Lions Fuck Up--Again

The draft was today. The Lions signed Matt Stafford for record money a day early, rather than take a left tackle. Then Michael Oher was still available when the Lions other first round pick (#20) came up, but the Lions took a tight end instead. Maybe they think we won't notice that tight ends are still receivers....aThen the Ravens took Oher with the 23rd pick. Now, very recently (yesterday, I think) ESPN did a piece where they raved about how Baltimore consistently does an excellent job in the draft, so Oher going to the Ravens confirms for me that the Lions should have taken him.

Good for Mike. At least he's not going to a crap team. It will be interesting to see how his career goes, along with Stafford and all the other early round left tackles. Of course, for the most part nobody pays attention to these guys, so keeping track of them will require some effort. Maybe I'll just check to see how many sacks their teams give up.

ESPN did a SportsNation poll asking if you were confident your team would make good picks. Michigan was one of the states that voted for "not at all." So did I, but my vote was counted under worldwide, since I'm in Cuba. Now that I'm on the record as saying that SportsNation polls are 90% stupid, they seem to be coming out with some good ones. Good for them.

I found a list of the most valuable college football programs on www.Forbes.com. Here it is.

1 Notre Dame
2 Texas
3 Georgia
4 Michigan
5 Florida
6 LSU
7 Tennessee
8 Auburn
9 Alabama
10 Ohio State
11 Oklahoma
12 USC
13 Penn State
14 USC
15 Arkansas
16 Texas A&M
17 Washington
18 Nebraska
19 Michigan State
20 Wisconsin

I expected the SEC to have alot of teams, but seven out of the top 12? Eight out of the top 15. Wow. That's right, the first USC on the list is South Carolina. Who knew they were worth more than Southern California? I thought the Trojans would be in the top 3. I didn't have the Gamecocks on my radar. Or gaydar.

South Carolina was the first team that surprised me that they were on the list. Arkansas didn't really surprise me once SC got on there. I was a bit shocked that the Aggies made the list, but I knew they had a huge following, so I guess I could see it. Once they made the list I wasn't completely surprised to see Michigan State either. After Penn State made the list, I figured MSU and Wisconsin were the next most likely, just as I figured that Washington and UCLA were the only other likely candidates from the Pac 10, though I more expected UCLA.

Nebraska wasn't a surprise, though I'd sort of forgotten about them since they haven't done much lately. Surprising omissions? I'd say Florida State, as well as UCLA. Since ticket sales probably matter more than championships, I guess I wouldn't expect Miami. Maybe Georgia Tech....No ACC teams at all....I wasn't surprised to see Auburn on the list, but I expected Alabama to be higher than them.

I wonder how much the big basketball programs are worth. If they are dwarfed by the big football programs then Michigan State probably makes more $$ from sports than Carolina or Duke. Of course, South Carolina probably does too. When I was at Michigan State, we were the only profitable athletic department in the Big Ten, except for Michigan.

Boston College had one defensive lineman drafted in the top 10, and another go early in the 2nd round. Ole Miss had two consecutive first rounders picked. I don't think draft picks are what make these programs valuable, however....

Forbes loves lists. I've looked at a bunch of them recently, especially ones having to do with emplyment and real estate. Overall, these lists will tell you that the economy is jacked up, but especially in California, Arizona, Florida, and Las Vegas. I'd say Nevada, but Vegas is Nevada's economy. The ecomomy is good in Texas, and to a lesser extent Oklahoma. Louisiana seems to be growing, though they probably had nowhere to go but up after the last couple of hurricanes. All these states are big oil producers, which probably isn't a coincidence.

They did a list of Top College Towns, based on liveability, as opposed to raw fotball or basketball prowess. I didn't expect to see East Lansing on the list. Honestly I think the list would lose all credibility for me if it was. The list did not include any big cities, which explains how Austin, Boston, and Seattle stayed off the list. Here is the list, with colleges included, in case you don't recognise these towns.

1 Ann Arbor(Michigan)
2 Palo Alto(Stanford)
3 Madison(Wisconsin)
4 State College(Penn State)
5 Lexington(Kentucky)
6 Fayetteville(Arkansas)
7 Chapel Hill(North Carolina)
8 Columbia(Missouri)
9 Charlottesville(Virginia)
10 Bloomington(Indiana)

The Big Ten did well on this list, and the ACC was included. I expected to see Ann Arbor, Madison, Chapel Hill, and Charlottesville. Omissions? Maybe Boulder(Colorado) or Burlington(Vermont). Maybe Athens(Georgia).

I'm thinking of putting together a list of locations based on quality of Universities, and proximity to casinos, and affordable housing. Ummm, make that affordable universities (read public). I may weigh in proximity to professional sports teams as well, or possibly the success of the colleges in football & basketball. Interestingly, Ann Arbor would score well on this list as well, due to the pro teams in Detroit, and the casinos there, as well as in the rest of Michigan and in Windsor. The Notre Dame/Chicagoland area would score pretty well here too. Notre Dame is private, but IU and Purdue are decent schools... There is talk that Texas could legalize poker. That would make Texas shoot up the list. Otherwise, Texas is near casinos as long as you are near Louisiana or Oklahoma. Or New Mexico. Why not live in one of those states? Easy. Texas and Texas A & M are better schools than Oklahoma or LSU. Of course, I'm not considering Tulane, Rice, or Baylor on the list, because they are private. Ditto for St Johns in Santa Fe.

Sports Guy Blind to Bodog?

I'm listening to Bill Simmons and Joe House doing their NBA playoff edition for the 2nd time, and I've got http://www.bodoglife.com/ up, and I'm betting on series outcomes. I've been way too reluctant in the past to mix it up on these series outcomes. I'm trying to remember if I pulled the trigger on the Tigers sweeping the A's back in '06. I'm pretty sure I didn't, but check my archives. I did win my bets on the Tigers for the pennant, though they didn't come through in the World Series....but enough about baseball.

I already took Miami 4-3 Atlanta, at 7-1, and emailed Bill to let him know. Hopefully he reads it and gets some $$ down before the series starts, and hopefully he doesn't think I have some kind of psycho man-crush on him. No, my psycho man crushes are on Adrian Peterson (not because he's great, but because the Lions could have taken him instead of one more wide receiver), and on the top four or five left tackles the Lions are going to pass over when they take Matt Stafford. At this point I like Eugene Monroe from Virginia, since Baylor's guy had a knee injury, though I am plowing through The Blind Side, by Michael Lewis (excellent read so far, especially if you are too young to remember Bill Walsh revolutionizing the passing game, and Lawrence Taylor terrorizing quarterbacks to the point where he revolutionized pass blocking) which focuses on a man-child from Memphis named Michael Oher who has anchoring the left side of the Ole Miss OL of late, and is expected to go in the middle of the first round. I guess Oher is a bit of a sentimental favorite for me at this point....

Where was I, before I started fantasizing about left tackles?....Oh yeah. I've also taken
Boston 4-2 Chicago, at 7-2. I firmly think Boston wins this series, and I'm considering taking them to win in seven as a hedge, at 4-1. Here are all the odds for this series:

Chicago Bulls vs Boston Celtics - NBA Playoffs Round 1 - Exact Series Finish
All wagers have action.
Chicago Bulls 4-0 75/1
Chicago Bulls 4-1 30/1
Chicago Bulls 4-2 12/1
Chicago Bulls 4-3 15/1
Boston Celtics 4-0 3/1
Boston Celtics 4-1 7/4
Boston Celtics 4-2 7/2
Boston Celtics 4-3 4/1

I think Celtics in five is probably more likely than in seven, but it doesn't pay as well. Boston in six looks like a bargain. Of course, if the playoffs go like they did last year, seven would be the play. I watched that 76ers game Bill keeps going on about, and I like his reasoning, almost enough that I'd take the Celtics in five....nah--those odds suck.

I'm not going to print out the Cavs-Pistons odds, or bet this one. Cavs in four is 6-5, Cavs in five is 6-5. No other outcomes are plausible, unless LeBron breaks something. Yes, I'm still a Pistons fan. No, I don't want LeBron to get injured. Let's move on.

Here are the Dallas-San Antonio odds:

Dallas Mavericks vs San Antonio Spurs - NBA Playoffs Round 1 - Exact Series Finish
All wagers have action.
Dallas Mavericks 4-0 15/1
Dallas Mavericks 4-1 8/1
Dallas Mavericks 4-2 4/1
Dallas Mavericks 4-3 13/2
San Antonio Spurs 4-0 9/1
San Antonio Spurs 4-1 3/1
San Antonio Spurs 4-2 4/1
San Antonio Spurs 4-3 3/1

I was thinking about taking the Spurs in six, just because I don't see why this outcome gets longer odds than five or seven, but Bill and Joe like the Mavricks, so I'm considering that, as well as the Spurs vitamin G deficiency before I do anything rash. Since I tend not to follow the NBA closely until about.......NOW (9:00 PM EST, day before the playoffs start) I am mainly going by the results of the last several years of the playoffs when I say I like the Spurs. I am also remembering Bill's pick of the Suns over the Spurs last year, and his pick of the Suns over the Pistons in '05. (I know, I know, the Suns got robbed last year....but doesn't Dallas have enough of the choke gene that you don't trust them?) Bear with me...I'm trying to talk myself out of taking Dallas in seven, since I love those 13-2 odds, but I think I'm starting to talk myself into Spurs in five.... I just don't want to go against San Antonio in a home game seven. I like Dallas in six better than that. San Antonio don't exactly have a fortress, but they win on the road, and I'm not conviced that Dallas does. I'm letting this one percolate. Lets move on.

Houston Rockets vs Portland Trailblazers - NBA Playoffs Round 1 - Exact Series Finish
All wagers have action.
Houston Rockets 4-0 15/1
Houston Rockets 4-1 17/2
Houston Rockets 4-2 7/2
Houston Rockets 4-3 11/2
Portland Trailblazers 4-0 10/1
Portland Trailblazers 4-1 7/2
Portland Trailblazers 4-2 9/2
Portland Trailblazers 4-3 3-1

Bill and Joe seem fascinated by this one, and so am I. I have not seen the Trail Blazers play all year, but I keep hearing good things about them. I'm trying to decide if I would be more or less fascinated if I'd seen them play. This feels like a blind date. I don't know if I'm trying to figure out if Portland is hot, or if they'll put out, and if so, in how many games...er, dates....er, games. I'm confused. Or maybe it's one of those cases where you "met" on the internet, and you're trying to decide if she's really 18. (I'm assuming they need a certain level of maturity to win a playoff series--jailbait is BAD you sickos.)

So much for disturbing metaphors that should not be mentioned*. I'm leaning towards taking both of these in seven, since I like the 'Blazers, but also like Houston's 11-2 odds. The odds on this one seem to indicate that the public thinks anyting could happen in this one, and I agree. I really know too little to have much of an opinion. On that note, DON'T BET ON SPORTS. IF YOU MUST BET ON SPORTS, DON"T LISTEN TO ME. I need to work in a disclaimer more often. Having said that, I still like my chances betting these matchups better than my chances on college football, which isn't saying much. If there's a lesson to be learned from this blog, it's right above in caps. That and the Yankees suck (true by their lofty standards) and Notre Dame sucks, fact.**

I just did a little bit of research. In playoff games last year where at least one team had three wins , the home team went 15-7. In game sevens, the only team that won on the road was San Antonio. On the other hand, six out of 15 series were decided in six games, more than any other result. Now I get why five and seven game series' tend to get shorter odds than 6 game series.' I still may have to pick some of them to go six, since they are offering the best odds, and they happen more than any other result. Or maybe I'll take Portland in six and seven. Bill is picking them in five, but he hasn't seen the odds. I think he'd go for six too, if he checked it out.

Why not? Portland 4-2 Houston at 9-2. And I'm taking Portland 4-3 Houston at 3-1 as a hedge. I'm betting enough at 3-1 to break even on the two bets, and hoping Portland can steal one on the road. Both of these teams have great home records and crap road records, so I don't want to pick too many road wins....

Not really any bargains to be had between the Jazz and Lakers, unless you think Utah can pull off the mother of all upsets....

Orlando over Philly in 5 is 5/4. Seems reasonable to me. If you think Orlando can sweep, or Philly can win 2 games, the odds get more interesting. If you think Philly can win, the odds are quite attractive. I don't.

Here are the odds for Miami vs Atlanta:

Miami Heat vs Atlanta Hawks - NBA Playoffs Round 1 - Exact Series Finish
All wagers have action.
Miami Heat 4-0 15/1
Miami Heat 4-1 10/1
Miami Heat 4-2 9/2
Miami Heat 4-3 7/1
Atlanta Hawks 4-0 8/1
Atlanta Hawks 4-1 5/2
Atlanta Hawks 4-2 4/1
Atlanta Hawks 4-3 3/1

See why I like the Heat in 7? Looks like a bargain. Maybe I'll hedge it with Heat in 6 or Hawks in 7. I'm not sure if either of these are reliable enough to be good hedges, whereas I feel good about 'Blazers in seven, sight unseen.

Bill and Joe like New Orleans to upset Denver, and I like the New Orleans odds.


New Orleans Hornets vs Denver Nuggets - NBA Playoffs Round 1 - Exact Series Finish
All wagers have action.
New Orleans Hornets 4-0 25/1
New Orleans Hornets 4-1 15/1
New Orleans Hornets 4-2 5/1
New Orleans Hornets 4-3 8/1
Denver Nuggets 4-0 7/1
Denver Nuggets 4-1 9/4
Denver Nuggets 4-2 7/2
Denver Nuggets 4-3 3/1

I guess I still don't beleive in Denver either, though I do believe in a healthy Chauncey Billups. Maybe Hornets in 7 at 8-1. Chris Paul could take this series over, right? Will Billups cover him? Is that a good matchup? Billups could play defense, last I knew, but Paul is ridiculously good...

I should probably stay away from this one, but I'm taking Dallas 4-3 San Antonio at 13-2. Love those odds. Since I don't really trust Dallas, I'm taking San Antonio 4-2 Dallas at 4-1 as a hedge. Watch, now San Antonio will win in 7, sneaking between my two outcomes. I might have to hedge again, with San Antonio in 7, at 3-1. Yeah, book it.

I'm taking the Hornets in 7, at 8-1. I like these odds, and Chris Paul gives them a fighting chance. I'm also considering a Nuggets hedge. Meanwhile, Bill and Joe may have talked me into LA in 6. They went six against Utah last year. The Jazz put them through hell. Six games at 4-1 beats the crap out of Five games at 1-1.

I hope Bill reads my email and checks out these NBA odds. I'm just trying to imagine how his podcast would have went if he had Exact Series Finish odds, like these. I think it would have been fantastic. On the other hand, Bill would probably inflame his gambling problem worse than if you were to rub your eczema on tree bark for a couple hours. Not that you have eczema or anything.

Speaking of eczema, I'm taking the Nug's in 7 at 3-1 as a hedge, and I'm taking LA in 6 at
4-1. We'll see how this all turns out when the smoke clears in a week or 2.

Little update on The Blind Side, since I've taken a dump twice since I started writing this, and that's what's been keeping me company in the can. Some parts of Chapter Six are amazing. I'm starting to think that if Mike Oher was availible at the tail end of the first round, where the Lions' other 1st round pick is, I could live with them taking Matt Stafford with the first pick, as much as I'd rather they hold out for Sam Bradford or Colt McCoy next year. Oher supposedly will go about 16th though, so I don't see him falling far enough. I need to keep in mind that he's still in high school in chapter six as well--keeping some perspective...though my perspective as a Lions fan is definitely from the bottom, and something I'd like to trade for a perspective to be named later.

*Before you try to lock me up, listen to Adam Carolla's podcast with Jimmy Pardo (http:carollaradio.com/). See what kind of wierdness you come up with after he melts your brain. If Adam Carolla podcasts and BS Reports are the biggest influences in my life I probably should be locked up, come to think of it....I'll shut up now.

**This will eventually change, at which point I will retreat to "Notre Dame is overrated." When they win eight games next year, just remember that ESPN said that their big games next year are USC (will thump ND), Michigan (sucks until they prove otherwise) Michigan State (one man team, whose man is going pro) and Boston College (due to descend to the middle of the ACC, though they completely dominated ND last year and probably aren't losing anybody, aside from that first rounder DE) if Notre Dame ever gets good they should beat everyone but USC. And yes, I went to Michigan State and BC. One of them might be decent, but could Notre Dame finish in the top 3 of the Big Ten or the ACC next year? They sure as hell wouldn't have last year.

42 is for Jackie/Sleepy in Seattle?

I'm not sure what they call it, but it was Jackie Robinson day across the major leagues yesterday. I was listening to either a Bill Simmons or Adam Carolla podcast, so I had the sound off on the TV when SportsCenter came on.

Don't get me wrong. Jackie Robinson deserves whatever praise, tribute, or holiday we decide to have. On the other hand, it gets pretty confusing following the highlights when EVERYBODY is wearing number 42. Now I know how the government felt in V for Vendetta.

I had to pause the podcast and turn the sound up, because somebody on the Tigers was shown throwing a couple of strikes in a row. I had to see if they'd found the next Mark Fydrich*, or God willing, the next Justin Verlander.**

In fact, I think the reason I thought the Tigers might have a new stud pitcher was because he was wearing number 42, so I didn't recognize him. Probably by the time I had the sound on I realized the entire league has retired the number 42, so this is the only time you will ever see anybody from any MLB team wearing that number, unless they are hosing off their Ferrari while wearing their Jackie throwback. I know some of them have them. Hey, I do. As oon as I get home I'll throw it on and wash my Impala.

I wouldn't have one if I hadn't spent four years in the Land of the Bootleg Throwback (South Korea), not to be mistaken for the Land of the Rising Sun (Japan). In Korea baseball throwbacks went for $15, until the dollar weakened, and the price went up to $18. In the US these things could go for $2-300, or more. Unfortunately, these prices, along with my long stay in the Land of the Bootleg Jersey, led to about 63.5% of my wardrobe consisting of throwbacks and other jerseys.

It's almost amazing that I left home for a year without any Boston Red Sox paraphanalia. The Sox aren't my favorite team (Tigers), or even my second favorite (Mets). I guess they're my third, though if their bandwagon gets any more full I may have to hop off.

The truth is, the main reason I have nothing of the Sox with me is that most of my Boston gear consists of winter hats and jackets, and sweatshirts. I never bought their jerseys in Korea, because their home shirts, which are by far their best looking ones, aren't supposed to have names on the back. Many times I almost picked up a Schilling or Ramirez jersey, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it.*** Yes, this was right after the whole bloody sock thing. If I was in Siberia for a year, some of that stuff would be with me.

The other reason is that they traded Manny Ramirez, a move which, I consider to be suicidal. David Ortiz will not get pitches he can hit without Manny behind him, unless he remains injured/ineffective to the point that nobody fears pitching to him. While I doubt they will remain in last place, they are right now, so I figured I'd bring it up. Maybe their bandwagon will even empty a bit....

Probably not, but their pitching might have to carry them this year.

They did beat Oakland last night however. I enjoyed the highlights, not because they won, but because Tim Wakefield was pitching, and he was easy for me to identify, because of his knuckle-ball delivery, which is flat footed with no wind-up. I need to actually watch V for Vendetta to see if anybody gives themself away in the movie, somebody with a limp, for instance. Then I could say, "Tim Wakefield is to Jackie Robinson day as ___________ is to V for Vendetta." I can hardly wait.

Oh yeah. The other reason I didn't bring any Red Sox gear was because I need to color-coordinate, which led me to bring Dodgers gear (Brooklyn, not LA) so I could match Chelsea FC, which just beat Liverpool 7-5 aggregate to advance to the Champions League Semi-Finals, again. They will play Barcelona next, while in the other bracket Manchester United will take on Arsenal, making this the 3rd year in a row that three of the final four Champions League teams are English. Go Dodgers! Go Blues! Dodger Blue is almost the same shade as Chelsea Blue as well. Chelsea Blue is just a little bit brighter, though nowhere near as bright as Honolulu Blue, I swear.****


*This would be ironic, because he passed away within the last week. Apparantly his death was not a suicide, which warmed my heart, since Hunter S. Thompson and David Foster Wallace both killed themselves in the last few years, not that the Bird had much in common with them. It's sad when that's the first thing you think of when somebody dies.

**Both were rookies of the year, in 1976 and 2006; I would prefer another Verlander, since he seems to be less of a flash in the pan.

***This flaw has nothing to do with whether or not they are bootlegs. If you check ebay you will be hard pressed to find one without a name there as well.

****I probably just jinxed them. I guess there's still at least two weeks before they play Barca. I'll try not to mention Chelsea in the same breath as the Lions before then. Forget I brought it up.*****

*****Speaking of superstition, I just found a book called The Blind Side by Michael Lewis, about left tackles, and how valuable they've become in the couple of decades since Lawrence Taylor ended Joe Theisman's career. In a recent SportsNation poll, the entire country thought the Lions should take Matt Stafford, except for Michigan (and me), who thought they should take a left tackle instead, the one from 'Bama or Oklahoma, I believe....COINCIDENCE?!?!?!? I feel like I need to finish this book before the draft, or I'm just not doing my part.

In case you've forgotten my disdain for SportsNation their current question at the bottom of ESPN's home page is "Where will the Mariners finish in the AL this season. Without looking at the map, I predict Washington will say first, Texas and California will say 3rd or 4th, and most of the country will say 2nd (I've answered the question (4th) so I know 1st got 22%, 2nd won with 37%, 3rd got 29%, and 4th got 12%.......................................and...........................................wow, this computer's slow.......................Hmmm, Oregon and Idaho also went for 1st, (with Washington) and Texas was joined by New Mexico, Minnesota, Illinois, Connecticut, and Massachusets, picking them 3rd. Everyone else said 2nd. I guess California is my biggest surprise, since they said 2nd. I didn't think the Angels and A's fans would concede this much....Though from what I've heard, only about 12,000 fans showed up in one of the games where Boston visited Oakland, and apparantly those were 3/4 Red Sox fans. Maybe the A's should move to Oklahoma City. (I sorta liked this poll, in the end...bad example.)

So starting out 7-2 is enough to get them penciled in in 2nd place. I'm not convinced, but keep in mind, I'm still looking for pennant sleepers, and Seattle might be the sleepiest sleeper of them all....

Seattle was 30-1 for the pennant when I did my last column. They're already down to 25-1. Not too sleepy--I probably got those odds a month in on the '06 Tigers....Check my archives--I'm outta here.

Behind the Magic 8-Ball?

It's that time of year again....That's right, your favorite baseball team hasn't been eliminated from the pennant race yet! They say Opening Day is the best day of the year, because that's when hope springs anew, and they have a point. By August 60-70% of the Major League teams will be eliminated from the playoffs, barring some amazing streak that almost never comes. Most teams, and their fans, are just praying that the season will end early, and it never does. The fans tune out, and wait for the NFL season to start, while the players hope to not get injured too seriously.

So right now is pretty cool, because after seven or eight games, almost nobody is out of the playoff hunt.

ESPN ran a SportsNation poll yesterday, asking how much you could predict the rest of the season based on the first week. The options were approximately

a.) Quite a bit
b.) A little bit
and
c.) Not at all.

I brought up the US map, showing which states went for which answer. The entire country went for "not at all,"

except...

for...


Michigan.

A majority in every state picked (c.) except for Michigan. In Michigan, almost a majority picked (b.), but not quite. Very few states had more than 10% going for (a.). Most of the states near Michigan had smaller majorities going for (c.), generally less than 55%. New Hampshire was the only state with over 70% picking (c.).

It made me wonder if the Midwest have a different understanding of "a little bit." Maybe only a little bit different, but different.

I figured out New Hampshire. The Red Sox are in last place. The rest of New England was close behind the Granite State, with (c.) getting votes in the 60's. Why didn't Massachusets keep up with New Hampshire? I blame a combination of transplated New Yorkers and the educated.

And I think I've figured out Michigan as well. Last year the Tigers started out 0-7, then went to about 1-12. ESPN published multiple stories about how no team that started out that badly ever made the playoffs. Tiger fans remember.

The memories aren't all bad, though. In 2006 the Tigers got off to a red-hot start. They cooled off eventually, but still earned a Wild Card spot, then made it to the World Series. They lost, but the last time the Tigers won a World Series was in 1984. That year Detroit started out 35-5. 35-5! Not even the '98 Yankees started out that hot, even though they ultimately won more games.

So maybe in Michigan the first few games seem to have more predictive power. Maybe the Lions recent 0-16 record reinforces this mindset, and forces out memories of a team that started 6-2...and finished 6-10.

I feel kind of bad writing about this, because SportsNation's apparent "polls for polling's sake" point of view is pretty asinine, and shouldn't be encouraged. Sometimes it exposes regional homerism, but so what? Unless I can figure out a way to profit from these tendancies while gambling, I'm not terribly interested.

Speaking of gambling, and speaking of nobody being eliminated yet, here are the current odds for the AL Pennant:

Odds to win the 2009 American League Championship
All wagers have action. Singles only. Max $500
Baltimore Orioles 50/1
Boston Red Sox 5/2
Chicago White Sox 20/1
Cleveland Indians 8/1
Detroit Tigers 10/1
Kansas City Royals 40/1
Los Angeles Angels 11/2
Minnesota Twins 14/1
New York Yankees 2/1
Oakland Athletics 13/1
Seattle Mariners 30/1
Tampa Bay Rays 8/1
Texas Rangers 30/1
Toronto Blue Jays 40-1

I've cut and pasted these odds off http://www.bodoglife.com/. I could make them look better, but that's alot of work. Of course, you can now click above and go right to bodog, so you should be thanking me. Actually, they should be thanking me. You know you'll probably lose, right? Not to mention the fact that bodog's odds are generally crap. Here are the odds for the National League Pennant:

Odds to win the 2009 National League Championship
All wagers have action.
Arizona Diamondbacks 7/1
Atlanta Braves 10/1
Chicago Cubs 5/2
Cincinnati Reds 18/1
Colorado Rockies 35/1
Florida Marlins 12/1
Houston Astros 40/1
Los Angeles Dodgers 6/1
Milwaukee Brewers 15/1
New York Mets 3/1
Philadelphia Phillies 5/1
Pittsburgh Pirates 50/1
San Diego Padres 40/1
San Francisco Giants 14/1
St. Louis Cardinals 11/1
Washington Nationals 50/1

Notice that bets on AL teams have a limit of $500, while in the NL it just says all bets have action. I'm not sure what the deal is there. I think they just screwed up. Anyone feel like getting down a G on one of the NL teams to test this out?

Right now I think it's too early to put any $$ down on anybody. The only time I've ever bet this early was on the Mets last year, right after they got Johann Santana. How'd that work out? Since I bet immediately when the Mets got him, that was actually much earlier than a week into the regular season, like February.* I was right to think the odds would narrow on the Mets, so this would be my only chance to get a decent bet down. Even then the odds were 5-1, worse than any other team I've bet on. (If you could sell your bet during the season like a stock option I could have made a profit. I believe you can do this on Ladbrokes, but last I knew they weren't taking bets from Americans.) This year the Mets are already a 3-1 shot. You won't see me taking them again. I'm looking for some long shots to get behind. I think I took the Oakland Athletics late in '05 at about 6-1 as a hedge. That didn't work out either, but my bet on the White Sox came through anyway.**

I want to take Texas to win the West, since they are supposed to be about a 10-1 shot, and the Angels are nothing special. I don't think the Rangers can win the pennant without better pitching, but their bats might be able to carry them past the Angels and A's. (And Mariners. Seattle is in first right now.) Sadly, if Texas managed to win anything while I'm out of the country, I could come back to Texas next year to exhorbitantly inflated ticket prices. (Good thing the economy is in a shambles.***) Sadder yet, bodog is not currently offering odds on divisional races...right now. If they do not in the near future, I will call them what I have called them many times in the past--COWARDS. Not that I'm saying it yet. Yet.
Speaking of cowards, here's bodog's odds for the World Series, since they don't have the stones to bust out some divisional odds:

Odds to win the 2009 World Series
All wagers have action. Singles only. Max $500
Arizona Diamondbacks 18/1
Atlanta Braves 22/1
Baltimore Orioles 100/1
Boston Red Sox 11/2
Chicago Cubs 15/2
Chicago White Sox 35/1
Cincinnati Reds 50/1
Cleveland Indians 20/1
Colorado Rockies 75/1
Detroit Tigers 25/1
Florida Marlins 30/1
Houston Astros 100/1
Kansas City Royals 70/1
Los Angeles Angels 13/1
Los Angeles Dodgers 13/1
Milwaukee Brewers 50/1
Minnesota Twins 30/1
New York Mets 8/1
New York Yankees 5/1
Oakland Athletics 25/1
Philadelphia Phillies 15/1
Pittsburgh Pirates 150/1
San Diego Padres 80/1
San Francisco Giants 30/1
Seattle Mariners 65/1
St Louis Cardinals 20/1
Tampa Bay Rays 12/1
Texas Rangers 65/1
Toronto Blue Jays 70/1
Washington Nationals 125/1

I don't usually bet on the World Series Champ. Pennants are hard enough.


*The offseason really is the best time of year to be a Mets fan. They have more money than anyone else in the National League, and until the season starts they don't have to try to beat anyone. Nobody can outspend the Mets, except for the Yankees and Red Sox.

**So did my bet on Houston. I'll probably be bringing this up for years. Of course, I would have made more if the Tigers had won the World Series the next year, since I had them at like 50-1...or maybe it was 40-1. It's all in the archives.

***But not so much in Texas. There the economy's holding pretty steady. Good thing the Rangers probably won't win anything.

Taken, not Stirred

I wrote this review and submitted it to the local paper. It was rejected.

I went to the Lyceum Tuesday night to check out Taken, and save you the trouble! Let me tell you about Taken.

I arrived early, drenched in cologne I’d applied a few minutes earlier at the NEX.* One of my associates informed me that this was wrong on several levels, making me feel about as low as if I’d kidnapped Liam Neeson’s daughter. Any plans I may or may not have had to do anything remotely nefarious towards Mr. Neeson’s family melted when I saw Rob Roy. This guy will flatten you, unless you’re Darth Maul or Christian Bale or somebody. As a method movie critic I was informed by my bat-sense that I ought to take a cologne bath so as to channel the eurotrash this flick promised to bombard us with. That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.

Since my other associate moved a seat away from me, I probably was at least wrong on a couple of levels, but I think this confirms that my decision to not purchase this particular brand of cologne* was wise. The preview was for a flick called 12 Rounds, starring John Cena and the guy who played Tommy Carcetti, the Mayor of Baltimore in the last couple of seasons of The Wire. If you’re into implausible action flicks, rest assured that the laws of physics will be suspended a couple of times in this one. Mayor Carcetti shows his range by playing the same villan he played in Shanghai Noon II, which is more than you can say for John Cena. Cena varies his characters by wearing a police uniform instead of Marine camouflage, or a speedo and championship belt.
Liam Neeson varies his characters by changing his hairdo, and he played it pretty cool here, relative to his outlandish tresses in the Phantom Menace. He kicks off the movie by taking his sensible haircut to the store, purchasing a karaoke machine for his daughter Kimmy’s 17th birthday. Ironic foreshadowing, since many victims of human trafficking are into karaoke. Don’t ask me how I know this.

Kimmy’s stepfather upstages Liam by getting her a pony, which serves to set her apart from your run of the mill white slavery victims, as well as emasculating Mr. Neeson, who seemed so crestfallen I imagined for an instant I could take him. My impression was confirmed when Liam explained to the stepfather in a tense moment that the situation at hand was not about the sizes of their respective genatalia, while deftly demonstrating that his was at least as impressive as it was in Batman Begins.

The eventual crisis is brought on by Kimmy’s wet blanket of a mother, played by Dr. Jane Grey, I mean Famke Janssen, who is hellbent on shipping her daughter overseas out of motives that seemed murky to me. Mr. Neeson’s resistance to Kimmy’s travel plans lead to a predictable scene where he explains that he is more “aware” than others, because of his job working for the government, while Kimmy tells him he sounds paranoid, while telling him she always thought he was a ninja or a Jedi. He rather unconvincingly tells her he’s just a civil servant, explaining that Jedi aren’t allowed to have children, and the US government hasn’t employed ninjas since the 1950’s. Who’s paranoid now, Kimmy?

I’ll try not to give too much away, except to say that I immediately knew the first kidnapper who approaches Kimmy and her friend was a bad guy, though I initially called him a terrorist. At least he wasn’t French, it turns out. When the kidnappers show up, Kimmy tries to hide in the only room guaranteed to echo as she talks to daddy on the phone—the bathroom. I thought even she would figure this out. Good thing daddy does instead.

When Liam traces his way to the apartment where they were abducted (the one in the preview, of course) he busts out some high story exploits, edging his way along ledges from one apartment to another, no doubt because French locks are notoriously hard to pick. Of course, if you don’t use your ninja skills, you lose them. And chicks dig guys with skills….not that he’s secretly a ninja or anything.

Anyone who enjoys disliking the French will get their opportunity. I enjoyed how Liam Neeson impersonates a corrupt French cop while speaking English the entire time, yet still fools the Albanians. He also manages to find the Albanian he’s looking for by asking about ten of them to translate something, when that particular guy answers the question and gives himself away. What are the odds of that--one in ten? I also enjoyed how nearly everyone in this movie drives an Audi, including Neeson, (probably the most egregious product placement I can remember) yet he does the most damage while driving what appeared to be a Jeep Cherokee. I and the people of Detroit appreciate Hollywood throwing us a bone. I barely minded the auction where spoiled jailbait who don’t do their chores go for hundreds of thousands of dollars, since the ultra wealthy probably look for different things when they stock their harems than we do. I had a little problem with Liam trying to outsprint an Audi, then driving against traffic to the other side of a river, when he probably could have swum across it just as easily. This wouldn’t happen if Audi made an amphibious car, I guess.

Despite my objections , I enjoyed this movie. As implausible as parts of this movie were, by action movie standards they weren’t drastically unrealistic. 12 Rounds looks like it could be geometrically more outlandish. I never fell asleep, so I never had to wonder what I’d missed, or what was going on. That’s saying something, because usually action scenes get me worse than rohypnal. I hit the canvas like an epileptic gazing into a strobe light. Of course, it could’ve been fumes from that NEX cologne keeping me up after all.



*Armani Code. I recommend getting free samples, NOT buying a bottle. It smells like a ripoff of whichever Burberry smells marginally different than Axe Kilo. If you like this stuff, I recommend you buy Axe Kilo and save yourself 30-50 bucks.