Here’s the scoop. Earlier this week, Olney set the baseball world abuzz with his ESPN report that the Philadelphia Phillies were looking into trading Howard for St. Louis Cardinals superstar Pujols. The sportswriter claimed:

It’s the sort of thing that is much more likely to happen in fantasy baseball than in real life, but according to sources, an idea has been kicked around the Phillies’ organization internally, with discussions about proposing a swap of slugger Ryan Howard for St. Louis superstar Albert Pujols.

Pujols for Howard would be the blockbuster trade of year - make that the decade, if it were to happen. Only thing is, Olney’s sourcing for this was thin - about as slight as Edwar Ramirez’s physique.

You can’t even call what Olney wrote a trade “rumor,” as the word rumor would entail that two teams were talking about a deal. In this case, by Olney’s own admission, the discussion of the Phillies offering their first baseman for the Cardinals’ first baseman was simply an internal discussion among unknown Phillies front office folks. And this should have stayed that way.

As the blog The Daily Something put it, “Well, of course that’s been kicked around the Phillies organization. I’m sure that the Twins organization is all aflutter with talk of trading Nick Punto for Evan Longoria or Ryan Zimmerman. But the question is, why are we reporting on the Phillies staff’s wildest and most impossible dreams?”

Good question. Instead of just filing this tidbit away as an interesting rumor, Olney and ESPN blew up this nothing story into a future blockbuster deal, based on Olney’s anonymous sources, and based on his speculation on why such a lopsided deal would come to pass:

The logic for a Howard for Pujols swap, as discussed within the Phillies’ organization, could fall along these lines: Pujols, 30 years old, is eligible for free agency after the 2011 season, and early conversations about a contract extension have not led to any long-term deal. The expectation within baseball is that Pujols may ask for a deal that would rival, in annual value, the record-setting 10-year, $275 million deal that Alex Rodriguez negotiated with the Yankees in fall 2007.

Lots of “coulds” and “mays” here. If a blogger wrote something on such rampant speculation, he would be pilloried by the media. But in this case, MLB Network voice Peter Gammons came to Olney’s defense, writing on Twitter that “Buster Olney never wrote Howard-Pujols was hot, only that Phils talked what of among selves. Read before trashing.” As if basing such a huge story on Phillies’ water cooler talk somehow makes it okay.

Olney continued with his speculation on why such a deal could happen:

If the Cardinals were to decide, at any point, that they could not afford to sign Pujols, they could consider dealing him, in the way the Toronto Blue Jays traded Roy Halladay, or the Minnesota Twins traded Johan Santana.

Those analogies don’t make any sense here. In this case, Howard makes MORE than Pujols; he’s owed $39 million over the next two years, while Pujols will make $32 million. And both contracts are up at the same time, in 2011.

Look, I understand why the Phillies would want Pujols - every other team in baseball would love to have him. But why would the Cardinals trade away their franchise player for an inferior player who costs more, and whose contract is up at the exact same time? That makes no sense.

Olney suggests this reason:

Howard, who is just a couple of months older than Pujols, would not be a bad alternative. In the past four seasons, Howard has hit 198 homers and accumulated 572 RBIs, and has finished in the top five of the NL MVP race.

Here’s the public relations kicker: Howard was born in St. Louis, and is regarded as a hometown kid in that city.

Huh? As The Yankee Scrolls blog says:

How could the Cardinals possibly justify trading Pujols over money after they just gave nine digits to Matt Holliday? I know: by bringing back hometown hero Ryan Howard, who has a lot of RBIs!?!?!?! Who even knew Howard was from St. Louis before this story? I seriously doubt he’s so highly regarded that he would be seen as suitable return for THE GREATEST PLAYER OF THIS GENERATION.

Olney does acknowledge the payroll disparity between Howard and Pujols, saying that Howard “would be more expensive than Pujols in each of the next two seasons, but on the other hand, he probably will not be as expensive to sign as Pujols in his next contract.” Well, here’s a bright idea. If the Cardinals aren’t sure if they can re-sign Pujols, they could just keep the best player in baseball on their team for the next two years, and then sign Howard.

And Olney is supposed to be one of the most-respected voices in baseball? Good grief.

I mean, really. If some caller were to phone in with Olney’s trade scenario to any talk radio station in the country, how long would he last on the air before the host would hang up on him? Yet this story becomes national news - and forces the Phillies and Cardinals to have to issue denials. Unbelievable.

Aside from the fact that I have a hard time taking seriously a middle-aged man who still goes by the nickname of “Buster” (what, Skippy wasn’t available?) I have taken everything Olney says with a grain of salt ever since his “Last Night of the Yankee Dynasty” book came out. The cover of that tome showed Mariano Rivera on the mound at Yankee Stadium instead of in Arizona. If you’re going to suggest that the Yankee dynasty ended on Game 7 of the 2001 World Series, you might want to actually show Mo on that last night, instead of in pinstripes during a Bomber victory. Just like you might want to ask for the Phillies to confirm or deny on the record your rumors about them before writing a story about it. And they say bloggers go off half-cocked.

Photo courtesy of ESPN

After all, Fielder’s walkoff homer celebration against the Giants - where he pretended to be a bowling ball, and had his teammates fall to the ground after he knocked them over at home plate - was one of the most memorable shows of home run happiness ever.

So you would think, given how much the Giants fumed over the Brewers’ stunt, that the team would come up with something more clever than a baseball gone awry to get back at Milwaukee. Especially given that Zito’s fastball isn’t even all that fast - it had an average speed of just 86.5 miles per hour last year.

For his part, Zito denied that it was a purpose pitch.  But given that Fielder is still unrepentant about the stunt - he told reporters, “you’re damn right it was worth it” after the plunking, it seems that the Giants still didn’t really teach the Brewers a lesson.

It’s too bad Zito didn’t try one of these stunts instead:

* Bowling for Dollars: Instead of throwing a fastball at Fielder, Zito could have tossed it underhand, like, um, a bowling ball!

* Prince’s Revolutionary Idea: Zito could have hired a  flock of doves show up at the field to reenact Prince and the Revolution’s song “When Doves Cry.”

*Shouted Out With Glee: The Giants could have acted out TV show “Glee’s” plotline from last fall, where the football team faked out the opposition by dancing on the field to Beyonce’s “Single Ladies.”

* Food Fight: Getting the Giants to munch on some burgers and wings to tempt Fielder, a vegetarian who gave up eating meat two years ago (although Fielder apparently didn’t lose any weight with his new diet.)

But really, maybe the best revenge Zito could have executed would be to show the Brewers the money - literally. Zito’s seven-year, $126 million deal with the Giants is considered one of the worst contracts in baseball history - the pitcher has gone just 31-43 in three years with the Giants, with a 4.56 ERA.

Perhaps Zito should have taken the field dressed as Mr. Monopoly, and tossed around Monopoly money - or maybe even real money to the Brewers. It would have been a heck of a lot more entertaining than another half-hearted purpose pitch.

Photo by Lovehannahan

Here’s the deal. Federal officials are interviewing baseball players who were treated by Canadian doctor Tony Galea, one of Tiger Woods’ physicians. The doctor, who is not licensed to practice medicine in the U.S., is suspected of giving performance-enhancing drugs like HGH and Actovegin to American athletes. According to the New York Times, Galea “has been charged by Canadian authorities with conspiring to smuggle human growth hormone and other drugs into the United States. In this country, he is being investigated by a small army of federal authorities: the Department of Homeland Security, the F.B.I., the Drug Enforcement Administration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials and the United States attorney’s office in Buffalo.” Yikes!

So far, the feds have talked to Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran and are planning to meet with Alex Rodriguez and Huston Street about the doctor. All the players were either treated by Galea or his partner, chiropractor Mark Lindsay.

All the players named so far are denying HGH use. But if Galea is indeed found to have given PEDs to baseball players, it makes a mockery of MLB Commissioner Bud Selig’s proclamation earlier this year that baseball had succeeded in cleaning up its act.

“The use of steroids and amphetamines amongst today’s players has greatly subsided and is virtually nonexistent, as our testing results have shown,” Selig had said after Mark McGwire finally confessed to using steroids.  “The so-called steroid era - a reference that is resented by the many players who played in that era and never touched the substances - is clearly a thing of the past, and Mark’s admission today is another step in the right direction.”

Given that even the Mitchell Report details how many players have used HGH over the years, and how the substance’s big appeal is that it’s undetectable in current MLB drug tests, it’s a bit silly for Selig to have claimed baseball is some sort of drug-free zone.  And the recent news that the MLB Commissioner was considering trying out a new HGH blood test in the minor leagues shows that even he knows it’s still an issue.

Stay tuned - this story isn’t going away.

Photo courtesy of MTV

Woods had a little bit of each of them in him. But mostly, what struck me is that if any ballplayer tried to pull what Woods did, he would be mocked and pilloried a heck of a lot more than Tiger has.

After three months of scandal, Woods’ first media event featured him standing there reading a prepared speech for 13 1/2 minutes in a monotone that made him sound like a teacher in a “Peanuts” cartoon. He wouldn’t let the media ask him a single question. And he decided to hold this debacle the same weekend of his former sponsor Accenture’s golf tournament. Can you imagine the criticism Mark McGwire or Alex Rodriguez would have gotten if either ballplayer had tried such a stunt?  Not even Roger Clemens would have had the hubris to hold a press conference without allowing reporters to actually ask questions.

Yet Tiger is getting a pass from all too many in the media, who see what they want to see in suggesting that this is now a “humbled” and “contrite” Woods.  ESPN’.com’s Gene Wojciechowski wrote that Woods was following the “12-step program to deal with addiction” in the words of his speech. Gee, I guess I missed which of the 12 steps covers whining about the media for having the nerve to cover his misdeeds.

Perhaps the most obnoxious line Woods said Friday was this:

“I once heard, and I believe it’s true, it’s not what you achieve in life that matters; it’s what you overcome.”

Boston Red Sox pitcher Jon Lester overcame cancer to win the last game of the 2007 World Series  - and pitch a no-hitter in 2008. Jackie Robinson overcame racism to integrate baseball with his Hall of Fame-caliber career. Runner Wilma Rudolph overcame polio, poverty, and segregation to win three gold medals at the Olympics. What, exactly, is Woods trying to overcome - his propensity to cheat on his wife with porn stars and Perkins’ waitresses? Don’t pat yourself on the back too hard, Tiger. You might break something.

Woods also said that  “people want to know whether Elin and I will remain together. Please know that as far as I’m concerned,” he said, this issue “is a matter between Elin and me. These are issues between a husband and a wife.” This seemed a bit hypocritical, given that he had also said the following:  “As Elin pointed out to me, my real apology to her will not come in the form of words; it will come from my behavior over time.”

The golfer reminded me of the way former ESPN baseball broadcaster Steve Phillips - who was reportedly in the same sex rehab facility Woods has been treated at - went on “The Today Show” last week to talk about his broken marriage, and then complained about the media coverage about that broken marriage. Please. If you want to keep your private life private, then don’t go on national TV talking about your wife. It’s that simple.

Tiger did read some tough lines about himself, saying this:

I stopped living by the core values that I was taught to believe in. I knew my actions were wrong, but I convinced myself that normal rules didn’t apply. I never thought about who I was hurting. Instead, I thought only about myself. I ran straight through the boundaries that a married couple should live by. I thought I could get away with whatever I wanted to. I felt that I had worked hard my entire life and deserved to enjoy all the temptations around me. I felt I was entitled. Thanks to money and fame, I didn’t have to go far to find them. I was wrong. I was foolish. I don’t get to play by different rules. The same boundaries that apply to everyone apply to me.

That explanation is about the best I’ve ever heard from an athlete about bad behavior. Kudos to his speechwriter. However, those words sound much more potent in print than they did as delivered, where Woods read them with no emotion. Besides, didn’t the way Woods staged his media event, entering through a curtain before appearing before a handpicked audience not allowed to question him, show that he still believes he deserves to “play by different rules”?

The angriest Woods got Friday was when it came to that media coverage. For all his talk of Buddhism and accepting responsibility during his speech, he seemed to not completely grasp that his own misdeeds are the reason his family has had to deal with the swarm of media surrounding him. He also didn’t seem to get that if he had come clean with a rational explanation in the first place for his Thanksgiving accident, instead of stonewalling the press and the police and not showing his face - literally - for three months, the media coverage would never have gotten so intense.

Even though Woods declared all sorts of topics off-limits in his presser, he brought up one allegation all on his own:

Some people have made up things that never happened. They said I used performance-enhancing drugs. This is completely and utterly false.

A little background: When Woods was recovering from his 2008 knee injury, he was reportedly treated by a Canadian doctor, Anthony Galea, who now faces charges regarding possession and distribution of performance-enhancing drugs HGH and Actovegin. Woods had brought the doctor to his Florida home for platelet-rich plasma therapy, although Galea is not licensed to practice in the U.S. For his part, Galea has denied giving Woods PEDs.

At any rate, even amid the swirl of all the Tiger dramas, this story had gotten very little media attention - until now. But some media outlets are starting to talk about it, thanks to Woods’ comments Friday.

Yes, Woods gave a blanket denial about ever using PEDs. But cynics would note that so did A-Rod, McGwire, David Ortiz and Rafael Palmiero. At any rate, why Woods would give the media an opening to give such damaging rumors more attention may be the most head-scratching thing of his stage-managed appearance.

Photo by Keith Allison

First up, Johnny Damon, the best free agent still on the market. Four years ago, Boras was able to parlay Damon’s strong regular season numbers - and postseason stardom - into a four-year, $52 million contract from the New York Yankees. This year, the outfielder is still among the ranks of baseball’s unemployed, despite his great 2009 season and his daring two-steal dash to help the Yankees win the World Series.

So what happened? It looks like Boras went way too high for way too long with the Yankees. It took him forever to budge from his initial two-year, $26 million contract extension demand, which was an unreasonable one for a 36-year-old in this market, even given the stellar season Damon had. Brian Cashman and the Yanks eventually countered with a two-year, $14 million offer, but the two parties were unable to come to an agreement, despite Damon repeatedly saying that he wanted to remain a Yankee. Instead, the Yankees moved on to sign Nick Johnson and Randy Winn.

Granted, Cashman eventually made an insulting $2 million offer to Damon, claiming that was all he had left in his budget (ha!), but it should have never gotten to that point.

Then there’s free agent second baseman Felipe Lopez, another Boras client still on the unemployment line.  Make that an ex-Boras client - Lopez fired Boras last week. According to ESPN.com’s Jayson Stark, Lopez “was reportedly disgruntled over still finding himself without a team” despite a 2009 season in which he “batted .310, with a .383 on-base percentage.” Stark noted that “the only other free agent on the market this winter who matched or beat him in both of those categories was Matt Holliday.”

Holliday, another Boras client, was the agent’s main success stories this winter, with his seven-year, $120 million deal from the St. Louis Cardinals. However, that deal still pales beside what Boras originally claimed Holliday’s value was - the agent was suggesting earlier this winter that the outfielder was was worthy of a contract similar to the eight-year, $180 million contract Boras got for Mark Teixeira the season before.

Boras had similar tough talk this winter about how much Adrian Beltre was worth. He reportedly wanted a four-year, $40 million deal for his client, and compared Beltre to fellow free agent Jason Bay.  Last month, Bay signed a four-year, $66 million deal from the Mets, with a vesting option that could kick the value up to $80 million over five years. On the other hand, Beltre signed a one-year, $9 million deal with the Boston Red Sox, with a $5 million option for a second season.

But at least Beltre has a job next year, albeit at less money than expected. On the other hand, Boras’ client Jarrod Washburn turned down a $5 million deal from the Minnesota Twins, apparently thinking he could get a better offer elsewhere. No better deal materialized, and now the free agent pitcher is reportedly considering hanging up his spikes.

True, Boras still has the top client list in baseball. And he still has considerable skills with getting some players a great payday - Boras did get $36 million for the putrid Oliver Perez, after all.  It’s also true that Boras’ bluster is as a defining characteristic for him as his reliance upon a “mystery team” to drive the price up.

Yet you would think that the agent known for his meticulous notebooks on his clients would have noticed that it’s not the 2000-2001  offseason anymore, the year where he got Alex Rodriguez a then-record $252 million deal, or even the winter of 2007, where A-Rod got another record-setting deal (albeit without Boras’ public involvement.) Instead, the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression have driven the price down for most free agents, yet Boras is still blathering about the big payday, to the detriment of some of his clients.

There’s also some of the unseemly shenanigans Boras has been linked with in recent years - from his hand in announcing during the final game of the World Series that Alex Rodriguez was opting out of his contract, to the agent appearing to orchestrate Manny Ramirez’ ugly departure from the Boston Red Sox.

While Boras is still a force to be reckoned with in baseball, the 2009 offseason hasn’t been among his better ones. He could use some big wins in the near future - and a reality check about today’s economic climate.

Photo by misschatter

If the Democratic Senate candidate loses her race Tuesday, she can blame two huge sports-related items for her loss - labeling Schilling a Yankee fan, and mocking Republican opponent Scott Brown for shaking hands outside Fenway Park.

First up - the Schilling Yankee fan diss. Is it possible that Coakley simply didn’t know who Schilling - the most legendary folk hero in Red Sox Nation since Carlton Fisk - was? I highly doubt it, not just because Schilling - and that bloody sock - are so famous in Massachusetts, but because the pitcher openly considered throwing his Red Sox cap into the ring for that race.

Instead, Schilling threw his support behind Brown, and repeatedly criticized Coakley on his 38 Pitches blog even before her infamous radio interview.   And the ballplayer  played a big part in publicizing the candidate’s first sports-related gaffe.  Last week, under the headline “Want Another Reason to Not Vote for Martha Coakley,” Schilling highlighted a Boston Globe interview with the Democrat about her campaign. Thanks to Schilling’s post, this story got a ton of traction in the blogosphere:

Coakley bristles at the suggestion that, with so little time left, in an election with such high stakes, she is being too passive. “As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?” she fires back, in an apparent reference to a Brown online video of him doing just that.

The Globe didn’t elaborate on what Coakley was referring to; Brown showed up outside Fenway Park on New Years’ Day to talk to hockey fans gathering for the Winter Classic hockey game between the Boston Bruins and the Philadelphia Flyers. Making an appearance at such an event would seem to be a natural for a politician with a big election coming up. But Coakley not only didn’t make an appearance outside Fenway; she proceeded to mock Brown for doing so. Not exactly the smartest thing for a politician running in such a sports-crazy state to do. But nothing can be as dumb as calling Schilling a Yankee fan.

For her part, Coakley later claimed she was making a “joke” about Schilling with the remark. Why somebody in the Bay State would make a joke about the player arguably most responsible for the Boston Red Sox’s first World Series Championship in 86 years is beyond me.

Was her jibe a way of claiming that supporting Republican candidates equals supporting the arch-rival New York Yankees? Massachusetts Congressman Ed Markey attempted to make the case for such humor, telling MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Monday, “a lot of times, we do confuse the Republicans and the Yankees.” Markey also dissed Schilling for not being from Massachusetts, noting “he has only moved in here since 2004.”

Let’s review. Schilling moved to Massachusetts after getting traded to the Red Sox. He helped lead the Red Sox to two World Series rings in his five years with the team. After retiring, he and his family stayed in the state, in no small part because of his 38 Studios video game company, which is headquartered in Massachusetts, putting locals to work, and hiring even during this recession. Schilling has also raised a ton of money for local charities in his time in Boston. Yet all that apparently isn’t good enough for Markey because Schilling wasn’t born in the state.

It still ticks me off that Schilling, one of the biggest Yankee-killers ever, helped cost my team two World Championships. I saw Game 6 of the 2004 ALCS - aka the bloody sock game - in person, and I’m still not quite over it!

But at the same time, I appreciate how much Schilling has done for others, from raising over $10 million for ALS research, to the work he and his wife have done to fight melanoma, to visiting military troops stationed in the Persian Gulf.

What this Yankee fan has also learned to appreciate over the years about Schilling is how fan-friendly he is, and how much an innovator he has been when it comes to the way athletes communicate with the public on the Internet.

Way before Twitter, and Facebook, and blogs, the pitcher was yakking with fans online. When Schilling first became a Red Sox, he joined Sons of Sam Horn, the most well-known Boston Red Sox fan site, to talk with fans. But he didn’t stop there; Schilling is also a longtime member of NYYFans.com, a Yankee fan message board, talking to fans about the rivalry between the two teams. He even went on the board to pass on his condolences the day Yankee pitcher Cory Lidle died.

As for the Coakley/Schilling kerfuffle, does it really matter in the scope of things? I say yes, it does. As Schilling told reporters after appearing in a pro-Brown rally Sunday:

“It does reflect on an elected official’s relationship with her constituents. I don’t think that somebody who’s lived here their whole life, not understanding the importance of the prominence of the sports teams in this city, it’s a big deal to people,” he said.

“I think it’s another sign of her aloofness, and just the fact that she’s very out of touch, I think, with the people.”

Of course, this isn’t the first time a Massachusetts politician made a sports-related gaffe. The late Ted Kennedy once referred to Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa as “Mike McGwire” and “Sammy Sooser.” John Kerry once talked he also called Green Bay’s Lambeau Field “Lambert Field. Even worse, Kerry once talked about a Red Sox player named “Manny Ortez.”

But messing with a Boston legend is much worse than mispronouncing his name. And it may cost Coakley dearly at the polls Tuesday.

Photo by Aaron Frutman

In a recent interview with ESPN.com’s Gordon Edes, the Boston Red Sox closer showed why he’s “not a Rhodes Scholar,” as GM Theo Epstein once infamously said about him.

Papelbon showed a rather stunning lack of knowledge about his team’s offseason moves, claiming not to be aware of anything about what was happening with his team during the offseason:

“I had no idea we got [John] Lackey until [trainer Mike] Reinold came down to see me, just a few days ago,” he said. “I swear to you. I don’t know anything about the ballclub, but I know the words to the ‘Mickey Mouse Clubhouse’ song.”

Adrian Beltre deal? He hadn’t heard. Casey Kotchman about to be traded to the Mariners? Nope. Mike Cameron? “Cameron, Mike Cameron?” he said. “We got him? I swear to you, I didn’t know.”

It’s hard to believe that even the player known as Cinco Ocho (or as I like to call him, Cinco Dopo), could be that dumb, or that clueless with what is going on in his team.  It’s not like the Lackey and Cameron signings were exactly under the radar, after all.

But then again, we’re talking about a guy who once admitted that he would consider joining the arch-rival Yankees one day.  He also griped about having to walk on Fenway Park’s steps during an Opening Day ceremony, and also acknowledged he preferred going to a Playboy party at the All-Star Game over meeting the president. Forget him not being a Rhodes Scholar; I got my doubts as to whether he made it past kindergarten!

However, there is the possibility the closer’s lack of knowledge about his team is a ploy. Edes wonders if Papelbon is spinning a yarn akin to when he claimed “his dog ate the ball with which the Red Sox clinched the 2007 World Series.”

But Paps insists that his shocking ignorance is all real. He also pointed out the Boston deals that he did know about:

“I heard about [Marco] Scutaro because my mother-in-law told me, and I know about [Jason] Bay because Maholm knew him on the Pirates and told me,” he said. “And I know about [Mike] Lowell because we have the same agent.”

So if Papelbon knew Bay was gone, who did he think was playing left field for Boston in 2010 - Manny Ramirez?

You would think, given that Papelbon may be heading towards a contentious arbitration hearing with the Sox, that he would try to pay a little attention to what is going on with his team, if for no other reason than to know how much money Boston had spent so far this winter. But then again, this is a guy who bragged to the interviewer about how his future son will be named Gunner Roberts because it’s “a badass name.” What, Rambo was taken?

This is also a guy who told Edes about how he “ix-nayed” the Red Sox’s two-year, $14.75 million offer last season, in favor of agreeing to a one-year, $6.25 million deal. Yes, that’s right - he ended up getting less money. While Papelbon may know pig Latin, math isn’t exactly his strong suit.

Granted, he has the chance at making more in salary arbitration this season, but there’s also the chance Papelbon could lose his case, and end up with less money than the initial Sox offer.

But hey, Papelbon is just doing such salary machinations to help other closers, or so he claims:

…I want to do things for my fellow closers, just like Mo [Mariano Rivera] paved the way for me. I want every closer out there, man, to get every penny they deserve.”

Hmmmm. He claims that he doesn’t even know what’s going on with his own team, but he’s going to go all Norma Rae to help the rest of MLB’s closers? That’s about as believable as that yarn he spun about the dog eating the World Series ball.

Photo by Rubenstein

Giving the nature of such an endeavor, fans often argue about where players rank. But the logic behind this one is a little inconsistent.  While Neyer says he used “wins above replacement” numbers to determine rankings, he also, as he put it, “arbitrarily bump[ed] players up and down the list based on quality of competition, postseason performance and pure excellence.” Here are the 10 rankings I had the biggest problem with, ordered by their respective places in the list:

1. Neyer ranks Albert Pujols and Alex Rodriguez 1 and 2. That ranking makes sense to me. The logic behind it? Not so much. Neyer writes, “If he’d stayed at shortstop, he would be No. 1. If he’d been healthier this year or if the Yankees had won another World Series or two, he would be No. 1.”  Rodriguez missed a grand total of 28 games due to a torn labrum - his only major injury of the decade. That seems arbitrary to penalize him from that, especially when you’ll see how many truly injury-riddled players rank way too high on Neyer’s list.

2. Manny Ramirez doesn’t make the top 10 - he only comes in at 13. For a player with nearly 350 home runs that decade - and somebody whose on-base percentage ranked over .400 seven times - that’s way too low. And the ranking is not because of Ramirez testing postive for performance-enhancing drugs. Although Neyer doesn’t explicitly say as much, there are no apparent penalties on this list given to those who used steroids or HGH use. (A-Rod is No. 2, and Barry Bonds is No. 3.)

3. Scott Rolen is ranked way too high at No. 11. Neyer writes, “It’s a shame that Rolen wasn’t able to stay healthy in the latter half of this decade; otherwise his brilliant defense would have him headed for Cooperstown.” While Rolen has been a very good player, his chronic injuries - he averaged 111 games played per season in the past five years - should put him much further down on this list.

4. J.D. Drew comes in at #22, even though, as Neyer notes, “Drew has averaged only 123 games per season.” It’s ridiculous that he is so high on this list. Neyer says “the Red Sox knew what they were getting and don’t have any regrets.” So? How does that make him #22 of all the players in the decade - because Theo Epstein likes him? Whoop-de-doo.

5. Putting Drew at 22 (and for that matter, Jason Giambi at 19)  is even more egregious when you see who’s at No. 24. Mariano Rivera, the greatest closer of all time, who ranks behind even Jason Giambi. While Neyer gives him credit for the postseason, he also says, “Instead of asking why Mo’s not higher on this list, you might ask why he’s not lower, having thrown only 713 innings in the 0’s.” Which means he averaged 71 innings a year, which is a pretty fair amount for his job description - a closer normally throws only one inning at a time, after all.

6. Then again, at least Mo made the list - he was the only closer to do so. Trevor Hoffman may have averaged 45 saves a year over the decade, but he doesn’t make the cut on this list. Nor does Francisco Rodriguez or Billy Wagner or 2003 NL Cy Young winner Eric Gagne or John Smoltz.  Very strange.

7. 2006 NL MVP Ryan Howard was completely left off the list. While it’s true that Howard didn’t get to the big leagues until 2004, neither did Joe Mauer, yet he made the list at No. 40.

8. 2006 AL MVP Justin Morneau, who started in the majors in 2003, was also left off Neyer’s list. Yet Jose Valentin, whose last MLB game was in 2007, and whose last good season was in 2004, makes the list at No. 88.

9.  Barry Zito is No. 48.  Neyer snarks about him, “Hey, it’s not his fault the Giants thought he was worth $126 million.” Huh? You can’t rank him in the top 50 - very high for a pitcher who had essentially three good years - and then insinuate he wasn’t worth that money.

10. What did Corey Koskie do to justify being #92 on this list? Neyer does not explain his rationale behind the bottom 50 on his Top 100, so we’ll just have to wonder why. Talk about a question for the ages!

Photo by Keith Allison

Joe Urbon, the left fielder’s agent, told Fox Sports’ Ken Rosenthal Saturday that the free agent was ready to “move on.”  Urbon said, “We don’t agree with their evaluation of the player. Frankly, we have other offers on the table that are of greater interest to Jason.”

The New York Mets are among the teams looking into signing Bay - they reportedly offered him a $65 million contract. And Seattle and Anaheim are other possibilities.

But it makes no sense for Bay to get all gushy over Boston, if the team’s offer is the weakest. Players who wax sentimental end up paying the price - especially in Red Sox Nation.

Look at what happened to Mike Lowell, the last Boston player to take less money - and fewer years - just to stay as a Red Sox. He turned down a four-year, $50 million contract offer from the Philadelphia Phillies, and instead accepted a three-year, $37.5 million Red Sox offer. Teammate Curt Schilling praised the third baseman at the time for doing so:

“How cool is that?” Red Sox pitcher Schilling posted on his blog. “Leaving years and dollars on the table to come back here for three more years, good stuff.”

So what did Lowell get for giving up $12.5 million? Shipped out of Boston to the Texas Rangers in a trade this week, pending a physical. Nice!

This isn’t the first time in recent years that GM Theo Epstein traded a player who gave the team a hometown discount. Bronson Arroyo signed a three-year, $12 million contract with the Red Sox before the 2006 season, even though his agents advised against it. While he said he left “close to $4 million on the table,” Arroyo said the deal would give him “a little bit of security.”

“I love playing here. I love the fans. I love the city. I want to stay here for my whole career,” he said. “I feel that’s going to beneficial for me as well as the team. Hopefully, they see it that way and don’t trade me.”

Some security. Just two months later, Arroyo was traded to the Cincinnati Reds for Wily Mo Pena. So much for him leaving that extra money on the table.

Besides Boston’s history at trading the same players who gave the team hometown discounts, the Red Sox also have a propensity to, shall we say, highlight a player’s negatives on their way out the door, like what happened with Nomar Garciaparra, Pedro Martinez, and Johnny Damon. Or like what happened with Lowell last week, as SI.com’s Jon Heyman noted:

And while Texas people were pleased to be getting a very smart guy with a nice personality in Lowell (as opposed to original target Milton Bradley), people who communicate often with the Red Sox front office painted Lowell in another light after the deal was agreed to — that of an occasionally disgruntled clubhouse guy (that’s certainly not the Lowell I remember more than a decade ago coming up with the Yankees).

Stay classy, Boston!

Not so surprisingly, Tony Massarotti of the Boston Globe reported Sunday that the team had concerns about Bay’s health:

According to one source, in fact, the Red Sox and Bay either had agreed or were close to agreement on a contract at the All-Star break when the Red Sox expressed concerns over Bay’s knee, shoulder or both. Whatever the case, the Red Sox balked at roughly the time that Theo Epstein spoke of an “aggressive,” offer to the player, who is now sufficiently disgruntled that agent Joe Urbon is telling the media that Bay is “prepared to move on” from Boston.

Hmmm. Bay hasn’t had any injury that cost him considerable playing time since 2004. Over the past five seasons, he averaged 154 games played per season, with 151 games for Boston in 2009, and 155 MLB games played the year before.

Does that mean he won’t break down in the future? No. But as Massarotti also notes, the Red Sox gave the oft-injured J.D. Drew a five-year, $70 million deal, even thought Drew had a much more spotty injury history than Bay.

Fans frequently compare the players to themselves, suggesting that such offers are more than enough to live on.  And if the  comments on Boston message boards are any indication, the same fans who once suggested Bay was better than Manny Ramirez, the player he was traded for, are now hoisting pitchforks about Bay, griping about him turning down such a large sum of money.

But why should Bay take a hometown discount, when Red Sox ownership couldn’t even give one to their fans? After all, in the worst economy since the Great Depression, the team raised ticket prices for 2010. What, the team couldn’t make a little less money off their fans in these rough economic times?

If the Sox can’t come to terms with Bay, it looks like Scott Boras client Matt Holliday would be a target to play left field. But if the price tag is too steep for him- Epstein has described 2010 as a “bridge period” where they were preparing for the future -  there’s somebody else Boston could consider to play left.

He’s had experience in Boston. He’s on the market this year. And signing him would stick it to the arch-rival New York Yankees.

Imagine this - Johnny Damon in left field for the Red Sox!

Photo by -nanio-

Buck, the FOX MLB and NFL broadcaster, hosted the third episode of his infamous HBO talk show Tuesday night at NYU’s Skillman Center. This time around, Howard Stern Show comedian Artie Lange wasn’t there to wreck the proceedings, although his name was  brought up repeatedly - and to great comic effect - during the night. (More on that later.)

When I saw last week that Pedro Martinez and Michael Strahan were going to be guests on “Joe Buck Live,” I figured I had to attend the taping, given how  quotable those two are. At best, they would both  be entertaining - and I’d hear some baseball tidbits from Pedro I could write about. At worst, the program would be a train wreck, but that would still amuse me, given my affinity for bad TV, like “Jersey Shore.”

So I took along my friend Sarah, who shares my taste in such things. We once went to a “Maury” show taping, where a woman who was confronted with her husband’s infidelity with her own sister got so angry that she took her shoes off and banged them on the floor. Good times!

Nobody took off their shoes - or any other clothing item - at “Joe Buck Live.” But parts of the show were still actually pretty fun, although others dragged.

First, Buck. I’m not a big fan of his announcing - his unenthusiastic “Yankees are back on top” call at the end of this year’s World Series was a real snoozer. But I will give Buck a little credit for showing some self-deprecation. Before the show started, he brought up his most infamous guest and said that no matter what stadium he’s in, he hears fans yell “Artie Lange” at him. Buck also joked that he was “so excited” about the night’s show that he “just pulled a groin.”

He is extremely thin in real life - he reminded me of Marc Anthony, he looked so gaunt. They’re not kidding when they say the camera adds ten pounds. Eat a sandwich, Joe!

And the show started out slow. Buck spent 15-20 minutes on the serious problem of concussions in football. Two well-spoken NFL players - Brian Westbrook and Brian Urlacher - guested. It’s a serious, important issue, but it’s one more suited for HBO’s “Real Sports” than for a live talk show.

Fortunately, the pace picked up after that segment, thanks to the personality of Phillies pitcher Pedro Martinez. He received a mixture of cheers and boos from the New York audience - and he heard some “Who’s your daddy” chants, of course.

But Martinez, who smiled through his whole interview, won the crowd over with his ebullience and his sense of humor. When Buck showed the infamous “Spank Him, Yanks” New York Post cover of him as a baby, the crowd roared as Pedro joked that the person who would feel the most uncomfortable about it would be  whoever had to change his diaper!

Martinez also said he worked very hard to get in shape quickly last year, but that he wanted to play all season so that he didn’t have to work that hard again, drawing some more laughter from the audience. And by the time he left the stage, doing his double finger point move, he had won the crowd over, getting only cheers on his exit. You couldn’t help but find him amusing.

He was a hard act to follow, but having Michael Strahan and Floyd Mayweather Jr. on the same stage was even more entertaining. It was comic gold.

I wasn’t very familiar with Mayweather before, but he was so over-the-top ridiculous that I became an instant fan. Like when he talked about losing some money on NFL games. The little money turned out to be in the six figures!

But it all evens out, I guess - he said he won over a million on NFL betting a few weeks before. Buck’s reaction to this was priceless.

Strahan and Mayweather had terrific chemistry together. When Buck asked the boxer about a possible upcoming match with Manny Pacquiao, Mayweather said some careful words about how he thought his opponent would give him a “good fight.” Strahan responded, “Translation - To hell with Pacquiao, I’ll whip his ***.”

Strahan was the star of the night, having something compelling to say about everything, and even going toe to toe with Buck. When the broadcaster mocked Strahan’s show “Brothers,” the football player turned actor brought up Artie Lange and asked the FOX broadcaster why he would rip a show on his own network.

I agree. Besides, I tape “Brothers”  every week (seriously, I do - I think Strahan and Daryl “Chill” Mitchell are hilarious together. I told you I liked bad TV!)

Strahan and Mayweather were so entertaining that it was almost overkill when Mark Wahlberg came out as a surpise guest. He’s one of my favorite actors, and it was fun to see him, especially given that he’s a Patriots fan who talked trash about how his team would beat the Giants in the Super Bowl.

Buck asked them all about the Tiger Woods scandal. Wahlberg said that after the Tiger Woods scandal, wives are all checking their husband’s cell phones. Strahan, who made tabloid headlines a few years ago with his divorce, got maybe the biggest laughs of the night then. He said if it were him, he’d be getting out of the house playing in every little golf tournament, including “The Ritz Cracker Open”!

The hour-long show spilled over online onto HBO.com, with Strahan and Mayweather holding court for another 20 minutes in a web-only exclusive.

So, what did I think of Buck’s interviewing skills? He’s not terrible, but he does something that’s very distracting when talking to his guests - curse. Remember those old blooper tapes back in the day, when you’d hear Casey Kasem unleash an stream of obscenities? It was a little like that. I guess Buck is trying to show that he’s doing a grownup show by swearing, but instead, it’s just really distracting.

He also missed an obvious interview question for  Wahlberg - about Derek Jeter.  “The Other Guys,”  the Boston star’s upcoming movie, features Jeter in a cameo. Why not ask about how the Red Sox fan actor liked working with a Yankee?

But despite that, “Joe Buck Live” still proved to be compelling entertainment, thanks to such great choices in guests. This episode will be on HBO multiple times this month. Check  it out.

Photo by Sarah Feinsmith