So Major League Baseball makes a huge deal about the internet “final votes” for each league’s all-star team, and as expected Corey Hart and Evan Longoria won—over the Mets’ David Wright and the Yankees’ Jason Giambi, among others.

What do you think about the whole process, and the vote itself? First, I think it’s kind of embarrassing the way the teams—especially the New York teams, which own their own networks—promoted their players. They took it to another level of popularity contest. Yeah, have a moustache! That’s a good reason to put somebody on the all-star team, right? Vote up to 25 times—and not being a computer geek, I’m sure even I could figure a way to vote 50 or 100 or 500 times if I really wanted to.

Do you think either Wright or Giambi deserved to be on the teams? Should it have been a consideration that Giambi plays for the Yankees, and the game is at Yankee Stadium, and that he would have been happy to participate in what is sure to be a lackluster, star-starved home run derby?

And that’s another question. How do you have the last all-star game at Yankee Stadium with no New York players in the home run derby!!?? They should just shut it down.

Should Giambi’s steroid use have been considered? Do you think it was considered by voters?

I still think Wright could go, especially with a couple of NLers, including Chipper Jones, probably dropping out due to injuries.

What do you think?

Saturday, 10:55 a.m., Sam says:

I actually think the “final vote” idea is a terrific idea because it involves the fans and turns something that’s normally far from a big deal – the last player on the all-star team roster – into something that’s fun to follow and injects a little creativity into the everyday-grind of the baseball season.

Was the Yankees’ campaign for Giambi a little unusual? Absolutely. Probably even a little over the top. But it was in fun, and the All-Star game is, ultimately, an entertainment event and not much more. So if the voting on the Internet adds an element to that, then great.

As for the Derby, I’ve never been a big fan of the event as a whole. Did anyone ever watch the re-runs (or, if you’re of a certain age that’s older than me, the actual shows) of the original Home Run Derby? Two guys in an empty minor-league ballpark, smacking homers over 9 “innings” and sitting on a bench to comment on it while the other guy is hitting? Somehow, I found that more compelling than the current version of the Derby.

Is it bad no New Yorker is in it? Not really. Though I do think MLB should take the NBA’s lead and invite non-participants in the All-Star game to take part in its other events. One year, Craig Hodges – a multiple-winner of the Three-Point Shootout – competed in the shootout wearing an “NBA” uniform, since he wasn’t even on a team at the time, let alone picked to be in the All-Star Game itself! If the NBA could do that,  why can’t MLB invite Giambi to hit in the Derby on Monday night even if he’s not in the game on Tuesday?

I suppose it is, especially with all the celebrities involved. Unfortunately we live in a celeb society, where what the famous and semi-famous are doing is more important than, say, what’s going on in the Middle East or in lower Manhattan or in Washington or Albany. Pretty pathetic.

But we have gone deep into A-Rod’s personal life now, and it’s a place I’d really rather not be. The guy’s pretty much a creep off the field—how do you bring another child into the world while you’re running around with other women? His list of front-page stories is enough to make your skin crawl, or it does mine, at least.

He tied Mickey Mantle on the home run list the other day, and I’ve heard the comparisons. Mantle did a lot of the same things A-Rod does away from the ballpark. The difference is, we didn’t know about them. We didn’t want to know. And when we found out we were terribly hurt and disappointed in our hero.

A-Rod can’t be a hero because of that. He may be the greatest ballplayer of his era, and his stats might turn out to be the best of all-time when he’s done, but he will never be a hero like Mantle. Or Derek Jeter or Mariano Rivera. He’s a mercenery of the highest order, a creep as much as Jose Canseco, and just a bad guy who happens to be a fabulous ballplayer.

Oh, and aren’t the Yankees kind of shameless in this campaign for Jason Giambi to win the final vote for the all-star game?

1:38 p.m., Sam says:

Is this A-Rod business any of our business? Yup. Sadly. But it doesn’t mean we have to like it.

I’m not an A-Rod fan. Never really have been. And it’s pretty clear by now that this is a guy who just doesn’t have the self-control to act like a superstar baseball player in New York should act. The Giambi allusion that Carp made is actually a perfect example of how important personality is: Giambi has sinned plenty, but his demeanor is more personable, more identifiable, more friendly. So he gets more of a pass from the media, from the fans, from the coaches and players and clubbies and staffers inside the game. He’s a big goon but they love him.

I wrote a column last week about A-Rod and one reader emailed me and said, essentially, that photographers and reporters only report scandalous activity about A-Rod, choosing to ignore all the bad things Derek Jeter does because journalists like him more.

This, of course, is insane—does anyone think there are photographers who have seen Jeter at an underground poker club or a strip club or leaving the apartment of a woman who is married to someone else (and happens to be a rock star) but decided not to publish them because they just like Jeter more? Trust me, with journalism struggling the way it is, no one is passing up stories like that.  They’re just not.

The bottom line is that Jeter doesn’t do stuff like that (or, at least, doesn’t get caught doing it). A-Rod, as we’ve learned time and again, just isn’t that smart.

The whole issue, again, has been raised: Should the Mets be interested in Barry Bonds? Should they put aside all the garbage and baggage and the sideshow he would bring in order to get a much-needed bat, a much-needed albeit exceptionally limited corner outfielder who can provide some offense?

I wouldn’t touch Barry Bonds with a foul pole. I wouldn’t want that circus in my clubhouse every day, wouldn’t want the whole grand jury thing hanging over my ballclub, wouldn’t want the players having to answer questions about him, never mind putting up with him. Even if you subtract all that, you have to wonder how capably he could man left or right field at this point.

But … the problem is that Moises Alou is going to be one step away from the DL each and every time he comes off the DL. And that the Mets need a bat. And that Bonds will only cost half a year’s salary and no prospects or players. You could get him just for money.

You could bat him behind Wright and ahead of Beltran—who will always be hitting with a man on base—and it sure would make a difference in the production of the lineup … as long as you don’t mind a chemically-altered lineup. Who does? Miguel Tejada made the all-star team, and Jason Giambi is being touted by the Yankees for the “Final vote” spot in the AL, and Andy Pettitte remains a favorite son. So apparently baseball has forgiven and forgotten all about the dirt dug up by the Mitchell Report and BALCO and all the other illegal-drug stuff that’s gone on the past decade.

So what do you think? Would you want Bonds?

Wednesday,1:30 p.m., Sam says:

Short answer: No, I wouldn’t. But I also think it’s worth some consideration because, with this year’s Mets, just about any low-risk proposal is worth some consideration.

Put it this way: Would you have to pay Bonds much money? Surely you wouldn’t, because he can’t find a job anywhere. And do the Mets have a need for an outfield bat? With Moises Alou and Ryan Church far from reliable, you bet they do.

What’s the worst case scenario if they brought in Bonds? Either a) he can’t hit anymore or b) he’s the disaster in the clubhouse that we know him to have been, ruining whatever chemistry – and, by the way, supposedly that’s one area where the Mets are already lacking, right? – exists.

If either one of those happens, the Mets cut him. Cut him right loose and call Nick Evans back up, or whomever else they think is worthwhile to run out there. What have you lost? A little money.  Not much else.

Would I do it if I were Omar Minaya? I probably wouldn’t. The PR hit would be brutal, to be sure, and the Mets have taken enough of a beating already this year. But from a strictly baseball perspective – and considering the salary that Bonds would asking – you absolutely couldn’t blame the Mets for taking a look.

I like the unusual sports. I grew up without a favorite baseball team or football team (the Knicks and Rangers were/are the teams I loved), and even though I’ve spent much of my professional career around baseball, I’ve never regarded it as the greatest sport in the world (though I do enjoy it much more than I did before I started covering it).

Anyway, all of that is a long way of saying that I like tennis. Soccer, particularly English soccer, is tops for me, but I also love golf and tennis, too. (I used to wish that they had some sort of sports writer exchange program, where I could go cover Arsenal in the English Premier League for a season and someone from the The Times of London would have to come over and cover the Yankees. Who wouldn’t enjoy reading about how A-Rod is “rubbish” in the paper?)

So, if you love tennis, this was a great weekend: Venus played Serena Williams in the women’s final at Wimbledon (excuse me, “ladies’ final”) and then Rafael Nadal beat Roger Federer in a Yankees-Red Sox-esque final that stretched nearly 5 hours and took basically the whole day because of rain delays.

The men’s match may have been one of the greatest championship matches of all time (Federer came back from two sets down to force a fifth, only to lose anyway) and anytime the Williamses get together it’s compelling.

Tennis, like golf or boxing, is one of those sports that most of us tune in for a few times a year at most, but if you happened to catch any of it this weekend, you were rewarded. So, I guess the question is, Carp (and everyone else): Did you watch at all? And if you’re not into tennis, why not?

Carp says:

I didn’t watch it at all for a couple of reasons, No. 1 being I was at Yankee Stadium on assignment, working on a column about the all-star game selections.

That said, I probably would not have watched it anyway. I don’t get the lure of tennis. I’m sorry. I enjoy lobbing balls around while on vacation, but I just don’t like watching it. Same with soccer. If one of my nephews or nieces is playing, I’ll go and enjoy a whole game. Otherwise, no interest. Boxing? In the old days, when the heavyweight division was in its glory, I loved to watch the fights on TV. Same thing when Mike Tyson leaped onto the scene—and before he turned out to be such a cretin. I’d probably still watch if I didn’t have to pay $49.99 every time there’s a fight of note. I wouldn’t pay that for Ali-Frazier. I’ve now seen a few live fights, and I really didn’t care for them. I don’t know why.

As you may know, though, I am a huge golf fan. I’d rather watch one of golf’s majors or the Ryder or Presidents Cup than the Super Bowl or the NCAA Final Four or the Stanley Cup final. Seriously. If the World Series and the Masters were on simultaneously, my head might explode. Fortunately that can’t happen. The simultaneous schedule, I mean, not my head exploding.

I saw a few of the Federer-Nadal highlights, and I see where it’s being called an instant classic and therefore will probably be shown again really soon, and I may watch some of it. But there’s no way I’m sitting through the hours and hours. I’ll be flipping back and forth to SNY for the Mets or YES for the Yankees or The Golf Channel (or any channel that might be showing a Seinfeld).

At least now I can finally tell which one is Federer and which one is Nadal, so that’s a step forward, right?

So the all-star teams have been named.

What do you think? The Yankees placed three future Hall of Famers on the team for the final all-star game at Yankee Stadium—Alex Rodriguez, Mariano Rivera and Derek Jeter. The Mets got one spot on the NL team—Billy Wagner.

The Red Sox, well, they have the manager, Terry Francona, and seven players—Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz, Kevin Youkilis, Dustin Pedroia, Jonathan Papelbon, J.D. Drew and Jason Varitek.

To the victors go the spoils, but it should be noted that Francona did not make any of those selections—they were all elected in the fan vote or the players’ union vote.

Francona did say he agonized over leaving Mike Mussina off the team. Jason Giambi of the Yankees and David Wright of the Mets are among the five “final vote” nominees in each league, to be voted upon by fans via the internet this week.

I wrote a column for The Journal News and LoHud.com tomorrow about the whole process, how the teams should be picked if, as advertised, it really does “count” and how nobody really buys that. It sure isn’t win-at-all-costs.

I also wrote that I want to see some Hall of Famers in an all-star game, like the probably unmatched gathering at Tiger Stadium in 1971, or the Cooperstown-bound gang at Shea in 1964. In this coming game, I count only six sure-fire HOFs: the three aforementioned Yankees, Manny Ramirez, Albert Pujols and Chipper Jones (sorry Mets fans). So I want to see Ken Griffey Jr., who was fourth in the fan voting for the three outfield spots, despite having an un-all-star-like year. I’d rather see him in such a game than one of these first-timers.

Monday, 9:05 a.m., Sam says:

Well, Carp, I liked your column on the selection process but I’ll say that among the issues I find most tedious to debate, “Who makes the All-Star team?” and “What’s wrong with the selection process?” is right up near the top.

This isn’t to say I don’t like discussing which players are most worthy of making the team BEFORE the selections are announced; like any sports fan, a good discussion of who’s having a great year is always something worth passing the time. But getting into the selection process or bemoaning who got snubbed has never made much sense to me, mostly because I don’t have a reasonable alternative to the current selection procedure. Frankly, I think it’s actually pretty good.

The argument that the players should make all the choices is flat-out dumb: First of all, they picked Red Sox catcher Jason Varitek for the team this year, despite him having one of his worst seasons. Beyond that, whenever I think about the players making the choices, I recall one Yankee (who will go unnamed) filling out his All-Star ballot several years ago and putting down Bret Boone as his starting second baseman. Boone was barely hanging on to a job in the majors at this point, but when this was pointed out to the Yankee, he said something like, “Doesn’t matter – that guy’s awesome” and left Boone on the sheet.

Are all players that misguided? Clearly not. Many take their ballots seriously, but there are also plenty who don’t (or who go simply on what they’ve decided a player is or was), which sort of makes the whole process a bizarre home-coming queen exercise in popularity and reputation.

This is why I like the hybrid approach – let the players make some choices and let the fans do the same, then have the manager of the team fill in the blanks. Did I think Mike Mussina deserved to make the team? I did. But he lost out on a spot in a process that, to me, is pretty darn fair.

Which Yankees and which Mets do you think deserve to be on the all-star teams?

Simple question on a simple rainy, post-holiday Saturday.

Now keep in mind that you’re not going to have a Mets or Yankees-dominated all-star team on either side. I think Terry Francona has some difficult decisions to make, for example, on the Yankees’ Johnny Damon, Mike Mussina and maybe Jason Giambi. One might make it, and Damon’s injury probably counts him out—or they could name him, and then replace him with somebody else.

But they’re not all going to be there, along with Mariano Rivera, Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez.

What do you think?

Also, any ideas on which players might get short-strawed because of all the restrictions—every team has to have one rep—or which players might go despite not being deserving?

5:53 p.m., Sam says: Interesting question, Carp, and as I prepare to go to a wedding with my wife up in eastern Connecticut, I’ll offer this off the top of my head:
Mets: Wright, Wagner (and maybe, maybe, Reyes)
Yankees: Jeter, A-Rod, Mussina, Rivera (and probably Giambi)

Today is the 25th anniversary of Dave Righetti’s no-hitter in 1983, which was the first by a Yankees pitcher since Don Larsen’s perfect game in the 1956 World Series.

And what I’m wondering is, which of the Yankees’ five no-hitters since Larsen is your favorite?

1983—Righetti’s. C’mon. It came against Boston on George Steinbrenner’s birthday (Rags was later made a closer, which surely caused Hank Steinbrenner to call his dad a moron).

1993—Jim Abbott’s. The kid was born with one hand.

1996—Dwight Gooden’s. A reclamation project, and an ex-Met (the Mets have never had one).

1998—David Wells’. The first perfect game by a Yankee since Larsen.

1999—David Cone’s. A perfect  game on a day when Larsen threw out the ceremonial first pitch.

A couple of footnotes:

In 1990 (also known as the Dark Ages in the Bronx), Andy Hawkins threw a no-hitter in Chicago, on a windy day. In the eighth inning, though, Chicago scored four on two walks and three errors (two on wind-blown fly balls) and the Yankees lost 4-0. Later, Hawkins was stripped of his no-hitter because he didn’t have to pitch nine innings since the White Sox didn’t bat in the ninth. In his next start, Hawkins pitched nine shutout innings and the Yankees lost in the 10th.

And in 2003, during an interleague game, six Houston pitchers combined to no-hit the Yankees at Yankee Stadium. Billy Wagner finished it off.

Billy Crystal used to tell a story about Wells’ perfect game. Crystal was working with Robert DeNiro on their movie, “Analyze This” at the time. So the next day, Crystal brought Wells to the set and introduced him to DeNiro, who is not at all a sports fan.

Crystal: “This is David Wells, he pitched a perfect game yesterday.”

DeNiro:  ”What’s a perfect game?”

Crystal: “You know, no runs, no hits, no errors, nobody gets on base.”

DeNiro: “Sounds boring.”

Actually, I also wanted to ask this question: Does Hank Steinbrenner think his little hissy fit resulted in the Yankees’ offensive barrage against that dreadful Texas pitching? The answer, of course, is yes.

As for the New York hockey Rangers, I’m sure it was a tough call to let Sean Avery walk. But really, could you give that guy almost $4 million a year for four years with a no-trade clause? I don’t see how. First of all, he’s injury prone. His contract will start to look like Moises Alou’s, if not Carl Pavano’s, by year 3.

Second, he’s difficult. We don’t have any definitive situations that have arisen in Avery’s Rangers tenure, but we know and hear from people that he was a handful for the coaches and teammates. That’s not hard to imagine, given that that’s what his reputation was when he arrived.

Third, while he has been an absolute factor in each of the Rangers’ two playoff series victories (over Atlanta and the Devils) in the last two seasons—their only playoff victories since 1997 we might add—he was as much a non-factor in the subsequent series, when opponents ignored him and the Rangers lost to Buffalo and Pittsburgh.

All of that said, the guy was a winner, a player who could play, could fight, could agitate, and found unique ways to contribute (see: Martin Brodeur). His on-ice stuff will be difficult, if not impossible, to replace.

The Rangers also missed out on Brooks Orpik and Marian Hossa, and I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if Pittsburgh, now that it has lost Hossa, goes hard after Jaromir Jagr. And I’m trying hard to picture what the Rangers will look like in October.

Can the Tampa Bay Rays actually do it? Can they really win the AL East, or at least get a wild card over the Yankees?

Everybody, me included, is waiting for the big fall, and we all remember that a few years back the Washington Nationals had almost the exact same record at this juncture and then fell off the face of the earth.

But Tampa Bay closes a three-game series against Boston tonight, having won the first two games (and seven of its last eight), leading the Red Sox by 2.5 games (and the Yankees by 7.5).

The Yankees are just four behind the Sox on the loss side, with Boston coming to town this weekend. Tampa visits next week.

But do you think the Rays are for real? I read a story in one of the papers the other day where an anonymous scout said that if you took away the uniforms and the numbers on the backs, and you saw Tampa play the Yankees, you’d think Tampa was the better team.

Could it be?

5:53 p.m., Sam says:

Could it be? Absolutely. Will it be? I don’t think so.

Understand, nothing would please me more than seeing the Rays make the playoffs over either the Yankees OR the Red Sox. As someone who has covered baseball for awhile, I’m a fan of Joe Maddon’s, and think the Rays have all the things you need to do a worst-to-first run: Solid starting pitching, some pop, good energy, a strong manager, a closer and a couple of relievers having the years of their lives.

That said, I think the bottom drops out at some point, if only because it’s very, very unlikely for a team to avoid some kind of big injury in the second half of the season (when fatigue sets in and players are vulnerable). We’re already starting to see that with Troy Percival, who has been the rock of the team as their veteran closer but just went on the DL for the second time with an injured hamstring.

The Rays will win a lot of games, maybe even as many as 86 or 88. They will be right there. But ultimately, I think the Yankees will get enough from their offense – weak as it is right now – and enough from their pitchers (including someone they trade for this month), and win the wild card by a few games. It wouldn’t shock me if I’m wrong and the Rays get there, but at this point I’m going to need to see more to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Late Sunday morning, as Jerry Manuel was doing his pregame media interview, the Mets manager said something that caused everyone in the room to do a little bit of a double-take:

He said the Mets are the “second” team in New York.

Now, this isn’t exactly news. Most people would probably agree that the Yankees are the more popular team currently, though the reasoning for that is something that can be debated. Either way, having the manager of the Mets come out and say it surely isn’t something that Fred and Jeff Wilpon would include on any “talking points” memo for team employees.

To be fair, Manuel did go on to say that the Mets can change their plight by winning and that’s what he’s hoping to do.

So, two-part query: First, is Manuel right when he says the Mets can overtake the Yankees in popularity? And second, was he out of line for talking about in the first place?

I wrote about this in my column for Monday’s paper, but a quick summary of my opinion is: Yes, the Mets can be No. 1; and no, he wasn’t out of line (though he was being a little risky, given how things have gone for the Mets over the past month or so).

Carp says:

First, isn’t it refreshing to have a guy in New York who speaks his mind, who isn’t afraid to try to be honest and humorous and not politically correct all the time? That said, Manuel still has that “interim” tag attached to his title, and I can’t imagine that the Wilpons find all his comments endearing.

Second, the Mets will be No. 1 staring on the day of their parade in the Canyon of Heroes. Until then, it will be an American League/Yankees city. That’s a fact, Jack.