Red Sox Want John Farrell, But Does Farrell Want the Red Sox?

The Red Sox aren't being very subtle about wanting John Farrell to be the new manager. There's a rumor that the Blue Jays are unwilling to part with Farrell. And even if they were, they'd expect a "decent player" as compensation. Which could make the cost of hiring Farrell more than the Sox would be willing to pay.

But it's John Farrell who has the power in this situation. If he wants to manage the Red Sox, what can the Blue Jays do? The Jays wouldn't want a disgruntled employee running their team. It's like when the Cubs wanted to talk to Theo Epstein. The Sox had no choice but to let him go. Epstein had the leverage. So does Farrell.

Why would Farrell want to manage here though? While the Sox can offer a larger payroll and (theoretically) better players, the expectations are much higher here than in Toronto. And he wouldn't be given much time to turn things around. The Sox might have more money, but patience is one thing fans and owners in Boston have less of than their Canadian counterparts.

Maybe Farrell would welcome the challenge of rebuilding the Red Sox and bringing them back to the playoffs.

Then again, who would want to have an office in Fenway Park? Farrell knows what Larry Lucchino and this ownership did to Terry Francona. He saw how Bobby Valentine was undermined and how the players and front office communicated behind Bobby V's back. How could Farrell feel comfortable managing here? It's like working with cannibals.

Regardless of challenges and opportunities, why would anyone want to work for Larry Luchinno?

Farrell might not ever be a World Series contender in Toronto, but at least up there he has the freedom to do his job his way. He seems like the type of person who enjoys that kind of freedom to move. He wouldn't have that down here. He'd have Jason Varitek wandering around the building, John Henry texting players, and Larry Lucchino using Ben Cherington as a ventriloquist dummy.

I can't blame Farrell is he wants to stay in Toronto.

Roger Goodell Re-Suspends Saints

Roger Goodell is sticking to his guns. He upheld the season long suspension of Jonathan Vilma and Will Smith's 4 game suspension. He reduced Anthony Hargrove's suspension from 8 to 7 games, and Scott Fujita's from 3 to 1.

Here's why he can do this: The suspensions were vacated by an appeals panel, but not based on their merit. It was a technical thing. The panel required Goodell to clarify how the players acted in a way "detrimental to the League."

Goodell has the power to suspend any player for such "detrimental" conduct. And he clarified the conduct using a Saints/Panthers game from 2010 as an example (story on ESPN.com).

Essentially, the appeal panel asked Goodell for details of the bounty program, and Goodell has disclosed some of them.

Vilma can still pursue his defamation lawsuit. Though it will be tough for him to prove that Goodell has been deceptive or has said anything false about Vilma.

Roger Goodell is a bit of a tyrant. He's not a mass murderer. So stop with the Hitler/Stalin types of comparisons, please. You sound like a fool when comparing an NFL Commissioner to someone who killed millions. Goodell's job requires some light tyranny. Sometimes it works (getting a deal done with the NFLPA last year), sometimes it doesn't (replacement refs).

Whatever you think about Goodell, the Saints broke the rules. While being investigated, they continued to break the rules. The coaches who broke them implicated Vilma as being one of the leading players in the bounty program.

Why shouldn't he get punished? Players putting up $10k bounties to injure other players is conduct detrimental to the League. At least it is in my opinion. It can't be tolerated.

A Quality Halftime Show

This is what the Ohio State marching band did to entertain their fans on Saturday. The theme was video games.

The horse is pretty impressive.

Special College Football Uniforms I Don't Hate

Boston College will wear these uniforms when they host Maryland on October 27th. The uniforms are a tribute to the Wounded Warrior program, and all the jerseys will be auctioned off with 100% of proceeds donated to said program.

Comparing these uniforms to some of the abominations we've seen lately and these aren't half bad. It's ironic that BC will be playing Maryland. Maryland have been in constant contact with the Guinness World Record people. The Terrapins have been vying for the worst wardrobe in recorded human history. Their specialized uniforms are hideous. BC's patriotic look isn't bad at all.

When I first saw this, I thought it might have been more appropriate for BC to have worn these against Army. Then again, that was on the road. So there would be less exposure for the BC fans who will potentially buy these uniforms in auction. And that means less money for the Wounded Warriors.

So it had to be a home game for BC. Their other two are against Virginia Tech and Notre Dame. For those contests, the preeminence of their guests might overshadow the jersey's mission. So it makes sense to do it against Maryland.

Besides, any jersey BC wears would look 10 times better than whatever threads the Terrapins will be wearing.

Wes Welker Explains Comments

When Wes Welker remarked "It's kind of nice to stick it in Bill's face once in a while," I shook my head. Not because I was worried about animosity between Welker and Belichick, but because I knew that some desperate wings of the Boston Sports Media would dissect and discuss those remarks as if they were anything more than a joke.

Welker has confirmed that his words were in jest. This is nothing new for him. He has a Kevin Millaresque streak of silly commentary.

What convinced me that Welker was just joking is that he said anything at all. If there truly were a serious rift between Welker and Belichick, I doubt Welker would be absolutely silent on the matter, then air his grievances during a post-game interview, then call his remarks a joke. It doesn't make any sense.

I'm sure Welker wasn't happy about Julian Edelman essentially being promoted above him on the depth chart. I think everyone in New England apart from Edelman, Josh McDaniels, and Bill Belichick was unhappy about that. It was a mistake. I don't think there was an ulterior motive behind it, such as punishing Welker for holding out or trying to reduce his free-agent value for 2013. I think the Patriots saw something in Edelman that never materialized during the games. The decision was wrong. Simple as that.

But Welker has materialized now that Edelman has been sidelined by injury. In the first two games of the season Welker caught 8 passes for 109 yards. Since then, he's averaged 10 receptions and 125 yards per game. And he caught his first TD of the season on Sunday.

So it seems as though Welker has definitely earned his job back. That's good for the Patriots, bad for the rest of the NFL.

Photo Credit:
AP Photo

Brady Beats Manning... What Else Is New

Tom Brady improved to 9-4 in his career against Peyton Manning. Although like many of those famous victories in 2003 and 2004, the Patriots beat Manning as a team.

The Pats put up some collegiate style stats. They rushed for 251 yards on 54 carries. They only threw the ball 31 times. They ran 89 plays. At times it reminded me of watching Clemson, or especially Oregon. High-paced, quick-snapping, no-huddle offense. It doesn't work all the time, but it worked against Denver.

Wes Welker had another Wes Welker kind of day. 8 receptions, 104 yards, his first TD of the season. I think the best thing to happen to this offense was the injury to Julian Edelman. Welker's talents were being wasted as a third/fourth option. After the game he jokingly remarked that it was nice to "Stick it in Bill's face."

There are a number of things Wes Welker can't do. But only Wes Welker can do what Wes Welker does. He gets open in a instant, he's slippery, he's a compact target to tackle, he's durable. He's like a small pickup truck with a turbo-charged engine.

This game turned on some big 3rd and long conversions, along with some Denver mistakes. In other words, there's room for improvement. And that's not me being pessimistic, it's me being optimistic. This team has potential to be amazing if they can put 60 good minutes together.

Defensively, there were some lapses, also some big plays allowed. The forced fumbles were pivotal. And Alfonzo Dennard looked pretty good in his first ever NFL game. As always for this unit, it was a mixed bag.

Offensively, my only complaint is that for one drive in the 4th the Pats went away from the run, which had been working so well. It was as if Josh McDaniels wanted to drive the stake into Denver with a few big pass plays, instead of continuing to slowly torture them.

And I don't mind the 4th & 5 attempt. I do think that if you intend to go for it on 4th & 5, why not run on 3rd & 5? It'd been working all day. But up by as many as they were, I have no problem with the Patriots being aggressive in that part of the field.

The Pats aren't perfect. No team in the NFL is. The Patriots have a defense that surrenders big plays and makes big plays. They have an offense that can beat you in a multitude of ways. So long as they do their job and execute, the only team that can truly beat the Patriots is the Patriots.

Pats at Seahawks next Sunday.

Photo Credit:
AP Photo

NHL Lockout Pisses Me Off Even More

The NHL has cancelled regular season games through October 24th. Some 82 games were erased from the schedule, perhaps to be played later, perhaps not. In any case, neither the owners or the NHLPA appear close to agreeing on a new CBA.

And this is what pisses me off about this whole situation: Small market teams, in places that don't care about hockey, are responsible for all this.

It's bad enough that every season the Bruins must sacrifice games against Philly and New York in order to play Florida and Tampa Bay. It's bad enough that the B's play the Predators and Coyotes as often as they do the Red Wings and Blackhawks. Now these warm weather teams aren't allowing me to see the Bruins play anyone at all.

Here's the problem behind the problem: total NHL revenues are up since the last CBA. But not in all markets. Teams like the Bruins, Rangers, Maple Leafs, and Canadiens are harvesting profits, teams in small markets aren't able to keep pace with the growth.

The NHL players are paid based on a percentage of total League hockey revenue. While that's up in markets like Boston and up overall, it's not nearly as increased in markets like Phoenix, Miami, or Nashville.

The owners want the players to take an across the board cut in their share of the profits. The players want the owners to share revenue, so the profitable teams give some cash to the not-so-profitable ones.

But the problem is that these small-market teams need to be subsidized in order to survive.

And that pisses me off. The NHL expanded wildly, and never once thought "What if these markets don't take to hockey" or "What if these teams struggle and fans don't come?"

The NHL never had an exit strategy for these Sunbelt teams in case they didn't work. And there are only a few Winnipegs in Canada to send failed expansion teams. After Quebec city and Hamilton, the pickings are slim.

Scott Burnside wrote an infuriating piece suggesting the players meet the owners "in the middle" for the good of the game. But the owners caused this problem with their delusions of grandeur and the theory of Arizonans loving hockey. In response to this problem, the owners demanded a bigger slice of the pie, and thereby redefined the middle. While total NHL revenues are up, the NHL is insisting its talent takes a pay cut.

Does that make any sense? Why should players meet owners "in the middle" when the owners have redefined the middle by being more greedy with their stance?

Imagine a TV show enjoying higher ratings and asking its actors and actresses to take less money. Does that make sense?

And why should a player in Toronto or New York take less money, even though their owner is enjoying increased revenue, to subsidize teams in Phoenix and Columbus? Why should the player generating big revenues for the big market teams take a pay-cut while the big market owner retains all the profits he had before this Lockout?

That's one of the greediest schemes this side of Bernie Madoff. Players in markets that have big revenues getting paid less, so that the big market owners don't have to share their revenues with the Coyotes and Blue Jackets. The players pay, the owners profit.

I don't like it. So I'll be watching some KHL hockey on ESPN3 this weekend. HC Lev Praha (Prague) is playing HC SKA (St. Petersburg) on October 6th. Then HC Slovan Bratislava is playing Dynamo Moscow on the 7th.

Ignorant College Football Picks*

My picks were 5-5 last week, and I'm 15-14 overall this season. I'll brag about that as long as I can. I'm bowl eligible, bitches!!!

Here are my picks for week 6:

Pitt +2 @ Syracuse
Can't spell suck without S and U.

Penn State -2 vs. Northwestern
PSU is stabilizing, and once again focusing on football.

Arkansas +8 @ Auburn
I think Auburn will win, but it will be close.

Virginia Tech +5.5 @ North Carolina
This ain't basketball.

Stanford -9 vs. Arizona
Tree mascot celebrates multiple times in this game.

Georgia Tech +10.5 @ Clemson
I'm picking against Clemson for once, not sure why.

Florida +2.5 vs. LSU
Just because it's in Gainesville.

Oklahoma -4.5 @ Texas Tech
Can't pick against OU.

Michigan -3 @ Purdue
Ugh, hate Michigan, and Purdue is the one Big Ten school I like.

Missouri -7 vs. Vanderbilt
Vandy sucks.

Georgia +1.5 @ South Carolina
UGA, for once, isn't horribly overrated.

Texas -6.5 vs. West Virginia
Texas ain't Baylor.

Miami +14 @ Notre Dame
I refuse to believe in Notre Dame.

Ohio State -3.5 vs. Nebraska
Home field advantage. I hate OSU.

UCLA -2.5 @ California
Cal kind of sucks.

Washington +25 @ Oregon
It's just a big spread.