Amazing how many Packer Haters have responded. Packers keep proving time and time again that they can find the best talent anywhere it can be found. All teams miss on some of their picks, as do the Packers. But 4 straight playoff years, 2 straight Division Champs, and one Super Bowl would be something just about any team would pay out their rear-ends to have. Some HAVE paid more than that and not reached it.
The problem was Los Angeles committing to AEG, when another developer had already spent years getting a plan together that had the potential to work. All LA wanted to do was follow the money, thinking AEG's billions would mean more for the city. Instead, not it is getting nothing.
He didn't ask for anything more than he implied he wanted when he left. The only realy difference was an issue about road game traveling. The Lakers contacted him knowing he was going to be expensive to get, so they must have been mostly willing to do so.
As for "they couldn't wait", they obviously could, as the new coach isn't even with the team yet. He can't even get on a plane!
Kupchak, when Phil says "wait until Monday", you don't go hiring someone before then. You were obviously not in that much of a rush, as D'Antoni won't even be able to be with the team for several days yet. So why hurry into a coaching decision?
The Lakers haven't really been the same since Jerry handed the reins to Jim. The Buss's have been a fixture in LA for a long time, and need to remember that the history and the championships are what bring fans to the game. All you need to do is look back about 15-20 years post-Magic and pre-Shaq/Kobe/Phil to see a Lakers team that wasn't built to win championships.
Sure, suspend Brown, after you suspend all those guys who kept horribly boarding the Kings' players during game 3. Oh wait, they didn't do it then. Stop crying Coyotes. You got outplayed by a better team.
Everyone gets to play the Padres and Pirates. Beating them doesn't make the Dodgers a weak team. You are correct that they haven't proven they are legit quite yet, but this was a team that, despite being in the doldrums last year, still finished with a winning record. If Capuano can get several decent starts in, I don't believe there will be many problems competing for the division.
I don't think they could've matched Detroit even if they weren't a mess last year. L.A was the highest bidder until Detroit made their unbelievable offer. Though, compared to how Loney is once again starting the year, he would've definitely made a big difference.
I think you probably just don't like Donald Driver. I've been in GB for several years now, and haven't heard once of him holding out. I'll look into it, but I know he was quick last season to make a contract with the team and this year is willing to take a cut for one more year. And considering that of A-Rod's 45 TD passes, only one receiver had more than 10, I wouldn't say he had a horrible season. He wasn't thrown to nearly as much because he has slowed down. But he did contribute, and showed in that playoff loss that sometimes he can still be the best receiver on the field.
While he was never the best catcher, we cannot use last season as the basis for determining whether to keep him. It is known that players who mess up their knees like he did last season do not perform very well the next season, mostly from being afraid of getting hit and re-injuring the knee. The real problem is whether you give a long-term contract to Finley, not whether you keep him. If you think he will get back to form next year, you sign him long term. If you aren't sure, you franchise him and make him prove he's back.
People, Flynn has played in more than two games (not even counting preseason). He's started two games. And before you all wonder why people would want him off those two starts, you have to understand that teams perform scouting all the time, and any time he is watchable he probably was being watched. Is he a great QB? Probably not. But he may still be upgrade for some teams that only need a decent QB to get over the hump.
Do not confuse a baseball franchise with a corporation. The owner is the only person responsible for financial matters. He can hire people to assist with it, but in the end, he is responsible for the decisions just like he is responsible for paying his employees (including players).
The Dodgers themselves have no debt. Frank McCourt is the person with debt. When he sells the team, it will be to pay off his debts, unless the selling contract includes taking over those debts.
Considering they blew an obvious, open holding call a play or two before on a big gain, Lane should be happy there was even a chance to complain about the clock.
Only the owners can fire the Commissioner, and as he was an owner before they will be highly unlikely to do so. Especially as he is very pro-owner and very anti-fan.
I think the main points of contention are Winnepeg still stuck in the Southeast, Dallas in the Pacific, Colorado and Minnesota in the Northwest. Expansion and moving has degraded the meanings of the division names, and the travel for some of these teams relative to the rest of their division is unfair.
Detroit should stay where it is. Move Nashville to the southeast and Winnepeg to the Northwest with Calgary and Edmonton. I think you could potentially swap Dallas and Vancouver too, though Dallas has travel issues no matter what division (except maybe the southeast).
Texas knows it won't have the same power it had if the Big-12 loses any more teams. With A&M heading to the SEC most likely, one of the conditions probably will be that the SEC not invite Texas. But with the Pac, they would have to realign the divisions again as a North-South division would be very South heavy.
So, Pac-16 East: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State Pac-16 West: All the Washington, Oregon, and California Schools
Missouri and Texas A&M will head to the SEC. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the Pac-12. Then it most likely will be a race to see which of the two will accept the Longhorn Network. Probably the Pac-12, as A&M would be pissed if Texas came to the SEC. So feed Texas and Texas Tech to the Pac-12 also. SEC goes poaching for other teams. Most of the rest of the Big-12 folds in with other conferences.
There isn't really any set criteria it has to meet. It is up to the NCAA how much punishment it has to warrant. The last two DP programs were at schools that hadn't had a single major violation before in any sport.
And in this instance, there are potentially current players who were paid, so the DP may all but be warranted. You are talking about a program that has been playing with ineligible players for 10 years, and people most likely knowing about it. If USC can lose scholorships and post-season because an agent provided some gifts to Bush's family in a vain attempt to lure him as a client, then Miami deserves worse than SMU got.
As for "they couldn't wait", they obviously could, as the new coach isn't even with the team yet. He can't even get on a plane!
Detroit should stay where it is. Move Nashville to the southeast and Winnepeg to the Northwest with Calgary and Edmonton. I think you could potentially swap Dallas and Vancouver too, though Dallas has travel issues no matter what division (except maybe the southeast).
So, Pac-16 East: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State
Pac-16 West: All the Washington, Oregon, and California Schools
And in this instance, there are potentially current players who were paid, so the DP may all but be warranted. You are talking about a program that has been playing with ineligible players for 10 years, and people most likely knowing about it. If USC can lose scholorships and post-season because an agent provided some gifts to Bush's family in a vain attempt to lure him as a client, then Miami deserves worse than SMU got.