Awards Season: The Managers

As much as some Phillies fans might be upset that Rob Thomson isn't a finalist, I think they nailed it with the top three in both Manager of the Year races this season.  Thomson did a great job guiding the Phillies from a sub-.500 afterthought to a playoff team and eventual pennant-winner.  But was it better than the job done by Buck Showalter, Brian Snitker or Dave Roberts?  No.

All three National League finalists led their team to 100 victories, and each of them did it in a very different way.  The Dodgers had a historic regular season.  The Braves stumbled out of the gate, only to catch fire in May and pass the Mets for the NL East title.  And the Mets proved that the right manager can make all the difference.

Let's start there.  Buck Showalter has developed a reputation for turning teams around.  First it was the Yankees, setting them up for the Joe Torre dynasty, then the expansion Diamondbacks, who won the division their second year, then the Rangers, then the Orioles.  The Mets took a big chance on him.  Not everybody was sure an older guy who isn't analytically-minded would be the right fit.  Well, those critics were certainly proven wrong!  Buck was as perfect a fit for the Mets as Dusty Baker was for the Astros.

Now let's talk about Brian Snitker of the Braves.  Atlanta was 10 1/2 games back at the beginning of June.  From that point forward, they went 78-34...while making do without several of their starters from last season's World Series championship team.  Yet they still caught and surpassed the Mets, with their significantly higher payroll.

Then there's Dave Roberts and the Dodgers.  Yes, they fizzled out in the Division Series.  Manager of the Year is a regular season award, though, and the Dodgers had a historic regular season.  They won 111 games!  That's the fourth-most for a single-season in history!  There were a ton of injuries to both the pitching staff and lineup, yet they just kept winning.  They were supposed to be good, of course, but not this good!

Roberts and Snitker have both won this award before.  Roberts in 2016 and Snitker in 2018.  Showalter, meanwhile, can make all sorts of history.  He'd tie a record with his fourth Manager of the Year...with his fourth different team!  He's been the AL Manager of the Year three times, but this would be his first in the NL.  He'd also become the first Mets manager ever to win it, which is kind of hard to believe if you think about it!

That little tidbit will no longer be true come Tuesday evening.  Because I've got Buck Showalter winning that fourth Manager of the Year (and first in the NL).  I'll put Snitker at 2 because of that run the Braves made to win the division, while I can't ignore the Dodgers' 111-51 record, which is why he goes in the No. 3 spot.

In the American League, a very valid argument can be made for all three finalists.  Cleveland won the division with the youngest team in the Majors.  Seattle ended the longest playoff drought in North American professional sports.  And the Orioles!  The Orioles came out of nowhere to finish 83-79, one year after going 52-110!

There isn't even a fourth manager worthy of being in the discussion with those three!  Sure, Dusty Baker led the Astros to 106 wins and, eventually, the World Series title.  But Houston was supposed to be good and played 57 games against the Angels, A's and Rangers!  The Angels sucked significantly less after Phil Nevin replaced Joe Maddon as manager, but they were still out of contention pretty much all season.  So, I wouldn't be surprised if the top three were all named on all 30 ballots.

Francona's been in Cleveland 10 years (crazy right?) and already won two AL Manager of the Year awards.  This might be his most impressive managing job with the Indians/Guardians yet, though.  The White Sox were supposed to run away with the AL Central.  They didn't.  The Guardians did.  With Jose Ramirez and a ton of rookies.  He took the youngest team in baseball and won 92 games, and they won the division going away.

Scott Servais, meanwhile, led the Mariners to their first postseason berth in 21 years.  Seattle won 90 games last season, so their making the playoffs wasn't a complete surprise.  But they didn't make it easy on themselves.  They won practically every close game they played in!

But, while the Guardians and Mariners both made the playoffs, what happened in Baltimore this season was simply remarkable.  The Orioles were 131-218 over Brandon Hyde's first three seasons as manager, and there was no reason to think this year would be any different.  Instead, they were the biggest surprise in baseball.  Despite playing in the toughest division, they weren't eliminated from the playoff race until Sept. 30.  Yes, they were "only" 83-79.  But that's a 32-win improvement from 2021.  If that isn't Manager of the Year worthy, I don't know what is!

Baltimore finished fourth in the AL East...behind three playoff teams.  There's only been one manager of a fourth-place team to be named Manager of the Year--Joe Girardi in 2006 (and the Marlins promptly fired him right after).  It's never happened in the American League.  But not only do I think it'll happen this year, I'll be surprised if it doesn't.

Brandon Hyde has already been named Sporting News AL Manager of the Year.  And for good reason!  Because the managing job he did in Baltimore this season is one of the best I've seen in a long time!  Hyde 1, Francona 2, Servais 3.

Awards Season: The Rookies

We've reached awards season in MLB, the week when the debate over who "should" win and who "will" win finally ends!  Although, let's face it, the people who think someone else "should" win an award over the player who does win it won't shut up even after the results are announced (yes, I'm talking to you, the "Ohtani also pitches" crew).  Hell, we've even got those who are upset about the finalists (who are just the top three vote-getters).

As usual, we get started with the Rookie of the Year, which is unique among the awards.  You can obviously only win Rookie of the Year once in your career, but that's not the only reason.  It's also the only award where you don't need to be in the Majors the entire year.  It certainly helps, but it's not a requirement.  In fact, sometimes the rookies who are called up mid-year are the ones who have the biggest impact.

Take Kris Bryant, perhaps the best example of the terrible practice where teams keep their best young players in the Minors for a few weeks in order to delay their free agency.  As a result, Bryant wasn't called up until the end of April.  That didn't stop him from winning Rookie of the Year.  Then there's Randy Arozarena, who had his breakout in the 2020 postseason, but still had rookie eligibility last year, when he ended up winning the award in the AL!

Fortunately, teams can't get away with doing that anymore.  As a part of the new CBA, the top two finishers automatically get a full year of service time regardless of when they're called up.  So, hopefully in the future, that means we'll see Rookie of the Year finalists with 130 games played or 30 starts.  Which doesn't mean we still won't have the impactful midseason call-ups who are finalists.

This year, we've got Adley Rutschman.  Everybody knew the former No. 1 overall pick was ready for the Majors, but the Orioles didn't call him up until May.  And when they did, they took off!  Rutschman was their best player, and there's no way Baltimore finishes 83-79 without him!

Rutschman's biggest competition in the AL is Mariners center fielder Julio Rodriguez.  Rodriguez was the clear favorite at midseason, when he made the All*Star Team and reached the finals of the Home Run Derby.  And what I said about Rutschman applies to Rodriguez, as well.  Seattle made the playoffs for the first time in 21 years!  Their impressive rookie center fielder was a big reason why.

Another AL playoff team with a starting outfielder who's a Rookie of the Year finalist is the Cleveland Guardians.  They had the youngest roster in the Majors and used something like 15 rookies this season, so the fact that they have a finalist shouldn't be too big of a surprise.  That finalist is Steven Kwan, who made the Opening Day roster and became a fixture both in left field and atop the Cleveland lineup.

It's a little surprising that Jeremy Pena didn't finish in the top three, but, seeing as he was both ALCS and World Series MVP, I think he'll get over it.  Likewise, I thought we might see Bobby Witt, Jr.'s name among the top three.  He played 150 games and had 57 extra base hits.  But Kansas City wasn't any good, so that may have factored in.

Over in the National League, Atlanta was the team that used a lot of rookies.  So many, in fact, that two Braves are finalists--Spencer Strider and Michael Harris II.  Strider began the season in the bullpen before moving into the rotation because of injuries to others in late May.  And he pitched so well that they couldn't take him out!  He finished with 200 strikeouts in just 130 innings!  That's nuts.

Strider's first start was on May 30.  That's two days after Harris made his debut.  Despite spending two months in the Minors, he quickly became the Braves' starting center fielder.  And he stayed there even after Atlanta's other outfielders came back!  The Braves didn't look much like the defending World Series champions on Memorial Day.  Almost as soon as Harris arrived, they went on a 14-game winning streak.  They ended up winning 101 games and the division.

There were also a bunch of significant rookies on the Cardinals (which is somewhat ironic since they also counted two retiring future Hall of Famers among their regulars).  Perhaps the most significant was Brendan Donovan, who they could literally put anywhere on the field.  He won a Gold Glove as a utility player, in fact!

While that top three is pretty clear, Seiya Suzuki did have a solid first year with the Cubs after coming over from Japan.  Ditto for Reds pitcher Alexis Diaz.  He pitched for a team that was not very good, but went 7-3 and had a sub-2.00 ERA.  Diaz eventually became Cincinnati's closer and finished with 10 saves.  Still, they're a distant fourth and fifth behind Donovan and the two Braves.

And, frankly, Donovan is a distant third behind the two Braves.  The last time teammates went 1-2 in Rookie of the Year voting was 2011, when another set of Braves--Craig Kimbrel (the unanimous winner) and Freddie Freeman--did it.  And, just like 11 years ago, I think the pitcher finishes atop that Braves 1-2.  I've got Strider, Harris, Donovan in that order.

In the American League, I think it comes down to Rodriguez vs. Rutschman.  As great as Adley Rutschman's season was, though, how can you give it to him over Jose Rodriguez?  Rodriguez was the only rookie at the All*Star Game, and his numbers in the second half were just as impressive.  And, sorry Steven Kwan, but you're not in my top three.  My AL Rookie of the Year ballot is: 1. Rodriguez, 2. Rutschman, 3. Witt.

My 2022 NFL Picks (Week 10)

This is a special week in the NFL.  The Seahawks and Bucs are playing in Munich, the first-ever NFL game in Germany.  It won't be the last, either.  There'll be at least three more, with Munich and Frankfurt alternating as the host.  And they gave the Germans a great game, too.  Unlike London, which gets the Jaguars every year.  The German game will probably continue to be a good one moving forward.  Both the Patriots and Chiefs have expressed interest in playing there, so you'd have to figure it'll be one of them next season and the other shortly after that.

Frankly, I'm surprised it took the NFL this long to have a game in Germany.  Five of the six teams in NFL Europe played in Germany, some of which still have a massive fan base.  So it's clear that there's plenty of potential in the German market.  Likewise, I think the moving around Germany is smart.  If they ever decide to schedule a game in Berlin, I have no doubt they'll sell out the 80,000-seat Olympic Stadium!

Interestingly, Munich wasn't one of the five German cities that was home to an NFL Europe team.  In addition to Berlin and Frankfurt, the others were based in Cologne, Dusseldorf and Frankfurt.  Munich does have the beautiful Allianz Arena that's the home stadium for one of the most famous soccer teams in the world, though, so the choice does make sense.  As for the game itself...

Thursday Night: Carolina (Win)

Seahawks (6-3) vs Buccaneers (4-5): Seattle-Seattle is on perhaps the longest road trip in NFL history (it was probably longer for those teams that played preseason games in Asia in the 90s, but this is certainly the farthest in the regular season).  So I wonder if the travel and nine-hour time difference will have an impact.  I'm still picking them to win, but you know Brady is relishing the opportunity to participate in something new.  Also, how sad is it that if the Seahawks win, dropping Tampa Bay to 4-6, the Bucs will still be tied for first place?

Vikings (7-1) at Bills (6-2): Buffalo-Josh Allen's health is by far the biggest question mark heading into the game, and it could have a major bearing on who wins.  If Allen plays, the Bills are the clear favorite, especially at home.  If he doesn't, the Vikings' chances increase significantly.  Although, whether Allen plays or not shouldn't matter to the Buffalo defense.  And that's why I have a feeling the Bills may win either way.

Lions (2-6) at Bears (3-6): Chicago-With the Packers reeling, this game takes on heightened importance.  Of course, the Vikings are already running away with the division and will likely win it going away, but who knows what can happen if one of these two gets the momentum going?  We've already seen the Bears destroy the Patriots.  Can they do the same to the Lions?

Broncos (3-5) at Titans (5-3): Tennessee-Last Sunday night's loss to the Chiefs was a setback for the Titans to be sure, but all it really affects is their playoff seeding.  The AFC South is still well within their control, which will continue to be the case after they host the Broncos.  And, hey, at least Denver isn't a national game this week!

Jaguars (3-6) at Chiefs (6-2): Kansas City-How big was pulling that game out against the Titans last week?  Now Kansas City is definitely a player in the race for home field and the AFC's 1-seed.  So, it could be the Chiefs who end up being the biggest beneficiary of Josh Allen's injury.  Of course, if they lose to the Jaguars at home, that would change everything.  And, frankly, they wouldn't deserve the bye if that happens.

Browns (3-5) at Dolphins (6-3): Miami-We've almost reached the point where the Browns get their sexual harrasser of a quarterback is eligible to return.  His first practice will be on Monday, in fact.  I've wasted too much space here already talking about that guy and how disgusting it is that he has a guaranteed contract.  Fortunately, Cleveland won't be relevant in the playoff race once he starts playing games in December.  The Dolphins, meanwhile, will be very relevant in the playoff race at 7-3.

Texans (1-6-1) at Giants (6-2): Giants-Coming off a loss and their bye week, the Giants are still in pretty good shape.  And they're just two wins away from avoiding another 10-loss season.  That magic number should be cut to one after they host the Texans.  Say what you want about the Giants "not being that good."  They can only play the teams that are on their schedule.  And their schedule says "Houston" this week, so that's who they're playing.

Saints (3-6) at Steelers (2-6): New Orleans-It might just be about time to call it.  It's not gonna happen in Pittsburgh this season, and Steelers fans will have to brace for a new reality.  They not only won't make the playoffs, they'll be lucky to avoid a 10-loss season.  Yes, life without Ben Roethlisberger is proving to be more difficult than they imagined.  The Saints, meanwhile, are in much better shape.  In fact, depending on how the Bucs-Seahawks game goes, they could be tied for first at the end of the day.

Colts (3-5-1) at Raiders (2-6): Indianapolis-The Colts realized they needed to do something before the season completely got away from them.  (Or, at least, something else after benching Matt Ryan.)  So Frank Reich got canned and he was replaced by Peyton Manning's center, Jeff Saturday, who has absolutely no experience.  Incredibly, the season isn't lost, though.  And, fortunately for Saturday, his first game is against the equally-inept Raiders.

Cowboys (6-2) at Packers (3-6): Dallas-Has FOX been plugging this game enough?  I've seriously seen almost as many promos for this game over the past few weeks as I have political commercials.  To an extent I get it.  It's a marquee matchup between two of the premier teams in the league.  But, from what we've seen from both teams, it shouldn't be a contest.  Dallas wins big.

Cardinals (3-6) at Rams (3-5): Rams-What's going on in the NFC West?  We went into the season thinking everybody but Seattle might be a playoff team, but at midseason, it's the Seahawks who are in first place, while both the Cardinals and Rams are struggling.  They both need a win very badly, too.  They've both lost two in a row and are in danger of falling out of the playoff race completely if they don't get this one.  I think our streak of Super Bowl home teams will come to an end.  Since I have no confidence in the Cardinals' ability to win this game.

Chargers (5-3) at 49ers (4-4): Chargers-I know I complain about Denver and Chicago being on national TV seemingly every week, but San Francisco also on national TV a lot.  It's definitely 49ers overload, but they're at least good.  So are the Chargers, who the Sunday Night Football audience will get to see in back-to-back weeks.  That game next week will become even bigger, as the Chargers will continue to keep pace with the Chiefs atop the division.

Commanders (4-5) at Eagles (8-0): Philadelphia-As I've said before, I don't think the Eagles will go undefeated.  But as long as they keep winning, we'll keep talking about it.  They haven't played the Giants yet, and they still have games against Dallas and Tennessee on the schedule, as well as the Packers, who may actually show up that week!  It won't end this week, though.  The Eagles will be 9-0.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 8-5
Overall: 79-57-1 

Starting Hot Stove Season

I'm SHOCKED!  SHOCKED, I tell you, that Clayton Kershaw re-signed with the Dodgers on a one-year deal!  That's going to be the case from now until whenever Kershaw decides to retire.  He'll enter every offseason as a free agent before signing a one- or two-year deal to stay in LA.  So they might as well not even include him on the free agent lists every year.

Kershaw likely won't be the only high-profile free agent who ends up re-signing with his old team.  There can be some surprises, of course.  There are every winter in free agency.  Take last year for example.  We all thought it was a foregone conclusion Freddie Freeman would stay in Atlanta, only for him to end up with the Dodgers (and end up firing his agents for botching his Braves contract as a result).

Aaron Judge is the biggest name out there this offseason and will command a huge contract after his record-setting season.  Still, most people figure he'll stay with the Yankees, with the Giants seen as their only real competition (potentially setting up a very awkward situation on Opening Day when those two teams meet at Yankee Stadium).  Likewise, Anthony Rizzo, despite opting out of his deal, will also likely be back in pinstripes next season on a longer-term contract.

There are other free agents who I'd be surprised to see go anywhere.  Justin Verlander is the first name that comes to mind.  And, while he'll test the waters and I wouldn't be completely shocked if he goes, I think the most likely scenario is that Jacob deGrom returns to the Mets.

But, there are also plenty of big names who'll be on the move.  That doesn't even take trades into account either!  Or the Japanese outfielder who'll likely be posted this winter and draw heavy interest from multiple big-market clubs.  Which will obviously have an impact on the free agent market, as well.

With so many free agents who play the same position, too, we might see free agents who are effectively traded for each other.  And they'll be setting the market for each other, too.  When all the dust settles, though, here's where I see 10 of this year's top free agents playing on Opening Day 2023 (not including those I already mentioned)...

Trea Turner, Braves-All of the shortstops need to be taken together since they'll all have a direct bearing on each other.  The question is who'll sign first?  Turner will be the most expensive, and he probably won't be returning to the Dodgers.  Plenty of teams will want him, but I'm just playing a hunch he ends up in Atlanta, which means the next guy on our list will go elsewhere.

Dansby Swanson, Cubs-Call me crazy, but I can see the Cubs trying to make a big splash in free agency.  They aren't really that far from contending.  And Dansby Swanson is the type of guy I can see them going for.  But then again, maybe not, since it's also rumored that they're looking to trade Ian Happ and will likely lose Willson Contreras, who are currently their two best players.  All the more reason to give Swanson a lot of money and build around him.

Xander Bogaerts, Twins-Boston needs the money to re-sign Rafael Devers and already has Trevor Story on the roster.  Which leads me to believe Xander Bogaerts will be wearing a different uniform next season.  I bet he takes a one- or two-year deal with an opt-out so that he can test the waters again.  As for 2023, I'll say he's in Minnesota.  Because they'll have the $20 million to throw at him after...

Carlos Correa, Dodgers-Correa opted out of his deal and has publicly said he'd be welcome to returning to Minnesota.  But, seeing as the Dodgers won't be re-signing Turner and Correa is the next-best shortstop on the market, I see him heading west.  They offer will simply be too high for anybody else to match.

Willson Contreras, Cardinals-Could something like this actually happen?  Yadi Molina retired, so the Cardinals need a catcher.  And Contreras is by far the best catcher available on the market.  He'll have plenty of suitors, some of which may be willing to overpay for him, which would probably knock St. Louis out of the mix.  In terms of the best fit for Contreras, though, I don't think anyone else can compete.

Jose Abreu, Astros-In one of those free agent prediction lists, I saw Abreu to the Astros, which I found particularly intriguing.  Because it actually makes a whole lot of sense!  Yuli Gurriel is also a free agent, so, if he goes, they'll need a first baseman.  Now just imagine Jose Abreu in that lineup instead of Yuli Gurriel.  Scary, right?

Brandon Nimmo, Giants-Steve Cohen has a lot of money and obviously isn't shy about spending it.  He doesn't have an endless supply, though, and there's this thing called the luxury tax (which he's already proven he doesn't care about), too.  And, seeing as the Mets have like six starting outfielders and Nimmo's a free agent, I can see him going elsewhere.  Especially since he'll be one of the top outfielders available who won't break the bank.  If the Giants don't get Judge, I can easily see them pursuing Nimmo instead.

Carlos Rodon, Rangers-Assuming Verlander stays with the Astros, Rodon is the best free agent starting pitcher out there after deGrom.  The Rangers have money, are willing to spend it, and badly need starting pitching.  Which means they'll be in on all the front-line starters.  They'll probably make a push for deGrom, but if they don't get him, Rodon's not a bad alternative.  Who also happens to be far less expensive, allowing them to have some extra money to spend elsewhere.

Noah Syndergaard, Nationals-He's already played for the Mets and Phillies, so why not go for the entire NL East?!  Syndergaard's an interesting case.  He's a No. 3 or 4 starter on a good team, but he's a No. 1 or 2 on a weaker team.  So, does he go for the No. 3 or 4 money to play for a contender?  Or the No. 1 or 2 money to pitch for a team that isn't good?  Or, does the same thing that happened last season happen again and he goes from a team like the Nationals to a team in the hunt at the trade deadline?

Aroldis Chapman, Marlins-Yes, his Yankees career ended spectacularly, and there's little to no chance he re-signs with them.  But Chapman can still be an elite closer (and I mean closer, which was part of the problem in the second half of last season).  So you know someone's gonna take a chance on him as a closer.  Probably a not-so-good National League team that will hope he bounces back, then can leverage him as a trade chip to a contender at the deadline.  A team like the Marlins.

My 2022 NFL Picks (Week 9)

We've reached the halfway point of the NFL season and the Eagles are still undefeated.  Philly got to 8-0 with its victory in Houston on Thursday night, which obviously got the talk of the '72 Dolphins going.  Do I think the '72 Dolphins are safe?  Yes, I do.  But, considering how collectively bad most of the league has been this season, the fact that somebody's still undefeated is cool.

Speaking of those other teams that have been collectively bad, they're running out of time to get their acts together.  Especially since their schedules won't exactly get easier.  Although, I think it's a safe bet to say we're looking at multiple 10-7 or 9-8 playoff teams, maybe even division winners.  So that, frankly, should be the goal.

Thursday Night: Philadelphia (Win)

Chargers (4-3) at Falcons (4-4): Atlanta-The Falcons are perhaps the most surprising division leader in the NFL, which I think says more about the rest of the NFC South than it does about them.  Especially when you consider we were a Panthers field goal away from it being a four-way tie at 3-5.  After this week, the NFC South leader will be above .500 for the first time since Week 5.  Because I don't know why, but I think the Falcons win.

Dolphins (5-3) at Bears (3-5): Miami-I don't think it's a coincidence that the Dolphins are 2-0 since getting Tua back.  Granted, they haven't played the strongest opponents and they barely beat both the Steelers and Lions.  But the point is they beat both of them, and they're sitting comfortably in a playoff position at 5-3.  Make that 6-3 unless the Bears pull off one of their random good weeks.

Panthers (2-6) at Bengals (4-4): Cincinnati-Even though the Panthers aren't good, they sure make life difficult for their opponents!  They haven't won a game outside of their division, but have really only gotten blown out once.  Which means the Bengals are in for a dogfight (catfight?) this week.  They should find a way to pull it out, though.

Packers (3-5) at Lions (1-6): Green Bay-Of all the teams with shockingly bad records, the Packers are perhaps the most surprising.  Maybe this is why they'd never played in London before!  They were 3-1 when they went out there, but haven't won since.  Four straight losses for a team that had become accustomed to only losing three all season.  And they've got Dallas, Tennessee, Philadelphia after this, so that could easily become eight if they don't beat the Lions.

Colts (3-4-1) at Patriots (4-4): New England-This is one of the most difficult games this week for me to pick.  Mainly because both teams have been so hit-and-miss all season.  It'll depend on which version of each team shows up.  Will it be the Colts that beat the Chiefs or the Colts that tied the Texans?  Will it be the Patriots that dominated the Jets or the Patriots that got their butts kicked by the Bears?  Since the game's at Foxboro, though, I'll take the chalk and say the good Patriots show up.

Bills (6-1) at Jets (5-3): Buffalo-If the playoffs started today, the Jets would be a wild card team.  That's still true after losing at home to the Patriots for the 10 millionth time in a row last week.  Things don't get any easier this week, as they play their second straight home division game against arguably the best team in the AFC.  At least this week, the loss will be a little less unexpected.

Vikings (6-1) at Commanders (4-4): Minnesota-Don't look now, but the Vikings have a 3.5-game lead and we're only just now hitting the halfway point!  So, Minnesota's in really good shape and can afford a clunker.  Of course, they're also just a game behind the Eagles (who beat them in Week 2, Minnesota's only loss so far), so they need to keep it going.  And there's no reason to think they won't in Washington.

Raiders (2-5) at Jaguars (2-6): Jacksonville-Then you have games like this one.  But even the bad teams need to play somebody every week, and when they play each other you know one of them has to win.  I'm saying Jacksonville here because, well, why not?  On paper, the Raiders are slightly less bad, but they mailed it in last week in New Orleans and I don't see faring much better with another 10 am Pacific kickoff.

Seahawks (5-3) at Cardinals (3-5): Arizona-While Atlanta's the most surprising division leader, the Seahawks are right there behind them.  I think their being in first place speaks to the parity of the NFC West more than anything else.  There haven't been many NFC West division games yet, and I have a feeling that they'll all just beat each other up.  I'm also more inclined to take the home teams in those battles.  Thus, I'm going with the Cardinals here.

Rams (3-4) at Buccaneers (3-5): Rams-When they picked this one as an exclusive national late game midway through the season, I don't think anyone expected it to be essentially a must-win for both teams.  Yet here we are.  The Rams are below .500 (which is more a consequence of their schedule), while the Bucs are, shockingly, 3-5.  This is by far the worst three-game stretch of Brady's career.  Can it conceivably be a four-game losing streak that they take to Munich?

Titans (5-2) at Chiefs (5-2): Kansas City-Our Sunday night matchup features the No. 1 and 2 seeds in the AFC from last year's playoffs.  And this one is huge for this season's playoff seeding.  The winner won't just go a game ahead, they'll also have the head-to-head tiebreaker.  So, yeah, this is a big game.  It's also the type of game that the Chiefs usually thrive in.  The Titans are good, but they aren't at that level just yet.

Ravens (5-3) at Saints (3-5): Baltimore-Sunday night will have a direct bearing on Monday night.  Because if the Ravens win, they'll be tied with whoever loses that one.  Of course, Baltimore needs to worry about winning the AFC North before it can worry about seeding (especially after what happened last year).  And they'll get a challenge from the Saints.  Not enough for them to lose, but enough for them to know they need to bring it.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 10-5
Overall: 71-52-1

Is He Crazy? Or Just Stupid?

One of my Facebook friends summed up Kyrie Irving pretty succinctly and pretty accurately the other day: "He's a lunatic!"  I couldn't have said it better myself.  Because just when you think he can't do anything crazier or more outrageous, he finds a way to outdo himself.  So, we actually shouldn't have been surprised about his latest misadventure.

I'm, of course, talking about his tweet promoting an antisemitic Netflix movie.  Kyrie eventually deleted the tweet, but not after the damage was already done.  The Nets gave him a chance to backtrack and apologize, but this is Kyrie we're talking about.  Of course he didn't!

In a way, I admire his commitment.  Even when he's wrong, he refuses to back down.  Even though it would've been incredibly easy to issue a halfhearted apology that he didn't really mean, he didn't do it.  Instead, he went on the attack, blaming the media for asking him the same questions that he continually refused to answer and vowing to "learn from the experience."

That's the thing, though.  Kyrie went to Duke.  Duke's a very good school.  I know he only went there to play basketball, but still.  Shouldn't he have learned something while he was there?  Beyond that, wouldn't common sense dictate that antisemitism is bad?

Kyrie eventually did issue his apology, but it was already too late by that point.  The Nets suspended him for at least five games for conduct detrimental to the team and made him make a donation to the anti-defamation league.  Kyrie has also lost some endorsements, and Nike has cancelled the launch of his latest shoe.

Last year, of course, Kyrie was in the news pretty much all season because of his refusal to get vaccinated.  He wasn't allowed to even enter the facility unless/until he got the shot.  As a result, Kyrie couldn't play in home games for most of the season (although, oddly, he was able to attend as a fan as long as he remained in the stands, which made very little sense).  The vaccine mandate was lifted late in the season, so he was available for the playoffs, but his constantly being in and out of the lineup is a big reason why they ended up getting swept in the first round after entering the season as a title contender.

The Nets stood by him through all that.  And it appears they're standing by him again.  They've vowed that the five-game suspension is a minimum and he'll have to go through several steps before he's allowed to rejoin the team, but general manager Sean Marks also explicitly said they won't release him.  So they're clearly willing to put up with the Kyrie Circus.  But for how long?

How long will they put up with his shenanigans before they decide enough is enough?  Yes, they're paying him a lot of money.  But is that worth the headache?  And when will they finally admit that just maybe he might be part of the problem...if not the entire problem?

It's been a dysfunctional mess in Brooklyn for a while now.  The Nets made a big splash with all of their superstar acquisitions, putting Kevin Durant, Kyrie Irving and James Harden on the same team.  How could they lose?  Well, as it turns out, very easily!  Because it takes more than superstars to have a winning team.  Especially when those superstars are oft-injured (Durant) or their own worst enemy (Kyrie).

Harden decided he'd had enough and asked for a trade, so they obliged him and sent him to Philadelphia, getting Ben Simmons in return.  Swapping Harden for Simmons has made very little difference, though.  The Nets got off to a horrible start this season.  Someone had to pay the price, and it was Head Coach Steve Nash.  And it looks like they're going to hire Ime Udoka, who's currently suspended by the Celtics for an inappropriate relationship with a female team employee, as their new head coach.  Let that sink in for a second.

Nash's firing is all the proof you need that the Nets are willing to let the players do pretty much whatever they want with little to no consequences.  Nash couldn't win.  He never had the team's support.  In fact, the players were openly calling for his firing.  How is a coach supposed to succeed in that environment?  And, to make matters worse, the Nets seem perfectly content to let it continue.  They aren't concerned with winning as much as they're concerned with keeping their highly-paid players happy.

Why else would they put up with Kyrie and all his antics?  The vaccine thing was one thing.  (As I've said before, the difference with Kyrie and Djokovic is that Djokovic at least has a reason for not getting vaccinated.  His reason is stupid, but it's still an actual reason.  Kyrie's reason, meanwhile, is "I don't want to and you can't make me.")  But this is completely different.  And it's nothing more than an example of Kyrie's ignorance and stupidity.

Even if it was sheer ignorance, it's plain stupid.  Simply by tweeting the link, he made it look like he was promoting the film.  Whether he knew what it was actually about doesn't matter.  And the fact that he either didn't realize how that looked or didn't care just makes him look so much worse!  Actually, scratch that, the only thing that would be worse is if he actually believes it.

Which brings me back to my original question.  Is he crazy?  Or just stupid?  Does it even matter?  Bottom line, Kyrie Irving is unpredictable.  Meanwhile, the Nets are left doing damage control every time he says or does something ridiculous (which is often).  How long are they willing to do that?  And is it even worth it?  Especially when everyone's life would be so much easier if they just cut him loose.

It's Beyond Time to Sell

In a long overdue move, Washington Commanders owner Daniel Snyder has begun the process of exploring selling the team.  This doesn't mean he necessarily will, but I don't think you explore the process if it isn't your intention to ultimately sell.  And, frankly, he should sell.  Because he's taken a once-proud franchise and driven it completely into the ground.

Where do I start with how bad an owner Dan Snyder has been?  Maybe I should start with the obvious.  For years, he insisted that he would never change the team's name.  Even as the criticism and pressure continued to mound, he held firm.  His stance was obviously not the right one, but I admired that he was at least willing to stand by it, regardless of public opinion.

Of course, Snyder eventually caved.  But only because he was left with no choice.  Sponsors were pulling out, and retailers were refusing to even offer team merchandise.  There was even a chance that FedEx would refuse to allow their name to be used on the outside of the stadium.  Faced with the tremendous financial hit that would've come with holding firm, he did what he had to do and agreed to change the name.

But the way they went about the rebranding was so rushed and lazy that you can tell it wasn't something that had been planned in advance (unlike the Indians' rebranding as the Guardians).  They didn't start the process until the summer of 2020 and adopted the ridiculously dumb temporary name of "Washington Football Team" while they rebranded.  There was also absolutely no thought put into the uniforms, which it looked like they stole from a high school team.

Finally, after two nameless years, they were born again as the "Commanders" right after the Super Bowl.  And, I must admit, I do think they did a good job with the actual renaming process...they just should've started it before they were forced into the name change, thus avoiding the whole "Washington Football Team" debacle! 

They still found a way to screw it up, though!  The new team seal with the championship years on it initially had the year of the Super Bowl, not the year of the season before fixing it a few weeks later.  I get that it's a simple thing, but how did everyone who was involved in designing and approving that logo not notice it?  And how could they not realize it was a big deal?

Once the name thing was finally settled, the Commanders were back in the headlines over the summer with the controversy over their workplace culture.  The workplace concerns were so severe that there was a Congressional investigation and Snyder was ordered to appear in front of the House Oversight Committee.  The NFL cooperated with the House Committee.  Snyder did not.  Instead, he stonewalled for nearly eight months (which is a pretty clear indication you're trying to hide something).

The NFL ultimately produced a six-page report after its investigation and determined that the Commanders' workplace culture was "unprofessional and unacceptable."  The league found that Washington's office environment featured "bullying, widespread disrespect towards colleagues, use of demeaning language, public embarrassment, and harassment.  Moreover, for a prolonged period of time, the Commanders had a woefully deficient HR function, particularly with respect to reporting practices and recordkeeping."

There are plenty of examples of inappropriate behavior mentioned in the report, the most disturbing of which was the claim by a former Washington cheerleader that Snyder "suggested" she go up to a hotel room with one of his friends at a 2004 team charity event.  If true, that alone would be enough to warrant a league-imposed suspension.  Snyder was suspended from running the team's day-to-day operations (with that responsibility transferring to his wife) and the team was fined $10 million.

As if all that wasn't enough, there's more.  The U.S. attorney's office has opened a criminal investigation into the Commanders' potential financial improprieties.  This investigation is a direct result of the Congressional hearing, which led to some questions about their business practices.

Most of the illegal things the Commanders are accused of doing involve the misreporting or underreporting of ticket revenue.  They allegedly defrauded their own season ticket holders by making it difficult to recoup supposedly refundable deposits, at one point in 2016, keeping as much as $5 million from 2,000 season ticket holders.  Washington also, evidently, withheld the opponents' share of revenue from ticket sales and moved money from NFL games to other events at FedEx Field so that they wouldn't have to share it with the league.

According to testimony, the Commanders had two sets of financial books--one for the league and the actual books.  As owner, Snyder would be privy to the actual numbers.  Thus, he would also be aware of the manipulation.  Beyond being highly unethical and a violation of league rules, that's fraud.  Which is a federal crime!

And I haven't even mentioned their complete lack of success on the field during the Dan Snyder Era yet!  Since he bought the team in 1999, the Redskins/Football Team/Commanders have only made the playoffs six times (and one of those was as a 7-9 division champion when the entire NFC East sucked in 2020).  They haven't been to the NFC Championship Game since winning the Super Bowl in 1991 (or is it 1992?).  In the 22 seasons since Snyder bought the team, they've lost double-digit games 10 times and had only six winning records.  So, it's not like they have a winning culture on the field either.

When you look at all of those things together, something that's been pretty obvious for a while becomes even more clear.  Dan Snyder doesn't belong in the NFL.  He's caused nothing but headaches for the Commanders since he bought the franchise.  And the team, frankly, will be better off without him.  (Assuming he actually does sell, of course!)