[How could Bosh take $12-15 million a year from Miami and leave $7-10 million on the table from the Houston offer?]
It depends on how bad he wants to win. Miami clearly would give him a better chance at a title (assuming LeBron does come back). However, if he went to Houston, Bosh could help the Rockets get into the 2nd round in the competitive West, but that's about it. So he has to decide if competing for championships is worth $7-$10 million. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
Four years ago tonight, 10 million people tuned in to hear LeBron announce that he was taking his talents to South Beach. Wonder how much longer it will take before he decides whether or not to stay in Miami.
I will miss the Dr. Pepper Classic because I've always seen it as the unofficial start to the Mocs' season. After pounding teams like Covenant and then getting pounded by teams like Kentucky, the Mocs are ready to settle in and play comparable foes by the end of December. I understand how/why it wasn't going to work out for this year, but I wish Wade would reconsider and try to make this happen next year. Go after some teams we've got some history against. Marshall. Now Davidson (since they're leaving the SoCon). College of Charleston. MTSU was a decent find last year too. I'd like to think that this tourney could still succeed if they really wanted it to.
Indeed that was a great final yesterday. There have been several great finals over the past few years in the slams, yet the sport still seems underrated. I became a big fan about 10 years ago when Roddick got to #1, then kept watching as Fed dominated. Now I'm still watching especially when any of the current Big 4 are facing each other because it's good quality tennis and doesn't lack for excitement.
Here in America, we're still waiting for our next contender. John Isner continues to hover around the top 10 in the rankings, but he has yet to become a serious contender at any of the slams. There are other young guys in the draws exiting early but that won't be enough to move the needle right now. Maybe the results from the juniors tourney at Wimbledon can give us some hope? 3 of the 4 semifinalists in boys singles were from the USA. Maybe we just need to wait another 5 or 10 years and we'll get our next Sampras and Agassi. Maybe.
If Chris Bosh is serious about wanting the max, the era of the Big 3 in Miami will be over.
Thomas Jefferson was not born on July 4. He died on a July 4 though (in 1826). John Adams also died that exact same day.
Last month, you said, "...we're not sold on whether Kaepernick will ever be a top-10 QB in this league." My response then to that is below. Can you answer this in the mailbag?
[Kaep is getting a deal much higher than what I think he's worth. But I do think he's a top 10 QB right now. Who are your top 10 and where does Kaep fall? Top 15 at least?
My top 10 (in no order) are Peyton, Eli, Brees, Rodgers, Brady, Kaep, Wilson, Big Ben, Luck, and Flacco. Next 5 are Newton, Stafford, Romo, Rivers, and Ryan.]
Thanks and have a great 4th.
Weston won the debate? Clint, you're kidding, right? Chuck did a great job defending his record and gave great answers to the questions asked of him. Weston looked like a nervous high school freshman (and sounded like one too) and seemed to go in circles in a lot of his responses.
Weston is trying to win this election by trolling the Fleischmann camp and making outlandish statements. He continues to ridiculously associate Chuck's presence in Washington with the dysfunction that exists there. Even after hearing the facts from Chuck about how he's been part of the solution, not the problem, Weston still stubbornly refuses to acknowledge them.
The only reason that Weston has any chance at all in this race is because of what his last name is. But the kid still has some growing up to do. Maybe when Fleischmann retires from Congress, Weston should try again. Hopefully by then, he'll be mature enough to be able to do the job well. Until then, it's clear that Fleischmann is the right man for this job and he deserves re-election.
Who the heck does Jason Kidd think he is by demanding a role above the GM to oversee basketball operations? And this is after an underwhelming rookie season with an A-list roster. It's one thing to be driven; it's another thing to unrealistically and arrogantly expect more than you're worth. The Nets looked dumb by signing Kidd as their coach; now the Bucks look even dumber for giving up 2 draft picks to obtain Kidd. Next move for the Nets is to get a real coach (Lionel Hollins is rumored to be the frontrunner).
Best Athlete--Rafa Nadal--got his 9th French title and would have won the Aussie too if not for an injury that flared up in time for the final.
Best moment--Kevin Durant's MVP speech.
Worst moment--All of Super Bowl 48.
Best game--Florida St. vs. Auburn (sorry Jay).
What's the rest of the sentences in the last two items of "This and That?"
I think Miami is the favorite for LBJ to play at next year and beyond. But that will likely mean D-Wade and Bosh will have to give up some money to make it happen. Could their friendships turn sour over a dispute in contracts which will lead to LeBron heading elsewhere? I could see that.
If he leaves Miami, I think Chicago is his next best place to play. But Rose's vulnerability may make it less appealing. Another option is the Clippers so that he could play with his buddy Chris Paul. But I think he'd be better off staying in the East if he can. And if he cares anything about winning, he'll avoid any situation that pairs him with Melo.
[San Antonio is the outlier and it's because of draft luck when they landed Duncan — not unlike Indy getting Peyton and then Luck — and finding a Hall of Fame coach.]
I disagree about SA. Yes, it was ping pong luck that they got #1 to draft Duncan, but in 2014, he is only a shadow of what he used to be. They won this year because of all the other roster decisions that they have made over the years and none have involved top draft picks or big name free agent signings. Having Pop as coach helps a ton too, but finding the right coach is the same problem every league has and is not exclusive to the NBA's model.
[If Durant opts out, OKC will be the new Cleveland.]
I doubt Durant will go elsewhere. His team has been good to him and has set them up to contend. And Durant seems like a loyal guy. And my understanding is that the NBA no longer allows for the sign and trade that LeBron did with Cleveland so that he could pick up the extra year with his current team and then go play for another team.
[The Hawks talked openly about how finishing seventh or eighth and making the playoffs was a bad thing for them. Making the playoffs is now a bad thing — think about that.]
I must have missed those statements. If they think that making the playoffs this year was a bad thing, then I'm not sure what they were hoping for. And making the playoffs is never a bad thing. I guess losing a few more games to get a 1% chance in the draft lottery would have been better? Come on, Hawks.
[And that cycle of doom is never ending. You're right that football teams can bag midway through, but the nature of the NFL is the next year, almost everyone has a chance the following year.]
Not necessarily, but the NFL does have more parity. But is that necessarily a better thing? I don't see a problem with dynasties, especially when a champion team builds itself from the ground up. The NBA's "Bird Rights" rule helps a team try to stay together if they so choose.
[Maybe it seems worse than it is, but it seems like a system that promotes alliances rather than improvement.]
Alliances are possible, but I don't think they're promoted. And what has happened thus far hasn't ruined the game, but I would argue that it has made things more interesting.
If you're at the top of your game, doesn't it make sense to opt out each time you get the chance (even if you plan to re-sign with the same team)? That way, you take advantage of the chance to sign for more years at the big salary.
I agree with Sir Chuck and MJ that it seems strange that LeBron and others would rather form superteams than try to beat each other. That said, though, I think the superteam formations are great for the NBA. Miami may be a perennial favorite with their Big 3, but they are hardly a lock to win it all as we have clearly seen. Plus, a lot of people feel strongly one way or the other on them so it makes for more compelling TV to see if they can succeed or not.
[The league is staring at a very real caste system in which there are a small circle of haves — teams with championship-level talent who have assembled themselves to be among the elite — and a large pool of driftwood where teams have to lose and hope the lottery is kind.]
Whose fault is that? When small-market teams like OKC and San Antonio can be perennial contenders, I think there's enough proof that you don't need to be in a big market signing big-name free agents in order to compete in the NBA. Anyone who says otherwise is just making excuses. You don't need the NFL model to be a good league. The NBA model is just fine. There are pros and cons for each.
[So there will be eight-to-10 teams trying to get to the No. 1 spot and 20-to-22 teams trying to get the No. 1 pick.].
Not true. There are never 20-22 teams trying to get the No. 1 pick. There are 20-22 teams who are trying to at least make the playoffs. Of that group, there are anywhere from 5-8 who have a shot at going all the way. The remaining teams in the league (8-10) are in an obvious rebuild mode and/or are without their top player(s) due to injury. Of that group, maybe 3 or 4 call it a season before the All-Star break. But in the NFL, there are also 3-4 teams who do the same exact thing before the midway point of the season each year.
In case you never noticed, I am a UTC fan and also an alumnus. I am not a Vols fan at all, but I'm also not a hater. Same for the rest of the SEC...I'm not partial to any team but also don't dislike any team either. Just a general fan overall outside the Southern Conference. My point earlier is that both the Vols and Mocs have somewhat confusing nicknames/mascots. Just making a fair observation.
Good point about the train references fading away. A name change back to UC would be approved while also staying in the UT-system? Then I'm shocked it hasn't already happened. Agreed with you that there'd be plenty of interest...especially from those still around who attended there while it was still UC.
MT, the Mocs' name made sense until 1997. It was clearly short for Moccasins. Now the mascot is a mockingbird, but you never hear the teams called that. It's just "Mocs". Throw in the train references and there's even more confusion. SMH. UTC could do better. Or is it Chattanooga? There's an orange "UT" on school letterhead, but the team uniforms only say "Chattanooga". SMH again.