8 comments Ten Things I Think I Think Peter King Has Not Thought Of: Absolutely No Mention of Steroids Or Brett Favre Edition

I have a list of articles about a mile long in my bookmarks that I want to comment upon and mock, so Thursdays are always a great day to do this. For some reason I can't get to Woody Paige's homepage at the Denver Post, I am not sure if this is caused by divine intervention or a bad link, but either way I am going through Woody Paige withdrawal and I need a fix. Hopefully the link will start working again here soon.

1. I am sure no one is sick of A-Rod yet. Well in his constant dedication to stay out of the spotlight and focus on baseball, he has made news yet again by opening his mouth. This time he dissed Jesus himself, Derek Jeter, and sportswriters will be having none of that...specifically Mike Vaccaro at the New York Post.

The trendy thing to do among skeptics, cynics and statistical analysts is to diminish who Derek Jeter is, what Jeter is, what he brings to the ballpark every day. His range has shrunk. He is neither slugger nor perennial batting champion. Since signing his $189 million contract, he hasn't even been a part of a World Series winner.

My job on this blog would be so much easier if sportswriters would just write up my arguments for me, then I can just copy and paste. Thanks Mike Vaccaro!

You can snicker at what being a baseball captain means. Baseball players don't snicker at what it means.

"It isn't a question of who should be the captain on this team," Jimmy Rollins, a pepperpot leader in his own right, said recently. "There's only one possibility, and that's Derek Jeter."

Oh no, I am still snickering. Rollins did not say who WAS captain on the team, he said who SHOULD BE, thereby indicating there was not one, or indicating it was not Jeter.

Semantics in your eye!

There may be one prominent player who disagrees with that, but he was in Jupiter, Fla., yesterday, telling reporters how much he would enjoy having Jose Reyes on his team — which, of course, would only be possible if the incumbent shortstop were playing somewhere else.

I would say there are 29 teams in the major leagues that would rather have Jose Reyes rather than Derek Jeter on their team. Ok, maybe 24 teams, but the other 5 don't want "leadership" and already have a good leadoff hitter.

"I wish (Reyes) was leading off on our team, playing on our team," Rodriguez said. "That's fun to watch. Anytime you have that type of speed. I mean, we have a guy in (Brett) Gardner that'll be fun. That's probably the most you can have, watching those guys run."

If this were a game of "Yo Mama" this "diss" would be met by a round chorus of boos. Probably because it was not a good diss or a diss at all. (Is "diss" short for dismissal? If so, I want to call it a dismissal because it sounds a lot more final and tough)

This was not a dismissal of Derek Jeter, this was a compliment to Jose Reyes. A-Rod should never have said it because he should know the media is going to jump all over the Jeter-Rodriguez feud, but theoretically Reyes would look pretty good at 2B for the Yankees. So it could very well not be a direct dismissal of Jeter and more of a compliment to Reyes...but why look at it that way, that's not controversial.

Which of these players would you want?

113 runs, 19 triples, 16 HR, 68 RBIs, 56 SB, .297/.358/.475 (Reyes)
70 runs, 3 triples, 14 HR, 72 RBIs, 2 SB, .271/.305/.410 (Cano)

A-Rod is a dumbass for saying this, but just because Jeter is a SS doesn't mean that A-Rod wanting Reyes on his team would mean that he is dissing Jeter and wants Reyes to play SS for the Yankees. Can you imagine the Yankees with Reyes at 2B at the head of the lineup and Robinson Cano not in the lineup? That would be a tough lineup and I think that is what A-Rod was trying to say, but his attempt was futile.

Jeter knows exactly when to talk and exactly when to keep his mouth shut. A-Rod hasn't learned that trick yet. Why would you ever expect he would?

Jeter is much smarter when it comes to matters like this, but everything A-Rod says is not a dismissal of Jeter, though A-Rod should be smarter than to even make a comment like this. He never said he wanted Jeter to be replaced by Reyes, he merely said he would want Reyes leading off for the Yankees, and the implication is that Reyes would replace Jeter at SS, but I think he looks just as good at 2B. So I have used semantics to defend A-Rod again. I am tired of defending A-Rod, for God's sake he dates that awful hag Madonna.

2. I don't get the Dodgers and what they are doing. They are going to be in the same situation next year with Manny Ramirez as this year...because Manny is going to opt out of his contract after this year. I guarantee this.

We're all pretty sure the Dodgers weren't good enough to win without Manny (and to be honest, the Dodgers knew it, too). But is the Manny of 2009 going to be committed enough and motivated enough to carry this team the way he carried last year's team?

I know the Dodgers want to compete but they gave Manny a no-trade clause and let him opt out of his contract after this year. So they can't trade him if he doesn't want to be traded and they are going to be in the same boat as this year in 9 more months. I think they are dumb for doing this.

It's still a big deal to get it done, though. Isn't it?

"I'm excited, yeah," said Kemp, who really didn't sound excited at all.

Possibly because Kemp realizes he is going to have to be in centerfield this year with Manny to his right in leftfield, so he essentially will get to play 1.5 outfield positions.

Or maybe he is tired from partying all night...

In truth, the common ground was found last week, when the Dodgers and Boras settled on the concept of a two-year deal with an opt-out after the first year. And that's the deal that eventually got done, at the same $45 million.

The magic of Scott Boras strikes again. He got Manny the exact same deal he was offered 2 months ago. Scott Boras will steal your car and then bring it back to you a couple of months later and make you believe he has achieved something for you.

It's a deal that should make everyone happy, except for one thing: With that opt-out clause, we might have to watch the same circus play out next winter.

Maybe I don't know anything about anything but why would the Dodgers agree to this deal? I know they did not want to commit to Manny long term and they need him in the lineup, but they have set themselves up for the same song and dance with Boras and Manny next year at this time. They essentially signed Manny to a one year contract, which is fine if that is what they want, but I don't know why they would want to have to negotiate on a contract again next year.

3. Peter King is back on Tuesday to give more of his semi off kilter opinions and inside information.

1. The Seattle Seahawks got a lot better Monday when they signed T.J. Houshmandzadeh. He's caught more balls (294) over the last three years than any other receiver in football, and he's caught more balls (372) over the last four years than any other receiver in football.

He did all of that on the other side of Chad Johnson and with Carson Palmer throwing to him. Unless the Seahawks plan is to draft Michael Crabtree, T.J. is going to be the #1 option for the first time in a long while. He played with Chad Johnson at Oregon State and Cincinnati and has never been the #1 option. He is also 32 years old. These are the types of things I take into account before I get all giddy about a free agent signing.

In the West Coast offense, precision is so important because multiple receivers have to get to pivotal gaps in a defense. And Houshmandzadeh is one of the best route-runners in football. If he's supposed to run a 12-yard incut, he'll run the 12 yards exactly,

If Houshmandzadeh is such a great route runner this may be a great signing, but I still wonder how he will do with Deion Branch and not Chad Johnson on the other side.

On another note, is it really that hard to run 12 yards exactly on a route? It sounds like Houshmanzadeh is one of the few receivers who can do this consistently, but how is this hard? You start at the 20 yard line and run an incut to the 32 yard line...exactly. Please realize I have lived in an attic for years and never played any recreational sports...my bones are actually calcified from inactivity, but I would think every receiver should be able to run an exact 12 yard incut.

The Chiefs, of course, got not only Cassel last weekend, but also a locker-room presence in linebacker Mike Vrabel.

Of course they got Cassel, thanks for reminding us in case we had forgotten. I like how Peter talks about Mike Vrabel in this sentence, calling him a "presence," like he is a ghost who goes around the locker room haunting it with motivational messages to his teammates.

Actually, the Broncos paid Lonie Paxton a million to sign, with a five-year deal averaging $1.06M a year, when they had a perfectly good snapper in house -- the reliable Mike Leach. Every year I see teams bring snappers to training camp, new guys with this same singular skill, and I can't figure for the life of me any good reason to take a spot on your roster for one of these players and pay him a million a year. It's indefensible, illogical.

It's indefensible and illogical until your favorite teams loses a game or two on a bad snap, then it seems a little bit more logical. That's a lot of money for a guy who just snaps the ball but the long snapper is the person who initially touches the ball on last second field goal attempts and on punts deep in your own territory. You want this guy to be reliable. So you pay for it. What is ridiculous is Peter thinking the Antonio Smith deal was a good one for the Texans.

From Justin of Peoria, Ill.: These contracts are becoming ridiculous! It was not that long ago that five years and $21 million was considered a large contract. When the rest of America is struggling to make it, these contracts rub me the wrong way. I am beginning to become more of a college football fan."

Sure Justin, because $4.5 million per year for Pete Carroll is just so much more reasonable when you have 60 guys on the team pulling a free scholarship for the mere purpose of playing a sport so the school can make more money, when there is probably more academically qualified individuals who want to attend that school but can't afford it financially. Also, there is a chance the athletes pulling a free scholarship were borderline academically eligible in the first place. College football is just so much more perfect.

Kevin Octavio of Mill Valley, Calif.: "Todd Haley question: In today's column you note, 'The Chiefs now should have their quarterback of the future, assuming new coach Todd Haley's as good a quarterback tutor as he appeared in Arizona the past couple of years.' Why does Haley get a quarterback guru rep? Sure he got a MVP caliber year out of Kurt Warner, but Warner already had that ability. The development of Matt Leinart [or lack of] should be more indicative of Haley's QB development skills.''

Who said everyone who lives in Mill Valley, California are hippies who love nature trails? Kevin makes a great point. Peter was so happy that Todd Haley, who I am not completely sure is going to be a great head coach, is going to mentor Matt Cassel that he forgot to look at Haley's track record. That track record is just ok.

I would personally look at Leinart to determine if Haley is a good QB coach.

Good point. But I'm not sure you can peg the lack of Leinart development on Haley. Leinart didn't get his chance this year not because Leinart stinks, but rather because Warner was too good. I think Leinart would have played well this year had he gotten the chance. How well, no one knows.

Uh, this doesn't make sense. Warner playing well this year and Leinart's development as a quarterback are two mutually exclusive issues. Leinart can still develop and Warner can still be a great quarterback, but the fact the Cardinals just signed Warner to a 2 year $23 million dollar deal tells me Peter King is wrong and Leinart did not develop this year and would not have played well.

What does Peter base his opinion Leinart would have played well this year upon anyway? Magic fairy wishes? I am using Leinart's career stats.

Ryan of Scottsdale, Ariz.: "Do these players ever figure in the cost of living when they are deciding which offer is most attractive? Does Bart Scott have any idea that $7.5M a year in the Baltimore area gives you a much higher standard of living than $8M a year in New York?''

I thought about this last week when Ross Tucker mentioned he would rather play for Detroit if they offered him more money, but I did not know what COLA I should make for living in Detroit, so I gave up. This is a very rational and smart question. What's Peter say?

Sure, but there are other factors. Scott's wife is a fashionista, and they have come to Fashion Week in New York before. That was a factor in the decision he made.

Apparently Bart Scott believes cars that would carry his wife to New York from Baltimore (which is not a bad ride) would also take up a good portion of his signing bonus so he can't afford to do this. Between stitches and buying a car he would almost have none of his signing bonus left. These people have to eat you know.

If that was even close to being part of the reason, that was stupid, because Fashion Week is only a week long and is not a reason to not factor in the cost of living for New York. I am learning a lot about Bart Scott.

4. Gene Wojciechowski thinks Jay Cutler is being a cry baby. He should know about being a cry baby because he is a Cubs fan. (I am kidding Cubs fans...please don't get angry with me...or cry about me being mean)

Thanks to Martin for giving me a heads up on this article. Any chance to get lazy, I will take it.

Will someone please give Jay Cutler his pacifier, hand him his favorite blankie and put him back in his crib for his afternoon nap?

Will someone please take away Gene's computer? Look Gene, something shiny!

But the mere thought of a possible trade upset Cutler so much that he went into full waaaa-waaaa-waaaa mode, wailing like an infant. Why are they being so mean to me? That sort of thing.

Cutler is kind of a problem child by nature, but I can't say I would be terribly pleased if a new coach got hired and I was being shopped around the league. There is already all this uncertainty with a new regime and then the new guy wants a different quarterback, and a quarterback who has had one good year as a starter at that. It's enough to make someone insecure.

Why call Denver and ask about Cutler? Because the Broncos haven't reached the playoffs since the 2005 season. Because Cutler's record as a starter is 17-20.

Oh well now I am convinced. Why does everyone at ESPN think a team's record is completely indicative of how good the quarterback is? If this were true, the top quarterbacks in the NFL last year were Eli Manning, Jake Delhomme, Ben Roethlisberger, and Kerry Collins. Clearly a team's record does not always reflect the quality of its quarterback play.

And Cassel's team finished 11-5, including a 41-7 victory against Cutler's Broncos in October.

And it was completely Jay Cutler's fault the defense gave up 41 points. It WAS his fault the offense only scored seven points, but the Broncos really had no running game last year, so I will make that excuse for them.

Don't get me wrong -- Cutler is a talent, possibly a major talent. His numbers keep tracking upward (4,526 passing yards, 25 touchdowns in '08), but so do his turnovers (18 interceptions, including four in Denver's last three games -- all losses) and hissy fits.

Wow, that sounds like another quarterback that just retired. The same guy Gene wrote an entire column indicating the NFL would not be the same without him because he had so much fun...blah, blah, blah. Anyway, that guy had this problem as well, but we loved him for it. Jay Cutler? Not so much.

But Shanahan is Broncos history. It happens. Last week it happened to 11-time Pro Bowl linebacker Derrick Brooks of the Bucs. He was cut after 14 years.

Brooks didn't pout like Cutler.

Gene W. has won the award for "Least Likely and Effective Analogy in a Shitty Column," he can come and accept his award, which is a ShamWow. Congratulations Gene, now retire.

He is comparing Derrick Brooks, a 14 year veteran with one team who was cut for salary cap/age reasons, to Jay Cutler who has been in the league three years and was going to be traded for no apparent reason. It's not the same thing.

Cutler has accomplished nothing in this league. He has pretty passing numbers, but so what?

Apparently we can now pick and choose when pretty passing numbers are going to be used to demean a player and when it will be used to compliment a player.

Jay Cutler is a good quarterback, he has no right to have the new coach undermine some of the respect he has from the team by putting him on the trading block without his knowledge. Cutler can be a baby, but in this case this whole situation was executed poorly by the Broncos.

5. Rick Reilly gets paid millions of dollars to write articles like this.

Sure, times are rougher than Russian toilet paper. Your 401K is now a 101k. Donald Trump just laid off three blow-dryists. But because of it, you can see great sporting events for the price of a can of Spam Lite!

Now this is the type of humor that caused hundreds of people in the age group 40-65 to subscribe to Sports Illustrated over the past couple of years. I like to call that age group the "Easily Amused Because They Are So Tired From All The Other Health and Family Related Shit They Have To Deal With" demographic.

So I conducted an experiment. I started Monday at noon with a mythical $100, just to see how many decent tickets I could purchase in 24 hours.

Again, Rick Reilly would never take the time to actually attend all of these sporting events. He barely has time to hang out at the pool everyday, much less completely do his job.

I didn't figure any handling charges.

To sum it up, we are not using real money, not really going to the games and not figuring in the actual cost to go to these events. Accuracy thy name is Rick Reilly.

We're trying to save cash here. Go by the guy's office and pick them up, you loaf!

I'm pretty sure they still charge a handling fee no matter what the shipping cost is, I don't think I am wrong about this because there is always a mystery fee before shipping. They are two completely different things. Would it have been wrong to research this issue before writing this column? If anyone needed proof Rick Reilly has not had to buy tickets through Ticketmaster lately, here is your proof.

I am sure someone will point out to me I am wrong about the handling charge if I am wrong, which I don't think I am, because Rick Reilly has some supporters out there that crop up every once in a while.

How much do you think it would cost to see Session 1 of the Big East tournament at Madison Square Garden on March 10? A hundo? Fitty? Wrong! Twelve bucks on TicketNetwork.com.

I realize a lot of the good teams get byes in the Big East Tournament, but I don't believe this. Reilly provided no links so it is up to us to believe him...and I don't.

Yes, the nation's economy is coming apart like a Cub Scout potholder and we're probably all doomed. But you just saw 14 solid events—seven different sports—for exactly $100.

Allegedly this is all true because no links were provided to where these magical prices were available and Reilly did not factor in handling charges, which are different from shipping charges. To see these events you also had to travel all over the country and I am assuming unless the audience Reilly is directing this column towards has the ability to fly, gas costs money as does hotel lodging. So you can go to these events cheap (allegedly), but you still end up paying out the ass for the real costs, which is lodging and transportation costs. Great article idea, shitty execution and Rick Reilly just made another $100,000.

6. If anyone had plans to watch anything on ESPN today, please avoid it, Terrell Owens got cut and if you are not interested in hearing about a wide receiver for a non-playoff team getting cut, you won't enjoy ESPN for the next week.

ESPN had Steve Young, Stephen A. Smith, and Keyshawn Johnson all breaking down the release. ESPN's fascination with the Cowboys and T.O. knows no bounds.

I would be completely lying if I said I cared about this. The Cowboys have not won a playoff game in 12 years and are generally irrelevant except for the fact they have players that keep creating controversy, thereby giving ESPN a reason to talk about them. I just heard about this story and I am already tired of it. I am sure Ed Werder is on the case right now.

7. Let's break bad with some Ross Tucker knowledge.

Though the huge increase in guarantees have been a boon for players who are well aware of the injury risks and insecurity inherent in their profession, the reverse can be true for the organizations that give out the money. If a team isn't careful and gives that money to the wrong guy, it can mess up things for years to come.

What? One week after learning that players are all about the money, we learn that teams need to be careful not to just start handing money out like beads at Mardi Gras? It's like there is some type of give and take to the player-organization relationship.

I was recently advocating my favorite team sign Bobby Engram to a 3 year $67 million dollar deal with $43 million guaranteed, but now with my new knowledge, I don't think that is a good idea.

He reportedly got $41 million guaranteed from the Redskins on a four-year contract, all funny money aside. That basically makes him untouchable, or above the law, as far as the other players, the coaches and the front office personnel are concerned. Some players will describe this as having "leverage" in terms of how you can act and conduct yourself.

He is also untouchable in the fact that he can gain a lot of weight and just overwhelmingly not try as hard now that he has a huge contract. That's why you want to give this type of money to guys who have no poor character or underachieving history...which makes Albert Haynesworth absolutely not a good risk.

It seems to me that Julius Peppers' wish for a new defensive system in Carolina was a command of sorts to coach John Fox and GM Marty Hurney.

Not to play the semantics game, but Peppers asked to be traded to a team with a 3-4 defense, he never asked for Carolina to change their defensive system.

Now, I know the Panthers offered defensive coordinator Mike Trgovac a contract to come back, but I think he and the rest of his defensive coaches knew the writing was on the wall after Peppers' public comments.

What writing on the wall???? The defense is still a 4-3 defense and nothing, but the coaches, have changed. Carolina changed nothing to appeal to Peppers and then franchised him against his wishes.

If I were working for an NFL team, I would be extremely safe with my selections in the draft and my contract offers in free agency.

Another relevatory comment. Ross Tucker needs to be a General Manager.

I would say 80% of GMs in the league heed this advice already. So he is talking to Dan Snyder, Jerry Jones, and Al Davis here.

8. Mike Freeman asks why Blake Griffin doesn't get the hype Tyler Hansbrough gets.

Why isn't Dick Vitale having his heart palpitations over Griffin? Why isn't he calling Griffin the hardest-working player ever? Why isn't Vitale beating us over the head with how Griffin possesses the greatest work ethic in human history? Why isn't Vitale claiming we haven't seen a work ethic like this since the Americans stormed Normandy?

Because Blake Griffin is not white. (I don't think he is white, I really have no idea) Tyler Hansbrough is assumed to have no natural skill because he is goofy and white, while the game looks easier for Griffin because he makes the game look easier so it is assumed he doesn't have to try as hard. It's the same reason all the gritty players in baseball are white. Moronic commentators just assume they are trying harder.

Because didn't we hear all of that last year with Tyler Hansbrough? And I mean all of it from every corner of the media.

I am getting sick to my stomach just remembering this.

The Sooners are highly ranked, just as North Carolina was this time last season. Griffin is the centerpiece of his team, just as Hansbrough was last year. The main part of Griffin's game is his heart and energy, just like Hansbrough. Griffin is a good dude, just like Hansbrough. The only difference is there are few tales in the media of Griffin's mythic and vibrant heart muscle the way the nation was flooded with stories of Hansbrough's gigantic cojones.

Hansbrough looks like he is trying hard, while Blake Griffin makes the game look easy so he doesn't get credit for his hustle.

Griffin is part Tim Tebow, part Allen Iverson (before he got old) and part T.J. Houshmandzadeh, with the basketball IQ of Bill Walton.

Part T.J. Houshmandzadeh? I don't get it.

But that doesn't come close to explaining the disparity in praise. It's particularly unforgivable from experts in the media like Vitale, who should have known that they were overstating Hansbrough's impact and grit.

Dick Vitale overstates everything. I can't stand to hear him call a basketball game. He is the college analyst for morons. If you have an IQ under 100 and you will willingly hear or read anything Dickie V says, you will find he rarely talks about the game while it is occuring and is more interested in yelling and not analyzing the game.

I would listen to Jay Bilas and Bill Raftery call a game anyday, I don't care who the third guy is. I know a lot of people don't like Raftery but I enjoy him.

Tyler Hansbrough is not overrated but this year he is not getting the foul calls where he leans into the opposing player while shooting this year and it has hurt his game. It's very funny because you always hear of another ACC team always getting foul calls in their favor, but Hansbrough is the NCAA's all time leader in free throws made.

9. CBS Sportsline has the projected field for the NCAA Tournament.

In regard to so called Bubble Teams, I don't think Virginia Tech gets in and I am also not sure about Maryland, but I think they will make it. I think Virginia Tech needs a big win in the ACC Tournament to make it.

Out of the Big East, I think Georgetown should make it in the Tournament, despite an average record in the Big East, because they have the #1 ranked Strength of Schedule in the country last time I checked and I think that should mean something. They have played a difficult schedule and I think they should be rewarded for this. I saw Cincinnati and Providence are seen as having a better chance to make the tournament but they don't have the strength of schedule Georgetown has, so I think Georgetown should get the nod over those two. That's just my moronic opinion.

Teams like St. Mary's are always a harder case because the reason they have not performed as well this year is because they were missing their best player, Patty Mills, so if they don't win the WCC, it will be interesting to see if the committee looks at the whole body of work and not only their record with Mills. Every year good teams are going to be excluded from the tournament and that is just how it goes.

10. Clark Judge goes down the list of free agents over the past couple of years and whether they were worth the money.

I wish he had focused on the less lucrative free agent deals that got signed, so I could better compare whether the second tier free agents were better deals than the so-called first tier free agents. I would be willing to bet they were. It seems to me my favorite team's best signings were with the second tier of free agents and this is partially why I don't care much for the Haynesworth signing and don't get too excited about the signings that are going on right now. Where Peter King sees excitement, I see a bunch of overpaid players.

Tomorrow is Bill Simmons Friday!