I-94 Sports

Win and Pray: The Twins and the Metrodome Make One Last Stand

2009-10-02T18:44:00.001-05:00

In April 1982, the Minnesota Twins took the field at the Hubert H. Metrodome for the first time.

Their odds of a pennant were slim: The team had finished in last place in 1981, and was destined for a repeat performance.

This weekend, the Twins take the field at the Metrodome for the last time.

Their odds of a pennant are slim: They’re stuck two games back with three to play. They They need a sweep and a few big favors.

The Twins can do two things right now: Win and pray.

But in its final days as a baseball stadium, the Metrodome can do a little bit more:

It can send off the home team in raucous fashion, and give the visitors a miserable three days in the process.

The Dome has never been a friendly venue for visitors. The turf is quirky. The roof is the same color as the ball. The ball doesn’t carry, and the wall is more of a tarp.

Oh, and it's really, really loud.

It's loud enough that players can't hear one another on the field. It's loud enough that Kirby Puckett described his ears ringing for days after big games.

During the 1987 World Series, the decibel level peaked at 125. In '91, it hit 117. That's loud enough to cause pain. It's the equivalent of revving a chain saw three feet away from your face.

Hey, there's a reason opponents can't stand the place. There's a reason the Twins scratched out 85 wins and playoff berth in '87 even though they went 29-52 on the road, or why they won 90-plus games four times this decade without topping 43 wins on the road.

When the Royals comes to town this weekend, the Dome will greet them with more than 140,000 fans. For Sunday's season finale, the curtain that covers parts of the upper-deck will be lifted, paving the way for some 55,000-plus fans to pack the house.

That's a lot of voices to cram into the Midwest's biggest echo chamber. And if Minnesotans rise to the occasion, Kansas City will hear every last one of them, loud and clear.

When umpires call strikes and balls, they'll need to use sign language.

When Trey Hillman makes a call to his bullpen, he'll need to use smoke signals.

And when presumptive Cy Young winner Zack Greinke toes the mound, he'll channel his inner John-Rhys Davies and ask, "Why does the floor move?"

I can't tell you what the Dome will sound like when Joe Mauer bats. Odds are good that fans in attendance won't be able to tell you, either—at least not until the ringing subsides long enough for them to ask.

Fans will get loud for the National Anthem. They'll get loud for the starting lineups. They'll get loud for the hot dog vendors.

They'll get loud for the scoreboard, too—provided the White Sox give them a reason to cheer.

Maybe the roof will be good for a lost pop-up. Maybe the noise will be good for a booted grounder. Maybe the baggie will be good for a Carlos Gomez Web Gem.

None of it might matter, of course. If Detroit takes care of business, Minnesota is done, and that's all she wrote.

All the Twins can do about it is win and pray.

All the Dome can do is make sure God can hear them.

Our NFL content has moved

2009-09-01T11:51:00.003-05:00

For the duration of the football season, our NFL content has moved here. Feel free to bookmark it, and don't be shy about clicking on those ads.

We'll continue to do NBA and MLB work here from time to time.

Don’t Take Your Guns to Town, Brett: How Favre Fits into the Vikings’ Offense

2009-08-21T18:53:00.007-05:00

Picture this one, Vikings fans: Bernard Berrian streaks down the sideline, the Metrodome crowd roars, and Brett Favre cocks his arm back, looking for a home run.

Thrilling? Hell yes.

Advisable? Heck no.

At first blush, Favre seems like the perfect candidate to give Minnesota’s passing game, ranked No. 25 last season, some big-play pizazz. He brings a cannon arm to an offense that features Berrian, whom ESPN’s Christoper Harris calls “a bomb waiting to go off,” and Percy Harvin, who is no stranger to the long ball himself.

Favre likes to throw long; they like to go long. Even in practice, he sends ‘em hard and he sends ‘em deep (that’s what she—er, Visanthe Shiancoe, said.)

The Vikings don’t need the Mighty Mississippian out there launching missiles, though. They need him wielding a scalpel.

The obvious reason is that Minnesota doesn’t need the turnovers that Favre’s aerial ambitions generate. There’s merit to that idea—but not as much as you think.

Nearly half of Favre’s league-leading 22 interceptions last year came on throws of 20 yards or longer. He attempted 57 passes in that range, and tossed up 10 picks to show for it.

That’s one turnover for every five-and-a-half deep attempts. Bad odds? Sure, but no worse than Gus Frerotte, who posted a nearly identical interception rate on long throws in his 11 starts, or Sage Rosenfels, who gave the ball away on one in six tries of 20 yards or more.

In other words, Favre throwing deep is a risk, but isn't really a downgrade.

(Tarvaris Jackson fans, now’s your chance to complain about leaving him out of the mix. Just remember what happens when you ask him to carry the load.)

The real reason Favre is best served sticking to the short stuff has as much to do with accentuating his positives as it does with eliminating his negatives. Simply put, he’s deadly from close range.

Even in a down year, Favre completed nearly 76 percent of his passes within 10 yards of the line of scrimmage last year. Those sound like “gimmes,” but they also make up around the vast majority of a quarterback’s throws—typically, around 70 percent.
Frerotte and Jackson connected on just 67 percent of short throws last year. If Favre had the same number of attempts they did, he would have completed about 27 more passes on short attempts alone.

Under the same conditions, he would have completed 15 more throws than Rosenfels, who made good on about 71 percent of his passes of 10 yards or shorter.

But Favre isn’t merely an upgrade over Minnesota’s lackluster collection of passers. When it comes to picking defenses apart underneath, he’s an artiste of the highest order. There isn’t a starting quarterback in the league—not Philip Rivers, not Peyton Manning, not even the oh-so-meticulous Chad Pennington—who was more efficient in short-yardage passing last season.

Any strong-armed quarterback can launch a rocket toward the end zone and hope for the best—heck, T-Jack could play that role just fine. It takes talent to play a dink-and-dunk game that controls the ball and moves the chains. Favre still has plenty to offer in that department.

So if Favre the gunslinger lands a few deep shots against the Chiefs tonight, cheer all you like—it’s a rush, after all, and a nifty highlight.

But save some applause for Favre the surgeon, too. When he starts slicing away, he’s got the tools to bleed the other guys dry.

For more on the Vikings, follow Marino on Twitter @MarinoEccher.

Say What You Want, But the Vikings Are Just More Fun with Favre

2009-08-18T18:29:00.019-05:00

Vikings fans are cheering. Packers faithful are jeering. Pundits are bouncing between, "Say it ain't so," and, "I told you so."

And Sage Rosenfels probably feels a lot like Ben Stiller in There's Something About Mary, standing in front of Cameron Diaz and wondering, "What the hell is Brett Favre doing here?"

There's a red No. 4 on the practice field at Winter Park today, and it's not John David Booty.

Surprised? Don't be. The only real shocker here is that Favre pulled such a clumsy "no means yes" routine to avoid training camp, when it would have been just as easy to dodge the Mankato State dormitories by postponing his decision until the team was back in the Twin Cities.

Beyond the time lost in camp, however, signing Favre makes as much sense today as it did three weeks ago. Brad Childress hit the nail on the head: "The same variables that made this a unique and positive situation previously, still exist."

In other words, Favre was the Vikings' best option at quarterback on July 28, and he still is. He was better than Rosenfels and Tarvaris Jackson then, and he's better now, too.

You can rip Favre for giving the team the run-around. You can rip Childress for going from "there's not a chance" to picking up Favre at the airport, leaving the quarterbacks with whom he vowed he was "going forward" in the dust.

But it's hard to rip the decision from a football perspective. As we examined last week, strong quarterback play is a key indicator of a Super Bowl contender.

There aren't 32 quality quarterbacks in the league right now. There may not be 16. If Favre is effective, he's one of them. If he isn't, Rosenfels will still be there, and the team will be no worse off than it is right now.

Some media outlets are just happy they got it right. The headline at FOXsports.com, where Jay Glazer predicted a Favre comeback yesterday: "Told ya so."

Some are convinced the team got it all wrong. SI.com's Peter King called the Vikings Favre's "enablers", and said both the player and the club are "making a mistake."

If they are, it may be the most profitable misstep in franchise history.

The front page of the Vikings' official Web site has been replaced by a banner bearing Favre's face that reads "Are you ready 4 some football?"—complete with links to purchase Favre jerseys and season tickets, of course.

The team's Ticketmaster site reportedly crashed under the sudden influx of traffic this morning.

The Metrodome's cheapest nosebleed seats for the Packers-Vikings game on Oct. 5 (face value: $30) are going for $200 each on Stubhub.com.

For the rematch at Lambeau on Nov. 1, the cheapest tickets will set you back $349 (or a cool $1,750 for six). Now that's a stimulus package.

Oh, and those Minneapolis stadium talks that have been frustrating the team for more than a year just might get a shot in the arm.

Think fans are getting jazzed up about the situation? Go check out the commentators Star Tribune's story, telling us that we'll see "Favre hoisting the Lombardi trophy (to the envy of all cheeseheads) in five months."

Then pop on over to the Green Bay Press-Gazette and listen to the faithful explain, "If you found out your wife was cheating on you, your kid was doing drugs, or your best friend was only using you for your money, you'd be feeling the same thing...that many people feel about Favre going to the Vikings."

Twin Cities sports radio host Dan Barreiro even tracked down Packers fanatic Carl Gerbschmidt, who may or may not exist. Gerbschmidt reported that he was drowning his sorrows at a bar in Chippewa Falls, Wisc., after setting the Favre-owned truck he won at an auction on fire.

This ought to be fun.

Everyone in Minnesota who took their shots at Favre for his love of attention might want to take a minute to bask in the glow of the cameras currently pointed at our state.

Doesn't that feel good? You start to understand why he enjoys the sensation. And nothing could have delivered that kind of spotlight like Favre.

So what the hell is Brett Favre doing here, anyway?

Is he trying to win another Super Bowl for his daughter, as he said in tonight's press conference? Is he trying to go out on his own terms? Is he just trying to play some football and put $12 million in the bank?

We don't know yet. But it's going to be a hell of a ride.

For more on the Vikings, follow Marino on Twitter @MarinoEccher.

For Vikings Fans, Love Doesn't Come Cheap

2009-08-16T12:55:00.011-05:00

When the Vikings made the trek to Indianapolis on Friday, team executives noticed how nicely the one-year-old Lucas Oil Stadium suited the Colts.

They made sure the Minnesota public noticed, too.

"This would be great in Minneapolis," said Lester Bagley, the team's vice president of public affairs and stadium development. "The frustrating thing is that the person that's working the hardest to get a deal done and keep the Vikings in Minnesota is [owner] Zygi Wilf.”

Translation: We'd love to build one of these ourselves, and it would be a shame if we had to do it somewhere else.

After a 48-year romance with the good people of Minnesota, those Vikings still know how to push our buttons.

They know we’re just a teensy bit insecure about a slicker, sexier city making a play for our purple pride. They know we’re still wary of losing a hometown team after Bud Selig tried to contract the Twins in 2002. And they know we love the Vikings enough to put up a fight for them when push comes to shove.

In this case, however, love isn’t a battlefield. It’s a stadium, and it costs $950 million.

That’s a lot of love.

For Vikings ownership, commitment issues are nothing new. Red McCombs toyed with the idea of moving the team to Los Angeles for profit. He kicked around the notion of moving it to San Antonio, his hometown, for fun.

When Wilf bought the team in 2005, he promised that his involvement with the Twin Cities was more than just a fling. Heck, when he vowed, “We will be in the Minneapolis area forever,” he practically dropped to one knee.

At this point, though, his words sound an awful lot like sweet nothings. Bagley said in February that if a stadium deal isn't done when other cities come calling, "it's not going to be a favorable outcome for the Twin Cities in terms of the long-term future for the club."

Why can’t the Vikings quit playing games (with our hearts)? Because they’re set to quit playing games in the Metrodome after the 2011 season. Once that lease expires, they're back on the singles market, looking for a shoulder to cry on and a place to crash.

The latest homewrecking suitor to throw himself at the team is California real estate developer Ed Roski, a billionaire who helped finance L.A.'s Staples Center.

Roski's come-hither trump card? A proposal for a privately financed $800-million stadium in Industry, Calif., 15 miles east of Los Angeles.

He's got a list of small-market teams with whom he's flirting. The Vikings are on it.

So far, the team has given him the cold shoulder. Apparently, he hasn't called lately (just what kind of a gentleman does that make him, anyway?).

But Bagley's comments on the stadium situation remind us that Roski and other out-of-town admirers certainly aren't out of the picture, either. There are still plenty of Casanovas out there with eyes for our beloved Vikes—and if we can’t tie the knot, somebody else will.

We’re fiercely loyal and faithful to a fault, but those qualities won’t be enough to keep the team by our sides. NFL owners aren’t romantics. They’re gold diggers. Wilf is in this business for the money, and it’s going to take money to get the Vikings to embrace the state the way the state embraces the Vikings.

Given the shortage of private investors lining up to invest a billion dollars into a downtown Minneapolis facility, most of the cash is going to have to come from public sources—around $700 million, by current estimates.

For a state facing a $4.6 billion budget deficit in the next fiscal year, that’s an awfully pricey wedding.

Should we pony up? You’ve got me on that one. Like most citizens, I hate the idea of using public money to make a rich man richer. Like most fans, I hate the idea of losing the team.

But that’s the dilemma Minnesota will face over the next two years. It’s the question all small-market fan bases face: How much love can we afford?

The answer could leave plenty of people with broken hearts.

For more on the Vikings, follow Marino on Twitter @MarinoEccher.

How Close to a Title Are the Vikings? Not as Close as You Think

2009-08-11T18:54:00.002-05:00

Whatever the Minnesota Vikings are putting in the Kool-Aid this offseason, it sure goes down smooth.

The team’s presumptive blueprint for success this year—run the ball, stuff the run, rush the passer, and turn Percy Harvin loose on the league—is an easy-to-swallow cocktail of conventional football wisdom.

Listen to the pundits talk about “a team that appears to be a competent quarterback away from winning the Super Bowl,” and the buzz sounds even better. It’s enough to make you stop asking how the Vikes are going to make the Super Bowl, and start wondering what the heck is going to stop them.

We’ve got Adrian Peterson! We’ve got Jared Allen! We’ve got the Williams Wall! How could this go wrong?

Well, we’ve got a few ideas. A quick look at the factors behind a typical championship contender reveals a few glaring holes in Minnesota’s title hype.

To be sure, the Vikings boast trophy-caliber elements in a few phases of the game. In the 39 years since the AFL-NFL merger, the average title game participant has finished around No. 9 in rushing and a little better than No. 8 against the run.

Minnesota clocked in at No. 5 and No. 1 in those categories last year. That’s good news.

But the average Super Bowl team also finishes right around No. 7 in passer rating. In fact, 80 percent of Super Bowl contenders finish in the top 10 in passer rating, while just 65 percent finish in the top 10 in rushing. Despite conventional wisdom, passing the ball efficiently is more important than racking up yards on the ground.

The Vikings finished No. 18 in passer rating in 2008—worse than all but seven of the 78 participants in Super Bowl history. That’s bad news.

Along the same lines, disrupting an opponent’s passing rhythm is almost as important as shutting down the running game: Super Bowl teams average league ranks of 7.78 in run defense and 7.93 in opposing passer rating.

Despite a top-five pass rush, last year’s Vikes finished No. 16 in defensive passer rating. That’s more bad news: Of the 39 teams who’ve won the Super Bowl, just four have allowed their opponents to pass the ball with comparable efficiency.

And for a team that hangs its hat on a stout defense, Minnesota falls short in the most important measure of a Super Bowl contender: The ability to keep points off the board.

The average Super Bowl team finishes between No. 6 and No. 7 in scoring defense. The average champion finishes a bit better than No. 5. Eighty-two percent of teams that are good enough to make the title game finish in the top 10.

Last year’s Vikings finished No. 13. Respectable? Certainly. Title-worthy? Not really.

Falling short of Super Bowl averages in a single category, or even a few categories, doesn’t knock a team out of contention. Plenty of teams compensate for shortcomings in one area by excelling in another (recall that the 2000 Ravens won it all with Trent Dilfer under center).

The Vikings’ real problem is that there is little precedent for success among teams that are terrific at stopping the run, but less successful in keeping opponents out of the end zone. Almost every Super Bowl contender built around a dominating ground game has also featured an elite scoring defense.

Just three teams have reached the title game that finished in the top five in rushing defense, but outside the top 10 in scoring “D”: The ’86 Broncos, the ’83 Redskins, and the ’92 Bills.

All of those teams finished No. 6 or better in scoring. All of them sent a quarterback to the Pro Bowl. All of them lost the Super Bowl, by an average margin of 27.6 points.

This year’s Vikings are only in a position to do one of those things.

So the next time somebody tells you the Vikings are a quarterback away from the Super Bowl, ask ‘em which quarterback (Brady? Montana? Tarkenton?) they have in mind.

Next time you hear about Minnesota’s championship-caliber defense, remind them that most opponents don’t run the ball on every down.

And the next time the Vikings offer you a glass of Kool-Aid, well, drink up and hope for the best—frankly, the season is more fun that way.

But don’t be surprised to find a few key ingredients missing.

For more on the Vikings, follow Marino on Twitter @MarinoEccher.

Adrian Peterson's Poundage and the Art of Saying Nothing

2009-08-03T14:03:00.004-05:00

Way back in April, when NFL Draft coverage was in full swing and the Minnesota Vikings had precious few headlines to offer, Adrian Peterson gave us something to talk about.

The league's leading rusher announced that he was looking to gain as many as 12 pounds in the offseason, pushing his playing weight to 230 "just to see how it feels."

It was the easiest media mini-frenzy he's ever incited.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune listened to him, tracking down a wary reaction from Brad Childress—"230 is awful big"—for good measure. So did USA Today. The Washington Post gave the comment a blurb.

Sports Illustrated ran with it, hunting down reactions from prominent NFL running backs about what the extra bulk could do to Peterson (lost speed, knee injuries) if he followed through and packed on the pounds.

And then he didn't.

When Peterson reported for training camp last week, he tipped the scales at 220, three pounds heavier than his playing weight last season. All the fuss was dedicated to extra junk that never made its way to AP's trunk.

Peterson said he learned his lesson: "Never talk about my weight, because it'll be something you hear about the whole summer," he told reporters at camp last Friday.

If he meant that, he missed the point. The real lesson here is that with a few choice words, a media-savvy star can reel in a boatload of offseason attention without lifting a finger.

The remark that started the whole ordeal—"God willing, I will get to 225, 230"—was a throwaway line. It was nonsense. It was fantasy. It was a daydream (Gosh, I wonder what it'd be like out there if I was a real big guy...) that Peterson happened to voice aloud.

He wasn't going to get to 230. That's bulldozer territory—Shaun Alexander, Fred Taylor, Deuce McAllister. If Peterson had rolled into Mankato looking like any of those guys, Childress would have had a heart attack.

He wasn't going to get to 225. Look at the man. Where are those extra pounds gonna go? Unless he borrows a page from the Pat Williams book of nutrition, he's carrying about as much punishment as his frame will allow.

None of that mattered. In the absence of actual Vikings storylines over the summer, weighing the pros and cons of a beefier Adrian Peterson was terrific fodder for football pundits.

His "goal" of playing at 230 was enough of a stretch to be easy to criticize, but not quite outlandish enough to dismiss as absurd. It was simple enough to market for public consumption, and specific enough to throw a smidgeon of analysis into the equation.

Feasible or otherwise, real or not, it's a softball of a topic that provides an easy fix for all those maniacs determined to keep football in the spotlight year-round.

Adrian, you don't need to learn to avoid dispensing these kinds of innocuous verbal gems. You need to learn to keep them coming.

Tell us you hope to catch 50 passes next year. Tell us you're aiming for 3,000 all-purpose yards. Tell us you want you throw five or six touchdowns out of the Wildcat. Tell us you're going to grow an 18-inch 'fro, "just to see how it feels."

Are any of those things going to happen? Nope. But if you don't think about them to hard, they sound like things that could happen. They sound just legitimate enough to write about—and make no mistake, we'll write about them.

You don't have to mean any of it. You just need to say it. Just put it out there and let a few media types run with it.

Will these kind of proclamations be the kind of thing "you hear about the whole summer?" You bet they will. And that's a good thing.

We get a few story ideas to tide us over until August. You get column inches dedicated to you and to the Vikings during a stretch on the calendar when football has no business being in the news.

There may be other ways to get that kind of attention—get a DUI, shoot yourself in the leg—but in terms of return on your investment, it doesn't get much cheaper than a passing statement about a made-up aspiration.

If you need inspiration, look no further than Shaquille O'Neal, the master of non-information himself.

Last September, Shaq-fu told us he was going to retire in exactly 735 days (never mind that that number would put the end of his career right at the start of the 2010 season). He told us Amar'e Stoudemire's new nickname was "Sun Tzu," and even let an Arizona Republic beat writer pick the moniker (never mind that nobody in their right mind has called Stoudemire that since).

He's not talking to make a point. He's not talking to make a difference. He's just talking to talk.

It's a gift, really. So keep talking, Adrian Peterson. We promise we'll listen.

Even if it turns out you're not really saying anything.

For more on the Vikings, follow Marino on Twitter @MarinoEccher.

The Vikings Shouldn't Burn the Brett Favre Bridge Yet

2009-07-30T14:23:00.003-05:00

Driving, e-mails to your boss, and quarterback decisions: It's best to steer clear of all three when angry.

Right now, the Minnesota Vikings have plenty of reasons to be angry.

They've been jilted at the altar by The Indecider himself. They've got too little quarterback talent on the depth chart and too many purple No. 4 jerseys on backorder. They just spent an entire summer making locker room-wrecking overtures, only to become the crash test dummies for the newest phrase in Brett Favre's vocabulary: "No more."

And the fans? If you stick your head out the window in Minneapolis, that sound you'll hear reverberating through the streets is the cacaphony of slammed doors that the Vikings faithful had propped wide open in welcome.

In a few fleeting ticks of the clock, the local barometer on Favre has swung from blissful to bitter.

Star Tribune blogger Seth Stohs declared, "The second that training camp starts on Friday should be the exact moment that Vikings leadership should delete Favre's number from their phones."

Columnist Jim Souhan opined, "Favre should be ashamed of himself for toying with an entire organization."

And while Favre hinted at the possibility that he'll consider a midseason return ("If someone calls Nov. 1, who knows?"), Brad Childress proclaimed, "There's not a chance from my standpoint. I'm going forward with the guys that we have."

Pump the brakes for a minute, Chilly.

You're still steamed about the Favre situation, no doubt. After waiting on him all summer, you want to sound firm and decisive to remind everyone who's in control. And you need to throw a some support behind the guys whose jobs have been hanging in limbo for months.

But before you say anything you can't take back about what will and won't happen, step back and take stock of the situation.

You're about to hold a quarterback competition between a journeyman backup and a project who has bounced between the starting role and the bench three times in the past two seasons.

You've got a stacked defense and a talented offense with a great big doughnut hole under center.

You didn't get any closer to a solution this week. "The guys you have" didn't get any better.

The difference between the 10-6 squad that got bounced from the opening round of the playoffs at home in January and the one taking the field in training camp this week is Sage Rosenfels, a handful of rookies, and a new special teams coordinator.

So like I said, let's not rule anything out just yet.

Believe me, I'm as irked about Favre as the next red-blooded Minnesotan. I saw him as a clear upgrade at the position. I thought he gave the Vikings the best chance to win.

When his arm isn't falling off, he's still a better passer than Jackson or Rosenfels.

When he's healthy and under control—as was did for the first two-thirds of last season—he's still a quality quarterback in a league in which quality quarterbacks are awfully hard to find.

Here's the thing: If that's true today, it'll probably be true on Nov. 1, too.

Of course, if the Vikes storm out of the gate 6-1, with T-Jack or Rosenfels looking sharp all the way, this will be a moot point. Nothing would put Favre in the past faster than a fast start.

But what if Minnesota stumbles early? What if they get hammered at home by Green Bay in Week Four? What if the quarterback situation starts messy and gets messier?

What if they're 4-3 as October winds down? What if they're 3-4?

At that point, it might be handy to have Favre waiting in the wings.

There are issues of pride, loyalty, and control at play here. There are hurt feelings and bruised egos. None of those things are especially helpful in making sound football decisions.

Brett Favre was a sound football decision on Tuesday. Unless Jackson and Rosenfels make leaps and bounds, he'll be a sound football decision in two or three months.

If the Vikings need him at that point, Brad Childress needs to pick up the phone.

Unless he deleted the number, that is.

Follow Vikings posts and updates on Twitter: MarinoEccher.

Dear Tarvaris Jackson: Time to Prove Us Wrong

2009-07-29T16:26:00.007-05:00

Dear Tarvaris Jackson:

It's been a rough year for you, big guy.

In January, you went 15-for-35 for 164 yards and a pick in a playoff loss at home.

In February, the Vikings imported a 31-year-old career backup to compete with you.

And from early May through yesterday afternoon, the team did its best to acquire a 39-year-old passer with a bum throwing arm to replace you outright.

Brad Childress said missing out on Brett Favre "doesn’t change anything about how I feel about our football team." Given that his recent pursuits don't suggest he feels all that hot about his chances with you under center, I'm not sure that's a good thing for you.

Local sports radio producer Darren "Doogie" Wolfson ranked yesterday's news as the third-biggest letdown in Minnesota sports history.

In other words, heading into this season with either you or Sage Rosenfels under center is third-worst thing ever to befall Twin Cities sports fans, right behind the '98 NFC Title Game and "41-doughnut."

Stop me any time here.

So your coach isn't crazy about you. Your fans aren't crazy about you. And if you put stock in reports that Adrian Peterson, Jared Allen, and Steve Hutchinson all lobbied Favre to join up even after he told the team he wasn't coming back, your teammates aren't all that crazy about you, either.

What are you going to do about it?

The way I see it, you've got two choices: Sulk and shrink from the occasion, or whip yourself into shape as the quarterback nobody seems to think you can be.

It sounds like a no-brainer. Nobody wants to throw in the towel. Nobody wants to show the doubters they were right.

But if option No. 2 were easy, we wouldn't have a list of quarterback washouts waiting on the tips of our tongues. Tim Couch, Joey Harrington, Cade McNown, Quncy Carter: It's not hard to find guys who started early, bounced in an out of the lineup, and never found their footing again.

For a man on the brink of joining the ranks of those who couldn't cut the mustard—and make no mistake, you're on the brink—there are a few obstacles to overcome that must be nothing short of maddening.

By all accounts, you're already working plenty hard. Some of your teammates even said you were having such a good offseason that all the Favre talk was nonsense. Now, you have to figure out how to work harder.

We have to imagine you already wanted the starting job. Now, you have to figure out how to want it more than the other guy.

Think Alice in Wonderland here: You're already going full speed to hang on to what you've got; if you want to get better, you need to go twice as fast.

Then there's the matter of repairing whatever damage your confidence has sustained. It's hard enough to believe in yourself after winning, losing, and regaining the No. 1 role in each of the last two seasons—now, you have to lead an offense in which a handful of the key cogs tried to lure someone else under center.

It's safe to say that none of those cautionary tales mentioned above intended to be busts. At one point or another, all of them undoubtedly tried to turn things around.

None of them did. That's another hurdle: The knowledge that some people work their butts off and fail anyway.

Starting to see where these situations take a turn for the worse? Feel like sulking yet?

The good news is that if you're still game for the self-improvement route, you've got a whole stack of motivational kindling piled high and ready to burn.

Every time the Favre debacle creeps into your mind, do an extra set in the weight room. Every time some idiot columnist picks Rosenfels to edge you out, put in an extra hour in the film room.

Memorize the playbook until you forget it. Focus on five or six throws and repeat them until your brain stops interfering with your arm. Print out a list of things that went wrong this offseason, tape it to the treadmill, and see if you get an extra mile or two out of it. Make the team drag you off the practice field kicking and screaming.

We're skeptics, not haters. We don't want you to fail. We just want somebody to lead this team to the promised land.

So far, all we've seen is a pet project that never quite panned out.

Prove us wrong.

Follow Vikings posts and updates on Twitter: MarinoEccher.

Antoine Winfield's New Contract and the NFL's Unique Brand of Loyalty

2009-07-26T13:44:00.008-05:00

In one sense, the NFL's non-guaranteed contract structure makes for the harshest send-offs in any professional sport.

A basketball, baseball, or hockey star may be locked in for tens of millions over multiple years even as he begins to fade. In most cases, players who fit that description and still have two working legs are guaranteed a roster spot as well, if only because their clubs are hesitant to pay them not to play.

In those sports, loyalty means giving a player a long-term that will almost certainly pay him more than he's worth late in his career. It's unlikely that Kevin Garnett will be a $21 million talent at age 36, for instance, or that Alex Rodriguez will be worth $27 million at 41, but for NBA and MLB clubs, overpaying for those twilight seasons is standard operating procedure.

Football players enjoy no such long goodbyes: When an aging gridiron warrior's salary outstrips his value, he's simply cut loose.

It happens to record-setting quarterbacks (Daunte Culpepper) and MVP rushers (Shaun Alexander), and defensive studs (Derrick Brooks). One season, you're the lining up under center in Honolulu; the next, you're lining up to collect unemployment benefits.

As far as personnel decisions go, "loyalty" is practically a four-letter word. Like I said, harsh.

From another perspective, however, the NFL's economic model lets teams take care of their own in a unique fashion: Write 'em a big check up front.

It's a lousy system for compensating high draft picks, who collect eight-figure bonuses before taking a snap. But it's a great way to reward veterans who can still play at a high level, without putting the franchise on the hook for a burdensome contract down the road.

Case in point: The extension the Minnesota Vikings hammered out last week with cornerback Antoine Winfield.

A 2004 free agent signee from Buffalo, Winfield holds a special place in the hearts and minds of Vikings fans as one of a handful of acquisitions that helped Minnesota end a long spell as a defensive whipping boy.

Last year, he became the first Vikings cornerback to make the Pro Bowl in 16 years, with two picks, two sacks, four forced fumbles, and a fumble return for a touchdown. He's tough. He's popular. He's gotten better every season since coming to Minnesota.

He's also 32, and heading into a contract year. In cornerback years, that's the beginning of the end. Deion Sanders retired (for the first time) at 33. Rod Woodson transitioned to safety at 34. Among active players, Champ Bailey qualifies as an elder statesman at the position—and he's 31.

In another sport, Winfield's situation would put the front office in the "lose him now or regret paying him later" bind described above.

In football, no such dilemma exists. The Vikings can reward Winfield for his services with a cool $16 million in guaranteed cash without hitching the team's wagon to his long-term health.

Who knows if Winfield will still be productive at 36, in the final year of his five-year, $36 million extension—and moreover, who cares? Minnesota's financial obligations to him go no further than the deal's bonus money.

If he's still humming a few seasons down the road, that's fantastic. If not, the team can shift him to nickel back after 2011 at a reduced price (an innovative feature of his extension), or part ways with him outright.

Winfield won't be thrilled if he gets cut, of course. Nobody likes to be out of a job (or at that point, what could be career).

But thanks to his new deal, he won't be broke, either.

For the NFL club, that's about as loyal as it gets.

The Yankees Are Back, and It's Good for Baseball

2009-07-25T02:19:00.003-05:00

Effin' Yankees.

Eight wins in a row, heading into today's game. Back on top of the AL East. Old-timers hitting like it's 1998. Shopping-spree free agents blazing a trail toward the pennant they were bought to win.

It's maddening. It's infuriating. It's bad for Boston, where Bucky Dent's middle name is alive and well nowadays. It's bad for the rest of the American League.

It's good for baseball.

Before I go on, I'll come clean: I own a Yankees cap.

It's one of two things I have in common with LeBron James, right alongside my ability to get dunked on by Jordan Crawford.

I got it when I was a kid. My two legitimate rooting interests—the Cubs and the Twins—were effectively unwatchable through the mid-to-late 90s, so I cut my teeth on a club that could deliver the goods.

I liked the classy, confident core—Paul O'Neill, Bernie Williams, and Tino Martinez. I liked Orlando Hernandez and the story of his defection.

I also liked a line-up that could knock the cover off the ball in Nintendo 64's pitching-challenged baseball romp, Mike Piazza's Strike Zone. The Bombers fit the bill.

In any case, I was more of an admirer than a fan. When Martinez drilled a grand slam in Game One of the '98 series, I was jazzed up. When Rivera blew Game Seven in 2001, I was more bemused than let down.

By that point, I was old enough to recognize that if you didn't live in Gotham, cheering for the Yankees was like cheering for the meteor in Armageddon. I wised up to Steinbrenner, the Evil Empire, and the buy-a-ring mentality reared its head after the dynasty years.

The Yankees' hex over the AL East (and over the Twins—a dynamic that survives today) got old. I pulled for Florida in 2003, and for Boston in 2004.

The $200 million investments that netted divisional series exits in return were easy to mock. The collection of mercenaries, malcontents, and has-beens Brian Cashman assembled—Sheffield, Giambi, Kevin Brown, A-Rod—was easy to hate.

It was healthy, really. The Yankees came to town, and you jeered. Rodriguez launched a bomb, and you jeered. Rogers Clemens announced his return from the press box, and you jeered. Your hometown heroes rose up against the Dollar-Sign Frankensteins, and it felt fantastic.

That's the way it should be. Sports, like all forms of entertainment, thrives on villains. Cheering for the little guy as he takes on the corporate establishment is one of the fundamental thrills of fan-dom.

In terms of high drama, it doesn't get much better than a 23-year-old kid in a Marlins jersey marching into The House That Ruth Built, taking the mound, and sticking it to The Man.

But in order for the story to be any good, The Man needs to be worth sticking.

As New York's dominance gave way to stagnation, and then to outright decline last season, it became disheartening to watch one of the cornerstone franchises in American sports devolve into a bad joke.

Watching Mariano Rivera, Derek Jeter, and the remnants of those title teams playing out their days for a runner-up—a wild-card team one year, out of the playoffs the next—was a sad sight. Watching Phil Hughes, Robinson Cano, and the rest of the "wave of the future" flail helpelessly was downright pathetic.

The Yankees weren't a team to loathe anymore. They were a team to pity. They looked like any other one-time contender: Aging, slipping, flawed. They'd gone from Darth Vader to Darth Fader.

That's bad for baseball.

Now?

Jeter, Posada, and Johnny Damon found the fountain of youth. Cano found his swagger. Hughes found the strikezone.

Mark Teixiera owns an OPS of .975 since May 1. A-Rod is making the case that he's off the juice by going deep once every 12 at-bats. CC Sabathia is making a push to lead the majors in innings pitched for the third straight season. New York is 21-5 since June 24.

The Red Sox are floundering. The Rays are an afterthought. The Blue Jays are done. The Yankees can't lose.

They're smug. They're despicable. They're eminently hate-able.

They're New York Effin' Yankees again.

Welcome back.

Clearing Out the Vikings' Impending QB Logjam

2009-07-21T14:08:00.008-05:00

With a glut of out-of-work veterans flooding the job market, it's tough for the unproven young guns out there to impress employers.

Just ask Tarvaris Jackson.

Six months ago, T-Jack was starting under center for the Vikings in a home playoff game. Today, he's sitting around wondering when his graybeard replacement will roll into town. If there's someone in Minnesota who isn't going ga-ga over Brett Favre this summer, odds are it's Jackson.

Rumor has it that Jackson will ask for a trade when the Favre signing becomes official. At this point, we don't know if that's true—and certainly don't know if it's prudent, given that Jackson still enjoys "pet project" status in Minnesota under Brad Childress that wouldn't travel with him if he sought greener pastures.

But we do know that by July 30, when Favre tells the world he's suiting up in purple (or July 31, when he decides for real, or Aug. 1, when he really decides for real, or Aug. 2, when he really for sure decides for real), the Vikings will be carrying three quarterbacks in Jackson, Favre, and Sage Rosenfels.

The latter two expected a shot at a starting job that assuredly will belong to the former come training camp. Unless the Vikes are keen on stockpiling bruised egos under center, something's gotta give.

What exactly is that someting going to be? Here's a look at a few scenarios that could shape the Vikings' QB depth chart this season:

Jackson Gets Moved If...

...the Vikings have already decided they prefer Rosenfels, and want to get some value out of a deal.

From my vantage point, Jackson's experience in Minnesota's offense and support from the coaching staff gave him the edge over Rosenfels before Favre came into the picture, so I'm not sold on the idea that the team is eager to ship Jackson out.

But some forces in the football universe—including fantasy wonks, who, in their drive to seek out the best information on a team's projected starters as early as possible, are not unlike gamblers—gave the nod to Rosenfels.

After all, the Vikes didn't bring Sage into the mix because they thought he was cute. Jackson's lackluster playoff outing inspired enough doubts that the team grabbed a second quarterback to compete for the job, and spent the offseason chasing a third one.

If either Jackson or Rosenfels has the inside track on what should now be the No. 2 job behind Favre, the front office havs been quiet about it. But if the team has had Rosenfels penciled in ahead of Jackson all along, they might see if Jackson—who is still just 26 and boasts plenty of physical tools—can fetch a mid-round pick or a role player in return.

Of course, any such move would leave Minnesota without a long-term plan at quarterback, but at this point, it's not clear that Jackson still fits that description.

Rosenfels Gets Moved If...

...the team doesn't think it can get him the preseason action he needs to back up Favre effectively.

Before the Favre courtship began, there were plenty of training camp snaps available to get Rosenfels acclimated in the offense and to hold a quarterback derby with Jackson if necessary.

But Favre will have plenty of work to do in camp himself. As often as we've heard him say he knows the offense he'll be stepping into, Childress' West Coast variant is two generations removed from the system Mike Holmgren ran in Green Bay. Favre also needs to develop timing with a first-team offense that includes two new linemen (John Sullivan and Phil Loadholt) and a rookie receiver in Percy Harvin.

Rosenfels and Jackson need that work, too, and with Favre around, both of them aren't going to get it. If Favre gets hurt or runs out of gas midseason, the Vikings needs a backup who is ready to step in and contribute right away. That might enough to tip the scales in Jackson's favor.

The trouble with shipping out Rosenfels before he gets a close-up is that a Favre injury would put the team right back where it started: Relying on Jackson to come through. The team also is unlikely to get equal value on the fourth-round pick it paid to get Rosenfels, so this move would be of the cut-your-losses variety.

Both Stay Put If...

...Favre drags his feet getting to camp, or needs more time to recover from surgery.

This scenario would say as much about the team's assessment of Favre's health as it would about Jackson and Rosenfels. If the Vikings are confident that they'll get 16-plus games from Favre, they should feel fine about moving one of the other two and taking their chances.

But the longer it takes Favre to get rolling in Mankato—or the longer it takes for his surgically repaired bicep to return to full strength—the better the odds that Minnesota will give both Jackson and Rosenfels a long look during camp, in case one of them ends up under center midway through the season.

If Favre limits his action during the first few weeks of camp while his arm rounds back into shape, the team could find the time it needs to hold an earnest Jackson-Rosenfels showdown (and to get Rosenfels up to speed in the offense, as mentioned earlier).

The real value in carrying both Jackson and Rosenfels into the season, however, is that the team would have the chance to see both in action against real opponents before choosing one or the other. Keeping both QBs would let the Vikings put all four of those otherwise-tedious preseason outings to good use.

Together, Jackson and Rosenfels will make around $2 million this season, so keeping both isn't cost-prohibitive.

After Favre crashed and burned two-thirds of the way through last season, one has to imagine that the Vikes have a keen interest in slotting a quality backup behind him on the depth chart. This scenario would allow them to take their time in doing so.

The casaulty here would be 2008 fifth-round pick John David Booty, the former USC passer (and current owner of Favre's No. 4) who has yet to see the field for the Vikings. Booty, the presumed third-stringer if Jackson or Rosenfels departed, would be cut or stashed on the practice squad (and free to depart as a free agent) if the team kept both.

Will the "Williams Wall" Case Sack the NFL's Labor Agreement?

2009-07-09T14:36:00.008-05:00

A few months ago, the biggest question surrounding the pending suspension of the "Williams Wall" was the blow it could deal to the Vikings' pass rush.

At this point, however, it's time to wonder whether a court victory by Minnesota's two star defensive tackles—whose suspensions were blocked again by a judge today—will land a knockout punch on the league's collective bargaining agreement.

When Pat and Kevin Williams (no relation) first drew four-game bans for testing positive for a banned diuretic last October, along with a handful of other players, the notion of toppling the NFL's doping policy via lawsuit seemed absurd.

After all, the rules were crystal clear: Put a banned substance in your body, and you sit, no matter how it got there or whether it was on the label. The Players' Association signed off on the policy as part of the collective bargaining agreement.

And really, that's just about the only way a drug-testing program can work. You need to leave complaints about tainted supplements, rogue physicians, and other "accidental" ingestion at the door. If you test clean, you're clean; if not, you're suspended.

As Bill Parcells might have put it, "You are what your urine says you are."

The league's drug policy may have plenty of other problems—HGH, designer steroids, suspensions for marijuana use—but until the Williams' case, ambiguity on the consequences of a positive test wasn't one of them.

In this case, the question that most impacts the NFL's doping rules is whether players can challenge the policy based on state labor laws.

Via federal appeal, the league hopes to establish that players cannot contest the drug tests. Winning that battle would be a big step in quashing further challenges to the policy.

But what happens if the NFL loses?

If some or all of the CBA's provisions become open to challenge in state court, the league's labor agreement effectively goes down in flames.

Even a relatively minor victory for the Williamses on the state level—a ruling that the league was out of line in stepping up testing after the first positive, for instance, or that the league is limited in its ability to discipline employees for using a legal product at a non-work location on their own time, would send CBA spiraling into chaos.

Drug testing could become a case-by-case quagmire. The Williamses have already staved off their suspensions for five games and counting—why wouldn't other players who felt slighted by suspensions employ a similar tactic to keep playing (and getting paid) as long as possible?

What about the code of conduct and the discipline Roger Goodell administers for incidents that take place off the field, outside of business hours? Is that up for debate, as well?

What about the financial side of the equation—roster cuts, the franchise tag, and the cap? If the CBA isn't ironclad at the state level, there are very messy questions to answer about how the league's labor agreement jibes with workers' rights under state laws, both in Minnesota and elsewhere.

In other words, the Williams' case could be the loose thread that unravels the NFL's entire labor relations structure.

Want to chew on a real doomsday scenario? Think about the ramifications across all pro sports if a precedent in which state court decisions can pick apart league labor agreements is established.

Ultimately, it shouldn't come down to that. The cut-and-dried nature of the league's drug policy should give the NFL the edge in the long run here, regardless of the circumstances surrounding who knew what about the contents of the diuretic in question.

Then again, most of us expected this case to be resolved much faster than it has been. The courts presiding over it clearly see some grey area in the NFL's substance rules, and at this stage, the outcome is no sure thing.

As a Vikings fan, I hate to lose the Williamses for a quarter of the season. But if the two do manage to dodge their suspensions, I don't relish the wider implications for the game.

Talking Ricky Rubio on Sports Overnight America

2009-06-28T16:10:00.006-05:00

Last night, I joined Pat Mauro of Sports Overnight America to talk Brett Favre, the Vikings, and the Timberwolves.

A transcript of the first part of our conversation, which covered Favre and the Vikings, can be found here.

This section covers our discussion on Ricky Rubio, the Timberwolves, and the differences in the paths young American and European stars take to the NBA.

Thanks again to Pat for the chance to chat.

Pat Mauro: Is Ricky Rubio ever going to suit up as a T-Wolf? How come he didn’t show up on Saturday?

Marino Eccher: …My first thought as soon as he was drafted and I heard that he was thinking about staying in Spain was that if he does not show up for the Timberwolves this year, it’s never gonna happen.

Now, I’m not quite sure if that’s the case. I do have a hard time seeing him ending up in a Timberwolves uniform, just because between him and Jonny Flynn, I think Rubio is the guy that other teams are really going to come after, and I think Rubio is the bigger trade asset.

In terms of them coexisting in the backcourt, I can’t see that happening. I can’t see any situation in which two guys who are clearly point guards and ball handlers are gonna share time on the court.

PM: He just turned 18 years old. I gotta believe a lot of Americans are saying, “Hey, if I gotta be 19 and a year out of college, how come this dude at 18 gets to come over here and play?”

ME: ...the other day I was wondering: Even LeBron James, at 17 or 18, he had to borrow against future earning to get his Hummer. Last year, Ricky Rubio made €300,000 to play basketball. He was 17.

So I think there’s certainly a disconnect there in terms of what’s acceptable to American college players and what’s acceptable to young European stars.

Now, are Americans going to start flocking to Europe to make their money early and to make a splash professionally rather than going to college? I don’t know. You look at European basketball, you hear these horror stories of guys not getting paid, guys not getting playing time, so I think it’s still very much an unknown world for American basketball players.

…But if you do in fact see a tipping point in the next five, 10 years where guys look at Europe as a more attractive option, that’s when I think you’re gonna start to see some reconsideration of the economic incentives for guys who stay domestic.

PM: You wonder how many guys in the next year or two are going to go the Brandon Jennings route. All I could think on Thursday watching the draft was, “This would probably be more interesting if there was some high schoolers involved.” Tyler Hansborough wouldn’t have gone 13 to the Pacers if there were some high schoolers available.

ME: …That’s an excellent point, and you mention Brandon Jennings—there was a young man out in California, his name escapes me, he’s a big man, who is skipping his senior year of high school to go play in Europe.

So it’s not just guys skipping college….again, this isn’t like a trend or a phenomenon yet, but it’s been done, where guys are saying, “Why should I play college ball, why should I play high school ball, when I can make five, six figures playing in Europe, and probably be more NBA-ready when I come out?”

PM: I feel so divided, too, because I’m such a college basketball fan, and I love the idea of these great stars, these great talents, coming and playing some college hoops for a couple of years, but at the same time, you look at like tennis players, and really any other sport, and there’s no age limit. If you’re a 15-year-old phenom in Tennis, you can go play Wimbeldon.

ME: …the great accomplishment of college basketball and college football—if you want to call it that—is that they’ve become these tremendously successful profit-churning industries that get all of their employees to work for free.

Now, obviously, you get some scholarships in there, it’s not quite as cut-and-dried as that, but you have to think that sooner or later, just with the amount of money that comes out of college basketball and college football…someone’s gonna look at that and say, “What the heck are we doing here? Why the heck would these young men agree to ply their trade, use their talent, to make somebody else a buck?”

Talking Favre on Sports Overnight America

2009-06-28T14:30:00.009-05:00

Last night, I joined Pat Mauro of Sports Overnight America in the wee hours of the morning to discuss Brett Favre, the Vikings, and the Timberwolves.

In case you missed it—or if 12:40 CDT was past your bedtime—the text of our conversation is below, with a little bit of my excess verbiage trimmed for the sake of brevity.

The Favre and Vikings chatter is covered here. You can read the T'Wolves talk here.

Special thanks to Pat—who was a terrific host—for having me on board.

Pat Mauro: Is Brett Favre going to be a Viking? It almost seems like every fan, everyone involved with the Vikings—unless your name is Sage Rosenfels—would like the sound of Brett Favre as quarterback of this team. Am I out there in saying that?

Marino Eccher: No, I think you’re pretty on-the-ball there, Pat. First of all, to answer your question, I do think barring a major setback with that arm, you are going to see Brett Favre in a Vikings uniform come training camp time.

And for the most part, I think the team is going to feel pretty good about that. Now obviously, that depends on which Brett Favre you’re getting.

If you get the guy who, through the first 11 games of last year, threw those 22 touchdowns, 13 picks, completed about 70 percent of his passes, well, it’s all good an gravy.

If you get the guy, who went 1-4 to close out the season, couldn’t make a throw to save his life, and ended up needing bicep surgery for a torn tendon, you’re going to have some problems with that.

PM: Thomas Jones said, “Hey, we lost because of Brett Favre,” and he ended up eating his words, because of that. He chose not to pursue that a little bit farther.

But the Jets were in pretty good position to go to the playoffs, and if you look at everything that happened those last four or five games, Brett Favre was basically the reason they didn’t go to the playoffs.

ME: I think it’s kind of a double-edged sword, because you look at the first two-thirds of the season, and it was Favre this, Favre that, the Favre experiment’s working, the team is 8-3. People are talking about, “Are the Jets gonna get a first-round bye?” People are mentioning the Jets as a Super Bowl contender.

But Favre fell off the wagon in a huge way in that last third of the season, completed fewer than 60 percent of his passes, two touchdowns, nine interceptions…he was really struggling to make throws that throughout his career had just been second nature to him.

Now, if he comes to the Vikings, you’re probably going to get that same kind of up-and-down feeling. Whether it’s deserved or not, at the end of this season, if you have Brett Favre quarterbacking the whole way, you’re going to say either it was Brett Favre who got them to the top of the mountain, or Brett Favre that could not do it.

PM: With the Jets, they wound up getting rid of Chad Pennington, who went to Miami and wound up having a really good year for them and appears to be there guy. In Minnesota, it was Gus Frerotte last year, it was Jackson, they ended up adding Rosenfels.

It’s almost like, even Brett Favre—and we don’t know what’s up with the shoulder, we don’t know if it’s 100 percent—but it’s almost like, “Brett Favre’s better than all those guys,” isn’t he?

ME: Absolutely…if Brett Favre is anything close to, not even his three-time MVP status, but if he’s anything close to what he was at the beginning of last year, or what he was in 2007 in Green Bay, he’s a tremendous upgrade over Rosenfels, he’s a tremendous upgrade over Tarvaris Jackson.

In regards to Rosenfels, you’re talking about a 31-year-old career backup, a guy who has been distinctly average over his NFL career. He’s a fine second option, he’s a fine veteran presence if you’re trying to push a young quarterback. But he’s not a long-term solution, he doesn’t have a lot of star power, and he does not have a tremendous track record of success.

When you talk about Tarvaris Jackson, you talk about a guy, who, last season, he threw nine touchdowns, two interceptions, you look at that and say, “Hey, maybe he’s coming along a little bit.”

….Jackson is a guy who only threw for about 117 yards a game last season. What that tells you is the Vikings were not comfortable putting the ball in his hands. It tells you that they did not think he was the guy who could win games.

And toward the end of the year, with that season finale against the Giants, the Vikings needed that to clinch the division, and in that playoff game against the Eagles, Jackson did not look good.

So if you’re got Favre anything close to healthy, if you’ve got an arm that’s anything close to working, you certainly have to look at him as a dramatic upgrade over the position as it stands right now.

PM: If he’s healthy, you figure that the majority of the time, he says, “Hike,” and gives the ball to Adrian Peterson. Adrian Peterson’s going to be carrying the load, and that takes a lot of pressure off whoever the quarterback is

…We know Brett Favre’s getting older, it’s not the Brett Favre of a few years back, but if it’s just the Brett Favre of the first 11 or 12 games with the Jets last year, this is a better Vikings team than they were last year.

ME: And I think that’s going to be be the case. Now, what you have to wonder about a little bit is putting Favre in that situation and saying, “OK, you’re the second fiddle on this offense to a feature back.”

Because really, throughout Favre’s career, that’s not really happened. He has always been the focal point of the offense, and he’s never lined up in front of somebody who’s a bigger name than he is.

In Green Bay, Ahman Green had a couple of good years. Favre’s last year there, Ryan Grant kind of game on late. But he’s never shared the backfield with a star running back.

It’s going to be interesting to see, if he ends up in Minnesota, if he’s comfortable in a system where he’s not asked to carry the load, where he’s not asked to win the game by himself, where he’s just asked to kind of get out of the way and make the throws when he needs to make ‘em. It’s going to be interesting to see if that famous Favre ego can handle that.

PM: Do you get the feeling that if this doesn’t happen—and I think we all get the feeling it is going to happen—but if it doesn’t happen, the Minnesota faithful are going to be greatly disappointed?

ME: Well, I think at this point, there will certainly be a letdown, because over the last couple weeks, month or so, it’s been kind of an open secret that if everything is alright medically, Favre is gonna end up with the Vikings. Over the last week, you’ve seen reports pop up from a couple of different sources, you’ve seen reports pop up from Minnesota’s KFAN that there is a contract in place, and that it’s all but a done deal.

So now that it’s come this far, I think that yeah, if Favre doesn’t end up being the guy, Vikings fans are gonna come down off that high a little bit, because they’re not sold on Tarvaris Jackson, and I don’t think they’re convinced that Sage Rosenfels is anything special.

PM: Rosenfels put up some pretty good numbers with the Texans, but how much of this with the Vikings organization is about, “Hey, Brett Favre gives up the best chance of winning,” versus, “Brett Favre’s gonna put a lot of seats in the stands.”

ME: ...I don’t think there’s any question in their minds that Favre gives them the best chance of winning.

I think there is something intoxicating about the idea of bringing him on board. I think it creates a buzz. I don’t know that the Vikings have a whole lot of trouble putting butts in the seats, so to speak…but I think there’s something about Brett Favre that makes both the organization and fans stop and say, “Wow, that would really be something special to have going on this year.”

PM: Do you ever wish as a Vikings fan that they played in an outdoor stadium?

ME: You know, I don’t. I’ve spent a little too much time in the winter in Minnesota to wish that rationally, and when Zygi Wilf came out a couple years ago and said, “Let’s get an outdoor stadium,” I said, “Great, I’m gonna get a plasma; I will be very comfortable at home if that’s the case.”

And I think Brett Favre would not be thinking about this as seriously as he is if the Vikings played outdoors, because over the last couple years, we’ve seen that that reputation of his as an outdoor quarterback, as a guy who just loves to mix it up in the elements, is not what it used to be.

He did not look comfortable—even dating back to that last playoff game in Green Bay in 2007, he had a couple of bad games last year outdoors, so I think playing indoors this year can only be good for Brett Favre at this point.

PM: You know, we all love Brett Favre, Brett Favre’s a great ambassador for football, as long as Brett Favre continues to play, I’ll be a fan of his, but do you ever get the impression that Brett Favre is a little bit overrated?

You talk about the playoff game a couple years ago, throwing the pick against the Giants. He’s thrown a lot of crucial picks in the playoffs. I know he’s done a lot of great things, there’s no question, he’s obviously a Hall of Famer, but do you think because we all like Brett Favre so much, that when you get right down to it, he’s a little overrated?

ME: ...I don’t think there’s any question that this point that with all the love that’s been heaped on Favre throughout the years, that he is kind of riding a little bit on those ’95, ’96, ’97, really magical seasons…and on the “good old boy” stuff—everybody likes his, “Aw, shucks,” and “He’s a gamer,” “He loves to play the game,” and I think he’s earned that.

I think he certainly has a little bit of an overrated stature at this point. Now, it’s hard to say, because I think that’s kind of a common sentiment, so it’s hard to say when a guy goes from being overrated to being underrated simply because of that backlash.

Ricky Rubio: How Much Pro Hoops is Too Much?

2009-06-19T16:52:00.003-05:00

Ricky Rubio is certainly wise beyond his years.

He cracked Spain's professional league at age 14. He debuted in Euroleague play three days after his 16th birthday.

Even a teenage LeBron needed to borrow against future earning to land his first Hummer—at the same age, Rubio was making good to the tune of €80,000 a season. While American prep stars were making college visits and trying to figure out where John Calipari was headed, Rubio was squaring off against Kobe and the Redeem Team in Olympic play.

But should the 18-year-old phenom's NBA suitors be concerned about his mileage?

The side story to Rubio's career arc, precocious to an unprecedented degree, is that he has logged an equally unprecedented workload of games and minutes at a tender young age.

In four seasons Spanish professional club with DKV Joventut, Rubio has 136 games and nearly 2,700 minutes of playing time under his belt.

Thirty-four games a year doesn't sound so different from a high school/AAU schedule, but those totals are skewed by a wrist injury that forced Rubio to miss significant time this season. In the 2006 and 2007 seasons, Rubio totaled 49 and 50 club games, respectively.

That doesn't include his stints with Spain's Under-16, Under-18, and senior national teams in international play, all of which have included runs to the championship rounds. In short, Rubio has been playing year-round basketball for the past three seasons.

Most of those games weren't "look what I can do" showcases against his peers, or even college-level competition—they were mano e mano affairs with fully grown pros, guaranteed to leave a few souvenir bruises.

If prep-to-pro stars start to decline early as their pro basketball odometers climb (ESPN's Bill Simmons is big on this theory), where does that leave Rubio, who has already been put through the paces harder than most college players?

Indeed, Rubio will enter the league with perhaps more wear-and-tear on his body than any 18-year-old who has come before him.

This shouldn't necessarily discourage teams from investing in him. Questions about his longevity are still a decade or more away from rearing their head in earnest, and his head start on professional experience should make the transition into The Association a little bit easier.

But Rubio's development will be a fascinating case study in just how many high-level basketball games a body can handle.

By the time Rubio grows into his body, he'll be a four-year veteran with nearly 500 pro games behind him between the U.S. and Europe. He'll enter his prime having played 800 games already, and pass the 1,000-games mark around age 29.

That doesn't include playoff appearances (and it's remarkably difficult for an NBA club to miss the postseason for a decade straight) or international activities.

By age 30, he'll have played more regular-season pro games between Europe and the U.S. than either Steve Nash, 35, or Jason Kidd, 36, currently have on their odometers.

If Rubio plays as long as either of those old-timers, he's a virtual lock to pass John Stockton for the most games ever played by a point guard (1,504). Of course, that's getting more than a little ahead of ourselves—whichever team drafts Rubio likely will be happy if he doesn't hit the wall by 31 or 32.

The franchise that tabs Rubio tonight—Oklahoma City, Sacramento, Minnesota, or some yet-unknown Draft Day mover—will look to the young passer to lead a fresh start.

They'd better hope he doesn't come with an early expiration date.

The Five Worst Champions in NBA History

2009-06-18T13:35:00.002-05:00

Not all NBA champions are created equal.

Some steamroll to the title, sneering at anyone that stands in their way—your '96 Bulls, your "Fo', fo', fo'" Sixers.

Some hover near the top for a decade, emerging from the pack now and then to claim the crown—your 80s Lakers or modern-day Spurs.

And some leave you wondering, "How the heck did they pull that off?"

To be sure, the pantheon of The Association's banner-winners is dominated by powerhouses. Pro basketball is almost certainly the most dynasty-driven of all major sports—42 of the NBA's 63 titles belong to the Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, and Spurs.

More often than not, titles come in pairs or bunches, and teams that reach the top of the food chain tend to stay there for a while.

That trend of sustained dominance, however, makes the occasional head-scratchers and party-crashers all the more fascinating. We scoured the record books for the scoop on the flash-in-the-pan champs that dot NBA history.

Before we get into the verdicts on how those teams stack up, a few notes on the criteria:

-Regular-season record, playoff record, and point differential all count.

-A team's body of work counts. The 1995 Rockets, for instance, got a little slack for going back-to-back, even though their 1994-'95 campaign wasn't spectacular by itself.

-Star power counts. We considered All-Stars, All-NBA selections, and Hall of Famers as mitigating circumstances for otherwise unimpressive clubs.

-We looked as far back as the 1976 ABA-NBA merger. If you want to go further, go for it—we didn't.

With that in mind, here are a look at the five worst teams ever to be crowned the NBA's best:

5. 1995 Houston Rockets

Vitals: 47-35 regular season, 15-7 playoffs, plus-3.1 point differential

With the second-worst record and fourth-smallest point differential of any post-merger champions, these Rockets didn’t quite put together a complete season. They’re the lowest seed ever to win it all (No. 6), and like it or not, they made their mark in a league that was missing a certain someone.

A few factors kept this squad from climbing higher on the list. Consecutive titles are an accomplishment regardless of the circumstances. The roster also boasted a pair of Hall of Famers in Clyde Drexler and Hakeem Olajuwon. Hakeem was an all-star that year, and both he and Drexler made the All-NBA third team.

Moreover, Drexler was acquired at midseason, so we’re willing to accept the premise that the Rockets needed time to gel with him in the mix.

The 1976 Boston Celtics (54-28 regular season, 12-6 playoffs, plus-2.3 differential) narrowly missed the cut here. We give ‘em credit for a 1974 banner, as well as Dave Cowens and a fading John Havlicek.

4. 2004 Detroit Pistons

Vitals: 54-28 regular season, 16-7 playoffs, plus-5.4 point differential

At this point, it’s safe to categorize these Pistons among the one-and-done champions. After the 1983 Sixers, Detroit is probably the best team of that bunch (we’re not counting last year’s Celtics as one-timers just yet), but it’s tough to earn love in this league without an encore.

The 2004 Pistons may be the least star-studded of any NBA champion. Their top scorer—Rip Hamilton—poured in just 17.6 points per game. Chauncey Billups was still considered something of a journeyman, and their lone All-Star representative was Ben Wallace, who also made the All-NBA second team.

After acquiring Rasheed Wallace at the trade deadline, Detroit finished the season on a 20-4 rampage, and disposed of the heavily favored Pacers to win the East before toppling the dysfunctional Lakers in the Finals.

If the Pistons had managed to upend the Spurs in Game Seven the following season, they’d go down in history as the second coming of the Bad Boys. Instead, they came up short in the bid for a repeat, and lost in the Conference Finals three straight times, earning a reputation as a team that was only good enough once.

3. 2006 Miami Heat

Vitals: 52-30 regular season, 16-7 playoffs, plus-3.9 point differential

Miami actually had many of the bona fides of a memorable champion: A Hall-of-Fame coach in Pat Riley, a still-spry Shaq, a superstar in Dwyane Wade, and a talented cast of role players. Both Wade and O’Neal were All-Stars, and both got All-NBA nods (first team for Shaq, second for Wade).

Two things relegate the Heat to this spot on the list. First, Miami benefited tremendously from one of the worst-officiated Finals we’ve ever seen. In the three games of the series that were decided by three or fewer points, the Heat shot a total of 46 more free throws than the Mavericks.

In Game Five, with the series tied 2-2, Dwyane Wade attempted 25 foul shots—as many as the entire Mavs team. In Game Six, he got 21 tries from the stripe, while Dallas, collectively, managed just 23.

There were plenty of other factors involved, but it’s tough to marvel at a championship that was influenced so heavily by an enormous disparity in officiating.

The second reason is that this team was about as flash-in-the-pan as they come. Miami enjoyed two seasons of serious contention: 2005, when it lost the conference finals, and 2006. Even 1979 Sonics died a slower, less agonizing death.

In 2007, the team went 44-38 and got swept out of the playoffs in the first round. The year after that, the team posted a 15-67 record and stopped trying to win games sometime around January. Most champs fade slowly—the Heat flamed out.

2. 1979 Seattle Supersonics

Vitals: 52-30 regular season, 12-5 playoffs, plus-2.7 point differential

Taking a shot at the only banner Sonics fans have to celebrate from their departed franchise seems mean-spirited, but this team wasn’t quite one for the ages.

The point differential was that of a 48-win club. Jack Sikma and Dennis Johnson both made the 1979 All-Star team, but Johnson was the only player on the roster who earned an All-NBA selection at any point in his career.

To Seattle’s credit, allowing opponents to shoot 46.3 percent and score 103.9 points per game was the gold standard of defense in that era—both of those marks led the NBA. The Sonics’ 52 wins were good enough for the best record in the West, and only three teams in the league won 50 or more that season.

This was head coach Lenny Wilkens’ second consecutive trip to the Finals with Seattle. He never made it back again.

1. 1978 Washington Bullets

Vitals: 44-38 regular season, 14-7 playoffs, plus-0.8 point differential

The Alvin Hayes-Wes Unseld Bullets were a fickle bunch. In 1975, the team won 60 games and lost the Finals under K.C. Jones. In 1979, they won 54 and lost the Finals again.

In between, Washington failed to top 50 wins. Statistically, the 1978 season was the team’s worst effort of the stretch. Although 44 wins were somehow good enough for the No. 3 seed in the East at the time, the Bullets outscored their opponents by less than a point per game. They posted the lowest win total and worst differential of any post-merger champion.

Six players on this squad averaged double figures in scoring, but Hayes was the team’s lone All-Star and All-NBA representative. Unseld was well past his prime, and the team’s other standouts—Bob Dandridge, Mitch Kupchak, Phil Chenier, Kevin Grevey—were all of the “good, not great” variety.

A title is a title, and even these Bullets didn’t stumble into one by accident. But if Bird and Magic saved the NBA in the 80s, the “classic” Washington-Seattle duels that closed out the 70s were one of the reasons it needed saving.

Kevin McHale: Gone but not Forgotten

2009-06-17T14:23:00.003-05:00

Apparently, it’s hard not to like Kevin McHale.

His players liked him. People who interviewed him liked him.

And for a long, long time, his boss, Timberwolves owner Glen Taylor, really liked him.

But if you’re a Wolves fans who followed the team through McHale’s 15 years with the organization, finding a few unkind words to describe the man they called “The Ostrich” might be a little easier.

Where to begin?

As a GM, he spent first-round picks on milk-carton cases like Paul Grant, Will Avery, and Ndudi Ebi.

He came out on the wrong end of two draft-day swaps, shipping out Ray Allen in favor of Stephon Marbury (who later forced his way out of Minnesota), and flipping Brandon Roy for Randy Foye.

He presided over the worst front-office scandals in sports that nobody talks about: The 2000 debacle in which the league stripped the Wolves of five first-round picks (one of which was later restored and turned into Ebi) after discovering that the team had an under-the-table deal to offer a huge future contract to...Joe Freaking Smith.

He paid the Clippers a first-round pick to take a disgruntled Sam Cassell off his hands, giving six years and $38 million to Marko Jaric in the process. He threw six years and $34.6 million at Troy Hudson after a single productive playoff series.

He signed Michael Olowokandi—on purpose.

When these moves somehow failed to produce a consistent winner, McHale took three different coaches to the chopping block. He axed Flip Saunders a season after his run to the Western Conference Finals and took over himself.

He hired Dwane Casey for a season and a half. Discontent with the team's 20-20 record, McHale whacked him too. McHale opted instead for Randy Wittman, who went 12-30 the rest of the way, en route to a 39-115 showing over a season-plus at the helm.

Wittman and McHale also presided over the club’s defining moment of the post-Garnett era: An April 2006 tank job against Memphis in which backup center Mark Madsen went 1-for-15 from the floor (and 0-for-7 from behind the arc) to secure a loss for draft position purposes.

When it came time to fire Wittman after a 4-15 start last year, McHale somehow managed to convince Taylor that the three coaches he had hired and fired—not the GM who had hired and fired them—were the real problem.

Back to the sidelines McHale went, losing eight straight games before going on a 13-10 "tear". That was just enough to ruin the team’s draft position in a season wasted by injuries to Foye, Al Jefferson, and Corey Brewer.

After enduring a 5-25 start, fans got to sit through an 8-28 finish. Minnesota posted the worst record in the NBA in three of the season’s five full months (December, February, and March).

It’s not surprising that new Wolves GM David Kahn decided to part ways with McHale going forward—It’s surprising that it took him three different meetings to make the break.

Keeping McHale in the fold would have been a slap in the face to the dozen or so Minnesotans who haven't left this team for dead yet. Letting him go is the first step toward putting the past few years of misery in the rear-view mirror.

McHale told the Minneapolis Star Tribune that Kahn “didn't really give me any reasons” for the decision.

We can think of a few.

Phil Jackson: Suitable for All Ages

2009-06-15T02:41:00.006-05:00

Eleven years ago, in the wake of Phil Jackson's second three-peat, the front-page headline of the Chicago Tribune proclaimed "The Joy of Six."

How about the Power of 10?

There are plenty of ways to quantify Jackson's brilliance. He's won more titles and more playoff games than anyone else. He owns the NBA's highest winning percentage ever in both the regular season and the playoffs.

But if you're cataloguing Jackson's accomplishments, don't forget one that puts him in the rarest of coaching company: The ability to climb to the top of the mountain in multiple eras.

By my count, Jackson has now hoisted the trophy in three different eras: Jordan, post-Jordan (the Duncan era?), and post-hand checking (the LeBron era, if you're so inclined—or the "one-and-done" years).

The particulars of that third era are open for debate, but any way you slice it, Jackson has won titles in three periods that featured distinct tactics and styles of play.

He rose above the physical grind of the early 90s. He thrived in the isolation-dominated years that followed the '99 lockout. And he just putting the finishing touches on a title in the hands-off, three-ball-obsessed landscape of the modern game.

Just how long has it been since Jackson's first title?

In 1991, Arnold Schwarzenegger topped the box office in Terminator 2. Mariah Carey's self-titled debut album topped the Billboard sales charts. The Lakers still shared the spotlight with the Los Angeles Rams.

To put it another way, Jackson is one season away from being able to show incoming rookies championship rings that he earned as a coach before they were born.

The only NBA comparison that comes to mind is Pat Riley, who won the last of his four "Showtime" Lakers titles in 1988 before commandeering the Heat at midseason en route to the 2006 crown.

Just one other coach has won a title with multiple teams: Alex Hannum, who did so with the St. Louis Hawks in 1958 and the 76ers in 1967 (try saying that one three times fast).

After that, everybody else—Red Auerbach, John Kundla, K.C. Jones, you name 'em—did so in one run.

Outside of Jackson, Riley, and Hannum, the only other multiple-title winner who has gone more than two seasons between rings is Gregg Popovich. Pop certainly deserves credit for winning four championships over a nine-year period with two different groups (one with David Robinson and one without).

But in terms of cross-decade dominance, Jackson—with six titles in the 90s and four in the 00s—stands alone.

The NBA isn't the only league where that kind of staying power is hard to find. In the history of the NBA, NFL, NHL, and MLB, just 14 coaches or managers have won multiple championships with a decade or more in between.

Only five coaches or managers across the four major North American sports have won titles with multiple teams. And if Jackson wins another title (or starts another three-peat, for that matter), he'll join football's George Halas and hockey's Scotty Bowman as the only pro sports coaches to earn championship banners in three different decades.

Plenty of coaches who enjoy tremendous success in one era can't find their footing in the next.

Lenny Wilkens won a title in 1979, but got out of the second round just once over the next two and a half decades. Chuck Daly's comeback attempt with the Magic netted him a lottery season and a first-round exit. Rudy Tomjanovich missed the playoffs in his last five seasons as a coach.

Even Riley admitted upon retirement that in his view, "This game is now about younger coaches who are technologically skilled, innovative and bring fresh new ideas."

In other words, No Coaching For Old Men.

Except for Jackson, of course.

One has to wonder if Arnold and Mariah are jealous.

You Want Irresponsible Steroid Speculation? You Got It

2009-06-11T12:53:00.007-05:00

At this point, we all know that Raul Ibanez blew a gasket over a blogger's suggestion that we have to consider the possibility that performance-enhancing drugs were involved in his new-found power surge.

And we know that FOX Sports writer Ken Rosenthal threw his own two cents into the ring, taking Jerod Morris—the blogger in question—to task on ESPN's Outside the Lines.

We could spend all day on Rosenthal's argument: "All players today must face this kind of scrutiny because of all that has happend in the past. But when you get specific, when you start naming names, that's where I have a problem."

So we can be suspicious of everybody—we just can't be suspicious of anybody in particular.

Right on, Ken.

We could also go on at length about how the blog post that started all of the hubbub was in fact quite reasonable and measured.

The closest Morris came to accusing Ibanez of wrongdoing?

"Any aging hitter who puts up numbers this much better than his career averages is going to immediately generate suspicion that the numbers are not natural, that perhaps he is under the influence of some sort of performance enhancer."

The capper of the post?

"It will be a wonderful day when we can see a great start by a veteran like Ibanez and not immediately jump to speculating about whether steroids or PEDs are involved. We certainly are not at that point yet, however."

But judging from the reaction Morris invoked—"It's wrong, it's irresponsible, and it needs to stop," according to Rosenthal—reasonable and measured don't seem to play too well nowadays.

Instead, we're going to give Rosenthal a lesson in irresponsible speculation.

Raul Ibanez could be using steroids.

So could Joe Mauer.

And Miguel Tejada.

And David Aardsma.

And Bobby Abreu.

And Alfredo Aceves.

Catch my drift?

Derrek Lee could have used them.

And Albert Pujols.

And David Ortiz.

Barry Zito. Ben Zobrist. Joel Zumaya.

See what I'm saying?

Could be anybody. Could be everybody.

At this point, we've been duped by everyone from minor league pitchers to major league sluggers. We've been fooled by skinny relievers and brawny outfielders alike.

Jason Giambi looked like he was on steroids. He was.

Andy Pettitte didn't look like he was on steroids. He was.

Denials mean nothing. They're mandatory. A-Rod denied it. Rafael Palmeiro wagged his finger at Congress. Didn't matter—guilty and guilty.

It doesn't have to be a star. It doesn't have to be an outlier. Juan Rincon? J.C. Romero?

It's not fair to the random list of players I threw out here. It's not fair to Ibanez. I don't have evidence on any of them.

I'm not saying they used. I'm saying they could have. Anybody. Everybody. That's the lesson we took away from the last few decades.

Fair or otherwise, baseball has made it very, very difficult for us to believe that anyone is doing it the right way, even if most players are.

Testing doesn't make us feel better. Barry Bonds never failed a drug test. You can cheat 'em. You can beat 'em. This isn't a "pee in a cup, problem goes away" situation.

Ballplayers: You want to blame somebody for our skepticism? You want to lash out and call for accountability when we question you? Blame your peers. Lash out at the guys who did it. Find a way to hold them accountable.

Because they ruined it for us, and they ruined it for you. For years, we watched players make crazy jumps in power and performance, and went along for the ride without batting a critical eye.

We've already been suckers. We've already felt like idiots for cheering on hulked-out heroes. We've already been burned six ways from Sunday. We let you rip our hearts out once, and we don't intend on going through it again.

Irresponsible to ask? Irresponsible to wonder? At this point, it's crazy not to.

And—with apologies to Rosenthal—it's awfully difficult to do so without naming names.

Memo to Cubs Fans: You Gotta Get Mean

2009-06-10T16:01:00.001-05:00

On the whole, Chicago Cubs fans are a gentle bunch.

That willingness to boo that gives White Sox supporters a little extra bite? It just isn't our style.

That penchant for mass collective sarcasm that Yankees fans have perfected? Not our cup of tea.

Sure, once in a while, we have a "getting drunk and throwing garbage on the field" problem. And certain segments of the bleachers are reputed to have a bit of a racism problem.

But we don't have an anger management problem.

It's time to work on that.

You see, this whole "Friendly Confines, friendly folks" routine is sending the wrong message. It says we're OK with the status quo. It says we're cool with the one-and-done playoff appearances, fine and dandy with the 101 years and counting since we won the You Know What.

There's a difference between wanting a championship and demanding one. Right now, we're still stuck on the former.

That's understandable—after all, insisting upon a title from a team that took a century to make consecutive postseason appearances is a bit like insisting upon a backflip from an infant who just learned to walk.

After the 2006 nightmare, we mustered the gumption to call out the Tribune Company for running the Cubs like a cash cow instead of a big-market contender. Management responded with an encouraging (if ill-executed) spending spree.

We got Lou. We got a pair of a playoff berths. We got this thing moving in the right direction.

But we haven't quite got it right yet. As the North Siders have stumbled through a disappointing first third of the season, we're falling back on old, forgiving habits.

We're hemming about how Alfonso Soriano is bound to heat up soon.

We're hawing about how Milton Bradley will find his groove as soon as he gets healthy.

We're making excuses for why Derrek Lee has as many home runs as Mike Fontenot. We're convincing ourselves that Rich Harden will come back guns blazing (and stick around for the rest of the season).

And we're still filling up Wrigley like nobody's business, to the tune of a 96.1 percent attendance rate—No. 3 in baseball.

Admittedly, in an era of $60 tickets purchased months in advance, expressing displeasure at a franchise by staying away from the ballpark in nearly impossible. It's unreasonable to expect fans who dropped a pretty penny on seats for a should-be contender to scrap their plans because Geovany Soto forgot how to hit.

But if we must go, let's not be shy about voicing a little vitriol toward the home team when the ugly foibles of this lineup—a stunning inability to handle soft-throwing lefties, a doomed love affair with sliders in the dirt—rear their ugly heads.

And for the love of Ernie Banks, let's try not to repeat our lemming-like pilgrimages from 2002 or 2006, when we rewarded teams that lost 90-plus games with the fifth- and second-best attendance in baseball (by percentage), respectively.

That kind of behavior simply tells the new ownership that we'll buy whatever they're selling, that we'll pony up for whatever product they put on the field, no matter how miserable it may be.

So raise some hell.

Bring a paper bag to the park to slip over your head every time Soriano strikes out with men on base.

Bring a list of teams that have won a playoff game since 2003 (I count 19). Or a list of teams that have won a title since '08 (you're going to need a big poster for that one).

Bring a sign with Bobby Abreu's stats on it.

Voice a little vitriol when your $140 million club lays a $140 million egg.

Or stay at home and glower through the power of the purse.

It's not easy. It's not in our nature to be disagreeable. But we've got to hunker down and work on that "I won't be happy until we get a parade" scowl.

We've got to stop welcoming knee-jerk signings and mind-boggling roster moves with open arms.

We've gotta get angry. We've gotta get frustrated. If we want to put this unpleasant waiting game
behind us once and for all, we've gotta get mean.

And we've gotta mean it.

Taking Stock of the Alfonso Soriano Disaster

2009-06-09T04:42:00.004-05:00

Plenty of pundits are still seeing red over Manny Ramirez' staying power—suspension be darned—as an All-Star vote-getter.

But if you're looking for a real travesty in the process, direct your attention to another National League left fielder—one who makes his living in Cubbie blue.

Ask not for whom the chad hangs, Alfonso Soriano. It hangs for thee.

Sure, the prospect of penciling in a disgraced, post-positive Ramirez (No. 5 among NL outfielders in voting as of Monday) into the league's starting All-Star lineup is an ugly one.

But at least we've had the last month to put Ramirez' offenses out of sight and out of mind. Over the same timeframe, meanwhile, we've been forced to watch Soriano (sitting at No. 4 among outfielders) commit crimes against baseball on a daily basis.

Forget about the All-Star conversation: Sori's stat line tells the tale of a man who may not belong in an everyday lineup. His .241 batting average is the 46th-best mark among NL outfielders with at least 100 plate appearances. His .305 on-base percentage is good for 48th.

His 14 home runs (third among NL outfielders) likely have earned him a little love from fans, but with a .487 slugging percentage (17th), he hasn't exactly been a big bopper.

Oh, he leads all NL outfielders with five errors. Only two other outfielders in the league have as many as three.

It gets worse.

Soriano has posted more strikeouts (60) than hits (54) in 2009. After a productive April (.284 AVG/.364 OBP/.955 OPS), he churned out a .216/.261/.657 May that looks it crawled out of Corey Patterson's worst nightmare.

It takes a special kind of failure to give hitting streaks a bad name, but Soriano has managed to do just that. He's hit safely in six straight dating back to May 31, but has recorded just one hit per contest for a .207 average (6-for-29) over the stretch.

Soriano has always run hot and cold. In that regard, his current misery is nothing new. Prior to this season, Fonsy's career featured seven individual months in which he hit less than .240 and posted an on-base percentage lower than .300. An eighth instance—his .207 AVG and .302 OBP in June 2006—just missed the cut.

But outside of an injury-shortened April 2008 (.192 AVG/.250 OBP/.577 OPS), this past month may have been the streaky slugger's worst work yet.

As a Cub, Soriano looked like he'd settled down a touch. He vascillated reliably between .300 and .280 in his first two seasons in Chicago, and had spent only a single day below the latter mark after June 1 as a North Sider.

We all knew that he could still stink it up in short bursts—his 3-for-28 showing in consecutive NLDS appearances hasn't slipped our minds quite yet—but we thought the bumpiest days of Mr. Soriano's Wild Ride were behind us.

Until now, of course.

There are plenty of reasons why a Chicago offense that led the NL in scoring and finished second in batting average last year currently ranks 13th in both of those categories.

Aramis Ramirez has missed a month with a shoulder injury. Milton Bradley has been equal parts unreliable and unproductive. Derrek Lee didn't show up until the middle of May. Geovany Soto has been kidnapped by pod people who look none too familiar with the art of hitting.

Instead of carrying the slack, though, Soriano has served as another piece of dead weight.

He's built a career on following up terrible stretches with torrid ones. But at 33, the line between just another slump and an off-the-cliff decline is tenuously thin (evidently, some big guy in Boston is having the same problem).

Recall that the Cubs are on the hook for Soriano's services for another five seasons, to the tune of $18 million a year.

Or if you're a Cubs' fan with any sharp objects at hand, maybe don't.

Then again, the news from this season hasn't been all bad:

We've learned that the North Siders have a perennial All-Star on their hands.

If only they had a baseball player, too.

Can Joe Mauer Hit .400?

2009-06-05T02:59:00.003-05:00

Note: Charley Walters of the St. Paul Pioneer Press evidently raised the same question a few hours ago, while we were slaving away at this. Trust us—our answer is better.

After missing the first month of the season, Joe Mauer won't have enough plate appearances to qualify for his third batting title until early August.

But Minnesota's star catcher should have his sights on a loftier goal:

The .400 club.

Twenty-eight hitters are on the list already. Just 13 of those played in the modern era, and of that group, only one—Shoeless Joe Jackson—isn't in the Hall of Fame.

Since Ted Williams hit .406 in 1941, we've seen seven 60-homer seasons, 12 150-RBI campaigns, and seven instances of a .500-plus on-base percentage. We've seen long-standing records in everything from walks to hits to longballs eclipsed.

But we haven't seen a repeat of the Splendid Splinter's performance.

That's where Mauer, currently sitting on .436, comes in.

On one hand, his relatively small sample size of 24 games means he has plenty of room to slip. After all, a handful of hitters have flirted with .400 into June and July, only to fall well short.

On the other, it's been quite some time since we saw a young hitter with as much upside and pedigree as Mauer mount a serious challenge.

Here's a look at three things that need to happen for Mauer to make a run at baseball's most elusive batting milestone.

1. He Needs To Keep His At-Bats Down

Joe Posnanski wrote a thorough piece for Sports Illustrated the opther week in which he tabbed Mauer as the best bet to hit .400 (although he predicted that the wear-and-tear of catching would hold him back).

Posnanski's model centered around players with the ability to cut their strikeout rates down and put more balls into play for hits.

Low strikeout rates are certainly a common denominator among hitters who have hit. 400 or come close—Williams, George Sisler, George Brett, and Tony Gwynn all struck out between 3 percent and 4.5 percent of the time in their best batting seasons—but another way to boost your odds is to discard a chunk of at-bats and shorten the race.

Thanks to a staggering 147 walks (one ever four at-bats), Williams record only 456 official at-bats in 1941. Because of a few injuries, Brett recorded just 449 when he hit .390 in 1980.

Mauer's patience, debut-delaying ailments, and days off as a catcher all will help in that department.

Based on his track record, he's on pace for about 488 at-bats. Hitting .400 over those ABs will still require an impressive 195 hits—but that still saves Mauer 25 hits from the 220 he'd need over 550 at-bats.

Of course, walks and days off won't diminish the need for Mauer to hit the cover off the ball. But they'll save him a handful of outs and lend his hot streaks a little more pop.

Even for a .430 hitter with a .508 OBP, a walk is less likely to produce an out than a swing.

2. He Needs To Keep Going Deep

While a power surge seems counterproductive in a contract-driven pursuit, longballs and .400 chases historically have gone hand-in-hand.

When Williams did it, he whacked 37 homers in the process, the third-best total of his 17-year career. When Brett came close, he clocked 24, his own third-best total in 21 seasons.

When John Olerud carried a .400 average into August in 1993 (he finished at .363), he hit a career-high 24 moon shots. Even the light-slugging Gwynn posted two his highest homer totals—12 and 17—in his .394 and .372 seasons, respectively.

While the connection likely has more to do with correlation than causation (i.e., a guy starts going long because he's hitting the ball on the screws in general, not the other way around), Mauer's 2009 fly ball numbers shed some light on his gaudy average.

Mauer's numbers on all types of balls in play are up this year, but his most dramatic jump in production has come with fly balls. Coming into this season, Mauer hit .277 on fly ball swings and left the park about 7.6 percent of the time.

This year, he's hitting .483 on flies, and putting those balls in the seats at a robust 35 percent clip. Eleven of his 15 fly-ball hits have come on home runs.

That success almost certainly is unsustainable (consider that Ryan Howard hit .482 on fly balls during his MVP season, on the strength of a 36 percent fly ball home run rate), but even settling at the midpoint between his past and present fly ball numbers would yield 16 extra hits.

In a 500 at-bat season, that's about 32 points of batting average.

Mauer's "on pace" for 53 home runs, but—call us crazy—we're going to assume that he doesn't get there. Even jumping from the 12 he hit last year to 25 or 30, however, would keep that fly ball batting average up and provide a big boost in the .400 chase.

3. He Needs To Get Lucky

Everybody who puts up crooked numbers needs a little extra helping in getting those balls to fall where they ain't.

Mauer's certainly been lucky so far. His batting average on balls in play (which is exactly what it sounds like, with home runs counting as balls out of play) is a lofty .407. In other words, he's hitting .407 on balls that the defense has a chance to convert to an out.

Stadheads consider variations in BABIP to be in large part a matter of luck—sometimes the ball heads straight to a fielder, and sometimes it doesn't.

Pitchers are thought to have very little control over the stat,and pitchers with an extreme high or low BABIP are expected to regress toward the league average.

Hitters produce a reliable BABIP with more consistency, and are generally expected to regress toward their own career mark.

Mauer's .407 BABIP should be considered lucky in that it's 67 points north of his career average. But that's no more luck than those before him have enjoyed in putting together breakout seasons.

When Brett hit .390, his BABIP was 61 points above his career mark. Gwynn hit .394 on the strength of a 48-point boost on balls in play. Chipper Jones rode a 63-point BABIP surge to a batting title last year, and Nomar Garciaparra relied on a 67-point uptick during his .372 campaign.

Even George Sisler and Rogers Hornsby—two of the greatest contact hitters of all time—relied on BABIP jumps of 76 and 57 points, respectively, in posting their best single-season averages.

Luck happens. There's no doubt that it's been on Mauer's side this season, but history says there's no reason why it can't stick around for the entire year.

* * *

A lot has to go right for Mauer—or anyone else, for that matter—to think about .400. It's a fragile pursuit, easily derailed by a cold spell or a little misfortune here and there.

Most candidates who spark early discussion on the subject look laughable by the year's end. Mauer has the tools to get the job done, but will need every break he can get—and will face a crush of media attention if he soldiers on deep into the year.

Williams once griped, "I hope somebody hits .400 soon. Then people can start pestering that guy with questions about the last guy to hit .400."

Maybe Mauer can finally give the late great some company.

Four Scenarios in Which Kobe Bryant Opts Out This Summer

2009-06-03T13:17:00.005-05:00

Right out of the gate, let’s be clear: The odds that Kobe Bryant will opt out of his contract this offseason are slim.

He’s got two years and nearly $48 million left on the max contract he signed before the 2004-2005 season. He’s got a title-caliber team around him and the city of Los Angeles at his feet.

In other words, he’s got a good thing going as is. And as we examined here, it's not like anyone has the money to pay him as a free agent this summer, anyway.

But Kobe didn’t structure his contract to include the opt-out clause for kicks. He at least wants the Lakers to think he might entertain the possibility of killing the deal early and making the team sweat out another round of decision-making.

And while everything seems hunky-dory right now, remember that two short years ago, Kobe was dropping f-bombs on Andrew Bynum in a parking lot and demanding to be traded on the grounds that Laker management lied to him about the team’s rebuilding plan.

If he gets a similar urge this summer, he won’t have to ask—he can simply pack his bags and waltz out the door.

There are plenty of good reasons why that’s unlikely to happen. But let’s examine a few scenarios that could prompt Bryant to think long and hard about exercising the “see ya” clause in his contract after the season ends.

1. He’s Concerned That a Sharp Drop in the 2010 Salary Cap Will Hurt His Ability to Land a Big Deal

When it comes to contract decisions, money almost always talks. And the biggest factor that might push Kobe toward opting out this summer might be a look into the crystal ball that portends a stormy financial future for the league.

A drop in the salary cap wouldn’t impact Kobe’s earning power directly—as a 10-year veteran, he’s always eligible to earn 105 percent of his previous salary, regardless of the league’s maximum established salary. So he doesn’t have to worry about a pay cut.

He might have to worry about how much teams will be willing to pay him, though. Kobe’s current salary already eats up nearly 40 percent of the salary cap. If the cap falls to $55 million or so in 2010, as some expect, then the biggest contract Kobe would be eligible for at the time—about $26 million—would take up a whopping 47 percent of the cap.

That's an enormous piece of the pie, and few teams—if any—would be willing to commit to it for a 33-year-old who'll have 15 years on his knees. Rather than sit around and wait for the falling cap to get in the way of a big payday, Kobe might opt to secure a long-term contract sooner rather than later.

He still seems more likely to opt out next summer (which he can), when everyone and their grandmother will have cap space, than to bolt this year. But remember that the current CBA expires after the 2010-2011 season. If the league isn't in better shape by then, the next agreement could look drastically different (or involve an ugly lockout).

If Kobe thinks his best bet in that scenario would be to get grandfathered in with an exisiting contract, that'd be another reason to opt out now.

2. He Doesn't Win a Title This Year and Doesn't Think He Can With L.A.

That next ring isn't Kobe's top priority right now—it's his only priority. Count me among those who think he'll get it in a couple of weeks.

But if he doesn't, he might start to sour on the notion that the Lakers give him the best chance to do so. After all, a loss in these Finals would be his second in two years, and third straight under Phil Jackson. And a loss in which Sasha Vujacic bricks a bunch of threes, Lamar Odom dissappears for long stretches at a time, and Andrew Bynum gets bowled over by Dwight Howard could leave Kobe with a grim outlook on L.A.'s prospects of breaking through.

There are a few hurdles to clear in this scenario. First, unless Kobe doesn't mind a huge drop in salary, he'll have to force a sign-and-trade, which would weaken whichever team lands him. It's possible, but complicated.

If he's so serious about a title that he's willing to sign for (a lot) less than he can get with L.A., he still needs to find a team that gives him a better chance to win.

It would be an unprecedented move. It's not easy for an athlete to beat down that ego and sign for less than market value in the pursuit of a title. But Kobe doesn't need the money, and if a title is all that really matters to him, he might be better off elsewhere.

To that end, he has a handful of options. Houston might be the best fit—and he'd make the Rockets a title favorite—but he'd also have to settle for the mid-level. The Spurs are in the same boat. The Blazers could pay him a bit more than that, but that might be too much of a lateral move.

And if he wants to turn the basketball world upside down, he can always talk to Orlando or Cleveland.

3. He Does Win a Title, and Jackson Retires

This would be akin to the breakup of the Bulls following the 1998 Finals: Jackson gets his record-setting 10th ring and calls it quits, Odom walks in free agency, Derek Fisher hangs it up, and Kobe moves on.

I have a hard time believing that Jackson would walk away from a championship team, but how long does the Zen Master—bum hip and all—plan to keep this up? And could the Lakers find a replacement who commands Kobe's respect?

Remember that not even Rudy Tomjanovich, who owns two rings himself, could make the Lakers tick in Jackson's absence. If Bryant doesn't think the team will be a contender under a new regime—or doesn't want to suit up for whomever the front office has in mind—he's in a position to seek alternatives elsewhere.

4. He Restructures His Deal to Give L.A. More Financial Flexibility

Of all the long-shot scenarios laid out here, this may be the most far-fetched yet. Kobe volunteering to do the front office a solid and leave some money on the table? Good luck with that.

But Bryant doesn't have to slash his paycheck to help the team make key personnel moves. Even opting out and resigning for $20 million instead of $23 million would help L.A. re-sign Odom and Ariza while dodging the luxury tax—or help the Lakers seek a trade to bolster the roster.

And if Los Angeles can't duck the tax, every dollar Bryant foregos counts for double on the team's ledgers.

The luxury tax certainly isn't Kobe's problem to solve, and of all the reasons he would play for less money than he's scheduled to make next year, this is the least likely. But if he wins it all this June and enters the offseason in love with the current makeup of the team, even a small salary concession could prevent crucial cogs from walking away.

Summer 2009: An NBA Free Agent's Nightmare

2009-06-02T14:53:00.006-05:00

Kobe Bryant can opt out of his contract this summer. So can Hedo Turkoglu and Carlos Boozer.

And Ben Gordon, Jason Kidd, Rasheed Wallace, Allen Iverson, Ron Artest headline the list of stars who will be free to seek new suitors when free agency rolls around.

But if those stars have green on their minds, they'll forget about how nice the grass looks on the other side.

While most of The Association's clubs have worked diligently to ensure that their salary cap stars are aligned for the 2010 Armageddon, this summer's cap space situation is a bleak affair across the board.

That means players dreaming of a new home and new income bracket are going to have to choose between one or the other.

What’s driving the impending squeeze?

For one, the salary cap, which is based on the previous year's revenues, is expected to fall from about $58.68 million this year to somewhere in the $57.3 million range for 2009-2010.

That's not a huge drop—it just makes the overall pie a little smaller.

The real issue is that almost nobody has any cap space this summer in the first place.

There are a handful of ways to express just how messy the NBA’s big-picture cap situation is, but how about this one: Even if the salary cap somehow doesn’t drop, the league on the whole has more money locked into salaries for 2009 ($1.79 billion) than it has in cap space ($1.76 billion).

That's right—the average NBA team is already about $1 million over the cap before a single free agent hits the market.

It should be no surprise, then, that just eight of the league's 30 teams have the potential for cap room in 2009, based on the team-by-team salary work of ShamSports.com.

A couple of caveats in the Collective Bargaining Agreement’s fine print (special thanks to crack CBA researcher Larry Coon) make that short list of clubs even shorter

First, rookie salaries, which are determined on a slot-by-slot scale, count against a team’s cap as soon as a player is drafted (more on the rookie salary scale here).

Every team’s mid-level cap exception—about $5.8 million in 2008—counts against the cap as well. This is designed to prevent teams from "double dipping"—using their cap room to sign one free agent, then using the exception to the cap to sign another.

Teams can always waive the exemption if they have a boatload of cap space, but that only helps if your cap room exceeds the mid-level figure.

For a real-life example of how all of this adds up, consider Minnesota’s situation. The Timberwolves are on the books for $50.8 million in salaries in 2009, which would give the club a little less than $7 million in room under a $57.3 million cap.

But the Wolves have the No. 6 overall pick in the draft this year, a slot that commanded $2.8 million last year (that’s not to mention the team’s No. 18 and No. 28 selections).

That cuts Minnesota’s cap space down to the $4 million range. Add in a mid-level exception of $5 million-plus, and the Wolves don’t have any cap room at all.

Knock out the Wolves and the Clippers (whose modest $1 million or so in potential cap room gets wiped out by draft picks and the mid-level as well), and you’ve got six teams with cap space in 2009: Portland, Sacramento, Oklahoma City, Atlanta, Detroit, and Memphis.

For a free agent with a glamour destination or a ring in mind, that's not an encouraging lineup.

Indeed, the franchises that can offer the biggest paydays are in such sad shape that they might want to think twice about the priorities of a player eager to don their colors.

In other words, if you're the Grizzlies, you might want to be skeptical of a player willing to commit to five years and $75 million with the Grizzlies.

Not that Memphis will actually spend that kind of dough: Given that the Kings and Grizz are two of the league’s poster children for franchises going broke fast, the $33 million in cap room the pair have to offer in ’09 ($21 million for Memphis, $12 million for Sacramento) is likely to sit largely untouched.

So if you’re a player looking for a big payday in a new uniform, you can hope the Blazers want you, pretend that Atlanta has a shot in the East, roll the dice that the Pistons aren’t making a bee-line for the lottery, or hitch your wagon to the Thunder.

Who could ask for anything more?

Of course, there are other options for players who want to test the waters. The mid-level exception is going to be the real jackpot this summer—and as one of the few ways for teams to revamp their rosters in a meaningful way, pulling down the entire exception from a club will be an impressive feat.

Sign-and-trades are always on the table as well. If you can find two teams that aren’t desperate to shed payroll immediately (in today’s NBA, that might be harder than it seems), a player can re-sign with his current team for more than he can get as a free agent, then ship out to his new club in exchange for contracts that match.

This means that high-priced studs like Boozer and Turkoglu—both of whom currently make more than the mid-level exception—can seek new teams without taking a pay cut, if they’re so inclined.

But when all is said and done, the only place most players are going to find a fresh stash of cash this summer is with their own teams. As far as money in concerned, the best move for would-be free agents in 2009 will be to stay put.

Everything You Wanted to Know about the NBA Finals But Were Afraid to Ask

2009-06-01T12:52:00.003-05:00

The long slog through the NBA playoffs to the Finals isn’t just designed to separate the contenders from the pretenders on the court.

After 70-plus postseason games, a month of playoff basketball, and an overdose of Craig Sager’s wardrobe, the exhausting march to the Larry O’Brien trophy can wear out all but the most fervent of fans.

If you’re still keeping tabs on the league, we know you must be a trooper. We also know that you’re teetering dangerously close to a basketball burnout.

But there are still plenty of juicy storylines to sink your teeth into, and we’d hate to see you gloss over them on account of fatigue.

So we did you the courtesy of picking your brain, sorting through the clutter, and taking a look at all of the burning NBA Finals questions that you’ve never found the opportunity to pose.

1. Does Dwight Howard Ever Worry He’s Getting Too Top-Heavy?

You’re going to hear a lot of love for the Man Child of Krypton over the next few days. Get ready for a steady stream of Shaq comparisons, revisionist MVP retrospectives, and a healthy, “What can he do in the post besides dunk, anyway?” debate.

Most of it will be well deserved—and given that Howard is fresh off a moderate bombshell of an upset, you can forgive the hyperbole that slips through.

But what you’re really trying to figure out is how Orlando’s own colossus keeps those massive shoulders upright on those itsy bitsy little legs.

After all, Howard’s version of the gun show is enough to make Charlton Heston weep with joy on the big shooting range in the sky. There’s little doubt his calves would be sufficiently impressive to mere mortals at close range.

With an upper body that makes Howie Long look like Justin Long, however, the secret to how Howard balances on a comparatively slender set of stilts is one “Where Amazing Happens” question you still haven’t solved.

2. Are Turkish Citizens Frequently Named After Their Homeland, or Is It Just Hedo?

On the one hand, Hedo Turkoglu’s deadly marksmanship, late-game heroics, and relentless commitment to the three-ball make for great basketball theater. The same goes for his chance to avenge his loss to L.A. in the oh-so-shady 2002 Western Conference Finals as a member of the Kings.

On the other, without inside knowledge of the story behind Turkoglu’s eminently convenient moniker, you’re left to wonder just how many Turkish folks out there are touting their national pride in their surnames.

If it’s not a common practice, what’s the deal with Hedo (or Hidayet, for those of you keeping score in Turkish)? And if it is, why haven’t other countries jumped on the bandwagon?

You’re not sure how you feel about the idea of Luol Sudanderson or Dirk Deutschitzki. But you can only conclude Tony Parker be a bigger draw if he took the court as “Jean-Luc McFrenchman.”

3. Will Someone Gently Inform Trevor Ariza That He’s Not Ready for Facial Hair?

Between his quick hands, serviceable “J”, and vigorous defense, Ariza has quickly blossomed into a legitimate X-Factor this postseason.

But while “The Cobra’s” game may be ready for prime time, his beard most certainly is not. In fact, you spent the better part of the Western Conference Finals trying to determine whether Ariza has a tattoo on his cheek.

Nope—you’re just caught in a stare-down with a patch of fur that’s a long ways away from serious contention.

Everybody loves a good playoff scruff, but the only thing the 23-year-old Ariza’s attempt has inspired thus far has been your desire to buy him a razor. It’s enough to make you want to pull young Trevor aside and deliver those time-honored words of wisdom: “Grow your game, but shave your face.”

4. Does Phil Jackson Use His Patented Mind Games in His Personal Life?

Listen to Jackson after a game—or even during the between-quarter sideline snippets that most coaches abhor—and you’ll catch a treasure trove of calculated digs, piques, and potshots designed to light a very specific set of fires under the Lakers.

If he wants Kobe to quit jacking up bad shots, he’ll make a remark about how the offense needs to start moving the ball. If he wants to put Jordan Farmar on notice, he’ll spend some time waxing poetic about Shannon Brown.

But you want to know if the Zen Master use similar tactics to get results off the court. If he’s trying to get one of his kids to come visit, does he rave about the great Christmas gift he got from one of the others?

And if he wants Chinese for dinner while girlfriend Jeanie Buss wants Italian, you ask, does he splice together pictures of her favorite pasta dish with footage of Benito Mussolini?

5. Is Adam Morrison the Luckiest Man in Basketball?

This time last year, Morrison’s basketball situation couldn’t have been much worse.

He was still recovering from a torn ACL he suffered in Oct. 2007 while trying to guard Luke Walton. He was still under scrutiny as another Michael Jordan-selected lottery bust. And he was still a Charlotte Bobcat.

While the No. 3 overall pick of the 2006 Draft has seen about 20 total minutes of playing time as a Laker since coming over in a February trade, you can’t help but think that Morrison won the lottery all the same.

You’re glad that he’s no longer in the care of the youngster-hating Larry Brown. You’re curious to see if Jackson can rebuild his confidence in the offseason. And you imagine it must be nice to be hand-picked to ride shotgun on a title run.

6. Could J.J. Redick Try Any Harder to Look Like a Tool?

You tried to give Redick a chance. You really did.

You kind of felt bad for him when he had to change his cell phone number every 14 minutes at Duke because UNC fans wouldn’t leave him alone. You thought it was a little low when Maryland supporters showed up with signs saying they’d, err, gotten to know his sister.

And while you thought the No. 9 overall pick was a little high for what was essentially a spot-up shooter, you figured he’d help space the floor for Howard in Orlando.

You were wrong. And even when Redick does creep his way onto the court amid Orlando’s glut of more-accomplished long-range shooters, you take one look at that haircut and start looking up the number for VH1’s Tool Academy.

You thought ditching the “T-shirt under my jersey” look he sported in college would help. It didn’t. You thought he might ease up on the product a bit to shake his pretty-boy image one he reached The Association, or at least shave his head, a la Jason Williams. He didn’t.

Now, every time you watch the Magic come out for warm-ups, you’re half-expecting to see Redick take the court in a pair of aviators, wearing a polo with the collar pointed sky-high.

A brief note

2009-05-20T20:30:00.002-05:00

Publishing on I-94 Sports has been suspended temporarily because of an ongoing NFL project with Bleacher Report. The articles for that project can be found here.

Dear ESPN.com: Dustin Pedroia Is Short. We Get It.

2009-05-06T03:36:00.003-05:00

ESPN.com, we follow you on Dustin Pedroia.

He’s not very tall.

We’ve got that one nailed down. Really, we do.

We know because you evidently assigned a beat reporter to cover Pedroia’s stature when he broke into the big leagues, and have been keeping us posted diligently ever since.

Midway through Pedroia’s rookie season, Tim Kurkjian broke down Pedroia thusly: “He's short and swings really hard, but, lately, he has really hit.”

When Pedroia was named American League MVP last year, the Nov. 18 story you ran made it all of six sentences before dropping a reference to the “Boston little man with the meaty swing.”

Three weeks later, Peter Gammons’ write-up of Pedroia’s new six-year contract extension recycled a line from that same story that described Boston’s second baseman as “generously listed at 5' 9".”

So he started out short and he stayed that way. We’re right there with you.

Now, you’re offering up an E:60 video report with this tagline:

“Don't judge Dustin Pedroia by his size or what he says. It'll just drive Boston's pint-sized MVP to new heights.”

About that…

Pedroia, 5’ 8”-minus and 180 pounds, certainly has had to overcome physical limitations and challenges of perception to get where he is today. It’s easy to understand how he’s used those challenges to push himself to excel.

It’s a little more difficult to understand why certain sporting news outlets—and we’re not naming names here—have taken such a keen and sustained interest in Pedroia’s measurements from cap to cleats.

After all, to read your coverage on Pedroia, one might think he’s the only not-quite-larger-than-life ballplayer ever to take to the diamond, that he risked life and limb to tread among the giants that populate MLB rosters, let alone to beat them out for a major award.

From the way you cast Pedroia, in fact, it’s easy to forget that he’s not even the smallest MVP of the past two seasons.

That distinction goes to Jimmy Rollins, who doesn’t quite measure up to his 5’ 8” billing and weighs in at 170 pounds—10 pounds lighter than Pedroia.

Then again, I suppose that sort of thing slips your mind when you don’t take the time to bring up the subject every time Rollins’ name comes up.

We wouldn't want to forget about Pedroia's size, though—if you didn't remind us how tall he was (or wasn't), we might not remember not to judge him by his height.

You’re not the only sports media outlet to catch a bad case of five-foot-something fever.

Throw Pedroia'a name into a Google search along with the word “short.” You get seven front-page hits about his height.

Now try the same game with Ichiro and Ivan Rodriguez, both of whom measure in at 5’ 9” (we’d recommend this little experiment for Rollins, too, but the results are a bit skewed by the fact that he plays shortstop).

Nothing?

Either that inch makes a big difference, or Joe Average-Height winning an MVP isn’t quite the coup you’ve made it out to be.

Heck, your E:60 special featured Joe Morgan marveling at Pedroia, and you managed not to freak out about how the two-time MVP and Hall-of-Famer was 5’ 7”.

The absurdity of the piece came to a head when Boston Globe columnist Dan Shaughnessy noted: “You wouldn’t have this sort of thing in the NBA or the NFL, where the MVP could be a guy who looks like that.”

Well, no, Mr. Shaughnessy, you wouldn’t, because in the NBA, you have to put a ball in a hoop that’s 10 feet off the ground.

In the NFL, you have to jockey with other players—many of whom are, in fact, tall—to catch a ball out of the air.

In baseball, unless Robinson Cano has been refining his lethal “line drive that’s a little too high for Dustin Pedroia to catch” swing, the game isn’t exactly stacked against the vertically challenged.

Pedroia isn't a miracle. He's not a Lilliputian.

He’s just a little short. We get it.

Get over it. Please.

Brett Favre to the Vikings? Bad Idea.

2009-05-05T21:10:00.001-05:00

So an anonymous source told ESPN.com that Brett Favre and the Minnesota Vikings will meet at an undisclosed location for reasons unknown.

Forget deep throws—this year’s version of Favre’s “will he or wont he?” saga is starting to sound an awful lot like Deep Throat.

Actually, the reason for Favre’s clandestine conference with Vikings head coach Brad Childress is well documented: The gun-slinging graybeard wants to talk about a comeback that would put him in purple.

Super.

It’s not hard to spout off a dozen reasons why Favre should go gentle into that good night, for real this time. Legacy, credibility, fans, yada yada yada.

So we’ll skip that part and get to the burning question:

Why on Earth would the Vikings hitch their wagon to Favre?

He raced the Jets out to a 9-3 start last year—before throwing two touchdowns and seven picks in a 1-4 finish to miss the playoffs. He completed a troubling 56 percent of his passes for a miniscule 5.77 yards per attempt.

The drop-off was thanks in part to a bicep injury that the team thought needed surgery, but Favre has yet to go under the knife. He’s hoping the torn tendon heals itself.

That’s a fine idea for someone who plans to spend him time lounging around the farm.

For a man who throws a football for a living? Not so much.

Favre’s last handful of games in bad weather—most notably, his NFC title game defeat two seasons ago, in which he looked like he would rather be anywhere other than frigid Green Bay—suggests that his days as a master of the elements are in the rearview mirror.

Pushing 40, Favre’s status as an outdoorsman at this point is strictly limited to his affinity for hunting.

How is that going to play when the Vikes roll into Lambeau on Nov. 1? How about when they visit Soldier Field on Dec. 28?

In fact, Favre’s performance last year suggests that at this age, he’s no sure bet to be an upgrade at all over Minnesota’s quarterback situation.

Considering the Vikings’ presumed starter is Tarvaris Jackson, that’s not saying much. Jackson completed 59 percent of his passes against the 66 percent Favre put on the money.

Jackson averaged a fumble per start—Favre coughed up 10 on the season—and was sacked on 8.6 percent of his attempts, while Favre went down 4.8 percent of the time.

But Jackson also threw for nine touchdowns and two interceptions in five starts, while Favre offered up 22 picks to go along with 22 scores.

A team built to win on defense, rushing, and ball control—as Minnesota is—puts a premium on mistake-free football. And even at his best, Favre has never been mistaken for mistake-free.

Jackson is no slam-dunk at quarterback. But at this point, neither is Favre. And only one of the two still has his best football ahead of him.

Then there’s the baggage.

If Favre attracted a media circus in New York, suiting up for a team with no ties to Green Bay, he’ll bring an outright maelstrom with him in a division in which he squares off against the Pack twice a year.

And when his annual “mull the future” routine rolls around in the 2010 offseason, he’ll be Minnesota’s problem.

Remember that Childress isn’t just coaching to win this year—heading into Year Four of a five-year contract, with Super Bowl aspirations, he’s coaching for his job.

He already has taken a tremendous gamble in tying his fate so heavily to Jackson’s development.

For both Childress and the Vikings, Brett Favre would be a bad bet.

Against Phil Jackson, Rick Adelman Has Plenty to Prove

2009-05-05T13:27:00.003-05:00

Rick Adelman isn’t exactly hard-up for career accomplishments.

He’s has coached three No. 1 seeds. He’s been to the Finals twice. He’s presided over a 22-game winning streak. He’s one of four coaches in NBA history to top 800 wins and own a .600-plus career winning percentage.

But when his Rockets outslugged the Lakers Monday night, he did something he’s never done before: Start a series against Phil Jackson with a lead.

It’s a safe bet that Adelman’s coaching scrapbook doesn’t include many fond memories of the Zen Master.

After all, Jackson’s Bulls spoiled Adelman’s trip to the 1992 Finals with the Blazers. Jackson walked away with a 4-2 series win and his second ring as a coach; Adelman came up short in his second bid for a title.

And Jackson’s Lakers bounced Adelman’s Kings from the playoffs three consecutive times between 2000 and 2002.

Adelman’s been tantalizingly close to breaking the hex. In 2000, his eighth-seeded Sacramento squad pushed the 65-win Laker juggernaut the brink in the first round before falling in five.

In ’01, the Lakers swept the Kings out of the Western Conference Semifinals 4-0, but Sacramento stormed back the following season, staking home-court advantage and a 3-2 lead over L.A. in the Conference Finals.

We all know how that series ended. The Lakers shot 18 more fourth-quarter free-throws than the Kings in a Game Six that disgraced official Tim Donaghy later alleged was rigged against Sacramento to extend to the series, and Los Angeles took over Game Seven in overtime.

Oh yeah, and in at least one of those series, Jackson cut together motivational footage for his team that likened Kings point guard Jason William to a white supremacist, and compared Adelman to Hitler.

So when it comes to Jackson, Adelman might have some baggage to check.

He’s not the only one, of course. As the owner of championship rings from nine of the last 17 seasons, Jackson has spent two decades sending other coaches home unhappy.

Heck, Adelman isn’t Jackson’s only victim in these playoffs.

Jackson has already sent Jerry Sloan packing for the fourth time—two of them Finals meetings.

George Karl was on the wrong end of the ’96 Finals with Seattle. His Nuggets took a 4-0 beating from the Lakers in the first round last year.

And Rick Carsisle was as assistant (and belated successor) to Larry Bird on the ’00 Pacers team that L.A. edged for the title.

But few coaches in league history have served as one man’s personal speed bump the way Adelman has for Jackson.

Even Pat Riley’s Lakers—who made the Conference Finals or better for eight straight seasons, and who faced a pool of only 11 competitors in the West—never bounced the same opponent from the playoffs three times in a row.

This is the first time in four postseason meetings with Jackson that Adelman has enjoyed a 1-0 lead. And after coming up short with three Sacramento teams that thrived on finesse, Adelman is finally trotting out a team with some muscle in its corner.

He’s not out of the woods just yet—the Lakers hung around in Game One without the benefit of a single hot hand, and there are plenty of opportunities for this series to go sour on him yet.

If Adelman does topple Jackson, it won’t quite make up for the years of disappointment, the championship runs cut short and the Sacramento glory days that almost were.

But it’ll provide some measure of vindication, and more than a little satisfaction—and move Adelman closer to a ring of his own to round out his resume.

And if Adelman stumbles yet again?

He’ll further cement his place as Jackson’s greatest whipping boy.

The Bulls are in a position to do some bargain shopping

2009-05-04T18:29:00.005-05:00

Memo to the the Bulls' front office going into the offseason: Want to return to this club to power?

Start thinking about the power of the purse. There has never been a better time for an NBA shopping spree.

To be sure, John Paxson and soon-to-be general manager Gar Forman have plenty of needs on their summer wish list. They need a stopper. They need an anchor in the post. They need to replace Ben Gordon, or compensate for his defensive shortcomings elsewhere.

But they don't need to dump salary, which puts the club in a rare position of power, given the current state of The Association.

By all accounts, the league has taken a financial beating this season. In February, a dozen teams borrowed a combined $200 million to help cover expenses. Shortly thereafter, ESPN's Bill Simmons cited an inside source who claimed 20 of the NBA's 30 teams will lose money this season.

How do impoverished clubs get out the red? Sell high-priced talent.

The Hornets tried to gift Tyson Chandler to the Thunder for spare parts and cap relief before Chandler failed a physical. The Rockets, a team with title aspirations, dumped starting point guard Rafer Alston to shave a few million dollar off the payroll. The Bulls already snatched Brad Miller and John Salmons from the cash-strapped Kings.

The budget squeeze figures to get worse before it gets better: Both the salary cap and the luxury tax threshold—which are based on league revenues from the previous year—are set to decrease.

That's bad news for most teams, but shouldn't impede a big-market, big-money franchise like Chicago, which finished second in attendance and fifth in jersey sales this season. The Bulls also didn't break the bank in '08-'09, shelling out $68.5 million for the league's No. 20 payroll.

With the cap expected to settle in the $55 million range, the Bulls almost certainly won't have room for a major free agent beyond the midlevel exception (then again, neither will anyone else).

But they're primed to cherry-pick stars from teams that can no longer afford them.

Looking for an upgrade in the frontcourt? Call New Orleans and see if they'd like to get rid of the $24.7 they owe David West over the next three seasons—or give Steve Kerr a ring and see if Amare Stoudemire is still on the market.

Want a defensive-minded shooting guard who can hit the three? Dial up M.J. and see if the Bobcats are looking to save some of the $5 million coming to Raja Bell.

How about offering the Clippers a break on the $33.9 million Chris Kaman has coming to him through 2012? Or adding some size and star power at the off-guard by making a play for New Jersey's Vince Carter, who's on the books for $16.3 million next year alone?

Chicago can dangle the expiring deals of Miller ($12.3 million), Tim Thomas ($6.5 million). Jerome James would be out of his mind to pass up his $6 million player option, given that he's been M.I.A. (5.8 minutes, 2.5 points, 1.7 boards) for the past four seasons, so add him to the list of trade bait.

Under normal circumstances, you'd expect the Bulls to package one or more of those contracts with a first-round pick or a talented youngster like Tyrus Thomas to land a stud in return.

Nowadays, they may not need to sweeten the deal at all: The Nuggets gave away Marcus Camby to the Clippers last summer for the right to swap second-round picks. Two years ago, Phoenix paid the Sonics a pair of first-rounders to take Kurt Thomas off their hand.

The Suns were a legitimate contender at the time, and the economy wasn't nearly as bad—imagine the bargains they'll offer today.

Most of the NBA will be pinching pennies this offseason. It's time for the Bulls to go for broke.

Joe Mauer is back, and the Twins are still in trouble

2009-05-03T20:10:00.004-05:00

The cavalry finally showed up for the Minnesota Twins on Friday, wearing No. 7 and squatting behind the plate.

Joe Mauer is back. He’s whacking the yarn out of the ball. He’s everything Minnesota fans could hope for in a man local sports radio guru Dan Barreiro calls Baby Jesus.

But unless he can work a few miracles with the pitching staff, the Twins are still in trouble.

On first blush, Mauer's month-long absence looks like the perfect culprit for Minnesota's 12-13 start. After all, what lineup wouldn't miss a two-time batting champion who racked up the second-best on-base percentage in the American League last year? And the Twins enter May with the No. 12 scoring offense in the AL, miles behind their No. 3 finish from 2008.

No Mauer, no runs, no wins. Case closed, right?

Not exactly.

While Minnesota certainly struggled to score at times while Mauer was sidelined with a back injury, the team's fate thus far has been tied almost exclusively to the caliber of its pitching.

The trend isn't complicated: When the Twins allow five or fewer runs, they're 11-2 on the season. When they allow six or more, they're 1-11.

Aside from Glen Perkins (1-2, 3.34 ERA), who started the season with three straight eight-inning gems before coming back down the Earth, there haven't been many bright spots in the starting rotation.

Scott Baker (0-4, 9.15) has yet to pitch beyond the sixth inning or allow fewer than four earned runs this season, earning every bit of his winless start. Francisco Liriano (0-4, 3.91 ERA) has been alternately ineffective and unlucky. Kevin Slowey (4-0, 5.17) hasn't exactly been lights-out in racking up cheap W's.

Just as they did last year, Minnesota's starters own the No. 8 ERA in the AL—but they're coughing up nearly a run more per game this time around. The bullpen, which posted a 3.91 ERA in '08, has been lit up for a 5.85 mark this year, and has yet to find an effective way to get the ball to closer Joe Nathan.

The good news is that to some extent, Mauer can help. His 3.89 catcher ERA is the best mark in the AL since he took over as the Twins' backstop in 2004, and he's generally regarded as a top-notch signal-caller behind the plate. In any event, he's a defensive upgrade over stand-in Jose Morales, who entered the season with a single big-league start to his name.

But unless Mauer plans to take the mound himself, there's only so much he can do. Calling for a pitch is one thing; putting it on the money is something else altogether.

And as much as a pat on the rear end boosts a pitcher's morale, those conferences at the mound—"Listen, Scott, maybe you should try not to melt down this inning, OK? And Luis, maybe don't let every runner you inherit score this time?"—only go so far.

Mauer will give the lineup a shot in the arm, and he should provide a steadying influence for a staff that's struggled early.

But if Minnesota's pitchers can't hold up their end of the bargain, even he might not be the savior the Twins need.

Who do Bulls fans root for now? Easy: Boston.

2009-05-03T03:38:00.006-05:00

As a Bulls fan, I have learned to hate the Boston Celtics.

I hate that they always manage to execute down the stretch. I hate the, "Are you kidding me, you crazy bastard?" look Doc Rivers gives the officials every time the whistle blows.

I hate the way Rajon Rondo gets away with murder on one end of the floor and writhes around like a gunshot victim every time he absorbs the slightest bit of contact on the other. I hate the way Glen Davis bounces around like a morbidly obese Energizer Bunny after he converts a big play.

I hate it when Kevin Garnett—a long-time favorite of mine—drops a round of celebratory f-bombs from the bench. I hate Paul Pierce's sideburns and Kendrick Perkins' chin-beard. I hate that Stephon Marbury has his "Starbury" shoe line logo tattooed on the side of his own freakin' head.

I hate the Celtics in ways that never crossed my mind before this series began.

And I'm rooting hard for them to go all the way.

Call it a marriage of contempt and respect. Call it a desire to be beaten by the best. Call it straight-up laziness—like it or not, I've become intimately familiar with the C's roster, and hate to see my newfound and otherwise useless expertise on Brian Scalabrine's game go to waste.

Sure, I still get riled up at the sight of Ray Allen's abnormally shiny skull, and wouldn't mind if someone punched Rondo in the mouth.

But if I didn't get to see the Bulls dispatch this collection of green-and-white clad antagonists, I certainly don't want to sit back and watch another team enjoy the satisfaction of doing so.

The Celtics may be the bad guys, but after trading body blows with the Bulls for two weeks, they're my bad guys.

I like yelling for Rivers to get T'd up every time he starts yapping at the officials. I like calling for someone to level Rondo every time he floats to the basket untouched. I like watching Marbury, a career chucker, looking petrified to shoot. I like taking cheap shots at Davis' midriff, to say nothing of his hybrid crew cut-mohawk.

Take those little joys away from me, and I'll be a very unhappy camper.

It's also terribly dissappointing to watch an opponent go to every length to rip your heart out, then roll over and die for the next challenger. If Orlando stomps Boston in four or fives games in the next round, the epic series the Bulls and Celtics just wrapped up will look like a clash of pretenders, a battle of two teams matched in mediocrity.

The longer Boston lasts, the more confidence the Bulls can draw from their seven-game duel with the defending champs. If the Celtics topple the Magic and give Cleveland a scare—or even defy the odds and sneak into the Finals—Chicago can enter the 2009-'10 season with the swagger that comes from pushing the best to the brink.

The next time the Bulls and Celtics meet, I'll be calling for blood. I'll boo the television without mercy. I'll hope for a blowout, a brawl, or both. I'll cheer for Chicago to take Boston down with a vengeance.

Until then, count me in Boston's corner. There's so much about these Celtics that I love to hate.

Glen Davis Is Outgrowing His Baby Shoes

2009-04-30T13:20:00.003-05:00

You'd think it would be a little harder to lose track of Glen Davis.

At 6'9" and a rather conservative 289 pounds, Boston's second-year power forward is the biggest mountain east of the Appalachians. He eyes Ben Gordon as if the diminuitive Chicago sharpshooter were a snack waiting to happen. He's practically visible from space.

Read up on the Bulls-Celtics series, though, and Davis seems to vanish into thin air. He slinks out of sight behind the glowing accounts of Rajon Rondo's coming-out party. He disappears from the conversation amid praise for Paul Pierce's gamesmanship. He goes from the Incredible Hulk to the Invisible Man.

Ian Thomsen of SI.com mentioned Davis in his Game Five analysis only as a member of Pierce's unlikely supporting cast. Chris Mannix didn't drop his name at all.

Even ESPN's Bill Simmons, who lives and breathes the C's like few others, has penned only a single Davis reference in a pair of columns on the series, when he described the drop-off from Kevin Garnett to Davis at power forward as "a freefall off a cliff."

It's a testament to the wealth of storylines this series has provided (or a harsh indictment of the marketing power of the moniker "Big Baby") that a breakout as stunning as Davis' has been all but ignored.

We're talking about a player whose most noted NBA accomplishment coming into these playoffs was a Garnett-induced bout of sobbing on the bench in December. This is a guy who put up seven points, four boards, and a handful of zero-point-somethings in a night in the regular season.

But make no mistake: Very quietly, Davis is killing the Bulls.

The numbers tell part of the story. In Garnett's absence, Davis has morphed into the stealthiest stat-stuff you've ever seen, throwing up 17.8 points, 7.6 boards, 2.8 assists, 1.6 steals and 1.2 blocks per game in the playoffs.

He's spending nearly twice as much time on the floor in the postseason (41 minutes per game) as he did in the regular season (21 MPG). He's staying out of foul trouble, drawing about one whistle every ten minutes, and taking advantage when the calls come his way, hitting 21 of 26 free throws (81 percent) in the series.

Davis has excelled against Chicago by playing within himself. He doesn't have the wingspan or mobility to duplicate Garnett's role on defense, but uses his considerable frame to clog the lane quite nicely.

He doesn't have the all-around offensive game to put the ball on the floor himself, but has been downright lethal shooting spot-up jumpers from midrange.

Basketball pundits haven't been the only ones to overlook Davis' effectiveness. Five games into the first round, the Bulls are still daring him to beat them from the top of the key. He's been happy to oblige.

The Bulls don't know where he picked up that shot. The C's probably don't, either. I'd be surprised if Davis himself knows. But those 18-footers are falling like they're Big Baby's calling.

Forget about Ray Allen—Davis' shooting touch has been the x-factor in this series. In Boston's three wins, he's firing at 54.5 percent from the floor. In the Celtics' two losses, he's shooting 32.3 percent.

Everyone's wondering how much money Gordon, who's contract is up this year, has earned with his monster series.

How about the payday coming to Davis, who signed only a two-year deal as a rookie and hits the market this summer as a restricted free agent himself? After all, shoot-first tweener guards a dime a dozen; skilled bigs with range are a rare find.

Still not sold on Davis? You're not alone.

But have a look at Game Six tonight. If you watch very carefully, you just might see him muscling Boston into the second round.

CORRECTION: This story originally identified Davis as an upcoming unrestricted free agent. While his contract does not carry a player or team option for another season, he will be a restricted free agent this summer because he has been in the league for fewer than four seasons. More information on restricted free agency is available here.

It's Time To Give Rajon Rondo Something To Worry About

2009-04-29T01:34:00.008-05:00

Rajon Rondo is hitting layups. He's hitting runners. He's hitting floaters.

Just about the only thing Boston's third-year point guard hasn't hit in the lane against Chicago in this series has been a wall.

If the Bulls hope to sneak past the Celtics and into the second round, that needs to change.

In the NBA's not-so-distant past, a player in the mold of the 6'1", 175-pound Rondo would have attacked the basket at his own risk. Heck, even a few years ago, basketball pundits wondered whether Dwyane Wade's relentless assaults on the rim—and ensuing encounters with the hardwood—were the recipe for an abbreviated career.

TNT announcers Doug Collins and Kevin Harlan voiced that notion Tuesday as they lauded Rondo's drives to the basket as "fearless."

But the Bulls certainly haven't given him much to fear.

Derrick Rose, athletic as he may be, can't stay in front of Rondo to save his own life. Rose gets caught trailing alongside Rondo so often, you'd think the two were jogging buddies.

Joakim Noah can block shots, but he can't stay put. Neither can Tyrus Thomas, who prefers to swat at the shot once it goes up rather than stand his ground and deter the attempt in the first place.

And Brad Miller is lucky if he manages to wave goodbye as the ball-handler streaks past him.

All told, the Bulls have kept Rondo away from the rack about as well as the C's have kept Glen Davis away from the buffet line.

Moreover, he's on track to shatter the record for "most layups in a series without hitting the deck." Defenders shy away from him like he's got swine flu.

Rondo reportedly picked up the nickname "Johnny" a while back—a play on his first name—but you can just call him Moses Whenever he enters the paint, he compels the defense to part.

Admittedly, Chicago's options for slowing Rondo down aren't as potent as they might have been in years past. The "Bad Boys" Pistons would have bumped, grabbed and tripped him every step of the way. Kevin McHale would have put him on his back. Charles Oakley would have just punched him in the face.

Rule changes and shifts in officiating have taken those tools off the table—it's hard to shoot a dirty look at a perimeter player these days without drawing a whistle.

But the least the Bulls can do is make Rondo, a 64 percent free-throw shooter this season, earn a bigger slice of his scoring at the foul line. Rondo has hit 30 of 46 layup attempts in the series, while absorbing just 16 shooting fouls.

That simply won't do.

Chicago doesn't need to administer a '90s-style mugging to make its point. A well-placed hard foul or two a game would go a long way toward making Rondo think twice about taking the ball to the hole.

The Bulls shouldn't be calling for a flagrant foul for Rondo's Game Five overtime hit on Miller—they should be getting ready to return the favor.

And if the current frontcourt rotation isn't up to the task, well, Aaron Gray has to be good for something, doesn't he?

Chicago isn't going to master the positioning and rotation it takes to seal off the lane in the next few days. But it doesn't take a defensive wizard to figure out how to send a guy sprawling once in a while.

If the Bulls want to knock off the defending champs in this series, they're going to need to knock Rondo down.

Shedding Light on the Cubs' Dirty Little Secret

2009-04-28T02:34:00.004-05:00

Behind every MLB contender, there's a dirty little secret.

Keep winning, and nobody pays any attention to it. The Red Sox, for instance, have been on such a tear lately that nobody's asking why David Ortiz (.237 average, .287 on-base percentage, .342 slugging) looks so washed-up.

And the Dodgers have hummed along so nicely that no one's sounded the alarm about how the back end of the starting rotation is a disaster in progress (Clayton Kershaw's last two starts: Nine innings, 18 hits, six walks, 15 earned runs).

Stumble, however, and those unpleasant truths start to surface. If you stagger out of the gate 9-9 while your archrival races to a division lead—the Cubs' M.O. thus far—people are going to pry.

Chicago's dirty little secret? The window for this aging core to win is closing fast.

Because the Cubs' current cast labored through multiple seasons of non-playoff obscurity before taking two straight NL Central titles, it doesn't have the same long-in-the-tooth feel as a perennial winner like the White Sox or Yankees.

But while this group may be green when it comes to success, plenty of its key contributors are going gray.

Derrek Lee turns 34 in September. Aramis Ramirez hits 31 in June. Ted Lilly is 33, and Ryan Dempster will join him Sunday. And while Alfonso Soriano (33), Kosuke Fukudome (32), and Milton Bradley (31) are all new additions, their legs are plenty old.

Chicago's recent ascent hasn't been a product of developing young talent, but rather importing veteran help.

Trouble is, those veterans are starting to show the wear and tear of a few too many campaigns.

Lee left Sunday's game after the first inning as the neck spasms that have plagued him since 2007 flared up. He's listed as day-to-day.

Ramirez hasn't played since Friday with a calf strain. He's missed 30 or more games in two of his past four seasons.

Bradley has been limited almost exclusively to pinch-hitting duty after an April 12 groin injury. He, of course, has managed just one full season as a position player in his 10-year career.

In the short run, the injury parade has meant a healthy dose of Reed Johnson, a coming-out party for Micah Hoffpauir and a .500 start.

In the long view? We're looking at the beginning of the end.

And things could get worse. Soriano has spent time on the disabled list in each of the past two seasons. His hamstrings aren't getting any younger, and given his newfound realization that he's allowed not to swing once in a while, his absence would be big blow.

Lilly had never topped 200 innings pitched before coming to Chicago. Before Dempster returned to the rotation last year, his last full stint as a starter ended in Tommy John surgery. Lose one of those two this year, and Cubs fans are going to start pining for the good old days of Jason Marquis.

But the injuries are only half the problem. Even a healthy Lee started the year hitting .209 with a .313 slugging percentage. Even a healthy Dempster has posted a 4.88 ERA and 1.42 WHIP that track much more closely with his career numbers than his stellar '08.

And Bradley managed just one hit in 22 tries as a starter before submitting a singularly useless 0-for-8, five-strikeout performance off the bench.

This is a roster for which the notion of "upside" is a distant memory. This is a team with nowhere to go but down.

Unless new owner Tom Ricketts likes to eat payroll, that's not changing any time soon: The Cubs' 30-and-older regulars are owed an average of $12.45 million a year through the 2010 season.

Forget about waiting 'til next year for once: If this roster has a championship run in it, it's likely now or never.

Want to hear a dirty little secret, though?

It may already be a year too late.

Dear ESPN.com: Please Stop Selling Your Dignity

2009-04-28T01:12:00.003-05:00

ESPN.com, has it really come to this?

Your front page was already a minefield of banner ads, roll-overs and unsolicited video spots. Visitors who dared move the mouse were already at risk to obscure content and links behind full-screen pitches for Ford. The gulf between your scores ticker and your lead photo has widened steadily as you've peddled the space to anyone who will buy.

And now, you've thrown every convention of design to the wind. You've auctioned off the slot next to your lead story to advertisers—you know, the one where you used to put silly things like your top headlines—and dropped the rest of the day's news down into a garbled five-deep, three-across grid of text.

Classy.

If your designers have any attachment to aesthetics, they must be pitching a fit. Forget the navigation nightmare: Slapping up a pair of light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel-white Apple ads above and alongside your top news item is just plain ugly.

And your writers can't be thrilled that the headlines that lead to their work are now as about as appealing and accessible as the print on a supermarket receipt.

Half of your content is now buried so far down the front page, Jacques Cousteau would have called it quits before he got to the featured comment. I tried to browse your "Inside ESPN" lineup and got the bends before I made it.

Listen, we get it: You're hard up for cash. Even the Worldwide Leader isn't immune to the current economic climate, and those high-profile ads command top dollar.

But there has to be a more elegant solution. In terms of visual appeal, your Web site now ranks somewhere between the New York Post and Craigslist.

That's fine for a two-bit blogger or fanboy team site. It's downright embarrassing for the top sports journalism outlet in the current media landscape.

Find another way to make the money. Sell ads in the margins. Let companies sponsor Rick Reilly's columns or shill products in Bill Simmons' mailbags. Just fire Chris Berman.

I don't care how you fix it, ESPN.com. Just fix it. I want my headlines back. I want a front page that looks like a news source, not a coupon book.

Because if you compromise your product for a quick buck, all the advertising revenue on the Web won't buy back your credibility.

Stealing runs and a piece of history

2009-04-27T00:48:00.003-05:00

Ninety feet to cover. Three seconds to pull it off. Zero margin for error. And a chance to get whacked in the head with a baseball bat.

Stealing home is not for the faint of heart.

The Red Sox' Jacoby Ellsbury, who executed the rarest of thefts on the diamond to tack on an insurance run in Boston's 4-1 win over New York Sunday night, recognized as much.

"The biggest thing is getting the courage," Ellsbury told reporters after the game. "In that situation, bases loaded, you've got to make it."

Ellsbury certainly has the wheels to put a run on the board the hard way. He's swiped 69 bases in 82 tries in 196 big-league games, and is rumored to have run the 40-yard dash in a blistering 4.2 seconds.

But man cannot steal on speed alone. It took Mickey Mantle 3.1 seconds to go from home to first base in the fastest time on record. A runner leading off third doesn't have quite as far to go—Ellsbury wandered perhaps 15 feet off the bag before taking off—but also loses a step to slide under the tag.

Add it all up, and even a track star needs between two-and-a-half and three seconds to go from third to home.

That's still forever and a day compared to the half-second it takes for a modest 80-mile-per-hour throw to get from the mound to the catcher's mitt. Even with time factored in for the wind-up and the tag, trying to outrun the ball is a fool's errand. If you break for the plate after the ball is thrown, you're too late.

Instead, stealing home means seizing moments of opportunity within a pitcher's rhythm. Ellsbury decided to try his luck Sunday after watching Yankees starter Andy Pettite plod through the wind-up on an earlier pitch to J.D. Drew.

Ellsbury was aided by a dramatic infield shift employed against Drew. New York third baseman Angel Berroa, playing all the way over at shortstop, made no effort to hold the runner close to the base.

By the time Pettite reached the point where he could not stop his motion without incurring a balk, Ellsbury was halfway home. By the time Pettite released the pitch, Ellsbury was even with the on-deck circle.

Ellsbury wasn't the first to notice Pettite's deliberate cadence: In May 2007, Toronto's Aaron Hill took advantage of a long lull between pitches to swipe home from Pettite himself. Pettite admitted after the Ellsbury steal that he should have been throwing from the stretch, but even that didn't help him nail Hill.

A left-handed pitcher is a must in stealing home, since lefties need to look over their shoulders to see third and turn away from their natural pitching stances to throw to the bag. A right-handed better helps the runner in that he blocks the catcher's view down the line, but a lefty at the plate is more likely to see the steal coming and lay off his swing.

Drew did just that, and Ellsbury was grateful: "I was just hoping J.D. wasn't going to swing at a pitch right down the middle and hit me," he confessed after the fact.

Or, as Rod Carew, who pilfered the plate 17 times in his career, put it, "I could have gotten killed if the batter had swung."

Beyond the proper match-up and circumstances, baserunners have employed a variety of signature strategies in accomplishing the feat over the years.

Ty Cobb, baseball's all-time leader with 54 steals of home, sharpened his cleats to make catchers think twice about getting in his way. Jackie Robinson, who swiped the plate 19 times in his career, used a sweeping hook slide to avoid tags. Carew took advantage of his reputation as a limited baserunning threat (he topped 30 stolen bases in just four of his 19 seasons) to sneak out to big leads and take off without warning.

There's a reason the Baseball Almanac lists just 38 players with 10 or more career steals of home, a healty portion of whom preceded the live-ball era (MLB doesn't track the event as an official statistic): No matter how fast or how tricky a runner is, the act takes a lot of luck.

Indeed, even with an enormous jump, Ellsbury was safe just inches ahead of Jorge Posada's tag.

Those who caught Ellsbury's steal as it happened should consider themselves lucky. The line in the play-by-play — "J. Ellsbury steals home"—is just about as understated as they come, and even the replay lacks the "will he or won't he?" drama of the real thing.

Fans might not see anything like it again: If a you're a team looking to plate a man from third, there are easier ways to do it

But if you're a runner who wants to electrify the crowd and purloin a piece of baseball lore?

Then inch down that line, keep an eye on the mound, and get ready to run.

And pray that the bat stays put.

Can Albert Pujols finally claim his Crown?

2009-04-23T18:35:00.006-05:00

Major League Baseball doesn't hand out much hardware in April. Unless you're gunning for Cactus League prizes, you can't collect a batting title or a Gold Glove in spring.

And you certainly can't win a batting Triple Crown.

So it's a little early to put Albert Pujols and his National League-best home run and RBI totals on 'round-the-clock-watch.

And Carl Yastremski—the last man to top either league in batting, homers and RBI all at once—doesn't have to worry about recording a congratulatory message for the Busch Stadium Jumbotron just yet.

Indeed, projecting a Triple Crown winner is almost always a losing proposition. It's the rarest of baseball accomplishments: The game has seen more perfect games (17) than Triple Crown hitters (16).

Nobody's pulled off a trifecta since Yastremski did it in 1967. No NL player has done so since St. Louis' Joe Medwick in 1937.

To put it another way, three different race horses have claimed the Triple Crown in their own sport since MLB's last winner.

It takes a rare combination of power, contact and opportunity to make a run at the ultimate hitter's coup. But if any active player has a chance to end the drought, it's Pujols.

Believe it or not, Pujols has led the league in a Triple Crown category just once, when he won the NL batting title in 2003.

His resume is littered with near-misses: Pujols has two second-place finishes and a third-place showing in each category. The closest he's come to putting it all together was 2005, when he finished second in batting, second in RBI and third in home runs.

On more than one occasion, Pujols has been the thwarted in a Crown category by a lesser player who put together a flash-in-a-pan career year.

In 2004, Pujols hit 46 home runs to match Adam Dunn, only to watch Adrian Beltre, who had never topped 23 dingers and hasn't sniffed more than 26 since, smack 48.

In '05, Derrek Lee, a career .282 hitter who had never broken .300—and has done so just once since—hit .335 to edge Pujols for the batting title by five points.

That same year, Lee whacked 46 home runs, blowing past his previous high of 32. His best effort since: 22. Meanwhile, Andruw Jones, (previous best: 36 longballs) belted 51, relegating Pujols' 41-dinger campaign to a distant third.

Last season, another Jones—Chipper, this time—hit a career-best .364 at age 36 to eclipse a .357 year from Pujols.

Some guys just can't catch a break.

Pujols has also been a victim of his own remarkable consistency. Aside from steady gains in strikeouts and on-base percentage, there haven't been many ups and downs in his career Triple Crown line of .334/39 HR/122 RBI.

That steady march is a great way to build a first-ballot Hall of Fame career, but it makes Pujols vulnerable when other players swing to an extreme.

Pujols is also at the mercy of a number of factors beyond his control. His supporting cast has been suspect since the end of the Jim Edmonds-Scott Rolen glory days. He's seeing fewer pitches to hit as he goes along, and led the league with a career-high 34 intentional walks in '08.

He's also competing with a handful of bonafide sluggers for the NL home run title. Ryan Howard, Prince Fielder, Ryan Braun, and Dunn all swing for the fences with more gusto than Pujols.

Pujols has the power to match them—he hit 49 home runs in 143 games in '06, and 37 in 148 outings last year—but against big boppers who are willing to rack up triple-digit strikeouts to take round-trip cuts, he's at a distinct disadvantage.

With St. Louis off to a blistering offensive start—and Fielder and Howard struggling through sluggish Aprils—Pujols' chances may never be better.

The odds say he'll come up short. But Prince Albert has been a rare force in his big-league tenure. He might just be worthy of a Crown.

The Yankees' new billion-dollar bandbox

2009-04-22T14:55:00.007-05:00

It's a mighty fine day to hate the New York Yankees.

If you thought Alex Rodriguez' hip injury or Chien-Ming Wang's meltdown were karmic retribution for treating the rest of the league as a trade deadline shopping center, plundering the annual free-agent market, and fleecing taxpayers into subsidizing a cash cow of a stadium for the richest organization in baseball, you weren't thinking big enough.

Payback for those years of Yankee smarm isn't coming on the field, exactly: It's coming from the field itself.

Seven games into its inaugural season, New York's glossy $1.5 billion new ballpark has been pegged as a homer-happy wind tunnel.

Thirty-one fly balls have left the cathedral on the season, including 14 in a two-day stretch against the Indians in which fly balls to right field might as well have included an airmail stamp.

That's 4.42 home runs per game. Last year, Chicago's U.S. Cellular Field led baseball with 2.79 home runs per contest. The original Yankee Stadium clocked in at a modest 13th, with 1.98 longballs a game.

In 1999, Denver's Coors Field — the pre-humidor version — set the major-league record with 3.70 homers a game, for 303 on the season. The average score of a game in Denver that season was 8-7.

The current pace at the new Yankee Stadium would produce 358 home runs — about one for every million dollars the New York public contributed to the venue — and turn into the biggest pitcher's nightmare in the history of baseball.

Numbers like that lend the park all the mystique and aura of Ken Griffey Jr.'s Slugfest. If Babe Ruth had built this house, Barry Bonds would have been swinging for a distant second on the all-time dinger list.

One imagines this isn't what CC Sabathia had in mind.

Remember that when the Yankees lured the prized free agent pitcher into pinstripes, one of the team's selling points (aside $161 million over seven years) was the chance to start the very first game in their glossy new ballpark.

"Think about it," Sabathia gushed. "55,000 people? The first game? I can't wait."

Now, the burly hurler finds himself locked into perhaps 48 starts in the three seasons between now and his 2011 opt-out clause in a home stadium where hitters can't wait to take their cuts.

So does A.J. Burnett, whose health concerns just might start to coincide with scheduled home starts. If Philip Hughes didn't have confidence issues after his disastrous stint in the majors in '08, he might develop a few when his number gets called in the new park.

And good luck inking those big-name pitchers next winter if the ball keeps going up without coming down. Just ask the Rockies how top-line starters feel about serving up to fodder for home-run derbies.

Even if the Yankees diagnose the problem, they're not allowed to tamper with the park until after the season.

For the past decade, the Yankees have made headlines by shelling out for the best toys money can buy.

It looks like their latest, greatest splurge comes stamped with a bold "buyer beware."

The Bulls need a man who can finish the job

2009-04-20T21:03:00.010-05:00

Before the playoffs began, the Bulls and their fans would have been thrilled if you'd promised them a split in two down-to-the-wire games in Boston.

Now, the all-even series feels like a punch in the gut as the team laments the commanding lead that could have been.

Funny what a little success will do to expectations.

Shake it off, Chicago, because there's still work to be done. And not just the kind that leads up to Thursday's swing contest at the United Center.

The Bulls might win the game. They might even take the series, especially if home court proves to be any sort of advantage for the underdogs and Boston's big men keep clutching straining knees.

It's an enormous stretch to see Chicago doing much beyond that. The best-case scenario for the Bulls in these playoffs is a thrilling upset over the defending champs, followed by an honest run at Orlando in the second round. Holding on to get waxed by Cleveland in the conference finals would be a dream come true.

In other words, this is not a group with a bead on an '09 title run. If the Bulls are a dark horse, they're running on three legs.

But this nascent barn-burner of an opening round has gone a long way toward illuminating the missing pieces that could change that outlook.

Of course, GM John Paxson's off-season shopping list will feature more than one bullet point.

The Bulls needs a perimeter stopper who can stay in front of guards (or a refresher course for Kirk Hinrich on the art of grabbing wrists).

They need an enforcer who can dole out a few unhappy endings in the paint (start working on that glower, Aaron Gray).

And they might need somebody on the sidelines reminding Vinny Del Negro to save a timeout down the stretch now and then (is Chris Webber available?)

If this team wants to make the most of Del Negro's up-tempo mantra, though, it needs also needs a finisher.

A hot Ben Gordon can finish games just fine. DeMarcus Nelson, like all good Duke recruits, finished his degree (don't feel bad, Luol Deng — you've got plenty of time free for night classes these days).

But the Bulls need the kind of finisher who knows what to do with the ball when he's within handshake range of the rim.

To their credit, the offense has made strides since live-by-the-jumper, die-by-the-jumper efforts of the Scott Skiles era. A healthy number of sets start with inlet passes or drives to the basket.

The problem is what the Bulls do once they get there.

Joakim Noah has no trouble going up at close range, but can't figure out how to convert on his way down. Brad Miller looks as if he might not reach the rim with the aid of a trampoline. And Tyrus Thomas looks far too comfortable taking his improved 15-footer rather than putting his high-flying talents to good use.

Layups are rolling the wrong way. Put-backs won't stay put. And more than a few fast breaks have ended not in emphatic dunks, but in who's-lane-is-it-anyway bouts of confusion.

The Bulls bricked 10 of their 22 layup attempts on Monday, after missing 15 of 23 of their tries in the series opener.

On the front line, Noah, Miller, and Thomas have combined to shoot eight-of-22 on layups in the series. The trio has thrown down just six dunks -- five from Noah, one from Thomas.

During one three-one-one fast break in Game Two, a streaking Noah collected a pass a few feet in front of the basket, but couldn't rise up to slam the ball home...over Rajon Rondo.

He settled instead for an awkward leaning bank-in. The shot was good; the implications for Chicago's ability to make good at point-blank range were not.

The Bulls deserve credit for returning to relevance. The team's arrow is pointed up for the first time in a season and a half.

Now it's time to find someone — either on the roster or elsewhere — who can finish what they've started.

Rich Harden keeps relievers in business. Maybe they should return the favor.

2009-04-17T10:02:00.016-05:00

Rich Harden has never been mistaken for a workhorse.

In 103 career starts, he's lasted a shade less than six innings per appearance. Even last year, when he stayed healthy enough to pitch for most of a full season, Harden averaged 5.92 frames on the mound in his 25 outings - the fewest among regular Cubs' starters.

That's fine for Joe Starter -- the average MLB starter lasts 5.6 frames per turn -- but meager for a pitcher of Harden's talent and pedigree.

Harden's game-by-game numbers further underscore his limits. The table below examines how frequently each of Chicago's starters pitched into or beyond the seventh inning, including Harden's starts in Oakland:

Harden's move to the National League didn't help him go deeper into games: He pitched into the seventh in four of his 12 starts as a Cub (33 percent).

The most maddening aspect of Harden's short stints on the mound is his habit of checking out early from strong outings. Fourteen times last season, he logged six or fewer innings last year in starts in which he allowed two or fewer runs. In six of those starts, he sat down before the seventh inning despite having allowed one or no runs.

Control trouble and pitch counts conspired to cut his gems short: Harden issued 3.17 walks and struck out 6.53 batters per contest in the 17 starts in which he went six or fewer innings, burning through plenty of pitches to reach those tallies. His injury history deterred his managers from extending him past the 100-pitch mark, and he topped that count just nine times despite multiple dominant outings.

His latest start showcased Harden at his best and worst all at once: Four straight strikeouts to start the game, followed by two walks and a meltdown, and capped off by three more strikeouts before exiting after three. His line on the day: Eight K's, four walks, five hits and four earned runs in three innings of work.

So on one hand, Harden dominates in short bouts, strikes out more than a batter an inning -- 1.33 per frame in his time in NL -- and has held opposing batters to a .216 batting average, .300 on-base percentage and .316 slugging clip over the course of his career.

On the other, he profiles as a bullpen-killer who needs three-plus innings of relief behind him more often than not, and a constant risk to spend time on the disabled list if he's overused.

For all his brilliance, Harden can't seem to avoid burning out his relievers and himself.

Which is why he should consider joining them.

Conventional wisdom says that talented pitchers are more valuable in the rotation than out of the 'pen. After all, 150 stellar innings keeps more runs off the board than 60 or 70 strong frames.

But Harden has been hard-pressed to produce anything resembling a full compliment of starts to date, and after six-plus seasons in the big leagues, it's unclear that he ever will.

His value as a starter is also diminished by the regularity of his early exits. Since his first major injury in 2005, he's gone six or fewer innings in 70 percent of his starts. That means the Cubs aren't just getting Harden's handiwork in his starts -- even when he's sharp, they're getting a tag team of Harden plus an inning or two of Aaron Heilman, Neal Cotts or another middle-of-the-pen replacement.

It's a bizarre take on Cinderella's dilemma: A front-line starter transforms into a humdrum middle reliever as soon as the pitch count strikes the century mark.

Plug Harden into the eigth inning, however (sorry, Kevin Gregg, but Carlos Marmol has gotten the last two calls to close, and as far as set-up men go, we're just not that into you), and you've got the front end of a two-headed door-slamming relieving machine.

In an era in which pitching deep enough into a game to qualify for a win constitutes a marathon, building a bullpen around multiple shutdown relievers is all the rage. Killer late-inning combinations were key features of deep postseason runs by the '06 Tigers (Joel Zumaya-Todd Jones), '07 Red Sox (Hideki Okajima-Jonathan Papelbon) and '08 Phillies (Ryan Madson-Chad Durbin-Brad Lidge). The Mets upped the ante this winter, bringing in two bonafide closers in J.J. Putz and Francisco Rodriguez to carry their leads home.

And as Kerry Wood can attest, there's plenty of precedent for frail flame-throwers to find new niches at the back of the Chicago bullpen.

Who replaces Harden in the rotation? Preferably Jake Peavy, but anyone whose arm isn't in danger of falling off after five innings is a good investment in the long run. Jeff Samardzija was a rotation candidate in spring training, and is still waiting for his shot.

The move might cost the Cubs a handful of regular-season wins as they search for another starter, but has the potential to turn key games -- playoff contests, perhaps -- into seven-inning affairs.

Harden, meanwhile, gets the chance to extend his career, and can go to work without a pitch clicker looming over every inning he throws. If he transitions successfully, teams that might have been uneasy paying him eight figures to start games will have no qualms offering him that much to finish them.

Harden's shaky durability puts sharp limits on his spectacular talent. It's time for the Cubs to consider moving him to the bullpen and taking him off the leash.

Stop Luis Ayala before he kills again

2009-04-13T14:01:00.009-05:00

Blame the Twins' slow start on an offense that was held to one or no runs in four of its first eight games. Blame it on the absence of Joe Mauer and his choir of angels.

Or if you prefer to nitpick, blame it on a middle reliever.

Luis Ayala, step right up.

For a man in the business of relief, Ayala sure causes his share of headaches on the mound.

And for a guy with one job to do — keep close games close — he's certainly had a miserable time doing it.

Five outings. Four close-and-late situations. Eleven hits. Four earned runs.

And one set-up man who's just about pitched himself out of the job.

The box scores don't even tell the full, brutal story of Ayala's season. He's entered four games in which the Twins were within three runs or fewer. In those appearances, Ayala has yielded hits to 10 of the 21 batters he's faced, allowing opponents to tee off at a .476 clip.

He's not just getting hit; he's getting hammered. On April 9 against the Mariners, he coughed up a two-out double in a 1-0 game that turned into extra padding for Seattle closer Brandon Morrow.

On Monday night, he was lit up for another double ahead of a towering four-bagger, completing his transformation of a one-run lead into a two-run hole.

He's entered games with the Twins down by one, down by one, and up by one.

In each of those outings, he's left a two-run deficit in his wake.

Ayala could make a killing as an insurance salesman - except he's peddling the extra runs to the wrong team.

He's not the reason the Twins haven't hit. But he's not making life any easier on the struggling lineup. It only takes one swing of the bat for Justin Morneau or Joe Crede to fix a one-run gap, but it takes a rally to clean up the messes Ayala's been leaving behind. And closer Joe Nathan can only preserve leads that make it to his care.

How much more rope the Twins will give Ayala before turning elsewhere for an eighth-inning arm is anyone's guess. The team can be patient to a fault in trying to eke production out of bargain-basement acquisitions.

In 2007, Minnesota trotted out Ramon Ortiz for 10 starts, undeterred by his 5.75 ERA as a starter and bullpen-draining 5 2/3 innings per start.

In '08, the Twins gave Livan Hernandez an incredible 23 turns in the rotation, even though he put 228 men on base in 138 frames with the club, en route to giving up an MLB-leading 391 total bases on the reason.

In other words, there's precedent for the Ayala experiment to go on longer than it should.

Those late-inning runs threaten to erode one of the pillars of the Twins' recent success. Minnesota's '06 club won the Central with the No. 2 bullpen in the American League. The division-winning '04 team featured the AL's best relieving corps.

With Pat Neshek sidelined for the year, there isn't a clear-cut late-inning alternative in waiting.

Unless Ayala shows he has more to offer, the Twins had better start looking.

In MLB, you can bet your pennant that April matters

2009-04-06T18:03:00.003-05:00

Philadelphia manager Charlie Manuel reminded everyone that his club’s opening day loss was just one game. So did Yankees skipper Joe Girardi after dropping his own first stanza to the O’s. And at least one of Girardi’s own superstars knows full well that an auspicious start to the season can’t hold a candle to a spectacular finish.

Throw in the annual wave of rainouts, the lingering rust from Spring Training and a lack of meaningful statistics to track — Nick Markakis' .714 batting clip and Hideki Okajima’s 27 strikeouts per nine notwithstanding—and April can feel like a month of baseball that doesn’t quite matter.

Teams with playoff aspirations, however, should note that a strong beginning to the year tends to speak volumes about who’ll be left standing at the end.

In the Wild Card era, there have been 13 seasons that featured a complete slate of April games (coming off the 1994 strike, the ’95 season did not begin until late in the month). Those years have featured a total of 104 playoff teams.

Fewer than one in five of those postseason qualifiers (20 of 104) made it to October after posting a sub-.500 April. And of the 26 World Series participants in the same span, just four hoisted pennants after a start that poor.

Fall too far behind in April, and history says you’re likely to stay there: From ’96 on, a paltry eight teams have made the playoffs after wrapping up the month more than three games below the break-even point. Angling for home-field advantage?

Only one team in the Wild Card era has earned that perk after opening the year with a losing month.

Mathematically, a slow start doesn’t bury a team any more than a midyear slump. Tigers fans certainly remember the 0-7 start that kicked off the team’s last-place ’08, but Detroit was a .500 team by mid-June, and hung around as close as five games out of first as late as Aug. 1.

That’s hardly a death sentence for the season.

But the size of the deficit accrued in a bad month isn’t the problem. Playing catch-up to earn a postseason berth puts a team at the mercy of forces beyond its control. On May 1, 2006, the Twins woke up from a 9-16 April to find themselves in a nine-game hole. On June 10, they were 11 games back.

The team went on a 30-7 (.810) rampage over the next month and a half—and picked up two and a half games to show for it. In fact, Minnesota didn’t take sole possession of first place until Oct. 1 in spite of finishing the year on a four-month, 70-33 run.

What on Earth took so long? The Twins needed the teams in front of them to lose before they could make any headway. A bad April put them in a position in which even two-thirds of a season of stellar baseball couldn’t guarantee them a Central title until Kansas City knocked off Detroit in Game 162.

Clubs that stumble out of the gate need help to climb back into the race. If they don’t get it, they’re out of luck, no matter how well they play down the stretch.

Teams that mount a late charge to overcome a sluggish start also run the risk of draining themselves physically and emotionally just to stay alive. Of the 20 teams that made the playoffs after a losing April from ’96 on, 13 lost in the first round.

A manager can only light a fire under his squad so many times in a season before his players get burned out. The focus and intensity brought on by win-or-go-home scenarios are difficult to maintain for extended runs.

But the biggest reason teams that lose in April have a hard time winning the rest of the year is that month-long performances typically aren’t a fluke. The Tigers weren’t cooked last year because they started 0-7; they started 0-7 because they weren’t any good.

There are exceptions, but most teams don’t swing wildly from one extreme of success to the other within the course of a single season. If your record after a month says you’re nothing special, the odds are you’re not.

A hot start doesn't guarantee anything, but a cold one puts teams with championship aspirations in a bind. Would-be contenders, take note: They're all just one game, but in April, they count for plenty.

Cutler helps the Bears -- but who's going to help him?

2009-04-03T15:06:00.003-05:00

Jay Cutler will make the Bears better. He's a Pro Bowl talent with a big, reasonably accurate arm. He's a rising star at the game's most important position -- something this team hasn't found in decades.

But the Bears will also make Cutler worse. And the net gain of the whole equation might be a lot lower than Chicago hopes.

For starters, Cutler might run into a few problems with protection. Not the kind that Travis Henry should have used; the kind your offensive line provides when you drop back to throw. In his breakout season in Denver last year, he got it in gobs: Despite logging 616 pass attempts -- second-most in football -- Cutler hit the turf a mere 11 times, for a league-low 1.75 percent sack rate. That's historically good protection: It's the seventh-best single-season rate on record.

Bears quarterbacks last season were dropped 29 times in 528 tries, or 5.2 percent of the time. Newly inked offensive tackle Orlando Pace will help a bit in that department, and if Cutler is as good as advertised, he should be able to bail himself out at least a few times. But he might want to spend some time getting comfortable in a horizontal position, because he's not going to stay upright at the same prolific clip this year.

Cutler is also downgrading sharply from a receiving corps that featured fellow Pro Bowler Brandon Marshall (104 receptions, 1265 yards, 6 TDs) and rookie sensation Eddie Royal (91 rec, 980 yds, 5 TD). His new top targets will be work-in-progress Devin Hester (51 rec, 665 yds, 3 TD in eight starts at wideout) and tight end Greg Olsen (54 rec, 574 yds, 5 TD). Both will benefit from the upgraded passer, and Hester should be on the business end of plenty of deep balls, but Cutler will be hard-pressed to find strong third and fourth options on the current roster.

In fact, Hester was the only wide receiver among the Bears' top four pass-catchers. Running back Matt Forte led the team with 63 grabs as a 7.6 yards-per-catch security blanket, and tight end Desmond Clark nabbed 41 balls at 9.0 yards a pop. Denver's receivers ranked fifth in the NFL with 1,891 yards after catch; Chicago's corps was 18th with 1,564. Either Kyle Orton held the Bears' group back in a big way, or Cutler's days of launching rockets downfield are a thing of the past.

Think Forte and the Bears' running game will open things up for Cutler? Denver gained 116 yards a game on the ground last year and ranked 12th; Chicago gained 104 a contest and ranked 24th. At 3.8 yards per carry, Forte is a plodder, not a home run hitter. Cutler's ability to stretch the field should alter that dynamic, but Chicago's bits-and-pieces offensive approach will dampen his own ability to break games open.

The biggest let-down from the trade, however, might have nothing to do with how the Bears' offense talent impacts Cutler, and vice versa. Chicago's No. 17 scoring defense lost more games last season than its No. 14 scoring offense. The D couldn't lock down at least three close games, including a season-ending loss in Houston. The pass rush produced just 28 sacks, 24th in the football. The Bears still led the NFL in takeaways, but they're not getting any younger -- and losing three first-day draft picks won't help in that department. If they can't manufacture stops in key spots, Cutler isn't going to cure what ails them. Just ask the Broncos.

If Chicago was close to fielding a Super Bowl contender, mortgaging the next two drafts to acquire Cutler would be a no-brainer. As it stands, they seem to have added a pricey new passer to an otherwise middling mix. Fortunes can change on a dime in the NFL, but Cutler might be hard-pressed to lead Chicago to much more than a division title in the forseeable future.

The once and future kings

2009-04-01T16:30:00.005-05:00

Reflecting on a North Carolina basketball season that was supposed to be legendary but has turned out merely fantastic thus far, ESPN.com's Scoop Jackson wonders if we've seen the last of the great college hoops teams. It's an argument that gets thrown out there every few years, under the premise that the one-year revolving door for NBA talent will rob programs of the continuity they need to dominate for extended runs or rise as high as titans of days gone by.

There are strands of truth in the theory, and every year, a fresh crop of underclassmen departures seem to validate it. But rumors of the demise of the NCAA basketball dynasty are greatly exaggerated. Here's why:

The one-and-done's will be done before long: A variety of factors are already conspiring against the current rule requiring a single year of post-high school experience before jumping into the Association. Coaches can't stand it. Educators and administrators get headaches trying to keep their schools in good standing when players check out early or, worse, get a head start on chatting it up with agents and endorsers.

But real change will come from the one impetus that always gets results: Money. The NBA is on a fast break toward one nasty financial meltdown. Teams are borrowing cash to cover expenses and shedding big salaries like they're going out of style. Pundits are whispering about a work stoppage in the next few years -- and if nobody's playing, then nobody's drafting. But even if a lockout doesn't materialize, the league needs to figure out a way to put as good and as inexpensive a product on the court as possible. Polishing players in the safe confines of the college game for more than one season -- which also keeps those young stars playing on their rookie deals deeper into their prime years -- is an easy way to do that.

Players will pitch a fit, but as a group with no collective bargaining power that's already making billions for the sports without collecting paychecks in return, they don't hold many cards here. Look for the next collection bargaining agreement to raise the eligibility bar to two or three seasons, and keep top talent in the college ranks longer.

Coaches are adapting to the turnover: Eligibility reform may be a little way down the road, but top-tier coaches are already figuring out how to get the same winning results every year with different casts. Roy Williams had North Carolina back in the tournament a year after losing his top seven rotation players from the '05 championship team, and returned to the Elite 8 the year after that. Kansas and Memphis were expected to fall hard after losing nearly all of the principle contributors who dueled for last year's title. Instead, both bounced back as legitimate contenders. The former will be an early favorite next year, and the latter would have been in the same boat had John Calipari stayed put. Even lower-tier powers like USC, Western Kentucky won tournament games this year after losing first-round talent to the '08 draft.

Coaches are learning to build winners around effective systems and replaceable parts. The occasional house-cleaning will still knock a team from its perch -- Florida has yet to recover from the loss of the nucleus that produced back-to-back titles in '06 and '07 -- but a few high-profile departures aren't a death sentence for a would-be dynasty.

It's cool to stay in school: Florida's fab four sent a message when they stuck around after their first championship. UNC's starting five followed suit after last year's Final Four run. UCLA had three rotation players stick around for all three of its most recent consecutive Final Four appearances. The surefire lottery players come and go, but plenty of talented players are keen on sticking around for the college lifestyle and tournament glory that an NBA paycheck can't buy. Every kid who stays gives others a reason to think about doing so, especially if delaying the leap to the pro level doesn't hurt -- or even improves -- their draft stock. The risk of injury is always a factor nudging players to go get their guaranteed money, but if a player looks fantastic before an injury, NBA clubs seem willing to shell out based on the hope that he'll come back strong (think Greg Oden).

Players are also more likely to come back to title contenders than also-rans because they're still chasing the win or two that got away. It's a lot easier to walk away from a club that bowed out in the Sweet 16 as a No. 4 seed than one that fell in the semifinals as a No. 1. This means teams that make deep, dominant runs have improved odds of bringing back key players for another try, further entrenching their place at the top of the heap. And teams that win it all have a new goal to shoot for: Two titles in a row has been done, but there hasn't been a three-peat in nearly 40 years. If the money is still waiting on the other side, players have plenty of reasons to enjoy life as a big fish in a small pond, rather than moving on and be thrust into the opposite scenario.

We might not see the equivalent of Bob Knight's undefeated Hoosiers again for a long, long time -- if nothing else, the tournament is bigger, the season is longer and it's tougher to go unbeaten through 38 games than it is through 32. But there are plenty of reasons to believe that college basketball's elite programs have a healthy portion of their best work ahead of them.

Coach Cal at a crossroads

2009-03-31T00:41:00.000-05:00

John Calipari was supposed to show us there was more than one way to the top.

He was supposed to turn the idea that big-time coaches needed to inherit big-time programs on its head. He was supposed to debunk the notion that building an NCAA basketball juggernaut required a pre-approved name brand from a power conference, resurrecting Memphis after breathing life into an obscure UMass program. There have been five Final Four teams in the past 15 years that didn't come from a BCS conference; Calipari coached two of them.å

By the tune of his own populist rhetoric, Calipari was supposed to be the coach who snatched college hoops dominance away from the established royalty and handed it to the people of a working city.

But if rumors that he's close to a deal that would make him the next head coach at Kentucky hold up, blue-blooded will deal blue-collar a major blow.

For all the bracket-busting folklore and odes to Cinderella it inspires, the tournament is an event dominated by a handful of tradition-rich programs that keep getting richer. Since the tourney expanded to 64 teams in 1985, eight schools -- Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky, Kansas, Florida, Connecticut, UCLA and Michigan State -- have accounted for nearly two-thirds of its champions (15 of 23 titles) and almost half of its Final Four participants (46 of 96 bids). All but two champs have come from one of the six conferences that now form the BCS -- and only one of those outliers, UNLV, still plies its trade outside of BCS circles.

In an era in which major conferences have mopped up the lion's share of quality programs and tournament success, Calipari set up shop in a program that had zero titles, two Final Fours and a four-year NCAA tournament drought to its name. Five years later, he made the first of three consecutive Elite Eight appearances, the most recent of which had his Tigers a whisper away from a national title. He can offer five-star recruits an NBA arena, an offense that showcases their individual talents and the closest thing they'll get to a guaranteed conference championship (55 straight Conference USA wins)-- and the tourney seeding that comes with it. And if the kids want to get a head start on their pro endorsement considerations, super-confidante and dealmaker extraordinaire William "Worldwide Wes" Wesley is on hand to show them all the right hands to shake.

Add it all up, and Calipari has built a one-stop shop for blue-chip prospects who want to strut their stuff en route to the Association. And he and his players have the wins to show for it -- not as Tar Heels or Jayhawks, but as regular old Memphis Tigers.

He might still decide to keep it that way and keep building his own winner in Graceland. If he does, he'll send a jarring message to the power conference establishment that less-storied programs are no longer here to keep coaches warm for the big gigs. He's already making the usual suspects sweat plenty, scoring the No. 2 and No. 3 players on Rivals.com's '09 recruiting list and working to steal No. 1, point guard John Wall, out from Duke and UNC's back yard. Rebuffing Kentucky and translating his ability to lure stars into a title or two for Memphis would represent a significant upheaval in the old guard's hegemony over college basketball.

And if Coach Cal caves and bolts for Lexington? He'll gut the Memphis program and torch a city that's shown him so much love it fills the arena to watch him practice. He'll reinforce the idea that top programs can't be made, only handed down. And the only thing he'll have shown us is how to build a stepping stone.

earning, the Woves way

2009-03-25T16:21:00.007-05:00

Twins Cities sports radio guru Dan Barreiro, of KFAN fame, dropped a gem of a Timberwolves tidbit today. On Sunday, right before laying down and dying for the fifth straight game and 13th time in their last 15 contests, two promotions collided.

The first, part of the team's slate of 20th anniversary events, honored former fan favorite Sam Mitchell. The game was also the first of two contests tied to the club's "Read to Achieve" program, described by the Wolves as "a year-round literacy campaign program to help young people develop a life-long love of reading." Students who read at least 500 pages in the program received a prize package that included a Wolves backpack, a bookmark, a ticket to one of two games (Sunday versus OKC or a week later against the Nets) and a poster.

The poster, in conjunction with the anniversary event, featured an artist's rendering of Mitchell. Those with a life-long love of reading may notice something was, err, lost in the translation:

There are an embarrassment of punchlines to ring up here: The Wolves finally found a way to avoid an "L;" the the front office traded the missing letter and a first-round pick for the rights to Chris Kaman; the team figured that on a Sunday afternoon against the Thunder, nobody was going to see the thing anyhow -- pick whichever floats your boat.

Our favorite, however, is this: Wolves owner Glen Taylor has built his considerable fortune in large part on printing and graphics companies. The book on Taylor says that his $1.7 billion Taylor Corporation arose through savvy investments in fixer-upper acquisitions. Perhaps his real secret has finally surfaced: In lean times, Taylor keeps margins high by downsizing the alphabet.

The poster isn't the reason why the Wolves are 4-21 over the past two months, or the reason we'd rather watch the Gopher women get whacked by Texas A&M four times a week than venture into the Target Center. It's a symptom, not a root cause. If the Lakers had pulled a comparable gaffe, we'd be wondering if Phil Jackson was playing mind games with, well, whoever might be thrown off by a typo on a poster.

But this is a Timberwolves organization that has flashed its fair share of incompetence in its two decades, and veritably oozed the quality for five years running. You throw the botched Mitchell artwork in the pot with the failed draft picks and the irrational coaching changes, sprinkle in a pinch of the Joe Smith scandal and add a dash of Marko Jaric for flavor, and you've got yourself one potent screw-up stew.

Kevin McHale started five reserves in Philadelphia tonight to send a message. The Wolves are way, way past that point. Remember when Bud Selig tried to contract the Twins and provoked an uproar? If David Stern tried to dismantle the T'Wolves, the only people who would notice would be the ones who showed up at the arena with their own jackhammers to help (presumably, they'd be tearing apart the court, but McHale might want to stay out of sight in this scenario just in case). Heck, for all most Minnesotans know, the Wolves relocated to Omaha on Valentine's Day and have been playing out the season as the Nebraska Gnomes. Keeping up with every new low the organization hits is an exhausting pastime, and most fans simply don't have the fortitude. If the Wolves get thrashed on a Sunday and nobody's there to see it, did it really happen?

It was time to clean house after Flip Saunders was fired in '05. Now it's time to burn the house down and build another one. Don't keep Kevin McHale on the bench for another round of bad memories. Don't boost Fred Hoiberg or whoever is next in line in the front office to the GM role. The good guys, the bad guys, the custodians, the emcees -- send 'em all packing. Don't worry about organizational continuity. Don't worry about releasing the next diamond in the rough. This club needs a fresh start in the worst way. Write Sam Mitchell an apology note and as soon as the final horn sounds on game 82, get to work on a blank canvas.

After all, what do they have to ose?

Lions and Packers and Bears - and lockouts? Oh my.

2009-03-24T13:56:00.003-05:00

With news that Green Bay is set for a Sunday night showdown with Chicago to open the season and a marquee Thanksgiving Day date with Detroit, it's a good day to be a Packer fan. Then again, most Packer fans will tell you it's always a good day to be a Packer fan, but sometimes that's just the Milwaukee's Best Light talking.

The good vibes, however, have come against the backdrop of a rising murmur from people in the know that the NFL is marching toward a bizarro uncapped 2010 season and a 2011 work stoppage. And if labor relations for America's premier sports league turn sour, no fan base will be hit harder than the Green Bay faithful.

To be sure, an NFL lockout would ruffle plenty of feathers in any city that packs a stadium every Sunday -- and administer an Aaron Kampman-caliber beating to sports bars and Vegas bookies. Bears fans will have nothing to do but ogle Derrick Rose and shop for Senate seats all winter. And Eagles supporters will have to find another team to boo.

But it's tough to find another pro sports franchise that monopolizes the attention of an entire state as thoroughly as the Pack. From the team's public ownership to its 75,000-name, 30-year waiting list for season tickets, Green Bay enjoys a benevolent stranglehold on red-blooded Wisconsinites from Racine to Superior.

When the Brewers and Bucks are awful (slander, I know), fans ignore them. When the Packers are awful (heresy!), fans just hunker down in their No. 4 jerseys and get to work on another case of Pabst. Milwaukee is the state's metropolis and Madison houses the capitol, but as far as Packer fans are concerned, Green Bay is the center of the universe.

Which begs the question: If the NFL loses part or all of a season to a stalemate between players and owners over a new collective bargaining agreement, what are those fans going to do with themselves?

Sure, they've got Badger football, and a few months of college hoops to keep them distracted. But the Big Ten season wraps up in November, and it's hard to tailgate for a basketball game. So you've got depressed fans and a body blow to the bratwurst industry. Beer and bun sales are next on the list. Relish suffers by association.

From there, the situation only gets darker. As the strike drags on, foam cheesehead sales plummet, and even jewelers feel the pinch as Donald Driver is forced to cut back on earrings. A.J. Hawk can't afford any more hair trims or conditioner, torpedoing beauty shops and throwing uncounted stylists out on the street. With no PackerSelect to lean on, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel shuts its doors for good. And Lambeau Field turns into a ghost town or, worse yet, a tent city.

Heck, the national economy could be humming along again by 2011, and an NFL strike would plunge Wisconsin right back into a recession. Forget the bad economy's impact on pro sports; this is one state where pro sports could return the favor in a big way.

A year without Packer football? There might not be enough cans of Beast out there to help Wisconsinites wash that one down.

Four-for-one...

2009-03-23T01:50:00.001-05:00

…and other observations from the opening weekend of the NCAA tournament:

• Has there ever been a single-conference Final Four? As far as we can tell, there has not. There have been plenty of years when one conference sent two teams that far, and at least one instance in which a conference sent three: The 1985 Final Four featured three Big East squads in national champ Villanova, runner-up Georgetown and St. John’s.

It’s too early to wonder about a repeat performance, but with five Sweet 16 representatives, this year’s Big East is on track to earn all those superlatives that were thrown its way. Of course, there’s still a chicken-and-egg question at hand – has the Big East lived up the hype with multiple teams making deep runs, or did the hype land those teams the favorable seeds they needed to make those deep runs? If the conference goes on to occupy half the slots in the Elite Eight, the question loses a bit of zing – it’s tough to get that far without toppling some competitors that are, well, elite.

Do Pittsburgh and Louisville have the extra gear they’ll need as they square off against the top half of the bracket? Can Syracuse sneak past Oklahoma? Can UConn keep this up? When the dust settles next weekend, we’ll know more about how big a deal this Big East is.

• Even if the selection committee doesn’t play numbers games regarding how many bids each conference gets, it might want to reconsider how much a conference win or top-half finish in the Big Ten is really worth. Outside of Purdue and Michigan State, none of the league’s entrants looked like teams with a real shot of doing damage. Filling out the mediocre middle of the bracket with a No. 8 seed, two No. 10’s and a No. 12 is a poor showing for an alleged power conference, and being on the wrong end of a first-round upset would have been embarrassing enough for No. 5 Illinois if everyone hadn’t seen it coming. Taken together, Big Ten teams put on the kind of performances that could cheapen the value of the league come selection time next March.

• We understand that CBS shelled out $6 billion for its current exclusive TV deal, but would it kill the network to cut a side agreement with a second provider so that viewers can soak in a little more action on opening weekend? On Sunday afternoon, no fewer than three barn-burners were speeding toward a breathtaking conclusion at the same time: MSU-USC, Marquette-Missouri and Louisville-Siena. All three were riveting affairs, but CBS couldn’t very well cut away from the blow-for-blow MSU contest, meaning fans missed all but the closing minute-plus of the other two games. That’s not good for business and that’s not good for anyone. A single-network arrangement works fine for the rest of the tournament, but sell some of those early games to ESPN and gives viewers a little more variety.

• For an event bursting at the brackets with wild rides and surprises, the tournament certainly inspires some utterly predictable media coverage. No matter what happens – a slew of upsets, a drought of upsets, a deep run by an underdog, a deep run by a favorite – you can practically close your eyes and envision the trite headline that’s coming before it hits the page.

We’d love to see a major sports outlet make it through the whole tournament without dropping a single reference to Cinderella, glass slippers or clocks that strike midnight. We’d love to get past the first round without wading through a lament about a day that didn’t feature a memorable upset – or a backlash to such stories that praises the selection committee for doing it’s job. We’d love for the next person who tells us, “It’s a guard’s tournament,” to back that claim with some hard evidence. Heck, we’d love to get through a bracket preview without some pundit reminding us of the darned 5-12 upset. We read those stories last year, and the year before, and the year before that. We get it. Really, we do. Throw away the cliché book and pen something new.

Harden should be easy call for Cubs' opening day

2009-03-12T19:43:00.008-05:00

Official from the Lou Piniella today: Carlos Zambrano will take the mound for the Cubs to open the season. The decision ends the race for the ace nod between Zambrano and Ryan Dempster with four weeks to go.

It also begs the question of why the team's best pitcher -- Rich Harden -- got left out in the cold.

And make no mistake: Harden is the Cubs' top starter, and it's not even close. His 1.77 ERA in 12 starts was just a step behind CC Sabathia's 1.64 in the Senior Circuit, and his .972 WHIP was second to none. In 71 innings over 12 starts, Harden fanned 89 batters. Like Sabathia, he's a downright mismatch against the National League.

Harden's downfall, of course, is durability. His history suggests that even when healthy, he's good for about six innings per start, 25 starts per season. Trying to stretch him out for more than that is asking for trouble -- and if the Cubs burn him too early this season, their rotation is going to be in a world of hurt.

What does all of this have to do with Harden starting opening day? Two things:

1) If there's one day of the season when Harden should be fresh enough to go, this is it.
2) If the team wants to maximize the number of starts he makes while getting him extra rest between outings, opening day is the perfect place to start.

The Cubs have three days off in April, all in their first twelve contests. Throw Harden in game one against Houston, and he could sit for five days, face Milwaukee, then sit for as many as six days before going against St. Louis. That's three chances for the Cubs to send their best starter against the team's three top division rivals in the first four series.

The team gets just six more days off before the All-Star break -- if they want to get as many starts as possible out of Harden and still keep his workload light, the first month is the time to do it. If the Cubs push him to the middle or back of the rotation, it might cost him two or three starts over the year -- and if his performance last year was any indicator, that means missing out on quite a lot.

Putting the "Conspiracy" in WBC

2009-03-11T16:14:00.003-05:00

The Netherlands' startling disposal of the Dominican Republic in World Baseball Classic pool play yesterday was many things. It was incredible -- a group of no-names toppled a star-studded collection of MLB household names twice in four days. It was heartwarming -- Netherlands manager Rod Delmonico shed tears of joy in the post-game press conference.

But was it...rigged?

No, no it wasn't. But let's play Oliver Stone for a moment and imagine that it was.

Picture this: A group of well-moneyed baseball owners converge on an undisclosed location -- we'll call it, Ft. Myers, Fla. -- on a warm February night. They all have their own complaints about the effects of the WBC on their squads -- too erratic a workload for the pitchers, too much injury risk for the position players, and too many real game situations rather than the chance to work exclusively on sharpening a pitch or hitting to the opposite field. They've got hang-ups with the tournament.

And they've all got big-time players on the Dominican Republic roster.

Jose Reyes. David Ortiz. Robinson Cano. Ubaldo Jimenez. Hanley Ramirez. Carlos Marmol. These are guys who can't be replaced by their respective franchises should something go wrong. But what can those teams do about it?

Easy -- they pool together a few million dollars and pay off a few guys to help make sure the DR goes home early.

Not top guys, of course. The top guys make too much already to be bought. But the role players and the young guys don't. Papi isn't for sale -- he's pulling down $12.5 million in '09 -- but Edinson Volquez is making just $440,000. Marmol is due for $575,000. Willy Aybar has $975,000 coming. For these guys, an under-the-table "bonus" for $2 million -- paid upon completion of the "performance incentives" that lead to a DR exit -- goes a long way. Especially when it's presented in a suitcase in a plush hotel room, pushed across the table by a bigwig whose face is obscured by shadow -- is that you, Jeffrey Loria? -- flanked on either side by a buxom escort.

What does that money buy you? Well, the Netherlands managed just one earned run in their two wins against the DR. The others came off six -- six -- Dominican errors. In the first meeting, the Dutch had two outs and no runs in in the top of the first when Volquez walked a man to load the bases and followed up with a wild pitch to score a runner. Ramirez sealed the deal job with a two-run throwing error. Maybe he's in on it, too -- his glovework is usually such a sure thing. Maybe Loria promised not to blow up the team in the next twelve months if Ramirez "played ball."

In last night's game, the DR was up a run going into the bottom of the 11th. Marmol comes in with two outs and a runner on third. He coughs up the tying run, then commits a throwing error that sends the winning run to third. After striking out the next batter, he walks the next guy intentionally. That's right, in a key situation, tournament hopes on the line, Marmol is putting guys on base on purpose, under the guise of some shady "force at second" scenario. Talk about your thinly veiled motives. Then Aybar swoops in and finishes the job with a throwing error to first. Game, set, match, and all those high-priced DR stars head back to their clubs intact.

This can only end in tragedy. Somebody gets nervous and squeals. The Dominican Republic public explodes at the scandal. The whole team is banned from the WBC for life. And on the streets of Santo Domingo, as Aybar shuffles past a hushed, whispering crowd, a little boy approaches him, crying, "Diga que no es verdad, Willy!"

Did it happen?

No, no it didn't. But with the Dutch making the WBC a little more interesting this week, we thought we'd return the favor.

'09 MLB Preview: The trades, the awards and the playoffs

2009-03-10T13:22:00.007-05:00

Just one team can win it all, but a whole group of squads gets to pretend they're in the mix by making a big splash at the deadline. First, our three most intriguing blockbuster candidates from each league:

AL:

Roy Halladay: Parting with one of the top two or three starters in the league might be madness, but the prospect of Doc Halladay finishing '09 outside of Toronto isn't as crazy as you think. His contract expires in 2010, and if Toronto thinks he's going to test free agency and price himself out of their budget, they'll get maximum value by shipping him out with at least a full season left. The Blue Jays also aren't close to competing, and paying Halladay $30 million over the next two seasons -- especially when an earnest rebuilding effort is due -- doesn't make a lot of sense. The Jays might not pull the trigger in July, but they'll think about it.
Adrian Beltre: Unless the Mariners think they can bounce back from their 61-win nightmare in a hurry, Beltre should be as good as gone before the end of his walk year. He's been a let-down in the first four seasons of his five-year deal, but remember that it was the prospect of free agency that inspired his original .334/.388/.629/48 HR breakout. If he's good for a similar performance, he's sure to sucker some contender with a hole to fill into buying. We don't figure that his eight-team no-trade clause, which includes the Padres and Dodgers, will be much of an issue.
Magglio Ordonez: After entering last season with expectations of competing for a World Series title, the Tigers were an unqualified disaster with a $138 million payroll. And if the ship doesn't right itself in a hurry, look for owner Michael Illitch to blow up his collection of aging veterans and rebuild around the youngsters. Ordonez, one of the pieces that keyed Detroit's remarkable turnaround in '06, is a front-office favorite, but he's also one of the few old-timers on this club that can still fetch value in return. Illitch can't be keen on paying that kind of coin for a similar mess, so don't be surprised if an "everything must go" sign shows up in front of Comerica Park come mid-season.

NL:

Jake Peavy: The Padres couldn't get a deal done to ship Peavy out this winter, in large part because they only had one serious suitor -- the Cubs -- and couldn't come to terms. But in the heat of a pennant race, the former Cy Young winner is going to look to good for a World Series hopeful to pass up. Chicago could make another run at this ace, along with a long list of other teams who would love to see Peavy start Game 1 of a playoff series. San Diego has too little to play for this season to justify hanging onto Peavy; the team just needs to find a trade partner that fits.
Mike Cameron: Milwaukee exercised Cameron's club option for '09 because they thought they would contend again. They won't -- their starting rotation lost too much, and the let-down after the team's first post-season appearance in decades will suck the life out of this season. That doesn't mean Cameron, who hit .243 with a .331 OBP, 25 homers and 17 steals in a suspension-shortened year, isn't still valuable. It just means that a small-market team bound for third place is going to have a hard time paying him $10 million. He was rumored as a Yankees target in the off-season, and will have at least a fewer suitors as Milwaukee falls out of the playoff chase.
Adam LaRoche: It wouldn't a trade deadline if the Pirates weren't selling, and the elder LaRoche is this year's candidate for Pittsburgh's we-hardly-knew-ye routine. He hit .270 with an .841 OPS and 25 homers last season, and at 29, he's in his prime. LaRoche hits free agency next winter, so either way, he's going to get to play for a real team. The Pirates will find a home for him this summer to make sure they get some prospects (to develop and trade away, of course) in return.

Next, the awards. We didn't bother pretending we know enough about this year's rookie class to pick Rookies of the Year:

AL MVP: Joe Mauer. One catcher in history has won an AL batting title, and he's done it twice. Last year's vote showed that baseball writers are warming to Mauer's value. While Justin Morneau's power numbers have grabbed more attention, Morneau's fade down the stretch two years in a row should give Mauer the inside track as far as Twins are concerned (of course, that all goes out the window if Mauer's back issues are serious).

Miguel Cabrera should be the league's best offensive player, but he won't be dominant enough to earn votes with the Tigers out of the playoff race. We'd like Mark Teixiera a lot more if he had more healthy protection and fewer senior citizens around him. Nobody from Boston or L.A. jumps off the page. In an MVP race that should be as wide-open as last year's, why not Mauer?

AL Cy Young: Felix Hernandez. Amid Seattle's miserable season, it was easy to lose track of Hernandez' breakout 3.45 ERA in 200 innings pitched. Even though he's thrown 190-plus frames for three straight years, he's still just 22. A workload like that is going to hurt him someday, but right now, he's a strong candidate to keep getting better.

We'd lean toward Roy Halladay if we weren't half-convinced he'll finish the season in the NL. We'd feel better about CC Sabathia if he hadn't been such a mess after his last bout with success -- remember his 7.68 ERA last April after his Cy Young win? -- and if we didn't think he arm was due to fall off. King Felix, take your throne.

NL MVP: Albert Pujols. Our only hang-up with pegging Pujols for his third such award (hard to believe he only won one during the Cardinals' run of four divisional titles from '02 to '06) is that he may suffer from the same phenomenon that relegated Michael Jordan to a mere five MVP selections: He's so much better than everybody else that unless he does something absolutely breathtaking, people take him for granted and vote for somebody else. Indeed, anything less than a .330/.430/.600/37-homer year for Pujols is a bit of a letdown. If he's not injured and not the MVP, it'll be because voters got too used to how incredible he is.

If that does happen, the chic pick to take home the hardware is Manny Ramirez. Amazingly enough, Manny himself doesn't have a single MVP lining his trophy case. Baseball pundits are still punch-drunk on him following his brilliant run down the stretch last year, and if the Dodgers are in the playoff hunt while the Cardinals fall far behind the Cubs, he'll be a factor. The dark horse candidate in this race could be Hanley Ramirez, who will draw votes if the Marlins contend because he's a 35-35 threat (dare we venture, 40-40?) who mans a premium defensive position at short, even if he mans it rather badly.

NL Cy Young: Johan Santana. Santana, who led the NL in ERA in '08 and posted a better WHIP than Cy Young winner Tim Lincecum, was oh so close last year. With a full season in the league under his belt, Santana could be even better this time around. As with any power pitcher, health in a concern, but if his elbow holds up, the new Mets' bullpen should also net him a few more wins in '09. That's good enough for us.

A healthy Lincecum will be in the mix again, and still has plenty of upside after just one full season as a stater, although with the Giants' awful lineup, he won't get much help keeping that win total high. Brandon Webb's name will be mentioned, but unless the '06 winner has few more tricks up his sleeve, he may have peaked just below the current crop of elite NL starters. Cole Hamels actually led the league in WHIP last year and has taken strides in each of his three seasons, but he'll have to put on quite the dog and pony show to make up for his home park.

Finally, the playoff predictions (seeds in parentheses):

ALDS: Boston (2) over Minnesota (3); Chicago (4) over Los Angeles (1)
ALCS: Boston over Chicago

NLDS: Arizona (3) over Philadelphia (1); Florida (4) over Chicago (2)
NCLS: Florida over Arizona

WS: Florida over Boston in six

Here's how we see it:

On the AL side of the bracket, Wild Card Chicago out of the Central when neither the Rays nor the Yankees make the cut. They oblige by storming past the Angels in the first round, which gets them farther than division winner Minnesota, who just doesn't have the firepower to best Boston. Boston proves to be the better Sox outfit and gets to play for all the marbles again.

The Phillies are good enough to win the division again, and finish with the best record in the NL to boot, but they're not good enough to repeat. The get bounced in the first round by an Arizona team with two top starters. Upstart Florida rolls through the same choking Cubs outfit that's folded in its last two tries, and shuts the D'Backs bats down to punch a World Series ticket.

At this point, Boston is poised to win it's third title in five years and cement itself as the team of the decade, finally putting those years of falling short to New York in the rear-view mirror. But in bumping the Yankees from their perch, the Red Sox have also inherited the role of the proverbial Goliath, staring down a feisty little David with nothing to lose and everything to prove.

We know how that story ends. Florida stuns the world, completes another six-year plan and rides off into the sunset so that Jeffrey Loria can dismantle his championship roster before the champagne hits the floor. And that's your 2009 season right there.

It's going to be a good year for baseball.

'09 MLB Preview: The NL West

2009-03-06T00:10:00.010-06:00

In three of the past four seasons, the winner of the NL West sweepstakes has topped out at 88 wins or fewer. In the other year, the 90-win Diamondbacks took the crown with a -20 run differential. Go figure (finish in parentheses):

(1) Arizona

Is this a young group loaded with potential that didn't know how to handle success last season, or a one-year wonder stocked with future role players? The answer is probably somewhere in between, but we like Arizona's upside enough that we're leaning toward the former. The D'Backs got lost in the Dodgers' Manny-crazed finish last year, but Arizona led the division as late as Sept. 4 and finished just two games back, despite going 1-5 against L.A. in August and September.

The Diamondbacks' ability to flip the script this time around will hinge on the development of their youthful core. Justin Upton posted a .353 on-base percentage and .463 slugging clip last season, along with 15 home runs in 356 at-bats, all at the tender age of 20. His older brother B.J. enjoyed a heck of a breakout in his third season -- if Justin follows a similar path, he'll be a monster in the making. Meanwhile, Stephen Drew (.291 AVG/.333 OBP/.502 SLG/21 HR) already tracks nicely with older brother J.D. at age 25, minus the durability issues. Centerfielder Chris Young (.248/.315/.443/22 HR/14 SB) hit a sophomore slump after clubbing 32 longballs and swiping 27 bags in his rookie campaign, but at 25, he's got time to figure it out. So does Mark Reynolds (.239/.320/.458/28 HR/11 SB), who will work wonders for his rate stats if he shaves a few strikeouts from the MLB-leading 204 he amassed last year.

The biggest loss among position players is the hole left by Adam Dunn, who posted a .417 OBP in 44 games with the D'Backs, but slugged 46 points below his career mark en route to nine home runs. Orlando Hudson is also gone at second base, although replacement Felipe Lopez' best seasons stack up nicely against Hudson's. Lopez, whose best work came in Cincinnati, stands to benefit from a return to a hitter's park. If Eric Byrnes -- the elder statesman of this team's regulars at 33 -- comes back from a torn hamstring with his bat intact (admittedly, a big "if"), Arizona should cruise past it's 10th-place finish in NL scoring from '08.

Brandon Webb (22-7, 3.30 ERA) and Dan Haren (16-8, 3.33) form the most reliable top of the rotation in baseball for a staff that finished 5th in the league. Given that Chase Field was the No. 2 hitter-friendly park in the game last year behind Rangers Ballpark -- and that Arizona actually led the NL in ERA on the road -- that's even more impressive than it looks. Somebody will need to replace ageless wonder Randy Johnson as the No. 3 starter. At 6' 3" and right-handed Max Scherzer (3.41 ERA in seven starts) isn't quite a Johnson clone, but with 66 K's in 56 big-league innings alongside 21 walks, he has the stuff to be plenty impressive in his own right. Doug Davis (6-8, 4.32), isn't much more than a back-end innings eater, but given that he missed only six weeks while undergoing treatment for thyroid cancer, his ability to eat those innings shouldn't be questioned.

Chad Qualls (2.81 ERA, 71 K's in 73 IP) looked fantastic as an impromptu closer last season. The big wild card on the staff is new starter Jon Garland (14-8, 4.90 for the Angels last year). On the one hand, dipping strikeout totals and a career-high ERA make Garland look a bit washed up at age 29. On the other, a change of scenery into the lightest-hitting division in baseball -- Arizona's four West opponents finished 18th, 24th, 29th and 30th in scoring -- might revitalize his sagging career arc. An effective Garland could make this one of the top five staffs in the big leagues.

The Diamondbacks need to show more heart than they did in '08 after racing out to a hot start and trudging to a mediocre finish. Their young talent leaves them plenty of room to do so.

(2) Los Angeles

Let's get the superlatives out of the way: Manny Ramirez was one of the best two hitters in baseball last year, and has a case as one of the greatest right-handed batsmen of all time. Ramirez is the most prolific post-season slugger ever. And for at least one more year, he's the biggest thing in Dodger Blue.

But in assessing his impact on L.A.'s chances for a second straight West title, let's not get carried away. Some pundits are acting like Manny was a .396 hitter with a 1.232 OPS all along, and that he'll only record an out this season when he gets bored with launching fastballs out of Chavez Ravine. Unless he dogged it for eight straight seasons in Boston, that's simply not the case. Truth is, the Dodgers were 30-24 during Mannywood's torrid third of a season -- a 90-win pace that might win the division, but doesn't make Los Angeles a lock for anything.

The team's biggest questions this year will all be of the non-Manny variety. How will Chad Billingsley (16-10, 3.14 ERA) perform as the No. 1 starter now that Derek Lowe is gone? Does 20-year-old Clayton Kershaw (5-5, 4.36 ERA) have a breakout year on the horizon without having thrown a pitch in AAA? Will Hiroki Kuroda (9-10, 3.73) continue to figure out American batters faster than they figure out him? And outside of those three, who in this rotation can be counted on? It's not Randy Wolf (12-12, 4.30), who put together his first full season in his past five tries last year, and it's certainly not Jason Schmidt, who's missed nearly two full years with shoulder problems after inking a three-year contract with the Dodgers before the '07 season.

Some combination of those two, a youngster or another journeyman veteran like Jeff Weaver or Claudio Vargas will fill out the last two starting spots. That might produce some frightening results at the back of the rotation.

Hulking fireballer Jonathan Broxton will take over closing duties, and has the stuff (88 K's in 69 IP, 3.13 ERA) to succeed. Of course, the move will cost the Dodgers' their set-up man, a role that should fall into the care of lefty Hong-Chih Kuo (96 K's in 80 IP, 2.14 ERA) and righty Corey Wade (2.27 ERA). The 'pen might come close to the No. 2 ERA in the league that it posted in '08; the starters won't approach their No. 1 mark from a year ago.

Manny elevated a lineup that was 13th in the league in scoring at the All-Star break to an 8th-place finish in the second half. The results for this '09 should be toward the higher end of that spectrum, but it's hard to see the Dodgers climbing much higher than the middle of the pack. Orlando Hudson, the team's biggest winter pickup, was working on a career-best .305 average and .817 OPS before a dislocated wrist cut his season short. His days of double-digit homers might be over, and the shift from Arizona to the long fences of Dodger Stadium don't make him a candidate to do much more than match the .280/.327/.418 and 12 longballs the retired Jeff Kent produced last year. If Casey Blake duplicates his .251/.313/.460 line from his 58 games in Los Angeles, he'll be a below-average option at third.

The development of L.A.'s quartet of 26-and-under cornerstones -- catcher Russell Martin, first baseman James Loney, and outfielders Andre Ethier and Matt Kemp -- will be the key to the Dodger's success at the plate this season. Kemp's numbers (.290/.340/.459/18 HR/35 SB) look a lot better in center than Loney's (.289/.338/.434/13 HR) do at first. Martin's mileage behind the plate is taking its toll -- he hit .260 with a .336 slugging percentage after the break. More planned rest will help, but the cutback in at-bats might put a 20 homer/20 steal season like the one he flirted with in '07 out of reach.

The Dodgers are a legitimate contender for the West and the Wild Card. But this division has changed hands four times in the past five years, and L.A.'s question marks don't make this team a favorite to buck the trend.

(3) Colorado

Wasn't relevance fun, Rockies fans? Wasn't that sudden and inexplicable tear through the National League a scant 18 months ago a blast? Let's hope those "Rocktober" t-shirts from '07 are in good shape, and that the Colorado faithful lived it up when they had the chance, because this doesn't look like a team that has a similar run in it for a while.

Even for a Coors Field product, the Rockies' staff was a disaster last year, finishing 15th in the NL in ERA with a brutal 1.50 WHIP and a cringe-worthy 1.68 K/BB and 5.86 K/9. Hoping for much improvement this year could be a dangerous thing, especially with Jeff Francis out for the season following shoulder surgery. Francis wasn't any good last year -- 4-10 with a 5.01 ERA in 24 starts -- but he did keep the ball away from young train wrecks like Greg Reynolds (8.13 ERA in 13 starts) and didn't-know-he-was-still-in-baseball headliners such as Mark Redman (7.54 in nine starts). After Ubaldo Jimenez (12-12, 3.99 ERA) and Aaron Cook (16-9, 3.96), this rotation is full of prospects who don't look particularly close to being ready and great veteran candidates to get smacked around hard (and yes, Jason Marquis, we do mean you). Looks like Huston Street is going to slam the door on lots of 10-9 leads.

Will Colorado hit? Sure they will -- last year's team was the worst offensive squad the Rockies have ever fielded, and finished 8th in the league in scoring (the first time the club has ever finished lower than 5th). Troy Tulowitzki came back strong from injuries that cost him 61 games last year, hitting .327 after the break and flashing some of the power that made him a Rookie of the Year runner-up. Todd Helton probably has another .300 AVG/.400 OBP campaign in his bat after missing half of '08 with injuries. If catcher Chris Iannetta builds on his breakout year -- 390 OBP and .505 SLG with 18 homers in 333 at-bats -- he could be a beast. The rest of the lineup isn't all that exciting, but should produce at least an average run total.

At some point, the Colorado front office is going to need to make a real commitment to run prevention. Watching the ball sail out of the park has to be getting old in Denver, and the organization has managed two competitive seasons in 15 years. This one won't change that tally.

(4) San Francisco and (5) San Diego

We didn't have the heart to write the same preview twice for this pair of pitching-rich, offensively pathetic teams. Even though the Giants won nine more games last year, these two squads are about as similar as they come: San Francisco scored 640 runs and allowed 759, while San Diego plated 637 and yielded 764.

Instead, we're playing two simple hypothetical games with these I-5 soulmates. The first one involves constructing the best rotation we can get between these two rosters. And what a fantastic rotation it is:

Reigning Cy Young winner Tim Lincecum of the Giants (18-5, 2.62 ERA) leads the way.
'07 winner Jake Peavy of the Padres (10-11, 2.85) is right behind him despite elbow concerns.
San Fran workhorse Matt Cain (8-14, 3.76) rings the bell at No. 3, and is actually a few months younger than 24-year-old Lincecum.
San Diego's Chris Young (7-6, 3.96 in a season shortened by a nose-breaking line drive) in his rear-view mirror as he tries to regain the form that netted him a 3.46 ERA in '06 and a 3.12 in '07.
And in the fifth slot, yet another Cy Young winner in ... Barry Zito! Just kidding. New Giant Randy Johnson (11-10, 3.91) qualifies as the No. 5 man in this make-believe exercise. He'll benefit from leaving the sandbox the D'Backs call home.

Fantasy mavens would soil themselves if they could field this starting five. If nothing else, fans of California's two less-than-contending franchises will be treated to some mighty fine performances off the mound this year.

Our second game looks at the best line-up we can construct from the Sans' shared roster. And what an uninspiring lineup it is:

SF's Bengie Molina (.292 AVG/.322 OBP/.445 SLG/16 HR) catches.
SD's Adrian Gonzalez (.279/.361/.510/36 HR) plays first.
SD's David Eckstein (.265/.343/.349) mans second.
SF's Edgar Renteria (.270/.317/.382/10 HR) covers short.
SD's Kevin Kouzmanoff (.260/.299/.433/23 HR) handles third.
SD's Brian Giles (.306/.398/.456/12 HR) plays left field.
SF's Aaron Rowand (.271/.339/.410/13 HR) patrols center.
SF's Randy Winn (.306/.363/.426/10 HR/25 SB) covers right.

If these players took every single at-bat for our Frandiego Enormo-Priests, and every pitcher's at-bat went to Peavy, our fake team's best-hitting hurler, this group projects to score 779 runs and change, just ahead of St. Louis as the 12th-best offense in the baseball last year. So 11 (real) teams fielded better (real) line-ups than our cherry-picked fantasy highlight reel. And if you run down our list of players, there isn't a whole lot of upside going on.

Great pitching. Terrible hitting. Short games. More time to live it up the California summer weather. This is your season, West Coast NL fans. Enjoy.

'09 MLB Preview: The NL Central

2009-03-04T02:11:00.010-06:00

This Gang of Six ran one of the most top-heavy division races in recent memory last year, with four teams winning at least 86 games. What's in store for an encore (finish in parentheses):

(1) Chicago

Like the Angels, the Cubs have had a little problem going deep in the playoffs lately. Unlike the Angels, the Cubs have been having that problem since World War II, so the North Siders' failure to make any dramatic moves to get over the hump this time around is a bit more troubling.

But there'll be plenty of time between now and October to cover why Chicago will fall sort in the post-season yet again. In the meantime, the Cubs are sitting pretty to take the Central again, though it won't be as easy this time. Their pitching staff finished third in the league in ERA and second in OPS against, but the starters will regress a bit this season. Ryan Dempster won't come close to the 2.96 ERA or 1.210 WHIP he put up in compiling a 17-6 record -- and his track record as a starter suggests the slip could be ugly. Carlos Zambrano (14-6, 3.91 ERA) could be headed for trouble as well if his 5.80 ERA after the All-Star break was a portent of serious shoulder issues ahead. Rich Harden (5-1, 1.77 in 12 starts for Chicago) made NL lineups look downright silly, but he'd be better off starting once every six or seven days than trying to eke a full season out of his fragile frame. Chad Gaudin (9-5, 4.40) went 5-3 with a 3.59 ERA in six starts with Oakland before struggling in mop-up duty in Chicago -- he'll be on hand to step in when Harden gets hurt or needs a break.

On the bright side, Ted Lilly (17-9, 4.09) posted a 3.33 in the second half, and looks as solid and stable as any middle-of-the-rotation starter out there. Fifth starter candidate Sean Marshall has compiled a respectable 4.08 ERA in 26 spot starts over the past two seasons. Jeff Samardzija (2.21 ERA, 25 K's in 27 IP) will challenge for the same slot, but his hard-throwing style and high strikeout rate make him a better fit to step into a set-up role behind either Kevin Gregg (3.41 ERA, 58 K's and 29 saves in 68 innngs for the Marlins last year) or, more likely, Carlos Marmol (2.68, 114 K's, 0.93 WHIP in 87 IP), who's been groomed for the closer job for two years in a row. The 'pen should have enough pieces to cover for Kerry Wood's departure, although it would be nice if the lefty specialist, Neal Cotts, didn't get hit harder by lefties (.269 BAA, .860 OPS-A) than righties (.263 BAA, .720 OPS-A).

The lineup is not as strong as its production last season -- No. 1 in the league in scoring and OPS; No. 2 and No. 3 in baseball in those categories respectively -- would have you believe. Derek Lee (.291 AVG/.361 OBP/.462 SLG/20 HR) and Alfonso Soriano (.280/.344/.532/28 HR) likely have already peaked, and Soriano looks like a major injury liability after spending time on the disabled list in each of his two seasons as a Cub. Aramis Ramirez (.289/.380/.518/27 HR) is a reliable commodity at third. Milton Bradley (.321/.436/.563/22 HR in Texas last year) would look great in that mix as a switch-hitter, but he couldn't stay healthy for a full season as a DH, so expecting him to do so as a right fielder is wishful thinking. Bradley's ability to break up Chicago's predominately right-handed lineup is also tempered by the fact that he's a much better hitter from the right side himself: He's hit .270 with a .799 OPS in 2,024 at-bats as a lefty, and .303 with an .890 in 836 tries as a righty.

The Mike Fontenot/Aaron Miles platoon at second won't have as much pop as Mark DeRosa did, though DeRosa himself was unlikely to duplicate his career-best 21 homers and .857 OPS from '08. If Geovany Soto (.285/.364/.504/23 HR) is the real deal, he has the potential to blossom into a cleanup-type bat. The damaged-goods version of Kosuke Fukudome (.259/.359/.379) that stumbled through the second half of the season won't cut it this time around, but if Fukudome rediscovers a stroke that turned ugly last year, he has the patience and the glove to be productive.

Barring meltdowns at multiple positions, Chicago still has the most top-to-bottom talent of in this division. Even by Cubs standards, a lot would have to go wrong to derail this team from a third straight division title -- too much to pencil in the North Siders for anything other than first.

(2) St. Louis

The Nos. 2 - 4 teams in the Central were separated by just four games last year, so pegging the Cardinals to jump two places in the standings isn't exactly going out on a limb. Manager Tony LaRussa took a team that was supposed to be on the decline last year and pieced together a contender for most of the season.

Their chances to compete begin on the pitching side with presumptive ace Adam Wainright (11-3, 3.21 ERA), who looked strong his second season as a starter despite losing about a third of the year to a finger injury. Give credit to NL lineups and pitching coach Dave Duncan for coaxing a career year out of Kyle Lohse (15-6, 3.78), who gets away with allowing more than a hit an inning because he's stingy with the free passes -- 49 walks in 33 starts. Duncan also worked magic with Todd Wellemeyer (13-9, 3.71), who posted the best ERA and WHIP of his career in his first campaign as a full-time starter. Wellemeyer's 112-inning jump from his previous career high makes him a candidate for burnout this time around. Joel Piniero (7-7, 5.15) is a step down from Braden Looper (12-14, 4.16) -- gone to Milwaukee -- in the No. 4 spot.

The real question on the staff is what the Cardinals will get out of former Cy Young winner Chris Carpenter, who's been a non-factor for two straight seasons (21 IP) with shoulder and elbow injuries. Carpenter did post a 1.88 ERA in three starts in July and August. Looking to him for a full season as a starter seems like a pipe dream at this point, but even 20 quality outings from Carpenter would be a big boost for this rotation. In the 'pen, youngsters Chris Perez (3.46 ERA in 41 IP, along with seven saves) and Jason Motte (a ridiculous 110 K's in 66.2 IP in AAA) could provide a shot in the arm as they step into larger roles.

The lineup lacks the legitimate complimentary star you'd like to see behind reigning MVP Albert Pujols, although Pujols alone (.357 AVG/.462 OBP/.653 SLG/37 HR) is better than most one-two punches out there. Right fielder Ryan Ludwick played the role of second banana last year, turning his first season as a full-timer into a breakout .299/.375/.591 year with 37 longballs and 113 RBI. He'll look a lot better, of course, if he does it again. Rick Ankiel's remarkable transition into an everyday position player featured plenty of power -- 25 homers and a .506 slugging percentage -- behind a pedestrian .264 average and .337 OBP.

Skip Schumaker's .302/.359/.406 line is a little light on power for a left fielder, but would look just fine if murmurs that he's in the mix to fill the hole at second base pan out. That would leave his outfield spot open for Chris Duncan, who hit 43 home runs in 655 at-bats between '06 and '07 before a back injury contributed to a dismal .248/.346/.365 performance in 222 at-bats last year. Losing Troy Glaus (.270/.372/.483/27 HR) for a month-plus to shoulder surgery will be a big blow. Yadier Molina managed the curious feat of finishing near the bottom of baseball in both walks (32) and strikeouts (29), but his .304 average was third in baseball among catchers with at least 400 plate appearances, making his .392 slugging percentage a bit more palatable.

St. Louis may have too many question marks to win Central, or wind up with a playoff berth. But like they did last season, they'll stay in the mix most of the way.

(3) Milwaukee

You have to hand it to the Brewers for taking their best shot last season. They finished above .500 for the first time in a decade and a half in '07, moved furiously to build on that last year, swung for the fences in acquiring CC Sabathia (11-2, 1.65 ERA for Milwaukee) and came up short. It was the kind of bold, now-or-never leap that many small-market teams never take, and the late-season firing of Ned Yost made it clear that management understood the stakes.

But the hangover from Milwaukee's first post-season appearance since 1982 looks like it'll be a rough one. Sabathia is gone, along with Ben Sheets (13-9, 3.09 ERA), who is still without a team and might end up paying for his own elbow surgery. Yovanni Gallardo, 9-4 with a 3.35 ERA in 21 career starts, will fill one of those voids after a fluke ACL injury cost him almost all of last year. The rest of this year's starters are a collection of pitchers who belong in the middle of the rotation at best. Manny Parra (10-8, 4.39) won't be mistaken for an ace, but could show some growth in his second full season as a starter. Dave Bush (9-10, 4.18) looks a lot better as No. 4 starter than a No. 2. Jeff Suppan (10-10, 4.96) has gotten worse in each of his two seasons with the Brewers, and the team would be thrilled if the 34-year-old could give them the 4.12 he posted the year before they signed him. Milwaukee would be happy to get comparable production from Looper, another aging innings-eater.

The bullpen has a new big-name closer in Trevor Hoffman (30 saves, 3.77 ERA in San Diego), but at age 40, leaving the most pitcher-friendly park in baseball for a neutral site won't do him any favors. Two big pieces of last year's 'pen are gone -- Salomon Torres (28 saves, 3.49 ERA) retired and Brian Shouse (2.81 ERA, 51.3 IP) left for Tampa. Carlos Villanueva posted a 2.12 ERA in 59 innings as a reliever, and might set up Hoffman. Any way you slice it, Milwaukee isn't going to post the second-best ERA in the league again, and the Brewers probably won't come close.

For a lineup that features two hammers in Prince Fielder (.276 AVG/.372 OBP/.507 SLG/34 HR) and Ryan Braun (.285/.335/.553/37 HR), Milwaukee's No. 7 finish in NL scoring seems disappointing. The drop-off in quality between the team's second-best hitter by OPS, Fielder, and No. 3 option in J.J. Hardy (.283/.343/.478/24 HR) is fairly steep. Mike Cameron (.243/.331/.477) and Corey Hart (.268/.400/.459) make for a nice power-speed combination in the outfield, with a combined 45 homers and 40 steals in '08, but Cameron's average and Hart's OBP are legitimate causes for concern. After that, the rest of the order tails off sharply: Rickie Weeks (.234/.342/.398/14 HR/19 SB) might be the next hitter you can call a threat, and that's not a good thing.

With an offense that didn't do much to improve and a staff that took a few steps backward this winter, Milwaukee's upward arc is due for a setback. The Brewers were game enough to play for keeps last year. It might be a season or two before they have the chance to do so again.

(4) Houston

The Astros mounted their traditional second-half charge last season to climb back into playoff contention before fading late, but don't be fooled: They posted the run differential of a 77-win team.

This year, Houston's record should better reflect this squad's flaws. The rotation has exactly one reliable starter in Roy Oswalt (17-10, 3.54 ERA). Wandy Rodriguez (9-7, 3.54 ERA in 137 IP) can't be counted on for a full season, or against lefties, who hit .282 with an .811 OPS off the southpaw. Brian Moehler (11-8, 4.56) is a poor man's idea of a third starter, but he'll be just that barring a major reversal from Brandon Backe (9-14, 6.05), who, incredibly, looks like a safe bet to make the rotation himself. You know a rotation is in trouble when Mike Hampton is getting a serious look in spring training, and that's the position the Astros find themselves in right now. Jose Valverde (3.38, 44 saves) can only finish games -- Houston needs a few more guys who can start them.

The lineup finished an underwhelming 10th in scoring and 11th in OPS in the NL last year, and might not even match those totals in '09. Unsightly platoon scenarios are emerging at third base and catcher -- the kind where both guys involved hit .240 last season. That's to say nothing of the rapid deterioration of Miguel Tejada (.283/.314/.415/13 HR), whose OPS has plummeted 148 points in two seasons, or the general disaster that was Michael Bourn (.229/.288/.300/41 SB), a classic "you can't steal first base" case. Carlos Lee (.314/.368/.569/28 HR) and Lance Berkman (.312/.420/.567/29 HR) can still produce, but Hunter Pence (.269/.318/.466) is uninspiring as the third-best hitter on this team.

The Astros have enjoyed a decade of division titles and furious wild-card runs. It's time to rebuild.

(5) Cincinnati

The Reds pulled the trigger on their own rebuilding effort last July, shipping Adam Dunn to Arizona. The Ken Griffey Jr. era also ended with a whimper in the off-season, setting the Reds up for a youth movement. Rookie sensation Joey Votto (.297/.368/.506/24 HR) will be one future cornerstone. The Reds hope 21-year-old Jay Bruce (.254/.314/.453/21 HR in about two-thirds of a season) will be another. Third baseman Edwin Encarnacion (.251/.340/.466/26 HR) and second baseman Brandon Phillips (.261/.312/.442/21 HR) both flashed power in the infield, but the rest of the lineup is an assortment of journeymen (think Jacque Jones) and one-tool wonders (ala .251/.308/.296/68 steal center fielder Willy Taveras).

The rotation should be better than the one that finished 13th in the NL last season -- if nothing else, Aaron Harang (6-17, 4.78) ERA and Bronson Arroyo (15-11, 4.77) both posted their worst seasons in five years, and are unlikely to do so again. Josh Fogg (2-7, 7.58 in 22 starts) is also out of the picture, so he won't get the chance to stink up the joint again. Edinson Volquez (17-6, 3.21) was a stud in his first full season in the majors, and the organization still expects good things out of Johnny Cueto (9-14, 4.81) despite a rough rookie ride. There's hope yet for a decent staff in the notoriously homer-happy Great American Ballpark.

The Reds aren't built to win this year, and they won't. But if their young talent continues to develop, that might change a year or two down the road.

(6) Pittsburgh

If the Pirates lose 95 games again this year and nobody's there to see it, did it really happen? The Bucs' 1.6 million fans last season were the third-worst draw in baseball, ahead of only Kansas City and Florida, so it's a question that bears asking. It's hard to blame Pittsburgh supporters for staying away: The club keeps trotting an awful product onto the field, then selling the decent parts they can't afford to keep because -- surprise! -- nobody wants to pay to see the Pirates in action.

But if you hazard a gander at this team in '09, there are a few things to look out for. Be sure to root for the right LaRoche brother in the infield -- first baseman Adam hit .270 with a .341 OBP and .500 slugging percentage, along with 25 home runs, while third base prospect Andy (.166/.252/.256) has a long way to go. Spend some time figuring out how many former batting champions went on to post sub-.300 OBP seasons -- we're looking at you and your .278/.298/.371, Freddy Sanchez. Play the "where will Nate McClouth be shipped in his prime" guessing game. Lament that a man blessed a name like Larry Broadway has yet to break into The Show. Debate whether Tom Gorzelanny and his 6.66 ERA are the work of the devil or the mispronunciation of a haute-cuisine cheese.

Ryan Doumit (.318/.357/.501/15 HR) is a fine catcher. Paul Maholm (9-9, 3.71 ERA) broke out as a decent pitcher. One day, Pedro Alvarez and Andrew McCutchen might be good players. But right now, the Pirates are a bad, bad team.

'09 MLB Preview: The NL East

2009-03-01T02:06:00.011-06:00

How the Senior Circuit's seaboard division will fare with a defending champ in the mix (finish in parentheses):

(1) Philadelphia

Let's get the million-dollar question out of the way: Can the Phillies repeat? They can, but I'd be hard-pressed to say they will. The 1998-'00 Yankees are the only team in the Wild Card Era to defend a title. When the playoffs are an eight-team crapshoot, it's tough enough to get the right breaks once, let alone in back-to-back tries.

That being said, Philly looked every bit the best team in the National League in the playoffs last year, and enters '09 with a firm claim to that distinction. The lineup actually has a fair chance to top last season's 799 runs scored. The total was the third-best in the league, but marked the team's lowest-scoring season since 2003, and lagged Philadelphia's '08 output by 93.

Table-setter extraordinaire Jimmy Rollins tweaked an ankle early last year and visited the disabled list for the first time in his eight full seasons. Rollins (.277 batting average, .349 on-base percentage, .437 slugging) should be available for about 100 more at-bats and a bit more power than the 11 home runs he hit in '08. Ryan Howard posted a .251 AVG and .330 OBP that were well off his career marks of .279 and .380 -- unless he's on the decline at age 29, he'll be more productive simply by approaching those rates. Third baseman Pedro Feliz was a 20-homer threat in San Francisco for years -- if he can get past the back issues that limited him to 133 games and 425 at-bats, he should be good for at least that many in the Citizens' Bank bandbox. New left fielder Raul Ibanez (.293/.358/.479/23 HR in Seattle last year) is a fine replacement for Pat Burrell (.250/.367/507/33 HR), although the heart of Philly's order wasn't exactly hurting for another lefty.

A little more scoring would help gloss over the question marks on the Phillies' staff. The team finished 4th in the league in pitching last season, on the strength of a bullpen that tallied an NL-best 3.22 ERA. Brad Lidge might blow a save or two this time around, but the bigger issue for the 'pen will be the 50-game suspension of lefty specialist J.C. Romero, who got dinged for a banned substance. The other two key cogs, Chad Durbin (87 IP, 2.87 ERA) and Ryan Madson (82.7 IP, 3.05) have both spent time as starters, so overuse shouldn't be an issue.

After Cole Hamels (14-10, 3.09 ERA), the starting rotation doesn't inspire much confidence. At 46, Jamie Moyer (16-7, 3.71) is just as likely to reprise his 5.01 ERA from '07 as he is to duplicate last year's performance. The version of Brett Myers that showed up after the All-Star break (7-4, 3.05) would be a terrific No. 2 starter; the guy who labored through the first half of the season at 3-9 with a 5.84 would be a disaster. Myers also posted a 3.01 ERA at home, but a 6.21 on the road -- a curious split for a man who works out of a decidedly hitter-friendly stadium. The prospect of Chan Ho Park as a fifth starter isn't particularly exciting. The one piece of the rotation that might settle in is Joe Blanton (4-0, 4.20 in 13 starts after coming over from Oakland), who could find a groove in the NL. If the Phillies are serious about another trophy, they should be at the front of the line for any quality starter that winds up on the block.

Philadelphia has the firepower and the confidence to win the East for a third straight season -- and they shouldn't even need a Mets collapse to do it this time. And if the Phillies get that far, they'll be in a position to roll the dice once more.

(2) Florida

Admittedly, a bullish outlook on the Marlins for '09 requires a moderate leap of faith. Conventional wisdom has New York pushing Philadelphia at the top of the division, but we're going to bank on a combination of upside and destiny in predicting big things from the Fish this season.

And Florida has plenty of upside to go around. Righty Ricky Nolasco (15-8, 3.52) strung together a season worthy of an ace. After starting 22 games in his rookie campaign in '06 and bouncing around the 'pen in '07 season, the 26-year-old Nolasco posted the second-best WHIP (1.10) and strikeout-to-walk ratio (4.43) among NL starters. Josh Johnson (7-1, 3.61 in 81 IP) had the look of a future ace himself after going 12-7 with a 3.10 ERA in '06. Johnson, 25, missed most of '07 and a chunk of last year recovering from Tommy John surgery, but looks to have come back strong. Chris Volstad, 22, (6-4, 2.88 in 84 IP) yielded a total of three home runs between 175 innings with Florida and AA Carolina, which is a good way to keep your team in the game. Andrew Miller (6-10, 5.87) should not have spent as much time in the big leagues as he did last season, but flashed a few dominant starts in May before losing his starting job in July. If the Marlins don't trust him to start, he could develop into an effective lefty specialist out of the bullpen. Reliever Leo Nunez (2.98 ERA in 48 innings of relief for Kansas City) could slide nicely into the closer role if Matt Lindstrom (3.14 ERA in 57 IP) falters.

In the lineup, shortstop Hanley Ramirez (.301 AVG/.400 OBP/.540 SLG/33 HR) and second baseman Dan Uggla (.260/.360/.514/32 HR) form one of the most potent middle infield tandems in baseball. Mike Jacobs is gone, but rookie replacement Gaby Sanchez hit .314/.404/.513 with 17 homers in AA last year. If Sanchez can't replace Jacobs' 33 longballs, he can certainly top his .299 on-base percentage. Jorge Cantu (.277/.327.481/29 HR) will provide the pop at third, and there's nothing wrong with Cody Ross (.260/.316/.488/22 HR) in left.

One big question is whether center field prospect Cameron Maybin, 22 in April, is ready for his close-up. Maybin hit .277/.375/.456 in AA last year, and scorched the big leagues with 16 hits in 32 September at-bats. If wins the job and brings a decent bat with him, he'll serve as a speedy spark plug in this power-happy mix.

In 1997, the Marlins went from 80-82 to 92-70 to claim the wild card. In 2003, they jumped from 79-83 to 91-71. A 12-game improvement on last year's 84-77 finish is too much to ask, but Florida won't need it: Six or seven more wins will have the Marlins in contention for a playoff berth. Unless the recession prompts ultra-cheapskate owner Jeffrey Loria (who once fielded a team whose $15 million payroll was less than half his $31 million haul in MLB revenue sharing) to hold a fire sale a year ahead of schedule, look for Florida to break through this year as an upstart contender.

(3) New York

We all know the Mets gave away late-inning leads like candy last season, racking up 29 blown saves as a team to finish 3rd in baseball in that column. And we all know they brought in not one, but two top-notch stoppers in J.J. Putz and Francisco Rodriguez. So isn't Omar Minaya's crew primed to make a run at the Phillies and retake the top spot in the NL?

A few red flags make us inclined to say, "Not so fast." The Mets' rotation behind perennial Cy Young contender Johan Santana (16-7, 2.53 ERA) is as iffy as the Phillies' group behind Hamels. Mike Pelfrey (13-11, 3.72) could be a fine second banana, if he holds up after 32 starts and 200 innings pitched in his first full big-league campaign. John Maine (10-8, 4.21) was limited to 140 innings with a shoulder injury. Oliver Perez (10-7, 4.22) has the stuff to miss plenty of bats -- he's struck out more than a batter an inning over the course of his career -- but also led the NL in walks last season. Fifth-starter hopeful Freddy Garcia is damaged goods -- he's thrown 73 innings over the past two seasons. Livan Hernandez, Garcia's chief competitor for the slot, can still gobble up innings, but given his 6.05 ERA in '08, you might not want him to.

For a team pushing $140 million in payroll, New York's lineup shouldn't have as many holes as it does. The trio of Carlos Beltran, David Wright and Jose Reyes has been one of baseball's most consistently productive cores over the past three seasons, but the reliable commodities in the Mets' offensive arsenal end there. Carlos Delgado accounts for the balance of the lineup's star power. He came on with a vengeance in the second half last year, hitting .303 with a .991 OPS and 21 home runs after the break, but he was terrible in '07 (.258 AVG/.333 OBP/.448 OPS) and turns 37 in June, so it's unclear how much he has left in the tank.

Ryan Church (.276/.346/.439/12 HR) is a decidedly average option in right field. Rookie Daniel Murphy sizzled in limited action late last season (.313/.397/.473), but if he can't cut the mustard over a full season in left field, potential platoon-mate Fernando Tatis (.297/.369/.484) isn't quite contender material in a position that calls for a power bat. Second baseman Luis Castillo is due to bounce back after hitting .245 with a .305 slugging percentage -- and the Mets don't exactly have a replacement lined up if he doesn't. The team would likely prefer to field something other than a Ramon Castro/Brian Schneider platoon at catcher, a position where New York ranked 9th in the league in OPS last year. Once again, few other obvious options appear to be on the table.

The team's shortcomings on paper, however, look positively rosy in comparison with the lack of killer instinct this bunch has displayed in two consecutive September collapses. Shoring up the bullpen doesn't erase the memory of choking away back-to-back playoff berths. If the Mets are counting on a pair of relievers to lend them the necessary backbone, they've got another thing coming. New York has made a habit of folding as a frontrunner. This season, they'll have a hard time getting that far.

(4) Atlanta

Was it really just a season and a half ago that the Braves traded for Mark Teixiera in hopes of making a playoff run that never materialized? Now Atlanta has to bounce back from its worst season of Bobby Cox' 17-year tenure as manager -- the team's 72-90 record was just the second time the club has finished below .500 with Cox at the helm.

Rather than content themselves to join the rest of baseball's mid-market franchises in a cycle of upswings and downturns, Atlanta has moved to rebuild in a hurry this season with the help of a few aging veterans. They committed $60 million over four years to land the second-best starter on the free-agent market in Derek Lowe (14-11, 3.24 ERA with Los Angeles last year), a deal that will pay the durable sinkerballer through his 39th birthday. They'll bring back future Hall of Famer Tom Glavine (63 IP, 5.54 ERA in 13 starts) for another farewell tour , although after elbow and shoulder surgery, the 42-year-old icon might have hit the end of the line.

At 32, Javier Vasquez (12-16, 4.67 for the White Sox) seems to have an awful lots of mileage on him -- between the regular season and the playoffs, he's topped 200 innings pitched for nine straight seasons. Vasquez posted a 4.34 ERA for Arizona in 2005, his last turn in the NL, so don't expect him to benefit tremendously from a return to the Senior Circuit. Japanese import Kenshin Kawakami, 33, brings a lifetime 3.22 ERA across the Pacific, but was limited to 117 innings last year between the Olympics, a six-man rotation and a back strain. How Kawakami will handle stateside hitters is anyone's guess. On the younger side of things, 23-year-old Jair Jurrjens (13-10, 3.68) will look to build on a strong rookie campaign. Somebody in the mix will need to replace Tim Hudson (11-7, 3.17), whose best season in the NL was cut short by Tommy John surgery in August.

Atlanta didn't add much help to a lineup that finished 6th in the league in scoring, but 10th in slugging and 14th in home runs. Soon to be 37, Chipper Jones (.364 AVG/.470 OBP/.574 SLG/22 HR) can still hammer, but he's not likely to appear in much more than 130 games or take more than 450 at-bats. Catcher Brian McCann (.301/.373/.523/23 HR) is one of the three or four best offensive threats at his position, provided his time behind the plate doesn't subject him to too much wear and tear. Second baseman Kelly Johnson (.287/.349/.446) has quietly put together two very solid seasons for a middle infielder, and double play partner Yunel Escobar (.288/.366/.401) was no slouch as a rookie, though one wonders if the Braves entertained offers for the shortstop over the winter because they're high on utility infielder Martin Prado (.320/.377/.461 in 228 at-bats) or because they think Escobar has peaked.

Garret Anderson (.293/.325/.433/15 HR with the Angels) is a nice discount pickup in the outfield, even at 36, but the real question is whether Jeff Francoeur (.239/.294/.359/11 HR) can bounce back from a miserable season -- or whether he has anything to bounce back to. Even when Francoeur bashed 29 homers in '06, he hit .260 with a .293 on-base percentage. He doesn't strike out out at an abnormally high rate -- his 111 K's last year tied him for 57th in the baseball -- but he also hasn't grasped the art of the base on balls, drawing just 39 free passes last season to tie for 156th. That's not a skill set that keeps players productive at a big-league level for any length of time.

It's not that there's anything very wrong with the Braves heading into '09. The team simply doesn't exude enough upside to look like a serious challenger for a playoff berth. Unless Cox has a few miracles up his sleeve, he might have to get used to the view from someplace other than the top.

(5) Washington

Only two teams in the NL scored fewer runs than the Nationals last year, and only two gave up more. That's just about all you need to know about the Beltway Bombers' prospects for '09. Adam Dunn (.236 AVG/.373 OBP/.528 SLG/40 HR) will bolster the team's NL-worst .373 slugging percentage, but he's not the guy you want to call the best hitter on your team. Unfortunately for the Nats, nobody else fits the bill. Third baseman Ryan Zimmerman (.283/.333/.442) needs to re-establish his power stroke after missing 56 games with a shoulder injury.

Lastings Milledge (.268/.330/.402/14 HR) and Elijah Dukes (.264/.386/.478/13 HR in 276 at-bats) are two of the game's most talented young outfielders, but one or both needs to put it all together one of these years or risk being labeled as a fizzle. Austin Kearns has gotten worse in each year he's spent in a Nats uniform, and the bottom fell out during his .217/.311/.316 '08 campaign. New outfielder Josh Willingham (.254/.364/.470 in 351 at-bats with Florida) is no reason to jump for joy.

Twenty-four-year-old starter John Lannan (9-15, 3.91 ERA) was the lone bright spot in Washington's dismal rotation. Scott Olsen (8-11, 4.20 with the Marlins last season) will help, but won't dazzle, given that his ERA was almost two runs lower in pitcher-friendly Dolphin Stadium last season than it was on the road. Compared to the rest of the team, the 'pen wasn't awful, finishing 10th in the NL in ERA, but needs a lead to protect before it does any good.

At 59-102 with a -184 run differential, the Nats clearly were the bottom wrung in baseball last year. They'll challenge for that spot again this season.

'09 MLB Preview: The AL West

2009-02-26T13:19:00.011-06:00

Where MLB's smallest division fits in on the big stage (finish in parentheses):

(1) Los Angeles

The bad news is that last October marked the third time in five years that the Angels have been bounced in the first round -- and Los Angeles had home-field advantage in two of those series. The culprit every time? Boston. The Red Sox evidently enjoy some kind of hex over the Angels; in the three playoff meetings between the two teams since 2004, the Halos are 1-9. They can't do a whole lot to control who they play, of course, but if anyone asks for their opinion, the Angels should definitely opt to give somebody else a try.

The good news is that the L.A. has the clearest route back to the post-season of any American League contender. Starters John Lackey (12-5, 3.75 ERA), Ervin Santana (16-7, 3.49), Joe Saunders (17-7, 3.41) and Jered Weaver (11-10, 4.33) are all back and in business. Kelvim Escobar, who went 18-7 with a 3.40 in 2007, missed all of last year with a shoulder tear and is expected back sometime in the second half of the season. Francisco Rodriguez won't be around to seal the deal anymore, but replacement Brian Fuentes actually out-K'd K-Rod last year, posting a better WHIP (1.10 to 1.29) and K/9 (11.78 to 10.14), and holding hitters to a lower batting average and OPS (.205/.566 for Fuentes, .216/.629 for Rodriguez). Plugging another closer into the back end of the 'pen lets the Angels keep a relieving corps that finished 4th in the league in ERA last year intact.

Mark Teixiera's departure leaves an All-Star sized hole at first base. There's no doubt that the departed slugger elevated the L.A. lineup: The Angels were 11th in the league in scoring before the All-Star break, and fourth after it. Kendry Morales certainly isn't going to fill the void with his bat unless he makes a quantum leap from the .249 batting average and .711 OPS he's amassed in 377 big-league at-bats. But the incoming Bobby Abreu is no small consolation prize. Abreu is an upgrade over Garret Anderson, who inked with the Braves, and his .296 AVG/.371 OBP/.471 SLG line, along with 20 homers and 100 RBI, gives the Angels about 80 percent of Teixiera's production at a quarter of the cost. The money may be little consolation to a team trying to win now, but it might make owner Arte Moreno more comfortable with taking on another big contract to get help at the deadline. The team's glut of outfielders also makes Gary Matthews Jr. or Reggie Willits expendable as trade chips.

Both Vladimir Guerrero (.303/.365/.521/27 HR) and Torii Hunter (.278/.344/.466/21 HR) will be 33 on opening day, which means this core isn't going to get too many more shots at a title run. But beyond a few nicks on Guerrero last season, there's not much reason to think this is the year they both go gentle into that good night. Catcher Mike Napoli is better than most people realize -- he hit .273 with a .960 OPS and 20 home runs in 227 at-bats last year. He has a surgically repaired shoulder to worry about, but anything close to his '08 production in full-time duty would rank him among the game's best two or three offensive threats at his position.

Without a major challenger in the West, the Angels can and should cruise to another playoff berth. Once they get there, though, they'd better hope their recent one-and-done showings were bad breaks rather than red flags about the team's character (they should also hope they don't draw Boston again, because by now, the Sox are in their heads). Those first-round exits can become a tough habit for perennial contenders to break.

(2) Oakland

Is it too soon for the A's to surge back into contention after a pair of sub-.500 finishes? Probably, but that didn't stop general manager Billy Beane from trading for premier slugger Matt Holliday before the dust from the World Series had time to settle. Who knows exactly what Beane has in mind -- he might have simply perceived Holliday as a bargain and have plans to flip him at the trade deadline -- but the guess here is that Oakland thinks its pitching is ready to gel and wanted to give them the firepower to win. Bringing Jason Giambi back into the fold certainly sends that message, and gives the Oakland lineup a potent lefty-righty punch.

At first blush, it's difficult to envision the A's mounting a serious threat to the Angels for the division in '09. Presumptive staff ace Justin Duchscherer (10-8, 2.54 ERA) didn't throw a pitch after Aug. 18 after hip trouble shut down his first full season as a starter -- and at 31, those hip woes aren't exactly new. Then again, Beane didn't ship him out, so he must think his value hasn't peaked yet. Dallas Braden (5-4, 4.14 in 71 IP) is one of three 25-or-younger starters slotted for the rotation, along with Dana Eveland (9-9, 4.34) and Sean Gallagher (5-7, 5.15). Oakland will look to Gallagher, the centerpiece of the Rich Harden trade, to translate his dangerous repertoire into big-league consistency.

The rest of the lineup around Holliday and Giambi isn't exactly murderer's row. Outfielder Jack Cust has pop and patience (33 HR, .375 OBP), but also owns a career .239 batting average -- in other words, he's right up Beane's alley. Catcher Kurt Suzuki slugged just .370, but his .279 AVG was respectable for a backstop. Shortstop Bobby Crosby (.237/.296/.349 last year) stayed healthy for a change, but has never been one to bring the lumber. Third baseman Eric Chavez hasn't taken 500 at-bats since 2005 -- he managed 341 in '07 and just 89 last year. His career numbers suggest that expecting more than .280/.350/.500 in a full season might be asking too much.

Oakland finished last in the AL in just about every offensive category. The '08 A's certainly won't hit .242 as a team or slug .369. If the lineup produces behind a pitching staff that finished 5th in the league last year, Oakland could flirt with a wild-card berth. And if it doesn't, Beane won't be afraid to blow the whole thing up again.

(3) Texas

In basketball, an all-scoring, no-prevention approach gives you a high-octane entertainment machine. In baseball, it gives you a mediocre squad that takes forever and a day to finish a game. Few teams personify that approach more than these Rangers, who finished first in baseball in runs scored (plating 46 more than No. 2 Chicago) and dead last in runs allowed (coughing up 109 more than No. 29 Baltimore).

Frankly, making fans sit through all of those three-and-a-half hour slugfests en route to a 79-83 finish seems excessive, but it's hard to see how much has changed for the Rangers heading into '09. A lineup that includes Michael Young, Ian Kinsler and redeemed bopper Josh Hamilton will still score in bunches in the lilliputian confines of the Ballpark in Arlington -- although Young's OPS has been on the sharp decline over the past two years, to the point where he'll be a below-average contributor from the third base position. And a staff that includes Kevin Millwood (9-10, 5.07 ERA), Vicente Padilla (14-8, 4.74) and Kris Benson (11-12, 4.82) is still going to give up runs in the same fashion.

None of the young pitchers the Rangers plugged into the rotation last season qualified as bright spots. Texas hasn't found a starter who can post an ERA lower than four since Kenny Rogers finished '05 with a 3.46. Padilla's mark last year was the best ERA for any pitcher who's made 10 or more starts for Texas since in the last two seasons. The Rangers are caught in a quandary: They need good pitching to keep the ball in their park, but top-line hurlers are convinced a tour with Texas will mangle their stats beyond recognition. And unless they induce ground balls at a breathtaking rate, they're probably right.

Elvis (Andrus) is in the building at shortstop. Hamilton might be even better in '09 with a full season of conditioning behind him. But it's hard to get too excited about a team whose hit-and-let-hit routine is way too '90s for its own good.

(4) Seattle

The Rangers may only be good at one thing,, but at least they're good at something, which puts them in better shape than the Mariners. Seattle finished 11th in the AL in pitching last season and 13th in scoring. That's a sure formula for a last-place finish, and the M's obliged with a 61-101 campaign.

The pitching staff should have better days ahead. Felix Hernandez (9-11, 3.45 ERA) turns 23 in and continues to develop into a legitimate into No. 1 starter, although his 80 walks might be cause for concern. Erik Bedard (6-4, 3.67) was limited to 81 innings in 15 starts after surgery to remove a shoulder cyst, but he should bounce back fine in pitcher-friendly Safeco Field. Unless Carlos Silva (4-15, 6.46) is simply cooked at age 30, it's hard to imagine him turning in such a disastrous performance (or getting 28 starts and 153 innings while doing so) two years in a row.

The lineup doesn't offer much in the way of sizzle. Among AL players who took at least 300 at-bats, nobody posted a lower OPS than catcher Kenji Johjima (.609). He'll split time behind the plate with Jeff Clement, a top prospect who hit .325 in August before going in for knee surgery. Jose Lopez, 25, hit .297 with 17 home runs and 89 RBI in a stealthy breakout year at second base. Ichiro (.310 AVG, .361 OBP) continues to slap the ball all over the field, but at 35, the leg injuries that sapped speed in the second half of last year are a troubling sign. The return of Ken Griffey Jr. (.249 AVG, .778 OPS, 18 HR) feels more like a marketing ploy than a baseball decision, given that The Kid is closing on 40.

Need a reason to pay attention to the '09 Mariners? Their roster has the makings of a great All-Terrific Name team. Between Johjima, Ichiro, shortshop Yuniesky Betancourt, outfielder Wladimir Balentien and infield prospect Callix Crabbe, Seattle just might take the prize for baseball's best monikers. In a rebuilding '09, the team is going to be hard-pressed to win much else.

'09 MLB Preview: The AL Central

2009-02-24T13:55:00.005-06:00

What to expect out of baseball's friendly Midwestern heartland (finish in parentheses):

(1) Minnesota

Baseball pundits have beaten the story of Minnesota’s quiet offseason into the ground. It’s not exactly a surprise, people – the Twins are perennial bargain basement buyers at best. The Delmon Young trade last year qualified as a blockbuster for this club. If a big name is involved in the Twins’ winter plans, he’s usually on his way out the door.

With that in mind, the addition of Joe Crede is as big a splash as Minnesota had made in years. The Twins finished 29th in baseball in home runs from the third base position last year, and dead last in dingers from right-handed hitters. Crede satisfies both of those needs. If he’s healthy, he gives them their best righty power threat since Torii Hunter. Even if he’s not, he’s still a good bet to double the seven homers the Twins got from the hot corner last year.

Beyond Crede, the Twins are poised to reclaim the Central title the same way they always do: Player development and a seemingly endless pool of contributors in the farm system. Scott Baker (11-4, 3.45 ERA) and Kevin Slowey (12-11, 3.99) anchor a solid young rotation that could become lethal if Francisco Liriano approaches his monster ’06 numbers. A stable of pitching prospects, headlined by Phil Humber and Kevin Mulvey if last year's innings count takes a toll on any of the starters.

The return of Michael Cuddyer, who missed half of last year with a hand injury, should only bolster a lineup that scored the fourth-most runs in the AL. The team’s list of breakout-year candidates includes Carlos Gomez, Delmon Young, Denard Span and Alexi Casilla. If one or two of those talented youngsters improves significantly on his ’08 performance, this lineup will be a force to be reckoned with.

The Twins’ success last season was in many ways a year ahead of schedule. A 2009 division title would be right on time.

(2) Chicago

The White Sox’ core is almost as old as the Yankees’, with four starting position players who will be at least 32 on opening day. Their offense rivals the Tigers’ as the AL’s most one-dimensional – last year, Chicago finished first in the league in home runs, 11th in batting average and 13th in stolen bases. And there’s seldom a stretch in which fiery skipper Ozzie Guillen isn’t at odds with some combination of his prospects, his front office, the local media and himself.

And yet there are reasons to believe the Sox have a hurrah or two left in them. The Sox bring back their top three starters from a staff that finished 4th in ERA and 5th in batting average against among AL starting rotations. John Danks (12-9, 3.32 ERA) turns 24 in April. Gavin Floyd (17-8, 3.84) is 26, and while it feels like Mark Buehrle has been around forever, the workhorse southpaw (15-12, 3.79) will be just 30 in March.

Arm fatigue is a concern for Danks and Floyd, who topped their career highs in innings pitched by a wide margin in ’08 – Floyd threw nearly three times his previous high of 70 frames – but another strong showing from the Sox staff will keep them in their fair share of games. Matt Thorton (67 IP, 77 K, 2.67 ERA) and Bobby Jenks (30 SV, 4 BS, 2.63) are waiting to slam the door in the late innings.

The lineup has plenty of graybeards locked in. Paul Konerko will be 33 next week and needs to track down the Grinch who stole his bat speed to avoid another .240 season at the plate. At 39, Jim Thome can still slug, but he’d better do something about his own .245 batting average if the Sox want to record a hit once in a while. Jermaine Dye actually delivered a very respectable .292/.344/.541 campaign in ‘08, along with 34 homers, the second-most in his career, but he’s also 35.

In other slots, however, a youth movement is well underway. A little offensive maturity from presumptive third baseman Josh Fields, who slugged 23 home runs and whiffed an unholy 125 times in 373 at-bats in ’07 before getting stuck behind Crede last year, would go a long way. Super-prospect Dayan Viciedo, the Sox’ 19-year-old, $11 million “Cuban Pimp,” could also push Fields at third, though some scouts think his defensive liabilities – and rapidly expanding midriff – make him a better fit at first. Of course, Alexei Ramirez (.290 AVG, 22 HR, 77 RBI) gives opponents one big Cuban bat to worry about already. And Carlos Quentin (.288 AVG, .965 OPS, 36 HR, 100 RBI) was a month away from an AL MVP award when he broke his wrist.

The White Sox aren’t as balanced or flexible as the Twins, and rely on some pieces that may not have much left in the tank. If the whole thing comes crashing down on the South Side, it could crash awfully hard. But when the chips are down, Ozzie should have this bunch ready to compete.

(3) Cleveland

The Indians could finish anywhere from first to fourth. The up-and-down Tribe won 93 games in 2005, 78 in '06, 96 in '07 and 81 last year. Which version will show up this year?

If it's the one where Fausto Carmona goes 19-8 with a 3.06 ERA, Victor Martinez posts an .879 OPS in 550-plus at-bats and Travis Hafner hits 24 homers and drives in 100, Cleveland will contend. But Carmona posted a 5.45 in an injury-plagued '08, Martinez was so banged-up that he's likely to spend time at first base and DH rather than sit behind the plate every day and some scouts aren't sure Hafner, who's coming off shoulder surgery, will ever be the same hitter again.

Beyond Cliff Lee, who figures to be a bit closer to his 3.79 '05 or 4.40 '06 than this 2.54 '08, there aren't many safe bets on Cleveland's staff. New closer Kerry Wood was an all-star for the Cubs last year, but who's going to get him the lead and the ball? Steady starter Jake Westbrook is out until mid-year after Tommy John surgery. September call-up Scott Lewis went 4-0 in four starts, and could be a bright spot if he sees full-time duty.

In the lineup, rookie Matt LaPorta, the centerpiece of the CC Sabathia trade, could do some damage once he makes it to the big leagues. Backup catcher Kelly Shoppach belted 24 longballs with an .865 OPS in Martinez' stead, so look for the Indians to find a place for him. Mark DeRosa, another ex-Cub, is coming off a career year that he's unlikely to repeat at age 34.

There's a lot of talent in Cleveland, especially at the plate. But it's tough to run a race if you don't have the horses.

(4) Detroit

Even the auto industry is in better shape than the Tigers’ pitching staff. From Jeremy Bonderman to Joel Zumaya, Detroit’s rotation and pen are a Cadillac-sized mess. Last year, the team’s starters finished 11th in the AL with a 5.03 ERA, while its relievers finished 12th with a 4.69. Only the Orioles issued more walks than Detroit, and no team in baseball got hit harder – the Tigers’ .480 slugging percentage against was the highest in the big leagues.

It’s hard to believe these Tigers are just two seasons removed from leading the majors in ERA, and those 2006 numbers are starting to seem like a mirage. Last year’s mess was especially disturbing for the Tigers given that it was perpetrated by the same core that came up big in ’06 and missed narrowly in ’07. Justin Verlander threw 200 innings, but his ERA ballooned by more than a run to 4.84. Nate Robertson went from a strong middle-of-the-rotation starter in ’06 (3.84 ERA) to a back-end innings-eater in ’07 (4.76) to a batting-practice hurler in ’08 (6.35). Bonderman managed only 12 starts with blood clots in ’08 after posting a 5.01 mark the year before. Edwin Jackson (13-11, 4.37) was the No. 5 guy in Tampa Bay last season, but practically qualifies as Detroit’s ace.

The lineup can rake – Detroit’s 200 homers last year were second only to Chicago in the AL – but it can’t run. Magglio Ordonez is 35. Gary Sheffield is 40 and hanging on by a thread after hitting .225 a .726 OPS, his worst totals in two decades. The Tigers think they have enough offense to absorb Adam Everett’s .246/.298/.355 career line as a trade-off for the 32-year-old shortstop’s glovework. I wouldn’t be so sure about that. A down year from any of Detroit’s aging cogs would leave this team with a major hole. Miguel Cabrera is a sure thing; it’s hard to say that about anyone else on this club. And the Tigers have made a few defensive shuffles – Cabrera to first, Carlos Guillen to left – for the wrong reasons.

Detroit sold the farm in acquiring Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis before the ’08 season. Only half of the deal panned out – Willis, a $10 million disaster, is close to pitching his way out of baseball. The Tigers tried to retool for another short-term run, came up short and are paying the price. Their window slammed shut last season, and may not open again for some time.

(5) Kansas City

And the Royals? Well, they're the Royals. They haven't sniffed the playoffs since 1985, baseball's longest-running drought, and haven't seen the sunny side of .500 since an 83-79 finish in '03. Of all the small-market clubs who follow a cycle of developing and trading talent, Kansas City may be the least adept at the strategy. They never seem to turn those sell-offs into productive core players, and resort to plugging in discount veterans to fill out the lineup. Why this team gave 1,317 combined at-bats last year to Ross Gload, age 32, Jose Guillen, 32, and Mark Grudzielanek, 38, I'll never know. If they're not in contention, don't they at least have some kids in their organization to audition?

Gil Meche (14-11, 3.98 ERA last year) is perfectly serviceable, but he might have more value as someone else's No. 3 starter than Kansas City's No. 1 -- if the Royals sell this year, he could be on the block. The rest of the rotation features guys that might not get a second look elsewhere.

Alex Gordon is young and has a chance to be productive at third. Mike Jacobs cranked 32 home runs in Florida last year, but hit .247 with a .299 on-base percentage. Shortstop Mike Aviles was fantastic as a rookie last year, hitting .325 with an .833 OPS and 10 home runs in two-thirds of a season. If utility speedster Willie Bloomquist wins the second base battle, the infield could at least be fun to watch.

Where is Mark Teahen (.255/.313/.402) going to play? The answer will be just about as meaningful as the Royals season -- and that's not a good thing.

'09 MLB Preview: The AL East

2009-02-23T12:58:00.006-06:00

A look at who puts the "beast" and the "least" in "East Coast bias" this season (finish in parentheses):

(1) Boston

For a team whose season ended on the doorstep of the World Series last October, Boston actually toiled through a bit of a down year. David Ortiz and Josh Beckett – arguably their top hitter and hurler, respectively – both limped to the finish line with debilitating injuries. Jacoby Ellsbury struggled to manage expectations after his stellar coming out party in the ’07 playoffs. J.D. Drew missed his customary 50-plus games. Jason Varitek looked lost.

Not all of these guys will come back strong in ’09. But a few of them will. Big Papi is a career .287 hitter with a .936 OPS —unless he’s really falling apart at the seams, last season’s .264/.876 was an aberration. Jason Bay couldn’t have handled the midseason transition from Pittsburgh much better; give him a full season to ply his trade, and Boston’s lineup might regain some of the swagger it lost when Manny Ramirez fell out of favor. John Smoltz could add a full run to his career ERA (and given that he’s coming off shoulder surgery and jumping into the shark-infested waters of AL lineups, he might) and still give Boston something in the 4.30 range in the middle of the rotation.

The Red Sox are patient well constructed, with depth at multiple positions and a stock of lively arms in the bullpen. They also have the assets to acquire a mid-year booster shot if need be. Most of all, they’ve established themselves as a team that understands how to win. Look for a healthier, more confident Red Sox squad to reassert itself atop the AL East’s trio of powerhouses in ’09.

(2) Tampa Bay

The upstart Rays are going to swing one of two directions this season: They’ll build on last year’s gritty run through the AL and make another earnest go of it in ’09, or come crashing back down to earth when the pieces don’t click the same way they did the year before. History says the latter is more likely – the sidebar in this piece by ESPN.com’s Jayson Stark points out that most meteoric risers turn around and head the other direction just as quickly.

And in some respects, this team is destined to follow suit. These Rays are cut in the mold of the 2005 White Sox, a squad that shaved 186 runs allowed off its total from the year before en route to an out-of-the-blue World Series title. The pitchers who led that charge regressed the next season, giving opponents back all but 37 of those runs. Tampa Bay’s staff allowed a staggering 273 fewer runs in ’08 than it did in ’07, and is bound to regress in ’09. Matt Garza’s career high was 83 innings before he threw 209 between the regular season and the playoffs last year. Andy Sonnanstine jumped from 130 in ’07 to 210 in ’08. Grant Balfour threw a career-high 58.1 innings at an ERA two-and-a-half times lower than his previous best. Somewhere in that mix, something’s going to give.

Like the White Sox before them, the Rays can still win 90-plus games by compensating with offense. Tampa Bay’s 774 runs in ’08 were 9th among 14 AL teams. Thirty more games of Evan Longoria will help change that. So will new arrival Pat Burrell – he won’t hit the 33 home runs he did in hitter-friendly Philly, but still brings above-average power to the table as a DH. Getting 600 at-bats out of Carl Crawford instead of 450 would be another big plus, and a breakout season from B.J. Upton or Matt Joyce – this kid went yard 12 times in 242 at-bats in Detroit last year – would be just gravy.

Tampa Bay won’t sneak up on anybody this year, and they may not make the playoffs in a deep AL field. But they’ll come close.

(3) New York

CC Sabathia, A.J. Burnett and Mark Teixiera: Rattle off the haul of New York’s half-billion dollar winter spending spree, and the Yankees sound loaded already. No team in baseball added more in the off-season.

But nobody lost more, either. And those new imports might be hard pressed just to keep pace in ’09.

Teixiera’s, a career .290 hitter with .378 on-base clip, .541 slugging percentage and 30-plus home run power. That’s a fantastic pickup – but only a moderate upgrade over Jason Giambi who hit .247/.373/.510 last year with 32 longballs.

And Teixiera needs to make up the gap between the incoming .244/.354/.451 production of Nick Swisher and Bobby Abreu’s outgoing .296/.371/.471. The Yankees lost 52 home runs and 196 RBI between Giambi and Abreu. In terms of additions and subtractions to the lineup, the team’s best-case scenario might be a wash.

New York’s best chance of improving an offense that finished 7th in the AL in runs scored might be a healthy Hideki Matsui and a resurgent Robinson Cano. Godzilla hit .294 in 93 games last year, but his .424 SLG was way down from years past. Full-time DH duty will help; coming off of knee surgery will not. Cano has been an enigma in his four seasons, but even his “strong” second half last year featured a .333 OBP. Derek Jeter is coming off a career-low .771 OPS and turns 35 in June. Johnny Damon hit 35 last November. Jorge Posada took 168 at-bats last year and turns 38 in August. There are a lot of question marks in that mix for a team that needs answers.

Of course, the Yankees also dropped a quarter of a billion dollars on pitching this winter. But even if Sabathia duplicates his Cy Young season – 19-7, 3.21 ERA, 241 innings pitched – the only thing he offers beyond retired ace Mike Mussina’s ’08 (20-9, 3.37, 200 IP) is a handful of extra innings.

Expecting Sabathia to throw that many frames this season when he’s led baseball in innings pitched for two years running is foolhardy. Remember that he broke 200 innings just once in his first six seasons before racking up more than 500 in his last two. The only pitcher this decade who has shouldered that kind of workload without going on to miss serious time is Livan Hernandez. Here’s what happened to the rest of them:

Jon Lieber: 2000 – 251 IP. ‘01 – 232 IP. ‘02 –141 IP.

Curt Schilling: 2001 – 256 IP. ’02 – 259 IP. ’03 – 168 IP.

Randy Johnson: 2001 – 249 IP. ’02 – 260 IP. ’03 – 114 IP.

Roy Halladay: 2002 – 239 IP. ’03 – 266 IP. ’04 – 133 IP.

Maybe Sabathia has a little Hernandez in him and holds up just fine. But the guess here is that the Brewers rode their rental ace into the ground last fall, leaving the Yankees to pay the piper. Burnett, meanwhile, topped 200 innings in his last two contract years, and averaged 150 in between.

If Sabathia or Burnett misses time, New York goes back to relying on Chien-Ming Wang and Andy Pettite, while praying for health from Joba Chamberlain (they kept him on a 100-inning leash last season) and a breakthrough from Phil Hughes or Ian Kennedy. That formula was good for third place in ’08. It’s not going to take many bad breaks for the Yankees to muster a repeat performance this time around.

(4) Toronto

The Blue Jays pulled off a remarkable feat last year: Lead the AL (and all of MLB) in pitching, but finish in fourth place. Only one other AL team in the wild-card era has led the league in runs allowed and missed the playoffs -- the 2000 Red Sox, who finished second. Toronto's 3.49 team ERA was historically good. The last club to post a better number in the AL -- Milwaukee in 1992 -- doesn't even play in the league any more.

Wasting such a tremendous pitching season thanks to an anemic offense (11th in the AL in runs scored and OPS) is discouraging. Losing 27-year-old Shaun Marcum (9-7, 3.39 ERA) to Tommy John surgery for '09 is downright depressing. Dustin McGowan (6-7, 4.35) is also out until May after shoulder surgery. He'll be 27 himself in March. A.J. Burnett's departure leaves Jesse Litsch (13-9, 3.58) to hold down the fort, alongside perennial Cy Young candidate Roy Halladay. Watch Halladay's durability -- he's thrown nearly 500 frames in the last two seasons. The last time he did that, he dipped down to an average of 137 innings for two straight years.

With Vernon Wells banged up already, there's not much reason to believe Toronto will find the hitting it needs to compete. The Blue Jays thought they were close to breaking up the Yankees-Red Sox duopoly in the East a few years ago. They've faded quietly since, and now find themselves looking up at three superior clubs

(5) Baltimore

The Orioles, meanwhile, find themselves in a very familiar corner of the basement. They've finished 13th in the AL in pitching for three years running, and haven't cracked the top half of the league in scoring in that same stretch. In other words, they don't offer a whole lot of intrigue.

Maybe highly touted catching prospect Matt Wieters will live up to the hype and tear the cover off the ball. Maybe Cubs castoff Felix Pie will put together the breakout season he never had in Chicago -- or fellow Chicago import Rich Hill will rediscover his big curveball. Maybe right fielder Nick Markakis will blossom into a full-fledged corner outfield star.

Let's hope at least a few of those storylines pan out, because this year, the O's aren't playing for many big prizes.

Big trouble for Big Z

2009-02-22T20:50:00.000-06:00

Quick, who was the Cubs' worst starter after the All-Star break last season?

His era was 5.80. His WHIP was 1.40. He led the team in walks. He went fewer than five innings four times in August and September.

His name was Carlos Zambrano.

In that light, maybe Big Z’s ornery showing in Mesa this weekend hit the right notes – the way he finished last year left him with plenty of reasons to be angry.

Word is Zambrano couldn’t turn around during the offseason without catching a replay of his Sept. 15 no-hitter. The hope here is that he took a few glances at his other late-season performances – the ones that paved the way for his 7.26 ERA in the final two months of the season – and came away with a few insights into what went wrong.

Of course, Cubs fans should also hope Zambrano’s second-half slump – and accompanying shoulder trouble – aren’t indicative of bigger problems to come.

His workload leading up to last year’s struggles can’t have done any wonders for the condition of his arm. Zambrano threw 200-plus innings for five straight seasons before dipping to 188 in 2008. Prior to last season, he finished among MLB’s top 10 in pitch count four years in a row. In 2007, he finished No. 1, throwing 3689 pitches on the year – 108 per start. And he’s not exactly dishing the gentle stuff out there.

Optimists look at Zambrano and see a 27-year-old horse entering his prime as a power pitcher. Doubters see a guy who has fired off a boatload of bullets since becoming full-time starter at age 22, one who posted the two highest ERAs of his career in the last two seasons.

At times, Zambrano ploughs throw games without a hitch – he racked up 12 of his 14 wins in starts in which he pitched at least seven innings, went at least that deep in two no-decisions and yielded more than two runs in such a start only once. At others, he seems intent on beating himself: In his final two starts of the season, he yielded 13 runs, seven walks and a pair of home runs in 5.1 total innings pitched.

Maybe Zambrano’s spring training peevishness is a symptom of the sour taste those meltdowns left in his mouth. Maybe he’s frustrated that he doesn’t get to bat yet (doesn’t Lou Piniella know Biz Z led the Cubs in average and slugging percentage last year?). Or maybe he’s trying to get a head start on this year’s version of the celebrated “Slugging Michael Barrett” incident in an effort to give the team a similar spark. Heck, if Zambrano needs to punch the Tribune’s Paul Sullivan to get the blood going, I’m sure fans will understand.

But whatever’s troubling Big Z’s mind had better not spill over into his money arm. With Rich Harden one alarm clock-related mishap away from the disabled list, any significant time Zambrano misses would leave the Cubs’ rotation awfully thin.

And if Zambrano can’t stay healthy long enough to toss a few gems in ’09, what the heck is he going to watch on TV next winter?

Mr. Right (handed)

2009-02-21T14:40:00.005-06:00

Evidently the speculation that Joe Crede would be too pricey for the Twins' liking was overblown, as Minnesota landed the injury-prone third baseman with a very reasonable 1-year, $2.5 million deal. For those of you keeping score at home, that's $1.5 million in guaranteed money less than Nick Punto. Crede could earn as much as $7 million if he makes at least 525 plate appearances. In other words, if he's good enough to play, he'll be good enough to pay.

Twins fans shouldn't hold their collective breath on another 30-homer effort like the one Crede delivered in 2006, paced by a .284 average, .323 on-base percentage and .829 OPS -- all high marks in his career as a starter. He's been through two back surgeries since, and played in just 144 games in the two seasons since. His career numbers peg him as a .257/.306/.753 hitter and a 20-plus home run threat.

With that in mind, Crede fills two major needs in the Twins' lineup: Production from third base and right-handed slugging. The Twins managed just seven home runs from third basemen last season, 29th in baseball. In '07, they coaxed a paltry six longballs from the position, again 29th in the majors (the Angels finished 30th both years).

Crede, in contrast, went deep seven times last April, and six times in June, en route to 17 homers in 335 at-bats on the year. Even when balky, he gives the Twins a dramatic power upgrade in the hot corner.

Crede also brings a lively right-handed bat to a team whose power numbers have been downright dismal from the right side of the plate. The Twins 41 right-handed home runs were the fewest in the big leagues. The average MLB team hit more than twice that many from the right side (91). Twins right-handers posted a .694 OPS, 24th in MLB and 12th in the American League, better than only Oakland and Seattle and 47 points worse than the average team.

The addition of Crede and the return of Michael Cuddyer, whose banged-up and generally miserable '08 didn't help Minnesota's brutal right-handed splits, should balance a lineup driven by two big lefty bats. Any growth from Carlos Gomez and Delmon Young, who went deep seven and 10 times respectively, would be a big plus.

Despite their right-handed woes and weak third-base production, the Twins still scored the fourth-most runs in baseball. Crede isn't going to get the Twins to 80 right-handed longballs, but he might help push them north of 60. If he can bring the lineup's righties closer to the rest of the pack, the Twins offense will give opponents plenty to worry about.

Truth to Lee's power

2009-02-19T16:56:00.002-06:00

So the Cubs want more bang for their buck out of Derrek Lee. Lou Piniella says the first baseman "needs to elevate the ball more" to regain the power stroke that seems to have abandoned him in the past two seasons (then again, maybe he's just trying to coax Lee to cut back on the 27 double plays he hit into last year). After clubbing a career-best 46 home runs in 2004, Lee has totaled 42 in the past two seasons.

This story sounds awfully familiar.

Piniella says he doesn't know what's keeping those balls in the park, but suspects the broken wrist that cost Lee most of '05 hasn't done him any favors. Lee, meanwhile, attributes his slow second half -- just five of his 20 longballs last year came after the All-Star break -- to taking poor swings.

The numbers suggest this explanation doesn't hold up particularly well. Lee's eight home runs in April, his best power month of the season, was indeed a product of his strongest offensive stretch on the year -- .371 AVG/.446 OBP/1.151 OPS for the month. But his second-highest power total of five homers in May came during his worst month a the plate, one in which he submitted a dismal .234/.269/.680.

His production leveled out for the rest of the year, and he didn't top two home runs in a month from that point forward. He hit .301/.411/.787 in August, his second-best offensive month, but managed just one round-tripper to show for it.

If Lee's stroke isn't the culprit, what is? Truth be told, the Cubs might be looking at Lee's power outage from the frame of reference. His career arc suggests that he's a lot closer to the 22-homer player he was in '07 to the 46-bomb threat he flashed in '05. In fact, just about every aspect of Lee's monster '05 season -- the .331 batting average, 53 points higher than his career mark, the .662 slugging percentage that blew away his previous best by 154 -- was such a radical departure from his career norms that the it screams "fluke" (or, if you want to stir some trouble, "steroids") more than "breakout."

Remember, Lee wasn't some out-of-nowhere rookie when the Cubs plucked him from the Marlins. He was a six-year veteran with five full seasons as an everyday player. His other three full years with the Cubs, in which he's slugged .504, .513 and .462, have been much more in line with his track record than his power figures from '05.

This doesn't mean Lee can't climb back to his career average of 27 dingers, or break 30 again. But his last two seasons have been a reasonably accurate portrait of his tools as a slugger. Unless he's interested in sacrificing average and patience for more power, what the Cubs see from Lee at this point is likely what they're going to get.