Several weeks ago on one of the many rainy weekend days we've experienced in the Mid-Atlantic region, my kids and I were walking around our local mall and noticed a sign in the sports memorabilia store that a Phillie would be showing up to sign autographs on July 8. As the kids have become staunch Phillies' fans, I promised them that I'd take them and pay the fee (it was small, as the player isn't a regular -- one of their other stores was featuring Ryan Howard at $30 a pop). Right now, my older child has three autographs, and my younger one has one.
The autograph they have in common is that of Greg Luzinski, the one-time Phillies' slugger, who operates the barbecue concession in the concourse beyond center field at Citizens Bank Park. The Bull, as he was called, sits near the stand and signs autographs for free, and about a month ago he autographed the kids' tickets. He smiled at them because they were young and wearing Phillies' t-shirts, no one else was in line, and it was a pleasant experience.
It's hard to expect what you'll experience with players -- they're human like everyone else. Some are extroverts, some are conversationalists, some are shy, some are totally introverted, some are socially awkward, and some are mistrustful. It's a mixed bag, and some are just more comfortable than others with the public.
I grew up revering Willie Mays, partly because he was my father's favorite player and partly because his numbers were great (he was at the end of his career when I started to follow the game seriously), and I had the occasion to meet him one on one when I was doing my independent work when I was in college. The meeting took place at Bally's in Atlantic City (he was working as a greeter, and Bally's arranged the meeting), and I approached the meeting with a combination of glee and apprehension. I was somewhat gleeful because I was going to meet one of the greatest players of all time. I was somewhat anxious because I didn't want to get let down. I mean, what if he were nasty? What if he were dismissive?
What I found was a tired human being who wasn't that open or helpful. Look, I was writing a thesis, and probably instead of viewing me as a kid working on a college project he viewed me as a writer, and my guess is that Mays never was that comfortable with writers. He was courteous but not warm, responsive but not talkative, not offering up more than short answers (Monte Irvin, in contrast, was just wonderful). He was another man, albeit one with great gifts, but the "Say Hey" kid who was one of the most articulate displayer of the baseball arts on the field didn't dazzle me off the field the way I had hoped he would because of the way he played. He was in his fifties, probably somewhat wistful of what was and probably figuring out what to do with the rest of his life -- that's the way it seemed. I came away disappointed to a degree, but I had measured my expectations in advance and didn't come away totally deflated.
Afterwards, a friend of mine said, "that's why you never want to meet your heroes. You'll only come away disappointed. They'll never be what you imagine them to be." He had a point.
But, retrospectively, meeting your heroes, if you're a person who's accomplished some things but doesn't necessarily give yourself credit because they don't achieve the adoration that society gives a ballplayer, can have some self-ratifying aspects to it. You can figure out that your life is pretty good if you hadn't already, you can give yourself some credit that you hadn't given yourself before, and you can realize that you really shouldn't say you want someone else's life, because in fact you have no idea what that life really is all about. That's not to say you wouldn't have wanted to be the center fielder for the New York and San Francisco Giants, but it is to say that perhaps there are aspects of that existence that you wouldn't want at all.
Such as what to do with your life after the cheering stops, after you can't play anymore.
About ten years later, my wife and I were at Miami Airport, returning from the beautiful wedding of a loyal reader of this blog. It was 1993, the Phillies were hot that season, and we were waiting to fly back to Philadelphia. That afternoon was, perhaps, my most interesting day at an airport in my life.
We were standing in line at a kiosk buying a newspaper when I pointed out an older gentleman who was wearing a suit. Somewhat Seinfeld like, I said to my wife, "Do you know who that is?"
My wife shook her head. Silly me, asking someone to identify a senior citizen in Miami Airport is like trying to find a certain fan at a home football game for the University of Nebraska.
"No, I don't," she said.
I smiled.
"Who is it?" she asked.
"That," I said to my wife, "is Joe DiMaggio."
Her eyes went big.
My wife knows a bunch about baseball, having grown up in Baltimore, having gone to the now-torn down Memorial Stadium. She can tell you about the great teams, Earl Weaver, Brooks Robinson, Frank Robinson, Jim Palmer and the game where reliever Tippy Martinez, pitching to infielder Lenn Sakata (who caught some in high school) because one catcher was hurt and one catcher (I believe it was Rick Dempsey) got ejected, picked three consecutive batters off first in the top of the tenth to save a game during the glory years of the home team. Of course, she knew of Joe DiMaggio.
"Why don't you go get his autograph?"
I shook my head.
"No," I said. "I don't think so."
I had my reasons. A good friend from college ran autograph shows and had become close to DiMaggio. While fond of the Yankee Clipper, he had told me that DiMaggio was a complicated personality like many of the ballplayers and former players he dealt with, and that he just didn't sign for anybody. As the Yankee Clipper was getting on in years, I didn't want my one interaction with the Hall of Famer to end up having been told to buzz off.
"Let me ask him then," she offered.
My wife is cuter than I am and has a nice smile, so I figured what the heck.
"Yes," I responded with some enthusiasm, "Go, go."
So she pulled a small pad from her pocketbook (which sometimes can host about 2/3 of the items that George Costanza used to keep in his wallet on "Seinfeld") walked over to him and said, "Mr. DiMaggio, may I have your autograph?"
I was far enough away not to hear the interaction, a few passersby blocked my view, but my wife walked back to where I was standing with a smile on her face.
"Got it," she said, happy at her accomplishment and ribbing me at the same time for my reticence.
Thereupon, when we got to the gate, the ticket agents asked us if we minded being upgraded to first class because they needed our seats to accommodate a cruise ship group that had needed coach seats on the plane.
No, we didn't mind at all. The complimentary chocolate chip cookies were excellent.
Then, with the Phillies in the playoffs (this was October), we got stuck on I-95 in a traffic jam in Philadelphia on the way home from the airport, only to be mollified because the game was on the radio. The hometown nine was trailing, but Darren Daulton hit a clutch home run to put the Phillies ahead for good while we were sitting in traffic.
A great ending to a great weekend.
Okay, so fast forward to yesterday. We go to the mall and pay $10 apiece for two tickets to get the autographs of Shane Victorino, the Eckstein-like reserve outfielder for the Phillies who can hit pretty well and who can run the bases faster than just about anyone in the majors. The session was called for 11:30 to 1 p.m., and I doubted there would be a serious line because going into last night's game, the Phillies were 6-20 in their last 26 games. Victorino got their 5 minutes late, the line had about 75 people in it (which meant, probably, that the place was losing money on the venture because you would think he was getting at least $1000 for the appearance), and it moved rather quickly.
One child was nervous -- he didn't know what he would say, and the other was eager, because she would see a Phillies up close and personal. I had cautioned them about a few facts of life -- one, the autograph signing business was such that the store made money by getting as many things signed as quickly as possible -- read, there's little if any time for chit-chat. The college friend who had run the autograph shows told me that he loved having Pete Rose at a show, because a) he was very popular, b) he signed very quickly (having two one-syllable names helped), and c) he was a master of combining quick signatures with interacting positively with the fans. That said, not all players can perform at signings the way Rose did -- he is unique in many ways, and that was one. I told the kids that players are young men, sometimes they can't talk about much other than baseball, that they might be shy, and that they shouldn't expect a whole lot more than an autograph.
So, about 20 minutes later, it was our turn. The kids took with them 5x7 action photo cards of Victorino that we had purchased in a set of Phillies' cards at Citizens Bank Park for $5 a piece (these sets are a relative bargain). They stood in line, and Victorino was concentrating on signing and talking with a couple of people at the store. The kids handed him their cards, and he looked down most of the time. There was no "hi, how are ya doin'?" or anything like that. He picked up a blue Sharpie and signed both cards, and one of the store helpers at the table handed them to me.
I said, "Good luck tonight."
He said, "Thanks, I appreciate that."
And that was it.
An autograph assembly line.
Nothing less than we expected.
That's good in a way, bad in another.
Good because I had told the kids what this could be like. Bad because, well, it should have been something more. A "hey guys," or something like that, an acknowledgment of the kids, wasn't too hard to say, was it?
(Heck, if I were on a team that had won only 6 of its last 26, I'd be thanking each and every fan for coming out, but that's just me).
We checked out a few items in the store, being careful to let the cards dry so as not to smudge the signatures. Then we checked out a baseball hat store, and then it was off to the food court to McDonald's for lunch, and then home.
The kids were happy to see a Phillie in person, sort of, I think, and happy to get something to put in their plastic storage container that holds their programs and baseball cards, another memory of the national pastime.
But, I think, they realized that baseball and baseball autographs are a business, that it's hard to meet players, that they're human, and that when you do it's for a fleeting moment that gives you very little sense of them and that, as a kid, doesn't make you feel special. At least, that's what I gleaned from the experience.
More importantly, though, I think that they better appreciate the time that we spend together at the games. At the suggestion of a friend, I bought a Spalding scorebook, which I'll take to each game that we go to as a family (whether it's in Philadelphia or elsewhere, majors or minors) and record the score. He's done that with his kids, both of whom are grown, and the book is a nice memory of where they've been and what they've seen.
To us, Shane Victorino remains an exciting player who has some great days ahead of him. We'll still believe that, even though in a t-shirt and jeans signing autographs he was just another guy.
It was fun for the kids to see a ballplayer up close and in person, but perhaps it was also important to see that they're not superheroes composed of matter unknown to man.
Better yet, the home team won the game last night, and we watched the end together, all four of us.
That's probably the most important thing about baseball, when it brings families and cities together.
Those are the memories we all cherish.
My father has been dead for 20 years now, and we went to many games when I was a kid. I don't remember the details of many of them, but I remember how we used to go on Sundays, how Steve Carlton pitched a lot on Sundays, and how much fun we had going to the games.
The key thing was that I went with my dad, and it was fun, and that baseball is a refuge for me when I need to get away from it all. I look back on those times with great fondness.
If I can pass those sentiments along to my kids, I'll have done well.
Sunday, July 09, 2006
Another Twist on the Family Business
The Nike hoops camp has plenty of big names, sons of former hoop stars and a former football great, as well as the grandson of a controversial religious leader. Click here and read all about it.
The article itself is evidence that these kids will get a lot of attention because of their blood lines, and my guess is that some will handle it better than others and some are more talented than others and have more desire than others. An unfortunate fact of life for these more famous kids is that other kids who might not get the limelight because their names and pedigrees aren't as distinguished will use this lack of attention and the other kids' bloodlines as a motivator to play better and to show the cognoscenti that they in fact deserve the attention.
It's the American way.
And it's totally fair, because each and every kid has to earn his place. Who gets playing time at the best programs isn't determined by anything other than production -- combining talent with desire, effort and a work ethic as much of the time as possible. True, Al Horford, the star forward for Florida, has a father who excelled at big-time basketball. But he wouldn't be where he is just on talent alone. A hard worker, his hoops IQ is off the charts, as his play in the NCAA tournament showed. Then again, a bunch of no names from George Mason propelled that school into the national spotlight. Those kids didn't get nearly as much attention during the recruiting process, but they certainly produced when it counted, didn't they?
We should clip and save all of these articles and then look at them four years later. It will be interesting to see where these kids end up.
The article itself is evidence that these kids will get a lot of attention because of their blood lines, and my guess is that some will handle it better than others and some are more talented than others and have more desire than others. An unfortunate fact of life for these more famous kids is that other kids who might not get the limelight because their names and pedigrees aren't as distinguished will use this lack of attention and the other kids' bloodlines as a motivator to play better and to show the cognoscenti that they in fact deserve the attention.
It's the American way.
And it's totally fair, because each and every kid has to earn his place. Who gets playing time at the best programs isn't determined by anything other than production -- combining talent with desire, effort and a work ethic as much of the time as possible. True, Al Horford, the star forward for Florida, has a father who excelled at big-time basketball. But he wouldn't be where he is just on talent alone. A hard worker, his hoops IQ is off the charts, as his play in the NCAA tournament showed. Then again, a bunch of no names from George Mason propelled that school into the national spotlight. Those kids didn't get nearly as much attention during the recruiting process, but they certainly produced when it counted, didn't they?
We should clip and save all of these articles and then look at them four years later. It will be interesting to see where these kids end up.
Friday, July 07, 2006
Baseball Trades: Auction Theory
Buster Olney made a good point this morning on "Mike & Mike on ESPN Radio" regarding why there are so few trade rumors in Major League Baseball. Olney explains that because so many teams are in the hunt for a playoff spot, there is an abundance of buyers but few sellers. This is especially true in the National League, where every team in the West is in the hunt for the division title and a wildcard spot (playing zero-sum baseball again this year, as the team that wins that division might do it with 85 wins). Teams in the Central are also bunched (with the Cardinals having slipped and four teams in the chase for a playoff spot), and in the East, the woeful Phillies (who have lost 19 of their last 25) are 5 games out of the wild card (and, if you want to extend the list, the entire NL East could contend for the wild card, as all of those teams are on the Phillies' heels for second place in the NL East.
Therein lies a dilemma for many a team and GM. Do you stay the course, hope that the gaps on your roster heal themselves and pray to contend, or do you do something about it? If you have prospects, do you dangle them to other teams to lure that extra starter, reliever or lefthanded bat? Or do you stand pat? Or, and this is the huge or, do you turn yourselves into a seller, auction off your most desirable players, and then re-load your franchise the way Florida did at the end of last season. If you turn yourself into a seller, then you have a chance to reap great benefits, precisely because there are tons of buyers.
Let's focus on the Phillies. They don't have enough starting pitching to take the stress off their already over-taxed bullpen. The guy sitting next to me at the game on July 4th said, "Who would have thought that the Phillies' are expecting pitching relief from Jon Lieber and Randy Wolf? They're not exactly Koufax and Drysdale." He then relented and acknowledged that Lieber would be an upgrade, but Wolf is recovering from Tommy John surgery (hopefully he'll hurl better at the plate than his brother Jim, an umpire, worked the plate in last night's Phillies-Padres game. The lesser-known Wolf brother seemed to have a blind spot on inside pitches to lefthanded batters, calling most in sight strikes -- he also blew a game-ending call at first-base the night before, where the Phillies' runner clearly tied the throw). If the starters get knocked out early night after night, the relievers have to go 4 innings or more instead of an optimal 2 to 2 2/3. But I have digressed. . .
The Phillies shouldn't kid themselves and think they can make the playoffs. True, Brett Myers was emerging as a #1 starter before his domestic violence charge (Billy Wagner opined yesterday that Myers has the physical tools of a #1 but the mental gifts of a #4). Ryan Madson shows flashes of brilliance, but that's all -- flashes. Cory Lidle is a journeyman, Scott Mathieson needs seasoning, and the way Adam Bernero pitched in Toronto the other day you would have thought that the game was played in Cape Canveral. Bernero is back in the minors as is promising youngster Scott Mathieson. Youngster Cole Hamels hasn't thrown particularly well as of late.
The bullpen, outside of Tom Gordon and Rheal Cormier, is flammable if not combustible. Arthur Rhodes' WHIP as a set-up man is almost 2.0. Geoff Geary has been hit harder than the guys Larry Holmes defeated when he was the undisputed heavyweight champion. Aaron Fultz isn't the same guy he was last season, and Rick White is approaching Dave LaPoint's record for the most teams played for in a career. Ryan Franklin pitched well in relief on July 4th, but he's been a disappointment.
Without getting to the position players, I think I've made a good case that this team doesn't have nearly enough pitching to seriously contend for a playoff spot (unless somehow you could qualify with a 74-88 record). That said, there are some position players who might benefit from a change of scenery and who could benefit other clubs.
The Phillies have 5 reasonably good outfielders. CF Aaron Rowand is an above-average CF who plays hard. Shane Victorino is the leadoff man of the future, as he has the stroke, eye and wheels to bring more excitement to the top of the lineup than Jimmy Rollins, whose selectivity in the strike zone will not be confused with Wade Boggs' or Ted Williams'. David Dellucci is having a great year as a reserve OF, and his total bases to plate appearances ratio is one of the best in the Majors for outfielders (according to an excellent column in today's "Wall Street Journal" by Allen St. John, Dellucci appears to be in the top ten in this most interesting of statistical categories). The corner outfielders get maligned, but Pat Burrell hits for power, can hit in the clutch and kills the Mets. Bobby Abreu is one of the few people in MLB history to put together 7 seasons of at least 20 HRs and 20 steals. If a team needs a bat -- and many do -- they should look no further than Philadelphia.
The Phillies have said they're standing pat, although rumors have swirled that teams have approached them about Abreu. Former GM Ed Wade loaded the team up with no-trade contracts (Abreu, Burrell, David Bell and Mike Lieberthal), so Abreu would have to approve a trade. He's making $13 million this year, has $15 million coming to him next year and there's a club option of $15 million for 2008 (with a $2 million buyout). The conventional wisdom has been that the Phillies would have to eat a good portion of this contract to move the RF.
Pundits have opined that the Phillies would be better to blow up the roster and build around Rollins (who has a place in the lineup, but not at the top of it), Chase Utley and Ryan Howard. Those pundits have included writers, former manager Larry Bowa, and, to a degree, former reliever Billy Wagner. Bowa figured that if the Phillies didn't make the post-season last year, that perhaps some guys need a change of scenery. He could well be right.
Pat Gillick should take stock in the views of the pundits and the fact that it's a seller's market and make a dashing move -- one that his predecessor never seemed to be able to make. If he auctions Abreu to the highest bidder, interesting things could happen, such as a) getting some good young players to build around and b) getting rid of most of the contract. The question does remain whether Abreu will waive his no-trade clause, but in most cases in the past 10 years that waiver hasn't seemed to be a roadblock. Let's assume, for the moment, that this won't be an issue.
I saw the Padres play the Phillies on Tuesday, and their lineup is weak. Put Abreu in the heart of the order and he'll transform the lineup. Ditto Colorado, Arizona, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Once one team gets interested, its competitors will have to, for two reasons -- one, he can help their team and two, if they get him, not only do they help their team, but he's someone their competitors didn't get. The thing about the NL West is that some of those teams -- Los Angeles and Colorado, to name a few -- have some young prospects worth getting. For example, a trade with the Rockies could yield the third baseman-hungry Phillies promising prospect Ian Stewart while giving the Rockies a potent bat in Coors Field. In addition, if the bidding frenzy heightens as it might well given the abundance of buyers, the Phillies could shed Abreu's entire contract.
The fewer the items on sale (especially if they're scarce items, which they are here) and the more willing buyers, the higher the prices will go. at some point, the egos of those involved who just have to have it will become so inflated that they'll continue to offer a little extra until what they've offered is so overwhelming that the selling GM will say quickly and hope that the other team won't change its mind before the fax confirming the trade gets to MLB's offices in NYC. We've all seen this happen, and some of you, I'm sure, have gotten caught up in this phenomenon on eBay if not somewhere else. It's powerful, and handled correctly by the seller of the scarce item, potentially very lucrative.
This could be a once-in-a-decade opportunity for the right seller.
If Pat Gillick sees this and pulls the trigger, history could well prove him to be a genius.
Shedding Abreu makes more room for Dellucci and Victorino, both of whom have earned more playing time. It also could give the Phillies 2-3 solid prospects to help rebuild what "Baseball Prospectus" has dubbed a woeful minor league system and free up cash for future expenditures.
The possibilities abound for the Phillies (among others), but if they move quickly and become the first of the sellers, they could reap a bounty far beyond what they ever could have imagined. It's only a shame that King George in NYC doesn't have the prospects to trade, because getting the Yankees and BoSox into a bidding war over Abreu would be great theater.
The Phillies and others could be worried that if they throw in the towel and call it a season that their fans will be frustrated and won't show up. Well, truth be told, what's attracting fans to Citizens Bank Park are Utley and Howard and the park itself. The fans are frustrated with ownership's ineptitude to begin with, and they want action. Believe it or not, making this type of big trade, given the fans' sentiments, will attract more fans that it repels. Why? Because the fans know that this team cannot contend, and they want solid signals why they should buy tickets from this ownership group in the future.
Now is not the time to stand pat and watch a starting pitching staff of Lieber, Wolf, Hamels, Lidle and Madson try to pitch you into the post-season. Now is not the time to cross your fingers and toes that Arthur Rhodes can straighten himself out and become the set-up man you hoped for. Too many variables have to come together for the Phillies to contend for the wild card (and, even if they could, it would be a false positive, so to speak, because the way the team is currently constructed doesn't bode well for the future).
Now is the time to seize upon a major market opportunity --
and sell!
Let the auction begin!
Therein lies a dilemma for many a team and GM. Do you stay the course, hope that the gaps on your roster heal themselves and pray to contend, or do you do something about it? If you have prospects, do you dangle them to other teams to lure that extra starter, reliever or lefthanded bat? Or do you stand pat? Or, and this is the huge or, do you turn yourselves into a seller, auction off your most desirable players, and then re-load your franchise the way Florida did at the end of last season. If you turn yourself into a seller, then you have a chance to reap great benefits, precisely because there are tons of buyers.
Let's focus on the Phillies. They don't have enough starting pitching to take the stress off their already over-taxed bullpen. The guy sitting next to me at the game on July 4th said, "Who would have thought that the Phillies' are expecting pitching relief from Jon Lieber and Randy Wolf? They're not exactly Koufax and Drysdale." He then relented and acknowledged that Lieber would be an upgrade, but Wolf is recovering from Tommy John surgery (hopefully he'll hurl better at the plate than his brother Jim, an umpire, worked the plate in last night's Phillies-Padres game. The lesser-known Wolf brother seemed to have a blind spot on inside pitches to lefthanded batters, calling most in sight strikes -- he also blew a game-ending call at first-base the night before, where the Phillies' runner clearly tied the throw). If the starters get knocked out early night after night, the relievers have to go 4 innings or more instead of an optimal 2 to 2 2/3. But I have digressed. . .
The Phillies shouldn't kid themselves and think they can make the playoffs. True, Brett Myers was emerging as a #1 starter before his domestic violence charge (Billy Wagner opined yesterday that Myers has the physical tools of a #1 but the mental gifts of a #4). Ryan Madson shows flashes of brilliance, but that's all -- flashes. Cory Lidle is a journeyman, Scott Mathieson needs seasoning, and the way Adam Bernero pitched in Toronto the other day you would have thought that the game was played in Cape Canveral. Bernero is back in the minors as is promising youngster Scott Mathieson. Youngster Cole Hamels hasn't thrown particularly well as of late.
The bullpen, outside of Tom Gordon and Rheal Cormier, is flammable if not combustible. Arthur Rhodes' WHIP as a set-up man is almost 2.0. Geoff Geary has been hit harder than the guys Larry Holmes defeated when he was the undisputed heavyweight champion. Aaron Fultz isn't the same guy he was last season, and Rick White is approaching Dave LaPoint's record for the most teams played for in a career. Ryan Franklin pitched well in relief on July 4th, but he's been a disappointment.
Without getting to the position players, I think I've made a good case that this team doesn't have nearly enough pitching to seriously contend for a playoff spot (unless somehow you could qualify with a 74-88 record). That said, there are some position players who might benefit from a change of scenery and who could benefit other clubs.
The Phillies have 5 reasonably good outfielders. CF Aaron Rowand is an above-average CF who plays hard. Shane Victorino is the leadoff man of the future, as he has the stroke, eye and wheels to bring more excitement to the top of the lineup than Jimmy Rollins, whose selectivity in the strike zone will not be confused with Wade Boggs' or Ted Williams'. David Dellucci is having a great year as a reserve OF, and his total bases to plate appearances ratio is one of the best in the Majors for outfielders (according to an excellent column in today's "Wall Street Journal" by Allen St. John, Dellucci appears to be in the top ten in this most interesting of statistical categories). The corner outfielders get maligned, but Pat Burrell hits for power, can hit in the clutch and kills the Mets. Bobby Abreu is one of the few people in MLB history to put together 7 seasons of at least 20 HRs and 20 steals. If a team needs a bat -- and many do -- they should look no further than Philadelphia.
The Phillies have said they're standing pat, although rumors have swirled that teams have approached them about Abreu. Former GM Ed Wade loaded the team up with no-trade contracts (Abreu, Burrell, David Bell and Mike Lieberthal), so Abreu would have to approve a trade. He's making $13 million this year, has $15 million coming to him next year and there's a club option of $15 million for 2008 (with a $2 million buyout). The conventional wisdom has been that the Phillies would have to eat a good portion of this contract to move the RF.
Pundits have opined that the Phillies would be better to blow up the roster and build around Rollins (who has a place in the lineup, but not at the top of it), Chase Utley and Ryan Howard. Those pundits have included writers, former manager Larry Bowa, and, to a degree, former reliever Billy Wagner. Bowa figured that if the Phillies didn't make the post-season last year, that perhaps some guys need a change of scenery. He could well be right.
Pat Gillick should take stock in the views of the pundits and the fact that it's a seller's market and make a dashing move -- one that his predecessor never seemed to be able to make. If he auctions Abreu to the highest bidder, interesting things could happen, such as a) getting some good young players to build around and b) getting rid of most of the contract. The question does remain whether Abreu will waive his no-trade clause, but in most cases in the past 10 years that waiver hasn't seemed to be a roadblock. Let's assume, for the moment, that this won't be an issue.
I saw the Padres play the Phillies on Tuesday, and their lineup is weak. Put Abreu in the heart of the order and he'll transform the lineup. Ditto Colorado, Arizona, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Once one team gets interested, its competitors will have to, for two reasons -- one, he can help their team and two, if they get him, not only do they help their team, but he's someone their competitors didn't get. The thing about the NL West is that some of those teams -- Los Angeles and Colorado, to name a few -- have some young prospects worth getting. For example, a trade with the Rockies could yield the third baseman-hungry Phillies promising prospect Ian Stewart while giving the Rockies a potent bat in Coors Field. In addition, if the bidding frenzy heightens as it might well given the abundance of buyers, the Phillies could shed Abreu's entire contract.
The fewer the items on sale (especially if they're scarce items, which they are here) and the more willing buyers, the higher the prices will go. at some point, the egos of those involved who just have to have it will become so inflated that they'll continue to offer a little extra until what they've offered is so overwhelming that the selling GM will say quickly and hope that the other team won't change its mind before the fax confirming the trade gets to MLB's offices in NYC. We've all seen this happen, and some of you, I'm sure, have gotten caught up in this phenomenon on eBay if not somewhere else. It's powerful, and handled correctly by the seller of the scarce item, potentially very lucrative.
This could be a once-in-a-decade opportunity for the right seller.
If Pat Gillick sees this and pulls the trigger, history could well prove him to be a genius.
Shedding Abreu makes more room for Dellucci and Victorino, both of whom have earned more playing time. It also could give the Phillies 2-3 solid prospects to help rebuild what "Baseball Prospectus" has dubbed a woeful minor league system and free up cash for future expenditures.
The possibilities abound for the Phillies (among others), but if they move quickly and become the first of the sellers, they could reap a bounty far beyond what they ever could have imagined. It's only a shame that King George in NYC doesn't have the prospects to trade, because getting the Yankees and BoSox into a bidding war over Abreu would be great theater.
The Phillies and others could be worried that if they throw in the towel and call it a season that their fans will be frustrated and won't show up. Well, truth be told, what's attracting fans to Citizens Bank Park are Utley and Howard and the park itself. The fans are frustrated with ownership's ineptitude to begin with, and they want action. Believe it or not, making this type of big trade, given the fans' sentiments, will attract more fans that it repels. Why? Because the fans know that this team cannot contend, and they want solid signals why they should buy tickets from this ownership group in the future.
Now is not the time to stand pat and watch a starting pitching staff of Lieber, Wolf, Hamels, Lidle and Madson try to pitch you into the post-season. Now is not the time to cross your fingers and toes that Arthur Rhodes can straighten himself out and become the set-up man you hoped for. Too many variables have to come together for the Phillies to contend for the wild card (and, even if they could, it would be a false positive, so to speak, because the way the team is currently constructed doesn't bode well for the future).
Now is the time to seize upon a major market opportunity --
and sell!
Let the auction begin!
Thursday, July 06, 2006
You Know Your Hometown Baseball Team is in Trouble When
10. The leadoff hitter likes to swing at the first pitch and thinks that "walk" is what pitchers do to cool down after they get their running in.
9. The reserve infielder makes Mario Mendoza (he of the famous "Mendoza Line") look like Jeff Kent.
8. Most of the rest of baseball (okay, so maybe not the Tigers) views your RF as a valuable trade acquisition, whereas you give him all of the due that was given Von Hayes when he was in his prime.
7. The fans find a soulmate in a 35 year-old career back-up catcher with a funky 'do.
6. When the GM is interviewed about the team's mid-season report card by friendly radio guys, he still sounds flustered, and all you remember is how many times he said "you know" (The Guiness folks asked for a tape of the chat) instead of coming away with anything of substance about the team's chances in the second half. Yes, he helped mold a few World Series winners, and, yes, he once was nicknamed "Stand Pat." Which guy my team got remains open to debate.
5. The skipper looks (and acts) too much like the Skipper from "Gilligan's Island" and is a walking advertisement for a cardiology practice.
4. Your corner outfielders (the RF listed above and this guy) have should have this traffic sign taped to their backs when playing the field. (And the CF should charge extra for the additional ground he has to cover as a result). The LF's backwards ballet that turned Khalil Greene's flyout into a double will not make people forget Coco Crisp's catch on David Wright in Fenway last week anytime soon.
3. The directions for use that come with your lefty and righty set-up men have a warning in bold that says, "Don't Use Near an Open Flame."
2. Your ace starting pitcher pops his wife upside the head in a public place and team ownership treats the incident the way baseball addressed concerns about steroid usage in the 1990's.
1. During a pitching change in a tie game, the fans start cheering for the local NFL team, even when football season is four months away.
Can you guess which team this is?
Now, of course, there have been a few bright spots, such as -- 1) the starting pitcher in question before he decided to imitate Mike Tyson, 2) the aging closer, who is pitching as well as, if not better than, the guy he replaced (last night notwithstanding) and 3) the right side of the infield, which is one of the best if not the best in the league. Fair enough, but it's not enough. Oh, yeah, the GM took some comfort in that the team, despite not playing well, is only about 5 games out of the wild card.
Remember the '51 Giants? The '61 Giants? The '04 Astros? Any teams in between that overcame difficult mid-season odds?
This team is not one of them.
9. The reserve infielder makes Mario Mendoza (he of the famous "Mendoza Line") look like Jeff Kent.
8. Most of the rest of baseball (okay, so maybe not the Tigers) views your RF as a valuable trade acquisition, whereas you give him all of the due that was given Von Hayes when he was in his prime.
7. The fans find a soulmate in a 35 year-old career back-up catcher with a funky 'do.
6. When the GM is interviewed about the team's mid-season report card by friendly radio guys, he still sounds flustered, and all you remember is how many times he said "you know" (The Guiness folks asked for a tape of the chat) instead of coming away with anything of substance about the team's chances in the second half. Yes, he helped mold a few World Series winners, and, yes, he once was nicknamed "Stand Pat." Which guy my team got remains open to debate.
5. The skipper looks (and acts) too much like the Skipper from "Gilligan's Island" and is a walking advertisement for a cardiology practice.
4. Your corner outfielders (the RF listed above and this guy) have should have this traffic sign taped to their backs when playing the field. (And the CF should charge extra for the additional ground he has to cover as a result). The LF's backwards ballet that turned Khalil Greene's flyout into a double will not make people forget Coco Crisp's catch on David Wright in Fenway last week anytime soon.
3. The directions for use that come with your lefty and righty set-up men have a warning in bold that says, "Don't Use Near an Open Flame."
2. Your ace starting pitcher pops his wife upside the head in a public place and team ownership treats the incident the way baseball addressed concerns about steroid usage in the 1990's.
1. During a pitching change in a tie game, the fans start cheering for the local NFL team, even when football season is four months away.
Can you guess which team this is?
Now, of course, there have been a few bright spots, such as -- 1) the starting pitcher in question before he decided to imitate Mike Tyson, 2) the aging closer, who is pitching as well as, if not better than, the guy he replaced (last night notwithstanding) and 3) the right side of the infield, which is one of the best if not the best in the league. Fair enough, but it's not enough. Oh, yeah, the GM took some comfort in that the team, despite not playing well, is only about 5 games out of the wild card.
Remember the '51 Giants? The '61 Giants? The '04 Astros? Any teams in between that overcame difficult mid-season odds?
This team is not one of them.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Don't Bet On It
One-time Maryland hoops coach Lefty Driesell once had something like this to say about players who made early commitments to colleges: "I like it. Now I know who I've got to beat."
Fast forward to 2006, where word out of Ohio is that the consensus #1 player in the HS class of 2007, O.J. Mayo, has told coaches at basketball powerhouse USC that he's going to play hoops for the Men of Troy. No, he didn't dial a wrong number and call Tim Floyd instead of Ben Howland, and, no, he didn't take a wrong turn and end up in South Central instead of Westwood at UCLA. Apparently, he likes the USC brand, likes how Matt Leinart and Reggie Bush became household names, and doesn't want to be just another name at a hoops powerhouse like Duke or North Carolina.
Interesting choice, to say the least.
Becoming a hoopster at a football school.
That's akin to becoming a football player at, well, Duke.
What in the name of John Wooden and Paul Westphal is this kid thinking?
Makes you wonder why he wants to go to a school without a hoops tradition. Makes you also wonder why he wants to go to a school whose coach really has developed only one NBA player in his career -- Marcus Fizer. Makes you wonder, period.
Playing the role of Driesell in this drama, no doubt, will be newly anointed Kansas State coach Bob Huggins, formerly of Cincinnati, a school with a hoops tradition. Okay, so there's some bad pub surrounding Huggins (SI reported that 19 of his players got arrested during his tenure), but the guy won games and supposedly had a solid in with Mayo and one of his HS teammates, a top 10 HS player in the class of '07. Well, now Coach Huggins knows who he's got to beat -- Tim Floyd and USC.
Thing is, if Mayo is looking for a school where he can make an imprint and not be just another name, K State is the place. It has played poor cousin to hoops titan Kansas for a very long time. Okay, so K State gave us Rolando Blackman, but Phog Allen, a disciple of James Naismith (the fellow who invented this great game), coached at Kansas. Wilt Chamberlain, the Paul Bunyan of the game, went to Kansas, as did Danny Manning, Kirk Hinrich, Raef LaFrentz, Nick Collison, Jacque Vaughn, Paul Pierce and many others. No, I'm not dyslexic or dyspeptic, just pointing out that if Mayo would like to slay a dragon, put a school on the map, go up against a dynasty and make a big name for himself, K State could be the place, especially given Coach Huggins' record for developing players (especially when compared to Tim Floyd's).
Only problem is that Mayo needs the bright lights, apparently, and had K State been in the real Manhattan, New York City, instead of the other Manhattan, Manhattan, Kansas, then perhaps he would have been interested. But the thing about places like Ohio and Kansas is that people fly over them to get to places like L.A. and New York City, international cities with a certain star quality that places like Kansas State will never have. In picking USC and Tim Floyd, Mayo knows that he has a school craving to make a dent in UCLA's huge hoops reputation and a coach who is looking to re-establish his name after flopping with the Chicago Bulls in his last head-coaching gig.
Gotta say one thing -- taking on UCLA in L.A. -- the kid's got cajones.
Sounds like a good potential opportunity for Mayo, but a risk for USC and Floyd, because if Mayo has figured all of this out, at the age of 18 he could be hard to handle. Remember, it wasn't as though the Fab Five left a sterling legacy at Michigan (while playing for a coach who seemed to have little ability to steer his players down the right path).
I wouldn't count K State out yet, not in the least. And I also would question the thinking of a kid who wants to play for a school with no discernible hoops tradition, for a coach who is re-treading his tires, and, at the nation's premier football school to boot. He either is into re-making one of the Labors of Hercules (which could be a compelling made-for-Disney TV movie), shirking the limelight or being selfish because at a place like SC he'll have the chance to score 45 points a game and become neither a PG or a 2G in the process.
Unless, of course, he wants to be a magnet and re-create the Fab Five. Perhaps that's the ticket, and perhaps that's what O.J. Mayo is thinking. There are flaws with this logic, however, in that he should be finding the best coach possible to help hone his game. In Tim Floyd, he might have that, but the choice doesn't seem that logical when many better coaches would have loved to get him into their programs. And, if he can't be that magnet, he'll be a bring-it-up-and-shoot-it PG.
The last time I checked, the two guys in the NBA with that description hadn't won a title -- Allen Iverson and Stephon Marbury. Yes, Tiny Archibald had with the Celtics, but he had plenty of talent surrounding him. Guys named Bird, McHale and Parish, to name three. Who will surround O.J. Mayo at USC?
This is a very curious decision if, in fact, it's a decision at all.
The situation bears watching. USC sounds like, to use a golf analogy, the leader in the clubhouse.
And that old hustler, Bobby Huggins, has a few tricks in the bag to win this version of a club championship.
Don't count him out until the scorecard -- err, letter of intent -- is signed.
One real positive thing could come out of this, come to think of it. If O.J. Mayo goes to USC, reinvigorates its hoops program, tutors illiterates and comforts widows, he'll also help USC alums attach a positive vibe to a name that has meant nothing but heartache and disappointment for the past dozen plus years.
They called O.J. the football player "The Juice."
What will they call O.J. the hoopster? The Condiment? The Spread?
The possibilities are endless.
But somehow the words "best hoops prospect in the country" and USC Basketball just don't go together.
Fast forward to 2006, where word out of Ohio is that the consensus #1 player in the HS class of 2007, O.J. Mayo, has told coaches at basketball powerhouse USC that he's going to play hoops for the Men of Troy. No, he didn't dial a wrong number and call Tim Floyd instead of Ben Howland, and, no, he didn't take a wrong turn and end up in South Central instead of Westwood at UCLA. Apparently, he likes the USC brand, likes how Matt Leinart and Reggie Bush became household names, and doesn't want to be just another name at a hoops powerhouse like Duke or North Carolina.
Interesting choice, to say the least.
Becoming a hoopster at a football school.
That's akin to becoming a football player at, well, Duke.
What in the name of John Wooden and Paul Westphal is this kid thinking?
Makes you wonder why he wants to go to a school without a hoops tradition. Makes you also wonder why he wants to go to a school whose coach really has developed only one NBA player in his career -- Marcus Fizer. Makes you wonder, period.
Playing the role of Driesell in this drama, no doubt, will be newly anointed Kansas State coach Bob Huggins, formerly of Cincinnati, a school with a hoops tradition. Okay, so there's some bad pub surrounding Huggins (SI reported that 19 of his players got arrested during his tenure), but the guy won games and supposedly had a solid in with Mayo and one of his HS teammates, a top 10 HS player in the class of '07. Well, now Coach Huggins knows who he's got to beat -- Tim Floyd and USC.
Thing is, if Mayo is looking for a school where he can make an imprint and not be just another name, K State is the place. It has played poor cousin to hoops titan Kansas for a very long time. Okay, so K State gave us Rolando Blackman, but Phog Allen, a disciple of James Naismith (the fellow who invented this great game), coached at Kansas. Wilt Chamberlain, the Paul Bunyan of the game, went to Kansas, as did Danny Manning, Kirk Hinrich, Raef LaFrentz, Nick Collison, Jacque Vaughn, Paul Pierce and many others. No, I'm not dyslexic or dyspeptic, just pointing out that if Mayo would like to slay a dragon, put a school on the map, go up against a dynasty and make a big name for himself, K State could be the place, especially given Coach Huggins' record for developing players (especially when compared to Tim Floyd's).
Only problem is that Mayo needs the bright lights, apparently, and had K State been in the real Manhattan, New York City, instead of the other Manhattan, Manhattan, Kansas, then perhaps he would have been interested. But the thing about places like Ohio and Kansas is that people fly over them to get to places like L.A. and New York City, international cities with a certain star quality that places like Kansas State will never have. In picking USC and Tim Floyd, Mayo knows that he has a school craving to make a dent in UCLA's huge hoops reputation and a coach who is looking to re-establish his name after flopping with the Chicago Bulls in his last head-coaching gig.
Gotta say one thing -- taking on UCLA in L.A. -- the kid's got cajones.
Sounds like a good potential opportunity for Mayo, but a risk for USC and Floyd, because if Mayo has figured all of this out, at the age of 18 he could be hard to handle. Remember, it wasn't as though the Fab Five left a sterling legacy at Michigan (while playing for a coach who seemed to have little ability to steer his players down the right path).
I wouldn't count K State out yet, not in the least. And I also would question the thinking of a kid who wants to play for a school with no discernible hoops tradition, for a coach who is re-treading his tires, and, at the nation's premier football school to boot. He either is into re-making one of the Labors of Hercules (which could be a compelling made-for-Disney TV movie), shirking the limelight or being selfish because at a place like SC he'll have the chance to score 45 points a game and become neither a PG or a 2G in the process.
Unless, of course, he wants to be a magnet and re-create the Fab Five. Perhaps that's the ticket, and perhaps that's what O.J. Mayo is thinking. There are flaws with this logic, however, in that he should be finding the best coach possible to help hone his game. In Tim Floyd, he might have that, but the choice doesn't seem that logical when many better coaches would have loved to get him into their programs. And, if he can't be that magnet, he'll be a bring-it-up-and-shoot-it PG.
The last time I checked, the two guys in the NBA with that description hadn't won a title -- Allen Iverson and Stephon Marbury. Yes, Tiny Archibald had with the Celtics, but he had plenty of talent surrounding him. Guys named Bird, McHale and Parish, to name three. Who will surround O.J. Mayo at USC?
This is a very curious decision if, in fact, it's a decision at all.
The situation bears watching. USC sounds like, to use a golf analogy, the leader in the clubhouse.
And that old hustler, Bobby Huggins, has a few tricks in the bag to win this version of a club championship.
Don't count him out until the scorecard -- err, letter of intent -- is signed.
One real positive thing could come out of this, come to think of it. If O.J. Mayo goes to USC, reinvigorates its hoops program, tutors illiterates and comforts widows, he'll also help USC alums attach a positive vibe to a name that has meant nothing but heartache and disappointment for the past dozen plus years.
They called O.J. the football player "The Juice."
What will they call O.J. the hoopster? The Condiment? The Spread?
The possibilities are endless.
But somehow the words "best hoops prospect in the country" and USC Basketball just don't go together.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Soccer Scandal's Ramifications
In the U.S., the biggest sports scandal has focused on baseball and on the extent to which players took performance enhancing drugs. This scandal makes headlines every time it erupts -- from Barry Bonds' grand jury testimony to the testimony of several home run hitters before Congress to the claims of Jose Canseco and the sworn testimony of Jason Grimsely. It doesn't take a Mensa member to figure out that this volcano will erupt again in the near future, showering the fans with all sorts of lava.
Overseas, a huge scandal has rocked Italian soccer. There is a big investigation going on about match fixing, betting and referee deployment that could have some of the biggest names -- AC Milan and Juventus -- relegated all the way down to the equivalent of high-A baseball. That's a precipitous crash, especially in a country not always known for its staunch opposition to corruption. The latest news is that the coach of Juventus (which is located in Turin or Torino, depending on where you're from) has exercised an escape clause to jump out of the cauldron that is Juventus and into the boiling pot known as Real Madrid. The latter, of course, is in the top division in Spain and not undergoing any controversy. It still is a pressure cooker, because Real Madrid fans like to think their team is the best in the world and have high expectations for their team. Needless to say, if you're a Type A coach for a Serie A league, you want to go where the best action is -- and it isn't in a third division. Click here to read about this latest move.
It will be interesting to see how far this scandal spreads and what punishments arise from it. My reading in between the lines is that this could be Italy's version of the Black Sox of 1919, with the difference being that several premier teams are implicated. To draw the stark contrast for you, imagine the Red Sox and Yankees being sent to the Eastern League for their transgressions, and imagine that they'll only be able to return if they finish in the top 3 in successive years in the Eastern League and International League before being elevated back to the Majors. Which means, of course, that these clubs could be gone from Serie A, the top Italian League, for at least two seasons.
Ouch!
How the U.S. would handle a scandal of this proportion is unclear, although given the public hue and cry that would likely result you could see individuals banned for life and teams fined heavily (assuming their involvement) as opposed to teams sent to the baseball equivalent of Siberia. Nonetheless, this is a scandal that bears watching, both for what happens to elite teams and elite players as to how a major democracy handles something of this proportion.
Overseas, a huge scandal has rocked Italian soccer. There is a big investigation going on about match fixing, betting and referee deployment that could have some of the biggest names -- AC Milan and Juventus -- relegated all the way down to the equivalent of high-A baseball. That's a precipitous crash, especially in a country not always known for its staunch opposition to corruption. The latest news is that the coach of Juventus (which is located in Turin or Torino, depending on where you're from) has exercised an escape clause to jump out of the cauldron that is Juventus and into the boiling pot known as Real Madrid. The latter, of course, is in the top division in Spain and not undergoing any controversy. It still is a pressure cooker, because Real Madrid fans like to think their team is the best in the world and have high expectations for their team. Needless to say, if you're a Type A coach for a Serie A league, you want to go where the best action is -- and it isn't in a third division. Click here to read about this latest move.
It will be interesting to see how far this scandal spreads and what punishments arise from it. My reading in between the lines is that this could be Italy's version of the Black Sox of 1919, with the difference being that several premier teams are implicated. To draw the stark contrast for you, imagine the Red Sox and Yankees being sent to the Eastern League for their transgressions, and imagine that they'll only be able to return if they finish in the top 3 in successive years in the Eastern League and International League before being elevated back to the Majors. Which means, of course, that these clubs could be gone from Serie A, the top Italian League, for at least two seasons.
Ouch!
How the U.S. would handle a scandal of this proportion is unclear, although given the public hue and cry that would likely result you could see individuals banned for life and teams fined heavily (assuming their involvement) as opposed to teams sent to the baseball equivalent of Siberia. Nonetheless, this is a scandal that bears watching, both for what happens to elite teams and elite players as to how a major democracy handles something of this proportion.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Uh-Oh for Phillies' Fans
Spanning the globe from the World Cup to the home-run hitting derby at next week's All-Star Game. . .
You'll remember that Phillies' RF scorched the competition with a mind-numbing performance at last year's contest. Unfortunately for the fans in the Cradle of Liberty, the hometown RF has only hit 14 HRs since that time -- roughly a full season of baseball. Many suggest that hitting balls thrown with the arc and velocity of the average beer-league softball pitch hurt Abreu's form since that amazing night.
Now it looks like Phillies' 1B Ryan Howard, who scares opposing teams the way Willie McCovey and Willie Stargell used to (not to mention two who should not be named -- Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa) is headed for the same HR derby.
Speaking as one Phillies' fan, I'd rather see my strongman hit his majestic home runs when they count and not is some marketing-designed freak show that is fun for the fans but has proved somewhat disastrous to my team in the long-term. Okay, so maybe there's no correlation, and maybe it's just a perceived jinx.
Then again, baseball players (and fans) form a superstitious lot.
Please, Ryan Howard, stay out of the contest.
If for no other reason than many of your loyal fans think that it's kryptonite that will rob your potent bat of its dynamite.
You'll remember that Phillies' RF scorched the competition with a mind-numbing performance at last year's contest. Unfortunately for the fans in the Cradle of Liberty, the hometown RF has only hit 14 HRs since that time -- roughly a full season of baseball. Many suggest that hitting balls thrown with the arc and velocity of the average beer-league softball pitch hurt Abreu's form since that amazing night.
Now it looks like Phillies' 1B Ryan Howard, who scares opposing teams the way Willie McCovey and Willie Stargell used to (not to mention two who should not be named -- Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa) is headed for the same HR derby.
Speaking as one Phillies' fan, I'd rather see my strongman hit his majestic home runs when they count and not is some marketing-designed freak show that is fun for the fans but has proved somewhat disastrous to my team in the long-term. Okay, so maybe there's no correlation, and maybe it's just a perceived jinx.
Then again, baseball players (and fans) form a superstitious lot.
Please, Ryan Howard, stay out of the contest.
If for no other reason than many of your loyal fans think that it's kryptonite that will rob your potent bat of its dynamite.
Vote for Chris Young!
How often does an Ivy Leaguer get a chance to play in MLB's All-Star Game? Not that often, that's for sure, and when you play word association games regarding Major League Baseball, the only time Ivy Leaguers' names usually come up is when you're talking about owners (Larry Lucchino) and front office types (Theo Epstein and Mark Shapiro), but not players (yes, Eddie Collins and Lou Gehrig did go to Columbia, but that was a long time ago). Only the true savant knows the stats of Texas's Mark DeRosa (a former Penn QB and shortstop) and Houston's Brad Ausmus (a Dartmouth alum).
And then there is Chris Young. The former Pirate and Expo farmhand and once-upon-a-time Texas Ranger is having a great year for the San Diego Padres, and he's been nominated for the All-Star game in the five-player vote off that happens each time this year. So, for you Met fans out there, be happy that you have 6 All-Stars and refrain from voting for Billy Wagner, and for you Phillies' fans hold the phone for Bobby Abreu (whom many of you don't care for anyway) and take solace in the fact that you have 3 All-Stars. Make this a vote on merit (and, for those Ivy alums, sentiment too) and VOTE FOR CHRIS YOUNG! And, yes, Dodger and Mia Hamm fans, let Nomar have a full, uninjured year before you sound the trumpets for him. Brewer fans, Chris Capuano is a good hurler, yes, but he's not having the year that Chris Young is.
VOTE FOR CHRIS YOUNG!
You can vote for Chris Young via text message or Internet.-You can vote from right now until 6:00 pm ET on Thursday.
There is no limit on how many times you can vote. Why vote just once when you can vote all afternoon at work?
Click on this link, click on the box for the Monster All-Star Vote (it's front and center on the page I've linked to) and send Chris Young to Pittsburgh for the All-Star Game!
(Thanks to Jon Solomon of the Princeton Basketball News for the heads up!)
And then there is Chris Young. The former Pirate and Expo farmhand and once-upon-a-time Texas Ranger is having a great year for the San Diego Padres, and he's been nominated for the All-Star game in the five-player vote off that happens each time this year. So, for you Met fans out there, be happy that you have 6 All-Stars and refrain from voting for Billy Wagner, and for you Phillies' fans hold the phone for Bobby Abreu (whom many of you don't care for anyway) and take solace in the fact that you have 3 All-Stars. Make this a vote on merit (and, for those Ivy alums, sentiment too) and VOTE FOR CHRIS YOUNG! And, yes, Dodger and Mia Hamm fans, let Nomar have a full, uninjured year before you sound the trumpets for him. Brewer fans, Chris Capuano is a good hurler, yes, but he's not having the year that Chris Young is.
VOTE FOR CHRIS YOUNG!
You can vote for Chris Young via text message or Internet.-You can vote from right now until 6:00 pm ET on Thursday.
There is no limit on how many times you can vote. Why vote just once when you can vote all afternoon at work?
Click on this link, click on the box for the Monster All-Star Vote (it's front and center on the page I've linked to) and send Chris Young to Pittsburgh for the All-Star Game!
(Thanks to Jon Solomon of the Princeton Basketball News for the heads up!)
Irony
One of the truths that emerged in the off-season was that the Phillies, who finished one game out of the playoffs last season, incurred a significant loss when they failed to re-sign ace closer Billy Wagner and, worse, lost him to the Mets. The cognoscenti (or at least hopeful Mets' fans) figured that the statistical switch would help the Mets greatly.
There is no doubt that the Mets are a better team than the Phillies and the best team in the National League to boot (whether that's like saying they're the best hockey player in Ecuador remains to be seen). The Mets can slug you to pieces, their bullpen before Wagner has been strong (and Wagner hasn't been all that bad, by the way), and their starting pitching has been excellent. Like any good team, they're a few blown wings (Pedro Martinez's and the ancient Met, Tommy Glavine's, come to mind) and a few bullpen injuries (Duaner Sanchez's, were it to have been worse) from falling back to the pack. Still, the odds of that confluence events are small when compared to the odds of the Phillies' starting pitching staff finding consistency and propelling that team into contention for a wild-card spot, not to mention first place in the division.
Put simply, the Mets are the class of the National League. Their players have been rewarded with six All-Star berths, including four position players who have earned the starting nod -- catcher Paul LoDuca (who is hurt and should stay home to mend his injured thumb), shortstop Jose Reyes (the best in the NL), third baseman David Wright (another great player) and CF Carlos Beltran (whose play this season reminds Met fans why the Mets shelled out the big bucks two seasons ago to lure him from the Astros via free agency). Future Hall of Famers Martinez and Glavine round out the squad. It also could be that in the 32nd man on the team vote, Mets' fans will turn out via the internet and vote closer Billy Wagner onto the squad. That would give the Metropolitans' seven players on the team, and few could argue that the runaway best team in the NL deserves fewer. (It also could be that the chatter on WFAN, where many a Met fan has called in to express his disappointment with Wagner, leads Met fans to be happy for their six players and sit out this particular vote; I don't think they will, but if they do, that's probably the explanation).
So where's the irony, you ask?
Well, about four years ago, Tommy Glavine was a free agent, and he was considering remaining in the NL East and had narrowed down his choices to between the Phillies (who wanted him to be their #1 starter) and the Mets (who told him that they wouldn't expect him to be the staff leader -- Al Leiter held that role). The Phillies offered roughly $30 million for 3 years (I believe with a club option for a fourth year) while the Mets offered the 39 year-old lefty $36.5 over three years, with an option for a fourth year (making the total deal worth $42.5 million). Advantage Mets, and Glavine signed with New York.
Phillies' fans, ever impatient for a winner and ever disdainful of ownership, gave the Phillies a relative pass on this one. The Phillies spun it that Glavine, used to being the #2 starting in Atlanta (yeah, right, but with #1 starter's stuff and makeup) didn't want to be THE guy in Philadelphia, which the Phillies desperately needed him to be. They also spun it that four years and $42.5 million was too much for an aging finesse pitcher. The latter point made more sense; the first one didn't take hold. In any event, most Phillies' fans chalked Glavine up to a "nice to have" but didn't mourn because it wasn't as though the team lost out on a flamethrower with many good years left (at least in this instance -- they traded Curt Schilling for a bunch of extras from a Rob Schneider movie two seasons earlier). They lost out on a finesse pitcher, and the deal hasn't borne out as a great one for the Mets until Glavine found the Fountain of Youth this off-season and has embarked upon a tremendous campaign this season.
Fast forward to last off-season. Billy Wagner became a free agent, and apparently the Phillies had been close to signing him during the season, only to have reports come out that then-GM Ed Wade castigated Wagner over the telephone for remarks he made about the hunger of his teammates and soured the relationship between the player and club. (Wagner poured gasoline over that fire before this season began, taking certain teammates to task, even naming a few). Wagner was pretty much "lights out" for the Phillies last season, and with Eric Gagne hurt, was viewed as the premier closer in the National League. The Mets, meanwhile, in previous seasons had struggled with, among others, Braden Looper and Armando Benitez in that role.
It was bad enough for frustrated Phillies' fans to lose Wagner, but it was worse to lose him to the Mets. The Phillies sacrificed Ed Wade to keep the fans happy (lemmings those fans are not), by firing him (and not trying to bunt him with Ryan Howard's bat up the third-base line). Firing Wade, though, did not solve the closer dilemma. Needing a closer but unwilling to go overboard paying for a position that has a short average tenure in the Majors (read: teams switch closers with greater frequency than they change many other positions), the Phillies opted to ink the Yankees' set-up man, Tom Gordon, apparently the second oldest player playing professional baseball in NYC (the first being Julio Franco). And a guy who has had some arm problems in the past.
The response in Philadelphia: "Ugh." Then the Phillies acquired Arthur Rhodes to be the set-up man (having elevated former set-up man Ryan Madson to the starting rotation), and suddenly the two most important men in your bullpen combined to be 76 years old. The response in Philadelphia: "Are you kidding me?" Needless to say, the Pat Gillick era did not get off to a resounding start (okay, the Jim Thome trade was well-received (although a now-healthy Thome is playing great for the White Sox), but signings of Alex Gonzalez, Abraham Nunez and Sal Fasano did little to encourage the hometown fans). It's not, though, that the Phillies' fans didn't respect Gordon. Many of those fans know their baseball, and they knew that Gordon had excelled over the years. But he hadn't closed in about five years, closer is a position that can changes hands a lot, and, well, it was a big leap of faith to ask the fans to accept Gordon as a replacement for Billy Wagner. After all, this is a group of fans that has been fed line after line and questionable roster moves over the past 23 years.
So what happened?
Gordon has pitched better than Wagner and. . .
The players voted Gordon onto the All-Star team, while Wagner has blown four saves and doesn't enjoy the confidence of the Mets' fans that he did a little over four months ago. And, he has 3 more seasons left on his 4-year, $43 million deal. Again, the most practical Phillies' fans agreed that this was a lot to spend on a closer -- Wagner will be in his late thirties when this contract expires, and it's hard to see him throwing 99 m.ph. three seasons from now. Gordon, meanwhile, at the time was overpaid as well, getting $18 million for three years. (Once Toronto has opening up its version of Fort Knox for B.J. Ryan, inflation hit the closer market very hard). Yet, by all objective standards, Gordon looks like a bargain.
It's funny how baseball works. On the one hand, the Mets are winning the war in a big way, running away from the N.L. East the way Secretariat ran away from the field in the '73 Belmont Stakes. On the other hand, in this particular little cubbyhole, the Phillies outdid the Mets -- by accident, of course (because they did want Wagner). It's a small victory in the scheme of things, but one that some in the Phillies' clubhouse will take some joy in because of Wagner's unfortunate utterances in the spring (he blasted his former team before the teams played this year in Philadelphia, and, yet, when he came to the city, he was conciliatory and said there were many guys he missed).
Make no mistake, though: the average Phillies' fan would much rather have his team where the Mets are now, Wagner or now Wagner. And that's one thing that the average Phillie, Met, Mets' fan and Phillies' fan can agree upon.
But deep down, Mets' fans have to be a little bit worried about their pricey closer.
Still, it's a pleasant worry to have when you're team is headed into the thick of the post-season.
There is no doubt that the Mets are a better team than the Phillies and the best team in the National League to boot (whether that's like saying they're the best hockey player in Ecuador remains to be seen). The Mets can slug you to pieces, their bullpen before Wagner has been strong (and Wagner hasn't been all that bad, by the way), and their starting pitching has been excellent. Like any good team, they're a few blown wings (Pedro Martinez's and the ancient Met, Tommy Glavine's, come to mind) and a few bullpen injuries (Duaner Sanchez's, were it to have been worse) from falling back to the pack. Still, the odds of that confluence events are small when compared to the odds of the Phillies' starting pitching staff finding consistency and propelling that team into contention for a wild-card spot, not to mention first place in the division.
Put simply, the Mets are the class of the National League. Their players have been rewarded with six All-Star berths, including four position players who have earned the starting nod -- catcher Paul LoDuca (who is hurt and should stay home to mend his injured thumb), shortstop Jose Reyes (the best in the NL), third baseman David Wright (another great player) and CF Carlos Beltran (whose play this season reminds Met fans why the Mets shelled out the big bucks two seasons ago to lure him from the Astros via free agency). Future Hall of Famers Martinez and Glavine round out the squad. It also could be that in the 32nd man on the team vote, Mets' fans will turn out via the internet and vote closer Billy Wagner onto the squad. That would give the Metropolitans' seven players on the team, and few could argue that the runaway best team in the NL deserves fewer. (It also could be that the chatter on WFAN, where many a Met fan has called in to express his disappointment with Wagner, leads Met fans to be happy for their six players and sit out this particular vote; I don't think they will, but if they do, that's probably the explanation).
So where's the irony, you ask?
Well, about four years ago, Tommy Glavine was a free agent, and he was considering remaining in the NL East and had narrowed down his choices to between the Phillies (who wanted him to be their #1 starter) and the Mets (who told him that they wouldn't expect him to be the staff leader -- Al Leiter held that role). The Phillies offered roughly $30 million for 3 years (I believe with a club option for a fourth year) while the Mets offered the 39 year-old lefty $36.5 over three years, with an option for a fourth year (making the total deal worth $42.5 million). Advantage Mets, and Glavine signed with New York.
Phillies' fans, ever impatient for a winner and ever disdainful of ownership, gave the Phillies a relative pass on this one. The Phillies spun it that Glavine, used to being the #2 starting in Atlanta (yeah, right, but with #1 starter's stuff and makeup) didn't want to be THE guy in Philadelphia, which the Phillies desperately needed him to be. They also spun it that four years and $42.5 million was too much for an aging finesse pitcher. The latter point made more sense; the first one didn't take hold. In any event, most Phillies' fans chalked Glavine up to a "nice to have" but didn't mourn because it wasn't as though the team lost out on a flamethrower with many good years left (at least in this instance -- they traded Curt Schilling for a bunch of extras from a Rob Schneider movie two seasons earlier). They lost out on a finesse pitcher, and the deal hasn't borne out as a great one for the Mets until Glavine found the Fountain of Youth this off-season and has embarked upon a tremendous campaign this season.
Fast forward to last off-season. Billy Wagner became a free agent, and apparently the Phillies had been close to signing him during the season, only to have reports come out that then-GM Ed Wade castigated Wagner over the telephone for remarks he made about the hunger of his teammates and soured the relationship between the player and club. (Wagner poured gasoline over that fire before this season began, taking certain teammates to task, even naming a few). Wagner was pretty much "lights out" for the Phillies last season, and with Eric Gagne hurt, was viewed as the premier closer in the National League. The Mets, meanwhile, in previous seasons had struggled with, among others, Braden Looper and Armando Benitez in that role.
It was bad enough for frustrated Phillies' fans to lose Wagner, but it was worse to lose him to the Mets. The Phillies sacrificed Ed Wade to keep the fans happy (lemmings those fans are not), by firing him (and not trying to bunt him with Ryan Howard's bat up the third-base line). Firing Wade, though, did not solve the closer dilemma. Needing a closer but unwilling to go overboard paying for a position that has a short average tenure in the Majors (read: teams switch closers with greater frequency than they change many other positions), the Phillies opted to ink the Yankees' set-up man, Tom Gordon, apparently the second oldest player playing professional baseball in NYC (the first being Julio Franco). And a guy who has had some arm problems in the past.
The response in Philadelphia: "Ugh." Then the Phillies acquired Arthur Rhodes to be the set-up man (having elevated former set-up man Ryan Madson to the starting rotation), and suddenly the two most important men in your bullpen combined to be 76 years old. The response in Philadelphia: "Are you kidding me?" Needless to say, the Pat Gillick era did not get off to a resounding start (okay, the Jim Thome trade was well-received (although a now-healthy Thome is playing great for the White Sox), but signings of Alex Gonzalez, Abraham Nunez and Sal Fasano did little to encourage the hometown fans). It's not, though, that the Phillies' fans didn't respect Gordon. Many of those fans know their baseball, and they knew that Gordon had excelled over the years. But he hadn't closed in about five years, closer is a position that can changes hands a lot, and, well, it was a big leap of faith to ask the fans to accept Gordon as a replacement for Billy Wagner. After all, this is a group of fans that has been fed line after line and questionable roster moves over the past 23 years.
So what happened?
Gordon has pitched better than Wagner and. . .
The players voted Gordon onto the All-Star team, while Wagner has blown four saves and doesn't enjoy the confidence of the Mets' fans that he did a little over four months ago. And, he has 3 more seasons left on his 4-year, $43 million deal. Again, the most practical Phillies' fans agreed that this was a lot to spend on a closer -- Wagner will be in his late thirties when this contract expires, and it's hard to see him throwing 99 m.ph. three seasons from now. Gordon, meanwhile, at the time was overpaid as well, getting $18 million for three years. (Once Toronto has opening up its version of Fort Knox for B.J. Ryan, inflation hit the closer market very hard). Yet, by all objective standards, Gordon looks like a bargain.
It's funny how baseball works. On the one hand, the Mets are winning the war in a big way, running away from the N.L. East the way Secretariat ran away from the field in the '73 Belmont Stakes. On the other hand, in this particular little cubbyhole, the Phillies outdid the Mets -- by accident, of course (because they did want Wagner). It's a small victory in the scheme of things, but one that some in the Phillies' clubhouse will take some joy in because of Wagner's unfortunate utterances in the spring (he blasted his former team before the teams played this year in Philadelphia, and, yet, when he came to the city, he was conciliatory and said there were many guys he missed).
Make no mistake, though: the average Phillies' fan would much rather have his team where the Mets are now, Wagner or now Wagner. And that's one thing that the average Phillie, Met, Mets' fan and Phillies' fan can agree upon.
But deep down, Mets' fans have to be a little bit worried about their pricey closer.
Still, it's a pleasant worry to have when you're team is headed into the thick of the post-season.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
The Soccer May Be Better In England, But. . . (and Other Soccer Observations)
the sports medicine is better in the U.S.
Just ask star English striker Michael Owen, who has decided to have his knee repaired in the colonies and not his home country.
Perhaps that's what U.S. soccer needs, a new lend-lease program. We'll send some good sports medicine docs to Britain, and the Brits can send us some Premiership players to patriate in the U.S. and then play for the U.S. team in the World Cup in 2010 in South Africa.
Then again, can the Brits stand the heat of the South African climate? The analysts on ABC yesterday reported yesterday that the Brits were sorely disappointed not getting further in this World Cup, because their sources told them that the Brits didn't think they'd fare so well in the heat of South Africa.
That may be so, but it struck me that the English team never got to full throttle, that they played a conservative game with only one striker, and that they need their very talented striker, Wayne Rooney, to grow up. True, the hooligans will be mad at Portugal's Cristiano Ronaldo for provoking the tempest that caused his Man. U. teammate Rooney to get a red card with 37 minutes to go in the game yesterday, but if they get angry at Ronaldo, they're as delusional as Rooney. It wasn't the young Portuguese midfielder who stepped on the crotch of a Portuguese player -- it was Rooney. It wasn't Ronaldo who shoved Rooney, it was the other way around. So before you get angry with Rooney, Man U. fans particularly, think the whole thing through -- and be happy he's on your team. As for the rest of the English fans, channel your anger -- and forget about it. Your team didn't deserve to win this World Cup -- and you know it.
Four more observations:
1. If they gave out acting awards for sports, they'd give them to soccer players. Talk about 1) diving and 2) bellyaching to referees -- it's a bit ridiculous. The Portuguese did outplay England yesterday, but they also struck me as a bunch of fakers, divers and whiners, more so than any other team in the World Cup. That may be saying a lot, but they have enough talent to shed the histrionics and just play the game to win. They (and anyone else who acts similarly) dishonor their teams and the game by going through the trickery that they adopt to gain an advantage. While soccer may have some advantages over the major American sports (after all, it's the most popular sport in the world), the "crap" that goes on here wouldn't get tolerated in the U.S. Or would it? After all, American fans have had steroids and HGH, among other things, to deal with in the recent past. Still, enough with the diving, grabbing body parts and gesturing to the referees.
2. I applaud the former U.S. national team members for their candor during the World Cup, particularly Eric Wynalda. He's the Johnny Miller of soccer, and if soccer is to have a future in this country Wynalda should be a part of it. He's not spared the rod of criticism on anyone, and he was frank about America's team, about the coaching of the English team, the discombulation of the Brazilian team yesterday and waxed eloquent on a whole host of other topics. He was, in a word, great. When you compare Wynalda to the rest of the commentators in the sporting world, he's just a breath of fresh air. Too many are reluctant to speak frankly, either because their talents lay in playing their sport and not talking about it or they feel that they have to be cheerleaders and not critics. Julie Foudy also did some good work. That said, some of the former players who did color commentary during the games left something to be desired. Right now, I'll chalk those disappointments up more to inexperience than anything else.
3. I've blogged before about the officiating and the fact that it's played too large a role in the World Cup. I have some simple solutions -- add more officials. The NHL did it to cut down on fouls behind the referee's back, and the World Cup could adopt a format with two or three referees. American football has more than half a dozen officials who can call penalties, and world soccer should consider the same thing. In this fashion, you won't have to rely on one official to cover the entire field, especially on a hot day. The other thing that the officials need to do is be more consistent on when cards are issued. In the match between France and Brazil yesterday, Frenchman Wily Sagnol got called for a yellow card on a phantom push, yet later in the game a few Brazilians had late, rough tackles on French players where no cards were issued and, in one instance, not even a foul was called. That's but one example of woefully inconsistent carding in this World Cup.
4. Franck Ribery of France has had a coming out party of sorts in this World Cup. True, in early June Arsenal and Man. U. made huge offers to Marseille, his current club, for this speedy 22 year-old player. To my knowledge, Marseille hasn't bitten at transfer offers that approach 25 million pounds. Just watching him in France's last two games has made it clear that this guy is an international star in the making and that France should have solid leadership in World Cup play in the years to come.
Just ask star English striker Michael Owen, who has decided to have his knee repaired in the colonies and not his home country.
Perhaps that's what U.S. soccer needs, a new lend-lease program. We'll send some good sports medicine docs to Britain, and the Brits can send us some Premiership players to patriate in the U.S. and then play for the U.S. team in the World Cup in 2010 in South Africa.
Then again, can the Brits stand the heat of the South African climate? The analysts on ABC yesterday reported yesterday that the Brits were sorely disappointed not getting further in this World Cup, because their sources told them that the Brits didn't think they'd fare so well in the heat of South Africa.
That may be so, but it struck me that the English team never got to full throttle, that they played a conservative game with only one striker, and that they need their very talented striker, Wayne Rooney, to grow up. True, the hooligans will be mad at Portugal's Cristiano Ronaldo for provoking the tempest that caused his Man. U. teammate Rooney to get a red card with 37 minutes to go in the game yesterday, but if they get angry at Ronaldo, they're as delusional as Rooney. It wasn't the young Portuguese midfielder who stepped on the crotch of a Portuguese player -- it was Rooney. It wasn't Ronaldo who shoved Rooney, it was the other way around. So before you get angry with Rooney, Man U. fans particularly, think the whole thing through -- and be happy he's on your team. As for the rest of the English fans, channel your anger -- and forget about it. Your team didn't deserve to win this World Cup -- and you know it.
Four more observations:
1. If they gave out acting awards for sports, they'd give them to soccer players. Talk about 1) diving and 2) bellyaching to referees -- it's a bit ridiculous. The Portuguese did outplay England yesterday, but they also struck me as a bunch of fakers, divers and whiners, more so than any other team in the World Cup. That may be saying a lot, but they have enough talent to shed the histrionics and just play the game to win. They (and anyone else who acts similarly) dishonor their teams and the game by going through the trickery that they adopt to gain an advantage. While soccer may have some advantages over the major American sports (after all, it's the most popular sport in the world), the "crap" that goes on here wouldn't get tolerated in the U.S. Or would it? After all, American fans have had steroids and HGH, among other things, to deal with in the recent past. Still, enough with the diving, grabbing body parts and gesturing to the referees.
2. I applaud the former U.S. national team members for their candor during the World Cup, particularly Eric Wynalda. He's the Johnny Miller of soccer, and if soccer is to have a future in this country Wynalda should be a part of it. He's not spared the rod of criticism on anyone, and he was frank about America's team, about the coaching of the English team, the discombulation of the Brazilian team yesterday and waxed eloquent on a whole host of other topics. He was, in a word, great. When you compare Wynalda to the rest of the commentators in the sporting world, he's just a breath of fresh air. Too many are reluctant to speak frankly, either because their talents lay in playing their sport and not talking about it or they feel that they have to be cheerleaders and not critics. Julie Foudy also did some good work. That said, some of the former players who did color commentary during the games left something to be desired. Right now, I'll chalk those disappointments up more to inexperience than anything else.
3. I've blogged before about the officiating and the fact that it's played too large a role in the World Cup. I have some simple solutions -- add more officials. The NHL did it to cut down on fouls behind the referee's back, and the World Cup could adopt a format with two or three referees. American football has more than half a dozen officials who can call penalties, and world soccer should consider the same thing. In this fashion, you won't have to rely on one official to cover the entire field, especially on a hot day. The other thing that the officials need to do is be more consistent on when cards are issued. In the match between France and Brazil yesterday, Frenchman Wily Sagnol got called for a yellow card on a phantom push, yet later in the game a few Brazilians had late, rough tackles on French players where no cards were issued and, in one instance, not even a foul was called. That's but one example of woefully inconsistent carding in this World Cup.
4. Franck Ribery of France has had a coming out party of sorts in this World Cup. True, in early June Arsenal and Man. U. made huge offers to Marseille, his current club, for this speedy 22 year-old player. To my knowledge, Marseille hasn't bitten at transfer offers that approach 25 million pounds. Just watching him in France's last two games has made it clear that this guy is an international star in the making and that France should have solid leadership in World Cup play in the years to come.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Going Overboard
The mainstream media is having a field day trashing Larry Brown.
And to the degree that at least one writer, Ian O'Connor of USA Today has done it, they're wrong.
Brown is no saint, he's traveled more in his career than Gulliver, and he's done so iffy things in the past several years. Yes, he is not perfect, and yes, he has moved around a lot, and yes, despite his comatose monotone before the media he's a high-maintenance type who can't get along everywhere and moves on when the timing is right for him. But he has won everywhere he's been except New York, has won an NBA and NCAA title, and is generally regarded as a coaching legend.
But he's not the shameful disgrace that O'Connor makes him out to be. Read this, and then figure out whether today's columnists are asked, like they were in Red Smith's day, to write thoughtful pieces on the matters of the day or to trash a legend for sport so people around water coolers can say, "Hey, click onto O'Connor's piece today. He trashed a priest, three nuns and two altar boys regarding a hard foul in the finals of the East Orange CYO league. Really wicked stuff. Glad to see that those holy so-and-sos are brought down a few pegs."
I do agree with the sentiments that it's time for Larry Brown to retire, but I'm not sure that every NBA franchise will stay away from him. They brought Hubie Brown back from a long hiatus, and they brought Mike Fratello back from a shorter one. Dick Vermeil and Joe Gibbs came back to the NFL after long absences. Heck, Larry Brown has only been gone for a day. That said, given his last two episodes -- in Detroit and New York -- he's a serious argument for caveat emptor.
But let's not gloss over the bigger travesty in this whole drama -- the New York Knicks, owner James Dolan, and President for Life Idi Amin, oops, I mean Isiah Thomas, whose long-lived career belies the lack of success that he's had everywhere in pro basketball since he's stopped playing. The Knicks gave up their first-round picks this year and next for Eddy Curry (this year's is a top 3 pick), they have by far the highest payroll in the NBA and the lowest $ per win ratio in the league. Dolan and Thomas, plain and simple, have failed. A public skerewing of Larry Brown is akin to the President's starting an international incident in Wag the Dog to divert the public's attention away from the major issues of the day. But by gutting Brown very publicly, getting macho about his contract, and then spinning the story to let the press play the role of turkey vultures and pick at the carcass, the Knicks' administration is, again, focused on entirely the wrong issue.
One, the owners should sell the entire shebang, whether is Madison Square Garden, the Knicks and the Rangers or just the Knicks. Second, failing that, the Dolan elders should kick young Jimmy in the seat of his pants and let him try running the Brooklyn Cyclones before running anything at the highest level. Third, they should fire Isiah Thomas. How hard a decision is that?
The fans shouldn't fall for this folly. The writers needed a story and Brown served as today's pinata. Yes, he is flawed, but I would submit no more flawed than writers who have taken to gutting him instead of reminding everyone that Brown's demise is but a sideshow in the bigger story -- the Farce of the New York Knicks.
No, Ian O'Connor, Larry Brown shouldn't be giving a Hall of Shame speech anytime soon. True, he's made mistakes, but most of the players and coaches who get written about have.
Even mainstream sports writers err from time to time.
Or were you the only one who, starting 10 years ago, thought something was funny about the puffed-up sizes of position players in baseball and started crying foul and going into the locker room and asking players whether their muscles were real?
And to the degree that at least one writer, Ian O'Connor of USA Today has done it, they're wrong.
Brown is no saint, he's traveled more in his career than Gulliver, and he's done so iffy things in the past several years. Yes, he is not perfect, and yes, he has moved around a lot, and yes, despite his comatose monotone before the media he's a high-maintenance type who can't get along everywhere and moves on when the timing is right for him. But he has won everywhere he's been except New York, has won an NBA and NCAA title, and is generally regarded as a coaching legend.
But he's not the shameful disgrace that O'Connor makes him out to be. Read this, and then figure out whether today's columnists are asked, like they were in Red Smith's day, to write thoughtful pieces on the matters of the day or to trash a legend for sport so people around water coolers can say, "Hey, click onto O'Connor's piece today. He trashed a priest, three nuns and two altar boys regarding a hard foul in the finals of the East Orange CYO league. Really wicked stuff. Glad to see that those holy so-and-sos are brought down a few pegs."
I do agree with the sentiments that it's time for Larry Brown to retire, but I'm not sure that every NBA franchise will stay away from him. They brought Hubie Brown back from a long hiatus, and they brought Mike Fratello back from a shorter one. Dick Vermeil and Joe Gibbs came back to the NFL after long absences. Heck, Larry Brown has only been gone for a day. That said, given his last two episodes -- in Detroit and New York -- he's a serious argument for caveat emptor.
But let's not gloss over the bigger travesty in this whole drama -- the New York Knicks, owner James Dolan, and President for Life Idi Amin, oops, I mean Isiah Thomas, whose long-lived career belies the lack of success that he's had everywhere in pro basketball since he's stopped playing. The Knicks gave up their first-round picks this year and next for Eddy Curry (this year's is a top 3 pick), they have by far the highest payroll in the NBA and the lowest $ per win ratio in the league. Dolan and Thomas, plain and simple, have failed. A public skerewing of Larry Brown is akin to the President's starting an international incident in Wag the Dog to divert the public's attention away from the major issues of the day. But by gutting Brown very publicly, getting macho about his contract, and then spinning the story to let the press play the role of turkey vultures and pick at the carcass, the Knicks' administration is, again, focused on entirely the wrong issue.
One, the owners should sell the entire shebang, whether is Madison Square Garden, the Knicks and the Rangers or just the Knicks. Second, failing that, the Dolan elders should kick young Jimmy in the seat of his pants and let him try running the Brooklyn Cyclones before running anything at the highest level. Third, they should fire Isiah Thomas. How hard a decision is that?
The fans shouldn't fall for this folly. The writers needed a story and Brown served as today's pinata. Yes, he is flawed, but I would submit no more flawed than writers who have taken to gutting him instead of reminding everyone that Brown's demise is but a sideshow in the bigger story -- the Farce of the New York Knicks.
No, Ian O'Connor, Larry Brown shouldn't be giving a Hall of Shame speech anytime soon. True, he's made mistakes, but most of the players and coaches who get written about have.
Even mainstream sports writers err from time to time.
Or were you the only one who, starting 10 years ago, thought something was funny about the puffed-up sizes of position players in baseball and started crying foul and going into the locker room and asking players whether their muscles were real?
The Lot of the Phillies' Fan
Your best pitcher is accused of punching his wife after midnight in public on a road trip.
Then-GM Ed Wade could have hired Jim Leyland to manage his club two years ago, and instead he hired Charlie Manuel.
Not only is Jim Thome having an all-world year in Chicago, but your team, with the eight-highest payroll in baseball, is paying at least half his salary.
The guy you got for Jim Thome in a trade made a heroic catch, crashed into the CF fence (which was unpadded and which he asked to have padded about a week before the crash) and was on the DL for about a month (he broke his nose).
The list of slights, blunders and bad luck goes on and on. Here's to hoping that the victim is okay.
Looks like it could be a long summer in Philadelphia all around.
Then-GM Ed Wade could have hired Jim Leyland to manage his club two years ago, and instead he hired Charlie Manuel.
Not only is Jim Thome having an all-world year in Chicago, but your team, with the eight-highest payroll in baseball, is paying at least half his salary.
The guy you got for Jim Thome in a trade made a heroic catch, crashed into the CF fence (which was unpadded and which he asked to have padded about a week before the crash) and was on the DL for about a month (he broke his nose).
The list of slights, blunders and bad luck goes on and on. Here's to hoping that the victim is okay.
Looks like it could be a long summer in Philadelphia all around.
All That Glitters Is Not Gold
A former colleague, a very successful one at that, once bragged to me that he was doing business with this guy. I suppose that you have to consider the source, because the boaster was a name dropper who, while successful, was so driven that it was hard for his colleagues to warm up to him. He was also the type that the football players with whom he went to college might have tied to a locker with the same tape used on one's ankles before a game. But I digress. . .
If you read the link, you'll wonder what the former colleague thought he was gaining by bragging.
I don't know whether this former NFL quarterback is a good guy or a bad guy, and I generally subscribe to the notion that we should focus upon whether people's deeds are good or bad. In this case, the guy in question has been around some bad stuff. No, he's not a violent felon, but he's had enough legal problems to make you wonder whether he had a slump or had some serious problems that led him to flee. Right now, he's a fugitive.
This story gets attention from time to time, but the guy has been a fugitive for almost a year. Not as notorious a fugitive as Ira Einhorn, the one-time Philadelphia-area earthie Earth Day darling who a) proved to be one of the all-time B.S. artists and b) murdered his girlfriend in the early 1970's, stuffed her body in a trunk and then fled to parts unknown, was found in France, extradited an sentenced to life in prison. This guy, thankfully, is no Einhorn.
But a fugitive he is, and a former NFL quarterback at that. Which is why, probably, America's Most Wanted picked up the story. It's intriguing and a bit bizarre. Americans can tend to revel in the fall of their golden children and, yet, they revel in their resurgences years latter. Somehow, the "made it, lost it, got it back" story is a compelling theme for many people. I really don't share that interest. This is a sad story for everyone and one unlikely to have resolution any time soon.
But it does go to show you that being the star quarterback in college, making the pros and getting a lot of attention throughout your life because you could throw a football isn't all that it's cracked up to be.
Especially if you don't know how to handle it.
If you read the link, you'll wonder what the former colleague thought he was gaining by bragging.
I don't know whether this former NFL quarterback is a good guy or a bad guy, and I generally subscribe to the notion that we should focus upon whether people's deeds are good or bad. In this case, the guy in question has been around some bad stuff. No, he's not a violent felon, but he's had enough legal problems to make you wonder whether he had a slump or had some serious problems that led him to flee. Right now, he's a fugitive.
This story gets attention from time to time, but the guy has been a fugitive for almost a year. Not as notorious a fugitive as Ira Einhorn, the one-time Philadelphia-area earthie Earth Day darling who a) proved to be one of the all-time B.S. artists and b) murdered his girlfriend in the early 1970's, stuffed her body in a trunk and then fled to parts unknown, was found in France, extradited an sentenced to life in prison. This guy, thankfully, is no Einhorn.
But a fugitive he is, and a former NFL quarterback at that. Which is why, probably, America's Most Wanted picked up the story. It's intriguing and a bit bizarre. Americans can tend to revel in the fall of their golden children and, yet, they revel in their resurgences years latter. Somehow, the "made it, lost it, got it back" story is a compelling theme for many people. I really don't share that interest. This is a sad story for everyone and one unlikely to have resolution any time soon.
But it does go to show you that being the star quarterback in college, making the pros and getting a lot of attention throughout your life because you could throw a football isn't all that it's cracked up to be.
Especially if you don't know how to handle it.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Thud
Ghana 2, United States 1.
The Yankees are going home.
The U.S. sets the tone in the world for many things, but even in 2006 the U.S. is on the outside looking in. Ghana was simply better today. Picked to finish fourth in its group, it sent home the teams that FIFA had rated #3 and #5 (so much for FIFA's ratings).
I recall years ago an ad campaign that preceded the Summer Olympics about two decathletes, guys named Dan and Dave. Both were predicted to finish first and second in the Olympics. To the best of my recollection, neither made it out of the U.S. Olympic Trials. Talk about a lead balloon leading up to the Olympics.
This result feels a bit like that.
Significant hype preceded the American team into the 2006 World Cup, and the records show that little of it was justified. The Americans weren't a well-oiled machine playing synchronized soccer. Casual fans didn't see the talent that the U.S. soccer afficionados swore was there. If they did see it, it was in the form of opposing jerseys. What they saw, plain and simple, was an also-ran, a team lacking in the talent and experience necessary to compete against the traditional powers.
My reading of all the pre-World Cup hype was that the Americans were supposed to make a bigger dent. True, they had a tough draw, getting put into the same group as the Czechs, then rated in the Top 5 in the world, and the Italians, with talent to burn. Only the cognoscenti figured that Ghana would give the others fits, and the insiders were right. Perhaps it was too much to ask of the U.S. team to escape the first round. Even if they were to do that, in all likelihood they were destined for second in their group and a date with Brazil in the next round (Ghana now has that distinction).
So whither U.S. soccer? They supposedly had the players, and they supposedly had the best coach the U.S. has had to offer, but they just didn't get it done.
As for the players, well, the U.S. needs to find better ones. Ones that play against the world's best talent in their day jobs, ones who can play in the Premiership, La Liga and Serie A. Not ones who play in mid-sized U.S. cities in front of middling crowds, many of whom don't have a Major League baseball team as an alternative. It's hard to say that Landon Donovan et al. can measure up against the likes of Argentina and Brazil when they don't play against their best players in their day jobs. The competition in the World Cup is that much tougher, and the U.S. players clearly don't have the experience against the best competition that the best players on the best World Cup teams do. Until you have a core group that is well-regarded in those elite leagues, your team will be on the outside looking in.
As for the coach, it's harder to say. Bruce Arena has achieved everywhere he has been, but the team looked unprepared in its opening match against what turned out to be an underachieving Czech team. Better prepared, the Americans might have been able to sting the Czechs the way the Ghanans did. Instead, the U.S. suffered such a whitewashing that their goal differential -- a key metric in case teams tied for second in the opening round -- was a disaster and bode ill for getting the team into the second round. Arena may be the best American coach, but the question remains whether that's like being the best hockey player in Ecuador. Hard to tell.
In the U.S., only a few commentators will give notice to the disappointing play of Team U.S.A., and that commentary will disappear after the weekend newspapers give their reviews. In any soccer hotbed, the commentary would swirl around for months, churning the intestines of the faithful the way a bad meal does. In the U.S., you'd need a microscope to see the fallout. It will be gone as quickly as it came.
And that, believe it or not, is bad for U.S. soccer. In order for soccer to take off, it needs to become part of the daily conversation. And before you say, well, that's impossible, if you look at the landscape of major sports over the past 30 years, it has changed significantly. Horse racing and tennis loomed a lot higher on the radar screen, as did ice hockey, 30 years ago. Horse racing's popularity waned because gambling became legalized in many venues (it used to be the only thing one could bet on legally outside Las Vegas). Tennis lost its personality and its stars, and NASCAR emerged from being the backroads Bubba sport into a national phenomenon. Ice hockey has little appeal beyond those who attend games. Golf has become a mainstay, more so than decades ago. The possibility for evolution and emergence as a higher priority is there. Think NASCAR. Think golf. Think the NCAA men's hoops tournament (pretty big in '76, but a mega-hit today).
But soccer needs traction. Wins over some international powers, some stars with pizzazz (which are lacking on the U.S. team) and advancement into the second round are what U.S. soccer needed. Instead, U.S. men's soccer faltered on all fronts, akin to a fancy ship losing its rudder and sailing aimlessly at sea.
Sure, kids will continue to play the game, but the best kids will play football, basketball and other sports.
And their dads and grandfathers will continue to take them to baseball games.
The Yankees are going home.
The U.S. sets the tone in the world for many things, but even in 2006 the U.S. is on the outside looking in. Ghana was simply better today. Picked to finish fourth in its group, it sent home the teams that FIFA had rated #3 and #5 (so much for FIFA's ratings).
I recall years ago an ad campaign that preceded the Summer Olympics about two decathletes, guys named Dan and Dave. Both were predicted to finish first and second in the Olympics. To the best of my recollection, neither made it out of the U.S. Olympic Trials. Talk about a lead balloon leading up to the Olympics.
This result feels a bit like that.
Significant hype preceded the American team into the 2006 World Cup, and the records show that little of it was justified. The Americans weren't a well-oiled machine playing synchronized soccer. Casual fans didn't see the talent that the U.S. soccer afficionados swore was there. If they did see it, it was in the form of opposing jerseys. What they saw, plain and simple, was an also-ran, a team lacking in the talent and experience necessary to compete against the traditional powers.
My reading of all the pre-World Cup hype was that the Americans were supposed to make a bigger dent. True, they had a tough draw, getting put into the same group as the Czechs, then rated in the Top 5 in the world, and the Italians, with talent to burn. Only the cognoscenti figured that Ghana would give the others fits, and the insiders were right. Perhaps it was too much to ask of the U.S. team to escape the first round. Even if they were to do that, in all likelihood they were destined for second in their group and a date with Brazil in the next round (Ghana now has that distinction).
So whither U.S. soccer? They supposedly had the players, and they supposedly had the best coach the U.S. has had to offer, but they just didn't get it done.
As for the players, well, the U.S. needs to find better ones. Ones that play against the world's best talent in their day jobs, ones who can play in the Premiership, La Liga and Serie A. Not ones who play in mid-sized U.S. cities in front of middling crowds, many of whom don't have a Major League baseball team as an alternative. It's hard to say that Landon Donovan et al. can measure up against the likes of Argentina and Brazil when they don't play against their best players in their day jobs. The competition in the World Cup is that much tougher, and the U.S. players clearly don't have the experience against the best competition that the best players on the best World Cup teams do. Until you have a core group that is well-regarded in those elite leagues, your team will be on the outside looking in.
As for the coach, it's harder to say. Bruce Arena has achieved everywhere he has been, but the team looked unprepared in its opening match against what turned out to be an underachieving Czech team. Better prepared, the Americans might have been able to sting the Czechs the way the Ghanans did. Instead, the U.S. suffered such a whitewashing that their goal differential -- a key metric in case teams tied for second in the opening round -- was a disaster and bode ill for getting the team into the second round. Arena may be the best American coach, but the question remains whether that's like being the best hockey player in Ecuador. Hard to tell.
In the U.S., only a few commentators will give notice to the disappointing play of Team U.S.A., and that commentary will disappear after the weekend newspapers give their reviews. In any soccer hotbed, the commentary would swirl around for months, churning the intestines of the faithful the way a bad meal does. In the U.S., you'd need a microscope to see the fallout. It will be gone as quickly as it came.
And that, believe it or not, is bad for U.S. soccer. In order for soccer to take off, it needs to become part of the daily conversation. And before you say, well, that's impossible, if you look at the landscape of major sports over the past 30 years, it has changed significantly. Horse racing and tennis loomed a lot higher on the radar screen, as did ice hockey, 30 years ago. Horse racing's popularity waned because gambling became legalized in many venues (it used to be the only thing one could bet on legally outside Las Vegas). Tennis lost its personality and its stars, and NASCAR emerged from being the backroads Bubba sport into a national phenomenon. Ice hockey has little appeal beyond those who attend games. Golf has become a mainstay, more so than decades ago. The possibility for evolution and emergence as a higher priority is there. Think NASCAR. Think golf. Think the NCAA men's hoops tournament (pretty big in '76, but a mega-hit today).
But soccer needs traction. Wins over some international powers, some stars with pizzazz (which are lacking on the U.S. team) and advancement into the second round are what U.S. soccer needed. Instead, U.S. men's soccer faltered on all fronts, akin to a fancy ship losing its rudder and sailing aimlessly at sea.
Sure, kids will continue to play the game, but the best kids will play football, basketball and other sports.
And their dads and grandfathers will continue to take them to baseball games.
The Joys of Outdoor Morning Exercise
The combination of early sunrises and warm days makes summertime a great time for outdoor exercise before work. It's great to get fresh air, and usually it's still cool enough that you can get great exercise without wilting in the heat. Plus, there's something beautiful about the sun rising over a neighborhood that hasn't awaken yet. It's a great setting in which to take a walk, go for a run or ride a bike.
Some people probably would find the suggestion annoying because they don't want to get up at 5 or 5:30 a.m. for any reason, while others might be a little fearful of going outside at that time. Their reasoning must go something like this -- it's too early, no one's out, it could be dangerous (as in, "only criminals are out at that time, right?").
That reasoning, though, is flawed. There are people out, and it's perfectly safe (except for an occasional newspaper deliveryperson or too, as these folks tend to drive on both sides of the road). Plus, plenty of people are out there. On my bike ride, I usually see several people on bikes (old bikes, racing bikes, hybrid bikes), a few joggers (some look more fit than others) and several walkers. One morning I saw a septaguanarian couple doing Tai Chi on their sidewalk.
I've also had to coax a deer out of the road I wanted to turn onto, and I saw a fox about 40 yards ahead of me near a creek bed, probably heading toward his living quarters after a night on the town. (There are a few chicken coops in the area, but they benefit from good fencing). Thankfully, he headed home and not toward me.
Plain and simple, it's a great time to get out there and ride a bicycle. I don't have a racing bike. Instead, I opted for a $300+ hybrid bike (Giant is the brand) whose tires are in between the widths of racing bikes and mountain bikes. The seat is more back-friendly, as you can sit straight up, and there are enough gears to make your ride interesting. I've created a circuit for myself that has a sufficient combination of climbs (not too steep, and I'm getting better at them with each ride), downhill runs and straightaways that gives me ample exercise for the 45 minutes or so that I'm out there each morning (most of the ride is on wide residential streets, with only a sliver on a major road). Plus, there's the great comfort of getting your exercise in before the day begins (at this hour, you have total control over your day) and being outside.
It's just too bad that this opportunity cannot last year-round, as by fall the days get shorter and, well, if you have to get to work at a reasonable hour you can't begin you ride at 7 or so. Plus, it gets cooler too, and I'm not overly fond of wearing sweats to ride a bike. All that said, while the window for this type of activity exists, I try to take full advantage of it.
I'm convinced that if those who want to venture outside at early hours did so and shed any trepidations they had about being the "only" one, more people would be out early in the morning getting their exercise in, and we'd have a healthier population. It's hard to exercise during the day at work (I, for one, wouldn't be able to stop sweating quickly enough after a mid-day workout -- and others might not be able to find the time), and exercising after work is tough because you can be tired for the day and you may have other things to do -- such as spending time with your family. That's why getting up early and getting my workout in before work has worked for me.
Sunrise is a beautiful time of day.
Exercise can be fun if you pick the right activity for you.
Combine the two, and it's just great!
And if you haven't been on a bike in a while, try it again. You'll wished you had not given it up in the first place.
Some people probably would find the suggestion annoying because they don't want to get up at 5 or 5:30 a.m. for any reason, while others might be a little fearful of going outside at that time. Their reasoning must go something like this -- it's too early, no one's out, it could be dangerous (as in, "only criminals are out at that time, right?").
That reasoning, though, is flawed. There are people out, and it's perfectly safe (except for an occasional newspaper deliveryperson or too, as these folks tend to drive on both sides of the road). Plus, plenty of people are out there. On my bike ride, I usually see several people on bikes (old bikes, racing bikes, hybrid bikes), a few joggers (some look more fit than others) and several walkers. One morning I saw a septaguanarian couple doing Tai Chi on their sidewalk.
I've also had to coax a deer out of the road I wanted to turn onto, and I saw a fox about 40 yards ahead of me near a creek bed, probably heading toward his living quarters after a night on the town. (There are a few chicken coops in the area, but they benefit from good fencing). Thankfully, he headed home and not toward me.
Plain and simple, it's a great time to get out there and ride a bicycle. I don't have a racing bike. Instead, I opted for a $300+ hybrid bike (Giant is the brand) whose tires are in between the widths of racing bikes and mountain bikes. The seat is more back-friendly, as you can sit straight up, and there are enough gears to make your ride interesting. I've created a circuit for myself that has a sufficient combination of climbs (not too steep, and I'm getting better at them with each ride), downhill runs and straightaways that gives me ample exercise for the 45 minutes or so that I'm out there each morning (most of the ride is on wide residential streets, with only a sliver on a major road). Plus, there's the great comfort of getting your exercise in before the day begins (at this hour, you have total control over your day) and being outside.
It's just too bad that this opportunity cannot last year-round, as by fall the days get shorter and, well, if you have to get to work at a reasonable hour you can't begin you ride at 7 or so. Plus, it gets cooler too, and I'm not overly fond of wearing sweats to ride a bike. All that said, while the window for this type of activity exists, I try to take full advantage of it.
I'm convinced that if those who want to venture outside at early hours did so and shed any trepidations they had about being the "only" one, more people would be out early in the morning getting their exercise in, and we'd have a healthier population. It's hard to exercise during the day at work (I, for one, wouldn't be able to stop sweating quickly enough after a mid-day workout -- and others might not be able to find the time), and exercising after work is tough because you can be tired for the day and you may have other things to do -- such as spending time with your family. That's why getting up early and getting my workout in before work has worked for me.
Sunrise is a beautiful time of day.
Exercise can be fun if you pick the right activity for you.
Combine the two, and it's just great!
And if you haven't been on a bike in a while, try it again. You'll wished you had not given it up in the first place.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Updates on Duke Lacrosse
The ACC Basketblog has a series of links on today's post about the Duke lacrosse situation, and all are worthy of a read. I channel-surfed on Monday night and caught Dan Abrams on MSNBC, and he was on the verge of saying that the Durham D.A. is about to drop the charges. Abrams, no shrinking violet, had access to all sorts of documents and expressed his incredulity about why the charges were brought in the first place. In addition, I am friendly with a member of the HS lacrosse cognoscenti who apprised me of facts pertinent to the situation that cast light on dysfunction in the Duke administration regarding how disciplinary cases are handled. I do find Coach K's commentary in defending his now former fellow coach of the "too little, too late" category, and I'm hoping to ask my friend the insider to guest blog on the topic of the case.
As you probably recall, I expressed my concerns about the program's being out of control because 15 of the 47 players had misdemeanors for misbehavior. At no time did I attempt to try or convict them of the rape accusations and made it very clear that the two had to be separated. I continue to believe that if roughly 1/3 of your kids have misdemeanors there's a systemic problem. That said, the question remains as to how the Duke administration handled these incidents and whether the Duke lacrosse coach was made aware of many of them and given the opportunity to clean them up. My guess is that more of this will come up as the stories continue to unfold about not only the rape accusations, but the handling of the men's lacrosse program in general.
As you probably recall, I expressed my concerns about the program's being out of control because 15 of the 47 players had misdemeanors for misbehavior. At no time did I attempt to try or convict them of the rape accusations and made it very clear that the two had to be separated. I continue to believe that if roughly 1/3 of your kids have misdemeanors there's a systemic problem. That said, the question remains as to how the Duke administration handled these incidents and whether the Duke lacrosse coach was made aware of many of them and given the opportunity to clean them up. My guess is that more of this will come up as the stories continue to unfold about not only the rape accusations, but the handling of the men's lacrosse program in general.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
World Cup Officiating
All referees in the World Cup should be sent to re-education camp and be taught the following mantra: "The fans in the world aren't paying to see the referees. The fans in the world aren't paying to see the referees." Most fans accept that referees are human and will accept mistakes when the referee blows the calls equally for both sides. But what they won't accept is when referees make de facto personnel decisions that directly affect the outcome of a game.
To put this in perspective, very seldom do players get ejected from any of the major sports in the United States. In baseball, there is the occasional bench-clearing brawl or the player and manager who get kicked out because they argued ball-and-strike calls and the rulebook provides for automatic ejection if you do. In football, which is a collision sport, there are very few ejections a year, usually for fighting. In basketball, players get a technical foul and are ejected upon the issuance of a second technical in the same game. That said, it's not that easy to get a technical, and you usually get one when you direct profanity or a ball in the direction of a referee. In hockey, ejections or long misconduct penalties are a little more commonplace, but the rules are such that if you join a fight that's in progress, you can cost you team dearly in terms of penalties. Seldom, though, do officials' in-game calls on this behavior affect the outcome of a game.
Which brings us to the World Cup. Italy's DeRossi deserved a red card (automatic ejection) for trying to rearrange U.S. striker Brian McBride's face with his elbow. But did Paolo Mastroeni, the U.S. midfielder, deserve a reciprocal one for a late sliding tackle that upended an Italian player (especially when the Italian team was diving with greater frequency than Greg Louganis ever did at the Olympics)? Doesn't that usually warrant a yellow card? Or how about a warning to the players to watch their sliding tackles? That, I hear, sometimes happens.
Importantly, if you get a red card you have to sit out the next game. If you get yellow cards in consecutive games, you have to sit out the next game. France has an important game coming up, and its leader, Zidane Zidane, will have to sit it out because he got a yellow card in each of France's last two games, presumably from referees with different notions about what constitutes a yellow card. Ghana's two best goal scorers will miss that nation's key upcoming game with the U.S. for similar reasons.
There has been some great play in this World Cup. The Argentines are putting on clinics. Spain looks very strong, and Portugal has advanced to the second round for the first time in 40 years. Yet, despite those outstanding efforts, more talk appears to be dedicated to performance and credentialing of the referees than Ronaldo's girth, England's lack of offense, or even the key upcoming game between Italy and the Czech Republic.
And that's too bad.
Because we don't want to notice the officials. We don't want them ejecting the best players for this game and the next one, especially using inconsistent standards and especially when one official cannot possibly view the whole field (especially on a hot day) effectively. The National Hockey League in the U.S. added a second referee several years ago to help ensure that penalties were called more evenly. In that sport and in lacrosse, players who transgress get sent off for matters of minutes than entire games. In several sports there is also instant replay, which certainly would have enabled France to beat South Korea (as the referee watched the South Korean goalie stop a French shot instead of noticing that he was standing in the goal when he did so). Reforms like these will take the pressure off the officials and will give the fans what they want -- letting the players play.
And decide the games themselves.
We want to remember the great scissor-kick, the wonderful sliding tackle (and boy did Ze Roberto of Brazil make a few against Australia over the weekend), the stopped penalty shot and the great inside passing that the Argentines displayed against Serbia & Montenegro. We don't want to remember controversial calls that leave teams without important players in key games.
Coach Bruce Arena of the U.S. team was quoted as saying that until the U.S. gets more international respect, they won't get the calls. That may be so, but let's hope that soccer on the international stage provides itself and its fans with more respect than the federations that run figure skating, boxing and gymnastics give to their sports.
There, the judges have made, and can continue to make, a mess of everything, and those sports do not enjoy the respect they otherwise could if there was more integrity to how outcomes are decided.
World Cup games need to be won on the field by the players.
The officials shouldn't have nearly as much to do with the outcomes as they do now.
To put this in perspective, very seldom do players get ejected from any of the major sports in the United States. In baseball, there is the occasional bench-clearing brawl or the player and manager who get kicked out because they argued ball-and-strike calls and the rulebook provides for automatic ejection if you do. In football, which is a collision sport, there are very few ejections a year, usually for fighting. In basketball, players get a technical foul and are ejected upon the issuance of a second technical in the same game. That said, it's not that easy to get a technical, and you usually get one when you direct profanity or a ball in the direction of a referee. In hockey, ejections or long misconduct penalties are a little more commonplace, but the rules are such that if you join a fight that's in progress, you can cost you team dearly in terms of penalties. Seldom, though, do officials' in-game calls on this behavior affect the outcome of a game.
Which brings us to the World Cup. Italy's DeRossi deserved a red card (automatic ejection) for trying to rearrange U.S. striker Brian McBride's face with his elbow. But did Paolo Mastroeni, the U.S. midfielder, deserve a reciprocal one for a late sliding tackle that upended an Italian player (especially when the Italian team was diving with greater frequency than Greg Louganis ever did at the Olympics)? Doesn't that usually warrant a yellow card? Or how about a warning to the players to watch their sliding tackles? That, I hear, sometimes happens.
Importantly, if you get a red card you have to sit out the next game. If you get yellow cards in consecutive games, you have to sit out the next game. France has an important game coming up, and its leader, Zidane Zidane, will have to sit it out because he got a yellow card in each of France's last two games, presumably from referees with different notions about what constitutes a yellow card. Ghana's two best goal scorers will miss that nation's key upcoming game with the U.S. for similar reasons.
There has been some great play in this World Cup. The Argentines are putting on clinics. Spain looks very strong, and Portugal has advanced to the second round for the first time in 40 years. Yet, despite those outstanding efforts, more talk appears to be dedicated to performance and credentialing of the referees than Ronaldo's girth, England's lack of offense, or even the key upcoming game between Italy and the Czech Republic.
And that's too bad.
Because we don't want to notice the officials. We don't want them ejecting the best players for this game and the next one, especially using inconsistent standards and especially when one official cannot possibly view the whole field (especially on a hot day) effectively. The National Hockey League in the U.S. added a second referee several years ago to help ensure that penalties were called more evenly. In that sport and in lacrosse, players who transgress get sent off for matters of minutes than entire games. In several sports there is also instant replay, which certainly would have enabled France to beat South Korea (as the referee watched the South Korean goalie stop a French shot instead of noticing that he was standing in the goal when he did so). Reforms like these will take the pressure off the officials and will give the fans what they want -- letting the players play.
And decide the games themselves.
We want to remember the great scissor-kick, the wonderful sliding tackle (and boy did Ze Roberto of Brazil make a few against Australia over the weekend), the stopped penalty shot and the great inside passing that the Argentines displayed against Serbia & Montenegro. We don't want to remember controversial calls that leave teams without important players in key games.
Coach Bruce Arena of the U.S. team was quoted as saying that until the U.S. gets more international respect, they won't get the calls. That may be so, but let's hope that soccer on the international stage provides itself and its fans with more respect than the federations that run figure skating, boxing and gymnastics give to their sports.
There, the judges have made, and can continue to make, a mess of everything, and those sports do not enjoy the respect they otherwise could if there was more integrity to how outcomes are decided.
World Cup games need to be won on the field by the players.
The officials shouldn't have nearly as much to do with the outcomes as they do now.
What Kind Of Shape Is Hockey In?
The conventional wisdom is that the NHL re-vamped its style of play, recovered nicely from its strike and had a good Stanley Cup final.
The bigger question, though, is whether it was able to expand its fan base?
And, based upon this, I would submit that it has not.
If you click the link and read it casually, you won't notice anything other than that it's an article that appeared in this morning's Philadelphia Inquirer. So what, you'll say, the Philadelphia paper had an article on the first page of its sports section about Game 7 between Edmonton and Carolina.
But look at the by-line. It was written by an Associated Press reporter (and not one of the reporters who covers NHL hockey for the paper on a regular basis). Many would concede that Philadelphia is a "good" hockey town (in fact, there's a billboard on I-95 coming into the city that touts Philadelphia as the #1 hockey town in America). The franchise is a cornerstone of the league, and it has spent money routinely to field a winning team.
Fair enough. But its hometown morning newspaper didn't even send a beat reporter to cover the most important game of the year (its sister paper, the Daily News, did, but its subscription rate is far less than that of the morning paper). What does that say about the appeal of the NHL? Would the Inqy fail to send a reporter to cover the World Series? The NBA finals? The Super Bowl? They send reporters to cover Philadelphia-bred horses at thoroughbred races and to NASCAR events in the area. They even sent a reporter to cover the World Cup, and it's hard to argue that soccer is that much more popular in Philadelphia than professional ice hockey.
Sure, you can argue that it's not a statistically significant sampling to suggest that a cost-cutting Philadelphia paper's decision (and the Phila. dailies were just sold because the seller thinks that the fifth-largest media market in the country is weak) about which events to cover is bad for hockey. But then I'd like to find out how many papers sent reporters to Edmonton and Carolina to cover this series and how many dailies used the AP story?
Unfortunately, I don't have the time to run this down, and I don't want to trample on the NHL's good season. That said, it is troubling when the morning paper from one of your bastion's fails to cover the Finals in person.
The bigger question, though, is whether it was able to expand its fan base?
And, based upon this, I would submit that it has not.
If you click the link and read it casually, you won't notice anything other than that it's an article that appeared in this morning's Philadelphia Inquirer. So what, you'll say, the Philadelphia paper had an article on the first page of its sports section about Game 7 between Edmonton and Carolina.
But look at the by-line. It was written by an Associated Press reporter (and not one of the reporters who covers NHL hockey for the paper on a regular basis). Many would concede that Philadelphia is a "good" hockey town (in fact, there's a billboard on I-95 coming into the city that touts Philadelphia as the #1 hockey town in America). The franchise is a cornerstone of the league, and it has spent money routinely to field a winning team.
Fair enough. But its hometown morning newspaper didn't even send a beat reporter to cover the most important game of the year (its sister paper, the Daily News, did, but its subscription rate is far less than that of the morning paper). What does that say about the appeal of the NHL? Would the Inqy fail to send a reporter to cover the World Series? The NBA finals? The Super Bowl? They send reporters to cover Philadelphia-bred horses at thoroughbred races and to NASCAR events in the area. They even sent a reporter to cover the World Cup, and it's hard to argue that soccer is that much more popular in Philadelphia than professional ice hockey.
Sure, you can argue that it's not a statistically significant sampling to suggest that a cost-cutting Philadelphia paper's decision (and the Phila. dailies were just sold because the seller thinks that the fifth-largest media market in the country is weak) about which events to cover is bad for hockey. But then I'd like to find out how many papers sent reporters to Edmonton and Carolina to cover this series and how many dailies used the AP story?
Unfortunately, I don't have the time to run this down, and I don't want to trample on the NHL's good season. That said, it is troubling when the morning paper from one of your bastion's fails to cover the Finals in person.
Monday, June 19, 2006
If You Can't Do It With Honey. . .
Curse.
That's the advice of Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, who only has so much patience for the average sports reporter. He makes a point about the occasional and timely use of profanity.
You don't have to agree with his point, of course, but remember that without originals like Cuban we'd be stuck with boring owners as well as players. Despite David Stern's attempts to turn the NBA into a puzzling mix of basketball and entertainment, all the while trying to present a united front -- from dress code to behavior -- he hasn't been able to reign in the league's #1 Maverick.
And that, in my book, is a great thing.
No, the Mavericks aren't necessarily a flagship franchise, especially when compared with the storied franchises over the years (most of which have fallen on hard times recently -- Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and the Lakers, to name the most prominent). But they are a critical franchise because you have an owner who is uncompromising in his will to win and who by all accounts has done a good job. After all, name another owner whose team has let a subsequent two-time MVP walk and then contended for the title? I wonder if that's ever happened before.
Mark Cuban turned Steve Nash's departure into an opportunity.
It's funny how the NBA has let Mark Cuban become a thorn in its side, when the Knicks are the real thorn and laughingstock at the same time. Why worry about the accoutrements Cuban offers his players when the Knicks have a bloated payroll of players for whom pass is a four-letter word?
What's right with the NBA: The Mavs.
What's wrong with the NBA: The Knicks.
The NBA, of course, wishes it were the other way around.
Yet, it has survived with the Knicks being about as good as the '62 Mets.
As for the mainstream media, I can't defend them or be too harsh on them. The players play hard and are human, so it's not so easy to ask a player, "How did you blow that wide open fifteen-footer with five seconds to go?" The answer, for those who watched, is obvious: "I missed the shot." By the same token, asking players how it feels -- to win the close one or lose the close one -- is about as unoriginal as it gets.
It would be great to hear a player answer, in response to a question like that, something like this: "Well, when I was a kid I had a bad knee, this congenital thing, and I always was picked last for the teams in gym class. But I had this gym teacher, Mr. Spears, and he always winked at me and told me to work hard and things would work out. I don't know if he ever knew how much that smile -- and that wink -- meant to a shy eleven year-old who had just overcome a speech impediment. So everyday, after school, I went home, and there was this portable basketball hoop that someone put out on our courtyard. We didn't have much, and this thing was a gift from heaven. We could adjust the height, and my aunt came out and would adjust it, and every day I practiced 50 right-handed layups and 50 left-handed layups. Sometimes she would feed me the ball, and she played in her day so she zinged in chest passes. And she made me be creative, would ice my knee afterwards, and she wouldn't let me take just ordinary layups. No, I was dribbling by Bird and Kareem and Shaq, and I hit some good shots. Later on, in middle school, there was this teacher whose wife was an intern, wanted to be an orthopedic surgeon. One day, during recess, I stayed inside while the other kids went out to play. He asked me why, and I told him that I had this knee problem but my doctor couldn't solve it. It hurt too much to play. So he and his wife got me to her hospital, and they figured out that something was wrong with my knee that minor surgery and new basketball shoes could cure. After that, I started getting really better fast, and there were many others who took me aside, challenged me and said things to me that I think about almost every day. I'll never forget all of 'em, because they all told me to stay focused on working hard and good things would happen. But if it weren't for Mr. Spears, I would have just quit. If it weren't for my aunt, I wouldn't have developed any skills. And if it weren't for my fifth-grade teacher, I would be limping around."
Instead, all you hear is "great, what a great group of guys, best in the world. . . came together. . .hit shots when we needed to. . . made defensive stops when we had to. . .." All of which, by the way, may be said sincerely.
But it's not worth watching or listening to.
When the answers start becoming cliches, the questions do too.
Mark Cuban is right.
Ask some different questions.
And, in the process, teach us something that we don't already know.
That's the advice of Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, who only has so much patience for the average sports reporter. He makes a point about the occasional and timely use of profanity.
You don't have to agree with his point, of course, but remember that without originals like Cuban we'd be stuck with boring owners as well as players. Despite David Stern's attempts to turn the NBA into a puzzling mix of basketball and entertainment, all the while trying to present a united front -- from dress code to behavior -- he hasn't been able to reign in the league's #1 Maverick.
And that, in my book, is a great thing.
No, the Mavericks aren't necessarily a flagship franchise, especially when compared with the storied franchises over the years (most of which have fallen on hard times recently -- Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and the Lakers, to name the most prominent). But they are a critical franchise because you have an owner who is uncompromising in his will to win and who by all accounts has done a good job. After all, name another owner whose team has let a subsequent two-time MVP walk and then contended for the title? I wonder if that's ever happened before.
Mark Cuban turned Steve Nash's departure into an opportunity.
It's funny how the NBA has let Mark Cuban become a thorn in its side, when the Knicks are the real thorn and laughingstock at the same time. Why worry about the accoutrements Cuban offers his players when the Knicks have a bloated payroll of players for whom pass is a four-letter word?
What's right with the NBA: The Mavs.
What's wrong with the NBA: The Knicks.
The NBA, of course, wishes it were the other way around.
Yet, it has survived with the Knicks being about as good as the '62 Mets.
As for the mainstream media, I can't defend them or be too harsh on them. The players play hard and are human, so it's not so easy to ask a player, "How did you blow that wide open fifteen-footer with five seconds to go?" The answer, for those who watched, is obvious: "I missed the shot." By the same token, asking players how it feels -- to win the close one or lose the close one -- is about as unoriginal as it gets.
It would be great to hear a player answer, in response to a question like that, something like this: "Well, when I was a kid I had a bad knee, this congenital thing, and I always was picked last for the teams in gym class. But I had this gym teacher, Mr. Spears, and he always winked at me and told me to work hard and things would work out. I don't know if he ever knew how much that smile -- and that wink -- meant to a shy eleven year-old who had just overcome a speech impediment. So everyday, after school, I went home, and there was this portable basketball hoop that someone put out on our courtyard. We didn't have much, and this thing was a gift from heaven. We could adjust the height, and my aunt came out and would adjust it, and every day I practiced 50 right-handed layups and 50 left-handed layups. Sometimes she would feed me the ball, and she played in her day so she zinged in chest passes. And she made me be creative, would ice my knee afterwards, and she wouldn't let me take just ordinary layups. No, I was dribbling by Bird and Kareem and Shaq, and I hit some good shots. Later on, in middle school, there was this teacher whose wife was an intern, wanted to be an orthopedic surgeon. One day, during recess, I stayed inside while the other kids went out to play. He asked me why, and I told him that I had this knee problem but my doctor couldn't solve it. It hurt too much to play. So he and his wife got me to her hospital, and they figured out that something was wrong with my knee that minor surgery and new basketball shoes could cure. After that, I started getting really better fast, and there were many others who took me aside, challenged me and said things to me that I think about almost every day. I'll never forget all of 'em, because they all told me to stay focused on working hard and good things would happen. But if it weren't for Mr. Spears, I would have just quit. If it weren't for my aunt, I wouldn't have developed any skills. And if it weren't for my fifth-grade teacher, I would be limping around."
Instead, all you hear is "great, what a great group of guys, best in the world. . . came together. . .hit shots when we needed to. . . made defensive stops when we had to. . .." All of which, by the way, may be said sincerely.
But it's not worth watching or listening to.
When the answers start becoming cliches, the questions do too.
Mark Cuban is right.
Ask some different questions.
And, in the process, teach us something that we don't already know.
Six Degrees of Separation, This Time From . . .
David Segui.
How wet is this particular well?
How many teammates received career-prolonging advice from this first baseman?
Investigations are funny things. Investigators turn over rocks, and they offer good deals to those whom their nets catch first in order to get them to name names. Fearing big trouble, even those who are known for closing ranks sing like canaries. Remember the New York City mob and its code of silence?
John Gotti died in prison.
No one's suggesting that anyone connected with baseball's scandal is otherwise analagous to the Gambino Family -- except, perhaps, when it comes to closing ranks. After all, the most successful union in the world is the Major League Baseball Players Association.
Its members have made an art form of closing ranks.
But art evolves, and there are new schools and challenges to the craft. That's how dynamic change is, and it strikes me that now that David Segui has 'fessed up, others will join.
And perhaps run faster than the average steroids-and-steak fed thirty-seven year-old designated hitter with a bad wheel trying to play out his last contract -- right into the waiting arms of the investigators.
Jason Grimsley was only the start, and with David Segui's comments we're not even close to intermission.
The World Cup has delivered fun theater so far, as have the NHL and NBA playoffs.
But the baseball steroids scandal, as it continues to unfold, will rival, if fall short of, the gripping attention paid to the O.J. Simpson case and Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.
This is big stuff, and the storm is building.
Names will be named.
Fans will express public astonishment (again. . . and again and again).
Congressmen will sense headlines and ratings.
And no matter how hard the Players' Association's leadership tries to circle the wagons, they won't be able to do it fast enough.
Because it's easier to get out of the way of a 95 m.p.h. fastball than it is to duck a subpoena.
How wet is this particular well?
How many teammates received career-prolonging advice from this first baseman?
Investigations are funny things. Investigators turn over rocks, and they offer good deals to those whom their nets catch first in order to get them to name names. Fearing big trouble, even those who are known for closing ranks sing like canaries. Remember the New York City mob and its code of silence?
John Gotti died in prison.
No one's suggesting that anyone connected with baseball's scandal is otherwise analagous to the Gambino Family -- except, perhaps, when it comes to closing ranks. After all, the most successful union in the world is the Major League Baseball Players Association.
Its members have made an art form of closing ranks.
But art evolves, and there are new schools and challenges to the craft. That's how dynamic change is, and it strikes me that now that David Segui has 'fessed up, others will join.
And perhaps run faster than the average steroids-and-steak fed thirty-seven year-old designated hitter with a bad wheel trying to play out his last contract -- right into the waiting arms of the investigators.
Jason Grimsley was only the start, and with David Segui's comments we're not even close to intermission.
The World Cup has delivered fun theater so far, as have the NHL and NBA playoffs.
But the baseball steroids scandal, as it continues to unfold, will rival, if fall short of, the gripping attention paid to the O.J. Simpson case and Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.
This is big stuff, and the storm is building.
Names will be named.
Fans will express public astonishment (again. . . and again and again).
Congressmen will sense headlines and ratings.
And no matter how hard the Players' Association's leadership tries to circle the wagons, they won't be able to do it fast enough.
Because it's easier to get out of the way of a 95 m.p.h. fastball than it is to duck a subpoena.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
The Hits Just Keep on Coming
Read this from the AP wire services on what happened to the U.S. team against the Czechs in the World Cup. Sayeth one of their few bright spots, in essence, "We just didn't have a clue."
Makes you wonder how they got to be ranked #5 in FIFA's ratings, ahead of some serious, traditional powers.
After all of the competition, selectivity and training, the U.S. faltered on the world soccer stage.
Not because the other team played better (even if they really did).
Not because some key player got hurt (one of the two best Czechs, Milan Baros, missed the game, and another, the 6'8" striker Thomas Koller, got hurt and left early).
Not because the U.S. team didn't have enough talent (that's debatable, of course, as some say the talent level is there, but I'd submit that the U.S. team members don't play the type of competition in their "day" jobs that the members of the best national teams do).
But because, well, they didn't know what they were doing.
Here's a hint: when on offense, be nimble, quick, take care of the ball, get it to the open man and set him up to score, and, when in the other team's end, relentlessly attack; when on defense, mark your man, disrupt his progess, don't let the other team get into a rhythm, don't make silly mistakes clearing the ball, and keep the ball out of the goal you are defending.
Sounds simple enough, akin to Tony Gwynn's advice on how to hit a baseball: "See the ball, hit the ball."
But it just didn't happen for Team USA.
Soccer in my area has taken on cult status. The only thing close, and this is somewhat indigenouos to where I live, is girls' softball. There are travel teams, intramural teams that practice 2x a week and play one game on weekends, and then other intramural teams that practice once a week and play one game on the weekend. The travel has been known to tear at families, putting the whole family in the van, turning all but one into a spectator, and leaving little time for anyone else. I don't here friends around the country talking about football for their boys as much as I hear about soccer.
So, you would think, with Darwinism taking hold and the natural selection process that yields the best players, that the same way we can unearth a Dwayne Wade and Kobe Bryant out of a nation of 280 million plus that we could find our own version of Totti, Deco, Zambrotta, Kaka, Cole, Cisse. Lots of parents, lots of resources, lots of time spent.
So it makes you wonder -- are the best athletes and game players of our children playing soccer? Are the hungriest athletes, those who want to win at all costs, playing soccer?
They are in most places in the world, but I'd submit that they are not doing so in the United States. That's not to say that they aren't good athletes, but the competition just isn't there. At least not yet. Those kids, in the U.S., are playing the sports that offer more notoriety and glory -- football, basketball and, yes, baseball.
So perhaps it was that the U.S. players didn't know what to do.
It also might have been the case that they're just not good enough to compete on this stage, at least for now.
Makes you wonder how they got to be ranked #5 in FIFA's ratings, ahead of some serious, traditional powers.
After all of the competition, selectivity and training, the U.S. faltered on the world soccer stage.
Not because the other team played better (even if they really did).
Not because some key player got hurt (one of the two best Czechs, Milan Baros, missed the game, and another, the 6'8" striker Thomas Koller, got hurt and left early).
Not because the U.S. team didn't have enough talent (that's debatable, of course, as some say the talent level is there, but I'd submit that the U.S. team members don't play the type of competition in their "day" jobs that the members of the best national teams do).
But because, well, they didn't know what they were doing.
Here's a hint: when on offense, be nimble, quick, take care of the ball, get it to the open man and set him up to score, and, when in the other team's end, relentlessly attack; when on defense, mark your man, disrupt his progess, don't let the other team get into a rhythm, don't make silly mistakes clearing the ball, and keep the ball out of the goal you are defending.
Sounds simple enough, akin to Tony Gwynn's advice on how to hit a baseball: "See the ball, hit the ball."
But it just didn't happen for Team USA.
Soccer in my area has taken on cult status. The only thing close, and this is somewhat indigenouos to where I live, is girls' softball. There are travel teams, intramural teams that practice 2x a week and play one game on weekends, and then other intramural teams that practice once a week and play one game on the weekend. The travel has been known to tear at families, putting the whole family in the van, turning all but one into a spectator, and leaving little time for anyone else. I don't here friends around the country talking about football for their boys as much as I hear about soccer.
So, you would think, with Darwinism taking hold and the natural selection process that yields the best players, that the same way we can unearth a Dwayne Wade and Kobe Bryant out of a nation of 280 million plus that we could find our own version of Totti, Deco, Zambrotta, Kaka, Cole, Cisse. Lots of parents, lots of resources, lots of time spent.
So it makes you wonder -- are the best athletes and game players of our children playing soccer? Are the hungriest athletes, those who want to win at all costs, playing soccer?
They are in most places in the world, but I'd submit that they are not doing so in the United States. That's not to say that they aren't good athletes, but the competition just isn't there. At least not yet. Those kids, in the U.S., are playing the sports that offer more notoriety and glory -- football, basketball and, yes, baseball.
So perhaps it was that the U.S. players didn't know what to do.
It also might have been the case that they're just not good enough to compete on this stage, at least for now.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Great Guy Lands Brown Head Coaching Job
Brown University named Craig Robinson, Princeton '83, as its head men's basketball coach. Craig succeeds Glen Miller, who moved from Providence to Philadelphia to take the Penn job.
This is a great step for a great guy. Craig Robinson made great contributions to the Princeton campus when he was a student, and he was an outstanding hoopster to boot -- he was twice named the Ivies' player of the year. Since 2000, he was on the staff of Bill Carmody at Northwestern, and, yes, most of you know that Carmody was Pete Carril's top aide at Princeton for years, and, yes, that Craig Robinson played for Pete Carril.
Now Princeton's family has five former Pete Carril assistants or players who are Division I head coaches -- John Thompson III at Georgetown, Bill Carmody at Northwestern, Chris Mooney at Richmond, Joe Scott at Princeton and now Craig Robinson at Brown. Waiting in the wings, presumably, are former Princeton players Mike Brennan (Joe Scott's top assistant at Princeton), Mitch Henderson (on Bill Carmody's staff) and Sydney Johnson (on John Thompson's staff). That's a pretty impressive group.
Craig Robinson will have a tough act to follow and, generally in the Ivies, his work cut out for him. Glen Miller put Brown basketball more firmly on the Ivy map than any of his predecessors, and he left a winning legacy. In the greater scheme of things, Craig Robinson will have to do something that he didn't have to do as a player -- play Penn and Princeton on back to back nights twice during the regular season. That's a tall order for anyone. One problem for Brown is that he doesn't have any eligibility left.
Coaching against Penn and Princeton is a tough job. Many former Penn and Princeton assistants have tried it with mixed success. Gary Walters fared well enough at Dartmouth to move to Providence, while Jan van Breda Kolff fared well enough at Cornell to get the Vanderbilt. Former Penn assistants Ray Carazo (Yale) and Steve Donahue (Cornell) have fared less well.
Craig Robinson is a terrific guy who should make a great addition to Brown University and Ivy League basketball. As a Princeton alum who knew him on campus, I wish him very well. As a Princeton alum who wants his Tigers to string together some consecutive Ivy titles, my good wishes have their limits. The odds are tough, but Craig Robinson can handle almost anything that's thrown at him. He was perhaps the most lightly regarded player in one of the best recruiting classes in Princeton history, and yet it was he who had the best career of the six or so kids in the recruiting class. His joining the Ivies makes the conference more formidable.
In a sporting world that's dealing with illegal substances, motorocycle helmets (or the lack thereof) and other controversies, this is a true "feel-good" story.
Good luck, Craig!
This is just great news.
This is a great step for a great guy. Craig Robinson made great contributions to the Princeton campus when he was a student, and he was an outstanding hoopster to boot -- he was twice named the Ivies' player of the year. Since 2000, he was on the staff of Bill Carmody at Northwestern, and, yes, most of you know that Carmody was Pete Carril's top aide at Princeton for years, and, yes, that Craig Robinson played for Pete Carril.
Now Princeton's family has five former Pete Carril assistants or players who are Division I head coaches -- John Thompson III at Georgetown, Bill Carmody at Northwestern, Chris Mooney at Richmond, Joe Scott at Princeton and now Craig Robinson at Brown. Waiting in the wings, presumably, are former Princeton players Mike Brennan (Joe Scott's top assistant at Princeton), Mitch Henderson (on Bill Carmody's staff) and Sydney Johnson (on John Thompson's staff). That's a pretty impressive group.
Craig Robinson will have a tough act to follow and, generally in the Ivies, his work cut out for him. Glen Miller put Brown basketball more firmly on the Ivy map than any of his predecessors, and he left a winning legacy. In the greater scheme of things, Craig Robinson will have to do something that he didn't have to do as a player -- play Penn and Princeton on back to back nights twice during the regular season. That's a tall order for anyone. One problem for Brown is that he doesn't have any eligibility left.
Coaching against Penn and Princeton is a tough job. Many former Penn and Princeton assistants have tried it with mixed success. Gary Walters fared well enough at Dartmouth to move to Providence, while Jan van Breda Kolff fared well enough at Cornell to get the Vanderbilt. Former Penn assistants Ray Carazo (Yale) and Steve Donahue (Cornell) have fared less well.
Craig Robinson is a terrific guy who should make a great addition to Brown University and Ivy League basketball. As a Princeton alum who knew him on campus, I wish him very well. As a Princeton alum who wants his Tigers to string together some consecutive Ivy titles, my good wishes have their limits. The odds are tough, but Craig Robinson can handle almost anything that's thrown at him. He was perhaps the most lightly regarded player in one of the best recruiting classes in Princeton history, and yet it was he who had the best career of the six or so kids in the recruiting class. His joining the Ivies makes the conference more formidable.
In a sporting world that's dealing with illegal substances, motorocycle helmets (or the lack thereof) and other controversies, this is a true "feel-good" story.
Good luck, Craig!
This is just great news.
Monday, June 12, 2006
Ugh-ly Americans
Or was it "Ugly Americans."
Czech Republic 3, U.S.A. 0.
Okay, so it was a tough draw. Second toughest grouping next to the group of death, playing the first game against one of the top 5 teams in the world and a team who some thought could go very far in this tournament.
Fair enough.
But what wasn't fair -- to the U.S. fans -- was the effort that the U.S. team gave today. The quote from Landon Donovan is priceless, that many guys just didn't show up ready to play to day. What an indictment! Of U.S.A. soccer, of coach Bruce Arena and of most of the guys on the team.
What were they waiting for? This wasn't an exhibition, a meaningless warm-up cap against a team like St. Lucia to get themselves ready for the World Cup. This was game 1 of the World Cup, a game that was supposed to be a coming out party for Team U.S.A., a team which had flown underneath the radar screen and had risen as high as #5 in the FIFA rankings. This game was supposed to show people that the U.S. had caught up a bit in world soccer, and that U.S. players could hold their own against some of the best teams in the world.
Didn't happen.
Not only was this game not a coming out party, it was a setback for U.S. soccer. Always touted as "the sport of the future" in the U.S., it's coming close to a joke that a colleague of mine told me at work the other day -- it always will be the sport of the future in the U.S. I had hoped it wasn't to be the case, but he may be right. If the U.S. team doesn't right its ship and play a whale of a game against Italy, how many kids, despite all of their travel teams, will want to be the next Landon Donovan?
Not many.
I applaud Claudio Reyna's effort and the gutty way he plays in the Premiership. As for Donovan, I can't understand why he considers the MLS the league of his choice when the world's best players play in Europe. To me, there's something wrong when your best player eschews the best competition in the world for playing at home in a league that most of the European stars would only consider as a way to ease into retirement when they're in their mid-to-late 30's. Betting your bank on Donovan over players who are playing in the top leagues in England, France and Spain (although there aren't that many of them) seems to be a risky proposition. You have to give props to midfielder Bobby Convey, who stuck it out in England after a miserable first year in the First Division (not to be confused with the top-drawer league, the Premiership) and helped lead his team to a spot in the Premiership next season.
But an Henry, Kaka, Figo, Nedved, Shrevchenko -- the U.S. players don't have one of those.
Oh, sure, it's easy to bash Donovan now, I realize, but I never bought into the hype. Yes, he's a gifted player, but the best Dominican, Mexican, Puerto Rican and Venezuelan baseball players aren't staying at home to ply their trade. They go to the United States, where the best baseball in the world is played. Sure, it's hard, there are cultural and language differences, but these athletes are competitors, and they want to play against the best competition.
Take a look at the U.S. roster. Brazil has a team laden with stars -- Dida, Kaka, Adriano, Ronaldo, Ronaldinho. Argentina has Crespo, Saviola and a whole host of others. France has Henry. England has Rooney. The Netherlands has Robben and van Nistelroy. Italy has Totti, Zambrano and many others. Portugal has Figo and Deco. Ivory Coast has Drogba. Many of the competing nations have outstanding players whom you've never heard of who are better than most of the U.S. players.
And they play against the best competition in the world -- in Europe.
Yes, U.S. soccer has gotten better over the past half-century. Yes, the U.S. has players playing overseas, some of whom are pretty good. Yes, the U.S. ran into a buzz saw in the opening game. But, no, the U.S. won't get better until it has the bulk of its roster playing in the top European leagues, and until it gives rise to an international star or two around whom the team can rally and who can take over a game and lead the team to victory.
The U.S. isn't there yet. And if today's game proved anything, it showed that the road to international excellence is a longer one than many thought just a day or two ago.
Czech Republic 3, U.S.A. 0.
Okay, so it was a tough draw. Second toughest grouping next to the group of death, playing the first game against one of the top 5 teams in the world and a team who some thought could go very far in this tournament.
Fair enough.
But what wasn't fair -- to the U.S. fans -- was the effort that the U.S. team gave today. The quote from Landon Donovan is priceless, that many guys just didn't show up ready to play to day. What an indictment! Of U.S.A. soccer, of coach Bruce Arena and of most of the guys on the team.
What were they waiting for? This wasn't an exhibition, a meaningless warm-up cap against a team like St. Lucia to get themselves ready for the World Cup. This was game 1 of the World Cup, a game that was supposed to be a coming out party for Team U.S.A., a team which had flown underneath the radar screen and had risen as high as #5 in the FIFA rankings. This game was supposed to show people that the U.S. had caught up a bit in world soccer, and that U.S. players could hold their own against some of the best teams in the world.
Didn't happen.
Not only was this game not a coming out party, it was a setback for U.S. soccer. Always touted as "the sport of the future" in the U.S., it's coming close to a joke that a colleague of mine told me at work the other day -- it always will be the sport of the future in the U.S. I had hoped it wasn't to be the case, but he may be right. If the U.S. team doesn't right its ship and play a whale of a game against Italy, how many kids, despite all of their travel teams, will want to be the next Landon Donovan?
Not many.
I applaud Claudio Reyna's effort and the gutty way he plays in the Premiership. As for Donovan, I can't understand why he considers the MLS the league of his choice when the world's best players play in Europe. To me, there's something wrong when your best player eschews the best competition in the world for playing at home in a league that most of the European stars would only consider as a way to ease into retirement when they're in their mid-to-late 30's. Betting your bank on Donovan over players who are playing in the top leagues in England, France and Spain (although there aren't that many of them) seems to be a risky proposition. You have to give props to midfielder Bobby Convey, who stuck it out in England after a miserable first year in the First Division (not to be confused with the top-drawer league, the Premiership) and helped lead his team to a spot in the Premiership next season.
But an Henry, Kaka, Figo, Nedved, Shrevchenko -- the U.S. players don't have one of those.
Oh, sure, it's easy to bash Donovan now, I realize, but I never bought into the hype. Yes, he's a gifted player, but the best Dominican, Mexican, Puerto Rican and Venezuelan baseball players aren't staying at home to ply their trade. They go to the United States, where the best baseball in the world is played. Sure, it's hard, there are cultural and language differences, but these athletes are competitors, and they want to play against the best competition.
Take a look at the U.S. roster. Brazil has a team laden with stars -- Dida, Kaka, Adriano, Ronaldo, Ronaldinho. Argentina has Crespo, Saviola and a whole host of others. France has Henry. England has Rooney. The Netherlands has Robben and van Nistelroy. Italy has Totti, Zambrano and many others. Portugal has Figo and Deco. Ivory Coast has Drogba. Many of the competing nations have outstanding players whom you've never heard of who are better than most of the U.S. players.
And they play against the best competition in the world -- in Europe.
Yes, U.S. soccer has gotten better over the past half-century. Yes, the U.S. has players playing overseas, some of whom are pretty good. Yes, the U.S. ran into a buzz saw in the opening game. But, no, the U.S. won't get better until it has the bulk of its roster playing in the top European leagues, and until it gives rise to an international star or two around whom the team can rally and who can take over a game and lead the team to victory.
The U.S. isn't there yet. And if today's game proved anything, it showed that the road to international excellence is a longer one than many thought just a day or two ago.
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Why Iran Lost Today to Mexico and Other World Cup Rants
Read all about it here.
Apparently the Mexicans were in better shape.
It can't help the Iranians that they got roundly booed inside the stadium (although I wonder what the response will be to the U.S. team tomorrow when it takes the pitch against the Czech Republic).
It could have been worse for the Iranians -- in the bizarre (and perhaps corrupt) world of FIFA bracketing, they could have been pitted against the U.S. in the first round. Would they have boycotted that matchup the way an Iranian judoist forfeitted his first-round match against an Israeli, thereby costing him any chance of a medal?
Interesting question.
Some had argued that the #1 seed that Mexico received should have gone to the U.S. which has dominated the Mexicans in recent years; had that happened, would the U.S. have been bracketed with the Iranians in a first-round grouping? Or does FIFA's brand of politics cater so much to the soft bigotry of low expectations that the FIFA people gave the Mexicans a lifetime acheivement award in order to avoid a public temper tantrum from the Iranians (this, by the way, is a knock on FIFA and the Iranians and not the Mexicans, who have traditionally played well on the international stage) and a serious controversy before the World Cup even began? Before you shake this off, there is precedent. FIFA has pandered to the Arab world by putting Israel in the much tougher European bracket, thereby compelling the Israelis to beat traditional soccer powers (instead of teams like Iran and Saudi Arabia) in order to make the World Cup. This year, the Israelis almost embarrassed Sepp Blatter and his cronies, coming in ahead of Ireland, but they failed to beat out the Swiss and, as a result, are sitting home this year.
Let's hope that FIFA didn't rig its groupings in order to cater to Teheran. Given Europe's (but not England's) overall wishy-washiness over international politics, I can't be so sure. And, by the way, had the logical groupings put the U.S. with Iran and then the Iranians threatened to walk, so be it. Much has been made of the civil war in Cote d'Ivorie stopping so that the national team can play in the World Cup. If that's the case, then what grounds would the Iranians have had to stand on?
In addition, the U.S., which is ranked fifth in the world, finds itself in a group with #2 Czech Republic and #13 Italy. Why is that the case? Why are the Americans grouped in such a difficult foursome. By the way, if the U.S. somehow finishes in the top 2 in this grouping and, say, finishes second to the Czechs, guess who they'll have to play in the round of 16?
Brazil. Look at the same rankings -- the Brazilians, in case you haven't watched soccer of the past several decades, are ranked #1 in the world (heck, their backups probably would be rated in the top 15).
Okay, so the U.S. can't win everything, and, yes, the U.S. didn't invent soccer, and, yes, the U.S. cannot dictate the rules about who plays whom. Fair enough. But prove to me that whoever created this brackets isn't related to the refs who presided at the finals of the U.S. Olympic's men's basketball game in 1972 between the Soviet Union and the Americans?
Because that's how much sense that grouping makes.
The U.S. deserved a much better deal. Now they have to show the rest of the world that they deserved that deal.
All that ventilating aside, there was some compelling soccer this weekend. The home Germans got off to a good start, but I think that the Dutch are a better team and would love to see the orange-clad neighbors to the west win the Cup on the soil of their German archrivals. The Dutch looked quick today, and midfielder Arjen Robben is a special player. Trinidad and Tobago surprised everyone in drawing with Sweden, and the English look like that had better get turbocharged if they want to go deep into the tournament. Argentina looked formidable, and Cote d'Ivorie woke up a little too late. Striker Didier Drogba played with a lot of heart, but his teammates didn't play well together until it was too late.
How will the U.S. fare on Monday? The Czechs play well together, and in Pavel Nedved and Milan Baros they have two outstanding players. Goalie Peter Cech also is one of the best in the world. Few expect the U.S. to win tomorrow, and the pundits believe they need a draw to have a chance to advance to the second round. It's hard for non-European teams to win in Europe, and despite the presence of American fans I would expect the bulk of the crowd to be hostile to the Yanks, given that this will be Europe's chance to boo George Bush. All that said, the U.S. team has some good players in their own right, including a handful who are ready to break out on the international stage. They play the games for a reason -- go to the FIFA top-20 list for May and you'll see that several outstanding teams -- Egypt, Nigeria and Denmark among them -- failed to qualify for the World Cup. If the U.S. wins tomorrow, they'll provide great ammunition for the argument that they should have had a #1 seed. If they lose, well, the international soccer cognoscenti will dismiss the Yanks as a bunch of wannabes without the soccer tradition to propel their national team into the international elite.
It should be an interesting day.
Apparently the Mexicans were in better shape.
It can't help the Iranians that they got roundly booed inside the stadium (although I wonder what the response will be to the U.S. team tomorrow when it takes the pitch against the Czech Republic).
It could have been worse for the Iranians -- in the bizarre (and perhaps corrupt) world of FIFA bracketing, they could have been pitted against the U.S. in the first round. Would they have boycotted that matchup the way an Iranian judoist forfeitted his first-round match against an Israeli, thereby costing him any chance of a medal?
Interesting question.
Some had argued that the #1 seed that Mexico received should have gone to the U.S. which has dominated the Mexicans in recent years; had that happened, would the U.S. have been bracketed with the Iranians in a first-round grouping? Or does FIFA's brand of politics cater so much to the soft bigotry of low expectations that the FIFA people gave the Mexicans a lifetime acheivement award in order to avoid a public temper tantrum from the Iranians (this, by the way, is a knock on FIFA and the Iranians and not the Mexicans, who have traditionally played well on the international stage) and a serious controversy before the World Cup even began? Before you shake this off, there is precedent. FIFA has pandered to the Arab world by putting Israel in the much tougher European bracket, thereby compelling the Israelis to beat traditional soccer powers (instead of teams like Iran and Saudi Arabia) in order to make the World Cup. This year, the Israelis almost embarrassed Sepp Blatter and his cronies, coming in ahead of Ireland, but they failed to beat out the Swiss and, as a result, are sitting home this year.
Let's hope that FIFA didn't rig its groupings in order to cater to Teheran. Given Europe's (but not England's) overall wishy-washiness over international politics, I can't be so sure. And, by the way, had the logical groupings put the U.S. with Iran and then the Iranians threatened to walk, so be it. Much has been made of the civil war in Cote d'Ivorie stopping so that the national team can play in the World Cup. If that's the case, then what grounds would the Iranians have had to stand on?
In addition, the U.S., which is ranked fifth in the world, finds itself in a group with #2 Czech Republic and #13 Italy. Why is that the case? Why are the Americans grouped in such a difficult foursome. By the way, if the U.S. somehow finishes in the top 2 in this grouping and, say, finishes second to the Czechs, guess who they'll have to play in the round of 16?
Brazil. Look at the same rankings -- the Brazilians, in case you haven't watched soccer of the past several decades, are ranked #1 in the world (heck, their backups probably would be rated in the top 15).
Okay, so the U.S. can't win everything, and, yes, the U.S. didn't invent soccer, and, yes, the U.S. cannot dictate the rules about who plays whom. Fair enough. But prove to me that whoever created this brackets isn't related to the refs who presided at the finals of the U.S. Olympic's men's basketball game in 1972 between the Soviet Union and the Americans?
Because that's how much sense that grouping makes.
The U.S. deserved a much better deal. Now they have to show the rest of the world that they deserved that deal.
All that ventilating aside, there was some compelling soccer this weekend. The home Germans got off to a good start, but I think that the Dutch are a better team and would love to see the orange-clad neighbors to the west win the Cup on the soil of their German archrivals. The Dutch looked quick today, and midfielder Arjen Robben is a special player. Trinidad and Tobago surprised everyone in drawing with Sweden, and the English look like that had better get turbocharged if they want to go deep into the tournament. Argentina looked formidable, and Cote d'Ivorie woke up a little too late. Striker Didier Drogba played with a lot of heart, but his teammates didn't play well together until it was too late.
How will the U.S. fare on Monday? The Czechs play well together, and in Pavel Nedved and Milan Baros they have two outstanding players. Goalie Peter Cech also is one of the best in the world. Few expect the U.S. to win tomorrow, and the pundits believe they need a draw to have a chance to advance to the second round. It's hard for non-European teams to win in Europe, and despite the presence of American fans I would expect the bulk of the crowd to be hostile to the Yanks, given that this will be Europe's chance to boo George Bush. All that said, the U.S. team has some good players in their own right, including a handful who are ready to break out on the international stage. They play the games for a reason -- go to the FIFA top-20 list for May and you'll see that several outstanding teams -- Egypt, Nigeria and Denmark among them -- failed to qualify for the World Cup. If the U.S. wins tomorrow, they'll provide great ammunition for the argument that they should have had a #1 seed. If they lose, well, the international soccer cognoscenti will dismiss the Yanks as a bunch of wannabes without the soccer tradition to propel their national team into the international elite.
It should be an interesting day.
Friday, June 09, 2006
Mia Hamm Gets Honorary Degree from Princeton
Among Princeton's honorary degree recipients over the past 25 years -- Arthur Ashe, Larry Doby and Bill Russell.
Mia Hamm makes a great addition.
Mia Hamm makes a great addition.
Jackass Alert
Terrell Owens, now of the Dallas Cowboys, went to the Mavs-Heat game last night in Dallas.
In a Heat jersey.
This is on the same day where, at his camp designed to build friendships and values in youth, he showed up 2 hours late for a session with his campers.
Be careful what you wish for, Cowboys fans.
Be very careful.
In a Heat jersey.
This is on the same day where, at his camp designed to build friendships and values in youth, he showed up 2 hours late for a session with his campers.
Be careful what you wish for, Cowboys fans.
Be very careful.
Dumb, Fat and Now They Wake Up and Are Unhappy
The NBA, that is.
For a while I've been arguing that Commish David Stern has to make up his mind about his product. Does he want to stress the purity of the game or does he want to stress entertainment? At best, he's sent a mixed message that he wants both. But at worst, and probably closer to the truth, he's stressed packaging, marketing and, yes, entertainment. No, it's not as bad as pro wrestling, of course, but the quality of the product is bad.
And now the Commish is lamenting the quality of the feeder system that exists in the United States. Huh?
Of course the feeder system is corrupt and bad. There are too many hangers on wanting a piece of good sixth graders, who are told they're so wonderful before they're even on a travel team that they become difficult to deal with. As the linked article points out, the European systems are more humble and stress the fundamentals more -- hence the arrival of so many good non-Americans to the National Basketball Association.
Is the NBA to blame here? Is American society to blame? Is the ESPN "Sports Center"-induced slam-dunk culture indictable?
I think that blame can be apportioned on all fronts. The NBA, with all of its razzmattazz, should have caused Red Auerbach to have a fatal stroke years ago. The NBA itself in the post-Jordan era particularly has stressed individuals over team, has too many teams making the playoffs and has offenses that are about as creative as the lyricist who wrote Allen Iverson's rap songs. The NBA hasn't encouraged the development of players who can hit the mid-range jumper, find the open teammate, play the game at both ends, set a pick and generally do what it takes to make his team win. At least in America, it hasn't. The NBA has sent a message that kids should buy their overpriced merchandise, wear bling and "pump it up."
Whatever the heck that means.
American society is also to blame, because in the neverending search for celebrities, it is telling young stars that it's more important to be a star than it is to be fundamentally sound. Some kids just get bad advice, and there are those out there who give that advice to suit their own ends and not those of the young man. That's plain wrong, but it's not a totally new phenomenon. Neither is selfishness among teenagers. At the heart of the issue, though, lies outside influences on young stars that prevents them from putting the team first.
Finally, the "Sports Center" culture tells kids that to get on "Sports Center", you need to be able to dunk spectacularly. Solid assists, good rebounds, deflections on defense and screens don't get you that mention.
Even if they do get your team to the championship series.
So, Commissioner Stern, take a long, hard look in the mirror. The way you have marketed the NBA -- which has garnered you the moniker of "marketing genius" -- has been a disservice to the quality of your product. Take some responsibility here and then work to fix the system.
Before many fans begin to realize that with many franchises, all that's there is packaging.
And an assemblage of individual talents that belies the name team.
For a while I've been arguing that Commish David Stern has to make up his mind about his product. Does he want to stress the purity of the game or does he want to stress entertainment? At best, he's sent a mixed message that he wants both. But at worst, and probably closer to the truth, he's stressed packaging, marketing and, yes, entertainment. No, it's not as bad as pro wrestling, of course, but the quality of the product is bad.
And now the Commish is lamenting the quality of the feeder system that exists in the United States. Huh?
Of course the feeder system is corrupt and bad. There are too many hangers on wanting a piece of good sixth graders, who are told they're so wonderful before they're even on a travel team that they become difficult to deal with. As the linked article points out, the European systems are more humble and stress the fundamentals more -- hence the arrival of so many good non-Americans to the National Basketball Association.
Is the NBA to blame here? Is American society to blame? Is the ESPN "Sports Center"-induced slam-dunk culture indictable?
I think that blame can be apportioned on all fronts. The NBA, with all of its razzmattazz, should have caused Red Auerbach to have a fatal stroke years ago. The NBA itself in the post-Jordan era particularly has stressed individuals over team, has too many teams making the playoffs and has offenses that are about as creative as the lyricist who wrote Allen Iverson's rap songs. The NBA hasn't encouraged the development of players who can hit the mid-range jumper, find the open teammate, play the game at both ends, set a pick and generally do what it takes to make his team win. At least in America, it hasn't. The NBA has sent a message that kids should buy their overpriced merchandise, wear bling and "pump it up."
Whatever the heck that means.
American society is also to blame, because in the neverending search for celebrities, it is telling young stars that it's more important to be a star than it is to be fundamentally sound. Some kids just get bad advice, and there are those out there who give that advice to suit their own ends and not those of the young man. That's plain wrong, but it's not a totally new phenomenon. Neither is selfishness among teenagers. At the heart of the issue, though, lies outside influences on young stars that prevents them from putting the team first.
Finally, the "Sports Center" culture tells kids that to get on "Sports Center", you need to be able to dunk spectacularly. Solid assists, good rebounds, deflections on defense and screens don't get you that mention.
Even if they do get your team to the championship series.
So, Commissioner Stern, take a long, hard look in the mirror. The way you have marketed the NBA -- which has garnered you the moniker of "marketing genius" -- has been a disservice to the quality of your product. Take some responsibility here and then work to fix the system.
Before many fans begin to realize that with many franchises, all that's there is packaging.
And an assemblage of individual talents that belies the name team.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)