As for that supposedly groundbreaking "Sports Illustrated" swimsuit issue: Don't believe the hype!

Want to really be groundbreaking, SI? Put some
men on the cover in such provocative poses!

I don't know what's more obnoxious: having the annual Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition shoved down my throat each year. Or now having this retrograde publication getting all this positive press for being "empowering" now because they put MMA fighter Ronda Rousey and plus-size model Ashley Graham on separate versions of the 2016 cover. "History in the making" is what the magazine touts itself as doing. Oh, please. Spare me.

The SI swimsuit issue has bugged the heck out of me since I was a kid. I grew up in a house with two brothers who were big sports fans, and I got into sports from a very early age myself. So we always had Sports Illustrated in our house. If you were a child of the 70s or 80s, and you cared about sports, you pretty much had to subscribe to SI.

But I also grew up seeing the sexist Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue every year as well. And it would be a slap in the face to me and every other female sports fan who read the publication. A reminder that if you were a girl who cared about sports, pretty much the only women you'd ever regularly get to see in the magazine were sexy models whose only sport was taking their clothes off. And it was also a reminder that as much as I enjoyed reading SI to keep up with sports, the magazine wasn't really meant for me and the rest of my gender.

Look, I have no problem with guys wanting to see pictures of women wearing swimsuits (or much less). My issue with it is that this is in a sports magazine that not only seems to ignore that it does have female readers, but it never objectifies men in the same way as they do women.

And it's not just the swimsuit issue when it comes to SI. Look at the provocative Serena Williams cover, with her legs spread, when she won the 2015 Sportsperson of the Year cover. I defy you to find any Sportsman of the Year cover showing men in such a sexual pose. (An aside: Yes, I know Williams obviously agreed to the cover. But that still doesn't make it right.) 

It's 2016, and the swimsuit issue seems sorely out of date. So what to do? The magazine could have stopped running the issue (not bloodly likely, given how much money they make out of it.) Or they could have gone ESPN's route, and featured men as well, the way ESPN the Magazine's Body Issue does. At least with that issue, not only are both men and women of all ages and body types treated equally, but the focus is more on muscles and what the body can do, and not just titillation. And the ESPN issue's pictures frequently have a sense of humor that is sorely missing from SI.

But instead, Sports Illustrated has tried to act like it's now some pioneer for women in having a so-called "curvy" model on the cover. (Which goes to show, yet again, why curvy is a dumb euphemism for overweight. Because being curvy has always been a job requirement for SI models!) And Rousey in a "swimsuit" made of body paint. Would they do the same to David Beckham? Tom Brady?

MJ Day, the magazine's assistant managing editor, said that these covers showed that "beauty is not cookie cutter." Except that it is, because they won't show the beauty of men in their issue. What's up with that?

Day also described Rousey as the "perfect combination of beauty, brains, brawn and humility." Huh? If you know anything about Rousey, she has about as much humility as Kanye West does. That's precisely what helps makes her an interesting fighter.

At any rate, don't believe the hype. SI's swimsuit issue is still about objectifying women by showing them in as little clothing as possible, while men are never exploited in the same way. Just because the magazine has expanded the types of women who are in the issue doesn't make it any less retrograde. Want to be really groundbreaking, SI? Put some sexy men on your swimsuit cover. Make your male readers have to squirm for a change.

Why I Find the "Overrated Baseball Players" List Amusing

There was a whole to-do yesterday over four Yankees being named to Sports Illustrated's poll of the Most Overrated MLB players, with Alex Rodriguez, Joba Chamberlain, and Derek Jeter taking the top three spots, and Nick Swisher tying Jayson Werth and Jonathan Papelbon for fourth place.

And for once, A-Rod, the "winner" of the contest voted on by his peers, outdid Derek Jeter, No. 3 on the list, when it came to handling negative attention with a smile and a laugh. For that matter, Joba Chamberlain, who came in second, said all the right things, too. Jeter, not so much.

Here's the scoop. Erik Boland of Newsday describes the scene in the clubhouse yesterday, with Joba, who "won" the title last year, teasing A-Rod about it:

"I lost," Chamberlain proclaimed for the rest of the clubhouse to hear. "I got beat out. No. 2, though...I guess I passed the torch on to Alex."


Upon seeing Rodriguez enter the clubhouse, Chamberlain, surrounded by reporters, yelled at the third baseman.


"You’re next Al, you’re next!"

Here's how A-Rod reacted:

Rodriguez smiled for almost the entirety of the time he spent talking about the anonymous poll.


"I’ve been on this list before," A-Rod said before pausing and taking note of 3/5 of the list comprising Yankees. "So it’s three Yankees? So I’ll see you guys next summer again."


Rodriguez also poked fun at his past reasons for making headlines.


Players vote?


"I’m sure I’ll be on it next summer so I’ll try to come up with some better material for you guys," he said.   "But, I will say this. If this is the only thing we’re talking about, fellas, we’re doing good."

 Here was Jeter's reaction, which wasn't quite so jovial:

Jeter was not close to being amused.


"We're doing this again?" he said. "I have no comment on anonymous polls. I've never understood those anonymous polls."


He added: "It's the same thing they do every year, right? I'm focused on more positive things. How about that? There's your quote."


Discussing his chase of 3,000 hits later on, Jeter amended that.


"Consistency is underrated," he said, putting emphasis on "underrated." "That's the quote."

Jeter usually has the right thing to say, as in saying nothing while saying something, but I thought he came off as really cranky here. This poll, voted on by 185 MLB players, is the quintessential example of the "you're just jealous" sentiment. Yankees win every year (Jeter was just as perturbed when he "won" the honor a few years back), because players are jealous of the attention and money they get.

Jayson Werth is on the list this year because he's making a ton of money with the Washington Nationals, and others are envious of his money. Nick Swisher is on the list because of his fame, endorsements, and probably jealousy about his TV-star wife. I would like to think that Jonathan Papelbon is on the list for being annoying, but his inclusion is most likely about jealousy, too. Any player who is on this list ought to consider it a badge of honor, quite frankly. A-Rod and Chamberlain took it in that spirit, while Jeter was peeved.

At any rate, Jeter's talk of his "consistency" is no longer applicable to his career, unless you consider consistently hitting .257 over the past year, with just seven homers, as a good thing. From the start of his career, until May 31, 2010, he put up the following stats:

.317 BA .387 OBP .458 Slug .845 OPS

Here are his stats from June 1, 2010 through yesterday:

.257 BA .333 OBP .336 Slug .670 OPS

Yikes!

Tom Verducci plays around with facts and figures in Derek Jeter article

Sports Illustrated's Tom Verducci wrote a full-throated defense of Derek Jeter for the Yankees to show Derek Jeter the money. Verducci's piece is similar to his Joe Torre defense: He's an icon! He's got a lot of rings! How dare the Yankees demand he take a pay cut! The Yankees made him look bad by saying how much he thinks he's worth!

Which isn't surprising. After all, Jeter was one of Torre's and Verducci's key sources in "The Yankee Years." And don't forget, that book is where we heard about A-Rod being called "Single White Female," and how we heard all sorts of sordid details about that supposedly one-sided jealousy/obsession he had with Jeter.

But in this latest piece, Verducci doesn't just bash the Yankee front office and lionize Jeter as an icon. He doesn't just write this article like it's a press release from Casey Close. Verducci also twists around a lot of facts in the case, and I'm not letting him get away with it.

Verducci says:

The Yankees, who reportedly offered Jeter a three-year, $45 million deal, want to cut Jeter's pay by 21 percent, to pay him less money than they committed for Kei Igawa, to pay him less money annually than they do A.J. Burnett, and, including this deal, to pay him less money over his entire Yankee career than they will give Alex Rodriguez just for the nine seasons between when he turns 34 and 43. Of course, no one is allowed to mention Rodriguez's 10-year, $275 million contract in the negotiating room.

1. To pay him "less money than they committed for Kei Igawa" sounds like an outrage. But what he wrote distorts what really happened. The Yankees actually are paying Igawa a total of $20 million in salary. Igawa has a five-year contract. So he's making $4 million a year, not $15M. The extra figure involves the $26 million posting fee the Yanks had to pay Igawa's Japanese team for the right to negotiate with him. That adds up to $46 million. Granted, it was a huge mistake. But it's a distortion to insinuate that the Yanks are paying the hapless Kei Igawa more than Jeter.

2. Here we go again on the A.J. Burnett comparison. Let's review: Burnett was coming off a great season; he won 18 games and led the AL in strikeouts. The Yankees desperately needed arms. A.J. was the second-best free agent pitcher on the market that year, after CC Sabathia, and the Braves also wanted to sign Burnett. That's called leverage, something Jeter doesn't have these days. Sure, Burnett had an abysmal 2010, but it is completely forgotten that his great performance in Game 2 of the 2009 World Series completely changed the series around. If the Yanks had lost Game 1 and Game 2, they may very well have lost the series. Considering that so much of the Jeter hype is about the rings, why isn't the fact that Burnett was a key component ot the 2009 team ever taken into account?

3. As for A-Rod, it sticks in Verducci's craw -- and Jeter's craw, too -- that Rodriguez makes more money than Jeter. Tough. Newsflash -- Jeter was never as good a player as A-Rod. Rodriguez signed his contract at age 32, after the greatest season he had and the best season a Yankee hitter had had since Mantle and Maris. In Jeter's case, he wants A-Rod money when he's 36, and on the downside of his career. As for Verducci's outrage that "one is allowed to mention Rodriguez's 10-year, $275 million contract in the negotiating room," Verducci also fails to mention that Jeter is the second-highest paid player of all time, making $205 million so far. Boo bleeding hoo. If Jeter wants that kind of deal, the Yanks should offer it -- when he gets close to hitting 660 homers, that is!

Then there's the way Verducci tries to put a happy face on Jeter's awful 2010 season:

In his final 28 games, including the postseason, after some physical and mechanical adjustments, Jeter's batting average (.311) and OBP (.390) were in line with his career averages (.314 and .385).


A few down months by Jeter 16 years into his career have handed the Yankees leverage, and they are wielding it like a ballpeen hammer in public.

Those stats look very impressive, but they distort what really happened. From June 10 to September 10, Jeter hit just .232, with a .311 OBP, and an anemic .631 OPS. That isn't just a slump -- that's falling off the cliff for half the season. At age 30, those numbers are a little troubling. At age 36, they're a huge blinking warning sign.

As for the positive figures Verducci highlighted, I ran a look at Jeter's stats over the last 19 games of the season. Jeter did go .342 over those games, with a .436 OBP. But it should be noted that, by the time Jeter finally got into a groove, the Yankees were already assured of a postseason spot. Then he went in to the playoffs, the time he was supposed to shine, and hit just .250, with a .286 OBP, and 10 strikeouts. That's a very different picture than what Verducci paints.

What do you think? Tell us about it!

Beantown Brouhaha: A-Rod disses Dan Shaughnessy

If there is any Boston writer that Red Sox fans (and reportedly even some Red Sox players!) despise, it's Dan Shaughnessy. The Boston Globe writer is the guy who basically invented the whole "Curse of the Bambino" thing. He's also known for taking himself a little too seriously, as he does in a recent Sports Illustrated column, where he chastises Alex Rodriguez for changing the TV channel when Shaughnessy was blathering on against the Yankees.

Here's the story. I saw this item mentioned in the LoHud Yankee Blog, and nowhere else, on Friday. Chad Jennings writes:

The television in the Yankees clubhouse was tuned to ESPN pregame. The group of players sitting around the television in charge of the remote were all rookies, young guys recently called up. They kept watching as one of the talking heads began ripping the Yankees rotation beyond CC Sabathia.


That’s when Alex Rodriguez walked over, called for the remote and changed the channel.

I briefly wondered who the anti-Yankee ESPN windbag was that annoyed Rodriguez so, but given how many people bash the Bombers on that network, that would have been a futile effort to figure that out (I'd have to sift through a cast of thousands!)

Anyhow, I didn't think about the incident again (it just wasn't that big of a story) until I read CHB's Sports Illustrated column about the incident. Somehow, Shaughnessy got wind that Rodriguez did not want to listen to his dulcet tones (most likely, he heard some snickering in the press box over it from one of his colleagues!) and he demanded an explanation from the player:

I spent last week in Los Angeles as a panelist on ESPN's Jim Rome Is Burning. On Friday afternoon, while the Yanks were in Boston in the cramped visitors' clubhouse (New York had 56 players on its roster for the final weekend), I was on TV expressing my thoughts about the Yankees' apparent disinterest in winning the AL East. I warned that it could be tough on the Bronx Bombers if they went to Minnesota for Game 1 and lost the first game with CC Sabathia on the hill.

Let me just point out that the 56 players on the Yankee roster stat is flat-out wrong. And given that there's a  a 40-player roster limit in MLB, Shaughnessy should know better. In fact, his own Boston Globe noted that it was "56 team personnel (players, coaches, etc.) who needed locker space in the visitors clubhouse."

Back to Shaughnessy's column:

Back in Boston, the Rome show aired live in the visitors' clubhouse. When Alex Rodriguez heard me casting doubt on the Yankee strategy and painting a doomsday scenario against the Twins, he walked over to the clubhouse TV and turned it off.

OMG! A-Rod didn't want to listen to Shaughnessy! How dare he! Can we just ban A-Fraud from baseball now, already? The nerve!

Then, Shaughnessy decides to insert himself into the story by asking why A-Rod turned the TV off:

Sunday morning in Boston, when the Yanks still had a chance to win the division, I sauntered over to A-Rod's locker at Fenway and asked him why he turned me off on the clubhouse TV.

"Too negative,'' said the Yankee slugger. "I didn't want our young players to hear that.''


This is probably just one more example of A-Rod being a faux leader of the champs, but it made me wonder about the Yankees strategy for the postseason.


"Don't you want to win the East and get home-field?'' I asked Rodriguez.


"I always think home-field advantage helps,'' said Rodriguez. "It's always our preference. But we're in a good place. I think we're ready to roll.''

After making those comments, Rodriguez went out and played in an 8-4 loss to the Red Sox, assuring that the Yankees would be a wild card entry in this year's postseason.

A few points:

1. What kind of egomaniac do you have to be to demand that a player tell you why he didn't want to watch you fulminating against his own team? And people think that "faux leader" A-Rod has an ego!

2. Is Shaughnessy aware that even if the Yankees had won Sunday, they still wouldn't have gotten the AL East title, thanks to Tampa Bay also winning? And nice little passive-aggressive blaming of A-Rod for the Yankees' loss!

3. The sportswriter can't even keep a consistent argument going. Earlier in the piece, he argues this about the Yankees not going for home field advantage:

The Yanks came to Fenway Park last Friday with a chance to win the American League East. Early in the weekend it became apparent that winning the division was not their top priority....I am not Joe Girardi or Brian Cashman, but this makes no sense to me....I would have attempted to beat the Red Sox.

The Yankees did not do this. Girardi used 17 pitchers in three games against Boston's Triple-A lineups. The Yankees concentrated on getting ready for the playoffs. And now they will play a superior team, on the road, in Game 1 of the American League Division Series on Wednesday night.

You can argue about some of the decisions Girardi made over the past month, like against the Sox the weekend before. But the fact is that in a 27-hour span over the last three games of the season, Joe started Alex Rodriguez for all three games, including Saturday's doubleheader. He did the same with Brett Gardner, Mark Teixeira, and Robinson Cano. Nick Swisher, Derek Jeter, Jorge Posada, and Curtis Granderson played two of the games. Girardi used so many pitchers because the team's pitching has been terrible lately; not because he was trying not to win.

If the Yanks didn't care about winning on Sunday, why would they trot out their regular starting lineup that afternoon against the Sox's Pawtucket-laden squad, just hours after Saturday's grueling late-night, extra-innings doubleheader? You know, the very same Yankee lineup that Shaughnessy touts as being "daunting," with "perhaps the greatest infield in the history of baseball"? The writer never explains that decision. Guess his brain is still jumbled by the news that A-Rod doesn't consider him must-see TV!


What do you think? Tell us about it!

From Core Four to Sore Three: Why I was right about the Sports Illustrated cover jinx

I told you so. When I saw that Andy Pettitte got taken out of the game Wednesday with elbow pain, it was obvious to see - for the third time in a row - what a horrendously bad idea that Core Four Sports Illustrated cover was. I said nothing good could come of it, and I was right!

This is what I wrote on April 27, in a blog entry entitled: "Did Tom Verducci and Sports Illustrated jinx the Yankees' 'Core Four'", when I saw that SI cover featuring Derek Jeter, Andy Pettitte, Mariano Rivera, and Jorge Posada:

If the Yankees' season goes up in flames any time soon, I know just who to blame - Tom Verducci and Sports Illustrated!

Because as a firm believer in the SI Cover Jinx, I feel like this cover story about the Core Four is just asking for trouble - times four.

Let's review what has happened so far:

* First, Jorge Posada got hit in the knee the previous Wednesday by an errant pitch from Jeremy Guthrie, and missed a game over it. Then he left Monday's game early with a calf strain, and hasn't played since.

* Then Mariano Rivera felt stiffness on the left side of his body after Friday's game. He hasn't played since.

* Now, Andy Pettitte left Wednesday's game after five innings with elbow pain. He has inflammation in his elbow and might miss his next start.

Derek Jeter needs to be put in a plastic bubble or something until this thing blows over!

Thanks for nothing, Sports Illustrated! And Tom Verducci, didn't you do enough damage to the franchise with "The Yankee Years"? Why must you continue to torture us so?

On the other hand, I think that I have a solution for Javier Vazquez's problems. Since he's already walking around with a black cloud of doom around him, a la "Peanuts" character Pigpen, maybe being on the SI cover would change his luck - for the better. SI needs to make up for this Core Four disaster by putting Home Run Javy on the cover, and hoping that a reverse jinx will turn his season around!

What do you think? Tell us about it!

What did I say about that Sports Illustrated cover jinx?

When I saw that Jorge Posada got hit in the knee during last night's game, my first negative thought wasn't about the Orioles. It wasn't even about why Jeremy Guthrie lost control - again - when it came to a Yankee batter. It was about Tom Verducci and Sports Illustrated putting Jorge Posada on the cover this week!

This is why I never want the Yankees to be on the cover of SI during the season. Nothing good can come of it!

Did you notice how Ken Singleton called the plunking? He said, "Look out," like he always does, and then went, "Hor-HEY", with the emphasis on the second syllable. Here's the clip.

According to MLB.com, Jesus might be coming to the Bronx because of this. Jesus Montereo, that is. He, along with Chad Moeller, is one of the AAA catching prospects who might come up to the big leagues if Posada has to miss a bunch of time because of this knee injury.

On another note, One thing I did notice in a bonus excerpt from the interview that had me nodding my head in agreement. Posada made the same point a few of us fans have made about the length of the Yankees-Red Sox games:

Posada: They're talking about speeding up the game, speeding up the game. Listen, they talk about the Boston-Yankees series? Friday we're on TBS, Saturday we're on Fox and Sunday we're on ESPN. It's 2:30, 2:25 and three minutes between innings. And that tells you why the game is taking forever.


At any rate, I hope Jorge is A-OK today.

I heard John Sterling and Suzyn Waldman say last night that the attendance was only 17,000 or so. 17K for Orioles-Yankees? How things have changed! I asked an Oriole fan friend what the deal was with this. He responded:

Bandwagon Yankee fans don't go out in the cold. Orioles fans rarely go at all.

Yikes!

What do you think? Tell us about it!

Did Tom Verducci and Sports Illustrated jinx the Yankees' 'Core Four'?

If the Yankees' season goes up in flames any time soon, I know just who to blame - Tom Verducci and Sports Illustrated!

Because as a firm believer in the SI Cover Jinx, I feel like this cover story about the Core Four is just asking for trouble - times four. It's why I was happy that Sports Illustrated picked the Phillies, and not the Yankees, to win the World Series. That jinx is powerful stuff - look what happened to the Mets' 2009 season after SI picked them to win the World Series!

I'll be interested to see if Verducci, not exactly one of my favorite writers, is able to conjure up a new angle - or new tidbits - about the four players. Not very hopeful, though, given that the cover line says they "broke in together 16 seasons ago," when only two of them - Andy Pettitte and Mariano Rivera - were playing with the Yankees regularly  in 1995. Jeter was a September callup that year and played 15 games. Jorge Posada played in exactly one game - without even a single plate appearance - that year. Posada wasn't on the full-time roster until 1997, and wasn't the No. 1 Yankee catcher until 1998.

But even the faint hope of new anecdotes isn't enough to have risked the tempting of fate entailed with putting those four on the cover. I have to get all A.J. Burnett here - again - and ask why, why, why did SI do it?

What do you think of this cover? Tell us about it!

Mets avoid Sports Illustrated jinx this year

Last year, Sports Illustrated picked the Mets to win the World Series. We know how that turned out. Subway Squawkers got the opportunity to get an advance look at predictions for the locals in SI's MLB preview issue, which comes out Wednesday.

I don't think I am spoiling any surprises to reveal that SI does not foresee a Fall Classic for this year's Met squad. But they don't see the Yankees in the World Series, either, predicting a battle between the Rays and (ugh) the Phillies. (For a look at SI's Yankee predictions, see Squawker Lisa's piece.)

SI sees the Mets finishing fourth with only 79 wins. I don't think this is the most outrageous prediction, unfortunately. I had the Mets at 81 wins in third at the start of the spring in my prediction for HeaterMagazine, and recently upped that to 83 wins in predictions Lisa and I made for the Baseball Bloggers Alliance. (Though after today's double debacle with Johan Santana and Oliver Perez turning in miserable outings, just after Mike Pelfrey did the same, I am tempted to move my wins prediction down again.)

But I do take issue with some of the analysis surrounding SI's Mets prediction, such as:

"It's hard to envision the creaky Mets, losers of 92 games a year ago, reestablishing themselves atop the NL East without [Ike] Davis and [Fernando] Martinez arriving and thriving as everyday players."

This statement could well be accurate, but it does not have much to do with 2010. While I do think Davis could take over first base at some point this season, the same is not true for Martinez, unless Carlos Beltran fails to return or Jeff Francoeur or Jason Bay gets hurt. Nothing Martinez does would likely make up for the loss of any of these outfielders, especially Beltran and Bay.

While SI pins the Mets' hopes on two rookies who might well have no impact this season, they say nothing about Jenrry Mejia, who actually could go north with the team.

For each team, SI spotlights one "player to watch," and that player for the Mets is Daniel Murphy, an odd choice, considering they are also predicting doom unless Davis takes over at first. SI quotes Howard Johnson as saying that Murphy could double his home run total.

Last year, Murphy hit 12 homers. If Murphy hits 24 homers, the Mets will be better off, but with injured stars making comebacks and a pitching staff in disarray, Murphy would not make my top ten of "players to watch."

SI also offers a "modest proposal" for each team, and for the Mets, the proposal is modest indeed - consider giving the fifth starter role to 35-year-old knuckleballer R.A. Dickey.

The way the Mets' rotation has looked this spring, I can see them giving opportunities to someone like Dickey. But then the season will be like last year, when Pat Misch, Nelson Figueroa and Bobby Parnell ended up in the rotation. Of a 70-win team.

One bright note - this year's candidate for the SI jinx is the Phillies.

Squawker Scoop: A look at Sports Illustrated's MLB Preview issue

Hooray! It looks like neither the Yankees nor the Mets will have to worry about the dreaded Sports Illustrated jinx too much this year. I was lucky enough to get a sneak peek at the Yankees-related and Mets-related items in SI's upcoming MLB preview issue, courtesy of the PR folks at Time Warner. Here's the scoop:

Sports Illustrated picks the Philadelphia Phillies to beat the Tampa Bay Rays in the World Series, saying that the Phillies "have the one element they’ve been missing for a quarter of a century: a big-time winner at the front of the rotation. That would be righthander Roy Halladay, obtained from Toronto in December, whose first trip to the playoffs should end with Philadelphia clinching its second World Series championship in three years."

SI picks the Yankees to win 100 games - and the AL East - but see them losing in the ALCS to the Rays. (No Red Sox in SI's playoff scenario!) Here's the logic:

The Yankees could muscle their way back to an October rematch with the Phils, but it would require the same off-the-charts good health and production from their older players that they received last year. That means the door is open in the American League for Tampa Bay, which has the deepest collection of young, versatile talent in the game.

I agree that the Yankees had a lot of luck last year - and 15 walkoff wins - which is why I'm projecting them to win fewer games this year (my prediction for Heater Magazine was 95 games.) But I still think they'll win the World Series. At any rate, though, I'm relieved that SI didn't pick them, given the dreaded Sports Illustrated jinx! Don't believe in it? Look what happened to the Mets last year, after SI picked them to win the World Series!

In other Yankee news, the magazine lists Javier Vazquez as a player to watch, and writes:

Catcher Jorge Posada says Vazquez struggled in his first Yankees stint because a sore shoulder made his release point drop and pitches flatten. “After I left, I didn’t think I was coming back,” Vazquez says. “I really wanted to stay.”

The magazine also has a nice little piece on Alfredo Aceves, praising his pitching and saying that the "Yankees should find a bigger role for him, either setting up Mariano Rivera as a multiple-inning reliever or as the fifth starter." Gee, I hope this article doesn't somehow jinx Ace; he's one of my faves!

As for the Mets, unlike last year's audacious prediction, when SI predicted them to win the World Series, Si projects the Mets to finish in fourth place and win just 79 games. Given the way last season was such a star-crossed one for the Mets after that prediction, maybe it's just as well the Mets are ranked so low! But even I think that they'll finish above the Marlins. In SI's NL East scenario, the Mets are ahead of only the Nationals!

Daniel Murphy is SI's Met player to watch, with hitting coach Howard Johnson saying that Murphy is "going to surprise a lot of people this year with some big numbers."

Sports Illustrated also thinks the Mets should take a chance on R.A. Dickey, the knuckleball pitcher. Me, I think the Mets ought to re-sign Pedro Martinez, the pitcher some would say is a knucklehead! But that's me - Pedro returning to Flushing would immediately give me something Mets-related to squawk about every five days.


Anyhow, Sports Illustrated's MLB Preview issue will be on newsstands today, and I'm sure there will be plenty of other stuff to rehash - and squawk about - in the issue. For one thing, I'm curious to read what they say about the Red Sox, and why they're ranked in third place. I have them getting the wild card in the predictions I did for the Baseball Bloggers Alliance - more on that soon.

What do you think? Tell us about it!

Derek Jeter gets honors, Chip Caray gets heave-ho

I've written two pieces for The Faster Times that should be of interest to Squawker readers.

* First is about Derek Jeter winning Sports Illustrated's Sportsman of the Year. My point is that while it's well-deserved, SI went too far in suggesting that Jeter is on the same level as Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig. Isn't it enough that the captain is a first-ballot Hall of Famer and the most beloved Yankee since Mickey Mantle? Why make such over-the-top comparisons with two of the greatest players of all time?

* Second is about TBS firing Chip Caray. I would like to see TBS dispense with the national broadcasters for the playoffs. Why not have, say, Michael Kay and Jerry Remy together in the booth if it were a Yankees-Red Sox ALCS? Would save the network money, and please fans, too.

What do you think? Tell us about it!

One columnist (not me!) thinks A-Rod, not Jeter, should be Sportsman of the Year

As had been rumored, Sports Illustrated named Derek Jeter today as their Sportsman of the Year. I think it was a great choice. Funny thing is, though - New York Post columnist Joel Sherman doesn't. He thinks the award should have gone to Alex Rodriguez.

Sherman wrote this in his blog entry about the Jeter rumors:

Alex Rodriguez should be the Sportsman of the Year. Before you hit me with how that title should go to someone who embodies the best in sports let’s remember that both Pete Rose and Mark McGwire have won the award, and before long we might remember that Tiger Woods has won twice.

Jeter has a brilliant year in which he became the all-time Yankees’ hit leader while remaining a high-level star who wears his pinstripes well on and off the field.

But sports are publicly messier these days, and we should not run away from that.
Heck, the initial broken story on Rodriguez’s steroid use was published by Sports Illustrated. He also touches on the advancement of sports medicine as he came back successfully from significant hip surgery months after undergoing the operation. And he was again a great player, this time finally in the postseason, as well.

In the end, A-Rod offers a story of second chances and redemption. He was a better teammate and was rewarded with the most positive feedback yet as a person while scoring that elusive championship.

Go here to read more of his reasoning, and how he wonders why Jeter is any more of a Sportsman of the Year than Mariano Rivera is.

I didn't even think there was any chance SI would pick A-Rod - the player they outed as a steroids user - as Sportsman of the Year. It seemed incongruous to me with what SI says the award is supposed to be about. So I think the Jeter selection is fine. As SI explains it:

It was that combination of on- and off-field achievement that helped make Jeter this year's Sportsman. Said Sports Illustrated Group Editor Terry McDonell, "Derek Jeter has always presented himself with class; he does numerous good works for the community with his Turn 2 Foundation, which is one of the most efficient, effective foundations of its kind; and he's extremely generous with not just his money but with his time, which in many cases is more valuable. He also had another signature year on the field."

That being said, I see Sherman's point about how "sports in 2009 are no longer just about the games, and Rodriguez touches on so many of those other important elements while remaining a unique athlete." There is something to be said for the flawed hero being a role model in his own way.

A-Rod has gotten more grief than any other active baseball player I can think of. Yes, more than Barry Bonds when he was playing - at least Giants fans didn't boo their own player. Yet Rodriguez, after hitting rock bottom, thoroughly redeemed himself, and had one of the greatest postseasons ever. One of the more moving things in the World Series film is when, after the Yankees won the series, A-Rod hugs Joe Girardi and literally weeps in his arms. Rodriguez may not be Sportsman of the Year material, but his story is inspirational in its own way.

It's why I'm so happy to see Vince Young getting his chance to shine this year with the Titans. He, too, hit rock bottom - getting benched in favor of Kerry Collins must have been hard to swallow, especially when the Collins-led Titans went 0-6 this year. Yet VY, after Tennessee owner Bud Adams finally demanded he get to play, has made the most of his opportunity, going 5-0, capped with a thrilling last-second victory against Rose Bowl nemesis Matt Leinart and the Cardinals yesterday. VY hasn't done everything right over the years, but the fact that he's flawed makes him more accessible. 

In today's sports world, there's room for both the Jeters and the A-Rods, the Bradys and the Youngs.  And that's a good thing.


What do you think? Tell us about it!

Sports Illustrated picks Mets, jinxes Yankees

So Sports Illustrated has gone where even many Met fans wouldn't go - picking the Mets to win the World Series. But what about the infamous SI cover jinx? No problem - the main cover shot is of the YANKEES, namely, CC Sabathia.

Before I start looking forward to October, I must acknowledge that SI's 2008 predictions had the Tigers beating the Cubs in the World Series. The Mets were picked to win the NL East by five games, only to fall to the Rockies in the first round of the playoffs.

But if any of SI's predictions this year come true, there will be some headline-grabbing series. The Mets are picked to beat Manny's Dodgers in the NLDS and break the hearts of Cubs fans yet again in the NLCS. If that holds, it will mean Jerry Manuel will have bested Yankee legends Joe Torre and Lou Piniella to get to the World Series.

A Met-Cub NLCS would also mean a showdown with old friend Aaron Heilman. Could this mean that the Mets will get to the Fall Classic on a home run by Brian Schneider?

Meanwhile, the Angels, who always lose to the Red Sox in the playoffs, will now beat Boston in the Battle of Teams That Didn't Get Mark Teixeira. Then, in the ALCS, the Angels, the team that lost Teixeira in the first place, will defeat the team that landed Teixeira, the Yankees.

So losing Teixeira vaults you over the team that got Teixeira? Does SI think Teixeira is the new A-Rod?

But in the World Series, SI foresees the Angels, the team that also lost K-Rod, losing to the team that signed K-Rod, the Mets. We can only hope!

Tell us what you think of Sports Illustrated's predictions.