Baseball's Next Milestone Reachers

With CC Sabathia set to reach 3,000 strikeouts and Albert Pujols about to collect his 2,000th RBI any day now, the discussion shifts to who's get there next.  It's a legitimate question.  Because in this day and age, the old baseball milestones are getting harder and harder to come by. 

In order to reach one of those traditional Hall of Fame benchmarks, you first need to be a veteran.  And, as we've seen recently, teams don't value veterans nearly as much as they once did.  You also need to be productive enough early in your career to give yourself a shot later on, allowing for injuries and the to-be-expected late career drop off.  Which could lead to us reconsidering those standards entirely.

Let's take a look at some of those standards, see who's close, and if getting there is actually a possibility:

3000 hits - Closest: Miguel Cabrera (2704), Robinson Cano (2497) 
It's reasonable to think that the 3,000-hit plateau is still reachable.  Miggy needs fewer than 300 hits, so if he's able to stay on the field over the next two seasons, he should get there in either late 2020 or early 2021.  Either way, I think he'll play long enough to get there.  Robinson Cano is borderline.  He's the same age as Miggy, but more than 200 hits behind him.  He'll either need a monster year (or two) or to play until he's 40. 

After those two, though, we'll probably have to wait until Mike Trout for the next player to join the 3,000-hit club.  He's in his ninth season and already over 1,200.  If he continues his standard level of production, he should get there in about 2028 or 2029.  Jose Altuve has a shot, too.  He's also in his ninth year and has 1,500 career hits.  So, another nine years and another 1,500 hits will get him to 3,000.

500 home runs - Closest: Miguel Cabrera (466)
Miggy getting to 3,000 hits seems like a lock.  His getting to 500 homers is a little more questionable.  Once again, it really comes down to his health.  If he were still in his prime, we could expect him to hit those 34 homers this season.  But at this point in his career, even 30 might be pushing it.  Although, if he can hit 20 this year, it's reasonable to think he can get 14 next year.

Giancarlo Stanton's at 305, so he's built himself a nice cushion.  With a few more years of playing his home games in Yankee Stadium, especially in this homer-happy era, he's well on his way.  Trout's at 246 and hits 35 a year.  It's reasonable to think he'll get to 3,000 hits first, with his 500th homer not too far behind.

There's really no reason to worry about the offensive benchmarks.  Those numbers--500 home runs and 3,000 hits--remain achievable.  It's the pitching ones that we really have worry about.  CC might get some company in the 3,000-strikeout club soon.  But I have no idea when, or if, any pitcher will ever get to 300 wins again.

3000 strikeouts - Closest: Justin Verlander (2759), Max Scherzer (2503)
Both former Tigers are well on their way to 3,000 strikeouts.  Verlander will probably get there sometime next season.  And Scherzer strikes out 200 guys a year, so he's looking at 2021 for the milestone.

They aren't the only ones.  Felix Hernandez isn't the pitcher he once was and still needs 512.  I'm not sure he'll pitch long enough to get them.  I've got more faith in Clayton Kershaw getting there.  He's 700 away and has had some injury problems over the past few seasons.  But we all know how dominant a healthy Clayton Kershaw can be.  And you know he's gonna pitch long enough to get 700 more strikeouts.

300 wins - Closest: CC Sabathia (247)
Yeah, this one's not gonna happen anytime soon.  CC's retiring after the season and his goal is 250.  Verlander's the only other active pitcher over 200, and he's at 208.  It's a lot easier to compile strikeouts than wins.  Verlander has said he wants to pitch for another few years.  But even that's not long enough to get 92 more wins.  That 250 number seems much more reasonable for him, too.  Because 300 is practically untouchable.  No one else is close enough to even be in the discussion.

400 saves - Closest: Fernando Rodney (325)
Fernando Rodney is 42 years old and not even a closer.  He isn't getting to 400 saves.  Neither is Jose Valverde, who somehow is second among active players with 288 saves.  There are two active players who reasonably could get to 400, though--Kenley Jansen and Aroldis Chapman.  They're both young enough and on teams that are good enough to reach the milestone only six others have hit.  Jansen has 278 saves, so he should get there first.  Chapman, currently at 241, should do it roughly a year later.

So, it would be a stretch to say that these milestones are unattainable.  They're difficult to reach, yes.  But that's the entire point.  That's why hitting those marks puts you in the conversation for the Hall of Fame.

Is CC Sabathia a Hall of Famer?  The voters will have the next 15 years to think about it.  But if you're basing it off the numbers, he's got to be in the discussion.  And, consider this: Of the other 16 pitchers with 3,000 strikeouts, 15 are in the Hall of Fame and the 16th is Roger Clemens.

Next Man Up

A baseball season is a funny thing.  It's six months long, and they play a game virtually every day.  Those months can seem so long while they're happening, only to become a distant memory as the season goes on.  There are guys currently on the team who you won't even remember come September.  And in September you'll hear a name that vaguely recall only after he shows up wearing another uniform.

The 2019 New York Yankees are a prime example of this.  They've only played a month, one sixth of the season, yet that month seems like it has taken forever.  Mainly because there's a new injury everyday.  I've seriously never seen anything like this before.  They have a bona fide All-Star team on the DL, and that list just keeps growing!  Among position players, they're down to four Opening Day starters (and some of the replacements have also gotten hurt), and some of the lineups they're putting on the field look like they're from the seventh inning of a Spring Training game.

Every team has to deal with injuries.  That's just a fact of life over the course of 162 games.  But losing so many key people so early, all for a significant amount of time, is really pretty absurd.  It tests your depth to be sure.  But that depth only goes so far.  At one point two weeks ago, every position player on the 40-man roster was either active or on the DL.  Every! Single! One!  (Third-string catcher Kyle Higashioka is currently the only non-active, non-injured position player.)

But the games aren't going to stop just because two-thirds of your projected starting lineup is injured.  Somebody's gotta play.  And the guys that are have taken full advantage of their opportunity.  

Hence the berth of the "Next Man Up" Yankees.  We've grown to love these guys almost to the point where we're going to miss them when everyone else is back and they're gone.  Because they're not just keeping positions warm.  They're producing.  To the point where Aaron Boone is going to have some decisions to make as the Yankee regulars get healthy and the DL shrinks (or players simply trade places).

They aren't selling "Next Man Up" shirts at Yankee Stadium yet.  At least they weren't before the West Coast trip.  But that could easily change as early as Friday when they return home.  Either way "Next Man Up" hasn't just been the team's mantra for the month of April.  It's going to be a rallying cry all season.  Hopefully one that lasts until October.

So who are some of these next men up?  Mike Tauchman, who they got from the Rockies on the last day of Spring Training to be a fourth outfielder and is now, for the time-being at least, the everyday right fielder.  Mike Ford, a career Minor Leaguer who pitched and played first base at Princeton.  Thairo Estrada, a rookie who wasn't supposed to be called up this early.  Tyler Wade, who thought he had made the team out of Spring Training, only to have Tauchman get his roster spot.  Gio Urshela, who was on Cleveland's 2016 World Series team.  Cameron Maybin, a veteran who they traded for after they were down to literally two outfielders (Brian Cashman even admitted they picked Maybin because (a) he wouldn't cost them a prospect and (b) he could get on a plane to Anaheim the fastest).

I haven't even mentioned Clint Frazier.  One of the Yankees' most-prized prospects ever since they first traded for him three years ago, he's always been the victim of a numbers game.  Until this year.  He finally got his opportunity to play everyday and he was thriving, that is until he became the latest resident of the DL.  And how about DJ LeMahieu?  A former All-Star and NL batting champion with the Rockies, he signed with the Yankees as a free agent knowing he didn't have a position.  He didn't even start on Opening Day!  But he quickly went from utility guy to indispensable leadoff hitter.

And how about Domingo German?  When they found out the severity of Severino's injury and how he'll be out much longer than originally thought, there were a lot of people (myself included) who panicked and wanted them to pull the trigger on Dallas Keuchel.  Well, there's a reason why Brian Cashman is the Yankees' GM and I'm not.  Because German, the team's sixth starter, would make the AL All-Star team if selections were being made right now.

Speaking of making the April All-Star team, it turns out Luke Voit's monster final two months in 2018 weren't a fluke.  One of the last men standing from the Opening Day starting lineup, he's reached base in every game this season and is third in the AL in RBIs.  Meanwhile, Gary Sanchez has belted eight home runs (including a monster grand slam in San Francisco on Saturday), Gleyber Torres has seamlessly transitioned over to shortstop (which, granted is his natural position), and Brett Gardner has ended up starting practically every game in center field (and recently moved into the 3-hole in the lineup) despite the Yankees' original plans for him this season.

Do any of the "Next Man Up" Yankees make me miss Aaron Judge and Giancarlo Stanton and Miguel Andujar?  Of course not!  This is a team that has its sights set on the World Series.  And everyone knows it's Judge and Stanton that'll get them there.  Not Tauchman and Ford and Estrada.

If this season does end with a ticker-tape parade down the Canyon of Heroes, though, the contributions of Tauchman and Ford and Estrada and the rest of the "Next Man Up" Yankees won't be forgotten.  They likely won't still be around for that parade.  We'll be lucky if still we remember their names then.  But they'll have been just as big a part of it as anybody.

This isn't last season.  No one's in danger of losing his job the way Brandon Drury did.  When the starters come back, the "Next Man Up" Yankees will give way.  They'll either be sent back to the Minors, released or traded, and the Yankee lineup will once again boast all the Bronx Bomber sluggers who set the Major League record for home runs last year.

By necessity, the "Next Man Up" Yankees have been doing things a different way.  But one thing has remained the same.  They're winning games.  And that's the most important thing.  They may not be around for the postseason, but, should the Yankees get there (as expected), the "Next Man Up" bunch will be a big reason why they did.

Expansion Candidates

Sometime last week (I don't remember exactly when), I thought to myself: "Why isn't there a WNBA team in Nashville?"  Come to think of it, it was probably while I was watching a Predators game.  But I digress.  The point is I can't see a reason why Nashville doesn't have a WNBA team.  I'm not sure they're looking to expand beyond the current 12 teams, but if they do, Nashville seems the obvious candidate.

A WNBA team in Nashville just makes too much sense.  Frankly, they should have one already.  Tennessee has a rabid fan base that they should try to tap into.  It works in Connecticut, after all.  And they long ago dropped that requirement that WNBA teams share a market with their WNBA counterpart (and even if they hadn't, Nashville would effectively be a sister team to Memphis regardless).  Plus, when you consider all the markets the WNBA has tried and failed over the years, going to a city that already has that relationship with women's basketball, it's worth giving it a shot.

Of course, if the WNBA were to add Nashville as a 13th team, they'd need a 14th.  Which is a bit of a problem.  Because I don't think there are many cities out there dying to have a WNBA team.  They'd almost need to do what some of the international sports federations have started doing and reaching out to specific areas about hosting instead of the other way around.  (My suggestion would either be Denver or reviving the Houston Comets.)

I bring up the WNBA, but I wouldn't be surprised if their male counterparts get the itch to expand their league to 32 teams in the near future.  Especially with that new arena in Seattle being built for the hockey team, which would be awfully enticing for the NBA.  

There should be no NBA expansion that doesn't include Seattle.  So really, we're talking about one additional team here.  And, after the instant success of the Golden Knights, I wouldn't be surprised if they made their own run at Las Vegas (which would give the NHL and NBA the same two expansion cities for franchises 31 and 32).  After all, the NBA has always been the most receptive to sports gambling, and they've already had an All*Star Game in Vegas.

Although, I've got another suggestion for the NBA to consider--Kansas City.  The Kings used to play in Kansas City before moving to Sacramento, but it might be time for a return.  Like Nashville and the WNBA, it simply makes too much sense.  It's the NBA, so it's not an apples to apples comparison and the built-in college fan base is less relevant.  But you've got that whole area in the Midwest that doesn't have a team.  Going to Kansas City would solve that problem.

When Seattle joins in 2021, the NHL will be set.  We all knew that they were going to add a 32nd team after they brought the Golden Knights in, and there doesn't seem to be any desire to go beyond that.  (It would also screw up the math.)  Ditto with the NFL.  It would be nice if they could find a way to go back to San Diego (by telling the Chargers to go home?), but the only market they really covet is Las Vegas, which will be taken care of when the Raiders move next season.

Which leaves us with the two sports that have "Major League" in their name.  While I don't think there's a serious push being made to go beyond the current 30 teams, hints have definitely been dropped that MLB may expand to 32 at some point in the not-too-distant future (which would compel the NBA to follow suit and give each of the Big Four 32 teams).  

Except there's one problem: Where do you go other than Montreal?  Like the NBA returning to Seattle, any Major League Baseball expansion you'd figure would involve the rebirth of Les Expos.  Baseball's the only sport that has to expand two teams at a time, though, and there's no obvious candidate for that second team.  Would it be Las Vegas or Portland to get Texas and Houston out of the AL West?  There's been talk about Mexico.  But would MLB really consider putting both expansion teams in non-American markets?  And, frankly, there doesn't seem to be an American market that makes sense.  So I think MLB, which is perfectly content at 30, will stay there.

MLS, however, is on a huge expansion kick.  With the additions of Atlanta, Orlando, Minnesota and Cincinnati over the past few years, they're currently at 24 teams (which I think is a perfect number for that league), with three more set to come in Miami, Nashville and Austin.  MLS has a stated goal of 30.  It's very ambitious, but it also seems doable.  Because there are definitely more than three cities that would work.

Even though MLS doesn't have promotion and relegation like European soccer leagues, they sort of indirectly do because successful lower-level teams (including Seattle, Orlando, Montreal and Minnesota, among others) essentially just switched leagues when they were awarded MLS "expansion" franchises.  That principle still remains.  Good lower-level teams in worthwhile markets could be worthy of those three MLS expansion spots.

Specifically I'm talking about St. Louis, a city with a tremendous soccer history.  And just think of the rivalries that would be created with Kansas City and Chicago if there was an MLS team in St. Louis!  MLS has also been interested in Detroit for a long time, with the lack of a soccer-specific stadium seeming to be the only hold up.  If that's the only thing preventing Detroit from getting a franchise, you'd have to think they'll get it resolved soon enough for the Motor City to be one of the three.

St. Louis and Detroit bring us to 29.  But what city should be number 30?  Sacramento has evidently been in talks with MLS, but I just can't see that (it would be the fourth MLS team in California and the seventh on the West Coast).  So, I think Sacramento's out.  

If it were up to me, that final spot would go to one of three cities: Phoenix, Indianapolis or Edmonton.  Like St. Louis, Indianapolis has had a successful second-level team for a number of years.  And it would increase MLS's presence in the Midwest.  Edmonton, meanwhile, is the strongest Canadian team not currently in MLS, and that would make it four teams North of the Border, two in the East, two in the West.

My choice for the 30th MLS team, though, is Phoenix.  Phoenix is the eighth-largest media market in the U.S. and regularly hosts games in major tournaments like the Gold Cup and World Cup qualifiers (it's on the short list and will likely be chosen for the 2026 World Cup, too).  Phoenix also has a diverse population, so filling a 30,000-MLS stadium probably wouldn't be difficult.  And they'd make for nice rivals with the two LA teams.  (Although, Sacramento would essentially serve that same purpose.)

All of this is obviously just speculation.  Other than the NHL going to Seattle and the three confirmed MLS teams, additional expansion may not be on the table.  (That seems highly unlikely, but it's possible.)  Sometimes it's fun to speculate where expansion teams might play, though.

Stanley Cup Round 2

All four division winners lost to the four wild card teams.  The President's Trophy winners who tied the NHL single-season record for victories were swept.  Both of last year's finalists lost Game 7 in overtime.  All three Game 7's were won by the team that trailed 3-2 in the series.  So, basically, it was the first round of the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

If you needed any further evidence that hockey's playoffs are the best and most unpredictable in sports, I offer you the NBA for comparison.  In the NBA, the four top seeds in the Eastern Conference went a combined 16-2 and no series went longer than five games.  In fact, six of the eight NBA series total were won by the higher seed in five games or fewer.  Can you say predictable?

The Stanley Cup Playoffs, meanwhile, are anything but.  I was one of many who thought Tampa Bay was unbeatable.  As it turns out, the Lightning decided they only felt like playing one period in the entire series.  Who cares if you won 62 games during the regular season?  You got swept in the opening round of the playoffs!  That's all anybody's gonna remember.

Toronto looked like they might finally get over the playoff hump.  Then they had their annual Game 7 loss in Boston, giving Islanders fans the last laugh, as they saw their team move on while John Tavares is out.  Then there's the San Jose-Vegas series that was literally decided on a penalty call.  A five-minute major during which the Sharks scored four times to turn a 3-0 deficit into a 4-3 lead in an eventual 5-4 Game 7 victory.  And let's not forget the St. Louis Blues, who were the worst team in the entire NHL in January but are now in the second round of the playoffs.

After a crazier first round than the NHL has given us in quite a while, what's in store for round two?  Honestly, I've got no idea.  The Bruins the highest seed left, and, I must say, those long-suffering Boston fans deserve a championship.  By the time the Cup is awarded, it'll have been four whole months since one of their teams won one!

I kid, of course, but no team benefited more from the Lightning's early demise than the Bruins.  They were on the short list of legitimate Stanley Cup contenders before the playoffs started, and they were one of the few higher seeds to survive that wacky first round.  And playing Columbus is obviously much different than playing Tampa Bay.  Although, I don't think they're dumb enough to count the Blue Jackets out (like the Lightning did).

Out West, your guess is as good as mine.  San Jose is now the No. 1 seed in the West, but we'll see how long Joe Thornton is out and how much of an impact that makes.  That series against Colorado is a toss-up anyway (at least I managed to call one upset!).  The Avalanche have just as much, if not more, individual talent.  Same thing with the Stars and Blues.  Would it surprise anyone if Dallas wins that series?

EASTERN CONFERENCE
Bruins vs. Blue Jackets: Columbus proved that they aren't your typical 8-seed.  The Blue Jackets got healthy at the end of the season, got hot at the right time, and rode it to an upset of the prohibitive Stanley Cup favorite.  Now they get to play the No. 2 choice on the board.  And it'll be daunting.  Because the Bruins play a completely different style than the Lightning.  I also have to wonder about the long layoff, which could be a factor in both East series.  Columbus swept and was off for a week, while Boston turned right around and got just one day off between Game 7 and Game 1.  It might not be a factor at the beginning, but it could be if the series gets extended.  Especially because of how physical the Bruins' annual tussle with Toronto was.  Regardless, they're the better team and should be able to take the series.  Bruins in six.

Islanders vs. Hurricanes: To me, one of the most surprising first round results was the Islanders sweeping the Penguins.  I'm not surprised they won.  But I didn't expect them to dispatch Pittsburgh as easily as they did.  When the series ended, I asked a friend of mine (who's an Islanders fan) what the difference was.  They lost their best player and didn't really add anybody that significant.  Is this all Barry Trotz?  It's obviously not that simple, but his answer was "Yes."  Trotz has made that much of a difference.  I'd argue that being back in Nassau Coliseum has had a major impact, too, but they'll be at the Barclays Center from here on out, negating that home ice advantage.  Still, Carolina is a much more favorable matchup for them than Washington.  As a hard-core New Yorker who's a Rangers fan, I've been dreading the possibility of an Islanders-Bruins Conference Final.  Which is exactly what I fear we're going to have.  In which case I say "Go West!"  Islanders in six.

WESTERN CONFERENCE
Blues vs. Stars: You've gotta give it to both these teams.  Because those were impressive performances in round one.  St. Louis-Winnipeg figured to be pretty even, and for the most part it was.  Until Game 6, when the Blues had a chance to clinch and did so with the only home win of the series.  Dallas, meanwhile, outplayed Nashville for much of that series.  And Dallas' "Stars" showed up.  So now we've got two teams with ubertalented individuals matching up with a chance to go to the Conference Final.  And this is a pretty even matchup, so I'm expecting a long series.  They've both proven they can win on the road, so defending their home ice is going to be key.  So will goaltending.  That's where Dallas has the advantage.  Ben Bishop's a finalist for the Vezina.  He'll probably steal at least one game for the Stars, then come up big in the clincher as Dallas moves on.  Stars in six.

Sharks vs. Avalanche: While technically an "upset," you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who didn't think Colorado would beat Calgary.  Just like the number of people who would be surprised if the Avalanche also beat the Sharks is small.  Let's face it, San Jose is lucky to be here.  Martin Jones got pulled twice in the Golden Knights series, and they were headed to a Game 7 loss before that game- (and series-) changing penalty.  However, even before that penalty, the Sharks seemed to find their mojo after falling behind 3-1 against Vegas and rallying to force that Game 7.  So it would be silly to count the Sharks out.  Especially since their history of playoff disappointment seems to be behind them.  This one will be a grinder.  If the Avalanche play the way they did against Calgary, they'll be tough to beat.  But if the Sharks play they way they did in Games 5 & 6 vs. Vegas, so will they.  Something's obviously gotta give, but I like San Jose at home in Game 7.  Sharks in seven.

Perhaps inspired by all the first-round surprises and clearly inspired by March Madness, NBC and the NHL are offering a "second chance" Stanley Cup fantasy bracket challenge.  (A lot of people picked the Lightning evidently.)  For my second chance picks, I'm taking Boston and San Jose.  But this is the Stanley Cup Playoffs.  Nothing would surprise me.  Especially not after that first round.

QB's Number 1

In the eight years this blog has existed, I can count on one hand the number of times I've talked about college football.  As such, my interest in the NFL Draft is equally nonexistent.  But, I'm in the minority.  The NFL Draft is such a big deal for both the NFL and college football communities that THREE! networks will be broadcasting the first round in primetime on Thursday night.

The consensus seems to be that the Cardinals will take Kyler Murray No. 1, making him the second straight Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback from Oklahoma to go No. 1 overall.  Arizona can only hope things work out as well as they did with Baker Mayfield in Cleveland.

Mayfield is one of five quarterbacks drafted No. 1 overall who was the regular starter for the team that drafted him last season.  Four of the five have taken their team to the playoffs (on multiple occasions), and two have been to the Super Bowl.  So, it's safe to say there have been more hits than misses for teams taking quarterbacks No. 1 overall in recent years. 

Since 1998, when the Colts hit a home run with Peyton Manning, there have been 15 quarterbacks taken No. 1 overall.  They're not all future first-ballot Hall of Famers, but, for the most part, they've had successful NFL careers.  In fact, of the other 14, I'd say only three (maybe four) were complete busts.  Although the jury's still out on Jameis Winston.

Hits

• Peyton Manning (Colts, 1998): It's hard to overstate the impact Peyton Manning had on both the Indianapolis Colts franchise and the NFL as a whole.  Five MVPs, numerous passing records, four Super Bowl appearances, two Lombardi Trophies, a Super Bowl MVP, and soon a bust in Canton.  Sure, some of that came after he went to Denver, but does that really matter?  There wouldn't be a new stadium in Indianapolis had Peyton never been a Colt.
• Michael Vick (Falcons, 2001): Forget about the three-year suspension for a second and just consider his career as a football player.  Electric in Atlanta (he had a 1,000-yard rushing season in 2006).  Then, after his legal troubles, he went to Philadelphia, threw 21 touchdown passes in 2010 and led the league in passing yards in 2011.
• Carson Palmer (Bengals, 2003): If he hadn't played for the Bengals and Cardinals, a case could be made that Carson Palmer is a borderline Hall of Famer.  A great seven-year run in Cincinnati that included two playoff appearances, a two-year exile in Oakland, then five seasons in Arizona, three of which were sensational.  He threw 35 touchdown passes in 2015, when the Cardinals reached the NFC Championship Game.  Having a Hall of Fame wide receiver in Larry Fitzgerald sure helped, but Carson Palmer put together a very nice 14-year career of his own.
• Eli Manning (Chargers/Giants, 2004): This one obviously comes with an asterisk, but I don't think either team is complaining.  Eli refused to play in San Diego (I still don't understand why), so the Giants drafted Philip Rivers and the teams swapped QBs.  They're both their team's starter to this day.  Rivers backed up Drew Brees for two years and has started every game ever since.  Eli has won two Super Bowls, was named MVP of both, and is widely considered the best QB in Giants history (even if his career is on the downside).
• Alex Smith (49ers, 2005): I've always thought Alex Smith got kind of a raw deal in San Francisco.  People considered him a "bust," but it's hard to succeed when you have a new head coach and offensive coordinator every year.  After he was traded to Kansas City, he finally had some stability.  And he thrived.  Last year the Chiefs traded him to the Redskins to make room for some guy named Mahomes who had a pretty good season...and Washington was in first place until he suffered that gruesome leg injury on a Monday night in November.  I hope he's able to come back from it.
• Matthew Stafford (Lions, 2009): How many different starting quarterbacks did the Lions have before Matthew Stafford came along?  The answer is a lot.  How many have they had since then?  One.  Stafford hasn't missed a game since 2011 and has set all kinds of franchise records.  In fact, when he signed his contract extension in 2017, he was briefly the highest-paid player in NFL history.  Oh, and did I mention he threw for 5,000 yards in 2011?  See, something good can come out of 0-16.
• Cam Newton (Panthers, 2011): Win the Heisman, win the National Championship, win the Rookie of the Year.  He didn't have a bad 13 months in 2010-11.  That success has only continued, highlighted by an MVP season in 2015, when Newton led the Panthers to a 15-1 regular season and an appearance in Super Bowl 50.  He hasn't quite gotten back to that level since, but that doesn't change the fact Carolina's in good hands at the quarterback position.
• Andrew Luck (Colts, 2012): Indy is 2-for-2 when drafting quarterbacks No. 1 overall (well, 2-for-3 if you count Jeff George).  After Peyton missed the 2011 season due to injury, the Colts ended up with the No. 1 pick again and fired him to take Andrew Luck.  All Luck has done is lead them to the playoffs in four of his five healthy seasons, including a trip to the Deflategate AFC Championship Game in 2014.  Oh, yeah, he's made four Pro Bowls and was last season's Comeback Player of the Year, too.  So I'd say this pick worked out alright.
• Jared Goff (Rams, 2016): Preparing for their move back where they belong in LA, the Rams traded up to take Goff No. 1 overall three years ago.  I'd say it was a good decision.  Because his last two years have been exceptional.  In the last two years, he's led the Rams to back-to-back division titles and made the Pro Bowl each time.  So what if he was horrible in Patriots Game LIII.  The fact remains that he started one at age 24, and it probably won't be the last time he's playing on the first Sunday in February.
• Baker Mayfield (Browns, 2018): Ever since reentering the league in 1999, the Browns have been looking for a franchise quarterback.  They can stop looking.  Because Baker Mayfield is the real deal.  And, as a result, for the first time in a long time, a franchise that was moribund for so many years suddenly became watchable again.  It all started on a Thursday night against the Jets.  Who knows where it'll lead?  But expectations are high in Cleveland, and their quarterback is a big reason why.

Misses

• Tim Couch (Browns, 1999): Before Mayfield came along, the Browns had a dubious history at the quarterback position.  When Cleveland rejoined the league in 1999, they drafted Tim Couch out of Kentucky No. 1 overall.  Why they thought this guy was an NFL quarterback (let alone worth making the No. 1 pick in the Draft) is beyond me.  How he was their regular starter for four years is equally as confusing.
• David Carr (Texans, 2002): Ditto about the Texans.  When they joined the league in 2002, they made David Carr the No. 1 overall pick.  He got sacked a lot that season.  Carr actually lasted four years as Houston's starter before playing in just 16 games combined over the next six years as a backup for the Giants, 49ers and Panthers.  His brother, Derek, meanwhile, has been far more successful, starting all but two of the Raiders' games over the past five years and making three Pro Bowls.
• JaMarcus Russell (Raiders, 2007): Derek Carr has had a slightly better career than the QB Oakland took No. 1 overall in 2007 (after they passed on Matt Leinart in 2006, despite not having a quarterback then).  Things did not go well with JaMarcus Russell.  In three years, he went 7-18 as a starter and threw 23 interceptions while barely completing 50 percent of his passes.
• Sam Bradford (Rams, 2010): Not every Heisman-winning Oklahoma QB taken No. 1 is a slam dunk.  Bradford's actually still in the league.  He started the first three games for Arizona last year before losing his job to Josh Rosen and ultimately being released.  The Cardinals were his third team in four years after being traded from the Rams to the Eagles in 2015.  None of them have resulted in a playoff appearance.

TBA

• Jameis Winston (Buccaneers, 2015): Part of me wants to say that Jameis Winston has had a successful early career in Tampa Bay.  Then another part of me wants to call him a bust.  Which is why I'm officially putting him in the "undecided" category.  He was Rookie of the Year in 2015 and the Bucs almost made the playoffs the following season, but the last two years haven't been good at all.  And Tampa Bay, you could argue, did better early in the season when Winston was suspended and Ryan Fitzpatrick was playing quarterback last year.  So, I just don't know.  Winston's still got some time to prove himself, though.

All-time Baseball Movie Team

With Aaron Judge now joining the parade of injured Yankees, they now officially have an entire starting lineup (including a DH, starting pitcher and closer) on the DL.  And that lineup is pretty freakin' good too!

Anyway, every position player on the 40-man roster is now either on the active roster or DL.  And this is after moving two guys to the 60-day DL to make room for players who weren't already on it.  If someone else gets hurt, I don't know who's left.  Maybe they should look to Hollywood.

There are plenty of baseball movies out there.  Some are better than others.  Some featured actual Major Leaguers, either playing characters (Kevin Elster) or themselves (Ken Griffey, Jr., and Randy Johnson).  Sometimes even IN THE SAME MOVIE!  And those movies have given us enough fictional baseball players to form an All-Star team that's comparable with the Yankees' DL.

C: Crash Davis (Kevin Costner, Bull Durham) - Costner could easily be the pitcher here.  After all, he threw a perfect game at Yankee Stadium in For Love of the Game.  But I think Crash is deserving of finally getting that long-awaited Big League call-up.  So he gets the nod over Jake Taylor.

1B: Lou Collins (Timothy Busfield, Little Big League) - He's got the power.  If not for that crazy catch by Junior, Lou would've hit a homer off Randy Johnson to win the wild card game for the Twins.  So, basically, he'd be an instant upgrade over Greg Bird.

2B: Mickey Dominguez (Wilmer Valderrama, Summer Catch) - Second base is kind of a weak position in baseball movies.  The second baseman's either a non-character or used for the comic relief.  But somebody needs to bat ninth in the lineup.  Wilmer Valderamma's Domo it is.  He was in college playing in the Cape Cod League then, so he'd logically be in the Minors (or out of baseball) now.

SS: Pat Corning (Kevin Elster, Little Big League) - Bonus points for getting an actual Major League shortstop to play a fictional Major League shortstop.  I don't know why movie producers choose to either neglect the middle infielders or turn them into stereotypes (there's always hope for the next baseball movie!).  So, with very little competition, Elster gets the nod.  I'm willing to bet he could probably still play, too.

3B: Roger Dorn (Corbin Bernsen, Major League) - Other than Cerrano, is there any character in Major League better than Roger Dorn?  Sure, defense is optional for him, but the Yankees don't need him for his glove.  They need a guy who can hit the ball out of the park.  And you know Dorn would love playing in New York.

LF: Ben Williams (Matthew McConaughey, Angels In the Outfield) - Alright, alright, alright!  He's certainly done OK for himself since starring as an unknown in Angels In the Outfield.  I bet they wish they could team him with Mike Trout.  But it's the Yankees who need an outfielder.  Especially one with the star power of an Oscar winner.

CF: Willie Mays Hayes (Wesley Snipes, Major League) - No offense to Brett Gardner, but Willie Mays Hayes would be an upgrade both as a leadoff hitter and a center fielder.  And, yes, I'm talking about the Major League I Wesley Snipes version of Willie Mays Hayes, not the Major League II Omar Epps version who thought he was a power hitter.

RF: Pedro Cerrano (Dennis Haysbert, Major League) - Judge, Stanton, Cerrano.  Three power hitting right fielders who hit line drive outs harder than most people hit home runs.  With both Judge and Stanton out, Cerrano would slide naturally into both right field and the lineup.  And, he has something in common with another Yankees right fielder.  Like Dave Winfield, he hit a bird with a ball during a game.  I just hope Dennis Haysbert isn't too busy doing Allstate commercials right now.

DH: Roy Hobbs (Robert Redford, The Natural) - Talk about power hitters!  The veteran Hobbs is far to old to be playing the outfield at this point.  But he can still hit, which makes him a perfect DH option.  And just imagine how that lefty swing would play at Yankee Stadium.

P: Steve Nebraska (Brendan Fraser, The Scout) - If you've never seen The Scout, you aren't missing anything.  It's a terrible movie.  But Steve Nebraska was Shohei Ohtani before Shohei Ohtani.  In Game 1 of the World Series against the Cardinals, he threw an 81-pitch perfect game, striking out all 27 hitters on three pitches AND hit two solo homers in a 2-0 victory.  At Yankee Stadium!  I have no idea why they sent him back to Scranton after that!

Closer: Rick Vaughn (Charlie Sheen, Major League) - Really, could it be anyone else?  The Yankee bullpen is already stacked.  Wild Thing would just make it that much deeper.  And the bullpen door swinging open to the strains of "Wild Thing" brings back memories of "Enter Sandman" and the first unanimous Hall of Famer.

The NFL's Centennial Season

I finally got a chance to sit down and check out the full NFL schedule.  There's a lot to digest, but one of the things I noticed is that, as expected, they're going all-in on the league's centennial celebration.  Every week will have a marquee matchup that highlights a great moment in NFL history (some are stretches, while some have obvious significance), which I thought was a really nice touch.

It all starts with the first game of the entire NFL season, when the Bears and Packers play in Chicago.  The NFL's two oldest teams--one that predates the NFL, one that was founded by the same guy who founded the entire league--and the league's most significant rivalry.  It's the perfect way to start the 100th season.

While watching the schedule release show on NFL Network, they made some interesting points about how the schedule is constructed.  They start with something like 5,000 possible schedules before narrowing it down to 17 that are considered "workable."  I'm sure the TV networks then give their input before they settle on the final schedule.

And there are plenty of things about that final schedule that I noticed and found interesting.  For starters, the Bears have three Thursday games.  I don't recall a team ever playing more than two Thursday games in the same season, but, in addition to the opener, Chicago plays Detroit on Thanksgiving, then Dallas the next week.  (That seems to be a new scheduling trend where the Cowboys play a Thursday night game the week after Thanksgiving against another team that played on Thanksgiving.)

The NFL always gives us those little schedule teasers such as announcing the London games (one of which also includes the Bears) ahead of time.  One of those spoilers was that the Cowboys' Thanksgiving opponent would be Miami.  Which was either wrong or a total fake-out.  Because Dallas isn't playing the Dolphins.  They're playing Buffalo.  Which brings us to the obvious question: "Why are the Bills playing on Thanksgiving?"  (Although, I do like that they're actually letting an AFC team play on Thanksgiving this season after completely shutting the AFC completely out of the NFL's biggest holiday way too many times in recent years.)

Speaking of the Bills, they've got one of the quirkiest schedules I've ever seen.  Actually, it's just their first two games that are quirky: Week 1 at Jets, Week 2 at Giants.  Yes, you read that right.  Their first two games (neither of which is a home game) are in the same stadium!  If they were a West Coast team, that would make a lot more sense since it would be a way to avoid making them travel, but it's odd to have a team that's so close play two consecutive games at Met Life.

Other noteworthy things about the NFL schedule:

• Philadelphia is the only team in the league with a three-game road trip (Weeks 6-8), after whcih the Eagles have three straight home games
• Tampa Bay and Oakland both go six weeks without playing an actual home game.  The Bucs' only "home" game between Weeks 4-9 is their Week 6 matchup with Carolina in London.  The Raiders' stretch runs from Weeks 3-8.  They'll be the "home" team for the Khalil Mack Bowl vs. Chicago in Week 5.
• Ten teams (Chicago, Dallas, Green Bay, Kansas City, Rams, Minnesota, New England, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Seattle) play the league-maximum five primetime games, while eight (Arizona, Carolina, Cincinnati, Detroit, Jacksonville, Miami, Tampa Bay, Tennessee) only play one and the Bills don't play any.  Buffalo's only nationally-televised game is on Thanksgiving.
• For the first time in its 14-year existence, the Sunday Night Football schedule doesn't include the New York Giants.  The Giants could always be flexed in, but as of now, their only primetime games are two Monday nighters and their Thursday night showdown with the Patriots.  Their league-mandated season opener in Dallas, meanwhile, is on Sunday afternoon instead of Sunday night for the second straight year.
• This isn't just the 100th anniversary of the NFL, it's also the 50th anniversary of Monday Night Football.  The first-ever Monday night game was Jets-Browns on September 21, 1970.  To celebrate, Jets-Browns will be the Monday night game on September 16, 2019 (the closest the NFL could get to the actual anniversary, which is on a Friday).
• That's the first of three primetime games in four weeks for the Browns, which is more Sunday/Monday night games than they've had in the last 10 years combined.  Cleveland hosts the Rams on Sunday night in Week 3 and has another Monday night game at San Francisco in Week 5.  Their Thursday night game is at home against the Steelers in Week 11.
• Kansas City is NOT New England's opponent on the opening Sunday night (Pittsburgh gets that honor instead).  They'll have two of the centennial featured games in back-to-back weeks midseason, though.  In Week 8, they host the Packers (Super Bowl I), then host the Vikings (Super Bowl IV, final game in AFL history) in Week 9.
• Green Bay is the only team to play a road Monday night game, then be on the road again the next week.  Although, to be fair, those are both division games at the Vikings and Lions, so the travel isn't exactly extensive.  (The Packers' division road games are in Weeks 1, 16 and 17.)
• Arizona, Green Bay, New Orleans, Oakland and Pittsburgh all end the season with two straight road games.  Denver, Minnesota, New England and Seattle end with two straight at home.
• As if they needed any help from the schedule makers, the Patriots play a grand total of one game outside the Eastern time zone (Week 13 at Houston).
• They're holding the Chiefs-Patriots game until Week 14, but the NFC Championship rematch between the Saints and Rams is early.  It's actually the Rams' home opener in Week 2.
• With the Raiders set to move to Las Vegas in 2020, the final NFL game in Oakland (pending any home playoff games) will be against the Jaguars on Dec. 15.

Tokyo Getting Closer

The Tokyo Olympics are getting close!  How close?  Tickets go on sale in Japan in a few weeks.  And today, they released the full schedule.  We already knew the preliminary schedule, but that only told us what sports were on what days.  Now we know the whole thing.  And now it's time to start planning.  Because those 15 months will go by quick.

With the time difference between Japan and the U.S., there were going to be morning finals.  They announced that a few months ago when they released the preliminary schedule.  That's what they did for swimming in 2008, and, despite much protest by the hosts, that's what they'll do for swimming again in 2020.  Same thing with beach volleyball, which gets a 10 a.m. local time start for the two gold medal matches.

And, by special request of the IOC, there will be morning session finals in track & field, too.  They had morning finals in Rio for European TV, and this time they'll be for U.S. TV.  So, don't think it's a coincidence that the events they chose for morning finals (100/110 hurdles, 400 hurdles, long jump, triple jump, shot put) are events that the U.S. is good at.

I actually really like what they did with the track & field schedule.  Unlike recent Olympics, they actually set it up so that athletes can attempt to double.  I'm not just talking about the 100 and 200, either.  I'm talking 200/400 or 800/1500 or 1500/5000 or 5000/10,000.  Athletes won't have to pick one because of the schedule.  (Why they don't do this at every major championship is beyond me!)  Likewise, 400 runners can do all three events (400, 4x400 relay, mixed 4x400 relay) if they want.

All long distance event finals, meanwhile, will be held in the evening so as to avoid the worst of Tokyo's searing summer heat.  That's the same reason the marathons and race walks will all start at the crack of dawn (which is before NBC's prime time coverage even starts).

In fact, those of us in the U.S. actually really lucked out with this schedule.  Because of the heat in Tokyo at that time of year, they tried to avoid outdoor events in the middle of the day.  Which, for us, means overnight.  All of the outdoor stuff will either be in prime time or the morning.  (There will still be indoor events overnight.)

Gymnastics is an indoor sport.  Gymnastics finals were held in the morning in Beijing so that they could be live in the U.S.  In Tokyo, that won't be the case.  Finals will start at 7:30 p.m. local time, which is 6:30 a.m. on the East Coast.  (My guess is it's because Japan is good at gymnastics and NBC was willing to give it up as a trade-off for swimming.  Or they might just show it live instead of Today.)

We also found out that some sports will have completely different schedules than past Olympics in Tokyo.  Specifically basketball, which is going from two groups of six to three groups of four.  I kinda suspected that when I saw the initial schedule and it wasn't long enough to have five group games for everyone.  Now that's been confirmed.  The debut of 3 x 3 basketball, meanwhile, will be a little like curling in that all eight teams will play each of the other seven in the preliminary round.  I thought they'd have two pools, but I guess not.

Surfing's debut is still TBA.  All we know is the general time frame, which will be part of the "Surfing Festival" from July 26-August 2.  The exact day and time of the two finals is subject to wave conditions, though.  So, we really have no idea when the first-ever Olympic surfing medals will be awarded.

Softball isn't just making its Olympic return after 12 years away.  Softball will actually be the sport that gets the Olympics underway with three games on Wednesday, two days before the Opening Ceremony.  With the time difference, that first game will actually start at 8:00 on Tuesday night here.  There's also competition on the morning of the Opening Ceremony (in archery and rowing) for some reason, while the soccer tournaments will begin on Wednesday and Thursday as usual.

Baseball will be a week-long tournament that starts the day after softball ends, with the gold medal game on Saturday of the final weekend.  Karate's and sport climbing's debuts won't be until the end of the Games, while two skateboarding events will be held early with the other two late.

Those five new sports pushed the total number to a record 33.  The 339 medal events will also set a record.  (By comparison, there were 306 events in 28 sports at the Rio Games.)

Since the men's marathon is at 6:00 in the morning, it won't be the last event of the Games.  That honor instead goes to the men's water polo final, which starts at 4:30 p.m. on the final day.  All of the other final day sports (boxing, rhythmic gymnastics, handball, volleyball, basketball) will keep their traditional spots, but it'll be the women's final in the team sports (the women's basketball final starts at 11:30 a.m., so it'll presumably be live on NBC at 10:30 p.m. on Saturday night).

Tokyo 2020, the middle Games in that Asian Olympic trio, will be here before we know it.  And now that we know the full schedule, they really feel that much closer.  It's time to start getting excited!  Because July 24, 2020 will be here soon enough. 

Getting Back to the Top

I'm not a golf fan.  I've never claimed to be.  But I will admit that Tiger Woods winning the Masters again after 12 years is truly a remarkable feat.  Evidently he wasn't done after all.  And his victory is a testament to how truly spectacular he is as both a competitor and a champion.

Love him or hate him, Tiger Woods is the best thing ever to happen to golf.  I mean, look at this, he's got me writing a blog post about it.  He's the most important player in the game, and it isn't even really that close.  Tiger Woods being in contention at a Major makes people care.  Whether you're a hard-core golf fan or a casual follower or you're completely indifferent, you knew Tiger was in contention on Sunday and you wanted to know what happened.  That's the power he has.

A lot of people had counted Tiger out.  It had been 11 years since his last Major title...that brilliant performance at the 2008 U.S. Open.  He's 43.  He's had too many surgeries to count.  Yet, through it all, he persevered and came all the way back to win a fifth green jacket and show that Jack Nicklaus' record of 18 Major wins may not be so out of reach after all.

Some have called it the "greatest comeback in sports history."  Performances like this lend themselves to that type of hyperbole.  The truth is all subjective, though.  So while that claim isn't necessarily "wrong," it isn't "right" either.

Nevertheless, it does rank up there among the greatest comeback stories in sports history.  There are, of course, the memorable comebacks by teams in games (the Patriots in Patriot Game LI, the Bills-Oilers Wild Card Game, BYU-Iona in the First Four) or series (the 2004 Red Sox).  And those by individuals in team sports (Peyton Manning, Michael Jordan).

What Tiger did, though, is a different thing entirely.  Getting back to the top of an individual sport from the absolute bottom to the brilliance of these athletes.  Tiger is just one of many who've achieved an incredible comeback to become a champion again.  All of which are remarkable stories in their own right.

Lindsey Vonn: Let's start with Tiger's ex.  She's torn up her knee time and time again, and her injuries are almost too numerous to count.  After missing the Sochi Olympics, she won her second race back the next season.  Then in PyeongChang, Vonn ended her Olympic career with a bronze in the downhill.  She then won a bronze in the downhill at the 2019 World Championships in the final race of her career.

Kim Clijsters: Clijsters won the US Open in 2005 and made the semifinals of the first three Grand Slams in 2006 before a myriad of injuries caused her to retire from the tour.  She got married.  She had a baby.  Then in 2009 she decided to begin playing tennis again.  She was unranked and needed wild cards to get into tournaments.  They gave her one at the 2009 US Open, and she went on to win the whole thing!  Then she did it again in 2010.

Dan Jansen: Until 1994, Dan Jansen's career was remembered mainly for Olympic disappointment.  He fell in the 500 meters (hours after finding out about his sister's death) at the Calgary Games, then had a fourth-place and a 26th-place finish in 1992.  Two years later in Lillehammer, Jansen finished eighth in the 500 before setting a world record in the 1000 to finally become an Olympic gold medalist, at the age of 29.

Justin Gatlin: He won gold in the 100 and bronze in the 200 at the 2004 Olympics, then took gold in both at the 2005 World Championships.  Then in 2006, Gatlin received an eight-year doping ban that was later reduced to four years.  He came back in 2011, took bronze in the 100 in London, then started winning silver behind Usain Bolt.  Until 2017 that is.  In the final race of Bolt's career, Gatlin finally beat him, becoming World Champion again 12 years after his first World title and spoiling the GOAT's farewell.

Roger Federer: Yes, it's weird to see Roger Federer's name on a list of athletes with great comeback stories.  But he has one.  After playing in every Grand Slam tournament for 16 years, Roger missed significant time for the first time in his career in 2016, missing the French and US Opens after knee and back injuries.  Roger was back to full health by the 2017 Australian Open, which he won for his first Grand Slam title in five years.

Monica Seles: There's perhaps no greater individual comeback story than Monica Seles.  We all know the story.  She was No. 1 in the world when a deranged Steffi Graf fan stabbed her in the middle of a match.  Seles missed almost two full years, then made the final of the 1995 US Open in just her second tournament back.  She followed that up by winning the 1996 Australian Open for her ninth career Grand Slam title, and, while not the same player, she was consistently ranked in the top 20 for the better part of the next decade.

George Foreman: If there's a more beloved personality from the sport of boxing than George Foreman, I don't know who that is.  Before he began selling grills, he won an Olympic gold medal in 1968 and became world heavyweight champion in 1973, losing the belt to Muhammad Ali at the "Rumble in the Jungle" a year later.  Incredibly, after retiring and unretiring, he beat Michael Moorer in 1994 to regain the heavyweight title 20 years after losing it.

Muhammad Ali: Speaking of Ali and the "Rumble In the Jungle," that marked the culmination of a pretty remarkable comeback by The Greatest.  Ali's career is well-documented.  He beat Sonny Liston for the heavyweight title in 1964 and retained it until 1967, when he was banned from the sport because he refused to be drafted into the Vietnam War.  Ali returned in 1970, lost a title fight to Joe Frazier in 1971, then became the undisputed heavyweight champion again in 1974 when he knocked out the undefeated Foreman in what remains one of the greatest and most significant matches in boxing history (that also made for a great finale of an exceptional movie).

Lance Armstrong: Forget about the drug thing for a second and just consider the significance of the accomplishment.  He beat cancer then won the Tour de France seven consecutive times.  Armstrong was given only a 20-50 percent chance to live when he was diagnosed with cancer in 1996, was declared cancer-free in 1997, returned to cycling in 1998 and began the Tour de France streak in 1999.  Then he retired, came back, and finished third in the 2009 Tour (which is really what got him in trouble with anti-doping agents).  Sure, it was all a lie.  But the beating cancer wasn't.

Bethany Hamilton: In 2003, a shark bit her arm off.  Most people would stop surfing after that.  Not Bethany Hamilton, who, it should be noted, was 13 at the time.  She was back on her board a month later (after teaching herself how to surf with one arm), resumed competing in 2004 and won the ESPY for "Best Comeback Athlete."  Then in 2005, she won a national title.

Time To Go Get Dallas

Last season, when the Yankees got their butts kicked by the Red Sox in the playoffs, it was pretty apparent that their starting pitching was a huge weakness.  So much of a weakness in fact that it was the number one issue they addressed during the offseason.  They traded for James Paxton and re-signed both J.A. Happ and CC Sabathia, who were going to join with Luis Severino and Masahiro Tanaka to make for a much stronger rotation that should at least be good enough to get to that outstanding bullpen without overtaxing it.

The 2019 season is only two weeks old, but that hasn't been the case so far.  Injuries are the biggest reason for the Yankees' early struggles.  They have more players on the DL than any other team in the Majors, with big pieces in the lineup (Giancarlo Stanton, Miguel Andujar) and bullpen (Dellin Betances) missing.  But the most glaring impact of the injuries has been in the one area they tried to desperately to address during the winter--the starting rotation.

Severino and Sabathia both started the season on the DL, and neither one has thrown a pitch all season.  CC will be back this weekend, but Severino, who started with a shoulder injury and is now shut down for six weeks with a lat strain suffered during his rehab.  That puts the Yankees' ace on the shelf until mid-June at the earliest.  And suddenly this improved rotation doesn't look nearly as formidable.

There's an easy way to address this problem.  And it's the same solution that's been available to them for months now--Dallas Keuchel, the former Cy Young winner who's incredibly still unemployed and would be a perfect fit for Yankee Stadium (where he threw a three-hit shutout in the 2015 Wild Card Game).

During the offseason, the Yankees didn't really show much interest in Keuchel.  Their main goal was Patrick Corbin.  Then, after he decided to sign with Washington, they turned their attention to the Paxton trade and re-signing Happ.  Even during Spring Training, when knew Severino and Sabathia would miss the start of the season, they signed Gio Gonzalez for rotation depth instead of making a run at Keuchel.

I get the initial thought process.  They didn't want to spend big on a free agent who would only be a temporary stopgap, especially when they consider both Domingo German and Jonathan Loaisiga capable of doing the job.  German was a deer-in-the headlights for much of last season, but has been good so far this year.  And Severino's spot in the rotation appears to be his for the time being.  But should it?

Keuchel's price tag is probably the biggest reason why he's still an unsigned free agent two weeks into the season.  He turned down a $17.9 million qualifying offer from Houston, which means he's presumably either looking for more than that for one year or a multi-year deal.  If the Astros weren't willing to go more than two years, I can see why other teams would be hesitant to do that.  And $18 million (plus the luxury tax hit) does seem like a lot for five months of a No. 3 starter.

But, it might be worth reaching out to see if Keuchel has backed off that salary demand at all.  Because he has to know he's not getting $18 million.  If someone was willing to give him that, he'd be pitching for them already.  Which leaves him with two options--take whatever money a some team is willing to give you or don't pitch at all and continue to receive no salary.  Especially since it's pretty clear that more teams think his value is closer to $0 than $18 million.

Let's assume for a second that Keuchel brings his salary demand down to a reasonable level.  Say $10 million (which would be $2 million a month).  Is $10 million worth it for a veteran arm in the middle of the rotation, even if it brings you over the luxury tax?  Absolutely! 

Why wait until the trade deadline to get a veteran starter when you can get one now?  You know that it'll likely still be a priority in July.  By addressing it now and signing Keuchel, they can strike first while also preventing another team from getting him.  And all it'll cost is a few million dollars.  Getting a starter in a trade, meanwhile, will likely cost them prospects.  They'd be willing to do that.  But why would you if you don't need to?

Despite what the Tampa Bay Rays might want you to believe, you can never have enough starting pitching.  It's the most valuable asset in the game.  The Yankees currently don't have enough starting pitching.  Signing Dallas Keuchel would go a long way towards remedying that problem.

Can they survive until Severino gets back with the rotation they currently have?  Probably.  Are they still favored to make the playoffs?  Yes.  But, for as talented as the offense and bullpen are, the starting rotation has once again proven to be this team's weakness.  I'm not saying Dallas Keuchel is THE answer.  He might be, though.  And if it costs $10 million to find that out, so be it.

Stanley Cup Playoff Time 2019

Normally, when we enter the Stanley Cup Playoffs, we're talking about the handful of teams that realistically could end up hoisting the Cup two months from now.  This year feels different, though.  Because the regular season that the Tampa Bay Lightning put together was nothing short of remarkable.  I'm not saying they're unbeatable.  But they're pretty damn close.  And they're as big a Stanley Cup favorite as the NHL has had in a long time.

Which isn't to say Rangers South is the only team with legitimate Stanley Cup aspirations.  The winner of the Boston-Toronto series is going to give them a heck of a time in the second round, and so will whoever comes out of the Met.  Especially if that team is defending champion Washington.  It'll be interesting to see how the Capitals do in the first playoffs since the monkey got off their backs.

Out West, things seem a lot less clear.  Calgary quietly put together an outstanding season that landed them the No. 1 seed.  But I can easily see the Flames losing to the Sharks or Golden Knights in the second round.  Vegas came back down to Earth in its second season.  But the Knights still have that three-time Stanley Cup champion goalie to worry about. 

Then there's Nashville and Winnipeg, who were the West's 1 and 2 last year and battled it out in a great second round series (my thoughts on this idiotic playoff system are well known).  The Predators are only two years removed from their Stanley Cup Final trip and, in my opinion, the best team in the West.  So, if I had to make a Stanley Cup prediction right now, that's what I'll go with: Tampa Bay vs. Nashville.

As for the first round, we've got some intriguing series in store.  And not just Boston-Toronto and San Jose-Vegas (even though those are the two marquee series).  Especially in the West, where everybody was pretty much even all season, I'm expecting some seven-gamers.  Which is more than I can say for the East, which I think will be far less competitive.  In fact, I'd be surprised if there are more than two Game 6's.

EASTERN CONFERENCE
Lightning vs. Blue Jackets: It was a great effort by Columbus to hold off Montreal down the stretch and earn the East's last playoff spot.  But they didn't get much of a reward for it, drawing the league's best team in the first round.  Rangers South clinched the President's Trophy ridiculously early, but kept playing all the way until the end since they were trying for the wins record.  I think that will actually help them in the playoffs.  Because they didn't have guys who were sitting around and had to turn it back on.  It's been go, go, go the whole time.  The Blue Jackets' first-ever postseason series win will have to wait.  Tampa Bay in four.

Bruins vs. Maple Leafs: This is by far the most intriguing series of the first round.  Boston had 107 points, second-most in the league.  Toronto had 100, which was tied for the seventh-most (the Leafs were up there for a while before dropping off at the end when their playoff position was already locked in).  Last year, they engaged in a seven-game classic that the Bruins ended up winning.  The Leafs are better this year.  But, then again, so are the Bruins.  If anybody's going to knock off Tampa Bay, they might be the team to do it.  The last two times they've met in the playoffs, the Bruins won Game 7 in Boston.  Why should this year be any different?  Boston in seven.

Capitals vs. Hurricanes: Congrats to the Carolina Hurricanes on getting back to the playoffs for the first time in a decade.  Sadly, their stay might not be very long.  Because the Capitals rebounded nicely after some early Stanley Cup hangover, holding off the Islanders to win the Met and avoid the Penguins.  We've seen them crash and burn as the 1-seed before.  But that was back when they were still annual playoff disappointments.  Last year changed everything.  Now that pressure's off.  Their defense will get significantly more difficult starting next round, but they shouldn't have any difficulty getting past Carolina.  I'll give the Hurricanes a game, but I can't see them getting much beyond that.  Washington in five.

Islanders vs. Penguins: Why was that Capitals-Islanders battle to finish first in the Met so intense?  Because whoever finished second knew that they'd have to face Pittsburgh in the first round instead of a wild card.  And they both obviously wanted to do everything they could to avoid that.  Being the No. 3 seed in the division and not having home ice won't phase the Penguins at all.  The Islanders had a tremendous regular season.  But that Pittsburgh assignment is a tough one.  This is the Penguins' favorite time of year.  Pittsburgh in six.

WESTERN CONFERENCE
Predators vs. Stars: Two years ago, Nashville had the 16th-best record of the 16 playoff teams and went to the Final.  Last year, they won the President's Trophy and lost in the second round (to the second-best team in the West).  This year, they return almost the exact same personnel from those two deep playoff runs, which is why I'm installing them as my favorites to win the Western Conference.  Dallas is sneaky good and has plenty of weapons (including Mats Zuccarello).  But the Stars aren't as good as the Predators.  And Pekka Rinne could win another Vezina Trophy this season.  It'll be tough to get enough by him for the Stars to win four games.  One or two?  Sure.  But four?  Unlikely.  Nashville in six.

Jets vs. Blues: Even though the Jets and Blues finished with the exact same number of points, I'm not expecting this series to be especially close.  Because Winnipeg is a far superior team.  The Jets made it to the Conference Final last year and fully expect to get back, which is definitely possible.  And they've absolutely got the team to do it.  I just love how balanced they are, and if Connor Hellebuyck can shut down Vladimir Tarasenko and Ryan O'Reilly, I don't know how the Blues are going to score.  The Jets shouldn't have that problem.  Winnipeg in five. 

Flames vs. Avalanche: I can see the Flames winning this series in four, and I can also see them losing it.  You can't discount Calgary's record.  But they've only won one playoff series since their run to the Final in 2004, and they got swept the last time they qualified two years ago.  Of course, they don't have to play Anaheim this year.  Regardless, I really like Colorado to pull the upset here.  Calgary has the best player in Johnny Gaudreau, but the Avalanche have three 30-goal scorers of their own and the better goalie.  They were also the 8-seed last year, when they went six games against a superior Predators team.  On paper, the Flames should win.  For some reason, though, I think the Avalanche will.  Colorado in six.

Sharks vs. Golden Knights: Vegas has had a franchise for two years, and this is already a budding playoff rivalry.  Last year, they met in the second round after the Knights just steamrolled LA in the first round.  And it was the most competitive series Vegas played en route to winning the Clarence Campbell Bowl (which isn't actually a bowl).  That first-year magic wore off a little bit this year, and I'd even go so far as to call Vegas an underdog in this series.  But that doesn't mean the Sharks should feel comfortable.  Not by a long shot.  Because the best players in this series will be the ones wearing black, gold and steel gray.  And you know Fleury's going to win at least one game all by himself, too.  I'm expecting to see some second-round playoff action in Sin City.  Vegas in six.

There have been six different Western Conference champions over the past six seasons.  Vegas, San Jose and Nashville are the only teams on that list that made this year's playoffs.  Will that trend continue?  If it does, we might see a team from Western Canada playing for the Cup.  That's not until June, though.  We've got three other rounds of playoff hockey before then.  Starting on Wednesday night.

Put XC Back In the Olympics

Last weekend, the IAAF World Cross Country Championships took place in Denmark.  And by all accounts, they were one of the best World Cross Country Championships ever.  The course was incredibly challenging (there was water, mud, turns, downhills, they even ran up the sloped roof of a museum!) and incredibly fan-friendly (they had a beer tent, a viking-inspired cheering area, and fans were even able to run the course).  All of which led to the inevitable (and fairly obvious) question: Why isn't cross country part of the Olympics? 

Once upon a time, cross country was a part of the Olympic program.  A race was held three times from 1912-24, with Olympic legend Paavo Nurmi winning four of his nine career gold medals in cross country (two individual, two team).  The last time it was held, in 1924, it was on an unbearably hot midsummer day in Paris (over 100 degrees at race time).  Throw in the fact that it was held too close to a power plant, and you had only 15 of the 38 runners finish the race.  And so marked the end of cross country at the Olympics.

But does that incident a century ago mean cross country should remain permanently exiled from the Olympics?  The sport has come a long way since 1924.  Did that Swiss woman stumbling across the line in the first-ever women's Olympic marathon in 1984 mean the women's marathon should be taken out?  That suggestion obviously sounds ridiculous, as it should!

Over the years, there have been attempts to get cross country reinstated, but they haven't really gained much traction (it was even suggested that cross country be added to the Winter Olympics, which is never going to happen).  Another serious push is coming.  IAAF President Seb Coe, who ran the incredibly successful London Games, has long been a proponent of cross country.  He's influential in Olympic circles, so his advocacy will be incredibly beneficial for cross country's chances.  

It's obviously too late for cross country to be added to the Olympic program for Tokyo, so they're targeting 2024 for its return.  And wouldn't it be fitting that, especially after the disaster of 1924, when the Olympics return to Paris 100 years later, cross country also makes its triumphant return?

Adding cross country wouldn't be too much of a challenge logistically, either.  The track & field stadium schedule doesn't start until the Friday after the Opening Ceremony, so they could easily hold the cross country races on the Monday and Tuesday of the first week (or even just Tuesday if they wanted to have both on the same day).  That would give athletes an opportunity to do both cross country and a track race, too.  And, since the individual standings would determine the team results, that's four medal events for the price of two.

As for the course, mountain biking is already an Olympic event.  I'm sure it would require some tweaking (mountain bike races are significantly longer and the course is significantly more difficult), but that course could easily be used for the cross country running race, too.  Or, they could set something up in a city park or another spectator-friendly setting.  (Paris is beautiful, there would be plenty of options.)  And there's always the old golf course option, although that would likely be deemed too flat and not challenging enough for a world-class international race.

Of course, cross country has its critics, many of whom are put off by the dominance of the East Africans.  To an extent they have a point.  There were 27 medals awarded in the five events at World Cross, 25 of which went to either Ethiopia, Kenya or Uganda, including all nine golds.  But, at the same time, the European countries didn't put up much of a fight, by and large bypassing the meet entirely (even though it was held in Denmark).

Maybe there would be some sort of solution to balance out the African dominance.  Set it up so that only a certain number of countries from a given region can qualify, while guaranteeing a certain number of spots for each region.  And, who knows?, if you tie qualifying into World Cross, that could potentially increase the exposure/importance of that event, too.  Maybe even enough to get the Europeans to actually show up (the next one's in Australia, so if they didn't come to Denmark, I'd bet the chances of their traveling all the way down there is minimal at best).

Perhaps the biggest issue with bringing cross country back into the Olympic fold is the IOC's limit on the number of athletes.  Even though they're allowing Tokyo and Paris to add sports and events (and athletes) left and right, they still want to keep the total number of athletes around 10,500 (how they think makes any sense is beyond me).  As a result, the existing Olympic sports are seeing their athlete quotas cut.  

Track & field has already had to cap the number of competitors for Tokyo, which has led to a serious reduction in events like the marathon and 100 meters (which are generally the two events that smaller countries enter their one athlete in).  While I'm sure there would be some crossover, adding cross country would cut into track & field's quota even more.  And that would be a difficult pill for some competitors in the other events, which have already seen a reduction, to swallow.

So, yes, there are challenges.  And there would almost certainly be some opposition.  But putting cross country back in the Olympics simply makes too much sense.  It checks all of the boxes.  And, unlike a lot of the sports and events that have been added in recent years, it actually has a place Olympic history.  (Without cross country, Paavo Nurmi would only have five gold medals, not nine.)

The IOC and host city organizers are obsessed with X Games sports right now (Break dancing?  Really?!).  With all these ridiculous events being added, not to mention their other new obsession--mixed team events--you're telling me there's no place to add cross country too?  Please! 

Here's hoping they add at least one more new event to the Paris 2024 Games.  Because it's time for cross country to make its Olympic return.

NHL Playoff Problems Once Again

Rangers South clinched the President's Trophy like a month ago, and if they win their final regular season game, it'll be their 62nd of the season, tying the NHL record.  They haven't just been the best team in hockey all year, they're having an all-time season just like the 2018 Red Sox.

And what's their reward for putting together the best regular season by any NHL team since the 1995-96 Red Wings?  A second-round matchup with the Bruins, aka the second-best team in the league!  Which means that the NHL's ridiculously flawed playoff system strikes again!  How many times does this have to happen before they realize they need to change it (and changing it would be incredibly simple)?

This is the sixth season of this dumb division-based format.  And it'll be the fourth straight time that it's not possible for the two best teams in the Eastern Conference to both make the Conference Final.

Washington and Pittsburgh finished first and second in points in both 2015-16 and 2016-17 seasons.  But since they're in the same division, they had to play in the second round of the playoffs each time (with the Penguins winning both en route to back-to-back Cups).  And this year will be the second straight season in which Tampa Bay and Boston finish 1-2 in the East.  But, again, since they're in the same division, the latest they can play is in the second round.

To make matters worse, the top two teams in the Western Conference have also come from the same division, and thus played in the second round of the playoffs, three years in a row.  In 2016, it was Dallas and St. Louis.  In 2017, it would've been Chicago and Minnesota (who actually both ended up losing in the first round).  Last season, it was Nashville and Winnipeg.

So, it's been six years, and seven of the 12 No. 1 seeds have had to play the second-best team in the conference in the second round.  (It could become eight of 12 if San Jose ends up with more points than Nashville.)  If it happened once in a while, there would be no cause for alarm.  But when it happens regularly, it's a problem.  And the fact that this is now four years in a row should definitely be setting off alarm bells that the system is broken.

Everyone agrees that this is stupid.  The players know it (and hate the format).  The fans know it (and hate the format).  The coaches know it (and hate the format).  The league has to know it, too.  But the problem is, they're the only ones who can change it.  And they either don't care enough or are simply too stubborn to do that.

That's only part of the problem.  In 2017, Washington, Pittsburgh and Columbus had the three best records in the Eastern Conference.  But since they all play in the Metropolitan Division, second-place Pittsburgh and third-place Columbus played in the first round...and the Blue Jackets were eliminated.  Meanwhile, Ottawa had the sixth-most points in the East and had home ice in its first-round series against Boston.  The Rangers had more points that season than every team in the Atlantic except for Montreal...their first-round opponent.

Under this idiotic format, the fourth-place team in the strong division can actually get a better playoff draw than the second-place team.  And it also guarantees that strong teams go home early while at least one weaker team will advance.  Lower seeds winning in the Stanley Cup Playoffs is nothing new.  But the 6-seed pulling an upset and the 6-seed having home ice in the first round are entirely different things.

Everyone agrees that this is stupid.  The players know it (and hate the format).  The fans know it (and hate the format).  The coaches know it (and hate the format).  The league has to know it, too.  But the problem is, they're the only ones who can change it.  And they either don't care enough or are simply too stubborn to do that.

Instead, leave it to the NHL to take something that wasn't broken and "fix" it anyway.  I have no idea why they felt the need to tinker with the playoff format when they realigned the league into four divisions, but they did.  And all the people who assumed that doing it this way would lead to plenty of problems have been proven correct.

All of these problems are easy to fix, too.  All they need to do is go back to the old way.  You give the division winners the 1- and 2-seeds, then seed everybody else 3-8, and you reseed after the first round.  That way, the second-best team in the conference (assuming they're in the same division as the best team) will be seeded no lower than third.  Which would also guarantee that the teams with the two highest point totals, regardless of division, can't meet until the Conference Final.

Using the old method and the current standings, here's what the first-round matchups should be:

EAST: 1-Lightning vs. 8-Blue Jackets, 2-Capitals vs. 7-Hurricanes, 3-Bruins vs. 6-Penguins, 4-Islanders vs. 5. Maple Leafs
WEST: 1-Flames vs. 8-Avalanche, 2-Predators vs. 7-Stars, 3-Sharks vs. 6-Golden Knights, 4-Jets vs. 5-Blues (these actually will be the Western Conference matchups, making this the rare occurrence where they wouldn't be any different)

There should be more of a reward for being the best team over the course of an 82-game regular season.  Just like a team shouldn't be penalized for finishing second in a strong division (especially when the first-place team has more points than anyone in the league has had in more than 20 years!).  That wasn't an intended consequence of the current playoff system, but it's a very real one.

The NHL's goal was to put more of an emphasis on divisional rivalries.  This is the format they used in the 80s, when there were some intense playoff battles between teams that did not like each other.  Except the NHL of the 1980s was vastly different than the NHL of today.  For starters, there were only a handful of teams that didn't make the playoffs back then.  There are nearly twice as many teams now, and half of them don't make the playoffs.  So the ones that do really earn it, and they deserve to be rewarded for it...which is something this playoff format doesn't do.  Not by a long shot.

Unfortunately, we're stuck with this playoff method for at least the next two seasons, and probably 2020-21 as well.  But when Seattle joins the league in 2021-22, that's the perfect time to make the change.  Except instead of "fixing" something that wasn't broken, they'll be going the other way.  They'll take the best postseason in sports--the Stanley Cup Playoffs--and make it that much better.