But the Lightning have had a conference finals trip without Stamkos and now they’re in a spot to get into the playoffs again without him. Is it possible the Lightning are better without Stamkos, a true superstar? Maybe. It’s just a theory.
A theory I just invented — The Stamkos Theory.
This is gold.The brain injuries suffered by Crosby throughout his career are not unlike the movie Teen Wolf.
I remember on his old Digital Cities page he wrote about the Herald sports room and how he couldn't believe that Mike Felger got a higher profile than him. He was convinced it was because Felger laughed louder at the editor's jokes, or brought coffee in for his bosses or just kissed his ass. Bill was adamant that he wasn't going to do that because he was better than Felger and that he'd let his writing do his talking.The Herald anecdote is a good one; I've heard that and it kind of points to his lack of willingness to pay his dues. He's talented but entitled too, and he was those things well before the term millennial came into use.
I totally agree, which is why I wrote that I don't want to kill the guy for something he wrote 20 years ago. Jesus, I look back on what I wrote 15 years ago and I want to throw myself out a window.I think harping on his Herald takes is a bit of a stretch. He was every 20-something, bitching about a legacy industry that had all manner of old school practices that stifled anyone who wanted to rise rapidly or do something new. I'm sure most of us here who are middle-age had similar complaints about our workplace when we were the same age.
I don't know about now but he hadn't gotten over it even after he became successful.I remember on his old Digital Cities page he wrote about the Herald sports room and how he couldn't believe that Mike Felger got a higher profile than him. He was convinced it was because Felger laughed louder at the editor's jokes, or brought coffee in for his bosses or just kissed his ass. Bill was adamant that he wasn't going to do that because he was better than Felger and that he'd let his writing do his talking.
But there was a real underlying bitterness and entitlement to that too, which I didn't recognize when I first read Simmons. Of course Felger got noticed for doing the little things, he was working harder than Simmons. Kissing ass or whatever you call it, is part of the game. You do the shit assignments, you make sure your boss knows who you are, you get coffee -- that's a big part of your job. To sit back and complain--publicly!--is pretty poor form. And I don't want to kill the guy for something he wrote 20 years ago, but it seems as if he hasn't learned too much.
I started working at the (Boston) Herald the following September, answering phones and doing shit work, organizing food runs, working on the Sunday football scores section,” he says. “What a miserable place. I thought it was just me, but I have gotten emails from people since who had similarly horrible experiences there.
Some of the copy editors were the meanest, most unhappy people I have ever been around. . .I mean, it was unbelievable. I had never seen anything like it. That was the most discouraging environment imaginable for someone who dreamt of becoming a columnist some day. What I really hated was that, eventually, you turn into those people – you start slamming everyone else behind their backs. Man, I hated that place.
After three years I knew I needed to get out, and I knew it would be years before I ever got a chance. Plus, I never clicked with the new sports editor (Mark Torpey) after Bob Sales was fired. In retrospect, I should have gone to JJ Foley's on Thursday nights and laughed at his jokes like Mike Felger did, but I didn't know to do that at the time.
I don't do podcasts or twitter, but I've read - if I had to estimate - about 80%+ of the words he's ever written back to his Digital City days, see the comments here on his podcasts or twitter meltdowns and I certainly thought it was a joke. He's always been thin skinned, but one thing that came out after Grantland folded was that his employees loved him. I never thought he'd go after Keri, while Barnwell rips off similar stuff and he's never said a word. I don't know if it's something personal - maybe Keri not wanting to go to the Ringet when his espn contract ran out, if there was something under the surface between the two or if Simmons was just having a bad day and is too big a baby to apologize.Anyone who ever thought his post to Keri was a joke has never read or followed Simmons before (in addition to not paying attention to Jay Caspian Kang's tweet or the fact Keri never acknowledged or riffed on Simmons post)
I used to be a huge Simmons fan, now I legitimately have no idea how anyone could listen to him. He never admits he's wrong or even acknowledges he said anything different.
Perfect example is his DeAaron Fox take. About 2 weeks ago he was ranting about how Calipari is a terrible coach, how Monk should be handed the car keys and Fox should be on the bench in crunch time.
Today with Kevin O'Connor he talked about how Fox was special, fearless, and should be a top 6 pick. No acknowledgment of what he said before, not even a simple "I've watched Fox more and my original take was wrong" just launches into the Fox discussion like he's never talked about him before.
It's like that with everything too. No matter how wrong he is or how vociferously he argued the wrong side (see Woj and the KD Warrior report) he never just says "I was wrong". It's always a confluence of things that led him to be wrong now but my god at the time he was completely right!!
You legitimately have no idea how anyone can listen to him, yet you know his opinion on 2 Kentucky prospects that he talked about two weeks apart?Anyone who ever thought his post to Keri was a joke has never read or followed Simmons before (in addition to not paying attention to Jay Caspian Kang's tweet or the fact Keri never acknowledged or riffed on Simmons post)
I used to be a huge Simmons fan, now I legitimately have no idea how anyone could listen to him. He never admits he's wrong or even acknowledges he said anything different.
Perfect example is his DeAaron Fox take. About 2 weeks ago he was ranting about how Calipari is a terrible coach, how Monk should be handed the car keys and Fox should be on the bench in crunch time.
Today with Kevin O'Connor he talked about how Fox was special, fearless, and should be a top 6 pick. No acknowledgment of what he said before, not even a simple "I've watched Fox more and my original take was wrong" just launches into the Fox discussion like he's never talked about him before.
It's like that with everything too. No matter how wrong he is or how vociferously he argued the wrong side (see Woj and the KD Warrior report) he never just says "I was wrong". It's always a confluence of things that led him to be wrong now but my god at the time he was completely right!!
But that wouldn't explain why he reacted the same way when Dave Cameron did an MLB trade value column in Fangraphs six years ago. Though if we take the anonymous former Grantlander's word that Simmons still holds a grudge over that, then him seeing Keri credit Cameron (albeit after he had credited Simmons himself) in SI could've poured some salt in an old wound.I wonder, too, if the fact that Keri's column was in SI, the paragon of "established sports journalism" that ticked Simmons off more than the fact that Keri was the author. Simmons has always viewed himself as an outsider, because that's how he made a name for himself, and has chafed against big sports media. Even his time at ESPN was spent on Page 2 (before he distanced himself with Grantland) and ended tumultuously. I'd bet that part of him feels like, despite his successes, he's never been accepted into that "club", and seeing "his" idea be a feature for SI, of all places, just pissed him off more than anything. Like "you assholes don't respect ME but have no problems stealing my ideas."
It wouldn't excuse his non-joke in any way (although really, who cares except maybe Keri), but it helps explain it.
http://bit.ly/2naBbCw?cc=9d1ab84a68e1a722df145c81ebb8fc45Tom: Any thoughts on Bill Simmons tweet calling out Jonah Keri for stealing his idea of ranking players by trade value?
Keith Law: I 100% believe that was in jest. It certainly brought Jonah’s column a lot of attention, all positive.
That sucks dude, sorry.Even if it was a joke, it was a self aggrandizing one that's only true purpose was to bring positive attention to himself.
It's like some asshole "friend" letting you borrow a guitar for a gig and then "joking" to everyone in the audience that he it plays so much better than you.
That's just sports writers in general. They make dumb predictions. Are usually wrong. And then never mention it again.Anyone who ever thought his post to Keri was a joke has never read or followed Simmons before (in addition to not paying attention to Jay Caspian Kang's tweet or the fact Keri never acknowledged or riffed on Simmons post)
I used to be a huge Simmons fan, now I legitimately have no idea how anyone could listen to him. He never admits he's wrong or even acknowledges he said anything different.
Perfect example is his DeAaron Fox take. About 2 weeks ago he was ranting about how Calipari is a terrible coach, how Monk should be handed the car keys and Fox should be on the bench in crunch time.
Today with Kevin O'Connor he talked about how Fox was special, fearless, and should be a top 6 pick. No acknowledgment of what he said before, not even a simple "I've watched Fox more and my original take was wrong" just launches into the Fox discussion like he's never talked about him before.
It's like that with everything too. No matter how wrong he is or how vociferously he argued the wrong side (see Woj and the KD Warrior report) he never just says "I was wrong". It's always a confluence of things that led him to be wrong now but my god at the time he was completely right!!
It was on a podcast with Joe House. House did immediately respond to his rant by claiming that he was going to wager on UK winning the national title because Simmons is a mush.Perfect example is his DeAaron Fox take. About 2 weeks ago he was ranting about how Calipari is a terrible coach, how Monk should be handed the car keys and Fox should be on the bench in crunch time.
Yeah - I mean, that's basically the joy of Simmons. I don't think anyone takes his analysis seriously (I hope?). Getting angry about this stuff is half the fun.That's just sports writers in general. They make dumb predictions. Are usually wrong. And then never mention it again.
I don't think that's the joy of Simmons at all. All sportswriters do that, and at best it's annoying but you can't stop reading their stuff. What Simmons did was write about sports the way most fans talk. Pet theories like levels of losing and the Ewing factor, comparing Roger Clemens like the ex-girlfriend who jilted you etc. Now I feel like his schtick has gotten old and Simmons doesn't translate to other mediums very well.Yeah - I mean, that's basically the joy of Simmons. I don't think anyone takes his analysis seriously (I hope?). Getting angry about this stuff is half the fun.
I think the most Simmons way to go about it would be to wait for the ASB, write a retro-preview for the American League where he takes a particularly noticeable shot at Team X for signing "Injury Prone" Player 1 (1 DL stint for a pulled hammy in the last 3 years) who now needs Tommy John, then advertise the NL preview coming out next week, only to never release it.Maybe a retroactive running diary of the World Baseball classic?
You can feel your brain cells fizzle reading that. One of the first posts my eye fell on refers to him as "Simpson".
KD is great as an interview, but he really does play the victim pretty hard when it comes to Oklahoma City's response to him signing with the greatest regular season team of all time. Other than that, he is tremendous, he goes deep into some NBA stuff that you usually don't hear. It was cool.You can feel your brain cells fizzle reading that. One of the first posts my eye fell on refers to him as "Simpson".
On an unrelated note: my eyes rolled a bit when I saw that Simmons had gone to the well again with *another* Durant podcast interview. But, man, is it great— KD is just a riveting interview.
Simmons unrelenting love for the fast and the furious has jumped the shark that his nonstop stupid nba trade ideas jumped years ago
You're kidding yourself if you think this is unique to Simmons. Fast and the Furious and John Wick have an incredibly loyal fanbase among a large portion of the sports blogosphere.Simmons unrelenting love for the fast and the furious has jumped the shark that his nonstop stupid nba trade ideas jumped years ago
I can sort of get Fast and the Furious. Yes, they're cheesy. But their one of the few franchises with a legitimately diverse cast that caters to an urban audience. But John Wick being popular in some circles? That would be disturbing.You're kidding yourself if you think this is unique to Simmons. Fast and the Furious and John Wick have an incredibly loyal fanbase among a large portion of the sports blogosphere.
People love John Wick.I can sort of get Fast and the Furious. Yes, they're cheesy. But their one of the few franchises with a legitimately diverse cast that caters to an urban audience. But John Wick being popular in some circles? That would be disturbing.
Wick and Fast are both massive hits with rabid fan bases.People love John Wick.
And if you're surprised by people being into F&F you're just not paying attention. It's the biggest movie franchise going, that isn't made by Disney.
Simmons has used Tate Frazier in an Ed McMahon sort of role in a few podcasts recently. Not sure if that's a glimpse of the future, and I haven't listened to any of the other Ringer podcasts Tate appears on, but it doesn't seem to be the most promising direction for the BS Podcast.