LeBron: From King to Jester

I didn't see the big production last night; I was traveling with my wife and two daughters, and got back to our house hours after it was done. I have watched highlights, and red scathing POVs like Tony Massarotti's in the Boston Globe. And I read Bill Simmons' preview as well.

So where do I sit? Well, LeBron is an idiot, that is clear. He basically raised a big middle finger to an entire fan base and possibly even a state, and he seems oblivious. And he did it on national television in a bizarre, inhuman way. All very strange.

What I Know

1. If I were a Cavs fan, I would hope for LeBron's eternal destruction until my dying breath. Not just because he left (potentially forgivable), but the spectacle he made of it, and the poor effort he showed in the playoffs against the Celtics.
2. I now have a new least-favorite team in the NBA, and yes, the Heat have eclipsed the Lakers. I think LeBron and Bosh are glory-hogging idiots, and Wade is only a level below them in that department. I may not hope for their eternal destruction, but I will hope for lots of disappointment for the Miami Heat.
3. There are no guarantees of NBA championships, even with LeFraud, Bosh and Wade on the roster. Are they the 2011 Eastern Conference favorites? Today, no. I need to see the rest of that roster. But likely Riley will work some magic and get a decent team together. But Boston is still pretty good, and Orlando is much deeper than Miami will be.

What I Believe

1. LeBron should have gone to Chicago. To me, it's all about legacy. If LeBron really wants to be remembered as one of the greatest ever, I think teaming with Derek Rose, Noah and Boozer in Chicago would have given him a contending team that would have been his team; there's no doubt to me that Miami is still Wade's team. And no, he should not have gone to the Knicks. They would have stunk for another 2-4 years. Easy decision, even if it is New York.
2. If LeBron, Bosh and Wade win a string of NBA titles (as I mentioned above, it's a tough feat even with all that talent), I think LeFraud's legacy is tainted by the way he left Cleveland and by the fact that he never won a title without Wade. Time will tell, but he might grow to detest Wade.

What We Don't Know

1. If this was all a foregone conclusion, and if all of the gameplaying by Wade, Bosh and LeBron was nothing more than media fodder, or as Simmons mentions in his column, a potential plot for a reality series, than shame on them. Totally pathetic.
2. How many (if any) title Miami will win. Like I wrote above, winning an NBA title isn't easy. Because of salary cap realities, Miami will not have a deep roster, and they will need health and some luck to win in 2011. After that? Who knows. A new collective bargaining agreement could make it easier or harder for them or easier. And a major injury to any three of them would stall the whole thing (and bring a evil smile to the entire city of Cleveland).
3. If LeBron is really one of the best players ever. I (among a host of others) have been touting this for years, that LeBron's statistical dominance makes him a once-in-a-generation type of player. But what kind? Will he be remembered like Bernard King? Oscar? Jordan? Magic? Bird? Malone? Winning titles in the NBA means more for a legacy than in any other of the US sports. Look at Robert Horry; good role player, who's status has sky-rocketed due to his being on so many championship squads. Know what we'd call the Horry equivalent in baseball? Lucky. But because basketball is such a team game, we give Horry extra credit for his teams' success, and we torch Karl Malone for his teams' playoff failures.

If someone reads this in 10 years (highly unlikely) or a column like Massarotti's, this may seem silly. LeBron may have 4 titles and have cemented himself as one of the greatest players of all time. The only people who may still care about any of this are Cavs fans and older fans who dislike him for the way he disrespected the game by making such a pathetic spectacle of himself. But I think it's more likely we've seen a likable hero transformed into a villain.

Looking back at some great MLB decisions

Recently came across Jon Heyman's article at SI.com via Rob Neyer on ESPN.com where he examined the best 15 baseball management decisions of the past year. I loved the list and wanted to talk about a couple of them.

• 1. The Nationals' signing of Stephen Strasburg. In June of last year, I opined that the Washington Nationals should pass on drafting the phenom. I then stated a few months later that the Nats made the right decision, mainly because they signed him for less than I thought they would. And of course, Strasburg has been awesome so far, putting up unbelievable numbers: 2.27 ERA, 1.54 FIP, 13.64 K/9, 1.5 WAR. All of this in just 5 starts and about 32 innings. Amazing. But let's not get too crazy. While Heyman is right that it was a good decision, Strasburg might be a once-in-a-lifetime player, or he might be Mark Prior. Time will tell.
• 4. The Padres' decision not to trade Adrian Gonzalez and/or Heath Bell. I predicted that the Padres would finish a distant fourth in the NL West, but San Diego GM Jed Hoyer had a better handle on his team than I did (no big surprise). He held onto his two best players, and they have both contributed to one of baseball's biggest surprises (3.3 and 1.1 WAR respectively).
• 6. The White Sox's decision last August to claim Alex Rios and his $12-million-a-year contract on waivers. Man, I thought the White Sox were crazy when they claimed Rios. And now he's hitting 312/368/534, which would be his best line ever. Will he stay there? Not likely, but he's a great fielder, and even if he falls down to his 06-08 level, Chicago made a great call.
• 9. The Rangers' decision to stick with manager Ron Washington. This is one where I think Heyman missed the mark. Yes, the Rangers lead the AL West by 4.5 games, but there's no reason to believe another manager couldn't have done just as well. I think the decision was still very hypocritical of a sport that is punishing drug users.
• 14. Adrian Beltre's call to turn down Oakland's multiyear offer to sign with Boston for one year. As Heyman points out, if Beltre had signed with the A's, he might have been stuck with the same moniker he had in Seattle: great glove, bad bat. Now he's hitting 340/379/547, thanks to a 404/649 OBP/SLG at cozy Fenway. (Editor's note: These are actually his away splits. He's his OBP/SLG is acually 370/500 at Fenway. Wow.) And he's been great with the glove. This guy is making himself a lot of money, and I hope the Sox resign him, as long as he stops hurting our LFs.
  

Pierce opens a window for the Celtics

During my pain-staking write-ups during the NBA Finals, I constantly talked about how the Celtics are really Rajon Rondo's team now. Paul Pierce, Ray Allen and KG may not realize that, they may think they're still A-Level players, but reality played itself out on the 2010 playoff stage.

Tony Massarotti of the Boston Globe agrees with me, and he writes that Paul Pierce opting out of his contract may give Danny Ainge an opportunity to re-build around Rondo sooner than he might have otherwise. A blessing in disguise, kind of like not trading Pierce a couple years back.

First off, I'm a huge Pierce fan. Without him, the Celtics do not win the 2008 title and do not make it to the 2010 Finals. Yes, he sputtered in Game 7 against Ron Artest, but he did put up a 19/6/3 in the playoffs on 44/40/83 shooting. Despite declining skills, he's still a very good player.

But I think it's likely he will be a good player somewhere else in 2010-11. I think Ainge is going to take a chance on a free agent. According to Mazz, he's got $25 million to play with. Is he going to sign one of the big guys like LeBron or D-Wade? No, that's not going to happen. But what about Joe Johnson (I'm not a fan)? Or Amar'e? Carlos Boozer? David Lee? The Celtics need to get younger and more athletic. All of those guys would qualify.

Of course, I have no idea how this will turn out. Could Pierce return? Sure. He's mentioned in the past about being a lifelong Celtic, but would he pass up the opportunity to play along side Nash in Phoenix (not likely), Wade in Miami (a little more likely), or maybe be a veteran presence in a place like Oklahoma City? Only he could say for sure.

I will miss Pierce if he leaves, and will look forward to the day his No. 34 jersey joins the others in the rafters. But it's time for the Rondo era to begin.

The panicking Mets

What's with all the panic in NY surrounding the Mets? Do they really have to acquire Cliff Lee to secure a playoff spot?

The 2010 season thus far would say no. The Mets are 1.5 games behind Atlanta in the NL East and are the WC leader. Granted, the WC is very tight, with the Cardinals, Phillies, Dodgers and Giants all within 3 games, so lots of potential to blow it. And we know that the Mets have blown it in recent years, so the panic is warranted to some degree.

But do they need Lee? And at what cost? According to Fangraphs.com, the Mets have the 10th best offense in the NL. If you look at their team page at BaseballReference.com, they have some easy upgrades to the lineup: Franceour is not good, but the Mets have Carlos Beltran returning and if the Mets are smart (a big leap there) Angel Pagan will start over Franceour. The other hole is Luis Castillo as 2B. They should be able to better a 624 OPS (and he's below average in the field as well).

Back to Fangraphs, the Mets are similarly 10th in pitching. They have three plus starters (Santana, Pelfrey and Dickey), and a mish-mash group behind them (not that different from the
a lot of teams). The bullpen is actually an area of need as well.

So could the Mets use Cliff Lee? Absolutely, almost any contender could. But the Mariners are likely going to want top prospects, and the Mets might mortgage their future in a year when they could make the playoffs anyway. They have good internal options to upgrade the OF, and upgrading 2B would be cheaper. Can you say Dan Uggla?

So before the New York media pressure Omar Minaya into mortgaging the future for Lee (who would be a tremendous rental arm), the Mets have other areas where an impact upgrade could be made at a fraction of the cost.

Book Review: Percy Jackson and the Olympians Series

I first got interested in the Percy Jackson series when I saw ads for the movie. The concept intrigued me: the Olympian Gods were still alive, living in the US, and their demigod children were living among us mere mortals. Seemed like an interesting premise.

Then I never saw the movie. I heard about the changes from the novel, and my interest waned in the film. But I did read all five books over the past 6 months.

For whatever reason, this series frequently gets compared to the Harry Potter books. I understand why: teen fantasy novel written in a modern world for a modern teen audience. Other than that, here are the major differences:

• Percy Jackson author Rick Riordan writes nothing like J.K. Rowling. Unlike like Rowling 3rd person, limited narrator (from Harry's perspective), Riordan goes with the first person story telling technique, which is done in an irreverent, teenage tone (and is actually one of my favorite parts of his writing).
• Olympians and witches/warlocks is not the same thing. The worlds are very different from one another. I didn't feel like I was in similar world at all.
• Unlike the Harry Potter universe, which became incredibly complicated as time went on, Riordan keeps it relatively simple. This means less depth to his world, but easier reading.

So on with the review.

What works
A lot of things, so I will return to my lazy old bullet list.

• Characters. I love the characters. Percy is a believable, NYC teenager. His friends, fellow demigod Annabeth and Grover the Satyr (half man, half goat), were unique and interesting. The other main characters (including the Gods and villains) were fun, especially during the first 2-3 books when everyone is being introduced.
• Fast-moving plot. If I have one major issue with some fantasy is slow plot. Riordan keeps it rolling.
• Great battles. His battles are awesome, and I really had a hard time stopping during those tense moments.

This is a complete list at all, but these were my favorite elements.

What doesn't work
Again, back to the bullets.

• Cliche gods. Though some of the gods and monsters were really cool, a lot of them were cop outs, where Riordan went with cliches over depth.
• Swift conclusions. This wasn't true for books 4 and 5, but 2 and 3 ended a little abruptly for me. A little more denouement would have been appreciated.
• High brow teenager. Sometimes Percy knows a little too much about architecture and history for a kid who hated school. Obviously this is Riordan flexing his literary muscles a bit, but sometimes it made me pause.

Who would like this
Anyone who likes light fantasy. It's also a good match for the Harry Potter crowd, though I know some Potter fans have rejected the series (not sure why). It's also a pretty light read for those looking for a fun series to read during the series. Would be good for teens who like fantasy fiction.

Who wouldn't like this
Only people without a soul. Just kidding. It's pretty light fiction, and it does have violence and death (especially book 5). Also, if you're afraid your kid might turn into an Olympian god worshiper, I would avoid this. (Warning: Heavy doses of sarcasm have been know to be very contagious).

Final Chapter
As you can tell, I really liked these books. I've been reading a lot of deep nonfiction lately, and the Percy Jackson series has been a nice change of pace. If you're looking for a good, fun fantasy read, pick it up. Five books later you won't regret it.

The World Needs Replay

Sunday was not a good day for FIFA. Too phantom goals changed the course of two elimination games, the Argentine goal against Mexico being the most egregious. The Mexican team became deflated, and what had been 25 minutes of griping soccer with two very determined teams, turned into a circus. Argentina scored its bogus goal and Los Tres Colores was left arguing fruitlessly with the FIFA officials. Several minutes later, a careless turnover and Mexico is down 2-0.

Now, I am claiming no Nostradamus powers. If the play had been called correctly, I have no idea who would have won. According to the Soccer Power Index rankings on ESPN.com, Argentina is the second best team in the world; Mexico is No. 12. The true talent level is probably greater, but certainly Mexico is capable of playing a good enough game to beat the blue and white on a given day.

I have stopped reading articles that argue against instant replay. It's just stupid. The job of the officials is to get the call correct, period. If we can fix that, we should. Here are my thoughts, by sport:

• Football. This one is so easy, so of course the NFL has missed it. It is not the responsibility of the coach to officiate a game; no more coach challenges. Just put another ref in the booth who makes the call. No more looking under the hood. He stops the game, he quickly reviews and makes a call.
• Basketball. Anything around scoring (two or three points) and out of bounds plays should be reviewable. Again, a separate replay official who does it on his own.
• Baseball. This is where replay should go to a new level. All balls and strikes should be called electronically, no more 'human factor.' All base calls should be reviewable, as well as home runs and foul balls. Separate replay official.
• Soccer. I already mentioned that FIFA needs another official (or two) on the field. They also need a replay official. It would be very limited, just to replay goals.

This isn't perfect, but it's closer to perfection, and isn't that the point? Don't we want to get as close as we can to the 'true' outcome? The less 'human' factor the better as far as I'm concerned.

Revisiting Star Wars: Episode I

I love Star Wars. I am a Star Wars nerd. I have seen all six movies more times than I can count. I have read almost all Star Wars novels and comics. I have pondered serious questions like: Who are Yoda's parents, and what do they look like? Would Luke in his prime beat Obi-Wan in his? What exactly did Padme see in Anakin?

So I decided to start a journey of re-watching the six movies in order over the next several weeks/months. I would do it quicker, but I have a family and a job, and I would like to keep both.

To kick off 'Episode I: The Phantom Menace', I'm not sure why there's so much bad talk about the newer prequel trilogy. Were these movies as good as the first three? No, but the first three were three of the best movies ever made, so that's asking a lot. But all three movies were commercial successes. Phantom Menace, when adjusted for inflation, is the 20th all-time grossing movie, ahead of movies like 'The Godfather', 'The Lion King', and 'The Dark Knight.'

If you didn't like the movie, fine, but the Star Wars movies are not about awesome stories or compelling dialogue. The Star Wars formula is simple: fun adventure story + cool characters you care about + visually excitement + just plain coolness. Phantom Menace worked in the formula. Am I a Lucas apologist? Absolutely. But this is a very, very good movie. I even ranked it as the No. 5 movie of the 90s.

That being said, Lucas & Co. missed the opportunity to make this a transcendent film (like the first three), so in that way it was a slight disappointment. Here are some of the misses:

• Jar-Jar Binks. What a waste of screen time. I realize that this character was an attempt to engage younger viewers, but that's a crock to me. With young Anakin playing a central role, and R2-D2 and C3PO involved, he was completely superfluous and completely annoying. And he turned the Gungans from a warrior race into a joke.
• Anakin. Young actor Jake Lloyd just didn't get it done. Child acting can ruin movies, and he didn't do that poorly, but either Lucas was too impatient to get young Jake to the right point, or Jake just didn't have it in him. It was likely a little of both. Regardless, this detracted from the film.
• Medachlorians. Reducing the Force to some symbiotic creature was dumb, and Lucas never mentioned it again. Neither will I.
• Virgin birth. Anakin was conceived by the Force? Oh good golly. Again, we will never mention this again. I would have preferred that Palpatine had an affair with his mother, or it was Jango Fett. Anything but a virgin birth.
• More Darth Maul. He needed to blow out who Darth Maul was a little. His appearance in the series was too brief. What a cool character who only barely touches the surface of what he could have been.

Without further desecration of my Star Wars fandom, here's my not-so-random thoughts regarding Phantom Menace.

The Worlds of Naboo and Coruscant
The movie takes place on three planets: Naboo, Coruscant and Tatooine. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on the third one. It's a desert planet visited in three of the other five films. Naboo is only briefly featured again, and Coruscant is introduced to us.

Naboo, both the beautiful countryside and the spectacular capital city of Theed, gave Lucas and a his team their first chance to create a world with the new technology that was available at the time. It's a vibrant world, with two divided nations, the Gungans and the humans, who live in a tense peace. And we also get to see the beautiful Gungan underwater city. (By the way, how do the Jedi swim underwater with all those robes? That's got to be tough.)

Coruscant is a planet that is one entire city. Awesome visually, with ships and speeders criss-crossing everywhere. Coruscant is featured more in the later films, so I won't waste too many pixels here, but it was great to see the capital planet in all its glory.

The Jedi
In the first three films, there are a couple of old Jedi (Obi-Wan and Yoda), a young Jedi in training (Luke), a potential Jedi (Leia) and a Jedi-turned bad (Darth Vader). But we see very little of the Jedi, and know very little about them.

The movie begins with Qui-Gon Jinn, Jedi Knight, taking his padowan apprentice Obi-Wan on a diplomatic mission that ends up with them in some minor skirmishes. We finally get to see Jedi in action as a team, and it's pretty cool, knocking down droid soldiers and running through different terrains. Awesome.

We also get to see the Jedi Council, are re-introduced to a younger Yoda and meet other major players, including the very serious Mace Windu. We also find out that the wise Obi-Wan was trained by a somewhat rebellious mentor, someone who frequently defied the council's best wishes.

This movie left me with some questions about the Jedi Council, some of which were answered in the other movies, some of which weren't:

• What did they know about Anakin? We'll get into this later, but if Mace Windu and Yoda were do nervous, why didn't they take him as a padowan?
• Why was Mace Windu so arrogant about the Sith? Why did he believe they couldn't rise again without the Jedi knowing?
• If the Republic was already corrupt, why weren't the Jedi already becoming more proactive? Was Palpatine's power over them that complete?

The Sith
Darth Sidious (aka Palpatine) quickly becomes the central evil mastermind of this drama. He's pulling all the strings, attempting to manipulate the Republic, the Jedi, the Trade Federation, basically playing everyone off each other, all with the goal of consolidating power underneath him, ruling the galaxy under the hand of the Sith.

The question is how much of what happens in this movie was his plan or what was an accident he used to his advantage. Hard to say. I think he misjudged Amidala and her abilities, but it accelerated his opportunity to become Supreme Chancellor. I think he also greatly underestimated Obi-Wan, which he would do again decades later. He thought Darth Maul would earn his stripes against Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan, and instead, he inadvertently launched the career of the Jedi Knight who would ultimately lead to his downfall (by watching over and training Luke).

Speaking of Darth Maul, I'm not exactly sure what Palpatine had in mind for him. Was he eventually to become the enforcer Darth Vader would become? Seems to make sense. Was he more of an apprentice experiment? That's the problem with the Sith; they don't want an apprentice that's too powerful, and maybe Palpatine recruited and trained Maul to be too weak, and this bit him. And that's what drew him to the more powerful Anakin.

And the end of the movie, Palpatine makes a passing comment to Anakin about watching his career. It's clear he saw him as someone to manipulate, as an emotionally vulnerable child who would have a set of weaknesses unlike most Jedis. I don't believe Palpatine knew how he would use Anakin yet, he just knew that, unlike Obi-Wan or Yoda, he was someone he could steer.

The Seeds of a Villain
Was Anakin destined to become Darth Vader? Qui-Gon obviously believed something different, unless he believed bringing balance to the Force was killing almost all Jedis and eventually killing Palpatine. But that seems like a stretch.

I think Yoda said the most important things about Anakin: his path was unclear and dangerous. And because no one, at that point, seemed to realize that a Sith Lord would be trying to manipulate Anakin in order to destroy the Jedi Order, he was allowed to be trained by Obi-Wan in the traditional fashion, instead of being kept in the temple in a more special arrangement. But certainly, as Obi-Wan pointed out to Qui-Gon, the Jedi Council viewed Anakin as a dangerous person to train. But they also probably thought of him as a dangerous kid to leave untrained.

Obviously his attachment to his mother is the problem, worsened by his slavery and the hatred he felt toward the evil authorities on his home planet. Combine that with the chilly initial reception he received from the Jedi Council, and the seeds were planted for his rebellion.

The Mother of Luke and Leia
Amidala is a vexing figure. One of the things viewers forget is that Padme Amidala is a democratically elected, 13 year-old queen, who 5 months into her reign was faced with the aggressive blockcade of the Trade Federation. How inconceivable that may seem to us, she was put into political training at age 8, and the culture of the planet was to groom young politicians before they became corrupt.

She shows a tremendous amount of courage, similar to the courage her daughter Leia Organa would show decades later in opposing the oppressive rule of Emperor Palpatine. Her alliance with Palpatine is one of the great ironies of the story, as is the trust she places in him. This trust would dissolve in the future as his truer nature began to be revealed.

Closing Thoughts
I really could go on forever, but I won't, mainly because, as I mentioned above, I have a job and a family. But Phantom Menace does a beautiful job of setting up the next two films and establishing the three most important characters of the prequel trilogy: Anakin, Padme Amidala, and Obi-Wan. And anytime Yoda is shown on screen is awesome.

When I saw Phantom Menace on screen in 1999, it was a sublime moment, a fulfillment of boyhood dreams for a 23 year-old. Yes, I realize some of you probably find that pathetic. Others of you remember the feeling all to well. Was I slightly disappointed by some elements of this film? Yes, but I was overwhelmingly pleased with what came out.

So hopefully soon I can watch 'Attack of the Clones' and continue this little series. It's been fun to get back into the Star Wars galaxy.