Baby I'm Not Trying to Make Amends For Coming to Los Angeles (No More Boston)

(Counting Crows, Los Angeles)

It is a dark day for Red Sox Nation.

When the Sox dealt Nomar back in 2004, he wasn't the same player he once was, and they did, of course, go on to win the World Series that year, so who can argue with anything they did that season? After that season, they cut the cord on Pedro, which seemed like an insane move at the time (except for the money factor), but in hindsight really was a great move for them, because he's been injury-plagued ever since, and hasn't really regained any of what he had during his heyday in Boston. Derek Lowe, Billy Mueller, and Orlando Cabrera all saw Boston in their rearview as well shortly thereafter. Even former manager Grady Little was gone (after the 2003 playoff debacle), though not too many people really missed him all that much.

The strange thing is, all of those guys except Pedro ended up in Los Angeles, and all but Cabrera ended up on the Dodgers (Cabrera went to the Angels). When we lived in LA, I would occasionally go to Dodger games with Josh, Jeremy, Jason, and a few other people whose names didn't start with J, and it felt natural for me to wear my Red Sox hat to Dodger Stadium, since we had fielded so much of their team for them. In fact, I even got yelled at once in the bleachers, while I was there with my sister, and when some drunk guy told me to "Go back to Boston, buddy!", I calmly (maybe not so calmly) responded, "Hey, we gave you half of your team!" He just shrugged his shoulders and sat back down.

Well, today the tradition continues. Manny Ramirez, the embattled, dreadlocked, power hitting, (possibly) clinically insane, RBI machine, protector of David Ortiz's strike zone, has finally been traded. To the Dodgers. As if it had been scripted. Sure, he's been asking for a trade for years now, but he usually forgets about that a few weeks later, and knocks in 50 more runs before the season ends. It did seem like an inevitability this time around, but I was still holding on to a little bit of hope that maybe this would blow over and he'd keep high-fiving fans while catching fly balls, before gunning out a runner from left-fucking-field. Seriously. Watch this video. It's awesome.

This is what we're losing. We're also losing, indirectly, the potency of Big Papi's bat, because without Manny hitting behind him, he's going to be walking to first on a much more frequent basis.

The only real silver lining to this would be, now that Manny's in LA, if they finally make a movie about him, like I've been saying for years, if they get Donald Faison to play him. They might as well be brothers, or at least cousins. Right?

But That Train Keeps-a Rollin On Down to San Antone

(Johnny Cash, Folsom Prison Blues)

I was discussing the state of the NBA playoffs the other day with my friend Howard, who is a rabid Lakers fan, having gone so far as to buy a tiny Kobe Bryant jersey for his dog, Mocha, presumably in the hopes that other dogs will fear Mocha as a potential rapist and stay the hell away. In any event, we were talking about what makes an NBA dynasty, and if the Lakers would be considered a current NBA dynasty if they were to win the championship this year, which they are certainly well-equipped to do.

Not surprisingly, Howard's opinion is that, if the Lakers win it all this year, they should be regarded as a dynasty. I am of the opinion that they should not. (It is worth noting that Howard is also a UCLA grad, and therefore has a serious dynasty complex.) Of course, over the history of the NBA, the Lakers are certainly a dynasty, but we're only talking about what makes a current dynasty (current meaning over the past 10 years), and under those constraints, they just don't stack up. Let's look at the vital stats:


The Lakers have won three titles in the past 10 years, and made it to the finals a fourth time, missing the playoffs only once within that span. Impressive, but not as impressive as the Spurs' four titles in four trips to the finals, with a current 11-year streak of making the playoffs. The Lakers and the Spurs both won their titles under the direction of the same coaches, Jackson and Popovich, respectively, but the Lakers' "three-peat"* was a Shaq/Kobe driven run, and that nucleus was irreparably dismantled when the team inexplicably stood by (see: wrong horse, backing) while Shaquille O'Neal, one of the most likeable players in the history of the NBA, was thrown under the bus by the Eagle County Rapist, who spent the next 5 years constantly demanding trades and threatening to play elsewhere. The Spurs have ridden Tim Duncan's back to all four of their titles, with longtime nice-guy David Robinson retiring after the first one, and a solid nucleus of Duncan, Tony Parker, and my personal favorite, Manu Ginobli (who could just as easily have played soccer for the Italian World Cup team, if he wasn't from Argentina), for their last three.

My point being, the Spurs team was largely in tact throughout their dynastic run, and still is, with the exception of the Admiral, and that is a team that has brought home two regular season MVP awards (both for Duncan) and one coach of the year award for Popovich, as opposed to no coach of the year awards for Jackson, and only one MVP award for the Lakers, for Shaquille, who isn't even there anymore, and went on to win another title on his own a few years ago (though Kobe may very well win the MVP this year).

True, the Lakers did win three in a row in 2000, 2001, and 2002, which was impressive, and at that point, qualified them as dynastic. And if they win this year, that will make four titles in the past 10 years, but in my opinion, to be a true sports dynasty, a team cannot have a drought between titles that is longer than the number of titles they have won, within a certain period. And the dealbreaker for the Lakers, even if they win this year, will be that they had a dry spell of 5 years between their 3rd and 4th championship. The Spurs, on the other hand, have already won four times in the past 9 years, but even if you discount their first win because of the shortened NBA season (which I do not), they have still won three championships in the past five years. That alone makes the Spurs a current NBA dynasty, regardless of what you think of the 1998-1999 season. And it is for that reason, above all others, that even if the Lakers win this year, it can only be the start of a new potential dynasty, rather than a continuation of an established one. Sorry, Howard.

* - Please don't sue me, Pat Riley!

Well Can't You See Me Standing Here, I've Got My Back Against the Record Machine

(Van Halen, Jump)

I never really liked the Lakers much (though I did enjoy sitting almost courtside once, thanks to a friend whose boss liked to splurge on tickets), and as much as I'm sort of anti-Kobe Bryant, you can't argue with the fact that he's one of the top 3 players in the NBA today.

Also, you can't argue with this. This is unreal. It's hard to tell if this is rigged or not. If it is, then screw him, he's still a douchebag. If it's not, then he is Superman, and if I'm in the Laker's front office, I'm going to have a talk with him about not doing ridiculously stupid things, no matter how unbelievably cool they might look.

But yeah, this is just unreal.