Weekly Sporties

-Hockey's trading deadline is quickly approaching and a lot of teams are looking to add a scoring punch as they approach the playoffs. The biggest name available was Calgary Flames captain Jerome Iginla and every contender in the league was trying to get him. So, you can imagine that like most local hockey fans I went to bed rather pleased on Wednesday night after multiple reports that Jerome Iginla was going to be a member of the Boston Bruins, only to wake up Thursday and discover he was traded to the Pittsburgh Penguins. Apparently the Flames liked what the Bruins were offering the best, only since Iginla had been with the team for so long he had the right o say where he was traded. After initially telling the Flames he would accept trades to the Bruins, Penguins or Los Angeles Kings, Iginla weighed his options and decided he most wanted to be in Pittsburgh. Honestly, I don't have any problem with his decision - he's been in Calgary for 16 years, really wants to win a Stanley Cup and Penguins star Sidney Crosby is playing out of his mind right now. Pittsburgh is already the favorites to with the Eastern Conference and this acquisition further solidifies that feeling. Where I take exception is that the Flames told the Bruins the trade was done without telling Iginla first. That seems like kind of a big oversight. Players are notoriously fickle when it comes time to move and can change their mind at any point. Why not just tell the Bruins that they like the deal but need to run it by Ignila to confirm he has was onboard? That way no one gets their hopes up and the Bruins don't needlessly sit the player they thought was going to be included in the deal, which is what happened Wednesday night. Anyway, it's back to the phones for the Bruins, who still need to improve their offense. Hopefully they can still make a deal before the deadline, though it would probably be much easier to get it done if everyone involved would get on the same page.

-Just like in college football, the days immediately following a team's NCAA run are filled with hirings and firings. Some of them are very interesting because it give you a window into certain program's mindsets, like Minnesota, who fired coach Tubby Smith who just won a game in NCAA. You would think that would have been enough for the Gophers, who don't have a great basketball tradition, but apparently not. The other big name fired this week was the guy Smith's team beat, UCLA's Ben Howland. UCLA is the standard for college basketball and aim for championship or nothing, so his firing is not as surprising. What is surprising is how many coaches don't appear to want the job. Already guys like Shaka Smart at VCU and Brad Stevens at Butler have turned down the job, which would have seemed insane just a couple of years ago. At first I agreed that it was a crazy decision, but the more I think about it the less crazy it is. Obviously UCLA has a very high standard. While that is great for the alumni, that can be very hard on a coach. Also, guys like Smart and Stevens have shown they can win just about anywhere and if the schools are willing to pay them close to what they could make at a bigger program why not stay put, keep adding to the foundation they created and not have to move your whole family? There is something to be said for being the biggest program on campus, something which is increasingly rare around colleges. Not to mention Butler is headed to the new Big East and should have an easier time getting to the NCAA tournament with that schedule. I do wonder if VCU is getting left behind due to the conference they play in, but considering these days conferences are being drawn in crayon it is entirely possible they could switch leagues by the time this blog post goes up. So, while the UCLA job is rather tempting, turning it down isn't the career suicide people once thought it was. It just goes to show that sometimes tradition simply isn't enough.

-You may have thought yesterday was just Good Friday, but it turns out it was also big contract day, as three major deals were announced within hours of one another. First it was Justin Verlander re-signing with the Tigers for 7 years and $180 million, then Buster Posey remained with the Giants for 9 years and $167 million and finally Tony Romo signed an extension with the Cowboys for 6 more years and $108 million. As we always do when similar events happen close to one another, I guess this means we have to figure out which deal was best. Obviously, from the players' side it has to be Verlander because he got the most money and the highest per-year rate. But if you look at it from the team side of things I think Romo's deal is best. Yes, that may seem like a lot of money for a guy who has only won a single playoff game in his career whereas Verlander and Posey are both league MVPs. However, you have to remember that NFL contracts are only about the guaranteed money, which in this case is $55 million. If Romo is awful two years from now he will be cut and most of his deal will come off the books. MLB contracts are fully guaranteed, which means if something happens to either Verlander or Posey the Tigers and Giants are still on the hook and paying a lot of money for guys who can't play. History is littered with deals given to starting pitchers who then got hurt and were never the same again. Also, catcher may be the most physically demanding position in sports and the law of averages say there is no way Posey doesn't miss significant time during some part of that contract. (Ask the Twins if they would like to reconsider the Joe Mauer deal or if the Mets would like to be able to get out from under Johan Santana's contract.) It's nice that these guys wanted to remain with the teams that originally signed them and show some loyalty, but too often professional sports ends up being a reminder that loyalty can bite you in the end.

-During last month's NFL combine I told you why I thought the exercise was mostly meaningless. Scouts and team executives put way too much emphasis on a few drills when they should know all they need from the four years of tape the player has submitted during his college career. However, the NFL Combine is still far more useful than what has been taking place this week - Pro Days. Pro Days are essentially the same thing as the Combine, only they take place on individual college campuses and feature just the players from that school. The thinking is that some guys may have been too nervous during the combine and feel more comfortable in familiar settings (especially quarterbacks who will be throwing to the same guys that have been catching their passes for years). This is really useful because, as we all know, pro football is all about making players feel comfortable. Also, they seem to get a more friendly stopwatch, which is why guys' 40 times all miraculously improve during Pro Days. But despite my feelings about the futility of the exercise, there was one story worth noting. University of South Carolina Marcus Lattimore, who suffered one of the most gruesome leg injuries every caught on film in a game early in the season, participated in the Gamecocks' Pro Day even though most doubted he would ever play football again. His effort was so inspiring that the normally reserved scouts in attendance gave him a standing ovation when he finished his workout. What I will be interested to know is whether that applause translates into getting drafted, because I fear not. He'll get a look in someone's camp, but that knee is going to scare a lot of people away. If he ends up having a solid career it will be an inspiring story but scouts don't need inspiring - they need as sure a thing as possible. And considering no one was trying to tackle him during his Pro Day, Lattimore remains more question than answer.

-I don't need to tell you that sports are better when they are played in the bad weather. Even though the quality of play may not be as high, at least everything looks cooler. It is even better when it involves sports which don't usually play in that kind of weather. For example, last Friday night the US and Costa Rica played a World Cup Qualifier in a blizzard. It was crazy (but beautiful) scene as several inches of powder fell during the game and the teams had to resort to using a yellow ball to make sure they could see it. The United States won the match 1-0, but afterward Costa Rica said they would ask that the result be vacated because they had repeatedly asked that the match be abandoned (they also want the refs reprimanded for letting it continue) and were confident they would have won if the game was played in normal conditions. On the one hand I can totally see their point. Conditions were tough out there and I'm sure not something they had trained for. On the other hand, it is not the US team does a lot of practicing in the snow either. Conditions were just as tough for them and yet they didn't call for the match to be called off. Plus, Costa Rica finished the game. If they really had a problem with it than you walk off, take the grief from the fans and admonishment from FIFA, but you have a better chance of replaying it at a later date. Waiting until the game is over and you've lost just leaves the door open for cynical people like me to wonder if the protest would have happened if the scored had been reversed or if Costa Rica is just upset they lost to a perceived inferior opponent and are looking for an excuse? In the end FIFA has said the game will stand, which typically happens when you play a game to the finish. Still, to avoid this from happening again maybe next time don't schedule a warm-weather sport to be played in Denver in March. Does FIFA not have access to weather.com?

-If you don't follow autoracing closely you may think that Formula 1 and NASCAR fans are all part of one big happy family of gearheads, but they aren't. In fact, there is kind of a rivalry between the two factions over which racing style is better. Formula 1 has faster cars and more turns, but much less passing and absolutely no touching of cars (because they are deathtraps). NASCAR has fewer turns and less speed, but more bumping and shoving. In the end it is all a matter of preference with Formula 1 being seen as more wine and suits while NASCAR is beer and jeans. However, if you want to know  the real reason why Formula 1 doesn't have the same level of popularity as NASCAR in this country it is because in NASCAR no one hand-picks who gets to win which races. Last Saturday was the Grand Prix of Malaysia (probably another reason Formula 1 isn't that popular here - they occasionally race 12 hours in the future when most people are asleep). The race was coming to a finish the Red Bull team was running 1-2, when second-place driver Sebastian Vettel was told to hang back and let teammate Mark Webber have the win. You see, the season is just a couple of races old and ownership felt Webber was going to need the points later in the season more than Vettel would. It was long-term strategy. Well, Vettel didn't feel like coming in second and passed Webber for the win. This lead to the awkward moment of the winner of the race having to apologize to his owner for winning. Look, I can appreciate a team understanding the season is a marathon and not a sprint and an owner who is trying to make sure both his drivers are racing for a championship. However, that doesn't really jive with how sports work and it certainly doesn't seem like you are giving the fans full credit for their ticket if guys aren't competing until the end. NASCAR may be less refined, but at least they don't have to apologize for racing the entire time.

-Actually, racing hard to the end is also an issue in NASCAR this week but for totally different reasons. As Joey Logano and Denny Hamlin were coming to the line during last weekend's race in California they start bumping one another. Eventually they ended up wrecking each other with Hamlin taking the worst of it, fracturing a bone in his back and potentially missing the next six weeks of racing. The reason this is noteworthy is that up until last season these two were teammates and everyone thought they got along pretty well. Now we know that wasn't really the case as Hamlin spun Logano out last week and Joey vowed revenge at a later date as the two sniped back and forth on Twitter. (Before learning just how badly Hamlin was hurt Logano also regrettably told a reporter, "That's what he gets.") Normally a guy getting spun out and eventually wrecking the guy who did it is par for the course, so you would expect most people to take Logano's side. Unfortunately for Logano, this is not the first person who has taken issue with his driving style as Tony Stewart came at him following the race for what Stewart thought was excessive blocking (take that with a grain of salt because Tony Stewart is the kind of guy where when he does something to you it is fine, but if you do the exact same thing in retaliation you should be shot). Now several people are gunning for Logano and NASCAR says it has no problem with any of this. Look, I appreciate that the people running the sport have told drivers to, "Have at it" to get back to the bootlegging roots that made the sport so popular, but at some point they need to step in before someone gets killed. Vigilante justice and guys policing themselves sounds fine in theory, but when guys are driving at 200 mph it is actually super dangerous. Some say ratings are down because guys are too worried about sponsors, but I don't think acting like idiots to the point sponsors don't want to be associated with your sport is the way to fix an image problem.