending both infielders to the hospital. And, of course, later that same year, during the 2003 ALCS, he tossed 72-year-old bench coach Don Zimmer to the ground during a benches-clearing brawl, which started after Pedro hit Karim Garcia in the shoulder.

Pedro was never well liked in New York.

Never one to shy away from the spotlight, Pedro embraced the role of villain. At times, he even fed off of it. He seemed, at least to this fan, as if he were born to wear the black hat and, in this particular case, the red socks.

More often than not, though, the Yankees usually got the best of Pedro—particularly when it mattered most. Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS, for instance. In 37 career games against the Yankees, including postseason play, Pedro is a rather pedestrian 12-13, with 12 no-decisions. Not exactly overwhelming. After one rough outing against the Bombers in 2004, Pedro famously lamented, “I just tip my hat and call the Yankees my daddy.”

But that was all a long time ago. That Pedro is gone. He no longer exists. His fastball, once thrown in the mid-to-high 90s, now stalls around 85, and his curveball and change aren't nearly as sharp as they once were. Instead of power and intimidation, Pedro today gets by with guile, nerve and junk, really.

This is not to say, however, that Pedro can’t win tonight. Earlier this month, he pitched a gem against the Dodgers in the National League Division Series, and maybe Pedro makes the most of his final game against the Yankees. Maybe we’re all in store for an encore performance. Vintage Pedro.

I doubt it, though. Pedro hasn’t face an American League line up in more than a year, and this Yankees team is ready to take out last night’s frustrations on the team’s former nemesis. Even if the pitcher formerly known as Pedro is no longer worthy of the role.

BEN:

I wish I had time to say more about this one before Pedro goes to the mound; but we can revisit it after the game has been played. I feel sure it will be an entertaining one. Pedro pitched inside and hit a lot of players in his day; that was part of his strategy, just as part of Jeter's is to crowd the plate. There has been plenty of bad blood on both sides of this rivalry, and while the Zimmer fight was not exactly a proud moment for the Red Sox, let's also remember that the Yankees horse in that particular race, Roger Clemens, was less than a class act. I would also add that Herr Zimmer, geriatric though he may have been, was physically attacking a player and yelling obscenities about his family. I'm not saying it gave Pedro the right to fight back, but he did have to do *something*.

In that peak year of 1999, Pedro was the greatest pitcher I've ever seen toe the rubber. I am proud to have attended some of his thrilling performances, including a 16-strikeout masterpiece at Fenway that June. The fact that he fed off the rivalry and didn't mind pissing off the enemy fans never bothered me--I didn't think he was a bad guy, just a fiery competitor. So what if he hit a few batters? So did Bob Gibson. And, by the way, let the record show that Pedro did not hit Soriano in that 2003 game, which took place on July 7th; and that Jeter was back in the lineup on July 9th; and that he pinch-hit in the only game in between. Somehow, life went on.

The pressure in tonight's game is really on the Yankees, who are down 1-0 in the series after a truly incredible performance last night from Cliff Lee. I think Pedro will be a solid option for them, and has the chance to pitch well; but the most crucial issue for New York will be controlling the erratic AJ Burnett, who has a pretty nasty lineup to deal with himself.

MILES:

Truth be told, I always liked Pedro. Talented, entertaining and provocative, he made the game that much more exciting to watch. And he gave the Sox-Yanks rivalry an edge. Sure, he was arrogant, but that's why it was so much fun to play him. As a fan, I always knew he would bring it, and the Yankees would have to play nearly flawless baseball to best him. Fortunately, more often than not, they usually did.

I have to admit, I was wrong. Pedro pitched great last night. I really didn't think he had it in him. Granted, his performance last night was more Joe Saunders than Pedro, circa 1999, but he gave the Phillies a chance to win the game, even if it fell apart for him in the 7th, one inning longer than he should have pitched. Thank you, Charlie Manuel.

If things had been different last night, say had the Yankees been up three runs in the 7th, I like to think Yankee fans would have given Pedro a standing ovation after Manuel finally came out to take the ball. His exit, though, in the middle of a very close game, happened almost too quickly to notice. That's a shame. Although Pedro was never our favorite opponent, he certainly was one of the best. And he probably deserved our best on his way out.

BEN:

I appreciate the gentlemanly spirit. Sadly, this video confirms that Pedro was booed when he got pulled last night. The silver lining: he clearly enjoyed it.

Green Machine

2009-10-27T23:29:00.008-04:00

The Celtics and Cavs kicked off the season for America's third best sports league last night, a rematch of the Eastern Conference finals that didn't wind up actually happening last year. The C's got a nice road win in Cleveland, an important positive sign for a team that was starting to look a bit washed-up last season. It was especially encouraging given today's negative press around Glen "Big, Huge Baby" Davis and his physical and emotional maladies.

Much-wondered-about forward Kevin Garnett turned in a solid performance, helping allay the fears of many fans, and the Celtics also got good nights from their other go-to players: Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Rajon Rondo, and Rasheed Wallace. All of this is good news, but, truth be told, the main occasion for this post is to announce to the reading public the first-ever official You're Wrong About Everything sports bet: Danilo Gallinari's scoring average.

Your editors have discussed the matter and agreed on an over/under for the New York Knick superstar-in-waiting. So, here it is: if Gallinari scores more than 16 points per game this year, I lose the bet. If he scores less, I win. We'll keep you posted on how it's going.

Miles, anything to add here? It's just a $20 bet--until we got our sponsors lined up here, all stakes will remain modest--but it's about pride. What specifically I'm going to take pride in is TBD; but I'm sure we can argue enough that this will all feel important.

I might as well mention here that I chose this bet because the Knicks continue to be dramatically worse than the Celtics, and this seemed like a pretty decent way to level the playing field. Hey, I aim to please.

MILES:

Hell yes. Danilo Gallinari better produce, otherwise it's going to be another long, disappointing season for the Knickerbockers, their ninth consecutive craptastic season. This is a crucial year for the Knicks. Although their chances of making the playoffs are slim, the team's core players--Gallo, Wilson Chandler, David Lee, Jordan Hill and Toney Douglas--need to prove to the rest of the league that they can play. If they don't, Donnie Walsh and Mike D'Antoni are going to have one hell of time convincing LeBron or any other free agents to sign with them. Maybe Rajon Rondo will still be available.

My guess is, before the end of the season, Walsh will trade Nate Robinson to a playoff-contending team in need of some scoring off the bench. Maybe the Suns or the Mavericks? That's the only way, at least as far as I can see, of getting back a draft pick, which Isiah very generously included in the misbegotten trade that brought Stephon Marbury home to the Garden.

As for the Celtics, they looked good last night. But one question kept springing to mind: When did Rasheed Wallace start resembling Cornel West?

MILES:

We'll, I guess we're off to a good start. The Rooster finished with 22 in last night's disheartening loss to the Miami Heat.

Yankees Win 40th Pennant

2009-10-26T08:59:00.004-04:00

This never gets old.

Yankees 3, Girardi 2

2009-10-23T11:01:00.004-04:00

So twittered Sports Illustrated's Jimmy Traina at the end of last night's surprising Yankee loss in Anaheim.

Yankees Manager Joe Girardi, who continues to not win over any fans in his 2nd year on the job, has been justly criticized for costing his team a victory in Game 3 of the ALCS. In a high-impact situation, he removed an effective reliever for no readily apparent reason, and replaced him with someone who instantly gave up the game-winning run.

Last night's misadventures were less clear-cut. Girardi is taking heat for sticking with his starter, A.J. Burnett, who was coming off five consecutive scoreless innings and hadn't thrown too many pitches. On the other hand, it was the 7th inning, and Girardi had a fully stocked bullpen to rely on, and Burnett had been on the bench a while. TV announcers Tim McCarver and Joe Buck questioned the decision immediately, and looked wiser when Burnett proceeded to give up a single and a walk before exiting the game. I'd classify this as a 50/50 decision, and there are no guarantees that starting the inning with another pitcher would've yielded a better result.

His next move, however, was to hand the ball to a situational lefty, and there was a best and obvious choice: Phil Coke. He had been the team's #1 lefty all season long, and had checked in with an ERA around 4.50 for the season. But Girardi instead chose Damaso Marte, whose ERA during the season was 9.45. Less attention has been paid this morning to that call, since Marte managed to get two outs (one a sacrifice bunt) before Phil Hughes gave up the game-turning hits.

Bringing in Marte, though, is a continuation of something we Bostonians have seen from the happily-behind-us days of Jimy Williams and Grady Little: a maneuver that goes against prevailing wisdom for no readily identifiable reason. There are aggressive managers, like Tampa Bay's Joe Maddon, who make moves that buck convention, for a reason. But Girardi's odd habits with shuffling his lineup and his curious management of his pitching staff make very little sense, even to observers more charitable than I.

There are at least seven MLB managers from whom you never see this type of behavior: Tony La Russa, Jim Tracy, Charlie Manuel, Joe Torre, Terry Francona, Mike Scioscia, and Ron Gardenhire--the managers of the other playoff teams. I would go so far as to say that Girardi is clearly the worst manager in this year's playoffs. Et tu?

MILES:

Girardi's made some very questionable and infuriating decisions with his relievers. However, in last night's game, everybody's favorite manager Mike Scioscia made two dubious decisions that could have (should have, really) cost his team the American League pennant: 1.) Removing a dominant John Lackey in favor of the less effective Darren Oliver, who quickly gave up a bases-clearing triple to the now-right-handed Mark Teixeira, and 2.) Taking out Jered Weaver, who blew through the Yankees in the 8th, in favor of Brian Fuentes, the Angels' ersatz closer, who did everything in his power to give the Yankees the game.

I respect Mike Scioscia, but last night was not his finest managerial hour. Nor was it Girardi's.

But, I don't think you can get on him for calling on Marte, especially since he got Bobby Abreu to ground out. Marte, despite his bloated ERA, did what he was called on to do. And, lest we forget, the last time Abreu faced Phil Coke, he doubled into the gap, but was thrown out in between second and third base.

Girardi's primary mistake, I think, was leaving Burnett in to face Erick Aybar after giving up a lead-off hit to Jeff Mathis. I wanted Girardi to call on Joba Chamberlain there, but he didn't. And it cost him, but only because Phil Hughes didn't locate his last pitch to Vlad. For all his curious maneuvering, Girardi was still a Hughes' curveball or eye-high fastball away from getting out of the inning with a 6-5 lead. Rivera would have then pitched the eighth and ninth innings.

Giradi is not the best manager in the league, but he's certainly not as bad as Jimy Williams or Grady Little. I'd put Girardi in the middle of the pack, behind Francona, but in front of Torre.

BEN:

This is a surprise--you think he's better than Torre? As in, you think the Yankees would be a worse team with Torre at the helm this year?

And for the sake of the public record, apart from Torre, which are the other playoff managers you think are worse?

I totally agree that Scioscia made the wrong call pulling Lackey, but it doesn't shake my belief--shared by most everyone, I think--that he's the better manager. He's put his stamp on the team, the players and media respect him, and he has an outstanding career record as a manager. Most to the point, he seems to have a coherent and consistent philosophy built around defense, speed, and contact hitting, and his decisions all work within it.

Girardi also made other dubious decisions that didn't affect the box score. Failing to get Rivera up in time, and having to use stall tactics to rush him out there; pinch-running for two of his best hitters in a close game that could easily have gone into extra innings. More importantly, it seems like patterned behavior--he seems to get rattled, and to make inconsistent decisions, and that can be deadly.

Yeah, he's probably better than Grady Little, and certainly better than Jimy Williams, who has to be one of the worst managers I've ever seen work. But that's pretty faint praise, when you get down to it.

Big Bats, Bigger Stage

2009-10-21T12:18:00.012-04:00

Since the sixth inning of the Yankees’ regular season game against the Tampa Rays, when Alex Rodriguez hit two home runs and drove in seven RBI to bring his season total to 30 home runs and 100 RBI, respectively, I’ve been texting my friends every time A-Rod hits one out or drives in another run. It’s starting to get expensive.

So far in the postseason, A-Rod has five homers and 11 RBI. With three more hits last night, including a monster home run into the left field bleachers, Rodriguez is now batting .407 in the first two rounds of the playoffs.

The man is on fire.

Believe it or not, though, A-Rod is, arguably, only the second best player of the 2009 postseason. Ryan Howard’s driven in an amazing 14 runs in eight games, more RBI than he had in 17 playoff games over the past two years. Although he’s only homered twice, compared to A-Rod’s five, Howard does have four doubles and triple, while batting a cool .379, with seven runs scored.

This after a regular season in which he launched 45 home runs, drove in 141, while batting .279, his highest average since 2006, when he hit .313 on way to picking up the National League Most Valuable Player award.

Both Rodriguez and Howard are putting on a display, matching Lou Gehrig’s postseason record of driving in at least one RBI in eight straight playoff games. Not too shabby, that.

If the Yankees meet the Phillies in the World Series, a match up that suddenly seems inevitable, Major League Baseball will get to showcase, on its biggest stage, two of the sports biggest-- and most prolific-- sluggers.

I think even a Red Sox fan can get behind that.

(Originally posted here)

BEN:

No arguments here. As I previously mentioned, A-Rod's previous postseason numbers are actually not that bad. He had two abysmal playoff series in a row, then a subpar one, but on the whole has an OPS very close to what he's always had in the regular season. (It's interesting to note, too, that is also true of David Ortiz and Derek Jeter).

I will say that I think consecutive playoff games with an RBI is sort of a weird stat, especially considering that A-Rod's streak includes Game 4 of the 2007 ALDS, but there's no question that he and Howard are absolutely murdering the ball.

Here's a little debate for you Yankee-lovers: when your team wins the ALCS tomorrow night, will you give the series MVP to A-Rod or CC Sabathia? I might actually argue the latter, who has more or less singlehandedly delivered 3 of the team's 6 postseason wins so far. Speaking of shaking off playoff demons, jeez.

(By the way, a tip of the cap to those members of my family in the Cleveland Indians organization, who have provided the likely Game 1 starters for this year's World Series. If only the Tribe had the money to hold onto them, these two would be the best thing since Schilling and Johnson.)

The Phillies are the only team in baseball with a lineup that stacks up against the Yankees. It's too bad their bullpen is such a mess, or this one might be a series.

MILES:

I have absolutely no problem with a co-MVP, although I think A-Rod will win the award if he has a big game tonight or, if necessary, in Games 6 and 7.

I'd also like to add a caveat to my A-Rod/Howard comparison. It's since come to my attention that Howard, unlike A-Rod, doesn't handle left-handed pitching. Like at all. Against lefties, Howard's only batting .207, with 6 home runs, compared to his .319 average and 39 homers against righties. Further, his OPS is 433 points lower when facing lefties. Mr. Howard, let me introduce you to Mr. Sabathia, Mr. Pettitte and Mr. Coke.

BEN:

Yeah but being hot means being hot. Howard had big hits in the NLCS against Clayton Kershaw and Randy Wolf, the best and only lefties the Dodgers threw at him. He also drew a walk against their lefty reliever, George Sherrill. Your biggest concern should be whether Girardi will overmanage his bullpen for these situational matchups.

MILES:

Point taken. Although it is nice to know there is a way to, at least theoretically, pitch him. As for Girardi, I really think he's just messing with New Yorkers. He wants to give us all agita.

How 'Bout Them Yankees

2009-10-19T10:10:00.004-04:00

Over the course of a 16-game National Football League season, there are, on average, an equal amount of highs and lows. A team that finishes the season 10-6, four games over .500, for instance, will spend roughly 42 days a year lamenting missed opportunities and piss-poor performances, possibly longer, if they bow out in the first round of the playoffs. Winning in this league ain’t easy. Which seems to indicate that losing, like it or not, is inevitable, just as much a part of the game as zone blitzes and three-and-outs.

Just try telling that to a Jets fan.

Yesterday’s ugly loss was as bad as it gets. Bad quarterback. Bad coaches. Bad special teams. Bad game plan. Bad execution.

How bad was it? Let the professionals count the ways.

Manish Mehta, The Star-Ledger:

The numbers were ugly. In the worst game of his life Sanchez completed 10 of 29 passes for 119 yards, no touchdowns and career-high five interceptions. Sanchez doubled his season total of picks to a league-high 10.

George Willis, New York Post:

It was the kind of performance that makes you wonder how long it's going to take the franchise quarterback to actually play like one. Yesterday, Sanchez didn't just play like a rookie quarterback; he played like he had no clue, no confidence and no concept of what it takes to win a close game.

Mark Cannizzaro, New York Post:

Frauds. This is what the big-talking, chest-thumping, swaggerlicious Jets have shown themselves to be since their audacious 3-0 start.

Vedmedv, The Gang Green Forum:

Ryan Fitzpatrick just beat us at home.

Just a brutal loss.

...And Twice on Sunday

2009-10-19T09:21:00.007-04:00

What a Sunday. The Patriots rebounded from their tough loss in Denver with a monster 59-0 win at home over the surprisingly hapless Titans, a game that set nine franchise records and as well as two NFL marks (biggest halftime lead and most touchdowns in a single quarter). Brady was magnificent, throwing six touchdown passes, including three to Randy Moss. Actually, come to think of it, there's almost nothing the team didn't do well. Much-doubted running back Laurence Maroney had a huge day, rumbling for 123 yards and a touchdown on 16 carries, his best performance in more than a year. The defense caused 5 turnovers, allowed zero points, and permitted negative seven passing yards during the game. The Titans ran a total of seven plays on New England's half of the field on the day, and four of them were fumbles (three recovered by the Patriots). Moss and Wes Welker each had well over 100 yards receiving, and the Patriots outgained their opponents on the day 614-186. It was, in short, a total domination.

And it was exactly what this team needed. At 3-2 coming into the game, the Patriots were playing competitively but being dogged for failing to pull together big plays. Critics were waiting for them to step up and show some force. And what a way to put those concerns to rest. Though the Pats of course never trailed in the game, there was nevertheless a turning point: a 40-yard flea flicker touchdown pass from Brady to Moss that served notice that this team still has some swagger in its step. And the win put the Patriots at 4-2, in the lead in the AFC East.

But of course, the Pats couldn't be alone at the top without some help from the suddenly imploding New York Jets, who dropped their third straight game this week, this time a truly ugly overtime loss to the bottom-dwelling Bills at the Meadowlands. This Bills team, coming off an abysmal 6-3 loss to the lowly Browns, was in full self-destruct mode. Dick Jauron was looking like the next fired coach in the NFL (a distinction which now belongs to Washington's Jim Zorn), and trade rumors about wide receiver Terrell Owens were beginning to swirl. Not only that, the Bills lost their starting QB, Trent Edwards, early in the 2nd quarter. And with an offensive line comprised almost entirely of rookies, Buffalo looked to be in for a long day. But Mark Sanchez had other plans.

San-chise threw no fewer than five interceptions, needing overtime to cross 100 total passing yards, and only getting there because Bills kicker Rian Lindell missed a potential game-winning 46-yard field goal as time expired in regulation. The Jets were effective on the ground, with Thomas Jones breaking off two huge runs, one for a touchdown, on his way to over 200 total yards. But it was not enough, not with Sanchez having his second meltdown in three games. They just kept on giving the ball back to the Bills, time after time. Even backup quarterback Ryan "I went to Harvard" Fitzpatrick was able to squeak out enough points for the win. By the time Lindell's second game-winning FG attempt finally sailed through the uprights, the Jets were looking depressed, bewildered, and just grateful to finally get off the field.

Make no mistake: this was a BAD football game. The Jets were unrecognizable, struggling to bottle up a mediocre running game, not getting through to the quarterback enough; most likely because they were so tired from having to jog back onto the field after turnovers. And sure enough, the team is now having an identity crisis. Head coach Rex Ryan admitted to thinking about pulling Sanchez from the game, and the New York Post has now posted a poll in which just under 40% of fans are willing to chalk this game up as growing pains. This is the problem with playing the Super Bowl in September: the next three months are your offseason.

Will the Jets bounce back next week in Oakland? Probably. And they still have enough talent to make the playoffs. But after two straight divisional losses and now at .500, it's time for Rex Ryan to check with his considerable gut. That Patriots team at the top of the division just put on a show, and while nothing is decided, I sure like the view from the top this morning.

MILES:

Ah, yes. The 59-point drubbing of a dead-on-its-feet Titans team, in inclement weather, at home. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but yesterday's win isn't a reflection of your team. It's just a reflection of what your team can do against a winless, dysfunctional team that clearly did not want to play yesterday. But it's a still a win, and given the Jets recent state of play, it ensures the road to AFC East still goes through Foxborough.

BEN:

Well, sure, they're not looking good, but then neither are the Bills. And the inclement weather makes it harder to score, not easier. Oh and also if this were a mere drubbing, and not a record-setting win. And if the Patriots didn't have outstanding personnel who were just waiting to get their groove back. If all those things weren't true, then perhaps I'd chalk it up as a repeat of the Cardinals game from last year. But it wasn't. It was a big, meaningful win for a team that appears headed in the exact opposite direction as the Jets.

MILES:

I’d be wary of pumping up another record-setting performance by the Pats. We’ve already heard that story, and it doesn’t end well for you.

BEN:

Nice. I'd wondered aloud last week what resort was left for Rex Ryan if the Jets lost again, but I hadn't realized it would be the bloggers who resorted to low blows. This makes sense, I suppose. After all, Rex wants to involve the fans, right?

Is Bud Wise?

2009-10-16T08:31:00.005-04:00

Interesting little side discussion that has been happening this week.

As none of you will recall, a few days ago I decided to not post an open letter to TBS complaining about their mishandling of the postseason coverage for which they (presumably) paid a great deal. The primary thrust of that letter was my complaints about the awful experience of Postseason.tv, a so-called "companion" to TBS's broadcast of the MLB division series games. I won't go into depth on this topic know--there are other fish to fry--but my complaints were numerous: poor video feed quality; failure to synchronize the 4 cameras; the failure of any one camera to actually show the game; their misunderstanding of the online video market. Cursory web searches and anecdotal evidence suggests most fans agree with me on these points.

But the larger scope of this problem has to do with baseball's failure to generate hype going into its crucial playoff series. The reigning champion Philadelphia Phillies, who are 4-1 so far this postseason and looking like a legitimate threat to repeat as champions, have played just once during a prime-time television slot. They've also had a game rescheduled owing to snow, and been forced to change their starting pitcher because of it. Last night's exciting contest against the Dodgers, came with what seemed like zero national attention.

Today's Game 2 of the NLCS is again happening during work hours, at 1 pm local time/4 pm eastern. This is needless to say a television ratings killer, and also the start of a dubious weekend schedule concocted long ago by MLB. The Phillies and Dodgers will play while I'm at the office, then take Saturday off entirely, leaving baseball fans with only one playoff game to watch, at 8 pm. They'll then follow this up with two games on Sunday, when they're set to compete with a full schedule of NFL games.

This, after nearly a full week of non-games that would've received nonstop national coverage for about 72 hours. Not only that, the Yankees and Angels, which seems clearly to be the bigger-market matchup, has been set since late Sunday. Rather than play Game 1 on, say, Wednesday night, giving both teams two days to travel and rest, MLB has instead opted for a cold and rainy Friday night.

The fault for these errors lies both with TBS, whose mediocre productions (both online and on television) do very little to capture the drama of the games, and with Bud Selig--or someone in his office--who seem to have forgotten basic rules of television broadcasting.

The biggest victims so far appear to be the Phillies, who are actually having a pretty thrilling postseason, not that you'd ever know it.

MILES:

You know things are bad when I'm aching to hear Tim McGarver's voice. Things could get a lot worse for MLB, if tonight's Yanks-Angels game is rained out, which would force two baseball games to be played on Sunday and, most likely, push back the start of the third game in Los Angeles until at least Tuesday. It's not fair to expect the Yankees and Angels to finish a game late Sunday night, fly across country, and then play again Monday afternoon at 1:30 p.m. Both teams deserve a day off for travel.

I understand that this schedule was probably set weeks, if not months, ago, but I just don't understand why MLB couldn't adjust after the Yankees and Angles both won their respective series in three games.

Good for What Ails You

2009-10-14T10:44:00.011-04:00

I've been out of commission the last couple of days. A lack of a reliable home Internet connection and a virulent strain of influenza have rendered me pretty much useless. I did take note, however, of a number of important sports results over the weekend. I'll start with the Jets: Brutal loss, but I think it's the best thing for them. Rex Ryan was getting a little too big for his XXXL britches, and his defense was operating under the impression that it was the best defensive unit since Stalingrad. Reports out of New York (fine, Jersey) claim that Ryan didn't sleep after the game, opting instead to re-watch Sunday night's debacle against the Dolphins before heading over to Florham Park to devise a game plan for next week's game against the Bills. As a fan, I appreciate that, and think Ryan will get his defense back on track. My confidence was buoyed, though, by Mark Sanchez's rebound performance. He seems to have already established a pretty good rapport with Braylon Edwards, which is only going to help the team as the season unfolds. Too bad Ryan didn't leave any time on the clock for his rookie quarterback to try his hand at a comeback. Time outs are your friend, Rex. Use them accordingly.

Despite the loss, the Jets are still in first place, because a day earlier, across the country in Denver, the Patriots coughed one up against the Broncos and Bill Belichick protege Josh McDaniels. After the loss, Belichick, true to form, orchestrated another dick move. You stay classy, coach.

Let's see, what else? Oh, right. The Yankees took care of business, while the Red Sox finished their season with a performance worthy of the New York Mets or the '86 Sox. Jonathan Papelbon, prince of the postseason, turned into Calvin Schiraldi, giving up 2-out hit after 2-out hit until the Angels had stolen the game right from under him. I'm not going to lie. That was fun to watch. Almost as much fun as watching the much-maligned Alex Rodriguez picking up more hits than Kevin Youkilis, Jason Bay and David Ortiz combined. His 6 RBI, as previously noted, were one less than the total runs the Sox managed in three games against the Angels.

All in all, this past weekend wasn't a total waste. It was actually kind of nice.

BEN:

It's a relief to know that we've still been totally disagreeing while we've been away. I'll just tick off the things you are wrong about in the order that you incorrectly stated them.

Mark Sanchez: this is only a bounce-back performance if your definition of "effective" is "not throwing three picks." Sanchez was clearly the 2nd best rookie quarterback on the field to Chad Henne, checking in for just 172 yards (his 3rd straight game under the 200 mark) and 50% accuracy. The offense was 4-11 on third down. The offense was also aided by a much-disputed pass interference call that handed them 50 yards and a first-and-goal in a crucial situation in the 4th quarter.

Rex Ryan: I'm sure he's glad for your vote of confidence, but he sure did his best to help blow this game. His failure to conserve timeouts was, per his own admission, caused by arrogantly assuming the Dolphins wouldn't get into the end zone, and his histrionics after the fact are pretty unbecoming. What's left for him to do in the (admittedly unlikely) event that they lose next Sunday?

Bill Belichick: feels like you're fishing for insults here. Is it a dick move to agree on something in advance and then do it? Does it complicate your view of things to learn that the two of them met up after the game? That McDaniels has tremendous admiration and respect for his former boss? That this is the dumbest non-story of the week?

The Red Sox: actually, you're not wrong about anything here. Very disappointing, but I think we all suspected the Sox might not have it this year. I don't blame Papelbon too much--this ship was on its way out. He thrives on the excitement, and, I'll be honest, it wasn't there during the ALDS. There will be much to examine this offseason, but we can revisit that after the inevitable Yankee lovefest that will come over the next few weeks.

A-Rod: Interesting thing about him--apart from two bad series for the Yankees in '05 and '06, he's actually always been a pretty good postseason hitter. I say this not because I like him--indeed I would like to emphasize that I have no interest in ever having to root for Alex Rodriguez, and have to think most Yankee boosters, somewhere deep down, envy that about other fans--but because it shows that it's not all about the numbers. What A-Rod has is an incredible knack for the wrong headlines. The Madonna thing, the strip club, shirtless in central park, opting out of his contract in the middle of the world series, false accusations about the reporter who outed him as a steroid user, the slap. He has perhaps the most negative intangibles of any player working.

Has he worked out how not to be a total weirdo? Maybe. He certainly turned in a great ALDS. But forgive me if I'm holding off judgment until after the postseason is over.

MILES:

Don't worry: A-Rod will always be a total weirdo.

Huge Preseason Victory for the Celtics

2009-10-12T09:26:00.002-04:00

Totally nailed the Nets 100-93.

Clearly, a great day for Boston sports.

Yankees Keep on Keepin' On

2009-10-08T09:52:00.001-04:00

No real surprises, except for Alex Rodriguez's two-RBI performance. One of those was important, too.

One win down; 10 to go.

Braylon and the Jets

2009-10-07T09:34:00.005-04:00

Braylon Edwards has been traded to the Jets. Despite his recent troubles, I'm pretty sure this is a very good thing for the team, especially Mark Sanchez. A receiving corps of Edwards and Jerricho Cotchery, while not the greatest tandem in the National Football League, is formidable.

My only immediate concern is, how does this affect the Knicks' pursuit of LeBron James?

BEN:

I wish I could disagree, but you're absolutely right: a talented WR with a serious attitude problem is a perfect fit for this team.

Let the record show that Eric Mangini has now given the Jets a long-term QB and a #1 receiver as the head honcho of the Browns, two things he never accomplished when he was working in Jersey.

There we have it. Another thing the editorial staff of You're Wrong About Everything can agree on: Eric Mangini is a disaster.

MILES:

The Mangini investment is finally starting to pay dividends. Edwards is a prick, but if he acts up, the Jets have guys like Bart Scott, Calvin Pace, Kris Jenkins and, yes, Rex Ryan, to smack him around. Edwards is also playing for a contract, so he's more likely to show up each week. His presence alone should open up the running game, which is only going to give Sanchez more room--and time-- with which to work. This is a very good move. Unexpected, too. I'm excited.

Decisions, Decisions

2009-10-06T16:36:00.013-04:00

The Yankees don't even know which team they're playing tomorrow, but Joe Girardi's already announced his plans for the series. Not surprisingly, the Yankees picked the longer Series A, which allows them to go with only three pitchers, Sabathia, Burnett and Pettitte. Girardi also announced that Sabathia will take the ball in Game 1, again no surprises there. Burnett, however, will pitch in Game 2, followed by Pettitte for Game 3, which will be on the road, in either Detroit or Minnesota, depending on which team wins tonight's playoff. I support Girardi's decision to pitch Burnett at home and Pettitte on the road. The numbers back him up, although I'm too lazy to cite them here. You're just going to have to trust me that Pettitte is much more susceptible to the home run at Yankee Stadium, while Burnett, a strike-out pitcher, is more effective at home than on the road. I'm totally fine with this decision.

More surprising, though, is Giradi's decision to let Jose Molina catch Burnett instead of Jorge Posada. Granted, Burnett pitches better with Molina as his batterymate, but removing Posada's bat, which is far, far, far superior to Molina's, from the lineup is a risk, to say the least. (Matsui will reportedly be the designated hitter in Game 2, while Posada will only be available to pinch hit). Girardi's call puts even more pressure on Burnett to pitch well, and pretty much makes Burnett's first playoff appearance a must-win game. Girardi also runs the very real possibility of alienating Posada, who can be, according to many, a petulant little bitch when he doesn't get what he wants. (See Burnett, A.J.) This could get interesting. Then again, the Yankees could very well sweep their first-round opponent, which would make the whole matter moot.

BEN:

The verdict is in--it's the Twins. This is very likely to make the whole thing irrelevant, since Minnesota is a thoroughly mediocre team that whose ace won't be ready to pitch until Game 3. For Game 1, the Twins have the unenviable choice of tabbing rookie Brian Duensing or Nick Blackburn on three days' rest.

Uninspiring though he is, it's hard to fault Girardi for trotting out Jose Molina. He's actually a pretty fair matchup when compared to the likes of Brendan Harris and Nick Punto. The only real risk the Yankees are facing is a self-generated meltdown, and Burnett, with his attitude problems and lack of playoff experience, is the prime candidate. (Except for A-Rod, I mean.)

MILES:

Orlando Carbrera still makes me nervous, but I think the Yankees will win this series pretty easily. It won't go longer than 4. My bold prediction: Carl Pavano will win one for the Twinkies.

Answer the Belle

2009-10-06T09:54:00.004-04:00

In an unexpected maneuver, former Indians great (and Orioles paycheck recipient) Albert Belle phoned the Cleveland Plain-Dealer to share some thoughts on the firing of Indians manager Eric Wedge and other news from around the league. Belle offered to head up a coaching staff with Eddie Murray, Wayne Kirby, Kenny Lofton, and Charles Nagy, all of whom are presumably fine with reporting to the notoriously unlikeable ex-slugger. I'm guessing he will not be taken up on this offer.

Turning to other matters, Belle offered an opinion on the Manager of the Year race:

"Joe Girardi is going to probably win Manager of the Year. I could manage the Yankees from home. I'd just call in the lineup every day from the golf course."

One guesses Belle might have trouble getting on with Steinbrenners.

Still, he's got a point. Girardi, who saw the $218m Yankees to their first non-playoff appearance in 13 years last season, does seem, oddly, to be in line for an award traditionally given to someone doing an above-average job.

I might suggest a vote for Ron Washington, who led a completely unexpected Rangers team to 87 wins with a payroll approximately 1/3 the size of the Yankees'. He accomplished this with a pitching staff that had two rookies and two pitchers in their second full season, plus working around a crucial stretch-run injury to emergent slugger Nelson Cruz. The Rangers may not have hung in for the entire stretch run, but they vastly exceeded expectations and made a race of it with both the Angels and Red Sox. That was enough for the baseball writers last year, anyway.

So, what about it, Doyle--can you lay aside your Yankees enthusiasm and stand with me and (sort of) Albert Belle?

MILES:

Since Girardi already has a Manager of the Year award, I'm more than happy to lend my support to Ron Gardenhire, who managed the Twinkies to 86 wins and a probable American League Central title, with a payroll approximately 1/2 the size of the Small Market Socks'.

Grounded

2009-10-05T13:52:00.005-04:00

I’m not terribly upset about Mark Sanchez’s terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day. He’s a rookie. The Saints are a playoff-caliber team. The Super Dome is a hostile environment, and the Saints D is better than advertised. Everybody predicted Sanchez would implode sooner or later, and Sanchez, God bless him, did his best to oblige. Going forward, though, he would do well to wrap his head around this aspect of the game: sometimes an incomplete pass is your best option. Learn it. Live it. Love it.

Still, as bad as Sanchez was, the Jets defense was just as good. They are, without question, a legitimate unit, ranking in the top 10 in passing yards (6th), total yards (5) and points allowed per game (3). And Darrelle Revis is as good as the game. He and the rest of the defense held Drew Brees to 190 yards, his second so-so outing in as many weeks. They had two fourth-down stops, including a solid goal-line stance, and if not for Kris Jenkins’ false start on fourth-and-1, would have been in a position for a third. If not for Pierre Thomas, the Jets would have held the Saints vaunted offense to zero touchdowns. An impressive showing on an otherwise forgettable day.

All in all, I like where the Jets sit. Four games into the season, they are 3-1 and in first place in the AFC East. In the coming weeks, they face Miami, Oakland, Buffalo and Miami again before their bye in week 9. Is 6-2 or even 7-1 out the question? I don't think so, especially with this defense.

Showdown Sunday

2009-10-05T13:48:00.001-04:00

What a day of football.

Though Ray Lewis and Ed Reed have checked in to whine about some dubious officiating, the fact is, the Patriots pulled out a huge win against an extremely tough Ravens team that has looked, as per the ESPN power rankings like the best in the league.

We saw a little bit of everything from the Patriots: the familiar third-down scampering of Wes Welker (6 catches, 48 yards); a balanced, in unspectacular, running game that controlled the clock; 9 receivers catching passes, and of course, the most familiar and cherished sight: Tom Brady finding Randy Moss in the end zone. Special teams were effective, recovering a fumble on the opening kickoff and nearly pulling off a gutsy and ingenious fake FG that was called back by a penalty. And the defense, led by 3rd-year stud Brandon Merriweather (9 tackles, 2 passes defended) permitted just 14 points to a team that came in averaging 34.

Meanwhile, the Jets dropped a big game in New Orleans, putting up a strong performance against the league's top offense but unable to overcome 4 costly mistakes by their apparently-not-literally-made-out-of-gold quarterback, Mark Sanchez. Yes, it's only one game, and yes, Sanchez will probably be fine. But let there be no doubt that this game was 100% his fault. Two of turnovers led directly to Saints touchdowns. Another one would have if the Saints hadn't kneeled out the clock from the 5-yard line at the end of the game. And all four of them were momentum killers at key moments in the game. But, actually, it's not only about the turnovers, although that surely would have been enough. Sanchez managed to complete just 14 of 27 passes for 138 yards against a defense that surrendered 27 points to the lowly Lions.

Don't look now, but having a rookie quarterback may become a significant problem for the Jets. It's early in the season, but Sanchez is sitting on a 71.4 QB rating and 5 interceptions. More importantly, the Jets aren't doing much scoring. Here are the NFL teams who have played four games and scored fewer points than the Jets: Oakland, Kansas City, Washington, Cleveland, Tampa Bay, St. Louis. Combined record of those teams: 3-21. All three of those wins happened because one of those 6 teams played another.

The Jets are an upstart team, and the risk you run with upstarts is that they look like world-beaters until a strategy against them starts to evolve. And while they're clearly not going away, a game plan is beginning to reveal itself: strike early, play possession football, force Sanchez to beat you. And don't think the rest of the NFL didn't take notice that the QB lost his head under pressure yesterday.

Look, nobody wins the Super Bowl in September. (Not even Kerry Rhodes.) There is a lot left to be decided for both of these AFC East frontrunners. But the Patriots, who still look like they're sorting it out, made a big statement this Sunday. A few hours later, the Jets had their first big failure of the season. You were right: the Patriots were looking up at the Jets--for one week. And now it looks like the Pats are strong, and getting stronger. Can the Jets keep pace? And if they drop next week's treacherous game in Miami, what becomes of the smack-talking then?

MILES: Simultaneous posts. See above.

Meh

2009-10-01T23:31:00.007-04:00

Hockey season is officially underway. You're Wrong About Everything is your one-stop shop for sports commentary that has absolutely nothing to do with hockey. Anyone here care about the Rangers? I hereby concede whatever it is you're looking for me to concede.

MILES:

I'm going to the Rangers home opener, and I am somewhat excited about their new addition. And their goalie, the Scandinavian Don Draper. The Bruins, though, are the early favorites to win their division and, quite possibly, the Eastern Conference. I like Pittsburgh to repeat, provided, of course, the National Hockey League doesn't fold before June.

Still, I think if we're going to write about hockey, however sporadically, we should probably include photos of an American hockey team. Isn't that a shot of the Kontinental Hockey League, Jaromir Jagr's new stomping ground?

BEN:

I just googled "hockey who cares?" and posted the first image that came up. There were a surprising number of choices, actually.

MILES:

I have to say, I had a blast Saturday night at the Rangers game. A friend has season tickets, but this year he downgraded the seats from 8 rows behind the net to the 400s, the ninth floor of the Garden, where all the women have mullets, smoking is not discouraged and the roof leaks. It's like Thunderdome up there, and I love it. I might just have to follow the Rangers this season.

Rangers Lose! Rangers Lose!

2009-09-30T09:23:00.004-04:00

And so the Red Sox, losers of five straight and seven of nine, including three against the Yankees, finally back their way into October.

But amid the merriment, there did seem to be a desire to defend their right to party, with the oddity of the situation. It was, however, not unlike the clinching celebration of almost exactly two years ago, when the Sox officially reached the postseason on a Melvin Mora squeeze bunt that gave the Orioles the win over the Yankees on Sept. 28, 2007. Of course, the Sox had won on that night.

"It doesn't matter how you do it, as long as you're in," Pedroia said. "Obviously the game was pretty intense, and we couldn't find a way to win, but it doesn't really matter how we do it, we're excited, and we can't wait for the playoffs.

"We like our chances. We have a great pitching staff, and our offense has been swinging the bat good. I know we've lost a few games in a row, but when playoff time comes, there's a lot of guys that have been through it. That's a positive."

Pedroia failed to mention, though, the Sox's continued problem against teams not named the Orioles. Nor did he bring up how the Sox are, at best, mediocre on the road. Not exactly a recipe for success in the postseason. But the Rangers lost. That alone is cause for celebration.

BEN:

So much hate. How do you press on with so much hate in your heart?

Yes, various people have criticized the Sox for their plans to celebrate if and when they clinched a wild card spot. I know there is a certain act-like-you've-been-there-before austerity to this argument. Sure, I get that. But let me ask you something: who cares?

In some ways, last night's celebration was typical of the '09 season. The Sox lost, and many of their players went home to deal with other things. Dustin Pedroia said goodnight to his six-week-old son. Jason Bay went out for a drink with his agent, who is still working on Bay's deal for next season, probably with the Sox. Then everyone came back when the Rangers lost and the wild card was officially theirs.

The team has been through a lot this season. Daisuke Matsuzaka missed almost the entire season due to shoulder fatigue after the World Baseball Classic. The Smoltz and Penny experiments failed. Tim Wakefield's back gave out. At shortstop, we lost Jed Lowrie to injury, and Julio Lugo couldn't play well enough to earn back his own job. So we gave the reins to Nick Green, who filled in admirably (until he didn't) and then went down with a bulging disc. Jason Varitek underperformed behind the plate, and we had to sacrifice a key reliever, Justin Masterson, to help replace his missing offense. And David Ortiz went through the worst slump of his career, plus some nasty steroid talk. And, on one forgettable night in the Bronx, the Sox had so many injured outfielders that Kevin Youkilis had to start in left field.

Look--I'm not saying they're the Mets. Nobody has luck that rotten. But the Sox have been through a lot. And to still be standing at this stage of the season says a lot about Terry Francona, Theo Epstein, and the leaders in the clubhouse. Forgive the Sox if they cared more about Jon Lester's knee and Matsuzaka's performance than they did about winning the games last weekend.

Pedroia, although he will not contend for this year's AL MVP, (which, for the record, should go to Joe Mauer), has been a consistent clubhouse and lineup presence even while comforting his wife through a difficult pregnancy. Jacoby Ellsbury, after a rough start to the season, has emerged as an elite leadoff hitter. Matsuzaka, as messy as he always is, has pitched well since returning for the stretch run.

Epstein plugged the hole at catcher with Victor Martinez, who has been a consistent RBI man in the middle of the lineup. He plugged the whole at shortstop with Alex Gonzalez, who has stabilized the position and hit well in his short time in Boston. And he replaced Masterson with Billy Wagner, now a trusted late-inning presence for the team.

Francona has played musical chairs with Martinez, Varitek, Mike Lowell, Kevin Youkilis, and David Ortiz, and gotten good production from all of them. Which reminds me: Ortiz, who was batting .185 with 1 HR and 18 RBI June 1st, has had a blistering September and is now hitting .240 with 28 HR and 96 RBI. He's been streaky, and is not his old self, but even his softer side has outhomered everyone in the American League over the last 4 months. And the fact that he has a shot to be a 30-100 man again this year after that start is frankly astounding.

Am I saying the Sox are the odds-on favorites to win it all? No. I'm not even denying that it's the Yankees that have that distinction. But as Dane Cook reminds us, you can't script October. And the Sox, for all their struggles, have a lot going for them: two elite starters, two more good-looking ones (which is one more than the Yankees have), a deep bullpen, and a lineup that has scored the 3rd most runs in the league. I don't know if that's enough to win it all this year, but I like it when good things happen to my team.

Jeez.

Speaking of Curses...

2009-09-29T16:49:00.006-04:00

"Sports Illustrated" targets the incomparable Mariano. By the way, I didn't see Papelbon this weekend. What's he up to these days?

Seems about right.

The Curse of the Benbino?

2009-09-26T14:10:00.005-04:00

First Brady. Now Lester. Any thoughts on Kevin Garnett?

UPDATE: Jeter, too. That's some seriously bad voodoo, man.

BEN:

Not a chance I'm biting on this. No way.

Food for thought

2009-09-22T09:39:00.009-04:00

Trying to distract myself from a couple of unpleasant Boston news days in a row. The latest setback, of course, is the Sox' total inability to even think about scoring runs off Royals ace Zack Greinke. It's some consolation, although not much, to know that Greinke is the hands-down favorite for this year's Cy Young Award. And here, also, is something else to consider:

An interesting piece by Kansas City blogger makes the case that the Cy Young race has come down to four pitchers: Greinke, Felix Hernandez, CC Sabathia, and Jon Lester.

Greinke and Hernandez are there simply because they are easily the best two pitchers in the American League this year. Sabathia and Lester are there because they are easily the best two pitchers on the Yankees and Red Sox. If there's anything like justice, Greinke will walk away with the trophy. But the discussion does provide fodder for an interesting comparison, an echo of something my colleague tried to bash me with a few weeks ago.

So, a comparison.

Player A
14-7, 3.33 ERA, 214 SO.
2009 Salary: $1 million
Average salary, 2010-2013: $7.2 million

Player B
18-7, 3.31 ERA, 186 SO.
2009 Salary: $15.3 million
Average salary, 2010-2013: $24.9 million

Oh, and one more thing to note.

Player A's postseason ERA: 2.25
Player B's postseason ERA: 7.92

MILES:

The Small Market Sox signed Lester to a $30 million contract extension in March, which basically bought out his remaining arbitration years. Not unlike what Theo did with Dustin Pedroia (six-year, $40.5 million) in December and, a month later, with Kevin Youkilis (four-year, $40 million deal). This is common practice in baseball. See Evan Longoria, Jose Reyes, David Wright, Troy Tulowitzki, Robinson Cano, and Chris Young, to name just a few. In 2014, Lester is due to earn $14 million. A year later, when he becomes a free agent, he should be in line for a pretty fat paycheck.

Look, Lester is a very good pitcher. At times, dominant. Like against the Colorado Rockies. Against the Rays, however, not so much. Still, I like Lester. Truth be told, he's the only player on Boston's roster I would want on the Yankees. That said, I'm more than happy with CC's performance in pinstripes, and, come October, I'm confident he'll show his true worth.

In the meantime, though, I agree that Greinke is an absolute lock for the Cy Young. He has been for weeks, long before he shut down the Sox.

BEN:

All right, let's get this Small Market-Big Market thing out of the way. I know that some Yankees fans take great pleasure in noting that the Red Sox consistently rank among the top five teams in baseball in terms of overall payroll. I won't deny it. It's also true that they've won substantially more games and championships in the last ten years than any of the several teams with comparable payrolls-- say, for instance, the Dodgers, Mets, Cubs, and Tigers, all four of whom have bigger payrolls than the Sox this year. The Angels have had a comparable run of success with a comparable payroll over the same period.

But in the spirit of serious intra-rivalry debate, let's examine the facts a little more closely. This year, the Yankees outspent the Sox by $84m, which is larger than the gap between the Sox and the famously parsimonious San Diego Padres, who have the 2nd lowest payroll in baseball. To put it another way, $84 million is enough to cover the entire payroll of just over half of the teams in baseball. If you're really going to swear that this distinction is trivial, well, let's just say I disagree.

My point, though, is that the difference between the teams is cultural. In a given offseason, Sox can make a run at any player they want, provided they're willing to make payroll sacrifices at other positions. This is true of several teams--conservatively, maybe 4 or 5, liberally, as many as 7 or 8. What the Yankees do, as demonstrated admirably this past offseason (during the depths of a terrible recession, and while they were rolling out their hilariously overpriced new stadium), is give record contracts to players at any position where they see fit to bother. It's what makes other people think that Yankees fans are spoiled, that the team tries to buy championships; all those criticisms you're used to hearing by now.

Players currently on the Yankees who are the highest-paid at their position in baseball history: Alex Rodriguez (3B), Mark Teixeria (1B), Derek Jeter (SS), CC Sabathia (SP), Jorge Posada (C). Mariano Rivera ranks 2nd at closer.

This also probably goes some way to explaining why you express no interest in swapping your guys for one of the numerous comparable-yet-cheaper players on the Sox team, such as Dustin Pedroia, Victor Martinez, Jonathan Papelbon, Lester, or Clay Buchholz. Some of those guys are better than their Yankee counterparts, and some worse, but all are substantially less expensive, even the Rookie of the Year/AL MVP second baseman. By the way, are you sure you wouldn't trade the Melky Cabrera/Brett Gardner platoon for Jacoby Ellsbury, or Johnny Damon for Jason Bay?

Maybe this all sounds like quibbling to your ears, but I think it's pretty meaningful. Will the Sox have to give big money to Jon Lester when his arbitration years are past? Absolutely, and I'm sure they'll be glad to do it. But I'm willing to bet he won't be the highest-paid pitcher in baseball history, whether that person is CC Sabathia or whoever the Yankees come after next.

MILES:

Sorry, man, but any team that lays down $51 million just to talk to a player forfeits any claims to the poorhouse. In fact, just a few months ago, the front office offered Mark Teixeira at least $165 million, even though the team already had, in your words, a "comparable-yet-cheaper" first baseman. By your reasoning, if the Sox had signed Tex, they would have been forced to get rid of Ortiz and his $13-million contract, or J.D. Drew and his $14-million contract just to offset the cost. You're deluding yourself. Boston's payroll isn't as high as New York's; but, at $122 million, it is only approximately $6 million less than the combined payrolls of the Marlins, Padres and Pirates.

For some reason I've never quite understood, Sox fans like to think of their team as one of the little guys, the underdogs, as blue collar as Will Hunting. When, in truth, the Sox are very much a part of baseball's privileged one percent, regardless of how dirty your MVP second baseman gets his jersey. Ask any Twins fan, or Royals fan, or even a Cardinals fan. They'll tell you the same thing: there is little-to-no difference between the Yankees and the Red Sox in this regard. Sure, the Yankees might own the biggest house on the block, but the Red Sox reside in the same gated community, despite numerous protestations to the contrary.

BEN:

I never said that Youkilis was comparable to Teixeira and believed, at the time and to this day, that the Sox would've traded him to clear room for Tex.

I also specifically didn't claim that the Sox were in the poor house; only that the gap between the Yankees and those teams that rank below them is so large and significant that it's unfair to compare them. I think the numbers illustrate that pretty convincingly.

I can't speak for other Sox fans, but I've never believed that my team is middle-class; what I have done is complained that the Yankees' unlimited spending makes them the bad guys. I don't think the Sox deserve anyone's pity, I just find it ludicrous that Yankees fans can't see the difference.

Gang Green

2009-09-21T10:56:00.010-04:00

I was at a wedding yesterday afternoon, in Poughkeepsie, receiving only intermittent text updates from concerned friends about the Jets-Pats game. I knew the Jets were up late, but there was still a lot of time left. I was nervous. Even worse, the bar was about to close.

New text: “Sanchez sacked for a big loss.” Damn. Two minutes later: “Pats on final drive.” Oy, I thought. Were the Patriots going to steal one late from the Jets, just like they did last week against the Bills? I was on an island, cut off from the rest of the world, unaware of what was going on 70 miles south, in the Meadowlands, a place that hadn’t witnessed a Jets’ win over the Pats since 2000, when Herm Edwards was still in charge.

A few minutes later, we were packing up our things, wishing our best to the lovely bride and groom. (Ed. Note: Seriously, no TV?) As we pulled out of the parking lot, I checked my phone for a new text. Nothing. Not good, I thought. The Jets were either in the middle of blowing it, or had already blown it. No one wanted to share the bad news with me. Before we pulled into the train station, though, we passed a small bar. I watched as a paunchy, pasty male wearing a Randy Moss jersey exited and walked across the parking lot. Behind him, his girlfriend, in a Brady jersey, natch, screamed, “You’re just going to leave? Just like that?” I didn’t even have to read the text I received a few seconds later. I knew right away that the Jets had beaten the Pats, because Pats fans, like the team’s head coach, don’t take losing very well. They handle losses, in fact, about as well as child takes losing his woobie.

All week long, the Jets, particularly Head Coach Rex Ryan and safety Kerry Rhodes, said the Jets were going to bring it to the Patriots. “Try to embarrass them,” was Mr. Rhodes’ unfortunate choice of words. That the Jets, particularly the defense, backed up their uncharacteristically bold talk was impressive. It also speaks volumes, as it were, about the teams’ confidence, talent and newfound moxie.

These ain’t your father’s New York Jets.

In two games this season, the Jets’ D has not allowed a touchdown. Last week, they turned Matt Schaub and Andre Johnson into spectators. Compare this to the duo’s remarkable performance this week against the Titans. On Sunday, the Jets made Tom Brady, Mr. Enlgand, look like Chad Henne. Yesterday was the first time a Brady-led Pats team failed to score a touchdown since Dec. 10, 2006, when they were shut out against the Dolphins. Even more impressive, the Jets limited the vaunted Patriots offense to less than 300 yards of total offense, holding them to a mediocre 5 of 15 on third down. Cornerback Darrell Revis limited Randy Moss to four catches for 24 yards. Although the Jets didn’t sack Brady, they knocked him down, I think, six or seven times, depending on the news outlet. Ryan’s defensive schemes—and the raucous Meadowlands crowd—rattled the normally unflappable Brady, forcing him into four delay-of-game penalties, including a back-to-back fuck up in the 3rd quarter. Hardly a vintage performance from Mr. New England.

Mark Sanchez, on the other hand, played well enough to win, leading the Jets on an impressive 16-play, 68-yard scoring drive to start the second half. He finished the game 14-22 with 163 yards, a touchdown and 0 interceptions. Nothing fantastic, but still better than Brady’s 0-touchdown, 1-interception performance.

In the scheme of things, yesterday’s win isn’t terribly important, or even meaningful. It is, after all, just one game in a very long season, and the Pats will, of course, make adjustments. Good teams always do. But, at least for the time being, they'll be looking up at a totally revamped and defensively dominant Jets team. See you in Week 11.

BEN:

I can't front. The time for fronting is past. That was a tough loss, and the Pats, who have been prodigiously talented for the last 5 years, clearly aren't the same force they were a few years ago. Time was, we could afford to lose an elite linebacker and an elite receiver in the same short week and still out-think the bad guys. And--hey, credit where it's due--that is a fierce defense and a smart head coach. But, in the long view, I still think that the Pats are a playoff team, and, in the even longer view, that Belichick is building a team that will be a force over the next 5-10 years. And I doubt that you disagree.

I won't let myself be drawn into another of the absurd Boston/NY debates over whose fans have less integrity, but I will say that I don't want a coach who takes to losing, any more than I want to root for one whose signature move, it seems, is to try to piss people off. And while this team has looked pretty nasty on defense, let's not confuse them with the '85 Bears just yet. The Patriots had better numbers than the Jets in total offense, first downs, takeaways, and 3rd down efficiency. Had rookie substitute Julian Edelman--who on the whole had a very good game--not dropped a pass on the 2 yard line, this might have been a different outcome.

But like I said, no fronting. The Jets were tougher in key situations, adjusted better at halftime, and were the only team to put one in the end zone. But the Patriots are still finding themselves, and on the defensive side of the ball, substitute signal-caller Gary Guyton orchestrated a defense that held the Jets to 16 points and 254 yards of total offense, picking up 10 tackles himself.

Most experts picked the Pats to win the AFC East this year. In the next few days, I'm sure quite of a few of those people will be handing that same crown to the Jets. Myself, I think it's going to be a dogfight. But if and when we get Mayo and Welker back, and when Brady hits his stride, I still like my squad.

Much has been made of the losses of Bruschi, Harrison, Seymour, Vrabel, and Hobbs on this defense. (A defense which, as you bandwagon fans may or may not recall, was considered a liability last year.) For the time being, you can also add Jerod Mayo to that list. And yet they more than held their own yesterday against a capable offense. If this is what a rebuilding year looks like under Belichick, I can live with that. There are a lot of games left to play.

MILES:

Funny you mentioned rebuilding, Brady's rust, and the absence of Wes Welker. I deleted an entire paragraph about these and a number of other excuses that were sure to wind their way down I-95. I'll give you Welker. He was missed. This rebuilding meme, though, is a bit disingenuous, especially since, as you pointed out, the Pats were the early favorites to win the division. Probably still are, too. Also, as I recall last year, when Matt Cassell excelled in Brady's stead, it was the system, not the players. Bellichick, it was said, could win with anyone. Nor can I take seriously Brady's rust, which wasn't an issue in the second half of last week's game, when he put in a "vintage" performance. He looked uneasy in the pocket this week because the Jets put a ton of pressure on him. They made him uncomfortable.

Also, bandwagon fan is a bit unfair. Although I'm not a big football guy, I do have a vested interest in the Jets, and I was recruited for the specific purpose of talking smack about teams from Boston. I couldn't let yesterday's win go unnoticed. It would be unprofessional.

Idle Thoughts

2009-09-17T15:08:00.002-04:00

For the past few weeks, while the Yankees have been racking up win after win after win, I’ve felt a bit on the sidelines, like I’m missing out on the excitement of a pennant race. But this feeling of exclusion, however brief, isn’t at all like last year, when the only meaningful event left in the Yankees’ first season in 12 years sans playoff was the shuttering off the old stadium and the distant promise of the Hot Stove. (You know it’s a disappointing season when the highlight was a valedictory speech).

No, this year I feel like I’m just twiddling my thumbs waiting for the real fun to start. The rest of the 2009 regular season is, by now, entirely perfunctory, about as exciting or meaningful as combing your hair. Nothing is getting me going. Not Pettitte’s tired arm. Not the BRAWL! Not A.J. Not even the Sox’s umpire-abetted winning streak.

Instead, I’ve had to get by on silly things like the following clip, which is sure to strike a chord with Yankee and Red Sox fans alike.

(Via Via)