1 comments Marcus Hayes Wants Chip Kelly to Deny He's a Racist

You may have heard ex-Eagles players say that Chip Kelly is racist. Pretty much every bitter ex-Eagle who Kelly has let go this offseason has claimed some form of this accusation. I don't know if Chip Kelly is racist or not, but I do know the mere suggestion he is a racist doesn't mean he needs to call a press conference and dispute this notion. This is where Marcus Hayes and I differ. He thinks Kelly should address the notion he is racist. Kelly needs to disprove the negative, which is not always easy to do. There are other writers who actually care to do research, and try to find out the truth without just assuming Kelly is racist, that have written very clearly about what Kelly's problem with players truly may be. That's no good though. Marcus Hayes wants Kelly to deny the accusations. Prove you aren't racist, Chip! Start counting how many black friends you have. That always works.

AS IT TURNS OUT, it really is about creating a culture; an inclusive culture.

Unless it's on his terms, Chip Kelly doesn't seem interested in that.

Chip Kelly is interested in an inclusive culture. An inclusive culture of his choosing. It may be racist (who knows?), but he's interested in a culture of inclusion around his team...it just has to be the culture of inclusion that he chooses. 

Over the past five months, an astounding amount of energy has been spent trying to disprove the observations of three Eagles who, at the risk of their own ruin, said they believe Chip Kelly has a problem with black men.

I'm not going to preface every sentence I write with this, but I don't know if Chip Kelly is racist. I do know the words of three ex-Eagles may or may not prove this is true. A lot of energy goes into disproving observations of these ex-Eagles because Kelly is having to disprove a negative. Marcus Hayes, prove you aren't cheating on your wife. Two ladies in the office swear you are cheating with a lady from HR. 

Predictably, what each of them said was amplified by the sensitive nature of the subject. Predictably, there was a massive rush to disprove it, and thereby make everyone's life less prickly.

Rightly or wrongly, nobody wants to be called a racist. I write "rightly or wrongly" because even racists don't want to be called racist. It's always called something else by these people who I perceive as racist. Something that softens what they are.

First: Validly or not, at least some of Kelly's players feel marginalized.

Being marginalized because Chip Kelly doesn't think these players fit the culture isn't the same thing as being marginalized because Chip Kelly is a racist. Read Mike Freeman's column on Kelly. It's enlightening. 

Second: Kelly refuses to even acknowledge the issue.

Acknowledging the issue means it is an issue. A control freak like Chip Kelly wants to control the conversation and his having to speak on his racist/non-racist tendencies isn't controlling the conversation.

His responses: If they feel that way, too bad.

Marcus Hayes has to know that people in the position that Chip Kelly is in, as the head coach of an NFL team, can't respond to every criticism of him. Kelly can't stop people from speculating about him or criticizing him. He sees these accusations/insinuations as noise, so he ignores it as long as possible. 

Not a hint of culpability. Not a whiff of empathy.

Think about that.

Again, he doesn't think he's racist, so he's not going to have a hint of culpability or a whiff of empathy. What person would lean back and think, "You know, maybe I am a huge racist..." It takes a lot of introspection that Chip Kelly simply isn't going to engage in during or prior to an NFL season. 

If the CEO of any other high-profile, billion-dollar company repeatedly was linked to racism by three former outstanding employees, all of whom risked being blackballed; and if that employer dismissed it by saying the employees were angry they were displaced; know what you would have?
 
Donald Trump. 

You mean the guy running for President who is among the leaders for the Republican nomination right now? And also, nearly every CEO of a high-profile, billion-dollar company will have accusations of some form of ageism, sexism, racism, other -ism's directed at either him or his company. It comes with the territory. It doesn't mean these accusations are true and it doesn't mean these accusations are false. It happens to a CEO and his/her company at some point.

If three former players told reporters that coconut water in smoothies upset their stomachs, Kelly would examine the chemical composition of coconuts from each continent.

Examine himself for imperfections?

Apparently, that's a waste of time.

The same guy who stated that Chase Utley is more beloved in Philadelphia because he's white, thereby causing him to get away with more crappy play, as compared to Jimmy Rollins and how he is treated, wants Chip Kelly to do some real introspection and figure out who he is as a person. I'm sure Kelly does know his imperfections, but he also believes these imperfections make him the successful person that he is. Sometimes our greatest flaws have to be managed because these flaws are often a part of why we are successful. So Kelly sees his control freak tendencies as a good and bad thing. Others see racism and others don't. It doesn't mean Kelly needs to address accusations of racism.

Certainly, players in Pittsburgh and Buffalo will ask Brandon Boykin and LeSean McCoy questions about Kelly. Don't be surprised if guys in Seattle get an earful from Cary Williams, or if New England players are enlightened by Bradley Fletcher. 

Later in this column, Marcus Hayes will suggest that Boykin, McCoy and Cary Williams risked their professional career in coming out and stating they believe race plays a part in Chip Kelly getting rid of them. This may be true, but the fact all three of these players found new teams and didn't have trouble finding new teams, leads me to believe the risk to their careers is being exaggerated by Hayes. I don't believe a player will be blackballed for calling Chip Kelly racist. It's the NFL, where absent murder (and if the player is out of jail now...well...) a guy will get a chance to prove he can play football if he has skills.

McCoy, after his trade to the Bills in March, said Kelly rid himself of all of the best black players. Well, with the exception of left tackle Jason Peters, the best black player, that's true.

I choose to believe the Mike Freeman article is correct. It's not a race thing and there are certain players that Chip Kelly simply has trouble relating to. He prefers all control and that is hard to make work in the NFL. Maybe Kelly is slightly racist in the same way a lot of people are unintentionally racist or sexist, but I don't think it's an active plan by Kelly to rid the Eagles of black players.

Kelly's response: McCoy was stung by the trade.

Which, by the way, is something that seems absolutely true. Until the Bills dangled money at McCoy, he wasn't going to play for the Bills. McCoy was stung by the trade by all counts.

Former left tackle Tra Thomas, after a two-year stint on the coaching staff, said Kelly's locker room was populated by players who think Kelly might be racist. Well, after what McCoy and Boykin said, that, too, has been proved true.

Kelly's response: We gave Thomas a chance to coach.

This isn't exactly what Chip Kelly said. Marcus Hayes, again, prefers to exaggerate to prove his point. Kelly said,  

"I didn't really see it, but I heard about it," he said. "I was just disappointed. We gave Tra a great opportunity. He came in on a Bill Walsh minority internship program. Mr. [Jeffrey] Lurie was nice enough to keep him on for two years - one on offense, one on defense - [to] see if he could find a job in the NFL. So I hope Tra does find a job in the NFL. We don't have a job open."

That's still pretty cold, of course. Is this coldness due to racism or because Chip Kelly just has trouble relating to other humans? I think there is evidence both ways. 

Boykin sent a carefully worded text message to a black Comcast SportsNet reporter that read, in part: "[Kelly is] uncomfortable around grown men of our culture . . . [Kelly] can't relate and that makes him uncomfortable." Boykin stressed that he and his teammates in the locker room often discussed the atmosphere that Kelly created.

Kelly's response: Boykin was "disappointed" that he was traded.

Except you know, well, I will let Marcus Hayes acknowledge what Kelly said and then dismiss it immediately as not enough. Which, by the way, is how any comments by Chip Kelly would be dismissed if he did publicly comment on whether he was a racist or not. 

That answer changed last week, when Kelly said the repeated assertions did, in fact, bother him . . . but, really, Kelly seemed more annoyed than troubled.

And again, if Kelly spoke further about his feelings on whether he was racist, then he would come off as annoyed and the circle would go unbroken. 

He should be troubled.

He probably is annoyed. He's annoyed because he would prefer to focus on the upcoming season and doesn't consider himself to be a racist. So because he doesn't think he's racist, then these distractions around the team annoy him. 

McCoy, Boykin and Thomas also are former Eagles; a status that, in the Jeffrey Lurie era, carries privilege and inclusion matched by few other franchises.

Each jeopardized that birthright with these comments.

Each jeopardized this birthright except for the fact none of the three were coaching or playing for the Eagles at the time they made the comments. Boykin and McCoy had been traded to other teams, so they were safe to give their opinion at that point. 

So why make them?

The popular and lazy explanation is that they were bitter they were let go.

Another explanation is that this is truly how they perceive Chip Kelly, as a racist. This, of course, doesn't mean their perception is actually true. What may come off to some as racism comes off to another person as simply being a control freak and difficult to talk to. Maybe there is an explanation between "being bitter" and "Chip Kelly is a racist." This doesn't make for a column that gets pageviews of course.

That is illogical. Each had too much to lose.

Not really. Maybe Tra Thomas, but LeSean McCoy and Brandon Boykin really didn't have much to lose. It's not like they played for Chip Kelly at the present time and McCoy had even gotten a brand, new nice contract from the Bills. What would he have to lose by speaking his mind on Kelly? The argument these players had too much to lose would be true if they made these accusations while still affiliated with the Eagles. Then I could understand this argument.

The more sensible explanation: They simply spoke what they believed to be true.

Yes, but what they believe to be true isn't necessarily true. To continue with the Donald Trump comparison, Trump claims to believe what he says is true as well. It doesn't make the stupid-ass things Trump says true. It's possible the perception these Eagles have is caused by groupthink based on the perception that they have of Kelly. They have a right to feel that way, but it doesn't mean Chip Kelly needs to address the fact he isn't a racist. Besides, if Kelly said he wasn't racist, would Marcus Hayes be like, "Oh well, he addressed it. Now I believe him." I don't believe Hayes would say anything like that at all.

Probably not. I have no idea if Kelly is racist or not, but I do know there is evidence that Kelly is just the type of guy who is militant when it comes to "You are with me or you aren't" and that could be coming off as race-related. 

All three were dispatched, on the face of it, with good reason.

Marcus Hayes should now prove he isn't racist. 

McCoy ran both the football and his mouth with little discipline. Thomas was never more than an aspiring assistant with no coaching credentials. 

Well, that explains why Kelly said he gave Thomas a chance and didn't seem sad to see him go.

Boykin is shorter than the cornerback template Kelly wants.

Stop with the arguments rationally explaining why Chip Kelly traded Boykin. Why would a control freak coach choose to want players that fit a specific template he wants? That's not something that would happen. 

Several other players, coaches and scouts, both black and white, have been similarly dispatched.

None has echoed these sentiments; not yet, anyway.

Perhaps they believe Kelly treated them fairly.

Some players have said Kelly treated them fairly. Why doesn't Chip Kelly come out and state whether he treated these players fairly or not? WHAT'S HE AFRAID OF? 

Or, perhaps they understand this sort of talk can ruin them in the NFL.

Ah yes, a conspiracy. Of course. So now the assumption is that the others feel the way Boykin, Thomas and McCoy feel, but they are too afraid to say it out loud? Once the idea Chip Kelly is a virulent racist has been proven, I guess the idea others are afraid to speak up isn't a bad assumption. Chip Kelly is racist and more players would like to say this, but they are afraid to. This is something that is pure speculation being passed off as an argument supporting Hayes' point of view.

As far as we know, most of this angst stems from the Riley Cooper and DeSean Jackson incidents and the way Kelly, Lurie and Howie Roseman handled them.

Cooper, a white receiver, was caught on video directing the N-word toward a black security guard in an alcohol-fueled rage during a country music concert in the summer of 2013, Kelly's first season. Cooper took a brief leave from training camp, then rejoined the team.

This move was always going to bring up questions. Letting Cooper stick around after he did this was a questionable decision. I'm not in the Eagles locker room, but I can't imagine there still aren't some long-term repercussions from keeping Cooper around. 

Jackson, a black receiver, enjoyed a career season in 2013 . . . then was cut a few months later. He also was subjected to a smear campaign that, to any sensible observer, was engineered (clumsily) by the team. Meanwhile, Cooper's fine 2013 season earned him a lucrative extension.

I have to admit, I don't know what was up with the whole "DeSean Jackson is involved with a gang" campaign that got him out of Philadelphia. Lost in this is that Jackson also had a lucrative contract with the Eagles and if for whatever reason he isn't buying into Chip Kelly's ideas...

Beyond Boykin's implication that Kelly is not totally colorblind, it should have been equally disturbing that Boykin, in his clarification statements, said that Kelly routinely ignored players:

"There would be times where he just wouldn't talk to people. You would walk down the hallway and he wouldn't talk to you."

Oh my God, no! Chip Kelly wasn't cordial? Forget being a racist or not being a racist, being cordial is expected of a man in Chip Kelly's position. 

This seems bizarrely dysfunctional, at the very least. But it might explain, if not validate, what McCoy and Thomas saw and felt.

Did Kelly only not talk to players who weren't white or he didn't speak to every player on occasion when he ran into them in the hallway? If Kelly only didn't speak to players who weren't white, then the players are validated. If he didn't speak to all players, then this anecdotal evidence doesn't support their contention. 

Consider, too, the "grown men" phrase Boykin used. Boykin was careful to delineate between Kelly's dominion over his college players at Oregon, a powerless group with virtually no recourse against Kelly's whim; vs. "grown men" in the NFL whose futures Kelly has less power to determine.

Marcus Hayes is having it both ways now...or at least he wants to. Marcus wants to say other players don't speak up or the players who did speak up did so despite the fact it could hurt their career. But then when Marcus wants to prove his point about Boykin using the language "grown men" he points out that Kelly has less power to determine the future of an NFL player than he used to. So which is it? Are some players not speaking up for fear Kelly will destroy them if they do or does Kelly not hold this much power over NFL players? 

Fairly or not, he has been painted by three men as a leader who, at best, is insensitive to his environment; at most, as a leader who unfairly leads.

Fairly or not, it's just assumed Chip Kelly is a racist, so he must immediately address and confront any ideas that he is in fact a racist. 

This is stunning, because Kelly's willingness to implement his innovations have cast him as a genius. Moreover, Kelly preaches culture over scheme.

So his preaching of culture is what could have led to him getting rid of these players. They didn't fit his strict culture specifications and so they were gone. Fair? Possibly not. Racist? Possibly, but it's an assumption I would feel better making if there wasn't also evidence given (anonymously) from Eagles players that Kelly is just very, very rigid in what he wants and is dictatorial. You fit in with what he's trying to do or you don't. He comes from college football where coaches are allowed to do that. In the NFL, personality from player is embraced. A dictatorial style is seen as not fitting what these NFL players want. Hence, Chip Kelly is being called a racist, rather than these players admitting to themselves that they simply didn't fit what Kelly wanted. I'm not saying this is true, but it is as much of a possibility as Chip Kelly being racist is a possibility. 

Still, he refuses to adjust, and that allows a malignant culture to fester in his own building.

Actually, that could have been the point of Kelly releasing some of these players. He didn't want a malignant culture to fester, so he traded these players. Right or wrong, he doesn't allow a malignant culture to fester in his building, so he gets rid of players who he doesn't see as a "fit."

2 comments Marcus Hayes Is Not Happy Marshawn Lynch Isn't Helping Reporters Gather Quotes; Lectures Him on Responsibility

Marshawn Lynch caused a firestorm by showing up at Media Day (it's capitalized because it's super-important and should be treated that way, except when the media who shows up don't treat it that way) and repeating the same answer "I'm just here so I won't get fined" almost 30 times. I personally would just answer the questions that the media has for me if I were Lynch, but I'm not Marshawn Lynch and no one is asking me questions. Lynch is putting himself in the NFL's Draconian spotlight by not answering questions and playing along. It's not a big deal, so I think he should just answer the questions. But of course, it's not a big deal, so who really gives a shit if Marshawn Lynch doesn't have much to say or doesn't want to say anything? I think reporters care more than fans do about canned quotes that can take up space in a column. If reporters are still relying on these canned quotes and think the fans really care about them so much that it's worth getting worked up when a star player won't talk, then I'm guessing that reporter isn't serving the needs of his readership as he should. That doesn't stop Marcus Hayes from accusing Lynch of making a mockery of Media Day (capitalized!). See, he thinks Lynch is shirking his responsibility to provide reporters who show up to Media Day with quotes so they can write stories. Lynch should work harder and show some responsibility so reporters who show up to Media Day don't have to work as hard to write the articles they publish about the Super Bowl.

What irks me is that Marcus lectures Lynch on duty and responsibility, as if he's skipping out on practice or going AWOL when serving in the military. Lynch is ANSWERING QUESTIONS. THAT'S ALL HE'S FUCKING DOING! This isn't a life or death situation where Lynch is not showing duty or responsibility. Let's keep the perspective that Marcus Hayes doesn't have about the "duty" that Lynch is shirking. I would bet fans don't care if Lynch answers questions or not. Fans aren't best served by getting canned quotes from players and it's a fallacy that fans will be pissed Marshawn Lynch isn't serving up cliches on Media Day. The only ones who care are the ones who accuse Lynch of having a duty to talk to them. Yeah, talking on Media Day is part of the deal, but it's not that important.

This is the same Marcus Hayes with the man crush on Pat Burrell, who also does not enjoy chatting about Chase Utley.

Marshawn Lynch literally grabbed his crotch to express contempt for the assembled throng of 200 media members as he made his way to his podium at the start of Media Day.

Not figuratively, but literally. It was literally the worst thing that Marcus Hayes has ever seen. 

For the next 5 minutes or so, Lynch figuratively grabbed his crotch to express contempt for the NFL and its commissioner, Roger Goodell.

Lynch was required to be there in front of the media and he did his job. That was his duty and he did it. The NFL can't (and shouldn't) legislate what players say or don't say to the media on Media Day (capitalized!). NFL players are not children who need to be reminded to sit up straight and give a good answer. If a player isn't going to give interesting answers, most of the media will move on to other players. But not Marcus Hayes. He wants Marshawn Lynch to sit up straight, answer the questions, say "yes sir" and do his job of helping the media do their job. 

He was fined $100,000 in the past year for his lack of cooperation with the press, including a debacle at last year's Media Day. One report contended that the NFL threatened Lynch with a $500,000 fine if he acted similarly here.

Well, he acted similarly yesterday.

I disagree with Gregg Easterbrook on a lot of things, but the one area he makes sense when discussing (most of the time he makes sense in this area) is talking about how the NFL doesn't have to be popular. If the NFL wants to turn off fans quickly, start treating the players like they are children and becoming heavy-handed. Marcus Hayes is advocating this heavy-handed approach. Media Day is a joke. It's not to be taken seriously. It's a day where the players joke around and talk to the media before the Super Bowl. It's not 1975. If I want to read a quote from an athlete then there are plenty of places I can find a quote from that athlete. Players are communicating to fans directly through Twitter and fans are getting better coverage of their teams through independent web sites that cover these NFL teams. If Marshawn Lynch doesn't give a quote, who cares? There are 105 other players the media can talk to on Media Day. 

Lynch stayed on the podium for just under 5 minutes, the minimum required of him.

Or as someone who is less concerned with indicting Lynch for his every action might see, Lynch did exactly what was asked of him by the NFL. He showed up for five minutes. He did his duty and met his responsibility. 

He repeatedly droned, "I'm just here so I won't get fined," a phrase that trended on Twitter 1 minute after Lynch left the podium. He saluted himself on the big screen in the middle of the US Airways Center. Ever self-serving, Lynch was thrown a bag of Skittles candy, with whom he has an endorsement deal.

Marcus Hayes is bitching that Marshawn Lynch didn't make it easy for him to do his job and brings Lynch's lack of cooperation back to who he is as a person, but it's Lynch who is self-serving by publicizing a brand that pays him to publicize their name. For someone who Hayes will suggest lacks responsibility and a sense of duty, Lynch sure is meeting his responsibility and duty to Skittles.

With more than 57 minutes left in Media Day, Beast Mode entered Airplane Mode and ended all transmissions.

He was required to meet with the media for five minutes and he did that. So he didn't answer the media's questions like they wanted him to. He's a grown man. If the media doesn't find him interesting enough, move on, don't indicate that he lacks character or is a bad person. 

Media Day at the Super Bowl, an hourlong availability of essentially everyone of merit in both organizations held every Tuesday of Super Bowl week, seldom elicits any real information about players or their teams; but then, most interviews with NFL types elicit little information.

So what's the fucking problem? Marcus Hayes admits there is no real information elicited from the players or teams, then says most interviews don't elicit much information anyway. So what is Lynch doing that is so wrong? He's not withholding information, because Hayes doesn't expect much information. Lynch is doing what the NFL is telling him to do, so he's not violating their precious five minute rule on Media Day. What Lynch is doing wrong is not doing more than what the NFL wants him to do. He's at the podium answering questions, but not in the right way. Lynch is being insubordinate by not playing the game that the NFL wants him to play the game. Basically, Marcus Hayes is mad that Lynch isn't doing exactly what the NFL tells him to do outside of the obligation he has already met. Seems kind of Draconian to me.

The NFL has credentialed entertainment reporters and fostered a circus atmosphere, a circus the NFL now charges fans $28.50 to witness.

And of course within this circus atmosphere where the players are asked questions by people dressed up in costumes, these players must answer the questions in complete and compound sentences. Perhaps the players should talk at length when asked a question by a media member dressed up like a cartoon character. Because the event may be a circus, but the NFL wants Media Day treated like the holiest of football days and Marcus Hayes is toeing that NFL line for them. 

The availability has devolved to include guys who wear barrels over their bare torsos; Olympic skaters Johnny Weir and Tara Lipinski asking fashion questions for NBC; and beautiful women in short skirts who salsa dance with Kam Chancellor.

Media Day is not to be taken so seriously as it is being taken by Marcus Hayes. It's fine for Lynch to be asked fashion questions by Olympic skaters, because the media doesn't have to take their holy day seriously, but Marshawn Lynch can't give non-answers to questions because that makes a mockery of the day set aside for the media to finally ask the questions they can ask every other day of the year to Marshawn Lynch. Marshawn Lynch isn't allowed to make a mockery of Media Day. Only the media can mock their day. 

But, be it cramped and hot and inelegant, Media Day serves its purpose.
If you need to speak with the kicker or the punter or the special-teams ace, you get that done at Media Day.

If your paper or website or station cannot afford to send you to the Super Bowl site for the entire week, you get all of your interviews done on Media Day.

Did Marcus Hayes really expect or want a quote from Marshawn Lynch? Does he think reporters are going back to their hotel rooms or the bar violently angry that Marshawn Lynch gave non-answers to questions and they only had 105 other players to talk to? Marshawn Lynch isn't a punter, kicker or special teams ace. He's been in front of the camera a lot in his career. 

Every player is contractually obligated to participate at Media Day.

Every player also is contractually obligated to interact with the press after games and during weeks of game preparation.

Lynch did both. He didn't do both to the satisfaction of Marcus Hayes, but he met his contractual obligation to participate in Media Day and interact with the press. In fact, I think most people will remember Lynch's interactions more than they will remember canned quotes from the other players participating in the Super Bowl. 

Patriots coach Bill Belichick, a master at gamesmanship and himself a reticent and often demeaning interview, yesterday fired this shot across the bow of SS Beast Mode:

"That's our role - to be the conduit between our team and all the fans - all of you that cover the team and the fans that read or watch or listen. That's an important part of the process," said Belichick, who lived and died on football news as a kid. "Having been on the other side of this . . . that's what I wanted. I wanted information. I wanted to hear what's going on. We provide the fans who are so interested in our team with information that makes it interesting and exciting for them. That's why we're all here."

This is simply laughable. You know the media is reaching to indict Marshawn Lynch when they start using Bill Belichick as the example of someone who understands how coaches and players are the conduit to the fans. Belichick rarely gives any relevant information in his weekly press conferences and repeated "We're on to Cincinnati" many times in a press conference earlier this year, which apparently qualified as doing his duty to meet with the media and give out important information as a conduit to the fans. But yeah, a Belichick quote talking about how information from coaches and players is important for the fans. Sure. Pot meet kettle.

And Belichick is wrong, which means Marcus Hayes is wrong. Belichick as a kid wanted information on players and now information like that is readily available through multiple web sites, blogs and online newspapers. No one needs Media Day to hear about what Jon Ryan has to say. They can follow him on Twitter. DeAngelo Williams of the Panthers did not speak to the media this year really. I barely noticed because he's on Twitter and communicated with fans that way. It's 2015. I don't need the media to get quotes from players as much anymore because there is a ton of information out there. 

That's why Lynch should be fined again; fined, at least.

If he is allowed to act this way, nothing would prevent other players - all players - from acting this way.

This is hilarious. "If Lynch is allowed to not speak with the media then every other player who doesn't like dealing with the media will not speak with us! Where will our stories and quotes come from?" 

If Marcus Hayes is concerned other players wouldn't speak with the media if allowed to do so, then maybe the problem lies not with the players being asked the questions, but with those people asking the questions. If Hayes is really concerned other players don't want to talk to the media, the issue for WHY they don't want to talk the media could lie with the media. Of course that's silly talk. A player's reluctance to speak with the media says nothing about the media and speaks only to the character of that athlete. 

Teammate Richard Sherman's contention that Lynch should be interviewed by a handpicked pool reporter is a typically Shermanian, unsophisticated solution: The best interviews grow organically, in the moment. Sherman, perhaps the best interview in the NFL, should know that.

Yeah, but little information is learned at Media Day anyway, right? Marcus Hayes said that himself. Lynch had a good interview with Mike Silver recently. It was a handpicked reporter and it was a good interview. Media Day isn't the time for an "organic" interview with the circus surrounding the whole event. Marcus Hayes knows that, but he's just trying to be difficult and act like Marshawn Lynch blew a chance for a probing, deep interview when this isn't true at all. 

Every player in the league who believes Lynch should not be fined should contribute his own money to his next fine.

Or maybe every journalist who wants Marshawn Lynch to do an interview should contribute his own money for Lynch to do an interview with the handpicked reporter of his choice. 

Lynch is loyal in the locker room and ferocious on the field, fully worthy of his "Beast Mode" nickname.

Also, consider their general profile: These largely are very young men whose talent has afforded them shelter and structure most of their lives.

This is as opposed to the reporters asking the questions who have lived a hard knock life of press box food and sitting down and writing at a computer for a living. 

I would bet many of these football players didn't have shelter and structure for most of their lives until they got to college. You can read in this story about all the shelter and structure Lynch grew up with. A father he didn't really know AND he got to move around with his three siblings multiple times? What a spoiled brat!

They are people for whom "hard work" equates to lifting weights and running sprints; for whom "commitment" means adhering to a loose daily schedule that tells them when to wake, when to eat, when to think; for whom "adversity" means being .500 midway through a season and somehow making the playoffs.

And this is as opposed to sportswriters like Marcus Hayes for whom "hard work" equates to sitting at a computer and meeting a deadline; for whom "commitment" means leaving enough time to eat breakfast and play some golf before making it to the 12pm weekly briefing with Chip Kelly; for whom "adversity" means having writer's block. Marshawn Lynch is a world-class athlete, so yeah, I would imagine mocking him for hard work, commitment, and overcoming adversity seems a bit funny coming from a sportswriter like Marcus Hayes. Marcus may need to find a mirror to see what kind of hard work and commitment he has made compared to a professional athlete, because I'm betting Marshawn Lynch has achieved something through hard work and commitment that few other people can ever achieve simply by playing in the NFL.

They know little of the real world and its gravity.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Marcus Hayes is obviously coming from the rough streets, unlike these pampered football players. A sportswriter lecturing professional athletes on the real world and the gravity of the real world requires no punchline. The lecture in itself is the punchline. 

Despite their existence in a universe parallel to most people's, they at least should understand the weight of obligation.

Lynch met his obligation. He met with the media for the required amount of time. It's still funny to read Marcus Hayes talk about the weight of obligations as if Lynch and other NFL players just always do whatever the hell they want. Meanwhile, as Marcus Hayes takes a paid vacation in Arizona, Lynch and his teammates are preparing night and day for one of the biggest games of their lives. Hayes' obligation is to not eat too much food off the hotel buffet in an effort to not feel bloated prior to his round of golf, which he must get finished before writing a daily column. Marcus Hayes KNOWS the weight of obligation. That golf swing isn't going to fix itself. 

Lynch's boycott of the press is no different from boycotting a meeting, a practice or a game.

It's entirely different. A meeting, practice or game is directly part of Lynch's job, which affects his teammates and their chances of winning a football game. Lynch not speaking at Media Day is part of his ancillary responsibilities which has ZERO effect on the Seahawks' ability to win the Super Bowl. This is how self-involved and little knowledge of the real world Marcus Hayes has. He's not doing brain surgery. He's taking words someone else says, writing them down and then telling everyone else what that person said. If an athlete doesn't want to speak meaningful words, few people care. 

What if he mailed it in at the Super Bowl the way he mailed it in on Media Day?

But he won't because he never has before. This is a ridiculous hypothetical because there's no comparison between a player boycotting the media and that player's performance in the Super Bowl, no matter how hard Marcus Hayes wants to try and tie them together in an effort to give himself and his job more importance. The way he's written this column shows Hayes has no understanding of the real world and its gravity. If he did, he wouldn't act like Marshawn Lynch committed a heinous crime.

He is contractually obligated to be present at both, to perform professionally at each.

It is part of his job, part of his duty.

And he did his duty on both. Maybe he didn't do his duty as Marcus Hayes saw fit, but that doesn't matter. Lynch was there and stayed in front of the media for five minutes. Instead of asking him questions you know he won't answer, maybe find another player to spend time with? Or is that too easy and wouldn't involve a sufficient amount of grandstanding? 

Duty should not be served. It is part of being a professional. It's part of being an adult.

Marshawn Lynch is neither.

Whatever. It's also not professional or adult to expect another adult to bow to your every whim simply because you want a juicy quote. 

As expected, his antics stole the spotlight from other, less distasteful distractions.

Why is Marcus Hayes acting like the media HAS to talk to Marshawn Lynch? If you don't like his answers, go interview someone else. Maybe the punter, kicker or a special teams player. Speaking of duty and obligations, doesn't Marcus Hayes have a duty and obligation to find interesting stories to write about? He's shirking that responsibility by insisting on spending five minutes with a player who will provide him with neither. So yeah, duty and responsibility...how about showing some duty and responsibility and finding another more interesting player to talk to, rather than antagonize a player who has nothing to say? 

Patriots tight end Rob Gronkowski created a stir by reading aloud from an erotic novel that starred a fictional version of himself. The erotica was poorly done and, really, coincidental.

The news was that Gronk can read.

Gosh, I can't figure out why Marshawn Lynch doesn't want to talk to the media. Why would that be when they are so kind as to call one of the athletes they are interviewing an illiterate? 

Spritely divas Lipinski and Weir, former Olympic skaters working the fashion angle for NBC, showed up in fabulous outfits. He had on a scarlet jacket over a silk shirt with a gemstone necklace, crammed his feet into 4-inch wedge booties and wore more makeup than she did.

The biggest diva in Phoenix was Marshawn Lynch, and the worst sort of diva:

I see what you did there Marcus. Though I would argue the real diva behavior is to expect a professional athlete to bow to your every whim and answer every question you have in the very manner that you expect it to be answered, and even though there are multiple other athletes you could choose to speak to, you throw a hissy-fit questioning the character of the athlete for not doing exactly as you say or want. That's real diva behavior.

He contends he wants no attention beyond the game-day adulation of his fans . . . then arrives for Media Day in sunglasses, a special (and possibly unsanctioned) Beast Mode hat.
 

So Marcus Hayes criticizes Marshawn Lynch for even doing his contractual duty of showing up for Media Day and answering questions for five minutes, immediately after claiming Lynch should have stayed longer and answered the questions while putting on a bigger show for the media. So if Lynch doesn't show up because he doesn't want attention, he's going to get fined. If he does show up then he's grabbing for attention by arriving in sunglasses and a hat. So either way he goes, he's going to be criticized. So why should I blame him for not speaking to the media again? 

Within an hour, the hat was available online for $33, touted as the one Lynch wore during Media Day.

It was the height of hypocrisy. Lynch was afforded a priceless, 5-minute ad for Skittles and New Era caps.

The height of hypocrisy is criticizing an athlete for not upholding his duty and responsibility when that athlete is getting publicity for a product he is paid to endorse, as well as wearing and getting publicity for the official hat of the NFL. How dare Marshawn Lynch use his five minutes at the podium to sell his sponsors' products when Marcus Hayes wants to use those five minutes to help his company sell his products! Such hypocrisy!

Both are corporate partners with the NFL.

Maybe the league should just call it even.

So Marcus Hayes is going to criticize Marshawn Lynch for meeting the NFL-mandated obligation to meet with the media, while claiming Lynch isn't meeting his duty and obligations. Then Hayes is going to criticize Lynch for meeting his duty and obligations as the employee of an NFL team by advertising for NFL corporate partners. I think I can see why Lynch hates the media. 

But no, really, it's hilarious to hear a sportswriter lecture a professional athlete about commitment, hard work and dealing with adversity. I can't seem to figure out why newspapers are dying...

6 comments Marcus Hayes Goes the Passive-Aggressive Route to Criticize the Use of Analytics in Sports

The Philadelphia 76ers have hired Sam Hinkie as their new president of basketball operations and general manager. They fired (wait, I'm sorry he resigned and is now an advisor to the team...so he completely wasn't fired nor was he going to be fired) Doug Collins, which really shouldn't come as a shock to anyone who has paid attention to Collins' coaching history. Take a look at Collins' coaching record and you will notice two things. He's pretty good at turning teams around, but he doesn't stay long. The 76ers have hired a Stanford MBA graduate (that's Hinkie) as their new GM and Marcus Hayes is feeling very passive-aggressive about it. It's not that he doesn't like the hire, because he doesn't have quite the balls necessary to come out and say this, but he seems quite suspicious of whether this more analytical approach is going to work or not. It seems a Stanford MBA is very impressive unless you plan on getting a job in sports. Actually, it's fine to get a job playing sports and have a degree from Stanford (see: Andrew Luck, various other athletes who graduated from Stanford), the media loves that, but don't ever think of graduating from Stanford with an advanced degree and believe you can work in the front office of a professional team. Stanford degrees are only good for playing sports, not running a sports team.

Josh Harris acquired Twinkies and Hinkie in the same calendar year.

Either move could make the billionaire investor look like a Ding Dong.

What a gripping first sentence. I'm enraptured with this column already. Analytics are stupid. Long live measuring a player's ability through intangibles like how much heart the player has and clutchiness.

Harris' group of investment sharks, Apollo Global Management, in March bought a piece of Hostess out of bankruptcy.

Harris' group of hoops hobbyists, the Philadelphia 76ers, last week hired 35-year-old Stanford MBA graduate Sam Hinkie to be the team's president of basketball operations and general manager.

Making an attempt to purchase a company out of bankruptcy is being an "investment shark," while buying the 76ers is being a "hobbyist." I like how Hayes shades his comments. Basketball is just a hobby because Josh Harris clearly knows nothing about sports since he received an MBA from Stanford. Anyone who goes to Stanford for business can't know anything about sports. These types of people only understand numbers and how to run a business, and we all know running or managing a professional sports team doesn't require any knowledge on how to understand numbers nor is a sports team a business.

Twinkies have a timeless allure.

Hinkie is more the flavor of the month.

I see Hayes is going for the Bill Plaschke method of journalism in writing one sentence per paragraph. It's always fun to read an article written by a grown man that reads like a four year old's book about a boy and his lost dog.

"Billy woke up very sad."

"He couldn't find his dog, Sam. Where is Sam?"

"Billy went outside to look for Sam."

Considering the evolving nature of sports, Hinkie's profile and his background might endear him to half of the Sixers' fan base and doom him in the eyes of the rest.

Since sports are evolving towards more stats-oriented performance measurements and we all know any type of evolution is only a fad, clearly this is a good reason for Hinkie to be the flavor of the month. Who cares if the definition of "evolution" would indicate that something that is evolving isn't only doing so for a short period of time? Marcus likes that word and doesn't care if the use of the word in this sentence above contradicts his contention Hinkie is a flavor of the month.

Half a decade will pass before Hinkie's analytics-based approach can be fairly judged.

And outside of the 76ers winning a few NBA titles I don't think it will be fairly judged even at that point by Hayes.

Harris, whose investments also have included cruise lines, knows a bad boat when he sees it. This 34-win ship is listing severely.

Oh, so Harris knows a bad boat simply because he owns a cruise line? What does Harris and his investment group know about a cruise line? He isn't a travel agent and he has never been the captain of a ship. You can't just plug numbers into a computer and this means guests on a cruise ship will have a great time. Harris probably hasn't ever been out of his mom's basement, much less been in the sun long enough to know how to run a cruise line. Yet he thinks he knows how to run a cruise line? There are real people who work on the ship, not just numbers that can be put in a calculation. You can't calculate fun!

(See how silly this type of criticism sounds when not applied to sports and applied to other types of businesses?)

Hinkie was part of the Rockets' retooling this past offseason that landed James Harden, Jeremy Lin and Omer Asik. He worked under Houston GM Daryl Morey, a new-age, big-picture man who runs his operation without fear of ridicule.

He runs his operation without fear of ridicule mainly because there isn't a reason to ridicule him. Also, I can't believe Marcus Hayes just described an NBA GM as a "big-picture man." This just seems like a description that goes without saying. There are probably GM's who don't seemingly look at the big-picture, but it is a GM's job to look at the big-picture. It's incredibly necessary. This description should go without mention because it seems so obvious from the job description to be an NBA GM. It's sad he has to include this description because it means there are not big-picture GM's running NBA teams.

Hinkie will be given a sledgehammer and a smartphone by Harris, a fellow geek.

And there is nothing wrong with being given a sledgehammer to change a team Marcus Hayes describes as:

This 34-win ship is listing severely.

Also, a lot of people have a smartphone. It's not just for geeks. Putting a smartphone together with calling someone a geek simply displays your own ignorance and fear of technology. It's not a good look. Of course Marcus Hayes was responsible for this classic chat, so I guess all bets are off when he writes a column. I guess we are just lucky he isn't calling Josh Harris a racist.

Fortysomethings and their elders likely will roll their eyes and regard Hinkie as part of an overvalued wave of fantasy nerds

Of course Marcus would never think these same things about Hinkie. This last sentence is what everyone else thinks about the Hinkie hire and not Marcus Hayes' opinion. Not at all. He is just very good at describing how these fortysomethings and their elders feel.

who use probabilities as sacred texts and who forsake what their eyes and their hearts (and their scouts) tell them.

Very impressive. This is one of the least intelligent descriptions of those who use analytics to evaluate basketball players. It's hard to see how Marcus Hayes has a clue about what he is discussing or trying to prove when he writes shit like this. I'm betting Marcus really thinks the Houston Rockets don't even have scouts. They just have a huge computer and Daryl Morey sitting in a room making decisions on which players to sign or draft without ever watching these players play. Even if the Rockets had scouts they would simply ignore them and do what their spreadsheets and "sacred texts" tell them to do. I'm not even sure what the fuck a "sacred text" is, but it's clear Marcus Hayes is very afraid of statistics, but not afraid at all of sounding like an ignorant dumbass when discussing said statistics.

It never fails to amuse me how these sportswriters frame those who use analytics to evaluate players. These sportswriters frame these descriptions in a way that is chock-full of ignorance and an outright fear of any alternative method of evaluating a player.

The thirtysomethings and their Freakonomics legions likely will rejoice that the Sixers have moved past sexagenarian Doug Collins, the crusty coach who just quit.

I love the assumption the "Freakonomics legions" are as closed-minded as those who criticize the "Freakonomics legions" seem to be. It's not entirely true in my opinion. Marcus Hayes did refer to Collins' exit as like a Shakespeare tragedy of sorts, so I'm not even sure what to take from that. 

Replacing Collins, of course, will be Hinkie's most urgent task.

Most NBA teams do need a head coach. It's always an important position to fill.

Pacers GM Kevin Pritchard was a panelist at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference in March, where the ComicCon alumni

This is just weak. I think bashing nerds has become the new puff piece. If a columnist is looking for an easy writing assignment that won't require much thought and one in which he can basically just re-word previously written works, just write about nerds and use a few generic references to what nerds like (basements, computers, comic books, ComicCon, statistics). It's like Mad-Libs for sportswriters.

who now work in sports administration meet to plot their revenge against the jocks they employ.

Why would they want revenge? Because they got wedgies in the locker room after P.E.in middle school, that's why! This shitty article almost writes itself.

Hinkie was a candidate for the same job last year, but Collins' distaste for applied analytics and his assumption of complete control of the franchise would have clashed with Hinkie's religion.

Oh, so the coach who just resigned and helped built a 34 win team didn't like Hinkie and this is a strike against Hinkie? Of course no analytics-bashing column would be complete without a reference to analytics as a "religion," as if Collins' own distaste for applied analytics and wanting complete control of the franchise can't be perceived as a religion in its own right.

The Sixers opted instead to promote Tony DiLeo, a loyal soldier for more than 2 decades – who, it should be noted, appreciates analytics in NBA strategies. DiLeo is expected to be let go.

Just another strike against analytics, the religion of dorks. Applied analytics didn't work for one season so they clearly will never work.

And, lest anyone throw aside conventional wisdoms, consider this: The Oakland A's, sport's pioneer into calculus-dependent franchise-building, have made the playoffs just six times in Billy Beane's 15 seasons as GM, and have won one playoff series.

Morons like Marcus Hayes don't even understand what they are criticizing. The A's don't claim to know everything. They play in a small market and don't feel they have a chance at making the playoffs at all if they don't look for overlooked players and inefficiencies in the market. That's what they are about, looking for inefficiencies in the market, not worshiping statistics.

How much credit should Hinkie get for Houston's qualified success? Who are his guys?

Fashionable, serviceable point guard Lin? Prized shooting guard Harden?

You can't really argue against the acquisition of James Harden. That was a great move.

Did Hinkie slam his red stapler on Morey's desk and threaten to burn down the building if Asik stayed in Chicago?

And we have a random "Office Space" reference. Let's brainstorm how this one came about. A character in "Office Space" loved his stapler, he was moved around the office a lot, had his office moved to the basement, and eventually burnt down the building. Nerds live in the basement. Hinkie is a nerd who lives in the basement so he obviously has a red stapler and is prone to burning buildings down. Brainstorm done. That's how we got to the random "Office Space" reference.

Of course, there are facets to running a team that cannot be graphed.

There are also facets of running a team that can't be seen through the eyes of a grizzled old scout.

How do you quantify chemistry?

That's easy. Bill Simmons says chemistry can be quantified by counting the number of high fives a team gives to each other.

What metric gauges the likelihood of, say, players eating chicken and drinking beer in the clubhouse during games?

What's the likelihood eating chicken and beer in the clubhouse during a game will cause a team to lose quite a few games in a row?

Even if Hinkie is an eyes-on GM, an eager, tireless scout, does that mean he knows what he's seeing?

One would hope Hinkie understands and knows what he is seeing, though contrary to Marcus Hayes' opinion, the 76ers will still employ scouts that will give reports on what they see to Hinkie.

Harris has hired what he knows; what has worked for him in the past. Dispassionate acquisition and manipulation of resources, inevitable "reorganization" of "assets," resulted in a lack of humanism that helped lead to the disastrous moves the Sixers made last year.

But you just said that Doug Collins wouldn't relinquish complete control of the 76ers team and that is why Hinkie wasn't considered for GM last year. You can't have it both ways. The 76ers can't have rejected Hinkie's methods while also adopting them and failing in the process. Don't blame Hinkie for another GM's failings simply because you are not informed enough to understand how applied analytics works in the NBA.

The questions about Bynum's toughness, professionalism and commitment all turned out to be warranted. Any questions about Andre Iguodala's value were not.

Marcus Hayes has a huge hard-on for Andre Iguodala. I would imagine he has spent quite a few nights outside of Iguodala's residence reciting poetry that extols Iguodala's virtues to all within ear shot. Iguodala is to Marcus Hayes as Brett Favre is to Peter King.

Still, teams implement everything they can to produce wins. Consider some of the better teams over the past few seasons.

After passive-aggressively bashing applied analytics, this is the part where Marcus Hayes desperately plays both sides and starts to acknowledge some of these methods could work. See, he is against and for the use of applied analytics. However it works out for the 76ers in the future, he will be right, and can write a column saying how he KNEW this is the outcome that would occur if the 76ers used/didn't use applied analytics to evaluate basketball players.

The Celtics, operating in the shadow of the sabergeeks at Fenway, hired Harvard law grad Mike Zarren almost a decade ago, and he advanced to assistant GM as the team acquired stars like Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen – but also was bolstered by less-heralded veterans Jeff Green and Brandon Bass.

I wouldn't say the acquisition of Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen was an analytics decision any more than it was a decision to trade for two Hall of Fame players who wanted a championship ring.

Mavericks owner Mark Cuban is rabid about analytics. The Spurs, perhaps the benchmark for professionalism, have used an analytics arm for years. Heat coach Erik Spoelstra created the team's stats system when he was Pat Riley's gofer, and Spoelstra uses the software to run simulations.

It's almost like when analytics are applied with the use of old-fashioned scouting, along with good coaching, they can help a team win playoff games be successful. Choosing to use analytics isn't necessarily an "either/or" situation when compared to the decision to use grizzled, old scouts. Marcus Hayes is very desperate to paint it as an "either/or" situation though.

15 NBA teams that have installed SportVU, the Stats, Inc. camera system that tracks players and the ball and how they relate and interact. SportVU is not, of course, the only such tool, nor is it universally loved by analytic nuts. The Heat, for instance, does not have one.

Again, it is almost like all stats geeks aren't exactly alike. What a shock that is for Marcus since he much prefers placing any ideas or theories he doesn't like or understand into a little box and make generalized, universal assumptions about the people who believe or follow those ideas or theories.

The Sixers also hired Aaron Barzilai in November, long after he might have analyzed a trade for a player such as, say, Andrew Bynum . . . an unfortunate timing development, perhaps.

Barzilai's basketballvalue.com website computed players' values for the two seasons that preceded the end of the 2012 playoffs.

The website showed that, remarkably, Andre Iguodala was slightly more valuable than Kevin Durant . . . and was worth considerably more than Andrew Bynum.

Any measure that says Andre Iguodala is very, very valuable is a measure that Marcus Hayes can get behind. Maybe that's what this column was all about really, making sure the reader knew that trading Hayes' idol and BFF Andre Iguodala was a bad idea.

This column had zero "likes" on Facebook at the time I wrote this column. This shouldn't be a shock after all, only nerds use computers for such things like Facebook.

0 comments Marcus Hayes Misses Pat Burrell's Scent, His Musk; Once This Is All Over Thinks They Should Get an Apartment Together

Ever since Marcus Hayes' epic "Chase Utley is loved by Phillies fans because he's white" chat happened, I've bookmarked Marcus Hayes as a person to look out for. I've written about him a few times, but he's never expressed extreme love/hate for a player like I had hoped he would since that date. My patience has finally paid off because Marcus Hayes has written a fluff piece/love letter to Pat Burrell. He wants us all to know that Burrell isn't just a sexy man with a sexy look in his eyes while he is sexily swinging the bat, but he's also a pretty face that played baseball in a very attractive fashion. To call what Burrell did "playing baseball" is selling him short. He played baseball much in the way Albert Einstein played inventor, much like George Gershwin played composer...except he did it all with much more charisma and sextitude.

(As a complete sidebar to this article, Burrell was also a pretty good player. A point I tend to lose when his physical attractiveness and his love of party are mentioned too often.)

TONIGHT, Pat Burrell will throw out the first pitch in San Francisco.

He will also swing and miss this pitch. The Phillies fans will then somehow simultaneously manage to boo and give him a standing ovation. That's how amazing he is.

For years, Burrell's influence on the organization will be felt.

Years? Decades. Millenniums. 20,000 years from now the only thing that will survive from modern society is drawings on office walls of Pat Burrell and stories of his exploits as a Philadelphia Phillie. Well, mostly the drawings will be of how movie-star gorgeous Burrell was and how much he liked to party.

Around Burrell, the Phillies constructed a ballclub that won the last five National League East titles; a club that won the World Series in 2008 and went to another Series in 2009, after Burrell left for Tampa Bay.

Of course MVPs like Jimmy Rollins, Ryan Howard and Chase Utley also had the team built around them in some ways. The Phillies were built around Pat Burrell much in the same way the New England Patriots early 2000's dynasty were built around Kevin Faulk or Mike Vrabel.

He was not the best player on any of his Phillies teams.

But he was the sexiest.

Just once was he the most valuable player on a Phillies team, in 2002, when he teased the baseball world with a breakout season.

(Marcus Hayes begins rubbing his body with oils) What a tease, Pat the Bat was...

Burrell always was the biggest star.

I wonder why that was?

After a princely high school career in California

Here comes the unacceptable and hilariously terrible fawning over Burrell.

Let's cue some mood music for this column.

and a Ruthian stint in college at Miami,

Really it was more Mantleian, but no one enjoys using that word very much.

Standing 6-4, movie-star gorgeous and often without scruple, "Pat the Bat" thrived.

Burrell was sexy and dangerous. That's a combination no sportswriter can ignore. No sportswriter with scruple that is.

He rocketed through the minors.

Clearly, you can see from the metaphors Marcus Hayes is using that this is a very sexualized column on Burrell.

The corner locker belonged to Burrell. He radiated charisma,

I'm pretty sure he never radiated Charisma, but he did go out on the town with her quite a few times. He had a habit of coming back from his night on the town with Charisma AND Candy.

with his Ray Liotta eyes

Now are these the "I'm crazed on cocaine and is that a helicopter that has been following me all day" Ray Liotta eyes or the "I'm gonna have to beat the shit out of my neighbor, be back in a minute," Ray Liotta eyes? I feel like this needs to be cleared up.

and his Rat Pack exploits.

Nothing better than sitting down near the corner locker with the other media guys and hearing some stories of Pat Burrell tagging some road beef. Amirightorwhat? Let's just let guys be guys.

"He handled his business," says Howard, grinning. "If you're going to go out and party or whatever, you have to come in the next day to handle your business . . .

Pat Burrell was a good hitter and good at partying. Also, Marcus Hayes wants us to remember he was sexy too! Don't forget that!

"He was everybody's dream. Every girl's dream," Victorino says.

And Marcus Hayes' dream.

Every player watched how Pat dressed,

Or DIDN'T dress, as the case may be.

what Pat drove,

Or what drove women (and Marcus Hayes) crazy, of course.

where Pat lived,

He lived life in the fast lane, naturally.

how Pat tipped clubhouse attendants and barkeeps,

"Tell you what, in lieu of cash, come out with me tonight and get my sloppy seconds."

says Victorino: "He was similar to a godfather."

So he was like Ray Liotta, except a godfather? I smell "Goodfellas" sequel with Burrell as a cocky, sexy, fast-living mafia figure!

Blessed with heavenly looks, Burrell proved mortal most of his 11-year career. A foot injury has ended his run. Incredibly, Burrell is only 35.

I'm not sure what's shocking about Burrell's age. Injuries have ruined many a player's career. Also, I love how Marcus Hayes says Burrell was blessed with heavenly looks, but injuries made him mortal. I just love it. It's like Burrell is a Greek god and his Achilles Hell is his mortality...so that makes him a human, right?

Only twice did he reach his production potential. In 2002 and '05, he drove in more than 100 runs and hit at least .280, the only times he hit those marks.

Maybe he exceeded his production potential those two years and the rest of the years WERE his production potential. Deep.

Burrell never was a bad investment. He averaged 31 homers and 93 RBI over the last three seasons of the deal, which cost the Phillies just over $37 million.

In the same span, Alex Rodriguez averaged 41 homers and 127 RBI . . . but then, Burrell made about half as much money.

Of course Rodriguez played a different position from Burrell and there are other numbers that could better compare the two players, but I still get Hayes' point. The other difference between these two players is no one except for A-Rod wanted to look at pictures of A-Rod shirtless...while everyone wanted to look at Pat Burrell shirtless.

And, despite shining in the Steroid Era, Burrell never was tainted by a scandal involving performance enhancers.

So we KNOW he was definitely clean since he never got caught!

Still, as Burrell stood in leftfield night after night, abuse rained on him. Fans were maddened by his tendency to watch third strikes as he raised his arms and locked his left knee;

Weren't Phillies fans paying attention to how pretty he looked out there? He's incredibly handsome and always willing to go get drunk and show up at the ballpark ready to play again. How can this frustrate them?

and fed up with his legendary evening jaunts into Center City, which could turn boorish.

Well, all Philadelphia fans are boorish, rude, inconsiderate people who hate Santa Claus, Jesus, and all that is good in the world. Isn't that what I've been conditioned to believe? So why would they not like Pat Burrell? He's just like them.

Still, weren't these Burrell's people? Where was the love?

Considering he is from California and played his college ball in Miami, I'm not sure the Philadelphia crowd are his people.

"I've been everywhere: New York, Boston, you name it," Manuel says.

Iraq, Afghanistan, the inner cities of major US cities...

"As far as [self-]abuse, Philadelphia is No. 1."

Actually, #2 next to every teenager in America's bedroom!

(Yeah, I know that was terrible. It was intended to be.)

He created a culture of dismissiveness that often resurfaces in the Phillies' clubhouse, like a foul odor.

I'm pretty sure that foul odor of dismissiveness is just the smell of a professional team's locker room.

When new general manager Pat Gillick deconstructed the Phillies in 2006, Burrell and Rollins were the only tenured stars left untouched. Aaron Rowand was part of that team, a mercenary trade product of the Thome deal. Howard, Utley and Cole Hamels were the new cornerstones, untouchable. Burrell was, by contrast, untradable, with a no-trade clause and that burdensome contract.

His time was nearly past, but Burrell remained

Really? Burrell hit pretty damn well from 2006-2008 (which is a point Hayes previously made in this fluff piece). His time was very nearly past, but he was still hitting the ball well.

Manuel never minded that Burrell sometimes was the last guy to return to the team hotel.

I sense a running theme here. That running theme seems to be that Pat Burrell can do his job very well even after he has spent his nights carousing and drinking on the town. While I think Burrell hit the ball well during his career, perhaps Hayes can see why Burrell wasn't the toast of the town? If there was a perception he had untapped potential and he was the last guy to return to the team hotel? Maybe the perception could be if he came in earlier at night he could reach his potential? "Bullshit," says Charlie Manuel.

"There are people who can stay out until 2, 3, 4 o'clock in the morning and still do their job," Manuel says. "With Pat, that might not be all that bad. The less he could think about his performance, the better he hit."

So basically Charlie Manuel thinks Pat Burrell isn't the brightest bulb in the box. It was a good thing Burrell spent time on the town so he didn't have to think about his performance. Hmmm...I'm not sure if this is persuasive or not. Either way, Burrell was still a very good hitter.

Who does Manuel think Pat Burrell is? A woman? A woman with a small brain. With a brain a third of the size of a man's brain? It's science.

Burrell could have been a clubhouse cancer, as he became more and more marginalized with the ascension of Rollins, Howard and Utley. But he wasn't.

Really? Does Marcus Hayes remember typing this:

Eroded by years of derision, dealing with Burrell meant a snarl one day; thoughtful perspective the next; an up-yours walkoff with the third. He created a culture of dismissiveness that often resurfaces in the Phillies' clubhouse, like a foul odor.

I'm not saying Pat Burrell is a clubhouse cancer because I wasn't there, but a person who has a bi-polar type personality and created a culture of dismissiveness that lingers three years after he left the team...that's pretty close to calling a player a clubhouse cancer. If he wasn't a clubhouse cancer maybe he was a clubhouse STD or something like that.

"He bought in with the fact that we were changing the face of our team. He let those guys do their thing," Manuel says, appreciatively. "There was never a bitch."

There was never a bitch...except for those women Burrell brought home from the Center City bars at night who only wanted to talk.

(Bengoodfella looks around for a high-five as everyone looks at him dismissively, as the stench of this joke hangs in the hair...much like a foul odor)

It has been 3 years of pain and of failure. Since he doubled off J.P. Howell in his last at-bat as a Phillie, Burrell has averaged 111 games, 14 homers, 50 RBI and hit .235.

Really, his career ended that night against the Rays.

But his movie star good looks and chiseled manly frame just keep going, going, and going...

Pat Burrell, Marcus Hayes wants to say something. He's gonna put it out there. If you like it, you can take it, if you don't, send it right back. He wants to be on you. Your career has ended, but that sparkle in your Ray Liotta-cocaine-crazed eye won't ever stop sparkling. It's probably the cocaine that causes that look in your eyes, but it could be just the reflection of just how handsome you are in the eyes of Marcus Hayes.

In Philadelphia, his impact will be felt for years.

The bars in Center City have reported a 17% decline in sales since Pat Burrell left and the Phillies fans don't have a player on the current team they can have a disproportionate amount of hatred towards as compared to his actual output on the baseball field.

Mostly, Marcus Hayes will miss that smile, those gorgeous good looks and the charismatic foul odor Pat Burrell left behind. Goodbye angel. Fly those beautiful princely arms away from professional baseball now.

7 comments I Come Not to Bury Mike Vick, But to Not Praise Marcus Hayes

It's difficult for me to find Marcus Hayes' articles online. I have his page at the Daily News bookmarked, but I find his articles aren't posted a lot. It's always a joy when I get to read them though. The same guy who hates Chase Utley and thinks Jimmy Rollins should hit fifth for the Phillies so he could hit the Hayes-predicted 30 home runs in 2011 (Rollins is only 16 home runs off that pace at this point) thinks Mike Vick is easily worth the $100 million contract he recently received. In the immortal words of Joe Morgan, it is too early to tell, but rather than debating that point, I dis-enjoyed Hayes' reasoning Vick would be worth this amount of money because he makes two absurd claims to back up. Of course he fits in time to compliment Ryan Howard and insult Cliff Lee.

Michael Vick got $40 million, guaranteed, as part of the 6-year, $100 million contract extension he signed with the Eagles on Monday night.

The deal might be worth more like $80 million over 5 years, with $35.5 million guaranteed.

Either way, he is worth every nickel.

I will agree a franchise quarterback, which is what the Eagles think Vick is, can easily be worth that much money. My biggest issue is whether the Eagles should have spent some of that money on other positions on the roster, like the offensive line, but I guess it doesn't matter since they were going to re-sign Vick anyway.

Time, and his specious offensive line, will tell. Maybe he will learn to beat blitzes. Maybe he will learn to slide when he scrambles and tuck when the sackers collapse the pocket around him.

Vick is 31. If he can't beat blitzes now and learn to slide when scrambling or tuck the ball when the defense is getting to him in the pocket then I am not sure he will remember to do it now.

Irrefutably, he is the most gifted quarterback in the history of the league.

I must have misread this sentence.

Irrefutably, he is the most gifted quarterback in the history of the league.

Irrefutably?

How in the hell is this statement irrefutable? I realize Vick is an extremely talented quarterback when it comes to throwing the ball really hard and running with the football. He can be amazing at times. I’m not denying his talent. It’s crazy to call Vick the most gifted quarterback in NFL history and it is even crazier to say this statement is irrefutable. His scrambling ability doesn't make up for the fact he isn't always a great passer of the football nor does it mean his scrambling makes him more gifted than other quarterbacks in NFL history. Being gifted isn't always a physical thing.

He is the NFL's Michael Jordan, without the corporate cachet.

If you are going to make me do it this way…he is also Michael Jordan without the championships, the MVP awards, and without the statistics that back up the claim of him as being the most gifted quarterback in the history of the NFL. He’s gifted, but he is nowhere near the NFL version of Michael Jordan.

The $20 million sources say he will make this year is commensurate with the Phillies' two pillars - athletes who, besides Vick, are the only two players in town worth their money, without argument.

Last spring, the Phillies gave charismatic slugger Ryan Howard $125 million over 5 years.

Which, irrefutably, Howard is not worth that amount of money.

(See what I did there?)

This topic has been discussed here and other places, but Ryan Howard very well may not be worth that amount of money per year as he ages. Of course he does drive runs in, which is apparently pretty much all it takes to impress Howard’s defenders, as if Howard could drive in as many runs as he does if there weren’t men on-base for him to drive in.

Howard is the foundation of the franchise, and has been since 2006: 191 straight sellouts? They're on his shoulders.

Those 191 sellouts may also have something to do with five consecutive division titles, a new ballpark, Jimmy Rollins, Chase Utley, Roy Halladay, Cole Hamels, Cliff Lee, and the other quality players the Phillies have had on their team since 2006. I’m sure Ryan Howard is singlehandedly responsible for these sellouts and it isn’t a by-product of the Phillies team success. Let’s keep believing that.

He cannot be paid enough.

I’m pretty sure his getting paid $25 million per year is enough for many Phillies fans.

Lee is on his second run of dominant pitching this season - but that's what his is, what he has always been. Streaky.

This is, of course, as opposed to the always consistent Ryan Howard. The same guy who is responsible for 191 straight sellouts for the Phillies. He’s not streaky because Marcus Hayes doesn’t care to see him that way, when reality is slightly different.

(It seems Marcus Hayes graduated from the Joe Morgan School of Player Analysis where if a player doesn’t have a batting average within 0.1 of his season average or a pitcher doesn't have an ERA within 0.1 of his season average for every single month of the baseball season that makes him inconsistent)

Howard’s splits for 2011:

March/April: .290/.351/.560

May: .208/.317/.434

June: .269/.397/.473

July: .250/.306/.440

August: .225/.303/.517

September: .255/.397/.553

Lee’s ERA/WHIP splits for 2011:

March/April: 4.18/1.052

May: 3.78/1.406

June: 0.21/0.690

July: 4.91/1.333

August: 0.45/0.782

September: 0.72/0.72

Comparing a pitcher and a position player is difficult to do. Still, you can see they both aren't the most consistent players. So Lee has either been really, really, really good or just below average. Howard has been really good, below average, or average. Some baseball players tend to be inconsistent like this. My point is Cliff Lee is inconsistent, but I think that criticism can be put on Ryan Howard at times as well.

He was not better than decent for the first 2 months this season. He was poor in July. For $25 million per, streaky does not equal value.

So I guess Ryan Howard isn’t a value either? Unless Marcus Hayes lives in a fantasy world where three months of sub-.320 is a good thing. I also enjoy how Marcus calls out the months where Lee was decent and poor, but neglects to mention the three months of incredible pitching performances. I’m sure there is some reason Marcus hates Cliff Lee much in the way he doesn’t like Chase Utley, but I can't figure it out.

However, teammate (and talk-radio punching bag) Andre Iguodala earned every cent of his money. Like Brand, Iguodala signed in 2008, but his was an extension, for 6 years and $80 million. No, he hasn't been a franchise player . . .

$13 million per year in the NBA is paying a guy pretty close to what he should make as a franchise player or at least a guy who is a solid #2 option on a team, which is what Iguodala probably is. This makes Iguodala the 27^th highest paid player in the NBA, just behind Kevin Durant and just ahead of Carlos Boozer.

but he wasn't paid as such (Kobe makes $25 million a year).

So Hayes is going to say Iguodala isn’t paid like a franchise player by comparing him to the highest paid player in the NBA? How about comparing him to other second-best players on their team? I don’t have a problem with what Iguodala makes, I think comparing him to Kobe’s salary is a bit misleading though. Of course none of this has anything really to do with why Vick is worth every penny of his $100 million deal.

(The Cavs have two players who are among the top 25 highest-paid players in the NBA. And we wonder why there is an NBA lockout?)

The Eagles, meanwhile, have dealt hit after hit. They will pay cornerback Nnamdi Asomugha, signed last month, a little less than Iguodala gets this year. Left tackle Jason Peters, signed in 2009, is averaging about the same for the first 3 years of his deal.

Peters has been named to the last four Pro Bowls; Asomugha has been to the last three, with the Raiders.

We all know Pro Bowls are the best way to determine which players are the best at their position. David Garrard made the Pro Bowl last year. He is now a free agent looking for a job as a backup quarterback.

Vick joined them there this past season.

He will be a fixture at the event for a decade.

For the next decade? Mike Vick is going to be a fixture at the Pro Bowl until he is 41 years old? Even if the biggest Mike Vick fan finds this hard to believe. As Vick gets older his legs will start to get slower and last year was the first year he had a completion percentage over 57%, the second time he had a quarterback rating over 80 (I’m not including 2009 when he threw 13 passes), and the second time in his career he threw over 20 touchdown passes. So I am not yet convinced he's learned to be better at throwing the football. Maybe Vick does get how to throw the football more effectively now, but I think it is hard to say he will be a fixture at the Pro Bowl for the next 10 years.

Forty million bucks?

A bargain.

Forty million isn’t the full value of his contract, but how much is guaranteed. His contract is going to be worth more than just the amount that is guaranteed. I’m not going to say Vick isn’t worth it, but he isn’t the most gifted quarterback in NFL history and he certainly isn’t going to be a fixture in the Pro Bowl until he is 41 years old.