An MLB Preview in fewer than 1,000 words. Possible? Like Kevin Garnett, anything is possible.

Predicted Order of Finish

AL East:

1. Boston
2. Tampa Bay (AL Wild Card)
3. New York
4. Baltimore
5. Toronto

Breakdown: I don’t think the fire will be there with the Yankees this year after winning last year. The Red Sox have the deepest rotation in the division, a lineup that, if it’s not the best, is 1a, and the best manager in the American League, no matter what Matt Minton says. Tampa Bay will score a ton of runs and I think their pitching is just good enough to get them the AL Wild Card. Baltimore will be a much better club, behind young pitcher Brian Matusz and a solid offensive nucleus, including Adam Jones and Nick Markakis (in that order). And Toronto might be the worst team in the league, featuring a pitching rotation with a surplus of questions and a dearth of answers.

I tend to write a lot about a few things. One of them is driving. Another is travel. And usually, it’s about traveling by car.

Sunday, I went for an aimless, “lonely” drive. The concept of the aimless, “lonely” drive is not new to me. It’s a treasured, historic one. I don’t remember the first time I thought it would be a good idea to just waste fuel. It goes against my viewpoint that the environment should not be treated like a toilet bowl. But whenever it was, it would have to stem from the first drive I ever took by myself.

I was 16 and had a pair of concert tickets I wanted to pick up in Providence that I had won from the radio. My father, in his infinite wisdom, having a son who had just got his license, thought it was perfectly fine to hand me the keys to his 1986 Volvo 240 and drive it into Providence during rush hour. As I write that sentence now, I sense the immaturity. I mean, it’s just Providence. How bad could it be? Well, anyone who remembers that car, which would soon become mine thanks to my father’s kindness, remembers that it had the rather novel issue of “running.” For no reason, that car would just stall, whether it was on highway, driveway, parkway, or just a plain old way. It stalled twice within a 1/2 mile of my leaving my house, and even though I thought it wise to turn back, I was just tasting my first moment of real freedom. And that’s probably where my love of driving began: That first “lonesome” journey.

The term “lonesome” finds itself in quotes in this space because I acknowledge that to most people, the idea of being in a car by yourself, with no ultimate destination, seems counterproductive to the ultimate goal of enjoying being alive. I get this. But it’s never been me. There is a, I don’t know, “oneness” that I feel when I’m driving that I don’t normally feel in my everyday life. I’m typically much more relaxed, more focused, and almost more hopeful when I’m driving alone. The idea of having no destination is exciting, if not a false idea, because really, my destination will always be “home.” I’m leaving home to get there. Just in a completely different mindset than when I left.

Sunday’s drive took me to the eastern portion of the Beltway, between College Park and the Wilson Bridge, the portion that I had no reason to ever drive before. Most of what lies in that area is, well, not nice. Lots of “Heights.” Capitol Heights. District Heights. Congress Heights. None of these are places I need to go.

After passing over the Wilson Bridge, I found myself driving through beautiful Old Town Alexandria, VA. My previous idea of “Old Town” was restricted to King St. from the Masonic Temple to the waterfront. What I didn’t know was that there is an array of beauty in the areas off of King St. Areas that reminded me a lot of Newport, RI and Cape Cod. As I headed out of Old Town, I got onto the G(eorge) W(ashington) Parkway, and drove it south, along the water, to Mount Vernon, another place I have never been. The drive is beautiful. 8 miles through the woods. Winding street. 45 MPH. Perfection by my standards.

All told, I probably drove about 85 miles on Sunday and while many people would argue that I went nowhere and ultimately furthered our country’s dependency on foreign oil, I would argue that while the latter is true, I went further than 85 miles.

For two hours, I got to free my mind from its confined space and experience the openness of the road. And while that might sound a little too “Dave Matthews-y” for yours and my own liking, it’s true. With some music and some fresh air, all of the weight and clutter of my head became free for a few hours. And that’s why the aimless “lonesome” drive is such a false statement. There’s more purpose in it for me than the trip to the grocery store. The aim is enjoyment and relaxation, both of which I take for granted most of the time. And as far as I can tell, I’m never lonesome when I have the road at my car’s feet, and the wheel at my own hands.

There was a time as recently as 4 years ago where movies didn’t excite me. At all. I could have cared less to take 2 hours of my time and sit still watching something. And then I was jobless and going to the movies became a fun experience for me because it took me away from my joblessness and took me to a suspenseful place, or a funny place, or a smarter place, sometimes even a dumber place.

In 2008, I decided to see every “Best Picture” nominee, because it was a reasonable, reachable goal. And I achieved that goal. The joy of seeing all of the movies was that I could bitch about how “Juno” didn’t belong in the same category as “No Country for Old Men,” “There Will be Blood,” “Michael Clayton,” and “Atonement.” And thankfully, “Juno” didn’t win “Best Picture.

This year, Oscar decided to mess with my wallet, by nominating 10 movies. However, I’ve outsmarted Oscar because now I have a job and thus money that I can choose to spend on movies, as opposed to food or housing. With that, I give you my picks for the 82nd Academy Awards (I’m only going with the main awards, not the visual, audio editing, etc.):

Best Foreign Language Film
“The White Ribbon”
“The Milk of Sorrow”
“Un Prophete”
“El Secreto de Sus Ojos”
“Ajami”

The Winner: “The White Ribbon.” Running away. I saw none of these and never will because lately, I find that reading subtitles distracts me, which is troublesome. But this isn’t about my neurosis, so we’ll move on.

Best Animated Feature
“Up”
“Coraline”
“Fantastic Mr. Fox”
“The Secret of Kells”
“The Princess and the Frog”

The Winner: “Up.” If it’s nominated for Best Picture and none of the others are, it would stand to reason that it would be the winner. Its only other contender is “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” but I think “Up” is a fairly solid pick here.

Best Adapted Screenplay
“District 9”
“An Education”
“Up in the Air”
“In the Loop “
“Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire”

The Winner: “Up in the Air.” This is an easy pick on the surface, but harder when you start to think about it. “Up in the Air” has lost a lot of steam in terms of hype and I think that “Precious” is a contender, but for my money, “Up in the Air’s” screenplay was miles better than its competition here.

Best Original Screenplay
“Avatar”
“The Hurt Locker”
“Up”
“A Serious Man”
“The Messenger”

The Winner: “The Hurt Locker.” I’ve changed this pick 3 times now. Originally, I went with “Up.” Then I decided on “Avatar.” Finally, I went with “The Hurt Locker.” I picked “Up” because I think it’s a dark horse with some legs, but I’m not sure that this is such a dark horse year for the Oscars, in terms of award distribution. The dark horses came in the nomination process. I’m going with “The Hurt Locker” over “Avatar” because comparing the two screenplays, I thought “The Hurt Locker’s” was better, but still not necessarily the best in this category.

(In some sort of idiotic recalling of nominees, I included “Avatar” (which is not actually nominated) in this category and excluded “Inglourious Basterds” (which is). This was an obscenely gross error, as far as I’m concerned. I’m still going with “The Hurt Locker,” though. I apologize for me stupidity.)

Best Supporting Actor
Matt Damon (“Invictus”)
Woody Harrleson (“The Messenger”)
Christoph Waltz (“Inglourious Basterds”)
Stanley Tucci (“The Lovely Bones”)
Christopher Plummer (“The Last Station”)

The Winner: Christoph Waltz. Someone tell me how Stanley Tucci and Matt Damon got nominated for “The Lovely Bones” and “Invictus.” Please. Who saw “The Lovely Bones?” Moving on…

Best Supporting Actress
Vera Farmiga (“Up in the Air”)
Anna Kendrick (“Up in the Air”)
Mo’Nique (“Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire”)
Penelope Cruz (“Nine”)
Maggie Gyllenhaal (“Crazy Heart”)

The Winner: Mo’Nique. If you had told me two years ago that Mo’Nique would be winning an Academy Award, I would have asked you who Tyler Perry paid and how much. She was stunningly good in “Precious.” All of these performances (I haven’t seen “Nine”) were phenomenally good and I’d be happy if any of them won. I’m looking forward to this category as much as any other, short of “Best Picture.”

Best Actor
Jeff Bridges (“Crazy Heart”)
George Clooney (“Up in the Air”)
Jeremy Renner (“The Hurt Locker”)
Colin Firth (“A Single Man”)
Morgan Freeman (“Invictus”)

The Winner: Jeff Bridges. Easy. He makes the Bad Blake character a beautiful man, even when he’s throwing up on himself outside of a bowling alley in Santa Fe. He’s just great. As much as I loved Clooney, this deserves to be Jeff Bridges award.

Best Actress
Meryl Streep (“Julie and Julia”)
Sandra Bullock (“The Blind Side”)
Carey Mulligan (“An Education”)
Gabourey Sidibe (“Precious: Based on the novel “Push” by Sapphire”)
Helen Mirren (“The Movie That She Was in During This Film Cycle, No Matter What It Was About or Who Saw It”)

The Winner: Sandra Bullock. Hard. The opposite of its “Best Actor” counterpart. Streep and Sidibe are contenders and Sidibe would fit the bill as a “great story” if she won. Sidibe was great in her role as Preciouis. And Streep (though I haven’t seen “Julie and Julia”) is Meryl Streep. She can win any time she’s nominated. And of course, don’t forget Mirren, who I don’t care the least bit about, but people fawn over even though she seems to play the same character in her movies. And just because she should be mentioned, I loved Carey Mulligan in the very underrated “An Education.” But for me, surprisingly as it was to me, Bullock was terrific in “The Blind Side.” Just the right amount of sass. And charm. And presence. You really can’t take your eyes off of Bullock in her scenes. She’s just great. I can’t believe I’m typing this. She was also in “All About Steve” this year. Let’s try to forget that and move on.

Best Director
Kathryn Bigelow (“The Hurt Locker”)
James Cameron (“Avatar”)
Quentin Tarantino (“Inglourious Basterds”)
Lee Daniels (“Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire)
Jason Reitman (“Up in the Air”)

The Winner: Kathryn Bigelow. This is massively awkward because of Cameron and Bigelow’s previous marriage and the fact that their vehicles here are so different (more on that soon). I give the nod to Bigelow, very tentatively over Cameron, because of the suspense she built in “The Hurt Locker.” Tarantino is considered “due” by Academy standards, but he’s not the kind of director that mainstream America roots for, like Scorsese is/was before he won his “Best Director” award for “The Departed.” I don’t know that Bigelow has the body of work to push her past Cameron if this is a head-to-head, but “The Hurt Locker” is an Academy movie and “Avatar” is not, or at least shouldn’t be. Which reminds me:

Best Picture
“Up”
“Up in the Air”
“An Education”
“Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire”
“Avatar”
“Inglourious Basterds”
“The Hurt Locker”
“District 9”
“The Blind Side”
“A Serious Man”

Before I get to the my pick for winner, I’m going to place odds on each of these movies to win “Best Picture” in terms of my own personal opinion. I’d like to take wagers from folks, but I’m not sure if I’d ever pay out if someone won. Here’s how I think they stand:

“Avatar”: 3 to 2
“The Hurt Locker”: 2 to 1
“Inglourious Basterds”: 5 to 1
“Precious” Based on the…”: 8 to 1
“Up in the Air”: 10 to 1
“Up”: 15 to 1
“The Blind Side”: 25 to 1
“An Education”: 50 to 1
“A Serious Man”: 100 to 1
“District 9”: 150 to 1

The Winner: “The Hurt Locker.” “Basterds” is right on its heels and you cannot count out “Avatar” because you never know with the Academy. If Cameron had not won for “Titanic” I would be pretty sure that “Avatar” would win this year, but “The Hurt Locker” comes out, despite its lack of an audience, in a time when the War on Something (Iraq) is really unpopular and it showcases the realistic human element of that life and is incredibly suspenseful. “Basterds” is a realistic dark horse, but I don’t think there’s enough Tarantino support. I’ll take my own 2 to 1 odds on “The Hurt Locker.

And now, I let you know how I really feel about movies. Here are the “Best Picture” nominees, ranked in reverse order of how much I enjoyed them.

10. “Avatar”: Just a giant, expensive piece of crap. The writing and acting are deplorable in this movie. For as pretty as it is, I don’t really care. I don’t like when a director/writer relies on art direction to make a movie. To me, a script will always make a movie. And “Avatar” ain’t got that, baby.

9. “District 9”: I waited to see it until the last moment and I can see why. I’ll never know if this movie wanted to be an action movie or a black comedy, because it didn’t really work on either front. An interesting enough story, I guess. It wins out over “Avatar” here because it didn’t take too much of my time, whereas James Cameron owes me 150 minutes.

8. “A Serious Man”: Forgettable performances, forgettable writing, predictable ending, because it was done by the Coen brothers. Time has not favored this movie in my head.

7. “The Blind Side”: There’s a huge gap between “Avatar” and “The Blind Side.” This was an enjoyable movie. It was not groundbreaking cinema, but I never looked at my watch once and found it a passable way to spend 130 minutes of my life.

6. “Up”: The opening 15 minutes were great, but from there the movie slipped a little for me. I didn’t love this. It was an okay effort. I found myself hopelessly annoyed with Russell.

5. “Precious: Based on, eh whatever”: Great performances by Mo’Nique and Sidibe make this movie very good, but not great. The writing seriously could have used some work.

4. “An Education”: We now enter the great category. This was a terrific movie that could have very easily been in my Top 2 with a different ending. But before the ending, I loved every bit of it. Equal parts somber, weird, cute, and interesting, its greatness was due in large part to wonderful performances by Carey Mulligan and the always great Peter Sarsgaard.

3. “The Hurt Locker”: I did not leave the theatre raving about how good of a time I had, but I can acknowledge certainly that this is a great movie. As I’ve mentioned already and everyone else has, you won’t find a more suspenseful movie. The acting is pretty good, though I don’t believe Renner deserved a nomination for “Best Actor.” It finds itself ahead of “An Education” because of the movie that it wants to be and succeeds in being. Bigelow took a risk making this movie and pulled off a great piece of film.

2. “Inglourious Basterds”: I don’t think I had more fun at a movie than I did the first time I saw “Basterds” in theatres. The end sequence is phenomenal, but not my favorite. I could watch the first scene of this movie every day and never, ever get tired of it. I would go so far as to say that it is the best written scene I have ever seen in a film. “Au Revoir Shoshanna!”

1. “Up in the Air”: This will eventually go down as one of my favorite movies ever. It’s kind of like “Garden State” for intelligent 20 and 30 somethings. Except the ending is perfect. And the acting is perfect. And the writing is perfect. And…Look, this is not groundbreaking cinema. Every year, there is/are one or two or three movies that resemble “Up in the Air” in some way. None are this good though. This is a movie that can easily have its viewers changed by the time they leave the theatre. It sticks with you long after you see it. Not enough can be said for how good Clooney, Farmiga, and Kendrick are both together and separately. Their performances are completely spot on. I saw it twice in theatres and I could easily go again and again and again and, you know what, it would affect me the same each time. And I love that in movies. And that’s why “Up in the Air” is my favorite movie from this cycle of films. And the one I’ll be rooting for the most this Sunday.

For the past two weeks, I’ve been kind of in love. You’d think that this was some sort of “me trying to be cute and funny” line, but it’s true. With sports, it’s a different love than personal love, but for me, it’s still love. I fall in love with players because of how they play (Barry Sanders, Alexander Ovechkin, Barry Bonds), their attitude towards playing, i.e. their “fire” (Kevin Garnett, Tim Tebow), and I fall in love with teams because of a collective being that captivates me (2008 Boston Celtics, 2005 West Virginia Men’s basketball).

I’m sad right now because we’re at the end of a two week love affair that is over and is never going to come back. From the first game they played against Switzerland, I was in love with the U.S. Men’s hockey team in the 2010 Winter Olympics. I fell in love with players and I fell in love with the collective team.

For players, at the top of my list is Dustin Brown. Brown’s impact is not seen in stat sheets, but he’s the kind of player who rarely makes a poor decision and always plays hard. I would give up nearly anything for him to be on the Caps so I could watch him 82 times a season. I fell in love with the grit of David Backes and Jack Johnson. I fell in love with the elite defense of Erik Johnson. I fell in love with the never-give-in attitude of Ryan Kesler, who was never the best player on the ice, but was always in on important plays. And of course, like the rest of the U.S. hockey world, I fell in love with Ryan Miller, who might not be a top 5 goalie in the NHL, but played like it for two weeks in February 2010.

But really, I fell in love with the team. I love underdogs and no matter what the old timers who remember 1980 will tell you, this was my generation’s underdog U.S. hockey team. Was this Olympics as important as 1980? I don’t care. It was important to me and to a load of American hockey fans who longed for success and progress and frankly, that’s all that matters. For two weeks we got to bear witness to a scrappy group of American hockey players, most under 27 years of age, battling for the gold medal at the Olympics. 12 years ago, we watched an over-the-hill group of privilege NHL stars trash hotel rooms in Nagano and embarrass our nation. 8 years ago, a boring group of Americans with no identity, but a fair amount of star power, won the silver medal in Salt Lake City and no one noticed. And 4 years ago in Turin, we finished 8th with an inferior team with limited skill. What happened in the last four years was that we were able to develop and then blend great, young talents. There is, in my opinion, no future Hockey Hall of Famer on this team. Maybe Erik Johnson if he can keep away from the injury bug. Perhaps Patrick Kane, if he matures more quickly than he has so far, both as a person and a player. But really, compared to our Northern rivals, on paper, we couldn’t compare. They had sure-fire future Hall of Famers Sidney Crosby, Jarome Iginla, Martin Brodeur, Scott Niedemeyer, and Chris Pronger. And not to mention a group of other elite talents (Eric Staal, Dany Heatley, Joe Thornton). And then we beat them in the preliminary round. And the hockey world took notice.

Today’s overtime loss left me feeling, obviously, disappointed. But not necessarily because of the loss to Canada. Or that Sidney Crosby (who I prefer to call Crosbaby) scored the game-winning goal. No, as I said to Jim, who you’ll remember as the 2009 Mid Atlantic Bias Football Picks Champion, after the game, never before have I really been this drawn to an all-star team or a national team. Rarely do I find myself cheering on the Americans in basketball or soccer like I did with this men’s hockey team. Watching the scrappy Americans left me with a genuine feeling of national pride as they beat the Swiss, Norwegians, Canadians, Swiss again, and the Fins. And you know, as Crosbaby’s overtime goal shot through the legs of Ryan Miller, none of the pride disappeared. Not to sound like a parent, but I was proud of our guys. And I was disappointed when I realized that I would never again get to see this group play hockey together again.

Time will tell if American hockey will remain a powerhouse on the world stage. The Russians, Fins, Czechs, Swedes, and Slovaks have long been better at the sport than the U.S. because our youth focus more on basketball and football, which we excel at, at an unparalleled world level. However, after watching our Men’s team these past two weeks, I truly believe that hockey can very well be a third notch in our belt on the world stage. With such a young roster and the continued development of home grown talent, we will be expected to, at the very least, medal in Sochi, Russia in four years. If not win the gold.

Four years is a very long time to wait to savor the fruits of one’s labor. But in my opinion, American hockey fans don’t have to wait that long. Now is the perfect time. Yes, we came up a goal short of the Canadians, a roster full of future hall-of-fame players. But we proved that we’re here and here to stay, not like in 1980 or 2002, when we, frankly, got lucky. Our silver medal was more than deserved in Vancouver. We earned it. And I’ll always cherish my two week love affair with the 2010 U.S. Men’s Olympic Hockey squad.