Alex Rodriguez hit .250/.356/.486 this year with 33 home runs, which surprised the shit out of me. That's pretty damn good for a guy who is 40 years old. Of course, as soon as he starts hitting poorly next year the New York media will jump all over him again for the mistake of continuously getting older. Regardless of how good of a year A-Rod had at the plate, and regardless of how little controversy he stirred up, he still did many things wrong. He participated in an unfunny skit, he didn't increase YES ratings, he made his teammates like him, and most egregiously, he showed up early to Spring Training. Simply because the season is over doesn't mean that A-Rod still isn't doing things wrong. Of course. Now he was hired as an analyst for Fox during the playoffs and is ruining everything for "the kids," while poisoning their mind with the idea if they use steroids to enhance their performance then they may one day also be able to be a sports analyst. Christine Brennan has had enough of this and does a public service by finally speaking out about this travesty. In fact, Brennan says they (Fox) "swing and miss" (GET IT?????????) by hiring A-Rod as an analyst.
Of the thousands of baseball players and experts Fox Sports could have
selected to appear on its postseason shows, it picked the worst.
You mean the guy who has been banned from baseball permanently, Pete Rose?
It chose the most notorious, earnest and purposeful cheater to ever play
the game. It chose the man whose name is synonymous with
performance-enhancing drugs.
Barry Bonds? Roger Clemens? Mike Piazza's bacne?
It chose A-Rod.
Oh no, not A-Rod. His mere presence on the Yankees roster has caused steroid use among youth to be nearly tripled since April. Millions of kids are dying, with their last breath screaming, "I just wanted to be like A-Rod!" What about "the kids," doesn't Fox care about the kids at all?
Alex Rodriguez,
who admitted to using steroids from 2001-03 and then was suspended for
the entire 2014 season for his big role in the Biogenesis scandal, isn’t
just any old baseball steroids guy. He is the guy.
He's the guy unless you want to consider Mark McGwire "the guy," Barry Bonds "the guy" or Roger Clemens "the guy." It all depends on the type of article being written really. In this case, A-Rod is "the guy" but this could change if the column is about which current Hall of Fame eligible players should receive the honor of induction. When it comes to a Hall of Fame discussion, McGwire, Bonds and Clemens are the face of steroids. In fact, I would argue given all the government resources and the hysteria surrounding the breaking of Roger Maris' home run record that these three players will always be the face of the Steroid Era. I don't see A-Rod in that role.
Congratulations, Fox.
You're ruined the world's ability to prevent drug use among teens and driven thousands of young children away from the heroin they are using and into the arms of steroids by hiring A-Rod. Congrats.
What a terrible message this sends to children
WHAT ABOUT THE FUCKING KIDS? DO "THE KIDS" KNOW ABOUT A-ROD BEING ON FOX? WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE DOES IT SEND WHICH SAYS A BASEBALL PLAYER WHO CHEATED IS STILL CAPABLE OF DISCUSSING BASEBALL IN A NETWORK TELEVISION ENVIRONMENT?
if kids actually watched playoff baseball games anymore.
Oh, so it's not hurting the kids at all because they don't watch baseball? So disaster averted and we can all move on to other things. Though, if "the kids" did still watch baseball then A-Rod being on Fox would be a total disaster. Let's assume kids don't watch baseball, acknowledge nobody watches FS1 (yet...ever?), and still work under the assumption that A-Rod is singlehandedly poisoning today's youth. Sound like fun? Great, Christine Brennan will now continue.
Experts say the use of performance-enhancing drugs by kids in high school sports has reached epidemic proportions.
Experts also say kids in high school are increasingly getting addicted to heroin and other drugs such as that. I'm not going to downplay the impact of steroids, but the use of heroin among high school kids has also reached epidemic proportions. I really don't believe A-Rod being an analyst for Fox is going to drive more kids towards using steroids any more than his playing baseball for 162 games a year would drive them in that direction already.
Seeing superstars suspended or hauled before Congress can act an a deterrent to these kids.
This is the biggest crock of shit I have read in this column so far. Hauling these superstars before Congress can serve as a deterrent to these kids? I have quite a few issues with this statement.
1. How does Christine Brennan know this is true? Is there research she can cite that says seeing superstars hauled before Congress is a deterrent to drug use among kids? Is there anything she can use to show this as a true statement, outside of any anecdotal evidence or the idea this is what she WANTS to believe is true? I see nothing in this column confirming this statement isn't a lie.
2. If superstars being hauled before Congress or being suspended really served as a deterrent, then how come experts say the use of PED's by kids is reaching epidemic proportions? Using logic, which I know isn't something Christine is doing right now, wouldn't the stricter MLB drug policy after the Steroid Era where big name players (like A-Rod) have been suspended have served as a deterrent to using PED's?
3. Christine Brennan can't cite how A-Rod has been suspended twice, in an effort to expose his true villain tendencies, then explain that's why he shouldn't be working for Fox, and then claim seeing baseball players get suspended serves as a deterrent to kids. It doesn't work this way. So if seeing players get suspended did serve as a deterrent, then it wouldn't make a difference at all if A-Rod works for Fox during the postseason.
4. If seeing superstars hauled before Congress was a deterrent, then there should be a decrease in high school kids using PED's. These kids grew up seeing Palmeiro, McGwire, Sosa, and Clemens hauled in front of Congress and in court fighting accusations of PED use. Seeing this would cause a decrease in PED use among high school kids, if this statement by Brennan wasn't a crock of shit.
Seeing them propped up on pre-game shows as faux stars does not.
But A-Rod has been suspended! That's the deterrent for "the kids," right?
Perhaps next year, Fox can put together a panel featuring A-Rod, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens and Rafael Palmeiro.
Bonds has worked with Giants hitters during Spring Training and McGwire has been a hitting coach in the majors. I get how Christine Brennan is upset, but it's well-known in baseball that A-Rod is a student of the game and knows something about hitting. He's a cheat and has a huge ego, but he's also really good at hitting a baseball and analyzing the game.
Fox Sports’ baseball audience is minuscule compared with the NFL’s, but
that doesn’t make the network’s decision any less egregious. In fact,
that’s probably why Fox did it, to try to boost ratings.
Let's see...no one watches Fox, players like A-Rod who get suspended serve as a deterrent to kids and kids don't watch baseball anyway. So how are A-Rod and Fox ruining kids by having him show up on their postseason coverage again?
It’s not a coincidence that one of Rodriguez’s fellow studio analysts is Pete Rose.
It's not a coincidence. Fox wants ratings and they want guys on their postseason shows that have played in the postseason and played the game at a high level. They also want eyes on their show and Rose/A-Rod also serve that purpose. ESPN hired Tim Tebow, but is he more qualified to talk about college football because he's a good person, as compared to the qualifications of Rose/A-Rod to talk about baseball even though they haven't always been good people? I wouldn't think so.
Our senses are so dulled by the misbehavior of athletes these days that
most of us probably don’t give it a second thought when a bad guy like
Rodriguez shows up talking about the playoffs. Do we have any standards
anymore?
I bet Christine Brennan's editor asked this same question when reading this article.
Or maybe we still do. Could you imagine an Olympics telecast featuring Ben Johnson? Lance Armstrong hosting coverage of the Tour de France?
It feels different with A-Rod being on MLB's postseason coverage. Perhaps because he is still an active player and has served his suspension. I can't explain the difference honestly.
Tonya Harding on Olympic figure skating? Thankfully, I think we’re safe from all three, at least for a few more years.
If she knew enough about Olympic figure skating these days, then I would have no issue with Tonya Harding commenting on Olympic figure skating. The issue is there are more knowledgeable commentators available to discuss Olympic figure skating. A-Rod is a really knowledgeable source about baseball and knows today's players because he is still an active player himself.
For all baseball’s talk and action on the subject of PEDs, it has never
taken them as seriously as the Olympic world has, and it still does not.
But MLB takes PED's much more seriously than every other major sport. Sorry, but the NFL and the NBA have a PED problem (mostly the NFL) even if they don't know it yet. Human beings don't look like NFL players look and I don't believe some guys in the NBA get as strong as they are without some additional help. I'm not pointing a finger at any certain players, but MLB has a strong PED policy. It's not strong enough for some people, of course. It never will be.
That’s why the sport allows someone who has flaunted the rules as badly as A-Rod has to still be one of the faces of the game.
A-Rod is not one of the faces of MLB. He is not. He's never really even been the face of the Yankees either. A-Rod doing postseason work for Fox doesn't make him a face of baseball. Max Scherzer does postseason work for Fox too and I'm not sure he can be considered one of the faces of baseball (perhaps wrongly). Even on his own team, Bryce Harper, Jonathan Papelbon and Stephen Strasburg move the needle more than Scherzer tends to, even if Scherzer appears on Fox's postseason coverage.
This tells us that the game, and Fox Sports, will do anything to get attention.
"The game" had nothing to do with Fox hiring A-Rod. That was a decision by Fox. Trust me, if MLB really had an issue with Pete Rose and A-Rod being hired by Fox then neither of these individuals would be working on Fox's postseason coverage.
Anything.
What about "the kids?" What will the kids who don't watch baseball on Fox and who are already deterred from using PED's by A-Rod's suspension for PED use think about A-Rod being seen on Fox's postseason coverage? Will it drive them right back into the arms of PED's, seeing that they could also one day get a job as a studio analyst if they just use enough PED's to get there? What will happen if an entire generation of studio analysts use PED's in order to further their career and make an even playing field that much more uneven?
Showing posts with label cheating. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cheating. Show all posts
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Friday, July 31, 2015
11 comments Jay Mariotti Reacts to Tom Brady's Reaction to His Upheld Four Game Suspension in Typical Jay Mariotti Fashion, With Terrible Sportswriting
I've probably mentioned on various social media platforms (fine, only Twitter) that I'm tired of the story about the Patriots deflating footballs. I won't call it DeflateGate, even though that's much easier to type than typing "the Patriots deflating footballs." I believe Brady probably knew something about it and I believe the NFL has really screwed the whole investigation up. Even though I'm an A-Rod apologist, I don't condone cheating, but from everything I've read I'm not entirely sure how much cheating deflating the football really ends up being. I'm not sure the NFL knows either. So in a judgment-free zone on whether Brady is guilty, innocent, or framed, I prefer to focus on the terrible sportswriting that comes from reactions to the four game suspension Brady received for deflating the footballs. Jay Mariotti wrote back-to-back columns eviscerating Brady and Jay is at his red-faced, terrible writing best (worst) in them.
I'll start with his July 28 column where he compares Tom Brady to Richard Nixon.
Well, so much for the 2024 presidential bid. Unless you are Nixonian in your political bent,
Unless you love corruption, you should hate Tom Brady. Why? He's no G.I. Joe, because he's not an American hero.
you’ll understand why Tom Brady has lost all credibility not only as an American hero but as someone who deserves not even a saliva spit of support in the Deflategate scandal.
I literally have never thought of Tom Brady as an American hero.
It’s one thing to argue that Brady, in the AFC championship game, performed better with footballs that were properly inflated in the second half than with purposely underdeflated balls in the first half.
By "one thing" Jay means, "This could go to the effect the underinflated balls had on the game and therefore could potentially go to the merit and severity of a punishment." It's still cheating if a team doesn't gain an advantage, but it doesn't seem the Patriots gained an advantage in this specific situation.
it means “The Man Every Other Male Aspires To Be” and “The Greatest Quarterback Of All Time” has committed these sins:
1. He knowingly participated in a scam with team equipment managers to deflate footballs, which gave him a competitive advantage while violating league rules. That makes him a cheater.
2. He denied participating in the scam. That makes him a liar.
3. He had an associate destroy the smoking phone and, by extension, the probable incriminating evidence on that phone, meaning he refused to cooperate. That makes him a cover-up artist.
4. On the way to his associate's house in order to make sure his associate was there, he texted this person. This means he was texting and driving.
5. Brady was clocked by at least one police radar as going 5 miles over the speed limit while on his way to the associate's house. This makes him a speeder and law breaker.
6. He tried to steer out of the way of a squirrel on his way to the associate's house, but ran over the squirrel instead. This means Brady was guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
7. After walking back in his house, he threw his recyclable water bottle into a regular trash can. This is just him flagrantly showing the city's recycling rules do not apply to him. What other rules does Tom Brady think don't apply to him? No need to answer that question, because it's obvious now.
Is it possible four games aren’t enough, then, that Brady should have been banned for the entire season?
At the very least, he should be decapitated. At the most, one of his children should be sold into slavery. So any punishment in between seems appropriate, though a real American hero would just go ahead and sell his child into slavery now instead of waiting for this punishment to be handed down.
Given New England’s status as a dynasty, with four Super Bowl titles in the 21st century, Brady’s continuing defiance is raising the same doubts about the Patriots that the Steroids Era did about Major League Baseball.
Yes Jay, these two events are completely similar. Tom Brady deflated footballs in one playoff game by a certain amount of PSI and this is similar to what happened over a 6-8 year span where multiple baseball players used PED's to gain an edge over a multiple game span and destroy current records in the MLB record book. One is the same as the other.
I'm surprised Jay didn't hit us with a "In the Steroid Era, the players got pumped up to gain an edge, while Brady deflated in order to gain his edge."
How much of their success is real,
79.6541%.
how much is deceitful?
20.3459%.
“He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone,” Goodell said in his appeals decision. “During the four months that the cellphone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device.”
The world may never know what pet names he and Gisele have for each other. For this, someone must pay, and that person is Tom Brady.
But for once, in a tenure tarnished by his irresponsible handling of the Ray Rice case and an erratic record of off-field punishments in general, Goodell seems to be spot-on.
If anyone was ever wondering who that person is that feels Goodell was "spot-on" with his handling of the situation where Brady allegedly deflated footballs, then you can rest easy knowing that person is Jay Mariotti. No one should be shocked by this. Jay would side with Westboro Baptist Church if it helped him write a column that bashes an athlete or coach.
He could have waffled and given weight to his all-but-dead friendship with Kraft, who defended Goodell publicly and in ownership circles as he was attacked amid the Rice fallout. But this time, he stood firm in front of the league’s so-called shield and avoided all wishy-washiness.
There is a clear difference in standing firm for solid factual and evidentiary reasons and standing firm because the decision has been made and that's the decision. I don't think Goodell should have necessarily waffled, but not changing his mind doesn't mean his decision was correct in the very first place.
Harmful as the Rice, Greg Hardy and Adrian Peterson abuse cases have been to the league’s image and reputation, maintaining the game’s competitive integrity is vitally important, too, particularly when it involves the league’s most visible and acclaimed player.
The game's integrity is very important, but I would argue that making sure the athletes involved with the sport don't abuse children or women is more important to ensuring fans aren't alienated than ensuring a football is at the proper PSI level would be.
What we have now is Brady, in frantic image-restoration mode, legally challenging the ruling and seeking an injunction allowing him to play.
Remember back when Jay Mariotti started at Sports Talk Florida and the "Examiner," back when he talked about how the legal system is corrupt (against rich white men!) and he understands this because of all he had gone through? Welp, now he's describing Brady exercising his legal rights as his being in "frantic image-restoration mode." As expected, when Jay talked about how he understood the American legal system and how it swallowed people up, he only meant he understood this from his perspective. Everyone else deserves whatever they get. The legal system is against Jay Mariotti, while everyone else is getting treated fairly.
If Brady was smart, he’d accept his four games and go away. It’s hard to believe even the most venomous Goodell critic would side with Brady now. He will argue the Wells report is flawed and the ball-deflation rules were unfairly applied. Um, why would an innocent man destroy a phone that could help him if wronged?
What a bad counterargument to the idea the ball-deflation rules were unfairly applied. Brady destroying his phone is circumstantial evidence that can go to support the belief he was attempting to destroy evidence, but the destruction of the phone isn't a counterargument to the Wells report being flawed or whether the ball-deflation rules were fairly applied or not. Again, for someone who claims to understand the legal system, Jay is very clueless about how the veracity of legal challenges can be determined. If the ball-deflation rules weren't unfairly applied, then this could mean Brady will win his legal case. Just like if evidence is mishandled in a criminal case, it doesn't matter if the suspect acted very suspiciously to where it seemed like he was covering up a crime. I can't let Jay take me down this rabbit hole. He's ignorant, we know that.
“Especially in light of the new evidence introduced at the hearing — evidence demonstrating that he arranged for the destruction of potentially relevant evidence that had been specifically requested by the investigators — my findings and conclusions have not changed in a matter that would benefit Mr. Brady,” Goodell said.
Team Brady’s response? “Neither Tom nor the Patriots did anything wrong,” agent Don Yee said. “And the NFL has no evidence that anything inappropriate occurred. The appeal process was a sham.”
For the record, there was no denial that the smoking phone was destroyed.
For the record, Brady admits the phone was destroyed. Why did he do this? Who the fuck knows? I can take a guess, but it's just a guess. Regardless, I just enjoy reading Jay's terrible writing about this topic. Considering I find ball deflation to be boring, I need to get my enjoyment on this topic where it can be found.
Now for the July 29 article that Jay compares Brady to Lance Armstrong, Pete Rose, and Tiger Woods. Yeah, Tiger Woods. Tiger cheated on his spouse, which apparently is now the same thing as using PED's and betting on baseball.
Tom Brady is 37 years old. He looks 27 years old. And now, he’s acting 17 years old,
Real strong hot take to start the column off. If only Brady's son were 7 years old then Jay could have thrown that in there too.
using his Facebook account — gee, what’s his relationship status? —
This isn't really funny or clever. Brady is married, Jay. He's married to a supermodel. That's his status.
If he was a mature, reasonable person, he’d call a news conference, invite the world, look every reporter in the eye, stare every camera in the lens and say, for posterity, “I’ll take your questions for the next two hours.”
I always love the sportswriter challenge to determine true honesty which can only be determined by that athlete calling a press conference and answering the media's questions. Because answering questions from sportswriters is always the best way to determine honesty. Sportswriters like Jay have such a high opinion of themselves that they believe they should be the final arbiter on whether an athlete is lying or not. Sure, if Tom Brady called a press conference then it would give Jay something more interesting to write about, but mostly it's Jay's ego which causes him to believe he's not merely a member of the press, but the person who should stand in final judgment regarding Brady's honesty.
You know, if Jay Mariotti were a reasonable, mature person then he would call a press conference and talk about exactly what happened on that day when he was accused of assaulting his ex-girlfriend. Jay would NEVER do that, because he considers it a private affair. I mean, Jay Mariotti had a chance to clear his name and totally chose not to do that. He pled no-contest, but he wants Tom Brady to stand up and defend himself in a press conference where he can take questions for two hours. Few things anger me more than the hypocrisy of the media. Jay doesn't believe he has an obligation to explain himself, but of course when it's not Jay in the firing line then only a mature, reasonable person would call a press conference to explain himself.
Instead, Brady logged onto Facebook, where he doesn’t have to answer questions but can continue to twist his obvious wrongdoing into an increasingly absurd drama that is becoming a national headache.
I will agree with the "national headache" part.
“To suggest that I destroyed a phone to avoid giving the NFL information it requested is completely wrong,” he wrote. “There is no ‘smoking gun’ and this controversy is manufactured to distract from the fact they have zero evidence of wrongdoing.”
Zero evidence? The NFL has 11 underinflated footballs from the first half of January’s AFC championship game.
I think the issue is that Brady and the Patriots are not convinced these footballs were underinflated. That's the source of their disagreement, that the Patriots and Brady dispute the notion these balls weren't inflated properly.
The NFL knows that both equipment managers were fired by the New England Patriots. And when the NFL asked Brady to provide a cellphone that might help prove his innocence, he chose to get rid of the phone just before his meeting with investigator Ted Wells.
I'm not defending Brady, but his statement is that he was under the impression that the investigators didn't need his phone. Also, Brady wasn't going to just let them search his phone. By the way, this is a stance I guess the majority of Americans would take if their employer (or another entity that isn't a law enforcement entity) requested their cell phone. I don't give my cell phone number out to but a select few at my work, so I certainly am not going to allow my employer or anyone else search my cell phone. Destroying the phone does seem a bit extreme without having some more context.
Now, we’ve lost respect for him as a human being.
This statement coming from Jay Mariotti is hilarious. I haven't lost respect for Tom Brady as a human being, even if is totally guilty. It's sports, guys. Let's keep a little perspective. Brady didn't kill anyone or commit a violent crime against humanity.
Would he please accept his four-game suspension like a man rather than pouting like Bart Simpson?
Even a decade ago this reference wouldn't be relevant. Bill Simmons is embarrassed for Jay Mariotti that he used such a dated pop culture reference.
“I also disagree with yesterdays [sic] narrative surrounding my cellphone. I replaced my broken Samsung phone with a new iPhone 6 AFTER my attorneys made it clear to the NFL that my actual phone device would not be subjected to investigation under ANY circumstances. As a member of a union, I was under no obligation to set a new precedent going forward, nor was I made aware at any time during Mr. Wells’ investigation, that failing to subject my cell phone to investigation would result in ANY discipline.”
That's Brady's story. It could all be lies. Plus, it's a smart move as a member of the union to not a set a precedent for your phone to be searched.
Hey, while he’s sitting in September, at least Tom can bank his check from Apple for the iPhone 6 plug.
Yes, because Apple needs Tom Brady to name drop the iPhone in order to sell the product.
As for the broken Samsung phone, we’ll just assume the dog ate it.
Again, there is no need to assume anything because Brady admits he destroyed the phone. This is the second time that Jay has indicated Brady is hiding the phone or not admitting what he did with his cell phone. One very clear thing that has occurred through this entire mad legal battle between the NFL and Brady, and that clear thing is that Brady destroyed his cell phone.
There may be no smoking gun, but there is a smoking cellphone, wherever it went.
Maybe Jay should go check landfills or check at the bottom of rivers, as if Brady's phone is a murder weapon and not a cell phone that got destroyed in order to cover up evidence of DEFLATED FUCKING FOOTBALLS.
And I can’t wait for a judge, assuming Brady’s legal challenge actually advanced that far, to subpoena Samsung for his cellphone records. Does Brady really want to go there? Doesn’t he realize how the lies are piling up and digging him a deeper grave?
Why does this matter so much to Jay? If the records are subpoenaed and Brady is seen as a liar, then it only strengthens Jay's assertion that Brady is a deceitful little shit and the commissioner should throw the book at him. Why worry about Brady lying if you think he'll be caught?
The operative word is entitlement. Every time a cheating athlete is caught red-handed — for performance-enhancing drugs, for gambling, for bimbo sex, for corked bats, for lubed baseballs and, now, for doctored footballs — he feels enabled to deny the charge rather then fess up.
I don't mean to dismiss the importance of footballs that are inflated slightly below the limit allowed, but to compare it to using PED's, gambling, and cheating on your wife is a little bit of an overreaction from Jay.
While Brady’s sin doesn’t rise to the same level, he joins Lance Armstrong, Tiger Woods, Pete Rose and all the baseball juicers on Rebuttal Row. Ultimately, all were proven wrong and forced to acknowledge guilt. Brady will have to do the same, but not anytime soon.
I don't even know what to write in response to this. I think the absurdity of comparing these players to Tom Brady is fairly apparent. There really aren't levels of cheating, and I have no idea how Tiger cheating on his wife relates to cheating in sports, but it seems extreme to compare Brady deflating footballs in one playoff game to Lance Armstrong cheating through multiple Tour de France victories, Rose gambling on baseball, and every MLB player who has ever used PED's. It seems like a rather broad comparison as well.
By that, Kraft was acknowledging that he’d agreed to accept the NFL’s penalty for the Patriots — a $1 million fine and forfeiture of two draft picks — during the May league meetings in San Francisco. In other words, he thought he was playing a wink-wink game with Goodell: The Patriots would take the hit if Brady’s ban eventually was reduced or eliminated. Shame on Kraft for thinking a commissioner should work in such a wishy-washy manner.
The terms of punishment for a cheating scandal should not be negotiable.
Despite the fact the NFL reportedly did try to negotiate with Brady to decrease his punishment if he just admitted to wrongdoing.
Again, I find it interesting that Jay doesn't think terms of punishment for cheating in sports shouldn't be negotiable, but he was glad to plead no-contest to stalking and assaulting his girlfriend in order to avoid jail time and/or a trial. Apparently Jay feels that deflating footballs is a much more serious offense than allegedly abusing your girlfriend, to where deflating footballs should have no negotiable punishment, but allegedly abusing your girlfriend can be pled out to no-contest because it's not quite a serious enough accusation for the punishment to be non-negotiable.
The New England sleaze is a reminder of how fortunate we are, in the Bay Area, to enjoy two championship teams that aren’t scandalized.
I'm sure Jay wrote this with a straight face while ignoring the column he wrote about Barry Bonds, who played in the Bay Area, and was part of a scandal Jay discussed a few paragraphs ago. He wrote here about Bonds. I'm sure Jay doesn't remember this though. He would NEVER knowingly contradict himself or be a hypocrite.
He is firing a missile at the commissioner in a declaration of war, and that the owner who helped Goodell get his job — one that pays him as much as $44 million annually — now can be considered a mortal enemy. In the end, the powerful owners run this league, and while Kraft and Brady won’t win in court, Kraft can exact his revenge by trying to rub Goodell out of office.
And that's the right Kraft has as one of Goodell's 32 bosses. Goodell serves at the pleasure of the owners.
Kraft sounds silly in claiming ESPN is in cahoots with the NFL to get the Patriots, ignoring that the media behemoth has been one of Goodell’s biggest critics in his mishandling of the Ray Rice case and other issues. “The decision by commissioner Goodell was released … under an erroneous headline that read, ‘Tom Brady destroyed his cellphone.’ This headline was designed to capture headlines across the country and obscure evidence regarding the tampering of air pressure in footballs,”
Not exactly, Kraft was merely claiming that ESPN uses headlines designed to get readers/viewers and that's not a false statement. ESPN does do this, as does many other sports sites or networks.
And yes, the idea ESPN would be in bed with the NFL sounds crazy as long as you ignore the specific instances where ESPN has protected NFL interests by suspending Bill Simmons after he criticized Roger Goodell, canceled "Playmakers" because the NFL didn't like it, and got their contribution to the PBS documentary on concussions removed. Oh, and ESPN has the rights to certain NFL games. You know, other than their financial interest in supporting the NFL and the previous attempts to protect the league, ESPN has no history of being in cahoots with the league.
Training camps have started, gentlemen. The football season is here. Tom Brady destroyed his cellphone. Innocent men don’t destroy their cellphones.
I have destroyed a cell phone before. My cell phone display cracked when I stepped on it one time and rather than have a cracked cell phone hanging around I smashed it with a hammer (for fun) and threw it out. I had no special numbers on there, I just didn't want anyone to get my personal information when I threw it out. Maybe innocent men don't destroy their cellphones, but most innocent/guilty men aren't Tom Brady and have the phone number of many celebrities, athletes, models, and family members on their phone. I think someone would want to steal Brady's phone when/if it got thrown away in order to have these numbers.
I need two aspirin.
So Jay's terrible writing gives him a headache too. At least we have that in common.
I'll start with his July 28 column where he compares Tom Brady to Richard Nixon.
Well, so much for the 2024 presidential bid. Unless you are Nixonian in your political bent,
Unless you love corruption, you should hate Tom Brady. Why? He's no G.I. Joe, because he's not an American hero.
you’ll understand why Tom Brady has lost all credibility not only as an American hero but as someone who deserves not even a saliva spit of support in the Deflategate scandal.
I literally have never thought of Tom Brady as an American hero.
It’s one thing to argue that Brady, in the AFC championship game, performed better with footballs that were properly inflated in the second half than with purposely underdeflated balls in the first half.
By "one thing" Jay means, "This could go to the effect the underinflated balls had on the game and therefore could potentially go to the merit and severity of a punishment." It's still cheating if a team doesn't gain an advantage, but it doesn't seem the Patriots gained an advantage in this specific situation.
it means “The Man Every Other Male Aspires To Be” and “The Greatest Quarterback Of All Time” has committed these sins:
1. He knowingly participated in a scam with team equipment managers to deflate footballs, which gave him a competitive advantage while violating league rules. That makes him a cheater.
2. He denied participating in the scam. That makes him a liar.
3. He had an associate destroy the smoking phone and, by extension, the probable incriminating evidence on that phone, meaning he refused to cooperate. That makes him a cover-up artist.
4. On the way to his associate's house in order to make sure his associate was there, he texted this person. This means he was texting and driving.
5. Brady was clocked by at least one police radar as going 5 miles over the speed limit while on his way to the associate's house. This makes him a speeder and law breaker.
6. He tried to steer out of the way of a squirrel on his way to the associate's house, but ran over the squirrel instead. This means Brady was guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
7. After walking back in his house, he threw his recyclable water bottle into a regular trash can. This is just him flagrantly showing the city's recycling rules do not apply to him. What other rules does Tom Brady think don't apply to him? No need to answer that question, because it's obvious now.
Is it possible four games aren’t enough, then, that Brady should have been banned for the entire season?
At the very least, he should be decapitated. At the most, one of his children should be sold into slavery. So any punishment in between seems appropriate, though a real American hero would just go ahead and sell his child into slavery now instead of waiting for this punishment to be handed down.
Given New England’s status as a dynasty, with four Super Bowl titles in the 21st century, Brady’s continuing defiance is raising the same doubts about the Patriots that the Steroids Era did about Major League Baseball.
Yes Jay, these two events are completely similar. Tom Brady deflated footballs in one playoff game by a certain amount of PSI and this is similar to what happened over a 6-8 year span where multiple baseball players used PED's to gain an edge over a multiple game span and destroy current records in the MLB record book. One is the same as the other.
I'm surprised Jay didn't hit us with a "In the Steroid Era, the players got pumped up to gain an edge, while Brady deflated in order to gain his edge."
How much of their success is real,
79.6541%.
how much is deceitful?
20.3459%.
“He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone,” Goodell said in his appeals decision. “During the four months that the cellphone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device.”
The world may never know what pet names he and Gisele have for each other. For this, someone must pay, and that person is Tom Brady.
But for once, in a tenure tarnished by his irresponsible handling of the Ray Rice case and an erratic record of off-field punishments in general, Goodell seems to be spot-on.
If anyone was ever wondering who that person is that feels Goodell was "spot-on" with his handling of the situation where Brady allegedly deflated footballs, then you can rest easy knowing that person is Jay Mariotti. No one should be shocked by this. Jay would side with Westboro Baptist Church if it helped him write a column that bashes an athlete or coach.
He could have waffled and given weight to his all-but-dead friendship with Kraft, who defended Goodell publicly and in ownership circles as he was attacked amid the Rice fallout. But this time, he stood firm in front of the league’s so-called shield and avoided all wishy-washiness.
There is a clear difference in standing firm for solid factual and evidentiary reasons and standing firm because the decision has been made and that's the decision. I don't think Goodell should have necessarily waffled, but not changing his mind doesn't mean his decision was correct in the very first place.
Harmful as the Rice, Greg Hardy and Adrian Peterson abuse cases have been to the league’s image and reputation, maintaining the game’s competitive integrity is vitally important, too, particularly when it involves the league’s most visible and acclaimed player.
The game's integrity is very important, but I would argue that making sure the athletes involved with the sport don't abuse children or women is more important to ensuring fans aren't alienated than ensuring a football is at the proper PSI level would be.
What we have now is Brady, in frantic image-restoration mode, legally challenging the ruling and seeking an injunction allowing him to play.
Remember back when Jay Mariotti started at Sports Talk Florida and the "Examiner," back when he talked about how the legal system is corrupt (against rich white men!) and he understands this because of all he had gone through? Welp, now he's describing Brady exercising his legal rights as his being in "frantic image-restoration mode." As expected, when Jay talked about how he understood the American legal system and how it swallowed people up, he only meant he understood this from his perspective. Everyone else deserves whatever they get. The legal system is against Jay Mariotti, while everyone else is getting treated fairly.
If Brady was smart, he’d accept his four games and go away. It’s hard to believe even the most venomous Goodell critic would side with Brady now. He will argue the Wells report is flawed and the ball-deflation rules were unfairly applied. Um, why would an innocent man destroy a phone that could help him if wronged?
What a bad counterargument to the idea the ball-deflation rules were unfairly applied. Brady destroying his phone is circumstantial evidence that can go to support the belief he was attempting to destroy evidence, but the destruction of the phone isn't a counterargument to the Wells report being flawed or whether the ball-deflation rules were fairly applied or not. Again, for someone who claims to understand the legal system, Jay is very clueless about how the veracity of legal challenges can be determined. If the ball-deflation rules weren't unfairly applied, then this could mean Brady will win his legal case. Just like if evidence is mishandled in a criminal case, it doesn't matter if the suspect acted very suspiciously to where it seemed like he was covering up a crime. I can't let Jay take me down this rabbit hole. He's ignorant, we know that.
“Especially in light of the new evidence introduced at the hearing — evidence demonstrating that he arranged for the destruction of potentially relevant evidence that had been specifically requested by the investigators — my findings and conclusions have not changed in a matter that would benefit Mr. Brady,” Goodell said.
Team Brady’s response? “Neither Tom nor the Patriots did anything wrong,” agent Don Yee said. “And the NFL has no evidence that anything inappropriate occurred. The appeal process was a sham.”
For the record, there was no denial that the smoking phone was destroyed.
For the record, Brady admits the phone was destroyed. Why did he do this? Who the fuck knows? I can take a guess, but it's just a guess. Regardless, I just enjoy reading Jay's terrible writing about this topic. Considering I find ball deflation to be boring, I need to get my enjoyment on this topic where it can be found.
Now for the July 29 article that Jay compares Brady to Lance Armstrong, Pete Rose, and Tiger Woods. Yeah, Tiger Woods. Tiger cheated on his spouse, which apparently is now the same thing as using PED's and betting on baseball.
Tom Brady is 37 years old. He looks 27 years old. And now, he’s acting 17 years old,
Real strong hot take to start the column off. If only Brady's son were 7 years old then Jay could have thrown that in there too.
using his Facebook account — gee, what’s his relationship status? —
This isn't really funny or clever. Brady is married, Jay. He's married to a supermodel. That's his status.
If he was a mature, reasonable person, he’d call a news conference, invite the world, look every reporter in the eye, stare every camera in the lens and say, for posterity, “I’ll take your questions for the next two hours.”
I always love the sportswriter challenge to determine true honesty which can only be determined by that athlete calling a press conference and answering the media's questions. Because answering questions from sportswriters is always the best way to determine honesty. Sportswriters like Jay have such a high opinion of themselves that they believe they should be the final arbiter on whether an athlete is lying or not. Sure, if Tom Brady called a press conference then it would give Jay something more interesting to write about, but mostly it's Jay's ego which causes him to believe he's not merely a member of the press, but the person who should stand in final judgment regarding Brady's honesty.
You know, if Jay Mariotti were a reasonable, mature person then he would call a press conference and talk about exactly what happened on that day when he was accused of assaulting his ex-girlfriend. Jay would NEVER do that, because he considers it a private affair. I mean, Jay Mariotti had a chance to clear his name and totally chose not to do that. He pled no-contest, but he wants Tom Brady to stand up and defend himself in a press conference where he can take questions for two hours. Few things anger me more than the hypocrisy of the media. Jay doesn't believe he has an obligation to explain himself, but of course when it's not Jay in the firing line then only a mature, reasonable person would call a press conference to explain himself.
Instead, Brady logged onto Facebook, where he doesn’t have to answer questions but can continue to twist his obvious wrongdoing into an increasingly absurd drama that is becoming a national headache.
I will agree with the "national headache" part.
“To suggest that I destroyed a phone to avoid giving the NFL information it requested is completely wrong,” he wrote. “There is no ‘smoking gun’ and this controversy is manufactured to distract from the fact they have zero evidence of wrongdoing.”
Zero evidence? The NFL has 11 underinflated footballs from the first half of January’s AFC championship game.
I think the issue is that Brady and the Patriots are not convinced these footballs were underinflated. That's the source of their disagreement, that the Patriots and Brady dispute the notion these balls weren't inflated properly.
The NFL knows that both equipment managers were fired by the New England Patriots. And when the NFL asked Brady to provide a cellphone that might help prove his innocence, he chose to get rid of the phone just before his meeting with investigator Ted Wells.
I'm not defending Brady, but his statement is that he was under the impression that the investigators didn't need his phone. Also, Brady wasn't going to just let them search his phone. By the way, this is a stance I guess the majority of Americans would take if their employer (or another entity that isn't a law enforcement entity) requested their cell phone. I don't give my cell phone number out to but a select few at my work, so I certainly am not going to allow my employer or anyone else search my cell phone. Destroying the phone does seem a bit extreme without having some more context.
Now, we’ve lost respect for him as a human being.
This statement coming from Jay Mariotti is hilarious. I haven't lost respect for Tom Brady as a human being, even if is totally guilty. It's sports, guys. Let's keep a little perspective. Brady didn't kill anyone or commit a violent crime against humanity.
Would he please accept his four-game suspension like a man rather than pouting like Bart Simpson?
Even a decade ago this reference wouldn't be relevant. Bill Simmons is embarrassed for Jay Mariotti that he used such a dated pop culture reference.
“I also disagree with yesterdays [sic] narrative surrounding my cellphone. I replaced my broken Samsung phone with a new iPhone 6 AFTER my attorneys made it clear to the NFL that my actual phone device would not be subjected to investigation under ANY circumstances. As a member of a union, I was under no obligation to set a new precedent going forward, nor was I made aware at any time during Mr. Wells’ investigation, that failing to subject my cell phone to investigation would result in ANY discipline.”
That's Brady's story. It could all be lies. Plus, it's a smart move as a member of the union to not a set a precedent for your phone to be searched.
Hey, while he’s sitting in September, at least Tom can bank his check from Apple for the iPhone 6 plug.
Yes, because Apple needs Tom Brady to name drop the iPhone in order to sell the product.
As for the broken Samsung phone, we’ll just assume the dog ate it.
Again, there is no need to assume anything because Brady admits he destroyed the phone. This is the second time that Jay has indicated Brady is hiding the phone or not admitting what he did with his cell phone. One very clear thing that has occurred through this entire mad legal battle between the NFL and Brady, and that clear thing is that Brady destroyed his cell phone.
There may be no smoking gun, but there is a smoking cellphone, wherever it went.
Maybe Jay should go check landfills or check at the bottom of rivers, as if Brady's phone is a murder weapon and not a cell phone that got destroyed in order to cover up evidence of DEFLATED FUCKING FOOTBALLS.
And I can’t wait for a judge, assuming Brady’s legal challenge actually advanced that far, to subpoena Samsung for his cellphone records. Does Brady really want to go there? Doesn’t he realize how the lies are piling up and digging him a deeper grave?
Why does this matter so much to Jay? If the records are subpoenaed and Brady is seen as a liar, then it only strengthens Jay's assertion that Brady is a deceitful little shit and the commissioner should throw the book at him. Why worry about Brady lying if you think he'll be caught?
The operative word is entitlement. Every time a cheating athlete is caught red-handed — for performance-enhancing drugs, for gambling, for bimbo sex, for corked bats, for lubed baseballs and, now, for doctored footballs — he feels enabled to deny the charge rather then fess up.
I don't mean to dismiss the importance of footballs that are inflated slightly below the limit allowed, but to compare it to using PED's, gambling, and cheating on your wife is a little bit of an overreaction from Jay.
While Brady’s sin doesn’t rise to the same level, he joins Lance Armstrong, Tiger Woods, Pete Rose and all the baseball juicers on Rebuttal Row. Ultimately, all were proven wrong and forced to acknowledge guilt. Brady will have to do the same, but not anytime soon.
I don't even know what to write in response to this. I think the absurdity of comparing these players to Tom Brady is fairly apparent. There really aren't levels of cheating, and I have no idea how Tiger cheating on his wife relates to cheating in sports, but it seems extreme to compare Brady deflating footballs in one playoff game to Lance Armstrong cheating through multiple Tour de France victories, Rose gambling on baseball, and every MLB player who has ever used PED's. It seems like a rather broad comparison as well.
By that, Kraft was acknowledging that he’d agreed to accept the NFL’s penalty for the Patriots — a $1 million fine and forfeiture of two draft picks — during the May league meetings in San Francisco. In other words, he thought he was playing a wink-wink game with Goodell: The Patriots would take the hit if Brady’s ban eventually was reduced or eliminated. Shame on Kraft for thinking a commissioner should work in such a wishy-washy manner.
The terms of punishment for a cheating scandal should not be negotiable.
Despite the fact the NFL reportedly did try to negotiate with Brady to decrease his punishment if he just admitted to wrongdoing.
Again, I find it interesting that Jay doesn't think terms of punishment for cheating in sports shouldn't be negotiable, but he was glad to plead no-contest to stalking and assaulting his girlfriend in order to avoid jail time and/or a trial. Apparently Jay feels that deflating footballs is a much more serious offense than allegedly abusing your girlfriend, to where deflating footballs should have no negotiable punishment, but allegedly abusing your girlfriend can be pled out to no-contest because it's not quite a serious enough accusation for the punishment to be non-negotiable.
The New England sleaze is a reminder of how fortunate we are, in the Bay Area, to enjoy two championship teams that aren’t scandalized.
I'm sure Jay wrote this with a straight face while ignoring the column he wrote about Barry Bonds, who played in the Bay Area, and was part of a scandal Jay discussed a few paragraphs ago. He wrote here about Bonds. I'm sure Jay doesn't remember this though. He would NEVER knowingly contradict himself or be a hypocrite.
He is firing a missile at the commissioner in a declaration of war, and that the owner who helped Goodell get his job — one that pays him as much as $44 million annually — now can be considered a mortal enemy. In the end, the powerful owners run this league, and while Kraft and Brady won’t win in court, Kraft can exact his revenge by trying to rub Goodell out of office.
And that's the right Kraft has as one of Goodell's 32 bosses. Goodell serves at the pleasure of the owners.
Kraft sounds silly in claiming ESPN is in cahoots with the NFL to get the Patriots, ignoring that the media behemoth has been one of Goodell’s biggest critics in his mishandling of the Ray Rice case and other issues. “The decision by commissioner Goodell was released … under an erroneous headline that read, ‘Tom Brady destroyed his cellphone.’ This headline was designed to capture headlines across the country and obscure evidence regarding the tampering of air pressure in footballs,”
Not exactly, Kraft was merely claiming that ESPN uses headlines designed to get readers/viewers and that's not a false statement. ESPN does do this, as does many other sports sites or networks.
And yes, the idea ESPN would be in bed with the NFL sounds crazy as long as you ignore the specific instances where ESPN has protected NFL interests by suspending Bill Simmons after he criticized Roger Goodell, canceled "Playmakers" because the NFL didn't like it, and got their contribution to the PBS documentary on concussions removed. Oh, and ESPN has the rights to certain NFL games. You know, other than their financial interest in supporting the NFL and the previous attempts to protect the league, ESPN has no history of being in cahoots with the league.
Training camps have started, gentlemen. The football season is here. Tom Brady destroyed his cellphone. Innocent men don’t destroy their cellphones.
I have destroyed a cell phone before. My cell phone display cracked when I stepped on it one time and rather than have a cracked cell phone hanging around I smashed it with a hammer (for fun) and threw it out. I had no special numbers on there, I just didn't want anyone to get my personal information when I threw it out. Maybe innocent men don't destroy their cellphones, but most innocent/guilty men aren't Tom Brady and have the phone number of many celebrities, athletes, models, and family members on their phone. I think someone would want to steal Brady's phone when/if it got thrown away in order to have these numbers.
I need two aspirin.
So Jay's terrible writing gives him a headache too. At least we have that in common.
Monday, July 13, 2015
4 comments Bill Plaschke Asks Fair Questions That I Find to Be Ethically Questionable
Bill Plaschke is a non-sensical ESPN talking head. He does "Around the Horn" and writes occasional scathing, idiotic columns as any columnist even tangentially related to ESPN is want to do. Plaschke writes mostly drivel that is reactionary and follows whatever tangent he feels like following on that day. Every once in a while he goes off the rails and does something like accuse an MLB player of using steroids or freaks out when a Dodgers player gets traded. Now Plaschke has taken it to a whole new level (if you ask me). He thinks because individuals in the Cardinals' front office were accused of hacking the Astros computer system then this must mean the Cardinals players are cheaters and this is the only way to explain how they beat the Dodgers in the postseason in each of the last two years. This is an unfair accusation and a column that lacks integrity. The Cardinals players are not the same thing as the Cardinals front office. They are two separate entities and to accuse the Cardinals of cheating on the field (even though Clayton Kershaw rightly points out some of what the Cardinals are being accused of doing by Plaschke isn't cheating) crosses some journalism ethical line. There is no evidence that the Cardinals cheated on the field or did anything improper. Yet, because the front office of the Cardinals is accused of hacking the Astros, that's where Bill Plaschke chooses to take the discussion. I'm embarrassed for him that he isn't more embarrassed for himself.
And yes, I do enjoy the jokes about "The Cardinal Way" in regard to how members of the organization are accused of spying on the Astros. It's all fun because it serves as a dichotomy from how the Cardinals are portrayed in October of every year as "playing the game the right way." They are jokes and they are fun. I don't believe any reasonable person could decide that because members of the Cardinals organization hacked a computer this means cheating is prevalent throughout the organization. Well, except for Bill Plaschke. This is the conclusion he reaches.
After watching the planet's best pitcher endure two unimaginable meltdowns in the same situation to the same team in consecutive Octobers, some Dodgers fans began to wonder.
Will we ever beat the Cardinals in the postseason? Why can't Clayton Kershaw pitch better in big games? What does Bill Plaschke have derogatory to say about Yasiel Puig when blaming the loss on him?
Were the St. Louis Cardinals cheating?
At the time, I really, really doubt the Dodgers players were wondering if the Cardinals players were cheating. Even now, I don't think they are asking that. I think the Dodgers players are mostly asking, "Why does Bill Plaschke still write about us? Isn't there somewhere else he can go or another team he can cover?"
Maybe not, but now federal authorities think they may be cheaters.
Nope. They don't think the Cardinals players are cheaters, they think people in the Cardinals organization are cheaters. There is a crucial difference in the Cardinals organization and the Cardinals players cheating, mainly that there is no evidence of cheating on the field as Bill Plaschke will now accuse the Cardinals of doing.
Just call them the New England Cardinals … or maybe the St. Louis Patriots …
I can't figure out why ESPN chooses to bring certain talking heads on to shows like "Around the Horn." They aren't funny, they aren't creative. It's like many of the writers the network chooses to embrace are just the loudest and say the dumbest shit (hey, I've figured them out!). This joke from Plaschke isn't funny. It's lazy. It's especially lazy in a column where Bill Plaschke unethically accuses the Cardinals players of cheating when there is zero evidence this is true.
or maybe just call them phonies in the wake of a New York Times report that they are being investigated by the FBI for hacking computer networks and stealing information about the Houston Astros.
Why would the Cardinals players be phonies? In everything that the FBI discovered, where is the mention of any Cardinals player as being a part of the hack or part of stealing the information? I'm sure Bill Plaschke would take offense to someone suggesting that because one "LA Times" writer was caught plagiarizing articles then that means Plaschke and others were plagiarizing as well. Of course, Plaschke isn't paid to be self-aware. He's paid to write stupid shit. So...job well done. He's managed to accuse the Cardinals players of cheating when there is zero evidence this is true.
The Cardinals have long promoted themselves as keepers of baseball's old-fashioned flame, the curators of smart and selfless play, the architects of what they proudly call, "The Cardinal Way."
Which, by the way, is mostly bullshit. I think most non-sportswriters understand "The Cardinal Way" isn't quite the biblical text that baseball writers like to present it as every October.
Yet the FBI believes that "way" detoured into a dark place in which employees gained access to the Astros' database with passwords Astros General Manager Jeff Luhnow used when he worked for the Cardinals.
There is no evidence the Cardinals' alleged spying involved any team other than the Astros.
But, there is evidence that Bill Plaschke wants there to be evidence the Cardinals were cheating in the playoffs against the Dodgers. The evidence that Plaschke wants to exist is irrefutable. It is mostly irrefutable because it doesn't exist and it's very hard to disprove a negative.
When asked Tuesday, the Dodgers publicly dismissed speculation their postseason losses involved any sort of digital espionage.
The Dodgers organization says Plaschke is barking up the wrong tree by suggesting the Cardinals are cheating and Clayton Kershaw will say Plaschke isn't correct in wondering if the Cardinals cheated. Obviously, this means Plaschke needs to just accuse the Cardinals of cheating a little bit more to better get his point across.
If the Cardinals would sneak into an opponent's computer, which is a federal crime and far worse than deflating a few footballs, what else would they do to gain an edge?
I don't know. You would have to ask the people who hacked the Astros computer, which was not the Cardinals players, to see what else they would do to gain an edge. Though Plaschke may be on to something...
Did the Cardinals organization, led by Yadier Molina, murder Oscar Tavares because he knew too much and was going to speak publicly? If the Cardinals committed murder like this, what else would they do to protect their secrets? Darryl Kile died of a "heart attack" but how can this be trusted without an independent investigator, chosen by Bill Plaschke of course, confirming this as true? Josh Hancock died in a "car accident," but is that what it was? Was Hancock just another innocent person looking to blow the whistle on the Cardinals organization's decades of cheating? If the Cardinals would become an organization of serial killers, what else would they do to protect their secrets? Simply cheating to beat the Dodgers would be no big deal.
If they would cheat against a long-struggling team such as the Astros, why wouldn't they cheat to beat the richest team in baseball and their Cy Young Award winner Clayton Kershaw?
Because they were able to beat him without cheating. Because the Cardinals had access to hack a division rival's computer and didn't have access to the Dodgers' computer systems. Because it wasn't the players who cheated, it was members of the Cardinals organization that don't play professional baseball who cheated.
But so much of the Cardinals success was so eerie, Dodgers fans wondered whether this so-called model franchise was actually a model of deceit.
I don't remember reading a single article after the Dodgers' last two postseason losses to the Cardinals where a member of the Dodgers team, organization or even a Dodgers beat writer suggested the Cardinals were cheating. This is all written by Plaschke in hindsight with no regard for the accuracy of his statements. Shameful.
Start with the fourth pitch to the third batter of their first game in the 2013 NLCS. Joe Kelly sent a fastball into Hanley Ramirez's side, fracturing one of his ribs and dramatically changing the series almost before it started.
Did Joe Kelly have a bug in the Dodgers' locker room to learn that Hanley Ramirez's ribs could be broken by a baseball hitting them at speeds of 90 mph? Where else could Kelly have gotten this information from? How else would Kelly have known Ramirez's ribs could break if struck with a baseball at a high speed? Is it a coincidence the Red Sox traded for Joe Kelly and then signed Hanley Ramirez? Was this a move just to keep Ramirez quiet by placating him with a big, new contract or was something else afoot? Were the Red Sox in on the Cardinals' string of serial murders and cheating to beat the Dodgers? After all, the Red Sox do play in the same area as known cheaters like the New England Patriots.
At the time, Ramirez was the Dodgers' hottest playoff hitter, batting .500 in the first round of the division series against the Atlanta Braves with four doubles, a triple, a homer and six RBIs in just four games. After the plunking, Ramirez could never fully swing again, batting .133 in the series with one RBI and no extra-base hits.
And there is NO WAY Kelly would have known about Ramirez's ribs being susceptible to being broken by a baseball unless there was a listening device in the Dodgers' locker room where Ramirez detailed how his bones are all unbreakable, except for his ribs, which unlike most other human beings, will shatter when impacted by a ball thrown at a high speed.
That benefit is now gone. Does anybody not believe that hit was intentional? Because it occurred in the first half inning of the series, would it be so surprising if it was organizationally planned and ordered?
JUST LIKE the Cardinals organization ordered the deaths of Tavares, Kile, and Hancock. I thought the mafia was located in Kansas City, not St. Louis? It sounds like the Cardinals are from St. Louis but are no saints. In fact, the Cardinals have "St." in front of their city name and the New Orleans Saints put a bounty on opposing players a few years ago. So if the Cardinals are saints like the New Orleans Saints were, what would stop them from intentionally injuring a player like Hanley Ramirez? HOW MUCH WAS THE BOUNTY ON RAMIREZ'S HEAD? WHERE IS MIKE MATHENY TO REFUTE THESE FACTS?
Then there was the curious case of Kershaw, who was mostly untouchable during Cy Young Award-winning seasons in 2013 and 2014, but completely fell apart when facing the Cardinals under pressure each of those years. Same hitters, same situations, same results, consecutive postseason collapses by baseball's best pitcher under very unusual circumstances with absolutely no warning signs.
So the same hitters hit the same pitcher well in two different series, and Bill's takeaway is that the Cardinals were cheating, not that the Cardinals just hit Kershaw well?
In Game 2 of the NLCS against the Cardinals he was just as powerful, allowing no earned runs and two hits in six innings. Nothing indicated what would happen next, when, in Game 6, he allowed seven runs in four innings in a 9-0, series-ending loss. He was so bad, throwing a career-high 48 pitches in the third inning, that it looked as if the Cardinals hitters knew exactly what was coming.
Or it could just be the Cardinals are good hitters who happened to get a lot of hits off Kershaw when he was struggling to get outs.
Turns out, maybe they did. Three of the Cardinals' four run-scoring hits occurred with a Cardinal standing on second base peering into catcher A.J. Ellis' glove.
Stealing signs is not really cheating. It's part of the game. Clayton Kershaw will say this exact thing in a second. So the type of cheating Bill Plaschke is choosing to accuse the Cardinals of isn't even really cheating.
Stealing signs by simply looking at the catcher is part of the game — if you don't like it, change your signs — but who knows if that's all the Cardinals were doing?
Well apparently you know because you are writing an entire column around the premise that because the Cardinals cheated by hacking into the Astros' computer then the Cardinals players were obviously cheating on the field as well. The entire basis of this column is that Plaschke knows the Cardinals were cheating against the Dodgers. He's accusing them of this in this column.
Kershaw was asked Tuesday whether he thought the Cardinals could have used anything against him.
"No," he said,
Then, mostly assuming Kershaw is a part of the conspiracy as well, Plaschke furthers on completely ignoring Kershaw's answer. After all, Kershaw grew up in Texas with Matthew Stafford who plays for the Detroit Lions, which means maybe by saying "no" Kershaw was trying to give the hint to Plaschke that he knew more and was "lyin'" when he claimed the Cardinals weren't cheating? Was this answer of "No" a crime for help from Kershaw? Is Clayton Kershaw next on the hit list for the Cardinals organization? When will his eventual murder take place?
Plus, Kershaw is from Dallas, Texas and the Astros are located in Texas as well. It's entirely possible that Kershaw is a mole for the Cardinals organization.
"I don't know anything but if the FBI's involved, it's a criminal act," he said of the Cardinals. "Stealing pitches isn't a criminal act, it's part of the game."
Of course Clayton Kershaw poo-pooing the idea the Cardinals were cheating won't stop Plaschke from continuing down this road. He already had 250 words written. There's no time to change column topics now.
Then there was Game 4, a 3-2 loss in which Kershaw allowed all three runs in the seventh inning on arguably the most unusual home run of the season. Matt Adams went deep on a Kershaw curveball for the first homer by a left-handed hitter against the pitcher all season.
Didn't Ozzie Smith one time hit a rare home run (rare for him, that is) in the playoffs in a key situation? What are the odds a light-hitting shortstop hits a home run in the playoffs in a key situation without cheating being involved? This brings David Eckstein into question as well. What information did Eckstein have which helped him hit the cover off the ball in the 2006 World Series? Was Eckstein blackballed from MLB by the Cardinals because he knew too much and they didn't have the heart to kill such a scrappy little overachiever?
It was also the first home run by a left-handed hitter on a curveball in Kershaw's seven-year career. And, what a surprise, there was a Cardinal on second base.
I'm pretty sure Clayton Kershawk just clarified that stealing pitches is part of the game, if this even happened. Plaschke is not only making up shit the Cardinals have done in an effort to call them cheaters, but he's also managing to accuse the Cardinals of cheating in situations where some MLB players don't even consider it cheating.
Ellis said Tuesday the team's pitching plan was not kept digitally and would be impossible to steal. He said there was nothing that would make him worry about the Cardinals in the future.
Is this the same A.J. Ellis that is from Missouri? St. Louis is in Missouri! My God, where does this conspiracy end? Kershaw AND Ellis were in on the conspiracy to be moles within the Dodgers organization for the Cardinals? The question has to remain: How many people has A.J. Ellis killed in order to protect his secrets?
But still … were the Dodgers beaten by the Cardinal Way, or the Cardinal Con?
Go away. Please. Do it for the kids.
It might be unfair to reach that conclusion, but it is now fair to ask that question.
No, it is not fair to ask this question now. Members of the Cardinals organization are accused of hacking the Astros' computer system. This doesn't mean the Cardinals players were involved with any type of cheating. As I said earlier, this is like saying because one "LA Times" writer was accused of plagiarism, that every writer at the newspaper was also plagiarizing articles when there is no evidence to support this.
Bill Plaschke has crossed the line from a dopey useless sportswriter who yells things in order to gain attention into a dopey useless sportswriter who unethically accuses a professional organization of cheating when there is no proof this is true.
And yes, I do enjoy the jokes about "The Cardinal Way" in regard to how members of the organization are accused of spying on the Astros. It's all fun because it serves as a dichotomy from how the Cardinals are portrayed in October of every year as "playing the game the right way." They are jokes and they are fun. I don't believe any reasonable person could decide that because members of the Cardinals organization hacked a computer this means cheating is prevalent throughout the organization. Well, except for Bill Plaschke. This is the conclusion he reaches.
After watching the planet's best pitcher endure two unimaginable meltdowns in the same situation to the same team in consecutive Octobers, some Dodgers fans began to wonder.
Will we ever beat the Cardinals in the postseason? Why can't Clayton Kershaw pitch better in big games? What does Bill Plaschke have derogatory to say about Yasiel Puig when blaming the loss on him?
Were the St. Louis Cardinals cheating?
At the time, I really, really doubt the Dodgers players were wondering if the Cardinals players were cheating. Even now, I don't think they are asking that. I think the Dodgers players are mostly asking, "Why does Bill Plaschke still write about us? Isn't there somewhere else he can go or another team he can cover?"
Maybe not, but now federal authorities think they may be cheaters.
Nope. They don't think the Cardinals players are cheaters, they think people in the Cardinals organization are cheaters. There is a crucial difference in the Cardinals organization and the Cardinals players cheating, mainly that there is no evidence of cheating on the field as Bill Plaschke will now accuse the Cardinals of doing.
Just call them the New England Cardinals … or maybe the St. Louis Patriots …
I can't figure out why ESPN chooses to bring certain talking heads on to shows like "Around the Horn." They aren't funny, they aren't creative. It's like many of the writers the network chooses to embrace are just the loudest and say the dumbest shit (hey, I've figured them out!). This joke from Plaschke isn't funny. It's lazy. It's especially lazy in a column where Bill Plaschke unethically accuses the Cardinals players of cheating when there is zero evidence this is true.
or maybe just call them phonies in the wake of a New York Times report that they are being investigated by the FBI for hacking computer networks and stealing information about the Houston Astros.
Why would the Cardinals players be phonies? In everything that the FBI discovered, where is the mention of any Cardinals player as being a part of the hack or part of stealing the information? I'm sure Bill Plaschke would take offense to someone suggesting that because one "LA Times" writer was caught plagiarizing articles then that means Plaschke and others were plagiarizing as well. Of course, Plaschke isn't paid to be self-aware. He's paid to write stupid shit. So...job well done. He's managed to accuse the Cardinals players of cheating when there is zero evidence this is true.
The Cardinals have long promoted themselves as keepers of baseball's old-fashioned flame, the curators of smart and selfless play, the architects of what they proudly call, "The Cardinal Way."
Which, by the way, is mostly bullshit. I think most non-sportswriters understand "The Cardinal Way" isn't quite the biblical text that baseball writers like to present it as every October.
Yet the FBI believes that "way" detoured into a dark place in which employees gained access to the Astros' database with passwords Astros General Manager Jeff Luhnow used when he worked for the Cardinals.
There is no evidence the Cardinals' alleged spying involved any team other than the Astros.
But, there is evidence that Bill Plaschke wants there to be evidence the Cardinals were cheating in the playoffs against the Dodgers. The evidence that Plaschke wants to exist is irrefutable. It is mostly irrefutable because it doesn't exist and it's very hard to disprove a negative.
When asked Tuesday, the Dodgers publicly dismissed speculation their postseason losses involved any sort of digital espionage.
The Dodgers organization says Plaschke is barking up the wrong tree by suggesting the Cardinals are cheating and Clayton Kershaw will say Plaschke isn't correct in wondering if the Cardinals cheated. Obviously, this means Plaschke needs to just accuse the Cardinals of cheating a little bit more to better get his point across.
If the Cardinals would sneak into an opponent's computer, which is a federal crime and far worse than deflating a few footballs, what else would they do to gain an edge?
I don't know. You would have to ask the people who hacked the Astros computer, which was not the Cardinals players, to see what else they would do to gain an edge. Though Plaschke may be on to something...
Did the Cardinals organization, led by Yadier Molina, murder Oscar Tavares because he knew too much and was going to speak publicly? If the Cardinals committed murder like this, what else would they do to protect their secrets? Darryl Kile died of a "heart attack" but how can this be trusted without an independent investigator, chosen by Bill Plaschke of course, confirming this as true? Josh Hancock died in a "car accident," but is that what it was? Was Hancock just another innocent person looking to blow the whistle on the Cardinals organization's decades of cheating? If the Cardinals would become an organization of serial killers, what else would they do to protect their secrets? Simply cheating to beat the Dodgers would be no big deal.
If they would cheat against a long-struggling team such as the Astros, why wouldn't they cheat to beat the richest team in baseball and their Cy Young Award winner Clayton Kershaw?
Because they were able to beat him without cheating. Because the Cardinals had access to hack a division rival's computer and didn't have access to the Dodgers' computer systems. Because it wasn't the players who cheated, it was members of the Cardinals organization that don't play professional baseball who cheated.
But so much of the Cardinals success was so eerie, Dodgers fans wondered whether this so-called model franchise was actually a model of deceit.
I don't remember reading a single article after the Dodgers' last two postseason losses to the Cardinals where a member of the Dodgers team, organization or even a Dodgers beat writer suggested the Cardinals were cheating. This is all written by Plaschke in hindsight with no regard for the accuracy of his statements. Shameful.
Start with the fourth pitch to the third batter of their first game in the 2013 NLCS. Joe Kelly sent a fastball into Hanley Ramirez's side, fracturing one of his ribs and dramatically changing the series almost before it started.
Did Joe Kelly have a bug in the Dodgers' locker room to learn that Hanley Ramirez's ribs could be broken by a baseball hitting them at speeds of 90 mph? Where else could Kelly have gotten this information from? How else would Kelly have known Ramirez's ribs could break if struck with a baseball at a high speed? Is it a coincidence the Red Sox traded for Joe Kelly and then signed Hanley Ramirez? Was this a move just to keep Ramirez quiet by placating him with a big, new contract or was something else afoot? Were the Red Sox in on the Cardinals' string of serial murders and cheating to beat the Dodgers? After all, the Red Sox do play in the same area as known cheaters like the New England Patriots.
At the time, Ramirez was the Dodgers' hottest playoff hitter, batting .500 in the first round of the division series against the Atlanta Braves with four doubles, a triple, a homer and six RBIs in just four games. After the plunking, Ramirez could never fully swing again, batting .133 in the series with one RBI and no extra-base hits.
And there is NO WAY Kelly would have known about Ramirez's ribs being susceptible to being broken by a baseball unless there was a listening device in the Dodgers' locker room where Ramirez detailed how his bones are all unbreakable, except for his ribs, which unlike most other human beings, will shatter when impacted by a ball thrown at a high speed.
That benefit is now gone. Does anybody not believe that hit was intentional? Because it occurred in the first half inning of the series, would it be so surprising if it was organizationally planned and ordered?
JUST LIKE the Cardinals organization ordered the deaths of Tavares, Kile, and Hancock. I thought the mafia was located in Kansas City, not St. Louis? It sounds like the Cardinals are from St. Louis but are no saints. In fact, the Cardinals have "St." in front of their city name and the New Orleans Saints put a bounty on opposing players a few years ago. So if the Cardinals are saints like the New Orleans Saints were, what would stop them from intentionally injuring a player like Hanley Ramirez? HOW MUCH WAS THE BOUNTY ON RAMIREZ'S HEAD? WHERE IS MIKE MATHENY TO REFUTE THESE FACTS?
Then there was the curious case of Kershaw, who was mostly untouchable during Cy Young Award-winning seasons in 2013 and 2014, but completely fell apart when facing the Cardinals under pressure each of those years. Same hitters, same situations, same results, consecutive postseason collapses by baseball's best pitcher under very unusual circumstances with absolutely no warning signs.
So the same hitters hit the same pitcher well in two different series, and Bill's takeaway is that the Cardinals were cheating, not that the Cardinals just hit Kershaw well?
In Game 2 of the NLCS against the Cardinals he was just as powerful, allowing no earned runs and two hits in six innings. Nothing indicated what would happen next, when, in Game 6, he allowed seven runs in four innings in a 9-0, series-ending loss. He was so bad, throwing a career-high 48 pitches in the third inning, that it looked as if the Cardinals hitters knew exactly what was coming.
Or it could just be the Cardinals are good hitters who happened to get a lot of hits off Kershaw when he was struggling to get outs.
Turns out, maybe they did. Three of the Cardinals' four run-scoring hits occurred with a Cardinal standing on second base peering into catcher A.J. Ellis' glove.
Stealing signs is not really cheating. It's part of the game. Clayton Kershaw will say this exact thing in a second. So the type of cheating Bill Plaschke is choosing to accuse the Cardinals of isn't even really cheating.
Stealing signs by simply looking at the catcher is part of the game — if you don't like it, change your signs — but who knows if that's all the Cardinals were doing?
Well apparently you know because you are writing an entire column around the premise that because the Cardinals cheated by hacking into the Astros' computer then the Cardinals players were obviously cheating on the field as well. The entire basis of this column is that Plaschke knows the Cardinals were cheating against the Dodgers. He's accusing them of this in this column.
Kershaw was asked Tuesday whether he thought the Cardinals could have used anything against him.
"No," he said,
Then, mostly assuming Kershaw is a part of the conspiracy as well, Plaschke furthers on completely ignoring Kershaw's answer. After all, Kershaw grew up in Texas with Matthew Stafford who plays for the Detroit Lions, which means maybe by saying "no" Kershaw was trying to give the hint to Plaschke that he knew more and was "lyin'" when he claimed the Cardinals weren't cheating? Was this answer of "No" a crime for help from Kershaw? Is Clayton Kershaw next on the hit list for the Cardinals organization? When will his eventual murder take place?
Plus, Kershaw is from Dallas, Texas and the Astros are located in Texas as well. It's entirely possible that Kershaw is a mole for the Cardinals organization.
"I don't know anything but if the FBI's involved, it's a criminal act," he said of the Cardinals. "Stealing pitches isn't a criminal act, it's part of the game."
Of course Clayton Kershaw poo-pooing the idea the Cardinals were cheating won't stop Plaschke from continuing down this road. He already had 250 words written. There's no time to change column topics now.
Then there was Game 4, a 3-2 loss in which Kershaw allowed all three runs in the seventh inning on arguably the most unusual home run of the season. Matt Adams went deep on a Kershaw curveball for the first homer by a left-handed hitter against the pitcher all season.
Didn't Ozzie Smith one time hit a rare home run (rare for him, that is) in the playoffs in a key situation? What are the odds a light-hitting shortstop hits a home run in the playoffs in a key situation without cheating being involved? This brings David Eckstein into question as well. What information did Eckstein have which helped him hit the cover off the ball in the 2006 World Series? Was Eckstein blackballed from MLB by the Cardinals because he knew too much and they didn't have the heart to kill such a scrappy little overachiever?
It was also the first home run by a left-handed hitter on a curveball in Kershaw's seven-year career. And, what a surprise, there was a Cardinal on second base.
I'm pretty sure Clayton Kershawk just clarified that stealing pitches is part of the game, if this even happened. Plaschke is not only making up shit the Cardinals have done in an effort to call them cheaters, but he's also managing to accuse the Cardinals of cheating in situations where some MLB players don't even consider it cheating.
Ellis said Tuesday the team's pitching plan was not kept digitally and would be impossible to steal. He said there was nothing that would make him worry about the Cardinals in the future.
Is this the same A.J. Ellis that is from Missouri? St. Louis is in Missouri! My God, where does this conspiracy end? Kershaw AND Ellis were in on the conspiracy to be moles within the Dodgers organization for the Cardinals? The question has to remain: How many people has A.J. Ellis killed in order to protect his secrets?
But still … were the Dodgers beaten by the Cardinal Way, or the Cardinal Con?
Go away. Please. Do it for the kids.
It might be unfair to reach that conclusion, but it is now fair to ask that question.
No, it is not fair to ask this question now. Members of the Cardinals organization are accused of hacking the Astros' computer system. This doesn't mean the Cardinals players were involved with any type of cheating. As I said earlier, this is like saying because one "LA Times" writer was accused of plagiarism, that every writer at the newspaper was also plagiarizing articles when there is no evidence to support this.
Bill Plaschke has crossed the line from a dopey useless sportswriter who yells things in order to gain attention into a dopey useless sportswriter who unethically accuses a professional organization of cheating when there is no proof this is true.
Thursday, May 21, 2015
5 comments MMQB Review: Peter King and the Case of the Unintelligible GPS Edition
Peter King weighed the pros and cons of the NFL suspending Tom Brady in last week's MMQB. Of course, Peter had no way of knowing the NFL would bring the hammer down on Brady that very day with a four game suspension. Peter was also sad that the Jaguars star rookie Dante Fowler got injured before he could prove he was the star Peter had already labeled him as being and he did a head count of the customers at a new Starbucks. It undoubtedly confused everyone at the establishment as Peter forced everyone to line up on the wall so that he could get a clear picture of how crowded it was. Thankfully, Peter did not stalk any women while running last week. This week Peter talks about how Robert Kraft is mad (though less made since the time Peter wrote this), wants Odell Beckham to earn a video game cover, how the GPS voice is messing with him because he can't listen very well, and congratulates La'el Collins' agents for having such candor in the process of lying. Yes, Peter thinks candor when someone is lying. I'm sure this makes sense to Peter in some way.
Since the football world was stunned by the release of the Ted Wells report 12 days ago and roundhoused by the strong league sanctions last Monday, you haven’t heard much out of the New England camp aside from two scripted statements of indignation and a lawyerly screed about the weak points of the Wells Report.
Other than the detailed response to the report and the two statements where the Patriots stated the Ted Wells report didn't prove anything, they really haven't said much. Just ignore the three separate times over the past week that they did say something and it will seem like they have been suspiciously quiet.
In his first public comments since being hit with the biggest team sanction in the 95-year history of the National Football League, Patriots owner Robert Kraft told The MMQB over the weekend that he is convinced his quarterback, Tom Brady, played no part in any football-deflation scheme before the AFC Championship Game in January.
Wait, the owner of the Patriots thinks that Tom Brady is not guilty of taking part in the deflation scheme? So the guy who has a vested interest in Brady not being a part of the deflation scheme in fact believes Brady was not a part of the scheme? Man, this changes everything.
Asked if Brady had told him he was innocent, Kraft said: “Yes. Because we had the discussion—if you did it, let’s just deal with it and take our hit and move on. I’ve known Tommy 16 years, almost half his life. He’s a man, and he’s always been honest with me, and I trust him. I believed what he told me. He has never lied to me, and I have found no hard or conclusive evidence to the contrary.”
This sounds familiar. I hear this a lot. It's not that little Tommy didn't study hard enough in class or was screwing around and didn't study, it's that the professor didn't give Tommy enough time to study for the test. Plus, he has that special learning disability which requires he not spend too much time focused on one thing so it was wrong for the professor to even expect Tommy to try and pass the test. And no, little Tommy would not smoke pot. He was raised better than that. It was his roommate's pot and I believe little Tommy because he and I have a good relationship.
He is convinced the Wells Report distorted the science to fit a conclusion that doesn’t work. He thinks the league has nothing but what he called “ambiguous circumstantial evidence” on the Patriots.
And really, I imagine Robert Kraft is such an expert on science that he immediately knew the science was distorted. All of this in an effort to give one of the NFL's best and most marketable players a stain on his honesty. It's part of the NFL's new marketing strategy to make their best players look like liars and cheats.
“This whole thing has been very disturbing,” Kraft said.
I agree. It's also been boring and I'm tired of talking about deflated balls. Unfortunately this isn't going away any time soon, especially since the Patriots are fighting the penalties tooth and nail.
“I just get really worked up. To receive the harshest penalty in league history is just not fair. The anger and frustration with this process, to me, it wasn’t fair. If we’re giving all the power to the NFL and the office of the commissioner, this is something that can happen to all 32 teams.
Haha! Oh sure, NOW Robert Kraft doesn't want the commissioner to have all the power that he has. When it comes time to punish NFL players who get in trouble with the law or negotiate a CBA, the owners are fine with Goodell having all the power he needs, but when it's their team who gets dinged by a power-hungry commissioner, all of a sudden Roger Goodell has way too much power. Gee, who gave Goodell all this power?
“If they want to penalize us because there’s an aroma around this? That’s what this feels like. If you don’t have the so-called smoking gun, it really is frustrating. And they don’t have it. This thing never should have risen to this level.”
Let me give my opinion again. I think this is all silly. The NFL does not, so this is where we are right now. I think spying on other teams and placing bounties on players is much worse than deflating footballs. But there is a lot of circumstantial evidence surrounding Brady and the Patriots that there were deflated footballs being used. I'm more concerned about the rumors of communication systems going out for the visiting team during games played at Foxboro than I am about deflated footballs. The bottom line is that Robert Kraft can be angry, but he helped to make Goodell into what he is.
There was much Kraft wouldn’t say, and he was at times curt, which is rare for him.
I understand there are things Kraft wouldn't say, but to believe the NFL has some vast conspiracy to use circumstantial evidence to bring down the Patriots is silly. Sometimes there isn't a smoking gun on things like this. Sometimes there is only a deflated gun.
Kraft is no absentee owner who swooped in to buy an out-of-town franchise. Born in Boston, he’s lived in the area his entire life except for his college years and talks proudly of having attended at least one Patriots game in every one of their 55 seasons. He bought the franchise 21 years ago and oversaw construction of a privately funded stadium finished in 2002. The Patriots have won four world titles under his ownership. You bash Robert Kraft’s franchise, and you bash his family.
OUR OWNER CARES ABOUT HIS TEAM MORE THAN YOUR OWNER DOES! NO ONE DENIES THIS! IT'S UNASSAILABLE!
Asked about his current relationship with commissioner Roger Goodell (which was until two weeks ago warm and convivial), Kraft said: “You’ll have to ask him.” He wouldn’t answer further.
Did he stomp his feet while he said this?
What can not be forgotten during this interview with Robert Kraft is that he has incentive to back Tom Brady and swear by Brady's honesty. It's Brady's legacy, as well as Kraft's legacy that's on the line. So while I believe Kraft believes Brady is honest, they both have incentive to do what they can to protect their name and legacy. After all, the Patriots are Kraft's family.
Asked whether he might violate NFL bylaws by going to court to try to get the league penalties overturned, Kraft said, “I’m not going to comment on that at this point in time. I’m going to leave it. I won’t say.”
I get why Kraft is angry, but a certain part of me thinks the Patriots (and Kraft) just need to accept the punishment is harsh and let it go. That's what they did as I wrote this, so I think this was probably a smart move. It sounds passive to say that, but the owners didn't give a shit about Roger Goodell being harsh and swinging his dick around with power when it benefits them. Once they are on the other end of the dick-swinging (and this reference will stop here, no worries) they don't like it so much. I understand Kraft is angry, but I'm not sure not speaking to Roger Goodell will get him to change his mind on the length of Brady's suspension or the loss of draft picks.
Asked why he suspended club employees John Jastremski and Jim McNally despite fiercely proclaiming his organization’s innocence, Kraft refused comment—for what he claimed were a variety of reasons.
This is an incredibly valid question. When Robert Kraft doesn't answer it then he's not being forthcoming. I understand he feels the Patriots got screwed, but suspending the employees who he claims are innocent is a really odd move. By being secretive on why this move was made, it looks like from an outsider perspective that he suspended them for not keeping their mouth shut or some other nefarious reason.
(As I finished writing this, it turns out the NFL requested these employees be suspended. It's interesting. It's not interesting that the NFL would ask that these employees be suspended but the Patriots not address this is why Jastremski and McNally are suspended. It's not like the Patriots are on good terms with the NFL right now and would feel the need to keep this secret. Even knowing the NFL requested they be suspended, why not acknowledge this? Odd.)
Kraft is on five significant league business committees. He chairs the lucrative broadcast committee, and the NFL is in the midst of contracts worth an estimated $40 billion through 2022 with the networks and DirecTV. Asked if he would remain as active in league affairs as he has been, Kraft said: “I’d rather not get into that for a week or two.”
Kraft may take his deflated ball and go home.
This weekend, the Kraft-Goodell relationship felt like Obama-Putin. The tone of Kraft’s voice made it sound like it’s too early for peace talks.
I think it's interesting that Peter subconsciously put Kraft in the "Obama" role and Goodell in the "Putin" role.
Kraft’s anger is based largely on the fact that he feels the Wells Report chose to highlight some bits of science and ignore others. For instance, there were two gauges to measure the air pressure in footballs in the officials’ locker room before the AFC title game. Referee Walt Anderson couldn’t swear which he used to do the pregame measurements, but his “best recollection” is he used a Wilson-logoed air-pressure gauge to measure the footballs...The average of the Wilson-logoed gauge measurements of the 11 footballs was 11.49 psi, which would put the balls well within range of the predicted halftime pressure. The other gauge measured the balls, on average, at 11.11 psi, which was seen as below the minimum allowed by the Ideal Gas Law and a sign the footballs may have been tampered. But what if Anderson used the Wilson-logoed gauge pregame, and again at halftime, and the balls were in the proper range as predicted by science?
Selfishly, I'm ready to move on from talking about this. The fact the PSI of a ball is being discussed in-depth based on a reading from two separate gauges just is the most boring and inconsequential thing to me. I feel like I'm being punished in still having to hear about deflated footballs. I thought the penalty for the Patriots was steep, but again, the NFL owners created this Goodell monster and backed up him when he needed backing up. It's their monster and Dr. Frankenstein can't sit around and wonder who created it.
“Anderson has a pregame recollection of what gauge he used, and it’s disregarded, and the [Wells] Report just assumes he uses the other gauge,” Kraft said. “Footballs have never been measured at halftime of any other game in NFL history. They have no idea how much footballs go down in cold weather or expand in warm weather. There is just no evidence that tampering with the footballs ever happened.”
Right, there is evidence there was an intent to tamper with the footballs. It's incredibly disrespectful to the public's sense of logic to believe "The Deflator" was a nickname used for anything other than to deflate footballs. The balls may not have been tampered with, but there definitely seems to be an intent to tamper with the footballs.
There is enough evidence that casts the Patriots and Brady in a bad light—the fact that McNally referred to himself as “the Deflator” in a text message; the six phone calls between Brady and Jastremski over three days once the first deflation charges surfaced, after they hadn’t spoken for six months ; the texting between McNally and Jastremski about inflation of footballs.
Somebody was doing something to the inflated levels of footballs and Tom Brady suddenly struck up a relationship again with Jastremski after the charges surfaced. So either this is all one big misunderstanding and Brady picked a bad time to re-start a relationship, or something fishy was going on with the inflated levels of the footballs.
I asked Kraft why he seemed to grudgingly accept the 2007 Spygate sanctions but not these.
“Last time,” said Kraft, “there was no dispute about the facts. The team admittedly said what happened. … It was illegal to videotape [the opposing sidelines], and in the end we admitted it and took our penance. This is very different. In 2007 we did something and acknowledged the fact of what was done. This is an accusation of wrongdoing, without proof.”
As usual when it involves the NFL, if there is no video evidence then there is no other way of proving something is true. It takes video stating, "We see what you did" for the NFL owners, players and executives to actually acknowledge something did occur.
The Patriots have to hope they get some relief from Brady’s appeal to the league office (a longshot), and then must determine if Brady as an individual or Kraft on behalf of the organization goes outside the family to challenge the league ruling. There were indications over the weekend that Kraft was leaning against going rogue and suing the league, but talking to him, it still felt like a fluid situation.
I wouldn't consider "going rogue" to be the same thing as exercising the ability to file a lawsuit against the NFL. Again, I do take a great sense of LOL'ing out of this situation. Everyone hates Roger Goodell at this point.
“How do you think Garoppolo will do, if he has to play?” I asked.
Brilliant question, Peter. Shitty. Robert Kraft thinks Garoppolo will play really, really shitty. That's what I'm absolutely positive the answer is going to be to this question that need not be asked because what else would Robert Kraft say?
“My gut feeling is the same as yours,” Kraft said. “He is a very hard worker, a very fine young man, but until the bullets are flying and you’re out there, no one knows. Think about how many of these first-round picks, even, don’t make it. [Garoppolo was the team’s second-round pick in 2014.] He works hard and he studies hard, though.”
Well, that's still a dumb question, but Kraft basically is like, "I don't know and don't plan to find out." It's a non-answer because Kraft can't fathom how Brady won't be available. I don't take this as a real opinion of Garoppolo's ability, but evidence that Kraft hasn't gotten to the part of processing Tom Brady will be out of action for four games.
“Deep down,” Kraft said, “I would hope that’s an academic question.”
It's probably not. Hey, this is the Roger Goodell that the owners wanted. They wanted a commissioner who was strong, stood for keeping the game of football strong and would keep his foot on the throat of anyone who stepped out of line on or off the field. It's not so much fun now, is it?
The drama in San Francisco, to be sure, will be Kraft and Goodell dueling at 10 paces. Aside from moving the goalposts to the back of the endzone in 1974 and adopting the two-point conversion in 1994, the NFL hasn’t had a significant change in the way it keeps score in its 95 seasons.
I believe what the owners are likely to pass isn’t a perfect plan, but it’s a good starting point—
When I read this, all I hear is "It will be a shitty plan until the owners go back in and fix the shitty plan once it is revealed as shitty."
With a success rate of 99.5 percent for PATs over the past four years, and with the rising number of touchbacks with the kickoff line pushed up five yards recently, the dead spots in games are, well, really dead.
I watched a few touchdowns followed by PATs, TV timeouts and touchbacks over the weekend on NFL Game Rewind, and this is an estimate of how much time there is several times per game when absolutely nothing happens:
PAT—About 55 seconds from the time a touchdown is scored until the time the ref signals for a TV timeout.
TV timeout—There are 20 per game, at 1 minute 50 seconds per timeout.
Touchback following the TV timeout—About 75 seconds from the time the game comes back from commercial to when the offensive team breaks the huddle and approaches the line for first down.
That’s exactly four minutes between plays of substance—the touchdown and the first play on the next series—assuming a PAT and a touchback. That’s a lot of nothing time.
Baseball is dying because it's so slooooooooooooooow. There is just so much standing around. Football is thriving because it's so fast-paced and exciting! The players actually do something when they are on the field.
Pushing the PAT back is the first step in that direction. It may not be enough, but it’s better than the 19-yard gimme that exists now.
Maybe show the owners videotape of why they should move the PAT back. It seems videotape is the only way to convince the owners there is a problem that needs to be corrected.
Then Peter talks about a Fay Vincent op-ed regarding the deflating of footballs by the Patriots. It's Fay Vincent. He and Murray Chass are best friends, so based on that I'm not interested in Fay Vincent's opinion.
“If you live to be a thousand years old, will this make any sense to you? Will it make any godd— sense?!”
—David Letterman, in his memorable post-9/11 monologue, on the frustration and anger over the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.
This is David Letterman’s last week hosting the “Late Show with David Letterman.” His final show is Wednesday. I just thought that was the most memorable thing he’s done—at least in my memory.
It makes me laugh that Peter adds "---at least in my memory" to this thought. Obviously if Peter thinks this is the most memorable thing that David Letterman has done then it's from his memory. It seems like it just goes without saying. If Peter could remember something Letterman did that was more memorable then he would have named that as the most memorable thing.
“Mr. Brady believes he has never turned down [an autograph] request. If receiving an autograph from Mr. Brady is evidence that you are being rewarded by him for nefarious conduct, then hundreds or even thousands of people must be part of a scheme of wrongdoing.”
—Also from the Patriots’ rebuttal
Deep sigh. I think there is more to Brady's involvement than just providing an autograph. The Patriots' rebuttal did more to make them seem desperate and reaching for explanations than if they had just not rebutted the report at all. They made some good points, but the amount of laughable material in the rebuttal made me feel they were just reaching to explain what was really going on.
“I have no comment at this time, and support our troops, and God bless the USA.”
—“Saturday Night Live” cast member Taran Killam on NBC Saturday night, playing Tom Brady, asked repeatedly in an “interview” if he was guilty of any connection with football deflation before the AFC Championship Game.
In other words, the satire on Brady rarely answering hard, direct questions was in full bloom on the TV show.
Tom Brady doesn't have to answer hard, direct questions if he doesn't want to. That's his right. He talked with Ted Wells and has received his punishment. He's done all he is required to do. The Patriots are doing a good enough job of trying to rebut the report without Tom Brady holding a press conference and announcing that he didn't do anything wrong. Every controversy like this doesn't have to be a public spectacle.
But will the NFL really be fixing the PAT if part of the new solution is pushing the kicking point to the 15-yard-line, meaning the PAT attempt on a kick would be from the 32 or 33? It does not seem so. Longtime Pittsburgh TV anchor and commentator John Steigerwald forwarded these numbers to me, and they’re interesting.
NFL kickers make about 99.5% of their extra points from the current distance. From 30 to 39 yards they make 90.1% of the extra point attempts. That's still a high percentage, but I wouldn't at all say it's "only slightly" bigger than 99.5% . If Peter took a 9% pay cut then I doubt he would consider this to be a "slight" pay cut. The same principle applies here. 90.1% is still a high percentage of field goal makes, but it's not "only slightly" a lower percentage than 99.5%. That 9% decrease in field goal makes isn't slight.
My first reaction at Odell Beckham Jr. being named to the cover of the new Madden video game: The guy’s played 12 NFL games, zero in the playoffs. Could we please let him earn it first?
It's a video game cover. Why should Beckham Jr. have to earn a video game cover? Who cares? Peyton Hillis was on the cover of Madden. He had one season during his career where he exceeded 600 yards rushing. He did about as much as Beckham Jr. has done to earn the cover.
If the Madden game is about not just what you’ve done but what you’re about to do—and clearly the marketing of this game is about the exciting young player staying hot—then Beckham might be the easiest choice in the league. He enters the 2015 season on fire.
So what's the point? I don't think I understand the point Peter is wanting to make here. If his point is that video games are about entertainment and the cover of Madden isn't a testament to a player's career achievements...then yeah, it's pretty obvious. It's a video game.
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
I kept wondering what the GPS in my car was trying to say over the weekend as we left New York City headed for my nephew’s college graduation dinner in Baltimore.
It was probably saying that you should know where you are going and don't completely rely on GPS to get you where you want to go in an area you aren't familiar with. I'm kidding of course, Peter's GPS was most likely signaling to other GPS in the area to put it out of it's misery so it doesn't have to continue to lead this sad existence of having Peter constantly spill coffee on it.
You know how the female voice in those GPS systems can mispronounce with the best of them?
Yes, I hate how the computer voices don't pronounce words properly. #privilegedamericancomplaintsfromtheyear2015
Well, as we drove onto the New Jersey Turnpike and headed south, the voice said, Merge left and head south toward Carsley, or something like that.
The audacity of this computer voice. Peter has no idea where he's going and this is the best the computer voice can do? Unacceptable. What is Peter supposed to do? Accept responsibility for knowing where he is going? That's not his job.
A mile or so later, the voice said, Merge left and head south toward Carsonley.
There is no Carsonley. Now I was getting confused.
I have an idea, and this comes from someone who is terrible with directions, since you know that you have to merge left, how about you merge left and look for something that sounds like "Carsonley." Obviously you need to merge left and I doubt there are two places that sound nearly the exact same such a short distance from each other. Merge left. Who cares what towards, it will make sense eventually, but just merge left for now.
Here came the sign, as we approached the lovely area of the Turnpike north of Newark Airport, for the highway that was about to split in two going south. On the left-hand side of the road, the New Jersey Turnpike south, it read:
CARS ONLY
Well, now you know. I do hate it when a GPS gives the correct directions, but mispronounces words though. It's like, why do you even exist if you can't pronounce words correctly? Go kill yourself and Peter will find another GPS that takes on the responsibility of figuring out where the hell he is supposed to be driving, because it is NOT Peter's job to know where he's driving to. It's your job, computer voice on the GPS that didn't give inaccurate directions.
Ten Things I Think I Think
1. I think the candor of the representatives of La’el Collins—now—is to be applauded in the wake of Collins going undrafted and then signing as a free agent with Dallas.
Yes, let's applaud the candor of Collins' representatives. They were so candid AFTER they lied. This apparently impresses the hell out of Peter.
Robert Klemko of The MMQB
Peter really doesn't have to mention who Robert Klemko works for. It's known at this point.
Most of us in the media business, I think, believed it was a bluff when agent Mike McCartney warned teams not to draft Collins, who was wanted for questioning in a murder case the week of the draft, and later questioned without being detained by police in Louisiana. Had he been drafted, McCartney told teams, Collins would have sat out the year and re-entered the draft in 2016. So no team drafted Collins, and McCartney and his agency, Priority Sports, got their way. By not being drafted, Collins got to pick where he wanted to play, and he chose Dallas, where he could be a luxury piece on what could be the best line in football.
Apparently La'el Collins is a future Hall of Famer. I learned this after the draft was over and NFL teams were recruiting him to play for their team. I thought he was a first round draft pick who appears to be very talented yet unproven in the NFL, but little did I know how popular he would end up being.
“We can put it on the record now,” McCartney told Klemko. “We were never going back in the draft. If someone had drafted him, we would’ve had a long, long discussion about it, but at the end of the day you can’t go back in the draft. He could get injured, gain weight, or 10 great tackles could come out. Too many risks.”
THANKS FOR YOUR CANDOR IN INITIALLY LYING BUT TELLING THE TRUTH NOW!
Peter King also appreciates Pete Rose's candor. He told the truth about gambling on baseball. What candor! Rose didn't admit to gambling on the Reds while he was the manager, but I'm sure that revelation is for the next book he's writing. He's gotta milk the revelations over time for maximum income potential.
Does it really count as being candid if Collins' representatives continued lying and eventually told the truth? Didn't his representatives just lie until they decided to tell the truth? It's how I see it at least. They insisted for negotiating reasons that Collins would re-enter the draft if a team drafted him, but after the draft was over and he signed with the Cowboys, they said they were probably lying about that. As I said last week, Peter King must be a great father to have if he thinks lying and then eventually telling the truth is being candid.
2. I think for those who say: Whoa—McCartney was lying. You’re defending lying? Not necessarily. McCartney’s most important job was protecting his client, and putting Collins in the best place possible for 2015, 2016 and beyond after an unprecedented event before a draft.
They absolutely did a great job. There's no doubt about that. But they didn't display candor until they had nothing to lose by being candid. That in itself sort of ruins the point of applauding McCartney for being candid. Why applaud him for telling the truth once he felt it wouldn't hurt him to be candid?
Peter King is an odd person to think the candor should be applauded in this situation. The job McCartney did should be applauded, but he wasn't exactly honest.
And there was no guarantee that McCartney, in the end, wouldn’t do what he said. If Collins got picked by a cold-weather team, maybe he’d have told McCartney to just forget it, and he’d go back in the draft pool next year.
I can see why Peter had trouble with the GPS. It seems that he has difficulty reading AND listening. the exact quote from McCartney:
“We were never going back in the draft. If someone had drafted him, we would’ve had a long, long discussion about it, but at the end of the day you can’t go back in the draft.
I'm trying to figure out in that quote where Peter gets the indication that Collins would have gone back to the draft. Is there room for flip flopping in the use of the term "never" when it comes to going back into the draft? It seems to me like Collins would never have gone back into the draft and there seems to be a pretty strong guarantee that McCartney wasn't going to do what he said. Mostly because he said he wasn't going to do what he said. No wonder that GPS kicked Peter's ass, his listening and reading comprehension skills seem to be struggling.
6. I think it hit me the other day, doing a little research on running backs and the draft in recent years for a Todd Gurley story I’m working on. The draft is a crapshoot, period.
Peter King just realized the NFL draft is a crapshoot. By the way, he's one of the most respected and well-known NFL sportswriters. Not that this should concern anyone that Peter King has been covering the NFL for almost 30 years and just realized the draft is a crapshoot. Apparently it took the Rams drafting a running back for Peter to finally realize this. See, even though he hasn't won a playoff game in a decade, is overpaid for his record with the Rams and has never lived up to his perceived reputation, Jeff Fisher does serve a purpose to society!
But the running back position is the crapshootiest of all positions, at least lately. Some of the backs picked in the top two rounds since 2009: Christine Michael, Montee Ball, Trent Richardson, David Wilson (injured, I know), Isaiah Pead, LaMichael James, Mikel Leshoure, Daniel Thomas, Jahvid Best, Ben Tate, Montario Hardesty, Beanie Wells. Between 2009 and 2013, 26 backs got picked in the first two rounds, and half of them are current flameouts.
I'm not going to do research on this due to time constraints (plus, I feel like my gut is correct), but my gut instinct is that the running back position does not have the highest percentage of flameouts drafted in the first two rounds since 2009. I'm simply glad that Peter finally realized the draft is a crapshoot and am amazed he at any point felt otherwise.
7. I think the underrated acquisition of the offseason could well be Dennis Allen re-joining the Saints as the assistant to defensive coordinator Rob Ryan. Sean Payton loves Allen, who always has been good at taking unaderachievers (such as last year’s disappointing second-round cornerback, Stanley Jean-Baptiste) and making them contributors. Looking forward to seeing the New Orleans secondary be more aggressive and efficient with Allen’s help.
Plus, the Saints then have an obvious person to take the place of Rob Ryan if the Saints defense starts off the season struggling. But a Rob Ryan defense would never struggle would it? He's Rob Ryan, defensive coordinator extraordinaire.
9. I think you can add Oakland coach Jack Del Rio to the chorus of those who felt the NFL’s sanction of the Patriots “was a little bit overdone.” It get curiouser and curiouser.
Jack Del Rio is the head coach of an NFL team, an NFL team that could one day face sanctions from Roger Goodell for doing something that Goodell didn't like. That colors his thinking. The players think the sanctions were a bit much too, because they don't like Roger Goodell. NFL teams are afraid Goodell could come down hard on them in the future, and those who don't agree the sanctions are heavy-handed are probably not going to speak up at this point for a variety of reasons (their owner wants them to stay quiet, respect for Brady, etc), so it makes sense for everyone to gang up on Goodell. It doesn't mean the sanctions were fair or unfair, but this quote from Del Rio is more evidence that Roger Goodell is not popular these days and has become very open criticism.
10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:
d. Great front page of Mississippi’s Jackson Clarion-Ledger on Saturday—B.B. KING: “The thrill is gone.” That’s the entire front page, with a gigantic broadsheet photo of King, who died Thursday from Type 2 diabetes at 89. Imagine: still performing at age 89. That’s what King was doing.
And I bet Peter knew two songs by B.B. King, "The Thrill is Gone" and "When Love Comes to Town" by that jokester band, U2 and King. He can eulogize B.B. King all he wants of course, but I'm betting the collaboration with U2 makes up the majority of Peter's knowledge of B.B. King.
e. The most amazing factoid in the wake of the horrible Amtrak crash near Philadelphia that killed eight commuters last week: The track and infrastructure on the northeast corridor train route that still transports thousands of people a day is up to 150 years old. Not all of it, of course. But some. Which means it was laid or built, in part, right around the time of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
So Peter is saying these parts of the track are holding up well for their age? Or is Peter saying that Amtrak deserves more funding? I'd love to know where political expert Peter King wants to come up with these funds to take care of the backlog of repairs for a train service that consistently loses money. Peter doesn't know. It's like his screeds against guns and most of his other political observations. Peter hates guns and that's all he knows. Amtrak needs money to update their tracks and that's all Peter knows or cares about.
g. The St. Louis Cardinals are apace to draw 3.5 million fans for second straight year. What a franchise. What a baseball town.
They play the game the right way there. That's all I know.
l. Paul Pierce is absurd. Steph Curry is absurder.
I can't believe Peter didn't include, "I don't watch the NBA much" prior to making this comment. It's tradition that he make an observation about the NBA immediately after pointing out how much he hates NBA basketball.
p. Steve Kerr’s agent, remember, was Mike Tannenbaum. Yes, that Mike Tannenbaum, before he took the job heading up the Miami Dolphins’ front office.
It would be impossible for me to forget this since it was brought up repeatedly before, during and after Kerr was negotiating with the Knicks and Warriors to be their head coach.
r. Column note: I will be away next Monday, and Greg Bedard will be filling in for me in this space. My daughter Laura is getting married Saturday afternoon in California.
Oh, that should be fun. Maybe Greg Bedard writes stupid shit and I can mock him too. I'll have to read the MMQB and see if it's worth the time.
Kings are coming from as far away as Spain and England, from New York and Connecticut. I’ll be back June 1.
But not B.B. King, because he's dead. Maybe King should have left money for Amtrak to fix parts of the rail system in his will. Peter would posthumously love him then. The thrill would be back.
The Adieu Haiku
In San Fran this week,
if you see Bob Kraft, tell me
if his eyes shoot darts.
Worthless. I hope Bedard doesn't include a haiku next week. Just worthless.
Since the football world was stunned by the release of the Ted Wells report 12 days ago and roundhoused by the strong league sanctions last Monday, you haven’t heard much out of the New England camp aside from two scripted statements of indignation and a lawyerly screed about the weak points of the Wells Report.
Other than the detailed response to the report and the two statements where the Patriots stated the Ted Wells report didn't prove anything, they really haven't said much. Just ignore the three separate times over the past week that they did say something and it will seem like they have been suspiciously quiet.
In his first public comments since being hit with the biggest team sanction in the 95-year history of the National Football League, Patriots owner Robert Kraft told The MMQB over the weekend that he is convinced his quarterback, Tom Brady, played no part in any football-deflation scheme before the AFC Championship Game in January.
Wait, the owner of the Patriots thinks that Tom Brady is not guilty of taking part in the deflation scheme? So the guy who has a vested interest in Brady not being a part of the deflation scheme in fact believes Brady was not a part of the scheme? Man, this changes everything.
Asked if Brady had told him he was innocent, Kraft said: “Yes. Because we had the discussion—if you did it, let’s just deal with it and take our hit and move on. I’ve known Tommy 16 years, almost half his life. He’s a man, and he’s always been honest with me, and I trust him. I believed what he told me. He has never lied to me, and I have found no hard or conclusive evidence to the contrary.”
This sounds familiar. I hear this a lot. It's not that little Tommy didn't study hard enough in class or was screwing around and didn't study, it's that the professor didn't give Tommy enough time to study for the test. Plus, he has that special learning disability which requires he not spend too much time focused on one thing so it was wrong for the professor to even expect Tommy to try and pass the test. And no, little Tommy would not smoke pot. He was raised better than that. It was his roommate's pot and I believe little Tommy because he and I have a good relationship.
He is convinced the Wells Report distorted the science to fit a conclusion that doesn’t work. He thinks the league has nothing but what he called “ambiguous circumstantial evidence” on the Patriots.
And really, I imagine Robert Kraft is such an expert on science that he immediately knew the science was distorted. All of this in an effort to give one of the NFL's best and most marketable players a stain on his honesty. It's part of the NFL's new marketing strategy to make their best players look like liars and cheats.
“This whole thing has been very disturbing,” Kraft said.
I agree. It's also been boring and I'm tired of talking about deflated balls. Unfortunately this isn't going away any time soon, especially since the Patriots are fighting the penalties tooth and nail.
“I just get really worked up. To receive the harshest penalty in league history is just not fair. The anger and frustration with this process, to me, it wasn’t fair. If we’re giving all the power to the NFL and the office of the commissioner, this is something that can happen to all 32 teams.
Haha! Oh sure, NOW Robert Kraft doesn't want the commissioner to have all the power that he has. When it comes time to punish NFL players who get in trouble with the law or negotiate a CBA, the owners are fine with Goodell having all the power he needs, but when it's their team who gets dinged by a power-hungry commissioner, all of a sudden Roger Goodell has way too much power. Gee, who gave Goodell all this power?
“If they want to penalize us because there’s an aroma around this? That’s what this feels like. If you don’t have the so-called smoking gun, it really is frustrating. And they don’t have it. This thing never should have risen to this level.”
Let me give my opinion again. I think this is all silly. The NFL does not, so this is where we are right now. I think spying on other teams and placing bounties on players is much worse than deflating footballs. But there is a lot of circumstantial evidence surrounding Brady and the Patriots that there were deflated footballs being used. I'm more concerned about the rumors of communication systems going out for the visiting team during games played at Foxboro than I am about deflated footballs. The bottom line is that Robert Kraft can be angry, but he helped to make Goodell into what he is.
There was much Kraft wouldn’t say, and he was at times curt, which is rare for him.
I understand there are things Kraft wouldn't say, but to believe the NFL has some vast conspiracy to use circumstantial evidence to bring down the Patriots is silly. Sometimes there isn't a smoking gun on things like this. Sometimes there is only a deflated gun.
Kraft is no absentee owner who swooped in to buy an out-of-town franchise. Born in Boston, he’s lived in the area his entire life except for his college years and talks proudly of having attended at least one Patriots game in every one of their 55 seasons. He bought the franchise 21 years ago and oversaw construction of a privately funded stadium finished in 2002. The Patriots have won four world titles under his ownership. You bash Robert Kraft’s franchise, and you bash his family.
OUR OWNER CARES ABOUT HIS TEAM MORE THAN YOUR OWNER DOES! NO ONE DENIES THIS! IT'S UNASSAILABLE!
Asked about his current relationship with commissioner Roger Goodell (which was until two weeks ago warm and convivial), Kraft said: “You’ll have to ask him.” He wouldn’t answer further.
Did he stomp his feet while he said this?
What can not be forgotten during this interview with Robert Kraft is that he has incentive to back Tom Brady and swear by Brady's honesty. It's Brady's legacy, as well as Kraft's legacy that's on the line. So while I believe Kraft believes Brady is honest, they both have incentive to do what they can to protect their name and legacy. After all, the Patriots are Kraft's family.
Asked whether he might violate NFL bylaws by going to court to try to get the league penalties overturned, Kraft said, “I’m not going to comment on that at this point in time. I’m going to leave it. I won’t say.”
I get why Kraft is angry, but a certain part of me thinks the Patriots (and Kraft) just need to accept the punishment is harsh and let it go. That's what they did as I wrote this, so I think this was probably a smart move. It sounds passive to say that, but the owners didn't give a shit about Roger Goodell being harsh and swinging his dick around with power when it benefits them. Once they are on the other end of the dick-swinging (and this reference will stop here, no worries) they don't like it so much. I understand Kraft is angry, but I'm not sure not speaking to Roger Goodell will get him to change his mind on the length of Brady's suspension or the loss of draft picks.
Asked why he suspended club employees John Jastremski and Jim McNally despite fiercely proclaiming his organization’s innocence, Kraft refused comment—for what he claimed were a variety of reasons.
This is an incredibly valid question. When Robert Kraft doesn't answer it then he's not being forthcoming. I understand he feels the Patriots got screwed, but suspending the employees who he claims are innocent is a really odd move. By being secretive on why this move was made, it looks like from an outsider perspective that he suspended them for not keeping their mouth shut or some other nefarious reason.
(As I finished writing this, it turns out the NFL requested these employees be suspended. It's interesting. It's not interesting that the NFL would ask that these employees be suspended but the Patriots not address this is why Jastremski and McNally are suspended. It's not like the Patriots are on good terms with the NFL right now and would feel the need to keep this secret. Even knowing the NFL requested they be suspended, why not acknowledge this? Odd.)
Kraft is on five significant league business committees. He chairs the lucrative broadcast committee, and the NFL is in the midst of contracts worth an estimated $40 billion through 2022 with the networks and DirecTV. Asked if he would remain as active in league affairs as he has been, Kraft said: “I’d rather not get into that for a week or two.”
Kraft may take his deflated ball and go home.
This weekend, the Kraft-Goodell relationship felt like Obama-Putin. The tone of Kraft’s voice made it sound like it’s too early for peace talks.
I think it's interesting that Peter subconsciously put Kraft in the "Obama" role and Goodell in the "Putin" role.
Kraft’s anger is based largely on the fact that he feels the Wells Report chose to highlight some bits of science and ignore others. For instance, there were two gauges to measure the air pressure in footballs in the officials’ locker room before the AFC title game. Referee Walt Anderson couldn’t swear which he used to do the pregame measurements, but his “best recollection” is he used a Wilson-logoed air-pressure gauge to measure the footballs...The average of the Wilson-logoed gauge measurements of the 11 footballs was 11.49 psi, which would put the balls well within range of the predicted halftime pressure. The other gauge measured the balls, on average, at 11.11 psi, which was seen as below the minimum allowed by the Ideal Gas Law and a sign the footballs may have been tampered. But what if Anderson used the Wilson-logoed gauge pregame, and again at halftime, and the balls were in the proper range as predicted by science?
Selfishly, I'm ready to move on from talking about this. The fact the PSI of a ball is being discussed in-depth based on a reading from two separate gauges just is the most boring and inconsequential thing to me. I feel like I'm being punished in still having to hear about deflated footballs. I thought the penalty for the Patriots was steep, but again, the NFL owners created this Goodell monster and backed up him when he needed backing up. It's their monster and Dr. Frankenstein can't sit around and wonder who created it.
“Anderson has a pregame recollection of what gauge he used, and it’s disregarded, and the [Wells] Report just assumes he uses the other gauge,” Kraft said. “Footballs have never been measured at halftime of any other game in NFL history. They have no idea how much footballs go down in cold weather or expand in warm weather. There is just no evidence that tampering with the footballs ever happened.”
Right, there is evidence there was an intent to tamper with the footballs. It's incredibly disrespectful to the public's sense of logic to believe "The Deflator" was a nickname used for anything other than to deflate footballs. The balls may not have been tampered with, but there definitely seems to be an intent to tamper with the footballs.
There is enough evidence that casts the Patriots and Brady in a bad light—the fact that McNally referred to himself as “the Deflator” in a text message; the six phone calls between Brady and Jastremski over three days once the first deflation charges surfaced, after they hadn’t spoken for six months ; the texting between McNally and Jastremski about inflation of footballs.
Somebody was doing something to the inflated levels of footballs and Tom Brady suddenly struck up a relationship again with Jastremski after the charges surfaced. So either this is all one big misunderstanding and Brady picked a bad time to re-start a relationship, or something fishy was going on with the inflated levels of the footballs.
I asked Kraft why he seemed to grudgingly accept the 2007 Spygate sanctions but not these.
“Last time,” said Kraft, “there was no dispute about the facts. The team admittedly said what happened. … It was illegal to videotape [the opposing sidelines], and in the end we admitted it and took our penance. This is very different. In 2007 we did something and acknowledged the fact of what was done. This is an accusation of wrongdoing, without proof.”
As usual when it involves the NFL, if there is no video evidence then there is no other way of proving something is true. It takes video stating, "We see what you did" for the NFL owners, players and executives to actually acknowledge something did occur.
The Patriots have to hope they get some relief from Brady’s appeal to the league office (a longshot), and then must determine if Brady as an individual or Kraft on behalf of the organization goes outside the family to challenge the league ruling. There were indications over the weekend that Kraft was leaning against going rogue and suing the league, but talking to him, it still felt like a fluid situation.
I wouldn't consider "going rogue" to be the same thing as exercising the ability to file a lawsuit against the NFL. Again, I do take a great sense of LOL'ing out of this situation. Everyone hates Roger Goodell at this point.
“How do you think Garoppolo will do, if he has to play?” I asked.
Brilliant question, Peter. Shitty. Robert Kraft thinks Garoppolo will play really, really shitty. That's what I'm absolutely positive the answer is going to be to this question that need not be asked because what else would Robert Kraft say?
“My gut feeling is the same as yours,” Kraft said. “He is a very hard worker, a very fine young man, but until the bullets are flying and you’re out there, no one knows. Think about how many of these first-round picks, even, don’t make it. [Garoppolo was the team’s second-round pick in 2014.] He works hard and he studies hard, though.”
Well, that's still a dumb question, but Kraft basically is like, "I don't know and don't plan to find out." It's a non-answer because Kraft can't fathom how Brady won't be available. I don't take this as a real opinion of Garoppolo's ability, but evidence that Kraft hasn't gotten to the part of processing Tom Brady will be out of action for four games.
“Deep down,” Kraft said, “I would hope that’s an academic question.”
It's probably not. Hey, this is the Roger Goodell that the owners wanted. They wanted a commissioner who was strong, stood for keeping the game of football strong and would keep his foot on the throat of anyone who stepped out of line on or off the field. It's not so much fun now, is it?
The drama in San Francisco, to be sure, will be Kraft and Goodell dueling at 10 paces. Aside from moving the goalposts to the back of the endzone in 1974 and adopting the two-point conversion in 1994, the NFL hasn’t had a significant change in the way it keeps score in its 95 seasons.
I believe what the owners are likely to pass isn’t a perfect plan, but it’s a good starting point—
When I read this, all I hear is "It will be a shitty plan until the owners go back in and fix the shitty plan once it is revealed as shitty."
With a success rate of 99.5 percent for PATs over the past four years, and with the rising number of touchbacks with the kickoff line pushed up five yards recently, the dead spots in games are, well, really dead.
I watched a few touchdowns followed by PATs, TV timeouts and touchbacks over the weekend on NFL Game Rewind, and this is an estimate of how much time there is several times per game when absolutely nothing happens:
PAT—About 55 seconds from the time a touchdown is scored until the time the ref signals for a TV timeout.
TV timeout—There are 20 per game, at 1 minute 50 seconds per timeout.
Touchback following the TV timeout—About 75 seconds from the time the game comes back from commercial to when the offensive team breaks the huddle and approaches the line for first down.
That’s exactly four minutes between plays of substance—the touchdown and the first play on the next series—assuming a PAT and a touchback. That’s a lot of nothing time.
Baseball is dying because it's so slooooooooooooooow. There is just so much standing around. Football is thriving because it's so fast-paced and exciting! The players actually do something when they are on the field.
Pushing the PAT back is the first step in that direction. It may not be enough, but it’s better than the 19-yard gimme that exists now.
Maybe show the owners videotape of why they should move the PAT back. It seems videotape is the only way to convince the owners there is a problem that needs to be corrected.
Then Peter talks about a Fay Vincent op-ed regarding the deflating of footballs by the Patriots. It's Fay Vincent. He and Murray Chass are best friends, so based on that I'm not interested in Fay Vincent's opinion.
“If you live to be a thousand years old, will this make any sense to you? Will it make any godd— sense?!”
—David Letterman, in his memorable post-9/11 monologue, on the frustration and anger over the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.
This is David Letterman’s last week hosting the “Late Show with David Letterman.” His final show is Wednesday. I just thought that was the most memorable thing he’s done—at least in my memory.
It makes me laugh that Peter adds "---at least in my memory" to this thought. Obviously if Peter thinks this is the most memorable thing that David Letterman has done then it's from his memory. It seems like it just goes without saying. If Peter could remember something Letterman did that was more memorable then he would have named that as the most memorable thing.
“Mr. Brady believes he has never turned down [an autograph] request. If receiving an autograph from Mr. Brady is evidence that you are being rewarded by him for nefarious conduct, then hundreds or even thousands of people must be part of a scheme of wrongdoing.”
—Also from the Patriots’ rebuttal
Deep sigh. I think there is more to Brady's involvement than just providing an autograph. The Patriots' rebuttal did more to make them seem desperate and reaching for explanations than if they had just not rebutted the report at all. They made some good points, but the amount of laughable material in the rebuttal made me feel they were just reaching to explain what was really going on.
“I have no comment at this time, and support our troops, and God bless the USA.”
—“Saturday Night Live” cast member Taran Killam on NBC Saturday night, playing Tom Brady, asked repeatedly in an “interview” if he was guilty of any connection with football deflation before the AFC Championship Game.
In other words, the satire on Brady rarely answering hard, direct questions was in full bloom on the TV show.
Tom Brady doesn't have to answer hard, direct questions if he doesn't want to. That's his right. He talked with Ted Wells and has received his punishment. He's done all he is required to do. The Patriots are doing a good enough job of trying to rebut the report without Tom Brady holding a press conference and announcing that he didn't do anything wrong. Every controversy like this doesn't have to be a public spectacle.
But will the NFL really be fixing the PAT if part of the new solution is pushing the kicking point to the 15-yard-line, meaning the PAT attempt on a kick would be from the 32 or 33? It does not seem so. Longtime Pittsburgh TV anchor and commentator John Steigerwald forwarded these numbers to me, and they’re interesting.
2014 NFL Field Goal Accuracy, 30- to 39-yard attempts
Field goals made: 272.
Field goal attempted: 302.
Field goal percentage from 30 to 39 yards: 90.1 percent.
NFL kickers make more than 99 percent of extra points—on average, over the past three seasons—and so the percentage is going to go down if the scrimmage line is moved back 13 yards. But as Steigerwald points out, only slightly.Field goals made: 272.
Field goal attempted: 302.
Field goal percentage from 30 to 39 yards: 90.1 percent.
NFL kickers make about 99.5% of their extra points from the current distance. From 30 to 39 yards they make 90.1% of the extra point attempts. That's still a high percentage, but I wouldn't at all say it's "only slightly" bigger than 99.5% . If Peter took a 9% pay cut then I doubt he would consider this to be a "slight" pay cut. The same principle applies here. 90.1% is still a high percentage of field goal makes, but it's not "only slightly" a lower percentage than 99.5%. That 9% decrease in field goal makes isn't slight.
My first reaction at Odell Beckham Jr. being named to the cover of the new Madden video game: The guy’s played 12 NFL games, zero in the playoffs. Could we please let him earn it first?
It's a video game cover. Why should Beckham Jr. have to earn a video game cover? Who cares? Peyton Hillis was on the cover of Madden. He had one season during his career where he exceeded 600 yards rushing. He did about as much as Beckham Jr. has done to earn the cover.
If the Madden game is about not just what you’ve done but what you’re about to do—and clearly the marketing of this game is about the exciting young player staying hot—then Beckham might be the easiest choice in the league. He enters the 2015 season on fire.
So what's the point? I don't think I understand the point Peter is wanting to make here. If his point is that video games are about entertainment and the cover of Madden isn't a testament to a player's career achievements...then yeah, it's pretty obvious. It's a video game.
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
I kept wondering what the GPS in my car was trying to say over the weekend as we left New York City headed for my nephew’s college graduation dinner in Baltimore.
It was probably saying that you should know where you are going and don't completely rely on GPS to get you where you want to go in an area you aren't familiar with. I'm kidding of course, Peter's GPS was most likely signaling to other GPS in the area to put it out of it's misery so it doesn't have to continue to lead this sad existence of having Peter constantly spill coffee on it.
You know how the female voice in those GPS systems can mispronounce with the best of them?
Yes, I hate how the computer voices don't pronounce words properly. #privilegedamericancomplaintsfromtheyear2015
Well, as we drove onto the New Jersey Turnpike and headed south, the voice said, Merge left and head south toward Carsley, or something like that.
The audacity of this computer voice. Peter has no idea where he's going and this is the best the computer voice can do? Unacceptable. What is Peter supposed to do? Accept responsibility for knowing where he is going? That's not his job.
A mile or so later, the voice said, Merge left and head south toward Carsonley.
There is no Carsonley. Now I was getting confused.
I have an idea, and this comes from someone who is terrible with directions, since you know that you have to merge left, how about you merge left and look for something that sounds like "Carsonley." Obviously you need to merge left and I doubt there are two places that sound nearly the exact same such a short distance from each other. Merge left. Who cares what towards, it will make sense eventually, but just merge left for now.
Here came the sign, as we approached the lovely area of the Turnpike north of Newark Airport, for the highway that was about to split in two going south. On the left-hand side of the road, the New Jersey Turnpike south, it read:
CARS ONLY
Well, now you know. I do hate it when a GPS gives the correct directions, but mispronounces words though. It's like, why do you even exist if you can't pronounce words correctly? Go kill yourself and Peter will find another GPS that takes on the responsibility of figuring out where the hell he is supposed to be driving, because it is NOT Peter's job to know where he's driving to. It's your job, computer voice on the GPS that didn't give inaccurate directions.
Ten Things I Think I Think
1. I think the candor of the representatives of La’el Collins—now—is to be applauded in the wake of Collins going undrafted and then signing as a free agent with Dallas.
Yes, let's applaud the candor of Collins' representatives. They were so candid AFTER they lied. This apparently impresses the hell out of Peter.
Robert Klemko of The MMQB
Peter really doesn't have to mention who Robert Klemko works for. It's known at this point.
Most of us in the media business, I think, believed it was a bluff when agent Mike McCartney warned teams not to draft Collins, who was wanted for questioning in a murder case the week of the draft, and later questioned without being detained by police in Louisiana. Had he been drafted, McCartney told teams, Collins would have sat out the year and re-entered the draft in 2016. So no team drafted Collins, and McCartney and his agency, Priority Sports, got their way. By not being drafted, Collins got to pick where he wanted to play, and he chose Dallas, where he could be a luxury piece on what could be the best line in football.
Apparently La'el Collins is a future Hall of Famer. I learned this after the draft was over and NFL teams were recruiting him to play for their team. I thought he was a first round draft pick who appears to be very talented yet unproven in the NFL, but little did I know how popular he would end up being.
“We can put it on the record now,” McCartney told Klemko. “We were never going back in the draft. If someone had drafted him, we would’ve had a long, long discussion about it, but at the end of the day you can’t go back in the draft. He could get injured, gain weight, or 10 great tackles could come out. Too many risks.”
THANKS FOR YOUR CANDOR IN INITIALLY LYING BUT TELLING THE TRUTH NOW!
Peter King also appreciates Pete Rose's candor. He told the truth about gambling on baseball. What candor! Rose didn't admit to gambling on the Reds while he was the manager, but I'm sure that revelation is for the next book he's writing. He's gotta milk the revelations over time for maximum income potential.
Does it really count as being candid if Collins' representatives continued lying and eventually told the truth? Didn't his representatives just lie until they decided to tell the truth? It's how I see it at least. They insisted for negotiating reasons that Collins would re-enter the draft if a team drafted him, but after the draft was over and he signed with the Cowboys, they said they were probably lying about that. As I said last week, Peter King must be a great father to have if he thinks lying and then eventually telling the truth is being candid.
2. I think for those who say: Whoa—McCartney was lying. You’re defending lying? Not necessarily. McCartney’s most important job was protecting his client, and putting Collins in the best place possible for 2015, 2016 and beyond after an unprecedented event before a draft.
They absolutely did a great job. There's no doubt about that. But they didn't display candor until they had nothing to lose by being candid. That in itself sort of ruins the point of applauding McCartney for being candid. Why applaud him for telling the truth once he felt it wouldn't hurt him to be candid?
Peter King is an odd person to think the candor should be applauded in this situation. The job McCartney did should be applauded, but he wasn't exactly honest.
And there was no guarantee that McCartney, in the end, wouldn’t do what he said. If Collins got picked by a cold-weather team, maybe he’d have told McCartney to just forget it, and he’d go back in the draft pool next year.
I can see why Peter had trouble with the GPS. It seems that he has difficulty reading AND listening. the exact quote from McCartney:
“We were never going back in the draft. If someone had drafted him, we would’ve had a long, long discussion about it, but at the end of the day you can’t go back in the draft.
I'm trying to figure out in that quote where Peter gets the indication that Collins would have gone back to the draft. Is there room for flip flopping in the use of the term "never" when it comes to going back into the draft? It seems to me like Collins would never have gone back into the draft and there seems to be a pretty strong guarantee that McCartney wasn't going to do what he said. Mostly because he said he wasn't going to do what he said. No wonder that GPS kicked Peter's ass, his listening and reading comprehension skills seem to be struggling.
6. I think it hit me the other day, doing a little research on running backs and the draft in recent years for a Todd Gurley story I’m working on. The draft is a crapshoot, period.
Peter King just realized the NFL draft is a crapshoot. By the way, he's one of the most respected and well-known NFL sportswriters. Not that this should concern anyone that Peter King has been covering the NFL for almost 30 years and just realized the draft is a crapshoot. Apparently it took the Rams drafting a running back for Peter to finally realize this. See, even though he hasn't won a playoff game in a decade, is overpaid for his record with the Rams and has never lived up to his perceived reputation, Jeff Fisher does serve a purpose to society!
But the running back position is the crapshootiest of all positions, at least lately. Some of the backs picked in the top two rounds since 2009: Christine Michael, Montee Ball, Trent Richardson, David Wilson (injured, I know), Isaiah Pead, LaMichael James, Mikel Leshoure, Daniel Thomas, Jahvid Best, Ben Tate, Montario Hardesty, Beanie Wells. Between 2009 and 2013, 26 backs got picked in the first two rounds, and half of them are current flameouts.
I'm not going to do research on this due to time constraints (plus, I feel like my gut is correct), but my gut instinct is that the running back position does not have the highest percentage of flameouts drafted in the first two rounds since 2009. I'm simply glad that Peter finally realized the draft is a crapshoot and am amazed he at any point felt otherwise.
7. I think the underrated acquisition of the offseason could well be Dennis Allen re-joining the Saints as the assistant to defensive coordinator Rob Ryan. Sean Payton loves Allen, who always has been good at taking unaderachievers (such as last year’s disappointing second-round cornerback, Stanley Jean-Baptiste) and making them contributors. Looking forward to seeing the New Orleans secondary be more aggressive and efficient with Allen’s help.
Plus, the Saints then have an obvious person to take the place of Rob Ryan if the Saints defense starts off the season struggling. But a Rob Ryan defense would never struggle would it? He's Rob Ryan, defensive coordinator extraordinaire.
9. I think you can add Oakland coach Jack Del Rio to the chorus of those who felt the NFL’s sanction of the Patriots “was a little bit overdone.” It get curiouser and curiouser.
Jack Del Rio is the head coach of an NFL team, an NFL team that could one day face sanctions from Roger Goodell for doing something that Goodell didn't like. That colors his thinking. The players think the sanctions were a bit much too, because they don't like Roger Goodell. NFL teams are afraid Goodell could come down hard on them in the future, and those who don't agree the sanctions are heavy-handed are probably not going to speak up at this point for a variety of reasons (their owner wants them to stay quiet, respect for Brady, etc), so it makes sense for everyone to gang up on Goodell. It doesn't mean the sanctions were fair or unfair, but this quote from Del Rio is more evidence that Roger Goodell is not popular these days and has become very open criticism.
10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:
d. Great front page of Mississippi’s Jackson Clarion-Ledger on Saturday—B.B. KING: “The thrill is gone.” That’s the entire front page, with a gigantic broadsheet photo of King, who died Thursday from Type 2 diabetes at 89. Imagine: still performing at age 89. That’s what King was doing.
And I bet Peter knew two songs by B.B. King, "The Thrill is Gone" and "When Love Comes to Town" by that jokester band, U2 and King. He can eulogize B.B. King all he wants of course, but I'm betting the collaboration with U2 makes up the majority of Peter's knowledge of B.B. King.
e. The most amazing factoid in the wake of the horrible Amtrak crash near Philadelphia that killed eight commuters last week: The track and infrastructure on the northeast corridor train route that still transports thousands of people a day is up to 150 years old. Not all of it, of course. But some. Which means it was laid or built, in part, right around the time of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
So Peter is saying these parts of the track are holding up well for their age? Or is Peter saying that Amtrak deserves more funding? I'd love to know where political expert Peter King wants to come up with these funds to take care of the backlog of repairs for a train service that consistently loses money. Peter doesn't know. It's like his screeds against guns and most of his other political observations. Peter hates guns and that's all he knows. Amtrak needs money to update their tracks and that's all Peter knows or cares about.
g. The St. Louis Cardinals are apace to draw 3.5 million fans for second straight year. What a franchise. What a baseball town.
They play the game the right way there. That's all I know.
l. Paul Pierce is absurd. Steph Curry is absurder.
I can't believe Peter didn't include, "I don't watch the NBA much" prior to making this comment. It's tradition that he make an observation about the NBA immediately after pointing out how much he hates NBA basketball.
p. Steve Kerr’s agent, remember, was Mike Tannenbaum. Yes, that Mike Tannenbaum, before he took the job heading up the Miami Dolphins’ front office.
It would be impossible for me to forget this since it was brought up repeatedly before, during and after Kerr was negotiating with the Knicks and Warriors to be their head coach.
r. Column note: I will be away next Monday, and Greg Bedard will be filling in for me in this space. My daughter Laura is getting married Saturday afternoon in California.
Oh, that should be fun. Maybe Greg Bedard writes stupid shit and I can mock him too. I'll have to read the MMQB and see if it's worth the time.
Kings are coming from as far away as Spain and England, from New York and Connecticut. I’ll be back June 1.
But not B.B. King, because he's dead. Maybe King should have left money for Amtrak to fix parts of the rail system in his will. Peter would posthumously love him then. The thrill would be back.
The Adieu Haiku
In San Fran this week,
if you see Bob Kraft, tell me
if his eyes shoot darts.
Worthless. I hope Bedard doesn't include a haiku next week. Just worthless.
Monday, May 11, 2015
5 comments Ten Things I Think I Think Peter King Hasn't Thought Of: Ball Shrinking Edition
It's that time again. I have a bunch of links that I have bookmarked which don't deserve a full post, but would have a place on this blog. The links tend to pile up in my bookmarks and I just never get around to posting them. Instead of doing a short post, like a normal person would, I tend to throw them all together into one long post. I'm annoying that way. As usual, these are links from a variety of topics, so buckle up for the random change from one topic to another. I'll start with reactions to the Patriots deflating footballs, and yes, I refuse to call it Deflategate, and yes, I'm tired of talking about this subject. It makes for great hysterical sportswriting though.
My personal opinion is that Tom Brady knew what was going on, but it wasn't some vast conspiracy that requires a long suspension and public flogging. Bill Simmons' opinion on the subject can always push me over the edge to requesting the death penalty for Brady and the Patriots, simply because he has that effect on me, but I think I can stay non-emotional as long as I'm not listening to his nasally voice give his opinion. I'm tired of the subject, quite honestly.
1. You won't believe this, but "Mr. Non-Judgmental, Wait for the Facts, I Got Done Wrong by the Criminal Justice System" Jay Mariotti calls for the Patriots to vacate wins.
Lance Armstrong deliberately broke the rules and was stripped of his seven Tour de France victories. A generation of prominent baseball juicers knowingly broke the rules and have been rejected for Hall of Fame induction. You cheat on Wall Street, you go to jail.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! "You cheat on Wall Street, you go to jail." That's hilarious. I love it when Jay makes jokes like this. You cheat on Wall Street, you MAY go to jail, but most likely you will be reprimanded and then allowed to make a ton of money again very soon.
You cheat in politics, you're run out of office.
I'm starting to wonder if Jay is joking or not. If you cheat in politics, you get elected. Isn't that the deal?
Precedent demands, then, that the New England Patriots — whose dynasty now has been tarnished by two scandals involving a deliberate and slimy circumvention of NFL rules — should return the Vince Lombardi Trophy won in February. Their fourth Super Bowl title must be vacated at once, glaringly evident as it is that star quarterback Tom Brady was a direct participant in a football-deflation scam and paid a co-conspirator to do his dirty deeds — all to gain an illegal competitive advantage — then lied and tried to cover up his role when league investigators interviewed him.
I'm not sure Jay knows understands the concept of "precedent" or not. I don't know if precedent counts in this situation since every example Jay just provided all were examples outside of football and the NFL. Precedent would be comparing a punishment for Brady to a punishment the NFL has handed out for a similar situation or an applicable situation. Jay does not provide a similar situation in the NFL, only situations not handled by the NFL. Wasn't it Jay a few months ago who suggested that all journalists take law classes so they know the law? Jay really should be the one attending these classes.
When the league announces penalties for Deflategate in coming days, Commissioner Roger Goodell must protect the sport's integrity and issue a robust punishment that sticks for the ages.
FOR THE AGES!
Perhaps change the NFL logo to an outline of Tom Brady's body with an "I cheated" sign hanging over his neck? That'll learn him.
Super Bowl XLIX — Championship vacated.
Come on Jay, you had to have spent five minutes coming up with a catchier line than that! It's not nearly hysterical enough.
Or, Super Bowl LIE.
There we go. You know what, since we want this to stick FOR THE AGES, just change Super Bowl XLIX to Super Bowl LIE from now until Roger Goodell runs the NFL into the ground (circa 2028 at this rate).
And much as it stunned the American public to discover that the once-beloved Armstrong masterminded a massive doping program,
There is a difference in considering Armstrong innocent until shown to be guilty and being stunned. I'm not sure anyone was stunned when Armstrong finally admitted all he had done in order to gain the upper hand. All that was left was for him to just admit he cheated.
He has the supermodel wife, the family, the good looks, the image as The Guy Every Other Guy Wants To Be. The other night, I looked up from my ringside seat at the Floyd Mayweather-Manny Pacquiao fight (also a sham, it turns out)
Do you like how Jay slipped having ring side seats to the fight in this column?
If you still believe that deflating a football below the league minimum (12.5 pounds per square inch) is an overblown story, consider that Brady benefited from violating the rules just as Armstrong, Alex Rodriguez and the other cheats did.
Like George Brett did with putting too much pine tar on the bat, like Whitey Ford did by scuffing the baseball, like Gaylord Perry did by throwing a spitball...should I continue to talk about cheats who didn't get kicked out of the Hall of Fame or have their legacy tarnished by minor cheating in other sports?
The difference: Whereas the juicers inflated their bodies for an edge, Brady shrunk the football so it would feel better in his hand.
I'm going to try and ignore the "shrunken balls so they fit better in his hand" joke for now. It's hard (boom!), but I'll try to do it. Maybe I'll write in to a Bill Simmons mailbag and talk about it. He seems to enjoy it when his readers talk about jerking off.
Referee Walt Anderson checked the balls before the game and determined that all but two were properly inflated. But when Anderson and his crew left their locker room to take the field, Anderson angrily wondered why the same game balls couldn't be located, according to Wells' report. That's because McNally — again, the attendant for the officials' locker room — had removed the balls from that room and taken them to a bathroom, where he "locked the door and remained in the bathroom with the game balls for approximately one minute and forty seconds." The timeline was based in part on a security camera in a Gillette Stadium hallway that captured McNally slipping into the bathroom with his needle and game balls. Could McNally do his handy work in 100 seconds?
Yes, could McNally do his handy work on balls in 100 seconds? Rick Pitino says that wouldn't be a problem at all.
Absolutely. He was an expert ball-shrinker, after all.
(Bengoodfella sits in stunned silence at how much Jay is setting him up for juvenile jokes, but also throwing him off the trail of the hysterical journalism)
Perhaps, McNally just put the balls in cold water. Though I don't think it works exactly that way, does it George Constanza?
A text exchange at the time between McNally and Jastremski indicated Brady was aware of their hanky-panky. It also was apparent McNally isn't a big fan of Brady, which is odd, given Brady's godlike status within the Patriots' realm.
Brady knew, so why vacate all of the team's wins? A-Rod didn't have all of his records vacated, neither did any of the other baseball juicers. Lance Armstrong still has the money from his Tour de France wins and sponsorships. Want precedent? There is precedent to not force the Patriots to vacate their wins.
What's bothersome is that Goodell is leaving the matter to Troy Vincent, the league's executive vice president of football operations. "As with other recent matters involving violations of competitive rules, [Vincent] and his team will consider what steps to take in light of this report," Goodell said in a statement.
He does this because Goodell is a weenie who wants to see public reaction before deciding on a punishment. He doesn't care to actually hand down punishment based on the violation committed, he only cares about what the public thinks the punishment should be, except when he shows a blatant disregard for public opinion that doesn't fit his agenda.
The only way to accomplish that is by throwing down the hammer. First Spygate, now Deflategate. First Belichick, now Brady.
Vacate.
It's a little hysterical to make the Patriots vacate their Super Bowl victory. There is no evidence the Patriots won the Super Bowl while using deflated footballs, so I think the punishment should be kept separate from the Super Bowl victory. Plus, the Patriots deflated footballs. It helped Brady or he wouldn't do it, but I feel there is a more appropriate and less hysterical punishment.
2. Nancy Armour thinks the Patriots deflating footballs puts the integrity of the NFL at risk. That's hilarious isn't it? How can something the NFL started losing a while ago, all of a sudden be at risk of being lost? The NFL's integrity problem started long before Tom Brady hired some dude to deflate footballs.
Four-time Super Bowl champion. Three-time Super Bowl MVP. Two-time NFL MVP. Without question, one of the greatest quarterbacks ever to play the game.
A liar and a cheat, too.
BAM! Call the fire department, Tom Brady just got roasted.
Tom Brady, the NFL's Golden Boy and Madison Avenue's perfect pitchman, has proved to be little better than Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire and everyone else who broke the rules in search of an edge.
It seems this comparison to PED use isn't going to go away. These three guys used Performance Enhancing Drugs, while Brady used Performance Enhancing Balls (PEB's). I don't like cheating or a team trying to gain an edge, but if the whole "using PED's is the same thing as deflating footballs and the punishment for the team should be vacating of titles" attitude prevails then any NFL team that has ever had a guy suspended for PED use would have to vacate their Super Bowl title (had they won one). Should MLB teams vacate their World Series titles if it turns out they had a PED user? After all, PED use is the exact same thing as PEB use.
The two New England Patriots employees who let the air out of the footballs did so with Brady's knowledge and, more likely, at his behest.
Or, in the simplest of terms, he cheated.
(Bengoodfella clutches his pearls and falls down backwards into his flowered upholstered chair)
But it's not a matter of liking, it's a matter of trusting.
And if you buy the stories told by McNally, Jastremski and Brady, let me know, I've got a bridge I've been trying to unload.
You have a bridge you are trying to unload? Bridges are generally built by and are the property of federal, state and local governments, paid for by taxpayers. So if you have stolen a bridge and are trying to re-sell it on the free market then you are a thief and probably should be in jail. I'll just say that I wouldn't go around bragging about the bridge you stole. How dare you comment on Tom Brady deflating footballs when you are stealing money from taxpayers! Have you no sense of decency, ma'am?
But that's missing the point. By tampering with the footballs – or having someone do it for him – Brady tampered with the integrity of the game.
This is the NFL, and if everybody isn't playing by the same rules, there's little point in playing at all.
Next we know, every team will be deflating footballs and the NFL will be helpless to stop this from happening. Eventually, the league will be forced to fold as football, Roger Goodell will be forced to become a lobbyist for the cigarette industry, NFL players will have to use their college degree and concussions will be dramatically decreased. No one wants this to happen and it will all be Tom Brady's fault.
Think about it. If Brady, or his minions,
Exclusive video of Brady's minions.
are playing fast and loose with the rules in their game, how is anyone supposed to believe the same thing isn't going on everywhere else? It's a question of credibility, and by sacrificing his, Brady put the entire NFL's at risk.
How are we supposed to believe it's not happening everywhere else? We don't, but Brady got caught, so that seems to be some indication that if other teams are cheating they will either (a) stop deflating footballs or (b) get caught.
But knowing he was willing to break the rules puts him in a different, far less-flattering light, and diminishes all that he's accomplished.
It diminishes "all" that Brady has accomplished. Come on, you know that's not true. Brady probably cheated, but it doesn't diminish everything he has accomplished because there's no proof he had been deflating footballs for longer than the 2015 season.
3. Skip Bayless thinks those who paid to watch the Mayweather-Pacquiao fight didn't get screwed because Pacquiao was hurt. Of course Skip thinks this. Skip hates the public, which is why he subjects them to his ridiculous hot takes on "First Take."
You thought from the start your man Floyd Mayweather dominated Saturday night's fight.
Not my man.
I thought my pick, Manny Pacquiao, ultimately won seven of the 12 rounds.
Heart over head? From the bottom of mine, I do not believe so. I scored the fight round by round on Twitter and had Pacquiao winning seven rounds to Mayweather's five --115-113, PacMan.
So far, Skip in his career at ESPN against reason, obvious fact, and reality. Now, he is arguing against math and the observation of those who are paid to judge a boxing match. OF COURSE Skip had Pacquiao winning seven rounds. Reality hasn't quite set in for Skip that his fighter lost and no amount of opinion, fact or reality will obscure what Skip wants to believe. Look no further than Skip's takes on LeBron James throughout the years for proof of this.
Yet now, Manny Pacquiao is being as unfairly vilified as any superstar athlete I can remember. Instead of being lauded and applauded for his courage, he's being sued by irate fans convinced he duped them into shelling out a hundred bucks for a letdown of a showdown.
I'm not mad about it, but it's a pretty bitch move for one fighter to be injured and then no one who paid $100 to see that fighter fight is aware of the injury. It's almost like the opposite of using PEB's. It's an injury which affects one party's ability to perform to his/her normal standard. Pacquiao had an injury which affected his ability to competitively fight Mayweather. I don't think he should be sued or anything like that, but it's just a reinforced lesson that paying money to watch boxing can be a shaky move for a variety of reasons.
If Pacquiao had taken an obvious dive in Round 1, no doubt he would deserve this class-action wrath.
Pacquiao even told reporters from his country, the Philippines, that Mayweather knew his shoulder was hurt and kept pulling on his arm!
As usual, Skip seems to miss the point. The point isn't that Pacquiao cheated or did something wrong, but the need to go through with the event and make sure he got the money provided to him for fighting took precedent over a fair, competitive fight. That's the perception and that's why some are angry. It's the idea that the consumer was duped and the fight was this unstoppable force that had to happen no matter what in order for each fighter to get their payday. The payday came before a competitive bout, that's the perception.
So what would you have done if you had been in Pacquiao's shoes about three weeks ago? He had campaigned for this fight for five years -- partly for the potential payday, but more so because he believed he could beat the man who calls himself TBE (The Best Ever) and who had accused Pacquiao of PED use and posted a racist rant about him.
It's impossible to say what I would have done, but if I believed I could beat Mayweather and finally got the opportunity to prove it, then I would be very, very sure I was in peak physical condition so that I could prove it. That's what I think I would do. If I campaigned for the fight and knew I wanted to prove I could beat Mayweather, I would ensure I was in the best condition to do so.
But according to a source in the Pacquiao camp, he injured his shoulder while sparring about two and a half weeks before the fight. A cortisone shot eased some of the inflammation and pain, but it appeared surgery ultimately would be required. So why not just let a surgeon show the media an MRI of the torn rotator cuff and ask for a postponement?
Skip's defense is ego and money, which aren't exactly the best defense for why Pacquiao fought injured. I get it and I wouldn't sue him, but these aren't good reasons to fight injured. It feels like those who paid got screwed just a little bit.
Because Pacquiao feared he would give Mayweather one last excuse -- that Mayweather would simply say no way he could wait an entire year and turn 39 before fighting Pacquiao. Postponing would be risking Mayweather would fight the final fight on his contract this September and retire undefeated.
I understand this. I'm talking perception here, not WHY Pacquiao did what he did. "I wanted to fight him because I was afraid he wouldn't fight me" is a logical reason to fight injured, but the idea of a boxing match taking place simply so it could take place is the problem with this reason in terms of perception.
Did Pacquiao risk perjury and suspension by instructing his representative to not disclose the shoulder injury on the Nevada State Athletic Commission form at Friday's weigh-in? Maybe. But my source says that was nothing but a blunder.
Just a blunder! That's all. I wonder if Skip would give the same amount of leeway to an athlete that he didn't like if a similar situation were to occur? I shouldn't have to ask the question because I know the answer.
For me, the biggest shock of the night was the way the three American judges judged the Filipino boxer. They treated Pacquiao as if he were an unknown underdog whose best (if not only) chance to win rounds was by knockdown or by drawing blood or by at least turning Mayweather into a punching bag.
I should've known: If Mayweather-Pacquiao was devoid of knockdowns and didn't end in a knockout, Pacquiao had no chance. If his fate in a 12-round fight fell to the judges, home-ring advantage would prevail.
I like how Skip is changing the subject from something that Pacquiao may have done that was a bit shady on to potential shading dealings by the judges. I'll stay on-point. If Pacquiao was 100% healthy could he have knocked Mayweather down or turned him into a punching bag? The answer to this question won't ever be known (until the inevitable rematch), but part of the reason Pacquiao is being sued is because the chances of his knocking Mayweather down or beating him bloody were diminished by his injury.
I predicted a seventh-round Pacquiao knockout in part because a month ago sources in Pacquiao's camp said Pacquiao was convinced he could take out the 38-year-old Mayweather "early" with his quickness and power. So of course I was stunned and disappointed when Pacquiao came out tentatively in Round 1. I did not know about the shoulder.
Skip admits Pacquiao's shoulder had an impact on the outcome of the fight, yet he can't figure out why there are those upset with the non-disclosure of the shoulder injury. Skip Bayless will play deaf, dumb and blind until the very bitter end.
Twice before the fight we had Roy on First Take. Both times he refused to make a pick because he was commentating on the pay-per-view telecast. But both times it became clear he's a Floyd fan and thought Floyd would win pretty easily. So his tone during the fight was "told you so," which surely influenced the perception of millions of casual fans or even nonfans who had been intrigued enough to pay a hundred bucks.
So logically, the outcome of the fight was all Roy Jones, Jr.'s fault. Obviously this makes sense.
I got lost in trying objectively to view the competition from round to round.
Because Skip Bayless is the king of objectivity and had picked a Pacquiao victory (mostly because Stephen A. Smith predicted a Mayweather victory, due to being so far up Mayweather's ass that he can taste what Floyd had for dinner last night), he wants his readers to believe he is being objective. The next day Skip Bayless is objective on anything will be the first day this has ever occurred.
Exactly. What Mayweather did best was act like he was winning easily. He shook his head "no" after Pacquiao flurries. He preened and posed and no doubt out-styled little Manny. He blinded judges and Floyd fans with his reputation.
But he did not win.
Except, you know, he did win.
Now the poor man is being sued as he has surgery. Only in America.
Skip Bayless admitting the bum shoulder affected Pacquiao's ability to win the fight, while also not understanding why those who paid to see the fight are angry, is absolutely vintage Skip Bayless. Reality has no recourse when Skip has reached the conclusion he wants to reach.
But I will. This time I'd pay double to see it. Pacquiao deserves a rematch. And he will win. Again.
I think Skip doesn't like Mayweather or picks against Mayweather partly because he feels threatened by someone else who does things solely for the sake of attention. Skip doesn't want the competition.
4. I've been holding this article from Terence Moore about the Braves being good for the inevitable losing streak(s), just so I could point out how ridiculous his crowing was. After the Braves started 3-0, Terence was all "LOOK! The hustle and grit worked out. These Braves are good." He was wrong of course.
The first Major League team to 3-0 this season wasn't the Dodgers, with their massive payroll and overwhelming talent.
It was the Braves. You know, the rebuilding Braves. We're talking about the Braves with so many new players after nine trades and seven free-agent signings before Spring Training that super closer Craig Kimbrel had T-shirts designed for everybody that said, "Hello my name is (fill in the blank)."
Yep, when a team trades all of their best players for prospects then that team is rebuilding. I love how Terence took a 3-0 and start proudly starts jumping to conclusions that, even though there are 159 games to be played, this Braves team is better than I think. I think they won't win 70 games, so he's possibly partly right, but that doesn't mean he's entirely right.
The early success of this makeover is just a fluke.
Or is it?
It is. A month after this article was posted the Braves were 14-14 with 16 of these games at home at suddenly spacious looking Turner Field. So yeah, it was a fluke.
Yes, Kimbrel is gone with his otherworldly numbers during his four years as baseball's best closer, but his replacement is Jason Grilli, a former All-Star closer with the Pirates. The rest of the bullpen includes Jim Johnson, a former All-Star closer with the Orioles.
I'm a "former" a lot of things and it doesn't mean I could do those things again. There's a reason Grilli and Johnson don't have "current" in front of "All-Star" and that's because they can't pitch at that level anymore.
The Braves are faster, too. Among their slew of trades, they acquired the speedy Eric Young Jr., who is their first true leadoff hitter since Michael Bourn left as a free agent after the 2012 season.
Does Terence get paid by Eric Young Jr. to call him a "true leadoff hitter"? If not, he should. Young was slashing .167/.236/.288 a month after this column was posted. If that's a "true" leadoff hitter then I'll take the "fake" leadoff hitter everyday of the week.
Then there are newcomers such as Nick Markakis, Jonny Gomes and A.J. Pierzynski providing leadership in a clubhouse where there hasn't been any since the retirement of Jones after the 2012 season.
Leadership is great, but as the legendary Jeff Francouer would have said, "If leadership counted, then it would be on the scoreboard."
In response, Braves officials keep doing the right thing by acknowledging the public outcry each time they unload a popular player, and then they do what they have to do, which is they keep purging.
Purging, not rebuilding! That's the party line. Sure, the Braves got rid of all their "name" players, but they aren't rebuilding, just restructuring the team from a team that could compete for the NL East to a team that can't compete for the NL East. That's definitely NOT rebuilding.
(By the way, I'm down with the plan. Just call it what it is and don't act otherwise. That's all I want.)
What comes to mind is that old line from Branch Rickey, when he traded a stunned Ralph Kiner and his prolific bat during the early 1950s from the Pirates to the Cubs: "We can finish last without you."
So the Braves are going to finish last, after Terence previously said the Braves wouldn't finish last. A hallmark of a Terence Moore column is where he submarines his own argument. It's always fun to read him ruin his own point.
This isn't to say the Braves were awful before their makeover. They were just destined to remain what they were in recent years: Slightly better than mediocre, stale, another team destined to add to Atlanta's string of playoff losses in the NL Division Series or NL Wild Card Game.
79 wins in 2014, 96 wins in 2013, 94 wins in 2012, 89 wins in 2011, 91 wins in 2010, 86 wins in 2009. I wouldn't call that mediocre and to think the 2015 version of the team is an improvement because the team just won't make the playoffs is a fallacy. Remember, Terence isn't supposed to be arguing the rebuild was the right move, his argument is the 2015 Braves team are better than we think. This is not true. There are two separate issues that Terence is attempting to confuse with each other.
Looks like the future for the Braves is now.
No, it is not. It is in the future...maybe. Acting otherwise is only fooling yourself, Terence.
5. Jon Heyman thinks that Josh Hamilton owes the Angels and Arte Moreno an apology. I'm not sure if I agree with that. I don't approve of Hamilton's comments about the Angels at times, but an apology? I'm torn, but Jon is not.
Hamilton possesses that irresistible exacta of ability and personality that's hard to beat. Maybe too irresistible.
You can't trust an addict and Hamilton admits that is what he is. So the "maybe too irresistible" goes to this.
Hamilton is an extremely affable, talented guy, and it's hard not to root for him. It is also difficult to criticize him, as not too many have lived in those shoes. But if no one else will say anything, at some point you'd like to see Hamilton say something. "I'm sorry," would be a start.
Yeah, maybe. For me the whole "I'm sorry" thing should be reserved for those that Hamilton personally hurt and not meant for a millionaire baseball owner who knew about Hamilton's background when he signed him. I don't know, it feels like "I'm sorry" should be reserved for those who aren't multi-millionaire owners.
Somehow, the Angels, Rangers, Hamilton's agent Michael Moye and the union made it work. It works to the point where everyone's happy, even if Hamilton's the one smiling brightest.
Which is all great. Yet, the fallout doesn't seem quite fair.
I didn't realize that life was fair.
As Hamilton himself said at his press conference, Moreno knew what he was getting into. And he certainly could have come up with much more delicate phrases following the surprise arbitrator ruling that commissioner Rob Manfred couldn't suspend Hamilton for his self-reported relapse.
At that moment, the very rich guy looked a little too interested in saving a few bucks.
But I can't really blame him. Not too much, anyway.
And I understand why Hamilton isn't saying "I'm sorry," because he feels like Moreno didn't take the time to understand his condition and that he will always have an addiction issue. It would be hard to say, "I'm sorry" to a person who has lost your respect through acting like he cares more about his bottom line than you as a person. That's why I think "I'm sorry" to Moreno isn't required, because Moreno won't apologize to Hamilton for coming off as cold.
In his Texas press conference, Hamilton never once took responsibility for causing the Angels a lot of heartache. Instead, what he said was Moreno should have known better.
I found that to be an asshole thing to say and this comment comes off as very "gotcha" when it's probably not meant to.
Moreno questioned Hamilton's "accountability" after the arbitrator ruling. So perhaps Hamilton wasn't in a charitable mood. But maybe Hamilton's lack of accountability is fair game at this point.
No one likes having their accountability being questioned. This is a situation where both parties should move on. I get why Hamilton didn't apologize and I get why Moreno was irritated. If Moreno can't apologize in some fashion then I understand why Hamilton wouldn't apologize either.
6. Bill Madden, as always, wants Pete Rose on the Hall of Fame ballot. He knows he wouldn't be elected, but still wants him on the ballot.
Even before new commissioner Rob Manfred is able to sit down for a face-to-face with Pete Rose, baseball’s banned all-time hit king is back among us, albeit slightly from afar, in a Fox TV Sports studio in Los Angeles.
But the very fact Manfred is even granting Rose an audience — something his two predecessors, Fay Vincent and Bud Selig absolutely would not — tells me the Commish is at least cognizant of this long overlooked fact: Rose is the only player in the history of baseball who has never been eligible for the Hall of Fame — and it wasn’t Bart Giamatti, the commissioner who consigned him to baseball’s permanent ineligible list in August of 1989, who determined that. It was the Hall of Fame board of directors which, a few weeks after Rose was banned, determined that the permanent ineligible list applied to the Hall of Fame as well, and informed the Baseball Writers Association that he could not be placed on its ballot.
You'll never guess why Bill Madden thinks Pete Rose should be on the Hall of Fame ballot. Because of steroids of course.
This was a decision that would’ve probably been accepted as right and just, given Rose’s offense of breaking baseball’s cardinal rule on gambling, until the steroid cheats came along and did as much as Rose to impugn the integrity of the game by making a mockery of the record books.
I consistently fail to understand the "These PED users are eligible for the Hall of Fame, so why isn't Pete Rose?" argument. I don't see the parallel, partly because Rose accepted the lifetime ban, which isn't something PED users have done.
And while, as Manfred again pointed out Thursday in a meeting with APSE Sports Editors, “the rules on gambling have been in place literally for decades,” and that “they have been clear and spell out specific penalties; the reason those rules exist is because gambling is corrosive in a number of ways, including raising the specter of not doing everything they can to win,” it is worth noting in retrospect that Giamatti didn’t close the door entirely for Rose to eventually get reinstated.
In the fourth point of Giamatti’s resolution on Rose, he said: “Mr. Rose may, under Major League Rule 15 (c) apply for reinstatement. This ruling prohibits any such application for a period of at least one year.”
Yep. MLB has chosen not to reinstate him, as is their right.
Then, later on in the press conference, when asked if it would help Rose toward reinstatement if he sought rehabilitation for what many believed was a compulsive gambling habit, Giamatti replied: “The burden is entirely on Mr. Rose. It isn’t up to me. It’s up to Mr. Rose, it seems to me, to re-configure his life in ways I would assume he would prefer. But a person who wishes to establish the kind of record that would sustain an application would want to take whatever steps would seem appropriate to that person to be persuasive.”
And of course, because Rose has done these things then Bill Madden thinks Rose deserves another shot to be on the Hall of Fame ballot? Well, not exactly.
The problem for Rose was he did none of that. Instead he continued to deny that he had bet on baseball for another 14 years, all the while being seen publicly in gambling casinos and spending much of his life in Las Vegas, until he finally came clean in January of 2004 with the release of his book, “My Prison Behind Bars.”
(Deep sigh)
So why would baseball reinstate Rose when he accepted the lifetime ban and has not done, as outlined by the commissioner at the time, the steps to show rehabilitation? Because of PED users of course. All of a sudden it's not about Rose, but about what others have done that shows Rose should be on the Hall of Fame ballot. Rose is scum, but he's scum like others on the Hall of Fame ballot.
Interestingly, the idea there are already cheaters in the Hall of Fame, so this being a reason the PED scum should be allowed in isn't seen as a persuasive argument for inclusion of these PED users into the Hall of Fame. Interesting how Rose should be rewarded for the actions of others who are scum like him, but there is a firm line drawn where PED users don't get the necessary votes for induction despite the actions of others currently in Hall of Fame that were also considered cheating.
it seems to me there ought to be some way to remove him from the stigma of the permanent ineligible list and put him on a “restricted list” that would still prevent him from working in baseball but allow him to make promotional appearances at ballparks, serve as a sort of good-will ambassador for the Reds, or even do (anti-gambling?) public service commercials for baseball.
Rose wants to know how much that would pay.
Then it would be up to the Hall of Fame to decide if he could take his place on a ballot, like the steroid cheats. For the record, even Shoeless Joe Jackson was eligible for years for the Hall of Fame and got two votes in the first election in 1936 and another two in 1946.
Hey Bill, those votes occurred nearly 70-80 years ago. Let's focus on today.
For that, he at least deserves a vote — instead of remaining the only player in the history of the game who never got one.
I'm fine with Rose being reinstated, but he DESERVES absolutely nothing for actions he took that brought the lifetime ban upon him.
7. Bob Klapisch can't figure out if A-Rod is still cheating or not. On April 18, he wrote this article which hinted around the possibility of A-Rod still using PED's. Here are some of his comments:
Good luck to anyone trying to figure why Alex Rodriguez has become the Yankees’ best hitter, despite all the factors that should’ve been working against him. That includes his age, the yearlong drug suspension, two surgically repaired hips and going cold turkey on PEDs. We think.
Let’s address this last point first. I have to assume Rodriguez is playing clean in 2015;
Except, he doesn't dismiss the idea A-Rod is using steroids. Of course.
So how’s he doing it? Here are a few wild guesses:
This theory runs counter to conventional sports theory, which says an athlete’s reaction-time deteriorates with time, especially after 35.
Whatever happened to assuming A-Rod was not using steroids? Klapisch assumes A-Rod is clean, then lists one of the reasons behind A-Rod's hot hitting as being that A-Rod is back using PED's. Sounds like assuming A-Rod is clean isn't something that's being done.
A cynic would reflexively ask: Who’s to say A-Rod hasn’t found a more sophisticated supplier than Tony Bosch?
To this, we shake our head and say no. So does MLB, which has greater enforcement powers than ever before. Not only is A-Rod subject to increased random testing, as is anyone who violated baseball’s Joint Drug Agreement, but testers are now empowered to come to Rodriguez’s home at any hour.
But after A-Rod kept hitting well, this sort of slight cynicism was fixed and now Bob Klapisch knows that A-Rod is not cheating. Sure, Bob beat around the bush at PED use with the idea A-Rod would definitely get caught, but now he knows for sure A-Rod isn't cheating. He's convinced!
Sure, there are plenty of folks who still don’t trust Rodriguez and think his pursuit of 700-plus HRs is a scam. But it felt like everyone in the ballpark had long since forgiven A-Rod and were willing to ride shotgun into the record books.
Sportswriters like Klapisch realize they are behind the curve in the whole "forgiving A-Rod" category, so they are quickly trying to make up for this.
Again, you might not believe any of it. Rodriguez has apologized a million times since spring training and you might think he’s not humble, just hardened and maybe smarter about a PED supplier this time around.
But as I’ve said before, I believe A-Rod is clean.
Yes, but then you listed "Better, more invisible PEDs" as a reason he could be hitting the baseball well. So, you believed, but didn't really believe.
The Yankees’ slugger knows he’s being watched, monitored, shadowed. A drug-tester from MLB was dispatched to Fenway on Sunday night and he was there for only one reason, to hunt down Rodriguez. The tester, a grim-looking man who spoke to no one, practically followed A-Rod to the bathroom for a urine sample. Rodriguez didn’t mind the surveillance; he knows it’s his penance for past sins.
Can you feel the narrative around A-Rod turning around? It's amazing what hitting a baseball does for the perception of A-Rod and how it helps him to be a more believable character that a sportswriter can cheer for. Success cures all.
So the night ended with a lingering question: How can Rodriguez hit a ball that far approaching age 40? Why is his bat-speed better now than in 2013, when it should be the other way around? I’m casting a vote for A-Rod’s better angels – that it’s not PEDs, but his surgically repaired hips now healthy enough to generate torque.
That is until Bob Klapisch decides that A-Rod is really powered by PED's again. I'm sure he'll write another "I don't think A-Rod is doing PED's" column where he again dismisses the idea A-Rod is doing PED's while continuing to bring the subject up.
8. Baseball is dying a terrible dying death. Nick Cafardo says so.
Baseball is trying to attract kids to the game, somehow, some way. But it’s been an uphill battle. If it continues, 20 or 30 years from now there won’t be much of a baseball viewership.
Baseball is dying a terrible, horrible death. Perhaps it's my peer group, but nearly everyone I know likes and watches baseball. Perhaps my peer group doesn't reflect reality. That's entirely possible.
The Red Sox probably are less susceptible to this than teams in other parts of the country where baseball isn’t as popular.
Well, obviously. The Red Sox are the team that's the least susceptible to this problem because they have the most informed and dedicated fans that would never turn their back on the team. Red Sox fans GET baseball, so even if MLB consists only of the Red Sox A-team facing the Red Sox B-team for 162 games there will always be professional baseball due to the unwavering fan support of the community in Boston that can't be found anywhere else in the world in any other sport.
It’s a simple game that has been muddled by the trends of recent years. Kids, particularly in the inner city, aren’t playing baseball with the frequency of the past, and the interest level in watching baseball isn’t there either, as the kids interviewed for the Globe story pointed out.
But the Globe interviewed kids who aren't from Boston, right? After all, the Red Sox are always going to be popular in Boston so good luck finding any kids who aren't Red Sox fans.
The human stories of players and their histories have gone the way of their WARs and WORPs, and I’m not sure kids see that as fun.
The idea that WAR and other advanced metrics chase fans away from the game is a fallacy. A total fallacy. If anything, it chases the generation away that baseball wants to be chased away (i.e. older fans of the game), while bringing in new fans who are passionate about the sport of baseball and enjoy using different metrics to watch the game. Using advanced statistics is another way of enjoying the game, not a reason why the game is dying.
In our day, we loved baseball cards and all we cared about was batting average, home runs, and RBIs. It was simple. It was easy to be a fan.
It's still incredibly simple like that. Nothing has changed.
Roberto Clemente, Hank Aaron, or Willie Mays used to step into the box and swing at the first good pitch he saw. Now, batters are encouraged to look at more than four pitches per at-bat.
As a result, we’re seeing more called third strikes. At-bats take forever, attention is lost, and the outcome isn’t as good as it used to be.
In 2010, there were 28 players with 85-plus RBIs, 85-plus runs, and 20-plus home runs. In 2011, there 20. In 2012, there were 24. In 2013, there were 14. Last season, there were 11.
Reader Matt emailed me this article and included this little tidbit of research that he had done:
I looked it up and in 1963 there were 12 of these players in the Major Leagues. Plus, Hank Aaron drew over 1,100 unintentional walks in his career. Cafardo probably thinks that on every one of them Aaron spit in his hands, glared at the pitcher, and called him a pussy for not challenging him.
Oh, so "back in the day" there weren't so many of these players who hit home runs, drove in runs and scored runs was there? Interesting what research does to disprove conventional, unintelligent thought. Thanks to Matt for this research. It's one year, but it proves that Cafardo is reminiscing about a time that necessarily didn't occur. The past was always much better in retrospect wasn't it?
Oh, and home runs and RBI's were up during the Steroid Era, which is an era baseball writers like Nick Cafardo see as a black mark on the history of the sport. Yet, fan interest was high. Can't have it any way you want it. Want a clean game, there has to be some sort of sacrifice.
Why aren’t hitters swinging at those pitches more often? It just prolongs the at-bat, and thus fans lose interest.
Now, the more pitches seen per at-bat is considered a good thing, wears down the pitcher, but so do doubles in the gap.
The personalities have changed, too. Players are making so much money that instead of a game, it has become a business to them.
(Nick Cafardo shakes his fist at a cloud and yells at children for being on his lawn)
David Ortiz is fun, but then he gets criticized if he pimps a home run.
(Nick Cafardo gets in his 1988 Buick, turns on the radio and listens to only the older Rolling Stones albums)
A pitchers’ duel is fun to watch, but how many last a full nine innings? You see good seven-inning battles and then, of course, managers go to their relievers.
"Not enough runs are scored in baseball these days!"
"Why aren't there more pitcher's duels that last nine innings?"
Can't have it both ways. Want runs? Great, that means there will be fewer nine inning pitching duels.
With all the advancements in understanding the human body and the claim that strength and conditioning coaches do baseball-specific work with their players, why are there so many oblique, hamstring, quadriceps, and shoulder injuries? Is it time to return to the days when players didn’t overtrain and really stuck to baseball-related exercises?
Yes, MLB and their teams should mandate how often players can work out. Just like in the old days when every player was durable for the entire season, except for some pitchers who ended up with "dead arm" that couldn't be sufficiently explained.
Players of yesteryear had to work other jobs and as a result got stronger. Aaron delivered ice. Bob Feller worked on a farm. Over time, their tendons got stronger.
"Baseball players should not work out as much as they do in the offseason or overtrain!"
"Baseball players need to do more work in the offseason by lifting heavy objects or working on a farm in order to get stronger!"
So yes, while the game has to be marketed better to kids, the kids need to see the game we saw as kids.
Well that game isn't coming back and "the kids" are stuck with the game today. The same game where enjoyment can come from the use of advanced statistics and not despite the use of these statistics.
9. Rick Telander is afraid American colleges are attempting to exploit African teens by giving them an opportunity to go to school and participate in athletics.
The Anteaters player’s name is Mamadou Ndiaye, and he stands 7-6, weighs 300 pounds and has an 8-3 wingspan. That means if you turned him sideways, his arms would cover an entire doorway.
Ndiaye came to the United States speaking no English and was found to have a tumor on his pituitary gland, a problem solved by surgery. He had guardians in Huntington Beach, California, moved through high school, and now he has played in the Big Dance.
So after Ndiaye was dragged to America, a tumor was found and corrected, he graduated high school and now he's getting a college education? When will this exploitation end?
Basketball, dominated by African-Americans at the highest levels, is starting to skip the American part and go straight to Africa for talent that might lead the way.
It’s not a completely new template — Hakeem Olajuwon (Nigeria) and Dikembe Mutombo (Zaire) have certainly left their marks on the NBA — but with this new trend comes a sense of the dirty but time-honored exploitation of a continent so rich in natural resources but so lacking in fundamental order and control.
"Sure, other Africans have come to the United States to play basketball, gotten an education and succeeded, but this is a 'new' trend and it's called 'exploitation' now. Okay, it's not a 'new' trend, but for the sake of this article can't we just pretend it's new so I can try and get my point across?"
You can blame the NBA and its entrance rules for some of this. But the NCAA, which allows freshmen to play and tacitly encourages fake education, plays a bigger role. Coach Cal says it again and again: I’m just playing by the rules they gave me. And, like a riverboat gambler with loaded dice, he’s right. So the hunt for the edge never ends.
It always comes back to John Calipari in some way doesn't it?
In 2010, five Kentucky players were taken in the first round of the NBA draft, something that had never happened before. This season, Calipari has nine McDonald’s All-Americans.
And here is the damning number about this startling trend. You ready for the truth about the exploitation? Of these 14 players being discussed that played for Calipari, 0 of them are native Africans that were ripped from their homeland to play for the Evil Calipari.
So what has this got to do with Africans?
Good point. Nothing.
Well, the talent in that incredibly diverse continent is bubbling, even if it is raw, largely uncoached and far afield from the cradle-to-adulthood training that most elite American players undergo. But it’s there, and it’s noticed.
So the problem is that United States colleges are recruiting international athletes to come play at their school and get an education? I guess I fail to see the issue here. Nearly every school has an international student program where, and hold on to your hat for the exploitation to begin, they take international students and bring them to the United States to go to school. Sometimes they play sports. I know, it's horrifying.
Shortly after this, I read an article in Harper’s Magazine entitled ‘‘American Hustle: How Elite Youth Basketball Exploits African Athletes.’’ In it, I read about schools like Our Savior that have dominant teams due to relying on dubious African ‘‘scouts’’ who send them players such as Diallo, a 6-9, 225-pound power forward who is a five-star college recruit.
There is money for the scouts, in round-about ways, and for the rare players who make it to the NBA. But many African teen players are brought over and suffer indignities of alienation and poverty and things like sleeping on the floor in a gym for half a year, the report said.
Wait, so high schools are exploiting these African basketball players, which means colleges are also exploiting them simply by recruiting them and offering them a scholarship and housing? Interesting way to look at it, Rick.
‘‘It’s like an auction,’’ a high school insider told the author, Alexandra Starr. ‘‘Each kid is an item to sell.’’
There, watching, with many others, was John Calipari.
Watching, licking his lips, just waiting to send another African basketball player that has never actually played at his Kentucky basketball program to the NBA. One would think if Rick is going to mention Calipari then he would also mention how Calipari has never had a player originally from Africa play for him while at the University of Kentucky. That would display honestly, which isn't something Rick cares to display.
10. Andrew Harrison used the "n-word" and now Jay Mariotti wants everyone to stop using this word. It's Jay Mariotti, social advocate.
If we truly are interested in eliminating racism in this country, uniting as one, then all usage of the N-word must stop. Now. Forever.
For those who don't stop using this word, Jay will come over and yank your hair, then deny it while complaining the legal system is against rich, white men.
Why? Maybe because a 20-year-old named Andrew Harrison hears the N-word echo through popular culture and finds himself muttering it, under his breath after a difficult loss, when a reporter asks a Kentucky teammate about Wisconsin star Frank Kaminsky, who happens to be white.
Not because it's offensive word, but eliminate the word because others will repeat it.
“F--- that n-----,” Harrison said, mouth covered yet in front of a microphone, which picked up the racial slur and sent it careening across social media and into the mainstream.
CAREENING across social media, CAROMING into the Internet and then SLIDING into Jay's ears where he knew he had to stop this bullshit immediately. If anyone can reach across the racial divide, it's Jay Mariotti.
Either we’re all serious about ending this social sickness or we should stop talking about it and let it be. What was Ferguson about? What were the “I Can’t Breathe” T-shirts about? What was “Selma” about, the lessons and the movie?
It wasn't entirely about the "n-word." It is about race relations and perceived racism, which will be present no matter whether a racial slur is spoken or not.
Kaminsky himself should have known better earlier in the NCAA Tournament, when he and his teammates were asked how they would want an opponent to describe them. “Resilient,” said one. “Disciplined,” said another. “Unselfish,” said another. “Tough,” said another.
“White guys,” said Kaminsky, a character.
Oh my, Frank. By acknowledging that you are white, you are setting race relations back decades. DO NOT acknowledge you are white. No one would know if you didn't constantly bring it up.
We’re not supposed to be seeing color. We’re supposed to be seeing humankind. Why is USA Today counting the number of black and white starters?
"Let's be colorblind," says Jay Mariotti.
ESPN originally announced it was launching a black sportswriting site, which made me wonder why the network also wasn’t starting an Asian-related sportswriting site and a Latino-related sportswriting site and so forth. Why narrow the audiences? Why separate us instead of using sports media as a way to bond and connect us?
Because ESPN wanted a site that appealed to and for black sportswriting that everyone could read. The same reason ESPN has a site called "ESPNW." It's not an exclusive site, but a site featuring content from a specific sub-group of people who love athletics.
Why does Barkley, a man crusading against racism, use the N-word?
I simply find it funny that Jay Mariotti, whose writing career is most known for being hateful, wants to start crusading against hate and bring people together. He probably means everyone else should come together so they can all be in the same room while he fires hateful shots and criticisms from a totally separate room.
My personal opinion is that Tom Brady knew what was going on, but it wasn't some vast conspiracy that requires a long suspension and public flogging. Bill Simmons' opinion on the subject can always push me over the edge to requesting the death penalty for Brady and the Patriots, simply because he has that effect on me, but I think I can stay non-emotional as long as I'm not listening to his nasally voice give his opinion. I'm tired of the subject, quite honestly.
1. You won't believe this, but "Mr. Non-Judgmental, Wait for the Facts, I Got Done Wrong by the Criminal Justice System" Jay Mariotti calls for the Patriots to vacate wins.
Lance Armstrong deliberately broke the rules and was stripped of his seven Tour de France victories. A generation of prominent baseball juicers knowingly broke the rules and have been rejected for Hall of Fame induction. You cheat on Wall Street, you go to jail.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! "You cheat on Wall Street, you go to jail." That's hilarious. I love it when Jay makes jokes like this. You cheat on Wall Street, you MAY go to jail, but most likely you will be reprimanded and then allowed to make a ton of money again very soon.
You cheat in politics, you're run out of office.
I'm starting to wonder if Jay is joking or not. If you cheat in politics, you get elected. Isn't that the deal?
Precedent demands, then, that the New England Patriots — whose dynasty now has been tarnished by two scandals involving a deliberate and slimy circumvention of NFL rules — should return the Vince Lombardi Trophy won in February. Their fourth Super Bowl title must be vacated at once, glaringly evident as it is that star quarterback Tom Brady was a direct participant in a football-deflation scam and paid a co-conspirator to do his dirty deeds — all to gain an illegal competitive advantage — then lied and tried to cover up his role when league investigators interviewed him.
I'm not sure Jay knows understands the concept of "precedent" or not. I don't know if precedent counts in this situation since every example Jay just provided all were examples outside of football and the NFL. Precedent would be comparing a punishment for Brady to a punishment the NFL has handed out for a similar situation or an applicable situation. Jay does not provide a similar situation in the NFL, only situations not handled by the NFL. Wasn't it Jay a few months ago who suggested that all journalists take law classes so they know the law? Jay really should be the one attending these classes.
When the league announces penalties for Deflategate in coming days, Commissioner Roger Goodell must protect the sport's integrity and issue a robust punishment that sticks for the ages.
FOR THE AGES!
Perhaps change the NFL logo to an outline of Tom Brady's body with an "I cheated" sign hanging over his neck? That'll learn him.
Super Bowl XLIX — Championship vacated.
Come on Jay, you had to have spent five minutes coming up with a catchier line than that! It's not nearly hysterical enough.
Or, Super Bowl LIE.
There we go. You know what, since we want this to stick FOR THE AGES, just change Super Bowl XLIX to Super Bowl LIE from now until Roger Goodell runs the NFL into the ground (circa 2028 at this rate).
And much as it stunned the American public to discover that the once-beloved Armstrong masterminded a massive doping program,
There is a difference in considering Armstrong innocent until shown to be guilty and being stunned. I'm not sure anyone was stunned when Armstrong finally admitted all he had done in order to gain the upper hand. All that was left was for him to just admit he cheated.
He has the supermodel wife, the family, the good looks, the image as The Guy Every Other Guy Wants To Be. The other night, I looked up from my ringside seat at the Floyd Mayweather-Manny Pacquiao fight (also a sham, it turns out)
Do you like how Jay slipped having ring side seats to the fight in this column?
If you still believe that deflating a football below the league minimum (12.5 pounds per square inch) is an overblown story, consider that Brady benefited from violating the rules just as Armstrong, Alex Rodriguez and the other cheats did.
Like George Brett did with putting too much pine tar on the bat, like Whitey Ford did by scuffing the baseball, like Gaylord Perry did by throwing a spitball...should I continue to talk about cheats who didn't get kicked out of the Hall of Fame or have their legacy tarnished by minor cheating in other sports?
The difference: Whereas the juicers inflated their bodies for an edge, Brady shrunk the football so it would feel better in his hand.
I'm going to try and ignore the "shrunken balls so they fit better in his hand" joke for now. It's hard (boom!), but I'll try to do it. Maybe I'll write in to a Bill Simmons mailbag and talk about it. He seems to enjoy it when his readers talk about jerking off.
Referee Walt Anderson checked the balls before the game and determined that all but two were properly inflated. But when Anderson and his crew left their locker room to take the field, Anderson angrily wondered why the same game balls couldn't be located, according to Wells' report. That's because McNally — again, the attendant for the officials' locker room — had removed the balls from that room and taken them to a bathroom, where he "locked the door and remained in the bathroom with the game balls for approximately one minute and forty seconds." The timeline was based in part on a security camera in a Gillette Stadium hallway that captured McNally slipping into the bathroom with his needle and game balls. Could McNally do his handy work in 100 seconds?
Yes, could McNally do his handy work on balls in 100 seconds? Rick Pitino says that wouldn't be a problem at all.
Absolutely. He was an expert ball-shrinker, after all.
(Bengoodfella sits in stunned silence at how much Jay is setting him up for juvenile jokes, but also throwing him off the trail of the hysterical journalism)
Perhaps, McNally just put the balls in cold water. Though I don't think it works exactly that way, does it George Constanza?
A text exchange at the time between McNally and Jastremski indicated Brady was aware of their hanky-panky. It also was apparent McNally isn't a big fan of Brady, which is odd, given Brady's godlike status within the Patriots' realm.
Brady knew, so why vacate all of the team's wins? A-Rod didn't have all of his records vacated, neither did any of the other baseball juicers. Lance Armstrong still has the money from his Tour de France wins and sponsorships. Want precedent? There is precedent to not force the Patriots to vacate their wins.
What's bothersome is that Goodell is leaving the matter to Troy Vincent, the league's executive vice president of football operations. "As with other recent matters involving violations of competitive rules, [Vincent] and his team will consider what steps to take in light of this report," Goodell said in a statement.
He does this because Goodell is a weenie who wants to see public reaction before deciding on a punishment. He doesn't care to actually hand down punishment based on the violation committed, he only cares about what the public thinks the punishment should be, except when he shows a blatant disregard for public opinion that doesn't fit his agenda.
The only way to accomplish that is by throwing down the hammer. First Spygate, now Deflategate. First Belichick, now Brady.
Vacate.
It's a little hysterical to make the Patriots vacate their Super Bowl victory. There is no evidence the Patriots won the Super Bowl while using deflated footballs, so I think the punishment should be kept separate from the Super Bowl victory. Plus, the Patriots deflated footballs. It helped Brady or he wouldn't do it, but I feel there is a more appropriate and less hysterical punishment.
2. Nancy Armour thinks the Patriots deflating footballs puts the integrity of the NFL at risk. That's hilarious isn't it? How can something the NFL started losing a while ago, all of a sudden be at risk of being lost? The NFL's integrity problem started long before Tom Brady hired some dude to deflate footballs.
Four-time Super Bowl champion. Three-time Super Bowl MVP. Two-time NFL MVP. Without question, one of the greatest quarterbacks ever to play the game.
A liar and a cheat, too.
BAM! Call the fire department, Tom Brady just got roasted.
Tom Brady, the NFL's Golden Boy and Madison Avenue's perfect pitchman, has proved to be little better than Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire and everyone else who broke the rules in search of an edge.
It seems this comparison to PED use isn't going to go away. These three guys used Performance Enhancing Drugs, while Brady used Performance Enhancing Balls (PEB's). I don't like cheating or a team trying to gain an edge, but if the whole "using PED's is the same thing as deflating footballs and the punishment for the team should be vacating of titles" attitude prevails then any NFL team that has ever had a guy suspended for PED use would have to vacate their Super Bowl title (had they won one). Should MLB teams vacate their World Series titles if it turns out they had a PED user? After all, PED use is the exact same thing as PEB use.
The two New England Patriots employees who let the air out of the footballs did so with Brady's knowledge and, more likely, at his behest.
Or, in the simplest of terms, he cheated.
(Bengoodfella clutches his pearls and falls down backwards into his flowered upholstered chair)
But it's not a matter of liking, it's a matter of trusting.
And if you buy the stories told by McNally, Jastremski and Brady, let me know, I've got a bridge I've been trying to unload.
You have a bridge you are trying to unload? Bridges are generally built by and are the property of federal, state and local governments, paid for by taxpayers. So if you have stolen a bridge and are trying to re-sell it on the free market then you are a thief and probably should be in jail. I'll just say that I wouldn't go around bragging about the bridge you stole. How dare you comment on Tom Brady deflating footballs when you are stealing money from taxpayers! Have you no sense of decency, ma'am?
But that's missing the point. By tampering with the footballs – or having someone do it for him – Brady tampered with the integrity of the game.
This is the NFL, and if everybody isn't playing by the same rules, there's little point in playing at all.
Next we know, every team will be deflating footballs and the NFL will be helpless to stop this from happening. Eventually, the league will be forced to fold as football, Roger Goodell will be forced to become a lobbyist for the cigarette industry, NFL players will have to use their college degree and concussions will be dramatically decreased. No one wants this to happen and it will all be Tom Brady's fault.
Think about it. If Brady, or his minions,
Exclusive video of Brady's minions.
are playing fast and loose with the rules in their game, how is anyone supposed to believe the same thing isn't going on everywhere else? It's a question of credibility, and by sacrificing his, Brady put the entire NFL's at risk.
How are we supposed to believe it's not happening everywhere else? We don't, but Brady got caught, so that seems to be some indication that if other teams are cheating they will either (a) stop deflating footballs or (b) get caught.
But knowing he was willing to break the rules puts him in a different, far less-flattering light, and diminishes all that he's accomplished.
It diminishes "all" that Brady has accomplished. Come on, you know that's not true. Brady probably cheated, but it doesn't diminish everything he has accomplished because there's no proof he had been deflating footballs for longer than the 2015 season.
3. Skip Bayless thinks those who paid to watch the Mayweather-Pacquiao fight didn't get screwed because Pacquiao was hurt. Of course Skip thinks this. Skip hates the public, which is why he subjects them to his ridiculous hot takes on "First Take."
You thought from the start your man Floyd Mayweather dominated Saturday night's fight.
Not my man.
I thought my pick, Manny Pacquiao, ultimately won seven of the 12 rounds.
Heart over head? From the bottom of mine, I do not believe so. I scored the fight round by round on Twitter and had Pacquiao winning seven rounds to Mayweather's five --115-113, PacMan.
So far, Skip in his career at ESPN against reason, obvious fact, and reality. Now, he is arguing against math and the observation of those who are paid to judge a boxing match. OF COURSE Skip had Pacquiao winning seven rounds. Reality hasn't quite set in for Skip that his fighter lost and no amount of opinion, fact or reality will obscure what Skip wants to believe. Look no further than Skip's takes on LeBron James throughout the years for proof of this.
Yet now, Manny Pacquiao is being as unfairly vilified as any superstar athlete I can remember. Instead of being lauded and applauded for his courage, he's being sued by irate fans convinced he duped them into shelling out a hundred bucks for a letdown of a showdown.
I'm not mad about it, but it's a pretty bitch move for one fighter to be injured and then no one who paid $100 to see that fighter fight is aware of the injury. It's almost like the opposite of using PEB's. It's an injury which affects one party's ability to perform to his/her normal standard. Pacquiao had an injury which affected his ability to competitively fight Mayweather. I don't think he should be sued or anything like that, but it's just a reinforced lesson that paying money to watch boxing can be a shaky move for a variety of reasons.
If Pacquiao had taken an obvious dive in Round 1, no doubt he would deserve this class-action wrath.
Pacquiao even told reporters from his country, the Philippines, that Mayweather knew his shoulder was hurt and kept pulling on his arm!
As usual, Skip seems to miss the point. The point isn't that Pacquiao cheated or did something wrong, but the need to go through with the event and make sure he got the money provided to him for fighting took precedent over a fair, competitive fight. That's the perception and that's why some are angry. It's the idea that the consumer was duped and the fight was this unstoppable force that had to happen no matter what in order for each fighter to get their payday. The payday came before a competitive bout, that's the perception.
So what would you have done if you had been in Pacquiao's shoes about three weeks ago? He had campaigned for this fight for five years -- partly for the potential payday, but more so because he believed he could beat the man who calls himself TBE (The Best Ever) and who had accused Pacquiao of PED use and posted a racist rant about him.
It's impossible to say what I would have done, but if I believed I could beat Mayweather and finally got the opportunity to prove it, then I would be very, very sure I was in peak physical condition so that I could prove it. That's what I think I would do. If I campaigned for the fight and knew I wanted to prove I could beat Mayweather, I would ensure I was in the best condition to do so.
But according to a source in the Pacquiao camp, he injured his shoulder while sparring about two and a half weeks before the fight. A cortisone shot eased some of the inflammation and pain, but it appeared surgery ultimately would be required. So why not just let a surgeon show the media an MRI of the torn rotator cuff and ask for a postponement?
Skip's defense is ego and money, which aren't exactly the best defense for why Pacquiao fought injured. I get it and I wouldn't sue him, but these aren't good reasons to fight injured. It feels like those who paid got screwed just a little bit.
Because Pacquiao feared he would give Mayweather one last excuse -- that Mayweather would simply say no way he could wait an entire year and turn 39 before fighting Pacquiao. Postponing would be risking Mayweather would fight the final fight on his contract this September and retire undefeated.
I understand this. I'm talking perception here, not WHY Pacquiao did what he did. "I wanted to fight him because I was afraid he wouldn't fight me" is a logical reason to fight injured, but the idea of a boxing match taking place simply so it could take place is the problem with this reason in terms of perception.
Did Pacquiao risk perjury and suspension by instructing his representative to not disclose the shoulder injury on the Nevada State Athletic Commission form at Friday's weigh-in? Maybe. But my source says that was nothing but a blunder.
Just a blunder! That's all. I wonder if Skip would give the same amount of leeway to an athlete that he didn't like if a similar situation were to occur? I shouldn't have to ask the question because I know the answer.
For me, the biggest shock of the night was the way the three American judges judged the Filipino boxer. They treated Pacquiao as if he were an unknown underdog whose best (if not only) chance to win rounds was by knockdown or by drawing blood or by at least turning Mayweather into a punching bag.
I should've known: If Mayweather-Pacquiao was devoid of knockdowns and didn't end in a knockout, Pacquiao had no chance. If his fate in a 12-round fight fell to the judges, home-ring advantage would prevail.
I like how Skip is changing the subject from something that Pacquiao may have done that was a bit shady on to potential shading dealings by the judges. I'll stay on-point. If Pacquiao was 100% healthy could he have knocked Mayweather down or turned him into a punching bag? The answer to this question won't ever be known (until the inevitable rematch), but part of the reason Pacquiao is being sued is because the chances of his knocking Mayweather down or beating him bloody were diminished by his injury.
I predicted a seventh-round Pacquiao knockout in part because a month ago sources in Pacquiao's camp said Pacquiao was convinced he could take out the 38-year-old Mayweather "early" with his quickness and power. So of course I was stunned and disappointed when Pacquiao came out tentatively in Round 1. I did not know about the shoulder.
Skip admits Pacquiao's shoulder had an impact on the outcome of the fight, yet he can't figure out why there are those upset with the non-disclosure of the shoulder injury. Skip Bayless will play deaf, dumb and blind until the very bitter end.
Twice before the fight we had Roy on First Take. Both times he refused to make a pick because he was commentating on the pay-per-view telecast. But both times it became clear he's a Floyd fan and thought Floyd would win pretty easily. So his tone during the fight was "told you so," which surely influenced the perception of millions of casual fans or even nonfans who had been intrigued enough to pay a hundred bucks.
So logically, the outcome of the fight was all Roy Jones, Jr.'s fault. Obviously this makes sense.
I got lost in trying objectively to view the competition from round to round.
Because Skip Bayless is the king of objectivity and had picked a Pacquiao victory (mostly because Stephen A. Smith predicted a Mayweather victory, due to being so far up Mayweather's ass that he can taste what Floyd had for dinner last night), he wants his readers to believe he is being objective. The next day Skip Bayless is objective on anything will be the first day this has ever occurred.
Exactly. What Mayweather did best was act like he was winning easily. He shook his head "no" after Pacquiao flurries. He preened and posed and no doubt out-styled little Manny. He blinded judges and Floyd fans with his reputation.
But he did not win.
Except, you know, he did win.
Now the poor man is being sued as he has surgery. Only in America.
Skip Bayless admitting the bum shoulder affected Pacquiao's ability to win the fight, while also not understanding why those who paid to see the fight are angry, is absolutely vintage Skip Bayless. Reality has no recourse when Skip has reached the conclusion he wants to reach.
But I will. This time I'd pay double to see it. Pacquiao deserves a rematch. And he will win. Again.
I think Skip doesn't like Mayweather or picks against Mayweather partly because he feels threatened by someone else who does things solely for the sake of attention. Skip doesn't want the competition.
4. I've been holding this article from Terence Moore about the Braves being good for the inevitable losing streak(s), just so I could point out how ridiculous his crowing was. After the Braves started 3-0, Terence was all "LOOK! The hustle and grit worked out. These Braves are good." He was wrong of course.
The first Major League team to 3-0 this season wasn't the Dodgers, with their massive payroll and overwhelming talent.
It was the Braves. You know, the rebuilding Braves. We're talking about the Braves with so many new players after nine trades and seven free-agent signings before Spring Training that super closer Craig Kimbrel had T-shirts designed for everybody that said, "Hello my name is (fill in the blank)."
Yep, when a team trades all of their best players for prospects then that team is rebuilding. I love how Terence took a 3-0 and start proudly starts jumping to conclusions that, even though there are 159 games to be played, this Braves team is better than I think. I think they won't win 70 games, so he's possibly partly right, but that doesn't mean he's entirely right.
The early success of this makeover is just a fluke.
Or is it?
It is. A month after this article was posted the Braves were 14-14 with 16 of these games at home at suddenly spacious looking Turner Field. So yeah, it was a fluke.
Yes, Kimbrel is gone with his otherworldly numbers during his four years as baseball's best closer, but his replacement is Jason Grilli, a former All-Star closer with the Pirates. The rest of the bullpen includes Jim Johnson, a former All-Star closer with the Orioles.
I'm a "former" a lot of things and it doesn't mean I could do those things again. There's a reason Grilli and Johnson don't have "current" in front of "All-Star" and that's because they can't pitch at that level anymore.
The Braves are faster, too. Among their slew of trades, they acquired the speedy Eric Young Jr., who is their first true leadoff hitter since Michael Bourn left as a free agent after the 2012 season.
Does Terence get paid by Eric Young Jr. to call him a "true leadoff hitter"? If not, he should. Young was slashing .167/.236/.288 a month after this column was posted. If that's a "true" leadoff hitter then I'll take the "fake" leadoff hitter everyday of the week.
Then there are newcomers such as Nick Markakis, Jonny Gomes and A.J. Pierzynski providing leadership in a clubhouse where there hasn't been any since the retirement of Jones after the 2012 season.
Leadership is great, but as the legendary Jeff Francouer would have said, "If leadership counted, then it would be on the scoreboard."
In response, Braves officials keep doing the right thing by acknowledging the public outcry each time they unload a popular player, and then they do what they have to do, which is they keep purging.
Purging, not rebuilding! That's the party line. Sure, the Braves got rid of all their "name" players, but they aren't rebuilding, just restructuring the team from a team that could compete for the NL East to a team that can't compete for the NL East. That's definitely NOT rebuilding.
(By the way, I'm down with the plan. Just call it what it is and don't act otherwise. That's all I want.)
What comes to mind is that old line from Branch Rickey, when he traded a stunned Ralph Kiner and his prolific bat during the early 1950s from the Pirates to the Cubs: "We can finish last without you."
So the Braves are going to finish last, after Terence previously said the Braves wouldn't finish last. A hallmark of a Terence Moore column is where he submarines his own argument. It's always fun to read him ruin his own point.
This isn't to say the Braves were awful before their makeover. They were just destined to remain what they were in recent years: Slightly better than mediocre, stale, another team destined to add to Atlanta's string of playoff losses in the NL Division Series or NL Wild Card Game.
79 wins in 2014, 96 wins in 2013, 94 wins in 2012, 89 wins in 2011, 91 wins in 2010, 86 wins in 2009. I wouldn't call that mediocre and to think the 2015 version of the team is an improvement because the team just won't make the playoffs is a fallacy. Remember, Terence isn't supposed to be arguing the rebuild was the right move, his argument is the 2015 Braves team are better than we think. This is not true. There are two separate issues that Terence is attempting to confuse with each other.
Looks like the future for the Braves is now.
No, it is not. It is in the future...maybe. Acting otherwise is only fooling yourself, Terence.
5. Jon Heyman thinks that Josh Hamilton owes the Angels and Arte Moreno an apology. I'm not sure if I agree with that. I don't approve of Hamilton's comments about the Angels at times, but an apology? I'm torn, but Jon is not.
Hamilton possesses that irresistible exacta of ability and personality that's hard to beat. Maybe too irresistible.
You can't trust an addict and Hamilton admits that is what he is. So the "maybe too irresistible" goes to this.
Hamilton is an extremely affable, talented guy, and it's hard not to root for him. It is also difficult to criticize him, as not too many have lived in those shoes. But if no one else will say anything, at some point you'd like to see Hamilton say something. "I'm sorry," would be a start.
Yeah, maybe. For me the whole "I'm sorry" thing should be reserved for those that Hamilton personally hurt and not meant for a millionaire baseball owner who knew about Hamilton's background when he signed him. I don't know, it feels like "I'm sorry" should be reserved for those who aren't multi-millionaire owners.
Somehow, the Angels, Rangers, Hamilton's agent Michael Moye and the union made it work. It works to the point where everyone's happy, even if Hamilton's the one smiling brightest.
Which is all great. Yet, the fallout doesn't seem quite fair.
I didn't realize that life was fair.
As Hamilton himself said at his press conference, Moreno knew what he was getting into. And he certainly could have come up with much more delicate phrases following the surprise arbitrator ruling that commissioner Rob Manfred couldn't suspend Hamilton for his self-reported relapse.
At that moment, the very rich guy looked a little too interested in saving a few bucks.
But I can't really blame him. Not too much, anyway.
And I understand why Hamilton isn't saying "I'm sorry," because he feels like Moreno didn't take the time to understand his condition and that he will always have an addiction issue. It would be hard to say, "I'm sorry" to a person who has lost your respect through acting like he cares more about his bottom line than you as a person. That's why I think "I'm sorry" to Moreno isn't required, because Moreno won't apologize to Hamilton for coming off as cold.
In his Texas press conference, Hamilton never once took responsibility for causing the Angels a lot of heartache. Instead, what he said was Moreno should have known better.
I found that to be an asshole thing to say and this comment comes off as very "gotcha" when it's probably not meant to.
Moreno questioned Hamilton's "accountability" after the arbitrator ruling. So perhaps Hamilton wasn't in a charitable mood. But maybe Hamilton's lack of accountability is fair game at this point.
No one likes having their accountability being questioned. This is a situation where both parties should move on. I get why Hamilton didn't apologize and I get why Moreno was irritated. If Moreno can't apologize in some fashion then I understand why Hamilton wouldn't apologize either.
6. Bill Madden, as always, wants Pete Rose on the Hall of Fame ballot. He knows he wouldn't be elected, but still wants him on the ballot.
Even before new commissioner Rob Manfred is able to sit down for a face-to-face with Pete Rose, baseball’s banned all-time hit king is back among us, albeit slightly from afar, in a Fox TV Sports studio in Los Angeles.
But the very fact Manfred is even granting Rose an audience — something his two predecessors, Fay Vincent and Bud Selig absolutely would not — tells me the Commish is at least cognizant of this long overlooked fact: Rose is the only player in the history of baseball who has never been eligible for the Hall of Fame — and it wasn’t Bart Giamatti, the commissioner who consigned him to baseball’s permanent ineligible list in August of 1989, who determined that. It was the Hall of Fame board of directors which, a few weeks after Rose was banned, determined that the permanent ineligible list applied to the Hall of Fame as well, and informed the Baseball Writers Association that he could not be placed on its ballot.
You'll never guess why Bill Madden thinks Pete Rose should be on the Hall of Fame ballot. Because of steroids of course.
This was a decision that would’ve probably been accepted as right and just, given Rose’s offense of breaking baseball’s cardinal rule on gambling, until the steroid cheats came along and did as much as Rose to impugn the integrity of the game by making a mockery of the record books.
I consistently fail to understand the "These PED users are eligible for the Hall of Fame, so why isn't Pete Rose?" argument. I don't see the parallel, partly because Rose accepted the lifetime ban, which isn't something PED users have done.
And while, as Manfred again pointed out Thursday in a meeting with APSE Sports Editors, “the rules on gambling have been in place literally for decades,” and that “they have been clear and spell out specific penalties; the reason those rules exist is because gambling is corrosive in a number of ways, including raising the specter of not doing everything they can to win,” it is worth noting in retrospect that Giamatti didn’t close the door entirely for Rose to eventually get reinstated.
In the fourth point of Giamatti’s resolution on Rose, he said: “Mr. Rose may, under Major League Rule 15 (c) apply for reinstatement. This ruling prohibits any such application for a period of at least one year.”
Yep. MLB has chosen not to reinstate him, as is their right.
Then, later on in the press conference, when asked if it would help Rose toward reinstatement if he sought rehabilitation for what many believed was a compulsive gambling habit, Giamatti replied: “The burden is entirely on Mr. Rose. It isn’t up to me. It’s up to Mr. Rose, it seems to me, to re-configure his life in ways I would assume he would prefer. But a person who wishes to establish the kind of record that would sustain an application would want to take whatever steps would seem appropriate to that person to be persuasive.”
And of course, because Rose has done these things then Bill Madden thinks Rose deserves another shot to be on the Hall of Fame ballot? Well, not exactly.
The problem for Rose was he did none of that. Instead he continued to deny that he had bet on baseball for another 14 years, all the while being seen publicly in gambling casinos and spending much of his life in Las Vegas, until he finally came clean in January of 2004 with the release of his book, “My Prison Behind Bars.”
(Deep sigh)
So why would baseball reinstate Rose when he accepted the lifetime ban and has not done, as outlined by the commissioner at the time, the steps to show rehabilitation? Because of PED users of course. All of a sudden it's not about Rose, but about what others have done that shows Rose should be on the Hall of Fame ballot. Rose is scum, but he's scum like others on the Hall of Fame ballot.
Interestingly, the idea there are already cheaters in the Hall of Fame, so this being a reason the PED scum should be allowed in isn't seen as a persuasive argument for inclusion of these PED users into the Hall of Fame. Interesting how Rose should be rewarded for the actions of others who are scum like him, but there is a firm line drawn where PED users don't get the necessary votes for induction despite the actions of others currently in Hall of Fame that were also considered cheating.
it seems to me there ought to be some way to remove him from the stigma of the permanent ineligible list and put him on a “restricted list” that would still prevent him from working in baseball but allow him to make promotional appearances at ballparks, serve as a sort of good-will ambassador for the Reds, or even do (anti-gambling?) public service commercials for baseball.
Rose wants to know how much that would pay.
Then it would be up to the Hall of Fame to decide if he could take his place on a ballot, like the steroid cheats. For the record, even Shoeless Joe Jackson was eligible for years for the Hall of Fame and got two votes in the first election in 1936 and another two in 1946.
Hey Bill, those votes occurred nearly 70-80 years ago. Let's focus on today.
For that, he at least deserves a vote — instead of remaining the only player in the history of the game who never got one.
I'm fine with Rose being reinstated, but he DESERVES absolutely nothing for actions he took that brought the lifetime ban upon him.
7. Bob Klapisch can't figure out if A-Rod is still cheating or not. On April 18, he wrote this article which hinted around the possibility of A-Rod still using PED's. Here are some of his comments:
Good luck to anyone trying to figure why Alex Rodriguez has become the Yankees’ best hitter, despite all the factors that should’ve been working against him. That includes his age, the yearlong drug suspension, two surgically repaired hips and going cold turkey on PEDs. We think.
Let’s address this last point first. I have to assume Rodriguez is playing clean in 2015;
Except, he doesn't dismiss the idea A-Rod is using steroids. Of course.
So how’s he doing it? Here are a few wild guesses:
- The time off actually restored Rodriguez’s fast-twitch muscles.
This theory runs counter to conventional sports theory, which says an athlete’s reaction-time deteriorates with time, especially after 35.
- Better, more invisible PEDs.
Whatever happened to assuming A-Rod was not using steroids? Klapisch assumes A-Rod is clean, then lists one of the reasons behind A-Rod's hot hitting as being that A-Rod is back using PED's. Sounds like assuming A-Rod is clean isn't something that's being done.
A cynic would reflexively ask: Who’s to say A-Rod hasn’t found a more sophisticated supplier than Tony Bosch?
To this, we shake our head and say no. So does MLB, which has greater enforcement powers than ever before. Not only is A-Rod subject to increased random testing, as is anyone who violated baseball’s Joint Drug Agreement, but testers are now empowered to come to Rodriguez’s home at any hour.
But after A-Rod kept hitting well, this sort of slight cynicism was fixed and now Bob Klapisch knows that A-Rod is not cheating. Sure, Bob beat around the bush at PED use with the idea A-Rod would definitely get caught, but now he knows for sure A-Rod isn't cheating. He's convinced!
Sure, there are plenty of folks who still don’t trust Rodriguez and think his pursuit of 700-plus HRs is a scam. But it felt like everyone in the ballpark had long since forgiven A-Rod and were willing to ride shotgun into the record books.
Sportswriters like Klapisch realize they are behind the curve in the whole "forgiving A-Rod" category, so they are quickly trying to make up for this.
Again, you might not believe any of it. Rodriguez has apologized a million times since spring training and you might think he’s not humble, just hardened and maybe smarter about a PED supplier this time around.
But as I’ve said before, I believe A-Rod is clean.
Yes, but then you listed "Better, more invisible PEDs" as a reason he could be hitting the baseball well. So, you believed, but didn't really believe.
The Yankees’ slugger knows he’s being watched, monitored, shadowed. A drug-tester from MLB was dispatched to Fenway on Sunday night and he was there for only one reason, to hunt down Rodriguez. The tester, a grim-looking man who spoke to no one, practically followed A-Rod to the bathroom for a urine sample. Rodriguez didn’t mind the surveillance; he knows it’s his penance for past sins.
Can you feel the narrative around A-Rod turning around? It's amazing what hitting a baseball does for the perception of A-Rod and how it helps him to be a more believable character that a sportswriter can cheer for. Success cures all.
So the night ended with a lingering question: How can Rodriguez hit a ball that far approaching age 40? Why is his bat-speed better now than in 2013, when it should be the other way around? I’m casting a vote for A-Rod’s better angels – that it’s not PEDs, but his surgically repaired hips now healthy enough to generate torque.
That is until Bob Klapisch decides that A-Rod is really powered by PED's again. I'm sure he'll write another "I don't think A-Rod is doing PED's" column where he again dismisses the idea A-Rod is doing PED's while continuing to bring the subject up.
8. Baseball is dying a terrible dying death. Nick Cafardo says so.
Baseball is trying to attract kids to the game, somehow, some way. But it’s been an uphill battle. If it continues, 20 or 30 years from now there won’t be much of a baseball viewership.
Baseball is dying a terrible, horrible death. Perhaps it's my peer group, but nearly everyone I know likes and watches baseball. Perhaps my peer group doesn't reflect reality. That's entirely possible.
The Red Sox probably are less susceptible to this than teams in other parts of the country where baseball isn’t as popular.
Well, obviously. The Red Sox are the team that's the least susceptible to this problem because they have the most informed and dedicated fans that would never turn their back on the team. Red Sox fans GET baseball, so even if MLB consists only of the Red Sox A-team facing the Red Sox B-team for 162 games there will always be professional baseball due to the unwavering fan support of the community in Boston that can't be found anywhere else in the world in any other sport.
It’s a simple game that has been muddled by the trends of recent years. Kids, particularly in the inner city, aren’t playing baseball with the frequency of the past, and the interest level in watching baseball isn’t there either, as the kids interviewed for the Globe story pointed out.
But the Globe interviewed kids who aren't from Boston, right? After all, the Red Sox are always going to be popular in Boston so good luck finding any kids who aren't Red Sox fans.
The human stories of players and their histories have gone the way of their WARs and WORPs, and I’m not sure kids see that as fun.
The idea that WAR and other advanced metrics chase fans away from the game is a fallacy. A total fallacy. If anything, it chases the generation away that baseball wants to be chased away (i.e. older fans of the game), while bringing in new fans who are passionate about the sport of baseball and enjoy using different metrics to watch the game. Using advanced statistics is another way of enjoying the game, not a reason why the game is dying.
In our day, we loved baseball cards and all we cared about was batting average, home runs, and RBIs. It was simple. It was easy to be a fan.
It's still incredibly simple like that. Nothing has changed.
Roberto Clemente, Hank Aaron, or Willie Mays used to step into the box and swing at the first good pitch he saw. Now, batters are encouraged to look at more than four pitches per at-bat.
As a result, we’re seeing more called third strikes. At-bats take forever, attention is lost, and the outcome isn’t as good as it used to be.
In 2010, there were 28 players with 85-plus RBIs, 85-plus runs, and 20-plus home runs. In 2011, there 20. In 2012, there were 24. In 2013, there were 14. Last season, there were 11.
Reader Matt emailed me this article and included this little tidbit of research that he had done:
I looked it up and in 1963 there were 12 of these players in the Major Leagues. Plus, Hank Aaron drew over 1,100 unintentional walks in his career. Cafardo probably thinks that on every one of them Aaron spit in his hands, glared at the pitcher, and called him a pussy for not challenging him.
Oh, so "back in the day" there weren't so many of these players who hit home runs, drove in runs and scored runs was there? Interesting what research does to disprove conventional, unintelligent thought. Thanks to Matt for this research. It's one year, but it proves that Cafardo is reminiscing about a time that necessarily didn't occur. The past was always much better in retrospect wasn't it?
Oh, and home runs and RBI's were up during the Steroid Era, which is an era baseball writers like Nick Cafardo see as a black mark on the history of the sport. Yet, fan interest was high. Can't have it any way you want it. Want a clean game, there has to be some sort of sacrifice.
Why aren’t hitters swinging at those pitches more often? It just prolongs the at-bat, and thus fans lose interest.
Now, the more pitches seen per at-bat is considered a good thing, wears down the pitcher, but so do doubles in the gap.
The personalities have changed, too. Players are making so much money that instead of a game, it has become a business to them.
(Nick Cafardo shakes his fist at a cloud and yells at children for being on his lawn)
David Ortiz is fun, but then he gets criticized if he pimps a home run.
(Nick Cafardo gets in his 1988 Buick, turns on the radio and listens to only the older Rolling Stones albums)
A pitchers’ duel is fun to watch, but how many last a full nine innings? You see good seven-inning battles and then, of course, managers go to their relievers.
"Not enough runs are scored in baseball these days!"
"Why aren't there more pitcher's duels that last nine innings?"
Can't have it both ways. Want runs? Great, that means there will be fewer nine inning pitching duels.
With all the advancements in understanding the human body and the claim that strength and conditioning coaches do baseball-specific work with their players, why are there so many oblique, hamstring, quadriceps, and shoulder injuries? Is it time to return to the days when players didn’t overtrain and really stuck to baseball-related exercises?
Yes, MLB and their teams should mandate how often players can work out. Just like in the old days when every player was durable for the entire season, except for some pitchers who ended up with "dead arm" that couldn't be sufficiently explained.
Players of yesteryear had to work other jobs and as a result got stronger. Aaron delivered ice. Bob Feller worked on a farm. Over time, their tendons got stronger.
"Baseball players should not work out as much as they do in the offseason or overtrain!"
"Baseball players need to do more work in the offseason by lifting heavy objects or working on a farm in order to get stronger!"
So yes, while the game has to be marketed better to kids, the kids need to see the game we saw as kids.
Well that game isn't coming back and "the kids" are stuck with the game today. The same game where enjoyment can come from the use of advanced statistics and not despite the use of these statistics.
9. Rick Telander is afraid American colleges are attempting to exploit African teens by giving them an opportunity to go to school and participate in athletics.
The Anteaters player’s name is Mamadou Ndiaye, and he stands 7-6, weighs 300 pounds and has an 8-3 wingspan. That means if you turned him sideways, his arms would cover an entire doorway.
Ndiaye came to the United States speaking no English and was found to have a tumor on his pituitary gland, a problem solved by surgery. He had guardians in Huntington Beach, California, moved through high school, and now he has played in the Big Dance.
So after Ndiaye was dragged to America, a tumor was found and corrected, he graduated high school and now he's getting a college education? When will this exploitation end?
Basketball, dominated by African-Americans at the highest levels, is starting to skip the American part and go straight to Africa for talent that might lead the way.
It’s not a completely new template — Hakeem Olajuwon (Nigeria) and Dikembe Mutombo (Zaire) have certainly left their marks on the NBA — but with this new trend comes a sense of the dirty but time-honored exploitation of a continent so rich in natural resources but so lacking in fundamental order and control.
"Sure, other Africans have come to the United States to play basketball, gotten an education and succeeded, but this is a 'new' trend and it's called 'exploitation' now. Okay, it's not a 'new' trend, but for the sake of this article can't we just pretend it's new so I can try and get my point across?"
You can blame the NBA and its entrance rules for some of this. But the NCAA, which allows freshmen to play and tacitly encourages fake education, plays a bigger role. Coach Cal says it again and again: I’m just playing by the rules they gave me. And, like a riverboat gambler with loaded dice, he’s right. So the hunt for the edge never ends.
It always comes back to John Calipari in some way doesn't it?
In 2010, five Kentucky players were taken in the first round of the NBA draft, something that had never happened before. This season, Calipari has nine McDonald’s All-Americans.
And here is the damning number about this startling trend. You ready for the truth about the exploitation? Of these 14 players being discussed that played for Calipari, 0 of them are native Africans that were ripped from their homeland to play for the Evil Calipari.
So what has this got to do with Africans?
Good point. Nothing.
Well, the talent in that incredibly diverse continent is bubbling, even if it is raw, largely uncoached and far afield from the cradle-to-adulthood training that most elite American players undergo. But it’s there, and it’s noticed.
So the problem is that United States colleges are recruiting international athletes to come play at their school and get an education? I guess I fail to see the issue here. Nearly every school has an international student program where, and hold on to your hat for the exploitation to begin, they take international students and bring them to the United States to go to school. Sometimes they play sports. I know, it's horrifying.
Shortly after this, I read an article in Harper’s Magazine entitled ‘‘American Hustle: How Elite Youth Basketball Exploits African Athletes.’’ In it, I read about schools like Our Savior that have dominant teams due to relying on dubious African ‘‘scouts’’ who send them players such as Diallo, a 6-9, 225-pound power forward who is a five-star college recruit.
There is money for the scouts, in round-about ways, and for the rare players who make it to the NBA. But many African teen players are brought over and suffer indignities of alienation and poverty and things like sleeping on the floor in a gym for half a year, the report said.
Wait, so high schools are exploiting these African basketball players, which means colleges are also exploiting them simply by recruiting them and offering them a scholarship and housing? Interesting way to look at it, Rick.
‘‘It’s like an auction,’’ a high school insider told the author, Alexandra Starr. ‘‘Each kid is an item to sell.’’
There, watching, with many others, was John Calipari.
Watching, licking his lips, just waiting to send another African basketball player that has never actually played at his Kentucky basketball program to the NBA. One would think if Rick is going to mention Calipari then he would also mention how Calipari has never had a player originally from Africa play for him while at the University of Kentucky. That would display honestly, which isn't something Rick cares to display.
10. Andrew Harrison used the "n-word" and now Jay Mariotti wants everyone to stop using this word. It's Jay Mariotti, social advocate.
If we truly are interested in eliminating racism in this country, uniting as one, then all usage of the N-word must stop. Now. Forever.
For those who don't stop using this word, Jay will come over and yank your hair, then deny it while complaining the legal system is against rich, white men.
Why? Maybe because a 20-year-old named Andrew Harrison hears the N-word echo through popular culture and finds himself muttering it, under his breath after a difficult loss, when a reporter asks a Kentucky teammate about Wisconsin star Frank Kaminsky, who happens to be white.
Not because it's offensive word, but eliminate the word because others will repeat it.
“F--- that n-----,” Harrison said, mouth covered yet in front of a microphone, which picked up the racial slur and sent it careening across social media and into the mainstream.
CAREENING across social media, CAROMING into the Internet and then SLIDING into Jay's ears where he knew he had to stop this bullshit immediately. If anyone can reach across the racial divide, it's Jay Mariotti.
Either we’re all serious about ending this social sickness or we should stop talking about it and let it be. What was Ferguson about? What were the “I Can’t Breathe” T-shirts about? What was “Selma” about, the lessons and the movie?
It wasn't entirely about the "n-word." It is about race relations and perceived racism, which will be present no matter whether a racial slur is spoken or not.
Kaminsky himself should have known better earlier in the NCAA Tournament, when he and his teammates were asked how they would want an opponent to describe them. “Resilient,” said one. “Disciplined,” said another. “Unselfish,” said another. “Tough,” said another.
“White guys,” said Kaminsky, a character.
Oh my, Frank. By acknowledging that you are white, you are setting race relations back decades. DO NOT acknowledge you are white. No one would know if you didn't constantly bring it up.
We’re not supposed to be seeing color. We’re supposed to be seeing humankind. Why is USA Today counting the number of black and white starters?
"Let's be colorblind," says Jay Mariotti.
ESPN originally announced it was launching a black sportswriting site, which made me wonder why the network also wasn’t starting an Asian-related sportswriting site and a Latino-related sportswriting site and so forth. Why narrow the audiences? Why separate us instead of using sports media as a way to bond and connect us?
Because ESPN wanted a site that appealed to and for black sportswriting that everyone could read. The same reason ESPN has a site called "ESPNW." It's not an exclusive site, but a site featuring content from a specific sub-group of people who love athletics.
Why does Barkley, a man crusading against racism, use the N-word?
I simply find it funny that Jay Mariotti, whose writing career is most known for being hateful, wants to start crusading against hate and bring people together. He probably means everyone else should come together so they can all be in the same room while he fires hateful shots and criticisms from a totally separate room.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)