People Will Come

There are two major international soccer tournaments going on in the United States right now.  Attendance hasn't been very high at either one.  That has drawn plenty of criticism from skeptics who are worried about what that means for next year's World Cup.  Spoiler alert: It means nothing.  The World Cup will be sold out and likely set an attendance record (just like the 1994 World Cup in the United States).

I can tell you the reason why the stands will be full at the World Cup while they aren't at either the Club World Cup or the Gold Cup.  It's actually very simple.  People care about the World Cup.  They don't care about the Club World Cup or the Gold Cup.  And, seeing as World Cup ticket prices will likely be astronomical, if fans can only afford to go to one, it's pretty obvious which they'll choose.

This isn't the first time soccer people have called out the attendance at games in the U.S.  The U.S. Men's National Team isn't even immune to it.  At the CONCACAF Nations League in March, there were a lot of empty seats at SoFi Stadium for third-place game between the United States and Canada.  But, again, that's because people didn't care.  It was the third-place game of the CONCACAF Nations League!  And it was being played at SoFi Stadium (which has 70,000 seats) in March (when there are a lot of other things going on that are more likely to get people's attention).

That's the thing that the non-American fan still doesn't get.  Americans show up for big events.  But we can't come to all of them.  There's so much going on that you have to pick and choose.  Look at last year's Copa America.  People came to that.  The Club World Cup?  Not so much.  And playing the games in 70,000-seat football stadiums doesn't help matters, either, since even 25,000 still looks empty.

Let's call a spade a spade here, too.  FIFA severely misjudged the enthusiasm for the Club World Cup.  Ticket prices were way too high at the beginning and they were selling the entire stadiums instead of sectioning them off (which they eventually started doing so that the stadiums look less empty on TV).  They were never going to sell 70,000 tickets in Atlanta regardless of who was playing!  Next year at the World Cup, they will.  Because it's the World Cup.

Atlanta was singled out for its attendance because that was the site of the Chelsea-LAFC game on Monday.  That game kicked off at 1:00 in the afternoon on a workday.  Not just a workday, a Monday.  People weren't taking off work at 1:00 on a Monday to go to a Chelsea-LAFC game.  (I haven't seen the attendance figures for the entire tournament, but I'd figure a majority of the 1:00 midweek kickoffs have been sparsely attended for the same reason.)

While it's hard for European fans to grasp that since they live and die by these football clubs, for Americans, it's just two random teams.  Baseball and the other football are the sports where American fans are die-hards who'll travel to any game, anywhere, any time.  Two random soccer teams at 1:00 on a Monday, though?  I actually think that 25,000 was a pretty good attendance number (even though FIFA likely fudged it).

And the criticism directed towards the fact that LAFC was playing in Atlanta instead of LA was really more a sign of ignorance than anything else.  It's complaining for the sake of complaining from someone who didn't even care enough to know the actual reason, which is actually pretty simple.  LAFC was the last team to qualify for the tournament, winning a play-in game a few weeks ago.  And they only got in as a replacement.  The schedule had already been made when LAFC qualified.  So, it's not like they could just up and move a game from Atlanta to LA at the last minute just so they could play a "home" game (which wouldn't have even been at their home field since it likely would've been at SoFi Stadium).

It's not limited to the Club World Cup, either.  The Gold Cup is always played in the United States.  The stadiums are always empty at games that don't involve either the United States or Mexico.  Canada opened the tournament with a home game in Vancouver, and even that one drew only 25,000.  CONCACAF is at least playing the Gold Cup at some soccer-specific venues with smaller capacities, so the optics are better with fewer empty seats.

Although, even if the low attendance in the massive football stadiums doesn't look great, using them is serving a practical purpose.  Every American venue being used for next year's World Cup is an NFL stadium.  They need to have a test event beforehand.  That was the entire point of playing the Club World Cup in the U.S.  So, as much as anything else, they're using it to make sure everything's good to go for next summer.

Which is why, ultimately, I doubt FIFA cares about how many empty seats there are at the Club World Cup.  Would they like the stadiums to be full?  Sure.  But people have been skeptical of the event from the start, and they saw the early ticket sales, so I don't think they were expecting full houses.  And, who knows?  Maybe once the tournament gets to the knockout rounds, there will be more fans in the stands.

So, no, the attendance (or lack thereof) at the Club World Cup says more about the Club World Cup than it does about American soccer fans.  It's not general apathy.  It's apathy towards the event.  And, since this isn't a soccer-mad country and there are plenty of other options, people are staying away.  Playing in NFL stadiums at 1:00 in the afternoon sure isn't helping matters, either.  (I'm assuming they gave the European teams most of those early games since it's primetime there.)

Popular European clubs like Real Madrid, Bayern Munich and Inter Milan simply aren't enough to move the needle.  Neither are superstar players like Lionel Messi.  Not when there are also so many random teams from Africa and Asia and so many of the games are blowouts.  And not when the reception to the Club World Cup was already lukewarm at best.

Next summer, it'll be a different story.  The World Cup is the World Cup.  There's no doubt that fans will show up in droves and the stadiums will be full.  FIFA is counting on it.  That's one of the reasons why they wanted to go back to the U.S. in the first place.  The 1994 World Cup set attendance records, and soccer wasn't even that popular a sport in the U.S. 30 years ago!  Now it is.

Non-Olympians

The NHL and IIHF have announced the first six players on each country's roster for February's Olympics.  The NHL, of course, is returning to the Olympics in Milan for the first time in 12 years.  In 2018, the players wanted to go, but the owners said no.  Then they worked it into the CBA and the NHL players were set to go in 2022, but they had to pull out because of COVID-related scheduling issues. 

As a result of that 12-year absence from the Olympics, there's a group of hockey players who would've been locks for their respective national teams in either 2018 or 2022 (or maybe both) that will end up never having been Olympians at all.  Twelve years is a long time, yet they'll have gone the entire prime of their careers missing out on that opportunity.  Some of them may still be selected for their nation's roster in February, but there's no guarantee of that.  And, if they don't make the team in 2026, the chances of their playing in 2030 are slim to none.

One name I immediately thought of was Jonathan Quick.  Had the NHL played at the 2018 Olympics, he likely would've been the starting goalies for the U.S.  However, Quick was Ryan Miller's backup in 2014, so he doesn't count as non-Olympians.  Same with Marc-Andre Fleury, who won a gold medal as Roberto Luongo's backup in 2010 (yes, he's that old!).  These 10 players, though, completely missed out because of the NHL's taking two Olympics off.

Johnny Gaudreau (USA): Obviously, the reasons for this one are tragic.  You can bet Johnny Hockey would've been in the mix for the Olympic roster, and you can tell how much his absence is felt.  His jersey hung in the USA locker room at the Four Nations Face-Off and was draped over the championship trophy at the World Championships.  There's no question he would've been on both the 2018 and 2022 Olympic rosters.

Chris Kreider (USA): Kreider was on the American roster at the Four Nations, but was a healthy scratch in the first two games.  It's highly unlikely that he'll make the 2026 Olympic team.  The 2021-22 season, meanwhile, was the best of his career, so he almost certainly would've been on the roster in Beijing had the NHL participated.

Seth Jones (USA): There's still a chance Seth Jones could be selected to Team USA for the 2026 Olympics.  But he wasn't on the Four Nations roster even as an alternate, so you've got to think he'll need to do something special to earn a spot on the Olympic team.  That wasn't the case in 2022, when he was actually one of the first players named to the roster while the NHL was still planning on going.  It would be brutal if that's the closest he ends up coming to being an Olympian.

Kris Letang (CAN): How crazy is it that Kris Letang hasn't been on a Canadian National Team since the 2007 World Juniors?  I get that Canada is deep and that he's never been one of the best defensemen in the NHL, but you'd have to think he would've been selected to at least one of those two Olympic teams (almost certainly 2018).  In 2026, he's got no chance.

Claude Giroux (CAN): Claude Giroux is another one whose prime corresponded to the span between NHL Olympic appearances.  He was controversially left off Canada's roster in 2014 despite being a Hart Trophy finalist that season.  Four years later, he was one of the best damn players in the NHL!  There's no doubt he would've been on the team in 2018, and it's not a stretch to say he would've made it in 2022, as well.  In 2026, Giroux likely won't even be considered.

Taylor Hall (CAN): Yes, Taylor Hall is still playing in the NHL.  He won the Hart Trophy with the Devils in 2017-18, so you'd have to think he would've been on Canada's Olympic roster that year.  That was obviously when he was at his peak.  Hall's career has cratered since then to the point that he's not even in the discussion for 2026, and likely wouldn't have been in 2022, either.

Jonathan Marchessault (CAN): Would Marchessault have been on Canada's roster during his breakout season with the expansion Golden Knights in 2017-18?  Probably not.  Would he have made it in 2022?  Not a guarantee, but I think yes.  He'd established himself by then.  And that was likely his only chance to make a Canadian Olympic team, too.  While I think Marchessault could be in the running for Milan, I doubt he'll ultimately be selected.

Braden Holtby (CAN): It's not crazy to think that Holtby might've been Canada's starting goalie in 2018.  He was arguably the best goalie in the NHL then, winning the Vezina in 2015-16, allowing the fewest goals in the league in 2016-17, and leading Washington to the Stanley Cup in 2017-18.  At the very least, he would've been one of the three goalies on their Olympic roster that year.

Pekka Rinne (FIN): I know what you're thinking.  "How was Pekka Rinne not on Finland's Olympic roster in 2014?"  Because he was injured, that's why (although, he did lead Finland to silver at the World Championships later that year).  Meanwhile, in 2017-18, when he would've been Finland's unquestioned Olympic starter, he won the Vezina.  Rinne's retired now, and his replacement in Nashville, Juuse Saros, also replaced him as Finland's starting goalie.

Nikita Kucherov (RUS): This one gets an asterisk since Nikia Kucherov would certainly be on Russia's roster (or whatever we're calling Russia these days) in 2026 if they were allowed to participate.  Just like how he absolutely would've been on OAR's gold medal-winning team in 2018 and ROC's 2022 roster.  Although, he'll be 36 and presumably still playing at a high level in 2030, so it wouldn't surprise me if he finally makes his long-awaited Olympic debut in the French Alps.

Of course, the opposite is also true.  Those players who did participate in the 2018 and 2022 Olympic hockey tournaments wouldn't have gotten that opportunity had the NHL gone to either PyeongChang or Beijing.  So, the NHL players' loss was their gain.  Still, though, you can't help but wonder might've been for the NHL players who lost what might've been their only chances to play in the Olympics.

The Negro Leagues Museum

One of the reasons I wanted to check Kansas City off the list of stadiums I've visited (other than because I'm trying to get to all 30) is because the Negro Leagues Museum is also in Kansas City.  I finally got to make that trip, and it was well worth it!  The Negro Leagues Museum has long been considered a must-see for baseball fans, and it's easy to see why.  It's definitely something that any baseball fan will appreciate.  And they'll almost certainly learn something, too.  (Including why the museum is in this specific location.  They didn't randomly choose Kansas City.  It's two blocks from the exact spot where the Negro National League was formed in 1920.)

My favorite part of the museum is a very cleverly set up "baseball game" with 12 bronze statues of Negro League legends (all of whom are in the Hall of Fame).  There are nine fielders playing each position, as well as a batter and an umpire.  You can only access the "field" at the end of your visit, though.  The 12th statue, meanwhile, is one of the first things you see.  It's Buck O'Neil, the manager, looking through the window.

Every Negro Leagues player who's been elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame has a locker with a jersey from his Negro Leagues team.  There are plenty of blank lockers in the exhibit, too, so they've got room for those who are elected in the future.  There's also a display of baseballs signed by Negro Leagues players.  And, something that I think is very cool, Gold Gloves.  In 2012, Rawlings awarded nine career Gold Gloves to Negro Leagues players.  They're all on display.

Jackie Robinson obviously gets his due.  And rightfully so.  His MLB debut wasn't just an important moment in baseball history.  It was one of the biggest moments in American history.  But what about the first Black player on each of the other 15 original teams?  As a part of the Jackie Robinson exhibit, the Negro Leagues Museum tells their stories.

Larry Doby, of course, was the first Black player in the American League, making his debut with Cleveland only a few weeks after Robinson in 1947.  His Negro Leagues team was the Newark Eagles, whose owner, Effa Manley (the first and, so far, only woman to be elected to the Hall of Fame), negotiated Doby's contract with Bill Veeck.  Manley was torn, though.  She understood the importance of Black players in the Major Leagues, but she also knew that it would likely mean the end of the Negro Leagues, which were among the most successful Black businesses in the first half of the 20th Century.

Effa Manley isn't the only woman who played a prominent role in Negro Leagues history.  Not even close.  In fact, three women played in the Negro Leagues.  Connie Morgan, Mamie Johnson and Toni Stone.  That's something I never would've known had I not visited the museum!  Each of them has a bronze bust recognizing her unique place in baseball history.

Another innovation that came about because of the Negro Leagues was night baseball.  Kansas City Monarchs owner J.L. Wilkinson realized that people couldn't attend games during the afternoon while they were at work, so he purchased a lighting system that the Monarchs would travel with so that they could play night games.  He'd also rent out the lights to other teams.  This was in 1930, five years before the first night game in the Major Leagues.

As soon as you enter the lobby, there's a map and timeline depicting the history of the Negro Leagues, marking the locations of the teams, as well as who was in each of the various leagues in a given year.  Then, James Earl Jones narrates a video before you walk into the museum itself, which goes through the early history of Black baseball prior to the Negro Leagues, including the well-known stories of Moses Fleetwood Walker and Branch Rickey's Ohio Wesleyan team, leading up to the creation of the Negro National League in 1920.

In 1933, the first East-West All-Star Game was organized by Pittsburgh Crawfords owner Gus Greenlee (another one of the most influential and significant Negro Leagues owners).  The game was played in Chicago at Comiskey Park, two months after the inaugural MLB All*Star Game in the same ballpark.  It quickly became the signature event of the Negro Leagues season and would be played every year until 1962, almost always in Chicago, usually at the end of the season.  The Negro World Series was held sporadically (there were only 11 in history), so the East-West Game was the only annual spotlight event for Negro Leagues players.

They also acknowledge the unfortunate sign of those times and some of the conditions that those players had to endure during segregation, especially in the South.  It's actually pretty crazy how they would go on barnstorming tours of Japan and Latin America and receive better treatment than they got at home.  There are also some cool stories that came out of that, though.  The Monarchs once refused to play if the team wasn't allowed to eat in the restaurant (which reminds me so much of that scene in Green Book).  The restaurant owner relented.  The Crawfords bought their own bus, both to make travel easier and to guarantee they had a place to stay.  The craziest part of these stories?  How many of the same people who refused them service also bought tickets for the game.

Negro League stars were just as big in Black communities as Major League stars were in White communities.  And there are plenty of photos of African American celebrities from the day such as Lena Horne and Joe Louis throwing out the first pitch at Negro Leagues games.  Jesse Owens was a regular (exposing the hypocrisy of cheering for Black athletes at the Olympics while segregating them at home).  He'd usually participate in some sort of promotional race, as well.

And, of course, there's an entire exhibit dedicated to Satchel Paige.  He's arguably the most famous Negro Leagues player and, without a doubt, the greatest pitcher in Negro Leagues history.  He was also quite a showman!  Satchel Paige was the biggest draw in the Negro Leagues and was the headliner of the barnstorming tours against Major League players.  (Major Leaguers were prevented from wearing their team uniforms in these barnstorming games, so they formed their own "All-Star" teams to go against Paige's team of Negro Leaguers.)  It's widely assumed that if Satchel Paige were younger, he, not Jackie Robinson, would've been the one to break the color barrier. 

No man has done more to preserve the history of the Negro Leagues than Buck O'Neil.  So, it's only fitting that there's also an area dedicated to O'Neil.  Arguably the star of the Ken Burns Baseball documentary, O'Neil was instrumental in getting the museum off the ground and served on its Board of Directors until his death.  His family donated memorabilia to the museum in 2012, 10 years before he was, at long last, inducted into the Hall of Fame.

Throw in all of the jerseys and hats representing the various Negro Leagues teams, and you have such an authentic, loving tribute to an important era in baseball history with a story that needs to be told.  The Negro Leagues Baseball Museum does that and then some!  If you're ever in Kansas City (and even if you aren't), it's well worth the trip.

From the Big Three to the Big Two

When Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic combined to win 16 years' worth of Grand Slam tournaments between them, we thought we'd never see anything like it again.  As it turns out, it might not have been the once-in-a-lifetime display of three-way dominance we thought.  It might've only been once-in-a-generation.  Because men's tennis has officially moved from the Big Three Era into the Big Two Era of Jannik Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz.

Djokovic won his record-setting 24th Grand Slam title at the 2023 US Open.  Six Grand Slam tournaments have been played since then.  Sinner has won three.  Alcaraz has won the other three.  The only break in their stranglehold at the top of the men's game came at last year's Olympics, when Djokovic won the gold medal.  Otherwise, it's been the exclusive domain of Sinner and Alcaraz.

We knew that the Big Three Era was going to end eventually.  Federer retired first after his body told him "No Mas."  Nadal finished off his career at the Paris Olympics, where he played doubles with Alcaraz (a literal passing of the torch).  Djokovic is the only one left.  And he's gone from the young guy challenging Federer and Nadal to the veteran being challenged (and surpassed).

The changing of the guard started at the 2024 Australian Open.  Djokovic entered his semifinal against Sinner on a 33-match Australian Open winning streak and hadn't lost at the tournament since 2018.  Sinner completely dominated the semifinal, then came back from two sets down in the final to claim his first Grand Slam title.  He won his second at the US Open, then defended his Australian Open title.  That's the last three hardcourt Majors, all won by Jannik Sinner.

Alcaraz, meanwhile, was touted as the next big star in men's tennis pretty much immediately after his 2021 breakthrough at the ripe old age of 18.  He won the US Open a year later, then Wimbledon in 2023 (beating Djokovic in the final).  Clay has always been recognized as his best surface, so a French Open victory seemed inevitable.  It came last year, and he followed it up by defending his Wimbledon title.  Then Alcaraz defended his French Open title in Sunday's epic final, giving him five career Grand Slam titles, including the last three played in Europe.

What makes Alcaraz's record even more impressive is that he's 5-0 all-time in Grand Slam finals.  Both of his Wimbledon victories came against Djokovic.  And he's 8-4 all-time against Sinner, including that absolutely incredible five-and-a-half-hour instant classic in the French Open final.  That will be the defining match of a rivalry that figures to shape the next generation of men's tennis.

It wasn't the first classic they've played at a Grand Slam, either.  They played a night match in the 2022 US Open quarterfinals that ended at 2:50 in the morning, with Alcaraz rallying from 2-1 down to win five.  At last year's French Open, they met in the semifinals and Alcaraz won a four-hour five-setter en route to the title.  Three of his five Grand Slam titles have included a five-set victory over Sinner.  When those two meet on the big stage, they always deliver.

Federer and Nadal had an era-defining rivalry even before Djokovic joined the fray.  Then he made it a three-way rivalry.  The three of them dominated men's tennis for the better part of two decades.  Don't be surprised if Sinner vs. Alcaraz is the defining rivalry for the next 15 years.  After all, Sinner is all of 23 and Alcaraz is 22.  They both figure to have plenty more Grand Slam titles in their future.

They've both been No. 1.  Sinner is the current top player.  He became No. 1 after last year's French Open and has held the ranking ever since.  Alcaraz, meanwhile, rose to No. 1 after his 2022 US Open victory and was the youngest year-end No. 1 in ATP history.  They've separated themselves in the rankings by nearly 2,500 points over No. 3 Alexander Zverev (who's still waiting for his Grand Slam breakthrough).

Will Alcaraz and Sinner have the same run of dominance that the Big Three had?  And for as long?  We obviously don't know what the future holds, but there's no reason to believe it won't.  Can they each get to 20 like their three predecessors?  Is it crazy to think that's possible?  We just saw three guys dominate men's tennis for so long, only to have two successors immediately pick up the mantle.

Others were able to break through during the Big Three Era.  Andy Murray won three Grand Slams and two Olympic gold medals.  Stan Wawrinka won a Grand Slam title every year from 2014-16.  (If you include the six for those two, that's 72 combined Grand Slam titles--18 years' worth--between five guys, who were all contemporaries.)  So, while Sinner and Alcaraz might have a Grand Slam stranglehold right now, it would be unrealistic to think it'll continue indefinitely.  If it didn't happen then, why would it happen now?

So, there is hope for Zverev to finally lift a Grand Slam trophy for the first time.  And does anyone really think Novak Djokovic doesn't have another Grand Slam title in him, even if he has become the "old guy" now?  There's always the possibility that Sinner or Alcaraz will be an early-round upset victim, too.  (At last year's US Open, Alcaraz lost to Botic van de Zandschulp in the second round.)

Still, it's probably a safe bet that this is just the beginning of a long run where Sinner and Alcaraz are THE guys in men's tennis.  It's a compelling rivalry that's great for the sport.  TNT's ratings for the French Open final were significantly better than NBC's for the final last year.  Two charismatic players who are both the best in the world on a particular surface (Alcaraz on clay, Sinner on hardcourts).  And, as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic can tell you, two stars who'll only get better because they're pushing each other.

There was some concern that there would be a void in men's tennis with Federer and Nadal's retirements.  It turns out, those fears were unfounded.  Because Jannik Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz immediately stepped in to fill that void.  And theirs will be the next great rivalry that defines the sport for a generation.

All About Communication

Sunday night's Yankees-Red Sox game provided quite the contrast in terms of communication and the willingness to do what the team asks, which is a direct result.  On the Boston side was Rafael Devers, who was moved from third base to DH this season, then balked at another move to first base.  Then, on the Yankees' side, you had Jazz Chisholm, who went on the IL as the second baseman and came off it as the third baseman.

Devers is Boston's franchise player, signed to a 10-year, $313.5 million deal prior to the 2023 season.  
The Red Sox added Alex Bregman as a free agent late in the winter, which created a bit of a problem since Bregman is also a third baseman.  After initially flirting with the idea of Bregman playing second and Devers staying at third, they ultimately decided to keep Bregman at third and have Devers become the full-time DH.  He wasn't thrilled about this idea, but eventually accepted it.

A curve ball was thrown in when Red Sox first baseman Tristan Casas was lost for the year.  The thought was then that Devers could play first, a position he's never played before.  Devers didn't like that plan, either.  Things got so bad that Red Sox owner John Henry flew to Kansas City while the team was playing the Royals just to discuss it with him.  Ultimately, it was decided that Devers would remain the DH (which he has even with Bregman now also on the IL).

On the one hand, I can see Devers' point.  They already asked him to change positions once.  He did it.  Now they were asking him to change positions again, only a few months later.  He hadn't even fully adjusted to being a full-time DH yet.  So, it was about more than just not wanting to play first base.  Devers wanted clarity about what position they want him to play.  After all, he still has eight years left on his contract including this season.

Is he being a team player?  Absolutely not!  But that's where the communication issue comes in.  The Red Sox weren't up front with Devers about their pursuit of Bregman or their plans for what would happen if they signed him.  If they had, he might've been more accepting of the situation.  Ditto about the first base thing.  Speak to him about it privately before letting the media get wind of it.  That's what made things worse, and both the team and Devers ended up looking bad.

The complete opposite happened regarding the communication between Chisholm and the Yankees.  That actually goes back to last season.  When the Yankees traded for Jazz Chisholm, it was to be their third baseman, even though that wasn't his position in Miami.  He jumped at the opportunity and played a very serviceable third base as the Yankees won the AL pennant.  Then, with Gleyber Torres set to become a free agent, the Yankees let him walk and moved Chisholm back to his natural position of second.

He began the season as their regular second baseman before going on the injured list with an oblique injury at the end of April.  In the interim, Yankees third baseman Oswaldo Cabrera broke his ankle.  When Jazz was set to come back, he had a conversation with Aaron Boone.  The question was whether he'd play second or third when he came back.  Boone told him that he was leaning towards third.  Chisholm said "OK."

Would he have still agreed to play third even if he hadn't had a conversation with Boone beforehand?  Probably.  After all, the Marlins had him playing out of position in center field for a year and a half before trading him to the Yankees.  But letting him know the plan and seeing what he felt about it sure went a long way in getting Chisholm's buy-in.

This isn't the first time we've seen communication differences regarding position changes in Major League Baseball.  And the results have been similar to what we just saw with Rafael Devers and Jazz Chisholm.  When the communication is there, the player is willing or even excited to make the move.  When it isn't, the player is less than happy.

When the Rangers traded Alfonso Soriano to the Nationals, Washington's plan was to make Soriano their left fielder.  That was news to him.  He begrudgingly accepted the position change and actually turned into a serviceable left fielder for the remainder of his career.  But that did nothing to resolve the initial awkwardness of Soriano's first season in Washington.

Then you have the more recent examples of Bryce Harper and Mookie Betts.  Harper needed to have Tommy John surgery after the 2022 World Series, so he had to DH at first.  The Phillies also have an abundance of outfielders, so he volunteered to ease the logjam and play first base, where he won't need to make those long throws.  Harper has been so good at first that the position change has become permanent.

Mookie Betts, meanwhile, can play pretty much any position on the field.  And he's more than willing to play any of them.  Last year, the Dodgers wanted to make him their regular second baseman, but he ended up back in right field.  A move to the infield was still in the cards, though, and he's now their starting shortstop.  Mookie obviously has the ability to play short, but his buy-in was the big key.

There are plenty of others who've made a position change where both the player and team benefitted from it.  I'm not talking about somebody moving to first base when he got older, either.  I'm talking about Jackson Merrill, a career infielder, becoming the Padres' center fielder.  Or his teammate Fernando Tatis Jr. moving to right field.  Even Jose Altuve's nonsensical move to left field was done for the good of the team, which is why he was willing to do it.

It's easy to call out Rafael Devers and say he's not being a team player because he was unwilling to move to first base.  Which, in many ways, he was.  But it's a lot more complicated than that.  If the communication between him and the Red Sox had been better, it all could've been different.  Like it was with Jazz Chisholm and so many others.

Relegation With Russia's Hockey Return

As usual, the IIHF based the groups for next year's World Championships on the most recent world rankings, which were updated after the United States won its first World Championship in 92 years.  On the strength of that gold medal, the U.S. rose to No. 2 in the world, its highest ranking ever.  That also means the United States will be the highest-ranked team at both the 2026 Olympics and World Championship.  Because the only team above them is currently suspended Russia.

Russia, of course, has been suspended by the IIHF since 2022 because of the country's invasion of Ukraine.  For some reason, though, the IIHF has continued to award Russia points as if it participated in the World Championships.  Since Russia was ranked third at the time, they've received the same number of points as the bronze medalist at the last four World Championships despite not participating in any of them. 

The IIHF does this instead of simply freezing Russia's points until the suspension is over, which would've been easier and made a whole lot more sense.  It really wouldn't have been that hard, either.  In tennis, they used protected rankings all the time if players are coming back from injury or maternity.  The protected ranking is only used for entry into tournaments and only for a limited time.  It's not the same thing here, of course, but it's a close enough comparison.

Anyway, as a result of the IIHF's nonsensical decision to act like Russia wins the bronze medal at every tournament, they've actually moved to No. 1 in the world rankings.  Granted it's only a five-point difference between Russia and the U.S. and only 15 between Russia and No. 3 Switzerland, but that's not the point.  The point is they somehow rose to No. 1 in the world despite the fact that they haven't been allowed to play in an IIHF tournament since the 2022 Olympics.  (Meanwhile, the IIHF announced at the same time that they won't be allowed to play in Milan and will be replaced by France.)

Eventually, Russia's suspension will end and they'll resume participating in the World Championships.  I think that's probably the point of continuing to give them rankings points (but, again, they could've just frozen Russia's points and it would've accomplished the same thing).  And, when Russia is reinstated, they'll go right back to the top level of the World Championships.  This won't be like track & field.

In track & field, where's Russia's suspension (which was first because of doping violations) is going on a decade, they're making them work their way back up from the bottom.  They have promotion and relegation at the biennial European Team Championships.  Russia has been relegated at each edition it's missed due to the suspension.  So, they'll have to earn promotion at each successive level before the finally return to the top level (the earliest ballpark for that is sometime in the 2030s).

That obviously won't happen in hockey.  The IIHF is not European Athletics.  They won't make Russia work their way back up.  That would just be rubbing salt in the wound.  The suspension is bad enough.  And I'm sure there would be some sort of litigation if Russia wasn't immediately placed right back where it was before the suspension (and presumably still would be without it).  Which is a valid point.  So, why even create that mess when it can easily be avoided?

However, Russia's eventual return to the World Championships won't come without complications.  Particularly involving promotion and relegation.  There are 16 teams at the top level of the World Championships.  Russia would be taking somebody's spot.  So, how do you fairly work Russia back in?  And what about the timing?  The World Championships are in May.  If they're reinstated in December, do they replace somebody at the upcoming Worlds?  Or do you make them wait until the next edition (which they obviously won't like)?

One decision could impact the other, especially when it comes to relegation.  It would almost be easier to have Russia reinstated in like February or March, when it's too late for them to play in that year's Worlds, but also early enough to decided how they're coming back and adjust qualification for the next edition accordingly.  And there are several different ways to work Russia back in, so they'd obviously have to choose one.

There are two possible solutions that make sense.  Two teams are promoted from Division I to the top division and two are relegated from the top division to Division I each year.  They could have it where two teams are still relegated, but only one is promoted and Russia takes that other spot.  This would probably be the easiest, most straightforward way to go.  Obviously the second-place team in Division I wouldn't be happy, but if everyone goes into that tournament knowing only one spot in the top level is available instead of two, nobody's really getting screwed.

With the other option, somebody would be getting screwed.  As it is now, the two relegated countries are the last-place teams in each of the eight-team groups.  In this second scenario, two teams are still promoted from Division I, but three teams are relegated.  The eighth-place teams are automatically relegated, while the two seventh-place teams play each other to stay in the top level.  The winner stays, the loser goes to Division I and is replaced by Russia.  Not ideal to say the least.

Keep in mind, Belarus is in the same boat as Russia.  They've also been suspended since 2022 because of their support for Russia's invasion of Ukraine.  And, like Russia, Belarus was expelled from the top division at the 2022 World Championships as a result.  So, an argument could be made that they both should return to the top level and both seventh-place teams should be relegated.  Belarus (which also still receives ranking points) is also currently No. 16 in the world, so their ranking would support doing that.  Should the IIHF put them both back in the top division, that would make Option B the way to go.

Either way, whatever they decide impacts the lower divisions.  While the top level of the World Championships is 16 countries, each of the lower divisions play a six-team tournament with first place promoted and last place relegated (except for Division I, where the top two are promoted).  They could easily make a one-year exception to have two seven-team tournaments, but at which levels?  And how will promotion/relegation work?  It's not as simple as just plugging Russia (and Belarus) into the top level and going from there.

This is a problem unique to hockey.  Once Russia and Belarus are back in the world's good graces, they can simply be put back in European qualifying in most other sports.  So, it's on the IIHF to figure this out.  And I'm sure they will.  Because Russia has one of the top five hockey teams in the world.  They belong in the top division.  You won't find anyone who disputes that point.  Which is why, whatever they have to do, the IIHF will make sure Russia is back at the top level as soon as it's reinstated.

A Stanley Cup Final Rematch

In 1983, Wayne Gretzky made his first Stanley Cup Final appearance and the Oilers lost to the Islanders.  In 1984, Edmonton won the rematch.  In 2008, Sidney Crosby made his first Stanley Cup Final appearance and the Penguins lost to the Red Wings.  In 2009, Pittsburgh won the rematch.  In 2024, Conor McDavid made his first Stanley Cup Final appearance and the Oilers lost to the Panthers.  Will the trend continue in 2025?

It's crazy how there's only been three Stanley Cup Final rematches in the last 40 years and each one has a chance to follow a similar script.  The future Hall of Fame captain who lost on his first try taking on the same team as the year before.  And, if history does repeat itself, Canada's 32-year Stanley Cup drought will finally be over.

The Panthers back in the Stanley Cup Final for the third consecutive season, as the Prince of Wales Trophy has, like many Northerners before it, retired to the State of Florida.  Six straight years with either the Lighting or Panthers playing for the Cup.  And, with the Panthers' style of play and how conducive it is to playoff dominance, it's conceivable that this could continue for a while (or at least until the salary cap catches up to them). 

As we've seen over the past three postseasons, the Panthers just wear you down.  Their defense is what makes them so hard to beat in a best-of-seven.  Especially if they get the lead and can lock down even more.  Having Sergei Bobrovsky certainly helps, but he also doesn't really need to do much because they let so few shots actually get through.

Florida's 12-5 in the playoffs.  They've allowed two or fewer goals in 10 of those 17 games, including three shutouts.  And they completely overwhelmed Carolina in the Eastern Conference Final.  I don't know if it was the Hurricanes, the Panthers or a combination, but Carolina looked exhausted the entire series.  More than that, the Hurricanes were totally overmatched.  Florida was the better team from the moment the puck dropped in Game 1.

Edmonton, meanwhile, has been the best team in the entire playoffs.  Since going down 0-2 in the first round against the Kings, the Oilers are 12-2.  And one of those losses was because of their terrible third period in Game 1 against Dallas.  You take out that period, and the Oilers outscored the Stars 22-6 the rest of the series!  It was complete domination.

They're the highest-scoring team in the playoffs by a wide margin.  It isn't just the usual suspects, either.  McDavid has 26 points and Draisaitl has 25, but 20 different players have points and 19 have scored.  The goals have been pretty evenly distributed, too.  Eight different Oilers have at least five goals and nobody has more than seven.  So, it's not just the top guys.  The offense can come from anywhere.  All four lines and all six defensemen.

Let's not forget about their goaltending.  Because it's been tremendous!  Stuart Skinner was awful in those first two games against LA and was replaced by Calvin Pickard.  Pickard went 6-0 before getting hurt in Game 2 against Vegas, which put Skinner back in net.  He's been sensational since, going 6-2 with three shutouts, including a 1-0 overtime victory in the clincher against the Golden Knights.

I'd say this is a matchup of Edmonton's offense against Florida's defense, but the Panthers have held up their end of the bargain on the offensive end, as well.  They scored at least five goals in all four of their wins over Carolina, and have either five or six in seven of their 10 games since dropping the first two against the Maple Leafs.  In fact, they've scored five or six goals in nine of their 12 playoff wins.  And, they, too, have been getting contributions from everybody.

If there's an X factor for Florida, it's the fact that they have a few key players who weren't on the roster last season.  Brad Marchand has obviously won the Cup in Boston, but Seth Jones hasn't.  Nate Schmidt hasn't either.  The rest of the Panthers want it just as badly for them as they do for themselves.

But, of course, the Oilers are extra motivated after falling short last year.  They know that McDavid can't be considered in the same category as Gretzky and Crosby until he wins the Cup.  And you know all of Canada will be rooting for Edmonton to finally end that 32-year streak.  Then there's 40-year-old Corey Perry.  He won the Cup in Anaheim, but has lost in the Final four times in the last five years with four different teams.  Will he make it five in six or finally get his name put on the Cup for a second time?

Last year, Florida won the first three games before Edmonton rallied to force a Game 7.  This year's series should be much different.  For starters, the first two games are in Edmonton.  That shouldn't really be an issue for the Panthers.  They've started all three series on the road and are 8-2 on the road in the playoffs.  The Oilers are 6-1 at home, though, and that home ice advantage could definitely come into play.  Especially with the amount of travel the teams will need to do if it goes the distance.

Games 1 & 2 will be huge.  Neither team is winning four out of five, so neither can afford to go down 0-2.  Especially Edmonton.  Because the Panthers will just wear them down if that happens.  It also feels weird to say it'll come down to the goaltending between the two highest-scoring teams in the playoffs, but doesn't it always come down to the goaltending?  Skinner will need to come up big, and the Oilers will need to take advantage of the few offensive chances they do get.

Ultimately, though, I think the fact that these teams played last year will be the biggest difference.  There's a reason why Gretzky and Crosby won the rematches.  The 1984 Oilers and 2009 Penguins were better teams than they were the year before.  So are the 2025 Oilers.  Conor McDavid does indeed follow in their footsteps and win the Stanley Cup for the first time in his career.  Oilers in seven.

No Rest For the Futbol Players

Paris Saint-Germain and Inter Milan played in the Champions League Final on Saturday.  They'll both be playing in the Club World Cup and will have a whopping two weeks off before beginning that tournament...in Los Angeles!  Oh, yeah, and the PSG and Inter players from France, Germany, Spain and Portugal also have the UEFA Nations League Finals during that week in between.  But, hey, at least they get to stay in Munich for that!

This is supposedly the "offseason," mind you.  Yet, you would never know it.  The Club World Cup ends on July 13.  European domestic league seasons start in mid-August.  So, the players will get a grand total of maybe three weeks off before training camp.  If their team makes a deep run at the Club World Cup, it'll be even less.

Then, after the 2025-26 club season starts in August, they'll have either 34 or 38 league games (depending on the country) plus their domestic trophy plus the Champions League plus World Cup qualifying.  And next summer is the World Cup.  Throw in the fact that the Euro and Copa America were last summer and that's essentially three years of uninterrupted play for the world's best soccer players.  Which is absurd!

FIFA can talk about "player safety" all they want.  It's all just lip service.  Because they don't actually care about player safety and everyone knows it.  Not when they can make more money with the ever-expanding calendar.  Never mind the fact that the exhausted players are expected to participate in all of these events.  Because they don't need rest or time off to recover from injuries or anything!

What FIFA is asking of these players truly is incredible.  And not in a good way!  Because it's completely unreasonable to expect them to participate in all of these events without sitting any of them out.  In fact, they aren't even really given the option of not playing in any of these tournaments.

Their clubs pay them handsomely, so they can't miss club games (unless they're out with an injury, which is really the only reason that's considered valid).  Sure, they can probably work it that they play limited minutes or not at all against an opponent that's set to be relegated, but that's really about it.  You're not letting them sit out a Champions League game. 

And, if they're National Team players, there's always a chance they won't get called up during one of the FIFA breaks, but if you're selected, it's not like you can't go.  Not if you want to have any chance of being on the World Cup roster!  And these National Teams need their best players for World Cup qualifying, so they know they've got to play.  These aren't meaningless friendlies against two random countries.   

I'm using Europe as my example because most of the world's best players play for European clubs, but the schedule is the same regardless of country.  It's harder for the European-based Brazilian and Argentinian players since they have to go back-and-forth to South America for National Team duty.  And the Brazilian, Argentinian and Mexican leagues have a similar schedule as the European leagues, so those players are looking at the same commitments, in terms of time and number of games.

Since the Premier League and La Liga play the most games in their domestic seasons, I'll use them for my example.  They play 38 league games and anywhere between eight and 14 games in the Champions League, plus however many in their domestic cup competition.  Throw in at least three and as many as seven Club World Cup games, and that's roughly 60 games just for the club.  That doesn't even include any National Team duty!

Sure, the Club World Cup is only once every four years.  But that's being replaced by either the World Cup or Euro/Copa America in the two years on either side, so that doesn't change the maximum number of games you can play in that span.  In all, it could end up being around 200 games for club and country over that three-year span with virtually no breaks.  Which is way too much!

It's the same thing that happened with basketball when FIBA moved its World Cup to the year before the Olympics so that it wouldn't be in the same year as the FIFA World Cup.  For NBA players to participate in both the World Cup and the Olympics in back-to-back summers, that's essentially two years straight of playing high-level basketball.  So, you can't really blame NBA guys for prioritizing one over the other.  That's why the Team USA roster for the two events is usually completely different with the exception of maybe one or two players.

Soccer players, unfortunately, don't really have that option.  I'm sure the enthusiasm for playing in the expanded Club World Cup is slim to none.  Yet they're gonna play anyway because they know that for this tournament to be successful, the star players need to be there.  FIFA knows this, too.  Which is why they're gonna exploit the players.  They know about their concerns and know that they're valid.  They just don't care.

When FIFA announced that the Club World Cup would be expanded to 32 teams, it was about one thing.  Making money.  Except that money will be made on the backs of players whose health and safety weren't even considered.  Which is why the criticism directed at FIFA because of this expansion is totally warranted.  It completely exposes FIFA's hypocrisy.  They claim to care about the players' well-being while actively adding to their already packed schedules. 

Yes, these are professional athletes.  But even professional athletes need an offseason.  I don't know how they can be expected to perform at their best without one.  Especially if they don't get one for three years!  But, hey, I guess they should look at the bright side...They'll get the summer off in 2027!

Next Retired Numbers (Hockey, Part II)

OK, here we go with Round II of the hockey retired numbers.  I have to admit, three teams made this one kinda tricky.  Well, not so much the Golden Knights, but definitely the Kraken and Mammoth.  Utah is technically an expansion team, so no Jets or Coyotes.  So, it looks like we're using an active Mammoth player!

It's not exactly like the rest of the Western Conference teams had an easy obvious candidate, either.  But, they've at least got enough history or an active player who's done enough to warrant it.  Besides, the whole purpose of this exercise was to do one from every team regardless of how likely it is, which is exactly what I'm gonna do.

Ducks: 10 Corey Perry-He's made his way around the NHL since leaving Anaheim and is on a crazy Pat Maroon-esque streak of five times playing in the Stanley Cup Final in the last six years, but let's not forget how good Corey Perry was with the Ducks (who are still the only team he's actually lifted the Cup with).  Perry spent his first 14 seasons in Anaheim and was one of the best players in the NHL during his prime.  Longtime teammate Ryan Getzlaf also deserves to be in the running, but Corey Perry gets the nod.  No matter how many teams he ends up playing for, the first one that comes to mind will be the Ducks.

Flames: 13 Johnny Gaudreau-Much like with Columbus, I'm surprised the Flames didn't retire Gaudreau's number at the beginning of the season.  Johnny Hockey spent the majority of his career in Calgary, won the Calder and the Lady Byng, and became one of the best players in the NHL.  In Calgary, it would be far more than a gesture honoring a fallen hero.  It would be recognizing his role as one of the franchise's all-time greatest players.

Blackhawks: 88 Patrick Kane-Kane was the Blackhawks' best player on their three Stanley Cup teams and was named one of the 100 Greatest NHL Players during the league's centennial celebration.  He's also arguably the greatest American player in NHL history.  Kane is still going strong as a Red Wing, but he'll always be a Blackhawk.  And once he hangs it up for good, his No. 88 will take its rightful place in the United Center rafters.

Avalanche: 29 Nathan MacKinnon-Pick an Avalanche player.  Landeskog.  MacKinnon.  Makar.  Rantanen is probably out because he's now in Dallas, but the other three are all in the running.  Barring anything unforeseen, MacKinnon and Makar figure to both be Avalanche for a while, so they'll likely both end up having their numbers retired.  MacKinnon's only 29 and has already been there a decade!  How crazy is that?!

Stars: 14 Jamie Benn-There are several options for the Stars, who have a surprisingly small amount of retired numbers for how successful the franchise has been.  Which leads me to believe they're just selective about who they choose to honor.  No matter how selective their process is, Jamie Benn makes the cut.  He's been a Star since 2009-10 and should get his 1,000th point in a Dallas uniform next season.

Oilers: 97 Connor McDavid-Everybody significant from their dynasty teams has had has number retired for years.  Which means the next Oilers retired numbers will likely come from their current run of success.  While neither McDavid nor Draisaitl figures to retire anytime soon, both of their numbers will be retired as soon as they do.  I just arbitrarily picked McDavid, but if Draisaitl retires first, then 29 will go to the rafters before 97.

Kings: 32 Jonathan Quick-This one really comes down to a race between Quick, Drew Doughty and Anze Kopitar.  They were all integral to the Kings winning two Stanley Cups a decade ago, and Doughty and Kopitar is still going strong.  Quick is much closer to the end of his career, so it stands to reason that he'll retire first.  As such, his number will be retired first.

Wild: 97 Kirill Kaprizov-Believe it or not, the Wild DO have a retired number: Mikko Koivu's No. 9.  There are some candidates on the current roster for who might be the second.  Matt Boldy is just getting started, but could end up holding all of their franchise records by the time he's done.  Kirill Kaprizov has a bit of a head start, so his numbers are better right now.  As such, he gets the nod.

Predators: 59 Roman Josi-Pekka Rinne is the only player in Predators history to have his number retired.  And rightfully so!  He's, without question, the most significant player in franchise history.  Josi isn't too far behind, though.  He's been in Nashville since 2011-12 and won a Norris Trophy.  So far.  After all, Josi is still only 34.

Sharks: 88 Brent Burns-Brent Burns deserves to be honored just for his beard alone!  He's obviously in Carolina now, but let's not forget how great he was in San Jose!  I don't see him hanging it up anytime soon, but when he does, I can see Burns signing a one-day contract with San Jose just so he can retire a Shark.  When/if that happens, expect to see him become the third Shark to have his number retired.

Kraken: 10 Matty Beniers-Seattle's only been around four years and hasn't found the same expansion magic that Vegas did.  The Kraken have only made the playoffs once in franchise history.  They do have a franchise player, though.  Beniers was their first-ever draft pick, played 10 games in that inaugural season, and has been their guy ever since.

Blues: 7 Keith Tkachuk-Matthew and Brady's dad spent the better part of his last nine NHL seasons in St. Louis and was recently inducted into the Blues Hall of Fame.  He's become a sort of cult hero for Blues fans, too.  And, because he racked up so many penalty minutes, I think his offense is a bit underrated.  While acknowledge this is probably unlikely, there's no doubt his jersey retirement ceremony would be fun!

Mammoth: 9 Clayton Keller-As I mentioned above, the Mammoth are technically a one-year-old franchise.  So, we're basically limited to their current roster.  Clayton Keller is their captain and just won gold with Team USA at the World Championships, so let's go with him.

Canucks: 1 Roberto Luongo-Frankly, I'm surprised the Canucks haven't retired Luongo's number yet.  It's no coincidence that Vancouver was one of the best teams in the NHL while Luongo was their goalie.  He's the franchise's all-time leader in every goaltending category and even served as team captain (even though goalies aren't allowed to wear the "C").  Luongo also won Olympic gold for Canada on home ice (which was doubly true for him) in 2010.

Golden Knights: 29 Marc-Andre Fleury-Vegas is the poster child for an expansion success story.  The Knights have been around for eight seasons, made the playoffs in seven of them, been to two Finals and won a Cup.  They were given instant credibility by taking a future Hall of Fame goalie with the top pick in their expansion draft.  Fleury won a Vezina in Vegas, too.  They've done a lot of things right since coming into the NHL.  Things like immediately having a franchise goalie.

Jets: 37 Connor Hellebuyck-We're just gonna pretend the Atlanta Thrashers never existed so, sorry Ilya Kovalchuk.  You didn't play in Winnipeg, you don't get your number retired!  Especially when the Jets are far more successful than the Thrashers ever were.  Mark Scheifele and Josh Morrissey are also in the running for this honor, but Hellebuyck's the franchise goalie.

Next Retired Numbers (Hockey, Part I)

After doing baseball and football, I took a little break from the retired number series.  I always intended to go back to it.  After all, I still have two of the four major leagues left.  And, with both of those leagues set to start their respective Finals next week, I figured now is as good a time as any to jump back in.

We'll start with hockey, more specifically, the Eastern Conference.  And, just to go over the rules, players can still be active, as long as they've already done enough to warrant it.  If a team already has the number retirement planned, then I move on to the next player in line.  Also, it's only one player per team.  Pittsburgh, for example, will almost certainly retire both Crosby's 87 and Malkin's 71 (and probably Letang's 58, too), so it's which of those should be retired first.  With that, here we go...

Bruins: 33 Zdeno Chara-Don't be surprised if the Bruins end up retiring a bunch of numbers from their recent Cup teams.  Pastrnak, Bergeron and Marchand seem like virtual certainties, and I wouldn't be surprised if 2 U, 2 K, Tuukka has his number retired, as well.  But, Rask is the only one of those four who's retired.  So is Zdeno Chara, who also seems like he'd be a lock.  The future Hall of Famer gets the nod.

Sabres: 25 Dave Andreychuk-It's been a while since the Sabres were good (more than a while, in fact), so there definitely isn't anybody recent who you'd consider.  Why not go all the way back to a Hall of Famer who spent the first 11 seasons of his career in Buffalo, then?  Andreychuk's already a member of the Sabres Hall of Fame, but he deserves more than that.  His number 25 should also hang from the rafters.

Hurricanes: 20 Sebastian Aho-Carolina's best player for a while now, he's already made his way up several of the franchise's all-time lists.  And he's signed thru 2031-32, so you've gotta think he'll move past franchise icon Eric Staal and sit behind only the legendary Ron Francis before all is said and done.  If they ever actually win multiple Eastern Conference Final games while Aho's still around, that will cement his place in Hurricanes history even more.

Blue Jackets: 13 Johnny Gaudreau-Gaudreau is most remembered for his time with the Flames, and his Blue Jackets career was tragically cut short.  But he definitely left an impact in Columbus (and with USA Hockey), which was felt all season.  It would be more of a touching gesture than anything else, but it's a gesture I don't think many people would have a problem with.

Red Wings: 24 Chris Chelios-Chelios had his number retired in Chicago last season, but you could make an argument that it should be retired in Detroit, as well.  He played 11 years with the Red Wings and won two Stanley Cups with them.  And he's in the Hall of Fame, which seems to be a requirement for the franchise.  All of the players who've had their number retired by the Red Wings are in the Hall of Fame (although, Detroit also has several unofficial "honored" numbers, and not all of those players are in the Hall of Fame).

Panthers: 16 Aleksander Barkov-There are plenty of options from this current dynasty team the Panthers have going.  Their captain, Sasha Barkov, isn't just the leader of that team, he's been there the longest.  He'll be the first non-goalie ever to have his number retired by the Panthers.

Canadiens: 11 Saku Koivu-Montreal has 18 retired numbers.  All 18 of those players are in the Hockey Hall of Fame.  But, the Canadiens haven't won the Cup in more than 30 years, so I had to go with a non-Hall of Famer (even though that might be disqualifying).  Saku Koivu was their first European captain and is their longest-tenured captain.  He's also a cancer survivor and was forced to miss most of the 2001-02 season after being diagnosed before playing every game in 2002-03.

Devils: 22 Claude Lemieux-Every Devil who's had his number retired played during the same era--when they were really good and won three Stanley Cups from 1995-2003.  There's one guy from that group who's missing, though.  Claude Lemieux.  The argument against is that he wasn't a Devil long enough.  I'm not arguing that he should be mentioned in the same breath as Martin Brodeur and Scott Stevens or even Ken Daneyko and Patrick Elias.  He was pretty great during his five seasons with the team, though, and won the Conn Smythe in 1995.

Islanders: 16 Pat LaFontaine-Much like the Devils, every number the Islanders have retired is from their dynasty teams.  Unlike the Devils, the Islanders don't have any deserving players from that era left who haven't already had their number retired.  So, instead, I'm going with Pat LaFontaine, who joined the Islanders after playing for the United States at the 1984 Olympics and became a fan favorite while playing the first eight years of his Hall of Fame career with them.

Rangers: 5 Bill Cook-While I recognize this is completely unlikely, I've long been an advocate of Bill Cook having his number retired by the Rangers.  All of the great players from the 60s & 70s have had their numbers retired.  So have the four key guys from the 1994 team and Henrik Lundqvist.  This season is the Rangers' centennial, and I think it would be great if they honored their first star and first captain by raising his number to the Garden rafters, as well.

Senators: 19 Jason Spezza-Franchise icon Daniel Alfredsson is the Senators' all-time leader in everything.  In most of those categories, Jason Spezza is second.  He spent the majority of his 19-year career in Ottawa, served as their captain, and led them to the only Stanley Cup Final appearance in franchise history.  Brady Tkachuk could certainly make a case eventually, but right now, Spezza is most deserving of having the Senators' next retired number.

Flyers: 31 Pelle Lindbergh-I'm cheating a little bit here.  I admit it.  Lindberg's number has been held out of circulation since his 1985 death, but was never officially retired.  Why not?  Let's make it official.

Penguins: 87 Sidney Crosby-If you had to decide between the three (Crosby, Malkin, Letang), Crosby would have to be the choice.  He's the guy they drafted No. 1 overall to resurrect the franchise, and all he's done is lead them to multiple Stanley Cups as the team captain.  Crosby's just as good now as he was 20 years ago, and probably the second-most important player in Penguins history behind only Mario Lemieux.

Lightning: 91 Steven Stamkos-Currently, Tampa Bay only has two retired numbers: Martin St. Louis and Vincent Lecavalier, the two key players on their 2004 Stanley Cup team.  They'll soon have company.  From multiple players who've played for the Lightning over the last decade, when they've consistently been one of the best teams in the NHL.  Victor Hedman, Andrei Vasilevskiy and Nikita Kucherov all seem like locks.  But they'll all still be playing after Steven Stamkos retires, so Stamkos gets the nod as to who'll have his number retired first.

Maple Leafs: 34 Auston Matthews-As part of their centennial celebration in 2016, the Maple Leafs retired a whole bunch of numbers.  So, anybody in Leafs history you'd think deserves to have his number retired probably already has.  Which leaves us with the current roster.  Matthews is already one of the best players in franchise history.  If he can finally lead Toronto to its first Cup since 1967, he'll become a franchise icon.

Capitals: 8 Alex Ovechkin-This is the most obvious selection of all.  The second Ovechkin announces his retirement, the Capitals will pick the day for his number retirement.  He isn't just the NHL's all-time leading goal scorer, he's the best and most significant player in franchise history.  Alex Ovechkin is that important to the Washington Capitals.

Farewell Mr. Jim

When I was in college, my aunt started seeing a retired sportswriter who was also one of the official scorers for the Orioles.  My mom was so excited to tell me and was like, "You have to meet Jim!"  So, we found a weekend in August when the Yankees were playing in Baltimore and I went down there for the series and stayed with them.  Jim arranged for me to get a credential and sit in the press box.

On Friday night, while we were having dinner in the media room before the game, he introduced me to John Sterling.  That led to an invite to sit in the Yankees radio booth.  Roger Clemens started and Aaron Boone hit the go-ahead three-run homer in the top of the ninth, the first of his two signature moments as a Yankees player (still waiting for that signature moment as Yankees manager).

After the Boone home run, the producer (who I'd been sitting next to for the entire game) looked at my credential, then got upset.  Thinking I'd worn out my welcome, I took that as my cue to leave.  A couple minutes later, he came back in the booth and I learned what he was upset about.  It was because they needed somebody to go down with a microphone for a postgame interview and I didn't have field access!  So, he found a Yankees staffer, who escorted me down to the field so I could give Boone the mic!

Here I was, this 21-year-old college kid, sitting in a Major League broadcast booth, then walking through the Yankees clubhouse (I can still remember Don Zimmer walking right past me) on my way down to the field.  It wouldn't have been possible without Jim (aka, Mr. Jim), who was a legend in his own right.  (That was also the weekend I discovered crab meat, thanks to that day's fresh catch from the Inner Harbor.)

A few years later, the entire city of Baltimore went to Cooperstown for Cal Ripken, Jr.'s Hall of Fame induction.  My parents and I went, as well.  The day after the induction ceremony, they had a special invite-only Q&A event with the two inductees--Ripken and Tony Gwynn.  As a Hall of Fame voter (and active media member), Jim was invited.  Guess who he asked if he would be interested in going with him!  Another unforgettable moment in my life that wouldn't have been possible without Jim.

The first time Jim went to the Hall of Fame induction was in 1966.  That year's class: Ted Williams & Casey Stengel.  He eventually became a longtime voter, and every year I'd ask him about his votes (he was a consistent "No" on Bonds & Clemens).  Beyond that, he was a baseball historian and was regularly asked to be on the screening committee that determined the Eras Committee ballots.  He also voted on numerous Eras Committees, in addition to his annual BBWAA vote.  In more years than not, Jim would vote for one of the American League awards, too, as one of the Baltimore representatives.

By his own account, nobody had attended more Baltimore Orioles games than him, and the team didn't disagree.  He covered the Orioles for years in the Baltimore Sun, then became one of the team's official scorers (he was the official scorer for the game when Ripken's streak ended).  It wasn't just years of home and road games.  There were also annual trips to Sarasota for Spring Training.  So, when it came time for the Orioles' 60th anniversary, there was only one person who could write the commemorative book.  (If you're interested, here's my review.)

In my copy (which he, of course, signed), Jim told me that he hoped I enjoyed reading it as much as he enjoyed writing it.  I finished it in one night!  He also wanted to make sure I knew he was not responsible for the typo on page 211 (there's an exploded quote on that page that mentions Carl Ripken, Jr...the very Carl Ripken, Jr. whose Hall of Fame induction I had attended a few years earlier).

While the last time I saw Jim was several years ago, we'd still text back and forth every once in a while.  Whenever a comment was actually left on one of these blog posts, either here or on Facebook, it usually came from Jim.  He even reached out to me in October because he was working on a story about World Series ticket prices, so he wanted to know how I got mine (through the team or through the secondary market) and how much I paid.

He was also my go-to person when I had scoring questions.  I consider myself a pretty good official scorer, and I've kept score for hundreds of games at this point, but there are still those quirky plays that you've never seen before and aren't sure about.  So, being able to ask a veteran MLB official scorer was always a nice backup to have.  Whether it was just confirming that what I thought was correct or telling me how the play should've been scored, he always got back to me right away and it was never a problem that I asked.

Jim spent 23 years as one of the Orioles' official scorers before retiring in 2019.  Five years later, the press box at Camden Yards was renamed the "Jim Henneman Press Box" in his honor.  So, the man who's seen more Orioles home games than anyone will never miss another.  Which is only appropriate.  The dedication also included another honor that day--throwing out the first pitch.

And, even though he was a "retired" sportswriter, that was never actually true.  I was on his email list, so I knew every time he had a new article in Press Box, the publication he began writing for in 2006.  The sheer variety of his articles were such a treasure trove, too!  My favorites were the anecdotes from his 50-plus years of covering the Orioles and Major League Baseball in general.

One of my favorite stories doesn't even involve the Orioles, but it does involve a Hall of Famer!  Jim was a Baltimore native.  So was Hall of Famer Al Kaline.  They faced each other in a high school game one time, and he struck Kaline out.  The first of many great baseball stories in a career full of them.

That's what I'll miss the most about Jim Henneman.  I'll forever be grateful to have known him.  I'm even more grateful to have had the chance to call him a friend and a mentor.  I'm far from the only one.  All the tributes that have come pouring in since his death are proof of that.  And everyone has their own stories similar to mine about the impact that "Henny" had on their life and/or career (or, in many cases, both).

The Penske 500

Why doesn't anybody find it weird that Roger Penske owns the IndyCar Series, the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, the Indianapolis 500 AND a three-car team?  At the very least, that's a massive conflict of interest.  What makes it even worse is how Penske's team has been caught violating the rules during Indy 500 qualifying two years in a row!  As a result, two of the Penske cars--Will Power and two-time defending champion Josef Newgarden will start from the rear of the field for the Greatest Spectacle In Racing.

It all started last Sunday in Fast Six qualifying.  Power and Newgarden's cars both failed pre-qualifying technical inspection and weren't allowed to make qualifying attempts.  They were initially placed 11th & 12th in the starting grid, but that was later adjusted to 32nd & 33rd.  The violation wasn't serious enough for Power and Newgarden to be removed from the field, so it was deemed that the appropriate penalty would be to have them start from the final two starting positions.  Which could end up playing a major role in the race since no one has ever won from the back row.

Anyway, the cause of the issue is that they were found to have made adjustments to the rear attenuator, which can theoretically give them an aerodynamic advantage.  IndyCar suspended both teams' race strategists and fined both, and Penkse responded in kind by firing the individuals involved.  But still, it's not a good look.  Especially since they found that Newgarden's winning car from last year had the same modification.

Helio Castroneves, who used to drive for Penske, jumped to his defense and explained that Penske is very meticulous about how he wants the cars to look.  So, it could've been simply for aesthetic purposes.  Others have suggested that even if it does give them an aerodynamic advantage, it's so slight that it's not enough to make a difference.  It certainly won't give you 3-4 mph.  But still, it's a violation of IndyCar rules...coming from the team of the guy who owns the entire series!

So, needless to say, it's already been an eventful Indy 500.  And this all happened before race day.  Although, it also gave FOX plenty of storylines leading into its maiden voyage covering the race.  FOX takes over from NBC, but won't be doing the 1,100-mile doubleheader since the Coca-Cola 600 is moving to Amazon this year as a part of NASCAR's new contract.  I was wondering how they'd cover both (especially if it rained at Indy), but, as it turns out, they're not, so that's not a concern.

And, fortunately, the situation with Power and Newgarden didn't overshadow those who were able to make their Fast Six qualifying runs.  Robert Shwartzman had the fastest car and will be the first rookie to start on the pole since 1983.  What makes that even more incredible is the fact that his team had no experience racing on an oval track prior to this!

Of course, running on an empty track and running in a full, 33-car field are completely different things.  We know Shwartzman's car is fast.  But how does it run in traffic and dirty air?  If the car handles as well during the race as it did in qualifying, Shwartzman could become the first rookie winner since Alexander Rossi in 2016.

Meanwhile, Newgarden turned in the fastest laps during the final practice session.  Which makes his failed inspection even more frustrating since the car is clearly fast even without the modification.  He'll need a lot of things to go right if he wants to pass essentially the entire field and make his way to the front, but if anyone can do it, Newgarden can.  And, if he does, he'll make Indy 500 history as the first driver to win three years in a row.

Also looking to make history is Castroneves, who'll be racing in his 25th consecutive Indy 500. He's one of four drivers all-time with four Indy 500 victories.  Nobody has won five.  Wouldn't that be some way to celebrate his anniversary at the Brickyard?  While I wouldn't consider him one of the favorites, nobody knows the track better than a guy who's finished either first or second seven times in his remarkable Indy career.

Castroneves also raced at the Daytona 500 for the first time this year.  So did Kyle Larson, who's attempting "Double Duty" for the second straight time.  Last year, he finished 18th and was named Indy 500 Rookie of the Year, but the race was delayed several hours by rain and he never made it to Charlotte.  The weather should be clear in both Indianapolis and Charlotte, so this year he should get that opportunity to actually make a go at running all 1,100 miles in both races.  (Although, I'm a bit torn since Tony Kanaan is scheduled to be Larson's replacement driver, if needed.)

Let's get back to the real race contenders, though.  Of which there are many.  Two-time champion Takuma Sato starts in the middle of Row 1 and was the only other driver to get over 374 mph in "Fast Six" qualifying.  He's only started in the front two rows twice before...in 2017 & 2020, the two years he won!

Pato O'Ward rounds out the front row.  He's finished second twice, including last year.  So, he's definitely a contender.  So is Alex Palou, who'll be starting right behind O'Ward on the outside of Row 2.  Palou is riding a streak of four straight top-nine finishes, highlighted by second place in 2021.  If he's there at the end, he's got a real shot at winning.

I'm also curious to see how Scott McLaughlin does.  He drives Penske's third car, but won't have to start in the back like his teammates.  However, that's because McLaughlin crashed in practice and didn't even get the chance to make a "Fast Six" qualifying attempt.  For a little bit, Row 4 was set to be all three Penske cars.  Now McLaughlin is there alone.  How much of an impact will that have?  And how good is the backup car that he'll be racing in?

Ultimately, it may not matter.  Because I think it'll be tough for anybody to crack those top six from qualifying.  They all just looked that much better than everybody else.  It obviously takes more than just being the best to kiss the bricks and drink the milk.  There's definitely some luck involved, too.  Alex Palou has the skill, has the speed and will get the luck.  He's my pick to win the 109th running of the Indianapolis 500.

A New-Look Roland Garros

This year's French Open will be different.  Rafael Nadal is retired.  That alone is big news.  There's actually some suspense about who'll win the men's title.  We don't have to just assume he'll steamroll everybody once again.  Although, that "King of Clay" title may have simply been passed on to defending champion Carlos Alcaraz, who figures to have a few more Coupes de Mousquetaires in his future.  It's not a guarantee, though.  That's the point here.

American fans will also watch the French Open somewhere new for the first time in forever.  NBC and Tennis Channel are out.  TNT is in.  Turner signed a 10-year deal with Roland Garros to be the exclusive partner, and their coverage will be similar to what ESPN does at the other three Grand Slams.  It's a big commitment, but I'm excited for it.  They've already announced several innovations they plan to use on the broadcasts that the French Tennis Federation has signed off on, so they won't be your typical tennis broadcasts.

TNT is also branding its broadcasts "Roland Garros," not "French Open," which really confused Charles Barkley!  I wonder if someone ever explained to Chuck that "Roland Garros" is actually the official name of the tournament.  He'd better get used to it, too.  Because it sure seems like TNT will continue to use the "Roland Garros" branding through the duration of the contract.  The French Open also stands to become one of their premier sports properties (along with March Madness and the NHL) once the Knicks-Pacers series ends and they no longer have the NBA.

Anyway, what will we see at Roland Garros on TNT?  It's actually fun to see a men's draw that's wide open after so many years of Nadal dominance.  Alcaraz is the defending champ, but he lost the Olympic gold medal match to Djokovic.  Iga Swiatek also won the French Open before losing a few weeks later at the Olympics last year.  She ended up taking bronze at the Paris Games, with Zheng Qinwen winning gold.  So, that's four champions at Roland Garros in 2024.

Alcaraz has to be considered the favorite on the men's side.  Not only is he the defending champion, he's the best clay-court player, and he won the two big warmup tournaments (Monte Carlo & Rome).  Plus, the three other big contenders for the title--Jannik Sinner, Alexander Zverev & Novak Djokovic--are all on the top half of the draw.  That's not to say Alcaraz will have an easy path to the final.  He'll still have to potentially deal with Casper Ruud and either Lorenzo Musetti or Holger Rune.  He just won't have to deal with any of the other three until the final.

Each of the last five Grand Slam tournaments has been won by either Alcaraz or Sinner (the new Federer & Nadal?).  Sinner's won the three hardcourt Slams, while Alcaraz took the two in Europe.  Sinner hasn't been without controversy, though.  He won the Australian Open, then sat out a three-month doping suspension.  He's only played one tournament since the suspension ended, making the final at the Italian Open, where he lost to Alcaraz.  Is that enough?  (He was obviously practicing during his suspension, but that's not the same as playing live matches.)

Then there's Alexander Zverev.  This guy has to win a Slam eventually, right?  He had a 2-1 lead in the final here last year, only to see Alcaraz come back to win in five.  Then he got rolled by Sinner in the Australian Open final.  He's got it in him, and this may be his best shot.  But can he beat Djokovic, Sinner and Alcaraz in a row?

Don't worry.  I didn't forget about Djokovic.  His Olympic gold medal is his only tour-level title since the start of 2024, and his 2025 hasn't been great.  At the Australian Open, he only made it through one set of his semifinal against Zverev before retiring.  He's still Novak Djokovic, so he's obviously still plenty capable.  I'm not sure he should be considered a "favorite" to the same degree as Alcaraz, Sinner and Zverev, though.

The same thing could be said about Iga Swiatek's 2025 season.  She hasn't won a title, got smacked by Coco Gauff in the Madrid final, and has dropped to No. 5 in the rankings.  Still, she's the three-time defending champion and has lost a grand total of one match here in the last five years.  So, Swiatek always has to be considered a threat to win.  Although, she'll have to get by her Achilles heel--Jelena Ostapenko to make it four straight.

Both Olympic finalists are also in the top half of the women's draw.  Part of what made Zheng's gold medal so interesting is that she's never been past the fourth round at the French Open, and that was in her 2022 debut.  Can she carry that Olympic success into a strong French Open performance?  Olympic silver medalist Donna Vekic, meanwhile, has also only made the fourth round once in her French Open--in 2019.  Her game suits clay courts, though, so I wouldn't be surprised to see Vekic make a run.

Aryna Sabalenka has established herself as the firm No. 1 player in the world mainly due to her prowess on hardcourts.  Sabalenka doesn't have that same comfort on clay, but she was a semifinalist here in 2023 and made the quarters last year.  I think it's a stretch to see her winning seven matches on clay.  If the draw works in her favor, though, I wouldn't be shocked to see her at least getting back to the quarters.

We've also got to talk about the American women.  There are three Americans in the Top 10, and they're all on the bottom half of the draw.  We've even got a great potential quarterfinal matchup between Australian Open champion Madison Keys and World No. 2 Coco Gauff, who many consider either the favorite or the second choice behind Swiatek.  Gauff has been to at least the quarters in each of the last four years, including a trip to the final in 2022.  And she won the doubles title here last year.

Rounding out the American trio is No. 3 seed Jessica Pegula.  Historically, the French Open has been her worst Slam--only one trip to the quarterfinals in five previous appearances.  So, out of the three, she's the one I'd consider a longshot.  Especially since Pegula could end up facing Paula Badosa in the quarterfinals, and Badosa is my sleeper pick.  She was a semifinalist in Australia and clay is her favorite surface.  I expect Badosa to go deep in the tournament.  Does that mean I think she'll win?  She certainly could!

In fact, I actually think Badosa will make it to the final.  She'll beat Keys, who knocks off Gauff in an outstanding quarterfinal.  On the top half of the draw, it really all depends on if Swiatek can finally beat Ostapenko for the first time in her career.  If she can, I have her not only getting to the final, but winning it for the fourth straight year.  If not, that opens up the entire top half for a Zheng, Sabalenka, Vekic or Jasmine Paolini to sneak in.

As for the men, the top half will be quite a battle between Sinner, Zverev and Djokovic.  Even though he's No. 1, Sinner feels like he has something to prove.  So does Zverev.  He wants to drop that "best player to never win a Slam" tag very badly.  I think he's got a chance to do it here.  Meanwhile, with Alcaraz's draw, I'll be shocked if he isn't in the final.

I said at the top that I think this year's tournament will be wide open.  On both the men's and women's side.  I still feel that way.  Although, wide open tournament or not, the favorites are still the favorites, and they're the favorites for a reason.  Carlos Alcaraz and Iga Swiatek are the defending champions.  It's their title until somebody takes it from them.  I'm not sure anybody will.