We Get It, Santana Makes the Mets Better

But that's no excuse for this rare puff piece by John Donovan.

Johan Santana's impending trade to the Mets will be, when and if it's consummated later this week with a contract extension, the rarest of baseball swaps, one that completely and immediately transforms a team and the balance of power in the league.

It's a huge upgrade, no question. Santana seems to hover around 10 wins above replacement per season. I tend to think you're exaggerating a little bit about the balance of power shifting, because the Mets were getting 4 wins out of Glavine and about 3.5 from Sosa/Pelfrey. Whichever slot in the rotation you're displacing with Santana, it's like a 6-7 win upgrade. Very significant, but not "team-transformingly" insane, especially considering we don't know how much Pedro Martinez will pitch. Anyway, nothing really offensive there. I just like hearing myself type.

Let's compare and contrast the Mets with and without Santana!

Let's face it: The Mets, without Santana, are just another NL East schlub.

Mets with Santana: Not a "schlub", for whatever that's worth.

They are a bunch of chuckers without an ace

Mets with Santana: A bunch of chuckers with an ace. Johan Santana does not make the other starters better. Chuckers before trade, chuckers after trade.

a collection of hitters who cease to hit at the most inopportune times

Mets with Santana: Supposedly a more clutch hitting team? Will Johan Santana's bat at the plate be fixing this problem, John? Because even the most moronic of Mariottis can understand that a new pitcher that throws once every five days has absofuckinglutely nothing to do with the timing of the hitters' base hits

all marched around by a sometimes stone-mugged manager who presided last year over one of the most embarrassing nosedives in baseball history.

Mets with Santana: Managed by a happy, animated, enthusiastic-mugged manager whose near-perfect in-game tactics are surpassed only by his ability to vomit sunshine. Make a note, Donovan, Santana does not make anyone else on the New York Mets better. Period.

Without Santana or someone a lot like him, the Mets are non-factors. And in New York, that's almost worse than being terrible.

That's a pretty bold claim, considering that it took one of the most monumental collapses in baseball history for them to lose the division last year. Now you're saying they weren't even a factor?

What general manager Omar Minaya has pulled off here, in this stunning series of fortunate events, is to make the Mets mean something again.

In that case, that's one thing that the Mets and that sentence do not have in common.

When Santana pressured the Twins to trade him before the start of spring training or not trade him at all -- Santana has full veto power over any trade -- new Minnesota GM Bill Smith was stuck. He went for the prospect-heavy package that the Mets offered; outfielder Carlos Gomez and pitchers Phil Humber, Deolis Guerra and Kevin Mulvey.

And the Mets, out of nowhere, are players again. Real players.

Give me a break, Donovan. Even you had to feel stupid tying that sentence. At least give me a story. Like, maybe that there was a sweet episode of The Wire on TV or something in the background, so your brain checked out and your fingers just kept going.

Reader Extra Participation Friday: Does It Get Any Better Than Something That Pretty Much Sucks?

First, a side note. You know how "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report," despite being obviously comedic in nature, are actually two of the best political/current events shows on TV? Well, I've accidentally (read: I am too lazy to find anything else) watched a fair amount of Winter X Games over the course of the past few days. And I'm seeing the exact same kind of "You wouldn't think they'd be this legitimately good!" phenomenon happening when it comes to broadcasting ability. Despite the fact that I really could give two shits about these events, I've noticed that the announcers have been superb throughout. They're informative, they're just funny enough, and they don't get in the way of each other or the visuals. Why can't we have that kind of announcing for, you know, the sports everyone actually cares about? I'm sitting here being entertained by Guy A and Guy B while watching dudes jump snowmobiles off enormous ramps. But when the World Series or the Super Bowl rolls around, you've got Tim McCarver and Phil Simms bending over backwards to find ways to ruin the broadcast. It ain't right, I tell ya.

SO ANYWAYS.

In this crazy mixed-up world there's one constant we can always rely on: if a movie was made between 1980 and 1994, Bill Simmons is going to love it.

Does it get any better than the first 30 minutes of "Sleeping With The Enemy?" You have Julia Roberts at her apex, living in one of the coolest summer houses in movie history, only she's married to a creepy rich guy with a mustache and severe OCD who puts on a sinister opera CD every time he's ready to have sex; says things like, "If I didn't know any better, I would think you're trying to provoke a quarrel with me"; gets upset if the bathroom towels aren't hanging at the same length; takes her sailing on stormy nights when she can't swim; and if that's not enough, regularly beats the crap out of her. What a great premise for a movie!

If you've seen this movie and actually agree with Bill, feel free to let me know with a comment. I won't be holding my breath. And if you're lucky enough to have not seen this movie, don't. I'm not going to say why or under what circumstances, but I've sat through it, and it's a piece of garbage. Especially the first 30 minutes. If Bill's gripping description right there doesn't convince you, watch the first two and a half minutes of this video. Really? Boy, I don't know- does it seem like anything could get any better than that? A tall order, but I've got some nominations. How about Vertical Limit? That movie eats balls, and I'd still rather watch it again over Sleeping With the Enemy. Take a look at Sleeping- you've got a 35 year old antagonist wearing an 80 year old's pants and a mustache that's probably attached with a piece of double sided tape. You've also got gripping dialog such as "We all forget things. That's what reminding is for." And you've got Julia Roberts stepping way outside her comfort zone to play a character who is simultaneously both tough and womanly. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. It's corny, it's poorly written, and it couldn't be much less interesting.

Anyways, I'm rambling, because I love rambling about things that suck. (Why else would this blog exist?) So here's the Reader Extra Participation Friday assignment. Take your pick- either

a) List any shitty movie you can think of that is better than the first 30 minutes of Sleeping With the Enemy. I'm going with

-Vertical Limit
-Mission Impossible 2
-Spiderman 3
-Troy
-Vertical Limit
-The Wicker Man
-Batman and Robin

And so on and so forth. Or,

b) Come up with something else that's completely unremarkable and rhetorically ask if it gets any better than that. Such as

-Raisins
-"The Family Circus"
-Paperclips
-Shovels
-Lenny Kravitz
-Water
-Knock-knock jokes

OK, you've got options. Everyone jump right in. Don't be shy. Blanco was last week's winner, and JD took home the trophy* two weeks ago. Who else wants their 15 minutes of fame?

*Note- trophy may not actually exist.

Is This Supposed To Be Tongue-In-Cheek? Or Does He Actually Believe What He's Writing?

Wallace Matthews, please stop. You're torturing us. The fact that I had to ask those two rhetorical questions in the title of the post speaks volumes about your ability as a journalist.

(Note: Due to the fact that he's on his way to NYC, this is probably the first of many Johan Santana-related articles we'll be covering here over the course of the next few months. Everyone settle in. I expect Mike Celizic to weigh in eventually, at which point PNoles will probably break down sobbing and acidentally spill an almost full bottle of Yoo-Hoo all over his keyboard. If he disappears for a few days, that's probably why.)

You're welcome, Omar. You, too, Jeff.

It could be mere coincidence that five days after I tore you guys a new dugout for being as active in the offseason as David Wells after Thanksgiving dinner, you go out and make the one deal that turns the Mets into a bona fide World Series contender. But I'd rather think not. I would like to take a little credit for this, too.

I bet you would. First, though, you should also take credit for somehow comparing a dugout to an asshole. I get that they're both orifices, but that's still awful. I would have gone with "I tore you guys a new Jerramy Stevens" or maybe "a new Gary Sheffield." Second, you should also take credit for putting together an astonishly clunky sentence to begin the first full paragraph. Third, you should take credit for being the only person currently living outside of the British Isles to go by the first name "Wallace." Good job. I think going by "Wally" would actually be a step down in terms goofiness. I'd even recommend "Wally the Walrus" over "Wallace." Finally, a David Wells joke? Really? Is it still 2004 in New York?

Five days ago, I ripped you for doing nothing this winter to improve a team that just performed the most graceless belly flop since Greg Louganis hit his head on a diving board at the 1988 Olympics.

Too soon! TOO SOON! Also, that's already two awkward sports analogies in the span of five sentences. Let's just cool things down a little bit in that department, OK? Sometimes less is more. You're stretching that device like Michelle Kwan warming up for her short program!

No?

Actually, you did do something. You raised ticket prices. At the time that column was written, it was absolutely, positively, 100 percent correct and I for one couldn't have been happier about having written it.

You? Pleased with yourself for something your brain vomited onto your laptop? Color me flabbergasted.

So now, you go out and get Johan Santana for the equivalent of a rosin bag, a fungo bat and a pine tar rag.

Yes, it would seem the Mets got an okay deal. A deal comparable to one involving several pieces of baseball equipment? Probably not. I do have to admit, however, that it's a fantastic deal in comparison to what the Orioles almost got for Erik Bedard and did get for Miguel Tejada. Hey Ed Wade and Bill Bavasi, I hear the son of the deposed King of Nigeria is looking for someone to help him get a bunch of money into an American bank account. Maybe you should help him out. Still-

You steal him from the Yankees and Red Sox, both of whom had far better offers on the table back in December at the winter meetings.

That's up for debate. I know the Yankees were offering Phil Hughes ZOMG and the Red Sox were offering surefire Hall of Famer and Dreamboat Jacoby Ellsbury. I know. Prospects from Boston and New York are just so much more prospect-y and exciting than other prospects. Why else would we know their names? But there are at least a handful of baseball minds out there who really weren't that impressed with what the AL East juggernauts were offering. Their analysis is basically that those two teams were offering "sure but unspectacular thing" guys while the Mets offer contains "boom or bust" type guys would could disappear or become stars.

You give up four guys nobody will cry about losing. Not a Kazmir in the bunch.

While none of the guys might have the blue chip pedigree of a Kazmir, I love that the tone of the conclusion is there's no way any of them will amount to anything. Wallace Matthews in response to that famous Victor Zambrano trade: "The Mets gave up guys nobody will cry about losing. Not a Kevin Tapani or Rick Aguilera in the bunch." (For those unfamiliar with the trade I'm referencing, it was a disaster for the Mets. It was with the Twins, for Frank Viola, in 1989.)

Just days before Groundhog Day, you upstage Punxsutawney Phil, pop out of your hole, don't see your shadow and promise us an early spring.

This is an even worse sentence than the one I pointed out in the first full paragraph up. Also- I don't think big baseball fans and people who actually care about Punxsutawney Phil overlap very much. Even those who do care about both are probably not considering Phil "upstaged" at this point. That's like saying UConn's surprise victory over Indiana last Saturday upstaged Monday's State of the Union address.

And yes, I know I'm taking everything Wallace says hyperliterally. That's what we do here. Go look through the archives if you don't believe me. Go ahead. I can wait.

What are you trying to do, make me look bad?

You do a great job of that all by yourself.

I prefer to think you are actually trying to make me look good. Like you took my advice or something. Or at least got good and mad about being called out for your futility this winter. You see, I like to think of myself not as a critic, but a motivator, a kind of personal trainer for sluggish general managers and franchise owners. I'm even willing to try to get their rich, pampered sons off the couch and into the action.

This is just one of the sections that inspired the title of this post. He sort of seems to think he was a part of this, doesn't he? Kind of like when a fan thinks that wearing a certain t-shirt when watching their team's games helps that team win. Or when the leader of a cult thinks that killing off his whole sect of followers guarantees him eternal happiness in the afterlife. Well, not really. I just wanted to compare Matthews to a creepy murderer.

For once, it seems to have worked. Back in October, I wrote that you should part ways with Jose Reyes,

For anyone who needed proof that Wallace Matthews is close to braindead: there you go.

who showed more than a little woof-woof last year as the Mets' season careened down the tubes.

What the fuck does "show[ing]... a woof-woof" mean? Also, if that was your criterion for who the Mets should jettison this offseason, they would have ditched pretty much everyone from 2007 except for David Wright. And hell, why not consider him guilty by association? Every player who ever stinks over the course of 17 games should be immediately cut. Choke artists.

I thought you should trade him for Santana

Don't tease Twins fans like that. Things are pretty tough for them right now.

and then, to fill that newly dug hole at shortstop, throw the rest of the money you will be raking in from the new ballpark, new naming rights and the ticket prices at Alex Rodriguez.

Excuse me... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... OK, I'm cool. First, Rodriguez is not a SS anymore. He's put on too much weight to have the kind of range necessary for the position. Second, what the fuck makes you think that was even a possibility? It's up for debate whether Rodriguez came back to the Yankees because they were the only ones who offered him the money he wanted, or because he genuinely wanted to play for the team. Still, I just love how simple Matthews makes this "solution" sound.

Here's how he would fix the Miami Heat:

1) Trade Dwyane Wade for a player who is older, more expensive, and can only play once every five games. Hmmmmm, is Shaq available? Wait, what?
2) Open new arena; use revenue to sign Gilbert Arenas, Baron Davis, Elton Brand, and Shawn Marion when they become free agents this summer
3) Put Jason Williams and Ricky Davis in rocket ship; launch into deep space

Just like that!

It was a bold plan, a daring move, the kind of thing that transforms teams and either sends their GMs to Cooperstown or the want ads.

Steve Phillips joke goes here. Also, it was a plan pulled out of the ass of a terrible journalist who doesn't seem to know much about baseball. So please value it accordingly.

For some strange reason, you rejected that game plan. Up until yesterday, I thought you guys were about as smart as a sack of baseballs for doing so.

Maybe you meant "smart as Vince Young, according to the Wonderlic test." Sports analogy LOLZ

But you did better than I ever could have and better than I thought you were capable of.

Let me break that down. If something is a better idea than his best idea... and also a better idea than what he thinks their best idea would be... yep. If both those clauses are true, then Matthews considers it a possibility that he is smarter than the Mets front office. It's a dark, dark day for baseball journalism.

Since I am taking credit for spurring you to do this, I can honestly say I am proud of you. (By the way, I may have to start the season on the DL. Three paragraphs up, I think I blew out a rotator cuff from patting myself on the back.)

This makes the self-congratulatory tone of the piece seem like more of a joke, but I'm not 100% convinced yet. This is the kind of thing Bill Simmons would say, while really still wanting to point out how fantastically smart he is.

But I must admit, not even I am megalomaniac enough to believe I did this all by myself. I had plenty of help from the Yankees, who in an uncharacteristic spasm of logic and restraint, decided to resist the urge to throw away their future, and a large chunk of Hank and Hal's inheritance, in yet another attempt to buy themselves the American League East.

So that's what the Yankees would have been doing were they to trade for Santana. I see. And yet, the Mets have done no harm whatsoever to their future. There's no way any of those four guys they traded will ever be good at baseball, ever. I heard two of them aren't actually even ballplayers- they apparently sell mattresses for a living. And that $120 million extension the Mets are about to hand over to Santana? Well, it's not actually for money. They'll be paying him with a combination of bottlecaps, socks, and pinecones. So what the Mets just did is totally different than what the Yankees were thinking about doing.

I must also share credit with the Red Sox, who would be damned before they'd allow the Yankees to grab the fiscal high road for themselves.

Might as well also share this same credit with every person in the world, since 99.999999999% of them are exactly as responsible for this trade as you are.

But most of all, I must credit the Minnesota Twins, who overplayed their hand beautifully. They blew a chance to add Phil Hughes and Melky Cabrera from the Yankees

Hughes- Could be excellent one day. Already good enough to start in the bigs, but not necessarily an A+ future "ace" kind of guy. More of a #2 or good #3 guy.
Cabrera- Predominantly a defensive player. Not that that's a bad thing since he plays CF, but still, he's not some kind of dynamic 5 tool guy. Witness his .327 OBP in 2007.

So yeah, that's a decent package. Obviously substantially better than what the Twins ended up getting? No. You can't fault Minnesota for wanting to hold out for something better, given the Yankees' recent propensity to renege on promises they publicly make. There was no way they would pursue Randy Johnson. There was no way they'd let Buffet-Rod come back if he opted out. What were the odds they wouldn't sweeten this deal?

or get either Jon Lester or Jacoby Ellsbury from the Red Sox.

Lester- Similar to Hughes, maybe a small step down. Good, fine, Major League read, but has a relatively low ceiling.
Ellsbury- I've known this guy existed for about 6 months, and I'm already sick and fucking tired of hearing about him. Hey, does anyone know if he had a couple good games in the playoffs last fall? I missed out on coverage of that. In any case, a decent prospect. Should hit better than Cabrera eventually, but not a "can't-miss" guy just yet.

Same story as with what the Yankees offered. Is it a good deal? Sure. Is it a great, "holy shit how can you turn that down" deal? Not really. Compared to what Boston gave up for Josh Beckett and Mike Lowell (considered a salary dump at the time), it's a joke.

Either of those deals would have been better than Carlos Gomez and Phil Humber, but that's what you get from being indecisive, greedy, or both.

Way to be greedy, baseball executive. Since when has greed been frequently rewarded in your industry?

Gomez looked like a nice little player but I, for one, will not miss Humber since I was never going to get used to that silent H at the beginning of his last name.

Sounds something a French guy would do, doesn't it? Have a silent H at the front of his name? Fucking French. Pussies. WOO! U-S-A! U-S-A!

The truth is, as the rest of the field fell away, this guy pretty much fell into your lap. Well, good for you.

Don't forget all the details, Wallace. They also only signed him because you encouraged them to do so.

There's something to be said for being in the right place at the right time, which is something that hasn't happened to the Mets in quite a while.

Signing Carlos Beltran? Signing Pedro Martinez? Getting John Maine from the Orioles for the Benson family? Watching Oliver Perez rejuvenate his career, after getting him from the Pirates for Xavier "Prototypical 4th Outfielder" Nady? Getting Carlos Delgado (for one good season, anyways) from the Marlins for Mike "You Mean I Don't Have To Swing At Each And Every Pitch?" Jacobs? Getting Mike Piazza in his prime for Preston "Ow My Leg" Wilson? Any of these ring a bell? Sure, they've made some huge mistakes too. But it's not like we're talking about the Oakland Raiders or Atlanta Hawks here when it comes to personnel decisions.

Maybe it was just about time for something to go right in Flushing for a change.

Yeah, you poor tortured fans. It's so hard having one of the game's top payrolls and tons of media attention, isn't it? Maybe if you guys hadn't choked on applesauce in the 2006 NLCS and then choked on even smoother applesauce in September 2007, things wouldn't seem so bleak. But don't act like you're always having trouble acquiring good players. Anyone who knows anything about baseball understands that's not the case.

Or maybe it was a case of finally realizing that what you thought was hateful criticism was actually tough love.

Tough love, huh? How parental of you.

If Wallace Matthews was my father, I would change my last name, run away from home, and spend the rest of my days working on those Alaskan crab boats from "The Deadliest Catch." Think about it- the hull of a ship is like one huge basement!

Well done, boys. And remember: If you need any more help, I'm here for you.

Great. If you want to give any more advice, the Mets will be at their headquarters in New York. Not needing your help.

[Thanks to reader Charles for the tip. Can I call you Chas? Chas is a great name. Much better than Wallace.]

Excuse Me While I Cover Like Six Subjects In One Post

My parents are getting their hardwood floors redone. They told me the house was going to be filled with toxic fumes for the next few days as a result and that I needed to leave the basement and get out of the house until Thursday. Well, fuck that, I told them. (I didn't actually say "fuck that," it was more like "Nooooooooo, I don't wanna") I'm 23 years old- they can't tell me what to do. Plus I'm terrified of the sun. Have you ever seen how bright that thing is? My Ecksteinian complexion doesn't like light rays of any kind, unless they're coming off a computer that's showing something related to WARP, VORP, or at least EqA.

Unfortunately though, I think they were right about the fumes. I'm feeling kind of nauseous. These Nutter Butters taste funny. My head is spinning; I feel like Rex Grossman on a Saturday night in December. It's really hard to focus on any one topic for more than a couple minutes (read: I am lazy and didn't find anything big to pick apart tonight), so I'm going to do a few short blurbs on a handful of different articles instead. If you're not cool with that idea, well, come down to my basement and stop me. I dare you. It smells like gas mixed with burnt plastic in here.

------------------------------------------------------

First up, Dennis Dodd gets all hot and bothered about texting an athlete. omg ur so good @ ftbll r u on myspace? ;-)

The hype is building for the nation's No. 1 recruit.

Terrelle Pryor told me Friday that he is not visiting Oregon just yet. There was a report out there that the Jeannette, Pa., High quarterback might take a trip out to Eugene this weekend. Oregon offensive coordinator Chip Kelly has been doggedly pursuing him to run Oregon's spread option.

Pryor didn't exactly "tell" me he wasn't visiting Oregon. We exchanged text messages. It struck me that I've got better access to the kid than any recruiter, because of restrictive NCAA rules.

Easy there, Peter King. It's great that you enjoy your job and its perks. But most readers are probably not nearly as impressed with the fact that you have some dude's cell number as you think. Is Pryor even 18 yet? With they way they're tightening up pederast laws these days, this might not even be legal.

-------------------------------------------------------

As we all know, along with the hype about the upcoming "Big Game" this Sunday comes additional hype about those famous commercials that will debut during its numerous breaks in action. Let me just propose a few rules regarding them.

1) Talking animals are almost never funny.

2) Talking babies are never funny.

3) Carlos Mencia is never funny, ever, under any circumstances.

4) If you're throwing a party and one of your guests makes a joke about how "[They] only watch the game to see the commercials, LOL, look how original [they] [are]!" it's OK to make them leave. If you're not hosting the party but overhear such a joke at someone else's, it should be reported to the host or hostess.

Please keep these in mind both next weekend and beyond as some of the ads make their way into regular rotation. If you disagree with any of them, you are unfunny. Sorry. Please keep your mouth shut if you and I ever end up watching TV together for some reason.

---------------------------------------------------------

This isn't bad journalism, but is definitely an insane topic. Did this really need to be written? Are there actually people out there stupid enough to think that even the best NCAA team could get within 40 points of the worst NBA team? If so, I hope they aren't reproducing. The world of sports has enough idiots in it already.

Here's a trivia question: which of the following pairs of leagues have the smallest talent gap between them?

A: NCAA Football and the NFL
B: NCAA Basketball and the NBA
C: MLS and the EPL/La Liga/Serie A
D: The And1 All-Stars and the NBA (I've heard some dumbass kid try to argue this one before)
E: None of them are anywhere close to close. You're out of your flipping gourd if you think otherwise, or want to break things down far enough to answer the question. That's like trying to figure out whether the gap between the Beatles and Good Charlotte is bigger or smaller than the gap between Guns N' Roses and Buckcherry.

The answer is E.

---------------------------------------------------------

CNNSI's Cliff Corcoran weighs in on possible destinations for Barry Bonds this upcoming season. It's not a horrible article top to bottom, but certainly has its patches of garbage. He analyzes the chances of all 30 teams in the article.

Rockies: The holier-than-though Rockies would likely object to adding Bonds on moral (and financial) grounds, but in the most competitive division in baseball, every extra win counts, and Bonds would greatly improve their road performance.

"Hmmm, I don't know much about the Rockies... meh, I'll just say they wouldn't sign Bonds because they're a bunch of religious douchebags!" Christ (no pun intended). That USA Today story from 2005 about the Rockies and their love for the baby Jesus might be the most unintentionally damaging piece of journalism ever written about a team. At the time I'm sure the team appreciated the press and the article was obviously not intended to be malicious. Two and a half years later, however, it's become the fallback joke and horribly awful analytical tool for ignorant journalists everywhere.

Let me give you the real reason the Rockies would never consider signing Bonds, besides the fact that Coors Field has a massive outfield which would tragically expose Bonds's gimpiness. Let's just put it this way: they're pretty well taken care of in left field.

Diamondbacks: The D-Backs have a perfect platoon partner for Bonds in left fielder Eric Byrnes

I'll just stop you right there. Look, Byrnes isn't exactly great. Last year he OPS+ed 104. I'm not here to claim he's some kind of future HOFer. His career line against rightes is .256/.318/.423. That's pretty bad. But last year it was .297/.360/.462. That's pretty darn good. Like, don't-platoon-this-guy good. He also added plenty of value by stealing 50 bases while only getting caught 7 times. And his defense, while annoying to watch (seriously dude, you don't have to do a somersault every time you throw the ball), is passable. Meanwhile, his team is going to be running out a 20 year old RF who hit .221 in limited action last year and might not be ready for the show yet. Their SS OPS+ed 72 last year. Assuming Tony Clark is gone, their bench includes exactly zero guys who can hit worth dick. And you're going to suggest... let me get this straight... that it would be a good idea for them to drop a bunch of money on Bonds... so he can platoon with a right-handed guy who OPSed .820 against righties last year? Arizona has much, much bigger problems than Byrnes.

Angels: The best fit for Bonds in the AL would actually be the Angels, despite the fact that they enter the season as the only team likely to take their division with ease and appear to have a very crowded outfield of their own. That the Angels will pay Gary Matthews Jr. $42 million over the next four seasons doesn't make him any more than the fourth outfielder he's always been save for that one life-changing season in Texas, while Reggie Willits profiles very well as a fifth-outfielder given that he's still earning the league minimum.

Although the Angels desperately need power in their lineup, I'm still going to say Reggie Willits is better than Gary Matthews Jr. I don't really care how much money each is making. I'm more concerned with, you know, how well they play on the field. Although Willits has all the pop of Juan Pierre (less, actually), he still managed to out-OPS Matthews last year. Having a .391 OBP will help that happen.

Corcoran's top choice for where he thinks Bonds will go is San Diego. Cute thought, but I'll give you a dollar if he signs with an NL team. Just send a self addressed and stamped envelope to my basement with an 18 cent processing fee.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, I know Roger Clemens is innocent until proven guilty. But given the response of pretty much every single other player named in the Mitchell Report to their inclusion, it seems extremely likely he took steroids. McNamee had no motive to lie. Anyways, his agent isn't letting him go down without a fight. I'll let the AP and CBSSportsline's headline department describe what actions the agent is taking in his client's defense.

Clemens' agent releases statistical report to refute steroids allegations

Clemens went 40-39 in his last four seasons with the Red Sox, and when the pitcher left Boston's general manager at the time, Dan Duquette, said Clemens was in the "twilight" of his career. Clemens was 192-111 with the Red Sox and won three Cy Young Awards and an MVP, then went 162-73 with Toronto, the New York Yankees and Houston, winning four Cy Youngs.

Great plan. The worst stretch of Clemens' career is the above-mentioned last four years in Boston, spanning from 1993 to 1996. Then things suddenly turned around in 1997 when he went to Toronto. McNamee first connected him to roids in 1998, and didn't say that was the first time Clemens used. He easily could have started a year earlier than when McNamee became his needle buddy. So, yeah! What a perfect idea! Let's compile a report, showing that he was starting to decline during his early 30s (he was still pretty good, but definitely relatively declining compared to the rest of his career to that point), then got great again at almost the exact same time his alleged steroid use started! I understand these are tough times if you're employed in the business of making Roger Clemens look innocent, but this seems like a real General Custer at Little Bighorn of a decision. Might as well try to prove he didn't use steroids by pointing out that his home run totals throughout the course of his career are very consistent.

---------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for indulging my temporary ADD. I'll be back tomorrow with a post that isn't just a lazy cop-out.

I Can't Believe I'm About To Agree With Gregg Easterbrook

[Side note to start off the week- Reader Extra Participation Friday kind of bombed last week. What happened? Too obscure of a topic? Nobody likes me anymore? It's that, isn't it. Good to see that my life has transitioned from having no real life friends to having no internet friends. Anyways, I'm declaring Blanco112 this week's winner for the following shitty athlete sales pitch:

"One more thing to consider when it comes to Kris Benson: the possibility that he cheats on Anna has got to buy him a few extra years on his contract, right?"

Only if he signs with a team that plays in New York. Anyways, I'm hoping we get a better turnout next week. It's fun for everyone. Come on. Please?]

Anyways, like I was saying, I can't believe I'm about to agree with the official TMQ of FireJay. But given that I'm doing so in the context of pointing out that Peter King is a slimeball, I think it's worth it. King's thoughts on one of his co-workers:

Tiki Barber does not miss football. He does not regret his decision to retire, even though the Giants have made the Super Bowl.

It's true. You can choose not to believe me if you'd like, but you'd be wrong.

Some of you may know that I work with Barber, the former great Giants' running back, at NBC, and you'll think I'm only writing this because I'm either protecting him or I believe a lie he is telling me. Neither is correct. But I understand why you would feel that way.

I like Barber, and I've spent much of the fall defending him to staunch Giants fans who are mad as hell at him for criticizing coach Tom Coughlin on his way out the Giants' door last winter and for questioning the leadership of quarterback Eli Manning last summer. My feeling all along has been that once Barber signed to work for NBC, he was no longer a member of the Giants, and he was obligated to give his honest opinion about all 32 teams in the NFL, including the one he knew best, the Giants. When NBC signs your check, it's not a disloyal thing to criticize the coach you used to play for if you feel the criticism is legitimate, and it's not a disloyal thing to say Manning is a lousy leader if that's how you feel. It's not only not disloyal. It's honorable.

The part about "not disloyal" (now that's some clunky diction!) might be true. I mean, I guess once Barber left the Giants he wasn't technically obligated to show them any respect, because they weren't signing a paycheck for him anymore. But honorable? Honorable? I admit that as a 23 year old who has held all of one full-time and four or five part-time jobs in his life, I may not be the foremost expert on professionalism. Still, I'm pretty sure that trashing your old teammates and coach unsolicited on national TV less than a year after you all were part of the same organization is dishonorable as hell. Put more simply, it's sleazy. It's low. It's unprofessional. And in the context of providing analysis, it's basically irrelevant. Yes, Barber's role at NBC is to give his opinions about certain aspects of the NFL. But I hardly think his personal perceptions and biases relating to former teammates' personalities fall within the boundaries of that role. Giving an opinion about whether or not Team X has a good offensive line is one thing; giving an opinion about Player Y's personal makeup and behind-closed-doors persona is entirely another.

The relative lack of outcry about Barber's comments indicates that perhaps media consumers are attracted to the idea of an "inside scoop" about current players and coaches. Let's air out that (alleged) dirty laundry! Hell, what's that new game show that NBC just started last week? "Lie Detector Secrets That Ruin Families?" America loves that kind of shit. And from his professional standpoint, King certainly seems to think that "insight" of this sort is a valuable part of NBC's coverage. But neither of those opinions/implicit opinions make it a fucking "honorable" act to badmouth your former colleagues.

Next time you switch companies, spend your first lunch with your new co-workers talking about what a huge group of assholes your former employers were. See how it goes over. I understand that this analogy doesn't really replicate what Barber did, because he switched fields and became part of the media. His new job entails nothing but talking about his old job which is clearly not the same as being a forklift driver at Company A and then switching over to be a forklift driver at Company B. But the spirit of the comparison is fair, in my mind. What's the point of what Barber said earlier in the season? To establish why the Giants struggled at the end of last season, and the start of this one? He could have said it differently. He could have said nothing at all and stayed away as a matter of principle. It's not just the fact that it's a jerkoff thing to do; it's the fact that Barber has no way of knowing if maybe he wasn't the problem instead of Manning and Coughlin. I know he put up great numbers on the field, but maybe there was something about his presence off the field that slowed the team down. Do I know this as a fact? Of course not. But since there's no way to tell, why bother to guess? Leave the subject alone, and stick to commentary that doesn't slander your former co-workers.

Now, I'm not saying Barber can never badmouth his former team for any reason. It's his claims about personality-related stuff that I take issue with. If he wanted to say that Coughlin was consistently outschemed by opposing coaches, or that Manning was making bad reads when he dropped back to pass, that would be totally different. At least those two examples are less subjective and also things that couldn't possibly be Barber's fault.

In conclusion: honorable? Fuck that. Peter, please go kidnap Brett Favre and take him to live with you in a cabin in the middle of North Dakota for the rest of your days. If you want to grab Tom Brady on your way out there, that would be fine too.

If you're confused, the title of this post refers to the fact that Easterbrook has been bitching about Barber and his big mouth all season long. I guess I have to say I agree. I don't, however, agree with his claims that coaches would rather minimize margins of defeat in playoff games than try to win them or that successful running backs avoid looking at potential tacklers.

On a less angry note, (cue zany circus music to lighten the mood! Doo doo doodoo doo doo doooooo dooooooo dooooo doooooooo) here's one other highlight from this same King column.

Speaking of Super Bowl officiating, in examining the tape from the Week 17 Giants-Patriots game, I saw -- on both sides -- an awful lot of clutching and grabbing by corners and wideouts. The Carey crew will be challenged by how closely to call this game. If the crew calls it too close, there'll be grousing. If the crew calls it too loose, there'll be grousing.

Thank you for perfectly articulating the obvious. People are so darn hard to please, aren't they? If it's too hot outside, they'll complain. But if it's too cold, they'll complain about that! I'll tell you what else, too- if the Patriots score more points than the Giants, they'll win the Super Bowl. But if the Giants score more points than the Patriots, they'll win the Super Bowl. Write it down, folks. You heard it here first.

Rick DiPietro and his Open Mic

I didn't beat everybody to the punch with this video, but I assure you that I have better technology than recording my TV with my camera and then putting it on YouTube.

Rick DiPietro gives us another great moment in 'Why Did You Leave His Microphone On?' history...

Ozzie, You Can't Say Things Like This, They Don't Make Any Sense

I'm sorry folks....I'm exposed to more White Sox journalism than any other sports team. But this is just completely and totally unacceptable. In response to Juan Uribe's frustration at the Orlando Cabrera trade....

"Juan might not understand why we [brought] in Cabrera," he said. "We need leadership. We [didn't] bring a shortstop. We [brought] in a player.

Guillen is of course referring to the Great Shortstop Rebellion of 2004, after which "shortstop" and "baseball player" became mutually exclusive categories. Uribe is the former, Cabrera, the latter.

Jerry Owens is not a lock to start at center field and as the team's leadoff hitter. But Guillen made it clear on Friday that Owens stands as a strong bet to break camp with the team in some capacity.

"Owens has a great shot to be up there," Guillen said. "He gives me speed, and I never thought this kid would play center field the way he did for us. But he proved me wrong."

I never thought Owens could ever be a significantly below average, -11 FRAA over 3/5 a season CF either, but he proved me wrong as well. Baseball is just full of suprises, isn't it?

If Jerry Owens gets the majority of the playing time over Carlos Quentin this year, Ozzie Guillen should not only be fired, but fed to Jay Mariotti. Literally. Fed.

Dear Terry Frei, I Disagree

I was all set to watch the NHL All-Star game this weekend in the stunning clarity of high definition, but I live in Saint Louis. Instead of going into detail, I will point all interested parties to poster rmj1080p, who sums up everything exactly with post #664 (reply to #661) on AVS Forums.

So I went out scouting for am All-Star column and Terry Frei helped me out. Thanks Terry - I owe you one.

It's funny sometimes, the things you remember.

That's true. I once had a game involving a high school text book and the questionable sexual preferences of the females inside its pages. The turn of the century must have been a bad time to be a guy.

Waiting outside the dressing rooms after the 1998 All-Star Game in Vancouver, a group of us interviewed NHL commissioner Gary Bettman. The '98 contest was the first time the league -- as a tie-in to its players' participation in the upcoming Olympic Winter Games in Japan -- tried the World vs. North America format.

Bettman was more defensive than any of the defensemen in the game. (That wasn't saying much, of course.) He said everyone enjoyed watching North America's 8-7 win, and no matter what format the league used, we'd probably try to find something wrong with it.

At the time, that was true.

I remember watching it for the first time and thinking about how dumb it was. Players from the same team on opposite all star teams? As if hockey wasn't already confusing enough for people that didn't watch it, now the players that they might know about are playing against each other. It's a good thing that ended. But I'm agreeing with Mr. Frei so far and that's not what I'm all about.

At some point in the past 10 years, though, it seems the consensus has become that there's no use grousing about it, because the All-Star Game is a no-contact, no-emotion gimmick -- and it ain't ever going to change.

So because everyone knows what it is, isn't it wasting breath to knock it?

I'd say it is. Of course, that didn't really stop you from knocking it in the previous paragraph.

In a league that (again) is meekly accepting coaching strategies that strangle the entertainment value out of the regular season, most seem to have accepted the All-Star Game's role as a reminder that unfettered skills in a noncompetitive environment is largely boring.

The regular season isn't entertaining because it's too long and getting longer. Too many teams get into the playoffs. Expansion diluted the talent pool. But coaching strategies? He has a point with the neutral zone trap, but there aren't a lot of coaching strategies that reduce entertainment value. Home team wins = entertainment. Add alcohol and puck bunnies into the equation, and you get your $100 worth. Supposedly.

If the television ratings are awful Sunday night, the response should be: Good.

It will. It's Versus. And because Nielsen families aren't watching, the sport is doomed! DOOMED!

Clearly, it's about the culture of the game; there was no more theoretical incentive for the All-Star teams of 30 years ago -- when Gilbert Perreault's overtime goal gave the Wales Conference a 3-2 victory over the Campbell Conference in, appropriately enough, Buffalo.

And maybe there's no way to change it. Perhaps, regardless of the way the rosters are structured, the laissez-faire attitude would dominate.

Perhaps Bettman should suspend the writ of habeas corpus, giving teams a two man advantage for all games. (Thanks, Mr. Buffo!)

But shouldn't the league at least try? I'm not saying any of these suggestions would work, or even that they're all completely serious. The NHL Players' Association would frown upon some of these. But shouldn't the point be that mere acceptance of what the All-Star Game and All-Star weekend are doesn't have to be automatic?

How about one of the proposals below, or a combination thereof:

So just to make sure I have this right - Here's a list. Some of it is really bad, but instead of polish up the good ideas, I'll list them all. Here we go!

Give the winning conference home-ice advantage in the Stanley Cup finals.

STOP. RIGHT. THERE. No. Of all the ideas, I can see this one happening and it frightens me. Instead of giving the better team home ice advantage, let's give it to the winner of an exhibition game. Never in a million years should this happen. It took the seriousness of baseball down a notch, so why not poison hockey, too?

His first point, continued:

At best, it would add a tiny emotional edge, even if it's only from the coach behind the bench. A completely contrived way to decide the home ice? So? Even after its disgustingly minor tweak of the scheduling format for next season, the NHL will still have too few interconference games. Therefore using overall records to award home-ice advantage is nearly just as contrived.

Last I had read, next year's schedule might be 84 games long instead of 82, and could have every team play at every arena during the year. It probably won't happen, but stranger things have happened. Like making an all star game count for something.

Revert to the pre-expansion tradition of having the defending Stanley Cup champion play the All-Stars. The champs against the league, whether at a preordained site or the champs' own building. Include a financial mechanism to reward an entire roster for not getting a break, and hope that the champs play with cohesion and spirit out of pride and habit -- and that the All-Stars are coaxed into at least playing with some emotion.

With the way the free agent market is today compared to the "pre-expansion" days, I can't see this idea making the game anything but less interesting than it already is. This is also where the NHLPA would throw a fit. But it isn't a horrible idea.

Don't go back to the North America vs. World format. Instead, make it Canada against the World.

Isn't the rest of the world making fun of Canada anyways? How about a Red Wings vs. the World if we're throwing out dumb gimmick ideas. Or make like the new Survivor: NHL Superfans vs. NHL Superstars. If this happens, remember you read it here first.

Do it by age group. The league tries this in a very minor way with the YoungStars Game, but that's such a low-profile and more contrived "game" than the All-Star Game; and with many of the best "young stars" in the All-Star Game itself, it serves little useful purpose. It does not do what the league often seems so reluctant to do: truly celebrate the star power of the young players who will be in the spotlight for the next decade, or longer. Make it Vets vs. Kids. Upperclassmen vs. Underclassmen. Seniors vs. Sophomores. Whatever you want to call it, even if that means selling the team names to league sponsors for contributions to charity.

A lot of minor leagues already sell their all star team names to corporate sponsors. They just leave out the charity part.

At this point, 17 of the 42 players on this season's All-Star rosters are 30 or older. I'd draw the division artificially low, making it 26 and under, meaning Rick DiPietro would be on the Kids team and Vincent Lecavalier would be on the Vets. Showcase the young talent. Showcase the league's future. And hope this raises the level of competitiveness.

And what is the positive to sticking all the older guys on the same team exactly? Showcase the old talent and the league's past? A good hack to the ribs of some kid who dribbles the puck in the air? All in all, not a bad idea.

Make the weekend even more of a hockey jamboree, regardless of where the game is played. Have the defending Memorial Cup champions play a league game -- one that counts in the standings -- in the All-Star arena Sunday morning, or match the teams with the best records in the Quebec, Ontario and Western Leagues (two of the three on a rotating basis) on a cutoff date in a major junior showcase. Because of NCAA fussiness, having similar U.S. college and National Team Development Program participation probably would be impossible, but what the heck, see if there's a way to make it work.

Canada would love this idea. America would continue not to care.

Try the whole thing outdoors. Maybe not every year, but occasionally.

The NHL could turn the outdoor game into Who Wants to be a Millionaire? on ABC. Take a winning formula, then force it on everyone until it's unpopular, then never speak of it again.

Gulp. Rotate the All-Star site among Toronto, Montreal, New York, Detroit, Boston and Chicago. The Original Six. Yes, fans in the latter two cities have lost much of their passion for the NHL, but this would be more a nod to tradition than a salute of the state of the game in those cities.

Reward two cities that don't care about the sport anymore! Best idea ever!

I have one idea of my own: How about instead of naming a host city, the team of the player that scores the game winning goal gets the game the next year? Who's with me?

Much As I Hate The Patriots,

This is one of the best articles I've read recently. Almost makes me okay with the idea of a New England victory a week from tomorrow. Almost.

And Here I Thought I Knew What Unnecessary Meant.....

I can't fucking believe this was written. There couldn't be a thing in the world more irrelevant. Here's my thought: no Chicago team did anything worth bitching about, so JayBird's digging deep to bash the Sox for something they did in 2001. Two. Thousand. Fucking. One. I hope you're ready for a fuckton of irrelevancies, because here we go.

I once asked Magglio Ordonez about steroids. It was three years ago, after his divorce from the White Sox and shortly before fellow countryman Ozzie Guillen called him ``a Venezuelan (bleep),'' and I wondered if Ordonez had observed or suspected any steroids use on a Sox team known for sluggers.

He responded by mumbling something under his breath, but what I remember most was the perplexed look on Ordonez's face. His eyebrows were raised, arching higher than the central Florida sun, as if I knew more than I was supposed to know. A simple ``no'' would have worked -- unless, of course, ``no'' wasn't the truth.

Here's the likely real story....from 3 years ago.

Jay Mariotti: Yo Maggs, do you know of anyone on the Sox that's juicing?

Magglio Ordonez: (raises his eyebrows higher than the fucking central Florida sun, perplexed as hell at why he is being bothered by a loud talking doughnut, utters under his breath) Get away from me, you fat shit.....

3 years later.....

Jay Mariotti: There must have been something funny going on with that Ordonez fellow.....

This weekend at the Palmer House Hilton, snarling fans will continue a Soxfest tradition. They'll demand straight answers from general manager Ken Williams, who would have more fun sleeping naked at Wrigley Field in a snowstorm. They will ask why he left the rotation filled with craters, why he whiffed badly on Torii Hunter and Miguel Cabrera and why he keeps talking about a championship when finishing .500 seems like a -- cue the silly Hawkeroo -- ``stretch, stretch, stretch.''

This is getting so old......

1) Didn't whiff on Hunter. He was even going to overpay for Hunter before that dumbass Reagins upped the bid despite already having a good center fielder. Swisher is a better player.

2) In what universe did the White Sox even have close to an attractive package to offer for Miguel?

But if the good people are true baseball loyalists, they won't focus on 2008 at the session as much as 2001. That was when Williams, in a signing that reeked even before we completely grasped the monumental impact of steroids, purchased Jose Canseco from the Newark Bears of an independent league.

What the fuck??????

SoxFest is a convention allowing fans to ask the GM and manager questions about the upcoming baseball season.

Jay Mariotti just said that if these fans are true to baseball, they would interrupt all the interesting dialogue and debate about the upcoming season to interrogate him on why he signed a man of questionable character to play half a season when the White Sox had little-to-no chance to make the playoffs seven fucking seasons ago

ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND?!??!?!?!??!?!