The worst, dumbest transactions (non free-agency signings) in the last ten years...

I've compiled a partial list of the dumbest transactions I can think of in the last ten years to show just how dumb some franchises can be... watch closely, your team may be on the list.

Kevin Stocker for Bobby Abreu...

In 1993 Kevin Stocker helped the Phillies get to the World Series with a hot second half and instantly won himself a part-time-job-turned-into-full-time-job for the next five years. And then Philadelphia evidently realized that he sucked (no duh...), and decided to see if anyone would take him off their hands. They settled on Bobby Abreu, who the D-Rays judiciously plucked from the Astros in the expansion draft... (yeah, you heard that right, after five good minor league seasons, the Astros gave up on Abreu after an average rookie season at age 23). It appeared the D-Rays wanted a "name player" or something, and had no patience to try to develop Abreu, who, it turned out, didn't need any development time. By the way, Abreu would be hands-down the best D-Ray in history. Way to set your franchise back ten years immediately.

Brian Giles for Ricardo Rincon.

Apparently nobody told the Indians that they could platoon talented players, as the Indians dealt Giles for the very servicable spot reliever Ricardo Rincon. Evidently the Tribe just gave up on Giles, who turned in two very average seasons (probably because he wasn't playing every day) before he was traded to the Pirates, who managed to make their one "We just ripped off a team somethin' fierce, but we still suck" trade that they make once a decade. There will be more on this later. Anyway, Giles turned out to be hitting the prime of his career, and actually put a face on the Pirates for a little while, all the meantime managing to get screwed out of a few All-Star appearances.

The release of David Ortiz.

I just want to know what exactly the Twins saw that was bad about his .272, 20 HR, 75 RBI season that was so bad they had to release him. Hell, they weren't even paying him that much. They'd put up with him in their farm system forever, what was the big deal? And then I remembered: they're the Twins, and they can only make so many good decisions. This, obviously, wasn't one of them.

Derek Lowe and Jason Varitek for Heathcliff Slocumb.

Wow, the Mariners sure know how to evaluate talent. They actually managed to deal two future All-Stars for a player who was clearly on the downslope of his career. You can trust me on this one: I was still a Red Sox fan when Slocumb was around, and it was depressing when he got to pitch. But I recall the Mariners being desperate, bemoaning the late '90s as their "best chance" to make it. So I guess being desperate really impairs your judgment. On a side note, that's not really much of a revelation.

Jason Bay/Oliver Perez for Brian Giles.

Again, this is a case of a team not projecting talent quite correctly. The Padres gave up Perez, who was fantastic last year (and not this year) and Bay, who is better now and is paid way less than Brian Giles. Jason Bay has been the victim of a number of inexplicable trades, actually, so it's really not surprising that the Pirates got him. There's another servicable outfielder that the Pirates (the worst team in MLB) can place as the face of an abyssmal franchise.

Johan Santana, rule V draft.

Oh, those silly Astros. In 1997 and 1999 Johan Santana was actually a minor league pitcher for the Astros, pitching fairly well with a high(ish) ERA but a strong, strong K/BB ratio, which, is we all know, is a better indicator of a pitcher's future success. Apparently, somebody forgot to tell the 'Stros this, and they let the promising Santana be unprotected. The Marlins picked him up, and promptly dealt him to the Twins. The Twins, who sucked, let him stay in the bigs (those are the rules...) get knocked around a bit, and watched as he turned out to be ok in 2001, dominant after that.

Mark McGwire deal, 1997.

This is one of the all-time dumps, as the A's, who really were bad at this time, let Mark McGwire go for three players who actually made their team worse off (well, maybe not T.J. Matthews) than if they had let Big Mac go in free agency. Billy Beane wasn't quite there to work his magic yet, I suppose.

Sean Casey for Dave Burba

Try again, Cleveland. Burba wasn't good, and Sean Casey is the sole reason for my "If he can hit for average at every level, he can hit in the bigs" rule. Throw guys like Chad Tracy, Lyle Overbay, and even the Rangers' Mike Young into this category. I love it when people act all surprised when somebody who hit like .350 in AA, .320 in AAA, and .400 in rookie ball hits well in the major leagues. "What, he could do that?" Yeah, just because he doesn't run fast or hit every ball out of the yard doesn't mean he can't hit a baseball.

Note: I would like to say that I'm not picking on the Indians. I understand that it's hard to play guys like Casey and Giles when you have Manny and Jim Thome. But these guys still have "value."

These two trades are examples of the dangers of 'playing for now.'

Expos trade Cliff Lee, Brandon Phillips, and Grady Sizemore for Bartolo Colon.

In 2002, the Expos were evidently contending and deemed it necessary to trade some shiny new prospects for the use of Colon for what everybody on Planet Earth knew was only one half of one year. Even at the time, people were sort of wondering what they were doing, but Colon pitched well, marginally vindicating the Expos at the time. And now we see how bad this trade really was, as Sizemore has turned out to be a future All-Star, and Cliff Lee has come close to winning 20 games. To think that the stud was supposed to be Phillips... ah, that's great stuff.

Astros trade Carlos Guillen, John Halama, and Freddy Garcia to M's for Randy Johnson.

At the time, this trade really looked like a screw job by the Astros, but Carlos Guillen has turned into a really great shortstop, and Freddy Garcia has been a pretty good pitcher in his own right. Let's not forget that John Halama pitched pretty well for the Mariners in his own right.

Now, the Astros made the playoffs because of Randy Johnson, but they might have made even more playoffs if they hadn't traded for him... oh, who am I kidding, this trade wasn't that bad, the Mariners don't even have any of these guys anymore.

Back to bad deals...

Yankees trade Eric Milton and Cristian Guzman for Chuck Knoblauch.

This is on the list because, while it doesn't look bad now, it was quite bad in the past. The Twins got four great seasons (and an All-Star appearance) out of Guzman, as well as four decent seasons (and an All-Star appearance) out of Milton. The Yankees got a second baseman who was despised by the fans, and who couldn't throw to first after a while. They also got the privilege of paying him $24 mil. And the thing is, the Yankees knew enough to draft Milton in the first round, but apparently they were too impatient to develop him for one more year.

Braves trade Jermaine Dye for Michael Tucker.

Whoops. This trade wouldn't be so bad if the Braves had just realized that Tucker was platoonable, and had been willing to do that. But they insisted on throwing at-bats at him in 1997 and 1998, hurting their playoff chances. Dye became a much better player, anyhow. He got to start an All-Star game, revitalizing the Royals for a little bit.

Indians trading with Brewers...

The Indians shouldn't be allowed to trade with the Brewers. It's really for their own good. They dealt Jeromy Burnitz for Kevin Seitzer in 1996, and Burnitz's career took off. They traded Richie Sexson for Bob Wickman, and Sexson's career took off. Now, to be fair, they sort of had the whole Thome/Ramirez problem going on, so they couldn't exactly make the deals they wanted, but still...

Richie Sexson for half of Arizona...

The Brewers managed to cash in with Sexson, and then they cashed him out in a huge way. They acquired Lyle Overbay, Chris Capuano, Junior Spivey (2002 All-Star!), Craig Counsell, and Jorge De La Rosa. Overbay and Capuano are obviously the keys, with Capuano winning 18 games this year, but De La Rosa was good in the bullpen, Counsell played for a year, and Spivey turned into Tomo Ohka this year, and Ohka was alright. So the Brewers got half a rotation and a good first baseman for... a good first baseman. Arizona didn't even get to see the Sexson effect, since he was injured for most of last year and then was signed by the Mariners in the offseason.

Off topic: Does anybody hit more unnoticed home runs than Richie? No, seriously, it's a valid question.

Dontrelle Willis and Julian Tavarez for Matt Clement and Antonio Alfonseca...

No, I can't do it. I can't hate on Matt Clement like this, he was worth it (just barely). The Cubs got three good years out of Clement, though he's not exactly the D-Train. I just want to point out that the Cubs have none of the players involved in this trade anymore, all of whom would have made them better this year. Typical Cubs crap.

Shawn Green for Raul Mondesi.

Not a very smart trade, Toronto. What exactly would possess a team to trade a guy who hit .309 with 42 homers for a guy who hit .253 with 33? And Shawn Green is one of the biggest character guys in baseball, while Raul Mondesi is insane. Anyhow, Green proved to be the better guy in this deal, although he still stuck LA with an albatross for a contract. Fortunately for the Jays, the Boss was willing to take on Mondesi's $13 million dollar 2003 season.

Note: These are all I care to think of for now. If you have any more bad deals, let me know.

The Validity of Abstraction...

There is something ridiculous, a vestige from yesteryear that has hung on our minds like an albatross for decades now, and it closes our minds in a very sinister way.

It's the school of thought that art is supposed to have some sort of purpose, or have some sort of obvious aesthetic quality, or some sort of explicit feeling.

That's simply not true.

I'm a firm believer in ''l'art pour l'art,'' or "art for art's sake."

We've come a long way in what we consider and accept as viable in media. Our society readily watches whatever crap comes on the TV; in fact, we embrace it. (For example, I watch "The Real World: Austin" devoutly, despite the fact that it is devoid of any content whatsoever.) We watch and are entertained by bad movies, pulp fiction, and lower-quality music. And that's fine.

And, to be fair, we readily embrace good and ground-breaking genres of film, music, and literature, and have created a diverse spectrum of thought with regard to these genres.

But we stop short at art.

Most people simply don't like abstract art. Perhaps this is borrowed from our elders, or perhaps we've come up with this idea by ourselves, but we simply think the abstract is easily achievable and a waste of time. The artists simply are pulling wool over our eyes.

Now I bought into this line of thinking for a long while, and subscribed only to the line of thought that everything before and including Picasso was art, and everything after was not really valid.

I didn't understand. I didn't get it.

I had never walked into a room surrounded by Mondrian and Pollack. When I looked at their paintings in books, I didn't see any people, and it wasn't pastoral, so I disregarded their work. I was ignorant; I didn't know what it was like to walk into a quiet room where all you saw was an arrangement of color on a canvas.

Now I know.

There's a quiet depth to abstract art. You stand there and immerse yourself in it and pretty soon you're observing the subtleties of the work. And you assign the details of the work to something personal in your life, all the meantime understanding that others have applied the work to something personal in their lives. You aren't confined by specific images; in fact, the blurring of specifics creates an intrinsic freedom for your imagination. You can experience the art in any way you want. You can assign whatever values you want to the art. It can become what you want it to be. It relaxes you; it challenges you; it sparks your mind. It requires patience and introspection, but nevertheless energizes you.

I can't get that feeling from Monet, Renoir, Degas, David, Michelangelo, Giotto, Rembrandt, Reubens, or any of the classicists. I appreciate their talent, but it's hard for me to feel anything other than respect and admiration for their particular, explicit talent.

When there are no definitions of what a piece of art is supposed to convey, I feel more at peace with the idea of experiencing it.

I can't create abstract art; my mind is too limited to conventions. So I appreciate the work of those whose minds aren't. I'll defend their ability to create abstract art unabashedly; after all, they give me a rare chance to dispose of my conventions, which is something we could all stand to do a little more of.

I promised I would give you a non-sports post, but I was lying, until now!!!

So this could be the one Columbus-related post I'll hand out.

First, I attended this thing called "Math Camp," which makes me feel silly because I never took differential equations. It would be awesome if I could solve these things, but I really can't as of yet. I did take some set theory and some calculus, and I think proving things is interesting but I'm not very good at it.

Second, I really don't care about economics at all, but I do have some thoughts about Mark Rothko if anybody wants to ask. It's clear that I've missed my calling in life, but I may actually get a job, which is more important than finding one's calling anyway. Self-actualization is like, sooo overrated.

Third, people in Columbus are generally a) white b) preppy/jocular c) prone to binge drinking. Apparently you can have a bunch of people at houses here, wandering around randomly in the streets without any chance of repurcussion. It doesn't help that Ohio State decided to schedule FOUR FRICKIN' HOME GAMES to start the year. That's right, I said it, and I'll only take it back if an actual Buckeye gets mad at me. I think it's a great idea to schedule four straight home games; that makes the campus really easy to get around with 100,000 PEOPLE ON IT! College students are really pretty irresponsible, but what makes it worse is their irresponsible alumni parents showing them how to party in the mid-afternoon, working these little minds into a hedonistic frenzy by the time it's 7:00 P.M. And since they don't actually have anything to do, they don't feel any sort of guilt for all of this. Yeah, the apples never fall far from the tree. Maybe someday I'll be awesome and buy a Mike Nugent Jets jersey too, then I can have a beer in my hand and laugh it up like an idiot. And I haven't even interacted with these folks, nor have they interacted with me.

Or maybe I'm just upset because Louisville and Iowa lost today. That makes me really sad. So much for our BCS game. Now we can look forward to the Insight Bowl. Louisville's defense sucks, it just got exposed today. And I know I should be happy for the Buckeyes, but my family is from Iowa.

Fourth, the qualifiers are ridiculous tests that only 65% of students passed last year.

Fifth, I think the people are nice enough.

I'll describe the grad school students here:

1) Pete. He lives near me, is older than me, and has a brother who's in the program and made it through year 1. Plus, he loves college football. He also makes fun of me for being left-handed.

2) Rob. He's from LSU and has a nice apartment with tasteful decor. If I fail out, I'm probably going to talk with his fiancee about interior design, even though she's an accountant.

3) Lucas. He's a nice guy with a blog and a website. He's also witty.

4) Nate. I don't really know him yet, but I might later.

5) Lynne. She's from Tennessee and has a boyfriend who's applying to med school. I think we have a necessary amount of things in common.

6) Neil. He's from Jersey and cheers for the Yankees. At least he's not obnoxious about the Yanks. And kudos to him for not wanting to be an academic!

7) Dongwoo. He's Korean and he flies to Seattle to visit his girlfriend. Also, he's really nice.

8) mysterious Korean girl whose name I don't recall but who lives in my building. Also nice. I wish I could remember names.

Common themes from grad school: Rob and Pete comparing New Orleans hot spots... Lucas doing homework during Dr. Lam's lectures... everybody referencing where they went to school way too much since that's the only thing we have in common (going to a school previously)... and none of us following everything Dr. Miyazaki says.

And last, I don't really do anything other than watch TV and half-heartedly look at econ. So I"m hoping things pick up.

Power Rankings...

Here are my new NBA power rankings!!!

1) San Antonio- They won last year, they acquired Michael Finley and Nick Van Exel (which means they'll be able to shoot), and they still have Tim Duncan. This makes them number one.

2) Miami- If things work out, they'll be scary good. They still have Shaq and D-Wade. If Dorell Wright contributes, they'll be amazing.

3) Indiana- Getting Ron Artest back shoots them up the list. With the acquisitions of Europe's best remaining player (Jaskievicius) and Danny Granger, the Pacers have enough depth to hang with anyone.

4) Detroit- The funny thing about not explicitly improving in the NBA is that it tends to make your team worse by comparison. This team is tougher than last year with Davis and Maxiell, though, and they might play Darko this year... maybe... we can hope.

5) Phoenix- This is sort of obligatory, because they were so good last year. Losing Joe Johnson and Q-Rich will hurt them more than they think, and they may slide a bit. Still, they're dangerous in the open court, and can run a lot of teams off the court.

6) Houston- This has to be about the time for the Rockets to start winning. If Stromile Swift and Derek Anderson rebound and shoot, respectively, the Rockets should have enough support for T-Mac and Yao to hopefully make it out of the first round. Luther Head should be a real sleeper for this team- he can definitely shoot off the bench.

7) Denver- This may be too high, but the Nuggets were hot last year, and should be deep enough to climb this ladder in the West. If they learn how to shoot...

8) Sacramento- A strange team, the Kings decided to go off the board and sign Shareef Abdur-Rahim, instantly putting them right back in playoff contention after a shaky offseason. There's no depth for Bibby anymore, but there's still a ton of skill on this team.

9) Seattle- Sometimes it is sufficient for a team to stand pat. But the Sonics have stood pat by a) not signing any free agents, and b) not re-signing their coach. Losing Antonio Daniels puts more pressure on Luke Ridnour, and there's still little scoring from the centers. However, kudos to the Sonics for not paying Jerome James.

10) Cleveland- Q: Why didn't the Cavs make the playoffs last year? A: LeBron had to do everything. Q: Why will the Cavs make the playoffs this year? A: LeBron has help, coming in the form of Larry Hughes, the 22.0 ppg All-NBA defensive team hybrid guard that should take needed pressure off James. Damon Jones can also shoot, as can Donyell Marshall. Bottom line is that the Cavs should shoot a lot better than last year, which means that King James won't have to jack up as many bad shots. At least that's my theory.

11) Chicago- They're young and they'll get better, but they probably still have another year to go before they figure everything out.

12) Dallas- It's the same team without Michael Finley. And there were definitely some problems with Nowitzki and the rest of the squad last playoffs. I know it looks like they turned the corner last year, but it might be surprising to see how last year's fallout from the playoffs plays out.

13) LA Clippers- This is scary, but their starting lineup is: Cassell, Maggette, Brand, Mobley, and Kaman. With Wilcox and Shaun Livingston on the bench, they should have a lot of talent. This may be enough for them to break into the difficult west.

14) Memphis- This is a really interesting group of players. The Griz have opted to go for slightly more stable point guards, which could end up helping their team. They had to get rid of Bonzi Wells since the Czar was still there, and have replaced him with slightly less explosive talent. It's really important for Gasol to be huge here.

15) Washington- I like this team, but losing Larry Hughes hurts. Caron Butler for Kwame Brown was an absolute steal. They should still make the playoffs in the east, though.

16) Philadelphia- It should be interesting to see how this Webber/Iverson thing plays out. The Sixers could surprise or implode, so I'm trying to take an average of that with this rank.

17) Minnesota- What they are doing to Kevin Garnett's career should be illegal. McCants had better be the truth.

18) New Jersey- Looking at their roster, you see like 20 players. This team could be better (like Philly), but they don't have an inside presence, which is shady.

19) LA Lakers- They have Kobe Bryant, and he's good for 35 wins a year.

20) NY Knicks- They're going with the three guards approach, and they drafted Channing Frye. But there's a big hole missing in the middle, and the band-aids they've drafted and signed may not get it done. The Knicks have basically stabbed in the dark the past few years, drafting Frye, Lee, and Sweetney, hoping to hit gold.

21) Golden State- I don't think this team can play defense, but they should be able to score. Has anybody ever seen a Warriors game on TV?

22) Orlando- Dwight Howard is awesome, and his cards are too cheap. Buy them all now. This team has, however, sinned by signing Travis Diener.

23) Boston- If this team looks young on paper, it's because they are. I'm looking for Paul Pierce to commit a level 4 flagrant foul sometime in the year.

24) Milwaukee- I'm going off the board and saying that the Bucks could climb up this list, pending a solid year from... T.J. Ford. Bogut will give them 13 and 9, but that's about it. Wait, this really isn't off the board at all, everybody else thinks the same thing.

25) Atlanta- All I'm saying is that they have talent, and if Marvin Williams is really good, they'll win 30 games.

26) Charlotte- Patience, Bobcats fans, patience, your team will get another lottery pick next year.

27) Toronto- They don't have a point guard who's mentally stable. I do think Jalen Rose is a cool guy. Charlie Villanueva could be an X-factor; people think he'll be bad but he has a ton of talent.

28) Portland- They could be scary bad next year. Nate McMillan, what were you thinking?

29) Oklahoma City- Chris Paul will force J.R. Smith to take better shots. And the Hornets randomly picked up Rasual Butler. And they will still be awful since they're stuck in the West.

The Weekend in the NFL...

This weekend saw some interesting things fall out in the NFL, which makes it time for a zesty re-cap.

First off, there are some 2-0 teams that were probably unexpected, so it's important to give a shout-out to 2-0 New York, Kansas City, Tampa Bay, and Washington.

The Giants weren't that great last year, mainly because Kurt Warner was old and got sacked a lot. I'm starting to think that Kurt Warner would get sacked a lot if he played for the Chiefs... he just can't move. To be fair, Warner wasn't helped by his mediocre receivers, who managed to 'not be open' frequently.

If you want to read something rich, read the "Kurt Warner love story," on this site here. All I've got to say is that "He was just a real nice guy."

The Redskins are 2-0 as well. Mark Brunell, despite being hated (and rightfully so) by many people, is nonetheless undefeated, despite not being able to throw the football very well anymore. It was plain luck that Santana Moss beat Aaron Glenn twice deep down the field in the last four minutes to beat the Cowboys.

But let's look at the upside of all this, which is namely the Redskins' D. In case you were keeping tabs, they still have one Lavar Arrington, who is still a beast. And they've managed to shut down two average offenses two weeks in a row. That should keep the 'Skins in a lot of games this year, which can... lead to random victories. It's like the moral of the story, or something like that.

Kansas City is undefeated. It's also possible that they might be like a mid-90s Nebraska football team, running people into the ground. They managed to acquire two stud running backs for the team, which can just demoralize an opposing defense, since even if you wear one out, the other guy is still good to go. Unfortunately, Larry Johnson likes to hit his girlfriend, so he instantly goes on the list of athletes that I can't like. Now, if only Trent Green could run the option...

K.C.'s D is much better than people thought... drafting Derrick Johnson was really a big key for that team. It's remarkable to see what happens when you focus on both sides of the football. I remember this interview with K.C.'s defensive coach earlier this year, and he got all upset and said they would be much better this year then last year. I guess he was right.

Tampa Bay is also unbeaten, and they weren't very good last year. But Cadillac Williams is much better than Michael Pittman. It's also a really good idea to get a serviceable quarterback in times of transition, a la Cleveland with Trent Dilfer. Average quarterbacks are still much better than bad quarterbacks. By simply upgrading the skill positions, the Bucs allow their defense to do what they do best, which is rushing the passer and stuffing the run. Simeon Rice already has a pair of sacks, and Derrick Brooks has resumed getting a bunch of tackles and random interceptions.

Now, there are some teams that are bad: Minnesota, Houston, Green Bay, and Arizona, to be exact. We'll get to those guys later.

Baseball Analysis...

It looks as if there's a bit of a race in the AL Central, mainly because the Indians keep winning and the ChiSox keep losing. Although it's difficult to pinpoint an exact reason for why this is occurring, I'd like to think that the reason lies in the fact that a) Chicago's pitching was overrated, and b) Cleveland's hitters were underperforming.

Look at the Cy Young candidates of the AL, and you can pretty much rule out Mark Buehrle in favor of Bartolo Colon. The same should actually be said for Jon Garland, but his win-loss record is still very good. Both candidates have tapored off in the second half, and this is part of the reason why the White Sox haven't clinched yet. Their problems also lie in the fact that they can't escape playing both the Tribe and the Twins, who are still capable of winning games despite the fact that their season is pretty much done...

Cleveland's hitters, meanwhile, have been fantastic. Peralta, Martinez, Sizemore and Hafner are all future stars, and even Casey Blake has been good in the second half. There aren't any free outs in the Indians' lineup, and that could be the difference down the stretch.

I'd also like to bust out my MVP and Cy Young votes for the AL...

MVP:

1) David Ortiz- He's been monstrous of late, and it's time that this whole "DHs are second-class baseball players" crap has to stop. Although I'm always a proponent of giving Manny Ramirez the "best in breed" for the Red Sox, Ortiz has been, well, the second coming of Mo Vaughn, who was an MVP in 1995.

2) Alex Rodriguez- He's only in second because the Yankees have all hit this year, and it's difficult to pin down one guy, no matter how awesome, for their success.

3) Vladimir Guerrero- The Angels can't really win without this guy. That's the definition of an MVP.

4) Paul Konerko- I'm going off the board here, but he really is the most dangerous hitter in that lineup, and the Sox would be in bad shape without him.

5) Manny Ramirez- Come on, he does have 122 RBI. He must be doing something right.

Others: 6) Sheffield, 7) Tejada, 8) Travis Hafner, 9) Chavez, 10) H. Matsui.

CY Young...

1) Bartolo Colon. He has recovered from an awful 2004 campaign, and he has the most wins. It's kind of a "he who has the most toys wins" situation with Cy Young voters and wins, and Colon's got more toys than the other kids. Arguably, he may not be the best pitcher on his team this year, as John Lackey is putting together a pretty awesome year.

2) Jon Garland. You sort of have to think that a White Sox pitcher will finish runner-up, because we've had to hear about their staff the whole frickin' year. So let's give Garland the nod here, mainly because he's been better than Buehrle the second half.

3) Johan Santana. He's been the best pitcher of the second half, and it really hasn't been close. But he's stuck with only 13 wins and he's on a third-place team, so he might get the shaft here. Back-to-back Cy Youngs would really put him in elite company, though.

4) Mark Buehrle. This was a slam dunk at the All-Star game. Buehrle would take his place among the game's elite, and validate an underrated career with a deserved Cy Young. Unfortunately, he had to pitch in the second half, and he's been sort of average. So I'm willing to go halfway- he's in the elite, but he won't get to validate his career with the trophy. Next year is a new year, anyway.

5) Cliff Lee. He is 16-4, with a 3.60 ERA. Plus, he's been way more consistent than the Cliff Lee who pitched last year, and his team could probably win the wild card.

On a side note, Cliff Lee is the quintessential example of the risk/reward that is trading prospects for stars in a pennant race. In 2002, Grady Sizemore and Cliff Lee were dealt by the Montreal Expos (and they weren't the keys to the deal!) to the Cleveland Indians for a half season of Bartolo Colon. The Expos hung around, and Colon pitched great. But look at that trade now... it's really pretty lopsided. And this is with Colon being as great as he is.

6) Mariano Rivera. I actually think he could get voted much higher, and he probably should be. It would be a really nice sort of lifetime achievement award, and since none of the pitchers have really taken the lead, you couldn't really argue with it. But he is a closer and the discussion seems to be centered away from him. Plus, the Yankees may not make the playoffs, in which case nobody will vote for a Yank to win the Cy Young.

7) Zito, 8) Lackey, 9) Hermanson, 10) Freddy Garcia.

Wake, up kids, we've got the dreamers' disease...

Watching the Real World Austin gives me a new lease on life. Wes, the consummate renaissance man and aristocrat, is rarely more poignant than when he attempts valiantly to explain the intricacies of relationships to Danny, an earnest young man who has been through every trial imaginable in his short visit to the Lone Star State.

When I watch the Real World Austin, I feel as if somehow incomprehensible burdens have been lifted from my shoulders: my thoughts regain cogency, and the feelings and emotions that consume my 'essence' wash away in an organic stew of simmering bliss. Swirl away into me, O Real World Austin! Your constant harbingering molds my destiny in ways that cannot be summed into mere 'words' or 'logic.'

The torrent of activity between Nehemiah and Rachel! The steely eyes of Lacey! The sensuous abstraction that is Johanna intertwined with the precise, defined Wes! Mel and Danny! Truly you have blessed all of us with a deluge, a myriad of riches!

When does pleasure stop and passion begin? Where do emotion and time connect? I'm not sure, but I'll bet it has something to do with "The Dizzie Rooster," a sanctuary for those who are weary, burdened, and ready to commence their immersion into the enchanting experience that is "college life."

If I could describe the Real World's heart-pulsating, mind-quivering drama in one simple phrase, it would be "so polite, we're busy still saying please." I think you all know what I mean by that. Now holla back.

College Football, part 2

So I tried desperately to catch up on all the things that I've missed over the past few years due to apathy, but it didn't quite work out that well. I watched some college football yesterday, but I primarily watched tennis, which is something that I'm more interested in and consider to be more compelling.

Yesterday I started watching part of the Notre Dame/Michigan game, the game that found Michigan to be quite overrated. For those who were unaware, Michigan was supposed to be this bruising team that would pound you with toughness (and was capable of explosiveness). However, after Mike Hart went down with an injury, Michigan was done, and their title hopes likely vanished with their loss.

The reason I stopped watching was because a) I don't care for Michigan and b) I don't care for Notre Dame. Plus, I couldn't decide whether to cheer for resurgency or the home team on the ropes, both scenarios equally plausible in my mind.

I then turned to the SEC game between Georgia and South Carolina, but I figured I would have at least six more times each to see these teams (see the last post), so I watched some of the Iowa/Iowa State game. Iowa proved to be equally disappointing, managing to only put up three points against an underrated Iowa State team. I've always liked Iowa since I used to live there, so it was difficult for me to see the Hawkeyes go down. Again, they lost Drew Tate, and were subsequently done.

Finally, I watched some of the OSU/Texas game (actually, about a quarter and a half of it.) I would have liked to see OSU win, and they made the classic mistake of letting the road team hang around too long, only upping their lead by field goals. There was a lot of blame placed on Tressel for not letting Troy Smith (the 'playmaker') play at the end of the game. I think this is probably crap, but whatever. The stations around here are really insane about the Buckeyes. It's possible that they might punish a Buckeye on air if he commits a sufficient number of mistakes. Demetrius Stanley (a former wideout) is one of the commentators, and he is omniscient, infallible, and outspoken. It's very nice. It sort of reminds one of Sean Salisbury's NFL analysis. If you could put them together you might really have something. Really.

On a side note, Beasley Reece has apparently upgraded to doing sports for a Philly TV station. Way to go. (For those who don't know, Reece is arguably the worst color commentator of all time, and was relegated to doing Patriots and Bengals games when you didn't want to be doing Pats and Bengals games.)

By the way, I really don't want to watch any college football next weekend, though if there's an OSU ticket available... well, we can always hope.

College Football Proliferation...

Right, so I know it's too late to make an effective college football preview, and I know that technically the first week of college football has already passed and we've already seen some upsets, and so technically what I say doesn't matter. Since I'm at Ohio State now, I feel compelled to talk a little bit about college football, though I've long stopped caring.

I think part of why I've stopped caring about college football may be the fact that I can't escape it anymore. That's right, there's too much of it on. I previously could get jacked up for college football in three ways:

1) Teams that I liked to cheer for.

In Colorado I cheered for the Buffaloes, almost religiously. I lived and died with the Colorado/Nebraska rivalry, which is one of the most underrated rivalries in college sports. These teams really hate each other. I've always liked Virginia Tech, I have some feelings for Boston College, and I went to Louisville and now go to Ohio State. When games involving these teams were on, I generally watched. I can still remember being ticked off when I was 11 because Colorado was playing Nebraska (#2 vs. #3) and the local ABC affiliate decided to keep its Big East game of the week, namely 1-6 Pitt vs. 0-7 Rutgers. Horrible. Anyway, the point is that these teams held my interest a little better than most others, making me want to watch college football. Last year, only Louisville held my interest; this year, it's doubtful that even OSU will hold my interest for long.

2) Compelling Rivalries.

In my book, there are only 15 or so of these in the country, so I'll just give them to you.

These are kind of in order: Florida/Tennessee, Ohio State/Michigan, Colorado/Nebraska, Miami/Virginia Tech, Florida State/Miami, Florida/Florida State, Texas/Oklahoma, Texas/Texas A & M, Cal/USC (sometimes), Iowa/Michigan (currently), Auburn/Alabama, and maybe a few others that I can't think of. A lot of these aren't watchable every year either, because one of these programs is down and blows the other one out. You can turn on one of these games each year and feel something; you can't do that with, say, a perfectly servicable Alabama/Arkansas game.

3) Ranked Matchups.

These vary from year to year, but I think any matchup between two ranked teams has the potential of being watchable if you like the teams and the conference. This year, Ohio State/Texas is very watchable. However, the LSU/Arizona State is also watchable... which leads me to my final point of why college football is hard to care about.

Every Saturday, I have a choice between watching college football and doing something else. In high school, the choice was easy- now, it isn't. What makes one matchup between say, #6 and #14 better than, say, #9 and #12? If you don't care about the teams and don't have interest in a specific player, you really don't have a specific reason to watch these matchips. Additionally, it's very difficult to choose what game to watch because there are so many. On any Saturday in Louisville, there would be the national games on ABC and CBS, U of L's game, a Big 10 ESPN+ game, the Jefferson Pilot SEC game, the ESPN games (normally about 3 or 4), ESPN2 games (maybe 2 more), and any other matchup that may be on Thursday night or something else special. Plus, there were games on Fox Sports, and occasionally another station would pick up a 1-AA game or a MAC game. All in all, there were maybe 14 or 15 games to choose from, one from each conference, and I rarely had any anticipation for a particular game because there were so many to choose from. It was like going to the buffet: you don't look forward to the food as much because there's so much of it. Proverbially and literally, I had my fill.

As teams try harder to get on TV, the quality of the matchups get watered down. Case and point: tonight is Friday, September 9, and I'm sitting here watching Pittsburgh at Ohio U., which is being shown on ESPN2. Now I'm not a genius, but there can't be any more than nine people in the country who are legitimately interested in this game and don't live in Pittsburgh or Athens, Ohio. Presumably this game is being shown to fill screens of sports bars, which desperately need something other than the... Yankees/Red Sox? There literally shouldn't be anybody watching this game, and this includes me.

(On a side note, it looks like Pitt's QB Palko has regressed some from last year...)

So, let's see what's gonna be shown tomorrow:

ESPN2: 10:30 AM- Kansas State at Marshall, 2 PM- Colorado State at Minnesota, 7:45 PM- Southern Miss at (22) Alabama.

ESPN: noon-Clemson at Maryland, 5:30 PM- S. Carolina at (9) Georgia, 8:45 PM- (5) LSU at (15) Arizona State

ABC: noon- (23) Notre Dame at (3) Michigan, 3:30 PM- regional coverage... (8) Iowa at Iowa State, (17) Cal at Washington, North Carolina at (21) Georgia Tech, and 8 PM- (2) TEXAS at (7) OHIO STATE.

TBS: Wake Forest at Nebraska

So, of these matchups, there are really only three games that satisfy the criteria above, and two of them are on at the same time.

But what's even more stunning here is the fact that, of the ACC teams, the following will have been on TV since Monday night: Florida State, Clemson, Miami (FL), Maryland, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, and Wake Forest. That's a pretty high percentage... and some of these games are fairly unneccessary. And this is part of the reason why I don't care... I don't want to see these teams... pure and simple. Most of these matchups appeal to only a certain demographic of the country, and I don't happen to be a part of that demographic. And it's tougher and tougher for me to create a reason to be a part of that demographic anymore.

(Side note: As I was typing that last paragraph, Palko threw another pick.)

So, I probably don't follow college football anymore, but I really don't care. I don't have to look forward to seeing a team play...I don't have to think... I don't have to have any passion... after all, I'll probably be able to see them next week.

Men's Preview...

Men’s Draw
Round of 16
Federer v. Kiefer - Kiefer is crazy, and that can be entertaining. But Rule No. 1 from before still applies. Federer in 3.
Nalbandian v. Sanguinetti - Sanguinetti is a 33 year old journeyman who has never been past the quarters of any grand slam, and never past the third round at the open. He just played a punishing 5 set match against Paradorn Srichaphan. None of that really applies to Nalbandian. Nalbandian in 3.
Hewitt v. Hrbaty - Taylor Dent really gave Hewitt a tough five setter in the last round. Luckily for Hewitt, Hrbaty isn’t a serve and volleyer. He’s also incredibly fit and has a day off. Hewitt in 4.
Verdasco v. Nieminen - I’d like to pretend this match matters. I’d like to pull Rule No. 2 on this one. But Verdasco is Spanish and therefore I’m assuming a clay court specialist – not to stereotype. Why not put a Finn in the quarters? Nieminen in 5.
Coria v. Massu - Remember Massu, that completely unknown Chilean that won the gold medal in both singles and doubles tennis at Athens last year? After having a horrendous go of it for the last year, he decides to show up again. This is already his best showing at a major ever. By the way, check Coria’s line at the other majors this year: 3 4th round exits. 4 for 4 on the 4th round? Massu in 4.
Gasquet v. Ginepri - I should watch out for going down the slippery slope of wildly overestimating the number of upsets on the men’s side. (See my Wimbledon picks for details.) “Wildly” has also been a word thrown around to describe Gasquet’s talent – as in “wildly talented.” Fact: Ginepri played brilliantly in Cincinnati. Fact: Gasquet is a teenager and his quality of play fluctuates “wildly.” Fact: Ginepri in 4.
Agassi v. Malisse - Malisse is the best Belgian men’s player on the tour right now. Unlike the women’s side that means very little. He’s very inconsistent... in fact, from now on, let’s just use TBVI to mean “Talented But Very Incosistent,” which describes about everyone on the Men’s tour ranked under 10. Meanwhile, Agassi is the bastion of consistency on the men’s game and matches up well against any TBVI. But the Berdych match showed the TBVI’s always have a punchers chance
against him. But still, Agassi in 3.
Blake v. Robredo - Blake beat Nadal and must be high as a kite. Watching his game the last two weeks, which included a title in Connecticut, it looks like only King Roger himself could beat Blake at the level he’s at. Sorry Tommy. It’d be a different story if you caught James on the clay. Blake in 3.
Quarterfinals
Federer v. Nalbandian - Before you give the US Open to Federer, consider the following: Nalbandian is the only player left in the draw to have a career winning record against Roger (5-2). Nalbandian was mere points away from reaching the final two years ago, before Roddick staged an astonishing comeback. Roger has played one tournament since Wimbledon because of a foot injury. He won it, but has looked unspectacular – beatable even – since his return. Arguing to the contrary, he’s lost
three matches this year. He’s 64-3 coming in! Federer... in 5!
Hewitt v. Niemenin - Rule 1. Hewitt in 3.
Massu v. Ginepri - It sounds crazy, I know. But does it really sound any less crazy than trying to pick a Coria/Gasquet match? Hmmm? Ginepri in 4.
Agassi v. Blake - Far and away the two most popular people left at this tournament. This is the match everyone wants. The crazy thing is, it’s nearly impossible to pick. My heart says Blake, my soul says Agassi, and my head says the winner of this goes to the finals. They haven’t played in 2 years. My theory is that while hero worship isn’t an issue against Nadal, it could be with Agassi. Blake’s already adopted the shaved head to combat baldness a la Andre. Andre in 4.
Semifinals
Federer v. Hewitt - The real reason I picked these two guys is so that Federer could beat Hewitt in a Semifinal again. Federer in 3, winning 2 sets at love. Oh Snap!
Agassi v. Ginepri - Even if Agassi does not play Ginepri in a strong American showing, he’s the favorite to get to finals in a draw sans Nadal and Roddick. His main competition is Blake, Coria, and Gasquet. So the question you’ve got to ask yourself is, do you see any of those three beating Andre? Blake I’ve already expressed my opinion on. I don’t think Coria’s clay court style would hold up. Gasquet I could see, but he’s lucky to have made it this far considering his
results. If he actually plays Ginepri, Agassi in 3. Otherwise, Agassi in 4.
Finals
Federer v. Agassi - I was real close to calling Federer/Blake, or even Federer/Coria. The second scenario would be a nightmare because I think Coria might last 70 minutes against Federer on a hard court. Once again, I’ve taken the two top seeds left. While I think Federer and Agassi could both be upset, this is the dream scenario. This is what everyone wants. Everyone would watch this beginning to end.
Do you think the crowd might get behind Agassi a bit? Do you think he’ll be pumped? Do you think he’ll cry if he wins? Do you think Federer would be phased in the least? Do you think Agassi could still win even if Federer wasn’t? Even just a little? Yes. Yes. Yes. No. No. And that’s why they play the match. My powers of prognostication are being hampered by a pool of drool forming on the keyboard. I won’t pick a winner. I don’t want to jinx this final.

Guest US Open Preview!!! (courtesy of John Lorenz)

Round of 16
Sharapova v. Mirza – Rule No. 1 of writing my US Open Women’s picks: If the pick is obvious, don’t bother explaining it. Sharapova in 2.
Petrova v. Vaidisova – Petrova has become the women’s tennis version of Joe Randa. Tough, dependable, not a franchise player. Petrova in 2.
Clijsters v. Vento-Kabchi – Clijsters in 2.
Williams v. Williams – Like ‘em or lump ‘em, they account for 2/3 of grand slams this year. Then why are they meeting in the 4th round? In a way, they deserve this for putting tennis secondary to other things. But, I think it’s also a flaw in the rankings and seeding system. By the way, trying to use logic to pick is match is quite…illogical. Williams in 2.
Henin-Hardenne v. Pierce – The French Open rematch. I predict this one will be closer. Henin-Hardenne has struggled since the French. Pierce only seems to have gotten stronger. Who wins? In case of a toss up, follow Rule No. 2 of writing my US Open Women’s picks: Pick the higher seed. The women’s side always goes to form. Henin-Hardenne in 3.
Mauresmo v. Likhovtseva – Rule No. 3 of writing my US Open Women’s picks: The Mauresmo Meltdown doesn’t happen until the quarters or semis. Mauresmo in 2.
Dementieva v. Schnyder – Dementieva’s serve is much improved, which should make her very scary. But for some reason it hasn’t. So do you pick talent or consistency? I’m going with talent on this one. Dementieva in 3.
Davenport v. Dechy – Davenport in 2.
Quarterfinals
Sharapova v. Petrova – It’s hard to resort to Rule No. 1 when 2 top ten players are involved, but Petrova… Sharapova in 2.
Clijsters v. Serena – Oh so you think I was just being cute before, huh? Rule No. 4: Until Venus proves otherwise, always go with Serena… no matter how bad she’s looked. (Possibly a corollary of Rule No. 2.) But Clijsters will win this. Clijsters in 3.
Henin-Hardenne v. Mauresmo – Mauresmo Meltdown? Henin-Hardenne has looked shaky and Mauresmo has the talent to win a slam. It may seem counterintuitive, but Mauresmo in 2.
Davenport v. Dementieva – The problem with the women’s side staying true to form is the 2nd week picks become that much harder. Like Mauresmo, Dementieva has the talent to win a slam. But Davenport has been the overall best women’s player of the last year. Does that get her a slam? It gets her a semifinal bad back and all. Davenport in 2.
Semifinals
Sharapova v. Clijsters – By this point, I’m positive this isn’t going as well as my Wimbledon picks. It’s hard to bet against either one. It’s either going to be the Sharapova/Davenport battle for number one or the Clijsters/Mauresmo battle of the have-nots. Crap. I’m calling rule number 2 on this. Sharapova in 3.
Davenport v. Mauresmo – I actually really think this might be the time for Mauresmo to break through with her 2 main rivals in her half of the draw battling injuries in Henin-Hardenne and Davenport. But Lindsay in 3.
Finals
Sharapova v. Davenport – Pick 1 and 2? I know – you could have done that. But could you have given witty, relevant commentary as well? Well, I certainly can’t. But Sharapova didn’t get to where she is because she’s pretty, or because she hits big, but because she’s mentally the toughest competitor on the women’s tour – something that has been a knock on Lindsay. But Lindsay has had a great year, and has been playing the most confident tennis of what could be her soon to be over career. I picked Lindsay in Wimbledon as a sentimental choice and she was runner up. So I pick Sharapova here with the knowledge that Lindsay will win it all just to spite me in the end. Sharapova in 3.

Analyzing the Fantasy Team...

So, I didn't really make it to my fantasy football draft; however, I sort of didn't think that I would make it, so I pre-ranked my players and let Yahoo take a crack at drafting a team for me. Here are the results:

QB- Kerry Collins, Oakland.

I think any idiot can throw to Randy Moss, which is good, because Collins isn't too sharp. Throw in my backup Jake Plummer and I should have plenty to worry about. Still, they could get on a hot streak, which would be amazing. Bottom line is that I'm playing with fire and will get burned, though fire can work both ways.

RB- Curtis Martin, NY Jets.

I like Curtis, though I probably wouldn't have drafted him personally. I do think I got some decent "value" with the pick, which I think was made for me in the third round. Martin had the year of his life last year and basically nobody expects him to repeat it, except for... the Jets. That's right, New York sent Lamont Jordan packing this year because they thought Martin could repeat. That's good enough for me (actually, good enough for the computer drafting for me.)

On a side note, I've heard a lot about having to draft quality running backs (studs, if you will) because they are the most consistent players. This logic has escalated to the point where people are drafting running backs with their first two picks in every draft. I think this is silly for lots and lots of reasons... but we'll get into that later.

RB- Chris Brown, Tennessee.

I think the reason why people draft great running backs is so they aren't stuck with platoon guys like Brown. I should have definitely been there to get another player.

RB- Kevan Barlow, San Francisco.

I think Barlow is actually still starting for San Fran, which means he gets to start for my team. I'm not enthused, but the Niners can't be much worse than last year, and Barlow could be better. When they finally decide to start Alex Smith, they'll be better.

WR- Randy Moss, Oakland.

If I was going to rank Collins, I was going to draft Moss. I'll let my team rest on someone who likes booze and someone who likes weed, that seems to be a nice move. On the plus side, smoking weed hasn't really stopped Moss from being good in the past. And I think he's like, the best receiver in football.

WR- Marvin Harrison, Indianapolis.

I guess Yahoo decided to draft both these guys for me because of the running back run that occurred earlier. And I think it's kind of nice. Is having a stud WR the same thing as having a stud RB? That's the real question here. I do think that I'm tired of seeing crappy WRs give me zeroes every week. That's no good at all.

WR- Nate Burleson, Minneapolis.

This guy had 1,000 yards and nine TDs last year with Moss on his team. His numbers should be better now. Of course, I really have no basis for this idea.

WR- Larry Fitzgerald, Arizona.

Normally, rookie wideouts sort of suck, but Fitzgerald didn't. I think that makes him a good fantasy play for this next year. Besides, Kurt Warner can't be any worse than Shaun King or Josh McCown, can he?

TE- Randy McMichael, Miami.

This is really where the autodraft came in. I don't like this guy even in real life. I think he was involved in some sort of domestic dispute that he shouldn't have been in.

BENCH!

QB- Jake Plummer, Denver.

If you're going for broke, go for broke. Plummer is an all-or-nothing nightmare that can score a lot of points in a hurry, or can actually achieve the rare "negative points." I do like the idea of wild inconsistency for my backup. Interestingly enough, people still consider Rod Smith, Darius Watts, and Ashley Lelie solid fantasy plays. It's weird how this game works.

RB- Ricky Williams, Miami.

I picked this guy up. I imagine there was some sort of live draft consensus that he shouldn't have been picked, which is why he was available. But I already have three running backs who are marginal, why not pick up a fourth? Ricky's been good in the preseason anyway.

WR- Troy Williamson, Minnesota.

He's got a chance to put up numbers, and he's fast. Minnesota took him high for a reason. Plus, I can cut him at will.

TE- Jermaine Wiggins, Minnesota.

I think the computer took him too, but oh well. I guess I need a backup tight end who isn't horrible.

K- Jason Elam, Denver, and Josh Reed, Pittsburgh.

Perfectly average kickers for an average team. Exactly what I like.

And in a surprise to my rankings, defensive players!

D- Champ Bailey, Patrick Kerney, Terrell Suggs, Teddy Lehman, and Brian Dawkins.

These are all name guys who might be good and might not be good, according to the whims of the settings. I have this rule of drafting guys I've heard of on defense, since I don't know too much about the specialists.

And here's my thought about drafting running backs with the first picks:

There are a handful of quarterbacks who can win games for you by themselves. Players such as Manning, Culpepper, and McNabb should be taken high because they can do this.

There is never really any guarantee what you will get out of a receiver not named Harrison, Moss, or Owens (and to a lesser extent, Reggie Wayne now, Joe Horn, and Hines Ward). If you get a chance to get one of these guys, you should do it.

What makes Ahman Green better than, say, Clinton Portis? I don't know, and you don't either. What makes McAllister better than, say, Curtis Martin? We don't know.
What Corey Dillon shows up? Is Rudi Johnson as good as his numbers? All these are valuable questions. But people just take running backs with good stats because they're "studs." I like the idea of guaranteed points, but I would rather take a chance with a running back (where even the bad ones are ok) than QB or WR, where you can get stuck with zeroes at times. I'd counter with saying that there is so much value at running back that it makes drafting any mid-tier RB with your second-round pick a waste.

That's all.