Danny Ferry's Trade Deadline Mea Culpa

Wow. Finally a trade deadline that really causes a flurry of activity and actually sees players move from one team to another. Unlike baseball where the talks of A-Rod going to the Cubs actually translates into a prospects for utility infielder named Cabrera deal. Anyway, the most talked about deal was the 11 player exchange that took place between the Cavaliers, Sonics, and Bulls which saw the Cavs receive Wally Szczerbiak, Joe Smith, Ben Wallace, and Delonte West, the Bulls get Larry Hughes, Drew Gooden, and Shannon Brown, and the Sonics get Donyell Marshall, Ira Newble, and Adrian Griffin. There's also a Bulls 2009 second round pick that went to the Cavs.

Now, this is a pretty good deal in terms of contract management. The Cavs are now over the salary cap and paying a pretty hefty luxury tax for it. There's also the possibility of earning the dubious distinction of being the highest paid club in the league next year. However, they unloaded a couple of expiring contracts and Larry Hughes' monster deal which seemed immovable a few weeks ago.

What this also does is give the Cavs expiring contracts for the 2010 season when Lebron becomes a free agent therefore freeing up potential resources to re-sign the superstar. I guess Dan Gilbert wanted to convey the message that ownership is dedicated to winning now and not in some foreseeable future

From a pure basketball standpoint, this trade seems to make sense. I will qualify that statement by adding the caveat that trades sometimes look great on paper but don't live up to their potential on the court. Wallace gives the Cavs a great interior defensive presence for shot blocking and defense. However, his offensive repertoire is famously limited and his defensive abilities can be neutralized by a power forward who likes to play outside, such as Rasheed Wallace or Dirk Nowitski. However, depending on Coach Brown's offensive schemes (which are notoriously bland), Wallace may see some more open dunks due to teams double teaming Z and Lebron as well as help that comes in from possible penetration by Delonte West.

Joe Smith is a solid overall player that may not match the production of Drew Gooden, but won't match Gooden's propensity to stop thinking at crucial moments. He has composure that can only be taught with with age and experience. He also gives the Cavs 4 decent to good big men in the game at any time, which is a great defensive asset in playoff basketball.

Delonte West is my favorite piece of this deal. He finally gives the Cavs a solid option at point guard who can run the fast break and has tremendous court vision and poise. All he needs to do is take care of the ball and compliment Lebron. He's also a decent outside shooter who gives the Cavs another three point option after Boobie Gibson. West has the potential to make the Cavs offense more dynamic with his penetration ability and ball handling skills; something the Cavs lack when Eric Snow is on the floor.

Overall, this deal looks like a mea culpa for Danny Ferry. He had to do something to keep Lebron happy for not obtaining top flight point guard (Jason Kidd) and for signing Larry Hughes to a terrible contract. Somehow he convinced the Bulls to take that Hughes and it worked. However, the Cavaliers shouldn't have been in that situation in the first place. What good is a slasher on offense when all Mike Brown runs are pick and roll plays for Lebron? This deal wouldn't have been necessary had Ferry put the appropriate parts together 3 years ago. So is a deal novel if it could have been rendered superfluous by correct past decisions? Probably not, but at least the Cavs made moves to keep Lebron happy. And in the end, that might be the best thing to result from this "blockbuster".

Completely Unbiased 2008 Baseball Predictions

Spring training is here and that means a couple things are about to happen. The weather is going to get warmer, the chicas are going to bust out the smooth legs, and the greatest sport ever will be starting up soon. Yeah I said it. Greatest. Sport. Ever. You know why the first fiscal quarter is projected to be so horrible? Probably because everyone is researching fantasy sleepers and putting together draft strategies. On top of that, they are probably watching free spring training games on MLBTv. That's what Philly QB and I did during law school. Look at us now. We're not deadbeats or anything. Anyway, lets see how things will go down this baseball season.

AL Central

The Cleveland Indians are the team to beat this season in all of baseball. Two Cy Young candidates and a lineup that underachieved last year due to the statistical absence of Travis Hafner will break out this year to create baseball's best run differential in 2008. They should win about 100 games and cruise into the playoffs by early September.

The rest of the division is complete garbage. The White Sox have nothing but bums in their starting rotation and had the worse offensive output last year. So forget them. The Twins have nothing without Santana and Torii Hunter. They're pretty much fighting off contraction again until they inexplicably rattle off 3 division championships in about 5-6 years. The Tigers are afflicted with Mets syndrome. The more money they spend and big name players they get, the worse they perform. Its a sad thing but the Tigers will probably end up losing 110 games this year due to the "star power" they attained in the offseason.

The AL East

The Tampa Bay Devil Rays will rise to the top of the East with 94 wins this season due to an influx of excellent young pitching and position players. Seriously, the Red Sox will break down because they are all on roids and old. I'm looking at you David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez, and Dustin Pedroia. But through sheer shittiness by the Yankees and Orioles, the Red Sox should still get the Wild Card.

The Yankees are overpaying for untested arms, an aging captain, and possibly one of the most reviled superstars in recent history. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention Posada and the rest of the deadbeats who put up mediocre numbers and get paid all star salaries. I say 79 wins for the Yanks this year. I'm just going to pretend that the Orioles moved to Japan and not talk about them.

The AL West

The Angels will win the West. I think thats all that needs to be said. They can probably get into the playoffs with about 69 wins from this shit shack of division. Even if Torii Hunter crashes into those rocks in center field and gets killed - not a problem.

The NL East

This division is fucking awesome. Last year's collapse by the other New York team really caught the attention of...well...ESPN...I guess. Anyway the Mets Syndrome will strike again. They'll overpay for another superstar and somehow manage to get worse. Santana will get the Mets to be within minutes of reaching the playoffs instead of hours. But in the end the Phillies with superman Jimmy Rollins will prevail because thats what they do. Entice their fans with an exciting late run and flop in the playoffs. Usual Philly fare. Braves suck, Marlins suck, and Nationals are total shit.

The NL Central

I really don't know much about this division except that I drafted Brandon Phillips in my fantasy leagues last year and kicked some ass. But the Reds sucked and there isn't much going on in Cinci to make that change. The Cubs are eternally awful and suffer from the Mets Syndrome. It could honestly be called the Cubs Syndrome but I hate New York sports teams more than Shit-cago's. Who else is even in this division? Oh yeah, the Brewers. They are my pick. They just have too much pedigree in Prince Fielder and Tony Gwynn Jr. to be bad. Throw in some Rickie Weeks and decent starting pitching and welcome to October! What about the Astros, Cards, and Pirates? Yeah, what about them?

The NL West

Picking a team to win this division is like trying to pick the prettiest chick from a group of beat up uglies. I mean, there isn't much here. Traditional logic would say that the Dodgers pay too much to suck, but they continually underachieve. The Rockies went on a historic tear to get into the playoffs last year and there's no way they can keep that pace for a 162 game season so lets throw them out. The Padres play in a park that is a hitters graveyard/Cy Young factory. No Bonds means no wins for San Fransisco. So I guess I'll go with the Diamondbacks. They had a negative run differential last year but still managed to put up 90 wins. How the fuck does that happen? Who knows, but it did and all that matters is that the youngsters can win.

Note: There will probably be actual division by division breakdowns coming incrementally as spring training progresses.

Day of Reckoning

Today is the day the Buffalo Sabres have grown to dread, the trade deadline. Last year at this time, the Sabres were whistling Dixie, with the leagues best record the Sabres cruised to the President's Trophy having the league's best record.

At the trade deadline last year they had Danny Briere and Chris Drury headed to free agency. The Sabes did not think twice about trading two of their best players. They thought a run to the Cup might be enough to convince both guys to take a bit of the ol' hometown discount.

Sadly, the Senators, featuring a murderer (Heatley), and Daniel Alfredson (no man can call him "Alfie" unless they openly want to get in his pants) knocked the Sabres out of the playoffs and into a topsy turvey tailspin. The rest of the story. Drury signs with the hated Rangers, Briere to the despised Flyers. The Sabres struggle without their leaders, and are now in a dog fight to even make the playoffs.

This brings us back to Campbell. If the Sabres trade him it will likely drop them out of the playoff race entirely incensing an already battered fan base who despite the frugality of management have shown up for every game (the Sabres have the second best attendance average in the NHL---I know helped by the Winter Classic). If they do not trade him then he could eschew a long-term contract and leave Buffalo this summer for nothing.

Ryan Miller is also an important player in this whole mess. Miller's contract is up after the 2008-2009 season. If the Sabres don't sign Campbell that might send him the message that the Sabres are not dedicated to winning a championship. However, if they do sign Campbell then the team might not have enough in the coffers to make Miller an offer that pays him market value.

It looks like either way the Sabres will lose.

Experience Only Counts When Judgement is Sound

Ah, the much anticipated Hilary bashing article. If I had any influence on anyone's opinion other than the 5 people that read this blog, this would be my coup de grace for the Clinton campaign. It is incredible to note the astonishing fall from inevitability that Senator Clinton has experienced. She was touted merely 4 months ago as the next president of the United States. People and pundits were already swearing her into the Oval Office. Now, after a surge by Senator Obama, continual miscalculations on the part of her campaign, and a generally dismal performance in debates on and the stump, Senator Clinton seems to have conceded the race to her rival.

All of the factors that have contributed to her downfall are reasons not to vote for her. She entered the primary season as the clear cut favorite for the Democratic nomination. She led her nearest competitor by millions of dollars in campaign financing and purportedly had the establishment in her corner. Only to lose Iowa and fight to a draw on Super Tuesday. Although Senator Obama's rhetoric and charisma resonates with the Democratic base, much of the failure has to be put on Clinton's awful management of her campaign.

First, she relied completely on the pocketbooks of high end donors to graciously offer money before the primaries and throughout. She went the traditional route of courting corporations and holding galas where donors spent thousands of dollars on dinner. This is, appropriately, the traditional method of getting funds. The only problem is, not everyone can afford thousand dollar dinners or maximum donations. Further, when she flailed in January, those donors questioned her viability as a candidate and she did not have the charm nor personality to keep them aboard her sinking ship.

Obama, on the other hand, embraced the technology of the 21st century and launched a grassroots campaign. Obviously he took money from corporate donors and probably held those dinners as well, but he recognized that if ordinary people were encouraged to donate small amounts, he could raise more money more frequently. And it worked. He has raised a considerable amount of money soliciting $25 online donations from ordinary people. This shows that the Clinton machine is indeed mired in the politics of the past and has failed to step into today's world. Do we really want a candidate who cannot effectively use modern communication mediums and who is so disconnected from the information age? Clinton represents the the archaic divide that exists between today's politicians and their political base. She is a personification of the disconnect that has existed in our politics since the advent of mass media and corporate sponsorship. She's just more of the same and doesn't have the foresight to change.


Second, her callous spending this primary season is an omen for potential tenure in the White house. The New York Time reported today that Clinton's financial backers are presently petrified of her campaign spending. According to her campaign's expenditure report, she spent exorbitant amounts of money in Nevada on hotels. Apparently members of her campaign committee stayed at the Bellagio, Planet Hollywood and the Four Seasons hotels totaling $30,000. The campaign also spent $94,000 in Iowa ordering sandwiches for pre-caucus parties and shovels for voters in case it snowed. A magnanimous gesture, but rife with folly in the end (it did not snow).

And apparently, Clinton insiders expected this to happen! She spent ridiculous amounts of money to secure her Senatorial bid in New York as well. And that was against candidates that, fairly enough, had no shot at defeating her. She has spent only 42% of her contributions on political outreach, whereas Obama has spent half. Although this may seem like a small difference, we are talking about millions of dollars in advertising that the Clinton campaign squandered on expensive hotel rooms and sandwiches. Do we really want someone in the White House that cannot even financially manage her campaign? This shows a lack of fiscal judgment on her part as well as a tendency to use resources in an inefficient manner.

Finally, her arrogance this primary season is completely unflattering. Her campaign did almost no grassroots campaigning and has been continually out hustled on the ground by Obama's supporters. They rarely installed any type of political infrastructure to garner support at the individual level. This oversight shows that even she was victim to the myth of her inevitability. Do we need more arrogance and elitism in the White House? Does America need a leader who is too good for the world?

There are some other points I'd like to make about Senator Clinton that are disconcerting. Her supporters always cheer when her travails in her husband's White House are brought up. They are proud of the fact that she stood up to the people and supporter her husband, the President of the United States, even though he cheated on her multiple times. Is it real strength and courage to do what you are expected to do? Would anyone in their right mind stay with someone like Bill Clinton if he weren't president? Probably not. Hillary did what she did because she knew that any other course of action would have been suicide for her political career. If she showed independence and left Bill, then her chances of being president may have been affected negatively. Instead she really took the easy way out, stuck with Bill and used his name to propel herself into this position.

That brings me to my next point: How is Hillary Clinton the champion of women in America? Are women in this country so oppressed and denied opportunity that they blindly vote for any of their gender running for president so they can say they are equal to men? It is an interesting quandary. This is a woman who is trying to ride the coattails of her husband's success into Washington. I do not dispute the fact that she is incredibly intelligent or able, but I dispute the fact that she is doing this on her own. Don't women want a candidate who can become President on her own merits without the meddling or efficacious support of her husband?

And if Hillary wins, her legacy will always be tainted by her husband. Questions will continually rise about how much influence Bill has and if Hillary is indeed making important decisions on her own. And remember, in today's world the facts don't matter, only the perception. Hillary really represents the archaic notion that women can't get anywhere without their husbands. Is that what the women of America want? How about a woman (or minority) with no political connections who pulls herself into the White House? That's the real champion that women should wait to support.

Editor's Note: I found an excellent editorial in the February 24th edition of the New York Times titled "The Audacity of Hopelessness" by Frank Rich that echoes the very sentiments expressed in this post. Obviously Rich's writing is more cohesive and eloquent than this crude banter.

The Case for Hope

For generations, American youth have been mired in a fog of apathy and cynicism that wasn't projected to rise any time soon. We've been labeled with letters which define who we're supposed to be and how we're supposed to act. Those who defined us were the first ones to turn our backs on us. The didn't fail to speak to us, they decided that we weren't worth the time. They decided that the next generation of Americans meant less than their bitter partisan wars and power squabbles in Washington.

It took a popularly unpopular presidency for the politicians in Washington, mainly the Democrats, to recognize that we care. And even then, they failed to take advantage of an abhorred administration to rally us. Even then, they failed because, simply put, we weren't convinced. They secretly looked down their collective noses at us and we saw through it.

However, now there is someone who understands our importance in preserving the American ideal. Senator Obama recognizes that the government needs the involvement and support of a younger generation. He says the time for avante garde politicians and hardline party officials is at an end. We've responded and there's been an infusion of younger talent in Washington. We need that trend to go all the way to the top.

The critics of Senator Obama continually emphasize that he's big on rhetoric and short on substance. They say his big speeches are just that - words. They say he offers nothing but false hope without clear cut solutions. Perhaps America needs a light of hope to show us the way into the 21st century. Solutions and proposed policies at this stage are bound to be watered down and completely unrecognizable by the time they pass through Congress. So whatever Senator Clinton, or Obama for that matter, say in terms of policy, should be taken with a grain of salt. But Obama offers us something that Clinton doesn't - hope and unity. And those two propositions cannot be attacked directly nor diluted by partisan rivals. Those two propositions cannot be watered down by journeys through Congressional gauntlets.

Senator Obama sees greatness in this country that few politicians since Jack and Bobby Kennedy have dared to openly express. He recognizes that a Democracy can become truly effective only when the people take responsibility and are willing to sacrifice their effort and time. His plan to base financial aid for higher education upon involvement in civic programs such as the Peace Corps and Americorps seeks to give young people a chance at education and simultaneously integrate a sense of civic duty into an ethos of a generation.

He had the foresight to vote against the war in Iraq. Although I don't necessarily agree with his proposed withdrawal scheme, I acknowledge that his initial opposition to the war demonstrates great insight into politics and foreign relations. In 2002 the idea of war with Iraq, with all the evidence of weapons of mass destruction, was relatively popular in America. Even Democrats such as Senator Clinton voted for the incursion. However, Senator Obama was astute enough to stand tall and oppose. In the general election, he's the only candidate left who can face the American people and say that. And with the war being a cornerstone issue of this election, the Democrats would have an advantage in nominating Obama. Something they'd give up if Clinton were to win.

Barack Obama is an individual and civic leader that appears only once a generation. He is the type of person that can can change the course of a nation. He can get people involved in their country and make a difference. He can revitalize JFK's "ask not what your country can do for you" mantra. In fact, several international publications have named him the only current United States politician that has the potential to change the world. And in a time where America's world image has been tarnished, a figure like Obama can give our allies, and enemies, reason to believe in us again. More importantly, he can give us a chance to believe in ourselves again.

I'll Leave the Hockey Articles to B-Rad

Honestly, for a pseudo hockey fan, like myself, this time of year is terrible in terms of sports action. The NBA is in its second half, which means absolutely nothing because the playoff teams were pretty much set about two months ago. The hockey season is probably in full swing, but who really knows? I only follow the Sabres in the standings box and during the playoffs. They're the only team I can watch because it reminds me of the days when beer was cheap, the ladies were sexy, and living was an afterthought. Soccer is awesome in my book, but its a chore to watch in the US. College basketball is only fun when there's pride/money invested in a bracket which ultimately busts.

So what the hell is left? Well, its an ELECTION YEAR. So lets do a biased breakdown of the candidates with some sort of statistical analysis following. As a disclaimer, these statistics were brought to you by CNN and their exit polls from the most recent primaries. If you didn't follow the 2000 election, these things have about a 55% chance of being bullshit. Basically, I'm saying any crappy prediction I make is more insured during this presidential campaign than during a legitimate sports season. Also, I'm a Democrat who sways towards classical liberalism in terms of economic thought. That means I like free trade and outsourcing. As a bonus, I agree with the Republican candidates on their view of the war in Iraq. Now that you know where I'm coming from, here's my analysis.

John McCain

Ah, the war hero. Everyone loves him, but his party hates him. He's a rare type of candidate that the public and his opponents cannot publicly hate because he's a goddamn war hero. This guy refused to leave a prisoner of war camp until his fellow POWs were released. That seriously takes some balls. And all he was left with was the inability to raise his arms above his shoulders. Sorry, but trying to garner public hatred toward McCain is like trying to convince an Indian girl to give you a blowjob. Damn near impossible and probably not even worth the effort in the end.

McCain poses a lot of problems for either Democratic candidate this summer. He's a self avowed moderate and social Republican. I have no idea what social Republican means but I'm guessing he believes in Darwin's theory of evolution and doesn't hate minorities. In fact, McCain's immigration policies are probably more liberal than Hillary Clinton's. This may be the result of pandering to his Arizona constituency, but I honestly believe McCain doesn't want to close the borders like the rest of the GOP. His stance on free trade supports his immigration reform policies. McCain is the only candidate left that is willing to let globalization take its course and let the economy work its way out of the slump. While this may put him on bad terms with most voters, it is probably the best solution to our current economic crisis. However, its too early to make that call and the nation might be in need of some Keynesian adjustments.

The one major hurdle that McCain faces is his lack of support from the GOP base. The true conservatives of the party view him as being too far left of center to be an effective representative of Republican ideals. There is much talk among pundits that preaches that many conservatives will vote for Obama instead of McCain in a general election. They feel that Obama reaches across the abyss of partisanship to effectively work with Republicans in constructing solutions. Whether or not true right wingers will cross the line and vote for a liberal like Senator Obama is questionable at best, but it provides for an interesting storyline. McCain needs to find a vice presidential candidate that the Republican base can support. Mitt Romney may be the best choice, but unlikely because of their verbal feud in the primaries.

Hillary Clinton

Senator Clinton has gone from being the inevitable Democratic nominee to the also ran who is struggling to keep her head above water. She's definitely the most polarizing candidate of the remaining three serious contenders who might actually have the hardest time convincing independents and moderate conservatives to cast a ballot for her in the general election. She admirably appeals to the sensibilities of her supporters and the voter base. Her speeches are more substance than flair and her policies resonate with the Democratic base. In other words, she talks about what she wants to do and it makes sense.

Her biggest weakness is that she's running against a candidate that channels charisma on the levels of Dr. King and Bobby Kennedy. In comparison, she looks bland and vanilla. In any other year, Senator Clinton would probably have the nomination locked up by now. But against a candidate like Senator Obama, who certainly has as much content as Clinton and ten times as much speaking skill, her support has dwindled. Additionally, it's been reported that the Clinton campaign was so confident that they failed to set up any sort of political infrastructure for the primaries. In essence, they have been out-hustled by the Obama campaign in every facet. And now they are struggling to keep up.

If Senator Clinton wins the nomination from the Democratic side, her chances of beating Senator McCain look decent. I think that particular match up is a coin toss. Independents are weary of Clinton because she represents the old guard of politics. She is effectively the establishment in this election and McCain is sort of the firebrand in this contest. He refuses to conform to the Republican school of thought whereas Clinton is a cookie cutter Democrat in terms of her stance on the issues. And as the primaries show, Obama and McCain have been winning the independent vote in their respective primaries. Furthermore, Clinton's initial support on the war in Iraq makes her seem like a hypocrite. She voted for the war but now wants to pull out. McCain and the Republicans will nail this issue into the coffin during the general election and make the public question her effectiveness in generating foreign policy. If the Democrats nominate Clinton, they virtually forfeit any advantage they had on arguably the biggest issue in this election.

Barack Obama

I'm a huge supporter of Senator Obama and will do a follow up article this weekend on why the American electorate should seriously consider him for the presidency. I feel like I've given the other candidates a fair shake in this extra long post, but personal bias rules this day and Obama will be given his own feature. Also, for you Hillary supporters, I'll give you a bonus posting on why she isn't the candidate that should garner the Democratic nomination.

Four reasons why the Patriots Lost the Super Bowl

1. Bill Belichick wore a ridiculous hoody.

What was Bill Belichick thinking??? He wears the same hoody every game. It even has a cool "BB" stitched on it. Sure, it is ugly, but it is Bill Belichick, I challenge anyone to conjure a mental picture of Bitter Bill without thinking of that grey hoody. So the day of the big game he changes it up and wears an atrocious red hoody? Unbelievable. Belichick made some questionable coaching moves, as most losing Super Bowl coaches do, but wearing the red hoody? Inexcusable.

2. Jeremy Shockey did not play.

I'm on board with those who think the Giants are better off without Shockey. It is not that Boss is a better tight end, but Shockey's over the top body language and demands for the ball seem too much for Eli to handle. Don't believe me? How about this stat: in the Bears and Vikings games where the Giants were beat (embarassingly by the Vikings) Shockey was the intended receiver on five of the six interceptions Eli threw in those games. Four of them went for pick six touchdowns. Bottom line: Eli has been a great, not good, quarterback in Shockey's absence.

3. Peyton Manning gives good sloppy brain.

This is by far the most disturbing commercial I have ever seen. The oral sex allusions are overwhelming. One can only surmise that Peyton serviced Eli pregame. There is no other way to describe how the erratic, NFL interception leader became a cool customer.

4. Helmet catch, defensive line pressure, and overall toughness.

The insane Tyree catch and Manning's elusiveness to set it up, pounding Brady 18 times (Justin Tuck should have been the MVP), and beating the Patriots up all game also probably had a role in the outcome but a distant fourth to the above three reasons.

What the Fuck is Juice?!

Apparently, Eli Manning is fucking juice. After somehow engineering a winning drive where he threw about 2 tailor made-for-interception ducks and avoided a 20 yard sack on third down, he's definitely juice at this point. Thanks for making me look like a complete asshole Eli. Eh, nothing new.

Credit goes to the Giants defense which put Brady on his ass for about half the game. The only time they didn't was when the Pats decided, intelligently, to go into a no huddle. The Giants' defensive linemen were on the sidelines catching air and Tommy took one into the promised land. Too bad, they didn't do this until the 4th quarter. It was obvious that the Giants were going all out on every possession. I expected more cutthroat play calling from Belichick.

Anyway, thanks go out to the New York Giants for ensuring that Hell will have air conditioning by the time I arrive. Really appreciate that, guys.

What's better than the Super Bowl??

Last night I wasted time watching the UCLA/Arizona game. Usually, these games are pretty exciting on their own. However, this night, something special was in the air. If you saw the game, you noticed that the camera spent alot of time on Erin Andrews. Who can blame them? Take a look at her! They just don't make 'em like that anymore.

Hope everyone enjoys the Super Bowl. As much as I hate the Patriots..I can't stand to see the Giants win this one.

Hi I'm Gregg Easterfuck and I Know Nothing About Football

I just finished reading this week's Tuesday Morning Quarterback over at ESPN.com. Yes, I realize that it is Friday. But Easterbrook is completely incapable of 1.) making a point in less than 800 words and 2.) making any fucking sense whatsoever. What I really don't understand is why ESPN rehired this piece of shit after his anti semitic remarks. Granted, his political articles in the Atlantic Monthly prove that he has some intelligence and writing proficiency, Easterbrook doesn't know shit about shit when it comes to the No Fun League.

The very first point that Easterbrook makes is that the 2007 Patriots will only be considered the greatest only if the evidence shows that they didn't use the tapes to cheat. Sure Camera Gate happened and the Pats were caught stealing signals from the Jets. But that was the first fucking game of the season. And honestly, looking back, would New England really have lost that game? Definitely not.

Then Easterbrook poses the question whether or not the Pats still cheated during the season or if they will have cheated in the Super Bowl. Yeah, Easterbrook, I'm sure die Fuhrer Goodell isn't watching the Pats with an eagle eye after what happened in week one. This is the guy that would penalize his own son for trying to bang the head cheerleader of the high school team under the stands during practice. And I'm pretty sure Belichick isn't stupid enough to try twice. Especially when his teams won by a margin of about 3 touchdowns every game.

If that weren't enough stupidity for one article, Easterbrook goes on a morality rant for a paragraph. He tries to hammer home the issue of how supporting the Patriots teaches our children to cheat. Everyone who has played a contact sport in their lives knows that every play involves each player trying to push the limits of the rules and possibly breaking them without getting caught by the ref. We already tell our kids to cheat. Whether its getting some extra moisture on that baseball, nicking the leather with your nails, or tossing an elbow into a defender during a pick, sports are about straining the limits of fair play. Sure we have ideals that we stick to, but it's a part of every game. Furthermore, the Patriots embody the spirit of team more than any other organization in any sport. Sure, they have their individual stars, but during the season every player accepts their roles and plays to win for the team. Not for individual glory. And that should be respected. Obviously, Easterbrook, in his anti semitic rage, forgets to point this out.

And if that wasn't enough retarded banter for one Easterbrook article, he goes on to say that Belichick has a soft spot for the Giants and won't blow them out like he does other teams. Are you fucking kidding me Easterbrook? If Belichick has the opportunity to put 70 points on the board, trust me he's going to. He's a automaton. He stands there in his hooded sweatshirt and keeps calling 5 receiver sets out of the shotgun, and Brady keeps throwing it into the endzone. That's how he played the entire season, and that's how he's gonna play in the game that will galvanize his status as one of the best coaches ever along with Bill Walsh and Vince Lombardi. There's absolutely no way he's going to let a little sentimentality get in his way of immortality. That may be one of the most idiotic things any writer has written about a sports figure in the past decade. Honestly.

If you can honestly get through that iteration of Easterbrook's article and not be pissed at some point, then you are either 1.) a human being completely devoid of rational though or 2.) a Giants fan or 3.) both (because 2 is basically a subset of 1).

Simple Math

Kosar + Cleveland = Gorgeous women. It's really that simple. B-rad and Average at Best will agree