- 09:30 AM
- 11/21/24
they are outraged because of how the animals died. really, that's your answer. MV is evil because its that much worse for a dog to be killed in a dogfight than to be hit by a car? There is a huge difference morally between a dog that dies for some (alleged) humans amusement and one that dies due to accidentally being hit by a car now you seem to admit that its not the dogs they care about ... its the moral judgment that's important. so you agree with me?
posted by Mike McD at 10:48 PM on December 12, 2007
A guy breaks into a house and murders the owner. He's caught and punished. People are happy. jeebus! your reading comprehension is abysmal. Maybe the 3rd time you'll understand (or you can just read the initial post where I anticipated this exact response). We punish people for murder as a deterrent. We want to discourage people from committing murder. MV didn't hurt anyone else. Just his own property. We could save many more lives by making cars that only go up to 55. It's doable, would save more lives, why not do it? I agree. I think its irrational that people think 1,000 people dying each year in Iraq is a tragedy buy 55,000 people dying each year in cars is a statistic. And I think its rational to fear cars more than guns or terrorists. Cars are more likely to kill you (or your children)
posted by Mike McD at 10:41 PM on December 12, 2007
I see ... you lost the argument at the first sentence. my conclusion is "those outraged by MV are outraged because they like feeling morally superior to MV; they are not outraged because dogs were killed" my evidence for that conclusion is that people aren't outraged by weak leash laws. If one cared about dogs one would be equally outraged by any dog being killed, dogfighting or car accident. Why is a preventable car accident more acceptable than dogfighting? from fido's perspective, you're indifferent to having your spine crushed by a car or having your throat ripped out in a dog fight. That distinction only matters to people making judgments of others. try and keep in mind my argument addressed people's motivation for criticizing MV. The rest was refuting the specious arguments that I knew would arise. Just as an aside, mv killing dogs is not the analog of a killer going into a school and killing random kids. The analog to your scenario would be going into a dog park and killing a bunch of other people's dogs. As I pointed out above mv didn't impair anyone else's life/property. I hesitate to even mention this because its irrelevant to my conclusion and is a distraction.
posted by Mike McD at 07:34 PM on December 12, 2007
equate allegedly weak leash laws with the enjoyment of watching dogs tear each other to pieces at what point did you lose the argument? At no point did I equate the two. What I said is that is one loves dogs I would expect one to find both equally outrageous (actually weak leash laws a little more outrageous because they end up killing more dogs)
posted by Mike McD at 05:55 AM on December 12, 2007
***it shows up on my computer but here it is again *** it seems irrational to me to be outraged about dog-fighting but not outraged about leash laws. undoubtedly more dogs are run over by cars than killed by dog fighting each year. hence, if one really cared about dogs and wanted to save dogs one would spend their time writing and campaigning for stronger leash laws until the number of dogs run over < the number of dogs killed by dogfighting (and please don't tell me its worse to be killed in a dog fight (a) the dog is dead either way and (b) i'm certain getting pancaked in the street is really painful). However, I doubt any of the aggrieved are campaigning for stronger leash laws so I have to assume another motive. The most likely motive that presents itself is that the aggrieved parties are self-righteous phonies and it makes them feel good to write about how superior they are to michael vick. I anticipate the first response will be: but intent! MV meant to kill those dogs and people who let their dogs out without a leash didn't. Of course the intent line of reasoning only proves my point. People who only care about the dogs are indifferent to how they are killed, they just want to save dogs from death. People who care about feeling superior to other people care a great deal about intent because that's why they feel superior. I anticipate that the subsequent line of reasoning will be "that's saying murder is the same as manslaughter". Of course I'm not saying that because the situations aren't analogous. It's obviously desirable to discourage people from impairing your life and property (e.g. murdering you), that's why we treat murder different from manslaughter. You can discourage murder, you can't discourage accidents. I believe we don't distinguish between intent when punishing murder. The evil man who lusts to kill people, spontaneously flips, and murders another human is treated more lightly than the hired killer who plans to kill someone (i.e. premeditated murder is punished more harshly). The MV situation isn't analogous to murder because he wasn't impairing anyone else's life or property. He was killing his own dogs.
posted by Mike McD at 09:17 PM on December 11, 2007
it seems irrational to me to be outraged about dog-fighting but not outraged about leash laws. undoubtably more dogs are run over by cars than killed by dog fighting each year. hence, if one really cared about dogs and wanted to save dogs you would spend 100% of your time writing and campaining for stronger leash laws until the number of dogs run over = the number of dogs killed by dogfighting (and please don't tell me its worse to be killed in a dog fight (a) the dog is dead either way and (b) i'm certain getting pancaked in the street is really painful). However, I doubt any of the aggrieved are campaigning for stronger leash laws so I have to assume another motive. The most likely motive that presents itself is that the aggrieved parties are self-righteous phonies and it makes them feel good to write about how superior they are to michael vick. I anticipate the first response will be: but intent! MV meant to kill those dogs and people who let their dogs out without a leash didn't. Of course the intent line of reasoning only proves my point. People who only care about the dogs are indifferent to how they are killed, they just want to save dogs from death. People who care about feeling superior to other people care a great deal about intent because that's why they feel superior. I anticipate that the subsequent line of reasoning will be "that's saying murder is the same as manslaughter". Of course I'm not saying that because the situations aren't analagous. It's obviously desirable to discourage people from impairing your life and property (e.g. murdering you), that's why we treat murder different from manslaughter. You can discourage murder, you can't discourage accidents. Its also why I believe we don't distinguish between intent when punishing murder. The evil man who lusts to kill people, spontaneously flips, and murders another human is treated more lightly than the hired killer who plans to kill someone (i.e. premeditated murder). Hence the MV situation isn't analogous to murder because he wasn't impairing anyone else's life or property. He was killing his own dogs.
posted by Mike McD at 07:59 PM on December 11, 2007
What's your point? The dogs that Vick killed "sank" and it sucked to be them? Thanks for the insight. my point is that I find it odd that people can show such compassion for dogs on one hand and such little compassion for human beings on the other hand. Granted, but irrelevant. very relevant in understanding where MV came from and the range of outcomes ... my point being he wasn't one of those kids walking up behind strangers and shooting them in the head. Which do you think is worse?
posted by Mike McD at 05:37 AM on December 11, 2007
i agree. spare me the self-righteous indignation. this country doesn't care about human beings much less animals ... sink or swim ... you're on your own ... and I'm no better ... i'm not doing anything to ensure that kids have health care or that MV stops killing dogs ... i'm just wasting time on spofi p.s. true story ... hampton, VA is rough ... my best friend from high school went to college in VA beach ... some complete stranger gang banger walked up behind him while he was talking out cash from an ATM and shot him in the neck as gang initiation. Dog fighting isn't problem #1.
posted by Mike McD at 08:59 PM on December 10, 2007
I struggle to see how the below is "hanging out with the wrong people" FORT MYERS, Fla. -- Washington Redskins safety Sean Taylor and his half-sister Sasha Johnson grew up on different coasts of Florida but Taylor wanted to be closer to her and bring a broken family together, according to friends and family members. Taylor bought a $900,000 house in his home town of Miami for his mother, Donna Junor. He invited Sasha Johnson, who grew up in Fort Myers, and her brother to live in it, the friends and family members said... But over the past few days it has become increasingly clear that investigators working on Taylor's killing believe Sasha Johnson, apparently unwittingly, provided a direct link between Taylor and the four Fort Myers men charged with killing him in a bungled burglary attempt of that same home. Previously, it was reported the house belonged exclusively to Taylor, but in interviews Saturday, friends and family members said Taylor bought the house with the intent of his mother living there...After buying the house for Junor, Taylor invited his half-brother Jamal Johnson, 18, and Sasha Johnson to stay there. They all had bedrooms in the house. Family friend Donald Walker said the trio were the house's "primary residents" since Taylor rarely was in town. Neither Junor, Jamal Johnson nor Sasha Johnson was in the house the night of the shooting.
posted by Mike McD at 10:46 AM on December 02, 2007
You're so clever. I see it now. Clearly he should have have run a criminal background check on the lawnmower to make sure he wasn't around "bad" people Try this thought experiment. Say Tony Romo had a girlfriend and an 18 month old baby. Tony finds out that his house back in Wisconsin has been broken into and that his girlfriend is scared. So he goes home to stay with her and make her feel safe. The night he's home his house is broken into and Tony is murdered. It turns out that the murderer was a teenager that Tony had mowing his lawn and some people that came to a party that Tony's stepsister threw while he was in Dallas that Tony didn't know about. Would you be saying that's fishy or would you be saying that's the worst tragedy you'd ever heard?
posted by Mike McD at 12:41 PM on December 01, 2007
Here's a nice espn profile of Sean Taylor I'll leave it at this. The people who theorized that there was something fishy, or that he was a thug and it was related to that ... it looks like you were very very wrong.
posted by Mike McD at 09:11 AM on December 01, 2007
posted without comment Sean's father, Pedro, the chief of police in Florida City, Florida.... Also, just to clear something up - this is a different house in a different part of South Florida than where Sean had the ATV incident two years ago and was arrested on firearms charges. He was in his old neighbrogood near his mom's house when that incident occured, he has moved to a nicer part of town since starting his family and, according to teammates, had stopped hanging around a lot of his former associates after his last legal problems. However, a lot of people down there know who he is, are jeolous of his wealth, etc, and it's not like no one from his old neighborhood knows his new address. At this point police are still trying to piece together the scene and their investigation is ongoing at the home. ''The public perception was that he was an outcast,'' said Clinton Portis, a teammate with both the Hurricanes and the Redskins. 'He wasn't. He just was `to himself.' There wasn't anything about him thuggish. Off the field he was quiet, nice, friendly, fun to be around, a character. . . .''
posted by Mike McD at 07:28 PM on November 27, 2007
reports are that he was hit in the femoral artery and is in a coma. that's a dreadful injury. he would have bled a lot with the corollary loss of oxygen to brain. i hope he's okay. sounds like his teammates really care about him and he's grown up a lot.
posted by Mike McD at 06:40 PM on November 26, 2007
allow me to retort: Antoine Walker Dunta Robinson Eddy Curry see a pattern?
posted by Mike McD at 03:54 PM on November 26, 2007
My 2nd favorite All teams say they like to run. Some actually can. As an alternative, some like to grind. But only visionaries like Billy Knight build their teams on the Epcot Center height requirement model. Only ye who are 6-6 to 6-8 may enter yonder locker room. The Hawks: Moving FORWARD WITH FORWARDS.
posted by Mike McD at 04:55 PM on June 29, 2006
my favorite quote: As someone with a better memory than me pointed out: The evolution of Bryan Colangelo into GM of the 21st Century is pretty funny considering he traded Kidd for Marbury. Just saying.
posted by Mike McD at 03:15 PM on June 29, 2006
shaq has one more half before he quits entirely and gives up ... expect him to veiled comments that his teamates didn't get him the ball enough*.
posted by Mike McD at 07:19 PM on June 12, 2006
Dallas will be good. And not because of Owens. Dallas will be better this year because of improvement on defense. The Cowboys switched to a 3-4 and gave 3 rookies major time (D. Ware, C. Canty, and M. Spears). Plus 2nd year LB Bradie James was inserted as a starter. Dallas has the entire D returning (less L. Glover) so expect it to be greatly improved (and they were good last year). Dallas will be a typical Parcells team. Play field position, strong running game, strong defense. Take a shot with a trick play once a game. With a strong defense they'll be tough.
posted by Mike McD at 05:58 PM on May 31, 2006
looking at what Amare, Howard, and Bosh have done I have to guess that Darko is a bust. Any of those guys would have gotten some pt in Detroit. Darko will stick in the NBA because he's got size, 7 foot and muscular, but he won't be a star.
posted by Mike McD at 08:57 PM on February 15, 2006
I think Kobe's career may very well change how people view Shaqs carreer. My guess is that kobe spends this year and next crushing the scoring titles .. to prove his point that he's the best. He'll also learn that he needs help to win playoffs. With that settled, and the lesson learned, I think we'll see a kobe that's focused on winning rings .... and does win rings ... at which point Shaq will hopefully be remember as Kobe's first sidekick. p.s. his fg% still scare me though
posted by Mike McD at 09:11 PM on January 23, 2006
the rings he does have which came largely on the shoulders of the big man. I think what this is starting to show is that Shaq won his rings on the shoulders of the Bryant. You know, I can understand why Kobe despised Shaq. Kobe has more basketball skill in his little finger than Shaq has in his whole body. Shaq was just born twice as big as everyone else. And don't forget, Shaq didn't win any championships without Kobe. Shaq was on the way to becoming one of the most disappointing big men ever, because of his playoff chokes, before Kobe showed up.
posted by Mike McD at 10:19 AM on January 23, 2006
could easily lead to another riot may use it as a chance to start a full-out riot yeah, those wild NBA fans may start rioting ... 'cause they're like crazy thugs in the lower level seats... seriously, have you guys actually been to an NBA game??? I mean the chance of player, who's not throwing punches, going into the stands and starting a riot is zilch ... Doesn't anybody notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
posted by Mike McD at 10:09 AM on January 19, 2006
my favorite Sports Guy, I think you'd like to know that Isiah Thomas is planning to take revenge on you. Today on the Stephen A. Smith show on ESPN Radio here in New York, Thomas said if "I ever meet this guy Bill Simmons, it won't be good for him." In other words, I think he's planning on signing you. -- Dan Goodman, New York
posted by Mike McD at 10:16 PM on January 18, 2006
Hey LiveWithIt... do you know what an ad hominem logical fallacy is? Its when you attack the person instead of the argument because you can't refute the argument. I stand behind what I said (and please note I didn't say the hit was intentional ... I said it was cheap ... i.e. Kimo has a 1 in 100 chance of sacking Palmer ... he should have just let it go) I know football. Kimo was doing his typical motor never stops crawling on all fours trying to get to Palmer. I think it's self evident that Kimo should have pulled up. The fact stands that Kimo didn't sack Palmer. He didn't even stop the completion. All he did was destroy Palmer's knee. That's a tragic mistake ... not a good play. p.s. I'm a Dallas fan.
posted by Mike McD at 08:46 AM on January 13, 2006
I'm not a Cincy fan, so I don't really have any dog in the fight, but I'd like to see karmic payback for Van Offen ... hopefully he'll be out of the NFL soon. I saw the replay ... that hit was cheap as hell ... yes he was trying to sack him but when you're on your hands and knees and sacking him requires diving into his knee ... its time to pull up.
posted by Mike McD at 11:08 PM on January 12, 2006
Drevl, Where are you cuz? You ready to put some coin behind your words?
posted by Mike McD at 07:36 PM on September 28, 2005
I'm talking about big cities. Top ten population wise in the US. Answer the question. Are you saying these cities had democratic mayors/govenors? And if you are, will you put your money where you mouth is?
posted by Mike McD at 11:18 AM on September 28, 2005
*One major city had a republican mayor for 16 of the 52 years covered by your first paragraph.* Drevl, money talks ... bs walks. Are you saying that's the only major city that has had a Democratic govenor over the last 52 years. How much f-cking size you want to put on that cuz? $1,000? $10,000? $100,000? Can we bet? Puh-leeeezeee. Are you man enough to put your money behind your mouth?
posted by Mike McD at 06:02 AM on September 28, 2005
No kidding Uncle Toby There is always a robot who makes that comment though. We should write a computer program that searches for the term shooting and time of day. If the time is late at night the program would automatically generate a post that says 'so and so said nothing good happens after 2AM ... blah blah blah' Save people from having to retype tired old platitudes. What I don't understand is what people like kcfan and erkno are advocating. Are they really so scared of the big bad nightime that they think everyone should be home and in bed because *something bad might happen*.
posted by Mike McD at 06:35 AM on September 27, 2005
hey, erkno11, check out this thread. You are an un-original robot. http://www.sportsfilter.com/comments.cfm/3103
posted by Mike McD at 11:08 PM on September 26, 2005
Hey Catfish, You know Javon Walker's name?
posted by Mike McD at 07:29 AM on September 13, 2005
I expect Rcade to show up and start condemning Moss post-haste
posted by Mike McD at 05:22 PM on August 18, 2005
like most of his comments, lilnemo's analysis is grounded in outer space. O'Brien isn't the coach of the Sixers anymore, cuz. Mo Cheeks is. Happened like a month ago. You made me laugh though, predicating your entire analysis on what moves they would make to fit O'Brien's scheme.
posted by Mike McD at 12:08 PM on July 12, 2005
This is going to be great. Kobe gets a high school project ... no help next year. Plus Bynum looks like the second coming of .... Desanga Diop.
posted by Mike McD at 06:50 PM on June 29, 2005
Hes a jockhopper, which means he goes to teams in which all the pieces are already in place, or shall we say the MAIN pieces. This iz why he turned down Cleveland with Lebron. Phil Jackson is taking over a lottery team (yes, that's what the Lakers are). Cleveland (42-40), Lakers (34-48). My tip for you: try not to get the facts blatantly wrong, your argument will be much more convincing.
posted by Mike McD at 08:46 AM on June 15, 2005
Chill, I just didn't know. Sorry, that came out wrong. The Knicks flashed through my mind when I read that and I thought 'it would be funny if it was a hard salary cap of $14M ... the Knicks could have any ONE of the guys currently on their roster'. I think it's about $100 next year.
posted by Mike McD at 07:01 PM on June 09, 2005
I thought the NBA had a hard salary cap at around $14-$15M a year. As Charlie Murphy would say "Wrong ... Wrong" The NBA has a soft cap w/ luxury tax that kicks in ~45M. You made me laugh though.
posted by Mike McD at 04:02 PM on June 09, 2005
you take a flying knee from Jermaine O'Neal at full speed and see how well YOU can play in the playoffs Did a flying knee make him gain 50lbs? Step back from your knee jerk emotionally reaction for a minute and think about it rationally. Shaq wants a contract extension now, not for next season but for 2 seasons from now. He's currently 33. He'll turn 35 in the middle of the 2006-2007 season, and he'd be 36 by the end of the contract. So the question is what's going to be like in 2 years? Now, dfleming asked me in a different thread if I had even watched him play. Yeah, I watched him. I watched him block himself on the side of the rim on a dunk attempt. I watched him look like Shamu. But that's being snarky. I just don't see anything that would lead me to believe that Shaq is going to do anything but continue to decline. For all the Shaq defenders, I think it's incumbent upon you to explain what and why Shaq is going to reverse the natural decline? Finally, you can't ignore that carrying that much weight is a huge injury risk. I've thought for a while that, like Barkley, an injury will end Shaq's career. Bodies just aren't meant to withstand those kind of forces.
posted by Mike McD at 09:39 PM on June 08, 2005
Shaq will hold steady next year and Wade will improve. Heat win it all next year, guaranteed, and all the Shaq nay-sayers will have to shut up for a year I would challenge that assertation. I would be terrified if I'm the Heat. If Shaq wasn't motivated this year, what's he going to be like next year? We know he'll be a year older. Let's remember what Simmons for example was saying last year: This was absolute madness. What were these teams thinking? This was Shaq! Still in his prime! A potentially ticked-off, ready-to-destroy-everybody Shaq!!!! For the first time in years, I think Shaq gets himself in ridiculous shape this summer. There's no other way. He has too much to prove, too many scores to settle. In fact, here's how the Vengeance Scale looks right now, with a "1.0" being Mike Piazza's reaction after Clemens threw the bat at him in the 2000 World Series. 8.5 -- Shaq (after finding out that the Lakers were trading him for Odom, Grant and Butler) Except it didn't work out that way. You know, I'd guess there's a 20% chance Shaq shows up at 400lbs next year.
posted by Mike McD at 04:36 PM on June 07, 2005
I would suggest that the advent of personal video recorders are a factor. Suddenly the TV business model is undergoing a fundemental change. The value of commercials is slowly being eroded as pvr's proliferate and more and more viewers cut out the commercials (as a sidenote, TIVO and Replay TV handicapped themselves to make nice with the broadcasters and you can't easily cut out commercials, but my new sony vaio laptop has a pvr that recongnizes dead space and allows me to skip over commercials entirely). In the new world, advertisements on unis make perfect sense. Even if you have a pvr and skip commercials you're still exposed to the logos as you watch the actual game. Personally, I can't wait for the day when a basketball game is actually played in an hour, and I suspect the pvr is bringing that day closer.
posted by Mike McD at 12:56 PM on May 30, 2005
anyone want to guess why they're considering this NOW? I mean, the NBA's been around for a long time and they haven't put ads on uniforms to date. Any idea what's changed?
posted by Mike McD at 10:06 PM on May 29, 2005
so far he's done this evey year and I just don't believe him Can you really say *every* year when you're only talking about one year. I mean, technically you're correct, but you do realize he only missed 2004?
posted by Mike McD at 05:54 PM on May 23, 2005
good point bperk, that makes perfect sense.
posted by Mike McD at 10:13 AM on May 23, 2005
Like it or not athletes are role models and their behavior does matter teachers are role models ... and most of the teachers I know smoke weed. Doesn't seem to be a problem. Anyway, I don't find the argument that it's illegal to be a compelling line of reasoning. Sort of like saying it is because it is. Its obviously illegal for everyone but not every job tests for marajuana use. What makes pro sports different?
posted by Mike McD at 09:37 AM on May 23, 2005
Ricky Williams is a has-been Williams' last year he had 1372 yards, 2nd best of his career. My tip, your arguments will be taken more seriously if they're grounded in reality. most importantly, addicted to the Chronic Why does the NFL, NBA, and MLB test for weed? Does anyone really care if players toke up? I can understand why you don't want a truck driver or a surgeon getting high and working, but professional athletes? If they get high on their own time, does it really matter? Maybe it will screw with their conditioning but the athletes themselves are the ones who suffer from that, cause they'll be competing with someone who doesn't toke up, trains 24/7, and wants to take their job.
posted by Mike McD at 11:25 PM on May 22, 2005
Where did I ever say TO can't quit? He's more than free to walk away from the contract and not collect another dime from the Eagles, even if it is breaking the contract. I suppose it's a special circumstance if you decide you just aren't going to work any longer. Of course you aren't going to get paid if you don't perform the services the contract requires of you. And are you going to be able to quit your job and then go directly back to the same employer and say, "Okay, now pay me more money?" That's what TO is doing, at least as I see it. You didn't explicitly say TO can't quit but that is the logical conclusion of your reasoning. Let me give you an example. I work for an investment bank. On of the Managing Directors, a guy who has a multi- million dollar per year contract told the bank that he was resigning because he was tired of the lifestyle and wanted to spend more time with his family. You know what the bank did? Offered him a ton of money to get him to stay another year. Now I think this MD was honest, he really did want to spend more time with his family. But motive is irrelevant. And that's analagous to what's happening with TO. I don't see how one can logically believe it's okay for TO to walk away and not collect another dime and also say that he's not honoring his word if he renegotiates? They're the same thing. Renegotiation is nothing more than saying at this amount of money I would rather quit and not play. Whether it's for money, for family, for religious beliefs is irrelevant. The Eagles then have to decide if TO's bluffing or if he's worth paying more money.
posted by Mike McD at 05:32 PM on April 17, 2005
Just took a shower and had an insight. Under your 'honor the contract' concept, TO not getting paid isn't enough of a consequence. It's a rather radical and sweeping concept actually. You're saying that if I sign a seven year contract with my employer and 2 years in I decide that I don't want to work anymore that I shouldn't be able to quit. It's not enough that I wouldn't get paid.
posted by Mike McD at 03:22 PM on April 17, 2005
1. The contracts are confidential. So obviously I can't provide an example. 2. What started this whole process was TO's agent missed the deadline for notification of the player termination option. 3. I understand your argument is going to be that if the contract doesn't have an explicit termination clause then TO is breaking the contract. And you know what, he suffers the consequences as spelled out in the contract, which is he doesn't get paid this year. What don't you understand about that? These are sophisticated parties. These contracts are lawyered to death. They understand the implications of having a weak contract and a strong contract. If you have a contract that you can walk away from without any consequences then you have a weak contract. NFL clubs deal with renegotiation all the time, they would obviously address it in their contracts. For example, last year Miami put in a clause so they could recover the signing bonus from David Boston for misbehavior. Anyway, this is really boring to me. These conversations always unfold the same way. You get opinionated people who are intentionally thickheaded. If you want to believe that TO is a scumbag because he's renegotiating his contract it's no skin off my back.
posted by Mike McD at 03:08 PM on April 17, 2005
I'll explain one last time. You can write contracts with varying degrees of protection for the parties. Let's take this out of football and into a regular business setting so it's easier to understand. Say you ave a power company and you buy a power plant turbine from General Electric. When you buy that turbine you sign a contract with GE for the purchase of the turbine as well as a contract for the service and maintenance of that turbine. Furthermore, let's assume the service and maintenance portion of the contract guarantees certain levels of performance from the turbine (i.e. # of breakdowns, availablity, etc.) Now as PowerCo you can demand a contract with different levels of protection (PowerCo pays for it, less for a weak contract and more for a strong contract). For example, the strong contact might include clauses that provide for liquidated damages (i.e. a list of $ amounts that GE has to pay if the fail the breakdown threshold) or collateral provisions (i.e. GE has to put up a $ deposit that Power Co can grab if something goes wrong). Let's also say it's a 15 year contract. However, the contract has termination provisions. This goes to the level of protection. The easier to terminate, the weaker the contract. If GE has the right to terminate contract at any time without any costs then you really don't have a very strong contract or a 15 year contract, right? Similarly, if GE can walk away from the contract without any penalties, then you don't have a very strong contract. NFL owners are basically in the same boat. They're paying for weak contracts that players can walk away from without penalities. The penalty is the player doesn't get paid their salary. People who are saying TO should "honor his word", that's loosely analagous to PowerCo paying for a weak contract and then going to GE and saying they should 'honor their word' if GE walks away. That would just never happen. The concept of "your word" is irrelevant. Anyway, I hope that helps explain things.
posted by Mike McD at 10:51 AM on April 17, 2005
bperk hit on the other critical point. Renegotiation happens because owners strongly resist contracts with player termination clauses. The owners have contracts where they are allowed to terminate and the players cannot. Which is fine, that's deal they've made. The players recourse is to holdout and renegotiate the contract. Personally, I think player termination clauses would be cool. Can you imagine ... last year, 8 games into the season Manning could have terminated his deal and then signed with the highest bidder. It'd be like the rest of the world. As Emril would say, kick it up a notch.
posted by Mike McD at 11:45 AM on April 16, 2005
wjr, I don't mean this in a disparaging way, but all you're doing in showing that you don't have any experience with contracts. Most of this is the media's fault because they play up the *greedy player* storyline misleading the average sportsfan. (jmd82 makes an excellent point. As a thought experiment ... have you ever felt a second of outrage upon hearing that a team terminated a long term contract early? Why not?) And I find it difficult to explain to you because you're coming from such a different perspective you might as well be an alien from another planet. When it comes to multi-million dollar contracts, the concept of *your word* is irrelevant. As I said before, there's a whole spectrum of clauses that owner's could insist on if they felt locking up was important. They haven't. Ergo, we know that renegotiation is part of the game.
posted by Mike McD at 11:27 AM on April 16, 2005
Out of curiosity, what was stopping Owens from signing a one-year deal with the Eagles if he felt the long-term money wasn't right? Or asking for more bonus money? It's called negotiation, TO, and you and your agent fucked it up. Now nut up, shut up and just catch the damned ball. okay, I admit it ... I can't resist correcting wjr. Renegotiation is part of the NFL contract framework. It happens ever year. Players hold out if they think they can get more money. The owners have suberb legal representation ... so we know that they understand it and renegotiation a risk they've accepted. Therefore, there's nothing wrong with exercising rights that are implicit in the contract nor is there anything to get worked up about. Notice, you never hear owners saying 'so and so shouldn't be holding out because he should be honoring his contract.' That's because they know the deal and understand that under the current NFL contracts that's the players right. BTW, I suspect TO would have been prohibitively expensive to sign to a 1 year deal. I don't know for certain, but I can't remember a superstar signing a 1 year deal in the NFL. That makes me suspect that there may be minimum contract terms or some other clause that prevents it.
posted by Mike McD at 05:57 PM on April 15, 2005
ahhh, it's all so boring. How many times can the same theme be repeated? High paid athlete holds out asking for more money. People are OUTRAGED, OUTRAGED do you hear me, that a pro athlete would have the audacity to renegotiate a contract. There's some much I could say. I could say these are both sophisticated parties with excellent representation. If the owners felt strongly about having iron clad contracts they could insert a liquidated damages clause to give them more leverage against holdouts; since they haven't renegotiation obviously an accepted part of the system. I could point out that it's standard operating procedure for business parties to rengotiate contracts all the time. But I think what I'll say is I can't believe we have another freaking post about this. Everything that could possibly be said about this has been said, a dozen times. I don't care if TO is greedy (disclosure: I think TO is a jerk. I also like TO. He entertains me. He's like a human cartoon). Can't we get a post of John Hollinger's articles? His work is fascinating.
posted by Mike McD at 05:41 PM on April 15, 2005
Will the college game suffer because it no longer has the top young players? ummm, did you watch March Madness this year? Did you see the UM-Indiana championship? Methinks the suffering has already begun.
posted by Mike McD at 04:23 PM on April 14, 2005
I hope Illinois wins by fitty. They should run up the score mercilessly. I'll always have a soft spot for those late 80's Illinois teams. The Nick Anderson, Kendall Gill, Marcus Liberty team was one of my all time favorites.
posted by Mike McD at 06:44 PM on March 22, 2005
I'm a big fan of Emmitt's skills but I always thought his persona was totally phony. When he was saying 'I love you' puh-leeze. The comedy is priceless though. I also met a Cowboys fan who had gone all the way to see the Cowboys play and met Emmitt only to get the prima donna treatment. He was one great football player though.
posted by Mike McD at 05:47 PM on February 04, 2005
chicobangs, -The sun will rise in the West -they'll find a cure for cancer -Warren Sapp will star in the Broadway revival of "Rent" -Monkeys will sprout wings and fly from my butt before this happens. wow, you sound pretty confident there cuz. Tell you what ... the action's right here. What type of odds you giving? Gotta be at least 10,000-1, right (I mean the odds W. Sapp staring in Rent are longer than that's probably a bargain). Anyway, just let me know what size you're interested in.
posted by Mike McD at 09:33 PM on February 03, 2005
And about that line, does anyone remember who was on that line? I do (and trust me, they looked awful before Emmitt arrived). Anyway, there was Mark Tuinei (an undrafted FA) at LT, there was Nate Newton (an undrafted FA) at RG, Mark Stepnoski (3rd round pick) was the center, Kevin Gogan (an 8th round pick) was the LG, and Erik Williams (3rd Round) was the RT. So to summarize, 2 undrafted FA, an 8th round pick, and two 3rd round picks. My point (other than the fact Newton, Tuinei, and Gogan were all there but somehow couldn’t manage to bust Paul Palmer for monster yards) is that no one on that line was a superstar, no Orlando Paces, Jonathann Ogdens, or Tony Bosellis. Sure Hudson Houck was a great OL coach but there were no superstars on that line until 1995 when Larry Allen became a starter (Allen was a little raw and didn’t start as a rookie) and Emmitt had already had his best seasons by then. And for Jim Brown, unless you’re 65 years old I don’t want to hear about it … because I suspect you’re in the same boat as me which means all you’ve seen is a highlight tape of JB. Tell the truth pivo and Bigwhiskey, what have you actually seen of JB? And if all you’ve seen is highlights … of course he looks good, it’s a fricking highlight tape, it’s supposed to look good. JB was playing at a time when the linemen only averaged 230lbs. That means he was just as big as the guys trying to tackle him. You just can’t compare different era’s. I’m sure JB would be good but he just wouldn’t be able to run over the Chester McGlockton’s of the world.
posted by Mike McD at 12:43 PM on February 02, 2005
I’ll just tell a story I remember about Emmit. Raiders/Cowboys game. Cowboys at the one or two yard line. They run Emmit up the gut. One of the Raiders LBs jumps over the line, his body is parallel to the ground. It was a once in a lifetime jump, he collides squarely with Emmit’s shoulder pads. What you think happened? Does Emmit go down? Nope. The hit staggers Emmit … his knees buckle and he stumbles but somehow he keeps his balance and keeps going forward, going in for the TD. Just imagine how much strength it took to absorb a hit from a 250 lb airborne LB and keep going? That dude was a champ. And I think that is essentially what the argument comes down to, who could exert their will when they needed to. Some of you seem to be forgetting the point of football. Football is a physical game. One team is trying to move the ball four yards up the field and the other team is trying to stop them. And at that … I don’t think there’s any question that Emmit was better than Barry. I think Barry could have been the greatest of alltime at a game of *tag* though. For everyone who’s questioning what Emmit would have done on another team, I think it is incumbent on you to explain to me how he rushed for 937 yards for the Arizona freaking Cardinals at age 35? Back when the Florida Gators weren’t that good Emmit was cranking out 100 yard games with staggering consistency. In fact, one of the first Smith covers on SI was ‘The 100 Yard Rusher’. It documented how remarkably consistent Emmit was at cranking out 100 yard games. He would have been great wherever he was.
posted by Mike McD at 10:22 AM on February 02, 2005
Vick Sentenced to 23 Months in Prison
Dog fighting is bad. No, it's not killing a person, or hurting a person, but it's pretty disgusting. I feel bad for the dogs. why don't you feel bad for dogs that get run over by cars?