LeBron James wants the NBA to fold

LeBron James seems like a smart dude most of the time, except for "The Decision" and the circus act he, Wade, and Bosh put on after the signings.  However, apparently he thinks the NBA should try to go out of business.  LeBron James is jealous of the money that Miguel Cabrera got.  What he fails to realize is that the money Cabrera got is about what James can expect to receive over the course of a 10 year contract with his years of service.  Max NBA players make mid- to high-20's (millions) salaries.

I can understand that James would want a 10 year guaranteed 30-mil per year.  Where this all gets stupid is suggesting that he would be happy if the NBA didn't have a salary cap.  The previous CBA negotiations showed how tenuous the NBA's grip on viability truly is.  The league has trouble making money and the next CBA negotiations will likely also be contentious because the margins of profit are likely slim, especially for the low revenue teams in the league.  If the salary cap was removed, owners would immediately kill their league by offering players like JR Smith $35 million per year.  There would be an arms race between the Knicks, Lakers, and Celtics to spend the most to win a title, and the league would go broke because nobody would want to watch the other teams play.

I totally understand wanting even more.  Why not?  James only gets one shot at big earnings.  However, a guy who has been in the league this long should be  little more careful of what he says.

Defining DeSean

So yesterday I drove I-95 from Virginia to Trenton, NJ, and like any responsible driver I spent at least a few minutes snapping pictures out the window while moving 55mph in the middle of a pack of cars. My shot of the Linc was really crappy, but it was good enough to catch this banner featuring DeSean Jackson.*

And today comes news that the Eagles have released Jackson amid concerns about his connections with "reputed Los Angeles street gang members who have been connected to two homicides since 2010."

I remember Jackson from his days at Cal as a guy who was incredible against the Sac States and disappeared against the USCs (you can check my recollection if you wish--it's at the least an inconsistent college career), and one whose draft spot struck me at the time as way out of whack with his real production. My memory aside, he's had a fairly productive career, and continues to be spectacular at times, despite some bone-head on-field moves earlier in his career.

I never thought of him as a bad guy, just a knucklehead with a penchant for dumb celebrations (and he's far from alone in being a knucklehead or worse--this is obviously a team that rostered Mike Vick and Riley Cooper last year, too). Now, do possible associations with gang members make him a bad guy? Not in and of themselves, I don't think; he's not necessarily complicit in whatever those guys may have done. He's from Long Beach, and these may be people he grew up with and maintains a relationship with because of those roots.

But you have to question his judgement in choosing to do so, especially given some of the questions surrounding guys like Marvin Harrison, and what we're discovering about Aaron Hernandez. I realize it's hard to cut ties, leave friends, lose credibility with people you like/respect (however much that like/respect is misguided), etc. But you have to wonder if some of those earlier mistakes were just immaturity, or signs of some more fundamental  problems in the guy's decision-making, or glimpses of a more nefarious character.

Since 'tis the season: I think NFL teams are absolutely ridiculous in some of their draft preparation and questions, and in the conclusions they arrive at as a result of their research, but I suppose when you're playing with millions of dollars you're looking for any signs you can find, and maybe those signs of immaturity and questionable choices are enough. And maybe Jackson's were enough to define him.

*Yes, I really was driving 55 with other cars nearby. But I also was on a straight section of road, holding up a camera without looking through the viewfinder to see where it was pointing, and using the burst mode to take about 20 pictures of which three were not completely useless/blocked/etc. So it was a questionable decision, but not straight-up stupid.

Miguel Cabrera got how much?

Miguel Cabrera appears poised to be remembered as the best hitter of his generation.  I always thought this distinction would belong to Albert Pujols, and it still may, but Cabrera is putting together a string of seasons that compares favorably with any stretch in the history of baseball.  Cabrera is still only 31 years old (in April), and it seems like he's been around forever.  Baseball fans remember the skinny guy from the Marlins 2003 World Series team, but the most recent seasons really burn themselves into the mind.

There are a number of reasons that 10 years, $292 million doesn't make sense.  It really has nothing to do with the money.  That just happens to be the "best hitter in baseball" going rate.  When this deal expires, Cabrera will be 41 years old.  Do the Tigers really think they are going to get $30 million per year production over the back end of this contract?  More realistically, especially considering that Cabrera's PED of choice appears to be a steady diet of doughnuts, they will get 3-7 years of All Star level play, with either an early slow decline, or a steep drop off later in his 30's.  Cabrera's weight has always been a problem, and his most recent weight loss still didn't land him in top athlete shape.  While this does not affect his play now, it is very likely to contribute to his decline as he progresses in age.

With that said, the Tigers likely had to do this because the Dodgers would have thrown 100 years and 5 billion dollars at the guy if they hadn't (I'm half joking... They wouldn't really sign a guy to a contract that would expire 40-50 years after he dies, right?).  They are clearly prepared to eat the bad years at the end for the HOF quality years at the beginning. I just wonder if the Tigers aren't getting into an Alex Rodriguez (not the steroid stuff, or being an overall douche... Just the decline in play and increased injuries) or an Albert Pujols situation where the contract backfires far too early and hurts the team's ability to sign young star players.

Re: Irsay's DU/WI (depending on the state)

Jim Irsay is in a lot of trouble.  There is no doubt about that simple fact.  He is facing felony charges and will be lucky to avoid jail time and has at least a lot of counseling and monitoring in his near future.  But Jim Irsay is not really the subject of this little bit of word vomit.  The real subject is all of the articles out there discussing how the NFL should deal with him following his arrest.  Here are the two camps:

1) Help the man.  He is one of your owners and you need to help him get through this hard time.

2) Discipline the shit out of him.  You can't be seen as weak, Goodell!

I firmly fall on the side of number 2.  What boggles the mind is that anybody espouses number 1 for somebody associated with the NFL.  Roger Goodell has history of levying suspensions shortly following arrests without letting ANY of the legal process play out.  This is fine.  It is a private business and bad publicity can be punished as the commissioner sees fit.  In light of the fact that Goodell has been judge, jury, and executioner just based on arrests, he should lay the hammer down on Irsay and levy a hefty fine and suspension of some sort.  What kind of message does it send to his players that they will be found guilty in the eyes of the commissioner without any assumption of innocence, yet an owner will get help and support rather than discipline and punishment.  Good luck explaining that one!

With all of that said, I'm sure Roger Goodell will offer help while laying down a suspension of some sort.  People are still too angry about the Leonard Little incident (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1790240), and lack of severity of the punishment, for Goodell to be able to just sweep this under the rug.

Basement-dwelling trolls (is not what we are)

There's been a flurry of activity on here today. I have to think, to an outside observer, we may appear to be those archetypal internet trolls who live in our parents' basements and blog and comment all day long, at least in between playing video games on our Alienware desktops, with nothing better to do. I'd just like to say that's not true. But in the interest of maintaining my privacy, I will offer no evidence to the contrary.

And also, who else is incensed by Irsay's dooey?

QB Rating

I am compelled to write this, as I finally have a forum where at least (at most?) one other person will see what I have to say!  I am writing this to *GASP!!!* defend the traditional quarterback rating system.  The current quarterback rating system is not the embodiment of voodoo magic that advanced statisticians and ESPN would lead you to believe (good old double-talking ESPN... promotes their Total QBR system, but lists the traditional number on the players stats pages!).  It is really a very simple formula, which I'm not going to look up right now.  Here is what matters.  TD passes matter.  Interceptions matter.  Yards per attempt matter.  Completion percentage also matters.  While TD passes can be inflated (see the 2011 season when the Packers always threw in the endzone), interceptions do not typically suffer from this problem.  If a QB throws enough times to be considered the team's primary QB, the interception number will tell a very important story.  Finally, yards per attempt is perhaps the most important.  A high yards per attempt, over the course of a season, describes the ability of the QB to throw the ball down the field accurately.  On a game-by-game basis, this statistic can be inflated by YAC, but over the course of the season, this number tells much more about QB play.

The reason I care so much about this is because everybody complains about this statistic for the wrong reason.  It does not take into account running plays.  While the ability to avoid pressure is important, the ability of a QB to run is secondary to the ability to throw the football.  The other complaint, which is really bizarre, is that the number is difficult to understand because a perfect rating is 158.3, not 100.  The comment I love most is "how is 158.3% perfect, when you can't get above 100%?"  The simple explanation:  QB rating is not a percentage!  What would it be a percentage of, if it were?  It is an arbitrary number by which QBs can be compared to each other, not a percentage of anything.

If I could change anything about this statistic, I would find a way to era-adjust it, as passing has become easier.  For example, hall of fame QBs like John Elway had ratings in the 80's.  These days, the great ones have ratings in the low 100's.  However, I would not argue to use this statistic for generational comparison, as the numbers for greatness have changed so drastically.  However, I would argue that on a year by year basis, or as a comparison between the careers of peers of the same era, this statistic is very valuable.

Lovie Smith is Defective

I was always interested in how poorly-staffed the Chicago Bears have been at QB over the last couple of decades.  Lovie Smith suffered primarily from poor QB play that could not provide enough support for a very good defense to win a title.  Getting a legitimate QB in the NFL is an inexact science, so nothing seemed all that out of sorts... Until now!

Lovie Smith has brought in Josh McCown in TB, anointed him the starter, and hitched his wagon to a 34-35 year old journeyman.  Sound familiar?  After throwing a whole bunch of money at free agents on the defensive side of the ball, Lovie Smith is banking on McCown recreating is 2013 magic in TB.  This is not really a knock on Josh McCown, and as a Packers fan I can't help but love the guy because of what he did to the Vikings in 2003, but he is what he is:  a mediocre QB who is not going to make defenses gameplan against him.  This is also not a suggestion that Mike Glennon is any better, but isn't hoping that McCown can lead your team to a Super Bowl just plain unrealistic?

Now that I've jumped squarely on the Lovie Smith is a horrible offensive personnel guy, they will promptly win the Super Bowl, McCown will throw 40 TDs with only 5 INTs, and I will be eating large chunks of crow until Jason decides to let it go (which will be never).

We're number 2! (in the NIT)

It's mid-March, and we all know what this means--millions of hours of productivity lost (an interesting take, though, on employers giving up caring), thousands of vasectomies performed, and my completely uninformed bracket completely busted by the end of Day 1. That's right, it's NIT time!!!

Look, I get that the basketball elite are all in the NCAA, but Cal is rarely among the basketball elite, so regular appearances in the NIT (and in 1999...VICTORY!) is usually the best we wounded Bears can hope for. So instead, the personal stakes are in the NIT, where Cal is a 2-seed in the same bracket as my graduate school, UC Irvine, an 8-seed. Potentially an agonizing decision for me to make (okay, not really--the Bears have my loyalty over aspiring-ly fearsome Ant-bears), but at least Round 1 is easy, since Cal takes on Utah Valley, which has thrice not hired me (that's right, personal slights are disproportionately influential here at PhD Sports Talk--Barry Bonds hatitude is forthcoming, I'm sure). And obviously I have to pull for Irvine in Round 1 as well, because...damn Methodists!

Games will be broadcast on ESPN3, so expand your cable package ASAP to follow the trials, tribulations, tragedies and triumphs of Roger Moute a Bidias, Cal's secret weapon and one of this blog's NCAA basketball-name All-Stars.

Dodgers suck (I refer you, Eric, especially to the second Q&A). Lakers suck. (Reasons #2 and 3 that Eric shouldn't have trusted Jason to set up this blog.)