This seed got planted in my head a while back by Bill Simmons, eons ago when he used to write about sports and be entertaining. He wrote his post(s) back in 2006, and had the help of a huge readership that sent him thousands of emails to give his reasoning for picking their team. Email would be obsolete (and I'd be long dead) before I reached 100 emails about the subject, so I don't have the benefit that he did going into this. All I have is Wikipedia and a few facts I've gotten from the handful of soccer fans that I know.

OK - first, for those who don't know soccer, a little introduction to the Premier League and how British soccer works. In England (and as is the case in most of the world), there are different levels of soccer, of which the Premier League is the top level. Unlike professional sports in the United States, teams in English soccer not only compete with the goal to win a championship, but they also compete in order to avoid relegation. Teams that finish at the bottom of their division are in danger of being "relegated" to the division below their current level, while teams in lower divisions can be promoted to the division above them with a finish towards the top of their division. There are no "bottom dwelling" teams in English football - if you suck, you get sent down and another team takes your place. That said, it adds a bit of challenge to picking a team. It might be fun to pick a struggling team that "needs the support" in the NFL or Major League Baseball because you can watch them struggle, rebuild, and when they (hopefully) become successful, say that you were a fan from back in the dark days of the franchise.

Not so for the Premier League. Like a team and watch them come in next-to-last? Guess what? They're not in the Premier League anymore. This isn't as bad in England where you could still watch the Football League Championship level, but in the US, it's going to have to be the Premier League if you want to watch them regularly, or else pony up some cash each month to get some obscure soccer channel, and I'm not ready for an actual financial commitment at this time.

So anyway, back to the teams. There's 20 teams in the Premier League. They are as follows:

• Arsenal
• Aston Villa
• Chelsea
• Everton
• Fulham
• Liverpool
• Manchester City
• Manchester United
• Newcastle United
• Norwich City
• Queens Park Rangers
• Reading
• Southampton
• Stoke City
• Sunderland
• Swansea City
• Tottenham Hotspur
• West Bromwich Albion
• West Ham United
• Wigan Athletic

Let's start knocking some of these out. Easiest ones to eliminate are the ones who aren't going to be in the Premier League next year - that'd be the teams that finished in the bottom three in the league. Wigan (18th), Reading (19th), and QPR (20th), it's not happening.

• Arsenal
• Aston Villa
• Chelsea
• Everton
• Fulham
• Liverpool
• Manchester City
• Manchester United
• Newcastle United
• Norwich City
• Queens Park Rangers
• Reading
• Southampton
• Stoke City
• Sunderland
• Swansea City
• Tottenham Hotspur
• West Bromwich Albion
• West Ham United
• Wigan Athletic

Manchester United is likened to the New York Yankees - they both are the most successful teams in their respective leagues, they claim the most supporters, and they have the most money to spend. As a Yankee fan, I put up with enough crap from baseball fans - I don't need the same crap from soccer fans.

If Man U is like the Yankees, then Man City would be the Mets. Living in the shadow of their more successful neighbor, they're perhaps a more fun "alternative" pick to those who hate the "entitled" Man U, and won their first league title in 44 years. That said, Man City has plenty of cash and are currently one of the richest teams in the world, so City fans that criticize United basically become the Red Sox fans who complain about the Yankees. Pass.

• Arsenal
• Aston Villa
• Chelsea
• Everton
• Fulham
• Liverpool
• Manchester City
• Manchester United
• Newcastle United
• Norwich City
• Southampton
• Stoke City
• Sunderland
• Swansea City
• Tottenham Hotspur
• West Bromwich Albion
• West Ham United

Speaking of the Red Sox, the company that owns the Red Sox also owns Liverpool. Isn't that neat?

• Arsenal
• Aston Villa
• Chelsea
• Everton
• Fulham
• Liverpool
• Newcastle United
• Norwich City
• Southampton
• Stoke City
• Sunderland
• Swansea City
• Tottenham Hotspur
• West Bromwich Albion
• West Ham United

A step that Simmons took that is probably good advice is to just stay away from teams that were in danger of relegation each season. While it's kind of hard to predict that on a regular basis, we can probably eliminate Sunderland, Southampton, and Norwich from the group.

• Arsenal
• Aston Villa
• Chelsea
• Everton
• Fulham
• Newcastle United
• Norwich City
• Southampton
• Stoke City
• Sunderland
• Swansea City
• Tottenham Hotspur
• West Bromwich Albion
• West Ham United

Finally, let's eliminate some more teams for petty reasons. Fulham has been around forever and I'm sure a lot of their fanbase comes as a result of family tradition. That doesn't work for me, and I can't find anything else the least bit interesting about them, so pass. Tottenham has been impressive recently and have one of the best players in football in Gareth Bale, but I can't stand the all white kits. If I'm supporting a team, I'd want to wear their stuff, and wearing all white just makes it look like you're running around in your underwear. Arsenal is one of the "big four" and has only finished outside of the top 5 in the league twice since the Premier League was formed in 1992, and I'm not crazy about being seen as a "bandwagon fan". Plus, "Arsenal" sounds like a team's nickname. Too weird to be a regular name. Swansea has a cool gold trim to its kits, but their key rival is Cardiff City, and Cardiff is where Doctor Who comes from, so screw them.

• Arsenal
• Aston Villa
• Chelsea
• Everton
• Fulham
• Newcastle United
• Stoke City
• Swansea City
• Tottenham Hotspur
• West Bromwich Albion
• West Ham United

Which leaves us with seven. Next time, we'll weigh the pros and cons of each team.

That isn't to say that I love Time Warner Cable. I love cable internet. The company behind them? Notsomuch.

When I've had to call TWC in the past (most recently to activate a new modem I bought), it's been wait time hell, and when I've gotten to speak to reps, they generally don't stray from their script, which pisses off those of us who actually know what they're talking about. See, script readers generally have no actual knowledge of the technology that they're supporting; they just read their opening statement, listen for key words in your response, repeat back the assumed problem they derived from the keywords you said, and (upon confirmation) turn to the proper page in the script to spit out troubleshooting information. Anyone who has ever programmed can picture the process as a simple flowchart, full of IF...THEN statements. It works great for companies because they don't have to hire actual technically qualified employees to man the phones - they can outsource until they come up with a voice-prompt program that does the same thing and doesn't need to get paid anything. It works for callers who don't know the tech well, because (for the mostpart) the phone support sounds supportive, reassuring, and speaks slowly enough so that they can understand what they need to do, since both sides of the conversation probably know as much about computers as the other.

For those of us who do know the tech though, this drives us bonkers, because (usually) we've already gone through steps 1-7 of their script and just want them to do something specific on their side that we don't have access to. But since we're saying words that they generally don't understand, they're ignoring them and listening for the keywords so that they can go back to the script, even if the words you just said just answered the question that they asked after you said it, because - you know - script.

Since I was at work and SO not going to call anyone, I saw that I could contact TWC through a chat interface. I will always pick a chat interface over a call any time I can, because 1) I can do anything else while I'm waiting for a rep instead of being chained to a phone and 2) because I hate talking on the phone. I hit the chat, knowing that I'm facing a potential issue since I'm not at home (and can't really physically troubleshoot anything without being there), but all I really want them to do is see if there's an outage in the area, and potentially check the connection from them to the modem. I've already rebooted the modem, wireless router, and computer - these are the cardinal rules of internet troubleshooting and you should NEVER call your internet provider without doing that. Seriously - shut down all three of them for like five minutes, then plug in the modem first, then five minutes, then wireless router, then five minutes, then computer. Do it. It will fix your issue like 95% of the time, and you don't have to call anyone. It will save you stress, and if you do call, it's the first thing they're going to make you do. And don't lie and say that you did already when you didn't. I worked for an internet service provider and done various forms of tech support for years, and trust me when I say we know when you're lying.

Anyway, I get the first guy on the chat, give him my info and let him know the issue. I let him know I've already done the reboots (SKIP THAT PAGE). He asks what error message the webpage is getting. I realize he's true first-level support - he gets to deal with the people who complain that the link that their friend sent them in the FW:FW:FW:FW:FW: OH WOW THIS IS SO TRUE email isn't working and I feel sad because I know he's completely dead inside. He quickly sends me to "National Road Runner support" and as I leave, I light a candle for his soul. Never forget.

At "National Road Runner support", I mean Sean Kenny. I do not know if his last name is "Kenny" or if it's some kind of bizarre southern attempt at trying to modernize double first names like "Joe Bob", not that it really matters since we know that it's not really his name in the first place. What follows is the actual unedited (except for personal information) chat conversation between myself and Sean Kenny (with added commentary, of course).

[8:32:07 AM] Sean Kenny > Hello! Thank you for choosing Road Runner Internet Technical Chat Support. My name is Sean Kenny. I will help you.

[8:32:11 AM] Sean Kenny > Hi Thomas!

[8:32:12 AM] Sean Kenny > How are you doing today?

[8:32:25 AM] Thomas_ > OK I guess

[8:32:51 AM] Sean Kenny > I see that you are having issues with your internet connectivity. Correct?

[8:33:45 AM] Thomas_ > Yes - we've been without Internet access for over 24 hours now. Modems and wireless routers have both been rebooted several times with no luck.

[8:34:03 AM] Sean Kenny > Okay, Thomas. Not to worry. I'm glad that you have contacted us. I'd be more than happy to help you.

[8:34:53 AM] Sean Kenny > Let me tell you. I've just been through your account details. Apart from the no connectivity, YOU ARE ONE OF THE LUCKIEST CUSTOMERS OF TWC. Let me talk about that once we fix your issue.

"Apart from the no connectivity, YOU ARE ONE OF THE LUCKIEST CUSTOMERS OF TWC." Let that sink in. That's like a ER doctor saying "apart from being shot in the testicles and us forgetting to give you pain meds, YOU ARE ONE OF THE LUCKIEST CUSTOMERS OF THIS HOSPITAL."

Also, I'm pretty sure that in my "account details" it should say "this guy is a dick who insists he knows everything about computers - PROCEED WITH CAUTION." If it doesn't, it probably does now.

[8:35:25 AM] Sean Kenny > Please give me a moment while I check if there is any problem from the server's end.

[8:36:37 AM] Sean Kenny > Is the router connected to the modem, Thomas?

First rule of tech support - it's probably your fault. In this case, he's ready to blame it on the wireless router because 1) wireless technology still isn't all that great, especially in the hands of those who don't know tech, and 2) because if he can blame it on that he can get off the phone quicker. Not going to work.

[8:36:54 AM] Thomas_ > Yes.

[8:37:20 AM] Thomas_ > But I've plugged a computer directly into the modem as well without connectivity.

IT TECH TIP: If you've got a wireless router and you're having issues connecting to the internet, ALWAYS plug something directly into the modem and bypass the router to check to see if that's the problem. Or, better yet, do what I did and lie and say that you did (I'm not home, rememeber?)

[8:38:05 AM] Sean Kenny > Okay, Thomas. Can you remove the router and connect directly to the modem?

Tried to beat him to the punch, but that would require looking up from the script.

[8:39:13 AM] Thomas_ > To test connectivity without connecting to the router? I've already tried that as I just said.

This would be when you'd start putting in those "this guy's a dick" comments in my "account details" I mentioned earlier.

[8:39:33 AM] Sean Kenny > Okay, Thomas. Let me refresh the signals and reset your device from my end. It could help us.

Yeah, that's what I was going for - stuff I can't do that you can. It was pretty much the only reason I was talking with these guys (and to see if there was a local outage).

[8:40:51 AM] Sean Kenny > Thomas! I've just made the signal refresh and device reset from the server's end. It should definitely help us now. Please check.

Sean Kenny! Why are you yelling at me!

[8:41:13 AM] Sean Kenny > If this didn't help, please power cycle the modem/router (Un plug and plug In) for 60 sec and again connect to the system.

Somewhere along the line, "power cycle" became a term that replaced "unplug the damn thing, wait, then plug it back in." It still sounds to me like a crappy 90s X-Men villain.

CYCLOPS: Wolverine! We need to get the Blackbird over to the Hoover Dam - Power Cycle has taken it over and if he harnesses the energy from it he could be UNSTOPPABLE.

WOLVERINE: I don't take orders from you, bub.

See?

[8:43:57 AM] Thomas_ > OK - waiting to hear back from my wife. I'm not at the house currently as I had to go to work. I'd have her contact you but, you know, no Internet.

Snark helps these things go quicker.

[8:44:34 AM] Sean Kenny > Okay, Thomas. Not to worry. Let me create a case on this. 

[8:44:48 AM] Sean Kenny > I'm sure you'd get this fixed as soon as possible.

If I could fix it, it'd be fixed already. (and yes, I know he probably meant to say "you'd like to get this fixed", but he didn't.)

[8:44:55 AM] Thomas_ > OK

[8:46:50 AM] Sean Kenny > I'm now writing the case, Thomas. You will be given a case number and local office number. Just one call to them, and your issue is fixed.

[8:47:00 AM] Sean Kenny > Now, let me tell you the good news I was talking about.

That you fixed my internet? Oh, right. No - go ahead.

[8:48:36 AM] Sean Kenny > I really don't want to rush you with this now. But, I'm afraid, this happened to be a one time offer. And this is certainly not for everyone.

Parental Guidance Suggested. May contain material unsuitable for smaller children.

[8:48:37 AM] Sean Kenny > You are really one of the luckiest customers of TWC!

Being without service for 24+ hours? I'M POOPING SHAMROCKS OVER HERE.

[8:48:51 AM] Sean Kenny > I see that you are now in "Standard" plan, where your speeds are 15 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload. These speeds are considered as "Faster" speeds. 

I'm both "Standard" and "Faster", much in the way a drink at McDonalds is both a "small" and a "medium".

[8:49:02 AM] Sean Kenny > But, while going through your account details, I noticed a wonderful opportunity on your account.

[8:49:15 AM] Sean Kenny > You might have heard about the "Turbo" plan, where the speeds are 20 Mbps download and 2 Mbps upload. These speeds are considered as "Fastest speeds". 

There are two plans available faster than the Turbo plan. I'm assuming those are considered the "Fasterest" and "Fastestest" speeds. I'm still holding out for "Fasterestest."

[8:49:32 AM] Sean Kenny > With this offer(which only you are eligible), you can get Turbo plan, just for 10$ extra per month!!! 

ONLY ME. SUCK IT, LOSERS.

[8:49:34 AM] Sean Kenny > You don't NEED any NEW EQUIPMENT. NO NEED OF ANY INSTALLATION. And the offer has NO CONTRACT absolutely. There is no cancellation fee as well. You can cancel the offer any time, if you feel it is not worth.

...what? Not worth what? The time? A farthing? A damn? It's weight in gold? DON'T LEAVE ME HANGING, SEAN KENNY.

[8:49:43 AM] Sean Kenny > And not only these. You can have many more advantages with this! 

OH GOOD THERE'S MORE.

[8:49:46 AM] Sean Kenny > *** You can connect multiple devices (Wireless/Wifi) with dashing speeds.

That's why I have a wireless router - to connect more than one thing. (Also: "dashing speeds"? How does "dashing" rate on the "fastest" scale?)

*** You can create multiple email addresses upto 24 email addresses.

How much was I paying you for email addresses before? Can I have money back if I don't want any?

*** Your email storage quota increases from 2 GB to 5 GB.

Gmail gives me 10 GB. Just sayin'.

*** And no contract again!

[8:49:55 AM] Sean Kenny > You don't have to pay anything now. The upgrade is just a click away. All I need is a YES from you!! 

[8:49:58 AM] Sean Kenny > This is unfortunately a one time offer (Usually, customers get this chance for 34$ or 50$ or more extra per month. Being so lucky, you can get this upgrade just for 10$ extra per month). And with NO CONTRACT and NO CANCELLATION FEE. So I suggest you to try this for some days, and you can cancel it if you do not wish to continue.

This is where I got a little irked. Hyperbole is one thing; this is a flat-out lie. To upgrade from "Standard" to "Turbo", if you are a TWC customer and go to their regular website and try to upgrade, costs an extra $10 a month. It always has. Calling it a "one time offer" is solely a pressure sales tactic, and saying customers pay $34 or $50 or more extra a month for Turbo is a flat out LIE. Upgrading even to their highest available service (two levels above Turbo) is only $30 more a month.

[8:50:04 AM] Sean Kenny > I personally suggest you not to miss such a wonderful opportunity. 

[8:51:21 AM] Sean Kenny > Just a "YES", Thomas. We are literally a button away from the upgrade.

PUSH IT. PUSH THE BUTTON. ONLY LOSERS DON'T PUSH THE BUTTON. DO IT DO IT DO IT.

[8:51:57 AM] Thomas_ > No.

I could have really been dickish, but I decided to let it go.

[8:52:08 AM] Sean Kenny > That's understandable. But please don't sense this as a sales pitch and me trying to make compensation. Please think of it as me, an internet expert, trying to maximize your internet speeds with a non contract and nominal upgrade. Worth a shot.

AN INTERNET EXPERT. Well crap, when professional internetests tell me to do something, they MUST know what they're talking about, right? Much in the same way that a car salesman is actually a movement expert who is trying to maximize your travel speeds from your Honda POS to a Corvette for a nominal upgrade. To help *you*.

[8:52:17 AM] Sean Kenny > Really not to force you. As this happened to be a limited offer, you can try this offer atleast for a month and check if it satisfies you. If not, you can cancel it any time, as there is no cancellation fee and contract!

No pressure, but DO IT NOW. NOW NOW NOW. BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.

[8:54:31 AM] Sean Kenny > Shall we make the upgrade now, Thomas?

...because if you don't tell me no soon I'm just going to do it anyway because I'm an internet expert, damn it, and I know what you need, and I'm going to give it to you whether you want it or not.

[8:56:07 AM] Thomas_ > Sorry, Internet Expert. The answer is no.

Yeah - I couldn't let that one go.

[8:56:27 AM] Sean Kenny > It's okay, Thomas. I can understand. No problem.

[8:57:05 AM] Sean Kenny > Here, THomas. Your case number is: ########

[8:57:14 AM] Sean Kenny > Let me share the local office number now.

[8:57:17 AM] Sean Kenny > Office Number: (XXX) XXX-XXXX
Toll Free: (XXX) XXX-XXXX

[8:57:20 AM] Sean Kenny > Let me also send a copy of our chat transcript to your email address. It could be useful.

Could be? You KNOW it will be.

[8:57:57 AM] Sean Kenny > I hope you'd get this fixed as soon as possible, Thomas.

[8:58:27 AM] Sean Kenny > Would you like me to provide you with any other information?

[8:58:44 AM] Thomas_ > No, I think that's it.

[8:59:12 AM] Sean Kenny > Thank you, THomas.

[8:59:29 AM] Sean Kenny > It was really nice talking to you.

[8:59:35 AM] Sean Kenny > You have a wonderful day!

[8:59:39 AM] Sean Kenny > Take care!

[8:59:44 AM] Sean Kenny > Bye!

[8:59:50 AM] Sean Kenny > Have a nice weekend, Thomas!

I cut it off here, otherwise I was sure Sean Kenny would have kept going in an infinite loop until he exploded. I still have to head home and see if the Internet is working, but even if it isn't, I'll still have the knowledge that I'm ONE OF THE LUCKIEST CUSTOMERS OF TWC.

As I got older, I started to "grow into my height". I hit my growth spurt around 10th grade or so, but I knew that I'd eventually gain weight and everything would "even out". I got more around 180-190, which seemed more "normal" to my height as I got into my mid-20s. From there, my weight fluctuated back and forth around the 200 mark, depending on my level of activity and other situations going on in my life. I figured that's where my weight should be, so I was fine with it. I got up to around 205, which I was fine with, and then new meds that I was on brought my weight down to 185 or so, which made a noticeable difference with some people I worked with. One person commented that I "didn't look good", but looking back to some pictures around that time, I think I looked fine.

That is, except the gut. It was still there.

About a year or so ago I went off my meds because I simply couldn't afford them anymore. I learned to adapt with the repercussions of this in regards to my job, but weight gain was to be expected, and it happened - I ballooned up to 235 pounds, which is a good weight for a wrestler, but notsomuch for a computer geek. When I went back on my meds about six months or so ago I assumed that the weight would come back down.

I assumed wrong.

Today I'm about 230 pounds, which is unacceptable. It can be attributed to a number of things, but "diet" and "lack of exercise" are pretty much the two main factors - two I plan to change starting today.

Yesterday, my family joined the local YMCA. It's something we've talked about for a while, but we didn't have the extra money. With my youngest finishing up preschool in the next few months, he comes off the payroll and we'll have some extra income monthly, and what better way to use some of it than by getting ourselves healthier. I'll be working out some kind of exercise plan (with the help of some websites and iPhone apps) to gradually get myself on a routine. This won't be easy considering work + commute takes up 6:45am - 6:30pm Monday - Thursday, so it means waking up at least a half-hour earlier (as in 5:30am as in oh hell why am I doing this) during those days if I plan on getting to the gym. The good news is that I'm excited for this, and that will help to get through the early days of getting up earlier, and hopefully by the time the novelty wears off, the routine will be in place.

As for the "diet" part, today I signed up for MyFitnessPal to track my diet and to get a better idea of what I'm actually eating and get myself out of bad habits. One major bad habit I have is related to "wasting food". I hate throwing food away and would generally grab an extra pork chop or chicken finger that was on my wife's plate rather than throw it in the garbage because food in the garbage = throwing away money. When you're a parent, this gets much worse as kids will walk away from a plate 3/4 full because they're not hungry. Throw out an almost untouched plate of food? Unthinkable. Then, suddenly, you're eating three portions instead of one. By tracking everything you eat, you realize what you're actually consuming, and the food that you're eating for reasons other than actual hunger tends to not get eaten anymore. This actually came into play already today as there were bagels left in the break room with cream cheese. I grabbed one not thinking and put some cream cheese on it and began to eat it. As I entered the information into the program, I saw the actual fat and carbs and calories that I would potentially be consuming, and I ended up throwing away half of the bagel. I didn't really want the other half of it in the first place, but I would have eaten it because I felt bad throwing away half a bagel. I didn't feel as bad throwing away 240 calories, 31 carbs, and 10 grams of fat.

So that's what I'll be doing in the near future. I may keep some kind of updates on here and I might not, but I feel good actually giving this a try. The "gut" is another story - I'll see how well the exercise takes care of it, but if it doesn't, we may have to address that in a different way.

Except that his girlfriend didn't exist. (His grandmother did, though, and she did die - that's not crap.) Deadspin.com broke the story yesterday, sending millions scrambling to think of some clever reference to girlfriends in Canada, George Glass, or something else I don't feel like finding a link to. Notre Dame says that Te'o been duped by someone on the Internet, while Deadspin implies Te'o may have been part of the ruse, noting a connection between Te'o and the person believed to be behind Te'o's fake dead girlfriend's Twitter account.

What we're left with now is trying to sort everything out. If Te'o was in fact duped, how does that happen in 2012? Supposedly in a relationship for three years, how does Te'o not ever see his girlfriend in person? Notre Dame plays Stanford every season, and played there twice - 2009 and 2011 - and the '09 game was when they supposedly met. No Skype? No webcam? No meeting in 2011? She couldn't have come to the USC game in 2010? Is Te'o that naive? Was he being used for money?

Or, if Te'o was part of it, why would he do it? Was it an attempt for more media attention in his senior season to improve draft position? Was it something cooked up by Notre Dame PR to give their highest profile player some more exposure and a Heisman run in a weak field?

All of these seem a bit dubious. A college athlete isn't exactly the best target for money, boosters be damned. A pro athlete you could see, but college? Not so much. And as for PR, it would have been just as easy to just push the "dead grandmother" story (which was legit) as it would have been to push the dual deaths. Tragic is tragic, and adding an additional death to one that actually happened seems like (pardon the wording) overkill.

So I've been going over "what if" scenarios in my head, and one keeps sticking over and over, and would make all the jokes all the more empty and kind of turn the accusing finger on society a bit.

What if Manti Te'o is gay? I'm not implying he is, nor do I have any evidence that he is, but think about it - what if he was?

Acceptance of homosexuals has grown over time, but in the sports world, that acceptance is far behind other areas of society. There are no openly homosexual athletes in the major professional sports leagues in the Unites States, and many athletes have stated on the record that they would not be comfortable having a gay teammate. On the college level, there have been some players who have come out after their playing career was over, but no college football player has come out while they were active to my knowledge, at least for a major program. This isn't to say that there aren't gay players in college football, but that if a college football player were gay, they would most likely go through great lengths to conceal that fact. Add onto that the fact that Te'o plays for the University of Notre Dame, arguably the highest profile Catholic university in the country. I don't know if you know this or not, but the Catholics - not too big on the homosexuality thing. So yeah - a football player at Notre Dame probably wouldn't want people to know he was gay. It's unfortunate, but that's the world we live in right now.

So let's say Te'o is gay. He'd be in the closet, obviously, at least on campus. While a player wouldn't necessarily be in a relationship their freshman year, he is a football player, and football players generally do not have a problem getting - well, let's just say "temporary relationships" - from female fans. If a player is seen constantly rejecting advances from those fans, we'd like to think that his teammates would respect him for his high moral standards.

In reality, that doesn't happen. Whispers and rumors start, and maybe a teammate makes an accusation, because OBVIOUSLY if a hot chick wants a one night stand with you and you reject it, you're gay.

Welcome to the locker room.

Now, if you're not gay, you can shrug it off because you're not hiding anything. If you are, you might scramble for an excuse. What's the best excuse when people think you don't have a girlfriend? That you do have a girlfriend - you just don't know her because she doesn't live here. According to the South Bend Tribune, Te'o met his future girlfriend at Stanford at the last game of the 2009 Notre Dame season, Te'o's freshman season. That seems to work nicely - after the season, the players have more time to be social. If questioned, maybe Te'o mentions a girl he met at the Stanford game, which explains why he hasn't mentioned her during the season, and hey - Stanford isn't exactly nearby, so yeah she won't be visiting campus any time soon.

This satisfies curiosities enough for a bit, but as time goes on, maybe questions start to crop up again. Maybe rumors start swirling on campus again. Te'o is becoming more and more visible on campus as one of the stars of the suddenly relevant again football team. Are you sure he doesn't have a girlfriend? Have you ever seen her? Does he even have a picture of her? Maybe he's... you know...

So maybe Te'o reaches out to a friend for help. A college student not on some sort of social media? Too many questions are being asked. Could the friend set up a Facebook account so that he could get these people off his ass? The friend has a better plan - he's got an already existing Twitter account that Te'o could "hook up with" - Twitter is easier to manage and doesn't require as much info as a full Facebook page would, so it's more ideal. Plus, he could make it private so that people could see that it existed, but couldn't get much more.

We don't know when the "@lovalovaloveYOU" Twitter account was originally created - maybe it already existed; maybe it was created for the sole purpose of giving Te'o's "girlfriend" an online presence, but whatever the case may be - Ronaiah Tuiasosopo apparently had access to it. Tuiasosopo and Te'o aren't strangers, so the connection is there.

The biggest problem starts to crop up as Te'o prepares to enter his senior season. More and more national attention begins to focus on him. News outlets want to know all about him - what's he like at home? Does he have a favorite TV show? Who are his role models? Does he have a girlfriend?

Te'o can respond that he does.

"Can we talk to her?"

Uh oh.

When sportswriters want to do profiles on players, one of their favorite places to get quotes is from the girlfriend. Maybe there's a good story on how they met, showing the "softer side" of the intimidating football player. Just saying "she doesn't want to talk" isn't going to cut it. Worse yet, Ronaiah Tuiasosopo - who was helping out with the Twitter thing - can't help because he was in a car accident.

Wait - that's it! She can't talk because she was in a car accident! Sorry - maybe some other time!

This works in the short term, but eventually she's going to have to get better. When you're caught in a lie, it tends to get more and more desperate as the liar perceives people are catching on. What can he say that will get people to leave "her" alone?

I know - let's give her cancer. Writers will back off on trying to interview a cancer patient for a fluff piece about a football player. Then, when Te'o's grandmother really dies, maybe he decides then that his "girlfriend" dies too. He can stop trying to think of excuses, and hopefully the questions will end. No one will question why a football player isn't dating anyone when they find out his last girlfriend recently died of cancer. Plus, he's already mourning his grandmother, so his sadness won't be acting. This should hold them off until the NFL Draft - really, that's what we're waiting for here - because if Te'o is outed before then, since there has never been an openly gay active player in the NFL, it would be a sincere fear that Te'o would lose potentially millions of dollars by dropping down in the draft due to teams being afraid to draft him because of "team chemistry" or other mysterious reasons. It's possible he wouldn't be drafted at all - insane for a player currently projected to be a top 15 pick.

But - whether Te'o intended to or not - his "girlfriend" and her death has become a rallying point. National media outlets jump onto the story bigtime, and his playing through tragedy becomes part of the image being put together to showcase Te'o as a Heisman Trophy candidate. The lie that he told four years ago - possibly only to protect his privacy and to allow him to play college football and make a career in the NFL - would not die.

Now, as most lies do, the whole thing is beginning to unravel. Deadspin breaks the story of Te'o's girlfriend never existing, and Notre Dame and Te'o find themselves doing damage control, portraying Te'o sympathetically as someone whose innocence was shattered by some unnamed outside force. It's an ideal defense - neither the school nor the player takes any blame, instead allowing the media to take the biggest hit for running with the story.

But in reality, Te'o could be a hell of a lot more of a sympathetic character if we later learn that all of this - the only reason his "girlfriend" existed in the first place - only happens because Te'o fears that the truth would end his football career.

And the sad reality is that it likely would.

So I'll cut through the flowery crap that usually prefaces these things (especially since I tend to get long-winded - SHOCKING I know) and get right into the ballot. There are 37 players on this year's ballot, and as I've mentioned in the past, that doesn't mean that there was only 37 players who were eligible for election. Some didn't make that cut, but we'll get to those guys later.

Sandy Alomar Jr.
Jeff Bagwell
Craig Biggio
Barry Bonds
Jeff Cirillo
Royce Clayton
Roger Clemens
Jeff Conine
Steve Finley
Julio Franco
Shawn Green
Roberto Hernandez
Ryan Klesko
Kenny Lofton
Edgar Martinez
Don Mattingly
Fred McGriff
Mark McGwire
Jose Mesa
Jack Morris
Dale Murphy
Rafael Palmeiro
Mike Piazza
Tim Raines
Reggie Sanders
Curt Schilling
Aaron Sele
Lee Smith
Sammy Sosa
Mike Stanton
Alan Trammell
Larry Walker
Todd Walker
David Wells
Rondell White
Bernie Williams
Woody Williams

TRIMMING THE FAT: These are the guys that make the ballot because they had decent careers or managed to at least have some length to them, but when mentioned as a "Hall of Fame" player, you get an eye roll. Mind you - these may be players who meant a great deal to their individual franchises and could be worth a "team hall of fame" entry for their respective franchise, but as for the overall picture, it's not happening.

Sandy Alomar Jr.
Jeff Bagwell
Craig Biggio
Barry Bonds
Jeff Cirillo
Royce Clayton
Roger Clemens
Jeff Conine
Steve Finley
Julio Franco
Shawn Green
Roberto Hernandez
Ryan Klesko
Kenny Lofton
Edgar Martinez
Don Mattingly
Fred McGriff
Mark McGwire
Jose Mesa
Jack Morris
Dale Murphy
Rafael Palmeiro
Mike Piazza
Tim Raines
Reggie Sanders
Curt Schilling
Aaron Sele
Lee Smith
Sammy Sosa
Mike Stanton
Alan Trammell
Larry Walker
Todd Walker
David Wells
Rondell White
Bernie Williams
Woody Williams

That brings the number down to 23 - 23 guys that we have to give at least a little thought to, or I want to at least talk about a bit.

THE TRAGIC FLAW: The concept of the hero with the "tragic flaw" goes back even before Murray Chass became a sportswriter, to the times of the Ancient Greeks. It's a somewhat cheap (yet effective) way of drawing emotion from an audience, who see the hero, get behind him, and feel for him when he comes up short because of some event or occurrence that stops him short from his ultimate goal, whether it be his own fault or some outside factor. For the sake of Hall of Fame voting, these guys might have been Hall of Famers, if not for some factor coming in that ruined their path to greatness. These are the guys that are the hardest to take off the list because they stir up the most emotion from voters - they're often ones they've seen in person and may have even called "future hall of famer" when covering them, but have to concede that they just didn't make it.

Julio Franco - It's unlikely that Julio Franco stays on the ballot after this season, but he really should get more consideration than he'll get.

Player #1: 1890 games, 2177 hits, 1104 runs scored, 981 RBI, 260 SB, .301/.366/.418
Player #2: 2164 games, 2386 hits, 1318 runs scored, 1061 RBI, 344 SB, .285/.344/.452
Player #3: 2148 games, 2463 hits, 1242 runs scored, 1116 RBI, 278 SB, .300/.367/.422

Player #1 is Franco, 1982-1997. Player #2 is Ryne Sandberg, 1981-1997. Sandberg's final season was 1997, and he received 49.2% of the HoF vote in his first year of eligibility in 2003, eventually gaining election in his third year of eligibility. Now granted - Ryno made 10 All-Star games, won nine Gold Gloves, and was the 1984 NL MVP, but it is worth noting that had Franco ended his career in 1997, he might have received a lot more consideration than he will in this election. Franco stuck around though, playing in Japan, Mexico, and Korea before signing on with Atlanta in 2001 and becoming their starting first baseman at the age of 43. Franco would play four more seasons for the Braves, then two more with the Mets, extending his career 10 more years. Had Franco not decided to extend his career, it would have been much easier for him to state a case for the Hall of Fame, but a decade later, it's a much harder argument.

Oh, and player #3? That's Franco again, adding in his Japanese numbers from 1995 and 1998. So by both extending his career a decade and spending two productive years of his career outside of Major League Baseball, Franco's Hall of Fame chances have gone from "good argument" to a likely "one and done".

Don Mattingly - This one kills me every year. Mattingly was on a Hall of Fame path before back injuries robbed him of the gaudy numbers required of a first baseman for election. Class act as a player, similar career numbers to Kirby Puckett (who got in easily on the first ballot), but can't do it. Hoping he does enough as a manager to maybe get in that way.

Mark McGwire - I wrote nearly eight years ago that I wasn't sure if McGwire was a Hall of Fame candidate even if performance-enhancing drugs were taken out of the conversation. McGwire had a huge six year span between 1995 to 2000 where he was off the charts, and those six years brought "average" numbers to "hall of fame career" numbers. Add admitted steroid use to that (starting as early as 1989) and it takes it out of consideration.

Dale Murphy - You feel bad for Murph because unlike Mattingly who you can point to injuries that derailed his HOF potential, Murphy's numbers just fell off a cliff. Some have argued that if Murphy had, oh I don't know, woken up with glaucoma in spring training of 1988, that he'd be in the Hall of Fame today. The numbers back that up - .862 OPS, 310 HR, 145 SB, averaging 100 runs and 100 RBI over 162 games during that span. But he didn't have glaucoma - he just stopped putting up the numbers he had earlier in his career. After he turned 32, Murph put up a .702 OPS, averaged 66 runs and 84 RBI over 162 games during that span, and didn't show the power or speed that made him a superstar. Was it the quality of teams he played for? Murph almost always played for poor Braves teams, but had the benefit of Bob Horner batting behind him in the lineup through most of that time. When Horner went to Japan in 1987, Murphy had his last good season (while leading the majors in intentional walks), then saw his numbers drop off the following year as the Braves struggled to put any kind of offensive threat behind him in the lineup. By the time he was traded to the Phillies in 1990, it was already too late - the 34-year-old Murphy saw his average improve, but the power was no longer there. This is his last year on the ballot, and he'll gain some sympathy votes for that, but it's not going to help.

Lee Smith - You probably assume that Lee Smith's tragic flaw was that he was a closer. It's not - it's that he wasn't a great closer. Smith gets a lot of votes from sportswriters due to his longevity (giving him 478 saves, third all-time) and his look - people remember him as being an intimidating closer. But just because Smith was given the opportunity to close numerous times in his career doesn't make him an elite player. Last year I called him Armando Benitez with a Jheri curl - I'm sticking by that assessment.

David Wells - Boomer's tragic flaw had nothing to do with any choice that he made - in his case, it had to do with not getting the opportunity to become a regular starting pitcher until he was 30. As a member of the Blue Jays, Wells bounced back and forth between the rotation and the bullpen, and only after being cut by Toronto in Spring Training in 1993 and being picked up by pitching-desperate Detroit did he get a regular shot at the starting rotation. True - Wells' numbers when he was starting are still a stretch for Hall inclusion, but the longevity of his career might have gotten him up enough in the win total to get him a regular spot on the ballot, rather than a "one and done" as Boomer is likely to go this season.

Bernie Williams - When it comes to tragic flaws, most players would wish to change them if they had the ability to do so. In the case of Bernie Williams, it's doubtful he would. The tragic flaw that will keep Bernie Williams out of the Hall of Fame gave him four World Series rings. On paper, Williams' numbers give him an argument for inclusion - 2336 hits, .858 career OPS, a batting title, four gold gloves, five all-star games - and no character issues or any real reason to want him out. If Bernie Williams plays his whole career with the Indians or the Reds or the Brewers where he's the star by default on those teams, maybe he stands out more. Maybe he begins his career a little earlier - maybe he continues playing a little longer without pressure from the organization to step aside and let a younger player play regularly and win now. Maybe that allows him to get 3000 hits, or at least close to it - close enough for those voters who don't want to be swayed by voting for a Yankee or to be forced to consider postseason stats to reconsider. Maybe that happens if Bernie Williams isn't a career Yankee. But it doesn't, and as much as I like the guy and I'm glad he made it past the initial ballot, I can't do it this year.

Jeff Bagwell
Craig Biggio
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Steve Finley
Julio Franco
Kenny Lofton
Edgar Martinez
Don Mattingly
Fred McGriff
Mark McGwire
Jack Morris
Dale Murphy
Rafael Palmeiro
Mike Piazza
Tim Raines
Curt Schilling
Lee Smith
Sammy Sosa
Alan Trammell
Larry Walker
David Wells
Bernie Williams

Down to 16.

I LIKE YOU, BUT...: These are the guys that probably deserve some consideration and will be on some ballots, but in an effort to get down to 10 they drop off for one reason or another.

Steve Finley - I'll admit - Finley made it this far because I hadn't really looked at his stats and was going off of memory. I remembered Finley as being an ordinary 4th outfielder type coming up with the Orioles before eventually finding his groove with Houston and later San Diego, gaining a power stroke to go along with excellent fielding skills. I look up his WAR, see good but not great totals, then check to see how much of that is thanks to defense. Turns out, very little. In fact, fielding statistics show Finley as being quite the opposite of his Gold Glove reputation; in 1995, his first year with San Diego and the season he won his first Gold Glove award, Finley has a negative 1.8 defensive WAR. In other words, Finley's fielding that season actually cost the Padres nearly two wins. Finley wasn't always a bad fielder - he played well in Houston and in his first season in Arizona before settling in as a league average centerfielder - but his time in San Diego was horrid. Finley wouldn't have made it regardless, but it's a good example of how highlights and single plays can distort the big picture, and how statistics can help to ground us from that.

Kenny Lofton - Kenny Lofton made his major league debut for the Houston Astros on September 14th, 1991, leading off against the Cincinnati Reds. Batting 2nd for the Astros was Steve Finley, followed by Craig Biggio and Jeff Bagwell. Lofton would go 3-4 and the Astros would win, 7-3. Picking up the save in the game? Curt Schilling. All five of those players are on the Hall of Fame ballot this year, with all but Finley likely to garner their share of votes and a continued spot on the ballot. Is Lofton a Hall of Famer? I think he's close and could probably be persuaded, but I can't vote for him this year, and I wouldn't he heartbroken if he fell off the ballot so no sympathy vote either.

Fred McGriff - I've shrugged him off in the past, and continue to do so. Great first half of his career, mediocre second half. My main strike against McGriff is Mattingly - Mattingly's peak is similar to McGriff's, with more hardware (MVP, six All-Star games, five Gold Gloves to just two All-Star games), but McGriff maintained mediocre longevity, while Mattingly struggled with injury and ended up retiring early. Voting for McGriff becomes a vote for extended mediocrity - I'll pass.

Jack Morris - See my comments about Morris last year, because they haven't changed. Like Finley before using clouded judgement remembering great catches instead of overall performance (which stats reveal), Morris gets remembered as an ace because he pitches a great game 7 against Atlanta in the 1991 World Series. But, as Jon Bois reminded me in The Hall of Nearly Great (go buy it), if Lonnie Smith doesn't brainfart in 8th inning of that game, maybe Morris doesn't get nearly this much discussion and eventually inducted (as I assume he will).

Rafael Palmeiro - Rafael Palmeiro fit the profile of the typical baseball steroid user of the 90s - good hitter who lacked power initially at a position that required power, connections with the 90s Texas Rangers and Jose Canseco, and extended success into his late 30s with minimal (if any) statistical dropoff. Unlike other players that will come up later who fit this profile, however, Palmeiro actually failed a drug test as an active player for steroid use. Suspicion is one thing - actually failing the test is another. It's a shame too, because I think Palmeiro was probably a good enough of a hitter to have a long career and might have actually gotten to 3000 hits regardless, but there's no way to know that.

Sammy Sosa - Am I making steroid assumptions again? Sure. But Sosa did test positive, if the New York Times is to be believed, back in the 2003 "survey testing" MLB did (the results have never been released publicly by MLB). But Sosa, like McGwire, went from being a flawed power hitter to a suddenly unbeatable hitter. Playing regularly for the Cubs, Sosa had a breakout season in strike-shortened 1994, putting up a .300/.339/.545 line and hitting 25 home runs in 105 games. Sosa followed up with two similar seasons, but in 1997 - at age 28 - Sosa regresses by putting up a  .251/.300/.480 line, hitting four less home runs than the season before despite 153 more plate appearances. He does, however, lead the league in strikeouts, with 174.

Has Sosa plateaued? Have pitchers figured him out? Amazingly, the following season, Sosa hits 66 home runs, wins the NL MVP, raises his OPS 350 points, and captures the heart of corporate America enough to allow him to make a commercial that would haunt my dreams to this day. IT'S A CHRISTMAS MIRACLE.

Normalize his 1998-2003 stats to his 1994-1997 level, and he's not that special anymore. Sorry, can't do it. That, and the fact that Sammy's "it's so real" face in that commercial looks like the face he'd make if he saw a naked Don Zimmer in the middle of a human sacrifice ritual.

Jeff Bagwell
Craig Biggio
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Steve Finley
Kenny Lofton
Edgar Martinez
Fred McGriff
Jack Morris
Rafael Palmeiro
Mike Piazza
Tim Raines
Curt Schilling
Sammy Sosa
Alan Trammell
Larry Walker

So that brings us to ten. If I were feeling generous, I would put all ten of them on my ballot and be done with it. And I almost did, but I just couldn't do it with one of them. Quickly (because this is really long and you probably haven't read this far):

Jeff Bagwell - Assuming Rafael Palmeiro didn't take PEDs during his career at all, he's got a good argument for the Hall of Fame, no? Bagwell, over the course of his career, has a WAR ten points higher than Palmeiro - in five less seasons. During Bagwell's career, only two players had a higher WAR than him - one is on this ballot as well, and the other is still active. The only reason he's not currently in the Hall is that some writers make assumptions based on the time that he played and his high numbers that he used PEDs. I'm willing to take that risk.

Craig Biggio - Played a lot of baseball, the majority of which at a high level. The 3000 hits should get him in, plus sportswriters love the "played his whole career for one team" thing. Like Barry Larkin before him, he won't get in on the first ballot, but he'll get in eventually, especially with voters likely looking for "safe picks" the next few ballots.

Barry Bonds - Yes, I went there. And yes, I think it's pretty obvious he was on something. But when? Bonds won his first MVP in 1990, and by the end of the 1993 season already had three MVP awards, one second place finish, and four Gold Gloves. "Game Of Shadows" would lead you to believe that Bonds began using PEDs in 1999 in response to the McGwire/Sosa home run showdown the previous season. Three MVPs, 411 home runs, .966 OPS, eight Gold Gloves, eight All-Star games to that point. If his career ended after the 1998 season, Barry Bonds is a Hall of Famer. To not vote for Bonds is to attempt to punish the player for the steroids, not because he wasn't good enough of a player. The players who I've left off for one reason or another because of PEDs - McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro - these were players who went from flawed players to superstars. Bonds was already one of the five best players in the game, if not the best by the time he (allegedly) got involved with PEDs. I can't not vote for him.

Roger Clemens - I'm not a Clemens fan, and I know that he's pretty much in the same boat as Bonds in regards to PEDs. But like Bonds, Clemens was a top pitcher before he was associated with any kind of drugs - he has the highest WAR of any pitcher from 1984 to 1996 - his entire tenure with the Boston Red Sox. While Clemens had two outstanding seasons with Toronto in 1997 and 1998, his tenure with the Yankees after that were akin to his last few years with the Red Sox - better than league average, but not superstar level. Much like Bonds, I find it hard to not see withholding a vote for Clemens to be anything more than a punishment for steroid allegations. If anything, the inclusion of Bonds and Clemens in the Hall would be symbolic of the era in which they played. To ignore them is to pretend that 15-20 years of baseball never existed, which is insulting for something meant to be a historical tool to be used by future generations to learn about past eras of baseball.

Edgar Martinez - Edgar had two tragic flaws thrown at him, and I'm hoping he gets past both. Never given a starting role until he was 27, Edgar's fighting the whole "only a DH" thing now, which is as unfair. I "voted" for him last year and I'm sticking with that - in. You can see my reasoning in last year's article, but short version: wasn't a DH because he couldn't field, as good as/better hitter than Molitor, who followed a similar career path, complete with the DHing, and was a first-ballot Hall of Famer.

Mike Piazza - Another who should be a first-time Hall of Famer, but won't be because of assumptions, hearsay, and accusations. Excellent hitter through most of his career. Crappy catcher through most of his career. Still, 12-time All-Star, 5th highest WAR of any catcher in history - when you start talking about a player being in the top 10 of his position ALL-TIME, you think you should vote for him for the Hall of Fame.

Tim Raines - Voted for him last year, voting for him this year. Lofton was close, Raines is better than Lofton, so Raines is in.

Alan Trammell - I left Trammell off last year, mainly because I'm still bitter that Lou Whitaker only had one year on the ballot. It's easy to overshadow Trammell when Cal Ripken played in the same division in the same era, but Trammell's numbers aren't much different than Barry Larkin's, who no one seemed to have an issue with. Screw it - maybe it'll get Whitaker a closer look on the Veteran's Committee.

Larry Walker - Voted for Walker before, and I'll do it again here. I understand how in the past we might be able to look at Walker's numbers and chalk them up to his time in Colorado, but we have ways now to even out park factors and look at statistics on an equal level, and Walker still comes out at one of the most dangerous hitters of the 90s. Add to that fielding ability (7 Gold Gloves) and a MVP, and you should have someone up for Hall of Fame consideration. He gets my vote.

Which leaves the one of the final ten that didn't make it:

Curt Schilling - I almost did. I really almost did. I saw the 3000+ strikeouts and the awesome walk to strikeout ratio. I looked past the lack of wins (crappy Phillies teams) and saw the 130 ERA+ from the time he was a regular starter. I ignored the bloody sock and the lack of a Cy Young and looked at the three second-place finishes and felt for him having to pitch in the same time as Randy Johnson. Then I looked at pitcher WAR from 1992 (Schilling's first year as a starter) and 2007 (the end of his career), and I saw Johnson overshadowing him. And Greg Maddux. And Pedro Martinez. And Clemens. And I started thinking - all four of those guys get in, right? Then I look at the guys right under him: Mike Mussina, Tom Glavine, and John Smoltz. Would I vote those guys in over Schilling? Possibly. So then I start to wonder - how do I feel about voting in a pitcher to the Hall of Fame who would potentially rank 8th if I had to rank starting pitchers of that era? So I backed off - can't do it. I don't necessarily have a problem with those who would, but I can't do it.

Jeff Bagwell
Craig Biggio
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Edgar Martinez
Mike Piazza
Tim Raines
Curt Schilling
Alan Trammell
Larry Walker

So that's it - there's my nine-player 2013 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot. I'm curious to see what happens with the actual voting - I don't think there's any way to call it this year.

As for this excerpt, it got a little long and didn't flow the way I wanted the rest of my "submission" to go, but I liked it on its own and wanted to save it in some way before I edited the hell out of it. It sounds more like something you'd find in a biography than an essay. Hey - there isn't a Bone biography yet, right? Someone call my agent! Better yet, someone get me an agent!

Oh, right - the post. Enjoy.

The Yankees were Jay Campbell Buhner’s second organization. Originally drafted by the Pittsburgh Pirates in January of 1984, Buhner was sent to the Yankees in a trade whose initial purpose was to dump failed free agent signee Steve Kemp on another team while picking up the manager’s much less talented son. Building off a .323/.427/.537 his first professional season, Buhner hit .296/.392/.469 in A-ball for the Yankees in 1985 and after missing a good chunk of the ’86 season due to injury (a future reoccurring theme), Buhner bounced back at Triple-A, leading the International League with 31 home runs and putting up a .279/.351/.514 line while leading the Columbus Clippers to a league championship. Baseball America ranked Buhner as the Yankees’ #2 prospect in 1986 (behind Brad Arnsberg – remember that name), #1 in 1987 (flip-flopping with Arnsberg), and #4 in 1988 (behind Roberto Kelly, Al Leiter, and – of course – Hensley "Bam Bam" Meulens). But as any Yankee fan during the 80s remembers, prospects were nothing more than currency to get the veteran players that the team wanted – those final pieces that would bring the team that elusive World Series trophy.

The 1988 New York Yankees offered a lineup full of veterans, however there was an opportunity to break into the lineup. The Yanks had a bunch of corner outfielders, but center field was a wasteland. The position once manned by Yankee legends such as Mickey Mantle and Joe DiMaggio had been home to the likes of Jerry Mumphrey and Omar Moreno in recent years. Rickey Henderson, who himself played center for the Yankees originally, was back at his more comfortable left field role, while Dave Winfield patrolled right. Claudell Washington, who started the most games for the Yankees in center the previous season, was 33 and a temporary solution. So the window was wide open for a rookie to start in center field when the 1988 New York Yankees took the field.

And there was. Except it was Roberto Kelly, not Buhner. Buhner was sent back to Columbus while Kelly and Washington platooned in center. Kelly was more of the prototype center fielder that Steinbrenner had been looking for – a leadoff hitter who could steal bases and cover a lot of ground in center field, while Washington provided some veteran stability to a team that was expected to contend for a pennant. Kelly struggled however, and Buhner was eventually called up to back up Washington in center.

Opportunity struck for Buhner when Henderson began to struggle to stay in the lineup due to injuries. Washington shifted over to left, and Buhner began a run as starting center fielder for the Yankees. Buhner proved to be the offensive spark the team needed initially, going 7-19 with two home runs and nine RBI over his first five starts. But a hitless streak would follow, as would a managerial change. With new manager Lou Piniella in and renewed pressure to “win now”, Buhner found himself at the end of the bench, losing time to “established veteran” Gary Ward, who would put up a .225/.302/.312 line for the Yankees that season. Once Henderson was healthy enough to start regularly, Buhner was shipped back down to Columbus, essentially writing off any belief that he could contribute to the 1988 Yankees. Backing up Winfield, Henderson, and Washington in the outfield would be Ward and 40-year-old Jose Cruz, who had played the outfield three times that season at the time Piniella took over.

Now, one could see sending down Buhner to get regular playing time, especially if Piniella wasn’t going to give him a shot. But what the Yankees did next wasn’t just short-sighted; it just didn’t make any sense, and foreshadowed the bottoming out of the Yankees organization in the seasons to follow.

July 21st, 1988. The Yankees, in Kansas City, had just blown a 5-3 lead to the Royals in the 9th inning, putting them two games behind the American League East-leading Detroit Tigers. Cecilio Guante (closing after longtime Yankee closer Dave Righetti had been moved to a setup role) took the loss, thanks to an error by Claudell Washington in center field. An overworked bullpen caused by a questionable rotation with no clear closer. The Yanks, desperate, needed to make a move.

They decided they needed… a left-handed bat.

Bob Quinn, who took over for Piniella as Yankee GM after Piniella stepped down a few months into his tenure (and would later replace Billy Martin as Yanks manager because Steinbrenners gotta Steinbrenner), had concerns that the Yankee roster lacked a left-handed threat outside of Don Mattingly. The only lefty bats the Yankees had outside of their All-Star first baseman were Washington (already starting nearly every day), Mike Pagliarulo (who sported a sub .300 on-base percentage), and Cruz (fork stuck in him). Switch-hitting middle infielders Wayne Tolleson and Bobby Meacham weren’t scaring anyone. Quinn saw the solution to his problems in Ken Phelps from the Seattle Mariners. Phelps, who didn’t get a regular starting job until he was 31, was exactly what Quinn was looking for on paper – a left-handed bat that crushed right-handed pitching. Indeed, Phelps had an OPS over .900 the last two seasons, and a .982 OPS on July 21st. The slugger, two weeks from his 34th birthday, had worn out his welcome in Seattle, despite the good numbers, becoming disgruntled with the team’s lack of success. For Quinn, it seemed like a match made in heaven. Seattle wanted Buhner, whom they’d immediately start in right field in place of Glenn Wilson, who the Mariners had acquired in the offseason from Philadelphia and was struggling. Quinn pulled the trigger, getting his left-handed threat for Buhner, former 1st round pick and struggling A-ball pitcher Rich Balabon, and a player to be named later (Troy Evers, in case you cared.)

The problem with acquiring Phelps – and the reason why the deal was so puzzling – was that Phelps’ only skill was being a left-handed hitter. Phelps couldn’t hit left-handed pitching (a career .700 OPS vs LHP, 173 points lower than vs. RHP), and would only make 30 career starts against lefties. Phelps couldn’t play the field, either. Phelps was a DH for most of his tenure with the Mariners, and the one season he played some first base (1986), he performed poorly in the field. Plus, the Yankees already had this Mattingly guy playing first. Clearly, if Phelps was to get on the field, it would be as a DH for the Yankees.

Yeah, about that.

During the 1987-88 offseason, the Yankees signed Jack Clark to a two-year free agent deal. Clark, who had put up tremendous numbers for the Cardinals the season before was known to be an excellent hitter – when healthy. Originally an outfielder, the Cardinals moved him to first base, and the Yankees planned to DH Clark to keep him healthy. In fact, when Mattingly got hurt in late May, the team elected to field Gary Ward at first base instead of Clark for ten games before realizing that having someone in your starting lineup with a .244 slugging percentage is probably a bad idea, especially if he’s your starting first baseman. Clark would play first until Mattingly came back, then went back to his DH role, wrapped gently in bubble wrap between games.

This left Pinella with a problem. If Phelps was going to start against right-handers, he had to find a spot for Clark. The three positions Clark could play – first base and the corner outfield positions – were manned by the three best hitters in the Yankees lineup in Mattingly, Henderson, and Winfield, so that wasn’t happening. Leaving him on the bench meant making your #1 free agent acquisition during the offseason a platoon DH. But if you weren’t going to start Phelps regularly, then why trade a nearly ready young major league outfielder for him?

The move was typical for the Yankees at that time – mortgage the future to win right now. The Yankees put Phelps into the starting lineup on the 22nd, batting cleanup (Clark’s usual lineup slot) at DH, against right-handed starter Ted Power for Kansas City. Outside of swapping out Clark for Phelps, the lineup was identical to the lineup the Yankees used the night before.

In his first Yankee at-bat, Phelps walked and would eventually be left on base. In the top of the third, down 4-1, the Yankees began the inning with a double from leadoff man Henderson. Henderson stole third, and Power would eventually walk #2 batter Willie Randolph. With runners on first and third, Power threw a wild pitch to #3 hitter Mattingly, allowing Henderson to score and Randolph to advance to second, making it 4-2 Royals. Mattingly would stroke a base hit to left field, putting runners on the corners again, this time for Phelps. Royals manager John Wathan had seen enough of Power, and pulled his starting pitcher for left-handed reliever Israel Sanchez. In turn, Pinella pinch-hit Clark for Phelps.

That’s right – in Ken Phelps’ grand debut with the Yankees, he was pulled in the third inning for a pinch hitter. Not because he was hurt, but because he couldn’t hit left-handed pitching.

The juggling act became a mess. The following game was easy – the Royals put up a left-handed starter, so Phelps was on the bench. However, the series finale against Kansas City had a right-handed starter, leading Piniella to start Phelps at DH, Clark at first, Mattingly in left field, and Henderson in center. This experiment would last five innings, with Ward subbing in for Clark (who had gone 3-3 with a double and the go-ahead three-run home run at the top of the inning) in the bottom of the sixth, moving to center so Henderson and Mattingly could return to their regular positions. In the games to come, Clark would play some left field, some right field, and some DH. Clark’s numbers started dropping (perhaps due to the uncertainty of his role, perhaps due to the added strain of playing the field), and soon Clark was back to the DH role a majority of the time. Phelps went 2-17 as a pinch hitter that season (although with 11 walks), so his usefulness suffered as a result as well. The Yankees as a whole suffered, going 32-37 after the Buhner trade. While the Yankees scored 303 runs during that time, tying them for fourth best in the American League, they gave up 374 – almost 50 more than any other team in baseball during that span, and finished in 5th place, just 3.5 games out of first.

Could things have been different? Reportedly, Buhner was also on the radar of Baltimore, who was shopping starting pitcher Mike Boddicker at the time. Quinn and Piniella made it publicly known that they had no interest in Boddicker, however, and the Orioles ended up trading him to Boston, where he would go 7-3 with a 2.63 ERA for the Red Sox the remainder of the season. The WAR statistic (Wins Above Replacement) puts Boddicker’s ’88 Red Sox run at 2.4 WAR. The Yankees finished 3.5 games behind those Red Sox that season. Take away those wins from Boston and put them on the Yankees, and that could have been the boost the Yankees were looking for.

So often, trades are of the "veteran for prospects" variety, where one team offers some of their farm system's best players in order to get established major league players from a team that either has a surplus, or finds the upside to be too good to pass up. We got one of those last night, when the Kansas City Royals sent their #1 prospect (and potential #1 overall prospect in baseball) Wil Myers, along with pitcher Jake Odorizzi (himself a top 100 prospect) and two other minor league players to the Tampa Bay Rays for starter James Shields and Wade Davis. Shields, a year removed from an All-Star game appearance and coming in 3rd in the AL Cy Young balloting, is the obvious jewel of the deal for Kansas City, the established workhorse starter the Royals didn't have. Davis, who had been in the starting rotation for the Rays the previous two seasons, worked solely out of the bullpen for the Rays last season and had a career year, giving up only a little over six hits per nine innings pitched, while striking out over 11 per nine. Whether Kansas City plans to put Davis into the rotation or keep him in a relief role is unknown at this time.

Kansas City is getting ripped for this deal, and, well, you can somewhat understand it. Kansas City has been a poor team for a long time. No, really, a long time. The Royals haven't made the playoffs since 1985. NINETEEN EIGHTY-FIVE. It is currently the longest playoff drought in professional sports. The type of deal the Royals made is one that a team that just missed the playoffs makes, not one that lost 90 games and finished 16 games back of Detroit. Why sacrifice your future for a pitcher who - at his best - is maybe worth five wins?

But the problem with ripping the Royals is the level of uncertainty that prospects like Myers and Odorizzi provide. For every prospect that fulfills on their potential, there are countless others that fail to live up to it. Royals GM Dayton Moore can look out to his starting team and see examples of that:

• Eric Hosmer and Mike Moustakas, two high first round picks and top prospects, that struggled in 2012.
• Luke Hochevar, the #1 overall selection in 2006, who never became an ace (or even a mid-level starter) and will struggle to get into the rotation this year.
• Jeff Francoeur, the former top Braves prospect who showed enough promise to get Moore to extend his one-year deal but now displays the limited skills that caused Atlanta (and the Mets) to both dump him off for minimal returns.
• Even Alex Gordon, KC's "next George Brett" who struggled some in his initial run with the Royals, spent a few years bouncing back and forth between the minors and the majors, and only seemed to break out in his fifth season.

Prospects are hard, and it's much easier to use them to go after an established, known quantity like a successful major league veteran. This argument between "high potential" and "modest security" is one of the more difficult decisions for the human mind, and one of the reasons the game show "Let's Make A Deal" was so successful. (For those too young to remember that show, "Deal Or No Deal" operated under a similar premise.)

One of the more common "games" on LMAD (I'm lazy) would involve Monty Hall (or whomever the host has been in more current versions) picking out some costumed goofball and asking them to play some sort of mini-game that gets them a roll of money. The roll of money looks impressive - thick, with numerous bills in it. We can see that there's a $50 on the outside, but we don't know what's inside. It could be fifties, or it could be ones. It could be wads of paper. We don't know. Now Monty builds up the value of this by saying how much it could be worth, but also entices the contestant to give up the roll in order to pick out a box or a curtain. Usually, the contestant sticks with the money roll, because cash is almost always better than prizes (damned taxes), and there's still the uncertainty of what's in the box or if it even contains anything.

So then Monty makes the final offer to the contestant before opening up the roll. He'll give the contestant $1000 in cash for the roll of money. Now you've got a dilemma. Here's $1000 in cash that you know will be worth $1000. In your hand is a roll that could be worth $2500, $5000, or $50. You know that $1000 could help you pay off bills, but $5000 could take care of all your bills and give you a little left over. However, $50 will just leave you kicking yourself in the ass for throwing $950 away. Then again, taking $1000 and giving up $5000 leaves you kicking yourself in the ass for throwing $4000 away. You have four potential outcomes:

• Keep the roll, get amount above $1000, win
• Keep the roll, get amount below $1000, lose
• Sell the roll, roll ends up being above $1000, lose
• Sell the roll, roll ends up being below $1000, win

Dayton Moore sold the roll for the $1000, and now he'll sit down and pay off some of those bills while someone else gets to hold the roll and open it on live TV. Will it end up being too high of a price to pay for what he received in return? Possibly, but I think that will come down to how Odorizzi and Mike Montgomery (a former top 25 prospect who was a trainwreck last year) pan out. Corner outfield is one of the easier positions to fill, but if Odorizzi ends up pitching comparable to a Phil Hughes-level (good but not exceptional), then the benefit of having Shields in the first place diminishes, and if he pitches better than that, it goes away completely - and that's without Myers playing a single game.

Starting shortstop - like new cond (Miami)

Found this in a box of stuff we picked up from up north last month. Seems to have all parts and is in working condition. Would keep but received newer model in the box as well and dont need 2. Had some markings below eyes but removed them so should be good as new.

Will be in Nashville this week if you want to pick up or else will leave on curb when we get back to Miami. FREE OBO

• Location: Miami
• it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests

PostingID:5872649531

So now Yunel Escobar is on his way to Tampa to become their starting shortstop, while "OBO" turned out to be minor league infield Derek Dietrich - a former 2nd round pick and OK prospect (top 20 Rays prospect last preseason by both Baseball America and Baseball Prospectus) that is better than nothing, but comes in with minimal expectations. On paper, it seems like a steal for the Rays, who started Elliot Johnson at short 68 times last season. At best, Escobar is an ideal #2 hitter who gets on base, plays good defense, and solidifies a difficult position at an affordable price ($5 million this season, and team options for the next two seasons at $5 million each). Even if the 2012 Escobar shows up for the Rays, he provides better defense than any of the other options the Rays started at short last year, and would serve as a placeholder until prized prospect Hak-Ju Lee (#44 overall - Baseball America '12) is major league ready, and the Rays are only on the hook for this season's $5 million. For the Rays, a no-brainer, right?

Well, that's the thing. On paper, it is. Great contract, minimal cost to acquire, very limited downside. But Escobar is damaged goods from a public relations standpoint. Last season, Escobar was photographed with the words "TU ERE MARICON" written on his eyeblack stickers. "Maricon" roughly translates from Spanish to English as a homophobic slur. Escobar would later apologize, saying that he had written the words and that he didn't realize that the word would be seen as offensive as it was since the term in Spanish is not seen as offensive or taboo. Escobar would be suspended for three games and have his salary for those games donated to gay-rights organizations.

So was it a simple brain fart, or something more? Escobar is now on his fourth team, and the previous three exits haven't been the cleanest of departures. Originally an Atlanta Brave, Escobar was cited several times for mental lapses and issues with the local media. There too, he claimed to be misunderstood, with the language barrier being his excuse. But he was benched several times, clashed with manager Bobby Cox, saw his numbers drop, and was eventually dealt to Toronto in a deal that was seen as "addition by subtraction."

With Toronto, Escobar began to turn his career back around. His numbers turned back around after the trade, and in 2011 - his first full season with the Blue Jays - Escobar put up numbers similar to those he was putting up with Atlanta when he was being touted as a future All-Star. He signed a contract extension with Toronto and looked to be their franchise starting shortstop. Everything looked to be turned around, with those Atlanta days behind him.

Then last season happened. Escobar's numbers dropped off again - much in the same way that they did in Atlanta before the Toronto deal - and while there wasn't any specific on-field incidents or obvious clashes with management as there were in his Braves days, then-Blue Jays manager John Farrell mentioned after the eyeblack incident that there had been other times when Escobar had to be spoken to about "baseball issues". Could it have been as bad as Atlanta? It's tough to know due to the way Farrell and Blue Jays management handled it internally, but the patterns are similar.

Even his small time in Miami comes with rumors of a clash with management. The Marlins, who intended to play prospect Adeiny Hechavarria (also acquired with Escobar from Toronto) at short, felt that Escobar could be their starting third baseman going into the season, potentially building up his value for a future trade or acting as a security net in case Hechavarria wasn't ready yet for a full time major league role. However, after initially telling Marlins management that he was fine with the position change, Escobar had a "change of heart" and let the team know that he was no longer interested in playing third base for the team, causing the Marlins to go into the Winter Meetings with the intent of getting whatever he could for him.

So now, Escobar is on his fourth team, and likely not welcome back with his three previous employers. While the Rays taking a chance on a potential homophobe still wouldn't make him the morally worst person on the 40-man roster, it's more surprising that the Rays are willing to take a chance on bringing a player with such a questionable work ethic and clubhouse presence into the positive environment the Rays locker room has become. It will be interesting to see how Escobar works with Rays manager Joe Maddon; I have little doubt that if Maddon feels that Escobar won't pull his own weight, he'll be out the door as soon as he came in.

And if that's the case, you have to wonder if Escobar will ever get another chance.

The thing is - Longoria's motives are getting questioned, but in the opposite way that most fans are used to. While most players get ripped for deserting their team and leaving for the highest possible salary (see Pujols, Albert) or for causing their own team to sign a contract they can't afford and crippling their financial flexibility (see Mauer, Joe), Longoria's contract is reasonable, around (or below) market value, and allows the team to continue on without handcuffing them too badly. Yet - he's getting dumped on.

"Longoria is really not a big fan of uncertainty." - @Bill_TPA, platoonadvantage.com

"Evan Longoria would've hit free agency at 31. While this isn't a bargain for Rays the magnitude of his first deal, it's well below market." - Jeff Passan, Yahoo! Sports

"Longoria really wants to play in that dump in front of 19,000 people for another 6 years? For less than market value? #curious" - @dianagram, valueoverreplacementgrit.com

"Maybe Evan Longoria just doesn't like money." - Rany Jazayerli, grantland.com

I mean - I get it. In theory, Evan Longoria - a top 5 third baseman and arguably the Rays most marketable player - could have played out the string, finishing out his contract (that he signed about a week after his MLB debut) and go into the 2016-17 offseason as a key free agent, maybe attracting a big money team like the Dodgers or the Yankees to invest $150 million+ for six years and potentially doubling what he'll make with the Rays over the same stretch. Maybe new TV money brings other teams into the mix and allows for a bidding war. Maybe Longoria waits a season, puts together an MVP year in 2013, causing the Rays to sweeten the pot. Maybe that happens.

But maybe it doesn't. Maybe Longoria doesn't recover properly from his hamstring issues that plagued him last season and saw him recently have surgery. Maybe he misses another half of a season. Maybe he doesn't miss time but the hamstring issues somehow affect his swing. Maybe his numbers drop. Maybe his defense drops off. Maybe he eats some pickled dodo eggs and can't perform "The Twitch". Maybe he turns into Ben Grieve. Maybe.

Evan Longoria was guaranteed $9 million for the rest of his current contract; $6 million for the 2013 season, and a $3 million buyout if his 2014 club option year wasn't picked up. While $9 million is surely a hell of a lot of money to an unpaid blogger like me or 99% of the population, it's a drop in the bucket next to $100 million. His 2014, 2015, and 2016 contract years? All at the mercy of the Rays. That $30-32.5 million that Longoria had lined up from 2014-2016 was essentially a NFL contract that the Rays could cut at any time.

Sure, Longoria still had $9 million to play with (and would have gotten more even if he was dumped after the 2013 season, assuming he wasn't dead, suffered a career-ending injury, or banned for life), but think of it this way - if you're happy where you are and you're getting a "fair" wage (comparable third baseman Ryan Zimmerman of the Nationals signed a six year, $100 million extension in February), why not sign?

OK - let's put it a different way. Let's say you're a beet farmer. A week after you bought your farm and planted your crops, someone from the USDA approached you and offered you a contract to supply the government with beets. You signed because beet farming can be tricky, and the government deal ensured that you'd get paid good money regardless of how your crop turned out.

Fast forward four and a half years. Your beets are some of the best in the country. Alton Brown praises them. Anthony Bourdain has traveled to your farm just to eat your beets straight out of the ground. You've fielded phone calls from supermarkets but had to tell them sorry - your beets are the property of the USDA for the next four years. That said, they can drop you from your deal after a year. The USDA, knowing your concern, have approached you with a deal - they'll guarantee you those last three years and add on six more (with the possibility of a seventh) if you'll sign on the dotted line. The money that they offer is good, but not to the level that Wal-Mart might offer. A deal with Target might make you famous and lead to your own TV show, while Whole Foods supposedly treats their suppliers like royalty.

While you dream about "The Beet Beat" on Food Network, you remember too that last year's crop - while still a good crop - was affected by some insect that wiped out nearly half the product. You think you've got it taken care of, but you're hoping that the new treatment doesn't affect the taste of the beets. There's also the uncertainty of the weather, maybe a new insect coming along, and your worse fear - people realizing that beets are horrible. Signing the USDA deal might not get you on TV, but it'll ensure that you'll be paid (well) to farm for the next decade and then retire - if you want to. Plus, you don't have to move your farm (and your family) to another state.

Most farmers I know would sign. You do what you love, where you feel comfortable, and nothing changes except your paychecks. You've secured your future regardless of outside factors (at least farm-related; it's not going to stop you from starting a steady diet of condor egg omelettes and betting against the Harlem Globetrotters), and while you might be giving up the potential of millions, the millions you could lose as a result of not signing would haunt you for the rest of your life.

Sure - Longoria's situation isn't as clear as that. Longoria's contract that he signed as a rookie guaranteed him $17.5 million; an amount of money greater than most families will see in their lifetimes. It's easy to turn around and say that Longoria already has his security if something happens to him, and that rolling the dice and waiting until free agency is just gambling with house money. But let's assume that Longoria is "throwing away" a 6 year/$150 million free agent contract ($25 million per year) by signing now. That's $50 million being potentially left on the table. But it's a $100 million bet that you're putting out there. Betting $100 million to win $150 million is 3-2 odds. Is there any bet in baseball you'd make right now over the next four years that you'd be willing to wager a huge amount of money just to win an extra 50 cents on the dollar?

I've gotten some nice feedback on Twitter too:

"That...was INCREDIBLY interesting. And I'm not even following this story. Very well done!" - Lindsay Beaton, former Pop Bunker collegue

"An excellent article/blog, Tom. Thanks!" - Fred Schulcz, guy

"...I really liked the column. Thoughtful and well-written." - Peter Krause, star of Parenthood & Sports Night comic creator [Irredeemable, Insufferable] & artist

"Great piece. Very informative." - Steve Bennett, guy with a Far Side cartoon in his avatar

"[N]ice article. You oversimplified the [TUE] process..." - Will Carroll, sports injury expert, writer for Sports Illustrated, Internet curmudgeon

"I look forward to reading it later when I have more time." - Wendy Thurm, ex-Long Islander, San Francisco Giants fan, writer for every baseball blog ever

You get the idea. Well, I hope you do since I've got no more quotes left - spread the word, people!

I'll come up with something with more meat tomorrow. Maybe.