It's all or nothing for Sexson in the Bronx

Even as Richie Sexson stumbled through a second consecutive abysmal season, I was part of a minority of baseball fans who believed he still has some good baseball left in him.

The numbers (.218 BA, 76 strikeouts, and just 30 RBIs) are terrible and the swings have been ugly, but Sexson is not yet 34, and he's just two years removed from a 34 HR, 107 RBI season.

Which is exactly why the Yankees took a chance on him. That, and he's fared well against lefties this year.

Sexson's problems, though, seem to have little to do with his physical abilities and a whole lot to do with his psyche. As the great Yogi Berra once said, "Baseball is 90% mental. The other half is physical."

I was convinced that a change of scenery would do Sexson a lot of good. Arizona, for example, made a lot of sense as a destination. He played well there in limited action in 2004, and a chance to return to National League pitching would likely be beneficial.

But New York?! If Sexson thought Seattle was bad, wait until he goes 0-for-4 with three strikeouts! It's a low risk move for New York, which has more than enough money to throw around. If Sexson doesn't work out, they cut him and they're done with him. But if Sexson flounders again in the Bronx, he will significantly hurt his stock as a free agent this offseason.

Here's predicting Sexson isn't on the Yankees' postseason roster.

David Eckstein on the art of winning fans and influencing people

I was at the Mariners-Blue Jays game last night, and besides the fact that Roy Halladay is a dominating pitcher and Canadian fans are obnoxious, I made an interesting observation.

David Eckstein is not just a scrappy baseball player, but he's also a genuinely good guy.

An hour or so before the game, Eckstein signed dozens autograph and posed for every picture with fans along the third base line. Two or three times he had turned back toward the field to begin his stretching routine, only to be drawn back by another youngster who wanted his glove signed by a real live Major Leaguer.

No one else from either team was out interacting with fans at that point, and with a game looming you can't exactly blame them. But there was Eckstein, the Ex-Factor in all his shortness, making people's days.

That's how heroes are born.

Tiger's absence: good or bad for the sport?

Nice piece by Rick Morrissey in the Chicago Tribune, outlining all the reasons why Tiger missing the rest of the season is bad news for the PGA.

Namely, less people in the galleries, fewer people tuning into each tournament -- even the majors -- and as a result, less money for everyone connected with the sport. That is, except for the rest of the golfers on the PGA, who stand to benefit greatly. Think of all the extra prize money available with Tiger home on the La-Z-Boy!

But, as Morrissey points out, each of the tournament winners will have a figurative asterisk by their name, and the sports world will wonder how things had been different if Woods had played. Tiger, we can all agree, has become the standard.

Morrissey's arguments are all good and true, but I wonder if Tiger's absence might not be a good thing indirectly. We have all waited (thus far, in vain) for a worthy nemesis to emerge in the world of golf. Tiger, though, has kept the petal to the metal and no other golfer has been able to string together much of a challenge.

Now that's he's gone, though, perhaps a young, underachieving golfer can find his game, his personality, and his confidence. Sergio Garcia, for example, is long past due for such a renaissance. Phil Mickelson might find the fire in his belly after all. What about Zach Johnson?

It could be that in Woods' absence golf will become once again a sport of parity, and when he returns it will seem as if nothing has changed. We can only hope that's not the case, but if so, the brief interruption to Tiger's reign of dominance will seem like a blip on the radar.

Bavasi, Randolph take the fall...did they deserve it?

Two underachieving teams finally decided it was time to do something. One placed the blame with the general manager, the other with the manager.

Mariners GM Bill Bavasi and Mets manager Willie Randolph, scapegoats for their respective franchises, have been fired.

Bavasi was fired Monday after four-plus unsuccessful seasons. Seattle had one winning record and never made it to the playoffs under his leadership. His head-scratching moves included trading promising reliever Rafael Soriano for bust of the decade starter Horacio Ramirez. Bavasi also cut a struggling Brad Wilkerson just months after signing the right fielder to a $3 million contract.

But Bavasi will forever be linked to the deals that brought in Adrian Beltre and Richie Sexson, two contracts that have saddled the Mariners' payroll but never brought the returns Bavasi expected.

At 24-46, Seattle is the worst of the worst despite its $117 million payroll.

The Mets, meanwhile, have underachieved just as mightily. Their $138 payroll and the addition of Johan Santana had many believing this was a team that was World Series-bound. But 69 games into the season, New York finds itself under .500 and trailing two teams in the NL East.

After mulling the decision apparently all night, the Mets gave Randolph the pink slip in the middle of the night. Pitching coach Rick Peterson and first base coach Tom Nieto were also let go.

This all leads me to something I've been pondering the last couple of weeks. When a team underperforms, who really is to blame? Is firing the manager -- who simply fills in the lineup card and tries to set the tone in the clubhouse -- an appropriate response? Does the general manager, who makes personnel decisions, deserve the blame when things don't pan out?

What about the players? Except for Sidney Ponson, you don't see too many guys told to take a hike. But in reality, the players are the ones not coming up with the clutch hit or failing to produce a quality start.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts in the comments or in the poll to the right.

House foundational to Celtics' comeback

There were many keys to the Celtics' come-from-behind victory Thursday night, but there's one that sticks out like the shine on Sam Cassell's forehead.

When Boston needed a spark from its bench, Eddie House was the man for the job.

The Celtics' backup guard scored 11 points and grabbed four rebounds in 24 minutes -- modest numbers, to be sure. But he brought something to the table that has been absent with Cassell in the same role. With the energetic House on the floor, the Celtics had a +20 point differential, the largest for any player on either team.

House had only a DNP to show for each of the first two games in Boston; Cassell was mediocre in limited action (though it seemed like he shot every time he touched the ball), but the Celtics didn't need much from him. But Rivers gave House a decent look in Game 3 and further integrated him into the game plan in Game 4.

If you're wondering what took Rivers so long, you're not alone.

Cassell has had a great career that includes two NBA titles, but the man is pushing 39 and clearly on his way out of the league. House is a 30-year old role player and hasn't won a championship, but you can tell he's starting to taste it. He's hungrier.

More than likely, this series has at least two games left. When the backup minutes are there, House should get them.

Donaghy alleges NBA Playoffs conspiracy

Former NBA referee Tim Donaghy is a scumbag, and his actions were worse than anything Pete Rose ever did.

But that doesn't make Donaghy a liar by default.

The former referee's attorney filed an allegation in New York's U.S. District Court Tuesday, saying referees played an active role in fixing the outcome of critical playoff games.

"Tim knew referees A and F to be 'company men,'" the attorney letter read, "always acting in the interest of the NBA, and that night, it was in the NBA's interest to add another game to the series."

The series in question is 2002 Western Conference Finals, in which Los Angeles won Games 6 and 7 to beat the Kings. In the critical Game 6, the Lakers shot 27 free throws to the Kings' nine in the fourth quarter alone.

"Referees A and F heavily favored [the Lakers]. Personal fouls [resulting in obviously injured players] were ignored even when they occurred in full view of the referees. Conversely, the referees called made-up fouls on [Sacramento] in order to give additional free throw opportunities for [the Lakers].

As fans of the game, we'd prefer to dismiss Donaghy's statement as a last-ditch effort to bring others down with him. But even in this NBA Finals, six years later, the tenor of Donaghy's words seems to ring true.

In Game 2, the home team Celtics shot 38 free throws to the Lakers' 10. In Game 3 in Los Angeles, the shoe was on the other foot, with the Lakers taking 34 trips to the line to Boston's 22. Attribute it to a difference in aggression levels, if you like, but the standard for a foul seemed to have drastically changed on the cross-country flight.

Home court advantage is always talked about as such a crucial component to success in the playoffs, and the fan mood undoubtedly has some influence on the outcomes of games. But Donaghy's accusations make me wonder if home court means you also get a little help from the officiating as needed.

Anything for a seven-game series, right?

Griffey's 600th less watched, but more praiseworthy than Bonds' 756

If Ken Griffey, Jr. hit career home run #600 but only 16,003 people were there to see it, does that mean it doesn't matter?

More than 22,000 sports fans passed on the chance to witness history at Dolphin Stadium Monday night, when Griffey joined an exclusive club. Only Barry Bonds, Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, Willie Mays and Sammy Sosa are members.

The story made the front page of ESPN.com and Yahoo! Sports (both sites featured a "Sweet 600" headline -- who's the mole?!), but where has all the buildup been? Where was the buzz?

For one, I think we're all experiencing a little milestone fatigue. We were all force fed Bonds' pursuit of 756, a chase that left most fans with a sour taste in their mouths. And fans were well aware of Manny Ramirez reaching the 500 milestone just over a week ago.

Maybe the bigger factor in our collective disinterest, though, is cynicism. The Mitchell Report (now that was an event that earned some buildup) taught us to disbelieve what we see on SportsCenter, and that many -- perhaps most -- of the greatest sluggers of our generation are also cheaters.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that Griffey is clean and always has been. You will never convince me that Griffey's 600 is the same as Sosa's 600. I would even go so far as to say that his 600 is more significant than Bonds' 756. Before Bonds, only Aaron, Ruth, and Mays -- three of the greatest of all time -- had hit 600. You can make the argument that he belongs in that company even without the benefit of steroids, but we can never know for sure.

Griffey, though (again, assuming he's clean), can rightfully stake his claim to presence in that elite company with tonight's home run. Home run #600 is not a record, not by anyone's counting. But it's a major milestone, achieved fair and square, by a good guy and one of baseball's all-time greats.

AP PHOTO