One of the best sports blogs on the internet, written by Kansas City Star columnist Joe Posnanski, has yet another great post today. The gist of it is that despite all our newfangled technology and advanced scouting and statistics, we still don't have much of an idea how to judge talent. He uses three of the greatest quarterbacks of all-time as an example: Unitas, Montana, and Brady. All three were mid to late round picks, and all three were drafted well behind some other not-so-notable quarterbacks. I especially love this part about Brady:
Brady was taken in the sixth round (after Chad Pennington, Giovanni Carmazzi — gotta love ‘dem Hofstra quarterbacks — Chris Redman, Tee Martin, Marc Bulger and Spergon Wynn) and was thought so little of that (people forget this) the Patriots and Bill Belichick specifically signed Damon Huard to a fairly high-priced deal to be Drew Bledsoe’s backup quarterback going into the 2001 season. Now, Brady impressed Belichick enough to beat out Huard for the backup job, and then eventually Belichick stuck with the kid even after Bledsoe got healthy. Belichick deserves all the credit in the world for that. But don’t let anybody tell you the Patriots had any inkling what they had.
It really is pretty crazy that three guys who turned out to be this good were so overlooked coming out of college. I was not around when Unitas played, and although I was alive, I wasn't old enough to remember Montana at Notre Dame or getting drafted. But I do remember Brady. I even had a Brady Michigan jersey for awhile (I think I gave it to TheDan), but mostly because I wanted a Chuck Woodson jersey and couldn't find one. I remember, as a Michigan fan at the time (yes growing up in Canada I cheered for 2 college football teams- the U of Washington and much more so for Michigan), I wanted all-everything super-duper-awesome Drew Henson to play QB over Brady. I remember a lot of Michigan fans feeling the same way. Henson was All-American in football and baseball, and all-state in basketball in Michigan. I don't have any idea which state Brady even came from or whether he was any good in high school. The only thing I remember about Brady graduating was that it finally gave Henson the chance to start and make beautiful music with WR David Terrell (who also went on to be a bust- he was the #8 pick in the draft!), which they did.
Of course the rest is history. Henson went to the Yankees because he was a top 10 prospect, a legit power-hitting third baseman with a cannon- he was really the definition of a "Can't Miss" prospect. But he had one little problem- he couldn't hit a curveball. He then went to Dallas in the NFL and couldn't hit an open receiver. Done and done. The Can't Miss Kid missed not just in one sport but in two. Meanwhile Brady is on his way to becoming the greatest quarterback in history. I did not see that coming.
In a round-about long-winded way, this brings us to the Minnesota Vikings and Tavaris Jackson (actually first I just want to say it also points out that I guess nobody really knows what the Twins got for Santana. Those prospects could be nothing or they could be spectacular. We really don't know). I have zero faith right now in T-Jack as a starting quarterback. I believe, firmly, that he's holding back this team from being a championship contender, and I have a mountain of stats to support my claim.
Let's start with the basics: 70.8 Qb rating (28th in the league), 159.2 yards per game (30th), an average per pass of just 6.5 yards (23), 9 TD's (24), and 12 INT (15). And despite throwing mostly short, safe routes, his completion percentage was a woeful 58.1%. There's also this: just 14 passes completed of 20+ yards (32nd, or 2nd worst, of eligible QB's) and just 4 passes of 40+ yards (tied for 20th). There are further new-fangled smart-guy stat-geek stats from Football Outsiders (a really good explanation here) that explain in further and more complicated detail that T-Jack was one of the worst QB's in the league this year.
That is the logical side to my argument. There is, of course, also my liberal, illogical, emotional gut feeling which says, without any evidence to back it up, that I don't trust T-Jack one bit. When he goes back to pass I end up thinking "Gosh I know it's 3rd and 17 but why can't they hand it off to AP?" Yet not once but twice in the last month, SI's Peter King in his MMQB column, has given a vote of confidence to Jackson- and for the life of me I have no idea why. Peter obviously sees and believes something I do not, and it has to be a gut feeling on his part, because there's no logic that would support a claim that Tavaris Jackson has proven in his first two seasons to be a quarterback you would want to build a franchise around. Not by logic or by gut instinct do I think Jackson should be the starter next year based on what I've seen so far.
So what do we, as Vikes fans, do here? What are we to believe? Do we continue to trust Jackson, and coach Brad Childress' undying support of him (there are also some very disturbing numbers out there, which I won't reveal at this time, that shows that the problem might not be just Jackson. Said Disturbing Numbers show the Vikings, in two years under Childress' "Kick Ass Offense", have by far the fewest attempts throwing the ball downfield, and this "Kick Ass as Safely and Conservatively As Possible" philosophy has been terrible for the Vikings passing game. Hmmmm...)? None of the evidence so far points to Jackson turning this around. Yet there was no evidence to support Daunte Culpepper's good seasons in Minnesota (still my favorite Denny Green story is him playing the race card saying the Minnesota media and public were racist towards Daunte and they never believed in him like Denny did and they should be ashamed. Of course Denny left out the part about how he tried to bring Dan Marino out of retirement and tried desperately to bring back Jeff George, and only when all other options failed and he was forced to play the inexperienced Daunte did he finally play him) before they happened, nor, as Posnanski tells it, evidence to support Kurt Warner being good in St Louis. Only after Tony Banks failed miserably and Trent Green got hurt did they turn to Warner, who then went on to lead the Rams to two Super Bowls and have three of the greatest statistical seasons in history. You just never know.
My two cents is that they need to bring in competition. Try to trade for Donovan McNabb (assuming the price isn't too high) or bring in a veteran (Byron Leftwich?). Just somebody to force him to compete. I don't like handing the job to a guy who hasn't proven it. Bring in some competition and make him fight for it, and then maybe he starts producing like Childress is convinced he will. I love that Cleveland gave Derek Anderson a two year extension. They draft Brady Quinn, and gave up a lot to get him, as their QB of the present and future. Anderson, a sixth round pick who was cut by the Ravens, was put in after starter Charlie Frye fizzled, and Anderson went on to have a helluva year. The Browns, smartly I believe, are going to let Anderson play and let Quinn develop slowly. Yes they paid a high price to get Quinn, but they finally have a QB in Anderson that can run their offense, so they're not going to get rid of him for the unknown that is Quinn. Love it. This IS what San Diego should have done with Drew Brees. Yes they picked Phil Rivers at #4, but Brees, after three sub-par seasons, suddenly came to life. The players loved him and he was the perfect fit there, and they let him walk. Dumb. Yes the Chargers got to the AFC Title game with Rivers, farther than Brees took them, but I have no doubt Brees could have taken them farther.
But of course, I'm also the guy who believed Ryan Leaf would be better than Peyton Manning or Drew Henson would be better than Tom Brady. You just never know.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
So Long Johan
Johan Santana is unofficially officially a New York Met. Pending a long-term contract agreement between Santana
and the Mets, he'll be shipped to Queens in exchange for four prospects you've probably never heard of.
I can't believe this is what the best player in baseball is worth. Carlos Gomez, a centerfielder, is an okay prospect who should be a pretty good major league regular. His absolute upside would be an all-star but that's not likely. One pitcher has high upside but is a long ways away, and the other two pitchers grade out as middle-to-back of the rotation starters. Ladies and gentlemen, this is what Johan Santana is worth in 2008.
(Here's a great breakdown of the four prospects and the deal overall from ESPN scout Keith Law. And yes you don't need Insider to read this one)
Wow.
Let's look at the factors that went into new GM Bill Smith essentially getting fleeced by Mets GM Omar Minaya:
1) Johan was going to test the free agent market, and according to people like the Strib's Jim Souhan, he didn't want to stay in Minnesota.
From Souhan's column:
Fact: Santana wanted out. I've been told by people who know him that he longs to pitch in New York, for more money, a large Latin American community and a team he feels is determined to win a World Series in the near future.
The Twins made a solid, four year $80 million offer, which he turned down. I love to bash Carl Pohlad for being cheap, but that wasn't the problem here. $20 million a year would be more than any other pitcher was making. It's more than a fair offer. For a mid-market team, this is a helluva offer. As Souhan points out, they gave big money to Justin Morneau (they overpaid but I love that they're willing to hang onto their good players. He'll be a bargain by the time that contract's up) and Michael Cuddyer. Money's not really an issue: Santana wanting to play in Minnesota is. I heard Dan Barreiro's podcast today, and he doesn't believe they worked hard enough to resign him. Really? $20 million a year isn't enough? If Johan doesn't want to play in Minnesota, what else can you do?
2) Well you can do one of three things: trade him now, trade him at the deadline in July, or let him play out his contract, let him walk, and pick up two #1 picks. As I've said before, the Twins are building to be contenders in 2010 when the new park opens. If they let Johan walk and pick up the two #1's, that would be the best overall VALUE, but it would push their idea of contention further back because the chances of kids drafted in 2009 being ready in 2010 are pretty slim. So it looks like Smith decided waiting wasn't an option.
3) So then you look to trade him. When making a trade, obviously you want as many teams bidding as possible. The problem for the Twins was there just weren't that many teams interested. The two LA teams, who had the best farm systems of the Big Boys, were out almost from the beginning. While any team would be better with Santana in its rotation, he was not a big need for the LA clubs because they already had good starting pitchers. What's more, the Angels had a huge hole in their lineup they needed to fill, and the Dodgers are one of the best teams in the mediocre-at-best National League, so their need for Santana wasn't great. Basically everybody in the National League but the Mets and Cubs (who just don't have the prospects) were out of the bidding because they didn't need to sacrifice so much in trade in such a watered-down league. In the American League, you're then left with the Yankees and Red Sox, White Sox, Detroit, and Seattle. The White Sox didn't have the perceived pieces, Detroit made their move in getting Miggy Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis, and Johan said he didn't want to play in Seattle. Which brings us to...
4) the EVIL no trade clause- why on God's green earth do teams give these out? Why? All it does is hurt your franchise. Look no further than the rumors going 'round about Baltimore and Seattle making a deal for Erik Bedard (the second best lefthander on the planet). Baltimore, IF Orioles owner Peter Angelos doesn't screw this up again (last year he kiboshed a deal that would have sent Miguel Tejada to the Angels for a boatload of stud prospects), would be getting CF Adam Jones, who's one of the top 10 prospects in baseball, and three pitchers who grade out about as well as the three the Twins are getting. Why isn't this offer available to the Twins? Because Johan doesn't want to play in Seattle. No trade clauses are ridiculous because it limits your trading options. While I'm not generally pro-owners and pro-billionaires, it makes zero sense to give players this much control over where they're going, because it only helps the player, and doesn't help the teams and therefore the fans. Twins fans are going to have to watch a worse team, both short and long term, because Santana limited their options.
5) So the Twins are essentially only looking at three teams- the Sox, Yanks, and Mets. The Mets had the lesser prospects of the three, but of course it would get Santana out of the American League (I've never understood this. Wouldn't getting the best deal trump getting him out of your league?). Boston didn't really need him, but they didn't want the Yankees to get him. And the Yankees? DYING for Johan. Their rotation is young and inexperienced after Chien Mien-Wang. But because they saw there were only two other teams involved, they saw zero point in giving up their best players because they wouldn't have to. Why give up Joba Chamberlain if your competitors can't come close to that? The Red Sox have some excellent prospects, but because their need for Johan wasn't great, they weren't offering their best guys either.
Now at no time was I in Bill Smith's office when he was negotiating these deals, so I can't tell you for sure that all of the above happened, but logic and the rumor-mongering on the internet says we're pretty close. Smith had no shot at keeping Santana, letting him walk for the two #1 picks next year would stunt the team's overall development to build for 2010, and he wasn't getting any great offers. So what's a guy to do?
Personally, I would have started the season with Johan and looked to deal him again at the trade deadline, hoping/assuming the market would get bigger and better. If not you take the best value (the two #1's) and live with a longer development time. As it is, Smith did not do this. He could have faced pressure from upstairs to move Santana now, and perhaps was told to get him out of the American League. As it is, I don't like this trade for the Twins, but what's done is done. This is still a franchise with excellent young talent that is under team control for a considerable time. If Francisco Liriano's elbow is indeed healthy, he'll anchor a solid rotation. The bullpen will be excellent (although how long with Joe Nathan be around now?), and they have some great pieces in Mauer, Morneausy, Delmon Young, and Cuddy. Whether they kept Santana this year or not, their chances of winning the division were slim at best, so you can't cry over that. Whether or not Bill Smith made the right deal, well, I guess we'll find out, and hope these kids turn out better than baseball talent experts think they will.
and the Mets, he'll be shipped to Queens in exchange for four prospects you've probably never heard of.
I can't believe this is what the best player in baseball is worth. Carlos Gomez, a centerfielder, is an okay prospect who should be a pretty good major league regular. His absolute upside would be an all-star but that's not likely. One pitcher has high upside but is a long ways away, and the other two pitchers grade out as middle-to-back of the rotation starters. Ladies and gentlemen, this is what Johan Santana is worth in 2008.
(Here's a great breakdown of the four prospects and the deal overall from ESPN scout Keith Law. And yes you don't need Insider to read this one)
Wow.
Let's look at the factors that went into new GM Bill Smith essentially getting fleeced by Mets GM Omar Minaya:
1) Johan was going to test the free agent market, and according to people like the Strib's Jim Souhan, he didn't want to stay in Minnesota.
From Souhan's column:
Fact: Santana wanted out. I've been told by people who know him that he longs to pitch in New York, for more money, a large Latin American community and a team he feels is determined to win a World Series in the near future.
The Twins made a solid, four year $80 million offer, which he turned down. I love to bash Carl Pohlad for being cheap, but that wasn't the problem here. $20 million a year would be more than any other pitcher was making. It's more than a fair offer. For a mid-market team, this is a helluva offer. As Souhan points out, they gave big money to Justin Morneau (they overpaid but I love that they're willing to hang onto their good players. He'll be a bargain by the time that contract's up) and Michael Cuddyer. Money's not really an issue: Santana wanting to play in Minnesota is. I heard Dan Barreiro's podcast today, and he doesn't believe they worked hard enough to resign him. Really? $20 million a year isn't enough? If Johan doesn't want to play in Minnesota, what else can you do?
2) Well you can do one of three things: trade him now, trade him at the deadline in July, or let him play out his contract, let him walk, and pick up two #1 picks. As I've said before, the Twins are building to be contenders in 2010 when the new park opens. If they let Johan walk and pick up the two #1's, that would be the best overall VALUE, but it would push their idea of contention further back because the chances of kids drafted in 2009 being ready in 2010 are pretty slim. So it looks like Smith decided waiting wasn't an option.
3) So then you look to trade him. When making a trade, obviously you want as many teams bidding as possible. The problem for the Twins was there just weren't that many teams interested. The two LA teams, who had the best farm systems of the Big Boys, were out almost from the beginning. While any team would be better with Santana in its rotation, he was not a big need for the LA clubs because they already had good starting pitchers. What's more, the Angels had a huge hole in their lineup they needed to fill, and the Dodgers are one of the best teams in the mediocre-at-best National League, so their need for Santana wasn't great. Basically everybody in the National League but the Mets and Cubs (who just don't have the prospects) were out of the bidding because they didn't need to sacrifice so much in trade in such a watered-down league. In the American League, you're then left with the Yankees and Red Sox, White Sox, Detroit, and Seattle. The White Sox didn't have the perceived pieces, Detroit made their move in getting Miggy Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis, and Johan said he didn't want to play in Seattle. Which brings us to...
4) the EVIL no trade clause- why on God's green earth do teams give these out? Why? All it does is hurt your franchise. Look no further than the rumors going 'round about Baltimore and Seattle making a deal for Erik Bedard (the second best lefthander on the planet). Baltimore, IF Orioles owner Peter Angelos doesn't screw this up again (last year he kiboshed a deal that would have sent Miguel Tejada to the Angels for a boatload of stud prospects), would be getting CF Adam Jones, who's one of the top 10 prospects in baseball, and three pitchers who grade out about as well as the three the Twins are getting. Why isn't this offer available to the Twins? Because Johan doesn't want to play in Seattle. No trade clauses are ridiculous because it limits your trading options. While I'm not generally pro-owners and pro-billionaires, it makes zero sense to give players this much control over where they're going, because it only helps the player, and doesn't help the teams and therefore the fans. Twins fans are going to have to watch a worse team, both short and long term, because Santana limited their options.
5) So the Twins are essentially only looking at three teams- the Sox, Yanks, and Mets. The Mets had the lesser prospects of the three, but of course it would get Santana out of the American League (I've never understood this. Wouldn't getting the best deal trump getting him out of your league?). Boston didn't really need him, but they didn't want the Yankees to get him. And the Yankees? DYING for Johan. Their rotation is young and inexperienced after Chien Mien-Wang. But because they saw there were only two other teams involved, they saw zero point in giving up their best players because they wouldn't have to. Why give up Joba Chamberlain if your competitors can't come close to that? The Red Sox have some excellent prospects, but because their need for Johan wasn't great, they weren't offering their best guys either.
Now at no time was I in Bill Smith's office when he was negotiating these deals, so I can't tell you for sure that all of the above happened, but logic and the rumor-mongering on the internet says we're pretty close. Smith had no shot at keeping Santana, letting him walk for the two #1 picks next year would stunt the team's overall development to build for 2010, and he wasn't getting any great offers. So what's a guy to do?
Personally, I would have started the season with Johan and looked to deal him again at the trade deadline, hoping/assuming the market would get bigger and better. If not you take the best value (the two #1's) and live with a longer development time. As it is, Smith did not do this. He could have faced pressure from upstairs to move Santana now, and perhaps was told to get him out of the American League. As it is, I don't like this trade for the Twins, but what's done is done. This is still a franchise with excellent young talent that is under team control for a considerable time. If Francisco Liriano's elbow is indeed healthy, he'll anchor a solid rotation. The bullpen will be excellent (although how long with Joe Nathan be around now?), and they have some great pieces in Mauer, Morneausy, Delmon Young, and Cuddy. Whether they kept Santana this year or not, their chances of winning the division were slim at best, so you can't cry over that. Whether or not Bill Smith made the right deal, well, I guess we'll find out, and hope these kids turn out better than baseball talent experts think they will.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Sizing up the NFL Final Four
Well how about that for a football weekend? Some good games and great stories. Although I was openly campaigning for Dallas, Green Bay, Indy and New England to be the last four teams so that we'd be guaranteed a good Super Bowl for once, there's still plenty of intrigue left. When Peyton Manning threw the incompletion on fourth and 7 to seal a Charger win, I was at first bummed because we wouldn't get to see a Colts/Pats AFC Championship game. Having given it some thought, with the way they played today it's hard to imagine Indy giving the Pats much of a game even if they had survived the Chargers. The Colts didn't play well enough to win, and if they couldn't beat San Diego, they sure as hell weren't going to give New England a game.
I'm now sure of two things: the Pats win by 3 touchdowns next week, and the Jaguars were the second best team in the AFC this year, and possibly the league. The game Saturday night was the real AFC Championship, and Sunday's match in Foxboro will be nothing more than a tuneup for New England. Not to disrespect the Chargers, but I don't trust Norv Turner or Phil Rivers in a game of this magnitude. Rivers was good at times, but at no time was I blown away by what he was doing. Vincent Jackson on the other hand was impressive, but I don't see him doing that against Asante Samuel next week. What's more, Antonio Gates is nowhere near 100% with his dislocated big toe (which makes me queezy just thinking about that injury), and LaDanian Tomlinson may not be 100% either with a bruised knee. While I hope for a great game on Sunday, I'm not expecting one.
In the NFC, well the Cowboys just weren't good enough. If you want to blame Tony Romo for his relations and vacations with Jessica Simpson fine, but that was a team loss today. The Giants were just flat better and more prepared. The Dallas team that was setting the league afire at midseason would have been a great opponent for the Packers and perhaps the Pats, but that team hasn't shown up in Dallas for two months. Should be another very interesting off-season in Big D.
And then there's the Pack. Ah yes my arch nemesis. I was pulling for them to beat Seattle because a) the Seahawks are boring (We had to suffer through having them in the Super Bowl two years ago, and I wanted no part of a second time) and b) as much as I loathe the lovemaking the media does with Brett Farve, it would make for a helluva story to have him in the Super Bowl again. Secretly, and don't tell anyone this, but I really enjoyed the Packer win on Saturday. Enjoyed the snow, the comeback, and even Farve's ridiculous underhand completion as he was falling down.
I also loved the Ryan Grant story. A guy who came from quite literally nowhere to be one of the best backs in the league this year, Grant had about the worst start possible for a running back. Two carries, two fumbles, two Seahawks touchdowns. It was 14-0 before the Lambeau fans had finished their first six-pack of Miller Lite (ok maybe their second six pack, but you get the idea- it was quick). Two costly fumbles like that would have crushed a lot of people. Nick Anderson missing those free throws years ago in the NBA Finals comes to mind. He was a really good player before that and was a shell of himself afterwards. But good for the Packers for sticking with Grant (although let's be honest; once it started snowing, what choice did they really have? They certainly weren't throwing, and none of the other Packer backs were any better) and giving him a chance to redeem himself. And boy did he: 27 carries for an NFL playoff record 207 yards and 3 TD's. Isn't that what sports is all about? A guy failing, and failing miserably, but has the resolve and the opportunity to pull himself up and make amends? Pretty freaking awesome if you ask me.
Anyway, that was a quite a "Show in the Snow" if you will (and I will). I believed, as probably many of you also did, that the Hawks were in trouble coming into that game because they just couldn't run the ball. Shaun Alexander had a nice career, but boy, he looks D-O-N-E. Thanks for coming Shaun. And Maurice Morris is a nice change of pace, but he's not carrying the load. So unless they got some big special teams plays or forced turnovers, they were in for a long day. Well they couldn't have asked for a better start, and still got creamed. That might have been the most impressive thing to me: Seattle's defense, which is really, really good, got steamrolled. Shows the Pack could make a real run at this thing.
Having said that, the Giants are a tough matchup because they have Bradshaw (speaking of guys coming out of nowhere- who? huh? what? Who the hell is this Ahmad Bradshaw guy? Marshall? I didn't see Ahmad anywhere in that Matthew McConahey movie. The Metric Musings is also taking this opportunity to officially change our stance on taking running backs early in the first round. What's the point? Darren McFadden? Nice player, but not worth huge money when you can take a guy who's almost as good and could be just as productive for next to nothing. Glad we had this little chat) and big Brandon Jacobs to plow through the snow, and a pretty gritty defense. Eli Manning? I have no idea what's happening there. I wonder if he does. He did only attempt 18 passes, throwing for only 163 yards, but he played smart, and he's played good football for the better part of a month. This is why sports is awesome, because no matter how smart you are or how much of an expert, sometimes things happen that you can't predict. Like Eli Manning being functional, or Ahmad Bradshaw and Ryan Grant being the two starting running backs in the NFC Championship game. Nobody saw this coming.
At first glance, I really want the Pack to win Sunday, but then I remembered that the game of the year so far was the Giants and Pats in week 17. That wouldn't be a bad Super Bowl either...just as long as the Pats win of course. With all the craziness we've seen, I suppose anything's possible. I look forward to finding out.
I'm now sure of two things: the Pats win by 3 touchdowns next week, and the Jaguars were the second best team in the AFC this year, and possibly the league. The game Saturday night was the real AFC Championship, and Sunday's match in Foxboro will be nothing more than a tuneup for New England. Not to disrespect the Chargers, but I don't trust Norv Turner or Phil Rivers in a game of this magnitude. Rivers was good at times, but at no time was I blown away by what he was doing. Vincent Jackson on the other hand was impressive, but I don't see him doing that against Asante Samuel next week. What's more, Antonio Gates is nowhere near 100% with his dislocated big toe (which makes me queezy just thinking about that injury), and LaDanian Tomlinson may not be 100% either with a bruised knee. While I hope for a great game on Sunday, I'm not expecting one.
In the NFC, well the Cowboys just weren't good enough. If you want to blame Tony Romo for his relations and vacations with Jessica Simpson fine, but that was a team loss today. The Giants were just flat better and more prepared. The Dallas team that was setting the league afire at midseason would have been a great opponent for the Packers and perhaps the Pats, but that team hasn't shown up in Dallas for two months. Should be another very interesting off-season in Big D.
And then there's the Pack. Ah yes my arch nemesis. I was pulling for them to beat Seattle because a) the Seahawks are boring (We had to suffer through having them in the Super Bowl two years ago, and I wanted no part of a second time) and b) as much as I loathe the lovemaking the media does with Brett Farve, it would make for a helluva story to have him in the Super Bowl again. Secretly, and don't tell anyone this, but I really enjoyed the Packer win on Saturday. Enjoyed the snow, the comeback, and even Farve's ridiculous underhand completion as he was falling down.
I also loved the Ryan Grant story. A guy who came from quite literally nowhere to be one of the best backs in the league this year, Grant had about the worst start possible for a running back. Two carries, two fumbles, two Seahawks touchdowns. It was 14-0 before the Lambeau fans had finished their first six-pack of Miller Lite (ok maybe their second six pack, but you get the idea- it was quick). Two costly fumbles like that would have crushed a lot of people. Nick Anderson missing those free throws years ago in the NBA Finals comes to mind. He was a really good player before that and was a shell of himself afterwards. But good for the Packers for sticking with Grant (although let's be honest; once it started snowing, what choice did they really have? They certainly weren't throwing, and none of the other Packer backs were any better) and giving him a chance to redeem himself. And boy did he: 27 carries for an NFL playoff record 207 yards and 3 TD's. Isn't that what sports is all about? A guy failing, and failing miserably, but has the resolve and the opportunity to pull himself up and make amends? Pretty freaking awesome if you ask me.
Anyway, that was a quite a "Show in the Snow" if you will (and I will). I believed, as probably many of you also did, that the Hawks were in trouble coming into that game because they just couldn't run the ball. Shaun Alexander had a nice career, but boy, he looks D-O-N-E. Thanks for coming Shaun. And Maurice Morris is a nice change of pace, but he's not carrying the load. So unless they got some big special teams plays or forced turnovers, they were in for a long day. Well they couldn't have asked for a better start, and still got creamed. That might have been the most impressive thing to me: Seattle's defense, which is really, really good, got steamrolled. Shows the Pack could make a real run at this thing.
Having said that, the Giants are a tough matchup because they have Bradshaw (speaking of guys coming out of nowhere- who? huh? what? Who the hell is this Ahmad Bradshaw guy? Marshall? I didn't see Ahmad anywhere in that Matthew McConahey movie. The Metric Musings is also taking this opportunity to officially change our stance on taking running backs early in the first round. What's the point? Darren McFadden? Nice player, but not worth huge money when you can take a guy who's almost as good and could be just as productive for next to nothing. Glad we had this little chat) and big Brandon Jacobs to plow through the snow, and a pretty gritty defense. Eli Manning? I have no idea what's happening there. I wonder if he does. He did only attempt 18 passes, throwing for only 163 yards, but he played smart, and he's played good football for the better part of a month. This is why sports is awesome, because no matter how smart you are or how much of an expert, sometimes things happen that you can't predict. Like Eli Manning being functional, or Ahmad Bradshaw and Ryan Grant being the two starting running backs in the NFC Championship game. Nobody saw this coming.
At first glance, I really want the Pack to win Sunday, but then I remembered that the game of the year so far was the Giants and Pats in week 17. That wouldn't be a bad Super Bowl either...just as long as the Pats win of course. With all the craziness we've seen, I suppose anything's possible. I look forward to finding out.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Never Say Never
It was just eight days ago that I said in a post, rather emphatically I might add, that we'll never EVER see a playoff system in college football. Because of that certainty, I argued (although not very well- the irish creme and coffee had more of an effect than I thought) that we should just go back to the old pre-BCS bowl system because the current system was rarely, if ever, solving the problem of pitting the two best teams in the country against each other. It also makes the other BCS bowl matchups worse, and after a week of five terrible BCS games, not even LSU fans could disagree that this system sucks.
First of all, playing the national title game a good week after New Year's Day is just plain stupid. If it had to be moved back that far because of a playoff, well that's one thing my friend. But just to get TV ratings on a Monday night? Stupid. My buddies in Minnesota, who are all manly men that love football, couldn't even be bothered to get together to watch the game last night. And after sitting through that game myself last night, it's clear they knew what they were doing. Ohio State, and honestly the Big 10 in general, is taking a beating for the second year in a row as THE Ohio State University got mopped up by an SEC power in the "national championship." And if you think things look bad for the Big 10 right now, it's only going to get worse for them and their brothers on the left coast in the Pac 10.
The reason being is that it looks like, for the first time ever, university presidents from big conference schools are publicly talking about a playoff system. This one from yesterday talks about the consideration of a "Plus One" format, while SI.com's Stewart Mandel discusses what all this could mean. Today's story on University of Georgia President Michael F. Adams asking for an eight team playoff was even more of an eye opener. What this means, if anything, is that the ranks are dividing in the one place that had stood steadfastly against a college football playoff.
While a four year old could have looked at this thing in years past and said "hey you know what? Maybe having the teams play for the national title instead of awarding it to them might be a better way to go", the university presidents have been vehemently against a playoff system. They've used some fun excuses like "it would cut into the kids' exam time", even though they all voted to add a cheap 12th game to make more money two years ago (LSU played 14 GAMES THIS YEAR!!!). Or there's the argument that it would cheapen the regular season. While I agree that college football has the best regular season, it has THE worst postseason (if you can even call it that) of any sport going. This year was no exception. It would be like making six riveting seasons of the Sopranos, and then when it got to the end of the last episode, the part the entire series had been building to- it just cuts to black without explanation. That's college football right now.
If the NCAA does this right, I just don't see how the regular season would lose meaning. IF we were able to get a Plus One system or even the eight team playoff proposed by Adams, the regular season would be just as compelling because to finish in the top four or eight would be just as difficult as it is now. There's an argument in the Mandel article about how "if there was a playoff system in place, nobody would have watched the Pitt- West Virginia game at the end of the year." First of all, how many people actually did watch that game? Anyone? Show of hands? Thought so. But for the sake of argument, under a plus-one system or even the eight team playoff, that game still holds a ton of intrigue because if West Virginia, who already had one loss, loses that game, then they're likely out of the playoffs. So it would still matter, just as it does now.
Now where this all hurts the Big 10 and Pac 10 is that they are on now on the other side of the debate. The other BCS conferences are not benefiting from the current system as much as they used to. The best two teams are consistently not getting to the championship game, and the "little guys" are taking up spots that used to go to major conference schools in the other big money bowl games. Under the current system, the BCS conference schools are still making billions and billions of dollars- it's just that the Big 10 and Pac 10 went a step further by getting themselves on the Rose Bowl's Board of Directors, further cementing themselves to the old system. Now, their buddies in the other conferences are breaking ranks and seeing that maybe, just maybe, a playoff system would make them just as much or more money, which leaves the Big 10 and Pac 10 blowing in the wind.
While Adam's 8 team playoff idea won't be happening anytime soon, if ever, his comments are certainly a sign that the idea of a playoff is becoming more of a reality, because in the past you'd never, EVER hear a university president of a BCS conference school say something like that. But as we learned today, never say never.
First of all, playing the national title game a good week after New Year's Day is just plain stupid. If it had to be moved back that far because of a playoff, well that's one thing my friend. But just to get TV ratings on a Monday night? Stupid. My buddies in Minnesota, who are all manly men that love football, couldn't even be bothered to get together to watch the game last night. And after sitting through that game myself last night, it's clear they knew what they were doing. Ohio State, and honestly the Big 10 in general, is taking a beating for the second year in a row as THE Ohio State University got mopped up by an SEC power in the "national championship." And if you think things look bad for the Big 10 right now, it's only going to get worse for them and their brothers on the left coast in the Pac 10.
The reason being is that it looks like, for the first time ever, university presidents from big conference schools are publicly talking about a playoff system. This one from yesterday talks about the consideration of a "Plus One" format, while SI.com's Stewart Mandel discusses what all this could mean. Today's story on University of Georgia President Michael F. Adams asking for an eight team playoff was even more of an eye opener. What this means, if anything, is that the ranks are dividing in the one place that had stood steadfastly against a college football playoff.
While a four year old could have looked at this thing in years past and said "hey you know what? Maybe having the teams play for the national title instead of awarding it to them might be a better way to go", the university presidents have been vehemently against a playoff system. They've used some fun excuses like "it would cut into the kids' exam time", even though they all voted to add a cheap 12th game to make more money two years ago (LSU played 14 GAMES THIS YEAR!!!). Or there's the argument that it would cheapen the regular season. While I agree that college football has the best regular season, it has THE worst postseason (if you can even call it that) of any sport going. This year was no exception. It would be like making six riveting seasons of the Sopranos, and then when it got to the end of the last episode, the part the entire series had been building to- it just cuts to black without explanation. That's college football right now.
If the NCAA does this right, I just don't see how the regular season would lose meaning. IF we were able to get a Plus One system or even the eight team playoff proposed by Adams, the regular season would be just as compelling because to finish in the top four or eight would be just as difficult as it is now. There's an argument in the Mandel article about how "if there was a playoff system in place, nobody would have watched the Pitt- West Virginia game at the end of the year." First of all, how many people actually did watch that game? Anyone? Show of hands? Thought so. But for the sake of argument, under a plus-one system or even the eight team playoff, that game still holds a ton of intrigue because if West Virginia, who already had one loss, loses that game, then they're likely out of the playoffs. So it would still matter, just as it does now.
Now where this all hurts the Big 10 and Pac 10 is that they are on now on the other side of the debate. The other BCS conferences are not benefiting from the current system as much as they used to. The best two teams are consistently not getting to the championship game, and the "little guys" are taking up spots that used to go to major conference schools in the other big money bowl games. Under the current system, the BCS conference schools are still making billions and billions of dollars- it's just that the Big 10 and Pac 10 went a step further by getting themselves on the Rose Bowl's Board of Directors, further cementing themselves to the old system. Now, their buddies in the other conferences are breaking ranks and seeing that maybe, just maybe, a playoff system would make them just as much or more money, which leaves the Big 10 and Pac 10 blowing in the wind.
While Adam's 8 team playoff idea won't be happening anytime soon, if ever, his comments are certainly a sign that the idea of a playoff is becoming more of a reality, because in the past you'd never, EVER hear a university president of a BCS conference school say something like that. But as we learned today, never say never.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Happy New Year!
I'm sitting here on New Year's Day trying to watch four bowl games at once on a 13" TV. It is not easy. Well, basically it's 3 games, because I don't see myself tuning into the Texas Tech/Virginia game, although I have read about Howie Long's kid for UVA, who's supposed to be amazing. Still, that doesn't take precedence over Florida/Michigan (the 2nd best game on today), Scony/Tennessee (two teams with sweet, sweet unis), and even the Cotton Bowl with Arkansas/Mizzou.
The Michigan/Florida game brings up something for me though: why isn't this a BCS game? I mean, since we're never having a real playoff system (and we're not. Read this article from the Orange County Register. I had always heard there was a lot of money tied into bowls, but this blew my mind. We're never having a playoff system) why not have the best teams in the big bowls? I mean these games decide nothing, and are all about making money. Having Florida and Michigan play each other would make more money than any other game except the LSU/Ohio State game. I understand the BCS was created to get more big schools into the big bowls, but with this crazy year, it didn't work.
Since we're never going to have a playoff, why not just go back to the way it was? I personally enjoy the old bowl alignments, with the Pac 10/Big 10 Rose Bowl, and the alliances they used to have with the Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange. I know people like the idea of the BCS Title game because it's supposed to give us a true champion, but come on! For every year we get USC/Texas, we get four or five years like this one where there's not two clear-cut title teams. Why are Ohio St and LSU playing in the Naty Title? Public opinion, that's why. Georgia and USC were probably the two best teams when the season ended, but since we don't have a playoff, there's no way to know that. LSU and Ohio State are there because of their tradition as much as the games they played this year.
So who are we kidding here? Why not just pick the teams people want to see most for the bowl games? Anyway, enjoy the games everybody. The Capital One Bowl hasn't disappointed (the Rose Bowl probably will- Illinois? really?), but I can't wait for Georgia/Hawaii tonight. Should be a lotta points and a lotta fun. Happy New Year.
The Michigan/Florida game brings up something for me though: why isn't this a BCS game? I mean, since we're never having a real playoff system (and we're not. Read this article from the Orange County Register. I had always heard there was a lot of money tied into bowls, but this blew my mind. We're never having a playoff system) why not have the best teams in the big bowls? I mean these games decide nothing, and are all about making money. Having Florida and Michigan play each other would make more money than any other game except the LSU/Ohio State game. I understand the BCS was created to get more big schools into the big bowls, but with this crazy year, it didn't work.
Since we're never going to have a playoff, why not just go back to the way it was? I personally enjoy the old bowl alignments, with the Pac 10/Big 10 Rose Bowl, and the alliances they used to have with the Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange. I know people like the idea of the BCS Title game because it's supposed to give us a true champion, but come on! For every year we get USC/Texas, we get four or five years like this one where there's not two clear-cut title teams. Why are Ohio St and LSU playing in the Naty Title? Public opinion, that's why. Georgia and USC were probably the two best teams when the season ended, but since we don't have a playoff, there's no way to know that. LSU and Ohio State are there because of their tradition as much as the games they played this year.
So who are we kidding here? Why not just pick the teams people want to see most for the bowl games? Anyway, enjoy the games everybody. The Capital One Bowl hasn't disappointed (the Rose Bowl probably will- Illinois? really?), but I can't wait for Georgia/Hawaii tonight. Should be a lotta points and a lotta fun. Happy New Year.
Friday, December 21, 2007
The NBA: This is Where "I'm Done With You" Happens
First of all, a very Merry Christmas and happy holidays and all that good stuff. I am very excited to be celebrating a very traditional and non-politically-correct Christmas. It's my favorite time of year.
Anyways as you may have noticed I haven't blogged much at all about the Vikings (you've probably also noticed I haven't blogged much at all about anything- thought I'd beat you to that joke, but feel free to make it none the less. It's a gooder!), and it hasn't been because of a lack of interest. I just haven't been able to see that many Vikings games living out here, so it's hard to comment on something I haven't seen. But after watching them on Monday night, as well as a Sunday nighter coming against the Redskins, well I'm breaking my silence soon. I'm working on a "getting to know Brad Childress/Tavaris Jackson is not, and never will be, an NFL quarterback" post, but I'm actually going to do crazy stuff like research for it. Yup I'm going to attempt to make a logical argument. So I've got that going for me, which is nice.
The NBA on the other hand? I have not blogged about the NBA specifically because of a lack of interest. I've been the biggest NBA fan I know as long as I've known about the NBA. It's always one of those things where I give reasons why I shouldn't be interested in it, and yet I always am. This year? Really couldn't care less. Part of it is living in Canada where we only get Raptors games- they're 3000 miles away but it's Canada's team without one single Canadian player on the team! Canada’s team everybody! Love Toronto! Love Canada! A-holes- and part of it is also that the team I grew up loving, the Seattle Suuuuuuuuuuuuper Sonics, have a once-in-a-generation talent (even if his lack of rebounding so far should be a major concern) and a GM who knows what the hell he's doing, and yet they're moving from a top 12 national market that has supported the team for 40+ years to Okla-f'ing-homa. Oklahoma. From Seattle to Oklahoma. Think about that. And what is the league doing about it? What is the great Don Stern doing about it? Nothing. Less than nothing actually, he's openly ENCOURAGING it!!! What business in their right mind moves from Seattle to Oklahoma and thinks they'll be better off in the long run? Anyone?
For years, sporting leagues have played the "if you don't build us a new stadium, we're moving" card. And it's worked really, really well. While I understand this is why Stern supports his owners, shouldn't common sense take over at some point? Shouldn't the ego get set aside to say that although in the short term a team would come out ahead moving to a city with a free arena instead of using $500+ million of their own money to build a new one in their current city, that in the long run it's a really bad idea? You'd think so, but it won't happen. The NHL is a perfect example of this: they haven't made one move as a league in their time under Gary Bettman, not one, with long term goals in mind. Not one! Every single thing they've done is to make a quick buck, and as a result, the league is a joke. Canadians love it because they have to, kind of like although college football is completely dysfunctional right now Americans still love it, because they almost HAVE to.
As logical as we can be as people, there's nothing logical or rational about being a sports fan. As fans we have been getting screwed more and more with every move every league makes, and yet we keep coming back for more. We love to love sports, and yet we couldn't be getting treated worse. Billionaire owners fighting with millionaire players over billions of dollars while both sides publicly cry about getting screwed while raising ticket prices, holding out, demanding trades, or moving franchises.
But you know what? We have no one to blame but ourselves. We pay owners and players and make them all rich by buying tickets, watching games, and buying merchandise. Baseball, and this whole ridiculous steroid thing is a perfect example. How many blogs/websites/papers/TV shows/media outlets have you seen screaming about how steroids and HGH are ruining "the sanctity and purity" of the sport? All of them right? And yet baseball has never been richer. They've had the highest attendance, and TV deals in the history of the sport. They'll gladly let you bitch about anything you want as long as you keep paying for it. Because until you stop paying, and stop paying attention, sports will keep taking and taking and taking.
My favorite ESPN baseball writer, Keith Law, just laughs at anyone who gets upset about steroids and how it's ruining the game, and he's absolutely right: if people are so upset about it WHY ARE THEY STILL WATCHING THE GAMES?!?!? In 1994 baseball was at an all-time popularity high, and then they went on strike. When they came back, the fans didn't. And it scared the bejeezus out baseball. People were actually making a statement with their wallets, the ONLY thing owners pay attention to, that they were fed up and had enough. And so baseball turned a blind eye on roids, and McGwire and Sosa happened, and everybody came back. And everybody, despite everything that's happened, has stayed back.
If you don't like what's happening in baseball, if you're disgusted by what's happening in that sport or any other, then do something about: stop watching it, stop paying for it, stop caring. It's hard but it's the only way. Otherwise, shut up, stop bitching, and watch the games.
Me personally? I'm not willing to give up baseball, and so that's why I haven't been up in arms about the Mitchell Report and steroids and all the rest. Honestly, the Mitchell Report is a joke. It's all rumors and zero hard evidence. It's all opinions and people blaming other people. None of that would hold up if somebody dared to take it to court. But it's credible exactly because nobody has dared to take it to court. Want to know if a public person is innocent? They sue. I've used this example before, but I'll do it again: at the height of his career in St Louis, running back Marshall Faulk had a women falsely accuse him of having her baby, hoping to blackmail him to get money. I don't know Faulk and have no idea what he's like as a human being or behind closed-doors, but his public persona is one of a class act and good guy. The woman threatened to take her story public unless Faulk gave her money. You know what he did? Sued her. Took her to court. He decided that although this accusation was false, and he could easily by this woman off with hush money, that it could tarnish the image and reputation he had worked so hard to build, that it was worth it. Because if he let this woman blackmail him, what was to stop any other woman from doing the same? So he sued, she immediately backed off, and the story died. She had zero hard evidence, Faulk knew it, believed the short-term credibility loss he'd suffer was worth the long-term peace-of-mind he'd get knowing he was innocent, and he won. It would be that easy for any of these baseball players to do the exact thing to prove they didn't take steroids: and yet curiously, they're not.
As much as I hate frivolous lawsuits, or just lawsuits in general (it's pretty much the epitome of the whiny, always-playing-the-victim, "woe is me" "THAT'S NOT FAIR!!!" culture we live in), if your good name is being dragged unfairly or unjustly through the mud, the easiest way to clear it up is to sue. And as I said, you couldn't find a bigger pile of unsubstantiated dog crap than the Mitchell Report. But nobody's suing. In fact, players like Andy Pettite and Brian Roberts are already coming out saying the reports are true! To me, this just shows how guilty the rest of the guys in that report are. If you're being slandered, do something about it...unless of course the rumors are true. Jose Canseco's book seemed like a total joke...until nobody in it sued him. Now Canseco is actually a credible voice in all of this. The guys from the San Francisco Chronicle who published the testimony that Bonds used roids were willing to go to jail to stand by their story. Bonds? Just sent out denials. Why would he not sue them if they were lying? Why would Roger Clemens not sue the pants off his former trainer if the guy was lying? I believe Bonds, Clemens, and everybody in that report used roids or HGH. And I think there's a ton more guys that used too.
I realize what I'm dealing with here, and I'm willing to put up with it. I'm willing to accept that most baseball players are dirty cheaters. I accept it and move on because being a baseball fan is worth that to me. I cheer for a team with a payroll that will push $120 million this season, that just signed Carlos Silva to a $44 million contract (hang on I need to go throw up after typing that), and will be lucky to finish at .500 this year. And yet I press on.
The NBA? I've been surprised how little I've missed it. Oh sure, I'd love to support the Sonics if they were staying, love to cheer for Kevin Durant (and cheer for him to start grabbing some f**&ing rebounds!) the way I did for Payton, Kemp, Detlef, Perkins, McMillan etc. in the days of my youth. That group of Sonics in the early-mid 1990's was my favorite team I've cheered for. And yet I've decided I've as an NBA fan that I've had enough, and I'm walking away. I haven't missed it as much as I thought, and I don't think NBA fans in Seattle will either. So thanks to David Stern for pushing me away from something I loved, because I've realized life carries on just fine without it. Now if only more sports fans would realize the same, maybe sports in general would get better.
Anyways as you may have noticed I haven't blogged much at all about the Vikings (you've probably also noticed I haven't blogged much at all about anything- thought I'd beat you to that joke, but feel free to make it none the less. It's a gooder!), and it hasn't been because of a lack of interest. I just haven't been able to see that many Vikings games living out here, so it's hard to comment on something I haven't seen. But after watching them on Monday night, as well as a Sunday nighter coming against the Redskins, well I'm breaking my silence soon. I'm working on a "getting to know Brad Childress/Tavaris Jackson is not, and never will be, an NFL quarterback" post, but I'm actually going to do crazy stuff like research for it. Yup I'm going to attempt to make a logical argument. So I've got that going for me, which is nice.
The NBA on the other hand? I have not blogged about the NBA specifically because of a lack of interest. I've been the biggest NBA fan I know as long as I've known about the NBA. It's always one of those things where I give reasons why I shouldn't be interested in it, and yet I always am. This year? Really couldn't care less. Part of it is living in Canada where we only get Raptors games- they're 3000 miles away but it's Canada's team without one single Canadian player on the team! Canada’s team everybody! Love Toronto! Love Canada! A-holes- and part of it is also that the team I grew up loving, the Seattle Suuuuuuuuuuuuper Sonics, have a once-in-a-generation talent (even if his lack of rebounding so far should be a major concern) and a GM who knows what the hell he's doing, and yet they're moving from a top 12 national market that has supported the team for 40+ years to Okla-f'ing-homa. Oklahoma. From Seattle to Oklahoma. Think about that. And what is the league doing about it? What is the great Don Stern doing about it? Nothing. Less than nothing actually, he's openly ENCOURAGING it!!! What business in their right mind moves from Seattle to Oklahoma and thinks they'll be better off in the long run? Anyone?
For years, sporting leagues have played the "if you don't build us a new stadium, we're moving" card. And it's worked really, really well. While I understand this is why Stern supports his owners, shouldn't common sense take over at some point? Shouldn't the ego get set aside to say that although in the short term a team would come out ahead moving to a city with a free arena instead of using $500+ million of their own money to build a new one in their current city, that in the long run it's a really bad idea? You'd think so, but it won't happen. The NHL is a perfect example of this: they haven't made one move as a league in their time under Gary Bettman, not one, with long term goals in mind. Not one! Every single thing they've done is to make a quick buck, and as a result, the league is a joke. Canadians love it because they have to, kind of like although college football is completely dysfunctional right now Americans still love it, because they almost HAVE to.
As logical as we can be as people, there's nothing logical or rational about being a sports fan. As fans we have been getting screwed more and more with every move every league makes, and yet we keep coming back for more. We love to love sports, and yet we couldn't be getting treated worse. Billionaire owners fighting with millionaire players over billions of dollars while both sides publicly cry about getting screwed while raising ticket prices, holding out, demanding trades, or moving franchises.
But you know what? We have no one to blame but ourselves. We pay owners and players and make them all rich by buying tickets, watching games, and buying merchandise. Baseball, and this whole ridiculous steroid thing is a perfect example. How many blogs/websites/papers/TV shows/media outlets have you seen screaming about how steroids and HGH are ruining "the sanctity and purity" of the sport? All of them right? And yet baseball has never been richer. They've had the highest attendance, and TV deals in the history of the sport. They'll gladly let you bitch about anything you want as long as you keep paying for it. Because until you stop paying, and stop paying attention, sports will keep taking and taking and taking.
My favorite ESPN baseball writer, Keith Law, just laughs at anyone who gets upset about steroids and how it's ruining the game, and he's absolutely right: if people are so upset about it WHY ARE THEY STILL WATCHING THE GAMES?!?!? In 1994 baseball was at an all-time popularity high, and then they went on strike. When they came back, the fans didn't. And it scared the bejeezus out baseball. People were actually making a statement with their wallets, the ONLY thing owners pay attention to, that they were fed up and had enough. And so baseball turned a blind eye on roids, and McGwire and Sosa happened, and everybody came back. And everybody, despite everything that's happened, has stayed back.
If you don't like what's happening in baseball, if you're disgusted by what's happening in that sport or any other, then do something about: stop watching it, stop paying for it, stop caring. It's hard but it's the only way. Otherwise, shut up, stop bitching, and watch the games.
Me personally? I'm not willing to give up baseball, and so that's why I haven't been up in arms about the Mitchell Report and steroids and all the rest. Honestly, the Mitchell Report is a joke. It's all rumors and zero hard evidence. It's all opinions and people blaming other people. None of that would hold up if somebody dared to take it to court. But it's credible exactly because nobody has dared to take it to court. Want to know if a public person is innocent? They sue. I've used this example before, but I'll do it again: at the height of his career in St Louis, running back Marshall Faulk had a women falsely accuse him of having her baby, hoping to blackmail him to get money. I don't know Faulk and have no idea what he's like as a human being or behind closed-doors, but his public persona is one of a class act and good guy. The woman threatened to take her story public unless Faulk gave her money. You know what he did? Sued her. Took her to court. He decided that although this accusation was false, and he could easily by this woman off with hush money, that it could tarnish the image and reputation he had worked so hard to build, that it was worth it. Because if he let this woman blackmail him, what was to stop any other woman from doing the same? So he sued, she immediately backed off, and the story died. She had zero hard evidence, Faulk knew it, believed the short-term credibility loss he'd suffer was worth the long-term peace-of-mind he'd get knowing he was innocent, and he won. It would be that easy for any of these baseball players to do the exact thing to prove they didn't take steroids: and yet curiously, they're not.
As much as I hate frivolous lawsuits, or just lawsuits in general (it's pretty much the epitome of the whiny, always-playing-the-victim, "woe is me" "THAT'S NOT FAIR!!!" culture we live in), if your good name is being dragged unfairly or unjustly through the mud, the easiest way to clear it up is to sue. And as I said, you couldn't find a bigger pile of unsubstantiated dog crap than the Mitchell Report. But nobody's suing. In fact, players like Andy Pettite and Brian Roberts are already coming out saying the reports are true! To me, this just shows how guilty the rest of the guys in that report are. If you're being slandered, do something about it...unless of course the rumors are true. Jose Canseco's book seemed like a total joke...until nobody in it sued him. Now Canseco is actually a credible voice in all of this. The guys from the San Francisco Chronicle who published the testimony that Bonds used roids were willing to go to jail to stand by their story. Bonds? Just sent out denials. Why would he not sue them if they were lying? Why would Roger Clemens not sue the pants off his former trainer if the guy was lying? I believe Bonds, Clemens, and everybody in that report used roids or HGH. And I think there's a ton more guys that used too.
I realize what I'm dealing with here, and I'm willing to put up with it. I'm willing to accept that most baseball players are dirty cheaters. I accept it and move on because being a baseball fan is worth that to me. I cheer for a team with a payroll that will push $120 million this season, that just signed Carlos Silva to a $44 million contract (hang on I need to go throw up after typing that), and will be lucky to finish at .500 this year. And yet I press on.
The NBA? I've been surprised how little I've missed it. Oh sure, I'd love to support the Sonics if they were staying, love to cheer for Kevin Durant (and cheer for him to start grabbing some f**&ing rebounds!) the way I did for Payton, Kemp, Detlef, Perkins, McMillan etc. in the days of my youth. That group of Sonics in the early-mid 1990's was my favorite team I've cheered for. And yet I've decided I've as an NBA fan that I've had enough, and I'm walking away. I haven't missed it as much as I thought, and I don't think NBA fans in Seattle will either. So thanks to David Stern for pushing me away from something I loved, because I've realized life carries on just fine without it. Now if only more sports fans would realize the same, maybe sports in general would get better.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Steve Nash and Bill Smith: Two Guys I Like
Heyo! I'm on vacation! Sorry I haven't posted more frequently, but school finished up on Tuesday, and I've been doing a LOT of nothing since then. In spectacular fashion none the less. Am I too old to be sitting on my buddy's couch playing video games for three straight days? Good, I didn't think so. Just checking. Here's a couple of things from the past couple of weeks I thought I'd point out.
* Just when I thought my man crush on Steve Nash couldn't get any bigger, he goes and gives the "Chipped Tooth Interview". If you haven't seen it, it's well worth your time. He takes an elbow to the face, keeps playing through it, and then gives a hilarious interview at the half. Does it get any better than that? You're right, only if he had a mustache. That's really all Nash is missing to become the greatest human being ever: sweet/ugly facial hair. That's really it.
I'd like to think it's because he's Canadian, but he's just so tough. Watch this play from last year's playoffs vs. San Antonio when he and Tony Parker collide. Parker drops to the floor like he was shot, whereas Nash just stands there and then walks away like nothing happened. Turns out Parker (who, if you couldn't tell from the flop, is French) had a little bump on the head, where Nash broke his nose had a gash so bad they couldn't close it. Just that reaction shows it all for me.
* Tony Parker flopping like a soccer player reminded me of something: go to www.google.com, type in "French military victories" and then click the "I'm feeling lucky" button and see what happens. You'll enjoy it, I promise...well unless you're French.
* I like new Minnesota Twins GM Bill Smith. I do. So far so good on his moves this offseason. He didn't panic and vastly overpay a declining Torii Hunter to appease the fan base, and he made a good trade to pick up a potential 5-tool allstar outfielder in Delmon Young. The Adam Everett signing was also a really, really good one. Everett's one of the worst hitters in the majors, but he's also one of the best defensive players at any position at THE most important defensive position in the game. Stick him in the 9 slot in the order and let his glove and arm go to work. You'll lose a bit with the bat when comparing him to Bartlett, but he'll make up for it with his D. Can you tell I love that signing?
I also like that Smith's being patient with the Johan Santana talks. I haven't loved any of the proposed deals, which shows that teams are getting smarter: they're just not willing to sell the farm AND pay $100+ million, even for someone as good as Johan. Smith does face a tough dilemma here, and the teams he's dealing with know it. Billy Beane out in Oakland figured out before anybody else that letting your superstars walk and getting two 1st round draft picks is usually better than what you can get by trading them. This has certainly been true of the dealings with Santana so far: the Twins are having trouble getting ONE prospect from New York or Boston that's worth a first round pick, let alone two. The smart thing, as far as value goes, would be to keep Johan for next year and let him walk in 2008, giving the Twinkies the two picks. The problem is that screws up their current plan, which is, I'm guessing, to get a good haul of young MLB-ready prospects for him now, let the young guys play and gel together, and be ready for World Series contention in two years. If the Twins let Santana walk, the two #1 picks, no matter how good they are, won't be ready to contribute by 2010. And probably not by 2011 either. Their potential will certainly be better than what they're being offered for Santana right now, but they can't help you right away either.
What would I do? Keep Santana, and wait till the market gets hot in mid-July. Everybody is way, way too logical right now because there's no pressure on anybody to make the playoffs. By mid summer, with the playoff race in full swing, a bidding war would be much more likely. And if it's not, you bite the bullet and take the two picks. Oh, and for those worried about infuriating the fan base by trading Santana during a playoff chase, I hate to break it to you, but you're not going to be in the playoff chase next year. You're just not. People much smarter than me, like the guys over at ussmariner blog, use all that new-school smart math and believe that you're going to have to win at least 90 games to win the AL wildcard in 2008. 90 GAMES! Minimum! No matter how well the Twins play next year, they're just not a 90 win team. With the Tiggers and Tribe in their division, and then having to compete with one of those teams, plus one of the Red Sox and Yankees for the wild card, their playoff chances are somewhere between slim and none.
This isn't to say you should be upset as a Twins fan though, or depressed about your team for 2008. Quite the contrary actually. As a Mariners fan I'm jealous of the Twins franchise right now. Yes, you're not going to win the 2008 World Series, and maybe not in 2009 either, but there are few teams in the game with a brighter future than Minnesota's. You've got a good, young, exciting team with tons of potential and cost-controlled talent (well other than Morneau, but let's not talk about him today), a good manager in Gardy, and a GM who knows what the hell he's doing. They're in great shape right now. Hey you could be a M's fan like me, whose team has a bloated payroll and a GM who's trying to save his job, which means gutting the farm system for more overpriced talent in a dillusional effort to win now even though there are no series of moves possible to make the M's a World Series contender next year.
So yes, short of a typhoon wiping out New York and Boston, and then moving down the St Lawrence to wash out Cleveland and Detroit too, the Twins aren't a contender in 2008. But you're in good hands with Bill Smith, and the future is bright.
* Just when I thought my man crush on Steve Nash couldn't get any bigger, he goes and gives the "Chipped Tooth Interview". If you haven't seen it, it's well worth your time. He takes an elbow to the face, keeps playing through it, and then gives a hilarious interview at the half. Does it get any better than that? You're right, only if he had a mustache. That's really all Nash is missing to become the greatest human being ever: sweet/ugly facial hair. That's really it.
I'd like to think it's because he's Canadian, but he's just so tough. Watch this play from last year's playoffs vs. San Antonio when he and Tony Parker collide. Parker drops to the floor like he was shot, whereas Nash just stands there and then walks away like nothing happened. Turns out Parker (who, if you couldn't tell from the flop, is French) had a little bump on the head, where Nash broke his nose had a gash so bad they couldn't close it. Just that reaction shows it all for me.
* Tony Parker flopping like a soccer player reminded me of something: go to www.google.com, type in "French military victories" and then click the "I'm feeling lucky" button and see what happens. You'll enjoy it, I promise...well unless you're French.
* I like new Minnesota Twins GM Bill Smith. I do. So far so good on his moves this offseason. He didn't panic and vastly overpay a declining Torii Hunter to appease the fan base, and he made a good trade to pick up a potential 5-tool allstar outfielder in Delmon Young. The Adam Everett signing was also a really, really good one. Everett's one of the worst hitters in the majors, but he's also one of the best defensive players at any position at THE most important defensive position in the game. Stick him in the 9 slot in the order and let his glove and arm go to work. You'll lose a bit with the bat when comparing him to Bartlett, but he'll make up for it with his D. Can you tell I love that signing?
I also like that Smith's being patient with the Johan Santana talks. I haven't loved any of the proposed deals, which shows that teams are getting smarter: they're just not willing to sell the farm AND pay $100+ million, even for someone as good as Johan. Smith does face a tough dilemma here, and the teams he's dealing with know it. Billy Beane out in Oakland figured out before anybody else that letting your superstars walk and getting two 1st round draft picks is usually better than what you can get by trading them. This has certainly been true of the dealings with Santana so far: the Twins are having trouble getting ONE prospect from New York or Boston that's worth a first round pick, let alone two. The smart thing, as far as value goes, would be to keep Johan for next year and let him walk in 2008, giving the Twinkies the two picks. The problem is that screws up their current plan, which is, I'm guessing, to get a good haul of young MLB-ready prospects for him now, let the young guys play and gel together, and be ready for World Series contention in two years. If the Twins let Santana walk, the two #1 picks, no matter how good they are, won't be ready to contribute by 2010. And probably not by 2011 either. Their potential will certainly be better than what they're being offered for Santana right now, but they can't help you right away either.
What would I do? Keep Santana, and wait till the market gets hot in mid-July. Everybody is way, way too logical right now because there's no pressure on anybody to make the playoffs. By mid summer, with the playoff race in full swing, a bidding war would be much more likely. And if it's not, you bite the bullet and take the two picks. Oh, and for those worried about infuriating the fan base by trading Santana during a playoff chase, I hate to break it to you, but you're not going to be in the playoff chase next year. You're just not. People much smarter than me, like the guys over at ussmariner blog, use all that new-school smart math and believe that you're going to have to win at least 90 games to win the AL wildcard in 2008. 90 GAMES! Minimum! No matter how well the Twins play next year, they're just not a 90 win team. With the Tiggers and Tribe in their division, and then having to compete with one of those teams, plus one of the Red Sox and Yankees for the wild card, their playoff chances are somewhere between slim and none.
This isn't to say you should be upset as a Twins fan though, or depressed about your team for 2008. Quite the contrary actually. As a Mariners fan I'm jealous of the Twins franchise right now. Yes, you're not going to win the 2008 World Series, and maybe not in 2009 either, but there are few teams in the game with a brighter future than Minnesota's. You've got a good, young, exciting team with tons of potential and cost-controlled talent (well other than Morneau, but let's not talk about him today), a good manager in Gardy, and a GM who knows what the hell he's doing. They're in great shape right now. Hey you could be a M's fan like me, whose team has a bloated payroll and a GM who's trying to save his job, which means gutting the farm system for more overpriced talent in a dillusional effort to win now even though there are no series of moves possible to make the M's a World Series contender next year.
So yes, short of a typhoon wiping out New York and Boston, and then moving down the St Lawrence to wash out Cleveland and Detroit too, the Twins aren't a contender in 2008. But you're in good hands with Bill Smith, and the future is bright.
Monday, December 10, 2007
The Monday Musings
Hope your weekend was as swell as mine, because mine was pretty freaking swell. Onto it then...
* Hey they got a Heisman vote right! Congrats to all the people who vote for sports' most overrated and overhyped award. I do not like how voters and pundits get all worked up about tradition and not voting for sophomores, and wanting to uphold the image of the award by voting for players that will make good pros because guys like Jason White, Gino Torretta, Danny Wuerfell...holy crap there's been a lot of great college players who were craptastic in the NFL...and the rest "tarnished" the Heisman because they sucked in the pros. First of all, was that the longest run-on sentence I've ever typed? Quite possibly was. But more importantly, last time I checked, and for the sake of accuracy let me just check again here...hang on...yup- the Heisman is still an award for the most outstanding COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYER. Not the best pro prospect, not the best quarterback on the best team, but the best player from that year. Tim Tebow was the best college player this year. His 22 rushing TD's broke the SEC's single-season record for rushing TD's by any player at any position. Pretty sure the SEC has had a couple of good players over the years, especially running backs, so that's pretty impressive. As a passer, he had the second best QB rating in the country, his 3132 passing yds were third in the SEC, and his 29 TD's tied for second. As one college football scribe said before the vote (I think it was E!SPN's Bruce Feldman, but I can't remember and I'm not going back to look right now), just the rushing TD's are incredibly impressive, and his passing totals by themselves are also Heisman worthy. Put them together, and it's a no-brainer.
* By the way, how are you feeling about the bowl games? Good? Bad? Indifferent? I'm personally excited for Georgia-Hawaii. Georgia's been one of the best teams in the country since Tennessee took them out to the woodshed in October, and I really want to see how good Colt Brennan and the Warriors are against a real team. That'll be a fun one. USC/Illinois? Good gawd almighty, I love the Pac 10/Big 10 Rose Bowl tradition, but Illinois? Really? I thought the incentive for WINNING the Big 10 was to go to the Rose Bowl? Now apparently you finish second, lose three games, and hey "you're Rose Bowl material". At this point, what would be wrong with everybody playing everybody in the Big 10 and only having 2 non conference games a year? Would anybody be against this? Oh right, the school presidents would. Just like how they're against a playoff system. They're against these things, but they're for adding a 12th game against a 1-AA school to pad their team's stats. I love that almost as much as I love the mediocrity and parity that's running roughshod over this game right now like Tebow ran over defenses this year. We're just a few years away from handing out bowl invitations to every school that fields a D-1 team. That's probably Notre Dame's best hope for a bowl right now. ZING!
* Did you ever think there'd be a time when I'd need to get my dominance/Evil Empire fix from the NFL? Me neither. Didn't see that one coming. Damn did the Pats ever look good again. Um, hey Andy Smith or Adam Smith? Aaron Smith? Anthony Smith? A-hole Smith? Whoever the Smith guy is for the Steelers who decided it'd be a good idea to "guarantee" a victory over the Pats really should have talked to me before he went ahead and lost the game for Pittsburgh before it even started. It's bad enough I'd never heard of you before you made your genius guarantee (trust me, if I haven't heard of you, neither has 99.9% of NFL fans), but is that not the one thing the Pats were hoping for? This is a team that's been using the fact they got caught cheating as motivation as a "slight" against them. So you thought it'd be a good idea to give them a legitimate slight by guaranteeing a victory? How'd that work out for you? 34-13, that's how. Nice move. You should have to play for the 49ers the rest of the year as punishment.
* Wow the Niners are awesome right now, eh? Beyond words, really. The Sports Guy couldn't have been more wrong about his super sleeper (Atlanta), but he was bang on again in predicting that the fashionable sleeper would go down in flames big time this year. As he accurately pointed out, there's a "sleeper" every year that the public and media just love, and every year that team sucks. I gotta admit, although I didn't love the Niners as much as some, I sure didn't see this coming. It's like they decided "hey remember the '89 49ers? Let's be just like them- except the exact opposite!!" The only thing they're good at is throwing to defensive tackles. The Vikes set an NFL record with three different DT's getting picks today. So they've got that going for them, which is nice.
* Hahaha oh Lovie Smith, you're such a character! Looks like the Chicago Bears head coach pulled a fast one on ol' Vikes coach Brad Childress by sneaking the Bears' Adrian Peterson into the lineup in place of the Vikes Adrian Peterson. Because there's no way in hell the REAL AP would have 14 carries for three yards against a team as bad as San Francisco. Wait what? He did? That was him? No freaking way.
* Call me cynical, and some have, but I still don't trust this Vikes team. Now, please keep in mind that I didn't get to see the game today, so I'm just going by highlights and stats. There's the little tidbit about the Niners OUTGAINING the Vikes 284 to 280, most of that done with something called Sean Hill at quarterback. Hill also had as many rushing yards as AP. 84 of Minny's 280 came on one Chester Taylor TD run in the second quarter. Against a good team that's not going to turn the ball over five times, do the Vikes win today? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they won, but I still don't trust them.
* Fine, since you're probably wondering, here's who I do trust: Pats, Colts, Cowboys. Kinda trust: Pack, Steelers, Jags, and...yup that's it. Everybody else has major holes. The Chargers? Not with Phil Rivers. The Browns? They're the Browns. It never works out for them. It's a 4.5 team league right now.
* Finally, good to have the Colts back. You wonder if tonight's woodshed-style beatdown of the Ravens (um how does Brian Billick still have a job? Anyone? Look at that team and tell me how they're just 4-9? Anyone?) wasn't a message to the nation that the Colts are still going to be a force in the playoffs, and that we should all be getting ready for Colts/Pats II in the AFC Championship game. Giddyup I say!
Alrighty then, that's all for now. If you need me, I'll be tis'ing the season. Tis'ing the crap out of it, to be exact. You tis that season and you tis it good!
* Hey they got a Heisman vote right! Congrats to all the people who vote for sports' most overrated and overhyped award. I do not like how voters and pundits get all worked up about tradition and not voting for sophomores, and wanting to uphold the image of the award by voting for players that will make good pros because guys like Jason White, Gino Torretta, Danny Wuerfell...holy crap there's been a lot of great college players who were craptastic in the NFL...and the rest "tarnished" the Heisman because they sucked in the pros. First of all, was that the longest run-on sentence I've ever typed? Quite possibly was. But more importantly, last time I checked, and for the sake of accuracy let me just check again here...hang on...yup- the Heisman is still an award for the most outstanding COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYER. Not the best pro prospect, not the best quarterback on the best team, but the best player from that year. Tim Tebow was the best college player this year. His 22 rushing TD's broke the SEC's single-season record for rushing TD's by any player at any position. Pretty sure the SEC has had a couple of good players over the years, especially running backs, so that's pretty impressive. As a passer, he had the second best QB rating in the country, his 3132 passing yds were third in the SEC, and his 29 TD's tied for second. As one college football scribe said before the vote (I think it was E!SPN's Bruce Feldman, but I can't remember and I'm not going back to look right now), just the rushing TD's are incredibly impressive, and his passing totals by themselves are also Heisman worthy. Put them together, and it's a no-brainer.
* By the way, how are you feeling about the bowl games? Good? Bad? Indifferent? I'm personally excited for Georgia-Hawaii. Georgia's been one of the best teams in the country since Tennessee took them out to the woodshed in October, and I really want to see how good Colt Brennan and the Warriors are against a real team. That'll be a fun one. USC/Illinois? Good gawd almighty, I love the Pac 10/Big 10 Rose Bowl tradition, but Illinois? Really? I thought the incentive for WINNING the Big 10 was to go to the Rose Bowl? Now apparently you finish second, lose three games, and hey "you're Rose Bowl material". At this point, what would be wrong with everybody playing everybody in the Big 10 and only having 2 non conference games a year? Would anybody be against this? Oh right, the school presidents would. Just like how they're against a playoff system. They're against these things, but they're for adding a 12th game against a 1-AA school to pad their team's stats. I love that almost as much as I love the mediocrity and parity that's running roughshod over this game right now like Tebow ran over defenses this year. We're just a few years away from handing out bowl invitations to every school that fields a D-1 team. That's probably Notre Dame's best hope for a bowl right now. ZING!
* Did you ever think there'd be a time when I'd need to get my dominance/Evil Empire fix from the NFL? Me neither. Didn't see that one coming. Damn did the Pats ever look good again. Um, hey Andy Smith or Adam Smith? Aaron Smith? Anthony Smith? A-hole Smith? Whoever the Smith guy is for the Steelers who decided it'd be a good idea to "guarantee" a victory over the Pats really should have talked to me before he went ahead and lost the game for Pittsburgh before it even started. It's bad enough I'd never heard of you before you made your genius guarantee (trust me, if I haven't heard of you, neither has 99.9% of NFL fans), but is that not the one thing the Pats were hoping for? This is a team that's been using the fact they got caught cheating as motivation as a "slight" against them. So you thought it'd be a good idea to give them a legitimate slight by guaranteeing a victory? How'd that work out for you? 34-13, that's how. Nice move. You should have to play for the 49ers the rest of the year as punishment.
* Wow the Niners are awesome right now, eh? Beyond words, really. The Sports Guy couldn't have been more wrong about his super sleeper (Atlanta), but he was bang on again in predicting that the fashionable sleeper would go down in flames big time this year. As he accurately pointed out, there's a "sleeper" every year that the public and media just love, and every year that team sucks. I gotta admit, although I didn't love the Niners as much as some, I sure didn't see this coming. It's like they decided "hey remember the '89 49ers? Let's be just like them- except the exact opposite!!" The only thing they're good at is throwing to defensive tackles. The Vikes set an NFL record with three different DT's getting picks today. So they've got that going for them, which is nice.
* Hahaha oh Lovie Smith, you're such a character! Looks like the Chicago Bears head coach pulled a fast one on ol' Vikes coach Brad Childress by sneaking the Bears' Adrian Peterson into the lineup in place of the Vikes Adrian Peterson. Because there's no way in hell the REAL AP would have 14 carries for three yards against a team as bad as San Francisco. Wait what? He did? That was him? No freaking way.
* Call me cynical, and some have, but I still don't trust this Vikes team. Now, please keep in mind that I didn't get to see the game today, so I'm just going by highlights and stats. There's the little tidbit about the Niners OUTGAINING the Vikes 284 to 280, most of that done with something called Sean Hill at quarterback. Hill also had as many rushing yards as AP. 84 of Minny's 280 came on one Chester Taylor TD run in the second quarter. Against a good team that's not going to turn the ball over five times, do the Vikes win today? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they won, but I still don't trust them.
* Fine, since you're probably wondering, here's who I do trust: Pats, Colts, Cowboys. Kinda trust: Pack, Steelers, Jags, and...yup that's it. Everybody else has major holes. The Chargers? Not with Phil Rivers. The Browns? They're the Browns. It never works out for them. It's a 4.5 team league right now.
* Finally, good to have the Colts back. You wonder if tonight's woodshed-style beatdown of the Ravens (um how does Brian Billick still have a job? Anyone? Look at that team and tell me how they're just 4-9? Anyone?) wasn't a message to the nation that the Colts are still going to be a force in the playoffs, and that we should all be getting ready for Colts/Pats II in the AFC Championship game. Giddyup I say!
Alrighty then, that's all for now. If you need me, I'll be tis'ing the season. Tis'ing the crap out of it, to be exact. You tis that season and you tis it good!
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Football Musings
A whole bunch of football-related thoughts bouncing around my red-headed noggin...
* First and foremost, I was biased and wrong about Sean Taylor of the Redskins. Coming from the "U" of Miami where they've had more than their share of players arrested for gun-related incidents, and with Taylor's handgun incident in 2005, when I heard last week that he was shot in his home and was listed in critical condition, I was not at all surprised. I figured he had gotten caught up in something bad, and it came back to get him. After his death, the investigation, and the arrest of four young suspects, it turns out he did absolutely nothing wrong, and did nothing to deserve this. So even though I didn't share my bias against Taylor in this space, I was still thinking it, and I'm sorry. I was wrong. Peter King has an excellent piece on Taylor in his MMQB column.
* If you haven't watched the Adrian Peterson highlights from the Vikings win over Detroit last Sunday, do yourself a favor. He had some impressive runs throughout that package, but washis second TD run not a Barry Sanders-type move? That poor Detwah LB was waiting in the hole flat-footed for AP, and Peterson goes by him like he's not even there. HE DIDN"T EVEN TOUCH HIM!! I knew AP was fast and powerful, but I did not know he had that kind of agility. I'm not going to say anymore since he'll probably get injured again next week. But for right now, loving Adrian Peterson.
* Tavaris Jackson's play of late is another example of how little patience myself, and sports fans in general, have anymore. For the first nine games of the year Jackson was awful, and it was looking like Brad Kick Ass OFfense Childress made a huge mistake thinking Jackson was ready to play QB in the NFL. Through patience, stubborness and/or arrogance, as well as the ineffective play of Kelly Holcumb and Brooks Bollinger, Chilly stuck with Jackson. Sure he had not other options, but since reinserting him as a starter three weeks ago in the win against Oakland, Jackson has actually looked like an NFL quarterback. While three games aren't a large sample size, he's 45-58 (77.5 comp.%) for 504 yds for 3 TD's and 2 picks in the Vikes last three games, all wins. Hall of Fame numbers they're not, but if this continues the rest of the season, the Vikings could be just a couple of receivers away from being a contender in 2008.
* Speaking of the rest of the season, with four games remaining (at SF, home Bears and Skinnies, at Bronch) it's very possible the Vikes could win out and finish at 10-6. Of course it's also very possible that AP gets hurt again, pre-3-game-win-streak T-Jack resurfaces and the Vikes lose two, three or all four of their remaining games. You'd have to be insane to bet either way on the Vikings, or anybody else for that matter. Well except for maybe the Patriots.
* OK, I'll admit it: I was rooting for the Pats to win last night. I'm also rooting for them to go undefeated in the regular season. I don't care if they win the Super Bowl or not, but it's infinitely more interesting if New England is undefeated going into January.
* Last Patriots-related thought: are you prepared for the 2008 Patriots with Darren McFadden or Glenn Dorsey? The Pats hold the Niners #1 pick, which at this point looks all but guaranteed to be in the top 3. With at least three good quarterbacks available in this spring's draft (Andre Woodson of Kentucky, Matt Ryan of BC and Brian Brohm of Louisville), it's also almost guaranteed that the Patriots will have their choice of the best two talents in the draft: the amazing Arkansas RB or the bull-dozing LSU DT. I personally think the Pats should take McFadden, solidifying their offense as the best in history. But since everybody undervalues RB's in the draft now (and for good reason), they could also take the second biggest impact guy in Dorsey. Either way, the rich are about to get a lot richer. I thought that wasn't supposed to happen in this age of parity?
* Finally, one college football note: Josh Elliott, who I think is now an anchor for Sportscenter (I say "I think" because in Canada we get TSN's Sportscentre, which is infinitely worse than ESPN's Sportscenter. I know, I know, you didn't think it was possible, but trust me, it is). He was trying to make one of those fun controversial statements that ESPN just loves. This one was about how unjust the BCS system is. While that's not controversial at all, his big point of emphasis was, if only because it's so insane and made absolutely no sense: Elliott's big point on why the BCS is so wrong this season is, and I'm paraphrasing here, "it would be like if the NFL had the BCS instead of a playoff this season, and decided Tennessee and Green Bay would play for the Super Bowl, leaving New England and Dallas out!"
Um Josh? No it's not. It's not like that at all. The flaw in the BCS System is not that it doesn't reward the powerful marquee "BCS Conference" teams who go undefeated: the flaw in the BCS System is that it has no way of fairly determining who should play for the title if there's not two clear-cut marquee teams. It's flawed because you can only determine this if you have a playoff, and the BCS is not a playoff.
Therefore, if the NFL had a BCS system, New England and Dallas would be selected for the Super Bowl. They are both marquee teams (ie a "BCS Conference" team) with the two best records in the league. What I think Elliott was trying to argue is that it's unfair somebody like Hawaii (who went undefeated against a JV schedule) or Kansas (one loss against an equally pitiful sched) should be in the BCS title game. First of all, that's just wrong. Neither are more deserving than Ohio State or LSU. Second, the NFL example he gave is, as I've stated, just plain wrong. The NFL equivalent of what happened in college football this season would be if Arizona and Tennessee had the two best records, but did so playing only teams from the NFC West, NFC South, and the CFL, while the Pats and Cowboys did so against a real NFL schedule. THAT'S an accurate comparison of what college football looked like this year. Is the BCS flawed? Obviously and yet still it doesn't prove that the BCS got their selections wrong this year.
* First and foremost, I was biased and wrong about Sean Taylor of the Redskins. Coming from the "U" of Miami where they've had more than their share of players arrested for gun-related incidents, and with Taylor's handgun incident in 2005, when I heard last week that he was shot in his home and was listed in critical condition, I was not at all surprised. I figured he had gotten caught up in something bad, and it came back to get him. After his death, the investigation, and the arrest of four young suspects, it turns out he did absolutely nothing wrong, and did nothing to deserve this. So even though I didn't share my bias against Taylor in this space, I was still thinking it, and I'm sorry. I was wrong. Peter King has an excellent piece on Taylor in his MMQB column.
* If you haven't watched the Adrian Peterson highlights from the Vikings win over Detroit last Sunday, do yourself a favor. He had some impressive runs throughout that package, but washis second TD run not a Barry Sanders-type move? That poor Detwah LB was waiting in the hole flat-footed for AP, and Peterson goes by him like he's not even there. HE DIDN"T EVEN TOUCH HIM!! I knew AP was fast and powerful, but I did not know he had that kind of agility. I'm not going to say anymore since he'll probably get injured again next week. But for right now, loving Adrian Peterson.
* Tavaris Jackson's play of late is another example of how little patience myself, and sports fans in general, have anymore. For the first nine games of the year Jackson was awful, and it was looking like Brad Kick Ass OFfense Childress made a huge mistake thinking Jackson was ready to play QB in the NFL. Through patience, stubborness and/or arrogance, as well as the ineffective play of Kelly Holcumb and Brooks Bollinger, Chilly stuck with Jackson. Sure he had not other options, but since reinserting him as a starter three weeks ago in the win against Oakland, Jackson has actually looked like an NFL quarterback. While three games aren't a large sample size, he's 45-58 (77.5 comp.%) for 504 yds for 3 TD's and 2 picks in the Vikes last three games, all wins. Hall of Fame numbers they're not, but if this continues the rest of the season, the Vikings could be just a couple of receivers away from being a contender in 2008.
* Speaking of the rest of the season, with four games remaining (at SF, home Bears and Skinnies, at Bronch) it's very possible the Vikes could win out and finish at 10-6. Of course it's also very possible that AP gets hurt again, pre-3-game-win-streak T-Jack resurfaces and the Vikes lose two, three or all four of their remaining games. You'd have to be insane to bet either way on the Vikings, or anybody else for that matter. Well except for maybe the Patriots.
* OK, I'll admit it: I was rooting for the Pats to win last night. I'm also rooting for them to go undefeated in the regular season. I don't care if they win the Super Bowl or not, but it's infinitely more interesting if New England is undefeated going into January.
* Last Patriots-related thought: are you prepared for the 2008 Patriots with Darren McFadden or Glenn Dorsey? The Pats hold the Niners #1 pick, which at this point looks all but guaranteed to be in the top 3. With at least three good quarterbacks available in this spring's draft (Andre Woodson of Kentucky, Matt Ryan of BC and Brian Brohm of Louisville), it's also almost guaranteed that the Patriots will have their choice of the best two talents in the draft: the amazing Arkansas RB or the bull-dozing LSU DT. I personally think the Pats should take McFadden, solidifying their offense as the best in history. But since everybody undervalues RB's in the draft now (and for good reason), they could also take the second biggest impact guy in Dorsey. Either way, the rich are about to get a lot richer. I thought that wasn't supposed to happen in this age of parity?
* Finally, one college football note: Josh Elliott, who I think is now an anchor for Sportscenter (I say "I think" because in Canada we get TSN's Sportscentre, which is infinitely worse than ESPN's Sportscenter. I know, I know, you didn't think it was possible, but trust me, it is). He was trying to make one of those fun controversial statements that ESPN just loves. This one was about how unjust the BCS system is. While that's not controversial at all, his big point of emphasis was, if only because it's so insane and made absolutely no sense: Elliott's big point on why the BCS is so wrong this season is, and I'm paraphrasing here, "it would be like if the NFL had the BCS instead of a playoff this season, and decided Tennessee and Green Bay would play for the Super Bowl, leaving New England and Dallas out!"
Um Josh? No it's not. It's not like that at all. The flaw in the BCS System is not that it doesn't reward the powerful marquee "BCS Conference" teams who go undefeated: the flaw in the BCS System is that it has no way of fairly determining who should play for the title if there's not two clear-cut marquee teams. It's flawed because you can only determine this if you have a playoff, and the BCS is not a playoff.
Therefore, if the NFL had a BCS system, New England and Dallas would be selected for the Super Bowl. They are both marquee teams (ie a "BCS Conference" team) with the two best records in the league. What I think Elliott was trying to argue is that it's unfair somebody like Hawaii (who went undefeated against a JV schedule) or Kansas (one loss against an equally pitiful sched) should be in the BCS title game. First of all, that's just wrong. Neither are more deserving than Ohio State or LSU. Second, the NFL example he gave is, as I've stated, just plain wrong. The NFL equivalent of what happened in college football this season would be if Arizona and Tennessee had the two best records, but did so playing only teams from the NFC West, NFC South, and the CFL, while the Pats and Cowboys did so against a real NFL schedule. THAT'S an accurate comparison of what college football looked like this year. Is the BCS flawed? Obviously and yet still it doesn't prove that the BCS got their selections wrong this year.
Friday, November 30, 2007
A Simple Rule for Sports Fans
So there's a kid in one of my classes named Adam who likes to rip on other people's favorite teams when they do poorly. I'm not sure if he does this because he doesn't know any better, so I'm not trying to pick on him. He's 18 and Canadian, and doesn't cheer for the local teams because he spent part of his adolescence in Northern Alberta. He also cheers for not one but two different NFL teams: the Packers because of Brett Favre and the Saints because of Reggie Bush. Basically his affiliation for NFL teams changes with the direction of the wind. Adam's a great guy but this particular habit of his bothers me.
I was talking today with my buddy Mark, who is a lifelong Cowboys fan (and a Notre Dame fan...don't even get me started), and was congratulating him on the win over the Pack last night. Anyway, Pack/Saints fan jumps in about how great Favre is, I rip on his comments, and he responds with: "well at least they're better than the Vikings."
The Sports Guy did a whole list of rules for being a sports fan, and I'm not here to recreate the list, or make my own, but I am here to say he missed a major one: you can't rip on other people's teams when you don't have a vested interest in a team in that sport or even that game. Or if you're an extremely fair weather fan.
I may rip on the NHL or CFL to my buddies here who are fans of teams in those leagues, but I would never consider ripping on their TEAMS for poor performances. Although I like to see the Canucks do well, I don't have an emotional interest in their performance. Do I like to see the Canucks do well? Of course, but I'm certainly not living or dying by how they're doing. I've watched maybe 4 games all year. For me to rip on, say, an Oilers fan like Mark because the Oilers are having a rough year would be just plain wrong. Criminal almost (the Maple Leafs are an exception to this: The Leafs, their fans, and Toronto in general should be ripped on whenever possible. Because everyone hates Toronto. That's another rule).
So for Adam, who won't be a Packers fan after Favre retires, and could stop cheering for the Saints if he'd just realize how overrated Reggie Bush is, shouldn't be allowed to rip on me as a Vikings fan. Let's be honest: I've been a Vikings fan for as long as Adam's been alive. Longer even. Sure, that's perhaps a pathetic indication that I'm still in school at 29, but it also says fans should have the decency not to do this.
There are not rules for being a sports fan, and considering that teams, especially professional ones, show no loyalty to us as fans, Adam has every right and reason to cheer for whoever the hell he wants. I'm just saying that for stupid people like me who blindly cheer for the same team their entire lives, there should be a level of respect there. It's just common courtesy.
I was talking today with my buddy Mark, who is a lifelong Cowboys fan (and a Notre Dame fan...don't even get me started), and was congratulating him on the win over the Pack last night. Anyway, Pack/Saints fan jumps in about how great Favre is, I rip on his comments, and he responds with: "well at least they're better than the Vikings."
The Sports Guy did a whole list of rules for being a sports fan, and I'm not here to recreate the list, or make my own, but I am here to say he missed a major one: you can't rip on other people's teams when you don't have a vested interest in a team in that sport or even that game. Or if you're an extremely fair weather fan.
I may rip on the NHL or CFL to my buddies here who are fans of teams in those leagues, but I would never consider ripping on their TEAMS for poor performances. Although I like to see the Canucks do well, I don't have an emotional interest in their performance. Do I like to see the Canucks do well? Of course, but I'm certainly not living or dying by how they're doing. I've watched maybe 4 games all year. For me to rip on, say, an Oilers fan like Mark because the Oilers are having a rough year would be just plain wrong. Criminal almost (the Maple Leafs are an exception to this: The Leafs, their fans, and Toronto in general should be ripped on whenever possible. Because everyone hates Toronto. That's another rule).
So for Adam, who won't be a Packers fan after Favre retires, and could stop cheering for the Saints if he'd just realize how overrated Reggie Bush is, shouldn't be allowed to rip on me as a Vikings fan. Let's be honest: I've been a Vikings fan for as long as Adam's been alive. Longer even. Sure, that's perhaps a pathetic indication that I'm still in school at 29, but it also says fans should have the decency not to do this.
There are not rules for being a sports fan, and considering that teams, especially professional ones, show no loyalty to us as fans, Adam has every right and reason to cheer for whoever the hell he wants. I'm just saying that for stupid people like me who blindly cheer for the same team their entire lives, there should be a level of respect there. It's just common courtesy.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Twins...Rebuilding?
It's Hot Stove League time in major league baseball, and for a change, the Twins are right in the middle of the action. Sure, they're sellers instead of buyers, but it's still nice to have a lot of Twins talk nationally. As you may or may not know, I'm not Twinkies owner Carl Pohlad's biggest fan. Pretty sure I've been up front about that, especially on how he repeatedly held the Twins back by not letting former GM Terry Ryan (it feels weird to type "former". He's been the Twins GM forever) go after that big impact bat that would cost a lot of money but would put the team over the top.
To some, letting Torii Hunter walk, and pushing to trade allstar pitchers Johan Santana and Joe Nathan, seems like a complete slap in the face to not only Twins fans, but tax payers in Minnesota who are footing the bill for the brand new ball park. Sure, this looks like Pohlad was lying when he said to give him a new stadium and he'll give the fans a winner. I know how this looks, but I'm telling you, seriously, honestly, and with all sarcasm aside, it's not what it looks like.
Are the Twins rebuilding? Yes, sort of. They're repositioning themselves to be a contender for when the new ballpark opens in 2010. Although the fans don't like it, this is absolutely positively what they should be doing. Keep in mind I'm saying this as a third party observer who has no real emotional or irrational feelings towards the team. And maybe this is why I'm so excited for the Twins, because they're building the right way (as a Mariners fan this is a foreign concept, and frankly one I'm jealous of).
As of right now, even IF the Twins resigned Torii Hunter to that horrendous $90 million dollar deal and somehow found a way to keep Santana longterm, guess what? They're still the third or fourth best team in their DIVISION. Not just the league, or even the American League, but the AL Central. The Indians and Tigers are World Series contenders, and the White Sox, if they make a few minor adjustments, have to be considered at least as good as Minnesota. So what's the point of the Twins going for broke when the chances are slim that all that salary won't get them much closer to a World Series title?
Before the words are even out of your mouth, I know your retort to as a Twins fan is that trading star players or letting them walk sets a very bad presidence for their current young players and any potential free agents who want to play for a winner. While that's a valid argument, I don't think it should be a concern, at least not right now, and certainly not enough to focus the roster and organization on being World Series-ready by 2010.
They tried to resign Santana, with rumored offers of $15-$20 million a year, but that doesn't even get them into negotiations at this point, not when the big boys can give him $25-$30 million a year. And I know, he should be loyal and stay for the hometown discount, but come on: no matter how much you like your current job and where you live, if a company in, say, Seattle or Boston or New York offered you double the salary and better position you'd say no? Really? I doubt it. Although I admire the people who have the peace of mind to take less money, I don't think you should think less of Santana for taking the big raise.
Wait, this was not supposed to be about defending Johan, but rather the Twins, so I digress. Even sans Johan, Torii and Joe Nathan, the Twins are still in great shape with plenty of good, young, cheap players that are under team control long term. That's a very enviable position to be in. Shopping Santana now is going to net them, if you believe the rumors, AT LEAST 2 major league-ready blue chip players, plus a third or fourth good prospect and/or quality major league regular. So right now, you've got Mauer, Morneausy, Cuddyer, and probably Bartlett locked into regular starting gigs at C, 1B, RF, and SS. The organization is flush with good young arms, so they're more than covered in pitching, especially with at least one shttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifuper-duper young arm coming back in any Santana deal. It's a luxury that few other teams have. The major holes are centerfield, a "toolsy" young outfielder, a third baseman that doesn't suck (that means NOT playing little Nicky Punto and his .206 average at the hot corner), and a league average second baseman. They SHOULD be able to get some or all of that back in deals for Santana, Nathan, and even Matt Garza, giving the players a few years develop and be ready for a major push.
A team built like this may not make the playoffs next year, but they'll be fun to watch for the fans, and could really surprise sooner rather than later. I'm telling you Twinkies fans, this is going to look really good when the new park opens and the Twins have one of the best teams in baseball.
Finally, I though I'd give my two cents on what trades or players I like for the Twins to acquire...but considering how long this is already, I'll save it for my next post. However, I had to comment on the that surfaced today: yes, this is the same Delmon Young who threw a bat at an umpire and got suspended 50 games. He's also the same guy who was the undisputed #1 prospect in baseball before that incident. Last year, his first in the majors, he hit .288/.316/.406 with 13 home runs while playing solid outfield defense. Although the low power totals are a little troubling, he's still a 22 year old with all star potential. He's also righthanded, and if the power comes around like scouts think it should, he'd be the perfect compliment to the left handed sticks of Mauer and Morneau. YEs, he could be a headcase/problem child like Albert Belle or Carl Everett, or it could have been a simple case of immaturity and a teenager being given too much too fast. If the Twins can get this deal done, it's a great gamble for them. I just hope the D-Rays don't realize how good a player they're giving up before pulling the trigger.
To some, letting Torii Hunter walk, and pushing to trade allstar pitchers Johan Santana and Joe Nathan, seems like a complete slap in the face to not only Twins fans, but tax payers in Minnesota who are footing the bill for the brand new ball park. Sure, this looks like Pohlad was lying when he said to give him a new stadium and he'll give the fans a winner. I know how this looks, but I'm telling you, seriously, honestly, and with all sarcasm aside, it's not what it looks like.
Are the Twins rebuilding? Yes, sort of. They're repositioning themselves to be a contender for when the new ballpark opens in 2010. Although the fans don't like it, this is absolutely positively what they should be doing. Keep in mind I'm saying this as a third party observer who has no real emotional or irrational feelings towards the team. And maybe this is why I'm so excited for the Twins, because they're building the right way (as a Mariners fan this is a foreign concept, and frankly one I'm jealous of).
As of right now, even IF the Twins resigned Torii Hunter to that horrendous $90 million dollar deal and somehow found a way to keep Santana longterm, guess what? They're still the third or fourth best team in their DIVISION. Not just the league, or even the American League, but the AL Central. The Indians and Tigers are World Series contenders, and the White Sox, if they make a few minor adjustments, have to be considered at least as good as Minnesota. So what's the point of the Twins going for broke when the chances are slim that all that salary won't get them much closer to a World Series title?
Before the words are even out of your mouth, I know your retort to as a Twins fan is that trading star players or letting them walk sets a very bad presidence for their current young players and any potential free agents who want to play for a winner. While that's a valid argument, I don't think it should be a concern, at least not right now, and certainly not enough to focus the roster and organization on being World Series-ready by 2010.
They tried to resign Santana, with rumored offers of $15-$20 million a year, but that doesn't even get them into negotiations at this point, not when the big boys can give him $25-$30 million a year. And I know, he should be loyal and stay for the hometown discount, but come on: no matter how much you like your current job and where you live, if a company in, say, Seattle or Boston or New York offered you double the salary and better position you'd say no? Really? I doubt it. Although I admire the people who have the peace of mind to take less money, I don't think you should think less of Santana for taking the big raise.
Wait, this was not supposed to be about defending Johan, but rather the Twins, so I digress. Even sans Johan, Torii and Joe Nathan, the Twins are still in great shape with plenty of good, young, cheap players that are under team control long term. That's a very enviable position to be in. Shopping Santana now is going to net them, if you believe the rumors, AT LEAST 2 major league-ready blue chip players, plus a third or fourth good prospect and/or quality major league regular. So right now, you've got Mauer, Morneausy, Cuddyer, and probably Bartlett locked into regular starting gigs at C, 1B, RF, and SS. The organization is flush with good young arms, so they're more than covered in pitching, especially with at least one shttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifuper-duper young arm coming back in any Santana deal. It's a luxury that few other teams have. The major holes are centerfield, a "toolsy" young outfielder, a third baseman that doesn't suck (that means NOT playing little Nicky Punto and his .206 average at the hot corner), and a league average second baseman. They SHOULD be able to get some or all of that back in deals for Santana, Nathan, and even Matt Garza, giving the players a few years develop and be ready for a major push.
A team built like this may not make the playoffs next year, but they'll be fun to watch for the fans, and could really surprise sooner rather than later. I'm telling you Twinkies fans, this is going to look really good when the new park opens and the Twins have one of the best teams in baseball.
Finally, I though I'd give my two cents on what trades or players I like for the Twins to acquire...but considering how long this is already, I'll save it for my next post. However, I had to comment on the that surfaced today: yes, this is the same Delmon Young who threw a bat at an umpire and got suspended 50 games. He's also the same guy who was the undisputed #1 prospect in baseball before that incident. Last year, his first in the majors, he hit .288/.316/.406 with 13 home runs while playing solid outfield defense. Although the low power totals are a little troubling, he's still a 22 year old with all star potential. He's also righthanded, and if the power comes around like scouts think it should, he'd be the perfect compliment to the left handed sticks of Mauer and Morneau. YEs, he could be a headcase/problem child like Albert Belle or Carl Everett, or it could have been a simple case of immaturity and a teenager being given too much too fast. If the Twins can get this deal done, it's a great gamble for them. I just hope the D-Rays don't realize how good a player they're giving up before pulling the trigger.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Happy Thanksgiving
I should probably do a "Here's what I'm thankful for post" since, you know, it's Thanksgiving and all. But I've been gone so long, I thought instead I'd share some of the things I've been thinking over the last month or so...
...American Thanksgiving is far superior to Canadian Thanksgiving. I saw a story on the news last night that many Canadians take American Thanksgiving off so they can watch football, eat turkey and stuffing and mashed pertaters, and, if you're fortunate, the green bean casserole that Jer's grandma makes. This isn't to argue that we should only celebrate American Thanksgiving, it's that it seems reasonable to celebrate both. Who doesn't want more days off, and MORE Thanksgiving food? Exactly. When I become King of the World, or at least the continent, we will get days off for both Thanksgivings. Also, the Monday after the Super Bowl AND the first two days of March Madness will be official holidays. Who are we kidding? Nobody works those days anyway, so why not get a paid day off?
...I'm not as Canadian in Canada as I am in America. This is just a fact. The two sports everybody talks about here are hockey and the Canadian Football League. While I enjoy hockey, I hate the NHL as currently run. And the CFL? There's 8 teams in the league, and the players are guys who aren't good enough to play in the NFL. Who cares? Many Canadians, that's who. For the life of me I'll never understand why.
...On a related note, the big news up here is Toronto getting a few Buffalo Bills home games. For everybody outside of Ontario, this is supposedly a terrible thing because obviously Toronto is a much better market than Buffalo (TO's in the top 10 for population for cities in Canada or the USA), so it would make sense that the Bills will eventually make a permanent move to Toronto (current Bills owner Ralph Wilson has already said when he dies, and he's 89 years old, the team will not be inherited by his family, but instead be sold to the highest bidder- and there's nobody in Buffalo who could outbid the people in Toronto). Anywho, so when the Bills officially move, it means the CFL's Toronto Argos will fold, and then so will the CFL. People here are honestly angry at Toronto for wanting an NFL franchise because it will ruin the CFL for the rest of the country. This is ridiculous on so many levels, but let's just concentrate on this one: TV ratings for the NFL in Canada are huge, certainly better than that of the CFL. Here in Vancouver we have BC Place Stadium (which is identical to the Metrodome- just remember we built ours first!). For BC Lions CFL games, they close off the entire upper bowl, and a "sell out" is considered filling the lower bowl. Even then, in order to put a Lions home game on TV, they need to sell 35,000 tickets, which they rarely do. And yet the Lions probably have the best attendance in the league. Compare that to the NFL, where a crappy crowd for a game is still 50-60,000, or almost twice as many as a good CFL crowd.
Now, I hate Toronto for reasons I won't go into, but it's just ludicrous to knock Toronto for wanting to get a franchise that will make them hundreds of millions of dollars. I'm apparently a really awful person, and anti-Canadian even, any time I point this out. People here in Vancouver also fail to see that WHEN Toronto gets a franchise, and it's well supported, that the next logical place to relocate a franchise to is Vancouver. We've got a population that's top 20 for the continent, a first-class city that's one of those "Gateway to the Pacific Rim" cities that everybody seems so excited about, and there's a ton of money here. So when the Saints or Chargers or Jaguars are moved, they'll be moved here. Then nobody would complain about the CFL when we have an NFL team. But again, I'm anti-Canadian for thinking like this.
...As you may have noticed from the last item, I refuse to call the NFL the National Football League. People here do it with the NHL too by always referring to it as the National Hockey League. I'm not saying it's wrong to not use the abbreviation, I’m just not sure it's right either.
...For Twins fans that didn't want Torii Hunter to leave: trust me, the Twinkies did the right thing here. $90 million for a 32 year old center fielder with bad knees is not a good investment for anybody, but especially for Minnesota. I know he's a good guy and great clubhouse presence and he was one of the few guys with power in the lineup, but his best years are behind him. Will they miss that bat in the lineup? Yes, but I still refuse to believe he'll keep consistently hitting as well as he did last year. He's also not the defender he used to be, and considering defense is part of the reason he's so valuable, well, under no circumstances is he worth anywhere close to $90 million.
...Also, the Angels will now be paying $53 million for four outfielders next year. Um, you can still only start 3, right? Right?
...I don't buy the argument that the Patriots won't go for 16-0. Have you been watching this team? I understand the position that if they're 15-0 heading into the Meadowlands to face the Giants with home field locked up, it would be foolish to risk injuries by playing your starters in a meaningless game for a silly record that will have no impact on whether or not they win the Super Bowl. While this is logical, it's gone completely against the way the Patriots have played with the ginourmous and collective chip on their shoulder they've been playing with. Winning the Super Bowl? Yes, they want to do that, but I think they also want to obliterate every team in their path, and leave no doubt they're the greatest team ever. It's the only way to explain the rampage they've been on this season. At no point have they showed signs of letting up in a game, so I'm not sure why they'd do so when they're one game away from a perfect regular season.
...If anything, I think Don Shula's comments about putting an asterisk on their record if they go undefeated was the clincher that the Pats WILL go for 16-0. New England is proving that they're taking every slight and negative comment against them, and that for Shula to say things like that, well, call it throwing gasoline on a forest fire. Well done Don: not only will the 2007 Dolphins be the first team to ever go winless, but your whiny comments will now ensured that the 1972 Dolphins will not be the only team to ever go undefeated, ruining the only claim to fame that team really had.
...We are living in a world where the Green Bay Packers are 10-1.
...We are also living in world where the second biggest game of the year, Cowboys vs. Packers, is on the NFL Network, and cannot be seen by the vast majority of television viewers.
...While I hate Canadian sports television 95% of the time, there are four redeeming things about it:
1) No WNBA. Ever.
2) No Stu Scott or Linda Cohen. Ever.
3) During March Madness, one of the sports stations will run a different game than CBS has on. So you get two games for the price of one.
4) TSN (which they say stands for The Sports Network, but really stands for Toronto Sports Network) carries every game the NFL Network does. So I will get to watch the Cowboys/Packers game from the comfort of my couch.
...Finally, I can't think of two NFL franchises I hate more than the Cowboys and Packers. And yet, I'm really excited for the game Thursday night.
...Happy Thanksgiving everyone, and now that it's passed, let me be the first to say MERRY CHRISTMAS!
...American Thanksgiving is far superior to Canadian Thanksgiving. I saw a story on the news last night that many Canadians take American Thanksgiving off so they can watch football, eat turkey and stuffing and mashed pertaters, and, if you're fortunate, the green bean casserole that Jer's grandma makes. This isn't to argue that we should only celebrate American Thanksgiving, it's that it seems reasonable to celebrate both. Who doesn't want more days off, and MORE Thanksgiving food? Exactly. When I become King of the World, or at least the continent, we will get days off for both Thanksgivings. Also, the Monday after the Super Bowl AND the first two days of March Madness will be official holidays. Who are we kidding? Nobody works those days anyway, so why not get a paid day off?
...I'm not as Canadian in Canada as I am in America. This is just a fact. The two sports everybody talks about here are hockey and the Canadian Football League. While I enjoy hockey, I hate the NHL as currently run. And the CFL? There's 8 teams in the league, and the players are guys who aren't good enough to play in the NFL. Who cares? Many Canadians, that's who. For the life of me I'll never understand why.
...On a related note, the big news up here is Toronto getting a few Buffalo Bills home games. For everybody outside of Ontario, this is supposedly a terrible thing because obviously Toronto is a much better market than Buffalo (TO's in the top 10 for population for cities in Canada or the USA), so it would make sense that the Bills will eventually make a permanent move to Toronto (current Bills owner Ralph Wilson has already said when he dies, and he's 89 years old, the team will not be inherited by his family, but instead be sold to the highest bidder- and there's nobody in Buffalo who could outbid the people in Toronto). Anywho, so when the Bills officially move, it means the CFL's Toronto Argos will fold, and then so will the CFL. People here are honestly angry at Toronto for wanting an NFL franchise because it will ruin the CFL for the rest of the country. This is ridiculous on so many levels, but let's just concentrate on this one: TV ratings for the NFL in Canada are huge, certainly better than that of the CFL. Here in Vancouver we have BC Place Stadium (which is identical to the Metrodome- just remember we built ours first!). For BC Lions CFL games, they close off the entire upper bowl, and a "sell out" is considered filling the lower bowl. Even then, in order to put a Lions home game on TV, they need to sell 35,000 tickets, which they rarely do. And yet the Lions probably have the best attendance in the league. Compare that to the NFL, where a crappy crowd for a game is still 50-60,000, or almost twice as many as a good CFL crowd.
Now, I hate Toronto for reasons I won't go into, but it's just ludicrous to knock Toronto for wanting to get a franchise that will make them hundreds of millions of dollars. I'm apparently a really awful person, and anti-Canadian even, any time I point this out. People here in Vancouver also fail to see that WHEN Toronto gets a franchise, and it's well supported, that the next logical place to relocate a franchise to is Vancouver. We've got a population that's top 20 for the continent, a first-class city that's one of those "Gateway to the Pacific Rim" cities that everybody seems so excited about, and there's a ton of money here. So when the Saints or Chargers or Jaguars are moved, they'll be moved here. Then nobody would complain about the CFL when we have an NFL team. But again, I'm anti-Canadian for thinking like this.
...As you may have noticed from the last item, I refuse to call the NFL the National Football League. People here do it with the NHL too by always referring to it as the National Hockey League. I'm not saying it's wrong to not use the abbreviation, I’m just not sure it's right either.
...For Twins fans that didn't want Torii Hunter to leave: trust me, the Twinkies did the right thing here. $90 million for a 32 year old center fielder with bad knees is not a good investment for anybody, but especially for Minnesota. I know he's a good guy and great clubhouse presence and he was one of the few guys with power in the lineup, but his best years are behind him. Will they miss that bat in the lineup? Yes, but I still refuse to believe he'll keep consistently hitting as well as he did last year. He's also not the defender he used to be, and considering defense is part of the reason he's so valuable, well, under no circumstances is he worth anywhere close to $90 million.
...Also, the Angels will now be paying $53 million for four outfielders next year. Um, you can still only start 3, right? Right?
...I don't buy the argument that the Patriots won't go for 16-0. Have you been watching this team? I understand the position that if they're 15-0 heading into the Meadowlands to face the Giants with home field locked up, it would be foolish to risk injuries by playing your starters in a meaningless game for a silly record that will have no impact on whether or not they win the Super Bowl. While this is logical, it's gone completely against the way the Patriots have played with the ginourmous and collective chip on their shoulder they've been playing with. Winning the Super Bowl? Yes, they want to do that, but I think they also want to obliterate every team in their path, and leave no doubt they're the greatest team ever. It's the only way to explain the rampage they've been on this season. At no point have they showed signs of letting up in a game, so I'm not sure why they'd do so when they're one game away from a perfect regular season.
...If anything, I think Don Shula's comments about putting an asterisk on their record if they go undefeated was the clincher that the Pats WILL go for 16-0. New England is proving that they're taking every slight and negative comment against them, and that for Shula to say things like that, well, call it throwing gasoline on a forest fire. Well done Don: not only will the 2007 Dolphins be the first team to ever go winless, but your whiny comments will now ensured that the 1972 Dolphins will not be the only team to ever go undefeated, ruining the only claim to fame that team really had.
...We are living in a world where the Green Bay Packers are 10-1.
...We are also living in world where the second biggest game of the year, Cowboys vs. Packers, is on the NFL Network, and cannot be seen by the vast majority of television viewers.
...While I hate Canadian sports television 95% of the time, there are four redeeming things about it:
1) No WNBA. Ever.
2) No Stu Scott or Linda Cohen. Ever.
3) During March Madness, one of the sports stations will run a different game than CBS has on. So you get two games for the price of one.
4) TSN (which they say stands for The Sports Network, but really stands for Toronto Sports Network) carries every game the NFL Network does. So I will get to watch the Cowboys/Packers game from the comfort of my couch.
...Finally, I can't think of two NFL franchises I hate more than the Cowboys and Packers. And yet, I'm really excited for the game Thursday night.
...Happy Thanksgiving everyone, and now that it's passed, let me be the first to say MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Friday, November 02, 2007
The Showdown of Showdowns
Hi there, me again. I wanted to get this up Tuesday or Wednesday, but my week has been a tad insane. So forgive me for waiting so long to talk about the Game of the Century: Pats vs Colts. Good vs Evil. Awesome vs Awesome. The two best coaches, the two best quarterbacks, and the two best teams in the league square off in Indy this Sunday at 1:15pm. Short of hell freezing over or a major earthquake, I can't think of anything that will keep me away from the TV Sunday afternoon. It's the first time in history two undefeated teams have met this late in the year. And in my 20+ years watching football, I can't think of a time when two teams were clearly this much better than everybody else. How can this game possibly live up the hype of The Biggest Game in Regular Season history?
That's the best part: it WILL live up to the hype. Surpass it even. There's so many things working in favor of this matchup, we've got a better chance of Brittney Spears winning Parent of the Year than of this game being a stinker. The biggest reason? BOTH teams feels slighted. One of the things I'll never understand is how grown men getting paid obscene amounts of money to play a kid's game need extra motivation from media or fans "doubting" them. The money and joy apparently just aren't enough, so they get their fire from talking heads or newspapers or fan blogs saying they're not good enough.
This has already been pointed out to you, I'm sure, but my favorite story line so far is how the Patriots are ticked off because they were CORRECTLY slighted: they were caught cheating. People called them cheaters. They ARE cheaters. And yet the Pats feel this is an injustice. "How DARE you call us cheaters when we were caught cheating!" I don't know how Bill Belichek has managed to use this as a rallying point, but boy has he! I have never seen a team this mad for this long. In the NBA you'll see Kobe or Gilbert Arenas go off on a team that he feels disrespected him, but it really only lasts for that one game. The Patriots have been playing with a level of anger, hatred, and revenge for 8 straight weeks that even Rambo couldn't top. They CANNOT score enough points or beat a team bad enough. Most teams get up 3 or 4 TD's and either put it in cruise control, or the coach goes ultra-conservative. The Pats? They blitz at every chance, and go 4 wide in the 4th quarter up 30. It's just un-freaking-believable that the whole team is buying into this and WANTS to run up the score. They smell blood in the water and not only go for the kill, but seem to enjoy doing it, ripping their opponents apart piece by piece.
Then we have the Colts. How would you like to be the defending Super Bowl champs, undefeated, and be 5 POINT UNDERDOGS AT HOME?!?!?!?!? That point cannot be stressed enough. It just can't. Never in the history of the world has that happened. Indy's done everything right, beat everybody in their path, and are just as undefeated as the Pats, who oh by the way they beat on their way to the Super Bowl last year, and they're still underdogs AT HOME!!!!
In all the hype for this game, one thing I haven't seen talked about is how this has to be a YUGE advantage to Indy. In the biggest NFL regular season game ever, there's zero pressure on the Colts to win. Think about it: If the Pats lose this game there's going to be an avalanche of criticism about how they've played and what kind of team they are, and what a bunch of a**holes the whole lot of them are. People are DYING to pile on the Patriots and be justified in hating them. But if the Colts lose, well hey they lost to the greatest team in history. They'll get another chance in the AFC Championship game. They were 5 point dogs at home. If the Colts can't beat New England, then nobody can. No big whoop.
There's no pressure AND free motivation for Peyton and Dungy and the rest of them.
The best part about all of this is that both teams wouldn't have it any other way. The Pats have been the Goliath/Anti-Christ since game 2, and have responded by outscoring opponents 331-127. For perspective, the 2nd highest scoring team in the league, the Cowboys, have 227. And yes, they've played one more game than just about everybody, but unless the Cowboys score 104 points this week, the Pats are still well ahead. For the Colts, I can't imagine Peyton Manning, who prepares for every game like it's the biggest of his life, needing extra motivation, but he's got it if he wants it. The Colts have followed in Dungy's footsteps as being the quiet, respectful, reserved, business-like team who'll knock you down, and after the whistle blows help you back up. You can't find more of a contrast in styles.
That's another thing that I haven't heard talked about enough: HOW these teams are winning is having a huge effect on how people perceive this game. Other than the Dolphins game, when the Pats led 42-0 at half in the most impressive 30 minutes of football I've ever seen, New England's huge point totals and margins of victory have been coming because they refuse to pull their starters and go conservative. The Cleveland win in week 5 is the only time where New England didn't have at least one 4th quarter touchdown with their starters in with the game well in hand. Look through the box scores- every game but that one they've got a TD mid to late 4th quarter from their starters with at least a 17 point lead. Is it impressive that they're got at least a 17 point lead in the 4th quarter in 7 of 8 games? Sure, but I still think it skews the thinking on the Patriots. Yes they're winning by a lot, but when they're putting up gaudy numbers BECAUSE they're running up the scores and leaving their starters in, which nobody else is doing.
The Colts, on the other hand, have won 5 of 7 games by at least 17 points, and have just one game, the 41-7 week 1 dismantling of the Saints, where you could say they ran up the score. That's it. If the Colts had continued to pile it on late in games to rack up points and stats, would their wins be more impressive? Maybe.
So who wins Sunday? Honestly, I have no idea. I could see New England winning by 40, gunning for another TD late in the 4th, and Belichek responding in the postgame with something like "Running up the score? If the Colts had stopped us, scored, recovered the onside kick, and then converted a 28 point touchdown, they would have been within 14 points of us. We weren't running up the score." I could also see the Colts cooly and calmly controlling the clock with Joseph Addai and Kenton Keith, Manning picking apart the Pats secondary, and the D being the first and only team to give the Patriots problems, and winning a 24-21 game. The only thing that would shock me would be the Colts blowing out New England, but then again, perhaps that shows I'm underestimating the Colts too. So far, nobody's been able to run a balanced offense against New England for the entire game. The Pats have played from behind for a grand total of about 4 minutes all season, which came in the third quarter of the Dallas game. Other than that New England's been ahead early and often, being able to dictate what they want to do offensively, and being able to "pin their ears back" on defense because they know their opponents have to throw. That's part of why the Vikes D was so good in 1998 because the other team was always playing from behind so they didn't have to worry about the run.
Am I grasping at straws here? Trying to make this matchup seem closer than it is? Decide for yourself. Am I cheering for the Colts? Yes. Am I cheering for the Greatest Regular Season Game in NFL History to be The Greatest Regular Season Game in NFL History? Yes again. The best part is, I think we'll get it.
That's the best part: it WILL live up to the hype. Surpass it even. There's so many things working in favor of this matchup, we've got a better chance of Brittney Spears winning Parent of the Year than of this game being a stinker. The biggest reason? BOTH teams feels slighted. One of the things I'll never understand is how grown men getting paid obscene amounts of money to play a kid's game need extra motivation from media or fans "doubting" them. The money and joy apparently just aren't enough, so they get their fire from talking heads or newspapers or fan blogs saying they're not good enough.
This has already been pointed out to you, I'm sure, but my favorite story line so far is how the Patriots are ticked off because they were CORRECTLY slighted: they were caught cheating. People called them cheaters. They ARE cheaters. And yet the Pats feel this is an injustice. "How DARE you call us cheaters when we were caught cheating!" I don't know how Bill Belichek has managed to use this as a rallying point, but boy has he! I have never seen a team this mad for this long. In the NBA you'll see Kobe or Gilbert Arenas go off on a team that he feels disrespected him, but it really only lasts for that one game. The Patriots have been playing with a level of anger, hatred, and revenge for 8 straight weeks that even Rambo couldn't top. They CANNOT score enough points or beat a team bad enough. Most teams get up 3 or 4 TD's and either put it in cruise control, or the coach goes ultra-conservative. The Pats? They blitz at every chance, and go 4 wide in the 4th quarter up 30. It's just un-freaking-believable that the whole team is buying into this and WANTS to run up the score. They smell blood in the water and not only go for the kill, but seem to enjoy doing it, ripping their opponents apart piece by piece.
Then we have the Colts. How would you like to be the defending Super Bowl champs, undefeated, and be 5 POINT UNDERDOGS AT HOME?!?!?!?!? That point cannot be stressed enough. It just can't. Never in the history of the world has that happened. Indy's done everything right, beat everybody in their path, and are just as undefeated as the Pats, who oh by the way they beat on their way to the Super Bowl last year, and they're still underdogs AT HOME!!!!
In all the hype for this game, one thing I haven't seen talked about is how this has to be a YUGE advantage to Indy. In the biggest NFL regular season game ever, there's zero pressure on the Colts to win. Think about it: If the Pats lose this game there's going to be an avalanche of criticism about how they've played and what kind of team they are, and what a bunch of a**holes the whole lot of them are. People are DYING to pile on the Patriots and be justified in hating them. But if the Colts lose, well hey they lost to the greatest team in history. They'll get another chance in the AFC Championship game. They were 5 point dogs at home. If the Colts can't beat New England, then nobody can. No big whoop.
There's no pressure AND free motivation for Peyton and Dungy and the rest of them.
The best part about all of this is that both teams wouldn't have it any other way. The Pats have been the Goliath/Anti-Christ since game 2, and have responded by outscoring opponents 331-127. For perspective, the 2nd highest scoring team in the league, the Cowboys, have 227. And yes, they've played one more game than just about everybody, but unless the Cowboys score 104 points this week, the Pats are still well ahead. For the Colts, I can't imagine Peyton Manning, who prepares for every game like it's the biggest of his life, needing extra motivation, but he's got it if he wants it. The Colts have followed in Dungy's footsteps as being the quiet, respectful, reserved, business-like team who'll knock you down, and after the whistle blows help you back up. You can't find more of a contrast in styles.
That's another thing that I haven't heard talked about enough: HOW these teams are winning is having a huge effect on how people perceive this game. Other than the Dolphins game, when the Pats led 42-0 at half in the most impressive 30 minutes of football I've ever seen, New England's huge point totals and margins of victory have been coming because they refuse to pull their starters and go conservative. The Cleveland win in week 5 is the only time where New England didn't have at least one 4th quarter touchdown with their starters in with the game well in hand. Look through the box scores- every game but that one they've got a TD mid to late 4th quarter from their starters with at least a 17 point lead. Is it impressive that they're got at least a 17 point lead in the 4th quarter in 7 of 8 games? Sure, but I still think it skews the thinking on the Patriots. Yes they're winning by a lot, but when they're putting up gaudy numbers BECAUSE they're running up the scores and leaving their starters in, which nobody else is doing.
The Colts, on the other hand, have won 5 of 7 games by at least 17 points, and have just one game, the 41-7 week 1 dismantling of the Saints, where you could say they ran up the score. That's it. If the Colts had continued to pile it on late in games to rack up points and stats, would their wins be more impressive? Maybe.
So who wins Sunday? Honestly, I have no idea. I could see New England winning by 40, gunning for another TD late in the 4th, and Belichek responding in the postgame with something like "Running up the score? If the Colts had stopped us, scored, recovered the onside kick, and then converted a 28 point touchdown, they would have been within 14 points of us. We weren't running up the score." I could also see the Colts cooly and calmly controlling the clock with Joseph Addai and Kenton Keith, Manning picking apart the Pats secondary, and the D being the first and only team to give the Patriots problems, and winning a 24-21 game. The only thing that would shock me would be the Colts blowing out New England, but then again, perhaps that shows I'm underestimating the Colts too. So far, nobody's been able to run a balanced offense against New England for the entire game. The Pats have played from behind for a grand total of about 4 minutes all season, which came in the third quarter of the Dallas game. Other than that New England's been ahead early and often, being able to dictate what they want to do offensively, and being able to "pin their ears back" on defense because they know their opponents have to throw. That's part of why the Vikes D was so good in 1998 because the other team was always playing from behind so they didn't have to worry about the run.
Am I grasping at straws here? Trying to make this matchup seem closer than it is? Decide for yourself. Am I cheering for the Colts? Yes. Am I cheering for the Greatest Regular Season Game in NFL History to be The Greatest Regular Season Game in NFL History? Yes again. The best part is, I think we'll get it.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
The New Evil Empire
Congratulations to the Boston Red Sox. You won two major awards tonight: the 2007 World Series, and The Metric Musing's Most Hated Baseball Team. To take that long-held title away from the New York Yankees just shows how far you've come since your last title in 2004.
For the record I think the Red Sox title in 2004 is one of the best sports stories of my lifetime, and perhaps one of the best of all-time. Not only did they end an 86 year "curse" that year, not only did they become the first baseball team to ever overcome a 3-0 series deficit, but they also did it against the Yankees, the one team they could never seem to beat. In all seriousness, that's one helluva story, and I was rooting for the "underdog" BoSox to beat the Evil Empire from the Bronx and win the whole damn thing.
Since then? As many, many, MANY non-Sox fans have said, Red Sox Nation has become insufferable. It was cute and all when you were loathing, apathetic and borderline suicidal before 2004, but now they've got a sense of entitlement and arrogance that trumps Yankee fans. Yankee fans have an heir of entitlement and arrogance because they root for the most successful franchise in all of sports. I may not like their attitude, but at least it's deserved and well-earned.
Boston fans are acting like they're better than the Yankees and everybody else because they're the underdogs that conquered the Big Bad Bronx. Well you can't have it both ways. Unless it's a two team league, you're either the Goliath or David: you can't be both. With this second title, which was bought as much as it was fought for, the Sox and their fans officially take the place of the Yankees as the team I hate the most.
By the way, I can't say I blame Boston fans for being like this. If the Vikings or Mariners suddenly became King Kong of their sport and won 2 titles in 4 years, I'd probably be pretty annoying too. But because I have the privledge of believing that I could never possibly be as bad as Boston fans, I can keep this opinion of them.
2 thoughts on ARod opting out of his deal tonight and I'm done:
1) ARod WILL go to the highest bidder- NOT the team that gives him the best chance to win. I remember all too well when he left the Mariners wanting to play for a "winner" and picked the Rangers over the Red Sox and M's because Texas offered him almost $100 million more than anybody else. This is NOT about winning a championship, this is about getting as much money as possible. Remember that.
2) I'm not a Scott Boras fan, but there's no doubt he's the best agent in sports. I don't know how he thinks he's going to get ARod more than he would have gotten by staying with the Yankees, especially when the Yankees are always the team that agents use to drive up the prices, but he'll get it done. SOMEBODY will pay him $30 million a year. There's no way he would have told Rodriguez to opt out if it weren't going to happen. Where is he going? Damn good question, because there doesn't seem to be many teams out there that would make sense for a $30 million a year player. Not only are the Yankees out, but so are the Mets (with Reyes and Wright on the left side of their infield they've got no use for him). The Cubbies would definitely be, but it doesn't sound like they'll get their ownership situation sorted out before spring training, which will be way too late to bid on ARod. Atlanta's trying to cut payroll, so they're out, although the Phillies are a major market and could possibly have the money, their media scrutiny and fanbase is almost as bad as New York, so I can't see him wanting to go there.
My hunch is Anaheim will be the team to do it, since the piece they're missing is a cleanup hitter, and they've got the money to make it happen. It would also be perfect for ARod because he could live in a major market without much pressure, since nobody in LA is an Angels fan anyway. Who else could possibly bid up the price on ARod? The Dodgers are a possibility, and would certainly have the money and the market. How about the New Evil Empire in Boston? I can't wait to hear the Sports Guy, who has bashed ARod as hard as anyone, do a complete 180 when the Red Sox sign him. As he would say, it'll be the highest of high comedy. Anyway, Anaheim is my guess for now, but with the 24/7 coverage of this coming soon, I'm sure we'll find out more soon enough.
For the record I think the Red Sox title in 2004 is one of the best sports stories of my lifetime, and perhaps one of the best of all-time. Not only did they end an 86 year "curse" that year, not only did they become the first baseball team to ever overcome a 3-0 series deficit, but they also did it against the Yankees, the one team they could never seem to beat. In all seriousness, that's one helluva story, and I was rooting for the "underdog" BoSox to beat the Evil Empire from the Bronx and win the whole damn thing.
Since then? As many, many, MANY non-Sox fans have said, Red Sox Nation has become insufferable. It was cute and all when you were loathing, apathetic and borderline suicidal before 2004, but now they've got a sense of entitlement and arrogance that trumps Yankee fans. Yankee fans have an heir of entitlement and arrogance because they root for the most successful franchise in all of sports. I may not like their attitude, but at least it's deserved and well-earned.
Boston fans are acting like they're better than the Yankees and everybody else because they're the underdogs that conquered the Big Bad Bronx. Well you can't have it both ways. Unless it's a two team league, you're either the Goliath or David: you can't be both. With this second title, which was bought as much as it was fought for, the Sox and their fans officially take the place of the Yankees as the team I hate the most.
By the way, I can't say I blame Boston fans for being like this. If the Vikings or Mariners suddenly became King Kong of their sport and won 2 titles in 4 years, I'd probably be pretty annoying too. But because I have the privledge of believing that I could never possibly be as bad as Boston fans, I can keep this opinion of them.
2 thoughts on ARod opting out of his deal tonight and I'm done:
1) ARod WILL go to the highest bidder- NOT the team that gives him the best chance to win. I remember all too well when he left the Mariners wanting to play for a "winner" and picked the Rangers over the Red Sox and M's because Texas offered him almost $100 million more than anybody else. This is NOT about winning a championship, this is about getting as much money as possible. Remember that.
2) I'm not a Scott Boras fan, but there's no doubt he's the best agent in sports. I don't know how he thinks he's going to get ARod more than he would have gotten by staying with the Yankees, especially when the Yankees are always the team that agents use to drive up the prices, but he'll get it done. SOMEBODY will pay him $30 million a year. There's no way he would have told Rodriguez to opt out if it weren't going to happen. Where is he going? Damn good question, because there doesn't seem to be many teams out there that would make sense for a $30 million a year player. Not only are the Yankees out, but so are the Mets (with Reyes and Wright on the left side of their infield they've got no use for him). The Cubbies would definitely be, but it doesn't sound like they'll get their ownership situation sorted out before spring training, which will be way too late to bid on ARod. Atlanta's trying to cut payroll, so they're out, although the Phillies are a major market and could possibly have the money, their media scrutiny and fanbase is almost as bad as New York, so I can't see him wanting to go there.
My hunch is Anaheim will be the team to do it, since the piece they're missing is a cleanup hitter, and they've got the money to make it happen. It would also be perfect for ARod because he could live in a major market without much pressure, since nobody in LA is an Angels fan anyway. Who else could possibly bid up the price on ARod? The Dodgers are a possibility, and would certainly have the money and the market. How about the New Evil Empire in Boston? I can't wait to hear the Sports Guy, who has bashed ARod as hard as anyone, do a complete 180 when the Red Sox sign him. As he would say, it'll be the highest of high comedy. Anyway, Anaheim is my guess for now, but with the 24/7 coverage of this coming soon, I'm sure we'll find out more soon enough.
Friday, October 26, 2007
The More Things Change...
Good thing the Minnesota Timberwolves don't have a franchise or a fan base anymore, because if they did, their fans should be really upset that Kevin McHale made yet another stupid trade. Yesterday the Wolves dealt Ricky Davis and center Mark Blount to the Miami Heat for forward Antoine Walker, the expiring contracts of Wayne Simien and Michael Doleac (apparently so Mark Madsen can have someone to hang out with and exchange awkward high fives at the end of the bench), and a future first round pick that's lottery protected through 2052. On the surface, maybe this doesn't look so bad, at least with how the Wolves are spinning it. But allow me to delve further and explain why this trade is a prime example of one of Kevin McHale's flaws in thinking running the Wolves.
I'm not a business major, so those of you that are can correct me if I'm wrong here, but this trade shows McHale has no idea how to maximize his assets in trades. None. Over the years he has somehow vastly overvalued his own players (by giving out huge extensions to players like Joe Smith, Troy Hudson, Marko Jaric and Wally Szczerbiak to name a few) and yet has vastly undervalued what they're worth around the league. On top of that, he apparently has no ability to discern what other team's players are worth TO THEM, and what role they're playing with their current team. Honestly, it’s a wonder McHale's trades haven't turned out even worse, and that's saying something considering they've been horrible.
Like the Sam Cassell (an expiring contract for a player that had ALWAYS played well in contract years) and a #1 pick (should be self-explanatory. McHale finally figured out this summer these are valuable) for Marko Jaric (who didn't fit into the Clippers plans, and did not have a track record of success in the NBA so therefore they were looking to unload him) trade, this latest one shows somebody once again taking advantage of McHale. This time it was Miami unloading their crap for useful pieces while making McHale believe he was getting a great deal.
Let's start with Miami. Antoine Walker, who had one of the worst PER's in the league last year at 9.65 (12 is league average. 9.65 is what you'd expect from your 12th man, not somebody who will make $17 million over the next 2 years) coming off the bench for a bad Heat team. This is NOT the employee Number 8 you used to know from his Celtics days. He might have been the worst player in the league last year, especially when you include his salary. Toine averaged just 8 points a game in 23 minutes, shooting 39% from the field, 27% from three (he shot an astounding 305 threes) and shot 43% FROM THE LINE! 43%! SHOOTING FREE THROWS! On the bright side, he didn't rebound, pass, or play defense. He's also 30 and his offseason workout consists of consuming more food than Packer fans in the Lambeau tailgating lot.
He had no future in Miami, and the Heat were dying to unload him. Who WOULDN'T want to clear $17 million off their cap and the league's most overpaid player? And if he didn't try on a Heat team that had Dwayne Wade, Shaq, Zo, and Pat Riley, why in the hell would he try on a guaranteed lottery-bound team in Minnesota?
Since the Heat's fluke Title run two years ago and Shaq's dramatic decline since, they've also been dying for an athletic wing that can score to try and take the mountainous scoring load off of Dwayne Wade. They could also use a decent center to get minutes for the 530 pound Shaq and the 97-year-old Alonzo Mourning.
So that's where the Heat were coming from. Ricky Davis and Mark Blount are EXACTLY what they needed. To a tee. And Davis' contract expires at the end of the year to boot.
For the Wolves, I completely understand that Dick Davis is a cancer on a bad team, and they didn't want him anywhere near the young kids. I get that. But he's also a capable 2nd or 3rd scorer on a good team AND HIS CONTRACT IS FREAKING EXPIRING AFTER THIS YEAR!!! HE'S WORTH SOMETHING TO THE OTHER 29 TEAMS!! HE HAS VALUE!!!!!!!!!!!
Mark Blount? I also understand that he and the new cornerstone of the team, Al Jefferson, didn't get along in Boston, so they were looking to trade him too. I get that, but again, HE HAS VALUE TO A GOOD TEAM. For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth I've done about Blount and his contract the last few years, this is difficult for me to say, but I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong: Blount was a serviceable center last year. There I said it. He doesn't do much else than shoot mid range jumpers, but he CAN score (something that's pretty rare in a center these days) and his rebounding improved to an adequate level last year (6.2 reb for a rebound rate of 11.9). For $21 million over the next 3 years, that's a bargain for a contending team that could start him or have him in the rotation. Seriously.
So they traded two valuable assets for the worst player in the league, 2 small expiring contracts, and a first rounder that has lottery protection for the next 4 decades. You gave the Heat exactly what they needed for exactly what they were trying to get rid of. Congratulations Kevin McHale, you've just made yet another panic move, and gave another fine display of how you lack the ability to evaluate assets on your own team as well as others.
Welcome to the post-Kevin Garnet era in Minnesota. Just like old times, but without Kevin Garnett. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Get your tickets now!
I'm not a business major, so those of you that are can correct me if I'm wrong here, but this trade shows McHale has no idea how to maximize his assets in trades. None. Over the years he has somehow vastly overvalued his own players (by giving out huge extensions to players like Joe Smith, Troy Hudson, Marko Jaric and Wally Szczerbiak to name a few) and yet has vastly undervalued what they're worth around the league. On top of that, he apparently has no ability to discern what other team's players are worth TO THEM, and what role they're playing with their current team. Honestly, it’s a wonder McHale's trades haven't turned out even worse, and that's saying something considering they've been horrible.
Like the Sam Cassell (an expiring contract for a player that had ALWAYS played well in contract years) and a #1 pick (should be self-explanatory. McHale finally figured out this summer these are valuable) for Marko Jaric (who didn't fit into the Clippers plans, and did not have a track record of success in the NBA so therefore they were looking to unload him) trade, this latest one shows somebody once again taking advantage of McHale. This time it was Miami unloading their crap for useful pieces while making McHale believe he was getting a great deal.
Let's start with Miami. Antoine Walker, who had one of the worst PER's in the league last year at 9.65 (12 is league average. 9.65 is what you'd expect from your 12th man, not somebody who will make $17 million over the next 2 years) coming off the bench for a bad Heat team. This is NOT the employee Number 8 you used to know from his Celtics days. He might have been the worst player in the league last year, especially when you include his salary. Toine averaged just 8 points a game in 23 minutes, shooting 39% from the field, 27% from three (he shot an astounding 305 threes) and shot 43% FROM THE LINE! 43%! SHOOTING FREE THROWS! On the bright side, he didn't rebound, pass, or play defense. He's also 30 and his offseason workout consists of consuming more food than Packer fans in the Lambeau tailgating lot.
He had no future in Miami, and the Heat were dying to unload him. Who WOULDN'T want to clear $17 million off their cap and the league's most overpaid player? And if he didn't try on a Heat team that had Dwayne Wade, Shaq, Zo, and Pat Riley, why in the hell would he try on a guaranteed lottery-bound team in Minnesota?
Since the Heat's fluke Title run two years ago and Shaq's dramatic decline since, they've also been dying for an athletic wing that can score to try and take the mountainous scoring load off of Dwayne Wade. They could also use a decent center to get minutes for the 530 pound Shaq and the 97-year-old Alonzo Mourning.
So that's where the Heat were coming from. Ricky Davis and Mark Blount are EXACTLY what they needed. To a tee. And Davis' contract expires at the end of the year to boot.
For the Wolves, I completely understand that Dick Davis is a cancer on a bad team, and they didn't want him anywhere near the young kids. I get that. But he's also a capable 2nd or 3rd scorer on a good team AND HIS CONTRACT IS FREAKING EXPIRING AFTER THIS YEAR!!! HE'S WORTH SOMETHING TO THE OTHER 29 TEAMS!! HE HAS VALUE!!!!!!!!!!!
Mark Blount? I also understand that he and the new cornerstone of the team, Al Jefferson, didn't get along in Boston, so they were looking to trade him too. I get that, but again, HE HAS VALUE TO A GOOD TEAM. For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth I've done about Blount and his contract the last few years, this is difficult for me to say, but I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong: Blount was a serviceable center last year. There I said it. He doesn't do much else than shoot mid range jumpers, but he CAN score (something that's pretty rare in a center these days) and his rebounding improved to an adequate level last year (6.2 reb for a rebound rate of 11.9). For $21 million over the next 3 years, that's a bargain for a contending team that could start him or have him in the rotation. Seriously.
So they traded two valuable assets for the worst player in the league, 2 small expiring contracts, and a first rounder that has lottery protection for the next 4 decades. You gave the Heat exactly what they needed for exactly what they were trying to get rid of. Congratulations Kevin McHale, you've just made yet another panic move, and gave another fine display of how you lack the ability to evaluate assets on your own team as well as others.
Welcome to the post-Kevin Garnet era in Minnesota. Just like old times, but without Kevin Garnett. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Get your tickets now!
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Baseball and College Foos
Can you believe it's almost November? What happened to October? It's the World Series, the NFL is at the halfway point, and the crappiest college football season of my lifetime is now past the halfway point. Not much to say about the World Series because really, what can you say? I'd like to think last night's blowout was just a result of Colorado being rusty after more than a week off (To all the people that are complaining about the Rockies getting too many days off between series- um, what else was MLB supposed to do? The ALCS went 7 games, and then gave the Sox a couple of days off. What were the alternatives to this? Have the Rockies play exhibition games in Japan, or see if the D-Backs or Cubbies wanted to play a few more just for fun? If you're going to whine about something, for the love, at least have a viable solution.), but unfortunately I think it's indicitive of how much better Boston is than Colorado. Some other day we can discuss whether postseason "experience" really matters, because there's a very intelligent group of new school baseball stat-heads who say it doesn't. After the Sox blow through Colorado in this series, they might have to rethink that a bit. Or the American League is just that much better than the crappy AAAA baseball they play in the National League.
Speaking of crappy, I can't wait to see which mediocre team "upsets" another mediocre ranked team and we can all scream joyously about how much fun upsets are and how great it is everybody has a chance now in college football! Hell, let's all hold hands and sing koombayah! We're all winners here, and it's just so darn swell that everybody's equal and nobody's better than anybody else, so let's just give everyone a trophy for showing up and forget all this silly competition. Nobody's feelings get hurt and nobody has to experience losing and everybody can feel like a winner, no matter how cheap the cost! Hooray parity! Hooray equality! Hooray level playing field!
Ok ok ok I'll stop. Is this season the beginning of the end for college football, or just one random season of crap? I really truly believe it's the latter. After two of the best years of college football in memory, the game has lost a lot of talent to graduation or the draft. Scholarship restrictions definitely hurt the Big Boys ability to reload as quickly, but this is just one of those years where there just aren't many big names who are ready to step in and fill the shoes of past greats.
Why are all the Big Boys losing? Look at the rosters. Tell me who the offensive stars are this year. USC, LSU, Texas, Ohio State, Tennessee, and more have no real offensive stars. They all have serviceable players manning the skill positions, but nobody I'm glued to the TV to see. Tim Tebow at Florida is the one exception. The guy will be a mega star before he's done in Gainesville, and because the Gators have lost twice, he's just not receiving enough attention. If you haven't seen Florida play yet, you NEED to see Tebow.
My buddy Ben and I watched the Florida/Kentucky game last week, and the best play we saw Tebow make was a 2 yard run near the goal line where he didn't score. He lined up in the shotgun, ran right, broke the first tackle, then was quite literally dragging the next 2 guys towards the end zone. Only because a third, fourth, and fifth defender piled on and knocked him back was he kept out of the end zone. The fact he's a quarterback and was DRAGGING a linebacker and safety was just freaking amazing. Tebow's a great quarterback who quite literally runs like a power back, and has become must-see TV for me. Teams now have so much respect for him as a runner, that Florida's started running a play where Tebow takes two steps towards the line of scrimmage, dips his shoulder like he's going to plow through the line, and then takes two steps back and fires a bomb downfield. They ran it twice against Kentucky and ended up with two long completions, one of them for a touchdown. Both times the safeties were absolutely lost.
It's so much fun and such a disadvantage for teams playing the Gators, I'm sure the NCAA will put a stop to it ASAP. So catch Tebow and Florida while you can, because if we're not careful, Florida could actually be dominant AND fun to watch, and apparently nobody wants that. Well nobody except me.
Speaking of crappy, I can't wait to see which mediocre team "upsets" another mediocre ranked team and we can all scream joyously about how much fun upsets are and how great it is everybody has a chance now in college football! Hell, let's all hold hands and sing koombayah! We're all winners here, and it's just so darn swell that everybody's equal and nobody's better than anybody else, so let's just give everyone a trophy for showing up and forget all this silly competition. Nobody's feelings get hurt and nobody has to experience losing and everybody can feel like a winner, no matter how cheap the cost! Hooray parity! Hooray equality! Hooray level playing field!
Ok ok ok I'll stop. Is this season the beginning of the end for college football, or just one random season of crap? I really truly believe it's the latter. After two of the best years of college football in memory, the game has lost a lot of talent to graduation or the draft. Scholarship restrictions definitely hurt the Big Boys ability to reload as quickly, but this is just one of those years where there just aren't many big names who are ready to step in and fill the shoes of past greats.
Why are all the Big Boys losing? Look at the rosters. Tell me who the offensive stars are this year. USC, LSU, Texas, Ohio State, Tennessee, and more have no real offensive stars. They all have serviceable players manning the skill positions, but nobody I'm glued to the TV to see. Tim Tebow at Florida is the one exception. The guy will be a mega star before he's done in Gainesville, and because the Gators have lost twice, he's just not receiving enough attention. If you haven't seen Florida play yet, you NEED to see Tebow.
My buddy Ben and I watched the Florida/Kentucky game last week, and the best play we saw Tebow make was a 2 yard run near the goal line where he didn't score. He lined up in the shotgun, ran right, broke the first tackle, then was quite literally dragging the next 2 guys towards the end zone. Only because a third, fourth, and fifth defender piled on and knocked him back was he kept out of the end zone. The fact he's a quarterback and was DRAGGING a linebacker and safety was just freaking amazing. Tebow's a great quarterback who quite literally runs like a power back, and has become must-see TV for me. Teams now have so much respect for him as a runner, that Florida's started running a play where Tebow takes two steps towards the line of scrimmage, dips his shoulder like he's going to plow through the line, and then takes two steps back and fires a bomb downfield. They ran it twice against Kentucky and ended up with two long completions, one of them for a touchdown. Both times the safeties were absolutely lost.
It's so much fun and such a disadvantage for teams playing the Gators, I'm sure the NCAA will put a stop to it ASAP. So catch Tebow and Florida while you can, because if we're not careful, Florida could actually be dominant AND fun to watch, and apparently nobody wants that. Well nobody except me.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Adrian F*&^ing PETERSON!!!!
The accolades are rolling in. The praise is being heaped. The glory is being given. Adrian Peterson is being called everything from the best rookie running back since Gale Sayers to the second best back in the league- RIGHT NOW. Normally I hate the over-hype and how in today's society we want to label everything the greatest or worst, so when a player has one game suddenly he's the best of all time.
But for AP? Wow. Just wow. Because I live on the left coast, I didn't get to see Peterson torch the Bears at Solider Field (by the way: the Bears D has given up over 400 yards in 3 of their last 4 games- all loses. Might not be just the quarterback that's the problem there). I got home from church (yup early games start here at 10. I know, tell me about it!), already had a text message from Jer that he had a mancrush on AP, and then the highlights started rolling in. 224, 3 TD's, and that long kick return to set up the game winning field goal (thank you Ryan Longwell. Good lord it's nice to have a reliable kicker for a change!). I couldn't believe my eyes. Everything I had ever hoped Peterson could be he was being. The cuts, the jukes and the speed to the outside. Here was the Adrian Peterson Joely and I marvelled about when he tore up the Big 12 as a freshman. Here was the player that showed the "best in the draft" potential. Could this REALLY be the Minnesota Vikings?
I haven't been this excited about a Vike since Randy Moss' rookie year. Sure, we're not going 15-1 this year, but this team has gone from unwatchable to unmissable. AP is must see TV, and I have a feeling the Vikings won't trouble selling out games for much longer.
As for the ridiculous claims of "2nd best back in the league" or best rookie since Barry Sanders or Gale Sayers? Well it's early. 5 games in. Jer might be the only person more excited than me about this kid, but let's not going carving out his hall-of-fame bust quite yet. Peterson did this as a freshman before a high-ankle sprain ruined his sophomore year and a broken collarbone took away half his junior year. The reason he was there at #7 wasn't because of a lack of talent, but a concern about his durability. So let's wait and see, and if you're a fan of football, hope with fingers and toes crossed that he stays healthy so we can watch him carve up defenses for years to come.
But for AP? Wow. Just wow. Because I live on the left coast, I didn't get to see Peterson torch the Bears at Solider Field (by the way: the Bears D has given up over 400 yards in 3 of their last 4 games- all loses. Might not be just the quarterback that's the problem there). I got home from church (yup early games start here at 10. I know, tell me about it!), already had a text message from Jer that he had a mancrush on AP, and then the highlights started rolling in. 224, 3 TD's, and that long kick return to set up the game winning field goal (thank you Ryan Longwell. Good lord it's nice to have a reliable kicker for a change!). I couldn't believe my eyes. Everything I had ever hoped Peterson could be he was being. The cuts, the jukes and the speed to the outside. Here was the Adrian Peterson Joely and I marvelled about when he tore up the Big 12 as a freshman. Here was the player that showed the "best in the draft" potential. Could this REALLY be the Minnesota Vikings?
I haven't been this excited about a Vike since Randy Moss' rookie year. Sure, we're not going 15-1 this year, but this team has gone from unwatchable to unmissable. AP is must see TV, and I have a feeling the Vikings won't trouble selling out games for much longer.
As for the ridiculous claims of "2nd best back in the league" or best rookie since Barry Sanders or Gale Sayers? Well it's early. 5 games in. Jer might be the only person more excited than me about this kid, but let's not going carving out his hall-of-fame bust quite yet. Peterson did this as a freshman before a high-ankle sprain ruined his sophomore year and a broken collarbone took away half his junior year. The reason he was there at #7 wasn't because of a lack of talent, but a concern about his durability. So let's wait and see, and if you're a fan of football, hope with fingers and toes crossed that he stays healthy so we can watch him carve up defenses for years to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
