Some more tips for signing players

Signing the Magic's ticket to being almost good enough.

Now that Rashard Lewis has been introduced by the Orlando Magic and the dust has settled, the second guessing game is in full force. Inspired by the exorbitant contract Lewis received, ESPN's Chad Ford wrote a fantastic article advising teams on how to manage the salary cap.

His five suggestions are great and hit at the heart of many NBA team's mistakes when signing players. There are a few I would like to add to this list.

Don't be fooled by statistics, they can be deceiving
Lewis puts up great stats. But, Ford astutely points out that Lewis was the second-best player on his old team, his old team was bad and he isn't even the best player on his new team. But, because he averaged 22 points, 6.6 rebounds and hit 151 three pointers last year, the Magic felt he automatically made them a championship contender (why else would you give someone a max contract?). Sure, Lewis makes them better, but at what price? As Ford also points out, they have no flexibility now. Because the Magic were fooled by stats, they now have someone who is a reasonably soft second-tier scorer who plays little defense under contract for the next six years.

Stay away from long-term deals for players over 30 years old
GMs inevitably hand over long contracts to players on the other side of the hill of their careers. Sure, the first three years of that contract might be rosy, but the last two or three years always, always, always end up being an albatross. Let it be known that I acknowledge the need to sometimes offer more contract years to a player for the purpose of luring him away from the competition, but a certain amount of discretion is still required in offering contracts. Many times offering more money with less years under contract is a smarter play. Players are usually in their primes from 26-30 years old. Use some responsibility and recognize that players usually start a sharp decline around 31-33, so why offer a player a long, cumbersome contract that will end up paying for a player's move into retirement when they are 35 or 36? Lewis is about to turn 28, so the Magic are bumping the nose of acceptability on this one.

The amount that a player helps your team should be proportional to his pay
If your team's cornerstones are rebounding and scoring around the rim, a player who compliments those things very well may be worth more to your team than to another. Sometimes paying a player over market value is fine, as long as it makes sense with team needs. For example, the Suns gave Steve Nash an accurate amount of money for what he was worth...just under the max contract level. But they were criticized for giving him such a long contract. While it may be true that they will rue the final year or two of that contract, it was worth it for them to overpay for the one cog that makes their machine work properly. Now? The only ones criticized for the Nash situation are the Mavericks, who refused to match that contract and instead signed Erick Dampier to an even longer contract. So, Nash is paid quite a bit of money, but he constitutes such a high percentage of that team's success that he will never be paid enough. That is what makes it a good deal.

Find a number and stick to it
A smart team finds the maximum price they are willing to pay a free agent and sticks to it. Once you start making concessions about contract length and salary, you will always end up overpaying. Players are only worth what you think they are worth. Let someone else overpay for them if they want.


Ultimately, as I always point out, it comes down to owner responsibility. Every owner should have the right to pay a player what they wish, but that doesn't mean you have to have an overzealous means to an idiotic end.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Some suggestions to juice up All-Star Monday

Why not stick Carlos in a home run derby?

As the Home Run Derby concluded Monday night, I couldn't help feeling like there was something missing...an opportunity that was sorely missed. The Home Run Derby has a certain Herculean draw to it that people love, and there is definitely skill involved in succeeding in it. But power is only one part of the very complex game that is baseball. If Major League Baseball would like to add some more competitions to build fan interest, I think they could and fans would be very receptive to it. Why have All Star Monday consist solely of crap like the celebrity softball game and cap it with one decent event like the Home Run Derby. What if we expanded the Monday lineup a bit?

The NBA does it. They saw the slam-dunk competition's popularity and expanded to include pre-All-Star Game events. Of course, now it has become a bunch of laughable competitions that no one cares about (including the dunk contest), but their hearts were in the right place. These are the events that Major League Baseball could employ for a glorious Monday night of festivities:


Precision Outfield Toss
Tom Emanski's Back-to-Back-to-Back AAU National Champions wouldn't have crap on these guys. Set the players up in center field and put a small bucket at home plate and dare them to throw as many balls out of 10 that they can. The last ball could be a "money ball," a la the three-point competition in the NBA. Come on Andruw Jones, even you and your .211 batting average could go to the All-Star Game this year if you wanted to.

This year's entrants:
Jeff Francoeur, Delmon Young, Willy Taveras, Michael Cuddyer, Josh Hamilton
Winner: Jeff Francoeur
Has a cannon and has 10 assists, second among outfielders. Cuddyer is the obvious choice with 15 assists, but I like to live dangerously on my fake predictions.


Home Run Rob
Everyone's favorite highlight play can come to life over and over again in this competition of skill and style. A coach or teammate of the participant lobs a ball that goes just over the wall or at the wall, and the player must make the catch in the most entertaining way possible. Be it a back flip, a running up the wall a la Bo Jackson or just an old-fashioned cookie jar grab over the fence, this one would look mighty cool. You wouldn't have to limit it to outfielder either as there are plenty of athletic fellows in infields around the Majors who could pull this off with gusto. Judged by a panel including Ken Griffey Jr., Bo Jackson, Ichiro, and Kevin Mitchell (why not?), this would be judged on style and the successful grab.

This year's entrants
Torii Hunter, Jose Reyes, Curtis Granderson, Chone Figgens, Joe Crede
Winner: Curtis Granderson
Nimble, athletic and has an awesome name. Has the right amount of flash to pull this off like it should.


Inside-the-park home run
This one is basically a test of foot speed and not much else. To start, you have to hit a ball out of the infield in the air, then make it as fast as possible around the bases. It could be a great showcase for the league's young speedsters and it would interesting to see if anyone would fall flat on their face.

This year's entrants
Jose Reyes, Carl Crawford, Reggie Willits, Curtis Granderson, Hanley Ramirez
Winner: Hanley Ramirez
He's incredibly fast and seems like he would try more than everyone else. Probably has some kind of inferiority complex to Reyes.


Fungo Precision Swat
As much as the Precision Outfield Toss judges throwing accuracy, the Fungo Precision Swat is about hitting a ball at a specific point. You could pit coaches against players, or, even better, have a team of a player from one team and the coach who hits fungo for that respective team.

This year's entrants
Rangers, Art Howe and Kenny Lofton; Red Sox, Dave Magadan and Kevin Youkilis; Astros, Jose Cruz and Mark Loretta
Winner: Astros, Jose Cruz and Mark Loretta
Homer pick puts Cheo and Loretta in the winner's circle because I want them to be there.


Non-Pitcher Strikeout Challenge
This one pits position players who think they can pitch against high school baseball players. It's simple, you pitch an inning, and whoever puts up the best stats (or least worst) wins. The only requirement to enter is that you can't have pitched a single pitch in the Majors. So, guys who did it up in the minors or high school, feel free to jump right in.

This year's entrants
Richie Sexson, Aaron Rowand, Vladimir Guerrero, Shane Victorino
Winner: Vlad Guerrero
High school hitters are so terrified that Vlad will hit them that they whiff while falling out of the batters box.


Pitcher's Home Run Derby
This one is pretty self-explanatory. You scoot the fence in about 15-20 feet and let the pitchers go to town. The only requirement would be to have pitched the minimum amount of innings to qualify for the statistical leaders list at the All-Star Break. The comedy of this one would be unrelentingly hilarious.

This year's entrants
Carlos Zambrano, Bronson Arroyo, Mike Hampton, Kerry Wood, Dontrelle Willis
Winner: Carlos Zambrano in a landslide.
Things Carlos Zambrano does well: hit home runs with excellent frequency for a pitcher, emphatically pump him fist after striking someone out, punching Michael Barrett.


Understandably, some of these competitions might push away some players for fear of injury risk, but just as happens with the NBA dunk contest, there will always be youngsters out there looking to make a name for themselves any way they can.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

ESPN goes the way of MTV, who cares?

They really aren't all that different.

And just like that, the last shred of ESPN's previous glory days is completely gone from the picture.

Don't get me wrong, ESPN has grown into a hackneyed, tiresome elephant that isn't getting any better. I watch the sporting events they carry, and I occasionally watch an Outside the Lines piece. But, the ESPN as I and many others knew it is gone.

But my feelings are different than most who hate what ESPN has become. You know why? Because there are a million other places to get what I need sports-wise. When it was born, ESPN was the sole national sports news provider. There was little choice about where to get your sports information outside of the local newscast's three-minute sports bit or tomorrow's newspaper. The innovation they provided will always be felt. But, because of that innovation, everyone else eventually figured out that it would be a good idea to jump on and start mass broadcasting sports.

Now that ESPN has become fat and happy, they have ceased to possess the edge that once made them great. But, I'll end my criticism there. ESPN can do what they wish, and getting angry about it is absolutely pointless. For every angry blogger that makes a list of all the reasons why ESPN sucks, there are ten fat, happy television watchers who don't mind hearing Stuart Scott or Chris Berman speak nonsense. For every overESPNed sports fan out there that is appalled by the asinine segment currently running called "Who's Now?", there is a viewer who is just fine with consuming it.

The funniest part of this is that it all seems eerily similar. Know why? MTV did the exact same thing.

Once upon a time, MTV was badass. Programming was rife with music videos, music shows, edgy cartoons and the occasional Real World (which at the time was the only reality show, and thus acceptable). Then, something changed. MTV started cutting back on its music-based programming and started to focus more on reality shows, comedy programs and popular culture shows. As MTV was in the process of transitioning out of being a majority music-based network, they added M2, which eventually became MTV2. They transitioned most of their music-based programming to M2, and those that were lucky enough to get M2 on their cable package could still watch shows like 120 Minutes, Yo! MTV Raps and Amp. Eventually MTV2 transitioned into a slightly tweaked version of late-1990s MTV and became full of spare crap like its parent company. Now they are basically the same network with a few different shows. MTV puts more focus on the TV than the M, and that's fine. They found the audience that would make them buckets of money and stuck with it. That's called being a smart business.

The beauty about the time frame of MTV's transition out of being a music-based network was the rise of the Internet. Now, instead of waiting on 120 Minutes to tell me a new Jon Spencer Blues Explosion or Faith No More album was coming out, I could get on the Internet and find out everything I needed to know. In the past few years, with the advent of Youtube, even having a network to broadcast music videos has become obsolete. You can find them all on the Internet already and watch exactly the ones you want to see without wading through the occasional terrible one as you used to have to do when MTV still showed music.

As time progressed, ESPN found their niche also. They have found that following the E, P and N in their name will make them more money than the S. If that's how they find success, then let them go right ahead. Just don't believe them when they purport to put their journalism first, because that is an obvious lie. But the beauty of it all is that we don't have to get our sports news from ESPN anymore. In essence, ESPN's change and MTV's have been the same, and the world's information consumption has transitioned with it.

So, my recommendation to those of you who are fed up with ESPN's mediocre-to-bad programming: start watching ESPNews, a Fox Sports affiliate or the Internet. Lord know there's plenty out there to consume.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

The greatest solo sporting event on Earth

Let's hope the UCI can start cracking down on doping, then maybe people will start to care again.

In 1903 the Parisian equivalent to Sports Illustrated, L'Auto (now known as L'Equipe), founded the greatest bicycle race on the face of the Earth and named it the Tour de France. The Tour was conjured up to increase newspaper circulation, which it dramatically did, but through the years has grown into what can be seen as the greatest individual sporting event on Earth.

Sure the Olympics can provide some outstanding individual efforts in track and field, swimming, and other such sports. Marathoners and triathletes have all of our respect with their strength, endurance, and willingness to compete in what seems to be more self-torture than sport. The cyclists that compete in the Tour de France have them all beat, hands down.

In a race that spans a little over three weeks, 2,000+ miles, and with a measly two rest days, it is hard to argue that any event can hold a candle to what these guys put themselves through in pursuit of the coveted maillot jaune or, yellow jersey. Just take a look at this and tell me that even completing the race is an easy feat. It isn't. That's right, these guys ride bikes at speeds reaching 60 mph (downhill, of course) across most of France, parts of Belgium, through the French Alps, and through the Pyrenees Mountains. For those who are not familiar with France's mountain ranges, the peaks of the Alps are right up there with the Rockies while the Pyrenees are not far behind. Every year several cyclists who specialize in flat land cycling (sprinting) drop out when the mountain stages begin while during the race the Voiture balai, or broom wagon, collects riders who can not finish or are too far behind.

Everyone who has even overheard a conversation or news piece about cycling will tell you that they don't care because most of the riders, in their opinion, are using performance-enhancing drugs. The types of drugs used in cycling tell you just how rigorous the sport is as most offenders are found to have taken EPO and/or given themselves blood transfusions to increase the amount of oxygen in the blood. Every sport has cheaters and dopers, very few sports have athletes who store up their own oxygen-rich blood with the intent of replacing their oxygen-depleted blood overnight. Hopefully, these practices are coming to an end as the UCI (cycling's governing body) has drafted tough, mandatory contracts for riders to adhere to. This year is already looking ten times better than last year.

Assuming cycling can put its recent sordid past behind it and pedal into greener fields, the Tour de France will remain as one of the top sporting events in the world. It is already the penultimate test of human endurance and the pinnacle of what a solo athlete can achieve in the world of sports today.

Kenneth
E-mail us

Kenneth is a guest contributor to laissez-faire ball.

Everyone will love A-Rod in 2012

Start getting ready to love some A-Rod.

As Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez hastily makes his way toward the 500 home run milestone and catches another all-time great in homers, it made me think. Why does the general public have a distaste for Alex Rodriguez?

He's pretty arrogant. But, he has earned the right to be. He's that damn good. Besides, what team in baseball doesn't have a handful or arrogant players? It's baseball after all, the arrogant player's sport.

He makes more money than any other player in Major League Baseball, but who cares? It's not like he's hurting the Yankees' salary cap situation since one doesn't exist. Are people subconsciously jealous?

He doesn't exactly seem very approachable, but then again, not seeming approachable doesn't necessarily make you an unpopular guy.

Honestly though, for the fans in the general public who dislike A-Rod, I think it mostly boils down to the amount of money he makes and his unwavering success; people are jealous by nature. But honestly, who cares right now? At this point in his career, he isn't approaching any milestones anyone else hasn't already reached several times. Hell, this season alone, he is one of five players who will likely achieve some significant home run milestones, so isn't like his story seems like anything special. With Sammy Sosa breaking 600, Frank Thomas breaking 500, Ken Griffey Jr. possibly making a run at 600 and Barry Bonds inching his way toward the all-time mark, A-Rod's 500 is seen as just another step for him, like it's something that has always been expected of him.

What the general public fails to foresee is the eventual love and admiration for A-Rod that is coming in about five to six years. With the everlasting hatred being directed at Barry Bonds, baseball-loving America will be looking for someone to right their record books. If someone can come along and unseat Bonds, no matter who it may be, America will embrace that person to no end. Enter a 37-year old Alex Rodriguez.

With more home runs at his age than any other player in history (Jimmie Foxx is second with 464 at age 31), he's on an unbelievable pace. Hell, he's had more home runs at his age than anyone in history ever year since he was 25 years old. His pace far outreaches Griffey, who had 460 at age 31. At his current pace, A-Rod should finish this season with 524 home runs.

Considering he finishes this season at his current pace of 58, he will have averaged 44.5 home runs over his past five seasons, an accurate enough sample for his career. Let's do a little career analysis on what we can look to expect from A-Rod as compared to some of the all-time great home-run hitters. We'll exclude Barry Bonds as his data would skew the results of this for some pretty obvious reasons.

Hank Aaron

Peaked at 37 years old with 47 home runs

Had an incredibly level career, fluctuations in home run totals never deviated very far from the mean

Didn't start missing any games to speak of until he was 37 years old

Played until age 42

Babe Ruth

Peaked at 32 years old with 60 home runs

Averaged about a 10 percent decline in home runs after 32 (not including final season in which he only played 28 games)

Only significant injury was a nasty case of gonorrhea at 30 years old that only let him play in 98 games that year

Played until age 40

Willie Mays

Peaked at 34 years old with 52 home runs

Took a pretty big hit after his peak with an 33-percent decrease in home runs after the 1965 season (percentage decline excludes his final three season in which he combined to play 154 games)

Didn't miss significant time until he was 38 years old, a season in which he played 117 games

Played until age 42

What does this tell us definitively? Absolutely nothing. A-Rod could very well pull a Griffey and start breaking down physically at 32, which is A-Rod's next birthday. But, Griffey had some injury issues even before breaking down for three seasons. In 1994 and 95, he combined for 183 games, part of which were missed with a hand injury. After becoming a full-time player in 1996, the fewest games A-Rod has played has been 129 in 1999 when he suffered a minor knee injury. He still finished that season with 42 homers. Excluding that, he has been almost injury free, and for the sake of this argument and the hope of baseball fans everywhere, let's assume that he doesn't just wilt like Griffey did for 3 1/2 years.

So, let's assume the following things about A-Rod in accordance with the information we have about him, Aaron, Ruth and Mays.

A-Rod will average 45 home runs in 2008 (32 years old) and 2009 (33 years old)

A-Rod will finish the 2007 season with his current pace of 58 home runs

A-Rod will peak in single-season home run total when he is 34 (an average age of the three players) with 60 home runs in 2010

His home run totals for each subsequent season will decrease by 10 percent (a reasonable estimate mostly based upon the logical decline of Ruth)

He won't miss significant time to injury

He will play until age 41 (average of the three)

When he is 40 and 41, he will play half a season due to his inherent oldness

If so, we can expect his home run totals to look like this:

2007: 58 HR (524 total)

2008: 40 HR (564 total)

2009: 50 HR (614 total)

2010: 60 HR (674 total)

2011: 54 HR (728 total)

2012: 47 HR (775 total)
And that's the record...assuming Bonds calls it quits at the end of this season, which he will.

Just for the sake of fun, let's see how many A-Rod should end up with:

2013: 44 (822 total)

2014: 39 (861 total)

2015: 18 (879 total)

2016: 16 (895 total)

Obviously this extrapolated data will not necessarily pan out this way, but it's interesting to look at where A-Rod should end up in the not so distant future anyway. Barring some catastrophic injury, he'll pass Bonds' record without a doubt. He may not get there as fast as this data suggests, but he will get there, and you will love him if for no other reason than the fact that he has a normal-sized head and a lack of the word "steroids" ever entering the same breath as "A-Rod."

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Solving the contract-year menace

Please God, don't let them see me for the fraud that I am.

Imagine a scenario with me.

An NBA player is entering the last year of a multi-year deal. He plays as hard as he can and busts his hump harder than he ever has before. He's practically salivating at the prospect of all the money he's going to earn next year. He's averaging career highs in almost all of the major statistical categories and makes sure to play even harder when his team is playing on national television. He knows that once he earns that massive contract during the summer, he can go back to putting up an 80-percent effort for the remainder of his contract until another contract year comes up. Life is sweet.

As free agents are being snapped up by the dozens, several of which have likely duped their respective teams by a stellar contract year, it makes the mind wander into scenarios that would curb such situations. Now, I am absolutely acknowledging that the NBA Players Association would never, ever, ever approve of ideas like these, but for the sake of argument and interest, we'll map out two potential solutions.

Have teams provide more incentive bonuses and less guaranteed money
Instead of just guaranteeing every chunk of a contract to players, make their performance reflect the due they earn. Every player could still be paid a base salary which would still provide a substantial portion of a player's salary. But if 1/4 of a player's salary was determined by how many games he was able to play in a season (punishing oft-injured players and pansies), an expected minimum PER or other expected statistics such as rebounds, blocks or field-goal percentage (punishing lazy or suddenly inefficient players) or team wins earned (rewarding the team as a whole for success), you could keep players honest and focused toward a common goal of succeeding throughout the season. With clearly established individual and team goals, you can help keep players from "shutting themselves down" and reward them for continuing to produce a professional effort.

Have a team option of voiding one contract per year
At the end of the season, if a player has shown himself to be completely unworthy of the contract bestowed upon him, the team could feasibly void his contract completely, making him an unrestricted free agent. The catch is the team could only void one contract at the end of each season, so you would really just need to play better than another overpaid weak link. There is one facet of this possibility that would have to be worked out before it was implemented.

Some teams would inevitably sign a player for far more money than the market dictates. Because some teams would have the shady vision of cutting the player at the end of the season so they don't have to pay his salary, in essence renting him for one season, penalty provisions would have to be put into place to discourage teams from making unethical decisions, knowing they can just void their way out of it. So, as a penalty for voiding a lazy player's contract, the team would have to pay a quarter of the salary remaining on the players contract to the player, and a quarter of the remaining salary to the league as a penalty.

So, when Vince Carter is loafing his way through the middle of his enormous deal with the Toronto Raptors, the Raptors could simply cut him to go wherever he wishes, and only end up paying half of what they still owed him. It would free up salary cap space immediately, and allow them to possibly lure in a more honest player who won't laze up the final three years of his contract and demand a trade because he's bored. It would also encourage Carter to continue to play as hard as possible, and would kill some of his leverage to force a trade elsewhere. It's a sticky situation that would have several pitfalls, but the current system certainly has plenty of pitfalls as well.


In reality, for this problem to be solved, owners would have to start exercising contract responsibility, something of which they have obviously shown themselves to be incapable. So, as long as the Vince Carters, Erick Dampiers, Tim Thomases and Mike Jameses of the world continue to bust their hump for one year, idiot owners will continue to throw salary-cap destroying amounts of money at them for all eternity.

This year's candidates? Vince Carter, Matt Barnes, Gerald Wallace and Mikki Moore. If I'm a betting man, I'm betting this year's production from these guys will pale in comparison to last year's. Happy signing!

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Stick to the field with your sports criticism

There's an epidemic going around. It spreads in newspapers, gyms, slow-pitch softball games, churches and pretty much anywhere that sports are discussed and debated. It's called I'd Never Do That syndrome.

In the sports world, there is always debate. It's inevitable that people want to offer what they feel that professional athletes should do with their lives. Second guessing in-game decisions as well as off-field decisions are the easiest arguments to make.

On-field issues are easy to discuss and criticize for several different reasons. We have the benefit of gruelingly reviewing plays through instant replay and discussion, which gives us some kind of perceived omniscience about the game that is almost always skewed and incomplete. Some who played the sport (no matter how briefly) feel they have some kind of extra knowledge that some egghead who just watches that particular sport doesn't have. Never mind that they probably played for two years in the long, long ago; they know the sport because they played it.

But, despite the annoying proportions that in-field criticism reaches, it isn't that bad. After all, that's many people's reason for following sports: to live the sports dream by proxy. No, the most egregious sports opinions are the ones that have to do with issues surrounding sports that don't involve in-game analysis. That's where INDTs strikes truest.

Everyone has heard it before. "Look at Barry Bonds, what a cheater. I never would have taken steroids. That just isn't right." Another classic: "How could he abandon his teammates for a few extra million dollars? I would have taken the pay cut." And finally, my favorite: "How could that guy go out partying like that? He makes millions, he could buy the party and bring it to his place. I'd never have gotten caught doing something stupid like that if I made his kind of money."

Just stop it. As I addressed in my article about LeBron James' Darfur situation, unless you have the money and face the situations these athletes deal with, you have no basis for saying how you would react.

Some people may possess the fortitude to say "no" to using steroids and making millions of dollars in salary and endorsements that come from it, but its moot. Until that situation is staring you in the face, you have no right to pass judgement on a pro athlete who decided he would use a substance that wasn't illegal to earn himself more money than you'll ever know. Players who allegedly used steroids like Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire and Jason Giambi are rich men, and many of their kind are unapologetic about their pasts. They saw a pile of money waiting for them and sacrificed some of their long-term health and dignity for a lot more money. But, inevitably, some yahoo next to you at a bar will still be spouting on about how "they should give the money back, they cheated." Well, I hate to argue with you (seriously you're probably an idiot), but it isn't cheating because Major League Baseball screwed up and didn't make it illegal until the integrity of the sport was already compromised. So, any player out there that used performance-enhancing drugs before MLB outlawed them had the choice to take their health into their own hands as well as all the money they'd be making, or keep plugging along with their natural talent alone. On a personal note, I don't want Barry Bonds to break Hank Aaron's home run record. It's not because he played in a tainted era or used steroids. I just can't stand the guy. He's an insufferable jerk. That's far more of an offense than doing something that was within the rules at the time.

Salary issues are also a favorite point of contention. In December of 2005, Johnny Damon signed to the Yankees as a free agent for a few million more than the Red Sox had offered him. Red Sox fans were outraged. How could Damon just throw the Red Sox/Yankees rivalry to the side and sign with the enemy like that over a measly few million dollars? It should have been obvious. Your goofy rivalry doesn't mean a damn thing to him. You'd probably have taken the money too, hypocrite. He wanted more money and a new situation, and he took it. You thought he owed you some kind of break in playing for Boston when all he really owed you was to play the best he could while he was there. If anything, they should have been angry at ownership for not stepping up and paying Damon. Stop giving the team your money if you're that mad.

The most fun point of criticism involves off-field mischief players get into. I usually like to restrict my criticism to "What a dumbass" and try to leave it at that. But I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone remark about how they can't believe a player would continue to go out to clubs when trouble usually finds them. Well, guess what? They have tons of money and like to have fun, it's really not a novel concept. It doesn't make their activities smart, but it's not like it doesn't make any sense. As a general rule, people like to have fun. If they have the means to do it, they're likely going to have fun and bring all their friends along for the ride. So, get off your high horse and put a lid on it, you have no idea what their temptations are like unless you are put in their situation.

The bottom line is this: just because you follow sports and watch them religiously doesn't give you some kind of expert license to know what it's like to be faced with a pile of money and an endless amount of decisions concerning it. Stick to criticizing the on-field moves, it's a lot more fun to act like an expert that way.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Sonics made a good call: Start from the ground up

In case anyone was wondering if Seattle was starting over completely, the last nail has finally entered that coffin. According to reports, free agent Rashard Lewis will join the Orlando Magic in a five-year, $75 million deal.

After making the playoffs in 2005 and winning in the first round, things have gone badly for the Sonics. After going 52-30 in that season, they followed it up with a lackluster 35-47 season and won only 31 games last year. With their best player Ray Allen not getting any younger, and their up-and-coming star Rashard Lewis likely working himself into quite a bit more than than the Sonics want to pay him, they were at a bit of a crossroads as an organization. Actually, they were and still are at a huge crossroads. With their new ownership considering a move from Seattle, there could be huge changes coming their way. Regardless, before the lottery winners had been announced, the Sonics were likely wondering what direction to go concerning their roster. And then, the lottery answered all their questions for them.

That's when they made a conscious decision to start from scratch. Let the two the links to the past go. Even if they are stand-up guys like Lewis and Allen, allow your youth to develop in a trial by fire. Allow your future core to learn together, improve together and mature together.

So, the Sonics saw a good deal on the table for Ray Allen and took it. In turn, they received the number five overall selection, Delonte West and Wally Szczerbiak. They selected Georgetown forward Jeff Green with the pick, and now new golden boy Kevin Durant has a sidekick to start fresh with. The Sonics didn't want Durant being a sidekick to anyone to start with, and that's fair from a marketing standpoint and from a basketball standpoint.

Now the Sonics will likely roll with a lineup that looks like this:

PG Luke Ridnour, 26 years old; Backup: Delonte West, 23 years old

SG Wally Szczerbiak, 30 years old (the lone grandpa); Backup: Damien Wilkins, 27 years old

SF Jeff Green, 20 years old; Backup: Mickael Gelabale, 24 years old

PF Kevin Durant, 18 years old; Backup: Nick Collison, 26 years old

C Chris Wilcox, 24 years old; Backup: Robert Swift, 21 years old

The Sonics finally realized what most teams never do. Sometimes it just makes sense to strip it down the foundation and build a new house. Don't just remodel it or buy some new cabinets or paint the living room a new coler. Bulldoze it.

Why keep some older holdovers on the roster when you can start something completely new? Screw the two years or so that would won't be competitive, the dividends when the players mature will pay off more than you can imagine. Strangely enough though, hardly anyone considers this an option. At least in the NBA, no one ever seems happy with completely blowing up the team and starting over. Call it a fear of alienating the fan base, fear of lost revenue during the rebuild or whatever you like, but the alternative to these decision will be so much better. The New York Knicks are proof positive of this. This is a team that reloads itself with different overpaid, overrated players every year. The have put themselves in such a hole under the salary cap, there appears to be no way out. And the reason? Who the hell knows. I assume it's because the money keeps pouring in from television contracts. That is their prerogative, but Knicks fans know the difference. And eventually, Knicks management might have a revolt on their hands.

So, while the Sonics rebuild for the brightest of futures, other teams should consider the same. That is, if it's still possible.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us