Peyton Manning seems somewhat at peace with his departure from Indianapolis

And really, has anyone ever been upset about leaving that city? But since he seems OK with it (publicly, at least), it's time for America's sportswriters to be outraged on his behalf. Gene Wojciechowski, man holding the prestigious title of ESPN's "Senior National Columnist," you can begin spewing moronic invective whenever you're ready.

What if the Indianapolis Colts didn't have the first pick of the 2012 NFL draft, but the third?

Yeah, what if? Would that make them feel better about paying Manning a $30 million roster bonus so he could lead their clearly-not-going-to-contend-for-a-Super-Bowl team next year? I mean, that's what pro sports is all about: paying an ungodly sum of money to one 35 year old guy when even the stupidest superfan can tell it's time for the team to rebuild. (Note: sarcasm does not apply to the 2014-2016 Phillies and Ryan Howard)

What if Peyton Manning was recovering from knee surgery, not multiple neck procedures?

Yeah, that'd make them more comfortable with paying him all that cash for sure! Quarterbacks don't use their knees. Silly goose.

What if Colts owner Jim Irsay didn't talk out of both sides of his horseshoe?

"Both sides of his horseshoe?" (Insert picture of Hindenburg crash)

Think about it: Irsay would rather roll the bones on Andrew Luck or Robert Griffin III than on Manning. Luck and RG3 have a combined zero NFL snaps. Manning has a Super Bowl ring and four league MVP awards and has thrown for more yards in NFL history than everyone except Brett Favre and Dan Marino.

Holy shit. Your understanding of how teams operate is like an infant's understanding of pretty much anything. You get an F-. You get a zero. You get whatever the worst imaginary grade I can give you is. If you're honestly writing this because you're outraged that the Colts would rather draft a 22 year old QB and pay him $25-$30 million over the course of the next 4 or 5 years (Scam Newton got $22 million over 4) than pay Manning whatever the hell they would have owed him to lead them to a couple wild card berths during that span, you're the stupidest sportswriter of all time. If instead you're writing this with full knowledge that cutting Manning was the right managerial move, but still think Manning needs someone to stand up for his honor, you're the biggest asshole sportswriter of all time. Or you could be both, who knows.

And never mind what caused this divorce

OK, sounds like you're going with "stupidest" rather than "biggest asshole." Probably a good decision, although keep in mind that you can change it if you see fit.

or where he'll end up next. How about we take a few moments and remember exactly what a legend looks like?

Mmmm. More platitudes, please.

Manning made Indianapolis forget that it was a football stepmother.

Manning transformed a horrible franchise into a perennial contender.

Fuck paying players for what you expect them to do over the course of the contract in the future- the real key to success is to pay players for what they've done in the past. (Insert picture of Ed Wade)

Manning killed it on "Saturday Night Live" ("I just thought about going out there for the second half, and a little bit of pee came out.")

Fuck paying Manning- is Jon Hamm available?

Manning reported to the Giants Stadium interview room wearing a suit and tie -- and no shoes or socks -- after a night-game win against his brother Eli. He did it (and I was there) because he knew the East Coast sports writers were on a crushing deadline.

Now shifting over from "stupidest" to "biggest asshole." HE WAS NICE TO ME AND THEREFORE HE DESERVES TO ALWAYS BE HAPPY AND NEVER BE INCONVENIENCED! Classic sportswriter assholery.

Manning led the Colts to a pair of Super Bowls and won one.

Mostly irrelevant.

Manning engineered a comeback for the ages: down 21 points at Tampa Bay with four minutes left, and won the game in OT!

Completely irrelevant.

Manning never made TMZ's greatest hits.

Almost completely irrelevant.

Manning prepared so thoroughly that he could have double-dipped as a coach.

I think the Colts already have one of those. They fired Jim Caldwell, yes? OK, then yeah, they presumably do.

Manning had 63 games with at least 300 passing yards.

How many of those does Andrew Luck have? THOUGHT SO.

Manning was proud of playing in Indianapolis.

I know, weird, right? I'm starting to doze off.

But this is about the business and commerce of the NFL, not loyalty.

And now I'm awake again. The fuck?

Plus, the necks of Luck and Griffin haven't felt a surgeon's scalpel. And the price tag for a rookie quarterback, even the No. 1 overall pick, is Happy Meal-cheap compared to what it would have cost Irsay to sign Manning. In 2012 alone, we're talking a $28 million bonus and $7.4 million in salary.

I know Irsay's decision makes financial sense, but that doesn't mean it makes football sense.

There's the big "Larry B copies and pastes it multiple times" line from this article. Drink it up.

I know Irsay's decision makes financial sense, but that doesn't mean it makes football sense.

I know Irsay's decision makes financial sense, but that doesn't mean it makes football sense.

I know Irsay's decision makes financial sense, but that doesn't mean it makes football sense.

That's great stuff. It's fantastic that you can be a Senior National Sportswriter for a major outlet and not understand that in a Venn diagram, "financial sense" is a small circle inside the larger "football sense" circle (a nipple on a boob, if you will).

If Manning is healthy -- and his arm strength certainly seems to be trending that way -- then Irsay just deprived the Colts of their best chance to win games.

Your editor took "in 2012 and maybe 2013" off the end of that sentence. Sorry about that.

Luck, the presumptive No. 1 choice, was a remarkable college quarterback. But show me the documentation that guarantees he'll be a remarkable NFL quarterback.

Prove to me that the guy scouts are calling the most polished college QB since Manning will be amazing in the NFL. You can't. ARGUMENT: OVER.

I'll go read -- and finish -- James Joyce's "Ulysses" as you try to find that paperwork.

KABOOM.

And had he stayed in Indianapolis, there's no way the Colts would go 2-14 again. Irsay could have kept Manning, then traded the overall No. 1 pick for at least two first-round picks as well as a third-rounder and a fifth-rounder. Think that would've helped the short- and long-term rebuilding process?

And in 2014 when, those draft choices started to blossom and Manning was ready to retire, THAT'S when keeping him around would REALLY pay off.

Irsay (and others) will insist that you get only so many opportunities to draft a quarterback the caliber of Luck. But you also get only so many opportunities to draft and keep a quarterback with Manning's first-ballot Hall of Fame credentials.

You only get so many chances to pay him $35 million a year while he's in the twilight of his career and the team is falling apart around him.

Ask yourself this question: Would the Colts win more games during the next one to three years with a healthy Luck or a healthy Manning?

That rhetorical question does not accomplish what you intend it to accomplish.

I'll give Irsay credit for making a difficult decision. But for all his talk during the past four months, when he sliced apart the Peyton-returns scenarios as though they were garlic cloves, it is obvious he didn't want to keep No. 18. If he did, Manning would still be a Colt.

Astute observation. What's the next lid you'll blow off? I DON'T WANT TO ALARM ANYONE, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THE REDSKINS MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN DRAFTING ROBERT GRIFFIN.

Maybe everyone lives happily ever after. Luck becomes Manning Lite. Manning finds success and contentment in another uniform. Irsay finds vindication.

But I doubt it.

Actually, that all seems about as likely as any other outcome.

Experience counts. Manning -- even a 90-percent-healthy version of him -- counts.

Oooh, thanks for listening when I asked for more platitudes. Manning counts, people. He counts.

Remember the story Manning told Sports Illustrated's Peter King years ago about the 1998 draft? Colts management was split over which quarterback to take with the No. 1 overall pick: Manning or Washington State's Ryan Leaf.

Manning requested a meeting with then-general manager Bill Polian and then-coach Jim Mora. He told them,

"I promise you I won't beat up any reporters or start dealing painkillers."

"I'd really like to come here if you want me. But if you don't, I promise you I'll come back and kick your ass for the next 15 years."

Now Irsay and the Colts don't want him anymore. So Manning will adapt. He always does.

He'll kick their butt for the next three years.

JOKE'S ON YOU AT POINT, IRSAY. (Insert picture of any QB who started as a rookie, struggled for a couple years and then blossomed into a good player)

Dear Jeff Passan: You're a Diptard

The Rockies recently handed Troy Tulowitzki a hefty extension, and the baseball media's reaction was mostly negative. Rob Neyer was mildly unsupportive, Tangotiger sort didn't really mind it, and Keith Law hated it. No surprise there because Keith Law is a card-carrying asshole who (smugly) hates everything. The fact that Passan also hated it, then, isn't anything special. What's special are his reasons for hating it, which range from WRONG to terribly thought out to fucking ridiculous. The craziest part- he found a way to try to claim that the deal isn't just bad for the Rockies, but for Tulowitzki as well (something no other writer I stumbled across did).

What could’ve been, though. Oh, what could’ve been. On one hand, Tulowitzki played things safe. He was reasonable.

Agreeing to be paid $19MM per year 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 years in the future for doing the same thing you do now is probably a reasonable thing to do, yes. LET'S PAT HIM ON THE BACK FOR IT BEFORE WE TEAR HIM TO PIECES.

And on the other, he lacked the fortitude to chase the greater glory that awaited him elsewhere. The money he could’ve gotten and the championships he could’ve won had he simply played out his current contract with the franchise that can’t help itself from taking a blade to its jugular.

Allow me to translate: gross! Who wants to try to win anywhere but Boston, New York, and MAYBE Philly or L.A.? What kind of an unreasonable stupid person is Tulo? Doesn't he know that all players should focus singularly on playing for one those teams? What a dummy this guy is! Trying to win a title with the team that drafted him. For shame.

By turning down the opportunity to hit free agency after 2014, Tulowitzki potentially left millions of dollars on the table.

Hard to say. Probably. He's still going to be paid for sure during those years, even if he decides to get fat and lazy and really sucks by then. So the security the deal offers was, you know, probably worth something to him.

He certainly left the opportunity to play for franchises that need not operate with tight margins because of one man’s deal.

This sounds like sour grapes from a Yankees/Red Sox fan, but The Google reveals that Passan doesn't seem to have any particular bias towards big payroll teams. In any case, it's shitty logic. More on why later. Let's move on to Passan's analysis of the Rockies' side of the deal, which is predictably dumb.

If this deal is bad for Tulowitzki, it’s ill-conceived and unconscionable for a Rockies team that knows what long-term, big-money contracts do to franchises with middling budgets: cripple them. And even if Tulowitzki is the anti-Mike Hampton

Right, terrible contract. No one would argue otherwise.

and even if he can stay healthy like Todd Helton couldn’t,

This is where the WRONG starts. He mentions the Helton extension (a 9 year deal worth $141 MM signed after the 2002 season and running through 2011) multiple times, as if it were some spectacular failure. Here are the facts which you can keep in mind as Jeff keeps referencing this deal- in by far the three worst years of the deal, the most recent three, Helton appeared in 352 games, or about 118 per season. He missed a boatload of time in 2008 and quite a bit last year. During this stretch, he "only" accumulated about 5 WAR and OPS+ed 108. Slightly above average for a corner infielder. Now- was he worth what he was being paid at the time? Of course not. He made $50MM from 2008-2010, and if you use the somewhat-accepted conversion rate of $5MM per WAR on the open market, he made double what he should have. It's really 2008 and 2010 that were the problem- he had a great 2009 (4 WAR).

So in spite of the good will his presence generates among fans, and his leadership/grit/whatever other intangibles you want to throw in there, he's spent the last three seasons being a mild cash sink for the Rockies. But from 2003-2007? He accumulated 26 WAR and OPS+ed 145. He was worth what he was paid and then some. Using that same conversion rate for WAR on the open market I described before, he paid for roughly 80% of the cost of the contract in those five years alone. Combine his performance then with his 2008-2010, and it's batshit insane to say the contract was anything worse than a "fair deal" for the Rockies. It would be perfectly reasonable to call it a good deal, and if you're really into intangibles and all that crap, you could call it great. Would they have been better off signing him to a 5 year extension and avoiding his eventual decline? Sure, in most ways. But making a deal to keep him around for the rest of his career generated a lot of value for the franchise, as he was their first true homegrown superstar. Comparing this contract to Hampton's is lunacy. Implying that it was or is some kind of albatross around the franchise's neck is flat out WRONG.

and even if he is the do-everything, all-world, good-guy shortstop, heir to Derek Jeter,

Then that would be awesome, because Jeter was really really good until last season and Tulo was a better defender to begin with so in theory his defense will age better.

he still leaves the Rockies in a compromised position: with limited money to spend on the other pieces and parts that would comprise an annual contender.

To an extent, that's the whole point, isn't it? If you're not the Yankees or Red Sox, you have to spend money on certain guys and build around them. Of course you can't keep everyone- I'm sure Carlos Gonzalez will leave the Rockies when he's a free agent or on the brink of becoming one, as Matt Holliday did- but there are certain guys you keep and build around. And you pay them a lot of money so you can do that. You keep Joe Mauer. You pay shitloads of money to keep Miguel Cabrera if you acquire him. And you keep Tulowitzki. It's a very smart way to do things, and keeps fans interested. Being successful while operating your team like the Rays or A's do is nice in theory, but it's a dangerous game. Having a cornerstone that keeps ticket sales up and allows you to be absolutely sure about something that's six, seven, or eight years down the road is a preferable option if it's available. Don't be surprised if you hear rumors about the Rays approaching Evan Longoria about this kind of mega extension a few years from now. And at the same time, this is a really stupid point. Because by the time the extension's big money kicks in, the Rockies probably won't be dealing with much of a "limited money to throw around" situation at all.

The Rockies operate with a payroll of around $80 million. Last year, it was $5 million more, the year before $3 million less.

And in 2015, it's a very safe bet that it'll be around $100 million or more. Back in 2003/2004/2005, it was around $60-$65MM. See how that works? In fact, call me crazy, but I'm willing to bet that salaries all across MLB have gone up in the last 5ish years, and will go up again in the next 5ish years. Magic!

Tulowitzki’s contract extension adds six years and $119 million onto the end of his current deal, which, including a 2014 option, was to pay him $38.75 million. So, starting in 2015, when Tulowitzki will be 30, the Rockies will give him nearly $20 million a year.

“If there’s a guy to spend a quarter of your payroll on, he’s it,” said a GM of a low-revenue team, “but you just don’t spend a quarter of your payroll on anyone. Period.”

Which is why it's a good thing they won't be doing that with Tulo unless some crazy and unforeseen financial catastrophe hits baseball or their team.

The Rockies ignored that rule again,

They didn't. This line of logic is kind of similar to saying "Why would you take an entry level job coming out of college that only pays you $40K a year? You'll never be able to buy a house and put three kids through college with that salary!"

And yet Rockies executives admit that attaining such success with Helton’s albatross nine-year, $141.5 million deal took an incredible confluence of timing and luck.

See above.

Locking up any other players of significance became an impossibility.

They didn't have any to lock up other than Holliday and MAYBE Jason Jennings. They traded both for packages of players who provided better value in the short and the long run. The Rockies' problem in 2003-2006 wasn't that Helton's contract (and Hampton's "dead money" contract, left over for five years even after he was traded) were holding them back. Their problem was that they didn't have enough homegrown talent to make it worthwhile to compliment that talent with extra free agent pieces.

With attendance unlikely to return to the halcyon late ’90s, new revenue streams to support such deals are almost impossible to come by. The jump to a $100 million payroll isn’t happening.

It almost certainly is, and probably by 2015. They're going to be at about $85MM this year.

So as the Rockies celebrate Tulowitzki’s new deal, they do so knowing that Ubaldo Jimenez is now likely to leave after the 2014 season.

Depends. No way to tell this far out, and stupid to make assumptions about a pitcher's ability to sustain success without having his arm explode.

And that Carlos Gonzalez, a Scott Boras client, is certain to do so.

Sure. He was probably going to whether they signed Tulowitzki or not.

And that rather than waiting until 2014 to figure out where to spend their money, the team went all-in on a player who has missed significant time in two of his four seasons because of injuries.

In 2008 he missed time for one injury that won't be repeated (hurt himself slamming a bat in the dugout) and one that was a legitimate on field "wear and tear" injury (quad/groin pull). In 2010 he missed about 30 games because some asshole Twins relief pitcher hit him in the wrist with a pitch. Jeff is only the 50th columnist in the last two weeks to overstate Tulowitzki's injury issues.

This is a marriage of convenience, though, a rarity in sports with good reason: rarely do they turn out well. Even the model for great long-term deals, Jeter’s 10-year, $189 million contract with the Yankees, comes with a warning label. Over the life of the deal, even after splurging on $1.6 billion worth of contracts on top of Jeter’s deal, the Yankees won only one World Series.

The Yankees signed Derek Jeter to a long contract, during the majority of which he was an awesome player and worth much more than what they paid him. But because of the way baseball's postseason works they only won one WS (and two other pennants, while appearing in the playoffs nine times) while he was under that contract. Therefore... don't sign awesome players to long contracts?

One of the stupidest things I've ever read.

The Rockies may spend half that, and even though general manager Dan O’Dowd and his lieutenants Bill Schmidt and Bill Geivett do a commendable job finding cheap talent and securing it to reasonable contracts, sustaining that for a decade is Sisyphean. It took O’Dowd, after all, nearly a decade to turn the Rockies from perpetual losers into a franchise worth emulating.

You know what they say: the easy part is finding a sustainable model for success in a mid-sized market where 9 out of 10 people prefer football to baseball. The hard part is keeping it going once you have a talented and young MLB team, a fairly stacked farm system, and supportive ownership willing to spend in certain situations. That's where you really see problems.

And what mummified the team for all those years? The contracts of Hampton and Helton, of course.

From 2003 until 2010, the Rockies paid Todd Helton about $120 MM to accumulate 31.7 WAR, play a starring role on two playoff teams, and be the face of the franchise. From 2003 until 2008, the Rockies paid Mike Hampton about $60 MM to pitch for other teams. Putting those two deals in the same sentence suggests how utterly unqualified you are to write about this subject. Cautioning the Rockies that there's a chance that the deal "only" works out as well as the 2001-2010 Jeter deal verifies it. You, sir, are a diptard.

Bill Simmons Has No Idea How Stuff Works

Bill loves him some Bill. He especially loves him some Bill in situations which call for what he perceives to be common sense. Thus his long standing proposal that NBA teams hire vice presidents of such, who would presumably just sit around, looking smug, telling stories about their kids/dad/friend BugHouse, and asking their team's general manager "Hey... is that REALLY a good idea?" whenever the GM decided to make a move. It's such a good idea, it couldn't possibly not fail to not work. And it's very indicative of Bill's attitude towards teams/leagues involved in pro sports: they are dumb, and he is not.

Which brings us to his recent treatise regarding the NBA's current revenue problems. Here's the good part, for him: he's pretty much correct with his overall premise. The NBA is (and many of its teams are) poorly run. Here's the good part, for the rest of us: pretty much everything he says to build on that basic premise and add detail to it is dripping with retardery.

When the Writers Guild of America went on strike in 2007, something fascinating happened: The networks, production companies and movie studios slowly realized their infrastructure made no real sense. They had been handing out too many developmental deals, green-lighting too many pilots and overpaying for too many movies for far too long.

And even then, you couldn't get a project going, That's why you moved out there, right? Don't pretend like you just did it to write for Jimmy Kimmel. We both know you had (and probably still have) a bigger plan that failed (or is still failing) in spectacular fashion.

It was a broken model. Only when that massive overhead was removed for a few months and Hollywood didn't collapse did everyone realize, "Wait a second, were we doing this the right way?"

We can only dream of FOX doing the same with Joe Buck.

The answer, clearly, was no. The old way was like watching two people battle over entrée choices for dinner, then playing it safe by ordering everything on the menu. When the strike ended right as the economy was turning, new Hollywood tightened its belt, stopped overdeveloping and aimed for a higher batting average.

Which explains "Valentine's Day," I suppose.

In the NBA, the owners are headed for a similar, "Wait a second, were we doing this the right away?" realization, if it hasn't happened already. They arrived at this specific point after salaries ballooned over the past 15 years -- not for superstars, but for complementary players who don't sell tickets, can't carry a franchise, and, in a worst-case scenario, operate as a sunk cost. These players get overpaid for one reason: Most teams throw money around like drunken sailors at a strip joint.

And we're already in "Bill knows best" territory- a scary place to be. Look, many teams misspend and have been doing so for a while. But you can put a little more effort into explaining why. For a while, it was because they had the money and the marginal gain was worth the marginal cost. Sure- guys were getting contracts they didn't deserve. But the books were still balancing, and maybe that overpaid 7th man would end up being the difference between making or missing the playoffs. Plus, most dopey fans (by which I mean most fans are dopey) like it when their team makes moves. It drums up interest in the team, increases ticket sales, increases jersey sales, increases hype, increases revenue. I guess if you didn't know who wrote this article, you could say these explanations are really just sub-explanations underneath the "drunken sailor" theory. But since it's Bill, you'd have to be fucking crazy to think he meant anything other than "NO ONE RUNNING AN NBA TEAM HAS ANY SENSE OR SMARTS AT ALL! HELLO? WHY HASN'T THIS BEEN ADDRESSED? WATCH ME COMPARE WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE LEAGUE TO THE JERSEY SHORE!"

This isn't about improving the revenue split between players and owners. It's about Andre Iguodala, Emeka Okafor, Elton Brand, Andrei Kirilenko, Tyson Chandler, Larry Hughes, Michael Redd, Corey Maggette and Luol Deng making eight figures a year but being unable to sell tickets, create local buzz or lead a team to anything better than 35 wins.

Right, it's arguable that most of those guys are overpaid. Some (Hughes, Brand) to a much greater extent than others (Iguodala, Deng). But again, most of those deals made decent sense at the time they were signed. NBA teams are in the business of winning. This isn't MLB, where the Pirates and Marlins owners are singularly focused on trimming payroll and cashing their revenue sharing check every winter. With the NBA's salary cap and revenue structure, it's a much more results-oriented league. No one is out there signing questionable players to big contracts because they're dumb. They're doing it because in their minds, it's a risk worth taking. You can pick on the list of players above, but you should also take the time to make a list of non-superstars signed to big deals who are worth every penny (or perhaps more) like Chauncey Billups or Manu Ginobili. Pretty much every team in every sport has some guys making a ton of money. Not all of them are going to be worth what they're paid. Yes, there are some abysmal contracts out there. But that happens in every sport. It doesn't mean every owner/GM is a complete moron who couldn't run a hot dog stand, much less an NBA franchise.

Like I said at the beginning of this post- Bill's right, the league has problems. And at the same time- Bill's a moron, because he's doing a horrible job of explaining them.

It's about Jermaine O'Neal making more money this season than Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, James Harden, Serge Ibaka, Eric Maynor, Thabo Sefolosha and Jeff Green combined.

Right, because Jermaine O'Neal is a veteran who signed a huge deal when he was a perennial all star, and most of those guys have been in the league less than four years so they're not eligible for a big payday yet. CAN YOU BELIEVE CARLOS ZAMBRANO IS MAKING MORE MONEY THAN TIM LINCECUM AND ZACH GRIENKE COMBINED THIS YEAR? (That's true, right? I didn't look it up. Substitute someone else just as washed up as Zambrano if necessary.)

It's about Tracy McGrady making $22.4 million, being unhappy coming off the bench, then convincing his team to let him disappear until it traded him.

Yeah, I mean, again- that was a contract signed back when McGrady was one of the 10 best players in the league. He's overpaid at the end of it; which is what happens at the end of most contracts superstars in any league sign. And maybe McGrady is a mopey asshole. But this isn't the problem except to the extent that players signing deals that are too long are the problem. The right explanation here is "no team should sign a swingman in his mid 20s to a seven or eight year deal." Not "OMG TRACY MCGRADY IS OVERPAID THIS YEAR."

It's about Gilbert Arenas hogging one-third of Washington's salary cap next season even though he brought guns into the Wizards locker room and had to plead no contest to a felony.

Captain hindsight strikes again! How did Washington not see this coming? After all, Arenas had a rap sheet miles long before this weird gun incident! And it's not like he was an enormous fan favorite who was capable of singlehandedly carrying a team into the playoffs or anything.

It's about Brian Cardinal, Darko Milicic, Bobby Simmons, Eddy Curry, Kenny Thomas, T.J. Ford, Mark Blount, Etan Thomas, Andres Nocioni, Tony Battie, Adam Morrison, Marcus Banks, Marko Jaric, Matt Carroll, Jerome James, Mike James, Jason Kapono, DeSagana Diop and Dan Gadzuric making more than $120 million combined this season to dole out high-fives.

Nice job italicizing combined there. As if that makes this even more staggering. Personally I would be more shocked if those guys were making $120 million each this season to dole out high-fives. Can you believe that the US, China, India, the UK, and Japan have GDPs which add up to over a gazillion dollars combined?

This is how the NBA's situation differs from Hollywood three years ago. Hollywood stumbled by accident into the realization that things were broken. But the NBA already knows. The league wants a system more beneficial to owners that features a hard salary cap, no long-term deals (only three or four years guaranteed at most)

See, there we go. That was all you had to say.

and no luxury tax. The players will dig their feet in and fight. We will have a lockout or a strike. It will last for months. And months. And months. Start preparing yourself mentally now. It's going to happen.

It could happen. It happened in 1998- for a few months. I'm not buying this "it's going to happen" shit just yet. About a year ago, Simmons put out a similarly doomsdayish column proclaiming that something like eight NBA teams were going to fold/shut down in the next couple of years. START PREPARING YOURSELF. IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. EXCEPT THAT THE LEAGUE WOULD NEVER LET THAT HAPPEN, EVER.

OK, now that we're past that part, let's get to the "Bill is an entitled little shit" part.

And really, I would be fine with this. I would.

Just one problem ...

No one will hire you as a VP of Common Sense if there's a lockout?

Let's say the owners get their way and the new system is better than the old one. Great. Awesome. Answer these questions for me:

1. Why should I care?

Because you're an NBA fan?

2. Why should you care?

Because I'm an NBA fan.

3. Why should either of us care that owners might not lose as much money in 2013 as they did in 2010?

I don't care about the intricacies of what happens between the owners and the players. I care that the league continues to operate so I can watch games on TV and have something besides hockey (not my thing) and college basketball (lame, too corrupt and exploitative to enjoy) to distract me during the winter from the miserable life I lead. Look, I don't have strong feelings either way on the labor disagreement. The players could end up better off after the new CBA. The owners could end up better off. They could both end up significantly worse off. I don't give a shit. I just want to watch basketball and talk about it with other people who like to watch basketball. Stop acting like you're a fucking shareholder, Bill. You have no financial stake in the league other than the Clippers season tickets you keep buying because you're a dumbass (more on that later). Playing this "I don't care what happens! I'm too upset about how they got here!" card just absolutely stinks of dickheaded entitlement. PRO SPORTS TEAMS/LEAGUES DON'T OWE YOU SHIT. HANDLE YOURSELF.

Does it mean ticket prices will drop? I doubt it.

So? You'll keep buying them. So will lots of other people. The tickets will presumably continue to be priced at or very near the point at which they maximize revenue and profits for the teams. If you can't deal with the invisible hand and its effect on a multi-billion dollar industry, go watch high school games in person. I only go to one or two NBA games per season, but I can usually find tickets in the nosebleeds for around $15-$20. I think that's pretty reasonable. The more important question here, though, is would a new CBA (of any kind) mean that games will continue to appear four or five nights a week on basic cable? Well how do you like that, it does! Works just fine for me.

Does it mean franchises with older arenas aren't in danger of having their team hijacked like the Sonics were stolen from Seattle? I doubt it.

Yeah, it totally blows for the city of Seattle and all that, but it's business. Cities in all sports lose teams from time to time. I'll shed a few tears for Winnipeg and Quebec City before I spend too much time worrying about Seattle. Just like Minneapolis and Cleveland, I'm sure they'll get a new team sometime in the near future anyways. But why are we even discussing this- HOW DOES THIS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MY REASONS FOR CARING ABOUT THE LEAGUE AND THE PLAYERS HAMMERING OUT A NEW LABOR AGREEMENT?

Does it mean failing teams won't continue to tank down the stretch for lottery picks, or dump some of their best players to contenders for 40 cents on the dollar to save a few bucks? I doubt it.

Again- happens in every professional sport. Every one of them. At least it's not the NFL, where teams can cut some of their best players for zero cents on the dollar to save a few bucks. And one last time- I care about these problems because...

So I ask you again ... why should we care?

No wait, I was asking you that. My answer is that I care about avoiding a lockout because I like watching and talking about the NBA. If the new agreement makes things a little more financially stable, hey! I'm down with that. And if it doesn't? Hey! I'll still watch. On the other hand, why the fuck should I care about whether or not teams with shitty arenas and cuntbrained owners can move teams, or whether or not ticket prices go down?

For instance, let's say you root for the Wizards like my buddy House. Over the last two years, House watched his team overpay Arenas ($111 million; nobody else could have offered more than $85 million at the time)

They wanted to make him happy so he wouldn't feel insulted by a strategic lowball offer. It just so happened that no one had the cap space to offer more than $85 MM, but if that version of Arenas (pre felony, obviously) were a free agent this summer, there's no question at least one team would throw a max deal (which is $121 MM, I believe) at him. So in that sense, he was worth what they paid him. Was it dumb to not try to save that money, since, after all, he couldn't get a max deal anywhere else? Probably. But it's far from indefensible.

and Antawn Jamison (a $41 million extension for someone about to reach his mid-30s)

It was a four year deal, probably below market value in terms of cost per year, for a 32 year old who consistently puts up 20 and 9. It's further from indefensible than the Arenas signing. It's probably closer to smart than indefensible.

in a bizarre attempt to keep together the nucleus of a noncontender.

They made the playoffs each of the four seasons prior to those signings. They hadn't really gone anywhere, but were they a noncontender? Hardly. They were the #5 seed in the east in 2005, 2006, and 2008. In 2005 they won their first round matchup. They weren't on the verge of winning a title, but they were only a piece or two away from being serious contenders. Bill, at that point, would rather blow things up and start all over (a slight variation on the exact practice he just decried).

Those contracts forced the Wiz to package the No. 5 pick in the 2009 draft, along with a couple of lousy contracts, for immediate help (Randy Foye and Mike Miller).

Foye arrived a year or so late- he's now a major contributor who will be a starter in the league for a long time. So... yeah, they got some almost immediate help. If Arenas doesn't go schizo they might be in the running for a top 4 seed this year. And again- WHO DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING? It was so obvious that this guy who was very active in the community and widely regarded as a good (if eccentric) guy, with no prior criminal history, would go and get himself suspended for the season!

When that move backfired and Arenas went child actor on us, the team called an audible and dealt three of its four best players (Jamison, Caron Butler and Brendan Haywood) for expiring contracts and the No. 30 pick in the 2010 draft.

And it would have been so much smarter and less damaging to the fan base to just let Arenas and Jamison walk during the summer of 2008! Yeah, the Wizards got themselves into trouble. It happens. That's sports. One more time- this happens in every sport. Even the very owner-friendly NFL with its non-guaranteed contracts. Using this as your prime example is like saying that MLB is completely out of control, and then only breaking down the 2009/2010 Tigers.

Second, the Wizards will have a ton of cap space this summer, only this summer's top free agents won't be saying, "Man, I'd love to play on a young team that's built around Gilbert Arenas."

The VP of common sense knows this. I mean, it may well be true, but it's a fucking useless point. From a player personnel perspective, why would they want to go to the Knicks, the team that's been planning for this summer since 2007? So they can play on a team built around David Lee and Wilson Chandler? Money is money. Teams are good at making sales pitches to players who want it. I can't tell if Bill's angle is "the Wizards have no one besides Arenas" or "the Wizards have Arenas and that's bad because he's already a highly paid superstar so no one will play with him." Either way, it's dumb. Money is money and cap space is cap space. It may not work out for Washington, but it's not a flawed plan coming out of the game.

So it's a flawed business plan coming out of the gate.

No it's not.

The Wizards shouldn't even mention the words "cap space" to their fans again. It's like promising your kids an ice cream at the end of a long drive when you know there's nothing in the fridge.

Oh! More Simmons' daughter anecdotes, please! THERE IS NO WAY SHE'S GOING ON A DATE BEFORE AGE EIGHTEEN. DADDY BILL WON'T ALLOW IT. Bill Simmons- probably the least intimidating father figure I can imagine.

Third, they actually tried to sell their fans that one benefit of the Jamison trade was dipping the Wizards under the luxury tax threshold. As House hissed afterward, "What the [bleep] do I care if the Wiz aren't paying the tax? How does that affect me? Does that mean they're lowering ticket prices for the rest of the year then?"

No, and that's probably an irrelevant angle to sell fans on, but it may establish to them that you're less likely to take further cost cutting measures in the coming years. A cold comfort to be sure, and I'm not sure why (or to what extent) the team "sold" the angle to fans (rather than just using it as an explanation when asked), but it's not like it's irrelevant. Also- House- ticket prices. Economics. Priced in a way that benefits teams the most. Deal with it. The rest of us are.

Nope. Over the past five years, half the league's franchises crapped on their season-ticket holders at least once with mismanagement, salary dumping and/or tanking for lottery picks.

OH, THOSE POOR SEASON TICKET HOLDERS! WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE PEOPLE WITH PLENTY OF DISPOSABLE INCOME?!?!?! This makes me sick. First of all, you fucking hypocrite, you're the one who keeps buying Clippers season tickets. If you hate they way they operate so much (again, more on this later), stop being a fucking pussy and do something about it. Second of all, I'll turn the implicit question around on you again: why should I care that season ticket holders are being "crapped on?" If I'm not one of them, as is the case with 99.99% of NBA fans, then I don't give a rotten flying pile of fuck what happens to them. Fuck 'em. Let them keep subsidizing my interest. Unless there's some kind of mass revolt, which there never will be because most season ticket holders are as waterheaded as Bill, they're really not a part of this discussion.

Guess what happens when you get continually crapped on? It kinda makes you not want to support your team anymore. You know, because you have a big pile of crap on your head. Teams don't seem to understand this; apparently, neither does the league.

And yet- even though the league is losing money and certainly has some financial problems to deal with- this same system is still in place, and probably will face no revisions (specifically to ticket price) at all once the new CBA is established and its effects trickle down through the business.

For instance, I have Clippers season tickets. At last week's deadline, the Clippers dumped Marcus Camby, the league's second-leading rebounder and their best defensive player,

This is my favorite part of the article, because it's where he stops being an idiot about everything else, and does what he does best- be an idiot about sports. Marcus Camby is the best defensive player of no team. He probably wouldn't be the best defensive player on most D-I college teams. He's a great help shot blocker- AND ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE. He cannot defend anyone in the post, he's too light. He's horrible on pick and rolls. And he goes for too many help blocks, leaving his man wide open for offensive rebounds and tips. I say this without hyperbole- he is certainly the most overrated defensive player in the NBA in the last decade; and he's probably in the running for most overrated defensive player of all time. No hyperbole. Look at what happened to Denver after he left- they went from worst defensive team in the league to something at least a little bit better than that. Every dipshit pundit raked the Nuggets over the coals for that move, because like Bill, they all think Marcus Camby is a great defensive player. He's not. He blocks a lot of shots, and does nothing else at even a mediocre level. The end. Man I am furious about this.

for two expiring contracts and $1.5 million in cash. I had tickets last Wednesday to watch Atlanta kick the butts of the suddenly depleted/lousy/rebuilding Clips. Did the price of those tickets change? Of course not. Hey Mr. Billionaire Housing Discriminator Who Owns The Clippers, I'm glad you pocketed that extra $1.5 million. Really, I am. But what did that do for me? Why didn't you use that savings to discount my last two months of tickets?

Kill yourself. Immediately.

And what about the other "customers" who bought season tickets because you promised a good product and didn't deliver for the 17th time in the last 18 years?

They're all welcome to do the same. Actually- wait! No! It's idiots like those people (well, I mean, they're idiots if like Bill they think that every time the team saves some money they're entitled to a cut of it) who help subsidize my fandom. And again, the fandom of 99.99% of the rest of us out here.

Also, Bill, I don't have an MBA, but let me explain something to you. When you own a business, and it's losing money, and then you cut costs to try to get out of the red, you know what you don't do? Immediately add a new cost to balance out the old one you got rid of. Does that make sense? Let's say you own an ice cream shop (the kind you can lie to your kids about during a long drive!) and it's losing money. So you fire a couple workers and operate with a leaner staff to save money. What's your next move? Start giving away ice cream for free because you just saved some cash? Better hire a VP of Common Sense if you really think that's how it works. You entitled bag of shit.

Now, here's where you say, "Simmons, you're an idiot for buying tickets for that septic tank of a franchise in the first place." Great point. I still own Clips tickets for two reasons: I like seeing the other teams, and there's a puncher's chance that someone like LeBron or Wade might be dumb enough to sign here. Stupid, I know. I'm delusional.

Ah. It's so nice, I think I'll read it again.

Now, here's where you say, "Simmons, you're an idiot for buying tickets for that septic tank of a franchise in the first place." Great point. I still own Clips tickets for two reasons: I like seeing the other teams, and there's a puncher's chance that someone like LeBron or Wade might be dumb enough to sign here. Stupid, I know. I'm delusional.

Oh, and I just realized, this is also an answer to his question about why ticket prices don't go down when the team saves money. Because he likes seeing other teams, wants to stay on board in case a superstar signs there via free agency (WHAT WILL THOSE FREE AGENTS SAY- "HEY, I WANT TO GO PLAY ON A TEAM BUILT AROUND BARON DAVIS AND CHRIS KAMAN?" SO IT'S A FLAWED BUSINESS PLAN FROM THE START!!!!). That's why.

But I have owned Clips seats for the past six years; in five of them, the season was over in mid-February.

Does the NBA care that I feel like an idiot for continuing to renew these seats? I don't know.

Sheesh, I hope not. That's really no way to run a successful business.

Does the NBA care about all the loyal customers in every failing city who feel like idiots for continuing to renew their seats? I don't know.

Why would they?

Shouldn't I know?

No. You should shut up and do one of two things: 1) put your money where your mouth is and bail on the tickets if they're not worth it to you, or 2) sit back, enjoy watching the other teams who play against the Clippers, and dream about Lebron and Wade signing there this summer. Oh, and regardless of which option you pick, you should definitely stop acting like the NBA and the Clippers owe you anything more than to hold games on the nights they're scheduled and make sure no one else is sitting in your seat. You entitled cunt.

Here's what we do know ...

Teams survive on TV money, season-ticket revenue and luxury suites. They don't care about the upper decks. They care about getting fat checks in March and April for the following season, then banking that money for a few months and collecting interest on it. They care about getting us to pay for a spring's worth of playoff tickets up front even though our team might survive only eight days in the postseason.

And although revenue is down right now (in a terrible economy), apparently that model has been working pretty well for some time!

A noncontender needs to convince its fans every spring, You better lock down another year of your seats, because if you don't, you're gonna miss out when we kick ass and make the playoffs and it's going to be impossible to get good seats and you'll be jealous! Hell, look at me. I want to break up with the Clippers ... but what if they get LeBron and I miss out? I would regret it. Every minute. Every day.

And that's why the Clippers don't have to lower season ticket prices.

Sure, they have about as much of a chance of getting LeBron as I have of becoming the WNBA commissioner. Doesn't matter. I can't miss even the 3 percent chance that it might happen. Which leads me to this moment in April ...

"Here's another check, Mr. Billionaire Housing Discriminator Who Owns The Clippers. I'll keep my fingers crossed for another year. I hate you."

It's not like it's a big deal or anything, but I hate you.

I do it every spring. I have no protection. Neither do any of the other season-ticket holders for any of the other screwed-up franchises.

They do, actually. It's called running your life in the way you see fit.

In Cleveland, the Cavs asked for 2010-11 renewals last month under the guise of an "Early Bird Special." Cavs season-ticket holders will have to decide before the 2010 playoffs start, "Am I keeping my tickets next year? Am I rolling the dice that LeBron comes back?" If they keep them, and LeBron doesn't come back, it's going to feel like getting tipped over in a port-o-john. And yes, the Cavs would be doing the tipping.

And all the people in that metaphorical port-o-john (shouldn't that be capitalized?) will have been in there because they chose to be in there.

So why don't fans have protection? As a failing business -- and, really, a league that loses $400 million in a single year has to qualify as "failing" -- doesn't the NBA have an obligation to win customers back?

HOLY SHIT. YOU ARE A FUCKING DUNCE. YOU ARE THE BIGGEST DUNCE TO EVER WRITE FOR ESPN.COM, WHICH OF COURSE IS REALLY SAYING SOMETHING. THE NBA DOES NOT OWE YOU HAPPINESS AND RAINBOWS AND A PAT ON THE BACK AND A DETAILED APOLOGY. THE NBA OWES TO YOU A SEASON'S WORTH OF BASKETBALL GAMES THAT YOU GET TO WATCH FROM THE SEAT YOU PURCHASED. TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT. You have money to spend on season tickets. Congratulations! I wish I did. If I did somehow come across that kind of money, and then decided that the team in my hometown wasn't good/entertaining enough, or if they said "hey, actually we're only going to play seven home games this year" or "hey, you're going to have to cagefight someone for your seat- we're selling doubles of every ticket this year," then I probably wouldn't but those tickets! I'd spend my money on something else! Or save it. You can't go wrong with saving money. See how that works?

If I were running the NBA, eliminating the illusion of regret would be my biggest initiative.

If you were running the NBA, the sport of basketball in the USA would be dead within five years. Hey, at that point, maybe the MLS would step up and take over or something. That'd be kind of cool. I like soccer. There, I said it.

And sure, like with the Hollywood strike, an NBA lockout will end up working in favor of the owners. It will lower operating costs, protect teams from overspending and create a system in which A-listers get rewarded (the LeBrons and Wades) and the working class (the Goodens and Farmars) gets screwed. Costs will drop, franchise values will increase, and the owners will believe all the acrimony was worth it. The ship will have been righted. Or so they will say.

Will the games still be on TV? Can I go see a few games a year for around $20 a pop? Will the best basketball players in the world still want to play in the league? Well alright then. Sounds good.

I hope they're right.

I still don't know how it benefits you and me.

Your perspective boggles my mind to an extent I can't describe. You are an ass. You are a walking, talking, typing, eight-podcasts-and-one-print-article-which-is-usually-a-shitty-mailbag-per-month ass. The premise of this article was totally acceptable. Your attempt to build a column around that premise is one of the biggest failures in journalism I've seen in almost three years of living in my parents' basement and operating this blog. How you have acquired a nation wide fanbase of sycophants is beyond me. You. Are. An. Ass.

I hope the Clippers sign Rudy Gay to a max deal this summer, then proceed to go 18-64 next season. And I hope you renew your tickets for 2011-2012 anyways.