Quick Post On A-Rod

You're probably sick of it already - I think I am just about there - but I quickly wanted to go on record with my take of the A-Rod, Steroids Saga.

In short, I agree with what the Boston guys like Tony Mazz and Eric Wilbur are saying, which is lets not pilfer A-Rod because chances are a Red Sox hero or two is included on that list of 104 and furthermore, chances are that said heroes helped them win a World Series or two. I could be wrong, but it would be naive to say that because no major post 2001 Red Sox have seen their name appear on any of these lists that no major Red Sox actually took steroids.

And here is some more food for thought, is using HGH to recover from injuries faster than usual really that bad? If HGH did not stand for "human growth hormone" but instead was known as something like RRS for "rapid recovery supplement" would it still be seen in the same light? I don't know. I guess I agree with lumping steroids users into the "cheaters" bin but HGH I think is kind of a different animal. From all I've read on it, it just does not seem to be that awful of a thing. If Tom Brady took some HGH to ensure himself a 100% chance of being the Pats starter in Week 1, would we crush him for that? I don't think I would. After all, you wouldn't kill a pitcher for getting Tommy John surgery to pitch again and that is not the world's most natural procedure. Yes, I understand the diceyness with HGH comes from being unsure of the side-effects/health risks (a huge deal admittedly) but if we all take a deep breath and think about what that stuff really does, I think the outrage on that end should be toned down some.

That's my take anyway. Let's not all jump on the crushing A-Rod for Steroids Bandwagon which has kind of become a national past time unto itself because it just looks very unseemly. Remember how mad we all got when the San Diego Whiney Bitches (I mean Chargers) piled on the Pats for "cheating" with Spygate stuff while they willingly employed Luis Castillo and Shawne Merriman, two players who failed drug tests. Now, with that being said if we all want to continue to crush A-Rod for his great ability to turn 7-2 games into 9-2 games and choke in the postseason then I am all for that. One caveat there too though, I will now be directing all my scorn previously reserved to A-Rod for the Teixeira Family. I really thought that guy could not have come off like anymore of a douche during his free agency saga so he is now my Public Enemy #1 on the Yankees. Crushing A-Rod is so 2008, make your way into the second decade of the 2000s by piling on Mark Teixeira. You'll feel awesome because you'll be ahead of the curve! Read more!

A Whopping 9 Thoughts on the C's/Lakers Game

1) Not to over-react, but let's just say that the Celtics end up with the two seed in the East. That is of course not the greatest scenario considering that they would be guaranteed without home court advantage in potential Conference and NBA Finals matchups against Cleveland and LA respectively. Kind of a big deal. But I'll throw the silver lining at you.

Consider that the two seed's second round matchup will most likely come against the 3 seed and the 3 seed will probably be the Magic. I certainly like that matchup for the C's more than I like the one against 4/5 winner which would be Detroit or Atlanta. I'm still not so sure the C's can take Cleveland in the Conference Finals without home court advantage, but I do think their road there could be slightly easier as the two if that is any consolation. Not really, but trying to put a positive spin on it.

2) Loved Bob Ryan's piece today where he pretty much threw down a "WTF?!" to the NBA for sending scrub officials out to work Thursday's game. Personally, I believe that the no-call on Ray Allen was the correct call independent of anything else, but in a physical game where KG fouled out on some ticky-tack calls, the call on Derek Fisher had to be made. Personally, I don't think he fouled Ray Allen on the shot but he was mauling him prior to getting there and while dribbling to set the shot up therefore Allen should have had two shots from the line to potentially win the game for the C's.

3) Pau Gasol for the second time this season just destroyed the Celtics. I watch what that guy does on the post and also how he rebounds and passes and wonder why he is not one of the ten best guys in the NBA. He's got all the moves, he shoots 56% from the floor and 79% from the field so it just floors me that he is not a 25 and 10 guy year in and year out.

4) When 60% free throw shooter, notorious choker, pre-Michael Phelps most famous bong smoker in sports, and pride of URI (or is that Cuttino Mobely?), Lamar Odom hits two clutch free throws to put your opponent ahead with 16 seconds left, chances are it is not your night.

5) If last night's game proved anything, it is that if the Celtics do not acquire a big man for the bench that can consistently knock down open jump shots a la PJ Brown then they can just punch their tickets for an L in the Eastern Conference Finals. Granted the one he did hit last night was a biggie, but Big Baby going 1/8 from the field just can't be a situation that will present itself down the road. You just can't expect to win deep in the playoffs with Big Baby playing at crunch time. It's not like that issue won't consistently present itself down the road either because of Perk's tendency to get into foul trouble. In short, we've been saying it for a long time but the C's absolutely MUST find a tough big man to knock down shots in order to have any chance at a repeat.

6) One of the TNT guys said this last night late in the 4th when the Celtics had a lineup of Rondo/Pierce/Allen/Perk/Baby out there that they should sub in Eddie House for Rondo. Reason being that on the floor at the time were really only two offensive players in Pierce and Allen. I wholeheartedly agreed at the time and I still think I wholeheartedly agree. Yes it was a back and forth, one possession game so they did not necessarily "need" Eddie House's bombs but at the same time the reason Big Baby took all those shots down the stretch is because the Lakers were pretty much ignoring him on the offensive end. Yes, with House in you lose Rondo's penetration, but Pierce is good enough at attacking the basket, drawing the D, and then kicking out that he could have served that purpose just fine. With that lineup the C's then would have two knockdown shooters out there (hello Mark Jackson, your favorite term!), a jack of all trades scorer, and two bigs to cleanup the mess if need be and provide their presence on D. I love Rajon as much as the next guy but against the Lakers both in Thursday's game and the Finals last year the Celtics were often best served with Eddie House on the floor instead of him.

Funny thing is, Rajon had a great game too, nearly recording a triple-double going for 16/8/12 but if you look at his +/- (kind of a dicey stat for basketball I know) he was a -1 while Eddie House was a +6. That says something doesn't it? And Big Baby for the record was -13 while KG was +9. You want to know why they lost, I think that last split tells a lot of the story doesn't it.

7) I know he came on in the second half, but my lord was Bad Rondo out on display in full force during the first half. Not so much turnovers or bad passes or anything else like that, but how many layups did he miss? Isn't it a fair question to ask how much better Rajon Rondo could be if he could find out a way to convert 80% or so of his layups? It is his most maddening feature.

8) I will say that I loved Rajon jawing at Kobe in the fourth quarter. That was awesome. It made me picture Kobe challenging him to a one-on-one game after the game was over to show Rajon who was boss and then Rajon frustrating the crap out of Kobe by doing all sorts of trick shots and goofy moves while laughing the whole time as Kobe got angrier and angrier before eventually destroying Rondo in the game. After however Rondo would leave knowing he had the satisfaction of getting under Kobe's skin and also knowing that he did give him a pretty good game. That whole process really did go through my mind.

9) All told, and as frustrating as the game was I really do not feel too bad about it. For starters it was a pretty ugly game and secondly, we only hope, assume, and pray that Big Baby will not be getting or taking those crunch time shots in the future. Finally, the whole team missed a bunch of makeable shots throughout the game and that too should not happen again. Yes the loss was frustrating and could have some serious long term ramifications but it in no way makes me worry about the team as a whole. They could have won the game but some flukey things did not go their way. Such is life in an 82 game NBA regular season. Sure it would have been much nicer had they won, but they did not and I think all will be fine with the Celtics as long as they can get that aforementioned big man for their bench. And of course assuming they don't go into a similar tailspin following this Lakers loss as they did following the first. Tonight at MSG is going to be a tough one.


Read more!

4 Thursday

1) I think the NBA needs to make it a league rule that for as long as Kobe is on the Lakers and Lebron is on the Cavs, whenever the Lakers make their annual trip to MSG a Cavs game must come immediately before or after their game. I mean how cool is it that Kobe drops 61 on Monday and then Lebron answers two nights later with a 52/11/10 triple double? The idea of the NBA's two premier players trying to one up each-other on basketball's largest stage and premier venue is just awesome and something that needs to be duplicated as much as possible.

2) The biggest flaw the Red Sox had last year was an inability to hit good pitching. While I think they have had a subtly very good offseason I still worry that this somewhat major issue has not been addressed. Because they absolutely should not count on getting 150 games from Ortiz, Lowell, and Drew they need some slightly more enticing bench options than Rocco Baldelli and Mark Kotsay to fill in for those guys when they are out. Bobby Abreu and Adam Dunn are still out there and they can now definitely be had on the relative cheap. Why not be proactive instead of reactive?

3) When reading something by Mike Reiss the other day, he mentioned how the Pats were first in the AFC in yards after catch and third in the NFL. He brought this up when mentioning how other teams may value Matt Cassell and how they'd need to make sure he would fit well in their system. For a point of reference I decided to compare Matt Cassell's 2008 YAC% to Brady's 2007. What I learned was that in 2008 about 57% of Cassell's passing yards came in YAC yardage whereas in 2007, only 42% of Brady's yardage came from that. What does this mean to me?

First off, the Pats passing attack, specifically many of the plays for Wes Welker and Kevin Faulk are designed to get big yards after the reception. Whomever the quarterback, that is not going to change. Where I see the biggest difference however is in the plays down the field to Randy Moss. Those plays often won't get a ton of YAC - either because he catches the ball near or in the end zone or is pushed out of bounds on a sideline play - and that I think makes up the big difference. Now to be fair to Cassell, he had an inordinate amount of big drops from Randy Moss and Jabar Gaffney this year that hurt him and the team considerably but I don't think anybody would argue with me that the Patriots were not able to execute the big pass play as much with Cassell as with Brady.

So that is one place where I think this stat shows the discrepancy between the two quarterbacks. The other is a bit more opaque and I don't have numbers to back it up, but rather a hypothetical:

When the Patriots face third and long situations or are in need of some quick strikes, isn't it better to have the quarterback less reliant on YAC and more reliant on the yards in the air the ball actually travels? Isn't it better to be able to consistently throw to the first down marker or 25 yards down the field than to throw the ball a few yards and hope the receiver does the rest? I say yes. Of course the counter-argument to this point is that the more mobile quarterback who can buy time to create plays and scramble is equally as valuable as the more stationary but shifty and accurate pocket passer. A tough call I guess, but I bring all this up as more food for thought when having the old Cassell versus Brady debate.

And one more for the record, Tom Brady really did not start to consistently be able to hit the deep ball until his third season and I still believe that Matt Cassell in his first year was better than Brady in his first year. Cassell however was 26 to Brady's 24 for whatever that is worth. Also, for what it is worth, Bledsoe was 29 when Brady supplanted him while Brady is coming up on 32. Joe Montana meanwhile was 34 when he played his last season for the 49ers and 36 by the time the 49ers actually would have had to make a Young vs. Montana decision as he missed nearly 2 full seasons to injury. So I don't think bringing up the Young/Montana thing is really pertinent. What does shock me however is how young Bledsoe was in the 2001 season. I would have thought he was at least 32 but obviously not.

4) I'll probably bang out my baseball preview in a few weeks. Once again I'll do positive/negative surprise teams and all the other stuff I did last year. As you may recall I pretty much nailed the team segment of my predictions calling good years for the Twins and Marlins and bad years for the Rockies and Tigers. With that standard in mind, I really want to follow that success up with equal or greater success this year. The problem is, I am not sure which way to go. The natural bandwagon "sleeper" team for the NL is the Marlins which therefore excludes them from my "positive surprise" list. They were the team I originally had pegged but it's cheesy to take the same team twice in a row, and as I said they are trendy sleeper pick now. With that said, I think that at this moment I am leaning towards the Giants. The AL West is going to be awful and they will possibly have the best staff in the division with Tim Lincecum, Matt Cain, Randy Johnson, and The Man Known Only to Fantasy Geeks AKA Jonathan Sanchez. Sure their offense will be pretty bad, but when playing almost 40 games against the set to suck Rockies and Padres I think they'll be able to make up a ton of ground there. So now you heard it here first, the Giants will be the surprise team of the NL, win 82 games, and finish second in the West.


Read more!

Wednesday News and notes

I hope you caught the Celtics game last night, with out KG it was a tough game but they were able to pull it out with an amazing last second shot by Ray Allen. It is great to see the Celtics win 12 in a row well anyway here are some news and notes form the Boston area.

- So as I mentioned the Celtics won last night, and I hoping that with Jameer Nelsons injury that Ray Allen will find his way onto the All Star squad where he belongs. The latest is that Nelson has torn his labrum and will most likely miss the rest of the season. Here is an article from Robert Lee in the ProJo that talks about Ray Allens Chances. If your not watching the Celtics, WATCH THEM!!!

- Great article on Boston.com today about Carl Yaztrzemski and how he is working with his grandson Mike who seems like a pretty good prospect. You don't see a lot of prospects coming out of this area but this would be the second decent prospect from St. John's Prep. For those of you who don't remember Matt Antonelli, he was drafted 17th in 2006 by the Padres. He made a brief appearance las tyear and will most likely spend most of the year in Triple A.

- Final thing I just wanted to get out there for all of you who are debating the whole Matt Cassel Franchise Tag issue. By Franchising him you not only control him for 2009 but you also control him for 2010, as long as the collective bargaining agreement remains as is, 2010 will be a capless year, and players will go from having to have 4 years of service to 6 years of service in order to be a free agent. It makes him more attractive in a trade as well.

All I have for you now, I am still working on my Red Sox Prospect preview for spring training, we still have a couple of days until the Truck leaves so I will try and get on that. Read more!

Everything You Wanted to Know About...Brad Wilkerson?

The Red Sox just signed Brad Wilkerson, I have three thoughts/notes on this:

1) When the Expos moved to DC and became the Nationals back in 2005, the Nationals decided to make Brad Wilkerson the "face" of the franchise. No, you aren't missing anything on Brad Wilkerson, but that does say a lot about the Nationals doesn't it? Sure he was coming off a 32 home run campaign, but the fact of the matter is that if Brad Wilkerson is the face of your franchise, your team probably sucks.

The post-script to the above is that ironically 2005 was the best year the Nationals have had since their arrival, winning 81 games.

2) Brad Wilkerson was the centerpiece of the trade from the Rangers standpoint that sent Alfonso Soriano to the Nationals after the 2005 season. Ironically again, at the time it was the RANGERS that were seen to have gotten the best of this deal. Of course Alfonso Soriano then went out and posted a 40/40 campaign in a contract year for the Nats before fleeing to the Cubs while Wilkerson played in 95 games and hit .222.

3) I can't say I totally understand this signing. From where I sit, it seems like Wilkerson is just a poor man's Mark Kotsay. I understand the need for another bat off the bench to fill out the roster but it just seems like they could have done a little better than Brad Wilkerson. Maybe I will be proven wrong, but this seems like another one of those "Theo signing a guy he has always been bizarrely infatuated with for no apparent reason" moves, even if it is only a minor league deal. Read more!

14 Things About the Super Bowl

I too will echo Pricing Boy's thoughts on what an exciting game it was. Yes, it was incredibly sloppy with all the penalties - and many stupid ones at that - but just when you thought the Cardinals were done with about 10 minutes left in the 4th quarter, Warner found that groove and everything carried from there.

Now, a few other notes:

1) I missed Jeremy Shockey in the Super Bowl this year. Huh? Let me refresh your memory.

Last year during the Super Bowl you probably remember that because Jeremy Shockey had a broken leg he did not play and was forced to watch the game from the owner's box. During one cutaway they showed Shockey sitting up in said box drinking a Bud Lite can. I loved this for many reasons, but mainly because while everybody else in the box was PC, drinking bottled water or diet soda, Shockey is there with a can of Bud Lite. He couldn't even class it up with one of those 16 oz. plastic, stadium bottles they have. He had to go can. While I can't smile about much from last year's Super Bowl, I can always chuckle about this.

2) The fact that Mike Tomlin is a dead-ringer for Omar Epps has been beaten into the ground. However, one thing that I never knew before last night is that James Harrison is equally as much a replica to Sgt. Dokes from Dexter as Tomlin is to Epps.

3) I am positive that I am not the only one who saw the Cardinals get the go-ahead score with about 2:30 left and think immediately back to the Super Bowl from last year. If you give a decent offense two and a half minutes and two timeouts to score a touchdown against a shaky defense, it seems like the offense will prevail every time.

4) My father-in-law brought up kind of a cool point yesterday; if the Cardinals had won then the Super Bowl winning quarterback would have been older than the head coach he defeated. When will that have a chance to ever happen again? Next year maybe if some veteran NFC quarterback takes his team against the Broncos I guess. Still, I thought it was pretty cool.

5) Larry Fitzgerald is an absolute freak of nature. If you want to know what actually impressed me more than his big touchdown to put the Cardinals ahead, it was the TD he caught before that where Warner lobbed a jump-ball to the back corner of the end zone and he was able to grab it with a DB hanging all over and trying to tackle him. When Warner threw that ball I thought it had no chance.

6) This pains me because I do not like him, but what Ben Roethlisberger can do in keeping plays alive is really impressive and that is how he wins games for his team. In a way, if you want a comp for Matt Cassell, wouldn't it be Roethlisberger over anybody else? Isn't that the ceiling for Cassell? That's a pretty good ceiling BTW, but I think if you want to see what you could potentially have down the road in the guy, look no further than Ben Roethlisberger. Me, I'll still take Brady. Not a bad Plan B though. Roethlisberger REALLY impressed me last night.

7) This has nothing to do with the Super Bowl, but I continue to see fans in message boards and such clamoring for the Pats to go after another big name WR in free agency or draft a running back early. This drives me nuts. First of all, if the Pats draft or go after offense in the offseason it should be on the line or at tight end. They do not need a running back. Not only did they win two Super Bowls with Antowain Smith at running back, they finished sixth in the league in rushing last year with an RB by committee approach. Furthermore, even if Laurence Maroney really isn't the answer, he still looked pretty good down the stretch in 2007 and is worth one last chance. And if he fails, they know they can plug the holes some how, some way with Lamont Jordan, Sammy Morris or another BenJarvus Green-Ellis of the world. Not ideal, but running back is so far down on the list of Patriots needs that I think everybody needs to chill a bit. Skill positions have not let the Pats down the past few years, it has been the D and the offensive line at times. Of course it is fun in the offseason to see the Pats load up on guys you'd take in your fantasy draft but the reality is, that is not what they need to win another Super Bowl.

8) I'm not sure about all this "Greatest Super Bowl Ever!!!!" talk. Look, it was a great game no doubt about it. But, as I recall, the day after the Super Bowl we have heard the same thing maybe 4 other times in the past 10 years. I am thinking, similar sentiments were expressed for Rams over Titans in 2000, Pats over Rams in 2002, Pats over Panthers in 2004, and Giants over Pats in 2008. Maybe we should just ease up on the hyperbole some huh?

9) So I kind of called it. Didn't that late barrage of points remind you of the 2004 game between the Pats and Panthers. More or less the same result too.

10) While not as flukey as the helmet catch, the Arizona defensive back slipping on the big Santonio Holmes run after catch which brought Pittsburgh deep into the red zone and set up the final score has to be remembered as a key break that Pittsburgh caught. You need things like that to win though. Remember when John Kasay put his kickoff out of bounds to setup the Patriots final drive in the Super Bowl against the Panthers? Or what about Donovan McNabb taking his merry old time to drive the Eagles down the field in the fourth quarter the following year. Don't tell me luck has nothing to do with winning Super Bowls, it is almost as important as skill and competency.

11) If Ben Watson played for the Cardinals, would they have won the game? Again, huh? Well, considering that his lone football skill seems to be running down defensive players en route to bringing an interception back for a touchdown, doesn't it seem possible that he could have chased down James Harrison? We'll never know how the game plays out if it is 10-7 at the half instead of 17-7, but it's worth at least throwing out there right?

12) And while we are on the topic, isn't throwing a ball to the front of the end zone, close to the sideline when your starting position is inside the opponent's three the most dangerous pass you can throw in football? I've never thought about this, but considering that sideline passes are always going to be risky for INT run-backs, one thrown in a short yardage "and goal" situation has to be the most risky because the defender has the added bonus of only needing a few steps to get behind the offense. Is there anyway he brings that back if Arizona was starting from the 10 instead of the 2? I honestly doubt it. More fun stuff to chew on. And by the way, I bring this up more as thinking out loud than anything else. It is not intended to diminish what Harrison did. Rather it's just to wonder why that does not happen more and how risky of a pass it was that Kurt Warner threw.

13) OK, I'll admit it. I was REALLY pulling for the Cardinals. I mean REALLY!!! And yes, I was really bummed when Santonio Holmes caught that pass. But do you know what else? After the initial emotion passed me, I got up, turned the TV off, went into another room and read a bit before bed. I then went to bed and slept like a rock. Why do I bring this up? Because it was fun to watch an incredibly exciting Super Bowl with no real vested interest and then have your team lose, but be able to bounce back after about five minutes. The way the past two Pats seasons ended absolutely destroyed me so I must say, this was a nice change of pace. I could not have handled another soul-crushing defeat to end my season. Instead I worked through all those emotions back in September when Brady went down.

14) Last point and a biggy:

Why the F did the officials not give a legitimate review to that last fumble? I mean come on! You have to do that! Personally, I think it was a forward pass, and you mean to tell me that Arizona could not have scored on one play from Pittsburgh's 29? With Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin??? Would have been interesting right?

Oh, and that roughing the passer call against Roethlisberger in the 4th was BS. An almost exact replica of the hit on Roethlisberger happened on Warner in the first half to no-call. And for the record, "no-call" was the right call the first time around.


Read more!

WOW!! Great Game

I do not really have a whole lot to say about the game, I am pretty disappointed that the Cardinals lost. I will say though that it was a great game despite all the penalties. Here are a few thoughts about the game.

- So they are making a big deal that Jennifer Hudson lip synched the national anthem. Really? they are surprised, I would imagine this happens quite a bit, the echo and delay of the sound in a big game like this almost makes this necessary.

- Poor start for the Cardinals, it looked like after the James Harrison Touchdown return that it was going to be a boring game, thankfully Warner found his rythem and also found Larry Fitzgerald and it got interesting.

- The commercials were ok, I enjoyed the Comcast one where the Slowskis jumped on the empty DSL bandwagon. The 3D commercial was cool, we had picked up the glasses at the grocery store. Other than that I enjoyed the careerbuilder.com, Firestone, and the Bulu commercial with Alec Baldwin.

- I still hate the Steelers, the fact there are people comparing Big Ben to Tom Brady makes me want to puke.

- Bruce Springsteen was great at half time. I think he was on some pretty heavy drugs as he was flying around the stage like a mad man. He stuck to the classics which was good.

- Great ending, I am still nto sure how Santonio Holmes got his feet down and controled the ball. Read more!