Worst Olympic Uniforms Ever

Be proud, America. These are what your Olympic athletes will be wearing in London for the Summer Games.

In case you didn't notice the tastefully subtle logo on the front, these are made by Ralph Lauren. Technically, though, they were made in China. What's more American than large corporate logos and outsourcing jobs to China? Complaining about it.

Then again, if we didn't send so much work to China, then how would the Chinese be able to afford to lend us so much money?

Many others have written and ranted about the uniforms being made in China, about how much larger the Ralph Lauren logo is than the American flag, about how this is a very French looking ensemble, with the beret and everything. Ralph Lauren even rearranged red, white, and blue into blue, white, and red on the beret. Which is France's flag.

And like the Ralph Lauren logo, the French flag on the beret is also bigger than the American flag.

All nationalistic sentiment aside, I just think they look like shit. They're beyond pompous and preppy. I think even the lacrosse captain at Princeton, the de facto King of Preps, would feel conspicuous in this outfit.

I remember the US team used to wear stuff like cowboy hats and Western shirts. What was wrong with that?

Even better, how about a white, Colonel Sanders style southern gentleman suit?

Since the Olympics are in Britain, and we're 2-0 against the British, maybe we should rub it in. How about a blue Continental Army jacket and a tri-corner hat? Each athlete carrying a 6 pack of Sam Adams.

Or perhaps the US Olympians could enter the Opening Ceremony riding a float made to resemble the U.S.S. Constitution. It is, after all, the 100th anniversary of the War of 1812.

Then again, the tri-corner hat might be too Tea Party for some people. And according to celebrities like Janeane Garafalo and James Earl Jones, the Tea Party is racist. And since celebrities know what they're talking about, they must be correct.

The male athletes could dress like the bros on Jersey Shore, slicking their hair up, spray-on tan, shirtless, with a vacant look in their eyes, their lips pursed, and their face cocked in the "what's up" position. And the females could dress like skanks.

Perhaps they could have an outfit that resembles lacrosse culture. Bright neon colored shirts, socks pulled up to the knees, flip-flops, big pink-rimmed slitted sunglasses, the hat of an NL Central team, and a lacrosse stick that goes with the outfit.

In all seriousness, what's wrong with a casual outdoorsy kind of look? Jeans, workboots, a t-shirt with a "USA" logo on the front and sleeves. Or a business casual look? Polo shirt and khakis for the guys, blouse and calf-length skirt for the ladies.

Maybe such outfits don't represent all of us. But the Ralph Lauren, Frenchy costumes don't represent any of us.

Leave Lester Alone

Peter Gammons accidentally-on-purpose let it slip that Jon Lester seemed unhappy here in Boston. And during the All-Star Break, with no other sports news to sink one's teeth into, the story exploded. It even prompted Lester himself to Tweet that he was in fact happy to play here.

If Jon Lester is unhappy here, I can't really blame him. This team hasn't won a playoff game since 2008, hasn't been to the playoffs since 2009, has finished in 3rd place since 2010, and suffered an infamous collapse in 2011.

The team has changed managers, changed GMs, and their clubhouse character is questioned (rightfully so) on a daily basis.

And who would be happy working for Larry Lucchino and John Henry?

I criticize Lester all the time because he seems whiny, but I can't disagree with his whining here. I criticize Lucchino for being a bad boss, Cherington for being a sock-puppet, and Valentine for being a reality TV show personality. How can I criticize Lester for not enjoying working for these guys?

And do we want Jon Lester happy?

Didn't we hate how careless Beckett and Lackey were as the team collapsed last September? They were happy as the team went down the drain and it pissed us off. As General Patton said: "I wouldn't give a hoot and hell for a man who lost and laughed."

Jon Lester is 5-6 with a 4.49 ERA. If he were happily joking around with Peter Gammons and laughing it up with the dugout with David Ortiz, I'd be pissed at him. And so would a lot of Sox fans. I think he's as disappointed with his performance this year as we are, if not more so.

And he should be. He shouldn't be happy. I'm glad that at least one key player on this team is unhappy with losing.

Here's what actually happened. Gammons was told something juicy by a person in the Sox front-office. That's why he let it slip on The Hub, and then later that same day on The Fan. It was a leak, a nugget of speculation that would elicit a reaction.

What is the Machiavellian motivation for the leak? I don't know. Maybe the Sox want to gauge fan reaction to a possible Lester trade. Maybe they're laying the foundation of the "he didn't want to be here" campaign they'll launch after Lester is traded or leaves.

Or maybe they wanted fans to speculate if this team was going to "blow up" the roster just so Ben Cherington could declare that he won't blow up the roster. Although, keep in mind this is the same guy who declared that Youkilis would start over Middlebrooks when he returned. Cherington will do whatever puppet-master Larry Lucchino commands he do.

I don't mind Lester being unhappy. I'm unhappy. Misery loves company.

In honor of Friday the 13th, I published this post at 1:13 PM, or 13:13.

Sox Starting Second Half Tonight

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post about the Sox playing a 16 game stretch against below average opponents, and how it was a great opportunity for them to pad the win column. They went 9-7, which is good enough to win the AFC West, but it fell below my expectations.

The Sox failed to take advantage of weaker opposition. And now they're playing the good teams. They've already lost 3 of 4 to the Yankees.

They're playing the Rays this weekend. Tampa Bay is 2 games ahead of the Sox in the AL East (and Wild Card race). The Sox are 5-4 against the Rays this season.

Then Kevin Youkilis and the surging White Sox come to town for 4 games. They've won 9 of their last 12 and are in 1st place in the Central. They're good on the road, too, with a 23-16 record away from home. The Red Sox beat the White Sox 3 times in a 4 game series in Chicago. But that was back in April. These White Sox are different.

Toronto comes to town for three games. The Blue Jays and Red Sox have the same record. The Sox are 5-4 against the Jays and have won 4 of their last 6 meetings.

Then it's three games in Arlington, Texas. In July. Against the AL West leading Rangers. Cue the weather excuse. The 52-34 Rangers have the 2nd best record in baseball, best run differential in the Majors, and the best home record in the AL.

The Sox then play a weekend series in New York. The Yankees have taken 5 of 6 from the Red Sox this season.

Then it's 3 games against the Wild Card contending Detroit Tigers. The Sox were swept by Detroit in April. Then won 3 of 4 against them in May. The Tigers were hot entering the All-Star Break, but by the time this series is played (end of July), that will likely change.

So the next 19 games for the Sox play will be against opponents who are .500 or better. 10 games will be against division leaders.

The weighted average record of these opponents is 47-38, or .552.

The Sox squandered an opportunity against below .500 teams to accumulate wins. So now they must win against teams that are above .500. The Yankees and Rangers are both above .600.

It's possible for the Sox to survive this stretch, even do well. They've been good against Tampa Bay, Toronto, and Detroit. And if the lineup gets hot, they can go on a run against anyone.

But they must at least tread water. Because of their failure to beat the Athletics and Mariners, now they have to do well against the White Sox, Yankees, and Rangers. They've put themselves in a tough spot.

What Would be Justice for Penn State?

The late Joe Paterno, former Penn State President Graham Spanier, and former Athletic Directors Tim Curley and Gary Schultz have all been accused of a cover-up that allowed Jerry Sandusky to prey on young boys, in order to preserve the reputations of the school and the football program. In other words, these high-ranking Penn State officials put PR ahead of the safety of children.

Sandusky has already met Justice. And Paterno has already met his Maker. Paterno's legacy is tarnished in the eyes of most people. Only a few Penn State cultists cling to the idea of JoePa as a great man. Some of the other PSU officials involved will likely face perjury charges. It will also be quite difficult for them to find a job at another school.

What about the program, though? What would constitute Justice for the football team that was placed on so high a pedestal that pedophilia was ignored?

Some have suggested the "Death Penalty," which would ban the existence of the team for a period of time. SMU received the "Death Penalty" when their rampant compensation for athletes was revealed. And surely this is worse than any NCAA violation.

That's a bit harsh to me. Not that I don't like the idea of being harsh to PSU, but I prefer a punishment that doesn't allow Penn State any sympathy. I can already see ESPN lauding Penn State's inevitable recovery from the "Death Penalty," with stories about the resiliency of the institution.

The "Death Penalty" would also be over too quickly. It's a very harsh punishment but it only lasts 1 or 2 years, I prefer a punishment that lingers on. Just as Sandusky was allowed to linger at Penn State.

The "Death Penalty" would not destroy Penn State football. The program would return to prominence shortly after it was born again. It's in a top league, has good facilities, has history, is nationally prominent, and is in a good geographic location for recruiting. It would be a premier program shortly after resurrection.

Instead, Penn State football should be banned from post-season play. No bowl games. No Big Ten title game. For at least 5 seasons.

They should have their scholarship limit severely reduced. From 85 to 50 (or fewer), for 6 years. After that, they should be allowed only 70 scholarships for 4 years.

All current players would be given the option to transfer.

What I would like to see is an extended period of Penn State football being a second-tier team. I want to see them lose recruits to Miami (Ohio). I want to see them get blown out by Northwestern.

I want to see the program that Paterno, Spanier, Curley, and Schultz tried to preserve reduced to mediocrity. I want their efforts to protect Penn State football to wind up hurting Penn State football.

That would be Justice.

Rob Gronkowski Goes Deep

The AAA All-Star Game was held in Buffalo this week (as if you didn't already know that), and Rob Gronkowski participated in the celebrity HR Derby out there. He more than participated. He won. Gronk hit a total of 12 homers over the significantly-closer-than-the-normal-wall celebrity wall. He beat the likes of the Bills' Fred Jackson, Sabres' forward Patrick Kaleta, and QB legend Jim Kelly.

Gronkowski was born in Amherst, NY, a town only 10 miles from downtown Buffalo. However, the Patriots' tight-end was greeted with some light booing as he stepped to the plate. His performance eventually won the crowd over, especially this blast, which was an actual homerun over the permanent outfield fence.

Belichick does indeed like players who can play multiple positions or multiple sports.

But while demonstrating his baseball skills, he seemed to forget how to catch, which is kind of an important thing for a tight-end to do.

The Red Sox Have the Worst Doctors in Boston

When the Red Sox resume their 2012 campaign in St. Petersburg this weekend, they'll welcome back a pair of key players from the Disabled List: Jacoby Ellsbury and Clay Buchholz. Will Middlebrooks is also likely to return to the lineup.

That's not a bad way to start the second half of a season. Ellsbury will bolster the Sox lineup, and perhaps bring more consistency to the team's offensive production. Buchholz was pitching very well until his esophagus flared up. He was 4-0 with a 2.40 ERA in June. And Middlebrooks' .538 slugging percentage is second on the Sox roster, behind only David Ortiz.

So that's great news on the injury front.

However, I've decided to take all injury news regarding Red Sox players with a grain of salt. Daisuke Matsuzaka's neck problems, and the way the Sox handled his rehab and return to the Majors, have raised some serious concerns.

The City of Boston is home to some of the best doctors and medical facilities in the world. So why does the local baseball team have so many confusing medical foul-ups?

Daisuke's trapezius issue is the latest in a pattern of missed diagnoses and failed rehabilitation strategies.

During spring training and while rehabbing in Pawtucket, Matsuzaka repeatedly experienced soreness in his neck. He was given two cortisone injections. At one point during his rehab he was shutdown. Then he resumed throwing after a shot, claimed he was fine, and the Red Sox brought him back to the Majors.

This was despite the fact that his rehab outings weren't very good. Especially for a Major Leaguer facing AAA talent.

He seemed fine once he returned, although he had difficulty pitching well in the 1st inning. In other words, he struggled to warm-up.

Before his latest start in Oakland, he was unable to throw a bullpen session due to stiffness in the neck. He was still allowed to start the game. Disaster ensued. Now he's back to the DL.

With injuries, the Sox consistently seem to do two things:

1. Allow players to convince medical personnel that they're okay.
2. Return players from injury as quickly as possible (which perhaps explains #1), even if there still might be an unhealed issue.

Daisuke said he was healthy and ready to pitch. And the Sox listened. Because it's exactly what the Sox wanted him to say. They want their players back out there ASAP.

Jacoby Ellsbury in 2010 is the most extreme example of a player rushed to return to the lineup. The Sox wanted Ellsbury back in the lineup as quickly as possible, so they never considered any reasons to not re-activate him. He spent the year with recurring injuries that were never properly healed.

Earlier this season, Dustin Pedroia injured his thumb. It seemed as though the DL was a last resort option. Pedroia was eager to return to the lineup, and the Red Sox allowed him to do so. He only missed 6 games. He struggled for a month until the team started to question if something was still wrong. And now he's on the DL.

Had he been placed on the DL back in May, he might be healed and completely ready to play by now.

I don't think the Red Sox have incompetent doctors working for them. But I do think those doctors operate with a certain goal in mind. Instead of needing absolute proof that a player is healthy, they'll let the player play so long as there's no obvious sign of injury. They'll ignore things like Daisuke struggling to warm-up, or Pedroia struggling to hit.

They let Ellsbury return even when his ribs needed more healing. They let Daisuke rehab even when his neck is stiff. They let Pedroia play after tearing a muscle in his thumb. Even when that was re-aggravated last week, manager Bobby Valentine declared Pedroia's thumb was "Not really hurt. I just think he needs these two days, and so does he... He's a little stiff here and there."

Pedroia was eventually placed on the DL. Thankfully Bobby V is not a doctor (I don't think so anyway).

So Ellsbury, Buchholz, and Middlebrooks are returning. Hopefully they're returning at the appropriate time, and haven't been rushed back to the lineup.

Tom Brady Participates in Staring Contest

Hibernation is a Mistake for the Bruins

The Patriots made the Super Bowl, then spent the off-season accumulating wide-receviers and drafted talented defensive players. The Celtics made the Eastern Conference finals and have added scoring from their bench and a pair of big men in the Draft.

What have the Bruins done after being eliminated in the First Round of the Stanley Cup Playoffs? Re-signed their 4th liners. And that's about it.

It seems as though the B's think that since they won the Cup in 2011, they must already have a model for winning in place. Most of the current Bruins were on that Cup winning team, so it follows that the Bruins already have a Cup winning contender. They just need a few tweaks and slight improvements.

The problem with that theory is that there were two hugely significant reasons the Bruins won the Cup, and they no longer apply:

#1: The Play of Tim Thomas
Thomas was not human during the 2010-11 season. His 1.998 GAA was an NHL record (Brian Elliott had a 1.557 GAA in 2011-12, although he only played 38 games). His .938 save percentage was also a record. Then he got even better in the playoffs, with a 1.98 GAA and a .940 SV%. In the Cup Finals, he had a 1.15 GAA, allowing 8 goals in 7 games. He allowed 4 goals in the last 5 games of the Finals.

The Bruins won the Cup because they got insanely good goaltending. It's unfair and unreasonable to expect Tuukka Rask to duplicate Thomas' performance. Even Thomas couldn't duplicate them.

#2: The Bruins Had Favorable Matchups in 2011
The second reason the Bruins won the Cup in 2011 is that they faced opponents they matched up well against. They could physically dominate Montreal, Tampa Bay, and Vancouver. And they could take advantage of Philadelphia's shaky goaltending, which was so poor that the Flyers signed Ilya Bryzgalov to a 9 year deal the next season.

The B's were able to push the Canadiens, Lightning, and Canucks around. Furthermore, the Lightning and Canucks got most of their production from the top line and from their Power Play. Chara, Seidenberg, and the Bergeron line were able to limit Stamkos and then the Sedins.

In 2011, the Bruins took advantage of a great opportunity. They had the best goaltending in the League, and were facing teams that they could physically dominate.

Such opportunities are rare. Obviously Thomas is no longer with the team, and as good as Rask is, he hasn't shown the potential to be as insanely good as Thomas was in 2011. And what are the odds of encountering three teams that can be shoved into submission and a fourth that has Michael Leighton and Brian Boucher splitting time in net?

So in order for the Bruins' model to work, they need Rask to play nearly perfectly in net, and to play teams that cannot physically withstand them. The Bruins will be sunk if Rask plays like a human and/or the Bruins play teams like the Rangers, Flyers, Penguins, Devils, or Capitals in the playoffs.

So I don't like how inactive the Bruins have been. They seem to think that they have the winning formula and are a few small pieces away from winning the Cup again. But their winning was based on Tim Thomas playing brilliantly, and on all the stars aligning to give them an opportunity to win the Cup.

Rask is not Thomas in 2011. Thomas in 2012 wasn't even Thomas in 2011.

This team needs better top-line forwards. Lucic is a bruiser that seems to skate at 80% speed 80% of the time, has limited skills, and is horrible on defense. Krejci is a "play-making distributor" which means he can't shoot.

I don't know if Rick Nash is the solution. I do know that the Bruins are more than a few minor adjustments away from being Cup contenders. They need more than a "puck-moving defenseman," to improve their Power Play. They need talented forwards. Forwards who are multi-dimensional. Forwards who can score.

The Bruins seem to be operating under faulty logic. The biggest reasons they won the Cup are taking a year off in Colorado (Thomas), are retired (Mark Recchi), or are beyond their control (their matchups with non-physical opponents).

Most of these current Bruins players may have won in 2011, but they also lost in the opening round in 2012. Some more work can be done to improve them.