0 comments Jon Heyman Says People Are Being Really Mean to Ned Yost, Brad Ausmus and Don Mattingly, You Guys

There were some questionable decisions made in the AL Wild Game, NLDS and ALDS this past year. One of the favorite games of Twitter users is second-guessing a manager's decisions, especially when those decisions happen in the playoffs. Jon Heyman has written an article about how the Twitterverse was being super-mean to managers like Ned Yost and Don Mattingly, some of which he understands and other stuff he doesn't understand. Mostly managers need to get out of the way and not actively try to screw something up. Like don't have a "7th inning guy" and refuse to adjust your strategy when faced with circumstances that mean your "7th inning guy" may not be the best guy for the situation. Sometimes managing in the playoffs requires a different strategy than managing in the regular season, which isn't something some managers seem to understand. The truth is great decisions can turn out badly and dumb decisions can work out. Part of being a manager is being second-guessed, but a part of being a manager is making decisions that are the best decision under the circumstances, not being too rigid and hoping the result goes your way.

One thing about the managers this postseason: For good or bad, they can't seem to get out of the spotlight.

One would think since these managers are volunteers who don't draw a salary then the fans would lay off said managers as they actively make decisions that seem to harm their team. But no, fans insist on criticizing managers for making stupid decisions. The game is decided on the field, people. Lay off those who are making the decisions that affect the outcome of baseball games. It's out of line.

Royals manager Ned Yost has been criticized, ridiculed and otherwise made fun of – and he hasn't lost a single game yet.

This was written before the Division Series started, and by the grace of God and with a little luck, the Royals have not lost a game yet.

The Dodgers' Don Mattingly, the Tigers' Brad Ausmus and the Nats' Matt Williams, whose teams are all out now, also found themselves under the microscope, with the criticism overdone in some cases and, perhaps, not so much in others.

I don't know how not playing one of your best hitters in an elimination game, using the same bullpen that blew up the previous game, and having a "7th inning guy" while refusing to change for the playoffs can be overdone, but that's just me. Those are decisions that directly affect the outcome of playoff games.

Meanwhile, a couple other mangers have been lauded, or even almost deified.

How dare the public criticize managers who manage poorly and then laud those managers who make smart decisions! Every manager should be treated the same no matter what decisions he makes!

Don't you hate when Twitter is so mean they over-criticize a manager for his decisions and then compliment another manager for his decisions? The Twitterverse needs to quit being so mean, but then really nice at the same time.

The Cardinals' Mike Matheny also is being universally praised, as he seems to get the most out of a team whose best characteristic may be that it is mentally tough, like him. A Dodgers person lauded him for what that person saw as a stunt to delay the game when Matheny called for the home grounds crew to fix the mound as closer Trevor Rosenthal composed himself following a two-hit Dodgers rally, and a 2-and-0 count. If it was, it worked, as Rosenthal saved Game 3.

That Dodgers person? Probably Yasiel Puig, who only cares about himself and not about the Dodgers team. It's probably why he was benched for Game 4. Let's talk about what an asshole Puig is. Bill Plaschke can't get enough of it.

It's hard to recall a postseason where so much attention has been placed on managers and managerial moves -- for good or bad.

Part of the issue is some of these guys didn't have experience as a manager prior to being hired by their current team. It shows at times.

Some have said over the years, in fact, that managers aren't all that important, or even that the difference between an average one and a good one is pretty close to negligible.

This can be true. Then there are other times when B.J. Upton hits leadoff for a long period of time and Andrelton Simmons hits second for a long period of time and managers do start to make a difference.

But you wouldn't know anyone thinks that managers lack influence if you read Twitter, where complaints (and a couple rare compliments) have piled up against a handful of this year's postseason managers.

The point is that managers lack influence until they start to exert their influence by making pitching and lineup changes during a game. I hope Jon Heyman understands this. It's not that managers don't make a difference, it's that managers don't make a difference until they start making really smart or dumb decisions.

One of them has even inspired a hashtag, #Yosted, which refers to some supposed poor strategy by Yost, who got the ball rolling for second guessing these playoffs by inserting rookie starter Yordano Ventura into a key relief role in the wild card game. (While he was burned when Brandon Moss hit a three-run home run, the Royals escaped with a win and haven't lost since.)

Several things here that Jon Heyman leaves out in order to show he doesn't understand causation with that idiotic "the Royals won and haven't lost since" comment. 

1. Ventura isn't a relief pitcher. He has only pitched in relief during his career once. It's very different to start all year and then pitch in relief. The Wild Card game isn't the best time to make that transition for the second time in his career.

2. Ventura had thrown 73 pitches on Sunday and only had two days of rest. He may not have been tired, but he wasn't exactly rested when coming into the game during circumstances he isn't used to entering the game under.

3. Heyman is about to defend keeping Kershaw in Game 4 of the NLDS after throwing 93 pitches on three days rest, yet here Shields had thrown 88 pitches on normal rest and he is fine with him being pulled for "the gas" Yost so badly wanted from Ventura. This difference in opinion from Heyman doesn't make sense to me. Both decisions occurred in elimination games.

4. Brandon Moss hit a fucking home run. The decision ended up terribly. The game would not have gone to 12 innings if Yost didn't make this decision and have it backfire. Yet, because Heyman saw the Royals won the game he figures this was a good decision. It's like saying, "I threw gasoline on myself and lit myself on fire today, but it wasn't a bad decision because I got skin grafts and I am still alive. That proves my decision-making was sound."

5. The fact Ned Yost made a dumb decision and it worked simply isn't a reason to think it was a smart decision. I can't emphasize this enough. 

One club executive from the NL, speaking generally about the postseason, referred to some of the managing choices as nothing short of “terrible."

Another executive, from the AL, wailed, “What are these guys doing? They keep taking out their best pitchers for relievers, sometimes middle relievers. Even (Angels manager Mike Scioscia) did it. He took out a guy they're paying $15 million for a middle reliever after two outs.”

Yeah, but it's the Twitterverse that is really the big meanies for criticizing these managers.

I didn't have a huge issue with this decision because I don't think salary should play a part in which pitchers are on the mound, plus in an elimination game like this the manager needs to make sure his team doesn't get down by a lot of runs early. That means if a starter isn't pitching well from the outset then he may not get a chance to recover.

While Scioscia may get the benefit of a doubt, Ausmus and Williams, the rookie managers, seem to have much bigger targets on their backs. And Mattingly, being a big name with a talented team in a big town, well, criticism is par for the course for him.

It's not just making bad decisions, but going out of the way to make bad decisions. It's being stringent in situations where stringency is not required. It's keeping Craig Kimbrel in the bullpen in a tie game because you want to use him for a save situation as opposed to putting him on the mound in a crucial situation with runners on-base.

Ausmus had only the barest of managerial experience (he managed Team Israel in the WBC) when the Tigers hired him to replace the iconic Jim Leyland, and Williams had only served as a coach, not a manager, when the Nats tabbed him to take the place of the legendary veteran Davey Johnson.

I think their inexperience definitely plays a role in their decision-making. They know what worked for them previously and don't have the experience or trust in themselves to go against what was done in the regular season. They know what worked and lack the experience to know when to go against what may have worked previously.

A question could be raised whether inexperienced managers are better off learning with developing or even rebuilding teams. In any case, it's certainly a gamble to entrust a stacked team to a rookie decision-maker.

Not necessarily. A question can be raised whether inexperienced managers learn more quickly when put in difficult situations where they get burnt. After all, failure is a great teacher. Failure on a big stage is a really great teacher. If the point is to make sure inexperienced managers make decisions that are more likely to not hurt his team's chances of winning a World Series then no manager should start off with a stacked or competitive team. But the point should be to find a guy who is the best manager for your team and hope his decisions under pressure are the right decisions. Sometimes experienced managers (Ned Yost) make questionable decisions in situations they have never been in before too. It's not always about the experience of the manager, but the experience of that manager in the given situation.

“When we went to hire a manager, we wanted someone who understood the culture of our organization,” Cardinals GM John Mozeliak said. “We certainly felt Mike was going to have a learning curve. But he understood the culture. Mike worked for us. No, he didn't have managerial experience. But he understood what we were about. I think that helped.”

Other teams hire managers that "understand the culture" of the team that hired them too. Don Mattingly worked under Joe Torre before he got the Dodgers' manager job. It's about making smart, logical decisions in different game situations. There is not always a book, culture or method on how to do this.

Ausmus was criticized especially for going back to struggling Joba Chamberlain and Joakim Soria in Game 2 after they didn't get many outs in Game 1. That Chamberlain was only in briefly in Game 1, and wasn't hit especially hard in the first game didn't deter the critics.

It doesn't matter if Chamberlain was hit hard or threw a lot of pitches in Game 1. He threw six pitches to two batters and gave up a hit and two runs in that game. He let inherited runners score, which isn't what a team looks for in a relief pitcher. Then Ausmus gave Chamberlain the chance to face four batters in Game 2 and Chamberlain recorded one out, hit a batter and gave up two hits. It's not just that Chamberlain didn't get hit hard in Game 1, but when he was getting hit in Game 2 he stayed out there.

By the way, Chamberlain had pitched two innings against the Orioles on the season. He had an ERA of 9.00 against them while giving up six hits and two runs to the 13 Oriole batters he faced. After Game 1, Ausmus could have easily thought, "Boy, Joba gets hit hard by the Orioles. It's probably not the best matchup for him." He didn't though and trotted Chamberlain back out there the next day. Did Ausmus not have this information handy? It's not the decision that Ausmus made based on Game 1, but the decision based on Chamberlain's performance against the Orioles on the season combined with his performance in Game 1 where I question Ausmus. Therein lies the issue with the decision to trot Chamberlain back out there for Game 2. Ausmus had two separate pieces of information saying it may not turn out well.

One of them isn't Tigers GM Dave Dombrowski, who said about Ausmus, “He did a fine job. We don't have any complaints.”

He's not going to throw his first year manager under the bus by stating he didn't agree with some of the decisions that Ausmus made. Dombrowski isn't stupid enough to give the media chum in the water like that.

One competing AL exec even wondered about whether the team and superstar Miguel Cabrera look a little “loose,” meaning undisciplined, but Dombrowski swatted back that criticism, saying Cabrera, for one, is just a guy who likes to have fun.

“He's no different since he's come to Detroit,” Dombrowski said.

I like how Jon Heyman takes quotes from competing AL executives and doesn't treat some of the quotes like they aren't just attempts to start trouble or create disenfranchisement among the Tigers organization. I mean, a competing AL executive would NEVER do that. I'm sure some of this criticism of Ausmus is valid, while some of it is just tweaking the Tigers when given the chance.

Williams, to some, had many more issues. To remove his best pitcher Jordan Zimmermann after 100 pitches one batter after he had retired 20 in a row (and one game removed from a no-hitter) for closer Drew Storen in Game 1 seemed to be a stretch to some (though the AL exec pointed out that Storen has been “great all year.”)

This is a pure judgment call in my mind. Zimmerman had just thrown 100 pitches or more in two straight starts and Storen has been good all year. If Zimmerman was pitching on normal rest (which he was) then I see it as a judgment call. If Zimmerman were on 3 days rest then I probably would have pulled him as well. What's the score in the game, what batters are up? These are factors that Jon Heyman seems to be ignoring here and should not be doing so.

The big issue for Williams though, was the 3-2 loss in Game 4, when he used left Matt Thornton (who'd pitched well for them but had been discarded by the Yankees, who didn't trust him in a big spot) against Buster Posey, relied on nervous rookie Aaron Barrett for too long and used Rafael Soriano, who struggled in the second half, but never called upon their best set-up man Tyler Clippard, Storen or even Strasburg, who was said to be ready to go.

And there we go. This was a judgment call also, but it was a dumb judgment call. Unlike the decision to pull Zimmerman, Williams was following his mandated rule for who his "7th inning guy" was and not making a decision based on the game situation. In a win-and-out game, the best pitchers must be used by a manager. They don't "have" to be used, but it's dumb not use these pitchers if you are a manager who wants to give his team the best chance to win the game. The situation here called for the best pitchers to appear in order to win the game. Who the "7th inning guy" was doesn't matter.

Mattingly took plenty of hits, too, as he tried to navigate through a cold bullpen. The call to start Clayton Kershaw on three days rest and keep him in Game 4 after 93 pitches through six one-hit innings was logical

I mean, yes, and no. It's bad enough the Dodgers wanted Kershaw to pitch on three days rest, but Mattingly should have had a very short hook with Kershaw. Once he saw a runner get on-base, or even two runners, that was probably the time to pull him. I know the statistics said that Adams didn't hit lefties well and Kershaw pitches well to lefties, but having Kershaw go too far over 100 pitches was an error and I would have pulled him. 

(“no one would have removed Kershaw after six,” one exec said).

I would have pulled him. After Holliday's infield single I would have pulled Kershaw. Then after Peralta's single I would have pulled Kershaw. Simply put, he was working on three days rest and was nearing 100 pitches. He was pitching well, but pitching well on three days rest. Of course if Mattingly had pulled Kershaw and the Dodgers lost the game then there would have been calls to keep Kershaw in the game. He pitched six innings on three days rest. He did his job. 

And even the surprise call to bench Yasiel Puig, then use him as a pinch runner, not a pinch hitter, is highly defensible, as Puig conjured his 2013 NLCS and second-half 2014 slumps with a seven-strikeout streak in the Cardinals series.

Actually, I consider this to be less defensible. Puig was striking out a lot, but he still had three hits and a walk on 14 plate appearances. He is a guy who can change the game with one swing of the bat and causes teams to pitch carefully to him. He strikes out, but he also gets on-base. 

Justin Turner had a big year, and the Dodgers don't have another guy on their bench who can score from first on a double down the line like Puig can.

Typical Jon Heyman. He doesn't think it all through. Who cares if a guy can score from first on a double down the line? First someone has to hit a double down the line to score Puig. And yes, Turner had a big year in a limited role. He had one at-bat in the NLDS at that point and didn't get a hit. If Puig isn't going to bat because he'll strike out, that's fine, but Turner had close to the same strikeout per plate appearance ratio that Puig had on the season. To defend Puig as a pinch-runner because no other player on the bench could score on a double down the line? It's ridiculous to me. Someone has to hit a double before Puig can score.

The one highly questionable move was calling upon Scott Elbert, who'd only thrown 4 1/3 innings in the majors this year. While there were mostly lefties coming up and he'd obviously lost faith in the others, that move seemed like a bit of a risk.

Well, Elbert did strikeout the only two batters he faced in Game 1. That's something, isn't it? It seems Heyman only pays attention to what happened in the NLDS when it fits his motives. He wants to say it was fine to bench Puig because of what happened in the NLDS, but then questions the decision to put Elbert in the game while ignoring his Game 1 performance.

Mattingly could have brought J.P. Howell to pitch here in Game 3. He brought in Howell earlier in the series and he had gotten hit hard, but then Mattingly played him late in Game 3 anyway to pitch less than an inning. So it's all confusing and I didn't have a huge issue with Elbert being in the game.

But that his status is even a question after he improved the Dodgers' win total four straight years -- from 79 with Joe Torre to 82, 86, 92 and 94 -- suggests how much focus is on these managers. Such is life these days in the twitter world.

As Jon Heyman blames Twitter for this while quoting MLB executives who agree with idiots on Twitter. I'm sure it's all Twitter's fault that these executives agree with people on Twitter. It's hilarious that Heyman blames Twitter while providing quotes from those not on Twitter who agree with the Twitter users.

Yost has been hit hardest of all, and some of his moves seem wacky. However, the Royals don't have him for strategy but for his persona.

Sure, he can't manage very well, but he's a great guy to be around and he's the type of manager the Royals want...absent the whole "Not sure he's good at strategy" part that is so crucial in the playoffs. 

"He's very intense and highly competitive," Royals GM Dayton Moore said. "He brings a competitive spirit every single day. He's created an attitude of resilience and toughness."

And nothing says toughness and resilience like "bringing the gas" and then bunting as much as possible. 

The way Yost getting hammered publicly, he had better be tough.

Well, if he weren't so poor at strategy then he wouldn't get hammered publicly by those mean people on the Twitter machine. It's all their fault for pointing out the stupid moves that Yost made in the playoffs through the Wild Card game and ALDS. How dare the fans have a forum to express their opinion when a manager does something they believe to be stupid! It's so mean to criticize these volunteer managers like this.

3 comments Fun With Gregg Easterbrook's Twitter Account

I don't miss Gregg Easterbrook. He is coming back with a new TMQ this Tuesday, so the headaches revolving around reading TMQ will soon begin for me. Because I'm obviously forced to cover TMQ and have no say in the matter. It's my obligation as a human to read it every week and write about it here even though I don't like reading it. I stumbled upon Gregg the Misleader's Twitter account and realized he's not that different on Twitter. His handle is @EasterbrookG and I noticed that he plays a little loose with the facts and makes silly observations at times on there as well. So why not prepare for his return by highlighting a few of these Tweets? I do not follow Gregg on Twitter because I don't have the patience for that. Perhaps I should make fun of myself for the stupid things I Tweet, but I don't feel like I should show that much self-awareness.

Andy Dalton and Tony Romo -- combined 1-6 in the playoffs -- now both have bigger contracts than Tom Brady, with 3 Super Bowl wins.
— Gregg Easterbrook (@EasterbrookG) August 4, 2014

Andy Dalton got $17 million guaranteed at the age of 26. Tony Romo got $44 million in new guaranteed money at the age of 32. This puts his total guaranteed money at $55 million for the length of the contract including the extension. Tom Brady got $32 million more in guaranteed money at the age of 35. This puts his total guaranteed money at $57 million for the length of the contract including the extension.

So both Dalton and Romo are younger than Brady and they got "bigger" contracts, but Dalton got less guaranteed money than Brady and Brady still has more guaranteed money over the lifetime of the contract (from when the extension was signed) than both Romo and Dalton. Plus, Tom Brady specifically took less money so the Patriots could put good players around him. I wish Gregg would look harder at contract numbers rather than see the amount of Dalton's deal and then start Tweeting. Dalton's deal really isn't that egregious for the Bengals in the long run. Of course somebody read this Tweet and then went out and repeated it to another person, thereby causing Gregg's statement that is slightly misleading to spread around the United States like the Ebola virus.

Ray Rice suspension can be argued. 100X worse is O.J. Simpson, guilty wrongful death ex wife, still in Hall of Fame http://t.co/wRRLuIwbG3
— Gregg Easterbrook (@EasterbrookG) August 1, 2014

Incorrect. OJ Simpson was not found "guilty" of wrongful death because it was a civil trial. He was found "liable" for the wrongful death of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman though. Guilty/Liable, there's really no difference though, right? This from a guy who nitpicks writers of television shows every single time he writes a TMQ. Gregg has no reason to pay attention to details when he Tweets out information, just like he has no need to pay attention to details when writing TMQ. He does feel free to call others out for lack of attention to details.

Jacksonville FL schools hurting http://t.co/A34hLi8RID yet $43 million in taxpayers' money for NFL scoreboard http://t.co/oJ4uPJPDZs
— Gregg Easterbrook (@EasterbrookG) July 27, 2014

While I understand where Gregg is coming from, the new Jaguars scoreboard is intended to help the city's profile when it comes to bidding for the college football playoffs. If the scoreboard does manage to raise their profile then the college football playoffs will bring more money in than $43 million. Obviously I would like for the schools to get money in Jacksonville, but the scoreboard is intended to bring in tax revenue to the city of Jacksonville. That's the plan.

And also, if Gregg would read the links he has provided then he would notice the schools in Jacksonville are struggling because they aren't providing the students a good education, not because they need more money. I understand that many people find money and a good public education to be intrinsically tied, but at no point in that column does the word "money" appear.

In action movies, commandos point at their own eyes. Anyone know if actual soldiers do this?
— Gregg Easterbrook (@EasterbrookG) July 23, 2014

Gregg is tackling the important issues on his Twitter account. Notice the responses to that Tweet state that this does sometimes happen. I'm betting Gregg will criticize a movie for having characters (who are soldiers) point at their own eyes anyway, simply because he wants to.

On latest Under the Dome, a car hits a tree, then drives away. The air bag didn't go off. Maybe General Motors sponsors the show.
— Gregg Easterbrook (@EasterbrookG) July 16, 2014

I get it. Funny. This will end up in TMQ as well. I can't believe the television show about a city with a huge bubble surrounding it isn't based on 100% fact. What a shock to my system.

when did "may I have?' become "can I get?"
— Gregg Easterbrook (@EasterbrookG) July 11, 2014

Thursday. This happened Thursday.

:House of Cards" http://t.co/7iAuCHH21O is heavily subsidized by Maryland taxpayers...exactly the kind of corruption the show mocks..
— Gregg Easterbrook (@EasterbrookG) July 3, 2014

Again, this wasn't money just handed away or necessarily an example of corruption. "House of Cards" supposedly pumped $250 million into the economy based on the two seasons it was shot in Maryland. If Gregg would read the link he provided then he would see the main grants fund has stayed intact, but the money given to "House of Cards" was taken out of a special fund for non-profit organizations. This fund was to help arts organizations recover from the recession. So essentially Maryland lawmakers chose a profitable path over funding non-profits. I'm not sure that's corruption. 

Without using the Internet -- try to name the #1 pick in last year's NBA draft. Or in 2012.
— Gregg Easterbrook (@EasterbrookG) June 26, 2014

Anthony Bennett. Anthony Davis. Just because Gregg can't do it doesn't mean that other people who love the NBA can't do this. Gregg seems to be one of those people who believe because he personally doesn't pay attention to something then that something has no relevance, as if attention from Gregg Easterbrook is what gives a sport like the NBA relevance.

Patent Office cancellation of R*dsk*ns trademark protection doesn't end the name -- means anybody can sell R*dsk*ns apparel.
— Gregg Easterbrook (@EasterbrookG) June 18, 2014

It's still obvious you are typing "Redskins." Putting asterisks in place of vowels doesn't mean you aren't actually writing the word everyone knows you are writing you d*psh*t.

Overall in NBA this season, 58% of baskets off assists. Spurs in finals, one quarter to go: 67 percent.
— Gregg Easterbrook (@EasterbrookG) June 16, 2014

Can anyone name who won the NBA Finals last year? How about in 2012?

Gregg also consistently talks about the "MSM" on his Twitter account as if writing for ESPN, "Atlantic Monthly," plus he used to write for "Newsweek," and this doesn't make him a part of the mainstream media? Keep telling yourself that, guy.

Well, Gregg is back this Tuesday. It may take me three days to write TMQ after such a layoff, but I'll try to pretend to be excited about reading it again.

5 comments Tim Keown Thinks the NCAA Should Pay for Johnny Manziel's Parking Ticket

I've sort of already made my feelings regarding Johnny Manziel's Twitter response upon receiving a parking ticket known, but I just had to cover this Tim Keown article. Of course after I write this, Johnny Manziel decides he is too hungover to attend the Manning Quarterback Camp, causing another controversy. Tim Keown isn't writing about that, but writing about Manziel's parking ticket issues. Tim in very serious fashion (just look at his picture, he's really fucking serious) confuses the issue of Manziel's parking ticket by explaining this wouldn't happen if Manziel could make money off his likeness. I guess that's his point. The main point about Manziel's Tweet should be about Manziel wanting to get out of College Station and his Tweeting "walk a mile in my shoes" as some sort of grab for sympathy over a parking ticket. It's not a big deal that he complains about wanting out of College Station, but his "mile in my shoes" Tweet (which Keown ever-so-conveniently doesn't even touch on) seems to be the big disconnect for me. The issue is not about Manziel Tweeting angrily, but about him attempting to gain sympathy for being well-known around the Texas A&M campus and becoming a celebrity. Tim Keown says Johnny Manziel wouldn't get a parking ticket if he got paid to play football. I guess that's his point. I'm not entirely sure, but I don't see how college athletes getting paid has anything to do with illegal parking. Talk about confusing the issue.

The Memorial Student Center at Texas A&M is quite a place. It's a testament to the nothing-is-too-good-for-our-kids philosophy of college architecture -- glass, stone and steel, with luxurious sitting rooms and restaurants and whatever else you might need to escape the infernal College Station heat.

Except you can get a parking ticket if you choose to park near the bookstore?

The most prominent clothing items are "No Heisman without the MAN" T-shirts and "Heisman Football" T-shirts and No. 2 jerseys and No. 2 T-shirts and No. 2 baseball caps. It's all very careful: no direct reference to Johnny Manziel

Well of course there's no reference to Manziel. These shirts and baseball caps aren't necessarily referring to Manziel. It could be referring to Marcus Gold or Earvin Taylor. Maybe Texas A&M just likes the number 2 because they think putting the number 1 on the back of a jersey is too presumptive and doesn't look as good on a T-shirt?

and no mention of "Johnny Football," the nickname Manziel has attempted to protect -- and eventually monetize -- through copyright.

Walk a day in Manziel's shoes, Tim Keown. Copyrighting a nickname isn't as easy as you think it is. You have to think of a nickname, fill out the patent form, then fill out the envelope while spelling "Alexandria, Virginia" correctly, make sure you sending it to the "US Patent and Trademark" headquarters and not the "US Patient Office," while also learning how exactly to mail a letter out. That's assuming you want to file the patent an easy way. If he wants to try the hard way and file the patent online, then Manziel has to figure out how to turn on this thing that looks like a television but his remote control won't work on it and when he approaches the computer all he sees are a bunch of numbers and letters on a long rectangular looking object that plugs into the DVR-looking object beside the television-looking object. It's just not as easy to file a patent as it initially seems. It's good to have bros who can help out when it comes to things like mailing letters and turning on a computer.

I walked through the bookstore on a quiet and hot June afternoon a couple of weeks ago, 

I like how Tim Keown appears to just randomly cruise around college campuses. "I was hanging around the quad at Auburn University recently, just watching some guys play Ultimate Frisbee..."

I thought about it again when I read the uproar over the ridiculously minuscule controversy regarding Manziel's ill-advised tweet after a parking ticket last weekend.

I admit it is a miniscule controversy. There's no doubt about that, but the topic is not so miniscule that Tim Keown can't write an entire column about it. The Tweet was really not a very big deal, other than it made people wonder why Manziel wanted to leave College Station. It became more annoying than anything, at least to me, when Manziel wanted us to "walk in his shoes."

The overriding perception of tremendous young athletes has always been confusing. A 19-year-old can design a T-shirt or a computer game that sells millions and we call him a prodigy, an entrepreneur. We celebrate his ingenuity and his wealth. But a 20-year-old whose college football jersey sells millions isn't entitled to that money,

No, Johnny Manziel can design a T-shirt or a computer game that would make millions and he is entitled to this money. He can't design a T-shirt that trades off his own image though, because that's a big no-no. Overall, I'm not sure at all what this has to do with a Tweet about a parking ticket, but I'm hanging in here hoping Tim Keown gets to the point.

But a 20-year-old whose college football jersey sells millions isn't entitled to that money, or to the money generated by his talent on game day. And if he points out the unfairness of this relationship in any way, he is labeled an ingrate for not understanding the value of his college education.

I think college athletes have more support than ever as it pertains to those people who understand the unfairness of this relationship. The problem, as always has been the problem, is that no one has a clue as to how to compensate these college athletes for the value they bring into their college through sports. It's a two-step process and we aren't even past the point where many feel comfortable giving college athletes compensation for playing college sports. Once that point is reached (if that point ever gets reached) it needs to be decided how to go about actually compensating these athletes fairly. Good luck with that.

Back to this article...it is a very tenuous relationship between Johnny Manziel Tweeting angrily about a parking ticket and Johnny Manziel getting paid to play football. I think Tim Keown really wanted to write an article about paying college athletes but just needed a way to slip into this discussion. Much like 75% of these sportswriters who write about paying college athletes, Keown has absolutely no suggestions as to how much Manziel should get paid, how it is decided which college athletes even get paid, and where the money to pay these athletes will come from. I would be angry over this, but it is common. I read a lot of snide comments about how college athletes should get paid, but don't find ideas on how to pay these athletes alongside these comments.

It simply doesn't matter that his school is probably selling enough individually branded gear -- however obtuse the presentation -- in a week to pay for his scholarship several times over.

And this has what to do with a parking ticket and Johnny Manziel's frustration upon receiving a parking ticket again?

For decades, the NCAA has done a remarkable job of public relations. The NCAA powers that be know we all look back fondly on the days when we were playing games, and that sentiment is a powerful influence when it comes to old guys deciding who should get what and who should just shut up about it already.

I'm not very smart. I don't get how Johnny Manziel getting a parking ticket and getting upset about it on Twitter has anything to do with Manziel being paid to play football. Even if he got paid to play quarterback, he would still have to pay the parking ticket, right? Or is part of his compensation from Texas A&M that he could park wherever he wants?

It's easy to draw a connecting line from the bookstore to the parking ticket to the tweet in which Manziel expresses his disgust for College Station and a desire to leave "whenever it may be."

It's actually really not that easy to do this. It's easy to draw a connecting line from Manziel getting a parking ticket to him Tweeting about a desire to leave College Station and then asking us to "walk a mile in my shoes" once he is surprised about the feedback he received on Twitter when he stated he can't wait to leave Texas A&M.

Without the Heisman and the adulation, of course, nobody would care. 

Absolutely true. No one would care about Manziel if he didn't receive all this adulation. Now the question is whether Manziel pursued this adulation and my opinion is that he absolutely did. He has made a great effort to be seen as a celebrity. He has Tweeted out pictures of money he won gambling, he posts pictures of him sitting courtside at NBA games, and he posts pictures of him with celebrities. Mark Ingram, Cam Newton, Robert Griffin, and Sam Bradford all managed to win a Heisman Trophy and they didn't receive quite the amount of adulation and fame outside of the fame that came with being a high-profile college football player. Robert Griffin by all accounts managed to take classes in the Baylor classroom with his fellow students, Cam Newton had controversy surrounding him at Auburn but he still found a way to not post pictures of himself with stacks of money, and Mark Ingram didn't need to Tweet out pictures of himself sitting courtside at NBA games.

It's nothing against Manziel and I in no way think he is in the wrong. It's just he has chased this celebrity that he has now achieved. Manziel is doing nothing wrong by enjoying his time in the spotlight, but he has also made it very clear he enjoys and will continue to pursue being in the spotlight. He can't just turn it on and off when it is convenient for him.

The idolatry creates something you can't just un-create.

Fine, but who created it? I have some sympathy for Manziel, but the bottom line is that Manziel helped to create the idolatry by creating a public persona which encourages this idolatry. He's a stupid, young college kid who knows he wants to be famous enough to take pictures with coeds and celebrities, but doesn't want to deal with all the negative attention this may bring.

Overreaction is part of the deal. Now, though, with social media providing an instant connection to the world, even the most insignificant complaints end up as headlines.

That's absolutely true. These insignificant complaints end up as headlines more often when the person making the complaint has put himself out in the public and has a large social media presence like Manziel has. I would fully expect Manziel to overreact and that's something he is entitled to do every once in a while, but his overreaction has more to do with him being 20 years old and less to do with him not being paid to play football.

If you felt you received a bogus parking ticket on campus 20 years ago and told your roommates, "I can't wait to get out of this place," they probably would have nodded and gone about their business.

That's probably true, but I also would have told my roommates this and not share this thought out with the entire world. I would fully know I am a public figure at the school I attend and could probably just go to public safety and explain the situation...assuming it was a bogus ticket.

Is Manziel immature? It seems like it. Should he, and every other high-profile athlete, be judicious about using social media to voice petty concerns? Definitely, if only to avoid having to explain his way out of something insignificant.

And again, notice how Keown carefully avoids the "woe is me" Tweet where Manziel encouraged us to "walk a mile in his shoes." He avoids this because he knows Manziel has brought a lot of this attention upon himself by trying really hard to have a public persona off the football field. Instead, Keown desperately tries to tie Manziel's parking ticket to the Texas A&M bookstore selling #2 jerseys.

But Manziel's momentary displeasure with his surroundings -- spurred, it must be noted, by his decision to park his Mercedes, which has windows tinted too darkly, pointing the wrong direction -- brings up an uncomfortable truth:

That uncomfortable truth being that Manziel clearly seemed to deserve this parking ticket?

You might get all misty-eyed when the band plays the alma mater after a big win, but these guys don't. Just because it was the best years of your life doesn't mean it's the best of theirs.

Hey, it's another straw-man argument. Tim Keown is saying Johnny Manziel's parking ticket rant on Twitter isn't a big deal (which it really isn't) because he doesn't get paid to play football and because Manziel doesn't care as much as Texas A&M fans do about the outcome of the football games.

That's the crux of the O'Bannon antitrust lawsuit, which aims to give current and former players a cut of media revenue and other merchandise -- A&M No. 2 jerseys, for example.

Oh, so Manziel doesn't care about Texas A&M, but he certainly wants to get his cut of revenue he is generating from the school he doesn't care about? I think I understand what Tim Keown is saying now. Actually, I don't understand. Keown has essentially indicated he thinks Manziel's parking ticket was well-earned, but then gets off on a tangent about Manziel getting paid to play football which seemingly has little to do with the parking ticket Manziel received nor Manziel's Twitter rant.

It raises a multitude of important questions, and here's one related to Manziel: If college athletes were paid, would a player such as Manziel -- a college hero with a questionable NFL future -- be more inclined to stay in school through four years of eligibility?

Some players would be more inclined to stay in school through four years of eligibility, but for college athletes that have a chance at being a successful pro athlete I'm not sure the aim should be to keep these players in college for all four years. It's preferred, but would Johnny Manziel rather earn $100,000 playing for Texas A&M or earn $1 million playing for an NFL team? It's not a hard decision for some college athletes.

Would the NCAA, in effect, become a short-term competitor for the NFL?

The NCAA is not intended to be a short-term competitor for the NFL. It's intended to be a collegiate sports system where amateur athletes can earn an education while playing sports. Obviously the NCAA doesn't always succeed in this area, but the NCAA is not set up to be a competitor to the NFL nor should it be set up that way.

Good. From the botched Miami investigation to the unfair transfer rules to the outrageous coach salaries, serious tectonic movement is a hell of an idea. It's a concept we should all embrace.

And of course like any good backseat driver Tim Keown has no idea how this concept should be initiated nor does have any good ideas, but he just knows how things work now isn't working.

Big Ten president Jim Delany says it wouldn't be out of the question for the conference to adopt a Division III, nonscholarship model if college players gain financial control over their likeness and performance.

It feels like an outrageous suggestion -- mostly because it is -- but there's another way to look at it:

Is the other way to look at it that this has nothing to do with a parking ticket Johnny Manziel received in 2013?

If the lawsuit goes forward, and the players win, there might be no need for scholarships.

And of course athletes would never again get another parking ticket.

One thing is for sure: Judging by the clothes hanging in the A&M bookstore, Johnny Manziel wouldn't need one.

This article had nothing to do with the parking ticket that Johnny Manziel received. Why is Manziel so popular and why wouldn't he need a scholarship (which by the way, Manziel's parents seem to be pretty wealthy so I'm not sure he needs a scholarship to Texas A&M, which seems to cost about $4600 per semester for in-state tuition)? Possibly because Manziel has done an excellent job of taking his on-field persona and translated it to an off-the-field persona, which is why I don't feel bad for him when he wants me to take a walk in his shoes.

5 comments MMQB Review: Why Can't Major League Baseball Control the Weather? Edition

Peter King praised Jon Gruden for being a quarterback expert last week in MMQB, which got my anti-Gruden rhetoric started as it pertains to him being a quarterback expert started. Peter also called Kevin Costner cuter than Mike Lombardi, thereby showing his readers that he can come off creepy by using another word to describe a grown man that isn't "precocious." This week Peter reveals what he thinks he knows about the NFL Draft, even though he is very clear in stating he is probably wrong or being misled in some way. Peter also talks about the Masters, criticizes golf commentary for containing too many cliches (because we all know the NBC Sunday Night Football crew would NEVER overuse cliches), has comments on the weather in regard to MLB's schedule and manages to force-feed us a Brett Favre quote because why not?

Lord. How great was that golf? Angel Cabrera's approach shot on 18 and Adam Scott's putting and Cabrera's excruciating near-miss putt and Scott's winning putt ... and the sportsmanship. The real sportsmanship.

Sportsmanship like Peter has only seen overseas when it comes to how fans of opposing cricket (I think that was the sport) teams treat each other. Why can't the world be more like Angel Cabrera and Adam Scott?

That's one of the best 40 minutes of sport I can recall, in any game, any match.

Let's take it easy for a few minutes now. It was exciting, but I don't know if I would call it the best 40 minutes of any sport, in any game, any match.

How many of you said, watching that: "I've got to get to the Masters!'' And you do.

And the one thing we have all learned about August National is that it is easily accessible and always open to outsiders, so we all have no excuses for not attending the Masters.

I scratched that off the bucket list two years ago,

Well bully for you.

Anyway, enough with my Masters infomercial. The next big sports thing is 10 nights away. That's the first night of filming of Draft Day, the next Costner movie, in which he plays Cleveland GM Mike Lombardi. (Sort of.)

So Kevin Costner is basically going to name-drop Bill Belichick for two hours and then never actually wonder why if he is such good friends with and well-respected by Belichick that he hasn't appeared to ever get another job offer from Belichick to work for the Patriots? Or is Costner going to spend the entire movie with an actor playing Bill Simmons following him around all day? If Costner will be Mike Lombardi then it needs to be realistic.

It's also the night of the first round of the NFL draft, which occupied most of my time this weekend when I wasn't drooling at the TV over the Masters.

Peter was drooling over the Masters. Did they start to make the golf course out of donuts, the sand traps out of lemon cake, and the water hazards made out of a mix of Starbucks coffee AND Allagash white ale? If so, I can see why Peter was drooling at the television.

When Paul Zimmerman suffered a series of strokes four-and-a-half years ago, SI's Mock Draft was handed down to me. I've done one forever, just not with the pressure that comes from following Dr. Z.

It used to drive Zim crazy, the time he spent on the unknowable. Many's the Sunday afternoon before the draft we'd be on the phone, Zim trying to crack the code of just one more team and asking if I knew anything to help. How angry he'd be if he found out something about, say, the Vikings at 11, that swayed him to make a change there, and then of course the dominoes would fall and he'd have to change 12, 13, 17, 18, 20, 23, 25, 26, 27 and 28. Aaaarrrrrgggghhhhh! Not happy Sundays.

I realize Dr. Z was a huge professional and all, but there should be no pressure involved with making a mock draft. You are lucky to have half of the picks correct because NFL teams are not giving out complete information. Not to mention the readers don't always remember which "expert" mocked which player to which team after a few years. Mock drafts are supposed to be fun. Why so serious?

I talked in confidence to quite a few people around the league Friday through Sunday, so they could (I hoped) be relatively honest. I tried to barter some information as the calls went on, but mostly I was fishing. And the lines I cast over the weekend came up empty quite a bit.

What did Peter learn? He learned that Kevin Costner has a smile which can light up a room. Costner is so much cuter than Mike Lombardi, but not nearly as precocious as Trent Baalke.

"And,'' Mayock said, "you throw a Chip Kelly in there at No. 4. He could be so different.

How does Mike Mayock know Chip Kelly could be so different? Kelly has never been a part of an NFL Draft before. I think the "in" thing is to say that Chip Kelly is going to be different because that's what everyone else is saying.

Of the offseason moves Kelly has made, which ones are just so different? He signed Dennis Dixon, which makes sense given the fact Dixon played quarterback at Oregon. He signed James Casey, who is a tight end by trade and can also play fullback. Casey is perfect for Kelly's offense, but that doesn't mean Kelly is different anymore than it means Casey is a versatile weapon for a coach who knows how to use him.

I'm not sure they value things in Philadelphia the way everyone else does in the league anymore. So we don't know that.

No, what you don't know is how they value things in Philadelphia. You also don't know how any franchise with a new coach or GM values positions/players as it pertains to the NFL Draft, so Kelly could be different or he could be the same as other NFL coaches.

I'm in the same boat as Mayock. Here are a few things I know, or feel good about, in round one:

1.Kansas City hasn't found any takers for franchised left tackle Branden Albert -- I hear the Chiefs would take a high second-round pick for him -- and regardless whether Albert's moved or not, I don't see them doing anything but taking tackles Luke Joeckel or Eric Fisher first.

It's probably a smart move...but what about Andy Reid? He's so different and values things differently from other NFL coaches.

2. Jacksonville GM David Caldwell, choosing second overall, says he's narrowed the pick down to two names. (Well, I should hope so, if you're picking second.)

It really doesn't make sense at this stage for the Jags to have the pick narrowed down to two names. Do the Chiefs have their pick narrowed down to one name? Should the Raiders have their pick narrowed down to three names? Since the draft is over a week away it would make logical sense the Jaguars haven't gotten the pick narrowed down yet to two names, especially since the Jaguars have no idea who the Chiefs are picking.

3.Oakland. Reggie McKenzie wants out of this pick. He really wants to recoup the second that was blown in the Carson Palmer trade. I can't see it happening.

Nearly half of the teams picking in the Top 10 want to trade out of the pick this year. This isn't really news.

4. Philadelphia. Eagles have been nutty about getting players who fit the 3-4.

Isn't it weird how teams who run the 3-4 defense really, really insist on finding players who fit the 3-4 defense? Just hold on Philadelphia, don't be so pushy to find players who fit the type of defense you run.

Hear they like Star Lotulelei a lot to play all along the line, even at nose. Where they go -- Geno Smith, pass rusher, best corner in the draft -- I don't know, but my guess is pass rusher.

So by Peter's logic (the same logic he used saying he hoped the Jags had their pick at #2 narrowed down to two names) the Eagles should have their pick narrowed down to four names and two of those names have to be a pass rusher just in case the Jags pick a pass rusher, right? Or if the Eagles are interested in a pass rusher then they have no interest in any other position outside of a pass rusher? I think I'm confusing myself at this point, but if the Eagles are taking a pass rusher and Peter expects these NFL teams to have their picks narrowed down to the number of their draft position then the Eagles have to have four pass rushers on their board, right?

5.Detroit. One of the two good tackles, Joeckel or Fisher, or cornerback Dee Milliner.

Great, glad that pick is narrowed down to three players.

7.Arizona. How do the Cardinals not take Lane Johnson if he's there?

Maybe they don't take him because they don't think he is the best tackle prospect at this point in the draft? I probably shouldn't argue since I thought the Cardinals needed to draft an offensive lineman in the first round last year instead of Michael Floyd.

9.New York Jets. Rex Ryan might want a corner (is the Pope an Argentinean?) but I hear he's awfully smitten with Barkevious (brother of Hughtavious) Mingo of LSU.

Peter just can't get over how minorities name their children such funny names! They are so precocious! I want the Jets to take a corner here. It's not like there are other needs on the roster (OL, QB, for starters) or there is a really good OL prospect that will possibly be available in this spot (Chance Warmack). Go with a corner though, that'll win ya' a Super Bowl.

I did one mock draft Saturday night that ended with no quarterbacks in the first round. But I eventually put Geno Smith in my mock for the magazine, because there's just too much smoke about him going in the first round. I just don't know who's going to take him

Chip Kelly can be different. Maybe he will take a chance on drafting a quarterback rather than sticking Mike Vick back there for one more year to brutally disappoint Eagles fans? It would be so different to draft a quarterback in the first round.

Study history if you want to have the best chance to nail the Giants, at 19, and know they've taken four pass rushers high in the last 10 drafts and just lost Osi Umenyiora in free agency ...

And who hasn't wanted to nail the Giants at some point in the past? Like nail the entire team. They are so cute (unlike Mike Lombardi), it's just natural everyone wants to nail them.

At 20, Chicago seems poised to take a tight end or Brian Urlacher heir, with all the offensive linemen likely gone by this point ... 

Yes, the Bears should not draft an offensive lineman. That way we can start the "at what yard line will Jay Cutler finally get murdered by a pass rusher?" pool started before the actual season begins.

Clueless about New England at 29,

I would be shocked if Peter wasn't clueless about what player the Patriots would pick in this spot. I could probably have left the "about what player the Patriots would pick in this spot" part of the sentence out and still be correct.

but the Pats pick 29, 59 and 91, and then not again until the seventh round. You have to figure one of those, at least, is a receiver, and one's a corner ...

Peter is clueless, but that doesn't stop him from trying to give his readers clues.

Now for the Super Bowl participants. San Francisco coach Jim Harbaugh has been at a high number of receiver workouts, I'm told. "This isn't about 2013 for the Niners,'' one GM told me. "Harbaugh knows he'll be there for a while. They just lost Randy Moss, and Anquan Boldin is there for a year, and they don't know about [2012 first-round pick] A.J. Jenkins [out of Illinois]. Receiver's very logical for them there.'' Harbaugh is one who wouldn't be scared of Patterson.

Because Harbaugh could be different, he could draft a wide receiver this year that has a ton of talent. Not every NFL team has the guts to do this, but Jim Harbaugh isn't afraid. He inexplicably drafted A.J. Jenkins last year so this year he may choose a receiver with talent.

At 32, Baltimore would love a physical safety to play alongside free-agent acquisition Michael Huff, but it could be that all three big safeties here (Kenny Vaccaro, Matt Elam and Jonathan Cyprien) are all gone, and a tight end they love, Tyler Eifert, is gone too. Alec Ogletree wouldn't surprise here, but the guy I gave them in my mock draft is someone I haven't seen anyone else put in the first round.

Who did Peter mock to the Ravens? Brett Favre. It only makes sense that the Ravens draft Favre because they are trading Joe Flacco and just need someone to hold down the quarterback position for a few years until Alex Smith or Tyrod Taylor are ready to take over.

Finally: Quarterbacks Matt Barkley, Ryan Nassib and E.J. Manuel all should be gone by 41. (Buffalo picks there, and I expect the Bills to take a quarterback in the first two rounds.) The quarterback position is the toughest to figure in this draft. A sliding Geno Smith could make it more problematic if he's not taken in the first dozen picks -- and I cannot promise he will be.

So Peter picked only one quarterback to go in the first round and he expects three quarterbacks to go from picks 33-41?

Mayock-fest. When Mike Mayock did his pre-Scouting Combine conference call with the media in February, he answered more than 150 questions from more than 180 reporters. The call took two-and-a-half hours. This week, on Thursday at 1 p.m. Eastern, he'll do his pre-draft conference call with reporters ... and NFL Network is going to stream it live on NFL.com. Go to nfl.com/mayockdraftcall to hear it Thursday, if you have quite a bit of time. You know Mayock.

I actually don't know Mike Mayock. As much fun as it would be to hear Mayock guess (and Peter in this MMQB said Mayock doesn't seem to know much about the draft) about what picks each team will make, I'm pretty sure I am busy at 1pm on Thursday with the full-time job I have.

"I grew up a Dallas Cowboys fan. I loved Roger Staubach. I always dreamed of playing for the Cowboys, playing in the Super Bowl.''

-- Brett Favre, in an interview with Cowboys radio voice Brad Sham at an SMU-sponsored event in Dallas Friday.

It had been a few weeks since Peter mentioned Brett Favre. It's about time he shoehorned a Favre mention into MMQB. After all, it's not like Favre will reference himself. Well, actually Favre probably would reference himself since he adores the spotlight, but you get what I am saying. Peter has to work to keep Favre's name out there.

Cowboys fans should feel lucky Favre didn't end up in Dallas. They could have had one Super Bowl victory in the 90's rather than having three Super Bowl victories. I tell you, Brett Favre has been retired for going on three seasons now and Peter King STILL brings him up in MMQB at every possible opportunity. Not that his obsession with Favre is anything new of course. How many other retired players get talked about by Peter when they say absolutely nothing newsworthy more than Favre?

"This will cast a dark shadow over the entire day of golf, over this entire event, but more importantly over his entire career for the rest of the life."

-- Golf Channel analyst Brandel Chamblee, on the two-stroke penalty againstTiger Woods in the Masters Saturday, and what said penalty will mean for Woods in the future.

That is some pathetic golf analysis. Shouldn't these analysts go to Hyperbole School?

This is some major hyperbole, but it's no different from the "analysis" we hear from sports announcers and analysts all the time. I get this is a lot of hyperbole, but if Peter watches any type of sports or morons talking about sports then he should hear hyberbole like this all the time.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week

Well, now I've seen the other side. I spent three days last week in Boston, Detroit and Chicago talking to advertisers and ad agency reps about the new NFL-exclusive website SI is foolish enough to be giving me to play with. This week, I'll do more in Manhattan, and I'll travel to Seattle, Portland and Los Angeles.

So it is an NFL-exclusive site I guess. I'm excited that Peter is going to be traveling all week on SI's dime. This should give him a fair opportunity to complain about the minor inconveniences that life can bring to him while he is on the road. Prepare yourselves, Seattle, Portland and Los Angeles. Have your coffee hot and prepared and don't you dare to give him a fucking foreign cab driver. Make it Colombian and hot when it is coffee and make it American and polite if it is a cab driver.

The Five Things I Have Learned About the Business of Our Business:

1. Dress is pretty casual. I have never dressed well consistently, but I figured I should on this trip, and so I went in with a pinstripe suit to chat with the Chevy Silverado folks. Not a tie in the room. Oooops. Same on the tour of agencies and companies in Chicago.

That's just ad agencies though. It seems nobody at an ad agency ever dresses up, even if they work for Chevy. It's just the nature of the beast. I have a hard time believing that Peter didn't know business casual is prevalent in ad agencies, even ad agencies who are part of a large corporation.

4. Thought I'd be meeting in some pretty stuffy board rooms. Not. Met most of Casual Friday with different agencies, and their meeting places are just as casual. In one place they brainstorm on the wall (a giant dry-erase wall) with markers.

I'm astounded Peter wouldn't think an ad agency would have a loose environment. Even the stereotype of ad agencies is that the employees are mostly young and they bounce ideas off each other. This doesn't work as well in a boardroom atmosphere, and when brainstorming, sometimes the easiest place to put ideas is up on a board. I guess Peter just didn't know what to expect, but I'm surprised he is surprised about the type of environment he encountered in these ad agencies.

5. You do a better job if you can drink well out there. I have closed Ditka's. Now that is a point of pride. I'm not usually a bar-closer or a restaurant-closer, but when the Iron Mike's Icon Cabernet flowed, I got a pretty good second wind. Talk about emptying the NFL Story Saddlebag, those guys for four big companies got my best stuff that night. And when the party of 12 went downstairs, golly, everyone was gone and the place was being vacuumed.

What Peter is saying is that he got crunk with these ad executives and he ain't sorry about it. What are the odds 90% of the stories that Peter told were about Brett Favre?

"This one time, at Brett Favre's house..."

"Wow. I love golf."

-- @AaronRodgers12, after Adam Scott made a long putt, and it was followed by the incredible Angel Cabrera approach shot on 18, forcing a playoff at the Masters.

I'm glad Peter shares these insightful Tweets with his MMQB-reading audience. It's not like this one was pointless or a waste of space or anything.

Ten Things I Think I Think

2.I think Cincinnati-Pittsburgh games next season all of a sudden got more network-attractive, assuming the Bengals and James Harrison get their deal done today. Harrison trying to sack Ben Roethlisberger (and Harrison will be revved up in a big way for those games, having been cap-purged by the Steelers) will be eight must-see quarters.

Because we all know what a draw James Harrison can be. I know I will be tuning into this game just to see a washed-up Harrison try to sack Ben Roethlisberger, since they have such a fierce rivalry. A matchup between these two teams would have been boring, but now that James Harrison has been added to the Bengals roster this is definitely must-see television. Not that Peter is desperately searching for storylines of course.

4.I think a fifth-round pick for Chris Ivory -- if the Jets really want the Saints' undrafted running back, which they do, for the right price -- is probably fair to both sides. That's the 141st overall pick, and it leaves the Jets, pre-Revis trade, with all four top picks intact, with a veteran hard-running back there as the fifth-rounder.

Well, this would be a good move for the Saints using Kingian logic (the same logic used when discussing Darrelle Revis getting traded for a 1st and 2nd round draft choice). Ivory was undrafted and they could trade a 5th round pick for him? As long as they don't trade him for a draft pick that is lower than the draft pick used to select him, then that means this trade was smart for the Saints.

6. I think someone's going to have to tell me, if the Patriots really wanted Emmanuel Sanders in restricted free agency, why they signed him to a one-year, $2.5 million contract. That's like saying, "Well, we sort of want him, but we're really not sure, and we'll give him a D-minus deal, and maybe Pittsburgh will just take the third-round pick in return." I don't get the gesture. At all.

I think the understanding was that the Patriots had a long-term deal in place with Sanders, which they would have announced if the Steelers didn't match the one-year offer sheet. The Patriots thought the Steelers wouldn't match a one-year offer sheet, so there could be the reason for the gesture.

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

d. I don't know how I missed this, but what a cool gesture this was by the former president.

I clicked on the link and all I got was an error message saying the page I requested could not be found. Is this some kind of George W. Bush joke five years too late?

e. Memo to MLB: Maybe scheduling the Mets to start the season in Queens (six games), Philadelphia (three) and outdoors in Minneapolis (three, minus Sunday's sleet-out), and then Colorado (three), with temperatures for one game this week scheduled to be in the teens, wasn't such a great idea.

Memo to Peter King: Maybe when the MLB schedule-makers created the schedule they thought given the fact it was April the temperature would not be in the teens. Memo to Peter King: MLB can't just change the schedule because it's a little bit too cold outside and they certainly can't control the weather like your lunch friend Roger Goodell probably believes he can do. 

f. Memo to MLB II: Maybe scheduling the Yankees to start the season in the Bronx (three games), Detroit (three games) and Cleveland (two coldouts, one game) wasn't such a great idea.

Memo to Peter King III: Maybe because it is April MLB thought, "hey, it won't be a problem to give Detroit and Cleveland home games because it is going to be April and we have no reason to expect the weather to be cold."

g. Memo to MLB III: Maybe scheduling the Twins outdoors in the north for the first six weeks of the season wasn't such a good idea.

Memo to Peter King IV: So the Twins just don't get any home games for the first six weeks of the MLB season? That sounds just incredibly fair. The Twins do play in an open-air park, so because you are so smart I would love to hear why the Twins shouldn't get any home games until mid-May. It's okay, I have time and can wait.

Here's the real story behind this comment. Peter has NO IDEA the Twins don't play in a dome anymore, so he doesn't know they would get no home games until mid-May if they couldn't play games outdoors in the north (which last time I checked Minnesota was in the north part of the United States) for the first six weeks of the season. This is why Peter shouldn't give an opinion on every topic that pops into his mind and I am astounded at the fact he claims to love baseball so much, since he often comes off as a dunce when discussing the sport.

h. By the way, baseball needed to suspend Padres outfielder Carlos Quentin for five games longer than the period Dodgers pitcher Zach Greinke will be gone with his fractured collarbone (which will keep Greinke out for two months), which would be a revolutionary but justifiable penalty. Instead, Quentin got eight games. There was no need for Quentin, who clearly has some sort of anger-management problem, to charge the mound Thursday night in San Diego. And for major-league baseball to slap Quentin on the wrist is to say to him and all other outlaws who have made blood sport out of charging the mound in a misplaced-traditional rite of machoness, "Hey, go kill the pitcher. It's OK."

The union would have a fit. There's no precedent saying a batter/pitcher has to stay out as long as the player he injured in a brawl caused by a batter getting hit. So I understand the sentiment, but logically it doesn't make a lot of sense given the precedent MLB has set.

i. Coffeenerdness: You know you're drinking too much espresso when you have a Starbucks gold card in your wallet and on your Starbucks phone app. Different cards too. Gold at both. That means I'm over the top as a latte man.

The fact you have two of these cards and feel the need to tell us about them also means you are a douche.

The Adieu Haiku

Angel Cabrera
should instruct a class in class.
Wouldn't you enroll?

I would enroll, but just make sure it doesn't take place in April or else Peter will have a shit-fit if the weather is too cold. 

2 comments It's Okay, This Column was Written by a Freelance Contributor

ESPN is an easy target for a lot of people. I include myself in that category of "people," in case you were wondering. I tend to focus more on ESPN's writers rather than ESPN as a whole, but the point remains the same in many ways when I am focusing on a specific writer for writing a column I thought was bad or very much disagreed with. Mark Cuban and Bill Simmons got in a Twitter fight, well it wasn't quite a "fight" since at this point Simmons had not responded to what Mark Cuban had said about him on Twitter. A Mark Cuban/Bill Simmons Twitter fight isn't quite a huge ESPN issue, especially since Simmons is only tangentially related to ESPN through Grantland at this point. I what caused a lot of Mark Cuban's frustration with Bill Simmons' Twitter comment (which I will get to in a minute) is his frustration with ESPN's coverage of LeBron and the discussion he had with Skip Bayless after the Finals were over.

There seems to be an overwhelming attitude at ESPN of "We are ESPN, we are big, so we are going to do whatever the fuck we want to do." When one of their employees is caught in a somewhat-scandal over using Wikipedia, ESPN comes back with a sort of "boys will be boys" type response. If it isn't a "boys will be boys" response, it certainly doesn't seem like a response that shows any type of concern for what was discussed about Lynn Hoppes copying and re-wording Wikipedia entries.

The exact statement by ESPN in that situation consisted basically of saying "it was an example of journalistic laziness and we've addressed it." This wasn't simply AN example of journalistic laziness, it was a pattern of journalistic laziness. There were repeated examples of Wikipedia entries copied and re-worded. Just look at how often Lynn Hoppes re-worded or copies a Wikipedia entry over the last few years. That's a pattern, not a single example, of journalistic laziness. It's not even laziness, that's outright copying. Laziness is doing this once or twice over a year or two, while re-wording or copying Wikipedia entries repeatedly is a pattern that shows Hoppes relied on this information to help write his columns.

No one wants to see Hoppes publicly executed or his body hung by a cross in the hot sun for an entire week to show his contrition, but to downplay this as a sort of incident that could result in a slap on the wrist or that it doesn't concern ESPN that other writers may be doing this is concerning to me. That's a pretty big deal to re-word Wikipedia entries or copy them like Lynn Hoppes did. Yet, ESPN doesn't seem to have a sense of urgency or concern in the statement they released. It's a "we've dealt with this already, so please stop talking about it" type of statement. ESPN wants us to continue watching and reading, but they seem displeased when having to give us a reason to believe that what we are watching or reading is an original thought. I feel like they want the public to trust them because they are ESPN.

It's a pattern that can be seen in other ESPN employees as well. I received an email recently from someone who stumbled across this blog and he linked a passage about Fred Jackson that Gregg Easterbrook wrote in TMQ. It was a passage where Gregg was showing the type of criticism that Fred Jackson had gotten and why he had not started at running back in high school. Gregg said Jackson was "too small" and "too slow." I wanted Gregg to cite exactly where he got this specific criticism of Fred Jackson. Gregg seems to do this all the time, quote certain articles that aren't linked. He did it when he called Julio Jones a diva last year and he did it when discussing why Fred Jackson didn't start at running back in high school. I searched at the time I wrote the TMQ post, but couldn't find anything. I didn't look in the most obvious place perhaps.

I didn't come up with much of the following the research, so all the credit goes to the kind gentleman who emailed me about this. I didn't ask if I could use his name, so I won't. Either way, he seemed to show me Gregg Easterbrook makes use of Wikipedia as well in this instance and I would bet this isn't the first or only time Gregg has used completely uncited criticism from Wikipedia in TMQ. It's one thing to use Wikipedia for facts, but Gregg used Wikipedia to cite an opinion as if it were fact from an actual scouting report of Fred Jackson out of high school, which I completely disagree with doing.

The TMQ post I wrote is here.

Gregg wrote the following:

Runner-up: Fred Jackson, tailback, Buffalo. Jackson never started a game in high school, being "too small" and "too slow."

I wrote the following:

Usually when a writer puts words in quotation marks he is actually quoting something that exists in literature. I'd love to see Gregg provide proof that Jackson didn't start a game in high school because he was "too small" and "too slow." This may be true, and I'm not English teacher, but I'm pretty sure if you put words in quotes they need to be an actual quote that exists and not the figment of the writer imagining what was said. Mostly likely Gregg did here what he usually does, which is deceive his readers into believing these were words used on an actual evaluation of Jackson's skill set in high school. He attempts to deceive his readers by putting "too small" and "too slow" in quotes as if this came from a specific evaluation of Jackson in high school.

It turns out I was wrong, Gregg did have a citation, he just didn't tell us about it. He seemed to have directly copied this evaluation of Jackson directly from Fred Jackson's Wikipedia page, which states:

Jackson attended Lamar High School (Arlington, Texas) and although he was a member of the powerful Lamar Vikings teams of the late 1990s, he never started a game in his two years on the varsity. Back then he was considered too small (5-8, 160 pounds) and too slow. He began his senior year as a third-string running back, and only after a knee injury to starter Justin Faust (headed to Stanford), was he elevated to second-string behind Tommicus Walker (headed to TCU).

The emphasis in red is mine from the Wikipedia entry on Fred Jackson that was emailed to me. So it appears Gregg Easterbrook enjoys the use of Wikipedia as well. The issue I have with this is Gregg isn't discussing a fact. It isn't a fact that Fred Jackson was considered too small or too slow. This is an opinion. Yet, it seems Gregg uses the opinion of Fred Jackson's Wikipedia page writer as empirical proof for why Jackson didn't start in high school. That's a bit shady to me. It's fine to use Wikipedia to research facts, but I'm not sure we can trust a Wikipedia entry to provide opinion-based information like whether a player was "too small" or "too slow" to start in high school. If this were from an official Scout.com or Rivals.com scouting report I think it has much more credibility...but not an evaluation of Fred Jackson on Wikipedia. Yet, that's the information Gregg Easterbrook relied upon. Who knew such a lofty and well-known writer like Gregg Easterbrook did his research in Wikipedia? Now I know why he doesn't cite or provide a link to a lot of the criticism he uses in TMQ. Most likely he's just looking for some sort of comment on the Internet which agrees with his point of view and he doesn't want us to know where he got the information from. I don't know what other conclusion I can come to.

So we know about the journalists of ESPN and their propensity to use Wikipedia. There have also been instances of ESPN freelancers doing whatever the hell it was that Sarah Phillips was doing and even making up interviews that were done with an athlete, even though the athlete denies there was ever an interview. In both instances ESPN hid behind the idea these interviews were done by freelancers, as if in some way they weren't responsible for content that was put on ESPN.com or any ESPN.com affiliates. That's the good thing about freelancers. You can blame them when something goes wrong, but also take the credit (by having the freelancer's story on your site) when the story is done very well.

ESPN said, in response to Awful Announcing questioning what had happened in the case of fake interview,:

"The story was written by a freelance contributor. We removed the story as soon as we discovered sourcing questions and are looking into those."

ESPN, much like in the Sarah Phillips case, is very quick to point out this was done by a freelance contributor and doesn't reflect on the journalistic standard ESPN wants to be held to. I'm sure you can excuse the audience's confusion since this article appeared on an ESPN.com site. This incident with a freelance contributor, which ESPN is in no way affiliated with outside of publishing his material on their website, had "sourcing issues" which I commonly refer to as "making shit up." I don't know what type of "sourcing issue" an interview published detailing an interview that never actually took place might be, but it sounds a lot less like a sourcing problem and more like an honesty problem.

It was clear from the Sarah Phillips incident(s) that ESPN doesn't hold their freelance contributors to as high of a standard as their ESPN-employed writers. It seems in their excuse-filled apologies ESPN treats their freelance contributors like the weird uncle-by-marriage of the company's online presence.

"Uncle Dave always drinks too much at weddings. He isn't our uncle by blood though, purely through marriage."

I understand that things go wrong and with all of the articles that get published on ESPN.com and their affiliates sometimes things go really wrong. I don't want ESPN to lay their soul bare in apologizing, but the excuse a person was a freelance contributor and some vague promise to look into "sourcing issues" with the interview doesn't feel right to me. You want your audience to believe the content on your site is informational and original, then don't you owe to your audience to not separate yourself from your contributor and then provide no promise of doing better the next time?

I can talk around this all day, but ESPN can get away with it. The reason they can get away with it is because they have no competition. That day will end though. ESPN will get competition and they will have to compete for their share of the sports market. Let's all keep waiting for that day. It will come.

So back to the Mark Cuban-Bill Simmons one-sided Twitter war. It's not even a war because in typical Simmons fashion, he hasn't responded. This is the same reason Bill doesn't allow comments on his columns. He doesn't want feedback and he ignores any criticism he gets because it discourages his own held point of view that many of the things he says and does are absolutely correct simply because he says and does them. That recent article on "The Onion" hit the nail on the head.

I think much of Mark Cuban's frustration stemmed from his appearance on "First Take" when he eviscerated Skip Bayless and others like him. He's tired of being second-guessed by those who don't have experience running an NBA team. I'm not going to defend the Maverick's moves this offseason, that's not the point, nor will I say the whole "he doesn't have experience on a championship team" statement is persuasive either. We all know Bill Simmons wants to be an NBA GM. He did nothing short of beg-without-begging to be the Bucks and Timberwolves GM over the last 4-5 years. This non-exchange with Cuban is part of the reason in my opinion Bill's being a GM of an NBA team can't happen. It's the major divide between being a journalist with an opinion and believing you can run an NBA team. Bill is great at documenting what happens in the NBA and his original Tweet I thought was funny and accurate.

Put it this way: I wasn't crazy about Elton Brand and Chris Kaman playing together in 2006 when they were still good.

But Bill is the guy who documents and writes the book of basketball. He isn't the type of person who creates and is responsible for the events in the book of basketball. There's a difference in a how a GM/owner wants to run an NBA team and how a GM/owner is able to run an NBA team. Bill is a writer. His ideas are sometimes good, but reality doesn't give a shit about great ideas. That's why I make fun of his "Who says no?" comments. A good idea is great, but the implementation of that great idea is hard to do. There are more than just two people with an opinion involved. Bill does a (generally) good job of documenting (and dissecting) what happens in the NBA. Bill has no idea what he would have done other than not sign Elton Brand or Chris Kaman. If he had an idea, I'm sure we would have heard it by now.

There is a divide between those who know NBA basketball and those who run NBA basketball teams. I think the divide is clear here. Mark Cuban responded to Bill:

@sportsguy33. They next smart personnel comment you mae will be your first

Mark Cuban deleted that Tweet eventually for some reason. Bill is a know-it-all type guy. It rubs people the wrong way. Dan Gilbert, the owner (I originally had Gilbert as the GM of the Cavs. As a commenter noted, that wouldn't probably end well) of the Cavs, actually Retweeted this comment by Mark Cuban at Bill Simmons. I wouldn't rank Dan Gilbert as one of the top 5 owners in the NBA by any means, but I find it interesting we have two of the most Twitter-active NBA owners showing ESPN's top NBA guy (he is ESPN's top NBA guy when it comes to opinions and influence...at least in my opinion) he doesn't have their respect. Maybe it is two owners being bitter or angry, but do we really believe Bill could be an NBA GM and deal with personalities like Mark Cuban and Dan Gilbert on a regular basis? I'm not sure he could. Running an NBA team is a different world from pretending you can run an NBA team because you think you have great ideas.

Of course then the one-sided conversation went downhill and Mark Cuban ruined his point when responding to someone defending Simmons...a guy named Mufasa-7000 (maybe he is a big "Lion King" fan?).

@mcuban @sportsguy33 Well to be fair, Simmons also didn't let an entire championship team minus the superstar walk away for nothing.

Followed by Mark Cuban's silly response...

@CmackChase @sportsguy33 possibly because he has never had any involvement with a championship team.

That's just silly. It puts Mark Cuban in a position to never be criticized by anyone who hasn't won a title. My point, and I think I do have one, is that Bill Simmons can't be an NBA GM/VP of Common Sense. He's good at what he does, which is get people to read his columns and NBA opinions. Bill Simmons did have a point. Elton Brand and Chris Kaman isn't a great combination power forward-center for the Mavericks. I think his debate after the NBA Finals win by the Heat still has Mark Cuban in a fit and he is overly-sensitive to criticism from anyone at ESPN at this point.

If Bill Simmons was a freelance contributor he could create an entire interview he had with Mark Cuban where Cuban admits he was wrong and try to pass this off on Grantland as a real interview that occurred. Or Bill could base all of his Chris Kaman or Elton Brand-related criticism on something written in Wikipedia. It seems that's the safer way for him to go.

4 comments Trolling Leads to Comparing 2012 and 1992 Dream Teams

Chris Palmer, who is a person I had never heard of before I started writing this post, made the following statement on Twitter recently:

"Respect to the Dream Team. But Kobe, LeBron, Durant, Wade, Howard, CP3, Westbrook, Rondo would run them off the floor."

You can read all of his comments here. That's his Twitter account. Apparently Chris Palmer writes for ESPNLosAngeles and is an authentic ESPN NBA Insider, which is a title that apparently requires capitalization. This statement got me to thinking. Would the 1992 Dream Team be run off the floor by the 2012 Olympic team? Obviously it is nearly impossible to accurately compare these two teams, and I am sure someone somewhere has done a better job than I have in comparing these two teams (I'm guessing Bill Simmons will shit a comparison out soon since he writes 1-2 times per week and is out of column ideas to the point he is turning his weekly column into a Christmas card updating us all on his family's exploits), but I thought I would at least think this question out in long form using Palmer's Tweets.

First, we need to get the roster for each team. We know the roster for the 1992 Dream Team and I will guess at the roster for the 2012 Olympic Team, assuming the best American NBA players will play. I'm leaving off guys who I don't think would play (Rose/Duncan) or players I don't think would make the team (Garnett). So here are the rosters with the position they play, along with their age in each respective year when the Olympic games (1992 and 2012) occurred. By the way, I am not including Derrick Rose on this list because he would not play in these Olympics due to this knee injury. This isn't a list of the best players of the era and I am trying to be realistic on who would/could play for Team USA in the 2012 Olympics, so much like Isiah Thomas didn't make the Dream Team because everyone hated him, Rose wouldn't be on the 2012 Olympic team because he is injured.

1992 Dream Team

PG- Magic Johnson (33 years old)
PG- John Stockton (30 years old)
SG- Michael Jordan (29 years old)
SG- Clyde Drexler (30 years old)
SF- Larry Bird (35 years old)
SF- Chris Mullin (29 years old)
SF- Scottie Pippen (26 years old)
PF- Charles Barkley (29 years old)
PF- Karl Malone (29 years old)
PF- Christian Laettner (23 years old)
C- Patrick Ewing (30 years old)
C- David Robinson (27 years old)

2012 Olympic Team

PG- Chris Paul (27 years old)
PG- Russell Westbrook (23 years old)
PG- Rajon Rondo (26 years old)
SG- Dwayne Wade (30 years old)
SG- Kobe Bryant (34 years old)
SF- LeBron James (27 years old)
SF- Kevin Durant (23 years old)
SF- Carmelo Anthony (28 years old)
PF- Blake Griffin (23 years old)----as pointed out in the comments Kevin Love should have this spot. I was wrong to put Griffin here. It doesn't change opinion of this hypothetical game, but Love is a natural international player. Big mistake on my part.
PF- Chris Bosh (28 years old)
PF- LaMarcus Aldridge (27 years old)
C- Dwight Howard (26 years old)

So there we go. I left off Andrew Bynum, Kevin Love, Deron Williams, and Paul Pierce because I didn't think they would make the team.

Because it is hard to directly compare each team considering they played 20 years apart, I'm going to compare these two teams in the context of Chris Palmer's Tweets about the subject. He next Tweeted,

The speed alone would overwhelm the 30-something Dream Team.

He does have a point in that the 1992 Dream Team was older than the 2012 Olympic Team. The average age of the 1992 Dream Team was 29.2 years of age. and the average age of the 2012 Olympic team would be 26.8 years of age. I get what Palmer is saying about the speed of the 2012 team, but in their time Bird, Mullin, Ewing, and Stockton weren't considered to be fast players, but this still didn't stop them from dominating. This is a fast 2012 team, but the lack of speed didn't hurt members of the 1992 team when they played in the NBA. So I can feel comfortable giving the 2012 team an advantage in speed, but I don't know if this is such an advantage it means the 2012 team would dominate the 1992 team.

Dream Team had lots of subpar defenders: Mullin, Bird (back), Drexler, Laettner.

This is a fairly valid point. The Dream Team also had Ewing, Robinson, Pippen, Jordan, and Stockton (who cheated and grabbed so much it slowed the opposing point guard down). They were pretty good defenders in their own right. Besides, it isn't like the 2012 team is a defensive juggernaut with Anthony and Griffin on the roster. I'm not sure Westbrook, Rondo, or Paul could necessarily guard a much bigger Magic Johnson on the offensive end. Magic definitely wasn't in his prime, but I still think it wouldn't be an easy matchup for the 2012 point guards.

Not to mention, how did Clyde Drexler appear on Palmer's list as a sub-par defender? He is 7th on the all-time steals list. It certainly seems like he was capable of stealing the ball if he wasn't an excellent on-ball defender. I think the 1992 Dream Team as more defensively capable than Palmer gives them credit for being.

Defensive core of Kobe, LeBron, Wade is simply the best ever.

I can see that argument, but Jordan, Pippen, and Ewing are a pretty good defensive core too. You have to remember in this contest, 2012 Kobe is older than 1992 Jordan, 2012 LeBron is older than 1992 Pippen, and 2012 Wade is the same age as 1992 Ewing. Not that these players would be matched up against each directly, obviously, but the 1992 team's defensive core is actually younger than the 2012 team's defensive core.

Dream Team quality bigs Ewing, Robinson neutralized because of tempo.

Clearly Chris Palmer never saw David Robinson play basketball. Robinson was comfortable with a fast tempo and you only have to go to YouTube to see video of David Robinson running the break with his Spurs teammates. So while Ewing would guard Howard, when the 2012 team went up-tempo the 1992 team could bring in Robinson at center, move Barkley to power forward, Drexler to small forward with Jordan and Stockton/Magic at the guard spots. Or the 1992 team could put Pippen at point guard in a lineup with Drexler, Jordan, Robinson and Barkley. That team could run the break, even with Barkley in the lineup. Rebounding could be an issue for this 1992 squad since Barkley was undersized, depending on the power forward the 2012 team goes with (Griffin...but then who plays center in the up-tempo game for the 2012 team? Maybe Bosh/Aldridge or LeBron moves to power forward), but I would feel good if I were the 1992 team in an up-tempo contest.

So my basic point is the 1992 would be comfortable at center with an up-tempo game because Robinson had no issue playing center at an up-tempo pace.

Jordan on Kobe. Pippen on LeBron. Who guards KD, Rose, Westbrook?

Again, Rose's knee is blown out. So I wouldn't include him on this team. Jordan on Kobe and Pippen on LeBron? How about this? Kobe in 2012 doesn't need Michael Jordan on him. Drexler could probably guard a 34 year old Kobe, Pippen would be on Westbrook, then Jordan guards LeBron. Or Pippen could be on Durant and Jordan guards LeBron. Or you could switch those two. I'm guessing Stockton or Magic (who was not healthy during the 1992 Olympics, but played anyway) would guard Westbrook if Jordan did stay on Kobe and Pippen on LeBron. It's a tough matchup, but I think the 1992 team would figure out a way to make it work. Clearly the 2012 team would be younger and faster. My point is the 1992 has more options than are presented by Palmer.

On the other side of the ball, if we are assuming a Westbrook, Kobe, LeBron, Durant, Howard lineup versus a Magic, Jordan, Pippen, Malone, Robinson lineup, who is guarding in-his-absolute-prime Michael Jordan? 34 year old Kobe Bryant? He's a good defender, but he isn't that good anymore defensively. Let's say LeBron guards Michael Jordan, which I would pay a lot to see happen. Get the hologram people to work on this immediately. So LeBron is on Jordan, Kobe is guarding Pippen, and Durant is guarding Malone? I know Durant has length, but I can't think this matchup is to the advantage of the 2012 team. Magic would have a half a foot in height over Westbrook at the point position as well.

Concerning the play down in the post, the 1992 team would get Howard in the pick-and-roll with Malone/Robinson and cause him problems. Howard is a great defender, but Robinson or Ewing could drag Howard away from the basket. I love Durant, but I'm not convinced he can guard Karl Malone. In that case is LeBron guarding Karl Malone? If the 2012 team takes LeBron off Pippen/Jordan to guard Malone and that leaves Pippen/Bird/Mullin with Durant on them. Perhaps Durant could handle that assignment better than he could handle Malone. My point is I think there are mismatches on both sides of the court, which is what would make this a tough game.

Dream Team can't guard speed. And there's no Easter Bunny. Sorry you're finding out like this.

Just from looking at the 1992 Dream Team roster, it does seem like they would struggle to guard the speed of the 2012 Olympic team. It's difficult to simply say, "Dream Team can't guard speed," since these two teams are never going to play each other. The 1992 Dream Team can't guard speed, but basketball isn't simply a foot race. If basketball was a foot race the Golden State Warriors would make the playoffs every year. The 1992 Dream Team can't guard speed, but how would the 2012 Olympic team guard the 1992 team from the perimeter? I've completely neglected this part of the discussion so far. With Jordan in his absolute prime, Drexler still playing at a high level and Barkley winning an MVP one year later, those three guys are going to be in the lane, so who is going to match up the perimeter shooters the 1992 team would have. Guys like Chris Mullin, Larry Bird, and Stockton. The Dream Team was really good from the perimeter and I want to reiterate I think Chris Palmer is underestimating Clyde Drexler's defense. I don't know if I would consider Drexler to be a sub-par defender.

The advancements in skill and athleticism can't be ignored. Too much for '92 to overcome.

While I again get what Chris Palmer is saying, these "advancements" in skill and athleticism are not being ignored. Basketball players today are physical specimen compared to players 20 years ago. I guess if Palmer is looking at it from a physical standpoint, the 1992 team would be overmatched. As I said before though, several of these 1992 Dream Team members were physically overmatched when they played in the NBA and it didn't affect their performance. I think Chris Palmer is looking at this from a purely perimeter-oriented standpoint, which I think he has to throw how Howard/Aldridge/Griffin/Bosh would hold up against Ewing/Robinson/Barkley/Malone into the discussion as well.

OK, KG and Timmy, you can play too. Need you to guard the ringless Barkley and Malone.

The fact these guys are ringless is incredibly irrelevant. Both of these guys had to get past the Chicago Bulls, Phil Jackson, Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen to get a title. Those 90's Bulls teams were really, really tough to beat. Not very many teams in the 90's were able to beat them in the playoffs. So the "ringless" portion is a cheap shot, especially since only three of the players on the 2012 team have NBA Titles. I left Garnett off the 2012 team because I would take Bosh/Aldridge/Griffin over him in this competition (and I'm not sure Garnett would play either) and Tim Duncan has stated he won't play in the Olympics anymore. He wasn't even a member of the 2008 Olympic men's basketball team. So Duncan wouldn't play most likely and Garnett wouldn't make my team. The fact Barkley and Malone were ringless is just so incredibly irrelevant when it comes to a fictional head-to-head competition like this.

Not disparaging the Dream Team. They changed basketball by globalizing the game. But they would lose today.

It's fun to talk about, but almost impossible to say for sure. It's a tough call and I can't say for sure which team would win this game. Gun to my head, I would possibly go with the 1992 Dream Team over the 2012 Olympic team, but I can see how the 2012 team would win. I think there is one thing we can all agree on...who the hell is Chris Palmer and when did he "bust up" Randolph Childress like he claims he did,

@CoryAlexanderVA Hey Cory, I used to bust up Randolph Childress. I know he put big numbers on you.

and where did Palmer play college ball? I've tried to find information on Palmer and can't seem to find anything. He does seem to have some sort of infatuation with Randolph Childress. Maybe it is payback for Childress dunking on him...

https://twitter.com/ESPNChrisPalmer/status/101648357277171712

Either way, it seems Chris Palmer wanted some attention and he got it. This is a tough argument that can't ever be proven one way or another. Lost amid the claims the 2012 Olympic team is more athletic and faster, I think sight is being lost that the 1992 team contained 11 Hall of Fame players, only two of which were older than 30 years old. So it isn't like they were an excessively old team and they had the best player in NBA history in his prime and were incredibly well balanced from the perimeter and in the paint.

So while I see some matchup difficulties for the 1992 team in guarding LeBron/Wade/Kobe, I also see some matchup difficulties for the 2012 team in guarding Malone/Jordan/Bird/Mullin on offense. As much as Chris Palmer seems to believe this isn't true, the 1992 Dream Team probably would have kept up with the 2012 team to the point I think they could beat them.

I know it goes against the state of the sports media today, but there is no right or wrong on this question. Which team do you think wins if these two teams play? Am I being unrealistic in my expectations for the 1992 Dream Team or is Chris Palmer not only a Grade-A troll, but also overstating the 2012 Olympic team's hypothetical dominance?