A PAINFUL REMINDER

Ah, Valentine's Day. A day some spend appreciating what they have, while others pine for what they don't. Or just ignore completely.

While I'd love it if the third category applied, since I'm not a fan of February 14th, and I do spend a lot of time doing the appreciative thing, today I'll focus on the middle category - sort of love lost/never had.

And I really don't think words do as good a job as the pictures, so I'll get right to it with the only disclaimer that my dad asked if I wanted them for any reason, and I said, "Maybe I'll put them on the blog."
There's also this, just for those gluttons for a little extra punishment:

HOT STOVE TALK

A bunch of different topics on my mind today, all revolving around the Phillies' World Series championship and the Mets' off-season:

1) Jimmy Rollins has about as much class as the Phillies fans. During the parade celebration, he took a shot at the Mets, saying Johan Santana is a good pitcher...but it takes more than one player to win a championship - it takes a team. Of course, he got the rise out of the crowd he wanted - they booed at the mention of the Mets and Santana. Rollins is a showman and a pot-stirrer, and he does these things in a mostly good-natured way (he was smirking as he said these things, knowing what the reaction would be)...but the Mets had better not be laughing about it. And come Wednesday, May 6, 2009, when Jimmy Rollins leads off for the Phillies at Citi Field, whoever is pitching had better give him something high and tight. And I hope he charges the mound. Because it's about time the Mets started playing with some kind of fire - and had other teams hate them for a reason other than their showboating with nothing to show for it. By the way, nothing Rollins said was wrong - I just don't like the forum he chose to take a shot at his division rival.

2) That said, if I'm Jerry Manuel, I'm playing that tape of Jimmy Rollins at the parade before every game next season. Because to me, that means that the Mets are ensconsed in the heads of the Phillies. They're at the pinnacle of thier sport, and what's one of the things on their mind? The Mets. That's good news for me as a Mets fan. To me, it means in the back of their minds, the Phillies know that the Mets are still their biggest competition, and maybe, but for other circumstances, it could be them having the parade.

3) The Mets exercised their 2009 option (for $12 million) on Carlos Delgado. I don't know. I just don't feel like when the Mets are celebrating their World Series win it will be with Delgado at first base. That's just my gut feeling.

4) I also don't feel like it will be with Jose Reyes at shortstop. I was going to save this...and maybe I'll get into it in a little more depth later this week. But I'll plant the seed here. The Mets need to do a lot of work to re-build there team, without starting from scratch - there are too many holes. They have some young infielders that they can use to fill in the gap losing Reyes would create. But Reyes is a divisive figure in the division, and he disappears when the Mets need him most. So I think he's expendable. (I know David Wright hasn't done much more to bring them a championship, but when looking at this situation, Wright is the better clubhouse influence.) So I say trade Reyes for some pitching - both starting and relieving. A lot can be had if the right deal is made. And the Mets should make it. More to come on that as the season goes on.

I HOPE THE METS ARE AS DISGUSTED AS I AM

I hope the Mets were watching the Phillies celebrate last night.

I hope they were hoping for another Tampa Bay comeback, so that it made it all the more upsetting when Brad Lidge got the final out.

I hope they stayed tuned to the trophy presentation.

And I hope they were thinking, "That could just as easily be us."

It's not them because something is lacking with the Mets right now. You want to talk about a Phillies drought? Well, their drought is now 0 years, after they erased a 28-year deficit. And the Mets are going on 23 years without a championship. And I'm pretty ticked off about it.

The problem, as I see it, is that I don't think many of the Mets are as mad. And there are a lot of things the Mets need to do this off-season to put themselves in the position the Phillies see themselves in right now.

You may be surprised at some of the suggestions I make this off-season. Or you may not - because one of my suggestions is similar to the drum I was beating last off-season.

So that's still to come. For now, 2 thoughts on the Phillies' championship:

1) I don't know that Mets fans will ever see as dominant a performance as Brad Lidge submitted for the Phillies in 2008. We came close with Armando Benitez in the 2000 regular season, but he was never a big game pitcher, and we knew it wouldn't continue into the post-season. Closer has never been a position of strength for the Mets - once they shore that up, perhaps their championship drought will end. (And maybe they have the answer already in their organization. Again, a topic for another day.)

2) Phillies fans are indeed classless. I didn't really think they were living up to their reputation as awful fans lately - they were into the championship run. Then the Phillies brass accepted the trophy from Bud Selig, and congratulated the Tampa Bay Rays on their great season.....and the fans booed. Horrible. They lose like losers, and now they win like losers. Way to go, Philly fans.

MY WORLD SERIES PICK

I hate to toot my own horn, but if no one else is going to do it, I'm going to have to - I called both the ALCS and NLCS exactly right. I also didn't do so poorly calling the Division Series. Of course, I've had my share of pretty poor picks on more than one occasion, which is maybe what makes these picks all the more impressive. But I do pick a bit more rationally when the Mets aren't involved...so if you want the right call on the 2008 World Series, you've certainly come to the right place.

I start with a baseball analogy for you -

Phillies:Rays::Dodgers:Phillies

You read that out as (for those of you far removed from the SAT): The Phillies are to the Rays what the Dodgers were to the Phillies. In other words, this won't be much of a contest for Tampa Bay.

I told you earlier this week I'm actually rooting for the Phillies - so this isn't the mad ranting of an angry, bitter, jealous, vengeful Mets fan. (Though I'm also not saying I'm not that.) It's just the way I see these teams matching up.

I saw the Phillies' pitchers as being better than the Dodgers' pitchers. Tampa Bay's are better than the Phillies.

The Phillies had a better lineup than the Dodgers as well...much better. Though Philadelphia has the better lineup than Tampa Bay in this series, the Rays' lineup is a notch or two above what the Dodgers were.

Add that together, and it comes out to a fairly easy series for the Rays. The Phillies probably have the edge at the end of games from the bullpen, and that's maybe why I'll give them two wins, but it's a shaky second win. I just don't think the Phillies will take many leads late into the games. (And if David Price is closing games out like he did Game 7 of the ALCS, the edge in the bullpen area might swing back to Tampa.)

I know the Phillies have a potent offense. But two things here - 1) They've been streaky this year. And they've been really hot all post-season (even in the closing days of the regular season). I sense they'll cool off a bit. And a big reason for that cooling off is 2) Pitching wins championships. It's just a fact - the good pitching will beat the good hitting. And Tampa Bay has that.

So it's Tampa Bay in six. Enjoy the final days of the baseball season.

JOHNNYMETS OFFICIALLY ENDORSES THE PHILADELPHIA PHILLIES

It took me a while to finally decide which bandwagon to hop onto this post-season. While I still love none of the teams involved, I'm going to root for the Philadelphia Phillies in the World Series.

The reason it took me so long to make that decision is I just discovered how it serves me well to root for them - so there's totally a selfish thing going on here.

The Mets clearly aren't responding to any intrinsic motivation season in and season out. So it's time to work some external motivation. What better way to get them motivated then to have to go out and face the World Series champions 18 times in 2009?

That's it. Plain and simple. If the Phillies are waving a World Series champion banner and talking it up next year, maybe it'll light a fire under the Mets.

Of course, just because I'm rooting for Philadelphia doesn't mean they'll win the World Series. They won't. I'll have my World Series pick on Tuesday.

UPDATE ON THE ALCS: OK, so I was wrong on Saturday when I thought the Rays would clinch the ALCS in Game 6. It's still hard to see the Red Sox losing a Game 7, but my original prediction was Rays in 7, so why should I stray from that? I still thought the Rays were pretty loose on Saturday night - I expect they'll be OK Sunday night.

A PREVIEW OF SORTS

I could have been part of a World Series preview tonight, and I thought it was important that I let you know.

The preview I am talking about did not involve the "Red" team versus the "Gray" team of the Boston Softball League (or the BSCC, I think), of which Dave in Brighton and Mrs. Dave in Brighton are team members. (Although I thank them for thinking of me as a fill-in. I like to think that even though I played pretty poorly I helped the team win because they didn't have to forfeit. The recap - Mrs. Dave in Brighton pitched brilliantly, overcame my two errors, and the 'Gray' team won.)

The preview I was privy to was a Mets-Red Sox preview. And it didn't involve the teams on the field - it involved their battle over the airwaves.

On the way back home from the game, which took me through about 63 Massachusetts towns (I still don't understand Massachusetts geography), I tuned into the Mets, on SportsRadio 660am - WFAN, of course. And fighting the Mets' reception was the Red Sox game, which tonight was on 680am, WRKO. Uh-oh, I thought. No chance of getting the Mets tonight.

Mid at-bat the reception would switch from one game to the next. This was quite different from when the Red Sox were on their flagship - 850am. But I held fast to WFAN, and caught most of an inning of the Mets-Nationals game.

In the end, the Mets pulled through. Clear as a bell from a certain point until I got home. It really was the underdog pulling through when things looked the bleakest.

I don't think the Mets would be outmatched by that much in October, if the baseball gods allowed a 1986 rematch. But it's nice to know that if they were, they would stand a chance.

A BIG WEEK AT SHEA

If I were to rank the biggest off-season week in the history of Shea Stadium, this past week would be number one.

I expected the Mets would try to steal some headlines from the Giants by introducing Johan Santana on Monday, but in reality, we all know you can't compete with a Super Bowl championship. So Monday and Tuesday were out, as far as the Mets were concerned.

But the Mets made the most out of the short week.

On Wednesday, it was cliche-o-rama, with Johan Santana, as the Mets introduced their new ace, who will wear number 57, and who knows the team will take it "one game at a time", and they're going out there "to have fun". You've heard it all before - everything he said had been said many, many times before.

As much as Johan was an unexpected surprise these past few weeks, the Mets made the big announcement I've been expecting for a long time -
Billy Joel will perform the last concert at Shea Stadium. It's not when I thought it would be - "Last Play at Shea" will be held on Wednesday, July 16th, which is the day after the All Star Game, which I keep forgetting will also be in New York (at Yankee Stadium). Tickets go on sale in a week - I have to be there. Everyone in my family will be on some sort of phone trying to get tickets....I guarantee it. I also guarantee that during the concert, Billy Joel will make some sort of reference to the previous acts who performed at Shea, including the Beatles, and will probably pay them homage by covering a number of different groups' songs.

The only thing that will make this year at Shea better is closing it down with a World Series championship. How great would it be if the National League is able to pull out the All Star Game win in Yankee Stadium, granting the Mets home field advantage in the World Series, against whoever, allowing the Mets to win a World Series at home, in the last game at Shea, in Game 6 or 7 of the World Series? (I'll answer my own question: It would be awesome, but I'm not getting ahead of myself....the past two years the World Series was my expectation, and we all know both years fell well short. And I sure would love a World Series sweep - if it takes the Mets winning it on the road, I'll be OK with that.)

BEDARD TO SEATTLE: You probably remember that Erik Bedard is one of my favorite players in baseball these days. You might be shocked by what I'm about to say. First of all, it seems like Seattle gave up an awful lot for him - 5 players in exchange for Bedard. He's very good - but even the Mets got Santana for less. (I know nothing about the prospects - but 5 for 1 is a deal for a special type of player...and I'm not sure that's Bedard.) Now, I like Bedard a lot. But I get a bad feeling about him now going to the American League West. Don't get me wrong -I'll be rooting for him, and I'm actually excited that every fifth day I'll have a reason to watch the 10pm games....but I'm not sure he'll have as much success as he did in Baltimore.

COMING SOON: This e-mail has prompted me to lay out a schedule for the next few days (it also includes a clever play on words involving the name of the blog):

"Dear JohnnyMets,

Enough football and baseball. Where the heck is the five-part NASCAR preview to run under the headline 200 Miles (per hour) from the Citi?

Sincerely, Dave in Brighton"

First of all, it's just one part - but we're just two days away - it'll be posted Sunday night, a week ahead of the Daytona 500. Saturday will be a piece unrelated to any sport in particular, and then Monday night will begin about a month-long preview of the Mets. And pretty much all baseball all the time from there on out.

WELL, THAT WAS QUICK

Congratulations to the Boston Red Sox on winning the World Series. I really thought the Rockies would make something out of that...but they barely showed up. Click on the link to the right that says "Orange Couch". The Southern Bureau did a nice job of breaking down the World Series in his pick on his blog...although he admits to letting his heart get in the way a little, he made the right calls. I should have seen this coming...but I didn't.

The layoff definitely hurt the Rockies' hitting...but it didn't help that they were facing Josh Beckett early on also. Their pitching was pretty bad.

The Series was so quick that I didn't even have a chance to offer a bet to one of my co-bloggers...either the Southern Bureau or Dave in Brighton, who are both Red Sox fans...or even The Wife. Maybe we can still work something out, since I'll admit that I would have lost whatever we bet.

I could have let the Southern Bureau cash in on his bet in person, too. How's this for an impulsive move? The Southern Bureau came north Tuesday for the Red Sox championship parade. That's awesome. I had to be with the Baby, so I couldn't meet up with him, but I admire his move from afar. Great work, Southern Bureau. (Dave in Brighton also attended said parade, but who are we kidding...he's from Brighton. It would be news if he didn't go.)

I need to weigh in on a few other things that have been making news lately:

A-ROD
I agree that it was in poor taste that the announcement that A-Rod was opting out of his contract came during the World Series. But the media made way too big a deal out of it...they could have let it sit until after the World Series - they chose to play it up. Also, I would have bet money that the Yankees were waiting for a couple of hours until after the World Series ended (and the Red Sox won) to try to steal some headlines by naming their new manager. Perhaps they waited a day after they saw how A-Rod got slammed by not waiting with his news. It just seemed like a Yankees way to steal headlines - and trust me, as a Mets fan, I know the Yankees are a well-oiled machine when it comes to grabbing headlines away from their rivals.

Also, I hate to even bring this up, but this occurred to me, and I think it needs to be mentioned. Jose Reyes was not himself the last couple of months of the season. You hate to think it, but I'm sure the front office was wondering what was up. Now the best shortstop in the game is available. The Mets have to be in the conversation, since they're one of only a handful of teams in the majors who can afford Rodriguez. Do the Mets think about trading Jose Reyes for some stud pitchers somewhere, while his value is at its peak, and then sign Rodriguez? I am not in any way endorsing this move - I just thought it might have some fragment of the way the Mets' front office might be thinking.

Something needs to be shaken up after last season's collapse...do the Mets do something this dramatic? I think that I hope they don't...but I'm not really sure how I feel. The ending to last season...and then the impending steroid report results....it all has me a bit bothered, and I'm not sure I'll know how I really feel about baseball and the Mets until spring training rolls around. And I don't know that I'll care very much if Alex Rodriguez is a Met and Jose Reyes isn't. But I won't know until this stuff actually happens.

One last thing - a lot of Red Sox fans I know are saying they absolutely do NOT want Alex Rodriguez on their team. They're throwing around words like "cancer". I don't know if A-Rod is that big of a clubhouse cancer - how can he be? He's just not that big of a personality. I just think he's selfish...and that probably doesn't endear him to teammates...but I don't think he tears teams apart. I think he just folds in tough situations, and ends up letting his team down at key moments.

MANAGERIAL MOVES
So Joe Torre is out in New York, Joe Girardi is in, and Joe Torre is now in in Los Angeles, and Grady Little is out. And Don Mattingly is following Torre to L.A. The two guys that got the worst out of these deals are two guys I like a lot. I like Grady Little. I don't know why, I just do. And I think he got a raw deal in Boston. But that's ancient history. Too bad it didn't work out for him in L.A....who knows if he'll ever find success as a manager. (Meanwhile, I was about to write about what a great job Terry Francona has done with the Red Sox since succeeding Little, but Bob Ryan beat me to it with a great article in Tuesday's Boston Globe. So I won't waste my time.)

Then there's Don Mattingly. I always liked Mattingly. For a long time, I was a Yankees and Mets fan - I harbored no ill will towards the Yankees at all. People always said, "How could you like both New York teams?" They never played one another, so I thought it was easy to like them both. They both represented my city. But then Don Mattingly got old fast. And the Yankees showed him the door. I can't remember the details of his departure as I write this, but one day Don Mattingly was a Yankee, the next he wasn't even invited back to spring training, if I remember correctly. So now, another unceremonious departure later, I just feel bad for the man. He's a Yankee...and I don't think they treated him right twice. That's why I stopped rooting for the Yankees...just in time for their great run of World Series titles. But I guess it's a good thing that happened - because otherwise I would have been quite confused in the 2000 Subway Series (don't worry...I would have rooted for the Mets).

It will be interesting to see how Joe Girardi does in New York after the fiasco in Florida where he clashed with ownership while doing a wonderful job managing a young group. There are elements with this Yankees team that are the same (young players, interfering owners?), but it's a mostly veteran team of which a lot is expected. So that's different.

FINALLY, A PICK: The Yankees-Dodgers is too obvious, with that managerial connection. So the early frontrunner for my World Series prediction for 2008 is Braves-Tigers, following the Edgar Renteria trade.

A MATCH MADE IN (WINTER) HAVEN

I am going to try something entirely unorthodox next year, but it can't be worse than anything I've done until this point. My World Series prediction is going to be based on two random teams linked in the off-season.

Sometimes I just get the impression the baseball gods are trying to give us a hint as to what's been pre-determined. Remember this past off-season, where all the talk was of an imminent trade between the Red Sox and Rockies? Todd Helton and Mike Lowell were the major players involved. The trade never happened, obviously, although various reports had it as very, very close to taking place a number of times. Well, if I had told you then that the Red Sox and Rockies would be their respective league's representatives in this year's World Series, I'd be considered a genius, no?

This isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened - that's how I know it's worth trying out. The trick is to pick the right relationship - because if you had said in January that the Reds would be playing the Athletics in the World Series based on the Kirk Saarloos-David Shafer trade, I'd think your reasoning was full of holes. But if you had recognized this pattern in late 1985, after the Mets and Red Sox swapped some players (the key names being Bobby Ojeda and Calvin Schiraldi), you would have guessed correctly the participants in the 1986 World Series.

Sometimes you have to look very closely. Following the 2000 season, Buck Showalter was fired by the Arizona Diamondbacks. The fact was mentioned back then that the last time he was fired by a team, they won the World Series. That team was the New York Yankees. Your 2001 World Series? That's right - Yankees-Diamondbacks.

I'm not saying this is seal-tight, bet-the-house, guaranteed victory. I'm just saying it's worth a shot. So when the Mets pick up a kid in a minor league deal with the Texas Rangers in late November, you'd better believe I'm forming a relationship between those two teams in my mind...and I just might take a closer look at those two teams when my spring training World Series picks roll around.

PEACE IN THE HOUSE SPONSORED BY DIRECTV: The Wife brought up a point the other day that hadn't really crossed my mind - it's a good thing the Mets didn't make the playoffs because if they advanced to the World Series, they'd be playing the Red Sox. And then this wouldn't be a very pleasant place. And she's right.

I hadn't really thought about that, though, because my mind was on other things: Like, I'm kind of glad the Mets didn't advance to the World Series (let alone the playoffs), because if the Mets ended up in the World Series with the Red Sox, that would be another wasted year on the ol' matchups chart. At least one good thing came out of this 2007 season - another box off the grid.

GAME ONE: Two things about Game 1 of the World Series - I can't imagine a better setting for a World Series game than Fenway Park. They should just play every World Series game here, whether or not the Red Sox are involved.

The second is, if Josh Beckett pitches well again in Game 1 of the World Series, start shining up his Hall of Fame plaque. He has at least two more starts in the post-season as of this writing, and if he continues to do what he's done to this point, he is in the conversation of "Best Post-Season Pitchers of All-Time". We'll revisit this, perhaps, as the season ends and we head into the off-season.

MOST AWKWARD BOOK PLUG EVER...AND OTHER WORLD SERIES THOUGHTS

Fresh off of me praising him as a former Met done good, Paul Byrd spent the hours before Game 7 of the American League Championship Series denying that he cheated by taking HGH. Byrd insists he didn't cheat - he seems like a fine, upstanding guy, I'll believe him. He really went full-bore in seeming to tell the truth (as far as athletes go), so I'll believe him. It's fine...I've been lied to by sports figures I've cared more about, so I'll deal with this if it turns out he was lying.

But the real reason I'm addressing it is the fact that during his diatribe, Byrd threw in a plug for his book...and when Paul Byrd is writing a book, I think you need as many plugs as you can get, no matter what the circumstances. Here's what he said (I lifted the transcript from this link, so thanks to them for that):

I've also made comments, and this is things that I've talked about. I have a book coming out next year. This is not a promo for my book. But I do talk about this in the book, where I have had temptations to cheat. I have been asked by people, by pitching coaches, here's how you scuff a ball, here's how you put saliva on a ball, and I talk about that in the book. I also talked about the fact that I was prescribed a hormone, that I did inject it and I did have the temptation to take more of it than what was prescribed so my fastball would reach into the 90s on a consistent basis.

It sounded awkward - I don't know if it reads awkward as well. I just found it humorous while listening to him talk on Sunday.

POSSIBLE TITLES FOR PAUL BYRD'S BOOK:

Please Read My Book: The Story of Paul Byrd
(If he gets arrested) - I Know Why The Caged Paul Byrd Sings
(if he gets arrested for shooting a heckler) - How To Kill Someone Mocking Byrd

ON A RELATED NOTE: I'm not going to delve into areas that I'm not an expert in, because there's a lot of legality involved in this, and I don't know enough about the entire situation here...but the fact that George Mitchell has an association with the Red Sox, and this Paul Byrd thing broke the day of Game 7, seems awfully suspicious. It's almost like the Red Sox said, "You want to have our star pitcher's ex-girlfriend sing the National Anthem before he pitches at your place? Fine. We've got something to throw at you at our place..."

This steroids report, by the way, when it is released, which could be anywhere within the next couple of months, will be huge. And I don't know what my future as a baseball fan will be like when these names come out. There will be a lot of disappointment on my part.

WHY THE INDIANS LOST: If you read my previous posts, in which I predicted Fausto Carmona would win Game 6 for Cleveland, but wouldn't have bet money on it, I think there's something you should know. I think the Carmona prediction was with my heart, because I was sort of pulling for the Indians, like I've been pulling for the Rockies. But my head was saying, "You dope. The Red Sox are going to win these next two games at Fenway - there's no way the Indians will win." And I think the 'wouldn't bet anything on it' was my subconscious popping in with its two cents. So I think that's how you need to read into my predictions - I just can't make a sensible prediction.

That said, here's why the Indians lost: If you ever wanted to see what a team full of Jose Reyeses looks like, it was the Indians in Games 5, 6, and 7. You know how when Reyes presses (which for some reason he has been doing since August...had been, I should say), he pops everything up? That's what every batter in Cleveland's lineup was doing. Cleveland will be back in the future, because they're so young, and they should go far, because their star pitchers ought to pitch better in the big games. So they'll learn from the pressing they did this year, and I think they have a legit shot at winning in the next couple of years.

PREDICTION: With the World Series starting Wednesday night, I'll say this: The Rockies haven't really been intimidated by anyone this season - remember how they killed the Mets and Yankees back when both teams were playing good ball during the regular season? So I don't think they'll be intimidated by the Red Sox, or by the big stage. And I think this series will go 6 or 7 games. And though my head is saying the Red Sox win this (since they have home field in Games 6 and 7), I'm taking the Rockies, let's say in 6. It's hard for me to pick against the team I endorsed the day the playoffs started...and deep down (or actually, not very deep down...it's right out there on the surface) I'm a National League guy.

Understand, though, some of the people who I'm closest with in this world are Red Sox fans, so for them, I wouldn't mind seeing the Red Sox win. But, to quote Justin from NYC, when it comes down to it, with the Mets not involved, I "nothing" this World Series.

The following is an open letter-style warning to Red Sox fans, wherever and whoever you are:

Dear Red Sox Nation,

Congratulations on beating the Yankees. The historic accomplishment by your Boston Red Sox is certainly worth being proud of - the Sox did what no other team in baseball history has done. It's really unbelievable when you think that of all the times for a team to come back from a 3-0 series deficit, it happens now, against the New York Yankees, after a 19-8 loss. Just unbelievable. Really.

But be careful. I can't tell you how many times I heard, from many different people, on Wednesday night, that "THE CURSE IS OVER!! THERE IS NO MORE CURSE OF THE BAMBINO!!" There's a curse all right. And it remains to be seen whether or not this curse has indeed been beaten.

Now, I know how silly it seems for a rational human being to believe in a curse. 1978: The Yankees were just playing better baseball, and Bucky Dent got a pitch to hit. 1986: I didn't believe Bill Buckner was the byproduct of a curse. Just a bad luck play. Besides, as I tell everyone I know, the game was already tied when the ball went through Buckner's legs, and who knows what would have happened in extra innings? Maybe the Sox would have won. (Of course, the Mets won that World Series, and there is your New York Mets connection to this story.) That losing streak stemming from the World Series in 1986 continuing into the 1995 post-season - just more bad luck. It wasn't like Sox fans were being teased with close calls - the Sox were getting swept in those series...just not playing great playoff baseball, I guessed.

Then came last year. You know the story. 5 outs away. Aaron Boone. I became a believer in the Curse of the Bambino. 1946? 1975? 1978? 1986? 1988-1995? I've reconsidered - those are all byproducts of a curse.

Which brings me back to my original argument - all you Red Sox fans who believe the curse has been broken. The curse has nothing to do with beating the Yankees. Sure, beating the Yankees after trailing the series 3 games to none, and winning Game 7 at Yankee Stadium may be the cure to the curse, but the curse is that the Red Sox haven't won a WORLD SERIES since 1918. Not that they haven't been able to beat the Yankees (that's just been a large part of the curse). The Yankees had nothing to do with "Pesky Holding the Ball in '46" or "Game 6 (Bill Buckner)" (and the ensuing 1986 Game 7, by the way).

So celebrate. Celebrate an American League Pennant. But just remember - an American League Pennant does not equal an end to the curse. I remember a dramatic, come-from-behind ALCS win by the Red Sox in 1986 that did not lead to a World Championship. It led to a situation where the Sox were one out away from a Championship (2 outs in the top of the tenth, with a 2-run lead)...but then the curse kicked in. This sure has been a dramatic run, but the Curse has been around way too long to not make another appearance. For the sake of all my friends in Red Sox Nation, I hope it doesn't. But I, for one, am recommending you take precautions. It sure is nice to beat the Yankees...but World Champion sounds a lot better than American League Champion.

Good luck in the World Series.
Johnnymets.blogspot.com