Seattle Supersonics: Gone but not Forgotten

On Wednesday, ESPN.com's the Sports Guy Bill Simmons asked for Seattle Supersonics fans emails about their anger, frustration, and sadness about losing the team to a bunch of rednecks from Oklahoma. Yesterday, less than 24 hours later, he got them. Simmons received about 3000 of them, and it made quite a statement. I didn't get one sent to him, but decided to submit the following today anyway...


Bill,

So I was all set to write you yesterday, when I see 3000 distraught Sonics fans already beat me to it. Wow. Now THAT's a response! Although you'll probably never read this, I wanted to add two quick things that I didn't see in the mailbag (and this is also therapeutic):

(For the record, I fell in love with the Supes in 1990, when the Bulls were in Vancouver to play an exhibition game against Seattle. While I was there to see MJ, I came away talking about rookie Gary Payton, who wore #2 with a high flat-top, and led everybody in scoring and trash talk. I also found out who Shawn Kemp was- who became, and still is, my favorite NBA player of all-time- who at the time was a 20 year old 2nd year power forward who wore #40 and had 6 dunks in the game. I've been a Sonics fan ever since)

One is that while the hottest places in hell should be reserved for David Stern and Howard Schultz, I don't blame Clay Bennett. He and his redneck buddies had a brand new arena with no tenant and wanted to bring a pro sports team to their town. They looked for a team they could move, whiny cry-baby coffee bitch Schultz sold them the Supes, and now Stern is allowing them to leave. The fact Bennett is moving the team should rate about the same on a level of surprise as OJ Simpson ranks on the Vengeance Scale when he says he's trying to find the real killer. We knew this was coming.

The man who doesn't get enough blame however is former GM Wally Walker. You've probably heard this before, but the Jim Mcilvaine signing is what triggered this whole mess. Kemp was the best power forward in the league at the time (yes I'm biased and hate Karl Malone, but Kemp was the 2nd best player in the '96 Finals after MJ), but Walker refused to talk extension. Instead, he gave a seven year $33.6 million contract to Mcilvaine, who had done nothing with the Bullets, and did nothing in Seattle.

It upset Kemp, he forced the worst 3-team trade in history, and the Sonics were never the same. Kemp's career went in the tank, Schultz eventually takes over and runs GP out of town, fan interest sinks, Schultz throws a hissy fit and sells to The Rednecks, and now the Supes are leaving.

Those early-mid 90's teams were my favorite I've ever cheered for (although considering my other teams are the Mariners, Vikings, Canucks, and UW Huskies, I suppose that's not saying much). I hope the city at least keeps the name and colors, and that Kevin Durant bolts for free agency ASAP.

thanks for listening to all of us Bill,

Jeff


I don't expect people outside of the Pacific Northwest to really understand or care. Although I'd like people to, it's human nature to feel like "that's too bad but it won't happen to us." As much as I hate David Stern for being such a cold-hearted SOB, I also understand why he's taking this stand: if he caves now, any owner in his league, and really that of any of the other pro leagues, will have a tough time getting citizens to pay for their new arenas and ballparks and stadiums. Minnesotans just paid for the vast majority of a new Twins ballpark only to watch the team let Torii Hunter and Johan Santana walk because they say they couldn't afford them. This from Carl Pohlad, one of the three wealthiest owners in baseball. Folks in Seattle paid for new baseball and football stadiums when their teams threatened to leave, and help pay for the renovation of Key Arena in 1995. Now they're being told they have need a new one?

As a fan, this is all depressing and disgusting at the same time. Being a sports fan is about the most illogical and irrational thing you can do. You give a ton of investment in time, money, and emotion, and the owners and players are the ones who reap the benefits. Our payoff is a championship, which for my aforementioned teams, has been 30 years and counting waiting for one. I would love to know if the Green Bay Packers model of fan ownership can work in the NBA. We know it's worked in soccer, as fans recently purchased a second division English football club, and now fans of world power Liverpool want to do the same. Could fans of the NBA, major league baseball, or the place it's needed more than any other, for the six NHL hockey teams in Canada, do the same? This article in Time magazine doesn't answer the question, but at least asks it. With fan ownership your time, money, and emotion invested would actually make a difference, as your voice would be heard and your dollars spent on the team would actually be a real life investment. Not to mention with fan ownership, the team would never be able to leave because you wouldn't buy it a new stadium.

It would be the one way for fans, who foot the bill for the billion-dollar pro sports business, to take some control back. It's not often I want to emulate Cheeseheads, but in this case, I would love if the green and gold of the Sonics could be like the green and gold of Packers.

Troy Williamson: Gone but Not Forgotten

If a picture's worth 1000 words, then I guess I can stop typing right here. The Troy Williamson era is officially over in Minnesota. Yes, yesterday the Vikes dealt the 7th overall pick from the 2005 draft, and the last remaining player that was involved in that awesome Randy Moss deal, to the Jacksonville Jaguars for a 6th round pick in the upcoming draft. This picture, taken from that same Strib story, really says it all for a guy who was incredibly fast, but just had no idea how to catch a football, especially on deep routes, which is supposed to be his specialty. This was a key drop in a game against Denver last year where he was WIDE OPEN! That's generally when most of his drops came, when he was streaking down field, a good five yards past the defenders. A good throw would be made, and Williamson would act like he was blindfolded. I remember a catch that hit him in the back of the head, and another that bounced right off the facemask. He couldn't locate the deep ball if you gave him Google maps.

It's of course fitting that the Jags get Williamson, since Mike Tice, the coach who drafted him, is employed there now. Williamson is a great example of why you shouldn't put too much stock in the combine workouts. He was a mediocre college receiver who ran some crazy 40 time at the combine (a 4.3 something or other), and despite his lack of on-field success, Tice was so blown away he had to draft him with the 7th overall pick. Actually when you look at that entire 2005 draft, which was awful, it shows that Tice shouldn't have been allowed to evaluate talent, let alone coach it.

Anyway, I'm not entirely sure what the Jags think they're going to do with Williamson. It's one thing when a receiver has concentration issues, but it's another when the guy just cannot react to the football when it's in the air. Last I checked, that's not really something you can learn. Oh well, a 6th round pick isn't much, but it's better than nothing.

********

On the free agent front, the Panthers signed free agent wide receiver Mushin Muhammad, who was arguably the best receiver available in a weak class. I had read the Vikes were interested, but it makes since for Muhammad to return to the one place he had a lot of success before departing for big free agent dough with the Bears.

Still on the market are names like Jerry Porter, Bernard Berrian, and Marty Booker, and I'd love to see the Vikes sign at least two of those guys. There's plenty of spots available and if we're to believe Rick Spielman when he says Minnesota will be aggressive in spending the almost $30 million they'll have under the cap, then we'd better see at least either Porter or Berrian in purple next year. I'd also like to see them take a run at former 1st rounder DE Justin Smith and S Adieu Williams, both from Cincinnati. Yes, the Bungles D has been pretty awful the last couple of years, but if the price isn't too high, they'd be good gambles to take, and would give the Vikes more flexibility in the draft, especially with their 1st pick at #17.

WR, DE, and S are definitely their 3 big need areas (I would argue QB but the Vikes seem to disagree. After cutting Kelly Holcumb it looks as though they'll add another veteran, but probably just for depth and not so much to push Tavaris Jackson. David Carr anyone?), and it'd be nice to shore up a few of those areas so you can either take the best player available at 17, or trade down. Personally if they keep the pick I'd love to see them take Oklahoma WR Malcolm Kelly (who probably won't be there) or Texas WR Limas Sweed, who's a bit of a sleeper because he's a big-time athlete, and produced when they threw him the ball, but was hurt for part of last year.

I want no part of Cal's Desean Jackson, no matter how fast he ran at the combine. He's 169 pounds and last year, with a veteran team around him, he should have been a Heisman contender. Instead, he was disappointing at best, and will be lucky to be anything more than a #3 WR and return man in the NFL. Not a bad guy to gamble on in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th, but not in the first round.

I Hate the NBA

Hi there. Me again. How'd you celebrate NHL Trade Deadline Day? The three sports networks here in Canada were kind enough to break from their 24 hour poker, Mixed martial arts, fake wrestling, and all-Toronto sports coverage to have live coverage that started at 5 am this morning and is still going. And Canadians are glued to their television sets. In the States? Most people don't even know what professional hockey is, let alone that the deadline is today. I wonder if it's getting a mention on KFAN today or in the local papers? Anyway, good work by the NHL to continue to reject teams moving back to Canada and keep putting them in hockey hotbeds like Houston, Las Vegas, and Kansas City. Really NHL expansion in the USA hasn't work at all, but let's keep trying it. Great idea. Gary Bettman is a genius!

Starting off with a tangent there, so let's get to the NBA. I hate it because I hate Commish Don God Father David Stern for allowing a bunch of rednecks from Oklahoma to steal the Sonics from the good people of Seattle who for some strange reason don't want to pay for a new stadium that was just renovated 12 years ago. Stern is doing NOTHING about it, and in fact, seems more likely to speeding up the project (I'll stop ranting on this since it changes nothing, but if you're from Minnesota, just think of how mad you were when Norm Green stole the Stars from you folks. That's where I'm at with the Sonics). Anyway, despite this, I can't help but follow the NBA again. I know I know I KNOW!!! I posted on here before Christmas how I had stopped following it and didn't miss it. It was true at the time, but I forgot how dead February is for sports. Plus, as the Sports Guy has pointed out, the No Balls Association finally grew a pair with some huge deals the last few months.

The last two- the Dallas deal for Jason Kidd and the Cavs/Bulls/Sonics swapperoo- were really funny to me. I can sum up the Dallas deal in one word: PANIC!!!!! Let's have a little fun with numbers, shall we? Let's compare two point guards, and you tell me who'd you rather have if you're running a basketball team:

PER PPG APG TO/G FG% REB MIN AGE SALARY SALARY 2009
Player A 18.59 14.4 5.3 2.4 .483 2.3 30.4 24 $4 mill $8 mill
Player B 16.33 11.1 10.5 4.3 .406 6.8 36.3 34 $20mill $21mill

If you exclude their ages and salaries, it's pretty even right? Player A has a better PER (which means he's more effective in his time on the floor), and scores a little more while shooting a better percentage. Player B gets twice the assists, but also has almost double the turnovers of player A, and is not a good shooter. While I wouldn't fault you for wanting player B, when you factor in the age and salary differences, would you in a million years trade player A straight up for player B? Of course not. Neither did the Dallas Mavericks. Instead they traded Devin Harris, who is player A, two solid players, cap fodder and two 1st round picks to the Nets for Jason Kidd, who's player B, and two throw-in players.

Honest to God, how does this improve the Mavs? They're not only overpaying Kidd in salary but also in players and depth, and Kidd just doesn't make them that much better than Harris did. There's just no way. Not to mention that they had to give up Desagna Diop, who is developing into a solid low-post player and who was the only real defensive presence they had in the paint (last I checked there's a couple two-three good posts in the western conference). Wonderful. You've basically dealt for what Jason Kidd was two or three years ago, but now you're saddled with a player who's declining and makes about $40 MILLION OVER THE NEXT TWO SEASONS!!!! Good luck with that Mark Cuban!

What really makes this funny to me though is WHY Dallas made this deal. Last season, the Mavs finished the regular season with an NBA best 67-15 record- and then lost in the first round to the 8th seeded Golden State Warriors. Granted, the W's were quite possibly the worst possible matchup for Dallas outside of the Spurs or Suns, but this was still the best team in the NBA against a team that just squeaked into the playoffs. It was the first time an 8 had beaten a 1 in a best-of-seven. Clearly, you would think this would be a signal to the Mavs that changes needed to be made, that as good as they were in the regular season, this was not a championship team. Blow it up! Make changes! Try something different! And what did they do last summer? NOTHING! That's right the Mavs looked at their embarrassing first round exit and, like the rest of the No Balls Association, did absolutely nothing.

The result? More of the same. A so-so first half of the season where they were clearly (at least to those outside of Big D) not only not the best team in the Western Conference, they would be fighting just to make the playoffs. Still? Nothing done. Then the Lakers fleeced Memphis for Gasol, forcing the Suns hit the panic button themselves by thinking Shaq was a good idea (3 games with Shaq- 2 losses and an AVERAGE of 107.6 points against in the 3 games. Shaq was supposed to help defensively? Whoopsy poopsy!). So the Mavs, in turn, hit their own PANIC!!!!! button and overpaid for Kidd. I don’t know much, but I do know the Mavs are not winning the NBA title with Jason Kidd. Hell at this point they'll be lucky to make the playoffs as they're currently in 6th place, but only 4.5 games ahead of 9th place Denver (you know what's crazy? We could have a 50 win team miss the playoffs in the West, and yet we'll be lucky to get 5 teams with a winning record in the East. Hey David Stern- good idea to not want to tweak the playoff system. That's working out well. Way better to have three gawd-awful teams make the playoffs and have a 50 team in the West miss out. Really, who wants to see the 16 best teams in the playoffs? It's crazy talk!)

Then there was the Cleveland/Chicago/Seattle "Holy %^&$ We Need to Make A Trade but We Can't Get Anybody Good So Let's Just Swap Our Crappy Players to Make it Look Like We're Trying!" trade (and yes that was the longest name for any trade in history. It is now unofficially official). I love how scribes and media folks out East are trying to make this look like a great trade for Cleveland. Really? Explain that to me. Yes, they got rid of Larry Hughes horrible HORRIBLE contract, but what did you get back? A slightly less horrible HORRIBLE contract in Ben Wallace when you already have Anderson Varajeo doing exactly the same thing for way less money. Great move. You give up Drew Gooden, who was a solid scoring presence, so now you're stuck with player a big white Euro Center who doesn't fit your style of play, or two power forwards who can rebound and play defense but can't score to save their lives. Awesome. Start printing those championship t-shirts!

Of course, they also got Wally World, and you know my thoughts on the most overrated all-star of the past 20 years (you also know that I once compared Adam Morrison to World and concluded that Morrison would be a much better player. We know how that's turned out so far). He was nothing more than a 3rd or 4th option in his prime, and I'm not sure he even does that now. He stills shoots a decent outside shot, but can't defend, rebound, dribble, or pass. Other than that he's pretty good. Well worth the $12 million Cleveland is paying him.

Delonte West? Yawn. Cleveland basically shipped out some role players and got some slightly cheaper slightly more valuable role players in return, and we're supposed to believe this is a championship team? Let me double check this...hang on...just a minute... yup a team with a super duper uber star and a bunch of role players has never won an NBA title. Never. And you know what? As amazing as Lebron is, the Cavs are not going to be the team to break the mold. So this trade was much ado about nothing.

For the Bulls? This just means that at the next Paxson family Christmas dinner Jim (who tried his best to run the Cavs into the ground before Danny Ferry took over) can now sit back at the grownups table, because his brother John is proving just as incompetent at running an NBA team. John did a super swell job of stockpiling assets and putting the pieces together to get a true super start. He had chances at KG, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Allen Iverson, Kobe, Jason Kidd, and Pau Gasol. Who did he end up getting? Drew Gooden and Larry Hughes everybody! Viva la Bulls! Long live Chicago! Forget MJ and Scottie and Phil, the Bulls are back baby!!!!

The Sonics continued to clear cap space and grease the wheels for their move out of town by making the team as cheap and unwatchable as possible. Just what David Stern is looking to promote!

So in summary, I just used 1600 words to say I hate David Stern, but I can't help but follow his league. I'm ornery, sarcastic, and I'm back.

Sick and Tired of being Sick and Tired

I've had the flu for a solid week now, and it's just not good times. I actually got well enough to work Friday and Saturday, and then this thing came back with a vengeance by Saturday night. I'm so hopped on medication I thought I already posted about the Gasol and Shaq trades...until I checked the site and realized I hadn't. Did I dream that?

First off, I know I said a couple of months ago I was done with the NBA and wasn't paying attention. Two things about that: one, I forgot what a bad sports month February is. I mean really, after the Super Bowl, it's like six straight weeks of basketball and hockey (or if you're in the States just basketball) until March Madness starts. There's nothing else to talk about. Since they refuse to give us ESPN or a Fox Sports affiliate (honestly the Canadian standards or something or other says you can't get an American station if there's a Canadian equivalent. Well we don't have an equivalent to either of those channels here: yes, we have three sports networks, but they all show hockey, curling, poker, and talking heads who talk about hockey and the stupid Maple Leafs. God forbid we'd be allowed Fox Sports Seattle or something so I could watch a few college basketball games or another baseball team besides the Blue Jays), it's pretty much impossible to follow college basketball here. I tried looking on ESPN.com on their bubble watch feature, and I have no idea who any of these teams or players are this year. Apparently Memphis is really good and the Dukies are good despite playing a lot of white guys, and Carolina and UCLA are pretty good. Other than that? No idea. Drake or Butler or somebody like that is a "lock" for the postseason, while schools I've actually heard of are not. I give up. My NCAA bracket pool will be picked blindfolded this year, which means I'll probably have as good or better a chance as I've had in years past where I thought I knew what I was doing.

ANYWAY what was I talking about again? Right, the NBA trades. First Mitch Kupchak goes from being one of the worst GM's in the league (he traded Shaq for nothing, then dealt Caron Butler for Kwame Brown- whoopsy poopsy!- and did so little to help Kobe he was publicly demanding a trade) to one of the best with one trade. The Gasol trade was a heist, a grand larceny. They didn't lose any of their TOP 10 PLAYERS in this deal, and they get a low-post scorer who looks perfect for the triangle offense. If Andrew Bynum comes back anywhere close to 100% before the playoffs, this is hands down the team to beat. Unbelievable.

It should also be Exhibit A in why salary caps are just a bad idea. First, there's so few GM's who actually know how to properly use the cap, it puts most teams at a disadvantage even if your GM isn't named Kevin McHale. Second, as this trade shows, it doesn't allow bad teams to get better, it just makes them much worse. Young guys make nothing, star players make a lot, and middle-of-the-pack players are way overpaid. So if you're Memphis and you want to trade Gasol, your best VALUE would be some solid young players. An all-star caliber player like Gasol for a couple of good young players would be equal VALUE-- but with the salary cap, those guys are worth about 10-20% of Gasol, so then you have to throw in the over paid guys like Kwame and the retired Aaron McKie (how'd you like to be Aaron McKie? You're so washed up you're not even in the league, but then the phone rings and it's your agent saying "Um Aaron? The Lakers want to pay you $5 million so they can trade you to the Grizzlies...no, no they don't expect you to play...yes, it's guaranteed money...yes you'll be able to continue to sit around and do nothing and get paid for it. Is that ok with you?"). It just doesn't allow teams to get full value, or really anything close to it, for good players.

Then there was the Shaq trade. That's the biggest "No F***ing WAY!!!" trade I can remember in any sport in a long, long time. Come to think of it, I can't think of one more shocking or baffling. It scores a perfect 10 on the Ron Burgandy "Brian, That doesn't even make sense" scale. Not only does Shaq seem to be the exact opposite of what Phoenix needs on the court, but there would seem to have been better deals and better value out there for a player as good as Shawn Marion. But what about the money part of it? Not only does The Diesel have $40 million GUARANTEED coming to him in the next few years, but this puts the Suns over the cap, something they've been so unwilling to do that they've been auctioning off draft picks in the last few years, and gave Seattle TWO #1 draft picks just to take Kurt Thomas' contract off their hands- even though Thomas was the only player they had who could defend in the paint. Going well over the salary cap made sense if they were getting Kevin Garnett, but Shaq? He's old, on a steep decline, and he's been hurt for good stretches of the last couple of years.

But you know what? The folks in Phoenix seem really, truly, genuinely excited and optimistic about this trade. Despite what the stats say about this trade, the Suns seem to think the chemistry of it will be the shakeup they need, and that if Shaq can give them good minutes in the post, they're going to be dangerous. I also heard Shaq refer to his going to Phoenix as "The Amare Stoudamire" project. He made a similar statement when he got dealt to Miami that he was going to help Dwayne Wade win a title, and he was true to his word. He said similar things when he got to LA about making the Lakers champs with Kobe. Again, true to his word. As crazy and unrealistic as it seems right now, maybe all Shaq needed was some motivation, a chip on his shoulder (honestly, have you seen one person who likes this trade for Phoenix?), somebody to mentor in Amare, and a change in scenery. Maybe this isn't so crazy. Of course also having the best point guard in the planet in Steve Nash, as well as some cagey vets like Grant Hill and Raja Bell don't hurt either. Maybe this just could work. A Phoenix/LA confernce finals? How fun would that be?

A Super Super Bowl

Well I thoroughly enjoyed that. I know it was low scoring, but frankly I loved the chess match between the Pats O and Giants D. Eli Manning was outstanding, especially that last drive, but the Giants defensive line was the difference in the game. Three things off the top:
1) I haven't seen much at all made yet of Pats coach Bill Belichek's decision to go for it on 4th & 13 from the Giants 31. That's a 48 yard field goal attempt, and if don't trust you kicker to make a 48 yarder, why is he on your team? 48 yards is not a chip shot, but it's not like it's a 58 yarder either. That should be a makeable kick for any kicker in the NFL. If there's something I'm missing or a rationale that explains this that I can't see, please, enlighten me. The Pats lost by three, and they passed on a potential field goal needing 13 yards for the first down. Absolutely baffling to me.

2) Plaxico Burress should be commended for playing on a bad ankle all season, and giving his all in this game. But he should NOT be commended for his "Guarantee" that the Giants would win. Back when Joe Willie Namath made "THE Guarantee" in Super Bowl III it was a big deal because nobody made comments like that at the time. Namath staked his reputation on that game, and he certainly wouldn't be a hall-of-famer without that monumental upset. But today, guarantees are a joke. Nobody takes them seriously. Plax had nothing at stake if his prediction was wrong. His team was a huge underdog, so if they lost, well hey they were supposed to. A guarantee needs to be backed by something, there needs to be a consequence or payment made if it falls through. If Burress had said he'd donate his game check to charity if they lost, then that's a guarantee. But just saying his team would win? Worthless.

3) It's bad enough when Congress gets involved with steroids in baseball, but now Arlen Specter wants to reopen "SpyGate"? Call my cynical or a bad person, but I could care less if the Patriots cheated this season or against the Rams when they won their first Super Bowl, or anytime before or since. It's like stealing signs in baseball- people get mad when somebody gets caught, but everybody does it. I just don't get riled up about this at all, and really hope it goes away, especially now that New England lost.

Ok, back to the game. Seriously, despite the low scoring battle for the first three quarters, I just loved watching NY's defense giving Tom Brady and the Pats the business. Their strategy was obviously to double Moss and then pressure Brady like crazy. It's not rocket science- I'm pretty sure everybody that's played them since week 1 knew this was the way to slow them down, it's just there's not many teams that can get that kind of pressure with just their front four. Really impressive.

I'm wondering a few things about the Patriots offense too:
1) was Brady's ankle hurting him more than he let on? Because the few times he actually had time to throw deep to Moss (not counting the end of the game), his throws were way off. Maybe he was just rattled a bit because he hadn't faced pressure all season, but it just didn't look right.
2) Where was Ben Watson all night? I'm guessing that after the first quarter siege on Brady the Pats started going max protect by leaving a tight end into block, but wouldn't you still think they'd try to get Watson, who's one of the best pass-catching tight ends in the game, open on shorter routes or hot routes?
3) Why didn't New England run more on their last drive, especially once they got in the red zone and knew they'd have more time? I know they were running more of a hurry-up to try and tire out the Giants defenders, but once they were safely into scoring territory with that much time left, why not run and take some time off?
4) How in the hell did Miami let Wes Welker go for a second round pick? Wow. So shifty and effective over the middle, he was Brady's safety valve all night. One of the guys I was watching the game with who knows football thought that the Giants were giving the Pats Welker all night on the short stuff in order to take away Moss and pressure Brady. So Welker's numbers may have been inflated because that's where the Giants D was funneling BRady to go, but he still made some great catches.

I can't think of much else, other than I need to go watch the Super Bowl ads again. Some really good ones, yet I can't think of many off the top. Anyway, congrats to the Giants who were definitely the best team (if Steve Smith doesn't give that one interception away, the Giants could have been rolling even earlier), and showed it's not about who's playing the best at the beginning or the middle of the season, but who's peaking at the end.

Minnesota Jer Speaks

Editor's Note: I've been asking Jeremy to guest post on here whenever he feels like it. After yet another superstar left Minnesota for pennies on the dollar, only comments from "Minnesota Jer" seemed appropriate. And here they are...


To steal a bit from Dan "The Common Man" Cole... let's play a little bit of "Gone, but not Forgotten."
David Ortiz... gone, but not forgotten.
Randy Moss... gone, but not forgotten.
Glen Mason.... gone... nevermind.
Kevin Garnett... gone, but not forgotten.
Torii Hunter... gone, but not forgotten.
Johan Santana... gone, but not forgotten.

See a trend here?
Look, I'm not going to use this space to talk about the fact that the Twins didn't get as much value for Johan as they could have. I think plenty has been made of that opinion, and frankly, I'm of the opinion that we would have been having that same discussion no matter what deal the Twins had made for Johan. The fact is, in trading a HUGE name, like a Johan Santana, you can almost never get full value in return. In addition to that, it's not even worth talking about now, since we won't know if these guys are going to be worth a dang for 4-5 years, minimum.
What I want to talk about is the emotional part of being a Minnesota sports fan. This is something that I am well-qualified to speak about because, as Jeff will attest to, I am an over-emotional, blindly loyal fan of Minnesota sports, and I don't make any apologies for my emotional, and sometimes irrational, stance on these issues.
So I'll just come right out and say it... it's starting to hurt. It's starting to hurt that we are always the market that is losing the big name guy, and getting 30 no-namers in return. I've said it before, but Kevin Garnett was my favorite athlete of all time, and whoever was second (I couldn't even tell you who) wasn't anywhere close. I think that Kevin Garnett embodies everything that is right, and could be right, about sports. Loyal, hard-working, respectful of the sport, respectful of those who came before him and respectful of the fans. It was ridiculously hard for me to see KG get dealt to Boston. Still, as big of a fan of his that I am, and knowing how he was treated here in Minnesota, I was happy to see him get his shot at a ring.
Am I still a KG fan? Absolutely. But can I call him my favorite player, when he plays for a non-Minnesota team. I know there are a lot of people who will read this who will think that I'm crazy... but I just don't know if I can.
Having said that, just who IS my favorite athlete these days. As I survey the Minnesota sports landscape... there ain't much left. It isn't that there aren't options for good players... but all of the truly great players, who have been battle tested over years, just aren't there. There is definitely potential for guys like Morneau, Maurer, Al Jefferson, Chad Greenway, etc... but the jury is still out on all of these guys because they are young.
In the end, I'm going to have to get used to the fact that I live in fly-over country, a small-mid-market that just can't afford to keep the big names. I'm going to need to learn to latch onto these guys early and hope that they are loyal to Minnesota.
KG was loyal as long as he possibly could be, and nobody can blame him for where he ended up. Heck, who could blame any of them. If the local club isn't going to pay them, somebody else will, right? And in the end, that's the lesson... these games, and yes, they are games... are still all about the almighty dollar.

Of T-Jack and Quarterbacks

One of the best sports blogs on the internet, written by Kansas City Star columnist Joe Posnanski, has yet another great post today. The gist of it is that despite all our newfangled technology and advanced scouting and statistics, we still don't have much of an idea how to judge talent. He uses three of the greatest quarterbacks of all-time as an example: Unitas, Montana, and Brady. All three were mid to late round picks, and all three were drafted well behind some other not-so-notable quarterbacks. I especially love this part about Brady:

Brady was taken in the sixth round (after Chad Pennington, Giovanni Carmazzi — gotta love ‘dem Hofstra quarterbacks — Chris Redman, Tee Martin, Marc Bulger and Spergon Wynn) and was thought so little of that (people forget this) the Patriots and Bill Belichick specifically signed Damon Huard to a fairly high-priced deal to be Drew Bledsoe’s backup quarterback going into the 2001 season. Now, Brady impressed Belichick enough to beat out Huard for the backup job, and then eventually Belichick stuck with the kid even after Bledsoe got healthy. Belichick deserves all the credit in the world for that. But don’t let anybody tell you the Patriots had any inkling what they had.

It really is pretty crazy that three guys who turned out to be this good were so overlooked coming out of college. I was not around when Unitas played, and although I was alive, I wasn't old enough to remember Montana at Notre Dame or getting drafted. But I do remember Brady. I even had a Brady Michigan jersey for awhile (I think I gave it to TheDan), but mostly because I wanted a Chuck Woodson jersey and couldn't find one. I remember, as a Michigan fan at the time (yes growing up in Canada I cheered for 2 college football teams- the U of Washington and much more so for Michigan), I wanted all-everything super-duper-awesome Drew Henson to play QB over Brady. I remember a lot of Michigan fans feeling the same way. Henson was All-American in football and baseball, and all-state in basketball in Michigan. I don't have any idea which state Brady even came from or whether he was any good in high school. The only thing I remember about Brady graduating was that it finally gave Henson the chance to start and make beautiful music with WR David Terrell (who also went on to be a bust- he was the #8 pick in the draft!), which they did.

Of course the rest is history. Henson went to the Yankees because he was a top 10 prospect, a legit power-hitting third baseman with a cannon- he was really the definition of a "Can't Miss" prospect. But he had one little problem- he couldn't hit a curveball. He then went to Dallas in the NFL and couldn't hit an open receiver. Done and done. The Can't Miss Kid missed not just in one sport but in two. Meanwhile Brady is on his way to becoming the greatest quarterback in history. I did not see that coming.

In a round-about long-winded way, this brings us to the Minnesota Vikings and Tavaris Jackson (actually first I just want to say it also points out that I guess nobody really knows what the Twins got for Santana. Those prospects could be nothing or they could be spectacular. We really don't know). I have zero faith right now in T-Jack as a starting quarterback. I believe, firmly, that he's holding back this team from being a championship contender, and I have a mountain of stats to support my claim.

Let's start with the basics: 70.8 Qb rating (28th in the league), 159.2 yards per game (30th), an average per pass of just 6.5 yards (23), 9 TD's (24), and 12 INT (15). And despite throwing mostly short, safe routes, his completion percentage was a woeful 58.1%. There's also this: just 14 passes completed of 20+ yards (32nd, or 2nd worst, of eligible QB's) and just 4 passes of 40+ yards (tied for 20th). There are further new-fangled smart-guy stat-geek stats from Football Outsiders (a really good explanation here) that explain in further and more complicated detail that T-Jack was one of the worst QB's in the league this year.

That is the logical side to my argument. There is, of course, also my liberal, illogical, emotional gut feeling which says, without any evidence to back it up, that I don't trust T-Jack one bit. When he goes back to pass I end up thinking "Gosh I know it's 3rd and 17 but why can't they hand it off to AP?" Yet not once but twice in the last month, SI's Peter King in his MMQB column, has given a vote of confidence to Jackson- and for the life of me I have no idea why. Peter obviously sees and believes something I do not, and it has to be a gut feeling on his part, because there's no logic that would support a claim that Tavaris Jackson has proven in his first two seasons to be a quarterback you would want to build a franchise around. Not by logic or by gut instinct do I think Jackson should be the starter next year based on what I've seen so far.

So what do we, as Vikes fans, do here? What are we to believe? Do we continue to trust Jackson, and coach Brad Childress' undying support of him (there are also some very disturbing numbers out there, which I won't reveal at this time, that shows that the problem might not be just Jackson. Said Disturbing Numbers show the Vikings, in two years under Childress' "Kick Ass Offense", have by far the fewest attempts throwing the ball downfield, and this "Kick Ass as Safely and Conservatively As Possible" philosophy has been terrible for the Vikings passing game. Hmmmm...)? None of the evidence so far points to Jackson turning this around. Yet there was no evidence to support Daunte Culpepper's good seasons in Minnesota (still my favorite Denny Green story is him playing the race card saying the Minnesota media and public were racist towards Daunte and they never believed in him like Denny did and they should be ashamed. Of course Denny left out the part about how he tried to bring Dan Marino out of retirement and tried desperately to bring back Jeff George, and only when all other options failed and he was forced to play the inexperienced Daunte did he finally play him) before they happened, nor, as Posnanski tells it, evidence to support Kurt Warner being good in St Louis. Only after Tony Banks failed miserably and Trent Green got hurt did they turn to Warner, who then went on to lead the Rams to two Super Bowls and have three of the greatest statistical seasons in history. You just never know.

My two cents is that they need to bring in competition. Try to trade for Donovan McNabb (assuming the price isn't too high) or bring in a veteran (Byron Leftwich?). Just somebody to force him to compete. I don't like handing the job to a guy who hasn't proven it. Bring in some competition and make him fight for it, and then maybe he starts producing like Childress is convinced he will. I love that Cleveland gave Derek Anderson a two year extension. They draft Brady Quinn, and gave up a lot to get him, as their QB of the present and future. Anderson, a sixth round pick who was cut by the Ravens, was put in after starter Charlie Frye fizzled, and Anderson went on to have a helluva year. The Browns, smartly I believe, are going to let Anderson play and let Quinn develop slowly. Yes they paid a high price to get Quinn, but they finally have a QB in Anderson that can run their offense, so they're not going to get rid of him for the unknown that is Quinn. Love it. This IS what San Diego should have done with Drew Brees. Yes they picked Phil Rivers at #4, but Brees, after three sub-par seasons, suddenly came to life. The players loved him and he was the perfect fit there, and they let him walk. Dumb. Yes the Chargers got to the AFC Title game with Rivers, farther than Brees took them, but I have no doubt Brees could have taken them farther.

But of course, I'm also the guy who believed Ryan Leaf would be better than Peyton Manning or Drew Henson would be better than Tom Brady. You just never know.

So Long Johan

Johan Santana is unofficially officially a New York Met. Pending a long-term contract agreement between Santana
and the Mets, he'll be shipped to Queens in exchange for four prospects you've probably never heard of.

I can't believe this is what the best player in baseball is worth. Carlos Gomez, a centerfielder, is an okay prospect who should be a pretty good major league regular. His absolute upside would be an all-star but that's not likely. One pitcher has high upside but is a long ways away, and the other two pitchers grade out as middle-to-back of the rotation starters. Ladies and gentlemen, this is what Johan Santana is worth in 2008.

(Here's a great breakdown of the four prospects and the deal overall from ESPN scout Keith Law. And yes you don't need Insider to read this one)

Wow.

Let's look at the factors that went into new GM Bill Smith essentially getting fleeced by Mets GM Omar Minaya:

1) Johan was going to test the free agent market, and according to people like the Strib's Jim Souhan, he didn't want to stay in Minnesota.

From Souhan's column:
Fact: Santana wanted out. I've been told by people who know him that he longs to pitch in New York, for more money, a large Latin American community and a team he feels is determined to win a World Series in the near future.

The Twins made a solid, four year $80 million offer, which he turned down. I love to bash Carl Pohlad for being cheap, but that wasn't the problem here. $20 million a year would be more than any other pitcher was making. It's more than a fair offer. For a mid-market team, this is a helluva offer. As Souhan points out, they gave big money to Justin Morneau (they overpaid but I love that they're willing to hang onto their good players. He'll be a bargain by the time that contract's up) and Michael Cuddyer. Money's not really an issue: Santana wanting to play in Minnesota is. I heard Dan Barreiro's podcast today, and he doesn't believe they worked hard enough to resign him. Really? $20 million a year isn't enough? If Johan doesn't want to play in Minnesota, what else can you do?

2) Well you can do one of three things: trade him now, trade him at the deadline in July, or let him play out his contract, let him walk, and pick up two #1 picks. As I've said before, the Twins are building to be contenders in 2010 when the new park opens. If they let Johan walk and pick up the two #1's, that would be the best overall VALUE, but it would push their idea of contention further back because the chances of kids drafted in 2009 being ready in 2010 are pretty slim. So it looks like Smith decided waiting wasn't an option.

3) So then you look to trade him. When making a trade, obviously you want as many teams bidding as possible. The problem for the Twins was there just weren't that many teams interested. The two LA teams, who had the best farm systems of the Big Boys, were out almost from the beginning. While any team would be better with Santana in its rotation, he was not a big need for the LA clubs because they already had good starting pitchers. What's more, the Angels had a huge hole in their lineup they needed to fill, and the Dodgers are one of the best teams in the mediocre-at-best National League, so their need for Santana wasn't great. Basically everybody in the National League but the Mets and Cubs (who just don't have the prospects) were out of the bidding because they didn't need to sacrifice so much in trade in such a watered-down league. In the American League, you're then left with the Yankees and Red Sox, White Sox, Detroit, and Seattle. The White Sox didn't have the perceived pieces, Detroit made their move in getting Miggy Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis, and Johan said he didn't want to play in Seattle. Which brings us to...

4) the EVIL no trade clause- why on God's green earth do teams give these out? Why? All it does is hurt your franchise. Look no further than the rumors going 'round about Baltimore and Seattle making a deal for Erik Bedard (the second best lefthander on the planet). Baltimore, IF Orioles owner Peter Angelos doesn't screw this up again (last year he kiboshed a deal that would have sent Miguel Tejada to the Angels for a boatload of stud prospects), would be getting CF Adam Jones, who's one of the top 10 prospects in baseball, and three pitchers who grade out about as well as the three the Twins are getting. Why isn't this offer available to the Twins? Because Johan doesn't want to play in Seattle. No trade clauses are ridiculous because it limits your trading options. While I'm not generally pro-owners and pro-billionaires, it makes zero sense to give players this much control over where they're going, because it only helps the player, and doesn't help the teams and therefore the fans. Twins fans are going to have to watch a worse team, both short and long term, because Santana limited their options.

5) So the Twins are essentially only looking at three teams- the Sox, Yanks, and Mets. The Mets had the lesser prospects of the three, but of course it would get Santana out of the American League (I've never understood this. Wouldn't getting the best deal trump getting him out of your league?). Boston didn't really need him, but they didn't want the Yankees to get him. And the Yankees? DYING for Johan. Their rotation is young and inexperienced after Chien Mien-Wang. But because they saw there were only two other teams involved, they saw zero point in giving up their best players because they wouldn't have to. Why give up Joba Chamberlain if your competitors can't come close to that? The Red Sox have some excellent prospects, but because their need for Johan wasn't great, they weren't offering their best guys either.

Now at no time was I in Bill Smith's office when he was negotiating these deals, so I can't tell you for sure that all of the above happened, but logic and the rumor-mongering on the internet says we're pretty close. Smith had no shot at keeping Santana, letting him walk for the two #1 picks next year would stunt the team's overall development to build for 2010, and he wasn't getting any great offers. So what's a guy to do?

Personally, I would have started the season with Johan and looked to deal him again at the trade deadline, hoping/assuming the market would get bigger and better. If not you take the best value (the two #1's) and live with a longer development time. As it is, Smith did not do this. He could have faced pressure from upstairs to move Santana now, and perhaps was told to get him out of the American League. As it is, I don't like this trade for the Twins, but what's done is done. This is still a franchise with excellent young talent that is under team control for a considerable time. If Francisco Liriano's elbow is indeed healthy, he'll anchor a solid rotation. The bullpen will be excellent (although how long with Joe Nathan be around now?), and they have some great pieces in Mauer, Morneausy, Delmon Young, and Cuddy. Whether they kept Santana this year or not, their chances of winning the division were slim at best, so you can't cry over that. Whether or not Bill Smith made the right deal, well, I guess we'll find out, and hope these kids turn out better than baseball talent experts think they will.

Sizing up the NFL Final Four

Well how about that for a football weekend? Some good games and great stories. Although I was openly campaigning for Dallas, Green Bay, Indy and New England to be the last four teams so that we'd be guaranteed a good Super Bowl for once, there's still plenty of intrigue left. When Peyton Manning threw the incompletion on fourth and 7 to seal a Charger win, I was at first bummed because we wouldn't get to see a Colts/Pats AFC Championship game. Having given it some thought, with the way they played today it's hard to imagine Indy giving the Pats much of a game even if they had survived the Chargers. The Colts didn't play well enough to win, and if they couldn't beat San Diego, they sure as hell weren't going to give New England a game.

I'm now sure of two things: the Pats win by 3 touchdowns next week, and the Jaguars were the second best team in the AFC this year, and possibly the league. The game Saturday night was the real AFC Championship, and Sunday's match in Foxboro will be nothing more than a tuneup for New England. Not to disrespect the Chargers, but I don't trust Norv Turner or Phil Rivers in a game of this magnitude. Rivers was good at times, but at no time was I blown away by what he was doing. Vincent Jackson on the other hand was impressive, but I don't see him doing that against Asante Samuel next week. What's more, Antonio Gates is nowhere near 100% with his dislocated big toe (which makes me queezy just thinking about that injury), and LaDanian Tomlinson may not be 100% either with a bruised knee. While I hope for a great game on Sunday, I'm not expecting one.

In the NFC, well the Cowboys just weren't good enough. If you want to blame Tony Romo for his relations and vacations with Jessica Simpson fine, but that was a team loss today. The Giants were just flat better and more prepared. The Dallas team that was setting the league afire at midseason would have been a great opponent for the Packers and perhaps the Pats, but that team hasn't shown up in Dallas for two months. Should be another very interesting off-season in Big D.

And then there's the Pack. Ah yes my arch nemesis. I was pulling for them to beat Seattle because a) the Seahawks are boring (We had to suffer through having them in the Super Bowl two years ago, and I wanted no part of a second time) and b) as much as I loathe the lovemaking the media does with Brett Farve, it would make for a helluva story to have him in the Super Bowl again. Secretly, and don't tell anyone this, but I really enjoyed the Packer win on Saturday. Enjoyed the snow, the comeback, and even Farve's ridiculous underhand completion as he was falling down.

I also loved the Ryan Grant story. A guy who came from quite literally nowhere to be one of the best backs in the league this year, Grant had about the worst start possible for a running back. Two carries, two fumbles, two Seahawks touchdowns. It was 14-0 before the Lambeau fans had finished their first six-pack of Miller Lite (ok maybe their second six pack, but you get the idea- it was quick). Two costly fumbles like that would have crushed a lot of people. Nick Anderson missing those free throws years ago in the NBA Finals comes to mind. He was a really good player before that and was a shell of himself afterwards. But good for the Packers for sticking with Grant (although let's be honest; once it started snowing, what choice did they really have? They certainly weren't throwing, and none of the other Packer backs were any better) and giving him a chance to redeem himself. And boy did he: 27 carries for an NFL playoff record 207 yards and 3 TD's. Isn't that what sports is all about? A guy failing, and failing miserably, but has the resolve and the opportunity to pull himself up and make amends? Pretty freaking awesome if you ask me.

Anyway, that was a quite a "Show in the Snow" if you will (and I will). I believed, as probably many of you also did, that the Hawks were in trouble coming into that game because they just couldn't run the ball. Shaun Alexander had a nice career, but boy, he looks D-O-N-E. Thanks for coming Shaun. And Maurice Morris is a nice change of pace, but he's not carrying the load. So unless they got some big special teams plays or forced turnovers, they were in for a long day. Well they couldn't have asked for a better start, and still got creamed. That might have been the most impressive thing to me: Seattle's defense, which is really, really good, got steamrolled. Shows the Pack could make a real run at this thing.

Having said that, the Giants are a tough matchup because they have Bradshaw (speaking of guys coming out of nowhere- who? huh? what? Who the hell is this Ahmad Bradshaw guy? Marshall? I didn't see Ahmad anywhere in that Matthew McConahey movie. The Metric Musings is also taking this opportunity to officially change our stance on taking running backs early in the first round. What's the point? Darren McFadden? Nice player, but not worth huge money when you can take a guy who's almost as good and could be just as productive for next to nothing. Glad we had this little chat) and big Brandon Jacobs to plow through the snow, and a pretty gritty defense. Eli Manning? I have no idea what's happening there. I wonder if he does. He did only attempt 18 passes, throwing for only 163 yards, but he played smart, and he's played good football for the better part of a month. This is why sports is awesome, because no matter how smart you are or how much of an expert, sometimes things happen that you can't predict. Like Eli Manning being functional, or Ahmad Bradshaw and Ryan Grant being the two starting running backs in the NFC Championship game. Nobody saw this coming.

At first glance, I really want the Pack to win Sunday, but then I remembered that the game of the year so far was the Giants and Pats in week 17. That wouldn't be a bad Super Bowl either...just as long as the Pats win of course. With all the craziness we've seen, I suppose anything's possible. I look forward to finding out.

Never Say Never

It was just eight days ago that I said in a post, rather emphatically I might add, that we'll never EVER see a playoff system in college football. Because of that certainty, I argued (although not very well- the irish creme and coffee had more of an effect than I thought) that we should just go back to the old pre-BCS bowl system because the current system was rarely, if ever, solving the problem of pitting the two best teams in the country against each other. It also makes the other BCS bowl matchups worse, and after a week of five terrible BCS games, not even LSU fans could disagree that this system sucks.

First of all, playing the national title game a good week after New Year's Day is just plain stupid. If it had to be moved back that far because of a playoff, well that's one thing my friend. But just to get TV ratings on a Monday night? Stupid. My buddies in Minnesota, who are all manly men that love football, couldn't even be bothered to get together to watch the game last night. And after sitting through that game myself last night, it's clear they knew what they were doing. Ohio State, and honestly the Big 10 in general, is taking a beating for the second year in a row as THE Ohio State University got mopped up by an SEC power in the "national championship." And if you think things look bad for the Big 10 right now, it's only going to get worse for them and their brothers on the left coast in the Pac 10.

The reason being is that it looks like, for the first time ever, university presidents from big conference schools are publicly talking about a playoff system. This one from yesterday talks about the consideration of a "Plus One" format, while SI.com's Stewart Mandel discusses what all this could mean. Today's story on University of Georgia President Michael F. Adams asking for an eight team playoff was even more of an eye opener. What this means, if anything, is that the ranks are dividing in the one place that had stood steadfastly against a college football playoff.

While a four year old could have looked at this thing in years past and said "hey you know what? Maybe having the teams play for the national title instead of awarding it to them might be a better way to go", the university presidents have been vehemently against a playoff system. They've used some fun excuses like "it would cut into the kids' exam time", even though they all voted to add a cheap 12th game to make more money two years ago (LSU played 14 GAMES THIS YEAR!!!). Or there's the argument that it would cheapen the regular season. While I agree that college football has the best regular season, it has THE worst postseason (if you can even call it that) of any sport going. This year was no exception. It would be like making six riveting seasons of the Sopranos, and then when it got to the end of the last episode, the part the entire series had been building to- it just cuts to black without explanation. That's college football right now.

If the NCAA does this right, I just don't see how the regular season would lose meaning. IF we were able to get a Plus One system or even the eight team playoff proposed by Adams, the regular season would be just as compelling because to finish in the top four or eight would be just as difficult as it is now. There's an argument in the Mandel article about how "if there was a playoff system in place, nobody would have watched the Pitt- West Virginia game at the end of the year." First of all, how many people actually did watch that game? Anyone? Show of hands? Thought so. But for the sake of argument, under a plus-one system or even the eight team playoff, that game still holds a ton of intrigue because if West Virginia, who already had one loss, loses that game, then they're likely out of the playoffs. So it would still matter, just as it does now.

Now where this all hurts the Big 10 and Pac 10 is that they are on now on the other side of the debate. The other BCS conferences are not benefiting from the current system as much as they used to. The best two teams are consistently not getting to the championship game, and the "little guys" are taking up spots that used to go to major conference schools in the other big money bowl games. Under the current system, the BCS conference schools are still making billions and billions of dollars- it's just that the Big 10 and Pac 10 went a step further by getting themselves on the Rose Bowl's Board of Directors, further cementing themselves to the old system. Now, their buddies in the other conferences are breaking ranks and seeing that maybe, just maybe, a playoff system would make them just as much or more money, which leaves the Big 10 and Pac 10 blowing in the wind.

While Adam's 8 team playoff idea won't be happening anytime soon, if ever, his comments are certainly a sign that the idea of a playoff is becoming more of a reality, because in the past you'd never, EVER hear a university president of a BCS conference school say something like that. But as we learned today, never say never.

Happy New Year!

I'm sitting here on New Year's Day trying to watch four bowl games at once on a 13" TV. It is not easy. Well, basically it's 3 games, because I don't see myself tuning into the Texas Tech/Virginia game, although I have read about Howie Long's kid for UVA, who's supposed to be amazing. Still, that doesn't take precedence over Florida/Michigan (the 2nd best game on today), Scony/Tennessee (two teams with sweet, sweet unis), and even the Cotton Bowl with Arkansas/Mizzou.

The Michigan/Florida game brings up something for me though: why isn't this a BCS game? I mean, since we're never having a real playoff system (and we're not. Read this article from the Orange County Register. I had always heard there was a lot of money tied into bowls, but this blew my mind. We're never having a playoff system) why not have the best teams in the big bowls? I mean these games decide nothing, and are all about making money. Having Florida and Michigan play each other would make more money than any other game except the LSU/Ohio State game. I understand the BCS was created to get more big schools into the big bowls, but with this crazy year, it didn't work.

Since we're never going to have a playoff, why not just go back to the way it was? I personally enjoy the old bowl alignments, with the Pac 10/Big 10 Rose Bowl, and the alliances they used to have with the Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange. I know people like the idea of the BCS Title game because it's supposed to give us a true champion, but come on! For every year we get USC/Texas, we get four or five years like this one where there's not two clear-cut title teams. Why are Ohio St and LSU playing in the Naty Title? Public opinion, that's why. Georgia and USC were probably the two best teams when the season ended, but since we don't have a playoff, there's no way to know that. LSU and Ohio State are there because of their tradition as much as the games they played this year.

So who are we kidding here? Why not just pick the teams people want to see most for the bowl games? Anyway, enjoy the games everybody. The Capital One Bowl hasn't disappointed (the Rose Bowl probably will- Illinois? really?), but I can't wait for Georgia/Hawaii tonight. Should be a lotta points and a lotta fun. Happy New Year.

The NBA: This is Where "I'm Done With You" Happens

First of all, a very Merry Christmas and happy holidays and all that good stuff. I am very excited to be celebrating a very traditional and non-politically-correct Christmas. It's my favorite time of year.

Anyways as you may have noticed I haven't blogged much at all about the Vikings (you've probably also noticed I haven't blogged much at all about anything- thought I'd beat you to that joke, but feel free to make it none the less. It's a gooder!), and it hasn't been because of a lack of interest. I just haven't been able to see that many Vikings games living out here, so it's hard to comment on something I haven't seen. But after watching them on Monday night, as well as a Sunday nighter coming against the Redskins, well I'm breaking my silence soon. I'm working on a "getting to know Brad Childress/Tavaris Jackson is not, and never will be, an NFL quarterback" post, but I'm actually going to do crazy stuff like research for it. Yup I'm going to attempt to make a logical argument. So I've got that going for me, which is nice.

The NBA on the other hand? I have not blogged about the NBA specifically because of a lack of interest. I've been the biggest NBA fan I know as long as I've known about the NBA. It's always one of those things where I give reasons why I shouldn't be interested in it, and yet I always am. This year? Really couldn't care less. Part of it is living in Canada where we only get Raptors games- they're 3000 miles away but it's Canada's team without one single Canadian player on the team! Canada’s team everybody! Love Toronto! Love Canada! A-holes- and part of it is also that the team I grew up loving, the Seattle Suuuuuuuuuuuuper Sonics, have a once-in-a-generation talent (even if his lack of rebounding so far should be a major concern) and a GM who knows what the hell he's doing, and yet they're moving from a top 12 national market that has supported the team for 40+ years to Okla-f'ing-homa. Oklahoma. From Seattle to Oklahoma. Think about that. And what is the league doing about it? What is the great Don Stern doing about it? Nothing. Less than nothing actually, he's openly ENCOURAGING it!!! What business in their right mind moves from Seattle to Oklahoma and thinks they'll be better off in the long run? Anyone?

For years, sporting leagues have played the "if you don't build us a new stadium, we're moving" card. And it's worked really, really well. While I understand this is why Stern supports his owners, shouldn't common sense take over at some point? Shouldn't the ego get set aside to say that although in the short term a team would come out ahead moving to a city with a free arena instead of using $500+ million of their own money to build a new one in their current city, that in the long run it's a really bad idea? You'd think so, but it won't happen. The NHL is a perfect example of this: they haven't made one move as a league in their time under Gary Bettman, not one, with long term goals in mind. Not one! Every single thing they've done is to make a quick buck, and as a result, the league is a joke. Canadians love it because they have to, kind of like although college football is completely dysfunctional right now Americans still love it, because they almost HAVE to.

As logical as we can be as people, there's nothing logical or rational about being a sports fan. As fans we have been getting screwed more and more with every move every league makes, and yet we keep coming back for more. We love to love sports, and yet we couldn't be getting treated worse. Billionaire owners fighting with millionaire players over billions of dollars while both sides publicly cry about getting screwed while raising ticket prices, holding out, demanding trades, or moving franchises.

But you know what? We have no one to blame but ourselves. We pay owners and players and make them all rich by buying tickets, watching games, and buying merchandise. Baseball, and this whole ridiculous steroid thing is a perfect example. How many blogs/websites/papers/TV shows/media outlets have you seen screaming about how steroids and HGH are ruining "the sanctity and purity" of the sport? All of them right? And yet baseball has never been richer. They've had the highest attendance, and TV deals in the history of the sport. They'll gladly let you bitch about anything you want as long as you keep paying for it. Because until you stop paying, and stop paying attention, sports will keep taking and taking and taking.

My favorite ESPN baseball writer, Keith Law, just laughs at anyone who gets upset about steroids and how it's ruining the game, and he's absolutely right: if people are so upset about it WHY ARE THEY STILL WATCHING THE GAMES?!?!? In 1994 baseball was at an all-time popularity high, and then they went on strike. When they came back, the fans didn't. And it scared the bejeezus out baseball. People were actually making a statement with their wallets, the ONLY thing owners pay attention to, that they were fed up and had enough. And so baseball turned a blind eye on roids, and McGwire and Sosa happened, and everybody came back. And everybody, despite everything that's happened, has stayed back.

If you don't like what's happening in baseball, if you're disgusted by what's happening in that sport or any other, then do something about: stop watching it, stop paying for it, stop caring. It's hard but it's the only way. Otherwise, shut up, stop bitching, and watch the games.

Me personally? I'm not willing to give up baseball, and so that's why I haven't been up in arms about the Mitchell Report and steroids and all the rest. Honestly, the Mitchell Report is a joke. It's all rumors and zero hard evidence. It's all opinions and people blaming other people. None of that would hold up if somebody dared to take it to court. But it's credible exactly because nobody has dared to take it to court. Want to know if a public person is innocent? They sue. I've used this example before, but I'll do it again: at the height of his career in St Louis, running back Marshall Faulk had a women falsely accuse him of having her baby, hoping to blackmail him to get money. I don't know Faulk and have no idea what he's like as a human being or behind closed-doors, but his public persona is one of a class act and good guy. The woman threatened to take her story public unless Faulk gave her money. You know what he did? Sued her. Took her to court. He decided that although this accusation was false, and he could easily by this woman off with hush money, that it could tarnish the image and reputation he had worked so hard to build, that it was worth it. Because if he let this woman blackmail him, what was to stop any other woman from doing the same? So he sued, she immediately backed off, and the story died. She had zero hard evidence, Faulk knew it, believed the short-term credibility loss he'd suffer was worth the long-term peace-of-mind he'd get knowing he was innocent, and he won. It would be that easy for any of these baseball players to do the exact thing to prove they didn't take steroids: and yet curiously, they're not.

As much as I hate frivolous lawsuits, or just lawsuits in general (it's pretty much the epitome of the whiny, always-playing-the-victim, "woe is me" "THAT'S NOT FAIR!!!" culture we live in), if your good name is being dragged unfairly or unjustly through the mud, the easiest way to clear it up is to sue. And as I said, you couldn't find a bigger pile of unsubstantiated dog crap than the Mitchell Report. But nobody's suing. In fact, players like Andy Pettite and Brian Roberts are already coming out saying the reports are true! To me, this just shows how guilty the rest of the guys in that report are. If you're being slandered, do something about it...unless of course the rumors are true. Jose Canseco's book seemed like a total joke...until nobody in it sued him. Now Canseco is actually a credible voice in all of this. The guys from the San Francisco Chronicle who published the testimony that Bonds used roids were willing to go to jail to stand by their story. Bonds? Just sent out denials. Why would he not sue them if they were lying? Why would Roger Clemens not sue the pants off his former trainer if the guy was lying? I believe Bonds, Clemens, and everybody in that report used roids or HGH. And I think there's a ton more guys that used too.

I realize what I'm dealing with here, and I'm willing to put up with it. I'm willing to accept that most baseball players are dirty cheaters. I accept it and move on because being a baseball fan is worth that to me. I cheer for a team with a payroll that will push $120 million this season, that just signed Carlos Silva to a $44 million contract (hang on I need to go throw up after typing that), and will be lucky to finish at .500 this year. And yet I press on.

The NBA? I've been surprised how little I've missed it. Oh sure, I'd love to support the Sonics if they were staying, love to cheer for Kevin Durant (and cheer for him to start grabbing some f**&ing rebounds!) the way I did for Payton, Kemp, Detlef, Perkins, McMillan etc. in the days of my youth. That group of Sonics in the early-mid 1990's was my favorite team I've cheered for. And yet I've decided I've as an NBA fan that I've had enough, and I'm walking away. I haven't missed it as much as I thought, and I don't think NBA fans in Seattle will either. So thanks to David Stern for pushing me away from something I loved, because I've realized life carries on just fine without it. Now if only more sports fans would realize the same, maybe sports in general would get better.

Steve Nash and Bill Smith: Two Guys I Like

Heyo! I'm on vacation! Sorry I haven't posted more frequently, but school finished up on Tuesday, and I've been doing a LOT of nothing since then. In spectacular fashion none the less. Am I too old to be sitting on my buddy's couch playing video games for three straight days? Good, I didn't think so. Just checking. Here's a couple of things from the past couple of weeks I thought I'd point out.

* Just when I thought my man crush on Steve Nash couldn't get any bigger, he goes and gives the "Chipped Tooth Interview". If you haven't seen it, it's well worth your time. He takes an elbow to the face, keeps playing through it, and then gives a hilarious interview at the half. Does it get any better than that? You're right, only if he had a mustache. That's really all Nash is missing to become the greatest human being ever: sweet/ugly facial hair. That's really it.

I'd like to think it's because he's Canadian, but he's just so tough. Watch this play from last year's playoffs vs. San Antonio when he and Tony Parker collide. Parker drops to the floor like he was shot, whereas Nash just stands there and then walks away like nothing happened. Turns out Parker (who, if you couldn't tell from the flop, is French) had a little bump on the head, where Nash broke his nose had a gash so bad they couldn't close it. Just that reaction shows it all for me.

* Tony Parker flopping like a soccer player reminded me of something: go to www.google.com, type in "French military victories" and then click the "I'm feeling lucky" button and see what happens. You'll enjoy it, I promise...well unless you're French.

* I like new Minnesota Twins GM Bill Smith. I do. So far so good on his moves this offseason. He didn't panic and vastly overpay a declining Torii Hunter to appease the fan base, and he made a good trade to pick up a potential 5-tool allstar outfielder in Delmon Young. The Adam Everett signing was also a really, really good one. Everett's one of the worst hitters in the majors, but he's also one of the best defensive players at any position at THE most important defensive position in the game. Stick him in the 9 slot in the order and let his glove and arm go to work. You'll lose a bit with the bat when comparing him to Bartlett, but he'll make up for it with his D. Can you tell I love that signing?

I also like that Smith's being patient with the Johan Santana talks. I haven't loved any of the proposed deals, which shows that teams are getting smarter: they're just not willing to sell the farm AND pay $100+ million, even for someone as good as Johan. Smith does face a tough dilemma here, and the teams he's dealing with know it. Billy Beane out in Oakland figured out before anybody else that letting your superstars walk and getting two 1st round draft picks is usually better than what you can get by trading them. This has certainly been true of the dealings with Santana so far: the Twins are having trouble getting ONE prospect from New York or Boston that's worth a first round pick, let alone two. The smart thing, as far as value goes, would be to keep Johan for next year and let him walk in 2008, giving the Twinkies the two picks. The problem is that screws up their current plan, which is, I'm guessing, to get a good haul of young MLB-ready prospects for him now, let the young guys play and gel together, and be ready for World Series contention in two years. If the Twins let Santana walk, the two #1 picks, no matter how good they are, won't be ready to contribute by 2010. And probably not by 2011 either. Their potential will certainly be better than what they're being offered for Santana right now, but they can't help you right away either.

What would I do? Keep Santana, and wait till the market gets hot in mid-July. Everybody is way, way too logical right now because there's no pressure on anybody to make the playoffs. By mid summer, with the playoff race in full swing, a bidding war would be much more likely. And if it's not, you bite the bullet and take the two picks. Oh, and for those worried about infuriating the fan base by trading Santana during a playoff chase, I hate to break it to you, but you're not going to be in the playoff chase next year. You're just not. People much smarter than me, like the guys over at ussmariner blog, use all that new-school smart math and believe that you're going to have to win at least 90 games to win the AL wildcard in 2008. 90 GAMES! Minimum! No matter how well the Twins play next year, they're just not a 90 win team. With the Tiggers and Tribe in their division, and then having to compete with one of those teams, plus one of the Red Sox and Yankees for the wild card, their playoff chances are somewhere between slim and none.

This isn't to say you should be upset as a Twins fan though, or depressed about your team for 2008. Quite the contrary actually. As a Mariners fan I'm jealous of the Twins franchise right now. Yes, you're not going to win the 2008 World Series, and maybe not in 2009 either, but there are few teams in the game with a brighter future than Minnesota's. You've got a good, young, exciting team with tons of potential and cost-controlled talent (well other than Morneau, but let's not talk about him today), a good manager in Gardy, and a GM who knows what the hell he's doing. They're in great shape right now. Hey you could be a M's fan like me, whose team has a bloated payroll and a GM who's trying to save his job, which means gutting the farm system for more overpriced talent in a dillusional effort to win now even though there are no series of moves possible to make the M's a World Series contender next year.

So yes, short of a typhoon wiping out New York and Boston, and then moving down the St Lawrence to wash out Cleveland and Detroit too, the Twins aren't a contender in 2008. But you're in good hands with Bill Smith, and the future is bright.

The Monday Musings

Hope your weekend was as swell as mine, because mine was pretty freaking swell. Onto it then...

* Hey they got a Heisman vote right! Congrats to all the people who vote for sports' most overrated and overhyped award. I do not like how voters and pundits get all worked up about tradition and not voting for sophomores, and wanting to uphold the image of the award by voting for players that will make good pros because guys like Jason White, Gino Torretta, Danny Wuerfell...holy crap there's been a lot of great college players who were craptastic in the NFL...and the rest "tarnished" the Heisman because they sucked in the pros. First of all, was that the longest run-on sentence I've ever typed? Quite possibly was. But more importantly, last time I checked, and for the sake of accuracy let me just check again here...hang on...yup- the Heisman is still an award for the most outstanding COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYER. Not the best pro prospect, not the best quarterback on the best team, but the best player from that year. Tim Tebow was the best college player this year. His 22 rushing TD's broke the SEC's single-season record for rushing TD's by any player at any position. Pretty sure the SEC has had a couple of good players over the years, especially running backs, so that's pretty impressive. As a passer, he had the second best QB rating in the country, his 3132 passing yds were third in the SEC, and his 29 TD's tied for second. As one college football scribe said before the vote (I think it was E!SPN's Bruce Feldman, but I can't remember and I'm not going back to look right now), just the rushing TD's are incredibly impressive, and his passing totals by themselves are also Heisman worthy. Put them together, and it's a no-brainer.

* By the way, how are you feeling about the bowl games? Good? Bad? Indifferent? I'm personally excited for Georgia-Hawaii. Georgia's been one of the best teams in the country since Tennessee took them out to the woodshed in October, and I really want to see how good Colt Brennan and the Warriors are against a real team. That'll be a fun one. USC/Illinois? Good gawd almighty, I love the Pac 10/Big 10 Rose Bowl tradition, but Illinois? Really? I thought the incentive for WINNING the Big 10 was to go to the Rose Bowl? Now apparently you finish second, lose three games, and hey "you're Rose Bowl material". At this point, what would be wrong with everybody playing everybody in the Big 10 and only having 2 non conference games a year? Would anybody be against this? Oh right, the school presidents would. Just like how they're against a playoff system. They're against these things, but they're for adding a 12th game against a 1-AA school to pad their team's stats. I love that almost as much as I love the mediocrity and parity that's running roughshod over this game right now like Tebow ran over defenses this year. We're just a few years away from handing out bowl invitations to every school that fields a D-1 team. That's probably Notre Dame's best hope for a bowl right now. ZING!

* Did you ever think there'd be a time when I'd need to get my dominance/Evil Empire fix from the NFL? Me neither. Didn't see that one coming. Damn did the Pats ever look good again. Um, hey Andy Smith or Adam Smith? Aaron Smith? Anthony Smith? A-hole Smith? Whoever the Smith guy is for the Steelers who decided it'd be a good idea to "guarantee" a victory over the Pats really should have talked to me before he went ahead and lost the game for Pittsburgh before it even started. It's bad enough I'd never heard of you before you made your genius guarantee (trust me, if I haven't heard of you, neither has 99.9% of NFL fans), but is that not the one thing the Pats were hoping for? This is a team that's been using the fact they got caught cheating as motivation as a "slight" against them. So you thought it'd be a good idea to give them a legitimate slight by guaranteeing a victory? How'd that work out for you? 34-13, that's how. Nice move. You should have to play for the 49ers the rest of the year as punishment.

* Wow the Niners are awesome right now, eh? Beyond words, really. The Sports Guy couldn't have been more wrong about his super sleeper (Atlanta), but he was bang on again in predicting that the fashionable sleeper would go down in flames big time this year. As he accurately pointed out, there's a "sleeper" every year that the public and media just love, and every year that team sucks. I gotta admit, although I didn't love the Niners as much as some, I sure didn't see this coming. It's like they decided "hey remember the '89 49ers? Let's be just like them- except the exact opposite!!" The only thing they're good at is throwing to defensive tackles. The Vikes set an NFL record with three different DT's getting picks today. So they've got that going for them, which is nice.

* Hahaha oh Lovie Smith, you're such a character! Looks like the Chicago Bears head coach pulled a fast one on ol' Vikes coach Brad Childress by sneaking the Bears' Adrian Peterson into the lineup in place of the Vikes Adrian Peterson. Because there's no way in hell the REAL AP would have 14 carries for three yards against a team as bad as San Francisco. Wait what? He did? That was him? No freaking way.

* Call me cynical, and some have, but I still don't trust this Vikes team. Now, please keep in mind that I didn't get to see the game today, so I'm just going by highlights and stats. There's the little tidbit about the Niners OUTGAINING the Vikes 284 to 280, most of that done with something called Sean Hill at quarterback. Hill also had as many rushing yards as AP. 84 of Minny's 280 came on one Chester Taylor TD run in the second quarter. Against a good team that's not going to turn the ball over five times, do the Vikes win today? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they won, but I still don't trust them.

* Fine, since you're probably wondering, here's who I do trust: Pats, Colts, Cowboys. Kinda trust: Pack, Steelers, Jags, and...yup that's it. Everybody else has major holes. The Chargers? Not with Phil Rivers. The Browns? They're the Browns. It never works out for them. It's a 4.5 team league right now.

* Finally, good to have the Colts back. You wonder if tonight's woodshed-style beatdown of the Ravens (um how does Brian Billick still have a job? Anyone? Look at that team and tell me how they're just 4-9? Anyone?) wasn't a message to the nation that the Colts are still going to be a force in the playoffs, and that we should all be getting ready for Colts/Pats II in the AFC Championship game. Giddyup I say!


Alrighty then, that's all for now. If you need me, I'll be tis'ing the season. Tis'ing the crap out of it, to be exact. You tis that season and you tis it good!

Football Musings

A whole bunch of football-related thoughts bouncing around my red-headed noggin...

* First and foremost, I was biased and wrong about Sean Taylor of the Redskins. Coming from the "U" of Miami where they've had more than their share of players arrested for gun-related incidents, and with Taylor's handgun incident in 2005, when I heard last week that he was shot in his home and was listed in critical condition, I was not at all surprised. I figured he had gotten caught up in something bad, and it came back to get him. After his death, the investigation, and the arrest of four young suspects, it turns out he did absolutely nothing wrong, and did nothing to deserve this. So even though I didn't share my bias against Taylor in this space, I was still thinking it, and I'm sorry. I was wrong. Peter King has an excellent piece on Taylor in his MMQB column.

* If you haven't watched the Adrian Peterson highlights from the Vikings win over Detroit last Sunday, do yourself a favor. He had some impressive runs throughout that package, but washis second TD run not a Barry Sanders-type move? That poor Detwah LB was waiting in the hole flat-footed for AP, and Peterson goes by him like he's not even there. HE DIDN"T EVEN TOUCH HIM!! I knew AP was fast and powerful, but I did not know he had that kind of agility. I'm not going to say anymore since he'll probably get injured again next week. But for right now, loving Adrian Peterson.

* Tavaris Jackson's play of late is another example of how little patience myself, and sports fans in general, have anymore. For the first nine games of the year Jackson was awful, and it was looking like Brad Kick Ass OFfense Childress made a huge mistake thinking Jackson was ready to play QB in the NFL. Through patience, stubborness and/or arrogance, as well as the ineffective play of Kelly Holcumb and Brooks Bollinger, Chilly stuck with Jackson. Sure he had not other options, but since reinserting him as a starter three weeks ago in the win against Oakland, Jackson has actually looked like an NFL quarterback. While three games aren't a large sample size, he's 45-58 (77.5 comp.%) for 504 yds for 3 TD's and 2 picks in the Vikes last three games, all wins. Hall of Fame numbers they're not, but if this continues the rest of the season, the Vikings could be just a couple of receivers away from being a contender in 2008.

* Speaking of the rest of the season, with four games remaining (at SF, home Bears and Skinnies, at Bronch) it's very possible the Vikes could win out and finish at 10-6. Of course it's also very possible that AP gets hurt again, pre-3-game-win-streak T-Jack resurfaces and the Vikes lose two, three or all four of their remaining games. You'd have to be insane to bet either way on the Vikings, or anybody else for that matter. Well except for maybe the Patriots.

* OK, I'll admit it: I was rooting for the Pats to win last night. I'm also rooting for them to go undefeated in the regular season. I don't care if they win the Super Bowl or not, but it's infinitely more interesting if New England is undefeated going into January.

* Last Patriots-related thought: are you prepared for the 2008 Patriots with Darren McFadden or Glenn Dorsey? The Pats hold the Niners #1 pick, which at this point looks all but guaranteed to be in the top 3. With at least three good quarterbacks available in this spring's draft (Andre Woodson of Kentucky, Matt Ryan of BC and Brian Brohm of Louisville), it's also almost guaranteed that the Patriots will have their choice of the best two talents in the draft: the amazing Arkansas RB or the bull-dozing LSU DT. I personally think the Pats should take McFadden, solidifying their offense as the best in history. But since everybody undervalues RB's in the draft now (and for good reason), they could also take the second biggest impact guy in Dorsey. Either way, the rich are about to get a lot richer. I thought that wasn't supposed to happen in this age of parity?

* Finally, one college football note: Josh Elliott, who I think is now an anchor for Sportscenter (I say "I think" because in Canada we get TSN's Sportscentre, which is infinitely worse than ESPN's Sportscenter. I know, I know, you didn't think it was possible, but trust me, it is). He was trying to make one of those fun controversial statements that ESPN just loves. This one was about how unjust the BCS system is. While that's not controversial at all, his big point of emphasis was, if only because it's so insane and made absolutely no sense: Elliott's big point on why the BCS is so wrong this season is, and I'm paraphrasing here, "it would be like if the NFL had the BCS instead of a playoff this season, and decided Tennessee and Green Bay would play for the Super Bowl, leaving New England and Dallas out!"

Um Josh? No it's not. It's not like that at all. The flaw in the BCS System is not that it doesn't reward the powerful marquee "BCS Conference" teams who go undefeated: the flaw in the BCS System is that it has no way of fairly determining who should play for the title if there's not two clear-cut marquee teams. It's flawed because you can only determine this if you have a playoff, and the BCS is not a playoff.

Therefore, if the NFL had a BCS system, New England and Dallas would be selected for the Super Bowl. They are both marquee teams (ie a "BCS Conference" team) with the two best records in the league. What I think Elliott was trying to argue is that it's unfair somebody like Hawaii (who went undefeated against a JV schedule) or Kansas (one loss against an equally pitiful sched) should be in the BCS title game. First of all, that's just wrong. Neither are more deserving than Ohio State or LSU. Second, the NFL example he gave is, as I've stated, just plain wrong. The NFL equivalent of what happened in college football this season would be if Arizona and Tennessee had the two best records, but did so playing only teams from the NFC West, NFC South, and the CFL, while the Pats and Cowboys did so against a real NFL schedule. THAT'S an accurate comparison of what college football looked like this year. Is the BCS flawed? Obviously and yet still it doesn't prove that the BCS got their selections wrong this year.

A Simple Rule for Sports Fans

So there's a kid in one of my classes named Adam who likes to rip on other people's favorite teams when they do poorly. I'm not sure if he does this because he doesn't know any better, so I'm not trying to pick on him. He's 18 and Canadian, and doesn't cheer for the local teams because he spent part of his adolescence in Northern Alberta. He also cheers for not one but two different NFL teams: the Packers because of Brett Favre and the Saints because of Reggie Bush. Basically his affiliation for NFL teams changes with the direction of the wind. Adam's a great guy but this particular habit of his bothers me.

I was talking today with my buddy Mark, who is a lifelong Cowboys fan (and a Notre Dame fan...don't even get me started), and was congratulating him on the win over the Pack last night. Anyway, Pack/Saints fan jumps in about how great Favre is, I rip on his comments, and he responds with: "well at least they're better than the Vikings."

The Sports Guy did a whole list of rules for being a sports fan, and I'm not here to recreate the list, or make my own, but I am here to say he missed a major one: you can't rip on other people's teams when you don't have a vested interest in a team in that sport or even that game. Or if you're an extremely fair weather fan.

I may rip on the NHL or CFL to my buddies here who are fans of teams in those leagues, but I would never consider ripping on their TEAMS for poor performances. Although I like to see the Canucks do well, I don't have an emotional interest in their performance. Do I like to see the Canucks do well? Of course, but I'm certainly not living or dying by how they're doing. I've watched maybe 4 games all year. For me to rip on, say, an Oilers fan like Mark because the Oilers are having a rough year would be just plain wrong. Criminal almost (the Maple Leafs are an exception to this: The Leafs, their fans, and Toronto in general should be ripped on whenever possible. Because everyone hates Toronto. That's another rule).

So for Adam, who won't be a Packers fan after Favre retires, and could stop cheering for the Saints if he'd just realize how overrated Reggie Bush is, shouldn't be allowed to rip on me as a Vikings fan. Let's be honest: I've been a Vikings fan for as long as Adam's been alive. Longer even. Sure, that's perhaps a pathetic indication that I'm still in school at 29, but it also says fans should have the decency not to do this.

There are not rules for being a sports fan, and considering that teams, especially professional ones, show no loyalty to us as fans, Adam has every right and reason to cheer for whoever the hell he wants. I'm just saying that for stupid people like me who blindly cheer for the same team their entire lives, there should be a level of respect there. It's just common courtesy.

Twins...Rebuilding?

It's Hot Stove League time in major league baseball, and for a change, the Twins are right in the middle of the action. Sure, they're sellers instead of buyers, but it's still nice to have a lot of Twins talk nationally. As you may or may not know, I'm not Twinkies owner Carl Pohlad's biggest fan. Pretty sure I've been up front about that, especially on how he repeatedly held the Twins back by not letting former GM Terry Ryan (it feels weird to type "former". He's been the Twins GM forever) go after that big impact bat that would cost a lot of money but would put the team over the top.

To some, letting Torii Hunter walk, and pushing to trade allstar pitchers Johan Santana and Joe Nathan, seems like a complete slap in the face to not only Twins fans, but tax payers in Minnesota who are footing the bill for the brand new ball park. Sure, this looks like Pohlad was lying when he said to give him a new stadium and he'll give the fans a winner. I know how this looks, but I'm telling you, seriously, honestly, and with all sarcasm aside, it's not what it looks like.

Are the Twins rebuilding? Yes, sort of. They're repositioning themselves to be a contender for when the new ballpark opens in 2010. Although the fans don't like it, this is absolutely positively what they should be doing. Keep in mind I'm saying this as a third party observer who has no real emotional or irrational feelings towards the team. And maybe this is why I'm so excited for the Twins, because they're building the right way (as a Mariners fan this is a foreign concept, and frankly one I'm jealous of).

As of right now, even IF the Twins resigned Torii Hunter to that horrendous $90 million dollar deal and somehow found a way to keep Santana longterm, guess what? They're still the third or fourth best team in their DIVISION. Not just the league, or even the American League, but the AL Central. The Indians and Tigers are World Series contenders, and the White Sox, if they make a few minor adjustments, have to be considered at least as good as Minnesota. So what's the point of the Twins going for broke when the chances are slim that all that salary won't get them much closer to a World Series title?

Before the words are even out of your mouth, I know your retort to as a Twins fan is that trading star players or letting them walk sets a very bad presidence for their current young players and any potential free agents who want to play for a winner. While that's a valid argument, I don't think it should be a concern, at least not right now, and certainly not enough to focus the roster and organization on being World Series-ready by 2010.

They tried to resign Santana, with rumored offers of $15-$20 million a year, but that doesn't even get them into negotiations at this point, not when the big boys can give him $25-$30 million a year. And I know, he should be loyal and stay for the hometown discount, but come on: no matter how much you like your current job and where you live, if a company in, say, Seattle or Boston or New York offered you double the salary and better position you'd say no? Really? I doubt it. Although I admire the people who have the peace of mind to take less money, I don't think you should think less of Santana for taking the big raise.

Wait, this was not supposed to be about defending Johan, but rather the Twins, so I digress. Even sans Johan, Torii and Joe Nathan, the Twins are still in great shape with plenty of good, young, cheap players that are under team control long term. That's a very enviable position to be in. Shopping Santana now is going to net them, if you believe the rumors, AT LEAST 2 major league-ready blue chip players, plus a third or fourth good prospect and/or quality major league regular. So right now, you've got Mauer, Morneausy, Cuddyer, and probably Bartlett locked into regular starting gigs at C, 1B, RF, and SS. The organization is flush with good young arms, so they're more than covered in pitching, especially with at least one shttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifuper-duper young arm coming back in any Santana deal. It's a luxury that few other teams have. The major holes are centerfield, a "toolsy" young outfielder, a third baseman that doesn't suck (that means NOT playing little Nicky Punto and his .206 average at the hot corner), and a league average second baseman. They SHOULD be able to get some or all of that back in deals for Santana, Nathan, and even Matt Garza, giving the players a few years develop and be ready for a major push.

A team built like this may not make the playoffs next year, but they'll be fun to watch for the fans, and could really surprise sooner rather than later. I'm telling you Twinkies fans, this is going to look really good when the new park opens and the Twins have one of the best teams in baseball.

Finally, I though I'd give my two cents on what trades or players I like for the Twins to acquire...but considering how long this is already, I'll save it for my next post. However, I had to comment on the that surfaced today: yes, this is the same Delmon Young who threw a bat at an umpire and got suspended 50 games. He's also the same guy who was the undisputed #1 prospect in baseball before that incident. Last year, his first in the majors, he hit .288/.316/.406 with 13 home runs while playing solid outfield defense. Although the low power totals are a little troubling, he's still a 22 year old with all star potential. He's also righthanded, and if the power comes around like scouts think it should, he'd be the perfect compliment to the left handed sticks of Mauer and Morneau. YEs, he could be a headcase/problem child like Albert Belle or Carl Everett, or it could have been a simple case of immaturity and a teenager being given too much too fast. If the Twins can get this deal done, it's a great gamble for them. I just hope the D-Rays don't realize how good a player they're giving up before pulling the trigger.