The Chinese Water Torture is Consistent.

The weather in Hell is consistent.

The U.S. men's Olympic hockey team is consistent.

The Detroit Lions are consistent.

Interest payments on your credit cards are consistent.

William McGonagall was a consistent poet.

Alison and Peter Smithson were consistent architects.

Rain Man consistently watches The People's Court.

Similarly, Tony Womack is proud of his consistency as a baseball player:

"The only thing that makes me mad is it messes up my baseball card," Womack said. "I was consistent for a long time and then that comes up."

Who's in charge around here?

"Yet, the manager is dropping hints that Wright will bat fifth, with Paul Lo Duca in the two hole and Carlos Beltran behind him in the No. 3 spot."

Felz is pleased.

Felz might have a lot to write about next season.

Felz will have a big smile on his face every time Loduca grounds out to end the game while Wright is on triple deck.

" 'I guess I'm a show-me guy, I want to see that David can keep making the adjustments,' Randolph said Monday, leaving yet another clue. Fair enough, he doesn't want to rush the kid. But anyone who saw Wright tear up the National League after the All-Star break last year -- batting .333 with 16 homers in 273 at-bats -- would agree he became the Mets' greatest all-around threat."

This show-me attitude probably explains Randolph's unwillingness to just hand overthe leadoff spot to a young player like Reyes.

"Of course, batting Wright third effectively would crown him as the Mets' crown jewel, effectively demoting Beltran. That's probably too great of an admission for Randolph to make, and politically, a nearly impossible move for a team that has $119 million invested in the center fielder."

This is a "nearly impossible move"? It's simple. Before the game, when you make out the lineup card, you put Carlos Beltran in the #2 spot and you put David Wright in the #3 spot. If anybody is dumb enough to question the decision, tell them to look at the stats.

"Wright sounds convincing, but egos and organizational obstacles aside, the stats suggest not only is Wright better suited than Beltran to hit third, but Beltran is a better choice than Lo Duca to bat second."

No kidding.

If Randolph is unwilling to put the best lineup out there because of egos and organizational obstacles -- whatever that means -- then I am forced to wonder what Randolph is being paid to do.

Wishy Washy Wojciechowski.

I was quite taken aback when I first read this article which criticized Sammy Sosa for retiring.

The article concludes with an impassioned plea for Sammy Sosa, and seemingly all pro athletes, to continue attempting to play until the bitter end, even if they're long past their glory days:

"He doesn't understand there is no dishonor in trying and failing. The dishonor comes when you don't try at all."

Okay, whatever you say.

I personally think pro athletes should do whatever they want to. Retire tomorrow at the peak of your skills or play as long as you can, at any level, for any amount of money. I have equal respect for Barry Sanders and Rickey Henderson. It's a free country.

But I also thought something seemed fishy.

Pro athletes are routinely criticized for staying past their welcome and Ruining our Collective Memories. We want Willie Mays to always catch the fly ball in the '51 World Series rather than eking out infield hits in the '73 World Series.

"Fie upon thee, Michael Jordan! You should have ended with the jumpshot that beat the Jazz and elevated my own mundane life. Instead, as I'm forced to watch you stumble to a mere 20 points per game, I am forced to face my own mortality. Oh, the fecundity of youth fades from my grasp!"

Or something to that effect.

Wojciechowski criticized Sosa for putting pride ahead of a last-ditch money grab? Gee, I would have figured that Sosa already had enough money and the last thing he needs to do is embarrass himself or the Washington Nationals. I mean, he's only being offered a non-guaranteed contract that's barely league minimum. Sheesh. How the mighty have fallen.

But, hey. If he wants to play in the minors and try to find his stroke, why not?

Point being, this seemed like an odd opinion. I figured if I searched the ESPN archives, I could find puh-lenty of examples where Wojciechowski criticized a pro athlete for not retiring. But I never did search the archives.

I didn't have to.

Amazingly enough, Wojciechowski waits a whole three days before writing that contradictory article: "Barry should spare us all and go away now."

Could this possibly have been written by the same author?:

"So Barry Bonds is going to hang up his cleats and violin after this season, eh? Good for him. Good for us.

Not since Reggie Jackson and the 'magnificence of me' days has there been a player more tone deaf when it comes to understanding how tiresome his martyr act has become.

As for getting out, the sooner the better works for me."

Wow. But at least Bonds is honorable enough to try.

Joel Sherman breaks ranks.

Mike Lupica, George King, and Buster Olney are going to avoid eye contact with Joel Sherman from now on:

"You are possibly watching the greatest player you will ever see. If Barry Bonds plays long enough to break Hank Aaron's homer record, he is likely just borrowing it. A-Rod has the most homers ever through his age-29 season at 429 - 87 more than Aaron had and 170 more than Bonds. He has 1,901 hits, fourth most for his age. A-Rod has a decent chance of being the first 800-homer, 4,000-hit man, in part because of his durability."

Well, I don't know about 800 hrs and 4,000 hits, but keep going ...

"A-Rod actually has gained a reputation as the hardest working Yankee. He is not the bad free-throw shooter, who nevertheless keeps working on his dunks. Rodriguez thought he was having trouble grasping the nuances of the slow roller at third base, so he contacted Robin Ventura to dissect the play because he thought Ventura made it best. He recognizes his difficulties on pop ups and has spent hours before the regular spring training workouts the past two years having balls shot in the air so he can practice.

Rodriguez is a baseball gym rat. He arrives early, stays late. He is relentless in trying new theories, workouts and psychological insights to improve. As his friend, bullpen catcher Mike Borzello, said, 'if he thinks you are working out five hours, he will work out six. He wants to see all the new equipment. He takes pride in every element of the game. He wants to be the best baserunner. He wants to be the best baseball player. He is not just competing with Barry Bonds and Albert Pujols. He is competing against Babe Ruth.'

And A-Rod actually knows who Babe Ruth is. His passion for baseball is undeniable. Most players would have difficulty naming all their teammates. Rodriguez can break down the strengths and weaknesses of the Padres' roster. He can analyze strategy as if channeling Don Zimmer. His baseball IQ is even more impressive than his slugging percentage.

'After a game you will be talking to him and he will be telling you about the pitch sequence to (Hideki) Matsui in the second inning,' Al Leiter said. 'That is impressive. I am 40 and have been in the game for 22 years, and I don't know if I have ever seen anyone with his enthusiasm for the game.' "

It's kind of amazing that the NY press is so into its own shtick that it usually refuses to state the obvious:

"On the day of A-Rod's first Yankee workout of spring 2006, however, it felt like the right time to remember that there is a heck of a lot more to praise about Alex Rodriguez than criticize."

Vacillation Agitation.

Speaking of vacillation, it looks like Bernie Williams will vacillate between all three outfield spots:

"Williams is set to play for Puerto Rico in the WBC. The former starting center fielder could play all three outfield spots and DH on that squad, much like he will could do during the regular season.

'It will probably be a more complicated role than an everyday player,' Williams said."

Just to be sure, I looked up the word "complicated" in the dictionary.

Left, center, and right. Those are the three possible outfield positions. Bernie is already used to center, so the additional complications are left and right.

Oh, and designated hitter, where you sit on the bench most of the game.

Sounds like rocket science.


Also, just to be sure, I looked up Puerto Rico. Sure enoough, it is a commonwealth of the United States.

Talk about vacillation. One day, Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of America, and the next day it's a whole separate country. Make up your mind, Puerto Rico!

So I heard a rumor ...

... that Willie Randolph was considering a lineup with Paul Loduca batting second. It didn't seem possible, but a search on the Internet revealed at least one article that suggested its possibility:

"A hitter who uses the entire field, Lo Duca also could end up batting second behind speedy Jose Reyes, who led the NL with 60 stolen bases in 2005."

Now, this outrageous idea might just be a rumor. I'm not sure if Randolph ever suggested this or if it's just hot stove league slow news day nonsense.

While Randolph is pushing the Mets' reliance on speed, and maybe there's a reason to bat Reyes first since he's so fast on the basepaths, the Reyes-LoDuca 1-2 punch would feature the two worst offensive players on the entire team batting first and second, thereby ensuring that they get the most plate appearances of any players on the team.

While Willie may be dreaming dream of the Glory Days when he and Rickey Henderson batted 1-2 for the Yankees, there is a difference: Rickey and Willie could hit.

Reyes is a leadoff hitter whose on-base% last year was .300 and whose lifetime on-base% is .303. Paul LoDuca's on-base% last year was .334 and his liftetime on-base% is .339.

1-2? They should be batting 7-8.


Are the NY baseball managers just yanking our chains? I mean, the other day Randolph says that the Mets ought to make the playoffs with ther $120-or-so million payroll ... as long as Pedro is healthy.

If I'm reading too much into it, then perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but it seems to me that he's giving his $100 million team an out. If Pedro is hurt, then you don't expect to even win a wild card? Maybe that's not what he meant, but that's how I took it.

"No excuses, except for the following excuses."

Then, after hearing this, all the NY papers seem to think Randolph set high expectations. This is a bold claim. As long as Pedro isn't hurt, I expect our $100 million team to hold off the Brewers and win the wild card. Because I'm kooky optimistic like that.


Did Randolph seriously have to be reminded that Steve Trachsel is part of his rotation?

If Torre seriously puzzled by his starting rotation options and also his starting lineup options?

Can't be. They're just kidding, right? They're just shooting the breeze with the press, right?

Right?

Darren Daulton Provides Off-Season Entertainment.

"I've been thrown in jail five or six times," Daulton says from his home in Tampa. "Nicole thinks I'm crazy. She blames everything on drugs and drinking. But I don't take drugs and I'm not a drunk. Nicole just doesn't understand metaphysics."

Honey, that wasn't me who was drinking and got thrown in jail. It was just one of my planes of existence.


"I didn't have my first out-of-body experience until I was 35," he says. Curiously, the epiphany occurred at one of baseball's holiest shrines -- Wrigley Field. "I hit a line-drive just inside the third base line to help win a game," he recalls. "The strange thing was I didn't hit that ball. I never hit balls inside the third base line!"

He left the ballpark in tears. "I told my wife, 'It wasn't me who swung that bat! It wasn't me!'" he says. "She thought I was Looney Tunes."


"Reality is created and guarded by numeric patterns that overlap and awaken human consciousness, like a giant matrix or hologram," writes the .245 lifetime hitter. "They are created by sacred geometry -- numbers, the language of the universe, codes of awakening -- such as 11:11, which represent twin strands of DNA about to return to balance. Eleven equals BALANCE."


During the Dutch Enlightenment, No. 11 has been as significant as it was in Spinal Tap. "I'll wake up at night and look at the clock and it's 11:11," he says. "I'll turn on the TV and see a baseball game tied at 11 in the 11th inning. I'll look out the window and see a car passing with 1111 on the license plate. The car will turn into a driveway with 1111 on the mailbox."


Earth, Daulton believes, is entering a quadrant of space in which the "vibrational energy" will increase dramatically. "The Mayan calendar stops at Dec. 21, 2012 -- the date the Mayans believed the world would end," he says. "On that day, at 11:11 a.m. Greenwich Mean Time, those who are ready to ascend will vanish from this plane of existence, like the crew of the Enterprise in Star Trek."

Dan Marino is the Best Quarterback Ever.

Or, "Darren really does have too much time on his hands."

Or, "Take Mattingly's monument out of Monument Park because Yogi's monument keeps laughing at it."

Or, "That's baseball for ya!"

Or, "Barry Bonds doesn't pitch."


While climbing out from under the oeuvre of sportswriting opinion that is expressing amazement and faux outrage because Alex Rodriguez has not won a World Series after ten seasons in the big leagues, I started to think of a team.

A team of current players only.

A team full o' Chokers and Losers.

I now present the Chokerville Losers, along with number of rings they've won in their careers (token rings not included):

Starting Lineup

c - Mike Piazza (0)
1b - Frank Thomas (0)
2b - Craig Biggio (0)
3b - Alex Rodriguez (0)
ss - Nomar Garciaparra (0)
lf - Barry Bonds (0)
cf- Ken Griffey Jr. (0)
rf - Sammy Sosa (0)
dh - Jeff Bagwell (0)

Bench

Jim Edmonds (0)
Jeff Kent (0)
Rafael Palmeiro (0)
Ivan Rodriguez (1)
Miguel Tejada (0)
Jim Thome (0)
Omar Vizquel (0)

Starting Pitchers

Roger Clemens (2)
Tom Glavine (1)
Randy Johnson (1)
Greg Maddux (1)
Pedro Martinez (1)

Bullpen

Roberto Hernandez (0)
Trevor Hoffman (0)
John Smoltz (1)
Billy Wagner (0)


Purty good team, actually. I even left quite a few sluggers off the team just to make sure I had some decent backup infielders and a bullpen, which I'll never need to use.

My team has accumulated (approximately) 17 MVPs, 22 Cy Young Awards, and 168 All Star selections.

My team has at least 19 Hall of Famers out of 25 players. Even more than the '98 Yankees.

Yet, in (approximately) 349 cumulative seasons, my team has only won 8 Championship rings. That's only 4 more rings than Chuck Knoblauch won all by himself.


Is my team cherry picked? Sure.

Is it rigged to prove a point? Yup.

But go ahead and pick any other roster consisting of 25 current players. Heck, you can pick any player going back 25 years, as long as I get to add Edgar Martinez (0) and Tony Gwynn (0). You can pick all the clutch players you want.

Will your team be able to beat my Loser team? I doubt it.

Because he knows from empirical data.

"How come we don't hear nearly as much about Roethlisberger having it all over Eli, now and forever, when Roethlisberger plays the way he did last Sunday.

Or are we only supposed to use the empirical data we get from him when he's going good?"

Empirical data? Mike Lupica wants to bring empirical data into the discussion?

Dem's some big words for a guy who is wondering why long-forgotten Eli Manning isn't still part of the national discourse. After the NFL season is over. After the comparisons have been made and Roethlisberger has won hands down.

A guy who is the youngest player to ever win the Super Bowl, who won four straight road playoff games, and is practically undefeated as a starter in the NFL. Compared to a guy who was shut out at home in his first playoff game, the first time a home team had been shut out in the playoffs in 25 years.

This is how come we don't hear nearly as much about Roethlisberger having it all over Eli. Eli hasn't earned the right to be part of the discussion.


But let's get back to empirical data. If Mike Lupica is such an empirical data egghead whiz kid, I wonder how he can compare Randy Johnson's 2005 season to Carlos Beltran's 2005 season:

"Okay, I've got the first day of pitchers and catchers in the pool for when Randy Johnson tells us he just needed a year to get adjusted to New York.

March 1 for Carlos Beltran to say the same thing in Port St. Lucie.

And if they both don't play up to their previous standards this year, I say we write it all off to the famous New York City sophomore jinx."

Let's take a gander at the empirical data for Randy Johnson and Carlos Beltran (the Internet makes this so convenient!).

While I don't doubt that both Randy Johnson and Carlos Beltran will say idiotic things to the press about adjusting to New York, it really is the NY writers who thrive on the notion. It's so tough to play in New York because your doppelganger might appear in a back page cartoon at the Daily News.

But we only care about empirical data, right?


Randy Johnson was 17-8, 3.79 era, 225 2/3 inning pitched, 207 hits, 47 walks, 211 strikeouts.

The homeruns were way too high and he probably didn't meet the high expectations that accompany a five-time Cy Young Award winner, but how high were those expectations?

My expectations were 18 wins and an era under 3.50. I certainly wasn't expecting 25 wins and an era under 2.50. Were you? If so, are you crazy? Don't you know the batters in the AL can hit?

Unit was 4th in wins, 5th in innings pitched, 17th in era, 2nd in WHIP (normally, this would be terrific, but he gave up way too many homeruns), 2nd in strikeouts, and 4th in strikeouts-per-nine-innings, if that floats your boat.

Being empirical about it, I'd probably claim that Unit was still among the top ten starters in the AL (I tend to elevate the importance of innings pitches and quality starts), and Unit was certainly the best starting pitcher on the Yankees.


Now let's move on to Carlos Beltran. Empirically, of course.

.266, 16 hrs, 78 rbis.

.320 ob%, .414 slugging%, 83 runs, 17 stolen bases, 56 walks, 96 strikeouts, 34 doubles, 2 triples.

34 doubles is above-average. Tied for 27th in the league.

17 stolen bases is not too impressive, but it's still enough for top 20 in the league.

That's it. Nothing else about Carlos Beltran's season distinguishes him from an average NL centerfielder. Only his salary is in the top five.

Empirically speaking, please don't elevate a shlep like 2005 Beltran into the elite company of 2005 Unit.


As for the notion of Sophomore Slump, this is the domain of lazy sportswriters. (By the way, has Derek Jeter ever been able to duplicate the previous "high standards" he set in 1999? Has he just been in an extended Senior Slump?)

Empirical data is not too concerned with the reasons why. If I was a Mets fan, I wouldn't waste too much time wondering why Carlos Beltran stunk out the joint, I'd be unable to get past the stinkin' pile of garbage that my team was paying $100 million for. The empirical data is so damning, I don't need a reason why. I'm more concerned with the what and the who.

I choose Neveruary.

From a CBS Sportsline poll:

When is the best time to play the WBC?

-- February or March

-- November or December

Two words: "wind sprints."

"We want to keep the DH spot available for a lot of reasons. Jason, one. Bernie Williams, another. (Gary) Sheffield. (Hideki) Matsui. By the time the division series came up last year, we had a couple of guys that were exhausted."

First of all, thanks to the Daily News for the parenthetical clarification regarding Yankee players. While discussing potential designated hitters for the Yankees, I wasn't sure who Torre was talking about when he said "Sheffield" and "Matsui."

When he referred to "Matsui," was he talking about Yankee outfielder Hideki Matsui or was he talking about Met second baseman Kaz Matsui?

When he referred to "Sheffield," was he talking about Yankee outfielder Gary Sheffield or was he talking about Fran's boss in The Nanny?


More importantly, why are Yankee players exhausted after a season of Nine-Man-Stand-Around?

Torre, you're the manager. Whip these guys into shape. Maybe if (Gary) Sheffield and (Hideki) Matsui did some suicide drills in April, they wouldn't get so exhausted standing around in the outfield.

While you're at it, teach Robinson Cano how to bunt. Get a little old school on the rook. Send Kelly Stinnett out there with a bucket of baseballs and they don't leave until Cano gets down 100 bunts in a row. Every time he misses a bunt, the next pitch goes right at his head.

Vacillation Fascination.

Mariano Rivera is such a vacillator.

So is Andy Pettitte.

So is Robinson Cano.

So is John Smoltz.

So is Tim Hudson.


I only hear the word "uncorked" to describe a wild pitch and I only hear the word "tenacious" to describe a basketball defense. It's nice to see that Alex Rodriguez and the WBC have brought the word "vacillation" to the American consciousness.

Until it was used to describe ARod's reaction to the WBC, I don't remember hearing that word since I was studying for the SATs back in high school.

Ready for a solid 750 sentence? Ai'ght.

"Juxtaposed against ARod's vacillation, which provides plenty of fodder for those who believe the WBC is nothing more than an ersatz Olympics, Bud Selig's taciturn response surely contradicts his own quixotic hopes for the seminal tournament."


In any case, I sure wish these selfish millionaires would stop bombarding the world with their torturous vacillating. (Or, as Belt Parkway Tech valedictorian Bob Cook would say, "tortuous vascillating.")

Actually, I hope every Yankee who is still on board to play in the WBC vacillates one more time.

Roethlisberger wins Lupica's begrudging admiration and Super Bowl, too.

He waited until the end of the article to present his verdict, but the Reoethlisberger family and the entire city of Pittsburgh can rest easily now.

Mike Lupica likes Ben Reoethlisberger:

"I like Roethlisberger, by the way. He got on some run in the playoffs. He is the youngest quarterback to win a Super Bowl."

"He likes me! He really likes me! I'm going to Disneyworld!

You know, you start off in training camp doing two-a-days and through all the sweat and blood and tears, you keep your eyes on the prize. You keep hoping that Mike Lupica will praise you in his column.

It means more to me than 100 Lombardi trophies! Nobody can ever take this away from me!"


But with friends like Mike Lupica, you really don't need enemies:

"The officials didn't have as bad a game as Ben Roethlisberger, because no winning quarterback ever had as bad a game as Roethlisberger did, just when everybody had him on a fast track to Canton." Key word being "winning." Super Bowl titles actually help players get into Canton. I'm just saying ...

"Roethlisberger was 9-for-21, 123 yards, no touchdown passes, two picks. Statistically, he was about as good as Eli Manning was against the Panthers." You compared Ben Roethlisberger to Eli Manning? But I thought you liked Ben Roethlisberger?

"If he doesn't complete one third-and-forever pass to Hines Ward, a 37-yard prayer to the Seahawks' 3-yard line, he would have had 86 passing yards in the Super Bowl and an even lower quarterback rating than the 22 he had." But he did complete the pass, and it was quite an amazing play. The kind of play Eli Manning would have never, ever made. The kind of play where Eli Manning gets sacked.

"If the Seahawks had ever come back, he would have been remembered for one of the worst throws since Garo Yepremian, that volleyball that Kelly Herndon picked off when the Steelers had a chance to go ahead 21-3." But the Seahawks didn't come back.

Besides, I still remember the bad throw. Ben Roethlisberger made a very bad throw that was intercepted and almost cost his team the game. I can remember that play even though the Seahawks did not come back to win the game. It's not too hard since I have a multi-faceted human brain.

Also, if he hadn't thrown that interception at the goal line, then he'd have thrown for one TD and only one interception and his QB rating would have been better. Since Lupica is taking away Roethlisberger's best play of the game, I'm taking away his worst play of the game.

"But maybe we can hold off now on making him the next Montana or Aikman or Brady. The Steelers didn't win because of him Sunday, they won despite him. Hasselbeck, even with the late pick he threw, outplayed Roethlisberger all day." Fair enough. Roethlisberger is no Montana or Aikman or Brady. (Come on, did any person in the entire Universe really compare Roethlisberger to Montana? No, of course not.)

Perhaps Hasselbeck outplayed Roethlisberger slightly in the Super Bowl, though Pittsburgh also spent a good chunk of the game trying to run out the clock. That's cool.

But please don't you ever compare a Super Bowl winning QB to Eli Manning ever again. It's an insult to every QB who ever won the Super Bowl.

Not About Johnny Damon's Hair.

Mike Lupica has a point. Who really cares about Johnny Damon's hair, anyway?:

"I want to be as clear about this as I can:

I don't think of Johnny Damon going through life on some kind of red carpet.
I don't care about his hair.

I don't care where he gets it done or if he's got highlights.

His hair wasn't all that interesting when it was caveman hair at Fenway Park, it doesn't matter now that it's makeover hair at Yankee Stadium.

Even though people who used to get half-hysterical about caveman hair now think Damon is cuter than a junebug.

Bottom line? The next time he gets a trim, leave me out of it."

Leave me out of it, too, Mike.

Professional athletes are defined by what they do on the field. That is why we know them, it's why we pay attention to them, it's our entire interface with these people. Nothing else matters to me. Johnny Damon exists in my universe for three hours a day, during baseball season only.

But since we're so unconcerned with Johnny Damon's hair, why are we talking about it? You've got an entire column and you apparently can talk about anything you want. I'll gladly discuss Damon's on-base% or range factor, since that's on-field stuff that us True Fans care about.

But now that I stop and think about it, it seems to me that Lupica hasn't discussed on-field performance, well, ever.

If a discussion of Johnny Damon's haircut is beneath Lupica, I'm forced to wonder why the following observations creep into the very same article:

"I don't know anything about 107.1 FM, The Peak, except for this:

It is a very cool place on the dial for good rock and roll."

I want to be as clear as I can, Mike: Next time you want to talk about rock radio, leve me out of it.

"That sniveling phony James Frey now says he had to make stuff up in 'A Million Little Pieces' because it made for a better story.

Bill Buckner probably wants to do it that way when he writes his memoir."

I want to be as clear as I can, Mike: Next time you want to be a literary critic, leave me out of it.
"Phil Jackson got his money with the Lakers, and he's got a great and good friend there with the owner's daughter, and now he just sits there and runs every single offensive set for Kobe."

I want to be as clear as I can, Mike: Next time you want to mention Phil Jackson's dating habits, leave me out of it.

"I would watch a festival of 'Saw' movies before watching a whole afternoon of Super Bowl pregame shows."

I want to be as clear as I can, Mike: Next time you want to be Roger Ebert, leave me out of it.

"What anchor guy ever had a better rookie year than Brian Williams has with the NBC Nightly News?"

I want to be as clear as I can, Mike: Next time you want to discuss anchor guys, leave me out of it.

"Sometimes 'Boston Legal' is like the old line about the NBA:

You don't have to start watching until the last two minutes, when James Spader and William Shatner sit there with cigars."

Let me be as clear as I can, Mike: Next time you want to be Matt Roush, leave me out of it.


Okay, I'll stop. This is tedious.

Still waiting for the sports analysis from the sportswriter. I could get this kind of crud from Larry King or Whitney Matheson.


Lupica can write about anything he wants. The Daily News has given him a column and, hey, even I'm reading it, if only for masochistic thrills.

But it's almost impossible to find a sportswriter who is more unconcerned with sports. It's all sports-as-pop-culture, sports-as-metaphor, sports-as-politics, athletes-as-role-models with a drizzle of literary allusion here and a wacky play on words there.

What happens on the field? Not nearly as important as what happens off the field. Not nearly as important as a press conference or a lawsuit or a Senate hearing or a charity event or an awards show.

What did Tiki say after the game? That's key.

Rather than analyze Eli's three interceptions, why don't you follow Tiki to the parking lot and ask him about what he said after the game? It's very insightful to the true sports fan. While you're at it, let me know what car Tiki drives and what rock concerts Theo Epstein is going to attend this weekend. Alright? All important information for the serious-minded fan.

Lupica shouldn't complain about Johnny Damon Haircut articles. He gave that monster life in the first place. He ought not get all high and mighty and disavow its existence.

This is why all true baseball fans should defend Alex Rodriguez.

I don't know if this columnist is even primarily a sportswriter, but his contention is that the Dominican Republic is "lucky" not to have Alex Rodriguez on their team.

You know what? You've got problems with ARod's game? Okay.

Unimpressed with his situational hitting or you think he strikes out too often? Fine.

Nobody's perfect.

But if you claim you don't want him on your team because of a poor series vs. Anaehim last October, then you are simply a fool.


Besides, if Beltre and Ramirez are better choices, then convince me. How has Adrian Beltre performed in the postseason? How many rings does Aramis Ramirez possess?

It's really not too hard to find out.

Respectively, .267 in 15 at-bats and .250 (with 4 homeruns!) in 44 at-bats.

Should Adrian Beltre even be allowed to choke on an international stage since he's proven himself to be such a poor postseason performer in 15 at-bats?

Well, gee, Felz. It's only 15 at-bats.

Exactly.

So don't sweat the guy with a .305 career postseason average -- who hit .409 with power in his first ALCS when the opponent was the Big Bad Yankees -- who hit .429 with power in his first postseason appearance as a member of the Big Bad Yankees -- because he had a bad 15 at-bats against Anaheim.


The WBC games mean nothing. If the games don't mean anything, there is no pressure. If there is no pressure, then ARod can't choke. Nobody can choke in exhibition games.

But, as we all know with a quick perusal of his playoff stats, ARod is no choker, anyway.

Wait, what was I saying? My point is, even if the premise was correct, then the supporting facts would be wrong.


There is little doubt that the ARod/WBC story has already been written, before the games are played.

If ARod hits .625 with 10 homeruns, then this performance won't prove anything because the WBC is just glorified exhibition games against inferior competition. If ARod hits .200 with 0 homeruns, then it's more proof that he can't handle pressure.

Eli According To Felz.

Do you ever get the feeling that this blog is not really about baseball at all, but it's just an opportunity to rag on Mike Lupica?

Ever get that feeling?

How about that. That is very interesting.

Anyway, Lupica was right about Theo Epstein and that ruined my day, so I think I deserve some Satisfaction.

No, I don't follow football too closely. But I know just about everything Lupica says in this article is made up or flat-out incorrect:

"Ben Roethlisberger is the headliner for the Super Bowl, a star the game desperately needed. Roethlisberger now has played two AFC Championship Games his first two years in the pros, won one. And that's it, that's all, he's not just a better quarterback than Eli Manning for the time being, he is a better quarterback for all times, whether his team wins Super Bowl XL or not. Or we are told, coast to coast."

Ben Roethlisberger probably will be a better quarterback than Eli Manning for all time. But I think most observers are talking about the present and not the future. As for the present, Roethlisberger obviously wins, hands down.

"I must have missed this general assessment of things before the playoffs began. Or when the Steelers were in danger of not making the playoffs at all."

In all seriousness, I think Lupica missed this general assessment of things before the playoffs. Sarcasm isn't effective when you don't know what you're talking about.

The general assessment of Roethlisberger before the playoffs was that he was a much better quarterback than Manning and that Roethlisberger's playoff experience would come in handy. It's true that the general assessment typically put New England or Indianapolis into the Super Bowl -- how many teams can win three consecutive playoff games on the road? -- but only Lupica used the words "Giants" and "Super Bowl" in the same sentence.

When the general assessment turns out to be absolutely correct, Lupica can't claim that the general assessment never existed in the first place.

Just admit it, man. You were wrong. Acknowledge and move on.


Prepare yourself, dear reader. What you are about to read may be the most jaw-droppingly insane football analysis you will ever read in your life.

Ben Roethlisberger leads the Steelers to three straight road playoff victories. He beats Denver in Denver with a QB rating of, like, 150.

Before the half, Roethlisberger evaded a heavy blitz, ran to his left, and somehow lofted a pinpoint pass to Hines Ward in the back of the endzone. Amazing. Eli Manning could not dream about making that play.

For good measure, Roethlsberger also ran for a touchdown.

Mike Lupica, sports columnist, a man who basically ignores the Yankees regular season and only judges their success in the postseason, compares Roethlisberger's accomplishment to a backyard football game:

"But you knew the whole world would start piling on Eli the minute Roethlisberger, facing no rush, with wide open receivers all day, a dream setup for a quarterback whether he is playing in Denver or in a touch football game in the backyard, had lit up the Broncos."

How many people watched the AFC Championship Game? Tens of millions, I'm quite sure. Out of all these people, only Mike Lupica thought Roethlisberger was facing no rush and throwing to wide open receivers all day. Only Mike Lupica was unimpressed.


"Maybe Roethlisberger is going to turn out to be another Tom Brady, or Troy Aikman, or Joe Montana. And maybe he isn't."

Hard to argue with that logic. It has to be one of the two.

But what do you think is going to happen in the future, Mike Lupica? It's difficult to look into the future, but that's the gist of this article:

"Do I know if Roethlisberger is going to play in another Super Bowl after this one? I sure don't."

Neither do I, you rapscallion.

I do know that he's already in the Super Bowl and he's already way more accomplished than Eli Manning.

Yes, Mike Lupica. The Giants would be better with Ben Roethlisberger instead of Eli Manning. I don't know how anyone could seriously make the argument to the contrary. We don't need to talk about what might happen or what might have happened. We only need to talk about what has happened.


"Ken Griffey Jr. was going to be the one to hit 800 home runs once." No, he wasn't.

"Doc Gooden was going to win 300 games after he was 24-4 his second season in the big leagues." No, not really.

"And Kobe was going to win more titles than Michael." With or without Shaq?

I mean, get real, would you?

Griffey probably would have hit 800 homeruns, except he got hurt. Gooden may have won 300 games, except he got injured and got into drugs. Kobe still might win more titles than Michael.

But nobody in their right mind would predict a player to hit 800 homeruns, win 300 games, or win seven NBA titles. Most people understand these accomplishments are difficult indeed and the potential pitfalls are infinite.

But does everybody who praises Roethlisberger and predicts a bright future for him have to include the disclaimer about injuries?


"You know he is going to stand by the kid. Accorsi made as large an investment in Eli Manning as any general manager has ever made in a rookie quarterback, Accorsi's own personal legacy with the Giants is riding on him. But he is right to stand up for him, and not to run with the crowd. Once the same crowd wanted to run Phil Simms out of this town."

Well, duh. Here we go again. Lupica building up his side by creating a preposterous argument for the opposition.

Nobody is saying the Giants should give up on Eli Manning. Most people think Manning has a bright future (but most people also thought Ken Griffey Jr. was going to hit 800 homeruns! Which is relevant in no way whatsoever!).

But the present also counts for something. Ben Roethlisberger has a bright present and a bright future. He's a better NFL quarterback than Eli Manning.

Lupica's endless defense of Eli Manning borders on the pathological. Even Archie doesn't think Eli is that good.

Coming soon to overstock.com!

Oh, who am I kidding? I'm just being a sourpuss.

The anticipation is rising!

You can hear it from Tokyo to Toronto, from Havana to Hong Kong, from Sydney to St. Louis, from Milan to Maracaibo!

It's the drumbeat of national pride and prestige, and it is growing louder and louder as the first-ever World Baseball Classic grows nearer!

It's the singular heartbeat of Yankee fans worldwide praying that Alex Rodriguez and Derek Jeter don't get injured in useless exhibition games!

They allow .097 hitters into the Hall of Fame.

I'm not completely sure Sandy Koufax belongs in the Hall of Fame. He's certainly the primary example of a player who dominated for a short period of time, which is usually not the preferred entry requirement.

But I'm pretty sure this is the most perplexing anti-Koufax logic imaginable, graciously provided by the ethereal "Michael" from New York:

"I read your answer concerning Koufax and Mattingly, and you are mistaken. Koufax could not hit, he could not run, and his defense was only average. Koufax was a one-dimensional player. All he could do was pitch and nothing else."

Stats are for geeks.

Back to Ian O'Connor's claim that Alex Rodriguez is the, ahem, "anti-Jeter" because ARod is paralyzed by fear and conscious of his image and a choker who can't make Little League plays in October:

"His play in October, especially when measured against the big-game guts of Derek Jeter, never did anything to help his cause. The slap of Bronson Arroyo's glove. The drop of Orlando Cabrera's bouncer. If only to disarm the heavily-armed critics surrounding his locker after his embarrassing Division Series performance against the Angels last October, Rodriguez likened himself to 'a dog'"

It seems to me if you're discussing Alex Rodriguez's postseason performance, then the first place you'd start is with Alex Rodriguez's postseason performance.

Let's go ahead and measure the postseason stats of Derek Jeter against those of Alex Rodriguez:
ARod: .305 ba, .393 ob%, .534 slugging%.

Jeter: .307 ba, .379 ob%, .463 slugging%.

I think most intelligent observers would exchange two points in batting average for 14 extra ob% points and 71 extra slugging% points. But without even discussing who's better, it's obvious at first glance that both have performed excellently in the postseason.

The difference in terms of production, of course, is that Jeter has had far more postseason appearances.

ARod has 118 at-bats with 6 hrs, 9 doubles, 0 triples, 16 rbis, and 19 runs.

Jeter has 462 at-bats with 16 hrs, 18 doubles, 3 triples, 47 rbis, and 81 runs.

The math is actually quite convenient for us. Multiply ARod's stats by 4 and you'll see he has been almost exactly as productive as Jeter per plate appearance. (If you need help, that translates to 24 hrs, 36 doubles, 0 triples, 64 rbis, and 76 runs.)

There ya go. Was that so hard? Go ahead and compare. ARod's postseason stats measure up almost exactly to Jeter's.


Now, one might argue that ARod's postseason numbers don't meet high expectations (after all, isn't ARod better than Jeter in the regular season?), but they're really not too far off. The power numbers are not quite what one would expect in 100+ at-bats from a man who has 400 homeruns by his 30th birthday, but even the power numbers aren't too far off.

Point being, the stats speak for themselves and any simplistic analysis ought to belie the idea that ARod has a history of choking in October.

I don't know if ARod has more "guts" than Jeter and I'm also not quite sure how to measure that. I'll leave that for image-conscious writers like Ian O'Connor. O'Connor seems more interested in analyzing press conferences than watching baseball games.

"Both teams played hard."

No, Ian O'Connor. Image isn't everything. Numbers are everything.

.321, 48, and 130 is everything.


But can ARod perform under pressure?:

"Alex Rodriguez might be the most talented ballplayer on the planet. But it's hard to belt a postseason homer, or even field a Little League bouncer in the Division Series, when you're more concerned with how people think you are performing than you are in performing."

Ian O'Connor does not understand how baseball works.

In the postseason, Alex Rodriguez has performed well. I know Ian O'Connor doesn't think so, but then Ian O'Connor is wrong.

In the postseason, ARod has hit .305 with 6 hrs and 16 hrs in 118 at-bats. The rbis are a little low, but he also has managed 19 runs, a .393 on-base% and a .534 slugging%. Those numbers are excellent and they're consistent with his HOF regular season numbers.


This is what Ian O'Connor doesn't understand:

(1) Given enought at-bats, every player in baseball history will hit a slump.

Every playoff superstar has choked in the playoffs if you choose to look at 10 or 15 at-bats. Mickey Mantle, Yogi Berra, Derek Jeter, Reggie Jackson, Manny Ramirez, Scott Brosius, anybody.

That is simply how baseball works.

If O'Connor wants to focus on ARod's last 30 playoff at-bats as proof that he can't handle pressure, then I can focus on his previous 30, which prove that he can. Those are hard numbers that ARod has generated, not the soft ARod image that O'Connor chooses to fabricate.


(2) When did ARod start becoming conscious of his image? When did this self-consciousness start to negatively affect his play on the field?

Because I don't think the Twins thought he was a Little League player when he singlehandedly bombed them in the 2004 ALDS.

But this is what Ian O'Connor is asking you to believe: ARod suddenly became conscious of his image and suddenly became unable to handle pressure starting in Game 4 of the ALCS vs. Boston. (Actually, it would have to be Game 5, because he hit a monster homerun in Game 4.)


It would be nice if ARod could let his numbers do the talking. But lazy columnists are going to ignore the numbers entirely and push the Choker angle, all the while claiming that ARod is oh-so image-conscious.

Rasheed Wallace had it right. From now on, every question should get the same response: "Both teams played hard."

Mike Lupica was right.

January 19th, 2006.

The worst day of my life.

They wished they knew how to quit Alex Rodriguez.

This article is supposedly a debate regarding the pros and cons of the World Baseball Classic.

The title says "The Great Baseball Classic Debate."

It link at ESPN.com says, "Point/Counterpoint: Is the World Baseball Classic an event worth holding?"

Well, I just read the article and I'm still not sure what Jim Caple and Buster Olney think about the World Baseball Classic.

I learned that Alex Rodriguez is indecisive, Alex Rodriguez is insincere, Alex Rodriguez makes a lot of money, and Alex Rodriguez is conscious of his image.

Nine entries on the World Baseball Classic. One guy supposedly debating the pros, the other guy supposedly debating the cons. of these nine entires, six mention Alex Rodriguez. No other player is mentioned by name.

You really don't care what team ARod plays for? Gee, you sure talk about it a lot, though. You also talk about his salary a lot.

His uniform, the country in which he lives, the country in which he was born. What he says, what he looks like, his haircut. His favorite movie, his favorite color, his zodiac sign.

Seriously, are you guys ... in love with Alex Rodriguez? Not that there's anything wrong with that.

You know, maybe there's a reason ARod watches what he says. Because groupies like Caple and Olney drool over every word like a fat guy eating a Big Mac.

Facts and Opinions.

10) Who do you consider baseball's single-season home run leader?

-- Barry Bonds (73 in 2001)
-- Mark McGwire (70 in 1998)
-- Sammy Sosa (66 in 1998)
-- Roger Maris (61 in 1961)
-- Babe Ruth (60 in 1927 )

The question itself is completely invalid. Barry Bonds is baseball's single-season homerun leader. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. The U.S. has fifty states and 2 + 2 = 4. I'm sure I couldn't get 100% agreement if I adminstered a poll on ESPN.com, but that doesn't change the facts.

I understand what they're getting at, though. They're questioning the validity of the steroids-enhanced homerun hitters. They're really asking, "Which feat do you consider most impressive?" Which is an opinion.

So, pretending the ESPN readers were answering the amended question, their opinions are as follows:

50.4% Roger Maris (61 in 1961)
31.6% Barry Bonds (73 in 2001)
8.3% Mark McGwire (70 in 1998)
8.0% Babe Ruth (60 in 1927)
1.7% Sammy Sosa (66 in 1998)

Let's just say that choice is ironic, considering the fact that Maris was ripped to shreds at the time. 162-game season, short porch, Mantle providing protection, no intentional walks, etc. The mythical asterisk next to his name in the record books.

Which is why I really hate the question in the first place. Why stop with Maris's 1961 season?

I'm more "impressed" with Jimmie Foxx's 50 in 1938 when the fences were 700 feet from home plate and the ball was dead. I'm more "impressed" with George Foster's 52 in 1977 when nobody else had more than 41. I might even be more "impressed" with Brady Anderson's 50 in 1996 even though he was probably on steroids and played in a small ballpark.

Brady Anderson was a leadoff hitter, what do you think about that? A leadoff hitter hitting 50 homeruns. He should be the single-season homerun leader!

Or maybe not. I'd have to think about it. It seems like pretty silly criteria and maybe my opinion is kind of dumb.

But it's not up to me to decide who has the most homeruns in a single season of baseball. That is a fact which is decided by a cold, hard, unemotional, unopinionated ledger. A homerun is hit, a notch goes next to the name of the man who hit it.

Steven Goldman puts Baseball Hall of Fame in Perspective.

I understand why the HOF wouldn't want the fans to decide. Fans are biased to a fault, naturally. NY fans would put Don Mattingly in but wouldn't even consider Al Oliver. It's not really fair and this process would vastly overemphasize a player's popularity rather than his on-field performance.

The professional baseball writers are supposed to bring some extensive knowledge to the process. They're supposed to know more than you and I. They're supposed to thoroughly analyze the careers of the borderline players and validate the voting process in a way that the casual fan can not.

But with Albert Belle receiving a mere 7% of the vote, the current process reveals itself to be little more than a popularity contest, anyway.

Steven Goldman questions the validity of the entire process and he makes a heckuva lot of sense:

"The Baseball Writers Association of America, is, if possible, a more benighted American institution than Congress. Whereas the Constitution says we have to deal with the latter, the former is inflicted upon us only at the sufferance of Major League Baseball, who tolerates their self-appointed guardianship of the major awards and the Hall of Fame voting. While it is broadly acknowledged that they are almost wholly unfit for this task — just read any of the dozens of columns the voters have written in the past weeks torturously justifying their votes to see why — their monopoly is shrugged at, as if it is a necessary, inescapable evil along the lines of sitcoms and dentistry.

Not only is there nothing inevitable about the BBWAA, but they should be stripped of their franchise. They use it irresponsibly.

With respect to Fred Lieb, Peter Gammons and all the other writers who started as team beat writers and went on to do bigger, better things, the job of the modern beat writer is not one with rigorous intellectual requirements. ... You have to have just enough intelligence not to (a) ask the players for autographs, (b) eat from the players' postgame spread, and (c) not show up in your underwear — and yes, these things have happened. Most importantly, you have to be credulous, very credulous, or risk losing your access.

Note that nowhere among this list of qualities is an appreciation of baseball history or an ability to judge ballplayers in and out of the context of their times. You get to come to your uninformed opinions without any sort of education whatsoever, except for the five Ws.

...

Of course, Gossage will now get in during one of the next elections, because otherwise the writers are going to have to admit to the basest hypocrisy — any rationale that considers Sutter a Hall of Famer also applies to Gossage. He'll get a fair chance next year, assuming the Writers can bring themselves to let Gossage be part of the glorification of Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken, next year's surefire inductees (Mark McGwire is eligible, too, but things may not go well). The only pitcher of note being added to the ballot is Bret Saberhagen, but the two-time Cy Young winner probably won't draw much support.

Somehow 54 people who clearly were not around to see baseball in the 1970s and early 80s will have to be convinced of their own fallibility over the next 12 months. Pathetic. "

Perusing Baseball Stats Online Is Very Grueling.

"So what they provided, for those of us who take every Hall of Fame ballot as seriously as our tax returns, was a rare opportunity -- to direct a fresh look in the direction of some of those tough-call candidates who have been making our heads hurt for years.

Because we don't get overwhelmed by new candidates in years like this, we have a chance to reconsider old ones. And in the case of this particular voter, that wound up leading me to cast a vote for a player I've resisted for eight agonizing years -- Blyleven."

Jayson Stark claims to take his Hall of Fame ballot seriously, yet he also claims that he was overwhelmed by new candidates for the past eight years.

Bery Blyleven couldn't get his vote because, I guess, he was so distracted by Ryne Sandberg or Nolan Ryan. He was overwhelmed.

In an attempt to understand the life of a HOF voter, I have provided the following links, just as an example of the grueling work they must endure:

Nolan Ryan: 324 wins, 292 losses, 5,714 strikeouts. He was a pitcher. Seven no-hitters, if that helps.

Ryne Sandberg: .285, 282 homeruns, 1,061 rbis. He was a second baseman. Ten all-star games and nine gold gloves if that helps.

That was strenuous, wasn't it? I had to surf the 'Net for a little while. It seems to me like most of the work has already been done.


Everywhere I look, Blyleven's HOF candidacy is supposedly strengthened because this year's ballot is relatively weak. This makes no sense even to the most casual observer.

The voters reveal themselves as nothing more than flip-floppers or guys just looking for shomeone to shove up onto the podium next July:

"I don't think that makes me a flip-flopper, or a guy just looking for someone to shove up onto the podium next July. It simply reinforced my conviction that my favorite part of being a Hall of Fame voter is that it teaches me so much about players I didn't cover or players I saw just a little in their primes."

That's a touching personal reflection, but the problem is, Bert Blyleven didn't throw a single pitch in the last eight seasons. He didn't strengthen his candidacy in any way. He may have raised awareness of his candidacy and he may have garnered some high-profile supporters, such as Bill James. But if Jayson Stark really thinks Blyleven's a Hall of Famer, then he should have voted for him eight years ago.

Honestly? Determining a player's HOF credentials is really not that difficult.

If this trade happens, I'll eat Mike Lupica's hat.

Don't be ridiculous: You have no hats left to eat.

Inspired by Mike Lupica, I venture momentarily into Football According to Felz ...


This is a man who has implied for months that Eli Manning was ready to take the Giants to the Super Bowl.


This is a man who claimed the following on January 1: "Suddenly, rather amazingly, there is speculation about Herm Edwards coaching the Chiefs next season ... Here is how Edwards can get a contract extension: If the Jets are back in the playoffs again next season. If they aren't, then both he and Bradway are gone."

Less than a week later, Herm Edwards has a contract extension from the Chiefs.


When it's time to own up and admit he was wrong about Eli, he focuses on Tiki Barber's postgame reaction: "Did the Giants look like they got outcoached yesterday? Sure. When it's 23-0, it's on all of them. But if you think coaching was the headline here, and Barber clearly did, you were watching the wrong game."

Except the NY Post back page screams "Out-Foxed", the Star-Ledger's lead article mentions the coaching as its primary stroryline, and Newday's headline is "Outcoached & out door".

Coaching wasn't the headline, except it was. Coaching was the headline in every article except Lupica's.

Even if one disapproves with Tiki's reaction, it's very easy to prove that "coaching was the headline here." Just go to the bodega and look at the headlines.


This is a baseball blog and I've never talked about football before. I'm not really talking about football, though, I'm talking about credibility, or lack thereof.

Because it should be clear by now that this man has no inside knowlege, no understanding of the sports world, and doesn't even report the truth. He reports his Wishful Thinking version of the truth.

With that in mind, how can anybody take him seriously when he writes yet another love letter to Theo Epstein?:

"Just because Manny Ramirez gives an interview and says he wants to stay with the Red Sox doesn't mean he's going to stay with the Red Sox.

Or that the people in charge want him to stay.

I still believe Miguel Tejada for Manny and Matt Clement is still very much in play, and will until Tejada gets traded somewhere else.

I will also eat my hat if Theo Epstein doesn't end up back with Boston in some capacity before spring training."

Manny Ramirez no longer wants to be traded. Miguel Tejada no longer wants to be traded. (Again, those pesky headlines.)

Lupica still believes the trade is very much in play. Okay, fine. You can believe anything you want. It's quite possible the trade is very much in play.

But it's obvious that Lupica is making this up. He's pulling it out of thin air. He hopes Manny ends up on the Mets just like he hoped the Giants would make the Super Bowl.

This is not clear-headed sports journalism. It's a diary kept by a teenage girl. It's a little pink notebook with Eli and Theo and Omar written in big block letters, surrounded by hearts and smiley faces. It has no basis in reality.


Lupica will "eat his hat" if his Theo doesn't end up back in Boston "in some capacity" before spring training. Uh huh. Sure you will.

I have no ability to predict the future, but I feel confident that Lupica is eating that hat. Not because of any inside info regarding the Red Sox front office, but just because of Lupica's prognostication track record.

Lupica's hit rate is about as low as Eli's QB rating. (Zing! See what I did? That was totally Lupica-esque right there!)

It's always about the Yankees and don't you forget it.

In a city of 10 million people, you probably could not find one Yankee fan who wants to see the Yankees play in the WBC. In fact, you might not be able to find one person who knows what the WBC is.

It's always about the Yankees. Murray Chass thinks that's a bad thing:

"Any time the Yankees are involved in a joint venture, they take a position most advantageous to themselves, often at the expense of others."

Yes, of course.


"Not so easily resolved is the problem posed by the Yankees, the only team that didn't vote for the Classic. From the start, George Steinbrenner didn't want his players in the tournament. If the Yankees were to be believed, all of their candidates for the tournament were injured."

Yes, of course. Chass's next article is going to be a rundown of pending Yankee DL disasters.


"Steinbrenner was once active in the American Olympic movement, but in his view, the March Classic will not benefit the Yankees. What's in it for them? An increase in international interest in baseball? An increase in international marketing revenue for baseball?"

Nothing, no, and no.

Nobody cares about the WBC.


"The Yankees, Steinbrenner would say if he were willing to speak publicly, do well enough on their own, generating revenue for themselves."

Right, and Steinbrenner would be 100% correct.

The Yankees obviously have little to gain. They're already worth $1 Billion with a B. It's why you're not writing an article about Damon Hollins. It's why you're not writing for the Kansas City Star-Tribune.

Murray Chass is writing about the Biggest Team in the Biggest Paper in the Biggest City. You'd think he'd understand. If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere. The city that never sleeps. I'll take Manhattan the Bronx and Staten Island, too. I recall Central Park in fall I tore my dress what a mess I confess.

This esteemed journalistic position does not prevent Chass from the following display of childlike pettiness:

"In this new era of international play, it seems that if Steinbrenner objects to his players competing for their countries, he could change his style. Let other teams sign players from Japan, Taiwan and Panama. And for good measure, let other teams sign the best free agents and do not trade for All-Star players."

For the record, George Steinbrenner "lets" other teams sign players from foreign countries and he also "lets" other teams sign the "best free agents". (What's a "best free agent," anyway? Does Josh Beckett qualify as a "best free agent"?)

But even if Chass objects in principle to the Yankee methodology, I fail to see what the WBC has to do with anything.

Is Chass really claiming that Steinbrenner should graciously trade Hideki Matsui to the Mariners because the Mariners would allow Matsui to play in the World Baseball Championship?

Is he serious? Is there a logical point in there somewhere? Out of the goodness of his heart, Steinbrenner should strive to make the Yankees a more mediocre team?

Steinbrenner's style, thank goodness, is to always put the Yankees first. That's why he tries to sign the best free agents. That's why he tries to trade for all-stars. That's also why he doesn't want his $100 million investments to risk injury while playing for a booby prize.

Mets get even younger & quicker.

A three-time All-Star and four-time Gold Glove winner, Boone's career has plummeted since the 2003 season. He was cut by the Seattle Mariners on July 3, dealt to Minnesota eight days later, then released by the Twins on Aug 1. He batted .221 with seven homers and 37 RBIs in 326 plate appearances.

"I don't know if he could rebound, but to bring in guy with his history on a minor league contract, I figured what is there to lose?" Mets general manager Omar Minaya said.

You could make an argument that the Earth is flat.

"The Red Sox will be just fine." I happen to agree with Matt Waxman.

The easiest way to support this proposition is to list the Red Sox roster: Manny, Ortiz, Varitek, Beckett, Foulke, etc. Further, consider their enormous payroll and revenue streams.

The worst way to support this proposition is with pointless anti-Yankee "arguments":

"Conversely, you could make an argument that the Yankees have but two players (Robinson Cano and Chien-Ming Wang) on their 25-man roster whose best years are ahead of them."

Well, sure. You could make that argument.

You could also make the argument that a dozen players on the Yankees 25-man roster will have their best season ever.

(Robinson Cano, Chien-Ming Wang, Johnny Damon, Mike Mussina, Derek Jeter, Andy Phillips, Johnny Damon, Alex Rodriguez, Shawn Chacon, Aaron Small, Bubba Crosby.)

This scenario is not likely. Those Everybody Having Career Year seasons only happen once every 1998. But I could make the argument.

In fact, I could make the argument that Robinson Cano and Chien-Ming Wang have peaked and Jason Giambi will win the AL MVP, leading the Yankees to the playoffs, and saving the skins of all these young, athletic, fresh whippersnappers.


"Conversely, the Yankees average age keeps going up like George Steinbrenner's blood pressure every year his team doesn't win the World Series."

Conversely to the converse, the Yankees average age went down this off-season.

The age of the remaining individual players has gone up from last year. Every player on every baseball team has aged exactly one year since last year.

But the overall age of (John Flaherty) the (Mike Stanton) Yankees (Kevin Brown) has (Tom Gordon) gone (Tony Womack) down.


"New York's rotation is a strained back and a pulled oblique away from being in shambles."

This is obviously true.

But get a list of all 30 major league teams. Now look at their rosters. Now take away their top two starters due to injury.

Is that rotation now in shambles? Yup.


"Let us not forget that if Curt Schilling and Keith Foulke give the team anything in 2006, that'll be an improvement over their contributions to last year's team, which still made the playoffs."

Let us not forget that Curt Schilling and Keith Foulke are a strained back and a pulled oblique away from giving the team nothing in 2006.

What good is an analysis if it merely consists of best-of scenarios for one team and worst-of scenarios for the other team?

Because, you know what, Matt Waxman? The Red Sox will probably be just fine in 2006. but so will the Yankees.


Rant Number Two

Why does every conversation about the Red Sox have to include a conversation about the Yankees?

The Red Sox will play the Yankees 19 times in 2006 and they'll probably win 9 or 10 of them, like they usually do.

Apart from these 19 games, how would a Yankee collapse help the Red Sox? If the Yankees really collapsed, then somebody is beating them. That somebody could be the Blue Jays or the Orioles. If Unit and Mussina go on the DL, what's stopping the Blue Jays from winning the AL East? Or at least from challenging the Red Sox in the AL East?

The Jays added Ryan and Glaus, they'll get contributions from Halladay, and Schilling and Beckett might pull their obliques. There ya go! That was easy!

The Red Sox will be good not because of who they lost, but because of who they kept. The Red Sox will be good if they stay healthy, not if the Yankees get hurt.

Chicago White Sox are Favorites to Win the World Series.

"Every single time the Yankees make a big free-agent play like Johnny Damon, the rest of the American League is immediately supposed to call off the season."

No, they're not.

"It happened when they got Mike Mussina."

No, it didn't.

"It happened when they got Jason Giambi."

No, it didn't.

Even though the Yankees had three straight 100+ win seasons, won the division four years in a row, and made the World Series once. Not too shabby.

"Go back to February of 2004, when Cashman made the deal for Alex Rodriguez.

People were saying the same things about the Yankees that they are saying now, how the addition of A-Rod would make this batting order the most unstoppable fighting machine in the history of sports."

Is that so? Is that what "people" were saying? Were these "people" anonymous sources, an AL "scout" or a "trusted executive" who magically created quotes for Lupica to put in his column?

See, what I remember is "people" saying is that the Yankees lost Pettitte and the Red Sox added Schilling and Foulke.

"But just remember:

The Yankees basically taking A-Rod away from the Red Sox wasn't just supposed to hurt the Red Sox.

It was supposed to destroy them forever.

Eight months later they won the World Series."

Only Lupica, with his misplaced boxing metaphors about "getting off the mat," could have concocted the absurd propostion the Red Sox with their $100+ million payroll and sold-out Fenway Park were Destroyed Forever by Aaron Boone's homerun and ARod's addition to the Yankees.

Besides, if Johnny Damon is supposed to make the Yankees an unbeatable team, then why are the White Sox the favorites to win the World Series in '06?

Lupica, you can ask just about "anybody." Johnny Damon does not even make the Yankees the best player in the AL, much less the most powerful entity in all human history.


It is true that I've read a few fringe opinions that are way pro-Damon, including a Joel Sherman article which asks if the Yankees will score 1,000 runs in 2006. (Quick Felz analysis: "No.")

But these are the extreme opinions and Lupica knows better. Lupica may not be the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but he's intelligent enough to operate a keyboard and he's intelligent enough to read the English language.

Lupica knows the reaction to the Damon signing has been lukewarm. So why is Lupica pretending that General Consensus is presenting Damon as a Yankees savior? Because Lupica is just setting himself up to be the Sole Voice of Reason when the Yankees fail to win 120 games.

You'll see. July 15th and the Yankees are playing .540 ball and Lupica will write an article that claims "everybody said" the Yankees were going to win 120 games this year! That's what "everybody said."

Fitty mill buys a lot of tires.

"Damon will regret this. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but as soon as he gets his tires slashed in Boston."

Caple, get over here.

Somebody slashed my tires.

I'll give you $25 grand right now if you get down on your hands and knees and change my tires for me. That's a good boy.

I'll be inside watching the Bloomberg Channel. I made more in interest today than you made all year. Isn't that funny?

Actually, I have to go inside anyway to try and make some change. Sheffield usually carries small bills. I've got nothing smaller than a $100,000 bill on me. Can you believe that? Stupid ATMs!

Tell you what: If you do a good job, I'll sign a program or something that you can give to your wife.

Don't book the parade for the Red Sox just yet.

"Johnny Damon has a throwing arm that makes Bernie Williams' appear Ichiro strong. In the vast wilderness that is center field at Yankee Stadium, Damon and that wet noodle attached to his left shoulder will make Derek Jeter run out to the warning track to take the cutoff throw.

...

Is this four-year, $52 million transaction a good deal for the Yankees? Yeah, it's good. Just not Babe Ruth-for-a-few-bucks-and-a-Broadway-song good."

Johnny Damon isn't as good as Babe Ruth? Are you sure about that? You must know a lot about baseball history to make a wild claim like that.

I think most observers believe Damon is an upgrade that addresses the Yankees' specific needs. In terms of blockbuster signings, it's fairly minor and nobody was jumping all over themselves planning a parade.

As for the throwing arm, I keep hearing about the importance of the outfield throwing arms, and all I see is Championship rings on the fingers of the hands which are at the end weak throwing arms.

Get the best arm in the league. Heck, get the best arm in the history of baseball. If the Yankees rely on that arm throwing out runners on the basepaths, then they've got big problems.


"The Yankees made a smart deal last night because they stole from the hated Red Sox a leadoff hitter and star center fielder, not to mention the lifeblood of Boston's Idiot movement. The Yankees made a smart deal because their own void in center was bigger than the old courthouse beyond the outfield wall, and because they needed more speed on an otherwise lumbering, oafish team."

I don't know if the Yankees are exactly oafish, but are you for the deal or against the deal? According to you, it's a good, smart deal that made the Red Sox weaker and the Yankees stronger.

So what's the beef?


"It's about the pitching, stupid, and everyone knows the Yankees would trade Damon for Boston's prize catch, Josh Beckett, in a New York minute. Joe Torre isn't winning one for his thumb because Damon can score 100 runs in his sleep."

Good idea. Get Cashman on the phone and see if he can trade Damon for Beckett.

Of course it's about the pitching. I damn sure know it's not about the centerfielder's throwing arm. What, did the addition of Damon's hurt the Yankee pitching staff somehow?


"This free-agent score makes the Yankees a little faster, and the Red Sox a little weaker. But even with Damon last year, the Yanks would've lost the Division Series to the Angels."

That's quite a definitive statement from O'Connor, speculating about something that never happened.

I say Damon would've hit 3 homeruns in game five vs. Anaheim. You can't prove that he wouldn't have. Go ahead and prove that he wouldn't have.

I say Damon catches the ball that Crosby dropped when he collided with Sheffield.

There you go. I just proved the Yankees would've won the Division Series to the Angels.

Heeere's Johnny.

I think this is a great signing for the Yankees. Not to exaggerate Damon's abilities, and I'm not sure how spry he'll be when he's 36 years old and has one year left on his contract, but it's still a great signing for the Yankees.

My gripe is not with the announcement, it's with Ronald Blum's report. Actually, the first sentence of Ronald Blum's report:

"Johnny Damon gives the Yankees their first big-time leadoff hitter since Chuck Knoblauch was at the top of the order a half-decade ago -- an era when New York won three straight World Series titles and four consecutive AL pennants."

I may be the biggest Chuck Knoblauch fan in existence. I think his contributions to the Yankees are underrated and the throwing errors never bothered me. He had some big playoff homeruns and only lost one playoff series in his entire career.

However ...

1) Knoblauch was basically benched in the playoffs in 2000, the last time the Yankees won the World Series, a whole "half-decade" ago. Let's not go crazy, Ronald Blum.

2) Derek Jeter is a big-time leadoff hitter.


Predictably, Mike Lupica embarrasses himself with his knee-jerk anti-Yankee article.

"The Yankees got their leadoff man last night, the first leadoff man they have had since Chuck Knoblauch." (See above.)

"They get Johnny Damon to lead off and play center field, and that solves two problems they had to solve in this offseason. But ..." Okay, the Yankees solved two problems with one move. Plus, they weakened their chief rival in the AL East. Plus, they absolutely got younger and faster and more athletic. Plus, the terms of the contract are relatively cheap and short-term.

No "but." You can't solve all these problems with one move and focus on the "but."

Does it really matter, anyway? What course of action could the Yankees have taken that would have pleased Lupica?

Find a leadoff hitter and a centerfielder, but don't spend any money and make sure the player is very young. What alternative does Lupica propose? Go in the Wayback Machine back to 1986 and sign Andruw Jones?

First Base is Slightly Tougher than DH.

"Garciaparra said he looks forward to the challenge of playing first.

'I'll probably be working on it prior to spring training,' he said. 'Breaking in a new glove, that will be a challenge. You embrace them, you welcome them.' "

Yes, I'd agree with that. Breaking in a new glove probably is the most challenging aspect of playing first base.

My advice for Nomar is to buy some linseed oil, put a ball in the center of the glove, wrap it in rope, and put it under the mattress. Don't put it under Mia's side of the bed, of course.

Tell me all about Keith Hernandez, Don Mattingly, and Joe Pepitone. Call up WFAN right now and wax poetic about Hernandez racing in on the bunt and of Mattingly deftly turning the 3-6-3. But before you finish your point, let me remind you of George Scott, John "Da Butt" Mayberry, and Ed Kranepool.

First base is a hitter's position. In fact, my only gripe with signing Nomar is that his offensive output probably won't be that great for a first baseman. Defensively, he has played positions that are obviously a lot tougher than first base.

If first base is a challenge, then everything is a challenge. If everything is a challenge, then nothing is a challenge. Other than designated hitter, I can not think of any position in any major sport that is less athletically challenging than playing first base in Nine-Man-Stand-Around.

I don't know, does the NFL have a guy whose sole purpose is to hold the ball during kickoffs so it doesn't slip off the tee? That's probably easier than first base. As long as he never has to tackle or block.

Daily News sportswriting staff needs to get younger and more flexible.

"The Yankees continue to make phone calls, not news."

Then why are you writing about the Yankees in a newspaper? If they're not making news?

Maybe it's just a pointless article in which you can make a gratuitous dig at AL MVP Alex Rodriguez.

"Joe Torre called Brian Giles, when the Yankees were interested in Giles. Now he places a call to Nomar Garciaparra and does the same with Johnny Damon. The Yankees better sign one of these guys, or Torre's postseason batting average is going to be worse than A-Rod's postseason batting average."

Second paragraph. That didn't take long.

"Around the current New York Yankees, younger in center field could mean 32-year-old Johnny Damon instead of 37-year-old Bernie Williams. And more flexible could mean Nomar Garciaparra to be a DH, play first and fill in if anything happens to A-Rod, Jeter or Cano. Clearly, younger and more athletic are relative terms around these Yankees."

"Younger" and "more athletic" are always relative terms. "Young" and "athletic" are absolute terms.

Not to get all English 101 on Lupica, but you can add "er" to any adjective and make it a relative term. Since "athleticer" isn't proper, you just add a "more" in front of the adjective. Voila! Instant relative terms! Not just around these Yankees, but forever and ever, in any context. If the Yankees replaced a 2,000-year-old man on their roster with a 1,999-year-old man, they just got younger. Not young, but younger.

"So Nomar, who has never played first base, is potentially a Yankee first baseman ... Suddenly a guy who never seems to be healthy and hasn't played like an All-Star in years is in hot demand to handle jobs he has never handled before."

When healthy, Nomar has absolutely played like an All-Star every season he has taken the field. Even last season, he hit .283 with 9 homeruns in 230 at-bats. Of course, if a player is on the DL, he is not playing like an All-Star because he's not playing at all. But it's incorrect to question Nomar's ability and even more ridiculous to question his ability to play first base. Stand around and catch the throws.

Maybe he wore a black knit cap because it was cold in the ice cream store in December.

"The Yankees don't often put their faith in an untested 22-year-old player." Except for the times they do.

"But Robinson Cano was thrust into the lineup last May and charged with helping change the look of a team that was unexpectedly too old and slow to contend.

The second baseman responded well, hitting .297 with 14 homers and 62 RBI as the Yankees finished atop the AL East. Cano was the youngest Yankee regular since 1996, when 22-year-old Derek Jeter became the shortstop." Who just happened to be an untested 22-year-old in whom the Yankees put their faith.

I don't want to make too big a deal out of Abraham's assertion, but the Yankees absolutely have a history of putting faith in young players. Maybe not as young as 22 -- how many 22-year-olds are starters in the bigs? -- but the Yankees have put their faith in a truckload of untested 24- and 25-year-olds.


But that's not really the point. The point is that Cashman's faith in Cano's baseball-playing ability is clearly misplaced because Cano wears knit caps and talks on cell phones:

"General manager Brian Cashman has since declared Cano to be an all-but-untouchable chip in the trade market.

But is that faith misplaced?

Cano didn't look — or act — much like the fresh-faced rookie who captivated the Bronx during an appearance at the Last Licks sports memorabilia and ice cream shop yesterday.

Sporting a beard and wearing a black knit cap pulled down near his eyes, he rushed through hundreds of autographs that eager fans paid $50 each for. At one point, Cano was on his cell phone, ignoring fans who wanted a handshake or picture taken. But the autographs kept flowing.

Officials from Last Licks promised during the week that Cano would be available for a brief interview. But Cano twice ignored requests to speak to a reporter."

First of all, what exactly is an "official from Last Licks"? Did Cookie Puss put on a suit and tie and hold a press conference?

Secondly, when Cano "twice ignored requests to speak to a reporter," which reporter would that be? By chance, would that reporter be Peter Abraham?

I mean, aren't you the only reporter in the place? Or did CNN and the BBC send correspondents down to Last Licks in Scarsdale for the big Robinson Cano autograph session?

Let's see if I can piece together what happened here. Peter Abraham showed up at an autograph session for kids and twice yelled out, "Hey, Robinson!" and was ignored. Feeling dejected and sad, Abraham returned to his computer and took out his passive-aggressive feelings of rejection. Robinson Cano is a poo-poo head whose car screeched away and his friend wore sunglasses even though he was inside at the time. I hate Robinson Cano.

That's the Essence of Sportswriting right there. Next time, buy the reporter a hot fudge sundae and he'll write something nice about you.

Read This! Read This!

Pick a player. Pick a team. Link them together via an anonymous source and you've got a sports headline.

In this case, Michael Morrissey's fantabulous "Mets Mull Tejada," which totally makes sense since the Mets already have a 22-year-old shortstop and Tejada doesn't want to be traded from the Orioles:

"The Mets have been linked to disgruntled Baltimore shortstop Miguel Tejada in numerous reports — a development that one team official refused to comment on last night."


After a lengthy discourse which explains why the bullpen is the priority for the Mets, Morrissey contradicts his own attention-grabbing headline:

"Minaya has shown a roster restlessness vaguely reminiscent of Knicks president Isiah Thomas, so you can't discount him trading for the 29-year-old Tejada. Still, it seems unlikely simply because other teams are more desperate for a shortstop.

Additionally, Jose Reyes would almost certainly need to be the centerpiece of any deal, and that's one rare spot where the Mets struck gold from the farm system."

You know what? Let's go ahead and discount Minaya trading for the 29-year-old Tejada.

It has about as much chance of happening as Clemens returning to Boston.

Good headlines, though.

Two Words: "Julio Franco."

"I know it sounds neat when the Yankees talk about getting younger and more athletic, but I keep looking over their roster and wondering where this is supposed to happen, middle relief?

...

Seriously, where is all this youth and speed going to show up, with a new backup first baseman?

A backup infielder?

With this Yankee team, getting younger for the '06 season is a lot easier said than done."


When have the Yankees talked about getting younger and more athletic for '06? Is Mike Lupica confusing his own "Shootin' From The Lip" columns with Yankee press releases?

But since Lupica posed the question, I'll answer it for him. Bubba Crosby in CF instead of Bernie Williams, Andy Phillips at DH instead of Ruben Sierra, and Satchel Paige in the starting rotation instead of Kevin Brown.

All minor adjustments for sure, but all moves that improve the club with addition-by-subtraction.


If Lupica wants to talk about teams that are old and slow, please talk about the Mets. During this offseason, the Mets got older, slower, less athletic, more expensive, and also a whole lot better.

The Yankee could get faster and younger by swapping rosters with the Columbus Clippers. Kevin Reese is young and Melky Cabrera is quite athletic. "E-8" Cabrera has to be athletic to run down all the fly balls that he misjudges in centerfield.


The goal of any baseball team is not to be young, nor fast, nor "athletic" (whatever that means). The goal is to be good.

I don't really know how good the Yankees will be in '06. Johnny Damon couldn't hurt, that's for sure. But I'd prefer if they added a dumb, old, slow, fat, chain smoking DH who could jack 40 dingers.

Now you've got Terrmel Sledge.

I'm waiting for the Mike Lupica article where he explains how the Rangers are better off since they traded Alex Rodriguez.

Don't forget, Lupica claimed rather voraciously that the Rangers got the best of the Soriano-for-ARod swap.

Don't believe me? Do I sound like I'm making this up?

Just check the archives:

"Now, eight months later, after this collapse against the Red Sox, that same executive said, 'Let me ask you a question: Who's set up better for the future right now: the Yankees with A-Rod or the Rangers without him?' "

The Yankees with ARod. It was true then and it's truer now.


More sweet Lupica knowledge from that fateful column of October 24, 2004:

"Mariano Rivera will still be a great relief pitcher next season ... But he will never be regarded as a sure thing ever again."


Pick a Lupica article, pick any Lupica article. Pick a random sentence. There's a very good chance that Whatever You're Reading + Time = Wrong.

Brian Cashman is a genius.

While Kevin Howard and Ben Himes must forever live with the shame that they were traded for Tony Womack, Brian Cashman can proudly point to the fact that he somehow managed to get more than a box of resin bags back from the Reds.

Take that, Omar Minaya!

Mets Forgetting What It Takes To Win Championships.

"But things may be a little different. The Yankees have committed to about $155 million in salary next year and aren't likely to go much higher. That's a lot and still No. 1 in the league by a fleet of Brinks trucks. But if that is what they break camp with, it is about $50 million less than a year ago.

...

Steinbrenner spent a billion on rotisserie numbers, completely forgetting he won four of five World Series with great talent but greater heart when it was mostly homegrown talent such as Derek Jeter, Bernie Williams, Jorge Posada and Mariano Rivera."

A baseball team has 25 players. Including Ramiro Mendoza and Andy Pettitte, you've got 6 out of 25 players who were homegrown.

What did the '96-'00 Yankees prove?

They proved that you win the World Series by spending lots of money and spending it on rotisserie numbers. That's how the Yankees did it, that's how the Red Sox did it, and that's how the Mets are trying to do it.

That's Myth #1. Please don't use the '98 Yankees as an example of homegrown talent whose biggest asset was a lot of heart.


But let's say you actually believe that the Big Payroll strategy doesn't work, despite its fabulous track record. Then why are you picking the Mets to finish first in their division? Why are you praising Omar Minaya while you're damning Brian Cashman?

Aren't the 2006 Mets nothing more than a hodgepodge of big name free agents with little playoff experience? What about character? What about identity? What about chemistry? What about competitive balance in the NL East?

What exactly are the Mets trying to do? Buy a World Series title? Heaven forfend!


The Mets are going to spend about $120 million on payroll this year and the Yankees will spend about $155 million. The difference is going to be approximately $35 million (which is $100 million using Lupica Math).

Will the Yankees up it to $200 million? I don't think so. In this regard, I agree with Dan Wetzel.

In any case, it's very difficult to take Mike Lupica's anti-Steinbrenner rantings seriously when they are juxtaposed with endless praise of the gritty Mets.

In 2003, Lupica claimed the Yankees sucked the joy out of the season when they added Aaron Boone to their roster. Not solely because of Aaron Boone, but that was the straw that broke the camel's back as Streinbrenner just kept adding soulless all-stars to the roster.

When the Yankees passed $120 million a few years back, it was the end of the world. When the Mets pass $120 million this year, it's because Minaya is a genius and it's still less than the Yankees, so it doesn't matter.

Am I to believe that when a team is spending tens of millions on their roster, that it's the $121st million that is unethical and distasteful?

How arbitrary:

"You hear this in New York these days: The Mets now spend like the Yankees!

Really? On what planet?

The Mets, according to MLB, currently have around $110 million in committed salaries for next season. Yeah, they spend the way the Yankees did in the 2005 season if between now and Opening Day, Omar Minaya spends another $100 million."

The Mets don't always have to be compared to the Yankees. Why not compare the Mets to the Braves? Or the Philles? Or the Cardinals? Or every other team in the National League in which the Mets play their games and stuff?

While it's true the Yankees are one of the few teams -- two, actually -- who will spend more than the Mets on their roster in the 2006 season, it is also true that the Mets will be the Cheapest Team on the Field in only 6 of their 162 games this season. (Disclaimer: I don't know if the Mets play the Red Sox in 2006.)


On the same day the Mets are pillaging the Marlins for a catcher, Lupica is crying about the dismantling of the Marlins ... and blaming the Yankees.

This kind of flexible thinking is easy for a man without principle. Yankee-Hating does not qualify as a principle.

And I thought Jason Giambi was a bad choice.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present Kostya Kennedy's choice for 2005 Sportsman of the Year: Jose Canseco.