‘m kind of torn on the Derek Fisher situation. On the one hand, he’s been a part of five World Championships, a class act and a very popular player. On the other, he’s getting old, has lost a step defensively, shot less than 40% and didn’t play well last season….
I don’t know how high the Heat are willing to go on a contract, but if it’s for the entire mid-level it’s time to say goodbye to D-Fish….
Evidently, Fisher was not happy with the Lakers offer of $2.5M and the Heat was willing to go higher. The latest reports say the Lakers are willing to sweeten the deal, which will hopefully get Derek back in a Laker uniform next season….
But if he leaves, the Lakers should be fine….
They’ve already done well by signing Steve Black and if Fisher leaves will need to sign another lead guard….
With Earl Watson and Luke Ridnour still out there, the team can fill Fisher and Jordan Farmar’s loss very well….
But I have another sugestion: Allen Iverson….
I know, I know, A.I. has personal issues and was let go by both the Grizzlies and 76ers last year; but he still has some basketball in him and I believe Phil Jackson and Kobe Bryant are people who can maximize whatever Iverson has left….
It’s hard to imagine A.I. being a pain in the ass and demanding the ball on this team, and I believe he could play the role of role player and facilitator beautifully….
He’d know this is his last chance and would do everything possible to fit in and finally win a championship….
He has Bob McAdoo written all over him….
Is he a better player than Fisher? Of course, there’s no argument about that. A.I. is one of the greatest players in NBA history and a Hall-of-Famer. But is he as good a teammate and will he fit in?….
That’s the million dollar question….
In my opinion, it’s worth the risk. If he causes problems, you get rid of his ass and move on; because he’d be on a one-year deal at minimum salary….
But if he goes with the program the Lakers are getting a great player for free….
I’m on board….
I’ll admit I enjoy the World Cup and have been following it closely, but Sunday’s final between Spain and Holland was an example of why Americans don’t like soccer….
Up and down the field they went, with almost no shots on goal, and both teams were playing defensively and waiting to see if they could get lucky and steal the game….
In America, we like teams who attack and pressure the opposition. Sitting back and waiting for an opponent’s mistake will get Americans to change the channel every time….
In the final seconds of overtime, with The Netherlands playing a man down, Spain finally scored and won the game 1-0….
The game was a colossal bore and after almost 120 minutes there was no score. Even worse, there were only two or three legitimate scoring opportunities, which brings me to my next point….
Unless they eliminate or drastically change the offside rule, Americans will never watch soccer and we’ll continue to get scoreless borefests….
Instead of moving forward and attacking when there’s an opportunity, players instead look for the back-line defenders. Instead of streaking toward the goal and attempting to score, they’re more concerned with staying onside….
This ruins the flow, penalizes aggression and ensures 0-0 games; it also tells the world that Americans will never give a damn about this silly game….
In football, if you allow your man to get behind you, it’s a touchdown; in basketball, it’s a crowd-pleasing dunk. In soccer, you’re penalized for being faster and more athletic than your opponent….
Every time I’ve ask someone to explain the offside rule, I’d get calls from hard core fans telling me that if the rule were eliminated you’d have several players cherry picking and hanging around the goal the entire game….
My answer was two-fold: 1) You never see this in basketball, even though there’s no offside rule and 2) If teams did keep three players around the opponent’s goal, they’d be three players short on the other end, causing them to give up scores….
Instead of eliminating the rule, how about a compromise? Here’s two sugestions:
1) In hockey, they have a blue line between between the center line and the goal. Once the puck crosses the line, there is no offside and you can attack. Why not insert a blue line in soccer, where once the ball crosses the offside rule is eliminated? If the ball is advanced that far, there’s no excuse for not being back on defense.
2) Once the ball crosses midfield, waive the offside rule. Not a long kick toward the goal, but when the ball actually lands. In other words, you can still be offside if the ball is kicked across midfield, as long as it’s ball is in the air. But once the ball touches the ground, there’s no offside and it’s time to try and score.
Implement these rules and scoring would go up, scoring opportunities would increase and Americans would watch in greater numbers….









































