Reviewing my fantasy baseball draft, part two.

Enjoy this random picture of curling.

For part one of this post, which includes the scoring rules and format of this league, check out my post from yesterday. If you have any other questions about the league and format, feel free to ask in a comment. And, I'll be back to the LOST and television analysis later tonight.

KEEPERS:

Pedroia_Dustin/BOS
Longoria_Evan/TBA
Kemp_Matthew/LAN
Avila_Alex/DET
Tillman_Chris/BAL
Holland_Derek/TEX
Hamels_Cole/PHI
Rowland-Smith_Ryan/SEA
Hughes_Philip/NYA
Santana_Carlos/CLE

Reviewing my keepers, I make up for a lack of top shelf quality with quantity. Longoria and Pedroia were easy keep decisions, since they play at premium positions and in good lineups; perennial All-Stars. Kemp might be a tougher decision in future years, for reasons I'll get into. Aliva cost almost nothing to keep and he's a decent hitting catcher, and I like his chances of forcing Laird to the bench in Detroit. Tillman and Holland are too cheap and still have too much potential to give up on. Same with Hamels. Rowland-Smith and Hughes I view as generic innings-munchers, but since I had the extra years, I thought that I might as well keep them and use my draft picks on others. And Carlos Santana will hopefully be with the Indians at some point this year, instead of playing music.

In terms of overall draft strategy, well, I didn't have any concrete plans or targets. My lone goal was to avoid drafting an OF and 1B as long as possible. I didn't do this last year, and I remember being annoyed at how long decent OFers lasted, even late into the draft. In contrast, I disliked having to constantly juggle my injured pitching staff last year. Therefore, a secondary goal was picking up some durable starters, with the hope of some of my upside guys - Hughes, Tillman, Holland, prospects - coming up and taking their innings at some point.

1 4 SteveG Beckett_Josh/BOS

I viewed Beckett as a better choice than some others, like Cliff Lee, because of his superior team. Given the choice between a pitcher on a winning team and a losing team, I'll take the winning team, since there is a chance for some vulture wins when you don't have your best stuff. I had Beckett, Lee, Chris Carpenter and Vasquez all rated about equally. Carpenter scares me because of his long, long dossier of past injuries, and Vasquez scares me because he flopped in his last trip in NY.

2 20 SteveG Napoli_Mike/LAA

I wasn't crazy about this pick, since the Angels hate his defense and willingly employ Mathis in some sort of time split, keeping Napoli's overall numbers down. I had him last year too though, and it was normally more good than bad. Plus, with Aliva on the bench, I think I'm covered when it comes to Napoli's days off, although I will have to scrounge the waiver wire if there is an injury/

3 36 SteveG Cabrera_Asdrubal/CLE

Since I had already taken care of catcher, which has spotty offensive options, I decided to fill another hole in my lineup and grab Cabrera.

4 52 SteveG Chapman_Aroldis/CIN

Last year, Strasberg went in the third round. While he was viewed as more of a "can't miss" than Chapman, Chapman is closer to the majors at this point in their careers, and he showed some electric stuff in spring training. I considered him the best draftable prospect pitcher with a chance at being a No. 1 starter, and if he does hit that peak, he would be cheap for years and years.

5 68 SteveG Duchscherer_Justin/OAK

Injury-concerns, yeah, but a solid starting pitcher. I think I wanted to take him last year, but the other Steve took him one pick before me, forcing me to take Troy Glaus instead. That didn't work out so well. He's like a poor man's Carpenter, in that he seems to get injured quite a bit, but if he's healthy, he's great.

5 78 SteveG Cuddyer_Michael/MIN

While I think last year might have been his peak in terms of offense, all I had left to fill on my roster was my bullpen, 1B and two OF spots. So, I took him, since he was eligible at 1B and OF. And hey, maybe they'll play him at 2B again this year! (Well, probably not.)

6 84 SteveG Drew_JD/BOS

I really, really like Red Sox players this year. I think the team has a chance to win 100+ games, since their lineup will just wear pitchers down. Drew will only play 120 games, but he normally just misses a game here or there, as opposed to long stretches of time. Therefore, I think he'll still get plenty of counting stats.

8 116 SteveG Coghlan_Chris/FLO

This is why I held off as long as possible on outfielders. If he does have another really good year, or improves somehow or moves back to 2B, then he is definitely worth three keeper years. I almost took him in the sixth with my pick, and I was surprised that he lasted this long. People hadn't started to make a run on prospects yet, and I wasn't really attached to any of the available ones, so I decided to focus on filling out my roster.

8 122 SteveG Wagner_Billy/ATL

Best closer on the board. I have no idea if his arm will hold up, but I needed some relief pitchers, and I wasn't crazy about taking my chances on whoever ended up with saves in Minnesota, for example.

9 132 SteveG Hoffman_Trevor/MIL

See above reasoning.

10 148 SteveG Ordonez_Magglio/DET

I was surprised he was still around. People realize Mike Illitch has to pay his contract, right, and not us? I viewed him as a better proposition than Soriano or Vlad Guerrero, similar hobbled sluggers, and Ordonez does have OF eligibility still.

11 164 SteveG Marmol_Carlos/CHN

Third relief pitcher. He's been shaky in the spring, and shaky in general, but hey, not much left in terms of elite closers at this point.

12 180 SteveG Kelly_Casey/BOS

Time to go prospecting! Every scouting report on Kelly raves about how polished he is, and while he might not have the true "ace" stuff, most don't see him as a bust either, and he has an outside shot of getting up to Boston at some point in the year. Since the REALLY elite prospects like Stanton and Strasberg are long gone, I liked Kelly's upside.

13 196 SteveG Wakefield_Tim/BOS

Depending on how I shape my rotation and swing staff, he could be a really valuable piece. At the least, I know he'll make 15 to 25 starts, a good portion of which will be quality. And because he plays for the Red Sox, he should pick up a decent amount of wins, assuming he isn't eventually bumped out of the rotation by Dice-K.

14 212 SteveG Byrd_Marlon/CHN

Ugh. I have little faith he can repeat last year's numbers, but I hate the speed and SB guys like Juan Pierre that we left on the board. Therefore, I rolled the dice with Byrd. At the very least, Byrd will get a LOT of at-bats, since the Cubs gave him a crap ton of money.

15 228 SteveG Blackburn_Nick/MIN

See above about Byrd, but instead, I'm talking about Blackburn. Like every other Twins' pitcher, I think he puts up an ERA in the 4s and wins (and loses) a 8 to 12 games. For a swing pitcher, that sounds pretty good.

16 244 SteveG Eveland_Dana/TOR

Now stockpiling starting pitching.

17 260 SteveG Encarnacion_Edwin/TOR

At this point, Tom took over for me, drafting with a list. I told him to take the highest rated, in this order, which made for some hilarious results: 1b/3b, ss/2b, OF, RP, and then all prospects. I like Edwin's upside, assuming Cito Gaston doesn't screw it up by playing some hack.

18 276 SteveG Betancourt_Yuniesky/KCA

He already hit a home run, I'm a genius!!! Ack, I didn't even realize he was ranked this high on the list I left, which REALLY skewed toward players with starting jobs and high AB totals. Because the Royals are the Royals, I don't doubt that Betancourt will get 600 ABs, and while his rate stats completely suck, there is always the chance that he has a couple good weeks here and there... Right? Right guys?

19 292 SteveG Raburn_Ryan/DET

Back-up outfielder, with an outside shot of qualifying at an IF spot or catcher if there is a severe emergency in Detroit.

20 308 SteveG Clippard_Tyler/WAS

Decent numbers, and I need a few more arms.

21 324 SteveG Friedrich_Christian/COL
22 340 SteveG Norris_Derrek/WAS
23 356 SteveG Brignac_Reid/TBA
24 370 SteveG Matzek_Tyler/COL

For my prospect list, I did absolutely no work - The list I gave Tom was BP's Top 101 list, in order, with the players already chosen taken off of it. Sorry Michael :(

Reviewing my fantasy baseball draft.

Because I am the super cool sort, I play fantasy baseball, but only one league. That is because I have a short attention span for this sort of stuff, and also because the league I am is really complex, more than your standard league. Here is how the scoring works:

Batting Points = ToB + TB + (SB-CS) + (R+RBI) - OUTS = 2*H + W + TB + R + RBI + SB - CS - AB

Pitching = 3*IP + K - BB - 2*(H+R+ER) + Bonus (+5 for a win, -3 for a loss, +2 per save, +2 per inning past the 5th)

The league also uses a roster format. You can carry a maximum of 35 players, 25 of which are on the active roster. You have to field a lineup of all eight infield positions and a DH, a five-man pitching rotation and three bullpen pitchers. The remaining eight positions are your bench players and swing staff; both can be used to substitute for negative scores among your starters.

There is also a keeper system in place. You are allowed 30 player years - A rookie (Steven Strasburg) only costs one year to keep, with one player year for each additional year they have appeared in a major league game. With that in mind, here is my roster:

C Napoli_Mike/ANA 2
1B Cuddyer_Michael/MIN
2B Pedroia_Dustin/BOS
3B Longoria_Evan/TBA 3
SS Cabrera_Asdrubal/CLE 4
OF1 Kemp_Matthew/LAN 1,5
OF2 Drew_JD/BOS 1,5
OF3 Coghlan_Chris/FLA 1,5
DH Ordonez_Magglio/DET 3
b1 Byrd_Marlon/CHN OF
b2 Avila_Alex/DET C
b3 Encarnacion_Edwin/TOR 3B
b4 Betancourt_Yuniesky/KCA SS
B5 Raburn_Ryan/DET OF
SP1 Beckett_Josh/BOS
SP2 Duchscherer_Justin/OAK
SP3 Hamels_Cole/PHI
sp4 Rowland-Smith_Ryan/SEA
sp5 Hughes_Philip/NYA
SW1 Wakefield_Tim/BOS
SW2 Blackburn_Nick/MIN
sw3 Eveland_Dana/TOR
rp1 Wagner_Billy/ATL
rp2 Hoffman_Trevor/MIL
rp3 Marmol_Carlos/CHN
IR Santana_Carlos/CLE
IR Holland_Derek/TEX
IR Tillman_Chris/BAL
IR Chapman_Aroldis/CIN
IR Kelly_Casey/BOS
IR Clippard_Tyler/WAS
IR Friedrich_Christian/COL
IR Norris_Derrek/WAS
IR Brignac_Reid/TBA
IR Matzek_Tyler/COL

I'll post a more detailed analysis later or tomorrow, but for now, I have to run to the library to cover a story. Lates!

The fantasy baseball picture is from this site.

Johnny effing Damon!

[Left] Unfrozen caveman lawyer, Boston Red Sox traitor and Hall of Very Good player Johnny Damon.

Tonight, the host of Monday Night Raw is New York Yankees free agent outfielder Johnny Damon. I've only seen about 30 minutes of the show, but his acting is as weak as his arm - Very muted and lowkey, with little chance of gunning someone down at the plate or coming across as a strong presence on the microphone. (See what I did there, mixing the two comparisons? Impressive, I know.)

Anywho, Damon's presence on the show reminded me that he is still a free agent, since he (most-likely) overplayed his hand with the Yankees this offseason. I initially heard that he wanted a contract in the two to four-year range, at more than $10 million per year, which struck me as absolutely insane.

At that dollar value, Damon is only good if he can play center field, which he can't anymore at age 36. I'd rather take a flier on someone like Vlad Guerrero or Nick Johnson, the second of which the Yankees are apparently doing. (By the way, this annoys me as a Red Sox fan - I was hoping the Red Sox would sign Johnson as their first baseman, and to keep Kotchman as a decent backup who might regain some of his value with a full year in Boston.)

That being said, I am surprised how well Damon is performing and holding up physically. The general rule is that speed guys like Damon, Rickey Henderson, Devon White, Marquis Grissom and others preserve better than others. However, Damon's iffy middle seasons - his only year in Oakland and 2003 in Boston - made me question whether he was following this career path or not, especially since he last played center field everyday in 2006.

Regardless, the Red Sox have Ellsbury (and now Cameron and formerly Coco Crisp), so it was justifiable for them to let Damon walk. While Ellsbury doesn't have as much power as Damon, I view him as a league average center fielder at a rock bottom price. He hasn't developed as much as I would like, excluding the stolen bases, but it is still worth employing him in order to save the money to sign some other players, like John Lackey.

Yankees trade bad for the Red Sox

Since I was typing yesterday from the catacombs of the Civic Center, it only seems appropriate that I do this entry today in the 20 minutes before Rhode Island's game tonight. I'm busy eating some macaroni and cheese as I type this though, preparing for the game, so again, please excuse me if my thoughts are disheveled somewhat.

Anywho. The big news of the day in sports was the Yankees trade for Curtis Granderson, which, as a Red Sox fan, made me groan. Granderson isn't still projected to be a mega-superstar, like he was as a minor league prospect coming up, but he is a serviceable center fielder.

This would be an improvement on what the Yankees were probably planning to parade out there this year, some combination of Melky Cabrera, Brett Gardiner and maybe Austin Jackson. According to ESPN, the Yankees would give up Ian Kennedy, Phil Coke and Jackson.

Of those players, only Jackson has real potential as a plus-contributor on a playoff team. After his repeated shellings in the rotation the past few years, I'm shocked Kennedy still has value to another team. At best, I think he's a fourth or fifth starter, which is normally something you promote from within or sign on the cheap on the free agent market. Coke is a nice arm for the pen, and Jackson might grow up to be Granderson, so I'm surprised the Yankees had to give up so little to end up with Granderson in this trade.

I have no idea why the Diamondbacks did this trade. They ended up with Kennedy and Tigers' starter Edwin Jackson, who regressed badly after a hot start, and gave up the past prospects, who the Tigers picked up in the deal.

Granderson photo taken from this blog.

The $14 million question about J.D. Drew

See? J.D. can get his uniform dirty!

Recently, Red Sox general manager Theo Epstein has been ridiculed on WEEI, the number one New England (and especially Boston) sports radio station for a statement he made on their morning show the other day. He made the claim that right fielder J.D. Drew has more than justified his $14 million yearly salary, citing his OBP, slugging and defensive prowess.

The problem when evaluating Drew is twofold. 1) His attitude and demeanor are lax, to say the least, which enrages fans. He won't play unless he is completely healthy, which keeps his games total down from year to year as well. 2) His value is tied up primarily in advanced statistics, such as his ability to draw walks and take pitches. His counting stats – hits, runs batted in and home runs – aren't impressive according to conventional means.

To defend Drew a bit, he actually did play in a lot of games this year, more than the common fan realizes. He managed 137 games played this year, 22nd among American League outfielders. His OBP of .392 ranked second among outfielders, and his OPS – OBP plus slugging – was second to teammate Jason Bay.

I think what freaks people out is the $14 million price tag. However, similar to my previous point about the free agent market, the limited amount of options drives up prices on the few good players.

In that context, Drew is a good investment at $14 million. For example, in 2007, here are other players who made more than Drew: Jason Giambi, Todd Helton, Andy Pettitte, Bartolo Colon, Jason Schmidt, Richie Sexson and Mike Hampton. Drew comes in at #17 on that list, and all the previously cited players make more than him.

If you need more examples of overly-compensated players, then look no further than the Angels. Torii Hunter is making $18 million and Gary Matthews Jr. earns $10.4 million. This blog has a good wrap up of all the signings from 2007, and the Drew one has worked out a lot better than Dice-K, Carlos Lee, Matthews Jr., Schmidt, Jeff Suppan and Barry Zito, among players who signed for more than $10 million a season.

The J.D. Drew photos are from here and here.

Options thin for Red Sox in free agency

One of the quotes I best remember from an edition of Baseball Prospectus that I will ironically mangle right now is that if the market is only selling bananas, and you need to buy oranges, well, then you're S out of luck.

This is a key, key fact to remember about the Red Sox and this year's free agent market. The Red Sox could really use an under-30 power bat at catcher, first base, shortstop or third base. However, the market doesn't really have a good option for any of those positions.

Currently, the Red Sox have Victor Martinez, who can play catcher or first, and Kevin Youkilis, who can play first or third. David Ortiz and Mike Lowell are still under contract, and between them, you have a decent fill for the designated hitter and third base slots in the lineup. I say "decent" because both are in their decline phases, and on the wrong side of 30, and in Lowell's case, barely suitable for his position in the field.

It should also be noted that Martinez will be a free agent after 2010, when he will be 32, so he is not a long-term solution at catcher. At shortstop, the Red Sox haven't yet decided whether or not to pick up Alex Gonzalez's $6 million option. Although he did decent in a small sample size with the team, all he can really do is field, so that is a steep price. This year's left fielder, Jason Bay, is also a free agent, and also on the wrong side of 30 and probably looking for a decently long deal, four to five years, for $13 million to $16 million a year.

With this in mind, let's look at the free agent market, position by position, focusing on the Red Sox needs. All potential free agents are from this site.

CATCHERS

The best players are Gregg Zaun, Mike Redmond, Josh Bard and Ramon Castro. Of course, maybe you prefer a "name" guy. In that case, the corpses of Ivan Rodriguez, Jason Kendall and Bengie Molina are available. You can pick through the debris and find a guy or two who exceeded expectations a bit, but there is no free agent available that immediately makes me think, "Wow, our catching problem is now solved!"

FIRST BASE

See: catchers. The best player is probably Nick Johnson [left], with the caveat that you can't count on him to play two games in a row, nevermind actually holding up for a 162 game season. (Or, in Boston's case, a 165 to 181 game season.) He didn't manage a full season this year, even with that sweet mustache of his. On a performance basis though, he is clearly the best bet, and similar to the Brad Penny and John Smoltz deals this past season, you might be able to get him on an incentive-laden deal. Russell Branyan, the ultimate three true outcomes guy, is also a free agent, although the fan base's past reaction to Mark Bellhorn suggests that his plate approach might not fly.

Once you get past Johnson, you have a few "reclamation" guys that are kind of interesting to me. The team already took a spin on the Adam LaRoche train, but he is out there. Once upon a time, Hank Blalock played third base, so he could be a poor man's - okay, more like a homeless man's - version of Kevin Youkilis. The "veteran names" at first base include Doug Mienakljklasjfas, Eric Hinske, NOMAH, Carlos Delgado and Miguel Cairo.

SHORTSTOPS

I don't think it's a big deal if the Sox pass on A-Gonz because there is a semi-flood of guys like him on the market this year. If you don't want to pay him $6 million, then you can try your luck again with Orlando Cabrera, or move on to Craig Counsell or Bobby Crosby or Khalil Greene or John McDonald or Marco Scutaro or Miguel Tejada or Jack Wilson. All of them are quasi-decent shortstops, depending on how hard you squint, and all of them aren't going to make more than $6 million. I'd rather roll the dice with one of them, plus Jed Lowrie (when / if healthy) and Nick Green, than guaranteeing all that cash to A-Gonz.

THIRD BASE

Chone Figgins is the "big" name out there at third. He is a poor choice for several reasons to me. One, his highest slugging was 432, and that was two years ago, in his age 29 season. He doesn't hit home runs, or doubles. Two, he's fast, but he's 31 now, and his speed has always been overrated on the basepaths because he gets caught so much. He had 42 steals this year... but also led the league with 17 caught stealing. And finally, his value is extra high this year because of his 101 walks, which is 36 more than his previous season high. Figgins is a decent player, but he needs to have a high OBP to be an asset as a full-time third baseman because of his lack of power. Since he could get a deal worth $10 million a year from some desperate team, I'd prefer the Sox stay away from him.

Adrian Beltre is a 12-year veteran, but is still only 30. This would matter more if he had hit better than 265 / 304 / 379 this year. For all the media craze about guys on the juice, you never heard his name bandied about, even though he has never come close to matching his utterly insane 48 HR year - in Dodger Stadium! - right before he became a free agent right after the 2004 season.

The other options at third also come with serious question marks. These players could redeem themselves, but they could be complete busts as well: Mark DeRosa, Joe Crede (rumored to be retiring), Troy Glaus (so hurt he only managed to appear in 14 games this year), Melvin Mora and Pedro Feliz (club options that will probably and foolishly be picked up), and scrubs like Aaron bleeping Boone and Adam Kennedy.

OUTFIELD

For simplicity's sake, I'm assuming a traditional right fielder or center fielder would be able to play left in Fenway. The Monster is an asset when it comes to hiding a horrible fielder - Ask Manny Ramirez, who was actually able to sucker some people in Boston into thinking he was a decent left fielder.

Anyway, the outfield has some decent options, even if you assume the Rays will act sanely and pick up Carl Crawford's option. In addition to the aforementioned Jason Bay, Matt Holliday is available. While he didn't do well in Oakland this year, he is a good defensive outfielder, and could probably provide about 50 to 80 percent of Bay's value at the plate.

I see three veteran longshots available as well - Vlad Guerrero, Bobby Abreu and Brian Giles. Guerrero and Abreu seem pretty happy with the Angels, and it wouldn't surprise me to see Vlad in particular take a pay cut to stay with the Halos. Abreu might be looking to cash in after a really good year, but the Sox seem an unlikely destination; I imagine they would want to offer him something incentive-laden, similar to what the Angels did this year. And Giles already rejected a trade to the Sox in the past, so I doubt he'd seriously consider signing with them as a free agent.

In the flashback category, Johnny Damon and Wily Mo Pena are free agents, but I doubt either will be back in a Boston uniform for personality reasons and quality reasons, respectively. The Royals have an $8 million option for Coco Crisp, so there is a good chance he could be available, but he can't hit well enough to play left in Fenway. Dave Roberts is technically a free agent; if the Sox were interested, they probably would have asked him to get a uniform a bit earlier than now.

There are a lot of "tweeners" in the outfield, actually. Meaning, guys who either 1) hit OK 2) but not well enough to be an All-Star and 3) aren't incredible with the glove either. The converse is also true, with some plus defenders who REALLY don't hit well. I'm looking in your direction, Marlon Byrd, Mike Cameron, Reed Johnson, Austin Kearns, Xavier Nady, Randy Winn and Emil Brown.

CONCLUSIONS

Hey, sorry for being the bearer of bad news, but the market isn't that strong when it comes to positions the Red Sox actually need filled. For most of these, the in-house candidates - Ortiz, Lowell, Lowrie, Bay - are comparable in quality to what's out on the market. If the Sox are going to radically improve their roster in the offseason, it's going to be via trade.

The Nick Johnson photo is from this blog. The market photo is from here. The picture of Mandy Moore is from here, and included because I find her incredibly foxy.

The case for trading Papelbon

I was going to write a post elaborating on the sane, logical reasons to explore trading Papelbone, but Kayla over at Off The Monster already did a great job on it. You can read her post here. I concur with pretty much all of the reasoning in it, and added some other comments at the bottom of it.

The picture of Papelbon is from this site.

A belated baseball playoffs post

Best umpire ever.

I know it's the hip thing to do, offering your opinions on the baseball playoffs and what not, so who am I to refuse? I guess like most writing though, my timing sucks, and as a result I've missed the actual start of most of the series. Therefore, I'll give my picks, and acknowledge the margin at the time of this posting.

- Red Sox vs. Angels: Red Sox in five.

This probably isn't that surprising of a pick, since I am a Red Sox fan. However, the margin - five games - might surprise some. There is enough inconsistency among the Red Sox pitching lately that it worries me. Beckett struggled for parts of September, and while I have faith in Lester, Buchholz and Dice-K seem like a toss-up to me. This is also overlooking the bullpen: Papelbon is good, as are Okajima and Wagner, but Ramon Ramirez, Saito and others leave me feeling uneasy.

That being said, it's not like the Angels are going gangbusters either. Their pitching has the same questions the Red Sox does without a track record of success. Lackey, Saunders, Santana and Kazmir are like a lower-peak version of the Sox rotation. While I liked the Angels' gamble on taking Kazmir, it hasn't exactly paid dividends yet. And if we're evaluating the Red Sox lineup vs. the Angels, then I'm going to take the Red Sox, who seem to rely less on batting average and more on power, and because the Sox are generally younger.

Yankees vs. Twins: Twins in five

Hey, it's my friggin' blog, okay? And I'm writing this even after the Twins got pasted 7-2 Wednesday afternoon. Of course, there are the mitigating circumstances that they had played less than 24 hours earlier and were going up against a well-rested Yankees' team, but I think this plays less of a role than the analysts attributed to it last night. The Yankees are clearly the better team to me.

So why am I picking the Twins anyway? Well, for one, spite. I am a Red Sox fan, and I simply can't, in good faith, pick the Yankees. I just can't do it. It's bad enough that I managed to have Mariano Rivera on my fantasy team this year, so I had to root for him most of the season. I simply can't stomach offering any more support to the Yankees, in the form of being proven right. Except at catcher, I think it would be hard to point to any area the Twins are better than the Yankees in, but hey, you never know. In a short series, anything can happen.

Dodgers vs. Cardinals: Cardinals in five

I don't feel that strongly about this series. On one hand, the few Cardinals fans I know are a bit weird toward Boston; I think they hold a grudge against us for sweeping them in 2004, in what was probably the most anti-climatic World Series of all-time. On the other hand, the Dodgers have Manny Ramirez, who I never minded when he was in Boston, but he's a guy a ton of Boston fans (have always) love to hate.

Therefore, I have to decide this series solely on baseball merits, which kind of stinks. I think the Cardinals are the slight favorite because their best players - Pujols, Holliday, Wainwright and Carpenter - compensate for the Dodgers' overall better team. If they don't win, then I blame LaRussa.

Phillies vs. Rockies: Phillies in five

Although the Phillies lost today, and even though their bullpen is in shambles, I just like what mean bastards their fans are. I think a Philadelphia vs. Boston World Series would be great from an obnoxious fan standpoint, even if it might make the rest of the country recoil in terror.

I lifted the Naked Gun picture from here, even if the blog is run by a Yankees' fan. That's how I roll!

Blogging about tweeting

[Left] Not about her.

I got a Twitter account a couple months ago, although it was primarily to promote this blog; I had no real desire to post 140 character updates about my life. Yet, this minimalist format has indeed snagged me a bit, as I've done 552 updates - tweets, as the kids call them - in the past four months or so. (I wish it was easier to look-up when I joined, but I can't find that button right now.)

Because you are so limited in terms of length, it forces you to be brief and to the point. It is kind of the opposite of blogging, where I just ramble for 800 words and then post a silly picture.

The oddest thing to me is how easy it is to add other people. There are things like a Major League Baseball feed that I'll normally add a person or two from each day, along with The Match Game's Charles Nelson Reilly, which is maintained by friends of the late comedian. (By the way, future idea for a posting - Best game shows of all-time, since The Match Game is on it.)

I also wonder what the semi-professional bloggers and writers and journalists think when they see my updates to my high school and Internet friends. I'm sure they are very interested in my comments to my friend about how I did an article about our mutual friend and my former roommate about him competing in some lifeguard games. The guys from Gamezebo probably get a real kick out of it, and think to themselves, "This is so utterly relevant!"

Bag of baseballs > .265 average

The Red Sox parade of mediocrity from my youth: Jack Clark,
Jose Offerman, Tom Brunansky and Troy O'Leary.

I realize that a lot of people reading my blog are sports fans, because I mostly follow sports bloggers, writers and columnists on Twitter, yet I haven't written any posts on sports lately. From reading my last 10 entries or so, you'd think I was obsessed with television commercials, 1990s movies and providing flip remarks to music that randomly appears on my iTunes playlist. (For the record, you wouldn't be wrong if you assumed “yes” to any of the three.)

Therefore, let me debate an issue that comes up around the trade deadline every year – The idea that some teams are “giving up” by trading veteran players. It is almost always hogwash, and a claim made by lazy sportswriters, radio show hosts and the general public.

The outcry seemed most intense this year toward Pittsburgh Pirates GM Neil Huntington. For some reason, the maddening crowds (thanks Thomas Hardy!) screamed that he should have kept Freddy Sanchez and Jack Wilson, even though both have, you know, been on the team for the half-dozen or so years it has really sucked. Without Sanchez and Wilson, you might go 70-92 instead of 65-97, and even this might be an overstatement.

The perception of them as above-average players seems to exist solely because of counting stats – i.e. at-bat dependent stats like home runs, RBI and hits.

Freddy Sanchez's combined line between Pittsburgh and San Fran is .299, but his OBP is only .338, and he doesn't hit for enough power or play a great 2B, SS or 3B. At "just" $4 million, I suppose he's priced-appropriately for his price tag, except that you can find some minor league guys to play as well as he does, and pool the savings at that position and somewhere else to get a marquee player.

Jack Wilson's line is even more hack-tastic, as his OBP doesn't break .300. Even if he is a SS, that's unacceptable. He can defend really well, but he's not Ozzie Smith, which he has to be to justify his sub-par production at the plate and $6.65 million salary.

Getting anything for them, even if it's just salary relief, is better than holding on to them and seeing what little value they have crater when they finally do put up a .200 average.

To dip into baseball history a bit here, I've always been a fan of the Branch Rickey philosophy of dealing a player a year too early as opposed to a year too late. For example, even though this is sacrilegious for a Red Sox fan to say, I would have loved to see them trade David Ortiz to a stupid GM after his big year in 2007. Since he was a big, fat 1B / DH, like Mo Vaughn and Boog Powell and Mark McGwire and Travis Hafner and Cecil Fielder, there was a really good chance that his production was going to crater, which it has so far this year. Therefore, if I wouldn't have a problem with the Red Sox dealing Ortiz, I feel even less remorse for the idea of the Pirates dealing (overvalued) veterans for any sort of prospects with a pulse.

Of course, the Red Sox want to hold on to Ortiz for reasons other than his ability to hit a baseball. While they wouldn't have to worry about attendance falling off without him there, I'm sure the merchandise sales on a guy like Ortiz are in the millions of dollars, so there is an ancillary benefit that can't really be replaced, sort of somehow managing to trade Ortiz for Albert Pujols. For example, Ortiz straight-up for Adrian Gonzalez would have been a win on the field for the Red Sox, but I imagine it would actually hurt revenue.

As is, the Red Sox have probably maximized their “on-field performance” revenue – They've won consistently for the past six years, with playoff appearances in five and two World Series championships, and they recently set the record for straight home sell-outs. Because they have capped their performance-based revenue, it does make sense that they use their large financial cushion to hold on to fan favorites (Ortiz, Lowell, Manny Ramirez and his drama as long as they did) in order to maximize non-performance revenue.

However, I think this only applies to perennial contenders who can rely on strong gates despite week-to-week and month-to-month dips in team quality – Red Sox, Yankees, maybe the Mets, Angels and Dodgers. If you are a small to mid-market team, and your attendance and revenue is going to more strongly tied to this current season's record, then you want to do your best to maximize your record, or failing that, to maximize future records (trade veterans for prospects).

Athletic prowess and lack thereof

Caddyshack. Watch it, learn it, love it.

I consider myself fairly run-of-the-mill when it comes to athletic ability. The only sports I might be considered above-average in would be basketball, but this relies a lot on the level of competition I'm facing and the height of the other player. Normally, I can make sure I'm not embarrassed on the courts. My shot is very streaky, but I always put in full effort on the defensive end, even if my natural skill level isn't great. I played freshmen hoops, but got cut during tryouts from a high school team that wasn't especially good.

Because of all the hours I've logged on the hardwood, I also tend to be passable on the volleyball court. The past couple of Sundays, I've been helping some friends fill out their practice roster, and it's always a lot of fun to me. My lack of height – I'm only about 5'9” on a good day – hurts, since I like to play the front, but I'm a decent setter and I can at least strike well enough to be a decent for a “just for fun” co-ed team. My serving is actually pretty good, because my head smack puts a lot of weird spin on the ball.

From there, things drop off steeply. Back in the day, I was a good Little League player, but my work at the plate always stunk. I'm good in the infield, but even in softball now, I hit for almost all singles. (Ironic, since the “singles only” player with an inflated batting average is severely overrated in conventional baseball, yet that's what I am.) Except for a forgettable half-year playing midget / bantam football and another half-hearted attempt at track, that wraps up my “formal” athletic exploits.

The point of this entry isn't to brag about my (limited) accomplishments, but rather as a launching point to complain about the people who come to the driving range. If you're some fat ass, don't complain that you can't hit the ball 200 yards with our clubs and our balls. (teehee.) Yes, they're both old and crappy, but the spare tire around your gut is the bigger reason why you can't drive the ball with authority.

It annoys me because I have to deal with the complaints. Normally, because I don't want to alienate the customers, I shift the onus on to the town. But honestly, I'm more often thinking, “Why don't you hit the gym before you complain about your shot, jack ass?” If my jumper was off in basketball, I don't normally blame the ball or the rim, but this seems to be standard form with golf.

Sure, there are some fat ass golfers – John Daly – who can manage to make it on the tour, just like David Wells and C.C. Sabathia have managed to carve out impressive baseball careers as plus-sized bastards. Most of us need to get into shape though. And if my measly ass can hit it about 150 yards with the crappy plastic clubs, even though I have no significant golfing experience and little natural strength, then the problem isn't the clubs.

The death of USA tennis and crazy parents

I always hype up Slate.com on here, and it is articles like this by Huan Hsu that keep me coming back. I find his analysis of the problems of USA Tennis right on, and it ties in with others theories like the 10,000 hours principle extolled by Malcolm Gladwell in Outliers (highly recommended by me) and the dip of Seth Godin. If you just follow the established training regimens for tennis, you probably won't be a Grand Slam tournament winner, even though you'll surely be psychologically broken if you do have a nutty parent. (Example: The father of Jelena Dokic [left] claimed that her boyfriend had kidnapped her, and was so abusive he was banned from courtside at pretty much every tournament.)

It is kind of a logical supposition to make, although one that isn't always apparent. Professional athletes largely come from broken or nutty homes. How else do you practice basketball eight hours a day unless the parents are a bit absentee and you let your homework effort slide? Natural ability and aptitude do come into play, but they are only part of the equation. Insane devotion spurred by parents helps.

I imagine this is an even greater issue in individual sports like tennis, boxing and swimming. At any given time, I'll guess that only 100 to 500 adult boxers, tennis players and swimmers are good enough in the world to make their primary living from the sport. Since all of them are individual sports, there is far less opportunity to earn a living. Contrast this with baseball - Even AA and AAA players often make as much as they would in jobs they could use their degrees (assuming they have one) on, and there are hundreds of teams, plus thriving Asian and Latino leagues, all of which need roughly 20 to 30-man rosters. A rough estimate of that gets me to 3,000 players. More players means a greater opportunity for different personalities.