Rick Reilly has decided to write another one of those "Why can't Tiger win a major tournament?" columns after the US Open. Actually, Rick spends a lot of time thinking in this column thinking about Tiger's legacy and basically wondering if Tiger's success has ruined his legacy. It seems that Rick has set high expectations for Tiger based on Tiger's early-career success and because Tiger can't reach those expectations anymore then this makes Rick wonder what Tiger's legacy will be. So basically Rick is defining Tiger's legacy as being a somewhat disappointment because of how successful Tiger was early in his PGA career. Rick also manages to slip a Bruce Jenner reference in, which is always an unwelcome surprise. It is unreasonable to expect Tiger to be as great as he was early in his career and it seems he will have to be known as one of the greatest golfers ever rather than the greatest golfer ever. This type of article annoys me because Phil Mickelson is older than Tiger and he has won five majors, while Tiger has won 14 majors, but it is Tiger Woods' legacy that we are so unsure of? 14 majors, no matter when they were won, seem to speak for themselves. I am sure now that Tiger didn't win the Open Championship that Rick is going to start to double up on the "Is Tiger Woods washed up" talk.
It's crazy, but let's say Tiger Woods never wins another major.
That would be so crazy if Tiger never won another major. He would then be considered one of the greatest golfers in PGA history. That's madness! What kind of disturbed mind could ever fathom such a thing?
Let's say he is done at age 37. Let's say he stops at 14, four short of Jack Nicklaus' record.
Let's say we won't use the phrase "let's say" anymore. Let's say we do that, then I would then answer this hypothetical by saying Tiger Woods will be considered as one of the greatest golfers ever whose rise was only matched by his fall. Then I would say he had a meteoric rise and a meteoric fall. Then I would curse Rick Reilly's name.
I don't want to constantly compare Tiger to Phil Mickelson, but Tiger has nine more major wins than Mickelson and Mickelson is older than Tiger. Say Mickelson never wins another major after the Open Championship, why isn't his legacy being questioned?
Or as a colossal disappointment?
The only way Tiger can be seen as a colossal disappointment is if you compare his early-career success to his late-career success. So essentially to call Tiger a disappointment a person would have to be using Tiger's success as a reason why he is so disappointing. This makes not of sense. Tiger exceeded expectations early in his career, so this doesn't mean he is a disappointment for not consistently exceeding the limits he himself has set for...himself.
As a brilliant star? Or a star that burned out halfway across the sky?
He was a brilliant star who had injuries, a scandal, and then struggled to win a major. I think we are being a bit harsh on him, because Tiger has won seven PGA tournaments since he last won a major.
Do you realize that this Tiger tailspin is older than his younger child?
It's true: Sam is just about to turn 6. Charlie is 4. And Skid is 5.
Do you realize that you are cherry-picking data that has absolutely no meaning as to the legacy of Tiger Woods? It's the nature of sportswriters to overreact when Tiger wins a tournament and then overreact when Tiger has a poor showing in a tournament. It's not their fault, it's just their nature.
Sunday at the U.S. Open marked five years to the day since his last
major triumph -- maybe his best -- the one-legged legend of Torrey
Pines.
Five whole years. Tiger can't match up to what he did early in his career, so he is obviously a disappointment. It's just like an NFL quarterback who puts up 5-6 years of being the best quarterback in the NFL only to fade into being just one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL for the rest of his career. Would we call that quarterback a disappointment? Probably not.
He has gone through the Mount Vesuvius of sex scandals, gotten divorced, moved his home, had more surgeries than Bruce Jenner,
Not hilarious and not-timely.
Now there's this little mumbling you hear in golf circles that (pssst)
Tiger might have (keep it to yourself) lost a little of his (gulp)
nerve.
So Tiger is now like other golfers on the PGA Tour. How could that be?
The scandal, the surgeries, the slow sucking of time might have turned him a little (cough-cough) scared.
How else do you explain a guy who wins all kinds of minors (13 during the streak) but no majors?
You could explain it by saying his surgeries and time have caught up to him where he no longer has the physical advantage or consistent swing that he once had over his fellow PGA Tour players. You could explain that Tiger just hasn't done well in majors for whatever reason, but it's not like many of the other best PGA Tour players have won multiple majors over this same five year time period. There are other explanations other than chalking it up to Tiger having lost his nerve.
Before this year's Masters, he had won three tournaments of his past four, then he finished a quiet fourth in Augusta.
It was a "quiet" fourth place. Not one of those loud fourth places finishes, but a "quiet" fourth where Tiger had 25% of his prize money reduced for the volume of his finish not matching the decibel requirement for a fourth place finish in a major.
In the 16 majors he has played in this five-year nuclear winter, he has
won his last start before a major eight times. Yet never the major
itself.
Which obviously means Tiger gets a lot of nerve up the week before the major and then loses his nerve entirely the week of the major. The fact Tiger has won eight times prior to a major isn't impressive, but just a sign of how disappointing Tiger has become.
Even more telling, he's often been The Old Tiger in majors when the
pressure was off (Thursday and Friday) and The New Tiger when the
pressure was on.
So Tiger is a disappointment because he doesn't play well in eight rounds during the golf year? He still wins minor tournaments, still plays well on Thursday and Friday in majors, but can only "quietly" place fourth in major tournaments because he can't handle the Saturday/Sunday pressure. Maybe he cracks under the pressure now that he doesn't have multiple women on the side. It's the lack of consistent sex from multiple partners that is bringing Tiger down. Just like Aerosmith can't write a decent song now that they are clean and not using drugs.
So what about it? If he's done winning majors now, what should be his legacy?
I'm not sure this question should be asked for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, Woods is 37 years old so his legacy is far from cemented. Next most importantly, this legacy that Rick Reilly is so intent on figuring out is assuming Tiger never wins another major, which isn't a point I am ready to concede. Next to that in importance, is that Tiger's early-career success helped cement most of his legacy. He is one of the best golfers in PGA Tour history.
Well, if Tiger Woods is really done, I think he would go down as the most gifted golfer in history and the golfer who wasted the most gifts.
How can you claim he wasted his gifts if he won 14 majors? Maybe that was the extent of his ability to use his gifts. Maybe I'm wrong, but the idea Tiger Woods wasted his gifts doesn't jive with his PGA record. He has won a lot of tournaments and holding him to the standard he set in his 20's doesn't seem fair to me. He set the bar high, so it seems reasonable to expect he can't always reach this bar he has set.
To win 14 majors in only 13 years, then to never win another? That would
be like swimming the English Channel and then drowning in the hotel
pool.
I realize it isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, but are the Patriots a disappointment because they haven't won a Super Bowl since 2004? Is Peyton Manning a disappointment as a quarterback because he has only won one Super Bowl? He starts the season off strong and then starts to fade in the playoffs, isn't that some criticism Manning receives? That makes him somewhat like Tiger, so does that mean Peyton Manning's NFL career is a disappointment?
14 majors in 13 years IS a career. It almost doesn't matter what Tiger Woods does after that, because for a decade-and-a-half he was easily the best golfer in the world. Also, Rick is still assuming Tiger will never win another major in an effort to ponder Tiger's legacy, which is not only ridiculous given Tiger's age but is also still a huge assumption in my opinion.
If Tiger Woods is really done, he'd be remembered as a strong man who
wrecked his career with his own weakness. He'd be thought of as an
immortal and an immoral.
If only Tiger had worn Ed Hardy shirts and spent his time taking pictures of him pretending to choke Rick Reilly then he could have avoided the women and immorality that ruined his career.
Tiger Woods was hit by an out-of-control Tiger. He'd be lumped with Mike
Tyson, two men whose hunger for greatness was sunk by their hunger for
lust.
Yeah, these two athletes aren't comparable at all. Mike Tyson went to jail for raping a woman and Tiger Woods had multiple affairs. I know Rick has taken on the role of the moral majority since he suggested Colin Kaepernick needs to reconnect with his birth parents because it worked out so well for a member of Rick's family, but there is a difference in going to jail for rape and having multiple affairs. A pretty big difference. Notice how far this assumption that Tiger won't win another major has taken us. Rick just compared Tiger to Mike Tyson. This is what happens when you assume.
If Tiger Woods is really done, he would be remembered among the three
greatest who ever played: along with Nicklaus and Bobby Jones. All
three of them owned not only golf but the entire American sports
landscape for a time. All three won tournaments at a dizzying rate. Yet
neither of the first two could touch Woods, who won four professional
majors in a row, a feat unlikely to be topped.
So why would it even be considered that Tiger could be a disappointment? How could this even be suggested if Tiger is one of the three greatest golfers ever, except he had even more extraordinary short-term success than the other two golfers considered the best ever? If Rick believes Tiger is among the three greatest golfers ever then there's no way he can be considered to have been a star that burned out halfway across the sky, could he? If that were true, what would that make Nicklaus and Bobby Jones?
He'd be placed alongside Arnold Palmer, who brought golf to the truck drivers and the waitresses. Woods brought it to people of color.
"People of color." I didn't know it was 1980 where Rick lives.
He is Kobe Bryant in long pants: awesome and feared and perhaps best viewed from a distance.
Rick compares Tiger to another athlete who was accused of sexual assault. I'm not entirely sure Rick understands that having an extramarital affair is not considered sexual assault.
Do you realize that in the Merion media center, Tiger Woods had his own
leaderboard? There was only one name on it: his. America might pull for Phil Mickelson,
I don't cheer for Phil Mickelson. For some reason he annoys me. It may be his hair or how commentators act like he is the only golfer ever to have to balance his work with his family. Did you know one time he had a pager on him during the US Open in case his wife went into labor? He attended his daughter's graduation and then flew back to play a round of golf this past weekend. Every family issue involving Mickelson is treated like the first time a professional athlete has had to balance work and life.
Lastly, and this is unfair but no less true, but if Tiger Woods never
wins another major, he'll be remembered not for what was but what could
have been.
Perhaps by people who insisting on writing the narrative of Tiger's career before it is truly over and in the most dramatic way possible. Maybe I'm stupid, but I don't get the whole "What could have been?" narrative that Rick Reilly is furthering. We know what could have been and what was. Tiger showed us what he could do for 13 years and it was very impressive. Don't compare Tiger now to his early success as if it is reasonable to expect him to rip off winning a major every single calendar year. No other golfer in PGA history has done this, so why expect this from Tiger? He peaked and now he isn't peaking anymore.
My God, he had eight majors by the time he was 26. Even if the next 15
years of his career was going to be only half as good, he'd end up with
20, wouldn't he?
Rick needs to ask himself if these were reasonable long-term expectations for Tiger. He was going to get older, injuries would happen, and no other golfer has kept up this pace so why should he expect Tiger to keep up this pace? Tiger not living up to the unreasonable standard he set for himself does not make him a disappointment.
If Tiger Woods stopped winning majors now, it would make him a ghost walking among us, a living, breathing cautionary tale.
And the cautionary tale would be, "don't grow older and don't get injured, but also don't have success early in your career because people like Rick Reilly will always expect this from you."
He'd be trapped in a cage of his own design, living every day being compared to the incomparable -- himself.
But you, Rick Reilly, are the one who is comparing Tiger Woods to himself. You are doing this on your own accord, so couldn't you stop the cautionary tale by simply stop comparing Woods to himself and stop just assuming he won't ever win another major?
It's like the media can't stop themselves from creating narratives and then forcing themselves into the story. Rick states Tiger Woods is a cautionary tale because he will always get compared to himself earlier in his career, but Rick is the one creating this cautionary tale by comparing Tiger to his earlier self. Just stop holding Tiger to the expectations he has set for himself and the only cautionary tale about becoming worse at your job as you get older is that tale of Rick Reilly's writing career.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Friday, July 19, 2013
4 comments Bill Simmons "Fixes" the Lakers Since He's the Best Candidate to Do This and All
Very reluctantly, and quite frankly because he hasn't written a column since June 18 and the SimmonsClones won't stand for their hero to stop writing despite Bill's desperate attempts to stop writing, Bill Simmons is going to help the Lakers fix themselves. Despite the fact the Lakers haven't ever really shown they need to be fixed, Bill volunteers himself for the job anyway. Hey, he's got a write a column again at some point and his brain isn't exactly kicking out new material at a fast pace, so this is what his readers get stuck with reading.
I know a Celtics fan should never try to help the Lakers. I know I should bite my tongue. I know I should hope Jimmy Buss keeps ruining his family's team,
And really, who else is intelligent and capable enough to help the Lakers other than Bill Simmons? Plus, if Bill focuses on the disaster that is the Lakers he won't have to focus on the Celtics blowing up their entire team and starting a 2-3 year (minimum) rebuilding process while drafting highly incapable big men like Colton Iverson and Fab Melo (wouldn't it have been easier to just forfeit a first round draft choice as opposed to drafting Melo?) to go along with the non-franchise cornerstone Jeff Green and the constantly disgruntled Rajon Rondo. Bill will do anything to keep our minds off the Celtics and on to another NBA team that may not have a bright immediate future ahead of them. Bill has to prepare for the post-Garnett/Allen/Pierce Celtics world, so don't be surprised if he becomes an NBA widow soon and starts talking about the Clippers more than the Celtics in his once a month columns.
But here's the problem …
You are the only one who considers yourself qualified to fix the Lakers?
I love making fake NBA trades, figuring out blueprints for franchises and determining the fastest, most efficient ways to save them. That's just who I am. I'm a weirdo.
This is why in his own head Bill would make such a great General Manager. Who says "no" to these fake NBA trades? You can't argue with the brain of Bill Simmons.
I found myself clicking on the Lakers' salary page just out of curiosity … but then my wheels started turning … and one thing led to another … and suddenly I found myself helping the Lakers.
You found yourself unnecessary italics helping the Lakers? But aren't they your sworn enemies as a Celtics fan? You must really love fake trades if you find yourself unnecessary italics helping the Lakers become a better NBA team.
In the NBA, you want to be either really good or really bad. You never want to land between those two "reallys" for long.
Tell that to the Raptors/Bobcats fans or fans of the Los Angeles Clippers who have been fans of the Clippers for longer than five years. Sometimes being really bad isn't a good thing.
You don't want to be squeezed into the no. 8 seed or keep finishing 12th or 13th in every lottery. Basically, you don't want to be the Milwaukee Bucks.
If you can't compete for the title, why not bottom out in the most flagrantly offensive way possible?
Other than it demoralizes your fan base, creates a losing culture around the team, the players on the current team become apathetic due to the organization's lack of concern for winning, and doesn't guarantee you will land the #1 overall pick due to the NBA's lottery system?
Of course, that's something the Lakers have never, ever done. They picked first in the 1979 and 1982 drafts (Magic and Worthy) by fleecing laughingstock franchises of their draft picks — not by being the laughingstock franchise.
Says the fan of the NBA team that dealt the first overall pick in 1980 for Robert Parish and Kevin McHale and had the #2 overall pick in 1986 fresh off winning an NBA title because they traded Gerald Henderson to Seattle. It's not often Boston is the laughingstock either. Just wanted to point this out.
They miraculously turned Vlade Divac, three cartons of Marlboro Reds and a pound of phlegm into a raw high schooler named Kobe Bryant.
To be fair, there wasn't a long track record of high school players skipping college and thriving in the pros at this point and the Lakers were taking a risk by trading a proven center for a late, late lottery pick (the 13th pick). Divac was coming off a season where he had put up 12 points, 8 rebounds, 3 assists, and 1.7 blocks as a 27 year old. These days a guy like that gets a multi-year contract for $10-$11 million per year. It's not like Bryant fell in the Lakers' laps, they took a chance to acquire him.
No professional sports franchise has been this consistently good for this long: not the Yankees, not the Canadiens, not the Steelers, not anybody.
Yes, but now they need fixing that only Bill Simmons can provide.
But desperate times call for desperate measures. Their best player is hitting Year 18 and rehabbing from the worst sports injury an older player can have. Their second-best player just ditched them.
Notice how Bill just wrote an entire column about how Dwight Howard has hit his peak and is declining as a player, but now he needs to make it seem like the Lakers are losing an important player, so he suddenly considers Howard more valuable than Pau Gasol. In Bill's 2012 Trade Value column he had Gasol at #17 (and bumped Gasol this year because he is underused) and Bill had Howard at #18 in his 2013 Trade Value column.
Their coach is realistically two years away from taking over the Minnesota Lynx or the Pepperdine Waves. And they need to sell the illusion of hope to their fans, which means they need to save as much cap space as possible for LeBron, which means they can't add ANY contracts that expire after next summer.
At least they didn't draft Fab Melo. That's gotta be some consolation.
Fact: This year's Lakers team will be undeniably worse than last year's Lakers team … a team that didn't make the playoffs until Game 82.
"Fact." Apparently Bill Simmons is trying to write like Dwight Schrute talked. If he mentions something about a beet farm, I'm done writing.
Fact: This is bleak. Really, really bleak.
Not really. The Lakers could conceivably cash in on some free agents in one year. It's already been conceded by Bill that the Lakers have a very, very attractive franchise and city to play and the Lakers will have $50 million in 2014 to improve their team through free agency. Struggling for one year isn't really, really, bleak. The Celtics went from owning the 5th pick in the draft to winning the NBA Title in the span of a year half a decade ago. Things don't look good in the short term for the Lakers, but struggling for one year and still being the Lakers isn't really, really bleak.
OK, so they have two inherent advantages. First, the Lakers have only one contract on their books for the 2014-15 season: Steve Nash for $9.7 million. They might be $50 million under the cap next summer — perfect timing for an all-you-can-eat buffet of free-agent stars headlined by LeBron, who's only (a) the best player since Michael Jordan, (b) someone who wants to be a "global icon," and (c) someone with an established track record of treating free agency like he's organizing a bank heist with his buddies.
So the first part of Bill's plan to fix the Lakers is to sign LeBron James. Where would we be without his insight into this matter? Maybe the Lakers could sign another really, really talented player who is a free agent and the Lakers could turn their team around while moving on from the Kobe Bryant-era and it would all be because of Bill Simmons' grand plan.
Famous basketball players gravitate to the Lakers because of their storied history, and because Los Angeles remains the easiest American city for any wealthy celebrity to live in.
It looks very bleak for the Lakers though, doesn't it? I hope Bill's plan of using $50 million in cap space to lure free agents to a storied franchise in a city where celebrities love to live works out. It seems pretty unlikely this risky plan will work.
Celebrities in L.A. can be around other celebrities all the time, and if there's one thing celebrities love, it's being around other celebrities. If they want to dabble in music or movies or any other ego-fueled creative project, or meet just about any heavy hitter business dude on the planet, they have those options here.
BUT HOW IS BILL GOING TO TURN THE LAKERS AROUND WITH ALL THIS CAP SPACE THE LAKERS WILL HAVE IN 2014?
As recently as three years ago, had you told any fan of the other 29 teams, "In 2014, the Lakers will have $50 million in cap space during a loaded summer for free agents," their reaction would have been, "We're all screwed." But when they're being run by someone who can successfully be compared to Tommy Boy?
Let's investigate the logic that Bill is using here. He believes the biggest thing holding the Lakers back is their idiot owner, yet part of Bill's plan to turn the Lakers around relies on their owner being smart and having a plan. Here's the problem...if we assume Jim Buss is smart enough to have a plan and follow the plan, then we could also assume Jim Buss is smart enough to realize his plan needs to revolve around having $50 million in cap space and luring free agents to Los Angeles. What I'm saying is that Bill poo-poos the whole "We have a shit-ton of money and now we just go after the free agents we want" plan because the owner isn't smart enough to realize he can do this, but then part of Bill's plan is for the Lakers to have a shit-ton of money and go after the free agents they want. Basically Bill muddies the water enough to where his less discerning readers won't realize Bill is proposing essentially the same plan he doesn't think Jim Buss is capable of pulling off.
Making matters worse, the Lakers lost their L.A. basketball monopoly.
This isn't a real thing.
They've been spending money in the most anti–Donald Sterling ways possible, building around the league's most expensive coach (Doc Rivers), a $107 million point guard (Chris Paul), a $95 million, high-flying power forward (Blake Griffin) and a slew of quality role players. It's almost like the Lakers and Clippers switched bodies. And actually, we can't rule this out.
Actually we can rule it out since the Lakers and Clippers don't have bodies because they are organizations not human beings.
So if we ever needed a "Save the Lakers" plan, it's right now. Here's how Wolf Pope Simmons would hypothetically save the Lakers in 10 hypothetical steps.
Bill has to use 10 steps to get where he is going to make his plan seem more complicated. I can sum up his plan in three steps.
1. Save the cap space during 2013 by not taking on large contracts.
2. Accept 2013 may be a tough year and know if the Lakers miss the playoffs then they have a lottery pick and a lot of cap space.
3. Use this cap space to lure attractive free agents to Los Angeles and hope they get a Top 5 pick in the third consecutive "loaded" draft that may not end up being all that loaded.
There. That's a plan and it could work. Of course if Bill limited his plan to three steps he wouldn't be rambling, his column would be shorter, and he couldn't try to desperately show off his ability to jump on the Andrew Wiggins bandwagon...while also looking at Scout.com's Top 100 2013 class to see that Jabari Parker and Julius Randle are also highly rated and they may leave for the NBA Draft next year so he will name-drop them to make it seem like he knows all about them outside of highlights he has seen on YouTube.
1. Don't be afraid to suck all kinds of suck for one season.
Two facts about the 2014 draft. First, if you were ranking the Can't-Miss NBA Prospects of the 21st Century, Kansas freshman Andrew Wiggins would rank behind LeBron, but would probably land right on that second tier with Durant, Oden and Carmelo. He's T-Mac 2.0 by all accounts.
Then Bill provides a YouTube link (what else would Bill provide?) to Andrew Wiggins' Hoop Mixtape, which if there is a better measure of a player's ability to play basketball then a YouTube Hoop Mixtape I certainly can't think of it.
There's a reason the Tankapalooza committee (I'm the chairman) is thinking about changing the name of Tankapalooza 2014 to Riggin' for Wiggins.
Bill is so pumped to see Wiggins play he may even watch a few Kentucky games this year to see how good Wiggins is at playing college-level competition. At least I'm betting Bill believes Wiggins is going to play for Kentucky this upcoming college basketball season.
Second, it's the rare NBA draft that's deep AND top-heavy.
By the way, the draft doesn't occur for another 11 months but Bill already knows every player that will declare for the 2014 NBA Draft. Incredibly impressive, isn't it?
ESPN draft guru and former The O.C. star Chad Ford pointed out that, in 2013, he broke the draft down by tiers — with Tier 1 being "potential franchise players," Tier 2 being "potential All-Stars," Tier 3 being "potential starters," and so on — and there wasn't a single 2013 draft prospect in Tier 1 or Tier 2. In 2014? Right now, we have eight guys in those top two tiers, and that's without factoring in the possibility of one or two more breakout stars.
So there are a lot of potential stars in Chad "Darko for President" Ford's arbitrarily selected tiers? Because these tiers are based on fact and zero speculation color me impressed.
There's also a chance that Kentucky power forward Julius Randle might turn "Wiggins vs. Randle" into a "Durant vs. Oden"–type debate, and that Duke's Jabari Parker might be looming as a Carmelo-like sleeper.
Except I would bet anything these two players are already in Chad Ford's Tier 1 or Tier 2, so they would not count as breakout stars and they would simply be moving around from Tier 1 to 2. Also, I would love to hear Bill's opinion of the potential breakout stars in the 2014 NBA Draft, simply for the sake of hilarity.
Why not take your lumps, Jimmy? Your fan base is more sophisticated than anyone realizes. They've had four generations of success.
It's hard to stereotype an entire fan base, but the Lakers have had a ton of success over the last 40 years so I'm not entirely sure how the fans would respond to a 30-52 season.
They'd be fine with throwing away ONE season. Just not two.
Bill speaks for the Lakers fan base now. He's "The Sports Guy" so of course he speaks for EVERY team's fan base...or at least he thinks he does.
2. Clear every dollar off your 2014-15 cap. Get to zero, or close.
Bill thinks the Lakers need to do the thing that he doesn't believe Jim Buss is smart enough to do. Again, if we assume Buss is smart enough to clear money off the cap and then spend $50 million in free agency then that's the obvious plan (as well as being the plan Bill is proposing here, just in a more complicated fashion to make it seem like it is an original plan).
On paper, the 2013-14 Lakers could take the 2009-10 Heat's game plan to another level by jettisoning every contract while also landing a top-five lottery pick. But they have to worsen this year's roster.
They are going to trade a first round pick for Fab Melo?
3. Trade Steve Nash to Toronto.
Admittedly, Nash doesn't have much market value right now. He's 39 years old, his body is breaking down in a variety of ways, he seemed a step and a half slow last season, he's a turnstile defensively, and he's making $9.3 million in 2014 and $9.7 million in 2015.
But who cares about logic? This isn't logic Bill is using. Bill is just pretending trades can be accepted by one side of the trade even if they don't make sense for both sides of the trade. It's really the only way he can make his plan work, by assuming the Raptors will take on Steve Nash's contract, even though the Raptors just dumped Andrea Bargnani and his contract.
Other than that, he's pretty enticing. But you know where he's still a hero? CANADA! What would be better than Nash finishing his career on Canada's only NBA team?
It doesn't make sense, but it fits Bill's agenda. He can make nonsensical moves if he wants to rosterbate and make himself feel like the NBA trade king. He's done it for most of his ESPN career. There's no way the Raptors would take on Nash's contract.
Now here's where you say, Wait a second, the Raptors just hired Masai Ujiri from Denver. That dude is a shrewd mf'er — he'd never trade for Nash. Au contraire! Thanks to Rudy Gay's onerously onerous deal, DeMar DeRozan's extension, the cap-clogging quartet of Landry Fields, Marcus Camby, Tyler Hansbrough and Steve Novak (nearly $20 million combined in 2014-15) and a few other commitments, Toronto can't become a free-agent player until the summer of 2015 ... right as Nash's deal is expiring. So why not bring him aboard as their feel-good Canadian basketball ambassador?
(Shakes head sadly) I don't know why Ujiri would spend $19 million to feel-good.
Do you realize trading for Nash would immediately become one of Canada's five greatest NBA moments ever?
Do you realize how incredibly irrelevant this is when it comes to whether the Raptors would choose to trade for Steve Nash or not?
Anyway, here's my offer: Nash for Linas Kleiza's expiring contract and Aaron Gray's expiring contract. I can't do better than that.
Generally rebuilding teams choose to trade away expiring contracts so they can use some of that precious cap space on players who are 40 years old and want a chance to play for an NBA Title. And oh yeah, in Bill's absolute genius GM move to trade Steve Nash to Toronto he left out the human part of this trade where Nash won't want to play for a non-contending team over the next two seasons. Who cares what Steve Nash wants though? It's not like he is a real person or a player's opinion on a trade could ever impact the Czar of the ESPN Trade Machine's brilliant ideas.
Bill consistently leaves out the human element of his proposed trades. Why would the Raptors take on salary when they want to get rid of salary? Why would Steve Nash choose to be traded to a non-contender when he signed with the Lakers (in a sign-and-trade) to win an NBA Title? In the middle of Bill's brilliant "who says 'no'?" trade ideas he tends to forget the human element of his rosterbation.
4. Trade Pau Gasol.
You know who's not helping us Riggin' for Wiggins? A future Hall of Famer playing for a new contract. I don't need Pau dropping 23 and 11 every night.
This still wouldn't guarantee the Lakers could get Wiggins, but whatever.
Destination No. 1: Hey, Cleveland, why roll the dice on Andrew Bynum's fusilli knee ligaments when you can rent Pau in a contract year? You know he'll be motivated. You know he's one of the league's best 25 players when healthy
Bill referred to Dwight Howard as the Lakers second-best player earlier in this column. So doesn't that mean he considers Howard to be among the league's best 25 players when healthy? Then what was this column all about? I don't think that column reads as one of the league's Top 25 players is a free agent, but reads as more of a cautionary tale about signing Howard. Yet, now Bill considers Howard to be the Lakers second-best player and considers the Lakers third-best player as a Top 25 guy when healthy. I think I'm confusing myself at this point.
Even better — this trade gives the Lakers a low-post combo of Chris Kaman (always gets hurt) and Varejao (always gets hurt). They could be the Twin Owww-ers. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
Simmonsites, this is your hero. Your daddy figure and role model who you live and die with when it comes to him answering one of your emails in a mailbag. "The Twin Oww-ers," that's what Bill writes.
Destination No. 2: Flip Gasol's expiring contract to Chicago for Luol Deng's and Kirk Hinrich's expiring contracts. Just a fascinating trade. The Bulls know Jimmy Butler can replace Deng's minutes,
Yeah, the Bulls know this. Sure, Butler may not be able to replace Deng's production, but replacing Deng's minutes is easy.
For the Lakers, they'd keep Deng for a couple of months before rerouting him to a contender for expiring deals and a pick. (You don't need Deng in a contract year making you slightly better than you need to be.)
This is typical Bill Simmons logic. Trade for Deng under the assumption you can trade him again for expiring deals and a pick. Again, let's forget the human element, such as what if there isn't a team willing to trade expiring contracts and a pick for Deng or the Lakers can get expiring contracts but not a pick? It doesn't matter because reality is only nitpicking to Bill when he is rosterbating.
The Lakers can't sign LeBron after he wins his third straight NBA title for the simple reason that, in the history of basketball, the best player on a championship team has NEVER subsequently ditched that team.
And we all know LeBron has no ego so he wouldn't want to prove he can win an NBA Title for the NBA's most storied franchise without Chris Bosh and Dwyane Wade. It may not happen, but it is a possibility.
That's why the Lakers need to improve the Bulls — they can't get LeBron unless Chicago, Houston, Oklahoma City, Indiana or Golden State beats the Heat. And Chicago's the best bet of them all.
Let's look at Bill's logic here. He thinks the Lakers should improve the Bulls so the Bulls can beat the Heat in the 2014 NBA Playoffs 10 months from now, so then LeBron will feel okay about leaving the Heat in free agency to go to Los Angeles? There's only like 20 assumptions in this scenario to get to Bill's desired conclusion. Assumptions like:
The Bulls aren't trying to get LeBron after the 2014 season themselves so they would trade expiring deals.
The Bulls are going to be healthy enough 10 months from now to beat the Heat.
The Bulls will match up with the Heat in the 2014 NBA Playoffs and won't get knocked out earlier by Indiana.
LeBron James won't re-sign with the Heat by mid-season next year.
LeBron James won't leave Miami regardless of whether he wins another NBA Title, due to Wade starting to further decline.
Chicago really is the best bet to beat the Heat.
The Lakers think they can't get LeBron to sign with them regardless of whether he wins another title with the Heat.
There are more, but I'm growing bored...
6. Since you're sucking anyway, bring back as many popular former Lakers as possible.
I'd go further than that — I'd also bring back beloved veterans Derek Fisher and Luke Walton for the veteran's minimum, then keep my 15th roster spot open and spend the season signing old Lakers favorites (Robert Horry, Rick Fox, Michael Cooper, Sam Perkins, etc.) to a series of 10-day contracts.
Important note: Lakers fans would LOVE this.
Yes, I'm sure Lakers fans would love it if the organization further made a mockery of the 2013-2014 team, as well as ruined their memories of favorite Lakers players. I'm sure Kobe Bryant would be thrilled to play for a team that brings back 50 year olds to sit at the end of the bench out of nostalgia.
Then Bill suggest Jack Nicholson sits out the season and gives his seat to Phil Jackson. Obviously this would never happen, but I do actually enjoy this idea. Though by doing this it would further disappoint some Lakers fans when Jackson doesn't come back to coach the 2014-2015 team.
8. Keep Mike D'Antoni for the entire year.
When I was going over my tentative "Save the Lakers" plan last night with my friend Lewis (a Lakers nut who's onboard with everything you just read),
Bill's one Lakers fan friend think these are all good ideas and this means these are all good ideas! NO ONE DENIES THIS!
"Are you kidding?" Lewis yelped. "YOU KEEP HIM! YOU KEEP HIM THE WHOLE SEASON! WE WANT THE WORST COACH POSSIBLE!!!!! WHY WOULD YOU EVER FIRE D'ANTONI!"
I would be much more moved by the fact Lewis agrees with Bill if I didn't think Bill surrounded himself with "yes men" who helped massage his ego and make him feel like everything he does is right. I don't have faith Bill has friends who will challenge his ideas.
9. Delay Kobe's return for as long as possible.
I'm not gonna lie — this is the shakiest part of my rehab plan.
The shakiest part of the rehab plan is that you felt the need to use 10 steps when fewer steps are required. Oh, and you make a ton of assumptions like the Raptors will want to trade for Steve Nash and Lakers fans would be perfectly fine with a season where the team intentionally tanks and signs Sam Perkins to a 10-day contract.
Kobe cares about two things right now: Ring No. 6, and Kareem's record. In that order. We could talk him into playing for a historically lousy Lakers team for one season if Ring No. 6 (and maybe LeBron) was the carrot dangling on the other end.
I think Bill is correct about what Kobe cares about right now, but this is one of the few times I think Bill is correct when he pretends he knows what is going on inside a player/coach/organization's head. This is the exception to the rule.
So he's 6,770 points away. To put that in perspective, he scored 2,133 points in 78 games last season before his Achilles ripped. This is doable … you know, assuming he recovers from that devastating leg injury.
Kobe would essentially have to play three or slightly more than three full seasons to take over Kareem's record. And let's be honest, he is going to have to play longer than that if he teams up with LeBron because his shots are going to decline with LeBron on the roster. If Kobe wants LeBron and Kareem's record he may have to play another four full seasons.
10. When Kobe comes back, allow him to hog the ball to alarming degrees.
You know what the best part of that plan is? Kobe's quest to score 40 every night will inadvertently become one of the more entertaining subplots of the 2013-14 season. I'd flip over to every Lakers game just to see how many points he had. So would you.
Actually I really wouldn't do this at all. Watching a player score as many points while ignoring the competition of the game and the flow of the offense becomes tiresome to me after a while.
Of course, they'd still be hoping that Jimmy Buss hired the right coach, made the right lottery pick, lured LeBron, kept Kobe and spent $60 million in cap space in the best possible way …
No matter what plan is used to fix the Lakers this is a concern. Really this sentence Bill wrote is all that is needed to fix the Lakers. Hire the right people, spend money the right way and hope to hit it big in free agency. Of course Bill has to get an entire column out of the idea of fixing the Lakers so he diddles himself for 2000 words before getting to the point.
See, you need a strong owner or a front-office voice to execute a long-term plan — like what Miami had with Pat Riley and Micky Arison four years ago. These Lakers don't have that voice. Kobe will convince them to compete next season because he's nearing the end of his career, and he wants to shove it in Dwight Howard's face, and he probably believes that he and Pau can still battle anyone on any given night. That's what makes him Kobe. And that's why I didn't mind trying to "save" the Lakers. I know they won't do the right thing.
You know who they SHOULD be emulating, actually?
You are going to have to sit down before reading who the Lakers should be emulating because it is going to shock you. Bill Simmons, "The Boston Sports Guy" wants to tell you who the Lakers should emulate will change how you think about the world and be completely unexpected.
My beloved Celtics.
I'M SHOCKED! Bill Simmons thinks the Lakers should be like the Celtics. I can barely breathe I am so surprised.
In the span of five weeks, Boston mortally wounded next year's team by dealing Garnett and Pierce (improving their Riggin' for Wiggins chances);
You know every team can't get Wiggins and I can see a scenario where Jabari Parker stays at Duke for two years. My point is the 2014 NBA Draft may not be quite as loaded as anticipated. Just a thought.
Boston got back a terrible contract (Gerald Wallace) in the Nets trade so Bill is contradicting himself in a big way by saying the Lakers should emulate the Celtics. Bill suggests a strategy to fix the Lakers where they don't take on any long-term contracts and get their cap space as low to $0 as possible, but then says the Lakers should emulate the Celtics who took on a longer-term contract when trading Pierce and Garnett, as well have no immediate plans to trade Jeff Green or Brandon Bass, both of whom have relatively large cap figures. The Celtics are essentially rebuilding around some of their current players which is not at all the strategy that Bill is suggesting the Lakers use.
As always, he plays both sides so that eventually he can be right when/if the Lakers turn it around. Bill writes an entire column about how the Lakers need to clear as much cap space as possible in order to try and lure LeBron, but then says the Lakers should really emulate the Celtics, who are rebuilding around a core of players and not entirely blowing the team up. Of course both teams are in completely different rebuilding situations, but Bill's need to talk briefly about the Celtics has caused him to waffle on the intended plan in this column for the Lakers. Only Bill could write an entire column about a plan for the Lakers and then ruin his plan in the last paragraph and his readers would think nothing of it. They are just happy he writes because they adore him so much.
turned the roster over to Brad Stevens (the perfect guy for a rebuild);
How do you know Brad Stevens is the perfect guy for a rebuild? He's never coached in the NBA before. This is pure speculation.
That's a team that knows who it is, and where it is, and where it needs to be.
The Celtics still have to draft well with the first round draft picks they have acquired. Bill is proposing the Lakers rebuild through the 2014 draft and free agency, which seems to be different from the way the Celtics are rebuilding. The Celtics are looking more long-term for their rebuild. Not to mention, Bill warns against teams trying to be the 8th seed in the playoffs while rebuilding, and guess what, as the Celtics are currently constructed that's the playoff spot they could be in contention for next year. So Bill basically now thinks the Lakers should do the opposite of what he just suggested in this column by emulating the Celtics.
Can you say the same about the Lakers? My gut feeling is no … and that in April, we'll be watching Kobe and Pau fighting for a no. 8 seed.
Damn them and their inability to tank on the off-chance they land the #1 overall pick. Really the Lakers should do what Bill suggests they do in this column or what they should really do is emulate the Celtics...that is unless Bill's suggested plan in this column works out, then that's really what the Lakers should have done. Either way, if the Lakers succeed or fail in rebuilding Bill feels comfortable in knowing he has covered every scenario to where he can claim he was right. As long as he can claim he was right and feed his ego, that's all that matters to him.
I know a Celtics fan should never try to help the Lakers. I know I should bite my tongue. I know I should hope Jimmy Buss keeps ruining his family's team,
And really, who else is intelligent and capable enough to help the Lakers other than Bill Simmons? Plus, if Bill focuses on the disaster that is the Lakers he won't have to focus on the Celtics blowing up their entire team and starting a 2-3 year (minimum) rebuilding process while drafting highly incapable big men like Colton Iverson and Fab Melo (wouldn't it have been easier to just forfeit a first round draft choice as opposed to drafting Melo?) to go along with the non-franchise cornerstone Jeff Green and the constantly disgruntled Rajon Rondo. Bill will do anything to keep our minds off the Celtics and on to another NBA team that may not have a bright immediate future ahead of them. Bill has to prepare for the post-Garnett/Allen/Pierce Celtics world, so don't be surprised if he becomes an NBA widow soon and starts talking about the Clippers more than the Celtics in his once a month columns.
But here's the problem …
You are the only one who considers yourself qualified to fix the Lakers?
I love making fake NBA trades, figuring out blueprints for franchises and determining the fastest, most efficient ways to save them. That's just who I am. I'm a weirdo.
This is why in his own head Bill would make such a great General Manager. Who says "no" to these fake NBA trades? You can't argue with the brain of Bill Simmons.
I found myself clicking on the Lakers' salary page just out of curiosity … but then my wheels started turning … and one thing led to another … and suddenly I found myself helping the Lakers.
You found yourself unnecessary italics helping the Lakers? But aren't they your sworn enemies as a Celtics fan? You must really love fake trades if you find yourself unnecessary italics helping the Lakers become a better NBA team.
In the NBA, you want to be either really good or really bad. You never want to land between those two "reallys" for long.
Tell that to the Raptors/Bobcats fans or fans of the Los Angeles Clippers who have been fans of the Clippers for longer than five years. Sometimes being really bad isn't a good thing.
You don't want to be squeezed into the no. 8 seed or keep finishing 12th or 13th in every lottery. Basically, you don't want to be the Milwaukee Bucks.
If you can't compete for the title, why not bottom out in the most flagrantly offensive way possible?
Other than it demoralizes your fan base, creates a losing culture around the team, the players on the current team become apathetic due to the organization's lack of concern for winning, and doesn't guarantee you will land the #1 overall pick due to the NBA's lottery system?
Of course, that's something the Lakers have never, ever done. They picked first in the 1979 and 1982 drafts (Magic and Worthy) by fleecing laughingstock franchises of their draft picks — not by being the laughingstock franchise.
Says the fan of the NBA team that dealt the first overall pick in 1980 for Robert Parish and Kevin McHale and had the #2 overall pick in 1986 fresh off winning an NBA title because they traded Gerald Henderson to Seattle. It's not often Boston is the laughingstock either. Just wanted to point this out.
They miraculously turned Vlade Divac, three cartons of Marlboro Reds and a pound of phlegm into a raw high schooler named Kobe Bryant.
To be fair, there wasn't a long track record of high school players skipping college and thriving in the pros at this point and the Lakers were taking a risk by trading a proven center for a late, late lottery pick (the 13th pick). Divac was coming off a season where he had put up 12 points, 8 rebounds, 3 assists, and 1.7 blocks as a 27 year old. These days a guy like that gets a multi-year contract for $10-$11 million per year. It's not like Bryant fell in the Lakers' laps, they took a chance to acquire him.
No professional sports franchise has been this consistently good for this long: not the Yankees, not the Canadiens, not the Steelers, not anybody.
Yes, but now they need fixing that only Bill Simmons can provide.
But desperate times call for desperate measures. Their best player is hitting Year 18 and rehabbing from the worst sports injury an older player can have. Their second-best player just ditched them.
Notice how Bill just wrote an entire column about how Dwight Howard has hit his peak and is declining as a player, but now he needs to make it seem like the Lakers are losing an important player, so he suddenly considers Howard more valuable than Pau Gasol. In Bill's 2012 Trade Value column he had Gasol at #17 (and bumped Gasol this year because he is underused) and Bill had Howard at #18 in his 2013 Trade Value column.
Their coach is realistically two years away from taking over the Minnesota Lynx or the Pepperdine Waves. And they need to sell the illusion of hope to their fans, which means they need to save as much cap space as possible for LeBron, which means they can't add ANY contracts that expire after next summer.
At least they didn't draft Fab Melo. That's gotta be some consolation.
Fact: This year's Lakers team will be undeniably worse than last year's Lakers team … a team that didn't make the playoffs until Game 82.
"Fact." Apparently Bill Simmons is trying to write like Dwight Schrute talked. If he mentions something about a beet farm, I'm done writing.
Fact: This is bleak. Really, really bleak.
Not really. The Lakers could conceivably cash in on some free agents in one year. It's already been conceded by Bill that the Lakers have a very, very attractive franchise and city to play and the Lakers will have $50 million in 2014 to improve their team through free agency. Struggling for one year isn't really, really, bleak. The Celtics went from owning the 5th pick in the draft to winning the NBA Title in the span of a year half a decade ago. Things don't look good in the short term for the Lakers, but struggling for one year and still being the Lakers isn't really, really bleak.
OK, so they have two inherent advantages. First, the Lakers have only one contract on their books for the 2014-15 season: Steve Nash for $9.7 million. They might be $50 million under the cap next summer — perfect timing for an all-you-can-eat buffet of free-agent stars headlined by LeBron, who's only (a) the best player since Michael Jordan, (b) someone who wants to be a "global icon," and (c) someone with an established track record of treating free agency like he's organizing a bank heist with his buddies.
So the first part of Bill's plan to fix the Lakers is to sign LeBron James. Where would we be without his insight into this matter? Maybe the Lakers could sign another really, really talented player who is a free agent and the Lakers could turn their team around while moving on from the Kobe Bryant-era and it would all be because of Bill Simmons' grand plan.
Famous basketball players gravitate to the Lakers because of their storied history, and because Los Angeles remains the easiest American city for any wealthy celebrity to live in.
It looks very bleak for the Lakers though, doesn't it? I hope Bill's plan of using $50 million in cap space to lure free agents to a storied franchise in a city where celebrities love to live works out. It seems pretty unlikely this risky plan will work.
Celebrities in L.A. can be around other celebrities all the time, and if there's one thing celebrities love, it's being around other celebrities. If they want to dabble in music or movies or any other ego-fueled creative project, or meet just about any heavy hitter business dude on the planet, they have those options here.
BUT HOW IS BILL GOING TO TURN THE LAKERS AROUND WITH ALL THIS CAP SPACE THE LAKERS WILL HAVE IN 2014?
As recently as three years ago, had you told any fan of the other 29 teams, "In 2014, the Lakers will have $50 million in cap space during a loaded summer for free agents," their reaction would have been, "We're all screwed." But when they're being run by someone who can successfully be compared to Tommy Boy?
Let's investigate the logic that Bill is using here. He believes the biggest thing holding the Lakers back is their idiot owner, yet part of Bill's plan to turn the Lakers around relies on their owner being smart and having a plan. Here's the problem...if we assume Jim Buss is smart enough to have a plan and follow the plan, then we could also assume Jim Buss is smart enough to realize his plan needs to revolve around having $50 million in cap space and luring free agents to Los Angeles. What I'm saying is that Bill poo-poos the whole "We have a shit-ton of money and now we just go after the free agents we want" plan because the owner isn't smart enough to realize he can do this, but then part of Bill's plan is for the Lakers to have a shit-ton of money and go after the free agents they want. Basically Bill muddies the water enough to where his less discerning readers won't realize Bill is proposing essentially the same plan he doesn't think Jim Buss is capable of pulling off.
Making matters worse, the Lakers lost their L.A. basketball monopoly.
This isn't a real thing.
They've been spending money in the most anti–Donald Sterling ways possible, building around the league's most expensive coach (Doc Rivers), a $107 million point guard (Chris Paul), a $95 million, high-flying power forward (Blake Griffin) and a slew of quality role players. It's almost like the Lakers and Clippers switched bodies. And actually, we can't rule this out.
Actually we can rule it out since the Lakers and Clippers don't have bodies because they are organizations not human beings.
So if we ever needed a "Save the Lakers" plan, it's right now. Here's how Wolf Pope Simmons would hypothetically save the Lakers in 10 hypothetical steps.
Bill has to use 10 steps to get where he is going to make his plan seem more complicated. I can sum up his plan in three steps.
1. Save the cap space during 2013 by not taking on large contracts.
2. Accept 2013 may be a tough year and know if the Lakers miss the playoffs then they have a lottery pick and a lot of cap space.
3. Use this cap space to lure attractive free agents to Los Angeles and hope they get a Top 5 pick in the third consecutive "loaded" draft that may not end up being all that loaded.
There. That's a plan and it could work. Of course if Bill limited his plan to three steps he wouldn't be rambling, his column would be shorter, and he couldn't try to desperately show off his ability to jump on the Andrew Wiggins bandwagon...while also looking at Scout.com's Top 100 2013 class to see that Jabari Parker and Julius Randle are also highly rated and they may leave for the NBA Draft next year so he will name-drop them to make it seem like he knows all about them outside of highlights he has seen on YouTube.
1. Don't be afraid to suck all kinds of suck for one season.
Two facts about the 2014 draft. First, if you were ranking the Can't-Miss NBA Prospects of the 21st Century, Kansas freshman Andrew Wiggins would rank behind LeBron, but would probably land right on that second tier with Durant, Oden and Carmelo. He's T-Mac 2.0 by all accounts.
Then Bill provides a YouTube link (what else would Bill provide?) to Andrew Wiggins' Hoop Mixtape, which if there is a better measure of a player's ability to play basketball then a YouTube Hoop Mixtape I certainly can't think of it.
There's a reason the Tankapalooza committee (I'm the chairman) is thinking about changing the name of Tankapalooza 2014 to Riggin' for Wiggins.
Bill is so pumped to see Wiggins play he may even watch a few Kentucky games this year to see how good Wiggins is at playing college-level competition. At least I'm betting Bill believes Wiggins is going to play for Kentucky this upcoming college basketball season.
Second, it's the rare NBA draft that's deep AND top-heavy.
By the way, the draft doesn't occur for another 11 months but Bill already knows every player that will declare for the 2014 NBA Draft. Incredibly impressive, isn't it?
ESPN draft guru and former The O.C. star Chad Ford pointed out that, in 2013, he broke the draft down by tiers — with Tier 1 being "potential franchise players," Tier 2 being "potential All-Stars," Tier 3 being "potential starters," and so on — and there wasn't a single 2013 draft prospect in Tier 1 or Tier 2. In 2014? Right now, we have eight guys in those top two tiers, and that's without factoring in the possibility of one or two more breakout stars.
So there are a lot of potential stars in Chad "Darko for President" Ford's arbitrarily selected tiers? Because these tiers are based on fact and zero speculation color me impressed.
There's also a chance that Kentucky power forward Julius Randle might turn "Wiggins vs. Randle" into a "Durant vs. Oden"–type debate, and that Duke's Jabari Parker might be looming as a Carmelo-like sleeper.
Except I would bet anything these two players are already in Chad Ford's Tier 1 or Tier 2, so they would not count as breakout stars and they would simply be moving around from Tier 1 to 2. Also, I would love to hear Bill's opinion of the potential breakout stars in the 2014 NBA Draft, simply for the sake of hilarity.
Why not take your lumps, Jimmy? Your fan base is more sophisticated than anyone realizes. They've had four generations of success.
It's hard to stereotype an entire fan base, but the Lakers have had a ton of success over the last 40 years so I'm not entirely sure how the fans would respond to a 30-52 season.
They'd be fine with throwing away ONE season. Just not two.
Bill speaks for the Lakers fan base now. He's "The Sports Guy" so of course he speaks for EVERY team's fan base...or at least he thinks he does.
2. Clear every dollar off your 2014-15 cap. Get to zero, or close.
Bill thinks the Lakers need to do the thing that he doesn't believe Jim Buss is smart enough to do. Again, if we assume Buss is smart enough to clear money off the cap and then spend $50 million in free agency then that's the obvious plan (as well as being the plan Bill is proposing here, just in a more complicated fashion to make it seem like it is an original plan).
On paper, the 2013-14 Lakers could take the 2009-10 Heat's game plan to another level by jettisoning every contract while also landing a top-five lottery pick. But they have to worsen this year's roster.
They are going to trade a first round pick for Fab Melo?
3. Trade Steve Nash to Toronto.
Admittedly, Nash doesn't have much market value right now. He's 39 years old, his body is breaking down in a variety of ways, he seemed a step and a half slow last season, he's a turnstile defensively, and he's making $9.3 million in 2014 and $9.7 million in 2015.
But who cares about logic? This isn't logic Bill is using. Bill is just pretending trades can be accepted by one side of the trade even if they don't make sense for both sides of the trade. It's really the only way he can make his plan work, by assuming the Raptors will take on Steve Nash's contract, even though the Raptors just dumped Andrea Bargnani and his contract.
Other than that, he's pretty enticing. But you know where he's still a hero? CANADA! What would be better than Nash finishing his career on Canada's only NBA team?
It doesn't make sense, but it fits Bill's agenda. He can make nonsensical moves if he wants to rosterbate and make himself feel like the NBA trade king. He's done it for most of his ESPN career. There's no way the Raptors would take on Nash's contract.
Now here's where you say, Wait a second, the Raptors just hired Masai Ujiri from Denver. That dude is a shrewd mf'er — he'd never trade for Nash. Au contraire! Thanks to Rudy Gay's onerously onerous deal, DeMar DeRozan's extension, the cap-clogging quartet of Landry Fields, Marcus Camby, Tyler Hansbrough and Steve Novak (nearly $20 million combined in 2014-15) and a few other commitments, Toronto can't become a free-agent player until the summer of 2015 ... right as Nash's deal is expiring. So why not bring him aboard as their feel-good Canadian basketball ambassador?
(Shakes head sadly) I don't know why Ujiri would spend $19 million to feel-good.
Do you realize trading for Nash would immediately become one of Canada's five greatest NBA moments ever?
Do you realize how incredibly irrelevant this is when it comes to whether the Raptors would choose to trade for Steve Nash or not?
Anyway, here's my offer: Nash for Linas Kleiza's expiring contract and Aaron Gray's expiring contract. I can't do better than that.
Generally rebuilding teams choose to trade away expiring contracts so they can use some of that precious cap space on players who are 40 years old and want a chance to play for an NBA Title. And oh yeah, in Bill's absolute genius GM move to trade Steve Nash to Toronto he left out the human part of this trade where Nash won't want to play for a non-contending team over the next two seasons. Who cares what Steve Nash wants though? It's not like he is a real person or a player's opinion on a trade could ever impact the Czar of the ESPN Trade Machine's brilliant ideas.
Bill consistently leaves out the human element of his proposed trades. Why would the Raptors take on salary when they want to get rid of salary? Why would Steve Nash choose to be traded to a non-contender when he signed with the Lakers (in a sign-and-trade) to win an NBA Title? In the middle of Bill's brilliant "who says 'no'?" trade ideas he tends to forget the human element of his rosterbation.
4. Trade Pau Gasol.
You know who's not helping us Riggin' for Wiggins? A future Hall of Famer playing for a new contract. I don't need Pau dropping 23 and 11 every night.
This still wouldn't guarantee the Lakers could get Wiggins, but whatever.
Destination No. 1: Hey, Cleveland, why roll the dice on Andrew Bynum's fusilli knee ligaments when you can rent Pau in a contract year? You know he'll be motivated. You know he's one of the league's best 25 players when healthy
Bill referred to Dwight Howard as the Lakers second-best player earlier in this column. So doesn't that mean he considers Howard to be among the league's best 25 players when healthy? Then what was this column all about? I don't think that column reads as one of the league's Top 25 players is a free agent, but reads as more of a cautionary tale about signing Howard. Yet, now Bill considers Howard to be the Lakers second-best player and considers the Lakers third-best player as a Top 25 guy when healthy. I think I'm confusing myself at this point.
Even better — this trade gives the Lakers a low-post combo of Chris Kaman (always gets hurt) and Varejao (always gets hurt). They could be the Twin Owww-ers. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
Simmonsites, this is your hero. Your daddy figure and role model who you live and die with when it comes to him answering one of your emails in a mailbag. "The Twin Oww-ers," that's what Bill writes.
Destination No. 2: Flip Gasol's expiring contract to Chicago for Luol Deng's and Kirk Hinrich's expiring contracts. Just a fascinating trade. The Bulls know Jimmy Butler can replace Deng's minutes,
Yeah, the Bulls know this. Sure, Butler may not be able to replace Deng's production, but replacing Deng's minutes is easy.
For the Lakers, they'd keep Deng for a couple of months before rerouting him to a contender for expiring deals and a pick. (You don't need Deng in a contract year making you slightly better than you need to be.)
This is typical Bill Simmons logic. Trade for Deng under the assumption you can trade him again for expiring deals and a pick. Again, let's forget the human element, such as what if there isn't a team willing to trade expiring contracts and a pick for Deng or the Lakers can get expiring contracts but not a pick? It doesn't matter because reality is only nitpicking to Bill when he is rosterbating.
The Lakers can't sign LeBron after he wins his third straight NBA title for the simple reason that, in the history of basketball, the best player on a championship team has NEVER subsequently ditched that team.
And we all know LeBron has no ego so he wouldn't want to prove he can win an NBA Title for the NBA's most storied franchise without Chris Bosh and Dwyane Wade. It may not happen, but it is a possibility.
That's why the Lakers need to improve the Bulls — they can't get LeBron unless Chicago, Houston, Oklahoma City, Indiana or Golden State beats the Heat. And Chicago's the best bet of them all.
Let's look at Bill's logic here. He thinks the Lakers should improve the Bulls so the Bulls can beat the Heat in the 2014 NBA Playoffs 10 months from now, so then LeBron will feel okay about leaving the Heat in free agency to go to Los Angeles? There's only like 20 assumptions in this scenario to get to Bill's desired conclusion. Assumptions like:
The Bulls aren't trying to get LeBron after the 2014 season themselves so they would trade expiring deals.
The Bulls are going to be healthy enough 10 months from now to beat the Heat.
The Bulls will match up with the Heat in the 2014 NBA Playoffs and won't get knocked out earlier by Indiana.
LeBron James won't re-sign with the Heat by mid-season next year.
LeBron James won't leave Miami regardless of whether he wins another NBA Title, due to Wade starting to further decline.
Chicago really is the best bet to beat the Heat.
The Lakers think they can't get LeBron to sign with them regardless of whether he wins another title with the Heat.
There are more, but I'm growing bored...
6. Since you're sucking anyway, bring back as many popular former Lakers as possible.
I'd go further than that — I'd also bring back beloved veterans Derek Fisher and Luke Walton for the veteran's minimum, then keep my 15th roster spot open and spend the season signing old Lakers favorites (Robert Horry, Rick Fox, Michael Cooper, Sam Perkins, etc.) to a series of 10-day contracts.
Important note: Lakers fans would LOVE this.
Yes, I'm sure Lakers fans would love it if the organization further made a mockery of the 2013-2014 team, as well as ruined their memories of favorite Lakers players. I'm sure Kobe Bryant would be thrilled to play for a team that brings back 50 year olds to sit at the end of the bench out of nostalgia.
Then Bill suggest Jack Nicholson sits out the season and gives his seat to Phil Jackson. Obviously this would never happen, but I do actually enjoy this idea. Though by doing this it would further disappoint some Lakers fans when Jackson doesn't come back to coach the 2014-2015 team.
8. Keep Mike D'Antoni for the entire year.
When I was going over my tentative "Save the Lakers" plan last night with my friend Lewis (a Lakers nut who's onboard with everything you just read),
Bill's one Lakers fan friend think these are all good ideas and this means these are all good ideas! NO ONE DENIES THIS!
"Are you kidding?" Lewis yelped. "YOU KEEP HIM! YOU KEEP HIM THE WHOLE SEASON! WE WANT THE WORST COACH POSSIBLE!!!!! WHY WOULD YOU EVER FIRE D'ANTONI!"
I would be much more moved by the fact Lewis agrees with Bill if I didn't think Bill surrounded himself with "yes men" who helped massage his ego and make him feel like everything he does is right. I don't have faith Bill has friends who will challenge his ideas.
9. Delay Kobe's return for as long as possible.
I'm not gonna lie — this is the shakiest part of my rehab plan.
The shakiest part of the rehab plan is that you felt the need to use 10 steps when fewer steps are required. Oh, and you make a ton of assumptions like the Raptors will want to trade for Steve Nash and Lakers fans would be perfectly fine with a season where the team intentionally tanks and signs Sam Perkins to a 10-day contract.
Kobe cares about two things right now: Ring No. 6, and Kareem's record. In that order. We could talk him into playing for a historically lousy Lakers team for one season if Ring No. 6 (and maybe LeBron) was the carrot dangling on the other end.
I think Bill is correct about what Kobe cares about right now, but this is one of the few times I think Bill is correct when he pretends he knows what is going on inside a player/coach/organization's head. This is the exception to the rule.
So he's 6,770 points away. To put that in perspective, he scored 2,133 points in 78 games last season before his Achilles ripped. This is doable … you know, assuming he recovers from that devastating leg injury.
Kobe would essentially have to play three or slightly more than three full seasons to take over Kareem's record. And let's be honest, he is going to have to play longer than that if he teams up with LeBron because his shots are going to decline with LeBron on the roster. If Kobe wants LeBron and Kareem's record he may have to play another four full seasons.
10. When Kobe comes back, allow him to hog the ball to alarming degrees.
You know what the best part of that plan is? Kobe's quest to score 40 every night will inadvertently become one of the more entertaining subplots of the 2013-14 season. I'd flip over to every Lakers game just to see how many points he had. So would you.
Actually I really wouldn't do this at all. Watching a player score as many points while ignoring the competition of the game and the flow of the offense becomes tiresome to me after a while.
Of course, they'd still be hoping that Jimmy Buss hired the right coach, made the right lottery pick, lured LeBron, kept Kobe and spent $60 million in cap space in the best possible way …
No matter what plan is used to fix the Lakers this is a concern. Really this sentence Bill wrote is all that is needed to fix the Lakers. Hire the right people, spend money the right way and hope to hit it big in free agency. Of course Bill has to get an entire column out of the idea of fixing the Lakers so he diddles himself for 2000 words before getting to the point.
See, you need a strong owner or a front-office voice to execute a long-term plan — like what Miami had with Pat Riley and Micky Arison four years ago. These Lakers don't have that voice. Kobe will convince them to compete next season because he's nearing the end of his career, and he wants to shove it in Dwight Howard's face, and he probably believes that he and Pau can still battle anyone on any given night. That's what makes him Kobe. And that's why I didn't mind trying to "save" the Lakers. I know they won't do the right thing.
You know who they SHOULD be emulating, actually?
You are going to have to sit down before reading who the Lakers should be emulating because it is going to shock you. Bill Simmons, "The Boston Sports Guy" wants to tell you who the Lakers should emulate will change how you think about the world and be completely unexpected.
My beloved Celtics.
I'M SHOCKED! Bill Simmons thinks the Lakers should be like the Celtics. I can barely breathe I am so surprised.
In the span of five weeks, Boston mortally wounded next year's team by dealing Garnett and Pierce (improving their Riggin' for Wiggins chances);
You know every team can't get Wiggins and I can see a scenario where Jabari Parker stays at Duke for two years. My point is the 2014 NBA Draft may not be quite as loaded as anticipated. Just a thought.
Boston got back a terrible contract (Gerald Wallace) in the Nets trade so Bill is contradicting himself in a big way by saying the Lakers should emulate the Celtics. Bill suggests a strategy to fix the Lakers where they don't take on any long-term contracts and get their cap space as low to $0 as possible, but then says the Lakers should emulate the Celtics who took on a longer-term contract when trading Pierce and Garnett, as well have no immediate plans to trade Jeff Green or Brandon Bass, both of whom have relatively large cap figures. The Celtics are essentially rebuilding around some of their current players which is not at all the strategy that Bill is suggesting the Lakers use.
As always, he plays both sides so that eventually he can be right when/if the Lakers turn it around. Bill writes an entire column about how the Lakers need to clear as much cap space as possible in order to try and lure LeBron, but then says the Lakers should really emulate the Celtics, who are rebuilding around a core of players and not entirely blowing the team up. Of course both teams are in completely different rebuilding situations, but Bill's need to talk briefly about the Celtics has caused him to waffle on the intended plan in this column for the Lakers. Only Bill could write an entire column about a plan for the Lakers and then ruin his plan in the last paragraph and his readers would think nothing of it. They are just happy he writes because they adore him so much.
turned the roster over to Brad Stevens (the perfect guy for a rebuild);
How do you know Brad Stevens is the perfect guy for a rebuild? He's never coached in the NBA before. This is pure speculation.
That's a team that knows who it is, and where it is, and where it needs to be.
The Celtics still have to draft well with the first round draft picks they have acquired. Bill is proposing the Lakers rebuild through the 2014 draft and free agency, which seems to be different from the way the Celtics are rebuilding. The Celtics are looking more long-term for their rebuild. Not to mention, Bill warns against teams trying to be the 8th seed in the playoffs while rebuilding, and guess what, as the Celtics are currently constructed that's the playoff spot they could be in contention for next year. So Bill basically now thinks the Lakers should do the opposite of what he just suggested in this column by emulating the Celtics.
Can you say the same about the Lakers? My gut feeling is no … and that in April, we'll be watching Kobe and Pau fighting for a no. 8 seed.
Damn them and their inability to tank on the off-chance they land the #1 overall pick. Really the Lakers should do what Bill suggests they do in this column or what they should really do is emulate the Celtics...that is unless Bill's suggested plan in this column works out, then that's really what the Lakers should have done. Either way, if the Lakers succeed or fail in rebuilding Bill feels comfortable in knowing he has covered every scenario to where he can claim he was right. As long as he can claim he was right and feed his ego, that's all that matters to him.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
8 comments MMQB Review: Peter is Still Transcribing Strangers' Cell Phone Conversations Edition
Two weeks ago Jabari Greer told us about the state of the New Orleans Saints locker room and also gave us a allegorical tale to think about all week. I learned in the comments that I sound like an "autistic fucking retard" when I talk about other teams in the NFC South. That was the sum total of comments I got on the post, which is always heartening. This week Peter King is back and he is talking about Johnny Manziel, talks about the lessons learned from the Aaron Hernandez situation (other than the obvious "don't kill someone" and "you can't ever predict what athlete will do in their free time" lessons of course), and he yet again writes down a person's telephone conversation word-for-word. To anyone in the world who may be near Peter King while talking on the phone, please either (a) stop talking when Peter starts to leer your way or (b) immediately threaten him with violence if he doesn't stop doing this people. This madness must be stopped. Writing down a stranger's cell phone conversation is about 1-2 steps away from peering in your neighbor's window for a few hours to see why there is always loud sounds coming from the living room. Basically, I think Peter is working his way up to being a peeping tom.
Good morning. Happy to be back after my annual summer break.
Is this as opposed to Peter's semi-annual summer break? Summer happens once a calendar year, so any summer break has to be annual.
The beginning of the training camp trip is five days away, in Oxnard, Calif., with the Cowboys. Always my favorite time of the year. Everybody's got hope, much of it legitimate, and the stories are new and fresh.
Lately a few of the stories are new and fresh, while a lot of times during training camp the stories are somewhat old and repetitive, such as "Will Brett Favre come out of retirement, which player is holding out or hasn't signed their franchise tag, etc." A lot of other stories are just continuing stories from the end of the last NFL season.
Then there's the new project, The MMQB, I'm heading up. That's the new NFL-centric website that'll go live starting next Monday morning.
Peter should really reconsider the title for the project. "The MMQB" isn't very catchy and I'm not sure an entire sports site should be named after the chief editor's (or whatever Peter will be) signature column. The main column and the site should not be named the same thing in my opinion.
First, the story about Texas A&M quarterback Johnny Manziel, the Heisman winner, getting sent home from the Manning Passing Academy in Thibodaux, La., on Saturday. It's an NFL story, at least in part, because Manziel is likely to play one more season at Texas A&M, then declare for the NFL following his second season in college.
This is of course assuming Johnny Manziel has another great year at Texas A&M and would not need to come back to college for his junior year to increase his draft stock. So it is an NFL story because it involves the Heisman Trophy winner and the Manning Passing Academy. Still, I find it hard to believe it is "likely" Manziel will play one more season at Texas A&M since we haven't seen how Manziel will play during the upcoming college football season. It seems Manziel loves college and doesn't need money, so who is to say he is "likely" to leave Texas A&M after the upcoming season?
The campers arrive on Thursday, take the field Friday and Saturday, watch a throwing exhibition by the college and pro quarterbacks there Saturday night, then leave late Sunday morning. One of the draws is having some top quarterbacks come -- and not just the Mannings. Kids are excited to be in the presence of quarterbacks like Johnny Manziel, who was assigned to one group of between 12 to 16 young passers.
I don't know Johnny Manziel, but I know he is focused on his fame, partying and being seen as much as he is focused on being a quarterback. Maybe it just seems that way. My point is that it doesn't shock me Johnny Manziel went out partying Friday night and whoever was in charge of inviting him to be one of the camp quarterbacks probably should have taken his maturity into account prior to inviting him to be one of the camp quarterbacks.
Manziel was spotted at a bar in Thibodaux early Friday morning, and he was late for one of the Friday coaching sessions. No one's sure where he was Friday night, but he was a no-show for a two-hour session Saturday morning, and the staff had to cover for him.
There are no excuses for Manziel, but it's not like he hasn't shown anyone willing to follow him on Twitter or has paid attention to news about him on the Interwebs that he loves to go out and party. He needs to be more mature, but I won't ever take him seriously as an NFL prospect until he shows he is as focused on football as he is on being a celebrity. In fact, I feel like he enjoys being a celebrity more than he enjoys being a talented quarterback that led to his celebrity.
Home, 400 miles away in College Station, would seem to be a good place to get some rest Saturday night and recover from whatever ailed him. But two Twitter followers tweeted out information early Sunday morning that Manziel was at a bar in College Station, and one tweeted a photo of a white-t-shirted Manziel in a bar there.
This is an interesting story, but it also doesn't really tell us anything we don't already know. Manziel is talented, but he's not exactly serious about anything that doesn't involve partying. This makes him a normal college student.
On Sunday, Manziel's dad, Paul Manziel, texted Kate Hairopoulos of the Dallas Morning News that Johnny was "resting and recuperating from dehydration."
That's quite a tale.
It's not quite a tale, it's a lie. In 2013, "dehydration" is shorthand for "hungover" or "too tired to do anything productive because the person has been out partying for a couple of days in a row."
So why does this matter? Manziel is a tremendous multi-purpose talent as a quarterback. But his size (6-foot-0 and 195 pounds, approximately) and suspect arm strength will work against him when the NFL studies him.
Of course talent trumps all, always, so if Manziel has another great year at Texas A&M an NFL team will take a chance on Manziel at some point whenever he declares for the NFL Draft.
You remember how Ryan Leaf became such a shaky pick after Peyton Manning in the 1998 draft. Leaf's immaturity and drinking doomed his NFL career.
Leaf even "looked" like an NFL quarterback stereotypically should look, while Manziel is undersized for the position. Maybe Leaf was drafted higher than he should have been because he had all the measurables, but Manziel is going to have to convince NFL GM's he can withstand an NFL pass rush and is big enough to play the position...as well as try not to show up to the Combine or individual workouts drunk or hungover.
If Manziel doesn't want to make his stock plummet, he'd better start partying a little more carefully, and with some hydration.
Or he could party, but still focus a little bit more on playing quarterback and focus a little bit less on making sure his celebrity status helps his social life. He's a college kid though and he doesn't seem to love football as much as he loves what football has brought him in terms of status.
The lessons of Aaron Hernandez.
There are so many. But I'll write about three of them.
One of the lessons is "learn to predict the future" and I'm not sure that's a lesson we can blame the Patriots for not knowing how to succeed in learning.
2. Since Scott Pioli left the organization in 2009, Belichick doesn't have anyone to argue him off troubled players. Not that Pioli won all the time. "But,'' someone with knowledge of the Patriots front office told me,
This "someone with knowledge"? Scott Pioli, probably. We know he and Peter are close. Not Brett Favre and Peter King-close, but pretty close to where they would share a milkshake using one straw and not be embarrassed by it.
"there's no one there with Scott's balls anymore. Bill needs someone to challenge him, and I don't think he has that now."
(Scott Pioli) "Peter, be sure to write something about me having "the balls" to challenge Belichick. Make me sound tough."
(Peter King) "Will do boss!"
Would Pioli have challenged Belichick on Hernandez, or on Alfonzo Dennard, the seventh-round corner who will have to leave camp in August to go to a probation trial in Nebraska and who last week was arrested for DUI? I don't know, and there's no guarantee those picks wouldn't have been made anyway. But this isn't the first time I've heard the Pioli thing.
Does Peter share an agent with Scott Pioli? I'm just wondering because Peter has talked about Pioli a couple of times in MMQB in a positive light, so I'm just assuming Marvin Demoff ordered Peter to help Pioli find another GM gig.
It's not like Scott "Mr. Tough Guy" Pioli who has the balls to challenge Bill Belichick hasn't made his own personnel errors. When he was the GM of the Chiefs he did employ Jovan Belcher who killed his girlfriend and then himself. So in terms of finding guys who need to challenge Bill Belichick to keep troubled players off the roster, I'm not sure Pioli is the best example to use.
You hate to think morbid thoughts like this, but really: With how wasted Russell and Heckert, both team executives, were when driving-while-impaired, it's very fortunate someone wasn't killed.
That's not a morbid though, that's the exact reason that drunk driving is illegal. The reason drunk driving is illegal is because anytime someone gets behind the wheel drunk it is fortunate that someone isn't killed. To acknowledge this isn't morbid.
But the league is noted for giving first-strike (but serious) offenders a path back to their jobs, if they mend their ways and do just what they're supposed to do. That's why firings aren't likely. Rehab and a serious smack on the wrist -- for both men -- are more likely.
Who needs a front office to help make decisions during and immediately after Training Camp, right? I know John Elway certainly doesn't.
Then Peter goes on to talk about Matthew Berry's new book about fantasy sports. After having a month off I sort of hoped there would be more NFL-oriented content in MMQB rather than the usual filler stuff that populates the column.
Stat of the Week
There's been much discussion about the spate of offseason arrests in the NFL, highlighted by the Aaron Hernandez murder charge, of course. And, of course, one arrest is too many. But it's probably unrealistic to think that men with more money, on average, than the general public wouldn't get into some trouble, regardless how much preaching the league does about it.
I think the main issue some people have with professional athletes getting arrested is there is an assumption that having more money means a person would have less need to act like a fool and get arrested. It's a incorrect notion of course.
The question is, is the NFL's rate of arrest much higher than the general public's?
So let's use the larger number, and to be mathematically fair, let's use a one-year period: July 15, 2012 to July 14, 2013, which was Sunday. By my count, there have been 55 arrests of NFL players in that year.
Number of arrests of NFL players in the last year: 55.
Estimated number of players currently under contract in NFL: 2,880.
Percentage of players arrested in the last year: 1.9 percent.
Now for the general population. Look at the last year the FBI has complete stats for, 2010.
Number of arrests of American adults: 11,479,500.
Estimate number of American adults living in 2010: 235,205,700.
Percentage of American adults arrested in 2010: 4.9 percent.
My point is, we know the arrests are an ugly part of football the league and the Players Association need to constantly work to reduce. But it's not so easy to simply say, "Too many players are getting arrested." Compared to what, exactly?
I think the fact NFL players who get arrested are much more high profile than the average person gets arrested is what causes the perception that NFL players are in trouble more than most.
Also, I love the second-to-last and last sentence Peter just wrote. He said:
But it's not so easy to simply say, "Too many players are getting arrested." Compared to what, exactly?
I don't know Peter, why don't you ask yourself why you used a very close approximation to this phrase in this very MMQB:
There's been much discussion about the spate of offseason arrests in the NFL, highlighted by the Aaron Hernandez murder charge, of course. And, of course, one arrest is too many.
Compared to what, exactly, Peter?! One arrest is too many compared to what? As always, do as Peter says, not as he does.
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
Ten Favorite Things of My Summer Vacation:
This is the part of MMQB where Peter brags about all the cool things he got to do on his annual summer vacation (again, not to be confused with his quarterly summer vacation). The only thing less interesting than seeing pictures of someone's vacation is hearing someone talk about their vacation, but the only thing less interesting than hearing about someone's vacation is to read about their vacation.
1.Experiencing Vancouver with my family. Some of you -- yes, you especially, Donny Brasco -- have knocked me over the years for hyperbole. But I found Vancouver, on my first extended trip there, to be the most underrated city in North America.
It's also a good place to shoot movies because it isn't as crowded or as expensive as other cities.
3.Catching a fish at Pike Place Market in Seattle. No. I mean, really catching a fish.
Thanks for clearing that up.
We bought a 12-pound Copper River salmon as a gift for some friends, and the guy there asked if I'd want to catch it as he threw it from where the fish were iced to where they got cut up for delivery. "Of course!'' I said. So I went behind the counter and he threw the slippery guy, and I caught it, letting it thump off my hands and slide into my chest. Then I held it up triumphantly.
It's the little things that please Peter. Then Peter lurked around the market for a few hours to see what kind of cell phone conversations he could hear and then transcribe into a notebook. I'm kidding of course. Peter would never hang out at a market in Seattle and listen to other people's conversations. That would be crazy to try and eavesdrop in a crowded market. It was in Massachusetts on a train when Peter dropped in on a cell phone conversation and transcribed it for everyone who reads MMQB to (not) enjoy.
8.Four Sunday nights without MMQB responsibility. The column's a labor of love, folks. You know that. But watching junk-food TV, reading Inferno by Dan Brown, napping in the chair or going to see a play (we did score seats to Lucky Guy one night, the play with Tom Hanks in it), and not obsessing about Aaron Hernandez or Matthew Stafford's contract and thinking of an angle is a very good and relaxing thing.
Understandable, but Peter does realize he can include NFL-only related content in MMQB and cut the column by half doesn't he? Most of the stuff in MMQB are quotes, Tweets, and things that Peter thinks which generally aren't entirely NFL-related. So he could make his life easier in writing MMQB by talking about the NFL-only and not worrying about stretching the column out to a certain length.
10. Seeing the Red Sox sweep a waterlogged twinbill at Fenway Park over the Rays. That three-hour rain delay sure was fun. The train trip back and forth on the Acela is always good. Except on the ride back, we had the displeasure of sitting across the aisle from two Manhattan realtors, husband and wife, who spoke at normal conversational volume for 3.5 solid hours into their iPhone 5 headsets and drove most of the rest of the car out of its mind.
Here is the part of MMQB where Peter strikes back at those who talk on a cell phone in public. I have no issue with Peter being annoyed by someone talking on their phone in public, but listening to the entire conversation and transcribing it as opposed to ignoring it seems like a really weirdo thing to do. Plus, wouldn't writing down the conversation and listening to the entire thing be something a person not annoyed by that conversation would do? Isn't ignoring the conversation, or trying to, the logical and normal thing to do if you don't like the conversation that is taking place?
I wrote this down, as close to word-for-word as I could, somewhere between New London and New Haven hugging the Connecticut coastline:
Writing down these conversations and posting them in MMQB isn't getting back at these people, it only tells us that Peter King is a really creepy guy. After all, who writes down a stranger's conversation and then relays it to other complete strangers?
I'm not sure if Peter is familiar with the realty industry or what being a realtor entails, but a lot of being a realtor involves having to negotiate and use the cell phone to contact potential buyers and sellers with asking prices and other pertinent information. Much of this information is time sensitive, as a realtor couldn't simply sit on an offer being made by his/her client because another offer could come in and be accepted in that time. So while public cell phone conversations are annoying, Peter should understand these realtors couldn't necessarily just sit on the train and not contact the buyer/seller they are trying to contact.
I won't force you all to read through the transcription of this conversation had by the two real estate agents, but suffice to say, it sounded like a lot of negotiation by phone.
Jewelried woman: "Sorry, you still there? Connection's not great. Sorry ... I'm going to repeat: I am about to lose my patience. You don't have the answers for me. You know what that property is worth, and I know what it is worth. You can't BS me ... So should I go through those files? Should I allocate those numbers elsewhere? ... You think it's not necessary ...''
Suited slim man, thinking he can be heard through a bad connection if he screams: "On a TRAIN. YES. SORRY! ... YOU GOT ME? YOU GOT ME?'' ...
Frustrated hangup. RINGGGGGGG.
Suited slim man: "Sorry, you know, the connection. I am ON A TRAIN!''
Jewelried woman: "Call you then, okay. Bye.''
Suited slim man: "We have to do a credit check. Yes, Brad has all that ... No, it's not your decision or my decision. It's the government ... I would love it. I would SO love it. You have no idea how much I'd love it ... Oh, you do?''
Jewelried woman: "I got that in play. Correct ... We're moving forward in good faith.''
Again, I do find people who talk on the phone in public to be annoying, but these are two realtors whose entire job is to ensure a real estate deal is made and it appears both individuals had urgent matters they needed to discuss. You can't tell me if something important happened in the NFL that Peter King wouldn't be on his cell phone talking about it on the Acela. Anyone who has bought a home knows once an offer is made and there are multiple offers on the table, time becomes somewhat of the essence. Since Peter was so kind to be a creepy stalker and transcribe the conversation it is easy to read that it seems like two urgent deals were being made. Why does Peter have to transcribe the conversation though? Be less weird.
Not even to Bridgeport yet. How did we survive?
Ignore them.
"All them jurors should go home tonight and kill themselves for letting a grown man get away with killing a kid"
-- @roddywhiteTV, Atlanta wideout Roddy White, after George Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges in the death of teen Trayvon Martin in Florida Saturday night.
"I understand my tweet last nite was extreme. I never meant for the people to do that. I was shocked and upset about the verdict. I am sorry.''
-- @roddywhiteTV, 12 hours later.
Everyone just be sure not to shock or upset Roddy White at any point or else he will urge you to go kill yourself. So no surprising him by jumping from around a corner while he is walking on the street. Otherwise, suicide will be your best option.
"Aaron Hernandez's lawyers just filed a motion to have his trial moved to Sanford, Florida.''
-- @HubbuchNYP, Bart Hubbuch of the New York Post.
The Zimmerman trial was in Sanford.
Yeah Peter, we got it. If you explain the joke...
Ten Things I Think I Think
Because, again, the rest of this column was filled with NFL factoids like Peter's 10 favorite items about his vacation, Tweets about the George Zimmerman trial, and a transcript of a conversation two strangers had on a train. So with all those NFL facts, it's about time Peter told us what he thought.
2. I think we report on the money too much. Sometimes, as with Flacco, it's a significant story. Other times, no one cares. The only time someone cares is when, as in the case of Wes Welker, it means he won't return to play for the Patriots. That's big. But whether a guy makes $3.6 million or $4.9 million only matters if it affects what happens to a team's cap.
But often times those stories about a player's contract directly affects a team's cap, so that's why the story gets reported. I get what Peter wants to say, though I do find it funny that Peter is commenting on over-reporting of NFL news while also starting an NFL website in less than a week, but many times a player's contract is reported in terms of his cap number and how it affects a team's cap space.
4. I think when I read the 30 or so headlines over three or four days about Colin Kaepernick wearing a Dolphins cap, I thought: "The football media needs a longer vacation." Is it a good idea to wear another NFL team's cap? No -- marginally. But it might be cause for the mildest rebuke in media history, not cause for long columns to be written.
Of course Peter is starting an NFL-centric website next week, but he feels the need to even mildly rebuke other writers for headlines about Colin Kaepernick's hat. As always, do as Peter says, not as he does. He doesn't think there needs to be long columns written on Kaepernick's choice in hats, but I would bet if MMQB (the site) were up now then there would be a column about the hat. It's hard to understand Peter talking about football media needing a longer vacation and knowing a week later he will start an NFL-centric site.
5. I think $10.5 million a year sounds about right for top-three left tackle Ryan Clady.
Peter King just a few lines earlier in this MMQB:
2. I think we report on the money too much...But whether a guy makes $3.6 million or $4.9 million only matters if it affects what happens to a team's cap.
There is no report from Peter how the $10.5 million affects the Broncos cap space either. Peter does this consistently. He chides others for doing something Peter himself does. Why comment "we" report on money too much and state money only matters if it affects what happens to a team's cap, THEN write down how much a certain player re-signed for while not addressing how it affected the team's cap? Take your own advice, Peter.
7. I think I agree with Mike Florio on this one: I may not agree with Donovan McNabb saying the Matthew Stafford contract is a bad one, but I appreciate the fact that he has the stones to rip the establishment and to say Stafford hasn't earned his new big dough -- something too few former players and coaches do.
Considering Stafford has had one really good, injury-free season I am a little shocked the Lions re-signed him with three years left on his contract. I like Stafford, but if you look at his numbers they are impressive in terms of yardage he has thrown for, but he has started 44 of 64 possible games in his career and didn't show great improvement from 2011 to 2012.
10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:
b. Isn't the All-Star Break supposed to be the halfway point of the season? Or reasonably close? Boston's season is three-fifths done: 97 down, 65 to play.
No, the All-Star Break isn't necessarily supposed to be the halfway point of the season. It's supposed to be an exhibition game that takes place in the middle of the MLB season, but I don't think it has to be at the halfway point. It's supposed to break up the two halves of the MLB season, but these "halves" aren't necessarily real halves and what does it even matter?
d. Love watching Yasiel Puig.
You would.
f. I hope I'm wrong, for the sake of the fine people of Houston. But after being the most tangential NBA fan in America for the last couple of years, I would not want to hitch my wagon to Dwight Howard. Not for a third of what the Rockets paid him.
You are an idiot if you wouldn't take Dwight Howard for a third of what the Rockets paid him. I always enjoy how Peter always discounts his opinion about the NBA prior to giving an opinion on the NBA. Give an opinion, that's fine, but don't keep saying how your opinion doesn't mean anything when it is obvious you think your opinion does mean something.
h. Not a big golf watcher, truth be told. But I watched some over the break, and I really need to figure one thing out:What is it with screaming "GET IN THE HOOOOOLLLLE!!!!!'' after every tee shot? It was cute when Bill Murray did it, dweebs. It's dweebish when you do it on every tee shot.
Don't like it, don't watch golf. I'm annoyed by Chris Berman and don't watch anything he is the announcer for on ESPN. There is a thing called a "remote control" where you can mute the television.
i. If you don't think I'm telling the truth, ask the annoyed-looking person next to you at the next PGA event you attend.
Or just transcribe their phone conversation complaining about this happening and then publish this phone conversation in a national NFL column.
m. Beernerdness: Five good ones from my vacation ... 1: Manny's Pale Ale (Georgetown Brewing, Seattle). Just one of my all-time faves. So flavorful. 2: Hoppyum IPA (Foothills Brewing, Winston-Salem, N.C.) Very pleasant surprise.
Who knew the South had alcohol that wasn't just moonshine? Ugh, Peter and I have something in common. I will have to pour all of my Hoppyum IPA down the sink now.
n. Wish I could review the first episode of The Newsroom, but I didn't quite finish this in time to watch last night. Next week I'll have some thoughts ...
Please don't.
next week, when the next column is the first thing you'll read on our new site, The MMQB.
I still don't like the name of the site, but no one asked me. It just seems like naming the site the same thing Peter names his Monday column is uninspired.
The Adieu Haiku
Getting nervous. Why?
The MMQB cometh.
New site. Next Monday.
I'm hoping the Adieu Haiku doesn't come with MMQB to the new The MMQB site. My hopes will probably be dashed though.
Good morning. Happy to be back after my annual summer break.
Is this as opposed to Peter's semi-annual summer break? Summer happens once a calendar year, so any summer break has to be annual.
The beginning of the training camp trip is five days away, in Oxnard, Calif., with the Cowboys. Always my favorite time of the year. Everybody's got hope, much of it legitimate, and the stories are new and fresh.
Lately a few of the stories are new and fresh, while a lot of times during training camp the stories are somewhat old and repetitive, such as "Will Brett Favre come out of retirement, which player is holding out or hasn't signed their franchise tag, etc." A lot of other stories are just continuing stories from the end of the last NFL season.
Then there's the new project, The MMQB, I'm heading up. That's the new NFL-centric website that'll go live starting next Monday morning.
Peter should really reconsider the title for the project. "The MMQB" isn't very catchy and I'm not sure an entire sports site should be named after the chief editor's (or whatever Peter will be) signature column. The main column and the site should not be named the same thing in my opinion.
First, the story about Texas A&M quarterback Johnny Manziel, the Heisman winner, getting sent home from the Manning Passing Academy in Thibodaux, La., on Saturday. It's an NFL story, at least in part, because Manziel is likely to play one more season at Texas A&M, then declare for the NFL following his second season in college.
This is of course assuming Johnny Manziel has another great year at Texas A&M and would not need to come back to college for his junior year to increase his draft stock. So it is an NFL story because it involves the Heisman Trophy winner and the Manning Passing Academy. Still, I find it hard to believe it is "likely" Manziel will play one more season at Texas A&M since we haven't seen how Manziel will play during the upcoming college football season. It seems Manziel loves college and doesn't need money, so who is to say he is "likely" to leave Texas A&M after the upcoming season?
The campers arrive on Thursday, take the field Friday and Saturday, watch a throwing exhibition by the college and pro quarterbacks there Saturday night, then leave late Sunday morning. One of the draws is having some top quarterbacks come -- and not just the Mannings. Kids are excited to be in the presence of quarterbacks like Johnny Manziel, who was assigned to one group of between 12 to 16 young passers.
I don't know Johnny Manziel, but I know he is focused on his fame, partying and being seen as much as he is focused on being a quarterback. Maybe it just seems that way. My point is that it doesn't shock me Johnny Manziel went out partying Friday night and whoever was in charge of inviting him to be one of the camp quarterbacks probably should have taken his maturity into account prior to inviting him to be one of the camp quarterbacks.
Manziel was spotted at a bar in Thibodaux early Friday morning, and he was late for one of the Friday coaching sessions. No one's sure where he was Friday night, but he was a no-show for a two-hour session Saturday morning, and the staff had to cover for him.
There are no excuses for Manziel, but it's not like he hasn't shown anyone willing to follow him on Twitter or has paid attention to news about him on the Interwebs that he loves to go out and party. He needs to be more mature, but I won't ever take him seriously as an NFL prospect until he shows he is as focused on football as he is on being a celebrity. In fact, I feel like he enjoys being a celebrity more than he enjoys being a talented quarterback that led to his celebrity.
Home, 400 miles away in College Station, would seem to be a good place to get some rest Saturday night and recover from whatever ailed him. But two Twitter followers tweeted out information early Sunday morning that Manziel was at a bar in College Station, and one tweeted a photo of a white-t-shirted Manziel in a bar there.
This is an interesting story, but it also doesn't really tell us anything we don't already know. Manziel is talented, but he's not exactly serious about anything that doesn't involve partying. This makes him a normal college student.
On Sunday, Manziel's dad, Paul Manziel, texted Kate Hairopoulos of the Dallas Morning News that Johnny was "resting and recuperating from dehydration."
That's quite a tale.
It's not quite a tale, it's a lie. In 2013, "dehydration" is shorthand for "hungover" or "too tired to do anything productive because the person has been out partying for a couple of days in a row."
So why does this matter? Manziel is a tremendous multi-purpose talent as a quarterback. But his size (6-foot-0 and 195 pounds, approximately) and suspect arm strength will work against him when the NFL studies him.
Of course talent trumps all, always, so if Manziel has another great year at Texas A&M an NFL team will take a chance on Manziel at some point whenever he declares for the NFL Draft.
You remember how Ryan Leaf became such a shaky pick after Peyton Manning in the 1998 draft. Leaf's immaturity and drinking doomed his NFL career.
Leaf even "looked" like an NFL quarterback stereotypically should look, while Manziel is undersized for the position. Maybe Leaf was drafted higher than he should have been because he had all the measurables, but Manziel is going to have to convince NFL GM's he can withstand an NFL pass rush and is big enough to play the position...as well as try not to show up to the Combine or individual workouts drunk or hungover.
If Manziel doesn't want to make his stock plummet, he'd better start partying a little more carefully, and with some hydration.
Or he could party, but still focus a little bit more on playing quarterback and focus a little bit less on making sure his celebrity status helps his social life. He's a college kid though and he doesn't seem to love football as much as he loves what football has brought him in terms of status.
The lessons of Aaron Hernandez.
There are so many. But I'll write about three of them.
One of the lessons is "learn to predict the future" and I'm not sure that's a lesson we can blame the Patriots for not knowing how to succeed in learning.
2. Since Scott Pioli left the organization in 2009, Belichick doesn't have anyone to argue him off troubled players. Not that Pioli won all the time. "But,'' someone with knowledge of the Patriots front office told me,
This "someone with knowledge"? Scott Pioli, probably. We know he and Peter are close. Not Brett Favre and Peter King-close, but pretty close to where they would share a milkshake using one straw and not be embarrassed by it.
"there's no one there with Scott's balls anymore. Bill needs someone to challenge him, and I don't think he has that now."
(Scott Pioli) "Peter, be sure to write something about me having "the balls" to challenge Belichick. Make me sound tough."
(Peter King) "Will do boss!"
Would Pioli have challenged Belichick on Hernandez, or on Alfonzo Dennard, the seventh-round corner who will have to leave camp in August to go to a probation trial in Nebraska and who last week was arrested for DUI? I don't know, and there's no guarantee those picks wouldn't have been made anyway. But this isn't the first time I've heard the Pioli thing.
Does Peter share an agent with Scott Pioli? I'm just wondering because Peter has talked about Pioli a couple of times in MMQB in a positive light, so I'm just assuming Marvin Demoff ordered Peter to help Pioli find another GM gig.
It's not like Scott "Mr. Tough Guy" Pioli who has the balls to challenge Bill Belichick hasn't made his own personnel errors. When he was the GM of the Chiefs he did employ Jovan Belcher who killed his girlfriend and then himself. So in terms of finding guys who need to challenge Bill Belichick to keep troubled players off the roster, I'm not sure Pioli is the best example to use.
You hate to think morbid thoughts like this, but really: With how wasted Russell and Heckert, both team executives, were when driving-while-impaired, it's very fortunate someone wasn't killed.
That's not a morbid though, that's the exact reason that drunk driving is illegal. The reason drunk driving is illegal is because anytime someone gets behind the wheel drunk it is fortunate that someone isn't killed. To acknowledge this isn't morbid.
But the league is noted for giving first-strike (but serious) offenders a path back to their jobs, if they mend their ways and do just what they're supposed to do. That's why firings aren't likely. Rehab and a serious smack on the wrist -- for both men -- are more likely.
Who needs a front office to help make decisions during and immediately after Training Camp, right? I know John Elway certainly doesn't.
Then Peter goes on to talk about Matthew Berry's new book about fantasy sports. After having a month off I sort of hoped there would be more NFL-oriented content in MMQB rather than the usual filler stuff that populates the column.
Stat of the Week
There's been much discussion about the spate of offseason arrests in the NFL, highlighted by the Aaron Hernandez murder charge, of course. And, of course, one arrest is too many. But it's probably unrealistic to think that men with more money, on average, than the general public wouldn't get into some trouble, regardless how much preaching the league does about it.
I think the main issue some people have with professional athletes getting arrested is there is an assumption that having more money means a person would have less need to act like a fool and get arrested. It's a incorrect notion of course.
The question is, is the NFL's rate of arrest much higher than the general public's?
So let's use the larger number, and to be mathematically fair, let's use a one-year period: July 15, 2012 to July 14, 2013, which was Sunday. By my count, there have been 55 arrests of NFL players in that year.
Number of arrests of NFL players in the last year: 55.
Estimated number of players currently under contract in NFL: 2,880.
Percentage of players arrested in the last year: 1.9 percent.
Now for the general population. Look at the last year the FBI has complete stats for, 2010.
Number of arrests of American adults: 11,479,500.
Estimate number of American adults living in 2010: 235,205,700.
Percentage of American adults arrested in 2010: 4.9 percent.
My point is, we know the arrests are an ugly part of football the league and the Players Association need to constantly work to reduce. But it's not so easy to simply say, "Too many players are getting arrested." Compared to what, exactly?
I think the fact NFL players who get arrested are much more high profile than the average person gets arrested is what causes the perception that NFL players are in trouble more than most.
Also, I love the second-to-last and last sentence Peter just wrote. He said:
But it's not so easy to simply say, "Too many players are getting arrested." Compared to what, exactly?
I don't know Peter, why don't you ask yourself why you used a very close approximation to this phrase in this very MMQB:
There's been much discussion about the spate of offseason arrests in the NFL, highlighted by the Aaron Hernandez murder charge, of course. And, of course, one arrest is too many.
Compared to what, exactly, Peter?! One arrest is too many compared to what? As always, do as Peter says, not as he does.
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
Ten Favorite Things of My Summer Vacation:
This is the part of MMQB where Peter brags about all the cool things he got to do on his annual summer vacation (again, not to be confused with his quarterly summer vacation). The only thing less interesting than seeing pictures of someone's vacation is hearing someone talk about their vacation, but the only thing less interesting than hearing about someone's vacation is to read about their vacation.
1.Experiencing Vancouver with my family. Some of you -- yes, you especially, Donny Brasco -- have knocked me over the years for hyperbole. But I found Vancouver, on my first extended trip there, to be the most underrated city in North America.
It's also a good place to shoot movies because it isn't as crowded or as expensive as other cities.
3.Catching a fish at Pike Place Market in Seattle. No. I mean, really catching a fish.
Thanks for clearing that up.
We bought a 12-pound Copper River salmon as a gift for some friends, and the guy there asked if I'd want to catch it as he threw it from where the fish were iced to where they got cut up for delivery. "Of course!'' I said. So I went behind the counter and he threw the slippery guy, and I caught it, letting it thump off my hands and slide into my chest. Then I held it up triumphantly.
It's the little things that please Peter. Then Peter lurked around the market for a few hours to see what kind of cell phone conversations he could hear and then transcribe into a notebook. I'm kidding of course. Peter would never hang out at a market in Seattle and listen to other people's conversations. That would be crazy to try and eavesdrop in a crowded market. It was in Massachusetts on a train when Peter dropped in on a cell phone conversation and transcribed it for everyone who reads MMQB to (not) enjoy.
8.Four Sunday nights without MMQB responsibility. The column's a labor of love, folks. You know that. But watching junk-food TV, reading Inferno by Dan Brown, napping in the chair or going to see a play (we did score seats to Lucky Guy one night, the play with Tom Hanks in it), and not obsessing about Aaron Hernandez or Matthew Stafford's contract and thinking of an angle is a very good and relaxing thing.
Understandable, but Peter does realize he can include NFL-only related content in MMQB and cut the column by half doesn't he? Most of the stuff in MMQB are quotes, Tweets, and things that Peter thinks which generally aren't entirely NFL-related. So he could make his life easier in writing MMQB by talking about the NFL-only and not worrying about stretching the column out to a certain length.
10. Seeing the Red Sox sweep a waterlogged twinbill at Fenway Park over the Rays. That three-hour rain delay sure was fun. The train trip back and forth on the Acela is always good. Except on the ride back, we had the displeasure of sitting across the aisle from two Manhattan realtors, husband and wife, who spoke at normal conversational volume for 3.5 solid hours into their iPhone 5 headsets and drove most of the rest of the car out of its mind.
Here is the part of MMQB where Peter strikes back at those who talk on a cell phone in public. I have no issue with Peter being annoyed by someone talking on their phone in public, but listening to the entire conversation and transcribing it as opposed to ignoring it seems like a really weirdo thing to do. Plus, wouldn't writing down the conversation and listening to the entire thing be something a person not annoyed by that conversation would do? Isn't ignoring the conversation, or trying to, the logical and normal thing to do if you don't like the conversation that is taking place?
I wrote this down, as close to word-for-word as I could, somewhere between New London and New Haven hugging the Connecticut coastline:
Writing down these conversations and posting them in MMQB isn't getting back at these people, it only tells us that Peter King is a really creepy guy. After all, who writes down a stranger's conversation and then relays it to other complete strangers?
I'm not sure if Peter is familiar with the realty industry or what being a realtor entails, but a lot of being a realtor involves having to negotiate and use the cell phone to contact potential buyers and sellers with asking prices and other pertinent information. Much of this information is time sensitive, as a realtor couldn't simply sit on an offer being made by his/her client because another offer could come in and be accepted in that time. So while public cell phone conversations are annoying, Peter should understand these realtors couldn't necessarily just sit on the train and not contact the buyer/seller they are trying to contact.
I won't force you all to read through the transcription of this conversation had by the two real estate agents, but suffice to say, it sounded like a lot of negotiation by phone.
Jewelried woman: "Sorry, you still there? Connection's not great. Sorry ... I'm going to repeat: I am about to lose my patience. You don't have the answers for me. You know what that property is worth, and I know what it is worth. You can't BS me ... So should I go through those files? Should I allocate those numbers elsewhere? ... You think it's not necessary ...''
Suited slim man, thinking he can be heard through a bad connection if he screams: "On a TRAIN. YES. SORRY! ... YOU GOT ME? YOU GOT ME?'' ...
Frustrated hangup. RINGGGGGGG.
Suited slim man: "Sorry, you know, the connection. I am ON A TRAIN!''
Jewelried woman: "Call you then, okay. Bye.''
Suited slim man: "We have to do a credit check. Yes, Brad has all that ... No, it's not your decision or my decision. It's the government ... I would love it. I would SO love it. You have no idea how much I'd love it ... Oh, you do?''
Jewelried woman: "I got that in play. Correct ... We're moving forward in good faith.''
Again, I do find people who talk on the phone in public to be annoying, but these are two realtors whose entire job is to ensure a real estate deal is made and it appears both individuals had urgent matters they needed to discuss. You can't tell me if something important happened in the NFL that Peter King wouldn't be on his cell phone talking about it on the Acela. Anyone who has bought a home knows once an offer is made and there are multiple offers on the table, time becomes somewhat of the essence. Since Peter was so kind to be a creepy stalker and transcribe the conversation it is easy to read that it seems like two urgent deals were being made. Why does Peter have to transcribe the conversation though? Be less weird.
Not even to Bridgeport yet. How did we survive?
Ignore them.
"All them jurors should go home tonight and kill themselves for letting a grown man get away with killing a kid"
-- @roddywhiteTV, Atlanta wideout Roddy White, after George Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges in the death of teen Trayvon Martin in Florida Saturday night.
"I understand my tweet last nite was extreme. I never meant for the people to do that. I was shocked and upset about the verdict. I am sorry.''
-- @roddywhiteTV, 12 hours later.
Everyone just be sure not to shock or upset Roddy White at any point or else he will urge you to go kill yourself. So no surprising him by jumping from around a corner while he is walking on the street. Otherwise, suicide will be your best option.
"Aaron Hernandez's lawyers just filed a motion to have his trial moved to Sanford, Florida.''
-- @HubbuchNYP, Bart Hubbuch of the New York Post.
The Zimmerman trial was in Sanford.
Yeah Peter, we got it. If you explain the joke...
Ten Things I Think I Think
Because, again, the rest of this column was filled with NFL factoids like Peter's 10 favorite items about his vacation, Tweets about the George Zimmerman trial, and a transcript of a conversation two strangers had on a train. So with all those NFL facts, it's about time Peter told us what he thought.
2. I think we report on the money too much. Sometimes, as with Flacco, it's a significant story. Other times, no one cares. The only time someone cares is when, as in the case of Wes Welker, it means he won't return to play for the Patriots. That's big. But whether a guy makes $3.6 million or $4.9 million only matters if it affects what happens to a team's cap.
But often times those stories about a player's contract directly affects a team's cap, so that's why the story gets reported. I get what Peter wants to say, though I do find it funny that Peter is commenting on over-reporting of NFL news while also starting an NFL website in less than a week, but many times a player's contract is reported in terms of his cap number and how it affects a team's cap space.
4. I think when I read the 30 or so headlines over three or four days about Colin Kaepernick wearing a Dolphins cap, I thought: "The football media needs a longer vacation." Is it a good idea to wear another NFL team's cap? No -- marginally. But it might be cause for the mildest rebuke in media history, not cause for long columns to be written.
Of course Peter is starting an NFL-centric website next week, but he feels the need to even mildly rebuke other writers for headlines about Colin Kaepernick's hat. As always, do as Peter says, not as he does. He doesn't think there needs to be long columns written on Kaepernick's choice in hats, but I would bet if MMQB (the site) were up now then there would be a column about the hat. It's hard to understand Peter talking about football media needing a longer vacation and knowing a week later he will start an NFL-centric site.
5. I think $10.5 million a year sounds about right for top-three left tackle Ryan Clady.
Peter King just a few lines earlier in this MMQB:
2. I think we report on the money too much...But whether a guy makes $3.6 million or $4.9 million only matters if it affects what happens to a team's cap.
There is no report from Peter how the $10.5 million affects the Broncos cap space either. Peter does this consistently. He chides others for doing something Peter himself does. Why comment "we" report on money too much and state money only matters if it affects what happens to a team's cap, THEN write down how much a certain player re-signed for while not addressing how it affected the team's cap? Take your own advice, Peter.
7. I think I agree with Mike Florio on this one: I may not agree with Donovan McNabb saying the Matthew Stafford contract is a bad one, but I appreciate the fact that he has the stones to rip the establishment and to say Stafford hasn't earned his new big dough -- something too few former players and coaches do.
Considering Stafford has had one really good, injury-free season I am a little shocked the Lions re-signed him with three years left on his contract. I like Stafford, but if you look at his numbers they are impressive in terms of yardage he has thrown for, but he has started 44 of 64 possible games in his career and didn't show great improvement from 2011 to 2012.
10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:
b. Isn't the All-Star Break supposed to be the halfway point of the season? Or reasonably close? Boston's season is three-fifths done: 97 down, 65 to play.
No, the All-Star Break isn't necessarily supposed to be the halfway point of the season. It's supposed to be an exhibition game that takes place in the middle of the MLB season, but I don't think it has to be at the halfway point. It's supposed to break up the two halves of the MLB season, but these "halves" aren't necessarily real halves and what does it even matter?
d. Love watching Yasiel Puig.
You would.
f. I hope I'm wrong, for the sake of the fine people of Houston. But after being the most tangential NBA fan in America for the last couple of years, I would not want to hitch my wagon to Dwight Howard. Not for a third of what the Rockets paid him.
You are an idiot if you wouldn't take Dwight Howard for a third of what the Rockets paid him. I always enjoy how Peter always discounts his opinion about the NBA prior to giving an opinion on the NBA. Give an opinion, that's fine, but don't keep saying how your opinion doesn't mean anything when it is obvious you think your opinion does mean something.
h. Not a big golf watcher, truth be told. But I watched some over the break, and I really need to figure one thing out:What is it with screaming "GET IN THE HOOOOOLLLLE!!!!!'' after every tee shot? It was cute when Bill Murray did it, dweebs. It's dweebish when you do it on every tee shot.
Don't like it, don't watch golf. I'm annoyed by Chris Berman and don't watch anything he is the announcer for on ESPN. There is a thing called a "remote control" where you can mute the television.
i. If you don't think I'm telling the truth, ask the annoyed-looking person next to you at the next PGA event you attend.
Or just transcribe their phone conversation complaining about this happening and then publish this phone conversation in a national NFL column.
m. Beernerdness: Five good ones from my vacation ... 1: Manny's Pale Ale (Georgetown Brewing, Seattle). Just one of my all-time faves. So flavorful. 2: Hoppyum IPA (Foothills Brewing, Winston-Salem, N.C.) Very pleasant surprise.
Who knew the South had alcohol that wasn't just moonshine? Ugh, Peter and I have something in common. I will have to pour all of my Hoppyum IPA down the sink now.
n. Wish I could review the first episode of The Newsroom, but I didn't quite finish this in time to watch last night. Next week I'll have some thoughts ...
Please don't.
next week, when the next column is the first thing you'll read on our new site, The MMQB.
I still don't like the name of the site, but no one asked me. It just seems like naming the site the same thing Peter names his Monday column is uninspired.
The Adieu Haiku
Getting nervous. Why?
The MMQB cometh.
New site. Next Monday.
I'm hoping the Adieu Haiku doesn't come with MMQB to the new The MMQB site. My hopes will probably be dashed though.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
3 comments Yes, What WOULD Happen if an Exhibition Game Were Ruined by Steroids??
Bob Nightengale is very concerned, you guys. What would happen if steroid users played in the All-Star Game and made the difference in the outcome of the game, thereby making a difference in the outcome of which team gets homefield advantage in the World Series, thereby deciding who wins the World Series, thereby tainting baseball forever until we are all forced to stop watching sports entirely because we no longer believe in the magic of the game anymore? Do you want Evereth Cabrera to destroy sports as we know it? I thought not. Let's read about Bob ringing the alarm bell for all of humanity.
Just the thought turns your stomach, doesn't it?
Another holier-than-thou column about PED's? Yes, it does.
By the way, this column is entitled "Tainted players* dull All-Star Game." And yes, there is an asterisk beside "players" because there will be an asterisk next to the 2013 All-Star Game due to all the cheaters who participated in the game. That's Bob Nightengale for you.
Well, brace yourselves: We could have a tainted player win the All-Star Game MVP Award again.
And here I just got done crying about Melky Cabrera winning the All-Star Game MVP award last year. I would even still be upset about the player who won it the year before that, if I could remember his name without looking it up.
It happened last year when San Francisco Giants outfielder Melky Cabrera took home the trophy and a little more than a month later was suspended for 50 games for violating Major League Baseball's drug policy.
And because Cabrera helped the Giants secure homefield advantage in the World Series by helping the National League win the All-Star Game. Because homefield advantage was the deciding factor in the World Series where the Giants swept the Tigers. The Tigers would have had a chance to win the series if they only had gotten to start the series off at home rather than start the series off in San Francisco.
And now the possibility of a repeat exists.
(Shudders violently) Somehow MLB has to make sure the All-Star Game is an exhibition and doesn't count in the regular season standings at all.
They are Nelson Cruz of the Texas Rangers, Jhonny Peralta of the Detroit Tigers, Everth Cabrera of the San Diego Padres and Bartolo Colon of the Oakland Athletics, and they are at risk of being suspended by MLB at the conclusion of its investigation.
The odds of Bartolo Colon being voted MVP of the All-Star Game are not high. In fact, only six pitchers throughout All-Star Game history have been voted MVP and only Pedro Martinez has won the award as a pitcher since 1986. So let's not worry about Colon winning the All-Star Game MVP award.
I realize I'm not in enough of a panic here, but if any of Peralta, Cabrera, or Cruz do have an impact on the game then it doesn't really bother me. These guys are at risk of being suspended, but until they are suspended they should be free to participate in the All-Star Game. The All-Star Game, no matter how much MLB wants the game to "matter" is an exhibition game. It doesn't count in the regular season standings or statistics for these players. It determines homefield advantage in the World Series, but that's a contrived result of the game and is not necessary. I guess I don't take the All-Star Game seriously enough to get worried about the All-Star Game MVP being accused of using PED's.
Now, it would be ideal if MLB could announce its findings before next Tuesday's All-Star Game at New York's Citi Field, preventing any dirty player from defacing the showcase, but that's not going to happen. MLB investigators say they aren't quite done. They need more time. They aren't about to rush the process and risk a mistake just to avoid a potential embarrassment.
And God forbid MLB take the time to investigate Biogenesis and the claims that MLB players used PED's. In a situation like this, making sure an exhibition baseball game isn't ruined takes precedence over ruining a player's reputation by rushing through investigative work. Like I always say, it doesn't matter who gets convicted of a crime, just as long as someone gets convicted and quickly. It's just a player (or players) reputation at stake. Reputation is much less important than an exhibition All-Star game.
Yes, it's just that circumstances have left MLB exposed, so we are left to hope that the same guy who wins this year's All-Star Game MVP isn't back in the headlines in a couple of weeks with the rest of his Biogenesis buddies.
It would be the end of baseball as we know it. Which "as we know" baseball is as a sport filled with players who are mostly clean of steroids, but also as a sport that seems to be able to (eventually) root out the cheaters. A PED-using player being named MVP of an exhibition game is a small price to pay for fully investigating Biogenesis and determining which players are and are not truly linked to Biogenesis.
He tested positive for testosterone just before the All-Star Game. Yet since he planned to appeal, he was permitted to play in the game.
Fucking due process. They should have just hung Cabrera or deported him. Amirightorwhat?
If Cabrera wasn't cheating last season, the Giants might not have made the playoffs, let alone won the World Series.
This is pure speculation. The Giants won the World Series without Cabrera, so I find it difficult to say the Giants didn't deserve to win the World Series with or without Cabrera on the active roster. It seems to me the Giants proved they were the best team in baseball last year by winning the World Series without Cabrera. Maybe Bob Nightengale believes Cabrera gave the Giants team super-special PED assistance telepathically and that's how they won the World Series.
And if Cabrera wasn't cheating, maybe he no longer is even in the major leagues, let alone playing on a two-year, $16 million deal signed with the Toronto Blue Jays.
Jeff Francouer is still hanging around the fringes of the majors. A switch-hitter like Melky Cabrera who is in his late-20's with decent speed and is able to get on-base at a .330-.340 clip is going to stay in the majors. Again, Bob Nightengale is purely speculating and not even speculating in an intelligent fashion.
It sure makes you feel warm and fuzzy knowing that even if you get caught cheating, you still can get rewarded. Look no further than Texas to realize the insanity of this drug culture.
The only way a player could not get rewarded for being caught cheating is if the first offense resulted in a lifetime ban from the game. If that's what Bob Nightengale is suggesting without actually suggesting it, then he needs to just actually suggest this rather than be shocked that talented baseball players get a second chance after being caught using PED's.
The Rangers just brought back Manny Ramirez from the baseball graveyard, signing him to a minor league contract at age 41. The irony is that he's their insurance policy in the event Cruz is suspended,
Nothing like a cheat to replace a potential cheat.
Thankfully only regular season and World Series games were affected by Nelson Cruz and Manny Ramirez's PED usage. If the All-Star Game had been affected in any way by their PED usage then that would be more than Bob Nightengale could handle.
The last time we saw Ramirez in the major leagues, he was playing for the Tampa Bay Rays in 2011 before being suspended for the second time in four years for violating MLB's drug policy.
Now Ramirez is eligible to win the Comeback Player of the Year Award.
"That's a tragedy," says Hooton, whose 17-year-old son, Taylor, committed suicide 10 years ago July 15 after using anabolic steroids.
Obviously it is sad that Taylor Hooton committed suicide after using anabolic steroids. I won't ever say it isn't a tragedy. I want to get that out of the way now. I'm sympathetic towards that. But...
No, your son committing suicide is a tragedy. Manny Ramirez being eligible to win the Comeback Player of the Year award is not a tragedy. I'm amazed the father of a child who committed suicide would classify Manny Ramirez being eligible for a postseason award as "a tragedy."
"Come on, guys? How many strikes before you're out? What does it take?
Perhaps if you spent less time asking rhetorical questions and referring to non-tragedies as tragedies you would know it takes three strikes before a player is out and Manny Ramirez is on two strikes right now. So it would take another positive drug test before Manny would be out.
MLB can't stop Ramirez from seeking employment or a team desperate enough to give him another chance.
Even Alex Rodriguez, who has enough problems of his own, was incredulous last week when informed Ramirez had signed with the Rangers.
Alex Rodriguez is a cheater who deserves a lifetime ban from baseball in the opinion of Bob Nightengale...well, until Rodriguez says something that Nightengale agrees with and then at that point we should all listen to A-Rod's opinion that now has merit.
"I'm fearing the worst and hoping for the best," Hooton says. "A lot of people have drawn their own conclusions, but MLB hasn't completed the investigation. I'm very fearful, and I just hope the worst doesn't happen with Alex.
"We've done so much work with him over the years, and I'm just terrified about the possibility that these things turn out to be true."
Wait, what? Hooton, who clearly doesn't pay very much attention to what is going on around baseball involving steroids, does realize A-Rod has already been busted once before for using PED's, right? When Hooton says (which he did in this very article),
"We continue to send crazy messages to kids that these things are OK. That's the horror of the whole thing."
he is talking about Alex Rodriguez sending a message that it is okay to use PED's. Does Hooton realize this? I'm confused because he is hoping "the worst" doesn't happen with Rodriguez, but Rodriguez's use of PED's has already turned out to be true. What the fuck is Hooton talking about? A-Rod is the guy sending the bad message to kids in the opinion of Hooton, but Hooton still acts like A-Rod's use of PED's is still up in the air. We know. We know A-Rod used PED's and he has admitted it. The worst has already happened and if A-Rod is linked to PED's again then he will be just as bad as Manny Ramirez...the same guy Hooton said it was "a tragedy" that he could win the Comeback Player of the Year award.
Maybe I'm crazy, but Hooton doesn't seem to know who has used PED's in the majors and what the MLB drug policy is, but he sure has strong feelings about the use of PED's.
Well, the good news is that Rodriguez won't be in the All-Star Game, so there's no fear of him walking away with the MVP trophy.
That's fantastic news. Rodriguez's PED use won't affect "the kids" as long as he doesn't win the All-Star Game MVP award.
"When you have a chance to win the rings, make the All-Star Games and make the money," Hooton says, "it's just one more signal sent to these kids that their favorite athletes and idols use drugs.
These athletes smoke pot too AND cheat on their girlfriends/wives. I know, we need to get Congress involved on this issue too. I feel bad for Mr. Hooton that he lost his son, but I lose a little sympathy when a person's drug use is blamed entirely on his role models. That seems to be what it happening here.
"We have 1.5 million kids using steroids today, and our federal government is doing nothing about it. You wonder what it's going to take to bring all of this to an end."
Nothing. Nothing will ever bring PED usage by athletes to an end. It's a reality of sports. Also, the federal government is pretty busy right now so I would rather they focus on the kids who don't have a home, hot food to eat, or are led into a life of violence that leads to prison. Honestly, kids taking steroids feels like the typical "white person problem" that should be a priority, but not a top priority like Mr. Hooton wants it to be. There are much bigger problems that affect a much larger population of children the federal government needs to spend their (our) time and money on.
Maybe another dirty MVP will help.
Dirty All-Star Game MVP. Melky Cabrera was the MVP of an exhibition game. Fortunately, I would bet few people even remember who won the All-Star Game MVP award from year-to-year. This is ignored by Bob Nightengale, much like any other factors surrounding Taylor Hooton's suicide are ignored to further the much simpler "PED's are bad" narrative.
Just the thought turns your stomach, doesn't it?
Another holier-than-thou column about PED's? Yes, it does.
By the way, this column is entitled "Tainted players* dull All-Star Game." And yes, there is an asterisk beside "players" because there will be an asterisk next to the 2013 All-Star Game due to all the cheaters who participated in the game. That's Bob Nightengale for you.
Well, brace yourselves: We could have a tainted player win the All-Star Game MVP Award again.
And here I just got done crying about Melky Cabrera winning the All-Star Game MVP award last year. I would even still be upset about the player who won it the year before that, if I could remember his name without looking it up.
It happened last year when San Francisco Giants outfielder Melky Cabrera took home the trophy and a little more than a month later was suspended for 50 games for violating Major League Baseball's drug policy.
And because Cabrera helped the Giants secure homefield advantage in the World Series by helping the National League win the All-Star Game. Because homefield advantage was the deciding factor in the World Series where the Giants swept the Tigers. The Tigers would have had a chance to win the series if they only had gotten to start the series off at home rather than start the series off in San Francisco.
And now the possibility of a repeat exists.
(Shudders violently) Somehow MLB has to make sure the All-Star Game is an exhibition and doesn't count in the regular season standings at all.
They are Nelson Cruz of the Texas Rangers, Jhonny Peralta of the Detroit Tigers, Everth Cabrera of the San Diego Padres and Bartolo Colon of the Oakland Athletics, and they are at risk of being suspended by MLB at the conclusion of its investigation.
The odds of Bartolo Colon being voted MVP of the All-Star Game are not high. In fact, only six pitchers throughout All-Star Game history have been voted MVP and only Pedro Martinez has won the award as a pitcher since 1986. So let's not worry about Colon winning the All-Star Game MVP award.
I realize I'm not in enough of a panic here, but if any of Peralta, Cabrera, or Cruz do have an impact on the game then it doesn't really bother me. These guys are at risk of being suspended, but until they are suspended they should be free to participate in the All-Star Game. The All-Star Game, no matter how much MLB wants the game to "matter" is an exhibition game. It doesn't count in the regular season standings or statistics for these players. It determines homefield advantage in the World Series, but that's a contrived result of the game and is not necessary. I guess I don't take the All-Star Game seriously enough to get worried about the All-Star Game MVP being accused of using PED's.
Now, it would be ideal if MLB could announce its findings before next Tuesday's All-Star Game at New York's Citi Field, preventing any dirty player from defacing the showcase, but that's not going to happen. MLB investigators say they aren't quite done. They need more time. They aren't about to rush the process and risk a mistake just to avoid a potential embarrassment.
And God forbid MLB take the time to investigate Biogenesis and the claims that MLB players used PED's. In a situation like this, making sure an exhibition baseball game isn't ruined takes precedence over ruining a player's reputation by rushing through investigative work. Like I always say, it doesn't matter who gets convicted of a crime, just as long as someone gets convicted and quickly. It's just a player (or players) reputation at stake. Reputation is much less important than an exhibition All-Star game.
Yes, it's just that circumstances have left MLB exposed, so we are left to hope that the same guy who wins this year's All-Star Game MVP isn't back in the headlines in a couple of weeks with the rest of his Biogenesis buddies.
It would be the end of baseball as we know it. Which "as we know" baseball is as a sport filled with players who are mostly clean of steroids, but also as a sport that seems to be able to (eventually) root out the cheaters. A PED-using player being named MVP of an exhibition game is a small price to pay for fully investigating Biogenesis and determining which players are and are not truly linked to Biogenesis.
He tested positive for testosterone just before the All-Star Game. Yet since he planned to appeal, he was permitted to play in the game.
Fucking due process. They should have just hung Cabrera or deported him. Amirightorwhat?
If Cabrera wasn't cheating last season, the Giants might not have made the playoffs, let alone won the World Series.
This is pure speculation. The Giants won the World Series without Cabrera, so I find it difficult to say the Giants didn't deserve to win the World Series with or without Cabrera on the active roster. It seems to me the Giants proved they were the best team in baseball last year by winning the World Series without Cabrera. Maybe Bob Nightengale believes Cabrera gave the Giants team super-special PED assistance telepathically and that's how they won the World Series.
And if Cabrera wasn't cheating, maybe he no longer is even in the major leagues, let alone playing on a two-year, $16 million deal signed with the Toronto Blue Jays.
Jeff Francouer is still hanging around the fringes of the majors. A switch-hitter like Melky Cabrera who is in his late-20's with decent speed and is able to get on-base at a .330-.340 clip is going to stay in the majors. Again, Bob Nightengale is purely speculating and not even speculating in an intelligent fashion.
It sure makes you feel warm and fuzzy knowing that even if you get caught cheating, you still can get rewarded. Look no further than Texas to realize the insanity of this drug culture.
The only way a player could not get rewarded for being caught cheating is if the first offense resulted in a lifetime ban from the game. If that's what Bob Nightengale is suggesting without actually suggesting it, then he needs to just actually suggest this rather than be shocked that talented baseball players get a second chance after being caught using PED's.
The Rangers just brought back Manny Ramirez from the baseball graveyard, signing him to a minor league contract at age 41. The irony is that he's their insurance policy in the event Cruz is suspended,
Nothing like a cheat to replace a potential cheat.
Thankfully only regular season and World Series games were affected by Nelson Cruz and Manny Ramirez's PED usage. If the All-Star Game had been affected in any way by their PED usage then that would be more than Bob Nightengale could handle.
The last time we saw Ramirez in the major leagues, he was playing for the Tampa Bay Rays in 2011 before being suspended for the second time in four years for violating MLB's drug policy.
Now Ramirez is eligible to win the Comeback Player of the Year Award.
"That's a tragedy," says Hooton, whose 17-year-old son, Taylor, committed suicide 10 years ago July 15 after using anabolic steroids.
Obviously it is sad that Taylor Hooton committed suicide after using anabolic steroids. I won't ever say it isn't a tragedy. I want to get that out of the way now. I'm sympathetic towards that. But...
No, your son committing suicide is a tragedy. Manny Ramirez being eligible to win the Comeback Player of the Year award is not a tragedy. I'm amazed the father of a child who committed suicide would classify Manny Ramirez being eligible for a postseason award as "a tragedy."
"Come on, guys? How many strikes before you're out? What does it take?
Perhaps if you spent less time asking rhetorical questions and referring to non-tragedies as tragedies you would know it takes three strikes before a player is out and Manny Ramirez is on two strikes right now. So it would take another positive drug test before Manny would be out.
MLB can't stop Ramirez from seeking employment or a team desperate enough to give him another chance.
Even Alex Rodriguez, who has enough problems of his own, was incredulous last week when informed Ramirez had signed with the Rangers.
Alex Rodriguez is a cheater who deserves a lifetime ban from baseball in the opinion of Bob Nightengale...well, until Rodriguez says something that Nightengale agrees with and then at that point we should all listen to A-Rod's opinion that now has merit.
"I'm fearing the worst and hoping for the best," Hooton says. "A lot of people have drawn their own conclusions, but MLB hasn't completed the investigation. I'm very fearful, and I just hope the worst doesn't happen with Alex.
"We've done so much work with him over the years, and I'm just terrified about the possibility that these things turn out to be true."
Wait, what? Hooton, who clearly doesn't pay very much attention to what is going on around baseball involving steroids, does realize A-Rod has already been busted once before for using PED's, right? When Hooton says (which he did in this very article),
"We continue to send crazy messages to kids that these things are OK. That's the horror of the whole thing."
he is talking about Alex Rodriguez sending a message that it is okay to use PED's. Does Hooton realize this? I'm confused because he is hoping "the worst" doesn't happen with Rodriguez, but Rodriguez's use of PED's has already turned out to be true. What the fuck is Hooton talking about? A-Rod is the guy sending the bad message to kids in the opinion of Hooton, but Hooton still acts like A-Rod's use of PED's is still up in the air. We know. We know A-Rod used PED's and he has admitted it. The worst has already happened and if A-Rod is linked to PED's again then he will be just as bad as Manny Ramirez...the same guy Hooton said it was "a tragedy" that he could win the Comeback Player of the Year award.
Maybe I'm crazy, but Hooton doesn't seem to know who has used PED's in the majors and what the MLB drug policy is, but he sure has strong feelings about the use of PED's.
Well, the good news is that Rodriguez won't be in the All-Star Game, so there's no fear of him walking away with the MVP trophy.
That's fantastic news. Rodriguez's PED use won't affect "the kids" as long as he doesn't win the All-Star Game MVP award.
"When you have a chance to win the rings, make the All-Star Games and make the money," Hooton says, "it's just one more signal sent to these kids that their favorite athletes and idols use drugs.
These athletes smoke pot too AND cheat on their girlfriends/wives. I know, we need to get Congress involved on this issue too. I feel bad for Mr. Hooton that he lost his son, but I lose a little sympathy when a person's drug use is blamed entirely on his role models. That seems to be what it happening here.
"We have 1.5 million kids using steroids today, and our federal government is doing nothing about it. You wonder what it's going to take to bring all of this to an end."
Nothing. Nothing will ever bring PED usage by athletes to an end. It's a reality of sports. Also, the federal government is pretty busy right now so I would rather they focus on the kids who don't have a home, hot food to eat, or are led into a life of violence that leads to prison. Honestly, kids taking steroids feels like the typical "white person problem" that should be a priority, but not a top priority like Mr. Hooton wants it to be. There are much bigger problems that affect a much larger population of children the federal government needs to spend their (our) time and money on.
Maybe another dirty MVP will help.
Dirty All-Star Game MVP. Melky Cabrera was the MVP of an exhibition game. Fortunately, I would bet few people even remember who won the All-Star Game MVP award from year-to-year. This is ignored by Bob Nightengale, much like any other factors surrounding Taylor Hooton's suicide are ignored to further the much simpler "PED's are bad" narrative.
Monday, July 15, 2013
5 comments Tim Keown Thinks the NCAA Should Pay for Johnny Manziel's Parking Ticket
I've sort of already made my feelings regarding Johnny Manziel's Twitter response upon receiving a parking ticket known, but I just had to cover this Tim Keown article. Of course after I write this, Johnny Manziel decides he is too hungover to attend the Manning Quarterback Camp, causing another controversy. Tim Keown isn't writing about that, but writing about Manziel's parking ticket issues. Tim in very serious fashion (just look at his picture, he's really fucking serious) confuses the issue of Manziel's parking ticket by explaining this wouldn't happen if Manziel could make money off his likeness. I guess that's his point. The main point about Manziel's Tweet should be about Manziel wanting to get out of College Station and his Tweeting "walk a mile in my shoes" as some sort of grab for sympathy over a parking ticket. It's not a big deal that he complains about wanting out of College Station, but his "mile in my shoes" Tweet (which Keown ever-so-conveniently doesn't even touch on) seems to be the big disconnect for me. The issue is not about Manziel Tweeting angrily, but about him attempting to gain sympathy for being well-known around the Texas A&M campus and becoming a celebrity. Tim Keown says Johnny Manziel wouldn't get a parking ticket if he got paid to play football. I guess that's his point. I'm not entirely sure, but I don't see how college athletes getting paid has anything to do with illegal parking. Talk about confusing the issue.
The Memorial Student Center at Texas A&M is quite a place. It's a testament to the nothing-is-too-good-for-our-kids philosophy of college architecture -- glass, stone and steel, with luxurious sitting rooms and restaurants and whatever else you might need to escape the infernal College Station heat.
Except you can get a parking ticket if you choose to park near the bookstore?
The most prominent clothing items are "No Heisman without the MAN" T-shirts and "Heisman Football" T-shirts and No. 2 jerseys and No. 2 T-shirts and No. 2 baseball caps. It's all very careful: no direct reference to Johnny Manziel
Well of course there's no reference to Manziel. These shirts and baseball caps aren't necessarily referring to Manziel. It could be referring to Marcus Gold or Earvin Taylor. Maybe Texas A&M just likes the number 2 because they think putting the number 1 on the back of a jersey is too presumptive and doesn't look as good on a T-shirt?
and no mention of "Johnny Football," the nickname Manziel has attempted to protect -- and eventually monetize -- through copyright.
Walk a day in Manziel's shoes, Tim Keown. Copyrighting a nickname isn't as easy as you think it is. You have to think of a nickname, fill out the patent form, then fill out the envelope while spelling "Alexandria, Virginia" correctly, make sure you sending it to the "US Patent and Trademark" headquarters and not the "US Patient Office," while also learning how exactly to mail a letter out. That's assuming you want to file the patent an easy way. If he wants to try the hard way and file the patent online, then Manziel has to figure out how to turn on this thing that looks like a television but his remote control won't work on it and when he approaches the computer all he sees are a bunch of numbers and letters on a long rectangular looking object that plugs into the DVR-looking object beside the television-looking object. It's just not as easy to file a patent as it initially seems. It's good to have bros who can help out when it comes to things like mailing letters and turning on a computer.
I walked through the bookstore on a quiet and hot June afternoon a couple of weeks ago,
I like how Tim Keown appears to just randomly cruise around college campuses. "I was hanging around the quad at Auburn University recently, just watching some guys play Ultimate Frisbee..."
I thought about it again when I read the uproar over the ridiculously minuscule controversy regarding Manziel's ill-advised tweet after a parking ticket last weekend.
I admit it is a miniscule controversy. There's no doubt about that, but the topic is not so miniscule that Tim Keown can't write an entire column about it. The Tweet was really not a very big deal, other than it made people wonder why Manziel wanted to leave College Station. It became more annoying than anything, at least to me, when Manziel wanted us to "walk in his shoes."
The overriding perception of tremendous young athletes has always been confusing. A 19-year-old can design a T-shirt or a computer game that sells millions and we call him a prodigy, an entrepreneur. We celebrate his ingenuity and his wealth. But a 20-year-old whose college football jersey sells millions isn't entitled to that money,
No, Johnny Manziel can design a T-shirt or a computer game that would make millions and he is entitled to this money. He can't design a T-shirt that trades off his own image though, because that's a big no-no. Overall, I'm not sure at all what this has to do with a Tweet about a parking ticket, but I'm hanging in here hoping Tim Keown gets to the point.
But a 20-year-old whose college football jersey sells millions isn't entitled to that money, or to the money generated by his talent on game day. And if he points out the unfairness of this relationship in any way, he is labeled an ingrate for not understanding the value of his college education.
I think college athletes have more support than ever as it pertains to those people who understand the unfairness of this relationship. The problem, as always has been the problem, is that no one has a clue as to how to compensate these college athletes for the value they bring into their college through sports. It's a two-step process and we aren't even past the point where many feel comfortable giving college athletes compensation for playing college sports. Once that point is reached (if that point ever gets reached) it needs to be decided how to go about actually compensating these athletes fairly. Good luck with that.
Back to this article...it is a very tenuous relationship between Johnny Manziel Tweeting angrily about a parking ticket and Johnny Manziel getting paid to play football. I think Tim Keown really wanted to write an article about paying college athletes but just needed a way to slip into this discussion. Much like 75% of these sportswriters who write about paying college athletes, Keown has absolutely no suggestions as to how much Manziel should get paid, how it is decided which college athletes even get paid, and where the money to pay these athletes will come from. I would be angry over this, but it is common. I read a lot of snide comments about how college athletes should get paid, but don't find ideas on how to pay these athletes alongside these comments.
It simply doesn't matter that his school is probably selling enough individually branded gear -- however obtuse the presentation -- in a week to pay for his scholarship several times over.
And this has what to do with a parking ticket and Johnny Manziel's frustration upon receiving a parking ticket again?
For decades, the NCAA has done a remarkable job of public relations. The NCAA powers that be know we all look back fondly on the days when we were playing games, and that sentiment is a powerful influence when it comes to old guys deciding who should get what and who should just shut up about it already.
I'm not very smart. I don't get how Johnny Manziel getting a parking ticket and getting upset about it on Twitter has anything to do with Manziel being paid to play football. Even if he got paid to play quarterback, he would still have to pay the parking ticket, right? Or is part of his compensation from Texas A&M that he could park wherever he wants?
It's easy to draw a connecting line from the bookstore to the parking ticket to the tweet in which Manziel expresses his disgust for College Station and a desire to leave "whenever it may be."
It's actually really not that easy to do this. It's easy to draw a connecting line from Manziel getting a parking ticket to him Tweeting about a desire to leave College Station and then asking us to "walk a mile in my shoes" once he is surprised about the feedback he received on Twitter when he stated he can't wait to leave Texas A&M.
Without the Heisman and the adulation, of course, nobody would care.
Absolutely true. No one would care about Manziel if he didn't receive all this adulation. Now the question is whether Manziel pursued this adulation and my opinion is that he absolutely did. He has made a great effort to be seen as a celebrity. He has Tweeted out pictures of money he won gambling, he posts pictures of him sitting courtside at NBA games, and he posts pictures of him with celebrities. Mark Ingram, Cam Newton, Robert Griffin, and Sam Bradford all managed to win a Heisman Trophy and they didn't receive quite the amount of adulation and fame outside of the fame that came with being a high-profile college football player. Robert Griffin by all accounts managed to take classes in the Baylor classroom with his fellow students, Cam Newton had controversy surrounding him at Auburn but he still found a way to not post pictures of himself with stacks of money, and Mark Ingram didn't need to Tweet out pictures of himself sitting courtside at NBA games.
It's nothing against Manziel and I in no way think he is in the wrong. It's just he has chased this celebrity that he has now achieved. Manziel is doing nothing wrong by enjoying his time in the spotlight, but he has also made it very clear he enjoys and will continue to pursue being in the spotlight. He can't just turn it on and off when it is convenient for him.
The idolatry creates something you can't just un-create.
Fine, but who created it? I have some sympathy for Manziel, but the bottom line is that Manziel helped to create the idolatry by creating a public persona which encourages this idolatry. He's a stupid, young college kid who knows he wants to be famous enough to take pictures with coeds and celebrities, but doesn't want to deal with all the negative attention this may bring.
Overreaction is part of the deal. Now, though, with social media providing an instant connection to the world, even the most insignificant complaints end up as headlines.
That's absolutely true. These insignificant complaints end up as headlines more often when the person making the complaint has put himself out in the public and has a large social media presence like Manziel has. I would fully expect Manziel to overreact and that's something he is entitled to do every once in a while, but his overreaction has more to do with him being 20 years old and less to do with him not being paid to play football.
If you felt you received a bogus parking ticket on campus 20 years ago and told your roommates, "I can't wait to get out of this place," they probably would have nodded and gone about their business.
That's probably true, but I also would have told my roommates this and not share this thought out with the entire world. I would fully know I am a public figure at the school I attend and could probably just go to public safety and explain the situation...assuming it was a bogus ticket.
Is Manziel immature? It seems like it. Should he, and every other high-profile athlete, be judicious about using social media to voice petty concerns? Definitely, if only to avoid having to explain his way out of something insignificant.
And again, notice how Keown carefully avoids the "woe is me" Tweet where Manziel encouraged us to "walk a mile in his shoes." He avoids this because he knows Manziel has brought a lot of this attention upon himself by trying really hard to have a public persona off the football field. Instead, Keown desperately tries to tie Manziel's parking ticket to the Texas A&M bookstore selling #2 jerseys.
But Manziel's momentary displeasure with his surroundings -- spurred, it must be noted, by his decision to park his Mercedes, which has windows tinted too darkly, pointing the wrong direction -- brings up an uncomfortable truth:
That uncomfortable truth being that Manziel clearly seemed to deserve this parking ticket?
You might get all misty-eyed when the band plays the alma mater after a big win, but these guys don't. Just because it was the best years of your life doesn't mean it's the best of theirs.
Hey, it's another straw-man argument. Tim Keown is saying Johnny Manziel's parking ticket rant on Twitter isn't a big deal (which it really isn't) because he doesn't get paid to play football and because Manziel doesn't care as much as Texas A&M fans do about the outcome of the football games.
That's the crux of the O'Bannon antitrust lawsuit, which aims to give current and former players a cut of media revenue and other merchandise -- A&M No. 2 jerseys, for example.
Oh, so Manziel doesn't care about Texas A&M, but he certainly wants to get his cut of revenue he is generating from the school he doesn't care about? I think I understand what Tim Keown is saying now. Actually, I don't understand. Keown has essentially indicated he thinks Manziel's parking ticket was well-earned, but then gets off on a tangent about Manziel getting paid to play football which seemingly has little to do with the parking ticket Manziel received nor Manziel's Twitter rant.
It raises a multitude of important questions, and here's one related to Manziel: If college athletes were paid, would a player such as Manziel -- a college hero with a questionable NFL future -- be more inclined to stay in school through four years of eligibility?
Some players would be more inclined to stay in school through four years of eligibility, but for college athletes that have a chance at being a successful pro athlete I'm not sure the aim should be to keep these players in college for all four years. It's preferred, but would Johnny Manziel rather earn $100,000 playing for Texas A&M or earn $1 million playing for an NFL team? It's not a hard decision for some college athletes.
Would the NCAA, in effect, become a short-term competitor for the NFL?
The NCAA is not intended to be a short-term competitor for the NFL. It's intended to be a collegiate sports system where amateur athletes can earn an education while playing sports. Obviously the NCAA doesn't always succeed in this area, but the NCAA is not set up to be a competitor to the NFL nor should it be set up that way.
Good. From the botched Miami investigation to the unfair transfer rules to the outrageous coach salaries, serious tectonic movement is a hell of an idea. It's a concept we should all embrace.
And of course like any good backseat driver Tim Keown has no idea how this concept should be initiated nor does have any good ideas, but he just knows how things work now isn't working.
Big Ten president Jim Delany says it wouldn't be out of the question for the conference to adopt a Division III, nonscholarship model if college players gain financial control over their likeness and performance.
It feels like an outrageous suggestion -- mostly because it is -- but there's another way to look at it:
Is the other way to look at it that this has nothing to do with a parking ticket Johnny Manziel received in 2013?
If the lawsuit goes forward, and the players win, there might be no need for scholarships.
And of course athletes would never again get another parking ticket.
One thing is for sure: Judging by the clothes hanging in the A&M bookstore, Johnny Manziel wouldn't need one.
This article had nothing to do with the parking ticket that Johnny Manziel received. Why is Manziel so popular and why wouldn't he need a scholarship (which by the way, Manziel's parents seem to be pretty wealthy so I'm not sure he needs a scholarship to Texas A&M, which seems to cost about $4600 per semester for in-state tuition)? Possibly because Manziel has done an excellent job of taking his on-field persona and translated it to an off-the-field persona, which is why I don't feel bad for him when he wants me to take a walk in his shoes.
The Memorial Student Center at Texas A&M is quite a place. It's a testament to the nothing-is-too-good-for-our-kids philosophy of college architecture -- glass, stone and steel, with luxurious sitting rooms and restaurants and whatever else you might need to escape the infernal College Station heat.
Except you can get a parking ticket if you choose to park near the bookstore?
The most prominent clothing items are "No Heisman without the MAN" T-shirts and "Heisman Football" T-shirts and No. 2 jerseys and No. 2 T-shirts and No. 2 baseball caps. It's all very careful: no direct reference to Johnny Manziel
Well of course there's no reference to Manziel. These shirts and baseball caps aren't necessarily referring to Manziel. It could be referring to Marcus Gold or Earvin Taylor. Maybe Texas A&M just likes the number 2 because they think putting the number 1 on the back of a jersey is too presumptive and doesn't look as good on a T-shirt?
and no mention of "Johnny Football," the nickname Manziel has attempted to protect -- and eventually monetize -- through copyright.
Walk a day in Manziel's shoes, Tim Keown. Copyrighting a nickname isn't as easy as you think it is. You have to think of a nickname, fill out the patent form, then fill out the envelope while spelling "Alexandria, Virginia" correctly, make sure you sending it to the "US Patent and Trademark" headquarters and not the "US Patient Office," while also learning how exactly to mail a letter out. That's assuming you want to file the patent an easy way. If he wants to try the hard way and file the patent online, then Manziel has to figure out how to turn on this thing that looks like a television but his remote control won't work on it and when he approaches the computer all he sees are a bunch of numbers and letters on a long rectangular looking object that plugs into the DVR-looking object beside the television-looking object. It's just not as easy to file a patent as it initially seems. It's good to have bros who can help out when it comes to things like mailing letters and turning on a computer.
I walked through the bookstore on a quiet and hot June afternoon a couple of weeks ago,
I like how Tim Keown appears to just randomly cruise around college campuses. "I was hanging around the quad at Auburn University recently, just watching some guys play Ultimate Frisbee..."
I thought about it again when I read the uproar over the ridiculously minuscule controversy regarding Manziel's ill-advised tweet after a parking ticket last weekend.
I admit it is a miniscule controversy. There's no doubt about that, but the topic is not so miniscule that Tim Keown can't write an entire column about it. The Tweet was really not a very big deal, other than it made people wonder why Manziel wanted to leave College Station. It became more annoying than anything, at least to me, when Manziel wanted us to "walk in his shoes."
The overriding perception of tremendous young athletes has always been confusing. A 19-year-old can design a T-shirt or a computer game that sells millions and we call him a prodigy, an entrepreneur. We celebrate his ingenuity and his wealth. But a 20-year-old whose college football jersey sells millions isn't entitled to that money,
No, Johnny Manziel can design a T-shirt or a computer game that would make millions and he is entitled to this money. He can't design a T-shirt that trades off his own image though, because that's a big no-no. Overall, I'm not sure at all what this has to do with a Tweet about a parking ticket, but I'm hanging in here hoping Tim Keown gets to the point.
But a 20-year-old whose college football jersey sells millions isn't entitled to that money, or to the money generated by his talent on game day. And if he points out the unfairness of this relationship in any way, he is labeled an ingrate for not understanding the value of his college education.
I think college athletes have more support than ever as it pertains to those people who understand the unfairness of this relationship. The problem, as always has been the problem, is that no one has a clue as to how to compensate these college athletes for the value they bring into their college through sports. It's a two-step process and we aren't even past the point where many feel comfortable giving college athletes compensation for playing college sports. Once that point is reached (if that point ever gets reached) it needs to be decided how to go about actually compensating these athletes fairly. Good luck with that.
Back to this article...it is a very tenuous relationship between Johnny Manziel Tweeting angrily about a parking ticket and Johnny Manziel getting paid to play football. I think Tim Keown really wanted to write an article about paying college athletes but just needed a way to slip into this discussion. Much like 75% of these sportswriters who write about paying college athletes, Keown has absolutely no suggestions as to how much Manziel should get paid, how it is decided which college athletes even get paid, and where the money to pay these athletes will come from. I would be angry over this, but it is common. I read a lot of snide comments about how college athletes should get paid, but don't find ideas on how to pay these athletes alongside these comments.
It simply doesn't matter that his school is probably selling enough individually branded gear -- however obtuse the presentation -- in a week to pay for his scholarship several times over.
And this has what to do with a parking ticket and Johnny Manziel's frustration upon receiving a parking ticket again?
For decades, the NCAA has done a remarkable job of public relations. The NCAA powers that be know we all look back fondly on the days when we were playing games, and that sentiment is a powerful influence when it comes to old guys deciding who should get what and who should just shut up about it already.
I'm not very smart. I don't get how Johnny Manziel getting a parking ticket and getting upset about it on Twitter has anything to do with Manziel being paid to play football. Even if he got paid to play quarterback, he would still have to pay the parking ticket, right? Or is part of his compensation from Texas A&M that he could park wherever he wants?
It's easy to draw a connecting line from the bookstore to the parking ticket to the tweet in which Manziel expresses his disgust for College Station and a desire to leave "whenever it may be."
It's actually really not that easy to do this. It's easy to draw a connecting line from Manziel getting a parking ticket to him Tweeting about a desire to leave College Station and then asking us to "walk a mile in my shoes" once he is surprised about the feedback he received on Twitter when he stated he can't wait to leave Texas A&M.
Without the Heisman and the adulation, of course, nobody would care.
Absolutely true. No one would care about Manziel if he didn't receive all this adulation. Now the question is whether Manziel pursued this adulation and my opinion is that he absolutely did. He has made a great effort to be seen as a celebrity. He has Tweeted out pictures of money he won gambling, he posts pictures of him sitting courtside at NBA games, and he posts pictures of him with celebrities. Mark Ingram, Cam Newton, Robert Griffin, and Sam Bradford all managed to win a Heisman Trophy and they didn't receive quite the amount of adulation and fame outside of the fame that came with being a high-profile college football player. Robert Griffin by all accounts managed to take classes in the Baylor classroom with his fellow students, Cam Newton had controversy surrounding him at Auburn but he still found a way to not post pictures of himself with stacks of money, and Mark Ingram didn't need to Tweet out pictures of himself sitting courtside at NBA games.
It's nothing against Manziel and I in no way think he is in the wrong. It's just he has chased this celebrity that he has now achieved. Manziel is doing nothing wrong by enjoying his time in the spotlight, but he has also made it very clear he enjoys and will continue to pursue being in the spotlight. He can't just turn it on and off when it is convenient for him.
The idolatry creates something you can't just un-create.
Fine, but who created it? I have some sympathy for Manziel, but the bottom line is that Manziel helped to create the idolatry by creating a public persona which encourages this idolatry. He's a stupid, young college kid who knows he wants to be famous enough to take pictures with coeds and celebrities, but doesn't want to deal with all the negative attention this may bring.
Overreaction is part of the deal. Now, though, with social media providing an instant connection to the world, even the most insignificant complaints end up as headlines.
That's absolutely true. These insignificant complaints end up as headlines more often when the person making the complaint has put himself out in the public and has a large social media presence like Manziel has. I would fully expect Manziel to overreact and that's something he is entitled to do every once in a while, but his overreaction has more to do with him being 20 years old and less to do with him not being paid to play football.
If you felt you received a bogus parking ticket on campus 20 years ago and told your roommates, "I can't wait to get out of this place," they probably would have nodded and gone about their business.
That's probably true, but I also would have told my roommates this and not share this thought out with the entire world. I would fully know I am a public figure at the school I attend and could probably just go to public safety and explain the situation...assuming it was a bogus ticket.
Is Manziel immature? It seems like it. Should he, and every other high-profile athlete, be judicious about using social media to voice petty concerns? Definitely, if only to avoid having to explain his way out of something insignificant.
And again, notice how Keown carefully avoids the "woe is me" Tweet where Manziel encouraged us to "walk a mile in his shoes." He avoids this because he knows Manziel has brought a lot of this attention upon himself by trying really hard to have a public persona off the football field. Instead, Keown desperately tries to tie Manziel's parking ticket to the Texas A&M bookstore selling #2 jerseys.
But Manziel's momentary displeasure with his surroundings -- spurred, it must be noted, by his decision to park his Mercedes, which has windows tinted too darkly, pointing the wrong direction -- brings up an uncomfortable truth:
That uncomfortable truth being that Manziel clearly seemed to deserve this parking ticket?
You might get all misty-eyed when the band plays the alma mater after a big win, but these guys don't. Just because it was the best years of your life doesn't mean it's the best of theirs.
Hey, it's another straw-man argument. Tim Keown is saying Johnny Manziel's parking ticket rant on Twitter isn't a big deal (which it really isn't) because he doesn't get paid to play football and because Manziel doesn't care as much as Texas A&M fans do about the outcome of the football games.
That's the crux of the O'Bannon antitrust lawsuit, which aims to give current and former players a cut of media revenue and other merchandise -- A&M No. 2 jerseys, for example.
Oh, so Manziel doesn't care about Texas A&M, but he certainly wants to get his cut of revenue he is generating from the school he doesn't care about? I think I understand what Tim Keown is saying now. Actually, I don't understand. Keown has essentially indicated he thinks Manziel's parking ticket was well-earned, but then gets off on a tangent about Manziel getting paid to play football which seemingly has little to do with the parking ticket Manziel received nor Manziel's Twitter rant.
It raises a multitude of important questions, and here's one related to Manziel: If college athletes were paid, would a player such as Manziel -- a college hero with a questionable NFL future -- be more inclined to stay in school through four years of eligibility?
Some players would be more inclined to stay in school through four years of eligibility, but for college athletes that have a chance at being a successful pro athlete I'm not sure the aim should be to keep these players in college for all four years. It's preferred, but would Johnny Manziel rather earn $100,000 playing for Texas A&M or earn $1 million playing for an NFL team? It's not a hard decision for some college athletes.
Would the NCAA, in effect, become a short-term competitor for the NFL?
The NCAA is not intended to be a short-term competitor for the NFL. It's intended to be a collegiate sports system where amateur athletes can earn an education while playing sports. Obviously the NCAA doesn't always succeed in this area, but the NCAA is not set up to be a competitor to the NFL nor should it be set up that way.
Good. From the botched Miami investigation to the unfair transfer rules to the outrageous coach salaries, serious tectonic movement is a hell of an idea. It's a concept we should all embrace.
And of course like any good backseat driver Tim Keown has no idea how this concept should be initiated nor does have any good ideas, but he just knows how things work now isn't working.
Big Ten president Jim Delany says it wouldn't be out of the question for the conference to adopt a Division III, nonscholarship model if college players gain financial control over their likeness and performance.
It feels like an outrageous suggestion -- mostly because it is -- but there's another way to look at it:
Is the other way to look at it that this has nothing to do with a parking ticket Johnny Manziel received in 2013?
If the lawsuit goes forward, and the players win, there might be no need for scholarships.
And of course athletes would never again get another parking ticket.
One thing is for sure: Judging by the clothes hanging in the A&M bookstore, Johnny Manziel wouldn't need one.
This article had nothing to do with the parking ticket that Johnny Manziel received. Why is Manziel so popular and why wouldn't he need a scholarship (which by the way, Manziel's parents seem to be pretty wealthy so I'm not sure he needs a scholarship to Texas A&M, which seems to cost about $4600 per semester for in-state tuition)? Possibly because Manziel has done an excellent job of taking his on-field persona and translated it to an off-the-field persona, which is why I don't feel bad for him when he wants me to take a walk in his shoes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)