1. Let's start off with a mailbag from the man I am doing a parody of sorts with my title for these "Ten Things..." Peter King.
And now for something completely different: The San Diego Chargers not only did the right thing with LaDainian Tomlinson, they did the right thing at the right time. The next time a team has to deal with releasing a legendary player in decline, club officials should go to school and learn how Dean Spanos and A.J. Smith cut the cord with the eighth-leading rusher of all time.
I would actually disagree in part with this statement. The Chargers did the right thing for Tomlinson but they didn't do the right thing for their team. I always prefer to get rid of a player a year too early rather than a year too late and I think the Chargers got rid of Tomlinson a year too late. They used their 1st round pick on Larry English, which I think will pay off at some point, but they could have used that pick or traded up to get Shonn Greene, Beanie Wells, or LeSean McCoy. They didn't do that because they had Tomlinson and Sproles on the roster. They even restructured Tomlinson's contract last year, instead of releasing him.
This is an arguable point, but if they had Greene, Wells, or McCoy would they have been near to last in the NFL in rushing and would they have had a better chance to make the Super Bowl? I argue "no" and "yes." The Chargers did what was right for Tomlinson but hurt their team in the process by getting rid of him a year too late.
In the high-powered offense coach Norv Turner runs, they knew they couldn't tolerate a back who still wanted to be a major presence but couldn't deliver like one.
They had this problem last year as well and didn't have the guts to pull the trigger. I think they should regret it.
Now Tomlinson's agent, Tom Condon, can begin trying to find a new home for LT, working the lobbies at the downtown Indianapolis hotels and the concourses at Lucas Oil Stadium, where the combine drills will take place.
I agree the Chargers were kind to do this, but they should have done it in 2009 and not 2010. Sure, Tomlinson only had one bad year in 2009, but there is a history of running backs slowing down as they hit the work load and the age Tomlinson was coming up on.
From Aaron Monroe, of Tampa: "In honor of your foray to the World Cup this summer (I plan on being there as well to see my first cup games live), I have a question that combines both soccer and the NFL. In MMQB you mentioned about the Bucs shedding payroll rapidly. It's apparent that the product we have here in Tampa isn't as good, but no one seems to honestly talk about why. The Bucs have one of the lowest payrolls in the NFL and lots of 2010 draft picks, yet Mark Dominik has said they are not players in free agency. Passing on Vince Wilfork, Julius Peppers, Richard Seymour. No effort to sign Donte Stallworth or even Mike Vick last year, both coming with minimum cost exposure. Isn't the real reason they're staying on the sidelines because they have all their available cash tied up in a financial disaster with Man U and, a reality that's destroying their NFL product?
Of course, Peter King is probably one of the worst "insiders" at sniffing out "real" stories in the NFL, so I am not sure he is the best person to ask this question to. I get the feeling some NFL people just tell Peter something and know he will accept it without further questions. Sometimes I think people may just make something up and see if Peter King will print it.
PK: That's a commonly held belief by a lot of people around the league, but I checked this morning, and I can tell you there's no evidence to suggest the Glazers are taking, for example, any chunk of their $95 million annual network TV money and funneling it to pay down their debt with Manchester United.
Of course there is no evidence of this. They aren't stupid enough to just leave the evidence of this lying around, but doesn't it make sense they may do this? From a logical point of view? One business is making money, so they use to pay off a debt from owning another team. It doesn't mean they are, it just means it makes sense this could happen.
Rick Gagliardo of Pinehurst, N.C.: "Re: the logjam at the HOF ... I've been thinking about the five- to seven-person limit allowed each year, and I've wondered if that was in the original by-laws when the Hall was founded in 1963...In 1962 there were only 14 teams in the NFL. When the first group of men was voted in, these men, by and large, played in a league with eight teams. If you consider a team as having a 40 man roster -- which I'm sure it didn't most of the time -- it's a stretch to say that as many as 320 men comprised the entire league. After Cleveland and Baltimore were incorporated and Dallas and Minnesota were added in 1960, the NFL stood at 14 teams and 560 players in 1962. With 32 teams now...I would suggest increasing the induction number to seven to 10 a year.
It's an interesting point Rick makes. I am generally against making it easier to get in the Hall of Fame, but his reasoning does seem pretty sound in all honesty. There are more teams, more players, etc...so there should be an occasional increase in the number of players who can make the Hall of Fame.
PK: I think the overriding theme of your letter is that you'd like to see more players inducted, because so many deserve it. As my Sirius Radio friend Bob Papa has suggested, maybe we should have a year or two of much larger classes, to get those the majority of the committee feel are Hall-of-Famers (Dermontti Dawson, Cris Carter, Richard Dent, Shannon Sharpe) off the bubble they've occupied because of the great quality of the modern classes. You may not like my answer, but I don't want to do that.
If a player deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, what sense does it make to let a self-imposed limit stop them from making the Hall of Fame?
It should be hard, very hard, to get into any Hall of Fame,
Again, if a player deserves it and the electors don't anticipate doing this every year, and don't get carried away and let players who don't deserve Hall of Fame induction in, what's the problem? It hasn't been made any easier to get in the Hall of Fame, the number limit of players who can be inducted has been temporarily waived. I think we should be able to trust the Hall of Fame voters to make a wise decision in this case...or at least I hope we can.
and who is to say if we admit 12 people in 2011 and 2012 that it won't spawn a whole new class (a slightly lower class) of candidates that we'll be pushed to admit.
It could very well happen. Fortunately, there is thing called "free will" that allows Hall of Fame voters to make up their mind and they aren't forced to vote for any candidate they don't like. If the voters are the susceptible to outside pressure like this, it doesn't make me feel good about their ability to vote for any Hall of Fame class.
The best thing we can do is keep making it difficult to get in and do the best we can each year, and eventually the deserving players will get in.
I can see this point of view, but if a player is only pushed out of the Hall of Fame because of a number limit, what's the difference in letting the player in for 2011 or making him wait until 2013 when there aren't as many qualified candidates? It doesn't matter to me either way, but if we trust the Hall of Fame voters to vote for anyone at all into the Hall of Fame, we should be able to trust them to vote the right players in for induction if the limit was temporarily raised.
2. After the Super Bowl, Jay Mariotti just went ahead and predicted a dynasty for the Saints. You know, why the hell not? They won one Super Bowl, they probably will win 2-3 more, right?
It isn't a bandwagon we're jumping on. It's a Mardi Gras float, a wave of confidence that dares to suggest that the New Orleans Saints, a team that wasn't supposed to win the Super Bowl unless the apocalypse arrived, might win another one next year.
No one ever said the Saints shouldn't/couldn't win the Super Bowl. Ever. No one said this. Ever.
Let's create a false assumption and then disprove it! Now Jay Mariotti is stealing from Jemele Hill.
"I think I could kiss him right now,'' gushed Saints owner Tom Benson, whose standing in New Orleans was saved by Payton and Brees after he was vilified four years ago for threatening to move the team after Hurricane Katrina.
It's funny how Super Bowl success makes us forget the few asshole things Tom Benson has done while owning the Saints. Amazing isn't it?
We've watches several accomplished coaches -- Mike Ditka, Jim Mora, Bum Phillips, Wade Phillips and Hank Stram among them -- take over the Saints and not come close to what Payton has achieved in four astonishingly quick seasons.
Payton's astonishing record in his 4 seasons with the Saints:
2006: 10-6
2007: 7-9
2008: 8-8
2009: 13-3
Two playoff appearances in four years. Good, but not astonishing.
It's stunning enough that he has transformed a hopeless losing culture into a rousing success.
The Saints record for the 4 seasons before Payton arrived:
2002: 9-7
2003: 8-8
2004: 8-8
2005: 3-13
For Payton, 8-8 is astonishing in the eyes of Mariotti, but 8-8 prior to Payton's arrival is a "hopeless losing culture." I think it is funny how other than the Super Bowl year with Payton and the 3-13 in 2005, the records for the 3 years before Payton and 3 years while Payton is coaching the Saints is exactly 25-23 in both cases. I know it is tough to exclude those two years, but is also a bit misleading to call Payton's 4 year record "astonishing" while calling the 4 years before Payton as having a "hopeless losing culture."
but Payton put the Saints in position to win with the greatest play call in the game's 44-year history.
Possibly overstating this a little bit? It was a great call, but was it the best in the history of the Super Bowl?
A hot name at the time as offensive coordinator of the Dallas Cowboys, he easily could have passed on the job when general manager Mickey Loomis offered it. He chose to embrace the challenge.
The challenge of a team that was 28-36 the 4 years prior to his arrival. It's not like he turned the Lions around or anything. This was a team that hadn't had Super Bowl success, but wasn't a terrible team, except for the 2005 season...which not-coincidentally was the year the team was uprooted by Hurricane Katrina.
Also interested were the Green Bay Packers. He grabbed the Saints job.
Revisionist history by Mariotti. He didn't grab the Saints job, he didn't get the Packers job and the Saints were the only other team offering him a head coaching job at the time. It made the choice fairly easy for him.
Once the laughingstock of the NFL, the Saints have become a destination because of Payton. They'll lose some free agents, but as long as Brees is healthy and his receivers and running backs are in place, they'll be a contender in an NFC that isn't as robust as the AFC.
As long as those receivers and running backs are in place the Saints should be fine, right Jay Mariotti? It's not the Saints defense that won them this title was it? The same defense that wasn't good when the Saints were 8-8 the previous year...the same year the Saints had much of the same offense in place? Of course, it's just the offense this team needs. Don't worry about that defense at all.
It is Sean Payton's miracle. And at age 46, he might be just starting.
I hate it when the "dynasty" talk comes up after a team wins 1 Super Bowl. Also, Jay Mariotti is an idiot.
3. Let's get some Jay Mariotti Olympic idiocy as well. The same week he came out in supporting Tiger Woods, he says Bode Miller hasn't redeemed himself yet.
He continues to be a shallow-minded hypocrite and anti-Olympic buffoon, even more so with three additional medals around his neck, one of gold.
Better than being a buffoon with a computer and an opinion, right Jay?
Bode Miller says he now wants to embrace the "passion" and "inspiration'' of the Games, yet he's bothered by the "corruption" and "money'' -- which, of course, any athlete could say about any sport if he chooses to be a rebel without a clue.
Or he could actually be concerned about the corruption and money.
This was the ideal opportunity to make amends for his despicable behavior four years ago at the Turin Games. The assumption was that Miller would fade away as a punchline and wasted talent, but somehow, after pondering retirement, he ignored a beat-up body, including an ankle sprain suffered in December during a volleyball game, and showed up again in the competition he despises.
I am not a Bode Miller fan or anything, but doesn't the fact he matured and won 3 medals mean this should be a good story and not a "this guy doesn't deserve redemption" story?
No one, that is, except Bode himself. Pathetically, he keeps on baffling us with his b.s., trying to embrace the good in the Games while still painting himself as a more subdued counterculturist who doesn't like the accompanying greed. Look, a lot of us don't like corporate America and the way it operates, but that doesn't mean we lash out at it while reaping the benefits.
Exactly. What successful person has ever criticized society and the way that society runs while still living in the society? Other than pretty much any person who ever made a significant change to society of course. The way a person gets credibility to suggest changes and the way a person's words actually mean something is if that person lives in the society he criticizes. It shows he/she actually wants change to be made.
Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't marching the streets of Tijuana or some other foreign country in support of better civil rights in the United States was he? No, he was in the heart of cities with racism protesting in an attempt to make life better for others. It's how change is made.
If Mariotti took his own advice, he would not participate in the coverage of the Winter Olympics in Canada because he was so critical of their handling of the death of the luger a few weeks ago. If he wasn't a hypocrite of course.
Instead, he continues to devalue the worth of a gold medal, which demeans the purest objective of the Olympics -- to train for years and beat the world's best competition -- and insults the pride of other athletes who've worked so hard to be here. Who is Bode Miller to look down his nose at a gold medal, then smile and wave during a flower ceremony after winning a gold medal?
I think it is possible for Miller to enjoy winning a gold medal and still hate the commercialism of the Olympics.
"That was the feeling I've been searching for, and I let it build up. I was real nervous before I went, but excited-nervous, not anxiety-nervous," he said. "Normally as an athlete, a veteran of 400 World Cup races, you kind of repress that stuff. I used to crash all the time because of it. But I think that's part of why I wanted to come back."
He came back to get excited-nervous?
No, idiot. He came back for the adrenaline rush of racing down the hill and redeeming himself for past mistakes. This "excited-nervous" is something athletes feel right before they start competing. It's obvious he was trying to redeem himself or at least forget some of the mistakes he made in the past. Apparently Jay Mariotti doesn't like this.
4. Mike Freeman wants us to think about Donte' Stallworth's victim, which he doesn't believe people are doing.
Reyes is the forgotten figure in the Stallworth tragedy, continuing to unfold coldly and uncomfortably right before our catatonic eyes. Reyes was walking to a bus stop on his way home from a construction job at 7:15 a.m. in March 2009 when Stallworth, legally drunk at the time, struck Reyes with his vehicle and killed him.
I think what has caused less uproar about Stallworth is that Reyes apparently broke the law by crossing the street NOT at a crosswalk and there were other circumstances that have caused less uproar about Stallworth's return to the NFL.
Stallworth, meanwhile, fared much better. He was indeed suspended by the NFL for an entire season yet, incredibly, sentenced to just 30 days in prison for manslaughter.
I can't get how Plaxico Burress gets 2 years in prison for shooting himself in the leg but Stallworth got 30 days for manslaughter. I thought the sentence was too light...but no one does seem to care that much.
The most interesting aspect of this ugly case is the lack of attention and outrage it has generated. It seemed the media and sports fans were more concerned about who Tiger Woods was boinking than Baltimore signing Stallworth.
Absolutely, it is amazing to me how few media members and others aren't interested in this case. Mike Vick killed dogs, and I like animals more than humans so just know that, but there was a constant debate over whether he should be allowed back in the NFL. Stallworth kills a human and no one seems to care. Hell, Peter King views it as a redemption of sorts for Stallworth to even be signed by an NFL team. If you remember, he basically was fawning over Stallworth in his MMQB this past week. I don't get how it is a redemption really.
This time, post-Stallworth, the reaction was quiet and there was more examination over whether Stallworth could help the Ravens rather than if he should be allowed back in the NFL in the first place.
Peter has referred to Stallworth previously as "learning his lesson" and indicating he feels Stallworth has redeemed himself through charity activities. Then this week, instead of questioning why Stallworth could even sign with a team, he only talked about how fast Stallworth's 40 yard dash time was on a slow surface.
Again, Stallworth deserves another opportunity to rebuild his life but when you kill a man, professional football should be out of the question. It's disingenuous (at best) when Newsome says Stallworth paid a significant price. Stallworth paid a very minor one.
I absolutely agree. I know Mario Reyes wasn't in the crosswalk, which apparently is an offense punishable by death now, but he was still a pedestrian and Stallworth hit him with his car, while legally drunk. I don't get how being legally drunk and hitting a pedestrian is only worth 30 days in prison. I guess it was the old "I flashed my headlights at him" defense that paid off for him.
Granted, Stallworth has paid the price for his crime, I just don't think it was a very high price for the crime. In a world where Tiger Woods cheating on his wife and Mike Vick killing animals are seen as higher crimes by the media, what does that say though?
5. There are two different trains of thought in the world regarding 2010 free agency in the NBA. The first train of thought wonders what would happen if a bunch of free agents teamed up on one team. The second train of thought thinks this is not realistic. Gene Wojciechowski is the spokesperson for this first team.
How rich is LeBron James? Put it this way: When God needs some walking-around money, he borrows it from LBJ.
Boo!!! You're a hack.
And although Chris Bosh isn't in the same endorsement orbit as King James and D-Wade, he's still pushing $60 million in career salary earnings. So it's not as if Bosh is ordering the 89-cent, five-layer burrito from Denise.
(Throwing fruit at Gene from the crowd and then Bengoodfella steps up his game and starts throwing knives at him.)
All that could change if James, Wade and Bosh decide to put dynasties over dollars, basketball legacies over bank accounts. They just need a dotted line and some stones as big as the ones in Olympic curling.
"What these players should do is prove they are among the greatest players in the history of the NBA by teaming up with other great players to win championships so that way people can dismiss any titles won by a Wade/James/Bosh team as caused by their alliance on the same team and not their individual skill."
If there is anything less attractive to a basketball player like LeBron James and Dwayne Wade than sharing the spotlight and possibly not getting credit for a championship won, I can't think of it right now. Remember how bad Kobe Bryant wanted to win an NBA Title without Shaq? Exactly, so why would two (three? Is Bosh in there?) of the game's best players voluntarily try to have his legacy tied up to another great player? Remember, Wade already has a championship with Shaq, and you are naive if you don't believe he wants to win one on his own.
So not only does it not make sense for James/Wade/Bosh to team up from the point of view in regard to enhancing each of the player's legacy on championship teams and their standing in the hierarchy of the greatest NBA players of all-time...it doesn't really make financial sense either. One or two of the three players would have to take less money than he could get on the open market.
That's not even including the fact three alpha players on one team, with all three players in their prime, would probably not work. Remember Shaq and Kobe? What about Shaq, Kobe, and Iverson? How would that go?
As ridiculous as it sounds, there exists a scenario in which these three guys could play on the same team and win championships happily ever after starting next season.
Maybe they would win a championship or two, but I question how "happily" they would do this and how long this situation could last.
Without going all capology on you, it looks as though next season's projected salary cap will be between $50.4 million and $53.6 million.
Right now, the Knicks are on the hook for only $18.6 million in contracts next season. The Nets are committed to just $26.6 million worth of deals, while the Heat are at $30.7 million, the Bulls at $31.9 million, the Clippers at $33.5 million, the Kings at $33.9 million and the T-Wolves at $35.2 million.
Most likely none of these teams could afford these three players if they got maxed out contracts. They would have to take a pay cut of some type to be on the team and the team will have trouble adding any other players for a few years down the road.
The numbers could change by July, but at least this gives you an idea of who has the most money to make a run at one of the great unrestricted free-agent classes in NBA history.
Without taking less money for 1 or 2 of these players? No one.
I'd ditch them. If you're really serious about creating a brand and a basketball legacy, do something that's never been done before. Don't max out; min out.
The basketball legacy wouldn't be LeBron James winning an NBA Title, but LeBron James winning an NBA Title with Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh. Then the legacy will be that Dwayne Wade needs one of the top 20 players of all-time on his team to win an NBA Title and so does LeBron James. This isn't the legacy either player wants.
But if James, Wade and Bosh truly want to make history, they could do the unthinkable and split the Knicks' $33 million three ways. It would cost them salary money, but can you imagine how much they'd make on the back end if they started reeling in NBA titles? In New York?
I hope Gene understands players also care about their own personal legacy and players like Bosh, Wade, and James have basketball skills that could very likely conflict with each other. Who gets the last shot on a team with Wade and James? Figure in Bosh on that team as well. You think Wade wants to be a sidekick? Because LeBron James sure as hell won't be one. I am also pretty confident Chris Bosh doesn't want to be a third option. NBA players want to win a championship but there is a limit to how far they will go to do so, especially at such a early part of their career.
Three singular players who know careers are defined by championships, not just checkbooks.
Three players who also understand how Kobe and Shaq's time together with the Lakers winning 3 NBA Titles was perceived. Michael Jordan had Scottie Pippen, he didn't need a Top 20 player to win an NBA Title. You don't think LeBron James thinks about this? I guarantee you he does.
I think this is a bad idea for a variety of reasons.
6. Now Jemele Hill (of all people) speaks with the point of view I agree on, that this group of three guys won't work well together.
But what I can't take is the idea that the NBA would be better off if LeBron and D-Wade or LeBron and Bosh, or some combination of the three, wind up playing together. Sometimes, it feels as if fans want the NBA to become "Super Friends." Even though Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman were far more compelling individually than together.
Even though I am not sure I like the comic book reference, I agree with JemeHill. It is exciting to think how good a team with these three players on it would be, but I don't know long-term how this would work.
The assumption seems to be that two or three megastars on one team is a good thing. But I can't think of a more boring setup.
Agreed. She is taking a different look than the one I have taken, she focuses more on how this move isn't good for the NBA, but I agree with it in principle. I also don't think these three players could play well together for long.
The idea that the NBA needs several superstars on one team is misguided. Every superstar needs help, of course. But it's working for the NBA to have LeBron, D-Wade and Bosh (admittedly, a lower-wattage star than Wade and LeBron) in their respective cities, each competing separately for a championship.
I don't even really care about the parity of the NBA, though it is more exciting when James and Wade are on separate teams. I care more about the fact it doesn't really make sense in many fashions to team these players up.
And although Ray Allen, Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett came together to win a championship in Boston in 2008, they were complementary pieces rather than individual superstars who could singularly carry a team the way LeBron, Wade and Bosh have.
I would argue those players were individual superstars before coming to the Celtics and Pierce was still a borderline superstar in 2008. I don't think I would call these three players necessarily "complementary pieces" in 2008 though.
Jordan is considered the greatest because he won six titles with teams consisting primarily of him, plus role players. Had he ever paired with another superstar, he might not have been looked upon as invincible.
That's my point. This is a perception that NBA players care about too. This is not just the protesting of a guy who just absolutely loves parity or anything.
If LeBron and Wade or some of the others wind up on the same team, how will we measure their greatness? How can we ever know what they were truly capable of as individuals?
This is the question these players have in their mind, which is why I don't think they would ever team up.
Kobe was/is criticized sharply for playing a role in the Lakers' split with Shaq. But there's no question that had he not won a title without the big man, he never would have been in the conversation with Jordan as one of the greatest players ever.
Kobe earned a lot of credit for winning an NBA Title without Shaq. He may have still been considered one of the greatest players ever, but not with as much enthusiasm as he is considered in that way now. I don't think James, Bosh, and Wade on one team could or would ever work.
7. Mike Freeman does some athlete bashing and this time it is Dwight Howard he goes after. I have been critical of Howard in the past because he doesn't have an offensive arsenal of shots and he doesn't WANT to be the best player on his own team...at least in my mind.
No matter his alleged offensive improvement, Howard continues to be the most frustrating player in the NBA and maybe all of sports.
I think Shaq has set a new standard for centers in the NBA and how we think they should perform. He had an obvious physical advantage over other players and still developed as a player...except at the free throw line (I still say he should have tried to shoot free throws granny-style. It is embarrassing, yes, but if it helps it would be worth it). It's just my hypothesis, but I think if Shaq had never come along, then we would be happy with Dwight Howard's progress. Shaq was essentially Howard when he came in the league. He could dunk and had a very limited offensive game, then Shaq worked on his footwork and created some (awkward at times) shots in his arsenal. Howard really doesn't have this. I have watched quite a few Orlando Magic games this year and he looks the same to me as he did last year.
Howard deserves credit for attempting to diversify his offensive game with more front looks and handsomer jumpers, yet he still doesn't look drastically different.
But around the basket, I don't like Howard's moves. They are just very basic in my opinion.
He might be demanding the ball more but it looks tepid, almost fake, like he's trying to be something he's not.
Howard doesn't even really "demand" the ball. He wants the ball but he is also perfectly happy with another player taking the last shot of the game. This hasn't changed this year at all. Against Boston earlier this year, Rashard Lewis took the last shot, it wasn't Howard who seemed to want the ball in his hands.
"Kevin Garnett has been in this league forever and he's won six playoff series in his career," Van Gundy said. "Dwight's won four and he's [24] years old. That's a pretty good comparison. Why is Kevin Garnett a great winner and Dwight Howard's not?
That's not the issue. The issue is whether Howard wants to get better and whether he has that hunger to win that great players seem to have. Garnett had that hunger and he seemed to maximize his potential, even if he did seem to shrink from the ball at the end of the game a little bit.
Many times, Howard will be the biggest and strongest on the floor, so he's going to get his points and rebounds.
If only Howard were hungrier, he might already have much more.
Exactly. Howard isn't a bad basketball player, he is going to get his points and rebounds. It's just when the game is on the line or when an old, out of shape center (Shaq) calls him out and steps up to him, Howard doesn't step up his game on the floor.8. Bill Simmons wrote an article about the NBA that I very much agree with. I care about the NBA and I really believe he has a few good points that he makes.
It's about Jermaine O'Neal making more money this season than Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, James Harden, Serge Ibaka, Eric Maynor, Thabo Sefolosha and Jeff Green combined.
It's about Tracy McGrady making $22.4 million, being unhappy coming off the bench, then convincing his team to let him disappear until it traded him.
It's about Jamaal Tinsley getting paid $10.6 million this season and the next by Indiana not to play there.
Really, these are mistakes made by poor General Managers but they are an example of a greater problem Bill describes well in this column. The finances of the NBA have been screwed up over the past couple years and I don't know if it is getting any better.
Just in the past three years, we've seen general managers Sam Presti (Zombie Sonics), Daryl Morey (Rockets) and John Hammond (Bucks) build competitive teams by prudently watching their cap, searching for bargains, building around young talent and picks, and/or carving out enough cap space to take advantage of desperate suitors who will pay with draft picks or young players just to dump an unsavory contract.
I can't help but recall there was a time when Bill Simmons was wanting to be the General Manager for the Milwaukee Bucks and after Hammond got hired Simmons indicated Hammond may not be the best guy for the job. He won't talk about that of course. Naturally. Who wants to focus on his bid to be an NBA GM for the Bucks and then it turns out the man who was hired actually seems to be competent?
Why should either of us care that owners might not lose as much money in 2013 as they did in 2010?
Does it mean ticket prices will drop? I doubt it.
Does it mean franchises with older arenas aren't in danger of having their team hijacked like the Sonics were stolen from Seattle? I doubt it.
Does it mean failing teams won't continue to tank down the stretch for lottery picks, or dump some of their best players to contenders for 40 cents on the dollar to save a few bucks? I doubt it.
Great points. I won't quote anymore of the column, because I think if you like(d) the NBA, it is worth reading in its entirety. The problem with the NBA is there are people who love basketball who don't watch the NBA for a variety of reasons that don't have anything to do with the product on the floor. I am not saying it makes perfect sense.Quick personal story to help better explain...I desperately try to hang on to my love for the NBA. I watch as many games as I can. Often times with teams dumping salaries and trading players for no competitive reason, it doesn't feel like the NBA is a basketball league, but a league where amateur General Managers learn how not to run an organization. I find it to be a hard league to understand and an even more difficult league to embrace for many people. My fiance loves watching college basketball. She watches games without me and tells me about them in vivid detail. "That fucking Brian Zoubek" may be a phrase used in our wedding vows. She can't get into the NBA, except to watch my favorite team play. What's worse is that she doesn't hate it, but she is indifferent towards it. I find indifference worse than hatred, at least for a sport, because that sport isn't even relevant in a person's mind when there is indifference felt towards it.
I have two good friends who were obsessed with the NBA and they live 15 miles from where the Bobcats play, but their interest has decreased. These are people very interested in basketball as a sport. Now, I don't think my friends encompass the attitude of everyone, I am just using them as an example. College basketball is different from NBA basketball, but it is still basketball, so naturally I would think a person who likes one could at least understand the other. I know there are people who don't like college basketball, but many times it is because the quality of play is lower. I can see that reasoning, but it doesn't make sense how someone who likes the lower quality of play in college basketball doesn't like the NBA. The excitement about the NBA just doesn't happen for many casual fans and I think that is where the NBA is struggling, they can't get the casual fan interested and the way certain teams are being run I can see even diehard NBA fans being turned off at some point. It sounds like I (or Bill) is trying to be dramatic but trades where a guy like Antawn Jamison goes to the Cavs for essentially nothing are commonplace and it can't be good for the game.
Anyway, I enjoyed Bill's article.
9. John Feinstein takes ESPN to task for the Tony Kornheiser situation. I don't necessarily like Kornheiser but Feinstein has an interesting take on the situation since he used to be on "Sports Reporters" and had a sort of falling out with ESPN. Feinstein is a Kornheiser apologist but overall I thought this was an interesting read.
10. Anyone interested in a fantasy baseball league? I am kind of torn but I promise this would be a league where there is more trash talking done. If anyone is interested, do you prefer the head-to-head leagues or the leagues where it is a points based system (I am forgetting the name right now)? I don't care either way. If anyone is interested, I can get a league going, and I promise there will be more talking in this one than there was in the other fantasy leagues. I am limiting the amount of leagues I am involved with, which will help tremendously.
