This Is Nitpicking. Or Is It?

I like reading things that have a nice, smooth flow to them.

It's hard to explain what I'm talking about.

I mean, I'm not (nor will I ever be) a good writer.

But I can tell you that when an article contains too many one sentence paragraphs, it becomes annoying to read.

Choppy formatting is distracting.

When two sentences are about the same general idea, it's ok to let them touch each other.

They're not going to cancel each other out or something.

Do you know what I mean?

Bill Plaschke sure doesn't.

Five minutes into spring cleaning, and Matt Kemp and I are already having a fight.

"I'll buy," I said, holding out my credit card to the man working the cash register at Mack Daddy's, a soul food place next to his gym on a cluttered street.

"No, no, no," he said, pulling out a large bill to pay for his food.

"Listen," I said. "I buy for young players. I always have. When you make the big money, you can buy mine."

"No, dude," he said, firmly. "I can pay my own way."

He gets a plate full of catfish nuggets. I get a side dish of insight.

Five minutes into spring cleaning, and already I like Matt Kemp better than last year.

What seemed like clubhouse defiance is now calm confidence.

That deer-in-the-headlights look has become an unfettered focus.

"Last year when I heard that trade talk, I got really scared," Kemp said. "I wanted to call Ned Colletti and say, 'Please, please, let me stay.' I love the fans. I love my friends. I love the Dodgers.' "

He shakes his head with a relieved smile.

"Now that I'm still here, it's time to show Los Angeles how much fun we can have by staying together," he said. "It's time to make some history."

The Dodgers listened. The Dodgers bought. Now the entire Dodgers nation will be watching.

Matt Kemp will pay his own way?

The Dodgers' season depends on it.

Their unwillingness to deal him prevented them from obtaining this winter's top traded pitchers -- Johan Santana, Erik Bedard or Dan Haren.

The Dodgers believe that by keeping his cannon in the middle of their lineup, Kemp would blow enough smoke to shroud the hole at the top of their rotation.

"The Dodgers had an opportunity to move him," said Dave Stewart, Kemp's agent. "But they see the value."

Kemp saves them money. He saves them angry questions from fans who want to see the Dodgers kids grow together.

Now Matt Kemp has to save the season.

I'll cut him a break for the dialog he shared with Kemp because that exchange is best captured with multiple paragraph breaks. But even if you exclude that little segment, you've still got ten paragraphs with exactly one sentence in this part of the article. Most of the other paragraphs have two. (The rest of the article isn't much different.) As my extremely obnoxious and over the top intro demonstrates, that's a pain in the ass to read. I have no idea why Plaschke gets paid to put his thoughts into words. I guess the world needs both Gods and clods. Plus, someone on Around The Horn has to occasionally out-moron Mariotti, right? Feel free to leave comments in
Bill Plaschke's style.

Oh No She Didn't

I'm not saying it's good. I'm not saying it's enjoyable. I'm not saying it contains logic that is more than 60% sound. And I'm certainly not saying that after having read it, I'm considering changing my stance that she should be deported to Nepal and legally prevented from using a computer. But I think Jemele Hill just wrote a somewhat inoffensive article. She even apologized for earlier creating one of the worst pieces of sports journalism I've ever seen.

Good for you, Jemele. Now quit while you're ahead.

Parity Is Great and J.A. Adande Is an Asshat

There are two kinds of articles I bitch about on this blog. First, you've got articles that are just plain wrong. These are the Eckstein-is-greats, the ARod-is-bads, and the Bonds-is-innocents. They should make you cry. Second, you've got articles that don't contain any objectively incorrect information, but are still very wrong. They should merely make you whimper. This, by J.A. Adande, is one such article.

Superstar trades put emphasis back on the games

Let's hear it for big, fat contracts. Money-money-money-monnn-ey -- MON-ayy. Dollar-dollar bills, y'all. Those salary-cap-killing, luxury-tax-inducing contracts -- envied by fans, cursed by owners with buyer's remorse -- are saving the NBA.

You can't wait for the playoffs to start. You have no idea who's going to win it all. And it's all thanks to economics.

In the past eight months, four All-Stars have switched teams and reconfigured three of the marquee brands in the NBA. In order, Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett, Pau Gasol and Shaquille O'Neal were traded to the Celtics, Lakers and Suns because their old teams were tired of paying star salaries for scrub results.

Let us count the ways in which this article is wrong, so far.

1. Expensive contracts are not "saving the league," neither in the way Adande implies here nor in any other way. Sure, their existence has recently facilitated a flow of high-paid stars to popular/good teams. (As you'll see, his premise is basically that the league is better off when said teams have all the talent and "under the radar" teams, like their former teams, disappear into the background.) On the other hand, popular/good teams are just as susceptible to horrible contracts as anyone else. Why do the Knicks blow right now? Because (among at least fifty other horrible gaffes) a few years back they gave the untradeable and unplayable Jerome James an 11 year deal worth $290 million. What's wrong with the Bulls? Well, for one thing, they signed Ben Wallace to a disastrous contract two summers ago. For every Memphis who gives a Pau Gasol a monster deal and then has to send him away so they can look towards the future, there's a marquee/popular team that makes a devastatingly bad decision.

2. "You can't wait for the playoffs to start." If you didn't feel that way before these trades, you weren't an NBA fan in the first place. Douche. "You have no idea who's going to win it all!" This has been the case each and every year since Jordan retired the second time. So, for a decade or so.

3. These stars' old teams were "tired of paying star salaries for scrub results?" Maybe in Shaq's case. As for the other three- well, if you call their most recent seasons/half seasons with their old teams "scrubby," I'd like to hear what adjectives you'd assign to the 97% of the players in the league that aren't as good as these guys.

OK. *Deep breath* Good. This is going okay so far.

Their former squads aren't better off today. In fact, Seattle, Minnesota, Memphis and Miami have the four worst records in the league.

Let me introduce you, J.A., to some of the finer points of the "trade." You see, very few "trades" are made between teams that expect the same results from the deal in the same time frame. You alomst never see two teams trade players that are current stars. Same goes for swapping young players that have the potential to be stars somewhere down the road. Although they do happen in rare circumstances, trades like these don't make a ton of sense on the surface. Right? You see why, don't you? Unless it's a positional or change-of-scenery issue, why would a team trade a guy who's really good right now... for another guy who's really good right now? And why would they trade young guys with potential... for young guys with potential? That would be like trading eggs for eggs, or shoes for shoes. You make "trades" in order to acquire something you don't already have.

I'm wasting everyone's time. I know. Let's just leave it at this: despite being a professional journalist who primarily covers the NBA, J.A. Adande apparently has yet to grasp the idea that teams often deal current stars for young players. This is the basic format of the vast majority of significant trades to take place during the salary cap era.

I am slightly frustrated.

This wasn't about them trying to stay in the hunt for a championship. It's about them trying to stay out of the red in the Excel files.

It's about them acknowledging they were not going to win a championship in the next couple of years, and building for the future beyond that timeframe. Welcome to the wonderful world of professional sports franchises.

Top-to-bottom competitive balance is right where it belongs: in the trash can, next to the short shorts.

And here we have the main premise of the article, the main reason I am forced to conclude that J.A. Andande should be attached to a weather balloon and released into the atmosphere. I've read some bullshit in my life, but this sentence might take the cake. Let's see- which major pro sports league has the most year-to-year parity? That's right, those jolly fat fucks in the NFL, who have more money than they know what to do with right now. And how do people tend to respond to underdog success stories? My inside sources say they like them, and that there's a direct relationship between the amount of competitive balance in a league and the likelihood of such a story playing out. Why do salary caps exist in three out of the four major sports? Because otherwise we'd have four times as many Yankees and Red Sox running around, which would not be "good for the league(s)" no matter what anybody says. And finally, why does the NCAA limit the number of athletic scholarships schools can give out? Because having the Boise States of the world occasionally dance with the big boys is more exciting than having USC, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, and Alabama grab 150 out of the top 200 recruits every year like they did in the 40s/50s/60s/70s.

The league is better off with several superpowers battling it out among themselves, not with some unknown upstarts crashing the party.

Let's focus. I'll limit discussion to the NBA alone. Boy, I sure don't remember anyone being excited about Golden State's first round win over Dallas last year. Boring. Who likes an upstart, anyways? I find life more fulfilling when everything is extremely even-keeled and goes exactly according to plan all the time. Keeps my blood pressure down. Here is my ideal 2008 NBA playoffs: Don't even play the first round in the West or the first two rounds in the East. Celtics sweep Pistons in the Eastern finals. Lakers sweep Spurs and Mavs sweep Suns in the Western semis. Lakers sweep Mavs in the Western finals. Celtics and Lakers agree to split the championship and instead play 7 exhibition games against each other. Immediately following the playoffs, every team in the league has to send its top scorer and rebounder to one of the six teams I named here to make 2008-2009 even more exciting! I mean, exciting in an even-keeled kind of way.

Supreme teams are compelling and draw big ratings, as the New England Patriots just showed.

This is partially true, but I would argue that the pursuit of perfection angle was much more important than just the simple fact that the Patriots were a dominant team. If they had somehow dropped their week 1 game (farfetched, I know, considering they were cheating during it), and gone through the whole season without that magical zero in the "L" column, I'm willing to bet ratings would have been much lower. Still outrageously high compared to anything the NBA puts up, but relatively lower.

If the success of the rich must come at the expense of the struggling poor, so be it. Call it de facto contraction.

Apparently J.A. has a little Rush Limbaugh in him.

"There are too many teams," one All-Star said. "There needs to be, like, 20 teams."

That guy probably just said that because he hates road trips.

But because the owners won't give up that additional revenue and the players won't give up the extra jobs, we're stuck at 30. The best we can do is have the best players concentrated among a few elite teams.

Nevermind, you know, the fans of those teams. Are there millions of rabid Bobcats fans out there? No. Are you going to get stabbed if you tell someone in a bar in Memphis that you don't really give a shit about the Grizzlies? Probably not. But that doesn't mean those teams are irrelevant or not useful assets for the league and their home cities. I really don't give a deuce if Adande thinks the Sonics or T-Wolves or Hawks shouldn't be competing with the traditional powerhouses. I steadfastly refuse to believe it's harmful to the sport in any fashion when parity exists and when non-traditional teams see a little success from time to time. I know ratings suffer and the blogosphere erupts with contempt when something like the 2007 NLCS happens. You know what? If people are too fucking stupid to be interested in a given sport's playoffs unless a team with a lot of history is winning them, that's not my problem. Those kind of people can go play in traffic.

"The trades seem to have piqued interest," commissioner David Stern said.

This doesn't support your point, tinydick. These trades would have piqued interest no matter where the marquee players landed.

There's anticipation and unpredictability, the two things that make sports such compelling TV content.

If Ray Allen goes to New Orleans and KG somehow ends up on the Clippers? No anticipation or unpredictability whatsoever, I guess.

Anticipation and unpredictability sound a lot better than cynicism and skepticism, which was the general attitude toward the NBA last summer.

Hmmmm... let's jog our memories... why was there a lot of cynicism and skepticism aimed at the NBA by fans and analysts last summer? I was going to link the funniest looking Tim Donaghy and Isiah Thomas pictures I could find, but J.A. actually goes through the trouble of answering his own question in the next paragraph. How thoughtful. OK, fine, fuck it. I'll link the pictures anyways.

Those dark days seem so long ago they might as well be in black-and-white. A referee was found to have bet on NBA games and shared inside info with gamblers. A troubled young player had a fatal car crash. The No. 1 overall pick had season-ending surgery before he even played a game. The SuperSonics gassed up the moving vans. The Knicks went through a sordid sexual harassment lawsuit. It was all gloom and doom.

Not on this list:
Too much parity in league
Too many upstart teams having success
Elite players too spread out
Fans bored by lack of traditional dynasty
Too long since Lakers or Celtics have won title
Shawn Bradley no longer available to be hilariously dunked on

Although that last one damn well should be included.

Last year was one of the hardest years from a public relations standpoint," said former All-Star David Robinson. "To see how well the NBA has bounced back from some of that stuff last year … I don't know any league that could deal with that kind of stuff. Wow.

"The energy level is still great. Everybody is looking forward to the playoffs. It's still so much excitement."

So what happened? Sports happened.

What does that mean? How does it justify your point?

We should know by now that all it takes to restore faith and interest in a league is to play games. Make that, play games on relevant networks (two points lost on the NHL).

Apparently the NHL is no longer playing games. No wonder I haven't heard much about them recently. And apparently they willingly chose to take their games off NBC and ESPN. "Hey," Gary Bettman said to a board of league executives, "I heard this 'Versus' is the next big thing. Call up our current networks and tell them to stick their thumbs up their own asses. We're riding the wave of the future, baby."

Bring out the balls, blow the whistle and the problems go away.

And- make sure all the best players in the league end up on just a handful of teams. You forgot that part.

All they had to do was keep playing and wait for the emergence of a dominant team or two. There's nothing wrong with a little healthy hegemony. In the league's glory days in the 1980s, there was a nine-year stretch when the Lakers and Celtics won eight of the titles. So much for sharing the wealth.

Those were the "glory days" because of the kind of people I earlier said should go play in traffic. Ratings were up. Everyone talked about the Celtics and Lakers. Great. But was the level of play in the league and higher? Was there something more inherently interesting about the games? The NBA has and always will market its superstars ahead of its teams. And it just so happened that two of the biggest superstars of the 80s happened to play for two otherwise excellent teams in opposite conferences. But just because everyone back then said "Oh man, Lakers/Celtics ftw, kewlest yizz evr" doesn't mean things were any better. Having both the Yankees and Red Sox playing very well at the same time these days sure generates ratings and hype for MLB. But can you really say the sport is better because of it? Really? Look, I already said it, but if you need shit like this to get interested in a sport then you weren't really a fan in the first place.

There are more good teams now. At the current pace, a Western Conference team could win 50 games and still miss the playoffs.

This will not happen. I promise. And it doesn't prove at all that there are more good teams now. The Lakers and Suns were already going to win 50 games before their moves. Denver, Utah, Portland, and Houston have basically the same rosters they did in November. As long as "now" is referring to "since these big trades," which I'm pretty certain it is.

Before the All-Star Sunday the arena was buzzing with the renewed possibility of a Dallas-New Jersey deal. It turned this weekend's All-Star Game into exactly what it should be: an afterthought. An interlude. People are obsessed with trade talk, and with the state of Kobe's injured pinkie. (One way or another, it always comes back to Kobe). But that's where the focus should be. There's no sense wasting time wondering whether the East All-Stars can beat the West. Who cares? You don't want the exhibtions overshadowing the main event.

Most confusing paragraph in the whole article. The All-Star Game should be an afterthought to what? Trade talk? Injury speculation? Are those "the main event?" I sure hope not. But I thought the only thing the league had to do in order to make everyone happy was just get out there on the damn court and play with their balls while whistling. Now you're telling me we should be more focused on gossip and rumors. And does anyone else see the irony in Adande knocking the All-Star Game after forming a whole article around the idea that concentrating the elite players onto as few teams as possible is a good thing?

This game won't be more entertaining than that Suns-Warriors game Wednesday. There's no way it will be more tension-filled than Shaq's anticipated Suns debut this Wednesday.

Thank you for helping us make the connection that Shaq's debut this Wednesday is for the Suns during a Wednesday game this Wednesday which will be his first game with his new team.

It was telling that, for the first time in memory, Stern opened a news conference talking about basketball. Not collective bargaining negotiations, not television ratings, not legal proceedings. "We're awful pleased about the state of our game," Stern said Saturday night.

"The game looks terrific. It's open, it's fluid, there's more movement. And there are more shots. The fact that the shots go in is also good.

"People feel good about the state of the game and the way it is being played and coached and reffed."

The league rediscovered what matters most, the one thing the fans really care about.

"It's the game, it's the game, it's the game," Stern said.

I thought it was trade rumors, injuries, and Kobe.

Not all the league's problems have magically disappeared. What should be a full-fledged celebration of the hosting Hornets, the team atop the Western Conference, is tempered by the possibility they could leave town without increased fan support. And the Sonics are locked in litigation with the city of Seattle, doing their best to bolt for Oklahoma City.

The last time an NBA team left the Pacific Northwest for the South, it was Vancouver to Memphis … and look how that turned out. The Grizzlies are playing in a half-filled arena, having just dumped their best player in exchange for No. 1 pick bust and a rookie.

But why weep for the Grizzlies when you can wonder how far the Lakers will go with Gasol?

But why wonder about the Lakers when you can be interested in whichever team is your favorite? I realize my well documented anti-Yankees/Red Sox bias is dripping into the article, but it's doing so for good reason. It's comments like this that make me hate every single nationally popular team out there and sometimes make it difficult to cheer for my hyperexposed alma mater.

As J.A. suggests, I'm not weeping for the Grizzlies. It's their own fault they put together a shitty team and had to basically give away Gasol. But at the same time... I know this is hard to hear if you're an elitist fan of a big-market team that thinks because they're on TV more often than everyone else that they're special... I also couldn't give two craps about the Lakers. To wit, with my baseball comparison- do you think Joba Chamberlain should start 2008 in the bullpen or the rotation? If you're not a fan of an AL East team or a keeper league fantasy owner, the answer is "Who fucking cares?" Honestly. Your team has a rich history and a larger than average fan base. I get it. Now stop bothering me so I can learn about other stuff.

Sorry, Memphis. Sorry, Minnesota. Your losses are better for the league as a whole.

I think you mean, your losses are good for the Lakers and Celtics.

The on-court action is as good as you could ask for.

If you're a Laker or Celtic fan.

It's All-Star Weekend in New Orleans. Might as well grab a go cup and celebrate the good times.

You sound like you're drunk already.

J.A. Adande is the author of "The Best Los Angeles Sports Arguments."

1. What's the best way to enjoy a Dodger game- by showing up in the 3rd, leaving in the 6th, or both?
2. Which riot was more violent and unnecessary- the one after UCLA basketball's championship in 1995, or the one after the Lakers won the NBA finals in 2000?
3. Why the fuck don't we have an NFL team?
4. Who's going to end up as a bigger bust- Matt Leinart or Reggie Bush?
5. How fucking lame are the Angels and their fans for that "Rally Monkey" shit?
6. Why doesn't anyone think USC football qualifies as a "dynasty" this decade, even though they've grabbed a whole one national championships?
7. How do we get the Clippers to go back to San Diego?
8. What's the best object to throw on the field for no reason when you're drunk at a Dodger game?
9. No, seriously, why does the country's second largest city not have an NFL team?
10. Tommy LaSorda- fat or pregnant?

Much love to any LA-based fans or readers if they made it this far. You know I'm just messing with you. I pretty much hate everyone equally. Except Boston.

I'm Speechless

Jay Mariotti actually took the time to write this in his 24/7 online column. I couldn't be more shocked. I'll copy the entire thing here, and it's short. I refuse to link it for fear it may increase the number of hits this terrible terrible "sports" column gets.

Find your earplugs: Harrelson back

Jay is referring to the White Sox resigning Hawk Harrelson, the poor broadcaster, for the next several years.

Ensuring that illiteracy remains in the Chicago sports media for four more years, the White Sox have handed a contract extension to alleged broadcaster Ken (Hawk) Harrelson.

This is not a reason to write a column. You are abusing your privilege as a columnist for a personal attack. This as a premise for a column alone should be grounds for giving you a pink slip.

This means listeners in an otherwise sophisticated town will be punished with more hillbilly twang,

You heard it here first: Ken Harrelson is the only non-sophisticated thing in an "otherwise sophisticated town". Isn't this the city where some dude ran onto the field plastered to try to attack a first base coach with a knife in one stadium, while in the other people throw their garbage onto the field whenever the team plays bad late in the game? Are these "sophisticated" things to do? Walk around Wrigley Field in the 7th inning of a baseball game, and you'll see and hear just how "sophisticated" Chicago really is.

which is almost as embarrassing as Harrelson's .239 career batting average

ZING!

and his short-term flop as the general manager who fired Tony La Russa.

He fired the guy who felt Aaron Rowand was a better late-game hitting option than Albert Pujols? Tony La Russa is not now, nor ever has been, a good Major League Baseball manager. And even if he were, managers don't do that much.

Now Jay, try to relate this bullshit to something actually about baseball.

When the Sox should be attempting to reinvent an organization that already has lost its World Series cachet, they instead try to stay the same.

I hate to admit it, but I actually agree with Jay here.

Ken Harrelson, WARBs (Wins Above Replacement Broadcaster) for the past 5 years.

2003: 3.2
2004: 2.1
2005: 0.4
2006: -4.7 (oh boy...)
2007: -10.4

So as you can see, it was the broadcaster who profoundly and negatively affected the team's performance in 2007 (and possibly costed them a playoff berth in 2006), and not aging players, regression to the mean, Jerry Owens, or, as Jay believed, Ozzie being crazy and stupid. It was all about Ken Harrelson being crazy and stupid. This organization has just doomed itself.

Harrelson doesn't bring in audiences as much as he scares them away or makes them cringe, whether it's throwing one of his dead-air fits, blaming every loss on the umps or lowering himself to pick fights with media members far more professional and accomplished than him.

Ooooh hooooh hooooooooooooooh! It gets juicy!

The fact behind this comment is that Harrelson allegedly tried to pick a fight with Jay Mariotti in the press box.

As much as I believe Harrelson to be a bad broadcaster now (he wasn't as awful say, 10 years ago), let's look at the facts here for a second!

Ken Harrelson played Major League Baseball. He was the General Manager of a Major League Baseball team. He has been the TV broadcaster for said team for 2 decades or so.

Jay Mariotti writes a sports column for a newspaper. Millions of people are aware of him, and I've yet to meet one who didn't dislike him. He is also often on a TV show that features 4 idiot blowhards trying to suck Tony Reali's dick for "points". Rarely does Jay do any real sports analysis, and has become famous simply for generating controversy.

Which person is more accomplished? Jay feels, the latter.

And this is lovely. Jay has just patted himself on the back for being "far more professional" than Harrelson in the midst of a newspaper column written solely to continue his personal vendetta against the man. Shades of hypocrisy!

Consider it one more reason, along with the extension given to Ozzie Guillen, that the Sox are locked in as Chicago's second-class ballclub for years to come.

It just wouldn't be Jay if he attributed the Sox' failures to something that actually plays baseball. You know, something that actually affects the outcome of the games.

Column over.

Reader Extra Participation Friday: That's Actually a Word

This isn't a direct quote but I've got the gist of it right. Earlier today on 1st and 10, Dana "I'm So Wasted" Jacobsen helped viewers understand one of the finer points of Roger Clemens's testimony from the previous day's congressional hearing.

"Clemens at one point claimed that his friend Andy Pettitte had 'misremembered' certain discussions the two of them had participated in years ago. We know some of you out there around the water cooler at work are wondering about that word. It turns out that it is indeed in the dictionary; it means to remember something incorrectly."

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! I seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! So THAT'S what it means. There's no way I could have possibly figured that out from context. Or from similar sounding words like "misunderstood," "misheard," "misspoke," "mistake," or any of the dozens of other words with "mis-" as a prefix. Thanks, Dana, for filling us in.

For Reader Extra Participation Friday, feel free to define any sports-related word/term in a way that comes off as insulting to anyone who's gotten past the 6th grade. For example:

Bounce pass- A real basketball term. It describes the act of sending the ball to a teammate ("passing" it) by bouncing it off the court and towards him or her.

Block- Shockingly, this is something that happens during a football game. Offensive players try to get in the way of defensive players, to "block" them from getting to various places on the field. They push or grab the defenders in order to do so.

Steal- One of baseball's more obscure acts. A player already on base attempts to move to the next base while the pitcher is throwing to the batter. If he is successful, it's kind of like he "stole" the base, because no one else on the offense did anything to help him get there!

Wrister- It doesn't get much weirder than this. It's actually a slang term for a type of hockey shot, executed mostly by flicking one's wrists in order to shoot the puck towards the opposing team's goal. Since you use your "wrists" to do it.... yeah, I know. It's messed up.

I know this is kind of weird, but it's the best I could come up with this week. Consider it a challenge. I'll be back next week with something easier, like coming up with adjectives that describe the quality of journalism Woody Paige usually creates.

More Bad Analysis re: The Big Aristotle

Everyone watch this. (Turn down the audio or plug in the ol' headphones if you're at work.)

OK. That should have gotten all the laughter out of your system. Now we can begin.

As if Scoop Jackson's disaster of an article (covered by PNoles, just two posts below this one) didn't adequately implicate ESPN as an employer of idiots, Bill Simmons felt the need to weigh in on the matter as well. Actually, NBA trades are the one thing not related to Boston that Simmons does a reasonable job of understanding. And this article isn't bad through and through. Still, why the fuck would he say:

If the trade doesn't work, Kerr gets canned. If it does work, he's a genius. There is no middle ground.

Oh yeah? What if Shaq performs very well in the playoffs, but the Suns still lose to the Spurs/Lakers/Mavs in seven in the conference finals? What if Shaq blows out his knee tomorrow and they still somehow win it all because the Warriors knock off two of the Spurs/Lakers/Mavs while the Pistons and Celtics beat each other to pieces in the Eastern Conference finals? What if Shaq turns into an unstoppable presence in the postseason, but Stoudemire, Diaw, and Barbosa forget to show up and Phoenix bows out in the second round? What then, Mr. Simmons? All of those outcomes, by my very subjective estimation, constitute a middle ground.

I know it's more fun to sensationalize things, because heroes in action movies are always like: "This ridiculous plan could either be the stroke of genius that helps us defeat the bad guys... or it could be totally insane and lead to the end of life on Earth as we know it! What if it's BOTH?!?!?!?!" But that doesn't mean events that happen in real life can be viewed through the same lens. Some trades end up being essentially meaningless. Some players don't do a whole lot to either help or hurt their new teams. And some sportswriters should be fired from ESPN and go back to riding Adam Carolla and Jimmy Kimmel's coattails. (Or trying to, anyways.)

Presenting: Punchlines that Write Themselves, Vol. 2

Ryan Dempster Predicts the Cubs Will Win the World Series

Is God playing MadLibs with Cubs pitchers every year, inserting a random name before a stupid comment? I bet next year Ted Lilly will guarantee a Cub dynasty.

"I think we are going to win the World Series. I really do," Dempster said.

"And [last year] we were close, maybe we need some more guys saying it"

I think you need more guys who are good pitchers. Like - not you, Mr. Career 89 ERA+. Maybe you need more good players instead of more below-average pitchers.

Jeter says hearings "a bad time for the game"

Yeah. You said it, Derek. Those assholes, trying to ascertain the truth about what could be a huge steroid-case - probably even bigger than McGwire, second only to Bonds.

"But it's disappointing for everyone who plays baseball -- not just the players, but the management, ownership, commissioner. It's a bad time for the game."

1. Wait a minute - the managment, owners and commissioners play baseball?

2. When would be a good time, Derek? Maybe, like, in the middle of the Yankees' season? I'm pretty sure, of all the times in the year, early February is a pretty damn good time for a story to come out about the Yankees' past - inasmuch as it's the time when the frenzied media is least likely to fall upon the present Yankees.

3. I'm not sure it's a bad time for the commissioner. I think getting to the bottom of the steroid business might be the only think that can save all of baseball fandom from thinking he's a complete moron.

4. It's not like the game is suffering. MLB revenues crossed $6,000,000,000 this past season - nearly catching the NFL. Derek, 1920, 1972 and 1994 were Bad Times for The Game.

2008 is not a bad time for the game.

And yes, it's a total coincedence that Ryan Dempster and Jeter rank near the bottom of my personal favorite baseball players list.

Scoop Jackson Has An Announcement: Scoop = Right, World = Wrong

If that sounds unbelievable, that's because it is. It starts out relatively inoffensive, then gets stupid.

Shaq will thrive on solar power

Incredibly, incredibly cute.

Guess what? The Suns just made a fantastic trade

Fantastic? You're going to tell me that this was "fantastic"? The best argument I've heard involves "Marion is a malcontent so the Suns did the best they could by shipping him out for Shaq." But fantastic? Read on....

The world has finally given up on Shaq.

Because his PPG and RPG have dropped rapidly over the last 3 years, perhaps? The fact that he has only played in 99 games the last two seasons and has only played in 32 during this one?

Many feel the gimmick is up, there's no room left for the games, that he's not worth his weight or contract on anyone's roster anymore. "Damaged goods," is how one man described him. "Stupid," "Dumb," "Doesn't make any sense," and "What in the #@$% were they thinking?" are some of what's being said. If you've read ESPN.com or any blogs, listened to any sports talk radio or had time to peep the sports pages, you'd know that the Suns are catching heat for bringing Shaquille O'Neal into their almost perfect basketball universe.

The same kind of heat the Lakers caught when they gave him up and gave up on him almost four years ago.

Right. Because 4 years ago, Shaq was still pretty damned good. He was a 20 points, 10 rebounds kind of guy. Very very productive. And those critics were right, he went on to win an NBA title. Got news for ya scoop, they're still right.

Shaq doesn't fit into their style of play. Even if he's in the best shape of his life, he can't get up and down the floor with the Suns. He'll be worthless on offense, and he's going to destroy their flow. He's lazy. He's not going to work hard. He's injury-prone. He's not worth the money. They still won't win a championship with him there.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Sorta wrong. Maybe. Yes. Wrong. Wrong.

Correct answers: Yes. Wrong. Sorta wrong. Sorta wrong. Maybe. Yes. Yes. Impossible to determine.

Since you have 1/2 credit on some of these, you get 4.5/8 right for a 56.25% score. Lets look at where you screwed up!

Shaq absolutely does not fit into their style of play. A large, old player does not fit into a run-and-gun fast-break style offense. Absolutely not. This should be obvious. He won't be completely worthless on offense, but not worth very much considering Amare is a better option almost every time, and he probably will disrupt their flow. Shaq is nowhere near the 2nd best player in the NBA, so no, he is not close to worth 2nd best player in basketball money. And you have no idea if they will win a championship with him there or not. That's bullshit.

In Miami (and in L.A. and Orlando before) Shaq was Option 1 or 2, and over the past two seasons that became a problem. In Phoenix, he'll be Option 4, maybe 5. Mike D'Antoni should have no plans to depend on Shaq for any offense -- heavy emphasis on "depend." Not in the conventional way that everyone is thinking. The pressure on him to score 20 and grab 10 is finally over.

Read what the hell you just said! You're basically arguing "Shaq will totally help propel Phoenix to a championship, my reasoning is that 1) he's not that good anymore, and 2) but that's ok, because he won't be expected to be that productive." Cleanup on aisle common sense!

Now he'll be the Big Decoy.

Which will totally work, because other teams have no sense for evaluating if he's still as good as he used to be. You know, I hear the New Orleans Hornets and San Antonio Spurs prepare for games by looking at tapes of the 1999-2000 season.

And because he won't be double-teamed (remember he's still one of the best-passing post players in the game, and the Suns are one of the best outside-shooting teams in the League, hitting 38.7 percent on 3-pointers along with four players capable of dropping 20 to 30 every night), Big stands a chance of being more valuable by doing less in Phoenix.

Big Decoy, 2007-2008 season: 1.4 APG, good for 14th in basketball among centers. He's behind Zydrunas Ilgauskas for fuck's sake. His assist to turnover ratio is .47! Not as comically bad as Eddy Curry, but still awful, even for a center.

The beauty is -- again, if the Suns play this right -- Shaq doesn't need to be a part of their transition game, he just needs to ignite it.

Get ready for this guys, it's pretty funny.

Rebound, turn, outlet! Rebound, turn, outlet! Precision. Execution. Buckets. Only six seconds off the shot clock. Back on D. Repeat. So unfair.

Sounds exactly like what Shawn Marion did for them! Only Marion grabbed rebounds more often and actually was able to run the floor to contribute anyway even if he wasn't the lucky fella to whom the rebound bounced. FANTASTIC trade! I guess if you're arguing that Shaq "wouldn't be completely dismal" to the Suns, you've done a C-minus job. But that the trade was FANTASTIC!?!?! Gimme a break.

It will be so systematic that no one will be able to stop it once it gets perfected.

For crissake all you're saying is that he can grab the farking rebound and pass it. The rebound is the hardest part, and he's not even very good at that anymore. Ben Wallace is way shorter and lighter and having a terrible season and he STILL gets more rebounds per game than Shaq, who is 40th in the NBA.

And for those who think it's predictable and defenses will be able to shut it down, here's one to grow on: Whenever teams played the 49ers, they knew where, when and how Jerry Rice was going to get the ball. Yet for years, the best defenses in the game could not do anything to stop it. Nothing. The Niners won four rings with Rice, proving that predictability when perfected, works.

Football....that doesn't happen to be a completely different sport with different dynamics than basketball....does it? Chalk another one up to the "anecdotal bullshit" category!

On defense, all Shaq needs to do is breathe, partially because Amare Stoudemire is so active. As long as Shaq doesn't move (and get in foul trouble, which my be a bigger problem on offense), no one'll get hurt. Remember Chief from "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest"? That's Shaq all day on defense. Just play the paint, don't protect it.

So, what does Amare Stoudemire's man do when Amare goes to help out Shaq? Run into the stands and buy a hot dog? No, he stands right under the fucking basket for easy points if the ball can get to him. An awful defender can bite you in the ass, regardless of how good the help defenders on your team are. And I'm so gonna think of a Cuckoo's Nest-related label.

There's more grief from the world about this. Grief of how "the Suns should have kept Shawn Marion," how he was "their best defensive player and best rebounder" and how "there's no player in the league like him." All true. But Marion wanted to go. He wanted out of everyone's shadow and the organization's underappreciation of him. And before the Suns ended up like the Grizzlies after trading Pau Gasol and getting "the twin of nothing" in return for the Matrix, they decided to get someone who, if you checked his history, guarantees your team will either get to the NBA Finals or win a ring.

Orlando? Finals in three years. L.A.? Finals in four years, three rings in eight. Miami? Finals and ring in his second season.

Sir, a coke-addicted moron could fine serious, serious flaws in that logic. For starters, you just represented something that has historically happened 53.3% of the time as a "guarantee." Hey guys, 53.3% of the time, Shaq gets to the finals EVERY TIME. Second, you just assumed that things like the state of Shaq's career (currently the severe decline phase), Shaq's teammates (ones who play a vastly different style of basketball than he does), and the conference and division in which Shaq is competing (both pretty tough) are irrelvant.

Get ready, this is about to become dismal.

See, the Suns are outthinking all y'all.

You're a professional writer. "Y'all" should not appear in your sports column.

They know that one thing comes almost assured with this trade: They will win a title with Shaquille O'Neal in the lineup. It's just a matter of whether the one ring they get with him is worth the years they won't win while he's still there.

Could you be more completely and totally irrational? First of all, as you just discussed, Shaq didn't win a ring with Orlando. Second, you are talking like the Suns are 100% completely and totally guaranteed to win a title either this year or in the next two. If you can say this with confidence, Scoop, head to Vegas right now, bet the farm on it, and start living the good life. And third, if the Suns absoluetly will win at least one ring with him there that they wouldn't have won without him, then it's not a "matter" of whether the other two years are worth it, because the Suns are absolutely dying for a title, and it's a very difficult title to win. If this trade guarantees them ONE title (which it absolutely doesn't), then it's no fucking question that it's worth it. Period.

The Suns have never won an NBA championship -- just like Miami before Shaq arrived. And if they're smart, they can take the one they'll win and milk it for 30 years -- just like Portland. The question is if $20 million per for the next two seasons is worth getting the one year of ring service they're going to get from Shaq.

It's official, you've fallen off the proverbial cliff harder and more dramatically than the little Price is Right mountain climber guy with an idiot contestant playing. If there is a fucking team in the NBA that wouldn't pay a guy $20M for two years with the stipulation that it would guarantee them one championship in the next three (hell, it's probably true of the Knicks), that team shouldn't have a fan in the world, and the GM should probably be drowned. And you continuously hammer home the "fact" that Shaq in some sort of divine way "guarantees" a championship in Phoenix, which is a "stupid" "thing" to "say."

There are so many other variables that play to the Suns' favor in this: a front line of Stoudemire, Shaq and Boris Diaw that no squad in the West can match -- not even the Lakers, when Andrew Bynum comes back with Gasol in the slot. Amare will be able to play his natural position, power forward, which causes matchup drama for any other team.

For the 20 minutes per game you'll get out of Shaq, that's true. Stoudamire is currently running at 23.1 PPG and 9.4 RPG. We'll see if those improve. My guess: not significantly.

Steve Nash is going to get open looks because of Shaq's presence and how coaches automatically forget about other players on the court because they are still afraid of getting killed by Shaq in the playoffs.

Those teams must still have the image of Shaq dominating the Bulls last year fresh in their minds. Oh wait....

Shaq's and Grant Hill's passing ability in the half-court will be more dangerous than Nash's, which will now increase the assist-per-game ratio for the team, which is the most difficult stat in the League to alter and one that correlates most to a team's ability to win.

Are you fucking kidding me? Shaq and Grant Hill better passers than Nash? Even though Nash is overrated, he's at the very least one of the three best passers in basketball. Shaq can go ahead and add his 1.4 assists per game at the expense of Marion's 2.1. Grant Hill averages 3.3 assists. Nash averages 11.7. How many of Nash's are in the half-court, I can't say for sure, but it's still way more than Shaq or Hill get. Mark my words, Scoop, the Suns' APG will not be seeing a significant boost from this trade, and you couldn't overrate O'Neal's ability as a passer any more than you have. You know what else correlates to winning? Not turning the ball over. Shaq does that a lot.

Big might come to town rejuvenated. He probably hears everything that's being said about him, which could send him back into 2005-06 mode. Just being gone from Miami with all of the hot mess surrounding his divorce will give him a new lease on his life. Robert Horry might think twice about running a Suns player into the scorer's table next time.

So....all the Toronto media needs to do to get Frank Thomas to hit like he did for Oakland 2 years ago is start talking shit about him! Totally makes sense!

Variables that no one outside of Steve Kerr's office and Robert Sarver's bank account could possibly comprehend. The fact is, by attaining the services of Shaquille O'Neal and not expecting or needing much from a productivity standpoint in return, the Phoenix Suns may have made the most ingenious move in the NBA in the past 10 years. Only time will tell. It's just a matter of how wrong they -- and he -- really want to prove the world to be.

Most ingenious move in the NBA in the past 10 years!??!??!?!?!

::faints::

A++

After reading larry b's Easterbrook piece below, I encourage everyone to check this out, about the backstory between Tony Gwynn Jr. and Trevor Hoffman. It's very interesting and well-done. Kudos, Tom Friend.

WMTMQR: Oh, The Irony

I had been stretching to find material for a post tonight. Clark Judge of CBSSportsline wrote a real piece of crap about five NFL teams he boldly suggests will make a run at the playoffs in 2008 after not finishing 2007 with a winning record. All of them were 8-8 or 7-9 last year, and have plenty of talent on their rosters. Yawn. And Jemele Hill checked in with her usual piece of garbage minus the race card. But neither of those pieces really warranted a full breakdown.

So imagine my elation when I stumbled upon the final TMQ column of the year. I'll say this much- you can't fault Easterbrook for not having any balls. This is a guy who regularly serves up some of the worst football analysis you'll ever read, and yet here he is, devoting an entire column to the perceived missteps of his colleagues. There is so much wrong here, I can't even begin to cover it all right now. I might pick up wherever I leave off for a separate post tomorrow, but here's a sampling that should have you shaking your head in anger for the time being.

How hard it is to defend the predictors Easterbrook names (many of which are regular punching bags here at FireJay), I cannot fully put into words. But this guy is such a pompous douche that I have to go through with the post anyways. That's life I guess. You spend 99% of it talking about how much [X] sucks, and then in the end, it turns out that [X] really isn't that bad when you compare it to what an asshole [Y] is.

Peter King predicted, "It'll be stunning if the Chargers can dig their way out of this horrible web of mismanagement to finally be a playoff factor next season."

They were 5-5 at one point. I'd have to say that their ensuing 8 game win streak (including a win over Indy in the RCA Dome in the divisional round) was indeed "stunning."

Ron Borges, then of The Boston Globe, predicted that Jeff Garcia, Patrick Kerney and Leonard Davis were "free agents to avoid." All made the Pro Bowl.

We'll see how much Dallas/Seattle enjoys paying Davis's/Kerney's contract in 2012 when he's 34/35 years old. I know, the teams can always just cut them. But good chunks of those contracts are guaranteed. By this logic, the contract the Giants gave Barry Zito in 2006 would have been a great idea had he won 16 games in 2007. Oh, and Jeff Garcia apparently looks and smells like a rat.

"JT the Brick" of MSNBC predicted, "The Oakland Raiders are back. They are drastically improved."

They won two more games than they did in 2006. Their point differential improved by 50. Six of their losses were by a touchdown or less (compared to four in 2006). Only three were by more than two touchdowns (compared to six). Do they still suck? Yes. Did they suck a whole lot less? Even as someone who fucking detests the Raiders, I have to say yes. To be fair, "JT the Brick" is still a shitheaded nickname.

Brick also predicted that, in early 2008, Bill Parcells would become coach of the Giants or Chargers; neither team changed coaches, and Parcells went to the front office of the Dolphins.

Take that, JT. Idiot. You were only able to predict that Parcells would return to a prominent role with a team, and almost the exact time he would do so. Way to dick up exactly which team and role it would be.

Andrew Perloff said Jay Cutler will "lead the Broncos back to the playoffs."

The Broncos' struggles had nothing to do with Cutler, who had a very good year (88.1 QB rating). Maybe being ranked 30th against the run and 28th in scoring defense were slightly larger factors in their struggles.

Then there were the Jake Plummer predictions. ESPN.com's Jeremy Green speculated, "If Plummer ends up in Houston, he might have to sit behind David Carr." Plummer did not come back, and Carr wasn't in Houston either.

That prediction is not incorrect at all; it couldn't be much less incorrect. That's a quadruple negative.

Then there were the Rex Grossman predictions. "There is no question the Bears are committed to Grossman as their starting quarterback next season," Pompei of Sporting News predicted. The Bears benched Grossman twice, starting three different quarterbacks.

Grossman started the season as QB. After he was benched, they gave him another chance. Sounds like at least some level of horribly misguided commitment to me.

Gene Wojciechowski of ESPN.com predicted, "Grossman will be fine. No way does he throw another 20 interceptions." Grossman threw only seven interceptions -- because most of the time, he was benched.

He was obviously not "fine" overall, but if you project his totals out to a full season, he'd have thrown about 15 picks. Just saying.

Vic Carucci of NFL.com predicted the Super Bowl would pair the Patriots and Eagles; Philadelphia did not make the playoffs.

Nice one, Miss Cleo. Way to only pick one of the two Super Bowl teams before the season started.

The Boston Globe ran five sets of Super Bowl predictions, none of them mentioning the Giants.

Every other newspaper in the world totally saw the whole Giants thing coming. Where were the Globe's writers when we all agreed it was inevitable? Shooting up HGH with Rodney Harrison? Losers.

Dan Shaughnessy of the Globe predicted San Diego over New England in the AFC Championship Game.

How preposterous! There was no way that could have happened at all. It's not like San Diego had more scoring drives than New England, while being without their two biggest offensive weapons due to injury and playing a QB with a shredded knee.

USA Today offered eight dueling Super Bowl predictions, none of them involving the Giants.

Hey USA Today (and the Boston Globe), if your hand is bigger than your face, it means you've got a tiny penis. *Slap* I can't believe you fell for that!

None of ESPN television's "Sunday Countdown" crew -- Chris Berman, Tom Jackson, Chris Mortensen, Keyshawn Johnson, Mike Ditka or Emmitt Smith -- predicted the Giants would reach the Super Bowl.

Hey guys, there's a dickfor on the ceiling. (pause) Well I don't know, maybe you should ask your sister! Everyone get a load of these people who didn't think the Giants would make the Super Bowl. Can you believe they didn't see that coming? Talk about obvious.

Of the 22 predicted Super Bowl participants, 12 failed to make postseason, and no Pro Football Weekly analyst predicted the Giants would reach the Super Bowl.

Might as well ask them to try to bite their own ears!

ESPN The Magazine ("Published on Earth, the Planet") predicted a Super Bowl of Chargers over Cowboys.

Not even close! (Actually, somewhat close.)

None of the four dueling Super Bowl predictions inside The Mag mentioned the Giants.

OK, I'm running out of jokes to play on stupid people. Maybe gluing a quarter to the ground and seeing if they try really hard to pick it up?

Then there was the astonishing ESPN.com meta-forecast. Your faithful servants at ESPN.com offered no fewer than 16 dueling complete NFL forecasts for division winners, wild-card teams, Coach of the Year, MVPs and the like. And along the lines of the dog that didn't bark, if you check the link to the meta-forecast, what team name don't you see?

This is getting ridiculous. Other things Gregg Easterbrook wants to point out weren't predicted correctly by pundits:

George Mason in 2006 Final Four
Cardinals win 2006 World Series
Warriors knock of Mavericks in 2007 NBA playoffs
US 1980 Olympic hockey teams beats USSR
Appalachian St. beats Michigan

Honestly, the odds of the Giants winning 3 straight road playoff games weren't that much worse than any of those events happening. And I know Pittsburgh did exactly that just two years ago, but history still says its nearly impossible.

Trust Him, He Used to Run the Economy: In February 2004, Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the Federal Reserve, praised adjustable-rate and interest-only mortgages, the gimmick loans that triggered the 2007 default wave. In October 2004, Greenspan said a sudden drop in housing values was "most unlikely."

I hate to play this card, but honestly... hey asshole, let's see you do a better job of managing one of the world's largest economies. Greenspan couldn't have been more wrong, but his words were molded by the politics of reelection. I'm going to go out on a limb and say he's probably a pretty intelligent guy when his behavior isn't being dictated by the selfish powers that be.

Sports Illustrated forecast a Rose Bowl of Michigan versus Rutgers; neither made the BCS. The magazine forecast Ohio State would not make the BCS; it made the national title game.

Rutgers? That's bad. Michigan? They came within a decent offensive showing against OSU of making that happen. OSU themselves? Well, they probably deserved to be in the BCS... probably. Maybe. They certainly didn't deserve to be in the title game. And if they played Missouri 10 times on a neutral field, who do you think wins 6? I say it's a tough call. Of course, Hawaii apparently didn't deserve to be in the BCS either.

Bad College Predictions No. 2: "West Virginia is certain to win, and they will play in the BCS championship:" Doug Flutie on ABC, a few hours before No. 2 West Virginia lost to 4-7 Pittsburgh, forfeiting its shot at the BCS title.

Way to not see that coming, Elf-man.

Note: After West Virginia kept its first team on the field and kept throwing deep despite a 31-point, late-third-quarter lead against woeful Syracuse, reader Peggy McMahon of Rockport, Maine, e-mailed me to predict the football gods would exact vengeance on the Mountaineers. And yea, verily, it came to pass.

Hmm. Those Gods must've missed LSU throwing the ball deep numerous times during the second half of a 58-10 win over Louisiana Tech on November 10th. Unless you count their loss to Arkansas as "revenge," which you probably shouldn't, considering it didn't keep them out of the SEC or BCS title games.

Profootballtalk.com forecast the Giants to finish last in the NFC East. Paul Zimmerman of Sports Illustrated forecast the Giants to finish 6-10. The New York Times predicted the Giants would "take a step backward" in 2007. Eric Allen of ESPN foretold, "The Giants are a team that could disappoint." Don Pierson, whose MSNBC column is called "Ask the NFL Expert," forecast Jersey/A to finish last and added, "The Giants are having a hard time convincing anyone they are on the way up."

Bill Williamson, on MSNBC at the start of the season: Jersey/A "cannot go to the Super Bowl. The Giants have to just hope their quarterback progresses and there isn't a mutiny of the coaching staff. The Super Bowl is too much to ask for."

Dude, stop. You're fucking killing me.

Gregg Easterbrook, Tuesday Morning Quarterback: "I am not sold on the Giants." Spoken on "The Max Kellerman Show," November 2007.

Oh. Well alright then.