We are only sixteen days into the new year, but I have no qualms about declaring this the "Most Interesting Video of the Year" (so far). (Is it cheating if I add that last qualifier?)
At least four thoroughly interesting posts could come from an analysis of these nine minutes. So stayed tuned. In the meantime, enjoy.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
My New T-Shirt Reads: "Still Time Before the Trade Deadline"
Twenty-twenty hindsight is a bitch, especially in sports. (Think: Blazers picking Bowie over Jordan in '84; every one of the Bears quarterbacks since Favre first started for the Packers in '92 (there have been 19 different starters, versus just one up north); and Tomlin's recent decisions to go for two when he should've clearly gone for one twice.)
But the most frustrating hindsight for me this winter-sports-season is the reconsideration of the the Bulls/Lakers trade for Kobe, which daunted us fans for months before the first of November. Admittedly, I was against it. Give up Deng, Thomas, Gordan and Noah for Bryant? Ridiculous, especially considering our core (if you can call it that) took us to the playoffs last year, along with Big Ben in the middle.
But two and a half months into the season, I'm itching for a Kobe trade. Chicago sits at the bottom of the central in the East at 13-20, while L.A. remains only one game behind the Suns in the pacific in the West at 23-11. And who is supporting Kobe? Odom, Radmanovic, Walton? C'mon. A Chicago roster and salary cap can support players of equal (if not better) caliber, especially with Wallace at center.
This borders on blasphemous, but I'm going to say it anyway: Kobe is starting to look like Jordan in terms of making the shitty players around him look good. (I give you juking Jud Buchler.) Of course, Kobe isn't Jordan (even if he does drop 81), but he's the closest thing to Jordan since Jordan, with no apologies to Lebron. It's unmissable. It's a symphony of physicality. It's the best basketball in the world right now.
But (which is the buzzword of this post) it might be too late to bring Kobe to one of the few markets that could sustain him, to one of the few teams to which the Lakers would trade him, and to one of the few teams to which he would OK a trade. Winning, for Kobe, is all that matters, and the Lakers are winning, and winning big. He's got Phil and Hollywood and a supporting cast that is starting to give a shit. Chicago has twenty losses and a new coach who doesn't appear much better than the last coach.
In a season and a half, when Kobe is a free agent, all of this might be moot and I'll be sending flowers to Paxson's office promising to name my firstborn son after him as I watch Kobe hold up a Bulls jersey with a bold, red 24 on the front. But I doubt it. Dammit.
But the most frustrating hindsight for me this winter-sports-season is the reconsideration of the the Bulls/Lakers trade for Kobe, which daunted us fans for months before the first of November. Admittedly, I was against it. Give up Deng, Thomas, Gordan and Noah for Bryant? Ridiculous, especially considering our core (if you can call it that) took us to the playoffs last year, along with Big Ben in the middle.
But two and a half months into the season, I'm itching for a Kobe trade. Chicago sits at the bottom of the central in the East at 13-20, while L.A. remains only one game behind the Suns in the pacific in the West at 23-11. And who is supporting Kobe? Odom, Radmanovic, Walton? C'mon. A Chicago roster and salary cap can support players of equal (if not better) caliber, especially with Wallace at center.
This borders on blasphemous, but I'm going to say it anyway: Kobe is starting to look like Jordan in terms of making the shitty players around him look good. (I give you juking Jud Buchler.) Of course, Kobe isn't Jordan (even if he does drop 81), but he's the closest thing to Jordan since Jordan, with no apologies to Lebron. It's unmissable. It's a symphony of physicality. It's the best basketball in the world right now.
But (which is the buzzword of this post) it might be too late to bring Kobe to one of the few markets that could sustain him, to one of the few teams to which the Lakers would trade him, and to one of the few teams to which he would OK a trade. Winning, for Kobe, is all that matters, and the Lakers are winning, and winning big. He's got Phil and Hollywood and a supporting cast that is starting to give a shit. Chicago has twenty losses and a new coach who doesn't appear much better than the last coach.
In a season and a half, when Kobe is a free agent, all of this might be moot and I'll be sending flowers to Paxson's office promising to name my firstborn son after him as I watch Kobe hold up a Bulls jersey with a bold, red 24 on the front. But I doubt it. Dammit.
New Hampshire '08
Two things to admit: First - every damn month or so I write a blog entry and claim that I'm going to write more on this page. And then I don't (which at least shows some consistency). But this time I've got the handy and always reliable New Years Resolution to support my delusional promises, so I'm betting that these entries come quicker and sharper than before. Especially now that I've more time to spend avoiding my thesis than ever before. Any wagers?
Second - I was wrong on New Hampshire; I had Obama and Romney winning. And now, save some incredibly awesome (and unprecedented) statistical anomaly happening in the next hour within the final remaining ten percent of unreported precincts, it appears that Ms. Clinton and Mr. McCain have taken the state. To be fair to me, however, Obama took half of the counties, including my own (and by a large margin in all five). But I was way off on Romney's appeal, as he was essentially clubbed to death in Grafton by over twenty-five percentage points. Ouch.
Fortunately, as a matter of course, nearly everyone political was wrong about everything political in the last two weeks: Novak had Romney rallying in NH; McAuliffe had Clinton losing by twenty here, and winning by twenty in Iowa; Drudge had Hillary dropping out of the race as early as this evening.
Still, I wasn't too far off. Obama only lost by three percentage points, and Romney only by five. Sure, it is a slight momentum shift for Hillary after the Iowa loss and the predicted collapse, but she shouldn't get too damn cockey, especially after losing a twenty point lead in less than two months. As for Romney: well, two solid second-place finishes (oh, and a win in Montana) in a race with no clear front-runner could highlight his general electability and push him ahead in Nevada and South Carolina, thus making him a real threat to Giuliani come Super Tuesday.
That's all the analysis I am up for, but I'll end with this: how great was it to see Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman hate each other all night? Fantastic.
And one last thing: Can someone please tell me how Hillary crying at a campaign rally is a "human" moment? Why is this not a bigger news story? It is simply unprecedented for a national presidential candidate to cry on the campaign trail while commenting on the process of running. Can you imagine if a man had done this? Is it that easy to play such simplistic and trite gender politics? I'm not saying she shouldn't have cried or didn't have a reason to cry or even that I wouldn't have cried. I'm sure it is damn hard - man or woman. But publicly? Very odd, indeed. Who knows, maybe it did help....
Second - I was wrong on New Hampshire; I had Obama and Romney winning. And now, save some incredibly awesome (and unprecedented) statistical anomaly happening in the next hour within the final remaining ten percent of unreported precincts, it appears that Ms. Clinton and Mr. McCain have taken the state. To be fair to me, however, Obama took half of the counties, including my own (and by a large margin in all five). But I was way off on Romney's appeal, as he was essentially clubbed to death in Grafton by over twenty-five percentage points. Ouch.
Fortunately, as a matter of course, nearly everyone political was wrong about everything political in the last two weeks: Novak had Romney rallying in NH; McAuliffe had Clinton losing by twenty here, and winning by twenty in Iowa; Drudge had Hillary dropping out of the race as early as this evening.
Still, I wasn't too far off. Obama only lost by three percentage points, and Romney only by five. Sure, it is a slight momentum shift for Hillary after the Iowa loss and the predicted collapse, but she shouldn't get too damn cockey, especially after losing a twenty point lead in less than two months. As for Romney: well, two solid second-place finishes (oh, and a win in Montana) in a race with no clear front-runner could highlight his general electability and push him ahead in Nevada and South Carolina, thus making him a real threat to Giuliani come Super Tuesday.
That's all the analysis I am up for, but I'll end with this: how great was it to see Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman hate each other all night? Fantastic.
And one last thing: Can someone please tell me how Hillary crying at a campaign rally is a "human" moment? Why is this not a bigger news story? It is simply unprecedented for a national presidential candidate to cry on the campaign trail while commenting on the process of running. Can you imagine if a man had done this? Is it that easy to play such simplistic and trite gender politics? I'm not saying she shouldn't have cried or didn't have a reason to cry or even that I wouldn't have cried. I'm sure it is damn hard - man or woman. But publicly? Very odd, indeed. Who knows, maybe it did help....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)