Rocks at the Throne: Summer Camp Dunktapegate -- Another Day, Another 'Bron-'Bron Pile-on

If the start to this NBA off-season is any indication, this is going to be an even longer year for we Cavaliers fans than we thought. Today we find ourselves digging out from the rubble caused by the latest avalanche of unbridled sanctimony resulting from the latest LeBron media pile-on. This time it's "dunk-gate."

If you missed it, Jordan Crawford, a Xavier sophomore (and legit NBA prospect) dunked on LeBron in an after-hours pickup game at a Nike summer-camp, a freelance photographer named Ryan Miller caught it on film, Nike representatives confiscated the tape after, at least according to the freelance photographer, "LeBron called the [Nike rep] over and told him something."

He told him something!

Well, if the heretofore unknown freelance photographer says so, it must be true, thus, LeBron must be:

A baby. [Chris Littman and LSU Freek at The Sporting News]

"[S]urpassingly lame." [Craggs at Deadspin]

"Pathetic . . . you may have erased the video of the dunk, LeBron James, but you haven't erased the video of your soul." [Dwyer at BDL]

"[A] pr*ck." [Craggs again, in a later post on the topic]

"Channeling media tactics straight out of North Korea." [This from Pete Thamel of the New York Times, of all sources -- what could the NYT possibly have against North Korea?]

Why, "we already knew LeBron was a fairly bad sport . . . , but did you know he also has no sense of humor about himself?" [Shanoff at TSN]

"Michael Jordan never would have let this happen . . . This whole mess provides another reason why LeBron will never be Michael." [Chris Chase at Yahoo Sports]

Michael Jordan never would have let this happen? Or is it that we would have never let Michael Jordan happen, had he come up in this day of YouTube and push-button publishing?

The latter seems far more likely given the remarkably uniform credulity expressed by the sporting press toward the obviously self-interest laced speculation of a freelance photographer, who had to know he'd get himself at least a little bit of attention by going public with his "story." [He's already hitting the talk-radio circuit. Wonder if he's hired a publicist yet? Maybe he already had one.]

Witness the following characteristic response from The Sporting News' Chris Littman to Nike's statement in reaction to the firestorm, which explained that they maintain a 'no videotaping' policy at camps like this, and that this was 'the first time in four years that this policy was violated' [Note, nobody seems to be asking anyone to come forward with any other "freelance" videotape shot at this camp in the last four years, and we highly doubt that one will surface]:

Littman: "This would seem to fly smack in the face of what was written and said on CBS earlier in the day on Wednesday."

Why, it certainly would, Mr. Holmes. And who dareth come forth with a statement in contradiction of the gospel of our freelance photographer?

Which brings us to another theme that underlies most if not all of these "reports": That, for whatever reason, the public has a "right" to see this video. "Unfortunately, a disagreement over how or why this all went down doesn't change the fact that we'll never see the video."

To Mr. Dwyer's credit, he at least points out that "Nike was well within its rights to confiscate what did make it to hard disk." And of course, Nike and the athletes who endorse its brand pay millions of dollars to agents, publicists, and other "image-experts" to protect just the property that Nike sought to protect by confiscating these tapes here. In many ways, this alleged crime seems far more excusable than Kobe's apparent breach of a contract with Spike Lee by commandeering editorial control of Lee's recent film about him.

But Spike Lee is no freelance photographer. And the real issue here isn't with the rule, it's with the way it was enforced, and none of the above linked pieces attempts to cast a sliver of doubt on the notion that, "you can bet a month's pay that the only reason Nike wanted anything to do with those cameras is because James called a Nike rep over to point out the cameramen, [after the] dunk." Doesn't matter that nobody knows what James said to the Nike rep, if he said anything at all. Doesn't matter that Nike might not have known about the tape until the alleged conversation, and probably has plenty of good reasons to keep its superstar summer camps from turning press conferences.

You can bet a month's pay that LeBron is the pr*ck here, a big one, and the only one, all because the freelance photographer said so. And the world continues to flatten as it gets easier and easier to throw rocks at the throne.

LeBron will never be Michael Jordan. There will never, ever, ever be another Michael Jordan.

UPDATE: Commenter A.J. raises an important point that we left out of the post; In defense of the above-linked posts, another theme underlying at least most of them:

"Given the context in which the alleged dunk happened (summer camps), I would have loved to see a videotape of the dunk itself followed by an appropriate reaction by LeBron--namely, giving kudos and a fist-bump to the kid who got the better of him on that play, and accepting the accompanying ribbing with a good-natured smile or laugh. Talk about blowing a made-for-media chance to show what a good sport you are and how in control you are."

That's what the real story is here; a potentially blown opportunity. An understandably blown-opportunity given the circumstances, as far as we're concerned, because we wonder if any of the very few in the world who competes (or have competed) at as high a level as LeBron at anything (including, and especially Jordan himself), would have reacted any differently under such circumstances. But nevertheless; What. A. Pr*ck.

LeBron 2010 -- Killing the Fire: Ariza's Slip, LeBron's Beans, Warren Buffett, and the Omaha-Akron Connection

As we think more about Chris Broussard's report that LeBron told Trevor Ariza that he will remain a Cleveland Cavalier past 2010, as well as recent reports of LeBron's attendence at this week's Illuminati Conference in Idaho, along with his billionaire buddy, Warren Buffett, we become increasingly sure that LeBron will remain a Cavalier for life.

It appears that we're not alone in this interpretation, at least partly because surprisingly little analysis of this story was published in the sporting press yesterday, at least outside of Cleveland. This makes sense, because news supporting the notion that LeBron will leave Cleveland in 2010 moves the needle more than just about any other kind of NBA news can, and was at least supposed to move that needle at an increasing frequency and magnitude for another full glorious year. So it shouldn't surprise us that a story that dampens this fire would be anathema to so much of the sporting press. The rich combination of schadenfreude and 'what if 'Bron was on my team'-hope is just too much to give up so soon.

But of course, not for us.

In considering what this unexpected wrinkle in LeBron's saga might reveal, we'll address one of the few analyses of this topic that was published yesterday, by Dan Shanoff of the Sporting News.

As a preface to this, we'll note that we really like Shanoff; think he's one of the more thoughtful, passionate, and engaged members of the Sporting Press, which we suppose, combined with his being a non-Clevelander who lives in New York, makes him all the more susceptible to the urge to keep the LeBron 2010 fire burning at reason's expense.

Here's what he wrote yesterday on his blog and at the Sporting News: "LeBron was B.S.'ing Trevor Ariza. Ariza detected it, which is why he sidestepped the lure/myth of "playing with LeBron" for a REAL long-term plan in Houston. My issue with fans in Cleveland and Miami is that your biggest stars -- LeBron and Dwyane Wade -- obviously don't want to play for you. Yet you continue to support them.

"Nothing about LeBron's statements -- parsed ad nauseum over the last few years (and even more in the coming year) -- give any indication he is really interested in staying. Otherwise, he would say it unequivocally and end this will-he-or-won't-he misery for Cavs fans. . . . The fact is: If LeBron and Wade really wanted to reward their loyal fans and cities, they would re-sign a long-term extension immediately. But, obviously, they are not doing that. Because they have no interest in staying."

In addressing these excerpts, which -- especially in view of other potentially compelling reasons why Ariza might choose Cleveland over Houston even if he believed LeBron would stay-- strike us as representing something between willful ignorance and complete lunacy, we'll start by briefly touching some of the bases that have already been well-covered here and elsewhere, such as that:

1) We Cleveland fans could hardly be more loyal to LeBron than we are now, at least in part because the "will-he-or-won't-he misery" is a small price to pay for such a big reward in 2010, and that it's not difficult to understand LeBron's obvious incentives to;

2) keep the Cavaliers front office on its toes, and;

3) stay tapped into the substantial extra fuel that's pumped into Business LeBron's machine by way of the hope of NBA fans across the country that the King might take up the throne in their town.

There's just too much at stake for LeBron to restrict his 2010 options before its necessary, and any supposed damage done to the psyche of the Cleveland Fan will be immediately repaired and then some when the time finally comes for him to sign on the dotted line. This is simple enough.

But moreover, does Shanoff, or anyone else, really believe that LeBron would lie to Ariza to trick him into coming to Cleveland? Even leaving aside the implications on LeBron's character here, James is surely aware of the hit to his rep that such a lie, if reported, would cause.

And, while Shanoff doesn't suggest otherwise, Ariza and his camp seem to have little if any incentive to lie about this themselves.

Nobody has advanced, and we can hardly conceive of a more compelling interpretation of this report than that LeBron told Ariza he would stay, and he was telling the truth.

And, in addition to the fact that the LeBron 2010 storyline is too rich to give up, there's at least one other big reason why the fact that LeBron told Ariza the truth has been so seemingly hard to swallow. That is, that nobody seemed to see it coming that LeBron's coy game would potentially impact the Cavs' 2010 chances. At the very least, nobody seemed to be discussing it until this week.*

LeBron might not have seen it coming either, at least until the blow that came with the news of Artest's agreement with the Lakers. But the most likely possibility here is that LeBron was taking a calculated risk in keeping his 2010 plans so close to the vest, and that his tolerance for such risk dropped dramatically in the wake of last week's Artest/Lakers marriage. It wouldn't be surprising if LeBron assumed that potential Cavaliers would be willing to take a risk themselves for the chance to come play with the King, or perhaps even that these guys would assume themselves that he was going to stay. His "of course, I'll be there" to Ariza certainly suggests as much.

Which gets us to the best reason why LeBron and potential Cavaliers-signees should assume that the King will stay put; a reason that's implicated by LeBron's trip to Idaho this weekend to hang out with the billionaire Buffett. That is, that LeBron's star will never shine as brightly as it otherwise would if he turns his back on Cleveland to play somewhere else.

Concluding that 'Cleveland could never win a Championship,' and skipping town on the basis of that conclusion is simply not an option for LeBron if he really wants to be what he says he wants to be, because -- it bears repeating here -- that this would be turning down the opportunity to write a story here that he can write nowhere else, and one that no one else will be in a position to replicate for at least another fifty-or-so years, if ever. That is the story of the hometown hero bringing a Championship to the longest and worst-suffering city in American sport, and perhaps even American sports history.

Call it King James' Burden that LeBron's dropping the pen on this story would resonate so negatively and with so much force as to surely submerge his chance at fulfilling his dream of becoming the world's richest athlete, and one of the world's very richest men -- an ever-loved "Global Icon."

While it might be difficult to prove this, there's certainly no counterexample, and there is at least one useful corrolary; which is where Mr. Buffett comes in. Of course, very few have more beans than he, and we can be sure that there are few, if any, whose advice LeBron values more. So we might also conclude that LeBron is likely to follow Mr. Buffett's example, if not his explicit advice, in one important respect. That is, we might be sure that LeBron will take good note that Mr. Buffett, the Oracle of Omaha, an Omaha native, remains headquartered, and is, of course, thriving right where he started, in Omaha.

So count us as glad for this off-season Q.T. that the King and the Oracle are sharing this week, and count up one more lightpost to help guide us through the LeBron 2010 smoke.

Thanks to Ethan Miller and Getty Images North America for the terrific photo of Buffett bro-ing up courtside of some 2008 USA basketball action with LeBron's agent and close friend Maverick Carter.

*As far as we noticed, WFNY's Todd was the first one to inject this topic to the discussion late last week, and it's worth noting that The Great Shoals just got around to it yesterday.

Programming Note

Today's post is taking longer to write than usual, and we're now forced to take a salt break. Hope to have the post up no later than 11AM today, and think it will be worth the wait. Thanks.

Tuesday Frowndup: Trevor Spills the Beans, What it All Means

Truly big Cavs news today: One of the best in the business, ESPN's Chris Broussard, reports that "[i]n a last-ditch effort to recruit Trevor Ariza away from the Houston Rockets, LeBron James told Ariza he would remain with the Cavaliers past 2010, according to a person close to Ariza. . . . 'Trevor asked LeBron if he would be in Cleveland after next season,' the source said. 'And LeBron said, 'I'll be there. Of course, I'll be there.''"

It makes a lot of sense that these beans would be spilled in this way, and it shows that LeBron's primary goal is, as it should be, to win NBA Championships here in Cleveland. Of course, LeBron has heavy incentives to play it coy heading into free agency. It's in his interest to keep the Cavaliers' front office on its toes, and the man has shoes to sell. But, at least with respect to Ariza, that all took a back seat when it came to the Cavaliers' chances to sign a player who can help them compete for the NBA Title right now. As it should.

More interesting is what this bean-spilling might reveal about Ariza, who likely cost LeBron some real cash by letting this news slip. It's hard to believe that LeBron wanted this "news" to be broken in this way, and that Ariza didn't break an important man code here. This jibes with with certain other questionable decisionmaking on Ariza's part; specifically his choice to sign with a Houston team that many suppose has much smaller title hopes over this next half-decade or so than the Cleveland team that offered to pay him the same amount of money.

Of course, those title hopes depend on LeBron coming back, and we suppose that LeBron's connection to Cleveland might be something harder to understand for guys like Ariza and Artest, and folks who aren't from this area, generally. WFNY's Todd Dery picked up on this early last week, and Broussard confirms that "James' future in Cleveland has been an issue with potential signees," including Artest.

While we were sad to lose Ron-Ron* (and maybe Bron-Bron was too late in copping to his plans to stay with respect to this one, also interesting, very much so, probably), we think it just might have worked out for the Cavs with respect to Ariza. We tend to agree with ESPN's John Krolik on this one:

"[W]e were ready to throw core money at Ariza? He’s kind of a taller Delonte clone with more size and less playmaking and shooting, isn’t he? He’s either a show starter at 2 and pushes Delonte to the bench or becomes an uber-Wally off the bench himself. 55 million dollars is not uber-Wally money. I’m confused by the logic on that one-this worries me we’re going to spend money to spend it this off-season. Shaq’s expiring, so he’s harmless, but we’ve got one big signing left for the forseeable future. Let’s make sure it’s the right guy."

And in the meantime, as noted in another persuasive piece by Krolik, a useful (even if only temporary) replacement might be sitting right under Danny and Mike's nose in Terrence Kinsey.
As for the rest . . .

We were surprised by the reaction to yesterday's defense of Eric Wedge and Mark Shapiro, both here, and at Shysterball at the Hardball Times, where the post was also discussed. With all respect, it seems to us that folks who enjoy themselves their baseball were overreaching to defend MLB by denying what we suppose to be a noncontroversial point: That is, that it's a lot harder for smaller market teams to win MLB Championships than it is for smaller market NFL and NBA teams to win.

Craig at Shysterball, and many commenters both here and there whiffed badly in their primary response to our post, which was to point out that far fewer teams had won NBA titles than had won MLB titles during the years in question. Leaving aside that there are other reasons why the NBA is more prone to dynasties than the MLB or NFL, this does not address the point that it's easier for smaller market teams to compete for titles in the NBA than it is in the MLB (See Spurs, San Antonio (four championships in last 10 years, 37th ranked media market), also see Pistons, Detroit (10th ranked media market); Heat, Miami (16th ranked media market). Together these teams account for six championships in the last 11 years, blowing away MLB's average champion media market ranking for those same years).

We understand that people love their baseball, even with its big city tilt (and we're sure that some folks prefer baseball largely because of this imbalance), and maybe it's theoretically possible that this imbalance is "better for the game," but this does not provide a reason to ignore it in evaluating the job performance of smaller market managers like Wedge and Shapiro. Moreover, this Clevelander's growing apathy toward Major League Baseball is real. Maybe it's temporary, but as MLB's wealth gap grows, we would not be surprised if our growing apathy corresponds with a growing problem for the league.

Now for a few quick links:

Spencer Hall tweeted that the Steve McNair case "has become the Special Olympics of blog writing," and wrote a post at the Sporting News explaining why. It's a compelling read.

Shea Hey tells Roger Goodell to let Vick play. "[W]e either lock up our criminals for life, kill them, or believe that they can be redeemed. What kind of message to our nation's felons does Goodell send if he suspends Vick for a year?"

Rumors and Rants lists the ten worst MLB All-Stars since the Clinton Administration. ("These are the saddest of possible words: 'Fick to Spivey to Jaha.'").

And, in the link of the day, Bits, Bytes, Pixels and Sprites breaks down "The Huskiest Hotties in Video Games."

Happy Tuesday, folks.

*WFNY's Rock summed it up well re: Artest to the Lakers: "I’m trying not to get too down here, but with Artest in Los Angeles, you’re looking at a roster of Fisher, Kobe, Artest, Gasol, Bynum, Odom, Vujacic, Farmar, Walton, Brown, and Morrison. It’s a talented team, and it’s a deep team. And it’s a team the Cavaliers even with Shaq can’t really match up with."

Thanks to Patrick Jones for the image.

Call Off the Wedgehunt

Yesterday, Tribe GM Mark Shapiro announced that Eric Wedge’s job is safe at least until the end of this season. This is undoubtedly upsetting news to a great number of WKNR hosts, callers, and the rest of the throng that’s been calling for Wedgie’s head since May, many of whom also believe that Shapiro should go as well.

But before becoming too shaken up by the prospect of either of these men hanging on to their jobs here in Cleveland, we recommend considering just how much we should expect from them and our baseball team that plays on the low end of what is unquestionably an uneven playing field.

We’re reminded of this every time another Indians superstar takes up on the Cleveland Fan’s Trail of Tears out of town, but as soon as we complain, defenders of the current MLB structure shout things like “Moneyball!,” or “how about those Tampa Rays?” and everyone seems to forget that something might be wrong. But Moneyball and the Rays only highlight the problem. Even with their erstwhile monopoly on supposedly superior statistical analysis, the A’s never won a title (Hollywood even cancelled the movie). And as far as we can tell, Tampa’s model for organizational success is based on combining an unprecedented run of suckitude with decent enough use of the super-high draft picks to make for a Title-shot.

So when Cliff Lee or VMart becomes the next one to leave, and someone shouts “Moneyball” at you, you might want to point out that in the seventeen baseball seasons since the Cincinnati Reds’ 1990 World Series title, only ONE team that plays in a media market smaller than Cleveland has won baseball’s big one, the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals. It gets worse for Tribe fans. First, the average media market size ranking of the fifteen non-Toronto* World Series winners since 1990 is 7.26.** Even doubling this doesn’t get us to Cleveland’s 17. And this number can further be normalized by removing the two unquestionably weird titles of 16th ranked Miami’s Marlins,*** which puts the number at 5.92. We might also want to remove the Cardinals' 2006 season, not only because St. Louis might benefit from being the best “baseball town” in America, but also because they opened a new ballpark that season, and of course were/are lucky enough to have baseball’s singular superstar in Albert Pujols. Take those Cardinals out, and we’re at 4.67.

So the next time we get that sick feeling in our stomach when the next Tribe star leaves, we might comfort ourselves with the knowledge that there are real world stats that correspond with our sickness. Or, you might also protect yourself from such bad feelings the way we do here at Frowns, that is with a growing sense of apathy toward Major League Baseball as a whole, and especially in comparison to the NFL and NBA, leagues that understand that meaningful competition requires a level playing field.

Which is all to say that maybe Wedge isn’t doing so badly, and Shapiro surely isn’t. The frustration of the Cleveland baseball fan is better directed elsewhere.

*Toronto won in 1992 and 1993, but we don’t have a media market ranking for the City. This shouldn’t matter here, as there are two things we can be sure of: 1) Toronto is a larger media market than Cleveland; and 2) Toronto’s two titles were influenced by the influx of revenue created by the new SkyDome ballpark.

**For this number, we added the Providence, RI/New Bedford, MA media market to Boston, to make it the fourth largest market (and we might also have added Bangor, ME, and Burlington, VT/Plattsburgh, NY).

***Both of these Marlins teams had owners who were willing to buy Titles. The 2003 Marlins title also benefited from an influx of high draft pick talent that was a result of the dark years following Huizenga’s 1997 fire sale. Plus Bartman.

El Flaco Explosivo

The world has lost yet another giant, albeit something of a forgotten one here in America, with the passing of Nicaraguan boxing legend Alexis Arguello (aka El Flaco Explosivo (The Explosive Thin Man)), yesterday morning.

Actually, "boxing legend" falls way short in describing Arguello -- who was the Mayor of Managua, Nicaragua's capital and largest city when he died -- as noted yesterday by Dave Larzelere of the Sporting News in an excellent piece on Arguello's passing:

What Manny Pacquiao is to the Philippines, what Julio Cesar Chavez is to Mexico, so Alexis Arguello is to Nicaragua, a boxer who transcended sport to become a fighting symbol of the collective heart of his people. He fought Ruben Olivares, he fought Aaron Pryor, and in the tumultuous 80’s in Nicaragua, he took to the jungle to fight the Sandinistas. He was a fighter, pure and simple, one of the most elegantly vicious ones ever to step inside a ring, and outside of it, one of the most intelligent and inspired.

Check the stats.

What most Americans will remember of Arguello is the beautiful and courageous boxer, the man who won titles in three weight divisions and fought some of the most memorable battles of his era, with defining victories over some of the great names of the 70’s and 80’s, like Olivares, Alfredo Escalera, Rafael Limon, Bobby Chacon and Boom Boom Mancini. Boxing experts generally rank Arguello as the greatest 130-pounder who ever lived, and among the greats at 135. His most famous fight by far, however, took place at 140 pounds [up another weight class -- bad azzz], his epic war with Aaron Pryor in 1982. It’s probably hard for sports fans of this day and age to imagine such a thing, but when Arguello fought Pryor in front of 23,000 fans at the Orange Bowl in Miami, both men were household names in the sporting universe, and their fight was a national event.

Now check out the video of Pryor-Arguello at Larzelere's post. Note, the lightweights are the boxers who actually hit each other. If you don't have time to watch the whole thing, the last minute of the video will show you what Flaco Explosivo is.

A boxing legend is perhaps not the only worthy subject to which Arguello's passing calls our attention. Consider the circumstances surrounding his death:

Arguello was found dead of a gunshot wound to the chest, apparently self-inflicted. In 2008, Arguello won election as the mayor of Managua, and over the past year was the focus of corruption charges about mishandling public funds. Some are wondering today if these charges may have led to his suicide. As yet, the details are unclear, and even the theory that he committed suicide remains only a theory until an autopsy has been completed.

We're especially hesitant to rule out other causes of Arguello's death given his participation in a government that's not historically known for its transparency. We're not in a position to delve so far into this this morning, but it's worth noting that in the wake of the Cold War and Iran Contra, etc., then and current Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, after losing an election that ended over a decade of Sandinista rule, "vowed that he would govern "desde abajo" (from below), in other words, due to his widespread control of institutions and Sandinista individuals in all government agencies, he would still be able to maintain control and govern even without being president."

Any doubts that Ortega would make good on this vow might be resolved by noting that he is President of Nicaragua again today, some 20 years later.

Desde Abajo.

Other interesting and potentially relevant facts about Nicaragua:

Although Nicaragua is supposedly "the second poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere," [a]ccording to the World Bank, Nicaragua ranked as the 62nd best economy for starting a business making it the second best in Central America, after Panama. Nicaragua's economy is "62.7% free" with high levels of fiscal, government, labor, investment, financial, and trade freedom. It ranks as the 61st freest economy, and 14th (out of 29) in the Americas."

Not bad! Especially for such a "poor" country.

To further illustrate the difficulties that Nicaragua might represent in defining "rich" and "poor," note that by way of exports, "Nicaragua's Flor de Caña rum is renowned as among the best in Latin America, and its tobacco and beef are also well regarded."

Great rum...well regarded tobacco...well regarded beef... "Poor" what?

And check out the wildlife...especially the National Bird.

Finally, note that Nicaragua would surely be a very different place today had the Panama Canal been the Nicaraguan Canal instead, as it so nearly was.

With that in mind, we'll note that whatever remarkable place Nicaragua has been, is, or is going, we suppose that any lost influence on the part of Arguello will/would surely be missed in some important respect, and in that respect we'll hope that Arguello might muster at least one round of some 'desde abajo' of his own.

---

We'll stay tuned as more is revealed regarding the circumstances of Arguello's death, and will be back with three small things this afternoon to head into the holiday weekend with.

Wednesday Frowndup: Taunting the Natives, Knucking the Fickerbockers, Lima Time!, and No Thanks on Charlie V.

Everyone's atwitter at the prospect of Charlie Villanueva joining the Cavaliers, including Villanueva himself. Of course, why wouldn't Villanueva want to come play for the Cavaliers? But do we really want this guy?


Rock has given us a detailed breakdown of a potential Villanueva signing at WFNY and after reading it, we say no thanks. A soft power forward with some offensive skill, but also known for a lack of focus, poor shot selection, and playing weak and lazy defense? How is this any more exciting than the prospect of resigning Drew Gooden? Villanueva strikes us as the opposite of what the Cavaliers need most on the front line, which is more muscle. Not broken down Ben Wallace muscle, and not Shaq probably gone in a year muscle. How about a guy like Leon Powe, who was denied a qualifying offer by the Celtics and is now on the market? Assuming he can come back from his injury, and all the better if in time for the playoffs, we'd like this a lot more than Charlie V. And if not Powe, than someone like him, which means someone precisely not like Charlie V. Will note in closing that ESPN's Bill Simmons calls Cleveland an "ideal new home" for Villanueva. I would assume that most Boston fans would feel the same way. Danny PLEASE don't get us this guy.

* * *

In other news . . .

An encouraging bit re: Shaq, from the LakerNoise Twitter feed: "At age 36, Wilt played 82 gms at 43 mins per gm. Number of NBA players last year who played 40 mins per game? zero." Indeed, it's true what they say about Wilt. Nice little Shaqtoid here.

. . .

A terrific defense of recent Bucks draftee Brandon Jennings' take on the New York Knicks at Shea Hey, with a LeBron angle. (If you missed it, Jennings said "[Eff] the Knicks.")

. . .

A terrific example of why Phil Taylor is our favorite Sports Illustrated back page writer: "Everywhere I go it's Lima Time," [Jose] says. "Time to party, time to feel good. Doesn't matter if it's here or Dodger Stadium." He doesn't care that his clubhouse cubicle is marked by just a strip of athletic tape with the handwritten EL MAMBO LIMA or that he makes only about $2,000 a month. And he doesn't mind that phone calls to his friends and fellow Dominicans in the majors, like David Ortiz of the Red Sox and Jose Reyes of the Mets, go mostly unanswered these days. "That's all right, they're busy," he says. "I'll see them when I get back to the big leagues." The bus rides on road trips aren't a comedown to him, but a chance to entertain, like the time he cracked up teammates with a salsa-flavored version of Sweet Home Alabama. "Sweet home Dominicana," he sang. "Where you can lie about your age...."

. . .

Finally, the blindness of otherwise seemingly reasonable people to Chief Wahoo's Curse does not cease to amaze us. Last week it was Simmons (who continues to ignore our measured inquiries to him on the subject). Yesterday it was WFNY's Todd Dery, who went a dangerous step further than Simmons in what the Native Spirits could only view as a vain attempt to steal their thunder by claiming that he's the one responsible for this summer's Cleveland Sports misery because he called for a "moratorium" on Browns talk and asked WFNY readers to focus on "the teams that actually have a chance to win something, the Cavs and Indians." He titled his post "Curse of the Moratorium," "apologize[d] to all Tribe fans out there for the curse [he] injected into the 2009 season," and proclaimed his Browns moratorium to be "lifted," in hopes of "revers[ing] the mojo around Progressive Field." Reversing the mojo? Crikey. It's one thing to ignore Wahoo's Curse, but to go right at the Natives like this? We shudder to think of what retribution might be visited on Mr. Dery for this effrontery, and have advised him to make immediate reparations. Our first thought was that a ceremonial offering at a gravesite might do, while others suggested more extreme measures. Better safe than sorry, of course, and a retraction post is most certainly in order as well. In the meantime, we ask the Frownie Faithful to kindly pray to the Natives for mercy on Mr. Dery's soul, because, as history has shown, he's going to need it.

Thank you. And happy Wednesday, folks.