Page 1118 of 2957

      Rudy Gay might be the big winner this summer

      February 22, 2010 /

      In his trade deadline rankings, Chad Ford discusses the Grizzlies’ quandary with Rudy Gay.

      With so many teams getting under the cap, it almost guarantees that one of them will panic this summer and overpay for Rudy Gay. (The Knicks, Nets, Clippers and Wizards all like him.) Will Michael Heisley really pay the max for Gay? If not, chances are they lose him this summer.

      Gay fits the profile of a non-max player who could very well get max money this summer. There are eight teams that currently have enough money to sign a max player and two of those teams (the Knicks and the Heat) that have enough cap space to sign two max free agents. So, this summer, there will be room for 10 max players, but looking at our list of the top potential free agents, there are only three players — LeBron, Wade and Bosh — that I’d offer a max contract. Granted, guys like Amare Stoudemire, Joe Johnson and Carlos Boozer are likely to get huge long-term contracts, but still, that’s just six guys for 10 slots (not even counting teams like Cleveland and Toronto, who can re-sign LeBron and Bosh, respectively).

      This means non-max players like Rudy Gay and David Lee will probably end up with bigger contracts than they deserve because the teams that miss out on LeBron, Wade, Bosh, Amare, etc. will panic and overpay so that they aren’t stuck with a gaping hole heading into the 2010-11 season. Certain teams may hold onto their cap space for the following summer, but it depends on who is likely to be available and how poor of a season that team is prepared to have.

      So if you’re a fan of the Nets, Clippers, Timberwolves, Kings and Wizards…or the Grizzlies…be prepared.


      Photo from fOTOGLIF

      Fantasy Basketball, NBA, Rumors & Gossip

      How to fix the Winter Olympics

      February 22, 2010 /

      In his article, “Games Saver,” in the Feb. 22 issue of ESPN The Magazine, Luke Cyphers recommends a few ways to rekindle interest in the Winter Olympic Games. I particularly like his first two suggestions:

      1. RECOMBINE OLYMPIC YEARS.
      Back in 1992, you could rely on certain big events hitting every four years. A leap year. A presidential election. And the Olympics, both Winter and Summer in one 12-month span. That made them a scarce commodity. But, acting on a plan hatched eight years earlier, the IOC monkeyed with the calendar in 1994, putting the Winter Games in “off” even-numbered years. What was intended to make them more visible did just the opposite. The Games need to get back on Olympic Standard Time, one year for all. It would solve one huge and growing problem — competition with the World Cup for ad dollars and attention.

      2. PICK ONE OLYMPIC VENUE.
      Vancouver’s financial mess is a warning to future bidders: Stay away. Suckering new cities to create a billion-dollar playground is simply unsustainable. More sites means more sprawl, more CO2 and more global warming — counter-productive when you race on snow. As the Greeks did, the Olympic organizers need to pick a single stage they can dust off every four years, preferably a city that already has facilities in place. We vote for Innsbruck, site of Franz Klammer’s downhill, Dorothy Hamill’s haircut and an active spot for all major winter sports. At the very least, the IOC should rotate the Games among single hosts on each of the three continents that have held them before. In addition to Innsbruck, recycle Salt Lake, and Sapporo in Asia too.

      Holding the Winter Olympics and Summer Olympics in the same calendar year would increase interest in the former since it would wet the palette of those looking forward to the Summer Games. Also, Cyphers point about the World Cup is a strong one. Soccer is only getting bigger.

      I also like his idea about rotating the Games through three venues, one on each continent of Europe, Asia and North America. It’s pretty ridiculous that a city has to build all of these venues just to hold these Games for a few weeks. It’s a waste of resources, especially when there are very nice facilities available in other cities that have already hosted the event. They should do the same thing for the Summer Games — rotating amongst, say, Athens, Sydney and Los Angeles — for the same reasons.

      Ratings for the Vancouver Games have been decent.

      NBC is still exceeding its ratings guarantee to advertising of a 14.0 average prime-time household rating. Through Friday, it was averaging a 14.7 rating and 26.2 million viewers over the first eight nights of the Olympics.

      According to Cyphers, Salt Lake had a 19.2 rating and Torino had a 12.2.


      Photo from fOTOGLIF

      The Olympics

      2010 to be Manny’s last season with Dodgers?

      February 22, 2010 /

      It appears that Mannywood will be closing after the 2010 MLB season.

      From the Los Angeles Times:

      “I know I’m not going to be here next year,” Ramirez said.

      So you don’t think you will re-sign with Dodgers?

      “I doubt it, I don’t know,” he said. “I’m happy to be here. I’m going to try to enjoy myself.”

      Asked what made him think he wouldn’t be in Los Angeles in 2011, Ramirez replied, “I don’t know. I just know that I’m not going to be here.”

      Did he see himself moving to the American League?

      “I don’t know,” Ramirez said. “We’ll see. Let’s take it a day at a time.”

      Ramirez said he wasn’t even certain if he wanted to play next season.

      “I don’t know about tomorrow, but I know about today, so….” he said. “When the season is over, I want to see where I’m at. If I play, I play. If they let me play, I play.”

      The Dodgers have cause for concern about these comments. Ramirez’s play diminished in Boston right before he was traded in 2008 because he checked out mentally. If he isn’t motivated, he has no problem going through the motions on the field.

      That said, if he wants a contract with another team next season, he’d better play hard in 2010. The Dodgers were essentially the only team that was willing to offer him a contract last offseason, so Manny (and Scott Boras for that matter) better be willing to take one-year offers from here on out. That is, if Man-Ram doesn’t retire after the season.


      Photo from fOTOGLIF

      MLB

      Tigers’ signing of Damon a tad perplexing

      February 22, 2010 /

      I get it – Johnny Damon can hit a little and that’s why the Tigers just finalized a one-year, $8 million deal with the free agent over the weekend. But just because he can hit, doesn’t mean the signing makes sense.

      Damon won’t hit another 24 home runs and drive in another 80-plus RBI this season away from Yankee Stadium. Even though he holds a .363 batting average in 189 plate appearances at Comerica Park, it’s likely that he’ll he max out at 15 home runs, 70 RBIs and hit around .290 in a full season in Detroit.

      Is that worth $8 million even if it’s only for one year? Is that worth pushing a deserving Ryan Rayburn (who hit 16 home runs and slugged .533 in 261 at bats last season) into a rotation with Damon, Carlos Guillen and Magglio Ordonez?

      To me, it’s not. I think the Tigers overpaid for what they’ll eventually get in Damon and I’m confused as to why they traded a younger and more athletic Curtis Granderson just so they could turn around and pay a 36-year-old with a wet noodle for an arm. I realize Granderson struggled mightily against left-handed pitching, but he brings way more to the table defensively than Damon does and he’s eight years younger. I just don’t get how one year of Johnny Damon was worth $8 million to a club that will probably wind up in the middle of the AL Central again this year, especially when they already had a DH in Guillen.

      If Damon comes in and flourishes at the top of the Tigers’ lineup, I’ll gladly eat my words. But I just don’t see a lot of value in a club paying $8 million for a player that will certainly have declining numbers.


      Photo from fOTOGLIF

      MLB

      Rams, Bucs discussing trade for No. 1 pick?

      February 22, 2010 /

      According to Scout.com’s Chris Steuber, the Rams and Buccaneers have had discussions about a potential trade involving the No. 1 pick in this year’s draft. In the proposed deal, Tampa would acquire the top overall selection in exchange for the No. 3 pick in the first round, a second and/or third round pick, and quarterback Josh Johnson.

      In addition to finding a franchise quarterback, the Rams are interested in trading out of the top spot in this year’s draft, moving down a few spots and acquiring additional draft picks and players. I’ve been told that the Rams and Buccaneers have had exploratory discussions on a deal, which would involve the team’s first round selections (No. 1 and 3), possibly one of the Buccaneers second round picks (they have two picks in the second round: No. 35 and 42) or their third round pick (No. 67). Again, these discussions have been exploratory, as the Rams continue to investigate all of their options, but the deal involving the Rams and Bucs first round picks and Tampa Bay’s third round pick, not one of their second-round picks, is where it gets interesting.

      A source close to the situation in St. Louis told me that if a deal with the Eagles can’t be consummated prior to the draft, they may take the Bucs third round pick over one of their second round picks, because they’re “very high” on third-year quarterback Josh Johnson, who they would insist being in a potential trade with Tampa Bay. Rams officials compare Johnson favorably to Vick athletically, but they feel that he has a greater upside as a passer.

      This deal certainly makes sense on paper, but I wouldn’t be surprised if either the Bucs or Rams (or both) publicly deny this rumor within the next couple of days. I’m not suggesting that the two teams didn’t discuss a potential swap, but so many rumors surface leading up to the draft that it’s hard to take any of them seriously until more details emerge.

      Again though, the deal makes sense on the surface. Ndamukong Suh is the top prospect in this year’s draft, but defensive tackle takes a back seat to other positions on the Rams’ offseason needs list. If they have another player (Gerald McCoy, Dez Bryant or one of the quarterbacks for example) rated close to Suh on their draft board that they can take at No. 3, it makes sense for them to trade down, snatch another pick or two a possible Johnson as well. Johnson is the definition of a project at quarterback, but he does have talent.

      As for the Bucs, they have a major need at DT and given Suh’s exceptional talent, it may be worth it for them to part with two draft picks and a quarterback in Johnson (that’s expendable given that Josh Freeman is the future) to acquire that kind of talent.

      We’ll see if this rumor sprouts more legs over the next two months. As I previously alluded to though, there will be plenty more rumors like this that emerge leading up to the draft.


      Photo from fOTOGLIF

      NFL

      « Older posts Newer posts »

      © 2026 The Scores Report – The National Sports Blog

      Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑