New York: Joe Johnson & Amare Stoudemire
Miami: Dwayne Wade, Chris Bosh & Mike Miller
New Jersey: Rudy Gay
Dallas: Dirk
Chicago: Boozer & J.J. Reddick
Cleveland: LeBron
Celtics: Pierce & Allen
qe2
13 years ago
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
I HATE HATE HATE Colin Cowherd
July 1st
"You are telling me I am supposed to believe the Knicks, the class dunce, is going to convince LeBron James to go their organization. I just don't see it happening."
June 30th
"Stop, LeBron is not going to New York. He's just not. They dont have enough talent. The city actually isn't that great to live in."
Cowherd talking about Lebron on May 14th:
"He's either going to New York or he is staying in Cleveland. He's not going to Miami or Chicago or New Jersey. You can send me your emails or pipe dream it all you want. He's going to be a Cav or he is going to be a Knick and you are crazy if you think otherwise."
Cowherd talking with Bill Simmons on May 17th when Simmons predicted LBJ would go to Chicago:
"AGHHH. You have to be kidding me. He is going to be a Knick. I don't by Chicago at all. If you are gonna go to Chicago go to New York its a bigger city."
Like many talking heads, every single thing that comes out of his mouth he says with 100% conviction as if there could not possibly be other reasonable arguments, alternatives or thoughts. And it is blind conviction with no concept of context or history.
His whole take on LeBron's future has been a complete 180 and yet every step of the way every comment he made was with complete conviction. The Knicks did not become the "class dunce" between May 14th and July 1st. They did not lose talent between May 14th and July 1st. The city didnt change between May 14th and July 1st.
On another note, I can't let Simmons, whom I love, off the hook either.
His free agency prediction has Bosh, LBJ, and Joe Johnson all going to the Bulls (Johnson via sign-and-trade for Deng). If it happens the Bulls will be really good, but I am just extremely skeptical that Jerry Reinsdorf will pay that team. Think about it:
In year 3:
James - 20 mil; Bosh - 20 mil; Johnson - 18 mil; Rose - 14 mil; Noah 11 mil; 1 1st rd. pick - 2 mil; 1 MLE guy - 6 mil; 6 minimum contract guys - 5 mil
Total = 96 million.
Lets generously assume the luxury tax line by then is up to 71 million (5 mil higher than next year). That means that Reinsdorf will have to pay $25 million in luxury tax bringing the total bill to $121 million.
To make it worth it financially, the Bulls would have to increase their revenues by more than 50%.
Oh and that is just year 3 (the first year of Rose's extension kicking in). In year 4 the total bill will go up to $137 million. In year 5 it will be $153 million and in year 6 it will be $171 million!!!
And all that is assuming just the 3 max guys plus Rose & Noah, 1 1st rd. pick and 1 MLE guy and 6 minimum contract guys for the whole time. If they had another 1st rd. pick or used the MLE in say year 3 it gets even crazier.
"You are telling me I am supposed to believe the Knicks, the class dunce, is going to convince LeBron James to go their organization. I just don't see it happening."
June 30th
"Stop, LeBron is not going to New York. He's just not. They dont have enough talent. The city actually isn't that great to live in."
Cowherd talking about Lebron on May 14th:
"He's either going to New York or he is staying in Cleveland. He's not going to Miami or Chicago or New Jersey. You can send me your emails or pipe dream it all you want. He's going to be a Cav or he is going to be a Knick and you are crazy if you think otherwise."
Cowherd talking with Bill Simmons on May 17th when Simmons predicted LBJ would go to Chicago:
"AGHHH. You have to be kidding me. He is going to be a Knick. I don't by Chicago at all. If you are gonna go to Chicago go to New York its a bigger city."
Like many talking heads, every single thing that comes out of his mouth he says with 100% conviction as if there could not possibly be other reasonable arguments, alternatives or thoughts. And it is blind conviction with no concept of context or history.
His whole take on LeBron's future has been a complete 180 and yet every step of the way every comment he made was with complete conviction. The Knicks did not become the "class dunce" between May 14th and July 1st. They did not lose talent between May 14th and July 1st. The city didnt change between May 14th and July 1st.
On another note, I can't let Simmons, whom I love, off the hook either.
His free agency prediction has Bosh, LBJ, and Joe Johnson all going to the Bulls (Johnson via sign-and-trade for Deng). If it happens the Bulls will be really good, but I am just extremely skeptical that Jerry Reinsdorf will pay that team. Think about it:
In year 3:
James - 20 mil; Bosh - 20 mil; Johnson - 18 mil; Rose - 14 mil; Noah 11 mil; 1 1st rd. pick - 2 mil; 1 MLE guy - 6 mil; 6 minimum contract guys - 5 mil
Total = 96 million.
Lets generously assume the luxury tax line by then is up to 71 million (5 mil higher than next year). That means that Reinsdorf will have to pay $25 million in luxury tax bringing the total bill to $121 million.
To make it worth it financially, the Bulls would have to increase their revenues by more than 50%.
Oh and that is just year 3 (the first year of Rose's extension kicking in). In year 4 the total bill will go up to $137 million. In year 5 it will be $153 million and in year 6 it will be $171 million!!!
And all that is assuming just the 3 max guys plus Rose & Noah, 1 1st rd. pick and 1 MLE guy and 6 minimum contract guys for the whole time. If they had another 1st rd. pick or used the MLE in say year 3 it gets even crazier.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Holy Crap Why Can't I have Ric Bucher's Job or Why Does He Have His?
Breaking down offseason plans for every NBA team along with Chris Broussard (another gem of a writer) had this golden tidbit for the Hornets and Clippers:
"If, say, they offered Paul and Stojakovic for Chris Kaman and Blake Griffin, wouldn't the Clippers have to think about it? And wouldn't it make the Hornets a playoff lock?"
Hmm so the Clippers would now have Paul and Baron Davis both on huge contracts playing the same position? The Clippers would also have no C and no PF on the roster.
Clippers w/o trade
C - Kaman
PF - Griffin
SF - A. Aminu (#8 pick this year)
SG - E. Gordon (#8 pick 2 years ago)
PG - B. Davis
Clippers w/ trade
C - DeAndre Jordan
PF - Craig Smith
SF - A. Aminu
SG - E. Gordon
PG - C. Paul / B. Davis
Yeah that makes sense.
For the Hornets, PG, PF, and C are the only positions they have anything at. After this trade their 4 highest paid and best players would play PF and C (C - Kaman/Okafor, PF - West/Griffin). Meanwhile, they would have NOTHING at SG and SF and no depth at PG.
Oh yeah the Hornets roster that is a lock for the playoffs in the West:
C - Kaman / Okafor
PF - West / Griffin
SF - James (I have been garbage for 2 full years) Posey
SG - Marcus Thornton
PG - Darren Collison
Yeah thats a lock for a top 8 pick not the playoffs.
Other good Bucher Ideas:
T-Wolves: Should use their cap space to land a scorer from a team trying to shed payroll like Rip Hamilton from Detroit.
Thats probably a good idea - take on the 32 year old Hamilton coming off his worst ever season with 3 years 37 million left on his contract.
He also suggested they "Move Al Jefferson to one of the teams with cap room that strikes out in free agency. Don't worry about getting equal value back because a seven-figure trade exception is sure to have great worth come the trade deadline."
Thats also one way to build a winner - trade a 25 year old C that averages 18-9 (those guys grow on trees) -- in order to get a trade exception.
Sixers: "Getting Wizards guard Randy Foye in a sign-and-trade for Iguodala would be a perfect example, if feasible."
Iguodala for Randy Foye. The same Foye that couldn't get minutes on the Wizards and has a career PER of under 13.5
Bucher should be a GM.
This guy is paid well and this is what he comes up with?
"If, say, they offered Paul and Stojakovic for Chris Kaman and Blake Griffin, wouldn't the Clippers have to think about it? And wouldn't it make the Hornets a playoff lock?"
Hmm so the Clippers would now have Paul and Baron Davis both on huge contracts playing the same position? The Clippers would also have no C and no PF on the roster.
Clippers w/o trade
C - Kaman
PF - Griffin
SF - A. Aminu (#8 pick this year)
SG - E. Gordon (#8 pick 2 years ago)
PG - B. Davis
Clippers w/ trade
C - DeAndre Jordan
PF - Craig Smith
SF - A. Aminu
SG - E. Gordon
PG - C. Paul / B. Davis
Yeah that makes sense.
For the Hornets, PG, PF, and C are the only positions they have anything at. After this trade their 4 highest paid and best players would play PF and C (C - Kaman/Okafor, PF - West/Griffin). Meanwhile, they would have NOTHING at SG and SF and no depth at PG.
Oh yeah the Hornets roster that is a lock for the playoffs in the West:
C - Kaman / Okafor
PF - West / Griffin
SF - James (I have been garbage for 2 full years) Posey
SG - Marcus Thornton
PG - Darren Collison
Yeah thats a lock for a top 8 pick not the playoffs.
Other good Bucher Ideas:
T-Wolves: Should use their cap space to land a scorer from a team trying to shed payroll like Rip Hamilton from Detroit.
Thats probably a good idea - take on the 32 year old Hamilton coming off his worst ever season with 3 years 37 million left on his contract.
He also suggested they "Move Al Jefferson to one of the teams with cap room that strikes out in free agency. Don't worry about getting equal value back because a seven-figure trade exception is sure to have great worth come the trade deadline."
Thats also one way to build a winner - trade a 25 year old C that averages 18-9 (those guys grow on trees) -- in order to get a trade exception.
Sixers: "Getting Wizards guard Randy Foye in a sign-and-trade for Iguodala would be a perfect example, if feasible."
Iguodala for Randy Foye. The same Foye that couldn't get minutes on the Wizards and has a career PER of under 13.5
Bucher should be a GM.
This guy is paid well and this is what he comes up with?
Saturday, June 26, 2010
2010 NBA Draft Recap
Sharing an interesting draft thought I heard from Daryl Morey: When asked about drafting for talent vs. need he said you have to take talent. Thats not groundbreaking. However, he said that he views things in terms of 3-4 year windows. Need is not irrelevant, but since rosters turn over so much the question should not be can he help us in year 1, but with what might happen to our roster can he be an important part of our team by year 3 or 4. His example was Aaron Books.
Here is Chad Ford's (ESPN's draft guy) draft night analysis of the Aaron Brooks pick: "Brooks is the first real surprise of the draft. How does he fit in Houston? With Mike James, Rafer Alston and Luther Head on the roster, Brooks will be stuck at the end of the bench."
If you look at it, yeah the Rockets had a glut of PGs, but were any of them what I call "build around" guys? No. Alston was 31, James was 32, and Head was nothing more than a decent bench shooter. So even though Brooks was unlikely to get minutes in year 1 thats not what was important. Morey's idea makes a ton of sense. Should you really be drafting 19-22 yr old kids to be difference makers in year 1? For 95% of teams the answer should be no.
On that note I think it is ridiculous when commentators said things like: "The T-Wolves really liked Wesley Johnson because they felt like he was NBA ready and could contribute right away."
That should not be a concern for Minnesota. Thats fine--he is NBA ready--now you will only lose 57 games next year instead of 62 with a higher upside player.
Another random note: I could be totally wrong on this, but I think some franchises particularly in unattractive cities and/or very bad track records need to swing for the fences with their draft picks much more so than their counterparts in major cities or teams with great track records. I just think those teams have more trouble luring star players in free agency. They can get that mid-level guy because he just needs to get paid. The stars though--they aren't coming to Milwaukee or Salt Lake City. Even though those players may end up leaving you almost always get the full 6 years out of them.
Another reason why I dont like Chad Ford. Every time he talks about the Pacers he says the same thing: "You have to give them credit for taking a safe smart approach to the draft. That is they dont try for homeruns, they take safe, sure things, college upperclassmen from major programs. They go for singles and doubles and usually hit. Lets look at their last 3 1st round picks before this year: Tyler Hansbrough, Brandon Rush, Roy Hibbert. Are you building a contender like that? You got two bench players and (I actually like Hibbert) a serviceable starting C. Combined career all-star teams for that group 10 years from now--probably 0.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally on to the commentary of the actual draft.
What I liked & What I didn't like:
Again this is purely my opinion about how I feel a team approached the draft. You can't really give out grades when historically 1/3 of 1st round picks are out of the league by the time their rookie contract expires.
Liked:
What Milwaukee did - I like Sanders and I like Hobson (particularly where they got him). Based on upside I like Sanders every bit as much as Ed Davis. Also, the Bucks have nothing like him on their roster. Tiny Gallon is a good gamble in round 2. (On the topic of swinging for the fences -- thats what round 2 is all about in my opinion -- non-guaranteed contracts -- players w/ baggage might have a chip on their shoulder and be motivated -- if not -- cut them).
The Lakers 2nd rd. picks - Not going to spend much time on 2nd rd. picks, but I like both of the guys they got. Particularly Ebanks - he reminds me of Trevor Ariza - can really defend, which is a skill that I feel translates well even if his offense never develops.
Quick Likes:
Raptors - Needed size upfront and got it
Kings - Got drafts 2nd best player (with all of his red flags) at #5. Double-dipped with another very talented baggage carrying big in round 2. Simmons joked its ok to have 1 head case on a team, but you cant have 2 because they might start hanging out together.
Thunder - Needed size and got size (as low upside as it may be). Also, got a future #1 from the Clippers -- thats usually a good thing.
Didn't Like:
How it was a weird year at the top.
I have already disclaimed how you do not draft for need and if I was the Wizards I take John Wall (only, only way I would pass is if I got a really premium piece and could still end up with DeMarcus Cousins (maybe something like Ricky Rubio, the #4 and #23 picks for #1)).
The point is I am very skeptical and worried about the John Wall/Gilbert Arenas experiment. Arenas could really hurt John Wall's development both as a player and as a winner and nobody is trading for Arenas. You still have to take Wall, but its just not an ideal situation.
Same sort of deal in Philly. Their best player is Andre Iguodala who plays the same position as Turner. A.I. is their "build-around" guy (that is probably also part of why they are not very good because while he is a very good player he is not high up on the "build around" guy totem poll). He is certainly much more tradeable than Arenas, but it is hard to get equal value. In any event that team will continue to be bogged down by the Brand contract for the next 2 years at least. Again, a good pick, but not an ideal situation.
More I did not like:
The Warriors taking Epke Udoh. Every year almost GS spends a lottery pick on a long athletic (though slender) PF that Don Nelson gives little to sporadic to no playing time. So Udoh gets to join two other lottery picks on the bench of a 25 win team. There are a lot of dysfunctional franchises out there and Im not sure GS gets enough credit in this category.
Utah taking Gordon Hayward - Maybe I am just a racist, but I dont see it. What is the ceiling here? I am not sure who he will guard and he is not even an above average outside shooter. Winner? Sure. Character? Sure. High basketball IQ? Sure. Im sorry, but thats not enough for me at the #9 pick. Especially if you are a good team like Utah who wont be picking this high often at all. Swing for the fences a little -- Paul George or Ed Davis -- even Xavier Henry a guy I really like who has an NBA body and an NBA skill (3PT shooting).
What the T-Wolves did - Either me or Bill Simmons should be the GM there. David Kahn is a retard. I vote for me because while I really like Simmons, sometimes he is just off (and of course I never am). The year after "the point guard draft" Kahn decided to have "the small forward draft" bringing in 3 "3s".
I have to give Bill Simmons credit for this next one - the Heat traded the #18 pick to anyone who would take Daequan Cook's contract (which is only 3 mil for 1 year). The Thunder stepped up and did the deal. So who didnt I like here? The Clippers and Wizards. To get the #17 pick the Wizards took on 2 years and $17 mil of Kirk Heinrich when they could have just gotten in on the Heat deal. The Clippers traded a future 1st rounder to OKC for...the #18 pick they could have had simply by taking Cook's contract. Does not make a whole lot of sense.
Here is Chad Ford's (ESPN's draft guy) draft night analysis of the Aaron Brooks pick: "Brooks is the first real surprise of the draft. How does he fit in Houston? With Mike James, Rafer Alston and Luther Head on the roster, Brooks will be stuck at the end of the bench."
If you look at it, yeah the Rockets had a glut of PGs, but were any of them what I call "build around" guys? No. Alston was 31, James was 32, and Head was nothing more than a decent bench shooter. So even though Brooks was unlikely to get minutes in year 1 thats not what was important. Morey's idea makes a ton of sense. Should you really be drafting 19-22 yr old kids to be difference makers in year 1? For 95% of teams the answer should be no.
On that note I think it is ridiculous when commentators said things like: "The T-Wolves really liked Wesley Johnson because they felt like he was NBA ready and could contribute right away."
That should not be a concern for Minnesota. Thats fine--he is NBA ready--now you will only lose 57 games next year instead of 62 with a higher upside player.
Another random note: I could be totally wrong on this, but I think some franchises particularly in unattractive cities and/or very bad track records need to swing for the fences with their draft picks much more so than their counterparts in major cities or teams with great track records. I just think those teams have more trouble luring star players in free agency. They can get that mid-level guy because he just needs to get paid. The stars though--they aren't coming to Milwaukee or Salt Lake City. Even though those players may end up leaving you almost always get the full 6 years out of them.
Another reason why I dont like Chad Ford. Every time he talks about the Pacers he says the same thing: "You have to give them credit for taking a safe smart approach to the draft. That is they dont try for homeruns, they take safe, sure things, college upperclassmen from major programs. They go for singles and doubles and usually hit. Lets look at their last 3 1st round picks before this year: Tyler Hansbrough, Brandon Rush, Roy Hibbert. Are you building a contender like that? You got two bench players and (I actually like Hibbert) a serviceable starting C. Combined career all-star teams for that group 10 years from now--probably 0.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally on to the commentary of the actual draft.
What I liked & What I didn't like:
Again this is purely my opinion about how I feel a team approached the draft. You can't really give out grades when historically 1/3 of 1st round picks are out of the league by the time their rookie contract expires.
Liked:
What Milwaukee did - I like Sanders and I like Hobson (particularly where they got him). Based on upside I like Sanders every bit as much as Ed Davis. Also, the Bucks have nothing like him on their roster. Tiny Gallon is a good gamble in round 2. (On the topic of swinging for the fences -- thats what round 2 is all about in my opinion -- non-guaranteed contracts -- players w/ baggage might have a chip on their shoulder and be motivated -- if not -- cut them).
The Lakers 2nd rd. picks - Not going to spend much time on 2nd rd. picks, but I like both of the guys they got. Particularly Ebanks - he reminds me of Trevor Ariza - can really defend, which is a skill that I feel translates well even if his offense never develops.
Quick Likes:
Raptors - Needed size upfront and got it
Kings - Got drafts 2nd best player (with all of his red flags) at #5. Double-dipped with another very talented baggage carrying big in round 2. Simmons joked its ok to have 1 head case on a team, but you cant have 2 because they might start hanging out together.
Thunder - Needed size and got size (as low upside as it may be). Also, got a future #1 from the Clippers -- thats usually a good thing.
Didn't Like:
How it was a weird year at the top.
I have already disclaimed how you do not draft for need and if I was the Wizards I take John Wall (only, only way I would pass is if I got a really premium piece and could still end up with DeMarcus Cousins (maybe something like Ricky Rubio, the #4 and #23 picks for #1)).
The point is I am very skeptical and worried about the John Wall/Gilbert Arenas experiment. Arenas could really hurt John Wall's development both as a player and as a winner and nobody is trading for Arenas. You still have to take Wall, but its just not an ideal situation.
Same sort of deal in Philly. Their best player is Andre Iguodala who plays the same position as Turner. A.I. is their "build-around" guy (that is probably also part of why they are not very good because while he is a very good player he is not high up on the "build around" guy totem poll). He is certainly much more tradeable than Arenas, but it is hard to get equal value. In any event that team will continue to be bogged down by the Brand contract for the next 2 years at least. Again, a good pick, but not an ideal situation.
More I did not like:
The Warriors taking Epke Udoh. Every year almost GS spends a lottery pick on a long athletic (though slender) PF that Don Nelson gives little to sporadic to no playing time. So Udoh gets to join two other lottery picks on the bench of a 25 win team. There are a lot of dysfunctional franchises out there and Im not sure GS gets enough credit in this category.
Utah taking Gordon Hayward - Maybe I am just a racist, but I dont see it. What is the ceiling here? I am not sure who he will guard and he is not even an above average outside shooter. Winner? Sure. Character? Sure. High basketball IQ? Sure. Im sorry, but thats not enough for me at the #9 pick. Especially if you are a good team like Utah who wont be picking this high often at all. Swing for the fences a little -- Paul George or Ed Davis -- even Xavier Henry a guy I really like who has an NBA body and an NBA skill (3PT shooting).
What the T-Wolves did - Either me or Bill Simmons should be the GM there. David Kahn is a retard. I vote for me because while I really like Simmons, sometimes he is just off (and of course I never am). The year after "the point guard draft" Kahn decided to have "the small forward draft" bringing in 3 "3s".
I have to give Bill Simmons credit for this next one - the Heat traded the #18 pick to anyone who would take Daequan Cook's contract (which is only 3 mil for 1 year). The Thunder stepped up and did the deal. So who didnt I like here? The Clippers and Wizards. To get the #17 pick the Wizards took on 2 years and $17 mil of Kirk Heinrich when they could have just gotten in on the Heat deal. The Clippers traded a future 1st rounder to OKC for...the #18 pick they could have had simply by taking Cook's contract. Does not make a whole lot of sense.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Correcting Maddow on the Stimulus
I like Rachel Maddow. She is very bright and she often analyzes issues with significantly more composure than the other talking heads.
She commented recently on unemployment benefits and the stimulus.
Her comment: “Giving money to people who have no income so that they can spend it is the definition of stimulus.”
Analysis: Not really. The economic actors whom the stimulus is aimed to please (i.e. convince) are the people who decide whether or not they should put their money on the line and invest, whether it be working capital, pure investment, or maintaining higher inventories, and work forces. Unemployment benefits don’t really convince them to do anything to truly promote long-term growth and recovery. The economy is not a blind machine you pump money into and it reacts based purely on the amount of money being spent and floating around. The economic actors are largely aware of how money is being spent. There is no incentive to invest in long-term growth and expand inventory capabilities much less inventory and workforces if this marginal consumption provided by unemployment benefits is temporary, which it is. Investment is encouraged when the future streams of consumption money (i.e. what will be used to make the investment profitable) come from more permanent and reliable sources—primarily wage income. Unemployment benefits do not reduce unemployment and thus increase wage income—though economists disagree on the magnitude of the effect most agree that at least marginally, unemployment benefits tend to increase the duration of unemployment. Again, not a commentary on unemployment benefits, which I do find useful and will not rail against—just saying her comment was incorrect.
She commented recently on unemployment benefits and the stimulus.
Her comment: “Giving money to people who have no income so that they can spend it is the definition of stimulus.”
Analysis: Not really. The economic actors whom the stimulus is aimed to please (i.e. convince) are the people who decide whether or not they should put their money on the line and invest, whether it be working capital, pure investment, or maintaining higher inventories, and work forces. Unemployment benefits don’t really convince them to do anything to truly promote long-term growth and recovery. The economy is not a blind machine you pump money into and it reacts based purely on the amount of money being spent and floating around. The economic actors are largely aware of how money is being spent. There is no incentive to invest in long-term growth and expand inventory capabilities much less inventory and workforces if this marginal consumption provided by unemployment benefits is temporary, which it is. Investment is encouraged when the future streams of consumption money (i.e. what will be used to make the investment profitable) come from more permanent and reliable sources—primarily wage income. Unemployment benefits do not reduce unemployment and thus increase wage income—though economists disagree on the magnitude of the effect most agree that at least marginally, unemployment benefits tend to increase the duration of unemployment. Again, not a commentary on unemployment benefits, which I do find useful and will not rail against—just saying her comment was incorrect.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Michael Wilbon -- I'm Losing Respect Quickly
More on this later, but his comments on the Scott Van Pelt show on 6/16 concerning NFL management and its lies was so ridiculous I can hardly contain myself, but must go study now so more later.
Basically, he said teams say "We signed this player for 6 years 42 million", but they always "lie" and "never keep their promise" referring to when the team cuts that player after 3 years.
So absurd everybody knows the contracts are non-guaranteed outside of the signing bonus. The players know that, the teams know that, and the agents know that. Therefore, the players and agents get as much money as they can in the signing bonus and the first 2-3 years. There is no deception. When a team cuts a player with a non-guaranteed contract, they aren't "lying" or "breaking their promise". It is just easier to say 6 years 42 million than 1 year 17 million (year 1 salary + signing bonus) with a team options for years 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 at 5 mil per which is roughly what such an NFL contract is.
He was irate about this when clearly he is missing the entire point.
This is the second time in a few months that he has said something absolutely absurd.
In May following the NFL Draft he said that Florida State safety Myron Rolle fell to the 6th round because "people dont know what to make of a black scholar who is a football player so they make excuses for not taking him".
Actual facts:
Rolle had not played football for the last year before the draft.
He ran the second slowest 40 of any safety in the draft.
He was never that great at FSU.
He went right where he was projected to go.
There are 3 black GMs who made a combined 21 picks before Rolle was selected by the Titans a team w/ a white coach and GM.
There are also 6 black head coaches. All of them passed on Rolle.
Rolle went in the 6th round because thats how good of a prospect he was. Race is still a very sensitive issue and for a person in Wilbon's position w/ such a large audience to recklessly make assertions like that without any basis other than his emotional (and unreasonable) suspicions is irresponsible.
Basically, he said teams say "We signed this player for 6 years 42 million", but they always "lie" and "never keep their promise" referring to when the team cuts that player after 3 years.
So absurd everybody knows the contracts are non-guaranteed outside of the signing bonus. The players know that, the teams know that, and the agents know that. Therefore, the players and agents get as much money as they can in the signing bonus and the first 2-3 years. There is no deception. When a team cuts a player with a non-guaranteed contract, they aren't "lying" or "breaking their promise". It is just easier to say 6 years 42 million than 1 year 17 million (year 1 salary + signing bonus) with a team options for years 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 at 5 mil per which is roughly what such an NFL contract is.
He was irate about this when clearly he is missing the entire point.
This is the second time in a few months that he has said something absolutely absurd.
In May following the NFL Draft he said that Florida State safety Myron Rolle fell to the 6th round because "people dont know what to make of a black scholar who is a football player so they make excuses for not taking him".
Actual facts:
Rolle had not played football for the last year before the draft.
He ran the second slowest 40 of any safety in the draft.
He was never that great at FSU.
He went right where he was projected to go.
There are 3 black GMs who made a combined 21 picks before Rolle was selected by the Titans a team w/ a white coach and GM.
There are also 6 black head coaches. All of them passed on Rolle.
Rolle went in the 6th round because thats how good of a prospect he was. Race is still a very sensitive issue and for a person in Wilbon's position w/ such a large audience to recklessly make assertions like that without any basis other than his emotional (and unreasonable) suspicions is irresponsible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)