Weekly Sporties

-On Tuesday Jacoby Ellsbury broke a lot of hearts in Boston when he signed a 7-year deal with the New York Yankees. Now, anyone who has followed the Sox for the last couple of years knew that Ellsbury's days in Boston were numbered (for whatever reason the team only made a minimal efforts to re-sign him) so the fact that he left wasn't very surprising. It was where he decided to sign which was disappointing to fans in this area. Honestly, we don't care if you leave, just don't go to the Yankees. Still, the man was a part of two World Series-winning teams, which is more than most former Red Sox can say. Also, the Sox clearly weren't about to give him that kind of money and who am I to tell anyone they shouldn't make as much money as they can? Therefore, I wish Jacoby luck, just not the 20 games he plays against the Red Sox. To me the far more interesting aspect of this deal was how everyone immediately dismissed it as a really bad idea. Sure, the first couple of years don't look as bad but there are a lot of concerns about what kind of player Ellsbury will be in five or six years. After all, he's 30 years old which isn't the tail-end of a baseball career but you can certainly see it from there. Additionally, Jacoby has always had a history of getting injured and then being slow to recover but has made up for that when he is healthy by being able to rely on his speed. What happens when he is 35 or 36, still injury prone and loses a step? And that is the thing I have noticed happening in baseball the last couple of years - teams continue to hand out these ridiculously long contracts knowing full well that they will be not be good for the team by the time they expire. Just think back to two years ago when the Angels signed Albert Pujols to his 10-year deal and everyone said the last 4 years of it would be a waste (the first two haven't exactly been great either). Why are teams continuing to hand out these contracts? I understand that baseball has no salary cap, which means these hideous deals won't restrict them from spending money in the future and that sometimes you simply have to over-pay to get people to move. Still, you couldn't just increase the money and decrease the years? These are the Yankees we are talking about - money is clearly no object to them - but have they learned nothing from Alex Rodriguez's terrible deal which has several years left on it? It just makes me wonder how some of these GMs continue to stay employed even though they continue to make the same mistakes. The old baseball saying is that failing 7 out of every 10 times will get you into the Hall of Fame, but that should only apply to players. Failing that often as a GM should get you fired.

-Of course, giving all that money to Jacoby Ellsbury also signaled the end of the Robinson Cano era in pinstripes, a fact which became official on Friday when Cano agreed to a 10-year deal with the Seattle Mariners. I have to say, even though there had been rumors out there that the Mariners were in hot pursuit of Cano I never expected him to sign with Seattle. Don't get me wrong, I love the Seattle area but the simple fact is that it is not New York. Cano appeared to be well on his way to becoming an icon in the city and a man who loved being a Yankee and now he is going to a much smaller media market to play for a team which doesn't get 1/15th the attention of the Yankees even when they are competitive (which they haven't been for a while). Now, everyone knew Robinson was going to get well-compensated this offseason but what adds another layer to this story is the fact that Cano is the biggest baseball client in rapper Jay-Z's new sports management stable and Jay-Z had been quite vocal that he was going to turn Cano into his own cottage industry. To a lot of people (myself included) that automatically meant he would be staying in New York and I just can't help but wonder if the plans to make Cano the biggest star in the game were a little too grandiose. To be fair there is no way of knowing just how involved in the actual negotiations Jay-Z really was, but he was only too happy to tell anyone who would listen that he would get Cano a $300 million, 10 year deal. He may have gotten the years but I am not sure how happy Cano is going to be playing in Seattle and it appears his agent put his reputation before his client's best interest. Now, sure, in today's digital world you can be a global personality no matter where you currently reside and there is something to be said for the fact that Cano would never be the most famous Yankee as long as Derek Jeter was still around. Still, even though the Yankee offer was reportedly $60 million less than what he signed for (and who is to say that was their final offer) Cano would certainly have had more opportunities to make that money up with off-field endorsements in New York versus Seattle. All of this makes me wonder just how well a guy like Jay-Z is suited for the business of being an agent. I am sure he has surrounded himself with the right people but he is still the face of his sports organization in both the good and the bad times. All agents make mistakes but most of them are able to experience this learning curve without all the media attention. I questioned Cano's wisdom when he first signed with Jay-Z and this contract with the Mariners doesn't quite ease those concerns. Sure, Jay-Z got him the most money but even Jay would have to admit there aren't many people rapping about the Pacific Northwest.

-While we're on the subject of people who may be in over their heads, when Jason Kidd was hired as the new coach of the Brooklyn Nets I had some doubts, especially when you considered the fact that Kidd had retired just weeks before and didn't have any coaching experience at any level, not even as an assistant. The situation got even more complicated when the Nets made a series of trades and signings meant to signal their intentions to challenge the Miami Heat for the Eastern Conference. After all, there are few things which mix as poorly as expectations and inexperience - handing a kid with a learner's permit the keys to a Ferrari is not going to end well. The one thing many people though would save Kidd was the fact he hired Lawrence Frank to be his top assistant. Even though Frank still only looks 14 he has plenty of head coaching experience, leading Kidd and the Nets to consecutive NBA Finals in the early '00s. The Nets made him the highest-paid assistant in the league and most NBA pundits thought he would be able to guide Kidd through the growing pains. That clearly didn't turn out as expected, as this week Kidd essentially fired Frank - reassigning him to a scouting position which precludes him from being on the bench during games. From the outside this doesn't appear to be that big of a deal. The Nets are off to an extremely disappointing start and they can't very well fire the players, so this is similar to an NFL team trying to shake things up by firing their defensive coordinator. But digging a little deeper it could be a sign of a much bigger issue. Reportedly Kidd and Frank clashed over coaching style and personnel decisions. Normally this would be a cut-and-dry issue with the head coach getting his way but it becomes much more complicated when the assistant probably knows the coach's job better than he does. Additionally there is the complex relationship dynamic. As I said, Frank used to be Kidd's head coach so you have to wonder if he still thought he could tell Kidd what to do. Kidd has a long history of being difficult to coach and I doubt he suddenly changed that habit when he hung up his sneakers. Also, Frank coached several of these Nets before so it is entirely possible they were going to him with questions instead of Kidd. The main thing you need on a team is a clearly defined chain of command and this situation didn't appear to be all that well thought-out. Let's also not forget that Frank is still in the building, putting together scouting reports for Kidd to ignore. All of this adds up to a terrible (and expensive) basketball team. And, considering the Celtics own the Nets' first-round pick this year, I couldn't be happier about it.

-Over the the last couple of months the idea that there is a right and wrong time to fire a coach has been a reoccurring theme in the Sporties. First I thought the Philadelphia Flyers were too quick to fire coach Peter Laviolette three games into the season and then I wondered why USC felt the need to fire Lane Kiffin in the middle of the night. Well, today I am flabbergasted by the news the Houston Texans fired head coach Gary Kubiak on Friday, one day after losing to the equally woeful Jacksonville Jaguars. Now, don't get me wrong, unlike Laviolette I'm not saying the firing of Kubiak wasn't justified - the Texans were supposed to be a Super Bowl contender and they are 2-12 on the season - but the timing confuses me. There are two weeks left in their season, which means the team is too far gone to turn things around (in reality they probably hit that point two months ago) so it is not like this firing will spark a playoff push. I guess you could make the case that there was no point in delaying the inevitable but considering Kubiak had a "mini" stroke while coaching the team a few weeks ago and still rushed back to try and save the season you could make the case he had earned the right to go down with the ship. But mostly I wouldn't have made this move for one simple reason - the Texans need to keep losing. As I mentioned they are currently 2-14 and in prime position to have the first pick in next April's draft. The Texans aren't a particularly bad team - before this they had made the playoffs two years in a row - and adding a dominant player could put them right back into the hunt next season. The NFL is designed for teams to rebuild in a hurry and the Texans don't have very far to go. The only way they could screw this up is if the team rallies to win the last two games of the season. That wasn't going to happen under Kubiak, who everyone knew was gone (even Kubiak) and therefore he had lost the locker room. There is a chance the players could become inspired by their new interim coach (given that it is Wade Phillips that chance is admittedly pretty small, but there is still a chance) or suddenly remember they are not only playing for the Houston Texans, but auditioning for the rest of the NFL. NFL teams are more than happy to take guys from losing teams but they won't take guys from losing teams who are also on film giving half-hearted efforts. I know trying to lose goes against everything the NFL claims it stands for but some times it is the smarter course of action. Besides, it is not like this season is going to be salvaged for the Texans, so they may as well get something out of it, like a new franchise quarterback.

-As the NFL slowly marches towards the end of the regular season it is time to start thinking about next season, specifically the rules which could be changed before then. You see the NFL competition committee, the body in charge of this sort of thing, meets as soon as the Super Bowl ends and that means they have to start putting together the ideas they will discuss now so people have plenty of time to think about all the ramifications of a rule change before they actually vote on whether or not to ratify them. Most of the time these meetings pass without any huge revelations but on occasion they do something drastic, like two years ago when they mandated that all scoring plays and turnovers must be automatically reviewed. Well the other day an idea was floated which would drastically alter the way the game of football is played and coached as someone suggested the league may vote to narrow the goal posts. I know that sounds like a bad idea because it would lead to more missed field goals but the proposal doesn't have as much to do with a bias against kickers as it does against scared coaches. At this level pretty much any kick inside of 50 yards goes in. The thinking is that by narrowing the goal posts and decreasing the percentages of made field goals it would encourage more coaches to go for it and get their team even closer before settling for three points. There are just two problems with this theory: the first is that these committee members seem to forget we are dealing with NFL coaches, some of the most gutless people in history. Football coaches have a reputation of being gamblers but the reality is that most of them take the easy way out the majority of the time because they won't be blamed if they do the "smart" thing and it backfires on them, whereas risking it and failing is seen as being bad at their jobs. That means faced with a 4th and 3 from their own 35 most of them will not try and kick a 52 yard field goal or go for the first down, they will punt it away and try to down the ball inside the 10. In other words, this rule change which is supposed to encourage scoring will probably end up wiping more points of the board. The second problem is that while I may crap on kickers all the time I understand how tough they have it and don't feel like these coaches, many of whom have never kicked a field goal in their lives, so be allowed to vote on a proposal such as this. That is why I would like to propose my own rule for the competition committee to consider: all votes on kicking can only be taken after a member of the committee has made a 30 yarder. I bet that would teach them to appreciate how hard that is to do. Hell, it would probably get them to widen the goal posts, not narrow them.

-College football has entered that strange period of inactivity during of the year between the end of the regular season and the start of bowl games, which doubles as the time for coaches to get hired and fired. One of the biggest coaching vacancies was filled this week when the University of Southern California hired Washington coach Steve Sarkisian as its new head coach. I have to say I was kind of surprised at this one. I understand that Sarkisian has a history with USC - he was their offensive coordinator under Pete Carroll when they won the National Championship - and USC has probably always been his dream job. I'm never going to fault a guy for going back to a place he is familiar with but at the same time it is not like Washington is some kind of slouch program. They have won a National Championship there before and could do so again, only the job comes with much lower expectations (as evidenced by the fact that Sarkisian's Pac-12 record is worse than Lane Kiffin's and no one at UW was calling for him to get fired). But as surprised as I am that Sarkisian would want to leave UW, I am even more surprised that USC would want him. As I mentioned, Sarkisian was a member of Pete Carroll's coaching staff. And sure, that staff won multiple National Championships but they also managed to guide the program into some shady practices which ultimately landed them with NCAA sanctions. Athletic Director Pat Haden has maintained he wants to run a clean program but this hiring seems to counter that pledge. Additionally, the school already tried to go the route of hiring a Pete Carroll assistant and hoping they would be able to duplicate his success and it landed them with Lane Kiffin. (By the way, I would not have hired interim coach Ed Orgeron as the full-time coach either. It is one thing to right the ship after a coach the players clearly stopped listening to was fired, but in my mind that actually worked against him. Everyone loves the substitute teacher, probably because they know they can walk all over them. Orgeron couldn't build a program at Ole Miss, so there is no guarantee he would have been able to hand the USC job. Still, I appreciate that Oregeron quit in response, refusing to coach USC's bowl game even though the school offered to make him the highest-paid assistant in college. No point in staying where you aren't wanted.) Anyway, all of it just makes me wonder how thorough a coaching search was actually done and I can't help but think about the saying, "those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it." I'm not saying Sarkisian is Pete Carroll but if you hire him because you want to try and replicate Carroll's regime as much as possible, don't be surprised when the bad aspects from Carroll's time at the program happen again.

-Of course, the way this game of "Coaching Musical Chairs" works meant that Washington was left with an unexpected vacancy to fill and on Friday they shockingly filled it with Boise State coach Chris Petersen. At this point in my life there aren't many bit of sports news which honestly make me stop and stare but this news brought me to a halt. Now, if you just look at the two jobs from a pure football point of view the move would be a no-brainer for anyone else. As I stated before, Washington has already won a National Championship and could do again thanks to their affiliation with the Pac-12. Meanwhile, Boise State has had to scratch and claw to get any kind of national recognition, knowing that if they went undefeated they would still have to justify getting invited to play in a major bowl and if they lost just one game it would mean playing in the "Everyone Gets a Trophy Bowl". The need to join an automatic-qualifier almost forced the Broncos to join the Big East before ultimately opting to stay in the Mountain West Conference when the Big East collapsed. That kind conference jumping around will never happen to a program like UW. But the reason this move was so shocking is that Petersen has long been coveted by some of football's most elite programs and had turned them down every time, content to stay with the team he had help build from the ground up. (If you want a particularly ironic example, just last week he was reportedly in the running for the USC job but elected to stay in Boise.) Now, I have no allegiances to Boise State but always felt there was something very admirable about a coach who wasn't working with one eye on his next job. That is why I am confused as to why he decided to leave now and what program he decided to leave for. As I previously stated the Huskies are a good program, but they aren't exactly USC (as evidenced by the fact Sarkisian left them for the Trojans). I can only assume he was started to wonder if other schools would eventually stop pursuing him. After all, you can only say no so many times before people accept that you mean it. Also, I think this makes it clear that he isn't a big-city coach, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I appreciate guys who know themselves and clearly Chris Petersen isn't a flashy coach. Either way, I love this hire for the Huskies. Petersen has a winning percentage of about 88% and while I don't think he will be able to duplicate that in the Pac-12, the fact he was able to build a winning program in a place like Boise, Idaho (which couldn't have been easy to recruit) should make rebuilding Washington seem like a much easier task. I just hope he doesn't try to bring all aspects of Boise to Seattle (lot of Seattle news in this week's Sporties), because a purple field would be hard to watch.