Bleacher Report - Articles by Jersey

Brendan Shanahan Retires After Being Cut by the New Jersey Devils

Jersey — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:48:00 -0500

After being cut by the New Jersey Devils, Brendan Shanahan weighed his options and ultimately decided there were no good offers out there. And so, today, Shanny has retired from the NHL.

Although his most prolific years were in Detroit—he won three Stanley Cups there—he started and ended his career with the Devils. As a Devils fan, I will remember Shanny as a Devil, even if his greatest contribution to the team was being involved in the transaction that brought Scott Stevens to Jersey.

And, yeah, I'll conveniently block out the Ranger years.

Where does Shanny go from here? Many believe he'll become involved with the Players' Association, which is currently in shambles. I'll jump on that bandwagon, too, but there's also a solid chance he winds up somewhere in the Devils' organization. When he was initially released, Lou Lamoriello did say he would be willing to find a job for Shanny.

To the sure-fire Hall of Famer, I wish him luck in whatever he does.

New Jersey Nets Should Hire Byron Scott

Jersey — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:46:00 -0500

Look, I'm all for an 0-82 season.

Seriously, the Nets are horrible. They're not about to get any better this year. They may even end up with the number one draft choice in 2010—not to mention enough cap room to sign LeBron James AND another big free agent with cash flow from a rich new owner. Mark my words, the Nets will be title contendors for years to come, starting next season.

But right now, they're just awful. And if they're going to lose a lot of games, let's make it historic and lose them all.

But that doesn't mean I'm off the "Fire Lawrence Frank" bandwagon.

Avid readers of my blog know how much I despise the short coach of the Nets. He's a lame duck, and with the team about to be turned over, I doubt he'll be around next season. (HOOray!)

So why not get started a little early? Ditch the poor guy right now. I've got a new coach all ready and waiting.

He's former Nets coach Byron Scott, and he's freshly fired from the New Orleans Hornets.

Have we forgotten that Scott was the coach during the "glory years" when Jason Kidd and Kenyon Martin took the team to two consecutive championships? Sure, they lost them both, but it's the closest they ever got.

Remember how Scott was run out of town for no good reason—other than not getting along with Kidd, who, by the way, is no longer employed by the New Jersey Nets?

And then, of course, he won coach of the year with the Hornets, while Frank ran the team into the ground, even with Vince Carter joining Kidd.

Now the Nets are once again starting over.

They're back to where they were when Scott first arrived: young and one player away. And with another great draft pick on the way, along with the arrival of at least one big player (likely two), the Nets could use a good coach to point them in the right direction.

Scott is the man. Let's go, Nets. Scoop him up. Not for this year, but for next.

Yankees, World Champs: What Is Going Through My Mind Right Now

Jersey — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:15:00 -0500

The Yankees are once again World Series Champions. Here is what I'm thinking right now: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, but there are other things too.

There's the obvious things: the first win in the new Stadium, A-Rod winning for the first time, and Matsui being the first DH (and Japanese player) to win the World Series MVP. Oh, and the over-discussed comments about Joe Girardi changing to number 28. (For the record, I bet he will.)

There's also the money discussion. The Yankees spending has finally paid off. CC Sabathia, A.J. Burnett, and Mark Teixeira all had their moments along the way. And the future spending is discussed as well: Matsui and Damon are free agents, and both played extremely well this series.

And let's not forget beating Pedro.

But there are other things too. Things that escape some people's minds, but things that don't escape mine.

First of all—poor Mike Mussina. Dude always came THIS close, but never won anything. He came to the Yankees after they won in 2000, and retired before this season. Talk about bad karma.

When building the new Stadium, a Red Sox fan planted a David Ortiz jersey in the concrete, attempting to "curse" the new building. That didn't work out, did it?

Leigh Teixeira was a decision maker this offseason. Mark was debating where to sign, and his wife told him to go to the Yankees. Good choice, Leigh.

And speaking of the future, what will become of Andy Pettitte? He's getting up there in age and has already contemplated retirement. What better way to go out—as winning pitcher of the final game of the World Series.

The post-game interviews were so awkward. All the Yankees people were so mush-mouthed. I can't say I blame them. Oh, and Matsui had no idea what Bud Selig said to him.

Anyway, the fact remains: the Yankees are World Series Champions. Parade on Friday!

Mariano Rivera's "Spitball"

Jersey — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:14:00 -0400

I don't want to touch this one, but I will.

Mariano Rivera spit near a baseball yesterday. Angels fans are up in arms, saying he throws a spitball.

This. Is. Moronic.

There's a video that clearly depicts Mo spitting near the ball. I can't deny that. But the video is at a very awkward angle, and is entirely inconclusive. The depth perception of the video is downright awful, and it's impossible to tell if he's spitting on the ball, or just spitting.

But watch the video for yourself (I've embedded it below), and notice how Rivera makes no attempt to hide his spit. He just does it, out in the open. You know, right in front of the third and second base umpires. You'd think they'd stop him if he actually did anything wrong.

Oh, and lest we forget that there was an Angels player on second base at the time. You'd think that if Mo had actually done this, the guy would have been a LITTLE upset.

But yeah, Mo has been cheating. For 15 years. In the open. Makes perfect sense, kids.

Here's some more good stuff about the topic.

Fack Youk

Deadspin

And, my personal favorite, Big League Stew . Why is it my favorite? Well, the Angels' conspiracy theorists have provided beautiful screen shots depicting the loogie HITTING the ball! Pretty damning, no? Not quite, says the Stew. They provide blownup pictures of the screen shots, debunking this so-called evidence. The loogie in question is actually the sleeve of Mike Scioscia's jersey, which was fading into the picture at the time. Read the post for yourselves, and be sure to check out the pics.

And finally, the video itself, as promised, embedded below. Have fun.

Why The Yankees Lost

Jersey — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:33:00 -0400

We could go through this a thousand times. The New York Yankees lost because they left too many men on base. Because they only tried to hit homers and not get on base. Because Joba isn't used to being a reliever anymore. Yadda yadda yadda.

We could list all the what-if scenarios and come up with plenty of reasons why every team has lost every game. I'm not doing that. The only one that's even worth considering is the Brett Gardner caught-stealing situation. Had he been on, Jorge Posada's subsequent homer would have knocked in two runs, and the game never makes it to extra innings.

But Gardner was in there to run, and run he did. The Angels knew this and were ready to throw him out.

This is not where the Yankees lost: it's where they failed to win. BIG difference. And like I said, I'm not here to discuss this. While this is more concrete than the other examples (thanks to being a specific, rather than general, example), it is not a reason why they lost.

The Yankees lost for one reason and one reason only: they were outscored. That's how every team loses. The Yankees gave up the winning run in extra innings, so if we want to discuss why they lost, we are only talking about that specific run.

So let's discuss it. How did the Angels score? Well, they got a runner (Howie Kendrick) on base off Alfredo Aceves, and that was followed up by Jeff Mathis' double, which scored him.

So Aceves was, in every facet of the word, the loser. The question, however, is why he was in the game to begin with anyway?

Aceves came in relief of Dave Robertson, who had pitched to all of two batters, and put them away. Robertson has been excellent all postseason long, and it would stand to reason that he'd stay in the game.

But Joe Girardi took him out for some reason. He replaced the righty with another righty, and that latter pitcher (Aceves) proceeded to lose the game.

So we've come down to this: the Yankees lost because Aceves gave up the winning run, and the question is, what was he doing in there in the first place?

Well, Girardi knew that Robertson relies on his fastball, and that Kendrick is a good fastball hitter. So he replaced him with the more versatile Aceves.

Had the move paid off, it would have looked like a brilliant bit of micro-managing on Girardi's part. What a great use of little-used stats! But it didn't. The move backfired and he lost.

And here's why I am angry: there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to do that much micro-managing. I understand Kendrick is a good fastball hitter, but there are so many other arbitrary stats you can look at. It's just one that Girardi cherry-picked.

Let's assume it had worked out. Most of us would still question the decision. The game was the second straight extra-innings affair between the teams, and taking a pitcher out so quickly would be unwise (and let's not forget he'd already made a curious bullpen decision by yanking lefty Damaso Marte after one batter to replace him with fellow lefty Phil Coke). Burning through pitchers like this is a very bad idea, especially after the game they'd just played a couple of days earlier.

In the end, Kendrick got on base, and scored moments later. Girardi's weird plan had failed.

This is why the Yankees lost.

Yes, there were missed opportunities. And yes, they would have won if Gardner wasn't caught stealing. But let me reiterate: the Yankees didn't lose the game because of those missed chances. They just failed to win it.

The Yankees lost because Girardi got too brainy with his managing, and put the wrong pitcher in at the wrong time. That directly led to the game-winning run for the Angels.

It's not like Girardi had managed a perfect game and was subject to one brain-fart. (Remember Marty Brodeur against the Carolina Hurricanes last spring? He had a great series, but allowed one soft goal at the very end to give the Canes the series. This was not like that.) Giradi's bullpen managing was extremely flawed, and his overuse of pitchers was quite problematic.

Had the game progressed, the Yanks' bullpen would have been paper-thin. Phil Hughes, Chamberlain, Marte, Coke, Mo Rivera, Robertson, and now Aceves had all been used. The game could have gone on further, and Girardi would have been left with just Chad Gaudin in the pen.

Newsflash! The Yanks play again today, and CC Sabathia is pitching on three days rest. A fresh bullpen would be rather useful, wouldn't it?

Girardi needs to stop micro-managing like this. It has led to one Yankee loss already, and it could severely hamper the team the rest of the way. Manage intelligently, but don't get too bogged down in stats. There are too many of them to worry about in-game. Go with what makes sense, and don't worry about how a player hits on a 2-0 count with a runner on first in the seventh inning and beyond when the temperature is above 58 degrees on the 20th day of each month.

That's not to take away from the other Yankee mistakes, but this is one that needs to be highlighted, especially in the wake of last night's loss.

New York Giants: The Honeymoon Is Over

Jersey — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:44:00 -0400

After twin 5-0 starts, the Giants and Super Freaks have lost in Week Six. Actually, I still have Nate Kaeding going for me tomorrow, but unless he gets 38 points, the Freaks are 5-1.

The Giants' game is more concerning, so I'll address that second. The fantasy game was mostly the result of unfortunate bye weeks. Ronnie Brown, my top arby, was off. Dallas Clark, the best tight end in the league, was also off. Tony Romo was off, but he's part of a three-kyubie rotation anyway, so he wasn't a critical bye. But he was a bye nonetheless, and he was the first quarterback I selected.

Matt Hasselbeck was supposed the slaughter Arizona's worst-ranked pass defense. He was horrible. But he's my third of three quarterbacks. Not a critical member of the team.

LeSean McCoy got but one point against the smelly Raiders, but he's not a regular starter either. Kevin Smith was bad, and he's a concern I guess. But Randy Moss was unbelievable and Andre Johnson was really good, and although Cedric Benson underachieved against the Texans, he wasn't bad. I'm not worried about my team. They're good, and this week was an aberration.

But the Giants...oh the Giants. Sure, they were 5-0, and they'd looked unbeatable. Yeah, their competition was...nonexistent. But how they'd crushed them! They flattened the Chiefs, they murdered the Raiders! The Saints would be tough, but so are the G-Men, right?!

Right?

The offense was actually pretty good. No joke. They scored a bunch of points, and despite a couple of turnovers, didn't struggle much in this game. They may not have been a juggernaut, but the Saints actually have a good defense, and the Giants showed their O is for real.

The defense...well, that's a different story.

Let's be frank: If the Giants can't slow down Drew Brees, let alone stop him, there's no way they can win the Super Bowl. It's that simple. If a guy can make you look stupid, you're not going to beat him.

Remember two years ago, when the Giants lost to the Patriots in Week 17, but beat them in the Super Bowl? They weren't decimated in that game! Brady looked at least human, and even if he did ultimately beat them, it was a GAME. That's why it wasn't the end of the world when they beat them in the Super Bowl.

But they had absolutely no answer for Brees today. I know they have injuries. But this was sad. Really, really sad.

The good news is the offense is for real. It got lost in the debacle, but it's important to remember. They're not a fluke team that can only beat the scrubs. They ARE legit. The defense needs some serious work, though.

They won't give up 48 points to EVERY good offense, but they're putting a lot of pressure on Eli Manning and co. if they allow close to that. The defense is penetrable. And they need to fix that immediately, as the schedule isn't getting any easier.

New Jersey Devils: Numbers To Be Retired

Jersey — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:06:00 -0400

Due in part to a relatively brief history, the New Jersey Devils have retired but two jersey numbers: Scott Stevens' number 4 and Ken Daneyko's number 3.

Today, I got to thinking about what other numbers we might see hanging from the roof of the Prudential Center in the future. A lot of names came to mind, and I made a mental list of who I think will certainly receive the honors, those who simply won't, and a bunch of people in between. This is a compilation of those players. It's not a complete list of all Devils in history; just a few names that I mulled over.

I've divided them all into categories based on how likely their number is to be retired, and added a few comments of my own.

The No-Brainers

Martin Brodeur, No. 30

This one's easy. Brodeur is arguably the greatest goaltender of all time, let alone in Devils' history. The most wins, soon-to-be most shutouts, and three Stanley Cups are just a few of the standout achievements on Brodeur's resume. Fact is, in many ways, Brodeur IS the New Jersey Devils. He's the most recognizable face in franchise history, and if anyone on the team should have his number retired, it's this career-Devil.

Patrik Elias, No. 26

Elias, while underappreciated, is the Devils' all-time leading scorer. He's a career Devil and even spent a short stint as the team's captain. Elias will likely be the team's first forward to have his number retired, and it's tough to dispute that he's been the best forward in team history.

More Than Likely

Scott Niedermayer, No. 27

The only stain on Niedermayer's record is the fact that he left the Devils for Anaheim in the middle of his career. Barring a return to the organization, Niedermayer will not retire a Devil, something that displaces him from the likes of Stevens, Daneyko, and (as of now, at least) Brodeur and Elias.

In fact, aside from Stevens, all the other players were career Devils. But Niedermayer spent most of his career in New Jersey, and what a career it was. His name appears toward the top of many team records, and he won three Cups and a Norris Trophy with the Devils. Oh, and he was the first to wear the captain's C after Stevens played his final game. He's arguably the best defenseman in team history (even if not as recognizable as Stevens), and it would be hard not to retire his number once he calls it quits. And then Mike Mottau would have to find a new number.

John MacLean, No. 15

MacLean may not have retired a Devil, but he spent most of his career with the team, and until recently was its most prolific scorer. He's still with the organization, coaching its AHL affiliate in Lowell, and will most definitely be considered for the team's head coaching job when it is next vacant. Lou Lamoriello has supposedly said that MacLean's number will be retired, and it's about time he came through on his promise.

Zach Parise, No. 9

Too early to tell? Not for this guy. He's already looking like the team's next big star, and while it's still early career, he could be a top forward in the league for years to come. In a Hart Trophy-worthy performance last season, Parise almost broke the team's record for scoring in a season, and will have many more chances to try and break that record in the future. He's not a no-brainer because of his age, but he's going to be a great one, and will get the special treatment.

Maybe

Sergei Brylin, No. 18

I know, it sounds crazy. But consider this: only five players were with the Devils for all three of their Stanley Cup runs. Two (Stevens and Daneyko) have their numbers retired, and two more (Niedermayer and Brodeur) are next in line. The fifth guy is Brylin. He was a career Devil who was never great, but always contributed, and won three Cups with the team. Sounds like Ken Daneyko, doesn't it? Okay, he didn't have the same impact as Daneyko, but I think being a career Devil and winning three Cups is enough to get your number retired. There will be many better players who won't get the honor, but I still think Brylin deserves it. Of course, I could hear many people disagreeing with me, which is why he's only a maybe.

Worth Considering, But Unlikely

Bobby Holik, No. 16

Holik spent a decent amount of time with the Devils, and helped them win a pair of Stanley Cups. And despite being known for his defensive abilities, Holik put up some pretty solid offensive numbers as well. There's a reason the Rangers gave him such a huge contract! He's definitely an important figure in Devils history, and he deserves consideration, but I think he falls short of having his number retired. He didn't spend a HUGE amount of time with the team, and his departure wasn't the prettiest of affairs. I know he retired a Devil, but it doesn't matter. He's not of the same caliber as the other players mentioned (sans Brylin, but I explained why he's the exception).

John Madden, No. 11 and Jay Pandolfo, No. 20

The Devils have been associated with defensive hockey (at times unfairly), and these two forwards personify that style. At times, they've each looked like the best forward on the team, despite not putting up huge offensive numbers. And for years, they were linemates in both even-strength and penalty-killing situations, which is why I lump them together. However, while they are interesting names to ponder, they're just not good enough. I love them both, but not enough to retire their numbers-- especially Madden, who no longer has the added bonus of being a career Devil.

Jamie Langenbrunner, No. 15

If any number 15 is getting retired, it's MacLean's. But let's not discount current captain Langenbrunner, who has always been a contributor, and broke the 30-goal plane on the top line last season. If he keeps up the scoring and proves to be a great captain in the long term, maybe my opinion will change, but as of now, he's not worthy enough.

Brian Gionta, No. 14

The only reason Gionta is even worth mentioning is his 48-goal season, which gave him the team's single-season scoring record. It will be tough to break the record, sure, and I've always been a big Gionta fan, but let's admit it: he's not a big-time scorer. He's a 20, maybe 25-goal player, and that one year was a fluke. 20-goal scorers don't get their numbers retired unless they have some other special quality. Don't get me wrong, I love Gionta, even now that he's in Montreal. But let's be realistic here. His number isn't getting retired.

Claude Lemieux, No. 22

Lemieux stands out because he won a Conn Smythe Trophy. There are a lot of players who stand out on the Devils-- Kirk Muller, Slava Fetisov, and Stephane Richer, for example—and Lemieux falls into that category. He's a guy we all recognize, and his playoff-MVP-award bumps him up a notch into the discussion for having his number retired. That one trophy is enough to consider him, but it's not nearly enough to actually do it. He's another fan favorite, not an all-time great.

Brian Rafalski, No. 28

I'd love to see Rafalski's number retired. He was so good, and he was often overshadowed by the other great defenseman he played with. When he left town the same year as Scott Gomez, it was his loss that troubled me more. Talent-wise, he definitely deserves it. But he never did make his mark with the team, perhaps because he played alongside Stevens and Niedermayer. Even for a talented player like Rafalski, it's hard to become super-popular with those guys there.

And then, of course, he went home to Detroit once he finally had his chance to be THE guy in New Jersey. I think had he stayed, Rafalski would be a no-brainer. But he did leave, and I just don't think he was enough of a star with the Devils to earn a number retirement. If it was up to me, he'd be up there. But I don't think too many people will agree.

No.

Colin White, No. 5

Yeah, he's been there a long time. Not enough. He's not good enough at all. Next.

Brendan Shanahan, Nos. 14 and 18

Shanny didn't spend enough time here, His biggest contribution was his involvement in the move that brought Scott Stevens to the Garden State.

Pascal Rheaume, No. 21

JOKING! Seriously, though, how many times has this guy been with the organization?

Scott Gomez, No. 23

If any number 23 gets retired, it's more likely it's David Clarkson's

Too Soon To Tell

Paul Martin, No. 7 and Johnny Oduya, No. 29

They may not have the name power of Scotts Stevens and Niedermayer, but they are the young future of the New Jersey Devils' blue line. They look good so far. Who knows, we could be talking about them in the future.

Travis Zajac, No. 19

He's no Parise, but he does center him. If the two continue to click, Zajac could grow exponentially as his career moves on. He's got plenty of potential, and we don't even know how good he can be. (And no, I'm not about to list ALL the Devils' recent first-round picks.)

I Wish

Kevin Weekes, No. 1

It's no secret that I'm a huge fan of Weekes. It takes a special kind of player to be Martin Brodeur's backup. It seems like an easy job, but NHL goaltenders want to play hockey, and behind Marty, it's hard to do that. Brodeur's had many backups during his career, but I've liked Weekes more than any of them. He's just so affable. His attitude was simply perfect, and I was sad to see him go this offseason.

I remember one game last year in Pittsburgh: the bench wasn't big enough, so Weekes had to sit in the stands. He looked like he was having a great time, just chilling with the fans! How do you not love this guy? His number won't be retired, but I never miss a chance to discuss one of my favorite players.

That's my list. It's not comprehensive, just some musings from the mind of a blogger. Hope you enjoyed.

Say Goodbye To Brendan Shanahan

Jersey — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 12:24:00 -0400

Tom Gulitti is reporting that Brendan Shanahan is no longer with the New Jersey Devils.

Shortly after putting Ilkka Pikkarainen on Injured Reserve to cut their roster to the required 23 players, the Devils opened up one additional roster spot today when Shanahan decided he did not want to continue with the team.

It seems, according to Shanny, that he agreed with Lou Lamoriello and Jacques Lemaire that if he didn't like his role on the team, he could back out. And, because the Devils wanted to play their youngsters more often, Shanahan would be relegated to fourth-line duty.

Shanny didn't want that, so he was cut.

There are a few options remaining for the ancient forward.

He could still be traded as of now—as he is still technically on the roster—or he can be waived. Lamoriello also said he could accept a position within the organization, according to Rich Chere. Regardless, he will be off the roster soon enough, and his $1 million contract won't count against the salary cap.

I don't mind this too much.

It's a surprise, and I'd prefer to have Shanny than not, but it's not a major deal. Shanahan has slowed with age, and would only have been a fourth-liner anyway. A nice addition to that line, but not a player critical to the team's success.

If Shanny decides to change his mind and return, or stay with the team in some other capacity (a la Tommy Albelin), that would be fine with me. If not, it doesn't really matter.

This will allow one more rookie to make the team, albeit only until Pikkarainen and Patrik Elias return from injuries. That's probably a good thing in the end.

This is the second time this offseason that the Devils have seen someone back out of a contract. A few months ago, head coach Brent Sutter walked out on the team to be with his family...then he reneged on that idea instantly to coach the Calgary Flames.

I was furious about Sutter.

First, for backing out of a contract. And then, for showing his ulterior motive.

But I'm not upset about Shanahan.

First of all, he apparently had a verbal agreement in place with the team about his role. Second, he's not lying to the team about missing his family, only to accept a job elsewhere.

But mostly, it's just that he's not so important to the team. He's a fourth-liner, not a head coach.

So best of luck to Shanny, and who knows—maybe we'll see you again soon.

UPDATE: Apparently, it was Lamoriello and Lemaire who initiated the decision to cut Shanahan, and Shanny agreed. Shanny did NOT back out of his contract.

Suddenly, The Nets Are Fabulously Wealthy

Jersey — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:41:00 -0400

The New Jersey Nets are a realistic 2010 destination for LeBron James.

I'll start with that. Think about it this way: until today, the Nets were partially-owned by LeBron's buddy Jay-Zed, who had some sort of plan in place to move to Brooklyn, and were poised to have more available cap space than any other team. Those three factors alone made them a potential destination, even if speculation had James landing elsewhere.

But the Nets got some shiny new assets today, thanks to Russian billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov. The dude is going to facilitate the move to Brooklyn, putting to rest all the rumors that Bruce Ratner wouldn't be able to seal the deal. But more importantly, the guy's got more money than just about anyone in the NBA. And that takes the Nets from "potential" LeBron suitors to "realistic" ones.

That's right. The Nets are one of the richest teams in the NBA, if not the richest. They have more money than anyone, including the Knicks.

How did this happen? How did the Nets suddenly win the lottery?

I don't know, and I don't care. The NBA will (in all likelihood) approve the deal, and the Nets will be poised to become a powerhouse organization. Thank you, Mr. Prokhorov. I raise a shot of vodka to you.

Various Baseball Noticings

Jersey — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:45:00 -0400

When Johan Santana went on the DL with elbow surgery, one ESPN commentator said this could have been predicted: one reason the Yankees and Red Sox dropped out of the Santana sweepstakes last year was that scouts noticed he stopped throwing his slider toward the end of the season. This omen steered the teams away from paying too much for a pitcher they feared could break down.

This very well may be true, but I think there's another reason why they dropped out: the asking price. I can't speak for Boston, as I'm not sure exactly what they were willing to give up, but I know the Yankees at one point were willing to deal Phil Hughes, Ian Kennedy, Melky Cabrera, and at least one other prospect. The Twins said no.

Hughes is a projected ace, and is currently on the major league roster. Cabrera is a productive (not great, but productive) starting center fielder. Kennedy's career has been put on hold thanks to an aneurysm, but that was unpredictable, and he had pitched in the majors prior to that event. But this wasn't good enough for the Twins, and the Yankees backed out. The Twins ended up getting stuck with Phil Humber, Carlos Gomez, and two pitchers no one's ever heard of.

So yes, I'm sure the elbow thing had something to do with it. But it also probably has something to do with Minnesota's horrific bargaining skills.

***

The Yankees should move Joba Chamberlain to the bullpen for the rest of this season. No, this is not a long term decision: Joba is a starter, and I've reiterated that point. But he's been awful his last two starts, as he continues to rack up innings.

He's a young pitcher, and the Yankees don't want to blow out his arm. They set up the Joba Rules for precisely that purpose. They're already planning on limiting his starts down the stretch, but I think it's time to shut him down entirely. Sort of.

It stands to reason that Joba is tired, and to give him a rest, they should put him in the bullpen for the rest of the year. That's already the plan for the playoffs, even if that means their postseason rotation will have to include either Chad Gaudin or Sergio Mitre. Moving Joba to the pen now could keep his arm fresh for the postseason, and may even have a positive effect on his entire career. And after his last two starts, maybe this is something that could even help the team right now.

Again, I don't think Joba will or should end up as a reliever. He's a starter, and that's where he will end up. But it's typical for teams to shut down young starters at the end of the season, and the Yankees should do exactly that, rather than play their current middling approach.

***

The Colorado Rockies are now within two games of first place in the NL West. Might this team be for real? Remember, the Rockies came out of nowhere in 2007 to make it to the World Series, and here they are again just two years later, seemingly headed for the playoffs again. Some may have called 2007 a fluke, but when this happens two out of three years, it's hard to deny.

Remember, the Red Sox missed the playoffs (in fact, they finished third in the AL East) in 2006, but came right back and won the World Series in 2007. Obviously, no one thought they were a fluke. The two teams are pretty incomparable, but the point is that a team can miss the playoffs one season and still be legitimately good. The Rockies may be the real deal, and perhaps 2008 was the fluke, much like the 2006 Red Sox.

Can you imagine where this team might be with Matt Holliday?

***

As a Yankee fan, I kinda hoped the Red Sox would land Billy Wagner (which they ultimately did). Even Jonathan Papelbon stated my thoughts: could this be the second coming of Eric Gagne?

Jim Rice Is A Cranky, Confused Old Man

Jersey — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:37:00 -0400

Jim Rice has been running his mouth since being inducted into the Hall of Fame. After expressing his rather extreme view on steroids (and how no user should ever be allowed into the Hall), he added this little nugget:

"You see a Manny Ramirez , you see an A-Rod [Alex Rodriguez ], you see [Derek] Jeter ... Guys that I played against and with, these guys you're talking about cannot compare."

Pardon me? Did I read that correctly? Derek Jeter?

Well, he didn't explicitly say it was Derek, but I can't think of any other Jeter, except that guy who was on Studio 60, and I don't think Rice was referring to him.

I don't need to get into statistical details. I don't need to mention how Derek Jeter has the most hits of any shortstop, or how he's led the MLB in hits over the past decade or so. I'm not going to discuss this because Rice isn't talking stats: he's talking about being a role model.

And now the jaws drop. Derek Jeter is not a good role model? Is Rice serious?

According to the linked article, Rice believes that "today's major leaguers are too focused on individual goals and getting big contracts."

Derek Jeter is self absorbed? The guy who risks injuries to make plays? The guy who only talks about championships, and refuses to talk about individual milestones? Are we talking about the same Derek Jeter?

Rice continued: "We didn't have the baggy uniforms. We didn't have the dreadlocks. It was a clean game, and now they're setting a bad example for the young guys."

Baggy uniforms? Yes, that's totally the problem. Such a horrible example. By the way, has this guy ever seen a picture of Babe Ruth?

But back to Jeter: is his uniform really baggy? No, it's not. Does Jeter have dreadlocks? No, and neither does A-Rod (whose uniform isn't baggy either). He seems to be talking about only Manny Ramirez, and his inclusion of the Yankees stars is rather curious.

Continuing in the article: "Asked later at a news conference to list current players worthy of the Hall of Fame, Rice suggested Seattle Mariner outfielders Ichiro Suzuki and Ken Griffey Jr., and Chicago White Sox slugger Jim Thome."

Funny how he mentioned Jeter earlier, but not among potential Hall of Famers. Why no Jeter, Mr. Rice? Any particular reason? Could it be the bad example he's setting for the kids? You know, by playing his hardest and establishing charities, and playing the game cleanly, and never causing any trouble? Is that why he doesn't belong in the Hall?

"He said he believes current Hall of Famers who did not cheat don't want players who took performance-enhancing drugs to join them in the Hall. Flexing the muscles in his right arm, Rice said, 'That's all the steroids you need . . . It's called God-given talent.'"

Oh jeez. It's the steroids, isn't it? Because you just listed known steroid users. Manny Ramirez. Alex Rodriguez. And... Derek Jeter?

I'm sorry, Jim, but you seem really confused. Maybe it's your age getting to your head. Maybe it's your ego. I mean, you're a Hall of Famer! Who cares how long it took for you to get in, or how people still contend you don't deserve it? You're in, and now you can say whatever you want! Even if it doesn't make sense!

I hope Rice took steroids. I really do.

David Ortiz Just Won't Let the Steroids Thing Die

Jersey — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:42:00 -0400

Note: Before beginning this piece, you may want to recap my last on this issue, which can be found here. It's not entirely necessary, as I will be rehashing the key points, but it can't hurt.

David Ortiz's name has appeared on the infamous 2003 list of players who tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs. This, we know, is a fact. While the MLBPA may be disputing the results of some of these tests, the fact remains that this is a list of steroid users, and Ortiz's name is on it.

Is it possible Ortiz's test was a false positive? Well, anything is possible. But the overwhelming likelihood is that Ortiz did use PEDs, as even the MLBPA can't deny that nearly all the test results were indeed correct.

But I'm not here to speculate about the truth behind these tests. I'm here to discuss Ortiz's actions since his name was revealed.

Ortiz refused to deny or confirm the report at first. If he did, in fact, use steroids, this would prove to be a good move, as he would be able to recollect his thoughts and seek advice on the matter. Of course, had he never used, he probably should have denied the story.

Instead, Ortiz took a week before denying the story outright. And when he did, he had help at his side. Michael Wiener, MLBPA union chief sat next to him and conjured up some excuses for the maligned slugger.

Despite what Ortiz may have said, the signs all pointed at the result having been correct: Ortiz did not deny the report outright until he weighed his options, and proved this by showing that he'd discussed the matter with Wiener during the interim.

In addition, Wiener's statements do not exonerate Ortiz at all: they merely open a window for the possibility of his exoneration. But unless Ortiz is among the scant number of false positives (which is extremely unlikely), Ortiz still took steroids, and it's been documented.

But Ortiz continues to deny the story outright, and people seem to be buying it. I don't understand it, but that was what the previous post (linked above) was about, and I won't discuss that now.

However, Ortiz recently made some comments in The Providence Journal about the situation, and by doing so, he kept the story alive. The scandal had blown over for the most part, and people had moved on, but Ortiz for some reason, decided to bring it back up.

Like Roger Clemens, he won't shut up, and in doing so, he only opens himself up to further incrimination. He sounds awfully defensive, and that's not a good sign for him.

Allow me to dissect Ortiz's latest comments:

“You know what kills me? If I know you and, let’s say something happened with you in the past, and I’ve known you for seven years and you’ve been totally normal, I don’t care what happened in the past. I would judge you for what I know."

Okay, so right off the bat, Ortiz is saying "Even if I did do it, why are you judging me now?" That's not a very strong denial, Mr. Ortiz. It sounds like you want a little love because you weren't busted in any of the years AFTER 2003.

“These past few weeks have been terrible for me. People want to [mess] up your reputation and it’s all about the money...that’s what it seems like."

The what?! The money?! I'm sorry, but did anyone mention money before? What money is he talking about?

"People always want you to be a role model. People always want you to be a good guy, but at the end of the day nobody gives an [expletive] about you. You know why? Because when this [expletive] came out, this news, no one...I’m talking about no one in general...stood up and said, ‘Let’s wait to see what David Ortiz has to say. He’s a guy who has been tested 18 times, and why would you believe any of this [expletive],’ or, ‘He’s a guy who has been playing the game clean and let’s wait to hear what he has to say.’"

Is he serious? He got the MLBPA to come to a press conference for him! Alex Rodriguez didn't get any of that support. Instead, everyone jumped all over him, lambasting him as a cheater. Why do you think you'd be any different?

Instead, he actually GOT the help he wanted (and the help that A-Rod equally deserved but didn't get), and now he's complaining about it? What does he want here?

"No. It was, ‘I’m not surprised he got caught. He did this, or he did that.’ David Ortiz has never been involved in any kind of trouble. So why do I have to be the bad guy? Why can’t anyone stand up for David Ortiz?”

Two words: Michael Wiener. That's who's standing up for David Ortiz. While A-Rod stood up and took the heat, you went and whined to your buddy and got your support. Stop complaining.

But let's hop back a sentence. Ortiz wants to know why no one was surprised. Well, here's why: Ortiz benefited from a significant spike in stats and stature the very same year he allegedly tested positive. It's not surprising that his name would appear on the list. That's why no one was surprised!

“People don’t always make money with good things. They make money with bad things."

Again with the money. Where is this coming from?

“Basically that’s what people worry about. So when I hear people talking about, ‘This guy is horrible and sets a bad example. He’s not a role model,’ from now on I’m not going to pay attention to that [expletive] anymore because, seriously, people don’t give a [expletive]. People don’t make money with that.”

I really don't know what he's talking about. The sentences are incoherent, and he's obsessing about money. He's sounding increasingly flustered, and one continues to wonder why he had to make these comments at all. Hasn't he said this already? Let it be!

“It’s all about the money."

Enough already!

"All these [media members] I’ve been dealing with through the years, guys who have come to me and tell me, ‘You’ve made the difference in this clubhouse because you might be the only superstar here who makes our life easy. When we want to talk to you, we can talk to you. You’re a nice guy and you do nice things.’ All that [expletive] went in the garbage when this [expletive] came out. That hurt, bro.”

Are you serious? The media isn't being friendly to you? Have you actually READ any of the articles about this situation, glorifying your nonsensical press conferences, and trying to salvage your image? You know, like THIS VERY ARTICLE?!

“My teammates were there at my press conference, and they all came and hugged [me]. They said, ‘Hey, you’re right.’ The good things nobody talks about, and that’s what kills me. Nobody talks about the good things. All they want to do is put the fans against you and that’s bad, man.”

Shut up. Seriously, shut up. You cry about how you have no support, but then point out how good your teammates have been to you. You talk about how no one cares about the good you've done, when that is a blatant lie.

Everyone is trying to fix this, to make Ortiz come out okay, and he doesn't even acknowledge that. They're trying to save him because they believe he's a good guy, and they don't want his reputation tarnished. But Ortiz won't hear any of that. To him, he's always been a victim. Nobody loves him.

Really, Ortiz, wake up and read a newspaper. Go online and see how many articles have been written about Roger Clemens and Alex Rodriguez, and see how many have been written about you. You're a whiner and it will only make you look bad.

“They’re calling you names and [crap]. You go to New York, you go to Baltimore, you go to all the other cities and you bring your family, your kids. Your son hears people calling you [names]. It’s my family...my kids. With all the good things I’ve done, what’s up with that? All the good I’ve done and all the good things I will get done...what’s up with that? Somebody screwed up and somebody wanted to put money in their pocket and somebody talking [crap], is that fair? I don’t care anymore.”

Well, they're obviously going to call you names in New York. They always have. And you keep bringing up the good you've done, as it that's supposed to exonerate you.

If you've used steroids, you've used steroids, no matter how much good you've done. It doesn't change things.

Still, because he's been good, people are trying to say exactly what Ortiz is saying, which is "the steroids thing doesn't matter." I'm not sure where this came from, but it's there, yet Ortiz doesn't believe it. Oh, and need I point out that he again mentioned money?

~

Here's what I've taken from these comments:

1- Ortiz believes no one is sticking up for him. He's crying and whining about this, despite the fact that he's received a lot more support than any other offender thus far. It makes him look like a big baby.

2- Ortiz believes that he's been a good guy, so he should be exonerated from any steroid use. I don't know what the correlation here is.

3- Ortiz keeps mentioning money for some reason. I don't know why, and he never explained its relevance to the topic at hand.

In addition, Ortiz's sentences are often incoherent, and don't lead anywhere. It's very difficult to make out what he's saying. It sounds like he's getting increasingly flustered, and that makes him more defensive. Of course, that only makes him appear more guilty, but that's beside the point.

Finally, Ortiz really should keep his mouth shut. Instead, he's rehashing the story he's trying to avoid. It's really bad strategy. Maybe he should speak to his buddy, Michael Wiener, for more advice on how to conduct himself in public.

Look, I don't mind that he took steroids. Everyone is doing it. What bothers me is that he's such a hypocrite, promoting a zero-tolerance policy before being busted for using.

It bothers me that he's so blatantly guilty, but everyone is looking the other way because he's David Ortiz. So many other users aren't getting the same treatment.

And it bothers me that despite this, he believes he's being cornered, and that no one is helping him. It's a guilty complex, and it only makes him look worse.

Ortiz really should keep his mouth shut before the Clemens comparisons start coming in droves. Clemens' reputation has reached rock bottom, and if Ortiz keeps this up, he'll be right there with him.

New Jerseys In New Jersey for the Nets

Jersey — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:34:00 -0400

There's some weird business going on in the Swamplands these days. The New Jersey Nets have been fiddling around with their jerseys, and it's raising some eyebrows.

First of all, they've removed the words "New Jersey" from their road jersey, meaning both the home and road jerseys will feature the word "Nets."

Well, some higher-ups in New Jersey are not too happy about this new jersey.

State senator Kevin O'Toole, for one, is far from pleased, and is insinuating that the state should not help the team out financially if it won't show its New Jersey pride. And, since we're already on the topic, he threw the Giants and Jets into the same boat. After all, despite playing in Jersey, they not only hide their home state from their uniforms, but arrogantly display a different state: New York.

To be honest, O'Toole is right. You don't acknowledge the state, yet you expect to receive financial help from its taxpayers? I know the Nets hope to move to Brooklyn one day, but until they do, they're still playing in New Jersey, and should acknowledge that fact.

And yes, the same goes for the Giants and Jets. I happily call them the New Jersey Giants and New Jersey Jets, but I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority on that one. But if they want to go by their New York names, they should be receiving money from New York's taxpayers, not New Jersey's.

But hey, that's not the only jersey news going down in Jersey!

The Nets have offered a really strange 10-game promotion package: by purchasing a 10-game set, fans receive a set of five replica jerseys. Sweet deal, right? Well, maybe. See, the Nets don't have many real stars (Devin Harris and Brook Lopez don't resonate across the country just yet), so they have to market the stars of other teams.

So, buy 10 Nets tickets, get five reversible jerseys, with a Nets player on one side, and an opposing star on the other.

Weird stuff. Basically, the Nets have realized they have no fans (besides me, I guess) and need to market the team somehow. So they're using the stars of other teams to market their own. I guess it's a pretty good strategy, but it also speaks volumes about the current state of the team.

Now, Nets fans (all four of you), don't get too down. Sure, we have no big names now, but we've got the most cap space available next season, and we do have a nice group of young players. The Nets have a future (potentially), but the present is pretty bleak.

And so, the Nets are hiding from the fans, taking their home base off their jerseys, and adorning their fans with the stars of other teams. Not bad for a team whose owner came in, tore the team apart, and is now trying to flip it to someone else.

Credit where credit is due: I initially read the latter story here, via Trey Dalton's twitter.

The Egregious Double Standard Surrounding David Ortiz

Jersey — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 16:50:00 -0400

There's a funny smell pervading the air around Major League Baseball. It had begun when the news broke that David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez were on the infamous 2003 list of steroid users, the same list that had outed Alex Rodriguez a few months prior.

While Manny had been suspended earlier in the year, making his appearance on the list unsurprising, Ortiz was thrust into a spotlight he didn't want to be in.

The stage was set: Ortiz, a known steroids opponent, had been guilty not only of "cheating," but of hypocrisy. What was he going to do now?

Well, the answer to that question came yesterday, when Ortiz finally broke his silence on the topic, having collected his thoughts over a few days.

Ortiz held a press conference before his team's game against the Yankees, and he brought a pal with him: MLBA Union Chief Michael Wiener.

With Wiener at his side, Ortiz flatly denied steroid use, saying he'd purchased over the counter "supplements" that may have triggered the positive test, but never bought or used the illegal stuff.

Wiener backed Ortiz up, saying the list was faulty, that not all the names on the list were confirmed positives, and that those who tested positive may still not have taken steroids at all.

And I, a humble blogger from New Jersey, declare shenanigans on this press conference.

When Roger Clemens was named in the Mitchell Report a few years ago, he too denied steroid use, despite the mounds of evidence against him.

But even though his accuser, Brian McNamee, was a shady fellow himself, Clemens was blasted and vilified across America, as everyone turned against a one-time hero.

Clemens looked idiotic. He was inconsistent in his claims, and he dug himself into more holes every time he opened his mouth. And so, he received no support. Despite his legendary status, fans edged away from Clemens during his rampage.

But Ortiz is now doing the exact same thing. With his name on a list of players who tested positive for steroids, Ortiz is playing the Clemens game by vehemently denying he did anything wrong. Except no one is giving him grief for it.

Perhaps it's because the MLBPA is coming out to support him, but I believe it's simply because he's David Ortiz, and baseball fans don't want to give up on him. It was easy to turn on Clemens, a hot head who was known for throwing at opposing players and chucking a broken bat at Mike Piazza. And A-Rod is one of the most easily hated players in baseball, with his personal life often clouding his excellent ability on the field.

But Ortiz isn't like that. Sure, Yankees fans like myself hate him, but to others, he's a big teddy bear. Sure, he might only be a small teddy bear if not for some artificial help, but the point remains: fans don't want to see his legacy tainted.

But it doesn't matter what the fans want. We'd love to live in utopia, but sometimes the truth hurts. David Ortiz took steroids, and no matter what people try to cover it with, it's not going away.

It's really quite obvious. In 2002, Ortiz was playing for the Twins, and had a career-high of 20 home runs and .500 slugging percentage. One year later, Ortiz was on the Red Sox, and his entire career has changed. Upon changing teams, Ortiz immediately had his first 30-homer year, and has never hit under that amount since, save last year's injury-shortened season, in which he hit 23 in only 109 games. His slugging percentage jumped 92 points that year, and last year marked the first time he slugged under .600 since then.

That doesn't happen to hitters overnight. Ortiz had spent six seasons with the Twins, but was a regular starter for only two of those seasons. He wasn't even a starter with the Red Sox until they traded Shea Hillenbrand for Byung-Hyun Kim during that 2003 season. But despite this, he suddenly hit a stride at age 27 without any warning. He also blew up like a hot-air balloon, as his now-infamous baseball card (below) attests.

Ortiz's instant stat inflation occurred in 2003, his first year with the Red Sox, the same year he tested positive for steroids. That's a rather interesting coincidence. It's also interesting that his teammate, Manny Ramirez, was busted as well, and had continued to take steroids through this season.

But Manny isn't the only Red Sox player to be involved. Then-Red Sox pitcher Bronson Arroyo admitted his name may pop up on that list, although he did claim he did not intentionally take steroids. And former Red Sox player Lou Merloni stated that team doctors instructed players on proper steroid use.

I don't mean to insinuate that the Red Sox have more players on PEDs than any other team. But these details indicate that steroid use was in fact taking place in the Red Sox clubhouse in 2003. Ortiz was suddenly placed in this environment, and blossomed overnight.

You don't need to be a genius to see where this is going. A mediocre player changes teams, bulks up overnight, and suddenly reaches unfathomable heights in terms of batting production. His career has taken a serious downturn now at age 33, a little young for a player whose talent comes naturally.

And now his name has appeared on a list of steroid users during that very same year that his career upswing began. This is not testimony from a shifty steroids dealer who was under pressure from federal investigators. This is an MLB-administered steroids test, and his name was on the list, case closed.

Like Clemens, the evidence is all pointed against Ortiz. And like Clemens, Ortiz is denying it. But while Clemens received no support, Ortiz seems to be okay. He's even got the MLBPA on his side. And I simply don't get it.

I honestly don't care what Michael Wiener has to say, and I simply do not believe the list is a faulty as he claims it is. If that were truly the case, Wiener could have opened his mouth a long time ago, when Rodriguez was implicated. Instead, A-Rod took it like a man (how often do you hear that?) and admitted that the reports were true. But now that Ortiz needs someone to hide his massive body behind, Wiener is there to help him out.

It makes no sense. If you're there for damage control, you should have done it months ago. To now say the list is faulty is pointless. You could have saved a different star a long time ago, but you didn't. So why, Mr. Wiener, should I believe you now?

And why, exactly, did David Ortiz need an entire week to deny that he ever took steroids? He could have made a comment at any point in time. Instead, he fumbled his words at the news of the report, looking visibly flustered, and took a week to get help from the MLBPA. I don't buy his words for a second. If he never used, he should have said so immediately, rather than wait for his buddy to save his skin a week later.

The entire story reeks of Ortiz-love. Even the Players' Association is in love with the man, and they're willing to pull out the stops to come to his side. And despite Ortiz's Clemens-esque actions, no one seems to be jumping all over him.

Keep in mind that no further evidence has been brought to the table. Despite what Wiener said, there were no examples given of false positives on the list, and no other player has been exonerated. For that matter, even Ortiz hasn't been exonerated: while Wiener says the list is faulty, he did not say that it was certain that Ortiz was one of the false positives.

But Ortiz will walk away from this mess unscathed. Alex Rodriguez will want to know why he couldn't get this kind of help, and Roger Clemens will continue to wonder why no one believes him. All the while, Ortiz fans across the country will happily accept this drivel and continue to cheer for him. It's a blatant double standard, and this favoritism is unacceptable.

References:
USA Today
Boston. com Red Sox Blog

Eli Manning's Surprising New Deal

Jersey — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:34:00 -0400

Have you seen Eli Manning's new contract?

Six years, 97.5 million dollars?

Really?!

Look, I've liked the guy since his Super Bowl run. You know, the run that spawned my blog, Imperfect Dynasty. But he should not be the highest-paid player in the NFL.

I know he won a Super Bowl and that the Giants haven't missed the playoffs since he became the full-time starter. I know he's a former number one overall pick.

But his own brother is significantly better than he, and has also won his own Super Bowl. Ben Roethlisberger, taken in the same draft, has two Super Bowls to his name. Philip Rivers, the guy the Giants traded for Manning, posted the highest QB rating in the NFL last year. And that's only a few of the better quarterbacks in the league.

The Giants won the Super Bowl as a team, and despite being named MVP, it was not only Manning who made it happen. Does he deserve a contract extension? Sure. Maybe even a raise. But this is ludicrous.

A New York Yankees Fan's Review of Citi Field

Jersey — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 23:42:00 -0400

Dear readers,

Your beloved Jersey is a traitor. I have had multiple opportunities to visit the new Yankee Stadium (including a chance to see the Red Sox), but schoolwork and responsibilities kept getting in the way.

Yet I could not find a way to weasel out of taking by brother (the Diamondbacks fan) to Citi Field today to see his team take on the amalgamation of AA players that comprise the New York Mets.

And so, I had my first Citi Field experience, and I knew exactly what to expect before I went in. I had seen the stadium from the outside, and it was admittedly good-looking, but I'd heard the inside was pure crap. That made sense: the Mets can't get anything right, right?

Well, not quite. Despite the reports and despite my bias, I have to admit, Citi Field is a nice stadium. A very nice stadium indeed.

I'd heard there was no roof, even on the concourse, and that rumor turned out to be true. At first, I thought the idea was weird and nonsensical, but as I found out, it gave a great, unique feel to the stadium. I really enjoyed the different setup of the concourse, which was set up extremely well.

Of course, the lack of a roof showed its dire flaw when the pouring rain began. The game started two and a half hours past its scheduled time, and a fully enclosed concourse would have been rather useful.

There was still plenty of shelter under the overhanging seats, and the concession stands were strategically placed under said seats, but because some areas were open to the sky, people had to crowd together under the shelter.

It was not so bad today, as there were not a lot of fans on hand, but it could prove to be a real nuisance. I still like the idea, however, and it's possible the unique outdoor feel trumps the convenience of an indoor concourse, even in a rain delay.

The actual stadium was very nice, and it utterly embarrasses the dump that was Shea Stadium. I mean, anything would be better than Shea, but this is not even close. Shea Stadium is the gum under Citi Field's croc. It's not just an improvement, but a really nice work of architecture.

The on-field product is lousy, however. We all know the Mets have been awful, but it doesn't stop there. The grounds crew was simply unimpressive. I know it's hard to judge a grounds crew, especially after seeing them only once, but they did a poor job rolling up the tarp before the first pitch.

And I know, it has nothing to do with anything. But the Yankees' grounds crew dances to YMCA, so I'm used to a luxury in that area. A crew that can't roll up a tarp properly seems very weak in my eyes.

And if there's one thing I can't stand about the construction of the stadium, it's the field itself. Right field is jagged! The wall has a zig-zag in it to accommodate a Modell's store! I don't understand why there has to be a notch in the outfield, giving an awkward addition to the on-field area. It looks really weird, especially considering it's an in-play area.

I did like the in-house organist, who played many popular songs on an organ, making them sound all basebally. I'm sure a lot of old people complain about how cheesy it is, but I enjoyed it a lot, and thought it was pretty damn creative.

However, drowning out the organ was very often the sound of airplanes flying overhead. Citi Field is located very close to an airport, and low-flying planes roared over the field over and over again during the game.

I know it's not the fault of the field or its designers, but location does have a lot to do with stadium experience, and I found this to be a detriment.

As I mentioned earlier, there were not a lot of fans today. This probably had a lot to do with the matchup and the weather. The Diamondbacks are not exactly a draw, especially in the rain. So I won't comment on how empty the stadium was, especially since they did manage to fill it about halfway. These days happen.

But there remains no excuse for how dead the crowd was. My brother turned to me at one point and said this was the quietest crowd he'd ever seen. And he was right: no one made any noise whatsoever. I know the Mets and D'Backs aren't very awe-inspiring, but a little emotion would be nice.

There were some great defensive plays and a home run, but the oohs and ahs were rare, as the crowd seemed content to sleep through the game. I've been to Catskill Cougars games that were louder than this.

I don't care who is playing whom, if a stadium is half full, I should be hearing SOME cheering or booing. But there was almost nothing. A very poor show from Mets fans.

However, the lack of fans did make getting in and out of the stadium very convenient. Then again, they may have mastered the art of managing parking lots so that all games are like this, but I'm sure it had a lot to do with the fact that so few people actually came to the game.

I got a great parking spot and had no trouble at all finding it, and there was no traffic going out. The entire experience was very smooth, something I can't say about any other game I've been to.

Now, I am a Devils and Nets fan, so I've been to games where there are not a lot of attendees. But it was never as smooth as this. So while I'm sure the dearth of fans helped out, it was still a job well done by Citi Field management.

There is one final note I would like to make, although it has nothing to do with the stadium: Daniel Murphy has great choice in batting music.

His first at-bat featured a mash-up of the Jaws theme and an Irish dancing song, and his second had the song "What I've Done" by Linkin Park. I did not recognize the song for his third at-bat, but it sounded good, and my brother informed me it was by OAR. I'll assume he's right.

So that was my experience. To sum:

Pros: unique concourse design, a trillion times nicer than Shea, cool organist, easy parking and exiting.

Cons: concourse design inconvenient during rain delay, right field is jagged, location near airport is highly undesirable, grounds crew not up to snuff.

Other: Mets fans seem completely uninterested, but Daniel Murphy has great batting music.

Overall, give the stadium a robust eight of 10. Now I have to get to Yankee Stadium to experience a true 10.

David Ortiz Used Steroids, at Least in 2003

Jersey — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:06:25 -0400

Like many folks, I have suspected David Ortiz of taking steroids for a long time. Of course, that could very well be the biased Yankee fan in me, but it matters not:

Ortiz has been BUSTED.

According to the New York Times, Ortiz and Manny Ramirez are among the 100 or so names on the infamous list of 2003 steroid users, the same list that had revealed Alex Rodriguez's use.

Manny is not a surprise at all, as he'd already been caught this season. But Ortiz, a known opponent of steroid users, is a big deal.

He's a guy that the Yankees and Red Sox had both considered signing before the 2003 season. He was not a superstar in his previous home in Minnesota by any means, but upon joining the Red Sox in '03, he had his first-ever 30-homer season, turned from an outcast into a hero, and led his team to a pair of World Series titles.

Now we know why.

This, of course, taints the two Red Sox titles, but I'm not going to demand they be rescinded. You never know who's been roiding and where, so it's pointless to punish a team because of a few players, no matter how important they may be.

It is more problematic here, as the infamous curse of the Bambino had been supposedly broken in 2004, and as a Yankee fan, this brings a little solace. But again, I'm not saying the Red Sox's titles should be taken away.

However, as an individual, this should bring a huge cloud over the reputation of David Ortiz.

But this is all obvious. We all know what a big deal this is to the players involved, and I don't need to comment very much. There are, however, two other individuals that I'd like to mention.

First off, there's former Maine Senator George Mitchell, who took up a personal crusade against performance-enhancing drugs and created his own report a few years ago.

On the Mitchell Report list, the Yankees and Mets were well represented, but the Red Sox (his hometown team) were noticeably absent. New Yorkers pointed out that the trainers investigated in the Report were New York-based trainers, which is why the report was so New York-centric, but many Red Sox fans took the opportunity to taunt Yankees fans while touting their own innocence.

This changes everything. However, it remains curious as to why Mitchell chose to focus on New York when steroid abuse was also going on in Massachusetts, a New England state much like Maine, the state for which he served as senator.

The fact that he was on the Red Sox's board of directors at the time of the report is further incriminating, especially considering today's news.

The second individual is Selena Roberts, who released A-Rod's name from the list before the season.

Clearly, A-Rod is not the only notable player on this list. Did Roberts have access to the entire list or just A-Rod's name? The latter option doesn't seem to make much sense. But if Roberts had access to the list, why wouldn't she release anyone else's name, limiting herself to A-Rod alone? Ortiz and Manny would have been equally huge stories.

Then again, the Times also released only two players' names. What else do they know, and what information are they withholding?

This list is supposed to remain secret, and I don't know how any names were leaked or if any more will be leaked in the future. But the names are there, and the players will have to deal with the consequences. Let's see if Ortiz sticks by his contention that steroid users should receive a one-year suspension. Something tells me he'll be backing off a little.

(Thanks to Dachs for the tip.)

Deadline Decisions For the Yankees

Jersey — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 21:51:00 -0400

As the trade deadline approaches, the Yankees will look to be either buyers or stayers. On paper, their roster is excellent, perhaps even championship-caliber, but will they make the move that puts them atop every prognosticator's list as the favorite to win their 27th title?

So far, the Yankees haven't shown much activity, making a minor trade for Eric Hinske, and nothing more. Their name has been mentioned in the Roy Halladay talks, but that remains pure speculation, and they're among approximately 29 other teams interested in his services.

The Red Sox have already made a pair of trades, one minor (Julio Lugo for Chris Duncan) and one semi-major (minor leaguers for Adam LaRoche). Although they also appear rather content with their roster, they have made more noise than their rivals thus far.

They addressed a need at corner-infield-depth by renting LaRoche, a notorious second-half player.

So what will the Yankees do to counter, if anything? What needs do they have, and which players are most attainable?

To be honest, I thought Matt Holliday may have been a good fit for the Yankees. They have a good, but not great, outfield, consisting of Johnny Damon, Melky Cabrera, Brett Gardner, and Nick Swisher. They're all good, but none of them really stand out. Damon is the only one of the four that would be a bona fide starter on any major league team.

Holliday put up elite numbers in Colorado's hitter's park, but was merely pedestrian in the pitcher's park in Oakland. The Yankees' new park is very favorable for hitters, and Holliday could have taken full advantage of a new home in New York.

The Yankees probably would not have had to part with too many good prospects, and Holliday would only be a rental for the year, so the experiment need not linger if ineffective.

But Holliday was certainly not a need, and it's not a big deal that the Yankees didn't get him. The point is moot now, anyhow. But I do believe he could have been a nice addition to the lineup.

However, the Yankees do have a far more pressing need in the starting rotation. Their bullpen has settled since Phil Hughes moved there, and while he is going to start eventually, the pen is his home for the time being. However, this leaves a hole in the rotation, which features Sergio Mitre as the fifth starter.

The Yankees do have a solid rotation as-is. CC Sabathia and A.J. Burnett make a great two-headed monster at the top, and Andy Pettitte is a serviceable (but not great) No. 3.

Joba Chamberlain has the potential to be brilliant, but his inconsistency has him relegated to the fourth slot. (And no, he's not switching roles with Hughes any time soon.) Mitre may not be so good, but he's the fifth starter, and brilliance isn't expected of him.

The team's great lineup has the potential to back up any of these guys on an off night.

But without Chien Ming Wang (who has been either injured or ineffective), the Yankees' rotation isn't what it was expected to be. Pettitte would be much better as a fourth starter, and Chamberlain would be a superb number five. Mitre was not supposed to be here at all.

One mid-rotation starter could realign the staff so that every pitcher would be great in his role.

Of course, Roy Halladay is the big name being floated out there. Imagine a rotation with Halladay, Sabathia, and Burnett, especially come playoff time. Pettitte, an experienced playoff vet, would be just the fourth in the four-man rotation, and Chamberlain would be another dominating arm in the bullpen. The team would be virtually invincible.

But such dreams are likely unrealistic. The Blue Jays are asking for a massive haul in return for their ace, and no team seems ready to pony up. The Phillies, a likely destination for Halladay, have already backed out, saying the Jays are asking for too much. You know they'd demand even more from a division rival.

Plus, the central figure in any deal would likely be Chamberlain, meaning Mitre would have to remain in the rotation anyway, and the young pitcher's arm would not be available in the pen come playoff time. While Halladay would be welcome in pinstripes, a hole would still remain.

Simply put, I don't envision Halladay coming to the Yankees this season, and I don't think he would solve the Yankees' rotation issue. He'd help, not doubt, but they'd still lack a great top-to-bottom rotation.

The Yankees should instead focus on filling their NEED by trading for a mid-rotation starter and not giving up any major pieces of their current rotation.

One player that should be on their radar is Cliff Lee. He won't be cheap, either, but he won't cost the same as Halladay, and probably wouldn't force them to give up Chamberlain.

Imagine, now, a rotation with Sabathia, Burnett, Lee, and Pettitte in the playoffs, with Chamberlain in the pen. That still instills fear in every opponent's heart, and does not come at the same extreme cost. Lee is a very good starter, a top-two or ace on most teams, and would not only improve the rotation but fill the hole currently occupied by Mitre.

I don't know what it would take to get Lee, and he may cost some good prospects. However, the Yankees won't need to bankrupt the farm to get him (unlike Halladay), so they can still build from within while buying the necessary pieces to win now.

If not Lee, another mid-rotation starter should be acquired. That remains the team's biggest need, and they don't need to give up too many prospects to fill it. Otherwise, the Yankees seem set for the stretch run. They shored up the bench by acquiring Hinske, and otherwise have no serious holes in their lineup or bullpen.

Meanwhile, GM Brian Cashman (and many other GMs) have indicated that July 31 will not be the real deadline. As with every season, trades can still be made for a month after the deadline, provided the players involved have cleared waivers.

However, in the current economic climate, more players will be likely to clear waivers, as teams won't be claiming heavy contract-laden players, no matter their star power. With another month to ponder their placement in the standings, teams will be able to make moves later on in the year this season.

And so, the Yankees may not make a big move by the first deadline. But as they progress, and the need(s) become more glaring, they should still be able to acquire someone helpful.

A Thought About Tiebreakers

Jersey — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:46:00 -0400

Entering today's game against the Baltimore Orioles, the New York Yankees hold a one-game lead over the Boston Red Sox for first place in the AL East. They've managed this feat despite losing all eight games they've played against Boston this season.

While no Yankees fan likes seeing them lose so often to their rivals, one has to take notice of the remarkable statement this makes regarding the rest of the league. Taking out mutual games, the Yankees are nine games better than the Red Sox. In other words, the Yankees are significantly better than the Red Sox against the rest of the league.

There's a lot more baseball to be played, and the Yankees will have more chances to defeat or be defeated by the Red Sox, but this post is not about gloating or predictions. It's an intriguing thought about tiebreakers.

One of baseball's most important tiebreakers is head-to-head match ups. When two teams are tied atop the division, the team that beat the other more times will get the nod.

But after noticing how much better the Yankees are than the Red Sox against the rest of the league, the head-to-head match up tiebreaker seems preposterous. While the Red Sox have bested the Yankees, the Yankees have been better against the rest of the league.

The head-to-head matchup actually reveals this: The team that LOST the mutual games actually fared better against everyone else.

When taking into account the division lead, which should be considered more defining: The team's record against one team, or the team's record against the league as a whole? By awarding the title to the head-to-head winner, one awards the title to the team that was actually worse against the remainder of the league.

I don't mean to propose a rule change or anything, but it's a thought. Yesterday, the Yankees and Red Sox were tied, but against all other teams, the Yankees were easily the better team. Yet Boston would have been named division champion had the season ended. It's an interesting paradox, at the very least.

Joba Chamberlain Will Stay In The Starting Rotation

Jersey — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:49:00 -0400

This topic is old as time, but it's never going to go away. Should Joba Chamberlain be in the starting rotation, or move back to the bullpen? This so-called controversy has raged since the day the Yankees announced Joba's move to the rotation, and it's still going strong over a year later.

Let's get this straight: this is only a controversy among the fans. Only the fans have any question about this, but the organization has never reconsidered. Seriously, it's not something on Joe Girardi or Brian Cashman's mind. Joba is a starter, and they're not even thinking about moving him back to the bullpen.

There's only one reason the fans even want this move. Joba was initially placed in the bullpen when he was called up, and he was dominant there. Since moving to the rotation, he's been simply good, and has exposed some flaws in his game.

But if Joba had been immediately inserted into the rotation, there would be no question about his role, even if he were to be shifted to the bullpen at some point. Want proof? There's a young man in the Yankees' pen named Phil Hughes. Tabbed as a future ace, Hughes has struggled as a starter, but has been simply unbelievable in the bullpen. But no one wants Hughes to stay in this role forever. In fact, after seeing how good he can be, many fans want to re-insert him into the rotation.

The problem is that Yankees fans never saw Joba as a starter. When he was first brought up, he was a reliever, so it seemed to be his natural role. Why mess with a good thing? Hughes, meanwhile, was brought up as a starter, and was only recently "demoted" to the bullpen, where he's regained his form.

But Joba was a starter, and a damn good one, in the minors. He was so good, in fact, that the Yankees felt the need to call him up despite lacking a rotation spot, and THAT is why he began his career in the bullpen. The idea that Joba is a natural reliever is ludicrous.

All young starters have growing pains. It's rare that a starter makes a smooth jump into the big leagues. Dare we forget that Joba is in his first full year as a starter? He's barely been given the cahnce to flex his muscles, and so many fans want him in the bullpen.

Truth be told, any good starter can be a great reliever. Randy Johnson came out of the bullpen in 2001 to win Game 7 of the World Series. But no one even thought for a second that he should be a reliever. In fact, as age caught up with Johnson, and he became less effective and more injury prone, no one suggested that he should move to the pen to preserve himself.

Know why? Because Randy Johnson is a starter! And you know who else is a starter? Joba Chamberlain.

Sure, he's slipped a little his past three starts, but today's start was an excellent performance against a first-place team. He's got a lot to learn, but he's extremely young, and has time to grow. His potential will be far better served as a starter than as a setup man.

The fact is, this is not even an issue for the Yankees, and it's pointless to discuss it further. Joba is a starter, and always has been. A stint in the bullpen to begin his major-league career isn't about to change that, just like it's not going to change Hughes' career track.

I know many people will throw stats my way, showing how much better Joba was in the bullpen than in the rotation. And again, I will point to Hughes' similarly-trending stats. I will also happily point out that Joba has not yet spent a full season as a starter, and it's silly to use such a small sample size to project a career.

Tim Lincecum wasn't brilliant when he first came up, but he figured it out quickly, and is now one of the best in the game. Give Joba some time, because whether you like it or not, the Yankees are giving Joba all the time in the world.

Shocker: New Jersey Devils Hire Jacques Lemaire

Jersey — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:33:00 -0400

After bringing back a ton of former Devils players last season, Lou Lamoriello is once again reaching for a blast from the past by hiring Jacques Lemaire as the team's new head coach.

Naturally, this move has shocked the entire sports world.

Actually, sarcasm aside, while Lemaire had been rumored to be getting the job at first, the prospect was called into question when Lou began taking his sweet time in hiring him; if the choice was so apparent, why wait?

But the speculation is over, and it's the guy we all thought it would be.

Naturally, this is going to provide for a great deal of debate among Devils fans. Like the rest of the offseason, this reeks of conservatism, as Lou goes for an old faithful candidate, rather than reaching out to bring in someone new (For the record, on the lack of offseason movement, I find it frustrating, but appreciate that Lou is not overpaying for undeserving players. I won't call the offseason a success, but Lou is navigating it smartly, and it's really the best we can do. The least of all evils, I guess.).

Devils fans will fall into one of a few camps.

Some will applaud the signing, noting Lemaire's track record, including his Stanley Cup with the Devils in 1995. Others will scream and cry that the team is taking a step back, giving up the progress they made under Brent Sutter. And still a third will continue to float out John MacLean's name, as he has once again been passed over as head coach.

Admittedly, I would have preferred a more Sutter-esque coach (minus the homesickness).

But who, exactly was out there?

There's Peter Laviollette, but while some Devils fan forums liked the guy, he was never a candidate for the job. There was John MacLean, but Lou has never given him a shot, and his stance hasn't changed.

Lemaire is, if nothing else, a safe choice.

He's a good, proven, successful head coach in the NHL, and has worked well with this franchise before. He also works very well with Brian Rolston, who clashed mightily with Sutter, and was actually happy to see him go. There is a very legitimate fear that the Devils will go back to the old ways of trapping, and that this method will not work in the "new" NHL. But he got some very good scoring out of Rolston and Marian Gaborik, so it's very possible that Lemaire has adapted to the new league, and will be fine.

As alluded to earlier, this move is similar to the other decisions made by Lou this offseason, and it is probably the least of all evils.

While Lemaire may not have been the most ideal choice, he was probably the best coach available. The Devils make the playoffs consistently, and Lemaire garners consistent success. The two will be a good match, but whether they are a great match is a different story altogether.

The big, but mostly overshadowed story here is MacLean, who was named the head coach of the Lowell Devils, while Mario Tremblay replaces him as an assistant coach. First of all, Tremblay is a very good assistant, so the move immediately helps the big-league club. But MacLean is also getting his first shot as a head coach, albeit on the minor-league level.

MacLean may very well be the best long-term option for the Devils, as he has been with the organization for a very long time, and not only knows the system, but has progressed with the team. He has plenty of NHL coaching experience, and will now get to show how he runs his own team.

Considering Lemaire's age, he may be a short-term option until someone better comes along.

And that someone better might very well be MacLean. When Lemaire's time is up in a few years, MacLean will finally get a very long look as a candidate to become the Devils' coach of the future.

Until then, Lou is looking for a safe, grizzled veteran to guide his roster, now full of young, unpredictable rookies. Lemaire will work very well with the current roster, and a new coach will be waiting in the wings to replace him.

Overall, it's very difficult to get excited over the hiring of Lemaire, but Lou wasn't looking for the most exciting coach, but the most effective. With Lemaire, the Devils will surely wind up in the same place they've landed for more than a decade: the playoffs.

Will they go further? That has yet to be seen.

I'm not crazy about Lemaire's age, as the team has had so many coaching changes since his initial departure, and long-term stability would be better. I also would have preferred to see a more Sutter-esque coach.

But Lemaire's defensive tendencies are overrated, and while his style is more defensive than Sutter's, he won't be going all the way back to the extreme defense of the neutral-zone trap. And if there has to be a coaching change in the near future, it will hopefully be a familiar, in-house candidate in MacLean.

Perhaps the biggest impact Lemaire will have will be on Rolston, who struggled under Sutter.

Sutter utterly misused Rolston, relegating him to the third and fourth lines, never allowing him to utilize his scoring ability. Lemaire has brought out the best in Rolston during their time together in Minnesota, and Rolston's return to prominence is imminent. The added scoring will be a huge boost in replacing Brian Gionta, who was lost to free agency.

Lemaire will be good for the Devils, and was probably the best available coach. But like the rest of this offseason, the sensible choice may not be the most dynamic.

In other news, The Devils have also hired longtime captain Scott Stevens as a special assignments coach.

The Devils' Offseason To Date

Jersey — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:51:00 -0400

I suppose it's high time I weighed in on the Devils utter lack of offseason action.

Aside from re-signing Johnny Oduya and Andy Greene and bringing in former draft pick Itkka Pikkarainen, the Devils have brought in exactly zero players (unless you count AHL center Ben Walter) and have watched four of their own find new homes.

Admittedly, it's frustrating. I've always been a big fan of Brian Gionta and would have loved to see him stay. John Madden has been a superb defensive forward for years, and despite his off year, would have been welcome back.

But those two players were let go for a reason. The other two players, Mike Rupp and Scott Clemmensen, were unlikely to return anyway and most Devils fans were happy to see Clemmensen earn his deserved paycheck and playing time elsewhere.

Madden wasn't brought back due to age and the presence of ready rookies. With Rod Pelley poised to make the team, Lou Lamoriello opted to let the old Madden walk and save some money.

I would not have been upset if Lamoriello had opted to match Chicago's offer to Madden. A one-year deal would certainly be worthwhile, as there is minimal risk. If he continues to show his age, he's gone after the year, but if he returns to form, it's a great investment.

But Lamoriello never made an offer to Madden, probably because he assumed Madden would draw a bigger deal. He was willing to let the guy walk and didn't even consider matching anybody's offer, as he felt it wouldn't be worthwhile anyway.

While I do think a one-year gamble on the longtime Devil would have made sense, it was not an option that crossed Lou's mind. I disagree with the move overall, but I understand it.

Still, I doubt the return of Madden would have satiated Devils fans. As stars moved all around the league, the return of an old third-line center would not be so appealing. Brian Gionta's return certainly would have made fans happy, but that didn't happen either.

But Gionta's dismissal is easily understandable. There was a mutual interest between the team and the player, but they disagreed about the money. After earning a $4 million-per-year contract following a 48 goal season, Gionta has never matched that output and has only reached a high of 25 goals since then.

Yet, Montreal was willing to spend $5 million a year over five years to attain him. For those not keeping score, that's a raise of $1 million a year over five seasons.

There was no way Lamoriello would have paid Gionta even the same salary after three years of 20-25 goals, let alone pay him even more. Especially when one considers that Brian Rolston is expected to replace Gionta on the second line, there was absolutely no reason for Lou to overpay to bring him back.

It hurts to see the shorty go, but he just isn't worth that kind of money. Montreal gave him a crazy offer, and Lou was smart for not matching it.

So the Devils lost two key players, but they were able to replace them, right? Not quite. Stars like Marian Hossa and Gaborik joined new teams, but the Devils stood pat. The loss of players, and lack of new players, only made Devils fans even more restless.

It's definitely frustrating to watch other teams bring in big names, but after a closer look, it appears the Devils have been very wise about it. The players shuffling around have signed for ludicrous amounts of money, price tags that will only serve to hamper teams in the future.

The Rangers, after unloading Scott Gomez's awful contract, signed Marian Gaborik to an even worse one. For the next five years, the Rangers will be paying $7.5 million to a guy who played all of 17 games last season, has never played a complete season, and has reached 70 games only once in the past five years.

A player with his talent certainly deserves the big paycheck, but when one considers how much time he spends off the ice, it becomes apparent that this was a terrible move.

The Canadiens took on Gomez's horrible contract, and then overpaid significantly to bring in his former linemate, Gionta. It was clear they wanted to reunite the two and hope to bring back the magic, but at what cost?

There's no guarantee whatsoever that they'll perform at an elite level, especially since Gionta has only done it once in his career. The season after the 48-goal outburst, Gionta was still playing alongside Gomez, but fell far short of the previous season's stats.

The Canadiens took on two long, bad contracts with no guarantee of results. Meanwhile, thanks to the new players, the Candiens have let go of Alexei Kovalev and longtime captain Saku Koivu.

The Blackhawks have taken on a lot of new players, and are now over the cap, despite not having signed Calder Trophy candidate Kris Versteeg. For all their moves, they're extremely cap-strapped, and will lose a significant young player in the process.

Meanwhile, the Devils will remain well under the cap, and will replace their losses with a youth movement. This strategy has worked well for the Devils in the past, but that's no guarantee it will work now.

But Lamoriello doesn't only have this year to consider. The NHL will play again next season, and the salary cap is expected to drop significantly. With so many teams so close to the cap, many tough decisions will have to be made, and bad contracts will do severe damage to many teams. Lamoriello will have none of that.

It's an interesting strategy, and I think Lamoriello is making the right decision. While it's frustrating to watch players leave and none come in, it would be downright awful to be trapped under bad contracts. So many teams have, and will have, this trouble, and the Devils won't. That's a good thing.

And it's not like they've sat back and lazily watched everyone move. They've looked at players who they felt would be affordable, only to see them sign elsewhere.

Scott Niedermayer was pursued by his former team, but he re-upped with the Ducks without any hesitation. Saku Koivu was also recruited, but he ultimately also signed with the Ducks.

While Koivu's one-year, $3.25 million deal looks so attainable from a Devils' fan's standpoint, keep in mind that this probably wasn't available to the Devils. Koivu was offered more money to play in Chicago, but turned it down because he wasn't offered a fourth year.

He's taking a pay cut and a short contract to play where he thinks he can win NOW, like Karl Malone and Gary Payton did with the Lakers. He also wanted to play with Teemu Selanne, who is retiring after the year.

The Devils would have had to do better than the Blackhawks to bring him in, and that wasn't happening, especially since Koivu is 34 years old.

There are still free agents available and I'm sure a move will be made. Perhaps Derek Morris can be had for very cheap now. He'd be a top-four defenseman on this team.

And while Jason Williams isn't an ideal player, he could be an affordable option at center. Lou could supplement his roster with cheap players that would improve the team without costing it too much, and it would be the best way to go.

I think the Madden move was a mistake, I wish we could have brought back Gionta, and if Koivu could have been acquired for that kind of contract, we should have taken him.

But overall, the offseason has been an odd success for the Devils, even if the results won't be seen until later.

Lou Lamoriello's Hectic Day: June 23, 2009

Jersey — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:08:00 -0400

There were two big stories in the NHL yesterday, and both involved Devils GM Lou Lamoriello.

The first was the announcement of Brent Sutter as coach of the Calgary Flames. There's already been plenty of discussion about that story from Sutter's point of view. But Lamoriello was involved as well—he was the one that gave the Flames permission to speak to Sutter in the first place.

Originally, many fans (myself included) demanded compensation. The coach was still under contract, and Lou had no reason to be nice and give him away. But no compensation was given, and now many fans are calling for Lou's head.

Unfortunately, what those fans don't realize is that Lou couldn't ask for compensation. Those are the rules of the NHL. It may not seem to make sense, but that's how it is. And believe me, Lou would have asked for compensation if he could. A direct quote from Lou:

"You know once you give consent, because of the new rules in the NHL there is no recourse and no compensation. I certainly believe there should be compensation in situations like this for all the obvious reasons, but there isn't. That's a league rule and you accept it."

The fact of the matter is that Lou is trying to sign a coach as well, and needs to ask permission from other teams to talk with potential candidates. To deny the Flames permission and then ask the same of other teams would be hypocritical.

In addition, Lou had no reason to burn a bridge with Flames GM Darryl Sutter, with whom he may have to make a future trade.

The second news story surrounding Lou was the announcement that he'd been voted into the Hockey Hall of Fame. This honor is extremely well deserved, and I extend my mazel tov to Lou. He's been one of the best GMs in sports for a very long time.

Wrapping Up The Brent Sutter Ordeal

Jersey — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:57:00 -0400

Well, we know the whole story now. Brent Sutter is in Calgary, and the Devils won't be receiving anything in return.

There is (and always will be) speculation that there was collusion.

Brent's brother Darryl is the Flames' GM, and it's silly to think they hadn't discussed this even while Brent remained head coach. Even if they didn't technically directly speak to each other about it, they surely beat around the bush to "legally" discuss the matter.

But no matter what it looks like, and no matter what we believe, we'll never be able to prove anything, so the point is moot.

However, there are some very interesting details about this entire situation, details that really don't make Brent Sutter appear like a stand-up individual.

Darryl plainly stated that he'd asked Lou Lamoriello for permission to speak to his brother on June 12th. For those keeping track at home, that's three days after Brent resigned. That's a very, very fast turnaround.

Say what you will about Calgary's proximity to Brent's home in Red Deer, and whether or not he'd have ultimately decided to coach in Calgary, but you'd think Brent would at least take a little longer to think about it.

Three days? That's all it took to pull him back into the coaching world? Doesn't seem like Brent needed much time to think about it.

Keep in mind that the Devils' season ended on April 28th. It took Brent over 40 days to consider his resignation, but only three to jump back in. His deliberation reached a relatively quick end when Mike Keenan was fired on May 23rd.

The dates just don't add up. He took a very long time to decide about his future (understandable, even though it put the Devils in a very difficult position right before the draft and free agency), then reconsidered only three days later.

I know, Calgary is only 90 miles outside of Red Deer, and he's closer to his family. But he's still spending a tremendous amount of time away from them. Three days is awfully fast to make a decision.

Incidentally, as just mentioned, Calgary is 90 miles away from Red Deer. That's not exactly the same city. I know it's closer than New Jersey, but it's not as if he's going to have much time to spend with his family and his ranch.

There are still 41 road games to be played, and he won't be making the 90-mile drive through the Canadian winter before and after every home game. And even if he would, that still doesn't leave so much time for his family, and certainly not his ranch.

Being a hockey coach is a full time job. In fact, when Sutter resigned, he said he'd just had "he first decent night’s sleep... in seven weeks." How many "decent night's sleep" does he think he'll have as coach of another NHL franchise? Are the beds that much more comfortable in Canada?

He also won't be able to micromanage his minor-league team (the Rebels) in Red Deer. This was supposedly a big factor in his resignation, as the team had missed the playoffs both years that he was in New Jersey.

But, to re-hash, being an NHL coach is a full-time job. When, exactly, does Brent intend to run his team?

Here is an exact quote from the day Sutter stepped down:

"I'm getting back to my life here as far as being in the office on a daily basis here with the Rebels and working between there and the ranch and spending some time with my family. I'm getting back to my life here that I've neglected somewhat over the last couple of years."

It's too bad he gave up those luxuries just three days later. It's astonishing how quickly he was willing to give up this life he supposedly desired.

It's even more astonishing that he backed out of his contract to do this. It's understandable that he'd want to coach near his family so he could see them more often, and it's understandable that he'd want to play for his brother. But, he was under contract with the Devils.

Had he done what he said he would, and gone back home full-time, that's one thing. He's still backing out of a contract, but at least it's for a legitimate reason.

But instead, he's backing out of a contract simply to coach for another team. Sure, he can spend SOME more time with his family. But is it enough to warrant backing out of a contract?

Another Sutter quote:

"When it involves family and it involves personal things around your life that you thrown everything into and then ultimately you have to make a decision on something, it might not be the right decision for some people and that's fine, that's always out there."

"Yet, I don't at all look at it like I'm quitting on anything. I threw two years of my life (into it) and made a big commitment 3,000 miles away from where my life was and tried to do everything I possibly could to try to accomplish a goal there that we wanted to accomplish. But, by me doing that, my life has suffered in other areas and those areas to me are bigger than the game."

Sutter claimed he wasn't quitting because he put two years into his job. Unfortunately for him, he signed a three-year deal.

So by backing out of the deal, he is, in fact, quitting. If the Devils play two periods of a hockey game, what exactly do you call it?

But more importantly, Sutter once again cites his family as the reason for his resignation.

If he's so adamant about his family to the extent that he has to back out of a contract, he should be spending time with them on a daily basis. Not when he finds time for them during a homestand.

Stan Fischler cites Steve Mcfarlane as saying:

"Brent Sutter's character will be brought into question. Not just by New Jersey Devils fans, either. Rarely does someone who fails to honor the full length of a contract, then sign up for the same job with another employer, avoid a few stares of disgust. Even if that new employer happens to be your brother."

McFarlane's comments are dead-on. The man backed out of his contract, only to turn around and accept the same job elsewhere.

Had he waited just one year to be a free agent, he would have been justified in joining his brother.

Scott Niedermayer never demanded a trade to play alongside brother Rob, but waited until he was a free agent to sign with Anaheim. Couldn't Sutter have done the same?

The fact is, he backed out of a deal, and only three days later came out of his temporary retirement.

Was there collusion? We can speculate to no end, but we'll never know for sure.

However, we do know that Sutter said he was going home for family reasons, yet he's forfeiting most of his time with them to coach for another team. And we know that he began reconsidering just three days after his resignation. There is no excuse for that kind of behavior.

On the day he stepped down, Sutter said “There’s been all this talk about Calgary, for so long, but Darryl and I have had no discussion about that (the Flames’ coaching job). This decision I’m making now has zero to do with the Calgary Flames’ situation.”

Yet merely three days later, he began negotiations for the very job he'd dismissed. we now know his words mirror his initials: BS.

For more articles on this topic, please see:

Scott Burnside (ESPN)
Stan Fischler (MaxHockey)
Tom Gulitti (Fire and Ice)

The Brent Sutter Saga: One Day Later

Jersey — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:10:00 -0400

Yesterday, it was announced that Brent Sutter was close to a deal that would have him working for his brother, Darryl, as coach of the Calgary Flames. This report has sparked a great deal of discussion among Devils fans, as many questions have been flying around.

On the one hand, there have been questions about how this may or may not affect the Devils: Sutter is still under contract with the Devils, so how could Calgary even talk to him?

Did Lou Lamoriello grant them permission? Did he ask for compensation? Could we be dealing with a tampering situation?

On the other, there have been questions about what this means for Brent Sutter: Does this set a new precedent that coaches can just back out of contracts to join other teams?

Did he flat-out lie when he said he wanted to go home to his family just a few weeks ago? Was he discussing the situation with his brother (despite denying it was ever an issue) while still under contract with the Devils?

Simply put, Sutter comes out of this looking like a complete jerk, and the major questions surround how he even legally got to Calgary in the first place.

Unfortunately, not many details have surface. All we have is the original report from TSN (which was followed up by every major sports outlet in the nation), which simply states that this is going down.

So how did he wind up there? Well, the report says that they must have received permission from the Devils, or this wouldn't have even happened. But that does not mean they actually got it; it just seems that way.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, and I'm not about to accuse the Flames of collusion, but I do find it hard to believe that Lamoriello would just let Sutter go. It would be a tremendous slap in the face to the Devils, and Lou would not let that happen.

And regardless of the situation, Lou is known for finagling every penny and getting what he can from every asset. He wouldn't give the man up for free.

But one day later, there have been no details. We don't know what the Flames gave up to speak to Sutter, and we don't know if they spoke to him illegally before receiving permission.

The only wrinkle in the story is that the official announcement has been pushed off until Tuesday, when it was originally thought to come as early as Sunday. Could there have been a hang-up involving the coach's former team?

Interestingly, there has been no comment from the Flames to this point, and Lamoriello only recently broke his silence, saying a very loud "no comment." With such a tricky situation, you'd think the teams would be more vocal. We have no news from either side, just the original report that lacked any actual quotes.

But Lou's no-comment is a big deal. Had he just given the Flames permission, he would have just said that outright.

Instead, Lou is waiting to comment until after the deal is made official. What does this mean?

Did the Devils work out a compensation package? Lou is known to be tight-lipped on potential deals. Or perhaps he's waiting until after the announcement to file tampering charges.

This is all speculation, and we won't know anything until after tomorrow's press conference. But no matter the case, Sutter looks like a hypocrite.

He backed out of his contract, saying "I'm not a quitter," and ran home to his family and minor-league hockey team...only to return to the NHL moments later. This is a very fast turnaround that SCREAMS collusion, and at the very least shows where Sutter's intention truly lie.

He's not going to be able to micromanage his minor-league team, and he won't be spending much time with his family, despite Calgary's relative proximity to his home in Red Deer. The turnaround was extremely fast, too, faster than it took him to decide to resign in the first place. Sutter's initials (BS) seem to contain a double entendre.

Tom Gulitti is on vacation, and has yet to report on this, saying he'd just be regurgitating TSN's original report. But there are plenty of comments about the sitch on his blog, and you can follow that discussion here.

Brent Sutter to the Calgary Flames?

Jersey — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:08:00 -0400

Well, here's your big news of the day.

For those too lazy to click on the link, Brent Sutter is close to signing a deal to coach the Calgary Flames.

To many, this comes as no surprise. The Calgary job opened, Sutter stepped down, and that cleared the way for him to coach for his brother, Flames GM Darryl Sutter.

But this is a surprise to me. I mean, I wouldn't put anything past Brent Sutter. He backed out of a contract, so how much can he be trusted? I'm surprised that they've managed to legally put a deal together.

Brent remains under contract with the Devils for next season. The only way the Flames could talk to him would be if the Devils gave them permission, and I'd be stunned if Lou Lamoriello would let them do that.

This is a guy who backed down from the team because he was homesick. I don't think Lamoriello would be stupid enough to just let him walk away to coach someone else. If he can't coach the Devils because he can't coach, he can't coach the Flames for the same reason.

Details will surely ensue over the coming days. I fully expect the Devils to get generous compensation. This is a coach who led the team to the playoffs the past two years, and this year they won the division despite losing Martin Brodeur for 50 games. He's not getting away cheaply.

The next time the Flames come to Jersey, I expect Sutter to be booed out of the building.

Joe Maddon's Latest Head-Scratching Decision

Jersey — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 02:11:07 -0400

Today, the AL and NL All-Star coaching staffs were announced.

NL manager Charlie Manuel of the Phillies took Tony LaRussa and Joe Torre, two deserving candidates. Both have been around a very long time, and both are enjoying success with their current teams. Torre's Dodgers have the best record in baseball despite losing Manny Ramirez, while LaRussa's Cardinals are second in the NL Central. Plus, since the game will be played in St. Louis, LaRussa was an obvious choice.

And then there's Joe Maddon. Clueless Joe selected two managers from absolutely wonderful teams: Kansas City's Trey Hillman and Seattle's Don Wakamatsu.

You read that right.

Trey Hillman, of the Kansas City Royals...the fourth-worst team in the American League.

Don Wakamatsu, of the Seattle Mariners...second-to-last in the AL West.

Neither manager's team is above .500. For that matter, Maddon's Team Sunshine is a mere three games above that mark.

Maddon should look at his own division before making such decisions. His team is in fourth place, and there are three teams ahead of him with deserving managers.

Cito Gaston has done an excellent job since taking over the Blue Jays last year, and of all AL managers, he's the first I would have chosen. Joe Girardi's Yankees are enjoying a bounce-back season despite missing cleanup hitter Alex Rodriguez for the first six weeks of the year. And I hate to mention Terry Francona, but the Red Sox do have the best record in the AL.

How about Jim Leyland? The Tigers are surprisingly leading the AL Central after last year's debacle. The Texas Rangers are enjoying relevancy for the first time in a very long time, leading the AL West. Surely Ron Washington deserves some credit. Even Mike Scioscia would be a better choice. His Angels may trail the Rangers, but they're still having a decent season, and Scioscia is at least a respected manager.

And all the teams listed have better records than the Rays, not to mention the Royals and Mariners. Hillman and Wakamatsu have never been to the All Star game before. Big surprise there. What, exactly, was Maddon smoking?

(For the record, my picks would have been Gaston and Washington.)

Who Can New Jersey Trade To Get Dany Heatley?

Jersey — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:55:00 -0400

This offseason, the New Jersey Devils have two primary objectives (potential returning players notwithstanding): sign a second-line center and a top-four defenseman.

But the Devils' second-line center may already be with the team. I'm speaking, of course, about two players in particular who are not actually centers, but have played the position before: Patrik Elias and Brian Rolston.

I envision these two players sharing a line next season. Rolston has already lamented not getting to play on a top line last year, and to shove him onto the third line again would be a waste of his large contract. Brian Gionta's free agency provides the Devils an opening on the second line for Rolston to play right wing, and I believe that's exactly what will happen.

However, I had assumed that his wingmate would be Elias, but the Dany Heatley drama in Ottawa is heating up, and I think the Devils should listen.

After Heatley requested a trade, the Senators have now said they'd be willing to acquiesce with the left winger's wishes. The Devils should see if they can pursue a deal for Heatley, even if that means shifting Elias into the center position.

Do I think a trade for Heatley is likely? No and I'd like to make that clear from the start. The Devils may or may not have the pieces needed to acquire the elite scorer, and I don't even know what Ottawa is looking for in return. We likely won't know until a trade rumor surfaces. But the Devils should inquire as to what it would take to get him.

Would the Senators be interested in a defensive forward like Jay Pandolfo? Would they want the rights to upcoming free agents, such as Gionta or Scott Clemmensen, who remain property of the Devils until July 1?

The Sens could then have the best shot at negotiating with the players before they hit the market, and at the very least, if they do test free agency, the team would be shedding Heatley's enormous salary.

The Devils, by the way, would be taking a tremendous hit payroll-wise, but it would be worth it. They'd likely have to let Gionta and John Madden walk, but they'd be getting a two-time 50-goal scorer in return.

Like I said, I don't see this happening, but you never know. Even if New Jersey doesn't walk away with Heatley, I feel they should still make an effort to acquire him.

You never know what it might take.

Yankees Activate Brian Bruney, Designate Jose Veras For Assignment

Jersey — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:46:00 -0400

Brian Bruney is back! But don't celebrate, or he'll get angry. And you won't like him when he's angry.

But the part I don't like about this story is that the Yankees designated Jose Veras for assignment to make room for Bruney.

Yankees announcers Michael Kay and John Flaherty expressed their concern over the move, noting the team will lose Veras, who throws hard and showed some great stuff last year. But ultimately, they were okay with it, stating that the bullpen is better than it was yesterday.

I agree with both sides of this argument. The bullpen improves, as Bruney is better than Veras, but the team will lose the guy and not get anything back in return. But unlike the announcers, I am not okay with this decision.

Why? Because of Brett Tomko.

Look, Veras has been bad. His ERA is just a tad under six, and his WHIP is at 1.4. But at least he was solid last year, and has age on his side. Tomko is eight years older and has been worse than Veras. His ERA is better, but not much, and a 5.56 ERA isn't anything to cheer about. His WHIP is higher than Veras' at about 1.6. Their BB/9 are equally horrific, but Veras strikes out a batter and a half more per nine innings.

This isn't a huge deal. I mean, Veras sucked too. I just don't get why he was cut ahead of Tomko. Joe Girardi seems to have a strange system for rating people. Like when he starts Chien-Ming Wang ahead of Phil Hughes or when he benches Nick Swisher in favor of Hideki Matsui.

Indians-Royals: Birds Attack Cleveland Again

Jersey — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 01:46:00 -0400

The Cleveland Indians defeated the Kansas City Royals last night in dramatic fashion, with Shin-Soo Choo hitting a walk-off RBI single in the 10th inning.

But his single ricocheted off a seagull, one of many that had flocked to the field. The Royals outfielder couldn't field the ball either, thanks to the multitude of birds.

This isn't the first time seagulls have crashed the party in Cleveland, and need I mention the midges again?

MLB should step in and force the Indians to control this situation. I don't know how they'd do it, but it needs to stop.

I know, both teams have to play on the same field, so it's all "fair." But seagulls aren't part of baseball, and this only happens in Cleveland.

(I know there have been isolated instances in the past, but the wildlife in Cleveland is becoming a constant issue.)