Weekly Sporties

-So, the NBA draft was on Thursday night and it reminded me that something happens every year which continues to confuse me: draft promises. You see if a team really likes a player and the players wants to play for that specific organization, what they will do is have the player cancel any individual workouts with other teams and the organization promises to draft that player. Now, I can understand it from the player's side because it is the closest they will get to picking where they play - being drafted a few spots lower is a small price to pay for not having to play for a team like the Pistons. But, I don't know why the organizations do this. It seems like the teams at the top of the draft are the same every year, because they are poorly-run. So why would you lock in to one player when you could wait, let the teams which have a history of making odd draft choices make another one and luck into potentially getting a better player you never expected to still be available? Locking yourself in with a promise seems like a bad idea. Of course, it only works if another team doesn't just draft the guy anyway. (They do have scouts too, you know. Unless the guy plays for some obscure European team there is a pretty good chance other teams know about his skill level.) This year the Celtics reportedly made a promise to draft Royce White, only the Houston Rockets took him well before the Celtics ever had a chance. Considering the last couple of guys the Celtics had promised to draft were legendary flops Kedrick Brown and Gerald Green I think the Celtics might have lucked out having someone else break that promise for them.

-A lot of people think White is going to be very good, but I was never sold on him. White has a fear of flying (kind of a problem when you have to travel to 29 other cities during the year) and I never heard of him before the draft process started (always an issue with me), so I wanted the Celtics to draft former Ohio State forward Jared Sullinger with the 21st pick, which is exactly what happened. Had he come out last year a lot of people had Sullinger as a top-5 draft choice. Even after a sub-par sophomore season many people expected him to be long gone by the time the Celtics were on the clock. But then a few doctors had some concerns about Sullinger's back and his stock started plummeting, which I totally understand. You can't spend a top-10 pick on a guy who might have health issues. However, that gamble gets a lot easier to make when you are picking in the 20s and won't be relying on him to play major minutes. He could be a very good rotation guy and, much like the Spurs could confidently gamble taking a guy like DeJuan Blair and his knee issues (which has worked out very well for both parties), the Celtics have the luxury of not needing Sullinger to be great. I also loved the drafting of Syracuse center Fab Melo. Some people think Melo doesn't have the work ethic to make it in the NBA, but as long as the Celtics can get Kevin Garnett to come back that shouldn't be a problem. Also, Melo is a defensive presence which the Celtics were missing down the stretch. Normally I go into the Celtics' draft with high hopes and come out disappointed. This time I wasn't expecting much and came away quite pleased with the results. Given my track record of forecasting NBA careers, I'm not sure if that is a good or a bad thing...

-At this point screaming about how much baseball needs instant replay is like screaming Congress needs to get its act together - everyone except the party who could actually do something about it already knows that. This week we had another example of just how horrendous baseball has gotten when Yankee outfielder DeWayne Wise jump into the stands to try and make a catch to end the inning. He didn't come up with the ball as a fan nearby did. However, that small detail didn't stop third base umpire Mike DiMuro from calling the batter out and ending the inning. Now, I don't blame Wise for this trickery at all - his job is to try to win, not teach the kids the value of sportsmanship. To me this all falls on DiMuro, who later admitted he should have asked to see the ball but didn't. (It's nice that he could own up to it later, but in the moment DiMuro also ejected the Cleveland player who told him to watch the replay, because he clearly got it wrong. So, not only did DiMuro screw up what should have been a pretty easy call, he also was defiant about it.) Pundits keep saying that you can't put in replay because baseball needs to speed up the game because kids today just don't have the attention spans for 4 hour baseball games (yet while this argument is being made, baseball has done exactly zero things to make the games faster). While I agree, I don't think anyone is going to mind if the game takes 2 extra minutes, which is about how long this review would have taken. If you're going to waste that much of my time the least you could do is then get the calls right.

-Switching to leagues who actually get things right most of the time, this week the NFL announced they intend to push back the start of their late-afternoon games by 10 minutes starting next season. (To answer the non-NFL fans out there, nope, "60 Minutes" will never start on time ever again.) This is being done because the NFL's TV contracts demand that stations cut away from whatever game they are showing if a local team's game is about to begin. So, if you live on the West Coast there is a good chance that once or twice in the last few years you've had to miss the end of a close and exciting game so you can watch the kickoff, timeout and first three-and-out series of your local team. I know how frustrating that can be, which is why I kind of like this concession by the the league, because it seems like they are looking out for the fans. However, my only concern is the low number of times this would actually come into play. I feel like most of the time this is going to lead to extra time for the studio shows to kill and I think we would all agree that is kind of unnecessary. I think the better plan would be to tweak the contracts and allow the networks to stick with games until their conclusions, regardless of whether or not the local team is about to kickoff. Not to mention, the way fantasy sports have taken over most of us are just as interested in the teams outside our local market as the team closest to us. Besides, if you asked football fans would they rather miss the start of their own game or have to listen to Shannon Sharpe for 10 extra minutes, I think we would all vote for missing a few drives.

-There has been a lot of talk that the NHL might be heading for another lockout before the start of next season. I have to say that if that is going to be the case, the teams certainly don't appear to be all that worried about it, because some big contracts have been handed out recently. First, the Los Angeles Kings gave goalie Jonathan Quick a 10-year deal and not long after the Pittsburgh Penguins signed Sidney Crosby to a 12 year, $104 million extension. It's the Crosby deal which has me the most puzzled. There is no doubting that, when healthy, Crosby is one of the best players on the planet. Also, unlike some of these extremely-long deals that guys sign when they are in their late-30 which are more about making it fit under the salary cap than actual hockey, Crosby is only 24 and might actually still be playing the game when he is 36. The problem is the last couple of years Crosby hasn't been healthy, as he has played only about half of the Penguins' games while battling various injuries, the most concerning of which has been a series of concussions. Given all the emphasis on player safety and especially head trauma if he takes any more hits to the head it could be a long time before doctors clear him to return. So, on the surface you have to set very long odds that he will make it all the way to the end of that contract. More likely this is one of those deals designed to assure he is always associated with the Penguins and easily transitions him to a front-office role. Must be nice to have a retirement strategy in place at the age of 24.

-This week the PGA is in Washington, DC for the AT&T National Tournament. After having to relocate for a couple years while the club got ready for last year's US Open, the tournament is back at Congressional Country Club. It's a great place for golf, but there is one small problem: the mid-Atlantic is a sauna at the moment. Yesterday afternoon temperatures on the course were around 100, with a heat index closer to 110 degrees. It was hardly a shock to see many players and caddies wearing icey towels and pouring ice water down their shirts all afternoon. Now, the PGA Tour has a rule in place that when it gets that hot caddies don't have to wear their normal sponsor bibs, but most caddies kept them on yesterday because when it is that hot, what's the point? It would be like trying to keep your shorts dry while scuba-diving. Now, even though they leave the heavy lifting to their caddies, I still feel bad for the pros because they are not allowed to wear shorts, no matter what the weather is. This is another one of those golf rules which I just don't understand. Caddies can wear shorts, why not the players? I mean, it's not like we don't know they have calves under there. Recently the Tour came to its senses and changed the rule which stated if the wind moved your ball it was not a penalty. Well, it's time for another common-sense rules change: if it is that damn hot out, players should be able wear shorts. There is no limit to the amount they can wear when it is cold, so why limit them going the other way? Some people will probably want to know where the line is. Since we all enjoy round numbers, how about a nice, even 100 degrees? Some old timers might contend that it makes the players look less professional, but I would counter by saying that having your work force dropping like flies doesn't exactly make you look as though you are running a tight ship either.

-There was a weird story out of Olympic qualifying last week. While trying to qualify for the 100M, runners Allyson Felix and Jeneba Tarmoh tied for third, and I do mean tied. No amount of slow-motion replay could help race officials determine a winner. Since only three runners go to the Olympics, they needed to figure out who came in third. That was when it got weird. You see, the Olympics have a measure in place for this kind of scenario and it is exactly as well-thought-out as you would expect from a measure which could only happen every 4 years and has probably never come up before. The simple solution is to have a run-off. However, that is not the first option. If both runners agree to it, the first plan is to flip a coin to see who wins. If they don't agree to a coin-flip, then they have a run-off. However if neither athlete makes a decision it goes back to being a coin flip. That might be the silliest thing I have ever heard. What athlete in their right mind, who has spent their entire life training for this moment, is going to agree that a random coin is going to decide whether they fulfill their Olympic dream or not? Honestly, it shouldn't even be an option. Now, the Olympic committee might luck out because the ladies are both training partners, good friends and entered in other events. If they both qualify for the team at other distances they may just let the coin decide. Either way, it looks to me like the US Olympic committee has four years to figure out a better way to decide ties, because even though the odds in a coin flip are supposed to be 50/50, it doesn't seem fair to any athlete.