Bleacher Report - Articles by Mike Merrill

Why Should I Care About Alex Rodriguez?

Mike Merrill — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:56:49 -0500

Really, why should I care?

Breaking news! A superstar baseball player took an illegal performance enhancing substance from the period of 1995-2005. In other news, Brett Favre has retired and the sun rises in the east.

Give me a break. Why would we not think he was on the juice? He's hit 35 or more home runs every year, except one, since 1996. It's come to the point that I assume every player who has stepped to the plate since Jose Canseco came into the league has been on something at some point or another. Done. Once you come to grips with that, none of this news is shocking.

What about the Hall of Fame? Should they be inducted? Absolutely. However, there should be a disclaimer that the players during that era may or may not have been pumping themselves full of super juice so they would be injured less, get more bat speed, recover faster from injuries, throw harder, and play longer. We can't pick and choose here. If you condemn Mark McGwire, they you condemn all players from the era. Without positive tests, it's all speculation.

Onto the apology. Overall it's crap. Alex Rodriguez claims the truth will set you free. Well, yeah, especially once you get caught telling lies. There would have been no apology had he not been caught. Also, he claims he was "young and naive". Was he young and naive when he lied to Katie Couric 1.5 years ago in a national interview with her?

Now, let's give A-Rod more credit than Roger Clemens, who used the "I believe I've earned your trust" line when he was caught red-handed. Given the choice, I'd rather players handle it the way A-Rod handled it, but it's not much better.

I'm so tired of this stuff. Baseball is healthier than ever so it's clear everyone else is tired of this stuff too.

Do you think it's a coincidence this is all happening right after the Super Bowl ended and two weeks before MLB spring training starts? Just sayin'.

The Detroit Lions Don't Deserve To Play on Thanksgiving

Mike Merrill — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 02:08:50 -0500

Tomorrow's holiday is a time for thanks.

Thanks for all that we are blessed with each year. Thanks for good times with family and friends. Thanks for that great date you went on last week and the fact that you actually got a call back this time. Thanks for the delicious wings you ate at the sports bar last night. Finally, in our family a thanks for good football.

That being said, I have one question:

Why do we have to watch the Detroit Lions every year?

First of all, when is the last time the Lions were relevant to anything? They lost to the Redskins in the playoffs in 1999, and since then have not sniffed the month of January. After posting a 9-7 record the year after that, they have not been over .500. Furthermore, they are seriously looking at posting the first ever 0-16 season in the NFL's history.

Secondly, the NFL has implemented a "flex game" system. Why can't this be used for Thanksgiving?

Instead of seeing a relevant game like the Giants v. Redskins we have to watch the Titans beat the bejesus out of the poor Lions. No thanks, I'll be napping on the couch at that time.

Can't we punish the Lions for completely ruining their franchise over the last 10 years and take this game away. The Motor City saw the playoffs six times in the 90s. Then came Matt Millen and the "let's draft some wide receivers" strategy.

I can't believe that failed, everyone says you build a football team from the split-ends in.

The franchise is a joke and has been for years. So much so that when their QB actually shows confidence/hope and says they will win 10 games one year, he is buried like Jimmy Hoffa by the media.

How does the NFL respond? By putting them in one of the biggest football spotlights of the year, on national television during Thanksgiving dinner.

"Ladies and Gentlemen the NFL is proud to present the Detroit Lions." (The voice echoes over the loudspeaker and there are about seven fans clapping in the front row. It's RB Kevin Smith's family.)

Thank you NFL for this wonderful gift.

MLB 2008 Preview: The AL West

Mike Merrill — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:48:30 -0400

We start our preview of the anointed American League out west. It looks to be the easiest race to call. Long gone are the days when two American League teams came from here and back are the days of east coast dominance.

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim - Sure the name is stupid and a pain in the tookus to say, but they are the favorite by default here. The Disney-owned club has more wins than any other AL team outside of New York and Boston in the last 5 years. They've turned into a solid ballclub as their divisional rivals have begun rebuilding. The addition of Jon Garland is already proving to be huge with injuries to John Lackey and Kelvim Escobar, both likely out until mid-May. Finally, Torii Hunter joins the powerful outfield in Anaheim to try and add some more runs this year. (97-65)
Seattle Mariners - The M's surprised some folks in 2007 with 88 wins even though they scored fewer total runs on the season than they allowed. They had some major offseason additions in their rotation with Erik Bedard and Carlos Silva, while losing Jeff Weaver and Horacio Ramirez. That's two big upgrades. Also, the solid Jose Vidro comes to town to bat DH, where he may be able to stay healthy. I don't see 88 wins coming out of Seattle this year, but they'll be close. (84-78)
Oakland Athletics - The tightest race in this division will be the battle for the cellar. The A's have been going in the wrong direction for the last year and a half and may hit rock bottom in 2008. Gone are Barry Zito, Tim Hudson, Frank Thomas, Jason Kendall, Milton Bradley, Esteban Loaiza, Nick Swisher, and Dan Haren and in comes Kurt Suzuki, Daric Barton, Mark Ellis, Travis Buck, and Chris Denorfia. Isn't that the guy from Family Ties? It's gone real bad if fans in Oakland are waiting for football season. (68-94)
Texas Rangers - See everything I said about Oakland. Apply it to the Rangers and just change the names of new guys to Ben Broussard, Jarrod Saltalamacchia, and such. Not only does there offense now stink, but the guy who was second on the team in wins last year was Joaquin Benoit, a reliever. Look for a heated battle for the bottom out west this year in Arlington. (67-85)

Baseball Preview: NL West Predictions

Mike Merrill — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:44:39 -0400

Five days from opening day and I know you're fiending for some predictions. We're gonna start out West and work our way East.

First, the ever-so-pure National League.

No division was tighter in Major League Baseball than the NL West with the upstart Arizona Diamondbacks, the steady San Diego Padres, and the surging Colorado Rockies.

The Rockies won 21 of 22 games to get themselves to the World Series last year. But can that continue?

Los Angeles Dodgers (87-75)

Two words: Joe effin' Torre. Sure, the Dodgers have won just a single playoff game since '88, but they didn't have Torre.

Brad Penny and Derek Lowe provide solid starts for their pitching staff and the addition of Andruw Jones will really help them in the power department.

They missed the playoffs by two games last year, but Joe Torre and some extra power will give them at least that much of a boost.

Arizona Diamondbacks (85-77)

Who are these guys? That's the question I had while watching them in the playoffs last year.

With the exception of Brandon Webb, there was no star power there at all. Now, this young team is one year older and plus one Dan Haren.

Look for Eric Byrnes, Stephen Drew, and Justin Upton to step it up this year for a wild card run.

Colorado Rockies (80-82)

Another young, exciting team. I don't think 21 of 22 is in the cards for them this year. Without that last year, they finish third in the division.

This team's headed in the right direction with lots of young talent, but they aren't quite there yet. Look out for the Rockies in 2009.

San Diego Padres (65-97)

Boring. Is there anything to be excited about with the Padres? Whooo Tad Iguchi!

Arguably, the worst offensive team in baseball, it's a good thing they are in San Diego for attendance's sake. Their pitching is okay, though Greg Maddux is becoming more fragile by the day, but it's not enough to make up for their minor league bats.

Thank goodness for the Chargers.

San Francisco Giants (55-106)

They just stink. When losing Pedro Feliz is a big blow to your team, you have major problems. Time to rebuild.

Coming soon...predictions for NL Central.

NCAA Tournament Time: Choosing a Real Champion

Mike Merrill — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 05:39:05 -0400

It's NCAA tournament time so get your brackets ready. March is a month of beauty for NCAA basketball, when they show their football counterparts how to choose a true champion.

First of all, who wants to see a battle between the calculated two best teams in the country when you could see a finale between any two of the 65 teams voted on subjectively by a committee?

I can't wait for that Bucknell/Drake championship.

Who wants to argue about 10 BCS teams when you can argue about 65 tournament teams? Of course the fourth place team in the ACC deserves a shot at the title! My god, at least they weren't fifth.

Who wants to see a match-up between equally talented teams when I can see Kansas beat down American University repeatedly with an infield rake? Oh how I love those 120-67 games that help us determine a true champion.

Why would you want a regular season that means anything when you could just have half the teams enter a big free-for-all at the end of the year to determine a champion?

I propose a 256 team championship tournament. Maybe we could bring in the NIT teams, Division II, Division III, Canada, Europe, High Schools and the Globetrotters for one big battle royal!

Your office bracket would take up the entire white board, it would be epic.

I love the idea of a team like Wofford coming into the tournament at 14-16 after winning their conference tournament, shooting 75% from 3-point land for six games and being crowned the best team in the nation. If you can't have a champion who just happens to be the hottest mediocre team at the time, you're system is as flawed as Eliot Spitzer's marriage (too soon?).

In case you're wondering, I'm being a bit facetious. I do like the NCAA Basketball tournament. I just think no system is without its flaws.

Brett Favre: An Impossible Act to Follow

Mike Merrill — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:56:22 -0500

Brett Favre announced his retirement from the Green Bay Packers and from professional football today. While we may not miss John Madden dribbling all over his tie as he says the words "the thing about Brett Favre is..." about 400 times, we will all miss a hero.

Whether we're Packers fans or not, we loved watching Brett play. Whether he was throwing side-armed ill-advised throws over the middle or sprinting to the end-zone to jump into his receiver's arms after taking that pass for six, he made us smile. We smiled because he loved the game as much as we did and it made us think "If I played QB, that's what I'd do".

Enter Aaron Rodgers, the 24th pick of the 2005 draft and heir to "Throne de Favre." Coming into the 2008 season, he carries a 73.3 rating, 329 career passing yards, one TD, and one interception (Favre: 85.7 rating, 61,655 yds, 442 TD's, 288 int's).

Is there any way this poor sap can succeed? If you look at recent history of Hall of Fame caliber QB's and what happens to their franchise when they leave, it almost always takes eight to nine years for that franchise to find another winner under center. That's a decade of craptastic to mediocre football.

Let's look at previous follow-ups to Hall of Fame signal callers.

Joe Montana to Steve Young: OK. This one seemed to work out alright. Bad example. In my defense, Steve Young did have six years of QB under his belt, including two solid years with the ugly orange Bucs. Let's concede this one.

Dan Marino to Jay Fiedler: Marino had about every record ever set at QB and in came Fiedler. Jay never had more than 20 TD's in a season and was pretty much gone in four years. The Dolphins still haven't recovered.

Roger Staubach to Danny White: It took the Cowboys nine years to find Troy Aikman.

Troy Aikman to Randal Cunningham/Quincy Carter/Chad Hutchinson: Enough said. Finally Tony Romo is showing promise about eight years later.

John Elway to Brian Griese: Griese was OK, but fizzled out in four years like Fiedler. After Elway, Denver didn't want OK, they wanted Ole' Bucktooth back. Then came Jake Plummer and now Jay Cutler about eight years later. Maybe he's the answer.

Phil Simms to Dave Brown: Simms won two Super Bowls, Brown never threw more than 12 TD's in one season. Guess you have to expect that from a QB out of Duke though, right? The Giants were hurting for a while until Kerry Collins brought them to a Super Bowl seven years later.

Just when the young Packers were turning the corner...

Steroids in Sports: Are We That Naïve?

Mike Merrill — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:59:15 -0500

Throughout the whole sports world where steroids and Human Growth Hormone (aka stuff) have an impact, doesn't it seem like baseball players would gain the smallest advantage?

Considering the physical nature of the NBA, NFL, and NHL, Major League Baseball should be the least of our worries.

Stronger, faster, quicker recovery; these are the reasons for doing it in the first place. Baseball really doesn't benefit as much from these advantages as does football or hockey.

Now, don't go calling me a "hater". Fact is, baseball is probably my favorite sport and will always be. But, the fact remains that it isn't nearly as physically taxing as hockey, basketball, or football. This is where the "stuff" really comes in handy.

Do we really think this "stuff" is not going on in the NFL? Just like baseball, star players have been caught and suspended (i.e. Shawne Merriman and Rodney Harrison). The difference is, where Merriman makes the Pro-Bowl, Rafael Palmeiro's career is ended.

Or we say, "that's just the kind of guy Rodney Harrison is," where Mark McGwire is the butt of every Popeye/steroid joke out there and is still quoted today, "I'm not here to talk about the past..." Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Why is baseball the poster-child for steroids?

The obvious answer is the numbers. Everyone knows, every record, ever set in baseball and we hate to see our heroes' records broken. I don't want to see Barry Bonds break Hank Aaron's record or Mark McGwire hit 70 home runs. The difference is, no one cares as much about records in football or any of the other sports.

Also, baseball is more of an individual sport so, that "trying to help the team win" subconscious feeling isn't really there. Also, it's easier to single out players who are breaking the rules.

Try to remember what some of the current NFL players looked like early in their college years, minus 30 pounds of muscle. Do you really think that is natural? These guys look like cartoon characters that should be wearing capes. Lavar Arrington is a house for Pete's sake!

Once everyone is done with baseball, the NFL had better watch out.

Of course, in the end there is one more glaring question. Who is the real loser in this steroid era?