I've been thinking a lot about the NBA what with all the blogging about the upcoming NBA Draft and now this Shaq trade. To touch on the latter first the trade will be great for the NBA what with all of the Shaq v Dwight Howard and Shaq v Kobe talk not to mention the Shaq v Stan Van Gundy and the Shaq v Phil talk.
But what really interests me is Free Agent Summer of 2010 - the one that everyone else is talking about. Everyone keeps jabbering about how teams need to approach the Free Agent Summer of 2010 - acquiring shitty players with expiring contracts to free up cap space for the bidding bonanza that will ensue to capture the likes of LeBron James. But how should PLAYERS approach the Free Agent Summer of 2010?
So the top free agents of 2010 - just to keep things simple we'll talk about the really big guys - LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, and Chris Bosh. Wade has a ring but hasn't tapped the potential bling he could be reaping, and everyone knows King James is ring-less. So considering the millions upon millions these kids have already made, don't you think they'd want a championship a little bit more than the 5-10 million more a year they are going to hold out for? What if these "Big Three" could agree to play for ten million a year each - for the same team? They would clearly make the difference back in the ridiculous endorsement deals they would yield together. Not to mention the shear ridiculousness of forcing teams to play against an All-Star team every night. With the rest of the 30 million or so the team could field some good supporting players - maybe even another star like, I'll just throw Yao Ming out there...the possibilities - financial and athletic would be amazing.
Just something to think about.
Showing posts with label Sports. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sports. Show all posts
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
The Greatest
No, this article is not about the Cat Power album "The Greatest", although I did listen to that yesterday (and was disappointed at how boring it seemed from when I liked it a year or so ago). Rather, this article is about two of the greatest people to be involved in the NBA. I'll talk about the obvious one first, Phil Jackson.
Jackson just won his tenth championship, passing Celtic legend Red Auerbach's nine. I grew up watching Jackson lead the Bulls to championships and his move to the Lakers made me partially a Lakers fan. To me, he was the most dominant coach of my generation, someone who had no equal - who else had won more championships (in this generation)? I read an article where Red Auerbach's repeated mantra was that Phil Jackson never had to "coach" talent, he just had to coach stars. Before delving into the debate over coaching/teaching vs managing stars I think its important to point out how flawed that statement is.
Yes Phil inherited Michael Jordan, the best player to play the game, but the players around them were almost entirely drafted by that franchise and coached by Phil Jackson. Jackson was an assistant for two years with the Bulls working and teaching players that would win rings for him. In 1987 the Bulls drafted Horace Grant and traded for the other rookie, Scottie Pippen. In 1988 the Bulls drafted Will Perdue and in 1989 the Bulls drafted BJ Armstrong. All of these players were the major factors in the first three championships. And the second three were on the backs of Pippen and Jordan along with Ron Harper and Tony Kukoc (two other players drafted by the Bulls). Rather than inheriting those first six championships, it seems like Phil had to scrape them out amid the Bad Boy Pistons, Larry Bird Lakers, Pat Ewing Knicks, Pat Riley Heat and other powerful Eastern Conference competitors not to mention beating Magic's Lakers, Clyde's Blazers, Barkley's Suns, the Payton/Kemp Sonics and the Malone/Stockton Jazz.
Yes Phil inherited Kobe Bryant, probably the best player to follow MJ, as well as Shaquille O'Neal in his prime when he was dominant, but he acquired a team that hadn't changed much in two years that hadn't had serious playoff success without Phil. The major change to their roster was Ron Harper who was probably influenced by the Lakers' decision to hire his former coach. Then he had to defeat Reggie's Pacers, AI's Sixers and Kidd's Nets. Sure at the end (for one season) Phil got Malone and Payton to join the fold but 1) he was probably one of the reasons they came and 2) they didn't even win that year so his "star power" shouldn't take away from his championship credentials. I'm too lazy to go into the players Phil developed with the Lakers (Odom and Bynum and the entire Lakers' bench).
Now. Let's be real. How many coaches could convince MJ to come back after the way he left (the shock over the death of his father)? How many coaches could control Kobe's ego for three seasons? How many coaches could reconcile their relationship with Kobe after calling him "uncoachable"? Just one, just Phil Jackson. That's all I'm going to say on why coaching stars is no easy feat.
When it comes down to it, look at the math - Phil Jackson has the most rings (with the two he has as a player, he has TWELVE total).
The second person I want to talk about is Michael Jordan. I'm afraid that in this shuffle of Kobe vs LeBron and the never ending SportsCenter love-fest of LeBron highlights that people are starting to lose sight of the greatest player to play the game. That even in this era players pale in comparison is remarkable. Let me throw some numbers at you. 6 NBA Championships, 6 NBA Finals MVP Awards (one for every time he played), 5 NBA MVP Awards, 14 NBA All-Star Nominations, 3 NBA All-Star MVP Awards, 2 NBA Slam-Dunk Championships, 10 NBA First Team Nominations, 9 NBA All-Defensive Team Nominations, and of course, Rookie of the Year (1985). Oh yeah and he has an NCAA Championship too.
How do you judge the best? So many talk about legacies being tied to championships - how Kobe needed Shaq and all that BS. Fine, lets look at the championships. If you look at all the championships and the MVP's as a telling factor for who dominated those series, no one else comes close. MJ has one for EVERY Time he played in the game. Shaq, Duncan and Magic have 3 MVP awards and 4 championships. Their math is close but not clear. Shaq was a body, Duncan an athlete and Magic a phenom but MJ was the greatest. He didn't have the physical advantages of Shaq and Duncan in terms of being imposing physical forces. Nor did he have the shear opportunities Magic had (7 finals appearances, 2 loses, 2 times losing the MVP award). I didn't want to get into this but Magic played with two of the players whose names are up there in discussions for the top ten players of all time. While Scottie Pippen was great and vastly underrated, he was no Kareem. MJ also was far and away the leading scorer in the playoffs of anyone.
The reason I wanted to write this article - beyond proving Phil's teaching prowess was what I believed to be the greatest sports tragedy of our generation. Personally I will forget the steroids blip but I will never forget the championships and the games we lost that MJ could have given us. Three issues to consider, 1) the "retirement" where he played baseball for two seasons, 2) the lockout/Krause force-out, and 3) the Wizard years.
The retirement robbed the Bulls - and MJ of two more championships. MJ was nearing his peak and any losses in free agency" would have been easily absorbed by MJ. Despite returning at half-speed, MJ almost led the Bulls over the Magic in 1995 but the Bulls were too rusty and didn't gell yet. The lockout forced MJ to make a decision he might not of made - retirement. Sure in his book he says that he considered it way back in 1992. But come on, if you're going to come back and play for a team like the Washington Wizards you don't want to retire - you clearly love the game too much. So lets talk about the Wizards. As an aside, what were you thinking MJ? You could have probably played for anyone and you picked a terrible team with little shot of contention for what, to "help" the team you had been GM of? Weak. But at the age of forty MJ was averaging 5 rebounds, 5 assists, 1+ steals, and 20+ points. AVERAGING - he still dropped 40 a game from time to time. This is a forty year old man! If he could do that in 2003, just think what he would have been if played from 1985-2003? Or even just until 2000?
Did I mention his Olympic gold medals?
Jackson just won his tenth championship, passing Celtic legend Red Auerbach's nine. I grew up watching Jackson lead the Bulls to championships and his move to the Lakers made me partially a Lakers fan. To me, he was the most dominant coach of my generation, someone who had no equal - who else had won more championships (in this generation)? I read an article where Red Auerbach's repeated mantra was that Phil Jackson never had to "coach" talent, he just had to coach stars. Before delving into the debate over coaching/teaching vs managing stars I think its important to point out how flawed that statement is.
Yes Phil inherited Michael Jordan, the best player to play the game, but the players around them were almost entirely drafted by that franchise and coached by Phil Jackson. Jackson was an assistant for two years with the Bulls working and teaching players that would win rings for him. In 1987 the Bulls drafted Horace Grant and traded for the other rookie, Scottie Pippen. In 1988 the Bulls drafted Will Perdue and in 1989 the Bulls drafted BJ Armstrong. All of these players were the major factors in the first three championships. And the second three were on the backs of Pippen and Jordan along with Ron Harper and Tony Kukoc (two other players drafted by the Bulls). Rather than inheriting those first six championships, it seems like Phil had to scrape them out amid the Bad Boy Pistons, Larry Bird Lakers, Pat Ewing Knicks, Pat Riley Heat and other powerful Eastern Conference competitors not to mention beating Magic's Lakers, Clyde's Blazers, Barkley's Suns, the Payton/Kemp Sonics and the Malone/Stockton Jazz.
Yes Phil inherited Kobe Bryant, probably the best player to follow MJ, as well as Shaquille O'Neal in his prime when he was dominant, but he acquired a team that hadn't changed much in two years that hadn't had serious playoff success without Phil. The major change to their roster was Ron Harper who was probably influenced by the Lakers' decision to hire his former coach. Then he had to defeat Reggie's Pacers, AI's Sixers and Kidd's Nets. Sure at the end (for one season) Phil got Malone and Payton to join the fold but 1) he was probably one of the reasons they came and 2) they didn't even win that year so his "star power" shouldn't take away from his championship credentials. I'm too lazy to go into the players Phil developed with the Lakers (Odom and Bynum and the entire Lakers' bench).
Now. Let's be real. How many coaches could convince MJ to come back after the way he left (the shock over the death of his father)? How many coaches could control Kobe's ego for three seasons? How many coaches could reconcile their relationship with Kobe after calling him "uncoachable"? Just one, just Phil Jackson. That's all I'm going to say on why coaching stars is no easy feat.
When it comes down to it, look at the math - Phil Jackson has the most rings (with the two he has as a player, he has TWELVE total).
The second person I want to talk about is Michael Jordan. I'm afraid that in this shuffle of Kobe vs LeBron and the never ending SportsCenter love-fest of LeBron highlights that people are starting to lose sight of the greatest player to play the game. That even in this era players pale in comparison is remarkable. Let me throw some numbers at you. 6 NBA Championships, 6 NBA Finals MVP Awards (one for every time he played), 5 NBA MVP Awards, 14 NBA All-Star Nominations, 3 NBA All-Star MVP Awards, 2 NBA Slam-Dunk Championships, 10 NBA First Team Nominations, 9 NBA All-Defensive Team Nominations, and of course, Rookie of the Year (1985). Oh yeah and he has an NCAA Championship too.
How do you judge the best? So many talk about legacies being tied to championships - how Kobe needed Shaq and all that BS. Fine, lets look at the championships. If you look at all the championships and the MVP's as a telling factor for who dominated those series, no one else comes close. MJ has one for EVERY Time he played in the game. Shaq, Duncan and Magic have 3 MVP awards and 4 championships. Their math is close but not clear. Shaq was a body, Duncan an athlete and Magic a phenom but MJ was the greatest. He didn't have the physical advantages of Shaq and Duncan in terms of being imposing physical forces. Nor did he have the shear opportunities Magic had (7 finals appearances, 2 loses, 2 times losing the MVP award). I didn't want to get into this but Magic played with two of the players whose names are up there in discussions for the top ten players of all time. While Scottie Pippen was great and vastly underrated, he was no Kareem. MJ also was far and away the leading scorer in the playoffs of anyone.
The reason I wanted to write this article - beyond proving Phil's teaching prowess was what I believed to be the greatest sports tragedy of our generation. Personally I will forget the steroids blip but I will never forget the championships and the games we lost that MJ could have given us. Three issues to consider, 1) the "retirement" where he played baseball for two seasons, 2) the lockout/Krause force-out, and 3) the Wizard years.
The retirement robbed the Bulls - and MJ of two more championships. MJ was nearing his peak and any losses in free agency" would have been easily absorbed by MJ. Despite returning at half-speed, MJ almost led the Bulls over the Magic in 1995 but the Bulls were too rusty and didn't gell yet. The lockout forced MJ to make a decision he might not of made - retirement. Sure in his book he says that he considered it way back in 1992. But come on, if you're going to come back and play for a team like the Washington Wizards you don't want to retire - you clearly love the game too much. So lets talk about the Wizards. As an aside, what were you thinking MJ? You could have probably played for anyone and you picked a terrible team with little shot of contention for what, to "help" the team you had been GM of? Weak. But at the age of forty MJ was averaging 5 rebounds, 5 assists, 1+ steals, and 20+ points. AVERAGING - he still dropped 40 a game from time to time. This is a forty year old man! If he could do that in 2003, just think what he would have been if played from 1985-2003? Or even just until 2000?
Did I mention his Olympic gold medals?
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Referees please!
I usually write off the refs as being pretty good or when they are bad as not being very bad - to the effect that I never thought refs would ALTER the course of a game/series. However, this year that opinion has changed drastically.
In the Bulls-Celtics series I was disgusted by all of what Rajon Rondo got away with. He went from an aggressive, physical player in the first game or two to being a violent player. Rondo split open Kirk Hinrich's eyebrow, knocked out some of Brad Miller's teeth and picked up where he left off with Hinrich by throwing him into the scorer's table. His foul on Miller came at a critical point of the game where Miller had to make free throws for the Bulls to stay in the game. Knocking Miller to the floor on a fast break that also knocked out his teeth did not even draw a flagrant foul (although replays showed Rondo hardly attempting to swat the ball). Furthermore Rondo's Hinrich/scorer's table incident further puzzled me. Replays showed Rondo blatantly dragging Hinrich backwards and then throwing him into the scorer's table - an incident that two years earlier resulted in a TWO GAME suspension for Robert Horry. Remember that this foul came after refs were supposedly going to watch Rondo with a closer eye after he bloodied two Bulls' starters. Why the different treatment? Why is the NBA inconsistent? Why are there different repercussions for different players? I'm not sure there is an answer. But Rondo should have a) fouled out of a game b) been suspended. So this series frustrated me by MISSING CALLS.
In the Lakers-Rockers series as well as the Lakers-Nuggets series the refs are nothing short of trigger happy - calling anything and everything a foul and being generous in heaping on technical fouls. Again, why the inconsistency? In particular it seems that in the Lakers-Nuggets series the refs have returned to being generous in what they allow as "defense" by the Nuggets (do not get me wrong, they play great defense but enough is enough) while being very harsh on the Lakers' stars when the Lakers try to play defense. It seems like if a Laker touches Chauncy Billups the ref is there to call a foul but if Kobe has a defender smacking him on the head and tripping him, he has to look up from the court as Denver moves the ball back down the court. And then Kobe asks a little to aggressively about the previous call and gets a technical. Hmmm. So this series frustrated me by MAKING CALLS.
In the Bulls-Celtics series I was disgusted by all of what Rajon Rondo got away with. He went from an aggressive, physical player in the first game or two to being a violent player. Rondo split open Kirk Hinrich's eyebrow, knocked out some of Brad Miller's teeth and picked up where he left off with Hinrich by throwing him into the scorer's table. His foul on Miller came at a critical point of the game where Miller had to make free throws for the Bulls to stay in the game. Knocking Miller to the floor on a fast break that also knocked out his teeth did not even draw a flagrant foul (although replays showed Rondo hardly attempting to swat the ball). Furthermore Rondo's Hinrich/scorer's table incident further puzzled me. Replays showed Rondo blatantly dragging Hinrich backwards and then throwing him into the scorer's table - an incident that two years earlier resulted in a TWO GAME suspension for Robert Horry. Remember that this foul came after refs were supposedly going to watch Rondo with a closer eye after he bloodied two Bulls' starters. Why the different treatment? Why is the NBA inconsistent? Why are there different repercussions for different players? I'm not sure there is an answer. But Rondo should have a) fouled out of a game b) been suspended. So this series frustrated me by MISSING CALLS.
In the Lakers-Rockers series as well as the Lakers-Nuggets series the refs are nothing short of trigger happy - calling anything and everything a foul and being generous in heaping on technical fouls. Again, why the inconsistency? In particular it seems that in the Lakers-Nuggets series the refs have returned to being generous in what they allow as "defense" by the Nuggets (do not get me wrong, they play great defense but enough is enough) while being very harsh on the Lakers' stars when the Lakers try to play defense. It seems like if a Laker touches Chauncy Billups the ref is there to call a foul but if Kobe has a defender smacking him on the head and tripping him, he has to look up from the court as Denver moves the ball back down the court. And then Kobe asks a little to aggressively about the previous call and gets a technical. Hmmm. So this series frustrated me by MAKING CALLS.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Down with Brown
The Cavs did one more thing to ruin the career of LeBron James. Extending the contract of Mike Brown is another nail in the coffin for LeBron. Did they think Mike Brown was LARRY Brown? WHAT is going on? He is clearly one of the worst coaches in the NFL. Any other coach could have (a) taught some talent, (b) retained some talent, (c) brought in some talent, or at least (d) gotten the best out of their players.
Instead possible talents like Varejao and Gibson haven't developed. Varejao has turned into a contract baby who can't do much more on the court than flop. Gibson, last year's playoff hero has been about average, instead of the dominant guard pressence LeBron needs.
Meanwhile the Cavaliers have had trouble holding onto their marginally good bench players and have basically had the same team for the last three seasons. Does no one else realize this? Why is this? Coaches like Jackson can bring in players, Brown can at least keep his stars on the roster.
Instead possible talents like Varejao and Gibson haven't developed. Varejao has turned into a contract baby who can't do much more on the court than flop. Gibson, last year's playoff hero has been about average, instead of the dominant guard pressence LeBron needs.
Meanwhile the Cavaliers have had trouble holding onto their marginally good bench players and have basically had the same team for the last three seasons. Does no one else realize this? Why is this? Coaches like Jackson can bring in players, Brown can at least keep his stars on the roster.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Just a feeling
So I was thinking about playoff structure in the NFL. And I just read some article that ranted about how the 1 seeds always get upset. Combined with a few other things, the idea that began to form in my mind was that the 1-4 matchup was almost always harder than the 2-3 matchup. Not because of that stupid expectation of upsets, but more about the structural factors.
Like it used to be in the NBA, divisional champs get the top seeds. BUT, because of the NFL playoff structure where the top two seeds have round one byes while the two wild card teams square off against the two lowest divisional seeds. Since no division is ever truly equal - say...the AFC south, there are usually a good chance that the wildcard team gets to slay a weaker divisional champ in the first round.
Now when you get to the second round, the top seed usually has to square off against one of these wild card challengers. Now, I understand that the chances of the three seed getting upset (like the Steelers did this year, and when they did the upsetting when they one their last championship). But this year is a strong example that proves that the opposite is more likely the case.
This year, as a reward for being the best team in their conference New England got to square off against the surging Jaguars and Dallas has to face what many people have chosen as a Super Bowl darkhorse, the Giants. Dallas may have edged the giants for the division, but having to face such a tough team seems a little harsh. When you consider that Green Bay got to embarass a lackluster Seahawks team and the Colts get to play a fatally wounded Chargers team (the loss of Antonio Gates), being number two is pretty good.
Like it used to be in the NBA, divisional champs get the top seeds. BUT, because of the NFL playoff structure where the top two seeds have round one byes while the two wild card teams square off against the two lowest divisional seeds. Since no division is ever truly equal - say...the AFC south, there are usually a good chance that the wildcard team gets to slay a weaker divisional champ in the first round.
Now when you get to the second round, the top seed usually has to square off against one of these wild card challengers. Now, I understand that the chances of the three seed getting upset (like the Steelers did this year, and when they did the upsetting when they one their last championship). But this year is a strong example that proves that the opposite is more likely the case.
This year, as a reward for being the best team in their conference New England got to square off against the surging Jaguars and Dallas has to face what many people have chosen as a Super Bowl darkhorse, the Giants. Dallas may have edged the giants for the division, but having to face such a tough team seems a little harsh. When you consider that Green Bay got to embarass a lackluster Seahawks team and the Colts get to play a fatally wounded Chargers team (the loss of Antonio Gates), being number two is pretty good.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Pacman enters the ring
Adam "Pacman" Jones, former Titans cornerback, who has been suspended for numerous clashes with the law, IS going to enter the pro wrestling game. If that wasn't embarassing enough, this quote, from Total Nonstop Action Wrestling co-Founder Jeff Jarrett was in the paper today: "He [Pacman] wants to prove he's the best team sport athlete...He wants to concentrate on the tag-team aspect of wrestling."
So Pacman is "justifying" his decision to become a pro wrestler because he wants to be a team athlete? That's pretty pathetic. Maybe a good team athelte wouldn't have gotten in trouble with the police so much so he could help his original team, the Titans improve. Instead Pacman is going to make himself even more of a mockery (it is remotely possible that pro wrestling will make him more of a joke than he has already made himself).
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Briggs - seeing the light
The news finally broke that the Bears and Lance Briggs have agreed to a deal, meaning Briggs will play this season.
Honestly, I'm pretty surprised. With Drew Rosenhaus, the team-breaker, behind the plate, I expected Briggs to throw away a season or two being a whiny little baby. He rejected a contract that would have made him one of the highest paid left outside linebackers, but that didnt cut it for Lance and Drew. No, they wanted more. He wanted to test the waters. What for? Lots of money AND getting to play on a Super Bowl Caliber team isnt even enough anymore?
One of my friends thinks Briggs' stats are inflated because he gets to play next to one of the best defensive players in the game in BBrian Urlacher. Next to Urlacher, Briggs' tackles have steadily increased because the ball carrier doesn't want to run into the Urlacher wall. So they run by Briggs and he hits them. Its kinda like Briggs is in the perfect place. Sure, he could be star somewhere else, but his numbers would probably decline and he probably wouldnt get to play for a contender.
I guess I am a little relieved, because now we don't have a gaping whole at left outside linebacker, and we get some value out of Briggs for another year before he leaves. I do wonder if relations can be repaired to the extent where he would resign with the Bears. Would that be a good thing?
Honestly, I'm pretty surprised. With Drew Rosenhaus, the team-breaker, behind the plate, I expected Briggs to throw away a season or two being a whiny little baby. He rejected a contract that would have made him one of the highest paid left outside linebackers, but that didnt cut it for Lance and Drew. No, they wanted more. He wanted to test the waters. What for? Lots of money AND getting to play on a Super Bowl Caliber team isnt even enough anymore?
One of my friends thinks Briggs' stats are inflated because he gets to play next to one of the best defensive players in the game in BBrian Urlacher. Next to Urlacher, Briggs' tackles have steadily increased because the ball carrier doesn't want to run into the Urlacher wall. So they run by Briggs and he hits them. Its kinda like Briggs is in the perfect place. Sure, he could be star somewhere else, but his numbers would probably decline and he probably wouldnt get to play for a contender.
I guess I am a little relieved, because now we don't have a gaping whole at left outside linebacker, and we get some value out of Briggs for another year before he leaves. I do wonder if relations can be repaired to the extent where he would resign with the Bears. Would that be a good thing?
Friday, July 20, 2007
Go Cubs
When the Cubs, a favorite to win the NL Central before the season, began to falter, I gave up on them pretty quickly. Hell, I thought with the signing of Alfonso Soriano, the influx of new pitchers, and the generally expensive offseason they would be good. But as usual, they were sucking and I quickly forgot about them and instead turned most of my attention to fantasy baseball. My thoughts of the Cubs, and the National League generally, began to fall away as my main fantasy baseball league was an AL-only league.
But as the All-Star break approached I was forced to notice the Cubs as they finally started getting those late game, one-run wins. And they were winning generally too - and catching up on the lagging Brewers. Well past .500, closing in on the division lead, and riding a ridiculous win streak, I knew I had to weigh in on this. Plus, the Cubs have done some deals of late.
First the transactions. The big one - the Cubs got Oakland's Jason Kendall for LHP Jerry Blevins and C Rob Bowen. It's a pretty good deal that gives the Cubs a good offensive catcher since we shipped Barrett west. And Kendall is a veteran pressence in a dugout that is getting increasingly younger. At the same time Kendall is getting pretty old and it seems like Koyie Hill is pretty good too (he had a 5-rb game this past week). The other move was the Cubs ditching Cesar Itzuris (sent to Pittsburg) - a guy who the Cubs got that was supposed to be an amazing fielder, fast on the base paths and who's hitting would improve. Instead he was pretty useless and left me begging for the likes of Ronny Cedeno and Neifi Perez. In fact, I'm actually thinking I'm starting to like the two Louisiana boys the Cub's have. Theriot to Fontenot - there's a double play combination that rhymes.
Now if the Cubs keep playing the way they are, I think they could easily contend for the NL Central crown. But that's really their only chance - I think it would be a stretch to say the Cubs could win the wildcard with all the competition out west.
Also, there's been all this talk on ESPN (a week or so ago) about how A-Rod might opt out of his contract. Among some of his destinations that were considered, were the Cubs. The Cubs might even have an advantage, because they would let A-Rod play short stop. Before we talk about how realistic this is, lets talk about how amazing this would be. The hitting of Soriano, Rodriguez, Lee, Ramirez...that's amazing. The Cubs would go from the butt of jokes to the NL's version of the Yankees. Throw in a solid leadoff hitter (Theriot, Fontenot, whoever) and you have a pretty formidable lineup. Now the reality - most people don't think the Cubs could pay A-Rod and Soriano. They might be right, but I'm more worried that an A-Rod contract would come at the cost of a Carlos Zambrano contract. Big Z is a pretty good reason the Cubs starting rotation is so solid, and losing him would be a big blow. Most commentators have already counted the Cubs out because there won't be enough ownership stability (because the Tribune is selling the Cubs) for a deal to happen. Lets hope something happens.
Well Cubs fans, cross your fingers.
But as the All-Star break approached I was forced to notice the Cubs as they finally started getting those late game, one-run wins. And they were winning generally too - and catching up on the lagging Brewers. Well past .500, closing in on the division lead, and riding a ridiculous win streak, I knew I had to weigh in on this. Plus, the Cubs have done some deals of late.
First the transactions. The big one - the Cubs got Oakland's Jason Kendall for LHP Jerry Blevins and C Rob Bowen. It's a pretty good deal that gives the Cubs a good offensive catcher since we shipped Barrett west. And Kendall is a veteran pressence in a dugout that is getting increasingly younger. At the same time Kendall is getting pretty old and it seems like Koyie Hill is pretty good too (he had a 5-rb game this past week). The other move was the Cubs ditching Cesar Itzuris (sent to Pittsburg) - a guy who the Cubs got that was supposed to be an amazing fielder, fast on the base paths and who's hitting would improve. Instead he was pretty useless and left me begging for the likes of Ronny Cedeno and Neifi Perez. In fact, I'm actually thinking I'm starting to like the two Louisiana boys the Cub's have. Theriot to Fontenot - there's a double play combination that rhymes.
Now if the Cubs keep playing the way they are, I think they could easily contend for the NL Central crown. But that's really their only chance - I think it would be a stretch to say the Cubs could win the wildcard with all the competition out west.
Also, there's been all this talk on ESPN (a week or so ago) about how A-Rod might opt out of his contract. Among some of his destinations that were considered, were the Cubs. The Cubs might even have an advantage, because they would let A-Rod play short stop. Before we talk about how realistic this is, lets talk about how amazing this would be. The hitting of Soriano, Rodriguez, Lee, Ramirez...that's amazing. The Cubs would go from the butt of jokes to the NL's version of the Yankees. Throw in a solid leadoff hitter (Theriot, Fontenot, whoever) and you have a pretty formidable lineup. Now the reality - most people don't think the Cubs could pay A-Rod and Soriano. They might be right, but I'm more worried that an A-Rod contract would come at the cost of a Carlos Zambrano contract. Big Z is a pretty good reason the Cubs starting rotation is so solid, and losing him would be a big blow. Most commentators have already counted the Cubs out because there won't be enough ownership stability (because the Tribune is selling the Cubs) for a deal to happen. Lets hope something happens.
Well Cubs fans, cross your fingers.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Slammin Sammy
Sammy Sosa was always my favorite Cub when I was a kid, mostly because he was the only good player. Sure there was Mark Grace, but he was pretty flat. Sammy had some flair - he had some personality (a personality that rubbed a lot of Cubs the wrong way). When he was young, he was pretty fast, one of the few young Cubs back then, and he hussled on defense. Sure, everyone made fun of the fact that he always sprinted to the outfield from the dugout, but that showed heart and energy.
But Sammy was run out of town after he seemed to be abandoning his teamwork and hardwork principles for selfishness and loud boomboxes. He was shipped to Baltimore for little more than prospects - players who never really payed off for the Cubs. In Baltimore Sammy quickly lost the fans there too, looking sluggish and hitting poorly. He was kind of run out of Baltimore too.
When Sammy said he wanted to come back and play in the majors, I was a little dubious. The Cubs DID offer Sosa an unguaranteed minor league contract. Sosa turned it down and went to camp with the Rangers, the team he started with in the majors. Back then, the team was owned by GW. Now, Sammy has had a resurgence with the Rangers, proving to be just what they needed (after they lost all of their outfielders), playing with another former Cub, Kenny Lofton.
Now, Sammy is swinging for 600 home runs. With the whole Giambi business and a lot that other crap, I'm suprised there aren't more people whinning about if Sammy deserves it, deserves to be in that elite group because they assume Sammy used steroids. Sure, he had a year when he bulked up, but he was pretty consistent - lots of strike outs, lots of home runs. He IS the only player to ever hit over sixty home runs three seasons in a row. And now, he belongs in the 600 club.
But Sammy was run out of town after he seemed to be abandoning his teamwork and hardwork principles for selfishness and loud boomboxes. He was shipped to Baltimore for little more than prospects - players who never really payed off for the Cubs. In Baltimore Sammy quickly lost the fans there too, looking sluggish and hitting poorly. He was kind of run out of Baltimore too.
When Sammy said he wanted to come back and play in the majors, I was a little dubious. The Cubs DID offer Sosa an unguaranteed minor league contract. Sosa turned it down and went to camp with the Rangers, the team he started with in the majors. Back then, the team was owned by GW. Now, Sammy has had a resurgence with the Rangers, proving to be just what they needed (after they lost all of their outfielders), playing with another former Cub, Kenny Lofton.
Now, Sammy is swinging for 600 home runs. With the whole Giambi business and a lot that other crap, I'm suprised there aren't more people whinning about if Sammy deserves it, deserves to be in that elite group because they assume Sammy used steroids. Sure, he had a year when he bulked up, but he was pretty consistent - lots of strike outs, lots of home runs. He IS the only player to ever hit over sixty home runs three seasons in a row. And now, he belongs in the 600 club.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Arrington crashes
A story today details how "former" star LaVar Arrington was in a serious motorcycle crash. This starts so many different questions running through my mind.
Such as, why was he on a motorcycle? At 29 was he honestly going to retire? Is the guy an injury magnet? Is he just the unluckiest guy in the world?
Seriously though, after the amount of high profile athletes from Jay Williams (anyone remember him?) and Ben Roethlisburger most recently. Most players have contracts now that prevent motorcycle use because they are so dangerous and the injuries can be so terrible. Had he just decided he didn't want to sign with another team after the Giants let him go?
And at 29, he is still pretty young, and he was supposed to be great. And he plays a position that many teams are looking for skill at - outside linebacker.
But the guy is an injury magnet. He comes back from injury, only to get injured again.
Basically, I don't know where else to go with this, except to say that this guy somehow wasted his talent. But at the same time, he's not wasting his talent like Pacman Jones or all those Bengals that had jail ruin their careers.
Such as, why was he on a motorcycle? At 29 was he honestly going to retire? Is the guy an injury magnet? Is he just the unluckiest guy in the world?
Seriously though, after the amount of high profile athletes from Jay Williams (anyone remember him?) and Ben Roethlisburger most recently. Most players have contracts now that prevent motorcycle use because they are so dangerous and the injuries can be so terrible. Had he just decided he didn't want to sign with another team after the Giants let him go?
And at 29, he is still pretty young, and he was supposed to be great. And he plays a position that many teams are looking for skill at - outside linebacker.
But the guy is an injury magnet. He comes back from injury, only to get injured again.
Basically, I don't know where else to go with this, except to say that this guy somehow wasted his talent. But at the same time, he's not wasting his talent like Pacman Jones or all those Bengals that had jail ruin their careers.
Kobe Kobe Kobe
A story today points out how Kobe has been blogging that he wants to be traded. What's with this constant back and forth? I've already talked about how I think this could ruin his legacy, so instead I'm going to talk about my dream trade. Yes, Kobe to the Bulls. In my defense, this was mentioned as a moderately high possibility in a few previous articles.
So. Kobe goes to the Bulls and the Bulls send the Lakers Ben Gordon, Chris Duhon, Victor Khryapa, and their first round pick. Lets talk about the plausibility first. Frankly, it doesn't seem like the Lakers have a lot of options. Kobe can opt out after this year, so at most they get one year of unhappy Kobe and media debacle. When they dished Shaq they dished him because he was aging and they wanted value before he completely deteriorated. Kobe is similar in that the Lakers need to grab value where they can here. Getting a potential mega star like Ben Gordon and they also get two pretty complete guards as well as some potential in Victor and a decent seventh overall pick in a pretty good draft. That would let the lakers continue to reload and they could pair Gordon and Duhon who already know each other, and then they put the guards with a pretty strong big (literally) three of Lamar Odom, Andrew Bynum, and Luke Walton that can continue to grow together. The Bulls on the other hand get an allstar, a scorer in the vein of Jordan to take their franchise to the next level in the anything goes, star driven east. They would be able to keep two of their big three - Luol Deng and Kirk Hinrich and get value out of the other one of the three. They keep the budding star in Deng and keep the stronger defender of their guards and they still keep their sixth and seventh men in Tyrus Thomas and Thabo Sefelosha and keep a starting lineup of Ben Wallace, Andres Noicioni, Luol Deng, Kirk Hinrich, and Kobe Bryant. Seems like it could be good for both of them.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Bonds - closing in
Barry Bonds is closing in on Hank Aaron's alltime home run record. It kind of bothers me because Aaron was always one of my favorite players growing up. First off I liked his name, and second off, my parents used to see him play at Brewer Stadium when they were the Milwaukee Braves. Aaron's record stood as a milestone not just for his accomplishment alone, or the consistency, but also as a racial mark - where an African American took ahold of the record.
Now the debate over whether or not Bonds deserves the record or if he used steroids or all that jazz has been debated and debated. But its going to be debated again here. First and foremost I am completely annoyed that he thinks this is about race. The comissioner and the Babe's widow didn't go to Maris' games, why is it so suprising that Aaron won't be waiting for Bonds to hit one out that shaters Aaron's milestone? And it isn't about race because Bonds is the same race as the guy who holds the record. The issue is about steroids. You used them Barry. How you have managed to stay ahead of the checks and balances so long is beyond me - whether its a restatement of an earlier admission or the timely termination of a trainer linked to steroids distribution. Hell, just look at the guy from his days in Pittsburg when he was lean and fast. Now he's huge and slow. Aaron was a man who stuck it out, played hard, played everyday for a long time, and consistently piled up the home runs. Bonds just doesn't seem like he's put in the time or effort to earn one of baseball's most fabled records. He plays a few games a week at most and seems to think he doesn't really have to field. If Bonds didnt have a looming record, he would probably be benched by any other team, because his fielding is that terrible.
In the end, everything has already been said on this issue, but I wanted to touch on it as the day creeps closer and closer when Bonds name has to go down above Aaron's. What do you think about it?
Now the debate over whether or not Bonds deserves the record or if he used steroids or all that jazz has been debated and debated. But its going to be debated again here. First and foremost I am completely annoyed that he thinks this is about race. The comissioner and the Babe's widow didn't go to Maris' games, why is it so suprising that Aaron won't be waiting for Bonds to hit one out that shaters Aaron's milestone? And it isn't about race because Bonds is the same race as the guy who holds the record. The issue is about steroids. You used them Barry. How you have managed to stay ahead of the checks and balances so long is beyond me - whether its a restatement of an earlier admission or the timely termination of a trainer linked to steroids distribution. Hell, just look at the guy from his days in Pittsburg when he was lean and fast. Now he's huge and slow. Aaron was a man who stuck it out, played hard, played everyday for a long time, and consistently piled up the home runs. Bonds just doesn't seem like he's put in the time or effort to earn one of baseball's most fabled records. He plays a few games a week at most and seems to think he doesn't really have to field. If Bonds didnt have a looming record, he would probably be benched by any other team, because his fielding is that terrible.
In the end, everything has already been said on this issue, but I wanted to touch on it as the day creeps closer and closer when Bonds name has to go down above Aaron's. What do you think about it?
Friday, June 15, 2007
Are the Spurs a Dynasty?
Since the Spurs victory has seemed inevitable for a long time, and LeBron hasn't given the sportscasters much to talk about, the only real debate about this year's championship was whether or not the Spurs are a dynasty. Here are some compelling reasons for both sides.
~ Three reasons why the Spurs ARE a dynasty ~
1) The Spurs have won four championships in nine years, more than the Kobe-Shaq Lakers, and any team since the Bulls and before the Bulls, passing the Bad Boy Pistons and the Larry Bird Celtics. And the team that is usually considered an unquestionable dynasty, the Bulls, won six championships in eight years, dominating the eighties. The Spurs have won four in nine years, being a consistant force since 99', through the two thousand's.
2) The Spurs have been able to win while still passing the torch - David Robinson handed his team over to Tim Duncan and the transition hasnt sparked a massive rebuilding effort or the premature, management-enduced exodus some championship teams have had to deal with (like the Bulls). Additionally, Michael Jordan helped thirty people, over six championships get rings, while Duncan has already helped thirty-five people, over four championships get rings.
3) The Spurs have been able to get to the finals and win despite a tough, difficult level of competition in the vicious western conference. They have had to defeat championship caliber teams like the Suns and Mavericks year in and year out before even playing for a ring.
~ Three reasons why the Spurs ARE NOT a dynasty ~
1) The Spurs have not been able to win consecutive championships, and certainly not three in a row like their immediate dynasty predecessors the Chicago Bulls. This inability to put back-to-back wins together has undercut the argument that the Spurs are a consistent contender as the front runners year in and year out are the Suns and the Mavericks, not the Spurs.
2) The Spurs have not had star-laden teams that usually put the finishing touches on a "dynasty" label. While this is not really a criteria for being a dynasty, it helps explain why people have not labeled them a dynasty - because they don't have that flair. Sure, Duncan is a great 20/10 guy but he's not Kobe, and he's certainly no MJ.
3) The Spurs have not been dominant in their conference. The mold for a dynasty was carefully built by the Chicago Bulls, a team that rose from the east amidst competitive Cleveland and Detroit teams that were in their division, as well as strong Knicks teams, Heat teams and a few others that made the east the cream of the crop. The Bulls were still dominant in the more difficult conference - winning 72 games one year, the most ever. The Spurs on the other hand had only the third best reccord in the east, once again behind the Suns and the Mavericks.
You decide...
~ Three reasons why the Spurs ARE a dynasty ~
1) The Spurs have won four championships in nine years, more than the Kobe-Shaq Lakers, and any team since the Bulls and before the Bulls, passing the Bad Boy Pistons and the Larry Bird Celtics. And the team that is usually considered an unquestionable dynasty, the Bulls, won six championships in eight years, dominating the eighties. The Spurs have won four in nine years, being a consistant force since 99', through the two thousand's.
2) The Spurs have been able to win while still passing the torch - David Robinson handed his team over to Tim Duncan and the transition hasnt sparked a massive rebuilding effort or the premature, management-enduced exodus some championship teams have had to deal with (like the Bulls). Additionally, Michael Jordan helped thirty people, over six championships get rings, while Duncan has already helped thirty-five people, over four championships get rings.
3) The Spurs have been able to get to the finals and win despite a tough, difficult level of competition in the vicious western conference. They have had to defeat championship caliber teams like the Suns and Mavericks year in and year out before even playing for a ring.
~ Three reasons why the Spurs ARE NOT a dynasty ~
1) The Spurs have not been able to win consecutive championships, and certainly not three in a row like their immediate dynasty predecessors the Chicago Bulls. This inability to put back-to-back wins together has undercut the argument that the Spurs are a consistent contender as the front runners year in and year out are the Suns and the Mavericks, not the Spurs.
2) The Spurs have not had star-laden teams that usually put the finishing touches on a "dynasty" label. While this is not really a criteria for being a dynasty, it helps explain why people have not labeled them a dynasty - because they don't have that flair. Sure, Duncan is a great 20/10 guy but he's not Kobe, and he's certainly no MJ.
3) The Spurs have not been dominant in their conference. The mold for a dynasty was carefully built by the Chicago Bulls, a team that rose from the east amidst competitive Cleveland and Detroit teams that were in their division, as well as strong Knicks teams, Heat teams and a few others that made the east the cream of the crop. The Bulls were still dominant in the more difficult conference - winning 72 games one year, the most ever. The Spurs on the other hand had only the third best reccord in the east, once again behind the Suns and the Mavericks.
You decide...
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Jessica Alba on Sportscenter?
I got a nice suprise this morning when I turned on Sportscenter while I got my bearings and woke up. There on the running Sportscenter headlines was Jessica Alba! Instead of rushing to get up and get to work, I lazily waited for Alba's turn to come on the moving headlines. They even managed to advertise Alba's upcoming turn on the Hot Seat a few times before add breaks.
Finally she was on and they asked her some pretty powerful, journalism type questions. Like, who is the bigger basketball fan, you or Eva Longoria? Alba thought about it for awhile and said Eva was just marrying into it, while Alba was really diehard. Then again, Eva does more for her team - her Spurs are on the brink of their fourth title while Alba's Warriors watch at home. The other question was about Nascar *yawns* and it was kind of lame.
Honestly though, besides the fact that Alba is extremely hot and that her name on the headlines list was able to keep me watching the show, sitting through ESPN's ads, why was she on the show? Does ABC (ESPN's parent company) own Marvel or the studio that is releasing Fantastic 4 Rise of the Silver Surfer? It seemed like if they were going to have a hot woman on the hot seat they could have at least gotten Michelle Wie to answer some tough questions for them. Especially after PTI called Wie a bigger baby than Paris Hilton. At least give her the chance to hit back!
Finally she was on and they asked her some pretty powerful, journalism type questions. Like, who is the bigger basketball fan, you or Eva Longoria? Alba thought about it for awhile and said Eva was just marrying into it, while Alba was really diehard. Then again, Eva does more for her team - her Spurs are on the brink of their fourth title while Alba's Warriors watch at home. The other question was about Nascar *yawns* and it was kind of lame.
Honestly though, besides the fact that Alba is extremely hot and that her name on the headlines list was able to keep me watching the show, sitting through ESPN's ads, why was she on the show? Does ABC (ESPN's parent company) own Marvel or the studio that is releasing Fantastic 4 Rise of the Silver Surfer? It seemed like if they were going to have a hot woman on the hot seat they could have at least gotten Michelle Wie to answer some tough questions for them. Especially after PTI called Wie a bigger baby than Paris Hilton. At least give her the chance to hit back!
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Happy Anniversary Jerry Krause
Today, or yesterday rather, was the anniversary of the Bulls's 1991 NBA championship, a championship largely due to Jerry Krause's ability to gamble on an unaccomplished coach, Phil Jackson, and his eye for talent that helped Krause assemble a team behind Michael Jordan.
Krause joined the Bulls in 1985 shortly after the Bulls settled for drafting Michael Jordan. Krause's best move came early when in the 1987 draft he selected Central Arkansas' Scottie Pippen and Clemson's Horace Grant, two fowards who would win three championships for the Bulls. I like this in particular because Pippen and Grant could perhaps be two of the most underrated players ever as Pippen, a truly great foward, was constantly overshadowed by Jordan. Grant on the other hand is barily remembered despite his hard play in three championships. In 1988 Krause took a risk by trading Charles Oakley, Jordan's best friend on the team, for Bill Cartwright, a slightly older, less defensively skilled center. The move panned out and Cartright shut down Patrick Ewing to help the Bulls win three championships.
In 1993 the first post Jordanera began and Krause continued to find good talent, acquiring Toni Kukoc and Ron Harper. Kukoc was great a fan favorite that is possibly the best six man ever, and he won that award many times. Kukoc was so important because he forced GM's from all the teams to look at European talent, paving the way for the likes of Dirk Nowitzki. While Harper could not replace Jordan as a prolific scoring shooting guard, he did win three championships for the Bulls as a point guard. Those championships happened in 1995 when Jordan returned. Krause helped put together what some called the best team ever when he acquired Dennis Rodman. After the team won 72 games, Krause won his second Executive of the Year award, and rightfully so as Rodman was a hardnosed defensive player who's ridiculous rebounding skills made the Bulls a dominant force for three years. Rodman's hairstyles and public life also proved interesting (although not the kind you see now with jail and all, just Carmen Electra type stuff).
In 1998 Jordan and Phil were essentially forced out as Krause's ego proved too much and Krause dumped the championship veterans to draft Elton Brand, Ron Artest, Marcus Fizer, Jamal Crawford, Jay Williams. Krause follows this up with a huge gamble in the 2001 draft, trading Brand for high schoolers Tyson Chandler ("the next Garnett") and Eddie Curry ("the new Shaq"). Frankly, especially the first five, were really solid. Elton Brand is extremely good and so is Ron Artest (minus his mental problems). Eddie Curry has turned into a scoring machine that is unfortunately too similar to Shaq (cant make free throws, is too slow, and plays little defense) while Tyson Chandler had a break out year (after the Bulls finally gave up on him. The only thing I really don't like that Krause did was trade Brand who is one of the great fowards and thinking about how good the Bulls would be now, with Brand, sends shivers down my spine.
In 2003 Krause retired and would eventually be replaced by former player John Paxson. All in all, he should get some credit where credit is due - he was a big part of why the Bulls were really good.
Krause joined the Bulls in 1985 shortly after the Bulls settled for drafting Michael Jordan. Krause's best move came early when in the 1987 draft he selected Central Arkansas' Scottie Pippen and Clemson's Horace Grant, two fowards who would win three championships for the Bulls. I like this in particular because Pippen and Grant could perhaps be two of the most underrated players ever as Pippen, a truly great foward, was constantly overshadowed by Jordan. Grant on the other hand is barily remembered despite his hard play in three championships. In 1988 Krause took a risk by trading Charles Oakley, Jordan's best friend on the team, for Bill Cartwright, a slightly older, less defensively skilled center. The move panned out and Cartright shut down Patrick Ewing to help the Bulls win three championships.
In 1993 the first post Jordanera began and Krause continued to find good talent, acquiring Toni Kukoc and Ron Harper. Kukoc was great a fan favorite that is possibly the best six man ever, and he won that award many times. Kukoc was so important because he forced GM's from all the teams to look at European talent, paving the way for the likes of Dirk Nowitzki. While Harper could not replace Jordan as a prolific scoring shooting guard, he did win three championships for the Bulls as a point guard. Those championships happened in 1995 when Jordan returned. Krause helped put together what some called the best team ever when he acquired Dennis Rodman. After the team won 72 games, Krause won his second Executive of the Year award, and rightfully so as Rodman was a hardnosed defensive player who's ridiculous rebounding skills made the Bulls a dominant force for three years. Rodman's hairstyles and public life also proved interesting (although not the kind you see now with jail and all, just Carmen Electra type stuff).
In 1998 Jordan and Phil were essentially forced out as Krause's ego proved too much and Krause dumped the championship veterans to draft Elton Brand, Ron Artest, Marcus Fizer, Jamal Crawford, Jay Williams. Krause follows this up with a huge gamble in the 2001 draft, trading Brand for high schoolers Tyson Chandler ("the next Garnett") and Eddie Curry ("the new Shaq"). Frankly, especially the first five, were really solid. Elton Brand is extremely good and so is Ron Artest (minus his mental problems). Eddie Curry has turned into a scoring machine that is unfortunately too similar to Shaq (cant make free throws, is too slow, and plays little defense) while Tyson Chandler had a break out year (after the Bulls finally gave up on him. The only thing I really don't like that Krause did was trade Brand who is one of the great fowards and thinking about how good the Bulls would be now, with Brand, sends shivers down my spine.
In 2003 Krause retired and would eventually be replaced by former player John Paxson. All in all, he should get some credit where credit is due - he was a big part of why the Bulls were really good.
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Cleveland v Chicago
I know I'm biased, because I'm from Chicago, but who are we kidding, Cleveland sucks. Their sports teams make every other city's look like All-Star teams. They have been so inept in nearly a whole half century that they have won one championship since 1964. Since then, the Chicago Bulls have six championships, the Chicago Bears have one championship, the Chicago White Sox have one championship, the Chicago Wolves have three championships, the Chicago Fire have five championships, and the Chicago Rush have one championships. That covers Basketball, Football, Baseball, Hockey, Soccer, and Arena Football. That pretty much covers the spectrum.
Sure, Chicago sports teams have their curses and have their own droughts to deal with (the Cubs), but at the same time, at least the other teams have provided fans a crutch to hold onto. Cleveland, on the other hand, has no crutch to lean on. Hopefully the Cavs can end that drought, although I strongly doubt it.
Homer brings it on home
I was at Great America Ballpark the other day to see Homer Bailey's first major league start. And as you can probably determine from the article title, he won his first start.
He wasnt amazing, but he was pretty damn good. He made a lot of mistakes, but he also made a bunch of good plays. He threw around 120 pitches in just five innings, mostly because he didn't have a lot of control on the first two pitches and he was behind on most counts. The first inning was a little rocky after he gave up a single to Travis Hafner and then a rbi double to Victor Martinez due to the lethargy of Adam Dunn. But Brandon Phillips hit a solo homer in the bottom of the inning and Homer was back on steady ground.
There were two real bright spots in his starts beyond the little things like how Homer remained pretty calm and collected throughout his start, showing suprising composure and maturity. The first spot was Homer's domination of Grady Sizemore, who Homer struck out twice. The second bright spot was right after Homer seemed to be slipping, allowing a single and then back to back walks to load the bases with two outs. Dellucci stepped up to the plate, and with his pitch count already very high, Homer burned Dellucci with a few fastballs to get out of the crunch he had created, and become eligible for a win.
After Stanton pitched two suprisingly strong inning and the rest of the bullpen managed to scrape together a few outs, Weathers earned the save and Homer got his first win.
What does this mean though? I think it means the Reds have another piece to begin their crawl up through the central. While I would be shocked if Homer's call up would spark the reds to a playoff berth this season, I think Homer can alleviate some of the stress on the Reds weak (at best) final two rotation spots. Being only 21, Homer has a bright future, and so to do the Reds.
He wasnt amazing, but he was pretty damn good. He made a lot of mistakes, but he also made a bunch of good plays. He threw around 120 pitches in just five innings, mostly because he didn't have a lot of control on the first two pitches and he was behind on most counts. The first inning was a little rocky after he gave up a single to Travis Hafner and then a rbi double to Victor Martinez due to the lethargy of Adam Dunn. But Brandon Phillips hit a solo homer in the bottom of the inning and Homer was back on steady ground.
There were two real bright spots in his starts beyond the little things like how Homer remained pretty calm and collected throughout his start, showing suprising composure and maturity. The first spot was Homer's domination of Grady Sizemore, who Homer struck out twice. The second bright spot was right after Homer seemed to be slipping, allowing a single and then back to back walks to load the bases with two outs. Dellucci stepped up to the plate, and with his pitch count already very high, Homer burned Dellucci with a few fastballs to get out of the crunch he had created, and become eligible for a win.
After Stanton pitched two suprisingly strong inning and the rest of the bullpen managed to scrape together a few outs, Weathers earned the save and Homer got his first win.
What does this mean though? I think it means the Reds have another piece to begin their crawl up through the central. While I would be shocked if Homer's call up would spark the reds to a playoff berth this season, I think Homer can alleviate some of the stress on the Reds weak (at best) final two rotation spots. Being only 21, Homer has a bright future, and so to do the Reds.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Tony Parker - luckiest guy in the world?
I'm not really sure which way I come down on this one. But if you stop and think about it for awhile, Tony Parker is a pretty lucky dude. He plays on the Spurs, one of the NBA's most dominant teams, and he's about to marry Eva Longoria.
Seems like that's a pretty good deal. Especially because all of the tabloid coverage about their relationship is that she worships him. She's always running after him after one of their fights, trying to smooth things over and begging for him back. And she goes to all of his games...Basically he has the best deal ever.
Seems like that's a pretty good deal. Especially because all of the tabloid coverage about their relationship is that she worships him. She's always running after him after one of their fights, trying to smooth things over and begging for him back. And she goes to all of his games...Basically he has the best deal ever.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Trent Green - greener pastures?
Trent Green was finally shipped off to Miami for a fifth round pick (possibly a fourth round pick). It doesnt seem very exciting on both ends of the trade.
Sure, on the Miami end they finally get a quarterback, and they have new ammunition against the critics who (rightfully) say the Dolphins should have drafted Brady Quinn. But really, they get a QB who had a mediocre last year AND a serious injury. Green is a QB who became expendable when a journeyman QB and a mediocre prospect of a deep passer began to come into play. And what do the Dolphins get? A year? Two? I would be suprised if he lasts eight games. Then what do the Dolphins' fans have to be excited about? The return of Daunte Culpepper who has played more like Aaron Brooks than Randall Cunningham? Hell, Joey Harrington looks pretty good right now. At least Daunte will have Ted Ginn Jr. to pass too (I'm being sarcastic).
And on the KC side, they get to unload a big contract of a QB past his prime and what they have to look foward to is a rocky start behind center. Despite Huard's seasons and his solid start, can he take them past the first round of the playoffs? Can Mr. Bowlign Green? It's unclear at best. It would have seemed to make sense to let Huard go and renegotiate Green's salary so he could play a few more years while Croyle learns under him. At least whoever is behind center can pass to Dwayne Bowe, the Chief's first round draft pick and the player most predict will have some serious personality issues.
In the end, the Chiefs snuck into the playoffs on a miracle last year - something they probably won't be able to do again this year as the Broncos will continue to improve. The Dolphins stand ZERO chance of getting past the now terrifying-looking Pats. Either way, this trade won't make a big difference.
Sure, on the Miami end they finally get a quarterback, and they have new ammunition against the critics who (rightfully) say the Dolphins should have drafted Brady Quinn. But really, they get a QB who had a mediocre last year AND a serious injury. Green is a QB who became expendable when a journeyman QB and a mediocre prospect of a deep passer began to come into play. And what do the Dolphins get? A year? Two? I would be suprised if he lasts eight games. Then what do the Dolphins' fans have to be excited about? The return of Daunte Culpepper who has played more like Aaron Brooks than Randall Cunningham? Hell, Joey Harrington looks pretty good right now. At least Daunte will have Ted Ginn Jr. to pass too (I'm being sarcastic).
And on the KC side, they get to unload a big contract of a QB past his prime and what they have to look foward to is a rocky start behind center. Despite Huard's seasons and his solid start, can he take them past the first round of the playoffs? Can Mr. Bowlign Green? It's unclear at best. It would have seemed to make sense to let Huard go and renegotiate Green's salary so he could play a few more years while Croyle learns under him. At least whoever is behind center can pass to Dwayne Bowe, the Chief's first round draft pick and the player most predict will have some serious personality issues.
In the end, the Chiefs snuck into the playoffs on a miracle last year - something they probably won't be able to do again this year as the Broncos will continue to improve. The Dolphins stand ZERO chance of getting past the now terrifying-looking Pats. Either way, this trade won't make a big difference.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Softball is hardball
I've been watching a little bit of the Womens College Fastpitch Softball World Series this week and its been pretty interesting actually. What is truly amazing has been the pitchers. I guess I've been spoiled, because most of the games I've caught have been Tennessee Lady Vols games and Monica Abbott has been on the mound.
She has been truly dominant and tonight I watched her crush ASU - completing another shutout to have a 0.00 through her World Series games. That intrigued me, along with her 17 strikeouts the game before, so I thought I'd look into her.
Her reccord, as it stands now, is 50-3. That is ridiculous. That's two complete seasons in MLB essentially. Two complete Cy Young seasons. Sure it's college. Sure it's underhand. Sure it's a seven inning game. But come on. That is impressive as hell. She has been truly dominant, being recognized as the USA Softball Collegiate Player of the year. And even though she pitches underhand, she can throw above 70 mph. And seven innings is a lot more than men's college ball or the minors considering she pitches the WHOLE game. Not many pros get beyond five or six innings, and they have about a weeks rest. Abbott has allowed zero runs in 28 innings (four straight games). It's no wonder she's called the female Randy Johnson.
At 6-3, the Tennessee lefty shackled ASU's potent offense, shutting them out for the first of a best of three, final series. The announcers mentioned that fastpitch softball is one of the fastest growing (participation and spectator) sports in America, and I can see why.
She has been truly dominant and tonight I watched her crush ASU - completing another shutout to have a 0.00 through her World Series games. That intrigued me, along with her 17 strikeouts the game before, so I thought I'd look into her.
Her reccord, as it stands now, is 50-3. That is ridiculous. That's two complete seasons in MLB essentially. Two complete Cy Young seasons. Sure it's college. Sure it's underhand. Sure it's a seven inning game. But come on. That is impressive as hell. She has been truly dominant, being recognized as the USA Softball Collegiate Player of the year. And even though she pitches underhand, she can throw above 70 mph. And seven innings is a lot more than men's college ball or the minors considering she pitches the WHOLE game. Not many pros get beyond five or six innings, and they have about a weeks rest. Abbott has allowed zero runs in 28 innings (four straight games). It's no wonder she's called the female Randy Johnson.
At 6-3, the Tennessee lefty shackled ASU's potent offense, shutting them out for the first of a best of three, final series. The announcers mentioned that fastpitch softball is one of the fastest growing (participation and spectator) sports in America, and I can see why.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg){kind=link}
