Sports Blunders: Bad Decisions in Sports

Giving the Devil His Due

2009-01-13T10:20:00.004-05:00

It is almost painful for me to say this....kudos to the Boston Red Sox. Ugh, I suddenly feel so dirty.

I have to give credit where credit is due though. In the last week, Red Sox GM Theo Epstein made the kind of shrewd, under-the-radar moves that help teams win championships. After the hoopla and fanfare surrounding the blockbuster signings by the Yankees, the Hot Stove cooled down just a bit. People took this time to reflect on the changing landscape of the AL East with CC, AJ, and Tex all donning Pinstripes. The Rays responded by signing Pat Burrell to beef up their power from the right side of the plate, and Joe Nelson to sure up the bullpen. The Red Sox did....nothing.

Fans and sports writers alike wondered what would Boston do? What COULD Boston do in response to the moves by the Yankees? There were no blockbuster free agents left, and even if there were, how could they possibly match what the Yankees had accomplished with their big 3 acquisitions?

Then last week it was announced that the Red Sox had reached a 1 year deal with Brad Penny for $5 million. A man who only made 17 starts last year because of injuries, and compiled a 6-9 record with a 6.27 ERA. The Sox then signed Rocco Baldelli for 1 year and $500,000. Baldelli has been hampered by injuries throughout his career. Last year he was diagnosed with a mitochondrial disorder that tires his body out very quickly after physical exertion. He managed to come back for the Rays' stretch and playoff run last season. The busy Red Sox then signed 38 year old Takashi Saito for 1 year and 1.5 million. Saito was the Dodgers closer over the last couple of seasons until midway through this past season when his arm began to give him problems and he was eventually forced into a closer platoon because he couldn't handle the workload. The final move was announced yesterday when the Sox completed their 1 year, $5.5 million deal with lifelong Atlanta Brave John Smoltz, who missed most of last season because of arm problems.

At first glance it looks like the Red Sox were picking up bodies off of the scrap heap at a bargain price. The kind of moves a low budget, flailing organization makes in order to try and lend some "credibility" and name recognition to its team. But the Red Sox aren't exactly a low budget, floundering organization. Put these guys on an already well built team, and they suddenly become low risk, very high reward commodities that could pay huge dividends now and in the future.

Here's a rundown of what each could bring to the table for the Sox:

1) Brad Penny: Despite his troubles last season, Penny has been, at times, a dominant starting pitcher, winning 16 games in both 2006 and 2007 for the Dodgers. And as an added bonus, he was one of the young starting pitchers that helped the Marlins beat the Yankees in the 2003 World Series. If he can recover from his injury and get back to where he was in '06 and '07 he slots in as an extremely dangerous number 4 starter for the Red Sox. He's only 30 years old and there is little reason to believe that he can't bounce back, and if he does, it may allow Epstein to trade one of his young starting pitchers for a good starting catcher, which the Sox desperately need now that Jason Varitek is finished in Beantown.

2) Rocco Baldelli: Baldelli effectively becomes the Red Sox 4th outfielder. Early in his career with the Rays, Baldelli was being touted as one of the next great stars of baseball. He was drawing comparisons to Joe DiMaggio, though that may have been due in part to his name and ethnic background. Joking aside though, the kid could play. He was a frightening blend of power and speed. His average always hovering around .300. David Wright comes to mind when you think of comparable numbers.

Then the injuries began. He simply couldn't stay healthy. When he was diagnosed with the mitochondrial disorder it looked as if his career might be over. He worked hard though to get healthy again, and was used delicately in the Rays stretch run this year, showing some of the same potential he had on display at the beginning of his career.

Now the Red Sox will use him in that same delicate manner. He will be there to spell one of the 3 starting outfielders and can be a great player off of the bench. If he is able to stay healthy he becomes an excellent back-up who would be a starter on any other team. And if he isn't able to stay healthy, well, no matter, he wasn't one of the 3 starters anyway.

3) Takashi Saito: He may be the most under-the-radar of the 4 of them. You can immediately slot him into the 8th inning in front of Jonathan Papelbon. He will share that inning with lefty specialist Hideki Okajima. In doing so they will relieve Saito of the heavy workload of a closer and be able to use him as a dominant 8th inning option. Even in a season in which he had arm problems, Saito was able to put up a 2.49 ERA and save 18 games. This could turn out to be a scary good move for the Red Sox.

4) John Smoltz: Smoltz seems to be the biggest question mark. We all know his track record, but last year he was only able to make 5 starts before he had to pack it in for the season because of major arm trouble. This is the second time in his career that Smoltz has had to deal with a serious arm problem. He turns 42 this year and one has to wonder how much he has left. But you can never question Smoltz's abilities though. If he is able to regain even a modicum of the success he has had over his illustrious career he can be a dominant #5 option in the starting rotation, or even become another excellent set-up man for Papelbon. Whether he can get completely healthy remains to be seen, but with all the pieces that the Sox already have in place, this is a very low risk signing.

So kudos to you Theo. You have shown once again why you are one of the best GM's in baseball.....and now that I've said that, I think I need to take a shower.

We're Talkin' Football

2009-01-06T10:02:00.008-05:00

As we say good-bye to the first round of playoff castaways and near the end of another controversial (if not exciting) bowl season, I wanted to share some thoughts.

Raise your hand if you were even just a little upset that the Indianapolis Colts never even touched the football in their overtime loss to the Chargers. I'm pretty sure I've made my feelings clear on this, but in case you've forgotten....IT'S THE DUMBEST RULE IN ALL OF SPORTS!!!!

There NEEDS to be an equanimity of opportunity. An entire team's season was just ended because of a coin toss. The Colts (whose QB just happened to be the league MVP) never even got a chance to play on offense. What a shame. Nothing against the Chargers. They may be the best 8-8 team ever, but you have to feel bad that Peyton didn't even get a chance to do his thing in the OT.

I had a discussion with my dad about this rule and we both had a similar idea on how to solve it. Credit to fellow sports enthusiast Bob Dealy who reminded me that there are 3 phases to the game and that the college system of OT leaves out Special Teams. Please share your thoughts on this solution:

The coin toss decides who gets the ball to start the OT, just as it does now. If the team who gets the ball first does not score and has to punt, or turns the ball over -- then we play a normal, sudden death overtime. However, if the teams who has the ball first scores, they then have to kick off to the other team. The other team now has to match or best the first team. If at any point they turn the ball over, whether it be on downs, fumble of interception, the game is over.

If Team A starts with the ball and kicks a field goal and Team B scores a touchdown on their possession, Team B wins. If Team B kicks a field goal and matches Team A, then we continue in this fashion.

I am calling it the Extra Innings Rule. Like in baseball, the team who hits in the top half of the inning has a chance to score. The team who hits in the bottom half then has to do the same or better.

Other Playoff Curiosities:
There has been a lot of screaming and yelling over the past few days about regular season records and how teams are seeded in the playoffs. The venom here has been primarily directed at the 8-8 Chargers hosting the 12-4 Colts and the Giants facing the 9-6-1 Eagles instead of the 9-7 Cardinals.

This argument is pretty simple. You have to give credit to the team that wins their division. Just because their record is not as good as some other teams that might not even make the playoffs, you cannot discount the fact that you won your division. This year is odd because the Cardinals and the Chargers both won with mediocre records in extremely weak divisions. However, what if you have a division where all 4 teams are incredibly well balanced? Let's say each team goes 1-1 against their division opponents. Now everyone stands at 3-3. They also all have an equally tough non-divisional schedule and the best team in the division finishes up 9-7, while the last place team is 8-8. By winning that tough division, they have earned the right to host a playoff game.

Using this same argument we can immediately shoot down the complaints from certain Giants' fans (and I am not among these complainers) that the G-Men should be playing the Cardinals this week instead of the Eagles. Giants fans are simply upset because the Eagles are a hot team right now and managed to barely hold on for a win against the Giants in the regular season (mind you that game was played days after the Plaxico Burress incident and the team had already solidified a playoff spot the previous week by improving their record to 10-1). If the shoe were on the other foot and the 9-7 Cardinals were the hot team going into this round of the playoffs, Giants fans would be saying, "Whew, it's a good thing the rule states that we play the lowest seed." Every fan wants the rules to be convenient for their team. Simply put, the Giants play the lowest seed; which right now is the Eagles. The Cardinals and the Chargers have earned their places in the post-season by winning their division.

Finally, some College Football Thoughts:

I think ESPN needs to tone down the over-coverage of certain players' parents. In both the NU-Mizzou game and the Texas-OSU game, it seemed that after every play that Texas and Mizzou played on offense, ESPN showed a picture of the quarterback's parents and girlfriend. You want to show them after big plays, fine, but enough is enough! And don't the Wildcats and Buckeyes have parents too? I'm pretty sure CJ Bacher (NU quarterback) has parents. In fact I met them on my way to a game when I was living in Chicago. They're lovely people. I would have liked to have seen how they reacted when their son threw a 45-yard TD pass in the 2nd half of the Alamo Bowl.

My last point of the day is probably a touchy subject, but one I feel necessary to bring up. I think it might be time to start telling players to ease up on the religious talk in post-game interviews. Hearing what Colt McCoy (Texas QB) had to say after the game last night, I felt it was time to speak up. This has nothing to with my own religious beliefs, I just feel that this kind of speech is out of place at the end of a football game -- comments like, "I'd like to thank Jesus, our Lord and Savior, for giving me the strength to throw those passes like I did today." or, "God was on our side today. God gave me the will to catch that ball that helped us win the game." Again, it's not that I have a problem with their religious beliefs, but with all the horrible things going on in the world today, don't you think God and Jesus have more important things to worry about than a college bowl game? And besides Colt, what if God is an Oklahoma fan?

And if you disagree....go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.

20-20 Hindsight

2009-01-02T13:22:00.004-05:00

First off, I wanted to wish everyone a very happy new year!

With the NFL playoffs starting this weekend some fans are hoping their teams can become last year's Giants, while other fans are left wondering what went wrong? NY Jets fans seem to be doing a lot of that these days, and a lot of them are answering that question with two words: Brett Favre.

Isn't 20-20 hindsight a beautiful thing?

Before this season started Jets fans were screaming about getting Brett Favre. There was no way they could go into the season with Chad Pennington as their starting QB. Pennington is washed up, he can't throw the ball downfield, he can't stay healthy, etc. So Mike Tannenbaum listened to the fans, went out and got the future hall of fame quarterback, and said good bye to the aforementioned Pennington. Pennington signed with the hapless Dolphins and the Jets stood poised to make a big post-season run with Favre at the helm.

Isn't 20-20 hindsight a beautiful thing?

If you asked ANY Jets fan right now who they would rather have as their starting QB, they would answer Chad Pennington. "How could we let him go? Look what he did with the Dolphins this year. We missed the playoffs with a washed up QB. What a stupid move it was."

I bet they wouldn't have been saying this when the Jets stood at 8-3 after they beat the undefeated Titans and rival Patriots in consecutive weeks. The Favre move looked like a stroke of genius at that point. A mere 5 weeks later and it looks like the bonehead move of the year.

Isn't 20-20 hindsight a beautiful thing?

This is what makes sports so interesting and so exciting. Who would have thought that an injury-prone, much-maligned quarterback would lead a team that went 1-15 in the previous season to a first place finish in a division that boasted a team who last year was the first team ever to go 16-0. Yes, I know that the Pats lost Tom Brady for the season in the first game, but that is the beauty of sports. No season is ever decided on paper. Nothing is ever a certainty.

I think the Jets GM made the right decision to bring in Favre. It was the LOGICAL decision. Pennington had run his course in NY. They needed something new. Which is why I get a kick out of hearing fans (in any sport) complain at the end of the season "How could we have traded this guy?" or "What were we thinking signing this guy?"

The simple answer: because you just don't know what will happen. GM's have to make decisions based on past performance, team goals, instinct, and so many other factors. If it works they look like geniuses, and if it doesn't, they look for new jobs.

20-20 hindsight is a beautiful thing.....if you're a fan trying to explain what went wrong.

Enjoy the NFL playoffs everyone!

Oh and um, if you disagree....go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.

Arguing With Myself: Making Sense of the Mark Teixera Signing

2008-12-24T12:50:00.005-05:00

OK, enough, we get it: the Yankees are bullies, don't they know that the economy stinks right now, it's totally unfair, the Yankees are going to buy another World Series.

I'll admit, it's getting tougher and tougher to defend the Yankees as this off-season shopping spree goes on, but I'm going to try.

First off, concerning my post on Mark Teixera last week, there is a big part of me that still wishes he had gone to his hometown Orioles. Am I happy to see him wearing pinstripes? Of course. He is a hard-working, exciting ballplayer; the kind of player I think young kids should emulate. But like I said last week, it would have been a good story had he taken less money and gone to his hometown team.

Next, I am sick and tired (and it's only been one day) of reading articles that say Teixera is despicable and that all he cares about is the money. How dare these people? He has earned the right to sign wherever he wants and for how much he wants after putting up excellent numbers and playing stellar defense over his career. It is not the player's fault that teams are throwing ridiculous sums of money at him.

Now, here's where it gets tough. I tried to argue a few weeks ago that the Yankees spending a ton of money on a player is simply the way things are. They have more money than any other team, and they intend on spending it. The best ways I could defend this are a) they sometimes makes very poor decisions on who they choose to throw money at, and b) they have not won a world series this decade despite all the money they have spent. However, with the team now holding the 4 highest paid players in all of baseball, and committing almost a half a billion dollars to 3 players in this off-season I am finding it difficult to continue to justify my reasons.

Nothing has really changed in my argument. This is simply how things are, but there does seem to be a sense of unfairness to it all when the top 3 free agents all go to the same team in the matter of a week. It just doesn't feel right.

Despite my uneasy feeling though, I still think people should stop with this ridiculous chorus of "The Yankees bought the World Series." Just because they're the favorites now doesn't mean they're going to win it all next October. This statement pings of jealousy. "Oh, the Yankees only won this year because they bought all the best players. They didn't really win the World Series." Oh, really? Then let's not even play the next season. Let's just give the Yankees the trophy now and call it a day. And I didn't hear these people chirping when the Yankees came in third last year. There weren't too many chants of "Oh, they bought 3rd place this year." This absolutely absurd whining needs to stop NOW.

Ok, deep breaths Michael. I digress....

Baseball executives are split on how they feel about all these signings. Some say that it's bad for baseball and that it's impossible for other teams to survive in this climate. Others, like Toronto GM J.P. Ricciardi, said that teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Cubs are great for baseball. This coming from a GM who shares a division with the Yanks and Red Sox. He commented this morning on WFAN in NY that these teams always sell out stadiums when they are on the road, they bring lots of attention and excitement to the sport, they make other teams really work hard at developing good ball players and building great teams, and he said he doesn't hear anyone complaining when the Yankees pay their big luxury tax to the other teams.

Clearly this is a divisive issue among fans and MLB personnel alike. I still defend my Yankees, but I have to admit, I don't do it with that same sense of righteousness that I did one week ago.

But I still don't want to hear anyone complaining that they bought the World Series if they win it all in '09. Someday soon, the rules might change when it comes to player contracts and salary caps, but until that day comes, the way the Yankees do business is just how things are.

And if you disagree....go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.

Heads or Tails

2008-12-22T11:22:00.006-05:00

What a game last night!! Giants beat the Panthers in OT 34-28 for homefield advantage in the playoffs. It was a dramatic, intense, back and forth, electrifying game, and all I can say is this: thank god both teams touched the ball in overtime. As I sat watching the game as regulation time expired all I could think about was how this game could be determined by the flip of a coin.

I mean, seriously, could there be a dumber rule in all of sports? I know that not every overtime game is won on that first possession, but the fact that a team can win a game without the other team even touching the ball is possibly the stupidest concept ever created. I simply do not understand the rationale behind this. Two teams battle it out for 4 quarters. Guys have played their butts off fighting for every last yard and the game is now potentially decided by whether a shiny piece of metal comes up one way or the other? Ridiculous.

But rather than continue to complain, I will offer my 2 solutions.

1) No Sudden Death Overtime:

This one is pretty self explanatory.

Right now, all you have to do to win the game is kick a field goal. Drive your team within the other team's 35 yard line and you've got a pretty good chance of winning the game. Teams aren't compelled to go for the end zone. They just want to get it close enough so their place-kicker can send everyone home. And field goals aren't exactly difficult to come by. Even in low-scoring affairs, you're bound to see at least a few field goals kicked.

So just play the Overtime as if it were the 5th quarter. If the game is still tied at the end of the 15 minutes....so be it, the game ends in a tie.

I don't love this solution because ties are more likely than they are in the current format, and no one likes to see a game end in a tie. Which is why I would like to see my next solution implemented....

2) Do it Like the College Kids (With a slight modification):

The NCAA really got it right when it comes to OT. There is nothing more exciting than how college football determines a winner in overtime. Each team gets the ball 1st and 10 at the opponent's 25 yard line. The team with the ball first tries to score, then the other team tries to match or out-do what the first team did, and you repeat the process until there is a winner. There is an emphasis on both offense and defense. There is drama and strategy. How exciting is it when that first team is faced with a 4th and 1 and needs to decide whether to settle for a field goal, or go for it and risk not getting any points at all?

What I really like most about this system though, is the equanimity of opportunity. Both teams are guaranteed a shot at the ball, and both the offense and the defense have to do their jobs.

Here is my one small tweak to what they do in college. In the NCAA, the ball is placed on the 25 yard line. That means if the offense were to go absolutely nowhere in their first 3 downs, they could take a shot at a 42 yard field goal, which in college is definitely not a gimme. In the NFL however, a 42 yarder is a very make-able kick. So I suggest moving the ball back to the 35 yard line. This would set up a potential 52 yarder if the team goes 0 yards in their 3 plays. Definitely not an automatic kick, but still make-able. All the same rules apply from there.

I think it would make the overtime much more exciting, and never again would you have to hear someone say, "We got screwed! We never even touched the ball in overtime!!" And all because of a flip of a coin.

And if you disagree....go ahead an tell me I'm wrong.

Deep In the Heart of Tex

2008-12-17T13:21:00.006-05:00

I was a little disappointed to read today that the Baltimore Orioles have fallen behind in the Mark Teixera sweepstakes. People who know me may ask why I care considering that I'm a Yankee fan. And if you think it's because I'm worried he'll go to the Red Sox, you're mostly wrong. Sure, I don't want to see him in Boston, but the reason why I'm sad that he's likely not going to the Orioles is because it has been well documented that the Orioles are Mark Teixera's hometown team.

Before I go any further I will readily admit all of these issues:

1) Teixera has the right to sign anywhere he wants

2) He has earned the right to a large contract because of his stellar play

3) He has the right to choose a team that is already a contender

I think part of me wants to see him go to his hometown team because so many of us who played baseball growing up dreamed of playing for our favorite team and hitting the winning home run that won our team the world series. There is something very romantic about putting on the uniform of your childhood heroes (and getting paid handsomely to do it -- though I guarantee there are those of us that would do it for free). So now we see a major leaguer with a chance to do just that. And not only play for his hometown team, he could be the savior of his hometown team that has struggled so mightily in the last few years, and is in desperate need of that major superstar that will help them back on the path to contendership.

You know that the fans of Baltimore are praying that this guy will give them a "hometown discount." It's so hard to bring a superstar to a floundering club, especially if they feel no special tie to the organization, and it's particularly frustrating for the fans. And not only will they lose out on Teixera, but they will in a way lose out on the other free agents who might have signed in Baltimore if they see a superstar like Teixera signing there. A player like Tex automatically gives the organization more credibility.

Believe me, as an Islander fan I understand this. Right now, no big name player wants to play for the Islanders. They are a very bad team that is in serious rebuilding mode. They play in an old building with a very localized fan base. When the hockey off-season rolls around, I can guarantee you that the major free agents aren't going to have the Islanders at the top of their list....however, if there was a great player who grew up on Long Island, rooting for the Islanders, and decided to come to the organization as free agent, it would help gain the team a measure of respect, and maybe we could lure some other good players, instead of the leftovers that nobody else wants (I really hope this blog reaches Chris Higgins).

In a sports world right now where everyone wants to play for the big market teams, or go to the highest bidder, it would be nice to see a guy go back to his roots. Who said you can't go home?

Tex has every right in the world to sign where he wants and take whatever contract he wants, but the romantic in me would like to see him go play for the hometown team, and be the hero that I'm sure he dreamed of being as a kid.

And if you disagree...go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.

Oh Man-ny

2008-12-17T12:47:00.004-05:00

Here is an image I never thought I'd see, let alone talked about....Manny Ramirez in Yankee Pinstripes. Yet there are several sources this morning claiming that the Yankees are showing some legitimate interest in going after this egocentric malcontent.

I won't deny that acquiring Manny would essentially assure the Yankees a return to the post-season, and potentially even make them the favorites to win it all, but it just seems so wrong.

Never mind the fact that he was a Yankee killer and persona non grata when he came to play in Yankee Stadium. What bothers me about Manny is the way he plays the game and all that "Manny being Manny" nonsense. He disrespects the game. Last year when he refused to run out a potential double-play ball in a key situation in a game when he was still playing for the Red Sox speaks volumes. When he was totally fed up with playing in Boston and demanded a trade, he feigned an injury and insisted that he would not play. Unless he is %100 happy, Manny won't be Manny on the field.

I can't justify rooting for this guy. Not to mention I don't think he should be rewarded with another huge contract after the way he forced the hand of the Red Sox last year with his contract situation. I also happen to think that if the Yanks sign him -- considering their other recent signings -- that it will be overkill. You'll start to see talk of the "Evil Empire" coming back.

I suppose if they sign him, I'll cheer when he hits a home run, or makes a nice catch, or drives in a winning run, but only because of the interlocking NY on his uniform and cap, and not because of the man wearing them.

If nothing else it will make me pine for the days when hard-nosed team players like Scott Brosius, Tino Martinez, and my favorite, Paul O'Neill, were wearing the pinstripes and winning championships.

The Yanks don't need Manny's antics, his attitude, his mercurial temperament and they sure as hell don't need him to win it all.

And if you disagree with me....go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.

AJ Burnott

2008-12-12T14:18:00.003-05:00

I have one really small thought today. Just something I'd like to say to the Yankee front office..........

DON'T SIGN AJ BURNETT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Haven't we learned anything from the past???

Can anybody tell me the last player the Yankees signed to a massive contract because he had a great contract year, but had been prone to injuries before?

Does the name Carl Pavano ring a bell?

Look, I'll admit that Burnett had a great year, and he has had success before, but a player whose statistics in their contract years are so much stronger than every other year, has to cause you concern. And of course, so does his injury history. In his 8 full seasons he has thrown over 200 innings only 3 times. He has won more than 12 games only once (last year), and in 4 of those seasons, started only 25 games or less.

The biggest red flag has to be this fun little list though:
1)April 2004, Placed on 15 day DL (recovering from elbow surgery)
2) June 2004 transferred to 60 Day DL
3) March 2006, Placed on 15 Day DL (Right elbow soreness)
4) April 2006, Placed on 15 Day DL (Right elbow soreness)
5) May 2006, Transferred to 60 Day DL
6) June 2007, Placed on 15 Day DL (Right shoulder pain)
7) July 2007, Placed on 15 Day DL (Sore right shoulder)
8) November 2008 -- Declares free agency after not suffering any injuries in his contract year

See what I'm getting at? I think the Yankees should learn from their mistakes and refrain from signing a pitcher whose pitching arm seems to be made of fine tissue paper.

Go sign Derek Lowe. He's reliable. He's pitched in the big games before. He's a tough competitor and a gamer. He's a sinker baller which will prevent the short-porch home runs that Yankee Stadium is known for (the dimensions in the new ballpark are the same). He also commands less money. It just makes sense.

If the Yankees sign Burnett, I hope I'm wrong. And if you think I am...go ahead and tell me.

Baseball Loyalty

2008-12-11T11:49:00.003-05:00

In a previous column I talked about whether or not CC Sabathia signing a huge contract with the Yankees was good for baseball. Most of what I was discussing had to do with the dynamics of the league and how small market teams have to be creative/strategically sound in order to compete with the mega-franchises. Yet, I overlooked a key point -- and I have to give credit to my friend Aaron for bringing this up -- there is very little loyalty left in the game of baseball. With the blockbuster contracts that high profile (and even some low profile) players are signing these days when they hit the free agent market, it is very rare to see a player that stays with the team that brought him up/gave him his first shot.

With this in mind, I went around the league and tried to find players that have shown great loyalty to their team. Here are the criteria: Since at least the 2000 season they have, a) spent their entire career with one team b) were traded early in their career and have remained with the team that traded for them

*I acknowledge that the D-Backs and Rays are only 10 years old and therefore it is difficult to include them in this discussion.

Here are the results:
Arizona Diamondbacks: None

Atlanta Braves: John Smoltz, Chipper Jones, *special mention here for Greg Maddux who spent
the majority of his career with the Braves, and then signed with the Cubs, the
team that originally brought him up when the Braves wanted to move in a
different diretion

Baltimore Orioles: Melvin Mora, Brian Roberts

Boston Red Sox: Tim Wakefield, Jason Varitek

Chicago White Sox: Mark Buehrle, Paul Konerko

Chicago Cubs: None

Cincinnati Reds: None

Cleveland Indians: Jake Westbrook

Colorado Rockies: Todd Helton

Detroit Tigers: Brandon Inge

Florida Marlins: None

Houston Astros: Roy Oswalt, Lance Berkman

Kansas City Royals: None

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim: Scott Shields

Los Angeles Dodgers: None

Milwaukee Brewers: None

Minnesota Twins: Michael Cuddyer

New York Yankees: Mariano Rivera, Jorge Posada, Derek Jeter, Andy Pettite (Though he did
leave for a couple years to play for the Astros, he did come back to the
Yankees, and had played over 10 years for them at the start of his career)

New York Mets: None

Oakland A's: Eric Chavez

Philadelphia Phillies: Jimmy Rollins

Pittsburgh Pirates: Jack Wilson

San Diego Padres: Trevor Hoffman

San Francisco Giants: None

Seattle Mariners: Ichiro Suzuki

St. Louis Cardinals: Albert Pujols

Tampa Bay Rays: None

Texas Rangers: Michael Young

Toronto Blue Jays: Roy Halladay, Vernon Wells

Washington Nationals: None

So there you go, 29 out of over 750 ball players. There are several pretty big names on here, but not all of them are household names. I don't mean to suggest anything by this, I simply think it is interesting to point out.

A Quick Thought on the NFL Playoffs

2008-12-10T13:17:00.004-05:00

I have read several stories in the past few days about how the NY Giants backed into the playoffs this week. To catch everyone up who may not be a Giants fan; the Giants lost on Sunday to the Eagles, but when Dallas lost to Pittsburgh later in the day, it clinched the NFC East title for the Giants. So these articles are saying that because the Giants didn't win their game on Sunday and won the division because another team lost, that they backed into the NFC East title.

Ummm.......EXCUSE ME??!!!

How is this backing into the playoffs?? Did we all just forget the 11-1 start that the Giants had that put them in position to win the division in Week 14 of the season? Or the fact that up until Sunday they hadn't lost to anyone in their division, let alone the entire NFC? They beat the 1st place Arizona Cardinals, the 1st place Steelers, and demolished the likely playoff bound Baltimore Ravens.

Backing into the playoffs is a team that wins its division with a 9-7 record, after it loses its final regular season game, and only goes to the playoffs because the other teams in their division also lost their last games and ended up with worse records.

The Giants just happened to lose this week when they were able to clinch the division early. They put themselves into that position on the shoulders of their 11-1 start. They didn't back in because Dallas lost, they earned their spot by being dominant over the first 13 weeks of the season.

I feel bad for the Cowboys, Panthers, and Vikings who all have to face the Giants in the final 3 games of the season, because as we've seen in the past, the G-Men don't take too kindly to being disrespected like that, and they tend to take it out on whatever team they happen to be facing that week.

And if you disagree....go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.

Hot Stove League

2008-12-10T12:24:00.004-05:00

Not every post here is going to be about destructive off-the-field decisions. Hopefully I'll be able to make more posts of this variety, where I can discuss whether a team or a player made a good or bad decision in relation to the game. So here are some thoughts on the recent baseball signings.

CC Sabathia to the Yankees:
The Yanks had to get this one done, and sure enough they got their man. In order to compete with Boston and Tampa Bay right now, the Yanks needed to land that top-of-the-line started that other teams fear going up against. What this also does is that it moves every other pitcher in the rotation down one spot in the pecking order, which means that Chien-Ming Wang will now be the #2 starter. That's one helluva #2 guy, and makes me feel so much better about the Yanks taking on Boston and having to go up against Dice-K as their #2.

Of course the Yankees were able to get Sabathia by throwing an entire-team's-payroll more at him than the next highest bidder. The obvious questions come up here -- is this good for baseball? and is it fair?

1) I always question -- even as a huge Yankee fan -- whether or not it's good for the sport that the Yankees always seem to get the marquee free-agent player because of their enormous payroll. You can really argue the case both ways, but I think it's just fine. When the Yankees had their dynasty in the 90's they weren't going out and signing every major free agent. They started that trend in 2001 and haven't won a world series since. They have grossly overpaid for players, destroyed their farm system, and spent tons of money on good players that they didn't necessarily need. It would seem to me that other teams don't mind it, as long as the Yanks continue to not win championships.

2) Is it fair? You'll always hear fans of smaller market teams like the Royals and Pirates complain that it's not fair that the Yanks spend this ridiculous amount of money. I think this is BS. All you have to do is look at teams like the Twins, who have been consistently competitive for the last decade and have one of the smallest payrolls in baseball. How about the Rays reaching the World Series this year by building a fantastic young ball club through shrewd drafting and trading. They too have one of the smallest payrolls in baseball. In baseball, it's not about the money you spend, it's about making good decisions.

The Yankees spend this much money because they can. It doesn't guarantee them anything, not even a spot in the playoffs. You want to complain if you're a Royals or Pirate fan that it's not fair? Well then maybe you shouldn't be handing out (proportionally) giant contracts to guys like Jose Guillen and Reggie Sanders if you're the Royals, or trading your top three trading chips (Xavier Nady, Jason Bay, Damaso Marte) for next to nothing, if you're the Pirates.

Mets get K-Rod:
Great move by the Mets. This is the kind of contract that just makes sense for both sides. 3 years, $37 million, option for a 4th year based on innings pitched. I really think they are getting a good value on one of the top 3 closers in the game, and by the same token, K-Rod is getting quite a nice payday. The other aspect of this deal that is so smart for both sides is that at the end of this contract, even if they go to that 4th year, K-Rod will only be 30 years old. The Mets get him in his prime and, if they so choose, can move in a new direction at the end of the contract, knowing that they got what they wanted from K-Rod. And from K-Rod's point of view, since he will only be 30 he will be able to get another big payday, knowing that he still has plenty left in the tank.

Great move by both sides. The Mets get exactly what they needed, and K-Rod puts himself in a nice financial position for the rest of his career.

It'll be very interesting to see how the rest of the big chips fall now that some of the biggest names have been taken off the table. You gotta love the baseball off-season. Great moves by both the Mets and Yankees this week, let's see if other teams can be just as shrewd.

And of course, if you disagree...go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.

Pests vs. Parasites: The Sean Avery Story

2008-12-05T12:06:00.007-05:00

Pests. They're the guys you love to hate. That really scrappy player that loves to get under the other team's skin. The guy that puts up good numbers even as he's annoying the heck out of the opposition and their fans. He's the 5'6" second baseman that your team can never seem to get out and who always hits in the clutch against your team (I'm looking at you Dustin Pedroia). He's that running back that only gets 10 touches a game, but still manages to put up monster numbers because teams just can't seem to wrap him up -- Leon Washington comes to mind.

No sport values the "pest" more than hockey. It seems that every team needs one. The guy who is constantly buzzing around the ice, hitting everything in sight, drawing penalties by annoying opposing players, and contributing the occasional goal here and there.

Besides that loving hatred though, I bet there is one other thing that each of these players gets from you....respect.

Well there is one hockey player that has all the traits of a pest, but is the epitome of DISRESPECT -- Sean Avery. He's not a pest. He's a parasite.

He is not a player I love to hate. He is a player that disgusts me. His antics in last year's playoffs when he started waving his arms and stick in front of Devils' goalie Martin Brodeur's face were so ridiculous that one of Avery's own teammates on the Rangers yelled at him on the ice to cut it out and get back into the play. This is a man who during a pre-game interview told reporters that he was going to "rip the stitches out" of Islanders' defenseman Radek Martinek's chin -- which he then "attempted" to do during the game. This kind of nursery school behavior has no place in hockey, in sports, or anywhere for that matter.

Several days ago though, the impossible happened...he stooped even lower. Avery transcended the game of hockey and went from being a childish, unsportsmanlike athlete, to being a despicable human being. If you haven't heard about this, Avery (now playing for the Dallas Stars) called some TV cameras over before a game and made this incredibly disgusting and sexist statement, "I just want to comment on how it's become like a common thing in the NHL for guys to fall in love with my sloppy seconds. I don't know what that's about, but enjoy the game tonight." This was in reference to his ex, actress Elisha Cuthbert, now dating Dion Phaneuf of the Calgary Flames, the team that Avery's Stars were playing that night.

Much has already been chronicled about the human aspect -- the comments were disrespectful, sexist, disgusting, and altogether inappropriate -- so I am not going to be redundant and add to that here. However, I think there is one angle that is being overlooked, and that is Avery's competitive motivation behind this.

Aside from whatever reasons he had for making this comment, I have to believe that he said these things in order to really piss off Dion Phaneuf so that during the game Phaneuf would be distracted with trying to get revenge on Avery. No doubt he was hoping that Phaneuf would take a whack at him with his stick and get a penalty, maybe even get him to retaliate so strongly that he gets kicked out of the game.

How low do you have to stoop to get under another player's skin? Is this what he has to resort to these days? You want to yap at other players while you're on the ice? Fine. You want to give a guy an extra shove after the play is over? Fine. But this? THIS??? Just so you can get your team two minutes of power play time? Never.

Sean Avery is not a pest. He's a parasite, and it is time for the parasite to go away.

And if you disagree...go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.

First Post: Cat Nipped

2008-12-04T12:04:00.000-05:00

With all the craziness going on in the sports world right now, I definitely had my options over what to write my first post about: the Plaxico Burress incident, the drug violations and suspensions of several NFL players, the disgustingly sexist and inappropriate comments made by Sean Avery (I'll get to him later), and the unfortunate circumstances involving the BCS and the Big 12 South title. Instead, I decided to write my first post about a topic very near and dear to my heart.

After an excellent regular season, my Northwestern Wildcats sit at an impressive 9-3, ranked #22, 24, and 22 in the BCS, AP, and USA Today polls, respectively. Yet with several days to go before Bowl invitations are sent out, there is a great deal of speculation (almost to a point that it seems like a lock), that the unranked 8-4 Iowa Hawkeyes will be going to a more prestigious bowl than the Cats.

Now, aside from NU being my Alma Mater, as a sports fan I have a some problems with this potential decision:

1) First is the obvious....Northwestern went into Iowa City and beat the Hawks on their home turf 22-17. In my opinion this fact should end the discussion right now. How can their be a better tie breaker -- since, in fairness to the discussion, both teams were 5-3 in the Big Ten -- than head-to head competition?

I have read arguments that we have to discount that game because it was the first Big Ten Conference game of the season. So let me get this straight....we are supposed to penalize NU and give Iowa a pass because of the date that the game was played on? Do the Washington Redskins say to the NFL, "Well you can't really count that first game of the year against the Giants because it was early in the season and we hadn't really hit our stride yet?" NO! Of course not!

And shouldn't this early season excuse apply to both teams? If Iowa hasn't hit its stride yet because it's early in the season, then by that logic, Northwestern hasn't hit its stride yet either. The point is, is that you have to play your games when you are scheduled to play your games, and you have to respect the result.

2) Iowa is reportedly slated to go to the Outback bowl over Northwestern because of the "relative prestige of the programs." So the argument here is that Iowa has a better (football) pedigree than NU, and therefore, because NU is not a well respected program, it will get pushed down in the pecking order, despite the team's on field accomplishments. This creates a vicious cycle -- NU lacks prestige and therefore won't be selected for this bowl, and by not being selected for this bowl NU is denied the opportunity to gain a measure of prestige, and this lack of prestige will prevent them from being selected into a better bowl, which will prevent them from gaining prestige, which will...well you see what I'm getting at.

If teams' on field accomplishments are pushed aside for this euphemism "prestige," it becomes very difficult for teams to change the public's perception of them....which brings me to my final point --

3) It's all about the MONEY!!! According to just about everyone, Iowa has a bigger fan base, Iowa will be a better draw on TV, and Iowa will put more butts in the seats. Plain and simple, it's about money. The bowl selection committee will choose the team that will bring in the dough.

As a sports fan of any kind, this should anger you. This is the worst reason of all to choose one team over another. This reason completely ignores ALL of this year's on field accomplishments and defers to the power of the one thing that college sports should not be about...the Almighty Dollar. Shame on the selection committee if this is ultimately the reason that they choose Iowa over NU.

This post is certainly not to discredit the accomplishments of the Iowa Hawkeyes. They had a great season as well, and knocked off Penn St., which is no small accomplishment. When you get right down to it though, I think NU has earned the right to the better bowl game.

I hope the predictions are wrong. I hope my Cats will get the respect they deserve this year. I hope the committee will make the right choice. And I hope to be watching my Cats on January 1st in Tampa, FL at the Outback Bowl.

And if you disagree....go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.

Welcome Sports Fans

2008-12-04T11:34:00.000-05:00

Face it; when it comes to sports we love to complain, second guess, scream at the TV, scream at the ref/umpire, and generally question any and every decision that's made by players, coaches, officials, management, and the sports media.

We can't help it. It's the inherent desire we all have to be in the positions that these people that we are questioning are in. Because we all know that if we were calling the shots....boy would things be different. And regardless of whether we're right or not, the point is is that it makes for great conversation. I know people (myself including) who could, and will, debate for hours over the most minute details, as long as it involves sports. It is just one more way for us to feel involved and connected with the teams we are so passionate about.

I started this blog with the intent of expressing my own personal opinions about, what I feel, are poor decisions made in the world of sports. With that said, I hope that everyone who reads this will leave their own opinions on the subject at hand. That's part of what makes sports and sports talk so exciting. Everyone has their own opinion. So go ahead and tell me I'm wrong, tell me I'm an idiot for thinking something, it just makes for better discussion.

Welcome to Sports Blunders and enjoy!