The Johnny Damon Anti-Sweepstakes

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

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

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?

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?

I say yes.

The Thing with Avatar

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

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.