The MLB All Star game came and went on Tuesday and no one seemed to care. According to ESPN, the game earned its lowest rating ever.
Why doesn't anyone want to watch it anymore? Why is it being pushed aside?
"THIS TIME IT COUNTS": I hate this. I loathe it. An exhibition game should not determine who gets home field advantage in the World Series (the league with more interleague wins should get the nod). It's a bad idea ... even to those who think it's a good one.
By the way, since the fact that home field advantage was on the line and no one still watched (which was the entire reason for pinning that prize to the game), can we just stop it? It doesn't work so let's scrap that.
While that prize puts a little more emotion and drama to the game, it doesn't make it better. One of the most memorable All Star moments in my adult life was the battle between Randy Johnson and John Kruk. Or remember Cal Ripken Jr's final All Star apperance and A-Rod game him his customary shortstop position when they trotted out on the field? Those kinds of things can't happen anymore. They cannot fart around, have fun and do things out of the ordinary.
And then the game gets weird. The managers are trying to find the line between getting everyone in there to play and actually winning the game. It's like Little League.
TOO MANY PLAYERS: Sorry, but there are just too many players on the All Star team. It reminds me of the proposed 96-team NCAA Tournament -- they hate leaving a couple teams out that they are willing to invite unworthy teams in. Same thing here. There are tons of guys having All Star worthy seasons but they can't all get on this team.
Of the 70 or so All Stars ... there were about 20 of them that I hadn't heard of until Tuesday night. And I've probably forgotten them already. To fit them all in, a manager has to use one to pinch hit, one to pinch run and one to be the defensive replacement the next inning. It's just stupid.
PITCHING IS TOO GOOD: We are just coming down from the steroid era where offensive numbers were staggering. After everyone got de-juiced, pitching has started to dominate. In an All Star game, a manager can run out about 4 or 5 aces ... then bring in dominant closers to get the game home.
Good pitching beats good hitting. So rotating great pitchers to the mound will keep the game low scoring and not as fun to watch.
People watch the NBA All Star game for the high offensive theatrics. The NHL and NFL All Star/Pro games are usually higher scoring than an average game. The great pitching makes the MLB All Star game lower scoring than an average game. We don't get to see those great hitters doing anything.
HOME RUN DERBY: I'm not a fan of this event, but I know people who love it. It's gotten so big that it ... at times ... trumps the game itself. Sort of like how the Slam Dunk Contest used to be in the NBA.
I just told you that pitching rules during the game, so the majestic offense fireworks are invited the night before it.
NOVELTY IS GONE: With free agent movement and salary dump trades all the rage in baseball ... not to mention interleague play ... the novelty of the game has worn off. It used to be that you could only see Roger Clemens pitching to Barry Bonds in an All Star Game. Now a David Price-Albert Pujols battle can easily have been seen before.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Friday, July 9, 2010
"The Decision" Was As Disgusting As I Had Figured It Would Be
What LeBron James did on Thursday night was nothing short of disgusting. It was sickening. It was way too much.
Some of it wasn't LeBron's fault. The half-hour homage to how great LeBron is before the decision was announced was all ESPN. To call this the "biggest free agency signing ever" is a slap in the face to Shaquille O'Neal. Remember that in 1996, Shaq's free agency was epic and ... as revisionist history will show ... changed the landscape of the NBA entirely. He would win three titles with the Lakers while the Magic have been back to the Finals just once. Sure, LeBron James was waaaaaay more hyped and there's waaaaay more money involved.
But the spectacle was overblown. Especially since ESPN had led the entire day that LeBron James was picking the Miami Heat. That was the word all day long ... yet ESPN found it in their hearts to try to keep that "but it's not a done deal" and "he could change his mind at the last minute" so that we may actually watch "The Decision" with some suspense and purpose.
I watched the entire program ... including the bonus features. I guess that's the point all along. Who cares if it was wretched TV? We watched it.
Still, LeBron came off a lot worse than I though he would have. He seemed just as narcissistic as people have whispered about. He talked in the third person repeatedly. He kept talking about "taking his talents" to Miami. He just looked smug.
It's fine that he's moving on. He has every right to look at every opportunity out there and take the one he wants. Thoughtful people understand that. And he should be happy about his decision ... so seeing any joy in it is fine. He should be excited.
But why the show? Why the charade? Why the dumb drama? It would have had a ton more meaning if we hadn't been told all day long that Miami was the destination. LeBron must have millions of fingers since he said he could count all the people who knew his decision on one hand. Instead, the drama was replaced by a slow painful death for the city of Cleveland ... as well as New York and Chicago.
New York and Chicago will get over it pretty quickly. They never had LeBron. They have never seen him wearing their teams' jerseys before. While it was yearned for, it never happened. Cleveland, however, lost its star. Lost its hometown guy. Lost its sporting soul again.
Just look at the Cavs owner, Dan Gilbert. He ripped LeBron just moments after the decision was made ... going as far as calling LeBron a "coward" and saying "he quit" on the Cavs during the playoffs. He even dropped this awesome line: "Some people think they should go to heaven but NOT have to die to get there."
While I'm fine with his decision, I'm definitely not fine with the way it was given. Just have someone announce it to the media ... then have your news conference. That's what everyone else does and what is expected.
But LeBron always thought he was better than everyone else.
Some of it wasn't LeBron's fault. The half-hour homage to how great LeBron is before the decision was announced was all ESPN. To call this the "biggest free agency signing ever" is a slap in the face to Shaquille O'Neal. Remember that in 1996, Shaq's free agency was epic and ... as revisionist history will show ... changed the landscape of the NBA entirely. He would win three titles with the Lakers while the Magic have been back to the Finals just once. Sure, LeBron James was waaaaaay more hyped and there's waaaaay more money involved.
But the spectacle was overblown. Especially since ESPN had led the entire day that LeBron James was picking the Miami Heat. That was the word all day long ... yet ESPN found it in their hearts to try to keep that "but it's not a done deal" and "he could change his mind at the last minute" so that we may actually watch "The Decision" with some suspense and purpose.
I watched the entire program ... including the bonus features. I guess that's the point all along. Who cares if it was wretched TV? We watched it.
Still, LeBron came off a lot worse than I though he would have. He seemed just as narcissistic as people have whispered about. He talked in the third person repeatedly. He kept talking about "taking his talents" to Miami. He just looked smug.
It's fine that he's moving on. He has every right to look at every opportunity out there and take the one he wants. Thoughtful people understand that. And he should be happy about his decision ... so seeing any joy in it is fine. He should be excited.
But why the show? Why the charade? Why the dumb drama? It would have had a ton more meaning if we hadn't been told all day long that Miami was the destination. LeBron must have millions of fingers since he said he could count all the people who knew his decision on one hand. Instead, the drama was replaced by a slow painful death for the city of Cleveland ... as well as New York and Chicago.
New York and Chicago will get over it pretty quickly. They never had LeBron. They have never seen him wearing their teams' jerseys before. While it was yearned for, it never happened. Cleveland, however, lost its star. Lost its hometown guy. Lost its sporting soul again.
Just look at the Cavs owner, Dan Gilbert. He ripped LeBron just moments after the decision was made ... going as far as calling LeBron a "coward" and saying "he quit" on the Cavs during the playoffs. He even dropped this awesome line: "Some people think they should go to heaven but NOT have to die to get there."
While I'm fine with his decision, I'm definitely not fine with the way it was given. Just have someone announce it to the media ... then have your news conference. That's what everyone else does and what is expected.
But LeBron always thought he was better than everyone else.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
The Balance Of Power In The NBA Is NOT Now In The East!
One of the things I keep hearing from people around the media is that with all these free agents changing teams, that the balance of power in the NBA has moved from West to East. The Eastern Conference is now the better conference with more dominant teams.
I'm not buying it.
You can point to the fact that Amare Stoudemire and Carlos Boozer went to the Eastern Conference from the West. I get that, but that doesn't mean anything to me.
Sure, a LeBron-Wade-Bosh team in Miami would make the Heat as powerful as anyone in the league. But it doing so, Toronto and Cleveland have become ghost towns. Remember that Cleveland has been one of the best teams in the NBA over the past four years, getting to the Finals once and finishing the last two seasons with the NBA's best record. Now that team will be a borderline playoff team.
The band is back together in Boston. We all remember that this team was dominating Game 7 of the 2010 NBA Finals until the Lakers got it together and got past them. Still, this team is a year older and will be mere months removed from a long, long playoff run of tough physical series and ending in heartbreak.
Atlanta is pretty much all back together, but that team needs some tweaking to become elite.
Chicago and New York have signed big name power forwards and both have money to get a few other parts in some way. But neither are really power teams yet. Chicago is closer but isn't in the elite class yet. New York needs some other star to pair with Amare to make them relevant again.
Orlando has done nothing (oh, they brought in Chris Duhon). Charlotte will lose Raymond Felton and probably Tyrus Thomas. The only other team that dramatically improved this offseason was the Milwaukee Bucks.
I'm not saying the West is as powerful as it once was. San Antonio's window is barely open. It will be interesting to see how the Suns perform post-Amare (more on that later). But all is not lost. Utah may have lost Boozer, but they've been preparing for that for two years now (um, Paul Millsap got a huge deal to be his replacement last year).
The Lakers, in case you forgot, are the defending two-time champions. The core is still young enough to put together another run or two. The Nuggets were supposed to be the team that challenged the Lakers last year, but George Karl's battle with cancer took the life out of this team. Say what you want, but Karl is the perfect coach for that team of ... well ... interesting individuals. A healthy Karl could get them back on track.
Karl isn't the only "addition" to a team that was already there. Yao Ming will be back with the Houston Rockets next year. They fought most of the year for a postseason spot without Yao last season. Remember that this team added Kevin Martin during the season and has a nice group of role players. Blake Griffin missed his rookie campaign with a knee injury. He'll infuse some much needed bang with the Clippers.
Oklahoma City will be the next power out of the West. They have outstanding talent, a bona fide super star, a great front office and tons of flexibility to make changes to the roster when needed. Portland was supposed to be that team, and still could be. Dallas was the buzz team during the second half of last year.
The Warriors and Kings have some huge young talents (Curry, Ellis in G-State; Evans and Cousins in Sacto). Memphis has a formidable roster. New Orleans still has Chris Paul.
All I am saying is that the East hasn't taken the mantle of best conference. How about winning a title (the East has won just three of the past 12 titles) to prove me wrong.
I'm not buying it.
You can point to the fact that Amare Stoudemire and Carlos Boozer went to the Eastern Conference from the West. I get that, but that doesn't mean anything to me.
Sure, a LeBron-Wade-Bosh team in Miami would make the Heat as powerful as anyone in the league. But it doing so, Toronto and Cleveland have become ghost towns. Remember that Cleveland has been one of the best teams in the NBA over the past four years, getting to the Finals once and finishing the last two seasons with the NBA's best record. Now that team will be a borderline playoff team.
The band is back together in Boston. We all remember that this team was dominating Game 7 of the 2010 NBA Finals until the Lakers got it together and got past them. Still, this team is a year older and will be mere months removed from a long, long playoff run of tough physical series and ending in heartbreak.
Atlanta is pretty much all back together, but that team needs some tweaking to become elite.
Chicago and New York have signed big name power forwards and both have money to get a few other parts in some way. But neither are really power teams yet. Chicago is closer but isn't in the elite class yet. New York needs some other star to pair with Amare to make them relevant again.
Orlando has done nothing (oh, they brought in Chris Duhon). Charlotte will lose Raymond Felton and probably Tyrus Thomas. The only other team that dramatically improved this offseason was the Milwaukee Bucks.
I'm not saying the West is as powerful as it once was. San Antonio's window is barely open. It will be interesting to see how the Suns perform post-Amare (more on that later). But all is not lost. Utah may have lost Boozer, but they've been preparing for that for two years now (um, Paul Millsap got a huge deal to be his replacement last year).
The Lakers, in case you forgot, are the defending two-time champions. The core is still young enough to put together another run or two. The Nuggets were supposed to be the team that challenged the Lakers last year, but George Karl's battle with cancer took the life out of this team. Say what you want, but Karl is the perfect coach for that team of ... well ... interesting individuals. A healthy Karl could get them back on track.
Karl isn't the only "addition" to a team that was already there. Yao Ming will be back with the Houston Rockets next year. They fought most of the year for a postseason spot without Yao last season. Remember that this team added Kevin Martin during the season and has a nice group of role players. Blake Griffin missed his rookie campaign with a knee injury. He'll infuse some much needed bang with the Clippers.
Oklahoma City will be the next power out of the West. They have outstanding talent, a bona fide super star, a great front office and tons of flexibility to make changes to the roster when needed. Portland was supposed to be that team, and still could be. Dallas was the buzz team during the second half of last year.
The Warriors and Kings have some huge young talents (Curry, Ellis in G-State; Evans and Cousins in Sacto). Memphis has a formidable roster. New Orleans still has Chris Paul.
All I am saying is that the East hasn't taken the mantle of best conference. How about winning a title (the East has won just three of the past 12 titles) to prove me wrong.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
LeBron Is About to Kick Cleveland In the Nuts
I have a hunch that LeBron James is not coming back to Cleveland. Just a hunch.
Why hold an hour long "special" to announce you're not going anywhere? It can't be used as a recruiting tool for free agents to come to the Cavaliers. They lack the funds to make a play for any other big dogs ... not to mention that most of them have already agreed to deals.
Why hold this presser in Greenwich, CT ... just a few miles away from New York City? Well, there is a reason for that. He's in Carmelo Anthony's wedding, which is this weekend in Greenwich. Still, with the demands on LeBron and this wedding, why would he bother having this charade just to announce he's coming back?
(If I had to put some cheese on this, I'd say that LeBron is heading to New York. Amare Stoudemire is already there, he could become a world icon and own that city. In a city with A-Rod, Eli, Rex Ryan and Derek Jeter, LeBron would still be king.)
(NOTE: The big rumor throughout the night and morning is that LeBron would go to Miami. Again, why not have a triple news conference about that with Wade and Bosh on Wednesday?)
I'm sorry, but LeBron James has looked really bad through all of this. A likeable guy, LeBron has turned himself into a somewhat hated fellow. We're tired of all of this. Pick somewhere! If it is Cleveland, then all of this was a royal waste of time. If it isn't Cleveland, thanks for holding this event to kick Cleveland in the nads.
That would be the most classless and cruel exit I'd could ever see.
I'm not a fan of the city of Cleveland. It isn't really anywhere I'd want to go. Their sports teams could be loveable losers if it wasn't for the way they lose. Jose Mesa. The Drive. The Fumble. Of course, only Mesa involved a championship that was in their grasp. His meltdown against the Marlins in 1996 clutched defeat from the jaws of victory. The Drive and The Fumble kept them from the Super Bowl, but it wasn't as if the champagne was chilling in their locker room.
I do feel bad for the sports fans there. Art Modell pulling the Browns from the city and moving them to Baltimore was crushing. It's about the only thing that could compare to LeBron ditching his hometown Cavs for whomever. The only difference is that the NFL almost immediately guaranteed that they'd put an expansion team in Cleveland, name them the Browns and keep all of the franchise's history. A couple years and the team was back.
With LeBron, there ain't no coming back. If he leaves, there is no other super star that's walking through that door to replace him. They'll have to pray that someone falls in their lap ... at some point ... in the next decade or two ... via the draft. In fact, you could make the case that no star in their right mind would ever choose to play in Cleveland. If a guy who lived his whole life there doesn't want to stay ... then why would anyone else?
I'm not being overly dramatic and saying the entire city of Cleveland will burn and sink to the bottom of Lake Erie if LeBron doesn't come back. But it will take the sporting soul out of this town. The Cavs of the last seven years have been the closest thing they've had to a champion. Now it could all be gone.
Why hold an hour long "special" to announce you're not going anywhere? It can't be used as a recruiting tool for free agents to come to the Cavaliers. They lack the funds to make a play for any other big dogs ... not to mention that most of them have already agreed to deals.
Why hold this presser in Greenwich, CT ... just a few miles away from New York City? Well, there is a reason for that. He's in Carmelo Anthony's wedding, which is this weekend in Greenwich. Still, with the demands on LeBron and this wedding, why would he bother having this charade just to announce he's coming back?
(If I had to put some cheese on this, I'd say that LeBron is heading to New York. Amare Stoudemire is already there, he could become a world icon and own that city. In a city with A-Rod, Eli, Rex Ryan and Derek Jeter, LeBron would still be king.)
(NOTE: The big rumor throughout the night and morning is that LeBron would go to Miami. Again, why not have a triple news conference about that with Wade and Bosh on Wednesday?)
I'm sorry, but LeBron James has looked really bad through all of this. A likeable guy, LeBron has turned himself into a somewhat hated fellow. We're tired of all of this. Pick somewhere! If it is Cleveland, then all of this was a royal waste of time. If it isn't Cleveland, thanks for holding this event to kick Cleveland in the nads.
That would be the most classless and cruel exit I'd could ever see.
I'm not a fan of the city of Cleveland. It isn't really anywhere I'd want to go. Their sports teams could be loveable losers if it wasn't for the way they lose. Jose Mesa. The Drive. The Fumble. Of course, only Mesa involved a championship that was in their grasp. His meltdown against the Marlins in 1996 clutched defeat from the jaws of victory. The Drive and The Fumble kept them from the Super Bowl, but it wasn't as if the champagne was chilling in their locker room.
I do feel bad for the sports fans there. Art Modell pulling the Browns from the city and moving them to Baltimore was crushing. It's about the only thing that could compare to LeBron ditching his hometown Cavs for whomever. The only difference is that the NFL almost immediately guaranteed that they'd put an expansion team in Cleveland, name them the Browns and keep all of the franchise's history. A couple years and the team was back.
With LeBron, there ain't no coming back. If he leaves, there is no other super star that's walking through that door to replace him. They'll have to pray that someone falls in their lap ... at some point ... in the next decade or two ... via the draft. In fact, you could make the case that no star in their right mind would ever choose to play in Cleveland. If a guy who lived his whole life there doesn't want to stay ... then why would anyone else?
I'm not being overly dramatic and saying the entire city of Cleveland will burn and sink to the bottom of Lake Erie if LeBron doesn't come back. But it will take the sporting soul out of this town. The Cavs of the last seven years have been the closest thing they've had to a champion. Now it could all be gone.
Friday, July 2, 2010
I Can't Blame College Athletes Taking the Money
The joke about college sports is that it takes a lot of cash to land these five star recruits. We see stuff like this happen all the time ... and sometimes they even get caught. That's what happened to USC involving Reggie Bush and O.J. Mayo. Now it seems to be happening with John Wall and Kentucky.
First off, I knew Wall was going to bite Kentucky in the rear. There were schools that wouldn't touch him because they knew there was some dirt linked to him (famously, my UNC Tar Heels refused to recruit him even though he wanted to come there). Still ... duh.
It has to be extremely difficult to be in that situation. Go back to when you were 17 or 18 years old and someone said, "look, I'll hook you up on the down-low if you remember me when you go pro" to you. Despite all your morals, you'd think about it. Don't lie. Stealing is wrong but we all had that "hook-up" at McDonald's back in high school that scored us free food or the friend who worked at the music shop that got us discounted stuff. Did that feel wrong back then? That's part of life: getting the most bang for our buck. It happens when you are an adult, too. Remember that whole "scratch my back" adage? Same thing. I'll do something for you now if you do something for me later. We all ask it and we all receive it.
Granted, receiving money or benefits while you are an "amatuer" may seem more harsh ... but is it? I mean, what really do you OWE anybody? High schools and those AAU-type leagues exploit these guys. Then the NCAA does it. All for free. So why wouldn't a kid who has limited resources decide to cash in a little on HIS TALENTS!
Remember, he's selling something that everyone is buying. The NCAA and the University of Kentucky had no problem pimping John Wall every chance they had. He was the face of one of the elite basketball programs in the country. They made tons of money off of him ... and all they had to "pay" him was a scholarship. They will even profit off him by saying "remember that John Wall went here!" You think the name "Michael Jordan" doesn't come out of Roy Williams' mouth when he's recruiting? Wall will forever be linked with Kentucky and all they had to do was pay for one year's tuition and the cost of the expenses of him being on the team. Yeah, that's nice and all but that doesn't even remotely equate his worth to the university or the NCAA.
That's why I think that all this agent stuff should be thrown out. Let these cats go ahead and get an agent ... even when they are in high school. Who the heck cares? As long as the university, the conferences or anyone linked with any school isn't funnelling money thru the agent ... what's the big deal? The agent then knows he has a client down the road and you won't get the feeding frenzy as you do now. Heck, have that agent work with the university about using him in advertising.
Of course, Kentucky or the NCAA doesn't want that because they have darn near free labor and making a gazillion dollars off it. Plus, this will still get pretty messy and this problem would then trickle down to the high school ranks.
Of course, just dumping the one-and-done rule would help a ton. Too bad the NBA doesn't want it. You don't see them punishing agents that are involved in this junk. They profit indirectly from this whole deal. John Wall is a much bigger name coming into the league because he went to Kentucky for a season. Sure, he was known around hoops circles during high school, but he wouldn't have had the draw if he came directly out to the NBA. Not just him, but the Xavier Henrys and Derrick Favorses of the world. Heck, not many people knew who Dwight Howard was until a couple of months before he was drafted No. 1 overall by the Orlando Magic.
The point is, I can't blame these kids for pocketing some money. Chump change to what they've made for other people. And ask Wall, Bush or Mayo if they feel bad about it right now. They don't care. That's all in the past and can't really hurt them if they don't want it to.
First off, I knew Wall was going to bite Kentucky in the rear. There were schools that wouldn't touch him because they knew there was some dirt linked to him (famously, my UNC Tar Heels refused to recruit him even though he wanted to come there). Still ... duh.
It has to be extremely difficult to be in that situation. Go back to when you were 17 or 18 years old and someone said, "look, I'll hook you up on the down-low if you remember me when you go pro" to you. Despite all your morals, you'd think about it. Don't lie. Stealing is wrong but we all had that "hook-up" at McDonald's back in high school that scored us free food or the friend who worked at the music shop that got us discounted stuff. Did that feel wrong back then? That's part of life: getting the most bang for our buck. It happens when you are an adult, too. Remember that whole "scratch my back" adage? Same thing. I'll do something for you now if you do something for me later. We all ask it and we all receive it.
Granted, receiving money or benefits while you are an "amatuer" may seem more harsh ... but is it? I mean, what really do you OWE anybody? High schools and those AAU-type leagues exploit these guys. Then the NCAA does it. All for free. So why wouldn't a kid who has limited resources decide to cash in a little on HIS TALENTS!
Remember, he's selling something that everyone is buying. The NCAA and the University of Kentucky had no problem pimping John Wall every chance they had. He was the face of one of the elite basketball programs in the country. They made tons of money off of him ... and all they had to "pay" him was a scholarship. They will even profit off him by saying "remember that John Wall went here!" You think the name "Michael Jordan" doesn't come out of Roy Williams' mouth when he's recruiting? Wall will forever be linked with Kentucky and all they had to do was pay for one year's tuition and the cost of the expenses of him being on the team. Yeah, that's nice and all but that doesn't even remotely equate his worth to the university or the NCAA.
That's why I think that all this agent stuff should be thrown out. Let these cats go ahead and get an agent ... even when they are in high school. Who the heck cares? As long as the university, the conferences or anyone linked with any school isn't funnelling money thru the agent ... what's the big deal? The agent then knows he has a client down the road and you won't get the feeding frenzy as you do now. Heck, have that agent work with the university about using him in advertising.
Of course, Kentucky or the NCAA doesn't want that because they have darn near free labor and making a gazillion dollars off it. Plus, this will still get pretty messy and this problem would then trickle down to the high school ranks.
Of course, just dumping the one-and-done rule would help a ton. Too bad the NBA doesn't want it. You don't see them punishing agents that are involved in this junk. They profit indirectly from this whole deal. John Wall is a much bigger name coming into the league because he went to Kentucky for a season. Sure, he was known around hoops circles during high school, but he wouldn't have had the draw if he came directly out to the NBA. Not just him, but the Xavier Henrys and Derrick Favorses of the world. Heck, not many people knew who Dwight Howard was until a couple of months before he was drafted No. 1 overall by the Orlando Magic.
The point is, I can't blame these kids for pocketing some money. Chump change to what they've made for other people. And ask Wall, Bush or Mayo if they feel bad about it right now. They don't care. That's all in the past and can't really hurt them if they don't want it to.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
The Sportz Assassin's Free Agency Predictions
Since everyone else is doing it ... so will I. I'll reach into my butt and attempt to pull out where all the big dog free agents are heading this offseason.
Let me just say that this is all pretty cool, actually. To see so many big free agents out there ... as well as all these teams that can actually shop for these guys ... is awesome.
LEBRON JAMES: I think he stays in Cleveland. I think the lure of the big cities and all of that isn't enough for what he has built in Ohio. It may hinge on the Cavs bringing in a second tier free agent, but I think somehow this gets done. If not there, then ... Chicago.
DWYANE WADE: He stays in Miami. Unless the Heat totally disrespect him, I think he's not going anywhere. If not there, then ... Chicago.
CHRIS BOSH: Now it gets tricky. I don't think he'll go to Cleveland because they'd have to deal away a lot to get him (as well as Varejao ... which would make Bosh a center, which he doesn't like). I don't think Miami has anything to offer Toronto in a sign-and-trade. Maybe they can just sign him outright. Still, he has the same problem in Miami as being the lone inside threat. I think he heads to Chicago. The Bulls already have a team on the rise, an All Star in Derrick Rose and the money to add another dog. If not there, then ... Miami.
JOE JOHNSON: Two days ago, I would've said New York. Now Atlanta is throwing the bank at him and that has to sway him back home. If not there, then ... New York.
DIRK NOWITZKI: He stays in Dallas. The opt out is the cash in on a big contract now and to gain that rare no-trade clause. If not there, then ... New York.
PAUL PIERCE: Same thing here. Pierce stays in Boston to get a big payday and that same no-trade clause. If not there, then ... New Jersey.
AMARE STOUDAMIRE: This one is tough. I think he'll stay in Phoenix, but I can really see him going to New York to play for Mike D'Antoni. I think he'll like the fact that the Knicks would be built around him and he stays in a high octane offense that fits his skills. This is by far my thinnest limb I'm going out on. If not there, then ... Phoenix.
CARLOS BOOZER: While I think Stoudamire would be a better fit, I see Boozer taking the big money in Miami. It isn't the LeBron-Wade-Bosh trifecta, but Boozer gives the Heat a scorer down low with a very good mid-range game. If not there, then ... Chicago or New Jersey.
DAVID LEE: This is a really tough one. If the Knicks sign Amare, would they still want Lee? I think so. I think a Mike D'Antoni offense with Amare at center and Lee at power forward would be pretty darn good. I think New York resigns him. If not there, then ... Phoenix Suns.
RUDY GAY: This one is really difficult. New Jersey has money that I don't have them spending yet -- and they could use him. I'm leaning on him heading to the Los Angeles Clippers. They have money and a gaping hole at small forward that they need to fill. If not there, then ... New Jersey.
Let me just say that this is all pretty cool, actually. To see so many big free agents out there ... as well as all these teams that can actually shop for these guys ... is awesome.
LEBRON JAMES: I think he stays in Cleveland. I think the lure of the big cities and all of that isn't enough for what he has built in Ohio. It may hinge on the Cavs bringing in a second tier free agent, but I think somehow this gets done. If not there, then ... Chicago.
DWYANE WADE: He stays in Miami. Unless the Heat totally disrespect him, I think he's not going anywhere. If not there, then ... Chicago.
CHRIS BOSH: Now it gets tricky. I don't think he'll go to Cleveland because they'd have to deal away a lot to get him (as well as Varejao ... which would make Bosh a center, which he doesn't like). I don't think Miami has anything to offer Toronto in a sign-and-trade. Maybe they can just sign him outright. Still, he has the same problem in Miami as being the lone inside threat. I think he heads to Chicago. The Bulls already have a team on the rise, an All Star in Derrick Rose and the money to add another dog. If not there, then ... Miami.
JOE JOHNSON: Two days ago, I would've said New York. Now Atlanta is throwing the bank at him and that has to sway him back home. If not there, then ... New York.
DIRK NOWITZKI: He stays in Dallas. The opt out is the cash in on a big contract now and to gain that rare no-trade clause. If not there, then ... New York.
PAUL PIERCE: Same thing here. Pierce stays in Boston to get a big payday and that same no-trade clause. If not there, then ... New Jersey.
AMARE STOUDAMIRE: This one is tough. I think he'll stay in Phoenix, but I can really see him going to New York to play for Mike D'Antoni. I think he'll like the fact that the Knicks would be built around him and he stays in a high octane offense that fits his skills. This is by far my thinnest limb I'm going out on. If not there, then ... Phoenix.
CARLOS BOOZER: While I think Stoudamire would be a better fit, I see Boozer taking the big money in Miami. It isn't the LeBron-Wade-Bosh trifecta, but Boozer gives the Heat a scorer down low with a very good mid-range game. If not there, then ... Chicago or New Jersey.
DAVID LEE: This is a really tough one. If the Knicks sign Amare, would they still want Lee? I think so. I think a Mike D'Antoni offense with Amare at center and Lee at power forward would be pretty darn good. I think New York resigns him. If not there, then ... Phoenix Suns.
RUDY GAY: This one is really difficult. New Jersey has money that I don't have them spending yet -- and they could use him. I'm leaning on him heading to the Los Angeles Clippers. They have money and a gaping hole at small forward that they need to fill. If not there, then ... New Jersey.
--UPDATE -- Gay signed with Memphis for a max contract. I can't blame him for that. No one could/would/should offered that for him.
RAY ALLEN: With Doc Rivers back and Paul Pierce most likely locking in a long-ish deal, I think Allen would come back to Boston for a little less to take another shot at a title. Chicago is a very, very interesting option if they show him the money. If not there, then ... Chicago.
TYRUS THOMAS: He stays in Charlotte. He'll shop for a big deal, but I don't see anyone offering one. He takes the one year tender. If not there, then ... New York.
LUIS SCOLA: He stays in Houston. They'll have to pay him. If not there, then ... Toronto.
SHAQUILLE O'NEAL: I think he globs on to Dallas. He wants another shot at a ring and he's burned enough bridges in Los Angeles and Miami that Dallas will be the next best choice. It's a shame that this guy will be known as a guy who chased rings at the end of his career. If not there, then ... Boston.
JOHN SALMONS: I think he stays in Milwaukee. He realizes that this Bucks team is on the rise and were a horrific Andrew Bogut injury away from doing some real damage in the playoffs. Plus, they just added Drew Gooden earlier today. With Michael Redd most likely out of the way, Salmons has the gig all to himself. If not there, then ... LA Clippers.
RAYMOND FELTON: Charlotte just can't afford him, so I think he gets nabbed by the Indiana Pacers. They need a point guard and have been aggressively trying to get one. They have enough young guys to deal back in a sign-and-trade. If not there, then ... New York.
STEVE BLAKE: The LA Lakers want him badly and he fits their style perfectly. Will Jordan Farmar gone, I think Blake would be a nice fit. If not there, then ... Charlotte.
BRAD MILLER: I think it depends on a few things. If the Bulls load up on talent, I think he'll want to stay in Chicago. If it doesn't go like that, I think he heads to Boston. If not there, then ... Chicago.
RAY ALLEN: With Doc Rivers back and Paul Pierce most likely locking in a long-ish deal, I think Allen would come back to Boston for a little less to take another shot at a title. Chicago is a very, very interesting option if they show him the money. If not there, then ... Chicago.
TYRUS THOMAS: He stays in Charlotte. He'll shop for a big deal, but I don't see anyone offering one. He takes the one year tender. If not there, then ... New York.
LUIS SCOLA: He stays in Houston. They'll have to pay him. If not there, then ... Toronto.
SHAQUILLE O'NEAL: I think he globs on to Dallas. He wants another shot at a ring and he's burned enough bridges in Los Angeles and Miami that Dallas will be the next best choice. It's a shame that this guy will be known as a guy who chased rings at the end of his career. If not there, then ... Boston.
JOHN SALMONS: I think he stays in Milwaukee. He realizes that this Bucks team is on the rise and were a horrific Andrew Bogut injury away from doing some real damage in the playoffs. Plus, they just added Drew Gooden earlier today. With Michael Redd most likely out of the way, Salmons has the gig all to himself. If not there, then ... LA Clippers.
RAYMOND FELTON: Charlotte just can't afford him, so I think he gets nabbed by the Indiana Pacers. They need a point guard and have been aggressively trying to get one. They have enough young guys to deal back in a sign-and-trade. If not there, then ... New York.
STEVE BLAKE: The LA Lakers want him badly and he fits their style perfectly. Will Jordan Farmar gone, I think Blake would be a nice fit. If not there, then ... Charlotte.
BRAD MILLER: I think it depends on a few things. If the Bulls load up on talent, I think he'll want to stay in Chicago. If it doesn't go like that, I think he heads to Boston. If not there, then ... Chicago.
Man, Movies Are Expensive!
I know this is my sports blog and I usually keep it on the sports tip ... but I just had to get this off my chest.
The movie industry is just killing me!
My wife and I took our two nieces to the movies on Tuesday. We saw the new Adam Sandler flick, "Grown Ups". It was cute, family friendly and funny. The only issue is that amount of money I had to pay to see it.
Again, it was a Tuesday. At 2:45pm. In Charlotte, NC. I had to pay $8 per adult ticket and $6 per child ticket. Yep, that's the matinee prices ... which were the expensive prices a decade ago. So that was $28 just to walk in the door. Not horrible, but still stung.
Now we head to the concessions. It cost me $17 for two large drinks and a large popcorn for me and my wife. It cost me $15 for two regular drinks and a regular popcorn for my nieces. There was $32 for the food. I haven't seen one second of the movie and I've already spent $60.
Isn't there something wrong with that? Heck, we stopped at Walgreens before we went to the movies to stock up on candy (they have the same boxed candy there for $1 ... $2 to $3 cheaper than what it would have cost to buy it there).
See, this is a movie I figured I would like. My wife and I will rarely go "try" a movie anymore. If we aren't absolutely sure that it's right up our alley, we won't go. We got burned on this recently on "Shutter Island". Sure, the reviews were good for it, but it sucked. It was boring, drawn out and extremely predictable. You could see the twist a mile away (at least we could) and were disappointed in the movie. For the two of us, we spent $20 on tickets and $15 on concessions -- $35 in total -- for us to have a bad time. That sucks.
It's not like I'm one of those people that drones on about this. I was a movie nut back in my single days and when I first got married. I used to go to movies all the time back in the day ... when I was broke ... and never was taken aback by the prices I was paying. But now when I make more money than I ever before, it really is getting to me.
I don't have kids (working on it). So I really empathise with families and how much it costs to do anything anymore. That includes sports (see, I knew I could get back on task!). If I had to pay $60 every time I went to the movies then I won't go to as many. Same thing with sports. I went to a Pirates-Reds game with my wife, my two nieces, my sister, my mom and my wife's two cousins. Yeah, I've blacked out what I've spent there.
I know no one cares about this because as long as schmucks like me keep buying tix, then it won't go away.
By the way, the four of us were the only people in the theatre to see Grown Ups. The only people.
The movie industry is just killing me!
My wife and I took our two nieces to the movies on Tuesday. We saw the new Adam Sandler flick, "Grown Ups". It was cute, family friendly and funny. The only issue is that amount of money I had to pay to see it.
Again, it was a Tuesday. At 2:45pm. In Charlotte, NC. I had to pay $8 per adult ticket and $6 per child ticket. Yep, that's the matinee prices ... which were the expensive prices a decade ago. So that was $28 just to walk in the door. Not horrible, but still stung.
Now we head to the concessions. It cost me $17 for two large drinks and a large popcorn for me and my wife. It cost me $15 for two regular drinks and a regular popcorn for my nieces. There was $32 for the food. I haven't seen one second of the movie and I've already spent $60.
Isn't there something wrong with that? Heck, we stopped at Walgreens before we went to the movies to stock up on candy (they have the same boxed candy there for $1 ... $2 to $3 cheaper than what it would have cost to buy it there).
See, this is a movie I figured I would like. My wife and I will rarely go "try" a movie anymore. If we aren't absolutely sure that it's right up our alley, we won't go. We got burned on this recently on "Shutter Island". Sure, the reviews were good for it, but it sucked. It was boring, drawn out and extremely predictable. You could see the twist a mile away (at least we could) and were disappointed in the movie. For the two of us, we spent $20 on tickets and $15 on concessions -- $35 in total -- for us to have a bad time. That sucks.
It's not like I'm one of those people that drones on about this. I was a movie nut back in my single days and when I first got married. I used to go to movies all the time back in the day ... when I was broke ... and never was taken aback by the prices I was paying. But now when I make more money than I ever before, it really is getting to me.
I don't have kids (working on it). So I really empathise with families and how much it costs to do anything anymore. That includes sports (see, I knew I could get back on task!). If I had to pay $60 every time I went to the movies then I won't go to as many. Same thing with sports. I went to a Pirates-Reds game with my wife, my two nieces, my sister, my mom and my wife's two cousins. Yeah, I've blacked out what I've spent there.
I know no one cares about this because as long as schmucks like me keep buying tix, then it won't go away.
By the way, the four of us were the only people in the theatre to see Grown Ups. The only people.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Every Team Should Be Represented In All-Star Game
We are nearing the MLB All Star break and we get into the time honored tradition of whining about who is on the team. One of my main gripes is when people say "they shouldn't have at least one person from every franchise in the game. Put the best players on it instead."
Um. No.
To me, that's part of baseball. The entire league and all its teams should be represented. I don't care if a 7th Yankee doesn't get on the team because you had to put a Royal on there. All the bad teams should have someone on their league's squad.
And spare me "the game counts now" crap. If that was the guide for the game, than the National League would start Ubaldo Jimenez and make him pitch six, seven innings. The starters (or the best players) would play the entire game and never sit. I mean, what other game during the season sees teams intentionally try to get guys rest and feature as many players on their expanded roster as possible? That's the entire reason the leagues expanded their rosters ... to get more players on the team (and allow those players to receive contracted bonuses). Why would we need more players on the team if the starters played all or most of the game?
See, the line of reasoning is stupid. Oh, and what if no Kansas City Royal deserved to get on the team and none were voted to it? What if those Royals turn it around and win the AL Central? Say they take that momentum and win the American League pennant. So the World Series ... which home field advantage is determined by the All Star Game ... will feature a team that wasn't allowed to have a player on it to help determine who gets the advantage.
To me, the fact that the home field advantage is on the line even solidifies the fact that every team should be represented. Don't feature just the best players on the best teams -- bring on a rep from all teams since that is the true "power" of league. Take the good with the bad.
(By the way, I think home field advantage in the World Series should be determined by who wins the interleague war).
So bring on the Royal, the Oriole, the Indian, the Mariner, the Pirate, the Astro and the Diamondback. They all should have at least one guy flipping their cap in Anaheim.
Um. No.
To me, that's part of baseball. The entire league and all its teams should be represented. I don't care if a 7th Yankee doesn't get on the team because you had to put a Royal on there. All the bad teams should have someone on their league's squad.
And spare me "the game counts now" crap. If that was the guide for the game, than the National League would start Ubaldo Jimenez and make him pitch six, seven innings. The starters (or the best players) would play the entire game and never sit. I mean, what other game during the season sees teams intentionally try to get guys rest and feature as many players on their expanded roster as possible? That's the entire reason the leagues expanded their rosters ... to get more players on the team (and allow those players to receive contracted bonuses). Why would we need more players on the team if the starters played all or most of the game?
See, the line of reasoning is stupid. Oh, and what if no Kansas City Royal deserved to get on the team and none were voted to it? What if those Royals turn it around and win the AL Central? Say they take that momentum and win the American League pennant. So the World Series ... which home field advantage is determined by the All Star Game ... will feature a team that wasn't allowed to have a player on it to help determine who gets the advantage.
To me, the fact that the home field advantage is on the line even solidifies the fact that every team should be represented. Don't feature just the best players on the best teams -- bring on a rep from all teams since that is the true "power" of league. Take the good with the bad.
(By the way, I think home field advantage in the World Series should be determined by who wins the interleague war).
So bring on the Royal, the Oriole, the Indian, the Mariner, the Pirate, the Astro and the Diamondback. They all should have at least one guy flipping their cap in Anaheim.
Why Soccer Really Won't Work In America
Now the pundits want to discuss the impact the 2010 World Cup will have on the future of soccer in the United States. Some think this will start to take off and the sport will flourish. Others think that we'll just go back to our daily lives and not care again.
I think the latter will happen.
I do think soccer will get a slight up-tick (more on that later). But soccer will never be very meaningful in this country. It wasn't after Pele joined the American pro leagues. It wasn't after the U.S. hosted the 1994 World Cup. It won't be now.
The difference is that here, the best athletes don't play soccer. In nearly every other country, the best athletes are pushed into soccer and that is the sport everyone is dying to play. In the U.S., the best athletes want to play basketball, football or baseball. Soccer picks up only the diehards.
Imagine if guys like LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Adrian Peterson, Joe Mauer, Jimmy Rollins, Dwyane Wade and Chris Johnson played soccer instead of their respective sports. The Americans would field a team with so much athleticsm and (probably) skill that we'd be among the elite in the world soccer community. Those guys won't play soccer, though, so we don't have to worry about that.
The one thing soccer could have going for it is if they decide to reach out to the inner cities and latch on to the growing Hispanic communities out there. It would still be hard to get kids growing up in America to play soccer no matter their nationality, but you'd have a better chance going after kids whose parents grew up loving the game. Outside of that, I don't see soccer exploding here for a long, long time.
I think the latter will happen.
I do think soccer will get a slight up-tick (more on that later). But soccer will never be very meaningful in this country. It wasn't after Pele joined the American pro leagues. It wasn't after the U.S. hosted the 1994 World Cup. It won't be now.
The difference is that here, the best athletes don't play soccer. In nearly every other country, the best athletes are pushed into soccer and that is the sport everyone is dying to play. In the U.S., the best athletes want to play basketball, football or baseball. Soccer picks up only the diehards.
Imagine if guys like LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Adrian Peterson, Joe Mauer, Jimmy Rollins, Dwyane Wade and Chris Johnson played soccer instead of their respective sports. The Americans would field a team with so much athleticsm and (probably) skill that we'd be among the elite in the world soccer community. Those guys won't play soccer, though, so we don't have to worry about that.
The one thing soccer could have going for it is if they decide to reach out to the inner cities and latch on to the growing Hispanic communities out there. It would still be hard to get kids growing up in America to play soccer no matter their nationality, but you'd have a better chance going after kids whose parents grew up loving the game. Outside of that, I don't see soccer exploding here for a long, long time.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Should Kobe Have Both His Numbers Retired?
With all of this discussion among fans and talking heads about Kobe Bryant's legacy and his place amongst the great of the NBA, it got me thinking about the simpler spoils. Like, when the Lakers retire Bryant's jersey ... will it be No. 8 or No. 24?
Or both.
There's a case to have both numbers retired.
NUMBER 8 (1996-2006): Kobe won the first three of his NBA Championships while wearing this number. He also accomplished the most amazing individual feat I've ever seen when he dumped 81 points on the Raptors. He also finished off his career with that number with a 35.4 ppg average in 2006; one of the highest scoring averages anyone has had over the last four decades.
NUMBER 24 (2006-present): He's won two titles so far with this number. He also transitioned from athletic marvel to smartest basketball player during this time. While he had already won three titles before, these were title teams he was the leader of. He won two NBA Finals MVP awards. In the four years he's had this number, they've been to the Finals three times.
Statistic-wise, having No. 8 retired makes the most sense. Most of his jaw dropping feats happened during these years. But the Kobe we'll remember the most after he retires will be the current one. The Assassin. The Black Mamba. The greatest player of his time.
They'll probably only retire No. 24 since that's the number he will leave off with. Still, there's a case to be made for both.
Or both.
There's a case to have both numbers retired.
NUMBER 8 (1996-2006): Kobe won the first three of his NBA Championships while wearing this number. He also accomplished the most amazing individual feat I've ever seen when he dumped 81 points on the Raptors. He also finished off his career with that number with a 35.4 ppg average in 2006; one of the highest scoring averages anyone has had over the last four decades.
NUMBER 24 (2006-present): He's won two titles so far with this number. He also transitioned from athletic marvel to smartest basketball player during this time. While he had already won three titles before, these were title teams he was the leader of. He won two NBA Finals MVP awards. In the four years he's had this number, they've been to the Finals three times.
Statistic-wise, having No. 8 retired makes the most sense. Most of his jaw dropping feats happened during these years. But the Kobe we'll remember the most after he retires will be the current one. The Assassin. The Black Mamba. The greatest player of his time.
They'll probably only retire No. 24 since that's the number he will leave off with. Still, there's a case to be made for both.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Why Can't We Eliminate Referees?
This is 2010. Sports are different. They are huge money makers that fans get more on edge about than ever before. In a world where few things are sacred, your sports allegiances are some of our strongest loves.
So when we see someone make a mistake and screw over one of our teams, it's grounds to go.
Today's USA-Slovenia World Cup soccer game/match/round/whatever featured a goal that was negated by a bad call by an official. This comes a couple weeks after Jim Joyce robbed Armando Galarraga of a perfect game. And all of that comes after the Tim Donaghy gets pinched for tampering with games for gamblers' benefit.
Officiating is horrible everywhere. It isn't all their fault. Officiating sports is one of the toughest things to do. You have to be Armando Galarraga every day ... perfect. You cannot make a mistake or ... in this day and age ... it will be shown in 10 different angles and fans will be instantly upset. Dealing with angry players (who may or may not be correct) is another deal.
The only time I ever officiated anything was during a "charity" basketball game. I played in a youth league at my local YMCA when I was 17 years old. The "charity" game featured all the coaches of the various teams against the officials in the various leagues. It was all supposed to be in great fun and a couple of players, myself included, got to hold a whistle to at least attempt to act like a ref.
Big mistake. Those coaches and refs complained about everything. They wanted ticky tack fouls called but then would scream bloody murder when they assaulted someone and you blew the whistle. I never saw grown men act like babies in my life. Again, we were teenagers who never did this before ... and these were our mentors. From that point on, I never officiated anything in my life. I don't want to get involved.
That small sample has allowed me to be a bit sympathetic about officials. But I'm not on the biggest stage in sports. I was at some YCMA in Charlotte for a meaningless game. I'm not calling the World Cup or Super Bowl or NBA Finals or a Major League Baseball game. Those guys do that for a living and are the best in their business. And they get it wrong.
Why can't we just eliminated these guys? The linesmen at tennis matches. Officials in football. Umps in baseball? I mean, do we really need an ump tell me if someone is safe or out? You could sit a camera on each base (or even sensors) to determine that. Sure, we need humans out there for a quick call in baseball (we can't keep playing on if we don't know if there was an out or not), but we can get these cats a bunch of help.
Again, this is 2010 and still no one can get it right. Even the sports that use technology to aid their officiating can't get it completely right. Why isn't there a replay offical that makes the calls in the booth for the NFL? Why do we have to call down to the referee and have him put his head under a hood and watch the play? Pay someone to sit up there with all the equipment and make those calls. I can sit at my house and with my DVR make a decision quicker.
How hard is it to have someone sitting at each venue (or even one guy sitting at the main offices) who can quickly look at each play and then correct it when needed? I know there are piddly calls that may not need a change (did the clock stop with 9:37 or 9:38 left?; is it 2nd and 4 or 2nd and 4 1/2?) but the big mistakes need to be corrected. Obvious mistakes need to be overturned.
You owe that to us, the fans.
So when we see someone make a mistake and screw over one of our teams, it's grounds to go.
Today's USA-Slovenia World Cup soccer game/match/round/whatever featured a goal that was negated by a bad call by an official. This comes a couple weeks after Jim Joyce robbed Armando Galarraga of a perfect game. And all of that comes after the Tim Donaghy gets pinched for tampering with games for gamblers' benefit.
Officiating is horrible everywhere. It isn't all their fault. Officiating sports is one of the toughest things to do. You have to be Armando Galarraga every day ... perfect. You cannot make a mistake or ... in this day and age ... it will be shown in 10 different angles and fans will be instantly upset. Dealing with angry players (who may or may not be correct) is another deal.
The only time I ever officiated anything was during a "charity" basketball game. I played in a youth league at my local YMCA when I was 17 years old. The "charity" game featured all the coaches of the various teams against the officials in the various leagues. It was all supposed to be in great fun and a couple of players, myself included, got to hold a whistle to at least attempt to act like a ref.
Big mistake. Those coaches and refs complained about everything. They wanted ticky tack fouls called but then would scream bloody murder when they assaulted someone and you blew the whistle. I never saw grown men act like babies in my life. Again, we were teenagers who never did this before ... and these were our mentors. From that point on, I never officiated anything in my life. I don't want to get involved.
That small sample has allowed me to be a bit sympathetic about officials. But I'm not on the biggest stage in sports. I was at some YCMA in Charlotte for a meaningless game. I'm not calling the World Cup or Super Bowl or NBA Finals or a Major League Baseball game. Those guys do that for a living and are the best in their business. And they get it wrong.
Why can't we just eliminated these guys? The linesmen at tennis matches. Officials in football. Umps in baseball? I mean, do we really need an ump tell me if someone is safe or out? You could sit a camera on each base (or even sensors) to determine that. Sure, we need humans out there for a quick call in baseball (we can't keep playing on if we don't know if there was an out or not), but we can get these cats a bunch of help.
Again, this is 2010 and still no one can get it right. Even the sports that use technology to aid their officiating can't get it completely right. Why isn't there a replay offical that makes the calls in the booth for the NFL? Why do we have to call down to the referee and have him put his head under a hood and watch the play? Pay someone to sit up there with all the equipment and make those calls. I can sit at my house and with my DVR make a decision quicker.
How hard is it to have someone sitting at each venue (or even one guy sitting at the main offices) who can quickly look at each play and then correct it when needed? I know there are piddly calls that may not need a change (did the clock stop with 9:37 or 9:38 left?; is it 2nd and 4 or 2nd and 4 1/2?) but the big mistakes need to be corrected. Obvious mistakes need to be overturned.
You owe that to us, the fans.
Remembering Game 7 of the 2010 NBA Finals
Game 7 and the 2010 NBA Finals are in the book after an interesting game Thursday. Not a great game ... but highly intense and very physical. Great matchup. That's what you get in Game 7s. These guys know what you want to do and are now fully trained to try to stop it.
So here are my bullet points after Game 7:
KOBE BRYANT: He's got his 5th ring. Despite the horrible game he had, he found other ways to contribute. His rebounding and defense were outstanding and he's a deserving Finals MVP. His legacy is solid.
RAY ALLEN: I said going into this game that Allen will either have 25 points or 11 points. Nothing in between. I was nearly correct, since Allen just got 13 points. I don't see how one of the greatest shooters we've ever seen had such a horrible Finals (aside from that epic Game 2).
RON ARTEST: All year long, everybody wondered if the Lakers made a mistake signing Ron Ron instead of resigning Trevor Ariza. It seemed to work out nicely. While Artest didn't put up huge numbers, he came up huge when it counted. His tip in at the buzzer in Game 5 of the Western Conference championship saved the season. He then went on to score 25 on the Suns in a closeout game. In this series, he made life a living hell for Paul Pierce. And when everyone else was struggling, it was Artest fighting for rebounds, loose balls and scoring points.
PHIL JACKSON: I think he made the key in-game adjustment. In the third quarter, the Lakers started switching off on everything. Didn't matter who was guarding who ... they switched. That helped keep the Celtics out of the paint and forced them to take tough shots. It would be easy for a coach to get bent with a 13-point deficit in the third quarter, but Phil kept calm and got his troops directed to the right path.
KEVIN GARNETT: KG isn't the same cat anymore. He is in stretches and if he's rested. I think KG's minutes need to be dropped in order to make himself more effective. He was great in the first half but had no gas in the tank late.
DOC RIVERS: I think he's out the door. He coached a great series, but I think he sees the window closing in Boston. I think he hangs up his whistle and spends time with his family. When he wants to get back into coaching, he'll have his pick of jobs. In this Game 7, he really struggled trying to keep his guys fresh. Because he couldn't get them enough rest, Sheed and KG hit the wall late. That's not a knock on Doc since there really wasn't anything he could do.
SHELDON WILLIAMS: He's the reason the Celtics loss. Don't you know that Duke players can't win titles in the NBA!?!?
ANDREW BYNUM: I can't believe he played in these playoffs with his knee that jacked up. Thanks for showing up!
SASHA VUJACIC: Coming in cold with 12 seconds left and hitting two huge free throws was impressive.
So here are my bullet points after Game 7:
KOBE BRYANT: He's got his 5th ring. Despite the horrible game he had, he found other ways to contribute. His rebounding and defense were outstanding and he's a deserving Finals MVP. His legacy is solid.
RAY ALLEN: I said going into this game that Allen will either have 25 points or 11 points. Nothing in between. I was nearly correct, since Allen just got 13 points. I don't see how one of the greatest shooters we've ever seen had such a horrible Finals (aside from that epic Game 2).
RON ARTEST: All year long, everybody wondered if the Lakers made a mistake signing Ron Ron instead of resigning Trevor Ariza. It seemed to work out nicely. While Artest didn't put up huge numbers, he came up huge when it counted. His tip in at the buzzer in Game 5 of the Western Conference championship saved the season. He then went on to score 25 on the Suns in a closeout game. In this series, he made life a living hell for Paul Pierce. And when everyone else was struggling, it was Artest fighting for rebounds, loose balls and scoring points.
PHIL JACKSON: I think he made the key in-game adjustment. In the third quarter, the Lakers started switching off on everything. Didn't matter who was guarding who ... they switched. That helped keep the Celtics out of the paint and forced them to take tough shots. It would be easy for a coach to get bent with a 13-point deficit in the third quarter, but Phil kept calm and got his troops directed to the right path.
KEVIN GARNETT: KG isn't the same cat anymore. He is in stretches and if he's rested. I think KG's minutes need to be dropped in order to make himself more effective. He was great in the first half but had no gas in the tank late.
DOC RIVERS: I think he's out the door. He coached a great series, but I think he sees the window closing in Boston. I think he hangs up his whistle and spends time with his family. When he wants to get back into coaching, he'll have his pick of jobs. In this Game 7, he really struggled trying to keep his guys fresh. Because he couldn't get them enough rest, Sheed and KG hit the wall late. That's not a knock on Doc since there really wasn't anything he could do.
SHELDON WILLIAMS: He's the reason the Celtics loss. Don't you know that Duke players can't win titles in the NBA!?!?
ANDREW BYNUM: I can't believe he played in these playoffs with his knee that jacked up. Thanks for showing up!
SASHA VUJACIC: Coming in cold with 12 seconds left and hitting two huge free throws was impressive.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Shaq: Kobe Wins and He'll Be Greatest Laker
In an interview (the video is shown here at LakersNation), Shaquille O'Neal says that if Kobe Bryant and the Lakers win tonight's Game 7 against Boston, he would be the greatest Laker ever.
No.
He's in the discussion already, but I have to put Kareem and Magic ahead of him. Jerry West is a tough call. So is Shaq, himself, who dominated as a Laker.
This all smells like Shaq wants to know how Kobe's "ass tastes". Shaq is ... shockingly ... a free agent this summer. He still wants to play and he most likely wants to play for a winner. He tried to chase down a 5th ring in with Steve Nash in Phoenix and with LeBron James in Cleveland. It looks like he's trying to position himself to try to squeeze one more out with the Lakers.
If he is very cheap, it's not a bad move. I mean, he is better than DJ Mbenga. If he played cheap and was just a fill-in for Andrew Bynum then it could work. But the scuttlebutt that the roster would become just isn't worth it. I mean, you (probably) have the Zen Master next to The Black Mamba next to Ron-Ron next to Lamar Odom next to Shaq?
Anyways, it's nice to see that Shaq still loves him some Kobe Bryant.
Who Has More On the Line Tonight In Game 7?
Game 7s can't be any more hyped than they are. We've all heard all the noise about "anything can happen" and "this is when legends are made." Maybe, but who individually has the most riding on the outcome tonight.
1-KOBE BRYANT: It's obvious that this has been Kobe's series. He's been dominant in nearly every game and could possibly be the Finals MVP even if the Lakers lose tonight. Still, this title would vault him even further into the discussion of greatest ever. He'd have the same amount of rings as Magic Johnson. One less than Kareem and Jordan. Coming up huge tonight would just solidify any doubts that he should be considered among the greats. By the way, Jordan never won a Game 7 in the Finals (well, he never played one).
2-RAY ALLEN: I'm not as sold on Ray Allen as a Hall of Fame player. He's right there in the discussion. I feel that we'll either see a HUGE night from Allen ... or one of those off nights. Nothing in between. He's either scoring 26 or 11. If he shoots the lights out and lifts the Celtics to their 18th championship, then he would most likely be Finals MVP and placed in the Hall category with little questions asked. If he comes up small, people will criticize him for another poor postseason showing.
3-PAU GASOL: A big showing tonight (along with a win) and Gasol joins the list of big men with multiple titles. No, he's not on the same level as a Hakeem or anything, but it still is a huge accomplishment. Just like Ray Allen, Gasol's "legacy" could be greatly helped tonight. He's been known as Ga-soft. Bringing it tonight would knock that down off the wall. Coming up small would only magnify it.
4-PAUL PIERCE: Pierce is the leader of this Celtics team and the most clutch player they have. Winning a second ring would place him right among Larry Bird and the rest as great Celtic champions. A loss wouldn't be devastating to his legacy, but a win would catapult it.
5-DOC RIVERS: This may be his final game in Boston no matter what happens. A win places him as a multiple champion (nothing to sneeze at) and would allow him to pick any job whenever he decides to come back.
1-KOBE BRYANT: It's obvious that this has been Kobe's series. He's been dominant in nearly every game and could possibly be the Finals MVP even if the Lakers lose tonight. Still, this title would vault him even further into the discussion of greatest ever. He'd have the same amount of rings as Magic Johnson. One less than Kareem and Jordan. Coming up huge tonight would just solidify any doubts that he should be considered among the greats. By the way, Jordan never won a Game 7 in the Finals (well, he never played one).
2-RAY ALLEN: I'm not as sold on Ray Allen as a Hall of Fame player. He's right there in the discussion. I feel that we'll either see a HUGE night from Allen ... or one of those off nights. Nothing in between. He's either scoring 26 or 11. If he shoots the lights out and lifts the Celtics to their 18th championship, then he would most likely be Finals MVP and placed in the Hall category with little questions asked. If he comes up small, people will criticize him for another poor postseason showing.
3-PAU GASOL: A big showing tonight (along with a win) and Gasol joins the list of big men with multiple titles. No, he's not on the same level as a Hakeem or anything, but it still is a huge accomplishment. Just like Ray Allen, Gasol's "legacy" could be greatly helped tonight. He's been known as Ga-soft. Bringing it tonight would knock that down off the wall. Coming up small would only magnify it.
4-PAUL PIERCE: Pierce is the leader of this Celtics team and the most clutch player they have. Winning a second ring would place him right among Larry Bird and the rest as great Celtic champions. A loss wouldn't be devastating to his legacy, but a win would catapult it.
5-DOC RIVERS: This may be his final game in Boston no matter what happens. A win places him as a multiple champion (nothing to sneeze at) and would allow him to pick any job whenever he decides to come back.
Jerrah Jones Wants Arkansas and Notre Dame In Big XII
The Big XII has 10 teams right now and Dallas Cowboys' owner Jerry Jones knows who should fill the last two spots.
Arkansas and Notre Dame.
Um. No and no.
I see why he'd want Arkansas in there. He played for the Razorbacks and Arkansas is a bit out of place in the SEC. They'd fit in the Big XII and would be able to rekindle those lost SWC rivalries with Texas, A&M, Tech and Baylor. However, why in the heck would anyone leave the SEC? Especially to a conference that almost extinct earlier this week. The SEC is still the best football conference in the country. The Big XII just lost two programs who have won national championships in the last 20 years.
Arkansas would be better off just standing pat and waiting for the Big XII to crumble (it may or may not happen) and watch the SEC gobble up Texas A&M or Oklahoma or somebody. Wanting the Razorbacks in the Big XII just doesn't make sense for the school.
As for Notre Dame? Um, no. Why would Notre Dame bother with the Big XII? If they wanted to join a conference, they'd join the Big Ten. Whenever the Irish want in, I'm sure they'll be welcomed with open arms. They'd still have their rivalries with Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue and the like. In the Big XII, they'd be booked with those conference teams that it would kill off many of their yearly opponents.
The only way I can see Notre Dame even thinking about doing it is if the Big XII didn't want them for football. But the Irish has the same deal with the Big East and that conference is among the elite in other sports.
The Big XII will stick with 10 teams. Their football title game (which Texas and Oklahoma both hated) is gone and in its place is the ol' skool nine game round robin season with a natural champion. Their hoops conference got a lot better just by getting rid of Nebraska and Colorado. Really, it's quite simple.
Ask Jerrah if he'd like the Dallas Cowboys moved to the NFC West so they can revive rivalries with the Arizona Cardinals and San Francisco 49ers. I'm sure he'd pass, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)