The best seat in the house is the view from the couch

Yes, I realize I didn't write a column last week. And there's a very good reason for that. I'm an idiot. You see, I had planned to wait until Thursday or Friday to write about the whole A-Rod mess (this was before the A-Rod mess spilled into this week). But somewhere around Wednesday night, my ISP decided to inadvertently turn off my connection, and not restore it fully until late Monday. Since the A-Rod mess had been prolonged until Tuesday, I thought I'd wait another day. Then I forgot. Then it was X-Mas Eve. Then it was X-Mas. Now I’m ready.

So, about said A-Rod mess. Um, is it safe to come out yet? I mean really people, this has gone on just a bit too long. And don't worry, there's plenty of blame to go around.

I'm a lifelong die-hard Red Sox fan. But I'm also a die-hard baseball fan. It would really take something major to make me turn my back on the game I love. This almost did it. When billionaire owners and millionaire players fight over money, it's the hundredaire fans that lose. And when the union gets involved, look out.

So who to yell at first? Let's start with Tom Hicks, the exceedingly wealthy owner of the Texas Rangers and Dallas Stars. Back in the winter of 2000, he paid about $8M more per year than he really needed to in order to get Alex Rodriguez. A-Rod probably would have signed with Texas for $17M yearly. In fact, if memory serves, the largest offer he had previous to Texas was from Atlanta at about $15M a year. The Mets had pulled out after the whole debacle over non-salary bonuses, and Seattle backed off early in the bidding war. So Tom Hicks offered too much, and A-Rod, like any halfway intelligent human being, took the offer. Actually, Scott Boras, A-Rod's agent, took the offer, and not without a three mile wide grin on his face, I suspect.

Hicks gets some of the blame. So do A-Rod and Boras. So does Dan Duquette for following the trend that the Rangers set, and overpaying by quite a bit for Manny Ramirez. HE'S A ONE TOOL PLAYER! Didn't anyone actually see this before? He can't throw. He can't run. He's pretty shoddy defensively, although I'll admit he’s getting better and working harder. And worst of all, he never seems like his head is in the game. All he does is hit. But when you're better at the one thing you do best than anyone else in your profession, you're going to get paid. And get paid he did. $20M a year for a guy who today probably wouldn't command over $12M yearly is just asinine.

So now we have the blame being laid on Hicks, Boras, Rodriguez, Duquette, Ramirez, and Jeff Moorad, Manny's agent. Then Gene Orza and the MLBPA stepped in, and things just got ugly. All the while, fans were screaming about the inane salaries that major League Ballplayers were making, and other owners were screaming about the unfair labor practices of baseball, where the rich teams could get whoever they wanted and the poor teams would have to settle for whatever they could develop in their farm systems. These, of course, were the same owners who would later decide to pay players $5, $10, or $15 million a year. Obscene.

If you haven't already guessed, I'm not a big fan of the current labor system in baseball. I believe that baseball needs a salary cap. It has worked well in the NBA and NFL, and with the way hockey seems to be heading after this season, the NHL will probably have one soon. The MLBPA needs to wake up and realize that it's not all about getting paid. It's about the fans. Without fans who respect you as both players and as people, there is no league. I have no deluded fantasies about all fans walking away from the game to prove a point, but if attendance were to drop across the board by even 10%, it would surely set off a chain reaction that would ultimately lead to a drastic market correction in the salary level of players.

Here's how to do it. Set a minimum and maximum team salary. Teams must spend at least, say, $40M total, and no more than $75M yearly, just as an example. Teams spending too much will pay penalties to the rest of the league, perhaps something along the lines of 10-15% of the amount they are over the cap. Does anyone else find it amazing that the last year the difference between the highest payroll (Yankees, who else) and the second highest payroll (Mets I believe) was more than the total payrolls of five teams? Amazing. In my new format, teams not spending enough will have to forfeit draft picks. It's not hard to spend money once you know how much has to be spent. Overpay if you have to, but make your team competitive. No more situations like we've seen in Milwaukee and Detroit. Players will still get paid, but $25M a year is probably higher than the GNP of many countries in the world.

The other thing that needs to be addressed is this: NO MORE GUARANTEED CONTRACTS. I am unbelievably sick of seeing players in a four year contract play hard the first year, dog it for two years, then play hard once their contract is up for renewal. The NFL got this right; if someone isn't playing hard, or doesn't fit your system, cut them and just take a cap hit, rather than have a situation like the Sox got stuck in a few years ago with Jose Offerman. He was overpaid from day one, he didn't really want to be in Boston, and he played like it. Finally, when the Sox cut him, eating his remaining salary, he had the brass balls to throw a tantrum in the locker room because the team didn't cut him before leaving for a road trip, and he had to fly back home to get his stuff. Unreal.

I love baseball, but if things don't get fixed, and soon, I might just move the NFL up a rung on my ladder of the best sports in the world.

Speaking of football.....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Time for some picks. The last time I wrote was Week 15, when I went 10-6, not too bad, to make me 55-49-3 for the year. For the record, I went 4-1 in the five games I played last week. This week’s picks will be the last of the regular season, but I will post my playoff predictions at the end. That oughtta be a crapshoot...

PATRIOTS (-8.5) over Bills: So I've obviously done away with my whole 5.5 point rule. The Pats need this win to clinch home-field, and they really need this win to get the bad taste out of their mouth from week 1. Bledsoe has been horrific this season (as my fantasy team can attest), and so has the Bills offense. This should be a defensive struggle. Look for the Pats to take it, but take the under.

Seahawks (+2.5) over 49ERS: I actually got this game at a "Pick-'Em", luckily. I can't believe that the 'Hawks, everyone's cinderella team when the year started, could end up 0-8 on the road. They need this win for any shot at the playoffs, so look for them to play hard. The Niners are out of the playoff hunt, and T.O. is out for the game and maybe for awhile. Seahawks get their first road win, but still miss the playoffs.

Eagles (-6.5) over REDSKINS: The Redskins have just been pathetic all year long. They just don't look like they want it enough. Steve Spurrier needs to draft a respectable RB next year (someone like, oh, I don't know, maybe Stephen Davis?) and get offensive line help. Patrick Ramsey can lead a NFL team to the playoffs, but not by himself.

Cowboys (-1.5) over SAINTS: That was heartbreaking last week. Absolutely crushing. And yet, I still made money off it (had the Saints +1.5). Don't look for New Orleans to rebound anytime soon. They're out of it, Brooks, Horn, Stallworth, Deuce, and just about everyone else are banged up and just waiting for the year to end. Jim Haslett, unfortunately, is on his way out the door soon. At the other end of the spectrum, Bill Parcells is a genius, and there is nothing in this world at this moment that could ever prove otherwise to me.

TITANS (-6.5) over Bucs: The Titans are in, and they can't advance or fall in the playoff standings. So why are they going to win this game by more that a TD? Two words: Steve McNair. He's at home; he's playing hurt, he's going to win. That's all you really need to know.

TEXANS (+7.5) over Colts: Like the Titans, the Colts can't advance or fall in the playoffs standings, so they will probably rest people. That's a luxury Tennessee doesn't really have. Plus, Houston should leave the stadium giving their fans a great game, since the next game played in H-Town will be Super Bowl XXXIIX.

Bears (+10.5) over CHIEFS: Did I actually once say the Chiefs could go undefeated? Oops. If they didn't have to play defense, they'd have had a shot. They'll probably win this game, but since every game with them is turning into a guaranteed "Over", I don't see them winning by 11 or more. Plus, the Bears have been playing absolutely inspired ball of late, and they are essentially playing for their coach's job. That'd be motivation enough for me.

DOLPHINS (-3.5) over Jets: My god, is that a Dolphins victory in December? In Buffalo?!?!? That's not supposed to happen! Bad teams are not supposed to suddenly get good, or at least not without hiring Marvin Lewis or Bill Parcells. But yes, look for Miami to end the season on a two game winning streak, which will be about two games short of saving Dave Wannstedt's job.

Jaguars (+2.5) over FALCONS: When last I wrote about the Falcons, Michael Vick was healthy, and Dan Reeves was coach. Now, Reeves has been removed, Vick's leg is hurting, and Falcons' season ticket holders are demanding refunds. Oh how times have changed.

BENGALS (-7.5) over Browns: Remember when this used to be a meaningless rivalry for pride between two league doormats? Now it actually means something, well, for the Bengals at least. Win and cheer on the Steelers and they're in the playoffs for the first time in many, many, many years. And I don't think anyone in the NFL, except the Ravens and their fans, would be disappointed.

LIONS (+10.5) over Rams: No, the Lions are not going to beat the Rams outright. But the Lions are going to cover 10.5 points. "But D, The Rams are designed for turf" you might ask. This is true. But Detroit is Detroit, and they generally find a way to hang around, if not win. Besides, the Rams already have their first-round bye, they might just pull starters in garbage time and let the Lions get close enough to cover, but not scare anyone.

Vikings (-7.5) over CARDINALS: Is there a sorrier franchise in sports right now that the Arizona Cardinals? They draw less than 30,000 fans to a stadium that holds almost 70k. They field a horrible team that has somehow scraped together 3 wins this year. And they always screw me over when I bet on them. If I take them and the points, no matter how many, they get blown out. If I bet against them, they stay close or even win. Unreal. P.S. The Vikings need a win to make the postseason.

Panthers (-4.5) over GIANTS: No reason that this spread should be under 10. The Giants are without their starting QB, a starting WR, and a questionable RB. Plus, their coach has already been fired, but not until he coached the final two games. Wow. Can't you just see Jim Fassel deciding "Hey, who's it gonna hurt?" and calling in a punt on first down? I'd pay just to see that.

CHARGERS (-1.5) over Raiders: The Raiders have flat out quit. The team gave up on the coach. The coach gave up on the team. The fans gave up on both. Last week the team was torn to bits by an inspired Brett Favre. This week, they get to deal with LaDanian Tomlinson and Drew Brees. Well, it's not Favre and Ahman Green, but that's why it's only a 1.5 point spread...

PACKERS (-3.5) over Broncos: Nothing needs to be said about Brett Favre last week more than this: He is incredible. No other man could have done that, save perhaps Michael Jordan who dealt with much the same thing. Amazing. As for this week, The Packers need the win to make the playoffs; the Broncos are already in and are missing their best player in Clinton Portis. And never bet against Brett Favre in Lambeau in December.

Steelers (+7.5) over RAVENS: Yes, Jamal Lewis is outstanding. Yes, he only needs 153 yards to break the single-season rushing record, which he will get this week. But no, the Ravens are not going to win this game, and no, they will not make the playoffs. Sorry guys, draft a QB and then win the games you're supposed to win (Pitt, Cincy, Oakland).

Now, the playoffs:

If everything I've predicted for this week is accurate, then the playoffs look like this:

AFC:

(1) Patriots - (2) Chiefs - (3) Titans - (4) Bengals - (5) Colts - (6) Broncos

NFC:

(1) Rams - (2) Eagles - (3) Panthers - (4) Vikings - (5) Cowboys - (6) Packers

And I've decided to wait until next week to make my playoff predictions, just because of A) Possible Injuries, and B) Possible incorrect picks this week (yeah, right).

Besides, if I did all the football this week, I'd be forced to talk Hockey next week... ugh.

Until next time folks, lata.

posted by Big D @ 12:00 AM