If ever we needed proof that New York is a baseball town, look at all the hulabaloo caused by the Mets and Yankees this week.

Omar Minaya had a particularly terrific week—for the moment, at least, but more on that in a minute—by grabbing two top relievers in Frankie Rodriguez and J.J. Putz, and unloading some of his must-unloads, particularly Aaron Heilman. He still has some housecleaning to do in the old-bullpen department.

But Omar got two solid, if not completely spectacular, relievers without giving up anything of note (although on a personal note, and for obvious reasons, I was extremely sad to see Mike Carp go).

Now, for the Mets fans and all those Mets-heads over at WFAN, can you try to remember how happy you are, how you are rubber-stamping these moves, the first time K-Rod or Putz coughs up a lead, or the first time Jerry Manuel chooses one over the other, or the first time the Mets lose three in a row? Because you know you will turn on a dime and condemn these same moves at some point, if not several points, next summer.

(Carp’s Thursday NFL edition of “Who do you like?”: BEARS (-3) over Saints.)

5:30 p.m., Thursday, Sam says:

I don’t see how a Mets fan can see this as anything but a great week. The Mets had needs and the bullpen was at the top of the list. Now that problem has likely been solved (at least from a talent perspective).

The bigger issue, to me, is that the Mets still need to change up the feel of their lineup. The bullpen was a big reason they choked down the stretch a few months ago, but it wasn’t the reason they couldn’t sneak into the playoffs in the final week. The bats were.

The Mets can’t count on a whole of second-half Carlos Delgado and they still need a reliable second baseman (sorry, Luis Castillo). Where will Minaya go to address that need now? Only once he’s done that will this team be as formidable as they need to be to catch up to the Phillies.

(Thursday night pick: Bears)

It’s almost official now. CC Sabathia will pitch for the Yankees when they move into their new stadium, at the bargain basement price of $161 million over seven years.

I know this guy’s a horse and he’s in his prime (age 28), but something really stinks about this deal, and it’s that it took so long when the Yankees had already put $140 million on the table and nobody else was even close.

I said it long ago, and I’ll say it again. I don’t like the idea of bribing somebody to come to play somewhere he doesn’t want to play. I don’t like that the Yankees almost had to beg him to take $161 million of their dollars. I don’t like that he wanted an escape clause after 2011.

I think this has disaster written all over it. And it’s not only that I don’t believe his heart wants to be here. It’s also that so many long-term pitching contracts have blown up in recent years—Kevin Brown, Mike Hampton, Barry Zito, Carl Pavano. For every Johan Santana, there seem to be four or five or six total busts. Again, Sabathia is in his prime and is coming off two very strong years. But he isn’t Bob Gibson or Sandy Koufax or even Ron Guidry. He won 17 games last year, not 24.

If he pitches to 16 or 17 wins in 2009, is that worth it? Doesn’t that remind you of Randy Johnson and his 17-8 and 17-11 seasons when he was hardly dominant in pinstripes? And what if CC bombs? How are the Yankees going to live with that contract? Then they have to hope and pray that he opts out after 2011, and he may not because of all the money he will be owed if he stays.

I may be totally wrong. The Yankees—who are pretty much admitting this offseason that they are not capable of building a good team other than to go out and checkbook the rest of the league to death—might come out of this smiling. They identified their guy, damn the cost, and got him, and now they’re going to go after some more. Maybe CC wins 20 and a Cy Young and leads them where Johnson and Mussina and Giambi and A-Rod never could.

That’s a 300-pound maybe in my book.

5:40 p.m., Thursday, Sam says:

The Yankees had to do this. As I wrote in my column in today’s paper (and LoHud.com), it was a bad decision but also the right one. The Yankees needed a lock-down stud this offseason and Sabathia – more than Lowe or Burnett or Sheets or anyone else – was about all there was available. They had to get him. And so they paid way, way too much to do it.

Sometimes that’s what happens. Does the deal stink? Not if you’re Sabathia. But for everyone else, history shows that it’ll probably end up not being close to worth it. It was still something the Yanks had to do. Without Sabathia, this is what their rotation is: Wang, Joba and …………………..

That’s not enough. Not in a year with a new stadium. Not in a year which follows the first empty October in forever. The Yankees had to get to Sabathia. And so they did. Even if it felt like a bad decision.

So word out of Vegas is that the Mets are on the verge of signing Francisco Rodriguez to a three-year deal to be their closer.

This is a good thing. A slam dunk. A lock. I love the choice and I love the length of the contract.

The Mets are being smart. With the economy the way it is (both in the real world and in MLB land), K-Rod and his agent, Paul Kinzer, knew that the hoped-for five-year deal wasn’t going to happen. The Mets, if they get this deal done, are pouncing on the situation and taking full advantage: Five years would have been too many for a guy who throws as violently and with as much torque as K-Rod. Three years is much, much better (though two would have been ideal).

Also, the Mets are doing the right thing by addressing their biggest need first. With Billy Wagner’s Met career over and the bullpen looming as a main reason for the Mets’ collapse in September, Omar Minaya knows how important it is to solidify that part of the roster. K-Rod does it and, at this price, represents a bargain, too.

What do you think? Are you happy with K-Rod coming to Queens? Or would you have rather seen the Mets go with Colorado’s Brian Fuentes, who would have been an even bigger bargain? Or Trevor Hoffman, who would have been available for a shorter-length contract? Did Minaya jump too soon and spend too much?

CARP SAYS:

Great job by Minaya—if this does indeed happen—in correctly judging the market for K-Rod and getting him for three years. You would think the No. 1 guy available at a certain position would demand four or five or six years, and the bidding would get out of control money-wise if he settled for three.

But Minaya figured that there wouldn’t be many teams willing to go wallet-to-wallet with the Mets, and therefore that he wouldn’t have to bid against other teams, and thus could get his man without the dangerously-long contract.

The same can’t be said for CC Sabathia, or Mark Teixiera or some of the other coveted free agents, who will demand extra years and crazy bucks because other teams will bid (and there are circumstances surrounding Sabathia’s wish to stay in the West).

But Minaya played it right and got a great deal—if it did indeed get done—and the best available closer.

Now, before we give him a standing ovation, let’s wait out the first two years. If K-Rod turns out to be the Mets’ Mariano Rivera, and stays on the field, the Mets will wish they had gone the extra year or two. But it’s always easier to re-sign a guy for more money later than to get rid of a bad contract on the back end.

I am. I’m off, although I must admit I was only half-heartedly on even after those impressive back-to-back wins over the Patriots and the Titans on the road.

This latest pathetic two-game losing streak for Gang Cannibus further elaborates three things:

1) That this is the NFL, where the difference between the good teams and the bad teams is very slim and where, truly, any team can beat almost any other team—I doubt the Lions could beat the Giants, but Cleveland did, and …

2) How truly stupid it is in this knee-jerk media world mostly driven by the radio, that we have to name this team or that “Best in the NFL” or “Best in the AFC” at any time during the season, and …

3) How idiotic we all look when we start predicting Subway Super Bowls or whatever you want to call them when we know that from week to week our opinions can change on every team, and when you know that even one month or two weeks remaining in a season can be like having six minutes left in the fourth quarter and all your timeouts, and when you know how much of a tumble of the dice the three or four playoff rounds can be for each and every team that gets into the tournament. Right now the Giants, for example, are Super Bowl favorites, and yet their road will be frought with challenges. There is absolutely no guarantee Big Blue will survive the divisional round, never mind the conference championship.

So I say the Jets are pretenders when it comes to Super Bowl material, and playoff contenders only at this point, and at all points going forward until they actually, you know, get to the AFC title game. Then we can start talking Super Bowl … until they go down 14-0 at halftime.

As for Big Blue, yesterday’s lackluster loss is of little consquence. The common theme today is that it had a lot to do with the distractions of Harris Smith, er, Plaxico Burress and Antonio Pierce. Well, Pierce looked distracted—or at least flat-footed and overmatched—when Brian Westbrook sprinted past him for a touchdown catch. I don’t think it had anything to do with his involvement in Burress’s Glock episode.

The G-men lost because they dropped balls and couldn’t run effectively—when Earth goes down, Wind and Fire don’t look so great, do they? I don’t think it matters one bit that the Giants lost yesterday. Sometimes it’s better to lose and refocus as long as you have a record that affords it, and the Giants do. A winning streak going into the playoffs isn’t a big deal. A winning streak starting in the playoffs is. The Giants won the division, will still get home-field for the NFC playoffs, and will be fine even if they go into the playoffs by winning just two of their last four games.

10:00 a.m., Tuesday, Sam says:

Wait a minute – “half-heartedly on” the bandwagon?????? I seem to recall Carp being pretty well behind the Jets after the Titans/Pats wins, with very few qualifiers at all. I even took a little ribbing from our good friend Sunny for not doing as Carp did and “drinking the green Kool-Aid.”

Anyway, not to gloat but I definitely saw this coming. There are certain teams that just can’t handle complete prosperity and the Jets – sadly, for their fans – are one of them. That doesn’t mean they can’t win the whole thing, doesn’t mean they can’t make this season something special. It just means they’re going to have to work for it, as usual.

The Jets have made their own beds. In my mind, they’ve got to win two of their last three games to have any chance at the playoffs and that’s no easy task considering two of the games are against division opponents (Bills, Dolphins) and one is another one of those (apparently) tricky West Coast trips (Seahawks). The Left Coast has been rough for the Jets this year: San Diego, Oakland and San Francisco are the reasons, as as much as any, that the Jets are in as much trouble as they are.

Prediction? I think the Jets get those two wins and sneak into the playoffs. But I certainly wouldn’t count on it. And I’m certainly not making those picks from a bandwagon – the way the Jets have played lately, most people that were on have already long since jumped off.

System overboard. Abandon system.

Flipping a coin flipped me to a flippin’ 3-13 week. So much for catching Sam, who went 8-8. So unless he shoots himself in the leg, it’s going to be nearly impossible to make up that ground now.

But I’ll try nonetheless. I think Big Blue will use this whole Plax thing to its favor—those guys love adversity. And Plax should have his Thanksgiving that the bullet didn’t hit him a little bit higher.

As for Gang Cannibus, I see a flop in Frisco. But then I’m almost 100 percent wrong about the Jets every week.

Here we go:

Standings
Sam 99-88-3 —
Carp 93-94-3 6GB

WEEK 14
W-CHARGERS (-9 1/2) over Raiders
GIANTS (-7) over Eagles
49ERS (+4) over Jets
COLTS (-13 1/2) over Bengals
BEARS (-6 1/2) over Jaguars
PACKERS (-6) over Texans
TITANS (-13 1/2) over Browns
Vikings (-9 1/2) over LIONS
Falcons (+3) over SAINTS
Dolphins (+1) over Bills (in Toronto)
BRONCOS (-9) over Chiefs
Patriots (-4 1/2) over SEAHAWKS
CARDINALS (-14) over Rams
Cowboys (+3) over STEELERS
RAVENS (-5) over Redskins
PANTHERS (-3) over Bucs

12:30 p.m., Friday, Sam says:

No trash talk from me this week. Instead, I’d like to take a moment to wish my nephew, Reid, a Happy Birthday. The little guy – who is variously known as Dorito, Face and The Two-Footer – turns a very big 1 years old tomorrow, and my wife and I are heading to DC this afternoon to celebrate with the family. (Have no fear, however, I’m returning to NY early Sunday morning to chronicle the Giants game and whatever other mischief/issues/felonies our local footballers have been involved in over the weekend.)

Reid, like his dad, is a Redskins fan (so he’s undoubtedly disappointed that I’m picking against them against Baltimore). I’m not sure I necessarily agree with his decision to back the Skins, but it’s probably better than choosing the life of heartbreak and wrenching disappointment that comes with being a Jets fan. He’s also a Red Sox fan (again, like his dad), and I’m more supportive of this, mostly because I figure if he’s going to be a pro athlete, he might as well pick a sport that has guaranteed contracts so he can take care of all of us someday.

Now that I think of it, since newspapers seem to be a struggling business I probably should push for Scott Boras to take a meeting with Reid in the next few months. It’s never too early to see if we can get a Boston/New York bidding war started (“I don’t know Theo … Hank and Hal seem to think he’s got a LOT of potential …”). Surely 19 years for $200 million isn’t out of the question—he’ll only be 20 at the end of the contract!

Anyway, Happy Birthday, Reid. You’re the best reminder of the man you’re named for and this year, in particular, you’ve been an absolute gift.
W-CHARGERS (-9 1/2) over Raiders
GIANTS (-7) over Eagles
Jets (-4) over 49ers
COLTS (-13 1/2) over Bengals
BEARS (-6 1/2) over Jaguars
PACKERS (-6) over Texans
TITANS (-13 1/2) over Browns
LIONS (+9 1/2) over Vikings
Falcons (+3) over SAINTS
Bills (-1) over Dolphins (in Toronto)
BRONCOS (-9) over Chiefs
Patriots (-4 1/2) over SEAHAWKS
CARDINALS (-14) over Rams
STEELERS (-3) over Cowboys
RAVENS (-5) over Redskins
Bucs (+3) over PANTHERS

I’m sick of the Stephon Marbury story. Now he wants to play or be released. I don’t think either one is happening in the immediate future. There is also this little debate: Whether the Knicks will sign Allan Houston or Patrick Ewing Jr. with their open roster spot.

I’m also sick of the Plaxico Burress story already, although the legs on that one haven’t even begun to stop running. We’re going to have stories on Plax through Antonio Pierce’s explanations to the investigators of why he took Burress’s gun, why he took it home after taking Burress (allegedly using the alias Harris Smith) to the hospital, and why he hasn’t spoken yet to the police. We’re going to have stories on Plax through March, when he’s back in court, and until there’s a verdict or a plea.

I had a few comments on both situations in a column I wrote in The Journal News and on LoHud.com today. You can read it here. Also, check in at LoHud.com at 1 p.m. for Pete Abraham’s live chat about the Yankees and the winter meetings. He’s the best in the biz, and you’ll want to hear what he has to say.

In the meantime, we have to do the “Who do you like?” Thursday edition. I’m abandoning my system and picking the CHARGERS (-9 1/2) over the Raiders tonight.

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

Easy answer. I wish the Steph situation would go away. There are larger and more valid points to be made about gun laws and personal responsibility in relation to the Plaxico saga; Marbury’s issues are mostly childish and otherwise immature.

As for tonight? I also like the Chargers.

Got my baseball Hall of Fame ballot in the mail the other day. There is one absolute slam-dunk on the ballot this year: Rickey Henderson. He goes in first ballot, and maybe close to unanimously, without a doubt.

Then what? I’m going to continue to vote for Jim Rice as long as he’s on the ballot, a guy who was the best hitter of his era, the most feared—more than Eddie Murray or guys who came a little bit later, Kirby Puckett and Paul Molitor. All those guys are in. Rice’s numbers, in an era when 35 homers was a really good season and 50 was almost never reached, were astounding. I’m voting for him again. Last year he finished second to inductee Goose Gossage, and got 72.2 percent of the vote, just short of the 75 needed for election.

Then, if he gets in, I’m going to turn off the sound when he makes his speech. The guy was a jerk who treated the media like dirt during his career, so I don’t give a rat’s tail what he has to say any more.

I think I may finally have been convinced about Bert Blyleven (287 wins, 3,701 strikeouts, 3.31 ERA and one of the best curveballs ever). Bill Madden of the Daily News recently pointed out this: That Blyleven had 242 complete games and 60 shutouts! We will never see totals like that again. And if we’re talking about Mike Mussina being a borderline Famer, then Blyleven has to go in.

Also, if we’re going to think about Mussina for Cooperstown in five years, then we have to think seriously about Jack Morris now, and first-timer David Cone—who won’t have the numbers in the end. Both of them were better pitchers, ranked against the others in their era, than Mussina.

One more time I’m voting for Don Mattingly, whom I know has no shot. But for a stretch in his career he was not only the best player in the game, but he was in the Gehrig category.

Oh, yeah, Mark McGwire’s on the ballot again. Sorry Big Mac. I’m not here to talk about the past.

11:30 a.m., Wednesday, Sam says:

Hall of Fame ballot time is always entertaining. I’m a few years away from being eligible to vote but there’s a few things I feel pretty strongly about when it comes to picking who should go in:

1. The Think Test: If you have to think about whether a guy is a HOFer, he probably isn’t. That’s my number one litmus – gut feel. The Hall of Fame is for the most special players of all time and even though it’s pretty obvious there are a lot of “pretty good” players in there who probably shouldn’t be, that doesn’t mean that I – as a voter someday – need to continue that trend. I could easily see years where I wouldn’t vote for anyone; to me, only the best of the best make it.

2. The Smudge Test: Nobody’s perfect. Nobody. So it’s OK for HOFers to have a few strikes against them, so long as they’re tiny (smudges): A relatively minor brush with the law? Fine. A terrible personality? Fine. Fights with teammates? Fine. Drugs or drinking? Fine (so long as it’s not out of control – and before you ask, there’s no set standard for “out of control” but if it would be part of the first two paragraphs of someone’s obituary, that’s probably a bad sign).

Smudges are OK. Black marks are not. That’s why I’d never vote for Mark McGwire. I believe he used PEDs, I believe he did a disservice to the game with his horrific performance in front of the Congressional Committee and I believe that both of those things are enough to give him a zero in the “integrity” category. And as anyone who ever flunked a test in HS knows, if you get a zero in one area, it’s pretty tough to have one of the best overall scores in the class. Since the HOF is for the absolute best scores, failing one category is enough to keep you out for good.

So who would I vote for on this ballot? Henderson and Rice. That’s it. My gut tells me Morris was a great, great pitcher (and a postseason stud) but not one of the all-time legends. Same with Cone. Same with Blyleven. The fact that they compare favorably to previous HOFers will always be the standard response, but to me that carries no water; I didn’t vote for those previous inductions and I’m not bound to necessarily agree with them.

Hope everyone had a great holiday weekend and ate a lot of turkey, stuffing, etc. I know I did.

This is a follow-up to the previous question Carp posed because I wanted to clarify the situation and the options. For the sake of this debate, let’s assume that Plaxico Burress did, in fact, have an illegal gun with him on Friday night as has been reported. And let’s assume that Antonio Pierce did, in fact, help him hide that gun briefly after Burress shot himself in the leg. In my mind, here are the Giants’ options:

1. Suspend Burress. He was out at a nightclub on a weekend he was too injured to play which is yet another instance of disrespect to the team, plus he was incredibly irresponsible with regards to the gun. Sit him down (again) for two games as punishment. Also, fine and/or suspend Pierce one game for foolishly aiding Burress, opening himself up to potential legal charges.

2. Cut ties with Burress. The Giants could attempt to put him on the non-football injury list for the rest of the season, then cut him afterwards, taking a significant loss on the contract extension he got earlier this year. That said, the distraction are too much. It’s time for Burress to go. Also, fine and/or suspend Pierce for his actions. Or, cut Burress and leave Pierce unpunished.

3. Do nothing. Let the NFL and police continue their investigations, work to rehab Burress from his original hamstring injury and new gunshot wound in hopes that he’ll return before the end of the season. Also, allow Pierce to continue to play with no punishment from the team.

These are the basic choices. Personally, I wouldn’t have given a malcontent like Burress the kind of contract the Giants gave him earlier this year, but that’s water long since under the bridge. If I were the head of the Giants, I would go with option 2; it’s a big, big choice to cut ties with Burress but if I were the owner of a team, I’d have a hard time supporting a guy who has had as many issues as Burress (which is why I wouldn’t have wanted to give him a long-term deal to begin with). The Giants have succeeded after losing Tiki Barber, Michael Strahan and Osi Umenyiora – they’ll live just fine without Burress, too. I’d also fine Pierce for being a complete idiot and then let the NFL/police add any other punishments or charges as they see fit.

This is a completely asinine situation that Burress has created. The Giants need to deal harshly with it.

CARP SAYS:

My new hero, at least when it comes to this Burress situation, is Mayor Bloomberg, who is jumping in and saying Burress should get no preferential treatment whatsoever, and that he (and presumably anybody else involved in the coverup) should be prosecuted to the full extend of the law. Hallelujah! Finally a pro athlete who acts like a thug might have to answer for his sins. Bloomberg was especially ticked off about Burress saying the gun wasn’t loaded. Duh!?

I don’t think there’s any question that Burress should not have gotten a contract renegotiation, and no question now that he should be an ex-Giant as soon as this case is closed. Somebody will pick him up, though. And the Giants will miss him on the field (those times when he actually used to, you know, get on the field).

I also think Antonio Pierce—a personality that has always rubbed me the wrong way—has to answer for his involvement, especially if it turns out to be the coverup it looks to be. And all others involved, too, (perhaps including Ahmad Bradshaw) from the hospital to whatever police personnel might have looked the other way to the club (which, according to reports, was cleaned up and repainted by this morning).

These player/thugs with guns, I’ll never understand. But if they want to carry guns, then they have to be held accountable for anything that can happen. And you know that nothing good can ever happen if you carry a gun into a club.