World Series Postmortem

The better team won the World Series.  I don't just mean the more talented team, which the Dodgers were.  They also outplayed the Yankees.  They jumped on every mistake the Yankees made and took advantage of every extra opportunity they were given.  They also exposed some glaring flaws that the Yankees had all season, but were able to mask effectively enough against weaker opponents.  The Yankees were the best team in the American League, but, the result of the All*Star Game aside, the National League was the overall better league in 2024.

It's easy to second-guess the decision to bring in Nestor Cortes in the 10th inning of Game 1, but I had no problem with the move.  Sure, he gave up the walk-off grand slam.  Hindsight is 20/20, though, and if it had worked out, then Boone's a genius!  The fact that it didn't makes him a moron?  (Let's not forget the circumstances that led to that situation, too.)

Other decisions, however, can absolutely be questioned!  Sending Giancarlo Stanton, the slowest runner on the team, home from second on a one-hopper to left, for example.  The bullpen management was horrendous.  And the fact that they got terrible starting pitching only exacerbated the problem!

Carlos Rodon and Clarke Schmidt were awful in their World Series starts.  (There was some talk before the series that, with their home/road splits, it might've been smarter to flip them and have Schmidt start Game 2.  That argument actually made a lot of sense.)  As a result, the bullpen was overused and overexposed.  The fact that Boone kept going to the same guys over and over didn't help, either. 

I'm not saying I wanted to see Marcus Stroman pitch in the postseason, but he was your long man and he didn't pitch at all.  The entire point of a long man is to give you innings when you get a short start!  And Tim Mayza only got to pitch once...in the ninth inning of Game 4...because they had a seven-run lead!  Otherwise, it would've been Weaver, who you could tell had absolutely nothing left in the tank at the end of Game 5.  Same thing with Tommy Kanhle.  Seriously, how many consecutive changeups can you throw before the hitters are just sitting on it?

As for the lineup, it's really difficult to say whether the lack of offense was a result of good Dodger pitching, terrible Yankee hitting or both.  I get why some people wanted to see lineup changes, especially in light of the struggles.  Would that have made a difference?  It's tough to say.  The fact that they were playing from behind the entire game certainly didn't help.  Because, yes, they absolutely were pressing.  (And, give the Dodgers pitchers credit for executing better in the big moments.)

Then there was the defense in that fateful fifth inning of Game 5.  Now, let's be perfectly clear about something.  While it's fair to say that inning cost them the game, it's not why they lost the series.  I also thought Volpe made the right decision, just a bad throw.  And I think Rizzo's just as responsible as Cole for the play at first.  Rizzo assumed Cole would be there.  When he saw he wasn't, he could've shown a little more urgency getting to the bag.  (As for Judge, that was just a fluky thing that happened at the absolute worst time.)

Meanwhile, Game 1 could've ended very differently had Gleyber Torres not missed the throw from right field on Ohtani's double, giving him an extra base.  He scored the tying run one batter later.  Without that error, the game doesn't go to extra innings, Freddie Freeman doesn't hit a walk-off grand slam, and the entire series is different.

Defensive and baserunning gaffes weren't exclusive to the World Series.  The Yankees were one of the worst baserunning teams in baseball all season.  And they lost many a game because of bad defense or a bad starting pitching performance or the bullpen blowing a lead.  Sometimes it would be a combination.  Despite all that, they still won 94 games and had the best record in the American League.  In a short series against a team as good as the Dodgers, though, you can't get away with any of that.

Losing the World Series never feels good, but the fact that the Yankees got there for the first time in 15 years despite how fundamentally flawed they were really does speak volumes about the amount of talent they had on that roster.  The Dodgers simply had more talent and played better.  The mistakes that the Yankees were able to get away with during the season they didn't get away with in the World Series.  They got outplayed by a superior team, which resulted in a five-game series loss.

That's perhaps the biggest takeaway heading into the offseason.  The Yankees have a lot of decisions to make.  Re-signing Juan Soto should and will be the absolute priority.  After the game on Wednesday, Soto was non-committal about his future, but what else would you expect?  He's a Boras client!  Of course he's going to test the open market and find out teams think he's worth before making a decision!  I just hope for his and the interested teams' sake that Boras doesn't make him wait until February to sign!  (My guess is it'll be at the Owners' Meetings in December, which is when Judge signed in 2022 and Ohtani signed last year.)

There's only so much they can control with regards to Soto.  And whether he decides to stay or not will dictate a lot of their other moves over the winter.  Because make no mistake, other moves will be made!  The Yankees got to the World Series, but weren't good enough to win it.  They know they're close, though.  And there's actually a bit of a silver lining to losing the World Series because it exposed the issues (that already existed) the really need to address.

While they liked their starting rotation, it was too inconsistent.  Too many bad starts resulting in needing to get too many outs from the bullpen.  During the regular season, you can work around that.  In the playoffs, you can't.  Cole's a legit No. 1 starter (and, before you start saying "Oh, Cole has an opt-out," yes, he does, but the team can void the opt-out by giving him an extra year at the end of his contract, which is what everyone expects will happen).  Rodon is serviceable, but he's not a No. 2.  They need a second reliable starting pitcher to plug behind Cole in a postseason rotation.

And, I'm sorry, but you need to go get an actual closer!  Clay Holmes is not a closer.  Luke Weaver is not a closer.  You get the closer role settled, that gives you the freedom to play around with different roles for everybody else.  I know bullpen management is a completely different animal now.  Relievers don't have defined roles and managers will go to high-leverage guys in any situation.  Which works as long as they aren't overused and overexposed, which multiple bullpens were during the postseason (just look at what the Yankees did to Clase in the ALCS).

Soto's not the Yankees' only free agent.  They have decisions to make on some other guys, as well.  So, the roster will look very different in 2025.  How different remains to be seen.  But, for as good as the Yankees were in 2024, there are definitely areas where they can improve.  It's up to Brian Cashman to make those improvements.  If he can, there's no reason to think the Yankees can't make it back to the World Series.

Aaron Boone will likely be back as the manager.  That was all but confirmed immediately after the conclusion of Game 5.  Like many, I'm lukewarm about that news.  Because not only was the team outplayed, he was outmanaged by Dave Roberts.  So, add "manager" to the list of areas where the Yankees need to improve in 2025.

What's Old Is New Again

Everyone loves a throwback.  Whenever a team introduces an alternate uniform, more often than not, it's going to be a throwback look.  Throwback jerseys are also among the most popular with fans and are often among the best-selling items both online and in-person, whether it's a franchise legend's name and number or a modern player in the throwback design.

What I've always found ironic/funny about throwbacks is how they only become beloved well after the fact.  You're unlikely to see either of the World Series participants in a throwback design since their classic look is beloved and has been worn for years.  Meanwhile, the teams that do wear throwbacks only have them because they've changed their uniforms and/or logo over time.  Sometimes more than once.  And all those uniform changes are what make people realize that their old logo/uniform, which they hated at the time, may not have been so bad after all.

The NFL just started letting teams wear an alternate helmet again after a few seasons where they were only allowed to have one.  Plenty of teams have taken advantage of that rule change, with many reintroducing a throwback as their alternate uniform/helmet.  Some of throwbacks we've seen this season have included the Eagles' Kelly green, Pat the Patriot, the Seahawks' silver & blue, the Falcons' original red and the wonderful, glorious Buccaneer Bruce!

Sometimes teams even realize that the throwback is their best look.  Case in point: the New York Jets.  When Bill Parcells took over as Jets coach, they introduced new uniforms that were a modernized version of a throwback look to when they won the Super Bowl with Joe Namath at quarterback.  This season, the Jets have new uniforms again--uniforms that were introduced last season as a throwback.  Now, their 1980s-inspired design is once again their primary look.

They aren't the only team that's gone to a modernized version of an old logo as their "new" look for this season.  Two NHL teams have done the same thing.  The Los Angeles Kings went back to their uniforms from the early 90s with slight modifications.  The Kings' Southern California brethren the Ducks, meanwhile, brought back their wildly popular original logo from 1993 with a twist--Wild Wing is back, but in orange and black, not the Ducks' original colors.

Add the Kings and Ducks to an ever-growing list of NHL teams that went back to a throwback design as their "new" primary logo.  The Islanders ditched their fisherman logo and reinstated the Long Island map almost immediately after making the change the first time.  The Sabres brought back their original colors and logo.  The Penguins.  The Senators.  The Wild have paid tribute to the North Stars by incorporating a third uniform with their green & gold color scheme.  Even Utah, during its last few years in Phoenix, went back to the Coyotes' original logo from when they first moved to Arizona.

NBA teams have like five different uniforms each, so it's hard to tell what even is a team's primary uniform.  So, in the NBA, you've got to go by the logo.  And there have been a few in recent years who've also made the change back to a modernized version of their classic logo.  The Hawks and Sixers returned to their logos from the 80s.  So have the Jazz.  Meanwhile, the Warriors used their logo and uniforms from the 70s as the inspiration for their current logo.

It's really prominent in Major League Baseball.  For every team like the Yankees, Dodgers or Tigers, who've had the same, classic look for years, there are the teams who've gone through multiple logo/uniform changes.  And they often end up cycling back to something from their past.

There are countless examples of MLB teams that have readopted an old logo/uniform as their primary look.  The Toronto Blue Jays and Milwaukee Brewers went through several redesigns before realizing that what their fans wanted was a modernized version of their classic logo.  Same thing with the Orioles.  The cartoon oriole wearing a baseball hat isn't just the uniform they wore when they won their three World Series titles.  It's also by far the best uniform set they've had in their history.

Meanwhile, some teams that are perfectly content with their current uniforms while still letting their fans have the nostalgic feeling a throwback brings.  So, the Braves, Phillies and White Sox have found the perfect compromise.  The wear their throwback as their alternate jersey, and they've made sure to keep it in the rotation even though MLB now limits them to five total uniform combinations.  The Mariners even dropped their gray jersey entirely so that they could keep their throwbacks.

Even if they don't go all the way with the logo, it may just be the old colors people want.  The San Diego Padres are brown and gold.  They're the only team that has ever been able to pull it off, and fans were so happy when they brought the colors back.  Same thing with their former city mates.  The Chargers were known for their powder blue.  They brought it back as a secondary jersey at first, then fully embraced their powder blueness.

Then there's the other team that plays in SoFi Stadium.  When the Rams moved back to LA, they promised a full rebrand was on its way once the stadium opened.  They didn't wait to ditch the gold horns from the end of their St. Louis days, though.  At first, they changed them from gold to white, with classic Rams throwback uniforms mixed in.  Except people hated the white horns, so it became just the throwbacks until they debuted their new uniforms.  They even wore their throwbacks in Super Bowl LVIII!

I get why teams change their logos/uniforms.  Sometimes there's a new owner who wants to leave their mark.  Sometimes they just want a new look or to do something fresh.  Sometimes they're opening a new facility and want new uniforms to go with it.  There are a variety of reasons.  But, it's remarkable how many of those new logos/uniforms leave fans longing for the old look that they once hated.

Or maybe it's just that the appreciation for these uniforms has grown over time.  What once was considered "bad" or "ugly" now elicits fond memories and gives a sense of nostalgia.  So, maybe those old uniforms weren't so bad after all.  Because if they were, I doubt people would miss them once they're gone.

NFL 2024 (Week 8)

Believe it or not, we're almost at the halfway point of the NFL season.  And, even though things are starting to sort themselves out, there's still a lot up in the air.  The entire NFC North would be in the playoffs if they started today.  How long can that last?  Will struggling teams that were supposed to be contenders step up?  And can anyone in the AFC challenge Kansas City?  So much left to be answered!

Thursday Night: Minnesota (Loss)

Eagles (4-2) at Bengals (3-4): Philadelphia-Cincinnati has won three out of four, with each of those victories coming on the road.  I wouldn't go around proclaiming that the Bengals have righted the ship, though, seeing as those wins came against Carolina, the Giants and Cleveland.  This week, they're back at home, trying to get to .500 against an Eagles team that absolutely destroyed the Giants last week.  If they do manage to win this one, then maybe I'll start to think that they're on the right track.

Ravens (5-2) at Browns (1-6): Baltimore-Watch the Browns suddenly become better now that their hand has been forced about Deshaun Watson.  They didn't want to admit it to themselves, but he's a huge part of their problems.  Anyway, I'm curious to see how their new offensive dynamic looks against Baltimore.  The real question, though, is whether they can shut down the suddenly potent Ravens offense.

Titans (1-5) at Lions (5-1): Detroit-Order seems to have been restored in the NFC and the Lions don't just lead the North, they hold the No. 1 seed in the conference right now.  That win over Minnesota was close, but those are the types of games good teams win.  Good teams also don't lose games at home to an opponent they're far superior to like the Titans.

Cardinals (3-4) at Dolphins (2-4): Miami-On paper, Arizona is probably the smart choice here.  The Cardinals improved to 3-4 with that last-second field goal in the Monday night ESPN+ exclusive.  The Dolphins, meanwhile, are sitting at 2-4 after scoring just 10 points in a loss to the Colts and don't have much of an offense to speak of.  So, I may be crazy and I'm probably way off to pick them in this one.  I just have a feeling, though, and the Cardinals' having to travel cross country for an early game on a short week is a big reason why.  So, I'm sticking with the Miami pick.

Jets (2-5) at Patriots (1-6): Jets-It's been 24 years since the Jets swept the season series with the Patriots, but that's exactly what'll happen if they get the victory here.  They've actually won two straight against New England and are looking to make it three in a row for the first time since a four-game streak from 1999-2001 (aka, right before Belichick got there and the game where Mo Lewis changed NFL history).  The Jets actually haven't won since the last time they played the Patriots, who, unfortunately for them, they won't face again until the 2025 season.

Falcons (4-3) at Buccaneers (4-3): Tampa Bay-Three weeks ago in Atlanta, the Falcons had that crazy comeback to beat the Bucs on a walk-off touchdown.  If they can win the rematch, they'll have the NFC South all but wrapped up.  It was tough to watch what happened to Tampa's top two receivers on Monday night, too.  Losing both Mike Evans and Chris Godwin in the same game is obviously a pretty big blow.  For some strange reason, I can see them overcoming it and taking over the division lead, though.

Packers (5-2) at Jaguars (2-5): Green Bay-Green Bay doesn't really have a choice but to keep winning.  The rest of the NFC North isn't going to, so they have to take care of their own business since it doesn't look like they'll be getting any help from their division rivals.  Jacksonville, meanwhile, is back stateside after its two-week sojourn to London, where they got a win over a Patriots team that they're better than.  They are not, however, better than the Packers.

Colts (4-3) at Texans (5-2): Houston-There are only seven AFC teams with a winning record right now.  The Colts are one of them, which means Indianapolis is currently in playoff position.  They're only a game behind the Texans in the division, but they already lost to Houston in Week 1, so this week is huge for both teams.  Either the Colts tie Houston for the division lead and earn a season split or the Texans take a two-game lead and clinch the tiebreaker, setting them up really nicely for the second half of the season.

Saints (2-5) at Chargers (3-3): Chargers-To say it's been a busy week in LA would be an understatement.  The Rams had a home game Thursday night.  USC was home.  The Lakers and Clippers opened their seasons at home.  The Dodgers hosted the first two games of the World Series.  Now it's the Chargers' turn to close out the weekend.  All of the others won, so they need to do the same in order to keep pace.  Especially since their opponent is a struggling Saints team.

Bills (5-2) at Seahawks (4-3): Buffalo-I don't really know what to make of the Seahawks.  They've looked great on the road, but have been oddly vulnerable at home.  In Seattle's last two home games, the Giants and 49ers, two teams they should beat, both came into what used to be one of the toughest places in the NFL for the road team and gotten.  Yet, despite that, they're still in first place in the NFC West.  The Bills, meanwhile, are on the road for the fourth time in five weeks.  I do like their chances to hand Seattle its third straight home loss, though.

Panthers (1-6) at Broncos (4-3): Denver-Doesn't it seem like a lifetime ago when these two faced each other in the Super Bowl?  Neither one has been any good since then, although the Broncos are definitely headed in the right direction.  Denver's won four out of five after starting 0-2 and is currently holding onto a wild card spot.  Look for the Broncos to make that five out of six against lowly Carolina.

Chiefs (6-0) at Raiders (2-5): Kansas City-The Chiefs aren't going undefeated.  I don't think there's anyone who thinks they will.  They've played too many close games and their division rivals are too good.  The crazy thing, though, is that they haven't really played that well yet, either.  Their last loss, in fact, was against the Raiders last Christmas.  Their next one won't come here.

Bears (4-2) at Commanders (5-2): Washington-They flexed the Caleb Williams vs. Jayden Daniels into the late national window, and with good reason.  It's not just the No. 1 and 2 picks from the draft.  They've both helped immediately turn their teams around.  If the playoffs were to start this week, the Bears and Commanders would both be in.  So, this is actually a good, entertaining one that deserves to be a national game instead of the fourth regional option in the 1:00 window.  The Commanders are slightly better and the game's in Washington so they're the pick.

Cowboys (3-3) at 49ers (3-4): San Francisco-Most people figured that Dallas and San Francisco would be two of the top teams in the NFC when they met on a midseason Sunday night.  Instead, they're both struggling, on the outside looking in at the playoff picture, and both badly in need of a win.  For the 49ers, it can give them some momentum heading into their bye week.  The Cowboys, meanwhile, have had two weeks to think about getting absolutely shellacked by the Lions.  Going to San Francisco won't make them feel better about themselves.

Giants (2-5) at Steelers (5-2): Pittsburgh-Another week, another primetime home game for the Steelers against a crappy New York team.  They beat the Jets fairly comfortably.  Why should it be any different against the Giants?  Although, the Giants have been a better team on the road this season, and one of their wins came in notoriously tricky Seattle.  Still, though, it would definitely be shocking if Pittsburgh loses this game.

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 9-6
Overall: 60-48

MLB's Dream Series

Major League Baseball has finally gotten the World Series it has long wanted.  The Yankees and the Dodgers.  Two marquee franchises, East Coast vs. West Coast, the two biggest markets, the two biggest fanbases (and the two teams every other fanbase loves to hate), the two winningest teams in their respective leagues renewing a World Series rivalry for the first time in 43 years.  This World Series has everything a baseball fan could ask for and then some!  (If you don't believe me that this is what MLB wants, just check out the ratings for the playoffs so far.  The Yankees and Dodgers making deep postseason runs is good for baseball.  This year is proof of that.)

I haven't even talked about the star power yet.  Judge and Ohtani, the two biggest names in the sport.  One of them is guaranteed to win his first World Series ring.  They both hit 50 home runs this season.  They're both likely going to be named MVP next month.  And they won't be the only MVPs on the field!  There will be five on the field in Game 1 between both teams--Judge, Ohtani, Mookie Betts, Freddie Freeman and Giancarlo Stanton.  That doesn't even include Clayton Kershaw, who's injured and won't pitch in the series.  The current World Series record is four MVPs in one game.

For people of a certain age, a Yankees-Dodgers World Series was a rite of autumn.  Whether it was taking the subway from Brooklyn to the Bronx or flying cross country, it's the classic World Series rivalry.  So many iconic World Series moments took place between the Yankees and Dodgers.  They played each other 11 times in 41 years!  But it's been 43 years since the last time.  That's two generations!  Far too long.

Derek Jeter lamented the fact that he never got to play in a Yankees-Dodgers World Series.  And it's not like both franchises haven't been good since 1981.  The Yankees have won five titles and been to seven World Series since then, while the Dodgers have been to four World Series and won two.  The fates just never aligned for them to meet again in the Fall Classic until now.

This year felt like a make-it-or-break-it season for both teams, too.  The Yankees went 82-80 last year and made a huge trade with the Padres to get Juan Soto, who's a free agent after this season.  After last season's disaster and knowing they might have Soto and Judge together for one season, to say the pressure was on to end the Yankees' 15-year pennant drought would be an understatement.  If not, Aaron Boone was as good as gone.

The Dodgers made their own offseason splash.  They signed Ohtani to the largest free agent contract in MLB history.  They also won the Yoshinobu Yamamoto sweepstakes.  And, for all their regular season success over the past decade, the only World Series they've won in that span comes with an asterisk since it was during the 2020 COVID season.  More significantly, they were coming off back-to-back Division Series upsets against division rivals.  So, yes, the pressure was most definitely on in Los Angeles, as well.

They've both had their moments this year, too.  The Yankees looked unbeatable in April and May, then were God awful for six weeks in the summer before getting their groove back in mid-August.  Down the stretch and in the playoffs, everybody has been healthy (for the most part) and they've looked like that dominant team from April and May again.  And they were certainly the best team in the American League.

As for the Dodgers, I don't really know how they've done it.  They have like 15 starting pitchers, yet somehow all of them are hurt.  They don't even have enough for a postseason rotation!  And they were staring at another Division Series exit after falling behind the Padres 2-1.  Then the Dodgers' offense cranked it into another gear.  They set a record with 43 runs against the Mets in the NLCS.  All of that offensive fire power was on full display.

When these two met at Yankee Stadium in early June, the Dodgers won two out of three.  It was actually the first home series the Yankees lost all season.  There's a huge caveat about that series, though.  Juan Soto didn't play in any of the three games.  The Yankees had Trent Grisham batting fifth in the Sunday night game!  So, that wasn't anything close to the same lineup the Dodgers will be facing in the World Series.  Frankly, that Dodgers team back in June was far different, too.

Most of the pre-series talk has been about the lineups.  And rightfully so!  Why wouldn't it be when you're got guys like Ohtani, Betts and Freeman on one side and Judge, Soto and Stanton on the other?  There's also Tesocar Hernandez, who's unleashed his inner superstar and Kike Hernandez, who turns into a different player in October.  Meanwhile, the Yankees have had Gleyber Torres getting on base like it's nobody's business and Alex Verdugo coming up with big hits.  So, yeah, there should be plenty of hitting.

Both teams also love their bullpens.  Both teams have relied heavily on their bullpens through the first two rounds of the playoffs.  I'd even say some relievers have been overused.  More significantly, I'd say some relievers have been overexposed.  That's a dangerous proposition when you're talking about these two lineups.  We also already know the Dodgers are planning on having at least one bullpen game.  It worked in Game 4 against the Padres.  It didn't in Game 2 against the Mets.

Which puts a tremendous premium on actual starting pitching.  You know both managers will have a quick hook.  At the first sign of trouble, the starter's out of there.  Even if there isn't trouble and Ohtani or Soto's coming up, we're gonna see a lefty reliever.  Unless the starter is rolling.  It's up to Gerrit Cole, Carlos Rodon, Clarke Schmidt, Luis Gil, Jack Flaherty, Yoshinobu Yamamoto and Walker Buehler to make the decision whether to leave him in an easy one.

Ultimately, I think the Dodgers' lack of starting pitching depth is one big advantage that the Yankees need to exploit.  The Yankees have the best starting pitcher in the series in Cole, and will undoubtedly get more innings from their four starters than the Dodgers will from their three.  The more innings they get from their starters, the better off they are.  Which is true for both teams.  Because as much as they like their bullpens, you don't want to be relying on the bullpen to get 15 outs or more in every game.  Especially with these two offenses.

Starting pitching is advantage Yankees.  The bullpen is probably a slight edge to the Dodgers, especially if they get Alex Vesia and Brusdar Garterol back.  As for the lineups, how can you possibly compare them?  Seriously, in a position-by-position breakdown, how do you decide between Mookie Betts and Juan Soto, the two best right fielders in the game?  And Ohtani might be the only DH that you'd take over Stanton right now.

Top to bottom, the Dodgers' lineup is just a tiny bit stronger.  Their NLCS effort is proof of that.  From 1-9, they don't have a weakness.  The Yankees, meanwhile, have been getting most of their production from their big four (Soto, Stanton, Judge and Torres).  Jazz Chisholm Jr. and Austin Wells, in particular, have had their struggles.  They need one of those guys at the bottom of the order to break out and relieve some of the burden on their big boppers.

We have the two teams with the most wins in their respective leagues.  They're the two best teams in baseball.  I don't think anyone expects this to be a short series.  It's Dodgers-Yankees, why wouldn't it be a classic?  As for who wins, I have no idea.  Either way, I see it going back to LA.  My heart says Yankees in six.  My head says Dodgers in seven.

The Vagabond Rays

Tropicana Field, the Tampa Bay Rays' home stadium, was supposed to be used as a shelter during Hurricane Milton.  Instead, Milton's winds destroyed the roof, ripping almost every panel off completely.  The rest of the stadium, fortunately, wasn't damaged, but the roof obviously needs to be repaired.  Unfortunately, those repairs won't be completed in time for Opening Day 2025.

The Rays have long been in need of a new stadium, and finally got the approval for one earlier this year.  It won't open until 2028, however, which means they'll still be at Tropicana Field for the next three years.  And now, they'll need to find a temporary home for at least the start of the 2025 season.

A number of cities have presented themselves as options for the Rays' temporary home, but Major League Baseball wants them to remain in the Tampa Bay area, near their fanbase.  A teams' Spring Training complexes are in the Tampa area, so they do have options.  How many of those options are actually realistic, though?

Most of the teams whose Spring Training complexes are in the Tampa area have a Minor League team in the Florida State League that play in the same stadium once Spring Training ends.  So, the Rays' using one of those facilities would require adjusting the Florida State League schedule.  I'm not saying it can't be done.  They're doing the exact same thing in Sacramento with the A's and RiverCats sharing that stadium for the next few seasons.  But that was known well in advance, so it made it much easier to work the MLB and Triple-A schedules around each other.

With that in mind, Sarasota could be an option.  The Orioles don't have a Minor League affiliate in the Florida State League, so their complex would be readily available for the Rays.  Or they could use their own facility in Port Charlotte, but that's 100 miles away from Tampa/St. Petersburg.  Is that too far?

One benefit of those Spring Training stadiums is that they're, for the most part, Major League ready.  The pitch clock and replay system have already been installed since the Major League teams need to use them for Spring Training games.  And, even though most Spring Training games are during the day, they do play a handful of night games, so the lighting is in place, as well.  Although, as we saw when the Blue Jays had to start the 2021 season at their Spring Training facility in Dunedin, it's not ideal.

I get the desire to keep the Rays as close to home as possible.  But, if they don't want to use another team's Spring Training facility, it would be easy enough to take an 85-mile trip across I-4 to Orlando.  There's obviously plenty of hotel space and, most importantly, there's a 7,500-seat stadium at the ESPN Wide World of Sports Complex.  The Rays actually used it for part of Spring Training in 2023, so they've called the stadium "home" before.  And it's also hosted Major League games in the past.

Personally, I think Orlando may be the best option.  Especially since no one knows how long it'll take until Tropicana Field is ready for play.  Ideally, they'll be able to repair the roof relatively quickly and the Rays can return home sometime in April or May.  But, that's assuming the roof is the only damage.  Who knows what other damage there is or how extensive?

All of this is complicated by another significant factor.  The Rays are already moving into a new, $1.8 billion ballpark in 2028.  They obviously need to determine the cost of the repairs, but is it worth it to replace the roof on a building that's being torn down in three years anyway?  Especially when the team already has the funding for the new stadium and the City of St. Petersburg, which doesn't have unlimited resources, just dealt with back-to-back hurricanes.  So, it seems very possible, if not likely, that the Rays won't be able to use their home park at all in 2025.

Removing the roof and turning Tropicana Field into an outdoor facility doesn't seem like a viable option, either.  For starters, the stadium is 35 years old, and it was built as an indoor facility with a permanent roof.  That means there's no drainage system, etc.  And it's not like they can just install one!  So, they'd have absolutely no protection from the weather, whether it be rain (it rains a lot in Florida) or the heat (it also gets pretty hot there in the summer).

So, while 2025 is the obvious and immediate priority, we could be looking at a situation where the Rays need to find a stadium solution for more than just next season.  It's entirely possible that they've already played their last game in Tropicana Field and will be vagabonds until their new stadium (which hasn't even broken ground yet) is complete.  And, if this becomes a semi-permanent, multi-year thing, it shouldn't be at somebody else's Minor League facility.  It would be at a place that at least feels like it's their home away from home.

That's why I think Orlando may be the best option.  I totally get the desire to keep them in Florida.  And it'll be easy enough to find somewhere for the Rays to play within their home state.  So, sorry to disappoint you, Nashville, but it doesn't look like you'll be their temporary home.  Especially since Orlando is easy, makes sense and is close enough to Tampa/St. Petersburg that Rays fans will be able to make the trip.  I'm sure there are plenty of Rays fans in Orlando, too, so it would actually make thing significantly easier for them.

There's something else to consider, too.  Despite having the smallest seating capacity in the Majors, Tropicana Field looks empty most of the time.  The Rays don't even sell tickets in the upper deck and cover it with a tarp instead.  If they draw similar crowds to a 7,500-seat stadium, though, it'd look packed!  A seating capacity that low could obviously cause problems should the Rays host playoff games, but you cross that bridge when you come to it.

Obviously, nothing is ideal about this situation.  The Rays finally got the approval and funding for their much-needed new stadium, only for Mother Nature to have her own plans regarding Tropicana Field.  Now, instead of going into the offseason looking for ways to improve on an 80-82 record and fourth-place finish, they have a much more pressing problem.  They need to figure out where they're gonna play in 2025, and possibly beyond.

The Team or the QB?

Seeing Sam Darnold have success in Minnesota has really made some people rethink their opinion on Darnold's potential as an NFL quarterback.  He also played on a team that made the Super Bowl last season, albeit as Brock Purdy's backup, which is something a lot of fans probably wouldn't have expected after his struggles with the Jets and Panthers.  Although, should it really have been a surprise to see a quarterback find success after he got away from those two franchises?

This problem isn't exclusive to the Jets and Panthers, of course.  The Bears and Browns are also notorious for their quarterback turnover.  So is Washington, although it looks like the Commanders may have found a keeper in Jayden Daniels.  What do all of those teams have in common?  They haven't been the most successful over the past decade (some for even longer).

Meanwhile, contrast that to teams like the Chiefs or the Brady Patriots or the Manning Colts.  Or the Steelers, Ravens and Packers.  And, more recently, teams like the Bills.  Consistent playoff contenders that have stability at the quarterback position.  Which makes a huge difference.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying it's an absolute science.  Not even close.  The Raiders had Derek Carr for years and still consistently missed the playoffs.  And you have playoff teams that want to make QB upgrades all the time.  Then there are the bad teams that stick with their quarterback even when they shouldn't (I'm looking at you, Giants and Daniel Jones).  But, for the most part, the bad teams are the ones constantly looking for a new quarterback.

Sometimes it's simply the right combination.  Brady with the Patriots, Mahomes with the Chiefs, Manning with the Colts, etc.  There's also an argument to be made that all some quarterbacks need is the right system.  Which is true.  You don't need a Hall of Fame quarterback to win the Super Bowl.  However, we've also seen the impact the wrong system can have.

Aaron Rodgers is a perfect example of this.  He's a future Hall of Famer who consistently put up ridiculous numbers and won multiple MVP awards with the Packers.  When he decided he wanted out of Green Bay, he forced a trade to the Jets, who were willing to give him anything he wanted.  They even hired one of his Packers coaches as Offensive Coordinator!  Well, we've all see how that's gone.  Even if you take out last year, when he missed basically the entire season, his Jets tenure hasn't exactly gone well.  Yes, he's 40.  But he's also not as good a quarterback anymore (with way too much power).

Or how about Russell Wilson?  The Seahawks decided to move on and traded him to Denver.  Wilson's Broncos tenure was, to put it mildly, a disaster!  He ended up getting benched midway through last season and is now on the Steelers, where he's had a bit of a renaissance.  So, was he really the problem in Denver?  Or was it the team that hasn't been a winner (or had a consistent quarterback) since Peyton Manning retired?

Speaking of Peyton Manning, the Colts were spoiled as a franchise for a long time.  They had Manning, then Andrew Luck.  Since then, Indianapolis has turned into a bit of a quarterback retirement home.  Phillip Rivers, Carson Wentz, Matt Ryan, Jacoby Brissett.  It's basically been one year at a time, then on to the next (old) guy.  Now they've got Joe Flacco, who finished last season in Cleveland.

The Browns are another classic example.  Clevland has had a revolving door at quarterback pretty much since they reentered the league 25 years ago.  Last offseason, they decided to throw a ton of guaranteed money at Deshaun Watson for some reason.  Yes, they made the playoffs last season...but they also went through four different quarterbacks and ended up finishing the year with Flacco, who they picked up off the scrap heap after he'd been discarded by four different teams!  Now, this season, Watson is out for the year and it's on to Jamies Winston, who's been on several teams himself.

One of those discarded Cleveland quarterbacks is Baker Mayfield.  After leaving, he went to Carolina, struggled, was released and finished the 2022 season with the Rams.  Last season, he signed with Tampa on a one-year deal, started every game and threw for over 4,000 yards on a division winner.  So, as it turns out, he's plenty capable of playing quarterback in the NFL after all!  He just needed to be on a competent franchise with a system that works.

Kansas City didn't find consistent success until Andy Reid and Patrick Mahomes showed up.  Same thing with the Bills and Josh Allen.  The Bengals and Joe Burrow.  The Cardinals with Kyler Murray (although, the jury's still out on that one), etc.  Every team hopes to find that franchise guy and won't stop until they do.  But it can't be a coincidence that the same teams keep getting it wrong. 

Cam Newton won an MVP in Carolina and took the Panthers to the Super Bowl.  Since then, how many quarterbacks have they gone through (including Darnold, Mayfield and Andy Dalton)?  Same thing with the Bears.  How long have they been looking for "the guy?"  How many have they tried?  Washington.  They may finally have their guy, but how many attempts did it take?  Is it any wonder that these three teams have consistently finished at the bottom of the standings year after year?

I really think there is something to this.  The same franchises, over and over, regardless of who their coach is or what scheme he runs, seem to be a black hole when it comes to quarterbacks.  Their reclamation projects don't pay off, only to find success elsewhere.  It can't just be the quarterback.  You have to wonder if the culture created around these franchises is a big part of the problem.

Will Carolina eventually find another Cam Newton?  Maybe.  Will things finally work out for the Jets and a quarterback, whether that's Aaron Rodgers or someone else?  Perhaps.  But until it does, the same franchises will be stuck in the same purgatory while watching the same teams that have competency and consistency at the most important position on the field make the playoffs.  Rinse and repeat.

NFL 2024 (Week 7)

There are some big games on tap this week.  Both undefeated teams come of their bye with a tough matchup that really makes for a great day for FOX.  FOX has lucked out pretty nicely with these NFL doubleheaders that lead into the NLCS.  Last week, they had Lions-Cowboys, which was a good one on paper at least.  This week, it's Detroit and Minnesota before the Super Bowl rematch that'll go to the entire country in the 4:25 slot.

Those two games are clearly the highlight of Week 7, but there are others worth watching.  We're coming up on the midway point of the season, so we're starting to figure out where teams stand in relation to each other.  More importantly, we're beginning to see how the standings are playing out and which games are bigger because of the impact they'll have on division races.  Like Lions-Vikings, for example.

Thursday Night: New Orleans (Loss)

Patriots (1-5) vs Jaguars (1-5): Jacksonville-This is who the NFL chose to promote the game to an international audience--the two worst teams in the league!  Or were they both exiled to London?  I mean, the Jaguars have been there for two weeks, after all.  (Yes, I know this is intentional.  Jacksonville plays a home game at Wembley Stadium every year.)  Anyway, Jacksonville is slightly less bad than New England, so London's team gets a "home" win before heading back across the pond.

Seahawks (3-3) at Falcons (4-2): Atlanta-Atlanta started the season 1-2, then played three straight division games and won them all.  As a result, the Falcons are now in first place.  The Seahawks, meanwhile, are trending in the opposite direction.  They started 3-0, but have now lost three straight, with their last two losses at home.  Don't expect either of those streaks to end.

Titans (1-4) at Bills (4-2): Buffalo-After back-to-back losses, the Bills got back on track with a 23-20 win over the Jets on Monday night.  It wasn't exactly pretty, but it got the job done.  And it was the type of gritty win good teams need to get over the course of the season.  Buffalo has plenty of tough matchups coming up, too, so taking care of business a little more easily against the Titans would probably be a good idea.

Bengals (2-4) at Browns (1-5): Cincinnati-It's been a busy weekend in Cleveland.  The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony, the ALCS, and now, Browns-Bengals.  Ohio's teams haven't exactly played the best football so far this season, but Cincinnati's defense was very solid last week.  Yes, it was against the Giants, but still.  And the Browns lost to the Giants (at home!).  So, that's why my pick is Cincinnati.

Texans (5-1) at Packers (4-2): Houston-Houston hasn't exactly played the toughest schedule so far, but the Texans do already have a statement win over Buffalo.  This is their chance to get another one.  And a win in Lambeau would certainly turn some heads.  Of course, the NFC North is so ridiculously close that any non-division loss for any of the four teams could end up hurting them in the long run.  What's crazier is that a loss would drop the Packers into sole possession of last place...at 4-3!

Dolphins (2-3) at Colts (3-3): Indianapolis-Are the Colts good or not?  I still can't figure out the answer.  Every game they've played has been close (the biggest margin of victory in any Colts game this season is six).  They've beaten teams you'd think they should lose to and vice versa.  So, I really have no idea what to expect from them.  A win that gets them to 4-3 would put them in early playoff position, though, as crazy as that sounds.

Lions (4-1) at Vikings (5-0): Detroit-Both of the remaining undefeated teams had their bye last week before a tough game this week.  I'm not sure if that's an advantage for the Vikings and Chiefs or not.  Especially for Minnesota, considering what the Lions have done to Seattle and Dallas in their last two games.  Detroit's on a roll and, frankly, is better than Minnesota.  The Lions take over the division lead.

Eagles (3-2) at Giants (2-4): Philadelphia-Saquon Barkley's return to MetLife Stadium.  That's really about all I've got for this one.  Amazingly, the Giants have won two road games.  Unfortunately, not only have they not won at home, their offense has been pathetically anemic at home.  At least a national audience doesn't have to be subjected to them this time since this is a regional FOX game.

Raiders (2-4) at Rams (1-4): Rams-I'm still not sure how this Brady being a part-owner of the Raiders/member of FOX's top broadcasting team is supposed to work.  The conflict of interest concerns aside, I just don't see how he can do the TV job effectively if he can't attend practices or production meetings.  And is he not allowed to cover the Raiders at all?  So many questions!  Whether they'll win this week isn't one of them.  Because they won't.

Panthers (1-5) at Commanders (4-2): Washington-When the schedule came out, this looked like it would be one of those "who cares?" matchups between two bad teams where one would have to get a win.  Well, that's certainly not the case.  Carolina obviously isn't good, but the Commanders are one of the most dynamic, exciting teams in the league.  Yeah, they lost last week in Baltimore.  So what?  Expect a bounce back this week.

Chiefs (5-0) at 49ers (3-3): San Francisco-A full national game for the Super Bowl rematch.  And you can bet the 49ers have had it circled on their calendars since even before the confetti stopped falling in Las Vegas in February.  They got a much-needed win in Seattle last Thursday and it actually moved them into first place.  The fact that the Chiefs are coming off their bye is almost completely negated, too, since they played on Monday night in Week 5, so they only have two extra days of rest.  I think the Chiefs suffer their first loss of the year.

Jets (2-4) at Steelers (4-2): Pittsburgh-They're trying something different this week and putting the Jets in primetime!  For those keeping track, that's four night games and one London game in the first seven weeks of the season.  Just in case you haven't seen enough of the Jets!  At least this week, you also get to see the Steelers, which makes it somewhat worthwhile.  It's also worth noting that two other New York teams will be playing at the same time.  The Liberty are in a decisive Game 5 of the WNBA Finals and the Mets try to keep their season alive in Game 6 of the NLCS.  So, even New Yorkers have options.

Ravens (4-2) at Buccaneers (4-2): Tampa Bay-On Monday night, we get two games, the first of which is a pretty good matchup between Baltimore and Tampa Bay.  The Ravens have rebounded nicely after their rough start, but how about Tampa?!  I thought being displaced by the hurricane would have a negative impact, but boy was I wrong!  A dominant 51-point performance in New Orleans.  Now they play their first home game since Milton.  Fortunately, their stadium wasn't damaged anywhere near to the extent of Tropicana Field.  And I can only imagine how inspiring a win here will be for the people in the Tampa/St. Petersburg area.

Chargers (3-2) at Cardinals (2-4): Chargers-The second Monday night game is an ESPN+ exclusive.  I'm not sure why they think this is necessary.  Are people really going to stream a Chargers-Cardinals game when there's a better game that's more widely distributed on at the same time?  This isn't the first time they've had a streaming exclusive, but the others have been the only game in their timeslot.  So, I don't get the thought process here at all.  At least pick a more worthwhile game if you want to drive people over to ESPN+ after Ravens/Bucs ends.

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 9-5
Overall: 51-42

And Then There Was One

It's not a secret that I was never a Rafael Nadal fan (as if my constantly calling him "Clay Boy" didn't give it away).  I'm a Roger guy.  Always have been.  As such, I didn't like Rafa (even though the two of them are really good friends).  But I still recognized his brilliance and couldn't help but appreciate this truly exceptional era of three all-time greats, all in their primes, dominating men's tennis for two decades.

This isn't the first time tennis has had a Big Three.  In the 70s, it was Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors.  But what the trio of Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic (with Andy Murray briefly making it a Big Four) did is unlike anything the sport has ever seen and may never see again.  They rank first, second and third all-time in Grand Slam titles, all with at least 20, and have 66 between them.  That's 12 1/2 years' worth of Grand Slam trophies!  Plus, three Olympic singles gold medals (and two for Murray).

We knew that the Era of the Big Three would eventually come to an end, and with Nadal officially announcing his retirement, that time has come.  Federer hung it up a few years ago after his body told him that it had enough.  Nadal was injured so often in recent years that you knew it was only a matter of time for him, too.  And this season was very much his farewell tour.  He wanted to play in one last French Open and play in the Olympics (at Roland Garros).  He was able to do both.  And, fittingly, the player he lost to in the Olympics was Djokovic.

When Djokovic burst onto the scene, he was the young guy.  And it took him a few years to break through and truly turn the Roger-Rafa rivalry into a three-way competition.  Djokovic, of course, eventually surpassed both of them.  His 24 Grand Slam titles are the most all-time, and it would be foolish to think he doesn't have at least one more in him.

As the youngest of the three, it was always likely that Djokovic would outlast the other two.  He's also the first to credit Federer and Nadal.  Djokovic has admitted that his path was easier, but he also knows that he wouldn't have become the player that he did without them.  Federer and Nadal would say the exact same thing.  Competing against each other (and trying to beat each other) made all three of them better.

Now, Djokovic is the "old" guy.  He's the veteran.  A last vestige of the Big Three/Four Era as a new generation rises to the top of the rankings.  This year was the first time since 2002 that none of the Big Three won a Grand Slam title.  Instead, Jannik Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz won two each.  They're the faces of this new generation that can only hope to be as successful as their predecessors.

And that new generation is doing to Djokovic what he once did to Federer and Nadal.  He beat Alcaraz in a truly exceptional Olympic gold medal match, but that's the outlier.  In the last two Wimbledon finals, it was Alcaraz getting the better of Djokovic (including that five-set classic in 2023).  At the Australian Open, a tournament that Djokovic has won 10 times, he lost to Sinner in the semifinals--with the Italian taking full advantage of his youth and speed and taking it to Djokovic.  Expect to see more of that moving forward.

Djokovic lost to Sinner in the final of the ATP's Shanghai Masters tournament on Sunday.  After the match, he was asked about Nadal's retirement and he said, "I still enjoy competing, but part of me left with them."  That's a man who understands that he played an important part in something so special and just how special it was.  That's also a man who understands that things will never be the same again.  Gone are the days of Djokovic, Federer and Nadal trading Grand Slam titles--and usually having to go through each other in the process.

During the prime Big Four Era, 33 Grand Slam finals featured some combination of Djokovic, Federer, Nadal and Murray.  The last of those was at the 2020 French Open, when Nadal beat Djokovic.  Djokovic has reached 10 Grand Slam finals since then.  He's faced six different opponents--all from the younger generation.  So, we've already seen him bridge that gap.

But still, Murray and Nadal joining Federer in retirement leaves Djokovic as truly the last man standing.  Time is undefeated, so age is something that will catch up on even the best players eventually.  So, really, we should be grateful that the Big Four Era lasted as long as it did.  We can still be sad to see it end, though.  Even though we knew it would.

Let's not forget the fact that Serena Williams was also their contemporary.  So, tennis fans really have been spoiled by seeing those five absolute legends doing their thing at the same time for an entire generation.  Four of the five are now retired.  Only Djokovic remains.

Even though Djokovic is still capable of playing at an extremely high level as he serves as the bridge between generations, he can't help but feel nostalgic about his rivalries with Federer and Nadal.  After Nadal made his retirement official, Djokovic posted an emotional thank you on Instagram.  They pushed each other to the limit and were both so mentally tough.  They brought out the best in each other.  And, most importantly, they respected each other.  After so many intense matches, how could they not?

Men's tennis will obviously survive.  In fact, there are probably plenty of people who've been waiting for the end of the Big Four Era and the opportunity to actually see somebody else making Grand Slam finals and winning Grand Slam titles.  But even they must have an appreciation for the greatness that was on display for so many years.  Three men with 66 Grand Slam titles and 98 Grand Slam finals between them (fourth place on those lists, by the way, are 14 titles by Pete Sampras and 19 finals by Ivan Lendl, so it's not even close).

Roger Federer, Andy Murray and, now, Rafael Nadal, are all retired.  A new generation led by Jannik Sinner, Carlos Alcaraz and Alexander Zverev has taken their place at the top of the sport.  But, across both eras, one thing has remained a constant.  Novak Djokovic.

NFL 2024 (Week 6)

They obviously make the NFL schedule many months in advance and have no idea what teams' records will be when they have their bye week.  So, it's purely coincidental that the two remaining undefeated teams--the Chiefs and Vikings--both have the same bye week...right before what could very well end up being their first loss of the season.  Anyway, as for the teams that aren't on their bye this week...

Thursday Night: Seattle (Loss)

Jaguars (1-4) vs Bears (3-2): Chicago-Roger Goodell said some interesting things during his London press conference.  And, while I doubt the whole "London could get a Super Bowl" (that would start at midnight local time) thing, I can definitely see the Jaguars continuing to play multiple games across the pond.  This is the second straight season in which they'll play back-to-back games in London.  This week, they're the "road" team against the Bears.  London is where they've found their game in the past, so maybe that's what they need.  Because Jacksonville had been floundering before finally getting a win last week, and this one looks like it could be a Chicago romp.

Cardinals (2-3) at Packers (3-2): Green Bay-Arizona is a very interesting team.  The Cardinals are 2-0 against their own division, blowing out the Rams at home and pulling off the upset last week in San Francisco.  They're 0-3 against everybody else and have scored only 27 points combined in their last two losses.  The Packers, meanwhile, are a 3-2 last-place team in the suddenly very deep NFC North.  So, they don't really have a choice but to keep winning their non-division games.

Colts (2-3) at Titans (1-3): Indianapolis-Well, what do you know?  Maybe Joe Flacco still had some gas left in the tank after all!  I bet the Browns were wishing they still had him after that performance for the Colts last week.  It came in a losing effort, but so what?  If he continues to play like that, it bodes well for Indianapolis.  This is actually a fairly important game for the Colts, too.  Because 3-3 looks a whole lot better than 2-4, especially with another winnable game against Miami coming up before they go to Houston and Minnesota.

Texans (4-1) at Patriots (1-4): Houston-While the Bills made some questionable late-game decisions, that was still quite a statement the Texans made last week.  They're right behind the Chiefs with the second-best record in the AFC, and now they have the tiebreaker over Buffalo.  It's the opposite story for the Patriots, who've lost four straight since upsetting Cincinnati in their opener.  Make it five.

Buccaneers (3-2) at Saints (2-3): New Orleans-Let's not forget the most important thing, and that's the safety of everyone in the Tampa area.  It was actually a fortunate coincidence that the Bucs were away this week, and they left for New Orleans before the hurricane hit.  From what it looks like, Raymond James Stadium escaped the type of damage Tropicana Field got, but it's still a good thing that they're out of town and the city doesn't have to worry about all that goes into a Bucs home game while dealing with everything else (although, since this is a division matchup, I have a feeling they probably would've flipped home games under the circumstances).  Anyway, with everything going on this week in Tampa, don't be surprised if the Bucs' minds are elsewhere.

Browns (1-4) at Eagles (2-2): Philadelphia-Cleveland is a far cry from last season's playoff team.  The Browns have completely lost the ability to score and, yes, they should bench Deshaun Watson.  I don't know why that's even a question!  Don't forget, last year when they made their run, their quarterback was Joe Flacco, who was sitting on his couch until November.  Not Watson.  The Eagles haven't exactly been great, but they're coming off their bye, which hopefully gave them a bit of a reset.

Commanders (4-1) at Ravens (3-2): Washington-The only reason I can think of why this game wasn't flexed into Sunday night is because CBS blocked it.  Because, frankly, it should be the Sunday night game.  And I'm sure there are plenty of people who want to see Washington, which has been the surprise team in the NFL this season.  Specifically, Jaylen Daniels and that offense.  The Commanders' offense is actually good now!  Too bad the national audience on Sunday night won't get to see it.

Chargers (2-2) at Broncos (3-2): Denver-Maybe Sean Payton knew what he was doing after all.  Because that Denver defense is legit!  They've only given up 60 points in five games this season and have won three in a row.  It's been a while since the Broncos were good, but that defense makes them real contenders.  We'll see how Jim Harbaugh's Chargers do against them, but I think the chances of Denver making it four straight are pretty good.

Steelers (3-2) at Raiders (2-3): Pittsburgh-Last week, the Steelers played one of their 70s rivals--the Cowboys.  This week, they play their other big rival from that decade--the Raiders.  Both of the Raiders' wins this season are against the AFC North, so you know the Steelers won't be looking past them.  Still, though, where is the offense gonna come from for Las Vegas?

Lions (3-1) at Cowboys (3-2): Detroit-This is Tom Brady's sixth week as FOX's lead analyst...and the fourth time he's doing a Cowboys game.  And the only two Cowboys games he hasn't done were on either a Thursday night or Sunday night.  So, out of the four chances FOX has had to assign Burkhardt and Brady to the Cowboys, they're 4-for-4.  Although, this week, there's a good reason for Dallas to be in the America's Game of the Week slot.  Most of the country will see them against Detroit.  Last year's game between these two was great.  What do they have in store this season?

Falcons (3-2) at Panthers (1-4): Atlanta-That amazing comeback last Thursday night against Tampa Bay moved the Falcons into first place.  Now they can take sole possession of the top spot with a win over the Panthers and a Bucs loss in New Orleans.  The Falcons should be able to hold up their end of the deal.  Carolina made the QB change last week, but it didn't really help the offense much against the Bears.  Why should we expect things to be any different against the Falcons?

Bengals (1-4) at Giants (2-3) Giants-I'm confused why this is the Sunday night game for a few reasons.  Why did they think America would want to watch this matchup in the first place?  And why wasn't it flexed out when they both suck?  Isn't that the point of flex scheduling?  Anyway, those people who aren't watching Mets-Dodgers will get the chance to see if the Giants can pick up their first home win or if the Bengals can actually play like an NFL team this week.

Bills (3-2) at Jets (2-3): Buffalo-Aaron Rodgers is adamant that he DIDN'T get Robert Saleh fired.  Which, even if he wasn't involved in the actual decision, still isn't entirely true, since Saleh likely wouldn't have been fired if Rodgers was actually playing well and the Jets were as good as people thought they'd be.  Instead, their offense has been just as anemic as it was before Rodgers arrived.  Kinda like it was all of last season...after Rodgers got hurt four plays into their season-opening Monday night game against the Bills at MetLife.  The Jets ended up winning that game, too.  Now it's time for a do-over, and the Jets will actually be in first place if they win.  Which they probably won't.

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 8-6
Overall: 42-37

Big Changes In the W

The WNBA is riding a wave of momentum.  Attendance and TV ratings were up across the board this season.  Yes, Caitlin Clark had a lot to do with it.  But the Fever have been eliminated and those fans/viewers haven't gone away, so it's much more than just the Caitlin Clark Effect.  And they're wisely riding that wave.

Their timing couldn't have been better, either.  Game 1 of the WNBA Finals between the Lynx and Liberty was outstanding!  Which only served to prove that there's a reason for this momentum that goes way beyond this season's rookie class.  They might've been the reason people started watching, but once they did, they realized that what they had been missing out on was a pretty good product.  Which is why they stayed.

That incredible Game 1 provided immediate validation for one of the three major changes that the WNBA will implement next season.  The WNBA Championship was a single game in 1997 before expanding to a best-of-3 series the following season.  Since 2005, the WNBA Finals have been best-of-5.  Now, after 20 years as a best-of-5 series, the WNBA Finals will become a best-of-7 affair in 2025.

If Game 1 was any indication, this year's WNBA Finals will be an amazing series!  Now just imagine if it was a best-of-7!  The Liberty and Lynx are so evenly matched and the series looks to be so competitive that it would almost certainly go seven.  And they would probably be seven extraordinary games.

While the first round of the WNBA Playoffs will remain best-of-3 and the semifinals will remain best-of-5, there was one other significant change to the playoff structure.  When they got rid of single-elimination games and went to best-of-3 first round series in 2022, they made it so that the higher seed would host to first two games, with the decisive Game 3 hosted by the lower seed.  Next season, it'll move from the 2-1 format to a 1-1-1 format.

It was only used for three years, but that was enough time to see the flaws of the 2-1 format.  There were two big ones that especially stood out.  The first is that the lower-seeded team wasn't guaranteed to have a home game.  They'd only host if the series went to a third game.  If the higher seed won the first two games, that was it.  The lower seed would be out without having had the opportunity to play at home.  Which brings me to the other problem with the 2-1 format.

Frankly, I think the biggest problem with the 2-1 format wasn't the lower seed potentially not getting to play a home game.  It was the higher seed having to play a winner-take-all game on the road.  What's the point of having the higher seed if the lower-seeded team has home court advantage in the decisive game of the series?  It's almost as if they were being penalized for not sweeping.

Next season, the WNBA will welcome its first expansion team since 2008 when the Golden State Valkyries join the league.  They'll be followed in 2026 by new franchises in Toronto and Portland.  That'll bring the WNBA to 15 teams, so you'd have to figure that a 16th will be coming pretty soon, as well.  And, with the addition of four teams, the length of the regular season will increase, too.  From 40 games to 44.

I wouldn't be surprised if that number grows again once the WNBA adds a 16th team.  The simple math is obvious.  Three games against each of the other 15 teams is 45 games, with a fourth game against one opponent to make it 46.  Seems pretty easy, doesn't it?  (The NHL is talking about going to 84 games for a similar reason.  It'll bring back the two division games everybody lost for Seattle.)

During the 2020 COVID season, played in the Bradenton, FL "wubble," teams played a 22-game schedule.  Granted, that was a shortened season played under special circumstances, but it's still notable that only five years later, the WNBA season will feature twice as many games.  And, when you throw in the playoffs, the WNBA champion will play a minimum of 53 games.  That doesn't include the Commissioner's Cup or any playoff losses, either, so it will almost certainly be more.  The final number will likely be in the high 50s and potentially hit 60.

Of course, squeezing in 44 games plus playoffs while taking an Olympic or World Cup break every other season will produce a completely different set of challenges.  But, the fact that the WNBA will even have that potential problem speaks volumes.  It shows how strong the league has become.  When they expanded the season to 40 games, it was a big deal.  It's only been 40 games for two years and they're already in a strong enough position to add four more games to the schedule.

Let's not forget the biggest thing that made this all possible.  After years of flying commercial and all the headaches that go with it, this season marked the first time that all WNBA teams had chartered flights for road games.  It's made such a huge difference.  They're being treated like the professional athletes they are.  And because they're being treated like professional athletes, it's made the travel easier.  And because the travel is easier, playing four additional games, two of which will be on the road, isn't as much of a burden as it would've been previously.  (It's important to note that Golden State, obviously, is on the West Coast, so that means more coast-to-coast travel, too.)

All of this is a prelude to the WNBA's new TV contract kicking in once the NBA's deal begins.  More games means more inventory for rights-holders ESPN, NBC and Amazon (plus any potential fourth TV partner).  I'm sure that was a factor, too, but it wasn't the only one.  The WNBA wouldn't be increasing the number of games available to TV partners if those TV partners didn't have any incentive to show them.  The ratings (for all games, not just those involving Caitlin Clark) indicate that it's a worthwhile investment, though, so there's value to it on both sides.

Does Caitlin Clark deserve some of the credit?  Sure.  Does she deserve all of it?  Absolutely not!  The WNBA has long been a hidden gem on the U.S. sports scene.  It's just that now people are finally taking notice.  And because they're taking notice, the WNBA is able to add teams, add games and make the Finals a best-of-7 affair.  All of which is a huge W for the W.

Rest vs Rust

We're only three years into the current MLB playoff format with six teams per league and the top two division winners receiving first-round byes.  Which is way too small of a sample size to draw any sort of conclusions.  However, there's definitely a noticeable trend that can't be ignored.  Especially in the National League, it isn't the top two teams who've had the advantage.  It's the wild cards.

In 2022, the first year of the 12-team playoffs, the Dodgers won 111 games and the Braves won 101.  Neither one got out of the Division Series.  The NLCS was the sixth-seeded Phillies against the fifth-seeded Padres.  Last season, the Braves and Dodgers were again the top two seeds, with 104 and 100 wins, respectively.  In the Division Series, they won a combined one game.  The NLCS was again two wild cards, the sixth-seeded Diamondbacks and the fourth-seeded Phillies.

This season, the Phillies won the NL East and got the bye, only to lose the Division Series...to the sixth-seeded Mets.  The Mets are the third consecutive 6-seed to reach the NLCS.  Just as remarkably, if the Padres beat the Dodgers in Game 5, the three NLCS during that span will have featured six wild card teams and zero division winners.  Should the Dodgers lose, the top two seeds will be a combined 0-6 in the Division Series.  So much for having the advantage.

The division winners have fared slightly better in the American League.  In the first two years of this format, three of the four ALCS participants have been division winners, and the one that wasn't (last year's Rangers) tied for the division title, but lost the tiebreaker.  Texas was still a wild card team, though, and the Rangers still won the pennant.  Which means that three of the four teams to play in the last two World Series were wild cards.

All of this once again brings up the debate that surfaces at this time every year: Rest vs. Rust.  And it's a legitimate one.  Because, as we've seen, winning your division and earning the bye doesn't mean much if you end up losing in the playoffs...especially to a team that you're "better than."  Those wild card teams, meanwhile, have nothing to lose and are playing with house money.  More significantly, they've been hot (which may be what got them into the playoffs in the first place) and they've been playing instead of sitting around.

On the surface, it seems like a no-brainer.  Of course you want to win the division, get a top-two seed and not have to worry about playing an extra best-of-three round just to get to the Division Series.  Plus, it lets you set up your pitching, guys who might be banged up get a few days off, you get to stay at home, etc.  Meanwhile, your Division Series opponent has to use at least its top two starters before traveling to your ballpark for Game 1 with at most two days between the end of the Wild Card Series and the start of the Division Series.

However, five days is also a lot of time to sit around.  Especially when you're in such a routine of playing virtually every day for the previous six months.  Now, you've just got to wait.  Teams have tried various things to stay loose and ready.  The most common approach seems to be open workouts or simulated games.  Those may help the players stay somewhat fresh, but they don't come anywhere close to the atmosphere or intensity of a playoff game.  That's something you can't replicate.  And simulated games are just that.  Simulated.

There's also the question of whether being able to line up your pitching is necessarily a good thing.  Depending on when a pitcher's last start of the regular season is, they're going an extended period without facing hitters in a live game situation.  It's similar to figuring out your rotation after the All*Star Break so that everybody gets roughly the same number of days between starts.  But, inevitably, just like after the All*Star Break, at least one pitcher's gonna have an extended break, which could be good...or could be the exact opposite. 

Some pitchers have their routine and like going out there every fifth day.  Anything to mess with that could impact their performance.  We saw that with Gerrit Cole in Game 1 against the Royals.  It doesn't just apply to starters, either.  How often have we seen a reliever who hasn't pitched in a while come into a game and have absolutely no control?

So, there are valid points on each side of the rest vs. rust argument.  It really is simply a matter of preference.  Although, I still think teams would much rather get the bye and have those extra few days to get ready for the Division Series.  And I agree that it's way too early to come to a consensus one way or the other in the rest vs. rust debate.  Especially because something just as significant has been in play in the National League, and I don't think enough people have acknowledged it.

Every National League Division Series since 2022 (the first year of this format) has pitted two teams from the same division against each other.  The Dodgers lost to NL West rivals San Diego (2022) and Arizona (2023), and are playing the Padres again this year.  The Phillies, meanwhile, beat the Braves twice before losing to the Mets this season.  (Side note: the NL Central hasn't won a playoff series since the Cardinals in 2019.)

With division rivals brings familiarity.  You play your division foes more than anybody else, so they know you better than anybody.  That, I think, has played a huge factor in these NLDS upsets over the past three seasons.  The division winner might be the "better" team (and certainly was over the course of 162 games), but that doesn't matter nearly as much when you're facing an opponent that you see so often.  Especially in a best-of-five series where all they need to do is win one of those first two road games to suddenly put the division champion on the ropes.

It's also important to note the parity around baseball over the past several years.  There wasn't a single 100-win team in the Majors this season, and Arizona missed the playoffs despite finishing 89-73.  So, there really isn't that much separating those top two seeds in each league with the teams seeded 3-6.  That, frankly, has just as much to do with recent Division Series results as anything else.  Who cares if you're the best team over 162 games?  You need to have the best team for a month-long tournament.

As long as MLB continues with the 12-team playoff format, the rest vs. rust debate will continue.  Especially if the top two seeds keep losing in the Division Series.  But trying to read into it is foolish.  Because there are a number of possible factors at play.  And, regardless, they're not changing it anytime soon (unless they add more teams), so those higher-seeded teams need to figure it out.  Once they do, the debate will stop.

NFL 2024 (Week 5)

How bad have my picks been the last three weeks?  So bad that I've already been eliminated from my Survival league.  I was eliminated in Week 4 in a three strikes league...and I won in Week 1!  So, basically what I'm saying is that I have no idea what's going on the NFL!  Maybe this week I can finally start to get back on track after three subpar weeks in a row.  Although, if Thursday night is any indication, maybe not.

Thursday Night: Tampa Bay (Loss)

Jets (2-2) vs Vikings (4-0): Minnesota-The fans in London are actually treated with a pretty good matchup for their first game of the year.  I'm ready to adjust my take on both of these teams.  Minnesota's one of two remaining undefeated teams, and their wins have been impressive, too.  The Jets, meanwhile, haven't been what I expected either.  I thought they would be much better than they've looked so far.  Of course, there's still time.  And, knowing my luck, they're gonna blow the Vikings out.

Panthers (1-3) at Bears (2-2): Chicago-Swapping the No. 1 pick in 2023 has certainly worked out better for the Bears than the Panthers.  Bryce Young has been benched, and the Panthers' offense has looked much better in two games under Andy Dalton.  Chicago, meanwhile, actually has an offense now, and it has made quite a difference.  The Bears beat the Rams last week and are also better than the Panthers, so expect them to make it two in a row.

Ravens (2-2) at Bengals (1-3): Baltimore-It's been a tough go of it so far for everybody in the AFC North except for the Steelers.  Although, both the Ravens and Bengals got a win last week when they really needed one.  Baltimore's was impressive, too.  They dominated the Bills from start to finish on Monday night.  A win here, and they're right back on track.  That would also pretty much sink Cincinnati, so expect the Bengals to come out like their season depends on it.

Dolphins (1-3) at Patriots (1-3): New England-Miami hasn't had a lead through four games this season.  The Dolphins' only win came on a last-second field goal against Jacksonville.  When they gave that stat at the end of the game on Monday, I was just like "Wow!"  It really sums up Miami's season in a nutshell, too.  When Brady was in New England, they were the team that always gave the Patriots trouble.  Now, it's a chance for the Patriots to extend the Dolphins' streak to five games without a lead.

Browns (1-3) at Commanders (3-1): Washington-Are the Commanders actually good?!  It looks like they've finally got a keeper at quarterback in Chase Daniels, who's the clear Rookie of the Year frontrunner (if not an MVP candidate) through the first quarter of the season.  And playing Washington is suddenly no longer a guaranteed win.  In fact, the Commanders currently lead the NFC East.  Cleveland badly needs a win, but I'm not sure they get it here.

Colts (2-2) at Jaguars (0-4): Indianapolis-Remember the middle of last season when we were all talking about how good Jacksonville was?  It seems like such a long time ago, doesn't it?  Now we're back to the Jaguars of old, sitting at 0-4 as the only winless team in the league.  Can they get their first win of the year against Indianapolis?  Or will the Colts follow up their victory over the Steelers with a division win?

Bills (3-1) at Texans (3-1): Buffalo-Buffalo losing wasn't the shocking thing last week.  They were playing a good Ravens team that needed a win badly.  It's how they were beaten so soundly that was the surprise.  This week, they've got another road game against a division winner from last season.  How will they bounce back?  I don't see Josh Allen having two bad games in a row, so probably just fine.

Raiders (2-2) at Broncos (2-2): Denver-When Sean Payton took over in Denver, he said to give it time.  That patience is finally being rewarded.  And the Broncos' defense is really the reason why.  In their last three games, they've given up a total of 29 points.  Sure, their offense hasn't been great, only scoring 39 in those same three games.  But, they've won two of them.  Can they make it three against their hated rivals from Las Vegas?

Cardinals (1-3) at 49ers (2-2): San Francisco-You put the 49ers back in their own stadium, and suddenly they look like the 49ers again.  They've played two home games this season, won them both, and scored over 30 points each time.  Arizona, meanwhile, gave up 42 last week against Washington.  This is a game San Francisco should win.

Packers (2-2) at Rams (1-3): Green Bay-Is there a team in the NFC that needs a win more than the Rams?  They're a very confusing team, too.  Because they almost (and should've) won their opener in Detroit, then got their butts kicked in Arizona, then beat San Francisco before scoring just 18 points in Chicago.  Are they good or not?  With the Packers, we know what we're getting.  Even last week, they easily could've won that game had a couple things gone their way.  If those things do go their way this week, I can see them pulling it out.

Giants (1-3) at Seahawks (3-1): Seattle-Last Monday, the Seahawks suffered their first loss of the season, as Detroit emphatically made a statement and scored seemingly at will on Seattle's defense.  The ease with which the Lions did it was surprising for sure.  The good news for the Seahawks is that this week they play the Giants.  Which means they'll have plenty of opportunity to get back into their offensive groove.

Cowboys (2-2) at Steelers (3-1): Dallas-Somehow, Dallas and Pittsburgh haven't met in a regular season primetime game since 1980.  They've obviously played in a Super Bowl, and I know they don't play in the regular season that often.  But, you'd figure that's exactly why they'd get a Monday or Sunday night game.  Because they're two of the more popular teams in the league and they don't play each other often.  Anyway, the result of this game really depends on which Cowboys team shows up.  It's also weird how Dallas is 2-0 on the road and 0-2 at home.  Since this one's on the road, I'm going with the Week 1 & 4 Cowboys, not the Week 2 & 3 Cowboys.

Saints (2-2) at Chiefs (4-0): Kansas City-Seven, one, five and seven.  Those are the margins of victory in each of Kansas City's four games this season.  The most important number, though, is 4-0.  They haven't played their best football yet, and they're still one of two undefeated teams left.  Just imagine when they get rolling!  Now, they'll probably have a bad game in them at some point.  I don't think it'll be this week, though.

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 7-9
Overall: 34-31

2024-25 NHL, Part II (West)

We already knew before last season that Connor McDavid is the best player in the NHL.  It isn't even particularly close.  Then last season, he won the Conn Smythe Trophy despite the fact that Edmonton lost the Stanley Cup Final (if we're being honest, it probably should've been Bobrovsky).  However, the Oilers losing meant that McDavid didn't do what so many others before him have done...captain his team to the Cup.  Until he does that, he's not in the same category as Crosby and Ovechkin.  When and if he does, though, he's right up there with Gretzky and Messier as true Edmonton legends.

The chances of that happening are actually pretty good.  Edmonton, Vancouver and Toronto are really the only three teams capable of ending Canada's 31-year Stanley Cup drought.  And the Oilers are among the handful of Western Conference teams that look like legitimate Cup contenders.  In fact, I only count five: Edmonton, Vancouver, Vegas, Colorado and Dallas.

Unlike in the East, where there's parity at the top and only three truly "bad' teams (Columbus, Montreal and Ottawa), the West only has those five elite teams and a whole bunch at the bottom.  San Jose, Anaheim, Chicago and Utah likely won't come anywhere near the playoffs.  Although, the Sharks now have Macklin Celebrini, who they hope will turn in a rookie season similar to Connor Bedard's.  So, there may be hope for both the Sharks and Blackhawks.

With only a handful of teams at the top and a handful at the bottom, that makes for a very crowded middle in the Western Conference.  Which should lead to a pretty intense battle for the remaining playoff spots.  The Kings, Predators and Jets probably have the advantage for those, but I'm not counting out Minnesota or Seattle.  And I really have no idea what to expect from St. Louis or Calgary!  So, like I said, the competition in the middle of the Western Conference should be pretty good.

Talent-wise, the Colorado Avalanche are right there among the best teams in the entire league.  Nathan MacKinnon and Cale Makar are truly elite.  If they can get their captain Gabriel Landeskog back after missing pretty much all of last season with an injury, that just makes them that much deeper.  A full-strength Avalanche team will be very difficult to beat.  Even if they aren't at full strength, it's not exactly an easy task.

Should the Avalanche stumble at all, the Dallas Stars are right there waiting to take advantage.  They've got nearly as much talent as Colorado and a top-notch goalie in Jake Oettinger.  Speaking of top-notch goalies, there are few better than Connor Hellebuyck of the Winnipeg Jets.  It's been well-established that you can win in the playoffs simply by riding a hot goalie.  Which is why I'm not gonna count the Jets out should they get to the playoffs.  And, while they're not at Dallas or Colorado's level, they're certainly one of the eight best teams in the West.

That's also why I can't count out the Nashville Predators, either.  The Predators have built a pretty solid group in front of Juuse Saros, bringing in Stanley Cup champions Jonathan Marchessault and Steven Stamkos to join the likes of Roman Josi, Filip Forsberg and Ryan O'Reilly.  Nashville definitely looks like a sleeper team.

Then there's the Minnesota Wild.  The Wild still have their big guns, so they won't exactly surprise anybody.  And they've got a Hall of Fame goalie in Marc-Andre Fleury, who's at the tail end of his career, but still.  The St. Louis Blues, meanwhile, simply don't have enough pieces to keep pace with the top teams in the Central Division.  That's not to say the Blues can't contend for a playoff spot since they absolutely can.  It's just that they need a lot of things to go right and have some things go wrong for everybody else in order to make that happen.

Year 2 with Connor Bedard should be much better for the Chicago Blackhawks than Year 1 was.  Slowly but surely, they're building a competent team again.  And not only are they no longer the worst team in Chicago (congratulations, White Sox), they aren't the worst team in the division anymore, either.  That honor belongs to the Utah Hockey Club.  The artists formerly known as the Arizona Coyotes should benefit from knowing that their franchise finally has some stability.  Hopefully once the novelty wears off, they give the people of Salt Lake City a reason to keep coming to games.

Your best bet to see a Canadian team finally lift the Cup for the first time since 1993 is in the Pacific Division.  I'd even argue that the two best teams in that division come from Western Canada.  We'll start with the obvious one, the defending Western Conference champion Edmonton Oilers.  That ridiculous collection of talent in Edmonton (they're so much more than just McDavid and Draisaitl) finally broke through and got to the Final last season.  Can they pull a Panthers and follow up a Final loss with a Final win?

Not if the Vancouver Canucks have anything to say about it.  Vancouver's starting six (top line, top defensive pair, goalie) ranks among the very best in the game.  Their depth is the question, which is why I have them slightly below the Oilers in the Pacific.  Ranking slightly below the Canucks are the Vegas Golden Knights.  They've only missed the playoffs once in franchise history.  Don't expect them to miss this season.  The Knights are like Nashville in that they simply have too much talent on the roster.

After that, it drops off considerably.  I'd have to say the next-most-likely Pacific Division team to make the playoffs is the Los Angeles Kings.  The Kings made a big-time upgrade in goal, swapping Cam Talbot for Cup winner Darcy Kuemper.  While they aren't one of the top teams in the West by any means, the Kings could easily do what Kuemper's team last season (Washington) did and sneak into the playoffs.

It's crazy to think that the Seattle Kraken are in their fourth season already, isn't it?  I'd say Seattle has an outside shot at the playoffs, but wouldn't be considered a favorite to get there.  The Kraken didn't make it last year and didn't really do much in the offseason to increase their chances of making it this season.  Neither did the Calgary Flames, who'll be feeling the loss of Johnny Gaudreau.  Gaudreau had obviously left the Flames and was playing for Columbus, but he spent most of his career in Calgary, so you know they're impacted just as much.  Those should be two emotional games when the Flames play the Blue Jackets.

Outside of the Kings, hockey in California hasn't been great for the past few seasons.  Thing shouldn't be much different in 2024-25.  The San Jose Sharks were terrible last season, but made improvements and are slightly less bad.  I can't really say the same for the Anaheim Ducks, though.  While I think Columbus and Utah are probably the two worst teams in the league, Anaheim isn't too far ahead.  The Ducks are closer to finishing with the fewest points in the NHL than they are to making the playoffs.

So, while the competition in the middle of the West for the three remaining playoff berths should be fierce, I do think Nashville and Winnipeg stand out as favorites for two of them.  The last spot should come down to LA and Minnesota.  I'm giving the edge ever so slightly to the Kings, but wouldn't be surprised at all to see five playoff teams out of the Central Division.

As hesitant as I am to make a preseason Stanley Cup pick, I suppose it's appropriate that I make one.  In the East, I think the Rangers use the memory of getting so close last year as motivation.  In the West, I'm going with Colorado.  A healthy Avalanche team is arguably the best in hockey.  Which is why they're getting the nod as my Stanley Cup pick.

2024-25 NHL, Part I (East)

It feels like the 2023-24 NHL season just ended, yet here we are, ready to start the 2024-25 campaign.  There was some encouraging NHL news, too, with the announcement that they're going to get work on the new CBA right after the New Year, well before the current agreement expires.  They're also discussing going to an 84-game schedule, which would bring back those two division games everybody lost for Seattle.  The players and owners both seem to be on board with that plan, so I'd say the odds of it happening are pretty good.

There was also the tragic NHL news from the summer that a lot of us are still trying to wrap our heads around.  The passing of Johnny Gaudreau was shocking and heartbreaking on so many levels.  Although, it was also so great to see the NHL community come together and support his family during this terrible time.  The Oilers posted a picture of him playing against them while he was with the Flames...and held off on announcing Leon Draisaitl's extension.  The entire Blue Jackets team attended his daughter's birthday party.  EA Sports kept him in the NHL video game.  And those are just some examples of everyone around the NHL stepping up for one of their own.

Columbus will do right by Gaudreau's family and honor his contract.  He was also the Blue Jackets' highest-paid player, which will put them under the salary floor this season.  There's no way they'd be able to get back above it, especially this close to the start of the season, so the NHL granted them an exemption that will allow them to stay under the floor as long as they need (which will likely be at least all season).  Obviously not a situation anybody wants to be in, but the special circumstances warrant it.

That unfortunate note will leave a bit of a dark cloud over this entire season.  Every team will wear a special logo on their helmets honoring Gaudreau and his brother, Matthew, who was also killed in the same accident.  I'd also love to see him receiving an honorary selection to the U.S. team for the Four Nations Face-Off that will replace the All*Star Game in February.

I have a feeling that this will be an emotional season across the board.  The loss of Johnny & Matthew Gaudreau hit hard.  But there's still a season to be played, and I wouldn't be surprised if the memory of a friend, teammate and all-around good guy serves as an inspiration throughout it.  That obviously won't do a damn thing to make up for the loss, but it's still heartening to know that Johnny Gaudreau will be remembered.

As for how this season will play out, will the Prince of Wales Trophy finally leave the State of Florida for the first time in six years?  After three straight Eastern Conference titles by the Lightning, the Panthers have won the last two, capped by lifting the Cup last season.  Can they do it again?  They've got everybody back and play a style that wears you down, so it wouldn't surprise me.  But there are so many other good teams in the East that a repeat will be a challenge.

Since I'm talking about good teams in the East, I might as well start with the defending champion Florida Panthers.  They'll be very good again.  And, as they've shown over the last two years, their style is built for the playoffs.  I just wonder if Edmonton gave teams the blueprint on how to play against it during Games 4-6 of the Stanley Cup Final.  Even Paul Maurice has admitted that it doesn't work for everyone and you need the buy-in.  Still, you've got to think that they'll, at the very least, return to the postseason.

For the last few years, the Atlantic Division has basically been split in two.  There's that top tier of Florida, Tampa Bay, Boston and Toronto, and that bottom half of Detroit, Buffalo, Ottawa and Montreal.  This season should be more of the same.

Of those other three top teams, the Boston Bruins are the biggest question mark.  They stopped the two-goalie thing, traded Linus Ullmark and made Jeremy Swayman the man...only for Swayman to hold out.  When he decides to sign could have a big bearing on the Bruins' season.  The Toronto Maple Leafs will likely do the same thing they do every year.  They'll have a great regular season, then lose Game 7 of the first round in the playoffs.  As for the Tampa Bay Lightning, they're probably the most likely team in that group to fall back towards the pack.

In that pack is the Detroit Red Wings, who may see the fruits of their rebuild.  I definitely think the Red Wings will be contenders for one of the wild cards, and they very well could get it.  The Buffalo Sabres, Ottawa Senators and Montreal Canadiens will not.  The Sabres have the longest active playoff drought in the four major men's professional sports.  That streak should continue.  Ottawa is better, but still has a long way to go and isn't as good as the top teams in the division, so I don't see how the Senators can contend for a playoff spot.  The Canadiens, meanwhile, are just a mess.  This is one of the NHL's bedrock franchises, too.

The Metropolitan Division, meanwhile, is a two-horse race at the top.  And, frankly, there isn't much that separates them.  That middle group has four teams, all of which I can see either making the playoffs or finishing way out of it.  The margin really is that tight.  Which should actually make for a pretty good race for that third-place playoff spot out of the division, as well as that second Eastern Conference wild card.

Lumping the New York Rangers and Carolina Hurricanes together makes sense because they'll likely be 1-2 in the Metropolitan Division in either order.  Last season, it came down to the wire, with the Rangers winning the division and the President's Trophy.  They then broke the President's Trophy jinx somewhat by getting to the Eastern Conference Final, where they were outplayed and worn down by the Panthers.  That easily could've been Carolina, though.  Just like last season, I expect the battle for first place in the Atlantic to be neck-and-neck.

Two teams from the middle group really stand out.  Those are the New York Islanders and New Jersey Devils.  The Islanders had a great stretch run last season that got them into the playoffs, and I think they are the third-best team in the Metro.  Plus, Mathew Barzal is one of the most talented players in the league.  Then there are the Devils, who finished second in the division in 2023 before missing the playoffs last year.  They've got the Hughes brothers, so sneaking back into the playoff mix doesn't seem that far-fetched.

Last year, the Washington Capitals made the playoffs as the second wild card.  I'm still not sure how.  And they were promptly swept by the Rangers.  If they're healthy this season (which they were not last year, which makes their reaching the playoffs even more impressive), them getting back wouldn't be nearly as much of a surprise.  The Pittsburgh Penguins, meanwhile, are trying to get one last gasp out of the Crosby-Malkin Era.  It's been a good run in Pittsburgh, but they're no longer one of the most talented teams.

A team that I find really intriguing is the Philadelphia Flyers.  I legitimately have no idea how good the Flyers are.  John Tortorella is their coach and he's always got something up his sleeve.  Talent-wise, they're towards the bottom of the division.  But with Tortorella, it's not crazy to think he can pull a playoff run out of these guys.  Even before the Gaudreau tragedy, it was poised to be a long year for the Columbus Blue Jackets.  This season will be rough for them on multiple levels.

Even with the depth of quality teams in the Eastern Conference, I'm not expecting there to be much playoff turnover.  In fact, I think seven of the eight teams that made it last year.  The only exception is the Capitals, who I'm replacing with Detroit.  Although, if you wanted to give the Devils that spot instead of the Red Wings, you wouldn't get much of an argument from me.  Because, just as it's close between the top teams in each division, the fight for the wild card positions will be a good, intense one between about five different teams...likely for just one spot.