All-Star, Or All-Whosever-Available?

All-Star games are supposed to be showcases for the fans.  In all sports, fans have the opportunity to vote for their favorite players to see them play on a stage of superstars.  Dream team-like rosters dueling it out to see whose stars are superior.  Whether it be the NBA, Major League Baseball, the NHL, or the NFL, All-Star games are meant to showcase the best talent each sport has to offer.

So, why does it feel as though every year, in every sport, All-Star games have become more of a "who wants to play" than a "who we want to see" atmosphere?

Of the four major sports, Major League Baseball's All-Star Game is the one that has the most significance, given the recent change to the format making the All-Star Game the determining factor for home-field advantage in the World Series.  The NFL's showcase of stars, the Pro Bowl, occurs after the season and the Super Bowl have been completed.  The NBA's All-Star Weekend arrives every February, just past the mid-point in the season, as does the NHL's All-Star Game.

With tickets to the MLB All-Star Game on Tuesday night going for between $67 and $5,500, the event is pricy for the average Joe.  It is an event, no doubt about it, but one where people would more than likely be interested in watching stars like Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, Jose Reyes, Ryan Braun, and Justin Verlander and not as interested in watching guys like Jhonny Perolta, Pablo Sandoval, Miguel Montero, Ricky Romero, and Craig Kimbrel.  Unfortunately, injuries sometimes determine who it is we all get to see, and more often than not, that's the case.  In the event of some pitchers, however, their normal starts on Sunday prevent them from taking part in the showcase.

This year, it seems as though more of the superstars of the game are absent from the event.  Pitchers like Justin Verlander, C.C. Sabathia, Cole Hamels, and Felix Hernandez will all be out of the game itself, having pitched on Sunday.  That's a combined 44-19 record that won't be throwing during the game.  Yankee stars Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, and Mariano Rivera will be out of the game, nursing injuries (Rodriguez opting to have surgery on his knee on Monday).  Perennial all-stars Joe Mauer, Albert Pujols, Mark Teixeira, Ryan Howard, and Jimmy Rollins will not be present, thanks to sub-par years on their parts (although Pujols has come on late in the first half, despite a wrist injury).  So, is it really an "All-Star" game if the game's best players won't actually be playing?

Sure, it's disappointing for fans who tune in to the game to watch their team's stars or to see players they don't normally see, when those players aren't playing for a variety of reasons, but that's not the true point of the game.  The All-Star Game, regardless of sport, is to showcase the best talent in the league that season.  To reward those players who are deserving of that spotlight, regardless of popularity.  The fact that the fans get to vote in the starters is one thing, but the overall game itself is where players performing at their best get to become household names.  Let's be honest and say that, aside from his 3,000th hit coming just three days prior to the game, Derek Jeter has not done much at all this season to warrant a starting spot in the All-Star Game, and that's coming from somebody that would consider himself a Derek Jeter fan.  Asdrubal Cabrera of the Cleveland Indians has been the best shortstop in the American League throughout the first half, and is truly deserving of the start.

What becomes irritating is when players decline to partake in the All-Star Game to "avoid" injury.  You tend to see this more in the NFL and NBA than you do in Major League Baseball, but it occurs anywhere.  With the NFL, the Pro Bowl takes place after the season.  When you're on a team that has just played two, even three games in the playoffs, you tend to see players decide to just end their season after that final loss, as opposed to suiting up just one more time for the fans.  That's where it becomes unfair to the fans.  For the NBA, it's even worse.  When each conference has 15-16 players on their roster, in a league with only about 15-20 superstar names like Kobe, KG, and LeBron, it can be devastating for one of these superstars to back out of the game to avoid injury or to just "rest up" for the second-half of the season.

We as fans deserve to see the best players on this special stage.  If there are injuries, it's understandable that you not participate.  If you're electing to stay away to remain healthy and not risk hurting yourself, stop being selfish.

Rubio Is A Band-Aid On A Broken Leg

When you break your leg, you can't just put a Band-Aid on it and make it better.  You actually need to have it surgically repaired and fixed.  What the Timberwolves are attempting to do by hyping up their 2009 first-round draft pick, Ricky Rubio, is to use him as a Band-Aid for the bigger issue: that the team is terrible and the front office is choosing not to make it better.  Rubio isn't going to help you there.

Since the departure of Kevin Garnett, the Timberwolves have been a complete laughing stock in the NBA. They haven't come close to being a competitive team in the Western Conference, and the main reason why is the lack of effort the front office is putting toward making this team better.  They have continued to make a mockery of the NBA Draft, of which they have seemingly been a permanent fixture in the Draft Lottery for the last eight seasons.  Over the last six years, aside from the lone standout move made to acquire Kevin Love in a draft-day trade for O.J. Mayo, they have passed on numerous outstanding NBA players (Rajon Rondo, Stephen Curry, Monta Ellis) in favor of lesser talents (Jonny Flynn, Randy Foye, Rashad McCants).  Yea...I'm sure taking drafting Brandon Roy and then trading him for Randy Foye was a great idea at the time.  Rudy Gay and Rondo thank you from the bottom of their hearts that you didn't bring them to this cemetery of a basketball town.

The Timberwolves have been banking money, saving on the free agents they've been signing over the last couple of seasons, opting to go with third and fourth tier players.  They have shown no initiative in utilizing that saved coin to better the franchise.  To top that, they recently asked the city of Minneapolis to help with a $155 million renovation to Target Center, the fourth oldest arena in the NBA.  Really?  This is a give and take kinda thing guys...and the crap you're "giving" us on the court doesn't mean you can "take" us for idiots!  If you're going to screw us over, at least take us out to dinner first.  That's at least common courtesy.

The Wolves currently sit $11 million under the $53 million salary cap for the 2011-2012 season.  This all may change with the NBA's collective bargaining agreement coming to an end.  The 2011 free agent class is fairly weak, with the only "big" names being the likes of Michael Redd and Shane Battier.  The main problem the Wolves will encounter this year is really making their only true star player, Love, happy.  Kevin Love becomes a free agent after the 2011-2012 season, and it's expected that he will more than likely sign elsewhere, rather than wilt away in Minnesota.  The Timberwolves are doing to Love what they did to Al Jefferson.  Both are great players, but neither is a #1 caliber star that can carry his team.  Both have the type of skill sets that would be outstanding sidekicks to major stars like Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, and Derrick Rose.  When they acquired Jefferson in the trade for Kevin Garnett, they immediately began selling him to Wolves' fans as Kevin's replacement.  They began positioning him as the face of the franchise, when even at that time, he was nothing more than a glorified role player.  Unfortunately...this is exactly what they are doing now with Rikcy Rubio; trying to make him a superstar in the eyes of the fans, when in reality he is nothing more than a back-up point guard.

Rubio, albeit a flashy, likable player, is not someone you can count on to carry your team into the future. With Kevin Love, you have a star on your hands, but again, he's a star in need of a superstar to really flourish.  Rubio is not that superstar.  When you look at what appears to be happening in the NBA, with superstar players deciding to play each others' sidekicks, it would seem that you have only two choices.  One of those choices is to find one of these superstars, like a Dwight Howard or Derrick Rose, and look to deal Love to one of those teams in exchange for lesser contracts, so you can continue to save money you refuse to spend.  The second option would be to seek out one of these superstars and convince him that Kevin Love is someone who would welcome you with open arms.  Think of it this way; back in 2007, the Boston Celtics, already with Paul Pierce as their star, pulled off a great trade on draft day, bringing in Ray Allen to play alongside Pierce.  Shortly after that, they pulled off the deal with the Wolves to acquire Garnett.  Then, in June of 2008, the Boston Celtics became NBA Champions.  The previous season, the Celtics had the second worst record in the NBA.  They had a slew of players that collectively couldn't compete on a nightly basis with the rest of the league.  Not necessarily that all of them were bad players, but that unit couldn't successfully play together.  Unfortunately...what happened was a game of Pass The Buck, with the Celtics essentially passing those players to the Wolves in favor of Kevin Garnett.

Now, it's the Wolves' turn.  Rubio can be a great player, but you can't rest the success of the franchise on his shoulders, nor can you expect Kevin Love to carry this team on his.  Imagine a lineup of Dwight Howard, Kevin Love, Tayshaun Prince, Michael Beasley, Chris Paul, with Ricky Rubio coming off the bench.  I'm not saying Howard, Prince, or Paul would even want to come to Minnesota.  Heck, if it were between Los Angeles, Chicago, or Minnesota, I think it's safe to say that the Twin Cities would be the third choice.  But, after finishing with the second worst record in 2006, would anyone have thought the Celtics would've won the 2007-2008 NBA Championship with a team consisting of Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, and Kevin Garnett?  The Celtics chose to make the moves to ensure they could compete.  They knew Allen was spinning his wheels in Seattle, and that the Wolves couldn't put enough pieces around Garnett to be competitive, so they pieced together the puzzle for both, making it the perfect opportunity for both, along with Pierce.  The Wolves could have that same opportunity, if they chose to pursue it.

Instead, the only thing they seem to be pursuing is superstardom for Ricky Rubio.  I think David Kahn should legally change his name to David Con, because that's apparently all he's good at.  He's "con"ning Rubio into thinking he's a star.  He's "con"ning the fans of the Wolves by making them think this kid can save their team.  And lastly, he's "con"ning himself into believing that he can't make the necessary changes to make this team competitive.  Get with the program, before the Wolves become even more of a joke than they already are.

LeBron's Legacy Can't Stack Up With Other Greats

When it comes to gut-check time in sports, there are certain superstars in history that show they want to be "the guy" (or "the girl" in ladies sports).  There are names that come to mind: Michael Jordan, Curt Schilling, Derek Jeter, Kobe Bryant, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady to name a few.  One name that won't appear on that list is LeBron James.  His lackluster performance in the NBA Finals thus far has many asking questions about his heart and about his drive.  With the Dallas Mavericks taking a 3-2 series lead on Thursday night, it appears that LeBron is exhibiting neither.

This NBA Finals was supposed to be LeBron's coming-out party.  He made his bed by "taking his talents to South Beach," and this was the time he was supposed to sleep in that bed.  Unfortunately for Heat fans, LeBron is showing why his Cavaliers teams of the past always came up short at the end.  When you look back at championship teams led by Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant, what you saw was an unwillingness to accept defeat.  Their drive and their heart carried their teams to multiple championships, not just one.  And, aside from Kobe's first three titles with the help of Shaquille O'Neal at his side, neither Jordan or Kobe had multiple superstars to play with.  LeBron has two in Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh.  And what we're seeing from LeBron is more of a stance of "I'll take a back seat to let you two be the stars."  That's not the attitude of a champion.

Yes, champions are unselfish.  Champions know when to delegate.  But champions also know when it's time to take over and ensure victory.  With all the scrutiny placed on LeBron this season, this was his time to squash all of his "haters" and critics.  Instead, he's gained more of each, and in some cases, deservedly so.  Scoring 8 points in Game Four showed a complete lack of heart.  That performance was his first single-digit scoring performance in over four years, and it came at a time when he should've been having his best performance in four years.  When questioned after both Game Three and Game Four, LeBron insinuated that he was allowing Dwyane Wade to be "the guy."  This was a convenient reason given the results of each game.  But, had that game plan been one that was discussed before the series started, it's probably one that we all could've bought as legit.  Instead, we got the performances, followed by the "reason" for the performances.  Put two and two together here.

Thursday morning, a rumor began circulating that LeBron's Game Four performance came because of a lack of focus.  That lack of focus was apparently caused by something off the court.  Regardless of what this may have been, it shows his inability to compartmentalize outside situations and take control of things on the court, as a true leader would do.  Instead, he decided to defer to the other stars on his team...not in the way of delegation, but moreso in the way of pacification.  He chose to take himself out of the mix, and it cost his team a game.  After the game, as a result of his passive approach, he chose to put much more undue pressure on himself for Game Five, tweeting that "It's now or never."  What the Heat got was a slightly better version than the Game Four LeBron, but still a shell of what a leader should be.

And the result?  A long flight back to Miami with the likelihood of being sent home as the 2011 NBA Finals Runners-Up after Game 6, and an off-season to contemplate what you actually want your legacy to be.  The question is whether or not LeBron has the heart to change that legacy.  At this point, that doesn't appear likely.

Love Shaq

There's not going to be too much overly special about this particular post.  This is actually a post I never would've thought I would've written if you'd told me 10 years ago that I would be.  On Wednesday, one of the greatest players to play the game of basketball decided to call it quits for a career.  Shaquille O'Neal announced on Wednesday that, after a 19 year career, he has decided to retire from the NBA.

What made Shaq one of the greatest wasn't always about his talent, but what he brought to the game of basketball both on and off the court.  Shaq was one of the most "real" stars of the game.  What do I mean by that?  Frankly, he let his personality shine through, and wasn't afraid to be who he was.  He had other interests outside the game of basketball, and he would pursue those, but never at the expense of his team and teammates.  In an era where it's far too common to read about athletes putting themselves in situations they shouldn't be in, Shaq was one that never did.  He was flamboyant at times, yet still humble at times.  He was the consummate teammate.

I'm not going to go through all of the Hall of Fame caliber numbers, but trust me, they're there.  There's absolutely no question that he is one of the greatest big men to ever play the game.  In fact, when he broke into the league 19 years ago, he revolutionized the way the game was played.  He was nearly unguardable at times, and even spawned a new style of late-game defensive strategy known as the "Hack-A-Shaq."  He brought Orlando to an NBA Finals, along with the Los Angeles Lakers and Miami Heat, winning with both the Lakers and Heat.  Later in his career, he hung on because he wanted to play the game, because it was a game that had given him almost everything he had...which was fitting, because he did the same.  Sure, there were times where he was injured and didn't practice much because of bad feet or leg problems, but his heart was always there.

As a personality, there was almost no one more entertaining in the game.  He may have come across as bland at times, but what came out of his mouth was usually great for conversation, and many times, great for a laugh.  Kobe Bryant aside, his teammates loved him, and, if he were honest with himself, Kobe did as well.  Kobe has proven later in his career that he is "the man", just as Shaq used to be.  But without Shaq, Kobe's early success would've more than likely come much later in his career.  Whether he wants to admit it or not, Shaq helped Kobe learn how to win, and learn how to lead a team.  Putting a team on his shoulders was a Shaquille O'Neal calling card, and that's now been passed on to Kobe.

Over the last two or three seasons, Shaq wasn't close to the player he used to be, but that didn't stop him from trying.  I always hated when my team would run up against him, but have learned to respect the talent and overall person that is Shaquille O'Neal.  Thanks for the great career!

Phil Jackson - Legit or Lucky?

It's really difficult to call anyone who wins 11 Championships lucky, but there are some that can argue it.  With the Los Angeles Lakers being swept from the NBA Playoffs on Sunday night, it's likely that we've now seen the last of Phil Jackson, the head coach of the Lakers.  Throughout his 20 year head coaching career, Jackson won 11 NBA Championships.  Six of those championships were won with the Chicago Bulls, which included two separate "three-peats."  The other five championships came during Jackson's time as the head coach of the Lakers.  That's 11 titles in 20 seasons.  That is incredibly impressive!

The argument forms around "how" Jackson was able to win those 11 titles.  During his stint with the Bulls in the early '90's, Jackson was the beneficiary of having Michael Jordan, the man widely considered by many to be the greatest player of all time.  Along with Jordan, the Bulls had the likes of Scottie Pippen and Dennis Rodman (Rodman for the last three of Jackson's titles with the Bulls.)  Leaving the Bulls after the 1998 season, Jackson "retired" from coaching, which didn't last but one year.  He decided to give coaching another shot, this time with the Lakers in 1999.   In 2000, he won the first of three more championships, this time with both Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal as the leaders of his team.  After the Lakers decided to go forward with Kobe Bryant as the focal point of their team, sending O'Neal away, Jackson won two more titles with just Kobe.  Not necessarily your average "stars".

With the superstars he had, there are many that say it would've been difficult NOT to win the championships he did.  That's where the "legit vs. lucky" debate comes in.  Was it Phil's coaching that led those teams to become NBA Champions, or was it the fact that he was coaching the best players in the game in their primes?

Let's take a look at a couple of things.  For starters, since 1989 (the year Jackson took over the head coaching job for the Bulls), there have been only seven (7) different teams to win NBA Titles: Chicago Bulls (6), Los Angeles Lakers (5), San Antonio Spurs (4), Detroit Pistons (3), Houston Rockets (2), Miami Heat (1), and Boston Celtics (1).  Of those 22 Championships, it could be argued that each of them had at least one "superstar" to lead the team, with the possible exception of one.  That one exception could be the 2004 Detroit Pistons.  That team had a great collection of players, but none that would be considered "superstars" by the normal standard.  At that time, Chauncey Billups was just coming into his own, and Rasheed Wallace was a proven big man, but not someone you would build a team around if you were a general manager.

With that being said, every team in the NBA that wins an NBA Championship has a superstar player or two, or in some cases, even three.  It might be Tim Duncan, it might be Hakeem Olajuwon, or it might be Kevin Garnett.  Regardless, there have been superstars to win titles.  So, does that make Greg Popovich, the coach of the San Antonio Spurs, "lucky" because he won four titles with Tim Duncan (two of those coming with the help of David Robinson, one of the greatest centers to ever play the game)?  There are some that would say yes.  Those people need to re-evaluate whether or not they actually understand sports, in general.

I am definitely not a fan of Phil Jackson's.  To me, he's been a very arrogant, very smug coach. Some used to complain about the "Jordan Rules" when Michael Jordan played during those championship runs with the Bulls, but I'm one who believes in the "Jackson Rules."  Jackson played the media to his advantage, making statements during interviews and press conferences that would seemingly change the officiating of the next game.  His smug looks sitting on the bench would often silently scream "are you really making that call against MY team?  Do you know who I am?"  I've never been a fan, and that hasn't changed over the last 20 years.

Regardless of what you think of Jackson's attitude or personality, his coaching prowess can't be questioned.  To win 11 championships in 20 seasons is something you haven't seen in any other sport from a coach/manager.  To be able to harness the explosive personalities of Michael Jordan, Dennis Rodman, Kobe Bryant, and Shaquille O'Neal is something that not just any coach would be able to do.  Jackson garnered respect from his players, regardless of what any may think of him.  It's that respect that led him to those 11 championships, not the "superstars" he coached.