Ozzie Guillen: open mouth, insert foot. After startling revelations that he loves Fidel Castro and respects how long the Cuban dictator has been in power, to go along with comments he made to CBS Sportsline that he drinks and gets drunk after every game — win or loss, the controversial, oft-quoted Miami Marlins manager is in all kinds of hot water, with some in the Miami community calling for his firing and a boycott of all Marlins games until he is replaced. Boy the Marlins sure know how to pick ‘em!

Guillen will apologize and fly down to Miami from Philly to do so, but many are already tired of his circus act and we’re just a handful of games into the new season. Guillen has a history so this isn’t surprising, but what is amazing is how he seems to be completely clueless just what kind of platform he has, and how his actions might affect the unfortunate people who for some reason or another look up to him.

Is Guillen a role model because of his role on a professional sports team or do you think that card is over-stated? Do you care what Guillen says, or is it simply about winning and losing? Finally, do you think the Ozzie experiment is going to blow up horribly for the Miami Marlins — who ironically enough brought him in partly because of his latin ties to the community?

Chipper Jones announced today that he will retire at the end of the 2012 season. As the final active player from Atlanta’s dominant 1995-2005 stretch in which the Braves won 100 games 5 times, Jones was the heart and soul of the Braves offense. Carried by pitching aces, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and John Smoltz, the Braves unprecedented success in which they won 14 straight division titles may never be duplicated. Jones’ Braves career began in 1995, ironically the only year the Braves won a World Series title during that incredible stretch.

As the pitching aces slowly went their separate ways, Jones was the constant. As the hitters departed, Jones remained. Even after Bobby Cox retired, the one familiar face remained: Larry “Chipper” Jones

What a career it’s been for the great Atlanta Brave: 18 seasons and into his 40s and who could ever forget that great rivalry with the New York Mets!

How will you remember Chipper Jones? How will you remember Atlanta’s great teams of the 90’s and into the 2000’s? Will that success ever be duplicated again?

Yesterday, I analyzed baseball’s plan to institute two more wild card spots, and the tradition versus expansion debate.  Today, baseball made the dramatic change official.  It was inevitable, as we had been hearing murmurs of an expanded field for months.  What I didn’t realize was how this would alter (and I use that word nicely) baseball’s post-season schedule.

Yesterday, I talked about how TV and money has re-shaped the Great American Pasttime.  It’s not like I was proclaiming anything revolutionary.  Today, the residual effect of MLB’s massive deal with their TV partners became even more apparent.

Baseball is literally re-writing their post-season schedule to fit into the agreed upon calendar that their TV partners agreed to.  But as you’ll read in many an article starting today, that schedule didn’t make accommodations for an expanded field.

That’s a problem.

Baseball isn’t just adding another playoff team in each league starting this season.  They’re changing the whole set-up.  And short-sighted thinking on a long term change is just downright stupid if you ask me.  Why baseball had to institute this important change now, instead of waiting a year and then designing a schedule to accommodate reason over rushing makes zero sense to me.

Why did baseball need 10 playoff teams now?

It’s an interesting change, and it’s clear why it was put into place (cough, cough money), but at the disposal of a logical schedule, I just don’t get the rush.

Here’s baseball’s schedule, as planned for 2012:

Wednesday Oct. 3: Regular season ends
Thursday Oct. 4: Off day/tiebreaker day/rain delay make up day
Friday Oct 5: Wild Card 1 game playoff in each league
Saturday Oct 6: 2 LDS series begin
Sunday Oct. 7: Other 2 LDS series begin

Oct. 11 and 12: Game 5s (if necessary)
Friday Oct 13: ALCS game 1
Saturday Oct 14: NLCS game 1

Because baseball has more games to play this post-season, they had to adjust their usual 2-2-1 division series format to a 2-3 format.  Instead of the superior team opening at home, now they’ll be starting out on the road for a pair of games, al because there’s not enough room in this tightly configured schedule to utilize the more logical 2-2-1 system.

Then you’ve got potentially no days off between game 5 and the start of the championship series. People have said over the years that sometimes baseball gives its teams too many off-days. Well now, there’s hardly any off-days.  While exciting and fast-paced, it’s stupid.

I just don’t get why baseball couldn’t wait till next season to properly implement this system with a consistent schedule, instead of this weird mess.

The idea of the extra wild card was to emphasize the importance of winning a division, and more importantly to give the top seed in each league a significant advantage.  But now, the top team is opening the post-season with 2 games on the road. It’s dumb.

The change is interesting, buzz-worthy, and will probably go over well with most fans right away. Traditionalists, while saddened by how this allows 1/3 of MLB’s teams to get into the playoffs, will eventually adapt.

The point is this: It’s probably a change for the better, but rushing into it doesn’t feel like a smart move. It feels like this could’ve waited.  But you know our world: we need our gratification now.  So, just days away from Spring training games, MLB put into place a system that puts a frenzied twist on October.

Welcome to October Madness. Sorry March, you’re no longer the only month that’s crazy.

Photo: AP

In 1939 college hoops instituted what would become the NCAA tournament, an 8 team single elimination playoff, to crown a champion. There were 3 rounds and none of the games were televised.  Why? Well, television didn’t exist at the tourney’s birth. Twelve years later, the tournament was expanded to 16. A few years later it expanded again. By 1975 there were 32 teams. In 1979, the season that many believe changed the game (think Larry versus Magic), the field was increased to 40. A season later that became 48. Three seasons later it was over 50. It kept expanding, it kept growing. TV and ESPN helped lead to its explosion. The 24 hour sports cycle made it an unstoppable unofficial national holiday.

By 1985, the little tournament birthed in 1939, had grown from 8 teams to 64 (8 times as much) and it wasn’t so much a playoff, it was a marathon. College hoops’ popularity had exploded and March Madness was in full bloom.

For 15 years college hoops stuck with that system and it was widely accepted as the best post-season in sports.  Then came a one game play-in in 2001, and the scary, outlandish idea of expanding to a cool 96 just a few years ago. Fortunately, smarter heads prevailed, and the field simply added 3 more play-in games, creating the First Four to nicely balance the much-hyped Final Four.

No longer was it necessary to be great, merely above average had become good enough.  VCU took their First Four ticket and seized the opportunity, shooting the lights out to an improbable, almost unexplainable Final Four appearance.

The underdog fan in all of us was pleased, while old-fashioned traditionalists were bothered.  We ended up with a Final Four which included the Rams and Butler. These were not the 4 best teams. Everyone knew that.  These 4 teams had merely survived.

More exciting? Yes. More games? Yes. More interest? Yes. College hoops had scored another outlet for Cinderella to squeak through, and everybody loves a good Cinderella. But by the semi-finals, the elusive Final Four had given us 2 of them. As a sports fan, it felt wrong. It was too much. The best teams were supposed to have knocked them off, and retain normalcy in the pecking order. Traditional powers, who had traditionally outstanding seasons were left on the outside looking in, despite their superior overall resume. All because they stumbled once along the way.

Now we have more bubble teams, more excitement for schools that once never had a shot, and the most wild post-season in all of sports.

But rarely do the best teams win anymore. Even rarer is it for all 4 number 1 seeds to make it to the Final Four. Fans call this parity, traditionalists call this depressing.

Which is why there’s a major divide between those who love baseball’s new post-season proposal (expected to go into effect this coming year) of two more wild card teams, and those who hate it.

New age fans, sticklers for maxing out more games and more races are ecstatic. Teams notoriously clipped from the post-season because of the behemoths that they can’t financially compete with, now have renewed hope.  More teams get into the playoffs which means two more games, and more cities tuning in late (better attendance figures, better TV ratings), hoping their team can get into the dance.

Traditionalists are sick to their stomach.  What started out as the World Series in 1903 is about to balloon to 10, a number not nearly as extreme as college hoops expansion, but that is until you consider the context.

From 1903-1968 you won your league or you went home.  The AL and NL didn’t play each other, expansion had yet to take over the game, and there was roughly half the teams there are today. You won your league, you went right to the World Series. Other teams didn’t collect $200 or pass go. They were done.

Like anything, some years were more exciting than others.  But baseball wanted a few more participants in their post-season, so in 1969, they expanded to 2 divisions in both the AL and NL, and a Championship series was born as a prelude to the World Series.  All of a sudden the best record didn’t guarantee you a Fall Classic berth.  Imagine traditionalists and how they reacted then?

From 1969-1984 fans began adjusting to the new system and its best of 5 series format. Then in 1985, baseball expanded each series to 7 games. Some were probably annoyed by that.  Then in 1993, the Marlins and Rockies joined the sport as expansion mates, and baseball forever changed its ways, introducing its 3 division format and a –gasp – Wild Card in each league.

All of a sudden you didn’t have to win your league or your division for that matter, to get in. You could be second place. There was strife then. Rewarding a second place team? Preposterous! But alas the sport had grown, from 16 in 1903 to 28 by 1993.  It was almost like watching evolution.

And a quick side note on that 1903 season – had there been an CS that year, the Boston Americans, 14.5 games ahead of the Philadelphia Athletics, would have had to beat Philly in a series just go get to the Fall Classic. Over a team they had shown themselves superior to by nearly 15 games.

1903-ians would have scoffed at the notion. Looking back it would’ve been ridiculous. But times were different then. People didn’t even have cars!

So is introducing a 5^th playoff team in each league evolution or devolution? Is it natural to expand your playoff field as your overall field increases? Obviously, TV revenue wasn’t taken into account at the turn of the century, because no one knew what the bleep a TV was. People were still excited about silent pictures.

Baseball is introducing more teams to the ball, undoubtedly because they expect the one game playoff in each league to generate more buzz, and it goes without saying that more teams, means more opportunities, which gives more fan-bases the chance to dream big.

I’ve read the arguments from both sides – and the big one against expanding is that it dilutes the field, further blurs what it means to make the playoffs and win your division, and merely sidesteps the fact that the Wild Card is what got us into this quandary in the first place.  Some have argued that second place should garner no spoils. Win your division or get out of the way. People remember who won the pennant back in the day. Nowadays, winning your regular season crown in your league is a footnote on a website.

Great. Here’s a cookie, now go beat that Wild Card team (or if they’re in your division), another division winner.

Stop! Says baseball.  With the introduction of a 5^th team, their belief is that the 1-game winner take all free for all will force teams to go all out, thus disposing them of their best pitcher, and weakening their bullpen, assuming they advance.  Others have suggested, that if you expanded the divisional round to 7 games, it would help restore balance to the giants over the cinderellas.

While St. Louis was a great story, their overall 2011 season was pretty forgettable (and they would have been a blip in the pre-Wild Card years, where the Giants once won 103 games and didn’t get in). They tore up the NL down the stretch, as the Braves bowed down and took it towards the end. It led to the greatest day of regular season baseball I can ever recall, another point of emphasis that this expansion, injures. The Red Sox and Braves don’t completely collapse last season if they still make it into the field as the second Wild Cards. And Tampa’s unbelievable rally would’ve been another footnote in history, because the game wouldn’t have meant a thing.

Which leaves us with this: you can’t please everyone. You can’t appease owners who pay hundreds of millions dollars for their franchise and want another way to win by letting in just the top 2 teams. You can’t please fans who want parity, but also want the top deserving teams. Baseball is already on a tilted scale as is, given the lack of a salary cap, free agency and the explosion of millionaires has flipped traditionalism on its respective butt.

So in essence, by giving each league another playoff spot, you give your smaller market teams a better chance to compete, there-by leveling out just a bit the financial gap of a joke that is the sport’s economic system.

You can’t argue for tradition but bypass the fact that free agency, expansion, and TV has changed the game. Likewise, you can’t argue for expansion, and argue that the best team will have a better chance of winning. It is in that regard that the BCS kind of has it right when they pit 1 vs 2, sans a playoff system. Some years, like this one, the gap between 2 and 3 is miniscule and debate rages.  But it’s the only big-time organization that doesn’t let a party crasher knock out the heavyweight in the playoffs.  Because there is no playoffs.

Say what you will about the BCS – and I’ve said plenty – but it’s the closest thing sports has of guaranteeing us 1 versus 2.  The NFL as we’ve seen is a beacon of parity, and winning the division and getting that home game really doesn’t mean what it once did (Just look up the first decade of the new millennium for countless examples).  In the NBA the better team usually wins, but in 1999 the 8 seed Knicks made the NBA Finals.  In the NHL it’s barely even an upset when an 8 or 7 takes out the top or 2^nd best seed.

And in the NCAA, there’s so many games that one slip-up, and the best team is extinguished for an off-night.

Of course in sports there’s also injuries, unbalanced schedules, off-the-field issues, trades, cuts, and so many other factors that can get in the way. Comparing one era to another, while fun, is usually trivial. The games were different back then, the players weren’t as strong, didn’t have the same technological advances, training, etc. Loyalty was expected, not applauded. Its apples to oranges.

So maybe, after all of this, we should just accept sports for what it is: a fun game where expansion happens. We are a country littered with obesity, and we like more, more, and a little more. Expansion is exactly that: more.

It’s like in little league, when every team and every kid gets a trophy just for competing.

We’re looking to make everyone happy when that’s impossible. But the more teams you let in, the more that go home happy.

Is that what we want? Hope for all?  Or do we want the best handful of teams to duke it out in a system that rewards their regular season greatness?

Sports don’t seem to care as much about the latter anymore.

Whether that’s a good or bad thing, simply depends who you ask.

Photos: AP, Getty

Ryan Braun has it all, he’s the reigning NL MVP, he’s got a sick scruff beard that would be the envy of any zit faced 13 year old boy, and according to Major League Baseball, he’s twice the man as you or me… no literally, he’s TWICE the man.

During a random drug test that was administered to Braun during the playoffs last year, it was found that the eventual National League Most Valuable Player had DOUBLE the amount of testosterone than a normal man of equal or less scruffiness.

Major League Baseball immediately jumped to the conclusion that Mr. Braun is guilty of breaking one of baseball’s most recent sacred rules, and I’m not talking about urinating on George Steinbrenner’s grave. It seems that if the initial test findings are upheld, then Ryan Braun would be suspended for the first 50 games of the Milwaukee Brewers 2012 season.

Steroids have been a black cloud over baseball for almost as decade as many of the high home run numbers of the 1990’s were assumed to be the result of a needle. In this day and age of strict testing by Major League Baseball, it’s hard to believe that a player would risk his reputation and potentially his career by juicing up.

After the story broke of the Milwaukee slugger’s positive test, it seemed that a “Fox News” style spin team was on the case on behalf of Braun, trying to cast doubt on MLB’s handling of the sample and assure the public that the only performance enhancer any Brewer took apart of during the playoffs last year was Prince Fielder’s double decker Italian sausage sandwich topped with onions, mayo and fried cheese curd.

If the positive test is upheld, the main question that needs to be asked by Major League Baseball, fans, players, and owners alike is should a player who is found guilty of using performance enhancing drugs during an award winning season face the possibility of having his award stripped away for cheating. Obviously up to this point, no Major Leaguer has had any of their numbers or records stripped away for using PED’s. However, current penalties for using PED’s have just come into existence over the past few seasons and even players that were found to have used them in the past, like Alex Rodriguez, didn’t face any punishment by Major League Baseball.

This is the first time that a significant major leaguer in the prime of their career has tested positive for a PED and if the initial test is upheld, then Commissioner Bud Selig, could and should make a real statement against the use of illegal substances in baseball and strip Braun of his National League MVP and award it to Matt Kemp of the Dodgers who finished second in MVP voting to Braun.

Of course, Commissioner Selig has never been one to do anything to the detriment of his beloved Brewers and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was found that the test was a false positive or that there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for the fact that Braun was found to have twice the amount of testosterone as any player that’s ever been tested, hell, maybe he’s got 4 balls.

Photo: Getty

In the wake of Albert Pujols STUNNING defection to the Angels, a thought immediately popped into my head:

Did Albert Pujols just become a bigger social pariah then LeBron James?  Did the beloved iconic slugger just tarnish his ’sterling’ reputation by bolting the only franchise he’s ever known for sunny skies and warmer weather?  And o yeah, lots and lots of cash.

$250 million worth.  And if reports are true — I’d love to verify this — some even claim the Marlins (assumed all along to be St. Louis’ only competitor for the big lug) were ready to dole out $275 million for the 31 year old slugger (If he turned that down, maybe that tones down the greed aspect of this equation a bit).

The timing of the signing is incredibly interesting, as it comes on the heels of LeBron’s historic move to Miami a year and a half ago.  Two superstar stud players, presumed to be the best in their respective sport, have now left for greener pastures and new starts. Been some commencement to the decade huh?

Their stories are different, but have some eerrily similar qualities.  Afterall, both had played for their respective teams — the only teams they had ever known — for at least 7 seasons.  Both had racked up MVP awards and had experienced huge success from the get-go. Both were worshipped in their respective cities.  But this is where the conversation gets interesting. Really interesting.

LeBron was blasted mercilessly for leaving Cleveland high and dry last offseason.  His infamous, “I’m taking my talents to South Beach,” announcement was one of the most memorable and repeated quotes of the year. He jersey went from the hottest Cleveland sports garb to literally on fire, as fans protested his stunning exit from his home state by burning his jerseys.

His return to Cleveland last December was a massive-boo fest, and signs like “Traitor” littered Quicken Loans Arena.  It was ugly, and the media loved all the hate. Miami became the number one sports story of the year, and the most villainized basketball team in the history of the instant information age.  ESPN didn’t help by dedicating an entire tab on their BottomLine to the Heat, but the attention the move brought literally shook the world (Okay, not literally).

Now back to Pujols, who left the Cardinals today after spending 11 years with the team.  He helped bring St. Louis 2 World Series titles and quickly supplanted Mark McGwire as the greatest thing besides Stan Musial to ever hit the Archway.  He was the face of the Cardinals and an excellent 1st baseman.  He did it all.  Like LeBron, his free agency status became a point of discussion years before he hit the open market.  While he claimed that he wanted to be a “Cardinal for Life,” no one knew for sure what to believe.  Like LeBron however, it was widely assumed that he would re-up with his original team, retire in their uniform, and get a statue built of him outside those playing grounds.

But as the years went on, and Pujols got closer to hitting the open market, talks stalled between his agent and St. Louis.  After rejecting a 9 year, $195 million contract Pujols made it clear to Cards brass that he would cease discussions and enter free agency.  I wrote this at the time:

“I get that Pujols wants to put this stuff behind him and that his stand is that he “wants to be a Cardinal forever.  That’s my goal,” he says.

“If it’s his goal than make it happen.  What’s the difference between $200 million and $280 million?  I mean, really, when you get into that kind of echelon, and claim that you’re not greedy, what’s $80 million less when you’re already raking in hundreds of millions of dollars.  So of course he’s greedy… And this idea that the situation is out of his control is B.S. to the max.  Out of his control? Are you freaking serious?  It’s completely in his control.  If he said tonight that he would take $20 million a year for 7 years, St. Louis would ink him faster than you could say ‘set for life.’”

But I never fully bought Pujols’ supposed loyalty. Very few athletes know the definition of loyalty anymore and Pujols chasing the almighty dollar because the Cards didn’t want to give him a ‘competitive offer’ was well within his rights. Didn’t make it right however.

So now, with Pujols scurrying for Los Angeles with a money truck backed up to his front door (after St. Louis manned up and gave him a huge offer), it’s time to ask the question: Does this make Pujols the new LeBron?

The dominance and name they have over their sports is comparable.  Their global appeal is an interesting debate.  A 9 time All-Star, Pujols is a legend in the Dominican Republic and probably many other spanish lands.  But he does not carry the global stick that LeBron had right out of college.  Pujols is a star, but LeBron transcends sport.  My dad and I were engaged in an interesting discussion today when he made a fantastic point: does the casual person know who Pujols is?  Because they sure as heck know who LeBron is. Maybe that’s why LeBron took so much flack.  Because of his global name.  Because of his larger than life persona.  Because he relished the spotlight, unlike Pujols who tried to shy away from it.  Then my dad made another great point: how many Pujols commercials do you see on TV?  None that I can recall and I study advertising.  Maybe in St. Louis.

In other words, Pujols is a great player, but unlike LeBron he’s not a brand.  He never came out and said he wanted to be a billionaire.  He never wore Yankees caps at Indians games. He laid low in the weeds, putting up historic numbers, while leading the Cardinals to a great 11 year run. He did his thing, but he was never bigger than the game.

Which takes us back to LeBron.  James’ public announcement on ESPN to officially announce his exit from Cleveland was mistake #1.  Miami’s party the next day: “Not 1, not 2, not 3…” was mistake #2.  Going to Twitter to express his honesty made for a social media feeding frenzy.  That was mistake #3.  We’ll never truly know what LeBron’s image would have been had he exited the way, well, Pujols did.

There may have been a circus at the baseball winter meetings in Dallas today, but it wasn’t to see Albert.  He wasn’t even there.  While his agent was pulling the strings of 3 different ball clubs, he relaxed at home, knowing that he was the talk of the sports world.  But his free agency, didn’t go beyond sports.

So again, back to the debate: Is Pujols the next LeBron?

LeBron was villified for leaving Cleveland without winning a championship.  Fans said he chickened out, showing he wasn’t man enough to do it as the top dog, when he hooked chains with Wade and Bosh in Miami.  People called him a coward.  His owner wrote a letter in comic sans on Cavs.com in an angry tirade in which he claimed the Cavs would win a title before LeBron’s Heat.  Then Dan LeBatard made his epic “royal penis” rant on sports radio, which only blew the whole thing up further.  The media covered the Heat like the Beatles, leading to the nickname, “The Heatles.”  It was a fascinating subplot.

Pujols leaves St. Louis after winning a championship, his 2nd with the club.  Ironically like LeBron, his long-time coach Tony LaRussa, was gone (Mike Brown was fired, LaRussa retired) before any decision had ever been made on whether to return or not.  No one knows what kind of impact that may have had on Pujols, or if it was simply about the almighty dollar and a hispanic community. He hasn’t said anything lately. So this still remains at pure speculation.

That said, he leaves the Cardinals after winning a title for far more money in a more glamorous city. LeBron left the Heat to take far less money, so that he could try to win more titles in a more glamorous, warm weather city (See what I’m getting at here?)

It seems as if Pujols was more about the money, but that LeBron will forever be seen as the worse guy.

But it’s interesting, because if the goal in sports is to win games, bring home championships, make money, and break records, well Pujols had all of that in St. Louis. With Adam Wainwright scheduled to come back healthy in 2012, the Cardinals appeared to have an even stronger team ready to repeat next year (scrap that without Pujols).  LeBron was crucified for going where he thought he could be most successful.  Pujols already had a championship team and the Cardinals were ready to fork over $220 million.

And it still wasn’t good enough.

Pujols’ 11 years in St. Louis were special, but did he leave the Cards high and dry?  Especially after reports surfaced that the two were a few million apart last night and closing in on a new deal to keep him “A Cardinal for Life.”

Cardinals fans, excited to get the slugger back last night, woke up this morning to the shocking announcement that he was bound for the left coast.  No one expected this.

Couple that with the signing of C.J. Wilson to a now loaded Angels team, and doesn’t that eerily resemble what LeBron walked into in Miami?  Or is it different because the Heat were literally created out of money, with franchise icon D-Wade anchoring the ship?  These are all questions people should be asking these next few weeks and months.

If we gave LeBron crap for leaving a team close to a title to win titles and take less money, then how can Pujols be excused for taking the money and bolting a champion?

If LeBron turned his back on Cleveland then didn’t Pujols just do the same thing to St. Louis?

If anything, LeBron’s decision now looks much more defensible:

He left money on the table. He sacrificed a small amount so that Miami could land Bosh and keep Wade.  Pujols left so that he could take far more money.

But will the public care?

If its double standards we’re talking about, then this certainly puts that to the test.

So I ask you: Albert Pujols, villain?

Photo: Reuters

While the Marlins and Cardinals hogged the spotlight in the Albert Pujols derby, a third ‘mystery team’ was waiting in the wings. Hello Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.

Shortly after Miami pulled their $200 million offer to Pujols, it was assumed that Phat Albert was a lock to return to the Red Birds.  The sides were allegedly a few million dollars apart.  And then came the Angels, who you could say swooped in from the outfield and broke the bank for the iconic St. Louis slugger.

10 years, $250 million: an albatross of a contract that may be the most ridiculous deal in sports history.

As I outlined in my column yesterday, Pujols was a risk at $220 million.  Well, he’s an eye sore at $250 million.  This is the most outlandish, unexplainable contract since the inception of free agency.  A-Rod’s was pretty bad too, but this is just dumb.  Inexcusable.  It almost reeks of desperation.

The Angels are pinning their ears back and committing $25 million a year to a guy who turns 32 in January.  They’re banking on the 3 time MVP, who hit .300 with 30 home runs and 100 RBI’s his first 10 seasons in the bigs (the only player ever to do so) to not only age gracefully, but to continue his dominance until at least his late 30’s.

In my mind, it’s one of the dumbest contracts ever handed out.  Pujols is coming off a really good year, but not a great one in which he struggled with injuries yet still hit 37 home runs, batting .299 with 99 RBI’s. He’s a 3 time MVP, and has finished in the top 10 of MVP voting 10 times.  That’s amazing.  He has more MVP votes in history, with the exception of one Barry Bonds. That’s insane.

And yet, this contract is still hilariously misguided.

This feels more like a lifetime achievement award, then a contract.  Los Angeles of Anaheim is basically looking at the situation in a fluid manner, with the idea that they have the chance to pounce and grab a stranglehold of the LA market, with their neighbors, the Dodgers in financial disarray. I get that this was their opportunity to make headlines, spend some money with their new TV deal set to kick in, and that the AL West is wide open – especially since they hurt the Rangers by also grabbing C.J. Wilson.

But that doesn’t validate the length of this deal.

If the Angels goal is to seize Pujols prime, they better be competitive and a World Series contender every year for the next half decade, because it’s a lock that Pujols’ numbers are going to continue to decline as he gets older.  So like I said yesterday about the Marlins, the Angels better know what they’re committing to.  And if Albert gets hurt and misses work (Aflac!) well, forget about it.

The Angels have missed the playoffs two years in a row, and they were desperate to remedy that.  They have a deep, talented roster without Pujols.  With him they’re a World Series contender for sure.  But in the uncertain economic climate that we’re in, giving him 10 years is a big-time risk.

From a numbers standpoint the Angels needed hitting, so unlike the Marlins, this was a need, and not a luxury piece.

Los Angeles of Anaheim finished 17^th in runs last season, 15^th in batting average, 21^st in on base percentage, and 14^th in slugging percentage.  Assuming Pujols stays healthy those numbers figure to rise significantly.

And considering that they had nary a single player hit 30 HRs in 2011, well Pujols’ bat and power will certainly be a welcome addition. Three Angels had 20 or more homers last year.  No Angel hit .300. Mark Trumbo led the team with 87 RBI’s.

So in the short term, it’s pure brilliance.  Pujols plugs a massive offensive hole in the middle of LA’s lineup.  His presence immediately means more hittable pitches for the guys behind him and in front of him.  There’s no doubt about that.

Jered Weaver and Dan Haren are a legitimate 1-2 punch on the mound.  The Angels boasted a team ERA of 3.57, good for 6^th in all of baseball last season.  Their pitchers ratcheted 98 quality starts, which put them 5^th in MLB.  Like the Dodgers, pitching was their strength.

Throw in new signing C.J. Wilson as a 2^nd or 3^rd starter and the Angels may have the best 1-2-3 punch in the league.  There is no excuse for them not to be great in the short term.

My questions come in the long term.  It’s not that the Angels don’t have the money: they’ve been throwing out big money for years now under their current ownership.  The question becomes how valuable their current assets will be in the future.  Albert Pujols at the age of 36, with 5 years left on a gargantuan deal is not a sexy trade piece and no one in their right mind would take that contract on. It’s kind of a moot point anyways, because his deal comes with a full no-trade clause in his contract.

Of course in the short term, you have Vernon Wells’ massive contract on the books as well.  Wells who signed a 7 year, $126 million deal in 2006 with Toronto still has 2 years left.  He made an astonishing $26,642,857 last year, giving the Angels a whopping .218 batting average (Okay, maybe that’s the worst contract ever).

The Angels are not afraid to spend as evidenced by their payroll last year, which was 4^th at $138,999,024.  They have at least 6 guys on their roster who were already making $8 million or more last season.  Tack on Pujols and Wilson, and now that number jumps to 8.

It’s bold. It’s risky.  And it makes the Angels the must-see team to watch for 2012. And hey, the Angels may know what they’re doing.  If the world ends in 2012, I’m pretty sure that would void the last 9 years of this deal.

Let the hype begin: Albert Pujols his taking his talents and his greed to Hollywood.  How’s that for an E! True Hollywood Story?

Photo: Getty

There’s lots of dollars and minimal sense in the wild Albert Pujols bidding war.   Three teams, including the previously penny-pinching Marlins (more on them in a moment) and the hometown Cardinals are apparently all willing to give a decade long deal to a guy who is 31, and closing in on 32.  They’re ready to fork over north of $200 million to a guy whose numbers went down last year.

Pujols may be a once in a generation kind of hitter, but this is the kind of once in a decade type of contract that could cripple any of his suitors for years.  Especially the Marlins.  I get that Pujols is the type of big ticket, box office draw that the team has probably been dreaming about as it prepares to open its new palace.  I get that the Miami Marlins are trying to disconnect themselves (in every way possible) from their past (though last time I checked they won 2 World Series, including one in their 5th year of existence). But I digress.

The point is I don’t get it.

Alex Rodriguez’s 10 year, $252 million contract hamstrung the Rangers for years as they plummeted to the bottom of the AL West.  Then in 2004, they dealt him to the Yankees in one of the most publicized trades in the history of existence.  Texas actually agreed to the deal knowing they’d still be on the hook for $67 million of the $179 million that was remaining on his absurd deal at that time.  It was also the most cash included in a trade in Major League history.  And here’s a fun fact, Texas will be paying A-Rod (or Roid) through the year – wait for it, wait for it – 2025!

Just think about that for a minute.  2025! If we just close the book on 2011, and proclaim that it’s basically 2012 now, the Rangers will continue paying for the services of a player they haven’t had in 8 years, for the next 14. Fourteen.  That isn’t just hilarious. It’s astounding.  So if Rodriguez somehow manages to blow his most recent absurd contract ($275 million for 10 years from the Yankees, signed in 2007) he’ll still have money coming to him over a decade from now.

And now, the Marlins and Cardinals, caught in all the hoopla of the generation’s other great player, are haggling over 10 year deals.  St. Louis is reportedly now offering the slugger $220 million.

It’s so mind-blowingly absurd that it’s hard to fathom how either of these teams could make their offers without either being drunk.  Or high.

Pujols is a fabulous player.  A 3 time MVP.  An all-world superstar who may go into the books as one of the greatest players to ever play the game.  But that doesn’t change the fact that he’s almost 32, coming off an injury-plagued season, and that this contract would be paying him $20 million+ as he gets into his late 30’s and early 40’s.

To get the prize, sometimes you have to overspend, but this is just stupid.  Especially for the Marlins.  Miami already has a pretty good 1st baseman in highly thought of Gabby Sanchez, but he doesn’t bring the star appeal or the latin passion that Miami wants to engrave into their franchise.  Or the leadership for that matter.  If it was an 8 year deal I’d question it.  Pujols’ window for greatness probably stands at 5 years.  After that it’s only fair to expect his numbers and production to decline. You can’t predict injuries and if you’re the Marlins, you can’t predict revenue stream.  Fans will literally revolt if the Marlins buy another high priced team and sell the parts off a few years later, because they spent over their heads.  That would be the franchise’s final straw.

So instead of throwing a boatload of money at a slugger in his 30s, why not sign a pitcher or two, and build the team through a strong farm system.  As is, you’ve got a guy in Mike Stanton, who many suggest could be the next $200 million player when his rookie contract expires. So from a pie in the sky standpoint, it sounds amazing.  It’s unprecedented for Marlins fans to fathom this.  But this isn’t signing Pudge Rodriguez to a 1 year $10 million deal in 2003.  Even that was considered a bit of a risk.  This is a decade long commitment.  This is getting in bed with Pujols and telling him you’ll still love him even when he’s old.  This is a contract that runs till 2021.

As for the Cardinals, well Pujols embodies that franchise.  He’s been the face of 2 World Champion teams, and he is beloved.  He is the heart and soul of their offense and he’s been with St. Louis since the start.  They will build him a statue in St. Louis and idolize the ground he walks on.  Miami will embrace him and celebrate him in their usual fickle way, and then when his talent dries up and he’s no good, they’ll be ready to dispose of him like a prom night dumpster baby.  St. Louis is loyal.  Miami has a short memory.  St. Louis is the All-American heartland.  Miami is trendy and unforgiving.

Maybe the Angels jump in, or another surprise team.  Who knows.

And the fact that Miami refuses to put a no-trade clause in his deal (stating that they wouldn’t for anyone) leads me to believe that if this multi-million dollar experiment of theirs fails, that Pujols would be the first one sent out of town.  This is the Marlins we’re talking about.

The upside of course is that you bring Pujols into town, become the hottest story in baseball, and you join the Heat as the most fascinating purchased team in the sport.  And if he wins you a few titles and collects some hardware along the way, maybe swallowing the final 4 or 5 years is worth it.  But if you bring him in at this price, you better know he’s going to deliver.  It’s a risk of course, but it’s a high-risk, high-reward.

A quick story:  In 1920 the Red Sox sold Babe Ruth to the Yankees in what is widely considered the most famous trade in sports history.  Boston owner Frankie Frisch sent the Bambino to the Bronx, not for money, but for players.  The final amount: $125,000, or in laments terms, $1.37 million in current dollar terms.  New York also loaned Frisch $300,000 or $3.29 million in current terms, with a mortgage on Fenway Park as collateral.

The point to the story: in current dollar terms, Ruth was worth $1.37 million dollars to the Red Sox.  The reason he was traded: he wanted a raise double that of his salary.  His salary at the time: $10,000.

If Pujols gets a 10 year contract worth, let’s say $23 million a year, it would amount to $141,975.309 a game, $15,775.03 an inning, $5,258.34 an out.

For a decade (before taxes).

If only Babe Ruth were still alive. Could only imagine what he’d be thinking.

Photo: Getty

CHRIS KNEPLEY

In case you missed it, last week, MLB commissioner Bud Selig took time from his busy offseason schedule of kicking puppies and harvesting the organs of unborn children to announce that MLB and the players union have come to an agreement on a new collective bargaining agreement.

The new agreement will ensure 20 consecutive (uninterrupted) years of labor peace in Major League Baseball (after the new deal expires). Pretty amazing when you consider how impossible that would have sounded during the 90’s when the relationship between the two sides were tumultuous to say the least.

This new collective bargaining agreement is highlighted by a few changes and tweaks to the game of professional baseball.

- There will now be two wild cards in each league instead of just one. The two wild card teams will play at the end of the regular season in a one game, winner take all steel caged death match to decide which team is going to get their asses handed to them by the Yankees and Phillies, respectively.

Other highlights to the CBA include:
-  new blood testing measures for human growth hormone
-  the elimination of smokeless tobacco from player interviews
-  the expansion of instant replay to include trapped balls (and I’m not talking about what happens to Big Papi when he slides into 2^nd base, because nobody wants to see that).

The biggest issue, however that Major League Baseball has again, and continues to fail to address is the problem of competitive balance between the big market “haves” and the small market “have not’s.”

Year after year it seems like the big market clubs snatch up on the premium free agents while the small market teams are left to wallow in mediocrity until they can develop their own talent, and make a run at the playoffs for 3-4 seasons (until they are forced to let their home grown talent walk away as a free agents and join the big market teams that can afford to pay for premium talent).

Take Prince Fielder of the Milwaukee Brewers, for example. The small market Brewers can’t afford to pay what it will cost to keep Fielder and it has been speculated that he could end up in a large market like Chicago or Texas while the Brewers are left with nothing but a draft pick as compensation.

MLB seemingly tried to help fix this issue a few seasons back when it instituted a luxury ax on the teams that would spend over a certain salary threshold.  However to date, the only teams that have ever had to pay into the luxury tax are the Yankees and the Red Sox, who can more than afford to throw some extra cash down the toilet to ensure a winning team.

This new collective bargaining agreement does nothing at all to help small market teams and has actually hindered their abilities to be competitive by placing new restrictions on signing players out of the draft. The new rule states that teams will be penalized for paying a drafted player more than 15 percent over MLB’s recommended bonus for their particular slot. Any team who happens to pay more than the 15 percent barrier not only will have to pay the slot difference in the form of a luxury tax, but they will also lose their top two picks in the next year’s draft.

On the surface, this rule seems like it would hurt the big market teams that spend much ore all around than small market teams.  However, over the past decade or so, the smaller market teams are actually the one who are investing more in the draft and internationally than the big market teams are. Small market teams have found that it is more cost effective in the long-term to take the 3-5 million dollars a season they would be paying to a mediocre veteran outfielder hitting .260 with 15-20 home runs and instead use that money to lure a top draft pick to sign with their organization.

Now, with this penalty that teams will incur, small market teams may be less willing to draft top amateur talent if they know it is going to cost them double the difference in the slot and their top two picks the next season. Large market teams like the Yankees or Red Sox, who normally draft late in the 1^st round, could see top talent fall in their laps and take a player who they would normally lose out on at the cost of a little more cash and a late first and second round pick next year.

The penalty for this rule hurts small market teams like Rays, Pirates, and Royals much, much, more than it does the medium to large market teams. Teams that already had to play the draft to perfection for 3-5 years just to make a run at the playoffs now will have a much harder time putting everything in place in order to be semi-competitive.

Until baseball takes a note from the NFL and NBA and decides to actually institute a salary cap that will benefit all teams equally, then there’s no hope for small market teams to ever be competitive for more than 5 years at a time. Time and time again will you see franchise caliber players like Prince Fielder walking away to a Chicago or Texas in order to cash in, while teams like the Brewers dig through the bargain bins of the free agent market to try to fill 300 pound production holes in the middle of their lineups. It’s time for Bud Selig and the players association to wake up and finally realize that what’s good for the Yankees, isn’t always what’s good for Major League Baseball as a whole.

Photo: Getty

MVP.  Most Valuable Player.  It does not stand for Most Valuable Pitcher.

That’s not a slap in the face to Justin Verlander, who had a remarkable season, in almost single-handedly willing the Tigers to the playoffs.  It’s a distinction.  Think about it for a second: You will never see a position player win the CY Young, so why should a pitcher be able to grab ahold of the MVP award, an award created for position players.

Verlander isn’t the first pitcher to win MVP.  He’s not the first to take home the CY Young and MVP in the same season.  Don Newcombe, Sandy Koufax, Bob Gibson, Vida Blue, and Rollie Fingers were amongst some of the others to pull of the impressive feat.

And while I disagree with pitchers ever winning the awards, those pitchers went out more than once every 5 games.  They could handle the load and weren’t held to ridiculous pitch counts.  Pitchers used to pitch.  Now it’s a game of chess. Everything is mathematically mapped out.

Which is why this award comes across like theft.  It comes across as a slap in the face to position players who bust their hump for at least 130 games in a given year.  It’s a giant middle finger to players who carry the offense and put up big numbers.  Baseball is a two prong sport: there’s offense and there’s pitching (with defense obviously somewhere in the latter). If you can’t pitch, you don’t win.  If you can’t score, you don’t win. You need some of both to be successful.  You take away Miguel Cabrera from Detroit’s lineup and the Tigers lose much of their teeth.  Verlander doesn’t win the MVP, because he doesn’t get the run support, and because he doesn’t get the run support, he doesn’t win enough games, and because he doesn’t win enough games, maybe the Tigers don’t even make the playoffs.

You see what I’m getting at here?

Verlander had one of those rare seasons in 2011, where most of his starts resulted in decisions.  He took the mound 34 times, and he won 24 games.  Obviously that’s an impressive win total.  Especially in the day and age of shorter pitch counts, super-specific bullpens, left handed specialists, right handed specialists, guys who come in for one batter, and closers who don’t always close, to win that many games is certainly a rarity.

And to that I give Verlander kudos.

But the flip sign of 34 appearances, 24 wins, and 5 losses is this: you play 162 games!  That means Verlander was M.I.A. for D.E.T. in 128 games.  I’m no mathematician, but the calculator on Google tells me that’s less than 21%.  That means that in 79% of Detroit’s games he had no impact.  How can that make for a MVP?

In no other sport, could any player get away with participating in 21% of his team’s games and even be eligible for MVP.  If Tom Brady threw for 20 touchdowns in 3 games, but then was lost for the season with a freak injury, there’s no way he would be considered (though, I might want to rest on those laurels should Peyton Manning get MVP votes).  If LeBron played 17 games for the Heat in an 82 game season, no one would dare consider voting him MVP, no matter what kind of season he was having.

How could you?  If part of the battle is showing up, how do you get an award, when your impact is felt every 5 games?

So, don’t look at this as an indictment of Verlander.  He had a great season. I cannot repeat that enough.  He won the triple crown in the AL in all the major categories.  He was flat out special in 2011.  He was a runaway choice for CY Young and… that’s where it should have ended.

Verlander won MVP, because he was great in a year that the position players were merely really good.  He lucked out with Boston’s collapse, which took out Jacob Ellsbury with it (Ellsbury still finished 2nd).  He was the end result of a strange season.

The argument isn’t that Verlander isn’t valuable.  The argument is that he shouldn’t be eligible for MVP.  No pitcher should.

If I took a history class which had 10 tests, and only showed up twice, aced both tests plus got all the extra credit questions, and then didn’t show up to a single other test, I wouldn’t get commended.  I’d get thrown out.  I’d fail.

Somehow in baseball, you can win MVP.  Not a good analogy, but you get the point.

Photo: Getty