I am not going to comment on the debacle in Queens this weekend. When your starting pitching goes in the tank like that and your hitters all take a collective break, you're gonna lose, even to a bad team like the Mets (especially when they throw their two best pitchers at you during the series). I could talk about how badly Teixeira has been playing, how little power A-Rod has showcased this year, and how the collective slumping of Jeter, Cano, and Gardner has hurt the team, but I would rather take the high road and wait it out. Let's see how they react against the Twins this week. If they can win a few there, they can easily settle into a very accomodating June schedule. Let's see if someone can help right the ship here.
Instead, I want to talk about my second favorite subject on this blog over the last few months and that is Lebron James. A few weeks back I wrote that Lebron would be a New York Knick if he knew what is good for him. I still think the Knicks have a compelling case to make. They are the only team that can bring in two max free agents, meaning that Lebron can essentially pick with whom he would like to play for the next 10 years.
However, after further review, I have decided to amend my earlier statement. Yes, I believe Lebron is leaving Cleveland. Yes, I believe he is coming to New York. But, I believe when he arrives, he'll be wearing a Nets jersey (pun intended).
Why?
Looking at it, I believe there is really only one hurdle (a big one) that prevents New Jersey from being the absolute, prohibitive favorite when it comes to the James sweepstakes: their home for the next two years. I can't believe that playing in Newark seems like the answer to an NBA dream for Lebron, and it is a mountain that has to be climbed. Granted, playing in Newark for the next two years, before moving on to Brooklyn, is better than playing in the IZOD center, the Tropicana Field of the NBA, but it still represents a lateral move in terms of cities when it comes to Lebron. And, if the move were coming in, say, a year, then I would say it wouldn't be as big a problem, but two years? It doesn't seem like much, but in sports two years can be a lifetime.
That being said, I still believe Lebron ends up in Newark with the Nets. There are ways around the geography, other things that will come into play, that will make it easy for James to accept a new, temporary home in Newark.
1.) It is temporary - Lebron, in signing with the Nets, wouldn't necessarily be committing to Newark. He would, instead, be committing to Brooklyn. If all were to go as planned, the Nets would move into the Barclay Arena in Brooklyn in the 2012/2013 season. Lebron, by that time, would be 27 years old. He would still have the best five or six years of his career ahead of him, if not more (Lebron could easily be a 35 or 36-year old playing at a high level).
Playing in Brooklyn, bringing professional sports back to that area, has got to be appealing to Lebron. Brooklyn has been pining for something since the Dodgers left what seems like a million years ago and basketball seems like a perfect fit. No, the wait isn't ideal, but the final destination ultimately is.
2.) Mikhail Prokhorov - What everyone keeps focusing on is that the NBA's version of Donald Trump has a whole lotta money. That's true, and that is a huge factor in why Lebron would choose the Nets. Unlike Cleveland, whose owned by a run-of-the-mill milionaire, Prokhorov is worth billions. Lebron needs his owner to splurge for a new small forward down the road, so be it. Need your owner to go well beyond the salary cap for not just two or three years, but 10 years? You found your man.
But, Prokhorov's fortune goes beyond just simply his ability to sign Lebron and put some high-priced pieces around him. It is also about what he can offer the budding superstar. Lebron wants to be an international star, beyond what he already is, and there is no owner in the NBA that offers a greater opportunity to promote that brand worldwide than Prokhorov. Also, the Nets are a minority owner with the Yankees in the YES Network, the most successful regional sports channel around. Having Prokhorov and the Yankee-run Yes Network behind him would seem more than a small step towards truly promoting his brand. Finally, it offer Lebron options in terms of a contract I can't imagine he would get anywhere else. What is going to stop Prokhorov from including provisions within Lebron's contract, or striking a second contract outside the lines of a normal NBA performance agreement, that would allow Lebron to take advantage of certain aspects of his empire that no one else has. I can imagine that, if Lebron really wants to eventually be a billionaire and owner of a team, that kind of a connection and possible partnership, one that can't be duplicated in the NBA, is invaluable.
3.) A little talent never hurts - It would seem somewhat comical to talk about talent and a team that won 12 games last year in the same breath, but the Nets are in a better roster position than most teams looking to bring in Lebron. First, if Lebron wants to sign outright with the Nets, he would join a team with Devin Harris, Brooke Lopez, and a very talented young player in Terrence Williams. That is a threesome Lebron could join right now that would provide for athleticism and talent, and plays well into Lebron's strength. There is no one that sports the potential big man like Lopez, and Harris is a very good distributor and jump shooter, while Williams adds a load of athletic ability. Lebron could rack up triple doubles with those guys without even breaking a sweat. Also, don't forget that the Nets have Yi Jianlian, who isn't as dominate a presence as a lot had hoped, but is an excellent spot up 3-point shooter, something Lebron despertaley needs.
Also, while the Nets didn't land the number 1 pick and John Wall, they did land the number 3 pick. Let's say that pick ends up being Derrick Favors from Wake Forrest. This is a 6-10 kid, 7-2 wing span who will be able to block shots and dunk on the world right out of college. If his offensive game comes around, he could be terrific (some are saying he has the raw tools to end up being the best player to come out of the draft in the next 5 years). That would add another big time talent to the Nets. Let's also not forget the Nets have the cap room to sign another top-talent player to the mix. Since Lebron could use a good spot-up jump shooter to go along with Yi Jianlian, what about signing the veteran Rip Hamilton? I think Detroit is looking to go in the direction of Ben Gordon anyway. Hamilton is 32, which makes him a young old. He is the perfect "run him off screens and get open" kinda guy. He can hit threes and, perhaps most importantly, he has won a championship, which means he can be a good influence for Lebron.
A team of Lebron, Harris, Hamilton, Favors, and Lopez, with Jianlian, Williams, and Courtney Lee off the bench, seems pretty darn good, doesn't it? If Favors ever became the type of player his talent dictates he could be, that is one special kinda team. Harris suddenly becomes option three, Hamilton option four, and Favors, in his rookie year, is simply asked to be athletic, rebound, block shots, and dunk when Lebron or Harris throws him an alley-oop.
The depth also allows the Nets to be major players if Lebron wants a sign and trade with Cleveland. This would allow him to sign the full contract with the Cavs but then move on to the Nets. Now, you might ask why the Cavs would do this: simple, because, if you know Lebron is outtie 5,000, why not accomodate him and get something back in return? In that scenario, it's hard to imagine that the Nets offer with Harris as the centerpiece wouldn't be extrememly attractive.
Monday, May 24
Saturday, May 15
Listen to Kevin, Bron Bron
Hey Lebron, welcome to the best, weirdest, and certainly most hyped summer of your life. I hope you weren't planning any trips to Disney or some international jaunts with Ricky Williams, cause you aint gonna have time.
Chances are, you're gonna spend a lot of time in Chicago and New York, with a trip over to Newark. Heck, you might even decide to venture over to LA LA land and talk with that second-class citizen team, the Clippers, just for a free trip to Hollywood and a chance to hang with Halle Berry one night.
This is your summer, and I have no doubt you plan on soaking it up.
The truth is, everyone with a pulse and an interest in basketball is going to give you some advice. Heck, even the President and the Mayor of New York have already chimed in. I'm sure your phone is going to ring more than Tiger Woods' when his wife was out of town for the weekend.
Well, since I don't have your number, let me offer this piece of advice from the comfort of my own home: don't walk, run from Cleveland as soon as you can.
Look, people are going to try (heck, they already are trying) to box you into Cleveland for the next several years of your life by strapping you to the word loyalty. In the eyes of so many fans and media personalities, you "owe" Cleveland and the Cavaliers something. You "owe" them a career. You "owe" them the best years of your professional life. The reason you "owe" them? Well, that's where things get a little foggy, but it seems most believe your loyalty should simply stem from your place of birth: you were born in Cleveland so, I guess, you should die in Cleveland (at least career-wise, anyway).
Brush these idiotic rumblings aside as you pursue your goals.
Look, you don't owe anyone anything, other than yourself. You have been in Cleveland for seven years. In that time, you have played with heart and soul and taken your team to heights they wouldn't have even been able to imagine had you not been on the roster. Rarely, considering the amount of money you athletes make, does a player give a city and a franchise more than he gets but, in your case, it's the truth. In the annals of sports, you are probably the most underpaid athlete that has ever taken a breath, considering what you have done for that town.
You played all seven years of your contract. You didn't "demand" anything. You didn't force the team to hirer or firer any coaches based on your preferences. You didn't "demand" they get player X or Y because you guys were buddies. You didn't spend your time throwing your general manager of owner under the bus, even when they made obviously bad moves that hindered your ability to win.
You were the best show on earth for seven years in Cleveland and, not once did you demand to leave.
You have fullfilled everything required and, now, you can leave with your head held high.
The truth is, Lebron, Cleveland has already essentially made your choice for you. Had they surrounded you with another superstar player and a roster of winners, then your exit would be more difficult. Then, it would appear as if your were abandoning winning for big-city glory. Then, it would truly appear that championships took a back seat to image in your world.
Yet, in seven years the Cavs have failed to even remotely develop a roster worthy of your talents. Look at the teams still competeing for a championship, Lebron: the Celtics, the team that just beat you, has three hall of fame players (Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, and Paul Pierce), a rising superstar in Rajon Rondo, and gutty players like Kendrick Perkins and Glen Davis to even out the roster. Your buddy Kobe Bryant will play the rest of his years with All-Star caliber players Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, and Andrew Bynum, not to mention talented players like Sheldon Brown and a terrific veteran point guard in Derek Fisher.
Orlando? Talent oozes out of that team, so much so that they cruised through their first round with their best player, Dwight Howard, essentially a non-factor. And Steve Nash has Amare Stoudemire, Jason Richardson, and Grant Hill to back him up. Now, for fun, take a look at your roster, this juggernaut of a team the Cavaliers have surrounded you with: the rumor of Shaquille O'Neill, the overrated Antwan Jamison, and Mo Williams, who wouldn't start for any of the teams I mentioned previously. Those are your top options. That is the "winning" group this franchise put around you. Not exactly the 1986 Celtics or 1988 Lakers, huh?
Look, you won 67 games this year, mainly because you were completely and utterly brilliant each and every game. That record fooled a lot of people into believeing that there was some talent around you, but I doubt it conned you the way it did so many media types. You had to have known that once you ran into a really good team, you were toast, right? You had to have known that Mo Williams wasn't gonna do it for you in a big spot, right?
That's why it is time to leave, my friend. That's why the Cavs, with seven years of "plugging holes" instead of developing a champion has all but asked you to leave. They haven't surrounded you with a team, they've surrounded you with a bunch of guys they expect you to make better than they really are. They've surrounded you, for seven straight years, with a cast that can't stand on its own two feet unless you are behind them, holding them up. They haven't handed you the reigns to a Ferrari, they have given you the keys to a Gremlin and asked that you turn it into a Bentley. Then, when you don't, no one comes running to your defense to say "hold on, now, this guy is as good as it gets and we stand behind him."
You don't owe Cleveland anything, Lebron, they owed you, and they failed to do anything other than act like they were putting together a great team.
If you're going to stay, you have to ask yourself whether you think it is going to get any better. Is this team going to bring in that second gun? I doubt it. How can they. They have already locked themselves (and, subsequently you) into a bunch of bad, inconceived contracts all in an effort to throw enough garbage at the wall to see if something sticks. It hasn't, and it isn't going to next year or the year after.
Kevin Garnett the other night talked about your youth. He talked about how, had he to do it over, he would probably have moved on from Minnesota sooner. In other words, he wouldn't have allowed some antiquated sense of "loyalty" to all but ruin his career. Now, towards the end of his career, KG has gotten redemption, but the best years were spent trying desperately to singlehandedly bring another down-on-its-luck city at the time, Minnesota, something to cheer about. It shouldn't have been his cross to bear and it shouldn't be yours, either.
You have options. You have tremendous options. You have the chance to determine the course of your career. Don't let others decide what you should or shouldn't do, when they probably wouldn't adhere to their own advice in a similar situation. Listen to KG. Understand that this is your time. Understand that this is a chance for you to make your mark. You can do that in New York, which will hand you the keys to one of the flagship organizations in the NBA, and all but let you pick your roster for next year and beyond. You can go to the Nets, who are about to bring professional sports back to the burrow of Brooklyn, and who has a cavalcade of talent either on the roster or coming via the draft and free agency. You can go to Chicago and join Derek Rose and Loul Deng and perhaps another great free agent player. You can instantly walk on to a team next year that has more talent and more ability than the Cavs did this year, and you can hitch your wagon to a franchise that is willing to spend (over the cap) as much as is needed to bring you the rings you crave.
Go to New York, Lebron. Go to New Jersey/Brooklyn, or to Chicago, or even to Miami with your buddhy Dwayne Wade. Only, don't let a city or a media tie you to Cleveland. It's your life, my friend and your career. Don't let both die there.
Chances are, you're gonna spend a lot of time in Chicago and New York, with a trip over to Newark. Heck, you might even decide to venture over to LA LA land and talk with that second-class citizen team, the Clippers, just for a free trip to Hollywood and a chance to hang with Halle Berry one night.
This is your summer, and I have no doubt you plan on soaking it up.
The truth is, everyone with a pulse and an interest in basketball is going to give you some advice. Heck, even the President and the Mayor of New York have already chimed in. I'm sure your phone is going to ring more than Tiger Woods' when his wife was out of town for the weekend.
Well, since I don't have your number, let me offer this piece of advice from the comfort of my own home: don't walk, run from Cleveland as soon as you can.
Look, people are going to try (heck, they already are trying) to box you into Cleveland for the next several years of your life by strapping you to the word loyalty. In the eyes of so many fans and media personalities, you "owe" Cleveland and the Cavaliers something. You "owe" them a career. You "owe" them the best years of your professional life. The reason you "owe" them? Well, that's where things get a little foggy, but it seems most believe your loyalty should simply stem from your place of birth: you were born in Cleveland so, I guess, you should die in Cleveland (at least career-wise, anyway).
Brush these idiotic rumblings aside as you pursue your goals.
Look, you don't owe anyone anything, other than yourself. You have been in Cleveland for seven years. In that time, you have played with heart and soul and taken your team to heights they wouldn't have even been able to imagine had you not been on the roster. Rarely, considering the amount of money you athletes make, does a player give a city and a franchise more than he gets but, in your case, it's the truth. In the annals of sports, you are probably the most underpaid athlete that has ever taken a breath, considering what you have done for that town.
You played all seven years of your contract. You didn't "demand" anything. You didn't force the team to hirer or firer any coaches based on your preferences. You didn't "demand" they get player X or Y because you guys were buddies. You didn't spend your time throwing your general manager of owner under the bus, even when they made obviously bad moves that hindered your ability to win.
You were the best show on earth for seven years in Cleveland and, not once did you demand to leave.
You have fullfilled everything required and, now, you can leave with your head held high.
The truth is, Lebron, Cleveland has already essentially made your choice for you. Had they surrounded you with another superstar player and a roster of winners, then your exit would be more difficult. Then, it would appear as if your were abandoning winning for big-city glory. Then, it would truly appear that championships took a back seat to image in your world.
Yet, in seven years the Cavs have failed to even remotely develop a roster worthy of your talents. Look at the teams still competeing for a championship, Lebron: the Celtics, the team that just beat you, has three hall of fame players (Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, and Paul Pierce), a rising superstar in Rajon Rondo, and gutty players like Kendrick Perkins and Glen Davis to even out the roster. Your buddy Kobe Bryant will play the rest of his years with All-Star caliber players Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, and Andrew Bynum, not to mention talented players like Sheldon Brown and a terrific veteran point guard in Derek Fisher.
Orlando? Talent oozes out of that team, so much so that they cruised through their first round with their best player, Dwight Howard, essentially a non-factor. And Steve Nash has Amare Stoudemire, Jason Richardson, and Grant Hill to back him up. Now, for fun, take a look at your roster, this juggernaut of a team the Cavaliers have surrounded you with: the rumor of Shaquille O'Neill, the overrated Antwan Jamison, and Mo Williams, who wouldn't start for any of the teams I mentioned previously. Those are your top options. That is the "winning" group this franchise put around you. Not exactly the 1986 Celtics or 1988 Lakers, huh?
Look, you won 67 games this year, mainly because you were completely and utterly brilliant each and every game. That record fooled a lot of people into believeing that there was some talent around you, but I doubt it conned you the way it did so many media types. You had to have known that once you ran into a really good team, you were toast, right? You had to have known that Mo Williams wasn't gonna do it for you in a big spot, right?
That's why it is time to leave, my friend. That's why the Cavs, with seven years of "plugging holes" instead of developing a champion has all but asked you to leave. They haven't surrounded you with a team, they've surrounded you with a bunch of guys they expect you to make better than they really are. They've surrounded you, for seven straight years, with a cast that can't stand on its own two feet unless you are behind them, holding them up. They haven't handed you the reigns to a Ferrari, they have given you the keys to a Gremlin and asked that you turn it into a Bentley. Then, when you don't, no one comes running to your defense to say "hold on, now, this guy is as good as it gets and we stand behind him."
You don't owe Cleveland anything, Lebron, they owed you, and they failed to do anything other than act like they were putting together a great team.
If you're going to stay, you have to ask yourself whether you think it is going to get any better. Is this team going to bring in that second gun? I doubt it. How can they. They have already locked themselves (and, subsequently you) into a bunch of bad, inconceived contracts all in an effort to throw enough garbage at the wall to see if something sticks. It hasn't, and it isn't going to next year or the year after.
Kevin Garnett the other night talked about your youth. He talked about how, had he to do it over, he would probably have moved on from Minnesota sooner. In other words, he wouldn't have allowed some antiquated sense of "loyalty" to all but ruin his career. Now, towards the end of his career, KG has gotten redemption, but the best years were spent trying desperately to singlehandedly bring another down-on-its-luck city at the time, Minnesota, something to cheer about. It shouldn't have been his cross to bear and it shouldn't be yours, either.
You have options. You have tremendous options. You have the chance to determine the course of your career. Don't let others decide what you should or shouldn't do, when they probably wouldn't adhere to their own advice in a similar situation. Listen to KG. Understand that this is your time. Understand that this is a chance for you to make your mark. You can do that in New York, which will hand you the keys to one of the flagship organizations in the NBA, and all but let you pick your roster for next year and beyond. You can go to the Nets, who are about to bring professional sports back to the burrow of Brooklyn, and who has a cavalcade of talent either on the roster or coming via the draft and free agency. You can go to Chicago and join Derek Rose and Loul Deng and perhaps another great free agent player. You can instantly walk on to a team next year that has more talent and more ability than the Cavs did this year, and you can hitch your wagon to a franchise that is willing to spend (over the cap) as much as is needed to bring you the rings you crave.
Go to New York, Lebron. Go to New Jersey/Brooklyn, or to Chicago, or even to Miami with your buddhy Dwayne Wade. Only, don't let a city or a media tie you to Cleveland. It's your life, my friend and your career. Don't let both die there.
Monday, May 10
Realignment? Some things make sense..........some things don't
I like Buster Olney, but every time I read one of his blogs he seems to make mention of how baseball MUST realign and usually gives a AL East-centric example as to why that's the case. Last week, Olney brought up the Toronto Blue Jays as the latest casualty of AL East inequality:
The latest example of why realignment needs to happen: The 2010 Toronto Blue Jays. The interest in the franchise is withering, and with the Rays and Yankees crushing opponents, it's hard to imagine folks in Toronto will look at the Jays as a serious contender at any time this season. That's too bad, because the Jays have gotten off to a good start and certainly would be good enough to be the front-runner in the AL West; if only there was a different alignment of teams, the Blue Jays -- who have the ninth-best starting pitching ERA in the majors -- would be looked at as a playoff candidate.
There is a lot not to like about this comment. First, unless you're a fan of the asinine notion of "floating realignment" where baseball would become like soccer, with a first tier and second tier of teams constantly moving up and down based on how they performed the year before, you don't get to choose which league in which you play. Sorry, you just don't. If that was the case, I'm sure the Yankees would LOVE the NL West, where 86 wins makes you a juggernaut. Second, anyone else feel a real sense of irony that Olney is talking about how unfair it is that the Blue Jays are in the same division as the Yankees and the RAYS??? Weren't the Rays the posterchild for the small market teams that just can't win, no matter what they do? Now, the Rays are too good, so much so that it's just unfair for everyone else? Now I've heard it all. Lastly, no one in the world expected the Blue Jays to be any good this year and, quite frankly, it will be a shock if they are still in it come June. So, let's not exactly cry for them just yet. Plus, they still have a bunch of games against division leaders, so they have a chance to make up some ground if they are good enough.
But, let's assume that baseball is going to realign. It seems like that is the consensus right now. Everyone wants to see something different.
What makes the most sense?
I am not of the belief that you get rid of the divisions. I like the divisions. I am also not of the belief that you in any way mess with the traditional rivalries that have existed for decades. That means you leave the Yankees with the Red Sox, the Dodgers with the Giants, and the Cardinals with the Cubs.
There are, however, some things you could do:
*Move the Rays and the Blue Jays - This is what I like to call the whine effect. Essentially, the Rays and Jays have complained so freakin much it is time to move them out. Squeaky wheel gets to go to the NL.
All kidding aside, the Rays and the Jays have shown over the years an ability to sneak up and bite the Yankees and the Red Sox. The Jays have proven that, given the right situation, they will spend money, just not the same type of money as the Yanks and the Red Sox. The Rays, as we all know, have great young talent but not the necessary revenue to retain all of them all of the time.
The verdict? I would take the Rays, move them to the NL East, and move the Nationals to the AL East. I would then take the Jays, move them to the NL Central, and I would move the Pirates to the AL East.
Pros - The Rays move to the more manageable NL East, where they only have to deal with the poor man's version of the Yankees and the Red Sox in the Phillies and the Mets, two teams that will spend money, but not break the bank. Plus, it would set up a natural rivalry with the Marlins, another young team that will have a new stadium coming next season. Perhaps both teams could push one another to be better and rule the region. For the Nationals, it puts them in a division with a natural rival as well, the Baltimore Orioles, and it allows them to fill their park several times a year as, no doubt, Yankees, Red Sox, and Orioles games will draw a lot of interest. Also, if and when the Nationals get their footing, they have a chance to be a mid-market team that can spend. They have a decent market which means they might get beat by the Yankees and Sox in terms of payroll, but shouldn't be steamrolled ala the Rays (an added bonus might be that it forces the Orioles to finally get its act together, considering what a great market they have squandered over the last 15 years).
For the Blue Jays, they move to the manageable NL Central where their ability to spend could put them in contention every year. On the flip side, the Pirates have been utter brutal now for so long, they have completely relinquished the right to complain about where they land. They couldn't compete against the teams in the NL Central, so who cares if they are in the same division with the Yankees, Red Sox, and potentially two medium market teams who could have nice payrolls in the Orioles and Nationals? Hey, at the very least, they are gonna pack the stadium every time the Yanks and Sox visit, right? (BTW, the only way this becomes a REALLY good move for baseball is if they relocate the Rays. You can complain all you want about the Yankees and the Red Sox, but if the Rays are intent on keeping a low payroll each year, it won't matter where you stick them. Orlando? Charlotte? Somewhere is anywhere but St. Petersburg)
*Everything is bigger in Texas - Two teams that could really benefit from a geographical rivalry, in my opinion, are the Rangers and the Astros. But, how to get them in the same division when one is in the AL West and the other is in the NL Central? Very simply, give the AL West the extra team and take it away from the NL Central. So, take the Astros and throw them in to the AL West.
Pros - It evens out the divisions in the AL and NL. You would then have five teams in each division. You would put the Astros in the same division as the Rangers and increase their gate each year.Brew
*Brewing some rivalry - I feel like I might be picking on the NL Central a little too much, but my last realignment move would be to take the Brewers and swap them with the Kansas City Royals. Again, this just makes sense from a geographical standpoint.
Pros - The Royals go to the NL Central and can develop a natural rivalry with the St. Louis Cardinals, which are right next to each other. Same thing with the Brewers and the Twins and, in that case, you really end up creating what could be a fun rivalry with the Twinkies and the Brewers. It keeps the White Sox and the Tigers in the AL and in the same division, and you have everyone pretty much fighting all around one another.
So, at the end of the day, here is what my new divisions look like:
AL East
Yankees
Red Sox
Orioles
Nationals
Pirates
AL Central
Twins
Brewers
Tigers
White Sox
Indians
AL West
Rangers
Astros
Athletics
Mariners
Angels
NL East
Phillies
Mets
Rays
Marlins
Braves
NL Central
Cardinals
Cubs
Blue Jays
Royals
Reds
NL West
Dodgers
Giants
Rockies
Diamondbacks
Padres
The latest example of why realignment needs to happen: The 2010 Toronto Blue Jays. The interest in the franchise is withering, and with the Rays and Yankees crushing opponents, it's hard to imagine folks in Toronto will look at the Jays as a serious contender at any time this season. That's too bad, because the Jays have gotten off to a good start and certainly would be good enough to be the front-runner in the AL West; if only there was a different alignment of teams, the Blue Jays -- who have the ninth-best starting pitching ERA in the majors -- would be looked at as a playoff candidate.
There is a lot not to like about this comment. First, unless you're a fan of the asinine notion of "floating realignment" where baseball would become like soccer, with a first tier and second tier of teams constantly moving up and down based on how they performed the year before, you don't get to choose which league in which you play. Sorry, you just don't. If that was the case, I'm sure the Yankees would LOVE the NL West, where 86 wins makes you a juggernaut. Second, anyone else feel a real sense of irony that Olney is talking about how unfair it is that the Blue Jays are in the same division as the Yankees and the RAYS??? Weren't the Rays the posterchild for the small market teams that just can't win, no matter what they do? Now, the Rays are too good, so much so that it's just unfair for everyone else? Now I've heard it all. Lastly, no one in the world expected the Blue Jays to be any good this year and, quite frankly, it will be a shock if they are still in it come June. So, let's not exactly cry for them just yet. Plus, they still have a bunch of games against division leaders, so they have a chance to make up some ground if they are good enough.
But, let's assume that baseball is going to realign. It seems like that is the consensus right now. Everyone wants to see something different.
What makes the most sense?
I am not of the belief that you get rid of the divisions. I like the divisions. I am also not of the belief that you in any way mess with the traditional rivalries that have existed for decades. That means you leave the Yankees with the Red Sox, the Dodgers with the Giants, and the Cardinals with the Cubs.
There are, however, some things you could do:
*Move the Rays and the Blue Jays - This is what I like to call the whine effect. Essentially, the Rays and Jays have complained so freakin much it is time to move them out. Squeaky wheel gets to go to the NL.
All kidding aside, the Rays and the Jays have shown over the years an ability to sneak up and bite the Yankees and the Red Sox. The Jays have proven that, given the right situation, they will spend money, just not the same type of money as the Yanks and the Red Sox. The Rays, as we all know, have great young talent but not the necessary revenue to retain all of them all of the time.
The verdict? I would take the Rays, move them to the NL East, and move the Nationals to the AL East. I would then take the Jays, move them to the NL Central, and I would move the Pirates to the AL East.
Pros - The Rays move to the more manageable NL East, where they only have to deal with the poor man's version of the Yankees and the Red Sox in the Phillies and the Mets, two teams that will spend money, but not break the bank. Plus, it would set up a natural rivalry with the Marlins, another young team that will have a new stadium coming next season. Perhaps both teams could push one another to be better and rule the region. For the Nationals, it puts them in a division with a natural rival as well, the Baltimore Orioles, and it allows them to fill their park several times a year as, no doubt, Yankees, Red Sox, and Orioles games will draw a lot of interest. Also, if and when the Nationals get their footing, they have a chance to be a mid-market team that can spend. They have a decent market which means they might get beat by the Yankees and Sox in terms of payroll, but shouldn't be steamrolled ala the Rays (an added bonus might be that it forces the Orioles to finally get its act together, considering what a great market they have squandered over the last 15 years).
For the Blue Jays, they move to the manageable NL Central where their ability to spend could put them in contention every year. On the flip side, the Pirates have been utter brutal now for so long, they have completely relinquished the right to complain about where they land. They couldn't compete against the teams in the NL Central, so who cares if they are in the same division with the Yankees, Red Sox, and potentially two medium market teams who could have nice payrolls in the Orioles and Nationals? Hey, at the very least, they are gonna pack the stadium every time the Yanks and Sox visit, right? (BTW, the only way this becomes a REALLY good move for baseball is if they relocate the Rays. You can complain all you want about the Yankees and the Red Sox, but if the Rays are intent on keeping a low payroll each year, it won't matter where you stick them. Orlando? Charlotte? Somewhere is anywhere but St. Petersburg)
*Everything is bigger in Texas - Two teams that could really benefit from a geographical rivalry, in my opinion, are the Rangers and the Astros. But, how to get them in the same division when one is in the AL West and the other is in the NL Central? Very simply, give the AL West the extra team and take it away from the NL Central. So, take the Astros and throw them in to the AL West.
Pros - It evens out the divisions in the AL and NL. You would then have five teams in each division. You would put the Astros in the same division as the Rangers and increase their gate each year.Brew
*Brewing some rivalry - I feel like I might be picking on the NL Central a little too much, but my last realignment move would be to take the Brewers and swap them with the Kansas City Royals. Again, this just makes sense from a geographical standpoint.
Pros - The Royals go to the NL Central and can develop a natural rivalry with the St. Louis Cardinals, which are right next to each other. Same thing with the Brewers and the Twins and, in that case, you really end up creating what could be a fun rivalry with the Twinkies and the Brewers. It keeps the White Sox and the Tigers in the AL and in the same division, and you have everyone pretty much fighting all around one another.
So, at the end of the day, here is what my new divisions look like:
AL East
Yankees
Red Sox
Orioles
Nationals
Pirates
AL Central
Twins
Brewers
Tigers
White Sox
Indians
AL West
Rangers
Astros
Athletics
Mariners
Angels
NL East
Phillies
Mets
Rays
Marlins
Braves
NL Central
Cardinals
Cubs
Blue Jays
Royals
Reds
NL West
Dodgers
Giants
Rockies
Diamondbacks
Padres
Monday, April 26
Thoughts on th NFL draft
A couple of quick thoughts on the 2010 NFL Draft:
*I wasn't a fan of the move to primetime by ESPN and I am still not 100 percent sold on the new format. Look, I watched on Thursday like everyone else because I love the NFL, and the league got an absolute gift when former Notre Dame quarterback Jimmy Clausen and former Texas quarterback Colt McCoy dropped out of the first round. It gave everyone a day to talk about where these two standouts would go and, in the case of Clausen, dragged his Greek tragedy out over a period of 24 hours instead of two, as it would have been under the old format.
But, waiting through the day on Friday just to get to the second and third rounds seemed somewhat protracted and the overkill on the draft just got ramped up into overdrive. Plus, Thursday night, there are other things on to watch, so you really don't get the opportunity to just focus on the draft the way you do on Saturday. In fact, maybe just out of habit, I ended up turning on the Saturday telecast and watching throughout the afternoon.
*I really don't think it was all that shocking that the Broncos moved up to get Tim Tebow in the first round, or that he went ahead of Jimmy Clausen. None of the quarterbacks in this draft, perhaps besides Sam Bradford, should project out to anything other than average players in the league. Clausen is a decent player, but everything about him screams average: he has an average arm, average accuracy, average mobility in the pocket, and average decision-making abilities. When you couple that with his supposed maturity deficiences (wasn't the greatest teammate or most beloved in the locker room at Notre Dame, had a tendency to blame others for his mistakes, has an air of superiority about him) it isn't earth shattering that teams would be willing to take a pass. When you have exceptional talent, those personality flaws can and will be overlooked. When you are simply a “good” quarterback, they weigh you down.
McCoy didn't have any of those personality flaws attributed to Clausen, but he is small for the position (certainly not a deal breaker, but does make it more difficult to project him as a big time QB), has probably the weakest arm in the draft overall, and, despite the fact that he is an aggressive player who scrambles and uses his legs to make plays, he must also be deemed a little fragile overall. I mean, what amounted to a stinger in his right arm prevented him from going back into the National Championship Game in January.
Now, is Tebow a prototypical quarterback? Absolutely not. Is he going to have to learn a lot to be the starter in Denver? Absolutely. But, look at Tebow's skill package: he has an okay arm, he has cleaned up his mechanics so that he doesn't have as long a delivery with the ball, and he has okay accuracy. That pretty much sounds like the other two QB's, doesn't it? Now, factor in this: he is by far the most athletic quarterback available who can create something out of nothing with his legs; he is a winner who played his best games against the biggest competition (save his very average game against Alabama at the end of last year) and he is a proven leader. You know he is going to put in all the time necessary to get better and has the intelligence to get better. Plus, you know he can become the face of your franchise and you can feel confident he won't be answering questions about police investigations or providing statements through attorneys about assault charges.
When you factor all of that in, and consider that none of these guys are anything but projects, why wouldn't you take a chance on Tebow?
*I liked everything the Oakland Raiders did on draft day, but I have to laugh when I hear people say, almost without hesitation, that Jason Campbell is going to be GREAT now that he is in Al Davis land. Yes, we all know that Campbell has had, what, six different offensive coordinators since he began his time in Washington. But, what no one seems to mention is that one of the reasons why so many coaches and coordinators have been moved out over the years is the inconsistent play of Campbell. Had he stepped up and shown real signs of progress at any point in his “development” it's hard to imagine the Redskins would have been moving people in and out like they were attached to a conveyor belt. At no point has Campbell shown the ability to lead his team, every Sunday, to consistent performances. He is an absolute stick in the pocket, he has a long delivery, and he doesn't throw a particularly accurate deep ball, even though he has a good arm. Is that all coaching?
Also, if stability is the elixar that is destined to cure all of his ills, Oakland probably isn't the perfect landing spot. Is anyone all that confident that Tom Cable is the coach of the Raiders for the long haul? Rumors were that Davis was hell bent on firing him after the season, spent three weeks looking under every stone for a coaching candidate he liked that might be interested in taking the job, and then finally committed to Cable for the upcoming season. Let's say the Raiders get off to a slow start this year, and there is turmoil in that locker room; does anyone believe that Cable will survive? Campbell went from one reactionary owner to another, so everyone looking for Campbell to come into his own now that he will have some “consistency” must have a very short memory.
*After a few days to digest the Giants draft, I have come to a very simple decision: this is all on Jerry Reese and Tom Coughlin now. I was in favor of taking Derrick Morgan over Jason Pierre-Paul (JPP, or JP-squared, if you like) in the first because he is a more polished player who is good against both the pass and the run. Plus, he was the defensive player of the year for the ACC, while JPP only started seven games for University of South Florida in the Big East. But, if I am going to pat the Broncos on the back for taking a reach on Tebow over some players who might be deemed more NFL-ready, I can't then turn around a slam the Giants for taking a reach with a kid everyone seems to believe could turn out to be the best player in the entire draft.
What I like about him: he seems like a good kid, hard worker, and quick learner, who got better as the season went along. He also seems to have somewhat of a mean streak in him, which you like on defense.
What I don't like about him: whenever you hear words like “upside” or “raw” or “still learning to play,” it sets off alarm bells because, let's face it, most of the players who turn out to be busts have the exact same labels coming out of school. JPP fits the bill of the combine warrior, a guy who, in tanktops and shorts, looks like a game breaker. Put a 100-yard dash in front of him, a high jump, an agility test, and he beats his competition time in and time out. But, as we all know, those things end up having little to do with overall football success. Hopefully, JPP ends up becoming a football player with freakish athletic ability and not just a guy who can do back flips on YouTube,
The most interesting guy taken by the G-Men, in my mind, is middle linebacker Phillip Dillard from Nebraska, who will have to play tough and smart football in his career to avoid inevitably being labeled Phyllis Diller. Dillard, a fourth round choice, has elicited a lot of different takes. Some have said that he could come in and be a starter right now, taking over a leadership role almost immediately. Others I have heard have labeled Dillard a career backup who won't be an impact player at the NFL level. Who to believe? I have no idea. All I do know is that Reese has found some sleepers in the past and, with this draft, his talent evaluation will be put to the ultimate test.
*I wasn't a fan of the move to primetime by ESPN and I am still not 100 percent sold on the new format. Look, I watched on Thursday like everyone else because I love the NFL, and the league got an absolute gift when former Notre Dame quarterback Jimmy Clausen and former Texas quarterback Colt McCoy dropped out of the first round. It gave everyone a day to talk about where these two standouts would go and, in the case of Clausen, dragged his Greek tragedy out over a period of 24 hours instead of two, as it would have been under the old format.
But, waiting through the day on Friday just to get to the second and third rounds seemed somewhat protracted and the overkill on the draft just got ramped up into overdrive. Plus, Thursday night, there are other things on to watch, so you really don't get the opportunity to just focus on the draft the way you do on Saturday. In fact, maybe just out of habit, I ended up turning on the Saturday telecast and watching throughout the afternoon.
*I really don't think it was all that shocking that the Broncos moved up to get Tim Tebow in the first round, or that he went ahead of Jimmy Clausen. None of the quarterbacks in this draft, perhaps besides Sam Bradford, should project out to anything other than average players in the league. Clausen is a decent player, but everything about him screams average: he has an average arm, average accuracy, average mobility in the pocket, and average decision-making abilities. When you couple that with his supposed maturity deficiences (wasn't the greatest teammate or most beloved in the locker room at Notre Dame, had a tendency to blame others for his mistakes, has an air of superiority about him) it isn't earth shattering that teams would be willing to take a pass. When you have exceptional talent, those personality flaws can and will be overlooked. When you are simply a “good” quarterback, they weigh you down.
McCoy didn't have any of those personality flaws attributed to Clausen, but he is small for the position (certainly not a deal breaker, but does make it more difficult to project him as a big time QB), has probably the weakest arm in the draft overall, and, despite the fact that he is an aggressive player who scrambles and uses his legs to make plays, he must also be deemed a little fragile overall. I mean, what amounted to a stinger in his right arm prevented him from going back into the National Championship Game in January.
Now, is Tebow a prototypical quarterback? Absolutely not. Is he going to have to learn a lot to be the starter in Denver? Absolutely. But, look at Tebow's skill package: he has an okay arm, he has cleaned up his mechanics so that he doesn't have as long a delivery with the ball, and he has okay accuracy. That pretty much sounds like the other two QB's, doesn't it? Now, factor in this: he is by far the most athletic quarterback available who can create something out of nothing with his legs; he is a winner who played his best games against the biggest competition (save his very average game against Alabama at the end of last year) and he is a proven leader. You know he is going to put in all the time necessary to get better and has the intelligence to get better. Plus, you know he can become the face of your franchise and you can feel confident he won't be answering questions about police investigations or providing statements through attorneys about assault charges.
When you factor all of that in, and consider that none of these guys are anything but projects, why wouldn't you take a chance on Tebow?
*I liked everything the Oakland Raiders did on draft day, but I have to laugh when I hear people say, almost without hesitation, that Jason Campbell is going to be GREAT now that he is in Al Davis land. Yes, we all know that Campbell has had, what, six different offensive coordinators since he began his time in Washington. But, what no one seems to mention is that one of the reasons why so many coaches and coordinators have been moved out over the years is the inconsistent play of Campbell. Had he stepped up and shown real signs of progress at any point in his “development” it's hard to imagine the Redskins would have been moving people in and out like they were attached to a conveyor belt. At no point has Campbell shown the ability to lead his team, every Sunday, to consistent performances. He is an absolute stick in the pocket, he has a long delivery, and he doesn't throw a particularly accurate deep ball, even though he has a good arm. Is that all coaching?
Also, if stability is the elixar that is destined to cure all of his ills, Oakland probably isn't the perfect landing spot. Is anyone all that confident that Tom Cable is the coach of the Raiders for the long haul? Rumors were that Davis was hell bent on firing him after the season, spent three weeks looking under every stone for a coaching candidate he liked that might be interested in taking the job, and then finally committed to Cable for the upcoming season. Let's say the Raiders get off to a slow start this year, and there is turmoil in that locker room; does anyone believe that Cable will survive? Campbell went from one reactionary owner to another, so everyone looking for Campbell to come into his own now that he will have some “consistency” must have a very short memory.
*After a few days to digest the Giants draft, I have come to a very simple decision: this is all on Jerry Reese and Tom Coughlin now. I was in favor of taking Derrick Morgan over Jason Pierre-Paul (JPP, or JP-squared, if you like) in the first because he is a more polished player who is good against both the pass and the run. Plus, he was the defensive player of the year for the ACC, while JPP only started seven games for University of South Florida in the Big East. But, if I am going to pat the Broncos on the back for taking a reach on Tebow over some players who might be deemed more NFL-ready, I can't then turn around a slam the Giants for taking a reach with a kid everyone seems to believe could turn out to be the best player in the entire draft.
What I like about him: he seems like a good kid, hard worker, and quick learner, who got better as the season went along. He also seems to have somewhat of a mean streak in him, which you like on defense.
What I don't like about him: whenever you hear words like “upside” or “raw” or “still learning to play,” it sets off alarm bells because, let's face it, most of the players who turn out to be busts have the exact same labels coming out of school. JPP fits the bill of the combine warrior, a guy who, in tanktops and shorts, looks like a game breaker. Put a 100-yard dash in front of him, a high jump, an agility test, and he beats his competition time in and time out. But, as we all know, those things end up having little to do with overall football success. Hopefully, JPP ends up becoming a football player with freakish athletic ability and not just a guy who can do back flips on YouTube,
The most interesting guy taken by the G-Men, in my mind, is middle linebacker Phillip Dillard from Nebraska, who will have to play tough and smart football in his career to avoid inevitably being labeled Phyllis Diller. Dillard, a fourth round choice, has elicited a lot of different takes. Some have said that he could come in and be a starter right now, taking over a leadership role almost immediately. Others I have heard have labeled Dillard a career backup who won't be an impact player at the NFL level. Who to believe? I have no idea. All I do know is that Reese has found some sleepers in the past and, with this draft, his talent evaluation will be put to the ultimate test.
Sunday, April 18
LeBron will be a Knick, if he knows what's good for him
New York.
The name itself evokes images of the night sky lite up like a Christmas tree, taxi cabs honking on Broadway as a swath of people move along the sidewalks and across the street, and the blaring sound of a city that never sleeps moving through time, carrying the hopes and dreams of eight million people on its back at any given time like a never-ending wave.
There is no place like it in the world. Not Boston. Not Los Angeles. Not Paris. Not Rome. It is the greatest city in the last super power on earth. New York has become the epicenter, and sports has become its heart beat.
I don't know LeBron James. I have never met the man before. I don't know how he feels about Ohio, Cleveland, and his current team. Maybe staying with one franchise his entire career means something. Maybe bringing a championship, even multiple ones, to a battered and beaten midwest town is his white whale, his obsession. Maybe the thought of leaving his home state and team is utterly inconceivable.
But, too many people have ignored what New York means when talking about James' upcoming decision on his future in the NBA. Analysts have talked about money (Cleveland can offer James the most, over the length of a contract) and competitiveness (the Cavs are one of the best teams in the country while the Knicks remain one of the worst) when deciding what a man they know little about will choose to do next year. What few talk about is legacy.
LeBron James is destined to go down as one of the greatest players in the game when he decides to retire. Unless something extraordinarily tragic happens to him, he will win at least one or two championships in his career. He will be remembered as a complete player. He will be remembered as a freak of nature who combined speed and power in a 6'9” frame like no one ever has before, and may not after.
Having said that, his legacy would be different if he became all of that in New York.
Why? Because LeBron has a truly unique opportunity when it comes to the Knicks. He has the ability to come to one of the NBA's greatest franchises, with a rich tradition and a HUGE following, and cement himself as the best player to ever done the uniform. That is something only the Knicks can offer.
Think about the great franchises in the NBA. No matter how great LeBron is, if he went to the Celtics tomorrow he would never supplant Russell or Cousey or Larry Legend in the hearts, minds, or history of the franchise. They are the top. Likewise, if he went to the Lakers, would anyone ever say that LeBron was better than West or Chamberlain or Magic or Kareem? Lakers fans insist that Kobe is the best player in the NBA right now.
Chicago? Forget it, Michael owns that realm and always will. Detroit? The Bad Boys, with Isiah and Rodman and Lambeer, headed by Chuck Daly, are revered to this day. Philadelphia? No doubt, 76ers would annoint LeBron as a basketball God, but a guy by the name of Dr. J once played for that proud franchise, and LeBron would probably always be placed behind him.
The Knicks offer the chance for LeBron to become the “face” of the franchise. As beloved as Willis Reed and Walt Clyde Frazier and the greats of the 70s championship teams remain, and as much as fans might now appreciate Patrick Ewing's winning ways, LeBron would be able to trump them all. He would have the chance to return winning to New York, something of a rarity when it comes to sports.
Think of Mark Messier, The Captain of the New York Rangers who had already established himself as one of the greats before coming to Madison Square Garden in the early 90s. He won five championships in his hometown of Edmonton, Canada. He was well on his way to being a hall of famer.
When he came to the Rangers, the team hadn't won a title in five decades. They were not one of the elite teams in hockey. Yet, Messier and a new group helped transform that, and when he helped the Rangers win the Stanley Cup in 1994, he forever became connected to that team. Now, when people speak of Messier, they talk about 1994 and his game 6 guarantee, and his hat trick, and his ultimate victory. The Edmonton years, though far more successful and the reason for his hall of fame status, are relgated to second when it comes to his career. That one success in New York trumps it all.
LeBron has to realize it would be the same for him.
The Knicks haven't won a championship in 37 years. For those of you keeping score at home, that is nearly four decades of futility. The team also hasn't had an elite player to call its own since Ewing was traded, and the last five years have been the most abysmal in franchise history.
The moment he steps on the court, LeBron changes all of that. He immediately OWNS Madison Square Garden. Not a bad piece of property to call home. He immediately takes his place among the New York elite athletes. In fact, depending on how much success he has, LeBron could push Derek Jeter aside as the King of the City.
Can you put a price tag on that? Can you even factor that in when it comes to a contract?
That's why, when the Knicks open the 2010/2011 regular season next year, I believe LeBron James, and a few other notable signees, will be taking to the court wearing orange and blue. Its because he understands what it means to be the King of the City that Never Sleeps. It's because he understands that he can become the best basketball player New York has ever seen. The mantles for best baseball, football, and hockey players have been locked up for decades.
If LeBron wins in Cleveland, he will be hailed. If he wins in New York, he will be revered like no other.
Want the parade down Canyon of Heroes, LeBron? Want to hang out with CC Sabathia and Derek Jeter? Want Giants tickets at the 50-yard line? Want Jay Z and Alicia Keys to dedicate a song to you? Want to one day be called the greatest that ever played, ahead of Michael, Magic, Larry and the rest? There is only one place for that and, with all due respect, it isn't in Cleveland.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
