Next we'll see a photo of Sandy Koufax in an unidentified football stadium.

Cashman Stands Alone but in Control

>> The Yankees were eliminated by the Angels in the first round, but Cashman took until the end of the World Series to decide whether he wanted to return. With other attractive jobs open — including one with his favorite childhood team, the Los Angeles Dodgers — Cashman accepted a three-year, $5.5 million contract from the Yankees. <<

http://tinyurl.com/352gov

Now, let us talk about the football coach who will not fade away. The Steve Lavin of football. Please, A State, Oregon, and Southern Cal...Defeat this man and put me out of my misery.

This is Steve Lavin all over again.

Of course, this could change next week but Pat Cowan and Coach Walker hold Karl Dorrell's future in their hands.

Expecting a positive to necessarily from a negative outcome is very chancy.

It's also no fun.

This was similar to people here rooting for the Dodgers to lose more games so they could would have a better draft pick.

It wasn't for a better draft pick, it was to ensure not losing our pick when Ned signs Glenallen Hill to play RF.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/10/21/obit.mcgee.ap/index.html

Maybe the Dodgers could trade Colletti for Cashman.

Larussa could go to the Yankees and Torre to the Cards.

Little could follow Tracy to the Pirates.

Dodger Manager candidates: Rick Monday, Erik Karros, Oral Hershiser, ?

I realize people don't think it's smart to root against your own team in the short term to bring changes that will help the team in the long run. I understand why people don't think it's loyal. I just disagree.

I don't follow UCLA football closely enough to have an opinion on Dorrell, so maybe I shouldn't even talk about this. But you'd think that the Lavin/Howland example would tell Guerrero that he shouldn't wait for a collapse by the team to have the best available coach. If it's Dorrell, he should stick by him. If there's someone out there that's better, Guerrero should go after him regardless of whether an interception gets returned for a touchdown in the final minute.

But seriously, the last three games are against Arizona State, Oregon, and Southern Cal. This situation is going to take care of itself. My rooting interests matter none. 7-5 is the probable outcome.

My theory is that Colletti and Little are going to be gone after next season, and I think Logan White might be a logical candidate to lead the Dodgers.

As much as I came to dislike Jim Tracy in 2005, I never rooted against the Dodgers, and that was with a different GM in charge.

Buddy Teevens --> Walt Harris

John Robinson --> Paul Hackett

And most of us know that pretty much no USC fans liked Pete Carroll's hiring.

And Joe Torre was not expected to do much as Yankee manager.

And this doesn't apply to sports. It applies to all types of personnel decisions. How many times have one of us worked with someone who probably seemed great on paper and then turned out to be terrible or vice versa?

The next guy might be a poor coach. The current coach is a poor coach.

1. The incentives clauses
2. Only one year
3. The pay cut.

He called the offer "generous" and acknowledged that he won't make that much money running another team. FWIW, the NY press is, for the most part, very much on his side.

Howland and Harbaugh are arguably good examples of firing until you get the right guy. Again, I'm not arguing with firing Dorrell or not - I have no opinion. But if the issue is that Dorrell needs to lose X number of games in order to get fired, and that's the only issue at play, then the problem runs deeper than Dorrell.

The ideal situation would be a) you get the head coach you like and b) the program is attractive enough that talent is still interested in coming. At Stanford, we seem to have a) but not b). You probably shouldn't want to copy us.

I would root for the Bruins while simulatenously rooting for the pursuit of excellence at coach. Dorrell has already lost to Utah and ND. He already has the spotty track record. Either he's going to win out, in which case, you're stuck with a coach you don't like but compensated with a Rose Bowl victory, or he's going to lose even though you're rooting for UCLA, in which case you're stuck with a disappointing season but on your way to the new coach.

Long story short (too late), there's little to nothing to be gained from regretting victories.

Those who were anti-Depo in 2005 or anti-Little/Colletti in 2007 who might have rooted for the Dodgers to lose so that they would get fired ... have they been rewarded? Debatable.

Ty Willingham was fired at Notre Dame and UCLA sent Walt Hazzard and Larry Farmer packing.

That elephant didn't save Willingham.

He is the most well liked person in the athletic department, that is why he has a lot of pull. Plus, the football program is doing better academic wise.

It's similar to the argument about how the World Series this year would not be worth watching since it might not have "traditional" powers.

Because:
1) we don't want fans to think that their local team has no chance to win.
2) we don't want TV viewers not to watch playoffs or bowl games that because they don't have the "traditional" powers.

I am unsure how you become a traditional power in any sport. Apparently you get this bestowed on you. Because none of the "traditional" powers ever were at point in their existence when they had no championships.

As well they should have. Notre Dame had never fired a coach in the middle of his contract (not even Gerry Faust ). They got the genius the Notre Dame Alumni Association wanted. And he only has Karl Dorrell to thank for not starting this season 0-7.

If Navy can't beat Notre Dame in two weeks, they will never beat Notre Dame ever. Until the end of time.

my point was that as fans, you want your team to win every game (greg brock notwithstanding), no matter how good or bad the team is in general. obviously, the rest of us would find it boring if the same teams won all the time, but the fans of those teams wouldn't. i would absolutely love for cal to boringly win out every year. leave it to the other teams to have "interesting" games :)

I of course would have loved Stanford to win every game while I was there (we at least beat Cal nearly every year), and right now I would love to have BYU win every game. But honestly, even as a fan of those two programs, I would be bored to tears if they won every game for 20 years running. At some point, my desire to see the sport flourish and remaining interesting would kick in and outweigh my desire to see my team win.

Thanks. I knew I should have checked rather than depend on the old gray cells. :-)

Obviously, the Tedford years have been unprecedented in my experience, but I still can't quite bring myself to believe it will be more than an episode in Cal history, rather than a permanent turnaround.

From latimes.com (the best they can do for small college football)

Occidental 31, at Pomona-Pitzer 15: Justin Goltz completed 25 of 38 passes for 271 yards for the Tigers (6-0, 4-0), who knocked off the Sagehens (2-4, 1-3) in a SCIAC game and extended their regular-season win streak to 32 games. Occidental used a 24-0 second half to erase a 15-7 halftime deficit, taking the lead for good on Neil Martin's 24-yard field with 2:01 left in the third quarter.

http://www.oxy.edu/x7535.xml

Cal and Stanford started earlier, but took some years off. And they also played rugby for a while instead of football.

Cal and Stanford first played in 1892, but played rugby from 1906 to 1914 and didn't playe either from 1915-1918.

If any player steals a base in the 2007 MLB World Series, Taco Bell is going to give (1) free Crunchy Seasoned Beef Taco to every person in America. Redemption details to follow.

http://clicks.on32.com/cts/click?q=2;19417;GKUM5dIzy4251RIYBIXqnSa6en7FK7cr

Humans are schmucks.

You would if they put one in your WalMart.

Then I go get a cup of mixed nuts. I'm easily distracted.

So you can imagine that there might be a line.

I can figure out everyone's opportunity costs. Mine are $300 per hour! Unless there's something good on TV.

I feel better now.

1. Rockies in 4 over Red Sox
2. Rockies in 7 over Red Sox
3. Rockies in 5 over Red Sox
4. Rockies in 6 over Red Sox

I guess my preferences are not monotonic.

I think I have to root for Colorado because they have the most former Long Beach St players. Granted, they have one, and the Red Sox have none.

Plus, the Red Sox winning would only make ESPN even more intolerable because the entire off season would be about how the Yankees can improve to overtake the Red Sox.

I'm definitely rooting for the Rox.

It was a difficult afternoon here; Mom wanted the Sox, I wanted the Indians.

I know you're leavin me behind
I'm seein you darlin for the very last time
Show a little tenderness before you go
Please let me feel your embrace once more

Take me in your arms and rock me, rock me a little while

We all must feel heartache sometimes
Right now, right now I'm feelin mine
I've tried my best to be strong, but I'm not able
I'm like a helpless child left in a cradle
Before you leave me behind let me feel happy one more time

Take me in your arms and rock me, rock me a little while

I'm losin you and my happiness
My life is so dark I must confess
I'll never, never see your smiling face no more
I'll never, never hear your knock upon my door
Before you leave me, leave me behind
Let me feel happy one more time

Take me in your arms and rock me, rock me a little while...

And this plea for a 7 game series by B.B. King:

Rock me baby, rock me all night long
Rock me baby, honey, rock me all night long
I want you to rock me baby,
like my back ain't got no bone

Roll me baby, like you roll a wagon wheel
I want you to roll me baby,
like you roll a wagon wheel
Want you to roll me baby,
you don't know how it makes me feel

Rock me baby, honey, rock me slow
Yeah, rock me pretty baby, baby rock me slow
Want you to rock me baby, till I want no more

http://tinyurl.com/22t2sz

"Our young players are not at the stage of Holliday and some of their other players, but the Rockies waited a while for those guys to get there. You can't usually get that overnight."

Right, Ned. You saw the Rockies at midseason and thought they'd be special. Because you're prescient like that. And that's why you thought you'd block Loney with a couple years of Nomar. And signed Pierre through the next appearance of Halley's Comet. Because you can spot special talent.

Also, that photo of Lasorda whispering in Colletti's ear is exceptionally creepy. Wormtongue!

P.S. -- Go Rockies.

Ned also snuck in that the core of the Rockies home grown youth were not rushed out of the minors, had at least 3 years of MLB experience, and were about 27 years old.

The Dodgers core of home grown youth range from 19 to 25 years of age and have 0 to 2 years MLB experience.

The Dodgers are still missing that core of ages 27 to 32 players with 3 or more years experience.

All I want for 2008 is no stupid trades of kids, no new long-term contracts to block them, and no more foolish extension of veteran contracts. If he's willing to "wait" for the kids and be the "new" O'Dowd rather than the old one, I will be content next year. Of course I'd also like to see A-Rod :-)