2 comments Terence Moore is Enraged More than Ever about the Elimination of Collisions at Home Plate; Shoehorns in More Criticism of Instant Replay While He's at It

Have you had enough of the discussion about the change in rules for home plate collisions? Terence Moore has too. He doesn't understand why MLB insists on changing rules and ruining the sport of baseball to (throws up finger quotes in the air) "make it safer" and "protect the players from career-threatening and life-threatening injuries that could cause concussions and other life-changing trauma." It's baseball, not ballet. Terence has already given his opinion on the elimination of home plate collisions from baseball. He's going to re-write that column until MLB realizes what a huge error it is to mess with perfection. Consistently re-writing old columns is something two members of the Axis of Baseball Traditionalist Evil (Murray Chass and Terence Moore) tend to do. They find pet topics and then run that topic into the ground in their columns (Terence Moore) or on their non-blog (Murray Chass). This in turn forces me (at gun point nonetheless, so I have no control over what I write) to cover when Chass or Moore writes about their newest pet topic that offends their traditionalist senses. After saying the NFL has ruined football with rule changes, Terence points to a college basketball rule change as further proof all change is bad and eliminating home plate collisions is just non-sensical and goes too far. Just way too far. Now that MLB looks like they are going to eliminate the home plate collision Terence would say it is on like Donkey Kong, but Donkey Kong became popular in the 1980's and Terence thinks all societal progress should have stopped in the 1970's. So it's on...just really, really on.

First of all, collisions at home plate occur about as often as the Cubs are in the World Series.

Two responses to this:

1. Two home plate collisions happened in one game this past postseason. They aren't as rare as Terence Moore claims them to be.

2. If home plate collisions ARE as rare as Terence claims, then there needs to be the elimination of home plate collisions. Because for something that is so rare I can name 7-10 catchers that have gotten injured over the past few years as a result of these collisions.

Terence hasn't ever been good at arguing a point and usually he submarines his own point within the same column where he is trying to prove his point.

With apologies to Buster Posey and other catchers who have suffered horrific injuries in recent years after getting smacked by a runner trying to score

Terence goes ahead and ruins his own point early in this column. So home plate collisions are rare, but there are multiple catchers that have suffered horrific injuries in recent years as a result of a home plate collision. Doesn't this underscore the danger of a home plate collision if there aren't many of them, but there is a list of catchers who have suffered horrific injuries in recent years?

(you know, other catchers such as, well, um, I'm still thinking),

Brian McCann, Yadier Molina, Carlos Santana. Do research and you will find more than just that. Also, I just named three (and Posey is four) of the best catchers in MLB who have suffered injuries as a result of home plate collisions. MLB has a stake in ensuring the best players at the position of catcher don't get hurt. It's not good for the game.

this isn't an issue worthy of producing handwringing beyond just a few moments.

There is something wrong with Terence if he thinks the best catchers in MLB getting injured by runners plowing over them isn't an issue worthy of producing hand-wringing beyond just a few moments.

How about getting rid of the designated hitter? Now there's a worthy cause, and as the world's biggest baseball traditionalist, I'm not exactly giddy about the expansion of instant replay.

Again, being a traditionalist doesn't mean hating all change in baseball. A person can be a traditionlist and still not hate all change in the sport of baseball. Also, the designated hitter isn't causing horrific injuries to baseball players, so it's not a relevant topic when discussing home plate collisions.

baseball's rules committee announced this week during the Winter Meetings that legislation to eliminate home-plate collisions could go into effect as soon as the upcoming season and no later than 2015.

Oh my God. It's the baseball equivalent of Armageddon! A change to baseball that makes the sport safer and less traditional. What happened to the days when John Roseboro could get smashed over the head three times with a baseball bat by Juan Marichal? That was good, traditional baseball. Why doesn't that happen anymore?

In today's sports world, when something is perceived as awful or at the very least troublesome, the rumbling begins in the shadows, and then the shouting takes over.

I've explained various times before, but at no other base is the runner allowed to plow over the fielder. This is an example of where MLB gets ahead of a safety issue, identifies that issue and notices that it doesn't make a ton of sense for a runner to be able to plow over the catcher at home plate when the runner can't plow over any other fielder at any other base.

This isn't: In response to those yelling the loudest, rules often are changed or added by the decision makers of that sport without regard for the long-term consequences.

This decision to eliminate home plate collisions was made for no reason other than with regard for the long-term consequences of these collisions on the players who are a part of them.

There is men's college basketball, for instance, where a heavy emphasis on physical play through the years made teams offensively challenged. So the NCAA imposed legislation before this season that basically said a defender can't touch an offensive player anymore.

Now I don't like this new rule either, but the idea this rule hasn't worked so all rule changes in all sports won't work is just stupid, simplistic thinking. In other words, it's typical Terence Moore thinking.

Scoring is up by nearly six points per game, but so are fouls and the length of games. The head of the NCAA Men's Basketball Rules Committee is Belmont coach Rick Byrd, and his team shot 52 free throws during its opener.

I'm not sure Terence's point outside of saying rule changes are bad. Is he suggesting eliminating home plate collisions will lengthen baseball games? In fact, it seems this is part of his argument. The time it takes to play a baseball game is a huge concern to Terence, but only when he is using the length of games to argue against a rule change he doesn't like.

Which brings us back to the banning of home-plate collisions. The ramifications will be plentiful. A few of them will be obvious, and others will leap out of nowhere. For a sport that has been around professionally since the end of the Civil War, you can't implement a rule of this kind where there wasn't one and not expect the unknown to come in unwelcomed ways.

As I said in the column that Nick Cafardo wrote about the elimination of home plate collisions, there will be currently unknown ramifications of this new rule. There always is. This doesn't mean the elimination of home plate collisions is a bad rule or after a period of time the kinks won't be worked out and the rule will be easily enforceable and help make baseball players safer on the field.

What is the rule?

The rule hasn't been decided yet. Again, the fact MLB is studying home plate collisions from the past couple of years to work up a good rule gives me hope this rule can be implemented and enforced with ease. Yes, there will be gripes from some catchers and the umpires won't initially always enforce the rule correctly. This has to be expected, though I am sure the first time an umpire enforces the rule incorrectly Terence will be banging out a 500 word screed on his typewriter about how baseball has been ruined forever due to this new rule change.

It remains a work in progress, but we know it will involve either all or some of the following: A runner won't be allowed to crash into a catcher anymore trying to reach the plate, and the catcher won't be allowed to block the plate anymore trying to keep the runner from scoring. Sounds simple, but what if the runner slides with his cleats high, especially if they are in the direction of the catcher?

Considering nobody knows the exact wording or nature of the rule yet, it's a bit presumptuous to answer this question definitively one way or another. I see no reason why a runner can't come in sliding with his cleats high since a base runner can do that at every other base. Allowing the runner to come in and "cleat" the catcher would be a rule consistent with what runners can do at every other base.

Is that allowed, and if they are high, how high is too high?

The runner can't drop-kick the catcher. That much I can guess at this point.

And if the runner dives head first, what happens if he sort of rolls over toward the catcher and touches the guy's leg or something? Under both scenarios, would the umpire have to determine whether the runner's act was intentional or not?

No, no, no. Don't be so dumb. The runner can touch the catcher, he just can't intentionally run over the catcher. I can't imagine a scenario where MLB says a runner can't touch the catcher when trying to score. Some unintentional acts like touching the catcher's leg seems like it would be perfectly fine. Running over the catcher would not be fine. There is a difference in touching the catcher and barreling over the catcher.

The bottom line: Umpires already are under a lot of pressure with just safe-or-out and fair-or-foul calls, but now with the various aspects of this targeting rule, that pressure is about to increase by a bunch.

Well, we wouldn't want the umpires to have any pressure on them, would we? 

The umpires will have instant replay, you say? Since you decided to go there,

You went there. I didn't go there. I say the umpires are professionals whose job it is to enforce the rules as laid out by MLB, so they will have to learn to deal with the pressure of enforcing the new targeting rule. Notice how Terence said earlier in this column that these home plate collisions don't happen often, but now Terence claims these home plate collisions happen often enough to increase pressure on the umpire "by a bunch." It's funny how the frequency of these collisions change as it fits the point that Terence wants to prove.

And speaking of instant replay, it will expand next season from just determining the validity of home-run calls to deciding fair-or-foul calls, safe-or-out calls -- and whether the runner was targeting or the catcher was blocking at home plate.

And of course including the targeting rule (that doesn't happen often according to Terence) is going to happen so often it will greatly increase the time it takes to play a baseball game. Again, these home plate collisions don't happen often enough to deserve a rule to protect the players, but they happen so often the review of them will greatly increase the length of baseball games. Both of those positions have been taken by Terence in this column.

you haven't guessed by now, those who support instant-replay are highly optimistic when they say these reviews won't last long. I mean, the more elements you add to what replay folks either can or must review, the longer that already long games will get.

It always comes back to instant replay for Terence and how terrible expanded replay is. This from the guy who loves the one-game wild card playoff for some reason. 

Then there are other factors. I mean, runners won't be as aggressive racing around third toward home for fear of suffering a targeting penalty that could result in a fine or suspension.

No, no, no. The runner will be aggressive, but just make an effort not to run over the catcher to score a run, while the catcher will make an effort not to stand in front of home plate. It's the same principle of base running that is used at every other base on the baseball field. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp. A runner going to third base isn't less aggressive because he has to slide into third and can't run over the third baseman. It's the same idea at home plate when collisions are eliminated.

Plus, indecisive runners will lead to injured runners, because their instant wavering ("Should I go in standing, or should I slide, or should I just go back to third?") will contribute to injured hamstrings, groins and knees.

This a concern that I don't believe is realistic. Again, base runners don't waver when it comes to sliding into other bases on the field and there isn't an increase of injuries because a runner can't decide whether to advance to third base or stay at second base. Yes, minor injuries will occur while a runner is sliding into home plate, but the elimination of collisions at home plate will reduce concussions and other major injuries. These concerns from Terence about runners hurting themselves from wavering on whether to advance or not are unjustified.

And if you're a third-base coach, do you gamble as much as you used to? Probably not. If runners can't attempt to score by any means necessary anymore, that gives the advantage to the catcher.

And again, notice how these home plate collisions don't happen often when it comes time for Terence to mention few catchers suffer major injuries, but when Terence wants to make it seem like the elimination of home plate collisions will change how players run the bases then home plate collisions happen like two or three times per game.

The catcher also doesn't necessarily have the advantage. Plenty of runners in the past have chosen to not bowl over the catcher to score a run and under the new targeting rule the catcher isn't allowed to block the plate. So any advantage the catcher has could be lost in that he won't be able to entirely block the plate anymore.

There also is that world of the unknown unleashed by ordering athletes not to do what they've done forever.

Not forever. Current baseball players are going to have to break habits they have had for over a decade or more, but it's not like they are breaking a 150 year old habit. Collisions have been legal at home plate since baseball was invented, but current baseball players haven't been playing the sport for 150 years.

But this is known: According to the USA Today, catchers suffered 10 of the 18 concussions that sent players to the disabled list last season. So something needed to happen.

Of course Terence has no ideas on what needed to happen. He presents no alternative ideas. He just knows what needed to happen didn't involve a rule change that would benefit the majority of catchers who went to the disabled list due to a concussion. I'd love to know what Terence thinks should happen outside of home plate collisions be eliminated. He's not the idea man though, he's just the "I hate change" man.

Not something this drastic, though.

Then what? Does Terence want players to wear a helmet as they run the bases? They already do that. If catchers suffered 10 of the 18 concussions that sent players to the disabled list last season then why not create a rule that helps to eliminate a catcher from getting a concussion?

I would love to know what Terence Moore thinks baseball should have done that was less drastic. Of course he has no alternative ideas to help prevent concussions by eliminating home plate collisions, but he wants to pretend there are alternative solutions in order to justify his position that eliminating the home plate collision is too drastic. 

5 comments Nick Cafardo Doesn't Like the Rule Banning Home Plate Collisions Either

We have already read about Terence Moore's disgust for banning home plate collisions between the catcher and the base runner at home plate. Now Nick Cafardo of "The Boston Globe" has bravely spoken out against the rule change disallowing collisions at home plate between the runner and the catcher. "What's wrong with a few collisions?" asks Nick Cafardo safely tucked into his press box seat chewing on the pregame spread and drinking his third Diet Coke of the day. Where could this end? Do we ban foul balls (yes, Cafardo actually asks this question as if banning the same collision at home plate that is illegal at every other base is a slippery slope to foul balls being banned)? What's wrong with a few career-threatening injuries? It's baseball, there are supposed to be career-threatening injuries resulting from one player smashing into another player in an effort to cross home plate. Sure, this type of action is against the rules at every other base, but home plate collisions can't be banned because tradition exists. 

One of the game’s biggest stars — Buster Posey — suffered a nearly career-ending knee injury

I'm not sportswriter, but if I was going to argue home plate collisions should not be banned and try to use some facts in my opening sentence then I would make sure the sentence is factually correct. Buster Posey suffered a fractured fibula and torn ligaments in his ankle. He didn't suffer a potentially career-ending knee injury. Maybe Cafardo thinks a person's fibula is in his/her knee or maybe he is too busy frothing at the mouth about a rule change in baseball he is making factually incorrect statements.

as a result of a collision with then-Marlins outfielder Scott Cousins in May of 2011, therefore we must protect catchers?

Cafardo seems to be having some cause and effect problems. Buster Posey was injured two and a half years ago in a home plate collision. It's clear the rule change isn't entirely motivated by Posey's injury, but the rule change is motivated by the variety of catchers who have gotten injured in home plate collisions. Plus, at no other base is it acceptable to just run over the fielder.

Major League Baseball finally has arrived at banning home plate collisions, starting in 2015 —

Now in the second paragraph there is a second factually incorrect statement. Collisions may end up being banned as early as during the 2014 season.

Baseball is seeking to ban collisions that have happened since Abner Doubleday invented baseball. What are we doing here?

Making the game safer for baseball players and protecting catchers from themselves much like the NFL has taken steps to protect NFL players from themselves. Logically, if you were designing rules for baseball would it make sense to say a base runner can run over the fielder at no other bases without being called for interference...except for home plate where the runner can then bowl over the catcher and be safe if the catcher drops the ball and the runner tags home plate? It doesn't make sense to change the rules governing the base running when it comes to a runner trying to touch home plate. All of a sudden it's perfectly okay to run over the fielder at home plate?

This isn’t football, in which every play is a collision.

No, this isn't football where every play is a collision. It is baseball, where the catcher gets into a minor car accident every time a runner bowls over him at home plate. Collisions at home plate don't happen often, so there should be no issue with banning them.

You get a severe home plate collision once in a while, and although MLB estimates that 50 percent of its concussions come from collisions at the plate, they also are the result of batters being hit with pitches, catchers taking foul balls off the mask, and other collisions.

The stupidity of this argument baffles me. MLB estimates 50% of concussions come from collisions at home plate, but Nick Cafardo thinks steps shouldn't be taken to reduce these concussions? If concussions can be reduced by 50% by changing a rule, shouldn't this rule change seriously be considered? Yes, concussions also happen when a better gets hit by a pitch or a catcher takes a foul ball off the mask or even when fielders collide, but there is no way to avoid these from happening without substantially changing how baseball is played. Collisions at home plate can be removed from the game of baseball without changing the fundamental way the sport is played at all.

How far are we going to take this?

It's only going to go until home plate collisions are banned. How dramatic about this are you going to be?

David Ross and Alex Avila suffered concussions as the result of foul balls off their masks during the 2013 season. Are we banning foul balls soon?

This would be comical if I didn't know Nick Cafardo wasn't intentionally missing the point. No, foul balls will not be banned. The idea isn't to ban any little thing that can cause an injury to a baseball player, but to ban collisions at home plate which really shouldn't have a place in baseball anyway and have caused severe injuries to those who are a part of a home plate collision. Don't be a drama queen.

The type of collision Ross and Avila had in the American League Championship Series would be banned; Ross barreled in and tried to dislodge the ball from Avila’s mitt. A player was trying to score and the other player was trying to prevent it.

Yes, but at every other base when one player is trying to get to that base and another player is trying to prevent it, then it is against the rules for one player to bowl the other over. A runner can't try to dislodge the ball from the fielder's mitt at any other base.

An outfielder throwing to the plate, a runner barreling around third, and ball and runner coming to the plate at the same time is one of the most exciting plays in baseball.

It will still be very, very, very exciting after home plate collisions are banned. It just so happens the runner will have to try and score without running over the catcher. This isn't too much to ask at every other base, so I think the runner can try to touch home plate without running over the catcher and the catcher can make the tag without sitting directly in front of home plate.

Does the catcher hold on to the ball after the collision, or does he drop it, with the runner safe?

Does the catcher suffer a season-ending injury or does he simply get a concussion and miss the next couple of games?

This is sport. This is athleticism.

There is nothing athletic about running over the catcher or standing in front of home plate with the baseball. A person with very little athletic ability could perform both tasks quite easily.

And now we’re taking it away?

Taking it away from what?

“I think it’s well-intended,” Francona said. “I might be a little bit in the minority. I think there is liable to be more injuries with baserunners than maybe we realize.

I have no idea what "there is liable to be more injuries with base runners than maybe we realize" means. There is liable to be fewer injuries if a runner isn't allowed to run over the catcher. Yes, some player might hurt himself sliding into home plate, but this doesn't mean sliding into the base is inherently more dangerous than running over the catcher or being run over by the base runner.

I guess I feel like if you don’t want your catcher not to block the plate, just tell him not to block the plate. You don’t have to enforce rules, just tell him not to block the plate.”

If the police want someone to wear a seat belt then they could just tell the public to wear a seat belt, but this doesn't always work. In fact, MLB is saying they don't want the catcher to block the plate, so they are making a rule to ensure this happens.

Detroit manager Brad Ausmus, who caught 1,938 games over 18 seasons, is torn as well.

It's better for Ausmus to be torn than have Alex Avila get something torn due to a home plate collision.

“I do think it should change,” he said. “With all the new information on concussions, it’s probably the prudent thing to do. However, I am a little bit old school in the sense that I don’t want to turn home plate into just another tag play. This is a run. This is the difference between possibly making the playoffs and not making the playoffs. It should matter a little bit more.

A play at first base, second base, and third base are also the difference in making the playoffs and not making the playoffs. This doesn't mean the runner should be able to run over the first basemen because he wants to be safe at first to get a runner on-base with two outs in the ninth inning. Every runner being safe at every base could make the difference in whether a team makes the playoffs or not.

The idea a play at home plate where the runner slides can't be exciting is just plain bullshit. I can immediately think of one exciting and very important play where the runner sliding into home ahead of the catcher's tag was involved. 

“In my mind I’d love to see something that if there’s a collision, any hit above the shoulders, maybe the runner is out. I don’t know how it’s going to pan out. I know that would be very difficult to umpire, intent on something like that. But I do think something is going to happen.”

It sounds like Ausmus isn't really torn, but is more concerned with the enforcement of the rule and how umpires will determine intent. It sounds to be me like Ausmus doesn't mind some contact between the catcher and the runner, but he also understands a hit above the shoulders can cause injury.

“But again, for me, those things are going to happen,” he said. “The occasional knee injuries, those things are going to happen. In my mind let’s talk about protecting the head, keep the concussions to a minimum or to zero, if possible.”
Is a rule change necessary? Or is simply enforcing the obstruction rule in place good enough?

I can see where enforcement of the obstruction rule is good enough, but this doesn't take into account the runner bowling over the catcher. Yes, the catcher is not allowed to stand in front of home plate in the baseline, but if the catcher is standing on home plate with the ball would that count as obstruction? I don't think it does, so that brings into account why MLB wants to ban home plate collisions from the game. There will be times when enforcing the obstruction rule won't get done what MLB wants done. They want collisions at home plate out of the game of baseball and it seems simply enforcing the obstruction rule wouldn't get this done.

Simple enough. The catcher has to have the ball in his possession before he can block the plate. Leave it alone. Enforce it. 

Great. But if the catcher has the ball in his hand then the runner can still run over him to score and we are back at square one.

Or as Francona suggests, just tell your catchers they are not to block the plate and they are to use the swipe tag, the way Pudge Rodriguez did through his career.

But there are managers who won't tell their catchers to not block the plate and MLB wants there to be zero collisions at home plate, so they have taken this out of the hands of each individual manager and made a league-wide rule.

Mets general manager Sandy Alderson, who headed the committee to look into home plate collisions, said the recommended ban is because of a few factors.

“One is just the general occurrence of injuries from these incidents at home plate that affects players, both runners and catchers — and also the general concern about concussions that exists not only in baseball but throughout professional sports and amateur sports today,” he said.

Baseball has gotten trounced for being reactive to issues like steroids and making the game more attractive to "the kids," but they finally get out in front of an issue and they are getting trounced for overreacting to the issue of home plate collisions. Concussions aren't just a football-related issue.

Angels manager Mike Scioscia, who was a rough-and-tumble backstop for the Dodgers, is on board with the change.

What a traitor.

“Well, I think everyone is in agreement that the mindless collisions at home plate where a catcher is being targeted by a runner, that needs to be addressed,” he said. “I think that it’s easy to say a runner has to slide. But on the other side of the coin, it’s going to be difficult to contain a runner and telling him what he has to do and let the catcher have carte blanche to be able to block the plate aggressively.

This is why MLB will review the collisions at home plate during this offseason to come up with a list of rules they can present to the teams and the player's union.

“I think it’s going to be possible, you just have to figure out how to do it. I know as a catcher, if I knew that the runner couldn’t run me over, I’d definitely block the plate. So there is probably a solution there. That is something that they’ve got to work on. Will it be perfect? I don’t know. Probably not.”

But the key point is that if this rule is made in a smart manner and enforced correctly then it won't affect the viewer's enjoyment of the game. I personally don't enjoy home plate collisions because they look like they hurt and I'm not in favor of my favorite team's catcher getting hurt.

It sounds as if runners and catchers will have to change what their instincts tell them they should do and what they’ve been taught do for many, many moons.

In reality these catchers and runners haven't been around since Abner Doubleday "invented" the game of baseball, so they would have to fight the instinct they have been taught since learning to play baseball. It doesn't make it easier for the players, but Cafardo wants to frame this as catchers trying to change instincts they have had for 150 years and I'm pretty sure there are no 150 year old catchers active in the majors.

Francona believes this may cause a whole other set of problems — possible injuries for the baserunner.

There may be injuries to the base runner, just like their are injuries to the base runner when sliding into second base and third base or running to first base. The difference is that a collision with the catcher is inherently dangerous to the runner and the catcher, while an injury while sliding into a base doesn't seem as inherently dangerous.

He’s right. Some things are better left alone. 

This is easy for Nick Cafardo to say while he sits up in a press box away from the field. Some changes are for the better and I think eliminating the pointless home plate collisions would be a change for the better. Of course, as soon as there is an issue with the enforcement of collisions writers like Nick Cafardo are going to whine and bitch about how the rule stinks and now they have proof the rule doesn't work in practice, as if they expect a change in rules to immediately go smoothly and without an issue. 

4 comments Terence Moore Says Collisions at Home Plate Are Fine Because Look at How Creating New Rules to Protect Football Players Has Ruined the Sport of Football

I've covered repeatedly how Terence Moore hates any change to the rules in Major League Baseball. He's a "traditionalist," which means he's too lazy to accept new rules. The only change Terence doesn't like is the inclusion of the new one-game wild card playoff. Presumably the reason he doesn't have a problem with the one-game wild card playoff is because he has strict orders from MLB.com to claims he likes it. It simply doesn't make sense the same guy who hates the DH, hates modern home run celebrations, and hates expanded replay would like the inclusion of one more team into the MLB playoffs. It doesn't make sense to me.

Terence didn't like that the GM's might get together at the winter meetings and alter the rules about home plate collisions between a base runner and a catcher. He thinks it's not a positive change for the game of baseball. The reason he feels this way is because college football and the NFL has tried to protect the athletes who play their sport and this has made things worse. This is kind of shoddy reasoning in my opinion. I would be much more comfortable if Terence Moore just admitted that he doesn't like change and that's why he doesn't mind if the base runner runs over a sometimes defenseless catcher.

For so many reasons, this was inevitable: Panic. Whining. Hand-wringing from the Knee-Jerk Society of America over collisions at home plate between runners and catchers ... you know, even though such collisions have occurred since the first baseball was colored white.

As I nearly always say when covering a Terence Moore article, the worst reason to continue doing something a certain way is because it has always been done that way. If baseball didn't change and adapt then baseball would only involve white players against other white players. Because after all, it had been that way since the first baseball was colored white. The baseball was colored white for white people and not darker for any other race. But again, as I always say, Terence Moore doesn't hide behind tradition when it suits his needs or when MLB.com tells him he has to write a positive column about the one-game wild card playoff.

Major League general managers are expected to discuss the matter next week when they gather in Orlando for the GM Meetings, and that's fine. It never hurts to exchange thoughts and ideas.

Now if those general managers wish to go further than that, then we'll have a problem.

What's the point of exchanging ideas and thoughts when there isn't a problem the ideas/thoughts are supposed to correct and if action won't be taken to correct this problem?

More specifically, if baseball's decision-makers wish to change the way they've handled home-plate collisions forever -- which is to say they've ignored the situation --

If you ignore problems they will go away. If you ignore potential problems these problems will never crop up. Anyone who is in denial knows this is true.

it will be the game's most significant rule change since the designated hitter was brought into the Major Leagues 40 years ago.

AND CHANGE IS BAD! GO AWAY CHANGE! UNLESS YOU WERE ALREADY HERE, IN WHICH CASE DON'T GO, BECAUSE THAT WILL BE A CHANGE AND ALL CHANGE IS BAD!

My opinion has changed over the years. Probably even a year ago I wasn't in favor of altering the rules about home plate collisions, but I've slowly come around to the idea maybe MLB should not allow a runner to run over the catcher in order to score a run. It is sort of dangerous to allow the base runner to just crash into a catcher who is protecting the plate. I understand the runner has a right to try and score a run, but a runner isn't allowed to bowl over a third or second basemen in a non-force play situation, so why should the runner be allowed to run over the catcher in the same situation? Because he has protective gear on? The protective gear is designed to protect the player when catching pitches that a pitcher throws, not as battle gear to protect the catcher when he's about to be run over by a base runner.

We know how that turned out.

Not bad at all?

Not the best, not if you join me among the most fervent of the game's traditionalists. Altering the way collisions are handled at home plate would be worse than the DH. 

Not even close. On a scale of "worseness," a DH that comes to the plate a minimum of three times per game for each American League team has more of an impact on a single game as compared to altering the way a collision that happens at home plate maybe once every day (and I think that would be stretching it) would impact a game. The DH has a much bigger impact on the game of baseball than the impact of altering collisions at home plate.

While the DH effects only the American League, this would affect everybody, which makes you wonder what this is all about.

It's clearly an attempt by stat geeks who live in their mom's basement to make an arbitrary rule change to the way baseball has been played over the last century or so. It's certainly not an attempt to make the position of catcher safer (you know, since that's the position on the field where a ball is thrown at a fielder 100+ times per game at 90 miles per hour) and recognize that serious injuries can occur and have occurred due to the base runner being able to run over the catcher.

Buster Posey, you say? Yes, but that's not a good enough answer,

Why is that not a good enough answer when it is a perfectly good example of a great, young player getting injured in a collision at home plate? You know what's not a good enough answer to counter a change to altering the way collisions are handled? Saying the rules shouldn't be changed because it's always been done that way. That's a shitty answer.

He missed the rest of that season after leading the Giants to a World Series title the year before. When he returned in 2012, he led the Giants to another World Series title.

Thus the overreaction. Soon after Posey was carried from the field that day, you heard variations of the following from everywhere: "Baseball needs to do something right now."

I don't think the overreaction was based entirely on Buster Posey getting injured. I believe given the NFL is starting to react towards concussions that players are experiencing playing the game of football, there is a natural concern that catchers are suffering injuries because the base runner is allowed to run over him in order to score a run. If you think about it, it doesn't make sense why a runner will be called out for running over the third baseman during a non-force situation, but it's perfectly fine for the runner to bowl over the catcher.

Quick: Go back three, four, five or even 20 years. Now tell me all of the ugly home-plate collisions that you can remember prior to the Posey situation, and take your time. Now tell me all of the ones that you can remember since the Posey situation.

At the very top of this column is an interview with David Ross about his collision at home plate with Alex Avila in Game 5 of the ALCS. Pete Rose nearly destroyed Ray Fosse's career running over him at home plate.

Here is a gallery of seven collisions at home plate where major/minor injuries were suffered. 

This is an article by Tom Verducci about home plate collisions that lists more players injured in home plate collisions. 

Here's an article arguing against runners bowling over the catcher where Yadier Molina escaped injury on a home plate collision.

Buster Posey getting hurt in a home plate collision wasn't an isolated incident. I can't remember all of these collisions, but this doesn't mean they don't occur. I'm not able to watch every MLB game, but the collisions do occur and the three links I provided show this to be true.

See what I mean? Out of the slew of plays at home plate during a given season, they rarely produce catastrophic injuries. When they do happen, they become bigger than life.

When catastrophic injuries do happen they become bigger than life because it puts the focus on the idea it may not make sense for a base runner to be able to bowl over a catcher in order to score a run.

Nothing illustrates this point more than the 1970 All-Star Game, when hometown Reds hero Pete Rose crashed into Indians catcher Ray Fosse at the plate in extra innings at Cincinnati's Riverfront Stadium. It gave the NL the victory and Fosse a separated shoulder that affected the rest of his career. While many praised Rose for his relentlessness during an exhibition game, others blasted the player called "Charlie Hustle" for exactly the same thing.

It's a legal play, even if it was a legal play made in an exhibition game, so I would hold no grudge against Rose for what he did. It may have been a little extreme, but he very well could have had money riding on whether the National League won the All-Star Game or not. So for $10,000 I would bowl over a catcher too, as long as it was legal.

Should running over the catcher be legal? Forgetting the issue of whether an injury could occur or not, does it make sense the base runner can't run over a fielder in a non-force play situation except at home plate? I'm not sure it does.

In contrast, there was shouting last month after Game 5 of the AL Championship Series between the Tigers and the Red Sox produced a couple of ugly crashes at the plate.

In every single column he writes Terence Moore finds a way to submarine the point he wanting to prove. He writes in this column:

Now tell me all of the ugly home-plate collisions that you can remember prior to the Posey situation, and take your time. Now tell me all of the ones that you can remember since the Posey situation.

Then Terence proceeds to write about two ugly home plate collisions that occurred during the playoffs in the exact same game. So Terence's point appears to be, "Yeah, but these collisions don't happen often. You can't even think of the last time an ugly collision occurred I bet. Now let me tell you about two ugly collisions that happened in the same game just a few weeks ago."

After Ross plowed into Avila, Ross was out, but so was Avila later in the game. The combination of getting dinged by foul balls and the Ross collision was enough to put Avila out of action with a knee injury.

So Terence has gone from challenging his readers to think of a time when a player got injured in a home plate collision, to providing an example from just a few weeks ago where a catcher had to leave the game due to an injury suffered in a home plate collision.

It also triggered more talks from that Knee-Jerk Society to do something about these collisions, even though Avila told reporters afterward, "I've been hit a bunch of times [during collisions]. I've never seen anything wrong with it. It's part of the game. You do what you can as a catcher to protect yourself."

Now to be fair, NFL players don't like the rule changes made to protect the quarterback and to protect defenseless receivers. The rules aren't changed based on the public support of the players for these rules, but in order to help protect the NFL players from themselves. As we all know, professional athletes have their own code and idea of what's "part of the game" and what is not. So sometimes, the athletes need to be protected from themselves. I'm a person who doesn't like protecting other people from themselves and figure they are grown adults who can be responsible for their own actions, but sometimes when it comes to sports it's smart to take steps to make the sport safer overall...regardless whether the players like it or not.

Yes, you do. For instance: You don't try to block the plate, and many teams instruct their catchers not to do so. If catchers do wish to block the plate, they shouldn't do so in a harmful way.

How about if the runner wishes to score a run he doesn't do so in a harmful way?

Take the eighth inning of the 1979 All-Star Game. While many remember Dave Parker's famous throw to the plate from right field, most forget that Gary Carter was there to catch it. Not only that, the future Hall of Fame catcher was able to make the grab without putting himself in harm's way of Brian Downing racing from third, and then he pushed the sliding runner away from the plate while applying the tag.

Here's the difference. Brian Downing was SLIDING into home plate. He wasn't looking to run over Gary Carter. What a terrible example by Terence. What would Carter have done if Downing was looking to run over him to score the run? Therein lies the issue. Bad example, go home and think about what you have done.

The catcher has control of his own fate in the majority of these situations, 

I agree. The runner has control of his own fate also. The catcher has to make a choice between getting in the runner's way and trying to save his team a run or getting out of the runner's way and allowing a run to score or tag the runner while away from the plate. I think MLB shouldn't force the catcher to make a decision and the runner shouldn't be allowed to run directly over the catcher in order to score a run. This is just like a runner going to third base can't run over the third baseman to reach third base.

and during the rare times when a runner goes out of his way to harm the catcher with an intent other than scoring -- well, players have a way of policing themselves.

And players policing themselves usually will eventually lead to a batter getting hit, potentially a fight and maybe some suspensions.

They don't need outside legislation, because that has a tendency to make things worse.

While I agree with this in principle, I fail to see how it can be worse in this situation. I think a catcher or base runner getting severely injured seems like the worst thing that could happen. If MLB altered the rule and stated the runner had to make an attempt to not run over the catcher at home plate then I would be fine with this altered rule. For example, if the catcher is in front of the plate with the ball, the runner can go in standing up, but he can't make an attempt to knock the ball out of the catcher's hands (by running over him, etc.) just like a runner going into third can't try to knock the ball out of the third baseman's hands.

I admit this is not an easy rule to enforce, but somehow base runners trying to leg out a double or triple manage to slide into the base when the ball easily beats them there without running over the fielder, so I would imagine a runner coming home could do the same thing. The runner has a right to try and score, but he doesn't need to try to get the ball out of the catcher's hand by running over the catcher. I think it's needless. I enjoy seeing a violent home plate collision, just like I enjoy seeing a hard-hitting football game, but there does come a time to protect the players from themselves, and a rule stating the runner can't run over the catcher on a non-force play would be consistent with the rule in this same situation at every other base on the field.

Since the league enacted rules before this season against hitting above the shoulders, they've heard defenders such as Washington Redskins safety Brandon Meriweather say they'll now go after the knees of opponents. Which creates a whole bunch of other issues.

Football and baseball are completely different sports. The idea of protecting players in this situation is the same, but football is intended to be a contact sport, while baseball is not intended to be a contact sport.

Just ask those in college football, where its new targeting rule has been a mess.

This is the first year the officials have been required to call and interpret the rule. Have to give it more than one year. Yeah, it's been a disaster in many aspects so far. But catchers and base runners don't collide that often and if the rule is written well I think it could be left up to less interpretation from the baseball umpires than the NCAA targeting rule has been.

It calls for a defender to receive an automatic ejection from the game for hitting an offensive player around the head or neck area. Even if a call is reversed after a replay review, the team of that defender still gets a 15-yard penalty.

The targeting rule isn't the issue. It's the interpretation for "targeting" and how many times football players collide into each other during a game that's the issue. Baseball players don't generally collide that often, so I think the rule altering how home plate collisions could be written to allow less room for umpire interpretation. I think this could avoid many of the issues the NCAA officials are having.

Don't ask.

That new targeting rule has helped decide the outcome of several college football games.

Fortunately, we are discussing baseball and if MLB alters any rule about collisions at home plate in a logical fashion then they can avoid the interpretation and other issues the new targeting rule has created in college football. The idea behind the targeting rule is sound, to protect unpaid amateur athletes, but the execution hasn't been very good. I know Terence Moore will grasp on to the new targeting rule as the reason why ANY new rule change in ANY sport is a bad idea, but he's just creating a boogeyman in order to better prove his "any rule change is a bad rule change" philosophy.

The idea behind protecting football players by calling a defensive player for "targeting" is sound though, and that's what MLB would try to do by altering the rule about collisions at home plate. I don't think it's a bad idea to protect a catcher from a runner who hits him going full speed without any attempt to touch home plate before colliding with the catcher. 

Elsewhere, coaches already are screaming about a new rule change in college basketball, and its regular season doesn't officially start until this weekend. In an effort to increase scoring, the NCAA has instituted something called "freedom of movement" rules, which essentially bans defenders in college basketball from touching offensive players.

This is a stupid rule, but a stupid rule that wasn't implemented for anywhere close to the same reason the "targeting" rule was created or why MLB would alter how home plate collisions are handled by the umpire.

So the message to baseball decision-makers when it comes to what to do with home-plate collisions: Just leave it alone.

Or create a rule about home plate collisions that doesn't leave too much room for interpretation from the umpires and also looks out for the catcher's safety when a runner decides he wants to bowl him over to score a run. If this rule sucks and doesn't work out, get rid of the rule. As it stands, a change to how home plate collisions are handled would become more consistent with the rules involving what a base runner can or can't do when it comes to trying to make it into a base safely at every other base on the field. I don't see why tweaking the rules to prevent injuries to catchers and base runners is a bad thing. It is a change though, which Terence generally hates, unless MLB.com tells him he can't hate that change.  

8 comments Scoop Jackson Is Tired of People Bashing NBA Players

Scoop Jackson is tired NBA players are being bashed for switching teams. It isn't their fault. Scoop sort of has a point, there has been a lot of bashing and some of it has come from this blog, but naturally he does a terrible job explaining it. Also, his reasoning stinks. The system works the way it does, but Scoop tries to remove any sort of guilt on the part of the players that moved teams and that just isn't accurate.

You hear words like "ruining" and "destroyed." You hear that these players drag the process out to the detriment of the team.

Ask the Nuggets and their fans how they feel right now. I think there is an argument that can be made the Carmelo Anthony situation was dragged out interminably to the detriment of the team. I am not sure a single Nuggets fan liked having this Anthony situation over the team's head for most of the year.

If you listen to the public and media reaction to recent player movement -- starting with LeBron James, Chris Bosh and Amare Stoudemire this past summer

I don't recall a single person having a problem with Amare Stoudemire going to the Knicks. I also don't recall many people having a problem with Chris Bosh signing with the Heat. As far as LeBron James goes, yes, the television program that was set up for him to announce his destination (where he took his "talents") over the summer was criticized a lot. Rightly so. It was the height of ego. We are over it now.

and continuing with Carmelo Anthony and Deron Williams last week -- the NBA is going to hell in a hand basket. No, worse. It's going there in a handbag. Furla.

I don't know if the NBA is going to hell in a hand basket or a handbag. Players forcing teams to trade and marquee players leaving teams in free agency has always been present in the NBA, it just seems more present now.

Stick your nose to any TV, computer or iPad screen, or hold your ear to concrete. You'll hear screams of blame being placed on players for sculpting the game's power structure into a shape that -- if it isn't stopped -- will result in the annihilation of professional basketball.

Scoop is being a little dramatic here. I think many people are making the observation that when the time comes to negotiate the next labor agreement, the movement of players and how to possibly limit the movement will be a source of contention between the union and the NBA. No one is talking about the annihilation of professional basketball. To ignore the effect the movement of players like Williams, James and Anthony have on the upcoming labor agreement is to ignore a major potential issue that will be put on the table.

Truth? The new "problem" with/in the NBA -- the so-called "LeBron" epidemic isn't a problem at all. At least not one that should be blamed on the players. No rules have been broken; no franchises have folded.

Franchises haven't folded yet. Though folding some franchises may not be a terrible idea.

I like how Scoop says this is the truth. It's not. It is how he sees the truth. Scoop is great at trying to take an argument that isn't being made (rules were broken) and then refuting it. We all know rules haven't been broken. Simply because rules weren't broken doesn't mean the movement of players isn't an issue that will need to be addressed in the future.

The blame game. It goes something like this.

Blame the players for situations in which teams put themselves.

How exactly did the Cavaliers put themselves in the situation where LeBron James was a free agent? They offered him the most money they could offer him. Outside of putting a horse's head in his bed or kidnap a family member there wasn't much else the Cavs could have done to keep him from the Heat. The argument could be made the Cavs didn't put enough pieces around James to make him successful, but simply by not making James' situation perfect the Cavs didn't screw up and give James no choice but to leave.

How exactly did the Nuggets put themselves in the situation to where Carmelo Anthony wanted a trade? By drafting him? By not winning a championship with him on the roster? If not winning a championship was a criteria for demanding a trade nearly every player in the NBA could demand a trade at some point. The Nuggets offered Anthony a contract extension and he refused to sign it. Sure, the Nuggets are partially responsible for the situation going on and on, but they waited until they got what they perceived to be the best offer for Anthony. Anthony wasn't going to participate in a sign-and-trade this summer and he sure has hell wasn't coming back to the Nuggets. He wanted to play in New York.

If anything, the Jazz avoided putting themselves in a situation similar to the Nuggets and Cavs by trading Williams. Deron Williams was non-committal about re-signing in Utah (just like he has been in New Jersey) and they didn't want to go through a situation like the Nuggets just went through. The only thing Deron Williams seems to be able to commit to is that he doesn't know where he wants to play in 2012. The bottom line is the Jazz didn't want to beg Williams to re-sign with them so they could continue to be a #4 seed in the West.

I am not anti-player, but these are the facts as we know them. The three teams I highlighted above did not put themselves in a situation where they had no choice but to trade a player who was willing to re-sign with them. Scoop is ignoring the obvious truth and defending the players he wants to buddy up to by suggesting the previous NBA teams had as much to do with their situation as the players did. James, Anthony and Williams could have put all of the rumors to rest by re-signing with their current teams and they chose not to.

Blame the labor for decisions made, for the most part, by management.

Did the Jazz, Nuggets and Cavs do EVERYTHING they could do in terms of bringing in good players to help the team? Of course not. This doesn't put the player off the hook for his decision to leave the team or choose not to re-sign.

Essentially Scoop is saying, "the players didn't do anything wrong by not re-signing with their current team," and then saying, "well if they did do something wrong it certainly wasn't their fault because their hand was forced." Which is bullshit.

Blame Anthony for the state of the Nuggets. Blame Williams for the state of the Jazz. Blame Blake Griffin right now for leaving one L.A. team for another in … when? 2015?

At this point, no one would blame Blake Griffin for leaving the Clippers. I am not sure anyone is putting ALL of the blame on the players. The teams made their decisions and the players made their decisions.

In a recent ESPN.com SportsNation poll, the question was asked: What is the biggest challenge facing the NBA? The answer option that came in first, with 40 percent, was this: How To Defend Jimmer Fredette. (It was an attempt at humor.) In second, with 34 percent of the votes: Stars Leaving Small Markets. (No laugh track.)

Because if anything screams "this is how the general public feels" it is a poll where people are given 4-5 options and forced to choose one and the option that gets the most votes is a joke answer. It's an ESPN.com SportsNation poll. I don't want to be rude to anyone who votes in this poll, but I would guess the same people who vote in this poll are not people I would want speaking for my opinion on a sports-related matter.

But where is it? Where is this epidemic?

Some would say the epidemic has occurred and is now working on a new group of players like Dwight Howard and Chris Paul. Has Scoop not paid attention to the very subject he has been discussing in this column? This "epidemic" is in the free agents and potential free agents (James, Anthony, etc.) leaving one team to go to another team.

Where will this mass exodus of star players come from? Who else will leave of his own accord and leave his old team in ruins?

Just eyeballing it, I would guess Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, and Deron Williams.

Let's see, LeBron left Cleveland and Bosh left Toronto. Outside of that, who else left?

What's being overlooked is that Denver chose to trade Anthony;

What's being overlooked by Scoop is that no-they-fucking-didn't choose to trade Anthony. The Nuggets had an offer for a contract extension on the table all summer to Carmelo Anthony. The Nuggets didn't choose to trade Anthony any more than a person with a gun to his head chooses to give up his wallet or get shot. Denver chose to trade Anthony because they didn't want him to leave as a free agent and receive no compensation for him.

Carmelo forced the hand of Denver. They either could trade him or lose him in free agency. To say the Nuggets had no choice would be incorrect, but they didn't have many attractive options other than trade Anthony. If Carmelo Anthony was going to re-sign with the Nuggets he would have already done so. So putting "chose" in italics like the Nuggets didn't have their hand forced is just plain misleading.

Utah chose to trade Williams.

They did choose to trade Williams. Deron Williams was being non-committal about his future in Utah so the Jazz wanted to avoid a situation where they deal with an unhappy player who won't commit to the team and wants to be a free agent, so they traded him. Scoop can be willfully blind to the truth, but the truth is Deron Williams wasn't re-signing in Utah and Williams would have most likely forced the Jazz's hand at some point. There's circumstantial evidence (his refusal to commit to signing there) and historical evidence (James, Bosh) that would lead the Jazz to believe this.

Phoenix (after three years of attempting to deal him at the trade deadlines) chose to part ways with Stoudemire. Last summer, the Jazz chose to part ways with Carlos Boozer.

Here is where Scoop gets his brain all confused. I can't think of a sole person that criticized Boozer or Stoudemire for where they signed contracts because they (a) didn't turn it into a spectacle and (b) did not demand their team trade them. Lumping these two free agents in with Anthony, Williams, and James is a deceitful way to try and prove a point by comparing two non-comparable situations. Stoudemire and Boozer left their respective teams and it was a mutual decision. THAT is the difference. The Suns and Jazz let the players go to a different team and the players wanted to go to a different team.

Minnesota, a few years ago, chose to trade KG to Boston. Seattle chose to trade Ray Allen to the Celtics.

Again, this is a different situation. Garnett nor Allen never publicly demanded a trade (at least that I could find). It was a mutual decision for both parties to move on.

Yet the players are the ones being blamed for leaving small markets for marquee cities. That's the equivalent of blaming CBS for Charlie Sheen's behavior, arguing that by allowing Sheen to play the character Charlie Harper on "Two and a Half Men," the network is partially responsible for his private life spiraling out of control.

Well, this is a terrible comparison. In this comparison, Sheen is better represented as the NBA player and CBS is better represented as the NBA team. If Sheen demanded out of his contract or said he was going to quit the show (or wasn't sure if he wanted to continue on the show) after his contract ran out, Scoop Jackson would put the blame on CBS after they replaced Sheen on the show and got rid of his character.

Remember, Dwyane Wade stayed in Miami.

Because he recruited James and Bosh to play with him. Otherwise, he would have been gone. Let's not pretend Bosh, James, and Wade on one team was a collective effort. It wasn't like they just accidentally ended up on the same team. If James/Bosh didn't come to Miami, Wade was gone.

Joe Johnson stayed in Atlanta.

Because they gave him more money than other teams could or would.

Rudy Gay stayed in Memphis.

Again, because they offered him more money than other teams would.

David Lee left a large market (New York) to go to a smaller one (San Francisco/Oakland).

Scoop just can't seem to understand the difference in this move and the move of James to the Heat. Lee leaving the Knicks happened partly because the Knicks were spending money on other players (Stoudemire) or trying to recruit other players (James, Wade). It was a mutual decision for Lee to leave the Knicks. The Knicks wanted their salary cap space for other players...like Carmelo Anthony. If Scoop can't understand the difference Lee going to Golden State and Carmelo Anthony leaving the Nuggets to go to the Knicks, then there isn't much I can do to help him understand.

But no one talks about that; no one wants to remember those small but significant details.

We remember. We also understand the differences in each situation.

It's time to stop blaming Anthony because the Nuggets panicked

The Nuggets did not panic. Anthony WAS NOT coming back to Denver and they had the choice of trading him and getting something back for him or let him leave as a free agent. What did Denver panic about? If Anthony was staying in Denver he would have signed the contract extension that was on the table since last summer.

Don't blame Chris Paul and Dwight Howard for the likelihood that New Orleans and Orlando one day will … panic.

So don't blame Dwight Howard or Chris Paul if neither of them refuse to sign a contract extension and act like they haven't made up their mind on which team they want to play for in 2012? It is not like the Hornets or Magic have any reason to panic...unless they have been paying attention at all to what has happened over the last 10 months.

Is it really panic to assume a player who won't sign a new contract won't be back on the team? The Raptors and Cavs didn't panic and look where it got them. They didn't get very much in return for James and Bosh, meanwhile at least the Nuggets and Jazz got something for players who didn't want to be on their team.

As players, they have every legal right to see what free agency is like, but it seems they get labeled as "disloyal" if they give the slightest indication that they might want to test the open market, even if it's just to find out what they might be worth.

Nobody is calling Deron Williams or Carmelo Anthony disloyal. Carmelo didn't give a "slight" indication he was testing the open market, he refused to sign a contract extension and seemed to give all indications, including demanding a trade, that gave a reasonable person belief he wouldn't choose to re-sign with Denver.

These players have a legal right to test free agency. I am not saying they don't or shouldn't. This is another situation where Scoop can't seem to stay consistent with his message. The Raptors, Suns, Jazz, Knicks and Cavs all let their players test free agency and key players from those teams left. In some cases, it was fine with the team, and in other cases it was not fine. Scoop gets his panties all in a wad because teams aren't letting their players test free agency, yet there are plenty of examples in this very column why the Jazz and Nuggets would not let Anthony and Williams respectively test free agency.

Basically Scoop just refuses to blame the NBA player in any situation. If a team lets the player test the market it isn't his fault for leaving and if a team doesn't let the player test the market and trades him then that team panicked. Either way, Scoop blames the team.

Even when the decision to leave is made for them.

Anthony had demanded a trade at one point and if Deron Williams had given an indication he was open to re-signing in Utah he would not have gotten traded.

Forgotten is how the NBA did not fall apart and teams did not fold when Kareem Abdul-Jabbar left Milwaukee for L.A., or when Shaquille O'Neal left Orlando for L.A., or when Baron Davis left Charlotte for L.A. (OK, in Davis' case, it was for the L.A. Clippers.)

Those three players left their team over a 20+ year span, not a 10 month span. Those who think there is a current "epidemic" of players leaving are worried due to this many players leaving over a small time span.

The real issue here is power. Power that most people aren't used to seeing be exercised by players, who many wish would remain powerless.

This is not true. I don't want the players to remain powerless. I want the players to just not have enough power to change the entire fortunes of a team, and have the team over a barrel, when he wants to play somewhere else. Some of this is avoidable of course.

To too many, the players should remain the "Forty Million Dollar Slaves" so dubbed by William C. Rhoden in his book. To too many people, they should remain as is, as we have forever seen and viewed them: pawns.

I want Carmelo Anthony to have power. The bottom line remains Anthony is an employee of the Denver Nuggets, not a fucking slave as Scoop so ignorantly says, so I would like for his employer to have a certain amount of power over him while he is under contract. Needless to say, in sports where players like Anthony have a skill set that is not easily reproduced this is difficult. Fans don't want players dictating what that team will choose to do personnel-wise in regard to the player, just like fans don't want to see a team keep a great player on a crappy team.

Regardless of the way all these deals unfolded, most of the recent decisions to move superstars (regardless of where they ended up) were made by organizations, not by players.

These moves were made by the organization, but at the request of the superstar, or because the team wanted value for the player in lieu of most likely getting no compensation for the player when he eventually left the team in free agency. It was a decision made by the Jazz and Nuggets, but I think it could be argued the Nuggets at least were forced into making the decision.

A player should never be blamed for the fear an organization has that it possibly could lose that player.

The player is not being blamed in nearly all of these situations. LeBron James was blamed for the way he went about choosing a different team. Carmelo Anthony is being blamed because he demanded a trade and then the saga of trading Anthony went on for months because he refused to sign a contract extension with certain teams if he got traded to them. These players aren't blameless like Scoop wants them to be.

Scoop needs to look deeper into each situation, which he will undoubtedly refuse to do, and see the players don't deserve ALL of the blame, but some of it. Some of the blame for refusing a contract extension and causing a divorce goes on the player. Specifically in situations when the team wants to keep the player. Really "blame" is a bad word because the player should be able to do what he wants when his contract runs out. That being said, a player can be blamed partially for the fear the organization has of possibly losing that player if the organization has a good reason to believe they will lose that player.

Yet there's anger when certain players take advantage of their power, when that power can be brokered in their favor.

There is anger because a player can be seen as putting aside the needs of his current team to further his own personal agenda. Carmelo Anthony wouldn't take kindly to the team he plays for not telling him whether they plan on keeping key players on that team around. Turn the situation around: If the Nuggets had been indifferent to re-signing guys like Nene and indicating they aren't sure the direction of the team in the future, Carmelo Anthony would be pissed and would most likely demand a trade or demand the team indicate they want to be competitive. That's what the Nuggets did with the situation reversed back to the real life example. The Nuggets demanded Anthony determine whether he would re-sign with them and when he wouldn't, they traded him.

I was once told that the "haves" in sports generally feel the following way about the "have-nots": "They don't want them to get smarter."

Really, this is all about the Nuggets trying to keep Anthony "down" by only offering him a 3 year $65 extension. You can barely buy a couple dozen McDonald's franchises with that money and still expect to make ends meet.

You know who "they" are, and you know who "them" are. So stop being mad at "them" for no longer being dumb.

I am not upset players have equal power and equal leverage. I think it is only fair. I am not even upset. I can see how NBA players could get bashed for not committing to their current team and I don't think an NBA team should hold any blame for trading a player they don't believe will re-sign with that team.

There is a balance that Scoop is missing. No one is mad at free agents who go to other teams. The Nuggets dragged the Anthony situation out far too long, but Anthony is the one who refused to sign an extension with the Nuggets in the first place. The decision to trade him was made by the organization but forced upon them by Anthony if the Nuggets wanted to get value for him. Scoop is wrong to act like the Jazz and Nuggets traded their star players on their own free will. They learned from the Cavs and Raptors situation and adjusted accordingly, just like Deron Williams and Carmelo Anthony learned from the James and Bosh situation on how to best team up with other NBA stars.

2 comments Scoop Jackson Has Another Of His Ideas

Before I get to Scoop Jackson's latest idea to fix the NBA, I wanted to follow up on something Bill Simmons wrote this past summer. Many people probably remember this terrible column that Bill Simmons wrote about the Red Sox. Essentially he made shit up and said the Red Sox were not losing viewers because of the amount of fair weather fans in the fan base (like there are in any fan base), but because they were "interesting" enough (meaning: they aren't winning). In his NFL picks column from a couple of weeks ago Bill clears this issue up and explains why this Red Sox team, the one that has significantly upgraded its talent this offseason, is now interesting. It's weird how that works isn't it?

When it's all said and done, the Sox will have spent more than $300 million, squandered two draft picks and given away three elite prospects to acquire Adrian Gonzalez and Carl Crawford. They did it for one reason: The sixth-best Celtic (Shaq) generated more local buzz than the entire 2010 Red Sox team did. Ticket demand was down; ratings were down; the Celts and Pats were hogging the headlines … they needed to do something. Period.

Because being third place in the AL East and having one of the best records in baseball isn't "interesting" enough for these fans. They should become more "interesting" by spending more money and having a team that strongly competes for the World Series this year. I wonder what Bill's excuse will be if the Red Sox still don't have higher television viewership this year?

The Gonzo trade was a home run; shades of the Pedro trade in 1998, when they flexed their big-market muscles by swiping a hitting-his-prime stud from a cost-cutting National League team. He fills a specific void: the slugger who (A) keeps fans from flicking the channel and (B) makes opposing fans say, "Uh-oh, that guy is coming up." Great move,

Because nothing says, "guy who keeps fans from flicking the channel" like the most overlooked superstar in the majors coming over from a West Coast team.

You know your team did something right when even the other team's fans are congratulating you. It reminded me of the J.D. Drew signing, but the exact opposite.

HAHA! IT'S FUNNY TO HEAR BILL COMPLAIN ABOUT ALL THE MONEY HIS TEAM SPENDS ON ABOVE AVERAGE PLAYERS! EVERYONE CAN RELATE TO THIS!

For the Red Sox, overpaying Crawford by $30 million (at least) was like overpaying for a mansion on the water in Nantucket and knowing it's embarrassingly excessive … but once you have it, it's like, "Who's up for a weekend in Nantucket? When are we going? Pack the car!!!!" Like I'm not going to enjoy watching him? Come on.

The addition of the most coveted outfielder and most coveted batter during this offseason is sure going to make the Red Sox more "interesting" this year. I hope this is enough to make the Red Sox fans in pink hats interested enough in the team to pay attention this year. We wouldn't want these diehard fans to become bored watching a 90+ win team like happened last year.

Of course, that $300 million splurging (which won't be official until Gonzo is signed after Opening Day for luxury-tax reasons) led the Yankees fans to start complaining, "You've become who you always despised: us." Please. That happened in 2000 when we dropped $160 million on Manny.

So Bill's counter to this complaint is that the Red Sox haven't become the Yankees because they already were? Bill burned Yankees fans there, now they feel stupid for giving the Red Sox credit for not buying free agents throughout the 2000's.

"You may say my girlfriend's haircut makes her look like a man. Please. The fact she has no visible breasts and a semblance of an Adam's apple made her look like a man back when I started dating her."

And hey, it's not my money. The Red Sox were boring, and now they're not.

Isn't it amazing how "boring" coincides perfectly with "legitimately contending for a World Series?" As Bill cleared up for us in his July column, this isn't being a fair weather fan at all. How it isn't being somewhat of a fair weather fan eludes me, but whatever.

I'd like to congratulate them for manning up.

This "manning up" is also known as what it really is, which is not forcing Bill to watch the Red Sox during a season when they aren't going to make the playoffs, and then causing him to make up an entire column blaming the Red Sox problems on baseball-wide problems when it is just Bill Simmons is spoiled and has become somewhat of a fair weather baseball fan.

Now for a complete change of direction. Scoop Jackson has figured out the solution to the one-and-done rule. Naturally, I don't like it.

Article X. Section 1 (b) (i):The player (A) is or will be at least 19 years of age during the calendar year in which the Draft is held, and (B) with respect to a player who is not an international player (defined below), at least one (1) NBA Season has elapsed since the player's graduation from high school (or, if the player did not graduate from high school, since the graduation of the class with which the player would have graduated had he graduated from high school).

Over the past five years, that particular commandment was responsible for players such as Kevin Durant, Derrick Rose, John Wall, Greg Oden and others doing one-year bids in college before they headed to the league.

As a college basketball fan, I don't hate the fact these players spend a year in college basketball. I like this happened. Of course I also think players should be able to go straight to the NBA if they want, or else they would have to spend two years at a minimum in college. This will never happen of course.

According to a report by ESPN The Magazine's Chris Broussard, the players would like to abolish the age requirement for eligibility to play in the NBA.

Naturally, because the NBA wants college basketball to serve solely as a feeder system to the NBA instead of being a place where these players get one year of instruction after high school. Why would the NBA want any player to develop more skills upon entering the league?

One of the biggest annoyances I have is that people believe the one-and-done rule is a college rule. It is not at all. It is a rule the NBA has imposed upon college athletes, yet somehow college athletic programs get blamed completely when it comes to players who are one-and-done. I understand the college needs to have everything legal/ethical when a player is in college, but for many athletes like John Wall he's only at Kentucky because the NBA won't let him be there. It's an NBA rule imposed on college basketball.

The problem with having problems with a problem (especially in the middle of a problematic and contentious multibillion-dollar negotiation) is that the problem doesn't disappear or get solved without a solution.

Players can go to the NBA out of high school, but if they go to college they have to stay for two years. It may lead more students to go to the NBA, but that's their choice. I believe a player should be able to make the decision with him and his family and there shouldn't be a rule he has to stay in school for one year.

They need a policy, an amendment, a "Bill Maher" that gets rid of the age requirement but still allows the owners and the league to avoid the drama of a bunch of post-prom high school kids running around making millions of dollars without any knowledge of what to do with it or how to handle the responsibilities of an NBA career.

This sentence is stupid on its face because the NBA will never solve the problem of high school kids running around in the NBA without knowledge of what to do with their money or how to handle the responsibilities. Professional athletes struggle with this, especially early in their career. The only way to fix this problem is to say a player can't go to the NBA until he is 25 years of age or older.

They need a New Rule. I have one. Here's how the solution to the NBAPA age restriction problem should read:

Don't pretend you aren't excited about this happening.

Article X. Section 1 (b) (i): A player (A) HAS TO be at least 18 YEARS OF AGE DURING THE CALENDER YEAR IN WHICH THE DRAFT IS HELD, (B) with respect to a player who is not an international player (defined below), OR at least one (1) NBA Season has elapsed since the player's graduation from high school (or, if the player did not graduate from high school, since the graduation of the class with which the player would have graduated had he graduated from high school), that player is eligible to enter that year's draft. HOWEVER,

Here's the kicker...

Section 1(b) (ii) there will be an additional tax levied against any team that drafts any player under the age of 19 and who is not at least one (1) NBA Season removed from graduating high school.

So Scoop Jackson wants to essentially make a team pay to choose a player who is a one-and-done. It sounds good on its face, but remember this isn't a rule designed to prevent players from skipping college altogether, but a rule that will try to discourage teams from DRAFTING these players. It is intended to make the team invest more time and money in a one-and-done player, but by taxing the team it also causes teams to avoid paying the tax and possibly wait until the 2nd round (which means a non-guaranteed contract) to draft high school players.

High school players who don't want to go to college and got bad advice about the NBA would possibly have a great chance of becoming the next Taj "Red" McDavid because of this new Scoop Jackson rule. I don't believe a rule that discourages NBA teams from drafting high school players while doing nothing to discourage high school players from entering the NBA after college is a good rule.

There it is. It's fairer to all parties than the original age restriction was, because it puts an onus on the owners who make the decision to draft certain players and does not victimize or fault the player for simply turning a certain age.

It puts the onus on the owner to make sure he wants to draft a player directly out of high school. This rule doesn't do anything to dissuade high school students from going straight to the NBA. All that bad advice and delusional draft projections from NBA teams and agents are still in play, it is just teams now have less of a financial inclination to take a player directly from high school.

In other words, all of the problems with players entering the league immediately after high school are present and the only thing this new rule solves is making sure a team has more of a financial commitment to that high school player. In a league where multi-million dollar contracts are handed out to guys Charlie Villanueva I don't know how effective this will be. I don't know if this financial commitment will cause an NBA team to invest more time into a player straight from high school or not.

So if there is another LeBron James or Dwight Howard out there, or the next Wall or Rose convinces some GM that he's worth the risk to get first dibs right out of high school, then let that general manager pitch the payoff to the owner against the cost of the tax.

The issue with one-and-done players, as I understand it, is not that teams are taking them too high in the draft, but teams aren't investing the resources and time into a player and the player is getting bad advice on his draft position. This rule does nothing to help the emotional maturity of a player, but instead makes NBA owners more hesitant to draft players directly from high school. So none of the issues with high school players going directly to the NBA are addressed and this rule doesn't increase the chance a player directly from high school will succeed in the NBA. I don't think the NBA owners would accept this rule in any way during negotiations.

No kid coming out of high school to play in the NBA ever forced any owner or GM to draft him. The decision on all counts prior to 2005 to draft players under the age of 19 was made solely by the front office and management staff of the teams that are a part of the league.

True. How does this rule help make high school players more successful in the NBA? It's essentially the one-and-done rule with an added tax to dissuade owners from selecting high school players. The solution to the issue of one-and-done players isn't on how to get them drafted LATER than they would normally be.

This puts all of the responsibility where it should be: on the owners.

The responsibility is already on the owners. The main issue of how to make players successful straight to the NBA after high school is in no way addressed using this rule. The one-and-done rule only addresses this issue by making players go to college for one year after high school. The bottom line is players that feel they can play in the NBA after high school are going to go if given the chance. If the goal is to make sure they are given a fair chance to succeed, putting a tax on the owner's for choosing them may not achieve this goal.

This is a best-of-three-worlds proposal. It won't keep any player from entering the draft after high school if he feels he's ready;

How? Agents and teams will still lie to the players to pretend like they will draft them in a certain position. The tax is on the OWNERS and no further responsibility is put on the players, so a high school kid wouldn't change his decision-making process by much in using this new rule than he would under the one-and-done rule.

it will make owners and GMs think long and deep about the true worth of a player and how necessary it is to get that player on the roster;

Again, this is a league where huge contracts are handed out every offseason. The tax on the owners would have to be significant to change their behavior away from choosing high school students in the draft...and if a player has declared for the draft and hired an agent then how does this help him by owners getting last minute cold feet on spending the extra money to draft that high school player?

and it will answer the ethical and legal questions about an age requirement in a free-market society.

Not really.

Under this proposal, the only consideration is whether he is worth the investment to play in the league.

A player would have to know BEFORE he hires an agent which teams don't want to pay the tax. He would have to have complete knowledge on this issue...but if the player knows then other teams know, which means that team has ruined some leverage to make trades up/back to choose players and certain draft strategies would not work. Basically, no team would announce they aren't drafting high school players for strategy reasons, so a high school player that has declared for the draft, but not hired an agent, won't be able to make a fully informed decision until the deadline to pull out of the draft is passed. NBA teams are serious about keeping their draft strategies a secret, so a high school player would not know which teams are willing to pay the tax until the draft actually occurs...which in no way helps the future NBA player make an informed decision.

If this is an issue over which the players sincerely have a philosophical difference with the owners -- if they really want that commandment gone from the next CBA -- then they must be the ones to draw up a blueprint for how the system should work.

In the case of the league's age requirement, maybe the above suggestion is one for them to grow on.

Why the hell would the owners decide to tax themselves? Especially when it doesn't give them an added benefit?

The only way this rule would work is if high school players were able to declare for the draft making fully informed decisions on which teams would draft them. Teams aren't going to commit one way or another on if they will draft high school players, so players won't know when they are going to be drafted and they won't be mature enough to handle the NBA, which was the exact situation the one-and-done rule was created to prevent.

15 comments MMQB Review: Peter Puts Everything I Don't Care About In One Nifty Column

Peter King talks about a couple of things, like the Collective Bargaining Agreement and why coaches should be able to talk to their team after the Super Bowl, that I don't really care about too much. Doesn't mean he is boring though, it just means much like a U2 album you have to cut through the boring shit to get to the meat of what it is about. So let's get to the meat. Speaking of meat...

Leftovers from an all-business annual NFL meetings, with some news about an event to help the good Dr. heal thyself ... and with 26 days before the draft, what would an MMQB be without a nugget or two about the fate of the Lions at number one:

Food is ALWAYS on this man's mind.

Every year at the meetings, the Rooney family invites a select group of Steelers club officials, league officials and media to dinner in a private room. It's a low-key affair with a toast, stories and an early exit because this isn't a wild crowd; everyone want to be up early the next day.

The first story is about food. Also, I have noticed over the past couple of columns that Peter really, really likes Dan Rooney. Like "I want you to be my father/grandfather" likes Dan Rooney. Pretty soon he will be staking out Dan Rooney's house...in Ireland.

A few of the guests christened this one "The Last Supper'' because Rooney has been nominated by President Obama to be the next U.S. Ambassador to Ireland.

"The Last Supper." Just like Jesus before he was betrayed by Judas and then died after being crucified on the cross in the hot sun. At least that is the story in the Bible and believed by Christians. Funny name for a dinner, I just forgot to laugh I guess.

Rooney took out his cell phone and played a message he'd kept from the late Upshaw for three years, a message that was meaningful to him because it conveyed the art of the deal and the mutual trust the two men had.

Maybe Dan Rooney is related in some way to Peter King. They both keep cell phone messages from people for an overly long amount of time. These two are like two peas in a pod, perhaps more like peas and carrots. They should sit in a tree for hours and talk about what they want to do with their lives and Peter can hope his daddy doesn't come home drunk again.

Upshaw died last August. Rooney is all but certain to be confirmed for the Ireland post. So last week, everyone in the league was trying to take the temperature of what it all meant. And no one thought it was good. There's no natural mediator available in the league right now. Surely one can, and probably will, emerge.

Out of 31 other millionaire league owners, there is not a single person among them who can negotiate or mediate. I don't believe that.

One of the issues in the negotiations will be the amount of debt the owners have built up over the past few years. I'm told the 32 teams owe a combined $8 billion for money they've borrowed for stadium construction and other infrastructure improvements and practice-facility costs. That's about $250 million per team. And the players have always had the attitude -- which I can see too -- that, yes, the owners do have massive debt issues, but at the end of the day, that debt, once it's paid, is going to make the owners' franchises worth all that much more.

The owners are going to have the attitude that they've got this huge debt service per year, and they're incurring this debt service to grow the game, and so this debt has to be taken into account when figuring the total salary cap and salary floor per year. I know it's complicated, but that's the nut issue here.

This is exactly why I don't get into talking about the CBA all that much, though it is vitally important, because it just all sounds like millionaires fighting over money to me.

The owners need to get over the fact they have to spend money to run a football team. If you don't want to spend money and incur debt on practice fields and other facilities, don't own a football team. The players need to realize the owners are trying to make the facilities as nice as they can be to coddle them and make these millionaires feel special about the team they play for.

Compromise. Just play football and shut the hell up.

In his absence, I think Rooney will be available to advise the league, but Goodell's going to need another Kissinger to be a shuttle diplomat between owners and players.

Maybe it'll be New England owner Bob Kraft. I think it's a job Kraft would love.

Well, as long as he would love the job, he doesn't really need to actually be good at it. I just need Bob Kraft having fun, that's all I really ask.

How did I know he would be Peter's first choice?

Roger Goodell keeps saying the idea of 17 regular-season games with three in the preseason, or 18 and two exhibitions, is just another way of playing the 20 games that are already scheduled. Wrong. It's wrong because starters would be playing the full game in the 17th and 18th regular-season games, and now they play, on average, a quarter of each preseason game.

This is seriously not news. Anyone who watches football on a regular basis knows that preseason games are completely useless. The league wants to keep the amount of games at 20 and when the league announced they wanted more regular season games, everyone who thought about it knew this meant more games for each player. Those who thought about it also knew that the players would have a hard time going for this.

No matter how the league throws it out there, there's no doubt players would be exposing themselves to another four quarters of injury risk if the regular season is expanded to 17 games. Add two more games, and most veterans would be playing an extra six or eight quarters.

I personally don't like the idea of expanding the schedule to include more games, I would just like to see the amount of preseason games limited to 2 or 3 and leave the preseason where it is at. Teams are pretty beat up at the end of the year and I don't see a reason to change how long the season is.

"Anytime you have change, there is some reluctance," Goodell said at the meetings. "But it's clear we don't need four preseason games anymore. Fans don't believe preseason games are up to our standards. A key point is the fans also recognize players they want to see are not in those preseason games.''

So only have 2 or 3 preseason games. They can't do that because the team doesn't want to miss out on the revenue they get from home games? Tough shit, the fans have been paying way too much money for preseason game tickets for years now. The owners have been collecting money for games that don't involve many players who actually make the team for many years now. They can deal with the lost revenue.

This is a losing battle, there is no way the NFL cuts down the preseason and doesn't add more games to the regular season schedule.

Winning coaches ping-pong from one media obligation to another in the 90 minutes after the game, and they never get a chance to talk to their team. It's incomprehensible to me that a coach would stand in front of his team after every game he ever coaches, and then, in the biggest game of his life and his players' lives, the game ends without the coach ever saying a word to them.

I have heard about the tragedy of Darfur, the AIDS epidemic in Africa and that nearly every single person in America doesn't want to think for themselves and find it easier for others to think for them (which explains so many things, including the existence of many CBS comedies and what is currently on the Top 40 radio stations), but this is the worst thing I have ever heard of. Someone has to intervene immediately.

It is 57 days after the Super Bowl this morning, and Tomlin has still not talked to his team.

I just want to point out that if Mike Tomlin really, really cared about this, he would have spoken by phone to each individual team member and would not wait for them to be together again as a group.

I have to agree this rule is stupid that he can't talk to them as a group after the game but he could talk to them if he really wanted to.

Solution: The winning network gets the celebration on the field and three or four interviews, including with the coach and MVP, in a 15-minute on-field show. Then the coach and all players get whisked back to their locker room so he can tell them whatever he wants to tell them. Then, no more than 30 minutes after the game, every key player is at a series of postgame podiums set up in the bowels of the stadium.

This may be the first Peter King suggested solution that makes sense.

Well, Tomlinson, who struggled to a 3.9-yards-per-carry average last year, would have to put his career in overdrive at age 30 this fall to compete for a rushing title with 320 carries. Last year, Adrian Peterson won the title with 1,760 yards on 363 carries. Michael Turner of the Falcons was second with 1,699 yards on 376 carries. For Tomlinson to hit 1,760 yards on 320 carries, he'd have to rush for 5.5 yards per carry, which is seven-tenths of a yard better than the terrific Peterson managed last year.

Peter King's numbers seem to work out and he sort of has a point here. I just wonder why he hates LT so much? I know he doesn't come out and blast him or anything but he seems to be really down on LT's chances to have a bounce back year and also seems down on his overall football abilities. I realize LT is 30 years old but two years ago there was talk he could end up being one of the greatest running backs ever and now he is sharing time with Darren Sproles. I wonder if Peter's disdain for Tomlinson has anything to do with how LT has spoken in regard to the Patriots and Bill Belichick?

"Paul doesn't want to settle for just a partial recovery,'' his wife, Linda, says. "He wants to be back working, and to do that, he needs intensive therapy.'' Therapy like the intensive and innovative (and expensive) six-week University of Michigan Aphasia Program, where he'll get 23 hours of challenging speech therapy a week ... and which isn't covered by insurance.

This is a charity dinner for Dr. Z that is being held and seems really wonderful and like a great idea. I can't help but wonder why charity dinners are not being held for other people who were not writers for a major sports magazine who suffer from the same speech challenges that Dr. Z faces? I hope Dr. Z recovers, but for the others who suffer from this speech problem, I bet they wish they had access to wealthy friends who could host a dinner to pay for an expensive rehabilitation for them.

I also can't help but wonder if some of the money from the dinner is going to help others who suffer from the same problem so they could also have the same access to the innovative Aphasia Program.

Quote of the Week III

"Never.''

-- Denver coach Josh McDaniels, asked if he felt there might come an opportune time for the Broncos to consider trading Jay Cutler.

I think McDaniels means "never, unless someone offered me Matt Cassel."

As if they need the extra help, the two teams that met in Super Bowl 42, the Giants and the Patriots, have the most choices in the first three rounds.

Combined playoff wins this year: 0. I just felt the need to point that out.

Maybe the reason these teams have these picks is because they actually made very smart personnel decisions and accumulated more picks. The smart teams make smart moves and the dumb teams don't make smart moves.

1. New England (6) 23, 34, 47, 58, 89, 97.

Strategy: Look for the Pats to trade one of their three second-rounders -- and, if need be, a later pick -- for some team's 2010 first-rounder.

Sorry to pick on New England...but Peter wrote the Patriots may trade one second rounder "and, if need be, a later pick" for a 2010 first round pick. If there is a team that would accept a 2009 2nd round pick for a 2010 first round pick without a later pick, then that General Manager needs to be immediately fired.

Peter is drunk if he thinks the Patriots won't have to trade more than just a second round pick to get a first round pick. Even then it would have to be a pretty good pick or set of picks later to give up a first round pick. Meaning not a 2nd and a 6th round pick. I would be shocked if that got the deal done.

5. Atlanta (3) 24, 55, 90.

Strategy: His freshman draft shows GM Thomas Dimitroff will make a trade to chase a player he really wants. If only Texas defensive end Brian Orakpo were gettable.

I am sure I am not the only person who has heard Brian Orakpo could end up being Vernon Gholston II. I just wanted to point this out because he is getting a lot of hype so far leading up to the draft.

Whether he is going to be a great NFL player may/may not be true but the real thing everyone needs to know is that Peter loves himself some Brian Orakpo because he is like Chris Long. Both are white and have a great "motor." Peter would love to have a team full of those type players.

8. Tennessee (3) 30, 62, 94

Strategy: If the Titans don't get Torry Holt in bargain-basement free-agency, they'll join the club of good teams yearning for a receiver in the first or second round.

Why wouldn't Torry Holt want to catch those Kerry Collins "bombs?"

Enjoyable/Aggravating Travel Note of the Week

1. The Marriott in Dana Point, Calif., responding to my kvetching about no coffee anywhere in the hotel on weekends 'til 7 a.m., made a great call, starting this weekend. They've begun making coffee available in the lobby at 5 a.m. Good to see you improving, Marriott.

Kvetching meaning "incessant bitching." Why does anyone cater to this man? He makes a ton of money, make him walk somewhere to get coffee.

2. The stuffy St. Regis, however, is still making its beach restaurant a hotel-guests only deal. Someday I'm going to be good enough, and rich enough, to eat there.

Did Peter go to the front desk of these hotels and ask them if they changed their policy based on what he said? I think Peter believes he can have an incredible amount of pull just by bitching in his weekly column. It has been an entire week and I am sure the hotel has more important things to do than to cater to Peter King.

If wants to be good enough to eat there, be a guest at the hotel.

5. Drove past the Viper Room, where River Phoenix died of a drug overdose, in West Hollywood. It's a hole in the wall! Looks like some dive head shop from college days.

You would think actors would overdose on drugs at much more reputable and roomier places.

7. US Airways home from LAX Sunday ... $15 to move from a center seat to an aisle with a few more inches of leg room ... $40 to check three bags ... $7 for a salad. Welcome to 2009 air travel, America.

A salad for Peter? Actually it was mash potatoes, spaghetti, steak, and mushrooms mixed together in a bowl with hot coffee poured over the top. That is a salad to Peter.

4. I think, if I were Stafford, I'd be ready for some funny business when the Lions show up at Georgia to work him out. I don't mean ha-ha funny. I mean Schwartz is going to put Stafford in some uncomfortable spots and force him out of his comfort zone. If it's windy, you can be sure Stafford will be throwing his fastball into the wind, for instance.

How is this "funny business?" If a team is going to take a quarterback with the first pick in the draft I really, really hope they would not consider seeing how a quarterback throws out of his comfort zone "funny business," because he is going to have to make those throws in the NFL.

Someone please tell me every team does this to a quarterback they are looking at drafting and the Lions are not supposed to be geniuses for doing this.

6. I think, just to tease tomorrow's column, I'm going to examine the cases of the two men Al Davis is passionate about for enshrinement in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Hint: They both wore the silver and black.

What a shock that Al Davis would be passionate about placing two men who just so happened to play for the Raiders, the team he owns, in the Hall of Fame. Thanks for the hint Peter, I feel incredibly teased.

7. I think if the NFL begins to seriously discuss expanding the playoffs from 12 to 14 teams -- and believe me, the expansionist orators are preparing their speeches to fellow owners -- I'm going to be prepared to argue against that absurd, watering-down-the-game-for-TV notion.

(Bengoodfella quickly getting a headache) Why always try to tinker with a good thing that works? MLB added the wild card because there were only 4 teams that made the playoffs but by the NFL expanding the playoffs to 14 teams means nearly half the teams eligible will make the playoffs.

I, yet again, agree with Peter on this issue.

8. I think, still, that a division winner should not be guaranteed a home playoff game. Why the 12-win Colts had to travel to face the eight-win Chargers is still an injustice that too few people got exercised about. The solution is simple: Excellent teams should not be penalized for being in a division with a superb team, so the playoffs should be seeded, per conference, on the basis of record alone.

Few people get "exercised" about? I have never seen that word used in this context. I like how Peter is still angry over how that Chargers-Colts game ended this past offseason. You fuck with Peyton Manning, you get the wrath of Peter King.

b. Amazing how many movie billboards there are in L.A. You'd think they made movies there or something.

It's shocking how many bright neon signs are in Las Vegas. Is this really worth a mention?

c. There's something wrong in America when you go on the road, need a prescription filled and have to pay full price because you have your HMO card and your prescription card to show the pharmacist but don't have the approval for a clearly approved medication on the prescription bottle.

I don't get this. Either Peter was out of refills or he did not have the prescription for the drug. Either way, there is nothing wrong with the pharmacist wanting to keep his/her job and not filling this prescription. Even knowing American's health care system is messed up, I am going to go ahead and assume Peter was in the wrong on this because I don't know what "approval" he did not have, because that "approval" sounds a lot like a "prescription."

If someone among our 6 readers knows something about this I don't, please inform me.

d. Coffeenerdness: Very, very interesting coffee choice in Laura's neighborhood. Peet's, Coffee Bean and Starbucks, all within about 1,000 yards. That's a reason to live somewhere.

Oh, to live the life of Peter King and make residential choices based on water based liquids.

g. What more does Clay Buchholz have to do to win a spot in the rotation?

Have the Red Sox stop signing tons of other pitchers like John Smoltz and Brad Penny?

h. It's official: There are more dogs than people in the South End of Boston.

South End of Boston: The only area in the world with a lot of dogs. In my neighborhood, there are absolutely no dogs, just people walking goats around the neighborhood on leashes. Do you know why? All the dogs are in Boston.