Plenty of Blame to Go Around

Last week, as the victims read their statements and Larry Nassar's disgusting behavior became more and more clear, it also became clear that there were people who turned a blind eye to Nassar.  And, now that Nassar will never see the light of day again, those ripple effects are finally being felt.  While we still don't know who knew how much and when, it's pretty obvious that there were those that did.  And they deserve to be held accountable.

The one person who clearly was Nassar's biggest enabler was John Geddert, his friend and colleague at Twistars USA Gymnastics Club.  In my eyes, Geddert is just as guilty as Nassar.  There's no question that Geddert knew exactly what Nassar was doing.  And he probably knew for quite some time.  Yet he chose to do nothing.  Making matters worse, Geddert's relationship with his gymnasts, according to the ESPN article, wasn't exactly one where they would've felt comfortable coming to him in the first place.

Even if the gymnasts did bring their concerns to Geddert, it seems pretty obvious that he didn't care.  All he knew is that he and Nassar were both going places, and these gymnasts were going to be the ones to get them there.  They couldn't let those pesky sexual assault allegations (of minors) get in the way of that.

As Nassar and Geddert rose up the ranks at USA Gymnastics, the abuse spread beyond just their gym in Michigan.  According to Aly Raisman and Jamie Dantzscher and dozens of other gymnasts who achieved their dream of making the U.S. National Team, Nassar's "treatments" continued in all corners of the globe...while on U.S. National Team trips!  So, clearly, somebody at USA Gymnastics had to at least have suspicions.

That's why USA Gymnastics needs to be held accountable.  And it is.  The USOC issued an ultimatum, ordering the entire board to resign or the organization could face decertification.  It's an important step.  And one that needed to be taken.  Although, it's something that should've been done years ago.  By not doing anything, USA Gymnastics was, at best, complicit.  Who knows the degree to which it was worse?

I think Aly Raisman was right.  USA Gymnastics put winning medals above the welfare of its athletes.  The USA has become the premier women's gymnastics team in the world over the past 10 years.  Even though the warning signs were there, USA Gymnastics continued its relationship with Larry Nassar.  All because the formula was working.

Nassar's abuse even extended to the Karolyi Ranch, the base of operations for the USA Gymnastics women's program.  Well, not anymore.  It wasn't part of their ultimatum from the USOC, but USA Gymnastics did the only thing it could do.  They cut ties with the Karolyi Ranch.  That relationship simply couldn't continue.  Not with the amount of pain that place has caused for so many.  Not for an organization desperate for a clean start.  Not for an organization with a reputation that badly needs to be rebuilt.

There are plenty of people out there who want the USOC to be held accountable, too.  But I'm not sure how much blame can be directly thrown in that direction.  Sure, the USOC definitely took some missteps here.  They could've taken these claims more seriously or been more thorough in its investigation or been more forceful in their response.  But the USOC is not responsible for the day-to-day operations of USA Gymnastics.  

Yes, some of Nassar's abuse took place at the Olympic Games, which ultimately falls on the USOC.  But it never should've gotten to that point.  Larry Nassar never should've been allowed to travel to the Olympics in the first place.  And that decision falls on USA Gymnastics.

USA Gymnastics doesn't deserve all of the blame for enabling Nassar, though.  A great deal of it also falls on Michigan State.  As we've since found out, the problems at Michigan State extend far beyond Larry Nassar and far beyond the gymnastics program.  There's a culture of misconduct and cover-ups involving a number of sports in East Lansing.  It's led to the forced resignations of the University President and Athletic Director, with more likely to come.

Nothing about this situation is easy.  These gymnasts were victimized by this horrible man for far too long, and the fact that they've finally been able to break their silence is little consolation.  Just like the fact that Nassar is behind bars where he belongs won't give them back everything he took from them.

And that I think is the saddest part.  There were way too many victims.  But Larry Nassar isn't the only villain in the story.  Aly Raisman called Nassar a "monster," and he is.  But too many people let that monster run wild.  For far too long.  Now that he's in a cage, it's time to hold them accountable, too.

A Man's Legacy

Sometimes you can have everything all planned out, then life gets in the way.  I had today's blog topic all ready to go.  That was until I found out this morning that a friend of mine passed away.  And when I started thinking about what he meant to me and how I wanted to remember Vinny DiLauro, the only thing I thought appropriate would be to do what I do best.  Write.

A man's legacy isn't always easy to define.  But with Vinny DiLauro, it is.  Baseball is his legacy.  Specifically the West Haven Twilight League, which, I fear, won't be the same without him.

I first met Vin when he hired me to be the Operations Manager of the WHTL about 10 years ago.  We had been put in touch through a mutual friend, and we hit it off immediately.  Vince liked to joke that he was the "young guy" on the WHTL board, which was one of the reasons he wanted me to come aboard.  Even after I moved to New York, he always asked me to come back and help out at the regional tournament the league hosts every year, and I did just that a few times.

His love for the game was apparent, too.  That's one of the reasons we got along so well.  He was the president of the league, but his company also sponsored one of the teams.  And you could tell how important both the team and the league were to him.  I don't think I ever saw him happier than the first time his team qualified for the regional tournament.  They'd lost in the playoffs year after year.  But this time, they finally broke through.  This time, instead of just running the tournament, his team was going to be playing in it.

We quickly bonded over our shared love of baseball.  Specifically, our love of one particular team.  The one that wears pinstripes and plays in the Bronx.

Vince was a season ticket holder (with pretty good seats), and he was incredibly generous when it came to his tickets.  There were a number of times when he couldn't go to a game and asked me if I wanted to use his tickets.  (Of course, I'd say yes.)  And I remember attending many a Yankees-Mets game with his daughter, Rachael (a fellow Yankees fan), and her husband, Todd (a Mets fan).

My final game at the original Yankee Stadium was also courtesy of Vin.  It was during their final homestand of the 2008 season (is this really the 10th season in the new one?), which was right around my dad's 60th birthday.  I told him that I wanted to do something special for my dad, so he offered his seats for a game against the White Sox.  Making this game much more special for me was the fact that it wasn't just my last game at the original Stadium.  It was also the only time that I saw Ken Griffey, Jr., my favorite player of all-time, play live.

There are plenty of people who knew him that have similar stories.  And they all come back to one central theme.  Vinny DiLauro was an incredibly caring, thoughtful man with a love of baseball that he wanted to share with others.  His relationship with everyone involved with the West Haven Twilight League over the years, from players and coaches to umpires, staff and sponsors was the same.  Professional and respectful.  And it made him a friend to all.

To his family, to his wife, his daughters and his beautiful grandchildren, words can only provide so much comfort in times like this.  Trust me.  There's not a day that goes by that I don't think of my mom.  And there won't be a day that goes by that you won't think of Vince.

Cherish those memories.  Hold them close to your heart.  Because the pain you're feeling now will pass.  But you'll fondly remember this wonderful man forever.  Just as all of us will.

XFL 2.0

Get your He Hate Me jerseys out of the attic!  The XFL is coming back!  Of course, I'm just faking being excited for the return of Vince McMahon's ill-fated horrible football league.  But, like it or not, XFL 2.0 is coming.  And this time, McMahon promises no gimmicks.  It'll be "all about the football."  I hope for his sake that the football will be better than it was in 2001.

As we all know, the original XFL was a colossal failure.  It was too over-the-top and full of dumb gimmicks.  People watched it...in droves.  Then they saw how incredibly awful the football was and stopped watching.  XFL broadcasts still represent some of the lowest-rated programs in NBC history, and as soon as NBC, a co-owner of the venture, pulled the plug, the league was toast.

Although, the original XFL also did some things that were considered revolutionary but now, almost 20 years later, are commonplace in football broadcasts.  Players mic'd up?  Started in the XFL.  The Skycam?  Started in the XFL.  So, while the league itself will forever be known as a massive flop, it does deserve some credit for those innovations that have endured.

In the excellent ESPN 30 for 30 on the original XFL, Vince McMahon acknowledges that it was his fault the league didn't succeed.  And he also hints that he might want to try again.  Sure enough, that's exactly what he's doing.  Although, McMahon's claim that he "won't be the face of the league" is simply laughable.  This guy can't NOT seek the attention for himself.  And, seeing as he's going to be the sole owner of the league and all of its teams, he's, of course, going to make sure he's front and center.

With all that being said, can XFL 2.0 work?  I'm skeptical.  Ever since the AFL-NFL merger, a league has sprung up every few years trying to compete with the NFL.  First there was the World Football League, then the USFL, then XFL 1.0.  They all failed.  So did NFL Europe and the UFL and the FXFL (whatever that was).  Even the CFL's attempt to expand to the U.S. failed.  The Arena League, meanwhile, is still around, but declared bankruptcy, shut down for a year and is now a shell of its former self.

So, XFL 2.0 is definitely facing an uphill battle.  They don't have a TV contract (although McMahon claims that's less important now because of streaming, etc.).  McMahon is also oddly choosing to start his 10-week season in January, in the middle of the NFL playoffs.  At least the original XFL waited until after the Super Bowl to start.  And, no word on where the eight teams will be located, but you'd have to think they'll be large to mid-sized market.  If those are NFL markets, do they want another team?  If they're not, can they support one?

Also, I'm not sure there's really an appetite for more football.  NFL ratings keep going down, and this season they were the lowest they've been in years.  Of course, a lot of outside factors have been blamed for that.

McMahon thinks those outside factors are the reason people aren't watching, which is why he's not going to allow any sort of protests by XFL 2.0 players.  He also claims that anybody with a criminal record won't be welcome, but, who we kidding?, if Johnny Manziel wants to play in the XFL is McMahon really going to stop him?  Likewise, he promised there won't be any "stunt casting."  But, again, I'll believe that when I see it.

Among McMahon's other promises for XFL 2.0 is that games will be faster.  His stated goal is to have games last around two hours.  I have no idea how he thinks he'll accomplish this.  Shorter games would obviously be faster, but I doubt his plan is to have the actual game time be less than the standard 60 minutes.

Ultimately, though, it'll come down to the players.  Because the biggest reason the original XFL failed was because the games simply weren't good enough.  The football was terrible.  And that's the biggest issue XFL 2.0 is going to face.  McMahon doesn't want to be an NFL minor league, but he's not going to get NFL-quality talent, either.  At best, the XFL is looking at guys who are either training camp cuts or practice squad players.  Maybe some vets who can't get an NFL job for whatever reason will get another chance in the XFL.

That, I think, might be the biggest difference, though.  When the original XFL was launched, it was basically only a year from announcement until the first game.  That timeline was obviously not enough to get everything done and do it right.  This time, they're waiting until 2020 before the first game.  Will that extra year make a difference?  It can only help.

I'm not sure there was really too much clamoring for an XFL revival, but we're getting it anyway.  The first one failed miserably.  But that didn't stop Vince McMahon from trying again.  Will it be any different this time?  We'll find out in two years.

2018 Baseball Hall of Fame Vote

It feels weird not to be using this space to make a Hall of Fame case for Jack Morris.  After all those years on the writer's ballot, it took the Veterans Committee for him to finally get his due, and Morris, along with Alan Trammell will be making a speech in Cooperstown this summer.  But who will join him?

From the votes that have been made public and the projections I've seen, this could be a historically large class.  Chipper Jones is going to get in.  There's no doubt about that.  And he'll be the headliner.  But there could be as many as four others, which would give us an eight-person class!  (Which would essentially give Mariano Rivera the stage to himself next year.)

I don't think it'll be that many.  But Chipper won't be the only one, either.  The writers have elected 12 Hall of Famers since 2014, and we're bound to get a few more.  If I had to put odds on it, I'd say we get three, in addition to Chipper, Morris and Trammell.  And if I had to guess, I'd say those other three will be Jim Thome, Vlad Guerrero and Trevor Hoffman.

Now on to my ballot.  For those of you new to this space, I firmly believe in using all 10 spaces.  I also rank the candidates.  And I've got seven holdovers from last year, which means I've got three open spots, one of which goes to...

1. Chipper Jones, Third Baseman (1993-2014 Braves): Ken Griffey, Jr., was the first No. 1 overall pick to be elected to the Hall of Fame.  Chipper Jones will be the second.  He'll likely be the leading vote-getter and will easily top 90 percent.  Which he should.  Because, while that Braves dynasty was built on pitching, Chipper was the best everyday player on those teams.  And he was there long after the three pitchers were all gone.  The heart and soul of the team for 20 years.  The last of the group to retire, he'll once again be teammates with Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz (as well as his GM and manager) in Cooperstown.

2. Barry Bonds, Outfielder (1986-92 Pirates, 1993-2007 Giants): He's not going to get in this year.  I know that.  But Barry Bonds was the best player of his era.  By a wide margin.  You can't write about the history of baseball in the 1990s and early 2000s without including him.  Slowly but surely, the writers are coming around, too.  The all-time home run leader belongs in the Hall of Fame.  I don't care what Joe Morgan says.

3. Roger Clemens, Pitcher (1984-96 Red Sox, 1997-98 Blue Jays, 1999-2003 Yankees, 2004-06 Astros, 2007 Yankees): Ditto about Roger Clemens.  Think whatever you want about him personally.  There's no way to deny that he was one of the most intimidating pitchers of all-time.  And one of the best.  Some would put him on the short list of greatest right-handers ever.  So, if he's one of the greatest right-handers ever, how do you explain why he isn't in the Hall of Fame?

4. Trevor Hoffman, Pitcher (1993 Marlins, 1993-2008 Padres, 2009-10 Brewers): Here's where things get interesting.  Hoffman missed election by just a handful of votes last year, so you'd think he'll get the call this time.  Although, if he doesn't, it could be kinda cool to have the two greatest closers of all-time go in together.  I hope he's not being kept out simply because he wasn't as good as Mariano, though.  Because Hoffman would be the greatest closer of all-time if not for Mo.  He's a Hall of Famer in his own right.

5. Vladimir Guerrero, Outfielder (1996-2003 Expos, 2004-09 Angels, 2010 Rangers, 2011 Orioles): Another guy who got painfully close last year, you'd have to think Vlad Guerrero gets over the hump this time around.  I have a feeling, though, that he could end up close, but short of 75 percent again.  Regardless, Vladdy will eventually take his rightful place in Cooperstown.  It really is ridiculous how good this guy was.  Yes, he finished 51 homers short of 500 and 410 hits shy of 3000.  Numbers he easily would've gotten had he played an extra couple of years instead of retiring at 36.

6. Curt Schilling, Pitcher (1988-90 Orioles, 1991 Astros, 1992-2000 Phillies, 2000-03 Diamondbacks, 2004-07 Red Sox): Why Schilling ahead of Mussina?  It's a reasonable question, especially considering how remarkably similar their careers were.  But, to me, there are two reasons why Schilling rates slightly higher.  The first is his role as an ace on three different teams that he unquestionably made better.  The second is his postseason prowess.  Three World Series titles, one World Series Co-MVP, an 11-2 career postseason record, including a 7-0 mark in elimination games.

7. Mike Mussina, Pitcher (1991-2000 Orioles, 2001-08 Yankees): Mussina's success, meanwhile, was mostly found in the regular season.  Although, he deserves plenty of credit for winning 270 games while pitching his entire career in the AL East.  Mussina didn't win 20 games until his final season, but he had at least 15 wins 11 times and was more than 100 games over .500 for his career.  While I doubt he'll get in via the writers, he deserves to stay on the ballot until his time is up.  And, who knows, maybe he'll pull an Alan Trammell and get in via the Veterans Committee.

8. Edgar Martinez, Designated Hitter (1987-2004 Mariners): Edgar's time is coming.  The stigma attached to being a DH is finally wearing off.  People are finally looking at Edgar Martinez for what he was--an outstanding hitter.  A career .300 hitter with over 500 doubles, his offensive production in the middle of that stacked Mariners lineup can't be discounted.  To say those contributions were somewhat diminished by the fact he didn't own a glove is simply asinine.  It won't be held against David Ortiz in a couple years.  And it shouldn't be held against Edgar Martinez, either.

9. Larry Walker, Outfielder (1989-94 Expos, 1995-2004 Rockies, 2004-05 Cardinals): For the first time since 2012, I have enough room on my ballot for Larry Walker.  My opinion of his career has never wavered.  I just didn't rank him among my top 10, so, as a result, I couldn't check his name.  You want to know why it's been six years since I've included Walker on my list?  Because 2013 is the year the names Bonds and Clemens first showed up.  He's been in ballot purgatory ever since the Steroid Era players first became eligible.  Most likely, Larry Walker is destined to stay there.  Getting enough support to stay on the ballot, not enough to get anywhere near election.

10. Jim Thome, First Baseman (1991-2002 Indians, 2003-05 Phillies, 2006-09 White Sox, 2009 Dodgers, 2010-11 Twins, 2011 Indians, 2012 Phillies, 2012 Orioles): This was the hardest one for me.  Thome's likely going to get in.  But, for me, he's borderline, and I was tempted to leave him off altogether.  But I do think Thome is the 10th-best player on the ballot, so he gets my final vote.  You may think I'm crazy, and you may be right.  Especially since you'd think the 600 home runs and 1600 RBIs speak for themselves.

Next on my list: Andruw Jones, Omar Vizquel, Jeff Kent.  And, here's something interesting that I realized as I was going back to find the last time I voted for Walker, I used to be a big Sammy Sosa proponent, but his name hasn't even crossed my mind in a few years.  I'm a long time Bonds/Clemens supporter, but I can't bring myself around on Sosa and Manny Ramirez.

That's probably why it's so hard to get in.  You've got all of these writers, all with their own subjective reasons for voting a certain way, and a maximum of 10 votes apiece.  Yet you need 75 percent of them to agree on a candidate.  It's an unenviable task to be sure.  Although, I would love to have that privilege.  Because that's what it is.  A privilege.

Football Picks, Conference Championship

We've got some new blood in the AFC and NFC Championship Games.  Three of the four remaining teams have never won the Super Bowl...and the fourth is the Patriots.  So, I guess that also proves the old adage "the more things change, the more they stay the same."

And for those of you who want to use the fact that Blake Bortles might be starting the Super Bowl and either Case Keenum or Nick Foles will be as proof that a franchise quarterback isn't that important are kidding yourselves.  Because who's the fourth remaining quarterback?  And why is his team in this position every year?  Exactly.

Jaguars (12-6) at Patriots (14-3): New England-This AFC Championship Game puts me in an awkward position.  I'm not at all mentally ready to deal with the idea of the Jacksonville Jaguars in the Super Bowl, and seeing those disgusting helmets on the biggest stage is just not something America should be exposed to. 

But the alternative is the Patriots...again!  I don't know how many people are aware of this little-known NFL rule, but it's an official league requirement that the New England Patriots are in the AFC Championship Game.  Kinda like that NBA rule where LeBron is automatically in the Finals. 

It's been an incredible run over the last decade and a half, and it has to end sometime (right?).  It's not going to continue forever, despite what Patriots fans might think.  Is it going to end this year though?  Unlikely.  New England is the heavy favorite and rightfully so.  If they were playing Pittsburgh instead of Jacksonville, the chances of this game being somewhat close would be significantly better.  But against the Jaguars, the result will no longer be in doubt before halftime.

I'm not going to count the Jaguars out.  They're in the AFC Championship Game for a reason.  But I'm so totally confused as to how they played to completely opposite playoff games.  They couldn't do a thing offensively the entire game against the Bills.  Then, a week later, the Steelers can't stop them.  (Although, to be fair, they didn't stop Pittsburgh that much, either.)

Stopping Tom Brady and Co. in the AFC Championship Game, though?  Yeah, right.  Add another AFC title and an eighth Super Bowl appearance to Bradicheck's ledger.

Vikings (14-3) at Eagles (14-3): Minnesota-Wow!  Just wow!  The Minneapolis Miracle will go down as one of those plays in football lore...but only if the Vikings can do the job this week and get that home Super Bowl.  What that incredible play proved, though, is that Minnesota is much more than an amazing defense.  Any doubts about Case Keenum's ability to lead this team in the playoffs were answered, too.

The Eagles had plenty of doubters of their own.  And they silenced some of them with their impressive Divisional round victory over a Falcons team everybody thought would win.  Philly still has some its critics, and the Eagles definitely still feel like they have something to prove.  After all, they might be the first 1-seed in history to be a home underdog in both the Divisional playoffs and conference championship game.

So who has the edge in what certainly looks, on paper, like the more competitive of the two games?  Well, it sure has the makings of a defensive struggle (hopefully not to the extent of Jaguars-Bills).  Which means it'll come down to which offense is able to get moving more consistently against these two first-rate defenses.  Which translates to, yes, the quarterbacks.  Either Keenum or Foles will have to win this game for his team.

If it does come down to that, it could be a situation of who's more capable of making the big play.  And that's Minnesota.  The Vikings are known for their defense, but their offense can be explosive when it needs to be (case in point, last week).  The Eagles, on the other hand, might need that big play to come from their defense.  Because I don't see the Vikings making too many mistakes on the defensive side of the ball.  At least not one that'll cost them the game.

For all their painful memories of NFC Championship Games past.  From Gary Anderson's missed field goal to Brett Favre's late interception, the Vikings will get their redemption.  Minnesota's going home after the game one way or the other.  But they won't be taking the Eagles back to Minneapolis with them.  Instead, the Vikings will be getting ready for a home game in two weeks.

Last Week: 2-2
Playoffs: 4-4
Overall: 165-99

Can Someone Heat Up the Stove Please?

We're less than a month away from the start of Spring Training.  Yet most of the biggest free agent names available this offseason remain unsigned.  The Hot Stove has been anything but.  Which either means we're going to see a pretty active next couple of weeks or there will be some high-priced, good talent likely available for bargain prices as Spring Training begins.

There are a lot of possible reasons for this.  A lot of people have blamed the new luxury tax penalties, which kick in for the first time this season.  It's also been theorized that nobody wants to spend money this offseason because the 2018-19 free agent class, highlighted by Bryce Harper, Manny Machado and possibly Clayton Kershaw, has the potential to be epic.

The trade market has also been incredibly active.  In fact, most of the biggest names to move have been moved via the trade route.  The Marlins have traded every player on their team that you've ever heard of, which Christian Yelich likely to join them before the season starts.  The Giants have improved dramatically by adding Evan Longoria (Rays) and Andrew McCutchen (Pirates) via trade, and let's not forget Pittsburgh also traded ace Gerrit Cole to Houston, which will certainly help the Astros in their bid to repeat.

But there's still plenty of top talent to be had this offseason.  Talent that's almost too good.  And you've got to think that once one player signs, all of the other dominoes will start to fall.  But where?  That's the $60 million over four years question.

According to MLB.com, these are the top seven remaining free agents.  Here are some places that make sense for each, and where I think they'll land.

Eric Hosmer: Frankly, I'm shocked Hosmer isn't signed yet.  Probably because anybody who's interested in Hosmer wants to make a run at Machado next year.  I've heard San Diego mentioned, and I think he'd be a great fit in Boston, but I don't know if the Red Sox have shown even any interest.  Which means he could end up staying in Kansas City.  Seeing as he's the Royals' best player since George Brett, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.  The Royals spend more than they normally would to keep him.

Yu Darvish: This one I'm surprised by, too.  That World Series breakdown had to have had something to do with it.  Teams in need of a starter are likely weighing their options between the two main choices--Darvish and Jake Arriets.  So it's not surprising that both of their former teams, the Dodgers and Cubs, are linked to both.  Darvish has also evidently talking about a reunion with Texas, too.  But, the Angels have already landed one high-profile Japanese pitcher.  If they want to make more of a splash, they'll bring in Darvish too.

J.D. Martinez: J.D. Martinez is the key guy.  He's the one everybody else is waiting for.  Because Martinez will likely set the market value.  The Red Sox are the team that's been linked with Martinez the most, and they'll throw enough money at him that it makes sense he'll end up in Boston.  I'm not sure how he fits in with the Red Sox, though.  Their outfield is full and Hanley Ramirez is their DH.  So where are you putting Martinez?

Jake Arrieta: A reunion with the Cubs doesn't seem completely out of the question.  But the prevailing thought is that Arrieta will be pitching elsewhere in 2018.  And, since I'm not sure Darvish stays in LA, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Dodgers make a worthwhile offer and make Arrieta their No. 2 behind Kershaw, which is something they really haven't had since Zack Greinke.  Of course, they need to be careful, though.  Because you know it's gonna cost them a fortune to keep Kershaw.

Lorenzo Cain: Cain's in a tough spot.  Because every team he's been linked to or makes sense for him has already traded for a center fielder.  Cain is too good to still be unsigned, though.  Again, once Martinez signs, somebody will settle on Cain as a second choice.  Can you just imagine him in Texas?

Mike Moustakas: Sometime after the Winter Meetings, I saw something on ESPN.com suggesting Moustakas would be an excellent fit with the Yankees.  I hadn't thought about it, but the more I read the article, the more sense it made.  Alas, I don't see it happening, though.  The Yankees are keeping third base free for Machado.  Which means Moustakas will likely end up elsewhere.  San Francisco was an option, but it no longer is because of the Longoria trade.  How about St. Louis?

Todd Frazier: After trading Starlin Castro to the Marlins and Chase Headley back to the Padres, the Yankees have openings at both second and third.  Gleyber Torres is probably going to fill one, but they'll get a veteran to fill the other.  And bringing Frazier back on a one-year deal isn't that bad of an option.  He may want a multi-year contract and can probably get one elsewhere, but I can see him returning to the Yankees, potentially having a good season, and hitting the market again next year.  It makes sense for all parties involved for that scenario to play out.

Whether or not each of these players finds a new home (or the same home) before Spring Training remains to be seen.  But one thing is pretty certain.  They'll all catch on somewhere.  And it'll be before Opening Day.

Dumbest NFL Rules

The NFL has a bunch of stupid rules.  We all know that.  And this year some of those dumb rules have become incredibly problematic.  We've gotten to the point where they're starting to affect the outcome of games.  Then, as the Minneapolis Miracle showed us, there are rules that make absolutely no sense, yet they enforce them anyway.

Let's start there since it's the freshest in all of our minds.  The Vikings won the game on that incredible 61-yard touchdown pass on the final play.  But, since they scored in regulation, they were required, by rule, to "attempt the extra point."  Why?  The game was over!  Worst yet, they had to clear all of those people off the field (and bring the Saints back out of their locker room) for them to run the most anticlimactic "play" in football history after like 10 minutes!  And all they did was take a knee!

This is the second instance I can think of where a team "attempted" an unnecessary extra point.  The same thing happened in that infamous Packers-Seahawks Monday night game that brought an end to the replacement refs.  Exact same situation.  The Seahawks won on the final play (on a touchdown that was highly debatable), the Packers left the field, they told them they had to kick the extra point, and Seattle eventually did five minutes later.

Meanwhile, if a team scores a touchdown in overtime, they're not required to attempt an extra point.  Why not?  I know why not, but my point is the same.  The game-winning touchdown at the end of regulation ends the game just the same as the touchdown in overtime.  And the solution to this is so simple, too.  Change the rule so that an extra point is only required if there's still time on the clock and/or the extra point has a bearing on the outcome (essentially if it ties or wins it).  If the extra point with no time left makes the final score go from three points to four, don't bother.

That one at least didn't decide a game.  But the forward fumble rule in the Cowboys-Raiders game did.  Late in the fourth quarter of the Week 15 Sunday night game, Oakland was driving for a potential go-ahead touchdown.  That's when Derek Carr, while reaching for the end zone, fumbled.  The ball hit the pylon and rolled out of the end zone...for a Cowboys touchback!  (Now that I'm thinking of it, wasn't this also the Gene Steratore index card game?)

When a fumble goes out of bounds anywhere else on the field, the team that fumbled it keeps it where the ball went out of bounds (or at the spot of the fumble in the last two minutes, when you can't advance one).  So why was this a Dallas touchback?  The officials interpreted the rule correctly here, so it's not anything of their doing.  But Dallas gets the ball and a free 20 yards simply because the ball hit the pylon?  Seems a bit harsh. 

In order to gain possession, you should have to actually fall on (or actually cause) the fumble.  Otherwise, the fumbling team should retain it.  Just like they would anywhere else on the field.  And, if you're so content on having it be a turnover if the fumble goes out of the end zone untouched, the other team shouldn't get it at the 20.  They should get it where the fumble occurred.

Speaking of touchbacks, when they changed the rule that touchbacks go to the 25 on kickoffs, how come that only applied to kickoffs?  Why do touchbacks only come out to the 20 after a punt or turnover?  It doesn't make sense that you only have to go 75 yards after the other team scores, but it's still 80 if they punted.  Either bring the all to the 25 or move kickoffs back to the 20.  I don't care which.  Just make it consistent.

Now on to the two rules that were absolute game-changers this season.  One is my "favorite" dumb NFL rule, and it cost the Detroit Lions a game in Week 3.  I'm, of course, talking about the 10-second run off in the last two minutes.

Here's what happened: Golden Tate scored what appeared to be the game-winning touchdown, but, after checking the replay, the officials ruled that he was actually down on the 1-yard line.  Since he was down in bounds, the clock technically should've been running and, since the Lions didn't have any timeouts, that also required a 10-second run off.  And since there were only eight seconds left on the clock, that meant the game was over.  The Lions had a score taken off the board, and never got the chance to run another play.  Four months later, that still doesn't sit well with me.

Detroit deserved an opportunity to try and win the game.  Not to have that chance taken away because of a rule.  A rule that had nothing to do with them!  How was it their fault the officials incorrectly ruled the play a touchdown initially?  If the officials call him down by contact on the 1, maybe they get up and spike it.  Maybe they don't.  But they at least have some control of the play.  The 10-second run off was unusually harsh in this situation, and it cost the Lions the game.

So what's the solution?  To me, it's pretty simple.  When the officials determine that a scoring play should be overturned because the ball carrier was down in bounds, there is no 10-second run off.  The officials were the ones stopped the clock, so neither team should be penalized as a result.  Instead, the clock starts when the ball is marked ready for play.  That way you still have your running clock, but they still get a chance to run a play.

Then there's the play that basically decided home field advantage in the AFC.  The game-winning touchdown turned non-catch in the Pittsburgh-New England game.  Now, I'm not going to get into the debate about what constitutes a catch.  That's the never-ending NFL argument that has no right answer (mainly because the league refuses to issue any sort of easy-to-understand clarification).  Instead, I want to focus on the one key element of the play that led to the officials determining (I think correctly) it wasn't a catch.

"A receiver must maintain possession of the ball throughout the process of making a catch," is the basic definition of a catch.  But, here's where the rule gets confusing (and frustrating): when is the act of "making a catch" complete?  When does he go from receiver to runner?  Because if a runner drops the ball, it's no harm, no foul.  He can pick up the ball and advance it, as long as he isn't touched.

I get that it's a fine line between being a receiver and turning into a runner.  But it seems like there's a much larger burden placed on the receiver than on the runner.  Once a receiver establishes possession (which, I think we can all agree, happened in the Steelers-Patriots game), he becomes a runner.  Because the idea of "maintaining control" throughout the entire play is very arbitrary.

Of course, the biggest problem with the Pittsburgh non-touchdown wasn't that he became a runner, it's that he "didn't survive the ground."  Which, again, is a complete contradiction.  Because it's long been understood that the ground can't cause a fumble.  But it can, evidently, cause an incomplete pass.  Even if the catch has clearly been completed and the receiver is simply trying to gain more yards.

If a running back leaps over the pile, the ball can get knocked out of his hand, but is still a touchdown as long as it crosses the goal line first.  Same thing if he extends the ball while going out of bounds.  Yet if a receiver does it, that most likely will make the pass incomplete.  Runners can get extra yards, but receivers can't.

To me, the solution to this one is also simple, and it would make understanding the rule a lot easier, too.  If you get both feet down in bounds with clear control of the ball, it's a catch, regardless of what happens after.  If not, it's incomplete.  Because, in the case of the Pittsburgh play, the act of catching the ball was finished.  It only became incomplete when he tried to extend into the end zone.  But, under my new interpretation of the rule, he's down at the 1 (which he would've been had he simply tucked the ball into his body instead of going for the touchdown).

There's a committee that looks at the rules and makes changes every offseason.  I've got a feeling that some of these will be revisited and maybe even changed.  Because these situations were high-profile and game-changing.  And they've exposed flaws in the rule book that need to be addressed.  Kinda like how the "tuck rule" was eliminated right after Brady's clear fumble wasn't in that playoff game against the Raiders back before we all hated the Patriots.

Tennis Time In Australia

There's something that seems right about looking at a Grand Slam bracket and seeing the names Nadal and Federer on opposite sides as the top to seeds.  Last year, they were seeded ninth (Nadal) and 17th (Federer) at the Australian Open, only to meet in a turn-back-the-clock final that turned out to be just an indication of the resurgent year that was to come for both Roger and Rafa in 2017, when they swept the Grand Slams.

Novak Djokovic is hoping to start his 2018 the way Federer started his 2017.  And their situations are incredibly similar.  After missing the last few months of 2016 due to injury, Federer saw his ranking drop to No. 17.  But he came to Australia healthy, and we all saw the results.  Well, it was Djokovic who missed the end of the 2017 season due to injury, and his ranking has fallen to No. 14.  I don't think there's a single person who would be surprised to see Djokovic do this year what Federer did last year.

The Australian Open is funny.  Since it's at the beginning of the season, it's the most unpredictable of the four Grand Slams.  Yet it has a way of forecasting what's going to happen over the rest of the season.  Last year we had the Roger vs. Rafa final.  In 2016, we had Angelique Kerber upset Serena en route to becoming No. 1 in the world.  And in 2015, Serena snapped her Grand Slam drought, then won two more and made her pursuit of the calendar-year Grand Slam the only storyline anyone could talk about entering the US Open.

So what story will this year's Australian Open give us?  And what will we have to look out for 2018 as a result? 

Well, we're not gonna see how Serena comes back after becoming a mom.  The fact that she won the title last year while pregnant is remarkable in its own right, but she doesn't feel quite ready yet having played only one exhibition match since giving berth in September.  Knowing Serena Williams, she'd still probably win a couple rounds.  But she doesn't want to show up and just win a couple rounds.  She's not coming back until she knows she'll be a title contender at every tournament she enters.

In Serena's absence, the No. 1 ranking was passed around like a hot potato last year.  That hasn't changed, either.  Six different women enter the tournament with a chance to claim the No. 1 ranking.  It's currently held by Simona Halep, who's never won a Grand Slam title.  Neither has No. 2 Caroline Wozniacki.  Although, with no clear favorite, this is as good a chance as any for both of them to do something about that.

Just like each of the past three Grand Slams, this women's field is wide open.  No. 3 Garbine Muguruza was the best and most consistent player of 2017, Venus Williams is No. 5, and she reached two Grand Slam finals and a semi last year.  Sloane Stephens, meanwhile, heads Down Under as a Grand Slam champion after winning the US Open.  Then there's sixth-seeded Karolina Pliskova, and let's not forget about both Kerber and unseeded Maria Sharapova, both former champions here.

I have really no rhyme or reason behind my women's pick, but I'm going with Wozniacki over Pliskova for the title.  I know, I know.  Woz is notorious for underachieving at Grand Slams (or giving in to the pressure when she's favored, like at the French Open).  But she's got to win one eventually.  Right?

On the men's side, saying it'll be another Roger vs. Rafa final is the easy call, but it's not that clear cut.  Not only in Djokovic back, so is Stan Wawrinka, who also missed the US Open due to injury.  So, in other words, the other names will actually be there this time (although Andy Murray withdrew since he's still recovering from injury).

Health and fitness are obvious concerns for Djokovic and Wawrinka, but part of the reason for taking the rest of last year off was to rest and reset (which they saw work for Federer).  And they've both always played well here (this is, by far, Djokovic's best Grand Slam tournament historically).  The higher-seeded players got lucky with Djokovic and Wawrinka.  They could've ended up anywhere in the draw.  But they ended up with each other...and won't face Federer until the semis or Nadal until the final.

Although, because of Djokovic's extended absence last year, we've seen a rankings shift on the men's side.  Grigor Dimitrov is the No. 3 seed and fourth-seeded Alexander Zverev is the one who got stuck with Djokovic/Wawrinka in his quarter.  Meanwhile, Jack Sock is now the top American, and he enters 2018 ranked eighth in the world.  After what the American women did at the US Open, the pressure's on for the men.  It's been 15 years since Andy Roddick's US Open title, which is still the most recent for an American man...a stat that I'm sure Sock, Isner and Querrey are getting tired of hearing.

While picking an American would be bold and going with Djokovic or Wawrinka would show some extreme confidence in them, I'm gonna play it somewhat safe with my pick.  Nadal was the best player on tour in 2017.  That's why he's back at No. 1.  And that's why I'm giving him the slight nod.  As for his final opponent, here's where I'm going out on a limb.  In the quarterfinals, Federer loses to Juan Martin Del Potro (just like at the US Open) and Wawrinka beats Djokovic.  Then Wawrinka beats Del Po before losing to Nadal in the final.

Football Picks, Divisional

We've reached the Divisional Playoffs, the weekend that many consider the best of the entire NFL season.  And this year all four road teams come from the South, which I don't think anyone saw coming.  In fact, the West has been completely shut out of the Divisional Playoffs for the first time since the eight-division format was introduced in 2002.  In both conferences, we've got the South champ at the North champ and the wild card team from the South at the top-seeded team from the East.

Wild Card Weekend didn't really tell us that much.  Jaguars-Bills was a terrible game and the Chiefs collapsed (Again!), setting up a pair of matchups where New England and Pittsburgh are heavily favored.  Meanwhile, in the NFC, the Rams didn't show up against the Falcons, which sends Atlanta to Philly.  That also meant the Saints-Panthers winner was headed to Minnesota, and the Saints made it clear pretty early that it would be them.

So, hopefully the experts are right.  Hopefully this is the best football weekend of the year.  Because the Wild Card round left a lot to be desired, and I think the Super Bowl champion will be one of three teams playing at home this weekend.  None of the wild card teams gave me any indication they'll be playing into February.

Falcons (11-6) at Eagles (13-3): Atlanta-Of the four winners last week, I'd say the Falcons have the best chance of making a Super Bowl run.  They finally look like the defending NFC champions, and they're actually favored on the road against the top-seeded Eagles. 

I've never seen a 1-seed that inspires less confidence than Philadelphia.  And it's much more than that incredibly unimpressive 6-0 loss to Dallas in the regular season finale.  They've been completely out of sync offensively since Carson Wentz went down.  So, the bye week was incredibly beneficial for them.  It gave them a chance to see if they could figure out something.  Which they'll need to do.  Because their defense can't hang with the Falcons.  Not with the way Atlanta is playing.  I'm concerned about Atlanta going coast-to-coast, but they played on Saturday last week, so they should be fine.  They get back to the NFC Championship Game.

Titans (10-7) at Patriots (13-3): New England-It's the Patriots' first game since the explosive Sports Illustrated story about disharmony between Bradicheck and Robert Kraft.  But we all know that New England isn't phased in the slightest.  In fact, they usually thrive in these situations.

They were going to be heavy favorites regardless of who they played this weekend, but the Titans especially are a great matchup for the Patriots.  I was impressed by Tennessee's comeback last week in Kansas City.  Winning at Foxboro in January is a completely different proposition, though.  The Titans will need to play an absolutely perfect game, and even that might not be enough.  There's a reason why the Patriots are in the AFC Championship Game every freakin' year!  New England always finds a way. 

Jaguars (11-6) at Steelers (13-3): Pittsburgh-Remember back in the beginning of the season when the Jaguars won in Pittsburgh and everyone thought it was just that usual Steelers blip against a bad team?  Well, little did we all know that they'd end up meeting again in the second round of the playoffs.  And the Jaguars go in full of confidence because of that win, when they were the better team in every possible way.

However, the Steelers are a much better team now than they were back then.  And they'll get even stronger with Antonio Brown returning for this game.  How effective he'll be is a question worth asking, but his mere presence in the lineup is enough to make a difference.  Jacksonville proved once again last week that the strength of their team is that defense.  This game won't be straight out of the 1970s, though.  You'd expect a bit more offense to be played.  The Jaguars won't be able to shut Pittsburgh down the way they shut down Buffalo.  The Steelers have too many offensive weapons and Jacksonville doesn't really have any.  Pittsburgh wants that AFC Championship rematch with New England, and I think they'll get it.

Saints (12-5) at Vikings (13-3): Minnesota-The Vikings will know beforehand whether or not there's a possibility of playing all of their playoff games at home (although, the AFC is the home team in the Super Bowl this year, so they could end up being the "road" team in their own stadium if they make it).  And if the Falcons do beat the Eagles, you know that they and their fans will be amped up even more.  Even if New Orleans is probably the toughest matchup of the three teams they could've played.

New Orleans is probably the best of the four teams that won last week.  But it'll be incredibly tough for them to make a return trip to Minnesota in three weeks.  Because not only are the Vikings the best team in the NFC and coming off a bye, they'll also be playing at home.  And that defense, along with the crowd, will be quite a difference.  If this game were being played in the Superdome, I'd give Drew Brees and Co. much more of a shot.  But the Vikings won when these teams met a few weeks ago, and I don't think things will be any different this time.  New Orleans is talented.  If they were playing Philadelphia, I'd be picking them.  I can't take them over the Vikings, though.  Minnesota's got everything going for it, and it's all lining up for them to play a home Super Bowl.  Although, if an upset's possible, I think it's much more likely this week than next week.

Last Week: 2-2
Regular Season: 161-95
Overall: 163-97

What's In a Name?

After months of threatening it, the Army has finally gone through with its legal action against the Vegas Golden Knights.  They're claiming trademark infringement because of the Army's parachute unit known as the "Golden Knights."  This is already the third trademark-related lawsuit filed against the NHL's newest team.  Both the College of St. Rose and University of Central Florida, who are both known as the Golden Knights, have done the same.  Because evidently people are confusing each of them with the professional hockey team.

The team's statement in response really said it all: "We strongly dispute the Army's allegations that confusion is likely between the Army Golden Knights parachute team and the Vegas Golden Knights major-league hockey team.  Indeed, the two entities have been coexisting without any issues for over a year (along with several other Golden Knights trademark owners) and we are not aware of a single complaint from anyone attending our games that they were expecting to see the parachute team and not a professional hockey game."

It's no secret that Golden Knights owner Bill Foley, who attended West Point, has an affinity for the Academy.  His ownership group is called "Black Knight Sports & Entertainment," and he originally wanted to name the team the "Black Knights" after Army's athletic teams, but backed off after meeting federal resistance.  (It's unlikely "Black Knights" would've been approved by the league anyway since it's too similar to "Blackhawks.")  The Golden Knights' colors being exactly the same as Army's athletic teams isn't a coincidence, either.

But the idea that people are going to confuse the Vegas Golden Knights with the Army Golden Knights or the Saint Rose Golden Knights is simply asinine.  In fact, I think this legal action (especially from the colleges) is more about themselves than it is about the hockey team.  Because, let's face it, when sports fans hear "Golden Knights," their first thought is going to be the hockey team.  It's not that there's confusion.  It's that they're worried their own name will lose relevance.

There are plenty of organizations with similar names who've been able to avoid confusion for years, so I don't see where this should be any different.  People don't go to a Cardinals-Giants game in July expecting to see Larry Fitzgerald and Odell Beckham.  Likewise, they'd be pretty surprised to see Yadi Molina and Buster Posey take the field during a Cardinals-Giants game in December.

In fact, both the Cardinals and Giants football teams used to play in the same city as the Cardinals and Giants baseball teams.  It was 30 years ago that the football Cardinals moved to Arizona, but it had to have been far more confusing to have two professional teams in the same city with the same name than to have a pro team sharing a name with a completely unrelated entity.

Besides, there are how many different college teams with the same nickname?  There are three Tigers in the SEC's Western Division alone!  And, let's not forget, the CFL had both the Saskatchewan Roughriders and Ottawa Rough Riders until the latter folded in 1996.  (Ottawa's subsequent teams have had different names for the obvious reasons.)

I understand wanting to protect your own brand, but it's ridiculous to suggest the Vegas Golden Knights shouldn't be allowed to trademark their name and logo because other things happen to called the same thing.  Because you know what?  There are a lot of things that have similar names!  There are two countries named Congo and four variations of Guinea, as well as Dominica and the Dominican Republic.

My point is that you're far more likely to confuse the Republic of Congo with the Democratic Republic of the Congo than you are the Army Golden Knights and the Vegas Golden Knights.  And even if the Army ends up being successful in this trademark case, what are they hoping to get out of it?  The Golden Knights hockey team has become one of the most popular franchises in the NHL.  It's not like they'll be able to stop people from wearing their apparel and referring to them by that name. 

Essentially, the most likely thing they'll be able to accomplish will be preventing the Vegas Golden Knights from trademarking the name and logo themselves, which would prevent them from getting the royalties that come with officially licensed products.  And, since the logo wouldn't be trademarked, people wouldn't have to pay to use it.

A logo is one thing.  That I get.  But the name?  I don't see any reason why there should be an issue with the name.  When Army folks refer to the "Golden Knights," they'll be talking about a parachute troop.  When hockey fans say it, they'll be talking about the team in Las Vegas.  It's all about the context and the company you're in.  Kinda like how you know the difference between the Carolina Panthers and the Florida Panthers or the Texas Rangers and the New York Rangers.

And even if the court were to agree with the Army about the "Golden Knights" trademark, what about the "Vegas" part?  That's a key thing, too.  The hockey team's name is the Vegas Golden Knights.  That alone should eliminate any confusion.  Or, if they want, they could just have some guys parachute in from the roof of T-Mobile Arena at the start of every game.

NHL All-Star Teams

There is one silver lining to the NHL's not participating in the Olympics.  Because they aren't going to Korea, there will be an All*Star Game.  This is the first time since 2002 that the NHL will hold an All*Star Game in an Olympic year (although that year we saw the same players in both the All*Star Game and the Olympics).  It's also the first time in more than a decade that there's an NHL All*Star Game four years in a row.  I'd still trade the All*Star Game for Olympic participation, but I'll take what I can get.

The Olympics have also played havoc on the scheduling of the February special events.  The Grammys and Oscars are both usually held on Sunday nights in February, but with the Olympics taking up three of the four Sunday nights and the Super Bowl taking up the other, they both had to be moved.  The Oscars will be the first Sunday in March, while the Grammys will be the final Sunday in January.

Why am I bringing this up?  Because with the Grammys moving to that night, the traditional NHL All*Star Game/Pro Bowl doubleheader isn't happening.  Instead they're being played simultaneously (and only about two hours away from each other with the Pro Bowl in Orlando and the All*Star Game in Tampa).  I'm curious to see what that'll do to the ratings for each, especially since they're both on network television for the first time in forever.

Anyway, on to the teams.  With only 11 players for each division and every team needing to be represented, there are going to be a whole bunch of snubs.  Especially in the Met, where choosing just six forwards is practically impossible.

I also expect to see a lot of Tampa Bay Lightning on the Atlantic team.  They're hosting and they're significantly better than each of the other seven teams in the division.  Plus, their coach is coaching.  I wouldn't be surprised to see the Lightning claim all four spots available to them.

Likewise, I'm curious to see how many spots the Golden Knights end up claiming in the Pacific.  They've been the story of the NHL over the first half of the season.  They'll almost certainly have multiple All*Stars.  Which they should.  And, the NHL hasn't announced any future All*Star hosts yet.  I'd imagine they'll want one in Las Vegas sooner rather than later.  And what an event that'll be!

But back to this year's game.  The captains are Steven Stamkos (Atlantic), Alex Ovechkin (Met), P.K. Subban (Central) and Connor McDavid (Pacific).  I've got no problem with any of those.  As for who should join them in Tampa...

ATLANTIC
Goalies: Tuukka Rask (Bruins), Andrei Vasilevskiy (Lightning)
Defensemen: Jordie Benn (Canadiens), Erik Karlsson (Senators), Victor Hedman (Lightning)
Forwards: Steven Stamkos* (Lightning), Evander Kane (Sabres), Dylan Larkin (Red Wings), Vincent Trochek (Panthers), Nikita Kucherov (Lightning), Auston Matthews (Maple Leafs)

METROPOLITAN
Goalies: Henrik Lundqvist (Rangers), Braden Holtby (Capitals)
Defensemen: Seth Jones (Blue Jackets), Shayne Gostisbehre (Flyers), John Carlson (Capitals)
Forwards: Alex Ovechkin* (Capitals), Sebastian Aho (Hurricanes), Taylor Hall (Devils), John Tavares (Islanders), Jakub Voracek (Flyers), Phil Kessel (Penguins)

CENTRAL
Goalies: Pekka Rinne (Predators), Connor Hellebuyck (Jets)
Defensemen: P.K. Subban* (Predators), John Klingberg (Stars), Alex Pietrangelo (Blues)
Forwards: Patrick Kane (Blackhawks), Nathan MacKinnon (Avalanche), Jamie Benn (Stars), Eric Staal (Wild), Brayden Schenn (Blues), Blake Wheeler (Jets)

PACIFIC
Goalies: John Gibson (Ducks), Jonathan Quick (Kings)
Defensemen: Alex Goligoski (Coyotes), Drew Doughty (Kings), Brent Burns (Sharks)
Forwards: Connor McDavid* (Oilers), Johnny Gaudreau (Flames), Anze Kopitar (Kings), Brock Boeser (Canucks), William Karlsson (Golden Knights), Jonathan Marchessault (Golden Knights)

It's tough to handicap which division has the edge, especially since the winner of the Skills Competition gets to decide who it plays and when.  But, since the Met won last year and overall is the strongest division (and since I'm obviously partial to the Met), I'll give them the nod.  Although, Wayne Gretzky won't be coaching them this year.

Football Picks, Wild Card

Well, we've reached the playoffs.  And if you told me back in September that these would be the eight teams playing this weekend, I wouldn't have believed you.  It's not just who's missing from the postseason (the Packers, the Seahawks) or that eight of the 12 teams (the most since 1990) are new to the field.  It's the complete randomness of some of them.  I mean, seriously, who had a Bills-Jaguars playoff game anywhere on their radar when the season began!? 

But that's the beauty of the NFL.  Other than penciling in the Patriots for a bye every year, you really have no idea who's going to be good.  As a result, we've got a wide open playoff field.  Especially in the NFC, where it really looks like it's anybody's game.  I think New England is actually vulnerable, too.  Pittsburgh had that first game and is chomping at the bit for a rematch in the AFC Championship Game.

Before going into my picks for wild card weekend, I think it's only fair to reveal my Super Bowl pick.  And it's Steelers-Vikings.  Pittsburgh wants that rematch because they know they can beat New England.  Even in Foxboro.  As for Minnesota, their goal is to not leave their home stadium until their first preseason road game.  Seeing as they're the best team in the NFC and the Eagles look shaky, I think that's exactly what'll happen.  The Vikings become the first team to play a home Super Bowl, which they use to their fullest advantage against the Steelers.

Minnesota, theoretically, just needs to win three home games in order to be Super Bowl champions.  Chalk me up as someone who thinks that can happen.  I'm going to say it.  The Vikings don't just play in the Super Bowl at home.  They win it at home.

As for what's going to happen in the wild card games...

Titans (9-7) at Chiefs (10-6): Kansas City-Kansas City had that little hiccup in the middle of the season, but rebounded to win its last four and defend its AFC West crown.  The Titans, meanwhile, got it done in Jacksonville last week to clinch their first playoff spot in a decade.  And of all the newcomers, Tennessee is probably the least unlikely.  They were actually a popular playoff pick at the start of the season.

However, Tennessee faces a tall task in Kansas City.  The Chiefs have definitely gotten their mojo back, and they're in the playoffs for the third straight year, so you know that won't be a factor.  Most of all, though, I'm not sure the Titans can score enough against the Chiefs defense.  Marcus Mariota's gonna need to have the game of his life, and it still might not be enough.  The Chiefs of the last month look like the Chiefs of the beginning of the season, when they were arguably the best team in football.

Falcons (10-6) at Rams (11-5): Rams-The defending NFC champion Falcons are the only repeat playoff team in the NFC.  And it's not totally unreasonable to think that they could make a return trip to the Super Bowl.  Although, they're going up against that high-flying Rams offense with all of its All-Pros.  Who knows?  Maybe they'll actually be able to fill up the Coliseum this time, too.

There were questions about the Rams and their staying power all year, but I think they answered all of their doubters by ending up 11-5 and winning the division.  It's their first playoff appearance since 2004, and their first as the LA Rams in 30 years.  Or, when Head Coach Sean McVay was a 1-year-old.  This Rams team is too young, too good and too oblivious to care about that, though.  If this game was in Atlanta, I might be inclined to pick the Falcons.  But I like the Rams.  I don't think Atlanta will be able to score enough to keep up with them.

Bills (9-7) at Jaguars (10-6): Jacksonville-Of the four matchups this weekend, this one is by far the most surprising.  The Jaguars have gone from laughingstock to AFC South champs (although, those helmets are still the source of justified ridicule).  The Bills, meanwhile, ran the gamut of emotions on Sunday.  They did what they had to do, saw the Bengals were winning, then saw the Ravens take the lead, then Cincinnati won it and ended Buffalo's 17-year playoff drought. 

To put that in perspective, when I moved to Buffalo as a freshman in college, their first game that season was a Sunday Night Football playoff rematch against the Titans.  That was the first season of the drought.  I lived in Buffalo for six years, and the Bills didn't make the playoffs.  It's been 11 years since I lived there, and now they're finally back!  As a quasi-adopted Buffalonian, their fans deserve it.

And here's the crazy thing about this game, it's the best matchup for both of them.  The Bills would've gotten hammered if they played the Chiefs, while the Jaguars got swept by the Titans this season.  As it is, either one can win this game.  It's really a matter of whether or not the Bills are able to do anything against the Jacksonville defense.  The Jaguars' offense doesn't really inspire me, but their defense is among the best in the game.  And I think they'll ride that defense all the way to Pittsburgh.

Panthers (11-5) at Saints (11-5): New Orleans-We knew we were gonna get an NFC South division game in the wild card round, and I fully expect a typical NFC South shootout between the Panthers and Saints.  This game is in New Orleans because the Saints won both regular season meetings, but what's that saying about beating the same team three times in one season?

I can see either of these teams beating the Eagles next week.  But only one of them will have that opportunity.  And, for some reason, I think that'll be New Orleans.  The Saints have the edge.  It's a very slight edge, but it's an edge nonetheless.  Although, the real matchup in this game is the Saints' offense against the Panthers' defense.  So, basically, it comes down to who has a better game between Drew Brees and Luke Kuechly.  Brees knows this may be his last good chance at reaching another Super Bowl (the NFC South champion has been to the Super Bowl the last two years, remember).  He'll make a big play late that proves to be the difference in a Saints win.

Last Week: 9-7
Regular Season: 161-95

My NHL U.S. Olympic Team

There's been a lot of discussion (much of it on this blog) about the NHL's decision not to take a midseason break for the Olympics, just as they have every Olympic year since 1998.  I think I've made my feelings on that decision pretty well-known, so I'm not going to reiterate them again.

Anyway, the lack of an NHL presence sure took the star power out of the team announcement at the Winter Classic (which was held at the second intermission instead of after the game, when Jack Eichel and Ryan McDonagh would've skated out in their Team USA jerseys).  But instead of what could be an NHL All-Star team, the United States will be represented by a bunch of former NHL players (such as captain Brian Gionta), as well as European pros and collegians.  We don't know what to expect from this team, but, considering the pathetic performance by the American team at the 2016 World Cup of Hockey, it won't be hard for them to have a better showing than the NHL guys did a year and a half ago.

That didn't stop me from wondering what a U.S. Olympic team made up of NHL players would've looked like.  It almost certainly would've marked the first Olympic appearance for Jack Eichel and Auston Matthews and Johnny Gaudreau, the guys who'll be the faces of American hockey for the next decade.  We also likely would've seen Patrick Kane, arguably the greatest American player of all-time, and Sochi hero T.J. Oshie in perhaps their final Olympics.

As for the starting goalie, that's easy.  Jonathan Quick of the Kings has earned the role for his body of work over the past few seasons.  The Devils' Corey Schneider is also an easy call as the backup, with the third spot up for grabs between a handful of goalies.  After some consultation, I went with Anaheim's John Gibson, a young guy who would benefit from the international experience.

Here's my entire team, listed alphabetically by NHL team at each position.  I went with 13 forwards and seven defensemen, just in case of an injury (I also named an injury replacement for Chris Kreider):

Goalies: John Gibson, Ducks; Jonathan Quick, Kings; Corey Schneider, Devils

Defensemen: Jack Johnson, Blue Jackets; Seth Jones, Blue Jackets; Ryan Suter, Wild; Ryan McDonagh, Rangers; Kevin Shattenkirk, Rangers; Shayne Gostisbehre, Flyers; John Carlson, Capitals

Forwards: Ryan Kesler, Ducks; David Backes, Bruins; Jack Eichel, Sabres; Johnny Gaudreau, Flames; Patrick Kane, Blackhawks; Dylan Larkin, Red Wings; Zach Parise, Wild; Max Pacioretty, Canadiens; Chris Kreider, Rangers (injured); Phil Kessel, Penguins; Joe Pavelski, Sharks; Auston Matthews, Maple Leafs; James Van Riemsdyk, Maple Leafs (replacing Kreider); T.J. Oshie, Capitals

My team captain would be one of the veterans, I'm thinking either David Backes or Ryan Kesler.  The other would be an assistant captain, along with Joe Pavelski.

Of course, none of these players will actually be wearing the Red, White and Blue in PyeongChang.  Instead they'll be wearing the jerseys of their NHL employers while we watch a group that brings us back to Olympics past.  And I give the NHL guys a ton of credit.  They're disappointed about the league's decision to keep them out, but they don't begrudge the players who are going.

And why should they?  There's no reason to begrudge them.  It's not their fault the NHL decided against participating.  And, besides, someone had to go.  This was their opportunity to be Olympians, an opportunity that may not ever come around again.  They would've been stupid to pass it up.

So, instead of seeing the familiar faces of Patrick Kane and Auston Matthews and Phil Kessel, we'll get to learn some new names.  Names like Troy Terry and Jordan Greenway, who could be joining Eichel and Matthews on a number of U.S. National teams moving forward.  We'll also see Chris Bourque (if the last name's familiar, it should be) and Bobby Sanguinetti, who both got NHL cups of coffee and nothing more, as well as Ryan Zapolski, who's widely considered the top American goalie not playing in the NHL.

Once the Olympics start, we'll probably forget that they don't play in the NHL.  We won't care that, for many of them, this might be the biggest hockey stage they'll ever play on.  All we'll care about is that they're representing the USA.  And they'll likely endear themselves to us, especially if they make a deep run.  Another "Miracle On Ice" it won't be, but that wouldn't make it any less unlikely.

You can't help but wonder, though, how different things would've been had the NHL agreed to shut down for the Olympics, just as it did from 1998-2014.  How would this team fare in Korea?  We'll never know.  Which is a shame.  No offense to the 23 players who will represent the United States at the Olympics, deserving selections all, but the NHL guys should be there.  Hopefully the powers that be realize that in 2022.

The Winter Classic

I began my 2018 with a visit to Citi Field for the Winter Classic.  I've been waiting for the Winter Classic to come to New York pretty much for the entire 10 years that the event has existed, and this year it finally did!  Although, this was actually my second time seeing the Rangers in an outdoor game.  I saw them play the Islanders at Yankee Stadium a few years ago.  But this was different.  This was the Winter Classic!

Despite the cold (which definitely put a damper on things), it was definitely worth it.  The game actually ended up being pretty competitive, too, which was a worry considering the Sabres' record coming in.  It went to overtime before the Rangers won, improving to 4-0 all-time in baseball stadiums.

They also continued the tradition of announcing the U.S. Olympic team at the Winter Classic.  Although, since the NHL isn't sending its players to PyeongChang, it wasn't quite the same.  Instead of announcing the team at the conclusion of the game, with the players on the participating teams skating out in their U.S. Olympic jerseys (in this case Ryan McDonagh and Jack Eichel), they did it at the second intermission with only a handful of members from each team there (it was nice that the women's and sled hockey teams were also included, though).  More about the Olympic thing tomorrow, but there was definitely something missing with that announcement.  Which isn't the fault of the players, obviously.

My seat was actually pretty good, too.  I was in left field, behind the Sabres bench.  Four of the five goals (all but the game-winner) were scored on that end, so I got pretty lucky in that regard.  I was also in the last row, right by the food and bathroom, which made it a somewhat shorter wait in those lines.

It also gave me a pretty good angle for photos.  And, it actually worked out better that I was planning on using my camera to take pictures anyway.  Because I didn't have to take my gloves off (either pair) to use my camera.  The people at Citi Field were good, too.  I was able to move around afterwards and get photos from different angles with no problems.

As usual, you can find more on Facebook, but here's a selection from the day...

They had an eagle flyover after the national anthem.

The opening faceoff

Members of the men's & women's Olympic and Paralympic
sled hockey teams.

We're going to overtime!

Rangers win!

Great use of the Mets' home run apple