The Suns And Mavericks Are Going To Have A Hard Time Golfing Comfortably With Such Huge Balls

I'm working on a Gregg Easterbrook "WMTMQR" column, but I got sidetracked by the topic you're seconds away from reading about, so the Easterbrook thing will have to become a "TMTMQR." Look for that, of course, on TM. Having just watched the final seconds of the Spurs closing out the Suns, I decided it would be fitting to talk about this guy named Bill Simmons who writes for ESPN.com. He's actually one of their most popular columnists. Who knew? Yeah, that's what I'm saying, too- whatever happened to Hunter S. Thompson?

Anyways, one of Simmons' more well-known columns from the past couple years is this, from February 2007, in which he lambasted nearly every team in the NBA for not making some kind of risky, roster-altering, hype-generating trade before that season's deadline. In his criticism, he very cleverly re-christened the league the "No Balls Association" in a brilliant turn of acronym. Oh, the audacity! His point was basically that although nearly every team in the league was flawed at the time in some obvious way, their GMs were too afraid to make a big deal lest they take the fall or get fired should the move either not produce good postseason results or further delay a rebuilding effort. It was an interesting concept for a column. Certainly gave a lot of fans something to discuss and complain about.

But I didn't at all agree with him at the time. (This blog didn't exist so I could voice that opinion, which is a convenient excuse for me to use revisionist history in my favor now.) Basically, the whole premise seemed less about teams trying to make the best possible decisions and more about teams doing things that Bill found exciting. New faces in new places! New matchups! New columns to write, about potential impacts and ramifications! What's not to like, if you're employed as Bill is? Unfortunately, nearly all of the trades he talked about didn't make sense for at least one of the teams involved. And some didn't make sense for either/any of said teams. Of course, as with anything Simmons writes, it was basically a chance for him to pop off at the mouth and act like his opinion is unadulterated fact. (Yes, you asshole anonymous Simmons-defending commenters, every columnist does this to some extent. But Simmons does it constantly, and with a nearly unparalleled level of abrasiveness.) And just because he gets on his high horse, and cracks wise while acting like he's smarter than at least 20-25 of the 30 GMs in the league, doesn't mean he's right.

So fast forward to February 2008. It's the "No Balls Association" no more. The Mavericks work overtime and jump through several hoops in order to land Jason Kidd, and the Suns surprise a lot of people by rolling the dice on Shaq. Hooray, says Bill. Finally- a group of executives not afraid to go boom or bust! Well, fittingly, tonight both of those moves more or less busted. Neither team even came close to sniffing the second round. Although it's arguable that their results would have been no different had they not made their trades, my point is that big deadline deals rarely happen for a lot of very real (and non-"ball lacking") reasons. For the teams scuttling their season and acting as sellers- unless the star they're probably giving away is in the final year of a deal, there's an incentive to wait until the summer to field offers because that gives them more time to maneuver and often allows them to drum up interest from more potential trade partners. For the teams acting as buyers- there's no other way to put this; the enormous risk such deals usually carry is just flat out debilitating. Laugh all you want, question whether or not people have nuts in their sacks; but the risks often outweigh the rewards. And what happened to the Suns and Mavs speaks to that. Neither team got noticeably better after acquiring their star. (Dallas probably got a little worse, and almost missed the playoffs.) Both, especially the Suns, are financially worse off than they were before the deals.

Now, let me put all the caveats out there to make sure I don't sound like an idiot. Yes, I know the Lakers also traded for Pau Gasol in a "big deal" and that that move is working out swimmingly. Good for LA. But that was an extremely rare case of a team looking to deal a superstar actually not asking nearly what their guy was worth. Opportunities like that don't come along often. The Lakers basically paid the Grizzlies peanuts, so they don't get credit for showing balls. Yes, I know Simmons actually stated that he thought Kidd was a bad fit for the Mavs. But in the column in which he voiced that opinion, he still said he approved of the trade. Why? Among other things, the Mavs "needed a transfusion" and this trade made them "more interesting." He also gushed all over the Shaq trade. Oops. And finally, yes, I know that Simmons has never said that making risky deals guarantees teams success. But he still violently advocates doing so anyways, and that's reason enough for me to make fun of him.

In conclusion- (I love using that, because my high school English teachers always discouraged it, and now they're not around to stop me from having my fun and writing poorly) I'm not writing this from the stance of "Haha! Dallas and Phoenix didn't both win four NBA titles each this summer after making big deadline moves, so everything Bill Simmons has ever written is wrong and he should be fired!" Well, he should be fired. But not for this. I'm writing it to point out something a little subtler. Taking an ultra-abrasive stance as a writer, the way Bill did in his original "No Balls" column, can blow up in your face. Even if you feel really passionately about something, you're probably better off writing about it without resorting to too much hyperbole and histrionics. Is that a rule the writers of this site, myself included, ever follow? Absolutely not. Go fuck yourself. It's still a good rule. I know, it's really tempting to act like every GM in every league is a dummy. After all, only a handful of them win championships every year, and only about half of them field teams with winning records. But the vast majority of them are smart enough to run a team. Their moves/non-moves are made for perfectly legitimate reasons. Grading the performance of a group of them at a particular time, and giving three quarters of them Fs, F-minuses, F-minus-minuses, Z-minues, etc., is over the top and stupid. Stop it. You're somehow making yourself look worse. Just go back to writing your dumb mailbag and flaunting the fact that you know a lot about Vegas. Vegas? Really? Wow, cool. Where else could I possibly find information about that place? Do you think they have a tourism board or anything? You know, I'm too lazy to do any actual research about one of the country's top 5 vacation destinations. I guess I'll just take what this prick says as gospel.

Speaking of that mailbag, I checked it out. Not a ton of material I felt like covering. Basically he's become a Boston blogger who has his work published on ESPN. The kind of analysis he gives about the Celtics/Patriots/Red Sox is more or less similar to the type of stuff I read about my favorite teams on their respective SBNation blogs. You want to ask him about anyone else? If it's one of a handful of NBA teams (Suns, Pistons, Lakers, Cavaliers), he might be able to offer something coherent. If it's any other NBA team, he's clueless. If it's an NFL team, he doesn't know it, but he's clueless. If it's the Yankees, he'll just talk more about the Red Sox or make a joke about how A-Rod is actually Choke-Rod. If it's another AL team, he'll mention a player from that team on his fantasy team. If it's an NL team, he'll act like the fact he doesn't follow the NL makes him cool or something. In essence, he's running CeltsCornerSawksTawkPatsPrattle.blogspot.com off of the world's most popular sports site. Sure, I'm bothered by it, but at the same time, it's like... it's so boring that I can't really get that worked up. Oh my God- does this mean I'm losing my edge? Hopefully not. This basement is still as comfy as ever.

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

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

Superstar trades put emphasis back on the games

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am slightly frustrated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although that last one damn well should be included.

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

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

So what happened? Sports happened.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you're a Laker or Celtic fan.

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

You sound like you're drunk already.

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

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

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

Here's a Challenge: Imagine Something That's Pretty Easy To Imagine

In a comment I recently made on my anti-Keith Olberman post from Sunday, I hyped up a big article I'm working on right now. I planned on putting it up tonight, but was unfortunately derailed by this article you're about to read. So the big project is on hold on until tomorrow. I think you'll understand why things unfolded this way once you're done with the garbage below. Take it away, Mike Nahrstedt of The Sporting News. Hit me with a puff piece.

2007 Sportsman of the Year: Tom Brady

More like 2007 Fathering Kids Out of Wedlock While Dating A New Womanman of the Year! Am I right? Am I right?

Here's a challenge: Imagine the NFL without Tom Brady.

I'm not feeling very challenged. Given that all 32 teams in the league carry an active roster of 53 players, it doesn't sound too difficult to omit one dude. Regardless of his credentials.

Seriously. Put aside, for a moment, any anti-Goliath sentiments you might bear. And think.

I don't hate the Patriots because of their "Goliathism." I hate them because a disproportionate number of their fans are assholes. But fine, I will try to put that aside. And think.

Think about the Patriots with somebody else under center. No, you can't plug in Peyton Manning or Brett Favre or Tony Romo. For purposes of this exercise, let's go with Matt Cassel. Just like Bill Belichick would.

Ok. I just did. Well, I mean, Belichick wouldn't plug in Cassel. He would go get someone a little more legitimate. But that's splitting hairs. Let me imagine the Patriots of the 2000s and today with an average NFL starting quarterback at the helm. Hmmmmm.

After several seconds of contemplation, I can confirm that they would still be very good. Hell, they'd still have been to a couple Super Bowls in the last decade. I wouldn't bet against them winning it all in 2001 (based on the fact that Brady was merely a bit above average during the regular season and did nothing in the playoffs other than the "tuck rule" game) probably win it all in 2003 (Brady was great, but his defense was even better) but probably wouldn't get a ring in 2004 (Brady carried that team all through those playoffs). However, maybe they'd also have a more of a chance to win the Super Bowl in 2005 than the real Patriots did, because Brady's imaginary replacement hopefully wouldn't throw a terrible interception in Denver's end zone which Champ Bailey returned for a touchdown during the divisional round. As for this year, they'd still be one of the top 5 teams in the NFL. They'd still already have locked up a playoff berth and maybe a first round bye on the strength of having loads of talented players pretty much everywhere except QB. So basically, these imaginary Bradyless Patriots are doing just fine. They're not as good, because Brady is definitely a great QB, but they're still a perennial contender with at least one title in the decade. No doubt in my Patriot-hating mind about it.

I'm sorry, Mike, did I interrupt your journalistic knob scholbbing? Please continue.

Back to the Patriots, a 14-0 team in the real world. Think that happens with Cassel?

Probably not. They'd probably be more like 12-2, 11-3, or at worst 10-4 (Colts, Cowboys, Chargers, Browns?).

OK, to be fair, Cassel hasn't seen much of the field in his three seasons. Put him behind New England's line and surround him with the likes of Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Donte' Stallworth and Benjamin Watson and he'd have some nice numbers, too.

That's correct. Pretty much any NFL level QB would.

But, remember, we're imagining an NFL without Tom Brady, which means we're left with "nice numbers," not out-of-this-freakin'-world numbers. And so there's no way we'd be looking at a quarterback with 45 touchdown passes -- the third-best season total ever -- with two games to go. We wouldn't be anticipating the imminent fall of Manning's league record of 49, a total that was hard enough to comprehend only three years ago.

It's true, Brady's had a great season. But I wouldn't call the prospect of his getting 5 TDs in the next 2 games "imminent." His pace has slowed considerably since the midway point of the season. And he's left with two meaningless games, both of which will probably be played in bad weather: home against Miami and in the windy Meadowlands against a Giants team that could be fighting for a playoff berth. Will I be surprised if he gets it? Given how much Belichick probably hates Manning, no. Is it "imminent"? No.

New England's opponents wouldn't mind an NFL without Brady, that's for sure.

That right there is pure, unadulterated puff. It might be the puffiest part of the whole article. That's a sentence you'd expect to come out of the mouth of a 70 year old barber who owns a Patriots-themed barbershop.

Remove him from the equation and you're probably not gasping at the whuppins inflicted on the likes of Miami, Buffalo and Washington. The utter domination was a sight to behold -- or, depending on your point of view, a massacre from which to avert one's eyes. But you couldn't help but admire Brady -- his poise in the pocket, field vision, perfect form, quick release, rocket arm, pinpoint accuracy.

His offensive line is so astonishingly good, it's a rare occasion that he even gets touched by a pass rusher. That's really more astonishing to me than his ability to hit Wes Welker on a five yard curl twice a quarter.

And, above all, his complete command of the offense. Quite simply, Brady was toying with opponents.

So much puff!

Says CBS analyst Solomon Wilcots, "He wins ... games. It's as plain and simple as that. He wins football games."

Thanks for clarifying what kind of games he wins, Solomon. I thought at first that you meant he wins board games. Or backyard wiffleball games. Or maybe even complex captive/hostage mind games. But then you came through with the specifics, and showed me the light. He just goes out there and wins football games. Finally the key to Tom Brady's success is explained. If only Cleo Lemon could go out there and win football games, maybe the Dolphins wouldn't suck so much.

OK, maybe the Patriots aren't your favorite team.

True. In fact, besides all three of my favorite team's divisional rivals, the Patriots are probably my least favorite.

Maybe you don't like all those rings.

Did you say dickheaded bandwagon fans? No? You said rings? Sorry, I thought you said dickheaded bandwagon fans.

Maybe those lopsided scores grate on your nerves.

A little bit. Not nearly as much as the aforementioned fans.

Maybe Spygate soured you. Whatever.

"Spygate" was overhyped as shit. I was tired of hearing about it by early October. I'm really more concerned about, you guessed it, the fans.

Don't hold that against Brady. All he does is execute the offense he's told to execute.

What... how does that... what are you talking about? Even if someone went into this article hating Brady, how are they supposed to interpret that as a reason to change their mind about him? Of course he's executing the offense he's told to execute. How many NFL quarterbacks get a play call from the sidelines, then go to the huddle and tell their teammates "Fuck what coach said. We're running the fumblerooski every down this drive. On one on one BREAK." I'm so confused... how how is this supposed to vindicate Brady in the minds of haters?

The sheer puffiness of these next two sections is enough to make even the biggest Tim Tebow fan nod with respect.

"He is a nicer and better human being than people see or imagine," says Patriots owner Robert Kraft. "He's a great leader, and everybody respects him. I would say every woman in New England between the ages of 2 and 80 is nice to me so they can meet him."

Every woman except Bridget Moynihan! OHHHHH! ZING!

"He doesn't like being in the limelight," says Browns linebacker Willie McGinest, who played with Brady on all three Patriots Super Bowl championship teams. "He's a great guy. He's humble. He works hard. He's quick to say his success comes from 'these guys.' Even though a lot of it has to do with him, he's not selfish. At all."

Assuming Brady really does say things like that, hey, more power to him. At least he realizes that (this year, at least) he's got one of the best receiving corps in the league and an offensive line that regularly gives him enough time to go through his reads twice.

Think of an NFL without Tom Brady.

I already did. It didn't change much. It wasn't like imagining the NHL in the late 80s/early 90s without Gretzky. It sure as shit wasn't like imagining the NBA in the 90s without Jordan. Here are some other players I'm comfortable of imagining an NFL without: Ladanian Tomlinson, Peyton Manning, Terrell Owens, Randy Moss, Brian Urlacher, Champ Bailey, and Adrian Peterson. I hope that makes my point clear.

Actually, let me sidetrack for a second. There actually is one Patriot I can't imagine the NFL without. You know who I'm talking about. A mountain of a man named Tedy Bruschi. 260 pounds of pure American hero. He solves cold murder cases for third world countries during the offseason. He's actually the guy who found Saddam Hussein's hiding spot. He's going to help baseball get rid of its steroid problem by sitting all the players down for a motivational speech. Did you know he had a stroke, but returned to the NFL less than a year later? True story. I read about it in an underground NFL fanzine. I guess the mainstream media somehow missed out on that compelling story. Regardless- Tedy Bruschi. He shits pure gold, and donates it anonymously to the United Way.

Sorry about the side rant. Back to Brady and his perfectly chiseled chin donut.

Think of the water cooler discussions you wouldn't be having because Brady wouldn't be doing something every week that absolutely blew you away.

BARF. The puffiness of this puff piece has finally overcome my ability to keep food in my stomach. Think of the discussions I wouldn't be having without Brady? Are you fucking serious? Now, let me clarify- you can legitimately say this about the Patriots as a team in 2007. Their pursuit of perfection and running up the score storylines are interesting enough to be talked about by even a Patriots hater like me. But Brady himself? For sitting untouched in the pocket all afternoon and alternating 3 yard outs to Welker with heave-hos to Moss? You can't be serious. Fuck that. Let me name ten QBs who are more "water cooler talkworthy" than Brady this year. (Not all of them are playing well, or even playing every week, but that doesn't mean they aren't being discussed for one reason or another.) Romo, Grossman, McNabb, Kitna, Brees, Anderson, Roethlisberger, Young, Rivers, and Favre. Boom. That's not counting the always discussable Mr. Vick. Or, you know, people who play other positions. Bad news, Nahrstedt: while Tom Brady is very good, and having a great season, and a super swell guy to boot... he's not that eye poppingly impressive. He's basically a very good QB behind a dominant offensive line who consistently makes good reads and hits wide open receivers. Yawn. When's lunch?

Think of Randy Moss in continued decline, his amazing skills going to waste yet again.

This might be the funniest line in the whole piece. As if it's somehow not Moss's own fault that he sucked in Oakland. It's abundantly clear to anyone that watched a Raiders game during 2005 or 2006 that Moss didn't give much of a shit. And considering that he's not an overly beloved character, I don't think the idea of him spending another year with his skills "going to waste" is going to bring a tear to many eyes. But thank goodness Belichick and Brady came along and rescued him from obscurity!

Think of the '72 Dolphins, long ago having uncorked the champagne.

I'll admit, the thought of the '72 Dolphins having to shut up and go away should the Patriots go undefeated is the one thing keeping me from going to Foxboro and trying to kidnap Belichick. Those stuck up, self-important, insufferable fucks. You've got to be kidding me. It's been 35 years. You played a joke of a schedule. GET OVER YOURSELVES. Should the Patriots finish undefeated... I'll be disappointed. But I bet those crusty old ex-Dolphins will be crying. And that realization makes me happy enough to merely be disappointed.

Think of the final two weeks of the regular season and the impending playoffs with no talk of perfection, no speculation about this Patriots team being perhaps the greatest the NFL has ever seen.

Whatever would I do during weeks 16 and 17 without this drama? Follow the exciting chases for wild card berths in both conferences? Yeah, that probably is what I would do. And in fact, will be doing anyways. I will check in on the Patriots score whenever CBS/FOX updates me or on the internet later in the evening. If they lose, awesome. If they win, I'll just hope they lose next week. And I imagine pretty much anyone who isn't a Patriots or Dolphins fan will take the exact same approach.

Think of how ordinary the 2007 season would seem by comparison.

Gag me. I won't even dignify this with a list of things about this season unrelated to the Patriots (OH NO! WHERE WOULD WE GET EXCITEMENT WITHOUT SPYGATE, OR THE TOTALLY RELEVANT BELICHICK/MANGINI "FEUD," OR THE PURSUIT OF PERFECTION!) that make it very unordinary. Actually, I will dignify it briefly- I'll just throw out a couple names to prove I'm not bluffing. Peterson. Chad Johnson, even in defeat. Favre. Sorry, I don't mean to sound like Peter King with all this Fav-ruh hoopla. I know Mr. "I Feel Comfortable in Wrangler" doesn't need more praise or recognition. But in the context of this particular article, he's ten times more compelling and interesting than Brady this year. Easily.

We'd rather not.

I hope you're using the royal we, as in you singularly. Because I personally don't have a problem with that proposition at all.

for crying out loud

how many goddamn baseball cliches can cbssportsline's scott miller cram into one stinking article? a few weeks ago i wrote this, in which i pointed out how joe morgan loves gushing all over the los angeles angels of anaheim for "not waiting around for the three run homer", "moving runners", and "playing angels baseball." well now that i've seen what scott has to say about the halos, unfortunately i must report that joe isn't alone in loving their gritty gutty approach to the game. let's count scott's angel-loving cliches together. it'll be fun.

the front page teaser, before we even get to the article itself, reads:

1) They don't wait around for three-run home runs. They don't wait around for anything.

this is why the giants are playing so poorly this year- they're waiting around for "anything," unlike the angels who are not. hey giants, if you want to win, get out there and start not waiting, you lazy sons of bitches. (now on to parts and pieces of the actual body of article.)

2) This is an emerging dynasty,

they've won three division titles in the last four years. yup, sign them up for dynastic status. they will certainly be remembered as one of the all time greatest AL west teams from the mid 00s.

3) "We have to get used to beating them because they're going to be here year in and year out," John McLaren, the interim Seattle manager and longtime coach to former Mariners skipper Lou Piniella, said.

as opposed to the a's, who will only be participating in mlb competition every other year from 2008-2017. or the rangers, who will be using a two years on/two years off system during that time period.

4) Most importantly -- and this is no small part of why the Angels could wind up with the game's best record -- they all believe in manager Mike Scioscia's way of doing things.

scioscia's way of doing things. you know- trying to score more runs than your opponent while playing the game of "baseball." good thing the angels believe in this or they'd really be up shit creek.

5) "I remember walking one day with Lou in Peoria (the Mariners' spring training site), and they had two huge buses parked there," McLaren said, noting the oddity because most clubs travel to spring games in one bus. "They were pinch-hitting, running the bases ... they beat us something like 14-1."

i count this as a cliche because of the "pinch hitting, running the bases" part. as if nobody but the angels do this. in fact, it's really alarming teams like the yankees and diamondbacks have had such success this year, considering they don't instruct their players to run the bases. and amazing, the rockies are still in the NL wild card picture despite not using a single pinch hitter yet! at least they've gotten some hilarious at bats out of their relief pitchers.

6) "Afterward, I asked Lou, what was that about? He said, 'They wanted to beat us. They wanted to beat us bad.'"

a continuation of the previous cliche, and one of my favorite sports cliches out there- the oft-used and never relevant "they wanted to win." you think the royals want to win this year? do the red sox just want to win more than anyone else right now? is that why they've got the best record in the league?

7) "We had a lot of young guys in the organization, and the only way to evaluate them was to play 'em," he said.

well, you could always have an arm wrestling tournament with all of them. or maybe a spelling bee.

8) They bid farewell to Bengie Molina two years ago because of the young catching on the way. And anybody who watched Molina with the Giants this summer knows he can still play.

molina did have a good season; i'm not making fun of this statement as if he didn't. i'm just highlighting an underappreciated cliche. of course he can freaking play. he's 32 years old and in good health. he didn't suddenly lose all his ability overnight.

9) "A lot of teams have injuries. It's what you do with them that counts."

thanks garrett anderson. personally, were i the general manager of a baseball team with injuries, i would try to replace the injured players with the best available healthy guys. genius. that's why they pay me the big bucks. got any other story cliches/cliched stories?

10) "I've been on teams that were good but had no depth whatsoever. And that ship didn't sail right."

great. much appreciated. but if your team has no depth, is it really any good?

11) This one does for a couple of reasons: talent, and an aggressive, in-your-face style that is baseball's equivalent of a full-court press.

i'd love to see basketball's version of a sacrifice bunt.

12) "They're a National League club," McLaren said. "They can beat you in a million different ways."

literally, they can beat you exactly one way- by scoring more runs than you. figuratively, i really have a hard time believing you could list 1,000,000 different ways to beat someone at baseball. here, i'll try:

1) wait around for them to wait around for three run homers (note: does not work against angels)
2) steal as many bases as possible
3) go from first to third on all singles
4) utilize hustle, grit, and gristle
5) be david eckstein; if you are not david eckstein, play with as much heart and determination as possible

whew, i'm exhausted. what else is there?

6) want to win more than your opponent

i think that's it. shoot, i came up 999,994 short. getting back to the original point of this post, we need one more cliche for a lucky set of 13. chone figgins, do you want to do the honors? how would you describe your team's approach to the game this year?

13) "It's playing the game. It's playing baseball." (emphasis is scott's/chone's, not mine)

thanks buddy. couldn't have said it better myself. this is not bowling. it's not cribbage. it's motherloving baseball.