Bleacher Report - Articles by Cardinal Contributor

Manny Ramirez Heads West

Cardinal Contributor — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:34:23 -0400

The word enigmatic is probably thrown around too often in sports; however, today's three way trade involving the Boston Red Sox marks the end of an enigmatic career for Manny Ramirez in Boston.

Manny and the Sox seemed to be a match made in heaven. Ramirez was paid handsomely, was surrounded by the right talent to win two championships, and had a legitimate shot at more in years to come.

For the Red Sox, Manny was the definition of consistency at the plate, and although his defense was at times eye-poppingly terrible, Manny will leave Beantown with a knack for playing the infamous left field in Fenway better than most of his predecessors.

The question is: How did Manny wear out his welcome in Boston? Although it has become a term all too cliché at this point, the Red Sox simply could not put up with "Manny being Manny."

There is no easy way to describe what "Manny being Manny" is—he just has an uncanny ability to draw attention to himself that other players could never do. Whether it was high-fiving Orioles fans on his way to assisting a double play or walking down the first-base path on a groundball, Manny leaves plenty of truly unique memories behind with Boston fans.

It is hard to value what the Red Sox are losing at this point because it is clear that Manny's antics competed with his production in terms of importance. It is unfathomable to trade a player of his caliber and end up getting more value in return. Manny is a legend in Boston and a first ballot Hall of Famer.

He was charismatic and charming to some and downright undeniably productive.

The media and fans are rarely able to understand what a player is really like in the clubhouse and on the road, but it seems all too obvious that Ramirez was enough of a headache in these realms to justify relinquishing a player of his offensive prowess.

One would think that getting rid of Manny would lead to a calmer, less turbulent clubhouse—which Red Sox fans all over hope means will contribute to more wins (the Sox are 1—5 in their last six). And although it's hard to believe that a team can get better through losing a player of Manny's talent, Sox fans are hoping for exactly that.

The story of an unhappy player wanting to leave a team is found throughout sports, from Terrell Owens in San Francisco to Shawn Marion in Phoenix. And yet, the Manny Ramirez situation seems unparalleled because of how mutually beneficial the two parties involved have been.

Will the Red Sox be able to fully replace Manny's bat? The answer is likely not entirely, but there is optimism around the organization that this trade will ultimately constitute the proverbial addition by subtraction.

Only time will tell what affect Jason Bay can have on the Manny-less Sox, and whether this team does improve like management believes it will. The trade to the Dodgers caught many off guard, but it will not take away from the awesome run that the Red Sox and Manny Ramirez shared for seven-and-a-half years.

James Posey and the Free Spending NBA: A Contract Analyzed

Cardinal Contributor — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:57:33 -0400

The 2007-08 Boston Celtics were appropriately tagged "The Big Three." However, shortly after the NBA free agent period began on July 1, even a casual reader of ESPN.com would be left to believe that the team would be more appropriately labeled as "The Big Four."

No, not Rajon Rondo, the lightning quick point guard who played premier on ball defense and abused Derek Fisher with his quickness in the NBA finals. And no, not Kendrick Perkins, often called the best interior defender in the league by NBA Defensive Player of the Year Kevin Garnett.

The topic of rumors and discussion was none other than James Posey—known to many fans throughout the regular season for his engulfing "man hugs" delivered to the Celtics starters prior to each game.

This is not to mitigate the accomplishments of Posey or the Celtics—they accomplished perhaps the most remarkable single season turnaround in history, regardless of sport.

Rather, the point of mentioning the attention given to Posey is to demonstrate the skewed market that has come to be known as the NBA's free agency.

After deliberation and offers from reportedly half a dozen teams, James Posey signed with the New Orleans Hornets, a team ripe with talent and desperate for the playoff experience that Posey can offer.

However, this team also offered Posey exactly what he wanted: an extra lucrative, long-term deal by way of four years and $25 million. Not bad for a guy who averaged 7.4 points and 4.4 rebounds per game during this past regular season.

Posey's rise to become one of the most coveted free agents on the market was due in large part to his superb performance throughout the playoffs, highlighted by smooth three-pointers and versatile defense against stars ranging from Joe Johnson and LeBron James to Rasheed Wallace and Kobe Bryant.

It probably wasn't hurt by Jeff Van Gundy's (commentator for ABC in the finals) continuous praise of Posey, often citing him as the type of player that he would love to have or coach. In a series marked by Paul Pierce's grit and Kobe's acrobatics, Van Gundy made more than enough time to drool over Posey's intangibles.

When the free agent market opened on July 1, the Celtics faced indeed a difficult task: to resign a player who they knew would draw interest from other clubs, or, to reassess areas of need moving forward to defend their championship and reallocate their newly inherited salary cap flexibility (cap set at $58.68 million for 2008-09 season).

Posey insisted that he wanted a long-term deal worth near or most of the mid-level exception (set at $5.585 million for 2008-09 season). The Celtics, led by Danny Ainge, were ready to make a commitment.

They, however, envisioned a shorter deal that still left Posey with a huge raise from a year prior.

Each year there seems to be a player who makes his name during the playoffs and commands large dollars when he hits the free agent market. A year ago, Daniel "Boobie" Gibson drew national attention with an eye-opening three-point clinic which helped the LeBron-led Cavaliers to the Finals.

Gibson recently re-signed with the Cavs, and sources have said that the contract is worth somewhere in the $21-$27.5 million range. Again, not bad for a guy who averaged a shade over 10 points per game and actually lacks a true position.

Posey undoubtedly fills a need for the Hornets that may put them over the top in the ever-difficult NBA Western Conference, but also represents a major contract on the books for four years.

Chris Paul's extension coupled with the large contracts of David West, Peja Stojakovic, and Tyson Chandler, means the Hornets have committed a great deal of their spending to a third of the players on their team. Throw in Posey's contract and the Hornets will likely remain quiet on the free agent market going forward.

From the Celtics' standpoint they lose a guy who provided a winning attitude and the versatility that all GMs covet. Posey was a tough defender who could guard the No. 3 and the No. 4, and occasionally the No. 2 position against larger shooting guards.

He made countless big threes in the playoffs and played with a grit that was reflective of teammate Kevin Garnett. Yet the commodity of a tough defender and solid three-point shooter is not limited to Posey.

Posey's limitations are overshadowed by what he brings to the table, but should be brought into the conversation as well. Posey is a limited offensive player beyond his three-point shot and is 31 years old.

Posey is set to make over $6 million at the age of 35, a risky endeavor for any team to take on. And ultimately, he and the Celtics could not make ends meet with a contract to retain a key contributor to their franchise's 17th championship.

The Celtics reportedly offered Posey a three-year deal worth a total of $12-15 million. This represents the shorter-term contract that they desired and also marks a raise for Posey. Ultimately the long-term security lured Posey away from Boston to the Hornets.

Celtics fans who are left upset by Posey's departure should take solace in the fact that this is not as crushing a blow as local sportscasters might have made it seem.

Anytime a team loses a player of note, or of any caliber for that matter, they must believe that their team is still formidable. They must invest their extra money in a player that either replaces the recently departed player or addresses another need.

For years the New England Patriots have followed this philosophy, often letting talent go, only to have that player replaced the following year and forgotten by most fans.

Lawyer Milloy's abrupt departure was quickly appeased by the Patriots' thrashing of the entire league that year on their way to a 32-29 Super Bowl XXXVIII over the Carolina Panthers.

Deion Branch's demand for a huge contract has left him in Seattle where he has averaged 51 catches a year (seven games missed) and has since been replaced with players like Wes Welker and Jabar Gaffney.

The Patriots' addition of an extra first round pick allowed them the leverage to trade their own first rounder to San Francisco, in what turned out to be the No. 7 selection in this year's draft, plus a fourth rounder a year ago.

The bottom line is that losing a player can be crippling only if the organization is of the mind that he is irreplaceable.

James Posey was a key loss, no doubt, but the Celtics have options to replace him. The team was criticized for its lack of a solid ball-handling backup point guard (sorry, Sam Cassell) and limited depth at the two-guard position.

These would seem to be ideal options to explore with the extra money from Posey's departure. (Note: The Celtics just re-signed both Eddie House and Tony Allen to two-year deals).

A year from now, some NBA player will be sitting in the exact same position that Posey was in just recently. Whether it be for an offensive explosion or lockdown defense, a free agent will be paid premium dollars for his work.

I do not blame Posey and will not blame a player for accepting the most lucrative contract on the table. It's tough to say no to an extra $10-12 million.

I do however find it interesting that NBA GMs so freely spend the limited amount of cap space on a single player, not opting to divide the cash among a few areas of need.

Brandon Jennings to Europe: The Start of an NCAA Trend?

Cardinal Contributor — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:10:57 -0400

The recent decision of top point guard recruit Brandon Jennings to back out of his commitment to the University of Arizona has sparked yet another debate regarding the entry rules for the NBA draft.

Jennings, who has yet to meet the NCAA requirements for standardized test scores, has signed with the Italian League team Pallacanestro Virtus Roma.

Jennings will forgo his NCAA eligibility and presumably throw his name into the 2009 NBA Draft's hat, where he is currently projected as a high-lottery selection.

While terms of the contract remained undisclosed, one can assume that Jennings will receive a paycheck that will safely launch his money-making career.

The move by Jennings was surprising to some. Why would a Southern California-born player with legitimate NBA talent miss out on the opportunity to star at a Top 25 program and lead his team to March Madness? To others, the move was only surprising because many expected a move like this to happen much earlier.

Since the NBA installed a provision to their draft that required players to be one player year removed from high school graduation, the "one and done" phenomenon has risen to unparalleled heights.

The past two drafts have led to epic debates over "Oden vs. Durant" and "Rose vs. Beasley." Experts, executives, fans and analysts nitpicked every aspect of the debate, and ultimately four freshmen basketball players have completely redesigned the landscape of the NBA draft.

Why even bother going to college one would ask? If a player's commitment to a university is predicated upon the possibility of starring for one year and raising their draft status, why not do the same while earning a six figure salary overseas?

Europe offers a variety of highly competitive leagues that feature former NBA and NCAA players, and fans pour in to stadiums to watch the very best teams. Brandon Jennings will presumably up his draft status by refining his skills, while also driving an enormous amount of press and marketing opportunities for him to capitalize upon.

The prospect of playing overseas with a language barrier is daunting to say the least, but the promise of a $300,000 contract and exposure to playing a sport professionally is at least equally as enticing. Shockingly no prospect of significant notoriety has made this move in recent years.

The fear for college basketball fans is that this will evolve from an exception to a trend.

College hoops is slowly becoming less about teenage and early adults fostering positive relationships and competing for the love of the game, and more about a platform to groom top prospects and experience a small slice of Hollywood lifestyle while on campus for a year.

The NBA faces a supremely difficult situation going forward.

The advent of this rule was due in part to the critics who cited high school phenomenon's turned professional busts as a red flag. For every Kevin Garnett or Kobe Bryant there is a Kwame Brown and Leon Smith—high draft picks who have faded into mediocrity and anonymity.

Now critics are chastising the NBA for this rule, drawing comparisons to tennis and golf where teens and even pre-teens are entering the pro-circuit.

The NFL has managed to find a rule that appeases the players, coaches, and the league; and this certainly puts pressure on the NBA.

The MLB and NHL are assisted by formidable minor league systems that allow teams to invest in a player and let him grow and mature while playing with other players around his skill level.

Meanwhile, the NBA opens the door to "hit or miss" investments and wretched criticism from many different angles.

Going forward there are a few options that the NBA can investigate.

The first is to just abandon the one year rule and re-implement the stipulation that a player must only have graduated from high school to play in the NBA. In doing so, the NCAA is relieved of its diluted nature that arises from having colleges essentially "rent" a player for a year.

This also eliminates the risk of a player suffering any significant injury or legal issues that could occur during his freshman year—which in turns hurts the NBA as well.

The NBA does however open up the door to more prospects jumping ship from high school and forgoing his eligibility in college, and not being drafted or never finding success.

The NBA draft has exactly 30 guaranteed contracts built into its collective bargaining agreement. With the infusion of international players the NBA draft pool has never been larger. Any player, regardless of nationality or age runs the legitimate risk of not being drafted or missing out on a guaranteed contract.

The NBA could adopt a plan similar to or identical to that of the NFL, which states that a player cannot become eligible for the draft until three years after his high school graduation.

This would allow high school players to mature, grow, and improve upon their natural talent while facing talent that will more accurately test them than the high school ranks. The nay sayers of this policy will cite the same argument that tennis and golf allow players to enter early, so why doesn't basketball?

Additionally, some fear this would open Pandora's Box to the European leagues. One can speculate that a three year contract might reach seven figures for a player overseas, particularly one of the stature of a Greg Oden or a Michael Beasley.

To protect the quality and tradition of NCAA basketball, the NBA might hesitate to make such a move.

The NBA faces a decision that directly affects the quality of its product going forward. The NBA draft is becoming increasingly more of a year round process, and players are targeting their careers at an unfathomably young age.

Teenagers are committing to colleges prior to their sophomore year in high school and preparing to play only one year at a major university, all in the hopes of becoming the next franchise piece in the NBA.

The bottom line is that it is unlikely that there will ever be unison and total agreement on the rules for declaring for the NBA draft. One thing is clear though: the NBA must decide upon a policy that it fully supports and endorses before this debate will ever end.

Closer Look at Brett Favre and Green Bay Packers Saga

Cardinal Contributor — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:42:23 -0400

Generally speaking, statistics are the basis of any sports argument—be it between fans, friends, or foes. Currently, the Green Bay Packers are experiencing what some would argue to be a conflict of interest: to retain Brett Favre or let him go in a separate direction.

The argument is quite simple: do you retain literally the face of the franchise and most endeared athlete the city has ever seen, or do you part ways with a legend that has left the franchise in an annual state of flux?

Since 1992, Brett Favre has started 255 consecutive regular season games, and throughout that time he has attained nearly every significant passing record (that had previously been held by the likes of Dan Marino). Undoubtedly Favre has been the model of consistency and production by the numbers, yet one must read more into his figures to tell the true story.

Favre has been revered for his ability to show his “love of the game” through celebrations that remind fans everywhere of their childhood—filled with raw emotion and unparalleled joy.

For this reason, Favre seemingly has been given a pass on most criticisms that one can find in his game or attitude.

It seems almost like clockwork for Favre to declare at some point in the offseason that he is “unsure” of his future in the NFL and the direction that the Packer organization is headed. He has openly criticized management and ownership for their inability to seize opportunity to snag top-notch talent to surround him with.

Prior to Randy Moss’ exodus from Oakland to New England, there had been much talk—rumor based or not—that Green Bay was a likely landing spot for the disgruntled receiver. Favre was anything but reserved with his interest in acquiring the All-Pro receiver.

Even this past year, when the Packers hosted the NFC Championship Game, Favre continually admitted that he was unsure of how good the team was and what level of success they could achieve.

Such ambivalence has been the Brett Favre that Packers fan have come to know and love.

Favre’s stature has grown to be so immense that when posed the question of whether or not Brett Favre should come back, or furthermore, if he deserves to come back as the starting quarterback is posed, the reply often consists of, “Brett Favre should be able to do whatever he wants; he’s Brett Favre.”

This statement and attitude signifies an undeniable level of success and accomplishment that presumably could not be replaced by just any other quarterback. Looking further into Favre’s career, one notices a few numbers that might dispel this prior notion.

288, 118, and 54—These three numbers represent the total number of interceptions thrown, fumbles, and fumbles lost in Favre’s career, respectively. Few statistics’ merits can be agreed upon, but any football fan can wholeheartedly agree that a turnover is a costly and potentially game-changing play.

No other player has amassed the total number of interceptions that Favre has.

In recent years, Favre has had a few plays for which he has become noted for—underhand tosses, twirling throws, and quite honestly foolish mistakes.

One cannot help but wonder what kind of reaction a less accomplished, less-endearing player would receive. A simple smile and laugh from Favre seems to cool the steam and anxiety that fans and coaches feel immediately after his play.

Favre's charisma and joyous personality are infectious; there is no doubt. But at what point does being a good guy no longer merit you the starting quarterback slot on a quality football team? Favre enjoyed some of his best success in recent years (4,155 yards, 28 TD, 66.5 percent comp) and yet still chucked up another 15 INTs and fumbled nine times (losing three).

Favre’s occasional carelessness was never more evident than in overtime of the NFC Championship Game in which he seemingly mistook Corey Webster of the Giants for a receiver of his own, which led to the game winning FG by Lawrence Tynes.

It goes without saying that Brett Favre is a first-ballot Hall of Fame player, and perhaps one of the 10 best quarterbacks of all time, but one must not lose sight of the fact that the NFL is a business, and the success of the team is directly affected by that team’s quarterback.

Instead of handing the job back to a guy who has essentially walked away from football for three months, allow a fresh face, Aaron Rodgers, to compete for a job that he may very well feel he deserves.

The Packers made an investment in Rodgers four years ago when they selected him 26th overall in the NFL Draft, and he has shown a sincere level of respect for Favre and the Packer organization. He has worked hard and impressed coaches with his ability, and did a more than admirable job filling in for Favre in spot-duty against the Dallas Cowboys this past season.

Just like rookies and undrafted free agents make huge sacrifices to win their role each summer, Brett Favre should do the same.

Admittedly, the Favre situation has spiraled out of control to the point of perhaps irreconcilable differences. It’s a bit alarming how fast Favre can turn on this organization which has been the epitome of loyal, and yet it's also unfortunate to see such an non-amicable split.

When the Green Bay Packers open training camp on July 27 at Lambeau Field, one can simply hope that regardless of the name on the back of the jersey, the starting quarterback donning the red jersey will have to show and earn the right to continue to wear that title on Sept. 8 when the Packers face the Vikings on Monday Night Football.