Exile on Waveland

Also, because it's the NBA. You can't discount things like Dwayne Wade being allowed to drive the basket, punch Noah in the face, and have the foul called on Noah (see, 2006 Finals, Nowitzki's face fouling Wade's hand/elbow). (Edit: On second thought, I think I want to amend my finals prediction to Lakers-Heat.)

Sure, what Granger said was not ideal. But I don't see how it was offensive to the Bulls at all. If the Bulls want to derive extra motivation from his comments, that's their prerogative; if so, they were looking/stretching for any reason.

It doesn't matter how they strike you. It matters how they strike the Bulls, and whether they think it's a motivational tool. Huh? The Bulls need extra motivation to win a playoff series? Against a team that they'd beat regardless? That is nonsense. Regardless, sure, the Bulls can take any comment and use it as a motivational tool. If Granger said the Bulls were "good" -- the Bulls very well could be offended he didn't say "great." If so, that comment could then be used as a motivational tool. The original comment would still be innocuous.

Bulls in 5 Heat in 5 Celtics in 6 Magic in 6 Bulls in 6 Celtics in 7 Bulls in 7 Spurs in 5 Lakers in 4 Mavericks in 7 Thunder in 6 Thunder in 7 Lakers in 6 Lakers in 7 Lakers over Bulls in 6 I really hope I'm wrong and the Lakers recent struggles continue. But it's the NBA.

Granger's comments strike me as basically completely innocuous.

Outside of the "anything is possible" platitudes, the Pacers really can't win this series. I'd be satisfied with a single win. The Pacers can certainly win that one game, though (game four seems the most likely). They've played well against some of the best teams in the league and their record is a bit deceiving -- they've been above .500 since Vogel took over. I'll say Bulls in five, otherwise in four. As to your other post, it's been discussed, but the Pacers are very well positioned for the future. They have a veteran borderline all-star in Granger, then good young pieces in Hibbert, George, Hansbrough, Collison, etc. They also have a ton of cap space ($23 million). However, without obtaining a star-level player, even with the right moves, they're probably heading for Hawks-type territory (playoff team with the potential to win a series, but no threat at all to advance after that). I'm also unsure how the Pacers can get a star-level player. They're not going to sign a free agent star, unfortunately, and they're not likely to be in position to draft one in the coming future. The best bet would be trading for one in a salary dump type deal. They really need a power forward -- Hansbrough and McRoberts, if they re-sign him, are good rotation frontcourt players but I am very skeptical that either are true starters -- and a shooting guard (George is likely going to be a good, but he's really a small forward). Point guard possibly is an area of concern, though Collison has potential (a veteran back-up point would be nice in the meantime). The Pacers are a team that could, and should, be a good, perennial playoff team in the coming years . . . but much more than that is a lot to ask.

(go pacers....)

So...the CSN pregame show was blacked out for me but not the game? Does that make any sense at all?

This is less than entertaining.

This might be one of the most difficult choices since we've done this -- the Colts could go so many directions as CCP said. Another offensive lineman wouldn't stun me, defensive line, secondary (safety is especially a need), wide receiver. Safety might not be the worst place to look as only one is off the board -- though, obviously, that's at least partially because the position isn't as valued as highly as others. Quinton Carter (Oklahoma) would seem to be the most likely safety pick. He might not be super fast but seems like a high character, Colt-type player, and should be able to play both safety positions. Because I'm worried about safety next year and think whatever safety they draft (I assume they'll get one somewhere) is going to need to play a good amount, I'd feel more comfortable getting a pretty good one (though obviously sixth-round pick Antoine Bethea is "pretty good"!). I'll go with Carter with this pick, though I don't think that's a lock by any means.

/man crush.

Especially considering three starting defenders and Gerrard were out injured. Outstanding stuff today.

10 pm here. Even suckier. Oh, and I don't get Vs. Great... Ahh..yeah I forgot...Vs. I don't get it either...joy. Actually, if I remember correctly, CSN showed some of the games early in the playoffs last year even when they were also on Vs. I could be wrong, but I think I remember Vs. only have exclusive coverage later in the playoffs.

10 pm here. Even suckier. Oh, and I don't get Vs. Great...

Yes! Go Wild!

http://www.whoateallthepies.tv/videos/68468/football-songs-i-cant-imagine-torres-will-ever-score-by-chris-cohen-video.html

I bet he hurt it striking out while failing to advance a runner.

Went to the women's game tonight. Probably better than the men's.

Man, I have no idea how to do that. Next year's Big Ten may be a clustermakinglove. Which I guess means Wisconsin runs away with it? Ha ha, sounds about right. It wouldn't stun me. . . but I think they have far more questions than normal. Everyone talks about how they always lack talent, but their roster is usually full of 4-star kids. Next year they'll have one (Berggren). That, obviously, doesn't include Taylor, who's a first-team all-Big Ten player. Bo Ryan is excellent, but that's not as much to work with as is typical, but the Big Ten does figure to be down.

Man, I have no idea how to do that. Next year's Big Ten may be a clustermakinglove. Ohio St. probably still the favorite (losing a lot of leadership - reloading with freshmen 4/5 star talent) Wildcards that could win it - Illinois (I think even the water boy is a 4 star), Michigan (lots of young talent, came on strong, made the tourney), Michigan St (Izzo and lots of talent). Teams that will be competitive but it will take a lot of pieces coming together - Purdue (losing two of programs best players ever - adding length) , Wisconsin (I think losing Leuer hurts a lot, Taylor could be BTPOY... lots of big white dudes and won't lose at home) . No real shot but will be improved, Indiana (help is on the way), Iowa (really like Basabe), Northwestern (lots of foreign dudes) Terrible - Minny (Mbakwe will wear a house arrest ankle bracelet), Penn St. Nebraska... yeah, I know nothing about them. I think the best one can do, at this point, is grouping as you did. However, a few things: Ohio State--I'll still believe Sullinger is back when I see it. I also expect Buford to bolt. Further, Ohio State's recruiting class has four 4-star players ranked between No. 46 and No. 76 (as per rivals). That's an excellent way to build and sustain a program, I'm less sure that's the way to replace 4-star seniors. Michigan--As of right now, Darius Morris is in the NBA Draft. I suspect he'll be back, but we'll see. If I'm right about the above, I have a real hard time picking a favorite, other than saying, in alphabetical order, Illinois-Michigan-Michigan State-Ohio State(?)-Wisconsin as the likely top group (and that's giving Bo Ryan a ton of credit, because they lost their frontcourt and have only one 4-star player on the entire roster, plus Taylor).

Man, I have no idea how to do that. Next year's Big Ten may be a clustermakinglove.

I don't think this has been covered anywhere, but did anyone read -- and I'm sure many have -- Sports Illustrated's Cubs preview? The "view from a scout" section or whatever was basically the ravings of a crazy person (and evidently a Cub-hating crazy person). Besides every single view being negative, it included gems like "Soto has no pop" (seriously).

Evidently. It was in The Economist and I did a double take: "wait, seriously?" I guess he did but hasn't been nominated by any FIFA country. The Economist did say he had good ideas . . .

Oh man, that was quick (maybe because the Colts are picking earlier this year). As I hope happens in the real draft, the Colts have a few choices at offensive line -- while no guarantee to be the position picked, it must surely warrant first look. Gabe Carimi, Derrick Sherrod (perhaps raw and with the run-first collegiate offense maybe shades of Tony Ugoh), and even Mike Pouncey (though I struggle envisioning the Colts taking a guard in the first round). At other positions, Corey Liuget or Stephen Paea could work at DT. The best corner/wide receiver (seriously) could also be in play, though they don't seem to be as good of value as the available players on either line. At this point, not breaking ground with the pick, but Gabe Carimi would seem to be the pick. If he can't play left tackle, too bad, but the Colts desperately need a right tackle as well. Frankly, and CCP feel free to disagree, but Carimi is who I'm hoping for in real life. I feel confident he will at least be a solid RT, with the potential to either be an excellent RT or a solid LT. Either way, it's a position of need and a player that is sure to help.

Red Sox Yankees* Rays Jays Orioles Twins Tigers White Sox Royals Indians A's Rangers Angels Mariners Braves Phillies* Marlins Mets Nationals Reds Brewers Cubs Cardinals Pirates Astros Rockies Giants Dodgers Padres Dbacks *denotes Wild Card World Series: Red Sox over Phillies Individual Awards: Meh, don't really care.