4 comments Tony DeMarco Goes Bargain Shopping...Maybe Does Not Understand the Definition of "Bargain"

Tony DeMarco has a list of players who are bargains this offseason on the free agent market. My definition of "bargain" is a player who signs a contract with a team that is far below his actual worth to that team. I'm not sure if Tony believes that definition is what a bargain is defined as being or not. He seems to believe a bargain is a player who signs for a lot of money but hasn't previously been seen as a good player or an under-the-radar player. He also brings up Manny Ramirez in the discussion, who I am pretty sure won't end up being a bargain for a team. I'm not good at predicting the future, but combine the fact he would probably retire rather than accept a bad offer and his agent is Scott Boras...and I am not sure he will be a bargain.

At 33, Huff was coming off one of his worst seasons, one that ended in failure as a stretch-run pickup by the Detroit Tigers. AT&T Park sure isn't the ideal place for a left-handed pull hitter to go, but Huff signed anyway, and you know the rest.

Then he became a free agent and was overpaid by a team. What, that hasn't happened yet?

I am a big Aubrey Huff fan. More so than many people, but the last time he put up a line like he did in 2010 (.290/.385/.506, 26 HR) was 2004 and he didn't quite meet those 2010 splits either. Huff can play multiple positions, so he has that going for him, but he is probably going to go get overpaid this offseason. That's the problem with bargains or guys who are underrated. Eventually they don't become bargains (see: Abreu, Bobby).

It just goes to show that you don't always have to pay top dollar in the free-agent market for quality production. Talk about return on investment, the Giants got their team leader in homers, RBI, runs, on-base percentage and OPS.

Great signing by the Giants. If Huff puts up those numbers this year, he could possibly be making almost triple his 2010 $3 million salary.

We'll stay away from the well-publicized early lines on the elite free agents — Cliff Lee, Carl Crawford, Jayson Werth, Rafael Soriano, Adam Dunn, Paul Konerko, Victor Martinez and Adrian Beltre.

Instead, we'll go around the diamond with a focus on under-the-radar potential bargain producers:

I'm going to nitpick and say Konerko and Dunn may very well end up being bargains. They are two guys who I think will get passed over and provide good value to the club that signs them. Whatever. Let's just focus on the good players that have played for a good team on the East Coast lately (which is essentially what this list made by DeMarco consists of) or have interest from a team on the East Coast. Sounds good to me.

Toronto's John Buck picked the right time to reach career highs in the Triple Crown categories (.281-20-66) at $2 million in 2010.

So John Buck had a career year just in time for free agency and he is now a bargain? A guy who had a career year and his value is at its highest right now...is a bargain? Isn't this the opposite of what a bargain would be? Shouldn't a bargain be a guy whose value is low, but his production is high and not the other way around?

In an era when everyday catchers are scarce, he's a solid 110-120-game-per-year guy.

That's not really an "everyday catcher" that's a guy who plays 3 out of every 4 games. Buck hit his career high in games played this year at 118, so he isn't a solid 120-game-per-year guy quite yet.

Buck is also a solid .243/.301/.421 guy, which are his career splits.

His career high in batting average? That would be in 2010 at .281.
His career high in on-base percentage? That would be in 2010 at .314. Yes, .314.
His career high in slugging percentage? That would be in 2010 at .489.

Buck had a career high in nearly every single statistical category, except for triples and steals, in the 2010 season. This includes strikeouts when he met his career high with 111 and walked 16 times. This to go along with a .314 OBP.

Reportedly, the Red Sox are interested in Buck, which would be a good move depending on the amount of money they have to pay for him. That's the problem, his value is at its absolute peak right now, which makes him not a bargain. He's the 2nd best available at a talent-starved position in this free agent class.

And it's no coincidence Yorvit Torrealba keeps ending up on winning teams, playing key roles on the 2007 Colorado Rockies and 2010 San Diego Padres. He's a clutch performer, excellent handler of a staff and a strong clubhouse presence. In other words, a perfect half of a time-share situation.

Ugh...fine. If Torrealba gets signed for a time-share situation, then I can handle this. I still can't help but notice he had one of his best years in a long while this past year.

The offense-starved Mariners declined an option on Jose Lopez, and that means somebody is going to buy low and benefit.

That team that benefits? The Mariners if they don't re-sign Lopez this offseason. I know, he's not a bad player but he's also not a starter, so if he will learn to embrace the utility player role and get paid like it then I see no issues in his free agency future.

Yes, Lopez was part of a complete team offensive collapse in 2010. But he doesn't turn turn 27 until Nov. 24

"Yes, Lopez may have been a terrible offensive everyday baseball player this past year, but he is young! That means he is young, which is better than being old and being terrible because at that point no one will give you a contract."

and in 2008-09 averaged .285-21-93-.765 OPS and 41 doubles playing half the time in a pitcher-friendly park.

Just taking a peek at his career splits on the road and at home, doesn't make me believe he will thrive away from Safeco Field. He has 94 more at-bats away from Safeco for his career and has 4 more home runs, 9 less doubles, slugs .413 on the road and has a BABiP at home of .262 and .292 on the road. Yes, he is slightly better on the road, but not so much it would make me change my complete opinion of him.

Put him in a hitter-friendly home park, and let's see what happens.

Put any hitter in a hitter-friendly home park and see what happens. Usually his numbers will increase. Lopez's career road splits are .280/.312/.413.

For 2010 he hit .246/.281/.370 on the road. For a guy who needs to get away from Safeco Field he wasn't extremely successful away from Safeco.

During his "breakout" 2008 year he actually hit better at Safeco than on the road:

2008: Home (.313/.329/.511), Road (.280/.314/.374)

2009 was a completely different story for him:

2009: Home (.229/.254/.387), Road (.313/.348/.535)

So who really knows if Lopez will be benefit from a different park? He very well may benefit, but there is also a history that shows he may not be an everyday player no matter what park he plays in.

I'm not sure if he is a bargain.

There are bigger first-base names available, including Derrek Lee, Carlos Pena and Lance Berkman — all of whom have reached the end of pricey long-term deals

These are three guys who fit the mold of a bargain like Aubrey Huff. Veteran players who still have enough skill to play but aren't seen as young enough to get a long-term contract. These three guys could very well end up being bargains, but Tony DeMarco discounts them because they just got out of pricey deals...which is just what happened to Aubrey Huff. He needs to look at the symmetry of Aubrey Huff's situation last year and the situations these players are currently in. There is some symmetry in them getting out of long-term deals and being older.

It will be interesting to see what contract Manny Ramirez is willing to accept. But there's a real good chance he'll have to sign for a low guarantee and incentives.

Which is something a Scott Boras client often signs for. Scott Boras is well known for making his players earn their contract and not pursuing the most guaranteed money. Please...Manny Ramirez will be on the free agent market until a team is willing to make him a multi-year deal or a big one year contract. There will be a team that does this (probably) and Boras/Ramirez are perfectly content to wait out the market just like they did a few years ago when Ramirez re-signed with the Dodgers. Manny and Boras won't sign a contract with a team until they get what they want. I doubt Manny will be a bargain.

OK, we know the Brewers made a mistake in giving Bill Hall a big deal a few years ago. But that's expired, and Hall is a very productive right-handed threat who can play a couple of positions. Like Izturis, Hall could be a nice National League player, especially in a hitters' park.

What is the fascination with hitters' parks? Most MLB players will be better hitters in a hitters' park, that's why they call them "hitters' parks." So if Bill Hall going to a hitters' park is a requirement for him to be a bargain then that makes him like other free agent hitters on the market right now.

Few players in the game today possess the power and throwing arm of Rick Ankiel.

He's terrible. Don't let anyone fool you otherwise.

He's been in a spiral since his big 2008 season in St. Louis, but maybe that splash hit at AT&T Park in the division series will spark something. There has to be a place for his power against right-handed pitching and the ability to play center field.

Rick Ankiel's batting statistics after the Game 2 winning home run: 0-4 with 2 strikeouts and 2 walks.

If Ankiel didn't hit very well immediately after the "splash hit" why would he hit better and gain more confidence 6 months after he hit that playoff home run? Some team is going to have to sign Ankiel to a pretty low salary for me to consider him a bargain and not just another decent centerfielder who has power if he ever can make contact or stay healthy.

Left-hander Jorge De La Rosa won't come cheaply; he'll sign a deal that could top Ted Lilly's recent three-year, $33 million pact with the Dodgers.

So how in the hell can a pitcher that gets $11 million per year minimum with a career ERA of 5.02 be a bargain? He's never pitched more than 185 innings in a season, he's never had a WHIP under 1.315 and his career low in ERA is 4.22.

De La Rosa will be a good left-handed pitcher for the team that signs him, but if he gets close to $11 million per year there is no way in hell he is a bargain in any sense of that word. Joe Sheehan likes him and I like him too...but don't think he is a bargain at $11 million per year.

But De La Rosa still fits in the under-the-radar category.

This isn't an "under-the-radar" list, this is a list of free agents that are bargains. There's a difference and mixing and matching these words creates confusion. You created the criteria, please stick to it.

He has some of the best left-handed starter stuff in the National League, has figured out how to command it, and few realize that from June 1, 2009 — until he tore a finger ligament at the end of April — he went 19-4.That makes his 8-7-4.22 final numbers in 2010 a bit deceiving.

That's fine. I can buy that. The fact still remains he will be 30 years old when the 2011 season starts and he isn't a pitcher that has shown he can throw a lot of innings in a season and he has health issues. De La Rosa may be a good signing for some team, but not at $11 million per year. I don't care if he is left-handed or not, he isn't a bargain at that amount of money.

So we'll look instead to closer/setup types and outstanding setup relievers. Three excellent places to start are Toronto, Tampa Bay and Minnesota. All had deep, excellent bullpens in 2010 but undoubtedly will lose parts of them.

Again, we get a list of pitchers that are coming off good seasons and going into free agency. These aren't necessarily guys who will command bargain salaries for 2011.

In Toronto, that could mean Scott Downs, Kevin Gregg and Jason Frasor. In Tampa Bay, that could be Grant Balfour, Dan Wheeler and Joaquin Benoit

So this list essentially includes three of the best relievers on the market. I would say there may be a bargain in here somewhere, but is Tony DeMarco looking for the best relievers on the market or the bargains among the relievers? I'm not sure even he knows what kind of list he is putting together.

And you don't figure Minnesota will hang onto Brian Fuentes, Jon Rauch, Jesse Crain, Matt Guerrier and Ron Mahay.

So you heard it here first. Three free agent relievers for the Blue Jays and Rays and four of the Twins free agent relievers are all bargains. That's 10 bargains from three teams! What a deal!

So I don't know if Tony DeMarco was trying to make a list of bargains, which is what the entire article was supposed to be about...or he was making a list of under-the-radar players, which is what he seems to think Jorge De La Rosa represents...or he just made a list of free agent relievers who have skill, which is what he ended up doing for the entire "Relievers" category. No matter what he was trying to convince or show us, I'm not sure he succeeded.

3 comments Mike Freeman Hates God and Jay Mariotti Hates Baseball Fans

Today, Jay Mariotti and Mike Freeman share with us what they hate, which is the fans of Major League Baseball and God, respectfully. They seem like two dumb things to really hate, but not to them and let them tell you why.

-Mike Freeman doesn't like how Dwight Howard references God in his postgame interviews. I have never even noticed because I am of the opinion that few interviews during/before/after a basketball game are worth a shit, so I don't listen and generally don't care what the player or coach says. Mike Freeman is not off that opinion. He hates God and thinks He focuses on more important things in life and not sports, so he takes his hatred out on Dwight Howard. I personally don't care what an athlete says about God, I am just here to make fun of Mike Freeman.

Dwight Howard was asked a simple question. Howard's answer shockingly veered off into some potentially highly controversial -- if not offensive -- territory.

Let me guess. The reporter asked if the Magic had to abort their early game plan when the Cavs came out hitting all their shots and Howard shared his opinion on partial birth abortion? Or was it the reporter asked Howard if trying to keep LeBron out of the lane was torture and Howard then shared his opinion on waterboarding?

Why, Howard was asked, should the Orlando Magic be picked by the media or others to defeat the Los Angeles Lakers?

The horror...

"God," was Howard's response.

I don't listen to these interviews really, so I would be waiting for the end of the sentence to end with "...I don't know" or "...well we just beat the team with the best record in the NBA and are on a roll right now, so I hope people would pick us."

Howard was given a chance to reconsider his words. He didn't hesitate. "That's the reason" the Magic would win, Howard continued, according to ESPN. "I'm telling you."

I like how Freeman writes this as of he said something really, really controversial. In fact, all Howard can really be accused of his being overly spiritual. I don't think God cares who wins the series, Dwight Howard does, he and I can agree to disagree. This should be the end of the column and that part where Mike Freeman now goes on the Internet and thinks of another contrarian point of view to get everyone riled up about.

And why exactly would God root against the Lakers? Does God hate actors? Is God not a Jack Nicholson fan? Did God disapprove of Dyan Cannon's last movie?

There comes a time in every Saturday Night Live skit where the viewing public realizes it's not getting any better than what they are seeing right now...we are at that time in Mike Freeman's "God" column. He's just killing space at this point.

According to Howard, this is how God thinks. ...

Apostles: "Who you pulling for in the championship, big fella?

"God: "Not the Lakers, that's for sure."

Apostles: "Why?"

Just a heads up to Mike Freeman, but I am pretty sure God did not have apostles, I think that may have been Jesus who had apostles. Clearly, he has not seen or read "The DaVinci Code."

Otherwise, God couldn't care less about a basketball game and God certainly doesn't care about who wins one.

I think this is pretty much understood. Carl Everett did not believe in dinosaurs and I don't think this was a major problem overall...same thing here. If Howard believes God wants the Magic to win, that's his point of view. Maybe he is right, maybe he is insane, or maybe he just said that to get Mike Freeman to angrily write a column about him.

If I were a member of the Lakers -- particularly if I was of strong religious faith -- Howard's comments would be highly offensive.

Are you freaking kidding me? Why would a Lakers player of strong religious faith be offended? Because that player thought God was on their side? So that player is deluded like Dwight Howard? If so, Howard is not the only NBA player guilty of thinking God is cheering for his team.
Is Dwight Howard now a messenger sent from God to decide the outcome of the NBA Finals? There would be no reason to get angry, sad or depressed about this. If a Lakers player has strong religious faith, he should just wonder why Dwight Howard believes God thinks the Magic will win. In reality, God made lakes and probably thinks magic is a bunch of bullshit...I am sure that revelation about each team's name origin would make a Lakers player or two would make him feel better. You know, if this hypothetical Laker is dumb enough to actually be angry about this.

(Though after last night's game, it is clear God wants Kobe to win a title without Shaq.)

In effect, Howard is saying that God favors the Magic, which ostensibly means Howard believes the Magic are somehow more worthy of God's backing than the Lakers.

Thus if God wants Orlando to win, does that mean Satan is pushing for the Lakers?

(Bengoodfella getting a headache) Yes, because Dwight Howard is an Oracle sent from Heaven, it definitely means the Lakers have Satan cheering for them. Not only is this series a fight between East and West Coast teams, it is also a fight for supremecy in Heaven and Hell.

Here's what I don't get. Mike Freeman think it is a bunch of bullshit that God is cheering for anyone in this series, he thinks God doesn't care. He thinks Howard's comments are crazy. So why would he reasonably expect a Lakers player to get offended by Howard's comments?

God has other great concerns besides Howard's scoring average, such as war, pestilence, disease, poverty and American Idol.

We all know. He is also focused on ridding the world of Jay Mariotti, but he's like a cockroach, even God has had trouble getting rid of him without arousing suspicions of foul play.

I'm simply ridiculing the notion of believing that God is on the side of the Magic.

And I am ridiculing you for the notion that anyone on the Lakers team should give a shit.

"First, I want to thank God, man, because without Him none of this would be possible," Howard said. "I told my guys before the game if we come out, we play 100 percent, play hard for 48 minutes, then God is gonna do the rest, and He did tonight. We got a good victory; man ... it's all because of Him."

It seems that God hates the Celtics, too.

God hates the Irish. That's obvious. Remember the potato famine? How about the fact that U2 has had so much success over the years? Clearly God has always hated the Irish and is using them as vessels to ruin our music on Earth.

If God really favored Howard and the Magic, God would make it so Howard connected on more free throws.

Yeah, take that God. You and your apostles can't even help Dwight Howard with his free throws. You should feel stupid...but not as stupid as Mike Freeman should feel for writing this column and I feel for dissecting it.

Also -- and this is just a guess -- there's probably a player or two on the Lakers who believe that God wants the Lakers to be victorious.

Each person has his/her own interpretation of faith, so I would imagine this would be possible. Guess what, God doesn't care about the NBA, so both Howard and the un-named hypothetical Laker would end up being wrong.

Howard's religious beliefs are important, but they are starting to cross the line into wholesale arrogance.

I will admit it is a bit arrogant to believe God wants your specific team to win. I still don't understand why anyone would care what an athlete has to say before/after/during a game. It's usually of no substance or doesn't make a whole lot of sense...just like Howard's comment about God.

It irritates me when athletes seem to think that God cares about their individual and team achievements. Every time I turn a report or file in on time, I don't start telling people around the office I didn't do it, God did. I also don't say God wanted me to turn the report in on time. If I did, then I would probably be considered the weirdest person in the office. I think this is a non-issue, but I guess Mike Freeman needed something to write about.

-I am not personally a fan of All-Star games, I generally find them boring and no matter how much drama you throw into them they are still exhibitions. Every year we get columns that beg MLB to take the portion of the voting out of the hands of the fans, which I am against, because it is a game for the fans to see the players they want to see play together. There is a reason I think All-Star Game appearances should never be used to determine how good a player really is, and that's because the fans vote the players in. I think many of the choices for the All-Star game are dumb, but that's who the fans want to see, so I think we have to live with it. MLB has tied the World Series homefield advantage to the All-Star game, so they have added some importance to the game, but that still doesn't change too much of my opinion that the fans should be allowed to vote for the players they want in the game.

Jay Mariotti thinks the fans are morons for trying to vote Manny Ramirez in the All-Star game. I don't think Manny deserves it, but if he is the player the fans want to see, I think he should be allowed to play. Of course I also think he should decline the invitation...but my point is the fans are able to vote and have those votes count for who starts in the All-Star game, so it is their right to vote for Manny.

According to baseball's drug agreement, "A player shall be deemed to have been eligible to play in the All-Star Game if he was elected or selected to play; the commissioner's office shall not exclude a player from eligibility for election or selection because he is suspended under the program." Meaning, Manny Ramirez -- villain of the Scammywood steroids suspension that continues to rock the sport -- is eligible to play in the All-Star Game next month if enough fans vote for his inclusion in the National League starting lineup.

I don't want Manny to be able to play in the All-Star Game but if he is voted in by the fans, then he should be allowed to play. The rule probably needs to be changed, but until it is, Manny should be in if voted in.

I don't know if Jay realizes fans may have voted for Manny before he got suspended. I would be interested to see the count of votes before and after his PED suspension.

Shame on any fan who voted for Ramirez after May 7, when he was banned 50 games in another bleak episode for a sport that can't shed its attachment to the evil juice.

I am pretty sure Sammy Sosa made an All-Star Game after his bat was found corked and Alex Rodriguez is probably going to play in the game this year as a backup AND he played the years he was on steroids. Sure, he did not get caught at the time, but there is no outrage against A-Rod because many fans realize, as Jay Mariotti doesn't, it is an exhibition game. No matter how much MLB wants it to be important, it is not that important, but just pure entertainment.

But most of those 635,530 tallies came after the suspension announcement, a creepy acknowledgment that some people are starting not to care whether superstars cheat.

Here's the truth. Jay Mariotti has no idea how many votes came after the suspension, but he is just assuming many of them came after Manny was suspended. If he knew the number, he would tell us in an effort to help prove his point.

Just because folks are worn down by years of steroids coverage doesn't mean they should lower their standards and accept the cheats.

I am a little bit torn because I don't think Manny should be allowed to play in the game, but I also realize the rules say Manny is eligible and if the fans vote in a player for the All-Star Game then that is their right.

I don't think I can emphasize how useless many All-Star Games are. I think we take them a little too seriously, especially when we get many yearly columns about how fan voting ruins the game that essentially say how stupid the fans are. Many sportswriters hate the fans who read their columns.

American League fans have it right, recognizing that A-Rod should be punished for his steroids admission; he's a distant third in the third-base balloting behind an emerging superstar, Tampa Bay's Evan Longoria, who leads all AL players with 1,036,071 votes and is more than 600,000 clear of Rodriguez.

The results of the fan voting could also show that the fans think Longoria is more deserving, based on his performance, of playing in the All-Star Game. His vote tally may not be completely a statement against steroids. It doesn't seem like Jay completely grasps this concept.

The core issue here is integrity, the message a fan would send by prioritizing Ramirez's popularity over -- we warily assume -- the steroid-free results of Ibanez, NL outfield vote leader Ryan Braun, Beltran and others.

I agree. The fans would be saying they don't care about steroid suspensions all that much and they just want to see Manny playing baseball. The fans get to vote and if we took away every stupid vote in history, we would be redoing a few Presidential elections as well as some All-Star Game selections.

The All-Star Game should validate baseball's elite players in a specific year. Last July, it celebrated the return of Josh Hamilton from substance abuse when he battered old Yankee Stadium in a memorable barrage during the Home Run Derby.

The All-Star Game should do that. There is also one other problem that messes with the integrity of the All-Star Game in my opinion and that is the rule that says every team must have a representative in the All-Star Game. I would argue that rule has caused more All-Star Game injustice than Manny Ramirez being fifth in the fan poll for outfielders ever could. Sure Manny cheated, but there have been some really shitty players that have been allowed to play in the All-Star Game because of that stupid rule that says each team must have a representative.

If the All-Star Game counts, as Selig ordained when he granted home-field advantage in the World Series to the victorious team, it should adhere to the highest ethics.

I can see this reasoning but if it pertains to the highest of ethics than what would we do about previous All-Star Games where homefield advantage was decided and players involved used PED's? The game is tainted and I know that is not a reason to keep allowing the game to be tainted, but the bottom line is that the fans get to vote and some still vote for Manny Ramirez.

How is it ethical to leave off a better player who plays on a team with multiple representatives so a crappier guy for the Pirates can make the team? The problem with making the game "count" is that it is still an exhibition game, no matter how hard everyone tries to make it not be an exhibition game.

The fans will vote for the popular players who may not ultimately deserve to be in the game, so the smart idea would be to take away fan voting, but then the game is for the fans and they don't even get to vote on who plays? That doesn't make sense nor would it do much for the popularity of the game.

"The All-Star Game is for the fans and I think if he got voted in, then it would be appropriate for him to play," said Manuel, who will manage the NL team. "Once he serves his suspension, he's paid his penalty and he's just like every other player."

I am not trying to take a contrarian view at all on this situation because I think steroid users should be suspended for an entire year if they are caught. Manny will have paid his penalty and he is like every other player after he serves his suspension. I don't want him in the game, but the rules say he should be able to play.

Whether by asterisk or a different wing in Cooperstown, hopefully one with dark, sinister lighting, the cheaters must be grouped together in their infamy.

I really hope that Mariotti is not advocating a separate "steroid user" wing in the Hall of Fame. That just seems confusing and counterproductive to me. So a player cheated and his records are not considered to be "real" baseball records, but he still gets to be in the Hall of Fame, so the cheating was not considered to be bad enough to keep him out of the Hall of Fame but was severe enough to where he doesn't get included with the other Hall of Fame players? I don't know, maybe this would work. I think an asterisk in the record book would suffice personally.

LeBron James and his monster-truck body might be the subject of suspicion if he was a baseball player, but in the NBA, it's not given a second thought.

I can't believe Mariotti is going here, but yes it could be suspicious. Dwight Howard could also be suspected of using PED's...this really has nothing to do with baseball. In fact, baseball probably has the harshest drug penalties of any sport in my opinion. Not to mention the players are constantly put under a microscope after being caught. No one remembers that Merriman and Peppers got caught for using illegal drugs in football and no one is debating whether either of these players should be allowed in the Hall of Fame after they retire. If people do remember, they don't remember as well as they do for baseball players and these football players certainly don't have multiple columns written by Jay Mariotti about them.

I think baseball should be even harsher on those who get caught. A one year suspension would suffice for me on the first violation.

Dan: "If you could take a performance-enhancing drug and not get caught, would you do it if it allowed you to win Indy?"

Danica: "Well, then it's not cheating, is it? If nobody finds out?"

Dan: "So you would do it?"

Danica: "Yeah, it would be like finding a gray area. In motor sports, we work in the gray areas a lot. You're trying to find where the holes are in the rule book."

Tuesday, Danica apologized in USA Today, blaming Dan for his flippant way of conducting interviews.

This is what I was talking about during the LeBron James post the other day, when I was talking briefly about false apologies. She really would have cheated if she did not get caught. I believe this and her apology does nothing to convince me she would not. Sure it is the right thing to say, for "the kids" out there, but she made up a bullshit excuse. This has very little to do with the Mariotti post but I thought I would go off on a tangent for a second.

I'm very glad she stepped forward and apologized.

That's all the Apology Nazis like Jay Mariotti want. Manny Ramirez has not publicly apologized so they are going to hang him until he does. Should he publicly apologize? Sure, but I don't think it should be a requirement. Manny should not be allowed to play in the All-Star Game, but baseball rules say he can, and the fans want him to, so he should be allowed to.

You also need the most powerful form of public condemnation. Allowing Manny Ramirez anywhere near the All-Star Game, even with a ticket, is not our idea of an appropriate message. Vote no, America.

What about the other players who have played and will play in the All Star Game who are caught using PED's? Will A-Rod never be able to play again? Is that really fair? I don't want them to receive public condemnation, I just want them to quit cheating. Hell, the All-Star Game is almost a punishment for players voted into it. They don't get a couple of days off to rest and spend time doing what they want.

Or else we're a country without a conscience.

That's being over dramatic. I don't think Manny should be able to play in the All-Star Game, I don't think the fans should vote him in, I think if they do vote him in then he should decline, but I also know it is an exhibition game and if the fans want him to play there is no rule saying he can't.

Do you guys think Manny should be able to play? I don't personally, but if the fans want him, he should be allowed to play...which he currently can.

13 comments I Disagree With Gregg Doyel Though I Agree With Him

I wrote yesterday that I felt like a lot of people were tired of all the steroid talk in baseball and we have come to expect that the top players in the league are going to be busted for the use of steroids. I wanted to lay off the 'roids for the day but I had to comment on a Gregg Doyel column. Though I agree with him overall that we should all not be naive, he seems to think that everyone actually believes the excuses those who get caught use to explain the positive test, which I don't think a lot of people actually do believe these excuses, they just accept them because there is little evidence to contradict the story.

I wanted to first comment on this video that ESPN had on its front page near the bottom. If anyone had any doubts that ESPN caters to the Lowest Common Denominator fan, here is what the link for the video said:

Don't Be A Jackass!

Leave it to The Onion to discover the next great donkey prospect on the basketball court. It's satire!

They said The Onion did the video, so anyone who is familiar with the work of The Onion will immediately understand what is going on, but in case someone actually thought that there was a donkey prospect in basketball, ESPN felt the need to include a statement saying it was satire. I wish they hadn't done so, I would love to have known how many morons actually thought this was a real story that was not satire.

ESPN. It's idiocy!

This is the same network that I turned to at 10:30pm last night in a desperate attempt to get some sort of sports news and was treated to the breaking news that Manny had reached out to his teammates. I was worried he wasn't going to do that, I am glad ESPN and Baseball Tonight felt the need to update me on that.

Speaking of Manny, here is Gregg Doyel and his abrasive self.

Baseball star Manny Ramirez blatantly lied to us, and NASCAR driver Jeremy Mayfield lied even worse. They were caught using drugs, and they lied. Said they hadn't done it. Incredible. But do you know why they lied?

Because they knew somebody would believe them.

I don't mean to be overly sarcastic here but why else would these two lie? To hear themselves talk? They like to keep a notebook of all their lies and show it to friends at parties they have?

People lie in the hopes someone believes them and usually there is at least one person that believes a lie someone tells. I have a friend who swears that O.J. Simpson did not kill his wife and Ron Goldman (and who really knows?), there are many who probably believe Roger Clemens never used steroids, and I personally love to watch UFO Hunters on the History Channel and some of it makes sense to me. We are all crazy in our own little way, the key is to find the right crazy person to believe your story.

As stupid as the drug cheats on the field are -- seriously, in this day and age, how dumb do you have to be to take drugs when you know there will be testing? -- there are even stupider people in the stands.

And yet again the fans are the stupid ones for daring to believe in some of our heroes. The stupid ones aren't the sportswriters and columnists who covered for these guys so many years and those who wrote books about McGwire and Sosa's 1998 homerun chase, but the fans are stupid for still daring to believe in their heroes. The fans may be dumb but we only bought into half of the accomplishments during the Steroid Era because the media bit as hard as we did.

I am not naive, as I wrote yesterday, I believe now almost every player could be suspected of using steroids. I assume no one is clean. It doesn't bother me if a person wants to believe his/her favorite player is clean if he hasn't been busted for steroids. I handle my disappointment through anger, others through denial.

That being said, if you believe the lies of those that already got caught, you are sort of stupid.

I am not going to blame the fans as a whole though, like Gregg Doyel does.

But over time it has become painfully clear that athletes cheat, and will continue to cheat, and that the playing field actually is remotely level because of it, not in spite of it.

That's not entirely true. The playing field is not remotely level when a select group of individuals are using steroids, because every player in the entire league did not use these drugs. I am not sure I have ever heard someone argue the playing field is level in any arena because everyone is cheating...until now.

If you think cheating is isolated and gives undue advantages to the cheaters, then you're as clueless as Manny Ramirez and Jeremy Mayfield. Everyone is doing it, or almost everyone.

This brings up two points in my mind. The first point being that I really don't think steroids are as prevelant in baseball now as they used to be, but again I don't really know. The second point being that if Gregg Doyel has information that steroids are still prevelant or if he knows anything, he should not pull a Kurt Streeter and start blaming everyone who ignores the problem now, he should look in the mirror and see that it is his job as a journalist to report on this. I personally think Doyel is just making things up here.

This guy in Cincinnati was merely the latest in a long, long line of people willing to stake their gullibility to the cleanliness of Ken Griffey Jr.

Remember, Gregg Doyel hates Ken Griffey Jr. and thinks Griffey hates his family.

This isn't an accusation of Pujols or Griffey.

It actually just sounded like one.

Along comes Albert Pujols, putting up offensive numbers unseen since Joe DiMaggio or Lou Gehrig, and doing it at the exact same time the unrealistic numbers of Bonds, Ramirez and the rest were aided by steroids.

This is what pisses me off about the Steroid Era. I want to type, "well maybe he is the exception," but I know that is being naive. I think we should assume until Pujols is caught he is clean, but I also think we should accept the possibility Pujols is/was on steroids at some point.

And we just assume that Pujols, who's a large man by the way, is clean?

I am not sure being a large man is evidence he is using steroids because generally large men are the ones who hit more homeruns, so I would say a person being a large man means he is more disposed to hitting homeruns generally. You don't see a lot of small guys hitting 40 HR's in a year. I guess the question is how Pujols got large...

On my part, that means noting that, holy cow, Ken Griffey Jr. hit more than 45 home runs or had more than 118 RBI just four times in his career ... and all four years were 1996-99, which were Steroid Central. And since that time, Griffey's body has magically broken down. Now, is that an accusation of Griffey?

Yes, that sounds very similar to an accusation. Or a huge coincidence and I am not sure I believe in coincidences in regards to a baseball player's statistics during the Steroid Era.

Griffey's injuries were hamstring injuries and multiple tears in his knees and legs. I don't know if those are indicative of steroid use or not.

It is not.

It still sounds like one.

And none of this "I cheated, but only for three years" crap out of Alex Rodriguez's mouth. And not Brian Roberts' "admission" that he used steroids one time. Or Andy Pettitte's "admission" that he used HGH twice.

No. Come clean. All the way.

Here's the thing. We have no way of determining whether this is the truth or not. Sure, it sounds like a lie and it very well may be a lie. How do we know though? Baseball fans don't necessarily believe what the athletes are saying, we just don't have access to prove what the athletes are saying is a lie. Other than Selena Roberts, who uses anonymous sources to prove her facts, which are useless to fans, there is no evidence that contradicts many of the steroid fables. We need facts, not conjecture from some unnamed source.

So I think Gregg Doyel is wrong. The fans don't believe the lies, they just don't have a way to determine whether the lie is true or not, so they have to accept the statement from the athlete as fact and believe them for the time being. The entire fan base of MLB can not be investigative reporters and try to get to the bottom of the lies or potential lies or we can take what information we are given and make a decision based upon it. A story admitting the use of steroids by an athlete is good enough for the fans because it's the best they can get. Some story is better than no story. Sure we all want the real truth, but as Gregg admitted in the column here, that ain't happening.

Mayfield went amateur chemist on us when he said, "I believe that the combination of a prescribed medicine and an over-the-counter medicine reacted together and resulted in a positive drug test."

But he didn't name the prescription, or the OTC medicine. Why? Because those companies would sue him. Because he's lying.

I think anyone who has half a brain thinks Jeremy Mayfield is lying, but what can we do about it? I would never defend the use of steroids or never want anyone on my favorite teams to use steroids but there is nothing I can do about it. I am not going to dislike baseball or football just because there are some who use steroids. I am not going to quit my job and start to investigate whether Jeremy Mayfield is telling the truth. If he is, great. If he is lying, which is more likely in my mind, it doesn't matter to me as long as he gets punished. Everyone can see through the lies the athletes tell, but the public has to accept the lie until further evidence of the athlete's lie is proven.

The problem is, there are Ramirez fans who believe him. And there are Mayfield fans who believe him. You can't outlaw stupidity, so those people are allowed to exist.

Just because Dodgers fans still support Manny Ramirez doesn't mean they believe his lies. There is a big difference I think Gregg Doyel is missing here. There is a grey area between believing the athlete and supporting the athlete when he comes back. I don't personally support Manny when he comes back because he is a cheater and I don't believe his story at all. I think most people who believe Manny's story just want to believe it and those people are probably going to be Dodgers fans or Red Sox/Indians fans in denial. It's pretty weak in my opinion.

And because they exist, outright lies like the ones told by Ramirez and Mayfield will continue to exist.

Yes, if it were not for stupid people who believe the lies, those lies would not exist. I would like to know how Gregg Doyel knows the difference in those who actually believe Manny Ramirez and Jeremy Mayfield and those that just accept the lie because it is the only information the public has?

I love giving my opinion and I wanted to give my opinion on two NBA semi-controversies going on right now. If I find an article that is worth covering about the topics as well, I may post it, but I haven't found one yet.

In regards to the Orlando fan wanting Big Baby to apologize for bumping into his son after hitting the game winning shot Sunday night...if you don't want to take a chance you could be a part of the action, don't sit so close to the court. Baseball fans don't get angry when an OF/IF/C ends up in the stands with them while chasing a fly ball and basketball fans don't get angry if a player jumps into the crowd to save a loose ball. It's a similar principle here. Davis hit the shot very close to the Magic sideline and was excited so he turned around and starting running back to his teammates and accidentally hit a kid with his body. He apologized (possibly unnecessarily) and it is over, but for the father to act as if Davis had violated his son and publicly demand an apology was a bit much in my opinion. Sometimes when you are close to the action at a game, you get too close to the action and that was the case here.

The second semi-controversy has been this back and forth between Mark Cuban and Kenyon Martin about what Cuban said to Martin's mother. I like Mark Cuban and I wish there were more owners like him who showed passion for his team and did not always look at the financial aspect and wanted to put together a good team. He truly cares, which is wonderful to have in the NBA when there are so many owners and GM's that don't care. I am looking at you Michael Jordan and Robert Johnson. That being said, he has no business yelling and acting like an ass during a game...especially when talking to a player's mother.

I don't know what happened in that situation and I don't want to be too hard on Cuban because he did apologize publicly (on a blog), but he has to keep his cool together a little bit better than he did. I think what really pissed him off is that he has had a battle with the NBA since he bought the Mavericks about the officiating and the officials completely fucked (from my point of view) the Mavs at the end of the game. I don't think Cuban is really that angry of a person, I just believe he is so tired of the officials making mistakes he just let loose on Kenyon Martin's mother as a result of the bad call. It was a bitch thing to do on his part but if we look at the big picture, I can see why he got angry. The Mavericks have an especially bad recent history with the officials, Cuban used to keep track of the officials tendencies, and now his team loses an important game on a non-foul call. It doesn't excuse the behavior though.

22 comments Kurt Streeter Is Outraged That People Aren't Outraged

I personally believe steroids is cheating. I personally believe those people that take steroids should be punished to the fullest extent that MLB decides these offenders should be punished. I would also have no problem with a note of some type being put in the record books to signify which players were caught cheating using steroids while they were playing baseball or a note if it was found out after that player was retired he used steroids. I believe Hank Aaron is the all-time homerun champion and that Barry Bonds would have been a first ballot Hall of Fame player without steroids, which makes me kind of sad. Same thing with Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez. I also am incredibly tired of talking about steroids and finding out which players have used them, and I think my feelings are representative of many other people's feelings.

Everytime another player is suspended for using steroids it's like just another brick in the wall. No one is surprised or outraged because at this point we just assume everyone, excluding Adam Everett, are on steroids. There's nothing to be angry about. If you think your favorite team is going to lose a game or you expect someone to lie to you, you don't get surprised or outraged because the outcome met your expectations. I think this is true for a lot of people...Kurt Streeter being the exception. This article was on either the Big Lead or Deadspin yesterday but I felt like covering it as well.

Am I out of touch? Am I too angry, too outraged about Manny Ramirez and his dope-induced exile to baseball purgatory?

No, you are exceptionally late to the outrage party. That party ended several years ago when the arguably greatest pitcher of this era and arguably the greatest hitter of this era were both caught having used steroids. Then the party got jumping again when arguably the second best hitter of this generation got caught having used steroids, but now everyone is very hungover and just wants to eat some Bojangles and sleep all day. No one is in the mood to be outraged anymore. To be outraged at this point is to be naive. Because to be outraged means you didn't expect it to happen.

Striking how many are willing to treat their favorite player as if he's just gone off on a nice holiday. All will be forgiven, as long as No. 99 comes back swinging a fat bat.

Baseball is a results oriented sport, if Manny comes back and starts showing good results again the fans will be happy...especially if he is not on steroids. Remember, his use of steroids actually benefits the fan in a way, because it makes the Dodgers a better team. It is also cheating and everyone wants a clean game so that is something fans have to balance. It has come to many baseball fan's attention that we do not have and will not have a clean game any time soon, so rather than hold up signs saying "cheater," we just cheer for our favorite teams and hope they win.

"Hey, he cheated, everyone has their crutch, it's not that big a deal," said Mike Calame, 45, sitting near the left-field foul pole at Dodgers Stadium the other day. He shrugged a shrug I'd end up seeing time and again.

Using steroids to gain an advantage is very clearly cheating but what does Kurt Streeter want everyone to do? Quit watching baseball because it is tainted? Never cheer for the players who tested positive and hope they fail? We are a forgiving society and those people who take their punishment without making a lot of noise get a lot of good will from the public and will be forgiven quickly. Manny did this.

So, sitting here in the press box during the Dodgers' Saturday win against the Giants, the question comes. Am I, along with the other journalists who are breathing fire about this sordid story, simply out of touch with a huge slice of our audience, the who-cares-who-takes-what crowd?

I would not say he is out of touch with a huge slice of the audience, I would say by acting outraged and writing columns talking about what a massive cheater Manny Ramirez is, Kurt Streeter is overestimating how shocked his audience is after every revelation. At this point it would not shock me if any player in MLB is found to have used steroids. There is only so much outrage the fans can muster before they have to accept they enjoy a flawed game.

Baseball is entertainment. The fans aren't naive enough to believe those who entertain us don't cheat just a little bit in the process of entertaining. Baseball fans want the game to be clean, but have accepted the fact it is not. Those who get caught get punished, which is the best we as fans can hope for.

You bet I'm out of touch, and that's the very reason it's important everyone in the media keep laying the wood to the rule-breakers and ne'er-do-wells.

I like how he portrays the media as the white knight who rides in to make sure the game is fair and no one is cheating and blames the fans for being apathetic. Which group of people had better access to know and suspect the steroid problem in baseball? The everyday fan who watched on television and in the ballparks or the columnists who saw the players everyday in the locker room, saw them around in just towels, and heard the rumors?

The fans are the victim of the steroid use in baseball and the media kept its head in the sand just long enough to fein ignorance. I'm not buying it. Don't chastise the fans for not caring about steroids in baseball and try to be the one who is above the fray. The media didn't care and ignored the problem long before the fans had the chance to.

Someone has to draw the line. Someone has to keep hold of standards.

Yes, and that is the Commissioner of Baseball, Bud Selig. He's another guy who stuck his head in the sand. Kurt Streeter? Well he is just complaining about the problem and trying to be morally outraged that the fans don't seem to care about the problem. The fans did care about the problem until they saw the Steroid Era was a massive cover up by the media and baseball management who did not report on the things they saw, by the players actually doing the cheating, and by MLB and the Union who had no steroid testing in place. Every single group here is culpable and just because you, Kurt Streeter, decides the line needs to be drawn now doesn't mean anything. If you were the one drawing the line and holding up standards ten years ago then the fans may be able to join you, but right now, we just want to watch baseball on television and in ballparks.

It's when we lose track of this, when we as a society are willing to cut too much slack, when we in the press stop drawing a hard line, that deep trouble comes.

The Steroid Era is ending. Players are being tested and those that continue to use are being suspended. If you want to draw the line, find a time machine and start writing articles like this circa 1997.

Who cares what Ramirez or Barry Bonds or A-Rod put in their bodies? So long as my team is on top, so long as I get to drive around with a "World Champs" bumper sticker, it doesn't really matter.

I like how the media simplifies the thoughts of the fans so well. It is partially true the fans just want their teams to win, but they also want a clean game that doesn't have steroid users in it. It's really much deeper than that though. If the culture of baseball didn't care about finding out who used steroids and who did not a few years ago, why should the fan care now that those same people who used steroids are being outed?

Fans want baseball, not to hear more stories of athletes lying, deceiving and sticking hyperdermic needles in their ass.

My wife teaches third grade at a school a mile from Dodger Stadium. Is this what she should tell her kids, a group that has adored Ramirez since he arrived in town? "Kids, it doesn't matter if you cheat."

He did cheat and now he has been punished. Was the punishment severe enough? MLB seems to think so. Instead of Kurt's wife saying it doesn't matter if you cheat, she should say, "If you cheat, then you will get caught and punished."

If cheating were in the open, if it stared us in the face, if a select group operated with different rules right there in front of us, maybe we'd wise up.

I completely don't understand what everyone is supposed to do. There are zero options or solutions being presented by Kurt Streeter here in this column.

There was a select group operating with different rules right in front of the locker room media and baseball management for years and they did not wise up. Why should anyone expect the fans to get outraged now? Again, I don't speak for everyone, but I would think we are all very tired of steroids and just want the offenders to be punished so baseball can go on.

How would you feel about Tiger Woods if you saw him take a mulligan every time he sprayed a drive? How'd you like it if, when the Cavaliers played the Lakers, they started six players and L.A. started five?

That is kind of different than steroid usage. Steroid usage is cheating by enhancing your performance, while those two examples are completely changing the rules of the sport to give one person or team an advantage.

Even worse, the cheats are sending the ugliest possible message about living healthily, especially to the kids who deify them.

I know I have written this 100 times so far today but now that offenders are being punished why is the fan supposed to be outraged? No one gave a shit about the kids in the late 1990's and early 2000's, and now that the offenders actually have a punishment handed down to them it seems like it should suffice. I don't know what else should be done, other than walk around angry all the time about it and chastise the offenders every time they are at bat...which I am sure A-Rod and Manny are going to actually get a lot of during road games.

"I'm afraid people don't really understand how horrific this stuff is, they don't know what it does, they don't know that it can kill you," said Dr. Anthony Butch, director of the UCLA Olympic Analytic Laboratory.

Smoking, drinking, driving an automobile at any point, flying in an airplane, eating unhealthy, and getting the flu can also kill you. I would guess more Americans do those things every year than those that use steroids. Steroids is a problem, there's no doubt about it, but I am personally more concerned about my children smoking at a young age and driving a car than shooting up steroids in their room.

Steroids are a drug and there are side effects and horrible things that can happen when any drug is taken.

"What kind of message is this sending?" he asked after I'd told him how many people didn't really care. "You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see the fans stay away. . . . We can't send the message that cheating is OK."

The fans do care and they are tired of their heroes cheating. The fans of MLB are not apathetic people, quite the opposite, they really care about the game. Unfortunately many fans are responding with little caring at each new steroid user revelation because that is how baseball responded to the problem. Let's be clear, the fans aren't the problem and did not create the problem. If baseball wanted steroids gone, they could have taken steps to have done it a long time ago and they didn't.

Yes, eventually we should forgive him; everyone deserves a second act. But we should also regard Ramirez as tarnished, deeply so, now and for good.

Manny is tarnished and part of the reason Streeter got a lot of indifference from the fans is because he talked to Dodgers fans who want Ramirez back to help the team. If he asked fans of another team they would give Ramirez hell for using. That's how it is.

A sign we need more who are angry and indignant and offended. Count me in this last group. It's my job.

Actually you're job was to tell the public many years ago about this problem and that didn't happen. The fans were angry and offended, but just want to be able to enjoy a clean game of baseball but also expect nearly every star player to be caught using steroids at this point.

I want everyone to know I actually laughed at Bill's Twitter post about Mark Cuban not having to apologize to Kenyon Martin's mom because he has a tattoo of a woman's lips on his neck. I thought it was kind of funny.

Now we have Peter's MMQB-Tuesday Edition up, and yet again, my question did not get posted. I will not give up though.

From Cliff Prince of Midlothian, Va.: "Everyone always points to the strength of schedule when predicting how a team will do, but with the parity in the NFL and the changing year-to-year of the strength of these teams, it seems a poor indicator of things to come. That rough schedule the Steelers had last year ended up 133-120. Given the state of the NFL, I think its better to assume that the schedule will be slightly to the inverse of the previous year's strength. Your thoughts?

Come on. Peter has no real thoughts. Just things he thinks he thinks.

But let me ask you this: Right now, at this point in May, would you rather have a schedule that LOOKED the way Pittsburgh's looked last year (with New England, the Giants and Indianapolis), or would you rather have the schedule Pittsburgh has for 2009 (with Detroit, Kansas City and Oakland)? You never know how the situation is going to play out with the schedule, but looking at it now, you know the Pittsburgh slate this year looks a lot easier than a year ago.

So Cliff had a point, but Peter would rather ignore that valid point and just go back to how the schedule looked rather than admit that a team's strength of schedule at the beginning of the year sometimes is a lot easier or harder than the team's strength of schedule at the end of the year. It can change drastically. Don't bother him with your facts, just look at the schedule and make guesses about which schedule looks harder.

And there's no reason, just because Josh McDaniels didn't tell Cutler categorically that he would never be traded, that Cutler should stage a wildcat strike from the team with three years left on an existing contract.

But for those that have forgotten, Peter thinks it is perfectly fine for a quarterback to stage a wildcat strike and demand a trade to specific teams when that player has previously retired with years left on his contract even though the head coach and GM didn't tell that player categorically he would get the starting QB job.

But let's not kill Cutler because the Denver defense gave up 30, 30 and 52 points, respectively, in the last three games last year.

One of those 30 point games was against Carolina who Peter ranked 18th in his power rankings. (Sorry, I am still miffed and I don't even really care, imagine if I actually respected Peter's opinion.)

Not really a slam of Buffett. Just a point that it's pretty desperate when you tie your marketing fate to him. Just thought it was odd, and I will be surprised if it sells many tickets.

Yeah, it makes much sense to tie your Super Bowl halftime marketing fate to Bruce Springsteen playing halftime for twelve minutes. The Dolphins-Buffett may not sell tickets but we are talking about it aren't we?

From Phil of Bear Creek, Vt.: "I fully agree with you that the Buffett deal is weird. I think its weird as hell, and makes me wonder about the business acumen of some of these "professional" football men. But, with that said, I don't think you fully understand Buffett's popularity. Saying he hasn't had a hit since 1977 is like saying the Grateful Dead weren't popular because they rarely made the Billboard top 10. Buffett has a HUGE following. Again, agree with your point 100%....but don't diss Buffett.''

Does Peter only listen to top 40 radio? If so, he must think Lady Gaga is a legend.

Nestor Aparicio of WNST radio in Baltimore, who basically rewrote Buffet's Wikipedia page and concluded: "Honestly, I think it's a great relationship and smart branding on both sides. But again, nothing can make the Dolphins institutionally "sold out" in a fickle South Florida market that has always eschewed "Northeast-style" passion for the NFL. Or even Midwestern passion. Too much sunshine there, too many pretty girls, too many options.''

Yep, it probably is hard to sell tickets down there. Whatever can work they go for I guess.

Next week we need to get published in the MMQB-Tuesday Edition. I don't know exactly why, but it is my mission now. He has to answer my Aaron Curry question at some point.

5 comments I Hate Sports

Just kidding. I do however, hate this whole mental hangup the sporting culture has. This kind of perpetual navel gazing it engages in. Are sports heartless? Do steroids mean baseball is no longer relevant? Does T.O. talk to much? What is Tony doing with Jessica Simpson? Aren't the New York Knicks disfunctional, hahaha. It's just pitiful, and it's the exact opposite of what sports journalism should be like. If you remember my posts from July-October last year, you'll be very familiar with this angry old man gripe of mine, and you'll also remember the poster child for this.

No, not Terrell Owens, the other one.

You know I love Manny. He seems to be the lightning rod for the "what do your sports say about you" kind of trashy, self indulgent nonsense. The pompous, dictatorial, culture warrior style sportswriter get their reps on bashing Manny Ramirez. Here is a typical example. Anyway, Jeff MacGregor is the latest in this long, proud, staunchly arrogant tradition.



Dear God. Just look at him there. He knows what you do at night, you Manny lovers, and he's fucking pissed. It's like Charlton Heston and Clint Eastwood had a child, and they sent him to a school where the only teachers were Ty Cobb and Darrell Dawkins. Here are some latest taglines;


Here are just a few of the many lessons the fables of the sports world teach us.


Jeff MacGregor sees the NFL combine as just another example of trying to find order in a world in which it doesn't exist.


Alex Rodriguez and Michael Phelps are the latest heroes to be chewed up by the pop culture fame machine.


In his Page 2 debut, Jeff MacGregor urges us all to step back and appreciate sports as one of life's treasures.


Oh yes, ladies and gents, me and Jeff are gonna get very well acquainted. In a world gone mad, only one man stands between us and moral damnation - Jeff MacGregor

Won't someone think of the children?

God this is gonna be awesome.

A children's crusade this week, in which no child is left behind.

When those of us who write or talk about sports for a living trot out the cliché that some professional athlete plays like a little kid out there, what we're usually trying to say is that he or she plays the game with a lot of joy. That they play with the happy abandon of childhood.

Trouble is, happiness isn't the only attribute of childhood.

it's like he's saying this with a toothpick in his mouth. He needs a sidekick - "trouble is, Muchacho, happiness isn't the only attribute of childhood". Yes, Jeff, we don't typically mean "Jose Reyes is playing with a laughable level of incompetence out there". "Jonathon Papelbon looks positively angelic on the mound tonight, what a little cupcake". Well spotted.

As adults we tend to remember only the untroubled innocence. The fun. But childhood is actually pretty frightening, a struggle up the ladder of fears and upsets and confusions for which we're born unprepared. We learn our way out of most of our worst behaviors as we grow. We learn not to be afraid of the dark, not to throw tantrums, not to lash out in anger, not to grab or bite or lie, not to pester adults for their attention and not to put just anything we find laying around in our mouths.

it is indeed, very much like baseball. Colour me put in my place.

Eventually we even learn to share, to ask politely for the things we want and to be gracious if we don't always get them, to overcome our ignorance and to be secure in ourselves and our thoughts and decisions and at ease in our own skins. Most of us do, anyway.

uh-oh! I feel a maturity burn coming along from the mighty arbiter of ethical behavior, Clint Wayne Bronson Stallone up there. Spare me your pontificating. Go write on politics, where immaturity and selfishness is costing jobs. Or finance, where greed and unscrupulous behaviour has helped spark a worldwide economic collapse. You know, go write about something with consequences. Oh wait, you don't know shit about those things, you know sports, but you still want to have a pulpit. Hmm, what to do? I know, ignore sports and see it as a "metaphor" for life so you can cram your self serving pseudo-philosophy down everyone's throat who accidentally stumbles into your article.

I call it Easterbrooking, and these people are so desperate for attention that it won't be long before when you click those links it locks you into the page until you've read every word, dripping with condescention. Absolutely shameless.

Others, prominent among us, do not. After last week's tutorial on the matter, delivered by three of America's most gifted athletes, I've come to the conclusion that Terrell Owens, Manny Ramirez and Alex Rodriguez are much more childlike in their play than any of us ever suspected. They're like little kids out there! By which I mean they're alternately petulant, selfish, fearful, spoiled, forgetful, insecure, irresponsible, attention-starved and prone to hysterics. When they're not trying too hard, they're not trying at all. They are an absolute laundry list of the least attractive attributes of every child everywhere.

and they get the absolute privelidge of being judged by you, and the rest of the sporting world. Why? On what basis? A few headlines, the intolerable Ed Werder's little soundbytes, some trashy photographer catching Madonna and A-Rod in the same frame? Oh, it's totally ok, because they make a lot of money and had the audacity to be good at sport. Bastards. Look, none of these three is an angel. There's every liklihood they are all nasty people (though I don't personally support that view), what is true is you don't fucking know. No matter how much ESPN 360 you've watched. You don't know these people, and that's fine, to have snap reactions, whatever, but it doesn't justify a persons insatiable need to grab the moral high ground by criticising people they just don't know from the safety of a web page.

I, for instance, have criticised Jeff MacGregor's article, and litany of articles, as self serving, but I don't know the guy, I don't pretend to know. And besides my whole ranting, you know what about this stuff? It's fucking boring. Consistantly, again and again, polls on sports websites come back saying people are sick of the drama. People just want to see the fucking game and talk about it with their friends. Do you sit there and go "gee that A-Rod sure is a jerk, I think he's a jerk, do you? He sure is a jerk?" Or do you compare how teams match up, what the likely career arc of Homer Bailey is, the chances of the Utah Jazz making unlikely noise in the Western Conference playoffs?

This judges not only whether you actually enjoy sports, but also your level of being able to keep shit in perspective.

Having watched A-Rod's public performance over the past several weeks, can anyone doubt the depth of his personal uncertainty or the breadth of his need to please others? His need to be liked above all else?

There is something so unfinished about his character as to be disturbing.

Disturbing/Not disturbing. Again? Disturbing/Not disturbing. Get real. And I'm not saying sports don't matter, I love sports. And if you wanna say something like "that dunk was the greatest thing in the Universe ever", I'm right there with you, that's about sports, they are fun and that's what they are there for. Hyperbole has it's place - in fun. In judging other people, it's a pretty petty, weak and indulgent thing to do I think.

Every interview seemed to reveal not just his need to say the things he thought others wanted said, but a willingness to let others make every decision for him. To seek the approval of cousins, agents, managers, doctors, reporters on the matters of contrition and steroids and contracts and surgery. The person with the least influence on A-Rod's life is clearly A-Rod himself. In this way, he is never at fault. Deferential to the point of self-destruction, he's an absentee landlord in his own house.

And for the next six to nine weeks, the Yankees and Team Rodriguez and Major League Baseball will bring to bear on A-Rod's fragile hip all the expensive weaponry of Western medicine. For his psychic frailty, however, for his insecurity, for his bottomless self-doubt, for his unformed morality and his spiritual vacuity, they have nothing.

it's such a metaphor for the human condition. It's like, we're A-Rod, you know? And we're like, spiritually nihilistic, that's like the stuff, like the "agents". And it gets us out of control. And over here is the Western medicine - spiritual medicine. And it's not helping man...it's not helping! Woah. Just blew my mind.

Yeah, but actually, they have psychiatrists, which I believe he has spoken to, seen as a joke by many people. They can totally help if he does have some emotional issues, which neither of us have any idea if he does or he's just sick of people doing shit like this.

Manny Ramirez is his near-perfect opposite. He neither knows nor cares what anyone thinks of him or his decisions. Or anything else in the world. This might seem admirable if it arose out of mindfulness, out of some deeply held conviction or hard-won state of spiritual satori. Rather, it seems to arise out of a child's fuguelike cluelessness. Imagine trying to call little Manny back into the house for dinner 25 years ago. You'd still be standing there. Literally carefree, Mr. Ramirez is oblivious to everything in the world but himself. A savant with a bat, he too is never at fault.

Thus his limitless self-absorption is the comic counterpoint to A-Rod's tragic absence of any self at all.

Tragedy/Not tragedy. Again? Tragedy/Not tragedy.

Terrell Owens somehow manages to synthesize both these opposing liabilities into one big tangle of neuroses. He can neither live without your attention nor stand for your scrutiny.

Somehow, having now touched all four points of the compass north, south, east and west, Owens remains completely directionless.

it's like a fucking opus. This feels like work. Why does everything have to be such a big deal Jeff?

Set aside for the moment all the hackneyed oratory and manufactured outrage about locker room cancers and news conference prima donnas, and think about Mr. Owens' root problem: At every station along his trail of tears, he drives away the very people he needs most: quarterbacks. This seems in a wide receiver a personality defect worth exploring.

and yet - awesome. Intriguing. Maybe it's to do with his...skill?

Instead, the press will cover with great care and deliberation whether T.O. prefers to eat his wings at Duff's or the Anchor, and Drew Rosenhaus -- who looks more like a carny on the lam from a rural justice of the peace with every television appearance

imagine that. The stupidity. Analysing some sportsman psychological state of mind. What kind of lifeless loser would do that? I mean grow up. Stop treating sportsman like real life G.I.Joe and get some actual role models for a change. This is just intellectual masturbation - I couldn't agree with you more Jeff. Jeff?

For its part, the NFL will restate the manly value of "mental toughness," by which it means "keep your mouth shut." Because in professional sports any deviation from the norm in the mind or the spirit is a terrifying weakness, an embarrassing and incurable infirmity.

Football, like America, does not thrive on emotional complexity. We are a nation in thrall to spectacle and cheap sentiment, and the NFL, like Hollywood, delivers on both counts.

pfft. Hear that America? You just like sport for it's "cool moments", it's "fun", it's "entertainment value", it's "pitting the best in the world against each other", the "spectacle". You don't get sports. Not like Jeff MacGregor does, you plebicite scum. You disgust me. You need to apprieciate all the little emotional motivations, the tragedies, repeat, this is all a really big deal!

And what of me and my colleagues up here in the press box? Well, in much the same way that Rush Limbaugh hopes the new administration fails -- because it keeps him in business to say so -- sports writers have a vested interest in bad outcomes for players like A-Rod and Manny and T.O.

finally after umpteen words, we have the first morsel of intellectual honesty. I'll give you that.

There's no malice in it, really

I take it back.

The dissonance in all this is that in the moral vacuum of professional sports we treat our athletes like children -- then punish them for behaving like children. They're like little kids out there!

If this seems only another indictment of the world of the coddled jock, of the witless superstar insulated from reality, of the vapid action hero finally paying the price for his epic narcissism, think again.

Jeff MacGregor : it's finally here...I've been waiting all article to unleash this beast of an idea. It's going to fucking floor them. Here it comes, are you ready?

Because T.O. and A-Rod and Manny live in the same fantasyland of unearned privilege and unreal expectation every one of us has inhabited for a very long time.

BAM! Oh man. Not even I realised I was going to be that good. Holy shit. I need a cigarette. Jeff MacGregor, you are the cultural oracle of our time, taking the pulse of Western civilisation. I am so good I scare myself sometimes, it just flows through me.

This is the same America of shameless appetite and instant reward, of limitless self-pity and bottomless selfishness, of aggressive impulse and monumental entitlement, of loud opinion and ignorant vanity and ethical bankruptcy that we've all been busy building. This is our no-fault America, the America of perpetual adolescence.

It is a place without consequence or cost, a place without a care for the future or a worry for the past. It is an America of the bright, eternal present, where cause and effect are suspended in favor of a walk through the mall, an empty head and an interest-only balloon mortgage.

This is the America currently collapsing around us.

This is the America we inherit from ourselves, a nation of children.

Kaufman awakes at his typewriter, reciting the words of profundity that have dribbled out his fingertips and onto the page. Looking at him, heavy and sullen with the gloom of an angry winter.

End scene.

8 comments Ten Things I Think I Think Peter King Has Not Thought Of: Absolutely No Mention of Steroids Or Brett Favre Edition

I have a list of articles about a mile long in my bookmarks that I want to comment upon and mock, so Thursdays are always a great day to do this. For some reason I can't get to Woody Paige's homepage at the Denver Post, I am not sure if this is caused by divine intervention or a bad link, but either way I am going through Woody Paige withdrawal and I need a fix. Hopefully the link will start working again here soon.

1. I am sure no one is sick of A-Rod yet. Well in his constant dedication to stay out of the spotlight and focus on baseball, he has made news yet again by opening his mouth. This time he dissed Jesus himself, Derek Jeter, and sportswriters will be having none of that...specifically Mike Vaccaro at the New York Post.

The trendy thing to do among skeptics, cynics and statistical analysts is to diminish who Derek Jeter is, what Jeter is, what he brings to the ballpark every day. His range has shrunk. He is neither slugger nor perennial batting champion. Since signing his $189 million contract, he hasn't even been a part of a World Series winner.

My job on this blog would be so much easier if sportswriters would just write up my arguments for me, then I can just copy and paste. Thanks Mike Vaccaro!

You can snicker at what being a baseball captain means. Baseball players don't snicker at what it means.

"It isn't a question of who should be the captain on this team," Jimmy Rollins, a pepperpot leader in his own right, said recently. "There's only one possibility, and that's Derek Jeter."

Oh no, I am still snickering. Rollins did not say who WAS captain on the team, he said who SHOULD BE, thereby indicating there was not one, or indicating it was not Jeter.

Semantics in your eye!

There may be one prominent player who disagrees with that, but he was in Jupiter, Fla., yesterday, telling reporters how much he would enjoy having Jose Reyes on his team — which, of course, would only be possible if the incumbent shortstop were playing somewhere else.

I would say there are 29 teams in the major leagues that would rather have Jose Reyes rather than Derek Jeter on their team. Ok, maybe 24 teams, but the other 5 don't want "leadership" and already have a good leadoff hitter.

"I wish (Reyes) was leading off on our team, playing on our team," Rodriguez said. "That's fun to watch. Anytime you have that type of speed. I mean, we have a guy in (Brett) Gardner that'll be fun. That's probably the most you can have, watching those guys run."

If this were a game of "Yo Mama" this "diss" would be met by a round chorus of boos. Probably because it was not a good diss or a diss at all. (Is "diss" short for dismissal? If so, I want to call it a dismissal because it sounds a lot more final and tough)

This was not a dismissal of Derek Jeter, this was a compliment to Jose Reyes. A-Rod should never have said it because he should know the media is going to jump all over the Jeter-Rodriguez feud, but theoretically Reyes would look pretty good at 2B for the Yankees. So it could very well not be a direct dismissal of Jeter and more of a compliment to Reyes...but why look at it that way, that's not controversial.

Which of these players would you want?

113 runs, 19 triples, 16 HR, 68 RBIs, 56 SB, .297/.358/.475 (Reyes)
70 runs, 3 triples, 14 HR, 72 RBIs, 2 SB, .271/.305/.410 (Cano)

A-Rod is a dumbass for saying this, but just because Jeter is a SS doesn't mean that A-Rod wanting Reyes on his team would mean that he is dissing Jeter and wants Reyes to play SS for the Yankees. Can you imagine the Yankees with Reyes at 2B at the head of the lineup and Robinson Cano not in the lineup? That would be a tough lineup and I think that is what A-Rod was trying to say, but his attempt was futile.

Jeter knows exactly when to talk and exactly when to keep his mouth shut. A-Rod hasn't learned that trick yet. Why would you ever expect he would?

Jeter is much smarter when it comes to matters like this, but everything A-Rod says is not a dismissal of Jeter, though A-Rod should be smarter than to even make a comment like this. He never said he wanted Jeter to be replaced by Reyes, he merely said he would want Reyes leading off for the Yankees, and the implication is that Reyes would replace Jeter at SS, but I think he looks just as good at 2B. So I have used semantics to defend A-Rod again. I am tired of defending A-Rod, for God's sake he dates that awful hag Madonna.

2. I don't get the Dodgers and what they are doing. They are going to be in the same situation next year with Manny Ramirez as this year...because Manny is going to opt out of his contract after this year. I guarantee this.

We're all pretty sure the Dodgers weren't good enough to win without Manny (and to be honest, the Dodgers knew it, too). But is the Manny of 2009 going to be committed enough and motivated enough to carry this team the way he carried last year's team?

I know the Dodgers want to compete but they gave Manny a no-trade clause and let him opt out of his contract after this year. So they can't trade him if he doesn't want to be traded and they are going to be in the same boat as this year in 9 more months. I think they are dumb for doing this.

It's still a big deal to get it done, though. Isn't it?

"I'm excited, yeah," said Kemp, who really didn't sound excited at all.

Possibly because Kemp realizes he is going to have to be in centerfield this year with Manny to his right in leftfield, so he essentially will get to play 1.5 outfield positions.

Or maybe he is tired from partying all night...

In truth, the common ground was found last week, when the Dodgers and Boras settled on the concept of a two-year deal with an opt-out after the first year. And that's the deal that eventually got done, at the same $45 million.

The magic of Scott Boras strikes again. He got Manny the exact same deal he was offered 2 months ago. Scott Boras will steal your car and then bring it back to you a couple of months later and make you believe he has achieved something for you.

It's a deal that should make everyone happy, except for one thing: With that opt-out clause, we might have to watch the same circus play out next winter.

Maybe I don't know anything about anything but why would the Dodgers agree to this deal? I know they did not want to commit to Manny long term and they need him in the lineup, but they have set themselves up for the same song and dance with Boras and Manny next year at this time. They essentially signed Manny to a one year contract, which is fine if that is what they want, but I don't know why they would want to have to negotiate on a contract again next year.

3. Peter King is back on Tuesday to give more of his semi off kilter opinions and inside information.

1. The Seattle Seahawks got a lot better Monday when they signed T.J. Houshmandzadeh. He's caught more balls (294) over the last three years than any other receiver in football, and he's caught more balls (372) over the last four years than any other receiver in football.

He did all of that on the other side of Chad Johnson and with Carson Palmer throwing to him. Unless the Seahawks plan is to draft Michael Crabtree, T.J. is going to be the #1 option for the first time in a long while. He played with Chad Johnson at Oregon State and Cincinnati and has never been the #1 option. He is also 32 years old. These are the types of things I take into account before I get all giddy about a free agent signing.

In the West Coast offense, precision is so important because multiple receivers have to get to pivotal gaps in a defense. And Houshmandzadeh is one of the best route-runners in football. If he's supposed to run a 12-yard incut, he'll run the 12 yards exactly,

If Houshmandzadeh is such a great route runner this may be a great signing, but I still wonder how he will do with Deion Branch and not Chad Johnson on the other side.

On another note, is it really that hard to run 12 yards exactly on a route? It sounds like Houshmanzadeh is one of the few receivers who can do this consistently, but how is this hard? You start at the 20 yard line and run an incut to the 32 yard line...exactly. Please realize I have lived in an attic for years and never played any recreational sports...my bones are actually calcified from inactivity, but I would think every receiver should be able to run an exact 12 yard incut.

The Chiefs, of course, got not only Cassel last weekend, but also a locker-room presence in linebacker Mike Vrabel.

Of course they got Cassel, thanks for reminding us in case we had forgotten. I like how Peter talks about Mike Vrabel in this sentence, calling him a "presence," like he is a ghost who goes around the locker room haunting it with motivational messages to his teammates.

Actually, the Broncos paid Lonie Paxton a million to sign, with a five-year deal averaging $1.06M a year, when they had a perfectly good snapper in house -- the reliable Mike Leach. Every year I see teams bring snappers to training camp, new guys with this same singular skill, and I can't figure for the life of me any good reason to take a spot on your roster for one of these players and pay him a million a year. It's indefensible, illogical.

It's indefensible and illogical until your favorite teams loses a game or two on a bad snap, then it seems a little bit more logical. That's a lot of money for a guy who just snaps the ball but the long snapper is the person who initially touches the ball on last second field goal attempts and on punts deep in your own territory. You want this guy to be reliable. So you pay for it. What is ridiculous is Peter thinking the Antonio Smith deal was a good one for the Texans.

From Justin of Peoria, Ill.: These contracts are becoming ridiculous! It was not that long ago that five years and $21 million was considered a large contract. When the rest of America is struggling to make it, these contracts rub me the wrong way. I am beginning to become more of a college football fan."

Sure Justin, because $4.5 million per year for Pete Carroll is just so much more reasonable when you have 60 guys on the team pulling a free scholarship for the mere purpose of playing a sport so the school can make more money, when there is probably more academically qualified individuals who want to attend that school but can't afford it financially. Also, there is a chance the athletes pulling a free scholarship were borderline academically eligible in the first place. College football is just so much more perfect.

Kevin Octavio of Mill Valley, Calif.: "Todd Haley question: In today's column you note, 'The Chiefs now should have their quarterback of the future, assuming new coach Todd Haley's as good a quarterback tutor as he appeared in Arizona the past couple of years.' Why does Haley get a quarterback guru rep? Sure he got a MVP caliber year out of Kurt Warner, but Warner already had that ability. The development of Matt Leinart [or lack of] should be more indicative of Haley's QB development skills.''

Who said everyone who lives in Mill Valley, California are hippies who love nature trails? Kevin makes a great point. Peter was so happy that Todd Haley, who I am not completely sure is going to be a great head coach, is going to mentor Matt Cassel that he forgot to look at Haley's track record. That track record is just ok.

I would personally look at Leinart to determine if Haley is a good QB coach.

Good point. But I'm not sure you can peg the lack of Leinart development on Haley. Leinart didn't get his chance this year not because Leinart stinks, but rather because Warner was too good. I think Leinart would have played well this year had he gotten the chance. How well, no one knows.

Uh, this doesn't make sense. Warner playing well this year and Leinart's development as a quarterback are two mutually exclusive issues. Leinart can still develop and Warner can still be a great quarterback, but the fact the Cardinals just signed Warner to a 2 year $23 million dollar deal tells me Peter King is wrong and Leinart did not develop this year and would not have played well.

What does Peter base his opinion Leinart would have played well this year upon anyway? Magic fairy wishes? I am using Leinart's career stats.

Ryan of Scottsdale, Ariz.: "Do these players ever figure in the cost of living when they are deciding which offer is most attractive? Does Bart Scott have any idea that $7.5M a year in the Baltimore area gives you a much higher standard of living than $8M a year in New York?''

I thought about this last week when Ross Tucker mentioned he would rather play for Detroit if they offered him more money, but I did not know what COLA I should make for living in Detroit, so I gave up. This is a very rational and smart question. What's Peter say?

Sure, but there are other factors. Scott's wife is a fashionista, and they have come to Fashion Week in New York before. That was a factor in the decision he made.

Apparently Bart Scott believes cars that would carry his wife to New York from Baltimore (which is not a bad ride) would also take up a good portion of his signing bonus so he can't afford to do this. Between stitches and buying a car he would almost have none of his signing bonus left. These people have to eat you know.

If that was even close to being part of the reason, that was stupid, because Fashion Week is only a week long and is not a reason to not factor in the cost of living for New York. I am learning a lot about Bart Scott.

4. Gene Wojciechowski thinks Jay Cutler is being a cry baby. He should know about being a cry baby because he is a Cubs fan. (I am kidding Cubs fans...please don't get angry with me...or cry about me being mean)

Thanks to Martin for giving me a heads up on this article. Any chance to get lazy, I will take it.

Will someone please give Jay Cutler his pacifier, hand him his favorite blankie and put him back in his crib for his afternoon nap?

Will someone please take away Gene's computer? Look Gene, something shiny!

But the mere thought of a possible trade upset Cutler so much that he went into full waaaa-waaaa-waaaa mode, wailing like an infant. Why are they being so mean to me? That sort of thing.

Cutler is kind of a problem child by nature, but I can't say I would be terribly pleased if a new coach got hired and I was being shopped around the league. There is already all this uncertainty with a new regime and then the new guy wants a different quarterback, and a quarterback who has had one good year as a starter at that. It's enough to make someone insecure.

Why call Denver and ask about Cutler? Because the Broncos haven't reached the playoffs since the 2005 season. Because Cutler's record as a starter is 17-20.

Oh well now I am convinced. Why does everyone at ESPN think a team's record is completely indicative of how good the quarterback is? If this were true, the top quarterbacks in the NFL last year were Eli Manning, Jake Delhomme, Ben Roethlisberger, and Kerry Collins. Clearly a team's record does not always reflect the quality of its quarterback play.

And Cassel's team finished 11-5, including a 41-7 victory against Cutler's Broncos in October.

And it was completely Jay Cutler's fault the defense gave up 41 points. It WAS his fault the offense only scored seven points, but the Broncos really had no running game last year, so I will make that excuse for them.

Don't get me wrong -- Cutler is a talent, possibly a major talent. His numbers keep tracking upward (4,526 passing yards, 25 touchdowns in '08), but so do his turnovers (18 interceptions, including four in Denver's last three games -- all losses) and hissy fits.

Wow, that sounds like another quarterback that just retired. The same guy Gene wrote an entire column indicating the NFL would not be the same without him because he had so much fun...blah, blah, blah. Anyway, that guy had this problem as well, but we loved him for it. Jay Cutler? Not so much.

But Shanahan is Broncos history. It happens. Last week it happened to 11-time Pro Bowl linebacker Derrick Brooks of the Bucs. He was cut after 14 years.

Brooks didn't pout like Cutler.

Gene W. has won the award for "Least Likely and Effective Analogy in a Shitty Column," he can come and accept his award, which is a ShamWow. Congratulations Gene, now retire.

He is comparing Derrick Brooks, a 14 year veteran with one team who was cut for salary cap/age reasons, to Jay Cutler who has been in the league three years and was going to be traded for no apparent reason. It's not the same thing.

Cutler has accomplished nothing in this league. He has pretty passing numbers, but so what?

Apparently we can now pick and choose when pretty passing numbers are going to be used to demean a player and when it will be used to compliment a player.

Jay Cutler is a good quarterback, he has no right to have the new coach undermine some of the respect he has from the team by putting him on the trading block without his knowledge. Cutler can be a baby, but in this case this whole situation was executed poorly by the Broncos.

5. Rick Reilly gets paid millions of dollars to write articles like this.

Sure, times are rougher than Russian toilet paper. Your 401K is now a 101k. Donald Trump just laid off three blow-dryists. But because of it, you can see great sporting events for the price of a can of Spam Lite!

Now this is the type of humor that caused hundreds of people in the age group 40-65 to subscribe to Sports Illustrated over the past couple of years. I like to call that age group the "Easily Amused Because They Are So Tired From All The Other Health and Family Related Shit They Have To Deal With" demographic.

So I conducted an experiment. I started Monday at noon with a mythical $100, just to see how many decent tickets I could purchase in 24 hours.

Again, Rick Reilly would never take the time to actually attend all of these sporting events. He barely has time to hang out at the pool everyday, much less completely do his job.

I didn't figure any handling charges.

To sum it up, we are not using real money, not really going to the games and not figuring in the actual cost to go to these events. Accuracy thy name is Rick Reilly.

We're trying to save cash here. Go by the guy's office and pick them up, you loaf!

I'm pretty sure they still charge a handling fee no matter what the shipping cost is, I don't think I am wrong about this because there is always a mystery fee before shipping. They are two completely different things. Would it have been wrong to research this issue before writing this column? If anyone needed proof Rick Reilly has not had to buy tickets through Ticketmaster lately, here is your proof.

I am sure someone will point out to me I am wrong about the handling charge if I am wrong, which I don't think I am, because Rick Reilly has some supporters out there that crop up every once in a while.

How much do you think it would cost to see Session 1 of the Big East tournament at Madison Square Garden on March 10? A hundo? Fitty? Wrong! Twelve bucks on TicketNetwork.com.

I realize a lot of the good teams get byes in the Big East Tournament, but I don't believe this. Reilly provided no links so it is up to us to believe him...and I don't.

Yes, the nation's economy is coming apart like a Cub Scout potholder and we're probably all doomed. But you just saw 14 solid events—seven different sports—for exactly $100.

Allegedly this is all true because no links were provided to where these magical prices were available and Reilly did not factor in handling charges, which are different from shipping charges. To see these events you also had to travel all over the country and I am assuming unless the audience Reilly is directing this column towards has the ability to fly, gas costs money as does hotel lodging. So you can go to these events cheap (allegedly), but you still end up paying out the ass for the real costs, which is lodging and transportation costs. Great article idea, shitty execution and Rick Reilly just made another $100,000.

6. If anyone had plans to watch anything on ESPN today, please avoid it, Terrell Owens got cut and if you are not interested in hearing about a wide receiver for a non-playoff team getting cut, you won't enjoy ESPN for the next week.

ESPN had Steve Young, Stephen A. Smith, and Keyshawn Johnson all breaking down the release. ESPN's fascination with the Cowboys and T.O. knows no bounds.

I would be completely lying if I said I cared about this. The Cowboys have not won a playoff game in 12 years and are generally irrelevant except for the fact they have players that keep creating controversy, thereby giving ESPN a reason to talk about them. I just heard about this story and I am already tired of it. I am sure Ed Werder is on the case right now.

7. Let's break bad with some Ross Tucker knowledge.

Though the huge increase in guarantees have been a boon for players who are well aware of the injury risks and insecurity inherent in their profession, the reverse can be true for the organizations that give out the money. If a team isn't careful and gives that money to the wrong guy, it can mess up things for years to come.

What? One week after learning that players are all about the money, we learn that teams need to be careful not to just start handing money out like beads at Mardi Gras? It's like there is some type of give and take to the player-organization relationship.

I was recently advocating my favorite team sign Bobby Engram to a 3 year $67 million dollar deal with $43 million guaranteed, but now with my new knowledge, I don't think that is a good idea.

He reportedly got $41 million guaranteed from the Redskins on a four-year contract, all funny money aside. That basically makes him untouchable, or above the law, as far as the other players, the coaches and the front office personnel are concerned. Some players will describe this as having "leverage" in terms of how you can act and conduct yourself.

He is also untouchable in the fact that he can gain a lot of weight and just overwhelmingly not try as hard now that he has a huge contract. That's why you want to give this type of money to guys who have no poor character or underachieving history...which makes Albert Haynesworth absolutely not a good risk.

It seems to me that Julius Peppers' wish for a new defensive system in Carolina was a command of sorts to coach John Fox and GM Marty Hurney.

Not to play the semantics game, but Peppers asked to be traded to a team with a 3-4 defense, he never asked for Carolina to change their defensive system.

Now, I know the Panthers offered defensive coordinator Mike Trgovac a contract to come back, but I think he and the rest of his defensive coaches knew the writing was on the wall after Peppers' public comments.

What writing on the wall???? The defense is still a 4-3 defense and nothing, but the coaches, have changed. Carolina changed nothing to appeal to Peppers and then franchised him against his wishes.

If I were working for an NFL team, I would be extremely safe with my selections in the draft and my contract offers in free agency.

Another relevatory comment. Ross Tucker needs to be a General Manager.

I would say 80% of GMs in the league heed this advice already. So he is talking to Dan Snyder, Jerry Jones, and Al Davis here.

8. Mike Freeman asks why Blake Griffin doesn't get the hype Tyler Hansbrough gets.

Why isn't Dick Vitale having his heart palpitations over Griffin? Why isn't he calling Griffin the hardest-working player ever? Why isn't Vitale beating us over the head with how Griffin possesses the greatest work ethic in human history? Why isn't Vitale claiming we haven't seen a work ethic like this since the Americans stormed Normandy?

Because Blake Griffin is not white. (I don't think he is white, I really have no idea) Tyler Hansbrough is assumed to have no natural skill because he is goofy and white, while the game looks easier for Griffin because he makes the game look easier so it is assumed he doesn't have to try as hard. It's the same reason all the gritty players in baseball are white. Moronic commentators just assume they are trying harder.

Because didn't we hear all of that last year with Tyler Hansbrough? And I mean all of it from every corner of the media.

I am getting sick to my stomach just remembering this.

The Sooners are highly ranked, just as North Carolina was this time last season. Griffin is the centerpiece of his team, just as Hansbrough was last year. The main part of Griffin's game is his heart and energy, just like Hansbrough. Griffin is a good dude, just like Hansbrough. The only difference is there are few tales in the media of Griffin's mythic and vibrant heart muscle the way the nation was flooded with stories of Hansbrough's gigantic cojones.

Hansbrough looks like he is trying hard, while Blake Griffin makes the game look easy so he doesn't get credit for his hustle.

Griffin is part Tim Tebow, part Allen Iverson (before he got old) and part T.J. Houshmandzadeh, with the basketball IQ of Bill Walton.

Part T.J. Houshmandzadeh? I don't get it.

But that doesn't come close to explaining the disparity in praise. It's particularly unforgivable from experts in the media like Vitale, who should have known that they were overstating Hansbrough's impact and grit.

Dick Vitale overstates everything. I can't stand to hear him call a basketball game. He is the college analyst for morons. If you have an IQ under 100 and you will willingly hear or read anything Dickie V says, you will find he rarely talks about the game while it is occuring and is more interested in yelling and not analyzing the game.

I would listen to Jay Bilas and Bill Raftery call a game anyday, I don't care who the third guy is. I know a lot of people don't like Raftery but I enjoy him.

Tyler Hansbrough is not overrated but this year he is not getting the foul calls where he leans into the opposing player while shooting this year and it has hurt his game. It's very funny because you always hear of another ACC team always getting foul calls in their favor, but Hansbrough is the NCAA's all time leader in free throws made.

9. CBS Sportsline has the projected field for the NCAA Tournament.

In regard to so called Bubble Teams, I don't think Virginia Tech gets in and I am also not sure about Maryland, but I think they will make it. I think Virginia Tech needs a big win in the ACC Tournament to make it.

Out of the Big East, I think Georgetown should make it in the Tournament, despite an average record in the Big East, because they have the #1 ranked Strength of Schedule in the country last time I checked and I think that should mean something. They have played a difficult schedule and I think they should be rewarded for this. I saw Cincinnati and Providence are seen as having a better chance to make the tournament but they don't have the strength of schedule Georgetown has, so I think Georgetown should get the nod over those two. That's just my moronic opinion.

Teams like St. Mary's are always a harder case because the reason they have not performed as well this year is because they were missing their best player, Patty Mills, so if they don't win the WCC, it will be interesting to see if the committee looks at the whole body of work and not only their record with Mills. Every year good teams are going to be excluded from the tournament and that is just how it goes.

10. Clark Judge goes down the list of free agents over the past couple of years and whether they were worth the money.

I wish he had focused on the less lucrative free agent deals that got signed, so I could better compare whether the second tier free agents were better deals than the so-called first tier free agents. I would be willing to bet they were. It seems to me my favorite team's best signings were with the second tier of free agents and this is partially why I don't care much for the Haynesworth signing and don't get too excited about the signings that are going on right now. Where Peter King sees excitement, I see a bunch of overpaid players.

Tomorrow is Bill Simmons Friday!