So Kobe Bryant is requesting a trade and Alex Rodriguez has been all but caught being unfaithful. This is like bizarro-2004 sports news. All this does is further prove that Kobe and ARod are kindred, uber-talented, douchebag spirits.
Ian, what make you of Kobe's trade demand? I really don't think he wants to leave the Lakers and this is something he won't realize until February of next year when he's playing for a 12-win Charlotte team. And isn't it about damn time we stop allowing superstars to exert such control over franchises? Why can't they be more like the polite Mr. Kevin Garnett who toils silently for a team that is both unable and unwilling to add the right players to win him a championship?
I think Kobe is right in his demands. I mean, at this point, shouldn't they have acquired a 7 foot, 300 pound hall of fame center to help win Kobe some championships? Oh, wait, Kobe ran the best teammate of his career out of LA.
And now he's angry at Lakers brass for not getting him help? When he chased away the best center of this generation? Please.
Now, Kobe Bryant is a magnificent player. For several years I've been saying he's the best player in the league and I still believe this. But the audacity he has to sign a humongous contract (read: tie up a large sum of money), obviously demand Shaquille O'Neal to be traded so Kobe could be The Man, and then complain to the front office that they don't get help for him (What is Lamar Odom, chopped liver?) is fundamentally absurd.
My prediction: Kobe isn't going ANYwhere. LA is the spot for the Kobe Bryant's of the world, not to mention the Lakers needs the Kobe Bryant's of the world. Jack Nicholson pays way too much money to watch 75 cents on the dollar. If, however, we want to entertain his demand, where would he go?
Well, the Western Conference is out. A vengeful Kobe Bryant is not someone I'd want to play 4 times in a regular season than in a possible playoff series.
Further eliminations:
Miami (Shaq)
Cleveland (Needs to be the unequivocal man)
Detroit (Not disrupting that squad)
Charlotte (Not nearly enough to give to LA. Okafor and capspace is not nearly enough to fill that void.)
Indiana (NOTHING to offer after Jermaine O'Neal, not even a pick.)
Orlando (NOTHING to offer besides Dwight Howard, not even a pick, and there's no way they move Howard anyway.)
Toronto (Great fit for Kobe if Toronto can keep Bosh, but Ford and Bargnani not enough to get Bryant to Canada.)
I think everyone else has a chance to sign him. Possible deals, alphabetical order:
Atlanta - Joe Johnson, Marvin Williams, #3 pick (LA backs out, needs future 1st rounder)
Boston - Paul Pierce, Gerald Green, #5 pick (Boston backs out, offers Delonte West or Kendrick Perkins instead of Green. La Backs out.)
Chicago - Ben Gordon, Loul Deng, #9 pick (LA backs out, asks for Hinrich in addition)
Milwaukee - Redd, Bogut, Villanueva, #6 pick (this could happen)
New Jersey - Vince Carter, Josh Boone, #17 pick (Vince sells the tickets, at least. Could happen)
New York - Marbury, David Lee, Spike Lee (LA backs out, Marbury is a cancer)
Philly - Iguodala, Dalembert, #12 pick (LA backs out, because they'd be trading Kobe Bryant for guys name Iguodala and Dalembert.)
Washington - Arenas, the #16, next year's first rounder (Might do it.)
That leaves us with Milwaukee, New Jersey, and Washington. Milwaukee and New Jersey are wastelands that Kobe wants not part of. Washington is tempting for him. He has help in Jamison and Butler, there's a lot of marketing possibilities in the capital, not to mention his extramarital affairs fit right in with Congress.
However, Kobe's not going anywhere. And yes, I just realize I wasted 15 minutes of my life going over the possibilities of the impossible. Whatever.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
O Kobe! My Kobe! Our Fearful Trip is Done!
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Red Sox and Mets: On a Collision Course?
Admittedly, the Yankees aren't officially done just yet, but all signs point to them finally falling off their pedestal as Champions of the American League East. Their vanquishers, the Boston Red Sox, look to be the team to beat in the American League. Over on the Senior Circuit, it's the other New York team that is dominating their under-resourced competition. It seems inevitable to me, even as early as May 29th, that these two teams are on a collision course to meet in the World Series.
This has many implications, though I weigh two more than any other. First, Pedro against the Red Sox in the World Series, which frankly would have meant a lot more if the Sox hadn't won in 2004 with Pedro. Second, and much more appealing, Yankees fans, if baseball fans at all, will have to choose one of these two teams to root for. Of course they'd take the Mets, but that doesn't mean they'll like it.
Saj, any thoughts on a possible Red Sox-Mets World Series? Pedro? Which teams in either league are most likely to stop this scenario from playing out?
It's funny, I was talking to Roommate Rob (a Mets fan and Jets apologist) this weekend, and we agreed that 1) it's pretty clear than the Red Sox and Mets are the class of their respective leagues and 2) if a Red Sox - Mets World Series were to occur one of us would have to move out for a week and a half. Not that we're combative fans, just that baseball-related anxiety tends to be exacerbated by someone on the other side of the series from you.
As for which teams are most likely to stop this scenario, I can come up with a few. First and foremost, I just can't yet count out the Yankees. Yes, they're tied for last in the AL East. Yes, a 13.5 game hole to this Red Sox team may be insurmountable. But they're Expected Win-Loss record (based on runs scored vs. runs allowed) is a full five games better. So they're playing worse than their record AND they're picking up a pretty decent arm AND they're the f****** Yankees. So don't count them out, even if the loser of the Detroit/Cleveland AL Central sweepstakes looks like the best bet to take the wild card.
Other teams:
With the Mets probably finishing the season with the best record in the NL and the NL wild card team probably coming out of the West, they might have to face San Diego, LA or Arizona is a short series. Jake Peavy or Brandon Webb in a five game series? Yikes. Of course it's silly to speculate this far into the future. Like John-Kruk-on-Baseball-Tonight-silly.
As for AL teams: I'd worry about the Angels or the Indians if they somehow merged Cleveland's hitting with Los Angeles' bullpen and maybe also spliced Travis Hafner and Vladimir Guerrero into some sort of super baseball player like how the Constructicons created Devastator. The Tigers? They don't scare me. Not nearly as much as Magglio Ordonez's Jheri-curl. And I do realize that picture is not an accurate representation of Ordonez's tresses.
Switching gears: I was watching the Spurs-Jazz series last night and I found myself pulling for the Jazz even though I was convinced that they were evil incarnate a few weeks ago when they beat the Warriors. A few questions for you, Ian: Why do I hate the Spurs enough to cheer for a team from Utah? How is Deron Williams making Bruce Bowen look like a fool? When will Eva Longoria dump Tony Parker for me? What other questions do you want to answer?
I'm so sick of people hating on the Spurs. I guess that means I'm sick of you.
The Spurs are winners. As the NBA representative from the three major sports, they're part of the triumvirate of Winners of the last decade. They're not as likeable as the Patriots but they're not nearly as hateable as the Yankees. It's astonishing how much the average fan ends up hating winners, especially if their style of play is lacking in the aesthetics department. This was a constant criticism of New England's play during the first Superbowl run and leading up to the second: They won by 3 points, they had a system quarterback, they were lucky, they played physical and weren't pretty (except for their quarterback who's astoundingly pretty).
The Spurs don't win pretty, either. Bowen is dirtier than Paris Hilton, Ginobili flops more than a beached trout, and after a ref calls a foul on him, Tim Duncan looks like Reche Caldwell. Moreover, the Spurs, as a whole, are not your fun run and gun Phoenix Suns. They should not ever apologize for this. All of that is irrelevant to me. They play the slow it down brand of basketball that has won every NBA Championship since Riley's Lakers. Phoenix, Dallas, and Sacramento did not win in the last ten years because they play exactly the type of basketball you like to watch. But guess what. A team isn't winning until they learn to slow it down and play some f'n defense.
So quit hatin' on greatness. Four titles in a decade.
Ian, you ignorant slut.
This has many implications, though I weigh two more than any other. First, Pedro against the Red Sox in the World Series, which frankly would have meant a lot more if the Sox hadn't won in 2004 with Pedro. Second, and much more appealing, Yankees fans, if baseball fans at all, will have to choose one of these two teams to root for. Of course they'd take the Mets, but that doesn't mean they'll like it.
Saj, any thoughts on a possible Red Sox-Mets World Series? Pedro? Which teams in either league are most likely to stop this scenario from playing out?
It's funny, I was talking to Roommate Rob (a Mets fan and Jets apologist) this weekend, and we agreed that 1) it's pretty clear than the Red Sox and Mets are the class of their respective leagues and 2) if a Red Sox - Mets World Series were to occur one of us would have to move out for a week and a half. Not that we're combative fans, just that baseball-related anxiety tends to be exacerbated by someone on the other side of the series from you.
As for which teams are most likely to stop this scenario, I can come up with a few. First and foremost, I just can't yet count out the Yankees. Yes, they're tied for last in the AL East. Yes, a 13.5 game hole to this Red Sox team may be insurmountable. But they're Expected Win-Loss record (based on runs scored vs. runs allowed) is a full five games better. So they're playing worse than their record AND they're picking up a pretty decent arm AND they're the f****** Yankees. So don't count them out, even if the loser of the Detroit/Cleveland AL Central sweepstakes looks like the best bet to take the wild card.
Other teams:
With the Mets probably finishing the season with the best record in the NL and the NL wild card team probably coming out of the West, they might have to face San Diego, LA or Arizona is a short series. Jake Peavy or Brandon Webb in a five game series? Yikes. Of course it's silly to speculate this far into the future. Like John-Kruk-on-Baseball-Tonight-silly.
As for AL teams: I'd worry about the Angels or the Indians if they somehow merged Cleveland's hitting with Los Angeles' bullpen and maybe also spliced Travis Hafner and Vladimir Guerrero into some sort of super baseball player like how the Constructicons created Devastator. The Tigers? They don't scare me. Not nearly as much as Magglio Ordonez's Jheri-curl. And I do realize that picture is not an accurate representation of Ordonez's tresses.
Switching gears: I was watching the Spurs-Jazz series last night and I found myself pulling for the Jazz even though I was convinced that they were evil incarnate a few weeks ago when they beat the Warriors. A few questions for you, Ian: Why do I hate the Spurs enough to cheer for a team from Utah? How is Deron Williams making Bruce Bowen look like a fool? When will Eva Longoria dump Tony Parker for me? What other questions do you want to answer?
I'm so sick of people hating on the Spurs. I guess that means I'm sick of you.
The Spurs are winners. As the NBA representative from the three major sports, they're part of the triumvirate of Winners of the last decade. They're not as likeable as the Patriots but they're not nearly as hateable as the Yankees. It's astonishing how much the average fan ends up hating winners, especially if their style of play is lacking in the aesthetics department. This was a constant criticism of New England's play during the first Superbowl run and leading up to the second: They won by 3 points, they had a system quarterback, they were lucky, they played physical and weren't pretty (except for their quarterback who's astoundingly pretty).
The Spurs don't win pretty, either. Bowen is dirtier than Paris Hilton, Ginobili flops more than a beached trout, and after a ref calls a foul on him, Tim Duncan looks like Reche Caldwell. Moreover, the Spurs, as a whole, are not your fun run and gun Phoenix Suns. They should not ever apologize for this. All of that is irrelevant to me. They play the slow it down brand of basketball that has won every NBA Championship since Riley's Lakers. Phoenix, Dallas, and Sacramento did not win in the last ten years because they play exactly the type of basketball you like to watch. But guess what. A team isn't winning until they learn to slow it down and play some f'n defense.
So quit hatin' on greatness. Four titles in a decade.
Ian, you ignorant slut.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
