3 comments MMQB Review: Pre-Free Agency Madness Edition

Last week in MMQB Peter King discussed Joe Flacco and Tom Brady's new contracts, as well as wondered why people insist on talking on the phone while exercising. Perhaps Peter should wonder why he insists on talking about what he thinks others should do in a national column. The world would be a better place if Peter could be elected Pope AND be the high moral authority for Catholics to emulate. He could help the world act the way he wants the world to act. This week Peter tell us what we can expect from free agency (and we all know Peter is exceptional at correctly guessing what will happen in the offseason) and tells us about his visit to a museum. We all know if visiting a museum is exciting, then getting to hear about someone else's visit to a museum can only be described as thrilling. 

Some of the front-office guys I speak to regularly were on lockdown over the weekend, not allowed to spill anything for risk of alienating a player or agent, or to imply that they have a deal done, which would be in violation of an edict Roger Goodell issued the other day, prior to a legal tampering weekend.

Even though no deals can be agreed to before Tuesday at 4, I'm sure some are on the verge of completion.

This is reporting, people. The NFL allowed a legal tampering weekend and Peter is sure there are deals that have been agreed to during this legal tampering weekend. So Peter is reporting NFL teams are using the legal tampering weekend to sign players to free agent deals. You can't get this kind of reporting just anywhere.

BREAKING NEWS: Teams are using the Combine to move players up and down their draft board.

Ten things I did hear as Sunday night turned into this morning:

1. The Ravens are going to trade Joe Flacco.

2. The Patriots are going to sign Ed Reed.

3. The Patriots are going to re-sign Aqib Talib.

4. The Patriots are going to sign Chris Gamble even though he has retired.

5. The Patriots are going to draft Ryan Swope and Manti Te'o in the first round with one pick.

6. The Ravens are not going to re-sign Joe Flacco.

7. Brett Favre thinks these are all good ideas.

8. Why is that barista not using the recyclable cup Peter bought?

9. Meryl Streep is fantastic.

10. Let Peter tell you about this episode of "The Office" that aired two years ago.

Miami didn't have much, if any, competition for a big-money deal ($11 million or more a year) for wide receiver Mike Wallace.

The joys of free agency. A team that has a position of need overpays for that position simply because they have the salary cap room to do so.

Arizona wants a running back, one NFC West source told me.

That NFL source? Anyone who has watched the Cardinals play a football game over the last two seasons.

It's probably too rich for their blood, and I think he'll end up with Detroit, but Reggie Bush is the perfect back for that offense.

Bush is perfect for the Cardinals offense because he's fast enough to avoid the defensive players who will look to tackle him behind a below average offensive line. Plus, it's not like the Cardinals have used a 1st and 2nd round pick on the running back position over the last 3-4 years. The problem is obviously the running backs and not the offensive line, so why don't they throw some more money at the position and see how it all shakes out?

The Browns, flush with money and a new owner, will be as aggressive as we've all heard. Another source said he thinks the Browns will have one of the top two young pass-rushers on the market, Paul Kruger of the Ravens or Cliff Avril of Detroit, signed by Tuesday night. My money's on Avril.

It sounds like Paul Kruger is going to sign with the Browns then. It's always fun to see teams with plenty of cash spend that money. Of course some of these teams have needs they want to fill, but they have this money, and dammit, they are going to spend the money.

If tight end Tony Gonzalez is headed back to the Falcons -- which Mike Silver reported is likely -- one person close to the Falcons told me it's at least in part because a golden network job hasn't opened for Gonzalez.

Wait, so Tony Gonzalez claimed all last season he was going to retire, few people other than the media believed it, and now Gonzalez isn't retiring? I'm shocked. Has this ever happened before?

I'm still not sure if the legal tampering window is helpful to the players. Seems more helpful to teams. Some teams were talking to agents over the weekend and implying that if your guy doesn't take what we're going to offer, we've got two or three others we can get for less money.

I feel like Peter doesn't quite get the concept of negotiation and using leverage to work out a better deal, no matter whether it is the player or the team trying to work out a better deal using leverage. NFL teams may say they have other guys they can get for less money, but it doesn't mean this is true. They could simply be trying to lower the asking price for a certain free agent or scare the free agent into signing for the amount of money that team wants to sign that player for. It's impossible to know at this point if the legal tampering window helps the players or the teams more, but what NFL teams are saying to agents could very well be the result of posturing and negotiation. I feel like Peter doesn't understand teams will use the media for misdirection or try to further their own agenda.

I don't think Baltimore should play hardball with Anquan Boldin.

They didn't. They traded him. 

Cash due to some upper-tier receivers in 2013: Santonio Holmes, $11.25 million. Sidney Rice, $8.5 million. Stevie Johnson, $7.33 million. Miles Austin, $6.73 million.

Cash due to Anquan Boldin in 2013: $6 million.

How many of those receivers are probably a little bit overpaid? Simply because other teams want to pay a lot of money for an upper-tier wide receiver doesn't mean the Ravens should want to. He had a great postseason, I can see why the Ravens traded him. I don't know how Peter can be as shocked as he was when the trade went down. The Ravens said less than a month ago painful decisions about veterans will have to be made. They tipped their hand on this one and Peter was still surprised.

News came down over the weekend that the Ravens want Boldin to take less money to stay -- $2 million less, according to the Baltimore Sun. To me, there's just no logic for this.

Well, there is logic in this request. Logically, if Boldin had given up $2 million then the Ravens could re-sign Bryant McKinnie, Paul Kruger or Darnell Ellerbe. Is it a smart request to make given how well Boldin played in the playoffs? Well, that's a different story. The request had logic behind it though.

Ravens officials and players will be on hand to watch highlights of the season and mostly of the playoffs, and if they see what I saw, they'll say, What a dominant postseason Boldin had. How can we make a guy who played as well as he did take a cut?

My biggest issue if I am Anquan Boldin is how Joe Flacco gets $120 million over six years while I take a pay cut when I bailed Flacco out quite a few times in the postseason and helped him get that big contract? Flacco plays well and gets $120 million while Boldin plays well and is asked to lose $2 million? That's my issue if I am Boldin and why I'm not unhappy to be traded.

Of course Steve Bisciotti and Ozzie Newsome said some guys weren't going to be back and tough decisions would be made. Here we are.

And, to my surprise, the Ravens, who could lose two valuable front-seven players (Paul Kruger and Dannel Ellerbe) in free agency, may have to look at a receiver or tight end in the first round of the draft. I just don't think it's worth saving $2 million to try to win without a supremely valuable weapon.

If the Ravens had gotten Boldin to give up $2 million or outright released him then they could possibly have enough money to sign Kruger or Ellerbe. Instead they traded him and got something of value back for him. I think that's the point of asking Boldin to take a cut, in order to help the Ravens sign guys like Ellerbe or Kruger. I'm sure Peter understands this or at least I hope he understands this. It doesn't quite seem like he does though. The Ravens just weren't randomly asking Boldin to take a pay cut for no good reason.

Get used to hearing from Dean Blandino. He's the NFL's new vice president of officiating.

Blandino will extend an olive branch to officials still bruised over the three-week lockout last year. He is investigating having focus groups with current officials to discuss topics to improve officiating.

Well, focus groups do fix everything.

It's too early to say how Blandino will be received by the league's officials, some of whom still are peeved at the league establishment of the replacement officials.

Holy shit, get over it. The regular officials were replaced for three weeks of last season by replacement officials. It's not like the NFL held their family hostage. Plus, isn't it the NFL officials who CHOSE to not officiate the first three weeks of last season because a deal with the NFL could not be reached? How can the NFL officials be peeved at the fact the NFL moved on when the regular officials chose to go on strike and not work NFL games? These regular officials chose to not officiate these games by holding out for a better deal.

So Jeff Saturday leaves with his body and brain intact.

That we know of. Jeff Saturday feels like his body and brain are intact, but many ex-football players don't feel symptoms from playing football until after they have retired.

Then Peter relates quotes from Jeff Saturday and Peyton Manning about how it felt to play with each other. It's all very touching. They did not relay any more information about this incident though. 

The best one: On the sideline at Denver in overtime of the divisional playoff game, safety Ed Reed and cornerback Corey Graham were talking strategy about the next series. Graham thought he had a read on Peyton Manning.

"I know what he's gonna do,'' Graham said.

"What he doing?'' Reed said.

"He's gonna throw the seam,'' Graham said. "I'm gonna get it."

I wonder how many times a player will claim on the sidelines that he is going to intercept a pass or score a touchdown and then it ends up not happening? We only hear anecdotes like this one because NFL Films carefully edits the sound footage, but I would imagine football players routinely claim to be able to make plays they don't end up making. It doesn't make what Graham said, and later did, any less impressive of course. It would be interesting in my opinion to know how many times these "called shots" turn out to be just bluster.

Well, you remember this from watching the game: Manning didn't throw a seam route on the play in question. Late in the Broncos' last series, Manning, with a minute left in overtime, rolled right, trying to find Brandon Stokley, and he threw a weaker pass than he wanted to across his body into the slot area,

Manning didn't really throw a weaker pass than he wanted to across his body. He did, mostly because every quarterback throws the football weaker than he would like, but Peter is sort of making an excuse for Manning here. Peter is making it seem like Manning threw a smart pass, but just didn't get enough on it. That's not entirely true. Manning threw across his body into the middle of the field with tight coverage on his receiver. It was a stupid pass. He got as much on the pass he could have gotten, but it was just a dumb pass overall.

Manning threw the ball toward Stokley, who was trying to break free to give his quarterback an open target, and Graham wrestled it from him.

The insinuation being that Stokley wasn't open upon having the pass thrown to him. Again, it was a stupid pass. It's okay for Peter to say it even though he clearly doesn't want to.

The DVD, which comes out Tuesday, also yielded these nuggets:

Nuggets of delicious goodness. Burger King nuggets though, not those shitty nuggets from McDonald's.

Just before Ray Rice got 29 yards to covert a 4th-and-29 at San Diego Nov. 25, Ray Lewis was captured on the sidelines saying, "Gotta isolate Ray. Isolate Ray!'' Joe Flacco checked down to Rice, isolated.

In fairness and attempting to not ignore the genius that is Ray Lewis, I would say isolating one of the best players in the NFL on a defender is generally a great idea nearly all of the time. I don't think it was foreseeable that Rice could pick up 29 yards being isolated on a checked down pass, but I guess we should just pretend Ray Lewis is a soothsayer. Isolating Ray Rice is always a good idea. On fourth-and-29, he still had to shake tackles and cause defenders to miss in order to convert though.

Flacco on the podium on the floor of the Superdome, told he was getting a car for being MVP: "Do I get a car? Really. I get a car!"

He's so humble! Either that, or Flacco is stupid, because I thought it was widely known the MVP of the Super Bowl had a car given to them. I remember hearing tales of Eli Manning receiving a car the year before when he won Super Bowl MVP. 

I hope the $120 million contract doesn't change Flacco. I would hate to see an elite quarterback like that have success go to his head.

"Fifteen million for a corner? Not me."

-- Bill Parcells, the former NFL coach, on Sunday's "Parcells and Polian Free-Agency Preview" on ESPN, discussing with former GM Bill Polian how he wouldn't break the bank to pay cornerback Darrelle Revis of the Jets. Good show, by the way. Well-reffed by Trey Wingo.

Thank you. Finally someone with some sense. Now that Peter's personal hero Bill Parcells has said breaking the bank for a cornerback is a bad idea maybe Peter will stop talking about how the Jets should bend over backwards to make Darrelle Revis happy. I doubt it, but if anyone can cause Peter to think overpaying for a cornerback is a bad idea then it is Bill Parcells. He's like a hero to Peter.

"Without him, we don't win the Super Bowl. He's a huge part of this team and someone I want to see back.''

-- Joe Flacco to USA Today, on teammate Anquan Boldin's apparent steadfast belief he shouldn't take a salary cut to play for the Ravens in 2013.

Says the guy who just got a $120 million contract. It's easy for Flacco to say he thinks Boldin shouldn't have to take a salary cut to play for the Ravens in 2013 because Flacco has already gotten paid. Boldin is being asked to take a pay cut. Maybe Flacco should have specifically held off from taking $2 million extra in 2013 so the Ravens could re-sign Boldin? Nah, he wants his. Obviously Joe Flacco isn't the only reason the Ravens want Boldin to take a pay cut, but it's interesting for a guy who just got a new lucrative contract to bemoan the Ravens asking another player to take a pay cut. It's almost like there is a connection there.

Then Peter points out that Cliff Avril is probably going to be overpaid in the free agent market. It's free agency, that's what happens. Team overpay for players.

In 1996, the San Francisco 49ers signed a 34-year-old pass rusher set free by the Atlanta Falcons, a former first-round pick Atlanta believed was in decline after he'd had 16 sacks in his previous two seasons.

In 2013, the San Francisco 49ers may sign a 34-year-old pass-rusher set free by the Atlanta Falcons, a former first-round pick Atlanta believed was in decline after he'd had 19.5 sacks in his previous two seasons.

It seems that Peter King is pulling a "Gregg Easterbrook" here and thinking NFL teams only release players because they think those players aren't good enough to keep around. This is very much incorrect. There is this thing called "the salary cap" and it is a big reason some players get cut.

For example, the Falcons saved $6.5 million in cash and $5.75 million in cap space by releasing John Abraham. The amount of cap space he took up is probably the biggest reason he was cut. Obviously his age had something to do with it, but either they didn't want to rework Abraham's contract or he wouldn't rework his contract, so he got cut. Performance very well could have been considered in conjunction with Abraham's salary.

Chris Doleman played three seasons with San Francisco. He had 15 sacks in 1998, at 37.

John Abraham, your move.

Go to San Francisco, John Abraham, and you will have 15 sacks in 2013. Peter King guarantees it.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week

Spent part of the weekend visiting family in Pittsburgh, and my nephew Vince set us up on one of the great field trips I've made in a long time. We visited the Roberto Clemente Museum about two miles north of downtown, set in an old firehouse, of all places, which was reclaimed and refurbished by professional photographer Duane Rieder, a Clemente fan who has become the curator of the museum. Rieder gives private tours, and we were fortunate to get one Friday afternoon.

I am sure it is great. Visiting museums is fun. Hearing about someone else's visit to a museum is not fun. It's like seeing a slideshow of vacation pictures that someone else took. It is fun to see the pictures, but most of the fun and enjoyment doesn't translate to those people who weren't able to attend. So this museum sounds awesome. It's best to keep this one short, which of course Peter doesn't do.

It's such a different museum.

So there is no art, a planetarium or recreations of long-extinct animals in the Roberto Clemente museum? The least they could have done is stuff Clemente's body and put it on display.

But I loved the quirky things. The movie contract for a $2,000 cameo in the 1968 film The Odd Couple, for instance. The contract was returned to Clemente because he hadn't initialed to affirm the role he'd play -- a famous ballplayer who'd hit into a triple play. He never initialed it because he said there was no way he'd ever hit into a triple play, and so there's no way he'd allow himself to be portrayed in a major motion picture as hitting into one.

Well then. I am sure if the role involved Clemente receiving a massage from three naked women he would have not allowed himself to be portrayed on film doing that either.

There's a wine cellar in the museum. Rieder buys wine grapes from different parts of the world and makes his own wine right there, aging it in oak barrels the same as you'd see in Napa. There's Clemente Cabernet, and a Chianti with a Franco Harris label, and others. We sampled the zinfandel. Good stuff.

Rieder's an incredible storyteller.

It sure sounds like it. He should definitely be on VH1's "Storytellers."

On the top floor of the place, he tells about a Yankees trip to Pittsburgh during the 1927 World Series. Lou Gehrig wanted to get away from the crush of Babe Ruth fans at the downtown hotel, and he had a friend who just happened to be a Pittsburgh firefighter. So here, right on this floor, where the firefighters of Engine Company 25 bunked, is where Gehrig slept during his down time in a Series in which the Yankees swept the Pirates.

This would have been an incredible story only if Babe Ruth, Tony Lazzeri, and Earle Combs spent the entire day around Pittsburgh trying to find out where Lou Gehrig had gone to, then had run into Jack Dempsey after stealing his tiger, had Al Capone pop naked out of the trunk of a car and finally realized that Gehrig was at the firehouse with Engine Company 25. Then all four of them could have hopped in a car and made to the game in time. That would have been an incredible story.

I couldn't recommend a living-history museum any more enthusiastically.

So I take it the coffee the museum served was good?

Ten Things I Think I Think

1. I think the trouble with trading for Darrelle Revis at any time before October is mind-bogglingly simple:

The first three things Peter "thinks" all deal with Darrelle Revis. Not that Peter is obsessed or is any way responsible for running this story into the ground of course.

How can a team trade for Revis when it doesn't know how healthy he is coming back from ACL surgery, and when it doesn't know what it's going to take to get him signed long-term? If the Jets trade him during the early days of the new league year, which begins Tuesday, they'll be dealing him having no idea what his true value is.

While I'm not disagreeing, this is exactly why the idea of not ponying up more money for Revis or the Jets attempting to trade Revis are both good ideas. The fact we don't know if Revis is healthy or what it will take to get him signed to (another) long-term deal is why the Jets should look into trading Revis.

2.I think, still, the best thing for the Jets to do with Revis is to sign him long-term.

This despite the fact Peter just said it wasn't smart for another team to trade for Revis because they won't know if he is healthy. So it is smart for the Jets to sign Revis long-term despite not knowing how healthy he is, but it isn't smart for an NFL team to trade for Revis because they won't know about his long-term health? I don't see the difference, other than a team giving up picks to acquire Revis.

And I understand the reasoning of smart people like Parcells and Polian, who say they wouldn't pay a corner so much money. But if I'm sure by Labor Day that Revis is still Revis, I do everything in my power to sign him.

Yes, but for the Jets to find out if Revis is still Revis then the Jets may have to give him a new contract before September. Otherwise, there's a chance Revis holds out. So why is it smart to hold on trading for Revis before we know his condition, but it is smart for the Jets to sign Revis long-term without knowing his condition? I think Peter has a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. There is a chance Revis holds out without a new contract, so why is it smart for the Jets to sign him long-term? Shouldn't they be as cautious as a team that would trade for Revis?

3.I think, however, that I will never own the Jets, and the man who does, Woody Johnson, has it in his head that he'll never reach a fair deal with Revis, and so wants him gone.

And given Revis' reputation, his health and unsure contractual status this probably isn't a bad idea. Percy Harvin just returned a 1st round pick and a couple other picks. If Revis returns a first round pick and a couple other picks I think the Jets should jump on it. I realize it is sounds dumb, but if the Jets have needs at other places on the roster (including cornerback) then why not use the best lockdown corner in the NFL to fill other need areas? Revis wants a new deal, so he's only getting more expensive as the questions about his health mount. He is the best cornerback in the NFL when healthy, but a strong cornerback isn't like a strong quarterback. Having the best cornerback in the NFL isn't a great way to make the Super Bowl. Looking at the cornerbacks for Super Bowl teams over the last decade goes to help prove this.

4. I think when you hear as much noise as we're hearing out of Denver. that Elvis Dumervil has to take a pay cut or he's gone, well, a guy like that is usually gone. He'd be a good consolation prize (above Dwight Freeney and John Abraham, below Paul Kruger and Cliff Avril) for those teams needing a pass rusher who don't want to spend really big to get one.

And apparently Elvis Dumervil isn't going to want a lot of money to sign with a team? It seems to me like a 29 year old pass rusher with 37.5 sacks over the last three years would be highly sought on as a free agent, but apparently not. I'm not sure in what world Paul Kruger or Cliff Avril will get a lot more money than Dumervil will receive, but I don't think it is the NFL world we currently live in.

5. I think the football world would like to see you run well before the draft, Eddie Lacy. I go back to the draft four years ago, when Tennessee's Arian Foster had a bad hammy and never could run well before the draft, and he fell out of the seven rounds completely. Of course, Lacy won't go undrafted. But someone will need to see him healthy before the draft to take him in the first round.

While being true, is Arian Foster really the best example to use when talking about a college running back who was hurt by not running before the draft? Sure, Foster was undrafted, but he got to pick his team and it has turned out pretty well for him.

6. I think there's one important thing to remember: Washington won free agency at least three times between 2000 and 2009 and finished above .500 twice in that decade. So if you're a fan of the Browns, I don't know whether to tell you to root for Jimmy Haslam to spend $120 million in the next 48 hours, or tell him to wait for middle-class free agency, when good players are waiting to play for 30 cents on the dollar. No games are won in March.

8. I think the Colts will surprise people with a flurry this week.

Far be it for me to criticize the Colts spending money since they have the cap room and all, but paying 30 cents on the dollar worked out pretty well for them last year. It's all the fault of the fans. They want their team to spend money and use the salary cap room they have. I probably should blame the fans for wanting to see the Colts make a splash. If you can't tell, I tend to hate it when teams spend a lot of money in free agency.

10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:

c. I did watch Canada-USA baseball Sunday, against my better judgment after the brawl Saturday in Canada-Mexico. How, possibly, does that Pier 6-er in the ninth inning of the Canada-Mexico game generate zero suspensions? Ridiculous.

d. Big shock, Alfredo Aceves being that unstable. Red Sox followers are stunned.

e. The right calls would have been to have Canada have a couple of brawlers banned from Sunday's game, and Mexico's fighters banned the first game in their next tournament, if they play in another one.

Since this pertains to the same topic, is it really worthy of three separate letters? I feel like Peter King isn't quite sure how outlines are supposed to work. But hey, it's his column I guess.

h. The last season of The Sopranos ought to be in the Smithsonian. What perfect TV.

Yep, if this were 2007 then I would think this is a relevant comment. Unfortunately, it is 2013, plus the last season of "The Sopranos" wasn't perfect television. That's another discussion for another day though.

l. Beernerdness: Nothing new this week. I'll have to make it up next weekend in Phoenix for the NFL Meetings.

Please don't feel this is necessary.

m. If you're out to see the new Selena Gomez/James Franco movie Spring Breakers this week, 

Then you are either a pre-teen girl/boy or don't have access to the Internet to see young women wearing bikinis?

check out the judge in the courtroom when some of the young ladies run afoul of the law. That's veteran of the silver screen John McClain, the NFL columnist for the Houston Chronicle.

You know, Roberto Clemente would turn down this role for the sake of realism because he would never be a judge. He didn't even go to law school, so how could he be a judge?

The (Free-Agency) Adieu Haiku

George Young always said,
"They don't play better for more
dough." Buyers beware.

Same thing for the Jets,
Beware giving extension
to injured players.

17 comments Bill Simmons Talks about the Hockey Lockout Since He's Such a Big Fan of Hockey Now and All

I never thought this blog would use the "lockouts suck" tag as often as it is being used. In the past two years we have had an NBA, NFL, and NHL lockout. There has been a lot of owner-player's union disagreement over the past two years. One thing that shouldn't be disagreed upon is my opinion is that Bill Simmons is running out of things to write about. In this past week's NFL picks he criticizes Gary Bettman because it is low hanging fruit and Bill has become such a big hockey fan since the Bruins won the Stanley Cup two years ago and his magical daughter helped the Los Angeles Kings to win the Stanley Cup last year. Gary Bettman isn't exactly the best commissioner in sports, no doubt. It's just any time Bill writes about hockey I can't get his "I'm a hockey widow" column out of my mind. This is the same "hockey widow" column that apparently has been scrubbed entirely from the Internet by ESPN. I tried for five whole minutes and couldn't find it anywhere.

News broke last night that embattled NHL commissioner Gary Bettman suggested a two-week moratorium from lockout negotiations with the NHLPA. The reason? Things had just become too heated. I guess that's what happens when you cancel six weeks of games and Thanksgiving is looming — maybe there's a little more urgency, you say some things you regret, people take those things personally, and suddenly you're threatening each other in monotone Canadian accents...But canceling another two weeks just so everyone can cool off? Who does this? 

Perhaps two sides who can't seem to come to an agreement and don't want to cause harm to the current negotiations? Donald Fehr didn't exactly reject this idea outright, instead he took it back to his membership, so maybe this wasn't such a terrible idea.

And you wonder why hockey fans were regarding Bettman's lockout leadership the same way you'd act if you were watching a baby play with a chainsaw.

This joke.

Somewhere 2001 Bill Simmons is laughing at the asshole who just wrote a comedic "baby with a chainsaw" analogy. Somewhere else Adam Sander just read this analogy and just got an idea for a scene in his new movie about an immature guy who looks like Adam Sandler who is married to an attractive woman. The rest of the plot doesn't matter. Hijinks ensue. 

Oh God … wait, is that on … OH GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Writing down the sound effect of someone reacting to a baby playing with a chainsaw doesn't make it any more funny. It makes it sound a little more desperate and ill-fitted to this column.

This is a guy who recently earned the following e-mail from a Minneapolis reader named Peter Gilbertson: "How does one impeach a sports commissioner? How can a commissioner on the verge of losing two NHL seasons in one decade, with four work stoppages during his tenure, continue to keep his job?

It's always fun to read when Bill uses his reader's comments on a subject as if these comments are fact instead of an opinion. For some reason, Bill believes the opinion of one of his readers actually serves as proof of something being true.

First of all, how much fun would it be to impeach Gary Bettman? Can't you see him sweating and stammering through the hearings as various politicians rehashed an endless list of mistakes over the years?

This sounds like it would be about as much fun as hearing about Bill's fantasy football team, which we will have honor of briefly hearing about in this column.

Gary Bettman should have lost his job years and years ago. He kept it for the same reason David Stern plans to hang around for three decades, Bud Selig will still be running baseball when he's 80,

Because the owners like them?

Roger Goodell will probably get a contract extension even after he handled the Saints debacle so badly that he had to bring back his old boss to fix the situation for him.

I am not entirely sure Goodell exactly brought back his old boss to fix the situation for him. It was more of a situation where the Saints requested another party hear their grievance and make a judgment. One way or another, Paul Tagliabue ended up being the arbitrator and the players union even made a motion to have Tagliabue recuse himself from the proceedings. Not that Goodell handled the bounty scandal deftly and with aplomb, of course, but even Goodell's old boss hasn't seemingly helped the situation too much.

after I joked recently for the umpteenth time about Bettman's former boss, David Stern, planting him in the NHL to ruin hockey, a few readers e-mailed me wondering if that could be legitimately true.

I'm a grammatical mess. You only need to read pretty much anything I write to see I am not going to be named Grammar and Sentence Structure King anytime soon. Bill has started a trend (and I blame Bill because I remember Bill first writing this way and I like to blame him for things that aren't his fault) of using the word or some derivation of the word "legitimate" as a descriptive-sort of word in a sentence. It doesn't bother me all the time, but in this sentence he could have left out "legitimately" because it is unnecessary. If it is true, then doesn't that mean it is "legitimate" as well? It feels unnecessary to me, like a baby pushing a lawnmower would be unnecessary.

The case against Bettman in one sentence: The NHL sacrificed an entire season so they could reimagine their entire salary structure … and only seven years later, that "reimagining" went so poorly that they might have to sacrifice a second season because they need a mulligan.

So they really needed a mulligan? This changes my point of view tremendously.

That's all you need to know.

But is that all I need to know? I ask this because Bill now lists various other reasons why Gary Bettman sucks. While he is correct in his assessment of Bettman, clearly the reimagining of the salary structure isn't all we needed to know.

I didn't even need to bring up the league's botched television deals, overexpansion, poorly picked markets, belated acknowledgement of the concussion epidemic, or more incredibly, how they stupidly forgot to limit the length of contracts.

Remember seven years ago when Bill was writing these same things during the previous lockout? Wait, you don't? That's probably because he was a hockey widow at that point since he didn't feel the Bruins were competitive enough (the Bruins went 41-19-15 in 2003-2004). Once the Bruins put together a "legitimately" good team, Bill started paying attention to hockey again. 

Imagine your neighbor knocking down his house, then rebuilding it from scratch as his family lived in a hotel.

Here begins an overly-long analogy that can be summed up in 1-2 sentences. I will take a shot at doing so.

Gary Bettman should have been smart enough to figure out the NHL's problems during the previous lockout. Yet, he helps cause another lockout this season to correct what he should have corrected during the previous lockout.

Let's check on how Bill's overly-long analogy is doing,

He says, "Because I'm an idiot, that's why."

And then, there's an awkward silence before he walks away, as you don't know whether he's kidding or not.

That's Gary Bettman.

That's Bill Simmons.

Hockey depends on its attendance and the unwavering devotion of its zealous fan base. From a television standpoint, the league will always be handicapped by its lack of marketable stars (the biggest reason it can't command anything close to the NBA's television deal), a glaring problem that I noticed during my first year owning Kings season tickets, 

It was a glaring problem that "The Sports Guy" didn't notice until he was 41 years old. Quick to the take, he is not.

Anyone who went to Wednesday's Heat-Clippers game was thinking I'm going to see LeBron!, because they knew he was playing 90 percent of the game. In hockey, you don't say "I'm going to see Ovechkin!," because he might play one-third of the game if you're lucky (and might not make a single meaningful play).

So hockey has fewer fans who are bandwagon fans who only like a team because they like a certain player on that team? I think this makes me enjoy hockey even more.

It's the ultimate team sport, and really, that's the best thing about hockey — there's a guaranteed level of entertainment night after night after night that transcends star power. 

(one paragraph later in this very column)

So how do we end up with a salary system that allows Minnesota to spend $196 million on Ryan Suter and Zach Parise? And that's not to pick on those guys — you could build a decent playoff team around them as long as your goalie didn't stink.

Hockey is the ultimate team sport! All you need is two good players and an average goalie, then you have a playoff team. It's the ultimate team game where Bill believes three players are all a team needs to make the playoffs. Team. Game.

Just know that nobody is saying the words, "Suter and Parise are coming to town tonight!" It's just not that kind of league. You go to hockey games to see quality teams, not quality players. 

So hockey fans don't say, "Crosby and Malkin are coming to town tonight!"? I feel like some hockey fans might actually say something like this and try to get tickets to the game.

Suter and Parise shouldn't make that much money because hockey players shouldn't make that much money. 

It has nothing to do with them. If you think of the cable television model, it makes more sense —

A convoluted analogy to cable television show will help this make more sense. Not less sense, but more sense. Actually, in debating this issue I will confuse myself and probably you. I apologize in advance.

channels like AMC, FX and Showtime realized that the quality of their shows matter a thousand times more than the "star power" of the actors on those shows. 

Or they realized they have a tighter budget than shows on ABC, NBC, FOX, and CBS, (and certainly have a tighter budget than a movie has) so they have to rely on lesser-named actors to carry their shows. NHL teams don't necessarily have a bigger and better league the players can go to as opposed to playing in the NHL, so this isn't a very good comparison. There is one other major reason as to why these cable channels don't use "star power" to carry their shows. Most actors/actresses with "star power" don't want to do television. Where are the "stars" on ABC, NBC, FOX, and CBS? Kevin Bacon and Zooey Deschanel are on FOX. CBS replaced Charlie Sheen with Ashton Kutcher. Is this "star power" on the major networks? I don't recall a lot of "stars" doing network television. Another issue with this analogy is actors/actresses mainly want to do movies, so that dilutes the cable television talent pool. There is no major competitor to the NHL that dilutes the talent pool. Needless to say, this doesn't fit Bill's analogy so he skips over this little fact, but if an actor/actress has "star power," they usually want to do movies where the most money and exposure is at. I do agree shows on AMC, FX and other networks realize quality of the show matters more than the names in the cast. I'm just not entirely sure I see Bill's analogy to hockey though.

Not to mention, FX has had shows with Glenn Close, Rose Byrne and Timothy Olyphant as the leads. These aren't necessarily big name actors/actresses (well, except Close), but certainly big enough for television, no matter the network the show is on. Showtime has created shows around Laura Linney, William H. Macy, Don Cheadle, Kristin Bell, Jeremy Irons, Matt LeBlanc, Lisa Kudrow, and David Duchovny. These actors and actresses could also carry a show on ABC, FOX, NBC, and CBS. If this cable model was a good comparison to the NHL, then guys like Sidney Crosby would be playing in a different professional hockey league from the NHL, while the NHL settles for their best players being Ryan Suter. But the best hockey players like Alex Ovechkin, Crosby, and Malkin all play in the NHL, while the best actors aren't necessarily on television, but are in the movies.

These names above aren't big names by any measure, but there are quite a few Oscar winners and big salaries thrown in there. So I'm not sure Bill's "star power" analogy makes sense because I don't think it is always a conscious decision by these cable networks to not get a big name actor/actress for a television show, any more than it was a conscious decision by big name actors/actresses to not do television shows. The NHL should be "the movies" in this example because that's where most actors want to end up doing the most work, just like the NHL is where most hockey players want to end up.

Yeah, AMC could have spent an extra $15 million per season on Keanu Reeves to play Rick in The Walking Dead, but why would they?

Again, Bill's analogy fails because he is seems to think the cable television model is by choice. I'm not sure it is. To hire Keanu Reeves for $15 million wouldn't make sense in the context of the show, while paying a hockey star $15 million might make sense in terms of marketing, ticket sales and the success of the team. "The Walking Dead" has an ensemble cast, so it wouldn't make sense to pay $15 million for one actor. It's not a decision to avoid big name actors more than it is a decision to understand the format of the show and what would work financially. If Keanu Reeves said, "I will do this show for $50,000 an episode," then perhaps AMC would consider him for the part. Would NBC hire Keanu Reeves for $15 million per season? I doubt they would.

Same for Showtime's hit Homeland, which features only one star (Claire Danes, who certainly isn't making Parise/Suter money) surrounded by well-casted actors, including a few good ones whom you'd recognize from other shows (including Mandy Patinkin, a fairly famous name in his own right) and certainly weren't expensive.

I think Damian Lewis may be slightly more expensive than Bill would think. Of course I'm a big Damian Lewis fan (I know, I am the only one) so I could be delusional. Not to mention, if Mandy Patinkin is a famous name in his own right, then doesn't that mean "Homeland" has two stars that were cast?

You might recognize that same blueprint from Breaking Bad, Dexter, Californication, Shameless, Game of Thrones, Sons of Anarchy and about 10 other cable shows.

I guarantee Michael C. Hall makes a lot of money as the lead on "Dexter." I also guarantee he cost a lot of money (relative to television of course) when the show started as well because he would bring a fan base from "Six Feet Under" to the show. "Game of Thrones" is another show with a huge ensemble cast. It simply doesn't make sense to hire an actor/actress making $10 million per season to do the show when there are 15-20 "stars" of that show. David Duchovny did "X-Files" for years and probably wasn't cheap when he started doing "Californication" and I am guessing William H. Macy is well-compensated for "Shameless." If Bill wanted a better comparison it would be a comparison between the NHL and an overseas hockey league that wants to lure above average NHL players to their league.

While I don't hate Bill's analogy, I think he is making a truth in cable television casting (that it is hard to get stars to do television, whether network or cable, and ensemble casts simply can't work financially with 2-3 stars in them on one television show) and trying to turn this type of casting into a conscious decision on the part of the networks. It is a conscious decision, but a decision decided by the fact "stars" of acting don't necessarily want to do television. The stars of hockey do want to play hockey in the NHL, so I think this analogy doesn't make a ton of sense. If George Clooney wanted to do a Showtime show and the money was right, he would be on a Showtime show. Of course, what do I know? I don't live in California like Bill does.

On cable television, the showrunner and the writing matter more than anything else. In hockey, the sport and the fans matter more than anything else. It doesn't matter who Minnesota's third-best player is any more or less than it matters who plays Mike on Homeland. Fans are coming, regardless.

It helps that Mike on "Homeland" is the 6th or 7th lead on the show behind Saul, Carrie, Brody, Brody's wife, Brody's daughter, and the CIA Director. So it wouldn't make sense to find a big name actor who will only be in 5-10 minutes of each episode. Also, the idea that "fans are coming" to NHL games regardless of star power seems pretty faulty to me. It's a huge assumption in my opinion.

Wasn't the league supposed to be regaining control of its broken salary structure? How are we back here seven years later battling the exact same problem?

Probably. Gary Bettman does suck at times.

He's the worst commissioner in sports history, and really, it's going to remain that way unless Roger Goodell extends the NFL's season to 20 games, adds Wednesday- and Friday-night football to the schedule, pays a hitman to murder Jonathan Vilma, and gets outed for having a heated affair with his biographer, Peter King … and even then, I'd probably still give the edge to Bettman.

Shots fired! Bill should know Peter likes his men more grizzled and quarterback-y than Roger Goodell.

If you want to talk about moratoriums, Gary, here's a better idea — step down and give us a lifetime moratorium. From you. On to the Week 12 Picks …

Ziiiiiiiiiiing. It's good to see Bill cares so much about the NHL now that he is writing critical columns about the NHL commissioner.

Speaking of skunks, I have the following thoughts about the Marlins skunking the entire city of Miami …

2. Everything you ever wanted to know about professional sports in 2012 could be summed up with the sentence, "Jose Reyes needs to pass a physical but is currently still on vacation in Dubai."

I'm not entirely sure if I understand what this means. Jose Reyes makes a ton of money and it is MLB's offseason, so he is visiting a really nice city using all of the money he has. Does Bill think it is a bad or over-glamorous thing for Jose Reyes to be in Dubai?

4. The Red Sox definitely would have jumped on the Jose Reyes–Josh Johnson–Mark Buehrle trio if John Henry were still alive.

I would if Bill thinks this would have been a good idea or not. He doesn't say, probably so he can withhold judgment until May or June when he writes a column complaining the Red Sox should have traded for Jose Reyes or Josh Johnson...unless the Red Sox start off well, in which case he will write a column saying the "new" Red Sox are better built for the future. Either way, it's best not to get an opinion on the record in case it gets in the way of second-guessing or narrative building in the future.

Packers (-3) over LIONS

Remember when it seemed like things were falling apart for Aaron Rodgers? His offensive line couldn't block anyone. His skill position guys kept getting hurt. His agent badly overexposed him by throwing him into too many commercials, which had a habit of running back-to-back during the most dire parts of every Packers game.

No, I remember when Rodgers wasn't playing very well and the media built up this narrative that Rodgers had things falling apart for him and then tried to create some sort of dissension within the Packers locker room that probably didn't exist to the extent the media insisted it did. I recall how Rodgers still has skill position guys hurt, his offensive line still isn't great, and he is still in too many commercials. The Packers are winning though, so all of that is now forgotten.

And really, Rodgers has been crushing teams ever since. At the same time, his NFC nemesis Eli Manning contracted the E Coli Delhomme virus, Matt Ryan's Falcons lost a textbook "We would have believed in you if you won THAT game, but you didn't" game,

The Falcons are 9-1, but THAT game is the one which causes Bill not to believe in Matt Ryan. The game against the Saints, where Matt Ryan really didn't do a hell of a lot to lose the game.

In other news, here are some fun stats about Calvin Johnson's total number of touchdowns this season (two).

Calvin Johnson has the same number of TDs (two) as my West Coast fantasy team has wins (two).

Somehow, Calvin Johnson is still the best guy on my West Coast fantasy team.

This is reason no. 610 why I'm retiring from fantasy football after this season.

Fantasy sports: They are called "fantasy" because that's your state of mind if you think anyone cares to hear about your team.

Reason no. 611 was this e-mail, courtesy of Steve in Bedford, Massachusetts: "Fantasy is kind of like cheating on your wife. You don't get any solid action for a while (seven months of crappy SportsCenter bits with Jon Gruden), then you get an opportunity to get some (three hours with your friends drinking and competing about football knowledge with the promise of real football to come) only to spend the following 17 weeks living with regret and not wanting to check your e-mail."

I really have nothing to say about this. I think this analogy speaks for itself. Complaining you don't have a good fantasy team is really complaining how bad you are at fantasy sports. In other words, don't complain to us you suck.

Here's the point: Now that Nate Silver has solved the polling process in politics, I'd like to see him devote his attention to something much more meaningful … football gambling. How hard could this be? Couldn't Nate just study all the patterns from every football season and come up with 20 steadfast rules/tips/guidelines that should never be violated? 

Perhaps the problem, and the reason putting rules/tips/guidelines that should never be violated is a losing proposition, is that there aren't any patterns? I'm just guessing though.

Jaguars (+15) over TEXANS
 
I know the Jaguars stink, but Houston plays again on Thursday — this is the all-time Milton Berle "Pulling Out Just Enough To Win" game if there ever was one.

This was a good call by Bill. I like to give him credit at least once per post. This was me giving him credit.

In other news, here's an important e-mail from Phil in Irving: "I need your help to bring this problem to more people's attention — 'I will say this … ' is the new 'Having said that … ' Doesn't this phrase drive you crazy? Someone smarter than me could probably figure out how certain phrases seem to become trendy (ex: 'it is what it is' circa 2010),

John Fox has been saying "It is what it is" at every press conference since 2002, so perhaps he helped to introduce that phrase to the public as a whole. He usually said it after losses and he had a lot of losses in 2010.

but suddenly I can't enjoy TV or a podcast without talking heads obscuring their own valid points by throwing in an unnecessary, 'I will say this … ' You don't have to tell me you're going to say something — just say it!

And yet you are writing to the king of the overly-long analogy to have him help solve this problem for you? Bill Simmons, the same guy who takes 100 words to say what someone else can state in one sentence, is the guy you take your "Just say it" complaint to?

Besides, "Curb Your Enthusiasm" ruined "Having said that..." in one of its latest seasons. Now I can't type the phrase without laughing (or chortling as the Peter King/Gregg Easterbrook hybrid would say).

Here's the point: If Tom Brady doesn't completely, totally and irrevocably carve up that openly lousy Colts pass defense — at home, in a relatively important game that he's going to care about winning — it will be one of the biggest upsets of the 2012 season. Which means Luck (10 TDs, 9 picks) has to score 30+ points to hang around … something the Colts have done only once all year (30 against Green Bay in Week 5).

Bill gets credit twice this week. He pretty much nailed what would happen in the New England-Indianapolis game.

RAIDERS (+4.5) over Saints 

Warning! Classic trap game, correct? Instead of avoiding the Saints here, let's get aggressive, Billy! What's the opposite of a trap game? An escape game? Isn't this an escape game for the Raiders, too? I can see it now: in a furious fourth-quarter comeback, Carson Palmer conjures up his best impression of Kenny the Snake Stabler as the Raiders 'escape' with a win!!!"

But nailing his NFL predictions isn't exactly a trend with Bill, so there is this one to counteract the New England-Indianapolis prediction.

Speaking of gimmicks that I've beaten into the ground in this column, Peter from Iowa City wonders simply, "Has the David Petraeus scandal entered the Tyson Zone yet?"

The problem isn't Bill admitting that he beats gimmicks into the ground. The problem is that he continues to do so. Self-awareness isn't very useful if you don't use that self-awareness to adjust how you write.

A quick recap: "Tyson Zone" status officially happens as soon as you find yourself saying the words, "I don't know what's happening next, but I'm prepared for anything."

If you want or need a recap of the "Tyson Zone," then you should feel shame on just so many levels.

That's what happened (for me, a least) as soon as Chuck Klosterman became a bit player in a CIA sex scandal.

A new characteristic of Bill's writing is that he seems to constantly plug other Grantland columns in his column. It's like Bill's column is just another marketing branch of Grantland. There are seven links to either Grantland columns or a Grantland columnist in this article by Bill Simmons. This doesn't include the links to ESPN.com. So basically Bill is using his column as another way of marketing other Grantland columns. He's very smart in that fashion, but his intelligence in putting Grantland links into his columns doesn't make me shake my head at his shamelessness any less.

Bears (+4.5) over 49ERS

Doesn't Chicago's defense and special teams have just as good of a chance to single-handedly win the game against Colin Kaepernick as San Francisco's defense and special teams have to single-handedly win the game against Jason Campbell? What am I missing?

Apparently you are missing that Greg Roman is a coaching genius and Colin Kaepernick is the next great NFL quarterback.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 5-9
Season: 74-70-3

Bill may as well flip a coin. In fact, during this year's playoffs if we do our typical playoffs picks against Bill Simmons then I may include a coin flip as one of the "competitors."

8 comments Bill Simmons Decides Since This NBA Lockout is Really About Him Anyway, He May As Well Go Ahead and Fix it

Bill Simmons has had enough of this NBA lockout. It has gone on way too long in his opinion. So he has decided since every little thing in the world revolves around him and he can fix pretty much anything, he'll just go ahead and fix the lockout. It can't be that hard, can it? After all, everyone involved with the process is an idiot and Bill is a genius. Before he fixes the NBA lockout, Bill wants us to know he has bought L.A. Kings season tickets...or his Grantland credit card has bought them. Same thing, I guess.

I think Bill wants us to believe he may never watch the NBA again or that in some way the NHL will take the place of the NBA. I don't believe this of course because writers don't often give up cold turkey the topic they are the absolute best at discussing. Let's be honest. We don't want Bill Simmons columns about baseball, college basketball or hockey on an in-depth level. The Boston Sports Guy is much better at talking NBA basketball than all other sports combined. So we'd prefer he stick to the NBA and he would prefer talking about the NBA. So this column about the NHL hockey tickets really will be irrelevant once the NBA comes back.

During the NBA's latest "crucial" labor meeting in New York City yesterday, I was attending the home opener for the Los Angeles Kings 3,000 miles away. How were these two events related?

These two events aren't related at all. Now, in Bill Simmons' world they are related because everything revolves around him. So the labor meeting had increased meaning because Bill was attending a hockey game at that time. In essence, I think Bill believes his action of buying hockey tickets was a direct blow to the NBA's pride.

They are now in direct competition for my Amex card.

As we will learn later, Bill plans on sending Grantland employees to the game. The odds of Bill using his personal credit card and not writing this off as a business expense is approximately -45.4%. So there really isn't a direct competition for Bill's personal Amex card, but it sounds really dramatic to write that.

The Kings have either seven, eight or nine months to win me over.

Well in that case I would expect the Kings to have at least 2-3 "Bill Simmons bobblehead nights" during the season and direct their entire marketing budget towards keeping him as a fan. He's very important you know. He knows Jimmy Kimmel, Adam Carolla and several other D-list Hollywood stars. If you would like an entire list of the celebrities Bill knows, he will be glad to provide that to you.

I realized something during last night's Kings-Blues game: I have never not enjoyed myself at an NHL game. I mean, what's not to love?

To summarize:

The Boston Bruins aren't very good. This means Bill Simmons is a hockey widow.

The Boston are very good and win the Stanley Cup. Bill has never not enjoyed himself at a hockey game, those hockey games he attends when he isn't too busy not paying attention to the sport.

It's a sport with the best in-game format (long period, long break, long period, long break, long period, go home), best regular-season in-game wrinkle (the shootout),

I'm not a big hockey fan, but the shootout is an abomination. I would submit most true hockey fans feel this way. I don't like the shootout, so it is the worst in-game wrinkle next to the singing of any Neil Diamond songs by a crowd of people.

and highest percentage of "true fans in attendance" of the four major sports (indisputable).

Quite disputable actually. I would argue the NFL has this title, but then again if I argued this it would mean Bill Simmons has drawn me into another argument based on an unprovable theory. I would like to add, the percentage of "true fans in attendance" at a hockey game is declining now that Bill Simmons has season tickets.

I bought tickets because I like hockey, but also, because I want to learn more about the sport. I want to hang out with some Kings and see if the "hockey players are the best dudes in professional sports" theory is actually true.

And to think there are people who think I am wrong when I say Bill Simmons is infatuated with being famous and has no interest in writing if it doesn't help him meet famous people. Bill Simmons is basically saying here,

"L.A. Kings marketing department. I am Bill Simmons, owner/proprietor of Grantland.com and have Kings season tickets. Please allow me to meet some of your hockey players so I can write about them and get to know them on a personal level. Then one day I will see one of them at a restaurant and talk to them in public which will make me feel like I am important."

Really, this is Bill Simmons essentially dropping a hint that he wants to go meet some hockey players. Bill is essentially asking without asking for this to happen.

I want to send Grantland staffers to games and make them write about what they witnessed.

Hence, the cost for these tickets aren't on Bill's personal Amex card since he is using it for a business expense. The upside of Bill sending Grantland staffers to games is there may actually be a few columns about sports in general, rather than what sports mean in the context of something else.

For example, there is an article on Grantland right now titled, "Tim Tebow, Converter of the Passes" which is subtitled, "What can a sloppily thrown 15-yard out pattern tell us about God and country?"

On Grantland's front page right now (Tuesday evening) there is also a review of the Lou Reed/Metallica album, an article that is essentially a preview of the "30 for 30" shown on Tuesday night, two B.S. Reports, the Bad Quarterback League results, and a recap of "The Walking Dead." I can't ever accuse Grantland of not having variety I guess.

(Hence, our "Behind the Pipes" series; our seats are only a couple of rows behind one of the nets.)

Bill's seats are located a couple of rows behind one of the nets. Hint, hint for anyone who wants to go to a hockey game and make Bill feel important by going up and speaking to him while everyone around him notices he is someone famous. Who am I kidding? Bill has incredible disdain for his readers and only sees them as verification he is truly as creative and interesting as he imagines himself to be.

Another reason he reveals the location of the seats is just in case anyone wants to snap a picture of Bill at the game and post it on a widely read site. I think Bill's dream is to be accosted at least once by TMZ.

We even picked the perfect Kings season — it's their best chance to win the Stanley Cup since Wayne Gretzky's heyday.

This was not a coincidence Bill mentioned the Kings may be good this year. Bill takes any opportunity he can to jump on the bandwagon of something successful.

The NBA owners and players made countless mistakes during these past few months, but over everything else, one stands out: They assumed fans would stick by them through thick and thin. They were wrong. Fans do what's best for themselves.

I agree with this in part. The non-diehard NBA fans will do what is best for themselves. Bill Simmons will come quickly running back to the NBA the second the lockout is over because he is very good at discussing the NBA. It's his forte, outside of discussing Boston sports, so there is no way in hell he will stop following the NBA. His knowledge of the NBA is part of what sets him apart nowadays from other pop culture-spewing sports writers. So some fans will come back to the NBA, but Bill is correct this lockout can't help but hurt league-wide attendance.

Talk to any NBA employee, player or agent off the record and they all say the same thing in one shape or another:

It's the old Peter King, "Go talk to Player/Coach/Manager X and he will tell you this is true. That's right, I forgot, you can't ask them because you don't have access to speak to these people like I do" suggestion to the reading audience. It's a gentle reminder the person writing the sentence is an insider. Another thing I dislike about this suggestion is making a statement like "Go ask Player/Coach/Manager X..." is it provides little evidentiary backing for a statement since there isn't any way for the reader to verify what is being stated.

True story: On Monday, someone from one of the two sides called me to discuss my admittedly hostile Friday column (and my opinions on the lockout in general).

No, this is a true story. Bill will show you the phone records. Someone important called him. HE KNOWS JIMMY KIMMEL TOO YOU KNOW!

A Bill Simmons column is rarely complete without a name-drop of some sort.

realized we both wanted the same thing — an entirely new NBA system — then spent the next 20 minutes wondering why this mutual epiphany hadn't happened for the two sides that caused this lockout.

"Why isn't everyone as smart as we are? Perhaps it is because instead of having two people to hash out an issue, the issue is being decided by multiple millionaires on each side who each have divergent goals they want to accomplish, which is true even among the millionaires on the same side of the issue? Nah, that can't be it. They probably just aren't as smart as we are."

If Bill can't recognize the difference in two people hashing out an issue and 30 people on each side hashing out an issue there isn't much that can be done for him. This is a great example of Bill's ego running amok. He gets a stop sign put up in his neighborhood and then wonders why Congress can't pass a balanced budget as easily as he got the stop sign put up.

"And wouldn't I have looked you in the eye and said, 'Look, you're stuck on your four things, I'm stuck on my four things, but we can both agree that we need to blow up the current system and create something more logical — at some point — that addresses every big-picture problem our league has.

There is more than just one "eye" on each side being looked into by the other side. It is Derek Fisher, Billy Hunter, and the players looking into the eyes of David Stern, Adam Silver and 30 egocentric millionaires, some of whom can't even run their teams effectively. There is a lot more going on than just one person on each side learning to agree.

You want four-year max deals, I want three-year max deals … you get that one, we'll go with four.

What if the NBA players absolutely refuse to do four-year max deals? Say it is a sticking point for them. That's where the problems come in. You can't just start handing out compromises when there are multiple parties discussing an issue and a sub-set one of the parties feels very passionate about an issue.

You want sign-and-trades, I want no sign-and-trades … I get that one, no sign-and-trades. You want a five-year, $30 million max for the midlevel exception, I want a two-year, $3 million max for the midlevel … we'll cap it at four-years, $16 million.

Has Bill Simmons never been in a meeting that involved negotiations from two sides? It isn’t this easy to just compromise. Sure, it is fine to write down how easy it is to come to an agreement, but when you place multiple people with divergent agendas in a room, it isn’t easy to just magically see eye-to-eye. Easy compromises like this are what cause both sides to go home unhappy with the agreement in place. I really struggle to believe that Bill thinks it is this easy to fix the lockout.

"Yes," the other person said. "That's how negotiations usually work."

Notice, “the other person” says that is how negotiations “work.” He/She didn’t say it was that easy to make the negotiations work, but that’s “how” they work. From this I get that Bill is right about how to negotiate, but even “the other person” know it isn’t this easy because there are more than two people negotiating. Sure, both sides have been terrible so far, but David Stern can’t just compromise on something 30% of the owners don’t want. Billy Hunter can’t compromise on something 30% of the players don’t want.

This brings up my whole other issue of who this “other person” is. I know writers have anonymous sources, but the anonymity and the out of the blue phone call to Bill Simmons about this makes me question (a) how close to the negotiations this person really is that he would be wasting some/any time talking to Bill about the negotiations (b) whether Bill is exaggerating the phone call a little bit in regard to how much the person agreed with him. I’m just saying it is convenient an anonymous person called Bill and completely supported his view on how the negotiations should work.

"So why didn't it work that way here?"

Deep breath. And then …

"Because David and Billy are running it."

I agree both sides should come to an agreement and they will eventually. The agreement will probably be something that could have been agreed upon in mid-September, but that’s just how these things work. This doesn’t mean the negotiations are just simple through the use of compromising when neither side currently wants to compromise. It’s easy to point out how simple the negotiations are when you aren’t in the room doing the negotiating.

I think the NBA should look more like Hollywood's movie structure. I think middle-class guys should make half of what they make now, and stars should make even more.

Nearly every fan thinks this same thing. This is why I mock Bill when he “jokingly” wants to be the GM of an NBA team. He doesn’t understand things aren’t this easy. Fine, middle-class guys should make half of what they make now. So what does that mean when Rashard Lewis is 25 years old and becomes a free agent? Does Bill think Rashard believes he is a middle-class guy? Does Bill think Rashard’s agent thinks he is a middle-class guy? Of course not, because both of them want to get as much money out of free agency as possible. So it is easy to say what middle-class, bench guys, and stars should make, but who determines which of these players are stars, middle-class, and bench guys? The market does. One idiot General Manager can screw this all up and then we are at the very point where Rashard Lewis is one of the highest paid players in the league and Gilbert Arenas gets paid star money to be a backup.

It is easy as a fan to just say what all middle-class guys should earn, but it doesn't resolve which players middle-class guys, stars or bench players.

I think we should contract/merge several franchises until we settle at 27 teams; I think Seattle should have a team; I think Chicago should have two teams.

Screw you Chicago. Who cares if you don’t want two teams?

I think teams should be able to pay their own stars more money than anyone else, and that it's extremely easy to build in competitive advantages so they can do that.

Agreed. This wouldn’t have fixed the LeBron James/Chris Bosh situation where they joined Wade in Miami. Assuming that is the event we are reacting to by creating this rule, of course. James and Bosh got paid less to go to Miami, so I’m not sure the amount the Raptors/Cavs could pay them really factored into their decision to leave.

We need to create a league in which Jose Juan Barea can't make more than $16 million for four years, and only because that's what a valuable third guard who doesn't sell a single ticket should make.

Agreed. Who is going to tell Jose Juan Barea he is a third guard who doesn’t sell a single ticket? Not his agent. What happens when the Hawks offer Barea four years $36 million to be their starting point guard? He’s a starter now. What should he earn? How do we go about making sure Barea only gets $16 million? Make sure all of the owners use common sense? Good luck with that.

(Also, how does Bill know Barea doesn't sell a single ticket? People don't necessarily buy tickets to sporting events merely to see one player. It definitely occurs, but sometimes fans buy tickets to a game just to see the game.)

The problem is that Bill Simmons can’t enforce his rules on everyone and expect them to obey the rules. The NBA isn’t like his loyal readers. The NBA won’t just accept whatever bullshit rules he offers up as fact and live their life according to those rules. In principle, Bill is right. In reality, Bill is wrong because saying what a third guard should earn is perfectly fine, but what player is going to say, “I’m just a third guard, so I will willingly take less money in order to accept this role imposed upon me.”

The solution is to have fiscally smart ownership and General Managers. Maybe if Bill ruled the NBA he could figure out how to make this happen and then enforce his authoritarian rule on all NBA teams.

Another interesting point of this article by Bill is his overuse of the word “we.” Grantland had a fairly bad article about how the term "we" is the most overused phrase in sports. Wouldn’t you know the day after that article is posted the Editor of Grantland uses the term “we” repeatedly when discussing the NBA even though he isn’t a part of the negotiations. I am sure the rules don’t apply to the Editor in Chief of Grantland though.

we need to convince players that it's not always a good thing to grab as much money as you can possibly get (because nothing turns off fans quite like overpaid and underachieving athletes).

Good luck with that as well. Let’s remember Bill works for ESPN/Disney. It is a company with deep enough pockets to pay him more handsomely for his talents than any other sports site. This statement is quite interesting coming from a guy who started his own website with a company that had the financial backing to support it and still employ Bill if Grantland failed. It is hard to take advice from a columnist at the largest sports site on the Internet about not chasing as much money as you can get. Bill got the best of both worlds, a ton of money to write and his own site. This is the equivalent of a player getting paid very well and still winning championships. It is hard for some players to just turn down a ton of money being offered.

I agree nothing turns off fans like overpaid and underachieving athletes. Nothing turns me off more than a guy lecturing an athlete from taking as much money as possible in free agency, when the person doing the lecturing writes for the sportswriting equivalent of the New York Yankees.

Why won't Stern say when he's leaving? What's his succession plan? Is Adam Silver taking over? And if he is, why isn't he being more empowered right now? From the players' side, who takes over when Billy Hunter retired five years ago? I mean, five years from now? Who will be shaping the league????

Hopefully Bill Simmons will be shaping the league in a few years. Especially since he has all of the answers. Many times questions like “who will shape the league in five years?” takes care of itself over time. Let’s end the lockout and then answer these questions.

You know how you create real change? You seek opinions from outside parties. You have brainstorming meetings with non-basketball thinkers who might have one or two ideas that make sense. You don't hide behind words like "globalization" and "digital" as false evidence that you're big thinkers. You don't embarrass yourself by pooh-poohing contraction and telling people, "Please, David has never lost a team on his watch" while also threatening to cancel an entire season. You don't bitch about teams needing new "state-of-the-art" arenas without spending the requisite amount of time helping franchises figure out what "state of the art" will mean in 2015.

Where's the big-picture leadership here?

I also find it interesting that Bill wants answers for what may happen five years from now and is bemoaning a lack of big-picture leadership in the NBA. Just a few years ago, Bill was advocating David Stern to be President of the United States and writing semi-fawning ESPN The Magazine pieces about him.

My point isn’t to show how Bill is a hypocrite for criticizing Stern now, because he isn’t a hypocrite, but my larger point is to show how things can change over just a few short years. NBA leadership isn’t just going to magically appear, but just a few years ago Bill thought David Stern would make a great President and now he doesn’t seem to have as great of an impression of Stern. It’s easy to write open-ended questions about the future without current answers, but it isn’t as easy to understand opinions and situations change over time and accept this in a time of unrest.

Only the NFL has the luxury of saying, "If we disappeared, our fans would freak out until we came back."

I disagree in part with this. I think the same amount of freaking out would occur in college football and to a lesser extent college basketball. It’s just the collegiate players have zero leverage so we currently don’t have to worry about a college lockout happening, so this isn’t even on many people’s radar as to how the fans would react. Think about how college sports fans would react if there were no football games during the fall and no NCAA Tournament.

Fans adapt. Habits change. People like me say, "Screw it, I'll give hockey a real chance." Suddenly, you're not looking at the same landscape anymore.

Bill Simmons main writing strength is talking about the NBA. I don’t really believe he would give up on the NBA and give hockey a real chance after the NBA comes back. There is a reason the L.A. Kings tickets are for the Grantland writers and not just Bill Simmons’ personal use. Bill has bought the tickets, but I’m sure he will be glad to attend Clippers games once the lockout is over.

Everything broke perfectly. The Lakers and Clippers disappeared. Poof! They're gone. The USC and UCLA football teams are struggling. The McCourts turned the Dodgers into Clippers 2.0. Who's left? Remember, Los Angeles has no memory; it's a place where you're only as good as your last hit, where people latch onto winners and coldly dismiss losers both in sports and show business.

I am sure Bill pictured himself in a large office with a cigar and framed pictures of his face on the cover of magazines layering the walls when making this statement.

Right now? The door has swung wide-open for the Kings. As the clock counted down their 5-0 victory last night, I looked around and noticed that, incredibly, just about every fan had stuck around for the final minute. They chanted "LET'S GO KINGS! LET'S GO KINGS!" until the final horn, then skipped out of Staples Center happily,

From the way the fans left the Staples Center skipping happily it seems every fan at the Kings’ game was a nine year old girl.

Me? I drove home thinking, Maybe I'm not gonna miss basketball as much as I thought.

Yeah, right. When the lockout is over, Bill will slowly move back to the NBA. There’s no way he willingly stops being a fan of the one sport he is very good at covering. With his pop culture schtick running cold and his fair weather coverage of the Red Sox and Patriots in full force, I can’t see how he would give up his best topic for a weekly column. Hockey will last as long as the Bruins stay in first place and the NBA is locked out. Once that’s over, it’s back to what Bill knows he does best. He shouldn’t pretend otherwise.