Mikey D

Updating my sidebar videos...with "The Whitest Kids U' Know" videos!!! If you haven't seen these guys before, check them out. They are a comedy troupe from NYC that has a show on FUSE (Canadian MTV) and IFC. I think they're hillarious. Or check them out here:

http://www.whitestkids.com

They have a skit, "The New Thing" that was so popular Budweiser took it and made it into a Superbowl commercial this past year. Maybe some of you remember it, but it was where everyone was slapping each other because it was, well, "the new thing". I thought the commercial was gay, as it is just a knock-off of the funnier skit done by the Whitest Kids. Anywho, check em' out! All of them!

~Mikey D

Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, and Kevin Garnett. Quite the nucleus of players, yes? With the Garnett trade, the Celtics have gathered three bona-fide all-stars to put on their roster. Immediately they have become contenders in the Eastern Conference. Getting Allen and Garnett...was it worth it in the long run?

Essentially this is what the Celtics are giving up for Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett:
2007 1st Round Pick (Jeff Green)
2009 1st Round Pick
Future 1st Round Pick
Wally Szczerbiak
Delonte West
Gerald Green
Sebastian Telfair
Al Jefferson
Theo Ratliff
Ryan Gomes

Seems like a lot, yes? Szczerbiak and Ratliff are salary dumps that make room for the contracts of Garnett and Allen, and the respective teams that traded for them are more than happy to take them off the Celts hands (salary cap room is almost as valuable as the players themselves now). Here's what the Celtics have done by giving up these ten pieces:
1) Mortgaged their best young talent in Al Jefferson, Delonte West, and Gerald Green.
2) Have zero salary cap relief for the next five years (66% of their roster's salary goes to the big three), not allowing them to pursue any possible decent free agents.
3) Will have a slim chance of bringing in any impact rookies or decent rookies to develop in the foreseeable future by getting rid of three first round picks.

Again, is it all worth it for a run at the Eastern Conference Finals?

The Lakers of 04' tried it with Shaq, Kobe, Malone, and Payton. Didn't work. The Rockets tried it with Olajuwon, Barkley, and Drexler. Didn't work. Even the Nets and Suns today, with Kidd, Carter, and Jefferson and Nash, Stoudemire, and Marion (and Joe Johnson two years ago!) can't make it work. Two stars and a strong supporting cast works, three does not. History proves it, from Jordan and Pippen, to Kareem and Magic, to Stockton and Malone, to Shaq and Kobe/Wade, to Duncan and Parker, and on down the line.

Let's put history aside for the moment. Both Allen and Pierce are coming off sub-par and an injury riddled seasons. They aren't spring chickens anymore. Oh, and don't they play the exact same position? Has everyone forgotten that these two are practically twins? They are shoot-first guards who are used to being the focal points of their teams. I wondered before the Garnett trade whether they'd be able to coexist, and now you throw in another all-star who's used to being the center of attention? Unless they play with three balls, I struggle to see them meshing well together. Three men, nearing the end of their primes, coming off injuries (except Garnett), with expectations and pressures of an Eastern Conference championship (something they aren't used to)...I just don't see it working.

Here's the thing though: It has to! They have to make it work, because they don't have a choice for the next five years. They cannot rebuild through the draft, and they cannot pick up free agents. This is it! What if they win an Eastern Conference championship but get slaughtered by the superior West in the Finals? Was it still worth it to bring these guys on board? Unless you feel like you can win the whole damn thing, I say no.

I read Bill Simmons' article this morning, and I was rather disappointed. He was elated with Garnett trade. He argues that, "The whole point of fielding an NBA team is to win a title -- if you have the chance, you have to try." To paraphrase the next part, "you have to try even if your supporting cast isn't that strong." I completely disagree. I believe there is a model in place for winning championships in the NBA: Strong drafts, smart role-player acquisitions through free-agency, salary cap flexibility, and intelligent scouting. To me you try and excel in all four of these categories. That's trying. The Celtics in this case have failed in all four of these categories and are going against the grain of proven models for NBA success. Yes Bill, the point is to win an NBA title, but even by making the trades I don't put the Celtics above the Spurs, Suns, or Mavericks. I still honestly believe the Pistons are far better than the Celtics. I picture Chauncey abusing Rondo at point, Rip running Allen all over the floor on his bum ankles, Tayshaun being Tayshaun on D against Pierce, and Rasheed neutralizing Garnett as he's done in the past. It's a team game, and I see better teams out there that have followed the model for success.

Bill even told the story of the Barkley, Olajuwon, and Drexler Rockets. Yes those Rockets came close. The Lakers of 04' came even closer. If close is good enough for you and your team, than you will achieve everything you hoped for this coming year. Me? I want my team to raise banners. Trust me, as a Pistons fan for the last five years, coming close sucks. It sucks just as much as missing the playoffs.

Minnesota's side...

Are any of the players that Minnesota got back as good as Garnett? No. Absolutely not. But they have a great young core now. Here's what Minny is packing:
1) Young Core: Randy Foye, Corey Brewer, Al Jefferson, Chris Richard, Gerald Green
2) Draft Picks: Celtics 2009 number 1, Future number 1, and probably top-10 picks of their own for the next few years, since they'll be terrible.
3) Salary Cap Relief: Theo Ratliff's expiring contract and Garnett's contract off the books- woo-hoo!
4) Solid Veterans: Ricky Davis (not the greatest leader, but decent player), Juwan Howard, and Mark Blount.
Definitely a team that is a work in progress, but they're on their way. They are following the model for success, and I like it. I'm a Minny fan.

It's funny, the T-Wolves and Celts had a trade in 06' that got fairly positive reviews from analysts. It was the trade that sent Wally to Boston for Ricky Davis. Here's what Chad Ford said:
"Put a marksman of Wally's class in a mix with Pierce and Boston's three promising youngsters (Delonte West and power players Al Jefferson and Kendrick Perkins) and McHale's buddy Danny Ainge just might have the start of something. Emphasis on start, but a little something nonetheless."

Ainge had the start, but he couldn't wait to reach the finish line. He decided to take the short cut in hopes of winning the race. It's a marathon race though, not a sprint, and those who stay the course usually end up winning.

~Mikey D

This is video is for Grace, because she loves this kid more than she does me.



~Mikey D

Cal Ripken Jr. went into the Hall of Fame today. I watched his speech on ESPN Classic and I cried like a little baby.

Cal was my favorite baseball player growing up, and there hasn't been anyone since that I can truely say is my favorite baseball player. Sure I have my favorite Tiger of the month and such, but when people ask me, "Who's your favorite baseball player," there's only one answer: Cal Ripken Jr.

Congratulations Cal, you've earned it. Thank you for being my favorite.

~Mikey D

I'll try to brief on this topic, since it's been covered non-stop for the past week.

ESPN has continuously posed two questions throughout their coverage of Mr. Donaghy and his betting on basketball:
1) How could something like this have happened?
2) How will fans ever be able to watch the NBA product without questioning its integrity?
ESPN has gotten opinions about these two questions from its NBA analysts, legal analysts, talk show hosts, former mobsters, current and former NBA players, coaches...you name a person that could possibly be related to the scandal, they've probably interviewed them, and have, without fail, asked them the two above questions. What interests me is the variety of answers that I hear from people. To me, it's plain as day the answers to both of these questions.

My answers:
1) How could something like this have happened?
I had the pleasure of watching David Stern squirm and be as uncomfortable as I'd ever seen David Stern be this past week during his press conference addressing the Tim Donaghy scandal. I watched it in its entirety (yes, no life here), and I think what was most interesting to me was the beginning of his speech. He tried to cover the NBA's butt by saying they currently have former FBI and CIA agents, NYPD, and a plethora of other high-ranking crime fighters on their staff. It was if he was saying, "Well, it's not our fault he bet on basketball, we had the finest of the fine on our staff to prevent something like this happening."

Nice cover, Mr. Stern. Security is not the issue. Unless you have guys that constantly monitor your referees (and I mean tailing them home after work, tapping their phones, etc....completely invading their privacy), then you cannot stop betting on basketball. I'm sorry, but it is not that hard to do, and I'm not surprised Donaghy was able to circumvent Stern's ring of security.

The real issue? Stern and his NBA product. For too long now the refereeing in the NBA has been borderline shit-ugly. How often are we arguing about no-calls and phantom calls after games? The calls seem to dominate the discussion more so than the game. That's wrong. Those phantom calls that NBA superstars get as they drive down the lane? How many times have we called "bullshit!" on those?

The reason no one was able to detect Tim Donaghy's possible point shaving was because the NBA allows its referees to be crappy. Plain and simple. Let's say Donaghy bet on a game, and needs the home team to get two more points to cover the line. Star player for the home team drives the lane, gets little contact, Donaghy blows his whistle for the foul. Star player hits two free throws and the home team covers the line. Does anyone think twice about Donaghy's call though??? Nope. Just another star player getting the benefit of the doubt. The NBA's officiating has come to the point that it is impossible to distinguish whether a referee is intentionally blowing calls or just expectantly blowing another call.

How could something like this happen? Put a tape of every NBA game in your VCR from the Jordan era-2007 and your answer is clear as day. You let it. The ref didn't slip through your Fort Knox-like defense cracks, he just took advantage of the system you have in place.


2) How will fans ever be able to watch the NBA product without questioning its integrity?
This one baffles me, because the answer is so blatantly clear to anyone with common sense. Do you think anyone in their right mind will try to fix an NBA game in the coming future? If they do, they win the "Brass Balls of the Year" award. The scrutiny will be so intense and the pressure on referees will be so immense that fixing a game should be the farthest thing from their minds.

I'd like to compare this to a restaurant that got shut down for three days a couple years ago in Lansing. Apparently their was some virus that got everyone who ate there one night sick. The restaurant refunded customers money, offered free food vouchers and coupons for a later date, and spent the next three days cleaning their entire restaurant from top to bottom.

Customers were outraged (and sick), and newspaper articles had quotes of people who said they'd never go back to the restaurant because they didn't want to get sick again. Owners of the restaurant admitted business would be slow when they reopened as they tried to regain customers' trust.

Me? I was first in line when that restaurant reopened! Do you know which restaurant was probably the cleanest in Lansing that night? Yup, that one. Do you know which restaurant probably offered the best service and food in Lansing that night? Yup, that one. I guarantee you I sat in the cleanest and most sanitary restaurant that night.

That's the thing with the NBA. Next year they will be so hard on refs' calls and actions that the officiating will probably be the best its been in a long while. The integrity of the game? It will probably have more integrity next year than in the past twenty. I mean that. Scandals like this open peoples eyes and bring about change and reform.

How will fans watch without questioning the integrity? If they aren't ignorant or have an intelligent thought in their head, they will. Next years NBA product will be better than it's been in awhile, I'm almost certain. And if I were to ever bet on basketball, next year would definitely be the year I'd do it, because I would put hard money down that the games will be as clean as a well-douched Vagina. Shiny and pristine.

There, my two cents.

~Mikey D

For the longest time I have been on the fence about whether or not golf is truly a sport- until today. Today I have ultimately decided that it is not after listening to Gary Carter (former MLB and Hall of Fame catcher) speak on Mike and Mike this morning. Yes, a former ballplayer convinced me today that golf is not a sport, but merely a game of leisure. It is now no different in my mind than a game of shuffleboard, croquet, or horseshoes. All because of one insignificant but striking comment I will attempt to paraphrase:

"On Sunday there is a Hall of Fame golf game that only the members of the Hall of Fame are allowed to play in."

My first thought: Why is it that these retired players want to play golf? Why don't they have a game of tackle football, or five on five basketball, or hockey, or soccer, or (and call me crazy) baseball? It's always golf. But why?

Because golf is merely a game, not a sport. It's something that old fogies can compete in without the physical stresses of a real sport. You can be fat as all hell (see Phil Mickelson) and win major championships. You can be 75 years old and if you can move your arms, you can play golf. There's no time limit, so there's not hurrying, running, or chasing after your ball to finish a hole. There's no physicality between you and your competition, so you only have to worry about yourself and where exactly in the foliage you sliced your ball. In short, it's a game where you can drink a 12-pack of beer, take a nap after the 9th hole, and order from a snack cart that comes by every few holes.

You want to know why Hall of Famers have an annual golf game? Because they can't play the real sports anymore. They can only play games. They can throw their darts, shoot their guns, and swing their clubs.

I can already hear the naysayers now. "Just because old people can play it doesn't mean it's not a sport". You're right! I know plenty of older folks that are avid tennis players! Jesus Christ, how old was Gordie Howe when he tried making his comeback in hockey a few years ago. I understand what you're saying. What I'm trying to say is that there's a reason why golf is chosen as the game to play at events. Not because more people want to play it, but because more people CAN play it.

"But Mike, maybe they actually want to play golf. Just because people have a preference of what to play doesn't mean it's not a sport." But why do they prefer it? If they love golf so much, why did they choose to pursue careers in baseball, basketball, hockey, etc.? I don't understand. What about kids today? Survey a thousand kids, and ask them to rank their top 5 sports (we'll allow golf...this time...) and see how many say golf. If it makes the top 5, I'll be surprised. So where does this love for golf come from as people get older?

It leads me to this basic assumption: People who play sports are competitive by nature. Competition is in their blood. Whether it's on the field or at a game of checkers, sportsman want to win. But what happens when their bodies and skills erode over time and they are no longer able to compete in the sports they love? They pick up the games and activities that are not as stressful to the mind and body. They pick up the games like golf. This is why golf is not a sport. It is treated and viewed like a game, mostly of leisure, to the majority of people outside the PGA and LPGA who are trying to make a living.

So thank you Mr. Carter, for unintentionally opening my eyes.

Golf is not a sport.

~Mikey D

For those of you who do not know me that well, or have not been to a restaurant with me lately, I am very picky about food service. Maybe picky is the wrong word. Picky would be if I complained about the design on the restaurant's cups, color of the ceiling, or even the name of the restaurant (Cheesecake Factory? Seriously, for 24 years I thought they only served CHEESECAKE. How the hell was I supposed to know that: a) they served dinners, and b) their dinners would be not only delicious, but spectacular???). I think a better word would be 'critical'. Yeah, that's better.

First, let me tell you a few things that I come to expect and believe should happen when I sit down to dine at a restaurant. These are things that I do believe that I am most critical about. The list, in no particular order:

1) You fill my drinks when my cup is empty, or 1/5 full. When you refill my drink, you take away my old cup to avoid table clutter.
2) I want to see my waiter/waitress more than twice a meal. I don't feel I should have to tip you if the only thing you do is give me my menu and give me my bill. How many times have you been to a restaurant, and someone else refills your drinks, brings you your appetizer, your main dish, your extra side of barbecue sauce you desperately need to dip your fries in, etc, etc? And after allllll that, voila, magically the person you are supposed to tip shows back up to collect. It's just wrong.
3) A waiter/waitress should never swear at their patrons. Kevin and Paul get this one. Yes, I am a young guy. Most waiters are young guys as well. Young guys swear; it's just a fact of life. Waiters should not, however, swear to "get along" or "bond" with their customers. Be professional.
4) Bring the appetizer BEFORE the main course, not WITH the main course. It's a reason it's called an appetizer, or "starter" on some menus.
5) I liked to be checked on throughout the meal. You don't have to verbally ask me every two minutes if my meal is alright, but I would like to see you visually monitor my table in passing. Ask me if I need anything every ten minutes or so. It's frustrating when there's twenty minute lapses in time before you see your waiter/waitress again.

Five simple rules. Not hard, yet for me they time and time again get broken, and it puts me in an unnecessary bad mood.

This leads me to a couple new theories on food service. Without further ado...

1) Get rid of all hosts/hostesses at restaurants that do not have waits. I do understand that some restaurants have a wait during the dinner rush, and a host/hostess is needed to keep order. But if you're a restaurant (New York J&P Pizza) that doesn't have dinner rush, than a host is not needed! It bothers me when you just have a person standing in front of the door not doing anything for long periods of time. It bothers me when I watch her playing on her cell, setting her pop cup on someones booth, and chatting with her friends at a nearby table. Not that I saw someone do that...but I saw someone do that. Ridiculous. What are you paid for again? Oh, sitting people??? I'm just going to hire a monkey and pay him in bananas and I'm pretty sure I'll get the same result and production as I get from you. Harsh? No, honest.

2) COOKS SHOULD GET TIPPED! Pay cooks waiter/waitress salaries, and give waiters/waitresses the set salary. Why am I going to a restaurant? For stellar seat sitting, menu-handing, order taking, bill-giving service? No! For the goddamn food! If the cook makes an awesome meal for me, why should the waiter or waitress be the one who reaps all the benefits? Because they handed me the food??? Because they told the cook what awesome meal I'd like??? I'd much rather just tip the cook for the food I came for.

On a personal note, I went to New York J&P last night (against my dwindling bank accounts wishes) and had possibly the worst service I've ever had. The waiter took our order and forgot it, brought us the wrong food, took 15 minutes to get our drinks...the whole thing was terrible. It was his first day on the job though. He was very upfront and honest with us at the beginning, and he apologized in advance for all his potential and inevitable mistakes he'd make throughout the meal. It was refreshing to see the humility. At the end of our meal, he asked us what he could have done better. How awesome is that? He knew he wasn't great, but he wanted to get better. He wanted to be better, and he took our comments as advice instead of criticism. And the best part? He shook my hand. In all my years I have never had a waiter or waitress shake my hand after a meal. He genuinely respected our comments and our patience throughout the meal. He actually shook my hand. Needless to say, he got the best tip I've given to a waiter/waitress in months.

~Mikey D