Fortunately, Bill's NBA draft lottery pity party ended exactly the way it should have

For your reference, he's the actual pick order for next month's draft.  The number in parentheses indicates the number of picks a team moved up or down, relative to where they should have ended up if the lottery went exactly according to script (i.e. without any surprises).

1. Cleveland (+8)
2. Milwaukee (-1)
3. Philadelphia (-1)
4. Orlando (-1)
5. Utah (-1)
6. Boston (-1)
7. Lakers (-1)
8. Sacramento (-1)
9. Charlotte (from Detroit because the pick fell outside the top 8)
10. Philadelphia (from New Orleans because the pick fell outside the top 5)
11. Denver
12. Orlando (from New York via Denver)
13. Minnesota
14. Phoenix

So as you can see, it went almost entirely according to plan, except that Cleveland vaulted up into the top spot, pushing everyone between there and the #9 spot they were supposed to occupy down a spot.  This include's Bill Celtics.  And as I've alluded to in several posts for the past month, Bill was really, really, REALLY excited about this lottery.  The Celtics did everything right--which is to say they did their absolute best to properly tank--they traded Garnett and Pierce (and Rivers), didn't rush Rondo back from his injury, and generally didn't field a team you would ever expect to do well.

But they also tried hard with what they had!  They left it all on the court every night!  No one denies this!  Bill emphasized this every time he started talking about how Andrew Wiggins or Jabari Parker would be playing for the Celtics next year; if your team is tanking but they aren't doing it "the right way" (of course you'll read much, much more about this below) then they don't deserve to reap the benefits of said tanking.  But arbiter of all things basketball, and totally unbiased C's SUPAHFAN Bill said they had followed all the rules.  So after four or five months of tweets and mentioning this subject offhand in every one of his basketball columns, the lottery was upon us.  Which led to this article about which teams had the best karma, i.e. "deserved" to do well in the lottery.  Sit back and enjoy the schadenfreude.

Joel Embiid is going to be the first pick of the 2014 draft. Don’t let anyone tell you differently.

This is a very good indicator that Joel Embiid will not be the first pick of the 2014 draft.

These teams are full of it. We’re worried about his back, we’re hearing it’s bad … Hold on, I’m actually going to stand under the bull as he craps on me.

Would you?  Maybe just stay down there for a while, then.

It’s Smokescreen Central right now.

YOU CAN'T FOOL BILL!  HE'S TOO SMART FOR YOUR TACTICS, DUMB NBA GMS!  YOU MIGHT FOOL EACH OTHER, BUT YOU'LL NEVER FOOL A CERTIFIED GENIUS WHO ONCE INTERVIEWED BILL RUSSELL!  I just Googled "2014 NBA mock draft" and checked out the first ten results.  Of course this is highly unscientific; but people who take the draft seriously enough to run a site that climbs to the top of the Google rankings heap (www.draftexpress.com and www.nbadraft.net were two of those ten results--they both seem to be run by NBA superfanboys) have at least as much knowledge as Bill and probably more.  Embiid went 1st in three of the ten drafts I looked at.  Wiggins went first in the other seven; no one had Parker going first.  Two of them had Parker going second and Embiid going third.  So, the safe money is on Wiggins, for now.  You heard it here last.

And enough with the Oden parallels; unless Embiid’s pre-draft MRI reveals a career-threatening back issue (doubtful), NOBODY is passing on a franchise center who could easily be described as “The 7-Foot Serge Ibaka.”

BUT DOES HE WALK FUNNY????

Stop it.

One of Bill's most obnoxious recurring bits.  It makes him sound like a sorority girl.

He’s going first.

I doubt it.

We’re officially calling tonight’s lottery “Bleed for Embiid.”

HAHA BECAUSE STUFF THAT RHYMES IS FUNNY

With that stuff out of the way, let’s focus on the percentages that really matter — the 2014 Lottery Karma Rankings! It’s not about what the Ping-Pong balls say, it’s about what the Karma Gods say.

Which is to say, it's about how Bill feels about these teams, based on his high scientific method of being a mental 19 year old who likes the NBA a lot and sometimes watches college basketball if it's February or March.

Do your boys REALLY deserve to win the lottery? Did they handle their business the right way last season? Did they embarrass themselves with a tanking fiasco? Did they make a shady trade that inadvertently affected the playoff race? Did they do anything that made you say, “They just took a poop on their fans”?

Another horrendous recurring bit he does.  It's Reilly-esque.

Have they been so inept for so many years that their ineptitude just shouldn’t be rewarded anymore? Did they make any aggressively stupid decisions like paying Josh Smith and Brandon Jennings $78 million combined without hiring them a strong coach, or gift-wrapping a $48.5 million extension to an injured and possibly washed-up Kobe Bryant without making sure he could still play basketball three times a week?

Yeah, you wouldn't want them crapping all over their fans by signing good players or keeping hometown heroes around!

Are they owned by someone you’d describe as “an incompetent legacy kid who’d be working in a grocery store if his dad weren’t rich” or even “possibly concussed, he should seriously get his head checked out”?

Yeah!  All those things definitely are important and worth writing a column about!  Also, not that you care, but spoiler, he's going to put the Nuggets in the top three of this list.  Let me assure that "an incompetent legacy kid who'd be working in a grocery store if his dad weren't rich" is a bit of a harsh overstatement when it comes to Nuggets owner Josh Kroenke (who doesn't technically own the team yet but has been de facto owner for four years and will be titled owner soon), but isn't exactly far from the truth either.

And on the flip side, are they doing everything the right way? Do they have a real plan? Did they make an honest attempt to make the playoffs? Could you describe them as “exceedingly well run” and/or “just a solid, solid organization”?

Die.  Die die die.

Did they make one or more trades that could be described as “genuinely smart” or even “stunning in its vision and scope”? Are they a franchise that makes you say, “If Embiid/Wiggins/Jabari ends up there, they’ll take care of that guy”?

DIE.

Have they had bad lottery luck in the past? Are they due for a lottery break? Should the Karma Gods be saying, “We feel bad, we gotta hook those guys up”?

Look, bitch all you want about Cleveland getting three top picks in four years (and he's about to, or about to bitch about the idea), but they absolutely deserved Kyrie Irving, last year's draft was so bad that their victory there barely matters, and you can't say much of anything has gone right for them in the last thirty years other than winning the 2003 lottery.  But why bother expecting Bill to be logical or consistent.  That's not how you become a vertical integration machine, people.

Without further ado, the 2014 Bleed For Embiid Lottery Karma Rankings …
No Karma Whatsoever

13. Cleveland Cavaliers
I can’t decide what makes them more ineligible for karma — would you go with “two no. 1 overall picks and two other top-four picks just in the past three years, but they batted 25 percent,”

Yeah!  If you win the lottery in a terrible draft, and take one of the ten mostly worthless players available in said lottery instead of one of the four maybe average-ish players, that makes you bad, somehow!  FACK YOU!

or would you go with “rehired the same shaky coach they already fired, gave him a five-year deal, then fired him again after Year 1”?

That was a bad decision.  That team could really use a marquee player to help erase that bad decision.

When Obama appoints me the Czar of Sports, I’m making this rule: “No NBA team can win the lottery two times in a 10-year span.”  Much less three.

Totally reasonable.  Winning the lottery should reset your karma meter to negative billion jillion, not to mention how much you poop crap all over your fans if you make a crappy poop selection with that pick.

It’s too bad Brick Tamland isn’t a real person,

Not it's not.

because the Cavs definitely would have hired him as their coach/GM.

No.  He's obviously mentally disabled.  No nine-figure enterprise would put him in charge of operations.  That's just a silly thing to say.  Personally, putting aside the fact that my team didn't win the lottery, I couldn't be much happier that Cleveland did win it.  As I described a few posts ago, Bill's reaction on live TV ten minutes after the announcement was so delicious.  Oh wait, I bet it's on Youtube!  It is!  Enjoy, everyone.

12. Minnesota Timberwolves
Just for screwing up Kevin Love’s contract and letting him leave after three years (instead of locking him down for five), they’re out. Also not helping: Did you know this is ‘Sota’s 10th straight lottery? Ten straight??? From 2006 through 2011, the Timberwolves had SEVEN picks ranging between no. 2 and no. 7. They’re the real-life equivalent of your college buddy who had three kids way too early in life and now uses your fantasy football draft as an excuse to get bombed because he got out of the house for four hours.

That's a nonsensical and unfunny analogy.  Also, they've been bad for a long time--that seems like as good a reason as any for them to finally catch a break or two.  Also also, remember at the beginning of the season when Rubio was gelling nicely with Love and Bill couldn't go two fucking paragraphs without calling them a "watch them whenever they're on TV" team?  What happened, Bill?  What happened?  Did the wind change directions on you again?

11. Sacramento Kings
Headed for their eighth straight lottery and their sixth straight top-seven pick (unless someone leapfrogs them).

Naturally, someone did.

I’m an NBA Republican — I don’t think we should use the lottery, year after year, to keep propping up incompetent teams.

Always a good way to charm your readership: use some ham-fisted and unnecessary political comparisons.

It’s a broken system. We need a “Make eight straight lotteries and you’re ineligible from getting a top-three pick” rule.

Sports are definitely more fun (and inspire more fans to pay attention) when teams that are bad are forced to stay bad forever, amirite?

Also, I still haven’t forgiven Kings owner Vivek Ranadivé from trying to steal my Entertaining As Hell Tournament idea. Let’s hope he’s not the Carlos Mencia of NBA owners.

Bill, don't try to take pot shots at Carlos Mencia.  Somehow, you're not creative or funny enough to pull that off.

10. Philadelphia 76ers
Put it this way: I wrote an entire column about them last March called “10 Steps to Tanking Perfection.”

Put it this way: I wanted to link you to one of my old columns.

The Karma Gods can’t reward anyone who lost 26 straight, much less anyone who turned Michael Carter-Williams into a stat-chasing, brick-laying, award-pursuing mess who learned that it’s OK to lose as long as you throw up an 18-7-7.

NAWT A GOOD ROOKIE OF THE YE-AHH CHOICE!  NAWT LEGITIMATE!  OLADIPO'S TEAM WAS BETTAH, THAT MAKES HIM THE OBVIOUS CHOICE!  STAWP, JUST STAWP!

Even if you can’t blame Philly for taking advantage of a broken system, that doesn’t mean the Lottery Karma Gods can’t scream at them in their Soup Nazi voice, “NO KARMA FOR YOU!”

That's a Seinfeld reference!  High five!

9. Orlando Magic
Come on, they already won the lottery three times! And three good ones, too: Shaq, C-Webb and Dwight. I think we’re good, Orlando.

Yeah!  You won the lottery twice in the 90s and again ten years ago!

Just for fun, here’s your lifetime NBA Lottery Winner Scoreboard: Cavaliers (4); Clippers (3); Magic (3); Bucks (2); Bulls (2); Hornets (2); Nets (2); Spurs (2); Wizards (2); 76ers (1); Blazers (1); Kings (1); Knicks (1); Raptors (1); Rockets (1); Warriors (1).

Not pictured: the Nuggets, who have only ever picked at the spot they were supposed to pick or lower; they've never moved up, and never won the top pick despite having the best odds three different times.  They were supposed to get Larry Johnson in 1991 (although they got Mutombo instead, so whatever), and then in 2003 they were tied for having the best chance at LeBron.  Grumble grumble grumble.  Smallest violin for Larry B.

But here’s the craziest and most fascinating NBA lottery fact ever in the history of crazy and fascinating lottery facts: Through 29 NBA lotteries dating back to 1985, only one franchise ever won the NBA title with its own no. 1 overall pick. The team? San Antonio with David Robinson (two titles) and Tim Duncan (four titles, two with Robinson). How is that possible?

Why are you incredulous about this?  The answers are all pretty fucking obvious.  Because the dynastic nature of the NBA makes winning an NBA title extremely fucking difficult, with only eight teams (Heat, Mavericks, Lakers, Spurs, Pistons, Bulls, Rockets, Celtics) winning every title since 1983.  Because rookie contracts don't last that long, and many really awesome players have switched teams early in their careers.  Also, the Magic made the finals with Shaq; the Sixers made the finals with Iverson; the Nets made the finals with Kenyon Martin; the Cavs made the finals with LeBron; and the Magic made the finals with Dwight Howard.  It's also not hard to imagine the Clippers winning one with Blake Griffin sometime in the next few years.  So it's not like it's totally unattainable.

A Cereal Bowl of Karma Points

8. New Orleans Pelicans
Sorry, they totally botched the Chris Paul trade (and gave him to Donald Sterling, no less!), netted about 23 cents on the dollar for him,

Not included among Bill's asinine "does your team deserve it" factors: Did they get boxed into a corner by a superstar, do their best to acquire good assets for him, but ultimately not get much back?  Because I think that has happened to pretty much every team at some point.  Because running a basketball team under the NBA's CBA is pretty difficult.

then were summarily rewarded by the league totally rigging winning the Anthony Davis Lottery.

No.

He’s only the NBA’s third-best asset right now and the logical answer to the question, “Who’s winning the MVP trophy after LeBron and Durant are done passing it back and forth?” I think we’re good from a karma standpoint, New Orleans. Throwing a couple karma slabs your way only because I love the Brow.

How magnanimous!

7. L.A. Lakers
You gotta respect the year-to-year greatness of this franchise. Since 1958, they missed the playoffs only five times. They won only 27 games last year; that’s somehow their lowest total since 1958. They’ve never won the lottery; since 1982, they’ve never picked higher than 10th. They won 11 of the last 42 titles and appeared in 26 of the last 55 Finals. Since Elgin Baylor joined the Lakers in 1958, they’ve trotted out at least one historically great superstar in 49 of the past 56 seasons.

HOW IN THE WORLD HAS ONLY ONE LOTTERY-WINNING TEAM EVER WON A CHAMPIONSHIP WITH A GUY THEY DRAFTED????

And they’ve produced at least 3.5 million annoying fans (easily a league record).

FACK YOU!

On the other hand … they’re due to suck for a few years. Right? Why should THEY get the no-sucking-ever exemption?

Because their owner will spend well into luxury tax territory every year?  Because they are always a prime destination for every Dwight Howard/Pau Gasol/other star who is looking to get out of their current situation?  More importantly though, if the Lakers' success lands them at #7 on this list, surely the Celtics, who have even more titles (and I believe more Finals appearances; I'm not looking it up because I'm trying to finish this quickly) and have trotted out just as many all-time greats as the Lakers, belong at #6, right?  Right?

We’ll see if the Karma Gods think Lakers fans should suffer for a few years or not.

They'll be fine.

(By the way, if the Lakers win the lottery tonight, it will be one of the funniest Internet moments of all time and — since I’ll be appearing on live TV on ESPN — I’m just about guaranteed to get fired for what I’ll say afterward. I don’t know if this means the Lakers should get more or fewer karma points.)

It doesn't mean either of those things, because karma points are a construct of your tiny brain and do not exist anywhere else.

6. Utah Jazz
Door A: Hire a competent coach, then re-sign Al Jefferson and Paul Millsap (two really good players).

Door B: Let Jefferson and Millsap go; trade for $20 million in Golden State’s expirings and pick up two G-State first-rounders in 2014 and 2017 that almost definitely won’t be in the lottery; then keep Ty Corbin as your coach just to make sure your team sucks enough for 2014 lottery purposes.

My verdict: I don’t think the Lottery Karma Gods loved how this played out.

ALSO, THEY WENT TO TWO FINALS FIFTEEN YEARS AGO--SHOULDN'T THEY BE MADE TO SUFFAH FO-AH A WHILE?  THEY'VE HAD ENOUGH SUCCESS FO-AH NOW.

A Salad Bowl of Karma Points

5. Milwaukee Bucks
Let’s be honest — the Karma Gods already threw them a solid with the whole “instead of losing your team to a superior offer from Seattle, we miraculously found two billionaire hedge fund guys who want to keep the Bucks in Milwaukee even if we’re not totally sure that Milwaukee loves professional basketball” thing.

That is not karma.  That is "owning a sports team is a great investment right now, and those guys stepped up to buy the Bucks under the condition that they not move the team, because Herb Kohl and the NBA didn't want to deal with the ensuing mess."

But unlike Philly, this franchise actually tried to compete — they spent money on midlevel free agents like O.J. Mayo, Gary Neal and Zaza Pachulia, overpaid Larry Sanders and made a sincere run at 40 wins and a first-round playoff sweep. Did that sincere run make any sense whatsoever? No!!!!!!!!!!!!! Absolutely not!!!! But at least they tried … right?

So don't take a crap on your fans.  But also don't try to get better.  And whatever you do, don't be a historically great and successful team, because that disqualifies you from getting any special magic karma points.

(Also, Viva La Greek Freak.)

You like a guy who plays for this team.  Nice to know.  America's most popular sports columnist is on the case.

(Also, this is the other “Funniest Twitter-Related Outcome” for the no. 1 pick. You know, considering they just sold the team and all … and considering we just watched the same thing happen with New Orleans two years ago.)

What?  Who the fuck cares?  Also, in a funny twist, the Bucks DID end up being a big deal on Twitter the night of the draft, because one of their owners, who I can only guess has never talked to an 18 to 45 year old American male, had his cute 18 year old daughter serve as the Bucks' lottery representative on TV.  Naturally, Barstool, Deadspin, and the rest of the internet was on the case and prepared to tackle this story.  HEY GUYZ LOOK IT'S A GURL

4. Detroit Pistons
Do you penalize them for the never-ending slew of head-scratching trades and signings, all the coaches they hired and fired, and all the money they tossed away? Or do you say, “It’s time for a fresh start for DEEEEEEE-troit basssssssketball 

They're poorly run and have made some horrendous free agent signings the past few years... but... they have a memorable (if annoying) cheer that they yell in their arena!  To the top third of the rankings with you, poorly run team that is somehow different than the other poorly run teams at the bottom of this pointless, shitty list!

with Andre Drummond, Stan Van Gundy and a top-three lottery pick, followed by the down-low hiring of V. Stiviano to secretly bait Josh Smith and Brandon Jennings into saying something terrible into a tape recorder so they can void both of their contracts”?

HAHA SHE WAS THE LADY WHO TAPED DONALD STERLING!  THAT'S A CULTURAL REFERENCE!

(You know what? I’m going with the latter. The NBA is more fun when the Pistons are good. 

Sucks to be you, Timberwolves and Kings.  The league is no fun at all when you're good.  What Bill really means here is that he has fond memories of the Celtics teams of his younger days (as well as the 2008 Celtics) winning playoff series against Detroit, which is what puts those other poorly run teams out in the cold.

They cleaned house, they’re moving forward, they made a very smart hiring with SVG, and now they deserve a break, dammit. Also, Jalen Rose would start throwing $100 bills into Indiana’s crowd tonight if his Pistons won the lottery.)

Jalen Rose is kind of funny and kind of likable.  Too bad he seems to be developing a friendship with Bill.  Hopefully he's just putting on a show while the cameras are rolling, and quietly hates Bill as much as the rest of us.

3. Denver Nuggets
Turned a high-functioning, 57-win team into a dysfunctional, 36-win team mostly through organizational incompetence. So why stick them this high? Because there’s a remote chance they could win the lottery with New York’s Ping-Pong balls (thanks to the Carmelo trade from years ago). Who has worse karma than the Knicks? Isn’t this destiny? For one night, the Nuggets get to bask in the bizarro glow of James Dolan’s basketball karma. Even if they have a 0.8 percent chance of winning, once you factor in Dolan, that jumps to 25 percent easy. I have a weird feeling about this one.

As I bitched before, the Nuggets have never, ever, EVER moved up in the lottery.  This lottery did not deviate from that trend.

2. Boston Celtics
You gotta admit, 

I have to admit nothing, other than the fact that I really, really, really enjoyed watching you watch the Celtics end up with the sixth pick.

they sold as high as possible on Pierce and Garnett (three unprotected no. 1s from Brooklyn in 2014, 2016 and 2018 plus a pick swap in 2017) 

I have totally dumped on this line of thinking before, and I will do it again.  While I do think that's good value in terms of what you could expect to get for old Pierce and older Garnett, those picks probably aren't going to amount to jack shit.  This year's is going to be #17.  The Nets are certainly old and rickety and could conceivably fall apart by 2016, but I think there's a much better chance they're still a playoff team then.  2018 is too far out to predict.

and Doc Rivers (an unprotected no. 1 in 2015 that has a puncher’s chance of becoming a gem if the Sterlings fight to keep the Clippers and every Clipper decides, “I am suing to play for a different team”). 

If "puncher's chance" means a 1% chance, then no, not it does not.  If "puncher's chance" means a 0.00001% chance, yeah, I'll agree with that.

You can’t execute an impromptu rebuilding plan better than that.

OW-UH C'S TANK BETTAH THAN EVERYONE!  NO ONE DENIES THIS!  THE LAKAHS HAVE TOO MUCH GOOD HISTORY TO GET ANY DRAFT KAHHHHMAHHH!

Also helping from a karma standpoint: As a lifelong Celtics fan, I’ve suffered through three tanking seasons (1997, 2007 and 2014) … 

You fucking asshole.  Go jump in front of a bus, you self-obsessed dope.  I HAVE SUFFAHED THREE TIMES IN THE LAST SEVENTEEN FACKIN' YEARS.  ME ME ME ME.  Your teams have won like twenty championships in the last decade.  I hope your power goes out the next time you're enjoying something on TV.

and of those three teams, this was the only tanker that actually made me proud. They competed just about every night for Brad Stevens, blowing close game after close game because they didn’t have a crunch-time guy. It was the perfect tanking season, actually. I never felt like I had to take one of those 40-minute showers to get the stink off me. Throw in the way they handled Doc’s return, Pierce’s return and KG’s return and it’s hard to say the Celtics didn’t accrue some legitimate karma here. Then again, I’m a humongous homer.

That last sentence does not mitigate the 2,500 words of pure whale shit that came before it.

1. Phoenix Suns

There's no need to show his analysis.  I'll just leave you with the fart-tinged stench of that Celtics paragraph.  Just ponder that, if you want to get pissed on a sunny, beautiful late spring Friday: a Boston Celtics fan is pretty convinced that, at least in part because this bad team played harder (anecdotally, of course) than the other two bad Celtics teams from the past seventeen fucking years (keep your chins up, Timberwolves fans--It'll be your year one of these decades), they deserved to get Embiid or Wiggins or Parker.  Let that roll around in your head for a while as you think about all the fun stuff you're going to do this weekend.  If you're like me, it'll give you just enough anger and cynicism to get back to Monday. 

Spell Cranky with Three G's

Homer alert: I was alerted to this blog post by the St. Louis Blues' Forums and it concerns my team. As it has nothing to do with what my team puts on the ice, I feel as though I can approach this unbiased. Which actually means that I'm approaching it with bitterness and hatred. That's what shines through most.

John Grigg is way too pissed off about a marketing gimmick coming right out of St. Louis. But to be fair to him, let's see everything he has to say. Even though he doesn't deserve it.

Yesterday in its daily NHL Today media release, the league giddily announced it had set October attendance records with a per-game average of 17,388 – the first time in history attendance had surpassed 17,000 fans per game during the first month of the season – and a capacity average of 94.1 percent.

And the NHL should giddily announce that people are paying money to watch the sport in this economy. "The Lead" gets more time on the ESPN ticker than hockey does now. The NHL should be very happy.

I’m not going to rail on the league for such pronouncements. Despite the appearance of large sections of empty seats in some arenas, we don’t have any hard evidence to contradict the league’s numbers. In fact, one third-party observer is posting data that supports the NHL’s claim.

Sure, expensive seats may be going unfilled, but those things are sold to companies. And was I ever disappointed with that link joke. Let's start the downward spiral.

But what about the ways teams are trying to put butts in the seats? What are the league’s bottom-dwellers doing to further that cause? Gas and food coupons have appeared in some NHL arenas. And all-you-can-eat sections have popped-up in Atlanta, Boston, Nashville and Phoenix.

For the record, I was in an all-you-can-eat section at a Cardinals game when I was in college and discovered the true use for cargo pants that night. In Nashville - the only all-you-can-eat seats I looked into - it's $55 for an upper bowl seat. That's a little expensive and a little far from the action.

But here’s a new one: The St. Louis Blues – who are seventh in average attendance according to ESPN, but 20th in average capacity and 28th in the standings – will pay your mortgage.

It's because ESPN is using an outdated possible attendance figure to calculate average. Old arena capacity used to be 22,000 and now it's down to 19,150. For some reason, ESPN decided to go with about 21,000 for capacity. And thanks to yesterday's overtime loss, the Blues are now tied for 2nd worst team in the league, and 5 points out of a playoff spot. It's early yet.


Yes that’s right Blues fans, as long as you’re a legal resident of Illinois or Missouri, you can win support payments.

Blackhawks fans are eligible. To break down the offer, one person for every remaining Saturday home game gets mortgage or rent paid for the next four months, up to $1,000. 11 home games left on the Blues schedule means the most the team will have to pay out is $44,000. CNN and TSN have picked up the story, and all five of our news outlets reported it in some fashion. I'm no big city lawyer, but that's $44,000 well spent. But let's see some dope shit all over it.

In what can only be considered a bottom-of-the-barrel ticket-drive scheme, the Blues will draw one ticket during 11 Saturday home games beginning Nov. 29 and pay that person’s mortgage or rent for four months, up to a $4,000 maximum.

Are the Blues really interested in paying up to $4,000 to a person? No. I'm sure they don't care. But why is this a crime against humanity? It's all about ticket sales and the team is all sorts of injured. If this was $4,000 worth of gas, this article would be about fat people in Nashville. They aren't checking to see if they have diabetes, but they're feeding them all they can eat! Put a stop to it!

A novel idea to be sure, but it’s also more than a little insensitive. Whoever decided it would be OK to make light of the dire economic circumstances in the U.S. has some explaining to do to the people really feeling the economic pinch.

You want insensitive? The Blues tried to have an all-you-can-drink section. It lasted all of six hours. Sales of the tickets were started and stopped in the same day. I'm an unemployed blogger with bills to pay, and I think this is a very smart idea. The only person with explaining to do is John Grigg. John, get off your high horse. I'd love to have a job where I can type and get paid. Ideally, I would love to have a job. If somebody is having trouble making ends meet, then odds are they won't come to a hockey game. In fact, they should use that $20 for a ticket and buy groceries with it. Let 11 people get $4,000 and stand off.

It’s not just that the Blues are cashing in on all the ink the sub-prime mortgage crisis has received around the world, they’re doing so shamelessly.

Explain how, exactly. Are they forcefully relocating all Blues fans to Nashville? No, it's a gimmick. It's just like all the Crazy Eddie dressing up like Washington in February to sell used cars.

The promotion itself is called the Fan Bailout Plan – in reference to the controversial $700-billion government economic injection meant to prop up the U.S. economy. And the games are being billed as Fannie & Freddie Mortgage Saturdays – in reference to the U.S. mortgage giants the government took over in September and whose failures are at the heart of the economic crisis.

This is what you've chosen to explain? What the hell? Your readers aren't idiots. They know why the economy is in the shitter. But make every single one of them feel like an elementary school kid by spelling it out. Next week, John Grigg will explain to you why the sky is blue and claim it's insensitive to Red Wings fans.

I, for one, am amazed at the level of insensitivity the Blues are showing. Thousands of American families have lost their homes and the entire world is feeling the effects of the U.S. recession, but the Blues and the NHL seem to think playing off that misery to sell a few extra tickets is a dandy idea.

Also in John Grigg's world, the NHL says yes or no to what a single team decides to do to sell tickets. I still do not see how somebody would look at this and see it as a slap in the face as opposed to a gimmick.

Don’t these guys get it? Don’t they realize such promotions alienate the very people they’re trying to attract. Think about it, if your friend or family member had lost their home, would this promotion make you more or less likely to attend a game? For my part, I’d be more likely to not go to any Blues game with something like this on the go.

Good, then don't come. All you'd do is sit in the stands and bitch the whole time about how people in the upper bowl are segregated from the people in the lower bowl by escalators. If I had a friend lose their place, they would be invited to stay here and then we'd probably go to the game. Maybe they'd win some cash. Probably not. 1/19,150 is pretty bad odds.

When you’re languishing near last overall and not putting enough butts in the seats, maybe any idea seems like a good one.

I think enough butts are in the seats. You said yourself that the Blues are 7th overall in attendance with 18,940. I can look past the fact that ESPN hasn't updated their hockey attendance stats, and that you used that to see they have a poor average. Capacity is 19,150, and diving that by 18,940 is not how you calculate averages. Turn those numbers around, and you'll see the Blues are at 99% capacity. Injuries have hurt the Blues this year a lot and that's why they are where they are in the West.

John Grigg is a copy editor with The Hockey News and a regular contributor to THN.com with his blog and the Top 10.

Hey John, I hope you next mortgage check bounces. And by that, I mean that I hope that you don't have enough money in your bank account so that the transaction doesn't go though, which is what is happening to people everywhere in this country.

On a serious note, I do want to know what everybody else around here thinks about this. Am I just not seeing how this is insensitive?

Peter King: Fat, Stupid

Reading MMQB is like going to Chipotle. Every time you walk in, you hope it's going to be as good or better than Qdoba, but it never is. The point I'm trying to make is that Qdoba's steak queso burrito is outrageous, New York Magazine called it "a playful but mysterious little dish." Also Peter King probably eats 12 or 13 of those a day.

VINDICTIVE MANNY STAT OF THE WEEK

The first month on new jobs for Manny Ramirez and the man who replaced him in Boston, Jason Bay:

Manny:
AVG: .415
OBP: .508
H: 44
HR: 9
RBI: 25

Bay:
AVG: .315
OBP: .358
H: 35
HR: 4
RBI: 29

Ramirez is unconscious, as we figured he might be, trying to show the Red Sox didn't appreciate him.

Get it? Because Manny is sometimes lazy in the outfield. He makes a lot of stupid mistakes. I guess the main bullet point of my presentation would be that Manny Ramirez isn't a very good fielder.

But Bay's been superb with runners in scoring position, and 29 RBIs in August -- in any month, for that matter -- is big-time production.

Yes, RBI's, the great equalizer among all hitters. In no way are RBI's related to your teamate's ability to get on base. Take your "unconcious" .508 OBP and jam it up your ass Manny.

Later in the column:

Is Dustin Pedroia a real person? He just had a 43-hit month, with six home runs. He is 5-foot-8, maybe. He just went 4-for-4 on back-to-back nights, reaching base 10 times in 10 appearances in the two games. Terry Francona batted him cleanup twice. Ozzie Guillen pitched to David Ortiz and intentionally walked Pedroia. Ozzie Guillen said, "I just [intentionally] walked a jockey.'' This is an amazing story we're watching.

So in sum:

Over the past month, Pedroia and Manny have almost the identical number of hits, and Manny has 3 more home runs. Here's how Peter King sees it:

Manny = Asshole having flukey month
Pedroia = The most amazing story ever! I texted Pedroia to ask him how it feels to be having the greatest season ever, and he wrote back "Plz stop txting me." His focus is unbelievable!

1b. I like the reinstatement of Pacman Jones, or Adam Jones, or whatever his name is this week.

Notice PK's use of the nickname Pacman Jones...

1k. The Dayton Daily News, one of the papers covering the Bengals daily, has begun referring to Chad Johnson as Chad Ocho Cinco, from the looks of Saturday's paper. "The week leading up to the Baltimore game represents the first full week of practice time Ocho Cinco, T.J. Houshmandzadeh and Carson Palmer will have together since the 2007 season finale at Miami,'' beat man Chick Ludwig wrote Saturday, apparently with a straight face.

Are you fucking kidding me? In 1b, you refer to a player by his nickname, and then 9 bullet points later you deride a writer for referring to a player by the nickname they legally adopted. You are a fat asshole.

No, I'm Not Dead.

Though this blog has certainly flourished in my absence, I'm back to my scribblings (damn, the ghost of Ed Hardiman made me use that word). I was in Las Vegas this past week or so playing in the World Series of Poker. Though I was a disappointing Day 2 bustout, there is a large chance that I'll make a brief TV appearance saying the word "Wow". So if that doesn't just scream "ridiculously awesome consolation prize", I don't know what does.

Anyway, wasn't I here for a reason? Oh yeah. Tom Gage.

Wait....Tom Gage?

Who the fuck is Tom Gage?

Excuse me while I don't vote for Jason Giambi.

Ohhhhh....Tom Gage.

We all fully understand how difficult it is to choose the most deserving All-Star team. It's not a science, but if it were, it would be inexact.

That said, the American League All-Star team this year is flawed not seriously, but enough to be puzzling. Everyone botched it, to some degree: The fans, the players and, of course, the presiding manager who never avoids being second-guessed.

It's really hard to have a "seriously" flawed All-Star team. But this year's AL team comes damned close. Jason Varitek is a joke. Joe Crede had no business beating out Longoria on the basis of offensive stats, let alone his 17 errors. I know you have to select at least one dude per team, but why were Joe Saunders and Ervin Santana both included without giving at least a look to John Danks? I could go on for quite some time, but why don't we check out why Gage is upset?

If it weren't such a position of honor to manage an All-Star team, because it means your team was in the World Series the year before, it would be a miserably thankless job.

It nearly is, anyway. Red Sox manager Terry Francona called it "excruciating."

But that doesn't explain why Giambi, with a .256 batting average, is on the Final Vote ballot -- which adds one more All-Star to both teams during the week after the rosters are announced.

::sigh:: No, I suppose that the fact that Terry Francona called the process of selecting the All-Star team "excruciating" does not explain why Giambi, with a .256 batting average, is on the Final Vote ballot. Point: Gage.

If it were a first baseman Francona wanted on the ballot, he would have done better to choose Miguel Cabrera.

Why? Because you write for a Detroit web site?

Giambi has more RBIs than Cabrera (53-50), but

Actually a pretty solid start to a "but" clause. The RBIs are definitely not that big a deal. Hope you finish this one strong!

Cabrera is outhitting him .282 to .256.

Oh my! Well let's see here. Jason Giambi gets on base 39.4% of the time compared to Cabrera's 35.7%.......hey wait a second! That doesn't make sense! Cabrera has a higher batting average! What kind of witchcraft is at work here?

That's not to say Cabrera is slam-dunk worthy of being an All-Star this year, just that he and several others deserve it more than Giambi, whose RBI ratio is impressive and batting average isn't.

1) RBI....ratio?
2) Okay, fine, I'll dump the play-dumb sarcasm. Giambi has had a monster first half. The dude is fucking OPSing .928. Not only does Giambi deserve to be on that ballot, he deserves to strangle everyone who fucking voted Joe Crede into the game. Does the AL really need 3 backup 3rd basemen?

Francona did select Tampa Bay catcher Dioner Navarro as a backup, and that's a nice pick, although it could be argued that Chicago's A.J. Pierzynski deserved it more.

Arguable, certainly.

Does .317 in 227 at-bats qualify Navarro as an All-Star over Pudge Rodriguez's .290 and 14 previous All-Star selections?

God, I really have to answer this? Ivan Rodriguez has been a bad hitter since 2004. I don't care what the fuck he did in 1999. The All-Star team is for the players that have performed the best, barring some sort of Ripken-like situation. You've got disorders, Gage. When I'm listening to you, everything gets all hazy and Detroit-y and batting average-y.

Probably not, but it's a nice gesture all the same.

There you go. "Probably not" is the answer. I'm looking at a half handle of Smirnoff right now and estimating how far I'd have to drink it down until I'm this stupid. I'm setting the bar right around the middle of the label.....

Maybe You Expected Me To Pick On Chas MacGonaghcle Of The Des Moines Globe

The number of posts I'm able to make is a bit limited these days. As for which writers I should cover in the process of formulating these posts, there's a part of me that says I should use this opportunity to diversify and find real pieces of garbage from lesser-known sources. With two or three days to find something before taking the time to write about it, after all, I should have some sort of "pick" of some sort of "litter" compared to back when I was putting up something new every night. On the other hand, though, there's a part of me that just wants to continue my mindless bitching about Bill Simmons. Let's just say that internal debate was settled easily.

This is the conclusion to a two part column in which Bill ranked a large handful of NBA players in terms of value this season, all the way from Stephon Marbury at No. 450 to, holy fucking shitballs this is a surprise, Kevin Garnett at No. 1. I don't really have huge problems with 90% of the column(s). I know there are plenty of NBA fans out there that are tortured by his often-shitty analysis, but I can't help but consider most of what he says about "The League" to be not that bad when you compare it to his NFL and (particularly) MLB work. So in general, the whole rankings thing comes off OK. Until, of course, we arrive at KG and Bill's reasoning for choosing him as MVP.

This is not journalism. This is horrid, pathetic, and embarrassing. This is an insult to Mike Celzic and anything he could ever write about Derek Jeter. It's an insult to Bill Plaschke and anything he could ever write about Juan Pierre. It's an insult to anything that has ever been written about David Eckstein or Darin Erstad. This is so bad, I honestly don't know how to begin picking it apart. Fortunately, Simmons breaks the ice for me with a hilarious opening clause.

1. Kevin Garnett

Let's get the bad stuff out of the way so you don't think this is a homer vote:

Oh. Ahhhhh. OK, so it's not a homer vote. Say no more. I was thinking to myself, "During a year in which pretty much everyone and his parole officer has agreed that Kobe is the MVP pick, if a huge Celtics fan makes a case for Garnett it's probably because he's being a homer." But then you come along and tell me that that's not the case at all! I really appreciate the clarification.

This is like your friend trying to convince you that his bitch of a girlfriend is actually a nice person. "Dude, I know you're going to think I'm only saying this because I'm dating her, but hear me out." Of course, when you're in a situation like that, your friend eventually breaks up with the girl and admits she was a cunt. Bill will take his blind and clueless homerism to his grave.

I don't think Garnett is the most talented player in the league;

No one has thought this since 2005.

I don't trust him at the end of games because he gets too wound up; it drives me crazy that he relies on his fall-away so much (especially in fourth quarters);

Fair enough.

and I'd rather have Tim Duncan for a playoff series if my life depended on it.

I like how this is phrased as a reluctant concession to Duncan fans. One of those players has four motherfucking rings (all but one obtained as the best player on his team). The other has one has two motherfucking playoff series wins. If your life really depended on it, and you racked your brain for hours over the decision, you might decide that Duncan is the better bet? Good.

Of course, none of that stuff matters in an MVP discussion.

The first and last items on that list do not. The second and third though, about late game performance? Well, two of Bill's own criteria for picking an MVP (which I don't necessarily agree with, but I'm willing to consider as starting points) are:

Question No. 2: In a giant pickup game with every NBA player waiting to play, and two fans forced to pick sides with their lives depending on the outcome of the game (I think this is how the annual Rucker League tournament works, by the way), who would be the first player picked based on the way everyone played that season? Question No. 3: If you replaced every MVP candidate with a decent player at their position for the entire season, what would be the effect on their teams' records?

If only Bill weren't so popular, and such a catastrophic pile of asshole, I bet he would take the time to answer an email inquiring as to how this list and the above claim about late game performance are compatible. Alas, since he'd obviously never reply to that email, you'll have to try to quilt an answer together on your own. Good luck. I got nothin'.

He's the one guy everyone will remember from this regular season (sorry, Kobe);

"Everyone" in this case meaning, of course, Celtics fans. Don't get me wrong; plenty of people will remember Garnett changing teams, because that's a cool and relevant story. But the actual performance on the court is a different story, in this non-Celtic non-Laker fan's opinion. There's a chance it's only because my favorite team is in the West, but I would definitely say that Kobe's overall performance was more "rememberable" this year.

and he was worth a 30-win swing to the Celtics this season.

Interesting. My paperwork here says he was only worth 26 wins, but I guess you could be right. That would mean the combined sum of adding Ray Allen and James Posey and having several young contributors (Rondo, Perkins, Powe) get another season under their belts was worth 11 wins. As in, this Celtics team minus Garnett and plus Al Jefferson wins 35 games and misses the playoffs. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmbullshit.

In other words, he's the first choice for two of my three MVP questions.

In other words, he's the choice for your first MVP question (not listed by me, but it's about that remembrance bullshit) and you offer absolutely no evidence as to how he fulfills the other two.

But that's not why I'm picking him. On May 22, professional basketball was effectively murdered in Boston.

Christ on a crutch. Holy fish sticks. You. Fucking. Crybaby. Someone call the whaaaaaaaaaaaambulance for Bill, because he's got his ovaries all twisted up. The history of the NBA draft is fucking littered with teams that expected to get a top 3 pick and were denied by some cruel bounce of a ping pong ball. It happens all the stinking time. Guess what? It happened to Boston last year. Guess what else? That doesn't mean you can write a sentence like that. Ray Lewis didn't drive up to Boston, find a physical manifestation of the nebulous concept of basketball, and murder it like a Super Bowl partier. A professional sport is "effectively murdered" in a town when a team moves away, a one-of-a-kind-once-in-a-generation superstar leaves as a free agent, or someone prominently involved with a team actually dies. Losing the lottery and picking 5th when your record indicated you should be picking 2nd IS NOT ON THAT LIST OR ANYWHERE NEAR IT.

Sorry about that. Here comes the Ecksteiny part.

Garnett transformed every single facet of the franchise upon his arrival, from playing for the Celtics to coaching them to following them to owning them to working for them. What he did can't be measured by statistics; it can't even be measured in a few paragraphs like the section you're reading right now. It would belittle what he did.

Offensive.

He transformed the culture of the team. He taught everyone to care about defense, to care about practice, to care about being a professional, to care about leaving everything they had on the court, to stop caring about stats and start caring about wins.

More offensive.

He single-handedly transformed the careers of three young players (Rajon Rondo, Leon Powe, and Kendrick Perkins), one veteran (Pierce) and one coach (Doc Rivers), all five of whom could have gone the other way. He played every exhibition game like it was the seventh game of the Finals. During blowouts, he stood on the sidelines and cheered on his teammates like it was a tight game; because of that, the bench guys did the same thing for the starters and basically turned into a bunch of giddy scrubs on a 14-seed in a March Madness upset during every game.

Most offensive. I would also like to take this opportunity to remind everyone: this was not a homer pick. OK? Got it? None of this is being written because Bill loves the Celtics. The analysis is all 100% objective. Just thought I'd keep that in your brain as you wade through this.

The best word for him would either be "contagious" or "selfless." By Thanksgiving, the entire team was emulating him. Every time a young player got carried away with himself during a game -- like the time Perkins started going for his own stats, or the time Rondo snapped at his coach --

Who could forget!

KG was there to set him straight and scare the living hell out him. Every time one of his teammates was intimidated, KG had his back. Every time one of his teammates got knocked down, KG rushed over to pick him up; eventually, four teammates were rushing over to help that fifth guy up, and that's just the way it goes with the team now. Every time an opponent kept going for a shot after a whistle, KG defiantly blocked the shot just out of principle, and eventually, everyone started doing it. No shots after the whistle against the Celtics. That was the rule.

Boy, sounds frightening. They're so badass that they don't let you take shots that don't count. I bet that saves them zero points a game! If I captained a baseball team and wanted to develop a similar rule about how my guys would intimidate opponents, it would be: no running through first base on a groundout. You will be hit by the right fielder, and hit hard.

A couple of umbrella statements, really quickly: first, remember again that this opinion has nothing to do with Bill's Celtic fandom. And also keep in mind that we are being asked to believe that an aircraft carrier full of anecdotal bullshit is why Garnett a) would be picked first if two fans had every player available and wanted to draft teams to get a game going and b) is more irreplaceable than Kobe or LeBron.

It was a series of little things, baby steps if you will, but they added up to something much bigger.

Stolen from a St. Louis Post-Dispatch piece about Eckstein, 10/30/2006. Also, time for another reminder- Bill is not saying any of this because he's a Celtics fan.

You can't measure Garnett's impact with individual statistics, but these numbers seem pretty relevant: 24 (number of '07 Celtics wins); 16 (number of '08 Celtics losses); four (number of useful free agents who signed with Boston after the KG trade);

Apparently P.J. Brown and Scot Pollard are now considered "useful." Also, clearly, those guys (plus Posey and Sam Cassell) came to the Celtics strictly because of KG's "contagious" and "selfless" personality and specifically not because they wanted to be a part of one of the best overall teams in the league. If KG had the same talent but the disposition of Shaq? Forget about it. No Scot Pollard and his 1.8 points per game for you, Boston.

0 (number of useful free agents who signed with Boston in the 15 years before that);

I don't know or care enough about the Celtics to research that, but I'm going to guess that it's patently false. Particularly if Pollard and Brown are "useful." (He is talking about those two, right? If he's not, feel free to punch me in the face for being an ass next time we see each other in person.)

10.2 (Boston's point differential this season, and by the way, that's a historic number);

Historic how? I guess we'll just have to leave that unqualified. It's just... historic. Hey, Atlanta's differential was a historic -1.8. They've never recorded it before. Therefore, historic.

three (number of Texas teams they beat on the road in a four-day span, as well as their total number of double-digit defeats this season);

Whoop-de-fuck on both counts, especially when trying to determine an MVP.

4,753 (estimated number of Teammate Hugs during games this season, shattering the record of the '84 Lakers); 42 (field-goal percentage for Boston opponents this season); 41 (number of home sellouts this season); and 3-to-2 (their odds to win the 2008 title).

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Also consider: sine July 2, 2007, more than 150,000 Garnett jerseys have been sold in Boston.

OK, I made that up.

Look at the Celtics last year and look at them this year. Does any of the good stuff happen without Garnett? Any of it?

Is.... is that rhetorical? You mean, like, if they still traded for Ray Allen, still kept the same core of young players, and added Al Jefferson back into the mix in place of Garnett? Unless "the good stuff" is defined as having a guy that looks like a space alien sign late in the season as a backup point guard and winning 65 games instead of 61, the answer is: yes. All of it.

Maybe his MVP campaign lost some stream when he missed 10 games earlier in the season, and I have to admit, even I shifted my attention toward Kobe, Paul and LeBron these past two months.

Thanks for bringing that up- not only did he miss those games, but he wasn't at 100% for at least 5 games after he made his comeback. So he missed 20% of the season, basically. But hey- he made people care, man. He made them care. He hustled and gristled and scooted and gritted. You can't put a value on that, unless it's a made-up value related to winning an MVP bestowed on a player by a huge fan of his team.

During a conversation with my father last weekend, I mentioned the MVP "argument" and he quickly responded with a fired-up rant that was very unlike my Pops. I'll do my best to paraphrase it:

Here we go. This will finally settle the MVP debate, once and for all. I won't lie- even though Bill promised at the beginning of this segment that he wasn't picking Garnett for homerish reasons, I've been a little unsure as to whether or not that was really the case. But I'm confident that as soon as we add his father's objective opinion to the mix, the doubt will finally leave my mind and I will be sure that these gentlemen are expressing their opinions on this matter without any regard to personal bias. I can't wait.

"Argument? There's no argument, it's Garnett.

Sold. You had me from "no." As in, "no way do this man and his son hold this opinion because they're Celtics fans! That's being a homer, and this choice (it said so at the beginning!) is not a homer choice."

I went to almost every home game. He's standing on the bench screaming for his teammates when we're up 30 points. He's a maniac! A few weeks ago, I couldn't go to a Wednesday night game so I put my tickets online and they sold in four minutes. Four minutes!

Who says the buyer wasn't actually going to see someone else, like Brian Scalabrine? These are Boston fans we're talking about here. What are the odds a black player was directly responsible for their desire to shell out big bucks to attend a sporting event? In other words, how about that Wes Welkah? Fachkin' amazin' what that guy dahs on the fayuld.

Last year, I would have been walking around my office asking if anyone wanted to go, and I would have probably ended up eating the tickets.

Because the Celtics blew last year, stupid. Obviously Garnett is partially responsible for their turnaround and deserves credit for that, but really? All 41 games worth? Or even 30? Dubious.

This year? Four minutes. Who did more for a team in one year? We lost 18 straight games last season. We were nothing. Didn't you watch the games? How could anyone be more valuable than KG was this season?"

Well, if you ask Bill, by 1) being more rememberable, 2) being the first overall pick in an imaginary pick-up game draft, and 3) being less replaceable. For item 1, I'll call it a toss up between Kobe and Garnett. For item 2, I'm going Kobe, then LeBron, then Garnett. For item 3, I'll go LeBron, then Kobe, then Garnett. So although that's a bunch of bullshit, it's based on your son's bullshit and answers your question.

It's a great question, and since I couldn't answer it without sounding like a fool, Kevin Garnett gets my MVP vote for 2008. Just remember, the "V" stands for "valuable."

Yes. It does. Good. There's nothing clever about that, and everyone already knows it. Being reminded of it does nothing for anyone because it's an incredibly nebulous concept. Thanks for ending your column with something that resembles a poorly conceptualized corporate slogan. ESPN: Just remember, the "P" stands for "programming."

I would like to add that Matt Holliday was fucking robbed of the NL MVP last year, and I'm not at all saying that because I'm a Rockies fan.

post #3 about why bill simmons annoys the crap out of me

look, i don't hate the sports guy. first of all, he's a very good writer. his references and jokes are repetitive, but whose aren't? in general he keeps things pretty entertaining. and when i read his stuff most of the time it feels like something written by a buddy of mine, not a hoity toity self important holier-and-smarter-than-thou jackass. he can come off a little cocky but it's a down to earth cocky, not a "i have a sportswriting job so i'm smarter than you" cocky. hard to explain what i mean, but hopefully you can get the gist. furthermore, he writes a ton- something new by him usually appears about 3 times a week on espn.com. that's pretty good.

so then, you may be asking, why does he make his way onto firejaymariotti so often? the answer is simple: wasted potential. simmons manages to take all that good stuff i wrote about him in the last paragraph and totally and completely ruin it with blatant and annoying "bostonism". i cannot freaking stand it. i don't know how or if you can rate the popularity of sports columnists, but i think it's safe to say simmons (as of now, in 2007) is wildly popular across the entire country. yes, he grew up and started his career in boston. yes, he used to be "the boston sports guy." but you know what? he's not anymore. he took the word boston out. he's national now. don't get me wrong- that doesn't mean he shouldn't give the teams he knows and cares the most about a little special attention from time to time. but that's not what he does. in fact, except for during the MLB, NBA, and NFL playoffs, he for the most part completely and totally refuses to acknowledge the presence of teams not located in boston or new york. to me, that is wrong. the guy isn't a "hard" analyst, i know. but he consistently makes no effort whatsoever to learn or write about anything but the patriots, red sox, and celtics. and like i already said, this pisses me off because he's a pretty good writer who could be 50 times as interesting if he would just branch out more often. i know espn as a whole is responsible for this as well. but seriously... i'm done ranting. check out these excerpts from the chat he did on monday.

about halfway through, after tons of questions about the sopranos, all time great NBA teams, and (of course) the celtics, we have this poor guy:

Seth (Cleveland, OH): Will you be taking any baseball questions today? (Other then about the Red Sox?)

Bill Simmons: Fire away! I'm ready.

ok bill, you sound excited for this topic. let's see what you've got for us. tragically here are the next three fucking questions he takes:

Paul (dublin): Does the Julio Lugo era make you feel any differently about the Theo Epstein era in Boston? Is there anything more inexplicable than Epstein's ability to strike gold with minor signings AND screw up every major singing over the last few years?

Jeremy (NYC): Has Dice-K lived up to your expectations?

Matt (Medford, MA): All laughing and pointing aside, does the prospect of "2007 AL Wild Card: The New York Yankees" scare you in a playoff situation? The Yanks appear to be the only team right now that can smack around Beckett and Schilling, and have had at least 1 comeback against the Okajima/Pap combo.

right. great. so what happened here? did bill not read what seth from cleveland put in parentheses? i'd better stop using those things so much. was he being sarcastically enthusiastic when he said "fire away, i'm ready" while devilishly thinking to himself "screw you, no one cares about the indians or whoever the hell your team is?" is that it? i wish i knew. whatever it was, rest assured that with simmons' popularity, there were PLENTY of non red sox questions available. bill just either didn't know how to answer them, or more likely, didn't care. here's the next baseball related question, about 15 minutes later:

jon (vegas): so who is screening these questions? i am 0-4 today and feeling alot like JD Drew!!

and nothing again until

Tim (Scottsdale, AZ): It was a sad spectacle this weekend, seeing all the bandwagon Sox fans at the Diamondbacks game in their brand new hats and jerseys with the tags still on them. What are your thoughts on being the trendy team now?

finally, about 5 questions from the end, presumably just out of pity to the few people still submitting questions who don't care about the sox or yankees:

David (Milwaukee): Any thoughts on the Brewers this year? You've been to this city and we are ready for a playoff appearance. I think downtown may be unbelieveable come fall if the Crew is making their first playoff appearance in 25 years. Plus, Prince Fielder has to be the front-runner for NL MVP at this point.

Bill Simmons: They're not roping me in until Bernie Brewer starts jumping into the beer mug again.

thanks bill. so kind of you. there you have it brewers fans: don't count anyone in on your team's bandwagon until the mascot starts jumping into the beer mug again (whatever the hell that refers to).

like i've already said, it's not that simmons is terrible. he's a good storyteller and he makes his points pretty well most of the time. all i'm saying- is it too much to ask for him to actually do what many normal national columnists do, and write about sports on the national level? evidently so. tune in next week when i bitch and moan about his impending article about who the celtics should take with the 5th pick in the NBA draft, and how randy moss is doing in patriots training camp.

final side note: of the 118 questions/comments published in this chat, only 63.5 of them (54%) were about sports. (the other 46% were about the sopranos, misc. pop culture, and his podcast/the chat itself). of those 63.5, only 40 were about non-boston sports. that's 36% of the total if you're keeping track at home... man, that pisses me off. wasted potential.