To Puig Or Not to Puig

With the All-Star rosters set to be announced on Saturday, there's been a lot of talk about Dodgers phenom Yasiel Puig and whether or not he belongs on the National League team.  It's definitely an interesting discussion.  Puig's numbers are staggering and, having seen him play in person, I can say that his talent is ridiculous.  Those that think he should be on the NL roster definitely have a compelling argument.  But if I were NL manager Bruce Bochy, I'd lean towards not picking him.

I totally understand where both sides are coming from, and the points made by each camp are equally valid.  The whole point of the All-Star Game is to showcase all of Baseball's greats on the same stage.  If it's truly an exhibition to show off the game's best and brightest stars, then Yasiel Puig's inclusion would seem like a no-brainer.  People want to see Yasiel Puig.  There's no doubt about that. 

But the counterargument is that three weeks, as impressive as those three weeks might've been, isn't a large enough body of work.  Puig was only called up at the beginning of June.  He'll have been in the Majors for a grand total of five weeks when the teams are announced.  You can't convince me that a guy who's been in the Majors for five weeks is more deserving of an All-Star selection than somebody who's been out there every day since April.

There's no denying that Yasiel Puig is a singular talent.  He's most likely got a lot of All-Star Games in him, and he'll probably start next year in Minnesota.  But picking him for the sake of picking him wouldn't be fair to the plenty of other deserving candidates, of which there is no shortage, in the NL outfield.  If Puig is selected, who are you keeping home?  Carlos Gonzalez?  Carlos Gomez?  Michael Cuddyer?  Gerardo Parra (if any guy's more deserving of going to the All-Star Game than Gerardo Parra, I don't know who it is)?  Not to mention Andrew McCutchen, Domonic Brown, Jay Bruce, Hunter Pence, Dexter Fowler, Ryan Braun.  And you might end up getting your token Marlin or Cub in the outfield (although I think they'll both end up with a pitcher going).  All of this is, of course, assuming that Carlos Beltran, Justin Upton and Bryce Harper hold onto the starting spots.

Chances are at least two or three of those outfielders I mentioned will be left off the roster.  For Puig to go, he'd have to take a spot from another.  That just doesn't seem right.  Not with the type of year that CarGo and Gomez and Parra, among others, have had.  Unlike Mike Trout (who was called up in the beginning of May) last year, Puig's most likely not getting selected on the player ballot, which means the selection is completely up to Bochy.  And before all the Giants-Dodgers conspiracy theorists get going, keep in mind that this exact same debate took place with Stephen Strasburg in 2010.  He made his debut in June and the masses called for his selection, but he (correctly) wasn't named to the All-Star team.

Besides, Bochy's got enough to worry about.  He's got to choose a starting pitcher, and a lot of Mets fans are just assuming it's going to be Matt Harvey.  There are plenty of fine options, but in this situation, I agree.  Matt Harvey should start the All-Star Game.  He's plenty deserving, and he represents the home team.  The rotation projects out for him to start the Sunday before and, thus, ineligible to pitch.  However, Terry Collins has said he'll adjust the rotation if Harvey gets the nod.  That alone shows how important this is to the franchise.  The Mets aren't good.  Give their fans something to cheer about.

A situation that had a chance of snowballing in much the same way was that incredibly misguided online campaign for Mariano Rivera to start.  Fortunately, Mariano put an end to that before it got much of a chance to get off the ground.  He's not a starter, and he had no interest of symbolically being one just for a day.  His rationale is that it wouldn't have been fair to all of the starting pitchers on the American League roster to have a closer start the game.  And he was absolutely right.  Max Scherzer has earned the All-Star start.

Of course, there's a possibility Mariano Rivera won't pitch in the All-Star Game at all.  That's OK.  Just like it's OK if Yasiel Puig isn't on the National League roster.  If Matt Harvey doesn't start though, that would be wrong.  If this were any other year, I'd say "What's the big deal?", but this year is different.  The Mets are hosting the All-Star Game for the first time in 50 years and have a pitcher worthy of the starting nod.  Choosing a starting pitcher should be a very easy decision for Bruce Bochy.

Building Team USA

Seeing is they announced today that Penguins coach Dan Bylsma will be the head coach of Team USA during the Olympics, it certainly looks like the NHL will, in fact, shut down for two weeks so that the players can go to Russia.  The contract is all but signed.  All they have to do is dot the "I's" and cross the "T's."

Now we can get down to the important business of figuring out who's actually going to be on the 2014 U.S. Olympic hockey team.  Some of those decisions should be very easy.  Two of the three goalies are obvious.  The only question there is whether to start Ryan Miller or Jonathan Quick.  Although, with the way they've each played over the past two seasons, the answer to that question also sees fairly obvious.

Other obvious selections include some Vancouver holdovers like Conn Smythe Trophy winner Patrick Kane of the Blackhawks.  The Wild's Zach Parise scored the tying goal in the 2010 gold medal game.  Others who can't anticipate getting those two weeks in February off include Rangers captain Ryan Callahan, San Jose's Joe Pavelski, David Backes of the Blues and Toronto's Phil Kessel.  I would imagine the captain will probably come out of this group.

Some new blood should probably brush up on their Russian, too.  Because I don't see any way the Rangers' Derek Stepan and Chicago's Brandon Saad get left off the Olympic team.  There are also plenty of good American defensemen in the NHL.  The Kings have like four of them.  But there's also Jack Johnson in Columbus and Ryan McDonagh of the Rangers.  Both of them are locks.  Otherwise, the defense spots are pretty much open.

Obviously injuries will most likely come into play, and whoever's having a strong season at the time they pick the team will certainly have an edge.  But the way I see it, there are probably about 4-5 spots on the Olympic team that are currently available for defensemen and forwards to fight for.  Team USA is all set at goalie, with the three spots almost certainly going to Miller, Quick and the Red Wings' Jimmy Howard.

If it was me picking a team today, though, this is the squad I'd go with:

Goalies: Ryan Miller (BUF), Jimmy Howard (DET), Jonathan Quick (LA)

Defensemen: Jack Johnson (CLB), Matt Greene (LA), Alec Martinez (LA), Ryan Suter (MIN), Ryan McDonagh (NYR), Keith Yandle (PHO), John Carlson (WSH)

Forwards: Bobby Ryan (ANA), Brandon Saad (CHI), Patrick Kane (CHI), Zach Parise (MIN), Max Pacioretty (MTL), Ryan Callahan (NYR), Derek Stepan (NYR), Sean Couturier (PHI), Joe Pavelski (SJ), David Backes (STL), Phil Kessel (TOR), Chris Higgins (VAN), Ryan Kesler (VAN)

I picked one extra defenseman and one extra forward, just in case.  As for the team captain, it's gotta be somebody with the Olympic experience from Vancouver, but not necessarily somebody who's the captain of his NHL team.  I'm leaning towards Pavelski, with Backes and Parise as the assistant captains.  But really, it could easily be anybody from that group of forwards.

Anyway, there you have it.  Russia is going to be the prohibitive gold medal favorites, and the Americans are in Russia's group (along with Slovakia and Slovenia).  But no one saw silver in Vancouver coming.  And with the strength of this team lying in goal, I wouldn't be surprised to see another medal run by the U.S. in Sochi.  Provided, of course, that the ink dries on the deal between the NHL and the IOC.

Giants Mount Rushmore

I forget if it was ESPN or NFL Network that I was watching the other day, but there was an ad telling fans to go online and vote for who should be on their team's "Mount Rushmore."  There's going to be some sort of special in August where all 32 Mount Rushmores are revealed.

For a number of franchises this will be an almost impossible task.  How do you pick only four Chicago Bears or Green Bay Packers or Pittsburgh Steelers?  Likewise, do teams like the Jaguars and Texans even have four guys that would be worthy?  Pretty much everybody has one or two fairly obvious selections, but beyond them, narrowing it down is really difficult.  Nevertheless, I'm going to give it a try with my favorite team, the New York Football Giants.

As I said, each team has its obvious choices.  For the Giants, that obvious choice is Lawrence Taylor.  He isn't just the greatest player in franchise history, he's arguably the greatest outside linebacker in NFL history.  LT revolutionized his position and was the backbone of that Giants defense that led the team to two Super Bowl wins in a five-year span.  He was the MVP in 1986, the last defensive player to receive the honor.  Sure, he's had some issues in his personal life.  But that's not relevant here.  Lawrence Taylor's impact on the New York Giants is immeasurable.  He isn't just near the top when it comes to all-time great Giants.  He's AT the top.

The Giants have won the Super Bowl four times.  LT and Co. were responsible for two of them.  If I had to pick one player most responsible for the other two, it's gotta be Eli Manning.  Two fourth-quarter Super Bowl comebacks.  Two Super Bowl MVP awards.  That alone is enough to earn a place right at the top of the franchise pantheon.  But when his career is done, Eli's going to end up first or second in franchise history in pretty much every major passing category.  His place in Giants annals is already secure.  Eli belongs on Mount Rushmore.

Those two were the easy ones.  Now it gets a little harder.  There have been so many great players in Giants history that are worthy of consideration.  There's Phil Simms, the Giants' all-time greatest quarterback before Eli showed up.  And how about the other quarterbacks, Charlie Conerly and Y.A. Tittle?  Sam Huff, the great middle linebacker from the 50s.  Hall of Famer Harry Carson, LT's partner in crime on that defense.  Defense.  That's been the Giants' bread-and-butter through the years.  It was that defense that gave us Michael Strahan, before he turned into Regis.  If we're including coaches in the mix (and I don't know why not), Bill Parcells has to be in the discussion, too.  While we're at it, longtime owner Wellington Mara is one of the most influential owners in NFL history (the game ball is called "The Duke," which was Mara's nickname).

My third selection, though is perhaps the franchise's first great player.  In the days when playing both ways was still the norm, Hein played center and linebacker.  And he never missed a game in his 15-year career!  Hein was All-NFL every year from 1933-40 and was the MVP in 1938 (still the only offensive lineman ever to be named MVP).  He was the best player on the Giants' first two World Championship teams (1934, 1938), and they lost the Championship Game five other times during that era.  A member of the NFL's 50th Anniversary and 75th Anniversary All-Time Teams, he was part of the inaugural class of the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1963.

So that's three.  Who gets the last spot?  Well, the Giants' four championships can be divided into four distinct eras.  In the 1930s, Mel Hein was their best player.  The best player on the Super Bowl XXI and XXV winners was Lawrence Taylor.  Eli Manning is the face of the current team.  The fourth great championship era was the mid-1950s.  That team's star?  Frank Gifford.

Today, there are probably more people that know Frank Gifford for Monday Night Football or as Kathie Lee Gifford's husband.  But he was a Hall of Fame football player first.  Gifford played three different positions during his career, but was best known as a halfback.  His best season was probably 1956, when he was named MVP and the Giants beat the Bears for the championship.  After Chuck Bednarik famously almost killed him in 1960, Gifford returned as a receiver in 1962, and earned another Pro Bowl selection.  In 1977, he got his bust in Canton.

There you have it.  My Mount Rushmore consists of the greatest player from each of the four great eras in Giants history.  Of all the great players in franchise history, Mel Hein, Frank Gifford, Lawrence Taylor and Eli Manning stand out as the best--and the most deserving of the honor.

Another Fortnight Is Upon Us

Well, Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova have sure done their best to make us talk about Wimbledon a little early this year, haven't they?  As if there wasn't already enough to talk about the second the men's seed list was released and we saw that "5" next to Nadal's name.  Even though that's his current ranking, Wimbledon organizers are able to use their discretion when it comes to moving a men's player up or down a seed line based on his previous grass court success.  Since he's a two-time Wimbledon champion, everyone figured they'd flip-flop Nadal and No. 4 David Ferrer.  Evidently, we were all wrong.

The obvious impact of Nadal being seeded fifth rather than fourth is huge.  Instead of the Big Four all being separated and it not being possibly for any of them to face any of the others until the semifinals, it created the possibility that Djokovic, Murray or Federer could end up drawing Nadal in the quarters.  Likewise, it created the potential situation where somebody would theoretically have to beat each of the other three to win the title, while one would get lucky and not face any of the others until the final.  And it really screwed everybody else who ended up in the Nadal quarter, since having to go through all four of them is next to impossible, yet somebody theoretically might have to do it in order to win Wimbledon.

As it turns out, Djokovic was the lucky one and Federer (of course) drew the short straw.  In order to defend his title, Roger will have to beat his biggest rival, the hometown favorite who knocked him off for Olympic gold on Centre Court a year ago, and the world No. 1.  This is, by far, the toughest draw Roger Federer has faced at a Grand Slam in years.  But if he does somehow manage to get through it, even if he loses to Djokovic in the final, all questions about his enduring greatness will be permanently answered.  Djokovic, meanwhile, avoids all three of them until the final.  It's not like it would've been going out on a limb to say he'd make the final anyway, but, with this draw, if he's not playing on Championship Sunday, I'll be shocked.

I'm not saying Djokovic is going to cruise into the final.  He's got a quarterfinal against Thomas Berdych, a former finalist here, or Richard Gasquet, then it's Ferrer or Juan Martin Del Potro in the semis.  Del Potro would be a much tougher match.  We saw how great he can be when he beat Nadal and Federer on consecutive days to win the 2009 US Open, but that greatness has been kind of put on hold by injuries.  I've always thought Del Potro's game translates well to Wimbledon, though.  Can he take advantage of the Ferrer matchup and break through to reach the semis?

The third "quarter" of the draw is where Federer, Nadal, and nine of the past 10 Wimbledon titles reside.  Mr. 70-68 John Isner is there, as well.  He's one of those unlucky guys I talked about before.  Isner has the game to make a run here, but not if he has to beat Nadal, then Federer, then Murray, then Djokovic.  The Andy Murray that's showing up at Wimbledon as the No. 2 seed this year is nowhere close to the Andy Murray that came to Wimbledon in 2012.  This version is a guy who finally got the monkey off the back and made the final last year, then won the Olympic gold medal, then captured his first Grand Slam title at the US Open.  Oh yeah, he's also ranked No. 2.  The pressure on him is always going to be ridiculous, but Andy Murray can handle it.  I think the time has never been better for him to send a nation into euphoria by winning Wimbledon.

So who wins that Federer-Nadal matchup and plays Murray in the semis?  Grass is by far Roger Federer's best surface, and this is where we're most likely to see Vintage Roger.  But he's also lost two Wimbledon finals to Nadal, and Rafa certainly has his number.  Should they meet in the quarters, it has a chance to be epic.  Like that Sampras-Agassi quarter at the US Open in 2001.  I was rooting for Agassi in that one.  In this one, I'll be rooting for Federer, and that's who my heart's saying to pick.  But my head is saying Nadal.  Sadly, I've got to listen to my head.  There will be some vindication, though, when Murray beats Nadal in the semis. 

My other semi is a rematch of the Olympic bronze medal match between Djokovic and Del Potro.  The Argentine got the better of Nole on that day, but Djokovic won't be coming off a loss to Murray this time.  Instead, he'll play Murray in the next round, after he gets revenge on Del Po.  The result against Murray will be the same, though.  He sat out the French Open so that he'd be in shape for Wimbledon.  I think it pays off.  Britain erupts as Andy Murray ends the 77-year championship drought.

On the women's side, the top two sure haven't been playing nice in the media.  It could set up for a great final, though.  Serena's resurgence started with a title here last year, then she won on Centre Court again a month later, defeating Maria for the gold medal.  Serena currently holds three of the four Grand Slam trophies, with her victory in Paris coming over defending champion Sharapova.  They're far-and-away the two clear favorites.

In the semis, Serena could take on the woman she met in last year's final--Agnieszka Radwanska.  I picked Radwanska to win the French.  That didn't work out too well for me.  But I don't see anybody stopping her path to the semifinals here.  Her draw shapes up very nicely before a potential semifinal with Serena, which would likely go similarly to last year's final.

Frankly, I don't really see much separating Sharapova, Azarenka and the semis, either.  Azarenka's never made the final here, but Wimbledon is where she had her Grand Slam semifinal breakthrough in 2011, and she got back to the semis last year.  Vika also won the bronze in singles and the gold in mixed doubles at the Olympics last year.  She could face 2011 champion Petra Kvitova in the quarters, but they're both far different players than when Kvitova beat her in the semis en route to that title.  Sharapova's toughest challenge prior to the semis could come from former finalist Marion Bartoli in the round of 16, but it'll be a shock if Maria's eliminated before the semifinals.

It's in the semis where I see Maria losing, though, ruining our dream final.  I don't know why I like Azarenka in that match.  They played in the semis of the French and Sharapova won 6-4 in the third, and grass is arguably Maria's best surface.  Even still, I just have a feeling Azarenka beats her and moves into the final against Serena.  Vika almost beat Serena in the US Open final last year, and she's the only other reigning Grand Slam champion in the field.  But Wimbledon is where the Williams power game is at its most dominant.  I don't see that changing now, with Serena at the absolute top of her game.  History's also on her side.  Serena's looking for her sixth Wimbledon title, and it would be the third time she won in back-to-back years (2002-03, 2009-10, 2012-13).

Still the Greatest

This year's Wimbledon is a significant one.  It's the 10th anniversary of Roger Federer's first of five straight victories at the All-England club, which was also the first of his record 17 Grand Slam titles.  In 2003, a legend was born.  Some may argue that he's no longer the elite player he once was, but there's no debate that Roger Federer is the Greatest of All-Time.

Roger's record speaks for itself.  Five consecutive Wimbledon wins AND five consecutive US Open wins (which overlapped for four years).  A career Grand Slam that was made complete with that incredible and ultra-satisfying French Open victory in 2009.  More weeks at No. 1 than anyone in history.  His remarkable streaks of 10 straight Grand Slam finals (and another one of eight right after that), 23 straight semis and 36 straight quarters (which is still active).  Think about that last one for a second, nine straight years without missing the quarterfinals of a Grand Slam tournament!

I point to that as my argument against anybody who wants to talk about Roger's "decline."  Is he the same player he once was?  Definitely not.  But is he anywhere close to done?  The answer to that question is also a resounding "No!"   

And let's keep some perspective.  When compared to anyone other than Roger Federer circa 2004-09, the 2011-13 version of Roger Federer is still pretty damn good.  He's ranked third in the world, is still a contender at every Grand Slam, and rarely loses to anyone outside the Top 10.  I'm pretty sure anybody would take that.  The problem is, Roger Federer is always compared to his own lofty standards.  He's a victim of his own success. 

If Roger's proved anything over the past couple years it's that (a) he's mortal and (b) what he did from 2004-09 was simply extraordinary.  Much like his friend Tiger Woods, Roger in his prime was doing things that are simply unattainable for everyone else.  It's not fair to expect anyone to live up to such a high standard for so long.  We took Roger Federer winning Grand Slams for granted.  Once it stopped happening regularly, we gained even more of an appreciation for how difficult it is to win one Grand Slam, let alone 17!  And that's why it was so wonderful to see him finally win the French Open in 2009.  And when he got back to the summit last year at Wimbledon.

Then there are the other two guys who make up the Big Three: Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal.  You can point to them as two more, very real reasons why Roger Federer isn't dominating Grand Slam tennis the way he used to.  When Roger was Roger, there was him, then there was everybody else.  Now you have three of the greatest players of all-time creating three of tennis's all-time great rivalries.  Federer's sustained greatness is the very reason why Djokovic and Nadal have become so great themselves.  In order to beat him, everybody else had to raise their game.  As a result, men's tennis has never been stronger.

It's no coincidence that there ascent corresponds to Federer's so-called "decline."  Roger would certainly have a few more Grand Slam trophies on his mantle if not for Nadal, who's beaten him in a final six! times.  Djokovic, meanwhile, is by far the best player in the sport right now.  You can add to that mix Andy Murray, the sleeping giant who was awakened in the Olympic gold medal match, when he denied Roger the only thing his career is lacking before going on to win the US Open.  The "Big Three" is now a "Big Four."  And let's not forget Federer's own personal kryptonite: Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, who's taken over for Murray as the "next big thing."

But heed this warning, underestimate Roger Federer at your own risk.  Some people thought is days of winning Grand Slams were over.  Entering last year's Wimbledon, it had been two-and-a-half years since he had, during which time he'd only made one Grand Slam final.  Not only did he win Wimbledon again, he used it as the launch pad for an amazing summer that saw him get back to No. 1, another thing that some had thought would never happen again.  So to say Roger's days of winning Grand Slams are behind him is a vast exaggeration.

And even if Wimbledon 2012 does end up being his last career Grand Slam title, so what?  Is that going to somehow diminish everything he's accomplished?  If Djokovic or Nadal (or both) eventually catches him for most Grand Slam titles, does that make his career any less spectacular?  Finally, is this "diminished" Roger Federer any less captivating to watch?

I'll never stop appreciating Roger Federer's greatness.  Or his understated professionalism.  He doesn't need to win another Grand Slam title to be my favorite tennis player.  No matter how much longer he decides to keep playing (my guess is he'll stick around until at least 2016 and take one last shot at that Olympic gold), Roger Federer's still going to be Roger Federer.  Even if that's a shell of the Roger Federer we see today, which is a shell of the Roger Federer we saw five years ago, that's OK. 

He's got nothing left to prove.  But knowing Roger, he'll still go out and prove something anyway, just to show he still can.  In fact, I've got a feeling that he'll go out the same way as the man he succeeded as the Greatest of All-Time.  In the final match of his career, Pete Sampras won the 2002 US Open.  The legends always seem capable of conjuring up one last moment of glory.  Although, Roger Federer's is still a long way away.  He's got plenty more moments in him.

Early All-Star Picks

I know we've still got almost a month until the All-Star Game, but that doesn't mean it's too early to start thinking about who's going to make the trip to Citi Field.  We know Robinson Cano and David Wright will be.  Otherwise, they wouldn't have been named the Home Run Derby captains.  There are plenty of selections that are abundantly obvious based on their play so far this season, as well.

There's also the heated battles for starting spots.  Buster Posey and Yadier Molina are the top two vote-getters in the National League.  Problem is they're both catchers.  Hometown favorite Wright currently trails Pablo Sandoval in NL third base voting, which might become a moot point because Panda's currently on the DL.  (I, for one, think Wright should start.  So should Matt Harvey.)  Same thing with Troy Tulowitzki, who's running away with NL shortstop voting, but is likely going to miss the game due to injury.

And the competition just to make the team at some positions is going to be intense.  There are five American League third basemen that have legitimate All-Star numbers, but they're not all going to go.  NL shortstop's another one.  Replacing Tulo on the roster won't be a problem.  And don't get me started on the quality of starting pitching around Baseball.  This year more than ever, there are going to be some very difficult snubs on the pitching front.

For the sake of these picks, I'm using the current vote leaders in both leagues.  Those, obviously, will inevitably change.  They always do once the ballpark voting closes and people use up all of their online votes after the final ballot update comes out.  (Sidebar: Surprisingly great to see four Orioles.  Not sure if that's Orioles fans coming out or fans in general voting on merit, but it really doesn't matter.  No complaints about any of the four leading.)

Also, no injury replacements.  I'm not picking an extra NL shortstop to take Tulo's roster spot.  And since there's no possible way for us to project who'll be starting on that Sunday, no replacement pitchers either.  So, with that, here we go...

AMERICAN LEAGUE
C: *Joe Mauer, Twins; Carlos Santana, Indians; Jason Castro, Astros
1B: *Chris Davis, Orioles; Prince Fielder, Tigers
2B: *Robinson Cano, Yankees; Dustin Pedroia, Red Sox
SS: *J.J. Hardy, Orioles; Jhonny Peralta, Tigers
3B: *Miguel Cabrera, Tigers; Manny Machado, Orioles; Adrian Beltre, Rangers
OF: *Adam Jones, Orioles; *Nick Markakis, Orioles; *Mike Trout, Angels; Alex Rios, White Sox; Alex Gordon, Royals; Nelson Cruz, Rangers
DH: *David Ortiz, Red Sox; Edwin Encarnacion, Blue Jays
P: Jim Johnson, Orioles; Clay Buchholz, Red Sox; Justin Masterson, Indians; Max Scherzer, Tigers; Justin Verlander, Tigers; Mariano Rivera, Yankees; Grant Balfour, Athletics; Felix Hernandez, Mariners; Hisashi Iwaukma, Mariners; Alex Cobb, Rays; Matt Moore, Rays; Yu Darvish, Rangers; Joe Nathan, Rangers

NATIONAL LEAGUE
C: *Buster Posey, Giants; Yadier Molina, Cardinals
1B: *Joey Votto, Reds; Paul Goldschmidt, Diamondbacks
2B: *Brandon Phillips, Reds; Marco Scutaro, Giants
SS: *Troy Tulowitzki, Rockies; Jean Segura, Brewers; Everth Cabrera, Padres
3B: *Pablo Sandoval, Giants; David Wright, Mets
OF: *Justin Upton, Braves; *Carlos Beltran, Cardinals; *Bryce Harper, Nationals; Gerardo Parra, Diamondbacks; Jay Bruce, Reds; Carlos Gonzalez, Rockies; Ryan Braun, Brewers; Domonic Brown, Phillies; Hunter Pence, Giants
P: Patrick Corbin, Diamondbacks; Craig Kimbrel, Braves; Mike Minor, Braves; Kevin Gregg, Cubs; Aroldis Chapman, Reds; Clayton Kershaw, Dodgers; Jose Fernandez, Marlins; Matt Harvey, Mets; Cliff Lee, Phillies; Jason Grilli, Pirates; Lance Lynn, Cardinals; Adam Wainwright, Cardinals; Jordan Zimmermann, Nationals

Final Vote
AL: Daniel Nava (OF), Red Sox; Howie Kendrick (2B), Angels; Brett Gardner (OF), Yankees; Josh Donaldson (3B), Athletics; Evan Longoria (3B), Rays
NL: Freddie Freeman (1B), Braves; Dexter Fowler (OF), Rockies; Carlos Gomez (OF), Brewers; Andrew McCutchen (OF), Pirates; Matt Carpenter (2B), Cardinals

What to Do? Hopefully Not Overreact

The terrible injury to Rays pitcher Alex Cobb over the weekend has once again sparked Major League Baseball's second-favorite debate--whether pitchers need to have some extra sort of protection on the mound or not.  This isn't entirely surprising.  But doing something, whatever it is, just for the sake of doing something would be the wrong thing to do.  Sometimes accidents just happen.  Overreacting when they do isn't a solution.

I'm not saying it wasn't horrifying to see Cobb get hit.  It was equally horrifying when it happened to J.A. Happ earlier this season or Brandon McCarthy last season.  Frankly, it's a small miracle that, with the number of line drives regularly hit back through the middle, we don't see this happen more often.  You obviously never want to see something like that happen on a baseball diamond.  Red Sox pitcher Bryce Florie's career ended when he took a line drive off the face in a scene no one should have to see a few years ago.  The calls all went out then, too.  Common sense prevailed each time, though.

It's like the absurdity of those who said blocking the plate should be banned after Buster Posey's season-ending broken leg in 2011.  Was it horrible he got hurt?  Yes.  But nobody did anything wrong on the Posey play.  It was just one of those things.  And, fortunately, the drastic changes some wanted to make as a result fell on deaf ears.  I get what they're saying, but they're wrong.  Telling a catchers that they can't block the plate would've fundamentally changed the way the game is played.  You can't tell a guy to let the other team score without even attempting to get the out just because of the possibility he might get hurt on the play.  That's simply asinine.

Likewise, I've never been a fan of first and third base coaches wearing helmets.  That was a direct response to the tragic death of Rockies minor league coach Mike Coolbaugh during a game in late 2007.  Helmets were made mandatory the following year.  Again, I get the whole safety thing.  But I think it's unnecessary.  Mike Coolbaugh's death was a combination of freak circumstances that turned tragic.  He got hit in the neck.  A helmet wouldn't have protected him.

How much a helmet would actually protect a pitcher on these comebackers is also debatable.  Helmet or not, if the ball is hit hard enough, he's not going to have time to react.  Plain and simple.  Regardless, a helmet's not going to cover his face, so Florie's gruesome injury still would've happened even if he had a helmet or some other sort of lining in his hat.  Besides, depending on the place of impact, there's only so much a helmet can do anyway.  Just ask Juan Encarnacion, whose career ended when he was hit in the eye by a foul ball while on deck in 2007.

Various articles and reports about Cobb's injury were quick to point out that Happ's accident also occurred at Tropicana Field.  Other than the fact it's a freaky coincidence, how is that relevant?  It's not like the AstroTurf made the two line drives travel faster.  Suggesting that the venue is the cause is simply ludicrous.  It's just like the two perfect games in Seattle last season.  A coincidence.  Nothing more.

Some of the suggestions for what "needs to be done" are just as ridiculous.  After the McCarthy injury last year, Tim McCarver concluded it was time for Major League Baseball to start requiring pitchers to wear helmets.  In a career full if stupid comments, that one ranks right there near the top.  What would you like them to require, Tim?  The small helmets coaches wear?  Batting helmets?  Catcher's helmets?  Then there are my favorites, the "protective lining" people.  There are various designs and concepts for some sort of padded insert for players to put inside their hats.  This technology hasn't been invented and would need to pass a series of safety tests before MLB even thought about putting it on the field.  And who's to say how protective that would even be?

There's another element that's conveniently being forgotten in this discussion, too.  You need the approval of the player's union before you can require anything.  Especially something as big as this.  And there are plenty of pitchers who would say "Thanks, but No Thanks."  They know the risks, yet they choose to be pitchers anyway.  If given the choice, I'm sure there are some that would opt for some sort of extra protection.  But there are plenty more who would find it incredibly uncomfortable.

Mark Mulder and Doug Glanville debated this on "Baseball Tonight" on Saturday.  Getting the former pitcher's perspective was important, and Mulder proved to be the voice of reason.  He correctly pointed out that there's very little that can be done right now. 

That I think is the most important thing to take away.  This is a hot-button issue for a lot of people.  But they aren't the ones who are actually out there on the field playing the game.  Player safety is a very important concern.  But doing something for the sake of doing it would defeat the purpose.  It would be counterproductive.  And, as trite as it might make me sound, player comfort should trump player safety in this situation.

It's probably inevitable that they'll come up with something that works and make it mandatory.  But now isn't that time.  We're probably years away from that.  As unfortunate as these injuries are, they're a part of the game.  And rushing some sort of protective headgear into the fold isn't going to change that.

Two-for-One Predictions

Saturday marks the start of two major sports tournaments.  One marks the end of the season, while the other is a tune-up for a much more significant event next year.  I'm, of course, talking about the College World Series and the FIFA Confederations Cup.  Since both are important, today's blog is going to be a two-for-one special.  Predictions for both.

Let's start in Omaha, where we don't have a party-crashing feel-good story like Stony Brook this year.  Well, we kinda do in Indiana, but they were a No. 1 seed so their presence isn't a total surprise.  For the most part, these are all teams that you might've expected to make it to Omaha.  Regional No. 1 and 2 seeds all.  Sure, there are only three of the eight national seeds remaining, but I, for one, don't think that can be used as an argument that this is a "weak" field, especially since NC State, UCLA and Louisville were probably the No. 9, 10 and 11 national seeds (and Indiana might've been the 12).

Top overall seed North Carolina was the last team to advance, but they're still the best team there.  They take on rival NC State, which is making its first College World Series appearance in 45 years.  The other game in this bracket is a yummy matchup between UCLA and LSU.  UCLA's a very good team, but I'd be very surprised to see the semifinal be anything other than North Carolina-LSU.  The Tar Heels are the No. 1 overall seed for a reason, though.  I expect to see them in the championship series.

The other bracket gives us one last moment in the sun for the original Big East, as Louisville plays Indiana.  Oregon State meets Mississippi State in the other game.  I've though Indiana was underrated and unheralded all year, so I'm so happy to see them in Omaha.  The same could probably be said about Louisville, as well, and the Cardinals certainly earned their spot with that sweep of No. 2 overall seed Vanderbilt.  The winner of this bracket probably comes out of that Oregon State-Mississippi State matchup, though.  In fact, I think those two meet again in the semifinal, with Mississippi State winning to earn a matchup with North Carolina.

North Carolina and Oregon State played in the championship series in back-to-back years a couple years ago, with Oregon State winning the national title both times.  So, you know North Carolina doesn't want to see that matchup again.  Should it be Mississippi State, that's much more favorable.  And if it is, I think North Carolina wins its first National Championship (and the first for the ACC since Wake Forest in 1955).

If the College World Series is anything like the rest of the NCAA Tournament, it should be pretty entertaining.  Another tournament that should be pretty entertaining is the FIFA Confederations Cup, which is Brazil's dress rehearsal for next year's World Cup.  This one's much smaller.  Only eight teams.  Done in two weeks.  But when two of those teams are Brazil and Spain, you know you're going to see some quality soccer.

My only problem with the Confederations Cup is that the champions of Oceania and Africa are usually weaker than the other teams in the field.  But with the two teams from Europe and the two from South America automatically split up, you still ended up with a strong group and a weak group.  The strong group is Group A, which features the only two teams that have already qualified for the World Cup (Brazil and Japan), as well as two that will fairly soon (Italy and Mexico).

Brazil is the defending Confederations Cup champions, and the pressure of hosting won't be anywhere near as intense as it will be next year (or in the 2016 Olympics, which Brazil has somehow never won).  I'm inclined to say Italy is the favorite for that second spot, but it wouldn't completely surprise me to see Japan sneak in there.  Not too sure about Mexico.  They haven't looked great in CONCACAF World Cup qualifying, and the fact that they can't score is obviously a problem.  Mexico won't have an issue getting back to Brazil next summer.  But getting out of the group stage this summer might be too much to ask.

Group B is significantly weaker.  You have Spain, which has won everything is sight over the last couple years, and Copa America winner Uruguay, along with Nigeria and Tahiti, the only team in the tournament that definitely can't qualify for the World Cup.  Spain hasn't won every tournament its played in since Euro 2008.  They lost to the United States in that remarkable upset in the semifinals of this tournament four years ago.  So, if you wanted to give the best team in the world any extra motivation heading into a major tournament, there you go.  Uruguay was a World Cup semifinalist in South Africa, the only South American team to get that far, and backed it up by winning Copa America.  They might be the second-best team in the entire tournament.

I've got the all-South American semifinal between Brazil and Uruguay, as well as the Euro 2012 final rematch between Spain and Italy.  (Italy qualified for the Confederations Cup as the "European champion" because Spain was already in for winning the World Cup.)  Uruguay beat Brazil in Rio in the 1950 World Cup Final.  While this would be a semifinal in, while still major, a less significant tournament, I see the same result.  If last year's Euro final is any indication, Spain shouldn't have a problem with Italy.  And in the final, which will be a rematch between Spain and Uruguay, Spain makes up for the disappointment of losing to the U.S. four years ago, makes it three major championships in a row, and cements itself as an even bigger favorite come next summer.

Extra Innings, Extra Fun

Is it just me, or has there been an exorbitant number of extra-inning games in the Majors this year?  And I'm not talking about your run-of-the-mill 10- or 11-inning matchups, either.  No.  It seems like at least once every couple of days there's a game that goes deep into extras, sometimes more.  The number of dueling deep extra-inning games this season has been remarkable.

Last week you had that crazy game between the White Sox and Mariners that was 0-0 until Chicago put up a five-spot in the top of the 14th, only to see Seattle tie it on Kyle Seager's two-out grand slam in the bottom half of the inning.  That one only went 16, though, with the White Sox winning 7-5.  Then came the fun of Saturday.  The Blue Jays beat the Rangers in 18, but that wasn't even the longest game of the day!  That would be the 20 innings played by the Marlins and Mets.  Baseball that was so bad, you couldn't look away. 

I'm not sure if it was good pitching, terrible hitting, or a combination of both, but two bad teams playing for more than six hours was must-see TV.  This game was so long that it started three hours before the Yankees and Mariners in Seattle, yet that one ended first.  It's a good thing they decided not to play a doubleheader (officially at least) after Friday's rainout.  Even more remarkably, this was the second time this season the Mets and Marlins hooked up for a game that went 15 innings or more.  Matt Harvey and Jose Fernandez started both games, marking the first time since 1884 that's happened.  And if a 20-inning, 2-1 game on Saturday wasn't enough, they played 10 on Sunday.  30 innings in two days.

Not to be outdone, today we had a 14-inning game between the Reds and Cubs at Wrigley and an 18-inning contest between the Yankees and A's in Oakland.  Fortunately for those of us on the East Coast, that game was a 12:35 p.m. start in California, meaning it still ended earlier than a normal 7:00 game, although not by much.  The same can't be said for Oakland's first 18-inning game this season.  They played 19 against the Angels on April 29-30, and that ended at like 5:30 in the morning Eastern time.  Yes, that's right.  The A's have one-up on the Mets and Marlins.  They're the first American League team to play two 18-inning games in the same season since the 1971 Senators.  (Yes, it was so long ago, the Senators still existed.)

Even the NHL has gotten into the act.  The Blackhawks and Bruins played two full games last night.  It was the longest game of this season's playoffs, and the fifth-longest Stanley Cup Final game in history.

Jim Caple talked about this in his column on ESPN.com today, and I have to say I agree with him.  When games get that long, they really get fun.  He absolutely right.  When a nine-inning game takes four-and-a-half hours because of the endless pitching changes and at-bats that take forever, it's excruciating.  But long extra-inning games are some of the most memorable ones.  (Would anybody be talking about a 2-1 game between two of the worst teams in baseball if it hadn't lasted 20 innings?)

Remember Robin Ventura's grand slam single in the 15th inning in Game 5 of the 1999 NLCS?  Or that incredible Yankees-Red Sox game (the Derek Jeter diving into the stands game) in 2004?  What about that Astros-Braves game in the 2005 NL Division Series that went 18 innings and Roger Clemens pinch hit because Houston was out of position players?  Then, of course, there's the Mets and the Astros in that classic Game 6 of the 1986 NLCS, a 16-inning, pennant-clinching Mets win.  And lest we forget the 2008 All-Star Game? 

It's not just in the Majors either.  One of the most well-known games in the history of professional baseball was the 33-inning game between the Rochester Red Wings and Pawtucket Red Sox in 1982.  People still talk about that one 30 years later!  I remember a couple years ago in the NCAA Tournament, Texas and Ohio State played one that took like 22-23 innings, and the Texas closer threw 10 innings of relief!  Last year in a conference tournament (I think it was the Southern Conference), the first game of the night session lasted 20-something innings and ended at like 1:30 in the morning, resulting in the following game getting underway at roughly 2 a.m.!  The longest game I've ever attended in person was a 16-inning softball game that I still remember pretty vividly.

One of the things that I like so much about extra-inning games is watching managers try to figure out their pitching.  That's why extra-inning National League games are better.  The pitcher hitting adds a complete other element to factor in.  Double switches with guys you don't really want to take out of the game, just to buy another inning for the reliever.  Starting pitchers pinch-hitting and pinch-running because you're out of bench players.  Position players pitching for the same reason.  Remember that Mets-Cardinals game that went 20 innings a couple years ago?  St. Louis utility infielder Jeff Mather took the loss and Kyle Lohse ended the game in left field.

For the most part, American League teams don't have to worry about running out of position players in long extra-inning games.  Sure, the bench might run thin and you might not be able to avoid a lefty-lefty matchup in the 16th, but the DH makes running out of position players far less likely.  It's still possible, but uncommon.  Of course, the DH also creates other fun situations in the AL.  Like last year when the Orioles were playing the Red Sox, ran out of pitchers and put DH Chris Davis on the mound.  The Red Sox did the same thing with Darnell McDonald (who was only DHing because he had pinch-run for David Ortiz).  That was the first time since 1925 that a game ended with two position players on the mound, although it was Hall of Famers Ty Cobb and George Sisler in the second game of a season-ending doubleheader that day.

You have the unlikeliest of heroes, the strangest of situations, the most memorable of moments in long extra-inning games.  Baseball doesn't have a clock.  They play until someone wins.  If it takes 20 innings so be it.  Because, after all, those are ultimately the games everybody remembers the most.

Beantown vs. Chi-Town

I'm not surprised to see either the Bruins or the Blackhawks in the Stanley Cup Final.  What I am surprised about, though, is how quickly the two Conference Finals ended.  Pittsburgh was the odds-on favorite to hoist the Cup, yet Tuukka Rask gave up just two goals in five games against that offense.  Defense is definitely an advantage the Bruins have over the Penguins, and it's one of the reasons why I thought they could win that series.  But Rask was unreal.  He's playing the way Jonathan Quick played while winning the Conn Smythe Trophy last year.  The Bruins have only lost once since that miracle comeback in Game 7 against Toronto.  That was a month ago.

The Blackhawks, meanwhile, were left for dead by some after the fell behind 3-1 against their archrival Red Wings.  Since then, Chicago has proven why it won the President's Trophy, going 7-1 in its last eight games.  Yes, the Kings won a game in the Western Final.  And three of the four Blackhawks wins were one-goal games, including the double-overtime Game 5.  But it seemed more one-sided than that.  I never thought the Kings were going to win throughout that entire series.

And so we're left with two of the three best teams in the league throughout the season playing for the Cup.  I don't know if it's a result of the short season or because the Bruins and Blackhawks really are just that much above everybody else, but you don't often get the two best teams in the Final.  Take last season.  The Devils were the No. 6 seed in the East and had home ice against the Kings.  Not so this year, though.  The Blackhawks have had realistic Cup dreams ever since they started the season on a 24-game point streak, and the Bruins were looking to make up for last season's early exit.  Now they're the two left standing, which should make for a great Final.

This series is going to have an old-time feel, and not just because it's two of the Original Six.  Boston plays tough, physical defense and Rask has been by far the best player in the entire playoffs so far.  I've also been impressed with the Bruins' offense balance.  It's not just Lucic, Bergeron and Krejci.  Everyone's getting in on the act.  Well, everyone except for Jaromir Jagr.  Although, now that he's back in the Final for the first time in 21 years, he might be ready to go off.  That depth is the primary reason they completely outplayed the Rangers, and it certainly helped against the Penguins as well.  I'd expect it to be just as much of a factor in this matchup with Chicago.

Speaking of depth, the Blackhawks also have plenty to go around.  I'd argue that Chicago's best player, at least in the last two rounds, has been Brent Seabrook.  He's a defenseman, yet it seems like he scores all of the biggest goals.  Jonathan Toews was outstanding against LA, too.  But I think the Blackhawks' defense is incredibly underrated.  Sure, Corey Crawford hasn't been the dominant force his counterpart has been.  He has, however, been very good.  Crawford might have to be outstanding for Chicago to lift the Cup, though.

Boston's defense is going to make life just as hard for Patrick Kane and Co. as it did for Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin.  Even if Chicago is able to break through that line, Rask is like a brick wall in net.  If anybody can get to him, though, I think its the Blackhawks.  They're willing to mix it up if they need to, which could make Brian Bickell an important figure in this series.  When the Bruins got physical in the East Final, the Penguins cowered into a corner.  That's not going to happen against Chicago.

Chicago doesn't play that finesse game Pittsburgh does.  The Blackhawks can play that physical game and still figure out a way to score, which is kind of the same things the Bruins do in a slightly different way.  If this becomes a series of grind-it-out 1-0 and 2-1 games, I think it's advantage Boston.  I'm not saying the Blackhawks can't win if the games are low-scoring.  They just need Crawford to be as good as, if not better than, Rask in those games.  However, if Chicago's skaters are able to find open ice and create things, this could be fairly high-scoring.  The Bruins are plenty capable of scoring goals, but that's not their style of play.  If we see 4-3 games, those will probably be Blackhawk victories.  My guess is there'll be some combination of both.  Whichever style wins out could help decide the series.

For the last two days, I've been saying to myself and anybody I've talked hockey with that I think the Blackhawks are going to win.  They've been the best team in the NHL all season, and they're virtually unbeatable at home.  Even though most of what I've written here is praising Boston and making it look like Chicago doesn't have a chance, I think that home ice thing could be the X-factor.  The Blackhawks have only lost once at home this playoff year.  As a result, I'm sticking with my original pick.  I see this series going seven, which is why I like Chicago.  Although, the Bruins did win a Game 7 on the road in Vancouver two years ago.  Regardless, I'm going Blackhawks in seven.

Two Originals

We've got our first All-Original Six Stanley Cup Final since 1979.  It's hard to believe, yet it feels so right.  The Original Six are the heart of hockey.  The fabric of the league.  Sure, every sport has its "old-school" teams that date back to the founding of the league, but there's something different about the Original Six.  The Blackhawks, Bruins, Canadiens, Maple Leafs, Rangers and Red Wings ARE the NHL.

These six franchises will forever be intertwined.  For the most part, all those kids growing up skating on frozen Canadian ponds want to play for one of the six.  Every legendary player in NHL history wore the sweater of at least one Original Six team, and it's still a shock when one of them doesn't make the playoffs (even though this year was the first time since 1996 that all six did).  They're the ones in the big cities.  With the rich histories.  And the rabid fan bases.  And the cool logos (all of which have been pretty much the same for many, many years).  Even the buildings are legendary!

Of course, the Original Six were the only teams in the NHL for 25 years.  From 1942-67, they played 70 games a year against each other, only to eliminate two teams.  Then there were three intense seven-game series for the Stanley Cup.  I'm not saying the NHL Expansion in 1967-68 was a bad thing.  But there's still something about a Canadiens-Leafs or Rangers-Bruins or Red Wings-Blackhawks game that's special.  Everybody knows it, too.  Even when they did that first expansion, they put all of the Original Six in one division and the six new teams in the other, resulting in the Blues reaching the Final in their first three years of existence.

Expansion was something inevitable in the NHL, and it, of course was good for the league.  They couldn't keep the game limited to six cities, just like they couldn't limit the talent pool to just 120 players.  Not with the amount of fans across the continent and the quality of players around the world.  But seeing any game involving two of the Original Six gives you that feeling of nostalgia.

That's also why it's so fun to see the Original Six do well.  The Canadiens have more Stanley Cups than anybody.  But most of those came when they were dominating the other five.  They haven't won in 20 years, which is the last win by any Canadian team.  How crazy will people go when the NHL's landmark franchise finally hoists the most famous trophy in sports again?  It'll probably only be matched by the delirium in Toronto when the Leafs finally win again.  The team in the largest city in the country that invented the sport hasn't even been to the Final since 1967, the last pre-expansion season!

I'll never forget June 14, 1994.  It's crazy to think that it was almost 20 years ago.  Same thing with Blackhawks fans when they won three years ago, and Bruins fans when they snapped their 30-year drought the following season.  I can only imagine what it'll be like for Cubs fans if and when they win the World Series again, but I would figure it'll be something like what Red Sox fans experienced a decade ago.  Baseball has its iconic franchises.  So does hockey.  Six of them.  But the NHL's sextet aren't known most for their ineptitude.  They're immediately thought of as a group, and it thinking of them brings people back to a simpler time.

They're killing the Red Wings-Blackhawks rivalry with next year's realignment, but they're also creating a division that features two-thirds of the Original Six.  That's why we've got to enjoy this Final while we can.  Sure, it hasn't happened in 34 years, so we've got the novelty element of it, but we also know it's possible that we might have to wait that long for it to happen again.  Unless they move Detroit back to the West or change the playoff format, the only way to have an All-Original Six Final starting next season would be to have the Blackhawks win the West.

While I like the idea of the Original Six division, my biggest problem with next year's realignment is exactly that.  The Blackhawks are going to be all alone in the West.  Sure, they've developed new rivalries with teams like St. Louis, but we're not going to have Blackhawks-Red Wings anymore.  Just like we won't have Syracuse-UConn anymore.  Both seem wrong.

But there's something right about this year's Final.  It's almost enough to make us all forget that this season started three and a half months late because of yet another ridiculous lockout.  Yet we did have hockey.  And we ended up with a classic, old school matchup for the Cup.  I can't wait.

More to the Story

There's still going to be a lot more that comes out from the Biogenesis scandal.  I'm having trouble deciding where I come down on this, too.  If the players mentioned actually did everything they supposedly did, suspensions are more than warranted.  But there's so much more to the story.  I suspect we don't even know the half of it.

For starters, nobody has been suspended yet.  If suspensions do happen, we're not going to hear about them for a long time.  First, the Commissioner needs to decide how long the suspensions will be, then the players will get a chance to appeal.  It's only after the appeals are exhausted and the player begins serving it that a suspension is made public.  So, basically, the earliest any suspensions would start would likely be mid-August, probably later.  And that doesn't even take into account the inevitable legal challenges that would ensue if players are indeed suspended without ever having failed a test, which the CBA expressly states the Commissioner can't do.

But of course, newspapers in their rush to judgment and their need to publish sensational headlines, are reporting (incorrectly) that suspensions have been doled out.  Here in New York, the Daily News absolutely loved this!  They had as the front page the other day "A-ROD TO BE SUSPENDED 100 GAMES."  Of course, it's also well-known in these parts that the Daily News hates A-Rod.  So, once the Biogenesis stuff broke and they had a chance to throw him further under the bus, they were of course going to take it and run with it, the complete story be damned!

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying A-Rod is innocent.  But I'm not going to automatically assume he's guilty either.  As easy as it might be to believe everyone on the list was doing something, it's not that simple.  We don't know why their names were mentioned in the Biogenesis records or what they received, if anything.  All we have is speculation and suspicion.  The American judicial system is based on the principle of innocent until proven guilty.  Why don't we utilize that same benefit of the doubt in the court of public opinion?

I get it.  A-Rod's unlikable, has a ridiculous contract, plays for the Yankees and has admitted to past steroid use.  But how come we aren't throwing any of the other 20 guys mentioned under the bus?  How about Ryan Braun, who already beat a 50-game suspension on a technicality?  He said that he was "vindicated" after he won his appeal, yet his name showed up too.  Why is Braun, for the most part, getting a pass?  Unlike A-Rod, he's actually failed a test.  Melky Cabrera was mentioned, too.  He, of course, served a very high-profile PED suspension while his team was in the midst of winning the World Series last season.  But you can't suspend him again if the stuff he got from Biogenesis is why he failed that test.  That's called double jeopardy.

Outside of the rush to judgment, which is a consequence of living in America in the social media age, my biggest problem with Biogenesis is Tony Bosch.  Just like Brian McNamee and Kirk Radomski and Jose Canseco before him, Bosch has shown his true colors.  My opinion of Bosch is about as low as it can possibly be.  In my eyes, he's not a "hero."  Just the opposite, actually.  Tony Bosch is the lowest of the low.

First, whether you want to believe him or not, you have to question his motives.  He tried to extort a significant amount of money out of Alex Rodriguez to help him fight MLB's lawsuit against him.  When A-Rod wouldn't pay, Bosch was suddenly willing to spill everything and the lawsuit magically went away.  You also have to wonder what Bosch's master plan was.  If, as he claims, he was providing these players with performance-enhancing drugs, why is he suddenly willing to sell them all out?  Is it purely selfish?  His clinic is closed and he needs to make a name for himself somehow, so why not?

There are plenty of holes in Bosch's credibility, just like there was in the whole Brian McNamee-soda can nonsense.  Outside of wanting to believe the worst in the players, I don't understand why so many people are so willing to take these guys at their word.  They haven't exactly proven to be fine, upstanding citizens.  Through all of this, I've always wondered this question: "If you're working with the guy, helping the guy cheat/break the law if you will, why are you keeping all this evidence lying around if your ultimate goal isn't to ultimately betray him years later when it's most convenient for you?"  Talk about questionable motives and unethical behavior.

Of all the guys who've been implicated as suppliers in these PED cases, the only one I have any ounce of respect for is Greg Anderson.  Anderson, of course, was involved in the BALCO scandal, which is what really started the ball rolling on all of this.  But rather than testify against Barry Bonds during Bonds' 2006 perjury trial, Anderson was willing to go to jail for contempt of court.  Even though it meant jail time for himself, Anderson was unwilling to implicate Bonds in any wrongdoing.

Bringing it back to Biogenesis, I'm not saying the players should get off scot-free.  There's a drug policy in place for a reason.  If they violated it, they deserve to suffer the penalties that are in place.  I'm not ready to rush to judgment, though.  This has the potential to be the largest PED scandal in sports history.  But let's let it play out first.  Because none of this is as black-and-white as anyone would like it to be.

One Down, Two to Go

Don't worry, I'm not going to ignore the news that came out about Major League Baseball today.  Not by a long shot.  That's way too significant to simply sweep under the rug.  But I want to wait a little bit to see what comes out of it.  Suspensions seem likely, but there's more to the story.  Besides, I already had today's topic planned before that story broke.

Gordon Gee "retired" as President of Ohio State today.  I put "retired" in quotes intentionally.  Because I'm not really sure how much choice he had in the matter.  The way I see it, you can call it anything you want.  The bottom line remains the same though.  Gordon Gee had to go and everyone knew it.  So whether it was completely his decision or he was in fact forced out (which is what I suspect), Ohio State did the right thing.  Something that Rutgers can learn from.

After Gee's latest round of idiotic comments, Ohio State's Board of Trustees said that he should reconsider what speaking engagements he accepts.  Or, I have another idea.  He could just stopped saying stupid crap.  Pretty much anytime Gee opens his mouth, he offends somebody.  And it's not like his comments came off-the-cuff in an isolated situation.  This man has made disparaging remarks about the intelligence of Southerners, Notre Dame, Catholics and the Little Sisters of the Poor (among others), and made light of the cash-for-tattoos scandal that got the football program placed on NCAA probation and cost Coach Jim Tressel his job.

When you have a school president repeatedly having to make awkward forced apologies, sincere or not, there's a problem.  And Gee always tried to play it off as a "poor attempt at humor."  Stick to the script, Gordon.  You should've learned after the first time that your jokes aren't funny.  I also loved it how the Ohio State Board tried to have his back yet distance themselves from him at the same time.  My favorite quote was the one where somebody said his comments were "not presidential in nature."  You think?

The bottom line is whenever Gordon Gee opened his mouth, he inserted his foot further and further.  He's done a lot of good things for Ohio State University, but none of that matters.  Because his comments, in addition to doing a number on his own reputation, were a bad reflection on the entire university.  As a result, Ohio State was left with virtually no choice.  As much good as Gordon Gee did for the university, there's no way he was going to save himself.  The public face of the University, what he was saying and doing in public didn't represent the values Ohio State prides itself on.  If they kept him on as president, the Board would've looked like (a) hypocrites or (b) incompetent morons.  I'm not sure which is worse.

Contrast that to our friends at Ohio State's soon-to-be Big Ten rival Rutgers.  Despite the firestorm that has surrounded new Athletic Director Julie Hermann since she was hired, she still has a job.  So does President Robert Barchi, who somehow survived the scandal that brought down men's basketball coach Mike Rice and former AD Tim Pernetti, only to how find himself embroiled in this.  Thanks to Barchi, Rutgers has become a national laughingstock.  Just when they should've been celebrating their newfound athletic relevance with their admission to the Big Ten.

Barchi and Hermann should follow Gee's lead and resign.  Neither one will, though.  Hermann's ego won't let her.  She's convinced herself that all of these accusations against her are unfounded, even though common sense dictates that with this much stuff out there, there has to be something to them.  Regardless, the search committee should be embarrassed by its lack of due diligence.  Especially with what happened with Mike Rice, they couldn't take the chance.  Yet they did.

But Barchi's role in all of this can't, and shouldn't, be ignored.  He should've been canned along with Rice and Pernetti, yet he remains President of Rutgers University.  He's even gotten a vote of confidence from Chris Christie.  Why?  Barchi's role in all of this is just as significant.  He didn't watch the video of Rice when it first came out, and now he backs Hermann despite the allegations against her.  I don't know if it's because he stubbornly doesn't want to admit Rutgers made the wrong choice, but any other school would've done the logical thing and told her "Thanks but No Thanks."  Not at Rutgers, though.  At Rutgers, that's just standard operating procedure.

The only way for Rutgers to save face is to part ways with both Barchi and Hermann.  Except it doesn't look like either one is going to go willingly.  So they need to step up, take a stand, and do the right thing.  Until they do, Rutgers will continue to be nationally known for all the wrong reasons.  Big Ten?  Try Big Joke.  And that's not going to change as long as Robert Barchi and Julie Hermann are still around. 

Rutgers only has one choice.  Just like Ohio State did.  The difference is a big one, though.  Ohio State had the balls to do it.  We're still waiting on Rutgers.

Two Months of Surprises And Disappointments

Now that we've hit June, it's a good time to assess the good and the bad of the 2013 baseball season so far.  There's been plenty of both, on the team-front and by individuals.

For starters, the Marlins and Astros are both really bad.  We could be looking at historically bad here.  I'm not even sure which team is worse.  It's not like it's a surprise with either, but I think we all underestimated how painful it is to watch them play.  Houston's manager doesn't even know the rules!

That brings me to another team whose start hasn't been the greatest...the umpires.  The Astros' illegal pitching change was just the tip of the iceberg.  Even with replay, they managed to botch a home run call in Cleveland.  Oakland's go-ahead homer was ruled a double on the field.  The umpires looked at the replay, showing that the ball was clearly well over the fence, but didn't change the call.  Completely inexcusable.

The Astros' opponent in that game with the pitching change that wasn't was the Angels, who sit in third place on the list of Most Disappointing Teams of 2013.  The Angels were one of the most disappointing teams in baseball last season, then added Josh Hamilton.  You figured with him coming on board and a full season of Mike Trout, the Angels would be much improved in 2013.  Wrong!  Other than Jered Weaver, their starting pitching's a mess, Hamilton's having a terrible year, and the Angels find themselves in third place.

But that's nothing compared to their City of Angels brethren.  The high-priced Dodgers were a chic World Series pick at the start of the year.  They had eight! starting pitchers on Opening Day, and their lineup, on paper at least, is one of the deepest in the game.  Yet they're a mess.  Sure they've had injuries, but talent-wise, this is not a last-place team.  Far from it.  Don Mattingly has been given a vote of confidence, but common sense has to dictate that he's on the hot seat.

There's one team that's been a bigger disappointment than the Dodgers, though...the Toronto Blue Jays.  All of us who jumped on the Blue Jays bandwagon after that monster trade with the Marlins in the offseason should've known better.  These are the same players that finished last in Miami last season.  Yet we all bought into the hype and thought the Blue Jays were ready to be contenders in the AL East.  Not so much.  Jose Reyes is on the DL, R.A. Dickey has crashed back down to Earth in the way most people thought he would, the old Mark Buerhle was left in Chicago, and Toronto's two best players are still Jose Bautista and Edwin Encarnacion.  J.P. Arencibia has been a nice surprise, but as a whole, the Blue Jays rank as baseball's biggest disappointment of the year so far.

One of the reasons so many people thought this was Toronto's chance is because those same people thought it would be a down year for the Yankees and Red Sox.  Yeah, about that...  If it's possible for the two traditional AL East powers to be pleasant surprises, that's certainly the case this season.  The Red Sox were supposedly rebuilding after finishing last in 2012.  Then former pitching coach John Farrell returned as manager and the Red Sox of old were back.  They look just as formidable as ever.

Injuries.  That was supposed to be what held the Yankees back this season.  They've got an All-Star team on the DL, and guys continued dropping like flies even after they came back.  Yet they've gotten contributions from unlikely players like Vernon Wells and Lyle Overbay and Travis Hafner, veteran castoffs that nobody wanted, and now have a different problem...trying to find a way to keep these guys in the lineup when everybody else comes back (Overbay played right field tonight).  The common thought was that if the Yankees were .500 at the All-Star Break, they'd be in good position.  They might be even better than that.  I think Mariano Rivera's name is already on the award for Comeback Player of Year, and Joe Girardi's Manager of the Year selection seems like it's just as much of a slam dunk.

Another surprise AL contender has a Red Sox connection of its own.  Terry Francona is now managing the Indians.  I don't want to give him all the credit, but it's safe to say he's a big reason why Cleveland is right there with the Tigers in the AL Central.  There's a lot of talent in Cleveland, and we all know Terry Francona can manage.  This is the combination of a good team and a good manager coming together.  I'm not sure they're still around in September, but in 2014 and 2015?  Definitely.

Finally, over in the National League is the biggest surprise team of them all.  As crazy as it sounds for a team that won the World Series two years ago and went back to the NLCS last season, I've been stunned by the success of the St. Louis Cardinals this season.  No matter what, they always seem to do it.  Chris Carpenter out for the year, whole new cast of characters, best record in the Majors.  It's truly a testament to the entire organization.  What the Cardinals are doing is working.

I didn't even get a chance to talk about the most surprising (good and bad) players of the season.  Suffice it to say, pitching is a major theme in that discussion.