As much as anybody on the continent, probably more than most, I hate the two-week layoff between the conference championships and the Super Bowl. My gosh, I am so darn sick of hearing about Kurt Warner’s religion and Big Ben and Anquan Boldin and Larry Fitzgerald and his father. I am sick of all these Super celebs being on all the radio stations and TV stations and in the newspapers, giving their opinions of who is going to win, and especially their opinions of “why.”

PS, did you see that Antonio Pierce is doing Fox’s Best Damn Sports Show, which is anything but. Also, that David Wells is trying out for a baseball analyst job at ESPN. Gee, that’s a new formula. Hire an athlete who will say anything, who thinks he’s much smarter than he is, who will be outrageous at times, maybe even on the edge of being in trouble (or over that edge). Wow. Revolutionary idea.

Back to the Supe. Enough already. I know, having covered four of them, that tonight and tomorrow are the best parts of Super Bowl week for a writer. No more access to players, no more press conferences—except the Hall of Fame gathering tomorrow—no more early wakeups and long bus rides to remote team hotels. No more hoping and praying that one of the athletes says just one interesting thing, something from which you can make yet another story.

Friday night and Saturday of Super Bowl week are slow. Most of your Sunday stuff has already been written by then. You get to exhale before gameday.

Another PS: How many sportswriters do you think had the best moment of their lives yesterday when the NFL had its annual halftime performer press conference and they actually got to sit in a room with Bruce Springsteen? Answer: A lot.

So, apparently they are planning to play Sunday, finally. Who do you like, and why? You and I certainly can’t do any worse in predicting than the Mike Ditkas or the other “experts” having a lot more fun in Tampa than the teams or the media. I’ll make my pick in a bit. Sam?

10:35 a.m., Sam says:

You know, I don’t hate the two-week layoff as much as everyone. Would I prefer just the usual one week? I guess I would, but football does have unique physical rigors and if the two weeks helps get a star into the game who might have been a little banged up, I think it’s worth it. Plus, you could make the case that the other sports have several days off between their playoff series – three or four, when they normally play every day in baseball, for example – so, proportionally, having a layoff that’s only twice as long as the usual break between games for the NFL is actually very reasonable.

As for the game itself, I can’t say I’m all that excited about it. Steelers-Cardinals just doesn’t give me a whole lot of juice, but I’ll watch – if only for the commercials. I love the Clydesdale commercials – the one from a few years back where the little horse doesn’t make the “team” of pullers and then trains all year and makes it the next season is one of my all-time faves.

In terms of a pick, I’ll take the Steelers. If I were actually betting money, I’d probably bet the Cardinals to win outright because I think there’s good value there and I believe that they’ll either win or lose big. For our purposes though, I’ll stick with the Steelers and (what I think is) giving six points.

Carp, it’s been fun playing with – and beating – you in the picks this year. Let’s do it again next year!

CARP SAYS:

I admit it, my tail has been kicked in the picks department. But not this time. It’s Steelers 29, Cardinals 14.

And, yes the commercials will be better than the game. And maybe, just maybe, the TV cameras can stay on the field instead of panning the crowd for celebrities and fake fans of either team. And, of course, it would be great of Bruce gave a really good halftime show—Tom Petty was pretty good last year, whereas in the past we’ve had lip-synching, wardrobe malfunctions, and I always hate, HATE, those fake concert crowds they trot out—kids hired (probably volunteers) to act as if they’re actual Bruce fans, waving their arms and dancing as if they were actual customers at an actual concert.

A couple of years ago, on a muddy, rainy Super Bowl field, the playing surface was compromised because of all the stages and equipment and farcical people who had to be wheeled out for the halftime show. Imagine. The championship game of the sport, compromised so that TV could have its halftime show and make the sponsors happy. Ugh.

As football games go, this one is usually hard to watch.

11:55 a.m., Sam says:

Geez, Carp – negative much? Tell us what you really think of the Super Bowl next time!

I actually kind of like the crowds at halftime. Sure, it’s not great for the playing surface but the Super Bowl is a show as much as a game. Everyone knows that going in – it’s the reason there’s a 20 minute halftime instead of the 12 that most games have. It’s the reason there’s a 10-hour pregame. It’s the reason why there are so many upsets – it’s just different.

I’m not so against that. If it was “just another game” than it wouldn’t be played at a neutral site. But it is, and so there are concessions that come along with doing it that way. Most of them don’t bother me all that much.

Wings that are too spicy, on the other hand? Those bother me. Same with shrimp that’s not seasoned enough or turkey chili that doesn’t have some grated cheese on top. Those are the things that could potentially bother me on Super Bowl Sunday. The rest of it is just part of the deal.

There’s an interesting story in The Times this morning about changes some stadiums are making to provide fans at a game an experience more similar to the ones they get when they watch from their couches at home. Handheld TVs for instant-replay access and Wi-fi connections are two of the more popular amenities, not to mention the massive video boards that are being constructed – the one at the new Yankee Stadium is monstrous.

Anyway, this article made me think about what sporting events are better in person and which ones are better to watch at home. Here’s a few lists for you:

Best sports in person:
1. Hockey
2. Basketball
3. Baseball
4. Football

Best on TV:
1. Football
2. Baseball
3. Hockey
4. Basketball

For what it’s worth, I’ve been fortunate enough to cover and/or attend a variety of marquee sporting events in my life and have pretty strong opinions on which were better in person and which were better on TV. Here they are:

Better in person: World Series, NHL Playoffs, NBA Finals, Final Four, Masters, U.S. Open (tennis), World Cup soccer
Better on TV: Super Bowl, BCS National Championship, U.S. Open (golf), Belmont Stakes, Indy 500, Daytona 500

Which sports do you think are worth tickets and which ones would you rather watch at home?

CARP SAYS:

Football is now a living room sport, especially its biggest game, which is a week-long corporate schmooze and an all-day TV show wrapped around a four-hour game. My greatest sports disappointments over the years have been Super Bowls I’ve covered. I mean, I’m glad I can say I was there in ‘86 and ‘08 when the Giants won—especially ‘08, in what was one of the best New York sports moments ever.

But, I can so clearly remember how comparatively quiet the stadiums have been for those games, because with so many corporate types and NFL types and network-star types in the house, there are far fewer than 50 percent rooting for either team. So it doesn’t sound anything like Giants Stadium. I also think back to the poor Giants fans being held up on the streets for tickets that they couldn’t afford—that’s another matter for another time.

I don’t think there’s any question that hockey is dozens of times better live than on TV. Baseball, too, although baseball still translates to television. Football is a great, great TV game with all the camera angles, replays and especially the live analysis of the better (some aren’t as competent) color commentators. Often at the stadium, the fans are completely in the dark, scratching their heads, or misunderstanding a ruling on the field. But a Phil Simms or Troy Aikman can usually explain it to those watching on TV.

Plus, there is no way I could ever stand out in those freezing temps or cold rain or snow for hours and hours. Just no way.

Basketball is quickly becoming that way for me, too, because of the constant arena noise. Bad enough during stoppages, they now bang on the volume button throughout play, too. It’s awful, and awfully expensive on top of that. I hate paying to attend an NBA game these days, although I love the college and high school games.

So, for me:

Best in person
1. Hockey
2. Baseball
3. Football
4. Basketball

Best on TV
1. Football
2. Baseball
3. Basketball
4. Hockey

I have also covered numerous big events, and while I have absolutely loved going to multiple U.S. Opens, and I can see how cool it is for the gallery to get up close to the great PGA players, the best way to watch any golf tournament is on television. Otherwise, you’re watching one shot at a time by one group at a time, while all hell is breaking loose everywhere else on the course.

11:35 a.m., Sam says:

Golf is absolutely a better TV sport, but everyone who loves golf should try to go to an event at least once, just to see how amazing some of these guys can play up close. The spin they get on shots? Wow.

That led me to an offshoot of this question: What’s the most impressive sporting achievement to see in person? Obviously TV can give us up-close angles and replays of anything, but there are still certain things that make me marvel when I see them live. For example:

– Hitting a baseball is supposed to be the hardest thing to do in sports. Yet, truthfully, it doesn’t LOOK that hard when you get to sit in the front row during batting practice. It just doesn’t. – Dunking, on the other hand, still fascinates me. Maybe it’s because I can sort of, kinda envision a scenario where I could do many other sports activities (like hitting a homer or throwing a pass), yet dunking will always – sadly – elude me and my limited vertical leap. Watching LeBron do trick dunks during pre-game lay-up lines is just fantastic.

Here’s my top three things to watch in person:

1. LeBron or Kobe doing a sick dunk.
2. Tiger or Phil Mickelson doing one of those full-swing flop shots where the ball almost goes backward.
3. A bang-bang collision at home plate.

As great as instant replay is, those three events are best seen in person.

 CARP SAYS:

 Ah, the old dunk discussion. I wrote a column about that last season: Why does the dunk still excite us? Don’t get me wrong. I love a good dunk. I just wondered why it still pulls us out of our seats. I mean, it really isn’t much of an accomplishment for LeBron or Kobe or any other NBA player or 6-4 high school or college player to dunk. It doesn’t take much effort. 

It is a lot easier than hitting a 94 mph fastball or making a four-foot putt under pressure. It’s less risky than a big hit in football or hockey, or a home-plate collision. Yet a good dunk still takes our breath away. Is it simply because we can’t do it? I don’t think that’s the answer, because even those who can do it get excited over seeing somebody else do it.

And, yes, it is better live than on TV. You talk about golf shots, you cannot appreciate some shots on TV because you can’t see the contour of the hole. Sometimes those guys are hitting shots to blind pins—they can’t seen the bottom of the flagstick—yet TV makes it look like a flat, nothing shot. Also, I still don’t understand how they spin the ball on those short chips without skulling it into the crowd.

I don’t buy the “hitting a baseball is the hardest thing” in sports. I think playing the quarterback position against the blitz is harder. Or going across the middle to catch a pass. I definitely think making a crucial golf shot, especially a short money putt, is harder. And on a local level, I wrote a column last week about how the toughest thing, and the toughest athlete is the high school wrestler—all alone on that foam island with no timeouts, no help, no teammates, nobody to blame, and nowhere to go.

I was watching the MLB Network for a while after the Rangers game last night, and they were showing some of Ken Burns’ documentary—which is obviously going to be a major staple for the fledgling network. It was a lengthy show about Babe Ruth and his contribution to the game of baseball as the person most responsible for it becoming such a big piece of Americana.

At the end, Burns claimed that Ruth is still the greatest player in baseball history. You can argue whomever you want after him: Joe DiMaggio, Willie Mays, Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Barry Bonds, he said, but Ruth is No. 1.

I noticed that all of those guys are/were outfielders. So a question for a slow and snowy day: If you had to pick a starting outfield from all the players in the history of baseball, which three would you choose?

There are obviously others, notably Hank Aaron, and to a lot of bandwagon-jumping Yankees fans from the late 1990s, Paul O’Neill. But it’s an awesome group, one in which magnificent Hall of Famers like Frank Robinson or Ken Griffey Jr. or Roberto Clemente or Reggie Jackson (or for that matter, Mantle) aren’t even really in the argument.

I’ll start it off with mine: Bonds in LF, Mays in CF, Ruth in RF. I’m not taking steroids or HGH into account here. Just who was the best, simple as that.

Who would you pick?

10:45 a.m., Sam says:

Great, great question, Carp. Absolutely perfect for a day where everyone should stay inside, drink something hot and think about the world of sports with us. FACEOFF: We’re the snow-day remedy!

Anyway, it’s hard to argue with your three but off the top of my head, I’d probably go with this:

Aaron, Mays, Ruth. While I can respect the pick of Bonds, I think Aaron was the embodiment of the slugging outfielder and his consistency was even greater than Bonds; Aaron is the only player to hit 30 or more homers in a season 15 times.

Let me also put in a plug for Ty Cobb. If we’re ignoring off-the-field issues (like Bonds’ alleged steroids use) than we can also ignore Cobb’s raging racism and hideous temper. Although Cobb didn’t hit homers like Ruth, he was as good a hitter as Pete Rose or, in modern times, Ichiro. Cobb had almost 4200 hits and held the single-season hit record for 84 years. Not bad. Who just misses out on your list?

CARP SAYS:

Teddy Ballgame. My dad always goes on and on about DiMaggio, and I assume he was the best centerfielder ever behind Mays, and what he did in cavernous old Yankee Stadium, where a right-handed batter faced 460-foot outs or doubles, is incredible.

But if you look at Ted Williams numbers, then figure that he missed out on five full seasons because of military service, Wow! He’d have hit more than 600 homers to go with his BA that was sometimes over .400. Probably the greatest pure hitter the game has ever seen.

And of course, my fave all-time was The Mick, and if he’d stayed healthy maybe he’d have been in there instead of Mays because when he was a young man he was not only the most powerful slugger, but a great hitter and, they say, the fastest player home to first, people had ever seen.

Can’t argue with Hammerin’ Hank, though. Nice pick, Sam.

11:25 a.m., Sam says:

Johnny Pinstripes makes an interesting point in the comments about the place of the modern player in these types of discussions (and, Johnny, as to your idea of ranking the top three at every position: I like it. Let’s see how many of these snowy days we get!).

In the outfielder discussion, you’d have to consider Manny Ramirez. I know he’s hardly a defensive wizard, but Ramirez will go down as one of the greatest pure hitters of all time. He’s a better hitter than Reggie for sure, and same with Griffey. Junior was clearly a better fielder, but at the plate I think it’s not even close.

Ichiro is another one – unbelievable fielder and, if he’d played in America his whole career, would probably have broken Rose’s hits record. That’s hard to ignore. Who am I leaving out?

 CARP SAYS:

 I mentioned Frank Robinson and Clemente. You could add Stan “The Man” Musial, Al Simmons, Yaz, Cobb, Hack Wilson, Al Kaline, Tony Gwynn, Wee Willie Keeler, Mel Ott, Paul Waner, Rickey Henderson.

Endy Chavez. Melky Cabrera.

Sam Weinman, our always-excellent Rangers beat writer, mentions in his story today that the Rangers are in a somewhat different position at the start of this second half than they’ve been in previous years. As opposed to being in a more desperate scenario, where a playoff spot seems like a real question, the Rangers begin their final few months in a very good spot: On the edge of first place in the Atlantic Division and on the edge of second place in the entire Eastern Conference.

So what happens now? The Rangers have come back from those less-than-desirable spots to make the playoffs but have been a postseason disappointment. Is this the year they make a run?

What do you think, Carp? What do you see for the Rangers come springtime?

CARP SAYS:

I don’t know about a run this year. I don’t think this Rangers team is more likely to make a long run than either of the previous two years, and those teams fizzled out in the second round.

We’ve had this discussion, to a degree, before. The Rangers’ record is inflated by shootouts, they don’t score enough on a consistent basis, their defense is mostly soft, and their power play is streaky at best and dreadful at worst.

They will, of course, have a shot against any opponent in any series because they play a team game—although the defense-first idea gets lost sometimes—and because they have a goalie who can pull them through any given night or any given series.

Of course it’s not impossible that they get on a roll and go to the conference final or, dare we say, the Cup final. But they don’t have a better shot than any of the other eight or 10 or more contenders.

And I don’t see the salary cap maneuverability for them to get major help at the deadline.

11:05 a.m., Sam says:

I don’t know, Carp. I feel more optimistic than you do, even though I know I might be reaching a little.

Obviously this isn’t the NFL, where defense (almost) always wins. But defense does go a long way in the NHL and the fact that the Rangers are where they are right now while only scoring 2 1/2 goals a game seems like a good indicator to me. Put it this way: I’d rather have a team that’s near the top while struggling on offense than one that’s near the top while struggling on defense. Seems to me that the defense is the harder part.

Then again, that’s probably a good question to debate, too: Which would you rather have? In football, everyone would take the better defensive team. In baseball, everyone (I think) would take the better pitching team and hope the offense comes around. Same thing in hockey, right?

So if that’s true, then I can hang my hat on Henrik and the grind-it-out mentality of the Rangers defenders, and hope that there’s an offensive surge in the second half that gets the Rangers where they need to go. Is it likely? Maybe not. But I like this set-up and this make-up more than I have in the past few years for sure.

CARP SAYS:

Don’t misunderstand. Keeping the goals-against low, and being able to stifle or contain explosive opponents is far more important than scoring in the playoffs. You will win a lot more series with defense and goaltending than you will with offense.

But in the playoffs, all the teams try to play that way, so you’d better be able to score a few goals, too. That 2 1/2 you score per game during the season is probably 2 or fewer in the playoffs, and if you recall, the inability to get a big goal when it counted is what KO’d the Rangers in the Buffalo series two years ago, and what hurt them in the second round last year … that and the inability to stop Pittsburgh’s big gunners.

Those last two Rangers teams had some scoring, especially last year’s team with Jagr, Straka, Shanahan, Gomez and Drury. Jagr made Dubinsky and some of the players around him more offensive, too. Now it’s Gomez and Drury and a prayer that the grinders chip in. In the playoffs, you have to have the goals the Rangers got from the Callahans and the Averys in the first round last year, but you also have to have some snipers like the Penguins and Red Wings had throughout the four rounds.

Offense more important than defense in the playoffs? Absolutely not. But you can’t win if you can’t score unless King Henrik throws a whole bunch of shutouts. And, again, there are no shootouts once the tournament begins.

12:15 p.m., Sam says:

Great comments so far, and one of the questions asked was how the Rangers match-up against some of their potential first-round opponents. Obviously the biggest issue they face against any likely team is the lack of star vs. opposing star. In other words, while Washington has Ovechkin, the Rangers don’t have that might-explode-at-any-given-moment player on their team.

My thought is that’s when the defense will have to be in overdrive. You’re right, Carp, that most teams go into a defensive shell in the postseason anyway, but the Rangers could – should? – have an advantage by playing that style for what would be going-on five months at that point. Is that plus Henrik enough to push them deep?

 

 CARP SAYS:

No doubt, having played that way all year is a plus … teams that don’t play well defensively can’t just flip that switch on April 1. But those teams who succeed with that get goals from their plumbers and have one or two star scorers who can impact any game any night, either on the power play or at even strength. Tell me who those scorers are on this team?

I don’t see them going deep. I just don’t. They will make the playoffs and could go out first round or second. They could go all the way, too, but that’s like being in a raffle. Any of the 16 teams could go deep. But only four will go to the conference final. 

What makes me or you or anybody think the Rangers—based on what they are and what they’ve done to this point, or what they could become down the stretch—will be one of those four? And is winning two rounds and then going home really a great achievement anyway?

OK, maybe saying he lost his trust for Brian Cashman was going a bit far. But otherwise, which of the excerpts of Joe Torre’s book that have become public so far do you think were so wrong?

That Alex Rodriguez is a diva? Duh. I don’t pretend to be so cool to know what a “Single White Female” complex is, but I know that there’s some truth to that “A-Fraud” stuff and that teammates shook their heads at the way A-Rod conducted and carried himself.

PS, that Johnny Damon was quoted as saying that A-Rod is a great teammate and that “we’ve got his back” … well, let’s remember that Damon said the exact same things about Manny Ramirez, and we all saw what kind of great teammate he was in Boston last year.

Let’s discuss this whole Torre thing, from his legacy to his firing, to this idea that he is a champion grudge-holder. He obviously had some things he wanted to say, since he doesn’t need the money. I also think he has darn good reason to be bitter toward the Yankees high command.

What do you think?

10:58 a.m., Sam says:

The best part about this whole story is the quotes that were attributed to an “A-Rod insider” in today’s New York Post. Check out the story, if you get a chance, especially the part where the “insider” says Torre’s comments about A-Rod were the last act of a “desperate” man. Is that a joke? What exactly is Torre desperate about? Last I checked, he’s got four more rings than A-Rod and has secured a spot in Yankees lore. At this point, what is A-Rod’s Yankees legacy? As one of the most controversial figures in franchise history?

I will admit that the history of the Torre Era is often a little over-the-top positive. As someone who covered Torre and got to know him somewhat, I’m certainly as guilty as anyone of that. But even with the way things went his last few years, he’s got tons of money, near-universal adulation, four rings, a great legacy, a new job in California and a winter home in Hawaii. If that’s desperate, sign me up for some desperation.

I don’t have a problem with Torre speaking his mind. It’s hardly surprising that he would say some things now that he might not have said when he was managing the Yankees, if only because saying them then would have made his job even more difficult. I can’t get mad at someone for different perspective in a different situation. And, as always, it’s probably worth waiting to actually, you know, see the book, before getting too worked up.

All the same, the notion that Torre is “desperate” for anything is among the more laughable aspects of this entire thing.

CARP SAYS:

Me too. I’ll take some of that desperate.

The thing about the “over-the-top” positive spin on Torre’s 12 seasons is that most of it is greatly deserved. Just ask the players who matter what they think of St. Joe. Ask Jeter, Posada, Rivera, Williams, Brosius, O’Neill, Girardi, Martinez, Knoblauch, Cone, Pettitte, Clemens (the dirty rat), even the short-timers like Gooden, Strawberry, Raines, Boggs. I’ll bet you their responses would all be over the top.

I just mention that because I don’t agree at all with those who say this is a case of a media-driven personality having been created. Even latter guys like Giambi and Mussina and Damon gushed over Torre.

Is it unfair that he went after A-Rod a bit? Perhaps. Rodriguez was singled out, but, hey, that’s what such a gigantic personality—one who so often is on the gossip pages and earning notoriety for what he does off the field—demands. And any book that ignored the whole A-Rod dynamic, or glossed over it as if it wasn’t a big deal, well, that would be fraudulent, too.

11:58 a.m., Sam says:

True enough, Carp. Ignoring the A-Rod thing would make the book woefully lacking in credibility. But do you think there’s anything wrong with Torre writing this book at all? Mike Vacarro argues in today’s Post that writing this book has sullied Torre’s reputation – that he is a hypocrite for airing clubhouse stories after championing the sanctity of the clubhouse during his 12 years.

You agree or disagree?

 CARP SAYS:

 Agree, to a point. Maybe when you are all finished in the game, then it’s an OK time to start telling clubhouse tales.

The thing is, this is rampant in sports nowadays. Players and coaches and managers and all sorts are paid to do radio shows, TV shows, and to write books, or blog. And the thing I don’t understand about it is: why?

I mean, if you’re making—and this is a pedestrian salary in today’s sports—say, $6 million a year, why do you have a radio show that pays you five figures? Why, if you’ve made, oh, $55 million in your career, do you need the extra mill for a book deal? That’s the part I don’t get. If you or I, Sam, signed a book deal for five five figures, we’d be doing cartwheels. Or at least I would be. Or at least I’d attempt one.

But for Joe Torre or Phil Jackson, or for any of today’s top athletes to need to supplement their salaries by going beyond the lines of clubhouse secrecy to write a book, well, that to me is mind-boggling.

It’s also another thing if they want or need to get something off their chest. Or in some cases (Jose Canseco) if they’ve blown through their money somehow. 

For an active player/coach/manager/GM to go out and tell stories just to pad the old bank account, that to me is an unnecessary distraction brought on by one’s self.

Hypocritical? Maybe. I have all the respect in the world for Vaccaro, and I don’t disagree with him on this.

UPDATE: I think this is interesting. It’s a brief interview on SI.com with Sports Illustrated’s Tom Verducci, who was the author of the Torre book.

Spring training is less than a month away. Opening Day is less than three months away. Baseball is nearly upon us.

The Yankees have had an unbelievable offseason. No one can deny that. But as we approach the beginning to a new season, the question is this:

What is your top concern about this year’s Yankees?

For me it starts at the back of the rotation. Right now, most people look at the Yankees rotation as this: CC, Wang, Burnett, Joba, ????.

When in reality, it has to be this: CC, Wang, Burnett, ????, Joba.

Joba Chamberlain can’t be the fourth starter this year. He pitched 100 innings last year. If you look at last year’s Rays – who had what has to be thought of as the ideal year for starting pitchers in that they had their top five starters pitch 153 of the 162 games – the fourth-highest innings pitched was 184 2/3. To expect Joba to get to that number (or even close) coming off a year of injury and only 100 innings is unreasonable. Frankly, assuming he stays healthy, getting close to the 152 1/3 innings that the Rays’ “fifth starter” pitched might be tough, too, which brings me to my next point.

The bullpen. If the Yankees don’t make another move (i.e. Andy Pettitte), and go into the season with Joba and, say, Phil Hughes at the back end, the stress on the bullpen increases. Hughes has the same innings issues as Joba. So now that’s two pitchers who need to be managed and cut short on some (if not most) nights. That means more innings for a relief corps that is missing one if its best weapons because Joba is now a starter.

Do I think Edwar Ramirez and Phil Coke and Damaso Marte and Brian Bruney and whoever else ends up setting up can’t do the job? I’m not saying that. But I am saying that the bullpen concerns me. We all know relievers are wild cards. Look at the names of the guys who carried the Rays deep – Dan Wheeler and Chad Bradford, et. al – but there’s no guarantees. And so if the Yankees don’t strike it rich with their guys in front of Mariano, he might not see the ball too often. And that’s bad news.

So, back-end-of-rotation/Joba is my first concern. What’s yours? Check back later, too, for Pete Abraham’s take and throughout the day as we go back and forth.

10 a.m., Peter Abraham says:
What concerns me about the Yankees isn’t the back end of the rotation or a seemingly weak bench. Those things will get fixed. What worries me is what the new Yankee Stadium will be like.

Oh, it’ll be a terrific facility. But I wonder if the preponderance of expensive seats close to the field will change the atmosphere in the Bronx. In another life, I covered the UConn basketball team and was on that beat when they opened their new arena, Gampel Pavilion. The Huskies were just getting good and the crowds were loud and passionate. Big East coaches said it was the toughest place to play in the league. But as the team improved, the school took the opportunity to charge more for seats and instituted a program that rewarded the most generous boosters with the best seats. Overnight, it seemed, the fans closest to the court went from being kids with their faces painted blue and white to wealthy older people who showed up late and left early. The toughest gym in the league was no longer.

The Yankees, for all of their resources, have blue-collar fans. I used to love looking down at the crowd during the National Anthem at all the jerseys and marveling at how many people had Thurman Munson’s number on their backs or Paul O’Neill. I wonder when I look down this season whether those people will even know who Munson was. Or will they be there for the cheese and crackers?

11:42 a.m., Sam says:

Pete makes a great point about the Stadium. As much as any other team, the Yankees have always had what I felt was an almost-tangible homefield advantage – not necessarily in the biggest games, either, but more in the games against a middle-of-the-pack team. I can’t tell you how many games I watched against the Royals or Mariners or A’s where the Yanks would be trailing in the 7th or 8th, the other team would bring in a mediocre reliever and all it took was the leadoff man getting on base for the Stadium to start getting crazy.

Next thing you know, the mediocre reliever looks like a deer on the Merritt Parkway at night, the Yankees have first-and-second, nobody out, and suddenly a two-run deficit is a one-run lead. It happened all the time. Seriously, Arthur Rhodes was probably responsible for five of those meltdowns just on his own.

Anyway, the comments section has been interesting, too. Seems like a lot of concerns about Posada, which are absolutely fair. What reason do any of us have to believe that he will be healthy enough to catch 120 games this year? Understand, this is an injury that Posada has never had before and, truthfully, CATCHERS RARELY HAVE AT ALL. That can’t be stressed enough. There is very little history to look at and say that absolutely Posada will be able to handle the load. Maybe he will, maybe he won’t.

Here’s another area I’m concerned about: Team defense. No one in the outfield has any kind of arm, Jeter’s range is fading year by year, Cano has been spotty and Posada – well, who knows? To me, that sounds like a lot of groundballs getting through to the outfield and a lot of times those outfielders will have no chance of throwing out a runner who happens to be on second base. I could see the Yankees giving up a lot of so-called “cheap” runs this year.

Thoughts?

12:37 p.m., Peter Abraham says:

From a baseball standpoint, they still need a starter. CC Sabathia is coming off a taxing season. A.J. Burnett has a history of injuries, Chien-Ming Wang missed half the season with a mangled foot and Joba Chamberlain will be on an innings limit. They still need a workhorse starter to suck up 175 or so innings. I think it’s Andy Pettitte—assuming the lefty will come to his senses and take a pay cut. But if it’s not Andy, can Phil Hughes or Ian Kennedy or Alfredo Aceves do it? That we do not yet know.

In a great post on his always-excellent Yankees blog, Pete Abraham breaks down the payroll for the 2009 Yankees, shedding a little light on the Yankees continued claims that they will have reduced their total salaries from last season. As PeteAbe points out, if they do, it certainly won’t be by much – including signing bonuses, they’ll be right around $200 million again.

By contrast, the Rays – who won the AL East a year ago and went to the World Series – will probably be closer to $60 million (if that) this season. The Marlins – who absolutely didn’t go to the World Series and only succeeded in putting the finishing touches on another Mets collapse (again) – will be closer to $30 million.

These numbers, as always, will be cause for a segment of the sports world to shriek loudly. Already, the Brewers owner, Mark Attanasio, has been quoted as saying the sport needs a salary cap.

So here’s the question: Does it?

To be honest, my biggest hesitation in saying that Attanasio is crazy is that it might make me look like I endorse the rantings of Yankees president Randy Levine, who has a little bit too much self-righteousness for a guy that’s been on George Steinbrenner’s coattails for this long.

But the truth is that – as was readily (and wonderfully) apparent on Tuesday – we live in America. And in America, free markets are better than restricted markets. If you can make enough money to support a $200 million payroll, then I have a hard time saying you shouldn’t be allowed to spend what you want. The MLB players’ union is the strongest in all of sports and unrestricted free agency is one of the main reasons that baseball has become a 12-months-a-year game. It’s one of the main reasons its popularity is soaring.

Having a salary cap changes all that. As much as I have disagreed with certain decisions Bud Selig has made, I think the current luxury tax is a reasonable compromise. It forces the big spenders to be absolutely sure they want to spend because they have to pay extra on top, in addition to the revenue sharing they also must be a part of. To me, that’s good enough. If a team – like the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets or anyone else – wants to deal with the consequences of their largesse, I say let ‘em. It’s the American way.

9: 50 a.m., Josh Thomson says:

Since MLB added the current luxury-tax system to its collective bargaining agreement, the sport has undergone a competitive renaissance. In the last six seasons there have been five World Series champs and 22 of the 30 teams have made at least one postseason. Even the Tigers, who kinda normally stink.

OK, I admit this much: The numbers impressed me. It’s certainly an improvement over the Yankee-dominated late 1990s. But am I crazy or is fair, honest competition the point of sport?

Really, am I missing something?

Look, baseball’s great here. New Yorkers don’t do high school or college sports. This isn’t Texas. We do the pros, the best of the best, and we do them big, or do you not remember when A-Rod’s sunbathing became a topic of conversation.

So, yeah, it’s a healthy, thriving game in New York. It’s great in Boston, Chicago and L.A., too, but is the game flourishing in Pittsburgh or in Miami? How ‘bout San Diego, where five years after opening a new stadium the front office is fielding offers for Jake Peavy? Should any pro baseball team worth its salt contemplate dealing a 27-year-old ace with a reasonable contract? The moment Peavy leaves town they’ll essentially begin searching for him all over again.

I don’t call for a hard-and-fast cap, a la the NHL. But does it benefit the game when every free-agent pitcher with a winning record and/or a shred of talent has the following suitors: the Yankees, the Red Sox, and (insert two or three other teams here)?

10:42 a.m., Sam says:

Josh, who does a terrific job covering everything from high schools to hockey for The Journal News, makes a fair point. It’s hard to think about the situations of cities outside of our own and – particularly if you’re a Yankees fan – organizations that we don’t follow closely. But that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

While I don’t think a salary cap is necessary, I do worry about how the incredibly-bad economy will affect baseball (and all sports). While some teams, like the Yankees and Mets (to a slightly lesser degree) are somewhat bullet-proof because of the revenue they will inherently receive from having new stadiums and massive fan bases, the reality is that smaller-market teams are losing out much of the local advertising and sponsorship money they’d normally be getting from businesses that are failing. To those teams, the allure of “investing in the team to try for a winner” isn’t necessarily as attractive, since in this economy there’s no guarantee that even making the World Series will result in a huge increase in outside dollars. Remember, all those companies that might have wanted to jump on board probably just had their advertising budgets slashed.

So the big concern I have is that the gap between the high and low in MLB will be further exacerbated. While that isn’t enough to make me believe there should be a salary cap, I do think it’s a reality that we need to face. And, if nothing else, it certainly gives Yankees haters (or Royals, Marlins and Twins fans) something more to shout about.

1:07 p.m., Josh Thomson says:

The worry, Sam, isn’t just the disparity found in the major-league free-agent market alone. If that were the lone root of competitive imbalance between the haves and the have-nots, the Pittsburghs, Kansas Cities and Cincies could focus their efforts on the draft, but even the recruitment and selection of amateurs is an arms race…and arms race the have-nots are losing.

Take Rick Porcello, the hard-chucking righty from northern Jersey. He had top-five or top-10 talent heading into the 2007 draft yet fears about the money he would demand (yes, folks, Scott Boras was involved) scared the poorer teams away. They simply couldn’t afford to draft an 18-year-old that had never played a college game, much less a pro game. So Detroit got him 27th overall because it could pay him what was then the largest contract ever given to a draft pick. Oh, that’s all. So now Porcello is considered one of, if not the, best pitching prospects in baseball. Everyone knew he had that ability, but many couldn’t afford to pay for it.

I understand Sam’s idea that this is America – that free-market economics has defined our nation through its forever evolving history, etc., but the game of baseball has an inherent interest in maintaining all 30 of its businesses, not in seeing them go belly-up. Were teams allowed to go bankrupt, what would happen to players, stadiums, schedules, and the like? Just think about the disaster that would ensue if the Marlins ran out of money.

Make the cap $125 million. Heck, $150 mil even. Just make it so a team willing to spend $75-80 million — a Toronto — can have hope.

2:42 p.m., Sam says:

First of all, let me say to anyone that’s just stumbling on to this post that you should absolutely check out the comments here. Lots and lots of good opinions there—- kudos to everyone for making well-reasoned arguments. Nothing like money and baseball to spark a debate.

Anyway, Josh, I see your point – the notion that teams can simply improve through the draft isn’t totally fair and probably won’t ever be until Scott Boras is no longer working in this game. But to me, that’s just one of the side effects that comes with a free-market system.

Here’s another downside to a salary cap that we haven’t yet touched on: The disappearance of trades.

One of the absolute best parts of baseball’s season is July, when the trade season is in full swing. While I absolutely hated that time as a beat writer (I literally didn’t turn my phone off for a month), it’s one of the things that make the sport great. No other league can offer the possibility of blockbusters like baseball does, and one of the reasons is the lack of a cap.

Trades in the NFL hardly ever happen and those in the NBA (or NHL) have to structured so carefully with respect to cap space that they’re tough to pull off, too. If MLB added a cap, it would put a crimp in the wild rumor mill that helps everyone – even those teams that are long since out of the pennant race – get excited in summer.

Wouldn’t you miss that? I know I would.

3:47 p.m., Josh Thomson says:

Would I miss it, yes. Would July become a dead season? No. It would change. It would evolve. But the trade deadline would still be a busy season.

The question then would be how to reconcile the vast amount of playing movement and midseason payroll restructuring with a salary cap — and, yes, that means a cap with a floor and a ceiling. I believe that would stand as the most complicated part about installing a cap. Why couldn’t a team just north of the, say, $70-million cap floor, dump expensive players if it was already out of the race? Obviously, those also-rans would need the opportunity to dip below the floor, but should teams already spending at the max be allow to pass it? I say no. Just like in the offseason, it gives the superpowers an unfair advantage. How often must we watch big-market teams pay the final half of a monster contract on the off-chance a player turns it around for two months and wins them a pennant? Or do you not think the Manny market would’ve expanded if more teams could afford him?

Here’s what I propose:
Make the cap somewhere between $125-150 million.
Make the floor 50 percent of the ceiling, i.e. between $62.5-75 million.
Require teams to meet the number (floor or ceiling) by opening day.
Implement the slot system as rule for the draft (this, by the way, would help everyone).

The two concerns I see that would need to be met are:
1. How much beneath the salary cap floor could a team move at the trade deadline (10 percent, 20 percent, etc.) and when would it be able to do so (after June 1 seems likely to me)?
2. How would you alter the current revenue-sharing system?

I think those would be the two remaining issues under a salary cap. The first is easier to solve, the second not so much. What do you think?

Regardless, despite this debate and the flow of opinions, I fear baseball has no shot at accomplishing a cap in the near future. The union would never allow it unless the players were assured the same amount of revenue they earn now, as many of you had pointed out. Even if the sport instituted a number the way the NHL has, I don’t believe the union would accept such a limitation. Do you?

It has never given much value to the health of the game. (See: steroids)

Say this from the top: If Ryan gets the Jets to the Super Bowl and gives this team and this fan base something real to be excited about, then he was the right guy. That’s pretty much all he’ll be judged on and all he should be judged on.

That said, I would have liked to see the Jets do a more complete search for a new coach. Woody Johnson and Mike Tanenbaum said they were going to do a “thorough” search for Eric Mangini’s replacement yet, for the most part, they only seriously looked at unproven head coaches. The only coach with legit experience they even interviewed was Bill Callahan.

That’s hardly seeing the whole picture. And while Ryan has been touted by many as the “polar opposite” of Mangini in terms of personality and style (both of which are good things), he’s really very similar to Mangini in terms of stature – the Jets hired Mangini as a hot, whiz-kid coordinator and that’s essentially what they’re getting in Ryan. Will it work this time?

Al Groh. Herm Edwards. Eric Mangini. Those are the last three Jets coaches, all of them stepping into the job having no NFL head coaching experience. Now comes Ryan.

Nothing against him, but I would have liked to see Woody Johnson make a sincere effort to get Bill Cowher. Or at least talked to Mike Shanahan. Or, if the job was still open, Jon Gruden. If you’re talking about change, those guys would have brought it.

(The picture, by the way, is of a Tyrannosaurus Rex. I just thought it looked cool.)

9:24 a.m., Joe Erwin says:
Jets fans, if Rex Ryan isn’t a sexy-enough hire for you, you need to look at the reason the Jets aren’t bringing in a big-name coach. Here’s a hint: He wears No. 4.

With Brett Favre in his annual will-he-or-won’t-he-retire phase, the Jets were hamstrung from the start. That’s why Bill Cowher withdrew his name soon after he surfaced as a possible candidate. Woody Johnson is still star-struck by Favre, so as long as there’s a chance Favre will return, a coach the stature of Cowher or Mike Shanahan isn’t coming knowing he might spend his first year as coach with Favre really in charge. Had Favre been out of the picture for sure, the job would have been a lot more attractive to the likes of Cowher, Shanahan or Gruden.

12:28 p.m., Sam says:

We’ve had some interesting comments so far, including one from Giants blog regular Colour1, who says (in part): “Big names with the likes of Cowher and Shannahan-Gruden bring high pressure to the team. With this well educated “freshman” coach all you can do is go up!”

I’m not sure I agree. I think the pressure in New York is always there – in this case, it’ll be on the players AND the coach, not just the players OR the coach. After the collapse the Jets had this past season, there is immediate urgency to turn it around and not just be the ‘same old Jets’ for another year. That was going to be the case whether they hired Rex Ryan or Vince Lombardi. It’s just New York.

I think they owed it to themselves to look more seriously at the established route. Put it this way: Woody Johnson went on vacation right after firing Mangini, and thus couldn’t be bothered to come back and put a real press on Cowher, letting him know the Jets were serious about turning their franchise into a winner. How “thorough” a coaching search can it be if the owner begins it lying on a beach somewhere?

(Full disclosure: I don’t really know what Woody Johnson does on his vacations. He could a mountain-climber or something. “Lying on a beach” just seemed like a reasonable guess. The point is the same though.)

4:09 p.m., Joe Erwin says:

Jets fans shouldn’t be quick to dismiss Ryan. After all, Bill Parcells won two Super Bowls in his first stint as an NFL head coach. He won none in his second, third and fourth stops, with his playoff performance diminishing in each job. Jets fans though Parcells was the savior when he came, and while he turned the team around, reaching the AFC championship game isn’t the ultimate goal. Winning the Super Bowl is.

Perhaps Rex Ryan is the guy to return the Jets to their glory days. Actually with the Jets, it was just one glory DAY, when they won Super Bowl III. Joe Namath got the headlines and the MVP, stealing away the attention from a defense that held a Colts team that scored 34 points in the NFL championship game to just seven in the Super Bowl. Buddy Ryan, Rex’s father, was the linebackers coach for the Jets, so maybe there is some good karma there.

I know, I know – we already did a Question #44. But today is a special day.

It doesn’t matter what your political affiliation is or whether you love (or hate) Barack Obama. Today, Inauguration Day, is a special day because it is wholly American. It is a day to celebrate democracy and the idea that in this country we get to have days like this. Days where a leader elected by free election puts his hand on a Bible and vows to do his level best to serve.

So on this day, as we wait for – and then listen to – the next President, I wonder if we can come up with some good ideas on who in the sports world would look good standing on the steps of the Capitol?

What athlete would make the best President?

My first thought was Muhammad Ali, but he’s a little too radical to be President (though his speeches would be absolutely fantastic – and probably in verse). Then I was thinking about Derek Jeter, but he’s not out-spoken enough. We can’t have a President who’s a great leader but rarely takes a stand on anything and primarily deals in cliches.

Tiger Woods? Same as Jeter. David Wright? Too inexperienced. Jason Giambi? Uh, no. (Though it’s intriguing to imagine the prime minister of Canada probably waking up some morning with a hangover, a mysterious girl next to him and a copy of a document signing British Columbia over to the USA next to him as the Big G cackles through his security briefing).

So who? The more I thought about it, the more I kept coming back to one name. Two, actually, and since we could technically be talking about a Presidential ticket, I’ll give you both:

Nicklaus/Palmer.

Who wouldn’t vote for that? These are guys that commanded respect for generations, have just the right amount of living and seem willing to take a stand. They’ve also raised a ton of money for charities, continue to stay in the public eye as they’ve gotten older and are so charming that they’d surely be able to broker peace anywhere so long as they could get the leaders of countries with issues out on the first fairway. Perfect.

What do you think? Can you endorse Nicklaus/Palmer? We’ll have Sports Editor Joe Erwin joining us in the debate in a little bit, but what athletes do you think would be the best leaders?

9:54 a.m., Joe Erwin says:

Sam thinks Jack Nicklaus would make a good president. That’s not a bad suggestion. There’s a lot to like about Jack, but he’s not a perfect candidate – if there is such a thing. He’d have some ‘splainin’ to do to voters with disabilities about his outspoken stance against Casey Martin a few years ago.

But sports can bring social change. In some ways, the first steps on Barack Obama’s road to the White House were taken by Jackie Robinson at Ebbetts Field in 1947.

So what athlete would make a good president. Well, Roger Clemens is free now. Wait, a guy from Texas who has trouble putting together coherent sentences? We’ve seen how that turns out. I’ll pass.

There are some other people it’s easy to eliminate from the running. For example, throw out anyone associated with the 2007 and 2008 Mets. After all, both those teams practically hung out “Mission Accomplished” signs with 17 games left in the season.

Kellen Winslow Jr. is too young to run now, but I don’t want him or anyone like him, who thinks that sports are “war” and that he’s a “soldier.” When Marv Levy was Bills coach, he was one asked if a game was a “must win.” Leyy responded, ““No. World War II was a must win.” Marv’s too old for the job now, but that’s the perspective I want from the commander-in-chief.

So who would make a good president? Mike Mussina has the brains for the job, but it seems like he wants to be left alone, being president wouldn’t work.

How about Andre Agassi? It never seemed possible, when he was the immature kid with the mullet who said “Image is Everything,” but he has developed into perhaps the most charitable athlete in the world. He has developed countless programs for children, many of which stress education, something remarkable for a kid who was shipped to a tennis academy at 13. With Steffi Graf as first lady, an Agassi administration could be good for America.

11:11 a.m., Sam says:

I’m sitting here, as I’m sure many of you are, watching the build-up to the inauguration on television. Part of me wishes I was there … the rest of me is pretty happy I’m sitting in a warm house and not on the Mall in zero degree temperatures.

Great suggestions from people so far. The one I liked the most was Mark Messier – this is a guy who isn’t afraid to make a bold statement, even if it’s surprising. As Rangers fans remember, he’s also the kind of leader who follows through on his guarantees (something nice, if uncommon, to find in politicians). As far as captains in New York go, there may have never been a better one.

The only problem? Alas, Mess is Canadian.

1:00 p.m., Joe Erwin says:

The election of Obama broke a racial barrier. Is there an athlete who can break the gender barrier? Mia Hamm became a hero to millions of girls in 1999, but it seems like she wants to live as low-key a life as possible. The significant requirement of being American rules out most top LPGA players.

How about tennis? Is Billie Jean King up for another fight at her age (65)? Pam Shriver seems like a smart cookie, she is involved in many charitable causes, and is a fourth cousin of Maria Shriver. The problem is she’s in the middle of a divorce. A divorce isn’t a deal-breaker. Ronald Reagan was divorced (and in the interest of full disclosure, so am I), but the problem is she’s divorcing James Bond. Granted, it’s George Lazenby, who made only one Bond film and is considered the weakest Bond, but it still would have been fun to think of him as First Gentleman. We could have had President Shriver negotiating for the release of an American hostage, but it turns out to be just a diversion as First Gentleman Lazenby flies in on a jet pack to rescue the hostage.

No, perhaps the best hope for women’s tennis would come down the road, from the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena seem capable of anything that they put their mind to, so it wouldn’t be a shock to see one of them in the White House some day.

There’s another barrier that could be broken, however. How about President Jim Abbott? Imagine the inspiration he could be to people with disabilities everywhere. Abbott, who was educated at Michigan, currently gives motivational speeches and works with The Department of Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy on several initiatives encouraging businesses to hire people with disabilities. Abbott’s been overcoming obstacles his whole life. Chances are there isn’t much that could throw him, even as the leader of the free world.

Other possible presidential timber: John Carlos and Tommie Smith; Navy men Roger Staubach and David Robinson; Cal Ripken Jr. and Mike Richter.

3:50 p.m., Sam says:

I like the David Robinson suggestion. There was a time when I wore No. 50 on the back of my basketball jersey because I loved the Admiral – he just alway seemed classy and in control.

Dare I even ask it?

How about A-Rod?

(ducking)

Happy MLK Jr. Day. Hope everyone enjoyed the weekend and has managed to dig out their cars.

First a little housekeeping – Carp is off this week, so we’ll have a revolving door of debaters joining me on FACEOFF, to go along with your always-sharp opinions.

For today, I thought we’d go away from the usual pro sports bent and discuss a hot-button local issue that’s been on the minds of many athletes and their parents. With New York State pulling $2.8 million worth of funding for the Empire State Games, the Hudson Valley region has already backed out as host of this summer’s ESG and it’s very possible the Games won’t be held at all.

So here’s the question: What should be done with the ESG?

The plan for this year’s event was to eliminate the adult divisions completely and charge student athletes a $285 participation fee to make up for the lost funding – a big change since participation used to be free.

Certainly it’s not hard to see why the funding was eliminated – it’s hardly the only budget cut in this economy. But what can be done to save the ESG? And should the ESG be saved at all? In this difficult time, you could certainly make an argument that any State funding ought to go to more important causes than an Olympic-style gathering. But could it be done every other year instead of every year?

I want to hear your thoughts. Should the ESG continue to be held? And if so, how?