Completely Unexpected

What? What's that? Pete Rose would vote Alex Rodriguez into the Hall of Fame if he had a ballot? So what you're telling me is... a guy who really wants to be in the HOF, but can't get in because he did something the game finds reprehensible, would allow another guy who did something reprehensible in? Well at least we know Rose isn't a huge hypocrite. Oh wait, actually, he kind of is.

"When you take steroids you have a direct outcome of the game," Rose said. "That's the integrity of the game. And when you can change records when you do something illegal, it's just not right."

Emphasis added. But hey, at least he's not a hypocrite when it comes to the HOF balloting itself.

I'm not taking a holier than thou stance here- I actually think Rose deserves to be in, in some capacity. I'm undecided about steroid users. But the point of this post is that this is a pretty hilarious sound bite. Hey Pete, how about you go away and don't talk for a while.

PS- Happy second birthday to us. Yeah, motherfuckers. That's right. Two whole years. Counting the 2008 leap year, that's 731 days! We may be withering on the vine and dying, but we are certainly not dead yet. I expect us stick around at least another 5 or 6 months before we stop posting altogether. Also- in our first post ever, I actually tried to make a joke about Mel Kiper Jr.'s hair. I still need to kick my own ass for that. What was my next topic going to be- airplane food?

I Hate Boston Sports Teams- Sun Continues to Rise in East, Set in West

Remember when Jacoby Ellsbury stole home? I sure do. I'll bet you do too. And if I didn't know any better, I'd have thought from the media's reaction at the time that it was the greatest accomplishment in the history of athletics. Sportswriters gushed and blushed. Some asshole MSM-types (this guy is a blogger, but he's a blogger officially employed by NBC sports, so I'm lumping him in with the MSM) even went so far as to complain that the ESPN crew covering the game detracted from the moment by not calling it as you're "supposed" to call a steal of home, however that is. I wish I were making that up, but that's really what the dude said. ESPN, probably in penance for this alleged sin committed against "Red Sox Nation" and humanity as a whole, stopped all coverage of any other events to show a non-stop looped replay of the steal for 24 hours straight the day after. A Red Sock had stolen home- against the Yankees no less!- and the world would never be the same. We were all forced to revel in the glory of the moment.

Well, Jayson Werth of the Phillies stole home tonight against the Dodgers, arguably in an even cooler fashion. Rather than simply going when a left handed pitcher was about to go into his windup, Werth went immediately after Dodgers' catcher Russell Martin had thrown the ball back to pitcher Rolando Belisario (who, by virtue of being right handed presumably should have been paying attention to Werth's ever-expanding lead on the previous 2 or 3 pitches). Now, it's not like the Phillies get totally ignored by the media. They, along with teams like LAA, CHW, and SFG, are probably in the second tier of media favoritism just behind the ol' BOS/NYY/NYM/CHC/LAD quintumvirate. But the reason for this whiny post is this: considering the fact that he's not Jacoby Ellsbury, do you think anyone in the media is even going to notice what Werth did?

That's rhetorical.

Actually, contrary to what I'm implying, the answer is probably yes. The fact that someone else stole home is an excellent opportunity for said media to take a trip down memory lane and talk about/show highlights of Ellsbury's steal all over again. God bless America.

Oh, by the way, have you heard about this totally underreported tidbit of news? Apparently David Ortiz hasn't hit a home run yet this season. Yeah, surprising, I know. I really had to do a lot of independent research to dig up that fascinating and totally relevant story. After all, he's the only former slugger in MLB history to start a season in his mid 30s with a big slump. Ever. But at least the Celtics are playing well, right? Rajon Rondo: already better than Isiah Thomas, or already WAY better than Isiah Thomas? Discuss.

I'll Tell You This Much-

Usually when I see previews for a new movie, I think "Meh. I probably won't see that. Doesn't look like anything special." I mean, movies are expensive these days. I have to be picky about which ones I see in the theaters. I'm not dropping $11 on something that doesn't look completely awesome. With the possible exception of "Hotel for Dogs," I haven't been convinced to see any movie in the theaters by a preview anytime in recent memory.

BUT- but- there's an exception to this rule.

If you splice some sports highlights into said previews, all bets are off. All of a sudden, my desire to see that movie skyrockets. I mean, I like sports. So if you make a ridiculous advertisement for something not even remotely related to sports, but include sports clips in it, it only makes sense that I will now want to purchase that product. Marketing 101! I tell you, whoever made this is a fucking genius.



No, but seriously, whoever came up with the idea for these cross-promotions is the biggest asshole alive. Bigger than Brett Favre, you ask? Yes. Bigger than Brett Favre. Sports/movie cross promotions should be legally classified as hate crimes against people with brains.

Great Article on the Roberts Book

Murray Chass

nb: Jeff Pearlman is mentioned in this review of Roberts's A-Rod book...as someone who actually uses quoted sources rather than anonymous innuendo.

NHL Marketing Has Other Things to Worry About

I have SportsCenter on right now and with 2 leagues in the playoffs and baseball playing actual games that have meanings in the standings, Brett Favre has 3 slots in the "SC Rundown," MLB has 3, and the NHL has 1. What a joke. Looks like I'll have to watch Parental Control on MTV. If only my chronic unemployment would strike at The Hockey News' Ryan Kennedy. He thinks that this year's playoffs will be great for the NHL Marketing department. He is an idiot. You may now skip to the comments.

Not that the NHL would ever admit it cheers for certain teams, but the league must be beaming at the results of the playoffs so far. Because in terms of marketing the sport to casual fans, Gary Bettman and his buddies are looking at a huge summer.

Casual fans and NHL summer marketing... bikini-clad porn stars playing on ice? Casual fans rejoice! Nipples will be seen!

The only Stanley Cup final permutation right now that doesn't result in huge media coverage — let's call it the "nightmare scenario" — would be if Anaheim met Carolina. This is not meant to besmirch these two great teams; they simply don't have the name recognition that draws in the TV crowd.

Except that one of these two teams was named after a movie trilogy. Even non-hockey fans know the trials and tribulations of Gordon Bombay. And every other team left in the playoffs results in huge media coverage. The end. Evidence of this isn't needed. It's given to you as a fact, so accept it. Remember how I told you the NHL was on SportsCenter? We're 40 minutes in. Casual fans will not care about the Stanley Cup Playoffs, so let's hope it's an entertaining match up and not worry about TV ratings, okaythanks.

Even by the most liberal calculations, however — that is to say, not handicapping two low seeds against teams that "should" beat them in the next two rounds — there is only a one-in-16 chance the Ducks and 'Canes meet in the final. Otherwise, a huge pool of viewers is available in nearly every other scenario.

And every week, millions of people watch American Idol and Dancing With the Stars. It doesn't mean that all of the sudden karaoke and ballroom dancing are billion dollar industries. Just because people watch the games on TV doesn't mean that they'll go out and buy season tickets. It doesn't mean a large influx of new fans. It just means the games are less boring to people than repeats of Match Game PM. A huge pool of viewers will be available anyways because people aren't going out as much. The best case scenario would be if Sidney Crosby and Alexander Ovechkin could play against each other in some sort of playoff scenario. Even then, it will be forgotten quickly unless there are amazing individual plays or explosions.

In the Western Conference, you have two Original Six teams from big sports markets: Detroit and Chicago. As an added bonus, both teams come pre-packaged with feel-good stories: The Wings are the defending champions and the NHL's marquee franchise right now, while the Blackhawks are riding a crest of local goodwill as fans return to rock the home arena after decades of neglect. With both teams facing off in this season's Wrigley Field Winter Classic, casual fans already have a base of familiarity to work from, too.

Casual fans, of course, would know what "Original Six" means and why they would care. Hell, I love hockey and couldn't give two shits about the Original Six. Put that into NBC commercials for the playoffs. This team has been around forever and you should watch for that reason! The team has stayed economically stable for many years, thus the talent must be outstanding for this season! Does this guy know what marketing is? I ask because none of this seems to make the NHL more desirable to somebody who isn't a fan.

And if not the Original Sixers, how about Vancouver? The Canucks are now Canada's last hope at ending a national losing streak of 15 seasons and Canadians tend to pull for whichever team north of the 49th parallel remains, so northern ratings would be huge. Coupled with the fact Vancouver is one of the nation's biggest cities and has a fan base growing even more rabid as success on the ice echoes 1994 and you've got a good situation.

Yes, sell the Stanley Cup Finals to Canada. They won't know that it's going on, and they contribute so fucking much to American television ratings. Northern ratings would be huge regardless of who is playing. But you know where the NHL doesn't need to market to new fans? Canada. They watch, they buy jerseys, they play, they consume everything the NHL can give to them. In case you're curious - and you aren't - here's the ratings of the opening night of the playoffs in Canada this season. Canada averaged 1,732,000 viewers across 3 networks of playoff hockey. That's out of an estimated 33 million people living in that country. Here's what TV by the numbers had to say about US ratings.

In total, VERSUS averaged a 0.38 household cable rating, 286,290 households and 392,384 viewers. Those figures are up 6%, 10% and 25% from last year’s opening night average of 0.36, 261,308 households and 314,368 viewers. The 314,368 viewer average for the night makes it VERSUS most watched opening night of the NHL playoffs since they started carrying NHL games in the 2005-06 season.

Impressive.

The embarrassment of riches in the East is just as palpable. The Washington-Pittsburgh series guarantees either Alex Ovechkin or Sidney Crosby in the conference final and their second-round death match alone will bring in big headlines across the continent.

Remember what I said about SportsCenter? They both had hat tricks in the same game. And still, Brett Favre is the one making the headlines.

Having Ovechkin in the final would be tremendous for NHL marketers, especially since his personality and on-ice skills are so translatable to viral forms such as YouTube. If Crosby can bring his squad back to the final for another go, it would be just as satisfying.

They already have a Crosby/Ovechkin playoff meeting and they aren't marketing that. So how exactly would an NHL marketer magically make just one player in the Stanley Cup Finals sound so much better to the average American?

Boston, much like Chicago, is an Original Six team in a big American market that is experiencing a dramatic resurgence. The Bruins are skilled, tough and filled with great stories and personalities such as Tim Thomas, Milan Lucic and Phil Kessel. They're also a powerhouse No. 1 seed and the Stanley Cup possibilities involving the Bruins are pretty sexy — can you imagine Boston-Detroit or Boston-Chicago? Even the time zones work out for maximum exposure.

Amazingly, the strongest story going for the Bruins right now are the YouTube copies of their "Bruins Hockey Rules" ad campaign. Which is fantastic. Viral ads are what marketing is all about. Not Original Six teams.

While I'm here, though, something else in this paragraph set me off. Sports writers using the term "sexy." This isn't Seinfeld. Combining sex with excitement doesn't work. Sexy shouldn't stand in for underdog. Sexy shouldn't stand in for surprising. Sexy shouldn't stand in for thrilling. Stop fucking using it. It's not edgy or hilarious to say sexy. It's stupid and uninspired. "Sexy" is exactly the sort of drivel you'd expect to hear out of a TV tuned to ESPN.

Hockey is on a pretty serious roll right now. While baseball is dealing with an aura of being out of touch (i.e. the new Yankee Stadium ticket prices) and basketball no longer the dominant winter-spring sport, the coolest game on ice is starting to come out from under the radar. Big names in the final would boost the sport's profile even more.

Hockey is on a good roll for now, with arena attendance up. Baseball in New York City is out of touch - attendance should be down everywhere. It's just magnified because it's New York City and it's so expensive. Basketball what? I guess I missed that press conference where the NBA relinquished it's TV deal with ESPN and gave hockey the crown of "dominant winter-spring" sport. Big names only help those who have the means to help themselves. You don't have that when Versus is your TV rights holder.

A Tale of Two Things I Hate

This blog is almost two years old, and I'm pretty sure we've never made a post out of a really shitty photoshop. Well, there's a first time for everything. I was feeling energetic this morning so I spent 10 minutes cranking these out. Enjoy.








I'll bet Tony Kornheiser and Peter King have huge boners right now.

What Jeff Pearlman doesn't seem to understand

This is almost too complicated a series of linking for me to do this, hungover as I am, but here goes. Jeff Pearlman has written a column taking Jason Whitlock to task for a column (a wonderful column, IMO) which takes to task Selena Roberts for writing a vindictive invective (is that redundant?) about Alex Rodriguez's myriad personal problems. (No link necessary).

Jeff's a sometime reader of this blog, evidently a very nice person, and and a talented author whose only book I read I enjoyed immensely (the one about the 1986 "Nigh" Mets). However he just doesn't seem to get it here. Let's look

Ten years ago this December, Sports Illustrated ran my profile of John Rocker. The story sort of put me on the map as a journalist (which is funny, because it really wasn’t all that well written), but it also earned me a ton of scorn. In the days … months … years after the piece initially ran, I received myriad calls and letters, wondering when I would step up and apologize. In some quarters, the belief was that I had taken advantage of a young man. That, while his beliefs were certainly off, he was just a bumpkin, naive to the ways of the media.

Alas, I never apologized. Never felt I should, even though the outcry was pretty damn loud.

Three years ago, Selena Roberts wrote a piece for the New York Times that called out those Duke lacrosse players accused of sexual assault. Her column was unambiguously strong, and, many believed, took the young men to task for a crime it turns out they didn’t commit. In the days … months … years after the piece initially ran, the belief was that Roberts had taken advantage of young men. That, while she certainly had a right to an opinion, she hung these guys without proof.

Alas, Selena Roberts never apologized, either. Never felt she should, even though the outcry was pretty damn loud.

This is a longer block quote than I usually post, but I think it's essential. Look--let's look at this bullshit analogy:

1a.) Jeff Pearlman writes a mildly exploitative column in which John Rocker says a bunch of blatantly racist things of his own volition.

2a.) Some people claim that Rocker was too naive to realize the consequences of his blatantly racist comments and therefore Pearlman had done him an injustice in writing this column.

3a.) Pearlman felt pressure to apologize but did not.

Now the flipside

1b.) Selena Roberts write a column in which she uses the allegations of A FUCKING CRIME. THE WORST FUCKING CRIME THERE IS ACCORDING TO MANY PEOPLE. She uses these allegations of a crime (which turn out to be false) in order to attack what she perceives to be unacceptable NON-CRIMES going on within a sports program and university. She makes various connections between the allegations of the crime and the NON-CRIMES in order to attempt to get readers to infer that the allegations of the crime are likely true.

2b.) People think that this is inethical and that she should apologize for it.

3b.) Roberts not only does not apologize for it but gives myriad statements claiming that she was indeed justified in implying that a culture of what she perceives to be sexism somehow meant that these boys were more likely than not to be guilty of ONE OF THE WORST CRIMES IMAGINABLE

Surely it doesn't take a brain surgeon to see how shitty this analogy, but let's break it down for all the orthopedic surgeons out there. (Take that Dr. McGillicuddy. MRI my ass!) Jeff Pearlman's crime (if it was a crime) involved his use of discretion regarding FACTS--if Rocker said something racist, it was nonetheless said, irrespective of how naive Rocker was or whether Pearlman should have posed those quotations as excoriatingly as he did. Roberts's crime (if it was a crime. And it was. A crime that is) was rather that she took conjecture involving her interpretation of facts (pictures taken, broomsticks waves, American Psycho emails sent) and presented it in a way that suggested evidence of fact towards a judgment on the guilt of people who, as it turns out, were not fucking guilty.

In short: Pearlman is accused of putting too many facts in. Roberts is accused of using facts to turn a non-fact into a fact.

This is not a valid analogy, and one of the major failings of the thought process that leads to what follows:

Being completely forthright, I don’t think Selena handled it 100-percent righteously. The column was, in hindsight, too accusatory, and when the innocence was proven, she probably owed an “I was wrong” follow-up piece.

Not particularly relevant to Whitlock's point.

That being said, for my money Selena is one of America’s best writer/reporters.

Not particularly relevant to anything.

She was years ago, when she covered Tate George and the New Jersey Nyets for the Times, and she is now. Show me a big-time columnist who doesn’t wish he/she could take back some things that made ink, and I’ll show you a big-time columnist who doesn’t belong in the biz. Columnist go out on limbs. They take sides. The oftentimes leap before they look. Do you think, looking back, I’m happy I called for Joe Torre’s dismissal
in May, 2007? Hell, no. It was boneheaded, rash, moronic. I was wrong, but my pen (well, keyboard) never stopped me.

And certainly Pearlman shouldn't have written that Torre article. But surely Pearlman can also see a difference between writing a column that impugns a player or coach's ability, and writing column after column after column, as Roberts has, that impugns a player's (A-Rod, for those of you scoring at home) moral fiber.

If Pearlman were to write a book exposing various he said she said bullshit allegations about Torre, his previous column would not establish a personal vendetta against Torre. It would establish that, at that time, he thought Torre wasn't getting the job done as manager.

OTOH, Roberts has established a personal vendetta (or at least something resembling that) about A-Rod's moral character. That makes her allegations more suspect than if she was not someone who, time and again, had written articles calling A-Rod phony, a bad teammate, and of weak character.

Furthermore, her Duke situation shows to an even greater extent her reliability when presented with facts--the way she is willing to play fast and loose with specious facts in order to arrive at what she presents as hard and fast conclusions.

Gee fucking whiz. Why oh why would hearsay that supported her foregone conclusion re: The Duke Case be relevant when evaluating her book, in which all her allegations are based on hearsay that supports what already was her foregone conclusion?

Good grief.

What truly bothers me right now are the growing legions of media sorts taking Selena to task; gleefully evoking Duke lacrosse—as if they’d never made a blunder themselves. Here in New York, Boomer and Carton of WFAN’s morning show seemed to take special pleasure in slamming away

How is it possible that Pearlman can't see the difference between a "blunder" that involved essentially convicting someone of something they didn't do whilst relying on specious (at BEST) evidence, and the "blunder" that he is about to use to impugn Whitlock's credibility (found below)? Especially since the majority of revelations that have leaked from Roberts's book involve using specious evidence (hearsay and conjecture about how "pitch tipping" MIGHT work or players who heard that "A-Rod was in on it") to reach a judgmental conclusion about A-Rod as a human being?

How is it possible he does not understand that? Is it possible he sees his own journalistic mistakes through the eyes of Roberts's poorly received invectives?

Pearl: It ISN'T. Your. Fault. (Will Pearlman respond: "Don't do this to me man. Not you man."? Tune in next week!)

Look:

(Several years ago, Whitlock was embarrassed nationally after it was learned that, during a Chiefs game against the Patriots in Foxboro, he taunted fans by writing a sign reading BLEDSOE. GAY? I thought it was just a stupid, silly mistake—but one that bothered many people. We all do things we regret). Others have followed suit.

Lol. He just. Doesn't. Fucking. Get it.

Here is why this is not relevant to this conversation: If Whitlock comes out and writes a tell-all book detailing how Bledsoe is a bad person, and potentially gay, this would be a relevant incident to mention.

Jeff Pearlman: confusing ad hominem arguments with reasonable questions of credibility since 199X. Like in this passage:

I’m not sure what the point here is, except that I hate the old Republican strategy of shifting the focus from the subject to the messenger.

What it boils down to is this. A-Rod has cheated. He's used steroids. He may have used steroids in high school. He may not have. He may have tipped pitches (and if he did, then that is an atrocious crime against the game of baseball, IMO) or he may not have. He may have "bitch tits" or he may not. He may have asked a trainer to bring him a cup of coffee. He may be insecure. He may be a bad human being. Hell, worst of all, he might even tip 15%!!!!!

Hell, I think I'm inclined to believe that all of the above are more likely to be true than not.

But you know what? When I'm looking at someone being accused of all these things, when the evidence is less than concrete (as it is for most of the above accusations) then SOME OF the burden falls on the credibility of the person leveling these accusations. Since journalists' sources are protected, that puts much of the burden of credibility on the journalist who is expressing these third party accusations.

Why is it unnatural that we inspect closely she who is leveling these accusations, and, finding her past wanting, adjust the extent to which we are willing to believe these accusations accordingly?

Don't answer that. It was rhetorical.

And if Dinosaurs Really Existed, How Come They're not in the Bible?

Jeff Francouer, he of the career .312 OBP, has a question for all you basement-dwelling, sunshine-hating, girl-never-talking-to, sex-never-having, fuckhead stat nerds:

"If on-base percentage is so important, then why don't they put it up on the scoreboard?"

Hmmmmmmm. Your own answers to this surely non-rhetorical question inthe comments, please.

New* Generation* of Baseball Stars* Emerging*

First of all, let me VWOOP! say that as I type this VWOOP! Chris Berman VWOOP! is hosting SportsCenter and he is a VWOOP! motherfucking embarrassment. That's all there is to say about that. Oh, except for: THE-UHHHHHHHHHH RAAAAAAAAAAIIIIDAAAHHHHHHHHSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.

Moving on.

The title of this post is the actual title of this article by Richard Justice about some MLB players who are off to hot starts this season. Why the asterisks? Well, I don't want to get too bogged down in legal technicalities, but that title needs some clarification. For example, some of the players named in the article aren't "new" to the league at all. (I know "new" is modifying "generation" and not necessarily the individual players, but bear with me. Just this one time.) They certainly, as a whole, do not constitute a "generation." Many of them are not "stars," and never will be. And some aren't "emerging" at all- they either have already emerged or simply are not doing anything that could be construed as an emergence.

They all do play baseball, though, so I didn't have to put an asterisk by that. Which is good.

Maybe you haven't heard of Aaron Hill. You will, though. Trust us on this one. Likewise, you'll soon know all about Zack Greinke, Nyjer Morgan, Nelson Cruz, Joey Votto, Heath Bell and Brandon Inge.

So if you're a baseball fan, you should already be able to tell why I used those asterisks up there.
This baseball season is interesting, not just because the Royals, Tigers, Mariners and Marlins are in first place,

Well, of course- I know my heart is still going a mile a minute because of the emergence of those plucky Royals.

not just because the Pirates and Padres are hanging in there,

Thrills abound in the NL West! (For clarification, I'm not some kind of Yankees/Red Sox/Cubs loving asshole. My favorite team actually happens to play in the NL West. I just have to point out, it's not exactly the most compelling division even with the Padres not starting to suck just yet.)

but because all over baseball, a new generation of stars is emerging.

Well sure. Evan Longoria, Carlos Quentin, and Jay Bruce are all having great years so far. And you've gotta like what Yovani Gallardo and Chad Billingsley have been doing.

Sure, Albert Pujols is still doing amazing things.

Who?

So is Kevin Youkilis and Johan Santana and Roy Halladay and a lot of familiar names.

We've got a subject/verb agreement problem there. But sure, that's true.

What would life be without a Red Sox-Yankees series meaning something?

You just named a Cardinal, a Red Sock, a Met, and a Blue Jay. The fuck is this sentence doing here?

Let's run down some of the people that are doing great things in the first month of a new season.

First, Aaron Hill. He does things at second base that will remind you of Roberto Alomar, meaning his glove work can occasionally take your breath away.

He also leads the major league in hits

After 20some games.

and is one of several reasons the Toronto Blue Jays are in first place in the American League East. Teammates Ricky Romero and Jason Frasor are on that list, too.

OK, Richard's first choice: Aaron Hill. Great. Let's break down young Mr. Hill's credentials. He's now 27, which means he should have entered his offensive prime last season or so. He has a career OPS+ of.... 100. He is, by that standard, an exactly average hitter. He has also hit 34 career home runs in more than 2000 career plate appearances. Hmmm. If you put a lot of stock in fielding metrics, he's a little above average as a second baseman in range factor/9 innings for his career. He's at 5.02- the league over that period of time is at 4.95. So he makes an extra putout or assist over the average second baseman every 15 games or so. Nothing to sneeze at, and perhaps he does have a penchant for the highlight-reel play, but he's not exactly the second coming of Ozzie Smith (at second base) either.

My analysis? Maybe new, not a star, probably not emerging unless he's a late bloomer. We're off to a great start.

The Blue Jays were only going to go as far as their young pitchers took them, and so far, Romero and Frasor are a combined 5-0, but Romero was placed on the 15-day disabled list this week.

Therefore, Aaron Hill is somehow an emerging star.

Hill was Toronto's first-round pick in 2003, was in the big leagues for good in 2005. He moved from short to second when Orlando Hudson was traded

And because he was not a very good defensive shortstop.

and has gotten better and better.

Yes, as most athletes tend to do in their mid twenties. Those who do not usually find themselves selling insurance by age 30.

He missed 107 games last season after suffering a concussion in a collision with David Eckstein.

Goodness! I'm surprised Eckstein's hustle and grit didn't decapitate Hill upon impact! I hear running into Eckstein is like driving a car at 90 mph into a 4 foot high wall of solid concrete. With spikes sticking out of it. While Darin Erstad lobs grenades at you.

He's back now. Boy is he back.

And having a great 20 game stretch.

The Blue Jays are a model organization in some ways. That is, they're forced to build through player development because they don't have the resources to spring for the big-ticket free agents.

Probably because they wasted $52 million on B.J. "Exploding Elbow" Ryan a few years back.

When teams do it this way, even when their scouts are making good decisions, there can be frustration among fans because fans want everything done yesterday.

That sentence reads like it was translated into Finnish and then translated back.

Once the talent pipeline starts flowing, teams like the Blue Jays — and the Marlins — have a chance to remain in contention for a long time.

As long as they can retain their homegrown stars, like Roy Halladay. (Coming soon to a Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, or Boston-based team near you!) Which they usually can't. But good for them for inking up Vernon Wells I guess. Enjoy paying him $18 million a year for $5 to $10 million a year's worth of production until 2014, Toronto.

Nice going, Blue Jays.

Here's an ice cream cone and a firm pat on the ass.

Now about Zack Greinke.

You need a verb.

You probably have a vague recollection of him somewhere in the back of your mind.

You remember he was a top prospect that couldn't cut it and briefly gave up on baseball.

Yes, it does seem like he has been around forever. He was the sixth pick of the 2002 draft and in the big leagues two years later at the ripe old age of 20. He was going to be the next great thing.

His story is really complicated. Somewhere on the road to Cooperstown, he came undone. He walked away, saying it was no longer fun.

Listen, I don't want to rip a guy who had a serious mental illness, but listen to this interview from a couple years ago and try not to laugh at Zach the dipshit. If ever there was a pinhead simpleton idiot... it's probably him. His ability to have a conversation is unrelated to his ability to play baseball, of course. I just think the link is worth sharing. Seriously, pop in your headphones and take a few minutes to listen to it. Wow. Wow. Wow.

In any case, this is probably Richard's best pick. My analysis- not new, but probably going to be a "star" of some kind, definitely emerging. Two out of three ain't bad. Especially when you have trouble with the idea that you have to use "are" when your sentence contains multiple subjects.

The Royals have built from the ground up as well and they're drawing big crowds at home and there's a feeling that a franchise has been reborn this season.

As Richard would say: Nice going, Royals. (end analysis)

Joey Votto is also only 25 years old. He was also a high draft pick in 2002. He needed five years to get to the big leagues. He's a big, strapping kid that is hitting .358 and driving in runs.

When the Big Red Machine is fully back in business, he'll be a household name.

Another decent choice- probably new, maybe going to be a star (but slugging first basemen aren't exactly hard to find), probably emerging. Let's move past this and get to the crap.

Nyjer Morgan plays center field for the Pirates. He's 28 years old, but playing regularly for the first time.

Hmmmmmmmm. This is like being single in your mid twenties and having a friend say "Hey, I know this great chick I'm going to set you up with. She happens to be 34 and has a kid-" And then you kind of just stop listening and tune the friend out. If you haven't played regularly before age 28, there is a 99% change that it's because you suck.

He leads the NL in triples

You know how the saying goes- if you're leading the league in triples in early May... well, you probably have like three triples.

OK, scratch that, I just checked. He has two.

and stolen bases and is hitting .319.

The day this article was written, last Monday, Dexter Folwer stole almost as many bases (5) as Morgan has all season (6). Oh, and his average his since dropped to .309.

He's one of those guys your kids will want to be like.

You mean a professional baseball player? True, I guess. Same for anyone else in this article though.

To see him run the bases is to take a memory home from the ballpark.

Ah- the piece of human poetry that is Nyjer Morgan. You suck, Richard. Nyjer Morgan: perhaps new, but never ever ever going to be a star and most definitely not emerging.

Sometimes, you just have to give a guy a chance. That's the lesson of Heath Bell, who at 31 leads the major leagues with seven saves.

Segue! That's why this guy gets paid the big bucks.

He was drafted by the Mets, traded to the Padres and worked anonymously in both bullpens for most of the last five seasons.

Yeah, about that- in San Diego, prior to this season, he was a dominant setup guy who usually worked the 8th inning in front of a first ballot hall of famer. I really don't think you can accuse the Padres of "not giving him a chance" until now. Although I will concede that the Mets might have given up on him a little early. On the other hand, during his last season with them (2006), he allowed 51 hits and 6 home runs in 37 innings.

The Padres bumped him from the eighth to the ninth inning after Trevor Hoffman's departure. He has been in eight games this season and has yet to allow a run.

But does he make you leave the ballpark with a smile? Is he Nyjer Morgan? My analysis- not new, not going to be much of a star, maybe emerging as a solid closer.

Nelson Cruz was also seen as a guy not ready for primetime. He was a part-time player with both the Brewers and Rangers.

He recorded five career at bats with the Brewers. And he OPSed under .700 during both 2006 and 2007 with the Rangers. I think they were pretty justified at that time in not seeing him as "ready for primetime."

This season the Rangers have put him in right field and seen a very solid major league player emerge. He's hitting .277 with six home runs already on a team that believes it will contend in the American League West.

Well, there are only three other teams in the division and none of them are that good. Way to be, Rangers. Way to dream. Cruz is 28 years old, has had one good season in which he recorded 115 ABs, and is playing in an amazing lineup in one of the best hitters' parks in baseball. I'm unmoved. My analysis- probably new, probably not going to be a star, probably not emerging.

Haven't the Detroit Tigers tried to get rid of Brandon Inge about a dozen times the last few years?

Why were they unsucessful? Probably because he's not that good.

Don't they give his job to someone else.

Fuck, man- just reread your shit ONE TIME before you submit it for publication. You'll probably catch stuff like this.

He has moved all over the field, too.

Yes, because he's not a good enough hitter to secure a full time starting spot at any one position.

He's playing third base this year, playing it well and is helping the Tigers hang onto a share of first place in the American League Central. His .322 batting average is 84 points above his career average.

And he's only 32 years young, with a mere 3700 plate appearances under his belt! I'm fairly confident he will continue to hit 84 points above his average for the rest of the season. Looks like he finally figured out major league pitching.

Maybe he won't stay at .322,

I'll eat a hat if he does.

but he has made April more interesting.

Oh yeah, here we go, here comes the trifecta. Brandon Inge: not new, nowhere close to being a star, and almost certainly not emerging. Awwwwwwwesome.

April is for dreamers.

And for a few mediocre-to-crappy players to have hot starts and get dumb articles like this one written about them.

Just ask the Royals and Mariners and Marlins.

Thanks for tying it all back together, Richard. I feel like I just collided with David Eckstein while watching Nyjer Morgan run the bases.

Not Really Bad Writing So Much As It's Great Entertainment

Beware: astounding pun ahead.


AP: Canseco set to take his cuts in MMA

ANOTHER great pun.

Jose Canseco used his mammoth muscles to take pitchers deep and trade blows with Danny Bonaduce. Now the former MVP will step onto the mat and try MMA.

Is Danny Bonaduce so well-known that the casual reader will immediately recognize him? I mean, I know I'm reasonably television-illliterate, but this Bonaduce guy seems like a pretty low-level celebrity.

In his latest attempt to cash in on his flagging post-baseball career, Canseco is set to make his mixed martial arts debut on May 26 in Japan. The former Oakland A's slugger and tell-all author is fighting South Korean Hong Man Choi on the Dream 9 card in Yokohama Arena.

Awesome! I wonder why he's doing it in Japan - that seems to defeat the purpose of capitalizing on his name recognition to bring viwers, unless Jose Canseco's name recognition in Japan is higher in Japan than it is in the USA... which, if that's the case, I have seriously mis-characterized how awesome Japanese people are.

Choi is a 7-foot-2, 330-pound super heavyweight and has a 1-2 record in MMA.

Awesome. Mr. Choi is also 12-5 as a professional kickboxer. Also, he is fucking enormous.

"I have no idea if I can do it," Canseco said Thursday night. "It's a tough sport."

Jose, I'm glad you have no idea what you're getting into. It confirms my previous sentiment that you are the kind of idiot who could be getting himself into a brutal ass-whipping just to try and rescuscitate a moneyed, celebrity lifestyle that has passed you by.

Canseco has written two books, starred in a pair of reality shows, and had two celebrity boxing bouts since his 17-year baseball career ended. He boxed Bonaduce, a former "Partridge Family" child star,

Oh. I see, so Bonaduce gets explained later. Also, I would hate being called a "child actor" - it implies that your career has since stopped, and that you somehow peaked in your chosen profession by the age of twelve.

to a majority draw in a match in January. Canseco was listed at 6-4 and 260 pounds for that exhibition bout that featured only three, 1-minute rounds.

So he will be ten inches and seventy pounds outmanned by Mr Choi.

Canseco, who named names of alleged steroid abusers like himself in his two books, lost to former Philadelphia Eagle Vai Sikahema in his first foray into celebrity boxing.

Here's the wikipedia account of that fight, which is really worth reprinting here in its entirety:

In May 2008, Vai Sikahema accepted a challenge from Canseco to fight him for $30,000. Canseco claims to have earned black belts in Kung Fu, Taekwondo, and Muay Thai, while Sikahema fought in the Golden Gloves tournament won by Sugar Ray Leonard. The fight took place on July 12th in Atlantic City at the Bernie Robbins stadium. The 5'9" Sikahema knocked out the 6'4" Canseco in the first round.

Key things to note: Canseco "claims to have earned" the belts (well done, unknown Wiki-editor!). Also note: Canseco did not only lose the bout, he was knocked out by a guy who is seven inches shorter than him and is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Canseco's girlfriend, Heidi Northcott, said the MMA deal was presented to Canseco about two weeks ago. The 1988 AL MVP is part of a card that includes an eight-man open-weight tournament and is being called the Super Hulk Tournament.

Jose, can you see... the roundhouse punch from a seven-foot South Korean monster coming directly at your face?