9 comments MMQB Review: Peter King Inexplicably Does a Power Ranking of NFL Teams in June

Peter King took off last week from writing MMQB and allowed Greg Bedard to fill the factoid vacancy in my soul. Peter's daughter got married and he took a week off to celebrate that life event. Pretty soon Peter will be a grandfather and holy shit I don't want to think about this right now because MMQB will be full of factoids about babies and I'm not going to bring this up ever again. The last we heard from Peter he was battling how his GPS confuses him with the dialect that it uses and was happy with how La'el Collins' agent told the truth after lying. Apparently lying and then eventually telling the truth impresses Peter. This week Peter does the most pointless of all pointless things and makes offseason power rankings (these are the epitome of crowning paper champions before anyone has knowledge enough to crown a paper champion, since training camp hasn't even started yet), talks about his daughter's wedding (I won't talk about it much, but there's a twist!), and Peter is terrified with poor panhandlers try to take his riches. Isn't there something could do with poor people and the homeless? Put them somewhere so that they can't bother others? These jealous ass bitches coming for Peter's riches. Find somewhere to put them or arrest these people who just roam the streets because they have nowhere else to go.

I’ll also have thoughts on the Adrian Peterson contract set-to with Minnesota (surprisingly, I have a little empathy for Peterson),

It's not surprising. He's probably given you a few good quotes as the years have gone by. Peter, you play favorites, so who you do or don't criticize doesn't surprise me at all. If Kim Jong Un gave Peter a few good quotes and was a white quarterback, then Peter would probably have some empathy for him as well.

the colossal loss of Ryan Clady for Denver in the Peyton Manning-protection business,

It's a tough injury, no doubt. There is a reason Peyton Manning doesn't get sacked a lot and it's also because he's very good at avoiding sacks. I have complete faith Manning will be all right. The only colossal loss for Denver in the Manning-protection business would be if Manning lost the ability to feel the pass rush. 

Thanks, first, to Greg Bedard for filling in last week with a memorable column. You got a future in this ridiculously long Monday column, kid.

Meaning, THE MMQB isn't going to let a site staple like MMQB go away once Peter King is done writing it. Meaning, Greg Bedard is (right now) an obvious choice to replace Peter when he retires. That's what I take from this.

Now for a rite of spring. It’s June. (How’d that happen? Where’d the time go?) Time for The MMQB’s 2015 offseason power rankings. The offseason hay is in the barn.

Pointless. It's so pointless, other than to trigger discussion on Twitter and get Peter's opinion out there, to have power rankings in the beginning of June before training camp starts.

Free agency is over, except for the 15-cents-on-the-dollar free agency—which, by the way, is not meaningless;

You are the asshole making 2015 offseason power rankings, not your readers. If anyone doesn't know that cheap free agents signed after June 1 are valuable, it's probably the idiot trying to decide which NFL teams are the strongest on June 1. I'm glad Peter is reminding his readers of a philosophy that he preaches, but of course, doesn't follow himself.

The draft is one month in the rear-view mirror. Though the first practices of training camp are 55 days away, nothing of great substance usually happens between now and the start of official summer practices.

Except for those 15-cents-on-the-dollar free agent signings that Peter claims are not meaningless. Other than those transactions that aren't meaningless, which Peter King forgot about in the span of one sentence, nothing of great substance will happen over the next two months in the NFL.

So let the silly season begin...Let’s see how wrong I can be so long before the NFL’s 96th season. (2014 record in parentheses.)

This is the silly season that Peter King will bitch about and then contribute to by power ranking all of the NFL teams when he admits the rankings will be wrong. 

1. Baltimore (10-6). Why? I trust John Harbaugh to find answers in a league devoid of a truly great team.

But don't worry, Peter has a better reason than THAT. After some rambling, this is how Peter sums it up.

I just think the Ravens will find a way.

And this is why it's pointless to do power rankings in June. The Ravens "will find a way." That's what will happen. Somehow.

2. Seattle (12-4). The addition of Jimmy Graham means so much. He could mean a third straight Super Bowl trip.

Peter King when putting the Ravens at #1: "There is no dominant NFL team."

Peter King when putting the Seahawks at #2: "The NFC team that has been in two straight Super Bowls only got stronger."

Okay, then.

3. Green Bay (12-4). The secondary worries me, as does the pass rush. The Pack’s a trendy pick to get to the Super Bowl, and it wouldn’t surprise me, but a lot will have to go right on defense for that to happen.

Peter King has almost no trust in the Packers defense, yet he believes they are the second-best team in the NFC. You can't make this shit up. Well, Peter does make this shit up, but you hopefully know what I mean.

8. Pittsburgh (11-5). Like Antonio Brown a lot. Like Ben Roethlisberger a lot. But this faith is subject heavily to the ascension of Keith Butler to defensive coordinator after 16 seasons as a defensive assistant below the coordinator level. Mike Tomlin is putting tremendous faith in Butler, who replaces Hall of Famer Dick LeBeau, to be a breath of fresh and productive air. Risky move, and early returns are good. But early returns come in shorts and T-shirts on the South Side of Pittsburgh, not on a cruel Thursday night in Foxboro.

So basically, Peter is knocking the Steelers for Keith Butler not having proven yet that he can replace Dick LeBeau. So this means Peter's biggest issue with the Steelers is that Peter King is doing power rankings in June before any games are played. Again, Peter's problem with Pittsburgh is that they haven't proven the defense can play well under Butler, mostly because they haven't had a chance yet due to how early Peter is doing these power rankings.

10. Arizona (11-5). Maybe the most intriguing team in football.

Yes, maybe. Or maybe not. Only time will tell which NFL team wins the title as "most intriguing team in football," which is obviously factually-based and not simply an opinion one or more people may hold.

11. Indianapolis (11-5). Best team in the AFC South, which isn’t saying much. Still have no clue how the Colts will stop the best offenses in football. I bet Chuck Pagano doesn’t know either.

Well, fortunately for the Colts they don't play the best offenses in football on a weekly basis and are in a division with Blake Bortles/Brian Hoyer/Ryan Mallett/Marcus Mariota/Zach Mettenberger as the quarterbacks leading the opposing offense. So saying, "How are the Colts going to stop the best offenses in football?" is a question any team that has to play these offenses will ask themselves, but the Colts have six games against just bad or so-so offenses. That's nice. How will any team, not just the Colts, stop the best offenses in the NFL?

12. Cincinnati (10-5-1). The running game, and the offensive line, should be enough to make up for Andy Dalton if he struggles. But I don’t think a team can be great unless its quarterback is close to great.

Peter hates Andy Dalton. Since he has the Eagles at #7 does this mean Peter thinks Sam Bradford can be great? No offense, but based on what? Also, the Chiefs are at #4 in Peter's rankings. The idea Alex Smith can be close to great makes me laugh.

14. New Orleans (7-9). Josh Hill, it’s time for your closeup. Drew Brees needs a power tight end with red-zone chops, and you’re it. Or you’d better be.

Best team in the NFC South, huh?

19. St. Louis (6-10). If Nick Foles is really good, the Rams will win 11. If he’s average, they’ll win eight. You see which way I’m leaning.

Marvin Demoff is going to be pissed about this. Though, what can Jeff Fisher do if his quarterback isn't good enough to help him make the playoffs? Nothing to be done about it and this certainly wouldn't be Fisher's fault. On to Los Angeles then...

20. Carolina (7-8-1). Giant question marks at both tackle spots and an offense that can’t afford to lose its quarterback.

There were giant question marks at the tackle spots last year too. And almost no NFL offense can afford to lose its quarterback, so that really means nothing. If losing Newton is a knock against Carolina, then how will the Colts fare without Luck? Can the Colts afford to lose Luck? Can the Dolphins afford to lose Ryan Tannehill? It's funny Peter says the Panthers offense can't afford to lose Newton, since the Panthers were 2-0 without him last year. Both games were against the Buccaneers, but still.

21. Atlanta (6-10). What does new coach Dan Quinn have in store on defense? The pass rush is a question mark coming into the season. And new offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan needs to find a starting running back and new No. 3 receiver.

This is another reason it is stupid to rank these teams on June 1. Peter says the Falcons need to find a starting running back and No. 3 receiver. Gee, maybe training camp could help this out and it's not a real problem, but there simply hasn't been a chance for Devonta Freeman or Tevin Coleman to show one of them can be that starting running back? I wonder if the search for a new No. 3 receiver will come to a conclusion when Justin Hardy steps on the field in training camp? These power rankings are fun, I get that, but the issues Peter has with these teams can be answered if he would just wait to do a power ranking until later in the summer. Many of these problems aren't problems, but instead are issues whose solution hasn't had a chance to present itself yet.

30. Jacksonville (3-13). This ranking comes from not trusting Blake Bortles—yet—and not trusting a pass rush dealt a horrible blow with the Dante Fowler injury an hour into his NFL career.

Oh my God. Dante Fowler was a rookie who may or may not have been good during his rookie season. It's a bad injury for the Jaguars defense, but stop acting like they lost a proven veteran for the season. Fowler could be Von Miller or he could be Dion Jordan. If Fowler were healthy, how far would Peter have realistically moved them up in the rankings? I'm betting not very far.

32. Tennessee (2-14). I love the Marcus Mariota pick. I don’t love the supporting cast, and he’s not a guy who’s going to be great day one. Or day 24.

How about day 29?

Peter then spends a page discussing his daughter's wedding. I'm going to skip nearly all of this because it's hard to be snarky about a person's wedding without being an asshole. In fact, it's probably hard because it's an asshole thing to do to be snarky about a person's wedding. Here's the twist that isn't really a twist because it's 2015...

For many of you who didn’t like me crossing the line of family life and wanted me to stick with football only, Laura and Mary Beth dropping from sight was just fine. I would urge those to skip to Page 3 of the column right now, because I’m going to spend this page talking about a great event in our lives: the wedding nine days ago of Laura to her girlfriend, Kim Zylker, in California.

Peter King's daughter is not straight. She had, as he termed it on Twitter, "a gay wedding." There's the twist. And we move on...

“Hopefully he can taste some of that meat this year.”

—Philadelphia running back DeMarco Murray, the defending rushing champion, upon hearing that his backup in Dallas last year, Joseph Randle, said Murray didn’t get everything he could have gotten out of his opportunities as a ball-carrier in 2014. Randle’s exact words: “I felt like there was a lot of meat left on the bone.”

Why someone would say that about a rushing champion who carried a team’s running game all season is absolutely bizarre. Or a case of ridiculous envy.

Or the source of this criticism could be considered as coming from someone who shoplifted men's underwear and cologne from a department store and the criticism will be judged accordingly. 

Factoid of the Week That May Interest Only Me

No one in America noticed it, I’m sure. But Aaron Rodgers’ brother Jordan, who had a good chance to win the British Columbia quarterback job in the CFL this season, abruptly quit football last week to pursue a career in television. I don’t blame him, but it was a surprise, especially considering he’s not going to enter TV at a high level.

I'm not entirely sure this is a "fact" more than it is Peter King relaying a story. It's definitely not a "factoid" because factoids are not baby facts, but are trivial bits of information whose accuracy could be questioned.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week

I don’t mean to be a baby in this space, which I’ve been before.

By "before" Peter clearly means to type "on a near weekly basis."

Nor do I mean to be an alarmist.

But Peter wants us to know that there are poor people out there who need money. Don't be alarmed by this, because generally they don't mean harm. 

But my wife and I spent a couple of post-wedding days in one of our favorite cities, Seattle, last week, and went to see the Mariners on Thursday night. After the game, we walked 1.1 miles from Safeco Field to our hotel in the city. Man, that was one scary walk. To say aggressive panhandling in that city is rampant is an understatement—I guess particularly after night baseball games, when there are folks walking back to their hotels in a good area of the city.

Peter is just trying to walk back to his hotel, which he specifically chose to be in the good part of the city where he wouldn't have to feel uncomfortable, and these people are trying to get money from him. Remember all the times Peter has written "Only in New York" about events that he seems to believe only takes place in New York? Well, I guess there are events and things that happen outside of New York (I know, it's unbelievable) which are not specific only to that city. Peter should have tried walking in downtown Atlanta about a decade ago. Best of luck walking a block without being accosted for money.

We gave three times,

How naive is Peter? Welp, there is his problem. The second he gave money to one panhandler then he's a mark and the others know that Peter has money to give and has given it before. If you give once to a panhandler then expect to be hit up to give up some money again. I even had a panhandler get mad at me one time because I gave his buddy money but not him. You give once, be prepared to give twice. Give twice, be prepared to give thrice.

and after that, we just put our heads down and got back to the hotel.

Which is what you should have done if you had no plans to give money in the first place. I find it very, very difficult to believe that Peter has never experienced aggressive panhandling before. Has he been blessed to only live in areas of Boston and New York where there isn't aggressive panhandling or do those cities just have panhandling under control? I find it hard to believe that Peter has lived in so many big cities and never run into something like this before.

Craziest thing to me: On a brisk 15- to 18-minute walk from a huge sports facility in a major American city to a hotel in a lovely downtown area, we saw zero police officers.

Okay, two things:

1. You said you had your head down for part of the trip, so perhaps there were police officers but you just didn't see them?

2. What would police officers have to do with aggressive panhandling? These panhandlers aren't committing a crime, so what would a police officer do in this situation? These people obviously weren't committing a crime, so does Peter expect a police escort back to his hotel or something? Fine, there should have been police officers around and they weren't around, yet I can't figure out what they would have done in this situation. Advise the panhandlers to leave everyone alone or they will be arrested?

This is not against the Vikings. I am just frustrated that our union did not get guaranteed contracts for its players.

— Adrian Peterson (@AdrianPeterson) May 28, 2015

The Minnesota running back stayed away from voluntary offseason workouts for several reasons—one being the fact that he apparently wants more guaranteed money in the three years left on his Vikings deal. 

It's Peterson's right to hold out if he feels he wants more money. I can't imagine a scenario where the Vikings would actually have given him more money, especially since Peterson sat out all last year, running backs are being devalued by some teams, he's already expensive enough and he wanted a trade just a few short weeks ago. I wonder if Peterson would have been willing to miss some games (and therefore paychecks) to hold out for more guaranteed money during the last negotiating round between the union and the NFL? I'm betting not.

Ten Things I Think I Think

1. I think, regarding Adam Schefter’s news break that Tom Brady’s appeal of his four-game suspension will be heard June 23: Why oh why oh why continue to drag this out?

Because Roger Goodell is a demon sent from Hell to annoy NFL fans.

Let’s assume the league announces its decision in July, which is certainly not a lock but likely. That means one of the ugliest stories of the Goodell Era would have been on everyone’s cranium for much of six months. Maybe the league washed its hands of the Wells report and the inordinately long time that took. (I still think 3.5 months for that investigation is too long. Way too long.) But if the league allows final adjudication of the case to drag on two months after the Wells report is issued, that’s on the league. I am all in favor of due process. But the league allowed this story to dominate the offseason, and could have done something about it, and didn’t.

I do wish this story had been resolved more quickly, but I just don't pay attention to it unless I'm covering a column that specifically mentions the Patriots deflating footballs. So the NFL is really only hurting itself by allowing the story to drag out over multiple months. At this point, I don't expect the NFL to have made a decision on Brady's appeal until after he has retired.

2. I think I understand Minnesota coach Mike Zimmer saying about Adrian Peterson: “He can either play for us or he cannot play. He’s not going to play for anyone else.”

Yes, it does seem to be a pretty straightforward statement that is very difficult to not understand.

But there are a couple of obvious things here. One, Peterson really doesn’t want to play for Minnesota. He certainly now has come to the realization that he probably will have to. No team wants to give up a high draft choice for a 30-year-old running back with $44.25 million left on his contract over the next three years—a contract, by the way, that he’s unhappy with.

Yes, but this is not the Vikings problem. What's funny is that Peterson wants MORE guaranteed money when part of the reason he can't be traded is because he makes too much money. He's all, "Oh, you can't trade me because I make too much money? Well, pay me more money then."

Two, Peterson wants more guaranteed money in the back end of the contract. So if you’re the Wilfs, why not end this rancor now and get Peterson back in the good graces of the Vikings (at least by appearances) by guaranteeing a vast portion or all of his 2016 salary?

Because Adrian Peterson might actually accept this and then the Vikings are stuck guaranteeing most of or all of his 2016 salary when they don't want him around either. The Vikings have most of the leverage here. They are already stuck with Adrian Peterson, so why would they have paid him more money just to be stuck with him? This idea doesn't make sense to me.

Then, if Peterson declines to take it, you know you’ve done a more than fair thing to meet Peterson halfway, and it’s on him.

But Peter, the Vikings didn't have to be fair to Peterson. Why in the hell would they be fair to Peterson more than they are already being fair to him? There is no need for the Vikings to potentially take a hit by guaranteeing more money to a player they probably want to get rid of when that player doesn't want to be there either.

5. I think, if I were a guessing man—which I am in this case—I’d guess Dallas defensive end Greg Hardy gets either two or four games reduced from his 10-game domestic-violence suspension.

Though if Peter weren't guessing and he actually had inside information, then this wouldn't be the first time he withheld information he knew until after the fact when he could mention he had heard Hardy's suspension would be reduced by either two or four games. That's one of those things that always amazes me. Something newsworthy happens and NFL sportswriters on Twitter write things like, "That's what I heard too" or "It seemed inevitable" as if they had information they decided not to share until after the fact.

Of course, the question of WHY Hardy's appeal would be reduced doesn't seem to merit a discussion right now. That is information, not just Peter's opinion, that I would find to be interesting.

8. I think the Bears did the right thing, obviously, in letting go Ray McDonald. And the other 31 teams in the league will do the right thing, obviously, in not signing him.

Yes, that seems inevitable at this point. The question when talking about "the right thing" is why didn't teams do "the right thing" prior to the last incident with McDonald? He was involved, but not charged, in an incident in August 2014 and involved with another sexual assault investigation. Just because those two charges didn't stick, it didn't violate this fictional "the right thing" principle for the Bears to sign him?

9. I think when I saw the Patriots and Saints will conduct join practices at the New Orleans camp in mid-August, the first thought that came to my mind was: This is going to be tremendous for Jimmy Garoppolo. Joint practices, particularly with an aggressive defensive coordinator like Rob Ryan on the other side of the line, are good for quarterbacks trying to get a feel for what they’ll see when the real games start.

I'll never understand the respect that Rob Ryan receives from sportswriters. If his name were "Rob Brown" then I can't imagine he would even have a job as a defensive coordinator at this point. He's been a defensive coordinator in the NFL since 2004 and only twice has his defense ranked in the Top 10 of the NFL in yards allowed. His defense has only been in the Top 10 of points allowed once. Ryan should get a job working for Jeff Fisher. Maybe after they both retire they can share their secret for longevity without providing results with the rest of the NFL coaching fraternity.

Yes, Rob Ryan is aggressive, but his defenses have consistently ranked in the lower half of the league during his career. In fact, his defense has only been ranked in the upper half of the NFL in yards allowed three times since 2004.

10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:

e. I’ll take Golden State in the NBA Finals, in six.

BUT PETER, HOW MANY NBA GAMES HAVE YOU WATCHED THIS YEAR? YOU HAVEN'T MADE IT CLEAR YET, BUT ARE YOU A BIG FAN OF THE NBA?

h. Coffeenerdness: Give me Peet’s any day over Starbucks. I don’t dislike Starbucks. I just love Peet’s. I don’t think I’ve ever had a bad espresso shot at Peet’s.

Plus, there are no panhandlers at Peet's who will disrupt Peter's white, upper-class existence. There are always some shady looking Jamaicans hanging outside Starbucks in New York "drinking" coffee, but Peter knows they just want to rob him. Where are the police when you need them? Certainly not prepared to arrest anyone at Starbucks for acting suspiciously, that's where.

j. There are many interesting places to run in San Francisco.

But unfortunately, there aren't quite as many women to stalk while running in San Francisco. There are plenty of women, but they all slow down or speed up as Peter tries to hear their phone conversations.

One I got introduced to while there in the past two weeks: The Presidio, with its challenging hills and arduous hills and did I mention ridiculous hills? Running down into the lovely and picturesque park one morning, I thought it wasn’t so bad. But then, on the 1.2 miles back up toward the neighborhood where I was staying, I’d never been challenged so much in my meager running life. Finishing a 3.9-mile slog was its own reward.

A bigger reward? Peter ran into a pregnant woman talking on her cell phone while walking. Ah yes, fresh prey he could keep up with. Jumping from bush to bush behind her in an attempt to hide so he could listen in to her conversation about the baby shower her friends were throwing for her was it's own reward.  

The Adieu Haiku

Make peace, Zygi Wilf.
Yo Adrian, make peace too.  
This can’t end ugly.

I'm stupid. I don't get why Wilf would have needed to make peace by guaranteeing more money to Peterson. Greg Bedard didn't do a haiku last week. I miss Greg Bedard already. 

4 comments Matt Kemp Was On the Trade Block And Steve Dilbeck and Bill Plaschke Were Incredulous This Could Happen; Then Kemp Got Traded And Shit Got Real

I wrote this post about Bill Plaschke and Steve Dilbeck's reaction to Matt Kemp being dangled as trade bait. Then, Kemp got traded the next day so I updated it with Plaschke and Dilbeck's reactions to this trade. You won't believe this, but they are critical of Andrew Friedman.

Matt Kemp is 29 years old. He hit .287/.346/.506 last season with 25 home runs and 87 RBI's. He was part of a four-man outfield that the Dodgers were actively looking to make a three-man outfield, so his name was appearing in trade rumors. Kemp may be the most talented outfielder the Dodgers had (or at least second best depending on your view of Yasiel Puig), so it did and didn't make sense to dangle him in a trade. Kemp is owed $107.5 million over the next five years, so the Dodgers aren't necessarily cutting payroll, but could definitely freed up some payroll by trading Kemp while getting good prospects in return. Still, Bill Plaschke and Steve Dilbeck are not happy Kemp's name had popped up in trade rumors prior to being traded. Full disclosure: These two are going to hate everything the Dodgers do because they don't like Sabermetrics and they think that's all Andrew Friedman is going to use to evaluate baseball players. So no matter happens, they will criticize moves the Dodgers make because they hate the Dodgers' GM and how he evaluates players.

Bill Plaschke goes first on why even mentioning Kemp's name in trade talks is a huge mistake. (This was prior to Kemp being traded)

This column should not have to be written. The truths here should go without saying. Any Dodgers fan will understand it implicitly.

But these out-of-towners are running the baseball operations in Chavez Ravine these days, 

Ned Colletti was from Chicago. He worked for the Cubs and then the San Francisco Giants. He was an out-of-towner too. Carry on with your mindless bashing...

they don't yet know the pulse of the dugout, they haven't learned the heartbeat of the clubhouse, 

Two paragraphs in and we already have the first reference to Friedman sitting high upon a tower of statistics unable to understand what happens in a dugout. Friedman worked with Joe Maddon in Tampa Bay so I really doubt he has no idea how a dugout works.

So listen up, new guys.

You don't trade Matt Kemp.

You do if it improves the team. You don't make players on a team sacred cows. That's how mediocrity happens.

You don't trade the one man whose bat can change the complexion of the team from beige to red. You don't trade the one guy who can transform the lineup from stilted to swaggering.

The Dodgers are definitely not trading Adrian Gonzalez or Yasiel Puig. Don't worry about that, Bill.

(And, of course, you don't trade the only guy willing to publicly call out Yasiel Puig during the middle of a game, but that's another story.)

Yes, Matt Kemp was one of the few Dodgers who was willing to take on the monster that is Yasiel Puig. For that, Bill Plaschke will be eternally grateful. Yasiel Puig isn't a very good baseball player, he is a cancer just waiting to ruin the Dodgers postseason chances.

When Matt Kemp is right, the Dodgers offense is right,

The same can be said about Yasiel Puig.

He had 17 home runs and 49 runs batted in over the final two months of the season, and had a .365 on-base percentage in the second half. In September, he had nine homers and 25 RBIs.

Yasiel Puig hit .398/.492/.731 during the month of May when the Dodgers were 15-15. Obviously this is all his fault. Puig hit .351/.425/.688 during the month of July and the Dodgers were 14-10. It's clear that Puig can't lift his teammates up like Matt Kemp can. By the way, Puig had a .366 on-base percentage in the second half. Just remember this while Plaschke brags about Kemp's second-half revival.

It's easy to blame everyone in uniform for the postseason debacle, but Kemp was not the reason the Dodgers lost to the St. Louis Cardinals.

Matt Kemp didn't bring the Dodgers down when he was struggling in the first half of the season, not at all, he is only responsible for lifting the Dodgers up when he plays well. This is as opposed to Yasiel Puig who brings the Dodgers down no matter what he does.

The new guys will surely talk to players who said that Kemp can be a clubhouse irritant, loud and abrasive.

If only there were a player willing to publicly call out Matt Kemp during the middle of a game like Matt Kemp would do. If only...

But when he's going well, it's a happy, even inspirational noise.

Players say that Kemp is a clubhouse irritant and Bill Plaschke says, "But it's a good irritant and the players who aren't annoyed by Kemp think it's an inspirational noise."

Players say that Puig is a clubhouse irritant and Bill Plaschke says, "This is why Yasiel Puig needs to be benched or traded. When he's going well, it's a happy noise that bothers everyone."

The question isn't what kind noise Kemp makes when he's going good, but what he's like when he is going bad? Isn't that what writers tend to focus on with Yasiel Puig at all times? What a distraction and danger to the Dodgers team he is? Why does Plaschke only focus on Kemp's impact in the locker room when he is playing well? Of course Plaschke has an agenda and wants to separate Kemp from Puig, so this seems to be his attempt to do so.

(I don't mean to keep harping on the Puig comparison, but Plaschke brought it up and he has written many negative things about Puig in the past year. This includes talking about how Puig is a clubhouse cancer and a bomb on the field just waiting to explode and ruin the very existence of the Dodgers franchise)

The team fed off that sound at the end of last season, and there's no reason for the Dodgers to suddenly silence it now.

No word on what would happen to the Dodgers clubhouse if Kemp got injured or started struggling.

Even Kemp's grumbling about playing left field has stopped. His agent, Junior Spivey, confirmed to The Times' Dylan Hernandez this week that Kemp is no longer demanding a return to center field.

Oh, Kemp will be forgiven under the Michael Young Rule? It's fine to demand a trade or complain about your position as long as you eventually take it back and become a team player after throwing a hissy-fit. Imagine if Puig had complained about his position. I doubt forgiveness from Bill would come so easily.

Kemp is a proud man who felt he was being embarrassed in an unfamiliar position, but now that he's hitting again, that embarrassment is gone.

But again, what happens if he stops hitting? Plaschke tries to avoid this issue because he knows it leads him down a road where it's more difficult to differentiate Kemp from a guy who causes a bad atmosphere in the clubhouse. Always with the agendas.

Obviously, the new guys have holes to fill, and Kemp is the easiest way to fill them. He could be used to pick up a top starting pitcher, or a shortstop and a catcher, or any combination of the three with a veteran reliever tossed in. Just as obviously, the Dodgers have an outfield surplus, and Kemp is the most obvious way to try to improve while reducing the clutter.

Yes and yes. Kemp makes a lot of money and he brought a decent return in a trade. Therefore he is the one on the trade block. Other MLB teams don't want Andre Ethier or Carl Crawford, and if they did, the Dodgers certainly wouldn't get the return for these players that they could get for Kemp.

One problem. At this stage in their careers, the combination of Andre Ethier and Carl Crawford can't come close to matching Kemp's impact.

Possibly not, but the hope is that the players the Dodgers get back in the trade for Kemp could improve the Dodgers at another position either in the short or long-term. That was the purpose of dangling Kemp out as trade bait.

And who knows what you're going to get out of the kid Joc Pederson, or even that bigger kid named Puig.

Nice shot at Puig. Who knows what the Dodgers would get from Kemp? Would it be the guy who struggled in the first half of the 2014 season? The guy who played great in the second half of the 2014 season? Would it be the MVP-caliber Kemp or the injured 2012 and 2013 version of Kemp? Plaschke works hard to paint Pederson and Puig as unknowns, but Kemp is an unknown too. The last few years of his career haven't exactly been consistent.

Puig hit four homers with 17 RBIs after the All-Star break last season before striking out eight times in 12 postseason at-bats. There is an equal chance of his upcoming season being either breakout or breakdown.

Guess what? It's the same thing with Matt Kemp. Don't lie and pretend this isn't true. Matt Kemp has been injured in two of the last three seasons, but way to create an alternate reality where Kemp is the picture of reliable.

If Bill wants to talk strikeouts, Matt Kemp struck out 145 times in 541 at-bats this season, while Puig struck out 124 times in 558 at-bats. I like how Plaschke uses the small sample size of the postseason as if it extrapolates over the entire season, but that's just not true.

It's impossible to guess, and the new guys shouldn't try.

Yes, don't even try. Because Puig's performance is unpredictable, like 99% of major league players, so just give him on him. That makes sense.

Kemp hit six homers in 148 at-bats against lefties, a pace that would make him almost twice as effective as the rest of the team's power hitters combined. 

This is impressive compared to the other hitters on the Dodgers' team, but given that comes out to about 24 home runs against left-handed pitchers over 600 at-bats, it's not exactly super power-slugging numbers for a right-handed hitter. Not to mention, the Dodgers shouldn't have turned down a trade offer for Kemp because they are concerned they won't have power against late-inning left-handers. That seems short-sighted.

Pederson isn't included in that first group because, well, in seven plate appearances he is still waiting for his first career hit against a left-hander.

Clearly this is the sign that Joc Pederson is a bust. I guess that's the takeaway from this comment.

There has been talk at this week's winter meetings about Kemp being traded to the San Diego Padres for catcher Yasmani Grandal — seriously — but one of the new guys told reporters Tuesday that this deal was not close.

And Piggy, it's rude to call them "the new guys." Show a little respect or at least use their name as opposed to calling them "the new guys" simply because you are too old and lazy to learn the new information they use as just a part of their player evaluation.

Good. Let's keep it that way.

The new guys

This is going to continuously annoy me. Andrew Friedman is not new at his position. He is new in town, but so was the great Ned Colletti at some point.

certainly cannot be blamed for listening to offers for the 30-year-old Kemp and a contract that will pay him $107 million for the next five years.

Then Bill Plaschke wrote an entire column (this one) blaming the Dodgers and Friedman for listening to offers. In Bill's senile, ESPN-influenced mind I am sure this makes sense. 

"The Dodgers can't be blamed for listening to offers for Matt Kemp. I will now blame them for listening to offers for Matt Kemp."

For most of his nine seasons in a Dodgers uniform, Kemp has pretty much driven everyone crazy, particularly this columnist, who has suggested both that the Dodgers trade him and keep him — sometimes in the same column.

But since a new evil arrived in the form of Yasiel Puig, all of a sudden Matt Kemp is an angel and a great guy to have in the clubhouse when he is playing well. Matt Kemp used to be an asshole in the clubhouse, but Bill can only hate one Dodgers player at a time, so he will wax poetic about what a great clubhouse guy Kemp is in certain situations while bashing "the new guys" and Puig.

The championship window is closing fast on the core of this Dodgers group. 

Speaking of that championship window, here is what Plaschke wrote after the Dodgers lost in the 2014 playoffs. Never forget.

The failure was something much broader, much deeper, and much more evident in the Dodgers words than even their play. This was a 94-win team that was favored by many to traipse through October on its way to the World Series, yet their journey lasted all of five days. This was the ugliest postseason elimination for this franchise in 29 years, since the Cardinals did this to them in the 1985 National League Championship Series.

The team with the richest payroll in baseball history turned out to be a beautifully detailed Cadillac without any tires, a $240-million clunker that couldn't even finish the first October lap.

This is the Dodgers team that Bill claims has a "championship window." The same team he is referring to as a $240-million clunker. Yep, Plaschke can't keep a consistent opinion. 

The failure continues with the baseball people, and that means General Manager Ned Colletti, who sat on a couch in the clubhouse early Friday evening and winced.

The failure continued with the same GM that Plaschke now bemoans was fired and replaced with Andrew Friedman. But yeah, back in October when the Dodgers were underachieving, those were the good old days.

Colletti will take most of the heat here for failure to work within his bosses' philosophical constraints to somehow put together a group of decent relief pitchers.

Rip them when they are here, bemoan their absence when they are gone.

Why does this rich and powerful team so often play selfishly and distracted, particularly under pressure? Why are they, you know, the anti-Cardinals?

This is the "championship window" that Plaschke is now referring to. The same "championship window" that didn't seem to exist two short months ago.

And throughout the series there was a visible lack of Dodgers leadership on the field when pitchers were struggling or Kemp was arguing with umpire Dale Scott, and nearly bumping him, all by himself.

But it was a GOOD arguing and bumping that inspired the Dodgers. Kemp was showing a lack of leadership at the time, but now that he is gone he was a saint in the clubhouse.

And in a too-little-too-late move, he strangely benched Yasiel Puig on Tuesday, which meant Ethier had to make his fourth start in a month in the biggest game of the year. Little wonder Ethier ended the Dodgers' only scoring rally in the sixth inning by getting lost off third base.

Yasiel Puig is in some way partly responsible for Andre Ethier getting lost off third base.

No need to cut up the season, the Cardinals did that for them, once again leaving the Dodgers in sad little blue-stained pieces on their perfectly manicured turf with the arch cut into the outfield, the team that does everything right again triumphing over a team gone wrong.

Does that sound like a writer who believes the Dodgers have a championship window? So as suspected, Plaschke is taking part in some revisionist history. Back to the current day (and column) before Kemp got traded, back when Kemp was a saint and not showing a lack of leadership by arguing with umpires.

Despite his great numbers, Gonzalez appears to be slowing;

And Matt Kemp is three years from being the same age as Gonzalez, when he would start slowing down (especially given his injury history), and have two years left on his contract. I feel this needs to be mentioned.

Uribe is aging; the bullpen behind Kenley Jansen is weathered; Zack Greinke can opt out of his contract after next summer; and who knows how long Clayton Kershaw can physically handle being baseball's best pitcher.

This could be the last season that this collection of players can seriously contend for a title. 

It depends on what your definition of "seriously contend for a title" means. Did the Dodgers seriously contend for a title last year? They didn't make it out of the NLDS. Isn't the fact Plaschke just listed three important Dodgers players who are declining a good reason to trade an asset like Kemp, or at least look into his value, in order to bring on players who aren't declining and keep that championship window open just a little while longer?

If the new guys truly want to win right now, which the Los Angeles market demands in a way that the new guys never experienced in St. Petersburg or Oakland, they will try to win it with Matt Kemp.

So then what was Plaschke's solution for the four-man outfield the Dodgers have? Other than trade Puig of course. I know that's the first option. It's so annoying that Plaschke is pretending like Kemp's performance isn't a question mark, even as he described how Kemp struggled for the first half of the season.

But then, the unthinkable happened, and the Dodgers traded Matt Kemp. Bill Plaschke is very displeased. 

The Dodgers are no longer a reflection of two playoff appearances in two seasons. They are no longer a symbol of a Guggenheim rebirth that led to a league-leading attendance of 3.7 million.

Everything is over now. The Dodgers are rebuilding by opening up an outfield position and upgrading at second base and shortstop. That's definitely the sign of a team not interested in making the playoffs.

They are no longer connected to anything, it seems, but one man who appears intent on blowing them up.

The Dodgers made changes to a team that Bill felt was flawed. Oh my gracious, what will Bill do?

Bringing in Jimmy Rollins to play shortstop was smart. Trading Dee Gordon at the probable peak of his value was savvy. Replacing him with Howie Kendrick was sound.

But the Matt Kemp trade was nuts.

It wasn't the best trade, I will admit that, but it had it's reasons. Kemp couldn't always be counted on to be healthy and he isn't quite the leader (as Bill has admitted) that Plaschke desperately wants to paint him as now.

It is not a trade when you give the other team $32 million to take the guy. It is not a trade when the only proven major leaguer acquired is a .225-hitting catcher who threw out 13% of baserunners and has been suspended for use of performance-enhancing drugs.

It is a trade when you only pay $32 million of a $107 million contract. Grandal was suspended almost two years ago and using only batting average doesn't show what an upgrade he will be for the Dodgers at the catcher position. He's a switch-hitting catcher who has power and gets on-base at a decent clip. He's not Johnny Bench, but Matt Kemp also isn't Roberto Clemente.

it's a salary dump by owners stinging from the losses incurred by that lousy television deal.

It's a salary dump that allows the Dodgers to upgrade at second base, trade for a shortstop, and improve the rotation that Plaschke claims hurt the Dodgers in the playoffs. Looking at the trade purely from the perspective of a single transaction it may not make sense. Looking at the trade as part of a plan, it makes a little more sense. Plaschke isn't interested in doing anything but bashing Friedman though.

The Dodgers obviously felt that at age 30 and with his injury history, Kemp may have peaked. He may never again be an outstanding outfielder. He isn't always great in the clubhouse.

And he was only owed $21.5 million every year for the next five years. Why did the Dodgers dare to trade Kemp? It's certainly a mystery. It's a risk, but contrary to what he would have you believe, Plaschke didn't think the Dodgers were a complete team back in October. He didn't think they were a team on the very cusp of a World Series title.

But didn't we also hear some of those same things back in 1998 about a 29-year-old Dodgers slugger who had also seemingly peaked? Guy by the name of Mike Piazza.

You mean the trade that brought Gary Sheffield, Bobby Bonilla, and Charles Johnson to the Dodgers? The same Charles Johnson that netted the Dodgers two really good years of Todd Hundley in a separate trade? Yeah, that ended up being a terrible trade. Gary Sheffield was a bum.

Kemp's numbers will most likely decline in spacious Petco Park, but that won't compensate for the giant right-handed power hole he left in a lineup where the cleanup hitter is now … Kendrick?

Or Adrian Gonzalez or Puig could be the cleanup hitter. Not sure why Plaschke thinks Kendrick would be the guy.

About that defense, Friedman is taking a huge risk that Joc Pederson is ready to play center field after a difficult stay in Chavez Ravine last September.

Buster Posey struggled initially when he was called up. It doesn't mean a hell of a lot in the long run if a young player struggles when initially called up to the majors.

Friedman's other move this week, essentially trading pitcher Dan Haren for free-agent pitcher Brandon McCarthy, doesn't seem to noticeably help a team that seems no better right now than at the end of last season.

You mean the part where Friedman traded a pitcher who may retire and then signed a very similar pitcher who is three years younger? Friedman spent $48 million on McCarthy! Wasn't Plaschke just accusing Friedman of dumping salary?

Impressively, the new guy isn't afraid of the heat. Friedman returned a phone call even though he knew I would be criticizing the Kemp trade.

That is impressive that Friedman isn't too scared to talk to the big scary Bill Plaschke on the phone. Clearly, Bill Plaschke has a much higher opinion of himself than anyone else does. Is Andrew Friedman supposed to be scared of Bill Plaschke or something? Sounds like Bill is pretty self-involved.

He was asked if he understood how quickly the increasingly impatient Dodgers fans will turn on him if the Kemp trade doesn't work.

No Bill, he doesn't understand this. Please explain it to him like he's an idiot. Because obviously Andrew Friedman doesn't understand how to do his job and has zero experience with impatient fans.

He was asked if he understood how, just a couple of months into his journey, he was already treading in the sort of deep water not found off the shores of St. Petersburg.

How condescending. If Plaschke is talking about Friedman treading in deep water in terms of being the one leading the Dodgers to the same place that he has already led the Rays to, then yes, I think Friedman gets it. See, the Rays have had success under Friedman. I'm not sure why Plaschke can't grasp this concept. He seems to think only in Los Angeles is success expected. Friedman comes from an MLB team that couldn't draw a crowd even when the team was a success. Success was essential in Tampa Bay because they were a low-market team that had a hard time drawing a crowd.

"We are incredibly passionate about what we do, and we certainly understand and appreciate the fan's passion, and that's part of the motivating factor for us," Friedman said.

THEN WHY DID YOU TRADE A PLAYER FROM A TEAM THAT BILL PLASCHKE THOUGHT WAS FLAWED BUT HE'S NOW GOING TO PRETEND HE DIDN'T THINK THAT?

The only position that concerns Dodgers fans would be a spot in the World Series for the first time in 27 years.

This being something that Bill Plaschke intentionally didn't mention, but Andrew Friedman has led a team to the World Series. So he has experience getting his team a spot in the World Series.

Two years ago, they were two victories from that spot. With Kemp gone, they're not getting any closer.

As part of his agenda to mislead readers, guess who wasn't a part of that team that was two victories from the World Series? A gentleman by the name of Matt Kemp. So the Dodgers aren't closer to the World Series without Kemp, even though they got close to the World Series two years ago without Matt Kemp. So, the Dodgers can get there without him. But hey, Plaschke has an agenda and he will be damned if reality messes with the fiction he is writing.

Now Steve Dilbeck will become incredulous at the idea of entertaining trade offers for Matt Kemp. Here is what Dilbeck wrote before Kemp was traded.

The Dodgers want to move an outfielder, maybe two, and the one getting the most attention is Matt Kemp? The Baltimore Orioles, San Diego Padres, Texas Rangers and Seattle Mariners have all reportedly expressed serious interest in Kemp.

Yes, one of the better outfielders the Dodgers have was receiving interest on the trade market. I know, it's shocking that other teams would want to trade for a good player and not Dilbeck's hero, Andre Ethier, but that's the state of baseball right now. Math nerds running teams want to trade for good baseball players, not slightly above average ones who will be 33 years old next year. 

Now, if you’re the Dodgers, sure, you listen. That’s basic due diligence. But unless they’re just blown away by an offer, there should be no way Kemp is the one moved.

I have a feeling Steve is not going to be impressed with Yasmani Grandal as part of the return for Kemp. Of course, trading Kemp also opened up payroll to improve the shortstop and second base position, along with signing Brandon McCarthy, but everything Andrew Friedman does is wrong so I'm sure those were dumb moves.

The Dodgers “lost” free agent Hanley Ramirez to the Boston Red Sox after the shortstop signed a jaw-dropping $88-million deal. They can’t really afford to lose the only other real right-handed power in the lineup. Certainly you’re not going to count on the streaky Yasiel Puig, who hit exactly one home run in a 54-game stretch from June 5 to Sept. 15?

It always comes back to Puig. Always. The good news is that Jimmy Rollins hit 17 home runs last year and Grandal hit 15 home runs. That's 32 home runs in the lineup right there while two positions have been improved. Great success!

Since ownership is so blindly in love with Puig (corrected: can opt into arbitration after three years of major league service time),

Yes, how dare ownership keep an eye on costs and trade away a 30 year old outfielder with five years left on a $100+ million-plus contract in favor of keeping the young player with a higher ceiling. Dumb move.

What's really funny is that Dilbeck is just like Bill Plaschke. He's going to criticize Andrew Friedman no matter what. If Friedman spends money, they will say that Friedman comes from a small market team and has no idea how to handle big contracts for a "real" team. If Friedman cuts salaries they will say that cutting salary is the very opposite of what a team on the very, very cusp of a World Series title needs to do. Both will forget that the Royals were in the World Series last year and the Dodgers couldn't get out of the NLDS while spending the most money in the majors. If Friedman spends money, he doesn't know what he's doing. If Friedman doesn't spend money then he is going cheap and ruining a title contender.

So if they’re seriously listening to offers for Kemp, they must be finding a nothing market for Andre Ethier and Carl Crawford.

Or a market where the return isn't close to being worth trading either player.

It’s impossible to reject a trade when you unaware of what’s included, but it is unlikely another team is going to include some can’t-miss prospect for Kemp.

Grandal is a pretty good catcher who is only 26 years old. Joe Wieland is young, but hasn't torn up the majors in his limited time and Zach Eflin pitched pretty well in the minors last year and is (depending on who you believe) the #12-#16 prospect for the Padres (of course he's getting traded for Rollins). It's not a massive haul, but the Padres are also eating about $75 million of Kemp's salary.

As excited as fans are over the way Kemp finished last season (.306, 20 homers, 70 runs batted in, 23 doubles in his last 92 games), there are still all those injuries and struggles the previous two seasons.

Right. And there is also the fact that he is the most expensive outfielder the Dodgers have and they have Joc Pederson waiting to play centerfield. So really, the Dodgers had five outfielders and they didn't feel they could rely on Kemp enough to keep him. In fact, Dilbeck himself recently argued for consistency in the Dodgers outfield over a player who has struggled. So now that Kemp is gone, there is only one Dodgers outfielder Dilbeck can hate, Yasiel Puig, which means he can put all of his effort into hating Puig.

So if you’re not going to get some serious phenom in return, why trade Kemp? There’s zero power available in free agency and it’s becoming rarer in this post-steroids era.

I do agree with this statement. Power is becoming a rare commodity. Fortunately, the Dodgers still hope that Puig can find some of the power he lost last year, Grandal has power for a catcher, and Adrian Gonzalez still exists on the Dodgers' roster.

I repeat: The unreliable, typically dour and frequently injured Ramirez just signed for $88 million for four years. Kemp’s owed $106 million over the next five and he’s a year younger. People who assume there is no way Kemp could get an equal contract if he were a free agent now, best look at Ramirez.

So Steve Dilbeck's reasoning for why the Dodgers shouldn't have traded Matt Kemp is because if Kemp were a free agent then a team would overpay for him? Who cares what Kemp could get on the open market? Kemp's value on the open market doesn't mean he is worth $21 million to the Dodgers anymore. The Dodgers didn't trade Kemp because they thought he wasn't worth $21 million, but because they had other options in the outfield and didn't feel Kemp could be relied upon. He was worth more to them as a trade asset to fill other spots on the roster that need improvement, while opening up room in the outfield for Puig, Ethier, Pederson, and Crawford to play.

The real unknown here is the Geek Squad.

You are such a fucking hack. At least pretend like you aren't going to spend the rest of your years writing for the "Times" bashing Friedman and Zaidi for daring to have ideas that you don't have the energy to try and understand.

New President of Baseball Operations Andrew Friedman, General Manager Farhan Zaidi and Senior Vice President of Baseball Operations Josh Byrnes all come from small market clubs. They’re playing with real money for the first time in their careers. They supposedly think outside the traditional baseball box.

As I wrote earlier, Dilbeck and Plaschke are going to bash them no matter what they do. If Friedman cuts salary just a little bit then he is trying to run the Dodgers like a small market team, if Friedman signs players to big contracts then he is playing with real money and probably won't know how to handle it. It all goes back to the fact Dilbeck and Plaschke just don't like the ideas (and roster-building strategies) of Andrew Friedman.

But this Dodgers’ team is built to win it all, right now. It won 94 games last year, and it was considered a disappointing season.

So why not take the exact team, minus Hanley Ramirez and a year older at every position, then try to see if that same team can disappoint again? IT MAKES SENSE! Do what was done in the past and hope it gets a different result this time. What could go wrong?

In reality, the Dodgers were a team with flaws. They traded Dee Gordon at the peak of his value, needed more pitching and had too many outfielders. If Friedman had made no changes to the roster then Dilbeck would have written, "Friedman and his Geek Squad was supposed to come in and shake up the roster, but all he delivered was the same results as before." Then Dilbeck would have other derogatory comments about Friedman and how not changing the roster was a mistake. This is what happens when there are sportswriters who write with an agenda.

They want to shed some contract, they’d best do it while remembering their primary charge is to win now. And logic says, that should include Kemp.

Maybe, but logic also says to use a trade asset in a crowded outfield to improve other spots on the roster like shortstop and catcher that needed improving. The Dodgers essentially managed to trade Dee Gordon for a better second baseman. That's a move to win now.

And now here is Dilbeck's reaction to the Dodgers trading away Kemp. 

I'm going to miss Matt Kemp. That may come as a shock to many -- particularly Matt Kemp -- but in truth he became my favorite Dodger.

Kemp became Dilbeck's favorite Dodger just as soon as he learned Andrew Friedman was going to put Kemp on the trade block. A chance to criticize Friedman appeared and then Kemp became Dilbeck's favorite Dodger. Anything to criticize the Geek Squad.

Kemp could be self-centered, but mostly he was upbeat and like a happy kid in the clubhouse. Certainly he had his moments, but I would never describe him as some clubhouse cancer.

I am trying to think of another Dodger who is upbeat, self-centered and like a happy kid, but has been referred to as a clubhouse cancer. Hmmm...I can't think of his name.

Yeah, he enjoyed the spotlight. Loved the attention and celebrities and the whole glamour thing. That’s not the worst thing, though sometimes there seemed too much effort in looking cool on a play and not enough hustling his butt off.

But now the Dodgers have a cheaper, younger version of Kemp in the form of Yasiel Puig! It's a win for them.

He brought excitement to the plate, which is a rare quality these days, and one now missing from the Dodgers lineup.

Again, I would argue Puig brings this. I seem to recall a lot of excitement surrounding Puig when he is at the plate. This quality is still present in the Dodgers lineup.

In truth, Kemp had a problem with me. He refused to explain it. Maybe it was one too many snarky comments or he didn’t like my questions or that I had him second in the MVP voting in 2011 or he just didn’t understand the difference between straight newspaper reporting and the commentary awarded to a blog.

Well Steve, I'm just glad you were able to bring yourself into his story. It's important when reading your take on the Kemp trade that you become a part of the story.

I was not there, and players had nominated several scribes when Kemp announced he knew exactly who he would do a piece on, but struggled to come up with my name. My feelings have recovered. He described me as gray hair with glasses and slightly hefty. The scribes were throwing out various names when one finally said “Dilbeck” and Kemp lit up and said, “Yeah, that’s the one!”

To which my close Times comrade, peer and ex-friend, Dylan Hernandez, shouted: “Why didn’t you just say the old, fat (guy)?”

But see, Kemp didn’t go there. Even for a scribe he would just as soon see transferred to another beat, he could not bring himself to say anything derogatory. And so, he became my favorite Dodger.

So if anyone is ever wondering whether newspaper guys play favorites among players based on their relationship with these players, look no further. Matt Kemp didn't say something about Dilbeck that was derogatory, so regardless of Kemp's play on the field, Dilbeck was willing to overlook Kemp's injuries, slight pouting and mental errors to have his back when the evil Andrew Friedman traded Kemp.

Maybe Yasiel Puig should start to hate Steve Dilbeck, but then refuse to be derogatory behind Steve's back, and Dilbeck will love him forever because of this. 

In the short term, he will likely make the Dodgers pay for this trade. Down the road, maybe he physically breaks down again and the Dodgers look good for this odd deal.

For today, however, I am privately left without a favorite Dodger.

Well, the trade was about you and not the long-term well-being of the Dodgers, so feel free to rip into Andrew Friedman for it.

And six hours after posting this previous column, Dilbeck does just that.

Think the Dodgers have done a masterful job of shaking up a team that won 94 games last season? That the franchise's very own numbers crunchers have put together a team ready to take that step to the World Series?

We won't know until the season begins. You know, like happens every other MLB season.

Unsure, are you? Thinking it best not to be prematurely all judgmental? Have no fear, that’s what bloggers are for.

It's impossible to know how offseason moves will play out. What's ridiculous is Dilbeck isn't really evaluating the moves Andrew Friedman made, he is basically thinking of reasons to criticize Friedman because he doesn't like statistical evaluation of players.

I fear for their future.

But that happened the second the Dodgers hired Andrew Friedman, so it really means nothing.

There’s still another starting pitcher to nab and probably an Andre Ethier still to trade.

But the Dodgers' 2015 lineup appears pretty set and will probably look something like this:

Jimmy Rollins (shortstop), Carl Crawford (left), Yasiel Puig (right), Adrian Gonzalez (first), Howie Kendrick (second), Juan Uribe (third), Joc Pederson (center), Yasmani Grandal/A.J. Ellis (catcher).

That’s a very nice lineup. It just doesn’t look like a lineup for the most expensive team in baseball, 

And fuck winning a World Series title, the title of the most expensive team in baseball is what the Dodgers really need to win.

which is what the Dodgers will probably still be when all this is done.

That's a relief. I enjoy how Dilbeck seems to want the Dodgers to continue spending money, but he is upset that Friedman has spent money on Brandon McCarthy.

Are they better defensively with Rollins and Kendrick up the middle? Absolutely. Will they be improved in center with phenom Pederson, Crawford in left and Puig back in right? No question.

And they’d better be, because they are unlikely to score as many runs with Matt Kemp, Hanley Ramirez and Dee Gordon all gone.

Has Dilbeck seen Howie Kendrick and Jimmy Rollins play? Rollins and Kendrick drove in 130 runs and scored 163 runs last year. Hanley Ramirez and Dee Gordon drove in 105 runs and scored 156 runs last year. Matt Kemp scored 77 runs and drove in 89 runs. So the replacement(s) for Kemp would have to score 52 runs and drive in 82 runs in order to replace Kemp/Ramirez/Gordon's production. I think scoring the runs shouldn't be too difficult, but it will be hard to find 82 RBI's between Ethier and Pederson. Otherwise, it's not quite as bad as Dilbeck is trying to make it.

That’s all they could get for Kemp -- Grandal, right-hander Joe Wieland and another pitcher, possibly right-hander Zach Eflin? Plus, they threw in at least $30 million? A part-time catcher who was busted for steroids in 2012, a pitcher coming off two elbow surgeries (including Tommy John) and a prospect they are expected to send to Philly for Rollins?

Grandal was busted two years ago for steroids and his calling Grandal "part-time" is a bit misleading considering he had 377 at-bats last year for the Padres. The return for Kemp isn't massive, but the Padres are also covering about $75 million of Kemp's deal.

And that would be Rollins who has one-year left on his contract. Actually three-fourths of the Dodgers’ infield (Uribe, Kendrick, Rollins) will be on the last year of their deals. Plus, they’re all at least 31. What was this about getting younger?

Steve Dilbeck out of one side of his mouth: "Doesn't Andrew Friedman understand this team is built to win now? These trades don't accomplish that!"

Steve Dilbeck out of the other side of his mouth: "Aren't the Dodgers supposed to be getting younger? Why are they signing all of these veterans in order to win now?"

Can't have it both ways friend. You can't want the Dodgers to compete now while also complaining the team isn't getting younger. With the position the Dodgers are in, it's very hard to do both in one offseason.

Gordon was under their control for the next four years. Kendrick could be gone after next season and Rollins is expected to be a one-year stopgap until Corey Seager is ready. The Dodgers really have no in the system to replace Uribe or Kendrick.

And apparently they have no money either, so they couldn't re-sign either player? After all, Rollins' money is off their payroll next year and the Dodgers just opened up some money by trading Kemp that they could use to find a replacement for Uribe or Kendrick if they choose not to re-sign one or both. It's hilarious how short-sighted sportswriters get when they want to further their own agenda. Dilbeck is acting like trading Kemp didn't free up some money for the 2016 season and the Dodgers won't have the option of re-signing Uribe and/or Kendrick. 

They also signed Brandon McCarthy (10-15, 4.05 ERA, 1.28 WHIP last season, who may be an upgrade over Dan Haren (13-11, 4.02, 1.18), but not a $48-million upgrade. Yet the Dodgers wanted rid of Haren so badly, they sent $10 million along in the deal to cover his 2015 salary whether he retires or not (OK, so a $38-million upgrade)

And for him and Gordon, they got back prospect Andrew Heaney, reliever Chris Hatcher, utility man Enrique Hernandez, and minor league catcher Austin Barnes from the Marlins. I’m so underwhelmed. They’re all fine prospects, but only Heaney was highly regarded, and they flipped him for Kendrick.

It doesn't matter if Dilbeck is underwhelmed. I would bet he doesn't know much about these prospects the Dodgers received.

Hatcher is a 29 year old relief pitcher (which is an area of need for the Dodgers) who appeared in 58 games last year and had a 3.38 ERA and 1.196 WHIP.

Hernandez is a 23 year old utility player who combined for 98 games at AA and AAA last year with a line of .319/.372/.484 and 11 home runs. He walked 31 times and struck out 41 times.

Barnes is a 24 year old catcher, second baseman, third baseman who combined for 122 games at A+ and AA last year with a line of .304/.398/.472 and 13 home runs. He walked 69 times and struck out 61 times.

It seems like it's an underwhelming return for Dee Gordon but Hernandez and Barnes are versatile and can hit, while Hatcher seems to have pitched pretty well last year.

Today the Dodgers look improved defensively. But without a dramatic lineup. Guess all their drama was left in San Diego’s winter meetings.

And that's what it is really all about. Drama. We all know there's no way an MLB team can win the World Series without having a ton of powerful hitters up and down their lineup. Only really powerful teams can win the World Series.

I'd probably be more open to Dilbeck's criticism if he obviously didn't have an agenda against the members of the Dodgers organization he calls "The Geek Squad." 

0 comments Dan Shaughnessy Antagonizes Derek Jeter Who Antagonizes Shaughnessy Back, Making Derek Jeter My Hero for the Day

Dan Shaughnessy is a troll. It's well-known and been discussed on this blog at length. He's the worst, just like I call about 10 other sportswriters "the worst." Shaughnessy is his own kind of trolling worst though. He's antagonistic towards others, writes columns with a snarky tone just in case he's wrong and doesn't want to be called on it, and has really curly hair that isn't funny except for the fact he's a troll so it's funny because he has a whi-fro. So Dan Shaughnessy wanted to ask Derek Jeter if he was going to play the three games of the season in Boston if the Yankees were out of the playoff hunt. See, Ted Williams didn't play his last three games before retiring, so that's the angle Dan took. So The Jeter came back at Dan with a little snark of his own and it was fairly glorious. The Jeter is my hero of the day now.

Every Red Sox fan knows Ted Williams hit a home run in his final at-bat in the big leagues.

(Bengoodfella makes a joke about the pink hat Red Sox fans not knowing who Ted Williams is)

What you probably don’t know is that the Red Sox had three more games on the schedule, in New York, after Williams’s farewell blast.

I did know that, but only because I am a loser and had very few friends as a child. I always pointed this out when the talk about Ted Williams insisting on playing the last game of the season when he was hitting .400 in 1941 began. Williams did hit a home run in his last at-bat in the majors, but he also didn't play in the last three games of the season. It doesn't change what Williams did, only alters the story around it a little bit.

Williams didn’t go with his teammates to Yankee Stadium. The Sox were already 29 games out of first place and nobody seemed to mind him finishing on a high note.

And 1960 Bill Simmons had stopped paying attention to the Red Sox because he was a baseball widow at that point, while 1960 Dan Shaughnessy wrote a column about how Ted Williams isn't the leader we thought he was because he retired before winning the Red Sox a World Series. He would write that Williams has a swing like Harry Hooper, but Williams prefers to be standoffish and short to the media rather than answer questions about his shortcomings. Then later Shaughnessy says the same thing about Carl Yastrzemski, who had a swing like Ted Williams, but couldn't win the Red Sox a title. The cycle continued until modern day when Shaughnessy once wrote Adrian Gonzalez had a swing like Ted Williams and later ripped Gonzalez for all of his shortcomings.

All of which brings us to Derek Sanderson Jeter, the 40-year-old captain of the New York Yankees, who plans to hang up his spikes at the end of the season.

I never knew Derek Jeter's middle name. I always assumed he didn't have a middle name or his middle name was "Captain" or "Clutch."

The Yankees play their final home game against the Orioles Thursday, Sept. 25. And then they finish their season in Boston with three games against the Red Sox. Any chance Jeter would pull a Ted if the Yankees are out of playoff contention?

I don't know Dan, why don't you ask Derek Jeter? But don't ask him, antagonize the shit out of him. That'll get him to give you a straight answer.

I’ve been thinking about this for weeks

Apparently Dan thinks about pointless things when he can't rip the Red Sox/Patriots/Celtics/Bruins for being terrible disappointments. Dan already called the Red Sox the Kansas City Royals of the East, then ended up with egg on his face as the Red Sox signed Rusney Castillo to a $72.5 million deal. So he's going to stay away from criticizing the Red Sox too much at this point. He looked like an asshole the last time he went all-in on the Red Sox for trading Adrian Gonzalez, Josh Beckett and Carl Crawford and then the Red Sox won the World Series the next year.

So what about it, Derek: “If the Yankees are eliminated from postseason play by Sept. 25, is it possible you won’t play the games in Boston?’’

Yes, the man who has never answered a question he didn't want to and never answered a question that in any way involved speculation during his career is now going to start doing exactly this. Sure.

Ever-polite, Jeter put up his hand and stopped me in mid-question.

“I don’t deal in hypotheticals,’’ he said.

Then Jeter smiled and said, "I only deal in attractive brunettes. Bring one of those to The Jeter, then we can talk."

Fair enough. Let’s try it another way.

“If you’re healthy, will you play the games in Boston?’’

That's pretty much the exact same question re-phrased. Seems like it is still a hypothetical.

“Why would I not?’’ he answered.

That seems clear enough. Jeter will play in Boston. He will be the same guy he has been for 20 seasons. He will honor his team and Major League Baseball. He will not do anything that would compromise the integrity of the game.

Not playing in the final games in Boston would not be compromising the integrity of baseball. In fact, I probably wouldn't play in the final three games if I were Jeter, because I would want my last few games to be played in New York and not on the road. It is not failing to honor MLB by skipping the last three games in Boston. I see how Dan is already painting a story in his mind for when Jeter skips those final three games.

“Do you know what Ted did in his last game?’’ I asked.

“He hit a home run, right?’’ answered Jeter.

Every Red Sox fan knows this. So does this mean The Jeter is really a Red Sox fan?

Williams’s homer cut a Sox deficit to 4-3. Williams was sent out to left field for the ninth inning, then replaced by Carroll Hardy. The Sox rallied in the bottom of the inning. Willie Tasby wound up batting with the bases loaded and one out, and the Sox won the game when Baltimore’s infield butchered a double play grounder. 

Most of you know I'm not a huge fan of stories that are slightly factually incorrect in order to create a narrative or make the story more exciting and engaging. I make exceptions. In this case, Ted Williams hit a home run in his last at-bat and I don't understand the need for Dan Shaughnessy to try and make it seem like Williams did something to the integrity of baseball by being lifted in the 9th inning. That's just Dan though. He's not happy until everyone is unhappy.

If Tasby walked in that at-bat, Williams would have been due up with the bases loaded in a 4-4 game. But he’d already been lifted.

Yes, but Tasby didn't walk and Williams never would have batted. Crisis averted, history hasn't changed. We all move on.

The game had been compromised.

What? The game had been compromised because of a situation that never occurred potentially occurring? This makes no sense. Ted Williams was lifted after getting a chance to take his position in left field one more time. Dan Shaughnessy sucks.

A decade later, in his official autobiography with John Underwood, Williams claimed the decision to blow off the Yankee series was made before the final Fenway game:

“The team still had a doubleheader in New York that weekend, but I went to [manager Mike] Higgins and said, ‘Mike this is the last game I’m going to play. I don’t want to go to New York.’ “He said, ‘All right, you don’t have to go.’ Regardless of what I had done, this was it, I’d had it.’’

Here is the main issue that prevents me from giving a shit or thinking this situation is an issue...Ted Williams would never have batted even if he stayed in the game. If anything, with Ted Williams hitting behind Tasby there is less of a chance Orioles would have walked Tasby to get the bases loaded for Ted Williams. No matter who lifted Williams or why he was lifted, he was never going to bat in the 9th inning. So it doesn't matter.

According to the late Roy Mumpton of the Worcester Telegram, Williams had told some writers that he wanted to go out with a homer. Mumpton told Ed Linn, another Williams biographer, 

“If he hadn’t hit the home run, he would have gone on to New York. I’m sure of that.’’

In his 1961 book on Williams (“The Eternal Kid”), Linn wrote, “The official Red Sox line was that it had been understood all along that Ted would not be going to New York unless the pennant race was still alive. The fact of the matter, of course, is that Williams made the decision himself, and he did not make it until after he had hit the home run.’’

It does not matter. Ted Williams had earned the right to exit the game in the way he wanted to exit the game. Just like Derek Jeter has earned this right. After 20 years of hearing all about he plays the game the right way and respects the game of baseball, I can't handle hearing about how Jeter has compromised the integrity of baseball by skipping the last three games of this season. It's too much for my emotions to handle.

Linn claimed Williams’s equipment bag was packed for the trip to the Big Apple.

And yet, it happened over 50 years ago and it doesn't matter now.

Jeter would never do this. It would fly in the face of everything his career has stood for. Right?

“I can’t even think about that,’’ said the Yankee captain. “I’ve gone my entire career without answering hypotheticals. I don’t like jinxing anything. I’m playing today.’’

That is the third time Jeter has essentially answered the same question based on a hypothetical. Now comes time for The Jeter to burn Dan Shaughnessy.

That sounds as if he’s leaving some wiggle room for not coming to Boston.

“I’m not leaving any wiggle room,’’ he said. “I’ve never spoken on a hypothetical in my entire career. My job is playing the game today, Sept. 2. That’s the game I’m playing.’’

If Dan kept asking the same questions over and over again to guys like Adrian Gonzalez and Carl Crawford, then no wonder they were short with him and wouldn't give him the answers he wants.

“Yeah, I understand it,’’ said Jeter. “Mo didn’t pitch in Houston last year [the Yankees played meaningless games in Houston after Mariano Rivera said goodbye to the fans at Yankee Stadium].
“It depends on the situation, I guess. I don’t know what Ted’s situation was and I didn’t know him well enough to comment on it.

And after Mariano Rivera didn't pitch in the last games of the season on the road against Houston baseball was never the same. When a Hall of Famer like Rivera doesn't show respect for the game of baseball and comprises the integrity of the sport then it is amazing there was even a 2014 season to be played. It almost ruined the sport.

“Don’t dissect this,’’ he added, smiling. “It’s not complicated. Don’t complicate things for yourself.’’

There you go, Jeter. The Jeter is showing contempt for Shaughnessy and being condescending towards him as well. I always knew The Jeter had good qualities hidden somewhere.

As I excused myself from the captain’s cubicle, Jeter had one question.

So after Dan Shaughnessy was done asking the same question four times to Derek Jeter and hinted (at least in this column) the right thing to do would be to play the last three games in Boston, Jeter wanted to taunt Dan some for not doing his job.

“You never asked Ted about it?’’ he wondered.

Now this is a valid point. Dan Shaughnessy, who inexplicably has won awards for his writing, had a chance to ask Ted Williams exactly what happened. Whether Williams pulled himself from those last three games as a plan prior to his home run or this was planned after he hit the home run against the Orioles? After all, since Dan seems so concerned about it and he would have access to Ted Williams, doesn't this seem like a logical question to ask?

“No,’’ I said.

And why would Dan ask Ted Williams? If Dan isn't trolling his readers, tearing into a Boston-area player for his perceived shortcomings or simply trying to gain attention, what does it benefit him to do actual sports journalism? Dan isn't capable of real journalism that isn't purely a ploy to gain attention for himself.

“Well, you blew it,’’ he acknowledged. “You blew your opportunity.’’

You bleeeeeeeeew it! 

This makes me wish Jeter had talked more. Maybe this is Jeter's plan. He will just buck up to all of the asshole sportswriters who have annoyed him through the years. It's funny and it's true. He could have asked Ted Williams these questions and he didn't. Dan had chances and he never took them.

But see what Jeter probably knows is that Dan Shaughnessy didn't want to ask Ted Williams. He didn't care to ask Ted Williams when the decision to not play in the final three games of the 1960 season was made. Dan has no interest in that. He only has interest in how Ted Williams didn't play the last three games of the 1960 season as it relates to how he can write an article about Derek Jeter not playing against the Red Sox during the last week of this season. That's all. Long-term, Dan wants a chance to rip Jeter if he doesn't play in those last three games of the season, and short-term, he wants to antagonize Jeter by asking him questions Dan knows he won't answer.

Sad, but true.
Thanks, Captain Yankee. See you at Fenway Sept. 28.

Could Dan be more of a dick? "See you at Fenway Sept. 28." The Jeter didn't say he would be playing in those games for sure. He said he didn't answer hypotheticals and was planning on playing. I'm just glad Jeter got Dan back by pointing out how all the mystery surrounding when the decision for Williams to not play in the last regular season games of his career could have been partially avoided if Dan had just done real journalism and asked Williams if/when given the chance. 

I hope Jeter doesn't play so Dan can rip him for not playing. That's an article I would cover right here on this blog. 

6 comments When He's Not Busy Trouncing Them for Providing Bad Customer Service, Mitch Albom Feels Bad for the Retail Stores

I am sure most of you remember the article Mitch Albom wrote last summer about how no one in the service industry cares enough to provide good customer service anymore. It was arrogance at its finest to read Mitch outraged at the thought he wasn't getting good customer service. Don't they know who he is? He's Mitch Albom. When you go to heaven, you will probably meet him there. He will be the one sitting on a pillow-shaped cloud berating Saint Peter for not smiling enough and daring to repeat Mitch's coffee order back to him. Today, Mitch decides he feels bad for the service industry and brick-and-mortar stores going out of business. He doesn't feel bad for the small, independent stores, don't get him wrong. It's mostly the large companies going out of business, like Borders, with whom he shares the most sympathy. He blames the mean old Interwebs for ruining in-store shopping as the world knows it and states the art of browsing in a store may soon no longer exist. Many of these same brick-and-mortar stores employ those people who Mitch so brazenly berated back in the summer for exhibiting poor customer service, which is something that seems lost on Mitch. A computer can't provide the bad customer service that Mitch seems to believe exists in brick-and-mortar stores.

Anyone in retail is familiar with this scene: A customer comes in, asks for help. He tries things on, tests things out, maybe takes some literature, writes down model numbers or designer names.

And then the customer robs the store, not only wasting the sales clerk's time, but also getting away with valuable information like literature, model numbers, or designer names. None of which are readily available online of course.

You will also find it interesting that Mitch is writing a column that gets posted on the Detroit Free Press site as opposed to being available in the Detroit Free Press newspaper that gets delivered to subscribers' doorstep. Newspapers are going out of business, yet Mitch doesn't care enough about his own industry to insist his columns only get posted in the newspaper.

"But Ben," you would say, "that is ridiculous to blame Mitch Albom for what the Detroit Free Press chooses to post on their website. He has an opportunity to reach more readers by posting his column online." I agree. It is about as ridiculous as blaming consumers or the Internet for using brick-and-mortar stores for research and then choosing to purchase an item online. Mitch is essentially blaming the Internet for having lower prices and blames consumers for daring to use stores to do research prior to buying online.

Then, when the time comes to close the sale, the customer says, "I'm still thinking. Give me your card, and I'll get back to you soon."

You never see him again.

More likely a customer walks into a store and can't get any service because everyone who works in the service or retail industry is an unattentive asshole who isn't capable of tying their shoes.

Amrightorwhat, Mitch? There is no good customer service anymore. Everyone who works in the service and retail industry is an inattentive asshole.

It's called "showrooming."

It's also called "doing research and then choosing to buy the same product cheaper somewhere else." This often happens in a free market when prices aren't set at a certain level and it is a good thing for the consumer.

The Web-based store gets the nod.

The brick-and-mortar store gets nada.

I just bought an iPhone 5 case. I could go into the Apple or Verizon store and pay $10 more for the same product, but I choose to go to Amazon and buy the product. It is the exact same product and is cheaper online. As bad as I feel for Verizon and Apple that they lost my business, I'm going to usually stick with the lower price online if it is the same product I can get in a store.

One retailer in Australia has had enough. Celiac Supplies, a specialty foods store in Brisbane, posted a sign on the door that says a $5 fee will be charged for anyone who is "just looking."

If this store doesn't have a constantly updated online site where someone can view the products available, and know they are available when they walk in the store, this is a great way to go out of business in a quick and efficient manner. I'm not paying $5 to walk into a specialty foods store hoping they have the product I want. I can handle this fee if the inventory is constantly updated online so a consumer knows the product he/she wants is available, but otherwise this idea will probably stay in Australia.

In explaining the policy, the sign read: "There has been a high volume of people who use this store as a reference and then purchase goods elsewhere. ... This policy is in line with many other clothing, shoe and electronic stores who are also facing the same issue."

Way to fight back against the consumer. You can't have these customers taking advantage of lower prices for comparable items at a different location. These consumers don't deserve a choice in how much they pay for a product and where they buy the product. I applaud this method. It punishes the consumer for having options and anytime you can punish your customer business is certainly going to be booming.

As usual though, Mitch isn't really telling the complete truth in this column. Celiac Supplies has a pretty large website where it appears a consumer can purchase products on their website. Mitch is trying to paint Celiac as a small-time business that's just trying to keep customers against the rising tide of Internet commerce, but they seem to be more than willing to take advantage of customers who like to online shop. So I get the point Mitch is trying to prove, but he didn't do much research when citing Celiac Foods as an example. Celiac Foods seem to eagerly embrace online shopping.

This brings up another question I have...do customers really go and browse at a specialty foods store? Okay, for some products I can see how this would happen, but I don't know if customers are browsing the breads, fruit, cakes and pastas only to buy the product somewhere else.

The $5 fee is credited for anyone making a purchase. And the store doesn't charge kids, retirees or regular customers. But naturally, as soon as this story circulated on the Web, the policy was blasted by critics -- on the Web.

First the Internet bombards society with advanced statistics and now the Internet is trying to circulate stories about this store that charges customers for browsing! Of course, it probably isn't likely my local newspaper would pick up on this story and be able to report on it with the depth that a report on the Internet could report on the story, but that's beside the point I guess. The lesson is that the Internet is evil and nothing good can come from reading stories on the Internet. We see this every single time Mitch Albom posts a column on the Detroit Free Press site.

The idea of Mitch bemoaning "the Web" widely circulating a story IN A STORY THAT HE HAS POSTED ON THE INTERNET SO THAT IT CAN BE WIDELY CIRCULATED, certainly doesn't seem to dawn on Mitch. If we are going to meet certain people in heaven, Mitch thinks there's a good chance we will meet the Internet in Hell.

But I do think it has a point.

Not entirely. Consumers have a right to find the cheapest and best product. It's fine if a store chooses to charge customers to browse their store, but don't be upset when the store goes out of business. I can't speak for every consumer (because I'm not Bill Simmons), but I don't think consumers like the idea of being charged to find the best price or best quality in an item they may want to purchase.

The sad tale of Borders

Yes, poor Borders. It's not the independent book stores that Mitch feels bad for, but he feels bad for a mismanaged corporation. That sounds about right actually. 

Yes, I know everyone wants a good price. But Internet retailers can beat the prices of your local store for many reasons, including no overhead for rent, property taxes, electricity, utilities, security, clean up or the salaries of all those nice salespeople who tell you everything

These are the same "nice" people that Mitch so pretentiously eviscerated in his column about poor customer service last summer, remember. They are nice people when their company is going out of business, but shitty at their job when the company is performing well.

They also might be overseas or in a cheaper state. Oh, and you don't always get charged sales tax.

Notice how Mitch leaves out that an Internet-based company has to charge shipping and handling on what is purchased and this is often much more costly than the sales tax charge. This is another case of a writer leaving out details that don't support what he is trying to prove. Mitch is desperately making it seem like online retailers have all sorts of advantages without mentioning the disadvantage of a consumer having to pay shipping and handling on any item purchased online.

Once a thriving business with hundreds of bookstores, it eventually sunk under the weight of a shrinking market and the cost of operating giant stores.

And yet Barnes and Noble has found a way to stay in business while still operating a giant store in a shrinking environment. Borders didn't adapt to a changing environment and that is completely their fault. Book stores aren't exactly thriving, but if Borders had good management and had learned to adapt then the company may still be in business. Sorry if I don't feel bad for a corporation that goes out of business. It's somewhat ironic Borders went out of business when the arrival of a Barnes and Noble or Borders in a town most likely put a few independent book stores out of business.

Sure, online booksellers are thriving. But what does that do for your neighborhood? Or, for that matter, your neighbors?

What? When a bookstore closes another business attempting to be successful steps up in its place. It's the circle of business life. Businesses fail and other businesses move in. Obviously if a lot of businesses fail in one certain city then it affects the neighborhood, but I don't know many cities in the United States that are reliant so much on a Barnes and Noble or Borders that the entire city's economy would be affected by the closing of one of these stores. They aren't manufacturing plants or anything like that.

And Borders was a multinational chain when it went down. Imagine life for the mom-and-pop shop.

I know Mitch is desperately trying to paint the Internet as evil, but business is changing and the Internet is a big part of this change. It's fine to support a mom-and-pop shop, but a consumer who is looking to buy a product at a cheap price is smart to look for it on the Internet.

Lack of human interaction

The same guy who is bemoaning a lack of human interaction gets all pissy and angry when the barista asks him to confirm his order. Mitch wants human interaction as long as it doesn't involve actual interaction with humans. Let's look at Mitch's "most customer service sucks" column from this past summer to see how much he values human interaction:

Or does no one in the service business listen the first time you speak? It seems that any transaction now requires at least one repeat. Sometimes two.

And I know it's not volume, because I have been accused of having a voice that can be heard across a football field. But I still get asked, "Medium or large?"

Twice.

The Starbucks fellow smiles.

"How can I help you?"

"Medium coffee, room for cream."

He fills a cup. He stares at it.

"Do you want room for cream?" he asks.

You can clearly see that Mitch Albom not only values human interaction when going to a retail store, but he also respects those people who work there. I think Mitch prefers the IDEA of going into a physical store to buy an item as opposed to purchasing the item on the Internet, more than he prefers actually interacting with a business's employees in a retail environment. People are too annoying for Mitch to deal with, but everyone else should go buy products in an actual store. 

Once developers clustered hundreds of stores in a single place (with ample parking), the American Main Street all but disappeared. People stopped seeing each other in the center of town. They felt less connected to their community -- certainly less connected to its businesses.

Mitch wants us all to feel connected as a community...just don't ask him to repeat whether he wants cream in his coffee or not, because he will shove an ice pick in your eye for daring to make him interact with you by repeating his order. We need to be connected, but just leave Mitch alone. He's too important to waste words on you.

A recent IBM study showed that nearly half of all online purchases were a result of "showrooming," meaning local stores get the tease, Web stores get the tally. It also found that 35% of consumers weren't sure whether their next purchase would be retail or online.

They aren't sure? How can this Republic stand against such indecision? 

Yes, business is cutthroat, and retailers may need to match online prices to stay afloat and integrate the Web more into their shopping experience.

There's no "yes" required at the beginning of this sentence or any type of hedging necessary. Consumers have a right to find the best price and if retailers aren't going to provide this best price in a store, then the consumer will find what they want on the Internet. It's that simple. 

But the one thing the Web still can't deliver is the one-on-one touch, the smiling face, the conversation in the fitting-room area, the "see you next time" on the way out.

BUT DON'T YOU DARE SAY "SEE YOU NEXT TIME" IF MITCH HAS ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED YOU AS HE IS LEAVING THE STORE! 

Don't diminish such things as silly. They are part of an endangered category called "human contact."

I don't go to a retailer to have human contact. I go to purchase a product. Human contact isn't necessary for me to purchase a pair of shoes or decide which iPhone case I am looking to purchase. I'm not looking to socialize at Banana Republic. I am looking to purchase the clothes I want and get out of the store. 

Charging $5 to look around may be short-sighted. But as the owner told a Brisbane newspaper,
 "I'm not doing community service."

The thing is, she actually is.

Then she should charge for browsing. Consumers aren't doing community service either in paying more money to support a retailer that can't compete in the market. Retailers are the ones who want consumers' business. It's not the other way around.

But if people don't see it that way, she won't be for long.

The owner could use that big, fancy website she has running to sell the products...which is something she is already doing by the way. It's funny that the example Mitch uses of a business that charges customers for browsing in their store has a website set up to prevent consumers from having to come into the store to purchase the products they could usually purchase in the store. The owner of Celiac Supplies seems to get it. I wonder why Mitch can't?