There are certain moments that happen in sports that you know will change the way things are viewed from there on out: the Red Sox coming back from an 0-3 deficit to beat the Yankees and then go on to win their first World Series in 86 years, Buster Douglas knocking out Mike Tyson to become the heavyweight champion, and NC State taking down Houston to win the NCAA Tournament to name a few. Sunday’s final round of the PGA Championship is now one of those moments.

After last year’s U.S. Open, I wrote that Tiger Woods’ putt on the 72^nd hole to force a playoff was amazing for so many reasons, but maybe none more so than the fact that it kept his invincibility in tact. Think about it for a minute, had Tiger missed that putt, he would’ve lost to 45-year old Rocco Mediate (a man who had never won a major), after entering Sunday’s final round with the lead. It would’ve marked the first time in his career that he failed to win a major after taking the lead into Sunday.

Now you may say, big deal, so what. But it is a big deal, and the reason why is because had Tiger lost, it would’ve given other players, players much better than Mediate, the confidence to know that Tiger is, in fact, beatable. Instead, Tiger added to his legacy by sinking that putt, and then doing it again the very next day.

Fast-forward to Sunday’s final round at the PGA Championship, and we were once again faced with the same scenario. Although this time Tiger’s opponent was someone much more obscure than Mediate, it was Y.E. Yang from South Korea. Besides the point that barely anyone knew who Yang was, the fact that Tiger had the lead entering Sunday meant everyone KNEW he was going to win. After all, he was a perfect 14-for-14 when leading after 54 holes of a major. So in other words, the final 18 was all but a formality before handing Woods his fifth Wanamaker Trophy.

But somehow, some way, Yang was able to do what nobody else in the last 12 years has been able to do, and that’s go head-to-head with Tiger in the final round of a major and beat him. So what does this all mean? Well, it certainly opens up a bunch of possibilities.

If you look at the examples from above, the one most similar to this is Buster Douglas knocking out Mike Tyson. Tyson was the most feared man alive. Professional boxers, men who got PAID to do this, would literally shake in the ring at the near sight of Tyson. Along comes Douglas, who yes was a contender, but no one thought a legitimate one, and he knocks out Tyson. What did Tyson do after that fight with his career? Nothing really.

Now I’m not saying this is going to happen to Tiger by any means, but I do believe other golfers will gain confidence in knowing that he’s no longer invincible, and those final rounds of majors will suddenly become that much more interesting.

The mark of a true champion is measured by how they deal with adversity, and there’s no greater adversity in sports than losing. Michael Jordan lost in the 1995 playoffs to the Orlando Magic, and he came back to win three straight titles from 1996-1998. Roger Federer lost to Rafael Nadal in the finals of Wimbledon in 2008, and came back to win another epic match against Andy Roddick this year to break Pete Sampras’ mark of 14 grand slam titles. Tiger Woods now gets to deal with this type of adversity for the first time in his incredible career. Either way he responds, you will be able to look back at August 16, 2009, and know that history was made. 

 

Since the baseball trade deadline is now a few days old, I figured I would add my thoughts on what transpired.

First off, I am actually happy that the Yankees did not make any major deals at the deadline. The fact that Hal Steinbrenner stuck to what he told Brian Cashman during the offseason, that is if you sign Mark Teixeira then there is no more money to make mid-season moves, well I applaud that. If you can’t win after spending $180 million on Teixeira, $161 million on CC Sabathia, and $82.5 million on A.J. Burnett, then you don’t deserve to win.

With that said, are the Yankees flawed? Absolutely, and not getting another starting pitcher, like Jarrod Washburn, might come back to bite them. But if this holds true and the team does not make waiver moves, then I am happy with that. 

Before we move on to the other teams, the one move the Yankees did make, acquiring Jerry Hairston, Jr. from the Cincinnati Reds, could be one of those under-the-radar type moves that ends up making a big difference. Having a super-utility guy like Hairston lengthens the bench exponentially for this team to the point where I wouldn’t be surprised to see Cody Ransom waived, and Shelley Duncan brought back up. Ransom has been terrible at the plate, and his defense has been nothing to brag about. So if that’s the case, why not give Duncan a chance when he provides power, and can play 1B or a corner outfield position (I know, he doesn’t play the OF very well either) to sub the starters there?

One more thing….there’s been a lot of talk about Joba Chamberlain’s innings limit for 2009, and how the team is going to keep him to those innings. Well, if it were up to me, and Chamberlain continues to pitch as well as he has since the All-Star Break, I say skip his turn when you can, but otherwise forget the limit. Take your chances next year and the year after to how his arm holds up. If you have the chance to win now, you do it.

With that said, I’d be shocked if that were to happen. So what’s the alternative? My guess? They’ll move Joba to the bullpen, and bring Alfredo Aceves into the rotation. If the Yankees are lucky enough to make the playoffs, they could potentially go with a three-man rotation, especially since we know Sabathia can work on 3-days rest. They would then use Joba in the 7th, Phil Hughes in the 8th, and Mariano Rivera in the 9th.

Staying in New York, people are saying that the Mets made a big mistake by not making any moves at the deadline. Really? Why? How so? As sad as it is for the Mets, this is turning into a lost season. With the injuries to Carlos Beltran, Jose Reyes, Carlos Delgado, and J.J. Putz to name a few, the Mets really didn’t have many choices. Were they supposed to trade away prospects for someone when that person couldn’t really make a difference? And what prospects do they have to deal?

The Mets right now are a team that’s in a bit of disarray. The young players they do have, don’t really have positions, and the starting rotation behind Johan Santana is virtually non-existent. Therefore any moves they made would have had to have been  salary dumps, and I don’t think many teams wanted Luis Castillo’s contract.

Speaking of salary dumps, the Pittsburgh Pirates are taking a ton of flack for trading away virtually their entire lineup from Opening Day 2008. To be perfectly honest with you, I have no problem with them doing that. The players they had were not helping them win, so if they have some trading chips, why not use them to rebuild the system from the ground up?

The problem one could have with this team is who are the prospects they’ve gotten in return? Did their scouts pick out the right players in all of these deals? That will be the way to judge what the Pirates are doing? But when you think about it, what’s the point of keeping Jack Wilson, Freddy Sanchez, Jason Bay, Xavier Nady, etc. and paying them all of that money, if you’re not going to win? The only one you could question is Nate McClouth, but they had Andrew McCutchen coming up, so they made the move to strengthen the system and clear a space for the rookie. Oh by the way, not sure if you noticed, but McCutchen hit three homeruns in one game the other day. So as for clearing all of that salary, I, for one, say kudos.

The Cleveland Indians also made some salary dumps, and if you’re an Indians fan, then you have to trust Mark Shapiro here because he’s done this before. He helped rebuild an entire team when he traded away Bartolo Colon for Grady Sizemore, Cliff Lee, and Brandon Phillips. Between Sabathia last year, and Lee and Victor Martinez this year, you have to hope he’s done the same thing.

In regards to Martinez, I think this was a good move for the Red Sox because they didn’t give up too much in Justin Masterson and two minor league pitchers. But I am not sure it was as good of a move as everyone else does. There’s no doubt that Martinez has a great bat, and being able to switch hit is a huge bonus for the Red Sox. But anytime you play him, you are weakening the defense. If he catches, you lose Jason Varitek. If he plays first, you weaken yourself at two positions because Kevin Youkilis has to play third, and he’s not as good there as Mike Lowell is, and Martinez is not as good at first as Youkilis is. Furthermore, it means that someone, who is used to playing every day, has to sit everyday. While Terry Francona is phenomenal at managing players, this will be an interesting one to watch.

Now on to Lee and the Phillies. I think the defending champions did a very nice job landing Lee, especially since it’s not just for this year, but next year as well. With that said, I definitely would have pulled the trigger on Roy Halladay. There comes a time when you have to way the pros and cons of a move, and winning a World Series championship. With the players they currently have on their roster, and the ages of these players, the Phillies window for winning another title is probably 2-3 years. With that said, who gives you the better chance at winning, Halladay or Lee?

I know people will say it would be tough to deal Kyle Drabek or J.A. Happ, but really? What’s more important, hoping these prospects turn into the real deal, or having a legitimate chance to win the whole thing for three straight years??

If you don’t live in the New York area, then you probably missed what happened earlier this afternoon. The New York Mets, and more specifically, Omar Minaya, held a press conference to announce that they had fired VP of Player Development, Tony Bernazard. While that was supposed to be the story of the conference, Minaya apparently went to the Alex Rodriguez school of press conferences, and instead of cleaning up the situation, made it infinitely worse.

It was one thing that Minaya was scrambling around trying to figure out what he was going to say, and in doing so, seemed to keep digging himself a deeper and deeper hole. Yet just when you thought it was awkward, the Mets GM made it that much more so by calling out Adam Rubin of the New York Daily News, the writer who broke the story.

Minaya said he was essentially caught off-guard by the story because Rubin had asked about working in player development the past couple of years. He went so far as to say that Rubin actually asked both he and Bernazard about jobs with the Mets.  I’m not sure if Minaya realizes how big of an accusation that this was, but if he did, well shame on him, and if he didn’t, well shame on him again.

It’s bad enough that the Mets as a team are in disarray, but to bring something else into the equation, something like this, well you have to wonder the intelligence level of this man. If he thought for an instance that accusing Rubin of these allegations would somehow deflect some of the attention off Bernazard and the team, well he was right on one end. No one cares about Bernazard right now.

Minaya should now realize that he’s in for a real fight, and I don’t mean one in the papers, I mean a potential fight in the courts. What Minaya said could be viewed as slander if he can’t support his words with evidence. And if that’s the case, the Mets and their fans can now thank him for exacerbating their problems.

About a year ago I compared Omar Minaya and the Mets ownership to Isiah Thomas and the Knicks ownership for the way they ran their respective teams. If you remember correctly, Thomas, the Knicks, and Madison Square Garden faced an embarrassing lawsuit in which they had to pay $11.6 million. While the two cases are certainly different, the similarities in the teams and how they’re run continue to go down the same path.

Minaya and the Mets had to fire Bernazard essentially for stupidity. The same fate may now be in line for Minaya, and rightfully so.

There has been so much talk over the past 10-15 years about who would be the next Michael Jordan. Would it be Grant Hill, Harold "Baby Jordan" Miner, Vince Carter, etc? The list goes on and on. But for a while now, people have been comparing Kobe Bryant to Michael Jordan, saying that he is the closest thing to Jordan since...Jordan. Some people have gone so far as to say that Kobe is even better than Michael, and to that, I say, NONSENSE!

While Kobe's skills are amazing, what has happened during this 2nd round playoff series against the Houston Rockets is all the proof you need to know that Kobe is no Michael, nor will he ever be.
People tend to forget what made Jordan great. It wasn't just his ungodly athleticism, his clutch heroics, or his will to win. It was also his ability to motivate his teammates, and get the best out of them. And if for some reason that failed, then he took it upon himself to make sure the team didn't. In this series against the Rockets, we have seen the Lakers blow out Houston by 40, and also get embarrassed on two different occasions. That level of inconsistency would never have flown under Jordan's leadership.

It's not just this series though. Think back to last year's Finals. The Lakers had a 24-point lead over the Celtics in Game 4, and ended up losing by six! Do you think Michael would have ever let that happen? Or what about the 2004 Finals? The Lakers with Shaq, Karl Malone, Gary Payton, and Kobe fell to the Detroit Pistons in five games! I realize there was some dissention on that team, and Kobe was dealing with issues off the court, but really?!?! Five games!?!

Look, I'm not trying to say Kobe isn't a great player, he absolutely is. He'll go down as one of the greatest of all-time. But there's a big difference in being one of the greatest, and THE greatest, and that spot belongs to Michael.

I'd like to take this time to wish my mom, and all of the other mothers out there, a Happy Mother's Day.  I wrote an entry last Father's Day talking about my relationship with my father, and how there would be a time to discuss my relationship with my mother.

Well, while my father is the one who introduced me to sports, my mother is the one whose love of them continues to grow, and it could not make me happier. I knew things had changed when in 1995, I was up in my parent's bedroom watching the Bulls play the Magic in the 2nd round of the NBA Playoffs. My mother walked in the room, and immediately said, "Is this a tape?" I said, "No, why?" Her response..."Michael's wearing 23..." Impressive, right?!?

A couple of years later, I was away with my baseball team in Florida during March Madness, and when I called home, she began reeling off the names of the teams in the Final Four and discussing their chances!

Today, whether my dad is home or not, she will turn on the Yankee game, watch golf, or even have football on in the background, not because she has to, but because she wants to. Just in the past year, she has learned how hitters will try to hit behind runners, or how pitchers will try to set up hitters. In other words, she's learning the nuances of baseball, and is able to appreciate the game that much more.

And while all of this is great, when I think about sports and my mom, I think of all the practices and games she drove me to growing up. I am one of four kids, and all of us were very active in sports, yet my mom did her best to attend all of our games, even if there were three in one day and a couple going on at the same time. She was running non-stop from game to game, making sure we all felt special. Heck, rewind just a few years ago, and she came to watch a basketball game involving 6th graders because I was coaching! In other words, she's never stopped being that sports mom.

I can remember times sitting in the car in the garage with my gear on and a pitcher of Gatorade at my feet (which she made for me), getting upset because she was running a few minutes late. She'd always walk in and apologize, and then try her best to make sure I got to practice on time. To now look back, and think how I would get upset, I owe her a huge apology. Not once did she ever complain about driving me here, there, and everywhere, but instead she did it with a smile. To look at mothers now, and see how much help some get, I've come to the realization that my mom must have been SuperMom. At least, that's the only explanation I can come up with.

So, Mom, first things first, I'm sorry for ever getting upset at you for being late. If I can do for my kids (whenever I have them), half of what you did for me, then I think I will have done a great job. And second, thank you for all of those countless hours of driving me to games and practices, and for being who you are. If it weren't for your support, I certainly would not be doing what I am doing today. Happy Mother's Day, I love you!