Even though it's still not official yet, that Blue Jays-Marlins trade is just as shocking two days later as it was when it was announced. And it got me thinking. This is worse than 15 years ago, when the Marlins sold off their World Championship team piece by piece. At least everyone knew that was going to happen. And the Marlins built the nucleus of their second World Championship team six years later with a lot of the pieces they got in those trades. This time, that's not the case. It's just Jeffrey Loria being cheap.
I've long subscribed to the belief that the Florida/Miami Marlins are one of the worst-run organizations in all of sports, and that Jeffrey Loria is by far the worst owner in sports. He doesn't care about winning. That's what this trade proves. And the worst part is he'll continue to make money for running a Quadruple-A organization thanks to the boatload he'll pocket through revenue sharing. It really is a crime that Major League Baseball continues to let this guy "run" his team this way.
I'll give Jeffrey Loria this...he's a good con artist. First, he got the city to build him a stadium completely with public funds. Then, as a thank you, he changes the team name from "Florida" to "Miami" and vows to build a winner. He brings in a charismatic manager in Ozzie Guillen and suddenly remembers Miami's not a small market, signing free agents Jose Reyes, Mark Buehrle and Heath Bell to join a decent team that already has Hanley Ramirez, Josh Johnson, Logan Morrison and the incredible Giancarlo Stanton. Suddenly, the future looked bright in Miami.
Well, we were all fooled. The honeymoon didn't even last a full season. Sure, fans showed up in the beginning, but then the Marlins started losing. Ramirez, who didn't want to move to third base in the first place, was the first domino to fall, getting traded to the Dodgers, and Guillen was fired at the end of the season. But instead of just writing this off as a bad year with a still very talented team, Loria simply gave up. Of those players I mentioned earlier, a grand total of two (Stanton and Morrison) will be on the Marlins' 2013 Opening Day roster. (That's as of now. Who knows if he's done gutting the team yet?) This "the Marlins are going to make an effort to be good" thing barely lasted a season. He played us all for fools. And we were all suckers.
Part of what makes this so sad is that everybody wanted to believe Jeff Loria was actually going to try. They play in Miami. That can be a phenomenal baseball town. They deserve a winner. They thought they were going to get one. That's why they gave him a stadium that they'll still be paying for 20 years from now. They'll still be paying for a stadium that's going to sit half-empty year after year. But in Marlins' fans defense, I wouldn't blame them for not coming. You held up your end of the deal. Loria's not holding up his, so why go see the team play and put money in his pocket?
The 2012 season was supposed to be the start of a new era for the Marlins. They had to get out of that football stadium. Everybody knew that. Finally moving into their own baseball-only park was supposed to be the first step in being a consistent winner. Well, it turns out the start of the new era was delayed until 2013. This trade was the dawning of the age when the Miami Marlins offically made the move from Major League franchise to total joke. As long as Jeff Loria's around, they'll continue to be a punchline.
Sadly, this doesn't come as a total surprise. The Marlins have only ever tried to be good twice in their 20-year history. And they won the World Series as a wild card team each time. While they've occasionally seen marginal success in years other than 1997 and 2003, the Marlins have basically been an afterthought otherwise. Until last winter, when they actually started to act like a Major League franchise and were arguably the most aggressive team in free agency.
As it turns out, all last season turned out to be was the Marlins' first attempt to be good that didn't work out. And we know what happens the year after the Marlins try to be good. It happened in 1998. It happened in 2004. It'll happen again in 2013.
Baseball fans of Miami, I feel for you. You're not in danger of losing the Marlins anymore. The huge tax bill for Marlins Park guarantees that. But you deserve to have an actual Major League team playing in that park. Not the team Jeff Loria's going to put out there next season. Giancarlo Stanton (who only managed to remain on the Marlins because he doesn't make that much money yet) deserves better. The fans of Miami deserve better. Major League Baseball deserves better.
If you aren't good because you just aren't good, that's one thing. But the Marlins owe it to everyone to at least try. And right now, that's not what they're doing. It's wrong to call the Marlins a joke. Because it isn't funny. They're an embarrassment. A complete and total embarrassment.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Where Are the Free Agents Going?
Well, the hot stove has certainly started burning, hasn't it? The Blue Jays and Marlins. Wow! It's like 1998 all over again. Anybody on the Marlins who makes any money is now on the Blue Jays. And the Blue Jays suddenly made themselves very relevant in the AL East again. Josh Johnson AND Mark Buehrle?! And Jose Reyes?!
I think that with this trade, Toronto's now officially out of the sweepstakes for any significant free agent, of which there are many. So, where are those guys going to go? Here are some of the biggest names hitting the open market this offseason, and the teams that I think would be the best fit/the most likely place they'll sign:
Josh Hamilton-Hamilton's obviously the biggest prize out there. He's told the Rangers they won't get a hometown discount, although Texas does figure to be in the mix to retain his services. Outside of the Rangers, there aren't many teams that'll be able to afford Hamilton. Regardless, they're preparing for life without Hamilton, but that might simply be a Plan B so that they don't wind up in the same situation as the Cardinals last year after Albert left. I can also see teams wanting him to move to left field. Like the Red Sox, but I doubt they'll shell out the money for him. I can see the White Sox being a player. Same thing with the Brewers. Both of those teams would probably keep him in center. And if Michael Bourn leaves Atlanta, I can see the Braves getting involved in the Hamilton sweepstakes. Ultimately, though I think he stays in Texas.
Michael Bourn-Speaking of Michael Bourn, the Braves would be fools if they didn't try to re-sign him. He's the perfect guy for that team, and exactly what the Braves need. But you know where else he'd be a perfect fit? Washington. The Nationals don't want Bryce Harper in center. They don't want Jayson Werth leading off, either. Michael Bourn would solve both those problems. If Angel Pagan leaves San Francisco, Bourn could be a really good fit for the Giants, too. Or for the Phillies. Same thing about the Rangers if Hamilton leaves. Or Milwaukee. In other words, there are a lot of teams that would love to have Michael Bourn. But only one can. I'm saying it'll be the Nationals.
B.J. Upton-This much we know...B.J. Upton won't be a Ray in 2013. Ultimately where he goes could be determined by where Hamilton and Bourn end up. While I don't think it's likely, I don't think Milwaukee's out of the question. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Mets make a run at him, but again, I don't see that happening. I do think he lands in the NL East, though. The Phillies have a lot of money to spend and outfield holes to fill after getting rid of Shane Victorino and Hunter Pence. And B.J. Upton would be the perfect Victorino replacement. He might be too similar to Jimmy Rollins, though. He'd also be the perfect replacement for Michael Bourn should Bourn leave Atlanta. It'll be one of the two. Let's go with the Phillies.
Nick Swisher/Ichiro-These two are a package deal because the Yankees will keep one, but not the other. They both have their pros and they both have their cons. Swisher's younger, a switch hitter and can also play first base. But he might've worn out his welcome and certainly sounded like a guy with one foot out the door during the ALCS. Ichiro, on the other hand, was the Ichiro of old after he got traded to the Yankees. Other than Brett Gardner, they don't have anybody in the lineup like him, and it showed. If they're smart, they realize that's something that won't be easily replicated. But Ichiro's 38 years old. Do you want another expensive veteran? I'm playing a gut here, but I say Ichiro's the one that stays with the Yankees, while Swisher signs with the Phillies.
Shane Victorino-He's not going back to the Dodgers to be the fourth outfielder behind Matt Kemp, Andre Etiher and Carl Crawford. That's for sure. So where's Victorino going? I don't think a return to the Phillies is completely out of the question, but I do see it as highly unlikely. Would he move north and play center field for the World Champion Giants? That depends on Angel Pagan, but I can definitely see it. Same thing about Atlanta, although I think that'd be a long shot. The Rangers if Hamilton leaves? That's intriguing to think about, isn't it? I can see a smaller-market American League team getting involved for Victorino, too. Somebody like a Cleveland or a Tampa Bay. And let's not forget, Houston's in the American League now, too. Do the Astros make a run and make Victorino their franchise player as they usher in a new era? Probably not, but it's something to think about. It's also not that far-fetched to see Victorino staying in Southern California next season. Wearing red and playing right field. This is a tough one, but I can see Victorino playing in Anaheim.
Mike Napoli-I'm not sure why I'm including Napoli on this list. He pretty much already signed with the Red Sox. Boston seems to be making him a priority, and it looks like they're going to put him at first base. Not a horrible call, but you still need to let him catch once or twice a week. Although, they probably won't have the option to DH him, since David Ortiz purchases a glove for interleague road games and interleague road games only. But make no mistake, Napoli's going to Boston.
Adam LaRoche-If the Nationals sign Bourn or Upton, which I think is likely, that means Harper moves to left and Michael Morse moves to first. That makes Adam LaRoche the odd man out. He likely wouldn't be out of a job for long, though. If the Napoli thing doesn't pan out (which it will), LaRoche could be a target of the Red Sox. Milwaukee's always an option, too. And it doesn't look like Tampa Bay's going to bring back Carlos Pena, so LaRoche on the Rays isn't a stretch. Especially since he'd be pretty cheap. In fact, I can't just see that. I think it's going to happen. LaRoche to Tampa Bay.
Zack Greinke-Greinke is by far the best starting pitcher on the market. Which means virtually any team you can think of is going to be after him. The Dodgers are going to want him. The Rangers are going to want him. The Red Sox and Yankees are probably both going to want him. There are probably a bunch of other teams I can't think of right now taht are going to want him. But most of all, the Angles want to retain him. Especially now that Ervin Santana's gone, I see the Angels making a big push and throwing a lot of money at keeping that rotation in tact. I think they give him enough incentive to stay. Greinke's back with the Angels.
Rafael Soriano-Mariano Rivera's coming back next season. This news surprised exactly no one. As a result, Rafael Soriano exercised his opt-out. This also surprised a grand total of no one. Soriano's the best closer on the market, and he'll have plenty of suitors. I'm sure there are those teams that believe the closer position is overrated and will stay away from Soriano and the salary he'll command, but there are a few that will be willing to pay for his services. The two most likely options: Detroit, which has officially given up on Jose Valverde, and the Dodgers, who are going to be serious players next season. Since I can't picture him in the National League for some reason, I'll say it'll be the Tigers.
That's just a small sample of the many big names that are likely to switch teams via free agency this offseason. I didn't even mention Torii Hunter and Angel Pagan, two other intriguing options for a number of teams. As is usually the case in free agency, as one domino falls, so go the others. And let's not forget this...Prince Fielder didn't sign with the Tigers until January. And that's the move that turned Detroit into a World Series team.
I think that with this trade, Toronto's now officially out of the sweepstakes for any significant free agent, of which there are many. So, where are those guys going to go? Here are some of the biggest names hitting the open market this offseason, and the teams that I think would be the best fit/the most likely place they'll sign:
Josh Hamilton-Hamilton's obviously the biggest prize out there. He's told the Rangers they won't get a hometown discount, although Texas does figure to be in the mix to retain his services. Outside of the Rangers, there aren't many teams that'll be able to afford Hamilton. Regardless, they're preparing for life without Hamilton, but that might simply be a Plan B so that they don't wind up in the same situation as the Cardinals last year after Albert left. I can also see teams wanting him to move to left field. Like the Red Sox, but I doubt they'll shell out the money for him. I can see the White Sox being a player. Same thing with the Brewers. Both of those teams would probably keep him in center. And if Michael Bourn leaves Atlanta, I can see the Braves getting involved in the Hamilton sweepstakes. Ultimately, though I think he stays in Texas.
Michael Bourn-Speaking of Michael Bourn, the Braves would be fools if they didn't try to re-sign him. He's the perfect guy for that team, and exactly what the Braves need. But you know where else he'd be a perfect fit? Washington. The Nationals don't want Bryce Harper in center. They don't want Jayson Werth leading off, either. Michael Bourn would solve both those problems. If Angel Pagan leaves San Francisco, Bourn could be a really good fit for the Giants, too. Or for the Phillies. Same thing about the Rangers if Hamilton leaves. Or Milwaukee. In other words, there are a lot of teams that would love to have Michael Bourn. But only one can. I'm saying it'll be the Nationals.
B.J. Upton-This much we know...B.J. Upton won't be a Ray in 2013. Ultimately where he goes could be determined by where Hamilton and Bourn end up. While I don't think it's likely, I don't think Milwaukee's out of the question. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Mets make a run at him, but again, I don't see that happening. I do think he lands in the NL East, though. The Phillies have a lot of money to spend and outfield holes to fill after getting rid of Shane Victorino and Hunter Pence. And B.J. Upton would be the perfect Victorino replacement. He might be too similar to Jimmy Rollins, though. He'd also be the perfect replacement for Michael Bourn should Bourn leave Atlanta. It'll be one of the two. Let's go with the Phillies.
Nick Swisher/Ichiro-These two are a package deal because the Yankees will keep one, but not the other. They both have their pros and they both have their cons. Swisher's younger, a switch hitter and can also play first base. But he might've worn out his welcome and certainly sounded like a guy with one foot out the door during the ALCS. Ichiro, on the other hand, was the Ichiro of old after he got traded to the Yankees. Other than Brett Gardner, they don't have anybody in the lineup like him, and it showed. If they're smart, they realize that's something that won't be easily replicated. But Ichiro's 38 years old. Do you want another expensive veteran? I'm playing a gut here, but I say Ichiro's the one that stays with the Yankees, while Swisher signs with the Phillies.
Shane Victorino-He's not going back to the Dodgers to be the fourth outfielder behind Matt Kemp, Andre Etiher and Carl Crawford. That's for sure. So where's Victorino going? I don't think a return to the Phillies is completely out of the question, but I do see it as highly unlikely. Would he move north and play center field for the World Champion Giants? That depends on Angel Pagan, but I can definitely see it. Same thing about Atlanta, although I think that'd be a long shot. The Rangers if Hamilton leaves? That's intriguing to think about, isn't it? I can see a smaller-market American League team getting involved for Victorino, too. Somebody like a Cleveland or a Tampa Bay. And let's not forget, Houston's in the American League now, too. Do the Astros make a run and make Victorino their franchise player as they usher in a new era? Probably not, but it's something to think about. It's also not that far-fetched to see Victorino staying in Southern California next season. Wearing red and playing right field. This is a tough one, but I can see Victorino playing in Anaheim.
Mike Napoli-I'm not sure why I'm including Napoli on this list. He pretty much already signed with the Red Sox. Boston seems to be making him a priority, and it looks like they're going to put him at first base. Not a horrible call, but you still need to let him catch once or twice a week. Although, they probably won't have the option to DH him, since David Ortiz purchases a glove for interleague road games and interleague road games only. But make no mistake, Napoli's going to Boston.
Adam LaRoche-If the Nationals sign Bourn or Upton, which I think is likely, that means Harper moves to left and Michael Morse moves to first. That makes Adam LaRoche the odd man out. He likely wouldn't be out of a job for long, though. If the Napoli thing doesn't pan out (which it will), LaRoche could be a target of the Red Sox. Milwaukee's always an option, too. And it doesn't look like Tampa Bay's going to bring back Carlos Pena, so LaRoche on the Rays isn't a stretch. Especially since he'd be pretty cheap. In fact, I can't just see that. I think it's going to happen. LaRoche to Tampa Bay.
Zack Greinke-Greinke is by far the best starting pitcher on the market. Which means virtually any team you can think of is going to be after him. The Dodgers are going to want him. The Rangers are going to want him. The Red Sox and Yankees are probably both going to want him. There are probably a bunch of other teams I can't think of right now taht are going to want him. But most of all, the Angles want to retain him. Especially now that Ervin Santana's gone, I see the Angels making a big push and throwing a lot of money at keeping that rotation in tact. I think they give him enough incentive to stay. Greinke's back with the Angels.
Rafael Soriano-Mariano Rivera's coming back next season. This news surprised exactly no one. As a result, Rafael Soriano exercised his opt-out. This also surprised a grand total of no one. Soriano's the best closer on the market, and he'll have plenty of suitors. I'm sure there are those teams that believe the closer position is overrated and will stay away from Soriano and the salary he'll command, but there are a few that will be willing to pay for his services. The two most likely options: Detroit, which has officially given up on Jose Valverde, and the Dodgers, who are going to be serious players next season. Since I can't picture him in the National League for some reason, I'll say it'll be the Tigers.
That's just a small sample of the many big names that are likely to switch teams via free agency this offseason. I didn't even mention Torii Hunter and Angel Pagan, two other intriguing options for a number of teams. As is usually the case in free agency, as one domino falls, so go the others. And let's not forget this...Prince Fielder didn't sign with the Tigers until January. And that's the move that turned Detroit into a World Series team.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Who to Watch In College Hoops
College basketball season started this weekend. Most of the top teams have already played their first games, which probably makes this post seem late for some of you, but I don't think that's the case at all. With a few exceptions, the first game for most top teams is essentially a glorified exhibition game. The season doesn't really get going until the Thanksgiving tournaments, and conference play in most leagues doesn't begin until January.
This is also a very interesting season in college basketball. The face of the sport as we knew it will be forever changed next year, as the football-driven constant conference realignment continues to rear its ugly head. In fact, it's already started. Missouri, one of the best teams in the Big 12, is now a member of the SEC. And don't even get me started on the whole Big East-to-ACC exodus. This season's Big East Tournament will undoubtedly mark the end of an era. Thinking of a Big East without Syracuse is like trying to think of a Big Ten without Michigan or a Pac-12 without UCLA.
But we at least have one final season of college basketball as we knew it. And, as usual, I don't see the big boys playing nicely with the teams from the smaller conferences. (It's only going to get worse as the major conferences add more and more schools.) Most, if not all of the at-large NCAA Tournament bids will come from one of these nine leagues, with a couple being reserved for the likes of the CAA, Missouri Valley and West Coast Conference:
ACC: Again, don't get me started on the whole Syracuse-Pitt-Notre Dame thing. It's going to be just as weird to see a "conference" game between North Carolina and Pitt. But that's next year. As for this year, as crazy as it sounds, I think the best team in the ACC plays on Tobacco Road, but doesn't wear a shade of blue. NC State's run in the NCAA Tournament last year was just a sign of things to come. The Wolfpack are legit. Duke and North Carolina are still in the discussion, too, obviously, but right now I view them both as fringe Top 10 teams. If Duke still had Austin Rivers and Kyrie Irving it would be a different story, but I think they'll be looking up at NC State. Florida State's still good despite losing most of its core guys from last year, and I really think Miami can make some noise after last year's run in the NIT. Maryland's better, too. If the ACC gets six tournament teams, which I think it will, the Terps will be one of them.
Atlantic 10: This is a strange transitional year in the A-10. Temple's on the way out, claiming its well-deserved place in the Big East next season. Charlotte's also on its way out to rejoin Conference USA. Butler and VCU, the mid-major Final Four darlings of the last couple years, are in, shedding their mid-major label. As a result, we've got a crazy mix-and-match collection of 16 teams in the A-10. Temple's always been the class of this conference, and I don't really expect that to change. They'll claim one last Tournament bid before everyone else says "Bye." I doubt there are many Atlantic 10 men's basketball teams that will be sad to see Temple go. Newcomer VCU also has a shot to contend for the conference title, and Saint Louis has a very good team with a very good coach in Rick Majerus. Keep your eye on the Billikens. They'll be in the Top 25 before long. Xavier's always a contender, too, and Butler's chances at getting an NCAA at-large bid are obviously much better in the better conference.
Big East: West Virginia's gone and UConn's ineligible, which means the Big East is down to 14 teams headed to the Garden in March. And the best of that lot is pretty clear. It's Louisville, a program quickly becoming one of the cornerstone teams of the Big East. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Cardinals in the Final Four for the second straight year. Syracuse should also hover around the Top 10 for most of the year. Notre Dame has all five starters back and would probably like to play on Saturday night in New York (the Big East Championship Game) one time before peacing out in 2014. Georgetown and Cincinnati should easily get back to the Tournament, too, and Marquette probably will as well. The seventh NCAA Tournament team from the Big East is a toss-up. Pitt should rebound after a down year in 2011-12. So should Villanova. And Seton Hall somehow didn't get into the Tournament last year, so you know they'd like to take care of business and not have to worry about the bubble this season.
Big Ten: Indiana's back! The Hoosiers are the preseason No. 1 and loaded for a deep Tournament run behind Cody Zeller. This should be a good year for the Big Ten in men's basketball. Ohio State's coming off a Final Four appearance, Michigan State's still Michigan State, and a lot of experts think Michigan's a potential Final Four team. Throw in the always-tough Wisconsin and a Minnesota team that made the finals of the NIT last season, and you've got six teams that could potentially all get a 5-seed or higher in the NCAA Tournament. Purdue's always in the discussion, too, and Northwestern is finally going to get that first NCAA bid sooner or later. The Wildcats are good enough to have that be this year. It'll be a long year for Illinois, Iowa, Penn State and Nebraska.
Big 12: The only team that was actually going to challenge Kansas for the Big 12 title plays in the SEC now. And Missouri's departure is going to make this a down year in the Big 12. Kansas State, Baylor and probably Texas will join the Jayhawks in the Tournament, and West Virgina's going to be a tough matchup every night. But they're no Missouri. And TCU's no Texas A&M. If the Big 12 does get a fifth Tournament team, it'll probably be either Oklahoma State or Iowa State. But I only see them getting four.
Conference USA: I know it's a borderline "major" conference, but they always seem to get at least one at-large bid, and half of this league's teams are joining the Big East next year, so I always count it. The class of Conference USA, as has been the case for the last several years, is Memphis. I guarantee everybody that's not going to the Big East with them won't miss Memphis in Conference USA. The talent-gap between them and the rest of the league is pretty wide. There might be only one Conference USA at-large bid up for grabs, which will probably come down to Tulsa and UTEP. I'm curious to see what kind of a team Larry Brown is going to have at SMU, though. Will they actually be able to contend when they get to the Big East?
Mountain West: Another conference in transition, they've already lost BYU and Utah, and San Diego State's leaving after this year. The Aztecs will be right up there fighting for one last Mountain West championship, though. I think it'll probably come down to San Diego State and UNLV for the conference title. UNLV will likely be ranked all year, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them make a deep NCAA Tournament run. New Mexico's also very good and will give the Mountain West at least three NCAA teams. I can see there being as many as five, though. I'd be surprised if Colorado State didn't get in, and Nevada will certainly benefit from playing a much tougher schedule than they did in the WAC.
Pac-12: The down years in the Pac-12 may be behind them. UCLA's back in top form after not even getting into the NIT last year. The Bruins might be in trouble with the NCAA, though, which puts even more urgency on this season. Arizona didn't get into the Tournament either last year, but I expect that to change. They're too good. Stanford should be buoyed by its NIT title, and Washington won the regular season last year. Oregon has to be getting sick of its annual trip to the NIT. Same thing with Oregon State, which plays in the CBI every year through some sort of presidential decree. And let's not forget about Colorado, last year's surprise Pac-12 tourney champs in their inaugural year in the league. I don't see them repeating that, but something weird always seems to happen in the Pac-12 Tournament.
SEC: As if the SEC wasn't tough enough, Missouri and Texas A&M join this year to make the league even better. How many NCAA bids will the SEC get? It could be a lot. Kentucky's definitely going to get one. John Calipari's one-and-done formula seems to work. He won a national title with a bunch of freshmen last year, all of those guys are now in the NBA, and all he did was reload with another preseason Top 5 team. Unlike last year, Kentucky's actually in for a battle in the SEC this season. Florida was one win away from the Final Four last season, and the Gators have all the tools to challenge Kentucky for the top spot. I'd expect Missouri to make plenty of noise during its maiden voyage in the SEC, too. Will they get beaten up in the tougher league though? Vanderbilt's got a nice little mini-dynasty going, and I'd be very surprised if Cuonzo Martin doesn't get Tennessee back to the NCAA Tournament. Of the teams in the SEC West, Alabama is clearly the best. They'll have their annual bubble watch, but I do see them getting in. Then there are the two maroon and white schools--Mississippi State and Texas A&M. I'm not sure if Mississippi State is deep enough. It might come down to their non-conference record. And with Texas A&M, we'll find out how good they actually are. Because middle of the pack in the Big 12 and middle of the pack in the SEC are nowhere close to the same thing.
In the mid-majors, expect the West Coast Conference's Big Three (Gonzaga, Saint Mary's, BYU) to all get in. The CAA was weakend by the loss of VCU. They might only get one bid, which might come down to Drexel and George Mason. Doug McDermott's an All-American candidate, and his Creighton team is the best in the MVC by a mile. Even if they don't win the conference tournament, I think they get in the Tournament no matter what. Illinois State, Wichita State and Northern Iowa could be in the mix for at-large bids out of the Missouri Valley.
This is also a very interesting season in college basketball. The face of the sport as we knew it will be forever changed next year, as the football-driven constant conference realignment continues to rear its ugly head. In fact, it's already started. Missouri, one of the best teams in the Big 12, is now a member of the SEC. And don't even get me started on the whole Big East-to-ACC exodus. This season's Big East Tournament will undoubtedly mark the end of an era. Thinking of a Big East without Syracuse is like trying to think of a Big Ten without Michigan or a Pac-12 without UCLA.
But we at least have one final season of college basketball as we knew it. And, as usual, I don't see the big boys playing nicely with the teams from the smaller conferences. (It's only going to get worse as the major conferences add more and more schools.) Most, if not all of the at-large NCAA Tournament bids will come from one of these nine leagues, with a couple being reserved for the likes of the CAA, Missouri Valley and West Coast Conference:
ACC: Again, don't get me started on the whole Syracuse-Pitt-Notre Dame thing. It's going to be just as weird to see a "conference" game between North Carolina and Pitt. But that's next year. As for this year, as crazy as it sounds, I think the best team in the ACC plays on Tobacco Road, but doesn't wear a shade of blue. NC State's run in the NCAA Tournament last year was just a sign of things to come. The Wolfpack are legit. Duke and North Carolina are still in the discussion, too, obviously, but right now I view them both as fringe Top 10 teams. If Duke still had Austin Rivers and Kyrie Irving it would be a different story, but I think they'll be looking up at NC State. Florida State's still good despite losing most of its core guys from last year, and I really think Miami can make some noise after last year's run in the NIT. Maryland's better, too. If the ACC gets six tournament teams, which I think it will, the Terps will be one of them.
Atlantic 10: This is a strange transitional year in the A-10. Temple's on the way out, claiming its well-deserved place in the Big East next season. Charlotte's also on its way out to rejoin Conference USA. Butler and VCU, the mid-major Final Four darlings of the last couple years, are in, shedding their mid-major label. As a result, we've got a crazy mix-and-match collection of 16 teams in the A-10. Temple's always been the class of this conference, and I don't really expect that to change. They'll claim one last Tournament bid before everyone else says "Bye." I doubt there are many Atlantic 10 men's basketball teams that will be sad to see Temple go. Newcomer VCU also has a shot to contend for the conference title, and Saint Louis has a very good team with a very good coach in Rick Majerus. Keep your eye on the Billikens. They'll be in the Top 25 before long. Xavier's always a contender, too, and Butler's chances at getting an NCAA at-large bid are obviously much better in the better conference.
Big East: West Virginia's gone and UConn's ineligible, which means the Big East is down to 14 teams headed to the Garden in March. And the best of that lot is pretty clear. It's Louisville, a program quickly becoming one of the cornerstone teams of the Big East. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Cardinals in the Final Four for the second straight year. Syracuse should also hover around the Top 10 for most of the year. Notre Dame has all five starters back and would probably like to play on Saturday night in New York (the Big East Championship Game) one time before peacing out in 2014. Georgetown and Cincinnati should easily get back to the Tournament, too, and Marquette probably will as well. The seventh NCAA Tournament team from the Big East is a toss-up. Pitt should rebound after a down year in 2011-12. So should Villanova. And Seton Hall somehow didn't get into the Tournament last year, so you know they'd like to take care of business and not have to worry about the bubble this season.
Big Ten: Indiana's back! The Hoosiers are the preseason No. 1 and loaded for a deep Tournament run behind Cody Zeller. This should be a good year for the Big Ten in men's basketball. Ohio State's coming off a Final Four appearance, Michigan State's still Michigan State, and a lot of experts think Michigan's a potential Final Four team. Throw in the always-tough Wisconsin and a Minnesota team that made the finals of the NIT last season, and you've got six teams that could potentially all get a 5-seed or higher in the NCAA Tournament. Purdue's always in the discussion, too, and Northwestern is finally going to get that first NCAA bid sooner or later. The Wildcats are good enough to have that be this year. It'll be a long year for Illinois, Iowa, Penn State and Nebraska.
Big 12: The only team that was actually going to challenge Kansas for the Big 12 title plays in the SEC now. And Missouri's departure is going to make this a down year in the Big 12. Kansas State, Baylor and probably Texas will join the Jayhawks in the Tournament, and West Virgina's going to be a tough matchup every night. But they're no Missouri. And TCU's no Texas A&M. If the Big 12 does get a fifth Tournament team, it'll probably be either Oklahoma State or Iowa State. But I only see them getting four.
Conference USA: I know it's a borderline "major" conference, but they always seem to get at least one at-large bid, and half of this league's teams are joining the Big East next year, so I always count it. The class of Conference USA, as has been the case for the last several years, is Memphis. I guarantee everybody that's not going to the Big East with them won't miss Memphis in Conference USA. The talent-gap between them and the rest of the league is pretty wide. There might be only one Conference USA at-large bid up for grabs, which will probably come down to Tulsa and UTEP. I'm curious to see what kind of a team Larry Brown is going to have at SMU, though. Will they actually be able to contend when they get to the Big East?
Mountain West: Another conference in transition, they've already lost BYU and Utah, and San Diego State's leaving after this year. The Aztecs will be right up there fighting for one last Mountain West championship, though. I think it'll probably come down to San Diego State and UNLV for the conference title. UNLV will likely be ranked all year, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them make a deep NCAA Tournament run. New Mexico's also very good and will give the Mountain West at least three NCAA teams. I can see there being as many as five, though. I'd be surprised if Colorado State didn't get in, and Nevada will certainly benefit from playing a much tougher schedule than they did in the WAC.
Pac-12: The down years in the Pac-12 may be behind them. UCLA's back in top form after not even getting into the NIT last year. The Bruins might be in trouble with the NCAA, though, which puts even more urgency on this season. Arizona didn't get into the Tournament either last year, but I expect that to change. They're too good. Stanford should be buoyed by its NIT title, and Washington won the regular season last year. Oregon has to be getting sick of its annual trip to the NIT. Same thing with Oregon State, which plays in the CBI every year through some sort of presidential decree. And let's not forget about Colorado, last year's surprise Pac-12 tourney champs in their inaugural year in the league. I don't see them repeating that, but something weird always seems to happen in the Pac-12 Tournament.
SEC: As if the SEC wasn't tough enough, Missouri and Texas A&M join this year to make the league even better. How many NCAA bids will the SEC get? It could be a lot. Kentucky's definitely going to get one. John Calipari's one-and-done formula seems to work. He won a national title with a bunch of freshmen last year, all of those guys are now in the NBA, and all he did was reload with another preseason Top 5 team. Unlike last year, Kentucky's actually in for a battle in the SEC this season. Florida was one win away from the Final Four last season, and the Gators have all the tools to challenge Kentucky for the top spot. I'd expect Missouri to make plenty of noise during its maiden voyage in the SEC, too. Will they get beaten up in the tougher league though? Vanderbilt's got a nice little mini-dynasty going, and I'd be very surprised if Cuonzo Martin doesn't get Tennessee back to the NCAA Tournament. Of the teams in the SEC West, Alabama is clearly the best. They'll have their annual bubble watch, but I do see them getting in. Then there are the two maroon and white schools--Mississippi State and Texas A&M. I'm not sure if Mississippi State is deep enough. It might come down to their non-conference record. And with Texas A&M, we'll find out how good they actually are. Because middle of the pack in the Big 12 and middle of the pack in the SEC are nowhere close to the same thing.
In the mid-majors, expect the West Coast Conference's Big Three (Gonzaga, Saint Mary's, BYU) to all get in. The CAA was weakend by the loss of VCU. They might only get one bid, which might come down to Drexel and George Mason. Doug McDermott's an All-American candidate, and his Creighton team is the best in the MVC by a mile. Even if they don't win the conference tournament, I think they get in the Tournament no matter what. Illinois State, Wichita State and Northern Iowa could be in the mix for at-large bids out of the Missouri Valley.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
NFL Week 10 Picks
Now that we've reached the halfway point, we can start to look at the NFL "if the playoffs started today..." scenarios and there won't be 6,000 ties for the wild card spots. The only reason I'm bringing this up is because if the season ended today, the Colts wouldn't just be a playoff team, they'd be playing the Broncos in a wild card game. It would be Peyton Manning vs. the Colts (and Andrew Luck) in the first round of the playoffs. Who said the NFL gods didn't have a sense of humor?
As for the Colts, they shined in their only primetime game of the year on Thursday night. But they were playing the Jaguars, so I'm not sure how much we can actually take away from that. And thank you NFL Network for that amazing stat about Andrew Luck. Not only has a rookie quarterback never made the playoffs, there's never been one to even go .500. It looks like at least that part is going to change. Like everyone else, I'm obviously 1-0 on the week. Here we go with the rest of them:
Giants (6-3) at Bengals (3-5): Giants-I can't believe I'm actually going to see back-to-back Cincinnati Bengals home games. Never thought I'd say that. They held their own against Peyton and Co., but still lost, and now sit 3-5 on the year. The Giants? What happened last week? Sure, they were playing a good Steelers team, and I know they can't go undefeated, but it was sure weird to see them collapse in the fourth quarter when Eli's thing is leading the fourth-quarter comeback. I think they rebound this week and go into their bye on a high note, while the Bengals are happy they won't be playing any more Mannings this season after this week. (Unless the Chiefs sign Cooper, who can't really be any worse than Matt Cassel.)
Titans (3-6) at Dolphins (4-4): Miami-Miami was sitting on a wild card berth heading into last week before losing that surprising playoff contender vs. surprising playoff contender matchup in Indianapolis. The Titans lost last week, too, getting thumped in Chicago. But that really says more about the Bears than the Titans. As for this week's game, I like the Dolphins in Miami.
Lions (4-4) at Vikings (5-4): Minnesota-The Vikings dropped out of a playoff position last week in Seattle, and Minnesota is really slumping, having lost three out of four. The Lions breathed life back into their playoff chances with a victory in Jacksonville last week, and a win over the Vikings would really go a long way for Detroit. Side note about the Lions: Ndamukong Suh was voted the Dirtiest Player in the NFL for the second straight year the ohter day. The Lions are favored, but I don't know why. It's a toss-up at best, and I'm taking the home team.
Bills (3-5) at Patriots (5-3): New England-Um, yeah, New England clobbered St. Louis in London, then had a bye week to prepare for the Bills, who they handle with regularity. We all remember when these teams played in Buffalo in Week 4. The Bills actually had the lead before the Patriots scored like 28 points in the fourth quarter or something like that to win by a ridiculous 52-28 margin. I think this one will be equally not close.
Falcons (8-0) at Saints (3-5): New Orleans-Yes, you read that correctly. I think this is the week the '72 Dolphins pop the champagne. The Falcons are clearly the best team in football, but I don't see them running the table. I had one of the Saints games tabbed as the one they finally lose, and this week's game is in the Superdome, which is obviously advantage New Orleans. If the Saints don't beat the Falcons this week they: (a) can officially kiss their playoff chances goodbye, and, (b) definitely aren't going to beat them in Atlanta.
Chargers (4-4) at Buccaneers (4-4): Tampa Bay-This is definitely an interesting matchup. The Bucs went cross-country last week and beat the Raiders, while the Chargers got a much-needed win over Kansas City to stay one game behind the Broncos in the AFC West. I think the Chargers are the better team, but they don't play well when traveling across the country. Especially for a 1:00 game. That's why I'm going with the Bucs.
Broncos (5-3) at Panthers (2-6): Denver-After that brutal early schedule, it's smooth sailing for the Broncos from here. Their second-half schedule is so easy that the Peyton Manning-trademarked 12-4 seems likely. I have to give the Panthers their due credit, though. They did get a win last week. It was against Washington, but still. And make no mistake, they aren't going to beat Denver.
Raiders (3-5) at Ravens (6-2): Baltimore-I'm still not sure about this no-Ray Lewis incarnation of the Ravens' defense. They've still got a lot to prove if they're going to be considered a Super Bowl contender right now. They got slaughtered in Baltimore, and got away with one in Cleveland last week. Fortunately, the Browns aren't very good. Neither are the Raiders. And this is the Ravens' first home game with their no-look defense, which I think will provide them with a needed jolt.
Jets (3-5) at Seahawks ("5-4"): Seattle-Surprise, surprise. Rex Ryan ran his mouth. So did Antonio Cromartie. They both said the Jets are going to make the playoffs. They either have a lot of faith or they're delusional (probably a little bit of both), 'cause that ain't gonna happen. The Seahawks making the playoffs, on the other hand, that's not a stretch at all. In fact, they're sitting in a wild card spot right now. Seattle's still "undefeated" at home, too, which gives me even less incentive to go with the Jets this week.
Cowboys (3-5) at Eagles (3-5): Philadelphia-Everybody in the NFC East lost last week, so nothing really changed. The Giants are still running away with the division and these two are still looking at their dwindling playoff hopes disappearing altogether. The loser here will be done. Both teams are such dysfunctional messes that I really can't see either winning. But somebody has to, so let's go with the homestanding Eagles and let Andy Reid keep his job for another week.
Rams (3-5) at 49ers (6-2): San Francisco-St. Louis is definitely a lot better. I can say that with certainty. But they're still a last-place team in a division that suddenly has three very good teams. The best of those is the 49ers, who were last in action in a Monday night game that I was one of the few people I know was actually able to watch during the hurricane two weeks ago. They were very impressive against a Cardinals team that actually would've tied them for the division lead had they won. Anyway, the 49ers are coming off a bye week and playing a home game against a team they should easily beat. They will.
Texans (7-1) at Bears (7-1): Chicago-When NBC made this game a Sunday nighter, I bet even they didn't think it would be the game of the season. But here we go with what could very well be a Super Bowl preview between two of the three best teams in the NFL (they're playing for the 2-spot behind the Falcons in the power rankings; I've currently got them at 2 and 2A). It's the Bears defense against the Texans offense, which is a push, and the surprisingly good Houston defense against Jay Cutler and Co., which is advantage Texans. But seeing as Chicago's defense scores as many points as most offenses, that part of the matchup is technically a wash. I think the Bears offense is good enough, and who knows how cold a night game in Chicago is going to be? The Bears are used to that. The Texans aren't. And you know they're going to get pumped up hosting the Game of the Year on Sunday night. This is going to be a good one that the Bears pull out in the end.
Chiefs (1-7) at Steelers (5-3): Pittsburgh-Dear NFL, why do you think people want to watch the Kansas City Chiefs lose on national TV two weeks in a row? Not much I can say here. The Chiefs still haven't led all season and are by far the worst team in the league. The Steelers are finally getting their act together, and last week's win over the Giants with all that day-of travel and everything else was certainly impressive. They're in playoff position for the first time this season and only a game behind the Ravens in the AFC North. Fortunately, after this week, the only people subjected to watching the Chiefs will be people in Kansas City and fans of whoever they're playing that week.
Last Week: 9-5
This Week: 1-0
Season: 91-42
Bonus Picks: CFL Playoffs
Edmonton Eskimos at Toronto Argonauts: Toronto-The road to the 100th Grey Cup begins where it will end. At SkyDome. The Eskimos are in the Western Conference, but playing in the Eastern Conference semifinal because Canadians are weird and let teams switch conferences in the playoffs if they're better than the teams in the other conference. For the sake of not confusing us Americans any further, I hope Toronto wins.
Saskatchewan Roughriders at Calgary Stampeders: Calgary-Calgary was the third-best team in the CFL this season. Saskatchewan wasn't. They only avoided the trip to Toronto by winning last week, but it's not like going to Calgary is much different. They were going to lose either way.
As for the Colts, they shined in their only primetime game of the year on Thursday night. But they were playing the Jaguars, so I'm not sure how much we can actually take away from that. And thank you NFL Network for that amazing stat about Andrew Luck. Not only has a rookie quarterback never made the playoffs, there's never been one to even go .500. It looks like at least that part is going to change. Like everyone else, I'm obviously 1-0 on the week. Here we go with the rest of them:
Giants (6-3) at Bengals (3-5): Giants-I can't believe I'm actually going to see back-to-back Cincinnati Bengals home games. Never thought I'd say that. They held their own against Peyton and Co., but still lost, and now sit 3-5 on the year. The Giants? What happened last week? Sure, they were playing a good Steelers team, and I know they can't go undefeated, but it was sure weird to see them collapse in the fourth quarter when Eli's thing is leading the fourth-quarter comeback. I think they rebound this week and go into their bye on a high note, while the Bengals are happy they won't be playing any more Mannings this season after this week. (Unless the Chiefs sign Cooper, who can't really be any worse than Matt Cassel.)
Titans (3-6) at Dolphins (4-4): Miami-Miami was sitting on a wild card berth heading into last week before losing that surprising playoff contender vs. surprising playoff contender matchup in Indianapolis. The Titans lost last week, too, getting thumped in Chicago. But that really says more about the Bears than the Titans. As for this week's game, I like the Dolphins in Miami.
Lions (4-4) at Vikings (5-4): Minnesota-The Vikings dropped out of a playoff position last week in Seattle, and Minnesota is really slumping, having lost three out of four. The Lions breathed life back into their playoff chances with a victory in Jacksonville last week, and a win over the Vikings would really go a long way for Detroit. Side note about the Lions: Ndamukong Suh was voted the Dirtiest Player in the NFL for the second straight year the ohter day. The Lions are favored, but I don't know why. It's a toss-up at best, and I'm taking the home team.
Bills (3-5) at Patriots (5-3): New England-Um, yeah, New England clobbered St. Louis in London, then had a bye week to prepare for the Bills, who they handle with regularity. We all remember when these teams played in Buffalo in Week 4. The Bills actually had the lead before the Patriots scored like 28 points in the fourth quarter or something like that to win by a ridiculous 52-28 margin. I think this one will be equally not close.
Falcons (8-0) at Saints (3-5): New Orleans-Yes, you read that correctly. I think this is the week the '72 Dolphins pop the champagne. The Falcons are clearly the best team in football, but I don't see them running the table. I had one of the Saints games tabbed as the one they finally lose, and this week's game is in the Superdome, which is obviously advantage New Orleans. If the Saints don't beat the Falcons this week they: (a) can officially kiss their playoff chances goodbye, and, (b) definitely aren't going to beat them in Atlanta.
Chargers (4-4) at Buccaneers (4-4): Tampa Bay-This is definitely an interesting matchup. The Bucs went cross-country last week and beat the Raiders, while the Chargers got a much-needed win over Kansas City to stay one game behind the Broncos in the AFC West. I think the Chargers are the better team, but they don't play well when traveling across the country. Especially for a 1:00 game. That's why I'm going with the Bucs.
Broncos (5-3) at Panthers (2-6): Denver-After that brutal early schedule, it's smooth sailing for the Broncos from here. Their second-half schedule is so easy that the Peyton Manning-trademarked 12-4 seems likely. I have to give the Panthers their due credit, though. They did get a win last week. It was against Washington, but still. And make no mistake, they aren't going to beat Denver.
Raiders (3-5) at Ravens (6-2): Baltimore-I'm still not sure about this no-Ray Lewis incarnation of the Ravens' defense. They've still got a lot to prove if they're going to be considered a Super Bowl contender right now. They got slaughtered in Baltimore, and got away with one in Cleveland last week. Fortunately, the Browns aren't very good. Neither are the Raiders. And this is the Ravens' first home game with their no-look defense, which I think will provide them with a needed jolt.
Jets (3-5) at Seahawks ("5-4"): Seattle-Surprise, surprise. Rex Ryan ran his mouth. So did Antonio Cromartie. They both said the Jets are going to make the playoffs. They either have a lot of faith or they're delusional (probably a little bit of both), 'cause that ain't gonna happen. The Seahawks making the playoffs, on the other hand, that's not a stretch at all. In fact, they're sitting in a wild card spot right now. Seattle's still "undefeated" at home, too, which gives me even less incentive to go with the Jets this week.
Cowboys (3-5) at Eagles (3-5): Philadelphia-Everybody in the NFC East lost last week, so nothing really changed. The Giants are still running away with the division and these two are still looking at their dwindling playoff hopes disappearing altogether. The loser here will be done. Both teams are such dysfunctional messes that I really can't see either winning. But somebody has to, so let's go with the homestanding Eagles and let Andy Reid keep his job for another week.
Rams (3-5) at 49ers (6-2): San Francisco-St. Louis is definitely a lot better. I can say that with certainty. But they're still a last-place team in a division that suddenly has three very good teams. The best of those is the 49ers, who were last in action in a Monday night game that I was one of the few people I know was actually able to watch during the hurricane two weeks ago. They were very impressive against a Cardinals team that actually would've tied them for the division lead had they won. Anyway, the 49ers are coming off a bye week and playing a home game against a team they should easily beat. They will.
Texans (7-1) at Bears (7-1): Chicago-When NBC made this game a Sunday nighter, I bet even they didn't think it would be the game of the season. But here we go with what could very well be a Super Bowl preview between two of the three best teams in the NFL (they're playing for the 2-spot behind the Falcons in the power rankings; I've currently got them at 2 and 2A). It's the Bears defense against the Texans offense, which is a push, and the surprisingly good Houston defense against Jay Cutler and Co., which is advantage Texans. But seeing as Chicago's defense scores as many points as most offenses, that part of the matchup is technically a wash. I think the Bears offense is good enough, and who knows how cold a night game in Chicago is going to be? The Bears are used to that. The Texans aren't. And you know they're going to get pumped up hosting the Game of the Year on Sunday night. This is going to be a good one that the Bears pull out in the end.
Chiefs (1-7) at Steelers (5-3): Pittsburgh-Dear NFL, why do you think people want to watch the Kansas City Chiefs lose on national TV two weeks in a row? Not much I can say here. The Chiefs still haven't led all season and are by far the worst team in the league. The Steelers are finally getting their act together, and last week's win over the Giants with all that day-of travel and everything else was certainly impressive. They're in playoff position for the first time this season and only a game behind the Ravens in the AFC North. Fortunately, after this week, the only people subjected to watching the Chiefs will be people in Kansas City and fans of whoever they're playing that week.
Last Week: 9-5
This Week: 1-0
Season: 91-42
Bonus Picks: CFL Playoffs
Edmonton Eskimos at Toronto Argonauts: Toronto-The road to the 100th Grey Cup begins where it will end. At SkyDome. The Eskimos are in the Western Conference, but playing in the Eastern Conference semifinal because Canadians are weird and let teams switch conferences in the playoffs if they're better than the teams in the other conference. For the sake of not confusing us Americans any further, I hope Toronto wins.
Saskatchewan Roughriders at Calgary Stampeders: Calgary-Calgary was the third-best team in the CFL this season. Saskatchewan wasn't. They only avoided the trip to Toronto by winning last week, but it's not like going to Calgary is much different. They were going to lose either way.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
The Award Finalists
I watched a special on MLB Network today where the finalists for each of the eight major awards were unveiled. The winners will be announced on MLB Network, too. This is a new wrinkle for MLB, and it's one that I really like. Sure, it takes some luster off my annual series of posts breaking down each award the night before it's announced, but I'll survive. This is a really good step that I think fans will definitely embrace. While it's always fun debating the candidates, knowing that the field has been reduced to only three doesn't really take anything away from the debate. Although, there are some guys I'm surprised didn't make the final cut for certain awards.
AL Rookie: Yoenis Cespedes (A's), Yu Darvish (Rangers), Mike Trout (Angels)
No surprises here. These three were clearly the three best rookies in the American League this season. Trout's going to win. That's pretty obvious. Darvish and Cespedes were the prize international grabs, and they were both as good as advertised. Cespedes was a middle-of-the-lineup hitter for an A's team that won a surprise division title, while Darvish ended up as the de facto ace of the Rangers staff, making the All-Star team and starting the AL Wild Card Game. The only question is which will finish second behind Trout.
My Vote: 1. Trout, 2. Darvish, 3. Cespedes
NL Rookie: Todd Frazier (Reds), Bryce Harper (Nationals), Wade Miley (Diamondbacks)
Some might disagree, but I think this is another easy one. Harper's obviously the biggest name of the three, but he certainly lived up to the hype. Consider: as a 19-year-old rookie, he was the everyday center fielder and leadoff hitter for the team that finished with the best record in baseball. Oh yeah, and he made the All-Star team, too. Is Harper the NL Rookie of the Year? That's a clown question, bro. As for the other two, Miley also made the All-Star team and led all Diamondbacks starters in pretty much everything. I still don't really know who he is. Frazier, who was a Little League World Series hero for Toms River, N.J.'s championship team in 1998, was great filling in for Joey Votto and Scott Rolen at various points this season, and he's a big reason why Cincinnati won the NL Central.
My Vote: 1. Harper, 2. Frazier, 3. Miley
AL Manager: Bob Melvin (A's), Buck Showalter (Orioles), Robin Ventura (White Sox)
Just like AL Rookie of the Year, these were the three obvious finalists. Ventura had never before managed at any level before getting the White Sox job, and he did a great job, keeping his team in first place for most of the season before they were caught by the Tigers in the end. But this is a two-man race. If they could give it to both Melvin and Showalter, that would be completely fine with me. But I don't think they're going to do that, which means you have to separate the two somehow. Showalter deserves a world of credit for the Orioles' surprising playoff run, but I'm giving the slight edge to Melvin. The equally surprising A's didn't just make the playoffs. They won a division that includes the Rangers and Angels. With a team full of guys you've never heard of.
My Vote: 1. Melvin, 2. Showalter, 3. Ventura
NL Manager: Dusty Baker (Reds), Bruce Bochy (Giants), Davey Johnson (Nationals)
I'm not sure why Bruce Bochy is a finalist. Yes, the Giants won the World Series, but they were supposed to be good. I would've gone with Mike Matheny as the third finalist for taking the Cardinals back to the playoffs without Albert. Dusty Baker's won this award in the past, and the Reds won the NL Central with the second-best record in baseball. But Davey Johnson's the clear choice. Everything he did with the Nationals this season worked. (Even the controversial decision to shut down Stephen Strasburg.) As a result, a team most people thought was a year or two away, had the best record in the Majors and brought playoff baseball back to the nation's capital for the first time since 1933.
My Vote: 1. Johnson, 2. Baker, 3. Bochy
AL Cy Young: David Price (Rays), Justin Verlander (Tigers), Jered Weaver (Angels)
The AL Cy Young is the biggest toss-up of the eight awards. I have no idea which of these three guys will win, and I'd really be fine with any of them. I said Price immediately after the season ended, and I'm going to stick with it. Narrowly. His league-leading 20 wins and 2.56 ERA came were made even more impressive by the fact he played in a division that included the Yankees and Orioles, who he always saved his best for. Weaver was just as dominant as Price, albeit for an Angels team that underachieved. And Verlander's Verlander. He wasn't as incredible as last season, but that was a tough act to follow.
My Vote: 1. Price, 2. Weaver, 3. Verlander
NL Cy Young: R.A. Dickey (Mets), Gio Gonzalez (Nationals), Clayton Kershaw (Dodgers)
Another one that's too close to call. In fact, there could easily be two or three more guys on this list. Where's Craig Kimbrel, who had possibly the most dominant year a closer's ever had? My end-of-season vote went to Kimbrel, who's obviously not going to win. And what about Johnny Cueto or Aroldis Chapman? No love for the Reds. Kershaw won this award last year, but he only had 14 wins and was hurt for much of the year, so I think he finishes third. That leaves Gio and Dickey. R.A. Dickey's year was as amazing as his story. He led the NL in strikeouts and won 20 games for a terrible Mets team. But, sorry Mets fans, as dominant as Dickey was, my vote would go to Gonzalez. Call me old school, but I'm inclined to give 19 wins for a playoff team credence over 20 wins for a terrible team. Trading for Gio Gonzalez is perhaps the reason why the Nationals made the playoffs. He was considered only their second-best pitcher, but performed like an ace and led the league in ERA for the best team in baseball.
My Vote: 1. Gonzalez, 2. Dickey, 3. Kershaw
AL MVP: Adrian Beltre (Rangers), Miguel Cabrera (Tigers), Robinson Cano (Yankees), Josh Hamilton (Rangers), Mike Trout (Angels)
Where's Adam Jones? I had him third on my AL MVP list. Since the writers vote 10-deep for MVP, they named five guys as finalists instead of three, but who we kidding? This is a two-man race. It's Cabrera vs. Trout. I haven't gotten into the Cabrera vs. Trout debate yet, so I will now. Mike Trouyt had a sensational rookie year, but Miguel Cabrera was the best player in the American League this season. He won the Triple Crown. That has to still mean something. He led the league in average, home runs and RBIs. For a team that made the World Series. Trout's numbers were ridiculous. Especially for a 20-year-old rookie. But I simply don' think the Trout supporters make a strong enough argument. Their favorite "stat" to point to is that Trout led the league in WAR. So what? What's WAR? It's not even a real stat. Likewise, you can't really hold Mike Trout's stolen bases against Miguel Cabrera. It's apples and oranges. Trout's a leadoff hitter. He's supposed to get on base and steal bases. Cabrera bats third. He isn't paid to steal bases. He's paid to drive in runs and hit homers. The defense thing makes no sense, either. Mike Trout is much better defensively than Miguel Cabrera. Cabrera would be the first to admit that. What everybody fails to mention, though, is that Miguel Cabrera switched positions this year so that the Tigers could sign Prince Fielder and, while no means a "good" third baseman, he at least held his own over there. And let's also not forget this: the Tigers went to the World Series. The Angels finished third in their four-team division. Mike Trout will unanimously win Rookie of the Year. Miguel Cabrera should be the MVP, though. In my opinion, it's not even close.
My Vote: 1. Cabrera, 2. Trout, 3. Hamilton, 4. Cano, 5. Beltre
NL MVP: Ryan Braun (Brewers), Chase Headley (Padres), Andrew McCutchen (Pirates), Yadier Molina (Cardinals), Buster Posey (Giants)
Joey Votto had this thing pretty much locked up at the All-Star Break. Then he missed two months and dropped out of the running. Chase Headley's the surprise name here, and it's nice to see a guy who doesn't get a lot of press playing for a bad team on the West Coast being recognized. He's not going to come anywhere close to winning, but just being on the list of finalists shows Chase Headley that he's not completely anonymous in San Diego. Ryan Braun's numbers this season were actually better than they were last year when he won. (I guess he didn't need steroids after all.) But he's not going to win. Not after his suspension/non-suspension. Andrew McCutchen almost single-handedly kept the Pirates in the race and was right up there with Votto at the All-Star Break before fading down the stretch. But this race comes down to the two catchers. Molina's the best catcher in baseball and displayed the offense to go with it this season. He's quickly becoming the face of the Post-Albert Cardinals. There's a clear winner here, though. And his name is Buster Posey. When Melky Cabrera was suspended in August, the 2010 NL Rookie of the Year put the Giants on his back. He won the batting title while hitting in the middle of the order and catching every day. The Giants got hot and never stopped, winning their second World Series in Posey's three seasons. Is it any coincidence that the only time they haven't won was last year, when he got hurt in May and missed the rest of the season? Buster Posey's 2012 season was the definition of an MVP season.
My Vote: 1. Posey, 2. Molina, 3. McCutchen, 4. Braun, 5. Headley
AL Rookie: Yoenis Cespedes (A's), Yu Darvish (Rangers), Mike Trout (Angels)
No surprises here. These three were clearly the three best rookies in the American League this season. Trout's going to win. That's pretty obvious. Darvish and Cespedes were the prize international grabs, and they were both as good as advertised. Cespedes was a middle-of-the-lineup hitter for an A's team that won a surprise division title, while Darvish ended up as the de facto ace of the Rangers staff, making the All-Star team and starting the AL Wild Card Game. The only question is which will finish second behind Trout.
My Vote: 1. Trout, 2. Darvish, 3. Cespedes
NL Rookie: Todd Frazier (Reds), Bryce Harper (Nationals), Wade Miley (Diamondbacks)
Some might disagree, but I think this is another easy one. Harper's obviously the biggest name of the three, but he certainly lived up to the hype. Consider: as a 19-year-old rookie, he was the everyday center fielder and leadoff hitter for the team that finished with the best record in baseball. Oh yeah, and he made the All-Star team, too. Is Harper the NL Rookie of the Year? That's a clown question, bro. As for the other two, Miley also made the All-Star team and led all Diamondbacks starters in pretty much everything. I still don't really know who he is. Frazier, who was a Little League World Series hero for Toms River, N.J.'s championship team in 1998, was great filling in for Joey Votto and Scott Rolen at various points this season, and he's a big reason why Cincinnati won the NL Central.
My Vote: 1. Harper, 2. Frazier, 3. Miley
AL Manager: Bob Melvin (A's), Buck Showalter (Orioles), Robin Ventura (White Sox)
Just like AL Rookie of the Year, these were the three obvious finalists. Ventura had never before managed at any level before getting the White Sox job, and he did a great job, keeping his team in first place for most of the season before they were caught by the Tigers in the end. But this is a two-man race. If they could give it to both Melvin and Showalter, that would be completely fine with me. But I don't think they're going to do that, which means you have to separate the two somehow. Showalter deserves a world of credit for the Orioles' surprising playoff run, but I'm giving the slight edge to Melvin. The equally surprising A's didn't just make the playoffs. They won a division that includes the Rangers and Angels. With a team full of guys you've never heard of.
My Vote: 1. Melvin, 2. Showalter, 3. Ventura
NL Manager: Dusty Baker (Reds), Bruce Bochy (Giants), Davey Johnson (Nationals)
I'm not sure why Bruce Bochy is a finalist. Yes, the Giants won the World Series, but they were supposed to be good. I would've gone with Mike Matheny as the third finalist for taking the Cardinals back to the playoffs without Albert. Dusty Baker's won this award in the past, and the Reds won the NL Central with the second-best record in baseball. But Davey Johnson's the clear choice. Everything he did with the Nationals this season worked. (Even the controversial decision to shut down Stephen Strasburg.) As a result, a team most people thought was a year or two away, had the best record in the Majors and brought playoff baseball back to the nation's capital for the first time since 1933.
My Vote: 1. Johnson, 2. Baker, 3. Bochy
AL Cy Young: David Price (Rays), Justin Verlander (Tigers), Jered Weaver (Angels)
The AL Cy Young is the biggest toss-up of the eight awards. I have no idea which of these three guys will win, and I'd really be fine with any of them. I said Price immediately after the season ended, and I'm going to stick with it. Narrowly. His league-leading 20 wins and 2.56 ERA came were made even more impressive by the fact he played in a division that included the Yankees and Orioles, who he always saved his best for. Weaver was just as dominant as Price, albeit for an Angels team that underachieved. And Verlander's Verlander. He wasn't as incredible as last season, but that was a tough act to follow.
My Vote: 1. Price, 2. Weaver, 3. Verlander
NL Cy Young: R.A. Dickey (Mets), Gio Gonzalez (Nationals), Clayton Kershaw (Dodgers)
Another one that's too close to call. In fact, there could easily be two or three more guys on this list. Where's Craig Kimbrel, who had possibly the most dominant year a closer's ever had? My end-of-season vote went to Kimbrel, who's obviously not going to win. And what about Johnny Cueto or Aroldis Chapman? No love for the Reds. Kershaw won this award last year, but he only had 14 wins and was hurt for much of the year, so I think he finishes third. That leaves Gio and Dickey. R.A. Dickey's year was as amazing as his story. He led the NL in strikeouts and won 20 games for a terrible Mets team. But, sorry Mets fans, as dominant as Dickey was, my vote would go to Gonzalez. Call me old school, but I'm inclined to give 19 wins for a playoff team credence over 20 wins for a terrible team. Trading for Gio Gonzalez is perhaps the reason why the Nationals made the playoffs. He was considered only their second-best pitcher, but performed like an ace and led the league in ERA for the best team in baseball.
My Vote: 1. Gonzalez, 2. Dickey, 3. Kershaw
AL MVP: Adrian Beltre (Rangers), Miguel Cabrera (Tigers), Robinson Cano (Yankees), Josh Hamilton (Rangers), Mike Trout (Angels)
Where's Adam Jones? I had him third on my AL MVP list. Since the writers vote 10-deep for MVP, they named five guys as finalists instead of three, but who we kidding? This is a two-man race. It's Cabrera vs. Trout. I haven't gotten into the Cabrera vs. Trout debate yet, so I will now. Mike Trouyt had a sensational rookie year, but Miguel Cabrera was the best player in the American League this season. He won the Triple Crown. That has to still mean something. He led the league in average, home runs and RBIs. For a team that made the World Series. Trout's numbers were ridiculous. Especially for a 20-year-old rookie. But I simply don' think the Trout supporters make a strong enough argument. Their favorite "stat" to point to is that Trout led the league in WAR. So what? What's WAR? It's not even a real stat. Likewise, you can't really hold Mike Trout's stolen bases against Miguel Cabrera. It's apples and oranges. Trout's a leadoff hitter. He's supposed to get on base and steal bases. Cabrera bats third. He isn't paid to steal bases. He's paid to drive in runs and hit homers. The defense thing makes no sense, either. Mike Trout is much better defensively than Miguel Cabrera. Cabrera would be the first to admit that. What everybody fails to mention, though, is that Miguel Cabrera switched positions this year so that the Tigers could sign Prince Fielder and, while no means a "good" third baseman, he at least held his own over there. And let's also not forget this: the Tigers went to the World Series. The Angels finished third in their four-team division. Mike Trout will unanimously win Rookie of the Year. Miguel Cabrera should be the MVP, though. In my opinion, it's not even close.
My Vote: 1. Cabrera, 2. Trout, 3. Hamilton, 4. Cano, 5. Beltre
NL MVP: Ryan Braun (Brewers), Chase Headley (Padres), Andrew McCutchen (Pirates), Yadier Molina (Cardinals), Buster Posey (Giants)
Joey Votto had this thing pretty much locked up at the All-Star Break. Then he missed two months and dropped out of the running. Chase Headley's the surprise name here, and it's nice to see a guy who doesn't get a lot of press playing for a bad team on the West Coast being recognized. He's not going to come anywhere close to winning, but just being on the list of finalists shows Chase Headley that he's not completely anonymous in San Diego. Ryan Braun's numbers this season were actually better than they were last year when he won. (I guess he didn't need steroids after all.) But he's not going to win. Not after his suspension/non-suspension. Andrew McCutchen almost single-handedly kept the Pirates in the race and was right up there with Votto at the All-Star Break before fading down the stretch. But this race comes down to the two catchers. Molina's the best catcher in baseball and displayed the offense to go with it this season. He's quickly becoming the face of the Post-Albert Cardinals. There's a clear winner here, though. And his name is Buster Posey. When Melky Cabrera was suspended in August, the 2010 NL Rookie of the Year put the Giants on his back. He won the batting title while hitting in the middle of the order and catching every day. The Giants got hot and never stopped, winning their second World Series in Posey's three seasons. Is it any coincidence that the only time they haven't won was last year, when he got hurt in May and missed the rest of the season? Buster Posey's 2012 season was the definition of an MVP season.
My Vote: 1. Posey, 2. Molina, 3. McCutchen, 4. Braun, 5. Headley
Saturday, November 3, 2012
NFL Week 9 Picks
While watching the Chiefs-Chargers game on Thursday night, I decided something. The Kansas City Chiefs are bad. Really bad. I'm not surprised they haven't had a lead all season. Frankly, I'm surprised they managed to get a win. As ridiculous as it was when Steve Spurrier said that Alabama could beat an NFL team, I think Alabama would at least give the Chiefs a game. Anyway, since the NFL for some reason decided that a Chiefs-Chargers game was worthy of a national audience, I (like 95 percent of America) have started this week 1-0. As for the rest of the picks...
Broncos (4-3) at Bengals (3-4): Denver-The Broncos' schedule actually starts to get easier next week, but first, it's one more game against a 2012 playoff team (and, yes, this is the CBS national early game, giving Denver eight national games in eight weeks). The scary thing is that Denver's only getting better. It's not that Cincinnati's bad. They're just not as good as the Broncos. Think they miss Tebow? I'm pretty sure they don't. Peyton keeps them in first place.
Ravens (5-2) at Browns (2-6): Baltimore-Well, the Ravens sure looked like a different team against Houston, didn't they? Who knew what a difference a few injuries on defense could make. But Baltimore had last week off to figure things out and they're playing Cleveland, not Houston, this week. I'm not sure I view the Ravens as a Super Bowl contender anymore, but they should have enough to easily get by the Browns.
Cardinals (4-4) at Packers ("5-3"): Green Bay-I just have a feeling that blown call in Seattle could end up screwing the Packers more and more as the season goes on. These teams are headed in opposite directions. Clearly. The Cardinals have lost four straight since their 4-0 start, while Green Bay has won three straight to move into a wild card position. Arizona probably needs to win more, but it's November in Lambeau. This is when the Packers start to shine.
Bears (6-1) at Titans (3-5): Chicago-The Bears are creeping up on the Texans as the second-best team in the NFL. They really showed me something last week against Carolina. Chicago was playing like crap and it looked like they were going to lose to a team they should beat easily, then they go and score two touchdowns late to win by a point. Teams that win games like that are generally the ones that have pretty special seasons. Can you tell I'm really high on the Chicago Bears?
Dolphins (4-3) at Colts (4-3): Miami-This might be the most surprising matchup of the season so far. The Dolphins are playing the Colts in Week 9 and not only are they both over .500, they're both sitting in playoff position right now. I've got to be honest. I was shocked at how thoroughly the Dolphins dismantled the Jets at the Meadowlands last week. That tells me as much about Miami as it does about the Jets. The Colts had a nice win last week, too, knocking off the Titans in overtime in Nashville. With Ryan Tannehill out, the Dolphins will turn to Matt Moore this week. I should probably pick the Colts, but I have confidence in Moore.
Panthers (1-6) at Redskins (3-5): Washington-There should probably be more hype for this game than there's been so far, seeing as it's the first meeting between Cam Newton and Robert Griffin III. But a lot of that enthusiasm is tempered by the fact that Carolina is a trainwreck. The Redskins, on the other hand, are headed in the right direction. They're coming off losses to the Giants and Steelers, but playing against Carolina at home should be a different story.
Lions (3-4) at Jaguars (1-6): Detroit-Jacksonville is right up there with Kansas City in the competition for worst team in the league. This is the Lions' opportunity to even up their record and get back in the playoff hunt. Detroit needs a win here, and I think they get it.
Bills (3-4) at Texans (6-1): Houston-Prior to their bye, the Texans took on the Ravens in a matchup of the two best teams in the AFC. And Houston completely crushed Baltimore. There's no question who the best team in the AFC is anymore. The Bills were also off last week. In their last game, they lost a shootout against Tennessee. The biggest storylines on their end are Mario Williams' return to Houston (I don't even know if he's playing, is that bad?) and that they have a chance to be .500 and just a game out of first at the midway point. Neither will happen. The Texans go to 7-1.
Buccaneers (3-4) at Raiders (3-4): Tampa Bay-Remember 10 years ago when these two played each other in the Super Bowl? Yeah, I don't either. Because it seems like it's been forever since either was any good. The Raiders must've paid off the schedule-maker, because they haven't exactly run the NFL gauntlet in the last three weeks, drawing Jaguars, Chiefs, Bucs. (Reality check next week when they visit Baltimore.) The Bucs beat the Saints earlier in the year and rocked Minnesota last week. They also won Super Bowl XXXVII. Those reasons are as good as any for picking Tampa Bay.
Vikings (5-3) at Seahawks ("4-4"): Minnesota-I'm not really sure what happened against Tampa Bay. Totally forgot about that game because of the World Series. The Seahawks have lost two straight, but are undefeated* at home this year, which includes wins over Dallas and New England, as well as another "victory" against Green Bay. And two of the Vikings' three losses have come on the road. Even though I probably should pick Seattle, I have a feeling Minnesota's going to win.
Steelers (4-3) at Giants (6-2): Giants-This was one of the best games of the week before everything that went down with Hurricane Sandy. There are some who thought this game should've been cancelled, but I agree with the decision to play it. However, the Steelers' hotel is without power and they couldn't find another one, which means they have to leave for the game on Sunday morning. Fortunately Pittsburgh and New Jersey are close enough that they can do that. Considering Pittsburgh's injuries and the fact that the Giants are on a roll, I was already leaning Giants anyway. Throw in Pittsburgh's day-of-game travel situation, and it makes me even more confident the Giants will win.
Cowboys (3-4) at Falcons (7-0): Atlanta-Why did everybody think that last week would be the one when Atlanta finally lost? I had no doubt they'd beat the Eagles. The Cowboys, on the other hand, I can definitely see pulling off the upset. Dallas always seems to get up for games like this one. Especially since they need a win because they find themselves slipping out of the playoff race by the week. I have a feeling this will be a very entertaining contest. And I also have a feeling the Falcons will pull it out in the end and stay undefeated.
Eagles (3-4) at Saints (2-5): Philadelphia-I'm sure when the NFL set this up as the Monday night game, they thought it would be a top-notch matchup between two playoff contenders. Well, that's not the case. Both teams can keep fooling themselves with their delusions of making the playoffs, but neither one is going to. Especially the loser of this game. New Orleans is favored. But I really hate that team and I can't wait for Jonathan Vilma's suspension to be reinstated for a second time (dude, you did it, everybody knows it). So, I'm picking the Eagles because they're the lesser of two evils.
Last Week: 10-4
This Week: 1-0
Season: 82-37
Broncos (4-3) at Bengals (3-4): Denver-The Broncos' schedule actually starts to get easier next week, but first, it's one more game against a 2012 playoff team (and, yes, this is the CBS national early game, giving Denver eight national games in eight weeks). The scary thing is that Denver's only getting better. It's not that Cincinnati's bad. They're just not as good as the Broncos. Think they miss Tebow? I'm pretty sure they don't. Peyton keeps them in first place.
Ravens (5-2) at Browns (2-6): Baltimore-Well, the Ravens sure looked like a different team against Houston, didn't they? Who knew what a difference a few injuries on defense could make. But Baltimore had last week off to figure things out and they're playing Cleveland, not Houston, this week. I'm not sure I view the Ravens as a Super Bowl contender anymore, but they should have enough to easily get by the Browns.
Cardinals (4-4) at Packers ("5-3"): Green Bay-I just have a feeling that blown call in Seattle could end up screwing the Packers more and more as the season goes on. These teams are headed in opposite directions. Clearly. The Cardinals have lost four straight since their 4-0 start, while Green Bay has won three straight to move into a wild card position. Arizona probably needs to win more, but it's November in Lambeau. This is when the Packers start to shine.
Bears (6-1) at Titans (3-5): Chicago-The Bears are creeping up on the Texans as the second-best team in the NFL. They really showed me something last week against Carolina. Chicago was playing like crap and it looked like they were going to lose to a team they should beat easily, then they go and score two touchdowns late to win by a point. Teams that win games like that are generally the ones that have pretty special seasons. Can you tell I'm really high on the Chicago Bears?
Dolphins (4-3) at Colts (4-3): Miami-This might be the most surprising matchup of the season so far. The Dolphins are playing the Colts in Week 9 and not only are they both over .500, they're both sitting in playoff position right now. I've got to be honest. I was shocked at how thoroughly the Dolphins dismantled the Jets at the Meadowlands last week. That tells me as much about Miami as it does about the Jets. The Colts had a nice win last week, too, knocking off the Titans in overtime in Nashville. With Ryan Tannehill out, the Dolphins will turn to Matt Moore this week. I should probably pick the Colts, but I have confidence in Moore.
Panthers (1-6) at Redskins (3-5): Washington-There should probably be more hype for this game than there's been so far, seeing as it's the first meeting between Cam Newton and Robert Griffin III. But a lot of that enthusiasm is tempered by the fact that Carolina is a trainwreck. The Redskins, on the other hand, are headed in the right direction. They're coming off losses to the Giants and Steelers, but playing against Carolina at home should be a different story.
Lions (3-4) at Jaguars (1-6): Detroit-Jacksonville is right up there with Kansas City in the competition for worst team in the league. This is the Lions' opportunity to even up their record and get back in the playoff hunt. Detroit needs a win here, and I think they get it.
Bills (3-4) at Texans (6-1): Houston-Prior to their bye, the Texans took on the Ravens in a matchup of the two best teams in the AFC. And Houston completely crushed Baltimore. There's no question who the best team in the AFC is anymore. The Bills were also off last week. In their last game, they lost a shootout against Tennessee. The biggest storylines on their end are Mario Williams' return to Houston (I don't even know if he's playing, is that bad?) and that they have a chance to be .500 and just a game out of first at the midway point. Neither will happen. The Texans go to 7-1.
Buccaneers (3-4) at Raiders (3-4): Tampa Bay-Remember 10 years ago when these two played each other in the Super Bowl? Yeah, I don't either. Because it seems like it's been forever since either was any good. The Raiders must've paid off the schedule-maker, because they haven't exactly run the NFL gauntlet in the last three weeks, drawing Jaguars, Chiefs, Bucs. (Reality check next week when they visit Baltimore.) The Bucs beat the Saints earlier in the year and rocked Minnesota last week. They also won Super Bowl XXXVII. Those reasons are as good as any for picking Tampa Bay.
Vikings (5-3) at Seahawks ("4-4"): Minnesota-I'm not really sure what happened against Tampa Bay. Totally forgot about that game because of the World Series. The Seahawks have lost two straight, but are undefeated* at home this year, which includes wins over Dallas and New England, as well as another "victory" against Green Bay. And two of the Vikings' three losses have come on the road. Even though I probably should pick Seattle, I have a feeling Minnesota's going to win.
Steelers (4-3) at Giants (6-2): Giants-This was one of the best games of the week before everything that went down with Hurricane Sandy. There are some who thought this game should've been cancelled, but I agree with the decision to play it. However, the Steelers' hotel is without power and they couldn't find another one, which means they have to leave for the game on Sunday morning. Fortunately Pittsburgh and New Jersey are close enough that they can do that. Considering Pittsburgh's injuries and the fact that the Giants are on a roll, I was already leaning Giants anyway. Throw in Pittsburgh's day-of-game travel situation, and it makes me even more confident the Giants will win.
Cowboys (3-4) at Falcons (7-0): Atlanta-Why did everybody think that last week would be the one when Atlanta finally lost? I had no doubt they'd beat the Eagles. The Cowboys, on the other hand, I can definitely see pulling off the upset. Dallas always seems to get up for games like this one. Especially since they need a win because they find themselves slipping out of the playoff race by the week. I have a feeling this will be a very entertaining contest. And I also have a feeling the Falcons will pull it out in the end and stay undefeated.
Eagles (3-4) at Saints (2-5): Philadelphia-I'm sure when the NFL set this up as the Monday night game, they thought it would be a top-notch matchup between two playoff contenders. Well, that's not the case. Both teams can keep fooling themselves with their delusions of making the playoffs, but neither one is going to. Especially the loser of this game. New Orleans is favored. But I really hate that team and I can't wait for Jonathan Vilma's suspension to be reinstated for a second time (dude, you did it, everybody knows it). So, I'm picking the Eagles because they're the lesser of two evils.
Last Week: 10-4
This Week: 1-0
Season: 82-37
Friday, November 2, 2012
The Show Must Go On
Update: Just as I clicked "Publish" on this post, the 2012 New York City Marathon was cancelled. As you can see below, I disagree with the decision.
Marathon Sunday is always one of those uniquely awesome New York sports experiences. Thousands of runners--some famous, most not--tackling 26.2 miles across all five boroughs. So many people want to run in the New York City Marathon that they have to hold a lottery for the limited number of entries. For many, simply finishing the New York City Marathon is a lifelong goal.
But this year's race will take on a decidedly different feel. Hurricane Sandy devastated the New York area earlier this week, but Sunday's marathon will take place as scheduled. There's a good number of people who think this is the wrong decision. I see where they're coming from. There are thousands of people in the New York/New Jersey area that are still without power (fortunately I'm not one of them), as well as a lot of people that lost homes in the storm. Their argument is that the money being used to put on the marathon would be better spent in the relief/cleanup efforts. I disagree with them.
I'm not in the business of defending Mike Bloomberg. Quite the contrary, actually. I think the Mayor is an idiot. In this instance, though, I think he's right. What has happened in New York over the past week is precisely why the marathon should take place on Sunday.
I know that my opinion isn't the popular one. That's fine. But I also agreed with the original decision to still hold Thursday's scheduled Knicks-Nets game at the Barclays Center, which was eventually postponed, but only because it was impossible for fans to get to the arena without the subways running. Just like I agree with the decision to hold Sunday's Giants-Steelers game, for which the Steelers will leave on Sunday morning because they can't get a hotel due to Sandy (the one they had originally booked has no power). Why was there no outcry over the plans to still hold these events, yet still holding the marathon is considered "insensitive?"
Most of the money that's spent on the New York City Marathon is spent long before the race begins. So, that money the critics argue would be better spent elsewhere, has already been spent. Likewise, the Marathon generates more than $300 million a year from sponsorships, people coming into New York, etc. If it wasn't held, the city would have no way of recovering that lost revenue. In fact, New York Road Runners, the race's organizers, will donate $1 million to the relief effort, and the race sponsors will throw in another $1.5 million. And the concerns that police shouldn't be diverted from storm cleanup to work the marathon are unfounded. The officers who work the marathon do so on their day off.
The biggest reason why I think the marathon should go on as scheduled, though, is because they were too far along in the planning to cancel it at the last-minute. Had the hurricane hit on Thursday or Friday, it'd be a different story. But mass transit is back up-and-running and the roads and airports have reopened. As a result, everyone who had arranged their schedules to be in New York this weekend are able to get into the city. Some of these people book their tickets and hotel rooms up to a year in advance. It wouldn't have been fair to ask them to rearrange these plans. Sure, some people aren't going to make their trip, and runners have been given the option to defer their entry until next year, but there will still be tens of thousands of entries and thousands more will still come into the city just to watch.
As for the marathon course, it went virtually untouched. Sure, the backdrop's not going to be the same, but so what? They're at least going to be running. If nothing else, putting on a marathon through that devastation will show New Yorkers' resilience. We can overcome anything. What better way to prove it?
And the marathon could also go a long way towards helping the relief effort. The New York City Marathon is broadcast worldwide. You don't think the City will take advantage of that? You don't think ESPN2 will show a phone number or website where people can make donations? They'll probably do the same on European television, as well as everywhere else they're going to show the race. How much money do you think will be raised as a result? A lot more than if there was no race at all.
Most importantly, New Yorkers need something else to think about. It'll only be for a couple hours, but in a week where there's been nothing but nonstop news coverage of Hurricane Sandy and her aftermath, the New York City Marathon will be a welcome and much-needed distraction.
Marathon Sunday is always one of those uniquely awesome New York sports experiences. Thousands of runners--some famous, most not--tackling 26.2 miles across all five boroughs. So many people want to run in the New York City Marathon that they have to hold a lottery for the limited number of entries. For many, simply finishing the New York City Marathon is a lifelong goal.
But this year's race will take on a decidedly different feel. Hurricane Sandy devastated the New York area earlier this week, but Sunday's marathon will take place as scheduled. There's a good number of people who think this is the wrong decision. I see where they're coming from. There are thousands of people in the New York/New Jersey area that are still without power (fortunately I'm not one of them), as well as a lot of people that lost homes in the storm. Their argument is that the money being used to put on the marathon would be better spent in the relief/cleanup efforts. I disagree with them.
I'm not in the business of defending Mike Bloomberg. Quite the contrary, actually. I think the Mayor is an idiot. In this instance, though, I think he's right. What has happened in New York over the past week is precisely why the marathon should take place on Sunday.
I know that my opinion isn't the popular one. That's fine. But I also agreed with the original decision to still hold Thursday's scheduled Knicks-Nets game at the Barclays Center, which was eventually postponed, but only because it was impossible for fans to get to the arena without the subways running. Just like I agree with the decision to hold Sunday's Giants-Steelers game, for which the Steelers will leave on Sunday morning because they can't get a hotel due to Sandy (the one they had originally booked has no power). Why was there no outcry over the plans to still hold these events, yet still holding the marathon is considered "insensitive?"
Most of the money that's spent on the New York City Marathon is spent long before the race begins. So, that money the critics argue would be better spent elsewhere, has already been spent. Likewise, the Marathon generates more than $300 million a year from sponsorships, people coming into New York, etc. If it wasn't held, the city would have no way of recovering that lost revenue. In fact, New York Road Runners, the race's organizers, will donate $1 million to the relief effort, and the race sponsors will throw in another $1.5 million. And the concerns that police shouldn't be diverted from storm cleanup to work the marathon are unfounded. The officers who work the marathon do so on their day off.
The biggest reason why I think the marathon should go on as scheduled, though, is because they were too far along in the planning to cancel it at the last-minute. Had the hurricane hit on Thursday or Friday, it'd be a different story. But mass transit is back up-and-running and the roads and airports have reopened. As a result, everyone who had arranged their schedules to be in New York this weekend are able to get into the city. Some of these people book their tickets and hotel rooms up to a year in advance. It wouldn't have been fair to ask them to rearrange these plans. Sure, some people aren't going to make their trip, and runners have been given the option to defer their entry until next year, but there will still be tens of thousands of entries and thousands more will still come into the city just to watch.
As for the marathon course, it went virtually untouched. Sure, the backdrop's not going to be the same, but so what? They're at least going to be running. If nothing else, putting on a marathon through that devastation will show New Yorkers' resilience. We can overcome anything. What better way to prove it?
And the marathon could also go a long way towards helping the relief effort. The New York City Marathon is broadcast worldwide. You don't think the City will take advantage of that? You don't think ESPN2 will show a phone number or website where people can make donations? They'll probably do the same on European television, as well as everywhere else they're going to show the race. How much money do you think will be raised as a result? A lot more than if there was no race at all.
Most importantly, New Yorkers need something else to think about. It'll only be for a couple hours, but in a week where there's been nothing but nonstop news coverage of Hurricane Sandy and her aftermath, the New York City Marathon will be a welcome and much-needed distraction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)