I’m not. Honestly. I wasn’t shocked at all.

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.

More like Nightmare Week. Or Horror Week.

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.

So now comes word that Barry Bonds failed a couple of steroid tests, not to mention a compelling (if somewhat gross) transcript of a conversation between his good buddy and his personal trainer, in which injections into Bonds’ rear end are discussed.

Here’s my question: Does this put the Bonds as a Hall of Famer talk to bed once and for all?

For me, it absolutely does. I was against voting for Bonds even before this, but now I’m locked. I don’t care that he might have been a HOFer “before” the cheating and I don’t care that he’s the greatest HR hitter in history. He cheated. And you don’t get into the HOF by cheating. At least not with my vote.

CARP SAYS:

I didn’t need this evidence to make my decision, but I’m sure it will affect other voters. I was feeling that I wouldn’t vote for Bonds anyway—and again, I have been on record in the past saying that the decision on BB would be tougher than the one on McGwire for the very point you brought up: That Bonds was headed to the Hall anyway, before he cheated, back when he was a skinny, power-hitting, gold-glover who stole bases. He was the whole toolbox.

But I didn’t need more evidence that he used drugs. The whole “flaxseed oil” excuse was almost enough. The whole story about the mistress saying he used was almost enough. All those leaked stories by investigators about the gross usage of steroid-like substances and testosterone that are used for animals were almost enough. There were piles of evidence in the book about Bonds’ usages. And then there was, for me, the clincher: That Greg Anderson, his trainer, went to jail twice for refusing to testify against Bonds.

If a man is innocent, you don’t risk jail time to avoid testifying. If he didn’t use, you go on the stand and say he didn’t use … The only reason to not testify or cooperate against an innocent man, I guess, is that you like jail. That is all the evidence I needed.

But I am sure than some voters, especially some younger voters, will say “hey, everybody was doing it” and then add that to the “he already was a Hall of Famer before he cheated” argument and will vote for him. It won’t be a shutout. But I don’t see Bonds going to Cooperstown.

And what do you think, Sam, will happen with Clemens if nothing is ever “proven” about his usage? He was a no-doubter Famer when he was skinny, too.

12:56 p.m., Sam says:

I’ve seen enough to already close the book on Clemens. For me, the HOF is as much about gut as it is anything else and my gut tells me Clemens is as guilty as Bonds. The same theory applies here.

I’ll say, though, that I think the whole “he was a HOFer before he cheated” argument is one of the dumbest there is in sports. In no other walk of life would something like this even make sense: If you’re a honor roll student for three years of college and then you flunk a few classes and get caught plagiarizing your senior year, you don’t graduate magna cum laude because you’d been that good a student for most of your time at school, right? If you’re the best employee at McDonald’s for 29 of 31 days in a month, but then skim the cash register and spit in a customer’s face on the other two days, you don’t still win Employee of the Month, right?

It just makes no sense. If you believe that Bonds or McGwire or anyone cheated on purpose, than you can’t put them in the HOF. You just can’t. People are judged on the totality of their being and baseball players are judged on the totality of their careers. You don’t just get to pick the good parts.

 

CARP SAYS:

I agree that it’s dumb, and I love your McDonald’s analogy (made me hungry, actually … hmmm … large fries …). Where was I? Oh yeah. The argument you’ll get about that, though not from me, is that there are all these bad guys in the Hall of Fame already. Like Cobb, the misbehavors like Ruth and Mantle, and even Boggs, and racists who kept blacks out of the game, and no doubt people who did plenty of awful things we may not know about, or may not have proven.

The point is, people—again, not me—will argue that you get to the Hall based on what you did on the field. And I will say, in all honesty, that I don’t care that Pete Rose bet on baseball, bet on his team, or whatever he did. He should be in the Hall, especially since he was—as far as anybody knows—clean as a whistle as a player. Well, maybe a jackass. But the Hall is filled with those, too.

I think what separates the cheaters is that the drugs actually gave people a chance to get into the Hall. Maybe Bonds and Clemens were exceptions, who had won enough MVPs or Cy Youngs to get there without the injections. But would McGwire or Palmeiro or god knows how many guys either on the completely incomplete Mitchell Report or not, have even been considered before the juice?

I can say with some certainty that the number of players who used the stuff is far greater than the number already outed.

Now where’s that darn drive-thru window?

Apologies to all for yesterday’s one-day hiatus. I spent most of the day covering Joe Torre’s New York book tour and Carp was embroiled in Adam Graves Night at the Garden. Carp did a great job, by the way, so if you haven’t read his piece in today’s paper yet, do it now.

Anyway, we’re back today with a question based off what the Rangers did for Graves (and, I suppose, what the Yankees might not end up doing for Torre):

Who will be the next New York athlete to have his number retired?

I’ve been thinking about this for awhile now and was having trouble coming up with an obvious choice. The one that initially jumped into my mind was Mariano Rivera – obviously his career isn’t over yet, but he’s certainly nearing the end of it (and with him, you know he’s too classy to hang on too long). Once he does retire, it won’t be long before the Yankees retire 42 (again).

The other name I thought of was Michael Strahan.

What’s your first impression?

CARP SAYS:

Thanks, Sam.

You know a name I heard last night in terms of retiring a number in the near future? Mike Piazza. I’m not sure he was here long enough, or won enough, but the guy’s going to the Hall in a few years, and the Mets absolutely love him—they let him close Shea’s doors, literally, with Tom Seaver, over all the other candidates like Gary Carter or Herandez or Doc or Strawberry. Maybe he’s next.

Of course, there are already two more scheduled—Harry Howell and Andy Bathgate later this month—so I’m assuming you mean after them. And Gretzky’s 99 is retired throughout the NHL, but I think the Rangers will eventually, if not next season, have a retirement ceremony.

I agree that Rivera’s is a no-brainer, especially since baseball retired No. 42 for Jackie Robinson and nobody can ever wear it again.

Strahan’s a good one. I know Jets fans would like to retire No. 4. Not the jersey, the guy wearing it.

I made this point during the week about Graves. I’d like to see teams stop retiring numbers, except for extreme cases, a Lou Gehrig or Thurman Munson situation, for example. Go to something like the Ring of Honor where more players can be honored, but fewer numbers actually retired.

I look at Monument Park and wonder if Billy Martin, Ron Guidry, heck even Don Mattingly, should have retired numbers. But they should be honored. Catfish Hunter, too. Maybe Winfield. Soon Bernie Williams. Not retired. Just honored with their number and a plaque in Monument Park. Obviously they can’t keep on retiring numbers because soon they will have everybody wearing numbers in the 70s.

Oh, almost forgot: What about Steph’s No. 3 with the Knicks. The way they trumpeted his arrival at the Garden and on MSG Network, you’d think it was a foregone conclusion that he’d be an all-timer. He was put right into the conversation of the best point guards in Knicks history, right beside Clyde. Good grief.

11:56 a.m., Sam says:

I like the Steph idea. While we’re at it, why not get Latrell Sprewell in there too?

Piazza is an interesting case. It seems strange to think about retiring the number of a guy who may or may not actually wear your team’s hat into the Hall of Fame. I would imagine he’ll wear a Mets hat, but who knows? Dodgers are a possibility too.

Ultimately, I think they should retire Piazza’s. He is one of the greatest-hitting catchers of all time and he made an impact in New York that will never be forgotten. Certainly I’ll never forget that game after 9/11 when he hit a home run that seemed to fly forever.

When it comes to numbers, too, you always hear about some of those “special” Yankees – like, say, Tino or O’Neill. I say neither one should get his number retired but I’d imagine there are those fans who think they should.

As for No. 6? Book or no book, Torre should have his day. You agree?

CARP SAYS:

Torre will have his day, although now it will probably be delayed a while … but if we’re talking about the right thing to do, he should have it while George Steinbrenner is still around. And to tell you the truth, out of all the stories coming out from that book, not a single one of them made me cringe and go “Ohh, he shouldn’t have said that; that’s just wrong.” Those “bad” excerpts the publisher pushed weren’t so bad at all. And the media totally overreacted, predictably. I love him getting killed over at WFAN for breaking the “sanctity of the clubhouse” code for two reasons: 1) this is the place where everything is fair game all the time, and where managers have to be fired after every loss; and 2) they are running contests where they are giving away the book!

But enough about that. If they had the ring of honor thing, O’Neill and Martinez could have their days, too. But now way 21 and 24 should be retired. No way. The Rangers could honor Beukeboom and Matteau for their contributions, and so many of their older guys who deserve it: Greschner, Ratelle. But I don’t think those numbers should be retired (I could be talked into Ratelle’s 19 going up).

Did the Giants retire No. 58 the last five weeks of the season?

So … that was pretty good, right?

Although the first 29 minutes of the game weren’t all that enthralling, starting with the 100-yard interception runback at the gun of the first half, the Super Bowl was one of the more compelling football games I’ve watched. And that fourth quarter? You wouldn’t have thought anything could top last year’s fourth quarter and, while I’m not sure this one did, it absolutely came pretty darn close.

So here’s how I thought we’d do the postmortem today: I’ll post three questions about the game and then answer them. Then Carp will come back with his answers to my three questions, plus post three more questions of his own. If any of you guys have suggestions for questions, please drop ‘em in along with your comments.

Here we go:

1. Who should have won the MVP? For me, Big Ben was the MVP. Maybe I’m too attached to the stars in sports, but Santonio Holmes doesn’t catch either one of those big passes without Roethlesberger throwing them, plus he kept alive about four different (and crucial) plays by getting away from the rush. His numbers weren’t near Warner’s, but he got the job done when it mattered most.

2. What will your lasting image of that game be? Holmes, sitting on the ground with his legs out, looking up at the official for a touchdown signal and then covering the ball in relief once he saw it. GREAT camera work. I loved it.

3. What was the best food you ate during the game? My wife came through with a fantastic turkey chili – peppers, beans, a little cheese on top. Awesome – not too spicy but with just enough kick to let you know you were eating chili. Well done by her.

CARP SAYS:

To answer your questions first:

1. I think they got the MVP exactly right, and I’m sure they would have gotten it completely wrong if Arizona had won. If the Cards held on, in my book, Darnell Dockett was the MVP. He was so crucial on both of the near-goal-line stands for the Cardinals, and made another key stop on a third-down QB draw. But it would have been Warner, who was great, but who also allowed that 14-point swing on the last play of the first half. It’s always the quarterback.

That’s why I was glad that they got it right with Santonio Holmes. You would think in all these years, with all these supposed great football minds making the decision, that you wouldn’t just always get the QB as MVP, that sometimes the game might be analyzed, you know, correctly. Take last year. Yes, Eli was great, especially on that game-winning drive (when he nearly through an interception that Assante Samuel dropped). No doubt. But the game was won by the Giants D-line putting Mr. Brady on his wallet all day and stifling the greatest offense in NFL history. I thought it should have been Justin Tuck. And if he was the winning quarterback, it would have been.

2. My lasting image will be Harrison, completely gassed, just getting into the end zone as Larry Fitzgerald hauled him down by the facemask, the top of Harrison’s helmet driving into the ground inside the pilon. I mean, a 100-yard interception return and a 14-point swing in the game? That’s my SB43 moment.

3. My wife, bless her heart, made a pot of meatballs and penne in veal sauce. I had to work during the day, so no parties for me, but I couldn’t have eaten better (or more) food no matter where I was.

My questions are these:

A. Which was your favorite commercial? Mine was for the dog-adoption place, the one with all the different animals – -the Rhino going out for a walk, the Boar riding in the back of the SUV with grandma.

B. What is it ever going to take for these NFL players to put their selfishness aside and show a little discipline in such a big game? I mean, how many personal fouls were there? Each and any one of them could have cost a team the championship. But it’s far more important to act like a me-first thug than to win a championship, right? I also hate it when the NFL does the trophy presentation up on that big podium, separating the elite few from the team. I covered hockey for a long time, and I can tell you those are the differences between hockey and football. Hockey players get more and more disciplined as they get closer to the title, careful not to take even minor penalties; and NHL teams share and celebrate the Stanley Cup TOGETHER immediately, making it about team, and making the guys who were scratched feel as much a part of it as the superstar and the goalie.

I also am completely sick of the confetti.

C. Start to finish, do you think SB43 was better than Giants-Patriots. Just the game, not the ramifications of underdog beating 18-0. From kickoff to final gun, which game was better?

10:56 a.m., Sam says:

Well done, Carp. Let’s keep it going:

A. In general, I thought the commercial crop was kinda weak. But I did love the dude throwing the “crystal ball” through the glass of the vending machine to get free Doritos. Hysterical. I also enjoyed the Budweiser Clydesdale chasing the lovely dancing horse all over over the country. Good times.

B. Confetti doesn’t bother me, so long as I don’t have to clean it up. Agree on the podium thing. In soccer, there’s a long stage that allows everyone to be on it, then the captain takes the trophy. I like that. And as for the penalties, I’ll say this: both my brother and dad called at various points in the second half to say some variation of, “I’m thinking about turning this game off because it seems like there’s a flag every play and it’s ruining everything.” I never got THAT upset about the flags, but the penalties were really, really irritating.

C. I still think last year’s game was better. It’s very close – closer than I thought it would be certainly – but last year’s game had more tension for me because once the Pats didn’t blow it out early on, there was a rising feeling that maybe, just maybe, a huge upset could happen. The Cards’ comeback was awesome, but it wasn’t better than that.

Now, my three:

1. Where do the Steelers rank in terms of all-time great franchises? Right near the Yankees? Better? Better than the Canadiens?
2. If the game had gone to OT, there would have been a huge stink about the NFL’s OT rules. Would you change the current setup or keep it?
3. What’d you think of NBC’s broadcast/production?

CARP SAYS:

1. I think it’s way too premature to compare the Steelers to the Yankees or Canadiens or even the Boston Celtics. Six isn’t enough, not when there are others so close—the Cowboys, the 49ers. Plus let’s not forget that the NFL existed for a long, long time before the Super Bowl ever came around, and there were loads of champions before then.

2. Yup, the OT format will be a disaster if and when the SB ever requires sudden death, and it’s only a matter of time. I often hear one of the radio blowhards telling callers (who are complaining about the first-possession winner) that the stats say it’s less than 50 percent of the time that the team that wins the coin toss wins the game on the first possession. Well, if it’s near 50 percent, that means that nearly half the time the other team doesn’t get the ball! That’s an enormous number. I think it needs to be revisited for postseason games.

3. Fred Gaudelli of Harrison does a fabulous job of producing games for NBC. I thought the cameras stayed on the field most of the game, limited crowd shots, limited shots of Fitzgerald’s dad and Warner’s wife, and of celebrities. Not bad. You know you’re going to get network promos in the stands and everywhere, but mostly the game was the thing yesterday. That new sideline reporter, though? Who the heck was that, and how did she end up with the Super Bowl?

Here are a few others:

A. Do you think Harrison should have been ejected for punching one of the St. Louis players when he was down (or even if he wasn’t down)?

B. Do you think the Giants, with Harris Smith, er, Plaxico “Yosemite” Burress in the lineup, would have beaten either of those teams easily? I do.

C. How would you rate Bruce? I am not one of those crazy/nuts Bruce fans, but I think he rocks, and I thought he and E-Street did a really good, enthusiastic job. I like the little football references and jokes they put into the act, and I think they were actually performing, not lip-synching.

12:16 p.m., Sam says:

A. I ABSOLUTELY thought Harrison should have been thrown out. That was a dirty play and I was shocked the refs didn’t see it (since they saw just about everything else). Give credit to John Madden, too, for not wimping out – he came right out and said Harrison should have been tossed. Not all announcers would have been so harsh.

B. Giants, with Burress, would have won. I actually think the Eagles might have won, too. While the Steelers played great, the Cardinals were SO undisciplined with penalties that I think a more disciplined team wouldn’t have fallen into such a deep hole.

C. Full disclosure: I don’t get the attraction to Bruce. I like him, I guess, but he’s hardly one of my favorites. I thought he did fine. I would have liked to have heard “Born in the USA” but that’s just me. Put it this way: I was a LOT more fired up to see U2 a few years ago, or even Prince.

Now my next three:

1. We talked about the Giants – how about the Jets? What if they hadn’t collapsed and made it to the show? Do they beat the Cards?

2. What do you think about the 6:30 start time? Earlier? Later? Perfect as is?

3. What surprised you more: The Cardinals defense or the Steelers offense?

CARP SAYS:

1. I have no reason whatsoever, regardless of the Jets-Cardinals regular-season shootout, to think the Jets would have beaten anybody in the playoffs. There’s no way they would have gotten to the Super Bowl, and no way in hell they would have won it. Not a chance.

2. No problem with the start time. Much better than the 8:40 World Series games and 8:10 Stanley Cup games, and I don’t even remember what times the NBA finals games were, only that they all seemed to be six days apart. It’s a four-hour game, but 10:30 isn’t too late for a finish. I don’t recall what time the game ended last night, but it didn’t seem too late. I know I did some work post-game and still caught the 11 p.m. Seinfeld, so it was win-lose-win for me.

3. The Cards’ defense, the two times it held Pittsburgh to field goals, stunned me.

I’m not a Bruce-lover either. Given a chance to see him or U2 I’d have to toss a coin. Twenty years ago I might have wanted to see Prince. Not now. I thought Tom Petty—not a big fan of his either—was pretty good last year, too.

Now for a few more before I head to NYC for the Adam Graves press conference:

A. Does the event actually live up to the hype? I think the last several years, more cases than not, it sure did. I was at the game in Houston where the Patriots beat Carolina on a last-second field goal, and at Glendale last year for Giants-Pats. This was a great game—not perfectly or cleanly played, but very entertaining. I used to blame the two-week layoff for the lousy games, but not the last two.

B. What about this: These Steelers vs. last year’s Giants? Man, would it be fun watching that Blue D-line chase down Roethlisberger all evening.

C. These Steelers vs. Terry Bradshaw’s Steelers? I’ll go Bradshaw’s 35, Roethlisberger’s 7.

Gotta go now.

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.