Well, I was right about one of the undefeated teams going down last week. I just had the wrong one. I'm not sure if it's Peyton or what, but Indy just has Denver's number. There's another undefeated team that runs into an opponent that simply has its number this week. You all know which one I'm talking about. It'll obviously mean a lot more when they meet in the Super Bowl a little less than three months from now, but this is the first time they're playing since their last Super Bowl meeting (they play in the preseason finale every year, but that doesn't count), so there's still a lot going into it.
It might seem like the only two games in the NFL take place at the Meadowlands this week (Rex won in his return on Thursday night as the NFL tried its best to blind America, at least the 92 percent of America that isn't color blind and could tell the teams apart). There are 12 other games, too.
Thursday Night: Buffalo (Win)
Lions (1-7) at Packers (6-2): Green Bay-Good news, Packers fans. You're back at Lambeu, and your opponent isn't undefeated. Next week's matchup with the Vikings is a big one for first place in the NFC North. But they need this one to get back on track. This is Detroit's first game since they cleaned house during their bye week, as well as the beginning of the end of Jim Caldwell's tenure as Lions head coach. After facing Denver and Carolina, the Packers will welcome the break and get ready for the Vikings.
Panthers (8-0) at Titans (2-6): Carolina-Spoiler alert! Next Thursday night, the NFL is going to do it again. The Titans will rock an all-powder blue ensemble while the Jaguars wear all gold. But first they have to take on the Panthers, who, after winning seven games all of last year, have started this season by winning eight straight. And they effectively have a three-game lead in the NFC already. That win over the Packers last week was that huge. People are really taking Carolina seriously as perhaps the second-best team in football. This won't be the week that "1" goes in the right-hand column. It might not come until Thanksgiving in Dallas.
Bears (3-5) at Rams (4-4): St. Louis-Did the Bears save their season on Monday night? Probably not. But 3-5 sure looks a whole lot better than 2-6. The Rams, meanwhile, lost that showdown against Minnesota in overtime, so they need to take this one if they're going to stay in the playoff hunt. Especially with at Baltimore, at Cincinnati, Arizona as their next three games. Jeff Fisher knows what he's doing. The Rams beat the Bears to avenge the Cardinals' NLDS loss to the Cubs (OK, not really).
Dolphins (3-5) at Eagles (4-4): Philadelphia-Chip Kelly and his Eagles are the quiet assassins of the NFC. You don't think about them as a threat, but they keep hanging around, and if they hang around long enough, they're gonna end up in the playoffs. Of course, three of the Eagles' wins are against the same two teams (the Cowboys and Giants), so they'll need to beat somebody else eventually. The last time they played on a Sunday afternoon (which was five! weeks ago), they dominated the Saints. I see them doing something similar to the Dolphins.
Browns (2-7) at Steelers (5-4): Pittsburgh-For all the talk about Cincinnati running away with the AFC North (which they are), don't forget about Pittsburgh. That was a big win for the Steelers over the Raiders last week, and it might be the one that propels them into the playoffs. But in order to keep that position, they can't lose at home to Cleveland. Especially with Seattle, Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Denver coming up after the bye.
Cowboys (2-6) at Buccaneers (3-5): Dallas-Fear not, Cowboys fans! Tony Romo will be back soon. And Dallas has actually been much improved in the last couple games under Matt Cassel. Tampa Bay is also much improved. The Bucs are a much better team than I thought they'd be. Even still, this is a good team for the Cowboys to face. They begin their Florida trip with a win, then head to Miami before getting Romo back on Thanksgiving.
Saints (4-5) at Redskins (3-5): New Orleans-Three in a row for New Orleans and their offense was absolutely on fire. Then they go to Nashville and lose a game most people thought they should've won in overtime. Now they're in a position where they can't afford another letdown. I think Washington will give them a scare, but I do see the Saints prevailing in this one.
Jaguars (2-6) at Ravens (2-6): Baltimore-Who would've thought that when Baltimore played Jacksonville in Week 10, that they'd both have the same record? I got a chuckle when that guy on the Ravens said they were gonna make the playoffs earlier in the week. They won't. But this game gives them a chance to get back on track as they continue their homestand.
Vikings (6-2) at Raiders (4-4): Oakland-We didn't have any Super Bowl rematches last week, but this week we've got two. This is the other one. They met in Super Bowl XI, where John Madden got his only title. The Vikings are sitting in wild card position in the NFC right now, while the Raiders are just on the outside in the AFC. But going to Oakland isn't a fun proposition for anybody, especially now that the Raiders are no longer a pushover. Give me the home team.
Chiefs (3-5) at Broncos (7-1): Denver-Back in Week 2, the Chiefs almost beat the Broncos (and probably should've). Denver, of course, didn't lose until last week, when they played their worst game of the season in Indianapolis. Now, as crazy as it sounds for a 7-1 team, this is almost a must-win. They can't afford to give up anymore ground to New England and Cincinnati. They're a much better team at home, though. I just hope they can avoid looking ahead to facing John Fox next week and the Patriots after that.
Patriots (8-0) at Giants (5-4): Giants-The last time these two played at the Meadowlands, it was Week 17 in 2007. That was the 16-0 game. It was also the last time the Patriots beat the Giants. Two Super Bowls and a regular season game since have gone on Tom Coughlin and Eli Manning's ledger. When they last met in the regular season, the Giants handed the Patriots their second straight loss. They haven't lost two straight since then. But this brings us back to that game eight years ago a little more. Remember, by playing the Patriots tight that Saturday night, the Giants set the stage for the greatest upset in NFL history five weeks later. There's not as much at stake this time, but you know the Patriots finally want to get a win over the Giants under their belts. For all the 16-0 talk, though, they're forgetting who has the upper-hand in this series. Tom Coughlin is Bill Belichick's Kryptonite. And will continue to be until Belichick solves the riddle. But even if he does it here, he's got to do it again in early February.
Cardinals (6-2) at Seahawks (4-4): Seattle-Once again, the Arizona Cardinals go into Seattle for a Sunday night game against the Seahawks needing to prove that they're the best team in the NFC West. Otherwise, the Seahawks are in position to snatch another division title out from under them. And they've both been playing some good football of late. It's the first of back-to-back Sunday night games for the Cardinals, but these are the type of games the 12th Man gets super amped up for. It'll be very difficult for Arizona to go into Seattle and come away with a victory.
Texans (3-5) at Bengals (8-0): Cincinnati-As ridiculous as it sounds, Houston can move into a first-place tie in the AFC South with a win on Monday night. Problem is, they're in Cincinnati. Everyone's still man-crushing on Tom Brady and gushing over the Patriots, but the Bengals are also 8-0, and they're starting to draw more and more converts. Of course, the prime time thing is still Cincinnati's Achilles heel. Well, they'd better get over it, because they've got a prime time game next week, too. Cincinnati is too good a team to let that get in their way, though. The 9-0 Bengals? Believe it!
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 7-6
Season: 89-44
Sunday, November 15, 2015
Thursday, November 12, 2015
The Russian Doping Crisis
The IOC, IAAF and FIFA have quite a situation on their hands. WADA has recommended that the entire Russian track & field team be suspended from the Rio Olympics because of a series of doping violations that appear to be much more serious than anybody first thought. To make matters worse, they've concluded that it was a state-run system, harkening back to the Soviet Era. In fact, a Moscow-area lab has been shut down, with all of its samples shipped outside Russia for retesting.
This all started almost a year ago, when a German documentary aired. The documentary revealed that several Russian race walkers were found to have committed serious doping violations. And by serious, I mean doping repeatedly for a span of years, including the London Olympics, where some of them medaled. Under WADA code, one offense is enough to draw a two-year suspension (that's likely going to be increased to four after Rio so that athletes have to miss an Olympics). Repeat offenders are subject to lifetime bans, which would almost certainly be applied in these cases.'
All of this, of course, led to an independent investigation. And what that investigation found was shocking. Not only were results tampered with, they were allegedly tampered with by government agents. After the German report aired, the cover up included the destruction of more than 1,400 blood samples, and some athletes refused to cooperate or be tested (refusal to take a test is supposed to equal a positive). Certain athletes were informed of when they were going to be tested so that they could adjust their doping cycles accordingly and avoid a positive.
Particularly suspicious were the results of drug tests leading up to the 2013 World Championships, which were in Moscow. Russia led the way with seven gold medals at the 2013 Worlds, and the report suggests that the doping program was set up with that meet in mind. They wanted the Russian athletes to put on a show in front of the home fans. (To put it in perspective, Russia had four medals--two gold--at this year's World Championships in Beijing.)
Some of the athletes implicated never should've been competing in the first place. They found that race walker Sergei Kirdyapkin's "biological passport" (I hear the term all the time and I still don't quite understand what it means) was at an unusual level in November 2011, yet did nothing until after he won gold at the London Olympics. Same with Mariya Savinova, who won gold in the women's 800 at both the 2012 Olympics and 2013 Worlds.
It's not just the Russian federation that looks bad here. They wonder why the IAAF didn't do anything, either. Kirdyapkin wasn't the only eventual gold medalist that shouldn't have been in London. Turkey's Asli Cakir Alptekin, who had previously served a doping suspension, also had abnormalities in her biological passport, but was allowed to compete and eventually won gold in the women's 1500.
Newly-elected IAAF President Seb Coe (the organizer of the London Games) is being left to clean up this mess. Former President Lamine Diack just resigned as an honorary member of the IOC in response to this scandal, as well as unrelated bribery charges.
But it's Russia's track & field team that has been hit the hardest. There are calls for the IAAF to take the 2016 World Junior Championships away from Kazan. That's not anywhere near as drastic as the punishment that WADA has suggested, though. Their recommendation is that Russia be prohibited from participating in any track & field events at the Rio Games, and a number of nations have gotten on board with that plan.
I don't think that's the solution, however. Because it's unfair to punish those athletes that have done nothing wrong and have worked their entire lives for a moment that comes only once every four years. That's why the 1980 and 1984 boycotts didn't work. Is it right to deprive clean athletes of that opportunity? I'm not saying some sort of punishment for the federation isn't necessary. I just don't want to see everybody because of the sins of the few.
Are all Russian track & field athletes dirty? Of course not. Yelena Isinbayeva has dominated the women's pole vault for years and her results have never been suspect. Darya Klishina's results have never been questioned either (although, that might just be my hopeful stance that the embodiment of Russian perfection can't possibly be tainted). Same with hurdler Sergei Shubenkov and high jumper Ivan Ukhov.
Sure, there are probably plenty people out there who view every Russian result as questionable, but, just like when the BALCO crisis hit the American track & field team or Major League Baseball went through the Steroid Era, guilt by association isn't the answer. Is it harder to determine who is and who isn't? Yes. Are sudden improvements by athletes who came out of nowhere going to be more suspect? Of course. But does that mean everyone's tainted? No.
There's going to be an emergency meeting later this week where the IAAF and IOC will discuss this situation and determine what action to take. IOC President Thomas Bach won't speculate on whether we'll see Russia's track & field athletes in Rio or not. It's also been suggested that if the Russians take "swift action" (whatever that means), they won't miss any major meets (which in 2016 also includes the World Indoor Championships and European Championships, as well as World Juniors and the Olympics).
Whatever happens, this Russian doping scandal will lead to some much-needed changes. And it will hopefully lead to a cleaner, purer sport. While, sadly, you'll never be able to completely eliminate doping, countries can't get away with spitting the the face of clean sports, either. Russia's athletes need to be punished. To what extent? I'm not sure. But it would be a mistake to prevent the team from going to Rio. That's not in the best interest of anybody.
This all started almost a year ago, when a German documentary aired. The documentary revealed that several Russian race walkers were found to have committed serious doping violations. And by serious, I mean doping repeatedly for a span of years, including the London Olympics, where some of them medaled. Under WADA code, one offense is enough to draw a two-year suspension (that's likely going to be increased to four after Rio so that athletes have to miss an Olympics). Repeat offenders are subject to lifetime bans, which would almost certainly be applied in these cases.'
All of this, of course, led to an independent investigation. And what that investigation found was shocking. Not only were results tampered with, they were allegedly tampered with by government agents. After the German report aired, the cover up included the destruction of more than 1,400 blood samples, and some athletes refused to cooperate or be tested (refusal to take a test is supposed to equal a positive). Certain athletes were informed of when they were going to be tested so that they could adjust their doping cycles accordingly and avoid a positive.
Particularly suspicious were the results of drug tests leading up to the 2013 World Championships, which were in Moscow. Russia led the way with seven gold medals at the 2013 Worlds, and the report suggests that the doping program was set up with that meet in mind. They wanted the Russian athletes to put on a show in front of the home fans. (To put it in perspective, Russia had four medals--two gold--at this year's World Championships in Beijing.)
Some of the athletes implicated never should've been competing in the first place. They found that race walker Sergei Kirdyapkin's "biological passport" (I hear the term all the time and I still don't quite understand what it means) was at an unusual level in November 2011, yet did nothing until after he won gold at the London Olympics. Same with Mariya Savinova, who won gold in the women's 800 at both the 2012 Olympics and 2013 Worlds.
It's not just the Russian federation that looks bad here. They wonder why the IAAF didn't do anything, either. Kirdyapkin wasn't the only eventual gold medalist that shouldn't have been in London. Turkey's Asli Cakir Alptekin, who had previously served a doping suspension, also had abnormalities in her biological passport, but was allowed to compete and eventually won gold in the women's 1500.
Newly-elected IAAF President Seb Coe (the organizer of the London Games) is being left to clean up this mess. Former President Lamine Diack just resigned as an honorary member of the IOC in response to this scandal, as well as unrelated bribery charges.
But it's Russia's track & field team that has been hit the hardest. There are calls for the IAAF to take the 2016 World Junior Championships away from Kazan. That's not anywhere near as drastic as the punishment that WADA has suggested, though. Their recommendation is that Russia be prohibited from participating in any track & field events at the Rio Games, and a number of nations have gotten on board with that plan.
I don't think that's the solution, however. Because it's unfair to punish those athletes that have done nothing wrong and have worked their entire lives for a moment that comes only once every four years. That's why the 1980 and 1984 boycotts didn't work. Is it right to deprive clean athletes of that opportunity? I'm not saying some sort of punishment for the federation isn't necessary. I just don't want to see everybody because of the sins of the few.
Are all Russian track & field athletes dirty? Of course not. Yelena Isinbayeva has dominated the women's pole vault for years and her results have never been suspect. Darya Klishina's results have never been questioned either (although, that might just be my hopeful stance that the embodiment of Russian perfection can't possibly be tainted). Same with hurdler Sergei Shubenkov and high jumper Ivan Ukhov.
Sure, there are probably plenty people out there who view every Russian result as questionable, but, just like when the BALCO crisis hit the American track & field team or Major League Baseball went through the Steroid Era, guilt by association isn't the answer. Is it harder to determine who is and who isn't? Yes. Are sudden improvements by athletes who came out of nowhere going to be more suspect? Of course. But does that mean everyone's tainted? No.
There's going to be an emergency meeting later this week where the IAAF and IOC will discuss this situation and determine what action to take. IOC President Thomas Bach won't speculate on whether we'll see Russia's track & field athletes in Rio or not. It's also been suggested that if the Russians take "swift action" (whatever that means), they won't miss any major meets (which in 2016 also includes the World Indoor Championships and European Championships, as well as World Juniors and the Olympics).
Whatever happens, this Russian doping scandal will lead to some much-needed changes. And it will hopefully lead to a cleaner, purer sport. While, sadly, you'll never be able to completely eliminate doping, countries can't get away with spitting the the face of clean sports, either. Russia's athletes need to be punished. To what extent? I'm not sure. But it would be a mistake to prevent the team from going to Rio. That's not in the best interest of anybody.
Monday, November 9, 2015
The First-Year Candidates
My Baseball Hall of Fame "vote" post will come out at its usual time right before the election results are announced. But the ballot was unveiled today, and it includes 15 newcomers to go along with the 17 holdover candidates from last year. And as usual, there are some names on there that make you question who actually considers him a Hall of Famer. Then there's Ken Griffey, Jr. and Trevor Hoffman.
At voting time, I reveal the 10 that I would put on my ballot if I actually had one. Today I'm gonna take a different tactic. I'm going to rank the 15 newcomers in order of likelihood that they'll still be on the ballot next year. And, trust me, there's a lot of one-and-dones on this list.
Actually, I'm only going to rank 14 of the 15. Ken Griffey, Jr. will not be on the 2017 Hall of Fame ballot. For a very obvious reason. He's going to be elected by a landslide. Last year, Randy Johnson got 97 percent of the vote. Junior's total will be in the same range as his former teammate's. And he'll be the first player wearing a Mariners hat on his plaque in Cooperstown.
Now on to the other 14 guys (once again, they're ranked from most likely to least likely they'll stay on the ballot)...
1. Trevor Hoffman: He'll be on my ballot no question, but I think the voters will make him wait at least a year. The second-best closer in history, he'll get in eventually. It might not be until after Mariano Rivera gets in, though.
2. Jim Edmonds: Probably because he was never the best player on his own team, I feel like Jim Edmonds was overlooked throughout his career. He'll probably get overlooked on the Hall of Fame ballot, too. But he shouldn't. Because Jim Edmonds was one of the best, if not THE best, center fielders in the game for most of his 17 years in the Majors. He even had two 40-home run seasons.
3. Mike Lowell: Won World Series with the Marlins and Red Sox. He was so good in the 2007 World Series that he was named MVP in Boston's sweep of Colorado. There's no chance Lowell will ever get elected, and I'm not even sure he'll get enough votes to stay on the ballot. But there's going to be a couple sentimental New England writers who put his name down.
4. Billy Wagner: Billy Wagner certainly doesn't deserve to get a vote over Trevor Hoffman or Lee Smith. Or the three starters on the ballot. But I wouldn't begrudge a voter for tossing Wagner a bone, if only so that his name stays on the ballot and he can get a closer look when some of the congestion clears up.
5. Garret Anderson: I've never actually thought of Garret Anderson as a Hall of Famer. I put him in the same category as a Fred McGriff. But compared to the rest of the first-year-eligible guys, he stands out as one of the best. He's still the only guy to win the Home Run Derby and All-Star MVP in the same season.
6. Jason Kendall: Here's where we get to the cut off. Will Jason Kendall get enough votes to stay on the ballot? Probably not, but he'll definitely get some. If we were ranking the best catchers of the late 90s/early 2000s, he'd be third behind Ivan Rodriguez and Mike Piazza.
7. Troy Glaus: If Troy Glaus had been able to stay healthy, his Hall of Fame case would be much stronger. As it is, he's best-known for being MVP of that great seven-game Angels-Giants World Series in 2002 where he out-performed Barry Bonds in Anaheim's first (and only) championship season.
8. Mike Hampton: We've officially run out of starting pitchers. After voting in five over the last two elections, Hampton's the only new one on this year's ballot...and he doesn't deserve a vote over any of the three starters returning from last year. Nevertheless, Hampton is more Hall of Fame-worthy than some of the other first-year candidates who'll join him in the under-5 percent crowd.
9. Mike Sweeney: There's probably a couple nostalgic Kansas City writers who'll celebrate the Royals' World Series victory by casting a Hall of Fame vote for Mike Sweeney. Unfortunately, that won't be enough for him to get the 5 percent he needs to stay on the ballot.
10. David Eckstein: My guess is that he's only on the Hall of Fame ballot because he won the World Series twice and was World Series MVP in 2006. But if winning World Series MVP makes you a Hall of Famer, Pat Borders would already have a plaque in Cooperstown.
11. Luis Castillo: When you're best remembered for dropping a popup that went down as a walk-off error, it's not good. Maybe he gets one vote to match his jersey number.
12. Randy Winn: Umm, yeah. Randy Winn was probably the best player in the 10-year history of the Tampa Bay "Devil" Rays before they dropped the Devil and got good. I remember two things about Randy Winn: Erine Harwell announced his at-bat during the 2005 All-Star Game in Detroit, and he hit two homers in a game to drive in every run in a win during the three months he played for the Yankees.
13. Brad Ausmus: Unless the Tigers pull a Giants and win three of the next five World Series (they won't), Ausmus isn't coming close to getting in as a manager, either. At least he won't have to worry about missing any games for the induction ceremony.
14. Mark Grudzielanek: Thank you for playing. Wouldn't even get into the Montreal Expos/Washington Nationals Hall of Fame. Although, somebody did throw David Segui a Hall of Fame vote once, so you never know.
Hoffman's the only lock to return to the ballot in 2017...that is if he doesn't get elected alongside Griffey. While I think Edmonds, Lowell and Wagner might be able to secure enough votes to stick around, as well, I wouldn't be surprised to see Hoffman be the only one of the 14 to see a second year on the ballot.
At voting time, I reveal the 10 that I would put on my ballot if I actually had one. Today I'm gonna take a different tactic. I'm going to rank the 15 newcomers in order of likelihood that they'll still be on the ballot next year. And, trust me, there's a lot of one-and-dones on this list.
Actually, I'm only going to rank 14 of the 15. Ken Griffey, Jr. will not be on the 2017 Hall of Fame ballot. For a very obvious reason. He's going to be elected by a landslide. Last year, Randy Johnson got 97 percent of the vote. Junior's total will be in the same range as his former teammate's. And he'll be the first player wearing a Mariners hat on his plaque in Cooperstown.
Now on to the other 14 guys (once again, they're ranked from most likely to least likely they'll stay on the ballot)...
1. Trevor Hoffman: He'll be on my ballot no question, but I think the voters will make him wait at least a year. The second-best closer in history, he'll get in eventually. It might not be until after Mariano Rivera gets in, though.
2. Jim Edmonds: Probably because he was never the best player on his own team, I feel like Jim Edmonds was overlooked throughout his career. He'll probably get overlooked on the Hall of Fame ballot, too. But he shouldn't. Because Jim Edmonds was one of the best, if not THE best, center fielders in the game for most of his 17 years in the Majors. He even had two 40-home run seasons.
3. Mike Lowell: Won World Series with the Marlins and Red Sox. He was so good in the 2007 World Series that he was named MVP in Boston's sweep of Colorado. There's no chance Lowell will ever get elected, and I'm not even sure he'll get enough votes to stay on the ballot. But there's going to be a couple sentimental New England writers who put his name down.
4. Billy Wagner: Billy Wagner certainly doesn't deserve to get a vote over Trevor Hoffman or Lee Smith. Or the three starters on the ballot. But I wouldn't begrudge a voter for tossing Wagner a bone, if only so that his name stays on the ballot and he can get a closer look when some of the congestion clears up.
5. Garret Anderson: I've never actually thought of Garret Anderson as a Hall of Famer. I put him in the same category as a Fred McGriff. But compared to the rest of the first-year-eligible guys, he stands out as one of the best. He's still the only guy to win the Home Run Derby and All-Star MVP in the same season.
6. Jason Kendall: Here's where we get to the cut off. Will Jason Kendall get enough votes to stay on the ballot? Probably not, but he'll definitely get some. If we were ranking the best catchers of the late 90s/early 2000s, he'd be third behind Ivan Rodriguez and Mike Piazza.
7. Troy Glaus: If Troy Glaus had been able to stay healthy, his Hall of Fame case would be much stronger. As it is, he's best-known for being MVP of that great seven-game Angels-Giants World Series in 2002 where he out-performed Barry Bonds in Anaheim's first (and only) championship season.
8. Mike Hampton: We've officially run out of starting pitchers. After voting in five over the last two elections, Hampton's the only new one on this year's ballot...and he doesn't deserve a vote over any of the three starters returning from last year. Nevertheless, Hampton is more Hall of Fame-worthy than some of the other first-year candidates who'll join him in the under-5 percent crowd.
9. Mike Sweeney: There's probably a couple nostalgic Kansas City writers who'll celebrate the Royals' World Series victory by casting a Hall of Fame vote for Mike Sweeney. Unfortunately, that won't be enough for him to get the 5 percent he needs to stay on the ballot.
10. David Eckstein: My guess is that he's only on the Hall of Fame ballot because he won the World Series twice and was World Series MVP in 2006. But if winning World Series MVP makes you a Hall of Famer, Pat Borders would already have a plaque in Cooperstown.
11. Luis Castillo: When you're best remembered for dropping a popup that went down as a walk-off error, it's not good. Maybe he gets one vote to match his jersey number.
12. Randy Winn: Umm, yeah. Randy Winn was probably the best player in the 10-year history of the Tampa Bay "Devil" Rays before they dropped the Devil and got good. I remember two things about Randy Winn: Erine Harwell announced his at-bat during the 2005 All-Star Game in Detroit, and he hit two homers in a game to drive in every run in a win during the three months he played for the Yankees.
13. Brad Ausmus: Unless the Tigers pull a Giants and win three of the next five World Series (they won't), Ausmus isn't coming close to getting in as a manager, either. At least he won't have to worry about missing any games for the induction ceremony.
14. Mark Grudzielanek: Thank you for playing. Wouldn't even get into the Montreal Expos/Washington Nationals Hall of Fame. Although, somebody did throw David Segui a Hall of Fame vote once, so you never know.
Hoffman's the only lock to return to the ballot in 2017...that is if he doesn't get elected alongside Griffey. While I think Edmonds, Lowell and Wagner might be able to secure enough votes to stick around, as well, I wouldn't be surprised to see Hoffman be the only one of the 14 to see a second year on the ballot.
Sunday, November 8, 2015
2015 Football Picks, Week 9
It's Week 9, which means we've hit the halfway point of the football season. And there are still four! undefeated teams. I hate to keep harping on it, but it's just so incredible that there are this many this late in the season. It's even crazier to think that one of the three unbeaten AFC teams won't even get a bye in the playoffs.
I'm not jumping on the whole "the Patriots are gonna go 16-0 again" bandwagon, either. No, New England hasn't lost yet, and yes, their remaining schedule is among the easiest in the game (although they have two difficult road games at the Giants and at Denver). But does anyone realize how difficult it actually is to go undefeated? Yes, they make winning look easy. But they got their asses kicked on a Monday night in Kansas City last season, and they do have flaws. Once they're exposed, the Patriots will be vulnerable.
So, I'll go out on a limb and say the '72 Dolphins are safe. In fact, while Cincinnati will have company at 8-0, I don't think it'll come from all three of the possible teams. At least one is going down on Sunday.
Thursday Night: Cincinnati (Win)
Dolphins (3-4) at Bills (3-4): Buffalo-After the Dolphins lost in London, they left their coach there. The Bills at least let Rex come back to the States with them. But that was a bad loss to Jacksonville, which makes this game a must for both teams. The Bills won the first meeting in Miami pretty handily, but, oddly, they haven't won at home yet this season. Although, their home opponents so far have all been first-place teams, including two of the three undefeateds (New England and Cincinnati). They should finally get a home win this week before the short week and Rex's return to the Meadowlands.
Rams (4-3) at Vikings (5-2): Minnesota-In a matchup of the NFC's surprise playoff contenders, one of these teams will put itself in a really good position to crash the party in January. St. Louis needs it a little more than Minnesota does. If the Vikings win, they'll have a two-game lead on the Rams plus the tiebreaker. The problem for the Rams, though, is that Minnesota is very good at home. They make it three in a row and go to 6-2.
Redskins (3-4) at Patriots (7-0): New England-As I said, I'm not jumping on the whole "New England's going 16-0" train. But I'm also not an idiot. That first loss won't come to Washington. Especially not at home.
Titans (1-6) at Saints (4-4): New Orleans-Tennessee is a mess. Six straight losses since that dominant Week 1 victory. It cost Head Coach Ken Whisenhunt his job. The Saints, meanwhile, are headed in the opposite direction. Three straight wins since starting 1-4, and I think Drew Brees just threw another touchdown pass against the Giants defense. If they could put up 52 points on a good team, imagine what they might do to the Titans.
Jaguars (2-5) at Jets (4-3): Jets-There probably isn't a team in the NFL that could use some home cooking as much as the Jets. When they last took the field at Met Life Stadium, they were 4-1 and feeling great about themselves. Then they made trips to Foxboro and Oakland and fell to 4-3 (I actually just realized for the first time right that the Raiders are currently the No. 1 wild card team in the AFC, with the Jets second). Both of the Jaguars' wins this season are against the AFC East. It's not becoming three.
Raiders (4-3) at Steelers (4-4): Pittsburgh-Remember when this was the hottest rivalry in the NFL? OK, I don't either. But this game could have a big bearing on the AFC wild card race, especially if Denver and Cincinnati keep winning. The Steelers are in the midst of a three-game homestand and need this game slightly more. Pittsburgh has lost two straight and is in the same position as St. Louis. They can't afford to fall behind and lose the tiebreaker. The Steelers usually come to play when they need a win, and I think they will here.
Packers (6-1) at Panthers (7-0): Green Bay-Even though Green Bay lost that Sunday night showdown in Denver, I've still got them third in the power rankings behind the Patriots and Broncos. Carolina, which won only seven games all of last year (yet still made the playoffs), can really make a statement here by winning its eighth straight to start this season. It would also give them a two-game lead on the Packers plus the tiebreaker. But as I said last week prior to the first of Green Bay's back-to-back road games against undefeated opponents, I thought they were going to split. I still think that. Packers win and go into the driver's seat for NFC home field.
Falcons (6-2) at 49ers (2-6): Atlanta-If Tennessee is the biggest mess in the NFL, San Francisco might be a close second (Detroit figures somewhere in there, too). Colin Kaepernick has been benched. (Kaepernick's a gimmick that no longer works, but that's a topic for another day.) Atlanta has dropped two out of three, both in division games. The 49ers aren't in their division. Falcons win.
Giants (4-4) at Buccaneers (3-4): Giants-Jason Pierre-Paul and all nine of his fingers make their season debut as the Giants head to Tampa for a matchup with the Bucs that doesn't promise to be easy. Hopefully the presence of their best pass rusher will help them recover after all those points and yards they gave up last week in New Orleans. The Bucs' offense isn't anywhere near as prolific as the Saints', though, so I think they recover and head into their showdown with the Patriots at 5-4.
Broncos (7-0) at Colts (3-5): Denver-Will this be Peyton Manning's final visit to the city he called home for so long? I think it probably will be. And keep in mind, he still hasn't won in Indianapolis as a visitor. In fact, he's just 1-2 all-time against his former team, including last year's playoff embarrassment. The Colts looked more like their old selves than they have in week last Monday night in Charlotte, but they still lost in overtime. And the Broncos are better than the Panthers. Colts stay winless in games outside the division and Denver goes to 8-0, as Peyton finally gets a regular season road win in Indy.
Eagles (3-4) at Cowboys (2-5): Dallas-The good news for Dallas is that Tony Romo seems to be progressing. The bad news is that he can't come off IR for another two weeks. The Cowboys are at least starting to resemble an NFL team again, though. They easily could've (maybe even should've) won last week in what turned out to be a defensive battle against Seattle. The Eagles are playing their second straight Sunday night game (last week was their bye) and third straight primetime game overall. Not sure why Philly is suddenly the NFL's favorite team, but this is an important one for them. It was against the Eagles in Week 2 that Romo got hurt. Dallas hasn't won since. Until they beat the Eagles again on Sunday night.
Bears (2-5) at Chargers (2-6): San Diego-Sometimes we end up with a dud of a Monday night game, and that's certainly the case this week. I don't blame the NFL for thinking the Bears and/or Chargers would be good this season. It just didn't work out that way. San Diego's first Monday night home game saw them lose to Pittsburgh on literally the final play. This time, it won't come to that. Both of these teams badly need a win. Only the Chargers will get it.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 11-3
Season: 82-38
I'm not jumping on the whole "the Patriots are gonna go 16-0 again" bandwagon, either. No, New England hasn't lost yet, and yes, their remaining schedule is among the easiest in the game (although they have two difficult road games at the Giants and at Denver). But does anyone realize how difficult it actually is to go undefeated? Yes, they make winning look easy. But they got their asses kicked on a Monday night in Kansas City last season, and they do have flaws. Once they're exposed, the Patriots will be vulnerable.
So, I'll go out on a limb and say the '72 Dolphins are safe. In fact, while Cincinnati will have company at 8-0, I don't think it'll come from all three of the possible teams. At least one is going down on Sunday.
Thursday Night: Cincinnati (Win)
Dolphins (3-4) at Bills (3-4): Buffalo-After the Dolphins lost in London, they left their coach there. The Bills at least let Rex come back to the States with them. But that was a bad loss to Jacksonville, which makes this game a must for both teams. The Bills won the first meeting in Miami pretty handily, but, oddly, they haven't won at home yet this season. Although, their home opponents so far have all been first-place teams, including two of the three undefeateds (New England and Cincinnati). They should finally get a home win this week before the short week and Rex's return to the Meadowlands.
Rams (4-3) at Vikings (5-2): Minnesota-In a matchup of the NFC's surprise playoff contenders, one of these teams will put itself in a really good position to crash the party in January. St. Louis needs it a little more than Minnesota does. If the Vikings win, they'll have a two-game lead on the Rams plus the tiebreaker. The problem for the Rams, though, is that Minnesota is very good at home. They make it three in a row and go to 6-2.
Redskins (3-4) at Patriots (7-0): New England-As I said, I'm not jumping on the whole "New England's going 16-0" train. But I'm also not an idiot. That first loss won't come to Washington. Especially not at home.
Titans (1-6) at Saints (4-4): New Orleans-Tennessee is a mess. Six straight losses since that dominant Week 1 victory. It cost Head Coach Ken Whisenhunt his job. The Saints, meanwhile, are headed in the opposite direction. Three straight wins since starting 1-4, and I think Drew Brees just threw another touchdown pass against the Giants defense. If they could put up 52 points on a good team, imagine what they might do to the Titans.
Jaguars (2-5) at Jets (4-3): Jets-There probably isn't a team in the NFL that could use some home cooking as much as the Jets. When they last took the field at Met Life Stadium, they were 4-1 and feeling great about themselves. Then they made trips to Foxboro and Oakland and fell to 4-3 (I actually just realized for the first time right that the Raiders are currently the No. 1 wild card team in the AFC, with the Jets second). Both of the Jaguars' wins this season are against the AFC East. It's not becoming three.
Raiders (4-3) at Steelers (4-4): Pittsburgh-Remember when this was the hottest rivalry in the NFL? OK, I don't either. But this game could have a big bearing on the AFC wild card race, especially if Denver and Cincinnati keep winning. The Steelers are in the midst of a three-game homestand and need this game slightly more. Pittsburgh has lost two straight and is in the same position as St. Louis. They can't afford to fall behind and lose the tiebreaker. The Steelers usually come to play when they need a win, and I think they will here.
Packers (6-1) at Panthers (7-0): Green Bay-Even though Green Bay lost that Sunday night showdown in Denver, I've still got them third in the power rankings behind the Patriots and Broncos. Carolina, which won only seven games all of last year (yet still made the playoffs), can really make a statement here by winning its eighth straight to start this season. It would also give them a two-game lead on the Packers plus the tiebreaker. But as I said last week prior to the first of Green Bay's back-to-back road games against undefeated opponents, I thought they were going to split. I still think that. Packers win and go into the driver's seat for NFC home field.
Falcons (6-2) at 49ers (2-6): Atlanta-If Tennessee is the biggest mess in the NFL, San Francisco might be a close second (Detroit figures somewhere in there, too). Colin Kaepernick has been benched. (Kaepernick's a gimmick that no longer works, but that's a topic for another day.) Atlanta has dropped two out of three, both in division games. The 49ers aren't in their division. Falcons win.
Giants (4-4) at Buccaneers (3-4): Giants-Jason Pierre-Paul and all nine of his fingers make their season debut as the Giants head to Tampa for a matchup with the Bucs that doesn't promise to be easy. Hopefully the presence of their best pass rusher will help them recover after all those points and yards they gave up last week in New Orleans. The Bucs' offense isn't anywhere near as prolific as the Saints', though, so I think they recover and head into their showdown with the Patriots at 5-4.
Broncos (7-0) at Colts (3-5): Denver-Will this be Peyton Manning's final visit to the city he called home for so long? I think it probably will be. And keep in mind, he still hasn't won in Indianapolis as a visitor. In fact, he's just 1-2 all-time against his former team, including last year's playoff embarrassment. The Colts looked more like their old selves than they have in week last Monday night in Charlotte, but they still lost in overtime. And the Broncos are better than the Panthers. Colts stay winless in games outside the division and Denver goes to 8-0, as Peyton finally gets a regular season road win in Indy.
Eagles (3-4) at Cowboys (2-5): Dallas-The good news for Dallas is that Tony Romo seems to be progressing. The bad news is that he can't come off IR for another two weeks. The Cowboys are at least starting to resemble an NFL team again, though. They easily could've (maybe even should've) won last week in what turned out to be a defensive battle against Seattle. The Eagles are playing their second straight Sunday night game (last week was their bye) and third straight primetime game overall. Not sure why Philly is suddenly the NFL's favorite team, but this is an important one for them. It was against the Eagles in Week 2 that Romo got hurt. Dallas hasn't won since. Until they beat the Eagles again on Sunday night.
Bears (2-5) at Chargers (2-6): San Diego-Sometimes we end up with a dud of a Monday night game, and that's certainly the case this week. I don't blame the NFL for thinking the Bears and/or Chargers would be good this season. It just didn't work out that way. San Diego's first Monday night home game saw them lose to Pittsburgh on literally the final play. This time, it won't come to that. Both of these teams badly need a win. Only the Chargers will get it.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 11-3
Season: 82-38
Friday, November 6, 2015
Potential Free Agent Landing Places
Now that the World Series is over, Baseball's attention will soon turn to the Hot Stove. And there are going to be a number of high-profile players that change teams. Each World Series team had a late-season rental that they'll likely lose in free agency (Yoenis Cespedes and Ben Zobrist), and Toronto's probably not going to re-sign David Price. Along with Price, Zack Greinke, who opted out of his deal with the Dodgers, will be right up there as one of the most sought-after free agent starting pitchers.
Last year, free agency was a bit of a dud. That's certainly not going to be the case this year. There are going to be some big names moving, and I think there will probably be several high-profile trades, too (Boston's not keeping Hanley Ramirez in left field, so either he or Panda's getting dealt for a starter, and you'd think the Dodgers have to do something about their 15 outfielders sooner or later). Since I have no idea what types of trades general managers have festering in their heads, I'm not going to speculate. That doesn't stop me from speculating about where the free agents might land, though.
Zack Greinke: The only reason Greinke opted out is because he knows he's going to make more money. But that doesn't mean he's leaving LA. The Dodgers have one of the best 1-2 punches in all of baseball, and they have the resources to pay him more. They know they need other pieces, though, so if the new manager goes for a complete team rebuild, they might look for a cheaper option (Jordan Zimmermann?) and look to build up their lineup. But they also know that their bread-and-butter will remain that dominant starting pitching. They just need more of it. The Giants would probably love to have Greinke travel north and pair him with the NL West's other dominant lefty, which will probably drive the price up, but I see Greinke returning to the Dodgers and remaining the best No. 2 starter in baseball. If he wins the Cy Young, things could change, though. Because that will likely drive his price up even more.
David Price: If the Blue Jays want to make a push to retain David Price, it wouldn't be a bad move. They don't make the ALCS without making that trade. It showed that the Blue Jays were all-in for this year, but not necessarily for 2016. Especially with a new GM taking over, I don't think Price is in their plans for next season. So where does he go? Boston needs an ace and he knows the division from his time in Tampa Bay, as well as his stint in Toronto. I can definitely see the Red Sox making a push. But there's also a bunch of National League teams that have deep pockets and are looking for a starter. Like the Cubs. Imagine if they have three dominant starters next year!
Jordan Zimmermann: When the Nationals signed Max Scherzer last year, it was a pretty clear indication that Zimmermann's time in DC was coming to an end. He won't command the same money as Greinke or Price, but is probably the third-best starting pitching option out there. And because he won't be as costly, I can see him maybe going to San Francisco and partnering up with Bumgarner. I can also see a lower-payroll team opening up the purse strings to overpay for Zimmermann and make him a No. 1. Like the Blue Jays. Or the Tigers.
Johnny Cueto: Cueto may end up as a consolation prize for whoever doesn't get Greinke or Price. He'll get paid, though. Mainly because he'll be somebody's best available option come January. I can see him staying in Kansas City, too. He pitched great in that ballpark and was the nominal No. 1 for a World Series champion. Cueto's the type of pitcher I think will go to a smaller market and be a No. 1 rather than take the same money to be a No. 2 somewhere else. He did pitch in Cincinnati for all those years, after all. Which is why I think he'd be a really good fit in Baltimore, which has a very similar ballpark.
Yoenis Cespedes: As I said prior to the World Series, I don't see the Mets being able to keep both Murphy and Cespedes. And since they made Murphy a qualifying offer, it's clear which one they'd prefer to keep. They'll make a token run at Cespedes, but he's going elsewhere. Probably back to the American League, where he'll also get to DH. A return to Detroit doesn't seem out of the question, but I can also see him in Anaheim. I'll also make an out-of-the-box suggestion for him. Miami. That big Cuban population and the chance to pair up with Giancarlo Stanton could make the Marlins a very nice fit for him.
Justin Upton: Upton's the wild card in all of this. Because there are gonna be a lot of teams out there that want him. He's a perfect fit for the Yankees, for example, who desperately need right-handed power. But Upton's a National League guy, which is where I think he stays. They certainly won't go for both him and Cespedes, but Miami also makes a lot of sense for Upton. Same with San Francisco.
Ben Zobrist: For years, I've thought Ben Zobrist would look great in Pinstripes. This is the guy the Yankees need to make a priority and go after hard. They need a second baseman badly. That's Zobrist's best position. But he can play anywhere on the field, which gives them plenty of flexibility if someone needs a day off (they also need to find a way to get Greg Bird at-bats). They also need a right-handed hitter. Zobrist is a switch-hitter, so that's close enough. And he knows the AL East from all that time in Tampa Bay. I salivated over Chase Headley for a few years before the Yankees finally got him. In 2016, I think he's joined in the Yankees infield by another switch-hitting doubles hitter who's a perfect fit.
Daniel Murphy: Had free agency started immediately after the NLCS, Daniel Murphy would've gotten about a 15-year deal from someone. He cooled off significantly in the World Series, but still earned a significant pay day. The Mets made a $15.8 million qualifying offer, which means they're due a draft pick if he leaves. But I see them making a pretty serious attempt to keep him. I'm not sure that'll be enough, though. Murphy's versatility will result in somebody overpaying. The Angels need a second baseman, but would love the option of putting him at first or third. He's a guy a team like Houston might like to have, too. My guess is he either stays with the Mets or goes to Anaheim.
Chris Davis: Chris Davis loves being on the Orioles. It's because of Camden Yards that he became the home run-or-nothing force. Are all the strikeouts worth the home runs? That's a worthwhile question about Davis. You'd have to think that if he doesn't re-sign with Baltimore (which I think is a distinct possibility), he'll stay in the American League and DH half the time. He'd fit in well in Houston, which is basically an entire team of Chris Davises plus Jose Altuve.
Jason Heyward: What will the market be like for Jason Heyward? The Braves flipped him to St. Louis so that they could start their rebuild, but people have heard of him, so that makes you think his stay with the Cardinals was a one-year stop. While it's not inconceivable St. Louis retains him with a 1- or 2-year deal, I think he'll probably be on his third team in three years on Opening Day. So where does he go? Does a team like Seattle try to make a big splash and overspend on a plus-outfielder to roam center or right field in that spacious stadium? Does San Diego make a push if they lose Upton, going for a Myers-Heyward-Kemp outfield in 2016? Arizona maybe? Let him go to Baltimore and try to hit the warehouse? So many possible destinations for Heyward. I think he might stay in St. Louis, though. That is if the Cardinals make any sort of attempt to keep him.
There are plenty of other free agents out there, but those are the top 10 available in my opinion. One's going to be this year's Max Scherzer, who signs the big contract and is expected to "make a difference," but the team fizzles out. Or you could be the 2009 Yankees and win the World Series on the strength of your offseason acquisitions. It's worth that risk on any of these 10 guys. Any one of them could be that difference-maker.
Last year, free agency was a bit of a dud. That's certainly not going to be the case this year. There are going to be some big names moving, and I think there will probably be several high-profile trades, too (Boston's not keeping Hanley Ramirez in left field, so either he or Panda's getting dealt for a starter, and you'd think the Dodgers have to do something about their 15 outfielders sooner or later). Since I have no idea what types of trades general managers have festering in their heads, I'm not going to speculate. That doesn't stop me from speculating about where the free agents might land, though.
Zack Greinke: The only reason Greinke opted out is because he knows he's going to make more money. But that doesn't mean he's leaving LA. The Dodgers have one of the best 1-2 punches in all of baseball, and they have the resources to pay him more. They know they need other pieces, though, so if the new manager goes for a complete team rebuild, they might look for a cheaper option (Jordan Zimmermann?) and look to build up their lineup. But they also know that their bread-and-butter will remain that dominant starting pitching. They just need more of it. The Giants would probably love to have Greinke travel north and pair him with the NL West's other dominant lefty, which will probably drive the price up, but I see Greinke returning to the Dodgers and remaining the best No. 2 starter in baseball. If he wins the Cy Young, things could change, though. Because that will likely drive his price up even more.
David Price: If the Blue Jays want to make a push to retain David Price, it wouldn't be a bad move. They don't make the ALCS without making that trade. It showed that the Blue Jays were all-in for this year, but not necessarily for 2016. Especially with a new GM taking over, I don't think Price is in their plans for next season. So where does he go? Boston needs an ace and he knows the division from his time in Tampa Bay, as well as his stint in Toronto. I can definitely see the Red Sox making a push. But there's also a bunch of National League teams that have deep pockets and are looking for a starter. Like the Cubs. Imagine if they have three dominant starters next year!
Jordan Zimmermann: When the Nationals signed Max Scherzer last year, it was a pretty clear indication that Zimmermann's time in DC was coming to an end. He won't command the same money as Greinke or Price, but is probably the third-best starting pitching option out there. And because he won't be as costly, I can see him maybe going to San Francisco and partnering up with Bumgarner. I can also see a lower-payroll team opening up the purse strings to overpay for Zimmermann and make him a No. 1. Like the Blue Jays. Or the Tigers.
Johnny Cueto: Cueto may end up as a consolation prize for whoever doesn't get Greinke or Price. He'll get paid, though. Mainly because he'll be somebody's best available option come January. I can see him staying in Kansas City, too. He pitched great in that ballpark and was the nominal No. 1 for a World Series champion. Cueto's the type of pitcher I think will go to a smaller market and be a No. 1 rather than take the same money to be a No. 2 somewhere else. He did pitch in Cincinnati for all those years, after all. Which is why I think he'd be a really good fit in Baltimore, which has a very similar ballpark.
Yoenis Cespedes: As I said prior to the World Series, I don't see the Mets being able to keep both Murphy and Cespedes. And since they made Murphy a qualifying offer, it's clear which one they'd prefer to keep. They'll make a token run at Cespedes, but he's going elsewhere. Probably back to the American League, where he'll also get to DH. A return to Detroit doesn't seem out of the question, but I can also see him in Anaheim. I'll also make an out-of-the-box suggestion for him. Miami. That big Cuban population and the chance to pair up with Giancarlo Stanton could make the Marlins a very nice fit for him.
Justin Upton: Upton's the wild card in all of this. Because there are gonna be a lot of teams out there that want him. He's a perfect fit for the Yankees, for example, who desperately need right-handed power. But Upton's a National League guy, which is where I think he stays. They certainly won't go for both him and Cespedes, but Miami also makes a lot of sense for Upton. Same with San Francisco.
Ben Zobrist: For years, I've thought Ben Zobrist would look great in Pinstripes. This is the guy the Yankees need to make a priority and go after hard. They need a second baseman badly. That's Zobrist's best position. But he can play anywhere on the field, which gives them plenty of flexibility if someone needs a day off (they also need to find a way to get Greg Bird at-bats). They also need a right-handed hitter. Zobrist is a switch-hitter, so that's close enough. And he knows the AL East from all that time in Tampa Bay. I salivated over Chase Headley for a few years before the Yankees finally got him. In 2016, I think he's joined in the Yankees infield by another switch-hitting doubles hitter who's a perfect fit.
Daniel Murphy: Had free agency started immediately after the NLCS, Daniel Murphy would've gotten about a 15-year deal from someone. He cooled off significantly in the World Series, but still earned a significant pay day. The Mets made a $15.8 million qualifying offer, which means they're due a draft pick if he leaves. But I see them making a pretty serious attempt to keep him. I'm not sure that'll be enough, though. Murphy's versatility will result in somebody overpaying. The Angels need a second baseman, but would love the option of putting him at first or third. He's a guy a team like Houston might like to have, too. My guess is he either stays with the Mets or goes to Anaheim.
Chris Davis: Chris Davis loves being on the Orioles. It's because of Camden Yards that he became the home run-or-nothing force. Are all the strikeouts worth the home runs? That's a worthwhile question about Davis. You'd have to think that if he doesn't re-sign with Baltimore (which I think is a distinct possibility), he'll stay in the American League and DH half the time. He'd fit in well in Houston, which is basically an entire team of Chris Davises plus Jose Altuve.
Jason Heyward: What will the market be like for Jason Heyward? The Braves flipped him to St. Louis so that they could start their rebuild, but people have heard of him, so that makes you think his stay with the Cardinals was a one-year stop. While it's not inconceivable St. Louis retains him with a 1- or 2-year deal, I think he'll probably be on his third team in three years on Opening Day. So where does he go? Does a team like Seattle try to make a big splash and overspend on a plus-outfielder to roam center or right field in that spacious stadium? Does San Diego make a push if they lose Upton, going for a Myers-Heyward-Kemp outfield in 2016? Arizona maybe? Let him go to Baltimore and try to hit the warehouse? So many possible destinations for Heyward. I think he might stay in St. Louis, though. That is if the Cardinals make any sort of attempt to keep him.
There are plenty of other free agents out there, but those are the top 10 available in my opinion. One's going to be this year's Max Scherzer, who signs the big contract and is expected to "make a difference," but the team fizzles out. Or you could be the 2009 Yankees and win the World Series on the strength of your offseason acquisitions. It's worth that risk on any of these 10 guys. Any one of them could be that difference-maker.
Tuesday, November 3, 2015
Royal Flush
Congratulations to the World Series Champion Kansas City Royals! That team was on a mission ever since they ran into Madison Bumgarner last year. Kansas City had one goal in mind for 2015. They didn't just want to get back to the World Series. They were there to win it. And that's exactly what they did.
Kansas City proved to be the best team in baseball, but they were also the most resilient. The Royals were impossible to put away. Ask the Astros. Or the Blue Jays. Or especially the Mets. Kansas City never gave in and was never out of it. Games 1 and 5 are the prime examples of that.
It'll take some getting used to, this whole Royals winning the World Series thing. But the fact that they were so bad for so long is why they're here today. All of those high draft picks came through the system together, and they all got to the Majors at the same time. And Hosmer, Gordon, Moustakas, etc., are all still fairly young. It seems unlikely that the Royals will be able to keep this team together once free agency beckons, but they've still got another couple of years where they'll be a force.
This team was built perfectly. They play old-fashioned baseball. They manufacture runs. Kansas City hit a grand total of two home runs in the World Series, and one was on the first pitch thrown in the first game (and that didn't even leave the ballpark)! They're aggressive on the bases and force you to make mistakes. They foul everything off. They play rock-solid defense. Their starting rotation might not be full of big names, but it does the job its supposed to do. Getting to that awesome bullpen, which is by far the biggest weapon they've got.
Just like the Mets were simply the better team in the NLCS, the Royals were simply the better team in the World Series. And that bullpen was one of the many reasons why. Kansas City's bullpen was lights out. Other than Franklin Morales getting lit up in Game 3, the Royals bullpen allowed a total of two runs in the series, and only one of those was earned. And this series included both a 14-inning game and a 12-inning game.
Ned Yost only needed his starter to go six, and he trusted everybody in his bullpen. That was the biggest difference in the series. The only relievers Terry Collins trusted were Bartolo Colon and Jon Niese, who are the other two Mets starters. Addison Reed appeared in every game, but the only true reliever that Collins seemed to have any confidence in was Jeurys Familia. And Familia set a record by blowing three saves in the World Series (although, in fairness, the one in Game 5 was not his fault)!
The Royals can thank their dominant bullpen for the upcoming parade through the streets of Kansas City, but something has to be said about their never-say-die attitude, as well. It really is remarkable how you could never count this team out. Tom Verducci was obsessed with the swing-and-miss stat during the series, but what it proves is that the Royals were going to make you work for every out. And those long at bats early came into play late, where their clutch hitting was ridiculously impressive. I think it was seven comebacks from at least two runs down in their 11 playoff wins. In the World Series, they outscored the Mets 15-1 from the seventh inning on (which also speaks to the strength of the bullpens).
You can also give credit to that solid defense. Eric Hosmer, Alex Gordon and Salvador Perez are all Gold Glove winners, and Alex Rios won one when he played center field in Toronto. Hosmer made two errors (and got bailed out each time) in the series. The rest of the team made zero. The Mets? They committed six, which led to four unearned runs (Kansas City also scored a run on a passed ball in Game 3).
Salvador Perez has caught more games over the past two seasons than anybody in like 50 years or something like that. Yet Perez wasn't on the field when the Royals clinched it. They pinch ran for him in the top of the 12th, and Jarrod Dyson scored what proved to be the Series-winning run. As a result, the only inning he didn't catch in the Series was the final inning of the final game. But as Harold Reynolds noted, Drew Butera catching that inning meant every Royal played in the World Series.
That includes Christian Colon, whose first at-bat in a month resulted in the Series-winning RBI. It also includes 20-year-old Raul Mondesi, Jr., who looked like the bat boy when they panned to the dugout. Mondesi made his Major League debut in Game 3, becoming the first player in history to debut in the World Series (I need clarification on that rule, I thought you had to already be on the 40-man, which Mondesi was not). They don't have any "superstars" (although Hosmer and Perez are close). What they do have is a brilliant team full of good players that's awfully fun to watch.
Maybe that's why the writers had trouble selecting an MVP. Had the Mets won, it would've been Curtis Granderson without question. But with the Royals, everyone contributed. The decision was much harder. They ended up choosing Sal Perez, likely because of his team-high eight hits and .364 average.
My choice would've been Eric Hosmer, though. Yes, everyone was involved. But Hosmer's the one who was literally in the middle of everything. He had only four hits (and hit .190, which is probably why it wasn't him), but every one of them was big. If Hosmer was up with somebody on base, it was a safe bet he'd drive him in. He led the team with 6 RBIs, and I don't remember what the difference was exactly, but one of FOX's favorite graphics was the one that showed how much higher Hosmer's average was with runners on than with the bases empty. And let's not forget he scored the biggest run of the series. On a groundout. With the infield in. To tie Game 5 with two out in the ninth (after driving in the Royals' first run of the game with a double). That's an MVP in my book.
I'm sure Eric Hosmer doesn't care that he wasn't the MVP of the World Series. All he wanted was a ring. It's the only thing the Royals wanted since last October. Well, now they've got it. And I don't think anyone would be surprised to see them get another one next year. A Royals dynasty? It doesn't seem that far-fetched at all.
Oh, and who do they get their rings against on Opening Day next season? The New York Mets. Talk about motivation for the visitors, who've shown every indication that they'll be back themselves. Who knows? Maybe the 2016 Mets will do what the 2015 Royals did. They've got nothing to hang their heads about. The Mets got to the World Series ahead of schedule. They just ran into a Kansas City buzz saw that wasn't going to be denied.
Kansas City proved to be the best team in baseball, but they were also the most resilient. The Royals were impossible to put away. Ask the Astros. Or the Blue Jays. Or especially the Mets. Kansas City never gave in and was never out of it. Games 1 and 5 are the prime examples of that.
It'll take some getting used to, this whole Royals winning the World Series thing. But the fact that they were so bad for so long is why they're here today. All of those high draft picks came through the system together, and they all got to the Majors at the same time. And Hosmer, Gordon, Moustakas, etc., are all still fairly young. It seems unlikely that the Royals will be able to keep this team together once free agency beckons, but they've still got another couple of years where they'll be a force.
This team was built perfectly. They play old-fashioned baseball. They manufacture runs. Kansas City hit a grand total of two home runs in the World Series, and one was on the first pitch thrown in the first game (and that didn't even leave the ballpark)! They're aggressive on the bases and force you to make mistakes. They foul everything off. They play rock-solid defense. Their starting rotation might not be full of big names, but it does the job its supposed to do. Getting to that awesome bullpen, which is by far the biggest weapon they've got.
Just like the Mets were simply the better team in the NLCS, the Royals were simply the better team in the World Series. And that bullpen was one of the many reasons why. Kansas City's bullpen was lights out. Other than Franklin Morales getting lit up in Game 3, the Royals bullpen allowed a total of two runs in the series, and only one of those was earned. And this series included both a 14-inning game and a 12-inning game.
Ned Yost only needed his starter to go six, and he trusted everybody in his bullpen. That was the biggest difference in the series. The only relievers Terry Collins trusted were Bartolo Colon and Jon Niese, who are the other two Mets starters. Addison Reed appeared in every game, but the only true reliever that Collins seemed to have any confidence in was Jeurys Familia. And Familia set a record by blowing three saves in the World Series (although, in fairness, the one in Game 5 was not his fault)!
The Royals can thank their dominant bullpen for the upcoming parade through the streets of Kansas City, but something has to be said about their never-say-die attitude, as well. It really is remarkable how you could never count this team out. Tom Verducci was obsessed with the swing-and-miss stat during the series, but what it proves is that the Royals were going to make you work for every out. And those long at bats early came into play late, where their clutch hitting was ridiculously impressive. I think it was seven comebacks from at least two runs down in their 11 playoff wins. In the World Series, they outscored the Mets 15-1 from the seventh inning on (which also speaks to the strength of the bullpens).
You can also give credit to that solid defense. Eric Hosmer, Alex Gordon and Salvador Perez are all Gold Glove winners, and Alex Rios won one when he played center field in Toronto. Hosmer made two errors (and got bailed out each time) in the series. The rest of the team made zero. The Mets? They committed six, which led to four unearned runs (Kansas City also scored a run on a passed ball in Game 3).
Salvador Perez has caught more games over the past two seasons than anybody in like 50 years or something like that. Yet Perez wasn't on the field when the Royals clinched it. They pinch ran for him in the top of the 12th, and Jarrod Dyson scored what proved to be the Series-winning run. As a result, the only inning he didn't catch in the Series was the final inning of the final game. But as Harold Reynolds noted, Drew Butera catching that inning meant every Royal played in the World Series.
That includes Christian Colon, whose first at-bat in a month resulted in the Series-winning RBI. It also includes 20-year-old Raul Mondesi, Jr., who looked like the bat boy when they panned to the dugout. Mondesi made his Major League debut in Game 3, becoming the first player in history to debut in the World Series (I need clarification on that rule, I thought you had to already be on the 40-man, which Mondesi was not). They don't have any "superstars" (although Hosmer and Perez are close). What they do have is a brilliant team full of good players that's awfully fun to watch.
Maybe that's why the writers had trouble selecting an MVP. Had the Mets won, it would've been Curtis Granderson without question. But with the Royals, everyone contributed. The decision was much harder. They ended up choosing Sal Perez, likely because of his team-high eight hits and .364 average.
My choice would've been Eric Hosmer, though. Yes, everyone was involved. But Hosmer's the one who was literally in the middle of everything. He had only four hits (and hit .190, which is probably why it wasn't him), but every one of them was big. If Hosmer was up with somebody on base, it was a safe bet he'd drive him in. He led the team with 6 RBIs, and I don't remember what the difference was exactly, but one of FOX's favorite graphics was the one that showed how much higher Hosmer's average was with runners on than with the bases empty. And let's not forget he scored the biggest run of the series. On a groundout. With the infield in. To tie Game 5 with two out in the ninth (after driving in the Royals' first run of the game with a double). That's an MVP in my book.
I'm sure Eric Hosmer doesn't care that he wasn't the MVP of the World Series. All he wanted was a ring. It's the only thing the Royals wanted since last October. Well, now they've got it. And I don't think anyone would be surprised to see them get another one next year. A Royals dynasty? It doesn't seem that far-fetched at all.
Oh, and who do they get their rings against on Opening Day next season? The New York Mets. Talk about motivation for the visitors, who've shown every indication that they'll be back themselves. Who knows? Maybe the 2016 Mets will do what the 2015 Royals did. They've got nothing to hang their heads about. The Mets got to the World Series ahead of schedule. They just ran into a Kansas City buzz saw that wasn't going to be denied.
Sunday, November 1, 2015
2015 Football Picks, Week 8
NFL, you and I are gonna need to have some words. First, we've got London Part III at the same time as the New York City Marathon.. But that's Lions-Chiefs, so I'm willing to let that one go. Not willing to let the other big scheduling issue of the week go that easily, though.
I remember a time not too long ago when the NFL didn't schedule a Sunday night game during the World Series. That's no longer the case. And since the NFL is king, the football game always ends up drawing higher ratings than the baseball game. I understand all of this. The problem is that this week is the best Sunday night game of the season and there are a lot of people who'd want to watch both and will now have to make a choice. All because the NFL won't let Baseball have the stage during the World Series like it used to.
More on Packers-Broncos in a second, but one thing we do know is that we're guaranteed to see the number of undefeated teams drop by at least one this week. It's also weird that out of five undefeated teams, only one plays on Sunday afternoon. The Patriots already won and the Panthers are on Monday night.
Thursday Night: New England (Win)
Lions (1-6) vs. Chiefs (2-5): Kansas City-While Kansas City thinks about a potential Royals title on Sunday night, they'll get an early start with the Chiefs playing in London. Unlike last week's London game, this one's actually on TV. It's the start of a FOX quadrupleheader that's bookended by the two Kansas City teams. London actually got a decent game between two bad teams last week, and I think they'll get another one here. The Chiefs are 0-for the NFC North this season. I see that changing here.
Buccaneers (2-4) at Falcons (6-1): Atlanta-Atlanta has to be thinking "When's Carolina gonna lose?" The Falcons are the only one-loss team in football, yet they're in second place in the NFC South. All they can do is keep winning. Especially against the Bucs at home.
Vikings (4-2) at Bears (2-4): Minnesota-Minnesota's one of just six teams in the NFC with a winning record. One of the reasons for that is because the Vikings have been very good at home. Another is because they're in the same division as two of the worst teams in football. They got the road win over the Lions out of the way last week. Now it's the Bears' turn,
Cardinals (5-2) at Browns (2-5): Arizona-This is an interesting one. Cleveland has played some close games against some good teams, but their record's still 2-5. The Cardinals traveled east two weeks ago and got their butts kicked in Pittsburgh. That's what makes me think this will be a close one and that the Browns have a shot at pulling the upset. I have a feeling it'll be like most of their other games against good teams, though. A three-point loss.
49ers (2-5) at Rams (3-3): St. Louis-Is there a team in the NFL that's a bigger mess right now than the 49ers? Colin Kapernick's starting to look more and more like a one-year wonder. The Rams, meanwhile, are right there in the playoff mix. They've already beaten the two good teams in the division. Knocking off San Francisco will move them to 4-3.
Giants (4-3) at Saints (3-4): Giants-New Orleans is one of those teams that nobody has been able to figure out. The Saints got off to such a bad start, but they seem to have righted the ship. They've won two straight and three out of four. The Giants, meanwhile, have won four out of five since starting 0-2 and sit in first place in the NFC East. Something's gotta give here. I'll go with the Giants. I'm not sure why.
Bengals (6-0) at Steelers (4-3): Pittsburgh-We enter the week with five undefeated teams. We're guaranteed to leave it with no more than four. I actually think that number will be three. The Bengals are the least-heralded of those without a loss, but they're also the most vulnerable this week. It's their first game in Pittsburgh since the Steelers won to take the division from them in Week 17 last season. I've got a feeling the Steelers will knock them off again.
Chargers (2-5) at Ravens (1-6): Baltimore-If there's a team in the NFL that needs some home cooking, it's the Ravens. Four of their first seven games have been out West, and they've only played at home twice this season. Now they even it out a little. They won't leave Baltimore for almost a month. The long homestand starts against a Chargers team that typically doesn't do well in early games. They're 0-2 in 1:00 starts this season. Make that 0-3. The Ravens finally change that "1" in the win column.
Titans (1-5) at Texans (2-5): Houston-Because of the way the schedule's set up, the AFC South teams still play each other twice a year. At least one of them is guaranteed a win. I have no idea what happened last week in Miami, but the Texans are a different team at home. And they're a much better team than the Titans.
Jets (4-2) at Raiders (3-3): Oakland-Even though they lost last week, the Jets proved that they're gonna be a force and nobody's gonna want to play them. The Raiders are one of those teams, too. Oakland has gotten its swagger back under Jack Del Rio. I don't remember the last time the Raiders were above .500 this late in the season, but that's exactly what'll happen if they win here. And I see that happening. Oakland typically wins these games against East coast teams making that long trip West.
Seahawks (3-4) at Cowboys (2-4): Seattle-America's Game of the Week is a good one. Dallas is still looking for that first win without Tony Romo. Seattle is still looking to regain the form that's taken them to the last two Super Bowls. For these two teams favored to win their divisions, one will have its playoff hopes hanging by a thread after taking loss number five. Last year, Dallas went to Seattle and won, proving to everyone that was possible. This year, I think the Seahawks return the favor. They turned a corner with that Thursday night shellacking of the rival 49ers.
Packers (6-0) at Broncos (6-0): Denver-Something's gotta give as two of the remaining undefeated teams face off. They both had their bye last week, so rest isn't going to be a factor. And there's really very little separating these two teams, who are up there with New England as the three best in the league. It's the Packers offense against the Broncos defense. Which one will come out on top? Well, Green Bay takes on Carolina next week, so they could easily have back-to-back battles of the undefeated. I don't think they will, though. Green Bay loses this week and (spoiler alert) wins next week. Hopefully this one goes into overtime so I can catch the end of it after Mets-Royals is over.
Colts (3-4) at Panthers (6-0): Carolina-After winning the NFC South with just seven wins all season last year, the Panthers are looking to go 7-0 for the first time in franchise history. On Monday night, they host a Colts team that seems to have lost its way. Indy's in first place, but that's more a testament to how bad the AFC South is. The Colts are 3-0 in the division and haven't won a game outside of it, and there's a ton of front office turmoil. That, to me, doesn't sound like a team that's ready to go into Charlotte in front of a raucous crowd and knock the home team from the ranks of the unbeaten.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 7-7
Season: 71-35
I remember a time not too long ago when the NFL didn't schedule a Sunday night game during the World Series. That's no longer the case. And since the NFL is king, the football game always ends up drawing higher ratings than the baseball game. I understand all of this. The problem is that this week is the best Sunday night game of the season and there are a lot of people who'd want to watch both and will now have to make a choice. All because the NFL won't let Baseball have the stage during the World Series like it used to.
More on Packers-Broncos in a second, but one thing we do know is that we're guaranteed to see the number of undefeated teams drop by at least one this week. It's also weird that out of five undefeated teams, only one plays on Sunday afternoon. The Patriots already won and the Panthers are on Monday night.
Thursday Night: New England (Win)
Lions (1-6) vs. Chiefs (2-5): Kansas City-While Kansas City thinks about a potential Royals title on Sunday night, they'll get an early start with the Chiefs playing in London. Unlike last week's London game, this one's actually on TV. It's the start of a FOX quadrupleheader that's bookended by the two Kansas City teams. London actually got a decent game between two bad teams last week, and I think they'll get another one here. The Chiefs are 0-for the NFC North this season. I see that changing here.
Buccaneers (2-4) at Falcons (6-1): Atlanta-Atlanta has to be thinking "When's Carolina gonna lose?" The Falcons are the only one-loss team in football, yet they're in second place in the NFC South. All they can do is keep winning. Especially against the Bucs at home.
Vikings (4-2) at Bears (2-4): Minnesota-Minnesota's one of just six teams in the NFC with a winning record. One of the reasons for that is because the Vikings have been very good at home. Another is because they're in the same division as two of the worst teams in football. They got the road win over the Lions out of the way last week. Now it's the Bears' turn,
Cardinals (5-2) at Browns (2-5): Arizona-This is an interesting one. Cleveland has played some close games against some good teams, but their record's still 2-5. The Cardinals traveled east two weeks ago and got their butts kicked in Pittsburgh. That's what makes me think this will be a close one and that the Browns have a shot at pulling the upset. I have a feeling it'll be like most of their other games against good teams, though. A three-point loss.
49ers (2-5) at Rams (3-3): St. Louis-Is there a team in the NFL that's a bigger mess right now than the 49ers? Colin Kapernick's starting to look more and more like a one-year wonder. The Rams, meanwhile, are right there in the playoff mix. They've already beaten the two good teams in the division. Knocking off San Francisco will move them to 4-3.
Giants (4-3) at Saints (3-4): Giants-New Orleans is one of those teams that nobody has been able to figure out. The Saints got off to such a bad start, but they seem to have righted the ship. They've won two straight and three out of four. The Giants, meanwhile, have won four out of five since starting 0-2 and sit in first place in the NFC East. Something's gotta give here. I'll go with the Giants. I'm not sure why.
Bengals (6-0) at Steelers (4-3): Pittsburgh-We enter the week with five undefeated teams. We're guaranteed to leave it with no more than four. I actually think that number will be three. The Bengals are the least-heralded of those without a loss, but they're also the most vulnerable this week. It's their first game in Pittsburgh since the Steelers won to take the division from them in Week 17 last season. I've got a feeling the Steelers will knock them off again.
Chargers (2-5) at Ravens (1-6): Baltimore-If there's a team in the NFL that needs some home cooking, it's the Ravens. Four of their first seven games have been out West, and they've only played at home twice this season. Now they even it out a little. They won't leave Baltimore for almost a month. The long homestand starts against a Chargers team that typically doesn't do well in early games. They're 0-2 in 1:00 starts this season. Make that 0-3. The Ravens finally change that "1" in the win column.
Titans (1-5) at Texans (2-5): Houston-Because of the way the schedule's set up, the AFC South teams still play each other twice a year. At least one of them is guaranteed a win. I have no idea what happened last week in Miami, but the Texans are a different team at home. And they're a much better team than the Titans.
Jets (4-2) at Raiders (3-3): Oakland-Even though they lost last week, the Jets proved that they're gonna be a force and nobody's gonna want to play them. The Raiders are one of those teams, too. Oakland has gotten its swagger back under Jack Del Rio. I don't remember the last time the Raiders were above .500 this late in the season, but that's exactly what'll happen if they win here. And I see that happening. Oakland typically wins these games against East coast teams making that long trip West.
Seahawks (3-4) at Cowboys (2-4): Seattle-America's Game of the Week is a good one. Dallas is still looking for that first win without Tony Romo. Seattle is still looking to regain the form that's taken them to the last two Super Bowls. For these two teams favored to win their divisions, one will have its playoff hopes hanging by a thread after taking loss number five. Last year, Dallas went to Seattle and won, proving to everyone that was possible. This year, I think the Seahawks return the favor. They turned a corner with that Thursday night shellacking of the rival 49ers.
Packers (6-0) at Broncos (6-0): Denver-Something's gotta give as two of the remaining undefeated teams face off. They both had their bye last week, so rest isn't going to be a factor. And there's really very little separating these two teams, who are up there with New England as the three best in the league. It's the Packers offense against the Broncos defense. Which one will come out on top? Well, Green Bay takes on Carolina next week, so they could easily have back-to-back battles of the undefeated. I don't think they will, though. Green Bay loses this week and (spoiler alert) wins next week. Hopefully this one goes into overtime so I can catch the end of it after Mets-Royals is over.
Colts (3-4) at Panthers (6-0): Carolina-After winning the NFC South with just seven wins all season last year, the Panthers are looking to go 7-0 for the first time in franchise history. On Monday night, they host a Colts team that seems to have lost its way. Indy's in first place, but that's more a testament to how bad the AFC South is. The Colts are 3-0 in the division and haven't won a game outside of it, and there's a ton of front office turmoil. That, to me, doesn't sound like a team that's ready to go into Charlotte in front of a raucous crowd and knock the home team from the ranks of the unbeaten.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 7-7
Season: 71-35
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)