Stanley Cup Preview 2022

For the first time in three years, the Stanley Cup Playoffs are taking place at a normal-ish time.  It won't be until next season that the league is completely back on schedule, but they managed to get in a full, 82-game season even with a midseason COVID pause.  And they finished exactly when they expected to...at the end of April.  Which means we'll see the Cup awarded sometime in June.

We've known the Stanley Cup playoff field in the East since pretty much the All*Star Break (if not before that).  Those eight teams have spent the last two months jockeying for positioning.  And, frankly, I can see any of the eight in the Final.  In the West, meanwhile, Colorado is the team to beat.  The Avalanche are the best team in hockey, and it isn't even close.  I know the Panthers won the President's Trophy.  So what?  They aren't better than Colorado.

In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if Florida loses to Washington in the first round.  I wouldn't be surprised to see either East wild card win actually.  That's the beauty of the Stanley Cup Playoffs!  For as predictable as the NBA Playoffs are (the higher-seeded team won all eight first round series), the Stanley Cup Playoffs are never what you expect!

With that in mind, I'm actually having a really hard time picking the Eastern Conference team to face Colorado for the Cup.  I do know that I think it won't be Florida, and I'm not sure Tampa Bay can make it three in a row.  I also have a really hard time going against the Lightning, though. 

My prediction will probably change each round, as a matter of fact.  So, I might be better off doing this round-by-round.  In the West, I think I've got a pretty good idea of what'll happen in the first round.  In the East, though?  Not so much!

EASTERN CONFERENCE
Panthers vs. Capitals: Remember a few years ago, when Tampa Bay won the President's Trophy, then got swept in the first round by Columbus?  I wouldn't be completely shocked to see the same thing happen again here.  Maybe I should give the Panthers more credit, though.  They not only won the President's Trophy, they finished first in a division that included three other powerhouse teams.  And Washington, really, was inconsistent.  To pull off the upset, the Capitals need a healthy Ovechkin.  Even with him, it'll be tough.  Florida in six.

Maple Leafs vs. Lightning: Will this be the year when Toronto finally wins a playoff series?  The Leafs have been the poster children for playoff disappointment.  The Lightning, meanwhile, haven't lost a playoff series since 2019.  And starting on the road won't faze the two-time defending champs at all.  They've got a very realistic chance to three-peat.  They've also got a very realistic chance of losing in the first round if the Leafs finally play like they do in the regular season during a playoff series.  Although, it's more likely they lose Game 7 at home yet again.  Tampa Bay in seven.

Hurricanes vs. Bruins: Boston is a very dangerous wild card team.  And Carolina should be very leery of them.  This will not be an easy series for the Hurricanes.  Carolina should manage to survive it, though.  Because the Hurricanes are a better team than the Bruins.  And if Carolina plays well, they'll be a very, very tough team to beat.  If they don't, though, Boston's more than capable of winning this series.  Carolina in five.

Rangers vs. Penguins: The Rangers were fighting the Hurricanes for the Metro Division title for most of the season, but I was hoping they'd finish second, mainly because of the matchup.  This is the matchup I wanted to see.  And it's one I feel really good about.  This is the Rangers' first trip to the playoffs in a few years (not counting the 2020 bubble), but they're equipped to make a run because they've got Igor Shesterkin.  They also play incredibly well at home, which is why finishing second in the division and getting that extra home game was so important.  Because Game 7 will be at Madison Square Garden instead of in Pittsburgh, which could definitely make a difference.  Rangers in seven.

WESTERN CONFERENCE
Avalanche vs. Predators: I was watching the end of the Nashville-Arizona game last night, knowing that it would determine the last two playoff matchups in the West.  The Predators lost to the Coyotes, which means they have to play the Avalanche in the first round.  Had they won and gotten Calgary, they'd actually have a chance.  Against Colorado, they don't.  If you're looking for a series that has the potential to be a sweep, this might be your best bet.  Colorado in four.

Wild vs. Blues: When they met in the Winter Classic, who would've expected they'd meet again in the first round of the playoffs?  And who would've figured it would be Minnesota who'd have the home ice in that series?  Frankly, I don't think that'll matter too much, though.  Because St. Louis has the playoff experience, which is far more valuable.  The Blues also have the better individual players.  Guys who are capable of single-handedly taking over a game (or a series) the way Jordan Kyrou did outdoors at Target Field.  St. Louis in six.

Flames vs. Stars: Like Florida, I have a lot of questions about Calgary.  Mainly, can the Flames follow up their tremendous regular season with a postseason run?  They sure to have the tools to do it, but they certainly would've preferred the Nashville matchup.  Don't forget, Dallas played in the Stanley Cup Final not even two years ago.  And they've got most of those pieces back.  I wouldn't be shocked to see Dallas pull the upset here.  Dallas in six.

Oilers vs. Kings: If not for Toronto, Edmonton would be the Canadian team known for its playoff disappointments.  Seriously, how can a team that has players like McDavid, Draisaitl, Nugent-Hopkins and all that other talent continually falter in the postseason?  Eventually they have to win a series.  Right?  This might finally be the time.  Credit to the Kings for making the playoffs and eliminating Vegas for the first time in the Knights' history.  I'm not sure they have enough to beat the Oilers, though.  Especially if that kid is in the building.  Edmonton in five.

Even though I already said I like Colorado in the West and have no idea in the East, I still feel like I should give a Stanley Cup Final prediction, if only to get something on record and see how wrong I was.  So I'm gonna go with Carolina.  I just have a feeling about the Hurricanes.  Which gives us a Stanley Cup Final between weather events, with the Avalanche topping the Hurricanes.

The Draft Road Show

While I don't watch or particularly care about the NFL Draft, I know there are plenty of people who'll watch every hour of all three days.  If that's your thing, more power to you.  It's just not mine.  Mostly because I don't really watch college football (and thus don't know any of the players), but also because the NFL Draft is mind-numbingly boring television!  It's analysts sitting around for hours discussing the same players they've been discussing for months, with the occasional actual selection thrown in!  

Of course, it was the NFL Draft that really helped make ESPN what it is.  When Pete Rozelle first got the call from ESPN telling him they were interested in televising the NFL Draft, he thought they were crazy.  I'm sure there were some "who's gonna watch that?!" feelings.  But people, of course, did watch it, which is how the NFL Draft expanded into the three-day megaevent with the primetime first round that it is now.

In those early years, the NFL Draft was always held in New York.  That changed in 2015, when the NFL started holding a bid process to host the Draft, similar to the bid process for the Super Bowl.  And, frankly, that decision was brilliant!

Anything NFL-related is an incredibly marketable property.  And the Draft is the only event that brings together the rabid fanbases of the NFL and the rabid fanbases of college football.  So, it makes sense to bring the Draft to them instead of making them have to travel to New York.

Here's another reason why bidding out the location of the NFL Draft was so smart--anyone can host the NFL Draft!  Only a handful of teams can host the Super Bowl, which rotates between the same 8-10 warm-weather cities.  The Draft, meanwhile, is in April, when the weather's much nicer.  And, even if it isn't, the Draft can be held indoors.

The NFL, obviously, knows that, so it's not surprising that since they started moving the Draft around, most of the host cities are ones that wouldn't be in the mix to host a Super Bowl: Chicago (2015-16), Philadelphia (2017), Nashville (2019), Cleveland (2021), Kansas City (2023), Detroit (2024).  Only Dallas and New York have hosted both the Draft and the Super Bowl, while this year's Draft host, Las Vegas, will host Super Bowl LVIII next season.

Meanwhile, none of your regular Super Bowl cities (Miami, New Orleans, Tampa, Phoenix, Atlanta, etc.) has even emerged as a potential site for a future NFL Draft.  While I'm sure they're not excluded (and the NFL would probably very much like a Draft in Los Angeles at some point), it looks like the NFL is being very deliberate in the cities it picks to host the Draft.  Basically, they're making it possible for every team to host at least one of the marquee events (three if you include the Pro Bowl, which is also limited to warm-weather cities).

I wouldn't be surprised if future Drafts are held in places like Seattle or Pittsburgh or even Green Bay.  Or how about Indianapolis, which already hosts the Combine?  In fact, it wouldn't be shocking if they start moving that around, too.  That's probably less likely since the Combine isn't the fan event that the Draft is, but if they started allowing fans to attend that, you know they would.

Spreading the wealth is also a boon for whatever city hosts the Draft that year.  One of the reasons the NFL schedule release is so highly anticipated is because, perhaps more than any other sport, fans travel to see their team's road games.  Fans travel for the Draft, too.  And it's not just fans of one road team.  It's fans of 31 road teams plus God knows how many college programs!

Tickets to the NFL Draft are free, too.  They're first-come, first-serve, but if you want to attend, all you need to do is be in the city where the Draft is being held.  And all that requires is paying for a plane ticket (if the Draft isn't somewhere close enough for you to drive, that is) and a hotel room.  Which is obviously a tremendous boon to the Draft host economically.

So, if you think about it, it really made sense to stop holding the Draft in a single location every year and start moving it around instead.  Fans from around the league were traveling to the Draft already.  Why should New York be the only place to reap the benefits?  To the NFL's credit, they realized there was money to be made from taking the Draft on the road, so that's exactly what they decided to do.

Moving the Draft around isn't an idea unique to the NFL, either.  The NHL Draft has been held in a different league city since the mid-80s.  Prior to that, it was held in Montreal every year.  The NHL Draft is nowhere near the event the NFL Draft is, though.  Partially because fans don't know the players as well, partially because it'll be a few years until many of them are in the NHL.  So, while it's still cool for the different NHL cities to host that league's Draft, it pales in comparison to the NFL Draft.

With the spectacle both the NFL and NFL Draft have become, though, hosting the Draft really is a financial windfall for the host city.  The Super Bowl is in February.  The Draft is at the end of April.  So, other than free agency, it's literally the only thing NFL fans have to talk about for two and a half months!  And the anticipation is even longer for the college football fans who haven't seen these guys play since the bowl games.

There are certainly some perfect storm factors at play here, too.  And when you combine all of them, it's completely logical that the NFL Draft has become as big as it has.  It also makes sense that every city in the league would want to take advantage of that.

Kris Bryant Rule Working

In 2015, Kris Bryant's rookie year, he became the poster child for service time manipulation.  Despite having an outstanding Spring Training, where he proved without a doubt that he was ready for the Majors, the Cubs sent him to Triple-A to start the season.  They didn't call him up until the end of April, just long enough to make sure he wouldn't be able to spend enough time in the Majors to not get a full year of service time.

Bryant, of course, went on to win Rookie of the Year, then was NL MVP the following season, as the Cubs won their first World Series since 1908.  But, since he didn't spend enough days in the Majors as a rookie, his six-year free agent clock didn't start until the 2016 season.  Meaning he wasn't a free agent for the first time until this past offseason, after his seventh full year in the Majors! 

That's just the most glaring of the many recent examples of service time manipulation, where teams keep Major League-ready prospects in the Minors longer than necessary for the sole purpose of delaying their free agency.  It was such a big issue that it was one of the sticking points in the lockout.  The players weren't going to budge on it, either, even though it was going to be a tough thing to enforce.  The solution they came up with was pretty creative, though.

Now, the players who finish first and second in Rookie of the Year voting will be credited with a full year of service time, no matter when they're called up.  It doesn't matter if it's Opening Day like last season's NL Rookie of the Year Jonathan India or June like last year's AL runner-up Wander Franco. 

Of course, the "Kris Bryant Rule" doesn't apply to them, but you get the point.  If they're getting credit for a full year anyway, it stands to reason that teams would call their better prospects up earlier, especially since they'll (theoretically) help the team win.  There's also the fear that it'll go the other way.  Teams will keep their top prospects in the Minors even longer, figuring that with such late Major League debuts, they won't put up enough numbers to finish first or second in Rookie of the Year voting.

Fortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case so far.  Teams did, indeed, put their top prospects on their Opening Day rosters.  Spencer Torkelson, the first overall pick in the 2020 Draft, was the Tigers' Opening Day first baseman.  Riley Greene, another one of the top five prospects in all of baseball, likely would've been on Detroit's Opening Day roster, as well, if he wasn't injured.

It's entirely possible that Torkelson and Greene were going to make the Tigers' Opening Day roster either way.  There's really no way of knowing that (or any team's intentions).  But it's also possible that Torkelson is the first beneficiary of the Kris Bryant Rule, which also incentivizes teams promoting their top prospects to the Majors by attaching draft picks to them. 

Draft picks have more value than anything else to MLB front offices, so you know teams like the idea of getting more of them.  For free!  All they need to do is keep their top prospects on the Major League roster all season, then, if that rookie performs, both player and team will be rewarded.  The player will get to dip into the bonus pool, another creation in the new CBA, and the team will get a draft pick.

Baltimore's Adley Rutschman, the No. 1 pick in 2019 and top prospect in all of baseball, appears likely to make his Major League debut this season, as well.  The only reason he's delayed is because he's been dealing with injuries.  It has nothing to do with service time manipulation.  He likely wouldn't have been ready for Opening Day one way or the other.  But, the great thing about the Kris Bryant Rule is that even if Rutschman's debut isn't until the All*Star Break, he still gets the full year if he finishes in the top two.

Meanwhile, the best player in baseball over the first three weeks of the season has arguably been another rookie--the Cubs' Seiya Suzuki.  Through 18 games, Suzuki is second in the National League in batting average (.339), first in on-base percentage (.465) and fourth in slugging (.643).  He also has four home runs, 14 RBIs and 13 runs scored, all while playing a dynamite right field.

Suzuki's situation is much different, though.  He's a Japanese import.  He wasn't going through the Cubs' system.  They had to pay the posting fee and sign him to a Major League contract just to get him to come over.  And, since he didn't come from the Minors, there's no service time to manipulate.  As is the case with all other Japanese rookies (Hideo Nomo, Ichiro, Daisuke Matsuzka, Shohei Ohtani, etc.), Suzuki was guaranteed to be on the Opening Day roster, so he doesn't really count when talking about the Kris Bryant Rule.

And maybe the sample size is too small.  This is, after all, just the first month of the first season under the new CBA.  We have no idea if these guys made the Opening Day roster because of the Kris Bryant Rule or not.  However, whether it's a coincidence or not, it's encouraging. 

If they're trying to win, teams should break camp with their 25 best players on the roster.  If that includes rookies, so be it!  In 2022, at least, that was the case.  Will teams still figure out a way to manipulate service time?  Perhaps.  Are some Major League-ready rookies still gonna start the season in the Minors?  Of course!  Or maybe the players got their message across in the CBA negotiations and this is the start of a new era, where rookies who deserve it aren't held back and given a fair chance at the start of the season.

Kris Bryant was eventually able to cash in.  A free agent for the first time, he signed with the Rockies for seven years and $182 million in the offseason.  It was a long, winding road for Bryant.  It won't be for the likes of Spencer Torkelson and all the other rookies who benefit from the rule that bears Bryant's name, even if only unofficially.  He didn't benefit from it, but he paved the way for others who will.  Which ultimately might be the silver lining in what the Cubs did to Kris Bryant seven years ago.

No Playoff Expansion Needed

Over the weekend, I saw an article about the upcoming Stanley Cup Playoffs.  Specifically, it was an article saying it's time to expand the Stanley Cup Playoffs.  The argument being made was that the NFL, NBA and MLB playoffs have all been expanded recently, while the NHL has stuck with 16 for the Stanley Cup Playoffs (with the exception of the 24-team Edmonton and Toronto bubbles in 2020).

While the format has changed over the years, the Stanley Cup Playoffs have been a 16-team tournament since the 1979-80 season.  The NHL had 21 teams then, meaning 76.2 percent of the league made the playoffs!  The league has added 11 teams since then while maintaining the 16-team playoffs, meaning that half the league makes the playoffs and the other half doesn't.  (Fifty percent, by the way, is still the second-highest percentage of playoff teams in any of the four major sports.)

It's worth noting here, however, that the NHL gave us some of the weakest playoff teams in sports history during that span!  It was division-based from 1981-82 until 1992-93 and four of the five (or six in the Patrick) teams made the playoffs.  So, all you had to do was not finish last and you made the playoffs!  Seriously, what's the point of the regular season then?

The argument, I think, is based on the fact that the NHL has maintained the same field size for 40 years despite the league increasing in size by one-third.  And the 24-team COVID-bubble 2020 playoffs were the evidence that expanding the field size wouldn't dilute the quality.  In fact, there are so many good teams in the NHL that some feel the Stanley Cup Playoffs might actually be better with 24 teams, not worse!

However, the fact that some good teams don't make the playoffs isn't in and of itself proof that the playoffs need to be expanded.  Quite the opposite actually.  The fact that there are plenty of good teams left out means the 16 that make it have to be pretty damn good themselves!

Let's not forget this point, either.  The Stanley Cup is already the toughest trophy in all of sports to win.  You have to win four best-of-seven series over two months to have your name engraved on the Cup.  So why make it harder by requiring teams to play (and win) more games.  Games with playoff intensity at that!

In the Stanley Cup Playoffs, an 8-seed in their conference is just as likely to make a run as the President's Trophy winner.  And, I'm sure if the field were expanded, there are 9- or 10-seeds who could realistically make that same argument.  (In 2020, both 12-seeds, Montreal and Chicago, beat the 5-seeds, Pittsburgh and Edmonton, in the qualifying round.)  Which probably helps make the case for making the 24-team field permanent.

I'm sure ESPN and TNT, the NHL's TV partners, wouldn't be opposed to more playoff game inventory, either.  Using 2020 as the template, going from 16 to 24 playoff teams and adding a best-of-five first round (the first round would be renamed the "second round" and the second round would be renamed the "conference semifinals") would add anywhere between 24-32 games to the playoff schedule.  It would also increase the number of games required to win the Cup from 16 to 19 for 16 of the 24 teams.

That, I think, is my biggest issue with the idea of any Stanley Cup Playoff expansion.  The top four teams in each conference would get the first-round bye and still only need 16 wins, and I'm sure the argument would be made that it puts getting one of those top four seeds at even more of a premium since that's quite an advantage.  In theory, at least.

Who knows?  Maybe it would be an advantage.  However, getting a top-four seed would also mean sitting around for a week and a half while the bottom eight seeds play in the first round.  So, it would also create the very realistic possibility of the top four teams getting rusty while their opponents are finding their groove, thus making the chances of a second-round upset that much greater.

One of the reasons the NBA play-in tournament works is because it's a series of single games.  It's over in three days.  But you can't do a single game for hockey.  At the minimum, it would need to be a best-of-three series.  Ideally, it would be a best-of-five (which is what it was in the 2020 bubble...however, there was no travel involved then).  So that's at least a week or, more likely, 10 days of playoffs before the top teams play their first game!  That's a long time to wait!

Of course, you know the owners would probably be on board.  Expanded playoffs mean more teams get in, which means those teams get more home games.  And more playoff games also means more money.  They've also seen that there are enough good teams that it wouldn't dilute the product, so the quality wouldn't suffer.

Regardless, I think expanding the Stanley Cup Playoffs would be a mistake.  Simply put, there's no reason to.  The eight playoff spots in the East have already been clinched (and were all pretty much locked in months ago).  The 12th-place team in the East (who would become a playoff team) is Detroit, which has 72 points.  In the West, it's a little better, but not much.  San Jose is 12th in conference with 76 points.  Sorry, but that's not adding quality.  That's adding for the sake of adding.

And that would create a different problem.  Watering down the regular season.  The battle for the final playoff berths is intense...precisely because the Stanley Cup Playoffs are so exclusive.  If the NHL were to award mediocre teams like the Red Wings and Sharks with playoff spots, however, those battles would be gone.  Instead of good teams fighting to get in, you'd have mediocre teams hoping to be the least bad, just so they can call themselves a "playoff" team. 

What I'd like to see instead, and I've made this point numerous times before so it shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody, is ditching the current division-based system and go back to the conference-based system.  The two division winners are 1 & 2.  The remaining six spots go to the next six teams, ranked by total points, not division.  That 2 vs. 3 series in each division really drives me crazy (especially since Toronto and Tampa Bay could be three and four overall in the East, yet one will be guaranteed to be eliminated in the first round).

So, yes, I do agree that, regarding the Stanley Cup Playoffs, change wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.  Expanding the field isn't the answer, though.  Switching back to a conference-based format is.

Wimbledon's Russian Ban

I don't know how I feel about Wimbledon banning Russian and Belarusian players from this year's tournament.  In a way, I completely understand it.  It's a closed tournament at a private club, so they're allowed to do whatever they want, and that includes excluding players based on nationality.  I also completely get the criticism of the decision.  Because it's not like Daniil Medvedev and Aryna Sabalenka had anything to do with the invasion of Ukraine, but they're being punished for it anyway.

It's worth noting that Medvedev, Sabylena, Andrey Rublev, Vika Azarenka and all other Russian/Belarusian players have been allowed to continue playing on tour.  They've simply had the flag and country code next to their name replaced by a blank white box.  That will, presumably, continue until the international sanctions on Russia are lifted (whenever that happens).

Tennis, in fact, is one of the few sports that hasn't completely blacklisted all Russians and Belarusians.  They were banned from the World Figure Skating Championships (where the Russians obviously would've performed extremely well).  They were also barred from the World Indoor Track & Field Championships.  And, let's not forget, Russia was prohibited from playing in the European playoffs for the World Cup.  They've also been banned from the World Ice Hockey Championships and Volleyball World League, among many, many other events.

Both the ATP and WTA Tours had a chance to follow suit.  Both chose not to.  So, it's not surprising that both tours were among the biggest critics of the decision.  The ATP called it "unfair" and said it could set a "damaging precedent for the game," while the WTA reaffirmed that it was "very disappointed" and reiterated its stance that "individual athletes should not be penalized or prevented from competing due to where they are from, or the decisions made by the governments of their countries."

If only it were that easy.  While completely unrelated to the Ukraine invasion, Russian athletes have been "penalized or prevented from competing due to where they are from" for the better part of a decade.  It was 2015 when World Athletics suspended the Russian federation, forcing Russian athletes to apply for "Authorized Neutral Athlete" status (which is currently suspended), and let's not forget about the ridiculous "OAR" and "ROC" designations at the last three Olympics!

This is much different, though.  As I said when the invasion first started and the IOC "recommended" that international federations "consider" sanctions against Russian athletes in response, it's impossible to keep sports and politics separate.  As much as Russian officials might want to argue that they "should be" kept separate, you simply can't.  They're too interconnected.

In its statement, the All England Club pretty much admitted that this is completely political.  The statement read: "In the circumstances of such unjustified and unprecedented military aggression, it would be unacceptable for the Russian regime to derive any benefit from the involvement of Russian or Belarusian players with The Championships.  It is therefore our intention, with deep regret, to decline entries from Russian and Belarusian players to The Championships 2022."  Which, again, is completely their right, whether you agree with it or not.

They also cited concerns about player safety, but, they admitted that they made the decision after consulting with the UK Government.  If the government was OK with them playing, I'm sure Wimbledon's decision would've been different.  But the government clearly has an issue with allowing them to play, so the tournament's hands were kind of tied.

The Lawn Tennis Association, which is the governing body for the sport in Great Britain, took it even further, in fact.  It's not just Wimbledon.  They can't enter any tournament played in the country, which includes all of the Wimbledon tune-up events (although, I'm not sure why you would even want to enter a grass court tournament knowing you can't play Wimbledon anyway).

Also worth noting here is that this is a completely different situation than Novak Djokovic's Australian Open saga.  All the Djokovic stuff was about Australia's vaccine mandate, which applied to all foreigners entering the country.  Not surprisingly, the (still) unvaccinated Djokovic has spoken out in opposition of Wimbledon's decision (of course, we still don't know about his status for the tournament, either).

Djokovic made a conscious choice to not get vaccinated, and he's dealt with the consequences of that decision (he also wasn't allowed to enter the U.S. for the important Spring tournaments in Indian Wells and Miami).  These Russian and Belarusian players, meanwhile, haven't done anything to warrant their exclusion.  They're being excluded strictly because of their nationality.  Which is why the people who are saying it's unfair to those players have a point!

While the All England Club is taking this stance now, that doesn't necessarily mean that Medvedev, Rublev, etc., are definitely out of Wimbledon.  They left themselves with an out, saying that if circumstances "change materially" between now and mid-June, which is the Wimbledon entry deadline, the tournament "will consider and respond accordingly."  It seems doubtful that the circumstances will change, but I can see some legal challenges and a judge's decision potentially forcing them to change their minds.

So, like I said, I'm torn.  It is unfortunate and, yes, unfair, to penalize Russian and Belarusian athletes for the actions of their governments.  But that, unfortunately, is the only mechanism international sporting federations have to get their point across.  The ATP and WTA Tours, however, haven't banned Russian and Belarusian players.  As such, Wimbledon's decision to ban players from just those two nations goes against the tournament's agreement with each (although, it should be noted, the Grand Slams are administered by the International Tennis Federation, NOT the ATP and WTA).

Wimbledon organizers were put in a very tough spot here.  They were stuck with two unpopular options.  Either ban the Russian and Belarusian players for no reason other than their nationality or let them play and be prepared to answer why.  They picked option A.  Was it the right one, though?  That's the real question.  And the answer is entirely a matter of opinion.

2022 NFL Marquee Game Guesses

Remember when the NFL schedule used to come out before the Draft?  It used to be in mid-April, but that ended up getting delayed a couple years ago and they've kept it that way ever since.  The current estimate is Mother's Day Weekend, and I'd be surprised if it's any earlier than that.  (Although, now that the Super Bowl's a week later, it would stand to reason that they'll announce the schedule later.)

There are, however, a few things we already know about the NFL schedule.  As Super Bowl champions, the Rams will play the opening Thursday night game, the third straight year their opener will be at home on NBC (they had the Week 1 Sunday night game in both 2020 and 2021).  We know that the Lions and Cowboys will host their traditional Thanksgiving games, and we know the "home" teams for the five international games.  What we don't know is any of their opponents.

Christmas is Sunday this year, too, so you'd figure the NFL will take its standard approach and have the majority of the schedule on Christmas Eve, with that one afternoon game on FOX and the Sunday night game on Christmas.  There's also that bowl game/New Year's Eve issue in Week 17, but I'm not going anywhere near that! 

I am, however, willing to take a shot at predicting who'll be playing in those marquee games.  We know eight home teams already.  I'm also gonna take a gander at the Thanksgiving night game and both Christmas games.

Season Opener: Cowboys at Rams-Looking at the Rams' home opponents, this actually seems like a pretty easy one.  Dallas is by far the best game on their home schedule, and it would be a nice reward for both Jerry Jones and Stan Kroenke.  Jones was instrumental in bringing the Rams back to LA, which is why the opening game at SoFi was against Dallas.  That game, however, was played in an empty stadium because of COVID.  Here's the way to make up for it.

Mexico City: Eagles at Cardinals-They could easily go with a division game here.  Especially since two of Arizona's home opponents, New Orleans and Tampa Bay, are hosting international games of their own.  And Cardinals-49ers would be both appealing and a nice throwback to the NFL's first-ever game in Mexico City, which featured the same two teams.  I have a feeling they'll put this one on a Monday night, though, and Eagles-Cardinals just seems like a Monday night matchup.

London (Wembley): Ravens at Jaguars-What makes the Jaguars' London game tricky is that they can protect one game that they definitely want to play in Jacksonville.  That could easily be the Ravens, but it seems more likely they'll protect Dallas or Las Vegas.  Which means Baltimore would be available to make the trip across the pond, where Lamar Jackson can put his talents on display for the British fans.

London (Tottenham 1): Jets at Packers-That little tidbit I just mentioned about Jacksonville helps explain why the Packers have never played in London.  But now that everybody is required to go at least once every eight years, they'll make their London debut.  They've got a good slate of games to choose from, but you know FOX will want a bunch of Packers games to be the national game at 4:30, which takes Dallas and the Rams off the table.  Scheduling the Jets for an 8:30 am Central start won't be a problem, however.

London (Tottenham 2): Panthers at Saints-This is where I think we see the international division game.  It won't be Tampa Bay since they're going to Germany, and it probably won't be Atlanta since they played in London last season (although I do have their opponent, the Jets, returning to play the Packers).  That leaves us with the Panthers.

Munich: Bengals at Buccaneers-You know the NFL wants to make a good impression on its first trip to Germany.  Which is why they're sending Tom Brady there.  The Bucs have plenty of good options, too.  They could play the Chiefs in a Super Bowl LV rematch or the defending AFC champion Bengals.  Either one would be a good choice.  One will be a national game, either in the late doubleheader window or primetime.  The other could very well take place in Munich.

Thanksgiving 1: Bills at Lions-It's Detroit's CBS year, which in the past would've meant they had to play an AFC team.  The NFL, of course, doesn't care about that anymore, but I do think we'll actually see an AFC road team in one of the Thanksgiving afternoon games.  Because they play the Bills at home this season, and Buffalo is definitely a team the NFL would likely want to showcase.

Thanksgiving 2: Buccaneers at Cowboys-FOX came thisclose to having the USMNT in the World Cup as their Cowboys Thanksgiving lead-in (although, they did get Brazil, which isn't a bad alternative).  Anyway, last year they gave them the Raiders and it was the highest-rated game of the regular season.  With the World Cup as a lead-in and knowing the USA-England game is the next day, you know they're looking at another ratings bonanza.  And, of all the teams visiting Dallas in 2022, Brady and Tampa Bay is the one that seems most likely to deliver that.

Thanksgiving 3: Chiefs at Raiders-For the Thanksgiving night game, NBC and the NFL like to do rivalries.  Amazingly, Chiefs-Raiders has never been the one they chose!  I can see that changing this year, though.  Especially since both teams made the playoffs last season.  It would also give them a chance to showcase Allegiant Stadium the year before Las Vegas hosts the Super Bowl.

Christmas 1: Vikings at Commanders-Convincing teams to host the early game on Christmas is getting easier, but it's still a bit of a challenge.  It's even harder when you consider it's late in the season, so you need to pick teams that you're pretty sure will still be relevant.  Minnesota should still be relevant.  Washington may not be.  But the idea of a Christmas game in DC just sounds really cool!

Christmas 2: Steelers at Eagles-Sunday Night Football on Christmas night should also draw monster ratings (moreso than it usually does), so you know they'll want to make sure it's a good one!  Picking Pittsburgh is one way to guarantee that.  I considered making this the afternoon game, but I think the NFL would want to have the Steelers in prime time.  Of course, Philly fans have booed Santa and thrown snowballs at him before, so giving them beer, a holiday and a night game may not be the smartest idea!

Those last three games, of course, are complete guesses.  I do feel at least somewhat confident that I got at least some of the others right.  I guess we'll find out in a couple weeks when the NFL releases the entire 2022 schedule.

More Needless Spring Football

On Saturday night, something happened for the first time for the first time since 2007.  The same sporting event was shown live on two different broadcast networks at the same time.  Back then, it was the NFL regular season finale as the Patriots were going for the perfect regular season and both CBS and NBC agreed to simulcast the NFL Network broadcast.  This time, it was FOX and NBC teaming up for the debut of USFL 2.0.

That's right.  The USFL is officially back.  It's the third attempt at a spring football league in the last five years.  Will it fare any better than the AAF or XFL 2.0, neither of which made it a full season?  History suggests the answer is "No."

Despite the fact that America doesn't seem to want it and all previous attempts have failed, that hasn't stopped these intrepid entrepreneurs from thinking their league is the one that will actually succeed.  Why they think that is beyond me.  Because all of the evidence suggests it's a venture that's destined to fail.  It's really just a matter of time.

Ratings for the opening game were solid when combining the numbers between FOX and NBC.  Which was to be expected.  There's always the curiosity factor when something new debuts.  Sustaining that viewership is the real challenge.  Especially since the USFL is playing all of its games in Birmingham, Alabama, so it's not like they'll be able to rely on the money from ticket sales.  They need the TV ratings to be solid if they're to have any hope at survival.

FOX seems invested in USFL 2.0, which you would think will buy the league some time.  But that doesn't guarantee anything.  Twenty years ago, NBC was an equal partner in XFL 1.0.  That didn't stop them from pulling the plug after one season.  Likewise, CBS having a vested interest in the success of the AAF wasn't enough to save that league from declaring bankruptcy in the middle of its only season.

Each of these leagues has touted their relationship with multiple TV partners in their promotional materials.  Frankly, without TV deals locked up, none of them would've ever been able to get off the ground.  So, I don't consider the fact that they've got committed TV partners to be any sort of sign of long-term stability.  Frankly, it might be just the opposite.

TV networks cancel low-rated shows all the time.  And low-rated sports programming is really no different than any other low-rated program.  And therein lies the challenge of each new spring football venture.  It's not an established product, so they need to draw eyeballs.  But, in order to keep those viewers, the product needs to be watchable.  If it's not, people won't watch.  And if people aren't watching, there's no point in continuing to put it on the air, whether the network's directly invested or not.

USFL 1.0's biggest problem was its attempted move to the fall, which would've seen it in direct competition with the NFL.  USFL 2.0 has no such delusion.  They don't see themselves as a competitor to the NFL.  They're just looking to put out a quality product, which frankly is the biggest reason why these leagues keep failing just as frequently as they pop up.

Simply put, the football in these leagues just isn't that good.  It's certainly not good enough to keep America's interest piqued when the NBA and Stanley Cup Playoffs are in full swing, Major League Baseball has just started and, perhaps most significantly, people are doing things outdoors again since the weather's turning nicer.  Just because there's no football being played in the spring doesn't mean there's a void that needs to be filled.  America doesn't have the appetite for second-rate football in the offseason.  That memo's been sent over and over again, yet some people still seem to have not gotten it.

Another element at play here is the fact that people have no attachment to the league or any of its teams.  All of these teams are new, so they don't have any history to draw people in.  And, since there won't be any games held in the home markets of these teams, it's not like people can just go to the games to check them out.  They're relying almost entirely on TV ratings as a measure of success, which is such a gamble.

I'll give USFL 2.0 the benefit of the doubt and assume they make it through the season.  Combined with the XFL's planned return next year (XFL 3.0?), there could potentially be two mediocre football leagues in action at the same time in the spring of 2023.  There aren't enough decent players to make one spring football league watchable.  Now you're saying there's possibly gonna be two!  Frankly, that's a recipe for them both to fail.

And when USFL 2.0 and XFL 3.0 inevitably fail, somebody will be right there to announce the formation of the next spring football league.  Because apparently America can't get enough football.  At least in their eyes.  Even though it's been proven time and again that isn't actually true.

Whether it's a year or two or more, USFL 2.0's fate does seem to be inevitable.  The appetite simply isn't there for second-rate football, whenever it's played.  I'm still not sure America wants football in the spring as much as FOX, NBC and ESPN seem to think, but we'll never get a chance to really find out.  Because, unlike the original USFL, none of these leagues are of high enough quality to warrant people's attention for more than those first few weeks.

It's been the same story for the better part of five years now.  First the AAF went bankrupt.  Then XFL 2.0.  Now it's USFL 2.0.  America keeps getting spring football...whether we want it or not!  Even though we've shown we don't want it, that doesn't stop them from trying, hoping there's is the one.  Spoiler alert: It isn't!

Exclusive Streaming Getting Out of Control

Major League Baseball recently announced that its YouTube-exclusive weekday afternoon games will be returning next month.  Which aren't to be confused with MLB's exclusive package for Friday night games on Apple TV+.  Or their Sunday morning package with Peacock.  Or their national TV deals with FOX/FS1, TBS and ESPN, networks that actually air games ON TV!  Oh yeah, and there's each team's local TV deal, too.

So, to keep track, that's SIX! separate national "TV" packages, some of which are exclusive, some of which aren't.  It's enough to make your head spin!  You'll literally need to check every day who's showing the game, then figure out if you even CAN watch it based on that!

The Yankees, meanwhile, have sold a package of games to Amazon Prime, which will have exclusive rights to those games.  And Amazon, of course, is putting them behind the paywall.  So, in order to watch every Yankee game this season, you'll need more than just a cable subscription that includes YES.  You'll also need to pay for an Amazon Prime subscription.

It really shouldn't have come as a surprise that leagues and teams would start moving games to their streaming services, but it got very ridiculous very quickly.  It's an obvious attempt to cater to the cord-cutters.  But a big reason a lot of people have kept their cable packages is because cable's the only way to get the regional sports networks.  Now having cable and the RSN isn't enough.  You need to subscribe to one or more of the streaming services anyway!

And this is just the start!  The NHL's new TV contract with ESPN and TNT features exclusive games on ESPN+.  A few weeks ago, I wanted to watch a Rangers-Penguins game.  I couldn't.  Because it was on ESPN+ and only ESPN+!  In fact, it feels like there are more games "televised" on ESPN+ than ESPN's actual TV channels!  Which begs the question...How is it a "TV" contract when the games aren't actually on TV?

This is all, of course, just a warmup for Thursday Night Football's move to Amazon Prime this season.  Amazon has had Thursday Night Football for a few years, but this is the first time they'll have it exclusively.  They've even hired Al Michaels and Kirk Herbstreit as their broadcast crew!  But, if you want to watch Al and Kirk, you've gotta purchase an Amazon Prime subscription...which people will.

That's the dumbest part of this whole streaming revolution.  Their sole reason for doing it is to get people to sign up for these services.  The leagues don't really care.  They'll gladly grant the streamers exclusivity if it means they get their money.  And the more exclusive deals they can broker, the more money they can make.  So what if it completely jerks the fans around?  If they want to watch their team play that badly, they'll pay it...at least so the logic goes.

I'm waiting for the day the RSNs strike back.  And, frankly, I think it'll happen sooner rather than later.  The one bullet RSNs have in their gun is live games of the local teams.  That's how they determine how much they can charge cable systems to carry the channel.  But, with all these exclusive deals with different streaming services, the leagues are gradually taking away the only thing RSNs bring to the table.  Which in turn will result in the RSNs losing money since they won't be able to charge cable and satellite providers as much.

Yes, the RSNs stream games, too.  That's not my point.  My point is that whether it's on linear TV or streaming, they're still having their inventory taken away!  And local blackout restrictions still apply to the games that are exclusive to the streaming services!  (The Yankee-Amazon thing is different since those are YES-produced broadcasts...they're just milking people out of an extra $13 a month, plus whatever they're paying for cable for no reason other than greed.)

If people want to subscribe to one streaming service or none of them or all of them, that's entirely their prerogative.  But they shouldn't be bullied into signing up for them by the leagues and teams!  They especially shouldn't be bullied into signing up for multiple services just so they can watch their favorite team play, all while the league rakes in the dough from all these different exclusive "TV" deals.

Now, let me be very clear about something.  I'm not opposed to the idea of streaming live sports.  Just the opposite, actually.  ESPN3/ESPN+ has been tremendous for college sports, with so many schools and conferences having places to show their events and getting a high-quality production.  Even with the rise of conference-based networks, that simply would not be possible otherwise.

Likewise, NBC has moved a lot of its sports programming to Peacock now that NBCSN is no more.  But these events were actually being broadcast on Peacock from the beginning.  Even when NBCSN was still on the air, NBC had "NBC Sports Gold," which was a subscription service where you paid to watch specific sports beyond what was shown on TV.  I had the track & field package for years.  It was great!  It had full, unedited coverage of all the meets from Europe.  NBC Sports Gold simply transitioned to Peacock, which is actually a better deal since you get everything on the service, not just your specific sport!

Making those niche sports that won't get high enough ratings to warrant more TV coverage available via streaming is perfectly reasonable.  If people want to get a subscription to watch them, they will.  If they don't, they won't.  And I'm sure there are plenty of people who are such big figure skating fans that they want to watch every figure skating competition, even the ones that aren't on TV (or the full competition live instead of just the edited version they do show on TV later), so they'll gladly pay the $5 a month for Peacock so that they can.

What NBC did during both the Tokyo and Beijing Olympics was really smart, too.  They made a big point of saying how everything would be shown live on Peacock.  But all that stuff was also live on NBCOlympics.com if you logged in through your cable provider.  Sure, Peacock had some studio shows that you otherwise wouldn't have been able to watch, but the event coverage was the same.  It didn't matter if you had a Peacock account or not.  They didn't make you subscribe just so you could watch the Olympics (even though that would've been the time to do it).

My problem is when fans aren't given a choice.  The only options being presented are (a) sign up for a streaming service (or multiple streaming services) or (b) not be able to watch all of you team's games.  I'm sure there are a lot of people who'll choose option B, which gives everybody what they want.  The fan gets to watch the game.  The league/team and streaming service that are taking advantage of that fan get more of their money.

Unfortunately, this is a trend that doesn't look like it's going to stop anytime soon.  In fact, it only figures to get worse.  Which is a sad commentary about the state of sports broadcasting.  By catering to cord-cutters, you're screwing over the people who still get their sports the traditional way.  And they're not only gonna continue to get away with it, they'll continue getting richer because of it, too.

Play-In to Playoff

When the NBA was making its plans to come back with its bubble in 2020, one of the ideas they came up with was a "play-in tournament" for the final playoff seeds.  There was no guarantee that there would be a play-in tournament.  It was designed more as a fail-safe if a team was one or two games out of the top eight seeds when the season ended.  And, in fact, they only needed it in the Western Conference that year.

The idea of a play-in tournament definitely gained traction, though.  So much so, in fact, that the NBA made it a permanent thing last season.  And they don't have that qualifier, either.  The play-in tournament is teams 7-10 in each conference, regardless of their record.  And it looks like it's here to stay, too.

At first, I thought the very idea of the play-in tournament was one of the stupidest things I'd ever heard!  It was just another gimmick that was gonna further water down the already watered-down NBA Playoffs.  But I've since come around.  I actually kinda like the NBA play-in tournament.

Now, don't get me wrong.  Do I think the play-in tournament is necessary?  Absolutely not!  Do I think 20 teams (out of 30) deserve to make the playoffs, even if two of them will only play one game?  Also, no.  Do I think it's a blatant money grab?  Of course!  But, with all that being said, I'm not totally opposed to the concept.

March Madness consumes the country for three weeks precisely because every game is an elimination game.  Yes, there's the Cinderella teams like Saint Peter's everywhere, and the idea that the mid-majors can go toe-to-toe with the powerhouses is part of the fun.  Anybody can play anybody and anybody can beat anybody.  And, yes, it's also the win-or-go-home thing 67 times that makes March Madness so compelling.

Meanwhile, the NBA Playoffs take forever!  Or at least it seems like it!  They go on for two months and there's very little suspense.  More often than not, the best team's going to win (which is how we got four straight Warriors-Cavs Finals).

There's nothing wrong with that.  That's the whole point of playing best-of-seven series.  So that the better team wins.  Anybody can beat anybody once.  But if Saint Peter's-Kentucky was a best-of-seven, how many of those games would Saint Peter's have won?

It's the same thing in the pro game.  If the NBA Playoffs were single-elimination, they'd be a lot more unpredictable.  But, with four rounds of best-of-seven, you know there's only a handful of teams capable of winning the championship.  Which is actually pretty boring.  Enter the play-in tournament, which is anything but predictable.

With the play-in tournament, they've added a March Madness element while not affecting the integrity of the playoffs proper.  It still takes 16 playoff wins, not including the play-in tournament, to win the championship.  And the regular season still means plenty, too, since the top six teams go directly to the playoffs.  Yes, it opened up the "playoffs" to an additional four teams, making the record you need to get in worse.  But those teams also need to win just to get into the playoffs, so they'll definitely have earned their spot.

And, with the way the playoffs are set up, the winners of the play-in round will be the two lowest seeds in the first round, meaning they'll be playing the two best teams in the conference.  Which, assuming the seventh- and eighth-place teams win the play-in round, is exactly what the matchups would've been anyway!  The only difference is that seven and eight had to win their way in, and the one- and two-seeds will be more rested than their opponents.

But they've also added the must-win, single-elimination element that's normally reserved for a Game 7 (of which there are very few in the NBA) and put it right at the beginning!  It gives you a reason to watch right away.  The way they set it up was smart, too.  The 7- and 8-seeds get two shots to win one game, knowing that they'll get to play at home.  Nine and 10, meanwhile, have to win twice, with at least one of those games on the road.

You can argue about whether you think the play-in tournament is fair or not all you want, and some of those criticisms would definitely be warranted.  That argument has two sides, though.  No, the 36-46 team that finished 10th in its conference doesn't deserve a chance to get into the playoffs over a 7-seed that went 44-38.  But, it's great that they're giving the 43-39 team that finished ninth on a tiebreaker a chance to earn their way in instead of watching the playoffs from home.

Perhaps there's a way to fix some of the flaws in the format.  It seems unlikely since they set it up for TV to have three nights of doubleheaders for the play-in tournament, but the original plan from the bubble where it's based on the number of games separating the teams could be an option.  Likewise, I think the whole point of structuring the play-in tournament the way they have is so that they're all single-elimination games, so a best-of-three series would defeat the purpose.

Those flaws are pretty minor, however.  And they're not enough to say the play-in tournament isn't worthwhile.  I give the NBA credit for trying something new, too.  So, yes, as crazy as it sounds, I like the NBA play-in tournament and I'm glad it's here to stay.

Incredible Weekend Set for Paris

Last week, on the same day they conducted the World Cup draw, the competition schedule for the 2024 Olympics was unveiled.  They didn't announce the specific event-by-event schedule, although they indicated that may come this summer as part of the 2-years-to-go celebrations.  But what they did release, the days of competition in each sport, gave us enough of an idea about what's in store for us in Paris.

They, of course, made news when they announced that the Opening Ceremony won't be held in a stadium.  Instead, it'll be a Parade of Nations down the Seine ending at the Eiffel Tower, which sounds like it'll be amazing!  That means the Stade de France will be free, which is the first significant thing I realized about the event schedule.

In addition to track & field, the Stade de France will be the venue for rugby.  And, since track & field always begins on the Friday a week after the Opening Ceremony, that means the rugby competition has to be done before then.  So, rugby will be one of the sports that starts early.  Two days before the Opening Ceremony in fact.  And soccer will have its traditional early start.  But the sport that will start first?  Handball!  (France, by the way, is the defending gold medalist in both men's and women's handball.)

There will even be a session of handball on the morning of the Opening Ceremony, which is still scheduled early enough for the athletes to get to Paris for the ceremony.  That's something that was specifically mentioned when announcing the schedule.  They want the athletes to have the opportunity to go to at least one of the ceremonies if they want (unlike in Tokyo, where some athletes weren't allowed to go to either because of the COVID restrictions).

With that in mind, it's not a surprise that surfing is scheduled for the first four days of the Olympics.  Now, I've made it clear how ridiculous I think it is that surfing is being held in French Polynesia...which is in the South Pacific...which is nowhere near France!  Anyway, that obviously makes it impossible for the surfers to attend the Opening Ceremony, but gives them plenty of time to get to Paris, enjoy the actual Olympic experience and participate in the Closing Ceremony if they so choose.

"Breaking" won't make its Olympic debut until the final weekend, and, taking a page from Tokyo's book, both marathons will also be at the end.  I wouldn't be surprised if that's something that will become permanent moving forward.  (It actually does make a lot of sense since there isn't a morning session of track & field on that last Saturday.)

Another schedule change regarding track & field is particularly intriguing, though.  Track & field and swimming are the two marquee sports of the Summer Olympics, and they always overlap on the middle weekend when swimming is ending and track & field is starting.  In Paris, gymnastics will also be included on both the middle Saturday & Sunday, creating a crazy weekend of the three biggest-ticket Olympic sports in action at the same time!

It's that middle Sunday where we see the real change.  Swimming usually ends on Saturday night, but they added a ninth day to the schedule, presumably to spread out the distance events a little better (in Tokyo, Katie Ledecky had to swim finals of both the 200 freestyle and 1500 freestyle in the same session).  It also gives them a chance to make some of the sessions shorter.  They won't have to cram seven events into the first day just so they can have four finals per night!

The biggest change is in gymnastics, though.  In the past, the gymnastics schedule has been pretty standard.  Two nights of qualifying, followed by the team finals and individual all-arounds, then two days off (for the trampoline competitions) before starting the event finals on Sunday.  In Paris, though, they're having both trampoline competitions on the same day and starting the event finals one day earlier, which means there'll be gymnastics competition on both Saturday and Sunday.

Presumably one of the reasons for that is because they're also using the gymnastics venue for the medal round of basketball, and the basketball quarterfinals start the day after gymnastics ends.  But I'm sure there was also some talk with the worldwide TV partners about this schedule, and there were likely very few complaints.  (This is actually a case where the time difference to Europe and the fact that all of NBC's primetime coverage will be recorded works in their favor...that'll be a jam-packed show, and they'll be able to time it out ahead of time.)

Whether the reasons were logistical or for TV purposes (or, most likely, both), that has the makings of an epic Olympic weekend!  It'll be the first time since 1988 that all three sports are contested on both days of the middle weekend, and, as far as researchers were able to tell, there's never before been finals in all three sports on both days.  So, that alone makes it historic, even before you consider that there will likely be swimmers and gymnasts going for multiple gold medals at that point.

Another notable change is in diving.  There's a day in between each of the synchro events, which isn't usual, then two full days off before the start of the individual competition, which is.  (I've also been saying they really need to add the diving team event, which could squeeze perfectly in that gap.)  I'm curious to see what the schedule for the individual events will look like, though.  Because the four events will take place over a shorter six-day period...and there will be finals on three consecutive nights.

On the last day of the Games, meanwhile, are all of the usual events...the men's marathon; finals in basketball, volleyball and water polo; wrestling; track cycling.  But boxing, which usually has its last few finals on the final day, will already be done.  There will, however, be weightlifting (which is typically held much earlier in the Olympics) and one of the modern pentathlons, which is definitely an interesting change.

Of course, the craziest thing about all this is that the Paris Olympics are already close enough to have the schedule out.  We just had two Olympics in six months, and here we are talking about another one.  But those two years are gonna go by quick.  And, before we know it, that ridiculously incredible weekend planned for August 3-4, 2024 will be here!

2022 Baseball Preview, Part VI

We made it!  There's just one more sleep 'til baseball season!  After three months of literally nothing happening, the season sure came quick after the end of the lockout and an abbreviated Spring Training.  And now it's time!  The season is here.

I guess that means I should finish my preview, then.  And I'm ending the preview with one of my favorite divisions.  I'll admit it.  I love the NL West!  Not just because the Dodgers are so good and so fun to watch and have been for years.  I really enjoy watching the Padres, too, and the Giants somehow won 107 games last season to end the Dodgers' streak of division titles.

And they're all loaded again this season!  The Dodgers have to be the World Series favorites, but San Diego and San Francisco are definitely contenders for wild card spots.  And the Rockies added Kris Bryant, so they'll be better.  Arizona, on the other hand, is on the same level as Baltimore and Pittsburgh.  It'll be a long season in the desert.

The division title will undoubtedly go through LA, though.  The Giants figured out a way to finish ahead of them last season, but you have to question if they really have lasting power.  Somehow, I doubt it.  So, really, the only thing standing between the Dodgers and the division title is their health.  But, even if they have an injury to a pitcher, their staff is deep enough to handle it.

1. Los Angeles Dodgers: Believe it or not, the Dodgers might be better than last season, when they won "only" 106 games.  And there's one big reason for that.  Freddie Freeman.  Who ever would've thought he'd leave the Braves?  But he and the Dodgers are a perfect match.  Of course, without the universal DH, I'm not sure they land Freeman...because they wouldn't have had the flexibility to move Max Muncy to DH otherwise.  I also absolutely love the A.J. Pollock trade, which frees up spots for both Chris Taylor and Gavin Lux (mark my words, NL Rookie of the Year) to be in the everyday lineup.

That was one reason for the Pollock trade.  The other was to get a closer.  Because their closer is now in Atlanta (so, effectively, it was a Freeman-for-Jansen trade).  So, they got Craig Kimbrel to replace him, which frees up Blake Treinen to keep pitching the eighth inning...or whenever else Dave Roberts decides to use him.  As for the rotation, they lost Max Scherzer.  So what?  They still have Walker Buehler, Julio Urias and Clayton Kershaw (as if he was actually ever going anywhere).  Kershaw's never started an All*Star Game.  This year's All*Star Game is at Dodger Stadium.  See where I'm going here?
Projected Lineup: Mookie Betts-RF, Freddie Freeman-1B, Trea Turner-SS, Justin Turner-3B, Cody Bellinger-CF, Will Smith-C, Max Muncy-DH, Chris Taylor-LF, Gavin Lux-2B
Projected Rotation: Walker Buehler, Julio Urias, Clayton Kershaw, Tony Gonsolin, Andrew Heaney
Closer: Craig Kimbrel
Projected Record: 98-64

2. San Diego Padres: When the lockout ended and teams could talk to their own players again, the Padres found out that they'll be without their all-world shortstop Fernando Tatis, Jr., for the first few months of the season.  They were also without him for a long stretch last year, which was actually a big reason why they missed the playoffs!  But now that the NL has the DH and they have the extra bat, that makes the loss of Tatis a little more bearable.

Another reason I'm high on the Padres is because of their pitching staff.  A pitching staff that only got stronger with the addition of Sean Manaea.  They have about eight starters now, which is a good thing since Blake Snell and Mike Clevinger are both coming off injuries.  If everybody's healthy, there won't be enough starts to go around.  Which is a good problem to have.  Especially since it would give them a valuable trade piece if they need to make any upgrades at the deadline (especially if they're within striking distance of the Dodgers).  They're also looking to unload Eric Hosmer's contract, so that's something else to keep an eye on as the Padres march towards the postseason.
Projected Lineup: Trent Grisham-CF, Jake Cronenworth-SS, Manny Machado-3B, Wil Myers-RF, Luke Voit-DH, Eric Hosmer-1B, Jurickson Profar-LF, Austin Nola-C, Ha-Seong Kim-2B
Projected Rotation: Yu Darvish, Joe Musgrove, Sean Manaea, Blake Snell, Mike Clevinger
Closer: Robert Suarez
Projected Record: 89-73

3. San Francisco Giants: How did the Giants win 107 games last season?  I'm still confused about that.  Which is one of the primary reasons why I don't think it'll happen again.  Everything went right for them in 2021, which I think had a lot to do with their success.  It was enough to land Gabe Kapler, who is not a good manager, NL Manager of the Year honors.  Frankly, after so many things went right last year, the law of averages dictates a return to the median this season.

Pitching was a big reason for their success last year, and it will have to be again for them to have any hopes of returning to the playoffs.  Tyler Webb was a revelation last season and, despite losing Kevin Gausman, they replaced him in the No. 2 spot with former White Sok Carlos Rodon.  Problem is, their rotation doesn't stack up with either the Dodgers or the Padres.  Neither does their hitting or defense.  That's why they did the platoon thing at so many positions in 2021.  Depth can be great.  And, in the Giants' case, they're gonna need it.
Projected Lineup: Tommy LaStella-2B, Brandon Belt-1B, Mike Yastrezmski-LF, Joc Pederson-RF, Austin Slater-CF, Wilmer Flores-3B, Darin Ruf-DH, Brandon Crawford-SS, Joey Bart-C
Projected Rotation: Tyler Webb, Carlos Rodon, Anthony DeSclafani, Alex Wood, Alex Cobb 
Closer: Tyler Rogers
Projected Record: 83-79

4. Colorado Rockies: Raise your hand if you had Colorado as Kris Bryant's ultimate landing place?  After playing mostly third base for the Cubs, Bryant showed his versatility after his trade to the Giants, and he's actually projected to play mainly the outfield for the Rockies.  Bryant's obviously the biggest name to join the Rockies, but he's far from the only new face.  He's not even the only new face in the Colorado outfield.  They swung a trade with the Blue Jays to land Randal Grichuk, who hit nothing but home runs in Toronto and should love Coors Field.

As usual, they'll need to rely on their offense.  Because their pitching staff isn't nearly as good as the three California teams, and they, of course, play in Coors Field.  They also lost their best pitcher, Jon Gray, who's now in Texas.  So, pitching's once again gonna be their biggest problem.  I don't wanna say they'll score plenty of runs, but they'll score enough.  The pitchers will give up more than the offense scores, though.  Which obviously won't be enough in a division with a superpower and two other heavyweights.
Projected Lineup: Charlie Blackmon-RF, Brendan Rodgers-2B, Kris Bryant-LF, C.J. Cron-1B, Randal Grichuk-CF, Ryan McMahon-3B, Elias Diaz-C, Connor Joe-DH, Jose Iglesias-SS
Projected Rotation: German Marquez, Kyle Freeland, Antonio Senzatela, Austin Gomber, Chad Kuhl
Closer: Daniel Bard
Projected Record: 74-88

5. Arizona Diamondbacks: It's the exact opposite in Arizona.  The Diamondbacks' pitching is the best part of their team, while the offense leaves much to be desired.  But, even though it's the strength of the team, I still wouldn't exactly call Arizona's rotation "good."  In fact, I'd be surprised if they don't hover near the 100-loss mark.  Because beyond Madison Bumgarner, who's been up-and-down since coming to the Diamondbacks, they don't really have much to write home about.

Offensively, they're just bad.  Ketel Marte is by far their best everyday player, and I highly doubt Marte ends the season in Arizona, since he'll be highly desired at the trade deadline.  Honestly, I don't know where their runs are gonna come from.  Christian Walker?  Josh Rojas maybe?  Or will Marte have to go for 30 homers and 100 RBIs this season?  Either way, it doesn't look like they'll be scoring many runs.  And they'll be giving up a lot.  That's a bad combo.
Projected Lineup: David Peralta-LF, Ketel Marte-2B, Christian Walker-1B, Josh Rojas-3B, Seth Beer-DH, Pavin Smith-RF, Daulton Varsho-CF, Carson Kelly-C, Geraldo Perdomo-SS
Projected Rotation: Madison Bumgarner, Merrill Kelly, Zach Davies, Zac Gallen, Caleb Smith
Closer: Mark Melancon
Projected Record: 61-101

So, there you have it.  Just to recap, my division winners in the AL are Red Sox (East), White Sox (Central) and Mariners (West), with the wild cards going to the Yankees, Blue Jays and Rays.  In the NL, I've got the Mets (East), Cardinals (Central) and Dodgers (West) winning the divisions, and the Braves, Padres and Phillies earning the wild cards.

My World Series pick is White Sox vs. Dodgers.  And I see the Dodgers wining their second World Series title in three years.  They're the best team in baseball.  It's really just that simple.

2022 Baseball Preview, Part V

Once again, I have no idea who's going to win the NL Central this season.  The Brewers won the division last season and have the best pitching staff, while the Cardinals went on that ridiculous run in September to earn a place in the Wild Card Game.  Then there's the Cubs, who shed franchise cornerstones Anthony Rizzo and Kris Bryant at last year's trade deadline, but have definitely reloaded.  And with their pitching, anything's possible.

Cincinnati, meanwhile, is going the other way.  As soon as the lockout ended, the Reds tore it all down, signaling that even Joey Votto's tenure may be coming to an end.  And the Pirates are still the Pirates.  While I've already admitted I don't know who'll win the NL Central, I feel confident in saying it won't be Cincinnati or Pittsburgh.

The sentimental favorite has to be St. Louis.  We already knew this was Yadi Molina's final season.  Then Albert came back for a farewell tour.  After a decade away, he's ending his Hall of Fame career where it all started.  It's like when Ken Griffey Jr. and Ichiro returned to Seattle.  He's not anywhere near the same player he was when he left the Cardinals 10 years ago.  It doesn't matter.  There's just something so right about it.  It feels like he's back where he belongs.

That's not the reason why I'm picking the Cardinals in the division, but it certainly is a fun little storyline.  I think St. Louis is slightly more complete than Milwaukee, which is why I give them the edge.  I wouldn't be surprised at all to see them both back in the playoffs, though.

1. St. Louis Cardinals: For a change, the Cardinals don't enter the season with a couple familiar veterans and a bunch of guys you've never heard of.  In fact, their projected lineup looks shockingly familiar.  Albert's return actually makes a lot of sense from a baseball standpoint, too.  He proved last season with the Dodgers that he can still mash against left-handed pitching, and they can plug him in at first every once in a while if Goldschmidt needs a day off or a DH day.

Let's not forget about the third 40-year-old Cardinal who's still going strong...Adam Wainwright.  He made 32 starts last year and went 17-7.  In fact, Wainwright only needs 16 wins for 200.  If he stays healthy, that's certainly attainable.  There's no doubt that Andrew Miller's retirement will have a big impact on the bullpen.  And that bullpen could be the difference between the Cardinals winning the division and the Brewers winning the division.  I think St. Louis is the better team overall, though.
Projected Lineup: Tommy Edman-2B, Paul Goldschmidt-1B, Nolan Arenado-3B, Tyler O'Neill-LF, Harrison Bader-CF, Albert Pujols-DH, Paul DeJong-SS, Yadier Molina-C, Dylan Carlson-RF
Projected Rotation: Adam Wainwright, Miles Mikolas, Steven Matz, Dakota Hudson, Drew VerHagen
Closer: Giovanny Gallegos
Projected Record: 90-72

2. Milwaukee Brewers: There's a lot to like about the Brewers.  They've got the reigning Cy Young winner in Corbin Burnes and a ridiculously good bullpen anchored by Devin Williams and Josh Hader.  That bullpen tends to get overused (and overworked), though, which leads to them getting tired in September.  So, it's really incumbent on Burnes, Brandon Woodruff and the rest of the starters to go deep into games and save the bullpen from having to throw so many innings.

Milwaukee's lineup is obviously very strong, too.  But they're not very deep, especially a long, significant one, could really derail things.  They're also banking on a lot of if's.  They know what they're gonna get from Christian Yelich and Lorenzo Cain, but I'm not so sure about guys like Rowdy Tellez, Hunter Renfroe and especially Omar Narvez.  IF they can put up the power numbers they're capable of, this is a very powerful lineup.  If not, the Brewers could struggle to score runs.  That's the other reason why I give St. Louis the slight edge.  Milwaukee definitely has the better pitching, but the Cardinals have a better lineup.  Even still, they'll be in the playoff mix, either for the NL Central title or a wild card berth, all season long.
Projected Lineup: Lorenzo Cain-CF, Andrew McCutchen-DH, Christian Yelich-LF, Rowdy Tellez-1B, Omar Narvaez-C, Hunter Renfroe-RF, Willy Adams-SS, Jace Peterson-3B, Kolten Wong-2B
Projected Rotation: Corbin Burnes, Brandon Woodruff, Freddy Peralta, Adrian Houser, Eric Lauer
Closer: Josh Hader
Projected Record: 84-78

3. Chicago Cubs: Last season is when the Cubs officially put the curse-breaking 2016 championship behind them.  As it turns out, though, they were simply accelerating the process.  Because they freed up playing time for guys like Patrick Wisdom and Nico Hoerner while also giving themselves the financial flexibility to be active in free agency.  Specifically, it helped them land Seiya Suzuki, this year's prized Japanese import.  They also took a flier on Clint Frazier, who, mark my words, is gonna be an All*Star now that he knows he's got a starting spot and won't need to fight for playing time.  Frankly, I think getting out of New York will be liberating for him.

Getting out of New York will probably be liberating for Marcus Stroman, too.  Stroman slots in behind Kyle Hendricks as a solid No. 2.  The rest of the rotation is suspect, though, which is why I can't put them in the same league as the Cardinals and Brewers.  I'm not entirely sold on the Cubs' bullpen, either.  There's a lot of potential to be good there, but there are also a lot of question marks.  If their pitching can hold up, though, they've got a shot to make some noise.
Projected Lineup: Ian Happ-DH, Patrick Wisdom-3B, Wilson Contreras-C, Clint Frazier-LF, Jason Heyward-CF, Seiya Suzuki-RF, Frank Schwindel-1B, Nico Hoerner-SS, Nick Madrigal-2B
Projected Rotation: Kyle Hendricks, Marcus Stroman, Alec Mills, Drew Smyly, Justin Steele
Closer: David Robertson
Projected Record: 82-80

4. Cincinnati Reds: They sent a clear message to their fans in the first few days after the lockout.  That message was "we're not trying to win this season."  That's the only reason I can think of for the Suarez/Winker trade, as well as the Sonny Gray and Amir Garrett trades.  And Luis Castillo will start the season on the injured list, so add another name to the list of familiar Reds who won't be in uniform on Opening Day.  Which actually makes me feel kinda bad for Joey Votto.

Votto's a franchise icon, who'll be wearing a Reds hat on his plaque in Cooperstown.  But he doesn't have that many years left, and this franchise is no closer to the World Series than it has been at any other point in his career.  Even without Suarez and Winker, they'll hit plenty of home runs at Great American Small Park.  The problem is they'll also give up a lot.  That seems to perpetually be the Reds' biggest problem.  They simply don't have enough pitching.  Which will be the case again in 2022.  They have the fourth-best rotation and fourth-best bullpen in the division.  So, you can probably expect a lot of 9-7 and 10-8 losses for Cincinnati.  But, hey, at least the Bengals are good now!
Projected Lineup: Jonathan India-2B, Joey Votto-1B, Nick Senzel-CF, Tommy Pham-LF, Mike Moustakas-3B, Colin Moran-DH, Tyler Naquin-RF, Tyler Stephenson-C, Kyle Farmer-SS
Projected Rotation: Tyler Mahle, Vladimir Gutierrez, Nick Lodolo, Hunter Greene, Reiver Sanmartin
Closer: Hunter Strickland
Projected Record: 72-90

5. Pittsburgh Pirates: Ah, the Pirates.  What can I say about the Pirates?  They've actually got some really good young talent.  Bryan Reynolds started the All*Star Game last season, and Jacob Stallings was so solid behind the plate that the Marlins traded three players for him.  Reynolds could be the next Pirate to go, which is actually meant as a compliment, since it'll mean a contender (or contenders) want him at the trade deadline.  Or, Reynolds, Ke'Bryan Hayes and Kevin Newman will be the franchise cornerstones that the Pirates look to build around.

It's not all young guys, though.  Pittsburgh also has a lot of retreads who haven't really gotten the chance to be full-time starters before.  Will the low-pressure situation be exactly what guys like Daniel Vogelbach, Ben Gamel and Yoshi Tsutsugo need?  Whether they have a good year statistically or not doesn't even really matter.  Because it's gonna be a long year in Pittsburgh no matter what.  They aren't bad enough to lose 100, but they'll probably be somewhere in the mid-90s.  Anything fewer than 90 losses would be a pretty successful season, actually.
Projected Lineup: Kevin Newman-SS, Cole Tucker-2B, Bryan Reynolds-CF, Ke'Bryan Hayes-3B, Daniel Vogelbach-1B, Ben Gamel-LF, Roberto Perez-C, Yoshi Tsutsugo-DH, Greg Allen-RF
Projected Rotation: JT Brubaker, Mitch Keller, Jose Quintana, Wil Crowe, Zach Thompson
Closer: Chris Stratton
Projected Record: 66-96

2022 Baseball Preview, Part IV

A lot of things have changed in the NL East over the past couple days, huh?!  I made my predictions for this division before the Mets lost both of their aces and actually contemplated making some adjustments as a result.  But, in the end (and perhaps against my better judgment), I decided to stick with my initial picks for the NL East in 2022.  And my initial pick was the New York Mets finishing in first place.

Prior to the deGrom injury, the Mets looked like the best team on paper in this division.  They're actually one of the best teams on paper in all of baseball.  In the National League, only the Dodgers are better.  Losing deGrom obviously hurts, but I actually think the Mets are good enough to sustain his being out without completely collapsing.  So, I decided to stick with my pick.

Which isn't to say the NL won't be competitive.  The Braves only won 88 games in the regular season last year, but are the defending World Series champions.  I'm actually shocked they lost Freddie Freeman, but they replaced him with Matt Olson, who's not much of a downgrade (and younger).  So I fully expect Atlanta to be right there again.

And Joe Girardi's Phillies are eventually gonna figure it out and play to their potential.  With the third wild card, it wouldn't surprise me to see them in the playoffs.  It would surprise me to see the Nationals or Marlins there, however.  Washington's gonna be in the mix again very soon, but not this year.  As for the Marlins, um, yeah...

1. New York Mets: Was deGrom and Scherzer both getting hurt on consecutive days a week before the season starts the most Mets thing to possibly happen or what?  That's the risk you run when you're so reliant on starting pitching, though.  Scherzer, at least, shouldn't be out that long, but who knows when deGrom will be back?  So, the best 1-2 punch in baseball will have to wait until at least June at the earliest, assuming deGrom doesn't have any setbacks, which is far from a guarantee.

Even with deGrom out, the Mets should at least be able to tread water for the first few months.  They've completely rebuilt their roster, bringing in Starling Marte, Eduardo Escobar and Mark Canha, along with Scherzer and Chris Bassitt.  What a difference an owner who's actually willing to spend money makes!  (The new additional luxury tax threshold has even been nicknamed the "Cohen Tax.")  They stand to be one the biggest beneficiaries of the universal DH, too.  Now they don't need to put Dom Smith in left field just to get his bat in the lineup.  (I've even heard rumors that the Padres are looking to unload Eric Hosmer's salary on the Mets, and Smith could end up getting shipped to San Diego if that trade happen, in which case Hosmer plays first and Alonso moves to DH.)  Giving a team with this much power an extra bat means they may do a very un-Mets-like thing and actually score some runs.
Projected Lineup: Starling Marte-RF, Francisco Lindor-SS, Pete Alonso-1B, Mark Canha-LF, Eduardo Escobar-3B, Dominic Smith-DH, James McCann-C, Brandon Nimmo-CF, Jeff McNeil-2B
Projected Rotation: Max Scherzer, Chris Bassitt, Carlos Carrasco, Taijuan Walker, Tylor Megill
Closer: Edwin Diaz
Projected Record: 93-69

2. Atlanta Braves: The thought of Freddie Freeman playing for a team other than the Braves is, frankly, something that never entered my mind until it actually happened.  But you also saw it coming when they made that trade with Oakland to get Matt Olson, who they then immediately signed to an eight-year extension.  Even still, it'll be weird to see the Braves take the field on Opening Day with someone else at first base.  Although, it is somewhat fitting that Freeman's last game as a Brave was a World Series-clinching win.

He isn't the only person gone from Atlanta's championship team.  Jorge Soler and Joc Pederson are, too.  But otherwise, they have most of their World Series team returning.  And they'll get Ronald Acuna Jr., who missed the second half of last season with a gruesome broken leg, back in May, which will cover them at DH, which is actually Marcell Ozuna's best position.  So, expect the Braves to be in the mix all season long.
Projected Lineup: Eddie Rosario-RF, Ozzie Albies-2B, Matt Olson-1B, Marcell Ozuna-DH, Austin Riley-3B, Adam Duvall-LF, Travis d'Arnaud-C, Dansby Swanson-SS, Guillermo Heredia-CF
Projected Rotation: Charlie Morton, Max Fried, Ian Anderson, Kyle Wright, Tucker Davidson
Closer: Kenley Jansen
Projected Record: 90-72

3. Philadelphia Phillies: Phillies fans have to be beyond frustrated by now.  They're kinda like the Angels.  So much talent, but no results to show for it.  And this year, they've added even more.  Kyle Schwarber will be their DH, and they were the winners of the Nick Castellanos sweepstakes.  And don't forget, this is a lineup that already had Bryce Harper, Rhys Hoskins and J.T. Realmuto.  I seriously don't understand why this team isn't better.  Especially since they've got a serviceable rotation, too.  Aaron Nola is a legit No. 1 starter, and the starters behind him are more than capable.

Their chances may really come down to how well the bullpen holds up.  Girardi is clearly trying to take a page out of his Yankees playbook by just loading up on bullpen arms.  They have Corey Knebel, Brad Hand and Jeurys Familia, who've all been closers, to handle the 7th, 8th and 9th innings.  That actually makes things significantly easier on Nola, Wheeler and Co., who'll only have to go six on most nights.  All the talent is there.  Can the Phillies finally put it to use and make a playoff run?
Projected Lineup: Jean Segura-2B, J.T. Realmuto-C, Bryce Harper-RF, Rhys Hoskins-1B, Kyle Schwarber-DH, Nick Castellanos-LF, Didi Gregorius-SS, Alec Bohm-3B, Matt Vierling-CF
Projected Rotation: Aaron Nola, Zack Wheeler, Ranger Suarez, Zach Eflin, Kyle Gibson
Closer: Brad Hand
Projected Record: 84-78

4. Washington Nationals: As soon as the universal DH was announced and the market for a player like Nelson Cruz doubled, Washington immediately pounced.  The Nationals became the first NL team to sign a full-time DH, who suddenly gives them more than just Juan Soto.  He wasn't the only veteran they brought in, as they now have a wealth of experience around their young stars.  Will it translate to success on the field?  In another division, maybe.  In the NL East?  Probably not.

When they won the World Series in 2019, their pitching was a big reason why.  But it's the pitching that might be the thing that holds them back in 2022.  Stephen Strasburg and Joe Ross will both miss the start of the season.  There's no timetable on Strasburg's return.  And, they hoped to get Max Scherzer back after trading him to the Dodgers at last year's deadline, only to see him sign with the division rival Mets instead.  So instead it's Patrick Corbin who'll get the start on Opening Day and be their workhorse at the start of the season.  No offense to Patrick Corbin, but in this pitching-rich division, he's not a No. 1.
Projected Lineup: Alcides Escobar-SS, Juan Soto-RF, Nelson Cruz-DH, Josh Bell-1B, Maikel Franco-3B, Cesar Hernandez-2B, Victor Robles-CF, Keibert Ruiz-C, Lane Thomas-LF
Projected Rotation: Patrick Corbin, Josiah Gray, Erick Fedde, Anibal Sanchez, Josh Rogers
Closer: Tanner Rainey
Projected Record: 80-82

5. Miami Marlins: Derek Jeter wanted to go after Nick Castellanos.  The rest of the Marlins brass did not.  As a result, Jeter left his position with Miami.  That tells you all you need to know about the state of the Marlins.  They showed such promise not too long ago, making the playoffs and winning a postseason series during the abbreviated 2020 season.  But it all came crashing down last year, and they don't seem to have any direction, making life extremely difficult for Don Mattingly.

However, just because they didn't want to go after Castellanos, that doesn't mean they were completely silent during the offseason.  They signed Avisail Garcia and World Series MVP Jorge Soler to make up 2/3 of their outfield, and Gold Glove-winning catcher Jacob Stallings came over from the Pirates.  Plus, they have Sandy Alcantara, one of the best young starters in the game.  Alas, Alcantara can only pitch once every five days.  The other four days may be a problem.  They aren't nearly as bad as the Pirates or Diamondbacks, but it'd be a stretch to say the Marlins won't finish last in the NL East once again.
Projected Lineup: Jazz Chisholm-2B, Miguel Rojas-SS, Jesus Aguilar-DH, Avisail Garcia-RF, Jorge Soler-LF, Brian Anderson-3B, Jacob Stallings-C, Garrett Cooper-1B, Jesus Sanchez-CF
Projected Rotation: Sandy Alcantara, Pablo Lopez, Trevor Rogers, Elieser Hernandez, Jesus Luzardo
Closer: Anthony Bender
Projected Record: 69-93

Countdown to Qatar

You know it has to be something big for me to interrupt the baseball preview in the middle to blog about something else.  Well, the World Cup draw certainly qualifies.  So, yes, I'm taking a break from the baseball preview to take a look at the draw and make a few comments about that hot mess of a draw ceremony.

First things first, people were watching the draw ceremony to see the draw!  So get to the draw!  The speeches were fine.  So was the performance of the official song.  That video showcasing the stadiums made sense, too.  They needed something taped while they set the stage up with the pots.  But the rest of it.  What was that crap?

Seriously, was there any point to that stupid video with the trip to "mascot land" (a video that was also about three minutes too long)?  And why were there no translators?  They conducted the actual draw in English, yet they speak Arabic in the host country...and there was nobody translating back and forth!  It's possible that the people in the actual auditorium had earpieces, but how hard would it have been to have somebody doing translations for the TV audience?  I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who speak both English and Arabic!  (And Telemundo was dubbing the whole thing in Spanish, BTW.)

The draw ceremony started at 12:00, and they didn't get to the actual draw until 12:45!  And since the draw takes longer than 15 minutes, they ran long...all because of that ridiculous crap at the start! 

When it's North America's turn to do this for the next World Cup, they should take a page out of CBS' book.  When people tune in to CBS for the NCAA Basketball Selection Show, they know the reason why they're watching, so they get right to it.  They reveal the 1-seeds, then do the first region at like 6:05.  At the very least, cut some of that crap at the beginning out and start the actual draw on the half hour.  That way, you can take the 20-25 minutes to do the draw and still have the hour-long show end on time!

Anyway, rant over.  Now it's time to take a look at the actual draw, which can only be broken down so much right now.  Three teams, including the U.S, don't know their first opponent, so there's only so much preparation they can do for their opening game!  But, I'd much rather be in that position than the position of the eight teams still looking to clinch a berth.

Also, I've made it well known how stupid I think FIFA's rankings are.  They don't make any sense, yet they rely on them like they're gospel.  But at least we didn't end up with one of the lower-seeded teams from Pot 2 in Group A with Qatar!  The Netherlands, in fact, actually ended up with a really good draw.

Group A: Qatar, Ecuador, Senegal, Netherlands
As crazy as it sounds, Qatar might actually get out of this group.  The Dutch are obviously the favorite in what looks like the clear weakest group.  The Qatar-Senegal game will probably be the big one, since the winner of that will likely be the team that joins the Netherlands in the second round.  Senegal is the better team and would be my choice on a neutral ground no question, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's the hosts.

Group B: England, Iran, United States, Wales/Scotland/Ukraine
This, frankly, is perhaps the best possible draw for the Americans.  Sure, they're playing on the first day of the tournament, and I'm sure it would be nice to know their opponent.  But, of all the teams they could've drawn in Pot 1, England was one of the preferred options.  Iran will be a tough game, especially in the Middle East, and it's tough to assess the opening game without knowing the opponent, but I think the order of preference there is probably 1. Scotland, 2. Ukraine, 3. Wales.  Regardless, the U.S. has to like its chances of getting out of this group.  So does England.

Group C: Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Poland
Poland's a dangerous team, one I did not want to see in the Americans' group.  Instead, they're in Mexico's group, and it could come down to them vs. El Tri for the second spot in the knockout phase.  I don't think Saudi Arabia will be as overmatched as they've been in previous World Cups, either.  Don't forget, Saudi Arabia borders Qatar, so not only will they be familiar with the surroundings, they'll have plenty of fans there.  This group is all about Messi and Co., though.  Argentina finally won a trophy at Copa America and is considered one of the favorites heading into what's likely Messi's final World Cup.  Now that they have a trophy, is the pressure off them?

Group D: France, Australia/UAE/Peru, Denmark, Tunisia
After that 0-0 snooze fest four years ago where they spent 90 minutes passing the ball back and forth, the soccer gods have given us France and Denmark in the same World Cup group again.  Australia and Peru were also in that group, and one of them will likely come out of that qualifier, so this will really feel like deja vu from Russia 2018.  Tunisia's the only team that's different.  In 2018, it was France and Denmark who came out of that group.  Don't expect things to change in 2022.

Group E: Spain, Costa Rica/New Zealand, Germany, Japan
On paper, this looks like your Group of Death.  But that's what happens when Germany is somehow ranked 12th in the world!  It does give us a Germany-Spain group play match, though, so you can't be overly upset about that!  Japan can.  They're probably the strongest Asian side and would've been well-positioned to make it to the knockout stage.  But not if they have to beat two European heavyweights to get there!  (Although, Germany did finish last in its group in 2018, so...)

Group F: Belgium, Canada, Morocco, Croatia
Canada was literally the last team drawn.  Which is kinda mean for a team that's playing in its first World Cup since 1986!  This competition is obviously stiffer than what they faced in CONCACAF, but I still think they have a decent chance of at least being competitive...even in a group that features the second- and third-place finishers at the last World Cup.  Belgium, the most overrated team in the world, once again gets a cupcake of a draw.  Their toughest opponent will, obviously, be Croatia.  I'm not counting Morocco out, either.  They're another Arab team, so they'll be comfortable.

Group G: Brazil, Serbia, Switzerland, Cameroon
While I already gave Group E the "Group of Death" label, this one ain't exactly easy!  It's also, like Group D, essentially a repeat of Russia 2018, where Brazil, Serbia and Switzerland were also all together.  Brazil is the No. 1 team in the world and the tournament favorites.  They'll have to prove it, though.  Because both Serbia and Switzerland will be tough outs.  Cameroon, unfortunately, is in over its head against those three.

Group H: Portugal, Ghana, Uruguay, South Korea
We came thisclose to a World Cup without Pretty Boy!  And yet, despite almost not even qualifying, Portugal ended up seeded!  Not only that, they ended up in a pretty favorable group.  Uruguay is the only team that can potentially threaten them.  Ghana was probably hoping to get the United States, while South Korea, while a regular presence in the World Cup, has only gotten out of the group stage twice (and one of those times they hosted).  It should be the same thing again.

Even though the draw is complete, the World Cup is still eight months away.  We won't even know the full field until June.  Taking an early glance at the draw, though, it's certainly a lot more favorable for some teams than others.  For the ones who got a good draw, November can't come soon enough.