Jeff: It's Not Miller Time

Let me just get this out: Reggie Miller is one of the most clutch shooters of all time. One of the best three point shooters ever (I would take only Larry Bird over Reggie if I needed a game-winning 3). Classic Reggie was running through a playoff gauntlet of screens and elbows and forearms, like some kind of Fear Factor event, and burying a 3 from an impossible angle. All of this I admit. But since Reggie hung 'em up Thursday after his Pacers were eliminated by the Pistons I've been hearing some crazy things from some very respectable NBA people. People who (I thought) know infinitely more about basketball than I do. Reggie Miller a Hall-of-Famer? Debatable to me. But not only were these experts saying Reggie was a FIRST BALLOT Hall of Famer, they were suddenly saying he was one of the great players of the last two decades? HUH?

Tell me what I'm missing here. Please. Because, at least to me, here's what Reggie COULD do:

• hit 3's, especially in clutch situations
• flop and draw fouls on his shots that didn't go in
• Bow to the opposing crowd after hitting a big shot
• Infuriate Spike Lee
• give thought-provoking interviews after games

Here's what Reggie COULDN'T do:

• create his own shot
• pass
• rebound
• play any real semblance of defense
• win a championship
  

And this is a 1st ballot hall of famer? Are you sure? I heard nationally renowned writers and experts saying he was right up there with Barkley and Ewing and Clyde Freaking Drexler?!?!? I thought they were kidding, but they were not. The argument was, knowing how their entire careers played out, who would you rather have: and Reggie Miller was getting taken ahead of or right with the Ewings and Clyde Drexlers. Am I the only one who has a problem with this? Reggie was NOT on the original Dream Team, Reggie has NEVER made 1st team all-NBA or even 2nd, and has played in 5 all-star games in 18 years.

Think about that: he's never been considered one of the two best players at his position in any of 18 seasons, and has only been considered one of the 24 best 5 times. I'm not sure Reggie should be getting into the Hall of Fame, let alone on the first ballot. Before my computer crashed and died, I made a chart of the players who I thought compared favorably with Reggie during his prime years- the late '80's-late '90's. I had the following criteria a player had to have in that time frame:

• make at least 3 all-star games
• be named 1st, 2nd, or 3rd team All-NBA at least 3 times
• NOT win a regular season MVP award

I came up with 17 guys along with Reggie who met this criteria, and you know what? I'd take almost all of them over him. When it comes down to it, knowing now what you know about their whole careers, Reggie had a nice run and some longevity to it, as well as some clutch moments. But as clutch as he was, he never won a title, and was never more than a glorified sharpshooter. Oh, and the argument about how many career points Reg scored and all the three's? He played his entire career with a three point line. Jerry West, a guy people commonly mention as a great player Miller has passed on the all-time scoring list. How many more points would West have scored always having the three? Or Pistol Pete Maravich? I'm not saying REggie wasn't good, because he definitely was. But great? At times maybe, but I'd rather have a Joe Dumars or Clyde Drexler anytime.

Jeff: A Commission We Actually Need

I realize this is a sports site, but with the approval of The Jer, I am going to delve into another area of life, one that I have even less expertise and authority to speak on than sports. But it needs to be said, so bear with me. And if anyone's seen TheDan, please let him know there's some love-struck bandit masquerading on his website, posing as TheDan himself. Thank you.

After purchasing the new Dave Matthews Band cd, I have come to two conclusions:
1) Dave is officially off my "Eagerly and Automatically Buy Their New CD" list
2) a new commission or law needs to be made against musicians and the music industry

Now listen when I say this, NOBODY hates all of these frivalous lawsuits and whiny "I HAVE RIGHTS" crap more than me. I'm going to give people something to complain about if I hear one more person whining about how their 19th amendment rights were violated. Shut up. If you have a roof over your head, a decent job and a family you can come home to SHUT UP. There are a lot of people in the world who have it much worse than you, whose needs are being overshadowed or drowned-out by your whining because your kid got cut from their volleyball team or because God-forbid somebody has an "I Love Jesus" bumpersticker that offended you. Trust me when I say I'm the last person that wants to see another commission or more rules or more people telling other people what their rights are or are not. But after listening to Dave's newest cd, and reading band comments (thanks for those Joely) about how "this is our best studio session ever and everybody really gets it" and blahblahblah, something must be done.

Maybe it's my fault for holding DMB to a higher standard. I still consider them the most talented band on the planet, and if you look at any of their EARLY work, regardless of whether you like their music or not, I don't know how anyone could disagree. But this new cd is their worst, and yet they are not the first band, and certainly not the last, that will continue to pump out crap long after they should, and promote it like it's the greatest thing they've ever done. Like athletes, I think 99.9% of bands have a shelf life. Some athletes hang on longer than they should, but generally because your body can't perform in your 40's like it did in your 20's or 30's, sporting careers have a limited time frame. And in some cases, even that's too long. I wish the same were true for musicians. I believe most musicians (I of course don't included boy bands or most of these "Top 40" divas in this because, after all, they're NOT musicians but rather plastic puppets--or as they'd say in Office Space "No Talent A$$ Clowns") start out writing music and creating songs out of passion. Whether it was a life event that changed them or something in them that stirs, they are provoked into expressing it in song. They're doing it because they love it, not because they'll sell a bazillion records and get on MTV and be famous. They have something to say, something that's important to them, and they've found a passionate creative outlet for that. Look at some of the best rock songs of all time, from the '60's to today, and you'll see my point. The vast majority of it was written early in an artists' career, before overwhelming wealth and fame took over.

To me, it's just not possible to find that same creativity and passion when you're cruising in your Bentley with your "bling-bling" and Playboy playmates on your way to one of your 7 mansions in paradise. Good for those who accomplish success and fame and enjoy it to the fullest, but there's no way on earth you can make good music living that lifestyle. You just can't. Look at Lenny Kravitz. He had something to say back in the day, he had some soul and some great songs. Now he's simply making songs that he hopes gets picked up for commercials (Gap) or intros to sporting events on TV. Essentially it's crap, but those who have no taste or are diehard fans hoping for a glimpse of the old days, will keep getting duped into buying his albums. If we had warning labels

"WARNING: THIS ARTIST IS SO FAR OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY THEY ARE INCAPABLE OF MAKING DECENT MUSIC BUT TO MASSAGE THEIR EGOS WE'RE RELEASING THIS ANYWAYS"

Just something to let people know they're mailing it in from their yacht in the Camans. How do we determine when a band has peaked? Why a commission of Jer and myself and our friends of course (we'd include TheDan but he's too busy making out these days). Anyways, we'll give a band one album after their first platinum album, be that 2 or 12 into their career, before their work comes before"The Committee". NOw we're not going to stop people from putting out music, after all, stupid people have rights to buy music too, but we're going to at least warn people if a band has peaked. Now bands that, despite great success, steer clear of the spotlight (Radiohead and Pearl Jam come to mind), we will have no problems allowing them to continue. We also don't want to stand in the way of the next U2, who despite fame and fortune have incredibly turned out good music for 20+ years. But they're the exception. Bands like Creed are the rule. It's the least that we can do to prevent unfortuneate things like heavy sales for Dave's new songs from people that still think the old, talented free-flowing DMB may return someday. Because it's not.

Jeff: Because somebody has to care about the NBA

So I'm board-op'ing a Twins game for the next 3 hours, and Ive been enjoying the NBA playoffs. Since the WOlves are out, I doubt Jer has watched much, and since I have no life, well, it makes sense for me to be the one to keep you abreast of what's going on. (Yes that entire paragraph was set up just so I could use the word "abreast" in a sentence)

• Jeff Van Gundy is crazy, but I love him for standing up to The Don Stern. Sure, JVH will be wearing cement shoes at the bottom of the Hudson when he goes to Stern's office for a"visit" in New York later this month. But he finally said what all of us have thought about the NBA and the refs and conspiracy theories: they exist and we know it. Like so many have pointed out, I would think The Don Stern would want Houston to advance with Yao and T-Mac, but it's nice to see somebody step up and say something. It'll mean losing his job and probably most of his toes after a visit with Stern's "friends" Sonny and Vinny, but hey I think it's defintitely worth it.
• speaking of the Rockets, Yao's window to jump into NBA Superstar status has officially closed. Hey, he's a great passer and a creative offensive player, but I can think of at least 20 guys I'd want taking the final shot instead of Yao. Make that 30...yeah probably 40. And that's not to mention his defense. He's 7'5 TRYING TO TAKE CHARGES!!! Apparently the concept of the blocked shot hasn't made it to China yet. I figured once they got McDonald's they would just figure it out, but I was wrong. Anyway, Yao is a nice player, but he's a good 2nd banana and no better, no matter how much the NBA tries to convince you otherwise.
• Guaranteed contracts are the worst thing to happen to the NBA. Vince "Charmin" Carter and T-Mac are two of many examples. Guys can tank it and loathe and complain and whine and they either get the coach fired or get themselves shipped somewhere else for pennies on the dollar, screwing the team they leave. If this happened in real NBA markets instead of Toronto and Orlando, you'd hear more about it.
• Of course folks in the Raptors front-office will be getting Christmas cards from Heat fans for the foreseable future if Alonzo Mourning helps Miami win a title. Not too bright up there in Toronto for paying him to leave (think about it). Too much Molson, probably.
• Along the same lines, here's a question: why wouldn't you bench somebody like Charmin or Spree or any other player that doesn't want to play hard for you? And I don't mean benching him for just a quarter, or a game. I mean for as long as it takes until he gets the message that he's not getting traded or cut or playing ANYWHERE until his attitude improves. Why is this such a difficult concept to understand? Yeah, you're paying a guy a fortune, but why cave in to his whining and sniveling, especially after seeing what Charmin and T-Mac have done, WHY would you trade these guys for under market value only to watch them flourish somewhere else? A guy has 3 yrs left on his deal and stops playing hard? I tell him he can sit on his can at home or with his posse or wherever he wants for those 3 years. His value on the open market would be so diminished by the time his contract ran out, I doubt you'd see anybody call my bluff. I love the NBA but I hate how the players are basically running the show. It's nuts. Reason #1026 why the NFL is the premiere sport in the world right now.
• Usually I hate watching the "goliaths" of the NBA, aka the teams that will make the NBA the most money, which means they hype them to the moon. But seriously, is there anybody who DOESN'T want to see a Suns/Spurs and Heat/Pistons conference finals? Anyone? Just checking.
• Remember last year when we were comparing Melo and Lebron to each other? Whoopsy daisy!! Melo's looking more Big Dog Robinson than NBA superstar with every game he plays.
• It would be bad enough to live in Cleveland, what with the sewer--I MEAN beautiful lake Erie, a football team with colors that resemble the colors in that lake, and a terrible baseball team. But now Lebron's talking about leaving? The suicide watch in Cleveland will be on red-alert status if that happens. Almost as bad as it will be in Wisconsin when Favre retires.
• The longest we'll see a 2nd round series go is 5 games.

RANDOM NFL NOTES:

• You heard it here first: the Detroit Lions will be the most improved team of 2005.
• Order of finish in the NFC Norris for 2005. 1) Minnesota 2) Detroit 3) Chicago 4) Green Bay (if the town and Lambeau hasn't been burned to the ground before the season's over. I hope Mike SHerman has life insurance on his dog. I'm not sayin I'm just sayin).

Jeremy: Some Notes on the Vikings Draft

As I walked into KFAN the Restaurant Saturday around 11:40 a.m., the gents who were hosting the draft viewing party were already about how the Vikings were going to be taking Troy Williamson from South Carolina, whether Mike Williams was available or not. This rumor was met with myriad booing and jeers. Nobody seemed to understand why the Vikings would make this pick, and nobody seemed convinced that they would actually pass up on Williams.
I must say I agreed.
As pick after pick fell off the board and Mike Williams was still available, the crowd kept cheering. The big, physical receiver from USC would be falling into the Vikings lap.
You know what happened next.
I'm trying to be optimistic about the pick But I'm struggling with this one more than a little bit.
To me, on paper, Troy Williamson (6'1", 203lbs) looks like a faster Nate Burleson (6'0", 192lbs). Mike Williams is not fast, but he's a big, physical, possession receiver who caught 20 touchdowns in the redzone while he was at USC. But I guess we don't need a guy like that. Apparently we need a guy to stretch out the field. Another short guy to run the deep route. My only assumption, then, has to be that the Vikes plan to make Marcus Robinson a bigger part of the offense this year.
Let's face it, besides losing Moss' speed, the biggest thing we lost when he went to Oakland was the most dangerous redzone weapon in the entire NFL. Leaping ability, great hands, great footwork. So Troy Williamson makes up for the speed portion of the equation that was lost when Moss was subtracted, are we to believe that Robinson can pick up the rest of the slack? Pardon me if I have my doubts.
I'm not saying Williamson isn't talented, I'm not saying that it's not a good idea to have a guy to stretch the field, and I'm not even saying that he won't be a great fit and he won't work out for us. All I'm saying is, when you know you need a number one receiver, and you are drafting at number 7 with the pick that you got in exchange for the best receiver in the game, I'm just not sure how you pass up a guy as big and as talented as Mike Williams.
As for the rest of the draft, I gotta say, things look alright.
Obviously we would have rather had David Pollack out of Georgia at the 18th pick, but the perennial losers in Cincy had to take him one pick ahead of us. Except for some injury concerns, however, we don't lose much with a quick Big 10 lineman in Erasmus James out of Wisconsin. Or, as I like to call it, Thank Goodness It's Not Iowa.
There was one more thing that could have gone wrong in this draft, and of course, it did. The Jets killed our hopes of solving our kicking problems in the long-term by taking kicker Mike Nugent from Ohio State two picks ahead of us. I never liked the Jets anyway.
In the later rounds the Vikes addressed mostly defense, but also picked up a running back out of Florida who looks like he could add to the log jam that's piling up to take hand offs from Daunte. Ciatrick Fason ran for over 1,200 yards on the ground last year and he can apparently catch the ball as well. He looks like a guy who, if he is given the bulk of the workload, could emerge from the pack. Then again, those same words have probably been said about ALL of our running backs.
In my mind the perfect draft for the Vikings would have gone: Williams at 7, Pollack at 18, and Mike Nugent at 49. If the draft had gone that way, I would have given it an A+. Considering that they didn't even have a shot at Pollack and Nugent because they were taken before we picked, and if you believe Mike Tice that Williamson is the best fit for the team, then all things considered, you've got to give the Vikings an A-. But, as is always true with any draft, only time will tell who has the best results.
Overall, the Vikes did a nice job of adding young talent at key positions, which can only prove to make the team stronger at those key spots. Training camp should be interesting. There's going to be a lot of competition for defensive line and running back spots. I'm excited to see how the wide receiving core takes shape, and how the defensive backfield steps into the spotlight. For the first time in over 10 years the defense could be the talk of the town, but the offense shouldn't be too far behind: Daunte is still captain of the ship.
Do I sound a tad bit excited?

Would You Rather...

Last week on my radio show, Jer and I played a little "Would You Rather...". It was a roaring success, with all 7 of my listeners calling in. We had so much fun with it we're doing it again tomorrow on what is now, thanks to Jer, known as "Would You Rather Wednesday's". I just thought I'd share the love with some of the ones we, and the 7 listeners, came up with. Feel free to add your own. As a matter of fact, I'll be disappointed if you don't. And yes, if they're good, they become property of this site and Jer and I will steal them for the show.

Ok, here's Jer's guidelines:
Three rules to all of these…
1. For questions with two bad options, death by killerbees is always a third option.
2. For questions with two good options, choosing one means the other would never happen in your lifetime.
3. When we mention teams we like (Vikings or Wolves) or don't like (Cowboys and Packers), feel free to substitute your favorite and least-favorite teams to make the questions more relevant for you.

Now, Would you rather...

• See the Gophers win a Rosebowl (or for Jeff, the Mariners win a World Series) or see the Vikings win the superbowl?
• spend 6 months as a cellmate with Martha Stewart or one night in a twin bed with Michael Jackson?
• Never again be able to wear a baseball cap (for Jer cowboy hats ARE included) or see KG playing for another team?
• Be seen in public everyday with a supermodel but never be able to touch her, or have the ability to be intimate with a supermodel everyday but nobody could ever know?
• Never be able to sleep more than 5 hours in a night, or never be able to take a nap again?
• Watch a WNBA game on TV or a bowling match?
• Go to a WNBA game or watch a bowling match on TV?
• Watch a WNBA game on TV or get a root canal?
• Watch a WNBA game or be stung unmercifully by killer bees?
• Be a vegetarian or cheer for the Packers?
• Be able to sing only in falsetto or dance only the jig?
• Marry Martha Stewart and live on a ranch where you can watch all the sports you want and shoot cats, or marry Heather Locklear, and live in a house full of cats where you can NEVER watch sports again?
• Be able to hit homeruns or throw a baseball 95mph?
• Win the Masters or the Super Bowl?
• Be a superstar high school athlete and NEVER win a state title, or be a role player on a high school state title winner?
• Never drink beer or never be able to eat red meat again?
• Be an Iowa Hawkeye fan or live in hell?

Jeremy: Players Associations

The NBA's Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) will expire this summer following the current season, at which time we will all be subjected to the endless talks about how players should be allowed to make even more money than they already do, and how owners cannot afford to keep paying these types of salaries. Are you as excited as I am? (I'll wait a moment while you let the sarcasm sink in.)
The big debate currently is that David Stern, the NBA's up-standing commissioner (COUGH!!!), would like to explore the possibility of adding an age minimum to the CBA, keeping high school players from entering the NBA. I've already given my opinion on this matter, but the current debate of the upcoming CBA talks has me thinking of something else.
I'm in the beginning stages of forming an opinion, and I would like the seven of you who read this site to explore this opinion with me.
Are players associations ruining sports?
Driving home tonight I heard an interview on the radio with Marcus Camby of the Denver Nuggets and the subject of age minimums came up. So far every player that I've heard discuss age minimums has been opposed to it, and Camby is no exception. Blah, blah, blah. Not the point. Camby then went on to talk about the current CBA expiring, and then, very nonchalantly, alluded to the fact that some people are already talking about the possibility of a lockout.
Does this attitude by the players concern anyone else?
We already have one of the four major professional sports in a lockout that cancelled AN ENTIRE SEASON and threatens to do the same to part of the upcoming season, or replace the entire NHL roster of players with "scrubs." Major League Baseball seems like it is constantly on the verge of internal combustion. The NBA already lost half of a season in '98 and now they are talking about the possibility again. Even the NFL has lost playing time because of labor disputes.
At my young age of 27 I have witnessed lockouts in all four of the major sports, and apparently I can plan to see this happen to each sport every couple of years. It's gotten to the point where it's almost a foregone conclusion that when a labor agreement expires the entire league of players will put a "kibosh" on the season, leaving the fans to wait in the balance to see what is going to happen next.
So who is to blame?
Well, it would seem to me that there's plenty to go around. First, some of the blame has to drop on the fans (if loving sports is wrong, then, baby, I don't wanna be right!!!). We are all willing to pay the ever increasing and ridiculous prices for tickets, merchandise, food and booze at the games. Let's give credit where credit is due. We hate the fact these guys whine about how the millions of dollars that they make aren't enough to feed their families, and yet, when the ticket prices go up we are applying for a seventeenth credit card so that we can pay for tickets.
Second, we know a great amount of blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the folks who are raising ticket, merchandise and booze prices: the owners. Enough said.
So, next, should we blame the players? Okay, yeah, let's give them some blame too. I mean, here, in all of the major sports, we've got plenty of guys who are willing to stand up and say "Hey, that seven figure salary I'm making isn't nearly enough. I mean, come on, I'm playing a game out there... I mean... DANG IT!!! I didn't mean that. I meant to say, I'm sacrificing my body for the enjoyment of the fans, I'm entertaining people."
Have you ever heard a players association, from any of the major sports, step up and say, "You know what? He should not have said that and we do not support that statement." NOT A CHANCE. Everytime an idiot like Latrell Spreewell flies off the handle and makes a boneheaded comment about not being able to feed his family, his local players association not only supports him, but also his idiot statement, and suddenly it becomes the stance of all of the players. But is that accurate?
When a guy like Donald Fehr tells the media that MLB players don't support steroid testing, and yet, some players come out and say that they support it because they want their sport to be pure, who are we to believe?
When an entire NHL season is lost because the players association and the owners won't give into each other, and then some NHL players step up and say they just want to play hockey, who should we support?
The players associations in all of the major sports have brought us to a point where, as fans, we can expect lockouts every couple of years. Not only is this practice, and the mentality that supports it, destructive to the fans, but it's also destructive for the players, and as a whole, I believe, it's incredibly destructive for sports in general.
This mentality, which has spilled over from one players association to another, is bound to spill, as the "me first" mentality of millionaire players has already rubbed off on young athletes, into youth and little league sports.
How close are we to hearing about an entire 7th grade basketball team who refuses to play their season because they aren't happy with the jerseys that they will be required to wear?

Jeff: Take Me Out to the Ballgame

What is it about opening day in baseball? Despite all the steroid coverage and the overblown and overanalyzed Red Sox/Yankees rivalry (I may not be able to read the Sports Guy again until November), I was still excited for Opening Day. It took me all of one day to start worrying about the Mariners, despite their win, and the worries continue as they've dropped 2 straight to the Twins. Here's a some other thoughts as the baseball season has begun...

• Not sure what to think of all the national media guys hopping the Twins bandwagon and picking them to win the World Series. It could be a curse, or they could be right. They'll win the division but I think their young hitters are a year away from being able to get them to the World Series. Still, if everybody develops and Mauer's body holds up, that's a very scary team.
• To steal a line from Jason Churchill, the executive editor of insidethepark.com... "If Billy Beane is considered a small-market genius for what he's done with the (Oakland) A's, then what does that make (Twins GM) Terry Ryan? Super-Genius? Emperor? god of small-market baseball?"
• One other Twins note: Carl Pohlad said today he wasn't sure he could make it financially if the Twins can't get a new stadium. Really? Well then sell the damn team, Carl. The Twin Cities is the 15th largest media market in America. Bigger than St Louis. Bigger than San Diego. Bigger than Cincinnati. All those teams are doing fine and are spending money on free agents. I'm getting sick and tired of the "woe are we the small-market team". REALLY tired.
• It would be bad enough being a Chicago White Sox fan. Your team is always good enough to disappoint, you have a horrible stadium, and no matter how hard you try and deny it, you're not the Cubs and you can't stand it. What would put me over the edge is if I had to watch the Sox and listen to Hawk Harrelson and whoever that jackass is that's their analyst broadcast the games. How could ANYBODY stand those two?!??!?! Flipping through channels for some afternoon baseball yesterday I came across the Sox/Tribe game on WGN, and I thought I'd take in the 8th and 9th inning. Annoying is not even the word. "Makes-you-want-to-stick-scissors-in-your-ear-to-stop-the-pain" is more like it. From the ridiculous "YOU CAN PUT IT ON THE BOARD....YYYYYYYYYESSSSSSSSSSS!!!" home run call to "HE GONE!" when somebody strikes out, the newest We Hate Men movie on the Oxygen network was starting to look almost appealing. To add to it, there's also the incredible one-sided view of the game. These guys are professionals? I understand giving a Sox slant to it, but they were going way overboard. I wonder why? Do they need to try this hard to convince Sox fans it's ok to cheer for them and not the Cubs? Could it be that they're worried somebody will see through the facade of "We hate the Cubs and we're glad we're not them"? (even thought you KNOW they're upset because they didn't get the job to replace Chip Carrey and Steve Stone) Maybe they were just thankful to be alive because they made it from their car to the stadium without being mugged. Whatever it was, I'm amazed that there's any Sox fans left. Not that there's many to begin with. If, for some strange reason you feel the need to torture yourself, turn on WGN next time the White Sox are on and see how long you can last. And can we all just agree we hate the White Sox? Thank you.

Finally, just though you'd want to know I'll get to see my first game at Safeco Field in SEattle in a couple of weeks against the Tribe. Hopefully the Mariners won't already be eliminated from the playoffs by then.

Jeremy: Age Minimums

Okay, let's get a few things out in the open here: First, I'm eating hashbrowns right now. This is not significant, but they are delicious. Okay, now let's get something else strait: Jeffrey is a great college basketball mind. Heck, he's just a great sports mind. He's the smartest guy I know when it comes to sports and it's not even close. I am, of course, not counting myself. But even if I were, my previous statement would still be true. Why he chooses to share a sports blog with the likes of yours truly is beyond me.
Lastly, he is right. It has been far too long since I've dropped some sporting opinions on our non-paying public.
Jeff mentioned something in passing that has been bugging me for the past week or so, and that is the issue of the NBA enforcing a minimum age requirement something like the NFL has where a player must be out of high school for 3 years.
Obviously the NBA has been inundated with high school players in recent years. It is the opinion of several people, including myself, that the influx of high school players into the NBA has diluted the talent of the pro game and has hurt the college game as well. I do, however, believe that the NBA is affected far more negatively by this. As Jeffrey so eloquently stated, "the Madness will roll on whether the best players stay in college or not," but the NBA is far more diluted.
So onto the issue of imposing a minimum age. On the "for" side of the coin, some people might say that you cannot become an accountant, a doctor or an executive without a college education, so why should a young kid be allowed to enter a professional arena without similar credentials. We all know this is a ludicrous argument. We aren't talking about people curing diseases or even doing your taxes here. We are talking about grown men playing a game, and let's be honest, they don't need an education to play it.
On the con side of the argument, I've heard sports talk folk say that the NBA should not impose an age minimum because they do not have the right to tell these kids that they cannot use their talent to make a living right out of high school. This is specifically what I would like to talk about.
This issue of high school kids going strait into the pros gets a little bit out of hand because the only thing that is ever talked about is the players, and while the players are obviously the most major part of this debate, what seems to be forgotten by many people is that this is also about professional sports, and professional sports is a business. Plain and simple.
You see, the reason that the NFL has a minimum age requirement, and why the NBA is considering one, isn't because they don't think the high school kids don't have a right to use their talent to make a living. And it's not even because they don't think high school kids are physically or mentally prepared to be in the pros.
Let's go back to why the accountant has to have an education to perform their job argument. It's possible that there is someone out there who is ridiculously talented in the area of accounting because they have worked hard to learn it on their own. They might even be more talented than your average CPA, but they do not have an education in accounting. An accounting firm is not going to hire this individual no matter how talented they are, and it's not because this person doesn't have a right to use his talent to earn a living, it's because the accounting firm, as a business, has a right to protect its interest, and part of protecting its interest as a professional firm is hiring individuals with college educations.
Professional sports (maybe unfortunately) is a business, and as a business the NFL and the NBA have a right to protect the product that the put before the public to buy. If they believe that their sport, their product, is more competitive and more healthy by requiring athletes to be a certain age before they enter the professional arena, they have the right to do so.

Jeff: What a weekend

First of all, has anyone seen Jer? It's not like him to not write for weeks on end. That's usually my role here. Maybe he was just so overwhelmed by the college hoops he's been unable to put into words. I was in much the same shape this morning, but 3 cups of coffee later I think I'm ready. Well quite a weekend it was. Nothing better than college basketball at tourney time. As one of the few NBA fans left in the world, the disparity between quality and excitement of college ball compared to the pros has never been more apparent. To anyone that even tried to watch any of the NBA games Sunday after sitting through 3 overtime college games, it's pretty obvious that D1 hoops is doing just fine without it's superstars and the best 5-10 players of each class. Do I hope the NBA enforces a 20 yr old age limit? Absolutely. It would be better for both college and the pros, but the Madness will roll on whether the best players stay in college or not.

Saturday:
Louisville 93, West Virginia 85 (OT)
Probably my favorite game of the four. Even though West Virginia was up most of the game, I just kept waiting for Louisville to come back, and every 3 pointer the Mountaineers hit was more amazing than the last. I feel bad for WV because they shot so well and played out of their minds, and yet they still lost. It also shows just how good Louisville is, and how good a coach Rick Pitino is. And for those that say "well he was terrible in the NBA", I agree, he was. But that's because he actually tried to coach!! In the NBA, as a coach you're a babysitter. Your only real job is to manage egos. That's it. Phil Jackson has won the most titles of any coach because he was good, at least for awhile, at managing egos. But when things fell apart in LA he was as helpless as you or I would have been trying to run that team. This is why you will not see Phil with the Knicks or LA, unless the Lakers can get another big free agent. Phil hasn't really coached since his early days with the Bulls, and he's not about to start now. Oh, and his famed triangle offense? Actually the mastermind of his asst coach, Tex Winters, who not coincedentally was with him in both Chicago and LA.

The point to my Phil-bashing is that there's nothing wrong with basketball coaches who succeed in college but not in the NBA. Good coaching and leadership is lost on NBA players. Money talks in the NBA. All the care about are posses and their upcoming hip-hop cd. Wait, why am I an NBA fan again?

Illinois 90, Arizona 89 (OT)
Before the tourney started, Cris Collins is on record as saying how overrated Illinois was, how a team that relied so heavily on the 3 had no shot in the tourney. And you know what? He's still right. In some respects, I thought he was oversimplifying the Illini by saying all they do is shoot 3's. But he's right, that's all they do! I guess when you've got 3 great guards somebody's always going to have a hot hand, but that kind of thinking should catch up with them eventually, right? Well it did Saturday. Arizona had them dead to rights. Up 15 with 4 minutes left. All Zona had to do was hang onto the ball and hit free throws. Yes, Illinois cranked up the D, and yes the refs put the whistles away, and yes the pro-Illini crowd was insane. But Arizona still choked. Even with no calls late you don't lose that lead. And then with a chance to win in OT, the Arizona kid completely freezes and ends up firing one of the worst shots I've ever seen. Salim Stoudamire doesn't even touch the ball. And Illinois escapes. So here they are in the Final 4, and I'm still not ready to say this team is as good as advertised. Is the Big 10 better than we thought? Yes. Are the Illini? We'll see.

Sunday:
North Carolina 88, Cheeseheads 82
The Heels' talent level is downright scary. From May to McCants to Felton to the Williams boys (not Roy), anybody they put out on the floor looked superior to the Cheeseheads. And yet there was Scony, continuing to plug away, hanging around right down to the final seconds. This is not the first time in his career Roy Williams has had the nations' most talented team, and it very well could go down as yet another time Williams can't get it done when it matters. Credit Wisconsin for keeping up with the UNC in a game that was completely unlike anything they'd played in all year. 82 points? It would usually take a week for La Cheese to score that much in a game. But a team that had looked so horrid against NC State, was flying around 2 days later against the Heels. Still, NC was the better team for just long enough. Sean May was scary good. I think he's the difference maker in St Louis. He's far and away the best low-post scorer left, and I've already talked about Carolina's other weapons. This is Carolina's weekend to lose, and if history has shown us anything, because of Roy Williams they probably will. But I hope not.

Michigan St 94, Kentucky 88 (2OT)
Quite a capper to the weekend. Kentucky hits the miracle buzzer-beater, but the Spartans battle back. No real big heroes in this game (if Shannon Brown's dunk attempt in the 2nd half goes down, that's one of the most spectacular plays in tourney history), just a good old-fashioned slug fest. Where was this talent all year long from the Spartans though? Like Wisconsin, the Spartans played an entertaining, uptempo style of basketball. And played it well. WHY DON"T WE SEE THIS ALL YEAR?!?!? I'm one of the many people that thought the Big 10 was overrated, and that these plodding, ugly teams would get knocked out in a hurry. The Gophers (this is what happens when you litter your non-conference schedule with the School for the Blind and the MN Catholic School for Girls. Is there a policy at the U that says their football and basketball teams HAVE to play cupcake schedules? Glen Mason just announced the U has added Florida Atlantic to this fall's schedule. What, was Roseville Elementary busy that weekend?) and Iowa looked very overrated, but the other 3 played very well. Is there a league-wide mandate to play "3 yards and a cloud of dust" basketball just because the football teams do? Are coaches' concerned that playing entertaining basketball might actually bring back more support and national appreciation for the league? Just wondering.

I'm predicting a Louisville/UNC final next Monday night, with UNC winning. But keep in mind, this is coming from a guy who's finished near the bottom in every bracket pool I entered.

Jeff: We're baaaaaaaaaack...

Well a post from Jer or I was long overdue. Apologies to our mom's (does anyone else read this site?). My excuse for the lack of postings is I've been busy building a bomb shelter. First, the Red Sox win the World Series, then the Elkton Elks, a class B team here in South Dakota who hadn't been to the state tourney in 85 years, won the state title this past weekend. AND the Vikings are making prudent off-season moves (except for the Randy Moss trade which we've already covered and I refuse to revisit. He's gone and we should move on--despite the fact we shouldn't have traded him if this was all we were going to get for him). The Vikings are spending money on defense for the first time since I can remember. Freddy Smoot was a great move, getting a 25-year-old Pro Bowl caliber corner for no more than they paid Antoine Winfield, who's only two years older. Then our friends in Cheeseland drop Darren Sharper into our laps, and we end up with the all-pro leader in the secondary we've been sorely lacking since Joey Browner retired. And Sharper's just 29. Big Pat Williams will be a great run-stuffer, and more importantly he'll take pressure and attention off of All-Pro Kevin Williams (no relation). Youngsters like Udeze and whoever we have at the other end will also benefit from the larger Williams.

Then I see over the weekend we traded a 7th round pick to the Jets for linebacker Sam Cowart, who was going to lose his job to young stud Jonathan Vilma. This is no knock on Cowart, as Vilma is touted as one of the best young linebackers in football. Cowart, although not quite in the Pro Bowl form he was a few years ago, can still make plays. But his biggest plus is that he can be a mentor and good influence on our young guys like EJ Henderson, Dontarrious Thomas and Napoleon Harris. And after all of these moves we still have 2 1st round draft picks and gobs of cap room.

Secretly I'm down-right giddy about all of this, but it still seems too good to be true. I'm waiting for the Red McCombs press conference where he withdraws the sale to Reggie Fowler (which the NFL may do for him) and announces he's moving the team to LA or Vegas or Mexico City. I've been a fan of the VIkings since 1987, and this is the best defense we've had coming into the season since that time. And oh by the way, even without Randy Moss, we still have one of the top QB's in football, 3 starting-caliber running backs, a good o-line and a developing group of receivers. Every year since '87 we've been told as fans this team has a chance to play in the Super Bowl. As cynical as I've become of this team over the years, this might finally be the year when that chance becomes a reality. And if the Vikings could win a Super Bowl in the same span that the Red Sox win the World Series, well, I'm not saying the world's coming to an end, but does anyone know what kind of metal keeps out nuclear radiation? Just wondering.

Jeremy: Trade/No-Trade

It's a strange time to be a Minnesota sports fan.
As an avid user of performance enhancing drugs, I am choosing not to talk about the Minnesota Twins or Major League Baseball.
And because I'll never understand why grown men on skates and multi-millionaires can't seem to see eye-to-eye (or was it because I don't care) I can't even talk about the hockey situation.
This leaves us with the Vikings and the Timberwolves. Two teams that are currently surrounded by a veritable plethora of questions about trades. One about a trade that many people think is less than smart, and one because of not being smart enough to make a trade.
Kevin McHale likes to talk constantly about how difficult it is to make a trade in the NBA. The folks who run the Sixers, Kings, Hornets, Knicks, Celtics, Hawks, Nuggets, Warriors, Rockets, Bobcats, Cavs, Bucks and Heat didn't seem to agree with Mr. McHale when they all were able to make trades before last Thursday's deadline. You've seen the names that changed teams, and we certainly aren't talking about pushing no name players around the league.
So we are left scratching our heads wondering what happened. Perhaps this team has thrown in the proverbial towel for the season. Cassell (injured and disgruntled) and Spreewell (dumb and old) don't have enough value to be considered interesting to other teams. That leaves the too-big contracts of Wally, Trenton Hassell and T-Hud as possible trade bait. Add these facts to the recent suggestion that KG's knee might be bad enough that it's not worth making a run at it this year, and the knee-jerk canning of Flip Saunders, and in reality, it might be the best thing for the Wolves to continue on as they have been.
I might go as far as to say that it would be a good thing for the Wolves to miss the playoffs. They can re-evaluate in the summer. Spree's contract (thank goodness he didn't bite on the one we offered him last summer) will be off the books. Sammy will realize that he needs to put up or shut up. Wally, now matured, can cuddle up to KG and learn how to play second fiddle. This team is quite literally a hurtin' unit right now, so everyone will have a chance to heal. So, we can all get used to the idea that this season is, in essence, over. But hey, we're Minnesota sports fans. We're used to this.
Speaking of which...
Everybody seems to have a very strong opinion about the Vikings dealing away Randy Moss. I've heard everything from "thank goodness he's gone," to "this will go down in history as the Vikings worst trade," to "they didn't get nearly enough in return for his talent."
Five days after the trade I've read multiple articles and talked to several people about the Moss deal and I'm ready to share my thoughts.
Mike Tice has basically spent 3 years as coach of the Vikings trying to appease Moss, who is no doubt the most talented, dynamic and game-changing player in the NFL. For a week following the Vikings final regular season loss to the Redskins when Moss left his teammates on the field with two seconds left in the game, Tice and the entire Vikings organization made excuses for Randy Moss to everyone that would listen. And yet the following week, on the national stage at Lambau Field, Moss threw them all under the bus one more time by mooning Packer fans. Say what you will about his intent, or the severity of this action, it was, at the very least, ill-timed.
Obviously these actions sparked the trade.
Now think about these things:
*Tice realizes that either he can't handle, or doesn't want to handle, Moss any longer. He realizes that he is spending too much time on a guy that will never be a team player, and by doing so he is hurting his entire team.
*Moss' biggest fan, Daunte Culpepper, now has the confidence to couple with the talent he already had, to realize that he doesn't need a selfish guy like Moss, no matter how talented he is, to throw to. Daunte is ready to be the practical and emotional leader of this team both on the field and off.
*A week ago, perspective Vikings owner Reggie Fowler, says he would never trade the ultra-talented Moss.
The upper management of the Vikings must have at least been kicking around the idea of trading Moss before that comment, but after Fowler's comment, they had a new issue: a time-table. If they believed dealing Moss was best for the team they had to do it before Red left town.
If you trade a talent like Moss, you absolutely must get one of two things return, a superstar or a top 10 pick. Could the Vikings have gotten more for Moss from another team? Probably. Could they do it before Fowler took over the team and didn't allow it to happen? Maybe not. And that, I believe, was the thrust of this trade. Once Fowler made the comment about not trading Moss, this was no longer about getting comparable talent, this was about on-the-field leadership, and time.
The Vikings got the number seven pick in a very deep draft. With that pick they will get an immediate impact player. They have $36 million to play with, and the luxury of working a very intriguing free-agency market before they need to figure out which direction to go with that number seven, not to mention their later number 18, pick.
Some might call it addition by subtraction, but when you have so many other additions on the horizon, maybe it doesn't look so much like a subtraction. Could the Vikings afford to trade Moss in the way that they did? Maybe we just need to at least entertain the idea that they couldn't afford not to.

Jeff: Napoleon-Dynamite or Bonaparte?

It's Christmas, 2005. The Minnesota Vikings are battling the Eagles for the NFC's best record. Daunte Culpepper is the top passer in the conference, Nate Burelson has become one of the league's premier receivers, and the defense, led by Napoleon Harris, is actually stopping people occasionally. Other teams are kicking themselves for passing on Antrell Rolle, Adam "Pac-Man" Jones or Mike Williams in the draft, as one of them makes the biggest rookie impact for the purple since Randy Moss. Oh, and the chemistry will be so good within the team the only injuries will be guys dislocating their shoulder patting each other on the back.

Are you this optimistic? I'm not sure I am either. When word came out late yesterday that the Vikings had traded Randy Moss to the Oakland Raiders for Napoleon Harris, and the 7th pick and a late round pick in this April's draft, I, like you, was saying "...that's it? THere's more right? RIGHT?" Apparently not. The Vikes traded one of the top receivers and top talents in the league for one 1st rd pick and a guy named Napoleon--and it's not the French Dictator. Linebackers are a dime a dozen, and good corners are harder to find than a Packers' fan that hates Brett Favre. The Raiders had not one but two good corners, and the Vikes instead get an athletic linebacker that's still searching for a clue. Wait, don't we already have EJ Henderson and Dontarrious Thomas to do that? If the Vikes weren't going to get a corner, something they still desparately need, shouldn't they at least get a linebacker that's a leader? Harris, for all his athletic ability, has leadership qualities that are more comparable to Napoleon Dynamite than Napoleon Bonaparte. Sure the little French guy was under 5'5 and had problems shedding blocks, as well as Russian winters, but at least he'd grab this defense by the facemask and try to restore some order (and also probably order a croissant with mayonaise and yell things like "Zut"!! Sorry, the French are such easy targets). From what we've seen from Harris in his 3 years in the league, he's more likely to yell "Whatever I want to do! Geez!", or "I like your sleeves. They're really big."

The only rational for this deal is the ol' addage of "addition by subtraction". Team leaders Culpepper and Matt Birk have been on record for a few years now as being less than pleased not only with Moss' antics, but the team's lack of discipline against him. Looks like they finally won. The New England Patriots have won 3 of the last 4 Super Bowls not with the most talent, but with the best chemistry, and perhaps that's the direction the Purple are moving. Additon by subtraction. It still doesn't sit well with me. Scroll down this page aways and you'll find the column I wrote about the Vikes NOT trading Moss unless they got a great deal. This was not a great deal, and if this was all there was, they should have kept him another year.

Bottom line is, time will tell. Hopefully in December we'll all be enjoying the Vikings' great season, and not comparing this trade favorably with the Herschel Walker deal of years ago. Hopefully we'll be comparing Harris more to the french Napoleon for his on-field leadership, not to the less-than-Dynamite one. "Hey, give me your tots".

Jeremy: Red, The Real Foul-er

Jeff is certainly right that Reggie Fowler and his reputation is very much in question. The fact that this guy even had a "rough draft" of his personal bio with inaccuracies, nay, out and out lies, on it, definitely sheds a very bleak light on who, or what, this guy is all about.
Even if the NFL and its owners scrutinize over his personal and business finances and find out that he is, indeed, financially capable of owning an NFL franchise, with the recent findings about his bio, is this really the kind of guy that the NFL wants owning a franchise? And more so, is this the kind of guy that the people of Minnesota want owning the Vikings?
Unfortunately the people of Minnesota don't get to choose, otherwise I wonder if Fowler might have already been thrown under the rug and the name of Glen Taylor brought up once again.
The problem lies with Red McCombs. Here's a guy who bought a franchise within the most coveted of pro sports leagues at a rock-bottom, dirt cheap price. He got the team at such a low rate, compared to other NFL teams, because of the Metrodome and the revenue, or lack thereof, that is can produce. He then turned around and complained that he needed a new stadium because he couldn't make any money with the Dome. When the people of Minnesota reminded him that he got the team so cheap and it should have been implied that he use the money he saved to put up a new stadium, he told them they were crazy, and decided to sell.
Hey Red, here's a car analogy an old used car salesman like you can understand: you can't buy a car with hail damage with a cheap price tag and then expect somebody else to fix it at no cost to you.
Red thinks he's held hostage by the Dome, when in fact he put the lock on his own hands when he bought the team. And therein lies the rub for regular folks like you and I. We are now held hostage by a rich man who doesn't understand the true meaning of a good deal.
And so Red spent his time in Minnesota running things as cheap as possible. Cheap coaching staff, cheap team. But now that Red wants to sell the team, is he looking to sell it cheap? Certainly not. That hail damaged car has a price tag on it that is not one red cent under the blue book value.
Enter: Reggie Fowler. He wants to buy this hail damaged car so badly, and Red wants to get rid of it so badly, that as long as Fowler has the money to buy, Red is ready to sell. Red doesn't care that Fowler has a tainted past as a business man. And just like he didn't give a single thought to how his dealings with the Vikings affected the people who paid the bills, the people of Minnesota, he doesn't care how Fowler's past, or future dealings as the potential owner of the team, might affect the team or the people surrounding it.
Red made it clear very early on that owning the Vikings wasn't about loving football, it was about business. He continued to make it clear during his entire time owning the team and now as he is trying to sell the team. And he is making it more clear than ever by trying to slip it past the other NFL owners that the guy he is trying to unload the team on might (allegedly) be more crooked than any used car salesman that has ever worked for him.

Jeff: Whoopsy Daisy!!

Well Jer and Chris (hello Mr. Brenna. I miss you. Deeply), you ask for my thoughts on Mr. Reggie Fowler. At least I think that's his name. And we think he's black. And from Arizona. But from the things that came out about him today in the Minneapolis Star Tribune (www.startribune.com), he could be an elderly Asian woman from Timbuktu. Today it was learned that the info sheet that was handed out at Fowler's press conference on Monday was full of "inaccuracies", which is kind of like saying I drive a Ferrari is an inaccuracy. It's flat out wrong. Even a lie. THe sheet, which Fowler now says he never took the time to look at, was full of an alarming number of "facts" that were actually fiction. To me, having just ONE thing on a resume being a lie would be alarming, but several? Many? You tell me how that looks for somebody spearheading a $625 million bid to buy the Upper Midwest's most popular sporting franchise? I don't even know where to begin. Well how about here-- if you've put in the time and effort to make an offer to buy an NFL franchise, wouldn't you take the extra two minutes to read over your biography to make sure it was right? And wouldn't you take the time long before your press conference to do this to make sure it was accurate? Wouldn't you? Maybe it's just me.

Fowler called the bio that was handed out Monday a "rough draft". Um... I've typed up a personal resume once or twice, and even in my "rough draft", there was nothing even close to something that would be considered a lie. And I was just applying for a job waiting tables, or talking on the radio to cattle (I'm hoping I at least have cattle out here as listeners). Imagine filling out a resume or biography if you were applying for easily one of the most high profile jobs in the midwest. You'd want to get everything right, wouldn't you? Again, maybe it's just me.

All of this has to raise redflags galore for the folks in the NFL that decide whether this sale will be approved. There have been questions since Fowler's name appeared out of thin air as a possible owner about whether he really has the funds for this. And these resume flubs aren't going to help. Nobody's sure of his personal worth. He was rated as the 37th richest African American in the United States--of course Reggie, not once but twice, has said he's 11th. He also said he played in the NFL, which didn't happen. Or that he got a degree from Wyoming in Business (it was actually in SOcial work, which, last time I checked, is a lot different from a business degree).

Bottom line is we have no idea who REggie Fowler is or what he's about. Even the little he tells us isn't worth much after today. I had nothing against Fowler before this incident and nothing now, but I'll stand by what myself and many others have said all along-- the best thing for the Vikings AND their fans would be for Glen Taylor to buy this team. That door may have been opened again.

Jeremy: To Jeff: Okay, Let Me Make Sure I Understand This

Jeff,
Okay, let me see if I understand what happened last night. The Wolves won their first game under McHale against a Nets team that I think everyone would have to agree, at least right now, is a far better squad than the Wolves. But, back the truck up, Olowokandi led the team in rebounds... AND POINTS!?!?!?! Really? Did that happen? Help me out here, Jeff. Am I crazy? Okay, I'm sold, McHale is a coaching genius!!!
Anybody who can get that stiff, that bump-on-a-log, that overpaid and under-producing tazered big man to produce, well, that person has got to get a little bit of respect. Doesn't he? Honestly, was he able to do that? Okay, that's enough McHale butt kissing because I am not that warm to him yet.
Here's the thing that really surprised me. A quote from KG that seems to not only be an endorsement for McHale, but a shot at Flip?
"He's like a breath of fresh air right now. He's given everybody from A to Z confidence."
Wow. Is that a shot? When I first read it, I certainly thought it was.
We seem to agree that McHale, not Flip, as far as team leaders, is to blame here, but were we too quick to judge? Were we, Jeff, heaven forbid, for the first time ever.... wrong?
Jeremy
p.s. Let's take a cue from Chris... what do you make of all this Vikings ownership business?

Jeff: An Equally Baffled Response to the Jer...

Jer

My friend, we think so much alike it's scary. If only we could get Glen Taylor on the same wavelength. After feeling the same emotions of outrage and shock when I heard about the fate of "The (Flip) 'Nosis", my blame turned pretty quickly to McHale as well. Before I get to him, I need to reiterate your thoughts on how ridiculous it is that Flip got thrown under the bus for this. Take one look at this team and you can see Sprewell and Cassell are the problems here. They're not trying, and their whining and pouting are infecting other players. If Michael Olowakandi knew what planet he was on, it might affect him too. Not only that, we hear now that KG has been playing on an injured knee, but because he's what every athlete should strive to be, we've heard nothing about it until now because Garnett refuses to talk about it or even acknowledge it. Tell me, please, what coach could do any better with this group?

Now let me get this straight: you can't get anything for Sprewell or Cassell. Nobody will give you anything of value because of their attitudes and age. Cutting Sprewell is not a possibility here? His contract is up at year's end. He's doing nothing for the team and doesn't want to be there. Wouldn't cutting him show the rest of the guys that if you don't perform you're gone? Heck, I'll go a step further. I would have pulled a Jon Gruden with Keyshawn: tell Sprewell not to even report to work. Deactivate him, and then cut him right before the end of the season so that he's not eligble for anybody else's playoff roster. And I'd tell all of this to the media. You HAVE to play hardball here. You HAVE to send a message to your players that the team is more important. Firing Flip and keeping your problems around does just the opposite. The attitudes on this team are only going to get worse now because they know they can get away with it.

Finally, why are Wolves fans not asking for McHale's head now? Jer, you're bang on. Since he drafted KG, he made a horrible trade involving Marbury, let Googs walk for nothing, was as responsible or more so than Glen Taylor for the Joe Smith fiasco, and now this. HOW DOES THIS MAN STILL HAVE A JOB?!?!? Let's just say that IF McHale and Taylor are right in the statements they made about Flip's responsibility in all this. If that IS true, how is McHale not MORE responsible? I give up. Jer, help me, I think I'm hyperventilating.

breathing into a paper bag,
Jeff

Jeremy: A Letter to Jeff: Was I Wrong?

My Dearest Jeffrey,
I got your voicemail message about Flip getting fired on Saturday night after spending the day in the blackhole of Southern Minnesota at a wedding where I could not get cell phone reception. That was the first I had heard of it, and I was in shock.
Twice in the last couple of weeks in this very space I have proclaimed my belief that nothing going wrong with this team had anything to do with our favorite NBA coach, Flip(nosis) Saunders. Was I wrong? Based on his firing Saturday, I would have to assume that, at least, Kevin McHale & Glen Taylor did not agree with me. But I still ask, was I wrong?
Okay, let's put the niceties aside here. This is not Flips fault, and I feel bad for the man. Flipnosis has been the coach of this team for 10 years. He led the team to eight straight playoff appearances. And he groomed KG into the player he is today. Don't you think that those facts should afford Flip the opportunity to try to turn this team around in the second half of the season, and to see this team through the rest of the season at least?
What happened here? Is this a knee-jerk reaction? I think that what happened was, after realizing that he couldn't unload Spree and Sam because not only are they playing horribly, but they aren't putting in any effort and their brand of cancer is infecting this whole team, McHale got tired of Taylor breathing down his neck to get something done, so McHale realized that the next thing he could do to make a change quickly was to fire the team bench leader.
So, is it Flip's fault that Spree and Sam are cancer? Is it Flip's fault that MCHALE couldn't make a deal?
Jeff, you and I used to be the biggest McHale bashers around. Names like Marbury, Joe Smith and Gugliotta, will remind everyone why. We took the year off from bashing him last year because Sam and Spree seemed like genius moves. And last year, they were.
Is it time to go back to bashing him now?
Sincerely,
The Jer

Jeff: Moss Walking the Plank

If you're a sports fan, you love rumors and trade speculation. If you're a Vikings fan and are sick of Randy Moss' antics, you're especially loving the talks about his exit out of Minnesota. But before you try and throw Moss overboard off the Good Ship Viking, allow me to remind you of this: RANDY MOSS WAS NOT THE REASON THE VIKINGS WERE .500 THIS SEASON!!! After walking off the field, and then the much overblown mooning incident, people seem to have forgotten what a healthy Randy Moss can do. Before he got hurt against New Orleans midway though the season, the Vikings had the #1 offense in football. That's right, better than Peyton Manning and the Colts. With a healthy Randy, it was Culpepper who was on pace to break Marino's records, not Manning. Moss made the Vikes' O unstoppable, and made Scott Linehan look competent, something that was much harder to do when Moss was hurt the rest of the season. Randy is the NFL's most dangerous weapon. Period.

Now, having said that, I do not agree with him walking off the field and do not agree with VIkings' management caudling him when he makes mistakes. Apparently some of the players agree. Moss was quoted this morning saying he really wants to return to the Vikings. Pro Bowl QB Daunte Culpepper's response? "...maybe the Vikings have had enough of (Moss') erratic behavior." Not exactly a ringing endorsement from the guy in charge of getting Randy the rock. An irreconcilable situation like the Cubs had with Sammy Sosa? For the sake of the team, let's hope not.

Here's my point: the Vikings don't NEED to trade Randy Moss. His antics were not the reason the Vikings collapsed down the stretch again. His pouting and selfishness did not keep this team from reaching the Super Bowl. Terrell Owens was every bit the malcontent Moss is, single-handedly destroying a franchise in San Francisco, and weasling his way out of another in Baltimore. Yet ask anyone in Philly about his impact this season with the Eagles, and they'll say he's the greatest thing since the cheesesteak. Winning does this. THe Vikings, because of a terrible defense, only know what that's like for the first half of a season. When the going gets tough however, the defense gets going, and so do any chances of the Vikes steering their ship to the Super Bowl.

If the Vikings get blown away by a trade offer for Moss this offseason, one that includes some stud defenders and high draft picks, they would be crazy not to pull the trigger. But if teams make low-ball offers, the Vikes shouldn't hesitate to hang onto Randy for one more season. THey don't need to be put into a fire-sale mode with Moss. If you can't get a deal for what he's worth, shore up the defense through free-agency and the draft (an actual possibility for the first time in a decade if Glen Taylor buys the team, which is the rumor). Give this great offense a defense to go with it, then see what winning does to team chemistry and to Moss. If they win and Moss is still a distraction, and he really DOES become the reason the Vikes don't go to Detroit next February, then you throw him off the Vikings ship for whatever you can get. If there's no blockbuster on the table for him now, trading him next year won't net you much less than teams are offering at the moment. But if he does perform and does focus on team, which he did in both '98 and '01 when the Purple advanced to the NFC Championship, then you've still got the NFL's most dangerous weapon and all the shenanigans from this past season will be water under the bridge, or in this case, the Good Ship Viking, as it finally sets sail towards the Super Bowl.

Jeremy: What's right with the Wolves?

I'll give you a moment to stop laughing after reading the title of this post. I know, I know. I've already written over 20 words, and that should be more than enough to convey what is right with our Minnesota Timberwolves, right?
After my last post about my beloved Puppies, they rolled off 5 wins in a row. My cousin emailed me back to tell me that he was certain that Flip(nosis) was reading Midwest Sports Rubes and the ship had been righted.
The honest truth is that I don't think that 5 game winning streak could have been more damaging, or could have come at a worse time for this team. It was beginning to look like they were going to have to make some huge and sweeping changes very soon, and then they go and win 5 in a row, and give everybody hope that they can turn it around. The winning streak probably set the trade process back at least 10 days, which in the NBA is a lifetime when you are trying to move the biggest egos in the sports world from one city to another.
So here we are, two days after the Wolves have dropped below .500. Fans and some media are beginning to call for Flips head. Nobody understands why a move hasn't been made and we aren't even hearing about the possibility of a trade. It's even gotten so bad that some people are starting to blame KG.
Look, I understand that when things get bad everybody is going to look to the leaders to find out what's wrong. But let's get one thing strait: (and I will fight to the death with anybody on this point) reasons one and two why the Timberwolves are down this year are not Flip Saunders and Kevin Garnett. They are 1) Latrell Spreewell, & 2) Sam Cassell.
The difference on this team last year from prior years was chemistry. Part of that had to do with Spree and Sammy. They were happy to be here, they deferred the lead role to KG and their attitudes were rewarded with a trip to the Western Conference Finals.
The difference on this team this year from last year is again chemistry, or lack thereof. Spree and Sammy, feeling that is was them who made the difference in the team last season, wanted more money and more input on the team this season. They aren't getting that for two reasons. First, because KG is still in town and he (rightfully) gets all the input he wants. And second, because before the season started they put money before team, with Sam showing up to camp late and Spree making his now famous "feed my family" comment.
I said in my last post that the only people that matter on this team are KG and Flip. I still believe that. But guys like Fred (The Mayor) Hoiberg, who has the highest 3-point % in the league, Wally (World) Szczerbiak, whose effort is never in question, and Mark Madsen, who this team is missing more than anyone cares to admit, are also important to the chemistry of this team. And where those guys, along with Flip and KG, understand that they are just as important to the chemistry of the team as last years MV3, guys like Spree and Sammy do not. And that is the gap in this team that is causing a division that seems almost insurmountable right now. At least Spree is only under contract for the rest of this season and we're only obligated to Sammy through next year. I haven't even touched on Troy Hudson, whose rap career and bank account have suddenly turned him into the second coming of Cassell whose career-long adage has been "I'll shoot myself into the game, even if it means shooting my team out of it."
As per usual, I had the Wolves on the TV last night at work, and as per usual, I kept somewhat of an eye toward what was going on in the game as I worked. I can't count how many times I stopped in front of a TV, looked at the score, and simply shook my head. It got so bad that when I stopped by her table, an elderly woman having dinner with her son said to me, "either you have a nervous tick or you are unhappy about something going on it that game."
I don't have kids. I have sports. I have the Vikings, the Gophers and the Wolves. And right now my teenager, who really did a lot of growing up last year, is hanging out with the wrong crowd.

Jeremy: Unloading

I received this email today:

"midwest sports rubes is due for an editorial about t-wolves basketball, especially now that they have fallen to .500, trail seattle by 8+ games, are standing in 8th place in the west, and couldnt beat the lakers even with kobe benched. -cuz"

My cousin knows me well. He knows me well enough to know that this Wolves slump makes me sick to my stomach. He knows me well enough to know that I have an opinion on it. And most of all, he knows me well enough to know that it makes me so mad that I don't really want to talk about it.
I'll start by comparing the Wolves, or what I think the Wolves should be, to toilet paper. Yep. Toilet paper. You know the commercial I'm talking about. "Charmin Ultra, Less Is More." The old adage "addition by subtraction" I think applies well to the Wolves right now.
Less Is More. Less players, less complicated defense, less quick shooting, less settling for outside shots, and less selfish play.
If you look up and down this team at players, stats, minutes played, etc. it's tough to figure out what's wrong. They are averaging more points per game (+3.8 ppg), more team assists per game (+.3 apg) and more rebounds per game (+1 rpg)... but that's because they have to, because they are also giving up 7.1 more points per game than last year.
Besides giving up more points per game I cannot find one stat that will support why the Wolves are an absolutely horrible team right now.
So where do I take this?
The thing that set the Wolves apart from everybody else last year is that they weren't like them. Simple right? They were a team that played defense as well as they played offense. They moved the ball around the parameter until the found the best lane or the best shot. They took the outside shot when they had it and they nailed it. They were unselfish. They knew that KG was the leader of the team and nobody questioned it. They played the game that Flip coached, they didn't question, they played together and they won.
This year they are just like everybody else. They play bad defense. They don't move the ball around enough. They take bad shots too quickly. They play selfish. There are too many guys who want to be the man instead of letting KG do his job. And they are questioning every move that Flip makes because they were all good players on a great team last year who somehow perverted their success into thinking they were all great players on a great team so they should all be a part of how the team wins this year.
My opinion on this team? Only two people matter: KG and Flip. As harsh as this sounds, everybody else on this team means nothing. Unfortunately there's only three guys on the court who seem to buy into this philosophy: KG, Flip and, ironically, Wally. I don't love Wally, I don't even particularity like him as a player that much, but Wally gets it right now. He understands that he's not KG and he never will be. He might even understand that he'll probably never be a Spree or a Cassell, but what he does understand is that as long as he plays his hardest, works on his defense, shoots his open shots and makes a good fraction of them, he's going to be an impact player on this team with a consistency that Spree and Cassell have never dreamed of.
Look, Wally's not going to save the world. He's not even going to save the Wolves. But (as much as I hate to say this) if all of the players on this team would take Wally's lead, who takes his lead from KG, and work hard and keep their head in the game, the whole team would be better off.

Jeremy: Toughen Up, Lose The Dome, Part 2

This Sunday three NFC teams will take the field in the Divisional Playoffs who call a domed stadium home: Minnesota, St. Louis & Atlanta. This got me to thinking today: how do domed teams fare in Super Bowls? So I did a little research. What I found was literally unbelievable to me.
First of all, let's break this down. 39 Super Bowls have been played and completed. Not counting teams that have played in multiple Super Bowls, that means that 39 teams have won the Super Bowl in its history, and a total of 78 teams have played in the Super Bowl.
Out of the 39 teams that have won the Super Bowl, only one, the '99-'00 St. Louis Rams played their home games in a domed stadium.
Out of the 78 teams that have played in the Super Bowl, only two have played their home games in domed stadiums: the '98-'99 Atlanta Falcons and the '99-'00 St. Louis Rams.
Pretty unreal isn't it?
In addition to that take into account that the Falcons had home field advantage in the playoffs until the NFC Championship Game against the Vikings, which was played in the Metrodome, and the Rams had home field advantage throughout the '99-'00 playoffs. And to throw even more fuel on the fire, guess where the Rams played that Super Bowl on January 30, 2000 when they beat the Tennessee Titans? You guessed it, a dome. The Georgia Dome in Atlanta. So, the only team from a domed stadium to ever win a Super Bowl had the luxury of playing their entire playoff schedule, including the big dance, indoors.
Teams that play in domed stadiums do not play well in the playoffs unless they play in domes. The Vikings and the Rams winning their playoff games last weekend was an anomaly.
Is there any greater evidence that football should not be played indoors? Why would any owner even want to build a domed stadium? For the comfort of his team? Because apparently comfortable teams get too comfortable and can't win the big games.

Jeremy: Do I Still Live In Minnesota?

On Sunday November 28th the Vikings beat the Jags when Kevin Williams recovered a fumble and returned if 77 yards for a touchdown with under two minutes to play. The game was at the Metrodome, where the Vikings should never ever lose a game. A day or so after the game I talked to Jeff on the phone and said these words: "It's nice to be on the winning end of a game like this when we have gotten so used to losing them." In other words: lightning has struck. And lightning can't strike the same team twice can it? Certainly not in one season. Right?
I called Jeff again yesterday after the Vikings went up 14-0 just five minutes into their Wild Card Game with the Packers. "Hey, who are the Packers playing today? Cause it sure doesn't look like the Vikings." Apparently I was wrong because they were playing the Vikings, and roughly three hours later the second lightning strike of the season was complete.
Were ya like me? Did you have that sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach everytime the Vikings did something right? Everytime they had a long play, did you do like I did and look to the upper right hand corner of the TV screen for that familiar little yellow box and the world "FLAG"? Were you surprised everytime you didn't see it? Did you shake your head in utter disbelief all FOUR TIMES (!!!!!) that Favre threw an interception? Did you get a little nausous when you noticed that the Vikings had scored 31 points? The same number that they had scored in their previous regular season losses to the Pack?
Watching the Vikings game for me brought on one old emotion and one new emotion that I haven't felt in awhile. The old emotion was: we've been here before, Favre is still leading the Packers, there's bound to be penalties, I just don't trust this team. The new emotion, the one I haven't felt in awhile was: we are playing with heart, I'm confident that we can score everytime we have the ball, our defense isn't going to beat us today.
I don't think that I was wrong to feel the first emotion. As a life-long fan of this team they've really given me no reason to believe anything other than that. But you knew, you just felt something different, the moment Daunte scrambled and found Mo Williams who rambled down the sideline for the opening drive touchdown. That second emotion was valid too. We were excited, we had come to play, and we had done exactly what everyone in the world said we had to do to win this game: we got on them early. And we kept getting on them.
For the second time this season I can say it: it's nice to be on the winning end of a game like this.
Suddenly the Vikings are the sexy choice in the NFC. My favorite NFL analyst, Sean Salisbury, (sensing any sarcasm?) took about .0743 seconds to jump back on the Vikings bandwagon and choose them to beat the Eagles next week and go to the NFC championship game. I'm not ready to go quite that far, but I will say this: if they Vikings play next Sunday like they played on this Sunday, they will not lose. But do we suddenly have a chance to go to the Super Bowl? Um, I think not.
Look, I'm just like any other Viking fan: the world is certainly a better place the Monday after a win. But we've got to be realistic here. Don't we?
Or do we?

Jeff: Throwing gas on the fire...

Happy Friday--unless you're a Vikes fan. Good lord. Mike Tice is just an idiot. Just plain dumb. You know about Randy Moss walking off the field in DC before the game was over last week. You know it just adds to his bad reputation. You know he's been "Randy just being Randy" for his whole life. You know he doesn't need motivation from fans or the media to play well (think what you will of him, but on national tv games, when healthy, he just flat-out dominates). According to Daunte and Matt Birk, the players and Moss hashed things out and have moved on from the incident in DC. Your fan base, although more pissed off and frustrated than ever, were shifting focus from another selfish Moss act to focusing on the inevitable heartbreaking loss to the Pack this Sunday (not that I'm not confident in the Vikes right now--lost 7 of 10, 2-15 outdoors under Tice, oh and we're playing the team that always gets the better of us when it matters. ALWAYS. But other than that I love their chances) So what does Tice do? He tells Moss to call into Tice's weekly radio show last night "to defend himself", hoping Moss would clear the air on his actions last week (despite evidence to the contrary that it wouldn't happen!!!) The show's host, Dan Barrero, is one of the most negative, sarcastic, smartasses ever to hit the airwaves (which means I love him). He's not about to ask Moss cupcake questions. To quote Swingers, he's not going to talk about "puppy dogs and ice cream". Of course Moss says he's not sorry for walking off the field, and of course Moss says he could very well do it again. Barrero asks the tough questions, and Moss either brushes them off or gives answers that you don't want to hear from a guy you're paying $80 million.

Tice defended his star player the entire interview. Now all of Viking-dom is irrate at Moss. But here's why I think Tice is an idiot: Um, Mike? WHAT ELSE DID YOU EXPECT RANDY TO SAY?!?!?!? A lot of people hate Randy because he's selfish and cocky and admits freely he plays when he wants to play. Fine. But Randy is who Randy is. He's been the same guy for the 7 seasons he's been in Minnesota. He's not going to change. He didn't put a gun to Red McCombs head to pay him $80 mill with a $20 mill signing bonus (a contract extension I was against, might I add). Randy is going to do what's best for Randy, and as Vikings fans we have to hope that means dominating on the field most of the time, and we are at his mercy because of that contract. But again-WE KNOW THIS.

Tice has been in Minnesota, as either head coach or a coordinator, for most of Moss' 7 seasons. If anybody should know Randy, it'd be Tice. If anybody should know that Randy wasn't about to come on the radio, 3 days before the team's biggest game of the year, and kiss ass and apologize. He's never done it--HE NEVER WILL!!! He said as much in the interview!!! My question is what on God's green earth did Tice think he would accomplish by bringing Randy on the radio, knowing he'd get grilled for the Redskins shennanigans and everything else?!?! Your fans were focusing on the game at hand, your players had made their peace with him, and Moss hates talking to the media anyways. Why bring this up again? WHAT WAS THIS SUPPOSED TO DO?!?!?

I've tried to be a positive Vikings fan. Am trying to find the silver lining. Everything is stacked against this team right now, and they have noone to blame for it but themselves. I hope the impossible happens, and the Vikes pull out a miraculous win. But I'm counting on that about as much as hearing Moss apologize for his actions, or Mike Tice getting fired after this season for driving this team into the ground 2 straight years. Have I mentioned how much I love this team?

Jeremy: An Open Letter to Jeff

Jeffrey,
First, I want to apologize to you. In an earlier post you commented that you sometimes feel like I think of you as less of a fan because you had to choose which teams to cheer for. I love you, man. I definitely don't think of you as less of a fan. You know me, I get like this when things are especially hurtful in my sporting world. I become resentful of teams like the Lakers, Michigan football and the Yankees because they always win and I feel like their fans have it easy. I begin to hate places like the New England area for having two championships in one calendar year and ending an 86 year championship draught in baseball. I start to feel like we here in Minnesota are the last truly tortured and loyal fans on earth. I know this isn't true, but it makes me feel better, much like a pint of rocky road made me feel better when that bastard Bruce broke my heart (did I just reveal that?). In any case, YOU'RE MY BOY, BLUE.
Moving on, I need to rant about some sporting type stuff...
The Wolves are horrible. What the heck is going on? Garnett scores a franchise record 47 points and adds 22 rebounds against the best team in the West right now, and they somehow manage to give up 121 points... in regulation? Are you kidding me? It's possible that their defense right now is worse than the Vikings. They play the expansion Bobcats tonight in Charlotte and I have ZERO confidence that they can win.
Speaking of the Vikings defense... Green Bay for the third time this season in the first round of the playoffs this Sunday. I know it's very hard in the NFL to beat the same team three times... but then again, we ARE talking about the Vikings here. I give them a small shot because they are playing in Green Bay, which is just about the only outdoor place where they play halfway decent. This team has no heart, Jeff. I heard that the game-time temperature is expected to be 25 degrees. A little quick math tells me that's roughly 47 degrees cooler than they prefer to play in. Vegas is favoring the Pack by about 6 points right now. I fully expect that number to go down as the week goes on because anybody who is betting on the Vikings to cover that 6 points has DEFINITELY been out in the cold way too long.
Did you see that my Gophs won the Music City Bowl? Yeah, it was probably the sloppiest football game I've ever watched. So many penalties at absolutely horrible times, plus, I've never seen a quarterback overthrow so many wide-open receivers as Pennington did for Alabama. The Goophies have a shot to be better next year. They basically get their entire set of skill-position players back, but with Mason still coaching this team, I have my doubts. I'm calling it right now, here's my time-line for Gopher-football next year. Mid-August: I will once again get excited for Gopher football. September: Gophers yet again breeze through the non-conference schedule as Mason sings the praises of his team and himself. Early October: excitement will ensue as the Gophers have a great early season, the running game still looks solid, and Cupito looks like he's matured. Early November: I will be disappointed that the Gophers can't carry their winning ways into the Big 10 season (I will make no public predictions regarding Michigan or the game following Michigan). Late November: I will be calling for Mason's head after the Gophers manage to lose their final two games to Wisconsin and Iowa. Maturi will call me for advice After a long discussion, in which the phrase "better late than never" is uttered by me no less than 12 times, Maturi will respond by canning Mason. Late December: coached on an interim basis by Bozo the Clown, who is actually able to put together a gameplan that utilizes the talent on the team, the Gophers rout Coppin State in the Motor City Bowl. (Here comes the wishful thinking.) Early January: USC wins yet another National Championship, offensive coordinator Norm Chow decides he's ready to be a head coach, and leaves the warm Southern California climate for the frozen tundra of Minneapolis.
By the way, as long as you've known me have I ever been THIS jaded as a Minnesota sports fan as I have been in the last two months? In the last week I have said that I had no confidence that the Vikes could win in D.C. (they didn't), now I'm saying I don't think the Wolves can beat anybody. Seven weeks prior to this I was sitting in a lower-deck endzone section of the Metrodome next to Porta as the Gophers collapsed against Iowa and the only reason it didn't break my heart was because I absolutely knew it was coming. DO YOU SEE WHAT THESE TEAMS HAVE DONE TO ME??????????
With Love & Admiration,
Jeremy
p.s. The road to knighthood is paved with strength and nobility, Jeff, not LSD and sideburns.

Jeremy: An Argument For Parity

The question of whether or not parity is good for the NFL has been a hot debate over the last couple of years. Many people still wish for the days of the dynasty. I am here to not only say that I feel parity is good for the NFL, I believe it would be good for all pro sports.
First, let's talk about how parity happens. Now I understand that parity isn't exactly something that you can manufacture. But one of the reasons that every single team has a shot at going to the big show in the NFL every year is because the NFL does not have guaranteed contracts. The only money that is guaranteed in the NFL is the signing bonus, and most teams spread the signing bonus out over the life of the contract so that if they do lose a player to injury, trade or otherwise, they are only responsible for what is left on that player's signing bonus. Since the contracts are not guaranteed, like in other sports, it's much easier to release players. The long-term commitment that you make to a player isn't necessarily as long-term as it may seem. Because of all of this contracts tend to be shorter in terms, and, generally, have a year or two at the end that are optional. All of this put together means that big name players, like a Terrell Owens, can move around the league more easily, and because of a salary cap and other things the NFL has put into place in order to protect the competitive nature of the league, the money isn't going to be much greater from one team to another, and so, players tend to gravitate toward teams that have the greatest chance of winning in the very short term.
So why is this a good thing?
First of all, it's great for the fans. In August of every year almost every fan in the entire league believes that their team has a shot to go at least to the playoffs, and maybe the Super Bowl. And none of them are wrong. Every team does have a shot because the system that is in place makes everybody truly even on opening day, unlike the NBA or MLB, each of which generally have one or two very clear favorites to win the title, and this almost always comes to fruition throughout the season.
Second, it's good for the teams. It means that every year, every team has a shot to rebuild into a championship caliber team that will be a serious force within three years. I've believed for many years that in the NFL you have a three year window to win. You have (1)your rebuilding year, (2)your figuring out your identity year, and (3)your year when it all comes together and you take a shot. If it doesn't pan out after the third year you go back to the drawing board.

Jeff: Stop the Vinsanity. Please

Earlier this week, the most overrated player in the NBA was dealt from the Toronto Raptors to the New Jersey Nets for a couple of Williams, an aging and perhaps washed-up former all-star center, and a couple of 1st round draft picks. Sports stations and websites have been howling about how the Raptors got ripped off, dealing Vince Carter, a perenial fan selection to the All-star game and "one of the game's most talented players" for virutally nothing. That they just started the ball rolling for the Raps to move out of Canada and cripple the franchise. Maybe. But I say maybe not. Carter made his name winning the Slam Dunk contest a few years back when that still meant something, displaying an array of dunks that could have defeated MJ and Nique in their high-flying primes. A 20-pt-a-night scorer, Vinsanity brought the Raptors to the brink of the NBA Finals, missing the game winning fade-away pointer in game 7 of the Eastern Conference semi-Finals against Philly in 2001. His popularity was never higher and it seemed his talent was soaring like one of his gravity-defying jams. However, it seems Carter's desire has been fading away ever since.

According to an ESPN.com poll, it seems there's still plenty of folks out there who think Vince can rise back to his 2001 stature as one of the league's top players teamed up with Jason Kidd. This is what happens when people only watch his occasional Sportscenter highlight dunk. They don't see his unwillingness to get in the paint, pass, defend, or do anything but shoot fade-away 3's and make an open-court dunk. Despite this year's career low totals, Carter still has a career scoring average of almost 23 pts a game, but if there were a way to measure heart, desire, and leadership, Vince would be in negative numbers. Not only do his lack of desire to play team basketball make Kobe look like unselfish, but his pouting, whining and dissatisfaction when things aren't going his way have made him a clubhouse cancer.

Need proof? In 2002, Carter suffered an injury called "Jumper's Knee" (or as I like to call it-- "Wuss-itis") and was lost for the last 3 months of the regular season. Instead of folding like a cheap tent or pulling a Vince and "fading away" the Raps rallied without their star and made an incredible run to get into the playoffs--back when that meant something in the Eastern Conference. Coincedence? The next year Carter was relatively healthy, and the same group finished with 4th worst record in the league.

Bottomline is Carter didn't want to be in Toronto and it was obvious they didn't want him. They basically gave him away to the Nets, and although they may have gotten a better deal had they waited a little longer, the Raps are sending a message. They feel like they can make a run to the playoffs (which isn't saying much in the East), and wanted to rid themselves of the distraction of Carter. THey have an up-and-coming star in 2nd yr forward Chris Bosh. Like the Wolves did with KG, the Raps want to surround Bosh with "good guys" who will be a positive influence on him. Look for Bosh to break out and the Raps, at just 9-18 with Carter, to slide into the playoffs as a 7 or 8 seed. This team will be a prime example of the Sports Guy's Ewing Theory.

As for the Nets, they'll have plenty of highlight-reel plays, with JKidd throwing lobs for Carter and Richard Jefferson. A playoff team? Maybe, but I can think of, well, just about anybody else I'd want taking crunch-time shots instead of Carter or RJ. The word "soft" comes to mind for both guys. The Nets are team who needs to trade JKidd and rebuild. Instead they dealt some assets for a guy who might put some butts in the seats but won't do a whole lot for them in the standings. Style over substance. That's too much of the NBA today.

Jeff: Oh really?

I apologize for calling any of you MN sports fans crazy for having an emotional attachment the Metrodome--aka the worst pro sports facility in America today. But in a way, you guys are all crazy, and that's the point: Minnesota probably has the best fans in the country, and you have 2 of the worst owners in sports in the same town holding the fans hostage with one big giant plastic ugly Metrodome. MN sports fans are playing a game of chicken with Pohlad and the Used Car Salesman (I am positive he is evil because he is from San Antonio, as is anybody I know who moved there), and I think fans from other parts of the country are proud of MN sports fans because they're standing their ground. However, I've seen what a new rink has done in Vancouver (oh wait, we don't have hockey), and a beautiful new baseball park in Seattle, but the taxpayers were forced to pay for most of it. Even with the lockout in the NHL (keeping in mind that Canadians are completely irrational and dilusional when it comes to hockey, and have also been drinking a lot more Molson since there hasn't been any hockey to watch) I'd say if you asked either fan base if it was worth it to pay more in taxes to keep their teams (true in both cases) and get new facilites, most would say yes. Eventually, Hennepin or Ramsey county taxpayers may have to suck it up and help pay for one and give in to the Evil Friends of Sid (Hartman). I hope the fans win and Pohlad and Red will sell to somebody like Glen Taylor who actually cares about the fans and the teams. Although my opinion on this site apparently doesn't count for much, in my brief time in the midwest, I can say that nobody deserves new digs more than the fans of the Land O' 10,000 lakes.

I do not, and should not, pretend to know what it's like to be born and raised in Minnesota and grow up with all these teams. At the same time, I still consider myself as passionate a sports fan as Minnesota Jer, cheering as hard for my teams as you do for yours. There are times when it seems like you think of me a lesser fan because I had to choose my teams, rather than being born into them. However I assure you that having to choose your sports affiliations at an early age and having to live with those choices is just as difficult as being born into them.

And hey, at least we can agree on one thing: we both hate Iowa.

Jeremy: The Black Eye of the Sports World

It has not been hard to see over the last few years that Major League Baseball is in serious trouble. Year in and year out fans, sportswriters and players alike talk about how the Yankees spend so much money. About how George Steinbrenner is constantly trying to buy a championship. Listen, I'm probably one of the biggest Yankee haters around, but in a major league sport where teams are allowed to spend absolutely as much as their heart's desire to win, how can anybody blame Steinbrenner for what he does? Perhaps the reason that so many people hate the Yankees as much as they do isn't because they win so much, or that they buy the best talent in the league to win, but that we are all jealous because the owner's of our own teams aren't willing, or don't have pockets deep enough, to do the same. The league is lopsided toward big market teams and teams with the richest and most eccentric owners.
Despite all of it's problems sitting in the stands at an outdoor baseball stadium with a plastic glass of beer and a hot dog topped with all the fixin's still feels like one of the most pure fan experiences in sports. Even if that outdoor stadium is indoors and the grass is plastic, there's something American about the experience.
A few years ago baseball looked like it had a chance to make a comeback. Sammy Sosa and Mark McGuire battled in the late summer to see who would break the all-time season homerun record. It was quite possibly the most storied record in all of sports and the entire country was interested to see who would get it done. In the end McGuire ended up outdueling Sosa.
A couple of years later Barry Bonds beat the record set by McGuire. It was a bit anti-climactic when Bonds did it. It felt too soon, the ink of McGuire's name had barely dried when Bonds beat it.
With all the recent news of steroids and human growth hormone and creams and on and on and on, Bonds record looks like complete crap. Baseball already had a paper thin reputation with most of the country. The casual fans of baseball have been beat up for the past decade at least but the powers and money in baseball never seem to be concerned about the fans or the future of their sport. I just wonder if baseball will be able to recover from this latest set-back and win back some of the fans, like myself, who wonder if it still has anything worthwhile, and honest, to offer.