Bleacher Report - Articles by Ben Carder

New England Patriots Workmanlike in Win over Baltimore Ravens

Ben Carder — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:37:20 -0400

Anyone who watches a Patriots postgame press conference knows that memorable quotes are hard to come by. They’re the typical, “We need to play better,” or the “That was a solid performance” stuff; in other words, lines that do little to illustrate how the Pats played. But every once in a while, you get a game that’s so workmanlike in its execution, trite lines work just fine.

Such was the case in New England’s 27-21 victory over the Baltimore Ravens yesterday, a team that came in sporting a 3-0 record, the second best offense in the league, and a defense Bill Belichick describes as the best of the past decade. Thanks to improved, workmanlike play in all three of the Patriots’ game yesterday, the Ravens left Gillette a pedestrian 3-1 (i.e., with six teams sporting a 3-1 record, it is the most common record in the NFL after Week Four).

The Patriots’ improved play was on display early with special teams, as the opening kickoff was recovered by the Patriots after cornerback Brandon McGowan stripped Baltimore’s Chris Garr of the ball. Three plays later, the Patriots kicked in a 32-yard field goal.

Three points was not what the team nor the fans were after, though, not from a team that’s been downright putrid in the red zone recently (e.g. the Patriots were 1-for-8 in red zone attempts up to that point, while Baltimore hadn’t allowed a red zone touchdown in seven attempts coming into Sunday)

That sure wasn’t a harbinger of things to come, though, as kicker Stephen Gostkowski’s services would be called upon only one other time, and the Patriots would score on three of five attempts in the red zone, their best red zone conversion rate to date.

Not to be outdone was the improvement in the Patriots’ passing game. Against the last three teams, Brady and his receivers were on different pages, with players either not running their routes, Brady overthrowing his targets or receivers not reeling in their catches. But Brady spread the wealth around against Baltimore, throwing to nine different receivers for a total of 234 yards. The sure-handed Ben Watson—a term that couldn’t be ascribed to him in past seasons—led the way in receiving yards with 51, while Wes Welker led in receptions with six.

The Patriots’ running game wasn’t as impressive from a standpoint of running yards amassed. Fred Taylor alone had more yards in Week Three (105) than the Patriots had total this week (85). Similar to the passing game, though, the yards and attempts were spread around, as the triumvirate of Fred Taylor, Sammy Morris and Kevin Faulk ran for 20+ yards each on seven, six and five carries, respectively (Brady and Maroney contributed 11 and six yards, respectively).

Next to the improvements in the red zone, perhaps the biggest reason why the Patriots won was their defense, particularly in the secondary.

Besides Baltimore’s first drive, wherein Joe Flacco and Derrick Mason scored a touchdown after four consecutive 3rd down conversions, the Patriots’ secondary neutralized Baltimore’s vaunted offense. Mason was undeniably impressive, leading both teams in receiving yards with 88. He could have had a heck of a lot more, though, if not for the stifling defense of the Patriots’ Brandons, namely Meriweather and McGowan. Meriweather led the team in tackles with nine and broke up two crucial pass attempts, one of which was a deep end zone pass to Mason in the second quarter.

Rookie cornerback Darius Butler impressed as well. Ahead 27-21 and with three- and-a-half minutes remaining, the Patriots’ Butler and McGowan forced Baltimore’s Mark Clayton to drop a pass on 4th and 4. A completion would have granted new life to Baltimore’s offense, as they were within 20 yards of the end zone.

“It feels good to make a big play on fourth down,” McGowan told The Boston Herald. “It lets you know that we’re a tough team, a tough defense and that we can make some plays.”

And more plays are what Belichick ascribes to the Patriots’ victory.

“That’s a real good football team,” said Belichick in the postgame press conference, referring to the Ravens. “They’ve made plays on everyone this year. Fortunately, we made more plays than they did. That’s about all there is to it.”

The Patriots hope to continue their week-to-week improved play in Denver next week, as they face off against one of the league’s five remaining undefeated teams at Invesco Field. This will be the first time Broncos head coach Josh McDaniels plays his former employer. The last time the Patriots played Denver at Invesco was in the 2006 AFC Divisional playoffs, where they lost 27-13. The Patriots defeated the Broncos at Gillette last year, 41-7. Their lifetime record versus the Broncos is 16-26.

Patriots Look Improved in Win Over Falcons

Ben Carder — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:40:44 -0400

It wasn’t the Patriots circa 2007, but Belichick’s boys did more than enough to win yesterday afternoon, defeating the Atlanta Falcons 26-10 in front of a rain-soaked capacity crowd at Gillette Stadium. The Atlanta Falcons' visit was their first to the Razor, and minus a few nice plays from Boston College product Matt Ryan, the franchise’s inaugural journey was nothing to write home about.

Ryan’s first drive was a successful one for the most part, as he went 3-for-3 in completions. His accuracy didn’t translate into an end zone visit, however, as the Patriots defense forced Jason Elam to kick a 26-yard field goal.

What was a quick three points for Atlanta was a hard-earned three for New England, though, as the ensuing drive took 16 plays and 81 yards to complete.

The game had all the early indications of being another field goal duel, but that was broken up by the Pats’ improved ground game. After a three and out from Atlanta, Patriots RB Fred Taylor scored New England’s first touchdown since Week One after a series of successful gains on the ground (highlighted by a 19-yard run, the game’s longest single rush attempt).

But the Falcons knotted the score at 10 the very next drive, culminated by Michael Turner’s two-yard run into the end zone.

The Patriots’ next two drives were perhaps the most memorable ones for Pats fans, as Wilfork left the game with an injured ankle in the first drive (The Boston Herald reports the injury to be a sprain, no knowledge yet of his ability to play next week) and Brady looked uncharacteristically annoyed with his receivers on the second drive, which was capped with yet another field goal.

Brady went 10 for 18 with 87 yards in the first half. With a 55.5 percent completion rate, Brady was rightfully frustrated with his receivers for not completing routes (i.e. Sam Aiken) and dropping a series of catchable balls (i.e. Joey Galloway, Randy Moss, Aiken). This frustration was on full display, as camera crews caught several of his profanity-laced tirades.

Brady explained the source of his frustration during his weekly interview Monday morning with WEEI’s Dennis and Callahan.

Referring to his receivers, Brady said, “It’s not that I’m right and they’re wrong, we’re just on different pages at times. But that’s just part of the way it is early in the year when you’ve never played together. With Wes [Welker] out, we have a lot of moving parts and they’re working hard and they’re trying to do the right thing…but we’re not playing with a level of the ability that we have. That doesn’t mean that we’re not going to get there. I believe we’re going to keep working at it and things are going to keep getting better and better for us.”

While the jury’s still out on whether the quarterback-receiver connection will get “better and better” for the Patriots, it at least moderately improved in the second half.

Despite leading 16-10 late in the third quarter, Brady and Co. decided to go for it on 4^th and inches on their own 25-yard line. The truly gutsy call paid dividends, for not only did they convert, but Brady and Moss made several nice connections that were conspicuously missing in the first half. Moss finished the game with 10 receptions and 106 total yards.

About mid-way into the fourth quarter, Brady threw for his 200^th career touchdown to former Jets TE Chris Baker. The milestone marker (Brady is the first to throw for 200 touchdowns and be sub-100 in interceptions thrown) put the score at 26-10, which would wind up being the final score.

“I’m really proud of our football team,” said Belichick during his post-game press conference. “We made a lot of plays that we needed to make, especially in the running game.”

The Patriots improved run game was courtesy of Taylor, who ran for 105 yards on 21 carries.

“[Taylor’s] really shifty,” said Brady during the post-game press conference. “Even when there’s not a lot of room in there he makes yards when we give him the ball. He’s a really good player for us and we’ve got to give him the ball.”

While virtually all aspects of the Patriots’ performance improved in Week Three, their red-zone conversion rate suffered. Within 20 yards of the end zone, the Patriots were 1-for-5, a modicum of improvement over last week’s 0’fer.

“We left some points out there in the red area,” said Belichick. “We gotta do a better job in that area. But it’s good to win.”

Next week, New England will play host to the Baltimore Ravens. The 3-0 Ravens and their vaunted defense will really test the mettle of the Patriots’ offensive line, which was brilliant against the Falcons, and to a somewhat lesser extent, the Jets in Week Two. Week One was the last time the Pats’ offensive line allowed a sack, and they currently have the longest streak of sack-free football in the NFL with respect to pass attempts (no sacks allowed in 134 pass attempts).

The defense was no slouch either. Despite being short-handed, the defense kept Matt Ryan to sub-200 yards in passing (i.e. 199) and kept the team’s lead receiver—Michael Jenkins—to just 78 yards. But what really impressed was their ability to render TE Tony Gonzales a non-entity. His only contribution came in garbage time, catching a 16-yard pass from Ryan.

That could be a different story next week, as Joe Flacco and the Ravens’ receiving core logged 342 passing yards on Cleveland Sunday in a rout, 34-3. Baltimore’s Derrick Mason finished with five catches and 118 yards.

Curt Schilling Says No to Senate Run: Too Bad, He'd Have Been Fun To Watch

Ben Carder — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:43:41 -0400

After several weeks of speculation and “Will he? or Won’t he?” interviews, 38pitches.com founder made it official on HBO’s Joe Buck Live this week: No senate run for Schilling.

Before Schilling made his no-run decision final, he made it clear to Boston radio listeners that if he were in, he was in to win. He wouldn’t be cowed by pol prognosticators who thought he had no shot.

The only thing that could prevent him was his family. And in the end, the time in which his run would take him away from his family was the deciding factor.

“I can’t commit the time,” said Schilling to WEEI’s Dennis and Callahan on Thursday morning. “If I wasn’t going to be able to be ‘all-in’ from a commitment stand point, then there was absolutely no way I was going to do it. Maybe it’s naïve or ignorance, whatever you want to call it, but I was going in thinking I could actually win this thing and what that would mean.

"But in the end, I don’t think that would have made my marriage and my relationship with my children better.”

According to Schilling, there was so much financial support for him to run, he wouldn’t have had to commit any of his own money. But that’s not to suggest he didn’t have a fair share of detractors.

Schilling is not exactly Mr. Popularity among his peers or those that covered him. He was once listed fourth on GQ magazine’s “Ten Most Hated Athletes” list, and Boston Globe sports columnist Dan Shaughnessy once called him “the big blow hard.”

“He’s somebody who’s always positioning himself in terms of what’s best for Curt Schilling,” said ESPN’s Pedro Gomez to GQ. “He’s the consummate table for one.”

In other words, no one’s agnostic about Curt. He’s a love him or hate him type of guy. A guy who calls it likes he sees it, take it or leave it. And it’s this shtick—the “Schilling Shtick”—that would have made the next few months better than theater for political junkies.

Bathed in blue, that hasn’t had a Republican senator since Edward Brooke beat Endicott Peabody in 1966, Massachusetts and the conservative Schilling were like oil and water. Certainly cynics of Schilling’s run pointed to this “fact” as justification for calling his run for senate nothing more than a circus.

But the track record of success for former athletes-turned-politicians is quite good...even in states where the athlete’s party affiliation is contrary to his or her own.

In 2003, Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, became governor of a state that hasn’t voted for a Republican president since 1988. Olympian Ben Nighthorse Campbell served three terms as a Democratic senator from the more-often-than-not red state of Colorado (Colorado has voted Democrat in presidential elections three times since 1964).

And former Washington Redskins QB Heath Schuler currently serves as a Democratic congressman in the Republican bastion of North Carolina.

Besides his ability to actually win in January, Schilling has shown an ability to actually get things done, something every voter wants from his or her elected rep.

He brought a World Series championship to Arizona, was instrumental in the Red Sox’ first title in 86 years, raises hundreds of thousands of dollars for charity organizations (particularly for diseases like ALS), and helped bring some much needed campaign donations for John McCain in 2008 and George W. Bush in 2004.

While Schilling’s ability as an actual candidate is debatable, his “no go” for the senate is a crying shame for politicos and armchair pundits: They won’t be able to break down Schilling’s brash, no-nonsense style that would surely have been on display in debates.

The thought of Schilling duking it out with the likes of longtime Democratic pols Martha Coakley or Michael Capuano would have made his dust-ups with Shaughnessy seem like harmless banter (Schilling likes to refer to Shaughnessy as his “Curly-haired boyfriend” or CHB for short).

But who knows? Perhaps Schilling will enter the political fray in future years when his kids are older. Or perhaps he’ll give it a go when he’s not so tied down with his charity and IP company, 38 Studios.

As fun as he was to watch on the pitchers mound, Schilling would have been a joy to watch on the senate floor.

Hey, there’s always next election.

Is the WNBA on the Way Out? Why the League Should Consider Game Changes

Ben Carder — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:02:58 -0400

So the WNBA Conference Finals are set.

In the East, it’s the Shock vs. the Fever; in the West, it’s the Sparks vs. the Mercury.

Hoping to whet WNBA enthusiasts’ appetites, ESPN.com writers pepper their prose with clever word play, like whether the Fever can “Solve the Shock,” or wondering aloud whether it will be CP3 (Candice Parker) or DT3 (Diana Taurasi) that takes home the Western Conference crown.

But WNBA writers would be better off asking their readers the following: Who, other than you, knows the WNBA even exists?

Though ESPN airs WNBA games, you’d be hard-pressed to find a game breakdown on SportsCenter or game recap on their "BottomLine."

Their Web site makes it easy to find columnists and their columns, the big three in professional sports (NFL, MLB, NBA, in that order), and a simple scroll of the mouse wheel reveals links to MMA, horse racing, and Olympic sports news.

No such luck, er, link on the front page for the WNBA.

Obviously, this lack of exposure stems from the league’s perpetually poor ratings share.

Last year, when the economy was booming rather than busting, the WNBA saw minor improvements over 2007, increasing their attendance a mere 2.7 percent, and their TV ratings two-tenths of a percent.

When the 2008 season kicked off in June, the WNBA posted numbers that painted a much rosier view, but the shuttering of the WNBA’s winningest franchise last December due to finances belied those assertions (i.e., Houston Comets).

Defenders of the WNBA will point out the fact that any increase is positive, but not when the bar at which improvement is measured is remarkably low.

How low?

The average number of viewers last year was 413,000, which amounts to a 0.32 ratings share. Niche news commentary programs like The O’Reilly Factor and Hannity get well over that number on re-runs, never mind live programming.

In this the WNBA’s 13th year of existence, who’s to blame for their lack of limelight?

Poor marketing is partially to blame.

ESPN2 airs WNBA playoff games, but the highlights are seldom seen on SportsCenter and a majority of the televised playoff games require a subscription if you want to watch (e.g., at least two of the three-game WNBA conference series will be aired on NBATV, more if the series goes the distance).

But the blame really ought to go to the league itself and failing to implement adjustments that would make it more compelling.

Consider, for instance, lowering the basketball hoop, as has been discussed by Bill Simmons in a past podcast of his.

No one questions or finds fault in the fact that women’s basketballs are lighter than men’s basketballs. And they ought to be—men are naturally stronger than women, as dictated by biology. Similarly, men tend to have more spring in their step than women.

Again, this is a distinction that’s purely biological.

So it only stand to reason that the women’s basketball hoop be lowered to accommodate this distinction. Slam dunks bring an element of excitement to all basketball games, and the slam dunk would do for the WNBA, what it did for the NBA.

At the very least, it would put WNBA players on the highlight reel.

Another tinkering worth considering is shortening the shot clock.

To the WNBA’s credit, they shortened the shot clock length by six seconds in 2005, making it the 24-second clock that it is today. But this is the same length as the NBA, and the NBA game moves at a faster pace than the WNBA game (again, it’s a matter of biology, not that men are preternaturally faster than women).

Shortening the shot clock length by four to six seconds would add a layer of intensity to the game that the NBA could very well wind up adopting.

There are innumerable ways in which to improve the WNBA, and no doubt others have thought of these same changes. So, what’s the hold up?

Perhaps it’s out of fear of feminist backlash that changes made will somehow delegitimize a woman’s basketball savvy.

Hog wash!

If that’s the case, then why is there no complaint about a woman’s basketball being lighter than a man’s? Or that women throw a much softer, larger ball on the pitching rubber, catch with a bigger glove, and hit with a longer bat?

It’s possible that the WNBA will garner huge crowds in the coming years without these changes, but based on how the recession’s impacted the bottom-line of leagues once considered recession-proof (i.e. it’s projected that at least 12 NFL teams will not sell out all their home games this year, compared to the three from last year), expect the state of the economy in 2009 to be a harbinger of what’s to come for the WNBA.

Jets Embarrass Patriots: Rhodes' Prediction Comes True with Pats Poor Showing

Ben Carder — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:48:17 -0400

In the run up to the 100th all-time meeting between the Patriots and Jets, the AFC East rivalry contained all the hallmarks of a hard fought battle. For instance, in the preceding 99 games, both teams had 49 wins (one game ending in a tie).

The last time the two foes met, the game went into overtime; as in past closely fought games where New England’s taken part, trash talk was levied against the Pats by a member of the opposing team’s secondary (e.g. Kerry Rhodes of the Jets last week, Anthony Smith of the Pittsburgh Steelers in 2007, Freddie Mitchell of the Philadelphia Eagles in 2005).

And if you only saw the score of yesterday’s game—the Jets winning 16-9—you’d think yesterday was yet another hard fought battle.

Those who watched, though, saw something quite different.

They saw a Patriots team that was outplayed, outmatched, and to paraphrase Rhodes comments from last week, “embarrassed” by their poor performance.

That’s not to say the game was a downer from start to finish for Brady and Co., as the first quarter was filled with some great “firsts.”

New England got great field position on the kickoff. Their first first down came on their first play, and the Patriots’ Joey Galloway hauled in his first catch as a Patriot just 1:30 into the first quarter.

Meanwhile, the Jets’ “firsts” weren’t nearly as propitious.

The Jets’ Leon Washington lost a fumble to the Patriots, the first time the Jets have done so since 1991, and the Jets’ first First Down came with 10:45 remaining in the second quarter.

Despite the lacklustre start for the Jets, amassing a putrid minus two passing yards the entire first half, they went into the half only down three. The Patriots could only muster a mere six points heading into the half on two Gostkowski field goals (one from 45 yards, the other from 25 yards).

That’s right about where the tide turned for the J-E-T-S.

As New York emerged from the locker room and made their way back to the gridiron, Sanchez and company compiled almost as many yards on their first drive as they amassed the entire first half (54 to 56). It took just three plays to do what the Patriots couldn’t do in an entire game: score a touchdown.

A 45-yard hook-up with Cotchery, a run up the middle, and a Sanchez-to-Keller connection put the Jets up for good 10-3.

The Jets would then go on to score two more times on a pair of field goals before game’s end; but Brady’s shakiness throughout the second half, made those six points seem gratuitous.

Granted, the Pats receivers didn’t make things easy for Brady, as the quartet of Galloway, Edelman, Moss and Maroney looked like court jesters with their juggling acts. But given Brady’s four—FOUR!—delay of game penalties, the Patriots receivers weren’t the only objects worthy of ridicule.

The offensive line didn’t make matters any easier, as Brady was hurried 15 times and knocked down five times.

As bad as it was though, the Patriots still had the opportunity to win the game with just under two minutes remaining in the fourth. Five plays, 18 yards, and 46 seconds later, though, the Pats went four and out.

GAME OVER.

The win marked the Jets first home win over the Patriots since 2000. With it, they did what no team has been able to do since 2006; keep the Patriots from scoring six. Through the season’s first two weeks, in fact, the Jets have yet to allow a touchdown.

In the post-game press conference and interviews, “better” was the operative word among those who spoke…referring to the Jets, of course.

“We were the better team today,” said New York Jets coach Rex Ryan in the post-game press conference. “That’s the football team we were this week, that’s the team we were last week.”

“They did a better job than we did,” said Belichick. “We just didn’t do a good enough job.”

“We’ve got to find ways to perform better as a team,” echoed Brady in an interview with WEEI AM 850 Monday. “The veteran leaders have to do a better job at leading. Ultimately, we just have to play better. I think that’s what it comes down to.”

True indeed.

The Patriots have a deadly duo to contend with next week in the Falcons Matt Ryan and Tony Gonzalez. Through two games, Gonzalez has a pair of touchdown catches, one of them yesterday in the Falcons 28-20 win over the Carolina Panthers.

Last year’s rookie of the year (Ryan) threw for three touchdowns, a career-high. Atlanta’s 2-0 record marks their best start since 2006 (before that, since 1995).

The road doesn't get any easier, for a team who many thought had an easy one to start the season.

Elementary, My Dear Watson: Why Benjamin Watson's Return Is a No Brainer

Ben Carder — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:35:33 -0400

Benjamin Watson makes his long awaited return to the grid iron Friday, but you sure wouldn’t know that if most of your Boston sports knowledge comes from the radio dial. That’s because No. 84 has been largely forgotten, replaced by No. 87. No, not that No. 87 (Ben Coates). The man is Chris Baker.

Baker comes from our neighbors to the south, the J-E-T-S (Jets, Jets, Jets!), where he’s spent the entirety of his eight-year career. He put up some fairly impressive numbers for the white and green, his best year coming in 2007 (15 starts, 41 catches, 409 yards, three touchdowns). Otherwise, his numbers have been rather mediocre.

Yet after one preseason game, Baker has been all but crowned as Watson’s successor, some questioning whether Watson will even make the 53-man roster come cut day.

It’s not just the Boston sports media extolling Baker’s virtues, mind you. According to CBSSports.com’s Rapid Reports, the players and staff love him, too. Wes Welker sees him as the surprise out of training camp, and the hooded one himself was impressed by his Aug. 13 debut.

And with Baker’s two touchdown catches before halftime, it’s hard to blame him.

What is difficult to fathom, however, is how some are questioning Watson’s ability to make the 53-man roster.

In the word of Bill Simmons, “Really?”

For starters, you know what you’re getting with Watson—both in numbers and in effort.

For example, despite starting four fewer games than Baker last year (13 for Baker, nine for Watson), Watson had more yards than Baker, more receptions than Baker, a higher yards per catch average, and more touchdowns (Baker had zero touchdowns in 2008). And while neither player is known for his defensive prowess, Watson had two more tackles than Baker did last year (Baker, once again, had none).

Watson also brings the kind of effort built straight out of the "Tedy Bruschi School of Full-Tilt, Full Time,” the most notable example coming on a cold Saturday night in mid-January four years ago.

Down by four and deep in Denver territory, Brady did what he rarely does in the postseason: he threw for an interception. The interceptor, Broncos CB Champ Bailey, left everyone in the dust, streaking for the end zone and a sure six-spot. But out of nowhere came a streaking Benjamin Watson, who knocked both Bailey and the ball out of bounds at the 1-yard line.

Sure, the Broncos wound up scoring, and sure the Pats wound up losing (27-13), but that kind of hustle, resilience and speed is seldom seen at tight end.

Three spots need to be filled. Four tight ends are fighting for those three positions (Alex Smith and David Thomas are the other two). Thomas doesn’t have the resume Watson has (he’s caught a grand total of nine balls in his three years with New England), leaving Smith as his primary competition. And with numbers comparable to Watson in 2008 (21 catches, 250 yards, three touchdowns for Thomas with Tampa Bay; 22 catches, 209 yards and two touchdowns for Watson with New England), Friday’s game could play a major role in who’ll be on the chopping block.

If for no other reason, that makes the third game of the preseason a must-watch event As must-watch as a preseason game can be, I guess.

As we stand now, though, given Watson’s track record in his six years at the Razor—not to mention Belichick’s history with tenured Patriots (i.e. holding on to guys like Tedy Bruschi, Troy Brown, and Kevin Faulk in their later years)—no one should even be hinting at Watson’s ouster.

Justin Masterson Trade No Master Stroke

Ben Carder — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 18:47:03 -0400

When someone feels as though they’ve been wronged and that it demands some sort of response, it’s often suggested that the person writing the letter “sit on it.” Don’t send out the scathing rebuke into the ether until you’ve let the dust settle.

Hearkening on the “time heals all wounds” refrain, the aggrieved party typically settles down and the once scathing letter is mollified by more benign phrases. After all, sometimes, an injustice is actually a boon in disguise.

The sporting world is full of these misconceptions of reality, like the Philadelphia Eagles drafting Syracuse product Donovan McNabb instead of Ricky Williams in 1999; or a beleaguered, unrocket like Roger Clemens leaving the Red Sox after several sub-par years, only to have his thrusters re-ignited in Toronto.

And while the most recent Red Sox transaction—Justin Masterson for Cleveland’s Victor Martinez—has all the potential to be a great deal, the outcome is likely to be another misconception of reality: In short, what looks like a good deal now, won’t look so great when the veneer fades away.

Not if you’re a Red Sox fan, at least.

In the initial aftermath of the Sox acquiring Victor Martinez, things were looking up at the friendly Fenway confines. Before embarking on their current six-game road trip, the acquiring of Victor Martinez had all the hallmarks of a steal of a deal. V-Mart’s numbers speak for themselves: A .545 average (6-for-11) 5 RBI, and an OPS of 1.182 in two games of play at Fenway. Some truly amazing numbers, no doubt.

And as impressive as his numbers have been in his week with the Sox, they haven’t been quite as gawdy with the Indians. Sure, the Vic-meister rounds out the top three catchers in batting average for the year (third only to Joe Mauer and A.J Pierzynski), but his July numbers leave one wanting: a .175 batting average (14-80), 10 RBI, and a middling .530 OBP.

Anyone can have a bad month, sure, but the point is that the Red Sox weren’t in dire need of batting to begin with.

With less than 60 games remaining in the regular season, the Red Sox are in the top 10 in batting average (tied for eighth), fourth in runs scored, fifth in RBI, fourth in OBP, and second in doubles (15 ahead of the third place Rays). That’s in the entire league.

How’s their pitching? Nowhere near as impressive.

Since the All-Star break, they’re 18th in ERA, have nine losses to their credit (12th worst in the league), and only eight wins (by comparison, the worst team in the league, the San Diego Padres, have the same number of wins).

This from a team that had “too much” pitching at the start of the season.

By trading Justin Masterson, the Red Sox traded a key cog. His post-season performance last year aside—where he appeared nearly every night and was a crucial component of their making it to the seventh game of the ALCS—he’s already surpassed his 2008 strikeout total, has improved his strike out to walk ratio, and is slated to start for Eric Wedge and the Indians next week, according to multiple reports.

Masterson proved masterful in his first stint with the Tribe Aug. 1, pitching three scoreless innings (45 total pitches), no walks, and four strike outs.

The best deal for the Sox at the trading deadline would have been no deal at all, certainly not a deal that sends a 23-year-old flamethrower with a linebacker-like physique (6’6”, 250 pounds) to a team with, since the All-Star Break, a better ERA than Boston, more registered Ws than Boston, fewer losses than Boston, more innings pitched than Boston, and fewer earned runs than Boston.

In short, Epstein’s dealing of Masterson was no master stroke. Martinez’ and Masterson’s respective careers— never-mind the rest of the season—will indicate as such.

Dice-K Drama: Red Sox Should Allow Hurler to Throw Longer

Ben Carder — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:00:42 -0400

“Disappointing” was the word of the day Tuesday in Red Sox land, as Boston’s boys of summer turned in a disappointing bullpen performance, punctuated by Jonathan Papelbon’s third blown save of the season.

Tuesday’s loss gives Boston their seventh loss in the past 10 games, a disappointing stretch, no doubt.

But what really disappointed the Red Sox’ front office brass—not to mention manager Terry Francona and pitching coach John Farrell—was Red Sox (once) ace Daisuke Matsuzaka’s comments to Japanese media a few days back.

In the interview, Matsuzaka expressed his discontent with how his rehab’s gone thus far, irked by how Farrell and the Sox pitching staff are handling his pitch count.

Perhaps his tough words for the Sox organization were lost in translation, but the Dice Man is essentially blaming not himself, but the Red Sox for his poor performance thus far; if only they’d allow him to pitch more, there’d be more results.

“It’s disappointing,” said Francona to The Providence Journal Tuesday after hearing about Dice-K’s comments. “Not disappointing that he has an opinion…it’s disappointing we took a meeting that was confidential and he decided to air it publicly.”

John Farrell reiterated the disappointment in interviews with the Boston Globe and with sports radio hosts Dale and Holley on WEEI-AM 850 Tuesday afternoon.

“For them to come out as they have now is, in a word, disappointing,” said Farrell.

Disappointment aside, Matsuzaka’s bone of contention is that Japanese pitchers require more starts and more throws for them to really make a difference on the mound and to build up arm strength. And Farrell doesn’t take this notion for granted. Up to a point, at least.

“We’re familiar with the norms and practices Japanese pitchers go through,” said Farrell in his interview with WEEI’s midday duo. “But when you allow a pitcher to ramp up volume when he’s in an area that’s in somewhat of a red flag, that’s just being negligent on our part...

“To us, it doesn’t matter if you’re from Japan, the Dominican, or the States, we feel that the human body has movements that it goes through that you’ve gotta support it through overall conditioning and strength, in addition to throwing, but if you take it from just a throwing standpoint, I think you’re getting to the point of diminishing returns and putting your arm in jeopardy of further injury. That’s what we’ve tried to educate him on because he’s that valuable and he deserves that.”

Farrell’s comments certainly sound reasonable and logical, but one only has to look at Daisuke’s performance in the World Baseball Classic and his outings this year to think that there may be a method to Dice-K’s madness.

In Matsuzaka’s 35 innings of work over eight appearances this year, he’s surrendered eight home runs (the same number as Wakefield’s surrendered in 108 innings) 59 hits (20 more than Manny Delcarmen, whose pitched in only four more innings) and 35 runs, all of them earned (four fewer than Justin Masterson, whose pitched in twice the number of innings).

Now compare that to his six appearances in the 2006 and 2009 World Baseball Classic: Over 28 innings, he allowed just three home runs, 22 hits, and six runs, all of them earned.

Granted, that’s in seven fewer innings pitched, but the breadth of difference in all three statistical categories is far greater than the difference in number of innings pitched.

Oh, and Dice-K received MVP honors not only in 2006, but in 2009 as well.

For these reasons, it seems reasonable to believe that Matsuzaka knows his body and knows the conditions in which he pitches best.

While the 2007-08 season was good for Matsuzaka—suggesting that the Sox’ pitching staff properly handled Dice-K then—it wasn’t great, as his win-loss record might suggest (18-3).

Much like the Papelbon of ’09, he had a penchant for loading the bases, walked innumerable batters, and perpetually turned in at least one rough (and I do mean rough) inning outing after outing. In short, his nights on the mound were rarely 1-2-3.

The Red Sox have a lot invested in their $52 million man, but the Red Sox should call Matsuzaka’s bluff and allow him to pitch the way he’s comfortable, to pitch longer and deeper in rehab assignments.

Sure, having him throw longer risks injury, but when you’re the Boston Red Sox—a team waist deep in young guns for arms like Buchholz and Bard (just ask the Toronto Blue Jays, perhaps the two players out there they’d trade straight up for Roy Halladay), not to mention a bottom line that rivals the New York Yankees’ piggy bank—this seems like a risk worth taking.

Otherwise, it’ll probably be another disappointing season for Dice-K.

Time For Favre To Pack It In

Ben Carder — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:03:37 -0400

In 1979, Kenny Rogers’ “The Gambler” hit the top of the Billboard country music charts. The song’s toe-tapping melody kept it at the top for several weeks, but what really struck a chord with listeners was its memorable chorus: Knowin’ when to hold ‘em/knowing when to fold ‘em/knowin’ when to walk away/ and knowin’ when to run.

This metaphor for life has been embraced by some in sports, like Barry Sanders, who knew when his career was through after 11 years of superb play.

For others, it’s been flagrantly ignored. Players like Michael Jordan and Roger Clemens have refused to fold, despite advancing years and diminishing returns.

But no one has violated this metaphor for life quite like Brett Favre.

In the last several years–though it seems like much more–Brett Favre has been a constant presence on NFL shows like NFL Live, sports news programming like SportsCenter, and even inaugural sports magazine shows like Joe Buck Live.

The ubiquity of Favre hasn’t been due to scandals or controversy, as is often the case with public figures that dominate the limelight. No, it’s been whether or not he will play the next season.

It began in 2006, when after an uncharacteristically poor performance the season before (led the league in interceptions, a career-low 70.2 QB rating, threw for 10 fewer touchdowns than in 2005), Favre announced he was leaning towards retirement.

Soon after that announcement, Favre began the song and dance that’s continued not one, not two, but three years later...tipping his toe into the retirement waters, but never fully taking the plunge.

Speculation of retirement continued in the 2007 offseason after bone spurs were removed from his ankle. Favre spurned the rumor mill though, returning to the Packers and posting numbers that had many thinking Favre found his second wind.

He racked up more passing yards than any previous season since 1998, threw the fewest interceptions his 2007 season, recorded his highest QB rating since 2004, earned a Pro Bowl nod, and led the Packers to an NFC Championship appearance to boot.

Despite his improved play, he still contemplated leaving football…yet again. And once again, NFL programming was dominated by the Brett Favre question: will he or won’t he retire?

Favre answered that question at a press conference on Mar. 4, where he tearfully sniffed and slobbered into the mash of microphones that “all good things must come to an end.”

His weeping seemed to indicate that this time his leaving was legit.

And if it was legit, though his dabbling with retirement had been annoying, no one could deny he left on a positive note...something every athlete hopes to leave ringing in fans' ears as they exit the stage.

As the summer heat engulfed much of the nation in July 2008, however, the rumor mill burned piping hot about Favre’s return. Football fans had been foiled yet again; Favre had an “itch”...an itch that needed scratching.

It must have been some scratch, as talk of his return never let up in the intervening months.

The constant speculation, innuendo, and debate about Favre raged for four straight months, and was a main talking point on sports radio stations across the country, and even primetime news talkshows (per Favre’s interview with Greta Van Susteren on Fox News’ On the Record with Greta Van Susteren).

Though his first few weeks of the 2008 started out great with the Jets he finished the season throwing as many touchdowns as he did interceptions (22), and leading the league in INTs.

Though he’d fooled the football watching world several times with his “retirement” rantings, the way the Jets finished seemed to seal the deal that this time, he would retire…for real.

He confirmed those suspicions a few days after the Steelers’ Super Bowl victory, telling the big wigs of the New York Jets that his 18-year career had reached its end.

Only, it didn’t.

Three months after his latest “retirement” incarnation, Favre began discussions with potential suitors. The Minnesota Vikings were the most interested. The only question was whether he could overcome arthroscopic surgery performed on his throwing arm.

Which brings us to today.

We are now awaiting Favre’s latest “retirement” decision, which is once again a discussion stealing the headlines of NFL Live, taking up topic space on Pardon the Interruption, and eating precious time on sports flash updates.

Perhaps fearing that his tired “am I going to retire?” shtick is wearing on football fans, Favre’s made Friday D-Day, not July 30 as previously reported.

Favre’s addiction to the limelight is almost drug-like. And as every drug user has his dealer, ESPN is Favre’s.

ESPN is fanning Favre’s flames, with PTI’s Tony Kornheiser extolling his virtues in nearly every episode, ESPN the Magazine billing Favre as the best No. 4 in the history of sports (so much for Bobby Orr and Lou Gehrig), and giving him a perpetual presence on ESPN’s “Bottomline”.

Only Michael Vick’s legal issues can take the top story spot away from Favre on NFL Live (it’s a wonder a segment hasn’t been named in his honor; “Fawning Over Favre” has a nice ring to it).

And while the story may be compelling for Favre fans, prolonging this story is doing a disservice to other more worthy topics like season schedules, offseason pickups, and potential trade possibilities.

More importanly, it’s cementing what people will remember about Favre; not his pocket presence, but his topic presence; not his bombs, but his bombast.

Brett: as you yourself said in one of your first retirement announcements (there’s been so many, who can keep count?), all good things must come to an end.

You’ve been a true iron man, football’s own Cal Ripken (most consecutive starts as a quarterback at 269 [291 if you include playoffs]).

For the sake of what you want people to remember you for—your career statistics and durability, not your obsession with being the topic de jure of NFL Live—download Kenny Rogers’ “The Gambler.” Take his advice to heart.

With Rasheed Wallace, Celtics Should Proceed with Caution

Ben Carder — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:22:03 -0400

The Celtics’ signing of Rasheed Wallace is arguably the most impactful acquisition in the NBA’s brief offseason. He dominates the boards, blocks shots at will, and serves as an ideal cog to the defensive prowess of Kevin Garnett and Kendrick Perkins.

But if history is any guide, the signing of Rasheed Wallace could be the most impactful acquisition for all the wrong reasons.

On July 9, Wallace became an official member of the Boston Celtics. With the Big Three surrounding him, not to mention his coach and general manager, Wallace said all the right things.

“If Doc wants me to start then I’ll start,” said Wallace. “If Doc wants me to come off the bench, then that’s fine, I’ll come off the bench. Two minutes, 30 minutes, whatever—as long as I’m contributing to the team to get a ‘W.’ That’s my whole bottom line.”

That seems to be everyone’s bottom line these days. Not the individual glory, but the opportunity to win. That’s why Randy Moss joined the Patriots. That’s why Stephon Marbury joined the Celtics—two players reputed to be “me first” players.

As it turned out, both the Moss and Marbury deals panned out—Moss proving to be a much more productive signing than Marbury, no doubt.

No one is expecting Wallace to be the kind of impact player that Moss has been with the Patriots. But Celtics fans should not expect Rasheed Wallace to change his flagrant foul frequenting by donning Celtic green. Why? Because everywhere Rasheed has been, this has been his nom de plume.

With Moss and Marbury, their troublemaking was more inconsistent than it was consistent. And “troublemaking” may be overstating how adversely they impacted their respective teams.

Moss’ play with the Vikings was remarkably consistent and impressive, making the Pro Bowl five times in his seven years while there. He’s been the go-to guy with the Patriots, breaking Jerry Rice’s record for most touchdown receptions in a single season his first year, and hauling in enough receptions last year to break into the top 10 all-time receivers in yards gained.

The one time Moss was perceived to be hurting his team was in 2006 with the hapless Oakland Raiders, when skeptics—harkening back to 2004 when Moss left the field with seconds to play in Minnesota’s last regular season game (they finished 5-11)—crowed that Moss quit on his team, even though he was plagued by injury much of the time.

The same standard applies to Marbury. Admittedly, the public feuds Marbury had between former Knicks coaches Isaiah Thomas and Larry Brown were disruptive enough to bench him, thus adversely impacting his team as a result. But besides the 2007-08 season, his lack of game time has never been due to personal or professional skirmishes.

The same can’t be said for Rasheed Wallace. Though he’s never been perceived as a clubhouse cancer, the frequency with which he gets hit with technical fouls has no doubt affected him teams’ ability to win games (like in the Game Six Eastern Conference Finals against the Cavaliers, when he was hit with two technical fouls, thus leaving him out of Game Seven had the Pistons won Game Six).

And don’t underestimate the value of reputation. Like it or not, players with bad reputations—or teams known to be frequent flagrant foul violators—are given very little latitude when it comes to outbursts.

An outraged LeBron James is ignored, while an outraged Rasheed Wallace—a guy who’s led the technical foul statistical column six times since 2001 and been among the top three “tech getters” eight times since 2001—elicits a quick-to-tweet ref whistle.

How present a presence Wallace is in the Celtics lineup will dictate whether or not he exudes that “tech rep” on his team (remember, Kendrick Perkins was sixth among technical foul leaders last year).

Boston has been something of a bastion for perceived cancers or malcontents to “turn it around.” But for players like Corey Dillon, Randy Moss, et al, they all came from losing teams. Wallace hasn’t changed his stripes no matter what uniform color he’s donned, or how successful they were in the win-loss column.

It’s hard to know how many points or wins have been lost because of Rasheed’s antics, but technicals are administered because they hurt a team’s ability to win. A team with a low technical foul count should not be underestimated.

The Celtics and Rivers would be wise to take Rasheed’s own recommendation: have him “come off the bench.” With Eastern Conference rivals like Orlando and Cleveland padding their already stacked roster, the Celtics’ competition is more star-studded than ever.

Keeping the reigns on Rasheed will help the Celtics win (keeping the reigns on=managing minutes). By granting him lots of minutes, that’s more opportunity for a technical, and the fruits of that technical (a foul shot and possession) could be the difference between a key win or loss in the 2009-10 season.

Wimbledon Wailing: WTA Chief Can Make Statement with Shrieking Shutdown

Ben Carder — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:50:00 -0400

With the women’s Grand Slam tennis season in full swing, there are a number of regular rituals that make tennis a joy for the senses:

For the eyes, the swaying of finely-toned hips as they prepare for the incoming 100 mph serve.

For the ears, the “oohs” and “aahhs” of the crowd after an impressive volley.

And for the nose (for those fortunate enough to be in the crowd), the unmistakable smell of freshly opened tennis canisters that propagate the courts of clay, grass, or turf.

But there’s one ritual that my ears could do without. And if the reports are true, the WTA could do without it as well.

With the Wimbledon finals just days away, the World Tennis Association is considering whether or not to make the ear-splitting shrieking of female tennis competitors end by banning the noise pollution from competitive play.

Speaking to Reuters about the pervasiveness of the harridan howls, outgoing WTA head Larry Scott said this has been an issue for decades, but the calls for squeals to end has ramped up in intensity fairly recently.

“Based on [the increased complaints of grunting], we have started a process of looking at it more carefully,” said Scott.

Scott went on to say that chair umpires can issue warnings to shriekers-in-chief like Venus Williams, Maria Sharapova, and Victoria Azarenka, but as a lifelong watcher of tennis tournaments, I’m hard-pressed to recall a time in which that’s ever taken place.

It’s hard to pinpoint who dawned in the Era of Squealing.

Perhaps it was Monica Seles. As great a competitor as she was—boasting 53 career titles and 10 grand slam titles over her injury-shortened career—she’s best known for her distinguishing “Hawwww…eeeeee,” with each and every swing of the racket.

Tennis purists will argue that grunting has become apart of the game, that some women can’t help but shriek as they unleash a devastating forehand or backhand in their dogged attempts to put away their opponent.

But it wasn’t a part of the game for Steffi Graf. It wasn’t a part of the game for Chris Evert. And it wasn’t a part of the game for Martina Navratilova, and countless other women’s tennis titans of yore.

So what’s changed?

My best guess is that the shrieking and grunting derives from women trying to “psych out” their opponent, that the sound will throw off their equilibrium, or that it will frustrate them into a number of foibles and flubs to furnish a “game, set, and match.”

But, this argument loses its luster when both women are shrieking. Then, the only thing it frustrates are the hundreds in attendance—and the millions watching at home who get to hear the peels of squeals in high-quality, dolby digital surround sound.

Lovely.

With Larry Scott on the outs, his replacement can make his voice heard by putting the kibosh on grunting.

The best way to make the measure meaningful is to dock violators one point after the first warning (i.e. if a competitor squeals after an initial warning, a match that was once 15-15 becomes 30-15 in favor of the non-squealing party).

What counts as an acceptable grunt and a noise-polluting grunt is a judgment call, I grant you. But that’s what the line judges and chair judges are there for: To judge.

My complaints may seem petty, but pettiness is standard operating procedure in tennis, a sport that few that restricts any noise of any kind from fans in attendance before someone lobs up a serve.

Thus, if judges demand quiet from fans in attendance before a competitor’s service, isn’t it about time fans demand quiet from the competitors?

(Not So) Over the Hill: Eight Great Performances by Grandpas—and Mas—of Sports

Ben Carder — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 14:46:43 -0400

In a pop culture world that venerates youth and the next new thing, the sporting world remains a bastion for the wizened and experienced; an arena (pardon the pun) where the doyens are extolled just as much—if not more—than the tenderfoots. And for good reason, for some of the most memorable moments in sports history have come from those who aren't exactly spring chickens.

Begin Slideshow

Michael Vick Returning To NFL? Maybe In Dog Years

Ben Carder — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 13:35:57 -0400

It seems like only yesterday, former Atlanta Falcons QB Michael Vick walked into Surry County Circuit Court to face sentencing on running an elaborate dog fighting operation.

On that day, and for months prior to it, media members throughout the country snapped photos of animal rights activists and outraged citizens screaming obscenities at the former Hokie, while holding giant “Neuter Vick” and “Kick Vick” signs.

Although that day was more than a year and a half ago, and in a little less than four months, Michael Vick’s life goes on, outside the load-bearing walls of the Leavenworth Penitentiary.

Considering the heinous nature of Vick’s crimes, not to mention the enormous response it garnered from PETA members and dog lovers everywhere, one has to question whether Vick’s life will ever return to normal.

The notion of “time healing all wounds” may be true in most instances, but the wounds Vick inflicted on canine lovers remain quite fresh.

Take NFL commissioner Roger Goodell as exhibit A.

Goodell suspended Vick four months before he was formally sentenced to his 23-month jail stint, but it appears Goodell remains quite hesitant to consider reinstating him in 2009 and beyond.

“Everyone makes mistakes, but he has to show that genuine remorse in his ability to be a positive influence to correct the things that he did wrong publicly,” Goodell told USA Today after this past Wednesday’s annual meetings wrapped up in Dana Point, Calif.

In short, Vick’s paying his debt to society may not have been enough.

The question becomes, then, what does Goodell consider “genuine remorse?”

Is genuine remorse publicly apologizing, a la Jason Giambi or Andy Pettitte, after their “juice issues?"

That seemed to be enough in the eyes of baseball fans, as both players are now free and clear of the baggage steroid use typically carries with it, especially for those who refuse to acknowledge their mistakes or whose apologies seem disingenuous (see Alex Rodriguez, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens).

Or does “genuine remorse” involve apologizing to those specifically hurt by the scandal, as Kobe Bryant did to the woman he allegedly raped in 2004?

Even though Bryant was never suspended by the NBA, that seemed to be enough for fans and endorsement companies, as Kobe Bryant’s jersey is now back among those top sold, he’s resumed, once-terminated endorsement deals, and is the cover man for a veritable smorgasbord of video games (e.g. Guitar Hero commercials and NBA ’09: The Inside).

Based on the public outcry then and the dismay of his being released now, animal cruelty is an issue that resonates with people, more than shootings and more than murder charges.

For example, to avoid jail time, Ray Lewis pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and a misdemeanor after a Jan. 31, 2000 incident he was involved in, which left two men dead.

Despite his legal flap and one-year probation sentence, Lewis was never suspended by the NFL, was named the NFL’s Defensive Player of the Year the very same year, and has been a Madden NFL cover boy.

Adam “Pacman” Jones, despite his numerous off-the-field legal issues—virtually all of them involving a gun—was given full reinstatement after a one-year suspension in 2007.

While it’s true, the Cowboys have since cut ties with Jones (due to some damning information about Jones’ involvement in a 2007 strip club shooting that they’d previously not known about), there didn’t seem to be any real “genuine remorse” shown by Jones, and Cowboys fans considered Jones’ “debt to society” enough of a payment to justify his return.

These cases aside, Goodell’s hesitancy to reinstate Vick is best illustrated by the country’s current banking crisis: There’s lots of money on the sidelines, and banks know that if they make loans they could vastly improve their financial state, and in so doing, the country’s economy. But due to fear of the unknown, and their desire to learn from history's tough lessons, their loath to make loans.

Similarly, Goodell knows what a talent Vick is and knows that Vick’s return to the NFL could be a huge boom for the brand, both from an intrigue and financial perspective.

Though like the banks, Goodell is afraid to pull the trigger for fear of being burned again, either by fan reactions, or Vick himself.

While the economy will eventually bounce back—at least that’s what the pundits and prognosticators keep assuring us—the same eventuality can’t be applied to Vick.

And based on the public outcry leading up to Vick’s sentencing and his July 20 release, my guess is his eventual forgiveness will be measured in dog years, taking seven years for the public to forgive what other crimes would take only one.

By that time, the dog fighting wounds will have scabbed over, but they’ll have been replaced by an aged body.

Then, it will be Goodell expressing “genuine remorse,” as Vick will be a shell of what he once was.

Boston Sports Scene: Battered, Beaten, and Bruised

Ben Carder — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:25:49 -0400

There's a scourge that's wreaking havoc in Boston.

It was originally detected at 4 Yawkey Way this past summer, but because its effects were fairly normal, no one gave it much attention. It was hard not to notice, though, when more than a half dozen players at One Patriot Place were plagued by it in the late summer months of 2008 and throughout the fall and winter.

Now, on the cusp of spring, the super bug has moved north and roiled players on Causeway Street.

The diagnosis? Doctors call it the injury bug, and the Boston sports scene has a serious case of it.

As aforementioned, the bug's virulence was fully appreciated when QB Tom Brady went down in a heap in Kansas City, minutes into the Patriots' first drive of the season. But the bug's ferocity strengthened throughout the year, with the likes of LB Adalius Thomas, LB Pierre Woods, CB Terrence Wheatley, SS Rodney Harrison, and a treasure trove of running backs joining Brady on the injury list.

Any venom that the injury bug didn't spread to the Patriots has been unleashed on the current crop of Celtics.

Kevin Garnett has been out for weeks now; Rajon Rondo is still showing side effects from his Mar. 6 right ankle sprain (he sat out a good part of Tuesday's game against Chicago); Glen Davis is just coming back from an ankle injury of his own; Leon Powe is still looking for the luck of the Irish after sustaining a knee injury on St. Patrick's Day (he's likely to be out for two weeks); Ray Allen sat out all of last night's game in Miami with an elbow injury; and Tony Allen and Brian Scalabrine have injuries to their thumb and head (concussion), respectively.

The injury spat leaves the C's with nine—nine!—players to field in the season's final two weeks' worth of games.

Through it all, the Celtics' gods have blessed the Green. They're just four games behind the East-leading Cavaliers, they clinched the Atlantic Division with last night's overtime victory in Miami (where Pierce and Rondo combined for 63 of the Celts' 112 points), and the Celtics continue their solid play at home, winning seven in a row despite Garnett missing 13 straight games.

Thanks to the gods, the Celtics may be able to enter the playoffs with a grin, but one has to question if their injury-plagued season will leave them exiting with a whimper.

The whimper was certainly heard with the Patriots. Despite their 11-5 finish, they exited Ralph Wilson Stadium Dec. 28 without their playoff tickets punched.

And the whimper was heard with the Red Sox. The Sox fell just a game shy of reaching their third World Series in five seasons last year; few would argue (Tampa Bay fans included) the injuries that befell Beckett (oblique), Ortiz (wrist), and Lowell (hip), among others, factored into the ALCS outcome.

Will the Celtics' injuries leave their players and fans howling? Given the Lakers' remarkable play this season, combined with their two wins over the Celtics this season, Boston should hope for as few full moons as possible as the playoffs near.

'Pepper'ed with Possibility: New England Pats Can Still Make Good On Bad Deal

Ben Carder — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:29:17 -0500

In Bill we trust. In Bill we trust. In Bill we trust.

Like an incantation, this refrain has been repeated over and over again by members of Patriots Nation after last weekend’s misbegotten trade that sent QB Matt Cassel and LB Mike Vrabel to the Kansas City Chiefs for an early second round pick (34th overall).

For most, the incantation serves as an elixir, a preventive balm to treat what could amount to be a colossal bust of a pick (à la CB Brandon Meriweather), for two bona fide Pro Bowlers in exchange (Cassel should have made last year’s Pro Bowl over Brett Favre; Vrabel went to Honolulu in 2007).

However, since the Patriots have won all three of their Super Bowls with Bill Belichick at the helm, it’s not unreasonable to put one’s faith in the “Hooded One.”

But unlike that song that grows on you the more often it’s heard, the same can’t be said for this verse. Not with me, anyway. In fact, the more often I hear it, the more hollow it rings.

Why? Because the deal could have been so much better.

Admittedly, much of the hollowness derives from lofty expectations. Before news broke this past weekend that Cassel and Vrabel were to be reunited with Scott Pioli—the Chiefs new GM and former vice president of player personnel for the Patriots—the rumor mill was piping hot.

Inside sources from a variety of mediums had Carolina Panthers’ LB Julius Peppers headed to the Patriots in a possible three-way deal that also involved the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. With Vrabel on the way out and an aging Tedy Bruschi nearing the end of his career, a 29-year-old Peppers lined up in the backfield would make for a nice addition to an already stacked linebacking core (Jerod Mayo, Adalius Thomas, et al).

To my and others’ disappointment, though, the trade was not to be—as predicted by the NFL Network’s Adam Schefter and other NFL insiders hours before the trade was made official.

So while the Peppers-to-Pats deal turned out to be something of a mirage, the likelihood of it still happening is anything but illusory.

For starters, the Patriots pulled the trigger on the deal early; few thought Matt Cassel would be traded before the NFL Draft, let alone a full month before the draft. There had to be a reason for that kind of haste.

It could be that Carolina wants the Patriots’ first-round pick (23rd overall) as compensation for Peppers, who has made it clear he wants out of Carolina before the end of the year.

The Patriots are believed to be one of four teams Peppers has expressed interest in joining, and it’s hard to blame him with QB Tom Brady, WR Randy Moss, and a newly-signed RB Fred Taylor geared for another Super Bowl run.

If money is the sticking point, it can be unstuck quite easily. By trading Cassel, the Patriots freed up nearly $15 million in cap space.

That leaves more than enough money to cover Peppers’ asking price, likely to be in excess of $17 million.

Similarly, the Panthers would free up cap space by releasing the franchised Peppers, giving Carolina the opportunity to seek out a possible replacement at quarterback (finishing 19th in overall passing yards, combined with the $5 million Delhomme’s due to receive after last year’s five-interception playoff performance, tends to precipitate this kind of move).

True, the Pats have worked wonders in the NFL Draft in past years, with the likes of LB Jerod Mayo (Defensive Rookie of the Year), DE Richard Seymour (five straight Pro Bowl appearances) and NT Vince Wilfork (66 tackles and two sacks last year) among their “Best of” picks.

But all those picks came when Pioli was on board. Pre-Pioli, the Pats picked such luminaries as LB Andy Katzenmoyer (hasn’t played since 2001), RB Robert Edwards (released by the CFL’s Toronto Arganauts in 2008) and CB Tebucky Jones (hasn’t played since 2007; arrested at a Connecticut casino in 2008 and charged with third and fourth-degree assault).

It’s anyone’s guess whether the Pats’ picks this year will turn out to be studs or duds (the Pats have four of the top 58 picks); there’s precedent for the latter.

There’s still time for the Patriots to make good on a bad deal. If Belichick and Co. do decide to pursue Peppers, Patriots Nation will have a new incantation to chant with regards to their potential February 7, 2010 date with destiny: With Bill, we will.

Now that’s music to my ears.