Yeah, it's a little early, but now that we won't have football for probably the next 18 months or more, let's talk baseball.

I'll begin with the obvious: of all the people A-Rod could have had feeding him popcorn, why the hell did it have to be Cameron Diaz? This is what separates him from Jeter. Jeter gets the girls. A-Rod gets a marginal A-level/probably B-level actress at best. He can't even pick the hot girls properly.

ampersand wrote:This is what separates him from Jeter. Jeter gets the girls. A-Rod gets a marginal A-level/probably B-level actress at best.

I've always thought the difference between Rodriguez (yep, still refusing to use that asinine nickname) and Jeter was that Jeter focuses on team success while Rodriguez is more preoccupied with his own statistics and his own success.

If I'm not mistaken, Jeter got married in the offseason. Until I see otherwise, I'm convinced this is going to cause his production to drop even more. His prowess may have come from bouncing from model to model like some crazed James Bond/Don Draper hybrid. Like Popeye and spinach. Now (presumably) he can't do that anymore. (Yeah, I know, I'm making the case that somehow being married to Minka Kelly is going to turn out disappointing for someone. But honestly, we're talking about New York's most eligible bachelor since JFK Jr.) OR, perhaps he's already working on a tally of affairs that make Tiger Woods look like the desperate old man at a singles bar.

With Rodriguez I'd even guess that he's just going down a list of actresses he's found attractive over the years. Maybe his buddies back in Miami are egging him on. "Come on Alex, you always used to talk about how hot Cameron Diaz was, now's your chance man!" If true, I couldn't even blame him. If you had a shot at an actress you used to really like, even if she's a little past her prime, wouldn't you at least consider it so you can tell the kid in you that, yeah, you've been there? Also, if Cameron Diaz went to the Super Bowl, does that mean she's going to be the next celebrity to buy in to the Miami Dolphins? She's played a football owner in a movie before...

I'm just now starting to go through the offseason moves with more than a casual glance. I haven't broken much of anything down yet for this season. Obviously the Phillies had a great winter in getting Cliff Lee, and it seems like the transactions broke Boston's way as well, but it all seems way more complicated than it looks. I will say, though, that it seems like a few teams solidified their identity this offseason (Boston, Philadelphia, Tampa Bay) and some others are still searching for one (Texas, both Chicago teams, Los Anaheim). Also, if there are any Met fans out there: brace yourself. Things will get worse before they get better, but when there's an ownership change and the organization comes out with an image and a plan things will get better. It's just that you could be waiting up to five years for that turnaround.

Do the Cardinals sign Pujols? I'm starting to think St. Louis would be either crazy or crazy like a Fox to not sign him to a long-term deal. But I was talking to a friend of mine who is a die-hard Cardinals fan and he thinks he'll play the ten years Pujols wants, but I'm not so sure he's got ten years left in him. Five for sure.

ampersand wrote:Do the Cardinals sign Pujols?

Yes. No matter the cost. He means too much to the team and to the franchise. Sign him or he signs with a rival--and right now the richest team without a prominent everyday first baseman is the Chicago Cubs. In no scenario should the Cardinals even consider letting that happen.

It's also a safe bet that he will end up staying in St. Louis for the same reason--it's too good to be true for the Cubs.

Jason Stark wrote: Nationals and Phillies made signings that shocked the world. The Braves and Marlins made a stunning trade -- with each other. And the Mets mostly shoveled snow.

Now I deal with is the Red Sox fans talking smack. Where does this come from?

A few places.

1) We're bored. I mean, most baseball fans these days think of the Boston Red Sox and their fans and immediately picture games against the New York Yankees. And yeah, those have been real good ballgames at times in the past. But even we're getting tired of it. There's only so many jokes you can make about Alex Rodriguez, or Jeter, or the Steinbrenners. What used to be a fun and longstanding rivalry is turning into a chore. Tampa Bay's going to be around in the division race too, but they're no fun at all. Consequently, we need another somewhat nearby baseball team with a contentious fanbase and we need to cultivate a rivalry with them.

2) It's been eight years now since we've seen a seventh game in the World Series. In that span, only twice has the World Series even gone to a sixth game. Looking at rosters and offseason moves, it appears on paper that we might get a good World Series out of a Red Sox-Phillies matchup.

3) Call it "Scarface syndrome." During the post-strike era of big spending from big markets, the Red Sox have ended up being labeled as one of baseball's "bad guys" simply because they take the money their fans spend on jerseys, hats and tickets, and they use that money to make the team better. (Evil to the bone, right? I mean why aren't they just stealing money directly from the fans and pocketing it like The Thief Bob Nutting in Pittsburgh?) Anyway, we've taken this as an insult--especially as the timing of it coincided with the first chance we really have had in, oh, anyone I've ever met's lifetime to celebrate how good the team was. So right as the Red Sox got to the top of the mountain, every other group of fans decided that they weren't going to give up their favorite punchline without a fight. (Admit it: you all made "1918" jokes at one point. Wasn't just Yankee fans. And now you're wondering why we fans seem to be out for vengeance?) So combine that attitude with everyone suddenly announcing "you're just like that team you've always despised" at absolutely the wrong moment to make such an announcement. It's still unreasonable, but at least there's an explanation.

I'm no fan of Barry Bonds, but this is getting downright insane.

I mean really. Really. We're after this guy for what, exactly? Lying to Congress? Nothing came of Rafael Palmeiro doing the same thing, or Miguel Tejada. Taking steroids? He's just the top of a long, long list as we all know. So what is it? What did he do?

Oh yeah: he wasn't lovable. He broke a hero's record. Baseball fans--especially purists like myself--generally disliked Bonds dating back to his Pittsburgh days. (Put it this way, if Alex Rodriguez before 2009 was a "choke artist," then Bonds was Choke Monet. On top of that he seemed to have little attachment to any teammates, and seemed a whole lot less upset about never winning the World Series than most players of his stature would.) If you take Game of Shadows as gospel, Bonds comes off as a petty and somewhat jealous guy. He was connected to BALCO, and other athletes connected to that group (Marion Jones) have gone to jail!

It seems like everybody but Bonds and Roger Clemens has gotten a free pass. Jason Giambi was apologetic. Alex Rodriguez and David Ortiz are continuing to be very productive now that baseball has stringent testing and suspension rules. Manny Ramirez hasn't been very good since his steroid suspension. Andy Pettitte gave a plausible story to explain but not excuse his PED use. On top of everything else, all of the people in this paragraph but Bonds were generally well-liked ballplayers, rivalries notwithstanding. (Though I've been told by a reliable source that Pettitte is a Pete Sampras-level tipper.) Frankly, I couldn't care less about steroids. All they did was break personal records, and personal records are not the object of the game of baseball. I see little reason to believe steroid use actually impacted win-loss records or who won which championship. Not when a minimum of 104 players were on the juice. Not when the King of Steroid Cases ended up with a grand total of zero World Series rings. (And the Giants were in the hunt for most of Bonds' tenure in San Francisco. Not to mention that the Pittsburgh Pirates COULD have won a World Series if their star outfielder could have hit somewhere over the Mendoza Line in 1991 or 1992. No, really. Look it up. Bonds essentially cost the Pirates two NLCSes in a row.)

Would someone please tell the Cubs that player-only meetings should be held during the regular season?

(This has been your Cubs Curse update.)

Might as well Practice for the regular season.

They had a fight over "we need to start making plays"? Arrogant pricks.

Pfft. Baseball players. Why can't they fight over gambling debts? Why aren't they armed? Yet again baseball proves to be behind the times.

I wonder if Carlos Pena's locker and parking spot say his name, or "this spot reserved for Albert Pujols." Or if anybody calls their manager "Ryno," since the Cubs hired this manager over public pressure to hire Ryne Sandberg. (Sandberg ended up as the manager of the Lehigh Valley Iron Pigs, the Phillies' triple A affiliate. On a not at all related note, you used to know "the Lehigh Valley" as "Allentown, PA." You don't hear it called Allentown anymore, as that city is about one or two problems away from being classified as "third world" while enormous suburbs connecting New York and Philadelphia pop up all around it.)

Buck Showalter dusts off the most uninformed argument in baseball. (Namely, that winning is tied directly to the ability to run up a ridiculous payroll.)

Look, aside from the fact that the Mets, Dodgers and Cubs regularly outspend teams that regularly destroy them in the standings--and the Los Anaheim Angels are headed in the same direction--and aside from the revenue-sharing system that forces the big spenders to write large checks to the owners who are not interested in spending money--you need only look at the playoffs of the past decade or so to figure out just how little validity the "money is all that matters" argument holds.

Who competed for the World Series last season? Was it the big-spending Yankees and the big-spending Phillies? Was it the Boston Money Factory vs the North Side Holding Company? No. It was the Texas Rangers--who had just that season been purchased by people who are not anywhere near the richest owners in the sport. (That would be the guy who owns the Minnesota Twins, by the way.) They played the San Francisco Giants, creating a World Series matchup of two mid-level payrolls.

Two out of the past three years, the Tampa Bay Rays have won the AL East. You know, the division with the two richest teams in the sport. Even with a spending spree this offseason in Boston and a few free agency departures in Tampa Bay, the Rays are expected to contend again. Yep. Money is the only factor, Buck. That's why the Rays--who have less spending money than the MASN-partner Orioles by the way--regularly feed Baltimore their own teeth.

The Braves and Reds qualified for the playoffs last year. They are not big spenders. Money has become an excuse for teams not really putting forth any effort toward long term success. That's all it is at this point.

Would you quit it with the "Oh noes they might put a cap on the salary." He was making a comment about Theo.

A comment that has nothing to do with anything but "money is an unfair advantage."

Again. If having money makes a GM's job so damned easy, why can't the Mets, Cubs, Dodgers or Angels ever win despite constantly high payrolls?

Remember spending Money isn't the same as spending it wisely. He isn't saying it is easy to win. He is saying it is hard to win when you can't out spend almost everyone. I also believe most people are more impressed with the Rays staying in the race then the Red Sox in regards to their placement in the division. Every time someone brings up spending you flip out like some is trying to steal your toy train. I don't care about Baseball having a cap. I do believe they need a Net or soft cap to keep teams from not spending money other teams send them. Now if you feel they should help these teams then you forget this isn't 30 different businesses, but 1 really big business with 30 different departments if you will.