College Football - 2007 is greatest season ever but ends up being a tiny bit disappointing

Let me explain, up until the BCS selection, this college football season has easily become the greatest season ever. The unpredictability week in and week out made me glued to my TV from Thursday through Saturday every week. The last week of the regular season summed up the entire season with the 2 top ranked teams losing, one of which was a Stanford/Appalachian St-like loss to Pittsburgh. However, when the BCS was announced, I was a little disappointed namely because of what happened to Kansas/Mizzou and in some ways Illinois, but the latter will cause me to become contradictory, which I will explain later.

Below are my thoughts on the BCS bowls; please keep in mind that in no way am I trying to be Lee Corso or Kirk Herbstreit. I am just an avid fan like the most of you who are reading this now.


BCS Championship:

LSU vs Ohio State - This was absolutely correct. Many will argue about the Big 10 not having a championship. STOP with this argument, it will not change for the Big 10 especially when both Ohio State and Illinois benefited from not playing an extra game. It is the SEC/Big 12's fault for having championships. Many of the former head coaches at these conferences have argued and lobbied against having to play that extra game. As a fan, I absolutely enjoy watching "championship Saturday." However, as a Big 10 fan watching championship Saturday, I do feel for those fans whose teams lost in that extra game causing them to lose out on the BCS championship game or in some cases a BCS bowl altogether. LSU deserves this spot. They lost both games in 3OT against 2 very good teams. If I'm not mistaken, LSU played and defeated the most ranked teams during the season. I think Ohio State will surprise many people and shake of the 2-3 week rust and enjoy the fact that they had some major luck involved. It's almost like they have nothing to lose because who could have expected both the #1 and #2 teams losing?


The match up should be and is: LSU vs Ohio State:




Orange Bowl:

VT vs Kansas - The entire world knows by know, wtf happened here? How in the world did Kansas get in over Mizzou considering Kansas LOST to Mizzou last week? It's really the stupidest thing ever. This is the main reason why this entire season ends up being a little disappointing. I really cannot understand this. Do the selection committee think that Kansas, who played one of the weakest schedules in the top 25, need to prove themselves by jipping Mizzou? With all that said, I feel Kansas is feeling the heat about getting so lucky so I think they will put up a bigger fight than what most people think, my question is, how will they be able to handle the 2 headed monster at VT? Kansas has not faced a team as potent or as defensively solid as VT. The only reason why Kansas has the highest scoring offense in the Big 12 is because they didn't play anyone.

The match up should be: VT vs Mizzou


Fiesta Bowl:

Oklahoma vs WV - This was the right choice; however, I think West Virginia has no shot at winning this game. West Virginia is a one dimensional team and can only run. As long as Oklahoma can stop the run, which they can, WV will be out of options as shown by Pittsburgh. Oklahoma's offense with freshman Sam Bradford leading the way and Oklahoma's overwhemingly impressive defense will be too much. In addition, how will WV be able to recover after the news conference following WV's loss to Pittsburgh? Now THAT was brutal to watch. A grown man almost cried on national TV. I don't blame the man one bit. Oklahoma all the way in this one.


The match up should be and is: OU vs WV




Sugar Bowl:

Hawaii vs. Georgia - I am absolutely excited about this match up. I originally thought Hawaii was overrated, but Brennan keeping bringing the team back from deficits so that has to mean something right? Georgia is one of the hottest teams in the country and are pretty po'ed about getting passed over for the championship game. This motivation in and of itself will lead them past Hawaii.


The match up should be and is: Hawaii vs Georgia


Rose Bowl:

Illinois vs USC - The selection committee got the USC/Pac-10 part of it right. USC is one of the other "hottest teams" in the country. However, Illinois, just like Kansas, squeeked into a BCS bowl and moreover, undeservedly so. But the purist in me enjoys the traditional Big-10/Pac-10 rivalry so that is where my earlier statement of being contradictory plays a factor. I like the fact that the Rose Bowl is continuing their tradition; however, the realist in me says that Illinois does not deserve this spot. I would have preferred to see either Florida or Mizzou play this one against USC. Now that would have been intriguing, but as with all Big-10/Pac-10 games, I will enjoy this game thoroughly. Being originally from Southern California and currently residing in Illinois, it really can't get anymore exciting.

The match up should be : Florida vs USC or Mizzou vs USC

Baseball - 4th "major" trade of the season - Jon Garland for Orlando Cabrera

I absolutely enjoyed this trade namely because my Angels were involved in a good trade. My view on this trade is not biased just because the Angels are my (2nd) favorite team (to the Dodgers).

Angels receive - (SP) Jon Garland







White Sox receive - (SS) Orlando Cabrera







Here's my take on this trade:

Angels - The Angels receive a steady yet, slightly, overpriced pitcher. However, with that comes control, a pitcher who consistently makes 30+ starts, and most likely a 14-16 game winner now that he's on a winning ballclub. His whip should continue to go down and "should" be entering his prime. This could very well be the break out season or at least comparable to his 2005 season. Garland's addition boosts the pitching rotation and I, as a fan, am thrilled with this move. I would gladly take Garland as a #3 or #4 pitcher any day. Just as positive a move to add Garland is the fact that they moved O-Cab, which I thought was an awful deal from the start. O-Cab was too inconsistent with the ballclub, but more importantly, this presents an opportunity for the numerous infield prospects that will now get a chance to show why they are top of the top prospects. Erick Aybar will certainly get a shot, but watch out for Brandon Wood as well. He's been playing SS in the minors so we could quite possibly see a Tulo break out. Well, maybe take it down a few notches. I'm just glad Aybar and Wood will finally get chances.

*** 1/2 (out of 5) because of the opportunity to let the top prospects play in Aybar/Wood. Also because they receive a solid #3/4 starter to bolster their already strong pitching staff. Lastly, because they got rid of the high contract of O-Cab and the inconsistent play. The loss of a gold glover hurts, but the upside is tremendous.


White Sox - The White Sox receive a gold glove shortstop. The WSox had solid defense (the 3rd fewest errors in the AL in 2007) and just solidified the toughest defensive position with a gold glover. With Uribe signing a 1 year deal, he will move to 2B. The double play combo of flame throwing Uribe and O-Cab will mean lots of GIDPs in 2008, which will help the WSox' pitching staff. I believe O-Cab's 2007 season was his career year so I don't feel as though he will improve. However with that said, the lineup of the WSox is solid from top to bottom. I think WSox fans will be equally awed by O-Cab's defensive ability as they are in awe of Uribe's arm. Good addition, but not great.

** (out of 5) because they now have a solid lineup from top to bottom as opposed to having Pablo Ozuna at 2B (or a rookie). They upgraded their defense even more and will now have the top 2 defensive lineups in the AL and most likely top 5 in the majors. The loss of a solid starter in Garland hurts and the WSox must now rely on Vazquez, former highly touted prospect Danks, Mr Inconsistenty Contreras, and another former highly touted prospect Gavin Floyd. Solid lineup, but questionable staff.

Angels come out on top in this trade.

Baseball - 3rd "major" trade of the season

Being in Chicago, I guess I should comment on this "who cares" type of trade since it involves the Cubs.

Cubs receive - (2B) Omar Infante
Tigers receive - (CF) Jacque Jones


Here's my take on this trade:

Cubs - The Cubs just wanted to get rid of Jacque Jones after trying for nearly a year+. It was primarily to give Felix Pie a chance to take over at CF. Pie is an uber-prospect and his abilities on the field are incredible. This guy is the Corey Patterson that is unselfish (about batting leadoff and doing whatever he can to get on base) and can do it all...a true 5 tool prospect. I'm not surprised by this move and the kind of caliber they received in return. Do I really need to comment on Infante?

** (out of 5) because they got rid of a high(er) priced contract, but more importantly, they are now convinced that Pie is their future at CF.

Tigers - The Tigers receive Jacque Jones as a rental. As many baseball fans already know, Cameron Maybin is also an uber-prospect, check that, Maybin might just well be in the top 3 (if not the best) for top minor league prospects for 2008. Maybin needs more grooming at the AAA level so he will certainly go back to AAA while the Tigers place Jacque Jones in the OF as a decoy.

* 1/2 (out of 5) because they got a legit OF to take over while Maybin gets more training at the AAA level before taking the spot permanently by mid-2008.

This is about as even a trade as you can get, but there's no such thing as an even trade. Cubs come out on top based on the immediate impact this will have for them.

Baseball - 2nd "major" trade of the season

Phillies receive - (RP) Brad Lidge, (SS) Eric Brunlett
Astros receive - (LF) Michael Bourn, (RP) Geoff Geary, (3B) Mike Costanzo

Here's my take on this trade:

Phillies - The Phillies received a solid closer in Lidge and yes, Lidge is still a solid closer. He's not a premium closer, but still a solid 2nd-tier closer. 2006 was a fluke season and no, it was not because of Pujols' impact on Lidge. Compared to Myers, having Lidge close down the game is a major upgrade to the Phillies overall pitching staff. Myers belongs in the starting rotation and boosts it tremendously even though it is still the weakest part of the Phillies. I guess taking on Lidge's 5MM contract was worth it enough so that Myers can move into (most likely) the #2 spot. This move is more about Myers getting back into the starting role than it is about obtaining one of the "premier closers" in the game as stated by the Asst GM for the Phillies. Obviously the AGM has no idea what he is talking about and is trying to justify the high cost of Lidge. Eric Brunlett is just a toss in, who cares ( no offense to Brunlett or his fans/friends/etc).

* 1/2 (out of 5) because the Phillies essentially "boost" their starting rotation with Myers and replace Myers with Lidge as the closer with, what I think, is an improvement. However, they gave up some decent prospects to obtain Lidge.


Astros - The key player that the Astros received was Michael Bourn. Now Bourn was never considered a "cream of the crop" prospect for the Phillies, but he was definitely one of the more well known names in the Phillies farm system. Bourn is almost guaranteed to get a starting job in the OF and is almost guaranteed to bat leadoff. If speed is what you want, Bourn is your man. The Astros was probably frustrated to the point that they felt anyone in their bullpen, namely Chad Qualls, could match or better what Lidge had done the past 2 seasons. In return, they received a leadoff man. Re: Geoff Geary, with the exception of an awful June in 2007, Geary performed up to the standards of his superb 2006 season. He will certainly help the Astros' bullpen. Lastly, Mike Costanzo is a hit or miss just like any other prospect at AA or below. He played at the AA level in 2007 and might get promoted to AAA for 2008 or spend another 1/2 season at AA. His numbers were solid during his 1st year at the AA level (.270, 27, 86), but his "eye" is still very raw. Costanzo is still young (23) and has time to develop. It's too difficult to judge prospects that are lower than the AAA level so this is a hit or miss. If he and Bourn pan out, then that's awesome; if one or the other pans out, then great, the Astros took a chance and broke even.

** (out of 5) because the Astros got rid of a closer who they probably got frustrated with the past 2 seasons. They obviously felt that a couple other relievers, namely Qualls, could adequately fill the role. In return they boosted the confidence of the relief corps by letting Qualls take a shot and for everyone to most likely move up a notch on the Relief pitching chart and also got a legit, typical, speedy OF.

Astros come out on top in this trade. Even if only one of the 2 prospects pan out, Astros broke even yet saved millions of dollars.

oops

I almost forgot the "West" portion.

Miguel Cabrera (3B Marlins) is not going to be a Marlin forever. He will eventually be traded or signed by a bigger team with more money. It looks as though the former might happen sooner than we think.

The Angels are currently trying to pick up Miguel Cabrera for the lion's share of their farm system (Nick Adenhart/Brandon Wood/Howie Kendrick/others).

The Dodgers have a similar story as well as the prospects to back it up (Kemp/Loney/Billingsly/others).


Either way, it looks like Miggy is going West.


Thoughts?

Trade winds due East....and West

Well, it looks as though we are in the middle of one of the most interesting/frustrating parts of the year: trade time.

Several minor deals have already come and gone, but there are two major deals on the burner that will keep people interested in baseball for a few more weeks.

Let's start with Sandy Koufax part deux: Johan Santana.

This guy, albeit a sub-par 2007, is talented, smart and young.

He is going to cost entirely too much for the Twins, so they are thinking about trading him for some great players (at least 3).

Who are the candidates to pick him up?

1. Yankees (most likely): They have the money and they have the prospects, but do they want to part with both? Logic says that they should wait until he is a free agent, but who is to say that he will be available by then?

It looks as though the Twins would want Phil Hughes/Melkey Cabrera/Austin Jackson (highly touted 1B prospect that has a guarateed spot once Giambi is gone). If you're the Yanks, you have to think about where you will be once the trade is made and where you will be 5 years from now, when Johan will be 35 and have the GDP of Belgium.

2. Mets (tied for 2nd most likely): Like the Yanks, they have the money, but I am not too sure on the trade bait. From what I have read, they have the blue-chips, but it is going to take more of them to make the trade. Lastings Milledge is no longer the stud of the pack, but I could see him being thrown in there given that he will probably have a chance to play in the OF.


T-2 Red Sox (tied for 2nd most likely): I have no idea why they would do this, but I keep hearing the Sox mentioned when it comes to Santana rumors. While it is probably mentioned just to keep pace with the Yankees, I believe this would be a terrible move because of what it would cost.

It would require a package built around Clay Bucholtz. A no-hitter in your 2nd MLB start is badass, but I am not ready to build a shrine around him. At the same time, I really want to see what he can do in a full season. He has loads of potential and I could see a lot of classic Bucholtz vs Hughes matchups in the future. On top of this, there is talk that Jacoby Ellsbury would have to be thrown in. To this I would have to say "NO!!". Jacoby is going to be a star in the future and he is grounded enough to handle it.

So let's assume that the Sox pull this one off and in the process, they lose Bucholtz/Hansen/Ellsbury. You have a rotation of Santana/Beckett/Dice-K/Schilling/Lester/Wake. You are paying 2 guys over 20 mil a year and you gave up a lot of talent. On top of that, Beckett will need a contract that is equally as ridiculous. While Theo is creative, I still cannot see it work for the future.

3. Chicago Cubs: Why not? Once this ownership crap goes away, they will have money and they will want to win.



Thoughts?

Passing on "The Rock"

This morning on ESPN, I noticed a piece on how GM John Paxson of the Chicago Bulls is publicly stating how trade talks for Kobe "Teimmate" Bryant have all but died.

Before reading any further, I just want everyone to realize that I have no interest NBA. My enthusiasm for basketball does not go pass the magical 2003 season when I correctly picked Syracuse to win it all, thus resulting in the 308th best bracket in the nation (I had Kansas out in the 2nd round).

ANYWAYS, I do not really care for basketball, especially the NBA......but I do like to criticise the hell out of it. Speak to any casual sports fan in this country and they could give you pros and cons regarding the style in which the NBA conducts itself.

It isn't fair to generalize the way the NBA plays their game, but it is safe to say that it is mostly about dunks and a "1 + the team" mentality. Kobe is the poster boy for this method.

I realize that Kobe doesn't exactly have a great supporting cast, but that is what he wanted all along. Why do you think he pushed Shaq out of LA?

Now he is complaining about his team and wants to move elsewear. Due to his status in the game, he has a premium contract with full no-trade rights, which means every team that is interested will have to bend over backwards to appease him.

Chicago has long been mentioned as a possible destination for him (as was KG, but we saw what happened there). Personally, I think the Bulls are better off without him. They would be losing too much (Deng and Gordon) to acquire a player that will take up most of their payroll for the next couple of years due to the almost automatic extension Kobe would recquire.

I still have faith in the fact that all sports teams can build from within and win without have to sell the farm and obtain a pricey "superstar".

In LA, Kobe is pretty much the biggest "active" sports star (Beckham is up there, but he needs to play more futbol and not so much with other celebrities).

If he were to go to Chicago, he would fall behind Hester, Urlacher, Konerko, Soriano, Pinella, and Macarthur (of the Chicago Wolves).

KG going to Boston was a big deal because it coupled him with other prominent team players as well as an above-average bench. While the Celtics gave up 7 players, the received high marks and an automatic playoff berth because of it.

Kobe coming to Chicago will not do the same thing, despite the fact that the Bulls have the talent to make the playoffs without him. Deep down, I believe that one guy should not shoulder the team, rather he should support everyone else.

Do you think Lance Armstrong won 7 TdF's just by being better than everyone else? Absolutely not. He had a team of the best cyclists in the world that could probably win the TdF on their own (Landis, Leipheimer and Hincape have all won or finished in the top 10) that would protect Lance from other cyclists and keep the race comfortable for Lance.

I am tired of complaining about Kobe. Hopefully a fun doping scandal will rise to the surface today............