Random Thoughts: Wednesday Edition

Due to popular demand the need to draft closer to the season our BotB Yahoo Fantasy Draft has been moved to 1pm on Sunday August 30th. Everyone participating mark your calendars for that date. I will be changing it in Yahoo today.

How can you ignore a post with such a creative title? The answer: You can't. I am kind of on edge today for some reason, so I will skip the long introduction and let's begin a small tour of the latest articles with my always insightful (and random) comments.

-Jay Mariotti feels like anytime there is a controversy or semi-controversy involving the city of Chicago, because he used to write for a paper in that city, he has to chime in with his opinion.

Really it is not necessary.

The first instinct is to dismiss it as psychological warfare, a lie from a former Chicago Bear trying to even a score or stir up bleep. When Bobby Wade, now of the rival Minnesota Vikings, tells a Minneapolis radio station that the new local savior, quarterback Jay Cutler, was described as a "p***y" by longtime team leader Brian Urlacher, what are we to think?

My first instinct was to wonder if Bobby Wade was still in the NFL, and it turns out he is with the Vikings. So yes, he is sort of still in the NFL. Though to be fair, other than the Vikings WR depth chart, there aren't too many other depth charts Wade would crack in the NFL.

Urlacher has made such references before -- concerning his young son, no less. Reckless and immature in his 20s in the big city, Urlacher fathered an out-of-wedlock child with a former exotic dancer named Tyna Robertson.

Out of wedlock? What will Jerry Falwell think????

And if you have a child or simply a warm heart, you'll cringe upon reading the one about little Kennedy.

The name of Urlacher's child is "Kennedy" which makes me think of that MTV VJ who had black glasses and looked like Daria. She was also relatively annoying. Not only is she a girl but hearing that name reminds me of her and makes me cringe. I don't think it is a bad name but it just reminds me of a female...that's all I am saying.

That wasn't all he texted, according to court papers filed by Robertson in 2007. She said he called her "a hooker'' and "jealous bitch.'' He ordered her to "grow the [bleep] up and quit praying and get a job.'' He called her "a [bleeping] fruit cake who should "make one of your pimps drive you around.''

Again, she is a stripper. Really the only strippers with a heart of gold are those that are on movie screens, otherwise strippers don't tend to be the fruit of society. These aren't words Urlacher should necessarily use in reference to a woman of course but she does dance without clothes on so men can give her money...I feel like I have to take that into account when judging who may/may not be right in this situation.

According to Urlacher, Wade called to apologize Wednesday afternoon and offered to call Bears coach Lovie Smith if necessary. But there's no doubt the remarks were uttered -- the radio tape doesn't lie -- and it's hard to believe Wade would go to such extremes about Vegas and the p-word if he was merely having fun.

I don't think anyone is ever going to doubt the remarks were uttered, I think everyone wants to know if they are true or not. It is also not hard to believe Wade would say stuff like that, especially if he and Urlacher are friends. I realize Jay has no friends but friends kid around with other friends and will sometimes make up things to be funny and pick at the other friend. This happens quite frequently I would imagine among alpha male football players. That could be the case here.

When he arrived in Chicago, he became an immediate topic of debate over whether he partied too much at local clubs, such as the night he commandeered the DJ booth at Sub 51, belted out "Bear Down, Chicago Bears'' for an adoring crowd and reportedly hooked up with a celebrity blogger.

What? Now Jay Cutler is going around Chicago having adult relationships with people he hasn't given a promise ring to? What is it with the morals of these football players today? Can't they just be happy with themselves and not have to party all the time?

(Throws hands up in the air as if grasping for a reason)

The town's new sports celebrity was being compared to Jim McMahon, the 1980s rabble-rouser, despite Cutler's status as a Type 1 diabetic.

(Bengoodfella looking around the room dramatically wondering what the hell Type 1 Diabetes has to do with anything in this conversation)

So people with Type 1 Diabetes should neither date other humans nor go out drinking on the town? Or does Jay Mariotti think it is not a correct comparison to Jim McMahon because McMahon did not have Type 1 Diabetes? I am confused. I never realized those persons with Type 1 Diabetes were expected to be shut-ins.

I don't really get this sentence but I do know if anyone knows what he should or should not do with Type 1 Diabetes I am going to guess it is Jay Cutler and not Jay Mariotti. So as usual, I urge Mariotti to quit talking.

Urlacher has seen his No. 54 jersey eclipsed as the city's top-seller by Cutler's No. 6.

Jersey sales. I am sure that is really what is entirely behind this comment Urlacher may have made. It's all about the jersey sales. Not everyone is a jealous and spiteful asshole like Jay Mariotti can be.

He ticked off local media when, out of spite, he voiced his exclusive thoughts to buddy Jay Glazer on a Fox Sports blog that quickly fizzled out.

This is why Jay Mariotti is an asshole. He has to throw in the phrase "that quickly fizzled out," just to remind everyone Glazer failed. It's not enough to stick to his topic but he has to throw a few punches against other people as well while he is at it.

As I have on many occasions, until I'm blue and orange in the face, I'll advise Urlacher the Linebacker to shut up and play football. But, hey, in his eyes, I'm just another "p***y'' in his world of "p***ies.''

For the first time, Jay Mariotti has written a statement I completely agree with.

-The Hat Guy has something to say to old timers...and he means you Joe Morgan.

Pete Rose does not belong in baseball and certainly does not belong in the Hall of Fame. Not now and not ever.

This is a tough one for me personally but I have to believe if Shoeless Joe Jackson is not in the Hall of Fame, then I don't think Pete Rose deserves it either. I don't think you can have one without the other.

I love baseball’s legends. Joe Morgan, Hank Aaron and Frank Robinson, who have spoken out for Rose, are the epitome of what baseball players should be. But there’s no way I’m ever looking to current or former jocks of any ilk for moral guidance.

Well that is just crazy talk. Carl Everett doesn't believe in dinosaurs, how you can not look to him for guidance in any decision you may need to make in your life?

Selig, according to the reports, feels differently. He not only respects the game’s legends as much as any true fan does, he also values their opinion, even on issues they’re not qualified to judge.

I actually don't believe Joe Morgan is qualified to judge issues that involve baseball. I am sure many people who read his chats and listen to him call Sunday Night Baseball would agree with me. Not only does he tend to make things up, but he also doesn't pay attention to any games he is not watching. Joe Morgan also knows Steve Phillips and that is a strike against you in my book. Here is an excerpt of a comment Phillips made this past Sunday night...let's count the assumptions in this sentence:

"One of the reasons I think the Phillies should have gotten Halladay is that Cliff Lee doesn't have a great record against the Yankees and the Red Sox. Halladay has a (lists record against BoSox and Yankees), so you know when he pitches against them you are going to have a great chance to win. I think the Phillies should have gotten Halladay to match up against the Red Sox or Yankees in the World Series."

1. He is assuming the Phillies are going to make the playoffs
2. He is assuming the Phillies are definitely going to make the World Series
3. He is assuming the Red Sox and/or the Yankees are going to make the playoffs
4. He is assuming no other team except the Yankees or Red Sox are going to make the World Series
5. He is assuming the losses by Cliff Lee are due to poor pitching and not poor offense by the Indians

There is a reason Steve Phillips is no longer a MLB GM and one of the reasons is that he advocates making trades based completely on who hypothetically would be in the World Series. Knowing this man is a strike against Joe Morgan.

Again: Rose broke baseball’s cardinal law. He bet on the game. His myriad and morally blind fans defend him by saying he never bet on his Reds to lose, so he didn’t really do anything all that bad. Plus, after a decade or so of denial, he finally admitted to what he did.

Can we really believe a person who says he did not bet on the Reds to lose games as manager when this same person also denied he bet on baseball for a decade? I don't think so. Regardless of whether Rose ever bet on the Reds or not, he bet on baseball while he was managing. I believe he bet on the Reds as manager and bet on them to lose, because a gambler always wants to go with a safe bet and is there any safer bet than when that gambler can control the destiny of the gamble?

Maybe I am jaded but I don't believe it. I would actually let Shoeless Joe Jackson in before Pete Rose. I am crazy that way.

As a manager who has big money on his own team to win, he undoubtedly found himself in situations where he had a tenuous lead late in a game. In such cases, he would have done what anyone would have done in his situation. He would have brought in his closer early and kept him in longer to preserve the win.

In the process, he would lose the closer for the next game; maybe the next two games. That changes everything not just for his team, but for every other team fighting for a playoff slot. That goes directly to the integrity of the game.

This is a little bit too hypothetical for me because we can't really predict the future. My bottom line is that anything Rose did to win a bet while managing his team goes to the integrity of the game because he is making a move to win a bet and not win a game.

Also, when Rose didn’t bet on his team, or bet a lesser amount, he was telling gamblers — we’re talking criminals here, folks — that he didn’t think as much of his chances that night. He may as well have called them with inside information.

Why do I feel dirty agreeing with Hat Guy?

In fact, I’d applaud it. But he doesn’t deserve to be cast in bronze and hung on the wall with the men who played the game the right way.

Exactly you should make the Hall of Fame playing the game the right way, which means being a racist or a bigot, using "Greenies," and cheating using a spitball like Gaylord Perry did. That's the right way to play the game.

Jackson did accept money to throw the 1919 World Series, but then he went out and led everybody in hitting. When it came down to it, he was incapable of throwing a game; the man was too competitive.

I have thought about this a long time and I do think Jackson should be in the Hall of Fame and I realize it was counter-intuitive to say he bet on the games and then didn't throw the games so he should be in the Hall of Fame...well, that is my bad reasoning, in then end. For someone who "threw" the World Series he sure did a crappy job of it.

Remember, Rose broke an actual rule that’s posted on every locker room door in three languages. Compare that to the alleged steroids users the old-timers so love to execrate. They didn’t break any rule that baseball had in place at the time.

I don't believe this is really Hat Guy writing this. It's too coherent.

The old-timers say it doesn’t matter, because the young guys with the chemically enhanced muscles used an illegal drug to get an advantage.

I’d say they have a point if it weren’t for the fact that the same guys complaining about steroids cranked their energy up for games by downing amphetamines by the handful. Amphetamines are just as illegal as steroids and were taken for the same reason — to get a physical advantage.

Let's be honest. The old timers don't always like having their records broken by players who had better science and better PEDs available to them. It is hypocritical for players to not think Steroid Era users should make the Hall of Fame but completely ignore the "Greenies" use of prior players.

My bottom line is that Rose doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame because I still don't believe he is telling the entire truth and I also think the players who used "Greenies" during their playing days need to quit being so hypocritical about steroids.

-I have to come to the conclusion Rick Reilly has little to no journalistic skill anymore. His columns are like reading a blog written by a 50 year old man who doesn't know much about sports but feels the need to comment on the more non-athletic parts of sports that he doesn't make sense. Sort of a TMQ for morons who are too lazy to watch the games too closely. Whereas Gregg Easterbrook doesn't understand the game of football, Rick Reilly doesn't understand anything about sports as a whole.

There is a hideous new trend in sports that we need to stomp out like milkweed before it spreads. Scientists are calling it the Hey, look what I did, everybody!
syndrome.

I personally like milkweed and have fond memories of my grandfather and me walking around the woods looking at plants and other nature like milkweed, so screw you Rick Reilly. Don't ruin my childhood memories for me by trying to get rid of milkweed.

I know I say it every time I cover a Reilly column but this is one of the worst columns he has written. Actually this column has no redeeming value. I am not kidding this time.

Start with Phil Jackson. When he and his Lakers fricasseed the Magic to win another title, it was Jackson's 10th NBA coaching championship, a new record. Jackson had become the king of coaches. Everyone knew he was going for 10 -- it's not like it was a secret -- and there was the appropriate applause, huzzahs and standing on chairs.

But that wasn't good enough for him. He decided to paint a mustache on his Mona Lisa by quickly grabbing a hat with a big X on it -- for 10 -- and plunking it on his head.

Hey, look what I did, everybody!

When you win 10 NBA Titles I think you have a right to make a hat with a roman numeral 10 on it and then take a picture with it. It's an accomplishment that should be celebrated.

This isn't shoving it in the loser's face, it is celebrating a major professional accomplishment. I can't imagine after the series was over the Magic were steamed Phil Jackson had a yellow hat with a roman numeral "X" on it.

How were the Magic supposed to react to his new look?

Why does it matter what the Magic think? What about the Jazz, the Lakers, the Trailblazers, the 76ers and all the other teams Phil Jackson beat in the NBA Finals, aren't they a part of that 10 hat as well? Along with the Magic they are probably more pissed off they lost the series than any type of hat Phil Jackson may wear to commemorate a career accomplishment.

To even suggest otherwise reeks of stupidity.

I hated that hat for the same reason I hate those hideous championship T-shirts and caps that teams don the instant the final buzzer sounds. Why cover up the glory of the jerseys you bled in together all season -- the ones that have your city or team name emblazoned on the front -- with some ugly shirts nobody can read?

To celebrate the fact your team just won a championship. If you don't understand this, you don't understand sports in general. Winning one championship is a great accomplishment but winning ten NBA titles is a historical accomplishment worthy of wearing a hat and taking a picture of yourself wearing said hat.

If you don't get this, retire or go write for "Good Housekeeping," because you officially suck.

Not two minutes after he had defeated Andy Roddick in a 77-game Wimble-never-done final, he went back to his bench, pulled out a tracksuit top with a 15 plastered on the side, put it on and spun around for the TV cameras. It was his way of congratulating himself on his 15th major, the one that bested Pete Sampras' old mark.

Hey, look what I did, everybody!

These just aren't random achievements, these are historical records that are being tied or broken...which should be celebrated. It's not bad sportsmanship to celebrate the achievement of a record that will set you apart from other athletes or coaches in your profession.

Talk about cheeky. I mean, it's not as if some little seamstress ran out to iron the patch onto his jacket after the fact. The thing was in his bag the whole time! It's not just the sweater that was manufactured. The gesture was too.

There is a good chance that jacket had been made weeks or even months before hand because Federer knew he would break the record at some point. It's not like it was being sewed in the backroom mid-match, Federer was going to break the record, it was just a matter of when.

I don't even want to respond to Reilly anymore, this is such a stupid column. ESPN should sue him for writing shit like this...or just not print it. It's awful.

I don't remember seeing pictures of FDR rolling up to his fourth election-night victory speech wearing a "Four-ever!" tuxedo jacket. Neil Armstrong didn't splash down with a "MoonMan" tat on his biceps. And I sure as hell don't remember John Wooden slapping on an X hat after his 10th NCAA title.

No, but I am sure there was a victory speech planned by FDR in case he had won the election AND there was a celebratory feast or get together planned with his supporters, which is no different from what Reilly is complaining about with these athletes and coaches. I am also sure there has been a banquet or some other ceremony at some point honoring John Wooden for his accomplishments. These are very similar to what Reilly is complaining about "kids these days" doing.

Rick Reilly doesn't even deserve to be printed by ESPN anymore.

-Speaking of people who work for ESPN and tend to write bad articles, here's JemeHill's latest contribution to journalism.

I say that because the tragic death of boxing champion Vernon Forrest has opened up some uncomfortable questions that most of us would rather ignore.

Here is a shocker, JemeHill is going to use a political stance of hers and try to carry it over to sports.

A man approached Forrest and demanded his Rolex and championship ring, and after the man took the items Forrest pulled out his .45 and chased the man on foot.

This was equally ballsy and stupid.

That's when another man, presumed to be with the robber, had a verbal confrontation with Forrest, and the two exchanged gunfire. Forrest was shot eight times.

It's because Forrest was such an exemplary man that we've avoided a difficult question: Would he be alive right now if he hadn't chased the robber with a gun?

Maybe, but as always JemeHill is not entirely on point here. Vernon Forrest would be alive right now if he had not chased the robber at all, regardless of whether he had a gun or not, he should not have started chasing the robber. At that point, he was risking life and limb to get his property back.

So JemeHill can take the "with a gun," off the end of that sentence. Granted, I am sure the gunfire by Forrest caused the other person to start firing back but I also can't help but think if Forrest had any other type of weapon the second robber would have started firing regardless. The type of person who robs someone is not the type of person to only fire when fired upon.

The robbers knew who they were robbing and that he could very well beat them in any type of hand to hand combat or at least would have had a good chance of holding his own...being as he was a world class boxer. Neither robber was probably going to let Forrest get near them so whether he had a hammer, gun or Pixie Stix, they were going to make sure he did not catch up with them as they fled the scene.

I have no problem with athletes or anyone else protecting themselves with a firearm, as long as they do so legally and responsibly. But unfortunately, there have been a number of cases in which athletes have ignored the law and/or common sense when brandishing a gun. And the results have sometimes led to irreversible and disastrous consequences.

Other than running after his robbers, Forrest showed common sense when having the gun. He bought the gun because he was afraid he would get robbed and wanted to defend himself. Lo and behold he got robbed like he had anticipated and prepared for...but he should not have run after the robbers.

The reason Plaxico Burress is probably facing jail time is because he failed to exercise good judgment and didn't follow the law.

Let's confuse the issue and compare Forrest, a victim of a robbery who had the gun to protect himself, with Plaxico Burress who carried a firearm in direct violation of the law. They are comparable right? In JemeHill's world there is no difference in legally having a firearm and illegally having a firearm.

I am not a gun activist or anything but it is wrong to compare Plaxico and Vernon Forrest in this situation. One followed the law and was a victim of a crime, while the other person committed a crime. Vernon Forrest was responsible and legal, Plaxico Burress was not.

More than anyone else, athletes believe they can handle themselves in any situation. And that sometimes makes it difficult for them to discern when they're in real danger.

Very true. I think Vernon Forrest made a mistake in chasing down the robbers, I don't know how much the gun he had in his hand had to do with it. If he did not have the gun he still may have chased the robbers with another weapon and still ended up dead. So basically the moral isn't necessarily a gun lesson but a lesson in not chasing down robbers.

-Nothing would please me more than to know the 1991 Twins were on PEDs. This is an old article but I just found it.

I still think Kent Hrbek was on a 'roid rage when he pulled Ron Gant off first base and just because Kirby Puckett smiled all the time, we all know now there was sinister purpose behind that smile. I don't like bad things to happen to people but I never liked Kirby Puckett and I would like to see him on a list of PED users. It will never happen of course.

-Hello world, my name is Neftali Perez and I am one more reason to hate the Mark Teixeira trade when Tex got traded to the Braves.

I think it was very kind of the Braves to give the Rangers their starting catcher, shortstop and future #1/#2 starting pitcher. This trade is like the gift that keeps pissing me off.