So it seems that, barring MAJOR changes at the eleventh hour, Amar'e Stoudemire will be a Phoenix Sun for the remainder of the season. Cleveland decided that it did not want to part with JJ Hickson and traded for Antawn Jamison instead. Miami seemingly has not offered anything that the Suns want, so we get to see the team give it a go this year. For this season, it is definitely a positive. The Suns could, if they keep up the quality play, find themselves in the playoffs with home-court advantage for at least the first series. They have shown that they can, on any given night, play and beat anyone in the NBA. But, then what? Stoudemire still can opt out of the last year of his contract, worth more than $17 million and walk away. Will Phoenix end up losing one of the most talented players in the league for nothing? Is the Suns front office that stupid?
While I have questioned the sanity and intelligence of some of the moves that the Suns have made over the past few seasons, I wouldn't think that they would let their co-best player walk away for nothing (By the way, if you ever want to feel like pulling out your hair or throwing yourself in front of an SUV on the freeway, read pages 180-182 in Bill Simmon's The Book of Basketball, where it describes some of the moves made and their ramifications). The Suns are still in good shape. They are not powerless. Here is what is likely to happen:
Stoudemire decides not to opt out of his deal
If he does this, he plays the last year of his deal and earns more than $17 million. For the Suns, he still is a valuable asset. He will be an expiring contract and still will be a top tier player. This also gives the team some more time to negotiate an extension. Reportedly, the team and Amar'e are not differing in money, but in years. This may get worked out. If not, he would likely be moved before the trading deadline next season.
Stoudemire opts out, Suns sign-and-trade
This is the more likely scenario. If he opts out, the team that can give him the most years and money is Phoenix. this is ideally what he wants. The Suns would work a deal with another team, getting players/picks that they hopefully want, and Stoudemire gets the money and security he desires.
In the end, Phoenix will work the situation to either sign him to an extension or get compensated for him. This is the type of managing that we as fans expect- actual planning. Now, what the team REALLY needs to figure out to do is to shed Jason Richardson's or Leandro Barbosa's contract to get a pick in the first round of this year's draft and to find salary relief...but mostly so we can get a draft pick. I hope that my trust in management in THIS particular issue is not misguided.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Money or a Championship? Are We Hypocrites?
This afternoon on the Gambo and Ash show, they discussed Amar’e Stoudemire, his trade scenarios, and his contract situation. What it came down to was that Amar’e would rather play for a woeful team (such as the New Jersey Nets) and get paid $20 million more in a contract, than play for a team like Cleveland, where he could win a championship. This led to a discussion between my wife (Señora Sports) and I about athletes, money, and winning, and how we expect our athletes to be more principled than we are.
We expect more of athletes than we do of ourselves when it comes to money. We vilify those that leave looking for a bigger paycheck. We can be near pious with other people’s money. We want our athletes to take much less money than they can make in the open market so they can win, or have the chance at winning. (Now, to be clear, for purposes in this article, I will not refer to cases of players like Cardinals player Darnell Dockett or Anquan Boldin, who signed contracts that they outperformed and have no contractual way to change that. I refer to free agent players or players that have opt-out clauses in their contracts, allowing them to forfeit the money left on their deal to seek more money and/or years of security.) To be honest, could we expect ANYONE to turn down $20 million for a job (excluding moral/ethical beliefs)? Is Stoudemire less of a player because he wants to maximize his earnings? Should he take less money or even a pay cut for the possibility of winning a championship?
I am sure that there are a few players and former players that retrospectively would say that they would pay some millions of dollars (maybe even up to $10 million) to be able to have won a championship or for the guarantee of one. However, the problem is that there is NEVER a guaranteed championship. It was all but a forgone conclusion that the 2003-04 Lakers were going to win it all, giving Karl Malone and Gary Payton rings that they never before were able to get, but then a key Malone injury in the Finals contributes to the Detroit Pistons shocking he world and beating the seemingly unbeatable Lakers.
A look at the other side, and we can find a familiar face. Joe Johnson wanted to leave Phoenix, wanting to be paid more and to be the leader for the terrible Atlanta Hawks. A majority of people here were very disappointed that he would not want to come back and play with Steve Nash and the chance to win one or more titles, wondering why anyone would want to go and play for an awful team like the Hawks. Look at him now- rich, a four-time All-Star, on a team that has already been competitive in the playoffs, and is now one of the best teams in the East. AND he looks to possibly score another huge contract after this season. So, a situation that at the time looks like a bad situation, aside from pay, can turn very quickly into a winning situation.
Now, the money that athletes earn is obscenely more than a person like me makes. But in any case, I wouldn’t, in my job as a teacher, take a pay cut to be a part of a better teaching team or in a better school. Nor would I turn down a significant raise to teach with a less talented group of teachers where I would be expected to be the leader or best performer. Not now- I am raising a family. It might be a consideration once my children are grown and I have earned a level of comfort that can warrant me to consider job situation or ambience over compensation.
There is a general rule for athletes. Make as much money as you can while you are young, because no one knows how long they will be able to play. After making their money, as an older player, they THEN should seek the best opportunities to win. In sports, owners don’t owe anything to their players other than the money agreed to in a contract. Players owe nothing to their teams when contracts end. If players like our local players with ending contracts or contract outs (Amar’e Stoudemire, Brandon Webb, Karlos Dansby) think they can make more money than their teams now are willing to pay them, we should not think less of them, even if we think that their best chance of winning or contributing is here. They are just doing what most of us would do in their situation.
We expect more of athletes than we do of ourselves when it comes to money. We vilify those that leave looking for a bigger paycheck. We can be near pious with other people’s money. We want our athletes to take much less money than they can make in the open market so they can win, or have the chance at winning. (Now, to be clear, for purposes in this article, I will not refer to cases of players like Cardinals player Darnell Dockett or Anquan Boldin, who signed contracts that they outperformed and have no contractual way to change that. I refer to free agent players or players that have opt-out clauses in their contracts, allowing them to forfeit the money left on their deal to seek more money and/or years of security.) To be honest, could we expect ANYONE to turn down $20 million for a job (excluding moral/ethical beliefs)? Is Stoudemire less of a player because he wants to maximize his earnings? Should he take less money or even a pay cut for the possibility of winning a championship?
I am sure that there are a few players and former players that retrospectively would say that they would pay some millions of dollars (maybe even up to $10 million) to be able to have won a championship or for the guarantee of one. However, the problem is that there is NEVER a guaranteed championship. It was all but a forgone conclusion that the 2003-04 Lakers were going to win it all, giving Karl Malone and Gary Payton rings that they never before were able to get, but then a key Malone injury in the Finals contributes to the Detroit Pistons shocking he world and beating the seemingly unbeatable Lakers.
A look at the other side, and we can find a familiar face. Joe Johnson wanted to leave Phoenix, wanting to be paid more and to be the leader for the terrible Atlanta Hawks. A majority of people here were very disappointed that he would not want to come back and play with Steve Nash and the chance to win one or more titles, wondering why anyone would want to go and play for an awful team like the Hawks. Look at him now- rich, a four-time All-Star, on a team that has already been competitive in the playoffs, and is now one of the best teams in the East. AND he looks to possibly score another huge contract after this season. So, a situation that at the time looks like a bad situation, aside from pay, can turn very quickly into a winning situation.
Now, the money that athletes earn is obscenely more than a person like me makes. But in any case, I wouldn’t, in my job as a teacher, take a pay cut to be a part of a better teaching team or in a better school. Nor would I turn down a significant raise to teach with a less talented group of teachers where I would be expected to be the leader or best performer. Not now- I am raising a family. It might be a consideration once my children are grown and I have earned a level of comfort that can warrant me to consider job situation or ambience over compensation.
There is a general rule for athletes. Make as much money as you can while you are young, because no one knows how long they will be able to play. After making their money, as an older player, they THEN should seek the best opportunities to win. In sports, owners don’t owe anything to their players other than the money agreed to in a contract. Players owe nothing to their teams when contracts end. If players like our local players with ending contracts or contract outs (Amar’e Stoudemire, Brandon Webb, Karlos Dansby) think they can make more money than their teams now are willing to pay them, we should not think less of them, even if we think that their best chance of winning or contributing is here. They are just doing what most of us would do in their situation.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
The Enigma That Is Amar’e
I love Amar’e. I hate Amar’e. I want to build the team around him. I want to show him the door. This is a view that many fans share. Even just moments before writing this, I am struggling with whether I want to see him traded or not.
There is no questioning his talent. He is almost without peer at his size and position in the league. He is athletic, strong, explosive, and can shoot the ball. For his career, he averages over 20 points per game and almost 9 rebounds per game, and is right at those averages for this year. Yet, what drives me (and other fans) crazy is what he doesn’t do. He is anywhere between awful and below average defensively. He doesn’t rebound a much as we all wish he did or think he should. He is dropping passes that in years past were assists for a teammate. He doesn’t appear to have the heart that others with far less talent have. He talks of wanting and deserving a maximum contract. He talks about being considered on the same level as LeBron James and Kobe Bryant. Why do we as fans do this?
I recently heard a saying that I think applies to how we view Amar’e- “You’re standing too close to the forest to see the trees.” We focus so much on his faults that we forget how great he really is. We see what he could be. We want him to be Kevin Garnett or Tim Duncan, and the fact that he is anything less kills us. When reminded of his numbers, we say it is because of playing in Mike D’Antoni’s system and/or because he has Steve Nash making things easy for him. But remember the year BEFORE Steve Nash? Wait…Amar’e averaged 20 and 9. Career playoff numbers? 25 and more than 10. He is a spectacular player, if not elite, or at least in the conversation of elite.
So why would you trade a player like that, especially during the type of season the Suns are having? They are a competitive playoff team. Trading Stoudemire would likely send the team to lottery land, and, to make things worse, lottery land without the lottery pick, as Oklahoma City has their unprotected 2010 first round pick. If Phoenix keeps him, the team makes it to the playoffs, likely gets bumped in the first round, Stoudemire might opt out of the last year of his contract, and still no first round pick. It’s a tough call. Let’s look at both cases- to trade or not to trade.
The case for keeping Amar’e
As stated before, there are few players who can do what Stoudemire does. You simply cannot get equal production at his position. Only Carlos Boozer and Chris Bosh would be an increase in production, as they both defend and rebound better than Amar’e. Yet trading for them does not work because Bosh, like Stoudemire has the early termination option in his contract after this season and is planning on using it. Boozer’s contract expires after this year and makes more money than Stoudemire. If you consider other upgrades at the position, Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett are past their prime, Zach Randolph (while he is having a superb season) is not as athletic and would not be a good fit for the up tempo Suns (even if you ignore the character issues that followed him before now), and LaMarcus Aldridge, while athletic enough, doesn’t rebound enough.
Keeping Stoudemire makes the Suns a better team. Remember last season when he was injured and how great the Suns played? Oh yeah, they didn’t. They didn’t make the playoffs and that was WITH Shaquille O’Neal. Lose Amar’e, and you have Robin Lopez and Channing Frye left to pick up the offensive slack in the frontcourt. Yes, a trade would bring back some talent, but not likely from the power forward or center positions. Keeping him means the playoffs this year and maybe next (because he may choose to play out the final year of his deal).
There is always the possibility of extending his contract. Maybe he realizes that a ‘max’ contract likely would not happen and that if it did, he would probably end up on a miserable team. An extension of, say, 3 years at $12-14 million is not bad, and he could play on competitive teams with Steve Nash passing him the ball for two of those years. Additionally, he is entering his ‘prime’ age. He can still figure out how to be better. He will likely never be known a great or even good defender, but he can improve at his rebounding and leadership, and even if he doesn’t, he would still be producing at near elite levels.
The case for trading Amar’e
Even when considering the positives of keeping Stoudemire, there are still some looming issues for the Phoenix Suns- money and no first round pick in this year’s draft. Phoenix needs to shed salary because the team would really prefer to not pay the luxury tax. Amar’e’s desires have been made clear- he wants a maximum contract. Phoenix has made it clear that they do not want to pay maximum money. The idea is, then, to get SOMETHING for him before he leaves and then the team has a void.
Steve Kerr has said that the team must look at the present but keep an eye toward the future, even if it hurts a little now. The team drafted Earl Clark, and believes that he can be a solid player, if not a star at power forward. It needs a first round pick, as this year’s draft is considered to be talented. A trade could allow for salary relief, draft picks, and/or upgrading production in other positions. The Suns could use an upgrade at small forward- not saying that Grant Hill is playing poorly, but they would need increased production from that position and center to make up the lost production at power forward.
What I think
I think that trading Amar’e is necessary. The fan base is tired of his periods of uninspired play, even if it is accompanied by offensive brilliance. In unsettled economic times for the league and lagging attendance, adding also the labor uncertainty after next season, it would be unwise to pay him what he wants to be paid. I have seen enough flashes from Earl Clark offensively to make me believe that he will be Amar’e PLUS. He can create his own shot, his outside shot is getting better, he is explosive, AND he already plays defense and can rebound. I believe he will make a difference on this team as early as next season. What gives me even more hope is that the one doubt/knock on him (his work ethic) has not been an issue. Coach Alvin Gentry said this morning just how much his effort has changed. Talent plus effort equals stardom- Clark is going to be a star. I was not a believer a month ago. I am now.
Amar’e may yet become the consistently dominant force he can become, but I do not believe that it can happen here. It will take a new fan base and a strong coach, because he really desires to be the best. So, while it may hurt this year, Amar’e needs to go, but not for just anyone. It needs to be for picks or young players that will contribute, and at least one other position needs to be upgraded, in addition to meeting salary requirements. I, as a fan, hope he can develop into that player we wish he were, just as long as he consistently ends up at home for the summer before the Suns do.
There is no questioning his talent. He is almost without peer at his size and position in the league. He is athletic, strong, explosive, and can shoot the ball. For his career, he averages over 20 points per game and almost 9 rebounds per game, and is right at those averages for this year. Yet, what drives me (and other fans) crazy is what he doesn’t do. He is anywhere between awful and below average defensively. He doesn’t rebound a much as we all wish he did or think he should. He is dropping passes that in years past were assists for a teammate. He doesn’t appear to have the heart that others with far less talent have. He talks of wanting and deserving a maximum contract. He talks about being considered on the same level as LeBron James and Kobe Bryant. Why do we as fans do this?
I recently heard a saying that I think applies to how we view Amar’e- “You’re standing too close to the forest to see the trees.” We focus so much on his faults that we forget how great he really is. We see what he could be. We want him to be Kevin Garnett or Tim Duncan, and the fact that he is anything less kills us. When reminded of his numbers, we say it is because of playing in Mike D’Antoni’s system and/or because he has Steve Nash making things easy for him. But remember the year BEFORE Steve Nash? Wait…Amar’e averaged 20 and 9. Career playoff numbers? 25 and more than 10. He is a spectacular player, if not elite, or at least in the conversation of elite.
So why would you trade a player like that, especially during the type of season the Suns are having? They are a competitive playoff team. Trading Stoudemire would likely send the team to lottery land, and, to make things worse, lottery land without the lottery pick, as Oklahoma City has their unprotected 2010 first round pick. If Phoenix keeps him, the team makes it to the playoffs, likely gets bumped in the first round, Stoudemire might opt out of the last year of his contract, and still no first round pick. It’s a tough call. Let’s look at both cases- to trade or not to trade.
The case for keeping Amar’e
As stated before, there are few players who can do what Stoudemire does. You simply cannot get equal production at his position. Only Carlos Boozer and Chris Bosh would be an increase in production, as they both defend and rebound better than Amar’e. Yet trading for them does not work because Bosh, like Stoudemire has the early termination option in his contract after this season and is planning on using it. Boozer’s contract expires after this year and makes more money than Stoudemire. If you consider other upgrades at the position, Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett are past their prime, Zach Randolph (while he is having a superb season) is not as athletic and would not be a good fit for the up tempo Suns (even if you ignore the character issues that followed him before now), and LaMarcus Aldridge, while athletic enough, doesn’t rebound enough.
Keeping Stoudemire makes the Suns a better team. Remember last season when he was injured and how great the Suns played? Oh yeah, they didn’t. They didn’t make the playoffs and that was WITH Shaquille O’Neal. Lose Amar’e, and you have Robin Lopez and Channing Frye left to pick up the offensive slack in the frontcourt. Yes, a trade would bring back some talent, but not likely from the power forward or center positions. Keeping him means the playoffs this year and maybe next (because he may choose to play out the final year of his deal).
There is always the possibility of extending his contract. Maybe he realizes that a ‘max’ contract likely would not happen and that if it did, he would probably end up on a miserable team. An extension of, say, 3 years at $12-14 million is not bad, and he could play on competitive teams with Steve Nash passing him the ball for two of those years. Additionally, he is entering his ‘prime’ age. He can still figure out how to be better. He will likely never be known a great or even good defender, but he can improve at his rebounding and leadership, and even if he doesn’t, he would still be producing at near elite levels.
The case for trading Amar’e
Even when considering the positives of keeping Stoudemire, there are still some looming issues for the Phoenix Suns- money and no first round pick in this year’s draft. Phoenix needs to shed salary because the team would really prefer to not pay the luxury tax. Amar’e’s desires have been made clear- he wants a maximum contract. Phoenix has made it clear that they do not want to pay maximum money. The idea is, then, to get SOMETHING for him before he leaves and then the team has a void.
Steve Kerr has said that the team must look at the present but keep an eye toward the future, even if it hurts a little now. The team drafted Earl Clark, and believes that he can be a solid player, if not a star at power forward. It needs a first round pick, as this year’s draft is considered to be talented. A trade could allow for salary relief, draft picks, and/or upgrading production in other positions. The Suns could use an upgrade at small forward- not saying that Grant Hill is playing poorly, but they would need increased production from that position and center to make up the lost production at power forward.
What I think
I think that trading Amar’e is necessary. The fan base is tired of his periods of uninspired play, even if it is accompanied by offensive brilliance. In unsettled economic times for the league and lagging attendance, adding also the labor uncertainty after next season, it would be unwise to pay him what he wants to be paid. I have seen enough flashes from Earl Clark offensively to make me believe that he will be Amar’e PLUS. He can create his own shot, his outside shot is getting better, he is explosive, AND he already plays defense and can rebound. I believe he will make a difference on this team as early as next season. What gives me even more hope is that the one doubt/knock on him (his work ethic) has not been an issue. Coach Alvin Gentry said this morning just how much his effort has changed. Talent plus effort equals stardom- Clark is going to be a star. I was not a believer a month ago. I am now.
Amar’e may yet become the consistently dominant force he can become, but I do not believe that it can happen here. It will take a new fan base and a strong coach, because he really desires to be the best. So, while it may hurt this year, Amar’e needs to go, but not for just anyone. It needs to be for picks or young players that will contribute, and at least one other position needs to be upgraded, in addition to meeting salary requirements. I, as a fan, hope he can develop into that player we wish he were, just as long as he consistently ends up at home for the summer before the Suns do.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Does O-Dawg regret leaving?
2009 was a disaster for the Arizona Diamondbacks. It was supposed to be at least a competitive year. The offseason prior to the 2009 season was also a disaster for former Dback Orlando Hudson. He was coming off a career year, batting .305, but had his season cut short for the second consecutive year because of injury. He entered free agency for the first time and was expecting to cash in on a huge, multi-year contract.
As one of the elite second basemen in baseball, he was reportedly seeking a 5-year deal for around $45 million. Hudson did nothing wrong- he had earned the right to see what the market would bear. However, aside from the monster contracts that the Yankees gave to C.C. Sabathia and to Mark Texeira, there just wasn't the money for that to happen. In the end, Hudson had to settle for a one-year deal with the Dodgers worth $3.38 million, with possible incentives worth around another $4 million.
In the end, the season was a success- he played an entire season, batting .283 with 9 homeruns and 62 RBI, numbers that are right in line with what he has done in his career. He did struggle in the last month of the season, but played for the National League West champs and played in the NLCS for the chance of playing in the World Series. He reached his incentives, making his yearly earnings at around $7.5 million. However, he became a free agent again, and he was only able to obtain a one-year, $5 million deal with the Minnesota Twins.
Here's the kicker- reportedly, while with the Diamondbacks, the team offered him a four-year extension worth about $7 million annually. Hudson was unhappy with the offer, seeking the aforementioned $9 million per year and five years, and parted ways with the team after 2008. I imagine that he wishes he had taken the deal now. Two seasons, two one-year contracts, and a stagnant free agent market, and certainly not $9 million per year, and not even $7 million.
I, for one, wish Arizona could have signed him. Yes, 2009 was awful, but would it have been different with a healthy O-Dawg? I don't think he is the difference between 90 wins and 70 wins, but his stellar defense alone leads to a few wins. His leadership and energy would have changed the make up of the clubhouse, and his influence on Chris Young (whose year was TERRIBLE) could have helped him have at least an okay season. But beyond 2009, 2010 could have been special. Arizona has an improved rotation and Hudson would be an upgrade over Kelly Johnson. So, if he had stayed with Arizona, he gets paid, and the team gets a bat, defense, and leadership. 2009 may still have been lost, but he could have had money, security, AND winning.
What do you think? Does he wish he had stayed? I think it is likely.
As one of the elite second basemen in baseball, he was reportedly seeking a 5-year deal for around $45 million. Hudson did nothing wrong- he had earned the right to see what the market would bear. However, aside from the monster contracts that the Yankees gave to C.C. Sabathia and to Mark Texeira, there just wasn't the money for that to happen. In the end, Hudson had to settle for a one-year deal with the Dodgers worth $3.38 million, with possible incentives worth around another $4 million.
In the end, the season was a success- he played an entire season, batting .283 with 9 homeruns and 62 RBI, numbers that are right in line with what he has done in his career. He did struggle in the last month of the season, but played for the National League West champs and played in the NLCS for the chance of playing in the World Series. He reached his incentives, making his yearly earnings at around $7.5 million. However, he became a free agent again, and he was only able to obtain a one-year, $5 million deal with the Minnesota Twins.
Here's the kicker- reportedly, while with the Diamondbacks, the team offered him a four-year extension worth about $7 million annually. Hudson was unhappy with the offer, seeking the aforementioned $9 million per year and five years, and parted ways with the team after 2008. I imagine that he wishes he had taken the deal now. Two seasons, two one-year contracts, and a stagnant free agent market, and certainly not $9 million per year, and not even $7 million.
I, for one, wish Arizona could have signed him. Yes, 2009 was awful, but would it have been different with a healthy O-Dawg? I don't think he is the difference between 90 wins and 70 wins, but his stellar defense alone leads to a few wins. His leadership and energy would have changed the make up of the clubhouse, and his influence on Chris Young (whose year was TERRIBLE) could have helped him have at least an okay season. But beyond 2009, 2010 could have been special. Arizona has an improved rotation and Hudson would be an upgrade over Kelly Johnson. So, if he had stayed with Arizona, he gets paid, and the team gets a bat, defense, and leadership. 2009 may still have been lost, but he could have had money, security, AND winning.
What do you think? Does he wish he had stayed? I think it is likely.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Peyton's missed opportunity
Congratulations to the Saints!! I wasn't rooting for them, but neither was I rooting against them. But...Peyton, Peyton, Peyton. He dropped the ball.
If you look at the stats, he had a great game, but with one blemish. 333 passing yards on 31-45 attempts and a touchdown. It was the interception, though...
Now I have, as do many, a HUGE man crush on number 18. He is amazing to watch. It is football artistry. He is the smartest player on the player on the field and nothing surprises him. He eats defenses for lunch. He is already in the discussion for greatest quarterback ever, but that discussion is usually a heated argument of detractors because of playoff failures. Yes, he has a ring, but it is just one- the same amount as Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Jeff Hostetler, and Mark Rypien. A second championship, and he cements himself as a winner (multiple rings) AND incredible quarterback.
However, reality clobbered this possibility. Manning's great numbers were for naught when he threw the game deciding interception. Now, to be clear, Manning did not lose the game. Pierre Garcon's third down drop in the second quarter halted Indy's insane offensive momentum. The Colts' defense, after the one Dwight Freeney sack, didn't get close enough to even sniff Brees' deodorant, much less pressure his throws. Brees picked them apart, and tackling was an issue throughout the game. Old Man Stover missed a crucial field goal. New Orleans made in-game adjustments after a disaster of a first quarter and took control of the game with the onside kick at the start of the second half. None of this was Manning's fault.
But what he needed to do was to go and WIN the game. He needed to, for his legacy, take all of these disdvantages, and then put the team on his shoulders. He needed to march down the field, hitting pass after pass, using the clock, leading his team to the tying score with just a few seconds left. He needed a single break in overtime, and then to take the Colts down the field for the championship winning score. We needed the Manning Machine QB. Instead, we got Brett Favre- a pick-six at the worst time.
Alas, for now, Peyton Manning is still the greatest REGULAR SEASON quarterback of all time. I don't think that there is much argument there, but he could have made himself the best ever. Maybe he will yet win another Super Bowl, or even more than another, but for now, the discussion will be the same- just discussion.
If you look at the stats, he had a great game, but with one blemish. 333 passing yards on 31-45 attempts and a touchdown. It was the interception, though...
Now I have, as do many, a HUGE man crush on number 18. He is amazing to watch. It is football artistry. He is the smartest player on the player on the field and nothing surprises him. He eats defenses for lunch. He is already in the discussion for greatest quarterback ever, but that discussion is usually a heated argument of detractors because of playoff failures. Yes, he has a ring, but it is just one- the same amount as Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Jeff Hostetler, and Mark Rypien. A second championship, and he cements himself as a winner (multiple rings) AND incredible quarterback.
However, reality clobbered this possibility. Manning's great numbers were for naught when he threw the game deciding interception. Now, to be clear, Manning did not lose the game. Pierre Garcon's third down drop in the second quarter halted Indy's insane offensive momentum. The Colts' defense, after the one Dwight Freeney sack, didn't get close enough to even sniff Brees' deodorant, much less pressure his throws. Brees picked them apart, and tackling was an issue throughout the game. Old Man Stover missed a crucial field goal. New Orleans made in-game adjustments after a disaster of a first quarter and took control of the game with the onside kick at the start of the second half. None of this was Manning's fault.
But what he needed to do was to go and WIN the game. He needed to, for his legacy, take all of these disdvantages, and then put the team on his shoulders. He needed to march down the field, hitting pass after pass, using the clock, leading his team to the tying score with just a few seconds left. He needed a single break in overtime, and then to take the Colts down the field for the championship winning score. We needed the Manning Machine QB. Instead, we got Brett Favre- a pick-six at the worst time.
Alas, for now, Peyton Manning is still the greatest REGULAR SEASON quarterback of all time. I don't think that there is much argument there, but he could have made himself the best ever. Maybe he will yet win another Super Bowl, or even more than another, but for now, the discussion will be the same- just discussion.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Super Bowl Sunday- The Debate
The debate- Colts or Saints? Manning or Brees (Drew Breeeees!)? Pierre or Pierre? Nope- the debate I face is the same each year, regardless of the two championship opponents. This debate is that of faith or football, or in some cases, family or football. I was raised for the most part with no TV on Sundays, at the guidance of a stake president when I was quite young. Even now, just the discussion of sports, especially on Sundays, can bring disagreement when I get together with my siblings and their spouses.
Sundays are a day of worship, a day of rest, a day for family and a day for the Lord. It is a day of service for our fellow men. Football doesn't really go along with that. And yet, I'm stubborn. This Super Bowl will mark the fourth year in a row that my wife and I will get together with friends and/or family to watch the Super Bowl. We eat, cheer, and enjoy the time together. It is not spiritual, but it is not irreverent.
Here is my regret- it isn't something I can share with my whole family. My wife's family isn't huge into sports, but one thing they did on Sundays was watch TV together as a family, creating time together doing that. No, it wasn't the Super Bowl, but it was a family activity. I wish I COULD share this with my family (brothers, sisters, parents). I consider myself a faithful member of the Church and a spiritual man. The Super Bowl will not keep me away from Church meetings or from responsibilities to my family or to the Church. But I will be cheering on Peyton Manning, hoping to see him cement himself as one of the greatest ever.
Maybe my parents are right. Maybe I am not as good a man I could be if I chose to forgo football and TV on Sundays. No, it has not been said specifically that TV or sports on TV is wrong. Maybe it is. If so, I may someday make that change. Until then, Super Bowl Sunday will continue to be a chance to share time with friends and family (at least those that will share it with us).
Sundays are a day of worship, a day of rest, a day for family and a day for the Lord. It is a day of service for our fellow men. Football doesn't really go along with that. And yet, I'm stubborn. This Super Bowl will mark the fourth year in a row that my wife and I will get together with friends and/or family to watch the Super Bowl. We eat, cheer, and enjoy the time together. It is not spiritual, but it is not irreverent.
Here is my regret- it isn't something I can share with my whole family. My wife's family isn't huge into sports, but one thing they did on Sundays was watch TV together as a family, creating time together doing that. No, it wasn't the Super Bowl, but it was a family activity. I wish I COULD share this with my family (brothers, sisters, parents). I consider myself a faithful member of the Church and a spiritual man. The Super Bowl will not keep me away from Church meetings or from responsibilities to my family or to the Church. But I will be cheering on Peyton Manning, hoping to see him cement himself as one of the greatest ever.
Maybe my parents are right. Maybe I am not as good a man I could be if I chose to forgo football and TV on Sundays. No, it has not been said specifically that TV or sports on TV is wrong. Maybe it is. If so, I may someday make that change. Until then, Super Bowl Sunday will continue to be a chance to share time with friends and family (at least those that will share it with us).
Friday, February 5, 2010
New deal for the Sheriff? Impending Doom?
I read earlier today about how The Dbacks are in contract talks with my favorite player, Mark Reynolds. ESPN's Keith Law says that this is a risk. It could provide Reynolds with some security over multiple years and could provide the team with salary stability and possible salary savings. I would love to see this, but I fear it. Josh Byrnes has had a couple of hits and a couple of misses on his contracts. But his track record for signing pre-arbitration players to multi-year deals through arbitration years is 0 for his last 2 (see Chris Young and Chris Snyder). Webb's deal was good, but is now marred by a serious injury that could change his career. Haren's deal does not apply- it was not to lock him up through his arbitration years but to keep him from becoming a free agent. So...Byrnes has had 2 duds and a big injury in his contracts. We may have the start of a new curse...the Josh Byrnes contract curse for young players.
My point- Reynolds signs a deal, he regresses, or he has a serious injury, and we will have a trend. If he continues to improve and develops into a star, then no more sweating and no more talk of a curse. Let's hope fro the latter
My point- Reynolds signs a deal, he regresses, or he has a serious injury, and we will have a trend. If he continues to improve and develops into a star, then no more sweating and no more talk of a curse. Let's hope fro the latter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
