Curt Schilling wants to play one more year and he has listed 12 teams, in addition to the Red Sox, who he would play for. So in other words, Curt Schilling things the following 13 teams have a chance of winning the World Series next year. Schilling picked every division winner from this year and both 2006 World Series participants. He left off the New York Yankees (somewhat obviously), the Colorado Rockies (does anyone want to pitch in Denver?), the Seattle Mariners (not sure about this one) and the Toronto Blue Jays (pitching against the Sox and Yanks) all of whom had winning records.
Anyways, here are the teams and some comments from me... oh and keep in mind that, although I really enjoy baseball, it's definitely not my strong suit and some of the people I assume will be there next year may not be with those teams. We'll go from worst to best:
13. St. Louis Cardinals (78-84) - The only team with a losing record on the list. Presumably, their World Series win last year and their under-performance this year is what has them on Schilling's list. I wasn't too impressed by the Cards either year (except for their 2006 playoff run), but they would be a good fit since the Cards need some pitching.
12. LA Dodgers (82-80) - A better pitching staff than the Cards, but it seems to me they've got enough highly paid older guys on their team. I guess he could take over David Well's spot, but it still feels like Schilling named the Dodgers more so because they're the Dodgers than because they have a chance. Maybe Joe Torre can turn them around but I have my doubts.
11. Milwaukee Brewers (83-79) - This is where it gets interesting because the Brewers could use someone like Schilling. They have some good young arms and they've got the bats in Milwaukee but there is just something wrong when Jeff Suppan leads your team in wins. Also, who wants to move to Milwaukee?
10. Atlanta Braves (84-78) - Old pitchers leave Atlanta, they don't go to Atlanta. Interesting, but much like Milwaukee, I just don't see them having a chance next year.
9. Chicago Cubs (85-77) - The first in a group of teams that would be good for Schilling mostly because he can apparently unhex (or is it de-hex) your team. Also the Cubs always seem to have a shot at the World Series. A half-hearted approval here.
8. NY Mets (88-74) - Very similar to the Cubs situtation. The Mets are hexed (although nowhere near as long as the Cubs) and he can join up with fellow ex-Red Sox Pedro Martinez. On the other hand the Mets already have a bunch of older pitchers (Martinez, Tom Glavine, Orlando Hernandez, Aaron Sele and Billy Wagner). Maybe he can replace one of them if they leave, but the Mets need more help that Schilling can offer.
7. Detroit Tigers (88-74) - On looking over the Tiger's roster, this team seems like a good fit. They should have a spot in the rotation and their bats should provide adequate run support... but there's something I just don't like about it.
6. San Diego Padres (89-73) - Another team that, like the Tigers, seems like a good fit. I'm "feeling" the Padres more than the Tigers, so this will be the first full "approvals" by me.
5. Philadelphia Phillies (89-73) - The first of two teams (aside from the Red Sox) Schilling has pitched for. Looking over their roster the Phillies seem like a good fit, too bad they're also cursed. I give this a half-hearted approval.
4. Arizona Diamondbacks (90-72) - The other team that Schilling has pitched for. He could rejoin Randy Johnson and try to relive the 2001 season, but doesn't he want some passion with the fans where he pitches. The Diamondbacks struggled to sell playoff tickets! I just think it's a bad idea.
3. LA Angels (94-68) - The Angels seem like a good fit for Schilling because they have only one pitcher over the age of 33. Their bats were a little lacking this year, but they're young so there is definitely room for improvement. I really don't see anything wrong with it... so another approved from me.
2. Cleveland Indians (96-66) - Cursed... just cursed. But then again it wouldn't be the first time he's been part of a curse reversal... Another approval from me.
1. Boston Red Sox (96-66) - Probably the best fit for him. Schilling thinks he's got another year in him and they should bring him back and hope he retires next year with yet another World Series ring.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Monday, October 29, 2007
NFL Week 8 review: Eating Crow
52-7... Wow, those 16 points seemed like nothing. The Redskins simply stunk up Gillette Stadium and I now sound like an idiot who didn't, couldn't or just wouldn't recognize how great these Patriots are. And you know what? I'm still not convinced about the Patriots (I'll be convince after this Sunday, one way or the other). But about the Redskins, I'm still somewhat intrigued and I feel like I'll be that way all season. I won't belabor the points everyone is making around DC but I will make this correlation:
Two years ago the Redskins stunk up Giant Stadium with a 36-0 loss to the New York Giants. Aside from the Redskins scoring this time and the Giants not running up the score, there are a lot of similarities to 2005. That year they entered that game with a 4-2 record, with 2 close loses, 3 close wins and a blowout victory. Just like this game they couldn't do anything offensively or defensively and in both cases is wasn't entirely because of the opponent (They ended up beating the Giants 35-20 later that season). They just, for one reason or another, simply sucked. Because of this I am not entirely disheartened by this loss. I just can't make a good judgment about the Patriots on this game because the Redskins didn't show up. (Trust me, I'll be fully ready to proclaim them the Best Team Ever In Any Sport if they convincingly beat the Colts this week)
My point in bringing up that game from 2005 was this: The Redskins aren't as bad as last Sunday. But I don't think they're good enough to improve on that 2005 team which won a Wild Card game and gave the Seahawks a good game in the divisional playoffs. Unless they start playing well, and get lucky (much like Pittsburgh did that year) they're doomed to repeat 2005, or worse.
So here is my prediction: they'll win 2 of their remaining 4 conference games and of the remaining 5 games (vs. Jets, Bucs, Bills, Bears, Vikings) they should beat everyone but they'll probably find a way to lose one or two of them. That should leave them at either 9-7 and 10-6, which in the NFC should be just in or out of a Wild Card spot. So that means they're in good shape Wild Card-wise since they beat the Lions and Cardinals. They just NEED to beat the Giants in their rematch and hope the Packers keep getting lucky and win the NFC Central. If they're lucky enough they may even draw the Packers and get some "revenge" for their "fortunate" win in the same way they got revenge on the Bucs in 2005.
Two years ago the Redskins stunk up Giant Stadium with a 36-0 loss to the New York Giants. Aside from the Redskins scoring this time and the Giants not running up the score, there are a lot of similarities to 2005. That year they entered that game with a 4-2 record, with 2 close loses, 3 close wins and a blowout victory. Just like this game they couldn't do anything offensively or defensively and in both cases is wasn't entirely because of the opponent (They ended up beating the Giants 35-20 later that season). They just, for one reason or another, simply sucked. Because of this I am not entirely disheartened by this loss. I just can't make a good judgment about the Patriots on this game because the Redskins didn't show up. (Trust me, I'll be fully ready to proclaim them the Best Team Ever In Any Sport if they convincingly beat the Colts this week)
My point in bringing up that game from 2005 was this: The Redskins aren't as bad as last Sunday. But I don't think they're good enough to improve on that 2005 team which won a Wild Card game and gave the Seahawks a good game in the divisional playoffs. Unless they start playing well, and get lucky (much like Pittsburgh did that year) they're doomed to repeat 2005, or worse.
So here is my prediction: they'll win 2 of their remaining 4 conference games and of the remaining 5 games (vs. Jets, Bucs, Bills, Bears, Vikings) they should beat everyone but they'll probably find a way to lose one or two of them. That should leave them at either 9-7 and 10-6, which in the NFC should be just in or out of a Wild Card spot. So that means they're in good shape Wild Card-wise since they beat the Lions and Cardinals. They just NEED to beat the Giants in their rematch and hope the Packers keep getting lucky and win the NFC Central. If they're lucky enough they may even draw the Packers and get some "revenge" for their "fortunate" win in the same way they got revenge on the Bucs in 2005.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Week 8: Skins vs Pats
Remember about a month ago, when the Redskins beat the Eagles and I was only "somewhat intrigued" by them? Well, sadly, I'm still only "somewhat intrigued." And honestly, it's been that way ever since. They lost 2 games they should have won (Giants and Packers) and almost lost a third game "they should have won" last week against the Cardinals. So here I am, only somewhat intrigued, and they're going into a away game against the Best Team Ever In Any Sport (BTEIAS).
Every one is hyping the Patriots as essentially the best team ever because they seem impossible to stop on offense. And you'ld be a fool to not agree that they have been impressive. However, doesn't anyone care that they're doing it against terrible teams? The Pats have only beaten one team with a winning record, the Dallas Cowboys. And that's not saying much considering the Cowboys have only beaten one team with a winning record themselves (The Cowboys beat the then hapless New Giants in Week 1). The other 6 teams the Pats have beaten have 11 wins between them... not exactly stellar competition.
The Pats have beaten the 28th, 16th, 31st, 29th, 32nd, 7th and 15th ranked defenses. And before you say "Well what about 7th, 15th and 16th?!" I say "Cowboys, 0-7 and Norval Eugene Turner." The Cowboys (7th) are even more suspect than the Pats since they give up a bunch of points (21st in points allowed) and (like I said earlier) they haven't beaten anyone of note. The 0-7 Dolphins (15th) are, well, 0-7! Finally, the Chargers are crippled by their head coach who is the master of beating bad teams and losing to pretty much everyone else.
I could go on and on, even bringing up how the Colts are much better rounded AND they're not running up the score on teams, but we'll leave that discussion for next week. Although, I'm sure that will be discussed to death in the lead up to Week 9's Pats vs Colts game.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the Redskins are going to win on Sunday or even that they are as good as either the Pats or Cowboys. But are the Pats really 16 points better? The Pats have been running up the score on teams so, of course, you should expect them to try and score a bunch of points, but they have yet to play a defense anywhere near as good as the Redskins.
All I'm saying is if the Pat's end up not looking like the BTEIAS, please don't pull the "they were looking ahead to the Colts" excuses. Frankly, in almost every case (not just the Pats this year), that is a horrible excuse. So let's all agree that whatever happens we won't make up dumb excuses; We'll agree to take it for what it's worth. And maybe, just maybe, I'll finish this weekend at something a little more than "somewhat intrigued."
Every one is hyping the Patriots as essentially the best team ever because they seem impossible to stop on offense. And you'ld be a fool to not agree that they have been impressive. However, doesn't anyone care that they're doing it against terrible teams? The Pats have only beaten one team with a winning record, the Dallas Cowboys. And that's not saying much considering the Cowboys have only beaten one team with a winning record themselves (The Cowboys beat the then hapless New Giants in Week 1). The other 6 teams the Pats have beaten have 11 wins between them... not exactly stellar competition.
The Pats have beaten the 28th, 16th, 31st, 29th, 32nd, 7th and 15th ranked defenses. And before you say "Well what about 7th, 15th and 16th?!" I say "Cowboys, 0-7 and Norval Eugene Turner." The Cowboys (7th) are even more suspect than the Pats since they give up a bunch of points (21st in points allowed) and (like I said earlier) they haven't beaten anyone of note. The 0-7 Dolphins (15th) are, well, 0-7! Finally, the Chargers are crippled by their head coach who is the master of beating bad teams and losing to pretty much everyone else.
I could go on and on, even bringing up how the Colts are much better rounded AND they're not running up the score on teams, but we'll leave that discussion for next week. Although, I'm sure that will be discussed to death in the lead up to Week 9's Pats vs Colts game.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the Redskins are going to win on Sunday or even that they are as good as either the Pats or Cowboys. But are the Pats really 16 points better? The Pats have been running up the score on teams so, of course, you should expect them to try and score a bunch of points, but they have yet to play a defense anywhere near as good as the Redskins.
All I'm saying is if the Pat's end up not looking like the BTEIAS, please don't pull the "they were looking ahead to the Colts" excuses. Frankly, in almost every case (not just the Pats this year), that is a horrible excuse. So let's all agree that whatever happens we won't make up dumb excuses; We'll agree to take it for what it's worth. And maybe, just maybe, I'll finish this weekend at something a little more than "somewhat intrigued."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)