I have to toot my own horn here. I was one of the few who predicted the Knicks would give Marbury the Larry Brown treatment and just sit him and let him collect his salary (nearly $21 million). The strategy, I figured, was to hope for Marbury to do something egregious enough to forfeit some of the money, since he had no interest in negotiating a buyout for a lesser number.

Nor, I thought, should he take less. As distasteful as I’ve always found him as a person, the Knicks signed him to that contract and should have been responsible for it, even after he refused to play in their moment of desperation in November.

So, it turns out, apparently Marbury got all his money and now gets to go play with another team, presumably the NBA champs. How does that make you feel as a Knicks fan? Will you feel even worse if he plays well up there in Boston? Or are you just glad to get his snarling face out of here?

11:35 a.m., Sam says:

Well, the Knicks DID save a few million bucks, it seems, so that’s something. But yes, essentially Marbury gets his money to go away. Not bad work if you can get it.

Seeing him in Boston won’t bother me at all, mostly because I don’t necessarily think we’ll actually see him in Boston that much. The Celtics need a little depth, yes, but if Marbury does anything – complains about not playing enough, is a distraction in any way, has sex with an intern in his truck and talks about it – that doesn’t jibe with the team concept, I think the Celtics will cut him loose and not lose any sleep about it. In other words, I’m not convinced he’ll be there come season’s end anyway.

If he is? No worries. The Knicks are better off without Marbury and, truthfully, I’m not sure any team is better off with him. At least not one that’s interested in winning on a consistent basis. Marbury’s talent can’t be ignored but he’s just not an ingredient for long-term success. I’ll be curious to see how Kevin Garnett deals with having Marbury around again, now that he’s finally in a spot where winning titles isn’t just a pipe dream.

Don’t fret, Knicks fans. Even if Marbury does OK in Boston, the Knicks are better off. This is the definition of addition by subtraction.

So we need baseball. Actual baseball.

Which brings me to this question, because it has been discussed when people aren’t discussing ‘Roids. Does it really matter to Yankees fans if Joe Girardi is good with the media, bad with the media, gentlemanly, prickly, or what? Does that actually reflect on how he runs his team?

Or is there anything to this idea that his personality actually had an effect on his team not making the playoffs? Was it really no-candy rule in the clubhouse? Or his mis-handling of Robinson Cano? And will that have to change now with the A-Roid circus going on for, oh, the next nine years?

11:21 a.m., Sam says:

First off, I agree – a little baseball talk is absolutely welcomed around here. I love a scandal as much as the next guy, but it’s good to get into something on-field related, too.

In terms of Girardi, I think today is a perfect example: The man just canceled a full workout and took the team to a pool hall to play some billiards and have some lunch. A little unity-building for the Yankees—it’s a smart move.

The manager’s mood is a oft-debated subject in sports and I think it does matter, probably more than people outside the game give it credit for.

Think of it this way: Does your boss’ demeanor affect the way you work and feel while on the job? Can it help (or ruin) your day?

I think Girardi’s handling of the players and public persona with the media absolutely make a difference, if only because it’s reflected on (and reflective in) the team he runs. GM Brian Cashman made a big point this offseason of saying Girardi’s dealings with the media were something he needed to work on big-time this season, and I think you’ll see a little less General Girardi – both with players and reporters – this season. Today is a perfect example.

CARP SAYS:

Dealing with the media is a tricky thing, and in my experience, guys who are good with the media: Joe Torre, Tom Renney, Jim Fassel … they tend to get a wider benefit of the doubt in times of trouble, than, say the old Tom Coughlin, or Jeff Torborg, or Eric Mangenius. Jeff Van Gundy was treated better than Isiah Thomas. But that had to do with ability more than personality. Yet personality counted in the equation. Heck, in the early going, people actually liked Isiah.

But in the long run, bottom line, it’s Ws and Ls. I think Girardi has to hold people accountable, more so than last year (with Cano being the obvious example) and more than, for example, Renney has done with the Rangers this season. Whether he is friendly and playful with the media, or liked by the media, is secondary … by a lot.

11:51 a.m., Sam says:

Cano is definitely the litmus – he’s the kind of player that you have to handle just right. Too hard, you can lose him in a pool of anger or irritation; too soft and he’ll get complacent or arrogant. Larry Bowa obviously found the right mix when he was coaching under Joe Torre and it’ll be interesting to see if anyone on this year’s staff can discover the winning formula.

Girardi knowns he’s under the gun this year. Another season without success (read: ALCS) and he could be on the way out, so he’ll be open to trying anything.

I just remember Alex Rodriguez looking a lot like Derek Jeter when he was in Seattle, and then like Tiger Woods when he was in Texas and then like Mark Bavaro as a Yankee.

I remember that he had a big greet-and-meet (if memory serves, it was on a cruise, and Michael Kay hosted) where he AND Barry Bonds charged fans tons of money for the privilege. If memory serves, as Bonds approached Hank Aaron’s record, he said that it would only last until A-Rod gets it, and that when his buddy A-Rod breaks the new record, well, Bonds would be in the ballpark.

So we knew that A-Rod had a relationship with Bonds, and we knew he had a relationship with Jose Canseco, the high priest of truth when it comes to naming Steroids’ Who’s Who?

How, then, could we be shocked?

Actually there are only two players whose names would knock me off my chair if they were positively linked to steroids. One is Derek Jeter. I just couldn’t imagine that. The other is Frank Thomas, who rallied hard and long for testing in baseball, who welcomed any tests, and who volunteered to address Congress via video hookup during the steroid hearings.

So the question today is, were you shocked by A-Rod’s ‘Roid outing, and would you be shocked by any other names that might come up?

I’ll have some thoughts on the Hall of Fame, which is now almost sure to be tainted in the future, and on whether A-Rod, guilty as he may be, probably got a raw deal by being the only one of the 104 positive tests from 2003 to be leaked to the press.

CARP SAYS:

Sam (who’s off this week) and I discussed the whole Barry Bonds Hall of Fame issue last week, and this new A-Roid episode has made me realize something else …

I may give up my Hall of Fame vote forever. Why? Because what happens when, just for the sake of throwing out a name, Ken Griffey Jr. and/or Manny Ramirez comes up for election. They are no-doubters, absolute first-ballot Hall of Famers, right? There is no evidence whatsoever linking them to any drug use. So what if we put them in and find out later that they used? Then what?

See the problem? I will not vote for A-Roid or Bonds or Clemens or McGwire (or Palmeiro, or Sosa, or Sheffield, etc). But now I don’t know if I’m voting in a clean guy when I vote. I do not want to be even partially responsible for putting in a steroid-cheat when I so clearly in my mind won’t vote for a known cheat.

I don’t know what to do with my vote going forward.

The other point I want to make is that I think it’s totally unfair to A-Rod, fraud and cheater that he is, to have his supposedly anonymous test leaked to the press. I blame this on the union, which could have destroyed the results, and I blame it on whomever leaked it. If they find out who it was, he should be fired and perhaps prosecuted.

JOE ERWIN (filling in for Sam) SAYS:

It’s sad when the thought of anyone cheating doesn’t surprise you anymore, but I’m to that point. Perhaps a guy who would surprise me if he was juicing was Pedro Martinez, not because he necessarily had more integrity than A-Rod or anyone else, but because of how small he is. I know not everyone gets big from using PEDs, but Pedro never seemed all that toned, unlike his former teammate, Nomar Garciaparra, who never got huge but got ridiculously toned.

When the Bernard Madoff scandal came out, I wondered how someone could do something like that and still be able to look himself in the mirror and sleep at night. My conclusion is that some people are both without consciences.

I don’t think that’s the case with A-Rod or other steroid users. I don’t think they’re necessarily bad guys. Their problem isn’t a lack of conscience, it’s a sense of entitlement. Some of that comes from the coddling star athletes receive, often from a young age, and the rest, in the case of baseball players, comes from Donald Fehr and Gene Orza. The union has shown it would go to bat for anyone, even a player spitting in an umpire’s face. The players believed, until recently, that they could get away with anything because for about 30 years, the union pretty much ensured that they did.

Tonight it’s the World Champion Celtics, and the good news is nobody from Boston likely to get more than 40 points in the Knicks’ third straight marquee loss. This one will probably be the most lop-sided because the opponent won’t have one guy trying to show off.

I think this week has been an embarrassment at the self-titled World’s Most Famous Arena, especially Monday when Kobe Bryant slapped up 61 points and was serenaded with chants of “MVP! MVP!”

Are you kidding me? In New York City? In mid-town Manhattan? What the heck ever happened to the passionate, sophisticated New York sports fan? When did New York turn into Kansas City, and MSG become Arco Arena?

I’ll actually tell you when. When the Knicks P.A. guys started screaming and singing (“Steph …..on….Mar…bur….eeeeeee”) and when they began to hand out Thundersticks. I distinctly remember Jeff Van Gundy returning to the Garden one night and saying it made him sick to see Thundersticks at MSG.

If you walk in the sixth floor concourse on the 34th Street side of the Garden you pass the press room, which has been named for John F.X. Condon. His name is on the door. He was the p.a. voice of the Knicks and Rangers forever and he was so great at it because he was so simplistic. He would make every announcement with the same enthusiasm (very little) and would never bark or sing or make a big deal out of a 10-foot jumper. And he would probably puke if he were alive today.

Anyway, Sam, I want to know how you feel about how Kobe’s 61 and LeBron James’ 52 were received this week at the World’s Most Overrated and Fraud-filled Arena. I have a few more thoughts I’ll share later on the actual greatness of the achievements.

I want to add, though, that this would never happen at a Rangers game. OK, at the end of a season the crowd once cheered Mario Lemieux because they were being derisive against a dreadful Rangers team and wanted everybody fired. But for years, not only did they curse and jeer and boo every visiting superstar, but they would cheer when a Lemieux or a Jagr or a Gretzky or a Bossy was announced as a scratch. They didn’t even want to see those guys. They just wanted their team to win. Which is the way it’s supposed to be in NYC. Not at Arco Arena.

10:36 p.m., Sam says:

I agree, Carp, that it’s disappointing to see the Garden fans cheering for big stars from other teams but I also think it’s a little unreasonable to compare how Knicks fans react to how Rangers fans are. I think you can fairly make the case that Knicks fans have endured more strife and insanity over the past 10 years than any other franchise in New York (and maybe in the entire country).

When you consider the long list of Isiah Thomas’ debacles – including the off-court stuff that made the Knicks a literal laughingstock – it’s not hard to see why Knicks fans might look elsewhere for basketball inspiration. As someone who has loved the team for a long, long time myself, I certainly found myself doing it, too. Watching the Knicks was just sickening – not only because of how bad they were, but because of what they were representing.

All that said, chanting MVP for Kobe was a little over the top. And while there were plenty of cheers for LeBron on Wednesday, the Garden did have its moments where it sounded like the old days when the Knicks were rallying and even in the lead in the second half. It was a tease – of what the future might look like if LeBron comes, and of what the Garden might sound like if the Knicks can actually build on what they’re doing right now.

In short, I wasn’t pleased by the past two games at MSG but I also wasn’t embarrassed. The fans were only reacting to what the franchise produced. Considering the disasters the Knicks have perpetrated, I think that’s only reasonable.

CARP SAYS:

That said, and I still think it’s pathetic, whether it’s warranted by the recent history of the Knicks or not, how difficult do you think it is for an NBA superstar to throw up a big number in a given game? And how selfish is it?

I mean, Kobe comes in here knowing the Knicks can’t and won’t defend him, knowing the Knicks will play a game that gives the Lakers (and Cavs and Celtics and Wizards) loads of possessions, and starts firing. He took 37 shots in 37 minutes (plus 20 free throws). He came in and started heaving, and when the ball started dropping, he kept on heaving. He was fantastic. Great. But was it selfish; did that style help the Knicks stay in the game? What if he didn’t shoot quite as well (22 of 37 including 3 of 6 on threes)?

I thought LeBron’s game was much more complete (40 shots in 44 minutes, but also 10 rebounds, 11 assists, two blocks whereas Kobe had only three assists, no rebounds, no steals).

My point is this: I think any great offensive NBA player, from Bernard King to Bob McAdoo, through Iverson and these current guys, and especially the Magic Johnsons and Michael Jordans, can throw up a big number on any given night. But that usually, or generally, or theoretically hurts their team. Maybe if Kobe actually got his teammates involved, the Lakers would have blown out the Knicks. It doesn’t surprise me at all that Bryant made it about him. Or that he was capable of having that huge night against that defense. I’m just not as impressed as a lot of people seem to be.

I don’t think Kevin Garnett will be as selfish tonight, and I’d bet that the Celtics will win by a larger margin than the Lakers or Cavs.

And you’re right Sam. It’s not fair to compare fans to Rangers fans. They’re totally unique in a mostly-fantastic way.

11:46 p.m., Sam says:

I mostly have zero problem with guys like Kobe or LeBron (or Jordan or Bird) putting up big numbers in a game. I take a pretty simple approach to things like that: If Kobe is your best player and best scorer (which he is), and he is in a groove on a given night (which he was) and he’s being relatively effective (which he was), then I’m happy with him taking a lot of shots (which he did).

If Manny Ramirez is your best hitter and you have a chance to bat him nine times in a row, wouldn’t you do that? I probably would. Or at least seven or eight times. Same thing with Kobe/LeBron. If they’re on and feeling good, I’ve got no problem with them shooting all night.

By the way, LeBron’s performance was significantly more impressive for me. If you add in his assists, he essentially affected more than 70 of his team’s points, plus shared the ball and played decent defense. That only Kareem and Wilt have gone for a 50-plus point triple double in the past makes it even more impressive.

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.

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.

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.

The thing on my mind lately is that late in the season, after Donovan McNabb was benched by Andy Reid, the immediate knee-jerk was that he’d be available in the off-season. And that so many Jets fans said they had no interest in McNabb replacing Brett Favre. Imagine. Would you take that trade right now?

McNabb, who had the second-best winning percentage in his first 75 NFL starts (.707, second only to Tom Brady) will play in his fifth NFC championship, looking to get to his second Super Bowl. All he does is win. But, nah, you wouldn’t want him in a Jets uniform.

Meanwhile, the Jets still haven’t named a coach and still don’t know if Favre is coming back, and I have this question for Mike Tannenbaum:

What was your plan for a quarterback before you got Favre during the preseason? And what is your play for a quarterback after Favre is gone? I mean, were the Jets really going to spend all that money on offensive linemen last year and then hand the job to Kellen Clemens? And can Clemens possibly be expected to be the next one?

Anyway, back to the birds. Time for NFC and AFC championship picks, Sam, and any readers who want to join us. Scores please.

I was 1-3 last week, just stellar picking (granted, NOBODY picked the Cards). Sam was 2-2. That leaves me 3-5 for the playoffs, and Sam 5-3. And that means he only has to call one game correctly the rest of the way, or even pick one game the same way I pick it, and he wins the postseason title to go with his regular-season nail-biting win. So, in advance, I congratulate you, Sam.

NFC CHAMPIONSHIP
Eagles 23, Cardinals 20.

AFC CHAMPIONSHIP
Steelers 28, Ravens 24.

12:37 p.m., Sam says:

I’ve always been intrigued by McNabb, if only because he seems to be so many things all in one: Talented, athletic, outspoken, humorous and, at times, controversial. He’s also, as you said Carp, a winner. Which makes it interesting that he’s such a contentious figure in Philly.

I said on the live chat I did with Mike Dougherty a few weeks back that I thought McNabb was playing with legitimate purpose this winter. And that purpose is his legacy. His numbers are excellent, and put him among some of the best quarterbacks to play. Certainly he helped re-define the notion of the mobile quarterback, which is was an important innovation, too.

But he hasn’t won. And I think that McNabb knows this is as good an opportunity as he’ll have to finally get there. He got benched, shown up, embarrassed. Then he got over it and now he’s two wins from cementing his standing.

Is he the right fit for the Jets? I’m not so sure another aging QB is the way they should go anyway. But obviously McNabb isn’t going anywhere anymore. Not after what’s he done and still might do.

I don’t know if he’ll win it. But I’ll certainly be rooting that he does.

NFC Championship:
Eagles 24, Cardinals 17

AFC Championship:
Ravens 23, Steelers 20

But … other than a vastly improved bullpen, how much different are these Mets, especially now that Derek Lowe has landed in Atlanta? Before we go any further, may I say that four years and $60 million is way, way too much for a 14-11 pitcher. I know, he’s durable and he gives you lots of innings and he keeps the ball on the ground, but geez. Four years for an old guy? I think that contract will turn out to be a disaster on the back end for the Braves.

Anyway, it leaves the Mets with not many options, especially now that Oliver Perez is in position to be pursued by several teams. Any team that had eyes for the top pitchers in the market will now focus on Perez, who still has loads of upside, and is still in his 20s, and is left-handed. That’s three great checkmarks on his side. Of course, the one negative is that he drives you nuts with his inconsistency.

Other than the ‘pen, the Mets, as they stand right now, go into Bailout Ballpark with pretty much the same lineup.

So, once again, we bring up the name of the man pictured above, Mr. Manny. Do they dare? Do you want him?

What say you?

8 a.m., Sam says:

No, no, no. A thousand times, no. Not for Manny. Unless …

Two years. That’s it. That’s the max I’d go for Manny. But that’s not happening. Even though this has supposedly been the winter of cheapness in baseball, it seems like some guys are still getting their money (CC, Burnett and Lowe, just to name a few) so I’ll wait to see that “watered-down” contract for Manny before I believe it. I still think he’s getting big bucks somewhere.

As for the Mets, I think they’re in trouble. Did they help their bullpen? Yup. But show me the good hitter in the lineup you can count on that will bat below the No. 5 hole. And show me the starter, other than Johan Santana, that you know is a sure thing for 10-plus wins. John Maine off surgery? Not so much. That’s why I think they miscalculated with Lowe – if nothing else, you look at his numbers and you know he’s always been consistent.

Perez hasn’t. And now they’re going to have to pay for him or, alternatively, go for cheaper and also less-reliable options. Jon Garland. Randy Wolf. These are the guys still looking for jobs, and maybe the Mets end up with one. They already got Tim Redding on a one-year deal.

I’m not sure there’s a free agent signing out there that the Mets can make right now that would make me feel like they significantly upgraded their rotation. It may have to be via a trade. And without that, I see the Mets right now as a giant question mark.

What about you, Carp? You want Manny?

CARP SAYS:

No, I wouldn’t want him. But I don’t think that means the Mets won’t get him.

I believe it’s possible that the Mets get into a position where they can’t get one of these pitchers—and now it’s down to Perez, who’s not an upgrade because he was here last year—and if Perez goes elsewhere, then they have some spending coin left.

And you know Omar Minaya likes Manny, and you know he feels the need to make a splash—wrong-headed as that may be—because of what the Yankees have done and because of the opening of Bailout Ballpark.

Let’s face it, baggage be damned, Manny makes their lineup look awfully legit.

I agree with you, he won’t come cheaply, because if the dollars or years aren’t right, then I don’t see him leaving L.A.

CARP SAYS:

Just came across something Mets fans might want to see, but to those loyal Shea lifers this might be a bit too graphic, so be prepared.

It’s a site called Stadiumpage.com and it has photos of Shea being destroyed. Actually it’s kind of surprising we haven’t seen more photos of the old blue dump being torn down in the newspapers and elsewhere. Be warned.

1: 26 p.m., Sam says:

Great photos—nice find, Carp.

Truthfully, I’m not sure how much of an “upgrade” Manny is for the Mets. With all the distractions in NY, I have trouble imagining him staying focused for very long, plus you know that even Zen guru Jerry Manuel would get fed up with his antics pretty quick. With young guys like Jose Reyes still impressionable, is that the kind of veteran you want around?

If I were the Mets, I’d go for Garland. He’s like a mini-Lowe, a sinkerballer who is probably good for 10 wins minimum but – given the right circumstances and luck – could get up near 15-18. For reasonable money, he’s a decent value.

I do have some questions for those 28 members of the Baseball Writers Association of America who didn’t vote for him, and even more questions for the two people who voted for Jay Bell.

See, this is what scares me about the voting process.

The other thing that scares me is what happens now that pure numbers don’t mean what they used to mean.

Because next year’s ballot is going to include Fred McGriff, who I’m not sure was ever one of the best players in the game, but who compiled big numbers (493 homers to go with 1,550 RBI and a .284 average in 19 years). He never hit more than 37 homers, but he drove in 100 or more eight times.

It also includes Roberto Alomar, who was probably on a sure-fire Hall path until his dreadful Mets days; yet he was one of the best offensive second basemen ever (.300, 210 homers, 1,140 RBI). It includes Barry Larkin, who was a great, great player at his position, shortstop, and hit .295 with some pop (198 homers, 960 RBI in 19 years).

And it includes Edgar Martinez, a great bat (.312, 309 HR, 1,261 RBI) who might be the best DH since Ron Blomberg first grabbed a bat and put away his glove for the Yankees.

So let’s start things off with this question: Do you think any or all of these guys are legit Hall of Famers? Are any of them good enough to go in on their first ballot? Will next year be a year in which nobody goes into the Hall (except perhaps somebody from the Veterans Committee)?

8:45 a.m., Sam says:

I have a few more seasons until I can vote for the HOF, but my first reaction is that if I were voting next year, I wouldn’t vote for any of those guys. Maybe – maybe – Alomar, because for a middle-infielder he was one fo the best during his generation. I’d have to look closer, but I think he’d be the only one. The numbers are one thing, but I am also a big proponent of the gut-test and, sorry, when I hear “Barry Larkin,” I don’t think “Hall of Famer” right off the bat. Of course, that also means I probably wouldn’t have voted for a number of guys that have already made it.

Who’s next? If not Alomar, the 2011 class isn’t all that impressive either. Jeff Bagwell? Maybe. Though I doubt it.

Thing is, if I were the only voter, the HOF would be a LOT smaller than it is. I hold it to a high standard, probably because it’s such a wonderful and hallowed place. To me, you need to be an all-time great – truly, all-time – and I’m not so sure there is an all-time great each year. In fact, there probably isn’t. So, by definition, that means there are going to be some years where the speeches are from writers or broadcasters or old-timers from the veterans’ committee. And that’s OK, too.

(FYI, I would have voted for Rickey, too. Rice is a tough one – it sort of comes down to how you feel about 11 seasons being enough of a career to put a guy in the HOF. Rice played 16 seasons, but only 11 of them were truly excellent. If 11 seasons is enough, then he probably deserves to go in. I’m not so sure that, when it came time to mark the ballot, I’d be OK with 11 seasons as a decider for an outfielder; longevity, to me, is important. But it’s a close call. I certainly can’t go crazy about people voting for him.)

CARP SAYS:

I was watching MLB Network—which so far I really like most of the time—last night. One of the panelists on its round-table talk show is Barry Larkin. Another is Harold Reynolds. Last night Reynolds was touting Larkin as a slam-dunk HOF.

Worse, two of the guests were voters Tom Verducci and Jon Heyman, two of the most respected baseball writers in the country. I know both of these guys and they are solid citizens and guardians of the game, not to mention A-plus reporters. Yet after they revealed which players were on their ballots, Larkin went into his thing about how players have a problem with writers voting because players compete against each other and know what it’s like “to be in the fox hole together” and when it comes to the Hall, it’s in the hands of people who “never played the game.”

Are you kidding me? The writers’ ballot is taken dead-seriously, and it has kept the Hall (mostly) free of borderline Famers. If it ever went to the players, the number of inductees would triple or quadruple, because players like Reynolds and Larkin think than every good player should go in. And because most ballplayers, as they have shown with their portion of the all-star voting process, don’t have a clue of which players are good, which are great, and what anybody else has really done over his career.

Then Reynolds complained that neither Verducci or Heyman voted for 10 players. The ballot has 10 spaces. You can vote for 10 or you can vote for nobody, but you’re only supposed to vote for those you think belong in the Hall of Fame (not Jay Bell). So Verducci’s ballot had only three names on it, Heyman went for seven, which is a lot. I voted for four—Henderson, Rice (the most feared hitter of his era, more so than Eddie Murray, for example), Don Mattingly (ditto), and Bert Blyleven. I might have been convinced to add three more—Tim Raines, Andre Dawson and Jack Morris—but wasn’t. There was no way I was going to come up with 10.

Next year, I guarantee I won’t have 10 on my ballot. But that’s because the writers take this voting privelege seriously, because we take the Hall seriously. It’s not a place for crony-ism, where good players are rewarded for having a lot of friends in the game. And if the Hall of Fame ever gets too crowded, as Yogi would say, nobody would go there anymore.

11:22 a.m., Sam says:

This is one of those debates that I go back and forth on – in a lot of ways, I think it’s the height of stupidity that writers vote for any awards that don’t involve writing. Why should writers vote? Why not GM’s? Front-office types? Scouts? People who, you know, are actually involved with the game as opposed to people whose job it is to report on/comment on it? Making the news isn’t what journalists are supposed to do, so why should we be involved in bestowing the greatest honor in the game?

Cronyism exists everywhere, including among writers. Put it this way: If Jason Giambi, who is universally hailed as a great guy for writers, had Barry Bonds’ numbers, I think there’s a much greater chance he’d go into the HOF quickly, whereas I think Bonds will end up being “penalized” a few ballots (which, on another tangent, is the dumbest thing voters do – either a guy gets in or doesn’t; waiting a few years is just being spiteful).

You said the writers ballot is taken “dead seriously” but is it? Last I checked, Jay Bell was on a few ballots. How serious is that? Same with Jesse Orosco? And Mo Vaughn????

CARP SAYS:

So will you refuse your ballot when you become eligible?

When I say “dead seriously” I’m thinking of the vast majority, people like Verducci and Heyman, Bill Madden, Jack O’Connell. I’m sure that you and our guy Peter Abraham will be exhaustive in your decision-making when you attain your voting rights. I like to think I take it dead seriously, and most do.

Now, there’s no accounting for taste. Obviously some people somehow think Mo Vaughn, Jay Bell and Jesse Orosco are Hall of Famers. How? I have no idea. Obviously, there are 28 people who think Rickey Henderson is not. How? Can’t possibly explain it—although there are some old-timers who for some crusty old reason don’t believe in first-ballot inductions for guys not named DiMaggio, Williams or Aaron.

Unfortunately, too, some writers hold off on guys they didn’t personally like, and I think that happened to Rice to some degree. The guy was an absolute jackass to the media, so it’s funny now seeing him being so humble on Red Sox telecasts, and this week as he learned of his election.

But the system works for the most part because you need 75 percent of the 540 or so votes cast to get in, and that keeps most of the questionable, borderline players out.

I agree with you that our job is to report the news, not to make it. But Cooperstown needed impartial, intelligent (well, some of us must be, right?) people to vote.

As for changing your mind on players, I agreed with you until now. Because this year I was convinced, mostly by reading something Madden wrote about Blyleven, who had not been on my ballot before. Sometimes, I guess, you gain perspective, or you find out that you made an error in keeping somebody off your ballot previously. I now think I was wrong all those years when I didn’t vote for Blyleven. Some people obviously changed their minds on Rice this year. And on Gossage the year before. That’s part of the process. It isn’t either he is or isn’t a Hall of Famer. It’s about getting it right.

I also agree with you that we’ve let in too many of those borderline players—Paul Molitor, Kirby Puckett, Don Sutton and dare I say this without the wrath of the many who disagree with me, Carlton Fisk. Now they’re talking about Bagwell? And Craig Biggio. Well, then Don Mattingly has to go in, right? And Roger Maris, one of the most Famous players ever. I’d like to see a Hall that’s a lot smaller. That includes just the greatest of the great, the true immortals of the sport.

Not Jay Bell.

12:35 a.m., Sam says:

Will I turn down my ballot? No, I wouldn’t, if this current system is still in place. If media are allowed to vote, I’ll vote – but I also wouldn’t be upset if the rules were changed because I think that an alternative system very likely could be better.

And what about the notion that people within in the game should vote? Why not have a similar system of longevity in place for experienced executives or scouts or personnel people getting to vote? Wouldn’t they have just as insightful an opinion as writers?

It’s possible (and likely) that there would still be voters doing stupid things – like never voting for anyone on the first ballot, which is just asinine. But I wonder if the perception would change more favorably since it wouldn’t be “dumb writers” – as some players would say – doing it anymore.

CARP SAYS:

I wouldn’t have a major problem if they gave the vote to another group, as long as that group isn’t just players or former players. I doubt very much they’d do as much research and put as much work into it as the writers do.

I also have a big problem with writers giving writers awards associated with the various Halls of Fame. I know writers who are “in” the baseball and hockey Halls of Fame, and we just DO NOT BELONG THERE. We have no right to put ourselves in there. None whatsoever. Broadcasters might be a different story, but it seems by and large they just go in for longevity and popularity more than for any real skill or talent. Fine. But writers? DO NOT BELONG IN THERE.

1:42 p.m., Sam says:

No way, Carpie – You’re a HOFer in my book!

CARP SAYS:

 Tell you what: You get me elected and I’ll wear an “SB” hat on my plaque. Seriously, though, Cooperstown is for guys like Bob Wolff and Vin Scully, not for schlubs like us.

It’s an abuse of our power to get writers in there. Although I’d vote you in over Jay Bell.