Sanctimonious idiot Jeff Pearlman misses the point, spends 1500 words telling you that you missed the point

Are you up to speed on the whole Thayer Evans/Oklahoma State story thing?  Hopefully, because I don't really want to take the time to explain it.  (Have you already forgotten about it, because this post is about 10 days late?  Probably.)  The basics, in case you need them, are that Thayer Evans is a guy who is good at picking up on stories that people find interesting, but really shitty at adhering to basic standards of journalistic integrity as he crafts his reporting.  He's irresponsible and sensationalist.  He doesn't really do things like "verify his sources" or in some cases "have credible sources in the first place."  And please believe, I don't give a steaming pile of fuck about Oklahoma State, Auburn, LSU, the Honey Badger or Cam Newton.  But this is an indisputable fact at this point: Thayer Evans is a shitty journalist.  That should be the main takeaway from his Oklahoma State expose, because the fact that a major college football program doesn't follow NCAA rules and gives its players lots of benefits they shouldn't get is not news and thus not eligible to be a takeaway.

Anyways, what does Jeff Pearlman think about all of this?  YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT, AMERICA.  THE POINT IS THAT WE SHOULD ALL BE ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGED ABOUT THIS OUTRAGEOUS STUFF THAT OSU WAS DOING.  Jeff Pearlman is a dope.

I don’t know Thayer Evans. We’ve never met, never spoken. In fact, before a couple of days ago I’m not sure I’d ever heard of the man. Is he a good reporter? 

Not at all.  That's well known at this point.

A shady reporter? 

Yes.

Does he love Oklahoma and hate Oklahoma State? 

According to Jason Whitlock, yes, although that doesn't make his shitty reporting any more or less shitty.

Could he care less? I just don’t know—and, I’m quite certain, most other don’t know, either.

Everyone knows.  Use the Google machine.  Type in "Thayer Evans journalism ethics."  There's lots of smoke and plenty of fire.  Thayer Evans is an unethical journalist.

Here’s what I do know: Much of the criticism of his reporting methodology has been—on the surface—bunk. There’s this idea out there that, in order to properly and rightly report a story, one needs to interview a select group of people—generally the stars and head coach. If you don’t speak with them, the logic goes, you’re interviewing the wrong folk.

This is crap.

The criticism of Evans has little to nothing to do with his interviewee selections.  It has a lot more to do with his doing things like secretly recording conversations with interviewees who did not know they were going to become interviewees, not doing basic fact checking with regard to facts that could have easily been checked, and embellishing facts to spice up a story.  Jeff Pearlman is a dope, and in his quest to be OUTRAGED at another ho-hum NCAA scandal, is going to try to defend Thayer Evans.

Without fail, stars and head coaches are almost always the worst interviews/sources. Why? Multiple reasons: A. They’re the ones who benefited most from the team/program. The head coach of Oklahoma State was paid big money to guide a high-exposure program. He had endorsement deals, contractual perks, etc … etc. Unless he was ultimately screwed, there is, literally, zero reason for him to speak. Stars can be grouped in the same category. You’re Brandon Weeden. You were the starting quarterback at Oklahoma State; that ultimately led you to the NFL. What, exactly, are you going to complain about? Who are you going to rat out?

The job of a reporter (and it ain’t easy) is figuring out whose information is correct, and whose is not. 

See the fact checking link up there.  Apparently Evans isn't so good at "the job of a reporter."

It’s about feeling comfortable with sources; about having other people vouch for a source’s words and/or character. Ultimately, it’s a judgement call. 

That Thayer Evans has repeatedly demonstrated he sucks at making.

The thing that puzzles me—that has always puzzled me—is the brainless craziness that is college football. 

Crank up the Pearlman-o-matic 5000!  Here comes the sanctimony.

Whether Thayer Evans’ reporting was flawed 

It was.

or perfect, 

Not close.

clearly Oklahoma State did some very bad things. 

NOW EVERYONE WAG YOUR FINGERS AT THEM SIMULTANEOUSLY

This is obvious, and a fact no one seems to be denying. And yet … why don’t school loyalists care? We’re talking about 19-, 20-, 21-, 22-year-old (so-called) student-athletes 

ZING

once again being treated as pieces of meat. They’re models for uniforms, dollar signs for endorsement deals, images to place on the cover of university literature … and, rarely, actually people.

Yes.  All correct.  But we don't need shady fucktards like Thayer Evans to show us these things.  1) We already know them 2) presenting them in the context of a JUICY SCANDAL does nothing but titillate for the sake of titillating, rather than actually generating interesting analysis (something much of the reporting on the Ed O'Bannon case has done).  It is no longer news that players took money or had access to sex and drugs.  Sorry.  And if you want to report on those topics without following the basic standards of ethical journalism, then fuck you and fuck the people that defend you because they think you've uncovered the next Watergate.

I hear college football die-hards speak of their teams as “we”—we need to run the ball better; we need to come out strong against Oregon. This, of course, is ludicrous. These are often kids with flimsy academic credentials, being asked to carry a full course load while also practicing X hours per day, flying X miles across the country, missing X class and X class and X class. 

Oh my God, what are we talking about?  Jeff, you are the worst ranter ever.  At the very very least, even if you're going to be the dope that we know you are, try to stay on topic.

They would struggle to maintain a 2.0 average if they were solely enrolled in school (minus sports)—

That's completely untrue, fucking insulting to thousands of kids, and possibly racist.

and yet, we pretend all is OK and groovy and grand. We dress them up in our school colors, roll out the balls and cheer away. Then, seven or eight years later, when we see X player living in his mother’s house, barely able to read, 44 credits shy of a college diploma, we shrug. Shit happens.

If you love Oklahoma State, shouldn’t you be furious? Not at the reporter or the magazine, but the school and the athletic department and the football program? 

Yes.  But you already knew about all those problems before private eye Thayer Evans arrived on the scene to build his own personal brand with a poorly-vetted story full of uninteresting crap.  You can hate the NCAA and the way it treats athletes, and you can also hate Thayer Evans.  They're not mutually exclusive possibilities.

Shouldn’t you be demanding a clean system; a desire for all-around excellence; a chance for your guys to wind up as successes in business, not just a meaningless game against Baylor? Shouldn’t you demand to hear the truth from your university? Aren’t there better questions to ask than, “Why does Thayer Evans hate us so much?”

I have no sympathy for OSU alums who feel victimized by Evans because he's apparently an OU fan.  Fuck both of those schools and fuck that whole state.  But more importantly, fuck Jeff Pearlman for taking this angle on the story.  As a, you know, journalist, you'd think he'd understand why it's important that journalists adhere to ethical standards of their profession.  Instead he's busy making sure we understand that college football is broken.  Thanks Jeff.  We got it.

I’m a Jason Whitlock fan. I truly am. I thought his commentary on the Don Imus-Rutgers stuff was outstanding. His gun stuff was equally top shelf. He’s written some wonderful stuff through the years; some columns that I’ve read more than once.

That said, this has not been a good week for the man.

Whitlock is an asshole.  Still, this was pretty awesome.

Whitlock clearly sees himself as some sort of media sheriff; a guy charged with keeping the rest of us in line. 

The lack of self-awareness is staggering.

He likes calling out individual writers, pointing out their flaws, explaining (in not these exact words) why they suck and he’s awesome.

Pot kettle etc.  And yes, of course, I realize that the pot/kettle thing goes one step further, to me and this blog.  Except that I don't think I'm awesome.  I just think that everyone sucks.

In regard to Thayer Evans, Whitlock told an Oklahoma radio station, “Having worked with Thayer Evans at Fox Sports …”

OK, to start here. I’m pretty sure Whitlock did not work with Evans. Back in the day, when people shared offices, they worked together. I’m in this cubicle, you’re in that cubicle—we work together. Whitlock never shared an office with Evans, never spent great time (if any time) with Evans. Literally, they were located in two different cities. 

And we know that they never collaborated on a project, or shared notes, or discussed their trade?  I don't want to make a big deal out of this small point, but again, in his effort to make sure we understand that the REAL STORY HERE is that some NCAA athletes don't graduate, Jeff is bending over backwards to defend Thayer Evans.  It's pathetic.

By Whitlock’s definition, I worked at Sports Illustrated with Gary Smith. Sure, he was in North Carolina and I was in New York. And sure, we literally were never in the same room at the same moment. But we worked together because our paychecks were signed by the same person. No.

I like that this is his first criticism of Whitlock's piece.  "Let's start with the important stuff--sure, Whitlock and Evans worked for the same company, but did they truly work 'together?'  OPEN YOUR EYES SHEEPLE, THEY TOTALLY DIDN'T"

Furthermore, Whitlock talks about Evans’ loyalties, calling him a “huge, enormous, gigantic Oklahoma homer.”

Here's the best part.

However, Whitlock’s past desperation to work for Sports Illustrated was no great secret. His dream of being handed the back-page column. He, of course, was never offered a job by the magazine—and was, we can assume, angry about it. Does this not (by Whitlock-think) make him the wrong guy to go off on the magazine? Is he not as biased as Evans is presumed to be?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That's the greatest thing Pearlman has ever written, and we've definitely gone after him on this blog plenty of times over the years.  It's fucking priceless.  That might be the worst attempt at flipping the script on someone I've ever seen.

After slaying Evans, Whitlock noted, “I think the story is a cliché and bogus and suspect and just the wrong angle.”

You know what's fucking fantastic?  You want the full context of that comment?  To explain what Whitlock thinks is the right angle?  Here you go:

I have the obvious take (on the series) that I’m tired of these stories. We’ve been reading these stories for 30 years and I’m tired of people pointing out how corrupt participants are in a system that has been proven to be corrupt. The NCAA amateur system is corrupt, so we should not be surprised that there is corruption among the participants. I would like to see more of the focus on the NCAA and the system and fixing that, and then I’ll get upset about the corruption. I think the story is a cliché and bogus and suspect and just the wrong angle.

JEFF.  EARTH TO JEFF.  JEFF, GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS IMMEDIATELY.  Whitlock has the EXACT SAME PERSPECTIVE on this issue as you do.  It's just that he, while acknowledging how fucking up NCAA football is, ALSO wants someone like Evans to not be a huge shithead.  See how he can have it both ways?  You could too, if you weren't such a sanctimonious dope.  That's the world Jeff Pearlman lives in: if an unethical "journalist" writes an unethical piece, but the tone of the piece is something Pearlman agrees with, it's asking too much of him to get him to acknowledge the shittiness of the journalism.

He also admitted, and I’ll place this in capital letters, that HE NEVER READ THE ARTICLE. Never. Not once. Not a word. DID. NOT. READ. IT. Even if you think the writer is a fraud, how in God’s name can you rip a piece you never read … then have other credible news sources give those words weight.

Whitlock should have read the article(s), but it doesn't change the fact that it is well established that Thayer Evans is a piece of shit.

Again, I think Whitlock is a good writer, and I have no personal beef. But he pulled this same crap when I appeared on his podcast several years ago to promote Sweetness. Whitlock welcomed me on, wanted to talk Walter Payton … but admitted never having read the book, because he doesn’t read sports books.

Uh …

OK, again, that's Whitlock being an asshole, but leave it to Jeff to complain about the nice (if awkwardly lacking in execution) thing that someone else did to him to help him sell his book.

My favorite piece of the Whitlock diatribe comes here: “There are a brand of sports writers who love doing these investigative pieces. They are not hard to do these days in terms of so-and-so got this money under the table. We’re into this area where unnamed sources can say anything, any of these he-said, she-said stories. I don’t respect the entire brand of investigative journalism that is being done here.”

All of that seems very fair to me, if heavy-handed.  It's not that this brand of journalism deserves no respect; it's that it's been done before, many times, and people like Evans use it to make a name for themselves because it's scandalous.  And that's pretty dumb.

Jason Whitlock has the absolute easiest job in sports media—and he knows it. He opines. That’s it. He doesn’t report. He doesn’t dig. He doesn’t make calls or seek out information. He takes the reporting done by others, sits in front of his laptop and comes up with a take. That’s it. He’s a good writer. Is he one of the, oh, 200 most-talented sportswriters in America? Probably not. 

I don't like Whitlock, but actually, I'm pretty certain he cracks the top 200 in the country.

(For the record, I’m by no means placing myself on that list either) 

Geez, I certainly hope not.  (Just kidding, Jeff!  You might be in the top 200 too.  No sarcasm.  But fuck you both anyways.)

But—and this is the big part—he’s loud. And obnoxious. He presents himself as a tough guy unafraid to take a tough stand, and people buy it. They absorb his self-righteous diatribes, because—on the surface—it seems to be driven by a desire to seek out truth and justice.

If any of you have every spent any time on jeffpearlman.com, you know the one thing you will definitely find there is a collection of self-righteous diatribes.

But, with men and women like Whitlock, truth and justice are often smokescreens for the parallel drugs plaguing the American media: Attention and fame. 

If you cannot see that those things are exactly what Thayer Evans is trying to obtain, you're fucking blind.

Whitlock seems all about attention and fame. Or, put differently,what sort of person states his own case for the Pulitzer Prize? What size ego must a man have to A. Think to himself, “I deserve the Pulitzer” and B. Write about it? I mean, between all the craziness of life and the highs and the lows and the ups and the downs, who even has time to ponder such a thing?

Whitlock is an asshole.  Pearlman is a dope.

For all I know, the Oklahoma State report is filled with holes,

It is.

and Sports Illustrated will have to apologize 

Oddly, they did not, although they should have.

and Thayer Evans will soon be selling insurance door to door in Ada. 

We can only hope!

I just don’t know.

As a journalist, however, I am deeply troubled by the blame-the-messenger mentality that has zoomed to the forefront.

As a journalist, what you should be troubled by is the state of journalism thanks to writers like Evans.  1% of the country is "blaming the messenger" in the sense that Jeff means it.  They are mouth-breathing OSU fans, and they want to discredit everything Evans wrote simply because they love their school.  The other 99% is blaming the messenger in the exact way everyone should be: by pointing out that Thayer Evans is a tabloid journalist who should be legally barred from ever going near a computer.

There is more here than just a reporter with a vendetta, and or a reporter who can’t report, or a magazine story.

It’s time we all try and see it.

Which is pretty much what Whitlock said, except with a lot more idiocy mixed in.

FMTMQR: Gregg Easterbrook Will Probably Not be Hired by The Onion Anytime Soon

Rejoice, haters of logic and comedy. The dipshit is back.

Here's some draft advice. The top three offensive teams last season -- New Orleans, Denver and Houston -- did not make the playoffs. The top three defensive teams last season -- Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Philadelphia -- all made the playoffs. Now, what should your draft strategy be?

Well, before drawing too strong a conclusion from that cherry-picked stat, I might look a little further than just the elites of each category and try to see generally whether or not having a good offense or good defense helps. Then I would discover that 7 of the top 12 offensive teams made the playoffs... as did 7 of the top 12 defensive teams. Then I might look back at years gone by, and discover that the top 3 offensive teams all made the playoffs in 2007 and 2006, and that 2 of the top 3 made it in 2005, 2004 and 2003. Then I would remember that Gregg Easterbrook is a stat-cherry-picking asshole. Then I would probably just use a draft strategy based around a combination of need and best player available.

As for [New England; idiotic TMQ nickname for their team omitted], last year on draft day, needing front-seven help, they traded down, passing on the chance to draft touted front-seven players Sedrick Ellis, Derrick Harvey and Keith Rivers, in order to select Jerod Mayo and gain an extra choice, which they exercised on linebacker Shawn Crable. Rivers had a sound rookie season, but Ellis was invisible with 30 tackles, while Harvey, supposedly a sackmaster, rarely was in the same area code as opposing quarterbacks. Mayo was terrific for New England, and Crable looks like a quality addition.

Crable did not play a snap last year. Yes, that's correct. Due to injury, THE DUDE HAS NOT YET PLAYED A SINGLE FUCKING SNAP IN THE NFL. But New England drafted him, so he looks like "a quality addition." Meanwhile, Derrick Harvey and his 3.5 rookie year sacks (certainly not great, but indicative of competence)? Bust. Just cut him now, Jacksonville. Why can't you be more like New England and draft guys who look quality without even stepping on the field?

Going into Saturday's draft, New England has stockpiled three second-round choices -- look for the Patriots to choose wisely while others around them reach. I'd rather have New England's draft position than the positions held by Buffalo, Denver or Detroit, even though each of these teams has two first-round choices. Detroit is under pressure not to blow the first overall pick;

That's like saying it's better to sit in the audience at a game show than be a contestant. You wouldn't want to fuck up in front of everyone, would you? Sure, being able to take any player you want is nice... but I think we can all agree that it's not worth the possible embarrassment that comes from messing up a draft choice. After all, the Lions have never done so before.

Denver has a history of first-round busts (Dan Williams, Marcus Nash);

Marcus Nash was drafted in 1998; Dan Williams was drafted in Nineteen-ninety-fucking-three. Sixteen years ago. Really, Gregg? Since 1998, Denver has taken Al Wilson, Deltha O'Neal, D.J. Williams, Ashley Lelie, Jay Cutler, and Ryan Clady (later praised by Easterbrook in this very column) in the first round. This is Easterbrook at his very worst- making preposterous claims as he goes along in order to fit his pre-crafted thesis. Seriously, fuck this guy. If you go back far enough every team has first round busts. Ever heard of Chris Canty? First round pick of the Patriots in 1997. Out of the league by 2001. Oops. (That said, after reviewing their first round picks for the past 15 years, I have to hand it to the Patriots. Very good at this whole draft thing overall.)

and the Bills haven't made a smart choice about linemen in some 15 years (recent first-round line busts John McCargo, Mike Williams and Erik Flowers).

So... what if... they choose players at other positions with these two first round picks?

New England can accomplish more with three second-round choices than most teams can accomplish with two first-round selections.

Completely unsubstantiated. Just thrown out there as fact, because Gregg hopes you're not really paying attention.

In other sports news, at this time of year every Tom, Dick and Harriet has a mock draft, but only Tuesday Morning Quarterback actually mocks the draft, with my annual mock of mock drafts, which follows.

1. Detroit Lions: Edward Liddy, CEO, AIG
By the standards of the 0-16 Lions, AIG is a huge success.

Crickets. (But it's pretty topical! Gotta give him that! Have you heard about this whole AIG thing? It was in all the papers!)

4. Seattle Seahawks: Dr. Manhattan, naked blue superhero
He could play for the Blue Men Group without needing a uniform, thus cutting costs.

Crickets.

6. Cincinnati Bengals: Tim Geithner, secretary, U.S. Treasury
The Bengals' ownership hopes the TARP fund will buy up the franchise as a toxic asset.

Topical again. And crickets, again.

10. San Francisco 49ers: Ralph Ostrove, founder, Paul Stuart clothiers
The Niners have gone from a coach who wears business suits on the sideline to a coach who drops his pants in public; they might benefit from this high-end fashion store that caters to men. Stuart's new business-casual affiliate says it offers a "curated collection."

Snobbery. And crickets. You get the idea- this kind of brain vomit goes on for a full 32 picks. Simply an insult to anyone who has any semblance of a sense of humor.

WWJHE -- When Would Jesus Hold Easter? Last year, Easter fell almost a month before Passover. TMQ complained that Easter should always fall on the Sunday after Passove begins. Jesus, after all, just before his crucifixion had come to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover. So why doesn't Easter fall immediately after the first night of Passover? Dating for Passover has always been determined by the ancient Hebrew calendar; in 2009, Passover began on the 15th of Nisan, exactly as it did when Jesus walked the Earth. Easter dating involves a complex formula having to do with the vernal equinox and paschal full moon. During the Middle Ages, the Roman church established that Easter dating formula in part to de-emphasize Christianity's relationship to Judaism. Protestant denominations decided to accept the Roman dating, though nothing about the equinox-and-moon business is mentioned in scripture. Formally linking the observance of Easter to Passover would benefit both Christianity and Judaism, by emphasizing common history. Actually, it would benefit Western Christians. As pointed out by readers, including Sylvia Denisov of St. Louis, in the Eastern Orthodox Church, Easter always falls on the Sunday following the first night of Passover.

Changing the Western dating formula for Easter, to sync with Passover as is done in Eastern Christianity, would be both historically accurate and a nice ecumenical step. This spring, Easter in the West did fall on the Sunday after Passover began. Turns out that for the next six years, Easter as observed by Western Christianity will follow the first night of Passover; the schedules aren't out of whack again until 2016, when Easter falls on March 27 and Passover does not begin until April 23. That creates six years in which Western Christians could stage a campaign to restore the Passover-Easter relationship. How's about it?

I'm not against it. Wait, is this a column about football?

Series Finale of "Battlestar Galactica" Complaints:

A quick copy/paste into Microsoft Word reveals that Gregg devoted, I shit you not, 1,832 words to this item. That's nearly 3 single-spaced pages. Among those who care enough about the NFL to read about it online- Who. Gives. A. Flaming. Shit? Making it all the better is that most of the item is dedicated to, whate else, Gregg's complaints about the inaccuracies/plot holes in the show. We need someone monitoring these science fiction shows! I'm so tired of them not accurately representing what it's like to travel long distances in space!

Also, the NFL Gave Several Billion Compensatory No. 1 Draft Choices to AIG: The system by which the NFL awards compensatory draft choices continues to mystify. The league said San Diego was owed a fourth-round compensatory pick for losing Drayton Florence to Jacksonville; the Jags benched Florence, then waived him after one season. The league said the Redskins were owed a seventh-round compensatory pick for losing quarterback Mark Brunell to New Orleans; Brunell did not attempt a pass in 2008.

It's not quite a full and total explanation (as the League keeps some of its formula secret), but here you go, dipshit.

At 11 p.m. the Night Before Games, Bills Coaches Conduct a Passport Check: "I just have to create my own following up here in North America" -- Terrell Owens being introduced in Buffalo. Texas is in North America; so is Mexico for that matter. Though, Owens' statement that the Bills may become "North America's team" is a good reading of the Toronto alignment. My favorite Owens claim about the Cowboys: that Tony Romo and Jason Witten were meeting in secret to draw up plays that did not include him. On an exclusive basis, TMQ has obtained this surveillance tape of one of the secret meetings, held at a vacation resort:

ROMO: (Wearing dress and wig.) What's the password?

WITTEN: (Wearing false beard.) Swordfish. (Enters room.)

ROMO: The new play diagrams are on this microdot.

WITTEN: How do you read a microdot?

ROMO: Shhhhhh -- not so loud. (Turns on radio to a mariachi station.) That's in case Terrell has the room bugged. Check out Blast Max 88 Cross.

WITTEN: (Examines play.) Wow -- Owens covers his body in Krazy Glue, then sticks himself to my defender so I can go deep. Sweet!

ROMO: We can't tell him the play is really to you.

(Tape interrupted as Canadian Mounties burst into room.)

Dude. CRICKETS.

Trojans note: On draft day, TMQ will root for linebacker Clay Matthews III, who despite his fabulous football pedigree -- related to former NFL stars Clay Matthews, Clay Matthews Jr. and Bruce Matthews -- was a walk-on at USC. No major-conference school offered Matthews a scholarship. Now he's likely to be a first-round NFL draft choice.

And as soon as he's drafted in the 1st round, TMQ will immediately begin hating him for the duration of his NFL career. If only he could go undrafted, play in the lower-tiered Arena League for a couple years, retire, work a construction job for a couple years, then make the NFL at age 27, get cut from four teams, and THEN finally catch on with someone, he would have a life-long fan in Gregg.

At Least Someone's Gruntled: "Disgruntled no more" -- that's how "SportsCenter" anchor Linda Cohn introduced the news that Jay Cutler had been traded. Cutler whined so much that "disgruntled Jay Cutler" practically became his name. Since he is no longer disgruntled, does that mean he is now gruntled? Yes! Little known dictionary fact: "gruntled" means "satisfied." From now on, the gentleman in question to TMQ will be "the gruntled Jay Cutler." And TMQ will remain suspicious of the grunted gentleman. Cutler has a fine arm, but what exactly has he accomplished in the NFL to justify all his whining? Cutler is 17-20 as an NFL starter. Kyle Orton is 21-12 -- I'll take the guy who wins the game, please.

Oh my good fucking grief. Are we going to go through this again? That is the worst sports-related argument ever. Period. Ever. I don't even think Colin Cowherd would make that argument.

Orton did play with a better defense in Chicago, but Cutler played with better offensive personnel plus the Denver home-field advantage.

No home-field advantage in Chicago- no sir. Nope.

Though Cutler made the Pro Bowl, he finished 16th in quarterback rating, behind Seneca Wallace and Shaun Hill,

Who I think we can all agree are both better than Cutler.

while throwing 18 interceptions, second-worst in the league.

On 600+ attempts, often trying to lead Denver to victory from behind because of their shitpile of a defense.

Cutler's high school team was 15-0 when he was a senior; since then, in college and the pros, he's 28-55 as a starter.

How dare he not win at Vanderbilt! Everyone wins at Vanderbilt. I believe they're colloquially known as "the Northwestern Wildcats of the SEC."

For seven consecutive seasons, Cutler has not been a winner -- while becoming a guy who cares about his stats and complains nonstop about the treatment he is receiving.

Get rich quick scheme: replace "seven" with "thirteen;" replace "Cutler" with "Alex Rodriguez;" submit to FoxSports.com; accept job as baseball writer; profit.

TMQ thinks the Broncos will be seen as coming out way ahead in this trade. Way behind? The Redskins, who publicly undercut quarterback Jason Campbell by trying to trade him and draft choices for Cutler, only to have the world find out the Broncos would rather have the workmanlike Orton.

"Workmanlike." "Gritty." "Erstadian." They all sound nice.

Like Cutler, Campbell is 17-20 as a starter -- yet Cutler is constantly praised and Campbell constantly criticized.

If you think Jason Campbell is anywhere near as good as Jay Cutler, I encourage you to move to Mongolia and not ever watch sports again.

Yet Campbell was the one who played behind a terrible offensive line last season, while Cutler was protected by one of football's best pair of tackles.

A fair point; but remember when Gregg was shitting on Denver's chances of doing anything useful with its two first round picks this year? Hmmm... I wonder where their left tackle came from? Surely he wasn't a first round pick- Denver only drafts busts, like the still well-remembered Dan Williams, in the first round.

Next Week: TMQ's plan to grade the draft interrupted when honor-code violations are discovered in fifth round.

Yeah... what?

HatGuy's BAAAAAAAACK!

Wow. It's been so long, Mikey! Welcome back to baseball. I haven't even read your disaster on how awesome the Red Sox are yet, but I'm going to fire up teh ol' bloggomakerfunnerofer anyways, just because you and Gene Wojc-eafiwoe;faw (I legitimately forgot how to spell his name this time) are the only people who awful enough at writing to have a 100% FireJay-worthy spew rate. On we go, fuckheads.

Move over, Yankees: Red Sox are 'It' team now
Boston’s fight for the division lead is worthy of a great dynasty

Hear that, Red Sox? You're "It" now. Like Miley Cyrus, or whatever those dagnabbed kids are listening to these days. I would like to reveal my identity now. I am P. Nelson Olesdorf, a crotchity 71-year-old man from Florida.

The American League East is used to the big, bad team with great pitching, a super bullpen, clutch hitting up and down the lineup and a swagger in its gait grabbing the division by the throat in September and not letting go.

A "swagger in its gait"? Hey HatGuy, the 1950s called, they want their lingo back.

Oh wait, he's talking about the Yankees, and they were good in the 1950s. Maybe he means those (Damn) Yankees(!)?

No....he said "American League East"....a phrase that would have made the world riot back then.

It’s just not used to that team suiting up in uniforms that aren’t decorated with pinstripes.

BOOM! Gotta love that twist.

The Red Sox aren’t just coming. They’re banging at the door of the division lead, and whether they grab it right now from the amazing Rays or wait another week to get the job done isn’t important.

....apparently the Rays hanging on to the division lead isn't an option.

What is worth taking a moment to gawk at in wonder is how quickly and emphatically Boston has asserted itself.

Syntax, man! You're a professional writer for crissake. We'd better get dan-bob to find a written copy of this crap to mark it up in red frowny faces and stuff.

What Tampa’s doing is one of the great stories that baseball has ever given us. But they’re a young team that doesn’t know what they’re not capable of, a team that’s caught lightning in a bottle for the first time in franchise history.

I understand that this is common sportswriter bullshittery. But isn't "a young team that doesn't know what they're not capable of" a good thing? Like they don't know their limits, so nothing's holding them back or something? Whatever. I'm not here. GREAT paragraph, HatGuy.

What Boston is doing is just as impressive — maybe more so. The Red Sox are doing the hardest thing in sports: living up to expectations.

Tampa Bay: Exceeding expectations.
Botson: Living up to expectations.

HatGuy feels that the latter is more impressive.

Whatever.

They’re coming off their second championship in four seasons, and with what they’re doing this year, it’s fair to start talking about them the way we used to talk about the Yankees. They’re a dynasty now, a powerful team that overcomes injuries, adversity and other teams that think they can knock them off.

Valid valid valid!

You don’t become a dynasty because a bunch of pundits with laptops say you are. You get there by doing it on the field.

It's true. Did you know that a bunch of pundits with laptops consider the 2002-2008 Toronto Blue Jays a dynasty?

::looks at what he's typing on::

Oh shit! He's making fun of me! Hey man, I'm not a pundit! I don't even know what that means!

::quick trip to dictionary.com::

pun·dit (n) - A learned person, expert, or authority.

Why are you making fun of people who are learned and have expertise?

I'll still deny that title. But it doesn't take a pundit to disect this garbage. See, I use that word in everyday language now! I'm learning! But....but learning's apparently frowned upon and made fun of. I'll stop.

The Red Sox were such an outfit 90 years ago. Now, with their two titles and their performance this year to back it up, they are that again.

Who fucking talks like you? "The Red Sox were such an outfit?" Do you go to baseball games, sit in the stands, and talk like this to the drunken fanatics around you? "I say, gents! The Red Sox were such an outfit 90 years ago. But the current resume of our squad suggests we're...how do you say this....kicking it old school!" No one needs the fourth definition of "outfit," Mike. It's just there to take up space in the friggin dictionary.

There’s an aura about such teams.

Bad journalism 101: Invent stuff that isn't there.

Call it swagger if you will, but it’s more than just the insouciant self-confidence that term implies.

Advanced Bad Jouralism: Use dumb words like "swagger." Use large, unnecessarily strange and rarely-used words like "insouciant" in place of simple ones like "relaxed" to give the reader a false sense of inferiority.

I swear, this guy fucking goes to thesaurus.com at least 15 times per article, then just plays eeny-meeny-miney-mo with the synonyms.

Opposing teams talk about it as if it were a palpable thing. They come into the home field of a dynasty and they go weak in the knees telling reporters about what a special place it is.

Bad Journalism Honors for Pundits: Blow out of proportion one quote you probably thought you might have once heard from a player and blow it out of proportion and accept the new, exaggerated stance as complete and total truth.

In the days when Boston was a lovable group of losers, opposing teams gushed about Fenway Park, but the discussion involved the quaint contours, the looming Green Monster, the Pesky Pole and everything else that makes the cramped old bandbox baseball’s crown jewel.

Today, opposing teams talk more about how hard it is to play there, the way they used to talk about Yankee Stadium. There are ghosts of past greatness collecting in the nooks and crannies of the old ballpark, a history of success that players feel.

I will sum up this up in 5 words.

"The Red Sox got better."

Sign me up, msnbc.com!

That word “tradition” is the telling one. Just a few years ago, if you said “tradition” in connection with the Red Sox, you were talking about seventh-game losses in October.

::whew:: OK. I'm sick of going back through baseballreference.com. The only time the Red Sox have lost a game 7 of any kind in recent memory was 2003. I don't know what the hell you are talking about. That does not constitute a "tradition."

Dynastic teams pack their aura and swagger along with the bats, balls and gloves when they go on the road. And when autumn looms on the calendar, they play their best. The Red Sox are doing that. They’re the big, bad team from the AL East now, the team nobody wants to face.

And they’re coming after first place.

Wow. Thanks for the disaster, Mike, you didn't disappoint. Hey, I don't know if this is relevant, but the entire "dynasty" was built by a pundit with a laptop from Yale.

Three Columns Into His ESPN Tenure, Rick Reilly Begins Producing Mindless Drivel

The first article he wrote for his new employer? About his dad's alcoholism. Ok, fine. There are some things that even I won't jump on. His second article? A boring but reasonable plea for golf fans to cheer for Phil Mickelson over Tiger Woods during the U.S. Open. (It bothered me a little because of its Yankees-or-Red-Sox-and-no-one-else dichotomized type of approach to fandom; what if I want to cheer for someone besides those two? Whatever.)

But his third? Let's just say it's the kind of garbage I expect him to be writing at the WWL for years to come. In fact, it's worse than garbage; it's in the same vein as what someone like Nancy Grace does. You know, a news story that's totally and utterly meaningless, but contains a shocking/offensive/tragic element, thereby making it effective for sucking in the self-righteous masses. Oh my goodness! Someone did something bad! Doesn't that make you feel good about yourself? Not only would you never do this, but better still, you have an accurate moral compass that tells you these people are bad! Thanks, Rick/Nancy. Without you I would've never been exposed to stories like the one I'm about to unveil, and would subsequently not feel nearly as good about myself as I do for simply being less of an asshole than most.

Sigh. Fucking people. Anyways-

Brushing back a batter? OK. But this? You have to be kidding.

Get ready to be shocked and appalled, people.

You've heard of Kill the Ump, Lynch the Ump, and Strangle the Ump, right?

I'm going to open myself up to criticism here- I played organized baseball for 14 years, and I have no fucking idea what that is. But go on.

Well, get ready for the latest thing—Bean the Ump.

It happened on May 31 in the Georgia high school Class AAA championship game. Stephens County was losing to Cartersville 9-1 early, partly because nine straight SCHS batters had struck out. The last ring-up so hacked off superstar shortstop Ethan Martin—who had just been drafted 15th overall by the Dodgers—that he threw his helmet in protest.

My goodness- Scandal!

But that figured. Martin and his brother, Cody, who was pitching, reportedly had been complaining about balls and strikes the entire game.

What a fucking setup. Thanks, Rick, for telling me in advance who the villains are. You know, this is exactly what Nancy Grace and other bottom feeders of her ilk do. They're constantly hoping to invoke a reaction out of you along the lines of: "I'll tell you one thing right now- it sounds like those boys weren't raised right! If I had been their parent, you'd better believe they would have learned some respect. This whole country is going to hell in a handbasket. You know what's to blame? Violent video games, that's what."

Honestly. Fucking people.

OK. Sorry.

So now it's the bottom of the fourth, with Ethan playing short and Cody on the mound. The catcher is Matt Hill. There are no outs. The count is 0-1. Cody winds up and flings a very high, very hard fastball. Hill comes out of his squat, puts his glove up to catch it, then does a very funny thing.

He doesn't.

Instead, the YouTube video will show, he drops to his knees before the ball gets to him. Doesn't even try to catch it. Just flops to his knees, with his head looking down at the plate. Never looks up or back. The ball, meanwhile, conks umpire Jeff Scott square in the face mask. Rocks him back. Then squirts up the third-base line.

Yup, that's a good synopsis of what happened. That catcher is pretty much the worst actor of all time, and obviously the pitcher or whoever told him to do that is a little bit crazy.

But here's the thing about this incident- IT'S NOT RELEVANT. It's a story about a few shitdick kids who don't know how to control their anger. Off-the-field variations of this incident happen all over the country, 24 hours a day. Kids vandalize shit. They steal shit. They break shit. They assault people. They do unspeakable things because they don't see any other way to deal with their problems. But it's not newsworthy. The fact that ESPN considers it to be so is a sign of the times and a reflection of a tiny-brained audience. It's not a correct or appropriate decision.

Look, if I were writing a graduate thesis about unhealthy attitudes taken by some kids towards sports these days, or about odd examples of juvenile delinquency, this is the kind of incident I'd want to learn about. If enough investigation goes into the matter to draw some significant conclusions about the circumstances that caused it, I'd hope you could read about it in some kind of scholarly journal or something. But... I'm not writing that made up graduate thesis. I'm just a sports fan, who came to this sports site hoping to read an article about something relevant happening in the world of sports today.

I'm not picky. I don't care if it's a heartwarmingly sappy human interest piece. I don't care if it's about a sport most people ignore, like bowling or sailing or pole vaulting. Fuck it- I don't even care if it's about the Celtics or Red Sox. Just don't show me something that belongs in a fucking tabloid. Stop trying to titillate me with stories of people behaving badly and show me something that's primarily focused on, you know, SPORTS.

Jiminy fucking Christmas. It's never easy, is it?

Scott Singer, who videotaped the game from behind the plate, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "I don't know what was going through their heads but … it's like, good god!"

Good God indeed! Scott, you've played directly into the media's hand on this one. That's pretty much what they needed you to say, in order to invoke an identical reaction from their readers. I'm very disappointed in you. If you actually had a brain and a pair of balls, you would've told the reporter something like "What really offends me is how poorly the catcher tried to play it off. Jesus, who did he think he was going to fool?" or "Hey, the ump had it coming." Better yet, "I think it's pretty obvious that those kids are assholes. But really, do you need to be writing a story about this? Isn't there some news going on somewhere that needs to be covered?"

After the game, Hill explained that he'd been expecting a curveball, instead got a fastball and just didn't catch it.

Yeah, surrrre. I used to catch a little. Happens all the time. You're expecting a curveball and instead you get a fastball so you say, "Boy, didn't see that coming. I'll just drop to my knees and wait for the next one."

Yeah, actually, that does happen. But not in the way you see in the video. Even when Rick's right, he's wrong.

What's worse is that Hill's coach, Mark Gosnell, believed him! Right, Coach. And remember that time you found the school mascot tied up in a locker with a sock in his mouth? That was definitely terrorists.

Wow. Hey Rick- not to shit too messily on your embarrassingly bad joke, but this is not a PG-rated Disney comedy about how a ragtag band of unathletic misfits beat the well-coached and heavily favored varsity baseball team in a competition to see who would get to represent the school in the state tournament. (The reason I'm making this clarification is because that's the only situation I can imagine in which someone would bind and gag a school mascot, shove him/her into a locker, and then blame the incident on terrorism.)

If indeed this was premeditated—take a look for yourself and decide—then maybe Cody Martin should be drafted too. Say what you want, but that's pretty good aim.

Anyway, now the ump has to get back behind noncatcher Hill, who may very well have just schemed to remove his noggin from his neck. Wouldn't you have loved to have heard the conversation as they awaited the next pitch?

Ump: Uh, any chance you might catch this one, or should I duck now?

Hill: Depends. Is it going to be a strike?

I guess Rick was being honest in his chat last week when he insisted that he and Bill Simmons were getting along just fine. Apparently Bill's writing jokes for him.

Isn't it enough for an umpire to endure all the blind jokes—Hey, ump, what's it like to get your checks in Braille?—without two players actually trying to blind him?

If you want to hear an awkward, douchechilly silence, just go to a baseball game and shout "Hey ump, what's it like to get your checks in Braille?"

Cartersville wound up winning the game 13-1, and when state athletic officials saw the tape, they snapped. "The catcher did not intend to catch the pitch," says Ralph Swearngin, executive director of the Georgia High School Association. "I didn't see the eyes of the catcher tracking the pitch." He put Stephens County on "severe warning" and fined it $1,000.

Now Rick/Nancy is turning the story. Up until this point, they've wanted us to be worried that whatever criminals they've been talking about were going to get away with whatever it was they did. You're supposed to be on the edge of your seat- are you? Oh my goodness! Please don't tell me this awful act went unpunished!

Then some payback came for Hill, who was planning to walk on at Gordon College in Barnesville, Ga., next season. He got the word from Gordon coach Travis McClanahan, who said, Forget it, we don't want you. "I've seen catchers get crossed up before," says McClanahan. "But he appeared to be blocking a curveball in the dirt. I was shocked. I've never seen that happen. I've never heard of a player even suggesting doing that."

And NOW comes the part that really gives the reader the warm fuzzies. You like that, don't you? Good has triumphed over evil. Better than that- like I already mentioned, the reader gets to feel like they're a good person because they saw what the bad person did and that the bad person got punished.

I bet Hill didn't see that one coming. Don't know, though, since neither Hill nor Martin is talking.

As for umpire Scott, he had a headache after the game and went for an MRI. Then he decided to get himself a lawyer. And I'm guessing there are two things that lawyer is checking out: the health of his client and the health of Hill's dad's wallet.

Awesome. A lawsuit. God bless America. I hope the judge throws a baseball at Scott's face when he arrives at court for his first hearing.

Good god, what's becoming of us?

Track star: Well, yeah, I've always hated that official, but I sure didn't mean for my javelin to go right through his spleen like that!

Announcer: But you're a sprinter.

See, because a sprinter would normally not have access to javelins, nor would they be throwing them for any reason. I'm going to re-write a better punchline for this joke. Here goes: Sprinter? I hardly know her!

I hope Scott does ask for damages, and that the players have to pay in a way they'll never forget: by being forced to umpire Little League games. They'll be amazed how vile parental vocabulary can be, how far little brothers can spit and how many pitched balls wind up hitting them in the thorax.

But at least the 8-year-olds won't be doing it on purpose.

That's deep, man. I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that Rick Reilly has won like a million awards for his writing. With conclusions like that one, you can see why.

Sometimes I wonder if, in the course of writing this blog, I get too tied up in obviously horrible writing like this. I mean, people like Simmons, Jemele Hill, Gene Wojceichowski, Reilly... everyone knows they suck. They're low-hanging fruit. There's no real challenge in picking them apart. Even the least discerning of our readers should be able to see without much help why most of what they write sucks. I mean, maybe I should spend more time finding articles with a little more depth to their awfulness. There are plenty of writers out there who actually have a decent grasp on their subject matter but still produce work that deserves to be criticized. I've done it before, and it's felt pretty rewarding. For every Bill Simmons, there are three baseball writers who think stolen bases are more important than walks and three football writers who don't understand that an offense depends on more than a quarterback. Yeah, maybe I should make fun of more stuff like that!

At least, that's what I say to myself about once a month. Shortly thereafter, I'll casually surf over to ESPN.com and check out what's linked on the front page. Something like this Reilly article will come up. And I'll realize that my intentions to branch out are, well, nothing more than intentions. As long as Reilly/Wojceichowski/Simmons/Hill keep doing what they've been doing, I'm not going to be able to change a damn thing about how I blog.

Maybe that's the way it should be.

(Did you like the format of my conclusion? Guess who I stole it from!)

Fall Class oh no Wait

There's no bigger stage in the baseball world than the World Series, and we saw a couple of really good games this year. Yes, this truly is a great ga... oh wait, there's a rumbling out of New York City... Joe Torre ripped his pants? No, wait, ARod opted out of his contract. Let's talk about it during the World Series! I link to SI.com because they were credited for breaking the story, which had it's coattails grabbed onto by FOX and ESPN.

Yes, it's a classless act by Scott Boras. What do you expect?

Easy solution for FOX and ESPN: Launch into your gigantic spiral of New York City coverage AFTER the game is over. In 2004, I would have loved to have been in that bar after my team lost to see some other news than Jimmy Fallon celebrating in my ballpark. Any distraction would have been welcome. Boston fans were out rioting last night anyways, so the rest of the country- - the 80% of America that despises New England - - could have waited to see what Scott Boras leaked after the game, the celebration, the presentation of corporate prizes, the interivews, and Jeanine Zelasko's 20 pounds of make up. You can blame ARod and Boras all you want, but some of the blame needs to be put on FOX and ESPN. SI.com broke the story online, and then ESPN and FOX talked about it. The channels lost the ability to claim they broke the story, so they should have waited until after the Rockies and Red Sox were done playing. But instead, I had to endure Joe Buck (who I like... it's a St. Louis thing) speculating where ARod won't be appreciated next year.

Really, I can only shake my head when I read what Buster Olney wrote:

The way this played out could not have been more apropos, because A-Rod needs to be bigger than the game; he needs to be more important than the Red Sox or the Rockies or any other team, or any other player. He is one of the greatest players in history at compiling statistics, the greatest ever at compiling wealth, and his next employer will have to buy into that. The World Series can't matter as much as A-Rod.

I know it wasn't Buster who was on TV talking about it, but give me a break. Who made this story bigger than the World Series? ARod, or those who talked about it during the game? "Reporting" this during the game's grandest spectacle isn't about journalism, so why bring it up?

[note: I came in late during the game when it was brought up, as I had to ask my parents to pick up more Doritos at the store. It seemed to me that FOX tried to legitimize the discussion of the story by having Ken Rosenthal and Joe Buck talk about it. I would have mentioned this, but I wasn't watching when it was initially mentioned on FOX and I would hate to have anonymous commenters flame away for incorrect information on this humble blog.]

Who Are These Guys Again? The Colorado Mountains? Is That a Real Team?

This, ladies and gentlemen, is Mike Celizic. I'm not sure if he's been made fun of here before or anything, but he sure is a bad journalist. That...thing...on his head is the reason I'm going to call him HatGuy, which is an original nickname that I just now made up for the first time ever, and definitely isn't copied from some really funny website. Ol' Hatty usually dabbles in writing about baseball twice a month. Yesterday was once such day. Let's check out the column.

Rockies would be royalty if on East Coast
Amazing run by no-names is like nothing we've seen in baseball before

Oooh, a Rockies column. That bunch of no-namies that plays is Colorado. 25 men who don't have names (and a manager who may or may not have one). This looks intriguing.

This is a terrific team that’s stormed out of the thin air of Denver and into the even thinner national TV ratings they’re drawing from an audience that has no idea who the Colorado Rockies are.

A play on words making fun of the nationwide popularity of a small market team? Genius! No one has ever done that before!

It’s doubtful that any team has ever arrived at the World Series with less cachet and name recognition than the Rockies.

I'll see your 2007 Rockies (a team that likely contains both the NL MVP and the NL Rookie of the Year, despite both of them lacking a name), and raise you the 2003 Marlins. Granted, they have a lot of players who are famous now, but we're talking about when they arrived at the World Series. And at that time, other than Ivan Rodriguez and ROY Dontrelle Willis, it was 23 guys who weren't given names at birth (some people on the team made up names mid-season, in case you were wondering how they communicated with each other, or why there was a player on this team listed under the alias "Tim Spooneybarger").

Most of the team’s players couldn’t be more anonymous if they were in a witness protection program.

Ah ok, thanks for writing this sentence. I really didn't know where you were going with this before now, especially because the title and first two sentences did not have the same essential meaning as this one.

And it’s not like many fans are bothering to get acquainted. Those TV ratings for their NLCS romp over the equally unknown Arizona Diamondbacks?

Hockeyesque, folks. Hockeyesque.

Who are these guys?

Get to the point, please. That's 4 statements, 2 rhetorical questions, 2 fragments, and one subtitle saying the exact same fucking thing. Maybe if you watched baseball before (minus Yankee games, and I'm still not sure if you even watch those), these players wouldn't be so foreign. You see, that's the important thing about being an "analyst". You learn about the entire league of teams so that if one of the lesser-known ones makes it to the World Series, you have more important and interesting things to say than, "BREAKING NEWS: World Series Team Not As Famous As Country Initially Hoped".

Brad Hawpe? Is that a right fielder or a typo?

Typo. Definitely a typo. (Side note: typo of spelling what word, exactly? Hawke, I guess?)

Tulowitzki — that’s a tropical disease, right?

Yep, death tolls from Tulowitzki virus are reaching the thousands in Hawaii.

Josh Fogg? Is he any relation to Phileas?

No, actually, but we're still trying to figrue out if he's the distant cousin of Kirk Fogg, the host of the ever-popular kids' game show "Legends of the Hidden Temple"

Then there’s Yorvit Torrealba. I know Torrealba — that’s a resort in the Yucatan, or maybe Majorca, right? But Yorvit? Sounds like one of those designer Scandinavian vodkas that comes in a frosted bottle and costs $12 a shot. Even their manager, Clint Hurdle, is named after a piece of track equipment.

Yadda yadda yadda, we get the point. This is so stupid, and can be done to the players on any Major League Baseball team.

It is a shame, because the Rockies are on an amazing winning streak, a roll like nothing baseball has ever seen. And that’s part of their problem: until the last couple of weeks of the season, they weren’t even in the playoff picture.

If I'm reading this right, Celizic thinks that the Rockies aren't getting any attention becuase they've been on a miraculous comeback run. Makes sense to me!

By the time they went on their almighty tear down the stretch, winning 13 of their last 14 games to force a playoff for the NL wild card with the Padres, sports fans around the country had already moved on to football.

What? Football happens every year. Why is this specific to the Rockies?

Besides, it was all taking place in the NL West, the games starting too late and the division too weak to make more than a ripple in the dreaded East Coast media.

Division too weak!?!??!???! The division with the highest winning percentage in the NL and 4/5 teams finishing the season over .500 is too weak???? Really?

They won the playoff and then seven straight playoff games, removing any sense of drama and competition from the NL playoffs, shrinking their audience even more.

Those IDIOTS!

They arrived too late and too quickly to pay grasp what they were doing

There is definitely something wrong with the 2nd half of this sentence.

especially since for nearly six months before the middle of September, there wasn’t any reason for the country to pay attention to them. Their line-up was made up of kids — a gang of first- and second-year players too new to the business to know that what they hoped to do is impossible.

Welcome back to www.doesnoresearch.hatspot.com

We'll throw out the fact that this last sentence doesn't make any sense. Rather, we're going to count the number of seasons that players in the Rockies' starting lineup have played in the major leagues, removing seasons in which they've played less than 50 games. Sound good?

Taveras - 3 (WS 2005, shoulda known that one, Mikey)
Matsui - 4
Holliday - 4
Helton - 10, a relative dinosaur
Atkins - 3
Hawpe - 3
Tulowitzki - 1 (HE GOT ONE RIGHT!!!!!)
Joetorrejessicaalba - 6 (dude's been bummin around the league since like 2001)

If these kids, who are so fresh and enthusiastic and devoid of braggadocio and bluster, were busting into the game in Boston or New York, they’d have been on the cover of Sports Illustrated by the All-Star break.

Unlikely, seeing as how they were 44-44 at the All-Star break. If they were in Boston or New York, people would be doing nothing at the All-Star break but bitch about how bad they are.

We’d have hailed them as the new faces of a game, the standard-bearers for a new generation of stars who are taking over the game.

Intelligent baseball minds have already done that. Ignoramuses like yourself are still trying to find out how you can suck Joba Chamberlain's proverbial dick.

This year, Troy Tulowitzki, Matt Holliday, Brad Hawpe, Josh Fogg and company were learning their trade and putting up their big numbers in Denver, where the game of choice is football.

It's time to play dan-bob's favorite game! One of these is not like the others.....

Josh Fogg, 2007: 4.90 ERA, 1.46 WHIP.

Hmmmm...well I guess these numbers are technically sort of "big".

And it’s not as if the Colorado franchise is wrapped in a mantle of heroic history and legend. It’s known for its mile-high home park, which is to ERAs what Denny’s Grand Slam breakfasts are to cholesterol levels. It’s not known for its great accomplishments in the regular season, much less the playoffs.

Gotta love it....Hatguy continues to put allusions to unhealthy foods in his columns.

The Rockies have one player with a national reputation — Todd Helton. He’s also the team’s only player making more than the $4.4 million that Holliday, the National League batting champion and the best outfielder most fans don’t know much about, pulls down.

Holliday, to the casually-informed fan, has more of a reputation than Helton. And he still hasn't touched home plate!

The team payroll is around $54 million — one of the bottom five in the game, and if you take away Helton’s $16 million, the other 24 guys are making a combined $38 million, which isn’t enough to pay the left side of the Yankee’s infield.

That’s another reason we don’t know much about them — their salaries. We live in a society that equates income with importance — what other explanation is there for the national obsession with Donald Trump and Britney Spears?

That's just a weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee bit of oversimplification there, Mikey. Is Prince Fielder really less "important" than Jason Kendall because Kendall makes more money?

The average salary in major league baseball this year is $2.7 million. The Rockies have at least 15 players making less than that, 11 players making under a million, and 10 — including starting outfielders Hawpe and Willie Taveras and starting infielders Tulowitzki and Garrett Atkins — making $400,000 or less. That’s not even enough to buy a house in one of Denver’s pricier suburbs.

"Willy". And where is this going?

None of that should diminish what they’ve accomplished or lessen the luster of the terrific crop of kids the team’s management has assembled. In an ideal world, which is one in which people are celebrated for the accomplishments and not their bank accounts, their presence in the playoffs would swell the national television audience instead of shrinking it.

If this is true, then you, Mike Celizic, are one of the chief reasons why we do not have an ideal world.

Go ahead and ignore them if you can’t be bothered to get to know who they are. Then sneer at the ratings they bring to the World Series, if that’s how you get your jollies.

I've made it clear several times that YOU haven't bothered to get to know who they are. And I'm reasonably sure that you think Josh Fogg is the only pitcher on the team. Nice choice, by the way. Fogg. I hear he's the best one!

But don’t turn around and whine about how the game has been ruined by all the spoiled-brat players who are making more money than third-world countries. And don’t ask what happened to innocent kids who play the game for the sheer joy of it.

Ummmm...those "spoiled-brats" were once "innocent kids". Did A-Rod make $20M his first few seasons? A lot of these Rockies players are very good, and will make a lot of money, and will be (mostly unjustly) thrown into the "spoiled-brat" category. Are these Rockies so innocent that they're going to say when they're 30, "No Mister GM, I want to play for less money than I'm worth in the market, because I'm innocent"?

They’re right in front of you. Playing in the World Series. Turn on the television and enjoy the show.

Scene: Celizic's living room, Game 1 of the 2007 World Series.

Celizic: (turns on TV) "Who the fuck is Francis?"

Isn't that some sort of species of fruit fly indigenous to Uruguay?

Heyman knows best...

I don't read John Heyman's "Daily Scoop" on si.com that often, and I wish I had decided to skip it today. He squeezed out this turd of an article that basically says, "I don't like Curt Schilling because he talks too much"

After years and years of trying to figure out what makes that fascinating, hard-throwing blowhard Curt Schilling tick, I think I am finally on to something.

He's nuts.

OK, maybe he's not insane in any clinical way. But insane nonetheless. Insane in his own way. There can be no other good explanation as to why he would say aloud that he might like to join the Devil Rays next year as a free agent. The D-Rays. Think about that. No two-time World Series champ and borderline Hall of Famer with a massive ego and thirst for the spotlight willingly signs up to pitch his last season in Tropicana obscurity.

From the Sportswriter's bible, Book of "I Know What's best for you," chapter 12, verse 26-28: "If thouest are an aging great player, thou shall only play for the team with the best chance to winnith." Heyman may have had a point about Schilling being insane here if Schilling says he expects the D-Rays to win it all (or even get to the playoffs) in the next season or two. Luckily Heyman has a quote from Schilling to clear this up.

"It's one of those situations you'd certainly have to look at,'' Schilling said on his weekly radio spot on Boston radio station WEEI. "Knowing that I'm probably going to spend one more year playing, if circumstances happen and things happen and they made some moves that were positive, I'd love nothing more than to finish my career working on a pitching staff where I know that there are young guys that are going to be positively impacted by me being around [after] I was gone. I enjoy that. I love working and talking and being around young pitchers."

Oh, so Schilling would want to play for the D-Rays because he wants to be around young players in a developing franchise? Fuck him, he should be playing for the Yankees, because I'm John Heyman, God of Sportswriting.

Schilling, who is 7-5 with a 4.25 ERA, went on to speak fondly of having a home in the area at one time, as reported in the Boston Globe.

"I love Tampa, I love the area, I love everything about it," he said. "I loved living down there."

So Schilling wants to play in Tampa because

1) He likes Tampa
2) He wants to be around young players

Nowhere in your justification do you provide any evidence that Schilling wants a sweet new deal out of the Red Sox.

Putting aside the fact that Tampa Bay is trying to build for the future and has virtually no chance to win next year (it's never won more than 70 games), and would have no good reason to pursue an attention-starved 40-year-old pitcher, it makes no sense for Schilling to say such a thing from a business standpoint. As a negotiating ploy, it is nothing short of idiotic.

I'll bet Schilling could play for Tampa if he was willing to take a pay cut. Once again, nowhere here does he say anything about getting $13 million dollars out of the Rays, so right now you are just making shit up.

Of course there is one other possibility, and that is Schilling is simply the world's worst agent. Schilling, along with Gary Sheffield and Jamie Moyer, are a few of the very rare major leaguers who represent themselves. That's never a good idea, though Moyer manages to do it without making a spectacle of himself.

Let's look at this closer. If Schilling was such a terrible agent, as you say he is, how did he acquire a contract worth $13 million per year from the Red Sox? Let's look at someone who is very similar to Schilling: John Smoltz. They have an identical career ERA+ (126) as well as nearly identical numbers of Games Started, innings pitched and strikeouts. And to boot, Schilling is two years older. From 2004-2006, the three years guaranteed from the Sox, Schilling averaged $13 million per year, and Smoltz averaged $10.5 million. The going rate for an agent's take in the MLB is at least %5 (plus a waaaaay bigger percentage of endorsement deals), so that brings Smoltz down to under $10 million per year. Even if the Red Sox didn't have to option the fourth year of Schilling's deal, between 2004-07 Schilling would have made a cool $39 million only pitching three years. Smoltz, on the other hand, would have made under $40 million for pitching all 4 seasons. Such. A. terrible. agent. Worst Ever, in fact. What a crazy idiot.

Presumably, the reason players represent themselves is either because they are cheap, or because they think they know better. In Schilling's case, of course, it has to be because he thinks he knows better. Because he thinks he knows everything.

Presumably, idiot writers like John Heyman write stupid shit like this because they are clinically brain dead, or because they like to play armchair psychologist. In Heyman's case, he thinks he knows what's best for a player, knowing next to nothing about what the player actually wants.

After being ably represented for years by competent and accomplished agents Dennis Gilbert and Jeff Borris, Schilling decided to do it himself in recent years, and, ever since, all heck has broken loose. For his first deal with Boston, to get four years, Schilling put himself in position of having to win the World Series -- not a great bet since Boston hadn't won for 85 straight years. Yet, his pitching is a lot better than his agenting, and he helped them do just that, which guaranteed the 2007 season at $13 million, plus incentives. That brings us to today.

Yeah, all heck has broken loose. Let's say Schilling only signed a three year deal, no incentive extra year, worth a guaranteed $13 million per year. As a then 37 year old pitcher, that's a pretty darn good contract by itself. I'm not sure how the "World Series incentive" clause was written, but it sure seems like it worked out pretty well for all parties. Schilling got an extra year, 365 extra days, for $13 million; he likely couldn't have been able to pull that kind of dough for 4 years from any other team, even with an agent.

Just because you can throw a fastball and splitter at world-class proficiency -- not to mention become a World Series hero in two cities -- that doesn't make you an agent.

John, Just because you can bang your keyboard to spit out letters and hyphens and periods and shit -- that doesn't make you a good writer. It's also too bad Microsoft Word doesn't have a "This Sentence Reads like Shit" tool

Or even particularly sane.

So he's insane because he can negotiate a pretty true to market value contract without an agent? Or because he doesn't want to pitch for the team you want him to?

Regarding Schilling's negotiating skills, one general manager said yesterday, "He apparently didn't go to Agent's University.''

According to Internet blogger eriz, "John Heyman apparently didn't go to Write a Cohesive Argument University."

I could do this all day.

Not only has Schilling put the D-Rays into play, but worse, he's taken the Yankees out of the mix, saying they are the one team he would never, ever play for. And, of course, as everyone knows, the Yankees are the one team that could make the Red Sox sweat.

MAYBE HE SAID THAT BECAUSE HE DOESN'T WANT TO PLAY FOR THE YANKEES. DID YOU FOR A SPLIT SECOND CONSIDER THAT? GODDAMMIT, YOU FUCKING RETARD SPORTSWRITERS CONSTANTLY HEAP TONS OF SHIT ON GUYS LIKE JOHNNY DAMON FOR "BETRAYING" THEIR TEAMS AND FANS. AND THEN SCHILLING SAYS HE DOESN'T WANT TO PLAY FOR THE YANKEES ON HIS BOSTON BASED RADIO PROGRAM, AND YOU THINK HE'S RUINING HIS CHANCES TO GET A GIANT CONTRACT OUT OF THE RED SOX, EVEN THOUGH YOU'VE PROVIDED NOT ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS WHAT HE'S TRYING TO DO.

Instead of making Red Sox people sweat, Schilling made them laugh. These are the dog days of the pennant race, and even the executives of baseball's best team need a tension breaker at this time of the year. And this was theirs.

When Red Sox higher-ups finally stopped cackling at Schilling's latest D-Ray claim, I did get one of them to come to the phone. Red Sox GM Theo Epstein would only say that "out of respect to the player concerned,'' he wasn't going to talk about this. Epstein also said, "Our consideration now is to win the World Series.''

Yeah that quote is totally not the generic response journalists get from team management when they get asked about signing and trade rumors. Theo Epstein was totally like *wink wink* "Curt's a dumbass. Hahahahahahah." You could totally tell from that comment.

That makes sense. While Schilling dreams of the D-Rays, Red Sox people are thinking of October glory.

While Schilling makes a mess of this, Boston people play it perfectly. In reality, Schilling should be the one with bargaining strength here. If he were half as smart as he thinks he is, he should know he already has the advantage. Through the sheer luck of good timing, he is one of the better free-agent pitchers -- if not the best pitcher -- out there in the world's worst free-agent pitching class.

But instead of understanding that silence is golden, Schilling has done what he does incessantly, which is to talk. Schilling already has come down from a two-year request to one (at least he has on the airwaves).

Now we get around to the actual reason you wrote this article. You don't like listening to Schilling talk. Well, I don't like reading your work. So next time you sign on to a new sports publication, I'll write a post about your contract negotiations with CBS Sportsline using only hearsay and shit I make up. And then I'll finish the piece up by saying "plus he's a fucking atrocious writer."

Duurrrrrr...

Today's ESPN.com Diamond Daily takes the stupidity to a new level.

When the Red Sox traded for Eric Gagne in the last possible moments before the trade deadline, no one thought the results would be as dreadful as they have been through the first half of August. For the second straight appearance, Gagne frittered away an eighth-inning advantage, and Boston's ever-dwindling lead in the AL East fell by another game on Sunday.

I'm sure the fact that Boston is losing their AL East lead has nothing whatsoever to do with the Yankees, who have won 23 out of 31 games since the all star break. And while we're at it, why don't we take an itty, bitty, miniscule sample size for Gagne and make it sound like he's atrotious?

The Boston bullpen, so good in the early part of the season, has struggled these past two weeks with Gagne. Those who wondered why the Red Sox would mess with a good thing by adding Gagne --

Who is one of the best relievers in the Majors

a closer with little to no experience in the set-up role

Hahahahahahahahaha. So he can handle the "high stress, super clutch" requirements of a closer, but he cannot handle the 7th or 8th innings?

-- are looking pretty smart right about now.

No they are not. They are looking just as stupid as they did before. And maybe a little less stupid than Diamond Daily writer Mark Simon

So are the Yankees, who have a new, highly capable set-up man in rookie Joba Chamberlain and a closer who has been mistake-free (with no blown saves) for more than a month in Mariano Rivera.

While we're on the topic of small samples size, this takes the cake. Chamberlain is pitching shutout baseball, with a season ERA of 0.00. WOW, how about that? You can't score on him I guess. What's that you say? He's only pitched 4 innings this season? Oh. And Rivera? He's had 10 appearances, and 11.1 innings of work in the last month. Yep that's some reallly good data there.

The momentum in the AL East race has shifted. For the Red Sox to get back on track, they need Gagne to live up to the French translation of his name ("to win")in more ways than one.

I have one thing to say to Mark Simon: "Firmez ta Bouche." That's French for shut your mouth.

puff piece writing at its finest

and about a guy who is extremely difficult to "puff", no less. yes that's right. cbssportsline.com's dennis dodd want you to know what a cool guy nick saban is.

i refuse to analyze the entire article piece by piece, because i would spend so much time laughing at some of the ridiculous shit in here that i wouldn't finish the post until next week. instead, i'll offer you some highlights and if you think you'd like to read something really funny, just click on the link above and read the whole thing yourself.

Perfect fit to be with Tide? Saban can slog through the insanity

Cedric Burns knows Alabama coaches. Bear Bryant hired him 27 years ago as athletic relations coordinator. From Perkins to Shula, the humble Guy Friday has quietly observed the ebb and flow of the Tide over the years.

Until now. Today's the day he is about to blow the lid off of college football with an incredible revelation.

Sitting over a modest biscuit and hash brown breakfast Thursday morning at the Alabama football complex, Burns gushed.

"He is one of the most well-mannered people," Burns said. "You can tell he was raised well by his father and mother. He just fits this place."

that's right. let's get the puff piecing started early. alabama's own athletics relations coordinator says saban is a good guy. therefore, you, reader of dodd's article, should feel the same. i mean, would cedric burns lie to you? if i were a diehard miami dolphins fan (i know there aren't many, but there have to be SOME) i would have already punched my computer monitor at this point.

The subject of Cedric's praise pulls up shortly before 7 a.m., an untied tie draped around his neck. He enters the building. No one cringes. Paint doesn't peel. After a quick stop at his office, Nick Saban turns to Burns, his driver today, and a notebook-toting passenger and says, "You ready?"

Whoa, whoa, whoa. This can't be right. Well mannered? The man who "lied" about taking the job at Alabama, has a soul? The bully who made a player cry on the practice field at Miami is just "a country boy who grew up in West Virginia and pumped gas" from the time he was 10 years old?

so basically what dodd is saying with these rhetorical questions is that nick saban is a good guy, because he's nice to a guy who works for him. makes sense. everyone i personally know who is a liar and behaves unprofessionally is also rude and mean to every single person they interact with. it makes them easy to spot. the second i see someone treating someone else with respect, i instantly know that the guy (the first one) is a great all around person who probably pumped gas at a young age.

later-

The cloying adoration of the program that sh-- on Shula, freaked out Fran and Bible-thumped Mike Price out of town has found a man of steel it can't crack.

boy, 6 months or so into his tenure and after playing zero games, they still love this guy! i think we can definitively conclude that he's going to become the joe paterno of alabama and coach here until the day he dies. never before has a "big name" coach been wildly popular with his fan base under these circumstances!

now, let's really get to the good stuff (more anecdotes, please!)-

"He cares about what people think of him (and) it hurts him," said close friend Lenny Lemoine, a Lafayette, La., contractor. "He is a very passionate and compassionate person."

There are Dolphins staffers maybe gagging over that last quote. Reporters who hold him accountable for saying he wouldn't take the Alabama job.

"In no way was I trying to be dishonest," he said.

As if it matters. Saban got out of South Florida. 'Bama got its man.

read that last part again. and again. if you're like me, you can't possibly read it more than three times in a row without holding your head in your hands. are you kidding me? what kind of journalism is that? yes. "as if it matters." look, i don't mean to take things too far in the other direction and imply that saban is a horrible person who should be castrated and thrown in prison just because he broke a promise to his employer. but he's still a slimy, unlikable guy. i don't think that's very hard to agree with as long as you're not an alabama fan. and dodd wants readers nation wide to dismiss this near-fact with the phrase "as if it matters" and some vague anti-logic which basically says the ends justify the means. except that in this case, the ends aren't even indisputably "good". it's not like "sure, saban lied to and quit on the dolphins. but he did so to kick his heroin addiction." instead it's "sure, saban lied to and quit on the dolphins. but he did so in order to take another coaching job." what?

"The first question at every Red Elephant Club is, 'When are we going to win the national championship?'" Saban said, complaining only slightly.

If he stays long enough -- never a certainty -- and Alabama will have him, Saban will deliver because he already has.

write that down, college football fans. saban WILL win a championship at 'bama. how do we know?

Armed with NFL experience, residence in Bill Belichick's coaching tree and the 2003 national championship at LSU, Saban is the new Spurrier.

i know the two programs are very different, but let's just say spurrier isn't exactly threatening to win it all at south carolina anytime soon.

Both more or less flopped in the NFL. Both are back in the SEC. Like the Steve Spurrier of old, Saban is now the one hated everywhere in the conference, except where it counts. Sweet Home Alabama.

That was obvious this summer when, Saban said, an Alabama administrative assistant who used to work at LSU had her tires slashed. She was back in Baton Rouge for a wedding.

"I think we're very aware of the backlash," Saban said, "live it every day."

Saban could have his own ax ready to grind, but chooses not to.

he "could" have an ax to grind about what, exactly? about the fact that lsu fans hate him? as if that's not justified. as if saban is taking the fucking moral high ground by not "grinding his ax". puh. lease. that is pathetic.

ok, here's the puffiest part in this whole puff piece, are you ready?

Remember "coon-ass"? Saban was insensitive but the reporter who gave those off-the-record comments to a radio station was unprofessional.

wow. just.... wow. that's epic. that last sentence is so bold, and yet so insulting, to me as a reader that i'm not entirely sure how to process it. sure, saban may very well be a mild racist... but i think we should overlook it in light of the fact that the guy who reported those comments was being unprofessional. do-over for saban! do-over! what he said doesn't count.

Saban could have flushed the whole profession down the toilet.

i assume he means the profession of journalist who covers the alabama football team. yeah, i bet he could have totally done that. people wouldn't have been upset about that at all.

more puffing later on-

There are also workers near Saban's Lake Burton home in north Georgia who he slips an extra $20 for working on his boat. Back in T-town, there are kids who don't yet realize they are going to benefit from the $100,000 Saban donated to Alabama to start a first-generation scholarship program.

history has shown that all people who give money to other people are not slimy at all, and deserve to be gushed over by the media for doing so.

And for the record, it was after the Dolphins' final game that he decided to talk to Alabama.

somehow this makes his broken promise thing less bad. i'm not sure how... but somehow. and so on and so forth. god, i hate journalism like this. remember that tim tebow article i compalined about earlier this month? ah, SEC football... you gotta love it!