Miggy for Manny?  I like it.  Anything to get Manny Ramirez away from the Red Sox.

For years now, I've been a bandwagon Red Sox fan.  However, it's not because of the Series run, or the subsequent media bonanza, but because of my "chowd by DNA" girlfriend.  That's right, I'm chowdy-whipped.  I'm man enough to admit it.  I have been lucky enough for the last six years to have a lovely gal by my side who happens to be a lifelong fan of two of the most successful franchises over the last half-decade, the Boston Red Sox and the New England Patriots.

Because of this, coupled with my compulsive zealotry for all things baseball, I've had to endure the phenomenon/circus freak that is Manny Ramirez.  Again, I'll reassert:  Manny Ramirez is not a baseball player.     

Manny is an absolute mashing savante.  Manny gives pitchers night sweats.  His mere presence in a batting order changes the course of any game.  Manny puts screaming fans is overpriced seats.  Manny is a compelling sports figure.  Manny is many things, but Manny is not a baseball player.  Baseball players hit, run, throw, field, know the game, and live and die to win ball games.

Manny Ramirez is an absolute terror inside the batters' box, but an absolute liability anywhere outside of it.  Offensively, he barely runs hard and nowhere close to fast, and is completely out of his element on the basepaths.  If he does muster up the gumption to stretch a rope down the third baseline into a double, he looks like a guy who's just realized he landed some faraway planet, and is surrounded by little green men.  He looks around, blinking and bewildered.  He takes a tentative step, then retreats.  He kicks the dirt.  He squints at the scoreboard, and prays to God that nothing will happen that requires quick thinking on his part.  Defensively, he is an even greater liability.  Day after day, he slips on his Blackberry shades, straps on his roller skates, and lopes/skids around in the corner in front of the Monster, trying to fool us into thinking he's playing left field.  Fly balls pop out of his glove. He trips over his own feet going after a shot to the wall, or does some sort of slidey-scoot in the general direction of anything that requires more than 10 feet of lateral movement.  He cuts off throws from other outfielders.  And, last but not least, there was the infamous "Donde Esta y Bano" incident, slipping through a door in the Monster to "take a little break" during a pitching change.

Reports are mixed on his value as a teammate.  He doesn't play hard, he openly consorts with rival teammates and routinely asks to be traded, but his teammates always seem to be behind him, always quick with the "it's just Manny being Manny" party line quip.  I suppose he is good for comic relief in a clubhouse, and he's a generally easygoing and likeable guy.  But is that a good teammate?  Isn't the mark of a good teammate whether he makes the team as a whole better or worse?  Yes, his hitting numbers are gaudy and consistent, which obviously is an asset to the team.  But the intangibles are what make a good teammate, and Manny Ramirez's assets are singularly tangible.  Stats, and only stats.  On a supposedly "blue collar" team like the Red Sox (although they have the second-highest payroll in baseball), that has survived and finally won a ring by following a credo of hard work and team play, a one-dimensional player like Manny Ramirez is ultimately a liability, not an asset.

Manny Ramirez is a hitter, and only a hitter.  Not a teammate, not a gamer, not an asset.  And definitely not a baseball player.

First, I'm no lifelong Knicks or Pistons fan.  Heck, I'm not even really a big NBA fan. I was born in Tennessee, which isn't within a mountain range of a powerhouse NBA franchise, and I live in Texas, which has three within a couple of hours' drive from Austin.  I do pay attention to the NBA, and I love the game of basketball, but my allegiances lie elsewhere.  So when Larry Brown went from the Pistons to the Knicks, it was really no skin off my back (or red neck, as it were).  What did get under my skin was his blatant, bald faced LIE he tried to sell to us all, when he said, vehemently and decidedly, that "the Pistons will be my last professional coaching job", and then weeks later signed on to coach the Knicks.  He didn't even play the politician game, for cryin' out loud!  No indirect, keeping-my-options-open phrases like "I plan to...", or "I have no intention of...".  He just came right out and big fat fibbed right to all our faces.

To use one of my favorite quotes from "Shane": "You, sir, are a low-down, Yankee liar."  (of course, "liar" is only one long, drawn out syllable)

I'm definitely more of a "right coast" guy than a "left coast guy", so I do want to like the Knicks as opposed to the Lakers.  Stephon Marbury and Quentin Richardson are great players and are easy guys to get behind.  Chicago acquisitions Jamal Crawford and Antonio Davis have loads of talent, and although it took a few weeks to learn Larry Brown's system, they've both come on strong of late.  And of course, Larry Brown is an incredible coach and teacher, a future Hall of Famer.

Unfortunately, I can't be a fan of his any longer.  I could abide his team-hopping journeyman ways, even though I prefer a coach who wants to build and maintain a program, rather than just fix them and move on.  I can even understand and live with a coach who is a politician, and won't answer questions directly.  What I can't live with is a liar.  And now, because of Larry Brown, I can't be a Knicks fan.   

Like many of you, I write my blogs, as well as my responses to other blogs, on a word processor program like WordPad before I post them.  The following is my response to a blog called "Dallas Cowboys:  The Duke Blue Devils of Football" (or something to that effect).  I wrote the response on the word page, then I couldn't find the blog again when I went to look for it!  So, sorry Blogger X, I'm not trying to blog-bite here.  If you see this post, please let me know.

The original blog was a diatribe about bad officiating.  In particular, he was upset over the ejection of Steve Smith for grabbing a referee's arm during an argument.  He also asserted that Jim Mora, Jr. "took a swing" at a referee while he was disputing a call.  And last but not least, he tried to convince us that some teams, like the Dallas Cowboys and the Duke Blue Devils, get preferential treatment from officials because they are "marquis teams" that bring in a lot of revenue.  Here's my response:

Wow, what a paranoid, Oliver Stone-esque, whine-o-rama!  Yes, boo hoo, you think you got shnookered on a call or two.  I've been guilty of it myself, but I try not to overdo it.  Do you realize that football refs makes about 200 calls per game?  And since we can't go back and review every single call at five different camera angles (unless you've got some kind of NASA-engineered Super Tivo the rest of us can't get), there's no way to know whether bad officiating really altered the outcome of a game.

As far as some teams getting preferential treatment or harsher calls, I think that's mostly nonsense.  At the worst, some refs may go into a game thinking, "I have to watch out for this guy, he has a tendency to push off", or "we gotta watch that guy, he has a temper."  At best, some guys, like Manning or Tim Duncan, may get a subconscious benefit of the doubt, because they are known as fair players that rarely make a mistake.  They may get away with a hand on the back of a ref during a discussion because the refs know and respect a veteran star player, and they know he's not a hot-head who would fly off the handle and strike a ref.  A hand on the back or a pat on the butt is not the same as chest bumping or grabbing an arm during an argument, that's why Steve Smith got the boot.

With the Jim Mora thing, I thought it was pretty weird from the first angle too.  Then a few seconds later, they replayed a side view that showed Mora clearly wasn't within 4 feet of the ref, and was only giving him an old-fashioned, "Aaaaahhh, go on!!', or a vehemently dismissive wave-off.  To say that Jim Mora "took a swing at an official" is completely wrong.

Nobody "handed" Dallas that win.  And to think that you could see better than 3 respected, professional officials (again, though, maybe you have that Super-Tivo)  about whether Peppers touched that ball again shows some lack of perspective.  The more we complain about how our teams always get screwed on bad calls, or how a game was stolen from my team because of poor officiating, or think that there's some grand conspiracy against this team or that player or this race, the more we head toward a completely automated officiating system in years to come.  We say we want to keep the "human element" in officiating, but then we still moan and groan about conspiracies and bad referees who affect the outcomes of games.

Do you want every yard marker, foul line, and end zone to have infra-red motion sensors?  Should we put touch-sensitive space-age polymers on the bodies of players to see when they are touched or not touched, and with how much pressure?  How about fields made of microscopic, indestructible, electronically monitored sound-and-touch sensors to see if a ball hit the ground or not?

Refereeing is extremely difficult, and is done by skilled professionals.  I agree, we do see missed calls and inconsistency much too often.  Some refs may have biases toward certain players (although a players' reputation, good or bad, is usually earned), and will occasionally let their emotions get the best of them.  Believe me, nobody gets all in a tizzy over poor officiating more than me.  But if we want humans to do the officiating, we have to accept their human fallibility.

Let me start off with a qualifier:  I hate this kind of blog.  I'm growing pretty weary of the bloggers here who think that "Name your favorite team", or "Who do you think will win the Super Bowl?" counts as a real blog, just so you can get 50 people to comment.  I prefer reading blogs with some modicum of insight, humor, and effort, not to mention grammar.  Jeez, did some of you guys graj-i-ate from the 3rd grade??  I could go on, but I'll play nice.

Now, all that being said, I'm now going to post just that type of blog.  Sorry.  Sue me.

So.... who do you think should be the next Monday Night Football commentating team?

I don't know if this has already been decided or not; I haven't seen anything on it.  But here's my two cents:  Al Michaels:  one of the best play-by-play guys in the biz, ever.  A true pro's pro, with enough wit and game knowledge to hang with anybody they put in the booth.  He's also been a staple of MNF for many years, and it would be a nice passing of the torch to have a guy from the ABC team make the transition to ESPN.  Joe Theismann:  he's been doing Sunday nights on ESPN for a few seasons, and his banter with Paul McGwire has been the best of any announcing team in football.  He's a well-known name, a good game-time analyst, and was a legendary player.  I think he deserves a shot at MNF.  Jim Rome:  Rome is one of the funniest, most intelligent sports talk show hosts around, and has been for almost two decades.  To my knowledge, he hasn't done color commentary for live games before, but he would be perfect for it.  He's also had a long history with ESPN, including "Rome Is Burning", his current TV show.  He is immensely popular, although some people truly hate him -- but that could work in their favor; love him or hate him, everyone is interested, and he is a very entertaining guy.  His controversial "in your face" style that got him started nationally is almost gone, so ESPN wouldn't have to worry about him offending the family-show market that will follow MNF to ESPN.  I also think he has too much respect for the game and the show to act like a buffoon on national television; MNF is one of the best gigs a broadcaster can get, so he wouldn't do anything to screw it up.  From a purely marketing standpoint, he has a very distinctive voice, look, and speaking style, which is needed for a prime time show.  His name recognition alone would bring an extra two or three rating shares to the show, and once the viewers get to know him, that would increase exponentially.  From a purely entertainment standpoint, I think he and Joe Theismann have a good rapport, and their sarcasm and wit would blend well together.  And poor Al Michaels wouldn't have to deal with a blathering John Madden anymore. 

The team of Michaels, Theismann, and Rome (wow, it even sound good together.... like a law firm) would be great for Monday Night Football.  Now, if ESPN would only accept my application for network president, I could make this dream come true.  Maybe I shouldn't have written it on the back of a cocktail napkin.....

Hot New Show:  Millwood, Texas Ranger 

Well, they finally did it.  Didn't they?  Or did they?  After being virtually non-existent at the winter meetings, the Texas Rangers did what they promised -- went and got a solid starting pitcher.  But did they get an ace?  And are they done?

Not really, and I hope not.  Getting Kevin Millwood is a nice big step in the right direction, though, with starting pitching being publicly announced as the Rangers' top off-season priority.  Here's a quote from the Texas Rangers' MLB.com website:

     "Rangers general manager Jon Daniels could not be reached for comment Monday but has repeatedly said acquiring pitching either through trade or via the free agent market has been the club's top priority this winter.

 'Our internal discussions, from Day 1, were to do what it took to acquire a front-line  pitcher,'  Daniels said earlier this month. 'That was our top priority and still is.'

Mission could be accomplished."

I think that sums it up nicely:  "could be" accomplished.  The Rangers were busy on the bump the last two weeks as well, acquiring former All-Star Vicente Padilla, and trading young up-and-comer Chris Young (who I was looking forward to watching as a Ranger the next few years) and two fielders for talented-but-iffy Adam Eaton and fireballing Japanese reliever Akinori Otsuka.  Young has showed great promise for such a young player, and had the potential to be #2 in the rotation in the next year or so.  I liked having a natural athlete like Young developing in the majors, and I wish he could have stayed.  He was only going to improve, whereas Millwood, Eaton, and Padilla have great potential but also pose questions, all three being marked by some injury and inconsistency the last few years.  The 28-year-old Eaton pitched well while he was healthy last year (11-5, 4.27 ERA), but missed a lot of crucial time with a middle finger injury.  He claims to be 100% healthy tight now.  Padilla, also 28 years old, was an All-Star in 2002, going 14-11 with a 3.28 ERA, but was 9-12 with a 4.71 ERA last year.  31-year-old Millwood was a solid performer for six seasons with the Braves, his best year being 1999, when he went 18-7 with a 2.68 ERA.  His production fell off a bit the last two seasons with Philly, never having an ERA under 4.01.  However, the American League seemed to sit well with him last year, owning a league-leading 2.86 ERA with Cleveland.  Even with a losing 9-11 record, he showed a lot of pop and effectiveness, and finished strong at the end of the season.

As I see it, the Texas Rangers rotation on opening day will stand at 1) Millwood 2) Eaton 3) Padilla 4) Dickey 5) a platoon of Joaquin Benoit, Kameron Loe, and Juan Dominquez.  What's missing here?  It's the reason the Rangers' starting pitching mission "could be" accomplished, instead of just "accomplished":  a solid lefty!  There have been talks about trading for Barry Zito, which would be a perfect fit, although I doubt the A's would trade a pitcher like Zito to a team in their own division.  Mark Buehrle comes to mind, but I doubt the Oz is going to part with his Series-champion ace.  Getting Dontrelle Willis would be complete coup, and would make the Rangers a true contender, but the Marlins aren't going to kick out the only leg they have to stand on.  Same goes for Johan Santana.  Andy Pettite's not going anywhere.  Noah Lowry, Gustavo Chacin, and Scott Kazmir are three young southpaw workhorses that would fit nicely, but are still unproven as solid #2 or #3 starters in a rotation.

With Michael Young and Mike Teixeira being the only "untouchables" in the lineup, the Rangers should be willing to trade Hank Blalock, one of their basically interchangeable "C+" outfielders like Kevin Mench or Laynce Nix, and a top pitching prospect for a lefty ace like Santana, Willis, or Zito.  The Twins do need help at 3B, but that is really the only glimmer of hope the Rangers have for getting that type of pitcher.  It seems for now that they are set with Millwood as their ace, and will have to wait till next year to improve their rotation in a way that will make them a truly dangerous team.  Getting Otsuka was a very smart move, and having a strong setup man for streaky young closer Francisco Cordero will help the starting rotation immensely.  With injury and consistently as the main question marks in the rotation (not pure talent), being able to take pressure off the new acquisitions in earlier innings will be a great boost. 

Yet another hurdle is the coaching of the new pitching, with legend and last year's pitching coach Orel Herscheiser moving to the front office.  Will their new pitching coach be able to handle the balancing act of getting productivity out of the new rotation while protecting them from injury, and making adjustments for inconsistency?  A tall order, especially for a new coach.         

If the Rangers truly want to contend for a title this year, their off-season work is not over.  If they can't get a true ace, then one of the young workhorse lefties like Chacin or Lowry should be hot on the radar.  If not, they do have a lot of potential with the acquisition of Millwood, Eaton, and Padilla, as long as they can bring that potential to fruition with a some good coaching and a lot of luck.