0 comments Now That Derek Jeter is Retired, Wallace Matthews Wants Joe Girardi to Play A-Rod at Third Base Often, So He Can Inevitably Complain about A-Rod

Sportswriters often don't see athletes as human beings, they see these athletes as walking narratives. Walking narratives that can help that sportswriter with a column idea or even as a means to expound upon that narrative in a column. The New York media has missed Alex Rodriguez this season. They miss bashing him and talking about what a hypocritical, self-involved, cheating asshole he is. So naturally, Wallace Matthews misses A-Rod and can't wait for him to come back and play for the Yankees next season. It will make Wallace happy to know he can have A-Rod to kick around again. But first, Joe Girardi has to go ahead and hand A-Rod the starting third base job before the World Series is even over. So it turns out A-Rod won't be getting the Jeter treatment, because Girardi won't name A-Rod the starting third baseman in 2015. Just in case the zero people who thought Girardi might were confused.

Joe Girardi is about to go from the Farewell Tour to the Circus Parade. 

And the New York media could not be happier. They were tired of all this happiness and positivity surrounding Derek Jeter's retirement. Finally, they can get pageviews using negativity.

Girardi took a lot of heat this season for managing what some believed was a Derek Jeter Farewell Tour rather than a baseball season, and put forth the dubious proposition that this was the reason the Yankees missed the playoffs for the second straight year.

(New York media to each other) "We are going to saturate the coverage of the Yankees' season with talk about Derek Jeter and his impending retirement. We will make this our sole focus."

(New York media to Joe Girardi) "Why did you manage this season like it was a Derek Jeter Farewell Tour? That's the only story we heard about this season. Was that your only focus?"

While Girardi certainly deferred to Jeter all season, continuing to play him at shortstop and bat him second, despite sometime shrill calls from many corners claiming this was the reason the Yankees stunk in 2014, Alex Rodriguez cannot hope to enjoy the same level of respect. 

This disputes the claim of absolutely nobody that A-Rod was going to be treated like Derek Jeter was during his final year in the majors. Sure, a lot of nobody thought that A-Rod would be immediately handed the starting third baseman job before the World Series ended and the MLB offseason has begun, but these people, of which there were none, will be shocked to find out this isn't happening. Joe Girardi isn't going to cater to Alex Rodriguez like he did Derek Jeter. And here I thought Jeter and A-Rod would be treated the same, especially since the legacy each will leave with the Yankees isn't similar at all.  

And no, the reason the Yankees stunk in 2014 is not solely because Derek Jeter batted 2nd. The Yankees had injuries to their pitching staff, (predictably) the free agents they signed didn't entirely live up to their contract for a variety of reasons and the farm system isn't built up enough to withstand these two issues. But yeah, blame Girardi for playing Jeter, though the New York media would have had a heart attack had Girardi put Jeter 8th/9th in the batting order and sat him more than two games in a row.

That much was clear from Girardi's postseason wrap-up news conference at Yankee Stadium on Monday, in which he refused to guarantee A-Rod his old job back, despite being given several opportunities to say so. 

What kind of idiot manager would guarantee A-Rod his old job back for the upcoming season as early as late September? Girardi has no idea who the Yankees will sign in the offseason, no idea what kind of playing shape A-Rod is in, and Rodriguez wasn't exactly tearing the cover off the ball during the 2013 season. It would be the height of stupidity to guarantee A-Rod his old job back, so naturally the mouth-breathing idiots in the New York media ask Girardi to do so.

And I know if Girardi had said, "Of course A-Rod will have his job back when he returns" then this column by Wallace would go in a completely different direction. It would be, "I can't believe Girardi guaranteed A-Rod's job at third base this early in the offseason."

Asked directly, twice, on Monday if A-Rod was returning as the Yankees' starting third baseman, Girardi hedged. 

I don't want to spoil it, but Girardi's "hedge" is acknowledging that A-Rod will be playing third base when he returns. This further removes any confusion that A-Rod will be moving to the outfield or to shortstop. I'm sure the same subset of zero people who also thought A-Rod would get the Jeter treatment during the 2015 season thought A-Rod might play shortstop when he returned to the Yankees team. These zero people are now even less confused than they never were.

"He hasn’t played in a year," Girardi said. "That’s not easy to do, to sit out a year. I've got to see where he’s physically at, I’ve got to see from a playing standpoint where he’s at. Do we expect him to be a player on our team? Absolutely. Do we expect him to play third base? Yes. But in fairness, I think you have to see where he’s at." 

So A-Rod will play third base when he returns? Look at Girardi hedging on whether A-Rod will be the regular third baseman for the Yankees by acknowledging that A-Rod will be playing third base.

Which raises the bizarre and tantalizing prospect that Alex Rodriguez could be returning to the Yankees as a part-time player, or worse, a bench player.

Which is pretty much what the New York media has wanted A-Rod to be for a few seasons now. Of course, if A-Rod is a part-time player the New York media will take one of two roads:

1. State A-Rod isn't playing well enough to deserve to be a full-time player and then call him "an expensive pinch-hitter" in some fashion, while baiting A-Rod to second-guess Girardi's decision by firing a series of leading questions at him all in an effort to drum up controversy.

2. Claim that A-Rod should be starting because he makes enough money that he needs the opportunity to contribute and then blame A-Rod for Girardi refusing to pull him from the lineup. I don't know how, but the media will try to blame A-Rod for this.

Funny, Girardi showed no similar hesitation when asked similar questions about Jeter a year ago, even though Jeter was a year older than Rodriguez and coming off a similar yearlong layoff, having played in just 17 games scattered throughout the 2013 season.

That is because it was Jeter's last season and Girardi had never pulled Jeter from the lineup for performance-related reasons. Girardi has pulled A-Rod for performance-related reasons, and A-Rod has been out of baseball for an entire year, while Jeter was rehabbing an injury during much of the 2013 season. There's no way Jeter wasn't going to be the Yankees starting shortstop coming into the 2014 season for a variety of reasons. Just like A-Rod is not being handed the starting third base job for a variety of reasons.

No matter by what illicit means he achieved it, Rodriguez was always a better player than Jeter, if not nearly as much of a winner or so good a teammate. 

And those are part of the reasons why Rodriguez isn't being handed the third base job and Jeter was assumed to be the Yankees' starting shortstop during the 2014 season. Being a good teammate is always nice to see and much of A-Rod's value lies in his power, so it remains to be seen what remains of that power.

It is easy to argue that he doesn't deserve it, for transgressions both on the field and off. 

Ah yes, so basically Wallace Matthews is asking questions and then answering his own questions. Essentially, this entire column could have been a conversation instead Wallace's head instead of a column.

Without even trying, A-Rod is going to cause Girardi the kind of headaches that Jeter never did, and he does not appear to be relishing the prospect, even five months removed from the start of spring training.

It seems that Wallace has broached the question of A-Rod's starting status simply so he can rehash the same talking points about what a pain in the ass A-Rod is. Wallace acts surprised Girardi hasn't named A-Rod the starting third baseman (did you know A-Rod isn't on the same level as Derek Jeter?) in late September and then begins to list the reasons why Girardi wouldn't do this.

Although the manager went out of his way to mention, "I have a good relationship with Alex," he was unable to give a precise date of the last time he and his erstwhile third baseman actually spoke. 

GIVE WALLACE MATTHEWS THE PRECISE TIME THAT YOU LAST SPOKE WITH A-ROD! ALSO, HOW MANY EMOTICONS WERE USED?

"We've talked more about how he’s just doing and his family, mostly through texting," Girardi said. "Obviously that will pick up now that we’re through the season and I don’t have nearly as much to do, just to see where he is at physically and encouraging him and see what his thoughts are."

Now that Joe Girardi has stopped managing the Derek Jeter Farewell Tour, he can focus more on the Alex Rodriguez Redemption Tour. At some point, probably the beginning of each month during the season, he will put the Yankees lineup, pitching rotation, and bullpen usage charts together so he can spend the rest of that month focused on A-Rod as much as he solely focused on Derek Jeter.

All indications are that he expects to come back to the Yankees in all of his former capacities, as the everyday third baseman and a middle-of-the-order hitter, as well as a possible new capacity -- as a team leader now that Jeter will no longer be in the clubhouse.

How did Wallace get these indications? Why is Wallace unable to give a precise date of the last time he got an indication this is true?

Joe Girardi isn't allowed to talk to A-Rod during the season without every discussion notated and archived for the public's perusal, but Wallace Matthews is all, "I know that A-Rod thinks he is coming back to play third base everyday and hit in the middle of the order," and he just wants his readers to nod their head as if this is true and possibly isn't just an assumption Wallace wants to make for the purposes of writing a column.

Without mentioning names, Girardi spoke in general terms about the likelihood that several current Yankees could step up next year to fill the leadership void Jeter leaves behind. And from what I know about Alex, I can tell you he considers himself one of those candidates, if not the only legitimate one.

Brian McCann is going to stand in the baseline and yell at A-Rod for believing he is the only legitimate leadership candidate. There is an unwritten rule that says you have to get past Brian McCann first before you can be the leader of any team.

But it is just as likely that his return will be seen by some in the Yankees clubhouse as a burden, because at least for the beginning of spring training, the camp is likely to be crawling with even more media than usual, poking and prodding A-Rod for his daily thoughts and charting his every move on and off the field. 

Of course, the New York media could ensure the Yankees clubhouse don't see A-Rod as a burden by not poking and prodding A-Rod for his daily thoughts and charting his move on and off the field, but apparently that isn't even close to being option. Not that the New York media has an obligation to help the Yankees have a lesser burden, but Wallace Matthews is basically saying he and his media friends will make the Yankees clubhouse a living hell if they damn well want to.

Girardi acknowledged the coming circus could serve as a camp distraction, but said: "I think our players will handle it fine. The first couple of days in spring training there will be more attention, and that will die down. That's the nature of sports too. Something’s gonna happen that the focus will be off of him again."

Joe Girardi is going to have Francisco Cervelli murdered so the focus will be off A-Rod and on Cervelli's untimely death. I'm just kidding of course, the New York media would recognize that Cervelli is dead so there's no reason to immediately cover a story that isn't going anywhere, and then continue to focus on asking A-Rod for for the millionth time whether he considers himself the leader of the Yankees now and how much he'll miss Derek Jeter.

the spotlight will be on him again as he faces a likely procession of hostile crowds, perhaps even in his own ballpark. 

So why not announce A-Rod has the starting third base job in late September when he hasn't proven he deserves it, the fans hate him, and it will only put more pressure on him to produce immediately? Joe Girardi has really missed a chance to give New York sportswriters a great story to write.

"His teammates enjoy Alex," Girardi said. "His presence in the clubhouse, the way he likes to teach the game and talk about the game, so I don’t think that will be an issue. Will he have to deal with some angry fans? Yeah. But we’ll help him get through that. And when’s the last time Alex hasn’t had to deal with that?

Stop it! Stop being reasonable about Alex Rodriguez and how hostile crowds will affect him. Just pretend that A-Rod has never faced a hostile crowd before. It's a lot more fun that way.

If he's even 75 percent of the player he was before he was suspended, A-Rod can help the Yankees too, especially the offensively challenged Yankees of 2014.

Considering he is being paid $21 million next season, that's good to hear. I'm not going to mention that as much of a douchebag asshole as A-Rod has been through the years, it's funny how once the Yankees offense starts stumbling sportswriters start talking about him in a positive fashion as someone who can help the team. Wait, I did just mention it. It's almost like A-Rod is overpaid, but still a reasonably useful baseball player.

But there's no guarantee that when he comes back to the Yankees -- and his yearlong suspension ends as soon as the World Series is over -- that aside from his lavish paycheck, Rodriguez will enjoy any of the perks he did before he was set down, or any of the deference the manager showed to Jeter. 

Again, no one thought Alex Rodriguez would be treated in the same way that Derek Jeter was treated during his final season in the majors. Anyone who thought A-Rod would be treated as a conquering hero upon being reinstated is an idiot or simply stuck in 2002.

Which sets up a mouthwatering question for Girardi's postseason news conference a year from now:

After being accused in 2014 of playing Derek Jeter too much, will Girardi in 2015 face charges that he didn't play Alex Rodriguez enough?

My mouth is officially watered. Tell you what, if Alex Rodriguez plays well enough to play third base a lot during the 2015 season then I am betting Joe Girardi will play A-Rod a lot. Girardi won't reasonably know if A-Rod will play well enough until five months from now in spring training. Hence, he doesn't name A-Rod the starting third baseman yet. Somehow it makes sense if you just take the time to think about it. He won't be treated like Derek Jeter and I doubt anyone thought he would be treated in a similar fashion. 

4 comments Dan Shaughnessy Doesn't Like Soccer, I'm Not Sure Anybody Cares What He Likes

Deadspin has noted that Dan Shaughnessy has written this same "I don't like soccer" column for 25 years now. I guess it's good that he is consistent and it's not surprising to see that Dan's writing hasn't changed dramatically over the past 25 years. It's not like he was a shining wordsmith in the first place, so the fact he uses the same phrases and copies himself isn't too surprising. Craig Calcaterra has some really good thoughts about a general sports columnist and whether he/she has a place in today's sports media. I would agree with him that only the most unique of sports voices could be a general columnist. Sports information is so fragmented that a writer who doesn't go in-depth on any one topic, but just covers the bases of a variety of topics, better be a unique voice or else risks losing the readers who is more informed on the topic.

These are all good thoughts, but I'm focused on the terribleness of what Dan is writing. I don't think anybody cares if Dan Shaughnessy doesn't like soccer. This is another blatant example of a sports columnist writing a column about himself as the subject. I'm sorry Dan Shaughnessy doesn't like soccer but his thoughts are only an opinion and don't merit another airing simply so the contrarians in the world can nod along. Who cares what Dan likes? He needs to write about sports and not himself as the topic of a column. That's hard to do when so many sportswriters have become so enamored with their own points of view that they believe their point of view has additional merit and should be heard immediately.

The United States will play Portugal at 6 p.m. Sunday in World Cup action. The whole world will be watching. All of the US will be watching.

And it was a great match. A person doesn't have to like soccer to appreciate watching the United States and Portugal play. I would think a person who covers sports for a living could manage to watch this match without holding his nose up in the air, but apparently not.

Start a Tom Werner, “Let’s Go, USA!’’ chant if you can. I’ll be content to read John Powers’s very fine account of the match in Monday’s Globe.

Fantastic, Dan. Nobody gives a shit if you like soccer or not. Please just dislike soccer in silence so it doesn't seem like you are shitting on the sport in order to gain attention. Why is it impossible to read John Power's very fine account of the match without doing so in silence without attempting to gain attention for yourself and your contrarian view?

I know where this takes some folks.

Because Dan has written this exact same column 3-4 times before. That's how he knows where this takes some folks. I wouldn't be bragging about this.

If you don’t like soccer the Futbol Moonies will insist that you are an aging, unhip, xenophobic, uncultured dolt. Soccer is the world’s most popular game. It’s the game of the future. Anyone who doesn’t embrace soccer is simply ignorant, close-minded, or unable to grasp the concept that there is a whole wide world outside of Route 128.

No, if you wave your hands around and try to gain attention for yourself because you don't like soccer, and have done this on multiple occasions, than you are an asshole who needs a hobby. There are a lot of sports I don't like and simply mentioning 1-2 times in passing when the subject comes up that I don't like the sport is sufficient. There's no need to make a big production out of not enjoying a sport unless the point is to make your not liking soccer about you, which of course is what Dan is doing.

My esteemed colleague, Bob Ryan, this past week said that anyone who doesn’t get into the World Cup is not a true sports fan.

There are hot soccer takes flying from everywhere in the Boston area these days aren't there? Bob Ryan is wrong about this too. A person can be a true sports fan and not get into the World Cup. Bob Ryan isn't in to using modern methods of evaluating baseball players, does that make him not a true sports fan?

Sorry. I am done apologizing for not loving soccer.

No one is asking you to apologize for not loving soccer. There have been requests for you to apologize for your hair and face that gets beet-red as you talk though.

Land of choice. Land of freedom. I choose to ignore the World Cup on television. Please don’t hate me.

Nobody will hate you. Nobody will care until you start making a big deal out of not liking soccer.

Those of us who don’t love soccer still love America. We love our USA team.

You just don't love them enough to watch them play and instead choose to brag about not liking watching them play.

We understand the beauty and simplicity of soccer. We agree that it is the world’s most popular sport. It’s a sport that represents democracy and meritocracy. It’s the perfect game for children. The big kids don’t dominate. Everybody is in motion. It’s not complicated. It doesn’t require much equipment or organization.

Well, to play soccer properly it probably takes 12 or more people in total to play, so there is some organization that is involved.

It is a great source of national pride and it’s impossible not to get caught up in the passion and good feelings.

Notice how Dan says "it's impossible not to get caught up in the passion and good feelings," then writes this entire article about he has not gotten caught up in the passion and good feelings.

Just don’t make me watch the matches.

There is literally no one I know of who is forcing Dan to watch the matches. No one would know Dan doesn't watch the matches if he wasn't so concerned with informing as many people as possible that he is not going to be watching the matches.

The problems are obvious and have been stated a million times. Soccer doesn’t have much scoring.

It's the tension of whether a team will score, along with one goal having a large impact on the game that makes hockey so popular. There's not much scoring, but the opportunities teams have to score during a match are important. Therein lies the drama and the excitement of the sport.

Soccer doesn’t have natural progression leading up to scores.

You mean like in baseball where the score could be 0-0 for five innings and then a player hits a home run? Or do you mean like in hockey when neither team could have an advantage for most of the game in terms of time of possession and then one goalie will accidentally let an easy shot by him?

There are not many natural stoppages in play that allow time for conversations, commercials (this is why soccer is tough to televise), or trips to the restroom.

"Soccer is a terrible sport to watch because it's constant excitement and doesn't leave any time for a 20 minute conversation about what a disappointing team the Red Sox are."

You know what, if the sport doesn't have much scoring and no natural progression then feel free to go take a piss whenever you want. Nothing is going to happen while you are gone, right?

And let’s not even start on the corrupt officiating or the nefarious “stoppage time.’’

Oh yes, corrupt officiating is a problem in soccer. It's not like the NBA would ever have that problem or anything. That's true, NBA officials are not necessarily corrupt, but just widely incompetent at times.

Soccer takes away our hands. This makes the game incredibly skillful and exhausting, but also robs fans of much of the beauty of sport. Hands and opposable thumbs separate us from creatures of the wild.

The ability to make deductions, form emotions and attachments, as well as use our brain to write sports columns also separate us from many of the creatures of the wild. And yet, Dan doesn't seem to be taking advantage of his advanced brain to write a good sports column. Also, the argument that soccer isn't fun to watch because players don't use their hands and hands are the source of much of the beauty of sport is sort of silly. Watching a soccer player kick the ball with his feet can be a beautiful thing to watch as well.

How would we have even known the athletic greatness of Pedro Martinez, Larry Bird, Bobby Orr or Tom Brady if they could not have used their hands?

Considering the sport they played all required the use of their hands, the answer here seems pretty transparent to me. Obviously the athletic greatness of these athletes would not have been known if they didn't use their hands, because their hands are required for greatness in their sport. Hands aren't required in soccer.

Soccer lovers tend to be an elitist, intolerant lot. They look down on those who will truly never “get” their game. They scoff at the mere mention of “soccer’’ when the whole rest of the world knows it as “football.’’

I don't find that people who love soccer are elitist. They are probably elitist to Dan Shaughnessy because he goes out of his way to point out how much he doesn't like the sport of soccer. I'm sure that can make a person become elitist. It all depends on how you approach a person who likes soccer and start discussing the sport. Discuss it derisively, then you will get an intolerant response.

I have friends around the world. 

These are probably friends who come from the United States originally. These friends all used to live in Massachusetts, but left the country rather than have to see Dan Shaughnessy on a consistent basis.  Like Chandler on "Friends" who left to go to Yemen so he could get away from Janice, Dan's friends probably had their job "transfer" to another country in order to get away from him.

For a couple of decades my home was home to dozens of international students, all of whom loved soccer.

I'm not sure the point of this. Is Dan trying to prove he has been around people who like soccer, so he's not just being obstinate in liking the sport? It's like people who say they aren't racist because they have (insert exact number here) black friends. Otherwise, if Dan is trying to prove he respects the sport then it's clear this isn't true. He bashes the sport and then states he doesn't watch the matches. 

There would be no point in pounding my fist on the counter and demanding that folks from those regions love and embrace baseball because it is such a great game. I ask soccer folks for the same courtesy. Enjoy your game. Celebrate your game. But please do not insist that we must love your game.

Then stop insisting about how much you hate their game. If Dan doesn't want a strong, irrational reaction to not enjoying the sport of soccer then he should try not having a strong, irrational opinion he loves to share with everyone about the sport. An extreme opinion will beget an opposing extreme opinion.

Millions of kids in our country have been playing soccer for more than 40 years. This has not translated into an adult population of folks who’ll pay to watch professional soccer games.

My impression is that soccer, while not as popular in the United States as other countries, is still becoming more popular in the United States. I feel like the sport is growing in popularity. I don't think soccer will ever be as popular as football, but there is an adult population who will pay to watch professional soccer games and currently do pay to watch professional soccer games.

Millions of kids also play hopscotch, kickball, and lacrosse. It doesn’t mean those games can become mainstream American professional spectator sports.

That's a great comparison because hopscotch and kickball are routinely played by adults and not just children. The fact Dan is comparing soccer to hopscotch pretty much shows he is only trolling for a response to this column. Dan makes the column about his own personal thoughts about soccer and tries to have as hot of a sports take as possible in order to gain attention for his point of view.

Fifty years ago American schoolchildren were taught the metric system and told that one day we would be calculating all of our vital stats in meters and liters. No more inches, feet, yards, and pounds.

It never happened. We are still 6 feet 1 inch and weigh 200 pounds. And a lot of us still reject soccer as a mainstream professional spectator sport.

I can't imagine why soccer people would become elitist around Dan. It's a mystery to me.

World Cup fever is all around us and it’s great. I hope the USA beats Portugal Sunday. I hope Jozy’s hammy recovers for the next round (US forward Jozy Altidore pulled a hamstring against Ghana last Monday). I hope we advance out of the “Group of Death” and somehow win the World Cup for the first time.

I like how Dan disassociates himself from soccer for all of the reasons he has listed above and then starts in with the "we" stuff to keep one foot on the bandwagon in order to write a column about how great the US Men's Soccer Team is should they pull out a miracle. Undoubtedly the column would be full of Dan saying how much he doesn't like soccer, but this men's team is just so different, dammit!

But when the World Cup is over, soccer will be over for most of us. We will go back to football, baseball, basketball, and hockey. And we will not feel guilty about it.

But it's not because the sport sucks, is boring, there are too many turnovers or will never be popular in the United States. It's a function of time. I only have so much time to watch sports, so sports that I would ordinarily like take a backseat. I don't have the time I want to watch hockey and soccer, so I don't follow those sports as closely as I do other sports until a major event in that sport occurs. There is a difference in not having the time to follow soccer and not following soccer because you don't like it as a sport. Dan tries to confuse the two when they are two separate reasons for not watching the sport.

Dan's pathetic troll job is complete. Sure, he re-wrote the same article he has written 3-4 times previously, but the attention he got for his strong take was well worth it.

5 comments Jay Mariotti Wants to See the Rays Win the World Ser---Wait, They Lost to the Red Sox in the ALDS? In That Case, Jay Mariotti Wants Joe Maddon to Get a Job Managing a "Real" MLB Team Because the Rays Suck

I've linked the article about the Big East Tournament so many times everyone is tired of it, but Jay Mariotti has never been afraid to change course even after he has posted a column. The article I am referencing is where Jay completely re-wrote a column about the Big East Tournament where he went from criticizing the tournament for being irrelevant to reveling in the joy of the tournament...all because the Big East Tournament was exciting. He literally erased portions of his columns ripping the NCAA Tournament and then just replaced those words with how exciting the NCAA Tournament was. Jay is a whore. If he's not a whore then he is a mercenary writer. He has no beliefs and doesn't care who he works for as long as he is getting paid. His beliefs depend on what type of column he is currently writing. He doesn't want to work for a big, evil corporation after spending his entire writing career working for a big, evil corporation. So he writes an introduction on his new "Mariotti Show" site ripping large corporate sports networks. But hey, if ESPN calls and offers Jay a radio show and a writing opportunity don't doubt he is picking up the phone to hear them out.

I digress, but I felt I needed to in order to properly introduce one of Jay's columns so everyone understands that Jay doesn't believe what he writes. He just writes to get attention. After the Rays were eliminated from the ALDS by the Boston Red Sox, Jay wrote a column saying Joe Maddon deserves better than managing the Rays. This is an example of the typical sportswriter from a big city stating a manager isn't really relevant until he manages in a big city, which is just so impossibly stupid. Managing in a big city isn't a requirement for a manager to justify his status as being excellent at his job. Back to my point...on October 3 Jay Mariotti wrote a column stating he was cheering for the Rays to win the World Series. The same team who isn't worthy of being managed by Joe Maddon is worthy enough to have a World Series title. Go figure.

Here are some of the comments about the Rays that Jay made in his original column where he "hoped" the little guys win the World Series. It's funny how the Rays stink and aren't worthy of Joe Maddon once they've lost the ALDS, but prior to losing to the Red Sox the Rays don't stink quite enough to get Jay's support.

Being smart on a limited budget is way cooler these days than being stupid with $236.9 million.

Which explains why the Dodgers have a payroll very, very close to the Yankees payroll and Jay wrote an entire column about the Dodgers can't be beaten. I guess not having a limited budget is still cool, especially since Jay suggests six days after he wrote this October 3 column that Joe Maddon deserves to manage a team without a limited budget. So being smart on a limited budget is cool unless something happens and Jay has to change his point of view to where being smart on a limited budget is just being cheap. At that point, the manager of a team with a limited budget deserves to go to a team with a larger budget to maximize his potential as a manager. Yet, I disgress again. Jay's comments about the Rays from his October 3 column:

Yes, I’m openly rooting for the Rays, A’s and Pirates, even if it requires three flight connections and overtime pay to your GPS lady to find St. Petersburg, Oakland and Pittsburgh.

Right, because Pittsburgh is such a tiny city and Oakland isn't exactly small. But yeah Jay, are these cities even on a map?

Whether a championship is possible depends on those usual October variables: supreme pitching, experience in such moments and late-season hotness. Funny thing is, Tampa Bay has all three at the moment...In spite of such hardships, the Rays continue to look like a team that could beat anybody anywhere, advancing to the divisional round in Boston after winning two elimination games in three nights with typical airtight, Maddon-loose, pitching-and-fundamentals efficiency.

This is the same team that upon losing to the Red Sox is no longer worthy of Joe Maddon.

“Moneyball” became the norm for all franchises, small or large, but the Rays took shrewd front-office thinking to new and more consistent levels in recent years. While the A’s suffered through a lull period between the Brad Pitt era and their current run, Tampa Bay achieved something in 2008 that Beane has not — a World Series — and has continued to generate 90-win seasons while constantly dealing with low-budget constraints and hard-to-explain dumpings of star players. It’s astonishing that baseball boss Andrew Friedman, with basically no room for error, usually connects on every move, whether it’s something monumental like the James Shields-for-Wil Myers deal or seemingly trivial like the late-season pickup of Delmon Young, who ripped a big home run to help eliminate the Indians.

On October 3, the Rays were a well-run organization that dealt with budget constraints by continuing to win baseball games. Andrew Friedman connected on most moves and is probably one of the best GM's in baseball. It's funny how just six days later the Rays are no longer worthy of Maddon and he should go to a big city to prove he is a great manager, since the Rays suddenly don't deserve him. It's almost like Jay bases most of his criticism of the Rays on the outcome of the ALDS. What was once six days earlier a well-run organization that churned out 90-win seasons is now a cheap organization on the decline. Funny how sportswriters can base their conclusions all on the outcome of a five-game series.

People forget that Young, with Detroit, was MVP of the ALCS last autumn.

Jay apparently forgets that Young wasn't very good with the Phillies this year.

All of which is largely about the groovy vibe of Maddon, a master of positive reinforcement and gimmicks — you know about the penguins and snakes in the home clubhouse — intended to forge a fun atmosphere conducive to productive relaxation when October arrives. Oakland and Tampa Bay are mirror images in achieving the most with the fewest resources; at least The Trop has functional plumbing, unlike the deplorable Coliseum. On the flip side, Beane has just enough of a budget to chase a Cuban prodigy like Yoenis Cespedes; Tampa Bay doesn’t have the money to plunge into the global chase or buy major free agents.

But it's fun to cheer for the underdog, right? Well, as long as the underdog is winning of course. When the underdog loses, it's time to move Joe Maddon to a large market for him to prove what he has already proven in Tampa Bay.

Tell me: Why would anyone root for the Dodgers … or the Red Sox … or the there-every-year Cardinals … when you have three adorable overachievers?

That's a great point. Why would Joe Maddon leave to manage another team when he can manage a team full of adorable overachievers? Wait, we haven't gotten to the point where Jay bashes the Rays because the Rays haven't lost to the Red Sox yet.

Sounds like Tampa Bay. Sounds like Pittsburgh.

Sounds like the adorable kind of cause America should embrace this autumn, right?

Until the Rays lose, at which point fuck them, and they don't deserve to have Joe Maddon as their manager.

That is Jay's argument on October 9 at least. 

My wish for Joe Maddon is simple, a lot simpler than he is. I want him to end this quirky run as baseball’s groovy hipster skipper — you know, ditch the black glasses and unorthodox strategies and even the ’56 Chevy Bel-Air — and find a conventional baseball team to manage far, far away from downtown St. Petersburg, Fla.

Adorable overachievers these Rays are no more. Now they are cheapskates who are holding their manager back from achieving the only thing that determines whether a baseball manager is truly good at his job or not, which is managing a team that plays in a large market with access to plenty of money.

That team will have money, resources, fans, a real ballpark.

Isn't it interesting how Andrew Friedman has gone from a guy who connects on every move (and helped the Rays make the playoffs four out of the last six years, which isn't something very many MLB teams can claim) to a guy presiding over a team with no resources or money? The script gets flipped when Jay sees a negative outcome, doesn't it?

I do agree with the Rays needing a real ballpark. Other than that, there's no guarantee Maddon would do better with a team that has more money and resources.

That team will not have a 20-foot python and penguins in the clubhouse, a 10,000-gallon fish tank with live cownose rays, and stadium catwalks that are in play if a ball strikes one.

If Joe Maddon is the manager then the team will have a 20-foot python and penguins in the clubhouse. That's the kind of manager that Joe Maddon is. I think the fish tank with the rays is kind of a neat thing for the Rays to have in order for kids to come to the game and have something to do should they get bored. After all, if the Rays are going to have such a crappy ballpark they may as well have something no other ballpark can claim to have...and the stadium catwalk which comes into play on pop-ups doesn't count.

It’s the only way Maddon will be perceived nationally as what he truly is — a wonderful manager and all-demographics ambassador of a sport that needs fun, smart characters —

Maybe for Jay Mariotti this is a true statement, but he doesn't speak for baseball fans everywhere (I shudder at the thought of Jay Mariotti speaking for anyone but himself). Maddon doesn't need to play for a team with money and resources to be recognized as one of the best managers in baseball. In fact, what he has done with the limited payroll and resources the Rays have only exemplifies how he is the best manager in baseball. Give Maddon more resources and money for players and his success as a manager can be waved away by saying he is expected to win baseball games with a $125 million payroll. Maddon's quirkiness isn't going away and what makes him a great manager would be diminished by giving him a larger payroll and higher expectations. 90-win seasons would be expected from him.

The man has taken this adorable little puppy about as far he possibly can, and after yet another divisional-round elimination, it’s now been five years since the Rays played in their one and only World Series.

My God! Five whole years! No wonder Dusty Baker got fired by the Reds. He hadn't managed them into the World Series the entire time he was there. Five years of not representing the American League in the World Series is far too long. Mike Scioscia and Ron Gardenhire should be fired too. I'm shocked the Braves didn't fire Bobby Cox in 2004 and allow him to find a job with another team in a larger market with a higher payroll after the Braves failed to make the World Series for the FIFTH STRAIGHT year. It's unheard of for a manager to stick around after such a long history of failure. Free Joe Maddon and let him go to another team where his success as a manager can be chalked up to the payroll and resources his team has, rather than attributed to Maddon's skill as a manager in helping a lower payroll team make the playoffs four of six seasons.

One large reason for that consistent overachievement is Maddon, but after awhile, even he must wonder how he’d fare with a Boston payroll, a San Francisco ballpark, a Mike Trout in the lineup.

Because we all know from the 2012 Miami Marlins Experience the higher the payroll, the nicer the ballpark and the more talented the roster then the better that team will perform on the field, right? Money can buy a team's success if the right players are getting paid the money (ahem, the Dodgers), but it also may not mean jackshit if the highly paid players don't perform on the field.

His latest October setback was a 3-1 loss to the Red Sox, who advance to the American League championship series, that can be viewed as either a chess match or a farce. Understandably showing little faith in Game 4 starter Jeremy Hellickson, whose talents are overwhelmed by his erratic streaks, Maddon yanked him at his first sign of trouble in the second inning — four-pitch walks of David Ortiz and Mike Napoli and a single by Daniel Nava.

This was a move that completely worked by the way. It sucks to lose a starter so quickly, but it got the Rays out of trouble in the first inning with no runs scored. The bottom line is that the postseason is a crapshoot at times. Managers can do some things to help his team win or do some things to help his team lose. The fact the Rays lost AGAIN in the playoffs doesn't mean Maddon has maxed out his ability as the Rays manager and should immediately go find a team with a higher payroll to manage. The Rays are good at finding young talent and maximizing that talent until it becomes expensive and then allows other teams to overpay for these players (see: Crawford, Carl or Upton, B.J.). There's always a chance the Rays will make another World Series. Going to a different team doesn't mean Maddon's genius will be even more recognized.

But this led to a calvalcade of relievers who performed well until the inevitable crash — Joel Peralta’s wild pitch in a two-run Boston seventh and Fernando Rodney’s latest failue in the ninth. In the end, the Rays simply don’t have the offense to mash the Boston mashers, and consider it a byproduct of having only a $62 million payroll.

It's also a byproduct of Jake Peavy pitching 5.2 innings of five-hit ball and the Red Sox getting 3.1 innings of one-hit ball from their bullpen. But yeah, it was mostly the Rays payroll that was the issue, not the Red Sox stellar pitching. Great analysis, Jay.

You can scratch out only so many victories before bigger lumber prevails.

I'm not sure what this even means. How do we know which team has "bigger lumber" until the game is over? So a team can scratch out victories until they lose the series? Great point.

Wild improvisation doesn’t win championships.

You mean putting Max Scherzer in the game with the bases loaded and no outs and having him get out of a jam is a bad idea? Tell Jim Leyland that. How about having Kirk Gibson come off the bench to bat in Game 1 of the World Series even though he can't run? That's a bad idea? The point was to win Game 4 so the Rays could force a Game 5. Maddon's improvisation and use of his relievers almost did work. It wasn't his wild improvisation that lost the game for the Rays, it was the Red Sox pitching which didn't allow the Rays to score that sealed the ALDS for Boston. I believe no matter which team with however large of a payroll that Maddon was managing he would have made a similar move. His starting pitcher was struggling and he had to make a move to give his team a chance to win the game and minimize the damage in the first inning.

The norm still applies — a quality start, an effective relief performance, a closer with the lockdown — and Boston’s Jake Peavy, Craig Breslow and Koji Uehara were better than Maddon’s nine-man roll call.

Well yes, getting a quality start from your starting pitcher followed by relievers giving up 1 hit over 3.1 innings is always a nice and preferred strategy. When the Rays starting pitcher loads the bases with no outs in an elimination game though, it's time to start thinking of different types of strategies. That's what Joe Maddon did and having him go manage a different MLB team would not stop him from improvising from time-to-time. He may just improvise with higher paid players, which wouldn't guarantee he would have greater success in his improvisation.

Crazier still, David Price was warming in the bullpen for a 10th-inning stint in case the Rays rallied. Other than Raymond, the team mascot, just who was going to be left to start Game 5?

Theoretically Jeremy Hellickson could have started Game 5. Or maybe Craig Kimbrel could have started since he's so well-rested. The Braves aren't planning on using him anytime soon in an elimination game, so maybe they will loan him to the Rays so he could pitch a couple of innings for them.

Jay is tying in the Rays lack of quality pitching in the ALDS into why Maddon needs to be released from the binding chains that is the Rays organization, but there is no guarantee Maddon would have better luck or better pitching if he went to work for a different organization. There were teams with high payrolls that didn't make the playoffs and didn't have good team ERA's this year, including Philadelphia, Toronto, the Los Angeles Angels, New York Yankees, and the Texas Rangers.

It's just silly to tie in Joe Maddon's improvisational tendencies to him managing a smaller market, lower payroll team. Possibly Maddon's managerial style fits better with a lower payroll team than it would with a higher payroll team. I'm not sure why all of a sudden the Rays are a team who will only have limited success and Maddon needs to go to another MLB team to achieve his potential as a manager. Again, much of what makes Maddon great is what he does with the limited resources the Rays have.

The topic is moot. The Rays have been beaten, again.

Yes, but they made the playoffs, again. For the fourth time in six years. This isn't something many MLB teams can state they have done over the last decade.

Though it appears Mike Scioscia and Jerry Dipoto will remain as that franchise’s manager and general manager, the two have had disagreements and likely will have a short shelf life together.

And really, wasn't the entire problem with the Angels this year the lack of a good manager and not the underperformance of expensive free agents like Albert Pujols and Josh Hamilton, as well as a pitching staff that was 24th in ERA, 26th in batting average against, 14th in quality starts and 24th in OPS against? It's just bad managing on Mike Scioscia's part obviously that causes Hamilton, Pujols and the pitching staff to struggle.

That could open a managerial job for Maddon if, say, Scioscia moves upstairs as GM.

Because anytime there is a disagreement between the manager and general manager of a team, it is common for ownership to choose a side and then give the winner of the disagreement the organizational position of the loser in the disagreement? I imagine Scioscia would keep Dipoto's head on a stick outside his office as a reminder that he not only won the disagreement, but took Dipoto's organizational position.

Even if the Angels ownership or upper management picks a side, are they going to give Scioscia Dipoto's job as GM or are they going to simply hire a new GM that fits with Scioscia's philosophy as a manager? Why would the Angels move a manager they clearly like out of his job into a position that he has no experience in? Just to hire Joe Maddon? I'm not sure that makes sense.

Imagine managing a team with 40,000 in the stands every night, a $165 million payroll, a lineup with Trout and Albert Pujols and a wayward soul named Josh Hamilton who could use faith-healing.

I imagine Maddon wouldn't be looked so kindly upon because the media would thrust unrealistic expectations upon him. I also imagine Joe Maddon can't magically make Albert Pujols or Josh Hamilton a better hitter. Yes, Maddon would have more resources to work with if he managed the Angels, but why does he have to go to Los Angeles to prove himself as a manager? I don't understand why Maddon deserves a team with a higher payroll and more resources, as if this is a gift and not a burden of heightened expectations.

He wouldn’t have to be the Maddon Scientist anymore. 

But he may choose to still be the Maddon Scientist. That very well could be Joe Maddon's managerial style. So he would still bring animals into the locker room and make improvisational pitching changes, but just do it with a team that has a higher payroll. More importantly, why is it that Jay wants the Rays to win the World Series while painting them as the organization-that-could, then six days later state the Rays have hit their ceiling and are now an organization-that-never-will? There's nothing like a knee jerk reaction to a playoff loss. 

My wish for Joe Maddon is simple, a lot simpler than he is. I want him to end this quirky run as baseball’s groovy hipster skipper — you know, ditch the black glasses and unorthodox strategies and even the ’56 Chevy Bel-Air — and find a conventional baseball team to manage far, far away from downtown St. Petersburg, Fla.
Read more at http://www.sportstalkflorida.com/maddon-scientist-deserves-bigger-better-job/#w3vVLqZG61LIsIZ2.99

Being smart on a limited budget is way cooler these days than being stupid with $236.9 million.
Read more at http://www.sportstalkflorida.com/heres-hoping-little-guys-win-big-trophy/#VE8G4XxeKVuZqYMQ.99

Being smart on a limited budget is way cooler these days than being stupid with $236.9 million.
Read more at http://www.sportstalkflorida.com/heres-hoping-little-guys-win-big-trophy/#TthsgZOttAiAVJsz.99

Being smart on a limited budget is way cooler these days than being stupid with $236.9 million.
Read more at http://www.sportstalkflorida.com/heres-hoping-little-guys-win-big-trophy/#TthsgZOttAiAVJsz.99

Being smart on a limited budget is way cooler these days than being stupid with $236.9 million.
Read more at http://www.sportstalkflorida.com/heres-hoping-little-guys-win-big-trophy/#TthsgZOttAiAVJsz.99

7 comments Rick Reilly Basks in the Glory of a Reaction to His Washington Redskins Column

I didn't cover the Rick Reilly column about the Redskins here, mostly because it had been covered other places and it was so bad. Sometimes an article is just so blatantly awful I don't cover it here. Rick's justification for keeping the Redskins name was basically "I have a family member who is a Native American and he isn't offended, plus I know other people who live on a reservation and aren't offended." I don't really care if the Redskins change their name or not. I use the term "Redskins" mostly because that's the team name right now and I don't feel like being cutesy and giving them a different name like I'm making some political statement.

So Rick Reilly goes through his mailbag and reacts to his readers reacting to his column. Both Rick and (not shockingly) some of those who write in show a sufficient display of dumbassery in discussing this topic. I think Rick did what many sportswriters do on Twitter, which is pick out the most ignorant response during a discussion to refute, because choosing the lowest hanging fruit makes your opponent seem less intelligent and your own point stronger. Because Rick is able to go through his mailbag and publishes the responses he wants to publish, he's going to pick the opposing arguments that he can best refute. Rick has a point of view and he's simply not going to publish an email written to him that makes an excellent point he can't refute.

My inbox flowed red this week after my column on the flap over the Washington Redskins name. You’d have thought I shot a boxful of kittens.

Or defended a term that some people consider to be at best racist and at worst very disrespectful towards Native Americans.

Some thought I should be fired. Some thought I should be elected. Some called me racist. Some thanked me for honoring a race. 

Some thought writing the column was a good way to get attention so that Rick can feel relevant again. Rick's supposed basic point in the column, which he repeats a few times in this mailbag, was that a bunch of white people should not be able to decide whether "Redskins" is offensive or not. Of course while saying a bunch of white people shouldn't decide, Rick also came to the conclusion some Native Americans didn't find the term offensive and seemed to argue in favor of keeping "Redskins" as the name of the Washington NFL franchise. Rick doesn't see it that way of course. He was just a white guy giving a voice to those who he believed couldn't stand up for themselves. This is ironic because he accuses those who want to change the Redskins name of speaking for Native Americans and states these Native Americans can speak for themselves. Well, apparently those who don't oppose the Redskins name change can't speak for themselves.

Three reservation high schools I spoke with, in fact, use “Redskins” as their team name and wear it with pride.

These are reservations who are choosing to have the name "Redskins" used. They are not an NFL team whose fans dress up like pigs or wear headdresses and most of the fans and players around this team have nothing to do with the term "Redskins."

I’ve even felt strongly both ways. In 1991, for Sports Illustrated, I wrote that it was time to change the name. But in the 22 years since, I’ve grown to understand that it’s not up to me.

What really happened is that after he posted the column Rick remembered or found out on the Internet that he had already written a column in favor of changing the Redskins name. He thought, "Shit, how am I going to talk myself out of this one," and then proceeded to make the feeble excuse that he wants the name to come to a vote only among Native Americans. Yeah, that's what he was saying, despite the fact not once in his original column did he specifically state it should be up to Native Americans to decide on whether to change the name or not. The whole intent of his column just wasn't mentioned in the column, that's all. The closest Rick came was saying this:

Too late. White America has spoken. You aren't offended, so we'll be offended for you.

That's it. Then after Rick realizes he wrote a column 22 years ago that stated the exact opposite of what he wrote in 2013 he states he was just pointing out the name change shouldn't be up to him, but to Native Americans. Nevermind he never actually said those words in the original column.

It should be an issue decided by Native Americans, not this sudden wave of almost entirely white, politically correct sports writers.

That's not what the column said. I've read it five times. It states some Native Americans aren't offended so changing the Redskins name isn't necessarily offensive to Native Americans. That's the essential hypothesis and point of view of the column. Rick even finds Native Americans who aren't offended by the Redskins name as support for his point of view that the name isn't offensive to all Native Americans. If the column was about a vote or urging Native Americans to chime in on the issue, why didn't he actually suggest this? If giving pro-Redskins Native Americans a forum was the intent, then why not allow a pro-Redskins person to write the column or have a pro-Redskins and anti-Redskins person write columns arguing their side of the issue? This was a case of a white sportswriter wanting to affect the debate, which is what he accuses other white sportswriters of doing.

For some of you, if even one person is insulted, that’s enough to dump it. For others, it’s a non-issue that only smokescreens so many real problems Native Americans have.

For others, it is just a nickname that might be offensive and could be changed.

I know one thing, though. The larger the social media tsunami grows, the easier it comes for people to react easily and quickly, the more I notice a backlash against any stance that doesn’t fit the Consensus Opinion.

I love how Rick is hiding behind the "I don't fit with the mainstream and that's why you didn't like my column" excuse for why his column received such negative reactions. He chooses not to focus on whether his opinion was poorly supported and half-assed. "My father-in-law and is a Native American and doesn't mind the name. Case closed. Want to hear a joke about dentists?"

The whole "I don't fit with the Consensus Opinion" excuse is a good way to blame the reaction of others to an insensitive column a person may write. If I were a sportswriter writing a column about the NBA and stated "LeBron James looks like a monkey when he dunks the ball," then I could hide behind the fact my offensive sentence just isn't part of the Consensus Opinion and that's why you don't like it.

It shows how out of touch Rick is that he thinks the backlash against the column was simply because his view didn't fit in with the opinion of (what he perceives to be) the majority.

Is that what you want from your sports columnists, someone to simply parrot what the cool kids are saying? Because that will never be me. 

Probably because Rick Reilly doesn't know any cool kids to parrot. Also, if he considers himself a sports columnist then he is wrong. He is a writer who tangentially writes about sports.

Then Rick starts printing the emails he received about the column:

Thank you for standing up for the right of white people to call native Americans “redskins.” I mean, African-Americans call each other the N-word, so why would anyone object if an NBA team called itself the N's?

Yeah Rick, thanks for standing up for those white people who not-so-secretly want to use racial slurs without any type of retribution.

I mean, in the 1930s there was a colorful term for every ethnic group. But there certainly was no prejudice; it was just good clean fun.

Yeah, it was just good clean fun with no prejudice. What ever happened to the "colorful" terms for every ethnic group? This kraut writing the email, Eric Schenk (whose name is of German descent), wants to know because he's a boche who hates political correctness.

Thank you, Rick Reilly for standing up for the right to call any group any name you want as long as there are some members of the group who don’t mind.
– Eric Schenk (Mill Valley, Calif.) 

Thank you for standing up for racism and hatred. Find one black guy who doesn't mind offensive slang and just start spewing hatred, because it's all right, there's a black guy who doesn't mind. Besides, it's not fair other races get to be racist and Eric from California doesn't. Rick, these are the type of people who support your column. You may need to reconsider your position.

Well played, sir.

Really Rick? "Well played?" I'm not politically correct, but I'm not sure bemoaning you can't use racial slurs and saying there was no prejudice in the 1930's is "well played," it's ignorance.

Just because a few groups DON’T find Redskins offensive doesn’t mean we ignore the groups that DO.
– Shawn (Los Angeles)

Exactly. The fact Rick can find Native Americans who don't find the term offensive doesn't mean it isn't offensive. My father always taught me that if I'm not sure something is offensive then think how I would feel if everyone heard what I was saying. At this point, saying Redskins in public isn't offensive, so I would have no problem using the term. On the other hand, I will not do this:

Would you feel comfortable going up to someone of Native American descent and asking them, “Hey, are you a redskin?”
-Michael (Tuscon, Arizona)

I probably wouldn't do this, but of course I don't use the word "Redskin" for anything except to talk about the NFL team in Washington.

That’s just the point. “Redskins” is not a word that comes up on reservations, according to the people I interviewed. They only hear it as part of their own schools’ teams or the NFL team in Washington.

So because a lot of people don't know what the word means then we should keep using it? Fine, then the word isn't inherently offensive to Native Americans, but if some people don't know what the word means then what's the point of having a sports franchise named after that word? They could just be the Washington Sidurskis and we could call it a day.

It only symbolizes their teams and the pride they feel in their school.

How do they take pride in a word they don't know what it means and don't hear often?

To take that away just because a few find it offensive? I’m not convinced that’s fair.

Maybe it's not fair, but Rick is failing on all counts here. He's saying the word doesn't come up on reservations and has no meaning outside of sports, but it's unfair to take away the word because it symbolizes their teams and the pride they feel in school. It confuses me. It's not the word that symbolizes the pride, it's the word's connotation with their sports team, so calling the sports team "Cockaroos" would also symbolize pride.

You do realize that in arguing that “we” (whites?) shouldn’t make father-knows-best decisions on behalf of all Native Americans, and leave "Redskins" alone, you’re kind of speaking on behalf of all Native Americans?
- Matt (Tuckahoe, N.Y.)

Read the piece again. Nowhere in it did I say don’t change the name.

No, but you did attempt to state the word "Redskins" isn't offensive because your father-in-law doesn't think it is offensive. That's kind of stupid. Rick's piece also didn't state that it should be up to Native Americans on whether to change the name or not and he claims that was the entire point of the column. So clearly, Rick felt his readers need to reach certain conclusions based on what he was writing. I took the piece to mean "Maybe we shouldn't change the name" since it was mostly a pro-"Keep the Redskins Name" piece. Call me crazy.

Nowhere did I say “leave Redskins alone.” I’d be all for changing the name if the majority of Native Americans believed it was a slur.

Here's the catch...nowhere in the piece did Rick actually state this. It's what Rick wants to state in retrospect, but he didn't state in the piece. So his "I didn't write that in the piece" excuse fails for me because his entire claimed purpose for the column wasn't actually stated in the column.

Then Rick includes an email from Tom Friend, who is white and a contributor to ESPN. Rick doesn't think white people should decide the name of the Washington NFL team, but he sure doesn't mind getting the point of view of white people does he? It's interesting how Rick doesn't think the opinion of white sportswriters count unless that white sportswriter agrees with him.

This is exactly what I was thinking of writing. Thank you, Rick Reilly, for beating me to it. Couldn’t agree more. As someone who grew up at RFK Stadium, not one time have Redskins fans disrespected American Indians. They do not tomahawk chop like Atlanta Braves fans.

I tend to refrain from the Tomahawk Chop. I enjoy it when others do it, but I refrain because I think it makes me look silly.

The Redskins make no mockery of American Indians. Their fans sing only: “Hail To the Redskins.” Their emblem is one of honor. It is, in fact, almost identical to what is on the side of an Indian Head nickel -- which was a collector’s item when I was a boy.

I'm guessing Tom Friend was a boy back when every ethnic group had its own nickname and the racial slurs and segregation were all in good fun. And of course anything that is a collector's item can't be racist or in bad taste.

If there are high school teams on Indian reservations that go by the name “Redskins,” then why can’t the team in D.C.?
-Tom Friend (ESPN the Magazine, via Facebook)

Also notice how Rick made it very, very clear a colleague of his agreed with him. The more important the person, the more influential the opinion, right?

That final line -- “Kind of like a reservation” -- seems to have either infuriated people or delighted them. A lot of readers said it was insulting to Native Americans. Some said it opened their eyes to a new way to look at the problem. One blogger wrote that it was “a fireable offense.” Oh, please. Largely white media deciding what’s best for Native Americans, putting up verbal borders to “protect” them, as though they can’t stand up for themselves, has a scent of it, which is all I alluded to.

I can agree with this. Native Americans have stood up for themselves, which I'm guessing is just a point that Rick wants to continue to ignore. 

It's not like Native American groups haven't protested against the use of the Redskins name. I guess these people don't count because Rick doesn't want them to count. He is acting like no Native American tribe nor organization has found issues with the "Redskins" team name. I do like the irony of Rick railing against largely white media deciding what is best for Native Americans by writing a column as a white media member to stand up for the Native Americans who don't mind the team name "Redskins." I guess Rick feels the Native Americans who agree with him can't stand up for themselves.

(1) How many natives would need to be offended by the name before you thought the name was offensive enough to change? (2) Why is it so important to you that the name remains the same?
-Maggie Lindstrom (Seattle)

2) Not important to me at all. I don’t think I should have a say. Your first question is what’s important to me. Answer: I’d want to see more Native American voices calling for a change before I’m convinced. Now, I only hear a few.

"A few more" Native American voices need to call for change. Thanks for being so specific, Rick.

Not to mention, only a few Native Americans have stated they don't mind the name. Maybe there should be a vote among Native Americans just like Rick (didn't) explicitly state should happen in his original column.

Finally a journalist in a profession of “sheeple.” Glad to see there’s still a man in your profession. PC wuss country we live in, drives me nuts.
- Brad (Odenton, Md.) 

Now drop down and give me 50 pushups!

Your argument that some Natives have accepted the name and made it their own is flawed, because it still does not mean that this name is not offensive. Being a tribal member from the Chippewa Cree tribe in Rocky Boy, I take offense to the name. I have been to a Washington game and that was the last time I will ever set foot on their corporate land. The things I saw at the stadium and surrounding community are extremely demeaning to Native Americans. Having people play “dress up” with replicas of sacred cultural items is insulting and it gives our children a cartoon version of who we are. I know it’s my job to teach my children right from wrong, but for this garbage to be allowed in our country is embarrassing. The people you interviewed are not representatives of all Native Americans, and your presentation of such is one-sided. I hope you don’t ever have to sit down with your child and explain why other people are playing dress up with what your people consider respected aspects of your culture. Then you can tell your child, “Nothing’s wrong, because those people say they’re honoring us. 
– Zane Rosette (Rocky Boy, Mont.)
 

This is the best argument to get rid of the name — all the offending costumery and store-bought face paint and Halloween headdresses that go with it. More than the name itself, the Native Americans I spoke with were most offended by the inconsiderate fan hoopla that rides shotgun with it.

Oh, so it is the fault of the fans that the name "Redskins" is offensive? I get it. Blame the fans, because we all know if the Washington NFL team was called the "Boa Constrictors" then the fans would all show up in headdresses and paint their face like an Indian still, right? It could never be the name of the team that causes idiot fans to dress up like this could it? Never...

I have zero doubt the Redskins will change the name sooner or later. This idea that “It just SOUNDS like an insult,” right or wrong, is not going to go away.

The history of the word seems kind of insulting in some ways as well.

And also, if something sounds like an insult then it probably is an insult. After all, an insult is a word used that a person could take offense to. It's how the word is taken by the listener. Does calling the Indian soccer team "a bunch of cute little meerkats" sound like an insult? Probably not, but neither does saying the Chinese soccer team are "just some really tough red pandas." It doesn't sound like an insult, but it's how the listener takes the comment that determines if it is an insult or not. 

I get that, but why is the pressure only on the Redskins to change? Why not your stomach-turning Braves, the Cleveland Indians, and Florida State Seminoles, whose foam tomahawk chant is purely Hollywood and has no origin in Native culture.

The Braves have mostly quit using the imagery of an American Indian, while the "Indians" isn't an offensive name, and the "Seminoles" is the name of an Indian tribe. I'm not saying the actions of these teams like the Tomahawk Chop, Chief Wahoo, and the guy dressed like a Native American who plants a spear at midfield have anything to do with Native culture, but the name of the teams isn't considered to be an inherently offensive word. 

 Who thought of the name doesn’t matter.

It does matter to an extent. If a billionaire owner calls his team the "Redskins" then this is different from a team on a reservation calling themselves the "Redskins." I don't know why, but it feels different. 

What matters is how many Native Americans feel they’re being insulted. A few? Maybe it’s not worth changing. A lot? Get rid of it.

Or we could just ask Rick's father-in-law what he thinks and then let him decide for us. That's close to what Rick did in his original column. 

If there were no teams that had ever been named Indians, Redskins, Seminoles, etc., but many named Cowboys, would the PC crowd today be demanding that every sports league add a Native American team name in the pursuit of equity? I’m just wondering.

-  John Costacos (Seattle)

Again, these are the people who 100% agree with you Rick.  

I wish this article would get National attention! Redskin fans needed to read something like this and it’s nice to finally have a person in the “media” report the facts instead of creating them. … Well Done! 

- Victor Corado (Manassas, Va.)

This is either a beautifully carved “insult” or you somehow think ESPN has an office in every city.

Why would this be an insult, Rick? He's complimenting you and it doesn't SOUND like an insult, so it must not be an insult, right? 

I don't find the word "Redskins" offensive, but I'm also not the type of person who would get offended by that word. One thing remains clear, Rick wrote a column where he searched out people who agreed with his point of view and blatantly ignored there are Native Americans who opposed his point of view. It's interesting Rick tells us that white people shouldn't be able to decide whether to get rid of the Redskins name or not nor feel free to speak for those who oppose the use of the name "Redskins" when he takes it upon himself to speak for those who don't oppose the use of the name. 

One thing is clear. Rick Reilly is still terrible.  

6 comments Bill Plaschke is Not Impressed by the Lakers and I'm Not Impressed by Bill Plaschke

So the Lakers qualified for the NBA playoffs. Good for them to rebound from the rough start, the injury to Kobe and all the other useless drama that surrounded the team to make the playoffs. Bill Plaschke doesn't see it this way of course. He is not impressed at all by the Lakers. This isn't news though. There is nothing the Lakers could have done to impress Bill Plaschke after starting they started this year off slowly. This is the great benefit of being a sportswriter and being able to hate on the teams you cover. You aren't forced to have some perspective. Once the Lakers started the year off badly, they were in a no-win situation from that point on. If they made the playoffs, then they should have made the playoffs anyway, and if they didn't make the playoffs then they are a disappointment for not making the playoffs. There's no perspective. The Lakers won five straight games and went 8-2 over their last 10 games to make the playoffs. They have lost 8 games since February 14. Sure, they aren't where they were expected to be in terms of seeding in the Western Conference and making the playoffs isn't a premier achievement in the history of the franchise, but I find it somewhat impressive they found their way into the playoffs after their bad start. Bill sees it differently and will not allow Lakers fans to enjoy the continuation of their team's season.

Yay?
 
One of the most hyped teams in NBA history fell exhaustedly into the playoffs Wednesday.

I'm not inclined to agree with Kobe Bryant, especially when the Lakers no longer have Kobe Bryant available for the playoffs, but once they make the playoffs then all bets are off. All that matters after this disastrous season is that the Lakers are in the playoffs. Kobe said the Lakers would make the playoffs and they did.

Fittingly, it was clinched when they were just standing around.

The Lakers also won the game they were playing in overtime, which would have clinched their spot in the playoffs even if the Jazz had won. But what good are facts that may hurt the argument Bill is trying to make?

Ten minutes before the start of their game with the Houston Rockets, the Lakers learned that the Utah Jazz had lost in Memphis, meaning the Lakers were guaranteed the Western Conference's final playoff spot.

Then the Lakers went out and won in overtime anyway. Bill may not be impressed, but this does say something positive about this Lakers team. Also, the Lakers were able to clinch a playoff berth last mostly because they played last on Wednesday evening and they didn't clinch the final Western Conference spot because they are the 7th seed.

Their ticket was punched by the image of Al Jefferson with his face buried in his hands.

Their ticket was also punched by beating the Rockets in overtime. Don't forget this because it is convenient for you to forget this.

Only one person seemed immediately and genuinely excited. You can probably guess.
"And to think some said we wouldn't make it," tweeted Kobe Bryant, who added the hashtags #keepcalm, #believe, #makeplayoffs, and #makehistory.

Kobe Bryant was cheering on his team while sidelined with a possible career-ending injury. What a selfish asshole. I'm sure Bill Simmons would have a "6 for 24" joke to use at this point in the column.

This matchup was set later Wednesday when, needing a victory to avoid the more difficult Oklahoma City Thunder, the Lakers made just enough plays to beat the younger and jittery Rockets, 99-95, in overtime.

I love how Plaschke frames this. He doesn't frame it as the Lakers having achieved anything in beating the Rockets and securing the 7th seed in the Western Conference. They don't get credit for still putting forth effort once their playoff berth was secured. No, the Lakers barely beat the Rockets and avoided playing a Thunder team that would have wiped the floor with them (of course the Thunder are the #1 seed in the Western Conference so they should theoretically beat any Western Conference team in the playoffs), so the Lakers barely avoided getting easily beaten in the playoffs by beating the Rockets. This is framed as something that was unimpressive.

The Lakers then survived the overtime with great defense, leading to one of the oddest reactions to one of the oddest proud announcements in Lakers history.

"The Lakers are the seventh seed in the Western Conference playoffs," intoned public-address announcer Lawrence Tanter, and the crowd roared, and, well, really?

Yes, really. The Lakers played well enough over the last two months of the season to avoid the Thunder and give themselves a fighting chance to win a playoff series. Only bitter angry sportswriters wouldn't be able to find a way to take some measure of excitement and pride in this. Lakers fans were happy to have made the playoffs after the team's struggles beginning the season.

Bryant was earlier Twitter gloating because he predicted a playoff berth long before he suffered his season-ending Achilles' tendon tear, but, really, should a prediction have even been necessary?

At the beginning of the season, no, a prediction should not have been necessary. Circumstances change and there were people burying the Lakers, yet Bryant insisted they would still make the playoffs and they did. There were plenty of people suggesting the Lakers would miss the playoffs and Kobe was simply promising this would not happen.

In the summer they added future Hall of Famers Dwight Howard and Steve Nash to a team that already had Bryant and Pau Gasol. It was one of the greatest rosters eve assembled.

Well, I'm not sure "Eve" assembled the team, but it was supposed to be a very good team. Howard didn't mesh well with Gasol, Mike Brown got fired, Mike D'Antoni was hired and Nash got injured at the beginning of the season, so chaos reigned for a while and the Lakers lost games. At that point, the postseason was in question.

Then the late great owner Jerry Buss' prostate cancer worsened, and the Lakers' impatience became panic, and Coach Mike Brown was fired after just five games.

I'm not a Lakers fan. In fact, I hate the Lakers. I don't like being nice to them, but I feel like I have to be at this point. They still made the playoffs after enduring a lot of change and chaos. Sure, they are a talented team, but it would have been very easy for this season to have completely gotten away from the Lakers and end up with a losing record.

With Jim Buss using his ego instead of brains, Phil Jackson was snubbed and Mike D'Antoni was hired, thus creating a match made in seventh place.

Again, notice how Bill Plaschke frames this. He is still seeing a 7th seed as a bad thing, despite listing all the things that went wrong for the Lakers this season. It's not "D'Antoni managed to get the Lakers the 7th seed in the Western Conference," but the Lakers failed by only getting a 7th seed after all the issues at the beginning of the season.

D'Antoni wanted to run, yet the Lakers were too big and creaky to run. D'Antoni didn't preach defense, and the Lakers used that excuse to ignore it.
Would the greatest coach in NBA history have figured out a better way? Wouldn't you have liked to see Jackson get a chance?

So basically Plaschke is throwing a shit-fit and refusing to give the Lakers any credit because Phil Jackson didn't get hired to be the head coach and Mike D'Antoni did get hired to be the head coach. I have a feeling if Phil Jackson had overseen the Lakers getting the 7th seed in the Western Conference then Plaschke would have written about everything the Lakers had to go through during the season, but the Great and Powerful Phil Jackson still managed to squeak a very dangerous Lakers team into the playoffs.

Despite a brilliant resurgence by Bryant, the most memorable Staples Center chant was, "We want Phil." 

And as I always like to say, "If you don't make personnel decisions based entirely on what the fans want, then don't expect your team to succeed. After all, the fans are always right."

Despite the eventual healing of Howard's back, his most compelling moments were when he complained about not having enough touches.

I guess the Lakers aren't going to get any credit for trading Bynum (who sat out this entire year) for Howard? Granted, the trade didn't work out exactly like the Lakers wanted it to, but having Howard was better than having Bynum during the 12-13 season.

The only reason Bill Plaschke finds Howard's complaining to be compelling is because it gave Plaschke some drama that he could write about in his columns. Sportswriters like Plaschke don't care about the games, they only care about the drama surrounding the games. It makes it so much easier to write when you don't have to do any type of analysis and can just rip a player you don't like apart.

D'Antoni decided that Gasol couldn't play at the same time as Howard. Then D'Antoni decided that he could.

And of course Phil Jackson would be given credit by Bill Plaschke for experimenting with different lineups and then admitting when he was wrong. Mike D'Antoni's lineup experimentation and eventually settling on Gasol and Howard playing together shows just how clueless he is though.

Nash was hurt for so long, his return was anticipated as if he was a sort of savior. Except when he played, he was so lost in this aimless and confused offense, you hardly knew he was there.

AND YET THE LAKERS STILL MADE THE PLAYOFFS AS THE 7TH SEED! You can't rag on the Lakers for being so terrible all year and having bad chemistry, then act like it isn't impressive when the Lakers make the playoffs.

Bryant played so many minutes in attempting to drag this team out of the muck, his body finally broke in the final moments of a game last week.

This is a terrible use of hyperbole. Bryant's body didn't break under the weight of dragging the team out of the muck. He played a ton of minutes down the stretch and he had an injury that knocked him out for the rest of the season. Go less hyperbolic, please. And of course if Phil Jackson was the Lakers head coach then Kobe Bryant would never have gotten injured.

Just ask Steve Blake. Back in the fall, Blake was fined for yelling back at a prominent but heckling season-ticket holder. On Wednesday, Blake was the toast of the building with his Lakers career-high 24 points and the clinching free throws.

If Phil Jackson hired as head coach then Blake would have scored a career high 44 points.

It's Blake's team now. It's Howard's team. It's Gasol's team. It's not yet, however, destiny's team, 

Here's the part where Bill Plaschke starts hedging. He's spent this entire column bashing the Lakers for barely making the playoffs and saying this accomplishment isn't really that great of an accomplishment, even given the injury and personnel issues the team had this year. But...he also doesn't hate this Lakers team enough to write them off. So the Lakers suck and aren't a team of destiny, unless they are, but they probably aren't, but they could be.

unless destiny has one heck of a sense of humor.

And the Lakers definitely won't be a team of destiny if they just continue standing around like they did when they beat the Rockets in overtime to earn the 7th seed in the Western Conference. So Bill Plaschke in no way believes in the Lakers' ability to win a playoff series, doesn't believe in D'Antoni as a head coach and isn't impressed with their accomplishments, but he won't rule their ability to make a playoff run. Typical Plaschke. He's willing to bash a team, but not willing to be seen as wrong.

2 comments MMQB Review: Darrelle Revis Finally Got Traded Edition

In MMQB last week Peter King wondered why Major League Baseball gave the Minnesota Twins any home games during the first six weeks of the season when it is cold. After all, Major League Baseball can control the weather, right? Peter also marveled at the sportsmanship shown in golf, as well as forced a Brett Favre reference into the column. Brett Favre wanted us all to know he really liked the Dallas Cowboys growing up. What if Brett Favre was the quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys? How awesome would that have been for Cowboys fans to experience? It's like having more drama, but less Super Bowls. This week in MMQB, Peter discusses the Revis-to-Tampa Bay trade (hopefully this is the conclusion of his two month long obsession with Revis being traded), Peter is still talking about the John Elway trade to the Broncos from 30 years ago, he has four short travel notes and tries to get political...like always. Peter knows some people hate it when he gets political, but he's right in his own opinion, so you can't argue with him.

By Sunday morning, the Bucs and Jets had worked out the trade details for Darrelle Revis -- Tampa Bay's first-round pick in this draft and likely a third-rounder next year to New York. The Bucs had a contract done with Revis -- six years, $96 million, none of it guaranteed.

Finally Revis has gone to Tampa Bay. Maybe now Peter will stop talking about Revis possibly being traded every single week in MMQB. $96 million is a lot of money for a cornerback coming off major knee surgery, while also fully knowing Revis may want a new contract in 2-3 years anyway, but none of it is guaranteed so it is somewhat hard to argue against this contract. Well, other than the fact the Buccaneers gave a cornerback $96 million over six years.

"If the physical doesn't go right, we're sending him home,'' coach Greg Schiano told GM Mark Dominik Sunday morning. Both men agreed on that.

I can't believe the Tampa Bay doctors were not only able to check out Revis' knee and make sure he was making a good recovery, but they were also able to predict the future to know Revis will come back as the best cornerback in the NFL without any lingering effects from the ACL injury. What an amazing set of doctors they have. Snark aside, the physical isn't the issue here. The issue is how Revis plays once he comes back.

In that meeting, as Dominik told me Sunday night, "We decided there was not enough risk to not do it. At the end of the day, you trust your doctors to tell you as much as they can, but it's a decision really that came down to me and Greg. We had to be comfortable with the risk, and I can tell you we are.''

Exactly. Peter can try to frame this as a doctor's decision and a good sign the Bucs doctors gave approval, but it is a leap of faith to hope Revis is going to be the same cornerback he was before his injury. So while Revis could come back as good as ever, he may not come back as good as ever. Of course the Bucs didn't give him any guaranteed money, so that mitigates the risk a bit. My point, and I do have one, is this could be a great trade for the Bucs or the team that came in third place in the NFC South and has other needs could have traded a first round pick for a cornerback that may not work out. Time will tell.

"I'm all in,'' Revis told them. "I'm a Buccaneer.''

Said Dominik: "You could see how excited he was. The look in his eyes was, 'Coach, I will not let you down.' ''

He's all-in until he wants another new contract. Then he will start to work out on his own and passively-aggressively suggest he may also hold out of training camp.

There were three elements to The Trade That Had To Happen. The contract was a big one. The Bucs knew they were taking a huge leap of faith, paying the 13th pick in this year's draft (Revis was the 14th overall pick six years ago)

Peter must think the Jets did good for themselves in this trade since they got a better pick for Revis from the Bucs than they originally traded to draft Revis.

If Revis is a top corner, he'll get the money. If not, Tampa's out two good picks and Revis gets to make another deal elsewhere.

That sounds like a pretty good deal for the Bucs. As a fan of a team who traded away first round picks a couple of times and after seeing the Raiders over the last decade, I will say there is some risk in trading away a first round pick though.

And the physical was third. Important, but third. Once Revis passed it to Tampa's satisfaction, this was a done deal.

Peter needs to be more clear about this physical. The physical didn't say that Revis' knee was back in great shape, it said there appeared to be no issues at this point in the rehab. Revis passed the physical, which is good news, but passing the physical only means Revis and his knee are where they should be at this point in the rehab. Everything else after rehab ends remains to be seen.

Still, it's a stark reminder that the Jets are rebuilding, and it'd be a huge upset if that rebuilding job doesn't cost Rex Ryan his job. Ryan knows that; everyone does. Ryan craves great cornerbacks more than great quarterbacks,

If Rex Ryan craves great cornerbacks more than great quarterbacks then he probably deserves to lose his job. Only a crazy person would crave a great cornerback over a great quarterback. Great cornerbacks have a positive effect on the defense, but a great quarterback has a positive effect on the entire team. It's a lot easier to rebuild if you have the right quarterback, while having great corners doesn't help the rebuilding process move as quickly.

Then Peter reiterates yet again he wouldn't have traded Darrelle Revis. There is a reason Peter is a football writer and doesn't work for an NFL team.

I'd have gone to Revis with a simple proposal: Prove by October 1 your knee is fine, and we'll show you the money, and you'll be our franchise cornerstone, the greatest cornerback in the game in the greatest city in the world. But that's me. Woody Johnson had other ideas. And so, of course, did Idzik.

The stupidity of this decision would be unparalleled in my opinion. Say Revis isn't the same guy on October 1, then every other NFL team would know this and the compensation for Revis would not be a first round pick in the 2014 draft. If Revis is the same guy on October 1 as he was prior then Revis would have used this to get a $96 million contract with a lot of guaranteed money in it, as opposed to the non-guaranteed contract he agreed to with the Bucs. After all, he would have proven he is back, so the Jets have essentially committed to re-signing Revis and given up a lot of leverage in the process. Revis could name his price and if they couldn't come together on a contract, they couldn't franchise him after this season. Choosing this option would have been kicking the decision down the road, assuming they could even get him to agree to play in 2013 without a new contract. This is probably one of the worst decisions the Jets could have made to push the decision on Revis to October 1.

So Tampa Bay, which had the game's most generous secondary in 2012, will have Revis and Eric Wright at cornerback,

That's like saying dinner is going to be a 14 oz steak from Ruths Chris with a side of reheated microwavable mashed potatoes. 

ESPN has a terrific documentary Tuesday night about the 1983 draft, the one with six first-round quarterbacks, called Elway to Marino. It's still the most fascinating first round ever.

But not the craziest first round ever. Last year's draft was the craziest first round ever, the first round in 2011 was the craziest before that, and the 2010 first round was the craziest first round the year before that.

One of the key guys in the documentary, directed by Ken Rodgers of NFL Films, is agent Marvin Demoff (full-disclosure point: Demoff now represents me), who reps Elway and Marino.

Demoff kept detailed diaries of the days leading up to the draft, and what happened to land Elway in Denver and Marino in Miami. My favorite story: Elway was a top Yankees outfield prospect, and at one point in April 1983 George Steinbrenner showed Demoff a projected 1985 starting lineup for New York -- with Elway in right field and prospect Don Mattingly at first base. And Steinbrenner offered Elway a rich contract. If Baltimore hadn't traded Elway to Denver, who knows whether Elway would have played baseball in New York rather than football for Colts taskmaster Frank Kush.

I am sure it is just a complete coincidence that Elway's agent represents Peter King and Peter King has made it clear at least twice this offseason that John Elway really had a chance to play for the Yankees instead of being drafted into the NFL. Because we all know MLB prospects are sure things and all. It's been 30 years, but Peter is still pushing the story that Elway had a serious shot to start for the Yankees in right field two years after passing up the NFL Draft. There's nothing Peter King is more than a team player. Feed him a story to repeatedly get out to the masses and he does it without question.

This isn't the first time this offseason Peter has discussed the 1983 draft and Elway specifically. I am sure it is just coincidence that 30 years later Peter is still toeing the party line about Elway's options and it turns out he and Elway are represented by the same agent. Just like it was a coincidence that Peter reported Jeff Fisher's choice between the Dolphins and Rams (both teams really, really, really wanted Fisher) so breathlessly last offseason when Peter and Fisher share the same agent. Peter is a team player.

Talk about letting the air out of the Cleveland balloon. According to 120 pages of court documents obtained by the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Haslam knew about a scheme in which his company, Pilot Flying J, was intentionally defrauding customers by shorting them on promised rebates. A company vice president, John Freeman, was quoted as saying that Haslam "knew all along that I was cost-plussin' this guy. He knew it all along. Loved it. We were makin' $450,000 a month on him. Why wouldn't he love it?"

Poor Browns fans. They get an owner who promises to be more active and care about the team, then it turns out he was running a scheme on his customers through his company and could end up in jail if convicted.

I'm told Haslam was the cream of the crop among owner candidates when the league knew Lerner wanted to sell in Cleveland, and the league was thrilled he wanted to buy the Browns. If this story is true, the league is going to have to give a once-over to its vetting process for owners, and it may have to search anew for a Cleveland savior. Too bad Jim Brown doesn't have a spare billion lying around.

Peter then goes on to talk at length about the 1958 NFL Championship Game because Pat Summerall died. Peter also had about three-quarters of the first page of MMQB about the Darrelle Revis. An NFL owner maybe getting prosecuted for crimes he committed through his company deserves four short paragraphs, but a game 55 years ago and a trade deserve much, much more attention. I realize not much is known about Haslam's case right now, but finding out more information on whether one of the 32 NFL owners may go to jail seems like something that Peter may want to use his NFL contacts to find out more about and report to the fans. I'm pretty sure a story about a 50+ year old football game could sit for another week.

I'm going to take a few paragraphs here to discuss a couple of Sports Illustrated things you might enjoy.

Maybe it's just me, but when this week's edition of the magazine landed in your mailboxes on Wednesday (some on Thursday), I wonder how many of you wondered, "Wow. They got the Boston bombing story on the cover, with some really good stuff inside. How'd they do that?"

So I asked our managing editor, Chris Stone, to tell me how it all came together. This is a little bit of an inside-baseball thing, and I understand if you want to skip it, but it interests me.

Oh sure, Peter thinks we should skip the story about how the latest "Sports Illustrated" came together if it doesn't interest us, but he complains about how terrible it is to travel and tortures us with his politics every week and doesn't ever suggest we skip that portion of MMQB.

[Executive editor] Jon Wertheim pointed out that Scott Price, one of our best and most thoughtful writers, was in Cambridge working on another story. This is around 4; so Jon called him and set a 5:45 deadline. It turned out the hotel Scott was staying at was full of runners and their families, which enabled him to gain the firsthand accounts that he wouldn't be able to get, being three miles from the scene. We would run his essay as the 'Scorecard' lead.

So in summary, Scott Price had 1 hour and 45 minutes to come up with a story, write it and then send it back to the office. Peter King has one week to write MMQB and we usually end up with half of the column being Tweets, his thoughts on the greatness of Meryl Streep and complaints about how bad it sucks not being treated like the king (pardon the pun) he believes himself to be when traveling.

"The lockscreen on my phone is a photo of my 8-year-old, Siobhan, at Fenway,'' said Rushin, who lives in Connecticut and has four kids 8 and younger -- and was in charge that fateful Monday while his wife, Rebecca Lobo, was at ESPN to analyze the WNBA Draft.

Yes, to "analyze" the WNBA Draft...just in case those people who love the WNBA need to know yet again how great Britney Griner was at Baylor. Also, why can't ESPN stick Chris Berman on the WNBA draft (you know, since we are told viewers love him so much wouldn't that help improve the odds more people watch the WNBA draft?) and let someone else do the NFL draft? Please, this has to happen. ESPN forces Chris Berman down the viewer's throats, so because they think so much of him why not have him help improve their products that aren't as popular? You know, because everyone loves Chris Berman and all.

I'm proud this morning to announce the third addition to our writing staff at my new pro-football-centric website set to debut in July. We're hiring Robert Klemko, a 25-year-old sports reporter for USA Today, and he joins our previous two full-time additions: Greg Bedard of the Boston Globe and Jenny Vrentas of the Newark Star-Ledger.
We're still formulating plans for the site, but this much we know: We like our first three draft choices.

But Peter also wants to make it very clear, he would trade all three of these draft choices for Darrelle Revis in a heartbeat.

Bedard, 39, a former Rutgers baseball player who comes to us from the Boston Globe, will be based in suburban Boston. I believe Greg has a chance to be this generation's Paul Zimmerman. Not saying he will be,

Of course Peter isn't saying Greg Bedard will be the next wine-sipping, football-loving writer in line to Dr. Z's legacy, but he very well could be. More importantly, does it really matter?

As the spring and summer go on, I'll have more information for you about the new microsite. It's going to be an exciting venture.

It's going to be thrilling to read Peter having an even larger forum to complain about everyday inconveniences everyone else on Earth manages to just move past, as well as continually get his opinion on politics. All of these football writers on the site can help Peter focus on making the changes he really wants to see, namely ensuring Marriott hotels and Hertz go out of business in the next calendar year. If Peter can help that small company from Seattle, Starbucks, a little bit along the way by getting their name out into the public consciousness then all the more better.

"I understand the Orioles are playing a game at home. Well, who really cares? You've got 81 of them things at home and maybe you could've done the right thing and given one up and played 82 on the road and 80 at home. I really don't think people are going to care about that game.''

--Jets coach Rex Ryan, on baseball's refusal to move the Sept. 5 White Sox-Orioles game at Camden Yards in Baltimore so the Ravens could host the first game of the NFL season that night.

It's not that people don't care about the game, it is the lost revenue from not having one more additional home game. I realize Rex Ryan knows everything, and so he probably already knows this, but the Orioles make money off home games. They make revenue and this is how they run the organization, with this revenue. Sounds like someone is a Mr. Grumpy-pants because he knew he was going to have to show off what a defensive genius he was without Darrelle Revis on the Jets team.

"It had absolutely no impact on my decision to leave.''

-- Eagles coach Chip Kelly, after the college football team he left, Oregon, was put in the cross-hairs of an NCAA investigation

Of course it didn't Chip. Of course the fact the NCAA was looking hard at Oregon football didn't impact your decision to get paid more money coaching in the NFL. What this investigation did impact was WHEN you left the Oregon football program to go to the NFL. You didn't want to wait one more year and possibly have the stench of sanctions on you. Best to head to the NFL now.

I ran Pat's Run, the annual fundraiser for the Pat Tillman Foundation, in Tempe, Ariz., on Saturday.

Date: 4-20-13

Distance: 4.2 miles

Time: 42:03

I was honestly trying to do 4.2 in 42:00 on 4-20. Ran into a little traffic at the finish line at Sun Devil Stadium. 

On the 42-yard line.

Tillman, a safety, wore No. 42 for Arizona State

The date and distance of the run were not coincidences, so that's not a particularly interesting fact. The reason the race took place on 4-20, ended on the 42-yard line and was a distance of 4.2 miles is because Tillman's uniform number. Now as far as Peter King running into traffic on the 42-yard line, the only explanation for this happening is that Peter King wasn't running that day, it was Pat Tillman running in Peter King's body. That's the only explanation, not that other runners had the idea of finishing the race at exactly 42 minutes.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week

Four of them:

Only four of these?

1. Alaska Airlines, in my recent airline rankings, got ripped off. This is one of the best coach experiences in the air. Friendly and a tad snarky flight attendants on my two Western legs last week (Seattle-Portland, Portland-LAX), and they busted out the free Full Sail Session lager on the first trip. Be careful, Alaska, or you'll get a lot more of my business.

No seriously, you don't want Peter's business. It sounds good to read him saying nice things about your airline now, but just wait until you run out of the exact kind of beer he wants or Peter feels a little bloated and starts bitching about the leg room. God forbid, what happens if there are a couple of kids on the same flight as Peter who are daring to mind their own business while Peter stares at them. He will mention these kids in MMQB. You don't want Peter's business. Getting Peter's business is merely the Sirens' Song. You will end up shipwrecked on the rocks soon after you acquire his business.

3. You fly all the way across the country, and you're rushing around, and you find that your daughter, who does PR work in Seattle and works on the Microsoft account, is on the Microsoft campus in Redmond at the same time as you are, and you text back and forth and there she is! "Hey, Mary Beth!''

Was this just a coincidence or a product of technology allowing a father and daughter to meet up? Doubtful on both counts. There was something else going on here, possibly fate. Mary Beth's initials are M.B. Seattle is part of the state of Washington. You know who else lives in a place with "Washington" in the district's name? Barack Obama. Barack Obama is the President of the United States and has been to New York. City. Do you know where they filmed part of "Men in Black III?" New York City. "Men in Black" has the letters "M" and "B" in the film's name, just like Mary Beth has in her name. This meeting up wasn't a coincidence.

4. Did I really look that bad running in Tempe? Must have. At about the 1.5-mile point, a guy jogged up next to me (now, I was on a 10-minute pace about then, not 17-) and said, "Fading, Peter?'' I said, "No, this is just the way I run."

Oh, that's not good to hear when you have 2.7 more miles to go in your run. 

I think you could make the argument that this could be the riskiest first round in NFL history. The exemplifier of football risk this spring is a man who will be picked in the top 10 of the first round (I have him No. 2, to Jacksonville, in my mock draft, which you can find on SI.com Wednesday), Brigham Young defensive end Ezekiel Ansah.

I think it is nearly impossible to judge what the riskiest first round in NFL history would be. So I think it is kind of stupid to say because a prospect Peter has going #2 to Jacksonville hasn't played much football in his life this means the entire first round is risky. Seems a bit presumptuous to me. Of course when you need to kill space and decide to cite your own opinion as why the first round is so risky, I guess a person isn't thinking logically.

"Geno has become mystery man in draft if not in top 8, it could be a long 1st round''

-- @mortreport, ESPN's Chris Mortensen, tweeting Sunday night about what more and more people in the NFL feel: Only four or five teams in the first round could take West Virginia quarterback Geno Smith -- the consensus top quarterback in this week's draft -- and there is absolutely no guarantee that one will.

Oh my God, it's a weak draft because there aren't any quarterbacks who are guaranteed to go in the first round! Quarterback is such an exciting position, I get that, but I always love it when draft experts worry about when/where the first quarterback will be taken. I'm more interested to see when the first running back will be taken or which tackle will be the first one off the board.

Ten Things I Think I Think

2. I think these were my biggest surprises at NFL.com draft analyst Mike Mayock's top 100 prospects, just published late in the week:

Peter King absolutely idolizes Mike Mayock. I can't state this strongly enough.

b. Notre Dame tight end Tyler Eifert (13) ahead of corner Dee Milliner (16), though I am starting to hear teams have injury concerns about Milliner's shoulder.

So you are telling me the guy who calls Notre Dame football games is overvaluing a player who went to Notre Dame? How shocking this is to me. I never would think a guy who spent all of his time watching Notre Dame football would overvalue a Notre Dame player.

e. Next at QB: E.J. Manuel (41), Matt Barkley (43) and Ryan Nassib (50). Mike Glennon is 81, but I could see him going as high as early second. He's an acquired taste, and a few teams love Glennon.

Glennon is the kind of quarterback that will be loved by certain sportswriters only if he gets drafted by specific teams. If the Cardinals pick up Glennon in the early third round then it will be a pretty good pick, but if the Falcons draft him then that's a brilliant pick to have stashed away behind Matt Ryan. It seems the less a team needs a quarterback the more certain sportswriters loves it when that team picks a quarterback who falls. I'll call it the "Ryan Mallett Effect," though I'm sure there is a better name for it.

g. Sign of the times: one running back (Eddie Lacy, 18) in the top 50.

Which is before the first quarterback ranked by Mayock. Is that a sign of the times too? Are quarterbacks no longer valuable?

4. I think one of the underlying reasons Seattle and Tampa Bay traded their first-round picks this year is that neither thought the first-round talent was very good.

Well, that and they considered the chance to get Percy Harvin and Darrelle Revis worth spending a first round pick spent in acquiring these players. I'm not sure each team trading their first round pick is a reflection on what each team thinks about the first round more than it is a reflection on what each team thinks about Harvin and Revis.

6. I think -- and I don't know about you -- that after the 2012 season I'm dumbfounded that Tim Tebow is still a Jet and Darrelle Revis isn't.

I'm pretty sure if Tebow was coming off major knee surgery and had any trade value at all then he would no longer be a Jet, just like Revis is no longer a Jet.

7. I think new Carolina GM Dave Gettleman had an interesting comment about the state of his team last week. "Maybe you guys think I'm Pollyanna, but I don't see any major holes here,'' he said. Yes, Dave. We think you're Pollyanna. Your team has won two, six and seven games over the last three years, and hasn't won a playoff game in the last seven seasons. 

No arguments here. Sort of a dumb statement.

You might want to develop a wide receiver to take pressure off Steve Smith (and be his heir),

Oh, "develop" a wide receiver? That sounds easy to do. Go do it Carolina!

Considering Cam Newton has the most passing yards for a quarterback during his first two years in the NFL I feel like someone somewhere has done a good job of taking the pressure off Steve Smith. Yes, wide receiver is a need, but this definitely isn't the first need. I always know how much a NFL-guy has watched Carolina play when he mentions wide receiver as the first need for Carolina. Yes, it is a need, but I'm not sure it is worthy of the first need mentioned.

you might improve your corners so you don't allow 67 percent completions in a pass-happy division -- especially considering one of your major rivals will acquire Darrelle Revis this week.

Two things:

1. Carolina finished second in the NFC South last year. This means nothing, but since Peter is bashing I want to bring a little reality into the discussion. The Panthers team wasn't very good and they were ahead of the Buccaneers in the division, a team who just traded away their first round draft choice this year and a 3rd/4th round pick next year.

2. Peter's beloved Rams gave up 66.2 percent completions last year for second worst in the NFL. And they had Corteland Finnegan and Janoris Jenkins at corner. So the completion percentage a team gives up can mean quite a few things outside of a team needing to improve their corners.

8. I think -- and I may be wrong on this -- that a 15-33 team in this decade just might have a major hole or two.

Completely agreed. So would a team that went 16-31-1 over this decade, yet Peter seems to think the Rams are a team to watch in the NFC West. I guess whether a team is on the rise or not depends entirely on your perspective. Nearly every NFL team has a major hole somewhere that needs to be filled. No GM needs to say the opposite publicly.

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

d.Now, those of you boiling over right now because I am so ill-informed and so left-wing and such a hater of the Second Amendment (which I am absolutely not), say something to the parents of the murdered Newtown children, whose deaths prompted exactly zero federal action to prevent more mass murders of innocents in innocent public places in the future.

I'm sorry no federal action was taken to prevent more mass murders in the future. Please remember part of ensuring our children stay safe is also ensuring people who are mentally unstable don't have access to weapons, so while the gun portion has been defeated, perhaps you can help ensure mentally unstable individuals don't get access to guns or get help for their problems. Life has given you lemons, so attack the problem from another angle. Just like we can't find a surefire way to prevent bombs from going off (like at the Boston Marathon), it doesn't mean we can't be vigilant and do what we can to ensure only mentally stable people own weapons. More importantly, change doesn't always happen overnight. Have patience.

e.I knew you couldn't think of anything.

No...I did just think of something.

h. I will be very interested to see how and where Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev acquired the weapons they used to shoot at Watertown, Boston and Massachusetts State Police. Very interested.

We know you will Peter. We know you will also feel free to share your thoughts on where they got these guns. If they got the guns legally you will point to the gun laws as the problem, while ignoring the mental state of both brothers and what motivated them to set off the bombs and shoot at the police. If the two brothers got them illegally, we also know you will ignore this and then try to talk around how legislation could not have done much to get these guns off the street. I'm not an NRA member by the way.

l. Beernerdness: I could have Alaskan Amber (from Juneau) every day of the week, it's so good. Smooth and drinkable, but with a bite. A pleasant surprise at the Portland airport trumped it: Klamath Basin Drop Dead Red. It probably should be called Klamath Basin Drop Dead Brown, because it's such a dark red,

But...it's dark red, which is red, so that's why it is called "red." 

p.Those Kansas City Royals are a tough out these days. I'm quite sure I've never written that before. Alcides Escobar, the young shortstop, is a gem.

Of course it took the Royals playing the Red Sox for Peter to figure out Kansas City is building a good team and that Alcides Escobar is going to be a good player. This shouldn't surprise me, what with Peter being such a big baseball fan and all, as long as "baseball" means "I only watch one team."

5. Why doesn't the league make Green Bay-Detroit a Thanksgiving fixture? Including this season, let's count how many times each division opponent has come to Detroit on Thanksgiving since 2001: Green Bay six, Chicago zero, Minnesota zero.

Well Peter, it seems the NFL has made Green Bay-Detroit a Thanksgiving fixture already.

10. And, of course, The Revis Bowl beckons. Who'd have thought Jets-Bucs would be compelling Week 1? It got that way Sunday with the trade of Darrelle Revis from the Jets to Tampa Bay ... providing Revis can rehab his reconstructed well enough to be a factor that day. Somehow, I think he will.

We know how you feel about Darrelle Revis. Who needs a quarterback or any other defensive players if you have Darrelle Revis?

The Adieu Haiku

Next Patriots Day,
I must ask -- no, I demand:
Come en masse to Mass.

There's no need to get pushy about it. I ask--no, I demand you come run in Greensboro for ALS next year or else you are an asshole who doesn't care about the disease.