Thursday, December 22, 2005

The Poppa of Them All

Recently, Sports Illustrated ran an article ranking the top ten rivalries in the NFL. For some reason, they decided to name the Bears-Packers, the original Midwest pro sports rivalry, second to the Redskins and Cowboys (no, I’m not giving you a link. This would only encourage the trend of spouting off idiotic opinions to generate publicity and get more traffic on a website, higher ratings for a program, etc. In an unrelated story, stay tuned for Sexley’s article next week where he illustrates how Quentin Tarantino is the most important American of the last thirty years.) I suppose I shouldn’t have been surprised, considering how both the Bears and Packers play thousands of miles from the ocean, and they did a nice job with the rest of the list, but it did make me wonder how somebody could be so stupid and poorly informed. In an attempt to better understand this, I’m going to compare the two rivalries and determine, once and for all, which is the greatest rivalry in the NFL.

HISTORY/TRADITION/LONGEVITY:

No contest here. Although the Redskins and Cowboys have been going at it for forty years, which is an impressive run, the Bears and Packers rivalry started back in 1921, when the George Halas had upside, Bears were called the Staleys, and it actually kind of made sense to have an NFL team in Green Bay. By the way, this rivalry actually predates the NFL by a year, the first game was played in something called the APFA. It also includes the only two remaining original NFL teams, which by itself would create a rivalry of some kind. (Also, a true NFL historian could probably make the case that the Bears have a longer standing rivalry with the Redskins than the Cowboys do).

Edge: BEARS

PROXIMITY:

While Washington and Dallas are separated by half of a continent, Chicagoans have the unfortunate pleasure of being right next to Wisconsin. Also, there are numerous Packers fans in the Chicago area. The main reason for this is that many people from Wisconsin move south after deciding that they don’t want to work at a dairy farm, brewery, toilet paper factory (Green Bay’s #1 industry, I could probably have made that up but I didn’t), or gas station. I also suspect that some of these people were once weak-minded Bears fans who bandwagon jumped during Brett Favre’s peak. Well, all of you are most definitely NOT welcome back. Also, be advised that the Patriots, Colts, Bengals, Steelers, Eagles, Giants, Redskins, Chiefs, Chargers, and Seahawks don’t really want your kind either. Oh, and there are a fair number of Bears fans in Wisconsin also.

Edge: BEARS

LEVEL OF HATRED:

This is the first truly tough call here. When hired as head coach of the Bears, Lovie Smith stated that his main goal was to beat the Packers, and while I appreciate him turning the team around as well, I think most fans would agree. Chicago radio personality Harry Tinowitz, who would hardly be considered a shock jock, asked one caller earlier this week if he was looking forward to getting a dildo for Christmas upon learning that the caller was a Packers fan. When his co-hosts called him on this, he responded with something along the lines of, “that’s what every Packers fan wants to get.” The scary thing is I think a lot of people in Chicago were nodding in agreement. On the other hand, my manager at work is a Cowboys fan and he looked positively sick after each loss to the ‘Skins this year, and even a cursory search of the web reveals much anti-Cowboys propaganda being produced by Redskins fans.

Edge: EVEN

BALANCE:

As much as I would like to claim that the Bears are superior to the Packers in every way, I have to admit that this is a perfect example of a balanced rivalry over the years. The Packers can point to having more championships and their recent run of dominance with Favre, while the Bears can point to the fact that they are still leading the all-time series (which, by the way, every Bears and Packers fan cares about), they have had more Hall of Famers, and the majority of their fans are employed. On the other hand, the Cowboys have a substantial edge in the head-to-head series with Washington, however, they have lost both playoff games against the Redskins, and the teams each have five championships, although Washington had two before the Cowboys existed, which just tips this one in the Cowboys favor.

Edge: BEARS

SIGNIFICANCE:

Both teams are in the same division and frequently run across situations where there is only room for one of the two to make the playoffs. It doesn’t really get much more important than a divisional game in the NFL.

Edge: EVEN

EXCELLENCE:

If you define excellence as “being consistently overhyped, year after year, for no apparent reason,” then the Redskins and Cowboys would be impossible to beat, assuming that the Lions and Saints don’t have a burgeoning rivalry budding. If you define excellence in a rivalry as “winning over 30% of the league’s championships between two teams,” then you have to go with the Bears and Packers. By the way, don’t sell me that load of horse crap about how nothing counts before the Super Bowl era. There were probably more substantial rule changes in the NFL last year than there were in the year of the merger, so the game was essentially the same before that, although there have obviously been improvements in strategy, equipment, and training if not the quality of play. I know what you’re thinking: “Ek, what about all that talent that was in the AFL all those years?” Did you know that the AFL was around for THREE years before the first Super Bowl (which, FYI, was actually not the year of the merger, they went for four more years before “interleague play” was added to the season)? Also, the NFL has had more competing leagues over the last ten years then at any other point in its history, and while probably none of them are quite what the AFL was, many of them have produced multiple players who were able to compete at the NFL level. I also don’t buy the argument that the league being smaller at that point lessens the value of a title. Although it makes sense mathematically, there’s so much evidence that expansion hurts the quality of play that I don’t put too much stock in that idea.

Edge: BEARS

MEMORABLE GAMES:

Considering how many times the Bears and Packers have played, there have been surprisingly few games that would really stand out to a non-Bears, non-Packers NFL fan. The main problem is that they’ve rarely been good or bad at the same time for the last twenty years. The Redskins and ‘Boys have had a few more, so I have no problem giving them this one.

Edge: REDSKINS/COWBOYS

EVIL OWNERS/FRONT OFFICE TYPES:

In any good rivalry it’s absolutely essential to be able to hate the owner of the other team. This is one of the weaknesses of the Bears/Packers rivalry – the Packers are owned by the fans, which I actually kind of think is cool. While I dislike the Packers fans, it’s completely different from the way I would dislike some rich guy who gave horrible contracts to two big-name players each offseason and threatened to move the Packers to Canada every five years (ok, actually that sounds kind of enjoyable). George Halas would have been tough for opposing fans to dislike because of everything he did for professional football, although he was in some ways the George Steinbrenner of his day also. Mike McCaskey is mostly known for being cheap, but he’s not so cheap that it consistently kills the team and you can justify hating him for it. Meanwhile, the Cowboys have an established Evil Sports Owner, and Daniel Snyder would be there if the Redskins could just be consistently good or bad rather than being so mediocre every year.

Edge: REDSKINS/COWBOYS


BELOVED/HATED COACHES:

Yes, I know that Joe Gibbs and Bill Parcells are the two greatest coaches of all-time. Just kidding. Actually it’s George Halas and Vince Lombardi.

EDGE: BEARS


BELOVED/HATED PLAYERS:

For the current NFL fan, the first player that comes to mind in the Bears/Packers rivalry is John Madden’s favorite, perhaps followed by Brian Urlacher and Mike Brown. All three have had memorable performances in those rivalry games. The Redskins and Cowboys don’t really have a slew of truly memorable players at the moment, although Santana Moss may be carving himself a place here. If you go back a ways, the Cowboys had a lot of great personalities in the 90s, but the Bears had crazier ones in the 80s, and then you have to get into the sheer volume of all-time greats that have played in the original NFL rivalry.

EDGE: BEARS (you didn’t really expect me to type “PACKERS” in any of these, do you?)

Final Score: BEARS 6, REDSKINS/COWBOYS 2

I am awesome and SI blows.

Monday, December 19, 2005

The "Latest Gen" console battle

First of all, let me get this out. In my mind, “Next Gen” consoles will always be the Sony PlayStation, Sega Saturn, and Nintendo 64. With that being said, life has progressed since that time, and we are now not one, but two generations removed from the “Next Gen” gaming consoles. And so, now we have the “Latest Gen” games systems…

As time has passed, the world of video gaming has come to encompass men and women, people of all walks of life, and most importantly, people of every age group. The demographics of video game players stretch from children barely old enough to walk who can fluidly control a speeding spaceship through a narrow cavern, to middle aged parents who send their kids to bed early so they can (finally!) have the system to themselves. And so, with the recent launch of Xbox 360, and upcoming arrivals of PlayStation3 and Nintendo’s system currently codenamed “Revolution”, I thought it was time for a Village Tavern review of the three systems.

Xbox360:
It’s here, its expensive, it’s remarkable to look at in HD and it’s largely unavailable. It seems that Microsoft actually enjoys having system shortages at launch date. They seem to think it somehow increase interest. They very well maybe right. The launch of the original Xbox (I say this in comparison to the newly arrived Xbox 360, not that anything about the makeup of the system or it’s games could really be termed “original”) was highly successful for Microsoft, a console newcomer at the time. The 360 figures to be an equally successful system with many excellent array of third party and in house games already in productions. But let’s take a more in depth look.

Appearance: The Xbox 360 is about what you’d expect from Microsoft; a slightly slimmer, slightly flashier version of the Xbox, that can stand on it’s end if you so desire. It’s still quite large, and of course, features a green “X” somewhere on the console. Overall, pretty boring stuff. But, if it ain’t broke, I suppose you don’t have to fix it (heck, we all know that Microsoft has a history of not even fixing things that ARE broken…).
C+
Power: I’m not a real Techie, so I won’t go into too much depth on this. Needless to say, the Xbox360 is a powerful, finely tuned mo-chine. It will undoubtedly provide an impressive gaming experience from every technical standpoint. It boasts full HDTV integration, wi-fi controllers and has an optional Hard Drive. Having an already established Xbox Live server will be a big plus for Microsoft, although the first version always left me thoroughly nonplussed. It was cool, it was fun, but every time you played you came up with at least one more thing they could have done a much better job with.
B+
Innovation: There’s really nothing innovative about the Xbox 360. For the first Xbox they took the basic concept that Atari, Sega, Nintendo, and (to a much lesser extent Sony) spent years developing and put it on steroids, threw a bunch of money at it, and tried to beat out the other companies. They were pretty successful (in the USA at least), and were of course greatly benefited from the wildly popular “Halo” series which had originally been developed as an exclusive Mac game before Microsoft bought out Bungie and sat on the full developed game for over a year and a half.
C-
Price: Going for about $799-1500 online right now. Comes in various packages including Hard drive and Xbox Live membership variances.
D
Games: There’s no denying Xbox 360 will have some fantastic games. Perfect Dark Zero is supposedly a fantastic first person shooter, and Halo 3 promises to be impressive (although, so did Halo 2…). With all the major game production companies signed on, and a supposedly easy to program working environment, good games will come, and they’ll come by the dozen! Rumor has it XBox 360 also has a shot at landing many or all of the Final Fantasy games in the future, a major blow for Sony (and coincidently a major boost for Microsoft), which has dominated RPG production for several years now.
A
Slant: Can you tell I don’t like Microsoft very much? On a whole, I think the XBox 360 will be good system that will provide many very good games. My fear is that it will merely add more graphics and flash to games, when in reality it is good game-play that is more lacking on many of the XBox games I have played.
B
Overall Value:
B-


PlayStation 3:
The PS3 has not yet been released, but is Sony’s attempt to install yet another successful volume in its catalog of console systems. Sony’s first system, the 32-bit PlayStation was wildly successful. It helped kick Sega and their clunky Saturn system to the curb, while leaving the Dreamcast as a vague memory. In the meantime PlayStation became easily the most popular “Next Gen” System, and Sega collapsed and Nintendo’s popularity waned. With the PlayStation2, Sony further enhanced their grip on the console industry by capitalizing on it’s abilities to function as a “cheap alternative DVD player” and providing PS2 users with an unprecedented array of game titles. While the XBox managed to compete in the U.S., it was not nearly as popular overseas (i.e. in Japan), where the Sony and Nintendo make up the majority of the gaming market. Sony hopes to build on past success with a very powerful system tentatively due out by the Spring of 2006.

Appearance: The PS3 features a sleek silver casing and can also stand either on it’s base or horizontally. Some how though, it looks very nondescript and planed. The controller figures to function basically the same as previous PlayStation controllers, but is shaped more like a boomerang… This seems to be more of an appearance-based decision, and leaves this reviewer wondering how comfortable it will be to play.
B
Power: PS3 figures to be the most powerful of the “Latest Gen” systems. Though reports have varied it should be between 1.5 and 2 times as powerful the XBox 360. It also is set to support “Blu-ray” (basically HD-DVD) playback. This does not figure to play as prominent a role in the system’s success as the PS2’s DVD playback did. The reason being, there are currently ZERO High Definition DVD’s on the marker to play, and there appears to be an ugly format war on the horizon, which Sony might or might now end up winning. In other words, Blu-Ray could just as easily go the way of the Mini-disc as it could end up being as widespread as the Compact Disc (what the layman calls a “CD”).
A
Innovation: Same story as the XBox360 on this one; sony hasn’t truly innovated since they entered the console wars. Will that prevent them from being successful? Probably not at all. Will it cost them in this review? YOU BETCHA! One area that seems promising though, and will earn Sony a better mark that Microsoft: multiple TV outputs. The system is set to send signal to two TV’s at once, allowing multiple players to have their on full-screen action: very good idea!
B-
Price: No official work on pricing yet, but it figures to be cheaper on launch date than the 360 (at least comparable to the then-current price of the XBox 360). It will definitely be more expensive that Nintendo’s “Revolution” system, but only time will tell on specifics.
C+
Games: Here is where it gets interesting. PS3 will have several important carry-over games that could prove highly successful, or at the very least give in a lot of game recognition. Tekken, Metal Gear, and Gran Turismo (to name a few) are all going to draw fans; new and old to the PS3. Sony also figures to have better support from Japanese developing companies. However, I’ve also heard rumblings that delays in programming software have delayed production, and early indications are that PS3 has been hard to program for. Sounds like not that big of a deal? Well, by contrast the XBox 360 has drawn great reviews for easy programmability. Also, keep in mind, the N64 was a graphically superior system whose success was highly limited because developers disliked programming for it, especially due to space constraints imposed by it’s cartridge based game medium. So only time will tell…
B+
Slant: To be completely honest, I never liked either of the two previous Sony systems. I found them to always be fun to look at and awkward to play. I’ve always felt that graphics draw you to a game, but game play (and of course content) keep you coming back. I also never found a great multiplayer games on PS, or PS2. This is a personal preference thing; to me, there are few things better (the Zelda series being the one notable exception) than getting the group together and fighting or racing it out against each other. A little co-op is even fun from time to time. These factors combined, if they do carryover to Sony’s latest system, will be great deterrents to me every buying, or even spending large amounts of time playing the system.
C
Overall Value:
B-

Nintendo Revolution:
Cheesy as it may sound, I think the codename (no official name has been released as of print time) that Nintendo has put on their upcoming system is telling. They truly think they are going to revolutionize gaming as we now view it. And I, for one, think they are on to something. Over the history of console game, the controller has largely been what makes console gaming so appealing (especially when compared to computer gaming). The controller allows for easy to learn and comfortable game-play. Nintendo invented the cross pad, then they introduced the Analog stick (which everyone shrugged off as insignificant at the time), and now they’ve introduced the Revolution controller. It looks like a TV controller, and functions as a gyroscope-like directional manipulator. Its goal is to allow movement in 3-Dimentsional space on a level not yet experienced, while also providing fun and intuitive game play. Imagine that really awkward kid you sometimes played with as a kid (or your sister for that matter) when playing a driving game; you know what I’m talking about, controller moving up and down, side to side, as they’re unable to push the control stick on one direction without moving their entire bodies. Yeah, that just about describes it. It will also allow plug-ins such as an analog control stick and other features yet to be revealed to hopefully further diversify game-play.

Appearance: The Revolution is set to appear in multiple colors and be bi-directional in its orientation (i.e. can sit on either end). It also features to be by far the smallest of the systems, and its primary color is what has often been termed “Apple white”. In fact, it looks very much like an Apple product, which is a very good thing when appearances (not to mention functionality and reliability) are concerned.
A-
Power: Nintendo has completely gone away from making a performance a priority. They are not going to support HD, in an effort to keep the optimal experience of a Revolution available to a larger audience, and to keep game production costs down (normal game production must be done twice over HD programming). I think this is a mistake, not in principle, but in how it will be received by the buying public. Buyers are attracted to flashy products, and HD is very, very flashy.
C+
Innovation: The idea of completely changing the medium by which games are played exudes innovative aroma. I don’t think that even Nintendo’s most ardent critics can fault Nintendo for ever being complacent. The problem is, if their new controller pans out as well as it possibly could, Microsoft and Sony will have just copied it by next year anyways…
A+
Price: Target pricing is around $200 dollars. The Revolution figures to be, no matter what the exact price ends up being, significantly cheaper than the other systems. Price and availability for everyone is the object here.
A
Games: The classic Nintendo game installments promise to be there; Mario, Zelda, Smash Brothers, Mario Kart, Metroid, Duck Hunt, etc (Okay, I can’t confirm the Dunk Hunt one, but that would be kind of sweet!). Initial reports from Third-party companies are also promising. Here’s how envision this panning out. Many GREAT games, but a much smaller game library than the other two systems. Most games available on all three, won’t be as good on the Revolution simply due to its lack of pure power. But Revolution exclusive games could be exceptional (my fingers are crossed). To be honest, first-person shooters may never be the same, and games with sword fighting could finally be a functional game-play mode!
A
Slant: I’m a diehard Nintendo fan, if you haven’t noticed. I think this system has great potential to be fun to play for everyone who gives it a realistic shot. Sadly, I don’t think the main-stream market wants to change as badly as Nintendo needs change to be the catalyst of success it’s hoping for. But I’m excited nonetheless.
A
Overall Value:
A-

Sunday, December 04, 2005

Heating up the Hot Stove

Every year at the end of the NBA season, ESPN’s Sports Guy writes a column breaking down the trade value of the top forty players. It’s one of my favorite sports-related articles of the year. Unfortunately, nobody is doing anything similar for the other sports. So I’m going to rip it off. Here are the rules (some are Simmons’ and some are mine).

1) Suppose Team A proposes a straight-up trade with Team B of player A for player B. If Team A would make the trade, but Team B wouldn’t, player B is ranked higher, and vice versa.
2) Degrees matter. For example, if you considered a trade of Derek Jeter for Derrek Lee (yes, that is the correct spelling), it’s unlikely either team would do it, but the Yankees would think “hmmm, Derrek Lee is available,” while the Cubs would say, “Oh sure, we’ll through in Mark Prior and pay for a new stadium, too!” and then hang up and laugh. Actually this is the Cubs, so you never know…lets move on.
3) Salaries matter. Would you rather have Alex Rodriguez for $25.7 million or Hank Blaylock for $800,000?
4) Age matters. Would you rather have Curt Schilling for the next two years or Mark Buehrle for the next ten?
5) For the sake of this column only, we’re assuming the following things, none of which are actually true:
a. Every team is trying to be at least somewhat competitive. So we’re not penalizing guys who have big contracts on bad teams that would likely be looking to dump them (unless they’re actually bad contracts).
b. On the other hand, every team is trying to be at least reasonably responsible with their money. So the numerous players with bad contracts for big market teams don’t get a free pass just because the teams they’re on can afford a few contracts like that.
c. No players have no-trade clauses, and nobody is threatening to do anything ridiculous to either force or prevent a trade. If you want to be a GM, apply for the job. Otherwise, just play.
d. No trades where the team giving up a player picks up part of his contract. I’ve always thought that was bogus anyway. Could you imagine this happening in anything other than professional baseball? If you want someone on your team, pay him.
6) I didn’t consider minor leaguers for this column, even though there are probably a few who would crack the list. In order to be in my top fifty, you have to have at least done something at the major league level.

GROUP F: AVAILABLE FOR THE RIGHT PRICE:

These are all good players, and many of them are key components of good teams, but all of them have one or two issues (age, salary, injury concerns, pending court cases, etc) that would prevent somebody from giving up the farm for them.

50. Bartolo Colon
Unlike a lot of White Sox fans, I was totally ok with Bartolo Colon winning the AL Cy Young this year. He had a very solid season, and nobody else was really lights-out for the whole year. However, he did pitch for the Sox for a couple years, and I never once thought, “This game’s in the bag, Bartolo Colon is pitching.” A franchise pitcher needs to at least have stretches where you have that feeling. Plus, as of two months ago he couldn’t move his pitching arm.
49. Ivan Rodriguez
Wait, you mean signing Pudge didn’t make the Tigers immediately respectable? Who knew? Still, after watching the playoffs in 2003, I have to say this guy would improve almost any team in baseball’s chances in a playoff series. Why aren’t there rumors about Pudge getting traded to a contender every year? Oh, wait, I remember now, that would be because the Yankees and Red Sox already have catchers.
48. Vernon Wells
A solid player who can do a little bit of everything, although he’s encroaching into “so many people think he’s underrated that he’s actually overrated” territory.
47. Alfonso Soriano
Yes, he’s supposedly making about $10 million next year, which is a lot for a .268 hitter. And the whole “potential MVP and ten-time all-star” buzz quickly died down after he left New York (I was as surprised as you were). But there just isn’t exactly a plethora of second basemen who can give you 35+ homers a year, and even fewer that can steal bases and won’t kill you defensively.
46. Alex Rodriguez
Has there ever been a situation in baseball quite like A-Rod’s? I mean, he’s clearly one of the best all-around players in the game, and yet, his failures in big situations have become so reliable that fans of his own team aren’t surprised or even really upset by them anymore. It’s also a little disturbing that every team he’s left has improved significantly immediately after his departure. The biggest problem is still his contract, however. If it was something remotely reasonable, there’d be some .500 team that would take a shot on this guy, but it doesn’t really make sense to spend $25 million on one player unless you already have a borderline playoff-calibur team, and if you do, you’re probably looking for somebody that you won’t consider benching after the playoffs start. Incidentally, if you thought the Vikings going from “Sexy Super Bowl Pick” to “One of the Worst Teams in the NFL” to “Surprise Playoff Contender” (and coming soon…“Vikings Team That Blew it in December Again!”) in one season, consider A-Rod’s career. Over the course of eleven years, he’s been a “Promising, Somewhat Over Hyped Prospect,” “Up-and-coming Franchise Player,” “Overpaid Star on a Crappy Team,” “Possible Franchise Savior,” “Arch-villain,” and now “Superstar That Inexplicably Always Screws Up/Disappears at the Worst Possible Time.” To make matters worse, the Yankees are probably the worst team in any sport to be on for a player in that last phase.
45. Victor Martinez
A promising young hitter at a key position where there aren’t a ton of great hitters. He’s gotten so much buzz in the last couple of years that you probably wouldn’t believe me if I told you that he had fewer RBIs last season than Geoff Jenkins, Emil Brown, Felipe Lopez, Pedro Feliz, and the power-hitting Carl Crawford, fewer home runs than Shawn Green, Jhonny Peralta, and Rod Barajas, and a lower OBP than Placido Polanco, David Wright, and the always disciplined Adam Dunn. He actually put up solid #s for a 6 hitter, but I just don’t see him as a middle of the order guy. Actually, I really don’t get the whole Cleveland thing period. 6 all-stars on a sub .500 team a couple of years ago? And the manager didn’t get fired? They were supposed to make up 15 games on a team with four #1 starters? Really? Did they move to New York three years ago? How did I miss that? I mean, I realize that they were loaded in the 90s, and that they hadn’t been good for a while before that, but can we please get over this? And yet, I know there will be people picking them to win the AL Central next year, despite the fact that the AL Central includes the most dominant team of the decade so far, a perennial playoff team due for a rebound year, and neither of them are the Indians (Although this did result in one of my favorite ironic television scheduling moments of the year, when Outside the Lines ran a thirty-minute piece on the resurgent Indians about three hours after they were eliminated from the AL Central Race and while they were in full late-season collapse mode. In context, I thought it was hilarious.).
44. Ichiro
Just had a downright awful year by his standards (and not a great season for most leadoff hitters), I won’t even tell you what his stats were. Still, how could I remove him from the list entirely when he practices hitting balls off of a trampoline so that he can get better at fishing pitches out of the dirt? Unless you somehow think walks from a leadoff hitter are helpful, what’s not to like about that? Plus, American sports needs more one-name only guys.
43. John Lackey
Not a guy you’d think of as an elite starter, but he’s 27, he’s probably not going to get a ridiculous contract, and last season he was 14-5 with 209 IP, a 3.44 ERA, and 199 strikeouts (which is only one less than 200). Plus, he’s a former World Series hero and was supposed to be the next Greg Maddux three years ago. That counts for something.
42. Freddy Garcia
Had he not been part of a championship team in Chicago (which ensures legendary status for multiple decades), he probably never would have been fully appreciated here since almost all of his best starts have been on the road, he usually gives up three runs in the first inning, and too many people liked the players that were traded for him (Jeremy Reed, who was then a hot prospect, and Miguel Olivo, who was referred to as “a crazy man” by Ozzie Guillen, which is the baseball equivalent of Randy Moss’s statement that he wouldn’t play with Terrell Owens because TO has too much baggage). Still, his reputation as a big-game pitcher is pretty much ensured for the rest of his career. And he looks like The Rock. That counts for something, too. Especially at a position where intimidation is helpful.

GROUP E: RUMOR MILL FODDER

These, for the most part, are the guys who are at the level where they’re perpetually rumored to be traded, especially if their teams are out of it early in the season. You know, those guys who are good enough that they could help a contender, but not so good that their fans would start a riot if they got shipped out for prospects and cash.

41. Brandon Webb
Any young pitcher that can go 14-12 for a team as bad as the Diamondbacks is worth giving a shot in my book. Tends to get overlooked since he’s not a big strikeout guy and he hasn’t been around for that long. Oh, and because he plays for Arizona.
40. Billy Wagner
He’s the opposite of Bobby Jenks. Instead of being intimidating because he’s a fastball-chucking behemoth, he’s intimidating because he looks like a little evil leprechaun/gremlin/elf whipping fastballs and sliders over the plate. Here’s where you have to apply one of the video game boss rules for intimidation: most bosses are at least three times as big as the hero, so when you run across some little guy, you know there’s something tricky going on.
39. Scott Rolen
I’m aware that he completely disappeared in the 2004 World Series and hasn’t really been heard from since. I’m not faulting him for that Series, the Red Sox were destined to win, so it was a little bit of an odd situation. Also, it’s not really fair to evaluate a player based on four bad games (provided that the player does not have a $25 million contract). The only thing that concerns me is that the Cardinals didn’t seem to get worse at all when he got hurt.
38. Chad Cordero
I kind of felt sorry for Expos fans. First the team leaves after being terrible for years, and then it immediately becomes relevant. Then I realized that there weren’t any Expos fans, and if there were, most of them were from Quebec.
37. Hank Blaylock
He’s pretty much a younger, cheaper version of JOOOEEEE!!!! CREEEEDEEEE!!!!!, (as Hawk calls him now) except that he’s not a World Series and ALCS hero, and I feel like he has slightly less letdown potential. Of course, if Crede has anything remotely close to the season that many Sox fans are expecting next year, I’m going to look like an idiot for putting Blaylock here instead.
36. Joe Mauer
Definitely a little overrated, as a .294 hitter with little power, and picking him ahead of Prior was Isaiah Thomas-esque, but he’s the type of catcher who can impact an entire team’s defense, and guys like that who won’t kill you at the plate are rare. Ok, I hate hearing this guy get hyped, so that’s quite enough.
35. Scott Podsednik
Could easily run for Mayor of Chicago and win right now. And Mayor Daley, being a huge Sox fan, wouldn’t even have him whacked. Seemed to have recovered from the nagging injuries by the playoffs, so it’s not a major concern at this point. In fact, the White Sox attempt to reinvent baseball for the post-steroids era (which was probably at least half unintentional, remember that the lineup was originally being built around Thomas and Konerko) would not have even come close to working without Pods wreaking havoc on the bases.
34. Eric Gagne
If you have any doubt about how valuable Gagne is to the Dodgers, you clearly didn’t watch Yhency Brazoban (10 losses and 21 saves) trying to close out games.
33. Jake Peavy
Another guy firmly in “so many people think he’s underrated that he’s overrated” territory, except that I could easily see him being the #1 starter for a championship team. He’s not there yet, though, and he’s not breaking into the top thirty until he gets there.
32. Zach Duke
“Phenom” is usually synonymous with “overrated,” but 8-2 on a crappy team with a 1.81 ERA…damn.
31. Josh Beckett
A proven playoff ace whose regular season career has been decidedly unspectacular. Actually, this may be a little high, since there Marlins apparently consider his trade value to be equivalent to nothing.

COMING SOON: The top thirty