4 comments Bleacher Report Has a List of Surprising Moves Every NFL Team Didn't Make They Obviously Should Have Made

Today, Bleacher Report tells us the most surprising move EVERY NFL team didn't make this offseason. Every single NFL team had to decide on at least one surprising move they didn't make. There's no way (for the sake of pageviews) every NFL team didn't make a surprising decision. There's nothing like a little second-guessing based on what the media or fans think a team should have done in the offseason.

Sometimes we know exactly what a team needs in order to improve heading into the next season, and the powers that be totally disregard what seems like the best thing for the organization. This can leave fans and media alike shocked and concerned.

And of course the fans and the media are always correct about what the best thing for the organization may be. So it's surprising these NFL teams don't listen to fans and the media. After all, when has the media or fans ever been wrong?

Let's start the slideshow!

Miami Dolphins

Adding a Game-Changer

A game-changer is a guy who is elite at his position and can turn a game around single-handedly with superior skill.

Yeah, why didn't the Dolphins add one of those many game-changers that were available this past offseason? There were game-changing players available everywhere on the free agent and trade market. All the Dolphins had to do was just pick one.

Receiver Hakeem Nicks would have been a highly affordable option to help bolster the passing game.

Oh, to "bolster the passing game" means Nicks would be a game-changer? Perhaps the author has a different definition of "game-changing" than I do. I would not consider Nicks to be an elite receiver at this point in his career.

Brent Grimes is one of the best players at his position, but he is a fringe star at best in this league after dealing with a severe injury in 2012.

So Brent Grimes is one of the best players at his position, but he is a fringe star because he suffered an injury in 2012. Hakeem Nicks is one of the best players at his position, and he also suffered injuries in 2012 and 2013, but he's still considered elite? Consider me confused. 

Darrelle Revis is another name that would have been worth considering.

And he only cost $12 million to acquire! The Dolphins did draft Jarvis Landry, but I guess he doesn't count as a "game-changer," or as "elite" is better known, someone who can "help bolster the passing game."

New England Patriots

Adding More Receiving Weapons for Tom Brady

You mean other than signing Brandon LaFell and drafting Jeremy Gallon while hoping that the two rookies from last year (Dobson and Thompkins) can take a step forward? Nah, probably best to give up on them after one season.

With that said, you have to wonder how secure the Patriots feel having Julian Edelman and Danny Amendola as the starting flankers. Behind these two is a lot youth and inexperience. This system is notoriously challenging to master, and some players never end up panning out. 

The same could be sad for any young or inexperienced wide receiver trying to master any NFL team's offensive system. Receivers don't pan out all the time, even those that don't play for New England.

The Broncos have taken a similar and perhaps even more desperate approach to the offseason—but at the end of the day, only one team can reign supreme.

Congratulations on being the AFC representative in the Super Bowl, Denver Broncos!
 
New York Jets

Adding More Offensive Weapons

Outside of signing Eric Decker and drafting Shaquille Evans, Jalen Saunders, Quincy Enuwa and Jace Amaro? The Jets added four offensive weapons in the draft and signed one in free agency.

Adding three draft picks to the wide receiver position last week was the implementation of quantity over quality. Perhaps this was in the hopes that one of these mid- to late-round prospects would become a significant weapon.

Oh, so these players who were drafted don't count because they are mid-to-late round prospects. Got it. I guess a second-round pick is a mid-round selection? How many draft picks does the author think the Jets had early in the 2014 draft? The Jets drafted offensive skill position players with 3 of their first 5 picks.

Baltimore Ravens

Trade Ray Rice for Extra Draft Picks

I'm LOL'ing right now. Let's see...running backs are being devalued, Ray Rice just signed a new large contract and there is a video of him dragging his wife off an elevator after punching her? Why wouldn't a team give up extra draft picks for him?

It's like the author doesn't understand that other NFL teams know the same things that the Ravens know about Ray Rice.

Last year Rice struggled with injuries and put up his worst numbers as a pro. He claims to be back to full health and is looking forward to a rebound season.  He is in the third year of a six-year deal and is expected to count $8.75 million against the salary cap this year. His price certainly exceeds the 3.1 yards per carry and four rushing touchdowns he had in 2013.

So it wouldn't be hard at all to trade Rice for extra picks! Every NFL team wants a running back in legal trouble who carries a high cap figure!

Trading him for extra draft picks could have saved the team money while allowing it to add more youth and depth on the roster. The Ravens could have even used the extra pick to take one of the talented young running backs available in this class.

Here in dream world this is a fantastic idea. In the real world, where GM's don't actively look to make bad trades this isn't such a great idea.

It’s reasonable to consider the possibility that the smallish Rice, who runs like a power back at times, has too much mileage and will never be what he used to be.

It's also reasonable to consider the possibility that other NFL teams know this and wouldn't give up a draft pick or draft picks to acquire Rice. It seems the author has Bill Simmons Trade Disease where he thinks a trade that only one team would realistically consider is a brilliant trade idea.

These are good practical football reasons to move on from Rice if him punching the woman he now wants to marry isn’t a good enough reason for you.

Yes, but give me a reason why a team would trade for him.

Cincinnati Bengals

Going Big on a Free Agent

Imagine if they would have made a run for Darrelle Revis, Jared Allen and/or Julius Peppers?

Then they would have possibly signed a guy on the downside of his career and potentially paying him for past production?

They should have tried to land a safety like T.J. Ward, Donte Whitner or Jairus Byrd. Adding a presence like that could end up being the difference between a playoff appearance and a Super Bowl ring.

I think Ward, Whitner, and Byrd are great players but they are not the difference in a playoff appearance and a Super Bowl ring. All things being equal, none of these safeties are worth 3-4 playoff victories.

Pittsburgh Steelers

Drafting Secondary Early and Often

On the size tip, the Steelers added DE Stephon Tuitt and NT Daniel McClullers. Tuitt stands 6’5”, 304 pounds, while McClullers measures in at a whopping 6’7”, 352 pounds.

The strategy seems to be—win the battle up front with brute strength while outrunning the opponents from the flanks. This is exactly what they need to do to get back to Super Bowl-caliber level.

Yeah, but the Steelers should have drafted players in the secondary early and often AND drafted brute strength and speed with those picks as well. I'm sure the NFL wouldn't have noticed if they had drafted two players with one draft pick.

I do love how the author says the Steelers draft strategy was exactly what they needed to do in order to get back into the Super Bowl, but he also criticizes them for not drafting more players in the secondary with the picks. Can't have it both ways. 

However, one critical area of the defense remains too slow, too old and lacking in depth. Starting cornerbacks Ike Taylor and William Gay are serviceable players, but they lack top-end speed. This is critical when competing against today’s offenses. 

Maybe the Steelers are trying to increase pressure on the opposing quarterback, which in turn would allow their serviceable secondary to not be such a liability.

Jacksonville Jaguars

The author doesn't actually list what he thinks is the most surprising move the Jaguars didn't make this offseason. I guess Bleacher Report had to fire some of their editors to make room for the influx of writing talent they have seen over the past year. Presumably, improving the pass rush was the surprising move the Jags didn't make.

With that said, the pass-rushing unit could've certainly used some more TLC this offseason. 
 
For several years, Jacksonville Jaguars fans have been clamoring for a pass-rusher. Needless to say, the team has failed to prioritize the position year after year.

Why don't the Jaguars listen to their fans. They could have Tim Tebow as their quarterback right now!

Oakland Raiders

Sign Young Free Agents

Surprisingly they opted out of overpaying for young talent with promising futures in favor of cheaper veterans who are entering the back nine of their NFL careers.

Why didn't the Raiders choose to overpay for talent? It seems like that's worked out so well for them in the past that they would try it again. Why did they choose to sign cheaper veterans with proven production who aren't all on the downside of their careers instead of overpaying young talent in the hopes they get a return on their investment? WHY???????

Aside from that, their additions this offseason have taken on the look of a team desperate to win now while disregarding the need for building a dynasty.

The Raiders completely disregarded their need to build a dynasty. They had a chance to build one and said, "Fuck that, we don't want a dynasty."

Adding guys like QB Matt Schaub, WR James Jones, RB Maurice Jones-Drew, CB Carlos Rogers, DE Antonio Smith, DE Justin Tuck and LB LaMarr Woodley to short-term contracts is essentially renting veterans for a year and starting all over next offseason.

The better idea would have been to overpay young talented players (you know, all those young talented players available in free agency) in free agency and then take a cap hit when they have to start all over in a season or two.

GM Reggie McKenzie is on the hot seat this year and understands that if he fails to show significant improvement this season he’ll likely be sent packing. He seems to believe that if he can’t save his job now, he won’t be able to continue building through the draft like he prefers.

Why is McKenzie choosing to sign veterans to short contracts? Because he selfishly wants to win football games now. He shows no regard for the future by not locking the team into large free agent deals and has signed productive veterans to short-term contracts. He's trying to improve the team in the short-term and give the team cap room in the long-term. McKenzie is trying to improve the team and win now to keep his job. What a selfish asshole.

New York Giants

Drafting a Tight End

Tight end is a glaring weakness when you look at the names currently on the roster. Adrien Robinson is expected to start and is followed by Kellen Davis and Larry Donnell. If you don’t know who these people are, don’t worry, you’re not alone.

If Robinson falters, it could be a long road for Eli and the G-Men.

Right, the Giants entire 2014 season hinges on whether they get the production they need from the tight end position or not. If Adrien Robinson isn't very good, there's no way the Giants bounce back and have a great season. Tight end is really the only position that determines a team's success during a season.

Philadelphia Eagles

Keeping DeSean Jackson

When you release a productive and dynamic playmaker like DeSean Jackson, it’s going to leave a hole on your roster that won't get filled overnight.

Philadelphia Eagles head coach Chip Kelly attempted to throw some dirt on that hole by drafting Oregon receiver Josh Huff and highly productive Vanderbilt wideout Jordan Matthews. Both players had productive college careers and were brought in specifically out of immediate need.

The Eagles currently have Riley Cooper and Jeremy Maclin penciled in as the starters.

If Maclin, Matthews and Huff (three guys who had zero production last year) combine for 82 catches, 1332 yards and 9 touchdowns then they literally would have filled the hole in the Eagles roster left by DeSean Jackson. Sure, it took three players, but Jackson's production can be replaced this season with these three players. So he can be replaced overnight.

Washington Redskins

Changing Their Name

Really? You are surprised the Redskins didn't change their name? What indication did Daniel Snyder give at any point in the last year that he would change the Redskins name?

According to Mike Holmgren per NBC’s Pro Football Talk, even he thinks the Redskins are due for a new name. He went on to add, “I think it’s the right thing to do. Now, apparently 50 Senators also agree with me.”

I'm confused. Why would "even" Mike Holmgren think the Redskins need a new name? Has Holmgren previously said the Redskins didn't need a new name? I just have a lot of questions because the author seems to indicate by using the word "even" in this context that Mike Holmgren thinking the Redskins need a new name is surprising or should carry more weight than that of a retired NFL head coach.

Green Bay Packers

Drafting Tight End Crockett Gillmore

Whatever the case may be there, Crockett Gillmore is the tight end who was drafted the very next pick and is a much more productive and impressive prospect from what I can tell in scouting them both.

Maybe Bleacher Report did have to fire a lot of the editors to make room for the new writing talent. I miss a word or two in a sentence, no doubt about that, but shouldn't there be an editor who can fix this sentence almost a month after the column was originally posted. So I would say the most surprising move Bleacher Report didn't make was hire more editors for their columns.

Atlanta Falcons

Drafting Anthony Barr or Aaron Donald

Yes, it's surprising the Falcons chose to protect their franchise quarterback. Why on Earth would they choose to do that?

OLB Anthony Barr and DT Aaron Donald were the best available pass-rushing options when they opted for Matthews with the sixth overall pick.

They chose to protect their franchise quarterback because the NFL is a quarterback dominated league. What a crazy decision.

Offensive line is a huge need but one that could have been filled later in the draft. Dominate pass-rushers were off the board early this year, and the Falcons missed out on a key opportunity to address a critical need.

No, they chose to address a critical need and then fill the pass rusher need in free agency. The Falcons did draft Ra'Shede Hageman in the 2nd round and if the author saw Hageman in college then he would know he could be a pretty good interior pass rusher from the defensive tackle spot.

New Orleans Saints

Adding More Pass Rush

This offseason there were several viable options worth exploring in free agency, but it seemed as though the team was not interested in spending the money in that way. Adding a guy like Michael Bennett could have been a huge boost to the Saints' Super Bowl hopes.

Two issues here:

1. Michael Bennett has played his entire career in a 4-3 defense. How does the author know Bennett would be successful in the predominantly 3-4 defense that the Saints tend to run?

2. Two NFL teams did offer Bennett more money and he chose to stay in Seattle. How does the author know the Saints didn't try to add Bennett? That's the issue with second-guessing these NFL teams and naming the surprising moves the team didn't make. Perhaps the team did try to make these moves and couldn't get a deal done.

Carolina Panthers

Signing WR Hakeem Nicks

This guy loves himself some Hakeem Nicks.

Carolina drafted Kelvin Benjamin with its first pick, and he will give Newton a reliable target, but the Panthers still need an additional receiver or two. Besides, Benjamin is raw and completely unproven as a guy who can fill the role as a No.1 WR.

He's unproven as a guy who can fill the role of a #1 wide receiver mostly because he's a rookie and has never played an NFL game. Every rookie is unproven to fill any role on an NFL team before he actually plays an NFL game. Also, the Panthers receivers suck, but they aren't going to ask Kelvin Benjamin to be the #1 receiver if he isn't showing he's ready for this task. Just because he's the team's first round pick doesn't mean he's the team's new #1 wide receiver.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers 

Giving Rookie QB Brett Smith Some Time 

Yes, it's surprising the Buccaneers didn't keep an undrafted rookie quarterback around. What a shock.

I firmly believe this is a kid who belongs in the NFL and can have a lot of success under the proper tutelage.

New offensive coordinator Jeff Tedford has a reputation for being great at developing quarterbacks.

This is the list of Tedford quarterbacks:

Trent Dilfer
David Carr
Akili Smith
Joey Harrington
Aaron Rodgers
Kyle Boller

Tedford has a reputation for being great at developing COLLEGE quarterbacks. As the author said in regard to Kelvin Benjamin, he is completely unproven as a guy who can develop an NFL quarterback.

Arizona Cardinals

Not Bringing in Josh McCown 

It's surprising the Cardinals, who already have a starting quarterback, didn't sign a free agent quarterback who wanted a starting job?

The Cardinals should have pushed hard to aquire veteran QB Josh McCown during free agency to not only provide insurance to Palmer, but to compete for the starting job in an open competition.

And what could go wrong in this situation if there ends up being a quarterback controversy? Aren't those types of controversies usually productive for NFL teams?

Bleacher Report has improved, but as long as they employ the "overly-long slideshow with the last slide of one slideshow being the first slide in the next slideshow" concept I'm afraid I'm still going to think of some of the writing as a ploy for pageviews.

10 comments Gregg Easterbrook Doesn't Know What Defense the 49ers Run, Bases This TMQ on Them Running a 4-3 Defense

Gregg Easterbrook told us in last week's TMQ that he will be attending the Super Bowl, but he won't sit in the press box because he thinks the way to watch an NFL game is in the stands. Plus, he's really not the press any more than he is a pretentious guy who has coached a few football teams and believes this makes him qualified to talk about the NFL on a weekly basis. This may shock you, but last week Gregg continued to make things up, like saying the Colts were emboldened by the Chiefs continuing to throw the football when up 20+ points, and he misled his readers by claiming Ben Grubbs was "unwanted" by the Ravens when he actually signed a big free agent contract with the Saints. Gregg decides this week that the West Coast defense is all the rage, whatever "West Coast defense" may be. Gregg also takes on The Big Bang Theory because this is a column about the NFL and football so obviously a discussion of space is relevant. Finally, someone in the sports world has the guts to take on scientific theories about the universe's origins.

For years, the Pacific side of the United States has been associated with the West Coast offense. Sunday, the NFC title game will showcase the West Coast defense.

I see what Gregg did there. Pretty soon the Pacific side of the United States will be known for it's West Coast special teams. It's an exciting time.
 
The breakthrough idea of the West Coast offense was throwing passes that are designed to be short. Before Bill Walsh, nearly all passing routes were drawn up with long gains as the goal. Walsh realized that short passes could be like extended handoffs. Today at the prep, college and professional levels, football playbooks contain far more short passing routes than long ones.

Of course the veracity of this statement depends entirely on what your opinion of "short" passing routes are compared to "long" passing routes. A certain play will involve multiple receivers running different routes, some of which may be long routes, others may be short routes. So basically Gregg seems to be full of shit, depending on what you think a "short" passing route may be. As usual, Gregg may be right or he may not be right, but his statement is entirely unprovable really since each receiver runs a different route with different depth than another receiver on the same play call.

What's the breakthrough idea of the West Coast defense? Back to basics. During this young century, "unorthodox" has been the favorite word of defensive coordinators.

It's really easy to go back to basics when a defense has talented players who don't need complicated schemes to be successful. The players are always the reason for success, not a "back to basics" mantra. What may be "back to basics" for the Seahawks and 49ers could be a vanilla defense for another team with lesser defensive players.

This is not the theory of the West Coast defense. The Seahawks and 49ers play conventional fronts, usually a vanilla 4-3-4, and rarely blitz.

I didn't know the 49ers played a conventional front that was a vanilla 4-3-4. Gregg may want to inform the 49ers of what defense they play because the defensive coordinator for the 49ers seems to believe he runs a 3-4 defense. Obviously Vic Fangio just doesn't know what he is talking about and Gregg is right that the 49ers really run a 4-3-4 defense. This also explains why Aldon Smith, who is a linebacker,  has 42 sacks in his career because the 49ers rarely blitz.

I guess we are just lucky Gregg knows that the 49ers play in San Francisco and not Sacramento because it seems like otherwise he doesn't know very much about them. I think it's fantastic that Gregg's basic premise for this TMQ is complete shit due to him not even knowing what type of defense the 49ers play. Keep staying ignorant Gregg, don't ever change.

There's no mystery about where Seattle or San Francisco defenders are going to be. Offenses know exactly where they're going to be; the problem is outperforming them. Seattle's maddeningly effective corners are not trying to fool quarterbacks, rather, they want to stay glued to receivers. Both teams' front fours usually are coming straight ahead -- maybe a twist, but little funky stuff. Linebackers for both teams crash on rushes and drop on passes, like linebackers of a generation ago.

So much wrong with this group of sentences. I'll put the problems in list form.

1. Offenses don't know where the 49ers and Seahawks defenses are going to be. That's why they are good at playing defense.

2. Other team's cornerbacks are not trying to fool the quarterback either when playing coverage. The Seahawks run a lot of man coverage because they have the corners that are capable of doing this.

3. A Seahawks linebacker, Bobby Wagner, has five sacks on the season. He blitzes a lot. The starting linebackers for the 49ers have 25 sacks on the season, which is 65.8% of the entire team's total. But again, the 49ers play a straight defense with no fancy twists and the linebackers certainly don't blitz.

4. The 49ers don't have a front four really because they run a 3-4 defense.

5. Again, the linebackers for both teams blitz. In fact, the Seahawks linebackers can blitz because they have such great cover corners and safeties.

The West Coast defense is refreshingly simple. Seattle and San Francisco use old-fashioned tactics and outperform offenses. 

Apparently the 3-4 defense, which Gregg had previously referred to as a "fad" is now an old-fashioned tactic. Good to know.

The West Coast defense is refreshingly simple. Seattle and San Francisco use old-fashioned tactics and outperform offenses. 

It doesn't seem important that neither the Seahawks or the 49ers defense is lazy, but now that you have pointed it out Gregg this does seem important. Thanks!

And of course Seattle and San Francisco have good players. But most NFL defenses have good players; the Seahawks and 49ers have good players who reach their potential, and they're doing it the old-fashioned way.

The 49ers and Seahawks just have better players than other teams with a better defensive scheme that brings out the best in these players.

Saturday at New England, Chuck Pagano ordered a punt for which "preposterous" is too mild a word. Colts trailing 43-22 with 10:16 remaining, they faced fourth-and-1 -- and in trotted the punting unit. Who cares if the spot was the Colts' 29? Trailing by three touchdowns in the fourth quarter of a playoff game, it's insane to punt on fourth-and-1. 

Clearly Pagano quit on the game, and was more concerned with holding the hosts under 50 points -- Indianapolis lost 59-24 the last time it visited New England -- than going all-out to win. But what to call a fourth-and-1 punt when trailing by 21 points in the fourth quarter of a playoff? Unconditional surrender.

Gregg skips over the part where Pagano admitted this was a bad decision and he would do it differently if he could do it again. But I'm sure that was just a cover-up for his real intentions of keeping the Patriots under 50 points by giving the ball back to them.

Stats of the Divisional Round No. 3: San Francisco has followed a 1-3 streak with a 13-2 streak.

Isn't it funny how Gregg doesn't acknowledge the TMQ he wrote on September 24 where he counted the 49ers out and said the air was leaking from their balloon? It seems like the 49ers were able to patch that hole in the balloon, which is something Gregg won't acknowledge for fear of being seen as wrong.

San Francisco leading 6-0 in the first half, the Panthers reached third-and-goal on the Niners 1. Carolina came out in a power set and ran straight ahead: stuffed. Then on fourth-and-goal, came out in a power set and ran straight ahead: stuffed. No misdirection either time.

But then the Panthers went for it on fourth down, so that told the Carolina offense Ron Rivera believed in them, so this would verily lead to the Panthers winning the game, right? Fortune favors the bold? Or does fortune not favor the bold if there is no misdirection involved? Also, the Panthers didn't run straight ahead. The quarterback tried to sneak into the end zone, which is different from a run straight ahead with the running back.

TMQ's Law of Short Yardage holds -- do a little dance if you want to gain that yard.

Which is exactly what Carolina did the next time they were in a goal line situation and that failed as well. I guess this "law" is more of a "suggestion" that may or may not be correct.

Scoring to pull within 24-14 with six minutes remaining, San Diego onside kicked. Nick Novak launched a terrific onside, very high in the air; the Denver man beneath the ball didn't have the presence of mind to signal fair-catch. Sweet for the Bolts. Now it's Denver 24-17 and San Diego is kicking off again with four minutes remaining. Sure, lightning isn't likely to strike twice, but the league's No. 1 offense isn't likely to punt, either. San Diego did not onside kick a second time and never touched the ball again; the clock struck midnight on the Chargers' improbable late-season run.

The odds of recovering an onside kick are probably a lot lower than the odds of getting the Broncos to go three-and-out in this situation, especially since the Chargers had held the Broncos powerful offense to 10 points in the second half. I thought kicking off here was the right call as opposed to trying an onside kick again and hoping to recover it.

Florida State won the final BCS title. In the run-up or the postgame, did you see any media coverage about the Seminoles' 58 percent football graduation rate?

No, because it wasn't the college Quiz Bowl National Championship. It was a football championship, so the football analysts talked about football.

Seminoles boosters and alums who are proud of the crystal trophy should feel embarrassed by the football program's subsidies and poor classroom performance. Of the 11 Seminoles selected in last year's NFL draft, eight graduated.

That's actually not bad. It's a 72.7% graduation rate and the three Seminole players who didn't graduate all left college early for the NFL. Can't exactly blame FSU for a college athlete not completing his degree prior to being at the college for four years can we?

Good for them! But what about the much larger number of Florida State football players who will never take a snap in the NFL, and never walk to "Pomp and Circumstance?" They are used up and thrown away. Florida State and its coaches exploit those players; the sports media is complicit.

Since Gregg is so worried about these players how about he contributes all profits from his book sales to help these FSU players who were exploited by being given a full scholarship to the school and for one reason or another did not graduate? Maybe college players should be paid, but that's a different discussion. FSU has an obligation to try and get their athletes to graduate, but they can't force them to graduate.

If purists must cling to the singleton PAT kick, then move the spot back. Teams could choose between spotting the ball at the 35 for a one-point PAT kick of about 52 yards -- that's where it would have to be to prevent the kick from being automatic, because NFL kickers now hit nearly all attempts from the 40 to the 49 -- or spotting the ball at the 2 for a two-point run-or-pass try. This rule could only make football more exciting!

I don't know. I think moving the ball back to the 35-yard line is probably a bit far back, but I guess this would increase excitement.

This item is a trailer for TMQ's Jan. 28 column -- the week between the title games and that Super Bowl thing -- whose subject will be how to reform football.

I'll save all my criticisms and comments for the January 28 column when Gregg officially tells us how his genius brain will reform football. I like how Gregg isn't aiming to reform the NFL, but football as a whole.

In the Bolts' surprise December victory at Denver, San Diego threw Peyton Manning off-balance by being unorthodox. The Chargers had two defenders moving around at random pre-snap; no matter how much arm-flapping Manning did, he never figured out where those defenders would be because, moving randomly, they didn't know either. Sunday in the divisional round, San Diego switched from unorthodox to a conventional West Coast defense.

Two issues with this group of statements:

1. This "West Coast defense" thing is really becoming a "thing" with Gregg isn't it? I do not look forward to his further use of these words...especially if he isn't going to consistently get the type of defense a team runs incorrect.

2. The Chargers run a base 3-4 defense, so I'm not sure this fits Gregg's definition of the conventional West Coast defense. Though since Gregg has so far named two teams from the West Coast that run a 3-4 and one team that runs a 4-3 as being the "West Coast defense" then maybe the West Coast defense is really a team that runs a base 3-4 and not a base 4-3.

But the hosts built a quick 14-0 lead, then spent the contest hanging on. Maybe San Diego figured Denver had prepared for random movement, and conventional would come as a surprise.

That's probably exactly what happened. The Chargers completely reversed the tactics that worked in the first game as a way to super-surprise the Broncos and make it easier for the Broncos to recognize the coverages the Chargers were using. I'm sure that's what happened. The Broncos were so surprised they couldn't score points, except they did score points.

The Bolts started slow -- 1 yard passing in the first half -- which perhaps made Denver overconfident. In the second half, San Diego gained 193 yards passing, and had the home crowd sweating.

These are called "halftime adjustments," Gregg. The Chargers adjusted, plus the Broncos lost one of their best corners in the second half, which may have had something to do with it as well.

Versus San Diego, this happened again: Manning's ultra-short throws resulted in an average gain per pass of only 6.4 yards, versus an 8.3-yard average during the regular season. Denver' big gainer of the day was a 21-yard catch. Maybe the coaching staff just wanted to get the Bolts out of the way and prepare for the title game. But it's going to take more voltage on offense to defeat New England.

The Broncos have been held under 400 yards three times this season. The Chargers have been responsible for the Broncos being under 400 yards every single time. So maybe the Broncos plan on scoring more points, but the Chargers defense is just good at stopping the Broncos offense.

New Jersey has been on the nation's front pages for a week, and as usual, for all the wrong reasons. Gov. Chris Christie, who not long ago was mocking those who said lane closures had been used to create traffic jams in a city whose mayor didn't support him, last week admitted this was true but claimed he was never told the traffic jams occurred.

I thought Chris Christie said he knew there were traffic jams, but denied knowing that those lane closures were retribution against a city whose mayor didn't support him? I feel like Gregg has this backwards, though I could be wrong.

The University of Louisville should at least pretend that it cares about character. And should remember TMQ's Law of Weasel Coaches: When you hire a coach who only cares about himself, you get a coach who only cares about himself.

While I didn't like the Petrino hire for Louisville, when a college program hires a weasel coach they sometimes get a coach who takes them to great postseason success, as Auburn can attest and as Alabama can attest as well. Gus Malzahn walked out on Arkansas State after one year to go to Auburn and Nick Saban has been called a weasel coach so many times by Gregg it's almost lost it's meaning.

Absent this down, Carolina held Gore to 45 yards on 16 carries. Seattle will notice that and try to take away Gore, forcing Kaepernick to throw at the Seahawks' well-regarded corners.

Wait, so the Seahawks may try to stop a run-based offense from running the football and try to force this offense that was in the very bottom of the NFL in passing offense to pass the football? No way.

There's another level to why NFL stars and coaches snarl at the media -- they want to believe what they're doing is incredibly serious and important, a life-or-death matter. Actually, what they're doing is providing entertainment, and the sports media is part of the act. Often it's terrific entertainment -- but entertainment is all that it is. When reporters are snarky to NFL stars and coaches, it's a subconscious reminder that whether the Patriots win or Lynch scores a touchdown has absolutely no lasting impact on American life.

I don't know about snarling at the media, but many times a head coach will be short or not give an answer to a question posed because the media members are wanting one of three things:

1. Information on an injured player that the coach isn't ready to provide or doesn't have an answer for.

2. A quote that can be used to create a column, which usually means a quote that would get the other team riled up. Such as "Player X said this about your offense, care to respond?" Or a reporter could ask something to a player like was asked of Steve Smith after the 49ers playoff game.

3. It is a question the coach/player has already answered once or twice. Recall how many times reporters posed the same question to Aaron Rodgers this year about when he thought he would play again after his injury.

So I won't say NFL stars and coaches don't take their job too seriously at times, but there are other reasons for a coach or player to be short with the media.

On the initial Indianapolis possession, the Colts faced third-and-2; the Flying Elvii had press corners across from every receiver. Luck threw a short stop, which can't work against a press corner, rather than audible to a go or an out.

A short stop can work against press corners if the quarterback delivers the football to the right spot away from the corner and the receiver shields the football with his body away from the corner. It's silly to say, "a short stop doesn't work against a press corner" when this type of pass can work if executed well.

New England's sudden proficiency in power rushing means for the AFC title contest, Denver coaches must prepare to face either fast-snap passing or clock-control rushing. 

Another great point. The Broncos must be prepared for the Patriots to run the football or possibly pass the football. They can't prepare for the Patriots to just throw or run the football, but have to prepare for both. I'm sure the Broncos had not thought of this.

The Football Gods Chortled: Seattle leading 16-0 late in the third quarter, punter Jon Ryan dropped the snap. It might have been a huge loss for the Seahawks and a momentum swing for New Orleans. Except -- the Saints had called a return, so no one rushed the punter. Ryan got the kick away.

The Saints should have been able to predict the future, or at least use hindsight like Gregg is using here, to KNOW that the best punting unit in the NFL would drop the snap and therefore the Saints need to rush the punter.

Gregg then begins to talk about the Big Bang Theory. I'm not as learned on space and science as I need to be in order to refute his argument, but Gregg is not convinced the Big Bang is what started the universe. Of course most of Gregg's doubts are couched in terms of him just saying, "Boy, that doesn't make sense" as opposed to any type of scientific knowledge or evidence he has, which shouldn't surprise me.

Some might wonder why Chainsaw Dan was anxious to hire Gruden, the offensive coordinator of the Bengals, just a week after the Bengals offense stunk up the joint in a playoff loss. That's why Snyder wanted Gruden! He's a perfect fit for the R*dsk*ns program.

I stick by the fact Dan Snyder thinks he has hired Jon Gruden. It's not Jay Gruden's fault. If I got offered a head coaching job when I was currently an offensive coordinator I would take the position too, especially after a playoff game where my offense didn't exactly look great.

Saturday, the Saints called six tailback screens. Two were broken up by the Seattle defense, two resulted in dropped passes, two gained first downs. Had New Orleans screen plays done better, the game result might have been different.

Is there a more non-committal and vague statement possible than this one?

"If X had turned out differently during the game then the outcome could have been different."

Oh, so if the Saints had success on all their tailback screens then the game's outcome MAY have been different. Or the game's outcome may not have been different.

The West Coast defense of the Seahawks isn't exactly a Tampa 2 but is similar: corners are in the receivers' faces and stick to receivers as if their bodies were coated with flypaper.

Oh Gregg, in the Tampa 2 defense the cornerbacks do jam the receivers at the line of scrimmage but then fall back into zones and don't stick to the receivers. The Seahawks have cornerbacks who are great man-to-man coverage guys and the Tampa 2 defense doesn't require corners who are great in man-to-man coverage. Please stop talking about defenses if you aren't going to sound like you know what you are talking about.

Still, Pete Carroll can't be happy that the Saints outgained the Bluish Men Group 409-277 in offensive yards and 25-13 in first downs. The visitors missed two field goals and failed twice on fourth downs in the Maroon Zone. Had even one of those four snaps turned out differently, the game might have too.

Or the game may not have been different. Gregg constantly uses the example of multiple plays turning out differently to state the game COULD have been different if those multiple plays worked out for a certain team. I can understand discussing one play in this manner, but Gregg uses multiple plays in terms of having a different outcome and then can't even state the game would be different for sure if these multiple plays had worked out well for that team.

Last Week's Horse Collar Item: I wondered whether the horse collar tackle should be a foul. Reader Sean Austin of Bozeman, Mont., asked, "What about the voluminous Roy Williams compendium of horse-collar induced injuries from recent years? They were detailed by The Dallas Morning News.

You can write it Gregg and it won't hurt your ego too much. You were obviously and very clearly wrong about horse-collar tackles having rarely injured NFL players over recent years. Just write it. "I was wrong and I make shit up because I'm too lazy to do research." It's okay to say, because your readers know.

Your columnist is with Troy Aikman who, calling the contest, said he is really tired of Boldin's strut-around act. Me too. Boldin is a good player, but needs to stop acting like a 14-year-old.

Peter King says not to fuck with Anquan Boldin, Gregg. This is Anquan's time of year, and whatever, he does what he wants.

TMQ has noted that the primary function of NBA general managers is to get rid of players in order to create salary cap space to acquire new players to get rid of.

"TMQ has noted that..." should be changed to "TMQ has speculated because he/it doesn't have the knowledge about the NBA required nor the energy to actually do the research in order to find out that..."

NBA General Managers can be incompetent at times, but many of the trades they make do have a larger purpose other than to just find new players to get rid of.

Last summer, the Cavs signed Andrew Bynum to a megabucks deal. "We are very excited about" obtaining Bynum, Cavs general Manager Chris Grant said.

This is a great example of Gregg's lack of knowledge about the NBA. The Cavs signed Bynum to a fairly low-risk two year deal that was essentially a one-year deal if the first year on the contract didn't work out for the Cavs.

Cleveland stopped being excited, trading Bynum, and multiple draft picks with multiple asterisks, to Chicago for Luol Deng. Chicago wanted to get rid of Deng's contract in return for someone whose contract they could also get rid of.

Sure, this is what happened if you don't pay attention to the NBA. If you follow the NBA then you know the Bulls wanted to get rid of Deng because he was a free agent after the season and the Bulls traded for Bynum because they could immediately waive him and get cap relief. The Bulls are rebuilding. It wasn't Deng's contract the Bulls wanted to get rid of, in fact quite the opposite. They didn't want to sign him to a new, larger contract. The Bulls weren't giving Deng a new contract, so they traded him in order to get immediate cap relief after the season. The issue here isn't goofy NBA trades, but Gregg Easterbrook's inability to understand the economics of the NBA.

Back at the Cavs, Grant said, "Luol reflects all that we are striving for." How long until Cleveland is working the phones, trying to get rid of Deng?

Well, Deng is a free agent after this season, so unless the Cavs tank very quickly and have no chance of making the playoffs then they won't be trying to get rid of Deng this season.

Weasel Coach Watch No. 4: Bill O'Brien coached at Penn State just two years before sprinting out the door for more money. Since Penn State averted its eyes from children being exploited, the school cannot complain about being exploited by O'Brien.

Well that makes sense. Gregg doesn't believe Bill O'Brien is a weasel coach because Penn State averted its eyes from children being exploited. So it's fine for O'Brien to break his promises to his current players, break his contract and lie to potential recruits because these players/recruits deserve to be lied to because they chose to go to a school that employed Jerry Sandusky. Got it. I have no issue with O'Brien going to the NFL nor do I believe he is a weasel coach, but I always find it interesting the reasoning Gregg uses to state a certain coach isn't a weasel coach. Apparently it's fine to lie to current players and break promises to recruits if the school somehow deserves it. Nevermind the Penn State players/recruits are getting hurt by O'Brien in the same way other weasel coaches (like Nick Saban) hurt players/recruits when he chooses to go to a different school. That doesn't matter because the Penn State players and recruits deserve it.

in July 2012, when football team members were offered the option of transferring to other colleges without NCAA restrictions, O'Brien begged them to stay, saying of a players meeting, "I talked to them about the bond they've formed with this football staff." Nearly all stayed, believing O'Brien would honor his side of the bond. Then the moment money was waved, O'Brien broke his promises and left.

Oh, so he is a weasel coach? Or he isn't a weasel coach? It seems Gregg is being wishy-washy on this in order to criticize Bill O'Brien for being a weasel coach if he fails as the Houston Texans head coach.

Next Week: One way or the other, the Super Bowl will be West Coast defense versus no-huddle offense.

Except the West Coast defensive, when understood by the examples Gregg has given us, isn't the same defensive scheme as explained to us by Gregg in this column. 

2 comments Murray Chass Comments on Baseball's Integrity Issue Again

A few years ago on his non-blog Murray Chass took on MLB's service time issue regarding prospects being called up to the majors in early June so they won't hit free agency a year early. Murray stated MLB and their owners lack integrity by holding back a player to prevent him from becoming a Super 2. He used Buster Posey as an example of a player who was held back in the minors until early June so he wouldn't become a free agent a year early. Murray suggested this lacked integrity and the Giants were even harming their team for the sake of saving money. Well, it turns out the Giants won the World Series the year the column was written, the Giants managed to prevent Posey from hitting free agency a year early and Posey signed a 9 year $164 million deal recently. So everyone won and Murray's accusations that the Giants were being cheap and hurting their team in the process could not have been more wrong.

Well, Murray is back on the service time wagon again. I don't think MLB teams lack integrity by playing along with the rules set out by the MLB union and the owners. Sure, it is kind of dirty pool to call a player up in early June for the sole purpose of ensuring he doesn't hit free agency a year early, but it is playing within the rules and doesn't lack integrity in my opinion. If a guy like Buster Posey plays well then he probably will never hit free agency because the team will give him a long-term contract prior to his hitting free agency. This has happened for quite a few young stars who got called up after June to delay their service time. Before they hit free agency, they got a long-term deal. Murray has a big problem with teams waiting until June and still doesn't have a solution as to how MLB could force teams to call up players when they are "ready" to be in the majors nor does he have a suggestion on how to know for sure how MLB would know a player is "ready." MLB can't just force teams to call up players they deem to be ready.

Memo to New York Mets fans: When the Mets say they will promote Zack Wheeler to the major leagues when he is major-league ready, do not believe them. They will summon Wheeler to New York when they are satisfied that they have cheated him out of enough major league service time to delay his eligibility for salary arbitration and free agency by a year.

The Super 2 rules obviously favor the baseball teams keeping their players in the minors for a longer period of time to prevent a player from hitting free agency a year early. These are the rules. I have difficulty understanding Murray's criticism. The Mets are entitled to run their organization the way they see fit. No one should be able to tell the Mets which players they should or should not call up the majors if they aren't breaking any MLB rules by keeping a player in the minors. It's their call and if they choose to give Zack Wheeler in the minors for two months of the current season to give him two more months of minor league experience while also getting an additional year out of him prior to free agency then I don't see the issue. Sure, it sucks for Wheeler, but if he pitches well enough to get a lot of money in arbitration I imagine the Mets would be open to offering him a long-term contract.

Given that Yasiel Puig has a seven-year contract, the Los Angeles Dodgers shouldn’t have to mess with Puig’s service time, but his contract permits him to opt out of it and declare for salary arbitration when he is eligible so service time could be a factor.

I'm not crying for Yasiel Puig and Murray is getting the issue confused. Puig's agent negotiated this contract, it wasn't put upon Puig after he was drafted by the Dodgers. So I don't feel bad for Puig since his freaking agent negotiated for Puig to opt out of the contract when he is eligible for salary arbitration fully knowing the Dodgers could keep Puig down to delay arbitration by a year.

Despite what the Dodgers may say to the contrary, that contract clause is very likely why the Dodgers left Puig in the minors until last week

And it is a contract clause Puig's agent negotiated into the contract Puig signed. Since Puig is being paid $3.7 million this year regardless of whether he plays in the majors or minors I lack sympathy for him. Murray should lack sympathy as well. Puig isn't a victim of the evil CBA that allows teams to prevent players from becoming a Super 2 if called up after June, he is the victim of a contract clause that his agent negotiated. Murray should suggest Puig fire his agent, not complain about the integrity of the Dodgers organization.

instead of having him on their roster helping them avoid their disastrous start to the season that has kept them in last place for a month and under .500 since April 15.

And of course having Puig start with the Dodgers team in April would have undoubtedly resulted in the Dodgers being in first place right now. It was smart for the Dodgers to wait until June to call up Puig because now they get to pay him $3.7 million for an additional year before he has the chance to opt out of the contract once he's eligible for arbitration and become a free agent. This move of calling Puig up in June doesn't lack integrity either because Puig's agent could have easily negotiated a clause to prevent this from happening. 

there’s no reason to doubt that he would not have hit the first two months, or at least the second month, with the Dodgers.

So how did the extra two months in the minor leagues hurt Puig? How exactly are the Dodgers harming Puig? He doesn't have the chance to become a free agent a year early if he decides to opt out of his contract. He still gets paid $3.7 million for his third year in the majors, which is more than any other third year player who isn't eligible for arbitration or received a long term contract is expected to get. Talk to his agent, don't talk about the Dodgers lack of integrity.

If teams leave good young players in the minors until late May or early June they can postpone their eligibility for salary arbitration and free agency for a year. Clubs don’t disclose the real reason for their timetable. They just say this player or that player wasn’t ready for the majors.

Which is entirely possible. How does Murray know Puig was ready for the majors in April? Puig had not played higher than high A-ball prior to playing in Double-A this season. He hit well at A-ball, but he was only playing in high A-ball. Why would giving him two months in Double-A be a bad thing, especially considering not many players go directly from high A-ball to the majors? It would have been somewhat of a risk to start Puig's service clock and have him skip over two entire levels of minor league ball. Plus, it isn't like the Dodgers didn't already have a full outfield with Kemp, Crawford and Ethier ready to start for them out there. So why spot-start him in April rather than get him regular at-bats at Double-AA?

Paul Cohen, the agent for Evan Longoria, who experienced the service-time manipulation in 2008, explained the game as he watched the clubs play it in 2009.
 
“This is my 20^th year in this business,” Cohen said, “and for the majority of my career the majority of young players are not ready April 1, are not ready May 1. They’re not ready until June 1.”

And of course Murray leaves this part out, but Evan Longoria has received TWO long-term contracts with the Rays since they manipulated his service time. He got screwed out of a year of arbitration that he never ever even had a chance of seeing because he signed a long-term contract. This is how it works sometimes and you won't hear Murray complaining about Buster Posey's $100+ million contract because it doesn't fit his agenda. Teams will keep a player down until June to prevent his service time from starting, but then some of these players get long-term contracts before they even get to arbitration.

The 17 percent of the players who had the most service between two and three years would be eligible for arbitration. They became known as the Super 2’s. In the last negotiations, in 2011, that group was changed to 22 percent.

Again, even if baseball teams are keeping these players until the minors to prevent them from becoming Super 2's it is completely within the Collective Bargaining Agreement that the union and players signed off on. This is like Murray complaining that players get randomly drug tested too often or certain players are targeted for drug testing. It's part of the agreement, so get over it.

Teams don’t talk about the practice of manipulating service time; they don’t acknowledge it. By ignoring the subject, they think or hope that no one will notice.

Plus, teams look at the cost-benefit of calling a player up for two months and therefore losing an entire year of service time (which again, assumes the player won't get a long-term contract prior to hitting arbitration). Teams try to decide if calling up guys like Yasiel Puig in April is worth the year's lost service time, having Puig skip two levels of minor league ball, and worth taking the chance that he won't struggle. There's a major cost-benefit analysis here and oftentimes teams would rather be safe than sorry. It can feel dirty sometimes, but when it comes to running a baseball team and managing a budget it's easy to see why teams do this.

Making their major league debuts in 2009, for example, were Tommy Hanson, Braves pitcher, June 7; Gordon Beckham, White Sox third baseman, June 4; Andrew McCutchen, Pirates center fielder, June 4; Matt Wieters, Orioles catcher, May 29; Kris Medelin, Braves pitcher, May 21.

It's actually "Kris Medlen," but what good are details when Murray wants to make a point? Hanson has been traded after he was due to hit arbitration because his production wasn't worth his contract, Medlen had Tommy John surgery and missed an entire year, Gordon Beckham had been a minor disappointment up until year, Matt Wieters is making over $3 million from arbitration (what a poor guy that the Orioles have treated him so unkindly), and Andrew McCutchen received a $51 million six year contract. Four of these players are the very example of why a team wants to get three years of service from a player before he hits arbitration and Andrew McCutchen has a long-term contract. Out of these players I would say only Matt Wieters has performed at a high level and isn't receiving a contract near worth his value...and he is making over $3 million in his first year of arbitration.

The following season the Giants called up Buster Posey May 29, not to affect his eligibility for arbitration since he had played with the Giants for 33 days the previous season but to short circuit his eligibility for free agency.

“We wanted to make sure he was comfortable at the plate,” general manager Brian Sabean explained.

And considering Posey had hit .118 in 17 plate appearances during 2009 this could be seen as a genuine concern. And don't forget, Posey never saw arbitration because he signed a 9 year $164 contract extension.

The problem with that explanation was it was similar to the one used by executives of other clubs that kept good young players in the minors longer than was probably necessary. The names of some of those players were Mike (now Giancarlo) Stanton of Florida (now Miami), Stephen Strasburg of Washington, Jose Tabata and Pedro Alvarez of Pittsburgh, Jake Arrieta of Baltimore and Carlos Santana of Cleveland.
All of those players, as well as others, became “comfortable” around the same time, late May and early June.

Again, it is part of the deal the union signed off on and there is a cost-benefit analysis that teams go through in determining what is not only best for the team in 2013, but also in 2017. If Jose Tabata tears up the minors, why call him up in early May rather than wait a few weeks and get an extra year out of him? It's not against the rules, even if maybe it should be. It's not an integrity problem that teams have because they aren't doing anything wrong. Tabata is hitting well in the minors, so giving him regular at-bats and waiting a few weeks to get him into a non-contending team's lineup isn't a bad long-term move for the Pirates franchise.

Integrity, however, was a serious issue. If a team has a player in the minors who could help it win games – Puig is a prime example – and he is kept on the farm to delay his time for arbitration eligibility, the team is cheating its fans, its other players and itself.

I can see this argument, but it would have to be a very special rookie who would have dramatically changed the fortunes of his team by being in the lineup from April to early June. Not to mention, fans are becoming more savvy and understand an extra year of Stephen Strasburg at the expense of 10 or so starts from April to May is probably worth it in the long-run.

The idea is to win, and winning requires the use of your best players.

True, but overall "winning" isn't the only thing a General Manager has to worry about when constructing a team. He has budget constraints and long-term planning to think about as well.

Here are three highly regarded rookies from this season’s regiment of coincidentally promoted players, those who just happened to jell at the same time: pitcher Kevin Gausman of the Orioles (called up May 23), infielder Nick Franklin of the Mariners (called up May 27) and pitcher Michael Wacha of the Cardinals (called up May 30)

Wacha held Kansas City to one earned run and two hits in seven innings in his first start, but Arizona beat him up, amassing 10 hits and scoring 6 earned runs in 4 2/3 innings. Gausman lost his first two starts with a 7.20 earned run average. Franklin batted .235 in his first 10 games.

Who said these guys weren't ready to play in the majors immediately? But hey, these teams should have called up these players earlier so the players could have struggled and the Orioles, Mariners, and Cardinals would have lost a year of service time from these players. This is a small sample size, but a third party stating a guy is "ready" to be in the majors doesn't mean a hell of a lot if the guy isn't really ready to play in the majors. That's my biggest problem with Murray's issue here. Who is MLB or the union to tell a team that a certain player is "ready" to play in the majors? What does that even mean?

Puig, on the other hand, acted like a one-man gang in his first five games for the Dodgers. With the kind of hitting the young Cuban did in those initial games, the Dodgers could have been in first place had they added him to their lineup at the start of near the start of the season.

Possibly, or else the Dodgers would have won the exact same amount of games and Puig would not have made a difference in the overall record of the Dodgers and he would have been able to opt out of his contract in two years, not three years.

They’re paying Puig $42 million for 7 seasons and should have let him do what he has shown he can do.

And of course this makes total sense coming from a guy who wants MLB to stop teams from screwing with a player's service time but has no suggestions as to how MLB is supposed to go about managing a team's personnel and organizational decisions for that team. MLB should force the Dodgers to call up Puig when MLB sees it fit that Puig should play in the majors. That's Murray's stance.

He had a .421 batting average and 1.105 slugging and .450 on-bases percentages.

Lest a skeptic think this was all an accident, Puig previously demonstrated his hitting prowess in spring training and the minors.

I bet sportswriting was much more fun for Murray at the beginning of his career when he could write statements like this and no one would question what Murray was writing. Puig hit well in spring training, which is fine, but it is spring training so it doesn't necessarily mean a hell of a lot when it comes to hitting pitching during the regular season. Also, Puig did hit well in the minors...at the high A-ball level, which isn't even close to looking like major league pitching. So I get Murray's point, but it isn't a very good point.

In the minors, between spring training and the majors, he batted .313 with 8 homers and 37 r.b.in 40 games, not to mention .599 slugging and .383 on-base percentages.

That's fantastic. He still only had played at the high A-level. And for the thousandth time, if Puig was really worried about getting screwed over by the Dodgers as far as service time goes, perhaps he should not have signed a contract that gave the Dodgers incentive to keep him in the minors until early June, no?

Want more? In half a minor league season last year after he signed with the Dodgers, he batted .354, hit 5 homers, drove in 15 runs in 23 games and had .634 slugging and 442 on-base percentages.

That's excellent and certainly enough to get him promoted to Double-A ball, which is where he started off the 2013 season.

However, I did talk to my substitute columnist, Zach Kram, about Puig, and he disagreed with me.

I'm shocked Murray chose a substitute columnist that would ever disagree with him. Murray seems like the kind of guy who only wants to surround himself with people who agree with his point of view.

“Where would the Dodgers have played him?” he asked, citing the expensive, fully loaded outfield of Matt Kemp, Andre Ethier and Carl Crawford.

That is an excellent point as well. Why call up Puig to the majors so he can platoon or only pitch hit? Give him consistent at-bats, save his service time and then call him up when an injury or underperformance occurs...which is what the Dodgers did.

Expensive or not, Kemp and Ethier were not hitting, and the Dodgers needed someone to hit if they were going to join the National League West race.

While this is true, I'm not sure replacing Matt Kemp (who is turning into a perennial MVP candidate) or benching Andre Ethier so the Dodgers can speed up Puig's service time and jump him straight from A-ball to the majors is the right move. Plus, the Dodgers didn't know Ethier and Kemp weren't hitting until the season began and it makes even less sense to call up Puig and only get an extra month out of him during the 2013 season at the expense of losing an entire year prior to arbitration.

The $20 million the Dodgers are paying Kemp and the $13.5 million they are giving Ethier would be wasted money if someone didn’t step up to the plate. Puig could be the hitter to do that.

If the Dodgers benched either player then it would be wasted money anyway, as well as piss off a franchise cornerstone (in regard to Kemp).

If Puig stays in the majors the rest of the season, he will have 119 days of major league service. Two additional full seasons would leave him short of qualifying as a Super 2 after the 2015 season. That means he couldn’t opt out until after the 2016 season.

I'm not sure how many more times I can say this, but Puig signed this contract. He isn't a typical Super 2 because he could have chosen to not put a contract clause in there saying he could opt out of his contract if he qualified as a Super 2 after the 2015 season. His agent negotiated a contract and Puig signed it. The blame for Puig's late call up can be found in Puig's mirror every morning.

As far as the Dodgers are concerned, though, if there is to be an opt out, a later one is better than one a year sooner so delaying his callup and his arbitration eligibility would make sense to them.

And I'm sure Dodgers fans aren't exactly pissed off they get an extra year of Puig at the expense of not having him during April and May.

Wheeler is a different case. A 23-year-old right-hander, he is in his fourth minor league season, his third since the Mets acquired him from the Giants in the Carlos Beltran trade. People outside the Mets’ organization have said Wheeler is ready for the majors, but he remains in Las Vegas, the Mets’ AAA team, where at last look he had a 4-1 record and a 4.14 e.r.a. in 12 starts and 66 strikeouts in 63 innings.

I get that teams hold back players from time-to-time so they don't become a Super 2. My issue comes in when "people outside" an organization start telling that organization what to do. Shut up. Don't tell the Mets how to run their organization from an anonymous ivory tower. This is my problem. Murray says teams who hold back potential Super 2 players lack integrity, but he has no solution for how to counter this problem other than hope the union will insist the rules get changed in the next CBA. MLB and certainly "people outside" an organization should not be able to tell the Mets how to run their organization.

Asked about Wheeler and the service time issue, a union lawyer said, “That’s the one that smells a little fishy.”

File a grievance then. Say the Mets are violating the CBA by following the guidelines set out by the CBA. Anonymous complaining from a union lawyer about a clause the MLB union agreed to be a part of the CBA sounds fishy to me.

A club executive said he didn’t think the matter was relevant anymore because clubs were signing good young players to multi-year contracts before their arbitration years.

This is something that is happening. Quite a few teams are signing their young players to long-term contracts before they can hit arbitration. It's still a relevant matter, but Murray's whining about MLB teams lacking integrity is just stupid. His previous whining about Buster Posey being screwed out of an arbitration year led to the Giants calling up Posey, winning two World Series titles and now Posey has a contract for over $150 million. Evan Longoria has had two long-term contracts despite being called up in early June. These early June call ups are about teams hedging their bets on a player and not wanting to waste a year prior to that player entering free agency, as well as giving the player more experience in the minors.

“That’s my impression, too,” said David Prouty, the union’s general counsel. But he added, “We’ve looked at it. We haven’t come to any conclusions.”

I think a general conclusion that can be made is that MLB teams will pay a player if he shows he can perform. When he gets paid is the issue, but a player who gets called up in early June will either be offered a long-term contract or arbitration if he continues to perform well.

Asked about the issue, Rob Manfred, MLB’s top labor executive, said, “All I can tell you is there’s been little or no discussions about this in the industry.”

I know Murray hates this rule, but it is the rule. I'd love to hear some suggestions from Murray as to how this rule can be changed or have him explain more in-depth how owners are showing a lack of integrity by following the rules set out in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The basic point is that even if a team holds back a player and prevents him from becoming a Super 2, the player is going to get paid in free agency or arbitration at some point, especially if he performs at a high level. I understand how holding back a player until early June can be seen as dirty pool, but owners and teams have budgets and if they aren't 100% sure a player is ready to start at the majors in April, it makes sense to hold that player back.

I'm just surprised Murray didn't get Fay Vincent's opinion on this issue. Vincent is Murray's idol. I'm sure as MLB commissioner Vincent was adamant that young players get Super 2 status as soon as possible and teams could never manipulate service time on his watch.

9 comments Gregg Easterbrook Latest NFL Epidemic of the Week is That NFL Offenses and Defenses Are Too Complex

Last week in TMQ Gregg Easterbrook had some bizarre thoughts about why the NFL is like the NBA in that the officials don't enforce the rules (which I still don't completely understand), criticized a rookie cornerback for not being able to cover an All-Pro tight end, and generally wrote the same type of stuff he writes on a weekly basis in TMQ. Gregg also complained about all the scoring in NFL games and suggested the NFL do something about the lack of defense, then watched as a weekend of NFL action was played without a lot of high scoring games between two teams. Gregg never fails to run out of league-wide epidemics (that last for a week or two, like the 3-4 being a "gimmick" defense) which need the NFL's attention immediately and he feels feels to discuss in his weekly TMQ. This week Gregg decides the NFL is too complicated and teams that use a basic offense, like he claims the Minnesota Vikings use, are teams that will win more games here in the future. Gregg doesn't tell us how his belief that basic offenses are better than complex offenses fits in with his belief teams that use motion and a lot of movement on fourth-and-short situations have a better chance of converting the first down. By next week, Gregg will have a reason why basic offenses and defenses don't work and talk about how good NFL teams are the ones who can confuse the opposing team with the complex offensive/defensive game plan they are using.

The Vikes opened 1-1, then posted three straight victories, including over San Francisco and Detroit, playoff teams from last season. What is Minnesota's secret? The Vikings threw out complex schemes and went simple.

Which raises the question -- has football gotten too complicated?

For the purposes of this column, let's assume this is true and then never bring it up again once this is proven untrue over the next week. After all, Gregg is always telling NFL teams they need to simplify their offense. On fourth-and-short plays he is always telling NFL teams they need to use motion or some other complicated offensive procedure rather than merely running the ball straight ahead for the fourth down. You know, make it simple and don't overcomplicate a simple game by using motion or any other fancy offensive procedures to get 1-2 yards. That's what Gregg stands for, right?

Offenses have dozens of formations with hundreds of possible plays. Defenses have multiple fronts, personnel packages for every down-and-distance, complicated twists and rotating coverages. Yet for all this complexity, game statistics have changed only a little in the last half century. 

Game statistics have changed very much over the last half century other than that enormous increase in offensive scoring that Gregg was so concerned about last week. That was last week and apparently Gregg isn't able to remember what he writes about on a week-to-week basis. Just last week Gregg wanted the NFL to change some rules to reduce the offensive explosion of the last decade, but this week game statistics haven't changed very much. It's interesting how Gregg can change his position from week-to-week. If game statistics haven't changed much in the last half century then why would the NFL need to change the rules to stop an offensive explosion? After all, game statistics haven't changed much in the last half century have they?

Sunday, no one at all from the Atlanta Falcons covered Santana Moss of the Redskins on his 77-yard touchdown catch. Maybe a simpler scheme would suffice. 

Or maybe the complex offensive play design is what caused the Falcons defense to be confused about which Redskins player to cover. So maybe the Redskins' complex offensive scheme is what paid off on this play.

Then there's the profusion of coaches. The Vikings employ 22 coaches, most in the NFL. Having 22 coaches sounds like having five girlfriends -- way too many to juggle. 

But again, it is the simplicity of having 22 coaches on staff that has led the Vikings to a 4-1 record. It isn't the play of Christian Ponder or an improved defense. It is not the special teams play of Percy Harvin, but the simple play-calling (which apparently overrides the non-simplicity of having 22 coaches on staff) that has led the Vikings to a 4-1 start.

Maybe teams should just line up and play!

This is as opposed to what they do now? Teams have to practice and while teams probably do have too many coaches, the complexity of a team's offense prevents the defense from knowing exactly what play is being run and how to stop that play. The same thing goes for an offense knowing what the defense is running. There has to be some complexity or else the other team will know how to scheme to win the game.

I really hope that Gregg realizes while a team's offense or defense can be too complex, it is the complexity and unexpectedness of a team's offense or defense that can win a game for that team. NFL teams have game plans going into a game and if the opposing team does something different or adds a wrinkle to their offense or defense it can throw this game plan off. So while saying "line up and play" sounds really good, it isn't very productive without game planning and some complexity in the offense or defense that throws off the opposing team.

If Brees were coming out of college today, is there any chance he would have stuck around long enough to become a star?

Yes, there is a chance Brees would have stuck around long enough to become a star. Brees showed in his third season in San Diego that he could be a quality NFL starting quarterback. He had an excellent 2004 season and that was his fourth year in the league and his second full year starting. The Chargers didn't really have to be overly patient with Brees. Teams can be patient with a quarterback though. Alex Smith has been in San Francisco since 2005 and he is now blossoming.

The news-cycle pace of life has accelerated so much, merely in the short time since Brees joined the NFL, that today, he wouldn't have had a career beyond his third season. Brees would have been benched, or waived out of football, before he blossomed. 

Gregg clearly doesn't know this, but the Chargers drafted Philip Rivers in 2004, so Brees was essentially replaced after his third season in the NFL. As I have detailed constantly, the Chargers still made a contract offer to Brees, but the Chargers did bring in Philip Rivers as their quarterback of the future prior to the 2004 season.

Stats of the Week No. 1: Bears defensive back Charles Tillman has more career touchdowns (seven) than Bears wide receivers Earl Bennett, Dane Sanzenbacher or Alshon Jeffrey. 

While true, Alshon Jeffrey is a rookie who has played a grand total of five NFL games. Even though Charles Tillman is a defensive player, this isn't exactly a fair comparison when you look at how many NFL games Jeffrey has played in.

New England leading Denver 17-7 in the third quarter, the Patriots faced second-and-10 on the Broncos' 17. Tom Brady shouted and gestured, seeming to call a checkoff and making blocking assignments -- "52 is the mike!" was one instruction he shouted, meaning the middle linebacker. Then he barked a hard count, and Denver jumped offside. What hard-count word did Brady bark? "Warren!" Denver employs defensive tackle Ty Warren. Hearing their teammate's name made the Broncos defensive line jump. 

Again, I am in awe at Gregg Easterbrook's ability to read minds. It wasn't the barking or tone that Brady used which caused the Broncos to jump offsides, it was the specific word he used in the hard count, "Warren" that caused the Broncos defensive line to jump. I guess Gregg believes the Broncos defensive line are like dogs who salivate when a bell rings. They hear the name "Warren" and immediately jump offsides.

I wish I had the ability to read minds like Gregg does. So we are to believe if Brady had barked "Moore" the Broncos defensive line would not have jumped offsides? This is what Gregg and his Selena Gomez notebook (the same one he writes "Game Over" in) want us to believe.

Then Gregg starts to criticize the movie "Battleship," because a movie about an alien attack based on a board game needs to be realistic as possible.

But the opening scene of "Battleship" raises a question that needs debate. Now that the Kepler probe, launched in 2009 and designed to detect other worlds, has begun discovering "exoplanets" in great numbers, it seems only a matter of time until an Earth-like place is located. When that time comes, should we send a message?

Of course not! Haven't we learned anything from the documentary film "Battleship?" If we engage the aliens then they will hide under the ocean until the time comes for them to attack us.

A space-alien invasion would seem unlikely for the simple reason that an advance species wouldn't bother. 

Now that Gregg is talking about a space-alien invasion, this is a good time to remind you this column is about the NFL and football. Not that Gregg is off-topic or anything like that, of course.

Whether humanity should attempt to contact another Earth-like world is a debate worth having. This question may come up sooner than expected. 

Very, very true. I don't know why the Presidential candidates are wasting their time talking about the deficit or the direction of this country when they could be formulating a plan on how to stop an impending alien attack or beginning a debate on whether humanity should contact another Earth-like world or not.

In the offseason, touts were shocked that Houston traded DeMeco Ryans and let Mario Williams walk. 

Few people were shocked that DeMeco Ryans was traded. He is a 4-3 linebacker who didn't fit in with the 3-4 defense the Texans were now running. Touts were as shocked about this as I am that Gregg essentially just made something up.

Now these moves seem savvy -- Williams is giving Ryan Leaf a run for most overrated football player of all time,

But is he really giving Ryan Leaf a run for this dishonor? Mario Williams has had several very good years in the NFL, so how does that make him more overrated than a guy like Vernon Gholston or any other draft bust (which is what it seems Gregg is actually meaning when he says "overrated")? Perhaps when the aliens from another Earth-like planet contact us we can send them Gregg Easterbrook as our official spokesman. They can even have him for a few months and I guarantee they won't come back to bother Earth for fear there are 5 billion other people like Gregg on the planet Earth.

We'll know more about the Houston defense once it has faced Green Bay and New England, and once the prognosis for Brian Cushing is known. For now, it continues to look like Wade Phillips, who was a deer in the headlights as a head coach, is a master at coaching defense.

It helps that Wade Phillips has guys like Brian Cushing and J.J. Watt on his defense. In fact, the Texans defense has quite a few highly-drafted, glory boys, which is something Gregg intentionally skips over mentioning because it doesn't fit his narrative this type of player is lazy and underperforming.

With 39 seconds remaining at Indianapolis, Andrew Luck dove for a first down at the Green Bay 4. Officials stopped the game for three minutes to review whether Luck made the first down, ultimately confirming the call on the field. A call on the field is supposed to be overturned only if it is obvious the call was wrong -- if you can't be sure whether the call was wrong, the original ruling should stand. How can several minutes of multiple viewings be required to determine if something is obvious?

As usual, Gregg makes up his own standard for instant replay so it sounds like he is making a good point. A call should be overturned upon replay if there is "conclusive" or "indisputable" evidence the original call was correct. Gregg is annoyingly ignorant when it comes to things like this. There is a difference in a call that is "conclusive" and "obvious." The official was looking at multiple views to confirm the call was correct. Multiple viewings are required to ensure the call was conclusive and to confirm the placement of the football on the field. There are different camera angles the official needs to look at in order to determine there was indisputable evidence the call was correct. So the official wanted to confirm the call and also determine where the ball should be spotted. Naturally, Gregg is too busy asking questions and creating his own fictional standard to overturn a call upon replay that he doesn't take the time to think.

If replay officials are looking at the play over and over and over again, then they can't be sure what happened so the call on the field must stand. The replay review booth should be limited to two viewings of the play.

There are also different angles of the same play you ass-clown. This isn't difficult to figure out. Different angles can give different indisputable evidence as to whether the call was correct or not and good officials look at every angle to determine the call on the field was correct. Stop writing TMQ if you are going to ask questions just to be obstinate.

Revenge of the Defense: Last week, Tuesday Morning Quarterback opined that it was time for defenses to assert themselves. This week, five NFL teams were held without touchdowns. Florida defeated LSU 14-6 in a clouds-of-dust contest that might have been staged in 1962, with the winner held to 237 yards of offense. 

Last week's TMQ is otherwise known as, "Gregg Easterbrook tends to write columns claiming a football-wide epidemic based on one week's worth of data and then wants us to completely forget what he wrote that ended up being incorrect."

If you can't use small sample sizes to claim a larger issue exists, then what is the point in living life?

Reformers want to limit political donations: all such plans have run afoul of the First Amendment, and they should. But maybe we're thinking about this wrong. Don't try to limit donations -- forbid fundraising by current public officials. 

So how would a public official raise money for his re-election campaign? Why should an incumbent be denied the fundraising opportunities a non-incumbent has? I'm all about election fundraising overhauls, but this doesn't seem to make sense to me.

If any person or organization wants to donate to the president or other elected official, fine, so long as the donation is disclosed. But it should not be fine for a sitting president or other elected official not only to solicit donations but to do so on public time,

An elected official, especially the President of the United States, is always on public time. Even his vacations involve him doing some sort of work. So a law to limit donations and forbid fundraising by current public officials would in essence not allow an incumbent candidate for an office to raise money. This is especially true for an incumbent in the United States Senate or House of Representatives, a incumbent governor or the incumbent President who is running for re-election.

I agree elected officials shouldn't use public funds to campaign, but it is hard to enforce this rule for some elected offices. It sounds really good in principle, but nearly impossible to do in reality.

Foreswearing fundraising should be one of the conditions of holding public office. And if that handed an advantage to challengers -- good, because incumbents hold too many advantages. 

Incumbents do hold a lot of advantages, and as much as I can get behind a campaign finance reform bill, I am not sure I could get behind a bill that says incumbents can't fundraise. Maybe it is a good idea, but this would only lead to a candidate attending a fundraiser but not actually doing any fundraising while he is there. The rules will get bent and then Gregg will want to create a whole new set of rules to prevent a candidate from attending a fundraiser on his behalf where the candidate isn't actually doing any fundraising.

Friday night, Pulaski won 42-14 with starters leaving the game in the third quarter. Because Pulaski won handily, Bruins starters faced only two fourth downs. The results:

• Fourth-and-7 own 38 -- pass, convert. First Pulaski possession of the game. Touchdown on the possession.
• Fourth-and-goal on the 15 -- pass, touchdown.

Kelley notes, "From those two drives, we scored 14 points where most teams would have done the 'safe' thing and ended up with three points." 

So by going for it on fourth down Kelley and Pulaski successfully were able to run up the score more on the opposing team. Instead of winning 31-14, they won 42-14 (and note Gregg complains about college teams running up the score on opposing teams). Usually, these are the sort of actions that Gregg Easterbrook tends to believe are indicative of a coach who will be thrashed by the football gods. As I write every week, the team Pulaski faced was clearly overmatched so I'm not sure we can learn anything from their fourth down conversion. If the Baltimore Ravens play the Missouri Tigers and go for it every time on fourth down and succeed 80% of the time in getting the first down, does this really mean anything in terms of whether it is smart for the Ravens to go for it every time on fourth down when playing the New England Patriots? Probably not.

I avowed it is a good thing that today almost all high school graduates aspire to attend college. Doug Lippert of Babylon, N.Y., replies, "I believe there is a parallel between the rising cost of college and the housing bubble we saw burst in 2008. The reason for both is/was the amount of loan capital freely available for the purpose of either purchasing a home, or going to college. When people can easily get a specific-purpose loan, the cost of the product tends to go up. Due to the proliferation of student loans and increased demand for college degrees, tuition costs are rising at an unsustainable rate. 

This same point was made in the comments last week. America already tried the "Everyone can afford a house!" movement in the housing market and it turns out everyone can afford a house, but not everyone can pay for that house. Wanting everyone to go to college is a great idea in theory.

There could be a market correction, where the cost of tuition goes down due to lenders being less willing to write tuition loans. 

Not likely to happen. Colleges will only lower tuition costs if given a good reason to do so and lenders being less willing to write tuition loans isn't a good enough reason.

Unfortunately the more likely scenario is tuition will become such a burden that going to college returns to its previous status as an elite privilege. This would make a degree rarer and therefore more valuable, which would be good for well-off families but bad for everyone else." 

Families who are not well-off could have their child go to a less expensive school or more scholarships can be given to students who exhibit more need for those scholarships. Some colleges already award aid based on a student's need for that aid. So colleges could continue to give more aid to qualified non-elite status students and the elite students who can afford to pay out of pocket for the balance still owed the college after scholarships and grants will do so. The idea every college should be affordable makes as much sense as saying every house or car should be affordable for every home buyer. It would be nice, but it isn't realistic. 

Next Week:

A week after saying NFL rules needed to be changed because of powerful offenses, which I didn't think had any truth to it, Gregg now says the best offenses are the simple offenses. I will remember this the next time Gregg credits a complex offensive play design with confusing the opposing defense. 

4 comments Bill Simmons Waits Until He Has Something to Whine About Before Writing His First Red Sox Column of This Season Part 2

Yesterday I posted the longer-than-expected post on Bill Simmons' brief return to writing about the Boston Red Sox. "Writing" is probably not the correct term to use. He was really trying to elicit sympathy from his readers because his favorite baseball team is having a bad year and he seemed to want to elicit this sympathy through being a little whiny. Because I hate you all, I have broken this column into two parts. So here is the second part of that Simmons-Red Sox cry-fest.

Not long ago, the Red Sox organization ranked among the most thoughtful in baseball. Epstein played the market's inefficiencies just about perfectly in 2003 and 2004 (power/OBP bargains mixed with expensive, sure-thing pitchers), then created a long-term strategy: We're avoiding mammoth contracts for free agents hitting their 30s; we're using much of our financial advantage to outspend competitors on draft picks, scouting and foreign-born prospects; and hopefully, we're "growing" our own potential stars and either locking them up to long-term deals or flipping them for elite players. I loved this plan. Everybody did.

Bill didn't love this plan, he loved the fact this plan worked. Bill also liked the plan from the late 2000's where the Red Sox acquired the best possible players on the free agent market, he just doesn't like it now that this plan didn't work.

So what changed? Everyone else in baseball started emulating what the smarter teams were doing (Boston, Oakland, etc.), leaving Theo without any real market inefficiencies to exploit other than defense (they tried, with limited success) and this one: He could simply outspend 95 percent of the league.

So it isn't Theo Epstein's fault the Red Sox started throwing money at expensive free agents. That's how the market forced him to behave. After every other team started copying the Red Sox (and of course, to a lesser extent Oakland) Theo had no choice but to abandon his plan not to spend on free agents. That's what Bill wants us to believe.

Of course, this half-assed theory about what changed doesn't answer the biggest question I have...why didn't Theo keep using the financial advantage that Bill states the Red Sox had over other teams in order to,

outspend competitors on draft picks, scouting and foreign-born prospects; and hopefully, we're "growing" our own potential stars and either locking them up to long-term deals or flipping them for elite players.

This was still possible. Regardless of whether the rest of the league had caught up to market inadequacies the Red Sox still had the financial advantage over nearly every other major league team. The Red Sox could outspend on draft picks, still scout foreign-prospects and grow potential stars or flip these potential stars for elite players through trade. This did not have to change because the Red Sox could use their financial advantage to outspend on draft picks and scout foreign-born prospects. I hope Bill realizes this didn't have to change. The fact other teams caught up with the market inadequacies would not have prevented the Red Sox from sticking to this part of the plan.

What Bill Simmons is really doing is (surprise, surprise) making shit up in order to make it seem like Theo Epstein and Red Sox ownership had no choice but to sign expensive free agents when this couldn't be further from the truth. Yes, other teams caught on to market inadequacies and found players who may not seem to fit the bill as a major league talent, but truly were a major league talent. The fact other teams caught up with this market inadequacy doesn't preclude the Red Sox from using the other market inadequacies, namely playing for a high-profile team (the Red Sox) and being able to offer more money, to continue building a winning team.

In fact, the Red Sox built this current team using the exact plan Bill claims the Red Sox got away from. They signed Daisuke Matsuzaka from Japan and traded some of their prospects for elite players. Bill is so ignorant about baseball and even his own Red Sox team (in some ways) it amazes me. He outlines a plan Theo Epstein followed that led to success (that Bill and everyone loved), then claims the Red Sox got away from it. Did they get away from it completely though? Isn't part of this plan Bill claims Theo got away from a similar plan to how the 2012 Red Sox team was built? Yes, the Red Sox didn't stay away from expensive free agents, but otherwise the plan stayed intact in some ways.

Remember that asshole Josh Beckett? The same Josh Beckett that Bill Simmons is so thankful he didn't name his child after? How did the Red Sox acquire him? They traded Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez for him. The Red Sox traded their top prospects for elite players, just like the masterplan that was supposed to work (and Bill loved) said to do.

Remember Adrian Gonzalez? How did the Red Sox acquire him? They traded Casey Kelly and Anthony Rizzo for him. The Red Sox, again, traded top prospects in order to acquire an elite player. This is part of what the masterplan that was supposed to work (and Bill loved) said to do.

Jacoby Ellsbury, Dustin Pedroia, Jon Lester, Kevin Youkilis, and Clay Buchholz? All homegrown players.

My point is the Red Sox didn't get entirely away from the plan Bill is claiming they got away from because they could no longer exploit market inadequacies. This plan just didn't work. Sometimes a plan is good, but the execution fails. Sure, the Red Sox signed expensive free agents. That's the part of the plan that was deviated from, but otherwise the plan stayed intact. It just didn't work for the 2012 season. Bill is always trying to push a theory on his readers when this season's struggles can simply be explained by a bad season. In Bill's mind the Red Sox can't just have a bad season, there has to be an underlying reason or he has to create a reason to explain what happened.

So this plan, the same one everyone loved, was still being used in some ways by the Red Sox. It just didn't work for the 2012 season. The idea other teams caught up to the Red Sox and affected this plan is simply bullshit. The Red Sox still could have executed the plan by using their financial advantage and hoping the personnel moves they made worked out.

The Red Sox splurged heavily on their minor league system, using their money to sway tough-to-sign picks and highly regarded foreign players.

Which is exactly what Theo Epstein's plan called for them to do. Bill seems to be criticizing this move, which I think he should not do.

They overpaid for J.D. Drew, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Lackey, Beckett and Crawford. They tried to overpay Mark Teixeira. They paid veterans market value to stick around. They paid, they paid and they paid.

And Bill liked it, liked it, liked it when the Red Sox did this. Wasn't part of the plan that Bill liked where the Red Sox would go out and acquire foreign talent or trade prospects for elite players? That's how the Red Sox acquired Daisuke and Josh Beckett. I'm sure it made him a little nervous to sign these players but Bill didn't want to see Crawford/Matsuzaka/Lackey go to the Yankees or another team did he? Not when they filled a need the Red Sox had. Beckett had pitched well for the Red Sox, why would the Red Sox not re-sign him after trading for him? Were the Red Sox really going to let Beckett go after his 2007 and 2009 season? The Red Sox fans would have revolted at the thought of letting Beckett go. Don't let Bill tell you differently and revise history to make himself seem smarter.

Maybe he knew going from a now-spoiled, relentlessly passionate fan base that expected 100 wins and a World Series appearance every season and cared a little too much to an emotionally scarred fan base with comically low expectations was a safer move.

Bill is talking about Theo Epstein here. Red Sox fans are too passionate and care a little bit too much. Bill even manages to make the negatives seem like positives, like he is at a job interview, reinforcing the super-specialness of the Red Sox in his own mind.

"A negative about me? Sometimes I am a little too-detail oriented."

I'd be about 100 times more skeptical if they hadn't just pulled off that hijacking of a Dodgers trade — somehow convincing them to assume Crawford and Beckett as a Gonzalez trade tax while forking over two highly regarded pitching prospects. This seemed utterly and totally improbable as recently as early Friday afternoon,

Throughout this whole column, Bill sometimes glosses over the fact the Red Sox were able to get rid of expensive, long-term contracts while getting two of the Dodgers top prospects in return for these players. They managed to dip themselves in shit and then come out completely clean by trading $250+ million in contracts when every single contract traded away was in the first or second year of that contract. Bill sometimes glosses over this because he calls the Los Angeles Lakers during his NBA columns, but wants his readers to ignore how incredibly fucking lucky it was for the Red Sox to pull this off. It's not an equal comparison, but this trade was twice as lucky as the Grizzlies handing Gasol to the Lakers on a silver platter or waiting it out until they got Howard. This Red Sox-Dodgers trade got rid of payroll and gave the Red Sox a chance to rebuild with elite prospects. You know Bill is self-conscious about the Red Sox being considered lucky to be bailed out by the Dodgers and is afraid it will be brought up by his readers whenever he does his weekly whining about how lucky the Lakers are.

It was a great job by Ben Cherington and he managed to unload salary and get top prospects back in one trade. There is nothing to complain about if you are a Red Sox fan. How did he even do that? Who cares if the Red Sox got lucky? Well, Bill does because he would have a heart attack if the Yankees managed to pull a trade off like this and we all know his previous comments about how lucky the Lakers are.

I never imagined Crawford's contract (five years remaining, $102.5 million) was tradable because of reasons like, "He clearly lost the ability to play baseball at a high level," "His body is breaking down in multiple places," "In a best-case scenario, you probably have to platoon him" and, "Oh, he just had Tommy John surgery THIS WEEK." Somehow, none of this deterred the Dodgers, who were so desperate to acquire Gonzalez (who started out slowly before returning to Rake Mode these past few weeks) that they probably looked at the big picture and thought …

Notice again, how Bill slips in there that Crawford returned to Rake Mode over the last few weeks, as if Crawford didn't just have Tommy John surgery and isn't due four more years at $80+ million on his contract. Bill is terrified readers will email him and mock him for every time he wrote about how the Lakers have gotten lucky in acquiring the players they have acquired. At least that's my theory.

You can't say enough about this trade from Boston's perspective: In the span of 24 hours, we went from "How the hell are we ever going to be good again?" to "Wait, there's a chance we're going to be good again!"

Good for you. Everyone loves it when a large-market team spends a ton of money on free agents who underperform and then that team gets their ass bailed out by another large-market team who can't seem to take on enough payroll. Gosh, we are so happy for Bill and would feel even better for him if he had not spent the previous 75% of this column needlessly beating the corpse of the 2012 Red Sox team.

Here's the irony: More often than not, big-market teams make the fatal mistake of thinking, We have to do something to get our fans excited!

I would agree with this, even though it isn't ironic. More often than not, fans of big-market teams get upset when their team doesn't spend enough money on free agents. A guy like Mark Teixeira hits the free agent market and fans of large-market teams want their team to go after this guy. Sure, the front office doesn't have to do this, but as Bill said earlier in the column,

After all, you are in a relationship with your favorite teams, right? We purchase tickets and merchandise; they purchase the players. We agree to remain loyal; they agree not to defecate on that loyalty.

Teams that can afford not to defecate on that loyalty go make a move to get fans excited for the season and hopefully improve the team. Imagine if the Red Sox don't go after a guy like John Lackey and then sign a pitcher like Kevin Correia to fill that rotation spot. How would the Red Sox fans feel? What if Carl Crawford is available in free agency and the Yankees make no move to sign him and end up platooning Andruw Jones and Eric Hinske out in left field all season? Fans would wonder why the hell the Yankees, who can afford to sign Crawford, just don't do it. So I do blame the organization, but fans also have expectations, regardless of whether they are fair or unfair expectations.

But you know what's more amazing? That these teams haven't realized how smart WE are. In 2012, fans are embarrassingly sophisticated about their favorite teams...For any big-market team to think, We have to do something to get our fans excited! in 2012 is legitimately, categorically insane.

Again, I would agree with this. Once Bill moves his point of view away from beating the corpse of the Red Sox and reminding us how lucky they were to get out from under these large contracts and get prospects in return, he is making a few good points.

You know what gets us excited? Shrewd, logical moves. Patience over recklessness.

I disagree in some ways. What gets fans excited is when a team makes a big move and adds a big, important piece to their team. Drafting well and signing a mid-market free agent who is a good platoon candidate is a shrewd, logical move, but these moves don't always excite fans. Smart fans get excited, that's true, but splashy moves can get an entire fan base excited.

When the Lakers finally landed Dwight Howard a few weeks ago, what made it special wasn't the move itself — a big-market team swallowing up yet another superstar — but the unflappable patience they exhibited for months and months leading up to that specific moment. I hate the Lakers with every fiber of my being. And you know what? I respect the hell out of them, too. They're a really smart franchise that always puts thought into their moves.

In six months Bill will be talking yet again how lucky the Lakers got in landing Howard. He may even throw a "6 for 24" joke in there as well just to thrash that unfunny joke to death one more time.

I thought the Red Sox were like that once upon a time. We won twice in four years. Somewhere along the line, we lost our way. I don't know if we found it. Time will tell. I just know that I'm interested again.

Now that Bill can whine about how bad things in Red Sox Land are, Bill is interested in following baseball again. Bill thrives on misery. I feel terrible for Red Sox fans this man represents your team in the minds of many people.

Last thought: It's strange to think how many Red Sox fans bought Gonzalez jerseys these past two years (and now they're stuck with them), or how many Red Sox fans out there did name their son "Beckett." That's another thing this trade banged home: As Jerry Seinfeld once warned us, we're rooting for laundry.

(looks away introspectively)

Don't get me wrong — I want to live in a world in which we could name our children after our favorite athletes without worrying about the consequences. I just don't think it exists.

Deep. Athletes and teams aren't loyal and fans are irresponsible for expecting players and teams to be loyal. These are new facts we've never been presented with before.

I guess the fact Bill is interested in the Red Sox again means we will get more than one column per summer in the future, followed by an eventual Red Sox World Series victory, followed by a book about the World Series victory written by Bill, followed by the Red Sox signing Bryce Harper and Justin Verlander, followed by a few years of the Red Sox going down "the wrong path" when Bill doesn't write about the Red Sox as much, followed by Bill writing a column saying he knew three years ago the Red Sox never should have signed Bryce Harper and Verlander, and finally he will be interested again in the Red Sox again when he can soak in their misery. Lather, rinse, repeat.