Was thinking of the rot that's coming out of Phoenix these days .. too bad, Shaquille's not a bad guy, and he might still do some damage in the playoffs, but what a sad story that they had to give up that experiment. And all because of a Robert Horry hip check on Steve Nash that led to that little turd Stern suspending Stoudemire et al, and stealing Phoenix's last great chance at doing something really great.

So Phoenix over the last couple of years, great franchise, best regular season team, didn't make it, now on a downhill trajectory for sure.

My second current example is the Buffalo Sabres of the last two years. Best team in the regular season, and another team that deliberately chose a firebrand full press fan-pleasing offense over win-in-the-playoffs defense. These franchises, the Suns, the Sabres, others like them, deserve our fan support. They're the Ralph Naders of the sports world, not selling out, doing things right by the fans (customers), even if it means heartbreak in the playoffs.

So the Sabres of the last two years.

And the Bills of the 4-in-a-row superbowl Scot Norwood years.

And for rundeep, the MCNabb Eagles of 4 (I think) consecutive conference finals.

Who else? And who takes the cake?

Also a comment on these high-octane offense teams. Here's the problem. High offense gets you the big stats. Big stats gets you the big money. Big money squeezes you payroll-wise, not enough to go around. So you end up having to break up the team (see Sabres, Drury, Briere and now Campbell). Unless you're the 80's Oilers or something.

Elway's Broncos (going back some) would be another sunsetting team that finally broke through. and I agree on the Eagles, you'd never say late in the season, that this is the team to win it all (as you could have with the Sabres, Bills, and perhaps Suns, and perhaps your Hextall Flyers). and yes re the Pats, that was a bold experiment, to try to win it all without a running attack (and once they got out of the bad weather they should have gotten it done), and not sure if we put the failure down to a fluke or an almost inevitable comeuppance.

there's a saying somewhere that GM's are responsible for offense, and coaches defense. in other words, offense can't be taught (to the degree that defense can). so in some respects teams that go big on defense (Ravens superbowl team, etc) are recognizing their offensive limitations. also, re offense and payroll, i think that's why these big offense teams have a shorter window to get it done. now, some caveats: doesn't matter in baseball for the big market teams (no cap), doesn't matter as much in basketball because your shit teams are scoring about as much (or more) as your good teams, doesn't matter that much in football because of the salary cap .. so maybe I was being a bit hockey centric (and small market baseball) with my comment.

Yeah, the best salary caps I guess are the ones which specify a minimum (close to the maximum), and the ones that allow moderate overspending with requisite penalty. Probably the NFL then, and whoa, it's successful. (Not necessarily related, I know. More the same thing that's making NASCAR so popular, imho.) And I still find in shocking that DBs, LBs, linemen, etc, are getting $5 mil plus. Anybody but RBs and QBs. It doesn't make sense (to me). These people are made, not born.

I've always believed that the best players (Kobe, Lebron, etc* .. Lafleur, Howe, etc) could be the best defensive players too, because many of the same things responsible for their offensive prowess are useful defensively too. It's just that, whybother? Why waste your (i.e. too many) of your resources doing what anybody could do, leaving yourself short when it comes to doing what only a few can do.

* Vince Carter even .. there, I said it

Well, I'm really sorry you had to post that link .. really, I came close to being physically ill there. I'm sure if they showed that in Jersey Vince would be finding out where Jimmy Hoffa lives. And did you catch the top comment? I just caught it as the screen was disappearing, funny.

I thought of Gretz when I posted that, and admittedly I'm going by experience as much as anything. I would say all the way through, the most talented scorers I've seen were also, when they wanted to be, the best defensive players. It's just that about 99% of the time, it's not a good trade-off, you don't want them expending that kind of energy. That's why Kobe and MJ show flashes, when it's a big tv game, when it's personal (like Kobe on Raja, wasn't that funny), when they cover another superstar, when the team needs a steal or a stop, etc. (It's also my pet theory on MoPete, a near superstar [his defense is awesome] in perpetual search of a coach that cared about him.) And Lemieux, yeah, lazy bugger.

As for Orr, it is fashionable for peeps of my generation to pick him as the best. Certainly I would say that as a peak player he was the most dominant (from the perspective of relative to the other 9 skaters on the ice) .. perhaps Richard was like that, never saw him live. Also, I should take some time to look for some old pictures, there was a time when Bobby Orr and Kurt Russell were about the best "separated at birth" couple on the planet. Hard to believe now, I'm sure, so you gotta trust me on that one. By the way, when Orr used to be interviewed between periods he was so shy that he never raised his eyes to the camera. And now look at the lad! Took about 5-6 years (really). Also, I wonder if YouTube has the clip of Gretzky playing a detective on Y&R. I'll have to go take a look.

----

postscript: nope, couldn't find it (lots of refs to it though)

I'd love to hear some good Scottie Pippen stories. I always suspected he was one of those "room temperature" IQ guys. Seem to remember a gun incident (unlikely to beat Barry Switzer's story though), and some other stuff, hazy now. His tomahawk dunks though, pretty awesome. Had his chance to raise his level/worth though when MJ was off hitting .198 in the minors and couldn't do it.

Re the old Hawks, well I they were my first fave team, Wharram, Mohns, Van Imp, Hay, etc. Glenn Hall of course, he of the pre-game barf. And interesting re Bill Wirtz, but doesn't (ex-Leaf) Pulford take a lot of the blame too, basically a do-nothing GM who somehow held on to his job about 10 years after he showed pretty conclusively he had no clue what he was doing. Hawks now look good, and it would be nice to see the team relevant again. Some great young talent in the league, still will be sescond tier without a significant tv contract.

Orr was a sad tale. Would never happen now, I think. Look at Bosh of the Raptors, he feels a tweak and he's off for two-three weeks. These guys are smart (i.e. have smart, blood-sucking agents), looking at the big picture, total salary perspective. And why not, of course, can't blame em. Just that it wsa different then.

----

Hi topes! Thanks. I'm like the negaive Sherlock Holmes.

if they hadn't torn the whalers away, to relocate them in the hockey-mad metropolis of raleigh, NC, i might have gotten into hockey.  i had ice skates, a stick and older brothers, after all.

it comes down to marketing and good business decisions. i can't recall the NHL making many particularly wise decisions.  over expansion, rising ticket prices.  relocating teams from northern cities, where they were popular, to southern cities where people barely know what snow is, let alone ice.  hell, if i even wanted to watch a game, i don't know what channel i'd turn to.  it's almost become one of those strange, foreign sports.  like soccer.

granted, the popularity of nascar and televised poker baffles me too.  golf as well, while we're on the subject.

Oh, no doubt that the NHL dug its own grave, and I don't think it ever would (or could, or should) be as popular as baseball, football etc.  And I feel you on the Whalers (the Jets, the Nordiques, Jesus), it just makes me shake my head.

Oh, well.  Golf, though -- how could I have forgotten golf?  Televised golf is about as exciting as live parliamentary feeds.

Scottie Pippen was notorius among limo drivers. I heard it was the wait-staff along Rush St. that gave Pippen the most wonderful nickname in Chicago sports history, but it was the limo gang that spread the word all over the city. If memory serves, it was a late night party thrown by Pip for 10 or so of his favorite friends, and when the time came to pay up he complained bitterly about the automatic 15% gratuity added for parties of 8 or more.

It took all of 1.8 seconds to dub him Scottie "No Tippin'" Pippen.

Heh heh...Kenny Wharram. Name I haven't heard in ages. The Hook. Remember that stick? Those were great teams. Pieere Pilote. Dejordy. Doug Jarrett (greatest hip checker in history.) Chico Maki. Reggie Fleming.. Rode up a chair lift in Vail with Nesterenko, that was cool (ski instrructor there at the time.)

btw Kevin~ Re: Toews. Did you see the highlight score he got early in the season against Colorado? One of the sweetest goals that team has scored since Savard retired. However, we don't speak the word Winnipeg here. The Bobby Hull thing...I'm sure you understand.

If you're moving from Fenway or Wrigley to a new ballpark, it might not be that big a deal.

But when the Pirates, Phillies, Reds, etc. moved from multipurpose monstrosities to actual ballparks, with frass fields and views of the skyline, I think it did make a difference in the experience.

Now, most fans would rather watch a winning team in a lousy ballpark than vice versa, but particularly in Pittsburgh's case, one would expect a bit of a bounce.

I think the appeal to have a new park isn't for the pleasure of the fan faithful (other than to justify charging them more), but more to put in luxury viewing suites (that, it would appear, do a remarkable job of recreating the televised game experience) to skim beaucoups cash off of the moneyed elites.  Also a wet dream of kickbacks and civic extortion no doubt.

Hockey's great, haven't watched it in years.