April 13 - Supreme Court Justice O'Neil?

The worst kept secret in Washington these days is Supreme Court chief Justice William Rehnquist will be stepping down after the court concludes its business in June. I am now hearing rumblings that a dark horse from the world of sports is moving up the list of possible replacements. Yep, none other then Indiana Pacer Jermaine O’Neil is now being mentioned as a potential Supreme after he thrilled the country this week with his astute views on the constitution and federal labor law. In case you missed it, O’Neil went off last night on the possibility that the NBA will incorporate a minimum age requirement into the next collective bargaining agreement. This sparked O’Neil to utter the following: “To say you have to be 20, 21 to get into the league – that is unconstitutional. If I can go to the Army and fight a war at 18, then why can’t I play basketball for 48 minutes?” Say what? I didn't think this guy went to college, let alone law school, so that begs the question of where Jermaine became a constitutional scholar. I guess with all those Auburn Hills assault charges hanging over his head, he has spent some time brushing up on the law.

It is a good thing Jermaine excels on the basketball court because I am not sure he has much of a future arguing cases in federal court. Here is a little lesson for Jermaine and all of his libertarian buddies – There is nothing unconstitutional about a league setting minimum workplace standards through the collective bargaining process. The NFL did so and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decided the league had not violated federal anti-trust law or anyone’s constitutional rights. The Supreme Court, uninspired by Maurice Clarett’s appeal, simply refused to hear any more on the subject. Perhaps Clarett should have hired O’Neil as his appellate counsel since Jermaine’s passion and persuasiveness would have perhaps elicited a different response from the high court. It certainly elicited a response from this scribe.

This whole age issue drives me nuts and I am particularly peeved by those, like O’Neil, who say an age requirement would discriminate against poor young kids who are mostly black. Listen folks - the NBA has a right to set standards so long as those standards do not run afoul of federal labor or anti-trust law. END OF STORY! The owners have not only the right, but the obligation to do what is necessary to protect the product, which in that case has been severely compromised. I for one think an age requirement is long overdue because its absence has ended up hurting both professional and college basketball. Twenty years ago, both sports were strong when players attended college for more than a semester, learned to play the game and cultivated fan followings. The college game had some semblance of stability and when players arrived in the NBA, they had some maturity and existing fan bases that tuned in to follow their progress. Much of this was lost when players started jumping ship right after high school or their first year of college. Some of this can be reversed with the simple implementation of an age requirement. And this is what I would propose. I would implement a policy that mirrors that of baseball. It would still allow exceptional players to be drafted right out of high school, but once in college, players could not be selected until after their junior years. Such a policy would throw a bone to a handful of kids who are clearly ready to play professional basketball but it would also serve to protect some of those kids that have made idiotic decisions to leave college early. And for those of you who may argue that this would prevent a college freshman or sophomore from leaving early to help their family, I say too bad! You had your chance and you didn’t take it. So your punishment is an education and whatever you can skim off excitable college boosters. Hell, that doesn’t sound too awful to me.

Where is it written in the NFL’s Collective Bargaining Agreement that superstars are entitled to renegotiate their contracts at any time or demand a trade? The latest example of a greedy player run amok comes to us from Philadelphia where Terrell Owens has hired a new agent whose sole mission is to get the Eagles to tear up TO’s 2004 contract and replace it with one that is much more generous. For those of you who aren’t contract jocks, Owens got a deal last March that basically paid him $9 million up front. He is due $3.25 million in 2005 and another $7.5 million in 2006. Both of these numbers are manageable for the Eagles and I am sure they aren’t real keen on doing anything to take these numbers north. But Owens now feels that he cannot work for such chump change especially since he would have taken in much more if his ex-agent had not screwed up some paperwork a year ago that prevented Terrell from becoming an unrestricted free agent.

But this is not Philadelphia’s problem, at least it wasn’t until now. They got him fair and square and under contract terms that were to the team’s liking. But what do they do now if Owens becomes a total problem child? These are their choices. They can cave and give TO the money he thinks he deserves. Such an option makes a mockery out of the whole concept of contracts and it borders on extortion. As an alternative, they could try living with a pissed off player and that probably doesn’t excite anyone in the organization too much. Third, they could try to trade their disgruntled star. That doesn’t sound too appealing either since Owens is a difference maker for this team and he cannot be easily replaced. If I had to guess, I would say that TO will get his way, just as NFL stars are accustomed. It is a sad comment on the league, but superstars usually get what they want because teams cannot fathom having disruptive players on their sidelines. This is nothing less than extortion in my book and just in case you think this is an isolated incident – check out today’s papers in Washington. I say that because it now looks like Washington Redskin safety Sean Taylor is demanding that his rookie contract be torn up and replaced with one more fitting for a second-year superstar.

Baseball observations: Jim Edmonds got his 1,500 hit last night. What is more impressive, the hits or the almost 1,300 strikeouts? It sure didn’t take long for Armando Benitez to show Giant fans what they have to look forward to. In just his third appearance as a Gyro, Benitez blew a three run “soft save” opportunity and handed the Dodgers a stupefying ninth inning comeback win. Don’t laugh Braves fans cause your guy is no better. Of course I am talking about off-season acquisition Dan Kolb who came in last night and blew a two run lead in the ninth. You think Tim Hudson was happy with that eight inning no-decision? How come all the boxscores this morning say Uggy Urbina lost last nights game between the Tigers and the Twins when in fact it was Troy Percival who blew the game? It is not like the two guys look alike. Brian Roberts hit his fourth homer of the year for the O’s last night. He hit four all of last year. A.J Burnett pitched a complete game last night against the Phils. How long is it before some jackass starts calling Burnett and Josh Beckett the “Killer Bees?” Blue Jay Eric Hinskie is off to a torrid start while Oakland import Charlie Thomas is still looking for his first hit. The Rangers staff is looking worse than advertised. The staff ERA is over 6 after last nights loss to Anaheim and Ranger pitchers are currently struggling to strikeout more batters then they walk. Justin Morneau went on the DL yesterday because he was still dizzy from a beaning. Is this another Dickie Thon type injury?

Do you think anyone wants to face the Denver Nuggets in the NBA playoffs, especially the slumping Seattle Supersonics? I know nobody cares about the NBA anymore, but the Nuggets are an interesting story. At midseason, this team was in total chaos, but George Karl was then brought in and the Nuggets responded with a vengeance. Since February 23, the Nuggets are 22-2 and have moved from nowheresville into the western conference championship hunt. If the playoffs were to being today, they would face a tough battle with the Spurs, but there is still a possibility that they cold move up and play Seattle, a team that is limping into the playoffs. In February, the Nuggets were about +15,000 to win the NBA title and the last time I checked, they are down to +1950 and that number is falling fast. Denver, in case you haven’t watched, plays an up-tempo style that is a bit reminiscent of the Nugget teams from the 80’s only this team will go out and guard you on occasion. There is some size and toughness up front and point guard Andre Miller has quietly put together a nice comeback year (Shooting almost 48 percent on the season and averaging 16 assists per game over his last three). If the Nuggets have to play the Spurs with a healthy Tim Duncan, all bets are off, but if Duncan is gimpy or Seattle ends up being the foe, the Nuggets could cause a lot of problems out West.

What happens when analysts try to stoke a controversy and nobody follows them into battle? Why don’t you try asking Harold Reynolds and John Kruk who are clearly swimming upstream in this manufactured debate over whether Derrick Lowe was out of line to wear a Red Sox jersey during Monday’s ring ceremony at Fenway Park. From the moment Lowe stepped out of the dugout on Monday, both Kruk and Reynolds were on his ass, chastising the current Dodger for disrespecting his new team. I have to think that each of these two ass clowns felt others would step forward to watch their collective back, but to date, their flanks are entirely exposed. Baseball Tonight curator Karl Ravitch seemed absolutely dumbstruck by Kruk’s enthusiasm for this issue and I haven’t heard a single player, analyst, or talk show host, other then ESPN’s Mike Greenburg, stake out a position that is within 160 degrees of Kruk and Reyno. Sorry guys – you missed this one entirely.

David Ortiz gets all the attention as the great Yankee killer in Boston’s lineup, but perhaps it is time to start recognizing the guy in Boston who really has the Yankees number. Of course I am talking about Tim Wakefield who has been absolutely lights out against the Yankees since the 2003 ALCS. Here are the numbers. In the 2003 ALCS, Wakefield would have been series MVP had Grady Little not crapped the bed in the eighth inning of game 7. Lest you forget, Wakefield won two games in that series, each over Mike Mussina, and had given up only three earned runs in 14 innings before Arron Boone won the lottery in the 11th inning of game 7. Since that inglorious moment, it has been all Wakefield. In 2004, Wakes was 1-0 in three starts against the Yanks with an ERA of 1.82. He then absolutely shut them down for three critical innings in game five of the ALCS when the Sox had absolutely exhausted their pen. And this year, Wakes has pitched great in two starts against the Yanks, winning a game and giving up only two earned runs in almost 14 innings. When it is all pieced together, Wakefield’s record against the Yanks is nothing short of outstanding. For some reason or another, they just can’t figure him out. Jeter hangs in tough against Wakefield, but guys like Matsui, Giambi, Arod and Bernie are helpless against the old man. He has the Yankees number and so long as he does, the Sox have a very important advantage in a head-to-head matchup with the Yanks. If this Knucklehead could pitch half as well against league as he does New York, the Sox would have the makings of a decent staff.