Bleacher Report - Articles by BHL

Mark It down: Damon Amendolara Declares Joey Galloway "Not Good"

BHL — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:59:19 -0400

Three weeks of any NFL season is a short period of time. The NFL season can certainly be divided into fourths, and each quarter of the season can have its own distinct identity.

A given team can appear dominant and Super Bowl worthy in a season's first quarter and proceed to do an about face and stink up the joint in the remaining three quarters.

The same can be said for a given player. Small subsets of time in the NFL season can appear vastly different in terms of a player's performance. With that said, assessments of a player's worth to a given team, however low that value may proceed to become, are hard, if not foolish, to make based on three football games.

Especially the first three football games of a new season.

Not so for 98.5 The Sports Hub's Damon Amendolara. On his nightly show this past Monday night, Amendolara (or "D.A." as he is commonly referred to) declared Joey Galloway's season complete.

D.A. went on many negativity-induced tangents throughout the evening where he stated that Galloway "has been a work in progress all season long" and is "not good anymore."

"All season long." So three games is an eternity in this day and age? D.A. also stated that the season was "a month old." It was a rainy Monday night and the Red Sox's season is virtually meaningless until playoff time, so D.A. apparently was in need of something to discuss.

Joey Galloway was that topic last night, and exaggerating how far into the NFL season we are was D.A.'s mechanism for attacking Mr. Galloway.

Thus far, Galloway has not produced. D.A. is correct in his observation of this fact. With that said, I won't go as far as some of the callers from Monday night's show and say that Galloway will be a "stud" wideout, nor will I even say he'll be a significant contributor to the offense.

What I will say is that it's far too early to judge Galloway and his ability to be a part of the New England Patriot offense. Give the man time. There is no need for premature negativity-filled tirades on the radio.

Other receivers such as Jabar Gaffney typically didn't contribute until the late weeks of each season. The same could happen with Galloway. As Tom Brady has said time and time again, this is a complicated offense and it takes time for the receiver and quarterback relationship to mature.

In no way is this article's purpose to state that Galloway is or will become a great receiver again in his career. D.A. could be correct and Galloway could be another Reche Caldwell (although to be fair, Galloway's expected role in the offense was never close to what Caldwell's was).

The purpose of this article is to document D.A.'s clear cut proclamation on Sept. 28 that Joey Galloway is finished, and this author's opinion that D.A.'s proclamation was extremely and potentially embarrassingly premature.

At season's end, should Galloway be a true bust, a phone call or two to pat D.A. on the back is warranted. I, for one, would like to think D.A. will be wrong on this one.

Should Galloway proceed to "get it" and begin contributing in some fashion, I am calling on Patriot fans to barrage D.A.'s evening radio show with call outs of his premature conclusions related to Joey Galloway.

Laugh at D.A.'s expense. Label him as arrogant. It will be warranted due to how confident he was on the radio last evening with regard to Galloway's career being finished.

More than likely, Joey Galloway will be OK, but not awful and not great, either. This is all he should be expected to be at this stage of his career. An OK performance by Galloway over the 16-game season is certainly much more than D.A.'s expectations will ever allow for.

Relax, Patriot Fans: The New England Pats Will Be Fine

BHL — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:00:11 -0400

Having just returned from a honeymoon in Hawaii, I was a tad bit surprised to see just how much negativity and fear there was on the airwaves in New England.

It's as if the Red Sox community—typically filled with naysayers, pessimists, and those on the brink of psychological breakdown—has plagued the Patriots fanbase.

You'd like to think that a team and a quarterback which has been as successful as New England and Tom Brady, respectively, fans would rest assured.

Not so in New England.

One early season (week two!) loss to a hungry division rival on their turf is reason enough to cash in your chips. The fun is over with. The team isn't what it used to be. Tom Brady is clearly never going to be the same quarterback that he once was.

I'm mystified at the way this has played out on the radio and in the newspapers. Haven't we learned that the most important time to peak in an NFL season is in the closing weeks? Or are you that satisfied with a 16-0 regular season and a mediocre playoff run that we saw in 2007?

Sure, to obtain a first round playoff bye, a team now needs to seemingly win 12 or 13 games, and losing in week 2 can jeopardize that effort. That much I understand.

But just one year removed from witnessing Peyton Manning struggle for the first half of the 2008 season, due to overcoming a similar (and less serious) injury, it's trivial to think that Tom Brady will instantly return to the 16-0, record-setting quarterback he was in 2007.

Toss in the fact that Brady is throwing to some new targets in 2009, with whom he has never worked, and you don't see a perfectly functioning offense on the field.

On a side note, it would appear that all of you who under-estimated Jabar Gaffney's importance and effectiveness can now shut your mouths. No more complaining about his dropped pass VS Indianapolis in 2008. None of it.

(Writer's Note: For BHL's correct analysis of Jabar Gaffney's importance to the New England offense, please see BHL's 2008 Jabar Gaffney article.)

And to those of you looking to throw in the towel on Joey Galloway's career due to two unproductive weeks, give him time. If things go as one would expect, and it takes him time to adapt and get on the same page as Tom Brady, he'll be a decent contributor in weeks 11 through 17. You know, when it counts the most.

Likewise, a defense in transition with a youth movement such as the Patriots are undergoing, cannot be expected to be executing flawlessly in week two. Correct?

Heading in to the week two matchup with the New York Jets, I had my doubts that the Patriots would come away with a win. Upon hearing they lost (I missed the game while in flight from Hawaii, but caught up on it upon returning home), I was mildly disappointed but not overwhelmingly surprised.

It's week two. I'd rather see them beat the Jets in week 11 in Foxborough. Wouldn't you?

Keep your heads up, fans of New England. It's a 16-game season, and peaking in the first quarter of the season is immaterial.

Bill Belichick and the team will progressively get better as the season moves onward, they'll win their 12 games, and we'll see what happens in the playoffs. Until then, relax and control your emotions.

98.5 The Sports Hub: Bye Bye, Big Show

BHL — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:33:20 -0400

With the advent of a new sports talk radio station in Boston, 98.5 The Sports Hub, long time WEEI listeners including Bleacher Report writer BHL will finally have another listening option for the afternoon commute.

Long tired of Glen Ordway's The Big Show, a yahoo and fat slob-centric shouting fest, Bleacher Report writer BHL is highly excited that 98.5 will feature Comcast SportsNet's Michael Felger in the weekday 2—6 p.m. time slot.

Felger, a favorite of some for his objective view of the Boston sports scene, and his lack of fear when making assertive and unique viewpoints, will be a refreshing treat for sports crazed Bostonians each afternoon.

On the whole, The Sports Hub appears to be the first strong competition for WEEI in recent memory. The station has put together a respectable cast of sports radio personalities. The morning show, with former WBCN jocks Toucher & Rich, would appear to be the only shortcoming on the new station.

Note: For a similar analysis written by BHL of WEEI's daily programs, please see BHL's February 2009 article, "How to Improve the #1 Rated Sports Station in the Country".

BHL's analysis on a show-by-show basis:

6—10 a.m.: Toucher & Rich will most likely fail in their attempt at competing with Dennis & Callahan. This would not be a surprise.

10 a.m.—2 p.m.: Rumors have it that the mid-day show on 98.5 will include Gary Tanguay, long associated with Comcast SportsNet's coverage of the Boston Celtics. Alongside Tanguay will be Scott Zolak, former backup quarterback of the New England Patriots.

In BHL's opinion, Dale & Holley is seemingly the best show on WEEI. With that established, Tanguay and Zolak will have a difficult time competing for listeners. Given that each Tanguay and Zolak are established and well-versed personalities, this should be an interesting and competitive battle.

2—6 p.m.: Upon Michael Felger's decision to join 98.5, WEEI removed all traces of Felger from their website and from their radio programs.

While the fallout at WEEI from Michael Felger's departure was a tad bizarre if not immature, it also points to how strong the competition between these two stations will be.

The Big Show's usual "the Yankees are in shambles, they're done" party in June, followed by the "we never said the Yankees were done, we never said that" denial festival in August, will now go unheard by at least a few.

Pete Sheppard's apologist viewpoint of the New England Patriots is mildly entertaining, and this appears to be all The Big Show has going for it. If Sheppard could be shifted to 98.5 to sit with Felger, this would be the ultimate show.

Felger's debut in the 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. slot will mean that Bleacher Report writer BHL will have listened to the Big Blow for the final time.

6 p.m.—11 p.m.: The nighttime shows on 98.5 have not been announced, but just about anything can succeed in gaining listeners over WEEI's Planet Mikey (weeknights 6 p.m. to 11 p.m.).

Along with the daytime talk shows, 98.5 will include game coverage of the Patriots and the Boston Bruins. This matches WEEI's Red Sox and Celtics game coverage.

All in all, 98.5 appears to be a well-rounded sports station, save for the morning slot. Let's just hope the same regurgitated callers don't pollute the new station. Frank from Gloucester, Steve from Fall River, Angelo in Everett, you name it. One can only hope they have not heard the news that a new location to receive their diarrhea phone calls is now in existence.

98.5 The Sports Hub will debut at 1:00p.m. on August 13, 2009, with a Patriots pre-game show.

Note: It has been strangely difficult to find press releases related to 98.5's debut, as well as the personalities on each show, so any inaccuracies noted above may be attributed to this very issue.

Click here to listen to 98.5 online

David Ortiz Juiced: Send Handwritten Apologies to BHL's Inbox

BHL — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:27:36 -0400

The New York Times reported Thursday that Boston Red Sox designated hitter David Ortiz tested positive for Performance-Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) in 2003. This story will shock many Red Sox apologists but will vindicate none other than prized Bleacher Report writer BHL.

Having stated for the past several years that there is no more obvious juicer in the game than Ortiz, and having been criticized for doing so by fellow Bleacher Report writers, BHL felt a sense of pride upon hearing this news.

Ortiz, as a non-injector, was an also-ran platoon DH/first baseman for the Minnesota Twins. Ortiz came to the Red Sox as a bargain basement steal in 2003, coincidentally the very same year Ortiz tested positive for PEDs.

An interesting point to consider is that Theo Epstein, the Red Sox's "great" general manager (editor's note: please see BHL's analysis of "good" Epstein), was named in the Mitchell Report as having inquired prior to trade acquisitions about whether certain players were juice artists.

After learning a player in question, Eric Gagne, was a former juicer, Theo went through with the trade anyway. Is Theo a great evaluator of talent, or is Theo a great promoter for banned substance abuse?

This blind eye to the steroid issue would then bring into question, did Theo know of Ortiz's planned cycling upon his acquisition in 2003? Or is Theo part of a Boston-based pharmacy which helped to produce supernatural World Series titles in 2004* and 2007*?

Editor's Note: For more on the Red Sox effort to overcome the Bambino through the use of PEDs, please see BHL's February 2009 article, "Bambino's Curse Lives in the Non-Steroid Era (Red Sox '04*; Red Sox '07*)."

A bit of irony exists when considering an 86-year World Series drought was only broken on account of banned substances—things that make you go "hmmm."

David Ortiz went from platooning with fellow roid rager Jeremy Giambi in 2003 to moon- shooting home runs out of Fenway nightly like a beast.

Could juice use be any more obvious when a platoon DH/first baseman proceeds to become the Red Sox's single-season home run record holder?

Not to the Red Sox apologists.

"Ortiz has always been fat. Steroid users aren't fat." Right, steroids clearly turn the body into shredded muscle and remove all fat. That sounds logical.

"Ortiz is breaking down because he is in his mid-30s; that is normal and is typical of a non-juicer." Right, 50 home runs to whiffing at beach balls is a regular drop-off.

"Ortiz didn't have enough playing time in Minnesota; that's why he never hit like he did with the Red Sox." Pure comedy.

But today, those same apologists must face the music. Their savior, the man who delivered clutch home run after clutch home run, and one of the larger pieces of two World Series* titles, was a fraud.

Tom Werner, co-owner of the Red Sox, denied Manny Ramirez's PED injection while with the Red Sox, claiming to believe Manny only began his PED usage after departing for Los Angeles in 2008. With Manny's name also appearing in Thursday's New York Times story, Werner must now accept reality.

His players are no different than the Yankees. His players have cheated as well.

Red Sox fans celebrated euphorically in February 2009, when Alex Rodriguez was reported to have been on the infamous list of players who tested positive for PEDs in 2003. It will be interesting to see how these same fans react to their beloved David Ortiz being equal in cheating to A-Rod.

Yet all of this was obvious to those of us with our eyes open. Ortiz was an obvious juicer. Blatantly obvious.

In conclusion, your formal, handwritten apology can be submitted to the Bleacher Report Inbox of BHL. Please specify your apology is related to your doubt regarding BHL's steroid accusations of "Big Papi," and that you will doubt BHL's greatness no more.

Editor's Note: BHL correctly analyzed Ortiz's random rumblings about steroids in a February 2009 Bleacher Report article, "Ortiz Rides the Fence on Steroids Issue."

Theo Epstein: "Good," but in No Way "Great"

BHL — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:10:24 -0400

Theo Epstein took over as General Manager (GM) of the Boston Red Sox in 2002, and since then, the Red Sox have enjoyed some incredibly successful times. Epstein's tenure includes an impressive two World Series trophies, something which was thought to be near impossible to bring to Boston.

In fact, Epstein ended an 86-year title drought for the Red Sox, and for this, fans are forever grateful.

Epstein has to his name a number of wise transactions, and he and his scouting team have been responsible for revamping what was a relatively weak farm system.

Partially the result of Epstein's title drought-ending tenure, fans have been quick to label Epstein as a "great" GM. The use of "great" would seem to ignore the flaws and the horrendous mistakes that have scarred an otherwise impressive résumé.

What do Edgar Renteria, Julio Lugo, and Matt Clement have in common? They were each paid lucrative salaries by the Red Sox ownership group's collective wallet while not playing baseball for the Red Sox. Seems strange to compensate someone handsomely to not play for your team, doesn't it?

The list could be extended to include the likes of J.D. Drew and Ramiro Mendoza, among others, but the larger point to examine is how Epstein is able to bury his epic blunders with cash.

The same luxury is not afforded to the average GM in baseball. For the average GM, if you proverbially drop the ball and reward a garbage player with a lucrative contract, then he is yours to keep. Having a few bad seeds on the roster consuming the bulk of a club's money and producing very little is crippling to the organization.

With the high spending power Epstein is afforded, bizarre signings like Julio Lugo are erased from the record. Rather than be forced to look on as Lugo tanks his way through years in Boston, Epstein can simply whisk away his garbage for the trash collector to take away.

Certain signings and trades cannot necessarily be criticized, as everyone makes misjudgments. But to sign a player like Lugo or Drew to an absurdly large contract, when the players either have injury history or just simply do not produce commensurate to their received contract, is pure lunacy.

To reiterate, Epstein's time as GM of the Red Sox has been good, and the Red Sox have won two World Series titles. Epstein has been a "good" GM in Boston—not "great."

Considering the World Series titles, but taking into account blunders such as Lugo and Renteria, Theo's performance as the Red Sox GM must be labeled as "good." Not "great." Good.

If the power of the wallet to effectively erase major and crippling flaws is taken away from Epstein, then you merely have an "OK" performance as GM.

Yankee fans, Rhode Island Should Secede From New England

BHL — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:56:12 -0400

Rhode Island area news stations and the Providence Journal have recently reported that with the advent of Rhode Island state license plates with Boston Red Sox and New England Patriots logos imprinted on them, a state representative has asked for state license plates featuring the New York Yankees logo.

When the Boston Red Sox won the World Series in 2004 and 2007, the Red Sox ownership group made it a point to visit Providence, the Rhode Island state capital, with the World Series Trophy. This seemed logical, as Rhode Island is a part of New England, and the Red Sox are New England's team. Baseball fans in Rhode Island, therefore, are Red Sox fans.

Upon winning the World Series three times in the 1990s and in 2000, the Yankees franchise made no such visit to Providence. This would seem logical, as being a New England state, fans of a New York baseball team have no place in Rhode Island. It would appear as though New York, and its storied Yankees franchise, does not deem Rhode Island to be a relevant fan base for their team.

In spite of this clear lack of ownership of Rhode Island fans from a Yankees franchise standpoint, the Rhode Island politicians in these historically grim economic times for the state are spending valuable time lobbying for Yankees license plates.

Record unemployment mirroring only Michigan, home foreclosures all over the state, and its usual corruption-filled political scene are clearly not a high priority for Rhode Island politicians. Demanding Yankees logos on state license plates has escalated to be the top priority and allows politicians to ignore the glaring issues they currently face in Rhode Island.

Had the state of Connecticut pulled a maneuver like this, it would be much more understandable. Connecticut borders New York, and roughly half of the state is consumed by fans of the pinstripes.

For a Rhode Island politician to boldly propose that a New England state promote a New York baseball team on its license plates is nothing short of asinine.

With this established, should this politician succeed in allowing Rhode Island residents to purchase state license plates with the Yankees logo featured on them, Rhode Island should in turn forfeit its status as a part of New England. After all, driving around town with a license plate with a New York baseball team is not indicative of New England residence.

In doing so, the Red Sox should no longer make visits to Rhode Island with the World Series trophy, as the residents of Rhode Island do not deserve to have their grimy mitts anywhere near it.

It's been fun while it lasted, Rhode Island. You appear to be a lost cause at this juncture. So long and best of luck Rhode Island, we hardly knew ye.

The New Yankee Stadium: A New Englander's Review

BHL — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:09:37 -0400

From a New England perspective, Fenway Park is to the old and decrepit Foxboro Stadium as the new Yankee Stadium is to the world class Gillette Stadium.

I have been of the opinion for quite some time that Fenway Park is past its day and should be demolished, and with a recent trip to see the New York Yankees take on the New York Mets on June 13, 2009, I'm not quite sure I can happily attend another Red Sox game at Fenway.

It's that bad. Attending Patriots games at Foxboro Stadium was fun, this cannot be disputed. But after experiencing Gillette Stadium, do any Patriots fans really have any desire to return to the former facility? Not a chance.

Color me highly impressed with what the Yankees have done. In spite of the historic factors involved with moving on from the old stadium, the new digs are nothing short of fantastic.

The new Yankee Stadium's grand entry hall—over three stories in height with dramatic sky lights and floor to ceiling banners of Yankee greats—is the perfect entrance to this spectacular facility.

Fans can enjoy standing room areas at the rear of all three seating decks, with standing room being high enough where your feet are at the level of the fans heads in front of you. Standing room areas with unobstructed views of the field, even when the crowd is on its feet. What a novel idea.

This in comparison to Fenway, where a standing room ticket means you might be able to see some of the game so long as the crowd is sitting, you walked in well before the game started to avoid being in the third row of standing room, and nobody is walking past you in the tiny walkways.

The concourses at the new Yankee Stadium are wide enough to handle capacity crowds, and include field views and sight lines of the game from throughout the concourse due to the open air style. This detail was very similar to Gillette Stadium. Bathrooms and concession stands are on each level which meant lines were very reasonable throughout the afternoon.

Most importantly, beer runs did not encompass standing in a line of 40 people and missing innings at a time like at Fenway, as the deepest line encountered on the Saturday afternoon of our visit was five people.

Our seats were in the third deck in right field (grandstand), and the view was decent of the entire field, save for the right field corner.

Seating areas are also roomy, with plenty of space in the wide seats to avoid any shoulder-on-shoulder contact. Aisles are wide, cup holders are attached to each seat, and in the grandstand, the person in the row in front of you is at your foot level, so again, there is no chance of having your view obstructed by a tall or large-headed individual (like myself).

While the streets and bars outside the stadium will never compete with Fenway in their current state, the interior of the ballpark is outstanding and shows off all of the advancements made in the last 100 years of the planet Earth.

I certainly need no further convincing that Fenway needs to go. Let's hope the Red Sox ownership group makes a trip out to New York and is convinced of the same.

Is John Henry the Craigslist Killer (Satire)?

BHL — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:12:35 -0400

Disclaimer: Readers who do not possess a strong sense of humor, along with readers who may take offense to an article which ridicules the interpersonal skills of a suspected killer in comparing them to that of Red Sox owner John Henry, should not proceed with reading this article.

With the recent news surrounding the "Craigslist Killer" engulfing the local and national news, readers undoubtedly cringed a bit when reading April 29's Boston Globe gossip column featuring some bizarre writing from Red Sox owner John Henry.

Henry has never appeared to be a "normal guy," nor someone who blue collar Bostonians could ever empathize with, which made this bizarre and freakishly strange excerpt of an email Henry sent somewhat expected.

If readers could pinpoint what an email from the Craigslist Killer would resemble, Henry hit the proverbial nail on the head.

In spite of Henry's aloof and detached demeanor, many times appearing as though he's been sent from another planet, his gushy prose attempt at winning over his then-girlfriend Linda Pizzuti is a quick and simple recipe to induce vomiting.

Without further ado, from April 29's Boston Globe:

Dear Linda,

A man needs a muse. Well, he doesn't really. He doesn't need nearly as much as he generally thinks he does. A man is greedy. Greedy for what he doesn't think he has and what he thinks he wants.

We probably wouldn't have wandered far beyond the basic necessities without that pushing us. Progress is one of its most important byproducts.

So you will ask, "Why are you writing this?" Because a brief encounter-and-a-half with you gave a cool spin to this little blue planet from my vantage point.

We feted the Celtics tonight and the skies opened. The sun emerged and created a giant rainbow between the city and the park. We were transfixed.

You only saw it if you were in the right place. I was in the right place when I noticed you.

I barely know you. I don't have any illusions about capturing your heart. But the world is brighter, better, lighter, and warmer when a man imbues a woman he knows (even tabula rasa) with the attributes that I believe reside in you. It's the small things that ultimately matter, the subtle things.

I am honest. I don't play games. And I see no reason not to say that I've been smitten by you and you've done me a great service.

You've very innocently made my world brighter, better, lighter, and warmer. So thanks.

No response is necessary because a man doesn't need nearly as much as he thinks he does.

Wow. Just wow. Henry cannot be serious. A fan base which prides itself at guzzling Coors Light and shouting "Yankees suck!" all night long could surely never enjoy this read.

One can only assume that if an average, regular, yet "normal" (note: "normal," in this instance, would describe any female who is not engaged to a man 30 years her elder) female were to receive such lasagna in email form, would act quickly to delete any and all traces of this message, and would most definitely take Henry up on his offer that "no response is necessary."

"No response is necessary"?! Of course it's not, you scared the bleep out of any normal person with your insanity-laden rants, you whack job!

"We feted the Celtics tonight and the skies opened"...um, excuse me? Did I miss something here? You smoke a little too much of the funny stuff and fall off the deep end?

One can only envision what the dugout box seats at Fenway must feature on an average night for Mr. Henry and innocent Red Sox diehards seated nearby:

Fan: "Yo, bro, you want another hot dog?"

Henry: "You shan't bother. After we've successfully completed feting this inning I'll go and procure us one. Feculence is one of its most important byproducts."

As the Boston Globe article goes on to tell us, Pizzuti actually responded favorably to Henry's alien-speak email, most likely as Henry's wallet allowed for overlooking the Craigslist freak show feel to his pickup lines.

It's always been with some disdain that hard nosed Boston fans acknowledge Henry is part of their team's ownership group. The average Red Sox follower would take Larry Lucchino's presence on the podium six ways to Sunday over the gentle, soft spoken, and casper-esque walking-ghost-of-a-man that is John Henry.

Batman Threequel: Jed Lowrie to Star as The Joker

BHL — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:21:43 -0400

Jed Lowrie's recent wrist injury will force the Red Sox shortstop to undergo surgery, placing Lowrie on the disabled list for what appears to be a substantial length of the season. To the common observer, this disappearance from the Red Sox lineup is no cause for bewilderment. While perusing the Red Sox website this Tuesday afternoon, however, the cover image promoting 2009 All Star Game voting featured an image including shortstop Jed Lowrie which raised some eyebrows as to where Lowrie's time will actually be spent during this disabled list stint. The image left little doubt as to whether a Batman threequel will be coming soon...

Begin Slideshow

It's Time to Raze Fenway Park

BHL — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 16:00:27 -0400

Overwhelming credit should be given to the latest ownership group of the Boston Red Sox, including John Henry, Larry Lucchino, and Tom Werner. It was this ownership group that took control of the tradition-rich franchise in 2002 and has lead efforts to modernize historic Fenway Park.

The 2009 version of Fenway, built in 1912, is dramatically greater in aesthetic pleasure as compared to its decaying status in 2002. Seats have since been added in almost every conceivable space within the ballpark, including atop the left field wall and right field roof, expanding the park’s seating capacity from a smidgen over 33,000 to just under 40,000.

Along with increasing the seating capacity, other needed improvements have been made to reinforcing the stadium’s underlying structure, including waterproofing of the seating bowl. Concession stands have been added and upgraded in terms of their food and drink offerings, and Yawkey Way has become a congregating area to eat and drink prior to and during baseball games.

Other neighborhood enhancements have facilitated an improved atmosphere during the Henry/Lucchino/Werner ownership tenure, such as major renovations to the bars and restaurants on surrounding streets.

In spite of all of these marked improvements, the root purpose of Fenway attendance has not been upgraded: viewing a baseball game. Certain seating areas added or renovated in recent years have improved viewpoints and sight lines of the field of play, but the bulk of seating in the park has not been altered.

This means fans still contend with support poles for the upper deck, which can mean a pole separates a fan’s view of home plate in spite of a $50 price of admission.

NOTE: The photo included in the headline of this story was taken from a $50 grandstand seat on Opening Day 2009, which is not marked “obstructed view.”

"What was the final score, Joe?"

"Gee, Bill, I'm not really sure, the pole was in my way, but the clam chowder sure was good."

This would be the equivalent of attending a basketball game and not being able to view the basket. Doesn’t that seem slightly unproductive?

"These are sick seats, Joe. I love watching the guys dribble around, pass the ball, and even shoot here and there. Who cares if I can't see the hoop and need to listen for crowd noise to determine whether or not the shot went in the basket? The clams casino is out of this world!"

Other obvious and well documented problems with Fenway include the narrow width of the majority of seats, which for any average sized individual means spilling your body into another fan’s personal space for the entire game.

This can be cozy if it’s your significant other, but given the obesity in today’s society and the game time temperature which Fenway experiences during the dog days of August, it can be far from enjoyable.

Seats in certain areas of the park remain misdirected, in that sitting in the right field corner means you’re staring directly at right center field, instead of having your chair angled toward home plate.

Walkways and access ramps to the field remain relatively inconceivable for maintaining a smooth traffic flow of fans, and the passageways beneath the seats for entering and exiting the park and accessing restroom facilities are not conducive to handling more than 50 persons at any given time.

New facilities offer luxury amenities and ticket prices far beyond reach to an average baseball watching individual, which makes the preservation of Fenway somewhat palatable.

In spite of what would undoubtedly amount to a dramatic increase in the percentage of ballpark space used by luxury amenity seating and extreme ticket prices, the time has come to move on from Fenway Park and its uncomfortable seats.

In 1912, it very well may have been a serviceable venue to watch a baseball game. In 2009, it simply is not getting the job done.

Matt Cassel and Jay Cutler Trade Comparisons: Right Church, Wrong Pew

BHL — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:52:25 -0400

Disclaimer: The references to religion and religious practices within this article have been employed for the sake of creating a comparison. No statement related to a player or the respective player's religious beliefs, practices, or accomplishments are factually based.

With Good Friday one short week away, there is no time more appropriate than now to consider the inaccuracy of claims which have surfaced in the last twenty-four hours which pit the Jay Cutler and Matt Cassel deal against one another.

Cutler, a seasoned and Confirmed parishioner with proven experience and a former No. 1 draft pick, spends time as a Eucharistic Minister and abstains from meat eating during this Lenten season. Cassel, having been baptised a few short months ago, is currently learning the first few lines of the Our Father prayer.

Having established this inequality of stature in the eyes of the Church, it is with the utmost surprise that media outlets and fans alike have overloaded the print media and airwaves with an influx of comparisons amongst these two transactions.

If church pew seating locale is indicative of stature, fans have placed Cassel and Cutler in the same Church pew, as unbelievable as that may seem.

To expect Bill Belichick to receive the trade value of a seasoned parishioner who has successfully completed most of the major sacraments, in return for a recently baptized baby, can be described as nothing but ludicrous.

The Chicago Bears and General Manager Jerry Angelo's agnostic beliefs and unfamiliarity with the inner workings of the Church should not be held against Bill Belichick and the New England Patriots.

Surrendering the No. 18 and No. 84 picks in the 2009 draft, their No. 1 selection in the 2010 draft, and Kyle Orton can be described as nothing other than idiotic. So to compare lunacy such as this behavior, and to use it as a measuring stick for determining if Belichick obtained "fair value" for Matt Cassel, simply lacks logic.

The Jay Cutler transaction is more comparable to the Ricky-Williams-in-exchange-for-Mike-Ditka's-entire-draft debacle, than it is comparable to a perceived slightly lopsided deal for Cassel.

Matt Cassel may progress to be a Pro Bowl, top ranked quarterback in the National Football League. Or on the contrary, he may progress to be a serviceable non-Pro Bowler.

Before Cassel makes it that far, in 2009 he'll have to set his sights on his First Communion. His success and his progression as a sacrament-seeking mass attending parishioner from that point forward remains to be seen.

In terms of Jay Cutler and Matt Cassel's respective value in April of 2009, when accounting for current contractual obligations and on field experience, conversation which places these two deals in parallel, is simply not worthy of time consumption. Jay Cutler is a Bishop as compared to the newly edified Cassel.

Ryan Moats Saga an Unfortunate Reality: Police Are Guilty Until Proven Innocent

BHL — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 13:35:18 -0400

Over the past few days, public outcry has reached its peak in reaction to Ryan Moats' recent altercation with a Dallas police officer, while Moats and his family were desperately trying to reach his dying mother-in-law in the hospital.

I might find myself on an isolated island on this one, based on the reactions I have seen on TV, in the newspapers, and on talk radio shows. In my eyes, of course officer Robert Powell was in the wrong when he didn't know when to call it quits, and allow Moats and his family to enter the hospital.

For that, he should admit fault.

Where I find issue with all of this is part of what I think is wrong with America today. Police officers, who we as a public have entrusted with protecting our society and enforcing the law, have come under intense scrutiny in recent memory.

And typically, the American public refuses to see things through the officer's eyes before passing judgment.

Police brutality is a hot topic, and far too often when a police officer enacts force, the general public reacts harshly toward the officer.

Does the average person truly understand how challenging it is to be a police officer, needing to maintain a respected level of authority while simultaneously tip toeing the line of being a "nice [guy]"?

I don't believe so. In fact, I think the average American takes officers of the law for granted, and jumps at the opportunity to criticize these hard working men and women at the drop of a hat.

Officer Robert Powell was undoubtedly following police procedures on the night of Mar. 17, when he attempted to pull over the vehicle Moats was operating, due to Moats running a red traffic light.

I have not read the Dallas Police Department's written procedures recently, but I am assuming that it must instruct officers to stop a car if it passes through a red traffic signal. I don't think it's far fetched to make that assumption.

If we take things one step further, if a police officer attempts to pull over a vehicle which illegally passed through a red traffic signal, and the vehicle continues driving thereby disrespecting the police officer's authority, I think any rational individual would understand if the officer grew irritated and suspicious at this activity.

I am in support of Officer Powell up until the point where a nurse came out of the hospital, and informed police that Moats' mother-in-law was in the process of dying. It is then that my support withdraws.

In spite of disagreeing with Powell's decision to continue after the nurse informed him of the situation, I can still step back and objectively understand what was going through Powell's head during the pursuit and ensuing confrontation.

It is with some shock that I've read the reaction of fellow police officers in Powell's department, and the Dallas Police Chief, as they have done nothing to stand by their fellow officer.

I find that a bit outrageous, certainly demotivating to fellow officers, and encouraging of similar questioning of police officers by the general public.

Had the occupants of the Moats vehicle remained inside the vehicle, and calmly and respectfully spoke to Officer Powell, perhaps this could have been avoided. I believe Powell was performing routine procedures to determine the situation, before allowing the law breaking Moats to move on.

Upon reviewing the videos taken from Powell's cruiser, Powell makes this very clear during the altercation with Moats.

“I understand what you’re saying. I’d rather you get up there...Next time you do this, you stop, you tell whoever it is what’s going on, more than likely they’re going to check you real quick and let you go about your way. Alright? That’s better than doing all this.”

As any average American knows, if you follow the proper protocol when a police car is behind you with its lights on and during the ensuing traffic stop, your odds of being treated fairly escalate infinitely. It appears as though the Moats family was not aware of this protocol.

Powell: "I turned my red and blues on as you were going over the bridge. This is when you stop."

Moats: "You think I'm gonna stop when my wife's mother is dying?"

Powell: "You are required to stop. What you're doing does not matter. Red and blues, you have to stop."

If the Moats family had stopped the car immediately, pulled to the side of the road, and waited inside the vehicle until Officer Powell approached the driver side window, one has to assume that this whole evening is no longer newsworthy.

“I was trying to change through the sirens to get his attention, but he just kept goin’.”

Powell drew his gun at one point of the confrontation, which has also drawn scrutiny, but I believe this to be standard procedure. Especially when law-breaking individuals are reacting unfavorably towards an officer.

Let's take a minute here and flip the scenario around, for objectivity purposes. Let's say Officer Powell sees a car pass through a traffic signal, illegally. Officer Powell attempts to stop this car, and it proceeds on without stopping.

The occupants of the vehicle get out of the vehicle, and confront the officer stating that someone is dying in the hospital.

Officer Powell lets the individuals go, and it then turns out that these same individuals were dangerous criminals, and they proceed to later commit a crime (or crimes) that same night.

Would the general public criticize Powell, saying that he should never accept such an excuse for breaking the law, without first performing some due diligence? And that its his lack of due diligence which lead to further crimes being committed? I am assuming so.

But the general public doesn't acknowledge this painful double standard.

The situation with Moats and Officer Powell reminded me of a night out after work, as some co-workers and I stood witness to a long-distance high-speed police chase on TV, while talking shop at a local watering hole.

As we watched, cameras followed a car in the midwest speed down a public highway for over 30 minutes, weaving in and out of public traffic at speeds of over 90 miles per hour.

Lives were put in danger by these criminals, and several vehicles narrowly missed being hit by the speeding get-away car. When police finally caught up to the vehicle, the officers were not "nice" to the assailants.

In fact, the officers in question used a small amount of force in throwing the criminals to the ground.

Upon seeing this force, some co-workers of mine reacted unfavorably.

"Police brutality. They shouldn't be treating those people like that!"

My jaw dropped. These two dirt bags just drove through traffic at over 90 miles per hour, nearly took the lives of many innocent bystanders all while disrespecting the authority of police in leading them on what seemed like an endless chase.

And the police should be "nice" and "gentle" to these jerks? Are you kidding me?

I'd be all for the officer pummeling someone in this scenario, and even shooting them. If you're willing to drive your vehicle at over 90 miles per hour, running away from the police, through public, you do not deserve to breathe another minute, let alone be treated "nicely" by the police.

Similarly, when Cedric Benson was arrested for boating while intoxicated in 2008, the public's reaction was to believe that Benson was sober, and that police were in the wrong. The public didn't need any facts, the public simply drew a conclusion due to the public's lack of respect for police officers.

These examples are not close to the Ryan Moats scenario. I understand that, and I am not saying these are remotely close to the same. I am simply supplying these examples to enhance my observation that the American public fails to see things objectively, from the police officer's perspective.

That's the difficult and rigid double standard police officers are held to. Their work is far from easy, presents on-the-fly tremendously difficult decisions which can be life-or-death. Yet Americans don't care.

It's become painstakingly obvious: Americans don't appreciate or respect police officers. Americans are a me-first, "he must be in the wrong" type society in this day and age. As a result of this, police officers are the first to be criticized when being involved in a controversial situation.

2009 Yankee Ticket Prices: You Must Be Joking

BHL — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:29:05 -0400

Disclaimer: This isn't so much a news story or an entertaining article, it's more a simple forum for my current complaint of the day.

As today is the first day for 2009 single game ticket sales at the New Yankee Stadium, I decided to try my luck in the virtual waiting room system by way of Ticketmaster and Yankees.com.

Lady luck is certainly not on my side today, as every time I do succeed in making it past the 10-15 minutes of waiting, there are no seats available in the seating area I chose.

I have a few complaints here. 1st, you can only select "Best Available" or an individual seating section. You cannot select a certain price range which encompasses multiple seating sections. Why is this an issue? Well, the waiting room process is based on the specific section you select in the search form.

Should you choose to wait out the 10-15 minutes for the respective section of your choice, and find out post-wait that no tickets are available, you then begin the search process anew. Forget those 10-15 minutes you just invested. They have been taken from you, and you receive no credit for them.

A more efficient searching system wouldn't base your waiting room dedication to just one specific seating area. This system is clearly not efficient, and I am sure there is some marketing genius behind the design inefficiency which some bogus study probably claimed increases ticket demand and ticket sales.

My second complaint is the presence of a "Best Available" option, which resulted in my search result screen shot in the article heading (ticket price of $2,625 per seat), and the absence of a "Worst Available" option. Not to mention, in addition to the $2,625 per seat, they slap you in the face with another $59.70 per ticket in "convenience charge."

"Worst Available" would be a tremendous addition to the search functionality. Who wouldn't want to see the cheapest available seats while only waiting in one virtual waiting room?

Who can realistically afford to spend $2,625 per seat for one baseball game? Doesn't that seem a bit outlandish, even for the wealthiest of people?

I will not be getting face value, direct from Ticketmaster tickets to Yankee Stadium, as I have now given up in my searching efforts. Best of luck to everyone else, and I hope my absence from the waiting rooms for the remainder of today will save you a minute or two in total wait time.

March Annoyance, Also Known As "Bracketology": Enough Already

BHL — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:40:37 -0400

There are few things I find more annoying than walking around the office in late March and listening to some random blow hard talk about how his "picks" are doing well.

You know darn well which "picks" I'm talking about.

NCAA Tournament brackets are all the rage when the calendar hits March, year in and year out. From the elderly lady on the bus, to the homeless guy asking for change, to your best buddies, to your boss. Everyone's filling them out, and everyone's talking about them.

Let's examine this for a moment, shall we?

Completing a bracket online, or in paper form, and reviewing that bracket to yourself to see how you've done, is perfectly acceptable. I have no gripes with that.

It's the incessant need to share the results of this activity, which is about as knowledge-based as the roulette wheel, which drives me up a wall.

I don't need to know about how your 12th seed upset your 5th seed, and how you're "still alive" with your final four.

I just don't care. Neither does anyone else, except you.

The most ridiculous demonstration of this is the person who boasts about the fact that they succeeded in "winning" their bracket pool. Does winning mean you know more than the next guy (or girl) about college hoops? Absolutely not.

Winning simply means you were lucky, and lady luck fell on your side of the fence this time around. Incidentally, this same person fails to inform you of their "other" nine brackets, all of which failed to win any pools.

Would these same individuals boast about how "smart" they were for playing the lottery, and winning five bucks? Or would they proclaim it luck, rightfully so? Would they mention the 40 losing tickets they bought, in addition to their one winner, which places them at a net loss for the day?

I retired from fantasy athletics several years ago, and my retirement came partially from corporate America's need to add fantasy sports websites to their blocked sites list.

In addition to being unable to access the fantasy sports sites during the work day, my annoyance grew with individuals who believed it to be imperative that we know "[his] guy" just scored while watching a given baseball or football game.

"I want the Pats to win today, but Kurt Warner's my quarterback, so I hope he throws for 325 and 3 TDs." Yeah that sounds healthy.

Nothing annoys me more than this behavior, aside from the need to hold a laptop while watching the game, so that this same individual can eye his "fantasy team" while the game is going on. Loudly going off about how their "sleeper" pick just scored another touchdown, and they "took a flier" on the guy in the late rounds and it has paid off.

This is the lowest of the low. Removing one's own enjoyment of the actual live game, all to invest in "watching" a list of names and statistics on a computer screen. Baffling and ridiculous, to say the least.

My retirement as a fantasy athlete, due to the above ridiculousness, included the departure of NCAA tournament brackets from my life. What a glowing relief. I now find my March Madness enjoyable, relaxing, and fun. I watch all of the games, and I don't have any paper brackets in my lap.

The true humor in all of it is when an elderly woman who has never even tuned into a basketball game (let alone watch it) wins the pool. Does this end Johnny Bracket's need to tell us about his respective picks? Unfortunately, and confusingly, it does not.

I look forward to this year's tournament, so long as I'm not somewhere that Jonathan Bracket is seated to my side, announcing throughout the game "I picked these guys to win tonight!"

Spare me, please.

I'd like to watch a basketball game for the enjoyment of competition and in the absence of hearing a peep about your pathetic "picks."

Thanks for your cooperation.

Bill Simmons "The Sports Guy": Overrated Gossip Queenery

BHL — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:20:09 -0400

Disclaimer: This may seem hypocritical, given that this is written on a site designed for sports blogging. It's not.

Aside from Dane Cook, who is the least funny person in America, my next least favorite "funny" celebrity is none other than ESPN.com's Bill Simmons.

Everyone knows him as "The Sports Guy," the mainstay of ESPN.com's Page 2. Let's face it, Bill Simmons is a New England yahoo at heart, so I would take the majority of his comments about most everything with a grain of salt.

Simmons demonstrates clear and indisputable bias in almost everything he writes. Aside from that, I cannot stand "The Sports Guy." He has single-handedly ruined sports journalism, attempting to turn it into a "blogging contest" where you report less than 10 percent sports news and facts, and then spend the bulk (greater than 90 percent) of your time rambling about nonsensical lasagna related to your "buddies" or "the sports gal."

I have noticed in reading newspapers, websites, and the like that Simmons' style of writing has polluted many other media outlets as well. The toxen has spread, causing other writers and bloggers to exhibit the inability to report on something without adding unwarranted talk about your "pals," and attempts at being "funny."

If you want to define one individual who took traditional, refined print journalism, and ran it through a flushing toilet a few times, look no further. It's Bill Simmons. Simmons deserves credit for all of the incessant blogs on the Internet and for the trend of watering down any sports related story with personal and celeb-speak garbage.

I instantly lose respect for anyone who reads this gossip queenery. They are part of what is wrong with America today. It's one thing to read it and keep it internal, which is borderline acceptable. It's entirely another to print it out, carry it around the office, and use his one liners and inside jokes as your own. It's downright embarrassing.

Simmons is a pop culture gossip queen. Simmons regulars who read his columns and then try to take "sports opinion" out of it are not worth anyone's time.

"The Sports Guy" is an inappropriate name for this enormous dork. "The Gossip Queen" who destroyed journalism is a better and more fitting description.

Joe Girardi Will Have a Heated Seat in the New Yankee Dugout

BHL — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:35:10 -0400

The New York Yankees were taken out of their comfort zone last year, experiencing a new manager along with something unheard of in the Bronx this millennium: no postseason play.

For 2009, the newness storm continues to rain on the Yankee franchise. This year's newness comes in the form of a $1.3 billion ball park and a host of high-priced free agent acquisitions to stretch out in the new facility.

Joe Girardi's first season as skipper of the greatest baseball franchise in history included a monumental feat. The feat, unfortunately for Girardi, was the ending of a historic streak of 13 consecutive playoff berths.

On the left coast, former Yankee manager Joe Torre's Dodgers did nothing to help Girardi's case. The Dodgers, in Torre's first season at the helm, were successful playoff entrants.

In 2009, first it was the Alex Rodriguez steroid scandal placing unneeded stress on Girardi. Now Rodriguez is injured and will miss the start of the season, and so the pressure continues to build. The media in New York, and the fans of the Yankees, will certainly have little patience for any lack of success for Girardi this season.

The pressure will mount from game one, and should New York not maintain at least a reasonable distance from first place in the American League East, Girardi's pristine new seat in the dugout at the new Yankee Stadium will begin to ascend in temperature.

The heat burning Girardi's chair will grow as the summer progresses, culminating in an ultimatum in the dog days of August.

The biggest question will be, if New York is not remotely close to first place in the AL East, does Girardi adorn a Yankees uniform after the All-Star break in 2009?

A case could be made that the impatient Steinbrenner family, having opened their collective wallet in epic and unheard of proportions this recession-affected offseason, will have zero tolerance for anything but a first place reign for the duration of the season.

The Steinbrenners sent a clear and concise message to the Yankees team, the league, and Joe Girardi this off season. We want to win, and we want to win now.

The playoffs are not a choice for the 2009 Yankees. The playoffs are an absolute must have. August 2009 will present the ability to analyze make-or-break for this Yankees team. It is with this knowledge that it would seem improbable that Girardi lasts the entire season as Yankees manager.

Invesco Field at Mile High: A New Englander's Review

BHL — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:26:11 -0400

Disclaimer: This column is long over due; I never sat down to write this when I should have, but it certainly makes for appropriate offseason rant material.

Last September, I made my first trip to see an NFL game at a stadium not located in Foxborough, Massachusetts.

Living in the Boston area, and having a good friend of mine residing in Denver, I took advantage of his corporate perks and visited Invesco Field at Mile High.

While taking in the game from a luxury suite may not be the best way to experience the energy of an NFL crowd, the noise levels during the game were still more than impressive.

The Broncos defeated the New Orleans Saints that day, 34-32. The competitiveness of the game was certainly icing on top of the cake in terms of my visit to Invesco. Along with being treated to an entertaining football game, the temperature was perfect and the sun was shining.

My experience was a memorable one, and I found the stadium to be top-notch. While certain amenities appeared slightly outdated, such as the tube TV in our luxury suite, the overall appearance of the stadium was clean and modern.

We didn't tailgate that day, but from what I saw there appeared to be ample parking lot areas for tailgating.

Broncos fans deserve credit for being on their feet and making noise independent of the game situation. They are not the wine-and-cheese types who only get rowdy on third down.

These fans were loud and proud to be supporting their Broncos, and their energy could be felt throughout the stadium.

Prior to my attendance at Invesco, my NFL game experience was limited to Sullivan/Foxboro Stadium and Gillette Stadium. The former of which was certainly rowdy and featured animalistic Pats fans just looking to have a good time, and they made their fair share of noise.

The replacement for the frenzied Foxboro Stadium has been anything but energetic. Attending games at Gillette Stadium might remind you of a peaceful Sunday Mass.

No joke. And I'm not knocking anyone here, I'm just being brutally honest.

From having a neighboring fan consistently screaming, "Sit down," all game long, to a letter being sent to the season ticket holder's address warning that our behavior was "obnoxious" and cited how we were standing and yelling all game.

Over time I have grown a bitter disgust with the current environment at Gillette Stadium.

Part of Gillette's quiet nature may be the alignment of the seating, the vast amount of space between seating levels, and the open ends of the venue.

But even with those factors considered, the noise level is downright pathetic.

But let's not cloud my rave review of Invesco Field with my distaste for Foxborough.

Invesco was a refreshing reminder of how NFL fans should behave when their team is playing. They should stand and they should scream. The stadium should erupt with noise all game long.

That's what Sunday is all about.

My experience in Denver had me ascend from a casual observer in the opening quarter, to a screaming animal in the second half, roaring and rooting on the beloved men in orange.

The sight lines of the field were good, and the condition of the seating areas was great. The stadium is not exactly old by any measure, so my expectations were high to begin with, and they were certainly met.

One feature present at Gillette but lacking in Denver, which explains the large spaces between seating levels at Gillette, is an open aired concession area. While grabbing a beer or some food in Foxboro, fans can still see the field and thus don't feel as though they are in a closed-off hallway.

In Denver, the concession areas are completely enclosed, with no sight lines of the field of play. That remains my only negative comment about Denver, the Broncos, and the gameday experience.

So thank you Denver, and thank you Broncos fans.

I had a fantastic time, and would love to visit there again.

Nomar Garciaparra Juiced: No Doubt About It

BHL — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:19:02 -0400

Upon seeing this photo of Nomar Garciaparra in 2009, is there any doubt in your mind that his frail figure is that of a deflated post steroid using individual? I will freely admit, during Nomar's days as a member of the Boston Red Sox, I was ignorant. I defended Nomar, and strongly disagreed with anyone who even implied that Nomar may have dabbled with performance enhancement. Nomar was everyone's favorite Red Sox player for years, and his face was the icon for the team. In hindsight, Nomar's juicing couldn't have been more obvious. He was part of a "rare breed" of shortstops, a group that could play the position of a traditionally smaller man, yet put up the offensive numbers of a power hitting 1st baseman or outfielder. With what we've learned about Alex Rodriguez and Miguel Tejada, that "rare breed" was bred with one ingredient. Steroids. And we'd be naive to think Nomar is any different.

Begin Slideshow

Jabar Gaffney: Under Appreciated by Over-Emotional New England Yahoos

BHL — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 20:41:59 -0500

With Jabar Gaffney signing a four year, ten million dollar deal with the Denver Broncos late last month, Gaffney's short lived tenure as a New England Patriot has come to a close.

Gaffney signed with the Patriots early in the 2006 season after being cut by Philadelphia, with New England short on depth at the wide receiver spot. Gaffney stayed with the Patriots for the 2007 and 2008 seasons, with a one year contract taking him through each year.

Gaffney's first season in New England featured a less than stellar wide receiver crew, and it was Gaffney who emerged as a dependable target for Tom Brady in spite of the also-rans surrounding him (read: Reche Caldwell).

While Gaffney was consistent and dependable as a third and fourth wide receiver, Gaffney's time in New England has unfortunately been marred in the eyes of the average Patriots fan.

The most painstaking mishap of his Patriots career came in November of 2008, in an 18-15 loss to Indianapolis, when Gaffney dropped what appeared to be a sure fire touchdown pass from quarterback Matt Cassel.

If fans allow their emotions to calm, and step back to review what Gaffney did as a Patriot, the picture shouldn't be so blemished.

Gaffney's safety valve status gave Tom Brady a dependable option should Randy Moss, Wes Welker, and at times Donte Stallworth be covered. And in 2006, Gaffney was essentially one of the few reliable targets Brady had.

One could make an argument that Stallworth, who was brought in on a one year deal in 2007 to fill the No. 2 wide receiver slot alongside Moss, was never as productive or dependable as Gaffney, who was technically the No. 3 or No. 4 wide receiver.

Some of Gaffney's biggest contributions to the Patriots came in clutch moments, coming in the closing weeks of the 2007 season (four total touchdowns in weeks 12 through 16), and in the closing minutes of many games.

To highlight Gaffney's accomplishments in New England, and to dispel some of the emotional displeasure exhibited by typical "what have you done for me lately" Patriots fans, I have put together the below list of Gaffney's biggest games as a Patriot.

You know the type of fan this is directed at; the fan who loudly (and unappreciatively) proclaimed, upon Gaffney's signing with Denver, "good riddance, he cost us that game against the Colts, he's a bum."

Consider these the reasons Patriots fans should be thankful for Gaffney's time with the Pats, and equally consider them the reasons fans should be hopeful New England finds a capable replacement for Gaffney:

For the Short-Sighted Fan - Gaffney's top 10 football games as a New England Patriot:

2006-07 Divisional Playoff vs San Diego: 10 receptions, 100 yards, TD
2006-07 Wild Card Playoff vs New York Jets: 8 receptions, 104 yards
Week 14, 2007: 7 receptions, 122 yards, TD vs Pittsburgh
Week 11, 2008: 7 receptions, 86 yards, TD vs NYJ
Week 12, 2007: 6 receptions, 87 yards, TD vs Philadelphia
Week 12, 2008: 5 receptions, 88 yards @ Miami
Week 14, 2008: 4 receptions, 48 yards @ Seattle
Week 16, 2007: 5 receptions, 82 yards, TD vs Miami
Week 16, 2008: 5 receptions, 90 yards vs Arizona (Note: discounted due to the game's outcome)
2007 Conference Championship vs SD: 1 reception, 12 yards, TD (Note: a playoff TD is certainly top 10 eligible)

Biggest Play as a Patriot: Week 13, 2007: Eight yard touchdown reception at Baltimore (Note: This touchdown kept the "Pursuit of Perfection" alive in the waning moments of the game, sealing a win for the Pats).

In conclusion, the above game logs are certainly nothing to proverbially sneeze at. I, for one, have full appreciation for Gaffney's performance while he was with New England, and one small blunder vs Indianapolis in 2008 will not succeed in removing that appreciation.

New England Yahoos should re-consider their evaluation of Gaffney's New England career, and tip their collective caps in tribute to his successful tenure.

Boston's J.D. Drew: Well Compensated, Well Injured

BHL — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 09:33:52 -0500

New season, same story—J.D. Drew's back is bothering him, and one can only envision he'll be riding the pine for at least another 50 games in 2009.

We've all heard the Drew sympathizers talking about how he hit that grand slam in the 2007 playoffs and how he hit that home run in the wild come-from-behind win over Tampa Bay in the 2008 playoffs.

These two home runs mean we should be content with Drew. Really? Are those two home runs really worth five years, and $70 million?

Drew's biggest statistical success since signing with the Red Sox prior to the 2007 season has been his on base percentage (OBP). While Drew hasn't quite put up home run and batting average numbers to meet the lofty expectations driven by his inflated salary, he has certainly held his own when it comes to getting on base.

And OBP, as we know, is one of those areas, along with on base plus slugging percentage (OPS), which have become sought after commodities in today's game.

Drew hit 11 home runs in 2007. The only logical assumption, it would seem, is that Red Sox General Manager Theo Epstein signed Drew based on his two career years—in 2001, while with St. Louis (.323 BA, 27 HR, 73 RBI, .414 OBP) and in 2004 with Atlanta (.305 BA, 31 HR, 93 RBI, .436 OBP).

Those seasons are worth five years, and $70 million. I will not argue that.

But if you look at the bigger picture, last year's 109 games played (67% of the season) appears to be more what should be expected from Drew. His OBP has been decent, but it has not reached his 2001 and 2004 career years.

Drew's signing, along with Julio Lugo's and Matt Clement's, remain the biggest blemishes on Epstein's record during his tenure as Red Sox GM. The writing was on the wall about Drew. His career has been marred by injury, and Epstein chose to ignore this enormous red flag, and bid against himself to sign Drew.

Were these bonehead moves by Theo the exception to the rule, or are these gigantic blunders the sign of a larger issue with his ability to assess free agents? It is these types of acquisitions which lead me to downgrade my overall opinion of Theo. Save for the large payroll he is afforded, including the ability to cover up his mistakes with cash (Red Sox commonly pay players to play for other teams), I think Theo is "good" but not "great."

As spring training is just warming up, Drew is again complaining of back pain. The same back pain he complained about in 2008.

Yet another injury-filled campaign is ahead of us. I can't wait.

Thanks, Theo. You're swell sometimes.

Laurence Maroney and the Patriots: 2009 or Bust

BHL — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 14:32:52 -0500

As a fan of the New England Patriots, I have found myself involved in many recent "discussions" (read: mild and sometimes violent arguments) about Laurence Maroney's "success" in his NFL career.

Now three full seasons in, including one marred by injury, most fans around New England are remarkably critical, and overly emotional, when evaluating Maroney's performance.

One important piece to note, which I said during the 2008 season, is that if New England's goal was to employ a backfield-by-committee approach, then a first round pick should not have been expended to fill one of those backfield committee slots. It would seem more logical to select a committee-based back in the later rounds of the draft. But this element should not factor in to our evaluation of Maroney's performance.

If we remove emotion, and remove our overly "what have you done for me lately" attitude as fans, Maroney's career performance through today is really not all too shabby. In fact, I may even venture to say he has been a serviceable performer.

Looking back, as a rookie in 2006, Maroney split carries with Corey Dillon, and over 14 games he amassed 745 yards on 185 carries, for a 4.3 yards per carry average. Maroney had an additional 22 receptions for 194 yards, and his touchdown total (receiving and rushing) was seven.

The 2006 playoffs were not necessarily a high point for Maroney; while putting up 18 carries for 69 yards against the New York Jets, his carries were kept low in the final two games against San Diego and Indianapolis. The game plan, however, did not appear to be one of relying on the rushing attack in each of those matchups (21 total rushing attempts as a team against San Diego, and 24 total rushing attempts against Indianapolis). And as we all know, New England is a team which utilizes players specifically based on matchups.

In his sophomore campaign in 2007, Maroney continued with a more than serviceable performance, putting together totals of 835 yards on 185 carries for a 4.5 yards per carry mark, this over 13 regular season games. Not too shabby. Especially when you consider that in today's NFL, expecting a running back to start 16 games and handle all of the team's carries seems a bit unrealistic.

Maroney's most notable contribution in 2007, and in his career, was an impressive postseason, which included two performances of 122 yards each, against Jacksonville's stout run defense and against a talented San Diego team. His yards per carry in these playoff games was 5.5 and 4.9 yards per carry, respectively. Maroney did not factor in very large in Super Bowl 42, although he was only called upon 14 times to run the football.

The statistics put forth in 2006 and 2007 appear to be serviceable and respectable from Maroney. Based on those stats alone, in no way would I ever place Maroney as a "first round bust" in terms of his draft status.

2008 was certainly a disappointing season for Maroney, and there is no argument I can put up against that fact. Injuries are part of the game, and Maroney suffered from a season ending shoulder injury.

Will this put the brakes on what appeared to be a serviceable career as an NFL running back? Or will Maroney catapult himself, in a contract year, with the added motivation of New England's recent signing of Fred Taylor, to be a standout back? This much remains to be seen.

The issue I take with fans in New England, with regard to their emotional criticism of Maroney, is that they seem to ignore his successful 2006 and 2007 performances. Fans quickly have forgotten his contribution, and fans are using his usage in a backfield-by-committee as a point against Maroney. This does not seem to be a fair analysis. These same fans appear to have given up on Maroney, and are calling for the team to cut ties with him (in spite of his low salary for his one remaining season, 2009).

On the contrary, I am foreseeing a substantial contribution from Maroney in 2009. I think Maroney will revert back to his 2006 and 2007 performance, and I think we'll see flashes of the brilliance he demonstrated in the 2007 NFL playoffs.

One additional comparison which is popular amongst emotionally driven and overly critical fans, is to claim that Maroney is nothing near what Joseph Addai and Marion Barber have become in the NFL. A quick review of the statistics will show that Maroney really isn't too far statistically from each of those backs.

Marion Barber has put together season yardage totals of 538, 654, 975, and 885, with a career yards per carry average of 4.3. Joseph Addai's career yards per carry average is 4.2, and his yardage totals have been 1081, 1072, and 544. Impressive totals in years 1 and 2 for Addai, but his carry totals are also substantially higher.

So it's only logical, based on the negativity enthralled fans in Maroney's corner, that Laurence Maroney's career yards per carry average must be severely lower than Addai and Barber. Right? Wrong. Maroney has put up a career yards per carry average of 4.3, which is nearly identical to each Addai and Barber.

So I ask fans to remain patient, and avoid becoming emotionally critical when looking forward at Maroney's remaining year as a New England Patriot. 2009 is the year where we can officially determine whether Maroney is a "bust" or not. If he puts up 2006 and 2007-like numbers, then I declare him bust-free and cannot fault his career as a Patriot.

Matt Cassel's Trade a Win For Both Teams

BHL — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 18:15:38 -0500

The early reaction from some folks around New England, and from many NFL fans around the Internet, appears to be the belief that Scott Pioli robbed the Patriots blind in receiving both Matt Cassel and Mike Vrabel for the 34th overall selection in the 2009 NFL Draft.

Let's first think objectively about the market value for Matt Cassel, in terms of what Bill Belichick would prefer to receive. Given Belichick's past history of disliking any draft pick which falls in the top 10 spots due to its subsequent salary requirements, we must assume that Belichick was negotiating with teams with 2009 draft picks falling from No. 10 to No. 31 (Pittsburgh is in no need of a quarterback at No. 32). This, of course, reduces the bidders for Cassel's services.

With that said, it would seem logical that Belichick determined Cassel's value by way of negotiating with those teams. Once Cassel's trade value was established, Belichick then began to determine who would bite on a deal. Teams falling between selections No. 10 and No. 31, presumably, must not have been ready to deal New England their first round pick.

This thought process - that Belichick wanted to steer clear of draft slots No. 1 through No. 10 - also helps to put some logic behind the rumors which placed Detroit and Tampa Bay assisting Denver's effort in making a run at Cassel. I say this because Denver had a mid-1st round pick, which is ideally where Belichick wanted to land. Once those deals fell through, we move on from there.

This brings us to Kansas City. Belichick certainly did not want pick No. 3, due to the amount of money that the player selected at No. 3 is required to command in his rookie contract. Paying a rookie such a high figure is not a risk New England (and many other NFL teams) is willing to take. So, pick No. 34, or the Chiefs second round selection, was the logical answer.

Receiving the 34th pick in the 2009 NFL Draft, in return for a guy who was a backup quarterback and a seventh round selection, would appear to be a great return on your initial investment. Especially when you consider the key point that the 34th pick is a quasi-first rounder, without the salary requirements of a first round draft pick. Brilliance displayed by Belichick.

It's also trivial and a tad naive to think that Cassel's trade value wasn't cemented in the weeks leading up to this weekend, so to those reactionaries claiming that Belichick pulled the trigger too quickly, give it a rest.

I see this trade as a win for both teams; Kansas City receives a budding quarterback and an aging - albeit, wise - veteran linebacker. New England receives their third second round pick for 2009, most importantly one which falls at the start of the round.

New England fans are certainly emotional about the loss of Vrabel. This is understandable, given all that Vrabel did during his time in New England. He gave his heart and soul to the Patriots, and for that, fans are certainly thankful.

I am under the impression that Vrabel was a "throw-in" in this deal. Figuring that he was due a roster bonus in the coming days, and his salary cap figure was rising to approximately $4.5 million for 2009, New England may very well have been on the verge of cutting him. An easy way to save yourself from what would have been an even larger media snow storm, is to trade him away as opposed to cutting him.

From here, the offseason looks to get even more interesting. The Patriots have just freed up an enormous chunk of salary cap space, and they have several players waiting to be extended (most notably Vince Wilfork).

Look for New England to address cornerback and linebacker in the draft and via free agency. Let's hope it's a youthful movement and not one of adding any more age to the defense.

Ortiz Rides the Fence On Steroids Issue

BHL — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:20:24 -0500

While most major media outlets are highlighting a portion of David Ortiz's comments this weekend in which Ortiz lashed out against steroid use, they are omitting one major flaw in his comments.

While Ortiz called for strong testing procedures from this day forward, he also issued a free pass to those who have used in the past. From the Feb. 17 Boston Globe:

"There's a lot of players that have been in federal court being judged like they just killed somebody or they robbed somebody," Ortiz said. "I don't think all that is supposed to be happening.

"If you admitted that you used the stuff, boom, don't use it anymore. You know it's not good for you. You know it's not good for the game, and let's move on.

"But all that, all the drama, bringing guys to court and acting like those [are] serious criminals, it doesn't look good for the game."

How soon we forget that the very same David Ortiz told a Boston Herald reporter in 2007 that he was unsure if he "drank something in [his] youth, not knowing it."

If we read between the lines on this one, it's pretty clear that Ortiz is setting himself up for a win/win situation. Ortiz reaps the benefits of strongly taking a stand against steroid use, and he protects his past by declaring that any instance of injection prior to 2009 be glazed over.

When we consider his comments in their entirety, I am left to conclude that we learned nothing in either direction (injection or no injection) by Ortiz's comments.

Confession: I Still Love Baseball, I Will Still Use My 2009 Tickets

BHL — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:51:18 -0500

As I am a fan of the game of baseball, and enjoy watching talented individuals perform at their peak, I don’t have a major problem with the steroid scandal. I am a paying ticket holder of the Boston Red Sox and have been for the last 15 years.

During those 15 years, it is safe to say that I have witnessed enhanced performance, with the use of steroid and Human Growth Hormone (HGH) cocktails. I am ok with that.

In fact, in terms of entertainment received per dollar spent, I’ve actually gotten more entertainment for my hard earned money than I could have asked for. So to say that steroid use has hurt the game of baseball, I really do not agree.

I understand that promoting steroid use as a means to an end is a problem for the betterment of society. That part is certainly a serious enough issue which mandates that this problem be corrected.

Where I am left confused is when fans are disgusted, surprised, and state that they will no longer watch baseball because of the steroid scandal. Do these same fans also watch football? Do they fool themselves into believing that steroids and HGH are not present in the National Football League (NFL)?

I still wear a t-shirt with "CLEMENS" printed across its back to the gym, as I am comfortable with my moral compass. I have never attended a sporting event and sought to enhance my moral compass. I don't think the two should be intertwined. This is most certainly why I am so perplexed at the reaction of many fans to the steroid issue.

It is also ironic that outrage has resulted from steroid use in baseball, at a time when a sport such as Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) is at its height in terms of popularity. The very same fans who pay money to watch MMA athletes physically harm their bodies and minds, for the sake of fame and fortune, are appalled that baseball players would physically harm their bodies and minds.

Seems conflicting, doesn’t it?

People who are stunned and appalled at the steroid issue need to reconsider what drew them to the sport. If you are looking to enhance your moral compass, attend church or some other moral compass enhancing activity. If you are looking to be entertained, continue watching baseball.

Lastly, ignoring the glaring steroid issue while it happened—which all fans did—and then suddenly doing an about face and rejecting the game when the steroid issue is being addressed, is unproductive. What exactly is turning your back now going to prove?

WEEI: How to Improve The "No.1 Sports Radio Station in The Country"

BHL — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:28:56 -0500

Having lived in New England for my entire life, and having spent many hours on the roadways and in traffic in the Boston area, I've listened to my fair share of talk radio.

When I'm at home, in the office, or on the road, I am usually listening to AM 850 WEEI in Boston, otherwise known as Sports Radio 850. The station has enjoyed enough success to boastfully proclaim itself the "No. 1 Rated Sports Station in the Country." So with that said, no matter how high your rank, there is always room for improvement.

My suggestions, in order of their sequential order during the week day, are as follows:

1] Dennis and Callahan (week days, 6 a.m. to 10 a.m.): Too much politics, and too much 24. I don't watch TV outside of sporting events, and I don't care to hear Tony in Bridgewater spout off about "last night's episode," or hear him theorize about what may happen next. Last I checked, I tuned in to Sports Radio to listen to...sports.

On the politics front, I've always felt that if I wanted an opinion on something, I'd consult the so called experts. Why would I consult Republican extremists for political "news"? I wouldn't turn to NBC's Andrea Mitchell for the score in last night's Sox game, and likewise I am not tuning into D&C to hear about their hatred for President Obama.

My final suggestion with regard to the D&C show is to be less opinionated. This show refuses to take on anyone else's opinion, as it exists solely to broadcast what D&C think, with no exceptions.

Recommendation: Reduce need to bury the listener in D&C's opinions. Stick to sports. Add Michael Felger at least one morning per week, as his objectivity, ability to accept the opinion of callers, and his lack of fear to maintain a controversial opinion is his greatest asset. Keep John Meterparel, and involve him more. He seems more level headed, and less emotional than D&C.

2] Dale and Holley (week days, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.): This is my favorite show on the network. D&H generally seem open to the opinions of all, and freely admit when they are incorrect on a topic. If D&C and The Big Show would take after D&H a little more, the entire day would be much more tolerable to take in.

I remain impressed with the number of emails that D&H are able to squeeze in to each show, which contributes toward maintaining a healthy variety of discussion topics, and an adequate amount of listener input.

Recommendation: Maintain show as-is, although adding Michael Felger one day per week would be entertaining.

3] The Big Show (week days, 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.): Not bad during baseball season, especially when Sean McAdam and Tony Maserati are on. With the addition of Curt Schilling to select shows, this has potential to boost interest, but it will most likely lead to far too many "Hey Curt, I seen ya back in '06 and my son waved to ya, do ya remember that?" type calls.

Football season makes The Big Show absolutely obnoxious. Fred Smerlas and Steve DeOssie simply enjoy hearing themselves speak, especially when it involves talking loudly over the callers. No matter if the caller is actually correct, Fred and Steve will drown them out, and eventually blow them up.

Glen Ordway (The Big O) is a great host, and when complimented with the right supporting cast, his high salary is well justified. Pete Sheppard, the "Sports Flash" update man on the show, is pure entertainment, in spite of his inability to provide objective analysis.

Recommendation: While I have many criticisms, I think the format of this show is great. I think the guest hosts could be improved upon, with an increase in objectivity and a reduction in arrogance.

Keep guys like Lou Merloni and Curt Schilling during baseball season, but oust Fred and Steve during football season in favor of a guy like Rosie Colvin. I'd love to see Felger thrown in here for a day per week. I also think that Cedric Maxwell has been a great addition to the program.

4] Planet Mikey (week days, 6 p.m. to 11 p.m.): Why is there such a steep drop off after The Big Show? I think this show would be more appropriately placed from midnight to 6 a.m.

Topics are seldom interesting, and are typically strange and bizarre. This may be a product of being at the end of the sports day, but I think WEEI could do much better in this slot.

Recommendation: Replace Mikey with one of the weekend shows, such as Mut and Bradford or John Ryder. Lenny Megliola should stay, as Lenny adds value.

5] Weekends: I have no issues with the weekend format at the moment. The saturday morning Mut and Bradford show is well put together, and the shows with John Ryder and Lenny Megliola are usually entertaining and informative.

Bambino's Curse Lives in the Non-Steroid Era (Red Sox '04; Red Sox '07)

BHL — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:24:01 -0500

With the steroid issue again becoming the No. 1 topic in the news, a very relevant question for the here and now is this: do World Series titles during the steroid era receive an asterisk?

Being a fan of the Boston Red Sox and the New England Patriots, I am left to ponder this issue. When the SpyGate issue surfaced, the rest of the country insisted that New England and Bill Belichick's titles deserved an asterisk.

New England fans defended the Patriots' actions, stating that the whole league was stealing signals in some form.

So applying that same logic, in spite of every Major League Baseball team presumably including steroid users, you'd have to place an asterisk next to the 2004 and 2007 World Series titles of the Boston Red Sox.

This means that the only way the Red Sox were able to defeat the immortal Babe Ruth - similar to Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds, and Sammy Sosa who knocked Babe from 2nd to 8th place on the single season home run list - was to cheat. The history books will appear as follows:

Boston Red Sox: 2004 World Series Champions*
Boston Red Sox: 2007 World Series Champions*
Barry Bonds: Most Home Runs Hit, Single Season*

A sad, but true reality of the steroid era. All World Series titles from this time period must be appended with an asterisk.

The New England Patriots Should Trade Matt Cassel ASAP

BHL — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 09:06:23 -0500

This is certainly a topic where opinions are present on each side, and I fall strongly on one side of it. The New England Patriots should trade Matt Cassel before the 2009 NFL Draft.

There have been writers and talk show callers who are demanding that New England hold on to Cassel as an insurance policy (an expensive one for sure), but I find that idea to be outlandish.

These writers and callers cite the need to have a backup plan in place, should Tom Brady not be at full health to start the 2009 season.

Let's consider what Peyton Manning did in 2008; sure, he was not the same Peyton Manning for the first half of the season. In the end, did that matter? I'd like to believe it did not.

Peyton caught fire and returned to form, allowing the team to win out and make the playoffs. They faced a tough and equally hot San Diego team in the opening round, but surely that loss had little to do with Peyton's knee.

Tom Brady will be healthy in 2009, and he will be the starting quarterback of the Patriots. With that established, Matt Cassel's value is currently at its peak. That value conceivably could not go any higher, so the Patriots should capitalize on it while they can.

Lastly, the Patriots have an overwhelming number of players with expiring contracts at the close of the 2009 season. If you wait to trade Cassel, then you will handicap yourself from negotiating those contracts in advance.

Consider this as my prediction as well as my opinion: Matt Cassel will not be wearing a New England Patriots' uniform when camp starts this summer.

This Weekend's ARod "News" Should Come as a Surprise to No One

BHL — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 16:45:36 -0500

Is anyone really surprised about yesterday's report that Alex Rodriguez may have tested positive for steroids in 2003? At this point, we have had numerous books, a formal audit report issued by a former United States Senator, all topped off by the baseball record books being ripped up and shredded just like the players of the steroid era.

If you've read Jose Canseco's books, you probably were not all too shocked to hear about A-Rod. The first book, Juiced, was incredible—the second, Vindicated, seemed more about filling up enough printed pages to convince innocent buyers to fork over their money to buy it.

It was in the second book, however, that Jose Canseco informed us of how Alex Rodriguez approached him in the weight room and asked him about steroids, their use, and where he could get them. Once I read that, and considered A-Rod's incredible statistics throughout his career, I needed no further proof.

It seems that other baseball fans are not like me. It seems that many baseball fans are living in denial, committed to believe that the steroid users were in the minority. I, for one, firmly believe that steroid use was—to take a word from Jose Canseco—"rampant."

I think those who weren't taking some form of performance enhancer were in the steep minority. So to hear yesterday's news about Rodriguez, I was not at all surprised, nor did I even truly consider it to be newsworthy.

One final area where I remain frustrated with the general fan's viewpoint of the steroid scandal is with George Mitchell's report. This report, as stated by Mitchell himself on numerous occasions and within the actual report itself, was intended to sample a small sub-set of the baseball population to determine if steroids were being used.

The output of that sampling of a sub-set of the baseball population was then published in the form of a list of names. The list of names, as Mitchell would later allow, was something he went back and forth on many times. Should he print names? It was decided that printing names would have the greatest benefit in terms of deterring others from using steroids.

And that was the purpose of the Mitchell Report. It was an audit report, using a sample of the baseball world, and publishing the results from that sample test to communicate an underlying issue in baseball. Performance enhancement was the name of the game.

It seems that in the time since the Mitchell Report was released, steroid abuse has gone down. If you take a look around at the numbers being put up today, they seem to have deflated back, and have been right-sized.

With that being the case, I am left to sit and wonder what the true purpose of continuing to deliberate on the 2003 steroid test results, and the list of 103 names who tested positive for steroids. Perhaps it will further promote the movement to remove steroids from the game, and if that is the end result, I applaud this action.

I saw a poll on ESPN.com over the weekend which asked fans whether A-Rod should be banned from the game. I was miffed at this, especially when I saw that the majority of respondents had actually voted yes. Are we kidding ourselves here? If we ban A-Rod, we will have to move forward with banning over 50% of the entire league.

So with that said, the one caveat I would put on this list of names, similar to Senator Mitchell's list of names, is that this list is by no means all-inclusive. To not have appeared on this list does not mean the respective player did not use steroids.

This is the area that the general public needs to come to terms with. The reality is that steroid abuse was rampant, and no list of names—no matter how large—will ever identify with 100% certainty who used steroids, and who did not.