NBA WHO SAYS NO Rankings - Part 2

Deeper down the rabbit hole we go.

GROUP H: “Stop It, He’s a Young Stud, No Way!”

There's got to be a less sexual way to word that.

30. Bradley Beal
29. Jimmy Butler
28. Andre Drummond

Beal is under contract for next season while Butler is not, but boy, there is a very wide gulf between those two guys in terms of ability.  Very wide.  Granted, Beal is still young after spending just a year in college before being drafted, but he has not improved at all since his good-not-great rookie year.  He's still a deadly three point shooter and not much else.  The Wizards will have a difficult decision to make with him in two offseasons if he's still just a 15/3/3 guy next season.  Meanwhile, Butler has turned into an all star, and does everything better than Beal does besides shoot 3s.  I don't think the fact that Beal has another cheap year on his rookie deal really accounts for that.

UPDATE: We need to find the right teammates for Drummond soon. I’m convinced that SVG traded D.J. Augustin and Kyle Singler for Reggie Jackson as a stealth tanking move. And if he did, congratulations. It worked.

Huh?  Jackson is going for 17 and 9 (plus 5 boards) since joining the Pistons.  Augustin is somewhere between has-been and never-was.  Singler is terrible.  I'm getting to this article quite a while after Bill published it--maybe Jackson wasn't meshing with Drummond in his first few games in Detroit.  For what it's worth, Drummond is averaging 16 points a game since the trade, compared to 13 before.  So as usual it sure as hell sounds like Bill has no fucking idea what he's talking about.

GROUP G: “Sorry, Too Many Karmic Implications”

Bill's constant references to karma: more or less obnoxious than Gregggggg's incessant references to the Football Gods?

27. Tony Parker
26. Tim Duncan
25. Dwyane Wade
24. Dirk Nowitzki

Well hey, lookie there, it just so happens that four veteran superstars with titles who have never changed teams all have EXACTLY the same trade value!  Go figure!  Actually, I kind of sound dumb making that point since they really DO have the same trade value--their current teams are never going to trade them unless it's at the player's explicit demand.  Still though, come on.  

23. Paul George

What's he doing in this group?  I guess Bill was like "He's probably not going to play this season... fuck it, just throw him in with the aging superstar group.  WHO SAYS NO?" while talking to a houseplant.

UPDATE: Parker is starting to look like Parker again. Oh God … oh no …

Parker has always looked like Parker.  He's 32.  His points and assists have taken a dip this year, but so have his minutes.  I assume in the original rankings he was like "PARKER IS FINISHED--HE'S DONE."  And now he's acting like it's some revelation that he's not done.  Exact same thing happened with Wade (who is 33) a couple of years ago.  Bill has the cognitive capacity of a goldfish.  

GROUP F: “Hold On, I Have to Finish Guffawing”

22. Andrew Wiggins
21. Giannis Antetokounmpo

UPDATE: I blew it with Wiggins. He’s a top-12 trade asset. 

Given who you put in the next group down, sheesh, I have to say you blew it with the Greek Freak (hate that nickname but not going to type out Antetokounmpo more than once) too.  

(Stop looking at me like that.) I don’t know what else to say. (Seriously, stop shaking your head.) We’re moving on. We’re moving forward.

Wiggins, of course, is having a great season.  Greek Freak just turned 20 in December, is 6'11" (so he's probably still growing into his frame and learning how to maximize his athleticism) and is good for an efficient 13 and 7.  If he were a Celtic, Bill would have put him in the top five.  Meanwhile...

GROUP E: “Well-Priced Impact Stars”

At least there's positional, contract, and experience variety here.  Lowry, Conley, Horford and Ibaka are all signed at least through 2016 and for roughly $10-$12 million each.  That security is nice, and they're all good players, but I would be shocked if more than just a few "win now" teams value each of them over Wiggins (which Bill admits), Greek Freak, Paul George (who's on an expensive deal, but is locked up through 2018) or Jimmy Butler.  Meanwhile, Lillard is 1) awesome and 2) locked up on a cheap rookie rookie deal through 2016.  Definitely right to have him at the top of this group, but I think he'd go above the guys in the next group too.  Leonard is also awesome, but more of a question mark, and he's an RFA this summer meaning he's about to get expensive.  I don't think he belongs here at all.  But enough of this levelheaded analysis.  Let's see what Bill manages to fart out onto his keyboard about these guys.

20. Mike Conley
19. Serge Ibaka
18. Kawhi Leonard
17. Al Horford
16. Kyle Lowry
15. Damian Lillard

UPDATE: I’m not rattled by having Lowry too high after his January-February offensive swoon. He’s too good. 

OK.  Good for you.  Way to show conviction, dumb person who is often wrong (although not here, necessarily).

I’m mildly rattled by Ibaka’s mysterious knee injury, along with the fact that I wouldn’t let OKC’s medical staff help me with a head cold at this point. 

And since that was written, Kevin Durant has started falling apart.  Hardly the fault of the OKC training staff, though.  Or so I'd think. 

Kawhi’s electrifying two-way showdown with LeBron on Thursday made me wonder if I ranked him too low, 

As Bill so often says, CONTRACTS MATTER BLAH BLAH BLAH

but man, when are those 3s coming back for him? How bad is that mysterious hand injury? This isn’t a normal trend for 3-point shooters: 37.6 percent (2012-14 regular season), 41.6 percent (2012-14 playoffs) … 32.2 percent (2014-15 season). 

Actually, that's really not that weird.  The playoff number is great, but even with all the playoff games the Spurs have played while making the Finals two of the last three years, that 41.6% is on fewer than 200 attempts.  The 2012-2014 regular season vs. 2014-2015 regular season comparison is more valid, especially since Leonard is also shooting worse on his twos and worse at the line this year.  But a dip from 37.6% to 32.2% isn't catastrophic, especially for a stretch 4 type guy who, as Bill knows, might be hurt.  Anyways, he's talking out of both sides of his mouth as well as his ass.  Suffice to say that Leonard is going to get paid this summer, whether by the Spurs or someone else.  But at this year's trade deadline, I'm not sure he'd be an asset on par with a cost controlled Horford or Ibaka.

San Antonio can’t win four straight playoff rounds and realize their ’69 Celts destiny 

LIKE I SAID IT AWL COMES BACK TO THE FACKIN' C'S.  

if Kawhi’s 3s don’t come around and defenses start leaving him wide open. It’s true.

Thanks for arguing with no one ("It's true, DON'T DENY IT") about something no one fucking cares about ("AHHH THE SPURS AS GOOD AS THE '69 C'S????????").  I'm sure they'll be just fine come playoff time.  They only have the best (ageless) PF ever, an elite point guard and the best coach of his generation to back Leonard up.  I don't think the difference between Leonard shooting a sub-average but still acceptable percentage on a handful of 3s per game versus him shooting the lights out on a handful of 3s per game is going to make or break them.

GROUP D: “The Mega Free Agents”

THEY ARE EQUALLY VALUABLE!  Actually, you know what, after looking at their lines--these two really do probably belong together.  They're about the same age, are both UFAs this year (who will probably look for short term deals due to the big salary cap bump that's on the horizon), and they do post pretty similar numbers while kind of sort of playing the same position.  Aldridge has the sexier raw stat line, but he also plays for a faster-paced team and doesn't share big man responsibilities with anyone as capable as Z-Bo.  Fine.  They deserve to be in "Group D" together.  Thank you for not calling them "young studs."

14. LaMarcus Aldridge
13. Marc Gasol

UPDATE: No regrets. 

NONE!  I DID IT ALL BY MYSELF, AMERICA!

Although it’s bizarre that Aldridge (23.3 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 22.3 PER, playing hurt for two-plus months, carrying a possible no. 2 seed) has been left out of the MVP race. It’s almost like the national media ignores Portland or something.

Well, first of all, fuck you and your own personal biases that cause you to ignore anything in baseball that's not BOS/NYY or relevant to your fucking AL-only keeper league full of zeroes.  Second of all, sure, Aldridge is having a nice season, but that PER is only good for 11th in the league.  He's not exactly within shouting distance of Davis, Westbrook or Curry, either.  But good job kissing babies and winning hearts and minds in RIP CITY.  I'm sure you appreciate all the dumbshits from there who will write you emails praising that blurb.

GROUP C: “No Offense, But I’m Hanging Up”

12. John Wall
11. Klay Thompson

Here again we have two guys who are almost the same age, with nearly identical contract situations (both locked up for big money through 2019), with similar PERs.  But in this case, I think the value comparison falls apart pretty quickly.  Whereas Bill overrates Bradley Beal pretty heavily, I think he's probably underrating Wall (or rather, overrating Thompson).  Thompson plays on the league's best team, alongside either the best or second best point guard in the league (who creates tons of wide open shots for Thompson every game), with a bunch of other very strong role players/semi-stars who make the team hum like a well-tuned engine.  Meanwhile, Wall carries the entire burden on offense for his poorly-coached team of good-not-great overpaid players (Nene, Marcin Gortat) and dinosaurs (Paul Pierce, Andre Miller until the Wizards cut him).  

He leads his team in scoring by a good margin while also handing out ten assists per game (second only to CP3 in the league) and grabbing a not-insignificant five boards.  He's the only guy on that team that can create his own shot and he plays 36 minutes per game.  It's a bit of a weird exercise since it would be chaotic to play Wall alongside Curry, but imagine switching these two guys and I think the Warriors come out way, way, way ahead on the deal.  In fact, better exercise--switch Beal and Thompson.  I think their numbers probably switch too.  Thompson is nothing special.  He also looks like he's probably an asshole off the court.  There, I said it.

UPDATE: If I had to do it over again, I’d give Wiggins and Kawhi these two spots and bump Wall and Thompson back a few spots. We’re stuck with those first two parts for eternity. Without further ado, the 10 most untradable players of 2015.

Yeah, people are really going to be looking back at these rankings five years from now.  You'll rue the day you improperly valued Wiggins in your bullshit rankings until you're in the ground, Simmons.  Totally.

GROUP B: “The Untouchables”

10. Kyrie Irving

Covered in detail in Friday’s 1,900-word “sneak peek” of Part 3. I can’t even pull off a sneak peek correctly.

I'm impressed you're even able to maintain your job at ESPN without being curb stomped by someone there who has actual knowledge and charisma yet makes 20% of your salary.  Don't be too hard on yourself.  Also, everyone go read this again.

9. Boogie Cousins

Hard to critique this part since I'm a DeMarcus Cousins fan, for reasons beyond his game.  Just kidding!  (Not about being a fan, but about this being hard to critique.)

In Part 2, I mentioned the smartest non-trades in recent NBA history — 

An easy set of non-events to compile, since we know all of them that have ever occurred, and teams definitely would never leak incorrect information about non-trades in order to further shape the market, affect free agent salaries, placate angry fans, etc.

including the time Houston dangled Hakeem Olajuwon for a Godfather offer (Steve Smith, Glen Rice AND Rony Seikaly), got turned down, then rejected Miami’s counteroffer (Seikaly, Grant Long and Harold Miner). How on earth was the window ever open to steal one of the NBA’s 12 greatest players ever? Because you are what you’re worth. 

Gee Bill, thanks for answering a question no one asked.  Let's see.  Kareen was traded in his prime.  Shaq was traded as he entered his prime.  Barkley was traded in his prime.  Kevin Garnett was traded at the tail end of his prime.  Could the answer to the question be one that every sports fan already knows: "These things fucking happen?"

For the previous five seasons, an increasingly unhappy Hakeem had been stuck playing with so many past-their-primers, never-made-its and never-got-theres that everyone inadvertently forgot that the Dream was unfreakingtradable. 

No.  Go fuck yourself with scissors.  No one "forgot" that.

Had the Heat countered with Rice (a top-15 trade asset that summer), Seikaly (averaged 16 and 12 in ’92) and either Miner or multiple no. 1 picks, then the deal would have gotten done 

WHO SAYS NO

and we would’ve had a different champ in 1994 and 1995. Instead, Houston won the ’94 and ’95 titles and Hakeem unleashed one of the NBA’s most iconic three-or-four-year runs of the past 35 years: 

I'm glad we are evaluating the trade value of DeMarcus Cousins right now.

the short list includes Jordan from 1989 to 1993 and 1996 to 1998, Bird from 1984 to 1987, Magic from 1987 to 1990, Shaq from 2000 to 2002, LeBron from 2012 to 2014, Hakeem from 1993 to 1995, and Kobe from 2008 to 2010 

Great.  Cool.

(and probably in that order).

THAT ORDER AND ONLY EXACTLY THAT ORDER.  NO ONE SAYS NO.

Maybe 2015 Boogie isn’t 1992 Hakeem, 

So, thanks for the tangent, then.

but he is definitely on pace to earn the same level of career-related empathy. In less than five seasons, he’s played for six coaches, two GMs and two super-shaky owners. He lived through consecutive seasons in which the Kings were moving … and then weren’t … and then were … and then weren’t. 

The Kings had the worst owners in the league (yes, worse than James Dolan).  Then those guys sold the team to some other asshole who doesn't know what he's doing.  I'd feel worse for their fans if they didn't live in the only part of California that 1) is close to cool shit 2) doesn't have THAT much meth and 3) is not outrageously expensive.

When I asked him during All-Star Weekend 

I HAVE ACCESS!!!!!  EVERYONE LISTEN TO ME MY OPINION MEANS MORE NOW!  Bill is really stealing a page from the Peter King playbook there.

how many starting point guards he’s played with, he couldn’t remember everyone off the top of his head. Maybe he took much-deserved Internet heat for a variety of foolish young-guy mistakes, and maybe he could have been a better teammate at times. (I’m being kind.) 

More King-isms.  SHAME ON YOU, BOOGIE.  WHY DO YOU GO BY BOOGIE?  THAT'S CHILDISH.  I'M GOING TO CALL YOU BOOGIE FROM NOW ON BECAUSE I FIND IT AMUSING.

But ever since he got himself into terrific shape last year, everyone has HAD to double-team him. I mean …

Boogie, last two seasons (123 games): 33.0 mpg, 23.1 ppg, 12.0 rpg, 48% FG, 25.5 PER
Duncan, ’01-’02 and ’02-’03 (163 games): 39.9 mpg, 24.4 ppg, 12.8 rpg, 51% FG, 27.0 PER

Maybe he isn’t Apex Duncan, especially in the defense/teammate/leadership/intangibles/getting-thrown-out-of-games-for-wonky-behavior categories, 

I'm glad someone taught you the word "wonky."  It should never be used, ever, but if you're going to use it that is not how you do so.  WHICH IS THE WONK TEAM?  Remember that horseshit?  That was also not a correct usage.

Boogie HAS improved. Did you know his rim protection numbers are slightly better than DeAndre Jordan’s numbers this season? And with the spacing that Boogie creates and the numbers he’s putting up, you could absolutely run a world-class offense around him. Only you can’t … because he’s wasting his pre-prime playing for Jackass Central on a perpetual lottery team in a stacked conference.

Haha.  No sarcasm, that last one is a good line.  "Jackass Central."  That's pretty good.  Bill does induce one chuckle from me about every six months or so.  HE'S STILL GOT IT!

So if you were Boogie, what would make you feel good about playing in Sacramento other than the city’s fantastic hoops fans? George Karl? Too soon to say. 

Yeah, the guy only has like 1,000 wins as an NBA coach, all in mid-sized or small markets.  Probably not a good fit in Sacramento.

Ben McLemore? Too soon to say. 

I don't think he belongs on this list.  I'd hate to be a guy picked 7th overall in a super thin draft and have someone be like OUR BEST PLAYER IS COUNTING ON YOU.  GET IT DONE.  That would suck.  McLemore left Kansas after just a year, and wasn't even the best fucking player on the team for that one year.

Cap space this summer? Crap, they don’t have it. 

Dang, now they don't have a chance to get turned down by Gasol and Aldridge, whose styles of play wouldn't mesh with Cousins's at all, or to overpay Goran Dragic!  Nuts!

Their next lottery pick? Crap, it’s headed to Chicago unless Sacramento finishes in the bottom 10. 

Which they are almost mathematically assured of doing at this point, so, let's not shit our pants just yet.

This is bleaker than bleak. 

No, that is your narrative that you are constructing because Hakeem once almost got traded or something.  In fact, watch this: Knicks, Lakers, Nuggets, Pistons, 76ers, Nets, Heat, Thunder (very suddenly on this list), Magic, Timberwolves (even with Wiggins).  There's a list of teams with bleaker futures than Sacramento's.  Fuck, the Knicks might not be a playoff team again until like 2020.  That's hard to do in a league with 16 of 30 teams making the postseason.  I'll bet you a shiny nickel the Kings get there before all the teams on that list that aren't in the playoffs already this year (i.e., the teams on that list that are also rebuilding right now).

My advice to Kings fans: You better keep showering Boogie with love. Because the moment he checks out and says to himself, “I cannot play for these jackasses anymore,” there’s no going back. (And we’re damned close.)

He's under contract through 2018.  They'll be fine.

Last Boogie note: Check out these names: Wilt, Kareem, Barkley, Pettit, Duncan and Elgin. That’s the complete list of players, along with Boogie, who averaged 23 and 12 with a 25-plus PER in their fourth and fifth NBA seasons combined. 

HOLY SHIT DO YOU REALIZE WHAT THIS MEANS????  It means that when a player is really good, like Cousins is, you can concoct a moderately complex set of criteria and show that only that player a few other all time greats have met all the criteria.  Very cool stuff. 

Boogie isn’t THAT good. 

Jesus, whose side are you on, here?  I thought we were all in the DEMARCUS (I hate people like Bill who over-embrace nicknames) fan club together.  He has a good chance of being every bit as good as Barkley, Kareem and Baylor.  The other three, maybe not so much.  But still.

But he’s really, really good. And he’s saddled with Vivek and the Bumbling Vivikettes. 

Forced.  Just stick with Jackass Central.

We’re well past the point of using New Owner Syndrome as a viable excuse. Too much has happened. We wasted five years of Boogie’s career. Next year, we’re probably heading for a sixth. Might be time to get Liam Neeson involved.

"We" haven't wasted anything.  You're not the center of the universe, you cunt.  You're not in charge of basketball.  You're not in charge of anything other than a vastly overrated "sports" (ok, it's really like 25% sports, but who's counting?) content mill and a shitty TV show that ESPN airs at 4 AM.  Just stay in your lane and come up with funny nicknames for dysfunctional franchises.  Christ.

More next week.

Ken Rosenthal Likes the Indians Now....FireJay Author Refuses to Make Bad Pun on Name "Bourn"

Boy, did the Cleveland Indians suck last year.  They were 68-94, and Pythag suggests they were even worse.  But now they've signed a decent complimentary cog and a pretty good CF and they're relevant again!  Or, at least, Ken Rosenthal says they are.  So uh....there's that.

My initial knee-jerk reaction: Terry Francona's new team, the Cleveland Indians, might be better than his old one, the Boston Red Sox.

My initial knee-jerk reaction:  Terry Francona's new team, the Cleveland Indians, might be the 4th best team in the AL Central.

That probably (likely?) is overstating it, but say this for the Indians:

They suddenly are relevant again.

You're really stretching the definition of that word.  Relevant?  Relevant how?  Playoff contender?  Team that people are sort of talking about when discussing recent baseball news?  I'm obviously commenting here with the benefit of hindsight because I already read your shit article and know that it doesn't actually have a point, but I'd really like to know what you're getting at here.

Relevant because of Francona.

No.

Relevant because of Nick Swisher.

Swisher's a nice player.  Really, he is.  But the Indians won 68 games last year.  68.  Nick Swisher on a good year gives you 3-4 wins, or basically what the Indians could have expected from that South Korean guy they traded out of town.

And relevant because of their latest stunning addition, free-agent outfielder Michael Bourn.

Still no.  But maybe I can't say that for sure since "relevant" remains pretty damn undefined.  Rosenthal makes no progress towards that goal and instead goes on to explain a bunch of tangents about the national TV deal (that affects all teams, not just the Indians) and that the Indians got good value for Bourn (they did) due to comparable free agent contracts and the fact that draft pick compensation wouldn't hurt them as much as a team that was, you know, good last year.  So I'm going to cut out a chunk of this that does nothing to explain why the Indians are relevant.

Bourn’s problem in the market wasn’t just draft-pick compensation; Upton faced the same hindrance. The Braves and other clubs thought Bourn’s agent, Scott Boras, was unrealistic in his expectations. And Bourn, let’s face it, is not without flaws.

His value is dependent almost entirely on his speed. He strikes out too much, his on-base percentage is just OK for a leadoff hitter and he declined markedly after the All-Star break last season.

All pretty concerning issues for a guy turning 30 this year.  But at least his making-teams-relevant quotient hasn't been hurt too badly!

Well, the Indians will take him — take his base-stealing ability, his elite defense in center field, his average of 153 games played over the past four seasons.  The Cleveland rotation probably won’t be good enough for the team to compete with the Detroit Tigers in the AL Central. But offensively, Francona’s new club sure is interesting.

Boy howdy is it.  They've got a bunch of new guys that aren't the same as the old guys.  Sure they won't compete for a division title, but Ken Rosenthal finds them interesting.  You should too!

If Drew Stubb hits, the Indians can go with an outfield of Bourn in center, Stubbs in right and Michael Brantley in left — second, perhaps, only to the Braves’ in defensive ability.

Somewhere the Angels' outfield is crying.  Also: nice editing.

Swisher would play first base and Mark Reynolds would be the DH in that scenario.

If Stubbs falters, Swisher can play right and Reynolds first; Jason Giambi, a non-roster invitee to spring training, represents an intriguing option at DH. The Indians also can try to acquire more pitching by trading Stubbs or — if they want a bigger return — Brantley.

Which they'd better try soon, because.....

As it stands, their rotation will be led by Justin Masterson, Ubaldo Jimenez and free-agent signee Brett Myers, with Carlos Carrasco the likely No. 4. Newcomers Trevor Bauer, Daisuke Matsuzaka and Scott Kazmir also are options, along with holdovers Zach McAllister and Corey Kluber.

And THERE's the meat of my beef with this whole damn piece.  Except for Bauer (who isn't a proven commodity yet), these pitchers are all terrible.  Jimenez is damaged goods, Masterson has put together one respectable season in his last 4, Myers' strikeout rate went down as a reliever last year, so go ahead and let me know how that's going to work in the rotation, Carrasco was interesting a few years ago but is coming off Tommy John and never really developed a good MLB track record, and Dice-K and Kazmir are all but washed up.  The guy who had the most success in this group last year was McAllister, and he weighed in at -0.5 WAR.  This rotation is not only "not good enough for the team to compete with the Detroit Tigers".  It's straight up putrid.  Relevance!  

It’s not an inspiring group, and actually could prove to be quite a mess if Masterson and Jimenez don’t improve upon their 2012 performances.

Projecting something better than a dead cat bounce for those two guys would be a mistake.

But the improved outfield defense should enhance the pitching, and a better offense should help, too.

What the hell does having a better offense do to fix Ubaldo Jimenez?  I'll buy the outfield defense helping, but seriously, we're talking about one of the worst pitching staffs in baseball here.

I’ll be watching. We’ll all be watching.

If that ain't a hyperbola, I don't know what is.

The Indians suddenly are a must-see team.

And by extension, so are 12 other AL teams.  Tell you what.  You go ahead and keep your eye on the Indians for me and let me know how that's going in August.  It's clear you don't think that swapping out Choo for Bourn, Swisher, Reynolds, and Francona (heh) makes the Indians a contender, so why are you trying to make a point that they're now a "must-see" team?  This article was a total waste of time.  I expect better from someone writing for foxspor....nevermind.

This article is almost as stupid is Chris W's last post (and face)

Uh oh, Chris W got me good! Watch out! Here come the hypocrisy police! Almost as frightening as the cyber police! Simmons post coming tomorrow night. In the meantime enjoy this half-hearted effort.

Now that I'm done burning the hell out of Mr. Thinks-He-Can-Burn-But-Actually-Can't with the burniest of burnsauces, time to turn my attention to LZ Granderson. He wrote one of the most embarrassing examples I've ever seen of an article that 1) has just one point to make, a point which is brain-liquefyingly stupid; 2) the author realizes that fact; 3) which prompts the author to claim that they are in fact not making said brain-liquefyingly stupid point; 4) leaving the author with no point at all. It's a fantastic combination of WRONG and an article that didn't need to be written. Given the popularity of those two labels over there in our left hand sidebar, this seemed like a good article to bitch about while I work on this Simmons novel. Say what you will about how shitty that guy's writing is, but he's also very longwinded.

I will admit, as a lifelong Detroit Tigers fan, when I first heard we snagged Prince Fielder, I was ecstatic.

Victor Martinez had blown out his knee just days before -- lost for the upcoming season -- and replacing his offensive production wasn't going to be easy. A step back, after an amazing 2011, seemed inevitable. Then out of nowhere Detroit landed Fielder and life was good.

And I said to myself, what do you think the Tigers had to pay him to get him to sign? A couple hundred thousand a year? Couldn't be more than that, right? MAYBE THEY COULD PAY HIM WITH FOOD LOL

Then I saw the price tag and thought, "What the hell?"

He signed for about as much as he was expected to sign for when the offseason began! This is bananas!

All we hear about in the news these days is the struggling global economy, but in the middle of all this downbeat chatter a sports team bearing the name of one of the poorest cities in the country signs a baseball player to a nine-year deal worth $214 million.

How dare the Tigers ruin Detroit's reputation as a broke-ass city.

Talk about a disconnect.

Talk about the most worthless fucking article you could ever write. A thousand Jay Mariottis, confined to a warehouse, typing away on a thousand extra-smug typewriters, couldn't do any better. I'm pretty sure the "Isn't it WILD how much athletes are paid??? All for playing a ballgame!!! It ain't right I tell ya!!!" angle is the most played out, boring, unnewsworthy, uncommentaryworthy one in sports journalism. I'd rather read about Brett Favre. I'd rather read about how great Boston's sports scene is. Fuck it, I'd rather read about Simmons's most recent trip to Vegas.

Granted, the Tigers' budget and the city's budget are not related.

Admission #1 that this article should not exist.

But doesn't it bother you that the new first baseman will make more money this year ($23 million) than what's individually budgeted for all but one of the city's police precincts?

It does bother me that Detroit and many other cities have no money. It does not bother me that the market for baseball players has determined that a guy like Fielder is worth $23 million, because the private organization that is the Detroit Tigers has that money and is going to pay him that money.

Now I do not want to start an Occupy Comerica Park movement.

Fucking occupy references. Fucking dammit.

/waits for comment along the lines of "occupy Larry B's vagina harf harf harf"

I do not have a problem with the mechanics of capitalism nor do I begrudge Tigers owner Mike Illitch or anyone else for being rich and spending their money any way they want to.

Admissions #2 and #3 that this article should not exist.

In fact, I hope to join their exclusive club one day. Preferably with my crunchy granola idealism intact but who knows … I'm not making any promises.

You and me both. The difference is, I don't sit around saying/typing things like "Gee golly gosh, you know, garbagemen and crossing guards are the REAL heroes. Why don't we pay THEM $23 million a year?" I know it's fucking criminal how little teachers and social workers are paid in this country. I also know baseball salaries have not a fucking thing to do with that.

Anyway, my point:

My editor told me I had 8 minutes to come up with a new angle on the Fiedler signing and I'm high as hell as I'm typing this. How am I doing?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Fielder's contract.

Admission #4.

he problem is the environment in which a $214 million contract in today's wider economic landscape is even possible. Why are we so crazy about our favorite teams that the demand for better schools or roads takes a backseat by fiscal comparison?

Like I said, he's fucking baked. Hey man, you ever thought about... what if ATHLETES paid to see US work? What if PETS owned US?

Sure, no one wants to hear and see and read about bad news all of the time. But is distracting ourselves from everyday life so critical that we'll ignore the financial solvency of the games we love is much stronger than many of the communities in which they are played?

God yes. Yes a million times. As soon as you have a way to fix the mind-bogglingly complex political, structural, monetary, racial, and sociological problems that cause cities, states, and entire countries to go broke, I'll happily tune out the sports and listen to you flap your gums. Until then shut up or write something else.

Yes, I recognize the inherent hypocrisy of a sportswriter complaining about the insane amount of money connected to the sports industry. But as I said earlier, I want to move on up like George and Weezy and cannot guarantee my crunchy granola idealism is going to make the trip. The reality is there is more than one reality. I want to make a good living so I need billions to continue to flow through sports. I also want the Tigers to continue to be successful and that comes at cost. In 2003, the Tigers lost an American League-record 119 games. This year, thanks to Fielder, we are World Series favorites.

That's probably the worst paragraph of sportswriting I've ever read. In case you couldn't identify it on your own, the worst part of all is the final sentence.

Grab bag post featuring an idiot, a complete dipshit, and a guy who won't stick to his guns

None deserve their own post. All deserve some ridicule.

First, you may not have heard, but Penn State had a pederast in their midst. Fortunately they dealt with the terrible situation swiftly and properly by contacting law enforcement. I think that's what happened anyways. Proving that he has his finger squarely on the throbbing pulse of America, Rick Reilly chimes in with an important message:

This is not about Joe Paterno.

No fucking motherfucking shit.

If these boys really were molested, groped and raped by a middle-aged ex-Penn State football coach, then whatever misjudgment Paterno made will be a single lit match compared to the bonfire these boys will walk in for years to come.

Many of them won't be able to trust. Won't be able to love. Won't be able to feel -- nor trust or love themselves.

Yes, everyone think of the children. And they already are. We don't need to be reminded of that in this situation; even the most callous or clueless person understands that the kids are the victims here. Paterno may be in the spotlight but it's for sensible reasons. He's the most powerful and visible person involved and the only one besides Sandusky who's nationally known. The fact that it's about the kids and not about Paterno doesn't mean the media is obligated to focus their attention on the kids or the crimes. That's an angle that's just too grisly and sad for a lot of people. The Paterno angle carries with it the possibility of some kind of justice, or at least so a lot of people will think. In short, it makes sense that a lot of the water cooler talk about this mess focuses on Paterno rather than the crimes/victims.

But of course that doesn't mean it's "about" him. The people who really do think this is about Paterno are mouth-breathing PSU alums or students who live for nothing but college football and could give a damn about anything else, including prevention of child rape. They probably (hopefully) make up less than one percent of the population.

Don't feel sorry for Paterno. He's had his life. Feel sorry for these boys, because they may never get one.

The people who feel sorry for Paterno are an even tinier subset of the tiny set of people who think this is about him. Those in that tiny subset are not worth addressing. They should be herded into a mine and sealed inside with concrete. I believe we have a label for articles like the one Rick wrote here. It should appear first in the list at the bottom of the post. He also threw this in, seemingly in an attempt to confuse me:

No, this isn't about 84-year-old Joe Paterno not taking more steps that might have stopped it. It's about everybody not taking more steps that might have stopped it. Not parents, not teachers, not uncles,

Uncles?

Enough of that uplifting story. Let's talk about Big League Stew. Yahoo's MLB blog is written by a mongoloid who goes by 'Duk and thinks that this is clever, useful analysis.

For the purposes of this post, let's say that I have just traded the ten-dollar bill that I just found on the ground for a fast-food meal at a chain burger joint.

It's nothing fancy, but it will get the job done. I hadn't eaten in days.

Furthermore, let's also suppose that I decide to walk home from the restaurant in an attempt to work off the caloric impact I have just foisted upon my system.

[two paragraphs spent extending this painful and worthless analogy snipped; don't worry, you don't need the full bit to appreciate how mind-numbingly stupid this is]

So I tell you that I'm perfectly willing to take your doggy bag if you don't want it. I might take it all the way home, but I might also throw it away. It doesn't matter, though, because you've already paid the bill. I'm on the hook for nothing.

I've also just perfectly described the strategy that Dayton Moore and the Kansas City Royals are taking in their attempts to resurrect a winner.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Finally, an article that's not truly abhorrent but just kind of bothered me as I read it because of Mark Schlabach's unwillingness to commit to his initial stance. It's a stance that I think is stupid and wrong but certainly defensible, and I'd like to see a capable writer like Schlabach fully support. Unfortunately he backpedals. Backpedals like a bitch.

LSU and Alabama are clearly the best two teams in the country and are head and shoulders above the rest. It's a shame they can't play each other again in the SEC championship game.

You want a plus-one playoff? Let the Tigers and Crimson Tide play three times this season, with the best-of-three winner claiming a national championship.

That's not how a plus one would work. Just nitpickin'.

LSU and Alabama are that much better than everyone else this season.

And we know that for sure, without any doubt; just ask an SEC fan.

If LSU wins out and wins the SEC West, critics will suggest Alabama shouldn't play for a national championship because it didn't win its conference. But when the dust settles on the college football season, the two best teams should play for a national championship, no matter the circumstances.

Strong stance. One that I think is dumb. Even if we could be sure that Alabama is better than Okie State or Stanford, Bama had its chance and blew it. If they were to rematch with LSU in the title game and win, it's kind of like... well, OK, we know both those teams are awesome and we know which was playing better in January. Can we say for sure that Bama was the best? I understand that you can never really say who the best of the best is unless they've all played each other, and a win by (not THE) OSU or Stanford over LSU doesn't forever end the debate. But to me, a rematch with a different outcome than the regular season matchup is wholly unsatisfying. And a rematch with the same result if/when OSU or Stanford was undefeated but got shut out of the title game feels even worse. I dunno, I just really don't want to see Bama play LSU again unless there are no other big conference undefeateds left.

History suggests that the odds of an LSU-Alabama rematch in the BCS title game are slim. After No. 1 Ohio State defeated No. 2 Michigan 42-39 in their 2006 regular-season finale, the Wolverines argued they deserved another chance at facing the Buckeyes in the BCS title game. But No. 3 Florida jumped the Wolverines in the final BCS standings, and the Gators routed Ohio State 41-14 in the BCS Championship Game.

Here's the difference, though: At the end of the 2006 regular season, you could argue that Florida was better than Michigan. But if Alabama wins out this season, you couldn't argue that another one-loss team -- or even undefeated Boise State -- is better than the Crimson Tide.

Sure you could. What if Stanford's only loss is by a field goal to Oregon in overtime? What if OSU's only loss is by a field goal to Oklahoma in overtime? There's definitely a debate to be had there.

Especially not after SEC teams won the past five BCS national championships.

Fucking SEC people. You cockswabbers, chanting your conference's name. GMAFB.

If Oklahoma State wins out, it will deserve a chance to play LSU for a national championship.

Wait, what?

The same goes for Stanford, if the Pokes slip up along the way.

OK. So that whole thing about Alabama clearly being the second best team out there, and them definitely deserving a rematch... tempered. Significantly tempered.

But if those two teams lose somewhere down the line, Alabama would be the most deserving team to play LSU for a national title.

And you just sucked all the controversy out of your article. That makes me angry because the ESPNiverse has trained me to zone out if a journalist isn't being intentionally contrarian or simply a straight-up asshole. Although you've let me down, Schlabach, you're still OK in my book. Just don't get my hopes up like that again.

MLB.com hires writers who embrace controversy

Skip Bayless ain't got shit on Mike Bauman. Brace yourselves, America. It's about to get real in here. This is the kind of incendiary stance that usually follows a false qualifier like "I understand that the US government did not stage the 9/11 attacks, but all I'm saying is..." or "Listen, I'm the least racist person in the world, but..." Have I adequately prepared you? Here goes:

Only future will tell for impact of Jimenez trade

Deep breaths, people. He's know that's preposterous. He's just trying to bait you.

In all of the non-waiver Trade Deadline activity, the one individual case that was most compelling was that of Ubaldo Jimenez.

The one single sentence in this article that was most poorly written was that of the first sentence that started the article.

However briefly, he achieved greatness. Now, moving from the Colorado Rockies to the Cleveland Indians, will he again find greatness, or will he never again be the pitcher that he was in the first half of 2010?

Well those are great questions, and I'm pretty sure both Colorado GM Dan O'Dowd and Cleveland GM Chris Antonetti have the answer to both: yes. Maybe. But if stuff happens, then definitely not.

The range of possible performances from him would seem to be somewhere between large and immense.

Which makes Jimenez different than most pitchers- their range of potential performances is usually somewhere in between medium and average-sized. And I take back what I said about that opening sentence being the most poorly written in the article.

On the side of his acquisition, Jimenez's injuries earlier this season were not arm injuries and most of his recent work was trending in a positive direction, with five quality starts in six outings at one point, including victories over heavy-hitting clubs such as the Yankees and the Brewers.

On the side of trading him, since the All-Star break in 2010, Jimenez has gone 10-16 with an ERA of 4.19.

A complete list of things you just learned about Jimenez and Colorado's decision to trade him that you couldn't have learned in 30 seconds on baseball-reference:

The contrasts are stark, and so are the views about what might be next for Jimenez. He is only 27, but that cuts both ways, too. In theory, a return to dominance is more than possible. But the Rockies weren't counting on that happening, or they wouldn't have traded a 27-year-old with a manageable contract and with one great half-season on his resume.

A complete list of valuable insights regarding Colorado's decision to trade Jimenez and Cleveland's decision to obtain him that you just gained from those two sentences:

This trade by the Indians is neither a screaming-in-the-night gamble

What kind of gamble? The imagery that phrase conjures up doesn't really make me think about taking on risk and hoping to be rewarded for it.

nor a lock.

If only it were a lock!

There is evidence to suggest that Jimenez can pitch competently for them.

OK.

But they could use something substantially better than that.

Right, but-

In that significant area between all right and great is where the questions will be asked and answered.

Jeebus, are you Joe Morgan? Are you Peter King? What are you getting paid for again? Take a stance on something you dunce.

In conclusion: Ubaldo Jimenez is a pitcher. But that could change, largely or immensely, at any time in the future, depending on what happens.

You bet your sweet bippy I'm willing to bitch about FanGraphs

Why not? Sure, it's just a blog (that also maintains a ton of statistical information- here I'm just talking about their analysis). But we pick on Deadspin because Deadspin is a shit factory; and in its own way, FG is just as much of a shit factory. More importantly FG holds itself out to be a source for serious, objective baseball analysis. So I don't feel bad at all as I engage in this episode of blog-on-blog crime.

I "discovered" FanGraphs (by which I mean "was linked to" or "was told about"- don't you hate it when people try to act like they actually discovered some well-known site or blog before the general public? Like they got in on the ground floor or something? GRRRRRRRRRRR) sometime back in 2008. My initial reaction was "Wow! This is great! A whole blog dedicated to numbers-based analysis!" Within two or three weeks that had changed to "Wow! This is insane! What a pathetic collection of smartest dipshit in the room writers and sycophantic pathetic commenters! How could a concept this great be executed this poorly!"

It's sad and true. Despite offering itself as a high-minded source of objectivity, in reality it's often simply a bunch of pick-and-choose-which-stat-helps-your-predetermined-conclusion garbage. Frequently its analysis is no more objective that the kind of crap Dayn Perry or Scott Miller peddle. If a hitter the FG staff approves of (usually a Mariner, a Ray, or a backup catcher with a high OBP who is SO UNDERRATED IT'S CRIMINAL! THIS GUY WOULD BE A 5 WAR PLAYER IF THEY'D JUST LET HIM PLAY EVERY DAY! (Note: player does not play every day for a perfectly good reason, such as an obscene platoon split problem or the fact that he spent last year putting up slightly above average numbers as a 26 year old in AA ball)) is struggling, it's because of an "unsustainably low" BABIP or HR/FB or whatever. And if those metrics are down because that player's LD% is down and their GB% is up compared to their career numbers, no worries, it will certainly normalize itself in due time and you'd be a fool to think otherwise.

BUT- if a player who is not one of their chosen favorites is struggling, it's a whole new set of rules. The reduced BABIP or HR/FB which is a function of a tanking LD% is not going to change anytime soon. After all, the LD% was "unsustainably high" in the first place. People who say otherwise are selling snake oil. And of course, apply appropriate numbers and logic for pitchers FG loves/doesn't love. Long story short, the whole site is a celebration of the lies/damn lies/statistics thing. Decide what you want your conclusion to be, then build an argument around it based on cherry-picked stats. Just because batted ball splits tell us more about a player's skill level than RBI or batting average doesn't mean they can't be misused just as egregiously. Effecting the egregious misuse in question just takes a little more skill.

In any case, there's no more well-known or hilarious example of FG's groupthink stupidity than the 2010 "organizational rankings" which saw the Mariners, who just happen to be the team of choice for managing editor Dave Cameron, come in ranked shockingly high (#6org!) despite a crummy MLB team and a very questionable farm system. But there were TOTALLY LEGITIMATE AND OBJECTIVE REASONS behind that ranking- just ask any of those smartest dipshit in the room writers or sycophant commenters. Until June or July 2010, anyways, when the Mariners were on their way to a very foreseeable 101 loss season and everyone associated with the site started to get really annoyed with any commenters who made light of the whole situation.

But I'm not writing this post to generally dump on FG. I'm writing it to point out two atrocious posts they've published in the last two days. To be fair, neither is of the lies/damn lies/statistics ilk I was just talking about (although I'll keep an eye out for the next one of those they put out). Nope, each of these is flat out awful for different reasons. I think both would fall nicely under the label of "articles that didn't need to be written."

First, we have this peach, in which the author spends 5 paragraphs and 600ish words expressing the very controversial position that Paul Konerko is ABSOLUTELY NOT a hall of famer. No fucking shit, of course. But what really serves to douse the whole thing with dumbsauce is the reason the post was written in the first place: because White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen said that Konerko was a HOFer. So can anyone raise their hands and tell me why Ozzie might have made that argument? And further explain why saying this in response:

Over his career, Konerko has been worth only 26.7 WAR. Again, a far cry from Hall of Fame level. Just a quick glance at his stats reveals a good, but not exceptional, player. If that’s the case, why is Ozzie so convinced Konerko will make it into the Hall?

is kind of like using a hammer to open a can of soda? It's a completely ridiculous and pointless method for dealing with the situation. Ozzie is sticking up for his player (a conclusion deftly reached by the author in the post's final paragraph). A dumb Sox fan who thinks Konerko is bound for Cooperstown because he gave Jerry Reinsdorf the damn ball after the 2005 World Series isn't going to listen to someone talking about WAR. And you certainly don't need to explain that Konerko is not a HOFer to anyone who reads FG. Overall just a useless fucking article that takes the mindless bluster of one of the game's great mindless blusterers and turns it into an excuse to blandly state the completely fucking obvious. Awesome.

Better yet we have this, which is mind-bogglingly dumb enough to have rolled off the ESPN.com press.

What a tough question. What are the top rivalries in baseball?

Who gives a shit? Is there some kind of prize for the two teams involved? Is there any way to get past the insane subjectivity involved in this discussion? And in case I forgot to mention this, who gives a shit?

I’m sure Yankees fans will claim it’s Yanks-Boston,

I realize saying this makes me a hypocrite (to pick nits, I'm saying what's NOT the best rivalry in baseball rather than what IS), but this is almost certainly the most overrated rivalry in sports. It has negligible historical roots and is largely fueled by the fuckwits in the MLB front offices pushing it on everyone every goddamn second of every season. Anyways.

but if you went out on the West Coast, I bet you’d hear plenty of fans saying Giants-Dodgers deserves more consideration.

Actually, I bet most fans out here probably would say that it's Red Sox-Yankees anyways because they've been told over and over and over and over and over again for the past seven or eight years that that's the case. See above. Thanks Bud Selig! You make Roger Godell look downright sensible sometimes.

How exactly do you declare one rivalry “bigger” than another?

You can't, in any meaningful way.

How do you measure fan excitement, and compare one fanbase against another? Is it possible?

NO. Leave writing this article to Jayson Stark. Walk away right now while you still can.

Probably not, but regardless, I’m going to take a stab at it anyway. My methodology is very simple: I’m ranking rivalries based on the amount of Google hits returned for the search “(Team name) (Team name) rivalry”.

Your head should be buried in your hands right now. Tears optional. I'm not going to tell you what the results are, although they're fairly predictable. The point is this: FanGraphs is fucking hole. It's a disastrous combination of misguided analytical elitism and worthless poopstain articles like the two linked here. Fangraphs upsets me just as upset (if not more) as tales of Simmons and J-Hench's AL East-only 17 team keeper league.

I think we have a label for this

From ESPN:






In the words of Chris W, who brought this article to my attention, "Psh. Good luck trying to get people to watch the Super Bowl."

The article itself is reasonably inoffensive; it's basically just a note that Jets fans hate the Steelers a lot right now and Giants fans have hated the Packers since the Packers drubbed the Giants in week 16 and then a list of Steelers/Packers players who have a connection to the Giants or Jets. Although I do appreciate the "New York is the figurative and literal center of the world and if something doesn't involve New York in any way then it's irrelevant" douchiness of the title. Saying the Super Bowl still matters even though [team X] isn't a part of it is like saying that a cold-blooded murder is still sad even though the victim wasn't [name any super kindhearted and generous person].

But yeah, the first label below says it all.

Old Gold From Jemele Hill

Here's some old crap from Jemele Hill:

Katy Perry tops the Maxim Hot 100 List? Are you serious?

Yes, that's the title of the article.

With all due respect to the brain trust at Maxim, but your top choice for hottest woman on the planet only proves the magazine seems to have forgotten one very important thing: It's the Maxim Hot 100 list, not the Maxim Great Personality list.

If it was "The Maxim Great Personality List," then Katy Perry wouldn't be in the top 1,000, and the top three would be: The Most Interesting Man in the World, Joe Francis, and Jason Statham in that order. However, this is The Maxim Hot 100 list which is a euphemism for "Female celebrities who our readers have been masturbating to vigorously over the past 12 months." I'm sure a quick Google Images search would validate Maxim for putting Katy Perry at #1.

Look, no disrespect to Katy Perry, an accomplished singer and songwriter who now wears the crown as Maxim's hottest woman, but if she's the hottest girl in civilization, why did the mag choose Victoria Secret model Selita Ebanks for the cover instead of Ms. Hottie? Sounds like a subconscious admission that Ms. Perry ain't that hot.

Just what ESPN needs, a reporter who's not afraid to psychoanalyze the Maxim editorial staff.

I realize part of the fun of Maxim's list is that it's always good for stirring debate, but this year's list seems more flawed than usual.

No, you just feel like throwing a stink this year.

From the sports world, Lindsey Vonn, Danica Patrick, Grace Park, Stacy Keibler and ESPN sideline reporter Erin Andrews all made the list (Patrick was ranked the highest at No. 25). No arguments there.

That's actually Grace Park of Battlestar Galactica fame. Way to get a fact wrong in the most softball of softball articles.

But did Elena Dementieva, Anna Rawson, and Natalie Gulbis, suddenly cease to exist?

No, they're just not well known enough to make it onto Maxim's list.

Surely one of them could have replaced, say, Chelsea Handler?

Maybe, but then again, who gives a shit?

And speaking of omissions, how can any list be taken seriously if it doesn't have Beyonce or Halle Berry as one of the world's 100 hottest women?

And there it is. Two high-profile black females were snubbed, and therefore, the list loses all credibility. You know, all that credibility it had had from being in the pages of fucking Maxim.

Yes, Berry and Beyonce have made the list numerous times and part of the Maxim's challenge is to introduce new faces, but if regulars Angelina Jolie and Brittany Spears made the list, so should Berry and Beyonce.

You almost have to admire the fact that Jemele Hill plays the race card even when discussing one of the most chauvinistic magazines in America's ranking of women as objects.

And let's just face it, women like Berry and Beyonce just deserve automatic bids.

No they don't, but seriously who the fuck cares?

If Maxim's mission was to choose a No. 1 that would get everyone talking, it worked.

Didn't hear anyone mention it until I saw this article.

But let's just say there are a lot of women who feel a lot more self confident today.

Yes, all those millions and millions of women out there who are better looking than Katy Perry can walk around with the confidence that maybe they too will be #1 on the Maxim Hot List, assuming they become one of the eminent pop-singers in the country and don't get bumped from the list to make room for Halle Berry and/or Beyonce.