Keeping George... :cry
Date: Jul 10th, 2007 3:42:36 am - Subscribe
Mood: upset
Music I'm listening to: Alech Taadi by Cheb Khalid
Devean George opted out of his contract. Hallelujah. Oh wait, the Mavs resigned him for MORE money. The man appeared in only 60 games for the Mavs this season and averaged 6.4 points, 3.6 boards, 0.6 assists, and shot around 40% in 21.4 minutes/game. They call that a key reserve? Thats just sad.
Can someone remind me why they were so glad to have signed George last off season? Ah yes: tenacious defense.
He was brought in because Wade exposed our problems when it came to big, attack first, athletic guards. Can you think of a big guard aside from Wade who would fit that same description? Someone else who's job it would be for George to shut down? Ah yes, Baron Davis. He did a great job with that one. Not resigning him would have been so much better for the Mavs. Since we're already over the salary cap, losing his $2.4 million would have saved us $4.8million dollars. Thats money we could have used if Michael Finley really wanted to come back to the Mavs.
On another note, the Desperados lost in the first round of the playoffs yesterday. They joined the Mavs, Cowboys, and Stars as Dallas teams to lose in the first round. We're cursed.
Comments: (0)
Greatest Ever?
Date: Jul 9th, 2007 6:05:12 am - Subscribe
Mood: confused
Music I'm listening to: Hey there Delilah.
He's got the championships. He's got the swagger. He's got the skills. He's got the RIVAL. But he does NOT have a career grand slam thanks to good ol' Rafa. Can Roger Federer be the greatest ever without having a career grand slam?
He's only 25 years old. Pete Sampras won his last Grand Slam at the age of 31. He has a lot of time to possibly win a career grand slam yet... But lets assume that Federer can only go down from here and Rafa will get better. At least on clay... Federer will no doubt win more Grand Slams than Pete Sampras, but its highly unlikely that he'll get that career slam since he won't be able to win on the clay of Rolland Garros. How can he be the greatest ever when he can't win the French Open?
Lets look at his career till date. Statistically, the man is CRAZY. He has now appeared in nine consecutive finals and won 7 of them. He's won a whopping 11 Grand Slams in 19 attempts. It took Pete Sampras 49 events to win his 14. Federer is clearly the most amazing player in the history of the game right? Would the best player in history lose consecutive finals on clay? I didn't think so. Until he wins all four Grand Slams and beats his nemesis on clay, he is only a great player. Not the greatest. Oh yeah, lets not forget that he almost lost on his most dominant field to a tired Nadal who just played 7 straight matches in 7 days.
Comments: (1)
Aspiring Sportswriter
Date: Jul 7th, 2007 6:33:57 pm - Subscribe
Mood: cocky
Music I'm listening to: Like This by Kelly Rowland
I've spent a lot of my life arguing with people over all the different sports: football, basketball, college football and basketball, soccer, even baseball and tennis. Instead of wasting time during the day doing so, I think I'm just going to start writing everything here so that I can spend my day doing things that actually matter. Anyhow, I know that most of us go to espn, yahoo, msn, fox sports, league websites, team websites, and local news sites to get our sports fixes. We all invariably read the same things over and over and then we go around saying these things to our friends. Then they agree with us because they actually read the same article, or if its an article by someone they dislike they'll disagree no matter how much sense it makes. I'm tired of reading other people's thoughts and have decided to come up with my own ideas. If something I say sounds absurd, let me know. If you agree or think it might work, let me know. If you think I jacked an idea from someone else, let me know.
Lets get started. Something has been bothering me a lot lately: women's sports. Specifically tennis. Ratings wise, last month's finals between Justine Henin and Ana Ivanovic drew a rating of 1.9 in the US while the highly anticipated(as usual) Nadal vs. Federer match received a 2.0. Not too much of a difference. With Venus Williams's recent run through Wimbledon a lot of my friends and family have been telling me how great women's tennis is. Nobody in the top 17 made it to the finals. 18 vs 23 turned out to be a Venus sweep going 6-4 and 6-1. Hopefully the match between Rafa and Federer turns out to be much closer and more exciting to watch. But you have to admit, watching the womens section was pretty damn fun. Even last year when Amelie Mauresemo beat Justine Henin at the All England Club, I had just as much fun watching that match as I did watching Nadal vs. Federer. And by the way, I hate going off on a tangent like this, but I think we need some cool nickname for the Federer vs. Nadal matches. We all know they're going to keep on occurring so lets get on that. Anyways, I must admit that I think Maria Sharapova and Anna Kournikova should be duking it out in EVERY women's tennis match. Just imagine the ratings. But women's tennis seems to be on its way up in the States. Maybe not up, but it is at least holding steady at a very respectable rating. Those short skirts and tight clothes seem to be working. Also the influx of lovely, young, blond women isn't hurting at all. But I just wanted to say that yes, women's tennis is just as fun to watch as men's.
But don't forget, the top ranked woman in the world would probably have no chance against the top 20-30 men... 
Comments: (2)