* One of the recappers this morning (I think it was the TMZ blog), noted that "perhaps no show in history has had more riding on its finale than "Lost"." And I couldn't agree more, in many regards.
Look it, I watch way more television that is healthy for you ... but there are very few shows that reach what I call "cigar show" status. Meaning, the sole objective I look forward to, the only thing I want to do that night, is sit on the deck with a cigar and a cocktail and watch a new episode of the show.
There's really only six shows that have hit that status for me:
1. "NYPD Blue". My unquestioned favorite show of all time. But its ending / final episode was completely predictable. Season twelve was all about the final redemption of Andy, culminating in him becoming the new squad commander. I still loved the final season, and really liked the finale ... but there wasn't really any drama involved, like so many other finales of "Blue".
2. "The West Wing". Another great show that constantly delivered classic episodes ... with a totally predictable finale. Once Santos won the election, the last few episodes were nothing other than cleaning up loose ends, and inaugurating Santos as President. The only "drama" in the finale was over whether President Bartlett would pardon Toby, and everyone knew the answer would ultimately be "yes".
3. "The Practice". Technically, it did have a "what the bloody hell?!?!" finale, where Bobby quit the firm, gave up on his marriage to Lindsay, and basically said "screw it, I'm done" with life as he knew it. Only, ABC turned around and stunningly renewed the show for one final (really good) season. And for that season / series finale, again, absolutely no drama whatsoever. Partly because the main character on the show at that point (Alan Shore, played brilliantly for so long by James Spader) was spun off onto its own show, "Boston Legal".
4. "Friday Night Lights". Has not yet had a series finale, as season four is currently airing on NBC, and season five is currently filming. But to its credit, the season three finale was a complete bombshell (Coach fired?!?!), and the season one finale wasn't shocking, but has some legitimately chilling, goose-bump inducing moments (the halftime speech is almost as good as Pacino's pre-game rant in "Any Given Sunday". Almost).
5. "Swingtown". Oh what could have been, had CBS given it any support at all. Still, one of the best short-lived shows ever. With a completely non-shocking ending that the show did a great job of building to over the course of its one season.
And 6. "Lost".
I absolutely love that we're barely 96 hours away from the final episode ... and I have absolutely no idea how this thing is going to end.
Take some moments from last night, for example, that opened up a ton of questions in my mind ...
(Spoiler alert for anyone who hasn't seen the episode yet / "jump ahead to next huge space with no words if you don't care about "Lost" breaker begins now):
1. After Desmond and Hurley bribe Kate and Sayid out of prison, thanks to some help from a shady cop fans of the show will instantly recognize, Desmond then notes to Kate, "we've got a concert to go to". Uuh, which concert is it? Is it Jack's son's performance referenced in the opening scene? Is it Miles' father's museum's concert that he was trying to get Sawyer to go to him with? Is it Charlie's Driveshaft performance at the Widmore dinner referenced in "Happily Ever After" earlier this year? Or is it something yet to be introduced?
2. Now that Ben is "Island-aware", and I believe after two weeks ago that Locke is as well, at least sketchily (muttering "Push the Button", "I Should Have Listened to You" after Jack saved his life when Desmond ran him over), how does this dynamic work in the sideways world? Will Locke remember it was Ben that killed him in the Island timeline? And on the Island, is Ben conning Fake Locke by going along with his plans at this point, or is he truly so driven by hatred of Widmore than he'd join with Fake Locke? (My guess is neither, actually. I think Ben is the one who has to kill Fake Locke. He killed Jacob. He killed the real John Locke. I think Ben has to finish the task, and he knows it, which is why he's "joined up" with Fake Locke. Oh, and getting to kill the guy who in essence killed his daughter, that was just sweet revenge. Karma's a b*tch Chuckie).
3. The line Desmond uttered to Hurley after the prison break -- "she's not ready yet", about Ana Lucia. So does this mean only certain Losties can gain "Island awareness" in the sideways world? Does this mean that some won't? Or can't?
4. Where the hell is Lapidus? I'm missing Captain Chesty dammit. Did he actually die in the sub explosion? Or did he reach shore (as I hope he did; Frank is too damned funny to let him die so pointlessly) and just was MIA last night.
5. Most curious of all to me in the Island timeline, though, is Fake Locke's decision to "destroy the Island" as his last way of escape. Is it possible that (and yeah, this one hit me after about 2 1/2 bottles of shiraz, what can I say, I was thirsty last night), is it possible that the flash-Sideways and original-Island timelines are NOT linked? I'm not sure how that works, since the Island is in 2007 right now, and the sideways should be in 2004, and we're starting to see the two worlds bleed together, slowly yet surely. But was detonating Jughead to open the season actually how the season will also end? That everything on-Island so far this year was a damned dream in Juliet's head that lasts only a few seconds, like Desmond seeing the Sideways world open up only lasted 2 seconds in on-Island time, but 50 plus minutes off of it? Damn this show, its too freaking addicting.
6. Who the hell is David's mother? I think after last night (and based on how the dude looks) we can rule out Ana Lucia. And its safe to say, based on the season premiere and the entire Sideways history to this point, that it isn't Kate. But that leaves ... Sarah? Juliet? Someone completely out of left field, like say ... Charlotte? (Which is an interesting choice, since it would drag Jack and Sawyer into another connection in the Sideways world).
Other stuff I loved about last night's episode that had nothing to do with creating questions:
1. Locke accepting the idea that every mistake can be forgiven. The scene where he wheels his way into Jack's office, starts rattling off the long, completely unavoidable list of coincidences that has occurred in the past ten to twelve days in the Sideways world ... and he utters something along the lines of "I can't fight fate any longer. I'm ready to get out of this chair". The man of faith ... accepting science as the solution to his problems. Just as at the same time ...
2. Jack accepts the "Candidate of Choice" position. (Loved Sawyer's response: "Like he doesn't already have enough of a God complex"). The man of science ... accepting faith as the solution to his problems.
3. The Ben scene in the Sideways world, with a completely classed-up, non-batsh*t crazy Rousseau and Alex. "You're the closest thing to a father she's ever had", and Ben, overwhelmed at realizing his importance in the Sideways world (remember, all he "had" was a dying father and his love for teaching history). While, I believe, at the same time, the Island world slowly seeping into his Sideways memory. Perhaps that's what overwhelmed him, realizing that "whoa, I'm the closest thing she has to father here ... because I was her father in another life". Gotta admit, that was a Nipsey Russell moment, definitely made some goose bumps appear, at least for me.
4. Widmore's "I'm always three steps ahead of you, Benjamin" putdown ... about 30 seconds before Ben just freaking offs him. Bang! Bang bang bang! And his absolutely stone-cold, not-an-ounce-of-remorse rationale for killing him. "You don't get the chance to save your daughter". Also loved Fake Locke slashing Zoe's throat. Of all the secondary characters this show has introduced this season, there are none I hated more than her. Horribly written storyline, awful actress, completely unbelievable portrayal. Glad she's gone.
(end spoiler alert / "if you don't give a sh*t about "Lost" you can start reading again here moment)
"Lost" is just about the only drama that's this much of a hit / following among the masses, that enters its finale completely unsure of what will happen next. "The Sopranos" had some intrigue ... but not as much as "Lost". Mainly because "The Sopranos" had their final battles / hits / showdowns in the two episodes preceding the finale. You had Dr. Melfi kick Tony to the curb. Johnny Sack croaked. Bobby bit the dust, Silvio was shot up, and Phil Leotardo finally was dealt with. By the finale, you had really only two questions left:
(1) would Tony die.
(2) what happened to that damned Russian that Paulie and Christofuh lost in the Pine Barrens?
In true "Sopranos" fashion, we got an answer to neither question. (I think Tony was shot and killed when the screen went black, but I'm in the minority on that).
Sunday night, "Lost" has so many questions left to answer, so many fundamental moments to sort through, that it'll be impossible to answer them all. And you know what, I'm good with that. I've never been into "Lost" for the mythology. I've always dug it because its the best told story on television. Ask anyone who knows me, I am not a scientific person. I don't care about religion, about psychology, about how things work. If you'd told me as recently as 2 years ago that I'd be addicted to a show whose core premise for an entire season was on the effects of time-travel on humans, I'd have said "yeah, right".
So kudos to "Lost" for making an unwatchable subject interesting as hell. The ideas of faith, religion, human psychology, science vs reason, pre-destination / fate vs free will / choice. All stuff I slept through growing up, I'm digging watching be told as a 33 year old. Who knew.
* Speaking of digging, how about that 0-2 hole the Magic are in?
A huge Steve's Site shout-out to Vince Carter. What a choke job at the line in the final 30 seconds.
(Also, sadly, since I'm rooting for the Celtics ... a huge Steve's Site shout-out to a guy I do actually like and root for, JJ Redick. Kid, that was a Chris Webber-esque brain fart on that final possession last night. Let's not have that happen again, ok? I like you too much to see you f*ck up a pressure situation like that again).
* Not much to say on the "Survivor" finale. The only one in the top three who didn't deserve to win, cruised to easy victory. Here's where normally you'd insert the "well, consider her life background, of course she layed around and did nothing for 40 days and expected to be paid for it" joke, but I like to think I'm above that. What, I'm not?
OK, here's my real thoughts on it.
1. Parvati should have won. She played the best game from day one.
2. I'd have been fine with Russell winning.
3. Russell guaranteed he'd lose when he took Sandra over Jerri. Nobody on that jury was voting for Jerri. And if it comes down to the "lesser of two hated players", between him and Parvati, I think the jury might have gone with him.
4. I hate Rupert more than any reality show contestant ever. Come on Indy 500 fans, boo the hell out of this tool in 10 days when he continues to milk his 15 minutes of fame by riding around in a pre-race pickup convoy in that hideous tie-dye shirt, thinking people like him. Got news for you pal: nobody likes you. Or at least nobody I know.
* A few other random thoughts to close out the Wednesday posting.
1. The D Bowe "older players hired women for us on road trips" story. Uuh, this is a story? I'm stunned -- absolutely stunned -- that professional athletes would seek out the comforts and pleasures of spending a night or two on the road with hot women who want nothing more than to try to have crazy good sex and (hopefully) get knocked up to draw a child support check for the next twenty years. We've never seen that happen before.
2. Of course, now that the story is up at kansascity.com, I suspect we can expect Senator Bartle to call for a boycott of the Chiefs, because after all, consentual sex or the implication thereof between two legal-age adults is the greatest evil facing our society.
3. Speaking of Senator Bartle and my disgust of anything affiliated with him ... kudos to Mike Hendricks this morning, a brilliant rebuttal in the Star to Senator Bartle's insane campaign of the last few months. I'm not a big Mike Hendricks fan for the most part, but he absolutely knocked the damned ball out of the park this morning.
4. Some blog I was reading this morning, linked out of SI.com I think, had an "update" on the Top 50 Draft Busts in the NFL. I only counted two Chiefs on there, but both are a doozy. At number 39, Trezelle Jenkins is now the owner of a (wait for it ... wait for it ...) Harold's Chicken Shack in Ferndale, Michigan. Wait, a fat, overweight, unmotivated offensive lineman now owns a chicken shack? No ...
Even better, at number 35, Mike Elkins has launched a career in country music. You can check him out at www.mikeelkins.com apparently.
5. Rain today ... rain all day tomorrow ... rain Friday morning ... and then 84 and sunny Saturday, 85 and sunny on Sunday. Might want to have the sunglasses on if you're around me this weekend; I'm still pretty pale white, and I'll be damned if I'm letting two sunny days in the mid 80s go by without trying to get a tan.
6. Congrats to the Washington Wizards on winning the NBA Draft Lottery. How they can drag pulling three ping-pong balls to the top of the hopper into a half-hour show of riveting television, I have no idea. But the NBA manages to do it every spring.
7. Also, congrats to Knicks F Wilson Chandler for being indicted for having not one, not two, not even three ... ok, I'll give you one more guess ... nope, not four ... five! Five freaking baggies of weed in his car last night, when he was stopped in Queens for not having his lights on at 11:30pm. Even more incredibly, major ups to the Queens PD, who not only simply ticketed Mr. Chandler ... he wasn't detained! He was free to go! How the hell does that happen? You have two plus ounces of weed on you, and the cops let you walk?!?! (frank sinatra voice) I want to be a part of it, New York! New York!
Plus, the reaction of his uncle is hysterical. "I didn't think he messed with that stuff". OK, first of all, what person in their 20s doesn't smoke at least occasionally? Or hasn't at least tried it once or twice? Other than the devoutly religious and/or no-fun police, of course. And secondly, Wilson Chandler's employer is the National Basketball Association. You know, the sports league where Charles Oakley once asserted that "60 to 70 percent of the league smokes". And that quote is from a decade ago. You really think that number's gone down in the last few years?
The NBA: Where Amazing Continually Happens!
8. On the shock-o-meter, the Nets new owner firing head coach / former GM Kiki Vandeweghe lands somewhere between "Steve opens cold Shiner Bock" and "Steve smiles at 97 and sunny degree forecast". Let's hope this guy knows what he's doing. I mean, he has mob ties (allegedly) for God's sake. In Russia! You really want to be coaching a 10-33 team come next January? That could get ugly. Plus, its not like they don't know what to do with the bodies up there in the swamps of North Jersey ...
9. Finally, congratulations to the voters of Pennsylvania, for sending long-past-his-expiration-date-for-usefulness Senator Arlen Specter into retirement last night. In case you missed the Chris Matthews-esque reaction of fellow MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow (whose show I enjoy immensely), here's the clip. The money shot, so to speak, starts at the :19 mark. Sometimes, you just have to laugh at what passes as serious, credible journalism in this country nowadays ...
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
royals, bartle, and nbc: all less sane than me ...
"Love on the rocks!
Ain't no surprise.
Just pour me a drink,
And I'll tell you some lies.
Ain't got nothin' to lose,
So you just sing the blues,
All the time ...
Gave you my heart!
Gave you my soul.
You left me alone here
With nothing to hold.
Yesterday's gone.
And now all I want
Is a smile ..."
-- "Love on the Rocks" by the great Neil Diamond. You want to know what's wrong with "American Idol" this year, I can sum it up in four words. No Neil Diamond Week. Well that, and a complete lack of compelling talent to tune in and watch on a weekly basis ...
* So here's my issue with the whole "Royals fire Trey Hillman" debacle from last week.
I don't care that Trey was shown the door. At all. I've been calling for his head since last July, at least.
No, what bugs the hell out of me, is that this wasn't done last October.
Seriously, what the hell was upper management (and by "upper management", I mean the "increasingly likely to be as qualified to be a GM as I am" Dayton Moore), what were they thinking by giving this guy a third shot to screw the proverbial pooch?
There's a reason why the Colts and Patriots have dominated the NFL the last decade. Ditto why the Lakers rule the NBA most of the time. Because those three franchises, more than any other, "get it". You ALWAYS let a guy leave a year too soon, than keep him a year too long.
The Royals don't understand this basic concept. They sign guys that are over the hill, that are useless in the long-term vision of the franchise. And expect that somehow, they'll improve on their sh*tty performance elsewhere because of a "change of scenery", or "getting more playing time".
Really? I loved Sam Mellinger's Upon Further Review post this morning, pointing out that not one, but BOTH, catchers the Royals let walk last offseason, so that they could sign Jason Kendall to a multi-year, multi-million dollar deal. Both John Buck and Miguel Olivo are outslugging Kendall, and its not even close in the comparison. (To say nothing of the fact that Jason Kendall couldn't throw out me trying to steal second base at this point, and I don't exactly have Dave Roberts-type speed on the bases).
Furthermore, while I'm glad we're 3-1 post-Trey, the real issue plaguing this team hasn't been addressed yet.
When is GMDM going to be held accountable for the trainwreck this franchise has remained since he took over?
May 30, 2006, GMDM was hired. Here's our starting lineup from that day, courtesy baseball-reference.com:
CF David DeJesus
2B Mark Grudzelanick
DH Reggie Sanders
RF Emil Brown
3B Tony Graffanino
LF Esteban German
1B Doug Mientkiewitz
SS Angel Berroa
C John Buck
Amazingly enough, that crappy lineup won 8-7 in ten innings that night against a team that would reach the ALCS that year (Oakland).
Here's your lineup from last night's 4-3 victory over Baltimore, the team with the worst record in baseball:
LF Scott Podsednik
2B Mike Aviles
RF David DeJesus
1B Billy Butler
DH Jose Guillen
3B Alberto Callaspo
CF Mitch Maier
SS Yuniesky Betancourt
C Jason Kendall
I ask any objective, impartial Royals fan to ask themselves one question: is the lineup from 5/17/2010 better than the lineup from 5/30/2006?
Four years out, and there's no marked improvement ANYWHERE in the lineup, save at first base.
We are worse at all three outfield positions. Significantly worse at shortstop and catcher. And a coin flip at DH, 3B and 2B. That's not Trey Hillman's fault. That's Dayton Moore's fault.
Furthermore, where's the help coming from this revamped minor league system? I know I've vented about this before, but Moore's first pick with us was Mike Moustakas, who is still at least a full season away, and probably two, from reaching Kansas City. Meanwhile, the guy selected right after him, started against us last night (C Matt Weiters). You think we couldn't use him at this point? The guy picked 9 slots after Moustakas, is dominating the National League right now (OF Jason Hayward). Yeah, we have NO visible need for a young stud at a corner outfield position, we're just loaded with prospects out there. Like Mitch Maier.
But look at the turnover in the lineup. We've downgraded from bad major league ballplayers to ... what? Journeymen? There's no young studs in that lineup that you can project to be here in five years, save for Butler. The talent isn't there. That's on GMDM's shoulders, squarely and exclusively.
In the end, Hillman was doomed to fail, both because he wasn't qualified for the job, and because his general manager is clueless when it comes to acquiring major league talent. I'll give GMDM credit for Gil Meche. He saw something noone else in baseball saw, and its by in large worked out for the Royals. But what other signing has? There isn't one talent acquisition, save for Meche, that can be counted as a success on GMDM's resume. And its been four years.
If you can't field at least a .500 team in four years, you don't deserve a fifth at the helm. It never fails to amaze me how smart, competent, qualified businessmen and businesswomen who run professional sports teams, can be so good at their "day job", and so utterly inept at their "hobby". Dayton Moore has as much business running a major league team right now as I do. Which is to say, none. Four years is long enough. If you can't at least field a mediocre squad after 600 plus games at the helm, it just isn't going to happen.
Its my biggest pet peeve in sports. This idea of "sticking to the process", that "we can build this from the ground up". Really? I'd argue there have been three truly spectacular rebuilding jobs in the 2000s in MLB. The Twins, the A's, and the Rays.
The Twins hit rock bottom in 1999, finishing with the major's worst record and getting no-hit twice. They won the division in 2002, and have only missed the playoffs once since (2005).
The A's hit rock bottom in 1998, finishing with the major's worst record. They won the wildcard in 2000 to set up a solid seven year run of postseason play.
The Rays were awful for a decade, before finally dumping their incompetent GM Chuck LaMar in 2006. They were in the World Series two years later.
You don't "rebuild" for the long haul anymore in sports. Either you get it right away, and show marked improvement, or you never will. Dennis Dodd of sportsline.com has noted, and for what its worth I completely agree with him, that if a school hires a new head coach, and he doesn't win a championship within five years, he never will at that school. That's just the nature of the sport now. You look at teams on the upward trajectory, such as Nebraska. They tried it the "traditional way", in terms of giving the coach a full recruiting class to get his system into place. It was a collossal failure. Two years removed from the "Sur" William Callahan era, the Huskers are a preseason top ten pick, the overwhelming favorite to win the Big XII North for a second straight year, and a darkhorse candidate to play in Glendale come January for the national championship. Two years after rock bottom, they're back.
GMDM doesn't get this. Apparently Royals management doesn't either. Either the guy you hire "gets it" and shows marked improvement virtually overnight, or it just isn't going to happen. We've got four years of ironclad evidence that Dayton Moore isn't going to get the job done. Its time to clean house. Yet again.
Until and unless the Royals change their hierarchy at the top, it doesn't matter who manages this team. I meant what I said after leaving the Red Sox game opening weekend -- until this squad gets over .500, I will not step foot inside that stadium. I'll show up and tailgate the afternoon away, as I did on Saturday. But I will NOT give this team any more money than what it costs to park. They have to earn my cash this year. And every season to follow. If more Royals fans would adopt this approach, perhaps regime change would come to One Kauffman Way faster than what it needs to.
Moving on ...
* State Senator Matt Bartle (R-Lee's Summit). Sir, I don't know you from a bum under a bridge, but your crusade against the adult entertainment industry really rubs me the wrong way. (Pun intended).
As reported in The Star on Friday morning, Senator Bartle's eight year crusade against adult entertainers passed the Senate 27-4. The bill bans full nudity at adult establishments, bans alcohol sales at adult establishments, and basically raises two gigantic middle fingers to a perfectly legal (albeit sleazy) profession that brings millions of Americans a little happiness into their lives. (And millions of dollars into the state treasury that Senator Bartle has no way to offset the loss of).
Sir, you cannot legislate morality. Or at least, you shouldn't. Bartle's comments in the article really, really anger me. Right off the bat, Senator Bartle notes that "most human beings understand that if you mix alcohol and women dancing in the nude, that's a tough combo. Bad things happen".
Really? First of all, speaking as a guy, I really don't get how mixing "alcohol and women dancing in the nude" is a "tough combo". A "pleasant combo", a "total freaking turn-on", absolutely. But a "tough combo"? What is this guy smoking, and can I have some when he's done?
Furthermore ... when was the last time there was an attack, a rape, an indecent act, a drunken brawl, any type of crime for that matter, was committed at one of these adult establishments? Have you heard of any? Because I sure as hell haven't. Senator Bartle and his misguided followers are confusing their attempt to legislate morality with being a moral cause. Its not, Senator. What you are doing is so wrong, is so over the line, that I am absolutely astonished that only four Senators from my state had the balls to oppose this heinous piece of legislation.
What Senator Bartle and his band of zealots fail to grasp, is that what works for them, can also be used against them. Let's role play here for a moment. As most of you know, I am a staunch liberal when it comes to personal freedom. A proud liberal, to be honest. I would much rather err on the side of allowing too much personal expression and liberty, than not allowing enough. As such, I tend to strongly support positions that go against my religious upbringing, and my own personal viewpoints in some cases. (Example: I am personally staunchly anti-abortion ... and yet I oppose any efforts to overturn Roe v Wade, or to limit access to the procedure. Why? Because I believe the decision of how to deal with an unplanned or abnormal pregnancy is a personal decision between a woman, her partner, and her doctor. Nowhere in that discussion should be a thought of "what does Steve think about this". Unless I'm the partner. And even then, I should be the minority party in that discussion).
So let's say the day finally arrives, where the citizens of this country, more and more waking up to the reality that organized religion is the cause of 99.99% of the world's problems, let's say the day finally arrives where the folks here say "enough is enough", and begin to demand legislation to limit the Church's influence in our daily lives. (And that day cannot arrive soon enough). What will Senator Bartle say then? Either he has to support the "will of his constituents", as he is claiming to do by backing this anti-lifestyle bill, or he has to be exposed as the fraud, phony, and hypocrite that he is, and oppose the legislation because it targets a single segment of society for extinction.
For all the conservative side of the argument's anger over the "abridging of freedom" we are allegedly suffering under in the Obama years ... what the hell is this? Its not Democrats, its not liberals, seeking to take away our right to have a good time on a Friday night. We aren't the ones seeking to limit freedom. Its folks like Senator Bartle that are.
(Its the whole argument behind the left-wing position on the war on terror, a position I happen to pretty much support. You can have freedom, or you can have security. You cannot have both. I'd rather life in fear of a terror attack, yet know that I am free to come and go as I choose, than to fall asleep at night thinking all is right in the world, yet have armed guardsmen patrolling the streets of my neighborhood).
Of course, being the fine, upstanding legislator that he is, Senator Bartle is "not seeking re-election". He's a coward of the Dennis Moore type. He rams through what he wants, a key there -- not what the people want, not what the majority wants, but what he personally wants -- he rams it through, then flees for the hills rather than stand on his beliefs and his legislation. And to think people wonder why there's such an anti-incumbent mood in this country right now. Senator Bartle is the embodiment of all that is wrong and broken with government. He's a joke. And his legislation, this un-Constitutional pile of crap, is an even bigger joke than he is.
Look it, I hate being put in the position to defend the adult entertainment industry. On one point, the Senator and I agree -- there's nothing good that happens in a strip club. I've long argued that other than military fly-overs at sporting events, there is no bigger waste of money known to man than visiting a strip club. You drop hundreds of dollars to get a rise and nothing else. (Well, except at everyone's favorite "steakhouse", then at least you get to lay on stage to give the "waitress" her tip. But even that's a total letdown -- you can smell, but not kiss / touch / play / enjoy. Total and complete waste of money).
The Senator and I agree on a few things. Adult clubs are a total waste of money, and there isn't much good that comes from visiting one. You're better off finding a toilet and just flushing your money down the drain. But, and here's what Senator Bartle apparently doesn't understand -- entering a strip club is a choice. Nobody is holding a gun to the patrons heads and demanding they enter and spend money on the entertainers. (Unless you're in Tijuana of course, then all bets are off).
Furthermore ... what in the hell is the state legislature doing debating this at all? See, this is the problem with religious conservatives as I see it. They would rather deal with an issue that doesn't exist, except in their own minds, rather than deal with the REAL issues facing the state. Its called unemployment. Its called budget deficits. Its called collapsing roads and bridges, failed public schools, sky-rocketing costs for secondary education, lack of funding to help special-needs citizens. THOSE are the issues the legislature should be dealing with. Of course, they aren't, because clearly, why actually address the budget when you can take a ruler out to measure whether someone is six feet (and a few inches) from the stage instead?
Senator Bartle can't see the tree from the forest at this point. Nor, do I believe, does he care to. Because again, he's a coward of the worst kind, because he refuses to stand for re-election and let his constituents, of which I am one, vote yay or nay on his job performance. He's a coward. I'm going to keep hammering that home. Senator Matt Bartle is a mother f*cking coward. Perhaps he and Congressman Moore can open a business together, Cowards R Us. Or Chicken Sh*t Congressmen. Because anyone who says that targeting a legitimate, for profit business for extinction, anyone who does that and justifies it by saying "This is a reasonable, rational step. It reflects where our people are, both Republican and Democrat", anyone who says that, needs his head examined.
* Congratulations to NBC, for once again proving that PTV is a better thought out, planned out, laid out network than they are. And PTV's Tuesday night anchor was "Dogs Humping". (And yes, I still believe "The Side Boob Hour" would draw a 5.5 rating / 8 share even today).
What in the hell is NBC thinking by cancelling the one flagship show they have left? In case you missed the news, "Law and Order" was cancelled by NBC this weekend. Which is a shame -- this year has been phenomenally good. What's really puzzling about this move, is that next year, "Law and Order" would have broken prime-time television's record by becoming the longest-running drama in television history. You mean NBC couldn't gin up a 6 episode closing run to draw in old viewers who abandoned the show years ago to celebrate its final record-setting season? Even if it was a truncated one?
I swear, untrained alcoholic chimps would do a better job of running NBC than the human beings that are in charge have done. The same idiots who brought you "The Jay Leno Show" five nights a week, are still in charge. That pretty much says it all.
* Speaking of television I love, it wouldn't be a post without a "Lost" thought. I thought last week's episode was neat, and I did enjoy it ... but why the hell was it aired now? This was an episode that should have aired early in the season. After the mind-blowing and game-changing episode two weeks ago, why stop and ruin the momentum building to the finale by airing an episode that yes, is heavy with answers and mythology, but does nothing to advance the story? Oh well, what's the point of complaining, there's only 3 1/2 hours of "Lost" left, and I intend to thoroughly enjoy every second of that 3 1/2 hours.
* Its NBA Draft Lottery night! The Draft Lottery never fails to humor me. Its not the same without the "Veteran of the Lottery Process", Elgin Baylor, sitting at the podium in one of those hideous late 80s/early 90s sweaters ... but the Clippers will be represented. Part of me wants the Timberwolves to win this thing, just so they can waste yet another first round pick on a point guard. But I'm really rooting for Houston to win it. Yes, longest odds possible ... but you add John Wall to that team, with Yao coming back? The Lakers might finally have a threat to their dominance!
* Finally, coming soon (as in, the next few days), I'll start soliciting ideas for when to hold the 375,001st ounce tailgate. With summer just around the corner, its time to plan the Second Annual Tribute to Alcoholism. And yes, I know last year was only 300,001. Its been a rough year. That, and I have no doubt we undercounted the ounces last summer ...
Ain't no surprise.
Just pour me a drink,
And I'll tell you some lies.
Ain't got nothin' to lose,
So you just sing the blues,
All the time ...
Gave you my heart!
Gave you my soul.
You left me alone here
With nothing to hold.
Yesterday's gone.
And now all I want
Is a smile ..."
-- "Love on the Rocks" by the great Neil Diamond. You want to know what's wrong with "American Idol" this year, I can sum it up in four words. No Neil Diamond Week. Well that, and a complete lack of compelling talent to tune in and watch on a weekly basis ...
* So here's my issue with the whole "Royals fire Trey Hillman" debacle from last week.
I don't care that Trey was shown the door. At all. I've been calling for his head since last July, at least.
No, what bugs the hell out of me, is that this wasn't done last October.
Seriously, what the hell was upper management (and by "upper management", I mean the "increasingly likely to be as qualified to be a GM as I am" Dayton Moore), what were they thinking by giving this guy a third shot to screw the proverbial pooch?
There's a reason why the Colts and Patriots have dominated the NFL the last decade. Ditto why the Lakers rule the NBA most of the time. Because those three franchises, more than any other, "get it". You ALWAYS let a guy leave a year too soon, than keep him a year too long.
The Royals don't understand this basic concept. They sign guys that are over the hill, that are useless in the long-term vision of the franchise. And expect that somehow, they'll improve on their sh*tty performance elsewhere because of a "change of scenery", or "getting more playing time".
Really? I loved Sam Mellinger's Upon Further Review post this morning, pointing out that not one, but BOTH, catchers the Royals let walk last offseason, so that they could sign Jason Kendall to a multi-year, multi-million dollar deal. Both John Buck and Miguel Olivo are outslugging Kendall, and its not even close in the comparison. (To say nothing of the fact that Jason Kendall couldn't throw out me trying to steal second base at this point, and I don't exactly have Dave Roberts-type speed on the bases).
Furthermore, while I'm glad we're 3-1 post-Trey, the real issue plaguing this team hasn't been addressed yet.
When is GMDM going to be held accountable for the trainwreck this franchise has remained since he took over?
May 30, 2006, GMDM was hired. Here's our starting lineup from that day, courtesy baseball-reference.com:
CF David DeJesus
2B Mark Grudzelanick
DH Reggie Sanders
RF Emil Brown
3B Tony Graffanino
LF Esteban German
1B Doug Mientkiewitz
SS Angel Berroa
C John Buck
Amazingly enough, that crappy lineup won 8-7 in ten innings that night against a team that would reach the ALCS that year (Oakland).
Here's your lineup from last night's 4-3 victory over Baltimore, the team with the worst record in baseball:
LF Scott Podsednik
2B Mike Aviles
RF David DeJesus
1B Billy Butler
DH Jose Guillen
3B Alberto Callaspo
CF Mitch Maier
SS Yuniesky Betancourt
C Jason Kendall
I ask any objective, impartial Royals fan to ask themselves one question: is the lineup from 5/17/2010 better than the lineup from 5/30/2006?
Four years out, and there's no marked improvement ANYWHERE in the lineup, save at first base.
We are worse at all three outfield positions. Significantly worse at shortstop and catcher. And a coin flip at DH, 3B and 2B. That's not Trey Hillman's fault. That's Dayton Moore's fault.
Furthermore, where's the help coming from this revamped minor league system? I know I've vented about this before, but Moore's first pick with us was Mike Moustakas, who is still at least a full season away, and probably two, from reaching Kansas City. Meanwhile, the guy selected right after him, started against us last night (C Matt Weiters). You think we couldn't use him at this point? The guy picked 9 slots after Moustakas, is dominating the National League right now (OF Jason Hayward). Yeah, we have NO visible need for a young stud at a corner outfield position, we're just loaded with prospects out there. Like Mitch Maier.
But look at the turnover in the lineup. We've downgraded from bad major league ballplayers to ... what? Journeymen? There's no young studs in that lineup that you can project to be here in five years, save for Butler. The talent isn't there. That's on GMDM's shoulders, squarely and exclusively.
In the end, Hillman was doomed to fail, both because he wasn't qualified for the job, and because his general manager is clueless when it comes to acquiring major league talent. I'll give GMDM credit for Gil Meche. He saw something noone else in baseball saw, and its by in large worked out for the Royals. But what other signing has? There isn't one talent acquisition, save for Meche, that can be counted as a success on GMDM's resume. And its been four years.
If you can't field at least a .500 team in four years, you don't deserve a fifth at the helm. It never fails to amaze me how smart, competent, qualified businessmen and businesswomen who run professional sports teams, can be so good at their "day job", and so utterly inept at their "hobby". Dayton Moore has as much business running a major league team right now as I do. Which is to say, none. Four years is long enough. If you can't at least field a mediocre squad after 600 plus games at the helm, it just isn't going to happen.
Its my biggest pet peeve in sports. This idea of "sticking to the process", that "we can build this from the ground up". Really? I'd argue there have been three truly spectacular rebuilding jobs in the 2000s in MLB. The Twins, the A's, and the Rays.
The Twins hit rock bottom in 1999, finishing with the major's worst record and getting no-hit twice. They won the division in 2002, and have only missed the playoffs once since (2005).
The A's hit rock bottom in 1998, finishing with the major's worst record. They won the wildcard in 2000 to set up a solid seven year run of postseason play.
The Rays were awful for a decade, before finally dumping their incompetent GM Chuck LaMar in 2006. They were in the World Series two years later.
You don't "rebuild" for the long haul anymore in sports. Either you get it right away, and show marked improvement, or you never will. Dennis Dodd of sportsline.com has noted, and for what its worth I completely agree with him, that if a school hires a new head coach, and he doesn't win a championship within five years, he never will at that school. That's just the nature of the sport now. You look at teams on the upward trajectory, such as Nebraska. They tried it the "traditional way", in terms of giving the coach a full recruiting class to get his system into place. It was a collossal failure. Two years removed from the "Sur" William Callahan era, the Huskers are a preseason top ten pick, the overwhelming favorite to win the Big XII North for a second straight year, and a darkhorse candidate to play in Glendale come January for the national championship. Two years after rock bottom, they're back.
GMDM doesn't get this. Apparently Royals management doesn't either. Either the guy you hire "gets it" and shows marked improvement virtually overnight, or it just isn't going to happen. We've got four years of ironclad evidence that Dayton Moore isn't going to get the job done. Its time to clean house. Yet again.
Until and unless the Royals change their hierarchy at the top, it doesn't matter who manages this team. I meant what I said after leaving the Red Sox game opening weekend -- until this squad gets over .500, I will not step foot inside that stadium. I'll show up and tailgate the afternoon away, as I did on Saturday. But I will NOT give this team any more money than what it costs to park. They have to earn my cash this year. And every season to follow. If more Royals fans would adopt this approach, perhaps regime change would come to One Kauffman Way faster than what it needs to.
Moving on ...
* State Senator Matt Bartle (R-Lee's Summit). Sir, I don't know you from a bum under a bridge, but your crusade against the adult entertainment industry really rubs me the wrong way. (Pun intended).
As reported in The Star on Friday morning, Senator Bartle's eight year crusade against adult entertainers passed the Senate 27-4. The bill bans full nudity at adult establishments, bans alcohol sales at adult establishments, and basically raises two gigantic middle fingers to a perfectly legal (albeit sleazy) profession that brings millions of Americans a little happiness into their lives. (And millions of dollars into the state treasury that Senator Bartle has no way to offset the loss of).
Sir, you cannot legislate morality. Or at least, you shouldn't. Bartle's comments in the article really, really anger me. Right off the bat, Senator Bartle notes that "most human beings understand that if you mix alcohol and women dancing in the nude, that's a tough combo. Bad things happen".
Really? First of all, speaking as a guy, I really don't get how mixing "alcohol and women dancing in the nude" is a "tough combo". A "pleasant combo", a "total freaking turn-on", absolutely. But a "tough combo"? What is this guy smoking, and can I have some when he's done?
Furthermore ... when was the last time there was an attack, a rape, an indecent act, a drunken brawl, any type of crime for that matter, was committed at one of these adult establishments? Have you heard of any? Because I sure as hell haven't. Senator Bartle and his misguided followers are confusing their attempt to legislate morality with being a moral cause. Its not, Senator. What you are doing is so wrong, is so over the line, that I am absolutely astonished that only four Senators from my state had the balls to oppose this heinous piece of legislation.
What Senator Bartle and his band of zealots fail to grasp, is that what works for them, can also be used against them. Let's role play here for a moment. As most of you know, I am a staunch liberal when it comes to personal freedom. A proud liberal, to be honest. I would much rather err on the side of allowing too much personal expression and liberty, than not allowing enough. As such, I tend to strongly support positions that go against my religious upbringing, and my own personal viewpoints in some cases. (Example: I am personally staunchly anti-abortion ... and yet I oppose any efforts to overturn Roe v Wade, or to limit access to the procedure. Why? Because I believe the decision of how to deal with an unplanned or abnormal pregnancy is a personal decision between a woman, her partner, and her doctor. Nowhere in that discussion should be a thought of "what does Steve think about this". Unless I'm the partner. And even then, I should be the minority party in that discussion).
So let's say the day finally arrives, where the citizens of this country, more and more waking up to the reality that organized religion is the cause of 99.99% of the world's problems, let's say the day finally arrives where the folks here say "enough is enough", and begin to demand legislation to limit the Church's influence in our daily lives. (And that day cannot arrive soon enough). What will Senator Bartle say then? Either he has to support the "will of his constituents", as he is claiming to do by backing this anti-lifestyle bill, or he has to be exposed as the fraud, phony, and hypocrite that he is, and oppose the legislation because it targets a single segment of society for extinction.
For all the conservative side of the argument's anger over the "abridging of freedom" we are allegedly suffering under in the Obama years ... what the hell is this? Its not Democrats, its not liberals, seeking to take away our right to have a good time on a Friday night. We aren't the ones seeking to limit freedom. Its folks like Senator Bartle that are.
(Its the whole argument behind the left-wing position on the war on terror, a position I happen to pretty much support. You can have freedom, or you can have security. You cannot have both. I'd rather life in fear of a terror attack, yet know that I am free to come and go as I choose, than to fall asleep at night thinking all is right in the world, yet have armed guardsmen patrolling the streets of my neighborhood).
Of course, being the fine, upstanding legislator that he is, Senator Bartle is "not seeking re-election". He's a coward of the Dennis Moore type. He rams through what he wants, a key there -- not what the people want, not what the majority wants, but what he personally wants -- he rams it through, then flees for the hills rather than stand on his beliefs and his legislation. And to think people wonder why there's such an anti-incumbent mood in this country right now. Senator Bartle is the embodiment of all that is wrong and broken with government. He's a joke. And his legislation, this un-Constitutional pile of crap, is an even bigger joke than he is.
Look it, I hate being put in the position to defend the adult entertainment industry. On one point, the Senator and I agree -- there's nothing good that happens in a strip club. I've long argued that other than military fly-overs at sporting events, there is no bigger waste of money known to man than visiting a strip club. You drop hundreds of dollars to get a rise and nothing else. (Well, except at everyone's favorite "steakhouse", then at least you get to lay on stage to give the "waitress" her tip. But even that's a total letdown -- you can smell, but not kiss / touch / play / enjoy. Total and complete waste of money).
The Senator and I agree on a few things. Adult clubs are a total waste of money, and there isn't much good that comes from visiting one. You're better off finding a toilet and just flushing your money down the drain. But, and here's what Senator Bartle apparently doesn't understand -- entering a strip club is a choice. Nobody is holding a gun to the patrons heads and demanding they enter and spend money on the entertainers. (Unless you're in Tijuana of course, then all bets are off).
Furthermore ... what in the hell is the state legislature doing debating this at all? See, this is the problem with religious conservatives as I see it. They would rather deal with an issue that doesn't exist, except in their own minds, rather than deal with the REAL issues facing the state. Its called unemployment. Its called budget deficits. Its called collapsing roads and bridges, failed public schools, sky-rocketing costs for secondary education, lack of funding to help special-needs citizens. THOSE are the issues the legislature should be dealing with. Of course, they aren't, because clearly, why actually address the budget when you can take a ruler out to measure whether someone is six feet (and a few inches) from the stage instead?
Senator Bartle can't see the tree from the forest at this point. Nor, do I believe, does he care to. Because again, he's a coward of the worst kind, because he refuses to stand for re-election and let his constituents, of which I am one, vote yay or nay on his job performance. He's a coward. I'm going to keep hammering that home. Senator Matt Bartle is a mother f*cking coward. Perhaps he and Congressman Moore can open a business together, Cowards R Us. Or Chicken Sh*t Congressmen. Because anyone who says that targeting a legitimate, for profit business for extinction, anyone who does that and justifies it by saying "This is a reasonable, rational step. It reflects where our people are, both Republican and Democrat", anyone who says that, needs his head examined.
* Congratulations to NBC, for once again proving that PTV is a better thought out, planned out, laid out network than they are. And PTV's Tuesday night anchor was "Dogs Humping". (And yes, I still believe "The Side Boob Hour" would draw a 5.5 rating / 8 share even today).
What in the hell is NBC thinking by cancelling the one flagship show they have left? In case you missed the news, "Law and Order" was cancelled by NBC this weekend. Which is a shame -- this year has been phenomenally good. What's really puzzling about this move, is that next year, "Law and Order" would have broken prime-time television's record by becoming the longest-running drama in television history. You mean NBC couldn't gin up a 6 episode closing run to draw in old viewers who abandoned the show years ago to celebrate its final record-setting season? Even if it was a truncated one?
I swear, untrained alcoholic chimps would do a better job of running NBC than the human beings that are in charge have done. The same idiots who brought you "The Jay Leno Show" five nights a week, are still in charge. That pretty much says it all.
* Speaking of television I love, it wouldn't be a post without a "Lost" thought. I thought last week's episode was neat, and I did enjoy it ... but why the hell was it aired now? This was an episode that should have aired early in the season. After the mind-blowing and game-changing episode two weeks ago, why stop and ruin the momentum building to the finale by airing an episode that yes, is heavy with answers and mythology, but does nothing to advance the story? Oh well, what's the point of complaining, there's only 3 1/2 hours of "Lost" left, and I intend to thoroughly enjoy every second of that 3 1/2 hours.
* Its NBA Draft Lottery night! The Draft Lottery never fails to humor me. Its not the same without the "Veteran of the Lottery Process", Elgin Baylor, sitting at the podium in one of those hideous late 80s/early 90s sweaters ... but the Clippers will be represented. Part of me wants the Timberwolves to win this thing, just so they can waste yet another first round pick on a point guard. But I'm really rooting for Houston to win it. Yes, longest odds possible ... but you add John Wall to that team, with Yao coming back? The Lakers might finally have a threat to their dominance!
* Finally, coming soon (as in, the next few days), I'll start soliciting ideas for when to hold the 375,001st ounce tailgate. With summer just around the corner, its time to plan the Second Annual Tribute to Alcoholism. And yes, I know last year was only 300,001. Its been a rough year. That, and I have no doubt we undercounted the ounces last summer ...
Thursday, May 13, 2010
the first defining moment of the playoffs
* I haven't been this fired up for a NBA game since the Lakers / Kings game seven back in 2002.
Moving quickly off-tangent ... I don't think this is a "defining game" for LeBron tonight. That line of thinking is ridiculous. If we're going to use one game as the "benchmark moment" for the kid, why wouldn't you use ...
* 2006 Eastern Semis: Cleveland up 3-2 on Pistons, playing at the Q to close out the series. Cavs lose game six by two, then no-show in a game seven blowout.
* 2007 Eastern Semis: Cleveland up 3-1 on Nets, playing at the Q to close out the series. Cavs lose game five by eleven, before winning game six in the swamps of North Jersey.
* 2007 NBA Finals: Cleveland trailing 0-2 to the Spurs, playing games 3, 4, and (if necessary) game 5 at home. Cavs lose game 3 by three, and lose game four by 1, to get swept in the Finals.
* 2008 Eastern Semis: Cleveland tied 3-3 with the Celtics, playing game seven at the Fake Garden. LBJ scores 45 ... but allows Paul Pierce to score 41, and the Celtics win by five en route to their first championship in 22 years.
* 2009 Eastern Finals: Cleveland trailing 3-2 to the Magic, playing game six in Orlando. The Cavs fail to show up, getting blown out by fifteen to end their season.
Five prior occasions, LBJ had the opportunity to "save the season" so to speak. And he failed. Does that mean he's going to fail tonight? No, absolutely not. If I was a gambling man ... well, I would bet on him failing tonight, if only because I've been predicting the Celtics to win this series in six since before the playoffs began.
But tonight does not "define" LeBron any more than losing two straight game seven's to the Pistons "defined" Michael Jordan. Tonight doesn't define LeBron any more than losing the NCAA Championship Game to Michigan State "defined" Larry Bird, than losing three blowout Super Bowls in four years "defined" john elway, than calling that ill-fated time out in the NCAA Championship Game defined Chris Webber as a crunch time choke artist. (Oh. Sorry, forget about that one, it did pretty much define C Webb).
OK, back to the topic at hand. Cavs at Celtics, game six.
This Cavs / Celtics series hasn't been anything like that Kings / Lakers showdown, arguably the greatest NBA series of my lifetime. Four games decided in overtime or on a buzzer beater. Clutch play everywhere (Horry's game winning three as time expired in game four; Bibby's game winning 18 footer with less than a second left in game five, Bibby and Kobe dueling down the stretch in game seven to force overtime). The only game in this series so far to really be a contest was game four. The Cavs won game one by eight, but it wasn't that close. Games two, three, and five were decided by 23 plus points each.
But this one ... this game six ... who knows what's going to happen?
Is the fired-up Boston crowd going to turn this into yet another blowout for the Celtics? Is LBJ going to take over this game from the opening tip, deliver a pantheon-level performance, and force game seven? Is Mike Brown just going to embrace his lack of basketball intelligence and take the court wearing a Bozo the Clown suit?
This is why I love the NBA. You get a seminal game like this at least once a year in the playoffs, if not more. Last year you had the Nuggets / Lakers Game 5 in the Western Finals, that could have completely shifted the balance of power in the West. The Nuggets blew it late, and the Lakers closed it out two nights later en route to their fourth title of the decade. You also had the Celtics / Magic game seven in the Eastern Semis, that marked the rise of the Magic (and to date, is still the only time the Celtics have lost a series they led 3-2 in franchise history).
2008, you had the Boston / Cleveland Game 7 in the Eastern Semis, as well as the "Comeback Game" in game four of the Finals between the Celtics and Lakers. 2007 you had the ".48 Special" by LeBron against the Pistons in Game 5 of the Eastern Finals. 2006 you had Game Seven of the Western Semis between the Mavs and the Spurs that elevated the Mavericks into favorites status, a status they happily occupied ... until Game Three of the Finals, when Dwayne Wade and Dick Bavetta turned the series around for the Heat.
Tonight is the first "seminal moment" of the 2010 postseason. My guess is Boston stands up at home, with a fired up crowd behind them, and wins comfortably. Something like 95-82. But a 57 point night out of LBJ culminating with a Cavs win at the buzzer wouldn't shock me either. The NBA: Where Anything Can Happen. Can't wait to see what that "anything" is tonight.
* Yes, I know the "big" news of the day is the firing of Royals manager Trey Hillman. I have a lot I want to say about this. It will be its own separate post either later tonight or tomorrow. My quick reaction is "too late to make a difference for 2010", but I'll be there Saturday night to witness the Ned Yost Era's second night first hand. To Ned's credit, it won't take much to improve on Trey Hillman. Simply not sacrifice bunting in the bottom of the first inning shows a higher level of competence and intelligence than Trey Hillman ever did. But there are specific things I want to see the rest of the year. I'll try to lay those out with my thoughts on Hillman's firing later.
Moving quickly off-tangent ... I don't think this is a "defining game" for LeBron tonight. That line of thinking is ridiculous. If we're going to use one game as the "benchmark moment" for the kid, why wouldn't you use ...
* 2006 Eastern Semis: Cleveland up 3-2 on Pistons, playing at the Q to close out the series. Cavs lose game six by two, then no-show in a game seven blowout.
* 2007 Eastern Semis: Cleveland up 3-1 on Nets, playing at the Q to close out the series. Cavs lose game five by eleven, before winning game six in the swamps of North Jersey.
* 2007 NBA Finals: Cleveland trailing 0-2 to the Spurs, playing games 3, 4, and (if necessary) game 5 at home. Cavs lose game 3 by three, and lose game four by 1, to get swept in the Finals.
* 2008 Eastern Semis: Cleveland tied 3-3 with the Celtics, playing game seven at the Fake Garden. LBJ scores 45 ... but allows Paul Pierce to score 41, and the Celtics win by five en route to their first championship in 22 years.
* 2009 Eastern Finals: Cleveland trailing 3-2 to the Magic, playing game six in Orlando. The Cavs fail to show up, getting blown out by fifteen to end their season.
Five prior occasions, LBJ had the opportunity to "save the season" so to speak. And he failed. Does that mean he's going to fail tonight? No, absolutely not. If I was a gambling man ... well, I would bet on him failing tonight, if only because I've been predicting the Celtics to win this series in six since before the playoffs began.
But tonight does not "define" LeBron any more than losing two straight game seven's to the Pistons "defined" Michael Jordan. Tonight doesn't define LeBron any more than losing the NCAA Championship Game to Michigan State "defined" Larry Bird, than losing three blowout Super Bowls in four years "defined" john elway, than calling that ill-fated time out in the NCAA Championship Game defined Chris Webber as a crunch time choke artist. (Oh. Sorry, forget about that one, it did pretty much define C Webb).
OK, back to the topic at hand. Cavs at Celtics, game six.
This Cavs / Celtics series hasn't been anything like that Kings / Lakers showdown, arguably the greatest NBA series of my lifetime. Four games decided in overtime or on a buzzer beater. Clutch play everywhere (Horry's game winning three as time expired in game four; Bibby's game winning 18 footer with less than a second left in game five, Bibby and Kobe dueling down the stretch in game seven to force overtime). The only game in this series so far to really be a contest was game four. The Cavs won game one by eight, but it wasn't that close. Games two, three, and five were decided by 23 plus points each.
But this one ... this game six ... who knows what's going to happen?
Is the fired-up Boston crowd going to turn this into yet another blowout for the Celtics? Is LBJ going to take over this game from the opening tip, deliver a pantheon-level performance, and force game seven? Is Mike Brown just going to embrace his lack of basketball intelligence and take the court wearing a Bozo the Clown suit?
This is why I love the NBA. You get a seminal game like this at least once a year in the playoffs, if not more. Last year you had the Nuggets / Lakers Game 5 in the Western Finals, that could have completely shifted the balance of power in the West. The Nuggets blew it late, and the Lakers closed it out two nights later en route to their fourth title of the decade. You also had the Celtics / Magic game seven in the Eastern Semis, that marked the rise of the Magic (and to date, is still the only time the Celtics have lost a series they led 3-2 in franchise history).
2008, you had the Boston / Cleveland Game 7 in the Eastern Semis, as well as the "Comeback Game" in game four of the Finals between the Celtics and Lakers. 2007 you had the ".48 Special" by LeBron against the Pistons in Game 5 of the Eastern Finals. 2006 you had Game Seven of the Western Semis between the Mavs and the Spurs that elevated the Mavericks into favorites status, a status they happily occupied ... until Game Three of the Finals, when Dwayne Wade and Dick Bavetta turned the series around for the Heat.
Tonight is the first "seminal moment" of the 2010 postseason. My guess is Boston stands up at home, with a fired up crowd behind them, and wins comfortably. Something like 95-82. But a 57 point night out of LBJ culminating with a Cavs win at the buzzer wouldn't shock me either. The NBA: Where Anything Can Happen. Can't wait to see what that "anything" is tonight.
* Yes, I know the "big" news of the day is the firing of Royals manager Trey Hillman. I have a lot I want to say about this. It will be its own separate post either later tonight or tomorrow. My quick reaction is "too late to make a difference for 2010", but I'll be there Saturday night to witness the Ned Yost Era's second night first hand. To Ned's credit, it won't take much to improve on Trey Hillman. Simply not sacrifice bunting in the bottom of the first inning shows a higher level of competence and intelligence than Trey Hillman ever did. But there are specific things I want to see the rest of the year. I'll try to lay those out with my thoughts on Hillman's firing later.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
was it over when the germans bombed pearl harbor?
(its not this bad. we can still do this. photo: me, on the russ memorial bench in milwaukee).
I was going to use "Burn One Down" by Ben Harper as today's Words of Comfort ... but this series isn't over. There's only one way to inspire Buck Nation this morning. With the best the great city of Milwaukee has to offer ...
"One, two, three, four.
Five, six, seven, eight.
Sclemeel, schlemezel,
Hassenfeffer Incorporated!
We're gonna do it!
Give us any chance, we'll take it!
Give us any rule, we'll break it!
We're gonna make our dreams come true!
Doin' it our way!
Nothin's gonna turn us back now,
Straight ahead and on the track now,
We're gonna make our dreams come true!
Doin' it our way!
There is nothing we won't try!
Never heard the word impossible!
This time, there's no stopping us!
Doin' it our way!
On the mark, get set, and go now!
Got a dream and we just know now,
We're gonna make our dreams come true!
And we'll do it our way!
Yes our way!
Make all our dreams come true!
And we'll do it our way!
Yes our way!
Make all our dreams ... come true ...
For me and you!"
-- arguably the greatest TV theme song ever.
Yeah, that was bad.
But -- but! -- the series isn't over. This fight isn't over.
Game 7 Sunday. Noon. ABC.
Rather than dwell on the negative, let's move forward. To other happy thoughts for the weekend to come. And since its a race weekend, some racing thoughts:
* I was wide awake at 5:54am, so I guess I am geeked up for this thing.
* Ryan Briscoe on the pole. A solid 9, 10 guys (and gal) that can win this thing. I just hope the weather holds. It looks cloudy to the west, not a good sign.
* I'll be there both days. I'm going with my good buddy Dusty today, and my brother tomorrow. Looking forward to it.
* Speaking of Indy ... I'm on the fence for the 500. I'm up for it, but depends on who all wants to go. That, and I can probably afford to do one, either Indy or the Brickyard, and that's always a tough call. So I figured I'd break the debate between the two down Nick Bakay / Dr. Jack Ramsey style.
Best Night-Before Atmosphere. Depends on what you prefer. Saturday night before the 500 is nuts. Saturday night before the Brickyard is insane. Five years ago, I'd have said "Brickyard". Its a day frat at night. College kids acting like college kids. The 500 night before, its more "responsible" adults pacing themselves. I like the pacing as I age. Plus, you're done by 2, 2:30am the night before the 500. Its grizzled veterans of the partying process at the 500. The Brickyard, you go til you pass out. Can't do that as much as I used to.
Advantage: 500.
Best Race: Without question, the 500. The Speedway wasn't built for stock cars, and it shows. I've been to one Brickyard I'd count as "memorable". I've been to multiple 500's I'd rank as "memorable".
Advantage: 500.
Best Pre-Race: Man, the Brickyard is getting beaten like a red-headed stepchild at this point. What do you pick as the best part of the 500 prerace? Is it Jim Nabors welcoming us "Back Home Again in Indiana"? Is it the balloon launch as he "dreams about the moonlight on the Wabash"? Is it Florence Henderson singing "God Bless America"? Is it 416 year old Mari Hulman George struggling to say "Ladies and Gentlemen, start ... your ... EEEEEEEEEEENGINES!"
Is it the cannon going off at 6am that scares the shit out of you as it jolts you awake? The 7am walk through the C Lot to the vendor at 21st and Georgetown to spend $1 to get the Indy Star commemorative lineup page? The ridiculous parade of "celebrities" around the track? The ridiculousness that is Rupert from "Survivor"?
I say no. Its none of those things, although I love all of them. Hands down, its the most solemn moment of them all.
"Taps".
Anytime you bring 300,000 plus to absolute silence, its something amazing.
Huge Advantage: 500.
Weather: another rout. Its always 90 plus and sunny for the Brickyard, feels about 110 in the Southeast Vista once you get to where I usually sit. The 500 is a complete crapshoot. Some years its hot as hell (woo!). Some years you wait until Wednesday to run the race (boo!).
Huge Advantage: Brickyard.
Post-Race Party: Uuh, there is no post-race party after the Brickyard. Everyone's trying to get home for work the next day. The 500, on the other hand, the party's just getting started, because you've got a blessed holiday the next day to drive home.
Advantage: 500.
Best Race Witnessed (according to me): for the Brickyard, that would be 2005, when Kasey Kahne and Tony Stewart dueled all day for the win, and Tony finally won at his home track. Great fun. For the 500, without question, its 2006. The last five laps that day were arguably the greatest five laps I've ever seen in person. Just click and enjoy. I just wish you could hear the crowd, the clip doesn't do it justice. NOBODY was sitting these last five laps. Just standing and screaming. Michael! Holy crap, Andretti is finally gonna win this thing! No, wait, Marco! Wow, son wins it on first try, while dad goes 0-20! No, wait, Sammy?!?! What?!?! Sammy?!?! Sammy!!!
Hu-yuge advantage: 500.
Best Part of the Drive Up: easy. The gigantic, enormous, "holy cow that's huge" cross in Effingham, Illinois. Its un-missable.
Advantage: Push.
Best Old School Ad / Cardboard Cut-out: sorry, Brickyard, you're losing another one. Its either the "Sleep Cheap" mobile Bobby Rahal won in 1986 in ... or the race in (I forget which year) 1990 or 1991, when Rahal got bumped and missed the race, and fans had a cardboard cutout of poor Bobby with the caption "will race for food". That one never fails to slay me. All the Brickyard can offer is the Tony Stewart cutout hung in effagy on Auburn in 2006, where people "took their best shot" at Tony. I've whizzed in public a time or fifty in my day ... but not even I will whiz on a cardboard cutout. (Unless its john elway, then all bets are off ...)
Advantage: 500.
Most Ridiculous Moment, Good or Bad: Both occurred in 2006. For the Brickyard, its the two chicks throwing down after the 2006 Brickyard. For the 500 ... won't reveal it for fear of criminal prosecution. But I'll just say, if you can enjoy an illegal herbal substance as multiple cops walk by you, and they don't do a damned thing about it ...
Advantage: 500.
Final Count: the 500 in a landslide. Yes, its that much fun. Where else can you see college kids literally wheeling in dollies loaded with cases of beer to enjoy in the infield? (Pretty much anything of a non-glass-bottle nature is allowed in at Indy). Where else can you stand at the corner of the street (16th and Georgetown), look down the street ... and not see the end of the Speedway? (It ends at 30th). Where else can you get 350,000 plus people into the joint ... and not once feel crowded, crammed, and/or smushed?
Both races rule. But the 500 is better. By quite a bit.
* OK, I guess some basketball, but no Bucks. I refuse to remember last night. Epic tip-in by Gasol to finish off the Durants last night. And congrats to the Jazz for finishing off Denver. The NBA has to be thrilled. Utah / Lakers has seven games written all over it. Spurs / Suns is a huge rivalry series. Cavs / Celtics is either LBJ's breakthrough, or the upset of the postseason. And Orlando faces off against ... TBD.
Yeah, the only series that went seven in round one, was the one NOBODY would have picked to go seven.
So I guess I will spend a moment on last night. Sure, it sucked. The game itself was beyond awful.
But we're still alive. There's still one game left to be played.
Game Seven.
Win, or Go Home.
Its the greatest moment in sports, Game Seven. There is no tomorrow. In baseball, that means every pitcher is available. (Remember the 2001 Diamondbacks, Johnson pitching on zero days rest in the ninth). In basketball, it means anything can happen.
The best game seven I remember from this decade was Lakers / Kings in 2002. 48 minutes wasn't enough to decide it. Here's to believing Mike Bibby will suffer the same fate in 2010 that he did in 2002 ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)