Scoop Jackson sort of throws a little gasoline on a fire and then walks away in this column. He says the value of racism was confirmed with Donald Sterling's sale of the Clippers to Steve Ballmer for $2 billion. That's pretty much all Scoop says and then he stops writing. There are so many things wrong with this article.
1. The NBA forced Sterling to sell the Clippers. Did Scoop think the team would be sold for $1? Did he think Sterling would receive a check from a potential buyer and then it comes up non-sufficient funds when he tries to cash the check and so he had lost his NBA team and had no money from the sale? Did Scoop think Adam Silver would send two thugs to rob Sterling of his money before he could cash the $2 billion check? (And yes, I know it isn't a check)
2. Isn't this a better lesson in free market economics? The NBA forced Sterling to sell. He did and his team is valued on the free market at $2 billion. The free market won, not racism.
3. What's the solution? Scoop, in typical shitty fashion, throws out all sorts of racial indicators for why Sterling is able to make so much money selling the Clippers, but he provides zero solutions. What would he have suggested happen? The NBA force Sterling to sell and then he gets $0 of the sale? Other than general whining about Sterling making money off a team he rightfully purchased and was forced to sale, what's the solution? Scoop has none. He prefers to throw gasoline on a fire and then walk away, letting others figure out how to stop the fire.
4. If Sterling had sold the Clippers for even $1 billion, then wouldn't that have also shown the value of racism? What's $2 billion compared to $1 billion? In fact, if Sterling got $500 million for the Clippers, he still has made a shit-ton of money off the sale of the Clippers and will continue to be super-racist and super-rich. It's a weak argument Scoop is making where the only real solution he would seem to enjoy is that Sterling doesn't make a dollar off the Clippers team that he is being forced to sell. That's not realistic. While Sterling may be a racist asshole, being a racist asshole isn't a crime (well, unless you are a racist asshole that discriminates on who he will rent property, which also describes Sterling...of course the NBA was totally fine with that at the time), and saying racist things doesn't mean you should forfeit all property and possessions. Sterling lost his NBA team. That was a victory. Forcing him to sell the Clippers and give him $0 of the proceeds of the sale for being racist isn't a realistic solution.
How sad is this?
A man gets publicly exposed for being a transparent racist and is
universally vilified on every media and social platform known to man. He
is forced out of the NBA by a commissioner who seemed to take unbridled
pride in initiating the process of removing the owner from the league.
Sterling was forced to sell his team. He lost his NBA team, but would get money in return. He got $2 billion in return for selling a franchise in a huge market with two big stars on the team and a head coach who has an NBA Title. The Clippers have value, and so when the team is sold, Sterling reaps the reward of this value in the form of money.
now is on the verge of being rewarded with one of the largest windfalls in professional sports history.
$2 billion.
I wouldn't say he is being rewarded. He's being forced to sell the team and clearly doesn't want to do this. After being forced to sell, there was an offer of $1.6 billion from Oprah (I guess Scoop sees Oprah as part of the problem now for propping up and trying to make a racist wealthy?), so Steve Ballmer topped that offer. Sterling didn't commit a crime, he was forced to sell his team and there is no way to make sure he doesn't make money on the team he is being forced to sell.
Scoop isn't interested in the solution, he's interested in bitching, calling something racist and then moving on with his life.
The Los Angeles Clippers, the same team that just six months ago Forbes valued at $575 million (13th on the NBA Team Valuation list),
now has an offer for almost four times the worth of its January value
(which is also four times higher than the most money ever exchanged for
an NBA franchise).
NBA teams don't often go up for sale and NBA teams in Los Angeles don't often go on sale. The Lakers were valued in that same Forbes article as being worth $1.35 billion. There was an offer of $1.6 billion for the Clippers on the table. This isn't a case of Ballmer bidding against himself. There was another offer on the table that would have made Donald Sterling filthy rich and the lead face on that bid was a black female. Not coincidentally, Scoop leaves this part out of his screed about the unfairness of life and how racism is now valued at $2 billion.
And they say racism has no value -- or place -- in America.
Sterling was forced to sell his team. That was his punishment, even if it doesn't seem like enough. What's the solution? Is the solution to force Sterling to sell his team then say, "But you will have to actually give your team away for $0"? I'm pretty sure the legal system wouldn't be on the NBA's side in that situation.
On the surface there's almost no other way to look at this. Somehow Donald Sterling's comeuppance became a come up.
If the initial thought is "That's racist" and you don't care to look at this from a free market perspective, then yes, there's no other way to look at it. You just have to keep your eyes closed and hold tight to your assumptions. It wasn't Ballmer bidding against himself. He had competition who was offering closer to $2 billion than $1 billion.
Yes, there are other factors that should be taken into consideration,
And of course, Scoop WILL NOT be considering these other factors. Full speed ahead, racism wins.
I'm very interested to know what Scoop expected Sterling to receive in return for selling the Clippers. I get the feeling he would be bitching even if the franchise was sold for $600 million. After all, that still makes Sterling a very wealthy man and the same argument that racism pays could be used in this instance as well. So the only other way to look at this from my perspective is that regardless of how much the Clippers sold for, Scoop Jackson was writing an article about how racism pays.
I'm not saying that other NBA owners will look at this situation and use
it as a template drive up the value of their teams. But what can't be
ignored is that if none of this Sterling B.S. had ever happened, the
value of the Clippers if sold today might have been "around $900
million," as ESPN business reporter Darren Rovell said on "Mike &
Mike."
This is pure speculation based on Rovell's opinion. Not to mention, Sterling would not even be selling the Clippers if this situation had not occurred. That's the punishment right there. He is forced to sell (not give away) his team. And again, a pertinent point that Scoop isn't acknowledging is that a black female person bid $1.6 billion on the Clippers. Sure, this still means that racism wins, but it certainly gives a new perspective on the situation.
How did the consequence of the public's disgust over the racist
comments, beliefs and feelings of an owner become an upgrade to the
value of a business by $1.1 billion in less than 30 days?
So if Sterling had "only" made $900 million on the sale then Scoop would have had no issue with the sale of the Clippers, as if $900 million is pocket change, and racism got a good kick in the ass? I really, really doubt it. This same column would be written.
What precedence does this set? What example beyond just the sale of the team does this leave?
Keep asking open-ended questions and providing zero answers. You are doing great, Scoop! Complain about the problem, but provide no solutions.
Yes, the situation was unique. Yes, there was a deadline in place that
drove the interest in the team to a whole other stratosphere. Yes, Steve
Ballmer desperately wanted a shot at getting an NBA team (he'd
attempted it in the past and the deal fell through), so he was willing
to make sure he overbid on the market value to keep other interested
buyers away.
These would be "the other factors" taken into consideration as to why the price was driven so high. You know, market factors that Scoop probably doesn't understand nor does he care to understand when screaming about racism. I'm baffled at what Scoop expected. Does he consider $900 million to be a really fair amount for Sterling to receive in return for the Clippers? That seems like a lot of money to me.
True, this is L.A. we are talking about, not Milwaukee, where the recent
$550 million sale of Bucks was often used as a comp for the going price
of non-championship-caliber NBA franchises.
If you can't understand the difference in value of a lottery team in Milwaukee and a playoff team in Los Angeles then you simply aren't trying to understand. The Clippers have two young franchise cornerstones in a very attractive market. The Bucks may (maybe) have some franchise cornerstones in a market that is not Los Angeles.
The punishment for being outed as a racist against blacks and other minorities in this country still pays dividends.
This would have been true no matter whether Sterling got $550 million or $2 billion. It's all a lot of money. Seeing as how he was forced to sell the team, I simply don't know what outcome Scoop was expecting.
And true, Sterling himself may never see or be able to personally do
anything with the money, but his family will benefit greatly.
The entire Sterling family shouldn't be punished because Donald Sterling is a racist. I'm pretty sure he wasn't leaving his family destitute when he died anyway.
Generation after generation of Sterlings will reap the extra estimated
billion-dollar benefit from the sale of the Clippers because it was
discovered their patriarch felt about blacks the same way as a
plantation owner.
No. Generation after generation of Sterlings will reap the billion-dollar benefit from the sale of the Clippers because he bought them for $12 million in 1981. I like how Scoop is using the punishment of Sterling, forcing the sale of his team, as some sort of culpable action that was in some way a positive designed to benefit Sterling. The NBA couldn't simply get rid of Sterling, they did what they could do, which was force him to sell his team. Now his racist ass has nothing to do with the NBA. It was a pretty extreme move, but now Scoop is upset about how this just made Donald Sterling more money. I have a feeling if the NBA didn't make Sterling sell the Clippers then Scoop would be upset about that.
There is a deeper discussion to be had here, but I'm not going to have it in this space because Scoop isn't interested in that discussion. He writes a column that only touches on issues of race and then stops writing. He's interested in bitching about every possible outcome rather than creating solutions or providing alternatives for what he thinks the outcome should have been.
Similar to the financial benefits still reaped today off the business that was slavery.
Okay, Scoop. Let's stay on the topic. I'm still waiting on the idea for a solution to this situation.
The sale of the Clippers is just another reminder of how America at the
core works. Money over everything. Not black, not white, but green.
Money first, and everything else in second place.
The NBA forced Sterling to sell the team. He sold the team. Now Scoop Jackson is mad Donald Sterling made money off the Clippers. Did he think they would go for $15.99 at a yard sale? NBA franchises are valuable and Sterling was going to be a rich man when forced to sell the team.
Damn the message we were supposed to learn. Damn whatever we were
supposed to take away from the activities and behavior that yes, took
away his team, but gifted four times the original business's worth.
The lesson is that Sterling is a racist and the NBA made a statement they aren't going to let openly racist people own an NBA team. Again, the NBA can't force Sterling to sell the team and then say he can't keep the money from selling the team. Just in the same way if Scoop Jackson wrote something offensive and was fired as a writer for ESPN I couldn't stop him from receiving a severance package. It wasn't a gift to Sterling, it was the value of his franchise as decided by what someone was willing to pay for said franchise.
Where is the expected justice -- now that the country could no longer
deny who Sterling really was -- that he would be made to pay?
FOR THE 50TH TIME, WHAT DID YOU THINK WAS GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN DONALD STERLING SOLD THE CLIPPERS?
In a free, predominately white male-owned and operated enterprise
system, if a dollar can be turned into $2 billion, more power to the
person who can do it.
Actually, $12 million was turned into $2 billion. Also, if Steve Ballmer had not purchased the Clippers then Oprah would have been the one to turn Sterling's $12 million into $1.6 billion. I'm sure Scoop would have had an issue with a black, female woman paying to take over an NBA team from a racist. He would probably write something like, "This is how it is in America, to stop racism it costs $1.6 billion. RACISM CAN BE BOUGHT OFF IN AMERICA!"
Which means the only thing more American than Donald Sterling is America itself.
Great deep thought to end the column and then be out. There's nothing more American than bitching about something and having absolutely no clue how to fix it nor providing any solutions. It sucks Donald Sterling made so much money, but what was the alternative? The NBA forced Sterling to sell the Clippers, so he did, and now he made money off the sale. Maybe $2 billion is considered "too much" but is $600 million a much better lesson to Sterling when he bought the team for $12 million?
Monday, June 9, 2014
Friday, June 6, 2014
4 comments Jay Mariotti Keeps Moving the Goalposts to Further the Same Tired LeBron James Narrative
LeBron James has two NBA Championship rings. You wouldn't know from the column that Jay Mariotti has written though. I'm sure many remember the boring, tired narrative propagated by many in the media from two years ago that if LeBron James didn't win a title then:
1. He won't ever be Michael Jordan.
2. He won't be the best player in NBA history.
3. The gathering of the Big 3 in Miami was a failure and they should all kill themselves.
4. This proves he's a choker who can't win the big game.
5. All of the above and more.
Unfortunately for the idiots who wrote columns like this about a 27-year old LeBron James it turns out he has won back-to-back NBA Championships...but only because Ray Allen bailed him out of course. Michael Jordan never had help from anyone like John Paxson when he won an NBA title. Never. So what to do now? LeBron has two NBA titles. How to criticize LeBron and make it seem like he won't ever be what "we" wanted him to be? By moving the goalposts every single time he accomplishes something of course. He and the Heat won the NBA title last year? Well this year it means MORE that they win the NBA title, so LeBron has to win the NBA title again this year or his two previous titles mean absolutely nothing. That's the Mariotti-esque point of view that Jay Mariotti has. THIS YEAR is the most important NBA Finals of LeBron's career. Just like next year will be the most important NBA Finals of his career.
In the most meaningful ways, the human ways, LeBron James has more than passed the flaw test. Since that week in 2002, when Sports Illustrated propped him on its cover as “The Chosen One,’’ not once has he failed himself or his legacy in the searing public eye.
But you know, it all goes away if he doesn't win the NBA title this year. Immediacy is king. LeBron is nothing if he can't win an NBA title every single season. All his past accomplishments are null and void if he goes 2-3 in the NBA Finals.
I like how Jay starts off a column where he states LeBron is flawed by stating that LeBron really isn't flawed. Of course a column about how LeBron isn't flawed won't get Jay the attention he so desperately requires to become relevant again, so he has to write that LeBron is flawed in some way.
Never in a dozen years has he been scandalized, bimboized or TMZized. If LeBron’s image is fake, he has guarded his secrets well enough that Edward Snowden couldn’t expose them.
So keep that in mind when I say James, as the preeminent American athlete of the moment, has stumbled more than once professionally and dearly needs to win a third straight NBA championship to remove some lingering tarnish.
Keep this in mind as Jay writes this column so that you can be aware Jay (a) knows this column is a piece of crap and he doesn't believe a word he writes, (b) Jay knows he is wrong and doesn't give a shit because he wants attention, (c) is going to completely pretend this column doesn't exist in two years.
And you know what happened a year later — after James had made his daunting “not two, not three, not four, not five, not six …’’ declaration — when he disappeared in the clutch and generally flat-lined in an abysmal loss to Dallas in the Finals. Even if we give James a pass for his previous washout against the Spurs in the 2007 Finals — are we absolutely certain the Cavaliers ever laced up sneakers for that series? — it means he has failed more than once in history-defining arenas.
Oh, so there were more "history-defining arenas" for LeBron James during the NBA Finals. It almost seems like the "history-defining arenas" are intentionally chosen to be during the NBA Finals that LeBron has lost and not during those he has won. He took a very undermanned Cavs team to the Finals in 2007 and learned lessons from the 2011 Finals that have resulted in the Heat winning back-to-back NBA Finals.
LeBron is more Peyton Manning than Michael Jordan, OK?
I don't know what that means since LeBron has won as many NBA Finals series as he has lost, but I do know LeBron has two NBA titles at the age of 29 years old, Peyton Manning has won a single Super Bowl and Michael Jordan had three NBA titles at the age of 29. Most of the reason LeBron is more Manning than Jordan is because he is 29 years old and hasn't had a chance to win as many titles as Jordan won.
Therefore, he has more at stake than Tim Duncan and the Spurs in what should be a memorable seven-game series.
"Who has more at stake in this series? It has to be someone! There is a right answer to this unanswerable question!"
Ah yes, another lazy, tired narrative that ESPN loves to debate on their many day time sports argument shows. For a guy who claims to not like ESPN, Jay sure does think like many of the talking heads there.
If San Antonio wins a fifth title since 1999, sure, it further validates Gregg Popovich’s methodology as championship-sustainable into a third decade, which should be an impossibility amid the opt-outs, tax restrictions and dizzying business structure of the 21st century. But whether the Spurs win or fall short doesn’t impact their place in basketball lore.
So to recap:
The team who lost to the Heat in the NBA Finals last year, has their title window closing very rapidly because they are built around three 30+ stars, and has won four titles in the last 14 years have nothing to prove. The team who beat the Spurs last year in the NBA Finals, still has a very wide title window and has won the last two NBA titles (including one over the Spurs) is the team whose failure will impact their place in basketball lore?
Popovich, Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker and a recently cultivated cast of snap-on parts — international in scope — really have nothing to prove except revenge for an uncharacteristically botched Finals opportunity last June against the Heat. Another loss will make them ache, but we won’t think less of them.
Well...first off, don't "we" me. Let's look at what "we" think of the Spurs based on their NBA Finals experience.
1999: They beat the #8 seed Knicks in a strike-shortened season.
2003: They beat the #2 seed Nets.
2005: They beat the #2 seed and defending champion Pistons.
2007: They beat a pathetically undermatched (I meant "overmatched" as mentioned in the comments) Cavs teams.
2013: Lost to the Miami Heat.
So, and this is just my opinion, it has been almost 10 years since the Spurs have met a quality NBA Finals Eastern Conference opponent and beaten that opponent to win the NBA title. I'm not taking the Spurs title away from them, but while I found the 2007 Cavs team exciting they weren't exactly a strong team. So the Spurs do seem to have something to prove. They need to prove they can still compete against and defeat a great Eastern Conference team in the NBA Finals. Because it's been a while since they have done that.
If James loses? That will be three Finals losses, and while his supporters will find fault with his unreliable supporting cast, the all-time greats find ways of overcoming such weaknesses — particularly when the Spurs have their own issues with age and injuries.
That's the thing though. If the Heat lose, it may not reflect on James at all. I know, it's shocking this could be possible, but perhaps if James loses another NBA Finals it just means the Spurs outplayed the Heat and deserved to win the NBA title. Why does there have to be a narrative that follows and points to a separate narrative outside of the Heat simply losing? Why does another Finals loss for LeBron HAVE to mean something?
If James is the Michael Jordan of his era and the Heat are the Jordan Bulls of their era, as Indiana coach Frank Vogel blathered in trying to justify another failure by his knuckleheads in the Eastern Conference finals, then they will find a way to win another title as they did last year.
Okay, sure. If this comparison has to be made, then a direct comparison to Jordan's Bulls would be applicable because the Heat won't win three titles in a row. But otherwise, these NBA Finals are not the fulcrum for LeBron's legacy. Stop moving the goalposts on him. It used to be that his legacy meant nothing if he didn't win an NBA title, so he won a title. Then it was, "Well he has to win back-to-back titles or his legacy is shit," so he won another title. Now it's, "He has to be like Michael Jordan and win three straight titles or his legacy is shit." It's silly. Just enjoy him for his accomplishments and stop acting like every NBA Finals is the very end-all be-all for James' legacy.
His legacy will pivot on what happens these next two weeks.
This is written every single time James' team appears in the NBA Finals. It's boring and tired.
The three-peat would set him apart. On Finals eve, James isn’t shying from the Jordan comparisons, but deep down, he knows such thoughts will end without another South Beach partner. You can’t say “not two, not three, not four, not five, not six, not seven …’’ and stop at two.
Is Jay Mariotti under the impression LeBron James is retiring after the season is over? If not, then LeBron still may not be stopping at two titles. There is a next year, another season, another chance for the 2015 NBA Finals to be THE FINALS where James' cements his legacy until the next season's NBA Finals.
I wish this type of stuff translated to other professions.
"This column is the column which defines Jay Mariotti's legacy. It's his Super Bowl column. If he wants to be considered one of the greats, he will nail this Super Bowl column. If he doesn't nail it, then he's never going to be a great writer."
"I have to turn in this TPS report and it be the best thing I ever written. If this TPS report isn't the best report I have ever turned in, my career will mean nothing."
James said. “Me and (Dwyane Wade) grew up watching the great Chicago Bulls team and the great Michael Jordan and the rest of those guys. To be able to play the game that we love at a high level for one another, for our teammates, it’s the ultimate. When you hear the comparisons, you respect it. You’re humbled by it. You just feel like while you’re in the moment hopefully, while you’re playing the game, that you can make an impact enough to where you move on and people will start comparing you to ones that’s in the game at the present time.”
What this means to Jay Mariotti:
"I'm being compared to Michael Jordan, so I have to do everything Michael Jordan did except do it better than he did and if I don't do that then I'm a complete failure and my career will be nothing but a shameful 'what could have been' when I look back on it."
Two titles don’t distinguish a team in history, despite this from Wade: “Whenever it’s all said and done, the legacy of this team, it’s going to be a great team. It’s going to go down in history as an unbelievable team not only in South Florida but in NBA history.” Winning three straight titles qualifies as greatness. Going 2 for 4 does not.
I was under the impression this column was about LeBron James' legacy, not the legacy of the Miami Heat team as a whole. Funny how Jay just mixes those two together for the hell of it. The legacy of the Heat team doesn't necessarily define the legacy of LeBron James as an individual player.
We’ve never thought of Duncan, the most private superstar of sport’s self-indulgent era, as someone who spends time on personal legacies. But he did hint at how much he has ached since last year’s Finals with his shocking, refreshing proclamation that the Spurs will win. “It’s unbelievable to regain that focus after that devastating loss that we had last year. But we’re back here. We’re excited about it. We’ve got four more to win. We’ll do it this time. We’re happy it’s the Heat again. We’ve got that bad taste in our mouths still,’’ he said, on live television no less.
I think I have figured out Jay Mariotti's problem. He is illiterate, or at the very least, remarkably stupid. I read this quote 3-4 times and at no point was it Tim Duncan spending time on his personal legacy. The entire quote is about the legacy of the Spurs as a team and how they want to beat the Heat this year, which they were not able to do last year. It in no way is Duncan commenting on his personal legacy.
James did care. “They don’t like us, they don’t. I can sense it from Timmy’s comments over the last couple of days,” he said. “They wanted this, they wanted us and we’ll be ready for the challenge.”
With a four-day lead up to the Finals, you knew someone would run those comments past Popovich. “Personally? People can say whatever they want. I like everybody,’’ he said, his annoyed shtick in full bloom. “You’re really gonna ask me that? So somebody will say, `I don’t like him.’ And then they’ll go, `So and so said they don’t like you.’ `Well, I don’t like you, either.’
Okay, great. What does this have to do with James' legacy again? Absolutely nothing? Great.
The reason James cares about Duncan’s comments is that he needs to be at his supreme best as a leader and a performer, from the first minute of Game 1 to the final buzzer of Game 7.
This is unlike Tim Duncan? Why didn't Duncan need to be at his best last year in the NBA Finals from the first minute of Game 1 to the final buzzer of Game 7? His legacy is magically cemented already, even though he didn't beat "Mr. Shaky Legacy" LeBron James and the Heat in last year's NBA Finals?
At times, he has mysteriously faded in big moments, subjecting himself to criticism for not wanting the last shot on occasion. He can’t afford fadeouts like his no-show in Game 5 against the Pacers, when he found instant foul trouble and had his worst-ever postseason game.
Even when James succeeds his failures are brought up for all of the world to contemplate and submit their own hot sports takes. LeBron has won two straight NBA titles but that's never going to be enough. He is going to have to win more titles than Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant or his legacy will be shameful and incomplete. These writers have to keep raising the bar and their expectations in order to justify their writing about LeBron NEEDING to win another title, and not just another title, but the NBA title this year.
We must see the best of LeBron James for two weeks, no respites or dinner breaks allowed.
And if the Heat win, but LeBron has one bad game, then he has to prove he can play well in every NBA Finals game or else is legacy is incomplete. You would think LeBron was on the losing side of this NBA Finals rematch from last year the way Jay Mariotti is talking about him.
The Spurs want it.
But you know, they won't be defined by whether they can beat the Heat or not. That would be silly for Jay to say a team that has established itself as a consistently great team would need to win an NBA title to justify their presence as a great team. Jay would never do that. The Spurs have made six NBA Finals appearances since 1999. The Heat have made four NBA Finals appearances in the last four years. Obviously the Heat (and by extension apparently, LeBron James) are the team whose legacy should be questioned.
LeBron needs it.
Says every lazy sportswriter who writes this same type of re-treaded column every year the NBA Finals roll around with a LeBron-led team represented in those NBA Finals. Every single time LeBron appears in the NBA Finals, his legacy will be defined by those very NBA Finals...until the next year's NBA Finals when THAT NBA Finals are really what defines LeBron's legacy.
Jay Mariotti's sportswriting legacy is already defined and complete. He's not very good at writing and desperately wants as much attention as possible.
1. He won't ever be Michael Jordan.
2. He won't be the best player in NBA history.
3. The gathering of the Big 3 in Miami was a failure and they should all kill themselves.
4. This proves he's a choker who can't win the big game.
5. All of the above and more.
Unfortunately for the idiots who wrote columns like this about a 27-year old LeBron James it turns out he has won back-to-back NBA Championships...but only because Ray Allen bailed him out of course. Michael Jordan never had help from anyone like John Paxson when he won an NBA title. Never. So what to do now? LeBron has two NBA titles. How to criticize LeBron and make it seem like he won't ever be what "we" wanted him to be? By moving the goalposts every single time he accomplishes something of course. He and the Heat won the NBA title last year? Well this year it means MORE that they win the NBA title, so LeBron has to win the NBA title again this year or his two previous titles mean absolutely nothing. That's the Mariotti-esque point of view that Jay Mariotti has. THIS YEAR is the most important NBA Finals of LeBron's career. Just like next year will be the most important NBA Finals of his career.
In the most meaningful ways, the human ways, LeBron James has more than passed the flaw test. Since that week in 2002, when Sports Illustrated propped him on its cover as “The Chosen One,’’ not once has he failed himself or his legacy in the searing public eye.
But you know, it all goes away if he doesn't win the NBA title this year. Immediacy is king. LeBron is nothing if he can't win an NBA title every single season. All his past accomplishments are null and void if he goes 2-3 in the NBA Finals.
I like how Jay starts off a column where he states LeBron is flawed by stating that LeBron really isn't flawed. Of course a column about how LeBron isn't flawed won't get Jay the attention he so desperately requires to become relevant again, so he has to write that LeBron is flawed in some way.
Never in a dozen years has he been scandalized, bimboized or TMZized. If LeBron’s image is fake, he has guarded his secrets well enough that Edward Snowden couldn’t expose them.
So keep that in mind when I say James, as the preeminent American athlete of the moment, has stumbled more than once professionally and dearly needs to win a third straight NBA championship to remove some lingering tarnish.
Keep this in mind as Jay writes this column so that you can be aware Jay (a) knows this column is a piece of crap and he doesn't believe a word he writes, (b) Jay knows he is wrong and doesn't give a shit because he wants attention, (c) is going to completely pretend this column doesn't exist in two years.
And you know what happened a year later — after James had made his daunting “not two, not three, not four, not five, not six …’’ declaration — when he disappeared in the clutch and generally flat-lined in an abysmal loss to Dallas in the Finals. Even if we give James a pass for his previous washout against the Spurs in the 2007 Finals — are we absolutely certain the Cavaliers ever laced up sneakers for that series? — it means he has failed more than once in history-defining arenas.
Oh, so there were more "history-defining arenas" for LeBron James during the NBA Finals. It almost seems like the "history-defining arenas" are intentionally chosen to be during the NBA Finals that LeBron has lost and not during those he has won. He took a very undermanned Cavs team to the Finals in 2007 and learned lessons from the 2011 Finals that have resulted in the Heat winning back-to-back NBA Finals.
LeBron is more Peyton Manning than Michael Jordan, OK?
I don't know what that means since LeBron has won as many NBA Finals series as he has lost, but I do know LeBron has two NBA titles at the age of 29 years old, Peyton Manning has won a single Super Bowl and Michael Jordan had three NBA titles at the age of 29. Most of the reason LeBron is more Manning than Jordan is because he is 29 years old and hasn't had a chance to win as many titles as Jordan won.
Therefore, he has more at stake than Tim Duncan and the Spurs in what should be a memorable seven-game series.
"Who has more at stake in this series? It has to be someone! There is a right answer to this unanswerable question!"
Ah yes, another lazy, tired narrative that ESPN loves to debate on their many day time sports argument shows. For a guy who claims to not like ESPN, Jay sure does think like many of the talking heads there.
If San Antonio wins a fifth title since 1999, sure, it further validates Gregg Popovich’s methodology as championship-sustainable into a third decade, which should be an impossibility amid the opt-outs, tax restrictions and dizzying business structure of the 21st century. But whether the Spurs win or fall short doesn’t impact their place in basketball lore.
So to recap:
The team who lost to the Heat in the NBA Finals last year, has their title window closing very rapidly because they are built around three 30+ stars, and has won four titles in the last 14 years have nothing to prove. The team who beat the Spurs last year in the NBA Finals, still has a very wide title window and has won the last two NBA titles (including one over the Spurs) is the team whose failure will impact their place in basketball lore?
Popovich, Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker and a recently cultivated cast of snap-on parts — international in scope — really have nothing to prove except revenge for an uncharacteristically botched Finals opportunity last June against the Heat. Another loss will make them ache, but we won’t think less of them.
Well...first off, don't "we" me. Let's look at what "we" think of the Spurs based on their NBA Finals experience.
1999: They beat the #8 seed Knicks in a strike-shortened season.
2003: They beat the #2 seed Nets.
2005: They beat the #2 seed and defending champion Pistons.
2007: They beat a pathetically undermatched (I meant "overmatched" as mentioned in the comments) Cavs teams.
2013: Lost to the Miami Heat.
So, and this is just my opinion, it has been almost 10 years since the Spurs have met a quality NBA Finals Eastern Conference opponent and beaten that opponent to win the NBA title. I'm not taking the Spurs title away from them, but while I found the 2007 Cavs team exciting they weren't exactly a strong team. So the Spurs do seem to have something to prove. They need to prove they can still compete against and defeat a great Eastern Conference team in the NBA Finals. Because it's been a while since they have done that.
If James loses? That will be three Finals losses, and while his supporters will find fault with his unreliable supporting cast, the all-time greats find ways of overcoming such weaknesses — particularly when the Spurs have their own issues with age and injuries.
That's the thing though. If the Heat lose, it may not reflect on James at all. I know, it's shocking this could be possible, but perhaps if James loses another NBA Finals it just means the Spurs outplayed the Heat and deserved to win the NBA title. Why does there have to be a narrative that follows and points to a separate narrative outside of the Heat simply losing? Why does another Finals loss for LeBron HAVE to mean something?
If James is the Michael Jordan of his era and the Heat are the Jordan Bulls of their era, as Indiana coach Frank Vogel blathered in trying to justify another failure by his knuckleheads in the Eastern Conference finals, then they will find a way to win another title as they did last year.
Okay, sure. If this comparison has to be made, then a direct comparison to Jordan's Bulls would be applicable because the Heat won't win three titles in a row. But otherwise, these NBA Finals are not the fulcrum for LeBron's legacy. Stop moving the goalposts on him. It used to be that his legacy meant nothing if he didn't win an NBA title, so he won a title. Then it was, "Well he has to win back-to-back titles or his legacy is shit," so he won another title. Now it's, "He has to be like Michael Jordan and win three straight titles or his legacy is shit." It's silly. Just enjoy him for his accomplishments and stop acting like every NBA Finals is the very end-all be-all for James' legacy.
His legacy will pivot on what happens these next two weeks.
This is written every single time James' team appears in the NBA Finals. It's boring and tired.
The three-peat would set him apart. On Finals eve, James isn’t shying from the Jordan comparisons, but deep down, he knows such thoughts will end without another South Beach partner. You can’t say “not two, not three, not four, not five, not six, not seven …’’ and stop at two.
Is Jay Mariotti under the impression LeBron James is retiring after the season is over? If not, then LeBron still may not be stopping at two titles. There is a next year, another season, another chance for the 2015 NBA Finals to be THE FINALS where James' cements his legacy until the next season's NBA Finals.
I wish this type of stuff translated to other professions.
"This column is the column which defines Jay Mariotti's legacy. It's his Super Bowl column. If he wants to be considered one of the greats, he will nail this Super Bowl column. If he doesn't nail it, then he's never going to be a great writer."
"I have to turn in this TPS report and it be the best thing I ever written. If this TPS report isn't the best report I have ever turned in, my career will mean nothing."
James said. “Me and (Dwyane Wade) grew up watching the great Chicago Bulls team and the great Michael Jordan and the rest of those guys. To be able to play the game that we love at a high level for one another, for our teammates, it’s the ultimate. When you hear the comparisons, you respect it. You’re humbled by it. You just feel like while you’re in the moment hopefully, while you’re playing the game, that you can make an impact enough to where you move on and people will start comparing you to ones that’s in the game at the present time.”
What this means to Jay Mariotti:
"I'm being compared to Michael Jordan, so I have to do everything Michael Jordan did except do it better than he did and if I don't do that then I'm a complete failure and my career will be nothing but a shameful 'what could have been' when I look back on it."
Two titles don’t distinguish a team in history, despite this from Wade: “Whenever it’s all said and done, the legacy of this team, it’s going to be a great team. It’s going to go down in history as an unbelievable team not only in South Florida but in NBA history.” Winning three straight titles qualifies as greatness. Going 2 for 4 does not.
I was under the impression this column was about LeBron James' legacy, not the legacy of the Miami Heat team as a whole. Funny how Jay just mixes those two together for the hell of it. The legacy of the Heat team doesn't necessarily define the legacy of LeBron James as an individual player.
We’ve never thought of Duncan, the most private superstar of sport’s self-indulgent era, as someone who spends time on personal legacies. But he did hint at how much he has ached since last year’s Finals with his shocking, refreshing proclamation that the Spurs will win. “It’s unbelievable to regain that focus after that devastating loss that we had last year. But we’re back here. We’re excited about it. We’ve got four more to win. We’ll do it this time. We’re happy it’s the Heat again. We’ve got that bad taste in our mouths still,’’ he said, on live television no less.
I think I have figured out Jay Mariotti's problem. He is illiterate, or at the very least, remarkably stupid. I read this quote 3-4 times and at no point was it Tim Duncan spending time on his personal legacy. The entire quote is about the legacy of the Spurs as a team and how they want to beat the Heat this year, which they were not able to do last year. It in no way is Duncan commenting on his personal legacy.
James did care. “They don’t like us, they don’t. I can sense it from Timmy’s comments over the last couple of days,” he said. “They wanted this, they wanted us and we’ll be ready for the challenge.”
With a four-day lead up to the Finals, you knew someone would run those comments past Popovich. “Personally? People can say whatever they want. I like everybody,’’ he said, his annoyed shtick in full bloom. “You’re really gonna ask me that? So somebody will say, `I don’t like him.’ And then they’ll go, `So and so said they don’t like you.’ `Well, I don’t like you, either.’
Okay, great. What does this have to do with James' legacy again? Absolutely nothing? Great.
The reason James cares about Duncan’s comments is that he needs to be at his supreme best as a leader and a performer, from the first minute of Game 1 to the final buzzer of Game 7.
This is unlike Tim Duncan? Why didn't Duncan need to be at his best last year in the NBA Finals from the first minute of Game 1 to the final buzzer of Game 7? His legacy is magically cemented already, even though he didn't beat "Mr. Shaky Legacy" LeBron James and the Heat in last year's NBA Finals?
At times, he has mysteriously faded in big moments, subjecting himself to criticism for not wanting the last shot on occasion. He can’t afford fadeouts like his no-show in Game 5 against the Pacers, when he found instant foul trouble and had his worst-ever postseason game.
Even when James succeeds his failures are brought up for all of the world to contemplate and submit their own hot sports takes. LeBron has won two straight NBA titles but that's never going to be enough. He is going to have to win more titles than Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant or his legacy will be shameful and incomplete. These writers have to keep raising the bar and their expectations in order to justify their writing about LeBron NEEDING to win another title, and not just another title, but the NBA title this year.
We must see the best of LeBron James for two weeks, no respites or dinner breaks allowed.
And if the Heat win, but LeBron has one bad game, then he has to prove he can play well in every NBA Finals game or else is legacy is incomplete. You would think LeBron was on the losing side of this NBA Finals rematch from last year the way Jay Mariotti is talking about him.
The Spurs want it.
But you know, they won't be defined by whether they can beat the Heat or not. That would be silly for Jay to say a team that has established itself as a consistently great team would need to win an NBA title to justify their presence as a great team. Jay would never do that. The Spurs have made six NBA Finals appearances since 1999. The Heat have made four NBA Finals appearances in the last four years. Obviously the Heat (and by extension apparently, LeBron James) are the team whose legacy should be questioned.
LeBron needs it.
Says every lazy sportswriter who writes this same type of re-treaded column every year the NBA Finals roll around with a LeBron-led team represented in those NBA Finals. Every single time LeBron appears in the NBA Finals, his legacy will be defined by those very NBA Finals...until the next year's NBA Finals when THAT NBA Finals are really what defines LeBron's legacy.
Jay Mariotti's sportswriting legacy is already defined and complete. He's not very good at writing and desperately wants as much attention as possible.
Thursday, June 5, 2014
2 comments Hey Rick Reilly, Writing a Letter to Derek Jeter's Children is Kind of Creepy
The Derek Jeter Appreciation Tour has continued for most of the summer. Along with this appreciation comes puff pieces about Jeter and his accomplishments as a MLB player. Most of these tributes are pretty innocuous and well-deserved, but then there is the occasional article where the author should take a cold shower or a brief break before posting what he/she has written. AND THEN, there are those who get very carried away writing about Jeter and end up writing something that is incredibly embarrassing. You know, those people who write a letter to Derek Jeter's non-existent children on the topic of their father's baseball career. "Those people" are Rick Reilly and it's a little creepy to write a letter to someone else's children. I ask this a lot, but I have no idea how this article got posted on ESPN.com. It's not only a bad idea, even for someone like Rick Reilly who seemingly has tons of bad column ideas, but it's just a little weird.
To Derek Jeter's kids (whenever you come along):
Writing letters to someone else's children is just a little weird. It just is. I can't argue with anyone about this. If Derek Jeter wanted his kids to read a letter about his playing career he would do it or just cue up one of the thousands of videos online of his MLB career for his children to watch.
You were born too late to know your father the way we did,
And Rick Reilly knows Derek Jeter well, which is why this isn't an interview with Jeter and instead is a creepy stalker letter directed towards Jeter's unborn children.
Don't you like how Rick is playing the "insider sportswriter" role here as if he has special access to Derek Jeter? It's almost like Rick isn't talking about one of the few sports superstars that few know anything about. Seriously, does anyone know anything really specific about Derek Jeter other than he likes attractive brunette women? But no, Rick will pretend he knows something everyone else doesn't and that he truly knows Jeter.
so I want to take just a minute to let you know what he meant to us.
He meant the Braves didn't win two more World Series in the 90's to me, so I'm still pretty pissed off about that.
He was a kind of prince in baseball cleats, George Clooney in pinstripes,
A Chris Cornell in cleats, the Neil Patrick Harris of outstanding clutch plays, and the John Grisham of shortstops.
He was humble and handsome and yet hard to hate.
Does Rick Reilly know that Derek Jeter is humble and hard to hate? I would seriously doubt that he knows Jeter personally enough to know this is a fact and not just a set of characteristics he's looking to project onto Jeter.
He was like a good magician. You could never figure out how he did it.
Dedication, hard work and talent he cultivated within himself through this hard work. Doesn't seem too hard to figure out.
He was the best player in baseball for a good 10 years straight and yet he never won a batting title, never won an MVP, never was the highest-paid player in the game.
"I'll take ridiculous observations that casual fans of baseball would make for $100, Alex."
He spoke to the media every day, yet managed to say nothing.
BUT RICK KNOWS JETER IS HUMBLE! HE KNOWS THIS BECAUSE HE PROJECTS THIS QUALITY ONTO JETER.
He never showed up in the clubhouse with a black eye to explain, a headline to deny or a photo to justify.
No, but his spending the night on the town was questioned at one point, which lead to this VISA commercial. It was all much ado about nothing, but I think it's funny that sportswriters tend to forget that Jeter did hit the town in the younger years. He was quiet-ish about it, but he wasn't quite the stay-at-home guy that writers like Reilly want to remember him as being.
"He could sense trouble coming," said his best friend, former teammate and retired catcher Jorge Posada. "We'd be at a restaurant. He'd say, 'That guy in the blue shirt. He's going to come over here and ask for an autograph.' And sure enough, 15 seconds later, the guy would be standing at our table."
Two things:
1. Since when does an autograph seeker count as "trouble"?
2. Derek Jeter is incredibly famous in New York and around the United States, so the fact he thinks a guy looking at him will come over for an autograph is simply a reflection of his fame, not a reflection of his heightened senses.
How he was loved! In a league full of bloated steroid cheats, he kept the same body, the same weight, the same helmet size.
By the way, Jeter won World Series titles and part of his legacy is tied to the team success that was assisted by steroid cheats, but let's completely not mention this okay? Writers and players point out Jeter is a winner and the ultimate champion, while differentiating him from the steroid cheats, but always conveniently leave out part of Jeter's legacy is what it is because he played with a list of steroid cheats. It's all part of the game the media plays. They manage to separate Jeter out from the steroid cheats, give reason to taint the accomplishments of these cheats, but refuse to see Jeter's accomplishments in any way tied to the accomplishments of these cheats.
In a world of my-agent-doesn't-want-me-to-play multimillionaires, he played hurt more than we know. "Most of the time, he wasn't 100 percent," Posada said. "He'd come out of spring training and tell me, 'I'm already hurting,' but he wouldn't tell anybody else. He just kept going."
I'm interested to know who Rick Reilly thinks the my-agent-doesn't-want-me-to-play multimillionaires are, but I'm guessing he can't name one.
Your father was everything men wanted to be. The guy with the $15 million Trump Tower penthouse. The dude dating Miss Universe. The man with all of the talent and none of the jerk. He was everything women wanted, too.
No kid wants to hear this shit about their father, even kids who aren't born yet or may never be born yet. Rick Reilly is writing a letter to Derek Jeter's semen right now. Pretty creepy.
The elegant athlete who loved books, paid for everything, and had a limo waiting for them when it was time to go.
He had a limo waiting for him when it was time to go, BUT BOY THAT JETER WAS HUMBLE!
The stat-heads scoffed at him, but then the stat-heads never figured out a way to measure the things he did.
Yes, it is difficult to measure hyperbole, intangibles, and anecdotal evidence...most likely because they don't exist in a way where they can be measured.
Some guys would lean over the wall in foul territory to make a catch. Jeter would launch himself over it, sometimes two rows deep. He'd come out with a bruised face, a cut chin, and the ball.
He did this once. It wasn't a thing he did a couple of times a year.
Fourteen Yankees were captains, but none longer than your father, and that includes Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig.
Who is going to write the letter to Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig's great-grandchildren telling them of their father's accomplishments?
Your father was like a rooster's crow. You could always depend on him.
This letter is getting even more creepy. Now Rick is comparing Derek Jeter to a consistently performing cock. This is after mentioning Jeter's ways with women a couple of times in this letter...not that he is blurring the line between hero worship and creepy of course.
Oh, he had his faults. If you crossed him, even once, you were out forever. If he didn't get to the World Series, he would slip into a terrible funk.
Rick is still writing this column like he had a deep, personal relationship to Derek Jeter. Like he was the Gail to Jeter's Oprah. The Brett Favre to Peter King. The Lance Armstrong to Rick Reilly.
He refused to use public bathrooms unless it was an emergency.
(Derek Jeter begins to walk into the bathroom at Yankee Stadium and sees a shirtless Rick Reilly peeking out the side of it)
(Rick Reilly starts waving his finger for Jeter to come into the bathroom) "Hey Derek, why don't you come in here? I have a question for you. Maybe you could pee in a cup and prove you aren't a steroid user."
(The Jeter) "Nah man, I'm good...I was just walking down the hall."
(Rick Reilly looks around) "There's nothing else down here...and no one else down here. There's no where to go but to the bathroom. Where were you going Derek?"
(The Jeter) "I mean...I was...I thought about heading to the bathroom, but I only go if it's an emergency and I've decided it's not an emergency."
(Rick Reilly) "I saw you coming from down the hall doing the pee-pee dance. It certainly looked like an emergency (removes his shoes and socks). Come on in the bathroom and use one of the urinals. I'll be right behind you."
(The Jeter) "Nah, I don't use public bathrooms except if it's an emergency and it's not (runs the other way)"
(Rick Reilly whispers) "No one knows you like I do. We should be together."
Nobody had to yell at him much. He threw right, hit to right and did right. He began a foundation called Turn 2, which helps kids growing up in lousy situations, and he gave far more to it than money. One time, he showed up to watch a hapless Turn 2 Little League team. Not only hadn't they won a game, they hadn't even scored a run. When they finally scored one that game, he celebrated as though they'd all just landed on the moon.
This certainly sounds like a story that Jeter could tell his children himself. Not to step on Reilly's toes in this really creepy letter to Jeter's unborn children or anything.
He had this way of making you feel you belonged. Before the first World Series game at Yankee Stadium after 9/11, President George W. Bush was to throw out the first pitch. Everybody was tense. Jeter walked up to Bush and said: "Throw from the mound or else they'll boo you."
If Jeter was really helpful he would have told Bush there were no WMD's in Iraq. That would have been super-clutch of him.
Yet again, this sounds like the kind of story that Jeter could tell his children himself. So I'm still not sure why Reilly feels the need to be so weird.
He was hilarious, but he didn't want you to know it. In his final goodbye season of 2014, I asked, "Who would you cross the street to avoid?"
"You," he said.
Rick Reilly laughed as Derek Jeter stood stone-faced staring at him, being absolutely serious about his answer. Rick then put his hands around Jeter's neck and pretended to choke him in the hopes someone would take a picture of it. What a jokester that Jeter was, saying he would avoid his soulmate on the street. If Jeter avoided Rick Reilly then who would be around to tell Jeter's non-existent children about his exploits on the field?
When his body just couldn't do it anymore, it was bittersweet. Nobody loved playing baseball more than your dad, but he was ready. "I'm going to finally see what Europe is like in the summer," he told me. "I've been on a schedule my whole life. The plan now is to have no plan."
You can feel the personal connection Jeter and Reilly had. It's palpable. In fact, the personal relationship between Rick Reilly and Derek Jeter is the Derek Jeter of personal relationships. It's the best.
After that, he said he was going to settle down and have a family, which was unthinkable. Derek Jeter settling down? It was like an eagle deciding to take the bus. Glad he did, though, because genes this good shouldn't be wasted.
Plus, it gave Rick a chance to mail in a creepy column where he pretended to write a letter to Derek Jeter's hypothetical children. I'm assuming Reilly didn't tell Jeter of his plans to write a letter to his hypothetical children or else there would have been mention of a restraining order in the news somewhere.
Of course, who are we to believe these quotes from Jeter are even accurate? I mean after all, Rick is the guy who misquoted his own father-in-law.
If there was a better man in sports, I never met him. Your father was a gentleman. A charmer. A 1,000-point star.
Jeter and Rick are going to get married, get married on the top of a mountain at a wedding no one else will be invited to and then have a baseball field of children who will have this letter read to them by Rick and Jeter every night before bed.
He was ours for 20 years, but he's yours now, and I just wanted you to know how lucky you are.
I would ask how this column slipped by ESPN's editors, but I'm assuming they let Rick do whatever he wants to these days. And what Rick wants to do is be extra-creepy and write a letter about how great their father is to Derek Jeter's children that don't exist. He wrote a letter to semen. Just when you think Rick can't be more lazy and more terrible, he goes and lowers the bar for himself one more time.
To Derek Jeter's kids (whenever you come along):
Writing letters to someone else's children is just a little weird. It just is. I can't argue with anyone about this. If Derek Jeter wanted his kids to read a letter about his playing career he would do it or just cue up one of the thousands of videos online of his MLB career for his children to watch.
You were born too late to know your father the way we did,
And Rick Reilly knows Derek Jeter well, which is why this isn't an interview with Jeter and instead is a creepy stalker letter directed towards Jeter's unborn children.
Don't you like how Rick is playing the "insider sportswriter" role here as if he has special access to Derek Jeter? It's almost like Rick isn't talking about one of the few sports superstars that few know anything about. Seriously, does anyone know anything really specific about Derek Jeter other than he likes attractive brunette women? But no, Rick will pretend he knows something everyone else doesn't and that he truly knows Jeter.
so I want to take just a minute to let you know what he meant to us.
He meant the Braves didn't win two more World Series in the 90's to me, so I'm still pretty pissed off about that.
He was a kind of prince in baseball cleats, George Clooney in pinstripes,
A Chris Cornell in cleats, the Neil Patrick Harris of outstanding clutch plays, and the John Grisham of shortstops.
He was humble and handsome and yet hard to hate.
Does Rick Reilly know that Derek Jeter is humble and hard to hate? I would seriously doubt that he knows Jeter personally enough to know this is a fact and not just a set of characteristics he's looking to project onto Jeter.
He was like a good magician. You could never figure out how he did it.
Dedication, hard work and talent he cultivated within himself through this hard work. Doesn't seem too hard to figure out.
He was the best player in baseball for a good 10 years straight and yet he never won a batting title, never won an MVP, never was the highest-paid player in the game.
"I'll take ridiculous observations that casual fans of baseball would make for $100, Alex."
He spoke to the media every day, yet managed to say nothing.
BUT RICK KNOWS JETER IS HUMBLE! HE KNOWS THIS BECAUSE HE PROJECTS THIS QUALITY ONTO JETER.
He never showed up in the clubhouse with a black eye to explain, a headline to deny or a photo to justify.
No, but his spending the night on the town was questioned at one point, which lead to this VISA commercial. It was all much ado about nothing, but I think it's funny that sportswriters tend to forget that Jeter did hit the town in the younger years. He was quiet-ish about it, but he wasn't quite the stay-at-home guy that writers like Reilly want to remember him as being.
"He could sense trouble coming," said his best friend, former teammate and retired catcher Jorge Posada. "We'd be at a restaurant. He'd say, 'That guy in the blue shirt. He's going to come over here and ask for an autograph.' And sure enough, 15 seconds later, the guy would be standing at our table."
Two things:
1. Since when does an autograph seeker count as "trouble"?
2. Derek Jeter is incredibly famous in New York and around the United States, so the fact he thinks a guy looking at him will come over for an autograph is simply a reflection of his fame, not a reflection of his heightened senses.
How he was loved! In a league full of bloated steroid cheats, he kept the same body, the same weight, the same helmet size.
By the way, Jeter won World Series titles and part of his legacy is tied to the team success that was assisted by steroid cheats, but let's completely not mention this okay? Writers and players point out Jeter is a winner and the ultimate champion, while differentiating him from the steroid cheats, but always conveniently leave out part of Jeter's legacy is what it is because he played with a list of steroid cheats. It's all part of the game the media plays. They manage to separate Jeter out from the steroid cheats, give reason to taint the accomplishments of these cheats, but refuse to see Jeter's accomplishments in any way tied to the accomplishments of these cheats.
In a world of my-agent-doesn't-want-me-to-play multimillionaires, he played hurt more than we know. "Most of the time, he wasn't 100 percent," Posada said. "He'd come out of spring training and tell me, 'I'm already hurting,' but he wouldn't tell anybody else. He just kept going."
I'm interested to know who Rick Reilly thinks the my-agent-doesn't-want-me-to-play multimillionaires are, but I'm guessing he can't name one.
Your father was everything men wanted to be. The guy with the $15 million Trump Tower penthouse. The dude dating Miss Universe. The man with all of the talent and none of the jerk. He was everything women wanted, too.
No kid wants to hear this shit about their father, even kids who aren't born yet or may never be born yet. Rick Reilly is writing a letter to Derek Jeter's semen right now. Pretty creepy.
The elegant athlete who loved books, paid for everything, and had a limo waiting for them when it was time to go.
He had a limo waiting for him when it was time to go, BUT BOY THAT JETER WAS HUMBLE!
The stat-heads scoffed at him, but then the stat-heads never figured out a way to measure the things he did.
Yes, it is difficult to measure hyperbole, intangibles, and anecdotal evidence...most likely because they don't exist in a way where they can be measured.
Some guys would lean over the wall in foul territory to make a catch. Jeter would launch himself over it, sometimes two rows deep. He'd come out with a bruised face, a cut chin, and the ball.
He did this once. It wasn't a thing he did a couple of times a year.
Fourteen Yankees were captains, but none longer than your father, and that includes Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig.
Who is going to write the letter to Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig's great-grandchildren telling them of their father's accomplishments?
Your father was like a rooster's crow. You could always depend on him.
This letter is getting even more creepy. Now Rick is comparing Derek Jeter to a consistently performing cock. This is after mentioning Jeter's ways with women a couple of times in this letter...not that he is blurring the line between hero worship and creepy of course.
Oh, he had his faults. If you crossed him, even once, you were out forever. If he didn't get to the World Series, he would slip into a terrible funk.
Rick is still writing this column like he had a deep, personal relationship to Derek Jeter. Like he was the Gail to Jeter's Oprah. The Brett Favre to Peter King. The Lance Armstrong to Rick Reilly.
He refused to use public bathrooms unless it was an emergency.
(Derek Jeter begins to walk into the bathroom at Yankee Stadium and sees a shirtless Rick Reilly peeking out the side of it)
(Rick Reilly starts waving his finger for Jeter to come into the bathroom) "Hey Derek, why don't you come in here? I have a question for you. Maybe you could pee in a cup and prove you aren't a steroid user."
(The Jeter) "Nah man, I'm good...I was just walking down the hall."
(Rick Reilly looks around) "There's nothing else down here...and no one else down here. There's no where to go but to the bathroom. Where were you going Derek?"
(The Jeter) "I mean...I was...I thought about heading to the bathroom, but I only go if it's an emergency and I've decided it's not an emergency."
(Rick Reilly) "I saw you coming from down the hall doing the pee-pee dance. It certainly looked like an emergency (removes his shoes and socks). Come on in the bathroom and use one of the urinals. I'll be right behind you."
(The Jeter) "Nah, I don't use public bathrooms except if it's an emergency and it's not (runs the other way)"
(Rick Reilly whispers) "No one knows you like I do. We should be together."
Nobody had to yell at him much. He threw right, hit to right and did right. He began a foundation called Turn 2, which helps kids growing up in lousy situations, and he gave far more to it than money. One time, he showed up to watch a hapless Turn 2 Little League team. Not only hadn't they won a game, they hadn't even scored a run. When they finally scored one that game, he celebrated as though they'd all just landed on the moon.
This certainly sounds like a story that Jeter could tell his children himself. Not to step on Reilly's toes in this really creepy letter to Jeter's unborn children or anything.
He had this way of making you feel you belonged. Before the first World Series game at Yankee Stadium after 9/11, President George W. Bush was to throw out the first pitch. Everybody was tense. Jeter walked up to Bush and said: "Throw from the mound or else they'll boo you."
If Jeter was really helpful he would have told Bush there were no WMD's in Iraq. That would have been super-clutch of him.
Yet again, this sounds like the kind of story that Jeter could tell his children himself. So I'm still not sure why Reilly feels the need to be so weird.
He was hilarious, but he didn't want you to know it. In his final goodbye season of 2014, I asked, "Who would you cross the street to avoid?"
"You," he said.
Rick Reilly laughed as Derek Jeter stood stone-faced staring at him, being absolutely serious about his answer. Rick then put his hands around Jeter's neck and pretended to choke him in the hopes someone would take a picture of it. What a jokester that Jeter was, saying he would avoid his soulmate on the street. If Jeter avoided Rick Reilly then who would be around to tell Jeter's non-existent children about his exploits on the field?
When his body just couldn't do it anymore, it was bittersweet. Nobody loved playing baseball more than your dad, but he was ready. "I'm going to finally see what Europe is like in the summer," he told me. "I've been on a schedule my whole life. The plan now is to have no plan."
You can feel the personal connection Jeter and Reilly had. It's palpable. In fact, the personal relationship between Rick Reilly and Derek Jeter is the Derek Jeter of personal relationships. It's the best.
After that, he said he was going to settle down and have a family, which was unthinkable. Derek Jeter settling down? It was like an eagle deciding to take the bus. Glad he did, though, because genes this good shouldn't be wasted.
Plus, it gave Rick a chance to mail in a creepy column where he pretended to write a letter to Derek Jeter's hypothetical children. I'm assuming Reilly didn't tell Jeter of his plans to write a letter to his hypothetical children or else there would have been mention of a restraining order in the news somewhere.
Of course, who are we to believe these quotes from Jeter are even accurate? I mean after all, Rick is the guy who misquoted his own father-in-law.
If there was a better man in sports, I never met him. Your father was a gentleman. A charmer. A 1,000-point star.
Jeter and Rick are going to get married, get married on the top of a mountain at a wedding no one else will be invited to and then have a baseball field of children who will have this letter read to them by Rick and Jeter every night before bed.
He was ours for 20 years, but he's yours now, and I just wanted you to know how lucky you are.
I would ask how this column slipped by ESPN's editors, but I'm assuming they let Rick do whatever he wants to these days. And what Rick wants to do is be extra-creepy and write a letter about how great their father is to Derek Jeter's children that don't exist. He wrote a letter to semen. Just when you think Rick can't be more lazy and more terrible, he goes and lowers the bar for himself one more time.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
14 comments MMQB Review: In a Non-Shocking Revelation It Turns Out Peter King Really Liked Interviewing Brett Favre
Peter King interviewed Tom Brady in last week's MMQB, but wanted us to know that we would learn nothing specific from this interview. Peter also marveled at food trucks, explained that Roger Goodell usually waits for the legal system to run it's course before punishing a player/NFL management figure except for the times when he doesn't wait for the legal system to run it's course, and said he thinks we are too hard on people who speak their mind candidly, unless these people are saying something Peter disagrees with in which case I'm sure Peter will wish that person would stop talking. This week Peter talks about improving locker room culture, wants us to know HR doesn't mean Home Runs but means Human Resources, discusses his 25 year anniversary with Sports Illustrated, transcribes graduation speeches (at least he's not transcribing the conversations of total strangers like he tends to do), and of course gets two more shots at Josh Freeman in.
A varied day in the world of Monday Morning Quarterback:
It's not one of those boring football-only days in MMQB. It's a varied day where Peter talks about himself, annoying traveling notes, and some more things about Peter and his thoughts. It's very varied.
In the wake of Tampa Bay owner Malcolm Glazer’s death, thoughts on his colorblind impact on the game, and on the creeping ageism of NFL ownership.
BREAKING NEWS: People who can afford to own an NFL team are usually older rather than younger!
The disastrous Sean Lee injury for Dallas.
Every other NFL team could afford to lose their best linebacker for the year due to an injury, but not the Cowboys. Their best linebacker is more important than other team's best linebacker because ESPN loves talking about them too much.
The week’s my 25-year anniversary at Sports Illustrated. I reflect on my Johnny Cash interaction at the beginning, Steve Young vomiting perilously close to my shoes in the middle, and me being an ogre of a boss at the end. (Groaning, you skip the 25th anniversary section.)
While Peter's career at Sports Illustrated has certainly been long and impressive (especially to himself), I have heard the story of Steve Young vomiting close to Peter's shoes so many times. The story has been told so many times in one way or another by Peter there's not much else to reflect on at this point.
Players, get ready for a lot of HR talk in the next three weeks.
Not home runs. Human Resources.
How stupid does Peter think his readers are? I think most of his readers know that "HR" stands for "Human Resources." Sure, why would it make sense for NFL players to be talking about Human Resources? Probably for the same reason it would make sense for NFL players to be talking about home runs. I don't know if Peter is trying to be cutesy, but people know what HR stands for and there's no need to write "HR," and then clarify what this stands for, rather than just writing "Human Resources." It's like Peter wants desperately to come off as smarter or like he's educating his readers on every topic he discusses.
The NFL’s executive vice president and chief human resources officer, Robert Gulliver, leads a three-man NFL team into Flowery Branch, Ga., today to meet with all players, coaches and selected executives (owner Arthur Blank will be on hand) to discuss how to improve locker-room culture.
Not Flowery Branch, like the branch of a tree that has flowers on it. Flowery Branch is a city in Georgia. Peter also wants his readers to know Arthur Branch won't actually be on someone's hand during this meeting, but "on hand" means he will be present in the room during the meeting...but not on someone's hand and most likely in a chair.
Today, the Atlanta presentation will be about an hour long, and former Falcon defensive end Kerney—now the league’s vice president of player benefits—and Darius, the former Jaguar, will be there to help Gulliver drive home the point about respecting the guy next to you in the locker room.
And we all know a lecture about being nice to others will probably have a huge effect on grown athletes who play a violent sport where the intent is to hit the opposing player as hard as possible so he falls to the ground.
What can be accomplished in an hour? It’s a logical and skeptical question. “It’s to start the dialogue, to provoke conversation,” said Kerney. “As players, we need to understand we’re all going to be out of there soon and into the real world. If we continuing some of the behavior of the past, we’re enclosing ourselves in the bubble even further.”
In a bubble. But Peter wants us to know that no one is really going to be in a real bubble like the bubble boy from "Seinfeld," but this is a phrase that's often used. Peter wants to be very clear so he doesn't confuse his readers.
Will it work? Can it work? I think the most important element here is the acceptance by coaches and the team leaders—especially the team leaders...Kerney’s message is correct: This abusive and raunch boys-club-gone-wild atmosphere bubble doesn’t exist in the real world. Just because it’s been the tradition is many NFL locker rooms, why does it have to continue?
Because professional athletics are not the real world, athletes are used to staying in the bubble of playing sports and there's no better way to understand how the real world outside of the NFL works than having to live a life outside of the NFL and most of these NFL players won't get a chance to do this until they retire. Anyone who has been to a college where there are athletics knows that even the shittiest of athletes exists in the bubble of playing sports in some way or another. Obviously every athlete isn't like this for the entirety of his/her life, but NFL players are professional athletes who are used to being the absolute best at their sport and the abusive, teasing atmosphere in locker rooms is just part of professional sports. It doesn't have to be, but it's going to be hard to take players out of the athletic bubble while still keeping them in the bubble of athletics. That's why.
Again, not every athlete is this way, but it's a difficult culture. I've seen members of a shitty Division-I basketball school throw a punch because he and his friend lost at beer pong and couldn't stand having shit talked to him about it. The team won 5-6 games during the year, so he had to be used to losing, but he couldn't stand to be teased about losing at a stupid drinking game. I had a Division-II football player tell a girl I knew that she is coming home with him that night right in front of her boyfriend. When he came to get her at the end of the night, she did not and he was displeased. This isn't abusive locker room culture, but it's an example of a different mindset at times for some athletes. As we've seen in the case of the Dolphins last season, all it takes is 2-3 players and a team gets bad reputation or there starts locker room problems because of "boys-club-gone-wild." To change this completely would be to essentially change part of the mindset of some athletes starting as early as middle school and I'm not sure that can happen.
I got a bit nostalgic on Friday when I told my crew at The MMQB—we were gathered in New York City for our microsite’s offseason seminar—that Sunday was the 25th anniversary of Sports Illustrated managing editor Mark Mulvoy offering me a job and saying, “I want you to cover the NFL your way.”
Which Peter took to mean, "In a couple of decades I want you to be writing a long football-related column that is often only 50% related directly to football despite the fact there is a seeming 24 hour news cycle of football news. You need to start writing about yourself and what you do and don't like."
It's natural for Peter to talk about himself in a weekly column, but just 10-15 years ago MMQB was 2 pages at the most and now it has bloated into a 5-6 page column where half of it involves quotes of the week, Tweets of the week, a travel note, a fact Peter finds interesting, a stat Peter finds interesting, and usually an interview or discussion of something only sort of related to the NFL. This is before the entire last page of MMQB is dedicated to Peter's own personal thoughts that may or may not be about the NFL. I write about it every week and it gives me more material to write about, so that's a positive.
Either I should get lost, and go where the dinosaurs go. Or I should, as many athletes say, stay till they kick me out of the game.
I’ve opted for the second choice, at least for now. Twenty-five years, 25 memories:
Only 25 memories. But don't worry, we get a page of things that Peter thinks he thinks as well.
First assignment: June 1989. The NFL’s trying to birth a minor league, the World League of American Football, and I’m sent on the road for three days with the new exec of the league, banished Cowboys czar Tex Schramm, as he private-jetted from Jacksonville to Orlando to Birmingham to Charlotte to Nashville scouting for American franchises for an uninvented league. Highlight: I’m sent down the stairs of the plane first when we get to Nashville, and at the bottom of the stairs is the Man in Black, with his right hand out to shake. “Hiyah, welcome tah Nashville. Ahm Johnny Cash,” said Johnny Cash.
Peter loves writing EXACTLY how he perceives other people sound when talking to him, as if they are the ones who talk funny and it isn't Peter whose accent or lack thereof is the one who talks funny. If you are a person who meets Peter, be sure to talk with no accent or he will quote you by writing down exactly how he thinks you sound when speaking.
3. I loved the openness, the bawdiness, the intelligence of Jimmy Johnson. In training camp in 1990 we dined one night and he told me what a living hell the 1-15 season was, and he detailed all the crap that went on all season. At one point Johnson realized how much he was saying and his glare bore a hole through me. “Peter,” he said. “If you f— me on this story, I will squash you like a squirrel in the road.”
Peter swore from that point on he would never fuck someone on a story. Ever.
7. The media … what a difference a generation makes. I traveled in the early ’90s with a large notebook, a few pens and a small computer that most often stayed at the hotel. I’d take notes at a game, do interviews post-game, and go back to the hotel and write my piece for the magazine. When that was done, so was I for the week. The End. Now: I use a smart phone, a tablet and a laptop, daily. I phone, I tweet, I skype, I research the ’net. I do talk shows. I do video chats. The other day I did something called a Google+ hangout with Brandin Cooks and A.J. McCarron.
I like how Peter "researches the 'net." Does he do research on the Internet or is he actually doing research while surfing the Internet? I prefer to picture Peter doing research ON the Internet and typing searches like, "When did Al Gore invent the Internet" and "This Internet thing, tell me more about it, no, tell me everything about it."
Back in the day you prayed something you found out on a Friday would hold until it got to peoples’ mailboxes six days later. Now that thing you found out will probably be on the internet in six minutes by someone else if you don’t rush to get it up first.
Back in the day, Peter didn't have to hear all this negative feedback about what he writes and he, like other sportswriters, could bask in the glow of receiving awards from their friends and colleagues while fully knowing that their shit don't stink. It's not that way anymore to his dismay. Then there are guys like Bill Simmons who partly made his name bullying and criticizing sportswriters using the Internet, but now he thinks there is just a meanness on the Internet by those who criticize sportswriters.
9. In 1995, Mike Holmgren, the Green Bay head coach, let me spend a week inside the Packers. That was fun.
It's when Peter first met his football soulmate Brett Favre. What a bunch of tender and loving days those were.
Brett Favre farted in quarterback meetings a lot.
It's great to know. Amazingly Favre's farts smelled exactly like what a child playing the game of football smells like.
What a memory he had. He’d be looking up at the ceiling, seemingly not paying attention, and QB coach Steve Mariucci would say, “Brett, what are you looking for with this protection?” Favre would just spit out, “Strongside ’back. C’mon Mooch. Gimme something tough.”
Favre had a great memory or it could just be that he was really paying attention even though it didn't look like it. That wouldn't be a fun story to tell though.
11. Maddest a coach ever got? One time Bill Parcells told me we were through—he was coaching the Jets, and thought I told another writer something out of bounds—and that lasted about six or eight months. Now we talk a lot. I guess Bill Belichick got mad after some of my coverage of Spygate in 2007. I’m not sure, though. He hasn’t talked to me since.
Peter must think that if he links every possible NFL Draft prospect who doesn't have an exact position to the Patriots and state that they will figure out how to use that player then Belichick will forgive him. Either that or Peter is trying to get back in Belichick's good graces by becoming super-besties with Scott Pioli.
Then Peter recounts the story of Steve Young almost throwing up on his shoes after the Super Bowl victory over the Chargers. It's a good story, but not the first or even fifth time I have heard it.
18. I’ve covered a lot of fun games, but for some reasons I’ll remember the game New England won to set the record for consecutive NFL wins (19) in 2004, because that story contained my favorite SI line.
HERE'S MY FAVORITE THING I'VE EVER WRITTEN!
(The list of good lines is a very short one, believe me.)
You are being so modest about it that it's tough not to believe you. I mean, you are spending part of MMQB recounting your 25 years at Sports Illustrated. It's all very modest.
You guys know how I feel about having a separate column for a lot of the stuff Peters puts into MMQB. It goes for his 25 years of remembrances as well. Peter has his own web site now. I think there is a good "remembrance" column he could write for that site.
In a quiet moment in the locker room after New England beat Miami to earn the record, I got Belichick about as celebratory as you’ll hear him. And I wrote, “ ‘It’s great to be in the history books,’ said the man who has read them all.”
This is the perfect Peter King line because it has just the right degree of loftiness about a topic (history) in it with the right amount of the admiring tone that I find Peter has for his subjects at times.
19. Best interview: Brett Favre edges Peyton Manning, Richard Sherman, John Randle and Jimmy Johnson.
Not a shock. Peter has probably talked to or interviewed Favre about as much as Randle, Sherman and Johnson combined.
I’ll never forget what Favre told me about his post-football life. This was in 2000. I asked him where he’d be and what he’d do in retirement. “I’ll be down in Hattiesburg [Miss.]. You’ll never find me. You know the ‘Where are they now?’ segments on ‘Inside the NFL?’ They’ll do one on me, but they’ll have to get Robert Stack, like on ‘Unsolved Mysteries.’ I’ll disappear.”
Oh yeah, and Favre has definitely disappeared. I guess it's all relative. Most people who "disappear" go out of the spotlight completely, but for Favre "disappearing" means he sticks his head up to remind the world that he does indeed exist. Fortunately he is using his webcam to talk about football and not show everyone pictures of his penis, as he has been prone to do in the past.
Who knows what he's up to now? It's not like anyone has reported on what Favre is doing these days. His idea of disappearing isn't quite mine. Also notice in one of those columns that Favre won't commit to coaching next year. It seems he enjoys the attention of people wondering about his future no matter what he does.
"Who knows if I'll do it next year," said Favre, who is in his second year coaching at the high school. "I really don't know. It's been a lot of fun. I enjoy it. It's easy and it's not too time-consuming."
I imagine Favre's wife, Deanna (and I know her name, which pisses me off), wakes up on a Saturday and spends the first two hours of the day trying to get Favre to commit to whether he will be mowing the grass next week or pay someone to do it.
"It's too early in the week to say what I will do. I enjoy it but I'm also getting to the point I have other interests outside of mowing grass for two hours during the week. I really don't know what I'm going to do or not. I'm just focused on breakfast right now. The time is going to come soon when I stop mowing the grass though. Be sure to ask me every single weekend until I decide I won't ever mow my own grass again."
I can never get him on the phone anymore. He’s disappeared, except to coach the offense for the local high school football team.
Again, my definition of "disappeared" isn't necessarily the same as Peter's definition. Favre certainly poked his head up around draft time this year and has done so in the past as well. I'm sure Peter is hurt he can't get Favre on the phone. More importantly, why is Peter trying to call a retired NFL quarterback? Does he often call Troy Aikman or Joe Montana? I just don't know why he would be calling Favre, other than to just speak with him, which totally proves Peter is obsessed with Favre.
21. Smartest professional decision I made in these 25 years: listening to Steve Robinson, the first editor of the magazine’s website, in 1997 when he asked me to empty out my notebook on Monday morning with whatever I wasn’t writing for the magazine that week. That’s how “Monday Morning Quarterback” was birthed.
It started that way and has turned into the behemoth that it currently is which now doesn't have a lot to do with whatever Peter wasn't writing for the magazine that week any more than it has to do with Peter's thoughts during the week.
The Glazers have hired five coaches. Dungy turned the franchise from sad-sack losers to annual contenders. Gruden finished the job. Raheem Morris largely failed, lasting three years. Greg Schiano didn’t have a long-enough chance (two years), but he failed too.
You like how Peter points out how his boy Greg Schiano didn't have a long-enough chance with the Bucs, but Schiano had only one more year than Raheem Morris (who had no experience as a head coach) and his career winning percentage with the Buccaneers is worse than that of Morris? At least Morris had one winning season. But yeah, Schiano just needed more time.
NFL ownership is aging. Four teams in the last eight months have had a transition in ownership with the death of principal owners.
The youngest owner who passed away was 85 years old. These aren't exactly spring chickens running around. So the lesson is that older owners die.
Of course, in many of the places where owners are aging, teams have strong family plans in place. Dean Spanos is a well-respected presence at league meetings for the Chargers, as is Art Rooney II for Pittsburgh, Katie Blackburn (Mike Brown’s daughter) for the Bengals, Michael Bidwill for the Cards, Jonathan Kraft for the Patriots and Stephen Jones for Dallas.
I'm just happy there is no ownership succession plan in place for my favorite team. It makes me feel very confident. 77 year old owners with a history of a heart condition generally make it to age 100 though, right?
Arthur Blank is very bullish on expanding the NFL’s borders.
My Q&A with the Atlanta owner:
The MMQB: What’s the short- and long-term future of the NFL in Europe?
Blank: The games in London, I think are a tribute to the NFL, a tribute to the fans there, the quality of the game—and I think that it’s proved conclusive that fans will come out when they see the real players playing games that are really meaningful, as opposed to NFL Europe...The approach that the international committee and the commissioner have taken is, ‘Let’s do London right, and then move from there to potentially somewhere else.’
I can't imagine how there would be logistical problems with NFL teams playing football games across the ocean in Europe and then having to come back to the United States to play the very next week. Or would every team that has to play in Europe get a bye the week after?
I’m sure there are wonderful cities in Europe, and elsewhere.
There are wonderful cities in every country, but that doesn't mean every wonderful city in every country needs an NFL team.
The MMQB: Is it more likely there would be a franchise in London or that there would be six to eight games a season?
Blank: I think it will lead to [a team]. I think it will start with an increased number of games. That will be translated into a very successful series of games, and eventually, I think a franchise. And maybe more than one.
Oh, goodie. I can't see how this idea would fail at all. I'm not against the NFL expanding overseas, but I'm afraid of the NFL trying to hard to expand their product they end up diluting the product. For example, I don't know how many more NFL teams there needs to be. 32 teams is a lot of teams and there are only so many good quarterbacks to go around.
Then Peter re-prints commencement addresses given by some athletes, celebrities, politicians and I generally skip over those.
“I call Twitter the microphone for morons.”
—Denver GM John Elway, at a NFL event, the career development symposium, Saturday at Penn’s Wharton School of Business in Philadelphia.
I call losing more Super Bowls than you win a little disappointing for a Hall of Fame quarterback.
I don't really, I like to get chippy when people bash Twitter. Plus it's not like Elway (@johnelway is his Twitter handle) is too good for Twitter. He just bashes the technology he uses, that's all.
“It is completely unacceptable that Daryl has once again put us in this position. We all know what the consequences are and will deal with them.”
—Arizona GM Steve Keim, in an unusually strongly worded statement condemning linebacker Daryl Washington, one of his best players, for being suspended for the 2014 season. Washington said he tested positive for marijuana.
Wow, that is strongly worded. Washington did know the consequences of marijuana use and he should pay the price. If only he could find a way to convince the Cardinals he has "a problem," then hit up rehab for a month, be a wealthy owner and writers like Peter King would feel bad for him.
“It’s a war. It’s on. I have no respect for him no more … You can’t be acting like a little girl out there … a little b—-.”
—Red Sox DH David Ortiz, on Tampa Bay pitcher David Price, after Ortiz was hit in the back by the first Price pitch he saw in 2014, the first time they faced each other this season, on Friday at Fenway Park.
Cool baseball drama.
I'm sure if A-Rod or a Rays player said this about a Red Sox player then Peter would feel like it is "cool baseball drama." It's cool drama until Peter decides he doesn't like the messenger.
So if there were nine taunting fouls in 2012, and if 43 such fouls could have been called in 2013, imagine what happens when officials are ultra-sensitive to make such calls in 2014. Either players will get see the quick trigger fingers the refs have and cut it out early this year, or there will be an epidemic of taunting calls this fall.
Mike Mitchell would have gotten called for 43 taunting calls all by himself, followed by him getting beaten for a touchdown.
Roger Goodell takes a trip every year to Silicon Valley to meet and talk to innovators in the technology, TV, social media and academic set. On one of his first such trips, he met with Steve Jobs, the Apple boss, who had one word of advice for Goodell: “Wifi.”
When you hear owners and club presidents and league officials say they’re intent on enabling all fans able to use their smart phones inside all NFL stadiums, you can trace that advice to Jobs.
Or I could trace that to the fact airplanes, restaurants, Starbucks, hotels and every other place where consumers will choose to go have wifi and eventually NFL stadiums were going to get wifi. Steve Jobs died over three years ago and all NFL stadiums don't have wifi yet, so clearly Goodell listened to the advice not-so intently or wasn't in a hurry to get wifi in every NFL stadium.
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
I have heard of flight delays and I have heard of emergency landings, but what happened on a US Airways flight from Los Angeles to Philadelphia last Wednesday sets an American aviation record for incredulity. Lucky for all of us, Chris Law, a 30-year-old NFL Network producer—he handles Rich Eisen’s podcast and produces programming about fantasy football, the draft and the combine—was in row 10 of the plane and was an eyewitness, and nasal witness, to airline history.
Yes, thank God he was there or else I wouldn't get the chance to read about someone complaining regarding how frustrating it is to travel. There is no where else I can go to hear complaining, so it's just a stroke of luck that Chris Law was on this flight.
“I fly US Airways all the time,’’ Law said over the weekend from Virginia, where he was attending a bachelor party. “I have status with them.
I wouldn't have been so sarcastic in the last paragraph if I had known this story was being told by someone who had status. RISE UP PEOPLE! CHRIS LAW HAS STATUS WITH US AIRWAYS AND THEY DID THIS TO HIM! IMAGINE WHAT CAN HAPPEN TO PEOPLE WITHOUT STATUS! ARM YOURSELVES IMMEDIATELY!
Before we board, I see this lady with a full-grown dog. I have never seen a full-size dog on a plane in coach. This dog had a service tag on it, and the lady looked healthy, fine. But whatever. I get on the plane, everyone boards, the lady and her dog go in back.
This story is long, but the dog starts shitting everywhere and the shit stinks. The plane has to land and Hazmat has to come on the plane to take care of the issue.
(Speaking of which, and I know I will regret putting this idea out there, but I feel like this is the plot of a movie. Terrorists plan to get on a plane and want to avoid going through the detectors, so they have a dog crap all over a plane, Hazmat comes in, but it's actually the terrorists, and take over the plane on the runway and shenanigans en sue ...I'm just saying this is a terrible, terrible idea but it came to me and I have no doubt Bruce Willis would be in this movie somehow)
Now back to Chris Law: “So we land. We stay on the plane. Hazmat is actually five guys in orange vests.
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't suit up completely to face the impending crisis of dog shit on a plane.
“But when we were in Kansas City, she and the dog got off. It was clear this dog was ‘serving’ no purpose. The woman was walking fine. The dog had its own seat. So when she got off, it was like a walk of shame. Her and the dog walked off. People were clapping when she got off the plane, maybe 10 or 15 people clapping. Some people were pretty pissed off. Two people missed their cruise to Greece. People missed their connections. A lady sitting near me was getting honored by a charity that she runs in Hartford that night, and had to make a speech there, but she never made it.
Is that normal? She runs a charity and is being honored by that charity. So she is being honored by...herself? I don't know, really. It seems odd to me to run a charity and then be honored by the charity you run. Maybe it was for longevity of service or something.
I will never, ever, ever complain about anything related to travel for the rest of my life.
At least until next week.
Peter would have absolutely had a shit-fit if this happened on a flight he was on. Peter would have eviscerated this woman in MMQB and then demanded the airlines personally apologize to him.
That sounds exactly like something Bill Simmons would Tweet. I wonder which person stole this manner of speaking from the other? It has all the identifiers of something Bill Simmons would say or Tweet. Very weird.
Ten Things I Think I Think
1. I think the most meaningless, dumb story of this offseason is the constant, unending, logic-defying debate over who is the Jets’ starting quarterback, and that anything done before the battle is joined once training camp is a tangible factor in who will win the job—Geno Smith or Michael Vick.
Peter then takes up #1 and #2 "things he thinks" in talking about the Jets quarterback situation. Yeah Peter, I sure do wish some people would stop discussing this meaningless, dumb story. If only more people would follow your lead in not discussing it by discussing it.
Speaking of dumb, meaningless stories...Peter hasn't bashed Josh Freeman in a month, so here goes:
3. I think there’s an incredible story out there, waiting to be written about Josh Freeman. It could be called: “How to ruin your football career in just 18 months.” In the span of the past year and a half, Freeman:
Threw for 4,065 yards at age 24 in 2012, appearing to be one of the best young quarterbacks in football for a young Tampa Bay team.
Had his work ethic questioned in Tampa, where he was mostly scarce on game-planning Tuesdays, a day very few if any starting NFL quarterbacks take off.
Was benched by coach Greg Schiano in Tampa.
Was signed by Minnesota last October.
Completed 43 percent of his passes, a laughable figure, in seven games in 2013.
Got cut loose by the Vikings after the season.
Got signed April 21 by the Giants, who planned to give him a chance to win the number two job behind Eli Manning.
Got cut by the Giants on Friday.
Did Josh Freeman break up with one of Peter's daughters? Did Freeman insult Peter in some way? I just wonder because Peter goes out of his way to bash Freeman and he even slightly deceives his reading audience to make Freeman seem worse than he is. Peter states Freeman completed a "laughable" (I like the editorializing, as if giving the number isn't good enough) 43% of his passes in seven games in 2013. As Peter documented on a near-weekly basis, Freeman didn't play after his one start with the Vikings in October and he only started four games all season. Yes, Freeman did complete 43% of his passes, but that was only in four starts and even during the season where he threw for 4065 yards he only completed 54.8% of his passes. So he was a fairly inaccurate quarterback who threw for a lot of yardage in 2012 and it's not like his star was completely on the rise. If Peter can get past his rage towards Freeman he would remember the Bucs didn't give him a new contract prior to the 2013 season because they wanted him to prove he was worth a new contract. He did not prove this and now he's out of the NFL again. End of story. He isn't the first or the last 1st round pick to perform poorly in the NFL and I have no idea why Peter picks on Freeman like he does.
4. I think it’s easy to say Sean Lee is injury-prone and leave his latest bit of terrible news—he suffered a torn ACL last week when he was jarred by rookie offensive lineman Zack Martin at a non-padded Dallas workout—at that. But with DeMarcus Ware and Lee gone for 2014 (Ware was cut in a cap move), and defensive tackle Jason Hatcher not re-signed, I cannot see any way new defensive coordinator Rod Marinelli can make a strong defense out of what he has left in Dallas. Talk about pressure on Tony Romo. He certainly was looking forward to not having to outscore every team he played this fall. Now, the Cowboys’ only real chance for the playoffs seems to rest on just how high-scoring the offense can be.
But it will always be Tony Romo's fault when the Cowboys lose a game. Always.
5. I think Arizona GM Steve Keim (see Quotes of the Week) is justifiably fuming over the year-long suspension handed to Daryl Washington, the best player on his front seven...In March, Keim essentially handed Washington a $10 million option bonus to trigger his contract for 2014. Now Keim has to feel altogether double-crossed, and it’s certain the team won’t allow Washington to keep that money without a fight. Arizona also could move on from Washington, figuring a player the coaches cannot trust (suspended for 20 of 32 games over a two-year span) is worthless to them.
Here is a great example of Peter treating a player who has had drug/alcohol issues purely from a "What does it mean in terms of football" point of view, rather than the "I wish this guy could get the help he needs" point of view. When it's an owner who gets detained for an alcohol/drug-related violation then Peter hopes this guy gets some help, but when it's a player who may or may not have alcohol/drug-related issues then Peter looks at it from a pure football standpoint and talks about how the coaches can't trust the player or feel double-crossed. Seems fair.
8. I think if Will Hill can blame second-hand smoke for his positive drug test—the league suspended him six games for the positive test last week—I can blame second-hand pizza for my weight.
Hill is probably thinking of an excuse, but second-hand smoke is a real thing and second-hand pizza is not. It was just last week that Peter bitched about a bar in Tennessee allowing their customers to smoke because it was bothering him while he ate. I get that Hill is using an excuse but it's interesting Peter makes this joke since second-hand smoke bothered him at a bar just over a week ago.
10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:
b. Holy cow, Edwin Encarnacion. You’re the most dangerous hitter in baseball right now. Encarnacion hit two homers the other night—16 for the month of May—that traveled the length of three homers in any ballpark in America. Wow.
So who is the first sportswriter who wants to speculate, but not come out and actually say it, that Encarnacion is using PED's?
h. Coffeenerdness: So I’m weak, and I just had a five-latte week. Just don’t tell the nutritionist.
Hopefully Peter's sort of-nutrionist is illiterate and stupid like Peter assumes the rest of his MMQB readers are and can't read what Peter just wrote in this MMQB. Otherwise she probably knows Peter had five lattes. Besides, someone who negotiates with a nutritionist about how many lattes he/she can have during the week probably isn't very serious about their goal of losing some weight.
The Adieu Haiku
Freeman, cut again.
How were so many so wrong?
Two words: work ethic.
We get it, Peter. Josh Freeman sucks and you think he sucks and everyone thinks he sucks. He's lazy. It's understood. Why do you harp on Freeman so much as if he is the only first round quarterback to ever not play up to expectations in the NFL? I must ask this because I'm not sure I've ever read one sportswriter so pointlessly down on a quarterback like King is down on Freeman. Freeman wasn't even a top-5 pick and it's not like he was terrible his entire career. Yet, he draws Peter's ire to where Peter talks about him in MMQB whenever possible, just to remind his readers that Josh Freeman is indeed a lazy, useless, money-stealing asshole.
A varied day in the world of Monday Morning Quarterback:
It's not one of those boring football-only days in MMQB. It's a varied day where Peter talks about himself, annoying traveling notes, and some more things about Peter and his thoughts. It's very varied.
In the wake of Tampa Bay owner Malcolm Glazer’s death, thoughts on his colorblind impact on the game, and on the creeping ageism of NFL ownership.
BREAKING NEWS: People who can afford to own an NFL team are usually older rather than younger!
The disastrous Sean Lee injury for Dallas.
Every other NFL team could afford to lose their best linebacker for the year due to an injury, but not the Cowboys. Their best linebacker is more important than other team's best linebacker because ESPN loves talking about them too much.
The week’s my 25-year anniversary at Sports Illustrated. I reflect on my Johnny Cash interaction at the beginning, Steve Young vomiting perilously close to my shoes in the middle, and me being an ogre of a boss at the end. (Groaning, you skip the 25th anniversary section.)
While Peter's career at Sports Illustrated has certainly been long and impressive (especially to himself), I have heard the story of Steve Young vomiting close to Peter's shoes so many times. The story has been told so many times in one way or another by Peter there's not much else to reflect on at this point.
Players, get ready for a lot of HR talk in the next three weeks.
Not home runs. Human Resources.
How stupid does Peter think his readers are? I think most of his readers know that "HR" stands for "Human Resources." Sure, why would it make sense for NFL players to be talking about Human Resources? Probably for the same reason it would make sense for NFL players to be talking about home runs. I don't know if Peter is trying to be cutesy, but people know what HR stands for and there's no need to write "HR," and then clarify what this stands for, rather than just writing "Human Resources." It's like Peter wants desperately to come off as smarter or like he's educating his readers on every topic he discusses.
The NFL’s executive vice president and chief human resources officer, Robert Gulliver, leads a three-man NFL team into Flowery Branch, Ga., today to meet with all players, coaches and selected executives (owner Arthur Blank will be on hand) to discuss how to improve locker-room culture.
Not Flowery Branch, like the branch of a tree that has flowers on it. Flowery Branch is a city in Georgia. Peter also wants his readers to know Arthur Branch won't actually be on someone's hand during this meeting, but "on hand" means he will be present in the room during the meeting...but not on someone's hand and most likely in a chair.
Today, the Atlanta presentation will be about an hour long, and former Falcon defensive end Kerney—now the league’s vice president of player benefits—and Darius, the former Jaguar, will be there to help Gulliver drive home the point about respecting the guy next to you in the locker room.
And we all know a lecture about being nice to others will probably have a huge effect on grown athletes who play a violent sport where the intent is to hit the opposing player as hard as possible so he falls to the ground.
What can be accomplished in an hour? It’s a logical and skeptical question. “It’s to start the dialogue, to provoke conversation,” said Kerney. “As players, we need to understand we’re all going to be out of there soon and into the real world. If we continuing some of the behavior of the past, we’re enclosing ourselves in the bubble even further.”
In a bubble. But Peter wants us to know that no one is really going to be in a real bubble like the bubble boy from "Seinfeld," but this is a phrase that's often used. Peter wants to be very clear so he doesn't confuse his readers.
Will it work? Can it work? I think the most important element here is the acceptance by coaches and the team leaders—especially the team leaders...Kerney’s message is correct: This abusive and raunch boys-club-gone-wild atmosphere bubble doesn’t exist in the real world. Just because it’s been the tradition is many NFL locker rooms, why does it have to continue?
Because professional athletics are not the real world, athletes are used to staying in the bubble of playing sports and there's no better way to understand how the real world outside of the NFL works than having to live a life outside of the NFL and most of these NFL players won't get a chance to do this until they retire. Anyone who has been to a college where there are athletics knows that even the shittiest of athletes exists in the bubble of playing sports in some way or another. Obviously every athlete isn't like this for the entirety of his/her life, but NFL players are professional athletes who are used to being the absolute best at their sport and the abusive, teasing atmosphere in locker rooms is just part of professional sports. It doesn't have to be, but it's going to be hard to take players out of the athletic bubble while still keeping them in the bubble of athletics. That's why.
Again, not every athlete is this way, but it's a difficult culture. I've seen members of a shitty Division-I basketball school throw a punch because he and his friend lost at beer pong and couldn't stand having shit talked to him about it. The team won 5-6 games during the year, so he had to be used to losing, but he couldn't stand to be teased about losing at a stupid drinking game. I had a Division-II football player tell a girl I knew that she is coming home with him that night right in front of her boyfriend. When he came to get her at the end of the night, she did not and he was displeased. This isn't abusive locker room culture, but it's an example of a different mindset at times for some athletes. As we've seen in the case of the Dolphins last season, all it takes is 2-3 players and a team gets bad reputation or there starts locker room problems because of "boys-club-gone-wild." To change this completely would be to essentially change part of the mindset of some athletes starting as early as middle school and I'm not sure that can happen.
I got a bit nostalgic on Friday when I told my crew at The MMQB—we were gathered in New York City for our microsite’s offseason seminar—that Sunday was the 25th anniversary of Sports Illustrated managing editor Mark Mulvoy offering me a job and saying, “I want you to cover the NFL your way.”
Which Peter took to mean, "In a couple of decades I want you to be writing a long football-related column that is often only 50% related directly to football despite the fact there is a seeming 24 hour news cycle of football news. You need to start writing about yourself and what you do and don't like."
It's natural for Peter to talk about himself in a weekly column, but just 10-15 years ago MMQB was 2 pages at the most and now it has bloated into a 5-6 page column where half of it involves quotes of the week, Tweets of the week, a travel note, a fact Peter finds interesting, a stat Peter finds interesting, and usually an interview or discussion of something only sort of related to the NFL. This is before the entire last page of MMQB is dedicated to Peter's own personal thoughts that may or may not be about the NFL. I write about it every week and it gives me more material to write about, so that's a positive.
Either I should get lost, and go where the dinosaurs go. Or I should, as many athletes say, stay till they kick me out of the game.
I’ve opted for the second choice, at least for now. Twenty-five years, 25 memories:
Only 25 memories. But don't worry, we get a page of things that Peter thinks he thinks as well.
First assignment: June 1989. The NFL’s trying to birth a minor league, the World League of American Football, and I’m sent on the road for three days with the new exec of the league, banished Cowboys czar Tex Schramm, as he private-jetted from Jacksonville to Orlando to Birmingham to Charlotte to Nashville scouting for American franchises for an uninvented league. Highlight: I’m sent down the stairs of the plane first when we get to Nashville, and at the bottom of the stairs is the Man in Black, with his right hand out to shake. “Hiyah, welcome tah Nashville. Ahm Johnny Cash,” said Johnny Cash.
Peter loves writing EXACTLY how he perceives other people sound when talking to him, as if they are the ones who talk funny and it isn't Peter whose accent or lack thereof is the one who talks funny. If you are a person who meets Peter, be sure to talk with no accent or he will quote you by writing down exactly how he thinks you sound when speaking.
3. I loved the openness, the bawdiness, the intelligence of Jimmy Johnson. In training camp in 1990 we dined one night and he told me what a living hell the 1-15 season was, and he detailed all the crap that went on all season. At one point Johnson realized how much he was saying and his glare bore a hole through me. “Peter,” he said. “If you f— me on this story, I will squash you like a squirrel in the road.”
Peter swore from that point on he would never fuck someone on a story. Ever.
7. The media … what a difference a generation makes. I traveled in the early ’90s with a large notebook, a few pens and a small computer that most often stayed at the hotel. I’d take notes at a game, do interviews post-game, and go back to the hotel and write my piece for the magazine. When that was done, so was I for the week. The End. Now: I use a smart phone, a tablet and a laptop, daily. I phone, I tweet, I skype, I research the ’net. I do talk shows. I do video chats. The other day I did something called a Google+ hangout with Brandin Cooks and A.J. McCarron.
I like how Peter "researches the 'net." Does he do research on the Internet or is he actually doing research while surfing the Internet? I prefer to picture Peter doing research ON the Internet and typing searches like, "When did Al Gore invent the Internet" and "This Internet thing, tell me more about it, no, tell me everything about it."
Back in the day you prayed something you found out on a Friday would hold until it got to peoples’ mailboxes six days later. Now that thing you found out will probably be on the internet in six minutes by someone else if you don’t rush to get it up first.
Back in the day, Peter didn't have to hear all this negative feedback about what he writes and he, like other sportswriters, could bask in the glow of receiving awards from their friends and colleagues while fully knowing that their shit don't stink. It's not that way anymore to his dismay. Then there are guys like Bill Simmons who partly made his name bullying and criticizing sportswriters using the Internet, but now he thinks there is just a meanness on the Internet by those who criticize sportswriters.
9. In 1995, Mike Holmgren, the Green Bay head coach, let me spend a week inside the Packers. That was fun.
It's when Peter first met his football soulmate Brett Favre. What a bunch of tender and loving days those were.
Brett Favre farted in quarterback meetings a lot.
It's great to know. Amazingly Favre's farts smelled exactly like what a child playing the game of football smells like.
What a memory he had. He’d be looking up at the ceiling, seemingly not paying attention, and QB coach Steve Mariucci would say, “Brett, what are you looking for with this protection?” Favre would just spit out, “Strongside ’back. C’mon Mooch. Gimme something tough.”
Favre had a great memory or it could just be that he was really paying attention even though it didn't look like it. That wouldn't be a fun story to tell though.
11. Maddest a coach ever got? One time Bill Parcells told me we were through—he was coaching the Jets, and thought I told another writer something out of bounds—and that lasted about six or eight months. Now we talk a lot. I guess Bill Belichick got mad after some of my coverage of Spygate in 2007. I’m not sure, though. He hasn’t talked to me since.
Peter must think that if he links every possible NFL Draft prospect who doesn't have an exact position to the Patriots and state that they will figure out how to use that player then Belichick will forgive him. Either that or Peter is trying to get back in Belichick's good graces by becoming super-besties with Scott Pioli.
Then Peter recounts the story of Steve Young almost throwing up on his shoes after the Super Bowl victory over the Chargers. It's a good story, but not the first or even fifth time I have heard it.
18. I’ve covered a lot of fun games, but for some reasons I’ll remember the game New England won to set the record for consecutive NFL wins (19) in 2004, because that story contained my favorite SI line.
HERE'S MY FAVORITE THING I'VE EVER WRITTEN!
(The list of good lines is a very short one, believe me.)
You are being so modest about it that it's tough not to believe you. I mean, you are spending part of MMQB recounting your 25 years at Sports Illustrated. It's all very modest.
You guys know how I feel about having a separate column for a lot of the stuff Peters puts into MMQB. It goes for his 25 years of remembrances as well. Peter has his own web site now. I think there is a good "remembrance" column he could write for that site.
In a quiet moment in the locker room after New England beat Miami to earn the record, I got Belichick about as celebratory as you’ll hear him. And I wrote, “ ‘It’s great to be in the history books,’ said the man who has read them all.”
This is the perfect Peter King line because it has just the right degree of loftiness about a topic (history) in it with the right amount of the admiring tone that I find Peter has for his subjects at times.
19. Best interview: Brett Favre edges Peyton Manning, Richard Sherman, John Randle and Jimmy Johnson.
Not a shock. Peter has probably talked to or interviewed Favre about as much as Randle, Sherman and Johnson combined.
I’ll never forget what Favre told me about his post-football life. This was in 2000. I asked him where he’d be and what he’d do in retirement. “I’ll be down in Hattiesburg [Miss.]. You’ll never find me. You know the ‘Where are they now?’ segments on ‘Inside the NFL?’ They’ll do one on me, but they’ll have to get Robert Stack, like on ‘Unsolved Mysteries.’ I’ll disappear.”
Oh yeah, and Favre has definitely disappeared. I guess it's all relative. Most people who "disappear" go out of the spotlight completely, but for Favre "disappearing" means he sticks his head up to remind the world that he does indeed exist. Fortunately he is using his webcam to talk about football and not show everyone pictures of his penis, as he has been prone to do in the past.
Who knows what he's up to now? It's not like anyone has reported on what Favre is doing these days. His idea of disappearing isn't quite mine. Also notice in one of those columns that Favre won't commit to coaching next year. It seems he enjoys the attention of people wondering about his future no matter what he does.
"Who knows if I'll do it next year," said Favre, who is in his second year coaching at the high school. "I really don't know. It's been a lot of fun. I enjoy it. It's easy and it's not too time-consuming."
I imagine Favre's wife, Deanna (and I know her name, which pisses me off), wakes up on a Saturday and spends the first two hours of the day trying to get Favre to commit to whether he will be mowing the grass next week or pay someone to do it.
"It's too early in the week to say what I will do. I enjoy it but I'm also getting to the point I have other interests outside of mowing grass for two hours during the week. I really don't know what I'm going to do or not. I'm just focused on breakfast right now. The time is going to come soon when I stop mowing the grass though. Be sure to ask me every single weekend until I decide I won't ever mow my own grass again."
I can never get him on the phone anymore. He’s disappeared, except to coach the offense for the local high school football team.
Again, my definition of "disappeared" isn't necessarily the same as Peter's definition. Favre certainly poked his head up around draft time this year and has done so in the past as well. I'm sure Peter is hurt he can't get Favre on the phone. More importantly, why is Peter trying to call a retired NFL quarterback? Does he often call Troy Aikman or Joe Montana? I just don't know why he would be calling Favre, other than to just speak with him, which totally proves Peter is obsessed with Favre.
21. Smartest professional decision I made in these 25 years: listening to Steve Robinson, the first editor of the magazine’s website, in 1997 when he asked me to empty out my notebook on Monday morning with whatever I wasn’t writing for the magazine that week. That’s how “Monday Morning Quarterback” was birthed.
It started that way and has turned into the behemoth that it currently is which now doesn't have a lot to do with whatever Peter wasn't writing for the magazine that week any more than it has to do with Peter's thoughts during the week.
The Glazers have hired five coaches. Dungy turned the franchise from sad-sack losers to annual contenders. Gruden finished the job. Raheem Morris largely failed, lasting three years. Greg Schiano didn’t have a long-enough chance (two years), but he failed too.
You like how Peter points out how his boy Greg Schiano didn't have a long-enough chance with the Bucs, but Schiano had only one more year than Raheem Morris (who had no experience as a head coach) and his career winning percentage with the Buccaneers is worse than that of Morris? At least Morris had one winning season. But yeah, Schiano just needed more time.
NFL ownership is aging. Four teams in the last eight months have had a transition in ownership with the death of principal owners.
The youngest owner who passed away was 85 years old. These aren't exactly spring chickens running around. So the lesson is that older owners die.
Of course, in many of the places where owners are aging, teams have strong family plans in place. Dean Spanos is a well-respected presence at league meetings for the Chargers, as is Art Rooney II for Pittsburgh, Katie Blackburn (Mike Brown’s daughter) for the Bengals, Michael Bidwill for the Cards, Jonathan Kraft for the Patriots and Stephen Jones for Dallas.
I'm just happy there is no ownership succession plan in place for my favorite team. It makes me feel very confident. 77 year old owners with a history of a heart condition generally make it to age 100 though, right?
Arthur Blank is very bullish on expanding the NFL’s borders.
My Q&A with the Atlanta owner:
The MMQB: What’s the short- and long-term future of the NFL in Europe?
Blank: The games in London, I think are a tribute to the NFL, a tribute to the fans there, the quality of the game—and I think that it’s proved conclusive that fans will come out when they see the real players playing games that are really meaningful, as opposed to NFL Europe...The approach that the international committee and the commissioner have taken is, ‘Let’s do London right, and then move from there to potentially somewhere else.’
I can't imagine how there would be logistical problems with NFL teams playing football games across the ocean in Europe and then having to come back to the United States to play the very next week. Or would every team that has to play in Europe get a bye the week after?
I’m sure there are wonderful cities in Europe, and elsewhere.
There are wonderful cities in every country, but that doesn't mean every wonderful city in every country needs an NFL team.
The MMQB: Is it more likely there would be a franchise in London or that there would be six to eight games a season?
Blank: I think it will lead to [a team]. I think it will start with an increased number of games. That will be translated into a very successful series of games, and eventually, I think a franchise. And maybe more than one.
Oh, goodie. I can't see how this idea would fail at all. I'm not against the NFL expanding overseas, but I'm afraid of the NFL trying to hard to expand their product they end up diluting the product. For example, I don't know how many more NFL teams there needs to be. 32 teams is a lot of teams and there are only so many good quarterbacks to go around.
Then Peter re-prints commencement addresses given by some athletes, celebrities, politicians and I generally skip over those.
“I call Twitter the microphone for morons.”
—Denver GM John Elway, at a NFL event, the career development symposium, Saturday at Penn’s Wharton School of Business in Philadelphia.
I call losing more Super Bowls than you win a little disappointing for a Hall of Fame quarterback.
I don't really, I like to get chippy when people bash Twitter. Plus it's not like Elway (@johnelway is his Twitter handle) is too good for Twitter. He just bashes the technology he uses, that's all.
“It is completely unacceptable that Daryl has once again put us in this position. We all know what the consequences are and will deal with them.”
—Arizona GM Steve Keim, in an unusually strongly worded statement condemning linebacker Daryl Washington, one of his best players, for being suspended for the 2014 season. Washington said he tested positive for marijuana.
Wow, that is strongly worded. Washington did know the consequences of marijuana use and he should pay the price. If only he could find a way to convince the Cardinals he has "a problem," then hit up rehab for a month, be a wealthy owner and writers like Peter King would feel bad for him.
“It’s a war. It’s on. I have no respect for him no more … You can’t be acting like a little girl out there … a little b—-.”
—Red Sox DH David Ortiz, on Tampa Bay pitcher David Price, after Ortiz was hit in the back by the first Price pitch he saw in 2014, the first time they faced each other this season, on Friday at Fenway Park.
Cool baseball drama.
I'm sure if A-Rod or a Rays player said this about a Red Sox player then Peter would feel like it is "cool baseball drama." It's cool drama until Peter decides he doesn't like the messenger.
So if there were nine taunting fouls in 2012, and if 43 such fouls could have been called in 2013, imagine what happens when officials are ultra-sensitive to make such calls in 2014. Either players will get see the quick trigger fingers the refs have and cut it out early this year, or there will be an epidemic of taunting calls this fall.
Mike Mitchell would have gotten called for 43 taunting calls all by himself, followed by him getting beaten for a touchdown.
Roger Goodell takes a trip every year to Silicon Valley to meet and talk to innovators in the technology, TV, social media and academic set. On one of his first such trips, he met with Steve Jobs, the Apple boss, who had one word of advice for Goodell: “Wifi.”
When you hear owners and club presidents and league officials say they’re intent on enabling all fans able to use their smart phones inside all NFL stadiums, you can trace that advice to Jobs.
Or I could trace that to the fact airplanes, restaurants, Starbucks, hotels and every other place where consumers will choose to go have wifi and eventually NFL stadiums were going to get wifi. Steve Jobs died over three years ago and all NFL stadiums don't have wifi yet, so clearly Goodell listened to the advice not-so intently or wasn't in a hurry to get wifi in every NFL stadium.
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
I have heard of flight delays and I have heard of emergency landings, but what happened on a US Airways flight from Los Angeles to Philadelphia last Wednesday sets an American aviation record for incredulity. Lucky for all of us, Chris Law, a 30-year-old NFL Network producer—he handles Rich Eisen’s podcast and produces programming about fantasy football, the draft and the combine—was in row 10 of the plane and was an eyewitness, and nasal witness, to airline history.
Yes, thank God he was there or else I wouldn't get the chance to read about someone complaining regarding how frustrating it is to travel. There is no where else I can go to hear complaining, so it's just a stroke of luck that Chris Law was on this flight.
“I fly US Airways all the time,’’ Law said over the weekend from Virginia, where he was attending a bachelor party. “I have status with them.
I wouldn't have been so sarcastic in the last paragraph if I had known this story was being told by someone who had status. RISE UP PEOPLE! CHRIS LAW HAS STATUS WITH US AIRWAYS AND THEY DID THIS TO HIM! IMAGINE WHAT CAN HAPPEN TO PEOPLE WITHOUT STATUS! ARM YOURSELVES IMMEDIATELY!
Before we board, I see this lady with a full-grown dog. I have never seen a full-size dog on a plane in coach. This dog had a service tag on it, and the lady looked healthy, fine. But whatever. I get on the plane, everyone boards, the lady and her dog go in back.
This story is long, but the dog starts shitting everywhere and the shit stinks. The plane has to land and Hazmat has to come on the plane to take care of the issue.
(Speaking of which, and I know I will regret putting this idea out there, but I feel like this is the plot of a movie. Terrorists plan to get on a plane and want to avoid going through the detectors, so they have a dog crap all over a plane, Hazmat comes in, but it's actually the terrorists, and take over the plane on the runway and shenanigans en sue ...I'm just saying this is a terrible, terrible idea but it came to me and I have no doubt Bruce Willis would be in this movie somehow)
Now back to Chris Law: “So we land. We stay on the plane. Hazmat is actually five guys in orange vests.
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't suit up completely to face the impending crisis of dog shit on a plane.
“But when we were in Kansas City, she and the dog got off. It was clear this dog was ‘serving’ no purpose. The woman was walking fine. The dog had its own seat. So when she got off, it was like a walk of shame. Her and the dog walked off. People were clapping when she got off the plane, maybe 10 or 15 people clapping. Some people were pretty pissed off. Two people missed their cruise to Greece. People missed their connections. A lady sitting near me was getting honored by a charity that she runs in Hartford that night, and had to make a speech there, but she never made it.
Is that normal? She runs a charity and is being honored by that charity. So she is being honored by...herself? I don't know, really. It seems odd to me to run a charity and then be honored by the charity you run. Maybe it was for longevity of service or something.
I will never, ever, ever complain about anything related to travel for the rest of my life.
At least until next week.
Peter would have absolutely had a shit-fit if this happened on a flight he was on. Peter would have eviscerated this woman in MMQB and then demanded the airlines personally apologize to him.
Red Sox losing streak reaches ten. It's like watching one of your good friends, normally sober, get drunk and puke on his shoes.
— Stephen King (@StephenKing) May 26, 2014
That sounds exactly like something Bill Simmons would Tweet. I wonder which person stole this manner of speaking from the other? It has all the identifiers of something Bill Simmons would say or Tweet. Very weird.
Ten Things I Think I Think
1. I think the most meaningless, dumb story of this offseason is the constant, unending, logic-defying debate over who is the Jets’ starting quarterback, and that anything done before the battle is joined once training camp is a tangible factor in who will win the job—Geno Smith or Michael Vick.
Peter then takes up #1 and #2 "things he thinks" in talking about the Jets quarterback situation. Yeah Peter, I sure do wish some people would stop discussing this meaningless, dumb story. If only more people would follow your lead in not discussing it by discussing it.
Speaking of dumb, meaningless stories...Peter hasn't bashed Josh Freeman in a month, so here goes:
3. I think there’s an incredible story out there, waiting to be written about Josh Freeman. It could be called: “How to ruin your football career in just 18 months.” In the span of the past year and a half, Freeman:
Threw for 4,065 yards at age 24 in 2012, appearing to be one of the best young quarterbacks in football for a young Tampa Bay team.
Had his work ethic questioned in Tampa, where he was mostly scarce on game-planning Tuesdays, a day very few if any starting NFL quarterbacks take off.
Was benched by coach Greg Schiano in Tampa.
Was signed by Minnesota last October.
Completed 43 percent of his passes, a laughable figure, in seven games in 2013.
Got cut loose by the Vikings after the season.
Got signed April 21 by the Giants, who planned to give him a chance to win the number two job behind Eli Manning.
Got cut by the Giants on Friday.
Did Josh Freeman break up with one of Peter's daughters? Did Freeman insult Peter in some way? I just wonder because Peter goes out of his way to bash Freeman and he even slightly deceives his reading audience to make Freeman seem worse than he is. Peter states Freeman completed a "laughable" (I like the editorializing, as if giving the number isn't good enough) 43% of his passes in seven games in 2013. As Peter documented on a near-weekly basis, Freeman didn't play after his one start with the Vikings in October and he only started four games all season. Yes, Freeman did complete 43% of his passes, but that was only in four starts and even during the season where he threw for 4065 yards he only completed 54.8% of his passes. So he was a fairly inaccurate quarterback who threw for a lot of yardage in 2012 and it's not like his star was completely on the rise. If Peter can get past his rage towards Freeman he would remember the Bucs didn't give him a new contract prior to the 2013 season because they wanted him to prove he was worth a new contract. He did not prove this and now he's out of the NFL again. End of story. He isn't the first or the last 1st round pick to perform poorly in the NFL and I have no idea why Peter picks on Freeman like he does.
4. I think it’s easy to say Sean Lee is injury-prone and leave his latest bit of terrible news—he suffered a torn ACL last week when he was jarred by rookie offensive lineman Zack Martin at a non-padded Dallas workout—at that. But with DeMarcus Ware and Lee gone for 2014 (Ware was cut in a cap move), and defensive tackle Jason Hatcher not re-signed, I cannot see any way new defensive coordinator Rod Marinelli can make a strong defense out of what he has left in Dallas. Talk about pressure on Tony Romo. He certainly was looking forward to not having to outscore every team he played this fall. Now, the Cowboys’ only real chance for the playoffs seems to rest on just how high-scoring the offense can be.
But it will always be Tony Romo's fault when the Cowboys lose a game. Always.
5. I think Arizona GM Steve Keim (see Quotes of the Week) is justifiably fuming over the year-long suspension handed to Daryl Washington, the best player on his front seven...In March, Keim essentially handed Washington a $10 million option bonus to trigger his contract for 2014. Now Keim has to feel altogether double-crossed, and it’s certain the team won’t allow Washington to keep that money without a fight. Arizona also could move on from Washington, figuring a player the coaches cannot trust (suspended for 20 of 32 games over a two-year span) is worthless to them.
Here is a great example of Peter treating a player who has had drug/alcohol issues purely from a "What does it mean in terms of football" point of view, rather than the "I wish this guy could get the help he needs" point of view. When it's an owner who gets detained for an alcohol/drug-related violation then Peter hopes this guy gets some help, but when it's a player who may or may not have alcohol/drug-related issues then Peter looks at it from a pure football standpoint and talks about how the coaches can't trust the player or feel double-crossed. Seems fair.
8. I think if Will Hill can blame second-hand smoke for his positive drug test—the league suspended him six games for the positive test last week—I can blame second-hand pizza for my weight.
Hill is probably thinking of an excuse, but second-hand smoke is a real thing and second-hand pizza is not. It was just last week that Peter bitched about a bar in Tennessee allowing their customers to smoke because it was bothering him while he ate. I get that Hill is using an excuse but it's interesting Peter makes this joke since second-hand smoke bothered him at a bar just over a week ago.
10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:
b. Holy cow, Edwin Encarnacion. You’re the most dangerous hitter in baseball right now. Encarnacion hit two homers the other night—16 for the month of May—that traveled the length of three homers in any ballpark in America. Wow.
So who is the first sportswriter who wants to speculate, but not come out and actually say it, that Encarnacion is using PED's?
h. Coffeenerdness: So I’m weak, and I just had a five-latte week. Just don’t tell the nutritionist.
Hopefully Peter's sort of-nutrionist is illiterate and stupid like Peter assumes the rest of his MMQB readers are and can't read what Peter just wrote in this MMQB. Otherwise she probably knows Peter had five lattes. Besides, someone who negotiates with a nutritionist about how many lattes he/she can have during the week probably isn't very serious about their goal of losing some weight.
The Adieu Haiku
Freeman, cut again.
How were so many so wrong?
Two words: work ethic.
We get it, Peter. Josh Freeman sucks and you think he sucks and everyone thinks he sucks. He's lazy. It's understood. Why do you harp on Freeman so much as if he is the only first round quarterback to ever not play up to expectations in the NFL? I must ask this because I'm not sure I've ever read one sportswriter so pointlessly down on a quarterback like King is down on Freeman. Freeman wasn't even a top-5 pick and it's not like he was terrible his entire career. Yet, he draws Peter's ire to where Peter talks about him in MMQB whenever possible, just to remind his readers that Josh Freeman is indeed a lazy, useless, money-stealing asshole.
Monday, June 2, 2014
0 comments Jay Mariotti Has a Hot Sports Take About Mark Cuban; Still Desperately Craves Attention
Jay Mariotti is still struggling for relevance. In the past few years he's been disowned by ESPN, pissed on his co-workers at the "Sun-Times" while weaseling out the door, and pled guilty to charges of roughing up his girlfriend. But he's totally happy now. In fact, he's very eager to say just how happy he is, which if you ask me, means the lady doth protest too much. If you have to keep saying how happy you are, perhaps you are just trying to convince yourself.
So Jay wants relevance and he's spitting out the hot sports takes on his page at Sports Talk Florida like they are going out of style. He wants attention and he's going to keep saying bold shit to get that attention. Mark Cuban recently tried to be nuanced and discuss race, bigotry and walking across the street, but Jay Mariotti will have none of that. Rather than understand the nuance, he compares Cuban to Donald Sterling and Jay tries to be as controversial and contrarian as possible to get attention from anyone important. His ego feeds on attention and his ego has been hungry for a while now.
If you’re going to ban Donald Sterling from the NBA, don’t you now have to eject Mark Cuban, too?
No, no the NBA does not have to eject Mark Cuban. You see how Jay starts off with his hot sports take immediately to grab the reader and get attention.
"Mark Cuban is as bad as Donald Sterling. Mark Cuban should be banned from the NBA."
This reaction is so overdone and blown out of proportion it's obvious that Mariotti can't truly be serious about it. It's clearly a reaction created to get a reaction from readers and the public to Mariotti's reaction. He's doing the journalistic equivalent of yanking ponytails and running away.
In explosive comments that have me asking about his own emotional stability
I mean, this is just hilarious. "Explosive comments" and they have Mariotti "asking about his own (Cuban's) emotional stability." I feel like Robert Stack should be reading the audiobook of this column. It's all very dramatic sounding.
the irascible owner of the Dallas Mavericks opened his big mouth much too far this time and put his fellow league owners and commissioner Adam Silver in a shockingly difficult position.
Here is the issue with Jay's mocked-up, faux outrage. Donald Sterling has actually made and continued to make racist comments. His comments were of a racist nature. They were made recently and in the past. Mark Cuban did not make racist comments, but commented on his own racism or bigotry that he fights with on a daily basis. One person's comments are made to be hateful, another person's comments are made to provoke debate and an open discussion about built-in bigotry that people hold. One is non-productive, another is productive.
Speaking at a conference in Nashville, Cuban portrayed himself publicly as every bit the racist Sterling was on a private recording in March. He tried to claim he was offering a nuanced view on how far society has progressed
Which is how it came off to many who listened and read Cuban's comments. It's him explaining that he isn't perfect, but there is a difference in true racism in the vein of Donald Sterling's actions over the last 30 years and trying to avoid a certain person on the street who fits a stereotype a person may be fearful of. I don't think Cuban should get slapped on the back for admitting bigotry, but he also shouldn't be thrown out of the NBA because he dared to discuss race rather than stand on a high moral pedestal where he falsely states he would NEVER participate in any bigotry in any form.
but nuance is impossible to convey when Cuban admits to this racist tug: “I mean, we’re all prejudiced in one way or another. If I see a black kid in a hoodie and it’s late at night, I’m walking to the other side of the street. And if on that side of the street, there’s a guy that has tattoos all over his face — white guy, bald head, tattoos everywhere — I’m walking back to the other side of the street. And the list goes on of stereotypes that we all live up to and are fearful of.’’
It's not a very kind admission, but it certainly is nuanced. I am not sure Jay Mariotti knows what "nuanced" means, because Cuban's admission is very nearly the definition of nuance. Mariotti is about to grab hold of the "black kid in a hoodie" comment because that's going to get him the most attention and prove the point he wants to prove best, but he shouldn't be blinded by the example Cuban gave and ignore the meaning behind the example. Of course, not making a huge deal out of this comment won't get Mariotti pageviews and eyes to read his columns.
Cuban says his comments are a teaching moment, that we must understand the context in which he was speaking. Sorry, I can’t get past the “black kid in a hoodie’’ statement.
We know you can't, Jay. We know. It's something you need to grab on and hold with a death grip in order to prove your "Mark Cuban is as racist as Donald Sterling" point of view.
Here is the fuller version of Cuban’s remarks:
“In this day and age, this country has really come a long way putting any type of bigotry behind us, regardless of who it’s toward. We’ve come a long way, and with that progress comes a price. We’re a lot more vigilant and we’re a lot less tolerant of different views, and it’s not necessarily easy for everybody to adapt or evolve.
“I mean, we’re all prejudiced in one way or another. If I see a black kid in a hoodie and it’s late at night, I’m walking to the other side of the street. And if on that side of the street, there’s a guy that has tattoos all over his face — white guy, bald head, tattoos everywhere — I’m walking back to the other side of the street. And the list goes on of stereotypes that we all live up to and are fearful of. So in my businesses, I try not to be hypocritical. I know that I’m not perfect. I know that I live in a glass house, and it’s not appropriate for me to throw stones.”
I read quite a few articles bemoaning the lack of characters in sports these days. Managers, coaches and owners who shoot from the hip and do funny, odd things. This situation is a good example of why they don't shoot from the hip and aren't characters. Prepared, boring comments aren't taken out of context, but unprepared comments on a subject can involve an unfortunate reference the vultures in the media will cling on to in order to castigate that owner or manager. In this case, it's the Trayvon Martin reference that may or may not be a Trayvon Martin reference.
Cuban was simply saying he believes everyone is prejudiced in some way and then lumps himself in this category, while giving an example. He's simply saying he understands he's not perfect but there is a difference in avoiding a certain person on the streets and openly committing racist acts and making racist comments over a span of 30 years. Therein lies the nuance.
As someone who knows Cuban and lobbied aggressively for him in the media to become the Chicago Cubs owner years ago, I am stunned.
Jay Mariotti threw his public support behind Cuban to be the Cubs owner and this is how Cuban repays him? Cuban getting support from Mariotti probably served to hurt Cuban's chances of becoming the Cubs owner.
He says we’re misunderstanding him, but social experiement or otherwise, he blew it with the “hoodie’’ comment. It reeks of racism and blatant insensitivity.
Grab a hold of that phrase, Jay. Grab a hold, ignore the rest and don't let go.
At least Sterling rightfully can claim that the infamous V. Stiviano set him up when she taped him — without his consent, which is against the law in California — in a conversation in which she seemed to bait him with questions about African-Americans.
Here goes Jay ignoring important facts to fit his point. Who set Sterling up to be the most discriminatory landlord in United States history? Who set up Sterling when he was sued by Elgin Baylor for employment discrimination? It wasn't just one specific event with Sterling, it was a series of events.
“You don’t. There’s no law against stupid,’’ Cuban said. “I’m the one who says don’t force the stupid people to be quiet. I want to know who the morons are.’’
And dutifully Jay heeds Cuban's need to know who the morons are by writing this column.
All Cuban has done is add himself to the moron list. Nuance? This is a little boy trying to get away with something Sterling could not. You don’t talk about advances in fighting bigotry, then admit to your own racism.
What's the alternative? Talk about advances in fighting bigotry and then try to take moral high ground under the false pretense that you personally have zero traces of racism in your thoughts and actions? Lying to yourself and society while pretending to be honest is better than admitting your own faults as an example of how you are trying to fight through own bigotry?
Cuban is a hater, too, regardless of context, when he makes the “black kid in a hoodie’’ comment.
Yes, "regardless of context" Cuban is a hater. Ignore the context completely, how could it matter? Cuban used the phrase "black kid in a hoodie" in a sentence about racism, so context doesn't matter when hot sports takes and overreactions have already begun.
The night before Cuban’s comments, Silver was asked if Sterling is ruining what’s great about pro basketball.
“it’s not just the performances on the court that it’s a distraction from. And I think what made this moment bigger than basketball, certainly for everybody involved in the league, and that moment being that recording, was that it did come from within, that under David Stern and commissioners that came before him, barriers were broken with this league, and I think for those who say it’s a slippery slope, and my God, what happens to the next player or the next owner who does something wrong, I’d only say there’s something particular about race issues when it comes to sports, and maybe the NBA in particular.
...but at least within the boundaries of my authority, I feel an obligation to protect the people who are within this league, and so that’s my reaction.”
So how does he deal with Cuban?
Obviously, the death penalty is on the table at this point. Either legal injection, but only if that is the least humane course of action, or the electric chair. I'm sure it would have been much more preferable for Cuban to have kept his thoughts to himself, because it's fine to be slightly bigoted, but just keep it to yourself and don't attempt to further a discussion on a race-related topic. Staying in denial about a person's own bigoted views is obviously the most important thing to do. God knows the United States doesn't need an open conversation about race relations.
How can you give him a warning and continue to prosecute Sterling without being called a stinking hypocrite?
Because Mark Cuban wasn't making his comments out of hatred, but as an example of how far society goes in terms of discussing race and facing our own bigoted views.
What is worse sin, telling a 31-year-old gold-digger to avoid Magic Johnson and other African-Americans at games — or saying, “If I see a black kid in a hoodie and it’s late at night, I’m walking to the other side of the street.’’
If Jay wasn't being so willfully ignorant about the full story behind Donald Sterling's lifetime ban from the NBA then...well, he wouldn't be Jay Mariotti if he was acknowledging the whole story and not intentionally forgetting the whole part where Donald Sterling had a history of racism prior to his comments that ended with his lifetime ban from the NBA. Sterling has the largest housing discrimination settlement in United Stated history collected by the Justice Department on his resume, as well as a thorough history of making racist comments. It's not just one thing that led to his lifetime ban, despite Jay's ignorant attempts to pretend it is.
Again, when someone is that candid about his views and fears, how can we believe Cuban when he tries to come off as a fully tolerant, equal-opportunity employer who will help people overcome their bigotry?
Because the alternative is for Cuban to come off as fully tolerant and this not be exactly true. It's typical Jay Mariotti that he prefers a person lie about his/her bigoted views rather than admit the truth. This really brings some insight into Jay's character. He thinks more of people who lie and deceive themselves as opposed to those people who are honest about their intentions and thoughts. It makes me wonder if Jay has been honest about past indiscretions in his life.
Cuban said. “Because it does my company no good, it does my customers no good, it does society no good if my response to somebody and their racism and bigotry is to say, ‘It’s not right for you to be here. Go take your attitude somewhere else.’’’
I hear that. But I’m hearing “black kid in a hoodie’’ much louder, probably because it strikes too closely to the Trayvon Martin shooting in 2012.
This is the fifth time Jay has brought up the "black kid in a hoodie" phrase. He's desperate for this to mean something in order to prove his larger point.
Silver values Cuban’s high-tech expertise, social-media involvement and standing as a fan-friendly owner. But there can be no double standards here. A racist owner is a racist owner, and just as Silver is punishing Sterling for the right reasons, he should punish Cuban for exacerbating the problem.
Trying to talk about race relations by admitting one's own bigoted tendencies = "exacerbating the problem."
Cuban should apologize at once, own up to his error and hope the NBA has mercy on him.
Yes, Cuban should apologize for openly admitting the way he stereotypes people and learn to keep his bigoted and stereotypes to himself. The world is a much better place if nobody admits their faults and pretends they don't exist.
My guess is, because Cuban is a valued member of the owners’ club and Sterling was not, he’ll slide.
Silver may also let it slide because Cuban's comments were not even close to being on par with the comments that Donald Sterling made nor on par with Sterling's actions over a 30 year period. So there's that too.
Shame on Silver, the owners and all of Cuban’s Mickey Mouse teammates at Disney/ESPN for not calling out the hypocrisy.
I'm not sure this column is going to get Mariotti the attention he so desires, but I can't fault him for trying really hard to be as trolling as possible to get the attention. Mariotti even throws in a couple of shots at Disney/ESPN, because he's still bitter he doesn't work for them and they refuse to hire him. Disney/ESPN are evil when they don't employ Jay Mariotti, but don't doubt for a second he wouldn't go back to work for them if given the chance.
Despite Jay's latching onto the phrase "black kid in a hoodie" there is a difference in what Donald Sterling said (and did over a 30 year period) and what Mark Cuban said. I don't find it surprising that Jay thinks it's better for society for a person to keep his bigoted thoughts to himself. I just wish Jay would keep all of his thoughts to himself.
So Jay wants relevance and he's spitting out the hot sports takes on his page at Sports Talk Florida like they are going out of style. He wants attention and he's going to keep saying bold shit to get that attention. Mark Cuban recently tried to be nuanced and discuss race, bigotry and walking across the street, but Jay Mariotti will have none of that. Rather than understand the nuance, he compares Cuban to Donald Sterling and Jay tries to be as controversial and contrarian as possible to get attention from anyone important. His ego feeds on attention and his ego has been hungry for a while now.
If you’re going to ban Donald Sterling from the NBA, don’t you now have to eject Mark Cuban, too?
No, no the NBA does not have to eject Mark Cuban. You see how Jay starts off with his hot sports take immediately to grab the reader and get attention.
"Mark Cuban is as bad as Donald Sterling. Mark Cuban should be banned from the NBA."
This reaction is so overdone and blown out of proportion it's obvious that Mariotti can't truly be serious about it. It's clearly a reaction created to get a reaction from readers and the public to Mariotti's reaction. He's doing the journalistic equivalent of yanking ponytails and running away.
In explosive comments that have me asking about his own emotional stability
I mean, this is just hilarious. "Explosive comments" and they have Mariotti "asking about his own (Cuban's) emotional stability." I feel like Robert Stack should be reading the audiobook of this column. It's all very dramatic sounding.
the irascible owner of the Dallas Mavericks opened his big mouth much too far this time and put his fellow league owners and commissioner Adam Silver in a shockingly difficult position.
Here is the issue with Jay's mocked-up, faux outrage. Donald Sterling has actually made and continued to make racist comments. His comments were of a racist nature. They were made recently and in the past. Mark Cuban did not make racist comments, but commented on his own racism or bigotry that he fights with on a daily basis. One person's comments are made to be hateful, another person's comments are made to provoke debate and an open discussion about built-in bigotry that people hold. One is non-productive, another is productive.
Speaking at a conference in Nashville, Cuban portrayed himself publicly as every bit the racist Sterling was on a private recording in March. He tried to claim he was offering a nuanced view on how far society has progressed
Which is how it came off to many who listened and read Cuban's comments. It's him explaining that he isn't perfect, but there is a difference in true racism in the vein of Donald Sterling's actions over the last 30 years and trying to avoid a certain person on the street who fits a stereotype a person may be fearful of. I don't think Cuban should get slapped on the back for admitting bigotry, but he also shouldn't be thrown out of the NBA because he dared to discuss race rather than stand on a high moral pedestal where he falsely states he would NEVER participate in any bigotry in any form.
but nuance is impossible to convey when Cuban admits to this racist tug: “I mean, we’re all prejudiced in one way or another. If I see a black kid in a hoodie and it’s late at night, I’m walking to the other side of the street. And if on that side of the street, there’s a guy that has tattoos all over his face — white guy, bald head, tattoos everywhere — I’m walking back to the other side of the street. And the list goes on of stereotypes that we all live up to and are fearful of.’’
It's not a very kind admission, but it certainly is nuanced. I am not sure Jay Mariotti knows what "nuanced" means, because Cuban's admission is very nearly the definition of nuance. Mariotti is about to grab hold of the "black kid in a hoodie" comment because that's going to get him the most attention and prove the point he wants to prove best, but he shouldn't be blinded by the example Cuban gave and ignore the meaning behind the example. Of course, not making a huge deal out of this comment won't get Mariotti pageviews and eyes to read his columns.
Cuban says his comments are a teaching moment, that we must understand the context in which he was speaking. Sorry, I can’t get past the “black kid in a hoodie’’ statement.
We know you can't, Jay. We know. It's something you need to grab on and hold with a death grip in order to prove your "Mark Cuban is as racist as Donald Sterling" point of view.
Here is the fuller version of Cuban’s remarks:
“In this day and age, this country has really come a long way putting any type of bigotry behind us, regardless of who it’s toward. We’ve come a long way, and with that progress comes a price. We’re a lot more vigilant and we’re a lot less tolerant of different views, and it’s not necessarily easy for everybody to adapt or evolve.
“I mean, we’re all prejudiced in one way or another. If I see a black kid in a hoodie and it’s late at night, I’m walking to the other side of the street. And if on that side of the street, there’s a guy that has tattoos all over his face — white guy, bald head, tattoos everywhere — I’m walking back to the other side of the street. And the list goes on of stereotypes that we all live up to and are fearful of. So in my businesses, I try not to be hypocritical. I know that I’m not perfect. I know that I live in a glass house, and it’s not appropriate for me to throw stones.”
I read quite a few articles bemoaning the lack of characters in sports these days. Managers, coaches and owners who shoot from the hip and do funny, odd things. This situation is a good example of why they don't shoot from the hip and aren't characters. Prepared, boring comments aren't taken out of context, but unprepared comments on a subject can involve an unfortunate reference the vultures in the media will cling on to in order to castigate that owner or manager. In this case, it's the Trayvon Martin reference that may or may not be a Trayvon Martin reference.
Cuban was simply saying he believes everyone is prejudiced in some way and then lumps himself in this category, while giving an example. He's simply saying he understands he's not perfect but there is a difference in avoiding a certain person on the streets and openly committing racist acts and making racist comments over a span of 30 years. Therein lies the nuance.
As someone who knows Cuban and lobbied aggressively for him in the media to become the Chicago Cubs owner years ago, I am stunned.
Jay Mariotti threw his public support behind Cuban to be the Cubs owner and this is how Cuban repays him? Cuban getting support from Mariotti probably served to hurt Cuban's chances of becoming the Cubs owner.
He says we’re misunderstanding him, but social experiement or otherwise, he blew it with the “hoodie’’ comment. It reeks of racism and blatant insensitivity.
Grab a hold of that phrase, Jay. Grab a hold, ignore the rest and don't let go.
At least Sterling rightfully can claim that the infamous V. Stiviano set him up when she taped him — without his consent, which is against the law in California — in a conversation in which she seemed to bait him with questions about African-Americans.
Here goes Jay ignoring important facts to fit his point. Who set Sterling up to be the most discriminatory landlord in United States history? Who set up Sterling when he was sued by Elgin Baylor for employment discrimination? It wasn't just one specific event with Sterling, it was a series of events.
“You don’t. There’s no law against stupid,’’ Cuban said. “I’m the one who says don’t force the stupid people to be quiet. I want to know who the morons are.’’
And dutifully Jay heeds Cuban's need to know who the morons are by writing this column.
All Cuban has done is add himself to the moron list. Nuance? This is a little boy trying to get away with something Sterling could not. You don’t talk about advances in fighting bigotry, then admit to your own racism.
What's the alternative? Talk about advances in fighting bigotry and then try to take moral high ground under the false pretense that you personally have zero traces of racism in your thoughts and actions? Lying to yourself and society while pretending to be honest is better than admitting your own faults as an example of how you are trying to fight through own bigotry?
Cuban is a hater, too, regardless of context, when he makes the “black kid in a hoodie’’ comment.
Yes, "regardless of context" Cuban is a hater. Ignore the context completely, how could it matter? Cuban used the phrase "black kid in a hoodie" in a sentence about racism, so context doesn't matter when hot sports takes and overreactions have already begun.
The night before Cuban’s comments, Silver was asked if Sterling is ruining what’s great about pro basketball.
“it’s not just the performances on the court that it’s a distraction from. And I think what made this moment bigger than basketball, certainly for everybody involved in the league, and that moment being that recording, was that it did come from within, that under David Stern and commissioners that came before him, barriers were broken with this league, and I think for those who say it’s a slippery slope, and my God, what happens to the next player or the next owner who does something wrong, I’d only say there’s something particular about race issues when it comes to sports, and maybe the NBA in particular.
...but at least within the boundaries of my authority, I feel an obligation to protect the people who are within this league, and so that’s my reaction.”
So how does he deal with Cuban?
Obviously, the death penalty is on the table at this point. Either legal injection, but only if that is the least humane course of action, or the electric chair. I'm sure it would have been much more preferable for Cuban to have kept his thoughts to himself, because it's fine to be slightly bigoted, but just keep it to yourself and don't attempt to further a discussion on a race-related topic. Staying in denial about a person's own bigoted views is obviously the most important thing to do. God knows the United States doesn't need an open conversation about race relations.
How can you give him a warning and continue to prosecute Sterling without being called a stinking hypocrite?
Because Mark Cuban wasn't making his comments out of hatred, but as an example of how far society goes in terms of discussing race and facing our own bigoted views.
What is worse sin, telling a 31-year-old gold-digger to avoid Magic Johnson and other African-Americans at games — or saying, “If I see a black kid in a hoodie and it’s late at night, I’m walking to the other side of the street.’’
If Jay wasn't being so willfully ignorant about the full story behind Donald Sterling's lifetime ban from the NBA then...well, he wouldn't be Jay Mariotti if he was acknowledging the whole story and not intentionally forgetting the whole part where Donald Sterling had a history of racism prior to his comments that ended with his lifetime ban from the NBA. Sterling has the largest housing discrimination settlement in United Stated history collected by the Justice Department on his resume, as well as a thorough history of making racist comments. It's not just one thing that led to his lifetime ban, despite Jay's ignorant attempts to pretend it is.
Again, when someone is that candid about his views and fears, how can we believe Cuban when he tries to come off as a fully tolerant, equal-opportunity employer who will help people overcome their bigotry?
Because the alternative is for Cuban to come off as fully tolerant and this not be exactly true. It's typical Jay Mariotti that he prefers a person lie about his/her bigoted views rather than admit the truth. This really brings some insight into Jay's character. He thinks more of people who lie and deceive themselves as opposed to those people who are honest about their intentions and thoughts. It makes me wonder if Jay has been honest about past indiscretions in his life.
Cuban said. “Because it does my company no good, it does my customers no good, it does society no good if my response to somebody and their racism and bigotry is to say, ‘It’s not right for you to be here. Go take your attitude somewhere else.’’’
I hear that. But I’m hearing “black kid in a hoodie’’ much louder, probably because it strikes too closely to the Trayvon Martin shooting in 2012.
This is the fifth time Jay has brought up the "black kid in a hoodie" phrase. He's desperate for this to mean something in order to prove his larger point.
Silver values Cuban’s high-tech expertise, social-media involvement and standing as a fan-friendly owner. But there can be no double standards here. A racist owner is a racist owner, and just as Silver is punishing Sterling for the right reasons, he should punish Cuban for exacerbating the problem.
Trying to talk about race relations by admitting one's own bigoted tendencies = "exacerbating the problem."
Cuban should apologize at once, own up to his error and hope the NBA has mercy on him.
Yes, Cuban should apologize for openly admitting the way he stereotypes people and learn to keep his bigoted and stereotypes to himself. The world is a much better place if nobody admits their faults and pretends they don't exist.
My guess is, because Cuban is a valued member of the owners’ club and Sterling was not, he’ll slide.
Silver may also let it slide because Cuban's comments were not even close to being on par with the comments that Donald Sterling made nor on par with Sterling's actions over a 30 year period. So there's that too.
Shame on Silver, the owners and all of Cuban’s Mickey Mouse teammates at Disney/ESPN for not calling out the hypocrisy.
I'm not sure this column is going to get Mariotti the attention he so desires, but I can't fault him for trying really hard to be as trolling as possible to get the attention. Mariotti even throws in a couple of shots at Disney/ESPN, because he's still bitter he doesn't work for them and they refuse to hire him. Disney/ESPN are evil when they don't employ Jay Mariotti, but don't doubt for a second he wouldn't go back to work for them if given the chance.
Despite Jay's latching onto the phrase "black kid in a hoodie" there is a difference in what Donald Sterling said (and did over a 30 year period) and what Mark Cuban said. I don't find it surprising that Jay thinks it's better for society for a person to keep his bigoted thoughts to himself. I just wish Jay would keep all of his thoughts to himself.
If you’re going to ban Donald Sterling from the NBA, don’t you now have to eject Mark Cuban, too?
Read more at http://www.sportstalkflorida.com/nuanced-cubans-words-as-racist-as-sterlings/#ZItuHQmFEzt8EqL0.99
Read more at http://www.sportstalkflorida.com/nuanced-cubans-words-as-racist-as-sterlings/#ZItuHQmFEzt8EqL0.99
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)