<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Wednesday, December 29, 2004

Buy the Sky

Today there are reports filtering out that the Yankees have essentially given the Diamondbacks a free shopping spree from their farm system, plus Javier Vazquez and cash, for Randy Johnson. At least, Johnson seems to think so. And of course, the Yankees are front-and-center on the Beltran sweepstakes.

Oy! Where is this headed? Buster Olney has a column at ESPN.com about the potential Yankee lineup and payroll. And in looking it over, it's hard not to feel a bit queasy, for the game itself, as well as our own self interest. Some $200 million in payroll per season, and rising. All stars at virtually every position, rotation slot, and back of the bullpen too. Run down through their lineup (e.g., Giambi would hit 7th) and it starts giving you a headache. But how bad can it really be?

Well, there is good news, at least for you fellow optimists. For starters, it takes the Yankee karma and farm system to an all-time low. I've droned on and on about the Yanks' lost karma over the last year (they sold their soul, haven't won jack since, broke up a great homegrown team, etc.). Frankly, I feel certain I am onto something, but it's not especially tangible, and if you've read this site more than once, you're probably sick of hearing about this.

The complete bankrupting of the farm system is a more tangible story at least, since it places the Yankees in a precarious position when it comes time to add new blood at the trading deadline. They officially have no young kids to offer a small-market team looking to unload a stellar free-agent-to-be for some future talent. None. While the Sox, by contrast, have been stocking the cupboard, and managing to hang on to exactly all of their young talent so far this offseason. So to make any deadline deal at all, the Yankees will have to unload major league talent, which is either robbing Peter to pay Drew, I mean Paul,* or will entail dumping one of their typically bloated contracts, along with virtually all of the cash to pay for it.

[*snarky insider bs, sorry]

But does it matter? Well, the Reign of Theo has been marked by two seasons of deftly outmaneuvering the Yankees in July, to the point where you have to start to feel a bit embarassed for poor Cashman. In one of those two seasons it made the difference. So it's not nothing, but only if the Yankees have failed to cover themselves in advance for all of 2005. They have lots of creaky arms and legs, so the chances of something going wrong that they didn't anticipate is pretty high. Flexibility in the roster and the payroll is good, even if you're the Yankees. Still, there's a chance that they really won't need anyone in October that they didn't already grab before April, and they will have lapped the field, including the Defending World Champion Boston Red Sox, before my son's next swimming lesson. So we'll see about that.

[Aside: what exactly is Brian Cashman's job anymore? Randy Levine, his boss, seems to be conducting the Johnson negotiations. They can't make any more trades, really. I suppose all Cashman has to do is FA negotiations, which consist of saying "We know what you want, you know we're gonna pay it, so let's just try and do this with dignity, OK?" /aside]

As for what this means to Baseball, this is alarming, because we are now exactly halfway down the slippery slope. It began a few years back, when the then-reigning champs started turning over their tight-knit-but-aging roster with the best FA available, usually through a negotiations process that preempted any competition. First Mussina, then Giambi, then Matsui and Contreras [!], etc. The fear was that the Yankees could have all the best talent, and someday they would have a starting lineup consisting exclusively of all-stars. Well, that day will be here in early April, in Fenway. [Or is the opener in the Bronx? I can't remember.]

But that's not the final extreme; the next extreme is where the Yankees have nothing but all-stars on the bench too. And the final one is where the Yankees own all the best 100 players, even though they can only keep a quarter of them active at one time. We may never make it to the latter extreme, but given Steinbrenner's insatiable, obscene, naked greed, the former day cannot be too far away.

But baseball will only be in trouble if they make some boob like Bud Selig the commiss... -- uh, it will only be in trouble if Steinbrenner's greed actually translates into championships. So far the all-all-star approach has guaranteed playoff spots each year, but none of those seasons has ended with a winning streak. This year may be the difference, since this team will be somewhat better conceived than last year's utterly stupid collection of players (ahem... when assembling a pitching staff, try to remember your short porch is in right, not left). But until they win it all, this is still an experiment in greed, rather than a proven winning formula.

Maybe the Yankees will turn into the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant Softball Team. You remember Homer at the Bat [click here, you'll thank me], where Mr. Burns takes a winning team and substitutes major league all-stars, who then get derailed by a series of bizarre misfortunes? Well, Jason Giambi is already Ken Griffey Jr, who drinks something that causes his head to swell massively. Kevin Brown was Wade Boggs, too stubborn to avoid punching injuries. Karim Garcia and Jeff Nelson are Steve Sax, hauled off by the cops to defend themselves on every unsolved crime on the books. Contreras is Roger Clemens, clucking like a chicken on the mound, under hypnosis. Tino Martinez was Ozzie Smith, cast into a bottomless pit. Next, perhaps A-Fraud will be Strawberry, hurt by the sting of his thoroughly tarnished image, be it his failure in the clutch, or his ludicrous karate chop act.

Back in reality, though the Yankees look not so much like the Evil Empire as they do the Roman Empire, particularly in its latter stages, when decadence led to weakness and eventually demise. For the Yankees, like Rome, the end game is bloat and invasion. Each time they exceed the luxury tax threshold, the percentage used to calculate the payment goes up: 22% of the exceedence for first time offenders, then 30%, then 40%. Assuming they exceed the threshold by a greater amount each year, their payments will rise exponentially. In 2006 they may pay 40% of some $150 million. At some point, they will feel the hurt. And when they do, there will be almost nothing they can do about it, as the rest of the league bands together against even entertaining the idea of taking a contract off poor Steinbrenner's hands. So they will sit frozen in place, while those supposedly "lesser" tribes use their mobility to raid first the fringes, then the heart, of the once great Empire.

Not even baseball, with all its competitive imbalance, will experience a Thousand Year Reich.

[Or so says I, but like I said, I'm an optimist.]

Tuesday, December 28, 2004

Revel In It

This sentence from today's Globe is so sweet:

"Only the Yankees spent more last season on their 40-man roster, doling out a record $203.9 million en route to squandering a three-game advantage against the Sox in the American League Championship Series. The Yankees received a bill for $25,026,352, according to the Associated Press, which cited a Dec. 21 memorandum that was distributed to all major league teams."

Look closely. This is an article about which teams were forced to pay the luxury tax. Try as you might, you will have difficulty finding a more mundane baseball story than one about the league's internal taxation system. And yet, even this is an occasion to point out that the Yankees became the first team in baseball to squander a 3-game lead in a playoff series this season.

Granted, this is the hometown paper, but there is no shortage of writers and editors looking to poke the Yankees in the eye. This victory, in the way it was done, will reverberate constantly, for years, and I'm guessing at least 60% of the time it will be framed as the Yankee Collapse, rather than the Sox' triumph. Call me petty, but I am totally fine with that.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA!!

Monday, December 27, 2004

Pats Open Thread

Still in media blackout, and it was too nice a day in Seattle to listen to the game on the internet. But I gather that the Patritots got back to their workmenlike ways, where they demonstrate to anyone watching how much better they are than the competition. Now they have two weeks off to prepare for Indy or the Chargers, which hopefully will be plenty of time for the bruises to heal and Charlie Weis to draw up an offense, between recruiting calls.

* Seymour's injury certainly bears watching. In the past, the Patriots have overcome seemingly insurmountable injuries to indispensible guys. But playing without Seymour may be a bridge too far. The road to frigid, miserable Jacksonville goes through Pittsburgh, a team which would be 6-10 if not for its offensive line. This would be a real matchup problem if Seymour is out. Of course, until that first playoff game, it's unlikely Belichick will tell anyone what happened, so I guess we'll have to feel Ron Borges' pain after all.

* If you could combine Pittsburgh's defense with Indianapolis' offense, now that would be a team. I might even make the Patriots an underdog against such a team. Til then, I can't help but feel like we can take it to the Indy D and the Pittsburgh O enough to win a trip back to the SB.

* I sure hope Carolina makes the playoffs. Has any team started 1-7 and made the Super Bowl? Obvious answer. So maybe they will be the Sox of football.

* Later this week: how my power poll in early December predicted where we are now. Or, I told you so (and don't worry about when I didn't), Vol.7 No. 122.

Sunday, December 26, 2004

O Captain My Captain

For the first two years of the Epstein-Millar-Ortiz-Timlin era, we have seen some patterns take hold, such as bullpen depth, high on-base percentages, solid winning records, and a theme around which to rally the troops each year. The theme has begun as an inside-the-clubhouse ruse, but Kevin Millar has a big mouth, and the notion has generally evolved into an image of the team as a whole -- the cowboy/dirt dogs, and the idiots.

By signing Jason Varitek to a plump little deal and anointing him the captain of the club, the Sox have essentially moved preemptively to legislate the team's image in 2005. No more idiots, no more shots before big games, etc. The dirt dogs undercurrent will survive, but now it will be packaged in a sturdy, clean-cut, hard-working, soft-spoken pure white calvinist godfearing package.

I for one have no problem with this... because much of this imaging exercise, if not all, is media nonsense. From what the players say and project, unanimously, Jason Varitek has always been the model for the team on the field, and if the Sox look serious and dedicated between the chalk lines in 2005, it will hardly be the first time. Are they idiots or cowboys or guys who mess around? Only in the clubhouse, to keep sane during the press of monotony and expectations that weigh on them every day for six months or so. The only change being made here is in the marketing brochures. If the Sox possess Varitek-like purpose on the field next year, the media will no doubt couch it all that way, and ignore the fact that back in the clubhouse, they're acting like idiots again.

As for Varitek, he will probably be the best captain the franchise has ever had if he simply keeps on keeping on. He's the third captain ever, don't you know? But the first two did little if anything to define the role for Jason. Yaz was anointed the Captain by virtue of his hitting exploits, which droned on for some 250 years at a .268, 20 HR, 73 RBI pace. Or maybe it was the endless, cruel pranks he played on his teammates, like destroying their street clothes, or lighting their cleats on fire. In any event, he finally died in the on-deck circle in 1984, was pinch-hit for by a young Mike Greenwell, and the rest is history. JIm Rice then succeeded Yaz, for reasons nobody outside the club can explain, given that Rice never said anything to anyone. He's always been a complete enigma, and it's so fitting that the Hall of Fame electors can't seem to make up their mind about him. I've never heard anyone on the club say a bad word about him, but because of his complete silence I doubt the writers or fans ever knew him at all. Was he a fitting captain, or did the team -- then so ably run by Haywood and Buddy -- just work off his stats? Nobody will ever know. The practice of naming a captain died with Rice's retirement, since by then it was Clemens' team, or Oil Can's or Spike Owen's, and the club didn't have the strength to face up to this.

[Aside: my Jim Rice memory comes from 1988, when Rice celebrated my joining the season ticket ranks by starting the season without a single homer through the beginning of June. Rice broke his slump by going deep to center against the Yankees in Fenway, on a Friday night before a packed house. Did it again later that night. I haven't been to any playoff games lately, but in my experience that was the loudest I ever heard Fenway. My point: we wanted to love Jim Rice, if only he'd let us.]

So Varitek has a tabula rasa on which to engrave. Let's face it, he's probably our Jeter, isn't he? I mean, maybe he doesn't get all the clutch hits, and catchers don't make glittery plays like shortstops do, or not as often. But he's supposedly vocal, steady, works hard, very intense, overachieves (.390 OB%?? come on...), and certainly does get his share of clutch hits, defensive plays, etc. Also, it's widely acknowledged that the Season of Our Lives officially began when he challenged A-Fraud to a fight, ostensibly to protect his pitcher -- a noble gesture, even if someone named Bronson should be able to handle himself -- supposedly insisting "we don't throw at .260 hitters." Pure genius. If I could say anything to A-Rod, it would be something like that, and Varitek thought of it in the heat of battle. Damn! Anyway, by the time Varitek is done defining the captaincy, it might look something like the image he already projects. Or at least that's what Theo has in mind here.

So, we know about his great and improving stats. And we've heard all about his clubhouse demeanor. And so it is we are satisfied (right?) with this captain business. But one last thing I want to know is, what is the effect on a pitcher of having Jason Varitek behind the plate? I like to use stats to understand stuff, but it simply isn't always possible. My belief is that baseball is not an endless series of lonely acts. Pitchers and hitters, their success is all relative to the other people involved, so when we give Derek Lowe a 6.23 ERA, we don't really capture the story of, say, the porous infield behind him. Well, then, what is the impact of having Jason Varitek calling and catching one's pitches? I don't know if we can calculate this, because although you can chart a pitcher with Varitek and without him, no two situations are the same. No statistic will pinpoint what he really means back there.

This is an important question, even if we can't assign values here, because everyone says Matt Clement could be great if he could just harness his stuff a little better. Would he have still walked 77 guys in 180 innings last year if he didn't have to throw to Paul Bako? Perhaps, perhaps not. In Wells, Clement -- hell, the whole pitching staff, we have guys who could be great but are by no means assured of success. So if Jason Varitek calls and catches a really great game, handles his pitchers better than most or all other catchers can, and essentially squeezes the most potential any human could ever get out of these guys? Then Jason Varitek is a serious bargain at $10 mil per year.

[P.S. Love the "c" on the jersey. Subtle reminder that this was once a hockey town. Will they start calling them sweaters? And anyone who gave their kid a Varitek sweater with the "c" for XMas is, like, parent of the decade.]

Thursday, December 23, 2004

Holy S--t! Varitek Re-Signs!!!

Happy Holidays everyone! Here's the scoop.

Meanwhile, a little housekeeping. Management would like to welcome several new participants to our humble little forum -- the danger of the keyboard is that I get to post almost anything, however badly in need of peer review. Please most definitely feel free to call b-s on anything you read here, with the only limitation being that we're all friends, or at least not Yankee fans, here. Also, I'll keep running thru the holidays, although with the roster set a lot of the fun is behind us, so things might slow down a tad. And I'll be offline the second week of Jan. -- way offline, sipping margaritas... Merry holidays, or as my bro-in-law Kenny would say, good luck!
Early Leftovers

I just listened to the Wade Miller conference call on the Sox Home Page. Seems like an earnest fellow. He was either well coached or is a perfect fit for the Sox, since he said the magic words "I love the city and I love playing in front of fans who care." Some notes on this:

* He said he was surprised Houston let him go, since 15 other teams were willing to take a chance. And plenty of wags out there will suggest Houston is setting themselves up for a fall. But let's be fair: Houston's risk was not Wade Miller, maybe injured, for $1.5 million, as Boston has committed. Miller was arbitration-eligible, so they were looking at paying him more like $6 mil, rain or shine. Not saying they didn't screw up; I'm just saying the calculus for them isn't the same.

* He's rehabbing his shoulder through strength building, rather than surgery. Sounds like someone we know. And since that someone is the Sox' alltime winning percentage leader, I guess we can stop worrying. Right? Interestingly, in the wake of Pedro's departure the Sox have patched together a collection of potential, rather than certain commodities, whatever they are. This strategy plays right into the chicken little mentality that has gripped this franchise since they stopped making baseballs out of wood. So the question is, what is the lasting legacy of winning the World Series? Can the planet's most discontented fan base calm down and reconcile itself to unknown possibilities? And if we don't, will the rest of the planet have us killed, or just tune us out?

* All quiet on the Varitek front. Holidays and all, right? I know everyone is uncomfortable about the lack of resolution... check the Globe chat threads, at least 50% of them contain unsolicited pleas to resign him. But isn't it curious that, if he really is hanging out there for the taking, NOBODY ELSE is calling on him? The Dodgers, and maybe Mets, desperately need a catcher who can hit and catch. Both have money. Neither appears to be doing anything. Is it possible Varitek has instructed Boras to do a deal only with Boston?

* After Varitek, are we done? Could this be a winter of relative content? Will our only remaining hot stove entertainment be the pathetic longings for every expensive all star on the planet emanating from the Bronx? I guess 1B is unsettled, in the metaphysical sense anyway. Something will go down. But I'm not sure I want Delgado. We have enough power from the left side, considering the Green Monster is not in right field. And Millar... people think of him as a clown whose act wears thin, but I'm not so sure. Isn't this the guy Gammons credits for bridging the culture gaps in the clubhouse? Stuff like that matters, every season.

* Everyone says Johnson to the Yankees is a done deal, somewhere along the way. But the fact that nobody can say how it will ever be done says something, right?

* Yanks declare their undying love of Javier Vazquez today -- something along the lines of "we'd never trade him except for Johnson." Does anyone in Boston have a problem with him coming back to the Yankees next season? Anyone?

Wednesday, December 22, 2004

New Power Arm

Every year some team makes a low-risk, high-ceiling free agent signing that piques everyone's curiosity, usually in the form of an established starting pitcher with great stuff and a recent history of injuries. Often enough this works for a little while, if not longer: Brett Saberhagen gave the Sox some nice wins before his shoulder became permanently detached, for example. Jon Lieber made it all the way back this season to help out the miserable Yankees staff, and is now a multi-millionaire in Philly. Sure, a lot of these guys are really lost causes (Ramon Martinez?), but they work for meal money and a little respect, so why should clubs not give them a shot?

Thus Sox fans should welcome the signing of rehab project Wade Miller, fresh off the Astros' staff/DL and a victim of a salary purge. Only two years ago, Miller was being hailed as the best young power arm in the NL (until Prior showed up, at least). He threw mid-90s fastballs with movement, and a big curveball that was near impossible to deal with. Now he's a still-young 28-year-old with parts of six years' service and a history of fraying in his rotator cuff. And the Sox signed him for somewhere between $1.5 and 5 million, depending on how his incentives shake out.

Like I said, it's not my money, and it's not the kind of salary that will impact the team's budget. In other words, there's very little downside. But there's also evidence that the Astros cashed out Miller rather hastily. Miller claims (at least) that he feels fine and will be ready to pitch as soon as spring training begins. When the problem was diagnosed in June, he was only expected to miss a few weeks, but the pain persisted and Miller never returned to action. The Astros are casting doubt on his health as cover for their own penny-pinching. Obviously I don't know much about frayed rotator cuffs, but his condition clearly isn't as damaged as some of these guys coming off major operations, needing two seasons to really make it back. Also, he averaged 100 pitches per start, including 116 in his last appearance. And his doctor, the ubiquitous Lewis Yocum, has pronounced him ready to go. How hurt can he really be?

If he manages to stay healthy, Miller is a bargain-basement Matt Clement. Not so much in style, and not in his record (Miller won a LOT more: 16-8 and 15-4 in '01-'02), but in his other numbers. Lifetime OPS numbers against? Miller's is .712, Clement's .713. There is some disparity in on-base and slugging, Miller excelling in suppressing the former, Clement the latter -- suggesting Miller has better control. But in 2004 the numbers were virtually identical:

.......... avg / on-base / slugging / OPS
Miller .228 / .313 / .378 / .692
Clement .229 / .315 / .375 / .690

Miller has shown better control over time than Clement, but strikes out guys at a slightly slower clip. His career ERA is 3.87, or half a run better than Clement despite pitching in a ridiculous little batting practice cage of a stadium. And even pitching in pain last year, that number was 3.35.

Bottom line: Wade Miller has at times shown himself to be a dominant starting pitcher with great stuff and a solid makeup. STATS Inc. calls him a "hard-nosed, no-excuses battler who fought hard in every game." Apparently they don't own a thesaurus. Anyway, if he isn't damaged goods, the Astros' decision to make him a salary casualty will rank up there with a similar decision by the Twins regarding one David Ortiz. And the Red Sox will have a fine 1-5 rotation, not star-studded so much as rock-solid throughout. If not, well, all they risked was chump change and some faceless Triple-A guy's spot on the 40-man roster.

The one downside: The Sox' opening day roster projects to include Millar, Miller and Mueller. How did we allow this to happen?
Straw Man

Ron Borges' column in today's Globe is ridiculous. Yes, Charlie Weis deserves little blame over Monday night's absurd loss by the Patriots in Miami. My question is, why is he writing about this?

Being away, I can't assess the state of the Boston echo chamber, but even if WEEI is ringing with nitwits claiming Weis' new job is ruining his performance of his old job, I ask -- WHO CARES?! If I write a blog about Terry Francona's use of the bullpen, should the Globe be offering a vote of confidence if they disagree? Clearly not. What if 2,000 bloggers all call for his head? Still no story.

The larger story here is, of course, that the media should try to cover the team more than it covers the commentary of others regarding the team. Until Brady says Weis is distracted, there's no story. But the even larger story is that Borges looks like a total hack when he writes a story about a straw man that, heroically, his column is here to slay. He makes up a story about a person who is wrong, and then he proves that person wrong. Very clever, even if the protagonist doesn't really exist.

The truth is that knocking down straw men is incredibly cheap journalism, the province of the Rush Limpbaughs and Fox News Channels of the world. I find this practice on par with seemingly rampant (and ever more disturbing) unprofessional coverage of politics and the Iraq war, such as when Judith Miller sets up the WMD story with lies from Ahmad Chalabi, or when the Post details the horrors of Saddam with Jumana Hanna's tales of abuse in prison, none of which actually occurred.

[Bear with me, this is not a political rant, it's a journalism one.]

I find it difficult these days to have confidence in any media at all, unless it's reported by Peter Gammons. And more than political or other agendas, laziness is the prime culprit. So Borges listened to the radio yesterday and squeezed a column out of it? Or maybe some in-studio pundit guest that appeared with him on the radio was trying to make this point. So what???? This kind of hot air is so far removed from the workings of the team as to be completely irrelevant. Other than the tv/radio column, it doesn't qualify as news.

It's interesting trying to gauge how pro athletes feel about the media (and fans) from their comments. We hear the Patriots say they don't think about the Streak, or the Sox don't worry about being down 0-3, and we wonder, how is this possible? If they're just trying to put on a good face, well, do they absorb the emotions emanating from the media? Or more likely, if it's true that they don't think or worry this way, do they read the papers and just laugh at Borges? At us?

Monday, December 20, 2004

My Darling Clement

By now you've heard all the pros and cons of signing Matt Clement to, essentially, fill in for Pedro. Unless you've had your head buried in the sand (can we just make it official and call this a "Selig"?), in which case the argument goes: he looks like a young (re: unhittable) Kevin Brown, on his good days, which happen often enough but less than some would prefer. Stories are now flying hither and yon about which Matt Clement the Sox have just bought, and in the echo chamber the battle between Clement's magical stuff and the pressures of playing in Boston is indeed pitched. But let's face it, nobody can declare a winner here until about a year from now, if then, so let's snack on some stats, eh?

In 2004, Clement was:

-11th in majors in strikeouts (190). The following pitchers had more: Randy Johnson, Johan Santana, Ben Sheets, Jason Schmidt, Oliver Perez, Pedro, Klemens, Oswalt (acting alone), Our Beloved Curt, and Kelvim Escobar. The combined ERA of all the guys who had more strikeouts is something like 2.80 And yet, of the people with fewer strikeouts, the talent gets kind of watered down. So does Clement belong more with those just above him, those captains of the pitching industry, or with the also-rans? Hard to say, but he did it in 190 innings, and his strikeouts per inning trailed only Johnson, Santana, Sheets, Perez, and Schmidt (among starters). In other words, he strikes people out slightly more often than both Pedro or Schilling. Or about twice as often as Pavano.

- Opponents' batting average against was .225, trailing only RJ, Santana, Schmidt, Perez, Leiter, Clemens, Sheets, and Victor Zambrano among starting pitchers. Opponents' slugging was .375, 14th among ML starters by my count, and better than Pedro (.399) or Schilling (.387). The average hitter off Clement looked slightly less powerful than Cesar Izturis (.381). His .317 on-base percentage allowed (think Adam Everett, Endy Chavez) is a few too many walks beyond the superhuman range of Johnson and Santana, but is still about equal to Oswalt, Hudson, Mussina, and several other all-stars.

- So why the middlin' ERA? He walked 77 guys -- too many -- but fewer than: Russ Ortiz, Zambrano, Livan, Mulder, Harden, Zito, Oliver Perez, and Clemens. He also gave up 23 home runs -- again, not great, but fewer than 49 other guys, including Milton, Colon, Maddux, most of the Yankees, Zito, Pedro, Oliver P., Sheets, and Johan.

Seasoned observers seem to think last year was Clement's best, despite the 9-13 record and the 3.68 ERA. So he was great on many nights, but what happened when he wasn't? Did he break down in tough spots? Well, his ERA with runners in scoring position was 10.05 -- but for perspective, Schilling's was 9.75; Pedro's 9.88. And Schilling is known as a bulldog with men on. In late innings of close games, Clement had a 2.45 ERA, with virtually the exact same numbers as Schilling, except somehow the Cubs managed to lose five of those six games (though since Clement only gave up a total of two runs in those situations, at least three of those losses weren't his fault). He walked lefties twice as often as righties, leading to 20% higher ERA, but otherwise the lefty-righty splits were minimal. He was more than a run better in Wrigley than on the road, which I have no opinion about.

Things went somewhat sour at the end of the season, when his ERA climbed from 3.03 to 3.68 in the last 8 weeks. But even then, he only had two outings ALL SEASON where he gave up over four runs (five one night, six another), so as the season wore down, he became somewhat mediocre -- but never bad. He also suffered from Pedro-itis, giving up runs at a 5.40 ERA-clip in the first inning (Pedro was 5.45).
But generally, there is very little variation from start to start, he always seems to give up between 1-4 runs. If he did that for the Sox, with that offense behind him, he would be almost certain to win 20 games.

Conclusion: There are no glaring issues in his game. He isn't always great, but then he's usually good, and almost never bad. He gave the Cubs 21 quality starts in 30 tries (Pedro was 22 for 33), and only twice in those 30 starts did he allow over four runs. Update: That number for Clement s/b 18/30. I must have counted a few 4-run games??] He got mediocre run support: 4.03 runs per game, 78th in ML, virtually tied with Randy Johnson, whose lack of run support is widely viewed as the only reason he didn't win the Cy Young award. In his 13 losses the Cubs scored a total of 19 runs. The Cubs were a decent team, but one that used such defensive stalwarts as Sammy Sosa, Moises Alou, Todd Walker and Nomar on a daily basis. He held it together in Wrigley by inducing grounders on that lush infield, but had less success on the road. Is it his fault Moises Alou can't run down balls in spacious NL outfields? Did any starter ever peak with Nomar and Todd Walker up the middle?

I dunno, I see little holding him back. The AL will test his mettle some, and being less proficient against lefties (slightly) won't help him in the Bronx. But it won't kill him in Boston, and on a nightly basis he'll enjoy mostly solid defense and bountiful run support. With any luck, he'll have Jason Varitek to guide him through the wilderness, and a kick-ass bullpen to pick him up when his darting pitches start flattening out late in games. If he is as steady in Fenway as he was in Chicago, he will be a solid success.

Friday, December 17, 2004

Food For Thought

As the Yankees load up on more all-stars, remember this: Carl Pavano made a brief appearance in the 2004 all-star game... and David Ortiz homered off him.
Salaries So Far

Yesterday I posted about contract millstones. And the same day the Globe ran a popup graphic (scroll down page for link) showing all the team's salaries thus far. With the exception of BK Kim, is there one single bad contract on this list? Only Manny, Schilling and Renteria make $10 mil or more. Damon makes 8.25, Foulke 7, Nixon 6.5, Ortiz 5.25 (!). The following players all make less than $4 mil: Millar, Embree, Timlin, Mueller, Mantei. Other than Kim and possibly Mientkiewicz at 3.75, where's the fat? Well done, so far, Sox management.
First Off

A few murmurings out there that the Sox are dangling Millar. I for one don't believe it for a second.

The only justification is that somehow there is a logjam at first base. Millar and Mientkiewicz are the two candidates, assuming Nixon is healthy and Millar isn't needed elsewhere. Ortiz is only ever going to play first in NL parks or shorthanded situations. Ortiz is the DH -- seriously, can you name another guy on the roster who looks like he needs to DH? Times have certainly changed.

As between Millar and Mientkiewicz, there is no contest. However much Mientky wants to start, he hasn't earned the job, and hasn't even earned a lefty-righty platoon. Millar starts until the Sox have a lead, and Mientkiewicz gets mopup defensive duty. Look at the stats: Mientkiewicz, dismissing his horrible hitting in Fenway, is still a low .300s on-base guy, has slight splits which show him better against righthanders, but in his best situation -- versus righties -- he's a .250 hitter, as opposed to .220 or so. Millar, on the other hand, looks (and acts) like a softball player, but is actually a classic Theo on-base machine. Last year he rang up a .385 OB%, good enough to lead off for about 15 teams. After opening up his stance around the All-Star break, he hit .319 (avg) and registered a .408 on base average. He scored one of the most Heroic Walks in recent baseball history off Mariano in Game 4 -- exhibit A why on-base avg is more important than batting avg. He has no discernible splits; there's never a great time to bench him. Also, he only makes $3.5 mil, plays a few positions, and is generally regarded as one of the most important guys in the clubhouse.

I love Mientkiewicz in a backup/utility role (he plays a slick 2B too), and if he adjusts better to Fenway he could be a contributor. But if he forces the issue for playing time, Mientkiewicz -- not Millar -- will be gone.

Thursday, December 16, 2004

Survival of the Fiscally Fit

It will be interesting indeed to see what comes of the spending spree engulfing Major League Baseball. I've been posting on the subject of budget flexibility, a concept so powerful it could ultimately come between us and Manny Ramirez. Everyone agrees that flexibility comes in handy at the trade deadline and beyond. And yet, teams are spending between $7 and $10 million on (a) guys who mostly suck; (b) guys who will probably get hurt; and (c) guys who haven't sucked or been hurt, but probably will achieve one or both milestones before too long.

Teams seem to be spending huge sums because "everyone's doing it." Some teams (Mets, Mariners, and Orioles and Tigers if they get their wish) are trying to buy respectability, which is apparently a lot more expensive when you don't already have it. I.e., Joe Slugger's price to go to these teams could be about 20 percent higher than it would be for any of 2004's playoff teams. As usual, it's expensive to be poor. But the reality is, not everyone is doing it, and there is great disparity as to how much "doing it" various teams can afford.

So my question is, since this kind of splurge has happened before, will the market swing back and cause a lot of buyers' remorse from this winter? Which of today's blockbusters will be tomorrow's millstones? Here's my opinion:

Millstones: Pedro, Sexson, Pavano, Benson, Russ Ortiz, Jaret Wright.

Value signings: Renteria, Adrian Beltre, Cory Koskie, Troy Glaus, Jon Lieber, Steve Finley. [No opinion either way on the slew of shorter/cheaper deals, like Wells for two years. Two years isn't very long to carry dead money, if it somehow comes to that, which I am definitely NOT predicting. I mean, how many guys around that age and weight, with a history of back problems and gout, fail to perform?]

IMHO, the big losers are the Mets and Diamondbacks. Sheit deals which they were not in much of a position to afford. I listed two Yankees as millstones, but they'll always have enough money to either afford the deals or buy back some roster flexibility by flipping these contracts -- and 80 percent of the money to pay for them -- to a second division team. It's possible for the Yankees to be losers in free agency, like the Giambi deal, but Pavano's floor is mediocrity, not disaster, and Wright isn't that expensive. The Red Sox and Mariners are a mixed bag, though their biggest ticket items look solid enough so far. I'm not sure I see any big winners in free agency yet, not at these prices, though the Braves have cleverly added Smoltz and Hudson to their rotation by making some significant trades, assuming Kolb can keep the ball down in Turner Field in the ninth. The Angels (Finley) and Giants (Matheny) have made nice medium-sized moves, nothing one could complain about. Baltimore and Detroit have been shut out so far, making them look even sadder than they already did. Hey, Derek Lowe is available!

Wednesday, December 15, 2004

Renteria on Board

Edgar Renteria signed a four-year $40 million contract with the Red Sox today, giving Boston an All-Star shortstop. "The biggest reason was that Boston is a traditional team," Renteria said from his home in Colombia. "They won the Series this year and I like to play on a winning team like Boston, St. Louis or any team that has the opportunity to win."

So much for mass budget flexibility. But then, plan B may be to trade for an 05 free agent stud like Burnett. And they still have some $3-4 mil unspent on Pedro...

Tuesday, December 14, 2004

Budget Bending

If any one concept could unite the Sox' actions, or lack thereof, into a coherent plan, it is clearly "financial flexibility."

The concept should be easy for Patriots fans to understand: you win by having a complete roster, by moving people around and by having people you can move around as circumstances change. One major impediment to this is money -- if you haven't got any in the bank, your options to respond to changed circumstances will be limited. If you give 20% of your budget to one or two guys, then as long as they are around you'll be hard pressed to make the winning moves.

Sure, baseball doesn't have a salary cap like the NFL, but between the luxury tax and the Sox' ownership's own precarious finances, baseball's second highest payroll might be frozen in place for a while. It's fair to poke holes in this argument, with the planet's highest ticket prices going up and up each year, and you would think that there would be some pretty serious windfall from winning the franchise's first world series since before films had sound. But then, if Sox ownership says they would like to field a team for under $130 million, well, that's not entirely unfair either.

So the question becomes, how many solid guys can you get for Pedro's $13 mil? Unfortunately in this inflated market, the answer is probably two. Matt Clement or Edgar Renteria would pull down something close to $10 million if either came to Boston, so throwing in David Wells at $4 mil is all we should expect.

That's one scenario, but if it doesn't play out, the Sox' fallback position to signing a front-line starter is to begin the season with immense payroll flexibility. Pocketing the cost of re-signing Pedro, not to mention Lowe and maybe Varitek (don't worry yet) or Cabrera, puts the Sox in an ideal position to swing deadline deals. It's a risk, hoping you can hang on until teams with future stud free agents fall out of contention, but these Sox follow the Billy Beane calendar of seeing what you have for the first third of the season, putting it together with what you still need in the second third, and playing it out in the last third.

Remember the Red Sox the team jelled after the Nomar deal? Remember why the deal was made? [answer: defense] There were a lot of heroes making less than $10 million, and that may be the answer. Guys like Timlin, Mueller, Embree, Mirabelli, etc. So, it would have been nice to sign Pavano, and certainly more convenient to have Pedro leave earlier if that's what he had planned, so the Sox could turn to plan B.

BTW, I predict Nelson de la Rosa will be offered a coaching job in the Mets' system by August 1, Respect Coach or something.

Sunday, December 12, 2004

What's the Deal?

Of course, all I know about the Red Sox' offseason maneuverings is exactly what you already know. Wells got the money, Pavano went to New York. A few dozen other scenarios have been rumored, but the only one that sounds both logical and is persistently reported is re-signing Pedro. And with some new offers from the New York metropolitan area, even that could change. Still...

Apparently the Sox decided on Wells over Pavano. The NY Times is crowing about another Yankee coup over the Sox, buying the standard Yankee spin that this was accomplished by the sheer force of Joe Torre's magnetic personality, but the timeline on this story shows that the Sox' deal with Wells (pending a physical) was leaked first, then Pavano called in his decision a few hours later. My hunch (as the Globe is reporting) is that the Sox affirmatively decided to gamble short/small money on Boomer rather than a whopping contract on Pavano, who may have gone with New York anyway. If so, it shows the premium the Sox place on flexibility in their payroll: $4 mil plus another 5 in potential incentives is a lot easier to swallow than some $10 mil up front. And two years is exactly half the length of time the Yankees will be living with their forthcoming Pavano deal.

I personally am optimistic about this choice. I do like Pavano, but David Wells had exactly as many solid years at age 41 (one) as Pavano has had his entire career. Wells throws strikes and has a rubber arm. The rest of his body is another matter, but if he is diligent with his fitness he should be OK. And he's been to the mound under every type of pressure situation, usually with success. Finally, he's lefthanded, and somewhere in there the Sox should probably try to have a lefty.

If they had signed Pavano, the game would essentially be over for the Sox. No pricey shortstop, maybe Pedro (or maybe not), possibly a handful of stopgaps and role players coming and going, but that's about it. And for what? Pavano might be the next Schilling, a guy with good power stuff whose tenacity gets him wins. Since it's not my money, I guess I wanted him in Boston as the #3. But he's never been a serious strikeout guy, and since being traded for Pedro, he has had trouble staying healthy or winning consistently, even with the Marlins, one of the better pitchers' situations (park, league and defense) you could hope for. He doesn't have a famous out pitch, like Mussina's knuckle curve or something. In other words, there is no guarantee he will be anyone other than next year's Javier Vazquez. Like I said, I like the guy, but Wells plus some flexibility sounds at least as good of a deal to me. Good on Theo to keep some rounds in his chamber, especially when fighting the Yankee bottomless pit.

As for that flexibility... With Wells signed for two years, he is another inexpensive stopgap, not unlike what the Sox were supposedly planning at shortstop. The question is, two years from now who is Theo planning to occupy that #2-3 rotation spot? The best of the young prospects percolating up through the minors now? An '05 free agent like Tim Hudson? Randy Johnson?? If the former, I guess that makes it all the more likely Theo will spend his margin on a shortstop. If the latter two... who knows? For Johnson they would need cash right now, but I have no intuition of such a trade ever happening. For a future FA, well, so much can happen between now and next winter that it makes little sense to horde cash now with particular future investments in mind. Hording cash to see what you can do in '05 is a good idea, but anything beyond that is too far away to calculate with any accuracy. My sense is that the Sox want to stay fairly flexible -- paying plenty, mind you, but not in long-term, guaranteed deals -- so that moves can be made at the right time. Two year deals are great; four year deals are reserved for sure things, something in short supply in Baseball.

Other notes:

* When the Renteria rumor broke, it made me wonder, why him and not Cabrera, a known and liked commodity who delivered in The Win? Their numbers this year were similar, and Cabrera slugs at a higher rate... but over their careers, O-Cab gets on at a paltry .316 rate, with a career high of .347. Renteria's average is in the more respectable .346 territory, and his career high OB% of .398 -- just one year ago -- is a number that makes grown men in the Sox front office weep openly. Renteria has shown slightly better averages and a significantly higher peak than Cabrera. And those are National League numbers. Would I rather keep Cabrera? Perhaps, since I think he'll succeed in Fenway, but I am intrigued by Renteria, and I respect the fact that the Sox have an overall team plan, one which calls for more than 39 walks in a season.

* HBO is running a special on "reversing the curse," 80% of which is grist for Shaughnessy's mill of the damned. pitiful. But they adopt the "I Love the 80s" format of showing pertinent clips followed by snarky commentary from a variety of mostly unrecognizable funny C-listers. And Steven Wright. Best comment, from one of the faceless ones, had to do with A-rod chopping at Arroyo with his "hamburger helper gloves." It's an hour long; watch the last 20 minutes at most.

* Did Varitek sign and I missed it? The worm turns slowly...
Business as Usual?

Hom hum, the Patriots defend their home turf by turning back a hot, upstart team, this time the underrated Cincinnati Bengals. Uh, but in the process of winning, the Bengals rolled up 478 yards, including a disturbing 150 on the ground. The 325 passing yards are easier to swallow, since we still have a wide receiver matching up on guys like Chad Johnson and T.J. Houshmanzadeh. But I would like to know why we gave up so much ground on the run, given what kind of running games the Pats will see in January. My hunch is that the team really needs to get healthy in the DBs, so the parts can all get used to playing as a whole again. Most teams who give up nearly 500 yards don't win for long.

But then, we're talking about the Patriots' defense here. The last time they disappointed us was in the Clinton Administration.

Sunday, December 05, 2004

Nuggets from the Weekend

* I have nothing to say about the Patriots. Nothing. OK, there is one thing: Bethel Johnson is just the latest cog in the wheel to get his game peaking in time for the real season to begin. Of course, the same can be said about just about every other aspect of the team, especially if Law and Poole get healthy with about two weeks to play.

* BCS Mess, Part 18: For the umpteenth consecutive year College Football is assured that nobody will be happy with the outcome of the season. Well, that's not entirely true, Auburn could do everyone a favor and chunk its bowl. Still the best idea I can think of is a one-round playoff. The four best teams would essentially use the two top bowls (that year) as a semifinal round, and a week later the two winners would play a championship. Why is this a good idea? Look, the problem is that while everyone wants things settled on the field, nobody wants to see college athletes playing deep into January. Four teams in a championship playoff would allow almost every season to be settled on the field. It's only one more week for two teams, and four is a reasonably satisfying cutoff point. Two teams playing for it is too few: it's obviously not that unusual for three teams to have equally valid claims to the title. But does anyone remember a season where five teams all had an argument? No doubt there would be arguments about who (among potentially several teams) should be #4, but arguing that your team should be #4 instead of #6 is far less agonizing when you know deep down that they definitely aren't # 1 or 2. Also, while the NCAA is at it, they could use this as an excuse to cancel the conference championship games. It's strange, I think the audiences are catching on that these games are purely about money. Would you ever see empty seats for these matchups in the regular season?

* There's a note in the New York papers that Jason Giambi would be open to a buyout and a return to Oakland. Apparently he has been telling friends that he should never have gone to New York, that he never fit in with Yankee politics. Sometimes you have to just laugh, that a marquee player can't see what's right for him when the casual fan can. The second most prominent aspect of his game with the As was his smile -- even if he was a roid freak, at least he and his mates were having fun. From the moment he joined the Yankees, he looked like he was being punished. Stiff, serious, awkward... he knew he sold out and couldn't escape his guilt. Being a Sox fan, I'm sure I was overly biased against him joining the Yankees, but still, it seemed like an obvious mistake from the get-go.

* The Paper of Record, a.k.a. the New York Times, had an interesting article essentially plagiarizing my old columns about how yardage totals are a horrible measure of an NFL team's worth. Personally, I prefer points as the true measure. But to the Times' credit, they offered an interesting alternative: success rate. Since first downs are the immediate goal of each offensive snap, each play is judged a success or failure according to the following thresholds: on first down, the team must get at least 40% of the needed yardage (4 yards in most cases) for another first down; on second down, at least 60% of the remaining yardage; and on third or fourth down you must convert. And each play is judged separately: you don't have to get the first 40% and the next 60% for anything to be rated a success; if you lost three yards on first down, and gained 25 on second, you would have a 50 percent success rate. The only flaw I can think of is that getting four yards on second and six is not as important as scoring touchdowns, but at least it tends to say you're a decent enough team to move the ball. I'll stick with points, and will run a column on that later this week.

Wednesday, December 01, 2004

Steroids

Now that Giambi has admitted what everyone says they knew all along, what will be -- or should be -- the repercussions?

For Giambi: swift and severe is my guess. Just days ago another allegedly major sport, the NBA, made it clear you could throw out a player for the season. A lot of hot air was expelled this year to the effect that steroids are a major scourge in baseball, or at least they could be if not immediately discouraged. Unless Selig is gutless or a hypocrite, two strong possibilities, he will kick Giambi out for 2005. The pressure on him to do so will be intense, so even if Selig is gutless, he can still do this.

For the Yankees: not to sound like a broken record, but what ever happened to the 1998 team? Giambi's loss is purely symbolic at this point, since he was missing most of '04, and his bat went AWOL even while his body was around in '03. But this franchise jumped the rails when they signed Giambi and dismissed Tino. Cheating, greed, lying -- it's all there. And although pitching counts more than karma, can the Yankees win anything with the worst karma in all of baseball? Yes, the Sox have bought top players too, but when the Yankees do it, outspending the competition and collecting all-stars at every position, it's so much more unseemly. I've opined before that Giambi is the worst example. He was the heart of a great and fun Oakland team, which he dumped for the love of $120 million. He was the spirit of a baseball uprising, and he left to join the dynasty. The Yankees dumped Tino, a blood and guts core player, the second his numbers started dipping. It was rotten all around, and the Yanks and Giambi deserve each other.

For baseball: this is only the first shoe to drop. The other one isn't Barry Bonds or Gary Sheffield; it's the middlemen. If it turns out guys in the bullpen , or hitting seventh, or playing short are all using steroids, if steroids are rampant, even among the non-stars, then it's a full-blown crisis for the game. Bonds is playing for individual records (in the media's eyes), so even someone of his stature cannot drag down the game by himself. But if enough other players are, well, at some point you have to wonder what are we really even watching?

There is still one very odd question to be answered: what do steroids do for a baseball player? Bulk in the upper body is usually a hindrance to pitching, and is hardly required in order to hit with power. Orlando Cabrera is a skinny guy who can take you way, way deep. So other than looking really bad, what danger does steroid use even pose to baseball?
NFL Power Poll: Week 12

The latest BCS-style analysis of the NFL, a certifiably balanced and fair rating of all 32 teams, as opposed to ESPN's AP-Poll-style, what-have-you-done-lately? approach. Since I ran these numbers two weeks ago, I have changed the schedule factor to schedule rank multiplied by 0.3, down from 0.4. This slightly reduces the strength of schedule factor, which was too high last time but would be too low if further reduced, IMHO. So, again, to recap the methodology, I add the number of losses, the ESPN Power Poll rank, and the schedule factor (rank 1-32 multiplied by 0.3), then subtract quality wins. For this week only, quality wins are wins versus any team with a winning record, i.e. 6-5 or better. In the future, I'd like to narrow this to wins over serious playoff contenders, i.e. 7-5 or better next week. Below are full results for the top 10, then flat score for the rest. So without further ado...

Team.... (ESPN + losses + sched. - QWs) = Score

1. New England
(2+1+3.9-4) = 2.9
Four Quality Wins (Indy, Baltimore, Seattle, Jets) leads all NFL teams, and their schedule in general is one of the toughest. The road to last year's trophy ran through just about every decent team, even in the regular season, as the Pats went something like 7-0 against winning teams. This year's mark is 4-1. Throw out one bad Sunday and we're still talking about a dynasty in Foxboro. The fact that we aren't having that conversation is just one more advantage for the unbelievable Pats.

2. Indy (4+3+3.9-3) = 7.9
A surprise at #2, given their three losses, but three QWs and a tough schedule are nothing to sneeze at. Seriously, if they played Pittsburgh today, who would you bet on? I'd rate them even in Pittsburgh, favor the Colts anywhere else.

3. Pittsburgh (1+1+7.95-2) = 7.95
Classic illustration of why these polls exist. They had two solid wins over otherwise undefeated teams, and have done little else of interest. Their division is pretty weak, and they lost to their only decent competition, Baltimore. Roethlisbergermachefraugenstein's numbers have been less impressive each week. Does this bandwagon have brakes?

4. Philly (3+1+7.95-2) = 9.95
Like Pittsburgh, their record makes them look superior to the Colts. But they have played 11 games... and three winning teams, getting crushed by one of them in the process. So again I ask, if they played Indy today head-to-head, where would you put your money?

5t. Atlanta (5+2+9.15-2) = 14.15
Enigmatic team -- they lost to Detroit, then beat San Diego, then got crushed by KC, then pounded Denver. Glittery record belies fact that, since they play in the NFC, their schedule is weak. But nine wins and an electric offense has to be acknowledged.

5t. San Diego (6+3+6.15-1) = 14.15
If life were fair, Atlanta wouldn't be tied with a team they beat head-to-head, right? Chargers have looked good, and have played a decent schedule, but trendy favorites usually don't go 1-3 against winning teams.

7. Buffalo (13+6+0.45-2) = 17.45
Poster children for tossing out the schedule factor, since that is by far their biggest advantage. They have played the toughest schedule (along w/ KC) so far, facing seven winning teams in 11 games. But the signs of a decent team are there: they beat the Jets and crushed the Seahawks in their (and my) own backyard. Their defense gives up one fewer yard per game than Baltimore. And when Bledsoe isn't throwing interceptions off his back foot, he gets to hand off to the league's latest phenom, Willis McGahee. They can't touch the really good teams, but there are only four of those, and the Bills can easily hang with the NFL's broad, soft midsection.

8. Jets (8+3+7.95-1) = 17.95
Even their lone quality win is misleading, having beaten San Diego in Week 2, before the Chargers came together. They are a soft 8-3... but they clearly have some defensive talent too. Classic modern NFL power, they could be great or horrible at any given moment.

9. Jacksonville (12+5+3.9-2) = 18.9
They've gone 2-3 against quality teams, grinding out tough wins against Denver and Indy. And this week they get the Steelers. My upset special... or so I read someplace.

10t. Green Bay (7+4+9.15-1) = 19.15
Ugh. The best team I really would rather never watch.

10t. Minnesota (10+4+6.15-1) = 19.15
Remarkably similar to Green Bay, though at least they have a few fun players. They might churn out young stud RBs faster than Denver.

10t. Baltimore (11+4+6.15-2) = 19.15
Feeling a little exposed, are we? A defense that can win games is great, provided the other team's D is so horrible it can be shredded by Kyle Boller and Randy Hymes. Now we know why they were so pissed off when the Owens trade fell through.

13. Denver = 19.95
They just lost at home to Oakland. Rumblings among the bobbleheads that Shanahan may be on the way out. How many coaching careers will be destroyed by Jake Plummer and Brian Griese?

14. St. Louis = 22.9
Even weirder team than Denver. You get the impression that they are having about as much fun out there as the Cardinals did in the World Series.

15. Houston = 24.65
Ewwww. Maybe I should rethink my rankings methodology. Then again, look who comes after the Texans. At least the Texies have had to work hard to suck, playing six of 11 games against winning teams, the league's third-hardest schedule.

16t. Cincinnati = 24.9
Owners of a glorious 58-48 win over Cleveland. Actually, they really don't do anything too terribly, it's just that they don't do anything especially well either. Played the Steelers tough twice. History's shadows are long, but the Bengals are trying, god bless 'em.

16t. Giants = 24.9
Two more weeks of the Eli Manning show, and this ranking will drop by at least six places.

18t. Carolina = 27.65
On the rise. Sure, you can't escape a 1-7 start, and three straight over the Niners, Bucs and Cardinals is hardly worth writing home about. You know, on second thought, they aren't on the rise. Why should we call a team "plucky" and "resilient" when they roll over for eight games before playing for their contracts? It's a long way from the Super Bowl.

18t. Tennessee = 27.65
Aging faster than the reality TV phenomenon. To think, with some breaks we could have had a Carolina-Tennessee Super Bowl last year. Fortunately, the networks would certainly have intervened.

20. Seattle = 28.6
Easily the most gutless team in football, to hear people tell it these days. Somewhere between choking to the Rams and getting knocked around by the Pats in September, they lost their will to live.

21. Oakland = 30.65
Hm... 1-6 against quality teams. One more win somewhere and you can call them the Houston Texans, only with an older QB.

22. Dallas = 32.9
For all of Parcells' gifts, apparently his mind games cannot make a decent quarterback out of a sow's ear. BTW, call me petty, but it's still fun to watch Dallas suck, isn't it?

23. Detroit = 33.65
OK, we're beginning to slide off into oblivion here. How many times can Joey Harrington be reported to have regressed before he is officially all the way back into the womb?

24. Kansas City = 34.45
Still holding steady at three wins -- and the Chiefs are actually tied with the Colts with three quality wins, second only to New England. But that and a quarter will not get you into the playoffs.

25. Tampa = 34.95
More ugly football. Good thing wonder boy Jon Gruden is in charge. He is clearly the NFL's brightest young coaching talent. Nobody else could parlay that roster and a Super Bowl win into such instant mediocrity, could they? To be fair, a house built on Brad Johnson's shoulder is a house of Cards.

26. Arizona = 37.15
Speaking of which... Somewhere in their marketing materials is the assertion that the team is officially 25% less horrible than last season.

27. Cleveland = 37.65
Patriots' next opponent... just dumped (trap!) their head coach... may be starting a (trap!) rookie third-string QB... game at home, (trap!) emotions raw. This will either be an emotional dogfight or the Patriots will end it by halftime.

28. New Orleans = 37.9
Is it me, or does it just seem like at any given time the Saints lead the league in players demanding to be traded?

29. Chicago = 40.15
Can someone please write a story about how overrated Brian Urlacher is? Three years ago he was great. Unbeknownst to most sportswriters, several games have been played since then.

30. Miami = 43.9
I still don't think they'll be as horrible at the end of the season as they were at the start. Then again, it's not like there was room for them to get worse.

31. Washington = 44.15
Can the Globe trade Shaughnessy to the Washington Post where he can write a book about the Curse of Daniel Snyder? Nobody, not even Joe Gibbs, is spared.

32. San Francisco = 49.95
Too bad the NFL isn't like the NBA, where you create a dynasty by bottoming out after your last dynasty, stockpile high draft picks for five years, then come back with a vengeance.
Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?