Alright Everyone, Back To Your Basements

We're not welcome in the Dallas Mavericks' locker room anymore.

Mark Cuban is the only blogger allowed in the Dallas Mavericks locker room.

At Cuban's direction, the Mavericks have created the first blogger-free policy in the NBA, perhaps in all of pro sports. As a blogger himself, he believes people writing for blogs don't need behind-the-scenes access to do their jobs, even if those blogs are run by newspapers.

Cuban said his point is that if he allows one blogger in, then out of fairness he would have to allow all of them, even if it's just a suburban teenager who runs a fan site. Instead, he said it's better to keep them all out.

"My choice, my decision," Cuban said, adding that he hasn't discussed it with the league office. "We brought it to their attention after the fact. I think they recognized, look, it wasn't a blogging issue, it was a space issue. If you run out of space, you've got to put the velvet rope somewhere. So what do you do? Do I say, `Oh, you're major media, you can get in and little mavsforum and mavstalk and mavswiki, you can't get in?' I'm not going to do that."

Well, you should do that. At bare minimum. I mean... that is, if you don't want to be labeled as insensitive, backwards-thinking, and possibly racist.

Does anyone out there have any experience with forming special interest groups and subsequently getting desperate politicians into back pockets? Our rights as bloggers are in jeopardy. We need to stand up for ourselves. This decision sets a dangerous precedent; before long, we won't be allowed in mall food courts or comic book stores. Not that we like going outside anyways, but it's always nice to know you have the option in case you want to check out girls through binoculars, right? Next, the powers that be will start restricting our content. We'll be prevented from using made-up statistics like OPS or making fun of David Eckstein. And eventually... I shudder to even think of it... our parents will make us move out. You heard me. No more free food. No more free rent. No more not having a job. No more playing 19 hours of Sega Genesis a day. This is the world we face, people.

In protest/response to this development, I will no longer blog about the Mavericks. I ask all the rest of you out there to join me in this boycott.

Computers Don't Know Anything....After All, They Can't Love Or Hate Or Feel Pain!

Rick Morrissey has his own theories about how to predict the fortunes of baseball teams. There's a thing called a "hunch", people. We don't need no stinkin' computerboxes.

If computers ran the world, Steven Seagal probably would have won a few Oscars by now, assuming they judged him on the $2 billion his movies have earned. If computers had a way of measuring acting ability, he'd be running a martial-arts school in a strip mall.

Okay, equating judging an actor by how much money his movies make is sort of like evaluating hitters using batting average and evaluating pitchers using wins. It's stupid and useless. The computers you're about to declare worthless don't do anything that simple. Chalk up another to "terrible similes and metaphors."

But they don't run the world, yet, which means we can still type in our credit card numbers online without worrying that all our money is being sucked into a fund earmarked for global dominance by a dastardly computer.

Attention all forms of cerebral parasites: do not feed on the brain of Rick Morrissey. It is clearly diseased and "possesses the properties of the insane."

Computers have no use for heart, or least they can't quantify it. They can't analyze what's inside an athlete, for example. They can't tell you who has the heart of a lion or the backbone of an earthworm.

They can't!?!??!??!?! Whew. Good thing for computers that having the heart of a lion doesn't make a human being any more likely to hit a curveball. In one corner, we have a computer using projected stats to formulate run totals from run elements to predict a final season record of a team. In the other corner, we have Rick Morrissey arbitrarily placing people on a scale of (Earthworm) Jim to Simba to calculate wins. Vegas's odds on Ricky are 234.5:1. If you like Eckstein a lot, financial opportunity is knocking......

Computers can't tell you that White Sox first baseman Paul Konerko is upset with how he played last season.

They don't need to. Everyone who knows anything about Paul Konerko knows that. The job of computers (not that dissimilar to that of journalists) is to tell people things that they don't know.

All they can tell you is that he hit .259 in 2007, that he just turned 32 and, therefore, he must be on the downside of his career because that's what the model says is supposed to happen to him.

Really, that's it? How totally uninformative.

(Interesting side note: BP 2007 listed Tino Martinez as one of Konerko's top PECOTA comparables and pointed out that Martinez had a severe production decline at age 31, which was exactly what happened to Konerko. Damn unreliable squawkboxes!)

If you saw the piece about Baseball Prospectus' 2008 predictions in Sunday's Tribune, then you know the publication's computer has the Sox going 77-85 and finishing third in the AL Central, and the Cubs going 91-71 and winning the NL Central.

I know as much about computers as I do about astronomy

Which puts you in just an oh-so-good position to dismiss them as irrelevant, doesn't it?

but I believe the computer term for Baseball Prospectus' Sox prediction is "fatal error."

The prediction for the 2008 White Sox literally made the computer implode. Rick's not joking.

I have the Sox winning 85 games and giving Cleveland a run for its money for second place in the division.

Okay, sure. I'm positive you'll tell me what this is based on shortly. But as long as we're being insanely optimistic, why not go all the way and say they'll contend for the division lead? After all, there's no way Cleveland is that far below Detroit (if you ask me, Cleveland's slightly better).

I know, I know: The Indians are loaded with talent, and if it weren't for Detroit spending gobs of money, they'd be the favorites in the AL Central.

Actually....BP still has them as favorites anyway. But, moving on, moving on.

But, again, what about heart?

That thing that beats out grounders to first base? No....that's speed. That thing that makes the ridiculously tough play in the outfield? No....that's speed too, and good judgement and athleticism. Hit home runs? No....that's power. Striking players out? No.....good arm strength and pitch placement. And we all know that it can't be walking, because walking is like the anti-heart. Where does "heart" fit in there, Rick? I'm pretty sure that the Sox aren't trying any more gooder than the other teams. Plus, they punted Erstad (HAHA! HAHA! A PUN!), so they're already out 51 "cardions" in the heart statistic. See? You CAN quantify it!

Hal (or Smitty or Shecky or whatever the computer's name is)

We'll call him "Slobby", thanks to Ed Hardiman and the slobbermetrics it uses.

and I pretty much agree about the Cubs, which, given my track record on predictions, should make Hal/Smitty/Shecky do a lot of soul-searching

So you're pretty much admitting that you're wrong a lot on predictions? I could never have fathomed this! You base the things you say on so much excellent evidence!

...I...I thought we just named him Slobby.....

which is impossible because it doesn't have a soul, just an evil chip that makes it want to mate with Marie Osmond and produce robots that sing show tunes.

Oh no he di'int!

But: and this might seem like an irrelevant question, Rick. Does the soullessness (I'm inventing words, this guy is so stupid) of a computer stop it from predicting the outcomes of baseball seasons. Does it? Just answer, I won't go crazy and argue it has a soul.

Do feelings count? Or hunches?

Hunches....you mean those things that by definition are based on absolutely nothing? I have a hunch that Alfredo Amezaga will outproduce Matt Holliday this year. Just a hunch. It counts, dammit!

Where is there room in computers for the inexplicable?

Nowhere, just like there's no room in baseball for it either. Improbable, yes. Inexplicable, no.

Does the fact that it's the Cubs' 100th season since their last World Series title mean anything in the computations?

I dunno, Rick? Do you think that the last 100 Cubs seasons (which, by the way, primarily featured players not currently on the Cubs' roster) have any bearing on how many games this team will win?

Does it mean anything that the Cubs could be driven by the challenge of a century of dryness or, conversely, that they could cave in under the pressure of it and finish 10 games below .500?

Okay, let's assume that's true. Those two possibilities cancel each other out approximately, leaving the same initial prediction. The computer doesn't think these things CAN'T happen, Rick, just that they are unlikely. It just takes the record in the middle of the range of the most likely outcomes. Why is this so fucking hard to understand?

I believe the Sox are embarrassed by what happened last season and, not to belabor the point, there is nothing in a computer's innards that can measure the effects of that.

So what are you saying, an embarrassed with-something-to-prove Jose Contreras will be better than his physical ability?

That the Sox dropped from 90 victories in 2006 to 72 games last season was one of the shocks of the baseball season. But not to Baseball Prospectus, and the people who run it deserve their props. They chalk up a lot of what happened on the South Side last season to the inevitability of time catching up with older athletes. I chalk it up to a number of players having down years at the same time.

Right, you attribute it to that because you're not paying attention at all. The team is losing, so you exacerbate what went wrong, and fail to pay attention to what went right! For every player on the Sox who had a bad year (relative to the expected), there's one that had a pretty good year by his standards. Jim Thome fought aging very well, and had a very good season. Bobby Jenks broke out. Mark Buerhle, Javier Vazquez, and Jon Garland all had very good seasons by the standards of their ability. Players stopped being so absurdly healthy like they were when the team was performing very well.

Isn't there room for a number of Sox to have good years at the same time? Say, in 2008? If Jim Thome stays healthy, he could have an excellent season.

Just like he had last season! .328 EqA+!

The Cubs don't have a good enough rotation to do the impossible and win the World Series

The '06 Cardinals were famous for having an AMAZING starting rotation. Guys like Jeff Suppan and Jeff Weaver. Top-of-the-line talent, really.

but perhaps Carlos Zambrano's feistiness becomes contagious and the staff starts pitching like the '69 Mets did. Can a computer comprehend feistiness? I don't think so.

Oh dear Lord! The computer's calculations were leaving out feistiness! Silly computer! Move the K/BB ratio and GB/FB ratio projections, and remember that Carlos Zambrano has a fire in his belly! Ryan Dempster and Jon Lieber will rediscover their youth! Jason Marquis won't suck anymore, inspired by Zam punching random objects and pointing to the sky after every inning! I plan to destroy the computer on which I am typing after this post. How could it have missed this?

This is the time of year for predictions, so it's not surprising there would be a few bad tidings, especially for the Sox.

The problem with computers is that you can argue with them until you're blue in the face, and they don't even blink in response. There's no satisfaction in it. You can, however, achieve a higher level of contentment by hitting them with a baseball bat.

Agreed. So long, Compy. I hardly knew ye. I'm sorry for shouting aimlessly at you until my face turned blue.....I just....I just don't understand how you can't comprehend the grittiness of Pablo Ozuna and Ryan Theriot! Forgive me, we're from different worlds. Maybe we'll just never understand each other. ::sniff::

::CRASH!::

Let's Make A New Rule

[3/10, 1:00 AM: Editing note- deleted all the complaining I did about Kalma referencing non-NBA championships in response to Webmaster's comment below. I was going to leave it all in and confront the fact that from time to time I make hideous mistakes... but nah. Decided against it. I would rather just pretend like it never happened. Everyone OK with that? Look, I'll admit it- I'm a dumbass. But I'd rather not have the evidence laid out for all to see.]

How about this- no more articles about potential Hall of Fame candidacies... relating to any sport... ever. I know, I know, it's a little extreme. There are certainly plenty of not terrible (well, maybe not plenty, but at least a handful) HOF candidacy-related pieces that get published every year that don't need to be restricted. But I think we're better safe than sorry in this case. Because it starts with some guy making a case for olde-timey greats like Alan Ameche and Ken Stabler. Then someone else wants to start looking at more recent guys like Bert Blyleven or Ron Santo. Then people start talking about where guys who just retired, like Reggie Miller and Scottie Pippen, might one day fit in. And eventually, once we follow this slippery slope of growing recency all the way down to the pool of shit it feeds, we find garbage like this. NBA TV's Rick Kalma, you're embarrassing yourself. (Thank you to Erik for this tip.)

The finalists for the Hall of Fame Class of 2008 were announced over All-Star weekend, with Hakeem Olajuwon, Patrick Ewing, and Pat Riley all up for the first time. Other big names who could get the Hall call are Adrian Dantley, Chris Mullin, Dennis Johnson, and Don Nelson. To me, all of those guys are Hall of Famers,

Steady now... careful...

and the HOF chatter got me thinking about which active players are on their way to the Spingfield.

Oops. You fucked up.

And this is where I need to write a sort of second intro, to let you know why this article is so remarkable. I always forget that shit like this even exists until a new example of it pops up every month or so. See, this is what I call a double-terrible article. The first terrible is for choosing a stupid topic. Does this kind of thing really add to anyone's appreciation of the sport in question? Christ, I hope not. If we absolutely have to start pissing contests about HOF guys, let's at least have them be eligible for election within the next 12 months, you know? Except in special cases like Bonds/Clemens, why worry about something that's not even going to happen for X years? So that's one aspect of it that sucks.

But the thing is, even when they choose a dumb topic like this, most writers manage to isolate their awfulness to strictly that choice. They say: "Darrrrrr, hey, Ken Griffey Jr. and Greg Maddux sure look like Hall of Famers to me! I'm gonna go eat some more Play-Doh." And that's the end of things. Fine. I can deal with that. Maybe their deadline was rapidly approaching and they didn't want to write another Eckstein article. Who knows? These kinds of articles usually don't make FireJay because we have bigger fish to fry.

But when a double-terrible article comes along, something special happens that takes things the extra mile. Not only does the writer choose a miserably boring topic; they manage to screw up their designated choices as well. Look, if you go down this road, just stick with the basics. The Jeters and Madduxes. The Favres (Did you hear he recently retired?) and the Tomlinsons. The Kobes and the Shaqs. Other than to make me yell at you, why in fuck's name would you choose the players you're about to choose? Why? It's poppycock. It's insanity. It's probably the fault of a missing chromosome. It's like doing a really bad job on an assignment for school, and then deciding to top things off by writing "Go fuck yourself, Mr./Mrs. Teachername" at the bottom. Don't exacerbate the problem! Just put your nonsense down on the paper and move on. I guess I'm putting the cart before the horse a little bit here. Step into my office and let me show you what I mean.

[Editor's note: Before reading this list of probable Hall of Famers, please understand a few things. One, I'm a laid-back, tree-hugging Dead Head who tends to be liberal, or inclusionary, when it comes to the Hall of Fame.

Read: One, this is at best a miserable choice of topics for someone like me.

Two, I take the RING very seriously.

Two, I think Mark Madsen needs to be in the Hall.

Third, defense does not get enough respect (Marcus Camby's career total of zero All-Star games is case in point), so I am here to defend the most dominant defenders over the past 20 years.

Third, the fact that Marcus Camby with his complete and total lack offensive game happens to have played most of his good seasons in a conference with several great, well-rounded centers who have kept him out of the All-Star game really means something to me. Because I am stupid.

Finally, this is one man's opinion...a man who does not have a seat on the HOF selection committee...a man who never will have a seat on the HOF selection committee.]

Finally, I would like to clarify that no one gives a shit about my opinions.

Atlanta Hawks

Josh Smith: This 22-year-old SuperFreak possesses the most unique skillset in NBA history. Who goes for nine dimes and nine blocks in the same game, and then drops nine and five in the same cats the next game? Did I mention he's 22?

That's right, you read it correctly- first of all, incredible hyperbole about a category so abstract you could basically define it any way you choose. And second, this guy had a really good game against some cats once, and then had another really good game the next time he played those same cats. When's he posing for his bust? Is he going to go in as a Hawk, or a Nothing? HE'S AT LEAST TEN FUCKING YEARS AWAY FROM RETIREMENT. HE COULD BLOW OUT HIS KNEE TOMORROW AND HE'D BE FORGOTTEN BY 2010.

Basically I'm about to do that like twenty more times in a row. So if it didn't entertain you... might be time to head on over to www.knockknockjokes.com or something.

Al Horford: Going out on a limb here,

You think? By nominating a guy with 50 NBA games under his belt?

but I'm sticking to my pre-draft opinion that this 21-year-old horse will develop into a perennial 20-10 guy.

Kalma's standards for Hall probability: his own pre-draft opinions.

Cleveland Cavaliers

LeBron James: I stuck the Hall of Fame label on this monster after his first NBA game and he's given me no reason to alter that opinion.

This obviously isn't that dumb of a pick, but I included it for the comedy in the "hey, I was on the cutting edge of scouting, I knew about this guy way back when he was a rookie" angle. I mean, who really had Bron pegged for superstardom back then? I bet Rick also wants to take credit for knowing Tiger Woods would be a star way back in 1999.

Bill Russell and Michael Jordan are wondering if LeBron is the Tiger Woods of their sport. Tiger is gaining on Jack Nicklaus, and LeBron is morphing into an unstoppable force before our eyes.

There you go.

Ben Wallace: A lot of you think I'm crazy, but hear me out.

You are crazy. I will not hear you out. You point out the fact that Wallace will likely clear the 11,000 rebound plateau before his career is over, and then claim that everyone in NBA history who has done that is either in the hall or "a lock" to be there one day. Well, there's a guy who probably compares pretty well with Wallace on that list by virtue of also having no offensive game whatsoever- Dennis Rodman. According to basketball-reference.com, Rodman's likelihood index for hall induction (which isn't exactly equivalent to a percentage, but is close- here's the explanation which links to the career list) is .179. Only 4 players with a lower index have ever made it, and most of them played decades ago. Only 13 players with an index below .5 have ever made it. The list includes active players, too. Ben Wallace's index? .002. You are crazy.

(I understand that index doesn't do justice to the skill set of a guy like Wallace, because it doesn't even include blocks, steals, or the nebulous concept of "good defense." But it's not like he's at .300, and then, you know, you can make the case that defense is going to take him the rest of the way to the hall. He's at .002. Zero zero two. His offensive numbers, rebounding, MVP votes and 2004 RING don't even have him in the neighborhood of the general area of being able to really go out on a limb and be in the discussion for possible longshot consideration.)

Dallas Mavericks

Dirk Nowitzki: He will go down in history as a great player, a Hall of Fame player, and perhaps the greatest shooting 7-footer of all-time...but he'll also go down as a player who wasn't quite great enough. He shall join the list of non-championship greats like Patrick Ewing, Karl Malone, John Stockton, and Charles Barkley.

Reason those guys didn't win championships? Not being great enough. Reason Hakeem Olajuwon won two championships, totally coincidentally while Jordan was temporarily retired? Being great enough.

Golden State Warriors

Monta Ellis: I'm not crazy, freaks. It's just that Monta is crazy good.

What a deft turn of phrase!

At 22 years of age, Monta is already averaging 19.2 points on 53 percent shooting.

At 22 years of age, Monta is only 22 years old. That means he only has to play really, really well for about 10 to 15 more years to get into the Hall. We're talking no major injuries, no turning into a slightly smaller version of Shawn Kemp when he gets his first big paycheck, an ability to sustain his offensive stats even if he doesn't always play on a fast-paced team like the Warriors, and not too much decline in his game as he ages. Barring all those things, he's in.

Electric Ellis is unstoppable because he is athletic enough to blow by and crush...and talented enough to smack ya from 18.

Thank you, Jemele Hill.

He's not going away.

Given all the random things that could derail him that I listed above, and the amount of time he has yet to play before his status as a future HOFer becomes legitimate, there's a pretty medium possibility he goes away.

(I did not forget about Chris Webber, who is currently at 17,182 points and 8,124 rebounds--and NOT counting. He's out. Get a TO, baby!)

Thank you, Dickie V. Also, for what it's worth, basketball-reference.com's HOF index has Webber at a .659. Only 11 players with a higher score are not in the hall, and for most of them that's just because they're not eligible yet. Jordan, Stockton, Robinson, Olajuwon, Malone, Pippen, Ewing, Payton, Mitch Richmond, Jo Jo White, and Adrian Dantley. So yeah. He's probably in. With or without a TO, baby!

Houston Rockets

Dikembe Mutombo: Deke was the NBA's first four-time Defensive Player of the Year and he's been to eight All-Star games. He's second all-time with 3,245 blocks and 18th all-time with 12,184 rebounds. And dig this logic. Dominique Wilkins, Alex English, and George Gervin made it to the Hall of Fame on the offensive end, topping 20,000 points while playing occasional defense. So why can't defensive specialists who gave you occasional offense, like Deke, make it to the Hall from the defensive end?

I'll take a shot at that question. An effective offensive player puts points on the board every time he scores. In that sense, every time he does his job (scores), he has a direct and tangible impact on his team's chances of winning. The scoreboard shows the impact directly. Conversely, when a great defensive player does his job (blocks a shot, creates a deflection, gets a steal, guards his man well) he simply decreases the opposing team's odds of scoring. Except in the case of a steal, there's still a chance the other team scores on that possession. If they check their man, he can pass. A deflection or block can end up in the offensive team's hands. And obviously, the defender can't take points off the scoreboard. Therefore, I'm forced to conclude that when all other variables are accounted for, a great offensive player does more for his team than a great defensive player. Let me put it a different way- a team with two great offensive players and three above average defenders will have much more success than a team with five great defensive players. Although the overall talent level on the second team might be higher (in terms of players that would catch a scout's eye at an open workout), the first team will win more games. The cliche might be that defense wins championships; but offense puts points on the board, and you can't win without that.

I'm sure there are at least three commenters ready to jump all over me for that. Let me just re-put it this way: probably a better pick than Ben Wallace (due to longevity and better offense), but not by a lot.

I should have published this hours ago, and the rest is pretty easily summarized. Let's just quickly run through the highlights and finish big.

Amare Stoudemire: You need stats to get to the Hall. Amare's nickname is Stat. Get it?

Boooooooooooooooooooooooo. Boo. Boo. Everyone gets it. Whoever made up that nickname did so specifically so that everyone would get it.

Andre Iguodala
Brandon Roy
Kevin Durant
Chris Paul
Deron Williams

You've got to be kidding me.

Greg Oden

No. Fuck. Fuck fuck fuck.

O.J. Mayo
Kevin Love

Ok, I made those up. But not Oden. That was all Rick.

I'm Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!

Well, I can see this place totally suffered, crashed, and burned with me gone (not that I'm suprised). Sarcasm aside, there is one thing this Fire Jay Mariotti JayBlog is JayMissing when I'm not Jay. I mean here. You guessed it: Jay.

Over-under: How many Imp-Lou-sions in '08?

ROFL ROFL ROFL! I have to say, in the offseason, I truly missed these al-Lou-sions to Lou's name. Oh shit! He's got me doing it!

We're gonna simply skip to the highlights on this one, because it's not all that offensive other than that it's a completely stupid non-sports related topic to write about.

The question is whether his motivational methods work internally.

Jay is under the serious misconception that screaming at adult human beings can make them play better than they are capable. Oh well. Jay's the chief offender of our "managers don't do that much" label anyway.

And while I still maintain to some degree that his dirt-kicking, mama-cursing, ump-bumping nuclear reaction last June was just a coincidental factor in the Cubs' turnaround

If by "some degree" you mean "highest degree in the history of anything," you can maintain non-wrongitude here.

you can't argue this: Their record that afternoon at Wrigley Field was 22-31, and they went 63-46 thereafter to win a division title.

No, you can't argue against that, and you also can't argue that Lou Piniella kicking dirt on an umpire somehow made the Chicago Cubs are a better baseball team. There couldn't be less of a connection between the two.

Real reason: The Cubs were outscoring their opponents, so it was just a matter of time.

So it's hardly a small news item when Loopy Lou, in a matter of 18 weekend hours, transformed from a perturbed manager consumed in a quick-trigger fit over Jason Marquis' complaints to an apologetic teddy bear who said he overreacted.

Actually, it's a terribly small news item. Never a good sign when you have to spend the first third of your article convincing people that they should care about what you're writing

As the popular You Tube parody goes, with apologies to the Rihanna girl who sings the real song, ``Ella, Ella, eh, eh, eh, under Sweet Lou Piniella, Ella, Ella, eh, eh, eh, under Sweet Lou Piniella.''

Forget Rihanna, how about some apologies to the real journalists who get their readers stolen by this asshole? This is such garbage.

Time to switch off Jay for a moment. Jason Marquis is about to get stupid here.

The latest drama escalated when the erratic Marquis, who must have established some sort of major-league record in being left off successive postseason rosters, said Saturday he'd rather be traded if he doesn't win a spot in the rotation.

``I definitely want to stay here. I signed here for a reason, but I also signed here to be a starter,'' Marquis said after a lukewarm two-inning stint. ``I think that's where I help the team the most, and obviously we'll see what happens when it's time for them to make their decision.

Marquis is under the false pretenses that bad pitchers help teams by starting games and increasing their innings total. WRONG!

So as much as I want to be in Chicago and love it -- I love the fans, I love the stadium -- I also have a family to worry about, too.

And....this family suffers somehow if you aren't starting ballgames? You're already guaranteed way too much money over the next two years regardless.....

So I can take my services elsewhere, if that's the case, and I can help another team in that capacity as a starter. My value doesn't lie in the bullpen in my mind."

WRONG! Okay. Enough of Jason.

Far as I'm concerned, the Cubs can trade Marquis right now for Coco Crisp, the veteran insurance necessary in center field if Felix Pie turns out to be a no-tool player and Sam Fuld is a figment of Jim Hendry's imagination.

Wow. Jason Marquis for Coco Crisp. There ya go Jay. Hey um.....Theo Epstein....does he get a say in this trade or anything? Coco Crisp is one of the best defensive CFs in baseball, and a non-awful bat. That makes him very useful. Marquis is about as useful as Casey Fossum.

Last I checked the Red Sox already have 6 starters, all of them better than Jon Lieber, the current Cubs 5th man.....and you think that this will somehow solve the "I'm not starting games" complaint by Marquis? What possible need would the Red Sox have for Marquis? Deceptively, this is one of the dumbest trade suggestions of all time.

Just as his June explosion had a cause-and-effect purpose, his Marquis outburst reminds players of a powerful truth in Year 100 since the last World Series title: There's no crying in Cubdom. I'm glad Lou laid down the law.

Here is the cause and effect purpose.

Cause: Lou Piniella screams at an umpire and kicks dirt on his legs.

Effect: Lou Piniella is ejected. The umpire's pants now contain more dirt than before.

That's all.

Reader Extra Participation Friday: Let's Go With Something Related To The Ol' "Stranded On A Tropical Island" Cliche

I'm working on a post that's actually long enough to make you scroll down your screen in order to read the whole thing, but rather than rushing through it to finish tonight (it's a big day at the hot air balloon tour ranch tomorrow so I'm getting up extra early), I decided to hold off until Saturday just to make sure I do a decent job on it. You know why? Because I care about you people, that's why. You're special to me. I don't want to give you a big post of half-baked dick jokes and capitalized expressions of exasperation. Fuck that. You readers are big deal to me. I want to impress you. Does my hair look good? Be honest, but tell me you like it. I got it buzzed this way with you guys in mind. And I lost weight too, can't you tell? Please notice my effort. I even put on makeup and high heels for you.

What?

Long story short, substantial post to arrive on Saturday. In the meantime, let's all compete for an imaginary junk food prize and a meaningless title which is awarded completely arbitrarily after being judged by a panel of one. This week's topic: you're stranded on a tropical island with no rescue coming. Would you rather:

1) Have an unlimited number of friendly natives around to play sports with? Or

2) Have a TV that gets every live sporting event (even those on MLB Extra Innings, NBA TV, NFL Sunday Ticket, etc.) plus all the sports analysis channels (We're talking all the ESPNs, FSNs, NFL Network, etc.)?

Keep in mind the following limitations for situation 1- Equipment and facilities will be extremely crude at best. We're talking nothing but tropical plants with which to make things. The natives will take a long time to learn any sport you try to teach them if they can even learn them at all. Good bet- football. Bad bet- baseball. If you injure yourself there's no doctor around to help you heal. Tore up your knee? Well, I guess that's the end of your sports playin' days. Hope you taught the natives enough to be entertained by watching them. And finally, the natives will not let you into their society or associate with you in any way except to play sports.

Also keep in mind the shortcomings of situation 2- You will be totally and completely alone. You may never see another human again, unless they're swimming to shore to be stranded with you, in which case you should probably just kill them in their sleep and eat them. You will have no methods with which to interact with people about the sports you watch. No internet. It's a one way conduit of information. And you won't be able to fix your TV if something happens to it. Especially something hilarious like a coconut falling on it.

Your responses might indicate otherwise, but I honestly feel like it's a tough call. Option 2 is pretty straightforward, it's more or less how most of us sports fans live now minus a few distractions like career, family, and model railroads. Comparing it against option 1, which is so hard to imagine, is the hard part. If you go with option 1 you'll effectively live in a time capsule until and if you're rescued. That would be fucked up to say the least. And you'll be bored whenever you're not playing, which would be a lot of the time. But then again how badass would it be to wake up under a palm tree and know that although you've basically lost everything you cared about in life, you can still go out that day and quarterback your team to an island championship? Or go dunk a coconut off some guy's face on an 8 foot rim? (No one said you couldn't distort the rules a little.) Or if you're patient enough to teach them baseball, hit a walk-off home run?

In the end I think I'm going to choose option 1. Although I haven't left this basement for any reason in almost ten months, played a pick-up sport in over six years, or played an organized team sport since I was six, I seem to remember sports being really fun. I think being able to actively participate in them would trump being able to watch "Rome Is Burning" and "Skip Bayless's Magical Happy Funtime Half Hour" every day. It would be nice to be able to catch all my favorite teams' games, but who would I bitch at after they screwed up? Without being able to do that watching sports becomes less enjoyable for me.

Your thoughts? Even if you have no analysis, feel free to post an unexplained vote for one or the other. We need to have popular opinion answers to questions like these. SportsNation is counting on us.

This week's prize: Freeze Pops! Three of them! Purple, orange, and blue! Sorry, I already ate red.

Damien Cox Needs a Make-Believe World Where This Article Is Needed

I actually started relating to this article at first. Then I had to stop and see if I had switched tabs. ESPN.com's Damien Cox must have thought this would be a great article idea.

For me to poop on! (OH man! I got him! I got him good, too!)

It's been a few years since the fantasy went out of sports for me.

Maybe it's just age. Or laziness. Or maybe the constant need for reading glasses. Or a realization that poring over possible trades with my buddies rather than paying attention to my kids probably wasn't a quality life decision.

So, like every retiring pro athlete, I gave up the fantasy to spend more time with my family.

No, really. Stop giggling.

Not a problem, Damien. I wasn't.

I think everybody has given up on a fantasy team here or there. You forget to check one week, then that turns into five or six, then you get an e-mail from the commish calling you out. You check it once to see 3 guys on the DL and then you don't do anything. So this article must be about fantasy sports.

But I never said I wouldn't consider a comeback -- listen up, Mr. Favre -- and with some prodding, here we go.

Now we know who to blame when Brett Farve comes back.

We're not talking about drafting a lineup for the playoffs. We're talking about drafting the entire playoffs, picking the eight first-round matchups that, in this fantasy world, would be the most fun to watch.

Fantasy playoffs? Is this the same article? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the playoff system is currently set up in the NHL to allow for the best 8 teams of each conference to play against each other, with the better team winning each round until, ultimately, a winner is decided. But instead, let's fuck around with them!

Now, be aware, these matchups have only a passing relationship to the current NHL standings.

I needed that disclaimer.

I'm putting Washington and Chicago into the Stanley Cup dance not because they'll make it, but because I like watching Alexander Ovechkin and Alexander Semin and Mike Green and Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane and Brent Seabrook.

Or: I'm putting in two teams that didn't deserve to make it in because if I didn't, my article would be more of a pile of shit than it is.

The Capitals and Blackhawks are more fun than Minnesota, Boston and Dallas, for sure, but you can't boot out all the boring teams.

Instead, Carolina and Nashville, two teams that actually aren't particularly boring at all, have to pay the price to get the Caps and Hawks in.

Sorry, but that's just the way I roll in my make-believe world.

Dallas is never a boring team in the playoffs. Watching a goalie self destruct year after year is great TV.

So in the fantasy playoffs, you have to be fun to make it in if you're out. But if you've a fun team to watch and you're in already, you're out. Also, boring teams are allowed.

Pittsburgh vs. Montreal

Right now, the Bell Centre in Montreal is arguably the best place to watch a hockey game in the world, so having Sidney Crosby in that atmosphere to start the postseason just makes sense.

How does that begin to make sense? The best place to watch HD in the whole world is my room, so having the Stanley Cup finals in that atmosphere just makes sense.

Crosby played junior in Quebec, plus his dad was a Canadiens draft pick.

Oh boy! Just what the playoffs need - a story than can be shot using fades, wipes, star wipes, old photos, newspaper clippings, and home video! PLUS! His dad was drafted by the team! How bananas is that?

Plus, these are two teams with offensive, creative personalities and, frankly, it would be a lot more interesting watching Marian Hossa and Evgeni Malkin trying to outdance Andrei Kostitsyn and Tomas Plekanec than watching enemy checkers shut them down. Finally, it would be a superb, intriguing matchup between two young goalies, Marc-Andre Fleury and Carey Price. Maybe Mario Lemieux would even make the trip north to his home province.

Somebody had better tell The Pensblog that Damien Cox has Marc-Andre Fleury starting for them in the playoffs.

Washington vs. New York Rangers

If Crosby's tied up in La Belle Province, well, Ovechkin should be on Broadway.

This guy knows that teams go to each other's arenas during the series, right?

The Russian star has never been in the postseason, and GM George McPhee's multiple moves at the trade deadline deserve some kind of playoff reward.

At least a humbling first round sweep.

Rangers superstar Jaromir Jagr, of course, played for the Caps before deciding not to try anymore.

I see know why this article had to be written. He had a great Jagr one liner and no place to put it.

In general, getting the Caps into Manhattan for a significant playoff struggle would have to help that franchise get some badly needed face time. Finally, Bruce Boudreau, the Caps' coach, is the patron saint for all those minor league bench bosses who had to wait and wait and wait for their chances to coach in the big leagues while others less qualified got their shot.

The Caps don't need any more face time. Ovechkin's hat trick was the top story on SportsCenter Monday night. They never show hockey on SportsCenter. And all it took to make it the top story was a 10-2 score, Versus in HD, and one of the two ESPN approved NHL Superstars scoring a hat trick.

New Jersey vs. Ottawa

OK, not every one can be a dream series.

Then why write the article? Next matchup.

Boston vs. Philadelphia

This would be the throwback series, a chance for two teams that last won Stanley Cups in the 1970s to get at each other. Philly, you can imagine, should be hopping in the playoffs after the team finished dead last in the league last season. Boston, meanwhile, needs a rollicking playoff series to return that sense of spirit to the Beantown hockey public, and a collision with a team that would allow fans of both cities to travel back and forth would be perfect for that. Both teams were once among the meanest, baddest teams ever to don skates, but these days, it's the Flyers who do all the nasty stuff. The memory of Philly blueliner Randy Jones' awful hit on Boston's Patrice Bergeron earlier this season would add some emotional spice.

If he really wanted to make the fantasy come true, they should play by the rules on the 1970's NHL. Allow Boston to make their ice whatever dimension they want it to be, and give the Philly fans handguns as they come into the arena. One more couldn't hurt, right?

Western Conference

Calgary vs. Anaheim

Yeah, I'm thinking watching Ducks GM Brian Burke clash with old buddy (and now Flames coach) Mike Keenan could make for a spirited affair for two teams that like it rough and tough with a sprinkling of fights per period, not games.

How would a GM and coach from opposite teams clash?

This has to be the first-round matchup the Ducks would like to avoid, if only because heading into Canada against a team with a host of its own big bodies would be a toughie to win en route to a potential repeat. You've got Ryan Getzlaf versus Dion Phaneuf, Miikka Kiprusoff versus Jean-Sebastien Giguere, Chris Pronger versus Jarome Iginla and, of course, George Parros versus Eric Godard. That last one would be only if either player ever saw the ice or left the press box. There wouldn't be nearly as much speed and skill in this one as ferocity and blood. Lots of personality and lots of crash-and-bang hockey.

I think the Ducks would like to avoid it because it wouldn't happen.

Detroit vs. Colorado

Well, duh. Of course it would be great to see this rivalry rekindled, particularly with the Wings showing their mortality down the stretch and with Adam Foote and Peter Forsberg returning to Colorado. The curiosity element in this one would be the goaltending, with no one particularly certain whether the Jose Theodore-Peter Budaj matchup will stand up under playoff pressure or 35-year-old Chris Osgood and 43-year-old Dominik Hasek have a serious playoff run left in them. But it's the history between these two clubs that would matter most, and you could expect endless video replays of Claude Lemieux's hit on Kris Draper and Patrick Roy boxing with Osgood.

This is a matchup that you want to see later than the first round so that you can root for injuries instead of a team to win. Also - did he just compare Jose Theodore and Peter Budaj to Chris Osgood and Dominik Hasek?

Finally, it would include two of the classiest NHLers ever facing off in the late stages of their careers -- Joe Sakic and Nicklas Lidstrom. A little something for everyone.

Finally! That old guy in the stands that just wants to see a classy hockey game can! Good thing Nashville got eliminated for not being boring enough. Or was that too exciting?

Minnesota vs. Dallas

There's history here, too. Actually, a little incestuous history, for these teams are relatives, with the Stars having first been born as the Minny North Stars 41 years ago before pulling up stakes for Texas in the 1990s.

Who knew the Dallas Stars came from Minnesota? They only kept the same logo and it wasn't that long ago.

They've honored the North Stars past, including keeping Bill Masterton's No. 19 retired rather than giving it to new kid on the block Brad Richards. Mike Modano, of course, was a North Stars draft pick who played for the team the last time The State of Hockey hosted a Stanley Cup finals. The Wild, meanwhile, have done a better job of understanding and capitalizing on Minnesota's rich hockey history than the North Stars ever did, while Dallas has actually planted some reasonably deep roots for the game in the heart of Texas.

Which is why Dallas sells out every game they've ever had. They don't? Oh, well good thing he mentioned the Wild and Stars fan base in the same breath.

While the coaches, Dallas' Dave Tippett and Minnesota's Jacques Lemaire, aren't known to be controversial types, the GMs, loquacious Stars co-GM Brett Hull and Minnesota's fiery Doug Risebrough, might have a quote or two to offer before it's over.

Again, GM's don't do much for the playoffs. I can see Brett Hull saying something stupid, but the Stars will probably just trap him in a crease somewhere until the Finals are finished.

San Jose vs. Chicago

There used to be some serious cross-pollination between these teams in the days when Bob Pulford ran the Blackhawks and his relative-by-marriage, Dean Lombardi, managed the Sharks. But this would be a series about personality, with San Jose still looking to establish a playoff persona and the Windy City looking to recapture the glories from when it was one of the league's signature franchises playing out of the old bandbox known as Chicago Stadium.

That's really what the first round of the playoffs in any sport are about, right? Personality and class.

And the Sharks' playoff persona is beating St. Louis repeatedly and effectively.

For the NHL, getting some Bay Area-Chicago flavor would be terrific after so many years of seeing major cities like New York, Los Angeles, Boston and Chicago on the sidelines when the postseason began. These are young hockey teams, with the Sharks looking to fulfill their promise and the Hawks, featuring Toews and Kane, trying to demonstrate they are a team of the future. Joe Thornton of the Sharks, meanwhile, is going to have that playoff bugaboo lurking over his shoulder until he gets something serious done in the spring.

Unless blood was drawn, I don't think there would ever be a San Jose - Chicago rivalry.

Wait - this whole article is about playoffs that won't happen and he didn't even give us a winner in any of the series? I don't care if the predictions were as poorly thought of as the article, but give us something. Example:

Calgary in 3. Mike Keenan has a koala crap a rainbow in his brain and gives his whole team Stimutacs, so they need one less game to win the series.

Damien Cox's fantasy may not be that bad, after all. I just doubt I could fill out his whole playoff board using Sealab 2021.

For Once, Dr. Z Entertains Me Without Being Flagrantly Dumb

Dr. Z is a lot of things. Crusty old crummudgeon. Possible asylum escapee. Poor writer. Idiot. But this is his day in the sun at FireJay, because he just wrote a very entertaining piece which not only claims that Brett Favre could've been a whole lot better but also calls out the media for constantly handling him with kid gloves. Now, I'm not a Favre/Packer hater. I acknowledge that he's great, and I really don't have anything horrible to say about him. The tone of what Dr. Z does here probably takes things a little too far; I mean, Favre has the all time win, TD and yardage titles in addition to a ring. It's a nearly peerless resume and should be treated as such. But I'm excited about this piece simply because it's such a breath of fresh air.

Who has guts to subtly shit all over a surefire hall of famer less than 12 hours after he retires? Who's going to implicitly call out John Madden and Peter King (along with others) for refusing to hold Favre to the same standards they use on every other QB in the league? Who's going to question whether or not he was the greatest QB in Packer history by referencing two guys no one's ever heard of from the 40s and 50s? Dr. Z, that's who. Hey, you don't land a lady like the Flaming Redhead unless you've got balls down to your shoes. There's a reason he looks so happy with himself in his CNNSI file photo. He says what he wants, when he wants, and that makes him a real man.

Remember the night in Oakland, when it was iffy whether he'd play, following his father's death? Four TD passes and 399 yards in the air was the legacy he left out there. But there were downers, too, and it only hurt Favre that the knights of the TV screen always were ready to make excuses for him.

His fourth quarter and overtime meltdown against the Giants last season, which put a sad end to a remarkably classy season? Never mind ... the redemption of the Giants' field-goal kicker was the angle. The goofy, looping interception that cost the Pack the Eagles' game in OT in the divisionals in 2004? Oh, let's put it on the defense for allowing McNabb his fourth-and-26 completion in regulation.

Always ready to make excuses, always braying about "what a good time he's having," that was the continual barrage from TV. Maybe a few frowns, a stern reprimand or two, might have toned down the wild maverick a little, but gosh, he sure is having fun out there. And that's what the game is all about, isn't it? Fun, boys acting like men and so forth.

Facial.

Also, I forgot to award a winner for last week's reader extra participation Friday. Thanks to everyone who submitted (Even you, Archie the Possible Cokehead. And yes there are still winners. Keep trying.), but I've got to hand this one to Matt for pointing out that:

Worst: Chess. Don't get me wrong, I like chess. But when Bobby Fisher died recently,players quoted in the flood of resulting articles kept citing all Fisher "had done for our sport." Seriously? Sitting at a table for days & taking hours to decide in which direction you want to move a tiny piece a total of about 3" qualifies as a sport? I think I burn more calories taking a dump than a chess player does in an entire match. Plus the title "Grandmaster" sounds suspiciously like "Grand Wizard," and that's just racist.

By A: almost never being on TV and B: not requiring any movement out of the participants (we're not counting moving your arms to move the pieces, fuck that), chess failed to meet two of my three stated criteria for being a "sport." So really, this submission shouldn't even count. So why am I giving it the title anyways? Fuck, man. Now that I think about it "Grandmaster" does sound a little bit racist. And wasn't Bobby Fisher a well-known anti-Semite? It's 2008, International Chess Governing Body Association Incorporated. I think it's time we moved past that kind of thing.

(Note: posts that point out what a fucking disaster Dr. Z is to resume shortly. This is a one time deal.)

How Long Until Dusty Baker Benches Adam Dunn For You-Know-Whatting Up The You-Know-Whatpaths

I promise this post is not being made just to antagonize local Reds fan Dan-Bob. But after hearing what I just heard, I couldn't not write about it. Rob Dibble (always known to be a real Ivy Leaguer, of course) on XM's "The Show", hyping up the alleged depth of the NL Central by listing a reason every team in it has a chance to be good:

Dusty Baker is now in Cincinnati- and we all know what he can do.

Ummmm... what can he do? Not understand how teams in baseball maximize their chances of scoring runs? Ruin young pitching staffs? Put his son in harm's way? Don't get me wrong, as shitty as that division is, the Reds could easily make a run at its crown. But let's just be clear that if that happens Dusty had little or nothing to do with it.

Fun fact of the day- as much as he loves unclogging the basepaths as a manager, Dusty only had 27 sacrifice bunts and 137 steals in his 19 year playing career. Discuss amongst yourselves.

When Bill Simmons Writes Ridiculous Bullshit, You Know I'll Be Here To Complain

Mailbag time. Pot, meet kettle.

Q: Did you go to the Celtics-Clippers game? We were looking for you, but it was hard to find the Sports Guy in the sea of brand-new Kevin Garnett jerseys.
-- Kevin, Redondo Beach, Calif.

SG: Of course, I went! You're right, the entire arena had the "fresh car" smell, only it was the "fresh jersey from the Celtics Pro Shop" smell. There were more Boston fans there for that game than the last three Celtics-Clippers games combined. (My favorite sighting: Famed Hollywood producer Brian Grazer sitting courtside with his two sons, both of whom were wearing KG jerseys.) With that said, on the Bandwagon Jumping Scale, the Celtics jumpers can't come close to matching what happened with the New York Football Giants over the past four weeks. Three points here:

1. I have uttered or e-mailed the phrase, "Wow, I didn't know you were a Giants fan, congratulations!" at least 15 times since Feb. 3.

2. I can't remember seeing a single Giants hat or jersey in L.A. before Feb. 3. In the past four weeks, I've seen at least 20.

3. Back in Manhattan, one of my editors, Mike Philbrick, swears that dozens of New Yorkers have been hospitalized after passing out from the fumes of people walking around the city wearing brand-new Giants hats and replica jerseys.

ZING! How Jimmy Kimmel has managed to rise to near A-list comedic status despite having Bill occasionally write for him is a minor miracle. Take that, New Yorkers... you bought a bunch of clothes! Even moreso, take that, Asian factory laborers who make NFL apparel. Your brain cells are dying in droves every day because of those nasty fumes!

Of course, that isn't the real reason I decided to make a post out of this. While it's admirable that he recognizes the fact that the Celtics are currently a huge bandwagon favorite, it's also downright ludicrous that he dares to print this email given that his other two favorite teams also enormous bandwagon picks. How many people gave a fuck about the Patriots before 2001? How many non-New England natives liked the Red Sox before 2003/2004? I would go so far as to say that the Red Sox and Patriots are probably the two biggest bandwagon picks in all of sports over the course of the past ten years. That's right, I said it. And the Patriots are notable for the fact that they became a bandwagon pick in 2001, then actually acquired a second wave of bandwagoners this past fall. That kind of double bandwagonism is hard to pull off. I don't even think the Yankees managed that in 1999/2000.

Obviously this happens to teams that do well all the time. Due to their recent success, my favorite baseball team currently has a large number of fans that probably couldn't name more than one or two guys on the roster a year ago. So I'm not saying Boston's teams are alone in this regard. I am however saying that Bill sourpussedly complaining about all the Giants bandwagoners when he happens to cheer exclusively for teams that also currently sport gigantic bandwagons, is, as the title of the post states, ridiculous bullshit.

(Let's just move on before I start sounding bitter.)

Let's just move on before you write any more awful jokes.

We Have A Label For This

CBSSportsline's Scott Miller doesn't seem to understand what causes baseball teams to win and lose.

Ah, spring. Time for the Pittsburgh Pirates to rev up for another season.

Which, you know, means they can practice overthrowing first base, missing the strike zone, failing to move runners over and maybe even devote time to tossing rainbows over a few cutoff men.

He then goes on to spend most of the piece talking about the Pirates' problems and 15 year streak of finishing under .500. But here's a little list I prepared which should shed light on some facts that Scott might not be familiar with.

Not reasons the Pirates were bad in 2007:
-overthrowing first base (fourth fewest errors in MLB)
-missing the strike zone (13th fewest walks)
-missing the cutoff man (not statistically measurable, but impossible to affect team's record by more than a couple games)
-failing to move runners over (see "missing the cutoff man")

Reasons the Pirates were bad in 2007, have been bad since 1993, and probably will continue to be bad for the foreseeable future:
-not employing enough good baseball players

Later:

The Pirates are packing treasures from their past -- spring instructors Mazeroski, Manny Sanguillen, Bill Virdon and Kent Tekulve -- as proof that this organization once was more than sunken treasure.

"We're starting to go back to the basics," said Sanguillen, who has spent much of his spring tutoring catchers Ryan Doumit and Ronny Paulino. "Vocal communication. Motivation. Try to bring passion back to the game, and belief. Make them believe we're going to win."

I hate to sound like a broken record, but you might want to also work on employing more good baseball players.