Friday, February 25, 2005
Free John Chaney!
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=1999665
Now get ready to totally disagree with me on what I'm about to say...
I don't get it. I honestly do not think this is a situation that warrants any suspensions, much less a suspension for the rest of the regular season. Nothing unusual or immoral happened here, only an unfortunate accident. Since Chaney was not wrong in his actions, he should not be punished because of their coincidental consequences.
First of all, I'd like to praise John Chaney for setting a fine example of what it means to take responsibility. Even though I disagree with him, Chaney felt his actions were "reprehensible" so he held himself to the standards he set for the program and he suspended himself for the next game. I can't recall anybody ever doing that in any sport. Maybe he was hoping to stem the tide of critical backlash and lessen the need for stricter team- or conference-mandated punishments. Then again, maybe he's just a stand-up guy who felt he made a bad mistake and wanted to take the heat for it. Since he's gone so far as to offer apologies to everyone directly and indirectly involved as well as pay the injured players' medical bills, I suspect it's the latter.
Seriously, though, what about this situation is so reprehensible? How is sending in a player to intentionally foul really any different than when bigs lay down hard fouls on point guards dribble-driving in the lane? Those guys intentionally foul hard, not just to prevent a three-point play, but to (you guessed it) send a message. You cannot watch a college or pro basketball game without seeing examples of this and hearing the commentators praise them for it. That's just part of the game of basketball, an unwritten rule that says you foul a guy hard so next time he doesn't feel as comfortable driving to the rim and maybe settles for a jumpshot. Since Chaney felt he needed to stop what he saw as illegal screens by St. Joseph's, why are his instructions to "send a message" any different?
The only reason they are being perceived to be any different is the simple fact that a kid got hurt. If John Bryant didn't have a broken arm right now, no one would even be batting an eyelash much less handing out suspensions. So why does that change things to this extent? Chaney didn't tell Ingram "Hey get out there and hurt somebody. Go break an arm." All he did was tell him to "send a message," the presumed message being "Stop using illegal screens." Basketball is a full-contact sport. Like it or not, as long as guys foul each other, guys are going to get hurt. Just because the act to foul was intentional, it doesn't mean the resulting injury was intended nor should the punishment be based upon that. Did Bruce Bowen get suspended for running into Vince Carter last season and ending his season? Of course not. Would Popovich draw fire if he had told Bowen to simply foul him? I don't think so. Why not? Because it was all still very well within the confines of the game of basketball. If your opponent is playing physical and not getting penalized for it, you have two choices: you can either play it straight and hope for help from the refs or you can lace up your boots and go to war like your opponent is. I'm not gonna say one way is right and one way is wrong, but I will say that teams that answer with physicality of their own are often the teams that earn respect, praise, and victories. The teams that don't are often labeled soft and tend to find themselves with more L's than W's. If teams are playing too rough or even dirty, it's up the referees to clean it up. The way I see it, all John Chaney did was answer the call. He stepped up the way basketball players are taught to do. The injury to Bryant is a sad, painful accident. Injuries can and do happen at any time, be it with little contact, hard contact, or no contact. This is a simple case of "don't hate the player, hate the game."
I will admit, I have not seen any footage of the game or the incident in question. Maybe I shouldn't have written anything until I did see it. However, even if the video shows me a brutal, unecessarily hard foul on Bryant, I still don't see how you blame John Chaney. If you start suspending coaches everytime they say "send a message," assistant coaches are going to be seeing a lot more action from the first chair. If the foul was totally and irresponsibly excessive, punish the player. If it was just your average hard foul, punish no one. Under none of the circumstances currently reported, should Temple be punishing John Chaney.
Duck Hunt
But seriously, this espn.com story reports that Disney has sold the Anaheim Mighty Ducks (of Anaheim, presumably) to billionaire Henry Samueli and his wife Susan, whose company operates the Arrowhead Pond which the Ducks call home. Disney bought the team as an expansion franchise in 1992 and may have sold it for between $50-60 million which was the neighborhood of Samueli's first offer.
Is it just me or does now seem like an odd time to buy an NHL franchise? I understand the concept of buying low (if $50+ million is low) and selling high, but doesn't it seem like a significant risk that there may never again be a "high" for the NHL? Maybe that's overly pessimistic, but the popularity of pro hockey in the U.S. was pitiful before the players started demanding more money so it's difficult for me to imagine the fans suddenly pulling a 180 anytime soon after the NHL does return. Even assuming there is a mild boom, who's to say Disney's price would have been driven up much at all? They had been shopping this "mighty" franchise for some time yet garnered no serious interest.
To put it in terms of fantasy sports, this would be like an already sidelined Richard Jefferson losing a leg in a bass fishing accident (God forbid) and then somebody all of a sudden trading for him. It's fuzzy logic. It just seems like a bad business decision.
Then again, I practically live hand-to-mouth so what the hell do I know?
(sidebar: Yes, you just witnessed my first and, in all likelihood, last post about hockey)
Update: The LA Times reports the price tag on this purchase is $75 million. So much for buying low.
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Al Davis Gathering Moss
Randy Moss
Jeremy Shockey
Ricky Williams
Maurice Clarrett
Joe Horn (I'm iffy on this one--he's a little too pretty)
Ray Lewis
I'm just getting the ball rolling here. Please, Raider-haters, join in and submit your picks for the Future Raiders.
Bickering With BoSox
Joe started off by quoting a New York Times article about this whole Sox-ARod thing:
"In this new version of "Get the good guy," the Red Sox are blameless. One player, Trot Nixon, ignited the game with negative comments about Rodriguez last week and a torrent of teammates have followed. But the teammates' comments have not been unsolicited. They were at the urging of reporters eager to inflame the game to incendiary levels. They were all but handed a script."
Great point. However, I feel that regardless of whether an athlete's comments are "solicited" or if they are practically "handed a script," the athlete still has a choice whether to say something or not. These guys are smart enough to not be baited by reporters trying to create stories, especially since they have been a part of this rivalry for a few years now. I think this article actually furthers my point in that Rodriguez, who is relatively new to this rivalry was surely "solicited" and handed a similar "script" to that of Nixon and Co. yet he did not walk into the trap. Just because reporters were goading the Red Sox, it doesn't mean they are "blameless" by any means. They still said what they said, right? I don't hear anybody saying they were misquoted.
"...Athletes have long accused reporters of creating stories, and, sadly, this is one of those instances. It has become one of the most distasteful instances I have witnessed in 45 years of covering baseball."
Again, I agree, but this story was "created" on the foundation of an actual quote by a Red Sox player. Nixon has taken full responsibility for his words so why can't this member of Red Sox Nation do the same instead of blaming reporters?
Joe then submitted his own analysis:
Your "My two favorite teams are the Angels and whoever's playing the Red Sox" stance is getting old.
To a Red Sox fan, I'm sure it is, but that's no reason to stop fighting the good fight everytime the Red Sox give me new material.
Just admit your a Red Sox hater that way your readers and I, as a Red Sox fanatic, can understand.
I thought that's exactly what I was doing. But really, it's not so much that I hate the Red Sox as much as I hate certain aspects of the team and their fans that I hold the team responsible for. I haven't a single bad thing to say about Curt Schilling. That guy is a warrior and I'd love to have him on my side in any battle. What's not to like about guys like Johnny Damon, Bill Mueller, and Tim Wakefield? I've stated my issues very specifically as being a) the fans that I have encountered and b) the sophomoric behavior by certain guys in recent weeks.
...where you are coming from. Does a "classy" organization take the word "steroid" out of a player's contract to cover their butts? Does a "classy" organization sign players who attack a defenseless field-crew member in the bullpen?
No, of course not. If you'll recall, I said in my closing paragraph that neither organization is clearly the good guy or the bad guy, that for lack of greater interest in the rivalry, I was picking a side based solely on the two issues I just listed above. That's not sticking my head in the sand, that's just saying I don't care enough about this to sit back and ponder the historical pros and cons. If you'll also recall, I was critical of the Yankees organization in my recent post about the steroid controversy so I am in no way a Yankee apologist. Oh, and I think it's misleading to say the Yankees signed players who attacked field-crew members; they were already under contract when that happened and, I believe, both guys have since been let go. I'm sure Joe will correct me if I am wrong and I would welcome it.
You bring up how Millar said ARod was "not a real Yankee". Why didn't you also bring up the fact that ARod's teammate Mike Stanton said "When you talk about the Yankee organization, it's Derek Jeter, Posada, Mariano Rivera and Bernie Williams. The rest of us are just the supporting cast."I will gladly forward my feelings on this angle at Mike Stanton as well then. Kevin (and Mike), he's been on the team for one season. What do you expect and what is the f'in point anyway? That's like criticizing Roger Clemens for not being a true Astro like Bagwell and Biggio. No sh_t, Shirlock. The point here was that a) it was a stupid point to make and b) it's another example of poor sportsmanship by Red Sox players in the media.
...or how Jorge Posada ("It's not my problem, so don't make it my problem") and Derek Jeter ("That's between Trot and Alex, so you'd have to ask them") didn't come to the defense of ARod.
This foolish interpretation was exactly why I described this whole situation as "espn-perpetuated." I see the Yankees' unwillingness to dive into this cesspool of controversy as a sign of class and having the wisdom to choose their battles, yet ESPN takes the same quote and turns the story into an unwillingness to stick up for ARod. In this case, the press actually is to blame because they are reporting their interpretation of a quote to be fact where as with the Nixon quote they simply allowed "I'm not a deadbeat dad, you clown" to speak for itself.
Probably because it'd ruin your angle that all that is Red Sox is evil.
Cry me a river, guys, seriously. All that is Red Sox is not evil, not even to me. Curt Schilling is a man among men. Historically, they are one of the best franchises in baseball, better than my Mets, better than my Angels. But, unlike you guys, I don't love the team so I have no problem calling them out when I feel they are acting inappropriately. Wasn't it you, Joe, that was calling me a homer recently? Take a look in the mirror sometime.
Instead of reporting on quotes taken out of context, you should read around instead of jumping over soundbites or stop and think if this is really newsworthy to report on.
I'd love to hear an explanation as to how "Because I'm not a deadbeat dad, you clown" was taken out of context. If Joe can make me see how he meant that as a compliment to ARod, I'll be happy to apologize for my criticism. Is this really newsworthy to report on? Of course it isn't which is precisely why I referred to the whole thing as "ridiculous." I'm not the one reporting on it, just commenting.
Even my good buddy Mike was so outraged that he was moved to make his SoapBox Sports debut.
What an insane argument, but I don't put it past you. If it was the yankees sweeping the angles out of the playoffs last year this article would have a completely different feel. never has it been more apparent then in theis article that you are incapable of rational thoughts when it comes to sports.Did I miss the part where he explained how I am wrong? If I had written this column one or two weeks after the Angels' season was abruptly ended, he might be right. But unfortunately for his argument, I am well over that by now. The Red Sox were the better team last year and deserved to win. They're probably the better team this year too.
He even brought up some of my old material which is awesome because I didn't know anybody actually read it.
"This is why, from this day forth, my two favorite teams will be the Angels and whoever is playing the Red Sox. Not because I hold any ill will towards the organization or its players, but because their fans don't deserve to win. I hope every living member of Red Sox Nation relinquishes their last breath without ever seeing the Red Sox win a World Series."
John Kumpart Oct 8th 2004, Unbiased Sports Enthusiast"
I don't now, nor have I ever claimed to be unbiased. Anybody who thinks they are is kidding themselves. Since this is a commentary blog and not a source for news reporting, I don't think an effort to be unbiased would serve any purpose here.
Some freaking fans upset you at a game that the angels lost and it has inspired all these articles about how terrible the red sox and everyone who likes them are?
It's difficult to explain something I've written to someone when they show little effort to understand it in the first place. I've already made this very clear to Mike in person so I'm not going to waste too much energy on it again now. I will simply say that my bad experiences with Red Sox fans have been going on for years, before last year's playoffs, before the Angels were even a mild threat. Mike would like to think I'm just being a sore loser, but it just ain't true. And those experiences did not inspire this most recent column, Trot Nixon's comments did. They probably had something to do with it, but they did not inspire it.
Like there are no obnoxious angel fans out there?
As obnoxious, disrespectful, and utterly foul as the hundreds of Red Sox fans I've encountered over several years have been? Actually, no, there aren't. Mike should ask his buddy Joe about Angel fans because he recently said this about Angel fans:
"It's unfair to compare Cub, Red Sox and Yankee fans to Angel fans. It's a whole different culture.You have grandma's going to the Angel game because they offer senior citizen discounts and they loved Gene Autrey movies...Anaheim crowds are largely family crowds."
Am I dreaming about the fight i got into with 5 yankee fans against me, by myself, were these guys just respectful fans who put in a weeks worth of work by the time i get up in the morning?
My most recent column was about specific players, not fans. Mike seems to be confusing the two in an attempt to cloud the issue. As I have said before, Yankee fans aren't exactly saints themselves, but, I'll say it again, my experiences with Red Sox fans have been far worse which is why I feel the way that I do. All I have ever tried to comment on in regards to fans are my own personal experiences. Being a Red Sox fan, your experiences with them are obviously going to be a lot different than mine.
Mike closes with quite a punchline.
I see your articles, and it looks like there are a bunch of words, but man all i keep seeing is the same thing... a little boy sitting in the sandbox crying because his tea-- (I presume he means "because his team lost.")
Well, I guess that would explain why I am constantly reiterating the same points to him over and over again.
Joe and Mike are die-hard Red Sox fans and very intelligent, savvy ones at that. I have no doubt that the comments string will erupt with counterarguments from them within hours of me posting this. My phone will probably start ringing off the hook as well. No matter what any of us says to each other though, I'm going to defend my distaste for the Red Sox and they are going to defend their love for them, simple as that. They are true sportsfans so I would expect nothing less. Unless some fresh new life is given to these arguments, however, this is the last time (for a while at least) that I will subject my four loyal readers to an actual column about it.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
The Idiot King
As everybody knows by now, the whole thing started with Rodriguez making some asinine comments about how he's already done with his workouts by the time most players are rolling out of bed. Was this an arrogant and dumb thing to say? Yeah, probably, but I highly doubt it was meant to slight players who take their kids to school or wait 'til the sun comes up to start their workouts. Honestly, it really doesn't even make sense to boast about a rooster-oriented workout. As long as everybody's doing their thing, who really cares what time they do it at? Are there games starting at 6 a.m. this season that I haven't heard of? The season isn't starting in Japan this year last time I checked.
Anyway, ARod's comments, albeit ignorant, were in no way directed at anyone personally. So why did the Red Sox' Trot Nixon have to take it that way? What was the point of calling Rodriguez a "clown" and a "deadbeat dad?" I would think the Red Sox would have been satisfied to beat their rivals in the greatest choke/comeback of all-time, but I guess it's no fun stepping on your worst enemy to win a World Series if you don't get to enjoy some childish namecalling afterwards. And it didn't even stop with Nixon. Six Red Sox players in six days felt it necessary to take shots at the Yankees star third baseman.
I ask you, is it more despicable to slap a ball from a pitcher's hand in the heat of battle or to take unwarranted verbal shots about a player in the preseason news media? I know where I stand on that, and I'm pretty sure Red Sox Nation will disagree with me.
What these guys are doing is the George W. of all bush league moves. After eighty-six long years, they finally won another World Series. In those eighty-six years, the Yankees kept busy by winning twenty-six world series of their own. Granted ARod is yet to win one, but it still looks bad when little brother gets one win out of how many and starts talking trash about a player on the team he finally beat. Apparently, when you're a bunch of idiots, you lose any inclination for graciousness in victory and defeat.
Kevin Millar took it a step further and began detailing how Rodriguez is not really a Yankee, not like a Derek Jeter, Bernie Williams, or Jorge Posada. Since the guy's been on the team all of one season, would you really expect him to have etched himself in Yankee lore already? Give me a break, guys. What is the f'in point, really?
Let me be clear, I am not a Yankee fan. I respect them as an organization dedicated to winning but I have despised the way they bully everyone else in baseball for years. But in this rivalry, I will be rooting for them. It would have been all too easy to fire back at Nixon, Millar, and the other idiots, but the Yankees, like the classy group that they are, took the higher road. They didn't snap at the cheap bait the Sox dangled in front of them and I admire ARod and his teammates for that.
While Nixon's calling people out from Red Sox camp, here's what Alex Rodriguez had to say as a rebuttal.
"The bottom line is they won. They've earned the right to say whatever they need to say."
Sounds like graciousness in defeat to me. Great choice of words, "whatever they need to say." I think that's my main question, why do the Red Sox need to say anything?
It's easy for Red Sox Nation to gripe about ARod's character based solely on that controversial slap play in Game 6 of the ALCS. Players called it bush league and fans called it bitch. You would think a player who would pull such a trick would be some kind of a cheating scoundrel who never wanted to accept responsibility for his shortcomings.
Yet when it comes to the Yankees' team-wide collapse last season, ARod says "Blame it on me. If there's one guy to blame, you've got to look right here."
Sounds like integrity to me. In a rivalry as old as the one between the Red Sox and Yankees, there are so many levels or angles to it, it's really impossible to label one side as the good and the other as the bad. But since I am in an Angel fan and see both teams as obstacles in the goals of my team, I'll just take a side on the simple, evident facts of this ridiculous espn-perpetuated situation. Red Sox players made unwarranted, infantile comments about their opponent and the Yankees handled it with class. If there really is a clown in this whole mess, I'd have to say it was Nixon.
