The point of this again is.....?So everyone knows about the riots in Vancouver following Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals. This is automatic expulsion from my fandom. Any time you try to emulate Detroit or LA you automatically lose. I understand rioting in those cities, it sucks to live there. But Vancouver? Come on. You live in a beautiful and very prosperous looking city, in a country that offers you free health care, and you have to riot? Detroit has no money and a bunch of crime. LA has racist cops and it takes you 45 minutes to go 5 miles on I-5. The disturbing part is that every rioter is like 16-24. Is this the future for Vancouver? I hope not, it's a city I hope to visit someday soon and actually be able to enjoy. So #11 - No rioting. Anything that brings you closer to L.A. is bad.
Moving on to a main topic - how about that Rory McIlroy? Wait, you don't know who he is? Don't worry you aren't alone. Well, you might be now after that dominating performance at Congressional during the U.S. Open this past weekend. Setting scoring records left and right, or at least when he wasn't setting records he was doing things that haven't been done in decades, including being the youngest winner of the U.S. Open in 88 years. What was so remarkable was not just his age, but how he won. The U.S. Open prides itself on being a par tournament, where scores of 2 or 3 under are very good.
Since Tiger threw down the gauntlet in 2000 at the U.S. Open at Pebble Beach with a winning score of -12, there have been two tournaments won at even par, two won at +5, two won at -1, and three won at -4, which is just -1 for each round. It's a tough tournament and the USGA prides itself on that fact. The last time Congressional held the U.S. Open, Ernie Els won it at -4. Rory was -16! Of course the hyperbole is flowing following that win as everyone compares Rory to Tiger, the same way everyone, including Pippen of all people, starting making LeBron/Jordan comparisons after the Eastern Conference Finals. This, again, it ridiculous.
They may have equal talent levels, but they are not the same person. Rory doesn't have the same fire Tiger has. Tiger was intimidating. Rory is all smiles, all fun kind of guy. They are both amazing golfers but Tiger is just different. Same thing with Jordan. LeBron may actually have more athletic talent than Jordan, but he's not Jordan. Jordan was just a different breed of competitor.
I'm excited to see what Rory can do going forward. This U.S. Open win was not a shocker to the world. True, prior to this, Rory had only won one PGA event and one Euro Tour event. But the kid is 22. In his last four majors, he finished tied for 3rd at the 2010 British Open, tied for 3rd at the 2010 PGA Championship, T15 at Masters (after leading by 4 going into the final round), and now a win at the U.S. Open. The kid steps up durng huge tournaments. The Masters was an important step in his progression. Golf is so mental that everyone worried he couldn't recover from such an epic meltdown on such a big stage. But McIlroy came back the very next week in Malaysia putting together a third place finish and then of course coming back here to dominate America's Open. That being said, he has 1 major, Tiger has 14, let's take a chill pill here and just enjoy Rory for what he is, an up and coming, all smiles, young kid that has the potential to change the scene of golf.
You earned it, kid.But it is not just Rory making waves in the PGA now, a whole set of Under 30s are emerging on the PGA Tour scene. Jason Day of Australia, age 23 has two consecutive major runner-ups at the Masters and the U.S. Open, he's 9th in the World Rankings. Dustin Johnson of the U.S., age 26 and the notorious long hitter on the course, he's 11th. Charl Schwartzel of South Africa, age 26, winner of the Masters this year and 10th in the world. There's also Anthony Kim and Jhonattan Vegas, both 26, and both having shown flashes of brilliance before fighting injuries this year. Then there is Matteo Manassero from Italy who on his 18th birthday this year beat McIlroy in that same Malaysia tournament. He finished 9th in the Match Play championship earlier this year and of course while it's not as impressive as Rory he did make the cut at the U.S. Open.
As you can see there is a LOT of good young talent on the PGA right now. Much more than I think Tiger saw when he was 26. And this may be the problem going forward for Tiger. Any given week, these young bucks seem to throw down some awesome scores that rank up there with some of the best Tiger has ever played. I still think Tiger gets to 19 majors, but the PGA has to love what it is seeing out of these young players. It used to be Tiger or bust and now at least Rory has given them something to talk about and maybe will race a whole new generation of golf fans and maybe this gives Tiger the spark he needed to get back to being Tiger.
Moving on to the second feature of today's double feature: Lockout v. Lockout! Sounds like a case I would read in Wills and Trusts where one family member would sue another but really this is a discussion on the NFL lockout and the inevitable NBA lockout. Long story short, I thought that the only things that needed to be improved from the NFL in this new CBA is an NBA style rookie wage scale and good health care going forward on a sliding scale based on NFL service for retired players. Otherwise, the system was obviously working. It's the most popular sport, and basically prints its own money.
Instead you have what amounts to two assholes fighting over who gets which luxury car. It's stupid. What they are fighting over is exactly why this lockout won't last much longer. You don't just walk away from that much money as a business. I just hope at the end of the day they get those two issues right. As good as Sam Bradford might be, he's not quite worth 50 million NFL dollars yet. For the players, the sport is an occupational hazard and the NFL should set aside health benefits for those players who put in enough service to warrant health care. I think the NFL gets this right and they get it right in the next few weeks.
You have something much worse growing in the NBA. The NBA did open its books. The NBA is losing 300 million dollars and without a new CBA that reigns in that figure the NBA actually saves money by not playing next year. The NBA did just enjoy a renaissance this year and especially this postseason. The Heat alone give the NBA excellent ratings, but teams like Chicago and OKC have flamed the passions of the casual NBA fan. Hell, the Memphis/OKC series was a ratings blockbuster for a 2nd Round matchup involving the 4th and 8th seeds. The NBA has a product that is becoming more popular so why should they risk losing this newly generated goodwill by locking out the players. This is why:
25. Elton Brand: three years, $51.2M
24. Channing Frye: five years, $30M
23. Luke Walton: three years, $17M
22. Chris Duhon: four years, $14M
21. Antawn Jamison: two years, $28.4M
20. Amir Johnson: five years, $34M
19. Al Harrington: five years, $33.1M
18. Richard Jefferson: four years, $39M
17. Jose Calderon: three years, $28.3M
16. Charlie Villanueva: four years, $31.2M
15. Hedo Turkoglu: four years, $45M
14. Baron Davis: three years, $41.85M
13. Mike Conley: six years, $49.5M
12. Corey Maggette: three years, $30.7M
11. Richard Hamilton: two years, $25M
10. Emeka Okafor: four years, $52.2M
9. Andray Blatche: five years, $35.7M
8. DeSagana Diop: three years, $20.8M
7. Brendan Haywood: five years, $42.7M
6. Ron Artest: four years, $28.1M
5. Travis Outlaw: five years, $35M
4. Josh Childress: five years, $33.5M
3. Brandon Roy: four years, $62.6M
2. Rashard Lewis: four years, $80.4M
1. Gilbert Arenas: four years, $80.2m
Those are the 25 worst contracts with at least 3 years or at least 25 mil remaining on them in the NBA (according to Simmons). Yes, those are the years remaining after this season that just played out. Look at that list. Can you believe the Lakers have to pay four more years on Artest? Or that the Mavericks have to pay 5 more years on Haywood? Those are teams that are generally run well. What is that 3 yr/20 mil doing to Charlotte for DeSagana Diop? Or that Orlando, who should be positioned well to contend is paying Rashard Lewis and Gilbert Arenas 40 million a year?
For whatever reason, mediocre GMs feel like they have to grossly overpay for awful talent in the NBA. Beyond just the money is the length of these contracts. What are players like Arenas, Lewis, Artest, Baron Davis, Andray Blatche,and Amir Johnson going to give you 3-4 years from now? It's horrible. It's why teams like Sacramento can not compete (because they can't pay Diop 8 million a year) and why teams like Toronto and Detroit (who try to spend money to compete) can not compete because they spend 34 million dollars on Amir Johnson (9.6 pts/6.4 reb) and 31 million dollars on Charlie Villanueva (11 pts/3reb).
It's time for a hard cap in the NBA. Small market teams can not compete in the NBA like they can in baseball because of the roster size and player development at each level. Baseball has hundreds of new talented players every year playing some small part in helping win a game. In basketball you have 5 guys with usually 1 or 2 of them controlling your destiny. You can have a team full of good role players (see Sacramento Kings) but you can never get there with a team full of role players. Teams that can spend money can't seem to do it wisely because they can't attract enough free agents to their crappy city (Detroit, Milwaukee, anyone?).
I for one at the end of the day would gladly trade an NBA season to see them completely overhaul the league. What do you guys think out there in the cyberspace? As optimistic as I am regarding the NFL lockout? Dreading an NBA lockout? Is Tiger toast or is this just a hiccup in the road towards his 19 majors? Let your voice be heard!
Tiger is toast, his injuries seem to be a lot worse every time a bit more news is revealed. Or at least, he is going to need a year or two and some major rehabbing to get back into it.
ReplyDeleteThe NFL will get its shit together, but part of the problem is you have three sides, not two. Owners, players, and retired players. The more that goes to the retired players, the less goes to the active ones. A lot of the active players don't have much incentive to see their pie cut to give to guys who played 20 years ago.
The NBA is a toy, not a business. They want owners who don't make money from the sport, but own it as a prestige thing/hobby and already have a fortune from something else.
overpaying for players is not going to be solved by a hard cap.. look at the NFL where you got asses like haynesworth taking 100+ mil..
ReplyDeleteno idea how the hard cap deal is going to play out, but the nba (and mlb too) relies on big market teams for all the tv ratings that generate the big cash.. look at the ratings for lakers vs boston or miami vs dallas... as compared to san antonio vs detroit..
if anything, what are your thoughts on something like what the nfl does? the ability to cut players? that would at least cut out a lot of the unnecessary fat on that list, release money from some of these hurting teams, and give them more flexibility to build the right team..
I would say the other problem is the players don't seem to actually have a position. What exactly are the players asking for, other than more?
ReplyDeletetypepad is gay
ReplyDeleteb/c i had a long ass post and fb connect errored out:
ReplyDelete- hard cap does not solve problem of bad ownership/management/coaching/draft.
examples of bad drafting:
sac (minus evans/cousins, k-mart - all they had for a while and not enough, wallace - gave away in exp draft),
det (not a fan of stuckey, DARKO, prince was integral in their title run, not much since then)
examples of good drafting:
san antonio
portland
OKC
was going to put mem up there till i saw how shitty they were in that field (dabeeeeeet) but they've done well/got lucky in fa/trades - gay, z-bo, tony allen, and.. maybe mayo for love - i'm undecided there.
mil doesn't belong in your sac/det lump because they are not a lotto team. and they managed that with decent drafting (jennings, bogut, and some decent role players that fit their system)
there was more but now i'm tired
i agree contract lengths too long, and need non-guaranteed but don't think it's going to happen. it should, maybe teams need to identify potential cut one year in advance (and can only cut one/year) so a player identified has one year advanced notice to get his shit together *cough*eddy curry*cough*
btw, orl swapped arenas for lewis, so not on the hook for $80m/year. although they gave up a partially guaranteed carter for hedo...
and the suns decided to blow their budget overpaying for frye, hedo, and childress (all on the list) instead of overpaying for amare.
again. solid management reduces liklihood of bad contracts. and what you pay management doesn't fall under the salary cap, so imo people are placing way too much emphasis on bad contracts and not enough on bad owners/mgmt
Kevin - I'm hoping the current players have a little more forethought and understand the need for post-playing heath care. Besides, if you get a rookie wage scale, those outlandish rookie dollars go back to the vets.
ReplyDeleteSiao - You're right I totally forgot to add the non-guaranteed contract idea. It's a good one but the reason the NFL gets away with it is because they can point to serious injury risks. Basketball does get some injuries, but it's a harder sell, I'd be down with non-guaranteed contracts though.
To everyone who says its about bad management, well duh. But without owners and management there is no league. If they need protection from themselves they'll use a lockout to get it and that's the harsh reality. So yes, there will either be a hard cap or non-guaranteed, max term of 4 year contracts before you see another game because the owners need it to protect themselves from themselves. So we can all harp on the fact that several owners/GMs suck, but they control the money and they are tired of having free reign to suck.
The NFL survives just fine with small regional markets like Green Bay, New Orleans, Baltimore, Seattle, etc...being good teams. Its about the parity. The NBA will attract more casual fans if you aren't going into every season with exactly five teams having a legitimate shot to win the title (Top 5 - LA, Miami, Chicago, OKC, Dallas). The next five include teams like Boston, San Antonio, Orlando, New York, teams that you and I know have zero shot to win next year. The NFL went into the postseason last year with about a dozen teams with a better than zero chance to win it all and thats why the league is so compelling.
Sure even with hard caps you get craptacular teams like washington but they are much fewer and far between. Whether we like it or not, and I like it, the NBA financial structure is changing for good this year and it make take a whole missed season to get it done.
Cowherd was talking about the same topics yesterday morning, you guys have pretty similar views aside from the LA hate hehe.
ReplyDeleteReally? I tend to disagree with like 90% of the things he says. He's the one on every time i drive to work. I love Dan Patrick's show, he is much better.
ReplyDelete