Back And Forth: How Do You Solve A Problem Like Manny?

(Editors Note: Scott often refers to me as Ed or Eddie. He knows my name is Jordan. He can explain the meaning of this nickname.)

Scott: Alright Ed, we've both seen how long this Manny Ramirez saga has been dragging on. As of today, February 24th, Man-Ram has no home to call his own. Spring training continues, and he isn't on a team. We all know how great he is, and how frustrating he can be. IT seems like it's only the Dodgers in the running for the left fielder. If you're L.A., what do you do?

Jordan: Well if I'm L.A., I think it's a tough spot. One way you could look at it is: well, he didn't take either of our last two offers, (2 years, $45 million or 1 year, $25 million) we're not offering him more than that. And no one is bidding against us. So if he doesn't want to sign? Adios. On the other hand though, they really aren't good without him, are they? Don't they need him regardless of how much of a jerk he is?

S: Oh my God do they ever. The only reason, ONLY reason, that they won the division and a playoff series was because of him. Period.

J: I totally agree. Before Manny, they were a mediocre team. That said, what do you do if you're Ned Colletti and the Dodgers? (And, they also won a playoff series because the Cubs are a disgrace. But maybe that's beside the point.

S: Fair enough. I think that James Loney salami is still going. That was him right?

J: Yes. Ugh, yes it was.

S: Anyway, the Dodgers still hold the power here. That's the funny thing about all this, far as I see it. Every other team has pretty much said "Manuel, we're not going to budge." None of this 4-year, $25 mil a year crap. And with that said, the Dodgers are pretty much his only option.

J: Thing is though, is it possible the Dodgers could be better off without Manny's BS? Sure, we agree they wouldn't have gone anywhere without him. But that production hinged on the fact he was trying to get that 4-year, $25 mil per year crap. Will he be as motivated if he only gets a one year deal?

S: I think so. I thinknk to expect him to hit nearly .400 again is insane, but I think to expect him to be a big time offensive player isn't much out of the question. He seemed comfortable there last year, and more than anything else, tht Dodgers need him if they want to compete. And more importantly, he'll put people in the stands.

J: For that reason more than any other you'd have to think this deal gets done. But in either case, if you're the Dodgers, you need to make a decision already. This is a distraction, no matter how the shoothing Joe Torre wants to spin it, so they need to make this happen or not fairly quickly.

S: No doubt. Manny's going to be a Dodger, and frankly, how much does it even matter if he takes part in Spring Training? The guy didn't start playing last year till August, and he turned out fine.

J: True. He's a freak. HE could probably drive up to Chavez Ravine, walk into the park five minutes before game time in street clothes and hit three bombs on opening day.

S: I'll never love the guy, but damn him, I respect the hell out of what he does. Sounds ridiculous, but it's true.

J: I agree.

S: So what's the final verdict here? Sign him, or move on if you're L.A.?

J: Sign him. Just so we don't have to hear about it anymore. In the wofds of the great Dave Chappelle, "Zip it up, and zip it out!" (go to the 3 minute mark)

S: Zippidy Do Da, Eddie.

Back and Forth: Fixing The NBA Edition

Jordan: Scott, I have two radical ways we can change the NBA so that it's no longer an inferior product. (And you can fight me on whether it's really an inferior product or not in a second.) But before you tell me I'm insane, hear me out. First, the NBA should limit timeouts to three per half. We already have built in TV timeouts, and with 7 extra team time outs per half, the game stops and starts far too much. One of the appeals of NBA basketball, or basketball in general for that matter, is it's fast paced action. The NBA has ruined that by having so many time outs, especially in the last two minutes. Second, for every foul in the last two minutes of a game, teams should be awarded three free throw tries each time. This would help prevent the 45 minutes that it takes to finish the last two minutes of an NBA game. Also, all those timeouts are full time outs, since the 20 second time outs are really just full timeouts that don't go to commercial.

Scott: First of all, you are insane.

J: Why am I insane?

S: Well, to be honest, for reasons unconnected to this argument, which makes some sense, but not a whole heck of a lot. Would you like me to tell you why?

J: That would be good, yes.

S: First of all, college basketball has the same sort of problem with too many timeouts and fouling at the end of games, no? And does anyone complain that the action there is too slowly paced? Honestly, does the game need all of these extra timeouts? Probably not, you're right. But I don't think that would solve the problem. The fouling thing, well that's just strategy, boring as it may be.

J: Ok, I hear you. But you never explained why I'm insane. Maybe that's assumed. Either way, the fouling and timeouts are an issue with college basketball too. I agree. But the NBA is the league declining in popularity and not college hoops. These are the better athletes in the pro game, so why shouldn't it have more interest? If you make it a faster paced game, it has a different style and likely more appeal to the mass audience that has soured on it. Oh, and the strategy of fouling ruins basketball on both levels. Try this: play defense.

S: Let's clear up the confusion. You're insane, like I've said, for reasons unconnected to this post. However, would a bit of defense help? Yes. But as far as I'm concerned, that's not the biggest problem.

J: Then what is the biggest problem?

S: Thought you'd never ask.

J: I'm an inquisitive man, Scott.

S: So I've noticed. Basically, it comes down to a lack of rivalries. Simply put, there aren't any left in the NBA. None. Think about it for a second, can you come up with any?

J: Well, no. Maybe Lakers/Spurs, Spurs/Suns, Celtics/Cavs or Celtics/Hawks. But I suppose those are just recent rivalries and not legitimate rivalries that you can count on year after year.

S: Exactly. Think back to when the NBA was truly great. Just say Michael, get it over with. You know you want to.

J: Michael Jeffrey Jordan. Whew, out of the system.

S: Good, now we can all progress.

J: Bulls/Pistons, Celtics/Lakers, Knicks/Heat, Bulls/Knicks...

S: See, that's what I'm talking about. Knicks versus everyone basically. If you were playing in the mid-90s and didn't hate the Knicks, you weren't alive. But that sort of hatred of teams and not just cities (be fair, we hate Boston more than the actual Celtics largely because they were bought a summer ago) is what is lacking in the NBA today.

J: Quite true. But how do we restore rivalries? David Stern has the marketing of the players down pat. How does he rekindle the old rivalries?

S: That I can't answer. You didn't ask me to actually solve the problem. Just address it.

J: True enough. So for the time being, my rule changes would help.

S: I can only do so much. As it is now, I'm already listening to music and talking to you. To taxing already.

J: Sorry to strain your already small mind.

S: Rule changes might help mask the problem, at least for a small while. Not solve it, that's for sure.

J: But they would ultimately help too. Wouldn't you rather the game be faster paced and have less stoppages? It doesn't solve everything, but it does make NBA a better product.

S: Yeah it would. But because in college and even in the pros back when it was viable some years back, there were the same amount of timeouts and fouling at the end of the games and all that nonsense. And yet the product was still enjoyable. There were stars back then. There are some great stars now. Maybe now, to be honest, there are more. The lacking factor here? rivalries. Of course, no one's going to be MJ. That's ridiculous. but the NBA doesn't need another MJ to restore some glory.

J: That hurts, I agree. But the renaissance with the league is over and it's time to make some changes.

S: Kobe's and LeBron's and D-Wade's are enough star power.

J: It doesn't need another MJ, but people will always negatively compare those players to MJ. That's another problem with the league. The last decade or so has been the MJ hangover.

S: Again though, I think that's because there's been nothing for the fans to focus on alternatively. If there had been some great rivalries and such, people would be focusing on the product rather than what it was missing.

J: Maybe. All I know is I'll never be as interested in it unless there are changes. Whether that's a new rivalry to watch or rule changes. But I'd rather it be rule changes because those are easier to fix. You can't call up two teams and ask them to hate each other for the good of the league. (Although It would be great if you could)

S: It just takes one tough guy like Al Horford to start some crap. And if those two teams face off again [the Celtics and Hawks] that will be fun again. All I know is, I'm starving. Not for some NBA action, but for food.

J: Well then go eat and I'll get David Stern on the phone.