Precious Roy

MAKE HIM FIGHT KHALI!!!

This show needs more GREAT KHALI.

Ah, gotcha

I'll roll with whatever rules the majority of returning players want But isn't it a little skewed that new teams would lose picks in the "regular" draft for their supplemental picks? So me and Bauer pick, and if we pick someone from the FA pool who was a first round pick last year we lose our first round pick in this year's full draft? Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it seems like it puts new teams at a distinct disadvantage. Or maybe that's the point?

Oh, I'm absolutely giving credit to San Diego on the interceptions. As I said before, aside from a couple breakdowns in their deep coverage down the stretch they played a great defensive football game. But my point is that it's extremely rare to see Brady throw 3 picks. The defense was good, yes, but it's not like it's the first time he's faced a good defense in the playoffs. He made some uncharacteristically poor decisions. Off the top of my head the first one was thrown right at Donnie Edwards because Brady assumed he was going pick up the tight end in coverage. Heads up by Edwards? Sure, but also a mental mistake by Brady. Second one was I think a thread the needle pass that got grabbed, and the third was Brady getting rushed and forcing a throw up the middle. All a product of San Diego's defense, but mistakes by Brady as well. When the Patriots are so dependant on Brady's play to win games, and when he's historically not been bit by INTs, it's the kind of thing you would think would cost them a game. If you'd told me before the game that LT would run for 100+ and Brady would throw 3 picks I'd have told you San Diego would win. San Diego's inability to capitalize on those turnovers is the real story. As for the Pats not playing their best football, they struggled to get the run going, and Brady threw 3 picks. The Patriots at their best would look a lot better on offense. A credit to San Diego. And it's a credit to New England that the Chargers didn't play their best game. Call me a fanboy, but I'll stick to my opinion that it was a hard-fought game between two evenly matched teams that the Patriots did more to pull out in the end. Whether that "doing more" is making plays, better weathering a storm of mistakes, showing great effort and awareness on fumble recoverys, or not having your coach choke down the stretch, whatever they did they did it well enough to beat a 14-2 football team on the road. To say that San Diego "let it slip away" is ignoring the play of the Patriots. If San Diego had won the game and everyone was talking about Brady's 3 picks I'd be saying the same thing in reverse. I think that's pretty objective. Where I'm seeing a lack of objectivity is from everyone who continues to owe the Patriots success to either luck or the shortcomings of their opponents.

Are you kidding? The dichotomy between 85 and now alone makes it interesting. Then it was the Bears as a dominant team for the ages and the Patriots as a sacrificial lamb, and now it's the Bears looking to turn their franchise around after two decades of disapointment against an all-time great New England team. Back then the NFC was king, now the AFC rules. That's the stuff that Super Bowl hype is made of. That, and any time you've got a recent multi time champion in the game it makes it interesting. The Patriots have beaten 3 NFC champions in the last 5 years. Who better than DA BEARS to wrest control from them? Personally I don't think there's a bad matchup between any of the four teams left. Obviously I'm pulling for the Pats, but I'd enjoy Indy against either of the NFC clubs. All four teams have compelling storys and exciting teams. And even if you don't find the storys compelling, if you're a football fan you should just enjoy the game on the merits of it being the championship game between the last two teams standing after months of football. Isn't that enough appeal for people? Leave all that other shit to the housewives and office pool dorks and try and enjoy a fucking football game. Jesus. It's the same shit that everyone does during the Finals when the Spurs make it. The Spurs were "boring" just like the Patriots are "boring"

And Brady threw three picks. Both teams made their share of mistakes, neither played their "best" football, but that's just a credit to the effort from both teams. It was a hard fought game, both defenses performed well (the Chargers had breakdowns in the secondary that may have ultimately cost them, but they had great coverage downfield most of the game and helped force those bad throws by Brady). The Pats showed had a little more grit/poise/moxy, whatever you want to call it, they did what they do, took advantage of more opportunities than San Diego, and that's all there is to it. Scoreboard. All the Patriots haters say the Chargers blew it and the Pats got lucky, but how many times do the Pats have to win games like this before people realize that it's the Patriots' play that creates these situations? They've made a habit of "winning ugly" against good teams. It's not like these "crucial mistakes" by the Chargers happened in a vaccum, they happened as a direct result of their opponent. The Chargers went 14-2 this season, they're a very good football team. The Pats beat them fair and square. Give credit where credit is due.

I'd like to play in the keeper league

The whole point of buying someone out is to get their contract off the books, neither team wants the other's contract back. The Knicks might have interest in Webber for the veterans minimum, but not for $20 million/2 years or whatever is left on his deal. Ditto for the 6ers with Francis. I like Webber, but under no circumstances should the Knicks persue him. He can't defend, he'd take minutes away from Lee and Frye, and touches away from Curry. And I don't see any reason why Webber would want to sign with NY. Webber to Dallas probably makes the most sense. He can come off the bench for 15-20 minutes a night and try to ride Dirk & co. to a championship. It would be best for everyone if he accepts a small role on a playoff bound team. Like Glenn Robinson that year he played for the Spurs. I'm pretty sure the whole Webber to NY, Francis to Philly thing was cooked up by Peter Vescey to give him a sexy column in the wake of Larry Brown going back to the 76ers.

It is true that Randy's numbers were poor with runners on relative to his performance with the bases empty. This has caused a bone of contention amongst many statheads. Randy Johnson had a similar strikeout and walk rate with runners on. However, his BABIP skyrocketed, as did his GB/FB ratio. Normally, we write that sort of thing off as bad luck. In fact, it's counterintuitive to our normal thought process to think that this would make him a worse pitcher. Less FBs = less HRs = better pitching, right? Well, not necessarily. Pichers who give up the most hits tend to do it on the ground. While less balls leave the park that way, a groundball is a lot more likely to break through for a hit. Second, BABIP isn't always luck-based. Pitchers with high GB rates tend to have a subsequently higher BABIP. The notion that pitchers have little control over what balls become outs is generally overstated, at least in my opinion. The numbers certainly support the theory that Johnson has trouble pitching out of the stretch. Why would that be? Well, if he loses a couple of miles an hour off his fastball, or overly relies on a certain pitch (slider), it's more likely that batters hit him hard. That's why his numbers inflated with runners on, and that is why he is probably closer to the 5.00 ERA pitcher we got last year than the 3.50 ERA that PECOTA projects for 2007. Right, but all of that kind of ignores the theory that I posited. You're basing your prediction for him solely on last year's performance. If the surgery was successfull in alleviating some of the stiffness in Johnson's back that led to him throwing weak sliders and leaving pitches up in the zone (leading to that horrible GB/FB ratio), theoretically his performance with runners on will improve. Just based on his track record you have to think that such gaudy numbers were an aberration. I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe his back will be in better shape, not 100% but better than last year, which I do, and whether or not you think he has any gas left in his tank. A lot of people think he doesn't, I respectfully disagree. I thought he would have a good year in Pinstripes, and I have to believe he'll pitch well for the Diamondbacks. I think he's going to shut up everyone who's claiming he's done.

One theory on Johnson's poor performance with runners on is that his herniated disk caused great discomfort pitching from the stretch, which resulted in a lot of flat, hanging sliders. I think that's a pretty accurate assessment.

Apparently the Randy Johnson deal is for Luis Vizcaino, Ross Ohlendorf, Steven Jackson and Alberto Gonzalez. Not crazy about this deal. I like the Mientkeiwitzcz signing though. All he needs to do is put up a low-mid .700 OPS and play his defense and he'll be a nice fit. A year like he had for the Mets in 05 would be fine. His glove is the important thing. And maybe I'll finally learn how to spell his name.

I would think so, but if there were really as many positive test results as the press is claiming, something around 8 or 9% of players at the time, the odds are that some well known players are involved.

I figure they deserve to have a representative, but it's hard to single out anyone from their rotation. Deng, Nocioni and Gordon are all having nice seasons, but not all-star ones. On second thought, I think Richard Hamilton should be making the all-star team. Move Kidd to my IR list. Even though he's putting up triple doubles left and right New Jersey has been pretty bad, and I can't justify them having two all-stars. It's the peoples' fault for voting Carter a starter, but so be it.

Bonds' agent is claiming pretty strongly, arrogantly even, that Bonds did not fail those tests. I believe him. Bonds is the Teflon Don of baseball. I bet Sheff and Giambi failed. I'm also betting that Miguel Tejada, Jeff Bagwell and a host of other all-stars failed, and we'll never hear the end of it. God help us if Roger Clemens tested positive.

West: Shawn Marion Steve Nash Dirk Nowitzki Carlos Boozer Elton Brand Zach Randolph Deron Williams IR: Chris Paul, Amare Stoudemire, Kevin Martin, Josh Howard East: Gilbert Arenas Chauncey Billups Jason Kidd Jermaine O'Neal Dwight Howard Caron Butler Paul Pierce IR: Eddy Curry, Joe Johnson, Richard Hamilton, Michael Redd Dwight Howard should be starting at center and Eddy Curry should replace Shaq on the team. Seriously, who the hell is voting for Shaq?!?!

The other problem with trading Johnson: Non-stop Roger Clemens talk for the next 4-5 months.

I'd rather see Pavano traded. Realistically though, if we can get Conor Jackson for Johnson (which is probably just some beat writer's pipedream, but still...) Cashman has to pull the trigger. I've seen lots of different trade proposals thrown around though. The most realistic is probably a few mid-level pitching prospects coming to NY and the Yankees getting entirely off the hook on Johnson's contract. I've seen Chad Tracy's name thrown around. I like him, but the talk all along has been that we want a right handed bat at first, and he'd be moving from 3rd, so that doesn't make sense. I'm guessing Cashman asked for Jackson and the D-Backs countered with Tracy. Conor Jackson can probably be had, but it would take the Yankees paying most of Johnson's contract, so it's doubtful. The problem with trading Johnson is that Igawa is a gamble that we have to be prepared for to not pan out, and there's absolutely no reason to trust Pavano. Even if he's healthy I don't like him pitching in the AL East, never did. Even at 43 and coming off back surgery Randy Johnson is more proven and reliable than those two, and I like the depth and options he gives us. His 5 ERA last year was likely a fluke, and he did pitch with a herniated disk for most of the year. I'm pretty confident that he can pitch well for us next year, more confident than I am in Igawa, Pavano or any of the kids (and I also don't want to see them mishandled). If all we're getting is a couple average-decent pitching prospects and shedding one year of payroll I'd just as soon not trade him.

Really?!!? I think the Dodgers' could be really good. Schmidt, Lowe, Penny and Wolf. Or 3 of the 4 could get injured. Who knows?! Everyone fawns over the Tigers and Marlins but I always feel like it's a crapshoot with young pitchers like Verlander and Johnson. There's a long list of guys who started out great and were never that good again.

That's just ridiculous. If the Yankees rotation meets expectations they'll absolutely have pitching to rival the best in baseball. Even with tempered expectations the Yankees pitching is better than 'average' on paper. Moose and Wang were better than anyone in the Sox rotation last year. Andy Pettitte was lights out in the second half last year and all of 2005. Everyone talks about him like he's Mark Prior, but the guy has made 30 starts every year after his rookie season with just two exceptions. He made 35 starts last year. Mussina, Pettitte, Wang...how many teams in the AL have a front 3 that good? Johnson, Igawa and Pavano are question marks, the minor league arms are untested (and everyone stop bringing Hughes into these conversations, we're not seeing him in 2007 unless there's an absolute disaster), but every team has question marks at the back of the rotation.

4th overtime win for the Knicks, that has to lead the league. DON'T FIRE ISIAH!

Just as I predicted pre-season, the Knicks will win the Atlantic

It's time we all reached out for something new

So Phoenix is basically assured of getting a lottery pick this year. Fantastic.

Isiah Thomas is the smartest man alive.