I am sick to my stomach. I can not believe how bad the draft went for my Bulls. Joakim fucking Noah. The player I hated in all of college basketball the second most ( far behind Noah) was Aaron Gray. I dropped my phone when I saw his name come across the screen as the Bull's pick at 49. I want to throw up.
JamesOn Curry was a great pick for the Bulls at 51, especially since I think he will be the replacement for the most overrated Bull at the moment, Ben Gordon. Ben Gordon will be traded at some point in the off season in my opinion. For the last two weeks I knew the all the KG and Kobe rumors involving the Bulls were bullshit. Now I myself am praying Paxson might have a plan gor Garnett. Here out this trade idea- Gordon, Nocioni( after a sign and trade), Noah and maybe a sign and trade with PJ Brown for Garnett. I think Gordon, Nocioni and Noah would make good building blocks for Minnesota. All it takes is the salary match.
I am just hoping for Noah to be off the Bulls. Aaron Gray is a broke dick( that means injury prone) and slow and most of all, BAD. Ben Gordon being traded though is something I really do believe will happen. JamesOn Curry is the exact same type of player as Ben Gordon. With Gordon becoming a free agent after this year, he is going to want big bucks. Save the cap space by unloading him, and use him as bait for an inside scorer. Who the hell is going to score inside for us when we have Tyrus Thomas, Ben Wallace, and fuckhead Noah on the floor.
Like I wrote yesterday, Noah may turn in to a great defensive player. He does bust his ass on the court, but I hate him and he doesn't help us with inside scoring. Paxson knows we still need a player in the paint who can put up points. I think the Bulls blew way too many games last year after they had a big lead because the outside shooting went cold and they had no one to lean on inside to get points.
Third biggest kick in the nuts of the night- When Brandan Wright was selected the pick in front of the Bulls ( by Jordan). I was floored when I had to say that Jordan got the steal of the draft. I was so excited when he was still on the board at 8, and kept telling my brother Jordan would fuck it up and pick Noah. Then the booya network guys said Jordan was big on Noah. Jordan pulled off the biggest steal of the night by taking Brandan Wright. Then what does he do? He sticks his head up his ass and trades the kid for Jason Richardson. I think Jason Richardson is a terrific player, but his contract is ridiculous and Wright is going to be a STAR. Great move by Golden State.
Worst Bulls Draft in History.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
NBA DRAFT PREVIEW
Tomorrow is the NBA draft and I wanted to go on record with my thoughts about certain players my Chicago Bulls might draft tomorrow. Before I do that, let me inform you on some of my previous draft thoughts from years past.
I wanted Lamar Odom when the Bulls had the number one pick in 99. I was praying the Bears would draft Tommie Harris and Greg Olsen. I wanted Chris Simms over Rex Grossman and Cadillac Williams over Cedric Benson. I hated the Bulls picking Jay Williams over Drew Gooden. I threw a tantrum practically when the Bears drafted Cade McCLOWN. I knew Hester would be fun to watch and I also said Adam Morrison was going to be a bust( then again, Michael Jordan was picking him so that one was kind of obvious.) So I am not perfect by far, but I feel I am a pretty good judge of talent.
This article is not about Oden or Durant. They are both going to be great players in my opinion. Oden reminds be of David Robinson and Durant reminds me of, well, no one comes to mind for him. Maybe a quicker, better ball handling skilled but weaker version of Dirk Nowitski. That sounds pretty good. They will each have very good, if not hall of fame, careers.
First let me start with who I pray the Bulls don't draft. Joakim Noah. I despise this kid. His defensive game is good, and if he gets stronger he could develop into a Marcus Camby type player. But he has no shot on offense and will just get energy points( dunks off rebounds and loose balls) for the next couple years and the Bulls need someone who can put up points in the paint soon. We already have Tyrus Thomas as a high energy guy with no outside shot( atleast he does not have one yet, but he is still young.) Speaking of Tyrus Thomas, I wanted Lamarcus Aldridge instead..
But the main reason I don't want the Bulls to draft him is because I think he is an arrogant, egotistical jackass. Every time I see him on my television I get angry. Just search him on youtube dancing and tell me you don't want to punch him in face. If he is still on the board when the Bulls are on the clock, I might have a nervous breakdown.
Al Horford and Brandan Wright are by far the next two best players in this draft. Brandan Wright is the only person I have ever thought has the potential to be a Tim Duncan type player. Now I think Tim Duncan is one of the two best power forwards of all time( Karl Malone is the other), so I am not saying Wright will be another Tim Duncan. But he could be looked at in six to eight years as a perennial all-star and MVP candidate. There is also a chance his career could look remarkably similar to someone like Drew Gooden I think he will atleast land somewhere in between.
Speaking of Karl Malone, that is who Al Horford reminds me of. I think he will wind up being similar to Carlos Boozer. How many people out there wouldn't take Carlos Boozer on your team.
Mike Conley Jr has a really bad outside shot at the moment for a point guard. But he can work on that. A comparison is hard for Conley as well. I think he has the potential to be similar to Kevin Johnson( who was an unbelievable point guard who never gets mentioned in the "best of all time" conversation, but he should be. He has been so underrated since he retired.) He does need to reach that potential however. Right now he is a top twelve point guard in the NBA.
Spencer Hawes might be pretty good. I haven't seen him that much but what I hear is encouraging. He could also turn out to be Michael Doleac. Corey Brewer will have a productive NBA career, and might end up scary good if he gets a little stronger. He could be a poor man's Scottie Pippen. I would take that on my team any day.
Acie Law will have a solid career. Could end up like Derek Fisher or could be as good as Chauncey Billups. Yi Jinlan has potential to be a very dynamic player who will present match up problems much like Nowitski does. But he has to get stronger and get better against a way higher level of competition. I like his upside a lot, and I would really like the Bulls to draft him if he is available at nine and no one else I have praised above is available.
Last but not least. Two sleeper picks ( late first rounders who might end up all stars)- Tiago Splitter and Javaris Crittenton. Twenty Two hours until the Draft. Please Paxson, no Noah.
I wanted Lamar Odom when the Bulls had the number one pick in 99. I was praying the Bears would draft Tommie Harris and Greg Olsen. I wanted Chris Simms over Rex Grossman and Cadillac Williams over Cedric Benson. I hated the Bulls picking Jay Williams over Drew Gooden. I threw a tantrum practically when the Bears drafted Cade McCLOWN. I knew Hester would be fun to watch and I also said Adam Morrison was going to be a bust( then again, Michael Jordan was picking him so that one was kind of obvious.) So I am not perfect by far, but I feel I am a pretty good judge of talent.
This article is not about Oden or Durant. They are both going to be great players in my opinion. Oden reminds be of David Robinson and Durant reminds me of, well, no one comes to mind for him. Maybe a quicker, better ball handling skilled but weaker version of Dirk Nowitski. That sounds pretty good. They will each have very good, if not hall of fame, careers.
First let me start with who I pray the Bulls don't draft. Joakim Noah. I despise this kid. His defensive game is good, and if he gets stronger he could develop into a Marcus Camby type player. But he has no shot on offense and will just get energy points( dunks off rebounds and loose balls) for the next couple years and the Bulls need someone who can put up points in the paint soon. We already have Tyrus Thomas as a high energy guy with no outside shot( atleast he does not have one yet, but he is still young.) Speaking of Tyrus Thomas, I wanted Lamarcus Aldridge instead..
But the main reason I don't want the Bulls to draft him is because I think he is an arrogant, egotistical jackass. Every time I see him on my television I get angry. Just search him on youtube dancing and tell me you don't want to punch him in face. If he is still on the board when the Bulls are on the clock, I might have a nervous breakdown.
Al Horford and Brandan Wright are by far the next two best players in this draft. Brandan Wright is the only person I have ever thought has the potential to be a Tim Duncan type player. Now I think Tim Duncan is one of the two best power forwards of all time( Karl Malone is the other), so I am not saying Wright will be another Tim Duncan. But he could be looked at in six to eight years as a perennial all-star and MVP candidate. There is also a chance his career could look remarkably similar to someone like Drew Gooden I think he will atleast land somewhere in between.
Speaking of Karl Malone, that is who Al Horford reminds me of. I think he will wind up being similar to Carlos Boozer. How many people out there wouldn't take Carlos Boozer on your team.
Mike Conley Jr has a really bad outside shot at the moment for a point guard. But he can work on that. A comparison is hard for Conley as well. I think he has the potential to be similar to Kevin Johnson( who was an unbelievable point guard who never gets mentioned in the "best of all time" conversation, but he should be. He has been so underrated since he retired.) He does need to reach that potential however. Right now he is a top twelve point guard in the NBA.
Spencer Hawes might be pretty good. I haven't seen him that much but what I hear is encouraging. He could also turn out to be Michael Doleac. Corey Brewer will have a productive NBA career, and might end up scary good if he gets a little stronger. He could be a poor man's Scottie Pippen. I would take that on my team any day.
Acie Law will have a solid career. Could end up like Derek Fisher or could be as good as Chauncey Billups. Yi Jinlan has potential to be a very dynamic player who will present match up problems much like Nowitski does. But he has to get stronger and get better against a way higher level of competition. I like his upside a lot, and I would really like the Bulls to draft him if he is available at nine and no one else I have praised above is available.
Last but not least. Two sleeper picks ( late first rounders who might end up all stars)- Tiago Splitter and Javaris Crittenton. Twenty Two hours until the Draft. Please Paxson, no Noah.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Chief of Staff
News out of Washington today is that General Peter Pace is about to be replaced as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Since we are engaged in unpopular military engagements in the middle east, it has been reported that instead of initiating the confirmation process for General Pace, the White House has decided to choose someone else to nominate for the position.
While I understand the politics in a confirmation process, I disagree with this idea. Yes, General Pace is one of the most recognizable faces of the fiasco in Iraq. Because of that, the nomination proceedings in front of Congress would most likely become a Bush administration bash. But instead the White House has decided to replace a Marine Corps General with a Navy Admiral. This is something I strongly disagree with.
It is not that I disagree with replacing General Pace. I think change can only help our military. Also, putting a new face in front of the camera to answer questions about Iraq will give the White House some political breathing room for a few weeks. But I do disagree with an Admiral in the position of chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
My belief is simple. Only an Army or Marine Corps General should be the chair of the JCS. While I acknowledge that every member and former member of a branch of the military has a bias towards their branch, that bias has nothing to do with my view.
The chairman of the JCS is an advisory position to the White House. It does not command wars. But the top military advisor to the White House should be an expert on how the military is being deployed and an expert on ground tactics, especially when over one hundred thousand soldiers and marines are on the ground in foreign soil. A career Air Force or Naval officer, unless a former Seal team member, does not have the resume that meets that criteria.
This belief also extends to the DOD. The Secretary of Defense should also meet this criteria. When Donald Rumsfeld was named Secretary of Defense, I was dissapointed to say the least. How does being a in the Navy for two years while not at war prepare you to be in charge of the Pentagon. I understand that Rumsfeld is not the only defense secretary without major military experience, but it is the most recent example. Both political parties have made the secretary of Defense a ceremonial position within the government and that has hurt our military.
While I understand air supperiority is a major part of past and future conflicts, without soldiers and marines ON THE GROUND being utilized to their full potential, a war can not be waged to perfection. And without knowledge of what it is like to be on the ground during a conflict, you can not be expected to know what to advise the commander in chief. Without good advice, what kind of advice does the President have left to listen to.
While I understand the politics in a confirmation process, I disagree with this idea. Yes, General Pace is one of the most recognizable faces of the fiasco in Iraq. Because of that, the nomination proceedings in front of Congress would most likely become a Bush administration bash. But instead the White House has decided to replace a Marine Corps General with a Navy Admiral. This is something I strongly disagree with.
It is not that I disagree with replacing General Pace. I think change can only help our military. Also, putting a new face in front of the camera to answer questions about Iraq will give the White House some political breathing room for a few weeks. But I do disagree with an Admiral in the position of chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
My belief is simple. Only an Army or Marine Corps General should be the chair of the JCS. While I acknowledge that every member and former member of a branch of the military has a bias towards their branch, that bias has nothing to do with my view.
The chairman of the JCS is an advisory position to the White House. It does not command wars. But the top military advisor to the White House should be an expert on how the military is being deployed and an expert on ground tactics, especially when over one hundred thousand soldiers and marines are on the ground in foreign soil. A career Air Force or Naval officer, unless a former Seal team member, does not have the resume that meets that criteria.
This belief also extends to the DOD. The Secretary of Defense should also meet this criteria. When Donald Rumsfeld was named Secretary of Defense, I was dissapointed to say the least. How does being a in the Navy for two years while not at war prepare you to be in charge of the Pentagon. I understand that Rumsfeld is not the only defense secretary without major military experience, but it is the most recent example. Both political parties have made the secretary of Defense a ceremonial position within the government and that has hurt our military.
While I understand air supperiority is a major part of past and future conflicts, without soldiers and marines ON THE GROUND being utilized to their full potential, a war can not be waged to perfection. And without knowledge of what it is like to be on the ground during a conflict, you can not be expected to know what to advise the commander in chief. Without good advice, what kind of advice does the President have left to listen to.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Debate Thoughts
Well the second democratic presidential debate took place last night on CNN. Was there a clear cut winner in the debate? NO. Was there a person that destroyed his chance of becoming president? Not really, since realistically only three people really have a chance of winning the democratic nomination. But if I had to choose who did the worst in the debate, it would be the person who I believe would make the best candidate, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico.
Richardson is not as polished a public speaker as the other candidates. Any time he answers a question, he stumbles around words, appears flustered and takes a while to think before he speaks. I am not sure if this is to blame on Richardson or his team of advisors for doing a terrible job of debate prep. But no matter who is to blame, it just looks bad, and unfortunately substance and resume does not make someone president.
I was entertained by John Edwards during the debate. As I type this right now, Hillary Clinton is way ahead of Obama and Edwards in the polls. All three candidates have put forth individual plans for universal health care. All three oppose the war in Iraq. So not much seems to seperate the top three candidates. With Hillary understanding this, and understanding her lead in the polls, she kept stating that the beliefs on the stage were very similar, and the real differences lie between democrats and republicans.
Former Senator Edwards also understands that he is way behind and has to do something to get back in the thick of the race. So he repeatedley stated that the American people need to realize that there are significant differences between himself and the two front runners. I am not an Edwards fan. I believe Richardson, Clinton, Dodd and Biden are all far superior candidates. But Edwards does have an idea of what is going on. His true aspiration is to become the next president, which I can't say is true off all eight candidates that graced the CNN stage last night.
Joe Biden has performed great in both debates so far. At first I had a big problem with Biden's plan for Iraq, believing it would cause more instabillity in the region, especially with Turkey. But the more I think about it, the more appealing it is looking to me. I haven't jumped on the three partition bandwagon yet, but I am not throwing rocks at it anymore.
Senator Biden is one person I believe is not really running for president. He refuses to challenge Senator Clinton on anything, and has given her praise time after time. I think he sees the writing on the wall. Clinton will be the nominee, and if she wins, Senator Biden wants a high profile job within the future Clinton administration. How does Secretary of State Biden sound?
Senator Biden has been the most honest person with the public. He speaks the truth, not just crap people want to hear. Last night when he said people need to face the facts that troops will be in Iraq for a while and they need to be funded, that was a very candid statement for a democratic debate. I wish Biden had a chance of winning the nominee, because I believe he would make a great president. But polling numbers don't lie, and unless Obama, Edwards and Clinton all have huge scandals hit them, Biden has no chance in hell. Even if the top three all became scandal ridden, Biden still wouldn't have a chance because then Al Gore would jump in and grab the nomination within hours of declaring.
As we sit on June 4th, 2007, Hillary Clinton is running one of the smartest campaigns in a while. Her people understand that the change n Congress in November was the country rejecting republicans. So she has not attacked her democratic opponents, instead choosing to make this a democratic versus republican issue. As long as she stays ahead, there is no reason to attack a fellow democrat. She just needs to keep reminding voters that our country has been lied to and led astray by a REPUBLICAN president. Independent voters seem to be listening.
Richardson is not as polished a public speaker as the other candidates. Any time he answers a question, he stumbles around words, appears flustered and takes a while to think before he speaks. I am not sure if this is to blame on Richardson or his team of advisors for doing a terrible job of debate prep. But no matter who is to blame, it just looks bad, and unfortunately substance and resume does not make someone president.
I was entertained by John Edwards during the debate. As I type this right now, Hillary Clinton is way ahead of Obama and Edwards in the polls. All three candidates have put forth individual plans for universal health care. All three oppose the war in Iraq. So not much seems to seperate the top three candidates. With Hillary understanding this, and understanding her lead in the polls, she kept stating that the beliefs on the stage were very similar, and the real differences lie between democrats and republicans.
Former Senator Edwards also understands that he is way behind and has to do something to get back in the thick of the race. So he repeatedley stated that the American people need to realize that there are significant differences between himself and the two front runners. I am not an Edwards fan. I believe Richardson, Clinton, Dodd and Biden are all far superior candidates. But Edwards does have an idea of what is going on. His true aspiration is to become the next president, which I can't say is true off all eight candidates that graced the CNN stage last night.
Joe Biden has performed great in both debates so far. At first I had a big problem with Biden's plan for Iraq, believing it would cause more instabillity in the region, especially with Turkey. But the more I think about it, the more appealing it is looking to me. I haven't jumped on the three partition bandwagon yet, but I am not throwing rocks at it anymore.
Senator Biden is one person I believe is not really running for president. He refuses to challenge Senator Clinton on anything, and has given her praise time after time. I think he sees the writing on the wall. Clinton will be the nominee, and if she wins, Senator Biden wants a high profile job within the future Clinton administration. How does Secretary of State Biden sound?
Senator Biden has been the most honest person with the public. He speaks the truth, not just crap people want to hear. Last night when he said people need to face the facts that troops will be in Iraq for a while and they need to be funded, that was a very candid statement for a democratic debate. I wish Biden had a chance of winning the nominee, because I believe he would make a great president. But polling numbers don't lie, and unless Obama, Edwards and Clinton all have huge scandals hit them, Biden has no chance in hell. Even if the top three all became scandal ridden, Biden still wouldn't have a chance because then Al Gore would jump in and grab the nomination within hours of declaring.
As we sit on June 4th, 2007, Hillary Clinton is running one of the smartest campaigns in a while. Her people understand that the change n Congress in November was the country rejecting republicans. So she has not attacked her democratic opponents, instead choosing to make this a democratic versus republican issue. As long as she stays ahead, there is no reason to attack a fellow democrat. She just needs to keep reminding voters that our country has been lied to and led astray by a REPUBLICAN president. Independent voters seem to be listening.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
If I Was In Charge
Hello everyone. It has been a while since I wrote an article. With my Bulls playing game six tonight against the Pistons, and the White Sux coming in to Wrigley for the weekend, this is one of the best sports weekends of the year. With that in mind, I have been thinking about what I would do if I was in charge of all sports.
I am not talking about being a commissioner of a league. I am talking about complete control of all sports( atleast the ones that I care about, some drunken redneck in camoflauge can be in charge of NASCAR). Everything that goes on in the sports world, from announce teams to mascots falls in my domain. So I can do whatever I see fit to change the sports landscape. Anyone that knows me knows I would spend my first day in office completely restructuring the BOOYA network. But I could write about the problems with the BOOYAS until I turn sixty, so let me discuss problems that can easily be fixed.
By the way, these thoughts are not my top things I would do. I am writing this off the hip, so whatever comes into my head is going to be put to paper. However, I do know the very first thing I would do if I was in charge.
The VERY FIRST THING I would do if I was in charge of sports would be- Put Pete Rose in the Baseball Hall of Fame. This is the biggest travesty in professional sports. Pete Rose bet on baseball as a manager. He bet on his team as a manager. Pete Rose might be a complete asshole who will do anything for a dollar. But do you know what else Pete Rose did? He got more hits in baseball then ANYONE. Baseball has been around since the post civil war era, and no one, I repeat, no one has gotten more hits then Mr. Rose. The all time home run leader is in the Hall. The all time strikeout leader is in the Hall. The all time Wins leader is in the Hall. The guy with the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth most hits of all time are in the Hall. But Mr. Rose is still on the outside looking in because of the deal he made with Bart Giamatti.( I know I spelled that wrong but I don't have the patience to spell check.)
The Hall of Fame is for people who excelled on the playing field. Pete Rose did that. He is one of the top 25 players of all time. Ban him from managing again. Ban him from being involved in coaching. But put him in the Hall.
The same goes for Shoeless Joe Jackson. Yes, he was a White Sux. But not many people realize that he has the second highest career batting average in the HISTORY of baseball. Only Ty Cobb( who by the way was a complete piece of shit of a person) has a higher career batting average. Shoeless Joe may have taken money to throw the World Series ten years before the great depression, but he hit .375 in the series. Until these two guys are in the Hall of Fame, the Hall will remain incomplete.
Another thing I would do if I was in charge of sports would be to increase penalties for driving under the influence.( The goddamn Cubs just blew a four run ninth inning lead to the Mets, FUCK!) For anyone that is convicted of drunk driving, they should be suspended for one quarter of their respective season. Anyone that is convicted of a second DUI would be suspended for an entire season.
Driving while intoxicated is something that puts thousands of lives at risk No excuse is valid for it. When you throw in the fact that professional athletes can easily afford a limo or a personal driver anytime they drink, it makes a DUI by an athlete that much more sickening. Strong punishment is the only way to get this point across.
One more thing I want to change about sports? I would get rid of Joe Morgan and Tiki Barber as announcers/commentators. Joe Morgan is an egotistical jackass. Every time Sunday Night Baseball on the Booya network begins, I feel a need to vomit when John Miller mentions his "Hall of Fame" partner. Joe Morgan is god in Joe Morgan's eyes. He speaks the booya network talking points, and he states the obvious when it comes to his analysis of the game. Johan Santana is a good pitcher. Alex Rodriguez is a good fastball hitter. No shit dumbass. If people don't know that, they shouldn't be watching baseball.
As for Tiki Barber, I despise him. First off, he is NOT a hall of fame running back. He was only a every down back for five years of his career. When I think of the hall of fame running backs, I think of Sanders, Dickerson, Brown, Smith and most of all, Walter Payton. Tiki Barber should not even be mentioned in the same day. For that I apologize.
Mr. Barber spent the last two years of his football career setting himself up for a television gig. He marketed himself like crazy. Nothing is wrong with that. But he is also an egomaniac that can talk the talk but never walked the walk. I can't wait to see Keith Olberman join the NBC Sunday night football cast, but will change the channel once Tiki is shown.
So many things need to be fixed in sports. These are just three things I would do. I have many other things floating around but don't have the time to write them. Have a good day every buddy and GO BULLS. Twenty Two hours until the Cubs whoop on the Sux at Wrigley. If anyone has a topic you would like my opinion on, feel free to contact me at sportsandpolitics@yahoo.com.
I am not talking about being a commissioner of a league. I am talking about complete control of all sports( atleast the ones that I care about, some drunken redneck in camoflauge can be in charge of NASCAR). Everything that goes on in the sports world, from announce teams to mascots falls in my domain. So I can do whatever I see fit to change the sports landscape. Anyone that knows me knows I would spend my first day in office completely restructuring the BOOYA network. But I could write about the problems with the BOOYAS until I turn sixty, so let me discuss problems that can easily be fixed.
By the way, these thoughts are not my top things I would do. I am writing this off the hip, so whatever comes into my head is going to be put to paper. However, I do know the very first thing I would do if I was in charge.
The VERY FIRST THING I would do if I was in charge of sports would be- Put Pete Rose in the Baseball Hall of Fame. This is the biggest travesty in professional sports. Pete Rose bet on baseball as a manager. He bet on his team as a manager. Pete Rose might be a complete asshole who will do anything for a dollar. But do you know what else Pete Rose did? He got more hits in baseball then ANYONE. Baseball has been around since the post civil war era, and no one, I repeat, no one has gotten more hits then Mr. Rose. The all time home run leader is in the Hall. The all time strikeout leader is in the Hall. The all time Wins leader is in the Hall. The guy with the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth most hits of all time are in the Hall. But Mr. Rose is still on the outside looking in because of the deal he made with Bart Giamatti.( I know I spelled that wrong but I don't have the patience to spell check.)
The Hall of Fame is for people who excelled on the playing field. Pete Rose did that. He is one of the top 25 players of all time. Ban him from managing again. Ban him from being involved in coaching. But put him in the Hall.
The same goes for Shoeless Joe Jackson. Yes, he was a White Sux. But not many people realize that he has the second highest career batting average in the HISTORY of baseball. Only Ty Cobb( who by the way was a complete piece of shit of a person) has a higher career batting average. Shoeless Joe may have taken money to throw the World Series ten years before the great depression, but he hit .375 in the series. Until these two guys are in the Hall of Fame, the Hall will remain incomplete.
Another thing I would do if I was in charge of sports would be to increase penalties for driving under the influence.( The goddamn Cubs just blew a four run ninth inning lead to the Mets, FUCK!) For anyone that is convicted of drunk driving, they should be suspended for one quarter of their respective season. Anyone that is convicted of a second DUI would be suspended for an entire season.
Driving while intoxicated is something that puts thousands of lives at risk No excuse is valid for it. When you throw in the fact that professional athletes can easily afford a limo or a personal driver anytime they drink, it makes a DUI by an athlete that much more sickening. Strong punishment is the only way to get this point across.
One more thing I want to change about sports? I would get rid of Joe Morgan and Tiki Barber as announcers/commentators. Joe Morgan is an egotistical jackass. Every time Sunday Night Baseball on the Booya network begins, I feel a need to vomit when John Miller mentions his "Hall of Fame" partner. Joe Morgan is god in Joe Morgan's eyes. He speaks the booya network talking points, and he states the obvious when it comes to his analysis of the game. Johan Santana is a good pitcher. Alex Rodriguez is a good fastball hitter. No shit dumbass. If people don't know that, they shouldn't be watching baseball.
As for Tiki Barber, I despise him. First off, he is NOT a hall of fame running back. He was only a every down back for five years of his career. When I think of the hall of fame running backs, I think of Sanders, Dickerson, Brown, Smith and most of all, Walter Payton. Tiki Barber should not even be mentioned in the same day. For that I apologize.
Mr. Barber spent the last two years of his football career setting himself up for a television gig. He marketed himself like crazy. Nothing is wrong with that. But he is also an egomaniac that can talk the talk but never walked the walk. I can't wait to see Keith Olberman join the NBC Sunday night football cast, but will change the channel once Tiki is shown.
So many things need to be fixed in sports. These are just three things I would do. I have many other things floating around but don't have the time to write them. Have a good day every buddy and GO BULLS. Twenty Two hours until the Cubs whoop on the Sux at Wrigley. If anyone has a topic you would like my opinion on, feel free to contact me at sportsandpolitics@yahoo.com.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
NFL Draft thoughts
Well the NFL draft has come and gone, and I figured I would give my thoughts on the Bears draft, plus some guys I think will be huge busts and a couple I think will surprise people.
I am not too fond of the Bears draft at the moment. I think they reached on Dan Bazuin and they reached enormously for Garrett Wolfe. I don't have anything against either player, just where Jerry Angelo drafted them. I believe Garrett Wolfe can become an exciting third round back. He is also a true change of pace from Cedric Benson. I do think that they easily could have drafted Wolfe in the fourth or fifth rounds. I also think that passing on Michael Bush for Wolfe is a huge mistake. If Bush can get back to 100 percent health, he could be a very good running back in the NFL. Wolfe I think will be serviceable.
Dan Bazuin could have been drafted in the third round. Plain and simple. He may be a decent defensive end, but he is not as good as our top three defensive ends on the team. Can he replace Alex Brown if his play does not improve. Probably not.
I did like the pick of Michael Okwo and I love the pick of Josh Beekman. I thought they goofed when they passed over Beekman for Wolfe in the third round. Beekman was an almost steal as a fourth round pick. I wish they would have taken another offensive lineman in the top rounds of the draft, but I guess our line is going to hold on for one last hurrah.
I love the pick of Greg Oden. When he fell into the 20's of the first round, I was giddy. I started looking at every team between the current pick and the Bears pick and whom each team had at tight end. Once he passed the Jets, I only feared the Saints. And they take a wide receiver instead of the desperate need of a defensive back. At that point I was just imagining what Jerry Angelo would use at his press conference for why he didn't take Olsen. Then when it was announced that Olsen was a Bear, I was in shock.
Olsen can run and catch as well as any tight end in the league(with the exception of Vernon Davis who is faster but not a better receiver) right now. Yes, his blocking does need to get a lot better, but that will come with experience. He will make a pro bowl in his career. Now the only question is if he will do it in a Bear's uniform.
Last year I was completely floored when the Bears drafted Daniel Manning in the second round. Yes, he started a bunch of games this year, but I will still stand by my opinion on that pick. Daniel Manning still sucks. I don't care what anyone says about him, he sucks and has no place as a starting safety on a SuperBowl contending team. Watch out for fifth round pick Kevin Payne to pass Manning on the depth chart.
Enough about the Bears. The draft in general was decent, but not spectacular. JaMarcus Russell is over rated. I watched him and his predeccessor play at LSU, and they are the same player. Who did he follow at LSU? Rohan Davey, a third string quaterback on the Falcons. Russell will end up with a decent but not a hall of fame career. The Raiders should have taken Calvin Johnson and then taken Drew Stanton or John Beck in the second round. The other top quarterback in the draft will also have a decent career, but Brady Quinn is a punk.
All this crap the booya network tries to shove down the viewers throats during the draft was commical. All this sorrow and sadness because Brady Quinn was not drafted early. Then when the Dolphins passed on him, Mr. Quinn acted like a bitch and left the green room so he could go cry in the corner of a room without the camera. Hey Brady, if you want all the hype and talk about how good you are and how you should be the number one pick, then man up and take the embarrassement of not being as good as you think you are. I will never root for Brady Quinn. I despise this man.
Calvin Johnson will be in pro bowls for years to come if he stays healthy. Adrian Peterson is in the same boat. Ted Ginn Jr. was picked ten spots too high by the Dolphins. They should have picked DeWayne Bowe over him. Drew Stanton can become a pro bowl passer if he is coached right by Detroit. He reminds me of Marc Bulger with a stronger arm.
Anthony Gonzalez will have a nice career with the pass happy Colts, but he was a reach in the first round. Not quite sure if he would have lasted until the Colts next pick, but he wasn't of first round caliber. But his career in that Colt offense could make him a pro bowler.
Steal of the Draft is Michael Bush with the first pick of the fourth round by the Raiders. The Bust of the Draft could end up being JaMarcus Russell. I hope it ends up to be Mr. Quinn, but I don't see him being a horrible QB. The Packers first round pick, defensive tackle Harrell out of Tennesse has the potential to either become defensive force or being out of the league in three years.
First Republican debate tonight. Expect a couple conservatives attack Guiliani and Romney on there liberal views on gay rights and abortion( Romney as late as 2005 was pro choice, now he is stong pro life according to him.) Also on tonight is Dallas/Golden State game six. I really hope Richardson and Davis can pull it off tonight against Dallas. If they don't win tonight, they WILL NOT beat the Mavericks in Dallas in game seven. So tonight Golden State has to seal the deal.
I am not too fond of the Bears draft at the moment. I think they reached on Dan Bazuin and they reached enormously for Garrett Wolfe. I don't have anything against either player, just where Jerry Angelo drafted them. I believe Garrett Wolfe can become an exciting third round back. He is also a true change of pace from Cedric Benson. I do think that they easily could have drafted Wolfe in the fourth or fifth rounds. I also think that passing on Michael Bush for Wolfe is a huge mistake. If Bush can get back to 100 percent health, he could be a very good running back in the NFL. Wolfe I think will be serviceable.
Dan Bazuin could have been drafted in the third round. Plain and simple. He may be a decent defensive end, but he is not as good as our top three defensive ends on the team. Can he replace Alex Brown if his play does not improve. Probably not.
I did like the pick of Michael Okwo and I love the pick of Josh Beekman. I thought they goofed when they passed over Beekman for Wolfe in the third round. Beekman was an almost steal as a fourth round pick. I wish they would have taken another offensive lineman in the top rounds of the draft, but I guess our line is going to hold on for one last hurrah.
I love the pick of Greg Oden. When he fell into the 20's of the first round, I was giddy. I started looking at every team between the current pick and the Bears pick and whom each team had at tight end. Once he passed the Jets, I only feared the Saints. And they take a wide receiver instead of the desperate need of a defensive back. At that point I was just imagining what Jerry Angelo would use at his press conference for why he didn't take Olsen. Then when it was announced that Olsen was a Bear, I was in shock.
Olsen can run and catch as well as any tight end in the league(with the exception of Vernon Davis who is faster but not a better receiver) right now. Yes, his blocking does need to get a lot better, but that will come with experience. He will make a pro bowl in his career. Now the only question is if he will do it in a Bear's uniform.
Last year I was completely floored when the Bears drafted Daniel Manning in the second round. Yes, he started a bunch of games this year, but I will still stand by my opinion on that pick. Daniel Manning still sucks. I don't care what anyone says about him, he sucks and has no place as a starting safety on a SuperBowl contending team. Watch out for fifth round pick Kevin Payne to pass Manning on the depth chart.
Enough about the Bears. The draft in general was decent, but not spectacular. JaMarcus Russell is over rated. I watched him and his predeccessor play at LSU, and they are the same player. Who did he follow at LSU? Rohan Davey, a third string quaterback on the Falcons. Russell will end up with a decent but not a hall of fame career. The Raiders should have taken Calvin Johnson and then taken Drew Stanton or John Beck in the second round. The other top quarterback in the draft will also have a decent career, but Brady Quinn is a punk.
All this crap the booya network tries to shove down the viewers throats during the draft was commical. All this sorrow and sadness because Brady Quinn was not drafted early. Then when the Dolphins passed on him, Mr. Quinn acted like a bitch and left the green room so he could go cry in the corner of a room without the camera. Hey Brady, if you want all the hype and talk about how good you are and how you should be the number one pick, then man up and take the embarrassement of not being as good as you think you are. I will never root for Brady Quinn. I despise this man.
Calvin Johnson will be in pro bowls for years to come if he stays healthy. Adrian Peterson is in the same boat. Ted Ginn Jr. was picked ten spots too high by the Dolphins. They should have picked DeWayne Bowe over him. Drew Stanton can become a pro bowl passer if he is coached right by Detroit. He reminds me of Marc Bulger with a stronger arm.
Anthony Gonzalez will have a nice career with the pass happy Colts, but he was a reach in the first round. Not quite sure if he would have lasted until the Colts next pick, but he wasn't of first round caliber. But his career in that Colt offense could make him a pro bowler.
Steal of the Draft is Michael Bush with the first pick of the fourth round by the Raiders. The Bust of the Draft could end up being JaMarcus Russell. I hope it ends up to be Mr. Quinn, but I don't see him being a horrible QB. The Packers first round pick, defensive tackle Harrell out of Tennesse has the potential to either become defensive force or being out of the league in three years.
First Republican debate tonight. Expect a couple conservatives attack Guiliani and Romney on there liberal views on gay rights and abortion( Romney as late as 2005 was pro choice, now he is stong pro life according to him.) Also on tonight is Dallas/Golden State game six. I really hope Richardson and Davis can pull it off tonight against Dallas. If they don't win tonight, they WILL NOT beat the Mavericks in Dallas in game seven. So tonight Golden State has to seal the deal.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Michael "PACMAN" Vick
We are less then 24 hours from the start of the NFL draft. The NBA playoffs are in full swing. The baseball season is nearing the end of it's first month of the season. I really wanted to write about one of these topics today, but news has come out about the poster boy of the Atlanta Falcons and I need to speak my mind on this topic. Before I do, a couple quick thoughts on last nights Democratic Primary Debate.
Hillary Clinton was rather impressive. I am not a big Hillary fan, but I do believe she did the best in the debate out of the top three candidates. She gave a great answer on Walmart without a bit of hesitation. She sure did not hurt herself. The other person I think shined at the debate was Joe Biden. He didn't pussyfoot around the questions as much as other candidates, and showed a good sense of humor by using the one word answer of yes when asked if he could assure voters he wouldn't talk to much. O'Bama and Edwards were rather unimpressive, with O'Bama dodging a question about another 9/11 type attack and Edwards dodging a question about hedge funds. My guy Governor Richardson did good on some questions and not so good on others. He also didn't have the body language down like other candidates when he was not answering questions.
But the big winner of the night was Dennis Kucinich. And I am not saying it was his debate performance, because he is way to passive to ever win a primary or a general election. He won in my opinion because I saw his wife Elizabeth for the first time. All I can say is WOW. Dennis Kucinich is 60 year old man and his wife is a 29 year old stunning red head. If anyone out there loves red heads like I do, you need to check out a picture of the two of them together and you will be stunned by this pairing. Enough about the debate.
Michael Vick needs to be suspended for the entire season if the most recent story is even half true. For those of you who haven't heard yet, a drug task force raided a property in Virginia that is owned by Michael Vick. The person that lives in the house is a 26 year old nephew of Vick. When the police raided the property they found around sixty pitbulls that were wounded and malnourished. They found treadmills for the dogs, drugs to treat wounds on the animals, and many of them were chained to tires so they could get nose to nose with the other dogs without actually making contact with each other. The police believe that this was a dog fighting ring. According to David Stein of Sporting News Radio, an animal fighting task force had been investigating Michael Vick for this exact thing for a couple of years now.
Now I understand I stated that Michael Vick was not living at this property. But he had been to the property several times throughout the year. Can you really go to a house atleast once and not notice sixty dogs that are bleeding and malnourished. Even if he had no involvment in the actual ring, his negligence in not stopping it by either demanding his nephew get the dogs off his property or by informing the authorities is criminal. He needs to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Fighting animals is a crime nationwide, and is a felony in 48 states( I heard Louisiana is one of the two where it is not a felony, I lived there and can believe it.) Any person that raises animals just to have them fight and die is a sick individual that has little morals in my opinion. If these accusations are true, Michael Vick does not only need to be suspended by the NFL for ATLEAST one season, but he needs to go to jail.
Adam "Pacman" Jones, a cornerback for the Tennesse Titans, was suspended for the entire season two weeks ago for a string of incidents in the last 18 months. Chris Henry, wide receiver for the Cincinnati Bengals, was suspended for eight games for four arrests over a twelve month span. Terry "Tank" Johnson, defensive tackle for the Chicago Bears, is currently serving a four month sentence in jail for a probation violation and will hear from Commissioner Goodell soon with some form of suspension.
Now players mentioned above were not first time offenders of breaking the law. Either is Mr. Vick. Just a few months ago he refused to surrender his water bottle to a security guard at a Miami airport, then tossed the water bottle in the garbage. When it as inspected by a guard that retrieved it from the garbage, a secret compartment was found on the bottle and it smelled like marijuana. It was tested, and came back negative for marijuana, so no charges were filed. Vick's excuse about the bottle: The compartment was for hiding jewlery. Great answer Mr. Vick. If you were travelling, why not just wear the jewlery.
If this was the only thing in his past, maybe I would consider a year suspension the maximum I would give him. But he was charged with another very disgusting crime while in college. He was charged with knowingly infecting a female friend with herpes. Anyone that wants to know the specifics can google the name Ron Mexico, the name he allegedly used to get medication for his condition. Infecting someone with a life long std is one of the worst things you can do to a person in my book.
Michael Vick has been the poster child for the Falcons since he was drafted, and one of the top five promoted players by the NFL. While the players that have been hit with major suspensions have not been "superstars", Vick is a top ten player in name( far from it in play on the field). The NFL needs to show that there is one policy for all players, no matter the amount of revenue they bring the NFL. You have set the example with Pacman Jones commissioner, now follow it.
Hillary Clinton was rather impressive. I am not a big Hillary fan, but I do believe she did the best in the debate out of the top three candidates. She gave a great answer on Walmart without a bit of hesitation. She sure did not hurt herself. The other person I think shined at the debate was Joe Biden. He didn't pussyfoot around the questions as much as other candidates, and showed a good sense of humor by using the one word answer of yes when asked if he could assure voters he wouldn't talk to much. O'Bama and Edwards were rather unimpressive, with O'Bama dodging a question about another 9/11 type attack and Edwards dodging a question about hedge funds. My guy Governor Richardson did good on some questions and not so good on others. He also didn't have the body language down like other candidates when he was not answering questions.
But the big winner of the night was Dennis Kucinich. And I am not saying it was his debate performance, because he is way to passive to ever win a primary or a general election. He won in my opinion because I saw his wife Elizabeth for the first time. All I can say is WOW. Dennis Kucinich is 60 year old man and his wife is a 29 year old stunning red head. If anyone out there loves red heads like I do, you need to check out a picture of the two of them together and you will be stunned by this pairing. Enough about the debate.
Michael Vick needs to be suspended for the entire season if the most recent story is even half true. For those of you who haven't heard yet, a drug task force raided a property in Virginia that is owned by Michael Vick. The person that lives in the house is a 26 year old nephew of Vick. When the police raided the property they found around sixty pitbulls that were wounded and malnourished. They found treadmills for the dogs, drugs to treat wounds on the animals, and many of them were chained to tires so they could get nose to nose with the other dogs without actually making contact with each other. The police believe that this was a dog fighting ring. According to David Stein of Sporting News Radio, an animal fighting task force had been investigating Michael Vick for this exact thing for a couple of years now.
Now I understand I stated that Michael Vick was not living at this property. But he had been to the property several times throughout the year. Can you really go to a house atleast once and not notice sixty dogs that are bleeding and malnourished. Even if he had no involvment in the actual ring, his negligence in not stopping it by either demanding his nephew get the dogs off his property or by informing the authorities is criminal. He needs to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Fighting animals is a crime nationwide, and is a felony in 48 states( I heard Louisiana is one of the two where it is not a felony, I lived there and can believe it.) Any person that raises animals just to have them fight and die is a sick individual that has little morals in my opinion. If these accusations are true, Michael Vick does not only need to be suspended by the NFL for ATLEAST one season, but he needs to go to jail.
Adam "Pacman" Jones, a cornerback for the Tennesse Titans, was suspended for the entire season two weeks ago for a string of incidents in the last 18 months. Chris Henry, wide receiver for the Cincinnati Bengals, was suspended for eight games for four arrests over a twelve month span. Terry "Tank" Johnson, defensive tackle for the Chicago Bears, is currently serving a four month sentence in jail for a probation violation and will hear from Commissioner Goodell soon with some form of suspension.
Now players mentioned above were not first time offenders of breaking the law. Either is Mr. Vick. Just a few months ago he refused to surrender his water bottle to a security guard at a Miami airport, then tossed the water bottle in the garbage. When it as inspected by a guard that retrieved it from the garbage, a secret compartment was found on the bottle and it smelled like marijuana. It was tested, and came back negative for marijuana, so no charges were filed. Vick's excuse about the bottle: The compartment was for hiding jewlery. Great answer Mr. Vick. If you were travelling, why not just wear the jewlery.
If this was the only thing in his past, maybe I would consider a year suspension the maximum I would give him. But he was charged with another very disgusting crime while in college. He was charged with knowingly infecting a female friend with herpes. Anyone that wants to know the specifics can google the name Ron Mexico, the name he allegedly used to get medication for his condition. Infecting someone with a life long std is one of the worst things you can do to a person in my book.
Michael Vick has been the poster child for the Falcons since he was drafted, and one of the top five promoted players by the NFL. While the players that have been hit with major suspensions have not been "superstars", Vick is a top ten player in name( far from it in play on the field). The NFL needs to show that there is one policy for all players, no matter the amount of revenue they bring the NFL. You have set the example with Pacman Jones commissioner, now follow it.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Open Letter to all Cub Fans
Attention all Cubs fans. Please come off the ledge now. This is your final warning. Anyone that did not come off the ledge and are still really worried about this season, do me a favor. JUMP. I have no time for idiot "Cub" fans and their bitching and moaning about this, that and the next thing. So do real, knowledgable Cub fans a favor and just get it over with.
The Cubs are currently 8-13 and all over the Chicagoland area people are calling in to radio talk shows complaining about everything under the sun.. The Cubs can't hit. Soriano sucks. Pinella needs to show fire. Why is Howry still on the team. This team is not better then last year. These are some of the assanine things I heard in a one hour time frame yesterday, after they WON. All these people are a phrase I like to use, Baseball Retarded.
The 2007 Cubs will win the central division. In my opinion, either the Cubs or the Mets will represent the National League in the World Series. And this is not a delusional Cub fan who always says "this year has got to be the year." This team is a very good team, and in the next three to six weeks, people will see this and they will all be raving about this team and talking world series. Why is this going to happen? Glad you asked.
Let me talk about the pitching first. Ted Lilly will be atleast three games over .500 this year. Yes, every media person wants to talk about how Lilly's career win/lost record is one game over .500. But he was pitching in the American League East for the last few years. When you face a lineup of six hall of famers five times a year( the Yankees) and a team with two of the four top hitters in baseball five times a year ( the Red Sox) and your team was below average for every year except for last year ( Toronto Blue Jays), what do expect a pitchers win/lost record to be.
Just look at the last two pitchers that have made their way from the American League East to the National League Central over the last two years. Chris Carpenter was a .500 pitcher when he pitched for the Blue Jays early in his career, and now that he with the Cardinals he has won a cy young and a lot of people believe he is the best pitcher in the national league. Bronson Arroyo was an average pitcher at best with the Red Sox the last couple of years, then the Reds pick him up last year and he was a front runner for the Cy Young past the all star break last year. Ted Lilly will follow the standard these two have set.
Zambrano will return to being Zambrano. He always sucks in April. He didn't win a game last year in April. It is a contract year for him. Trust me, he will be just fine. Jason Marquis is pitching great at the moment, and while I don't expect him to be this good all year, three years ago with the Braves he was 15-7 with a sub 4.00 E.R.A. If he keeps his location down in the zone like he has been doing, those numbers are completely realistic.
And then at times when our pitching is not so good, our hitting will simply out slug the opponent. Soriano hit 46 homeruns last year. He has zero so far this year. Once he starts hitting, people will be out in flocks to stores all over the city grabbing his jersey off the rack. Derrick Lee finally hit his first home run of the year yesterday. So someone who hit 47 homeruns in 2005 is currently on pace for 8. Not to mention he is hitting .400 so far this year. The guy is an amazing hitter, and I think he will be in the running for the MVP. Ramierez is also hitting the ball well early in the year. He is a notorious slow starter, so anyone that is not encouraged by the way he is hitting in April needs to stop watching baseball and start watching cricket.
Lastly, we do not have Dusty Baker to ruin anything this year. An example of the "GREATNESS" of Dusty. Last year in a game there was a very close play at the plate. The Cub's runner was called out and the fans went nuts. Everyone in the park thought he was safe. Dusty didn't budge from the dugout. When asked after the game why he didn't go challenge the umpire, Dusty's response was "I couldn't see the play so I had no reason to argue." Yes, Dusty was not able to see the play at the plate. If he gets another managerial job in baseball ever I will be shocked, and will root against that team as much as the Cardinals.
Pinella, on the other hand, has challenged the umpire almost every day on the something. Yesterday he came out after Theriot was called out to LEAD OFF the game. Pinella has been really disappointed with losing, and has been benching players that were supposed to be starters like Cezar Izituris and Jaque Jones. He will play the best line up no matter what higer ups want. That is only good for Cub fans.
The team is going to hit. They will be in the top three in the National League in runs by the end of the year. Their starting pitching will be ranked in the top five in National League by the end of the year. And if they need to make an acquisition at the trade deadline to better the club to wrap up a playoff spot, we have a general manager who could lose his job if this team falters. So give the Cubs until June 15th to make judgments about them. I will revisit this article then, and hopefully I do not have to label myself a baseball retarded, idiot Cub fan.
The Cubs are currently 8-13 and all over the Chicagoland area people are calling in to radio talk shows complaining about everything under the sun.. The Cubs can't hit. Soriano sucks. Pinella needs to show fire. Why is Howry still on the team. This team is not better then last year. These are some of the assanine things I heard in a one hour time frame yesterday, after they WON. All these people are a phrase I like to use, Baseball Retarded.
The 2007 Cubs will win the central division. In my opinion, either the Cubs or the Mets will represent the National League in the World Series. And this is not a delusional Cub fan who always says "this year has got to be the year." This team is a very good team, and in the next three to six weeks, people will see this and they will all be raving about this team and talking world series. Why is this going to happen? Glad you asked.
Let me talk about the pitching first. Ted Lilly will be atleast three games over .500 this year. Yes, every media person wants to talk about how Lilly's career win/lost record is one game over .500. But he was pitching in the American League East for the last few years. When you face a lineup of six hall of famers five times a year( the Yankees) and a team with two of the four top hitters in baseball five times a year ( the Red Sox) and your team was below average for every year except for last year ( Toronto Blue Jays), what do expect a pitchers win/lost record to be.
Just look at the last two pitchers that have made their way from the American League East to the National League Central over the last two years. Chris Carpenter was a .500 pitcher when he pitched for the Blue Jays early in his career, and now that he with the Cardinals he has won a cy young and a lot of people believe he is the best pitcher in the national league. Bronson Arroyo was an average pitcher at best with the Red Sox the last couple of years, then the Reds pick him up last year and he was a front runner for the Cy Young past the all star break last year. Ted Lilly will follow the standard these two have set.
Zambrano will return to being Zambrano. He always sucks in April. He didn't win a game last year in April. It is a contract year for him. Trust me, he will be just fine. Jason Marquis is pitching great at the moment, and while I don't expect him to be this good all year, three years ago with the Braves he was 15-7 with a sub 4.00 E.R.A. If he keeps his location down in the zone like he has been doing, those numbers are completely realistic.
And then at times when our pitching is not so good, our hitting will simply out slug the opponent. Soriano hit 46 homeruns last year. He has zero so far this year. Once he starts hitting, people will be out in flocks to stores all over the city grabbing his jersey off the rack. Derrick Lee finally hit his first home run of the year yesterday. So someone who hit 47 homeruns in 2005 is currently on pace for 8. Not to mention he is hitting .400 so far this year. The guy is an amazing hitter, and I think he will be in the running for the MVP. Ramierez is also hitting the ball well early in the year. He is a notorious slow starter, so anyone that is not encouraged by the way he is hitting in April needs to stop watching baseball and start watching cricket.
Lastly, we do not have Dusty Baker to ruin anything this year. An example of the "GREATNESS" of Dusty. Last year in a game there was a very close play at the plate. The Cub's runner was called out and the fans went nuts. Everyone in the park thought he was safe. Dusty didn't budge from the dugout. When asked after the game why he didn't go challenge the umpire, Dusty's response was "I couldn't see the play so I had no reason to argue." Yes, Dusty was not able to see the play at the plate. If he gets another managerial job in baseball ever I will be shocked, and will root against that team as much as the Cardinals.
Pinella, on the other hand, has challenged the umpire almost every day on the something. Yesterday he came out after Theriot was called out to LEAD OFF the game. Pinella has been really disappointed with losing, and has been benching players that were supposed to be starters like Cezar Izituris and Jaque Jones. He will play the best line up no matter what higer ups want. That is only good for Cub fans.
The team is going to hit. They will be in the top three in the National League in runs by the end of the year. Their starting pitching will be ranked in the top five in National League by the end of the year. And if they need to make an acquisition at the trade deadline to better the club to wrap up a playoff spot, we have a general manager who could lose his job if this team falters. So give the Cubs until June 15th to make judgments about them. I will revisit this article then, and hopefully I do not have to label myself a baseball retarded, idiot Cub fan.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Supplemental Spending Bill
The Congress of the United States is acting like a mentally disabled child. I was going to say they were acting retarded, but I didn't want to offend anyone. Either way the House and Senate are not serving their country responsibly.
Both the Senate and the House have each passed bills for supplemental funding of the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Once these two seperate bills come out of conference they will become one bill and be sent to the President for his signature or veto. While President Bush has only vetoed one, yes you read right, ONE bill( that is a whole different topic) he will veto this bill and I will actually agree with him on this one.
The reason for the veto will be because of timelines for withdrawal of troops from Iraq that will be in the bill. One of the bills states a date of March 2008 and one calls for a date of September 2008. So lets assume in conference they set a middle ground of July 15th 2008. Is this a reasonable date to start withdrawing troops from Iraq?
Now I am far from a republican, and I believe President Bush 43 is the worst president since the do nothing presidents of the late 1800's. But when it comes to announcing future dates of withdrawal from Iraq, that is something idiotic that can not be tolerated. Here is why.
Lets say you rob houses for a living. Sure, not a very honorable profession, but it pays for your child's milk and your meth habit. Now let us assume that you have a house on your radar for a possible heist. You know there is a ton of valuable stuff inside, but have no idea when to break in. Then the owners of the house give you a call and tell you they are going on vacation next week. You would be quite ecstatic wouldn't you?
This is the problem of announcing a set date for withdrawal. Anyone that wants to cause trouble in the region can just lay low and then pounce on the country once soldiers and marines are in their rear view mirror. This goes for terrorists and the country ofIran as well.
The election of 2006 was a strong vote against the current situation in Iraq. Democrats won six seats in the Senate and over thirty in the house because of the American public's feelings over soldiers and marines paying the ultimate sacrifice on an almost daily basis in Iraq. So people all over the country want our troops out of harms way. I am one of those people. But to be frank, the United States will have troops in Iraq for atleast five to ten years. And those numbers are optimistic.
Iraq was a stable nation before the invasion. It wasn't a poster child for humanitarian rights, but it was not a breeding ground for Al Qaeda and other terrorists. Now the country is a lawless wreck, and has become a safe haven for ruthless killers and thugs. So until Iraqis can take full control of their borders and police their own streets, Americans will be inside Iraq.
My belief is American forces should not be involved in patrolling the streets of Baghdad and other chaotic cities in the country. Place troops on the border to prevent foreign fighters from entering Iraq. Have troops in heavily fortified bases to train Iraqi military and police forces. Also use troops to repair important infrastructure like power plants and public transportation. But anytime a car bomb goes off in a crowded market, no soldier or marine should be in that area.
Congress is aware that President Bush will veto the bill they are planning on sending him. So instead of trying to gain political points by saying that "I voted for withdrawal but Bush vetoed it," the men and women of Congress need to fund the troops without a date for withdrawal. The situation in Iraq is bad right now, but it could actually be worse. If the country does not improve, we may need to rename it. How does Afghanistan of 2001 sound?
Both the Senate and the House have each passed bills for supplemental funding of the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Once these two seperate bills come out of conference they will become one bill and be sent to the President for his signature or veto. While President Bush has only vetoed one, yes you read right, ONE bill( that is a whole different topic) he will veto this bill and I will actually agree with him on this one.
The reason for the veto will be because of timelines for withdrawal of troops from Iraq that will be in the bill. One of the bills states a date of March 2008 and one calls for a date of September 2008. So lets assume in conference they set a middle ground of July 15th 2008. Is this a reasonable date to start withdrawing troops from Iraq?
Now I am far from a republican, and I believe President Bush 43 is the worst president since the do nothing presidents of the late 1800's. But when it comes to announcing future dates of withdrawal from Iraq, that is something idiotic that can not be tolerated. Here is why.
Lets say you rob houses for a living. Sure, not a very honorable profession, but it pays for your child's milk and your meth habit. Now let us assume that you have a house on your radar for a possible heist. You know there is a ton of valuable stuff inside, but have no idea when to break in. Then the owners of the house give you a call and tell you they are going on vacation next week. You would be quite ecstatic wouldn't you?
This is the problem of announcing a set date for withdrawal. Anyone that wants to cause trouble in the region can just lay low and then pounce on the country once soldiers and marines are in their rear view mirror. This goes for terrorists and the country ofIran as well.
The election of 2006 was a strong vote against the current situation in Iraq. Democrats won six seats in the Senate and over thirty in the house because of the American public's feelings over soldiers and marines paying the ultimate sacrifice on an almost daily basis in Iraq. So people all over the country want our troops out of harms way. I am one of those people. But to be frank, the United States will have troops in Iraq for atleast five to ten years. And those numbers are optimistic.
Iraq was a stable nation before the invasion. It wasn't a poster child for humanitarian rights, but it was not a breeding ground for Al Qaeda and other terrorists. Now the country is a lawless wreck, and has become a safe haven for ruthless killers and thugs. So until Iraqis can take full control of their borders and police their own streets, Americans will be inside Iraq.
My belief is American forces should not be involved in patrolling the streets of Baghdad and other chaotic cities in the country. Place troops on the border to prevent foreign fighters from entering Iraq. Have troops in heavily fortified bases to train Iraqi military and police forces. Also use troops to repair important infrastructure like power plants and public transportation. But anytime a car bomb goes off in a crowded market, no soldier or marine should be in that area.
Congress is aware that President Bush will veto the bill they are planning on sending him. So instead of trying to gain political points by saying that "I voted for withdrawal but Bush vetoed it," the men and women of Congress need to fund the troops without a date for withdrawal. The situation in Iraq is bad right now, but it could actually be worse. If the country does not improve, we may need to rename it. How does Afghanistan of 2001 sound?
Friday, April 20, 2007
Steroids in Baseball
Barry Bonds should be in the hall of fame after he retires. Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire should also. Three of the top seven home run hitters of all time played in the late 90's, and I enjoyed watching them swing the bat. Now people are kicking and screaming how these three players tarnished baseball and it's hallowed records by using steroids. I think everyone needs to shut the hell up.
Am I stating that no one has been found guilty of steroid use so they belong in the hall because of lack of evidence. NO. I think you would have to be a moron to believe that the three of them did not take any performance enhancing drugs. Barry Bonds became a more powerful hitter at the age of 37, not an age most people are known for hitting their prime. McGwire was 255 pounds during his playing career, and now he plays golf six days a week at a weight of 200.
The thinking that these three players put up incredible, Ruthian numbers because of steroids is partly correct. Without steroids or HGH, Sosa may not have become the ONLY person in the history of baseball with three 60 plus home run seasons. McGwire may not have hit 70 home runs in 1998 without a little chemical enhancement and the same goes for Barry Bonds and his 73 home runs in 2001. But that doesn't mean what each player did was any less then hall of fame caliber.
Was every player in the league putting up numbers like them? Not even close. So were they the only three players using drugs to help them perform. Not at all. Steroids have been linked to power hitters in the last several years, but since baseball implemented steroid testing, 80 percent of the players that have tested positive have been pitchers. The late Ken Caminiti told sports illustrated around 2000 that he believed fifty percent of baseball players were on steroids. He recanted that statement after he was ripped in the papers for it, but knowing what people know now, do you think he was making it up.
News flash. Players used illegal drugs in the late 90's. Want another news flash. Players are using illegal drugs today. Just because baseball is testing for steroids does not mean players are not using them. First of all, HGH is undetectable in any test major league baseball gives. So what is in the way of athletes taking HGH. Nothing. If a drug can not be tested for and it will help a player perform better, thus enabling them to get a richer contract, do you think a player will use it. If you could take something that would make you twice as effective at your job and help you earn twice as much, would you take it.
Secondly, not all steroids are detectable. That was the beauty and the reasoning behind BALCO. It was founded to create steroids that were undetectable, and would probably still be in business if it wasn't for a former client turning on them out of fear for his own athletes. The two major steroids BALCO sold were unknown until a sample was analyzed by UCLA. So if there were two undetectable steroids almost ten years ago, do you think there might be a couple more out there.
For every person out there trying to invent a test for a drug, there are two others trying to find a new undetectable one. Scientists interested in steroids will always stay ahead of the curve. And the same goes for athletes. Take football for example. They have been testing for steroids for twenty years, yet only a handful of players get caught every year. So is the NFL telling me that every person that can run a 4.2 forty, bench press 400 pounds at a weight of 180 and is three percent bodyfat did it without the use of drugs. Steroid use in the NFL is a whole different article.
Bonds, Sosa and McGwire put up stats that boggle the mind. If someone told you in 1990 that someone would break Roger Maris's homerun record by 12, you would have escorted them to the nearest asylum. On the other hand, people in Boston believed Roger Clemens was on the downside of his career when they traded him to Toronto. How did he regain his 1986 form in 1997? How did he have a sub 2.00 ERA at the age of 42. The booya network will never throw a single stone at a living legend, but was he doing it without the aid of any chemicals. I am skeptical.
The bottom line is that steroids and other performance enhancing drugs are part of baseball now and they are not going anywhere. And that question I have for you is this- If a player is using drugs to make them better and their competitors are also taking similar drugs, does that give anyone an unfair advantage?
Am I stating that no one has been found guilty of steroid use so they belong in the hall because of lack of evidence. NO. I think you would have to be a moron to believe that the three of them did not take any performance enhancing drugs. Barry Bonds became a more powerful hitter at the age of 37, not an age most people are known for hitting their prime. McGwire was 255 pounds during his playing career, and now he plays golf six days a week at a weight of 200.
The thinking that these three players put up incredible, Ruthian numbers because of steroids is partly correct. Without steroids or HGH, Sosa may not have become the ONLY person in the history of baseball with three 60 plus home run seasons. McGwire may not have hit 70 home runs in 1998 without a little chemical enhancement and the same goes for Barry Bonds and his 73 home runs in 2001. But that doesn't mean what each player did was any less then hall of fame caliber.
Was every player in the league putting up numbers like them? Not even close. So were they the only three players using drugs to help them perform. Not at all. Steroids have been linked to power hitters in the last several years, but since baseball implemented steroid testing, 80 percent of the players that have tested positive have been pitchers. The late Ken Caminiti told sports illustrated around 2000 that he believed fifty percent of baseball players were on steroids. He recanted that statement after he was ripped in the papers for it, but knowing what people know now, do you think he was making it up.
News flash. Players used illegal drugs in the late 90's. Want another news flash. Players are using illegal drugs today. Just because baseball is testing for steroids does not mean players are not using them. First of all, HGH is undetectable in any test major league baseball gives. So what is in the way of athletes taking HGH. Nothing. If a drug can not be tested for and it will help a player perform better, thus enabling them to get a richer contract, do you think a player will use it. If you could take something that would make you twice as effective at your job and help you earn twice as much, would you take it.
Secondly, not all steroids are detectable. That was the beauty and the reasoning behind BALCO. It was founded to create steroids that were undetectable, and would probably still be in business if it wasn't for a former client turning on them out of fear for his own athletes. The two major steroids BALCO sold were unknown until a sample was analyzed by UCLA. So if there were two undetectable steroids almost ten years ago, do you think there might be a couple more out there.
For every person out there trying to invent a test for a drug, there are two others trying to find a new undetectable one. Scientists interested in steroids will always stay ahead of the curve. And the same goes for athletes. Take football for example. They have been testing for steroids for twenty years, yet only a handful of players get caught every year. So is the NFL telling me that every person that can run a 4.2 forty, bench press 400 pounds at a weight of 180 and is three percent bodyfat did it without the use of drugs. Steroid use in the NFL is a whole different article.
Bonds, Sosa and McGwire put up stats that boggle the mind. If someone told you in 1990 that someone would break Roger Maris's homerun record by 12, you would have escorted them to the nearest asylum. On the other hand, people in Boston believed Roger Clemens was on the downside of his career when they traded him to Toronto. How did he regain his 1986 form in 1997? How did he have a sub 2.00 ERA at the age of 42. The booya network will never throw a single stone at a living legend, but was he doing it without the aid of any chemicals. I am skeptical.
The bottom line is that steroids and other performance enhancing drugs are part of baseball now and they are not going anywhere. And that question I have for you is this- If a player is using drugs to make them better and their competitors are also taking similar drugs, does that give anyone an unfair advantage?
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Welcome to a MUST read!
Hello ladies and gentlemen. I am glad that you have wandered over to read the very first installment of Sports and Politics. Before I write my first post, I would like to inform you of what you should expect from this site.
As the name states, every article will revolve around sports or politics in some way. I am a sports and political junky. I have so many thoughts that differ from the mainstream. While I watch ESPN( from now on ESPN will be refered to as the back back back or the booya network), I can not stand how they have such a bias for the east coast. While I watch MSNBC and CNN religiously( sorry but I am too independent to watch the right wing crap of the "fair and balanced" network) I feel that the real story about such issues as gun control, abortion, immigration and most of all, Iraq, is not being stated because of political correctness. I will try and correct this.
I am a registered independent, die hard Chicago Cub, Bulls and Bears fan and despise the Cardinals, White Sox( they will be called the SUX from here on out) and Packers. I say what I think and will never apologize for my thinking unless it was written in a drunken stoopor and made no sense. Some thoughts here will anger people, but hopefully a lot of articles will make people smile, laugh, or more importantly..............THINK. Enjoy the column.
WAR IN IRAQ???
What is going on in the middle east at the moment is bad. Bad for every soldier serving, bad for every family member worrying about their loved ones, bad for the citizens of Iraq that just want a normal life. But what is going on is not a WAR!
Yes, you read right. I said the military is not involved in a war in Iraq. The brave men and women of the armed forces are fighting, killing and unfortunately sometimes dying in Iraq. But the term war does not fit the engagement in Iraq.
When the 1st Marines and the 3rd Infantry Division invaded from the south and the 173d ABN BDE jumped into the north, the country was at war. When the capital city of Baghdad fell, along with other major cities like Mosul, Kirkuk and Ramadi, the war was over. The government of Iraq was gone, no longer in power of the country. The military was gone as well, either shedding their uniforms for civilian attire or being killed or captured by the U.S.
By overthrowing the government and decimating the military, the United States won the war. By mid April 2003, the US war victory total was upgraded by one. Think about it. What were the objectives laid upon the military. 1) Kill or capture Saddam Huessein. CHECK. 2) Rid the country of WMD's. CHECK. Bring democracy to Iraq. CHECK( since the country has had elections three different times I consider democracy brought, security is another discussion.)
The military did exactly what was expected of it. It came, it saw, it kicked ass. And it only took about a month to do it. The United States has the best trained and equipped military in the world. A country that was considered a top 20 military power in the world in 2002 was destroyed in a month. What is going on now in Iraq has never been a strong point for the Army and Marines however. The term I like to use is "peacekeeping."
That is my belief on what the military is doing in Iraq at the moment. And to be honest, the military is not very good at it, but the reason for their lack of peacekeeping skills is because they are such a good fighting force. Read me out. Infantry battalions are trained for what? To converge on and kill the enemy. Nothing less then total victory in battle. Are they trained to police an entire nation? Unless you are an MP that is not your job description.
So we currently have upwards of 165,000 soldiers and marines in Iraq playing traffic cop to a bunch of people who have seen their country lose stability, seen relatives and friends die prematurely, and don't see the situation getting better anytime soon. So maybe it should be called crisis keeping or dire straights management. But it is not a WAR.
Hope this made you think. I have many thoughts on the middle east and will share them in future articles. I would ramble on more but the Cubs game is starting in two minutes so I need to wrap this up. Take care and I hope you stop by tomorrow for another column.
As the name states, every article will revolve around sports or politics in some way. I am a sports and political junky. I have so many thoughts that differ from the mainstream. While I watch ESPN( from now on ESPN will be refered to as the back back back or the booya network), I can not stand how they have such a bias for the east coast. While I watch MSNBC and CNN religiously( sorry but I am too independent to watch the right wing crap of the "fair and balanced" network) I feel that the real story about such issues as gun control, abortion, immigration and most of all, Iraq, is not being stated because of political correctness. I will try and correct this.
I am a registered independent, die hard Chicago Cub, Bulls and Bears fan and despise the Cardinals, White Sox( they will be called the SUX from here on out) and Packers. I say what I think and will never apologize for my thinking unless it was written in a drunken stoopor and made no sense. Some thoughts here will anger people, but hopefully a lot of articles will make people smile, laugh, or more importantly..............THINK. Enjoy the column.
WAR IN IRAQ???
What is going on in the middle east at the moment is bad. Bad for every soldier serving, bad for every family member worrying about their loved ones, bad for the citizens of Iraq that just want a normal life. But what is going on is not a WAR!
Yes, you read right. I said the military is not involved in a war in Iraq. The brave men and women of the armed forces are fighting, killing and unfortunately sometimes dying in Iraq. But the term war does not fit the engagement in Iraq.
When the 1st Marines and the 3rd Infantry Division invaded from the south and the 173d ABN BDE jumped into the north, the country was at war. When the capital city of Baghdad fell, along with other major cities like Mosul, Kirkuk and Ramadi, the war was over. The government of Iraq was gone, no longer in power of the country. The military was gone as well, either shedding their uniforms for civilian attire or being killed or captured by the U.S.
By overthrowing the government and decimating the military, the United States won the war. By mid April 2003, the US war victory total was upgraded by one. Think about it. What were the objectives laid upon the military. 1) Kill or capture Saddam Huessein. CHECK. 2) Rid the country of WMD's. CHECK. Bring democracy to Iraq. CHECK( since the country has had elections three different times I consider democracy brought, security is another discussion.)
The military did exactly what was expected of it. It came, it saw, it kicked ass. And it only took about a month to do it. The United States has the best trained and equipped military in the world. A country that was considered a top 20 military power in the world in 2002 was destroyed in a month. What is going on now in Iraq has never been a strong point for the Army and Marines however. The term I like to use is "peacekeeping."
That is my belief on what the military is doing in Iraq at the moment. And to be honest, the military is not very good at it, but the reason for their lack of peacekeeping skills is because they are such a good fighting force. Read me out. Infantry battalions are trained for what? To converge on and kill the enemy. Nothing less then total victory in battle. Are they trained to police an entire nation? Unless you are an MP that is not your job description.
So we currently have upwards of 165,000 soldiers and marines in Iraq playing traffic cop to a bunch of people who have seen their country lose stability, seen relatives and friends die prematurely, and don't see the situation getting better anytime soon. So maybe it should be called crisis keeping or dire straights management. But it is not a WAR.
Hope this made you think. I have many thoughts on the middle east and will share them in future articles. I would ramble on more but the Cubs game is starting in two minutes so I need to wrap this up. Take care and I hope you stop by tomorrow for another column.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)