411 Sports Fact or Fiction 08.25.08: NBA Europe, NFL Preseason, Chad Ocho Cinco, and Much More!

Posted by Ken Schmidt on 08.25.2008

It is the first showdown of the final 4. Who will be the first to clinch a spot in the finals.

We are down to the final weeks of the most exciting tournament this website has held during the summer. What started as 16 eager sports fans has turned into a final 4 of the best of the best 411 has to offer. Let's meet the first semi-finalists

In red corner is a big shot around 411, especially when it comes to wrestling. You might not see him in a weekly column but you can catch him doing some epic lists and helping out whenever the wrestling zone is in need. It is JT

And in the blue corner we have a movies man that made short work of old school movie writer Ron Martin and Coast 2 Coast Sports Report member Geoff Keller. He is making a true impact in the Sports realm here at 411 and is the greenest member of the semis, the only one who hasn't been at 411 before I started. It's Shawn Lealos


1. Roger Federer will never reclaim the number one spot in the world

JT FACT And I hate to say so actually because while he has fallen a bit, I don't think Roger Federer is nearly as done as some would have you believe. I in fact think he can still be a very dominant force in men's tennis. However, there are certain factors again that I feel are a bit too overwhelming for me to say fiction.

The first is history. In the last 50 years, 21 men have been the World's #1 ranked tennis player. In only four instances, has a man dethroned gone on to regain the title. Making the odds even worse are that two of those times were by the same guy (After being #1 in 1974, Jimmy Conners regained it in 1976 after Arthur Ashe reigned in 1975; in even more historical fashion, Jimmy Conners actually lost it again and then miraculously rose to #1 again six years later in ‘82. That was never done before and hasn't been done since). The other man to do it was John McEnroe, who reached #1 in 1981 and again in 1983 after the aforementioned run by Conners. The only other instance it happened, the previous #1 managed only to regain a share of #1 (Ken Rosewall shared the top with Rod Lauer in 1970 after losing it to him exclusively in 1965 [they tied in 1964]). 3 ½ instances in 50 years, and hasn't been done since 1983? Those are not good odds for Roger.

The second is cycles. This is simply how things go in tennis. Someone is on top for a few years while being chased by the next guy who eventually takes over as the #1 draws close to or near the age of thirty. Ivan Llendl was #2 behind McEnroe before becoming #1 for three years. Andre Agassi was #2 three times in six years before knocking off Sampras. Roger Federer had to chase Andy Roddick for a year, and now Nadal was #2 three years running before finally taking over the #1 spot. Now it's Nadal's turn, and again, not good odds for Roger.

Finally, we have the man he's now chasing. Nadal holds the series lead 12 – 6, but that is a very misleading 12 – 6. Of the ten times they've met on clay, Federer has managed only one win. On the flipside, their eight contests on hard/green surfaces, Nadal has managed to win 3 of 8, despite him having obvious and admitted struggles playing on these things (Federer was considered an "overall" player while Nadal was a "clay-court" prodigy). So basically, Nadal came onto Federer's turf and managed to win 40% of the time, whereas Federar entered Nadal's back yard and managed a horrible .100 winning percentage.

But we know all that. Federer dominates on non-clay, Nadal dominates on clay. Yippee… but here is the scary part that I believe now puts #1 out of reach for Roger: Nadal is getting better on all surfaces. He has shown vast improvement on non-clay tops and that – as I said – is a very scary thought.

Nadal just won Olympic gold while Federer got sent home early (although he did win gold in doubles). Nadal has gone farther in tournaments recently, and also came into 2008 riding a streak that wouldn't end until he had won 32 consecutive matches. He's beaten Federer every time they've played in 2008. He's younger, he's faster, he's having a more successful year, and that combined with all the other factors I listed lead me to believe that while Roger isn't crawling in a hole and going away, him regaining #1 (barring a long-term injury to Nadal) is almost impossible at his age.

Shawn Lealos FICTION I don't like counting someone out who has been on the top for so long and only just recently lost his standing. His feud with Rafael Nadar is the best thing going in tennis right now, just as Connors/McEnroe and Agassi/Sampras before them. Jimmy Connors was thirty years old when he beat John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl in 1982 to regain his second number one ranking. If you are telling me Federer can't regain his composure and make a strong push, beat Nadar and regain the number one position down the road, you don't know Federer very well.

He may have lost in his opportunity for a single's gold medal in the Olympics this year, but he still won a gold in doubles. Federer is facing a fork in the road right now, and has to step up and reestablish himself as the best player in the game once again. He holds the record for most hard court wins (56) and grass court wins (65). This year he tied Pete Sampras for most titles on grass (10). He reached his 16th Grand Slam final when he faced Nadal at Wimbledon this year and had what John McEnroe called the greatest match he had ever seen. When he won his Gold medal in this year's Olympics, he became the only man in history to win a Gold medal while holding the number one ranking in the world. At the age of 27, he is far from done. He won't win it back right away, but to say he will never reclaim the number one spot is a claim I'll never make.

Scoring

Ken Schmidt This one is going to go to JT, because he took a stance while Lealos argued he isn't willing to go on the limb as well as the fact that it is really hard to dig yourself out of the 2 hole and into the top spot.

Dan Owen I'm giving the point to J.T. for this question. I was warned by Ken that this is a "good one" of a FoF, which is code for "good luck scoring it", and I can already see why. I was tempted to give this one to Lealos, because to say that Federer will never reclaim that #1 spot is dangerous. However, here's where I give it to J.T. Lealos says that Federer won't reclaim it right away. Here's my question then, when will he? Tennis isn't like checkers, you peak relatively young in tennis and if he can't win it back now, it could very well be too late.


2. Manny Ramirez should not receive the contract he is looking for (around 100 Million over 4 years) due to his immature behavior while playing for the Red Sox.

JT FICTION Why not? Some of the fans might be, but major league ball clubs are not tired of "Manny being Manny" (well, except for possibly the Red Sox). Is he not worth it? Was he not an integral part of the Red Sox winning two championships? For that matter, stats here aren't even relevant to the question. You are asking me if his behavior should prevent him from getting paid for his production? Absolutely not. Once in a while his antics can be annoying, but in general his usual demeanor is playful enough that it is not a distraction to the team. Now had you asked me the same question citing reasons like the fact he's 36 and his numbers declined the last couple of years, we may have had much more of a debate on the matter.

Shawn Lealos FICTION Manny Ramirez should receive the contract because he is still one of the top players in the game. His behavior towards the Red Sox has nothing to do with any other team in the league. He is proving himself right now as he plays for his new team, and this is his chance to show maybe it was just a bad marriage with Boston. He wants $25 million a year? Alex Rodriguez makes more, and hasn't A-Rod been a distraction for most the teams he played for as well? Jason Giambi might not be worth the $23 million he is paid, but Manny is still Manny and is worth every penny. JT mentions Manny's numbers have been declining over the last few years. Since coming to Boston, his worst batting average was .292 (2005) and he "only" hit 20 home runs in 2007. However, in 2007 Manny hit .348 with 4 home runs and 16 RBIs in post season to help Boston take their second World Series crown. In 2008, he is hitting .316 (sixth in the NL), with 26 homers (twelfth in the NL) and 89 RBIs (sixth in the NL). All those numbers are comparable to the highest paid player in baseball, and unlike statistical leaders Xavier Nady and Josh Hamilton, he has proven himself over time. If a team is willing to pay Manny Ramirez $100 million over 4 years, I think he has done enough over his career to deserve it and isn't showing signs of dropping off right now.

Scoring

Ken Schmidt I really hate the fact that both you guys think that someone with such a great team attitude that he would take three strikes in a row because he wants to get traded deserves huge dollars. It sets a bad precedent but the point goes to Lealos because he truly isn't showing any signs of dropping off, even with his antics in full swing.

Dan Owen J.T. takes another question from me. He's right, stats do not matter to the question (though I do think J.T is wrong saying that Manny is declining, 2007 was an aberration if you ask me, not a new norm). Manny's attitude has never really led to a team falling apart, so I think that his attitude isn't that big of a problem. If there was another player of equal ability without the clubhouse antics, I'd probably take that guy, but regardless, Manny shouldn't be prevented from getting the big contract he seeks because he is a goofball.


3. C.C. Sabathia will get the biggest contract in the history of Major League Pitchers after this season.

JT FICTION He absolutely will not get the biggest contract; the main reason can be contributed to the fact that he is a pitcher. Obviously the bar here is Alex Rodriguez, who signed a $252 million deal in 2000, a number that was at the time over sixty million more than the highest ever contract. But a major factor in that deal being made is that it was for 10 YEARS.

No team in the league is going to give a 28 year old pitcher a 10 year deal and in turn, nobody is going to spend more than $252 million on even say a 7 or 8 year deal. Hell, non-pitcher and 23-year-old Evan Longoria just signed and the most that his six-year deal can turn into is nine years. A decade is simply uncommon in today's game and like I said, nobody is going to pay a quarter million dollars for significantly less time. Here are the last major, lengthy contracts awarded to pitchers:

Mike Hampton (2001, Colorado Rockies) – 8 years, 121 million

Barry Zito (2007, San Fransisco Giants) – 7 years, 126 million

Kevin Brown (1999, ) – 7 years, 105 million

Mike Mussina (1999, New York Yankees) – 6 years, 88.5 million

Pedro Martinez (1998, Boston Red Sox) – 6 years, 75 million

Daisuke Matsuzaka (2007, Boston Red Sox) – 6 years, 54 million

Now, there were also 12 major contracts given to pitchers for five years. This shows that not only are these contracts few and far between, but that pitching is even more likely to not pan out the way hitting does. Also, it shows that teams are interesting at all in giving pitchers A-Rod money.

For this statement to be a FACT, the Indians would have to more than DOUBLE the most expensive contract ever given to a pitcher, and likely lose at least 25% of the years on said contract (A-Rods). Sorry that isn't happening.

Shawn Lealos FICTION First I'd like to point out that Sabathia doesn't play for the Indians, JT, he plays for Milwaukee. Let's look at his numbers. C.C. Sabathia has pitched for eight years, with a record of 144-71 with 1134 strikeouts. If you just take his numbers just for the last three years (not including this season), he has averaged a 3.14 ERA and 180 strikeouts a season. This season he is on the verge of breaking his own strikeout highs (209) with his best ERA to date. However, his postseason career numbers include a 7.17 ERA in four starts with a total of 19 strikeouts, or less than five a game. He has proven he can throw the heat but has he proven he can help a team win a pennant?

Johan Santana was paid $137.5 million over six years when he got his contract extension from the New York Mets this year. That is $22.9 million a year to a guy who has a 3-year average of a 2.99 ERA with 239 strikeouts a season. Most teams, when calculating the worth of a player, take into account the other players at their position and determine a sliding scale. If anything, he will get close to, or maybe slightly higher than, Santana's recent contract. I don't believe he will be paid more than Santana and I am pretty damn sure he won't reach Alex Rodriguez levels. I predict he'll receive close to $20 million a year for his services and own the second highest pitcher's contract ever paid. It also won't be for the Brewers, whose highest contract at this time is Ben Sheets $38 million deal and total 2008 salaries around $81 million.

Scoring

Ken Schmidt I don't know if his bad playoff ERA will be the reason he doesn't get his big contract but the fact is that he might not get Johan numbers, because I guess he hasn't quite gotten there yet. And whether JT meant the Indians to be the Brewers or was actually talking about the Indians, I don't like they even factor into this at all, considering Cleveland rarely spends big money. Point to Lealos

Dan Owen JT, you were a bit of a mess on this one. First off, I want to point out that the question was only referring to pitchers, not every single player, so Alex Rodriguez's contract doesn't have much bearing on this conversation. Also, as Lealos pointed out, Sabathia doesn't play for the Indians any more, and I'm pretty sure they aren't planning to try to sign him back again. Anyway, Lealos gets the question because he also brought up the Santana extension, which I don't believe Sabathia will beat, though he will certainly come close.


We Are Split Down the Middle Halfway Through


4. There is no reason to be concerned with NFL Preseason games, they are strictly for entertainment.

Shawn S. Lealos: FICTION For one thing, Preseason games aren't that entertaining. You get to see stars for a quarter and then you can see your favorite college players get their one spot in the limelight. However, there are some important things to notice in preseason. Larry Johnson is coming back from a pretty bad injury that hobbled him all last season. You don't want to wait until the first game of the season to know if he is ready to go, you want to test that leg in preseason games (on a limited basis). Sure, you can watch for that in practice, but you don't know until he faces another team in an actual game, and hopefully not the first game of the season, where it may be too late.

Another important aspect in preseason is to find hidden talent. Everyone knew Colt Brennan was a stud at Hawaii. How will he do in the NFL? From the look of him so far this preseason. Yes, it was against second, third and fourth team defenses, but the guy has looked like the real deal. If it wasn't for his preseason performance, he would simply be an emergency game quarterback. Thanks to these games, he might be in the fighting for the backup. Coach Jim Zorn mentioned he was pleased because Brennan was looking to the right guy when he was backpedaling, knew the plays, knew the routes. It is preseason where these gems are allowed to shine.

Teams like The Dallas Cowboys need to find a third receiver and have found in these "meaningless" games they have a lot of work to do on special teams. Chad Pennington needs these games to desperately get the grasp of a new playbook in Miami, while Brett Favre does the same in New York. As I said earlier, you can only go so far in practice. Chicago needs to pick out a running back and Baltimore needs to find a quarterback. Preseason is where these starters will step up.

All teams should also be concerned about the preseason games because of the important thing: Injuries. In the past few seasons, stars such as Clinton Portis and Michael Vick went out with preseason injuries. Yes, they can also get hurt in regular season games, but as a coach or owner, would you rather lose a player after he helps you win some games, or lose him before you even reach Week 1?

As for wins and losses, preseason standings mean little. When Dallas won their Super Bowls in the 90s, they never, ever won in preseason. From 1992-1995, Dallas went 7-12-1 in preseason and won three Super Bowls. In their back-to-back Super Bowl seasons of 1992-1993, they were 3-7-1 in preseason while going 25-7 in the regular season. Teams like New England and Indianapolis use preseason to find backups to their stars. They don't care if they win or lose these games, because they are scouting talent. Teams like Arizona and San Francisco, who are fighting to get over that bubble, need these games to gauge their chances for the upcoming year. It is important to find the stars of tomorrow in these preseason games and you want to be careful with your stars of today.

JT FICTION Personally, I don't like preseason games. I especially don't like that there are FOUR preseason games. Your team is physically a month into a long, grinding season and not a single snap has counted. If you're lucky, you've managed to keep all your starters healthy and not lost them meaninglessly to injury on a play that meant nothing.

That being said, this all of course leads to Game 1 and bottom line you have got to know the guys who are ready and capable to go to war with you for 16 weeks (and beyond based on the year you have). You can't do that by throwing rookies into starting spots without preparation and expecting them to be ready for the "speed" of the NFL, calling up practice squad guys and expecting them to know the playbook, or acclimating new players (say, free agent signings) to your system in games that mean something. This isn't the NBA or MLB where you can "lose a game here or there early and be okay". This is the NFL, where you get only 16 shots to make it count. As much as I don't like it, preseason is a product of necessity. You have to "know" you're ready week 1, not "have a pretty good idea" that you are; that is what preseason is for.

Also, an athlete on any professional team sport environment – especially if they aren't a household name or 1st round draft pick or hyped up, over-covered superstar – will tell you one of the most important things you can do is "get yourself on tape". The preseason is a GREAT way to do that. There will be injuries that occur and decisions to be made during the course of a season, and having that film of yourself can be the difference between joining your dad at the local roofing company and getting a job on someone's bench, eventually getting your shot, and possibly becoming a superstar (or at the least, a consistent enough contributor to sign a longer contract for better pay).

Take Derek Anderson for example. He was cut by Baltimore before the season started in 2005. Cleveland must have seen something – like the one preseason game he played a majority of in which he went 7-14 for 145 yards and a touchdown maybe? – that made them claim him off waivers. He then had a fairly productive 2006 pre-season (leading the Browns in passing 3 of 4 games). The only thing Cleveland had "on tape" of him in Cleveland was the one half of regular season football he played that year, in which he threw two touchdowns and scrambled for almost 40 yards, bringing the team back and sending the game into overtime. In OT, he led the Browns down the field into field-goal range where they won the game. Now, that's not a lot of "tape", but it was enough for Romeo to trust him enough to send Charlie Frye packing and hand over the starting reigns to DA. A week, five touchdowns, and a win over division rival Cincinnati later, the rest was history. So I'd say there are plenty of people who should be concerned with the preseason.

On a lighter note since you said *you*, I'll give you a small reason why *I* am concerned. A quarter-billion people play fantasy football. Preseason games are obviously no indication of what a player or team will do, but they can help you gauge (when the 1st teams are in) where a potential player on your want list stands. I'll be a homer here and mention Calvin Johnson (now, I won't pick him because I kept Roy from last year but that isn't the point). He played most of his rookie season playing hurt and his fantasy numbers showed that. Now I might not pick him based on his very impressive preseason thus far, but it would make me much less hesitant to contemplate it. Paying attention in preseason can equate to some cash in your pocket come the end of the season! Just something to consider!

Scoring

Ken Schmidt I am glad that JT saw the ‘you' because I am curious on the opinions of the writers here. Either way the point is squeaked to JT here, maybe he should write a biography for Derek Anderson. Also, it's a bit of a pity point because JT's home team is not very respectable.

Dan Owen I'll give the point here to Lealos. You guys both kind of said the same thing, but Lealos covered about half of the league in his response. Regarding the question itself, since when were pre-season games considered entertainment?!?


5. T.J. Houshmanzadah will have more receptions than Chad Johnson this season.

Shawn S. Lealos: FACT. He had more receptions than Chad last season. Sure, Chad is "supposed" to be happier and the Bengals have said they will look into an extension for next year, but Chad Johnson plays for one person - himself. Houshmanzadah is a team player who goes out every week, keeps his mouth shut, and tries to help his team win. I think at this point in their careers, Chad Johnson is becoming a secondary receiver to the more reliable T.J. Last year, T.J. had 112 receptions for 1143 yards and 12 touchdowns. Chad had 93 catches for 1440 yards and 8 touchdowns. Those numbers tell me that Chad had more big play catches but rarely made it into the end zone. How does a guy that averages 15 yards a catch have less touchdowns than a guy who averages 10 yards a catch? T.J. is more reliable to make the catch, is a safer bet to hold onto the ball and is the guy that Carson Palmer is now looking for when he needs a money play.

Rudi Johnson is supposed to be back, stronger and more durable than ever, which is of great importance to this team. Despite all the teams passing yards last year, they were horrible on defense and need the power running game to keep their opponent's offense off the field. This should also open up play action passes which will benefit the route running Houshmanzadah as well as new target, tight end Ben Utecht. Chad will continue to make big plays, but it is T.J.'s time to shine.

JT FICTION A question like this is virtually unanswerable due to possible injuries to either player, to the running back (or vice versa the success of the running game), or even to the quarterback himself. T.J. could break a leg week one, or Rudy might turn into Larry Johnson circa 2006; hell, BOTH receivers are nursing injuries right now, and the fact remains we are still two weeks from anyone playing a snap that counts. Also, I'd like to say I like T.J. He is a very articulate and fun guy when dealing with the media/making appearances/etc. That being said, I will play devil's advocate for the sake of argument.

Yes, TDs are more important but I'm throwing 2007 out the window stat wise. Chad got yardage and avg. (closer to the goal line = better chance of points of some kind), T.J. got catches and TDs (can't beat 7 points). Either way, they both had very productive years; rather, I'm going back to 2006. You know what is interesting about 2006? T.J. had more catches and more TDs than Chad Johnson. Killing my own case, right? I don't think so. Fact is thanks to Carson having a pro-bowl year, Chad – the superstar – producing, and having a 1600 yard ground game, people still weren't taking much notice. Let's be honest, heading into last year T.J. Houshmandzadeh was just as famous for his last name in a fantasy football commercial as he was his stat line. I'm not saying he was being ignored, not at all. People knew he was good, they just didn't know how good, which is why last year Chad still got most of the attention from defenses. Well, the cat is out of the bag now. T.J. proved with a second straight pro-bowl caliber season – despite playing opposite Ocho Cinco – that he is for real. That means this year, teams will be giving him equal attention, placing him and Chad back on level playing field. When that happens, I'm not ready to call him the bigger playmaker.

They've both been in the league for eight years. To this point, their career stats would tend to agree with me.

Chad Johnson – 108 games played, 559 rec. for 8,365 yds. and 49 TDs with a 15.0 ypc avg. and 423 first down.

T.J. Houshmandzadeh – 88 games played, 415 rec. for 4,878 yds. and 33 TDs with a 11.8 avg. and 269 first downs.

Chad – in merely 20 games – has him beat 144 rec. for 3,513 yards and 16 TDs, as well as 154 first downs. That's a pretty impressive season and a quarter lead. I guess it's now up to T.J. to prove me wrong.

Scoring

Ken Schmidt I wish the question was on yardage included but the fact is, the question was about receptions and Lealos made the point about old reliable Houshmanzadah.

Dan Owen Lealos takes the third question in a row from me. JT, here's the problem with your argument. As the numbers pretty clearly show, Chad is more of a deep threat. While T.J. Houshmanzadeh is not a secret any longer, that doesn't mean teams are going to be able to focus on him more. Sure, if they have the personnel to do it they will, but you cannot tell me it makes sense to shut down the short-to-middle range receiver and let the deep threat take off.


6. The N.B.A. should be seriously concerned about star players (i.e. LeBron James and Kobe Bryant) playing in Europe in the future.

Shawn S. Lealos: FICTION The NBA should be concerned about middle of the road stars leaving for Europe. The European league has started taking players such as Josh Childress, Earl Boykins, Carlos Arroyo, Nenad Krstic, Carlos Delfino, Jorge Gabajosa and most recently Jannero Pargo. These are not household names, and all are pretty much role players. Childress received about $20 million after taxes and Pargo signed for nearly $4 million for a one-year deal. This works well for them as the Euros are worth more than the American dollar and they would never be paid that much in the NBA.

Last year's salaries: Kevin Garnett: $22 million, Kobe Bryant: $19.49 million, Tim Duncan: $19.014 million, LeBron James: $13.041 million. Now, I'm sure Europe could match one or two of those, and the salaries would mean more because of a stable economy, but these players don't make the majority of their money from their contracts. They make it from Nike, Reebok, McDonalds and all the other sponsors. Would they make anywhere near what they make here in endorsements if they were in Europe? I don't think they would. Europe can tempt away our minor players but not our stars.

The organization who should be worried is the NCAA. Players were always skipping college and jumping to the NBA. With recent changes to the draft rules, they are no longer allowed to do so. Back in 2001, six high school seniors signed up for the NBA draft and four were first round picks. Following the 2005-06 season, the NBA established an age restriction of 19 years old to be eligible for the draft as well as a "one year out of high school" requirement, meaning if a high school player did not attend college, he would have to sit out a year before being allowed to declare for the draft. Europe doesn't have that policy and last month the nation's top point guard in the class of 2008 chose to forego college in favor of playing in Europe instead of enrolling and playing at Arizona. The NBA implemented this policy to force kids to go to college, but as displayed here, there is always a loophole. Now the players the NCAA thought they were about to get have an alternative that will pay them immediately.

JT FICTION But first I'll give you a couple of reasons why they should be concerned, and then also why ultimately they won't be.

Lealos is right, right now they're tempting people known only to your average NBA fan. However he is wrong about the longevity of that statement. These teams appear to have a long term goal, and that will get interesting when people's contracts start running out. The two players you mentioned come to mind. Lebron has always said he wants to be a "global" entity, and a guy with as much money as Kobe would surely consider living in a beautiful country like Italy where he speaks the native language and would have a lighter schedule and not near the competition. Now some would argue it's that very level of competition that would keep them in state-side, wanting to be the best in the largest basketball organization in the world, not some European league two-thousand miles away. But what if they don't? What if Lebron really does want to compete with guys like Jordan and Tiger? What if Kobe has done enough to be content dominating overseas? That is where it gets "interesting". Why? Because they are recognizable enough to do it. Does anyone believe Kobe, Lebron, or Garnett can hop off a plane in Germany and not be recognized? No. Not only would they receive MASSIVE attention and adoration in whatever country (and surrounding areas) they decide to play for, but it also wouldn't hurt them because in today's age because American sports outlets would still give them just as much – if not more – coverage than they receive even playing here. You really think SportsCenter wouldn't have highlights or at the least results of every regular season, playoff, and applicable championship format game they played in? Please. America would simply follow them over there.

I also have to disagree with you as to how it pertains to marketing and endorsements. Like my opponent said, the teams themselves can handle the salaries; hate to break it to you Shawn, but the major companies you speak of are worldwide nowadays. You can get a Royale with cheese in France ("you know why they call it that? CHECK OUT THE BIG BRAIN ON BRAD!), you can drink a Gatorade in China, and you can buy a Nike or Adidas shoe in Australia. These companies would still pay top dollar to have them endorse their product, and even if it isn't "America" money, they'd still make enough off of the contract as well as the very, very minimal percentage of sales they're entitled to. Not only that, we're only talking the major American companies. How many NBA players do you see in Mercedez commercials? When was the last time you saw Kevin Garnett in a Lamborghini commercial? Hell, a Lamborghini commercial period? Exactly. There is a whole new horizon for these guys to broaden with MAJOR rich ass, high end companies that cater to Europe, not the states. You really think Porsche would have a problem throwing 10 mil. at a major star playing for the countries' basketball team? No. Advertising wise they'd be fine, and likely even open new opportunities for themselves.

So yes, it'd be fiction, but for none of the reasons Lealos mentioned. The only reason it's fiction is because the day it would become a serious issue, David Stern and the rest of the NBA would pool their resources, hop on a plane (figuratively), and go work something out, which would lead to an NBAE logo smacked on everything and some sort of system in place to make it work. There long term goal anyway is to make NBA a global organization (and let me say, out of the four major sports, it has the best shot), so why concern themselves with what could be the corner pieces of the puzzle that is reaching what they've wanted for years anyway?

FICTION.

Scoring

Ken Schmidt Wow the point goes to JT here and he can thank the home field advantage of going second. First he smacked down Lealos and than he said exactly what I've always been thinking, there is no way David Stern and the rest of the NBA let a big name like that get away from the NBA.

Dan Owen I'm going to give this one to JT. That was a really good argument, because you were bringing up all of the reasons why I believe Lealos' argument is wrong, because with the ungodly amount of money these foreign places would throw at the players (teams and sponsors) as well as the god-like worship a guy like Kobe could enjoy, I wouldn't put it past them to make a move across the pond. However, as JT brilliantly points out, there is no way that Stern would let something like that happen, and the NBA has the resources to stop a mass exodus.


Final Score 6-6! And after all that nothing has been decided, we are right back where we started. Join us next week when the entire final 4 will be in competition!