Firstly, let me be quite clear in stating that I DO NOT want Hollywood to remake, reboot, remodel, re-envision, or recreate this masterpiece, though I would be extremely excited to see a re-release.  The Great Escape is one of my favorite films of all-time, a film I watched dozens of time as a child, many of those with my Dad.  This film should not be remade because it is already perfect for what it is, a huge Hollywood war picture starring many of the coolest actors in film history.  A remake could never top it.  Rumors have been floating around the internet for the past few years that studios and producers are eyeing this property for the remake merry go-round, but it’s a pointless endeavor.  First, as I said, they could never outdo the original (which should always be the aim of a remake or reboot – do something different, do something better).  Second, many of today’s younger audience members (ages 10-30) know nothing of the original and know little more than that Steve McQueen is some sort of old, dead symbol of a lost generation of cool.  Maybe they’ve seen his face on a poster, or caught of glimpse of his car chase in Bullitt.  But they probably don’t know anything about the actor or the man.  I, on the other hand, have a stack of McQueen biographies and had a poster of McQueen from his motorcycle scene in The Great Escape hanging on my wall throughout college.  I still have the poster (though I’m currently not allowed to hang it up).  It will adorn the wall of my man cave when I finally have a room set aside to be my man cave.  Third, World War II is not a popular subject amongst today’s youth, so the producers wouldn’t be able to set the film during that time period.  My guess, they’d update it to today’s war in the Middle East.  Problems are inherent in that, as no two wars are alike and if you’re going to change the war than you might as well change the story and the characters and the title.  Do something original.  Along these lines, there is no need to create a revisionist film.  If it’s set in WWII, then be true to that.  African-Americans were not a part of the true story which lead to the original film and, therefore, cannot be included in the film.  I love Chiwetel Ejiofor as much as the next man, but he cannot be the lead in the remake (though he’d be awesome).  Fourth, and finally, Hollywood cannot make this kind of film anymore.  I’m not going to be the kind of guy who says new-Hollywood can’t do what old-Hollywood did.  Every generation has its share of great films.  But honestly, in many ways new-Hollywood cannot match old-Hollywood when it comes to grandeur and epic scale*.  They certainly call everything epic, but it’s mostly garbage, from the Transformers movies to all the retread blockbuster sequels.  Hollywood has gotten too big and flashy and pretty boy-obsessed and special effects-driven to ever make a picture like The Great Escape, which was done with grand sets and real actors and epic stunts.  Sets this size cost money.  Movies this long and involving cost time and money.  Actors this popular and capable cost money, and the actors in The Great Escape had gritty, real qualities a majority of today’s actors lack.  Now, there has been one picture of late that took a film from the 1960s, infused an expensive, A-list cast, set the film in the modern day, and was quite enjoyable.  That movie, Ocean’s Eleven.  Great job by Soderbergh and his team.  Two things though: they ruined the fun by making two unnecessary sequels (an argument for another day), and the original Rat Pack film was a hackneyed mess containing very few redeeming qualities.  Soderbergh wasn’t remaking a classic.  He was taking a good, old idea and rejuvenating it for today’s audiences.

*I would be remiss not to mention the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which was every bit as grand and epic as anything in film history.  But these movies were not a remake of an earlier trilogy, and much of their epic-ness came through the advancement of computer technology as used in film.  The Great Escape is an epic film, but not in the same way.

So, you can see that I DO NOT want this film remade.  And if it were remade I believe it would be a disaster and a disservice to the original.  Take, for example, the 2004 remake of Flight of the Phoenix (originally 1965).  Oh, boy, what an unmitigated disaster.  We go from James Stewart, Richard Attenborough, Peter Finch, Ernest Borgnine, and George Kennedy to Dennis Quaid, Jared Padalecki, Tyrese, and someone called Sticky Fingaz.  Not to mention the director’s chair descended from Robert Aldrich, director of The Dirty Dozen, Kiss Me Deadly, and Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?, to John Moore, director of Behind Enemy Lines and Max Payne.  Just because a man calls himself a director does not mean he is capable of directing a film (see: Brett Ratner).  Leave these old films alone!  However, since I believe Hollywood is prone to eventually remake everything, I’ve put some time in crafting the perfect cast for a modern take on The Great Escape.  Hollywood can take it or leave it, though they’d much rather leave it, I’m sure.  Why put any conscious thought into remaking a movie?  All the work’s already been done for them; i.e. the original was already made.  All Hollywood needs are a camera and a couple of Twilight actors.  Ready?  Action!

DIRECTOR:

Original: John Sturges
My Remake: Ridley Scott
Reason: This is difficult, as new exciting and talented directors appear on the scene each year.  Directors like Bryan Singer and Christopher Nolan seem to explode out of nowhere with small gems like The Usual Suspects and Memento, only to be directing monstrous epics like X-Men and Batman Begins just a few years, and films, later.  Recently, Zach Snyder joined the list, moving from small Dawn of the Dead to the mega-huge Man of Steel.  Sometimes this turns out wonderfully (aforementioned directors), sometimes not so much (Louis Leterrier, Tim Story).  The problem is that with a movie this big you cannot have a nobody directing.  I hate to see this movie turn into Tim Story’s Fantastic Four as opposed to Bryan Singer’s X-Men.  With new, young directors, it can be a crap-shoot.  Therefore, there needs to be a highly-capable director with a few rather large movies under his belt and a respect for his source material.  Also, it would be great if the director has both critically-acclaimed films and box-office successes on his résumé.  The list grows shorter…

There is probably only one perfect director to pull this off: Steven Spielberg.  I say “perfect” for three simple reasons: He’s bigger than Hollywood and does whatever he wants on-set (build enormous sets, shoot anywhere in the world); he is keen on the subject of WWII and the varied stories therein; and he’s proven he can be honest to his source material (Saving Private Ryan, Schindler’s List).  But I’m hesitant to believe he’d actually be interested, as he’s already made a number of WWII films and television shows, and he’s never outright remade somebody else’s film.  I’m also hesitant because though Spielberg has many positives his last few movies have left me very disappointed – see: Indiana Jones 4, Munich, War of the Worlds, The Terminal.  Sometimes being bigger than Hollywood can hurt you when it comes to storytelling and staying true to your source material (see: James Cameron, George Lucas…), and it’s evident that on some projects Spielberg misses the mark from the get-go.  So, based on his busy schedule and my hesitancy in trusting him not to make this into another Indiana Jones 4, I am bypassing Spielberg in favor of…

Ridley Scott.  Scott’s another highly-capable director quite famous for his best films.  When Scott is on, he’s on, and there are very few directors who can match him.  The problem is that he seems to take every couple of movies off, leaving the audience with Robin Hood, Kingdom of Heaven, or Hannibal.  I’m putting my faith in the great Ridley Scott showing up.  He works wonderfully with ensembles, creates action scenes containing both visceral feeling and intellectual stimulation, and has a good understanding of history.  He also draws the best talent available, as every actor wants to work with him.  He’s very detailed in his historical films and, despite being a Hollywood director, he creates films that are decidedly un-Hollywood in use of color, location, and editing.  When left alone, the man molds a story into an entertaining film.  I’d hire the guy and leave him be.

CAST:

Captain Virgil Hilts, USAAF, “The Cooler King”
Original: Steve McQueen
My Remake: Thomas Jane
Reason: The Cooler King or the King of Cool.  Call him what you want.  McQueen exemplified American cool, on-and-off-screen.  There isn’t anybody quite like him around today, but Thomas Jane is close in both look and bad-ass, independent, don’t-take-shit-from-anyone attitude.  This character needs to be American, as he’s the only true American POW in the camp.  Hollywood annoys me by constantly casting British/Australian actors in decidedly American roles (Superman, Batman), and I really want this trend to end.  First and foremost, I’m looking American, then bad-ass, independent spirit.  Jane exemplifies both.  My fear is that Hollywood would do one of two things: They would cast a Brit/Australian (Christian Bale) to play the American character, or, if they couldn’t get a big-enough name, they’d cast whoever’s the hottest model-turned-tv actor-turned Hollywood pretty boy.  Regardless, it’d be a disgrace.  That’s why I’m going with Thomas Jane.

Flight Lieutenant Bob Hendley DFC RAF, “The Scrounger”
Original: James Garner
My Remake: Lee Pace
Reason: An American character living in England and flying for the RAF (British Royal Air Force), this character needs to be suave and deceptive.  From what I’ve seen of Pace, he’s a charismatic actor with a bright future, much like Garner back in 1963.

Squadron Leader Roger Bartlett DFC RAF, “Big X”
Original: Richard Attenborough
My Remake: Michael Sheen
Reason: He’d be fantastic as the leader of the POWs.  He has a strength and charisma that reverberates across the screen.  I have a feeling Hollywood would first attempt to put an American in the role (e.g. George Clooney), and would perhaps diversify with a Denzel-type.  But if they stayed true to the original film and cast a British actor, they would probably go with Colin Firth.

Group Captain Ramsey DSO MC RAF, “The SBO [Senior British Officer]”
Original: James Donald
My Remake: Jason Isaacs
Reason: It would be nice to see Isaacs give a performance that did not involve him being evil.  He’s a great actor and could pull off this sensible role nicely.  He may be a few years too old, but his role is Senior British Officer.  Paul Bettany would be a fine back-up.

Flight Lieutenant Danny Velinski DSC DFC RAF, “The Tunnel King”
Original: Charles Bronson
My Remake: Tom Hardy
Reason: Hardy is best as a character actor, and he would serve well here as the muscled, go-to tunnel digger with a fear of enclosed spaces.

Flight Lieutenant Colin Blythe RAF, “The Forger”
Original: Donald Pleasence
My Remake: Toby Jones
Reason: What can I say, Jones reminds me of Pleasence.  Actually, Jones could really knock this role out of the POW camp.

Flying Officer Louis Sedgwick RAAF, “The Manufacturer”
Original: James Coburn
My Remake: Michael Fassbender
Reason: It’s a smaller role than he’s probably recently accustomed to, but it’s a great role nonetheless.  If Fassbender were busy with X-Men movies, I’d turn to Ewan McGregor, who has already worked in an ensemble film with Ridley Scott (Black Hawk Down).

Oberst von Luger, “The Kommandant”
Original: Hannes Messemer
My Remake: Christopher Waltz
Reason: Is there another German actor you were thinking of?  Waltz gets the part almost by default.  But, in all honestly, he’d eat this role up.  His face-offs with Thomas Jane and Michael Sheen would be a pulpy, B-movie equivalent to the infamous Alec Guinness- Sessue Hayakawa face-offs in Bridge on the River Kwai.  Once, and only once, Hollywood and I see eye-to-eye.

Lieutenant-Commander Eric Ashley-Pitt DSC RN, “Dispersal”
Original: David McCallum
My Remake: Martin Freeman
Reason: I love Martin Freeman.

Flight Lieutenant Sandy ‘Mac’ MacDonald RAF, “Intelligence”
Original: Gordon Jackson
My Remake: David Thewlis
Reason: David Thewlis rocks.

Flight Lieutenant William ‘Willie’ Dickes RAF, “The Tunnel King”
Original: John Leyton
My Remake: Rory Keenan
Reason: Saw him in The Guard.  He was good.

Flying Officer Archibald ‘Archie’ Ives RAF, “The Mole”
Original: Angus Lennie
My Remake: Simon Pegg
Reason: Because I know he can pull off a Scottish accent, and I also know he has the dramatic depth to make this role work in the remake.  This character’s fate is at the heart of the movie and takes an actor with talent to pull off.  It’s not the biggest role, but it’s a good role.

Flight Lieutenant Denys Cavendish RAF, “The Surveyor”
Original: Nigel Stock
My Remake: Jeffrey DeMunn
Reason: He’s a veteran of numerous Fran Darabont projects and, though perhaps too old for the film, would make a wonderful addition to the cast.

The rest of the cast can be filled in by veteran character actors and theater veterans.

Despite the time and thought I put into writing this article, I beg you, Hollywood, not to remake this film.  I will, inexplicably, force myself to buy a ticket opening weekend, and I very well may find myself digging a tunnel out of the theater.

Please share your thoughts on possible actors/director for this (hypothetical) remake.

Labor Day has arrived, and with that I am recapping my 2011 Summer Box Office Predictions.

The theatrical releases on this list were released during the summer movie season, between May 1st and September 1st.

Let’s begin with my original list of predictions and see how I did.

My original predictions are written in normal black type.

In blue I give you the following: the release’s actual summer box office total and finishing position amongst only this year’s summer releases, and my thoughts on why I was so horribly, horribly wrong.

(The dollar amounts are in millions and account only for domestic gross as of 9/1/11.)

1. Transformers: Dark of the Moon – $341
- The trailer has a lot of action and ever so many robots, so the teenagers will continue to pay up.  That being said, like other massive trilogies of this kind (think Pirates of the Caribbean, Shrek), I expect the third movie to gross less domestically than the sequel yet more than the original, as viewers realize that the second film never lived up to the promise of the first.  Also, there is a plethora of teenager-oriented sci-fi and adventure films opening this summer, and some moviegoers will be saving their dollars for specific ones.  If it defeats Harry Potter during the summer it will very likely win the year, as there isn’t a huge movie (think LOTR, Avatar) opening before year’s end.
- $350 (2nd)
– Almost exact with its gross, but off by one with its position.  As has been happening of late with Hollywood’s bloated trilogies (Pirates, Matrix, Shrek, The Mummy…), this third film took a rather steep drop-off from the second film.  The third films usually settle in the middle territory between the original’s gross and the sequel’s distended gross.  You see, the audience is excited to see the original, then chomping at the bit to see the sequel (either excited by the originality of the original or the explosive possibilities of the sequel), but when the third rolls along they’re either disappointed with the direction of the trilogy or worn out by the three-hour running times, the ludicrous character development, and overblown marketing campaigns.  Oddly enough, the drop-off in gross hasn’t seemed to stop Hollywood from increasing these bloated trilogies into exhausted series, where the fourth films tend to gross even less than the third.  Milk that cow while she’s still breathing, boys!

2. Kung Fu Panda 2 – $327
- More exciting than Cars, with a more popular voice cast and equally impressive graphics, the Panda is back and prepared to deftly remove the money from your wallet.  With the original grossing $215 domestic in 2008, and DreamWorks’ own How to Train Your Dragon grossing $217 in 2010, I expect this sequel to surpass both as well as the original Shrek ($267), but it won’t reach Shrek 2 ($441).
- $164 (9th)
– I massively overestimated the continuing appeal of pandas.  Just kidding.  I overestimated the continual appeal of animation.  This was a notoriously poor year for animated films, not by quality, but by gross earnings.  Usually, whatever is thrown out there makes money, but not this year.  It’s almost as if the animated studios had to earn their money.  That’s an interesting thought, and a dilemma for Hollywood.  For a moment, it seems family audiences are waking up.  As it is, this movie barely covered its budget, and has yet to cover its marketing costs.  It will, in DVD sales, but this low gross doesn’t bode well for the franchise.

3. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II – $303
- Deathly Hallows: Part I made $295 just last year (November release) and had almost no competition throughout the winter months.  This one should retain the entire audience from Part I and lure in a few other cinema-goers interested in seeing this series wrap up, but it has an awful lot of blockbuster competition during the summer.  It won’t be too big, as only the first and sixth movies grossed over $300 domestic ($317 and $301, respectively).
- $372 (1st)
– #1 by a country mile.  Stormed to the #1 position due to the largest opening weekend in film history.  Even the largest-ever second week drop by a “blockbuster” film couldn’t derail it from claiming the year’s #1 domestic gross.  There were enough people hidden away who just wanted to watch the final chapter, and I’m sure the repeat viewings were strong, as it was an enjoyable end to the series.  Read my review of the entire Harry Potter series here.

4. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides – $295
- This one’s a bit of a wild card, as the trilogy came to an ignominious close with the bloated  garbage pile that was At World’s End.  Is Disney pushing its luck with a fourth entry into this franchise?  With the cool characters (Sparrow and Barbossa) in tow, and a new director aboard (Rob Marshall of Chicago fame), I expect this one to breathe new life into the franchise, though I could be completely off, and audiences could stay away due to the salty taste in their mouth from the last go-round.  As it is, my prediction for domestic gross is $10 less than the original grossed.  The market may still be there, but the excitement has waned.
- $240 (4th)
– Here’s that exhausted fourth film I was writing about above.  The excitement has certainly waned with this franchise.  But there was still a market, though not nearly as large as I predicted.  It grossed $65 million less than the original (2003).  Disney seems dead-set on two more films, and Depp will certainly cash two more paychecks, so get ready for the ignominious end of Captain Jack Sparrow.

5. Cars 2 – $248
- The original Cars is middle-of-the-pack for domestic gross of Pixar films ($244), but the third-highest domestic gross of 2006.  It’s been five years.  Are kids/teens clamoring to see a Cars sequel?  I don’t think so.  Will families go simply because it’s a Pixar film?  Absolutely.  It will have competition, arriving in theaters sandwiched between Green Lantern and Transformers: Dark of the Moon, but I think it will have enough to rev into the top-5.
- $187 (5th)
– Nailed the position!  [That’s what she said.]  But I was way off on gross.  Pixar’s first true bomb (and stinker, as reviews go).  Taking inflation into account it is the lowest-grossing of Pixar’s movies, dating back to the original Toy Story in 1995.  I’m certain Pixar will bounce right back, but here’s hoping they learned their lesson about forcing unnecessary sequels (and vanity projects) down our throats.

6. The Smurfs – $210
- Am I underselling or overselling this movie?  Alvin and the Chipmunks grossed $217 in 2007.  Its squeakquel grossed $219 in 2009.  Scooby-Doo grossed $153 in 2002, before 3-D and the corresponding ticket increase.  The Smurfs are equally as popular, if not more so.  After this movie arrives on July 29, not one more family movie arrives for weeks.  It will clean house before kids return to school.  What kind of world do we live in?
- $128 (12th)
– The people have woken up!  Didn’t reach the stratosphere like I predicted, but did clear $120 million, which, in my humble opinion, is still too much.

7. Green Lantern – $201
- The highest-grossing of the super hero movies this year?  I have it here, but I’m not so sure.  Between its mix of science fiction, action, and comedy, I believe it will surpass the serious Thor and the historical Captain America.  It could also bomb with an off-note performance by Ryan Reynolds and weaker-than-usual special effects.
- $116 (14th)
– The biggest dud of my predictions goes to the biggest dud of the summer.  I massively overestimated the appeal of both the character of Green Lantern and this film.  It was slammed by critics and abandoned by audiences.  I expected better from director Martin Campbell (GoldenEye, Casino Royale) and star Ryan Reynolds, who may have proven that he is not fit for hero roles or big-budget films.

8. The Hangover Part II – $187
- It figures to gross money, but R-rated comedy sequels don’t have a lengthy track record that can be studied, for not many R-rated comedies spawn sequels.  American Pie 2 out-grossed the original by $43.  Beverly Hills Cop II grossed $81 less than the original.  Scary Movie 2 grossed $86 less than the original, but Scary Movie 3 grossed $39 more than the sequel.  It’s difficult to compare the Judd Apatow comedies of the 2000s, since there are differing characters and plots; none of them have been direct sequels to earlier films.  As it is, The Hangover grossed $277 domestic in 2009, making it the highest-grossing R-rated comedy ever.  Much of its take was done on repeat business; people found it that funny.  If the sequel grosses over $153 it will become the highest-grossing R-rated comedy sequel ever (passing Beverly Hills Cop II).  Opening in May, it is the only big R-rated comedy released before July 8th’s Horrible Bosses.  Theaters will crack down on carding for this movie and many young fans will be forced to buy tickets to PG-13 fare and subsequently sneak in; this lost money will not be reflected in the movie’s gross.  I expect this sequel to have a huge opening weekend, but I don’t believe its repeat business will be as strong as the original’s.  This seems to be a case of been there, done that, which is one of the reasons most of the great comedies don’t get sequels; run-of-the-mill PG/PG-13 crap always does (Pink Panther, Meet the Parents, Cheaper by the Dozen…).
- $254 (3rd)
– It came closer to the original’s gross ($277) than to my estimate.  The reviews were not good, with many critics stating that the movie was a tired retread of the original.  I guess that is what some audiences want.

9. Cowboys & Aliens – $181
- I have a feeling it’s going to be very stupid, but it should have a teenage boy-infused large opening weekend going up against The Smurfs, and it doesn’t have any competition arriving in the weeks after its premiere, unless Rise of the Planet of the Apes surprises and over-performs.
- $94 (18th)
– They won’t be making a sequel to this under-performing behemoth.  Hollywood won’t learn its lesson about strip-mining comics and graphic novels, thinking Americans want to see this mashed with that or that mashed with this, but it should think twice about spending $200 million dollars to produce one.  One thought: Can Green Lantern truly be the bomb of the summer when compared to this film’s underwhelming performance?

10. Thor – $167
- It has a full two weeks before a competitive film opens, and it will clean up during that time, but once the summer weeks start rolling along this movie will disappear.  It is garnering fantastic reviews and may bring in the adult audience, which will boost its gross, but Thor is one of the least-known Marvel heroes, and his box office will surely reflect that.
- $181 (6th)
– I came pretty close.  Considering Thor is not an extremely popular Marvel character, I am still surprised that it grossed so much money.  I believe its tie-in to the upcoming The Avengers film boosted it a bit.  The casting of Natalie Portman, who happened to win an Oscar a short time before the release, probably helped as well.

11. Zookeeper – $157
- Kevin James + talking animals.  I don’t get it, but the producers of this movie do.  It is the only family-friendly, non-animated movie other than Mr. Popper’s Penguins (which opens against Green Lantern) to arrive this summer, and it does so on a weekend all to itself.  Somehow this movie is built to make big summer bucks, and without a competing Adam Sandler or Will Ferrell movie, it will do just that.
- $77 (19th)
– What is going on this year?!?!  I continue to massively overestimate the lasting appeal of what was ridiculously popular five years ago.  Kevin James + talking animals.  I thought it couldn’t fail.  I was wrong.  It grossed a heck of a lot less than Sony Pictures was hoping, and now we have almost no chance of seeing Zookeeper 2.  Thanks, America, thanks a lot.

12. X-Men: First Class – $150
- Another wild card, as the X-Men films are not notoriously high-grossing affairs ($157, $214, $234, respectively, with the standalone Wolverine pulling in $179).  Additionally, this film doesn’t have the draw of Wolverine, Cyclops, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, or Halle Berry, and it is set during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  I have a feeling it will be the lowest-grossing of all the X-Men-related movies.
- $146 (11th)
– Nearly nailed it.  Though this movie was terrific (check out my review here), my opinion that X-Men movies are notoriously low-grossing affairs was accurate, especially when they’re centered more on drama than action, which this was.

13. Captain America: The First Avenger – $137
- I enjoyed the trailer and am probably more interested in this movie than Thor or Green Lantern, but its historical setting and realistic connection to WWII will hurt its box office.  Thor promises magic and mystical gods.  Green Lantern excites with never-before-seen powers and otherworldly aliens.  Captain America has a WWII grunt fighting a deformed Nazi scientist.  It opens directly after Harry Potter and before Cowboys & Aliens; that’s a lot of competition.  I just don’t see this one exploding at the box office.  Also, director Joe Johnston doesn’t have a great box office track record; his highest-grossing film ever is Jurassic Park 3 ($181).  Captain America will be his second-highest.
- $169 (7th)
– A nice surprise.  Where Green Lantern bored, Captain America soared.  The tie-in/lead-up to next summer’s The Avengers delivered a few more butts into the seats, something I should have foreseen.

14. Super 8 – $135
- I’m on the fence with the blockbuster power of Spielberg and Abrams, producer and director, respectively.  This could wind up being E.T. ($359) or Cloverfield ($80).  It’s such a mystery that I have no idea.  The question here is: “Which audience will show up?”  Kids?  Adults?  Teenage boys?  Couples?  Families?  Without knowing much about the film no one can say.  The marketing onslaught that will attack our country within the next few months will determine the outcome of this movie moreso than its June 10th release date.
- $126 (13th)
– Nearly nailed it again.  It could have grossed more.  It had an intriguing concept and great reviews and Spielberg and Abrams…  Perhaps it didn’t have enough robots and Smurfs.  Yeah, that’s probably it.  Read my review here.

15. Mr. Popper’s Penguins – $127
- Jim Carrey is still a big-enough star to open this movie, where he shares billing with a flock of penguins.  It may not be Liar, Liar, but it’s family-friendly and contains adorable penguins.  Still, it won’t have enough to take down Zookeeper, which contains talking animals.  If only these penguins could talk!  Also, it opens up against Green Lantern in the weekend before Cars 2.  The money has to be spread about somehow.
- $67 (21st)
– Oh, Jim Carrey.  I grossly overestimated his current appeal.  This movie bombed when it should have cleaned up the family dollars.  I told the producers that the penguins should have talked.  I’m certain that would have added an additional $65.

16. Monte Carlo – $92
- Young American girls need something to go see, and since Twilight: Whatever doesn’t come out until November, this will have to do.
- $23 (33rd)
– Apparently, girls only need their iPhones and boys.

17. Spy Kids 4: All the Time in the World – $88
- Why?  Because these movies make money.  I don’t know why.
- $24 (32nd)
– Finally, the angel that is Jessica Alba crashes down to Earth.

18. Winnie the Pooh – $86
- The Winnie the Pooh brand has an amazing tradition, but how will a 2-D, hand-drawn animated feature withstand the onslaught of the digital 3-D craze?  Perhaps by opposing it.  It has a shot, but I think at year’s end it will be considered another nail in the coffin of 2-D animation.  And I think Disney knows this, as there are rumors that they are pulling out all the stops to produce a feature-length 2-D animated feature starring Mickey, Donald, and Goofy.  Think of it as an animated defibrillation.
- $26 (31st)
– What we can take away from this movie’s gross is that the children of the 21^st century don’t give a pooh bear’s butt about Winnie and his adventures with Christopher Robbins.

19. Rise of the Planet of the Apes – $79
- I cannot see this being a breakout hit, though, for my money, it is an intriguing movie.  If the reviews are good, I’m in, but I’m more likely to spend my money on a sci-fi picture like this (if the reviews are good) than a superhero movie or talking animal picture.  But I’m not typical America.  Will typical America pay to see this?
- $152 (10th)
– Better-reviewed and -received than I expected.  It became the breakout hit of the late summer.

20. The Help – $71
- This is a feel-good, heart-warming tale with a talented cast, based on a book with a large following.  It has a chance to become The Blind Side, but will more likely stay a small gem.
- $103 (16th)
– It’s good to see an explosion-less film do well during the summer.  I already have this movie saved in my Netflix queue.

These releases did not make my original Top-20 (by choice):

Bridesmaids – not in my Top-20
- $164 (8th)
- I severely underestimated this movie.  My gut was telling me that it was going to be a breakout hit, but my darn brain got in the way and made me consider the all-female cast and lack of a major film star.  Well, my brain was certainly proven wrong.  I saw this movie – it’s hilarious, and I’m glad it made as much money as it did.  I hope Kristen Wiig continues to make successful films.  Read my review here.

Horrible Bosses – not in my Top-20
- $114 (15th)
– This film was sold to audiences on concept alone.  This movie is entirely forgettable, but I’m not surprised it made this much money, thought I didn’t expect it to.  Read my review here.

Bad Teacher – not in my Top-20
- $98 (17th)
– If Justin Timberlake continues to develop into a movie star, I may just have to drive my head into a concrete barrier.

Crazy, Stupid, Love – not in my Top-20
- $71 (20th)
– It would seem that a Steve Carell/Ryan Gosling movie would do gangbusters at the box office, but sometimes you can tell from a trailer that a movie is more than likely going to miss its target audience, especially when it opens against The Smurfs.  I just had a feeling about this one; that feeling that tells me it’s more likely to be a Netflix movie than a theater movie.

All the rest fell out of the Top-20 for the summer of 2011:
Friends with Benefits, Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark, The Change Up, Larry Crowne, Final Destination 5, Something Borrowed, Fright Night, Conan the Barbarian, Apollo18, The Tree of Life, Priest, The Beaver.

The Top-20 Summer Releases for 2011 (as of 9/1/11):

1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2
2. Transformers: Dark of the Moon
3. The Hangover: Part 2
4. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
5. Cars 2
6. Thor
7. Captain America: The First Avenger
8. Bridesmaids
9. Kung Fu Panda 2
10. Rise of the Planet of the Apes
11. X-Men: First Class
12. The Smurfs
13. Super 8
14. Green Lantern
15. Horrible Bosses
16. The Help
17. Bad Teacher
18. Cowboys & Aliens
19. The Zookeeper
20. Crazy, Stupid, Love

Wrap-Up:

The top five films were all sequels, but four of the five grossed less than their predecessors, so maybe the time of the sequels is passing.  Not likely, but it is good to see a healthy dose of original films sprinkle the Top-20, including female-dominated films like The Help and Bridesmaids.  Each and every one of the comic book-based films landed in the Top-20, which isn’t surprising considering the marketing dollars spent to promote them and the number of theaters in which they opened, but many of them, if not all, underperformed, which should be a scary thought for the film world.  Harry Potter 7: Part 2 won the summer, out-grossing all of its predecessors, but how often can Hollywood count on a franchise-ending blockbuster to save its summer?  If I make one conclusion about this summer, it’s that there were many big disappointments and a few small surprises, which should be a thought that keeps producers and studio execs up at night.  They hate to see $200 million productions gross less than they estimated.  If I make another conclusion, it’s that audiences flocked to well-reviewed, well-received movies more often than usual.  Films like Thor, Bridesmaids, and Rise of the Planet of the Apes did better, with critics and in theaters, than I, and many others, expected.  This summer didn’t have many star-headlined releases, which is unusual in its own right, but the films that were headlined by “stars” tended to gross lower-than-expected amounts, while those starring either up-and-coming stars or well-rounded casts performed well.  Pirates 4 underperformed, which won’t stop Disney from paying Johnny Depp for countless more.  Cowboys & Aliens massively underperformed, perhaps forever damaging Daniel Craig’s Bond-less career and ending Harrison Ford’s relevancy during the summer.  Ryan Reynolds proved he wasn’t up to the task of carrying a summer blockbuster, while Chris Evans proved that maybe he was.  Steve Carell’s comedy performed poorly, while Kristen Wiig’s performed surprisingly well.  This, perhaps, bodes well for the future of film.  Overall, considering the gross of every release so far this year, 2011 is far behind the past two years, which were equally the highest-grossing years in history (not counting inflation).  Never before had any year grossed $10 billion.  Then, 2009 and 2010 surpassed that amount – $10.5 billion in each year.  2011 is not keeping pace.  Here’s the breakdown of big-time grossing films over the past three years (in millions):

 

Gross (in millions)	2011	2010	2009
$400+	0	1	2 (one at $750)
$300+	2	4	3
$200+	5	10	10
$100+	21	30	32
$50+	43	66	61

 

Hollywood is in a slump this year.  There haven’t been those huge films, and even the number of steady, smaller-grossing films has dwindled.  There may be a few releases this Fall and Winter that help make up ground, but right now the business is playing catch up.  Why?  The death of the iconic actor/actress coupled with recycled material and endless sequels.  The constantly rising cost of tickets.  The poor economy.  Those are all reasons.  If any one of those three things changes, it could all come roaring back, and I expect it to.  Next summer’s The Avengers should gross a heck of a lot, as should next winter’s The Hobbit: Part I (which has my repeat viewings already in-hand).  As is always the case, even when Hollywood is down, it’s never counted out.

To compare this year’s predictions to last year’s, click 2010 Summer Box Office Recap.

Ask my friends, all lifelong Giants and Jets fans.  I’ve been struggling with this issue for a long while.  I’m a cynic, not an optimist.  I can get down sometimes and stop believing.  I don’t always see the best on the horizon.  But I’m also a man who sticks things out; not a man who jumps ship.  I’m a man who has clawed and dragged himself to certain goals, sports-related and otherwise.  I’m a man who never abandons true friends, but can count those true friends on one hand; not an acquaintance man.  I’m a blunt man who is more often to offend than endear.  Forewarning, you may experience some of that below.  I’m a man who believes any user of PEDs should be banned from the history of every sport until the end of time, but who believes that alcoholics like Mantle should be honored for their frailty and humanity.  I appreciate the old-school and quite often take issue with the new.  I respect humility, not greatness.  I hate LeBron James and Tiger Woods.  I love Dwight Evans and Bob Gibson and Reggie Lewis.  And, for the life of me, I love the goddamn Miami Dolphins.

I grew up a HUGE Dan Marino fan, only to have my eyes opened later in life to the fact that he is kind of an asshole and, in the worst way, an asshole that possibly stunted the team’s greatness (by never allowing the Dolphins to bring in an effective rusher – which would have robbed him of his precious passing numbers – which have all been surpassed anyhow).  I’ve met the man a few times and he seems to be, what I term, “kind of a dick.”  No fault against him.  He doesn’t know me from a nickel in his pocket.  But I worshipped him more than any athlete in my childhood, and only lately have I realized that I came up with the short end of the stick (athlete-wise).   [As a side note, the kindest, most generous athlete I’ve ever met in my life was Bob Gibson, known to be one of the surliest jerks on the baseball field.]  Luckily, to continually entice my fandom, the Fins had (in no particular order): Zach Thomas, Clayton & Duper (by the way, I saw Duper get arrested in 1994, in person!), Keith Jackson, Karim Abdul-Jabbar, O.J. McDuffie (big fave!), Irving Fryar, Jason Taylor, Trace Armstrong, Sam Madison & Patrick Surtain, Randy McMichael, Chris Chambers, Ricky & Ronnie, and many other lovable players who could never quite get the team over the hump.  I was a Jay Fiedler fan; believe it.  I have a Dolphins all-cotton Logo 7 jersey (made in the USA), as you probably all do, from a year I don’t remember.  I have a Marino jersey that I used to treasure to such a point that I only wore it once in 20 years, to a Fins v. Jets game at the Meadowlands in 1999, when Ray “f’n” Lucas carried the Jets back to beat Marino.  Ironically, for me, Marino didn’t throw a touchdown.  The Fins scored twenty points and Stanley Pritchett ran for touchdown.  Somehow, Damon Huard threw a touchdown.  Ray Lucas threw for two.  Marino?  Two interceptions.  Bad game.  The Fins lost.  That was my only game (football games are expensive!), harassed and berated by idiot Jets fans until my Father (a cop and Marine) opened his mouth and shut those fat idiots up.  But in every neighborhood I’ve lived in in NYC, I have worked out a deal with certain local bars.  I get a tv to myself to watch the Fins, while the local Jets, Giants, and even Pats fans, watch their games.  Oh, how it irks some of them.  The feeling within the bar is delicious.  If you care to know, I also have my own Sox and Celts bars.  Onward…

Twenty-nine years rooting for the Dolphins.  One Super Bowl appearance; I was three.  No Super Bowl victories.  I know it takes a team, not a man, so I do not blame Marino, and I have bought full-in to the team concept since his retirement.  Yet, as a fan, I have nothing to show from it.  A couple of successful, yet dubious, seasons under Dave Wannstedt.  A couple of horrendous seasons under Nick Saban (who I have always loathed as a useless used car salesman).  An awful season under Cam Cameron.  A couple of disappointing seasons under Bill Parcells.  And now, possibly a couple of soul-searching “extension” seasons under Tony Sparano, along with the knowledge of knowing that minority owners J-Lo and Gloria Estefan probably had a say in bringing in amateur porn star Reggie Bush to be the lead running back.  Ugh.

I’ve considered, for the first time in my life (!), jumping ship and starting anew with a different franchise. This comes from a lifelong Red Sox/Celtics fan; a guy who bled blue/red in summer and green in winter since 1981.  I was looking NFC, as I could never love another AFC team (only the lovable loser Browns were ever considered, as sort of a “well, if you’re going to start new you should start at the bottom”).  I was leaning toward cold-climate, as I respect the teams that play in zero degree weather, as I did with my friends growing up in New England.  I considered the following teams: Packers (pre-Super Bowl, post-Favre), Bears (eh), Lions (climbing down the ladder?), Cardinals (not cold weather, but I liked them with Warner), and Saints (also not cold weather, but I liked them with Brees and I love visiting their city).  Surprisingly, all those teams (minus the Lions) played in the Super Bowl during the past ten years, all after I began quietly pulling for them (which has been extra salt in my Dolphins’ wound).  Franchises on the way up.  The Dolphins?  Floundering.

After careful deliberation, I’ve come to the conclusion that there is no giving up, there is no switching, and there is no chance for me as a Dol-fan.  I’m tied to this team.  I’m here for the long haul, which could be, hopefully (for me, not the Fins), the next sixty+ years.  As much as I’m frustrated with this team, I cannot root for another.  You cannot switch, you cannot jump ship, you cannot ride bandwagons.  The bonds in sports go that deep with true fans.  One team for life.

So, now my internal debate is whether I have the energy and patience to watch this team struggle through another 7-9 season.  Avoid all games, or dive right in come Sept. 12?  To be honest, I never blame the team.  Rarely does a team of highly-talented players let you down.  They may not win the title, but they give it everything they have and come up just short.  I, on record and in the case of the Fins, blame the organization.  It is the organization’s job to field a winning team with a shot at the Super Bowl.  They haven’t done that, or should I (hopefully) say, they haven’t gotten there yet.

Thoughts on the 2011-12 Dolphins:

- I don’t buy the Reggie Bush signing if the goal is to win now.  Bush screams one thing to me – “Bridge to the Future!”  If the goal is to win 7 games this season while prepping Daniel Thomas for a future starting gig, then it kind of makes sense.  However, if you’re simply training Thomas for the future, then, one, you won’t have a job by the time he starts, and, two, why didn’t you keep Ricky Williams (and/or Ronnie Brown) to mentor him, as opposed to Reggie Bush?  Reggie’s going to be a bust, like Pat White.

- I am fine with Henne starting if the organization truly believes he is the long-term answer to the Dolphins (seemingly) endless QB search.  I’m behind him.  I don’t boo him, but I do sometimes hang my head in shame when he does something bad.  But if the organization doesn’t truly believe he is the long-term answer, then I am PISSED.  Why not go out and grab another QB (Orton is the obvious choice this year!) to compete with him and possibly show that he is less-than-starter quality.  What the hell, you give up a 2^nd-round pick.  Big deal.  They haven’t correctly drafted a QB since 1983, so it’s doubtful they’d correctly draft one with a 2^nd-round pick.  And if they’re using that draft pick on other positions, well, someone should tell them that this IS a QB league.  Last NINETEEN Super Bowl Champion QBs: Aikman (3), Young, Favre, Elway (2), Warner, Dilfer, Brady (3), Johnson, Roethlisberger (2), P. Manning, E. Manning, Brees, Rodgers.  That’s, at least, NINE possible Hall of Famers out of thirteen, and a couple more may squeak in!  Only Dilfer, Johnson, and E. Manning stick out, and they handled their offenses with caution enough to allow their defenses to succeed at an extremely high level.  The Dolphins defense has always been good, but it cannot always overcome the mediocre, and often turnover-prone, Dolphins offense.  If we can’t get an Aaron Rodgers, then at least get an Eli Manning.  If not, then allow Henne to be Henne.  If we’re going to have a gun-slinger (which is what Henne is), then he better develop into Brees or Rodgers.  And if we have a gun-slinger (which is what Henne is!), then don’t hamper his only talent by boxing him into becoming a possession down QB.  For one season, allow him to AIR IT OUT!  Then, you’ll know, for better or worse.

- I like the defense,  I’ve always liked the defense.  We always have a respectable, if not league-leading, defense.  This defense will do its best to keep the team in most games, realistically faltering in two or three times throughout the year.  I love the young corners and the linebacker corps, and I have faith in everyone else.  My faves: Yeremiah Bell, Vontae Davis, and Sean Smith, with linebackers Koa Misi and Cameron Wake (and Jason Taylor, ugh).   If we finish 7-9, it will not be the defense’s fault.  If we finish 13-3, blame can be equally spread around…and no one will care.

- I don’t trust Brandon Marshall (sorry, I don’t), but I like the rest of the receiving corps.  Like many of you, Bess is my favorite offensive player (along with Lousaka Polite – the best-named man in the game!).  I have hopes that the Dolphins staff can turn Gates, Moore, and Wallace into threats much like the Packers, Giants, Colts, and Pats turn their depth-chart receivers into game threats.  This is another case where it isn’t the players’ fault.  I want the staff (the organization) to make the guys the best they can be.  Back to Marshall, he may have a great season (hope he does!), but a guy with his problems is a problem waiting to happen.  Can’t trust him.  Hope for the best, but can’t trust him to be there when the team needs him.  There is a reason Denver gave him up.  You don’t trade superstar wide receivers, not even for draft picks.  They are a special commodity.  Denver knew he was unreliable and not worth an extension.  Miami hoped for the best.  I do too.

- Please Brian Daboll, open up the playbook!  And not with the Wildcat!  It’s dead.  That Wildcat is dead.  Open it up with passes, preferably down-field!

- In Dan Carpenter we trust.  We should petition the league to increase field goals to five points.  With a field goal and a safety equaling seven points, we may be able to outscore some teams.

Predictions for the Season (my notes are condensed – feel free to savage them):

Week 1: New England – Loss – They’re the better team, though there is the slightest chance for an upset because it’s Week 1.

Week 2: Houston – Loss – They’ll outscore us.

Week 3: @ Cleveland – Win – A should-win.

Week 4: @ San Diego – Win – Doable.  Contain Rivers to Jackson (Vontae!) and we’re fine.

Week 5: Bye Week – Why do our bye weeks always come so early? – 2-2 at the break, like last year, but on an UP-note!

Week 6: @ NY Jets – Loss – They’re better than us, and at home.

Week 7: Denver – Win – Either disgrace Orton or Tebow.  I’m fine with either.

Week 8: @ NY Giants – Win – Gotta win this won!  I’ll stuck watching it with friends.

Week 9: @ Kansas City – Loss – Their offense is too much.

Week 10: Washington – Win – Doable.

Week 11: Buffalo – Win – Damn well better.

Week 12: @ Dallas – Win – Doable, and fun, since we have so many of their former players and they’re the formally-awesome, now mediocre, Dallas Cowboys.

Week 13: Oakland – Win – Damn well better.

Week 14: Philadelphia – Loss – Possibly, depends on our containment of Vick (if he’s healthy!).  We can beat this team, but we need the breaks to fall our way.

Week 15: @ Buffalo – Win – Damn well better.

Week 16: @ New England – Loss – Again, they’re better and fighting for the playoffs.

Week 17: NY Jets – Loss – Again, they’re better and fighting for the playoffs.  And I f*n hate it so much!!!

It may not seem impressive, losing to both NE and NYJ twice, but that’s a 9-7 record and, depending on how NE and NYJ play, that may get us to the playoffs.  The key stretch is, obviously, weeks 7-13, where I have the team winning six of seven games.  Doable.  I do not see this team beating its better opponents, but I can see it beating the teams it is supposed to beat and stealing games on a level playing field.  As for NE and NYJ, I hope for injuries and internal discord.  They’re both talented, and have sturdy, intelligent organizations.  We can hate them, but we can’t fault them.  Let it be known, I HATE THEM.

So, I’m sticking with the Fins and hoping for the best.  I know you’re all with me.

LET’S GO FINS!!!

I’ve been thinking about Ellsbury lately.  He’s having a phenomenal season and is (seemingly) entering his prime.  He’s a stud player at an important position and well worth re-signing.  As much as I like the potential of Reddick and Kalish, the Sox need to resign Ellsbury, in my opinion.

So, what’s he worth, how much will he be offered (by the Sox and others), and what will he eventually sign for (and where)?

As a jump-off point, there’s this: The Sox signed homegrown players Pedroia and Youkilis to a six-year $40.5 million contract and a four-year $40 million contract, respectively.  They struck absolute gold with Lester on a five-year $30 million contract.  Those contracts were all extensions, which is an interesting point because it means the Sox and the players/agents approached contract talks prior to free agency/arbitration, and the players seemingly accepted less money to stay with the Sox.  I say “less money” in the belief that each of those three players would have been offered a larger (possibly longer) contract by another team had they hit free agency.  It doesn’t seem Ellsbury and the Sox will work out an extension before season’s end.

When it comes to the Sox and free agency, they usually shell out more money and longer contracts.  Julio Lugo, four-year $36 million (questioned at the time); Edgar Renteria, four-year $40 million (questioned at the time); JD Drew, five-year $70 million; John Lackey, five-year $82.5 million; Carl Crawford, seven-year $142 million; Gonzalez, seven-year $154 million (absolutely worth it so far); Manny Ramirez, eight-year $160.

Then there is this: Arbitration and Scott Boras.  Ellsbury could accept arbitration, though his agent, Boras, usually frowns upon that.  However, Boras’ client Jon Papelbon accepted, and was rewarded handsomely for doing so ($12 million).  Ellsbury may accept, if a respectable-enough contract with the Sox or another team isn’t in the cards.  Arbitration may come to fruition considering Ellsbury missed 144 games last season.  The Sox probably want to see one more healthy season with numbers on par to this season before they sign him to a five+-year deal.  However, other teams may not have qualms with throwing obscene amounts of money toward a 27 year-old center fielder with speed, power, and all-around skill.

Other outfielders in recent years (with Boras or other agents) have received the following contracts/extensions: Curtis Granderson (Yankees), five-year $30.25 million (massively underpaid due to recent performance); Jose Bautista (Blue Jays), five-year $65 million; Ryan Braun (Brewers), five-year $105 million extension; Vernon Wells (Angels), seven-year $126 million – highest paid outfielder per season; and then there are Carlos Beltran, Carlos Lee, Torii Hunter, Jason Bay, and a number of other outfielders who signed large contracts within the past ten years.  It is arguable (and probably true) that Ellsbury, in the here and now, is the best of the group.  He very well may be the best center fielder in baseball, and he is certainly essential to what the Red Sox do.  He’s the only true lead-off on the team and he is a run-producing machine.  When healthy, you’d be hard-pressed to find a better outfielder.

So, what do the Red Sox do?

Now, I must admit that I am slightly confused by the process.  I haven’t been able to locate a thorough guide to MLB Free Agency online.  If offered arbitration, I’m not certain one way or the other if Ellsbury can decline it and become a free agent.  Perhaps you guys can clear this up.  If Ellsbury is forced to accept arbitration for 2012, at which time he’ll probably be awarded $10+ million, then my thoughts below would be pushed back to 2013 (considering he has a season equal to this year’s).

Worth: As of today, he’s worth a King’s ransom.  At 27 years-old, he’s probably worth something along the lines of seven years, $120+ million.  If in those seven years he puts up numbers equivalent to this year, that would be a solid return on investment.  Now I understand this is $22 million LESS than what Crawford was paid, but Crawford fell into a windfall from the Sox, who may or may not have believed he was enticed by the Yankees and Angels.  They over-paid Crawford, regardless of how well he performs.  At that money he needs to win multiple MVPs (and World Series).  In my opinion, Adrian Gonzalez will win those MVPs, and they’ll win equal World Series.

Offers: Some team, whether it be the Angels, Rangers, White Sox, Cubs, or maybe even the Yankees, will offer Ellsbury a Crawford-like seven-year $142 million contract.  In fact, I believe the contract will be closer to eight-year $148 million.  But that’s IF he ever reaches free agency.  If he does, I believe the Sox will offer something around seven years and $128 million.  The Sox save face when they lose free agents.  They offer what they believe is true and right, and, heck, if another team out-bids them then another team out-bids them (and usually over-pays).  Think Jason Bay.  If the Sox have any hesitancy with Ellsbury’s long-term health, then they’ll let him sign elsewhere.

Prediction: The moment I’m sure you’ve all been waiting for…my prediction.  I believe Ellsbury will resign with the Red Sox for a five-year $72 million contract, with player options on future years (probably padded with reachable incentives).

In the end, we’re left with these truths:

1. The Sox try to lock up their homegrown stars with very reasonable extensions prior to free agency.  With Ellsbury, they haven’t (mostly due to that odd injury last season).

2. The Sox pay (overpay, you could say) for free agents.  With Ellsbury, dependent on health, it’s yet to be seen.

3. The Sox don’t usually let their homegrown players get to free agency (where they’ll more than likely have to overpay).  They either trade ‘em, reach arbitration, or reach an extension.  With Ellsbury, he’s most likely reaching free agency.

4. If you have an injury, the Sox may offer you a contract, but they’ll draw a line in the sand.  With Ellsbury, they will, but it’ll be a generous line and he’ll happily accept.

5. The Sox may not always get the guy they’re going after (ARod, Texeira), but they’ll get the guy they truly want in the end (Adrian, Lackey, resigning Pedey, Youk, and Lester).  The Sox want Ellsbury.  He’s important to the team.  He’s homegrown, he’s talented, he’s producing, and the fans and front office love him.

Bottom line: The Sox will do what they have to to keep Ellsbury.  And I think he’ll be excited to stay.  With him, Pedey, Lester, Crawford, Gonzalez, and others signed for years to come, we have a team to be reckoned with.

Thoughts?

My very close friend in Canada brought the website below to my attention, and I’m glad she did.

In her own words: It is a global community of character in which people can nominate others who are demonstrating character in their lives.
You can also participate by sharing your own commitment for positive change or by submitting a picture of yourself as representation of someone who wants to live in an inclusive community.

http://www.7billion.ca/

Please take a minute to visit the site and submit your nomination.

Thanks.

In the words of the great humanist, Hans Jürgen Eysenck: “Humanism is the commitment to the use of reason in human affairs, applied in the service of compassion.”

Major League Baseball has the most discussed, controversial sports Hall of Fame.  In a yearly debate among sportswriters, media members, bloggers, and water cooler attendees, the cases for HOF-eligible ballplayers are dissected ad nauseum…as if to leave someone out of the HOF were to disavow everything they had ever done.  There are constant comparisons to current inductees – if Goose Gossage is in, then Rich Sutcliffe must get in, and if Rich gets in then Jack Morris is a lock.  This game of comparison is played more often in the voting for the MLB HOF than in any other sport.  Amongst all this chatter there is the stone-cold fact that not one player in the history of the game – incl. Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Honus Wagner, Bob Gibson, Sandy Koufax, Joe DiMaggio – has ever received 100% of the vote; Tom Seaver is the all-time leader with 98.84%.  Joe DiMaggio only received 88.84% of the vote; that’s less than Wade Boggs, Reggie Jackson, and Roberto Alomar.  This is one of the many failures, in my opinion, of the Baseball Writers of America, whose opinions are the only votes that count.  This group, made up of hundreds of journalists from around the country, votes yearly.  If a player receives 75% of the vote, they’re in.  Many have called into question the issues of journalistic integrity and unbiased fandom in response to how the MLB votes for the HOF.  Despite my love for the old-fashioned nature of the game, its HOF voting is an archaic process that needs updating.  No, I don’t have a solution, but perhaps it can be something akin to a sentient being from another planet that possesses the ability to instantaneously value both on-field statistics and off-field fame, calculating everything down to a simple ‘1’ (yes) or ‘0’ (no).  If this were so, Dwight Evans would be in.

Baseball also has the unenviable task of deciding whether known cheaters, users of steroids and performance-enhancing drugs, will be allowed into the hallowed shrine to America’s Pastime.  America may not be built on fair play, but in my opinion baseball should be.  We’re currently in the infancy of voting for known cheaters, yet already there are decisive lines drawn by those in favor of electing cheaters and those against it.  Personally, I am full-fledged against it, but I whole-heartedly believe that voters will favor leniency as the years pass.  That is why I created two new categories for this list: HALL OF SHAME I (known cheaters who probably will get inducted) and HALL OF SHAME II (known cheaters who probably won’t get inducted).

Finally, since my NBA HOF list was met with as much vitriol as it was debate, I must note that my opinions are based on the players’ numbers to this date and my projections for the remainder of their careers.  It is not enough to say that a 24-year-old with a .330 career BA or a 26-year-old with two straight 20-win seasons is a lock for the HOF.  Consistency and longevity count, and the possibilities for injury or regression to the mean must be taken into account.  If I feel a player has done enough to this point of their career, they’ll be higher on the list.  Guys who have more ground to cover, but project to stay healthy and continue excelling, and guys who I don’t think will cut it over the remainder of their careers are placed accordingly.

*All stats are current as of June 30, 2011.

In my humble opinion as a fan and student of the game, here are my selections for current players and coaches, and a few recently retired ones:

LOCKS (100%, and if you vote ‘no’ you deserve to have your right to vote revoked):

Greg Maddux – The greatest control pitcher of all-time.  This man was a textbook on pitching, each start a chapter.  He’s 8th on the all-time win list with 355 victories.  He’s the only pitcher in history to win 15 or more games in seventeen straight seasons.  He’s the all-time leader in Gold Glove Awards, at any position, with 18.

Derek Jeter – He’ll finish his career north of 3,000 hits and, possibly, 2,000 runs scored, with a good shot at maintaining a lifetime BA over .300.  He’ll also have at least five championship rings.  He is the most famous Yankee since Mickey Mantle, and possibly the most talented.

Mariano Rivera – He’s the greatest closer of all-time.  His cut fastball is one of the greatest pitches of all-time.  He’ll most likely finish his career as the all-time saves leader (passing Trevor Hoffman), and if he does, I’ll make the unequivocal statement that he will never be surpassed.

Pedro Martinez – Pitched probably the greatest season of the past 30 years in 1999, finishing 23-4 with a 2.07 ERA and 313 strikeouts.  He has only 219 wins, but he currently has the 5th-best winning percentage of all-time and one of the lowest career ERAs (2.93) of the modern era.

Randy Johnson – The most intimidating pitcher since Bob Gibson and one of the most unique due to his size and velocity.  He retired with 303 victories (22nd all-time) and 4,875 strikeouts, 2nd on the all-time list.  The Big Unit has the Big Key to the Big Hall.

Iván Rodríguez – His terrific offensive numbers and phenomenal defense as a catcher make his induction a certainty.  I must note that he has been implicated by a former teammate as a steroid user, but nothing was ever proven (therefore, I will not list him with the known cheaters).

Tom Glavine – The second-winningest pitcher of the 1990s behind teammate Greg Maddux.  Retired with 305 victories, good for 21st on the all-time list.  He was a five-time 20-game winner and a two-time Cy Young winner.

Ichiro Suzuki – Over his career, has averaged 228 hits-per-season, leading the league in seven of his ten seasons.  He also holds the MLB record for consecutive 200-hit seasons (10).  He didn’t come to the Majors from Japan until he was nearly 28 years-old, yet he may still reach 3,000 hits before he retires.  If you combine his 2,335 MLB hits with the 1,278 he got playing professionally in Japan, he’s sitting pretty with 3,613, which would be good for 5th all-time.

Frank Thomas – He retired last year as one of the greatest hitters of all-time, one of four players (the others being Mel Ott, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams) to have at least a .300 batting average, 500 home runs, 1,500 RBI, 1,000 runs and 1,500 walks in a career.  He was known as The Big Hurt, and he was a big guy, so the inevitable questions will be raised, however there is not a soul alive that has accused him of using performance-enhancing drugs.

Craig Biggio – He is 20th all-time in career hits – 3,060 – and is respected for excelling at catcher, second base, and the outfield, three very distinct positions.  He’s the only retiring player from 2007 that deserves any consideration, so I believe he’s a lock on his first ballot.

Chipper Jones – Beloved by guys who love the game, he plays the game the right way.  He’ll finish a shade under the standard HOF numbers (500 home runs, 3,000 hits), but he’ll be the only switch-hitter in the HOF with a .300 BA and 400 home runs, if his BA holds up (currently at .304).

Albert Pujols – He’s the current face of the league and has otherworldly numbers, so he’ll get in.  Personally, I see the effects of performance-enhancing drugs, but I don’t want to get sued, so I’ll add a huge * to this opinion.  Everyone the league has tried to protect – McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, Clemens, ARod – everyone who was supposed to save the game of baseball for the common fan, has fallen flat on their face, busted time after time for using performance-enhancing drugs.  This is only my belief and nothing factual has tied Pujols to performance-enhancing drugs, but I will draw one parallel between this all-time great and the former single-season home run leader and 1998 league savior, Mark McGwire – their manager, Tony La Russa.  I find it decidedly interesting that La Russa was the long-time manager for both men, and defends McGwire to this day, even giving him his first post-retirement (i.e. banishment) job in baseball, as hitting coach to Pujols and the rest of the Cardinals.  Why do I believe Pujols is a cheat when I defend Frank Thomas as clean?  Call it a hunch, the same hunch that had me telling friends that McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, and ARod were all cheaters, and that LeBron James was a self-glorifying a-hole long before he moved to Miami.  I have a good bullsh!t gauge located in my cynicism vector.

NEAR-LOCKS (97% there, but some fools could vote ‘no’):

John Smoltz – His win total is low (213 wins) due to his time spent as a closer after recovering from an arm injury, but his time as a closer was spectacular and his overall resume is HOF-worthy.  He is the second pitcher in history to have both a 20-win season and 50-save season in his career, the other being HOFer Dennis Eckersley.  He also has 3,000 strikeouts, which has always been an important number for pitchers (along with 300 victories), but with Curt Schilling sitting at 3,116 strike outs and (in my opinion) not likely to be inducted, the number may no longer guarantee induction.  Smoltz is the all-time post-season strikeout leader, and no active player is within striking distance.  If there is any hesitancy in his selection it will be his time spent as a closer, as I’m sure certain voters will see that as a sign of weakness or diminished talent.  They could not be any more wrong.

Roy Halladay – 2 Cy Young Awards, and a third seems to be on its way.  The highest career-winning percentage of any active pitcher (min. 1,000 innings).  He’s a horse, consistently leading the league in complete games.  The sole reason I don’t have him a 100% lock is because he may never reach 300 wins or 3,000 strikeouts, and those are still the career milestones associated with a HOF pitcher (though they are becoming less important as WAR and other advanced stats become more prevalent).  If Halladay were to retire today, he’d be a borderline first-ballot HOFer.  If he keeps up with what he’s currently doing (i.e. earns his third Cy Young), he’ll be a sure-fire first-ballot HOFer.

Jeff Bagwell – He missed the cut this past year, but I believe he will get in.  He has to.  He’s one of the greatest offensive players of his era and he has never been officially accused of abusing performance-enhancing drugs, though some bloggers and lesser reporters have mentioned his name and steroids in the same sentence.  Time, and additional discussion, will reflect well upon Mr. Bagwell, who retired with a .297 BA, 449 home runs, and 1,529 RBIs.  His numbers are skewed by an arthritic condition in his throwing shoulder that ended his career early.  His peak years are more impressive than his career longevity, but enough so that he’ll get elected.

Jim Thome – He’s been remarkably consistent his entire career, dating back to the mid-1990s.  If someone were to ask me off-the-cuff: Jim Thome, HOF?  I’d say: no.  But I’d be wrong.  He has 600+ homeruns and 1,600 RBIs.  His career average (.277) is low and his defense non-existent, but he has the numbers.  Performance-enhancing drugs will be discussed alongside his candidacy, as his main power years, 2001-04, are in the peak of the steroid era, right before testing began.

Trevor Hoffman – If Goose Gossage is in, then…  I don’t believe it’s a guarantee, but I think he’ll sneak in on his second go-round.  The position of closer will be widely discussed over the next 20 years, as it is a situational role akin to the DH (which is also under recent discussion, due mostly to Edgar Martinez’s eligibility).  How much weight can and will voters put on closers’ career numbers?  Mariano Rivera is a no-brainer, but where will the line be drawn?

FUTURE LOCKS (51% there, steady as she goes):

Joe Mauer – If he stays healthy as a catcher, he’s a lock.  Health is a big “if” with this guy.  He’s been on the DL a number of times in the past three seasons – back pain, leg pain, arm pain, numbness.  If the Twins don’t believe he can stay healthy while catching, they’ll have to move him to outfield or DH (first base is already taken by an All Star, Justin Morneau).  He’ll have to continue hitting at an extraordinary pace while learning his new position, as more is expected offensively from outfielders and DHs.  But if he stays a catcher and continues with his offensive averages, he’s a future lock.

Vladimir Guerrero – He’s close to 3,000 hits and 500 homeruns and his batting average is currently .318, but I don’t know if he’s a HOFer.  Health and age will be issues in his pursuit of the hitters’ milestones.  I have him in this category because I believe if he reaches the milestones he’s in, but if he doesn’t get to 3,000 and 500 he’ll be left out.  He’s that much on-the-fence, and therefore, I cannot list him as a near-lock.  Dave Winfield is a comparable HOFer, so let’s take a look: Winfield finished 22 seasons with 3,110 hits, 465 home runs, a .283 BA, and no MVP; Vlad, in his 16 seasons, has 2,505 hits, 442 home runs, a .318 BA, and one MVP Award.  Based on that comparison, perhaps he is a lock.  PEDs will be discussed, as his prime years and biggest home run tallies were in the heart of the PED era.

ON THEIR WAY (37.5% there, don’t derail):

Cliff Lee – His peak years are phenomenal, but he may not have the career longevity to warrant induction.  He was a postseason terminator (7-0) until he ran into the SF Giants last year in the World Series (0-2).  If he were to retire today, his selection would be a debate between yearly versus career statistics.  Sandy Koufax was inducted for his yearly dominance over a short career, but Lee is not Koufax.  In his 10-year career (to date), Lee is 111-66 with a 3.76 ERA.  In his 12-year career, Koufax was 165-87 with a 2.76 ERA.  Lee has time to continue building his career numbers, which is why I put him in this category.

Tim Lincecum – 2 Cy Young Awards, 1,020 strikeouts, and 3.05 ERA in four seasons is a phenomenal start to a career.  And he proved his playoff mettle by pitching wonderfully for the Giants on their way to the 2010 World Series, twice out-pitching Cliff Lee.  He’s too young to list as a lock though, with the injuries that can occur to pitchers and the fact that 2-time Cy Young winner Brett Saberhagen didn’t even get enough votes to stay on the HOF ballot past his first year of eligibility.  Four years isn’t a career.

Ryan Howard – He has a chance for 500 homeruns and 1,700 RBIs, and if he gets that, he’s in.  To me, he’s a lesser Frank Thomas, not as good a pure hitter, and I don’t project him to finish with equal career numbers.  He’ll go down as a great slugger and RBI machine.  Will that be enough to get him into the HOF?  Also, will his career follow the path of Frank Thomas (lasting greatness) or Cecil Fielder (fleeting greatness)?

Miguel Cabrera – He is well on his way to 3,000 hits and 500 home runs, if he can avoid any law- or alcohol-related setbacks.  He will most likely finish his career as Manny Ramirez-lite, which is great as long as it includes an avoidance of steroids.

CC Sabathia – Fatbathia has an outside shot at 300 wins and 3,000 strikeouts, especially being on the Yankees, but I don’t see him holding up physically over the next 8 years (which will bring him to his 38th birthday).  Many “very good” pitchers are left out of the HOF.  Just ask Luis Tiant, Jack Morris, Tommy John…

Félix Hernández – 79 wins.  Over 1,000 strikeouts.  A 3.21 ERA.  A Cy Young Award.  He’s only 25 years old.  He pitches for a team with an anemic offense, which has already hurt his overall win total.  He has a great nickname: King Felix.  He’s well on his way.  Wait until he hits free agency and signs with a powerhouse club like the Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals, Angels, or Phillies.  As long as he stays away from the Mets, his future is decidedly rosy.  Isn’t that right, Johan?

AN OUTSIDE SHOT (20% there, with ground to cover):

Mike Mussina – It’s odd having a retired player in this category, as there is nothing Mussina can do on the field to help his cause, so his ‘ground to cover’ will be done entirely within the realm of sports debate.  He’ll be given serious consideration, having retired with 270 wins, 2,813 strikeouts, 7 Gold Gloves, and a 3.68 ERA, but I think it hurts his candidacy that he’s in the same retirement class with Greg Maddux, one of the all-time greats.  However, he may benefit from he and Maddux being the only two players from that class deserving of any consideration (next best player, Jeff Kent).  If he’s inducted, he won’t by any means be the worst pitcher in the HOF, but it will be a lowering of the overall standards.

Omar Vizquel – He’ll be a close vote, being within 200 hits of 3,000, but I don’t see him getting in.  Managers and players will lobby on his behalf, which may be enough to convince the voters, but I believe he’s very good, not great.

Justin Verlander – 2 no-hitters, 93 wins and nearly 1,100 strikeouts by age 28.  For pitchers it’s all about keeping it up.  Can he keep it up?  The no-hitters alone will not get him in.  He seems to be getting better with age.  We’ll see.

Carl Crawford – He needs an additional 7 great years, with 40+ stolen bases, 20+ triples, 20+ homeruns, and solid outfield defense, and he may get all that, stuffed away in a deep Boston lineup.  He’s halfway to 3,000 hits and only 29 years old, but what do the next ten years hold?  His first year in Fenway is off to an inauspicious start.

Dustin Pedroia – In his first four full seasons, he has a Rookie of the Year Award, an MVP, three All Star selections, a championship, and has led the league in runs scored twice.  Pedroia plays the game the right way and may just hustle and grit his way into the HOF.

Robinson Canó – He’s become the future of the Yankees.  He is tremendously talented offensively and defensively.  The first six years of his career sort of mirror those of Derek Jeter, with additional power and fewer strikeouts.  His upside screams Hall of Fame.  Let’s see if he can live up to it.

Johan Santana – Seemed well on his way to the HOF, but he has been an injured disaster since coming to the Mets.  When healthy, he’s a great pitcher, but his numbers don’t currently warrant consideration and if he doesn’t stay healthy and pitch well for another four to five seasons, he’ll go down as a very good pitcher who couldn’t stay healthy.

José Reyes – His injuries over the past few seasons derailed what could have been a HOF career, in my opinion.  He’s seems to be entirely healed and back at the top of his game, but he lost too much time.

Jon Lester – 70–29.  3.56.  812.  27.  Win-Loss.  ERA.  Strikeouts.  Age.  If he stays healthy and he stays on the Sox, he has an outside shot.

GOOD, BUT NOT… (12% there, but not likely to make it):

Roy Oswalt – His career winning percentage is fourth-highest of any active pitcher (behind Halladay, Tim Hudson, and Sabathia) and he is a two-time 20-game winner, but he is a bland candidate for the HOF.  I don’t mean to insult him by labeling him as bland, but does Roy Oswalt, or Tim Hudson, for that matter, seem like a HOFer to you?  He’s good, no doubt, but not special enough to warrant inclusion, though he will receive some votes, I’m sure.

Magglio Ordóñez – A .309 career average with an outside shot at 3,000 hits and 400 home runs.  At one point in his career he seemed like a future lock, but he has slipped a bit due to recent injuries.  His consistent BA throughout his 15+ seasons will bolster his candidacy, but will his overall numbers look good enough?  I think he’ll get a push in his first year or two of eligibility, but he’ll eventually fall off the ballot.

Matt Holliday – He’s a solid offensive player who has seven more years on his current contract with a powerhouse club.  He has a shot, but he has to continue at his current pace, if not raise it a level.

Scott Rolen – Nothing about him jumps off the page, besides maybe his consistency.  He’s never led the league in anything, offensively or defensively, and his overall numbers aren’t impressive enough for this day and age.  He’s well-liked and plays the game the right way, but he’s not a HOFer.

Todd Helton – His fantastic offensive numbers are buoyed by playing in Colorado.  After 15 seasons, though, he’s only at 2,308 hits and 342 home runs, which, while impressive, do not put him in the HOF.

Mark Teixeira – Fantastic defensive first baseman with an outside shot at 2,500 hits and 450 home runs.  Is that enough?

Johnny Damon – If he plays for another three years he has a shot at 3,000 hits, and voters will give serious consideration to him based solely on that accomplishment.  Only Pete Rose, Craig Biggio, and Rafael Palmeiro have reached 3,000 hits and not been inducted; Rose and Palmeiro for good reason, and Biggio I consider a lock.  Johnny’s peripherals don’t add up though, so I don’t consider him anything more than a very good ballplayer.

Kevin Youkilis – He has two championships and is an offensive threat and defensive presence.  I don’t believe he’ll have the career numbers, but there are some years left in his career.

Adrian Gonzalez – He doesn’t project to reach any of the milestones that offensive players usually need to reach the HOF.  But he is a fantastic defensive player, and he just signed with the Red Sox for the next seven years, so let’s see what damage he can do in Fenway.  Hitting .400 for a season will bolster his candidacy.  At Fenway, with his all-fields swing, it’s unlikely but not impossible.

Carlos Beltran – Injuries, and signing with the Mets, derailed his train to the HOF (similar to Johan Santana).

Josh Hamilton – I only add him because I predict others will accuse me of overlooking him.  I’m not.  He’s already 30-years old and has barely four seasons of ball under his belt.  MVP or no, he’ll never have HOF numbers.

YOUNG-ENS (5% there, but a long way to go):

Prince Fielder – He has to raise his batting average (which he’s doing in his contract walk year) and hit 287 more homeruns (at least), but if he stays healthy, he will climb the list.

Joey Votto – Have another 10 seasons like your MVP-season in 2010 and we’ll talk.

Ryan Braun – He’s been a top-25 MVP candidate in each of his first four seasons.  That means he’s good, right?  He needs another 15 seasons, but he has the tools.

Zack Greinke – If he wins three more Cy Young Awards and gets his career winning percentage over .500, perhaps.

Evan Longoria – He’s a stud, and any team would take him, but I don’t see his career ending with a HOF bust.  If it did, if he keeps up what he’s doing for the Tampa Bay Rays, he would be the unequivocal superstar of that franchise for the foreseeable future, and its first legitimate HOFer (Wade Boggs doesn’t count!).

Hanley Ramírez – He was on his way up until the past two seasons.  He may be battling injuries or tailing off after an impressive beginning to his career.  Either way, he’ll have to battle age and his attitude as his career continues.

Adam Wainwright – He has a good winning percentage (.653) and a low ERA (2.97), but at the age of 29 he only has 66 wins and 724 strikeouts.  He won’t come within spitting distance of any of the pitching numbers that mean anything.

Josh Johnson – A 48–23 record and 2.98 ERA at age 27.  He won’t get 3,000 wins or 3,000 strikeouts, but if he stays consistent and makes a name for himself, he may have a shot.  His low number of wins, strikeouts, and innings pitched don’t put him in Jon Lester’s class.

Jason Heyward – His sample size is only one year, but he has the tools, he plays for a great franchise, and he should have his shots in the post-season.  Give it time.

Stephen Strasburg – Too early to tell.  If he stays healthy for the next 15 seasons, he’ll get well over 3,000 strikeouts, but will he get the run support in Washington to be a winner?  And will he stay healthy?  HOF players need hype (they exceed it).  He has that.  All-time busts also need hype (they don’t live up to it).  Ask Kerry Wood.  It’s a definite double-edged sword.

Buster Posey – He was an exciting player before the gruesome leg injury this season.  In one full year in the bigs, he had a Rookie of the Year Award and a World Series title.  Here’s hoping he recovers fully and plays a long time.

Tommy Hanson – He’s 30-19 with a 3.05 ERA, and he’s only 24-years old.  That’s a good start.

THANKS, BUT… (so close, but never quite made it):

Curt Schilling – If there were a Post-Season HOF, he’d be in it.  He excelled in the post-season (11-2, the third-best all-time post-season winning percentage, with a 2.23 ERA).  He was a gritty, gutsy pitcher who showed up for big games.  He has 3,116 strikeouts, good for 15th all-time.  He was a joy to watch pitch (as long as you weren’t rooting for the other team), but his career numbers aren’t enough; only 216 wins and a 3.46 ERA.  He’ll have to make due with his bloody sock being in the HOF for years to come.  After reading this paragraph time and again I’m beginning to talk myself into moving him to the category of Near-Lock.  But I won’t.  I’ll stick with my gut.

Edgar Martínez – For a player who spent the majority of his 18 seasons at DH, his offensive numbers are not impressive enough to make him a HOFer.  His numbers are most comparable to players not in the HOF – John Olerud, Will Clark, Moises Alou, Bernie Williams – and he contributed nothing defensively.

Billy Wagner – John Franco isn’t in with 424 career saves, so Billy Wagner will not get in with 422.

Jim Edmonds – Good player, fantastic defensive center fielder, but he’s shy of 2,000 hits and 400 home runs.

Nomar Garciaparra – His career lacked the longevity needed to be seriously considered.

Alfonso Soriano – Never lived up to his potential.  Or was it the hype of being the next best thing in NYC that did him in?  Either way, he looked like a future lock at one point in his career, which is why it is so difficult to make this list.

Jorge Posada – Numerous championships for the Yankees led former catcher Yogi Berra (3-time MVP) into the HOF, but it wasn’t enough for Thurman Munson (1-time MVP) and won’t be enough for Posada (0-time MVP), whose career numbers are average.

Carlos Delgado – Finished 27 home runs shy of 500.  That’s like falling 27 votes shy of induction.  Nothing else in his career says HOF.  Fred McGriff, a comparable all-around player, finished seven home runs shy of 500 and received an average of 19% of the vote in his two years of eligibility.

Mike Piazza – Alleged by multiple parties to have been a steroid user, but nothing was proven.  He apparently admitted his use to an unnamed journalist, but has kept his mouth shut since retiring.  He was a talented offensive player, but his career probably didn’t warrant induction even without the cloud of steroids hanging over him.

 

Kenny Lofton – He’s only 15th on the all-time stolen base list and there are a number of non-HOFers ahead of him.  If you look at his numbers (only 383 doubles, 116 triples, .372 OBP), he is clearly not a HOFer.

Jeff Kent – Had a few solid years during the heart of the steroid era, but his overall numbers and place in the game are underwhelming.

Jason Varitek – He’ll be remembered, but not as a HOFer.  His number #33 will be retired with the Red Sox though, and that’s a feat only eight have achieved (incl. Jackie Robinson).

MANAGERS:

Joe Torre (currently: retired, 29 years experience) – Lock.  Retired 5th all-time in victories.  The six managers directly trailing him are all HOFers.  2nd-most playoff appearances in history, one behind Cox.  4 World Series titles, tied for 3rd-most titles in history.

Tony La Russa (currently: St. Louis Cardinals, 33 years experience) – Lock.  3rd all-time in victories, and likely to finish second.  3rd-most playoff appearances in history, behind Cox and Torre, with two World Series titles.  I don’t condone his handling of his players (Canseco and McGwire) during the steroid era, but it cannot be proven to which extent LaRussa knew, so he gets a pass from the voters.

Bobby Cox (currently: retired, 29 years experience) – Lock.  Retired 4th all-time in victories.  The seven managers directly behind him are all HOFers, with Joe Torre being a lock in my book.  Most playoff appearances (16) of any manager in history, but only one World Series title.  Easily the worst ‘World Series to playoff appearances’ in history (1/16).  Will his sole World Series victory be held against him?  Not likely, as only 69 managers in the game’s history have even won one title.  In 29 seasons he got his team to the playoffs 16 times.  That’s incredible.

Lou Piniella (currently: retired, 23 years experience) – Highly likely.  Retired 14th all-time in victories, surrounded by current and probable HOFers.  Seven playoff appearances, one World Series title.

Jim Leyland (currently: Detroit Tigers, 20 years experience) – Highly likely.  Currently 19th all-time in victories, with a slew of HOFers surrounding him.  Won one World Series title.

Dusty Baker (currently: Cincinnati Reds, 18 years experience) – Highly likely.  Currently 22nd all-time in victories, with a slew of HOFers surrounding him.  Never won a World Series title, even with Bonds in his PED prime.  Can he win with the Reds?  Many managers got in without any titles.

Terry Francona (currently: Boston Red Sox, 12 years experience) – Possibly.  Currently 60th all-time in victories, a shade under 1,000, yet he already has two World Series titles.  Do the iconic World Series titles with the Red Sox aid his case?  He’s only twelve seasons into his career, averaging 90+ victories over the past eight seasons.  Let’s see how many more titles he can win.

Bruce Bochy (currently: San Francisco Giants, 17 years experience) – Possibly.  Currently 30th all-time in victories, with a World Series title under his belt.  However, he has only three 90+ victory seasons out of his seventeen, countered with nine below .500 seasons.

Mike Scioscia (currently: Los Angeles Angels, 12 years experience) – Possibly.  He’s has a pretty good win-loss percentage (.548) that puts him in the top-5 active and he has won one World Series title.  He has just as good a shot as the guys around him on this list.

Charlie Manuel (currently: Philadelphia Phillies, 10 years experience) – Possibly.  Won one World Series title, but has only been managing for ten seasons, so it’s difficult to estimate his career totals.  In that ten year span, he has fewer victories than Ron Gardenhire, who isn’t on this list (due to not having won a World Series).

Felipe Alou (currently: retired, 14 years experience) – Not likely.  I know there is a voting bloc out there that loves Alou and will shower him with adoration come voting time, but it’s hard to overlook that he only made the playoffs once and his career winning percentage is .503, good for 134th in history, below Mike Hargrove, Jerry Manuel, and Don Zimmer.  No modern-day manager has been inducted with a lower career winning percentage.  Sorry, Felipe.  We must bid you Alou.

HALL OF SHAME I (known cheaters who probably will get inducted):

Alex Rodriguez – By the time he is eligible to be inducted (five years after retirement – sometime around 2022), I expect the voters to be more lenient in regards to steroids and cheating than they are now.  Voters will convince themselves that everyone was on something during the era, and with a level playing field of cheaters, the best will still rise to the top, and ARod was one of the best.  The merits for his induction are clear-cut, like everyone else in this section, and, just like everyone else in this section, there is the sad truth that he was HOF-worthy prior to cheating, which just goes to show the overall lack of judgment and propriety by many of today’s top athletes.  Ego rules!

Barry Bonds – Would have been a lock without ever touching a needle or drug.  Now he’s just an arrogant man with no friends, and multiple pending lawsuits.

Roger Clemens – Would have been a lock without ever touching a needle or drug.  Now he’s just an arrogant man with no friends, and multiple pending lawsuits.

Manny Ramirez – I’m write this mere days after Ramirez announced his retirement from baseball, spurred by a second (third, actually (2003, 2009, 2011)) failed PED test.  Under baseball’s current rules, Ramirez would have to serve a 100-game suspension.  Instead of serving that suspension, he quit.  Quit.  Isn’t that a word that goes hand-in-hand with Manny’s career?  Funny that it rhymes with hit.  Those seem to be the two things that Manny did best in his career.  Hit and quit.  I’ve listened to a number of baseball commentators in the past few days debate the candidacy of Ramirez, and it seems (right now) that they’re ready and willing to treat him differently than the other names in this category.  ARod, Bonds, and Clemens get a pass from some commentators because they “cheated” prior to the rules being set in place, thereby negating the cheating aspect of their cheating.  To me, semantics.  A cheater is a cheater is a cheater.  I don’t care if baseball had its antiquated rules in place with full blinders on.  Steroids, PEDs, and the like equate to cheating.  But many voters don’t agree with me.  Some have cast Manny aside due to his selfishness.  Really?  Is Manny any more selfish than Bonds, Clemens, or ARod, all players who did their best to put themselves before their teams, and who destroyed their relationships with fans and the league?  I believe that Ramirez’s career numbers (.312, 555 home runs, 1,831 RBIs) eventually get him in, but not on his first ballot.  Being a “second ballot HOFer” will be the punishment.  Not that Manny will care one iota.

Gary Sheffield – The debate over his worth will go on for some time, and I strongly believe he is not a first ballot HOFer (damn his 506 home runs), but I do believe he’ll get in.  He was named in the 2007 Mitchell Report as someone who obtained and used steroids, and he testified in court to using a number of different PEDs.  Will his open admittance in court further his case for induction or sabotage it?

HALL OF SHAME II (known cheaters who probably won’t get inducted):

Andy Pettitte – His numbers don’t warrant inclusion and he is a confessed cheater, having used human-growth hormone to return from injury.  However, his confession, apology, and general likeability may force voters to consider him well beyond the time they consider the others in this category.

Mark McGwire – He’s toast.  Four times he has been denied, never attaining more than 23.7% of the vote (75% gets you in).  His supporters are nothing if not steadfast.  In his four years, he has received 128, 128, 118, and 128 votes.  Those 128 voters need to have their heads examined.

Rafael Palmeiro – Already denied entry once.  Won’t get in.  Finger wagging in the face of the courts and public hurt Palmeiro more than it hurt former President Bill Clinton.

Juan González – Though he has 2 AL MVP Awards, his career numbers don’t put him over the top – .295 BA, 434 home runs, and 1,404 RBIs.  Two MVP Awards doesn’t buy a HOF bust.  Just ask Dale Murphy.  He has also been implicated, in court and in the Mitchell Report, as having been a steroid user.

Sammy Sosa – Without his steroids and PEDs he was average at best.  There is no denying he cheated, so all of his numbers are tainted.  Additionally, he was busted using a corked bat in a game.  I mean, how often and in how many different ways did this man cheat?  He’s a disgrace to the game.

Miguel Tejada – Not good enough to warrant more than a passing debate, but was named in the Mitchell Report so I decided to place him in this category.

David Ortiz – Whatever he did at-the-plate and in the playoffs is tainted by the implication that he used PEDs.  Even if he were clean he wouldn’t be a HOFer, but the PEDs make it an open-and-shut case.

Mo Vaughn – Not good enough to warrant more than a passing debate, but was named in the Mitchell Report so I decided to place him in this category.

Check back in 20 years to see how I did!

For my NBA HOF article, click NBA HOF and Update I and Update II.

There are two parts to this.  I’ve edited an article I formerly wrote, but never posted, entitled, Holier Than Thou, and placed it below.  I also included my updated thoughts regarding an earlier post, NBA – Future HOFers and its short Update.

I:
For me, it’s never the adultery, the lies, the scandals, the denials, the contrived admittance or the half-hearted apologies, the brawls, the flippant quips, the disrespect or misunderstandings, or even the blatant failure, on- or off-the playing field, of a supposed immortal.  I’ve seen enough in my twenty-nine years to no longer be easily surprised by the shortcomings of the human race.  For me, it’s the holier than thou attitude with which certain athletes (and others) carry themselves.  Tiger Woods, Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Ray Lewis, Lance Armstrong, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James.

There is only one holier than thou persona, though there are numerous outlets.  The persona is one of superiority, arrogance, and entitlement.  The outlets are abrasive interviews, insulting comments, nude twit pics, affairs with hookers, alleged rape, attempted murder, and the holy sin, believing you not only have the absolute right to get away with it because you are better than the common man, but deflecting blame when you are caught.  Ah, the sordid, twisted tales of the holier than thou.

This is not a state of mind for athletes alone.  It’s anyone in the public eye – the politicians, celebrities, etc.  Anyone weaned by marketing directors and schooled by a close-knit group of advisors.  Anyone who is more concerned with image than substance.  In fact, it goes for anyone in the spotlight who succumbs to self-indulgence.  The God-complex.  We live in a world of perception, and too many people perceive themselves to be God.

It’s become quite ordinary of late to see politicians as holier than thou.  But scandals tend to break politicians, curtailing, in the very least, their highest political aspirations.  If you were a Senator with aspirations of becoming President who was caught with his dinky on Twitter, you best settle for keeping your Senate seat or writing a book.  If you’re a city councilman caught accepting bribes or swindling tax money, settle on avoiding jail time and becoming a high paid member of the private sector.  Politicians are well-educated enough to know what they’re getting into to, though you wouldn’t always know it – right, Spitzer and Weiner.  They make promises to American citizens about how they’re going to conduct business, how ethics and morality will guide their decisions and steady their hand in a leadership role.  They’re campaigning to be leaders, asking for our votes.  When they fail, they not only fail their constituents, but our entire system of government.  And the fact they should no better, and probably do, makes them all the more despicable.

Athletes sign a different social contract.  We don’t depend on them as we depend on politicians (tell that to Cleveland!).  But it’s no secret that in our society successful athletes are role models.  With more success comes more responsibility.  Do we expect them to be perfect?  No, that’s inhuman.  Do we expect them to make an effort, and when a mistake is made, apologize honestly and explain their understanding of how they’ve let down those whom look up to them?  Yes.  Do we expect them to show the slightest measure of humility?  Your darn right.  Do we expect them to understand irony and the way the world works?  That would be nice.  Is it acceptable for us to expect all this from people who use their physical skills (and not brains) to entertain the masses?  I say, yes.  We do not want our athletes to take a holier than thou stance, masquerading as heroes when things go well and deflecting blame to the media or their troubled childhood when things go awry.

I claim that the true reason people dislike LeBron James and his ilk is that they claim to be holier than thou.  They think they’re better than the masses, and because of their money and power over the media, they tend to get away with a lot in the court of public opinion, whether the acts be criminal, immoral, unethical, or unsportsmanlike.  This frustrates people, especially when the person fails to win or live up to enormous expectations.  I’m a cynic, so I can spot a holier than thou person before most others do (and I’ll admit that sometimes I can be mistaken).  Others will try to look past it, not quite understanding what it is they’re seeing.  They’ll make excuses, which actually enables the holier than thou person to continue on their path.  Others will only turn when the masses turn in force.  I blame this on the media.  We are a media-driven and media-controlled society.  The media loves winners because the masses love winners, and in lieu of winning themselves they will support winners.  Winners sell stuff to the masses; therefore, the media loves them.  It’s a vicious circle, entirely easy to see.  What happened to the day when parents taught their children that they had to earn people’s respect and people had to earn theirs?  Now, respect is purchased through ESPN and NIKE.

The point is: it is ok to dislike someone who is holier than thou.  Especially someone who rubs your nose in it while cheating to get ahead (Bonds, Armstrong), uses it like a hypocritical kryptonite to amass millions of dollars (Woods), shields themselves with it to deny rape allegations (Kobe) or murder charges (Lewis), or demands that you bow before his greatness before doing anything great (‘King’ James).  James’ main crime isn’t that he failed.  His crime is that he failed after proclaiming unequivocally that he’s a winner and we must all treat him like a winner.

It’s fine if you want to continue to celebrate the achievements of these men.  The blame can be spread around evenly between the athletes, the sponsors, and the fans.  They all feed off each other.  But please don’t be naïve enough to buy into the hype machine that these athletes distribute through their marketing advisors and sponsors.  Please don’t allow Nike to influence your decision on Tiger or LeBron as men.  It’s never the mistakes, which are always human in nature, that condemn these athletes and politicians and celebrities.  It’s the hypocrisy.  It’s the holier than thou attitude that never dissipates after they’ve been caught.  Shame on them and shame on those that excuse them.

II:
My original remarks directly follow the player’s name, while the updates are placed accordingly.

This first player was in the category of LOCKS (100%, and if you vote ‘no’ you deserve to have your right to vote revoked).

LeBron James – When he retires he will probably own every major career scoring record.  His first eight seasons in the league are equal to anyone’s first eight.  He’s a dynamic scorer and a proficient defensive player.  Yes, it may hurt his image that he had to “team up” in order to (possibly) win a championship, but in the end, numbers count, and his numbers will be some of the best.  For the longest time the NBA, with help from the Cavs franchise and Nike, attempted to build him into a mythical hero (ala MJ), and though he single-handedly tore down that work during his free-agent summer, it doesn’t hurt him that his marketing machine is on par with MJ and Tiger Woods for most successful of all-time.  If he retired today, he’d probably be a HOFer, for whatever that’s worth.

Updated Thoughts: People who know me know my feelings toward LeBron James (see above).  I’ve never, not for one second, liked him.  I never respected or admired his pre-game rituals or his post-game mockeries.  I never believed the hype that he was the greatest basketball player on the face of the Earth and an amazingly humble human being from Akron, Ohio.  I never believed he had genuine love and respect for his teammates and fans.  I always knew from the cocky glare, the self-imposed royal title, and the holier-than-thou attitude that he lorded fear over his teammates and fans; fear that he would abandon them and leave them as worthless nobodies with nothing to show for it.  I knew he was a villain, no matter how much the media attempted to prop him up on his throne.  Now that the fans and media have turned on him, I’m pleased, but truly all it shows is how hypocritical the media is.  LeBron was always an asshole.  Shame on the media for hiding that fact.  He’ll win a title eventually, most of the greats usually do (see A-Rod), but his failures and shortcomings will always be chronicled.  When he wins, the media will again jump on his bandwagon, and he’ll let them because it’s always easier to be loved than loathed.  He’s still a first-ballot HOFer, but he lost a bit of that tarnish on his golden crown.  I’m content with that.

The following three players I had bunched together in the category of NEAR-LOCKS (97% there, but some fools could vote ‘no’).

Dwayne Wade – He has the numbers.  He got his championship (and may add more).  He is the face of a franchise.  He is a spokesperson for the NBA.  He seems like a very nice guy.  He is one of the rare players bred by the league for entry into the HOF.  Guys may score more points, win more championships, and grab more awards, but there is limitless value for being selected by David Stern to be a spokesperson for the league.  Wade is one of the few who would have to screw up royally or retire immediately (like today) to lose consideration for the HOF.  My only hesitancy in not putting him in the 100% lock category is that he won’t end up with the career numbers of the best of the best, and he may retire with only one championship.  Here’s hoping he stays healthy for another 8 years.

Updated Thoughts: It’s clear from the squawking of the media that Wade is a Lock, regardless of his career numbers or eventual number of titles.  I would move him into the Lock category.  However, I must first take back the kind words I spoke on his behalf.  You see, I was mistaken.  I knew Wade was a facilitator in bringing LeBron and Bosh to Miami (who wouldn’t want to play on the best team possible, with friends, to boot), but I did not know he was as petulant, mean-spirited, and egotistical as LeBron.  Competitive, borderline arrogant, yes; that often comes with the territory of being a great athlete.  But I did not think Wade would prematurely celebrate a victory (that became a loss) or mock a sick man before a game (which he also lost).  I was mistaken.  Wade whines, complains, flops, deflects blame, mocks and instigates.  He’s an asshole, pure and simple.  LeBron didn’t bring it out of him, he simply helped magnify it.  Now there are two assholes celebrating each other, and I suddenly have more respect for Bosh, who seems out-of-place with these two drama queens.  The Heat-related moment I’ll remember from the Finals is Wade on the floor as the buzzer sounded on Game 2, clutching his eye and pleading with the officials for a foul that never happened.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pglgr5O6jJE What a baby!

Dirk Nowitski – One of the greatest offensive machines in NBA history.  His offensive numbers put him in HOF company; he’ll finish somewhere between Hakeem Olajuwon and John Havlicek in career points and somewhere around Charles Barkley in points per game.  He’ll also end up with a healthy amount of rebounds and a solid, if not spectacular, career FG percentage.  No championship, no problem.  Not everyone can win, and in his case I don’t think it will reflect poorly upon him.  Plus, he’ll be one of the rare international imports in the actual NBA players’ section of the HOF.

Updated Thoughts: Yes, he is one of the greatest.  No, he is not Larry Bird.  Yes, he is now a Lock.  No, it’s not simply because he won a title.  He was probably a Lock when I had him listed as Near-Lock.  I underestimated his career, sadly because of a mix of his post-season failings and not having watched Dallas play often enough.  But that was wrong of me.  Charles Barkley was a clear HOFer, and he never won a title.  I loved watching Dirk this post-season.  His unblockable, sputtering fadeaway jump shot is a spectacle to behold.  I’m happy for him.  He saved me.  Having to watch Kobe and Ron Artest win the title over the Celtics this past year was bad enough.  Having to watch LeBron and Wade win this year would have devastated me as a fan.  “Can’t a decent human being win this thing?  Not an alleged rapist, not a psychopath, not two egotistical assholes, just a nice, decent guy on a good team,” I screamed into the Heavens.  The Heavens answered.  Dirk saved professional basketball for me.

Jason Kidd – One of the most proficient assist men in NBA history (currently #2 all-time), Kidd will likely be known, like John Stockton before him, for never winning a championship.  But it cannot be argued that he wasn’t a consistent asset to every team he played for, and he will remain #2 on the all-time assists list for some time, as Steve Nash is the only active player within 4,000 assists, and Nash is as old as Kidd.  Of course, Mark Jackson is third on the all-time assists list and he’s not in the HOF.  Kidd has always been a bit underappreciated, but I think he’ll get his due.

Updated Thoughts: He got his title.  I still believe he’s only a Near-Lock, but he’s as close as a player can possibly get.  If Reggie Miller can be left out, it can happen to Jason Kidd.

This last player was in the category of GOOD, BUT NOT… (12% there, but not likely to make it).

Chris Bosh – Please.  Dumping in points and grabbing boards on a crappy team (Raptors) and then becoming the third dog on a good team (Heat) does not equate to a HOF bust.

Updated Thoughts: Still good, actually slightly better than I expected given the pressure on him, but still not good enough.  He’s still too easy to break mentally, too easy to box out, and too easy to take out of a game.  He’ll never be an Alpha dog, and the HOF is for Alpha dogs.

No other player in this year’s playoffs truly affected his standing on my list.  Some may have progressed or regressed in their game, but their standing stays where I had it.

Following a thoroughly disappointing exit from the 2011 playoffs, Boston seems to be a team in flux.  Next season’s team will no doubt resemble this year’s, due mostly to the unknown nature of the upcoming CBA and the un-tradability of many of the current Celtics, but a lot can happen in an off-season when Danny Ainge has access to a phone.

Thoughts on…

Coach ‘Doc’ Rivers:

*Signed a 5-year deal to continue coaching the Celtics

Boston fans have near-universal love for Doc, even when criticizing his rotations, play-calling, and lack of trust in anyone not in the Big 4.  He is one of the nicest gentlemen coaching today, he’s funny, he can call highly effective plays, and he has the ears of everyone that matters on the team.  I do believe that if Doc left the Celtics this summer the team would have fallen apart moreso than when Perk was traded.  The Big 4 could not have broken in a new coach.

Prior to Doc signing his new 5-year deal to stay in Boston, I wrote a draft of this piece that said I wouldn’t be upset by Doc stepping down and the windfall of change concurrent with that move.  It is clear to me that Doc’s current system can only get this current roster so far.  Offensively, they’re stagnant.  Plays are too dependent on perfection.  If one screen is missed often times they settle for an awful heave or 24-second violation.  The team is so mechanistic that one wrench (i.e. athletic defender) throws the whole thing off.  Doc needs to open things up, but seems incapable of doing so.  The offense, as constructed and run by the current players, cannot win a championship.

Defensively, the Celtics are superior to most teams, but not the championship-caliber teams (MIA, CHI, LAL), and those teams are younger, deeper, and more athletic.  A top-notch defense can get the Celtics far, but not far enough.  That much was proven during the past month.  And it is highly unlikely that the defense can/will get better, as the defensive stars on the team continue to age.  The Celtics defense has hit its ceiling.  Now it’s all about effort and execution.  How much effort can Doc continue to get out of these guys for 7+ months?

Doc’s season-long reliance on the starters cost the team both this year and last.  Pierce, Allen, and KG are worn down by season’s end, especially when covering for teammates’ injuries.  Doc has tried two ways of getting around this issue.  Last season, Doc rested guys down the stretch and they entered the playoffs as the fourth seed.  Twenty-four games later, we witnessed the agonizing result of a team-wide empty gas tank.  This year, Doc had his team fight for the top seed, only to finish third.  There is no easy answer, which is why Doc hasn’t found it, but I am concerned with what his game plan will be next season.

Now that the Celtics signed Doc for five more seasons, Doc will need to do the following in order to keep the Celtics in contention: limit the starters’ minutes while not undermining what makes the Cs successful (precise ball movement and defensive rotation), force Rondo to shoot 1,000 jump shots and 2,000 free throws every day until he becomes better than league average, incorporate all new players into the Celtics’ way of life and rotation, inspire the team on a daily basis to fight, fight, fight.  If he fails at any of these tasks the Celtics will not win the 2012 Championship.

It’s great to have Doc back, but unless he expands himself as a coach and teacher the Celtics will tread water for the next five seasons, wasting the best shot they have of adding Banner 18 in the foreseeable future.

Current Team (currently under contract for the 2011-12 season):

- Rajon Rondo

- Ray Allen ($10 million player option – he’s expected to exercise it)

- Paul Pierce

- Kevin Garnett (I don’t buy the retirement talk; http://www.celticslife.com/2011/05/kevin-garnett-to-retire.html)

- Jermaine O’Neal (I don’t buy the retirement talk, unless his body is more broken than we know; http://www.celticstown.com/2011/05/13/jermaine-oneal-considering-retirement/)

- Shaquille O’Neal (I think he’ll retire, but Mama usually knows best; http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2011-05-19/shaquille-oneals-mom-says-hold-off-on-retirement-talk)

- Avery Bradley

Those seven players alone basically bring this team to the ceiling of the current salary cap.

Needs:

For a championship contender the Celtics certainly have holes: Center, backup PF/backup SF (depends on the position Jeff Green fills if resigned), backup SG, third PG, bench players.  They cannot address all of those needs in free agency because they do not have enough to work with.  They must pick and choose carefully, hope the new Collective Bargaining Agreement and subsequent marketplace stay sane, and work to address some needs through the draft and from within.  It won’t be easy.  Here’s what they’re looking at…

Unrestricted Free Agents (UFA):

The team is over-budget, so there is no chance of bringing in a premier UFA without first pulling off a monster trade of one or more of the Big 4.  If the team does that, then why would a premier free agent sign with a team obviously stuck in the dreaded ‘rebuilding/bridge mode’?  Also, there aren’t any truly special UFAs out there this year, so sacrificing the core of your team for one does not make sense.

The Celtics must consider guys with their Mid-Level Exemption and their Bi-Annual Exemption (BAE), if those two things still exist in the new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).  The Mid-Level Exemption is exactly that, a mid-level contract (i.e. league average) that can be offered to one player or divvied up among multiple players.  The Bi-Annual Exemption is similar, though lower in salary, and can also be divvied up, but, as the name states, can only be used every two years.  The Celtics can use theirs this off-season.

The top Mid-Level Exemption (MLE) guys are not coming to Boston.  Let’s face that fact now.  Boston is no longer the team with the widely-considered best shot at the Championship; that now belongs to the likes of MIA, CHI, or OKC (and LAL if they reload).  Boston has been knocked to the second tier, not least of which by Doc’s reluctance to play many of the veterans and rookies who have joined the team since 2008.  The top MLE guys, especially the talented veterans who desire to win a championship, will be begging to play with LeBron, Wade, Rose, and Durant.

Danny Ainge will battle with SAS, LAL, DAL, and others (NYK) for the guys that the championship contenders don’t want or can’t utilize.  These second-tier MLE guys will be less talented and less athletic.  The Celtics will have to make do.  There are a number of names floating around, but none are true impact players.  What the Celtics need is rebounding, size, and youth, and they will be best served bringing in intelligent, emotionally-compatible complimentary players (e.g. P.J. Brown and James Posey in 2008).

I would love to see a talented defensive big man like Samuel Dalembert or Kenyon Martin join the team, but they’re likely to be paid a lot of money to play elsewhere, perhaps in Miami (though they’re also near the cap ceiling).  Jason Collins is an UFA and played admirably during the Hawks’ playoff run.  He is 7-ft tall and would be a nice fit as a backup to Jermaine or Shaq.  Reggie Evans was a rebounding machine for the Raptors this season.  I could see Ainge taking a chance on 6’11” Kwame Brown, but I hope he doesn’t.  Nazr Mohammed and Joel Przybilla are both UFAs and I’d be quite content with either of them coming off the bench for 15-18 mpg.  There aren’t any truly talented centers available, but there are a number of good complimentary guys, who under the new CBA are hopefully paid as such, allowing the Celtics a shot at signing them.

The scorers on the market (J.R. Smith, Jamal Crawford, Michael Redd) will get paid big bucks to score elsewhere, as scorers are always overpaid for their sole talent.  They likely wouldn’t fit into the machinations of the offense anyhow.  I don’t see the team adding a talented offensive player this season.  They’ll have to squeeze what they can out of what they have (i.e. get Jeff Green to score).

As for backup wings, there are a number of talented, intelligent veteran guys available.  I’d be interested in Anthony Parker, Tayshaun Prince, Mike Dunleavy, Shane Battier, Mickael Pietrus (has player option), Leandro Barbosa (has player option), Boris Diaw (has player option), Grant Hill, Al Thornton, or Marquis Daniels (if healthy), but I don’t believe the interest is equal on the parts of the players and the Celtics.  There is one UFA, however, who the Celtics have craved in seasons past: Josh Howard.

Restricted Free Agents (RFA):

This is where the Celtics have the best chance of filling their roster.  They’re over-budget, so outbidding other teams for their respective RFAs is impossible (e.g. no chance at DeAndre Jordan); however, they luckily have a few talented ones on their own squad that they have a good shot to resign via Bird Rights and other quirks of the current CBA.

Personally, I would make it a priority to resign both Jeff Green and Delonte West.  Give the 24-year old Jeff Green a full season of tutelage and minutes and his confidence and defense will improve.  West is a gamer and competent backup at PG and SG.  I would also bring back Nenad Krstic and Von Wafer, on team-friendly deals only.  I believe both can fill roles on this team and contribute on a weekly basis.

Next Year’s Team (my best estimate):

- Rajon Rondo – Rondo, Rondo, Rondo.  Where art thou, Rondo?  He’s certainly the most enigmatic of the bunch, and that’s saying something.  Team leader?  The Future?  Carried by his Hall of Fame teammates?  Hot-headed?  Will he ever practice his jump shot and free throws so that they’re consistent?  He’s a gamer, he’s tough, and he plays the Boston Way, but can he carry the torch into the Celtics new era?  That is the key question now.  We know he’s good enough to lead a team of Hall of Famers to the playoffs and, when he wants to, he can dominate a game or series, but he’s so darn enigmatic.  Can he lead the Celtics into the new era?  In my sports’ heart, I’m leaning ‘no’.  He will always need multiple scorers on the floor with him to make up for his lack of scoring and I fear his mental state once the Big 3 retire.  Can Rondo lead without KG, Allen, and Pierce constantly in his ear?  For now, Rondo must improve his jump shooting and free throws.  Next season, Doc must cut down on his minutes so he can rest his back and various ailments and enter the post-season at 100%.

- Ray Allen – I don’t like Ray hanging around to congratulate the Heat after their victory.  It seemed like a marketing move by him to show his class and grace, and possibly to reveal his interest in joining the Heat after next season.  I tend to respect respectful athletes, but this was uncalled for.  Certain teams and players hate each other.  The Celtics and Heat hate each other.  Their fans hate each other; if you can even call Miami’s fans ‘fans’, glorified seat-fillers is more like it.  You stand with your teammates, not your enemies.  As is, his talents are diminishing.  He is kept afloat by KG’s expert screens and Rondo’s pinpoint passes, in conjunction with his own sweet stroke and workout regimen.  But he is clearly becoming more one-dimensional.  It’s shocking he cannot create his own shot, and his defense is noticeably slipping (he cannot guard an athletic SG).  He’s worth the $10 million he’ll be paid next season (if he picks up his player option), and he likely won’t receive a larger contract elsewhere, so he’ll be a Celtic next year, unless Danny trades him…

- Paul Pierce – His career is winding down, or perhaps it is better to say that his body is slowing down.  He cannot compete for 40 mpg with the young-ens any longer, as they are all quicker and more athletic.  He’s still a scorer, but his 30-point days are becoming few and far between.  He’s still a physical presence, but overall health, as with all the Celtics, is a constant issue.  He’s here for three more seasons, and I don’t ever see him being dealt or requesting a trade.  It will be sad to watch him slow down, but his final games in Boston will be electric and memorable.  In many ways, those days will make everything worth it.  As for next year, here’s hoping he can recapture his best parts from this year.

- Kevin Garnett – He’ll never be the same KG, offensively or defensively, as in 2008, but he’s still an asset and a leader.  His minutes must be limited to 25-28 per game and he’s effectively useless in back-to-backs, so the question arises, “How effective can he be in a situational role?”  And, “Will he ever accept coming off the bench?”  Coming off the bench isn’t an option, in my opinion, and his situational ability is questionable.  He’s always thrived off his talent and intensity, and both seem to be waning with age.  If next year is truly his last, how much of himself will he leave on the court?  To win a title, he better leave everything.

- Jermaine O’Neal – I envision him coming back to play 18 mpg and collect $6.2 million.

- Avery Bradley – Bradley should be ready for more minutes, but if not, the Celtics must sign a third PG, as West is injury-prone.  Unless Ainge and Doc have total faith in Avery Bradley, they cannot go into the season with him as the potential sole backup to Rondo (should West go down with an injury).

- Jeff Green – He’ll be back on a one- or two-year deal.  Ainge would be admitting to a major mistake after the Perkins-Green trade if he lets Green go to another team.  There is a chance that a team submits a massive offer sheet for Green, thereby eliminating the Celtics from matching it, but it’s highly unlikely.

- Delonte West – He’ll be back because he loves it in Boston and the Celtics know they need him.  In the best of worlds, he will play out his career as Boston’s backup PG/SG.

- Nenad Krstic – He seems to be interested in returning and without many sure bets in free agency the Celtics would be crazy to let a 7-footer walk away for nothing.

- Von Wafer – He knows the system and there is little interest from other teams.  It’s worth it to him and the team to resign.  I also believe that Doc needs to play him more often, as he is an offensive sparkplug and no longer a defensive liability.

- Anthony Parker – There is a very good possibility that Parker will be the team’s shiny off-season addition to backup Ray Allen at SG.  He’ll split the team’s MLE.

- Josh Howard – It’s about time he signs with the team after all the flirting that’s been going on the past two years.  They both want each other, make it happen.  He’ll be a terrific backup for Pierce (if he can stay healthy).  He’ll split the team’s BAE.

- Joel Przybilla – Out of all the available big men I’m settling on him as he seems the type to be the last standing when the music stops.  He has the perfect nasty streak that this team lacks without Perkins in the lineup, and he’s a rebounder, which they desperately need.  He’ll split the team’s MLE.  I know I may be reaching on this choice, as he’s probably too stubborn to accept such a small salary.

- Kwame Brown – I think Ainge takes a flyer on Brown and makes him a backup to the backup C, giving him a chance to earn minutes based on his work during practice.  He’ll take a cut of the team’s BAE.

- Draft Pick #25 – This spot is reserved for whomever the Celtics select at #25 in this year’s NBA Draft.  Hopefully, it’s a mature young big man who loves to rebound and take charges.

* Sasha Pavlovic / Troy Murphy – If the Celtics run out of salary cap space and need to resign one of their own guys to soften the cap hit in lieu of signing Przybilla or Howard, I believe it will be Sasha.  Perhaps he can contribute throughout the season, backing up the backup at SF.  If not Sasha, then I believe the Celtics take another shot with Troy Murphy, which I wouldn’t mind, but I do believe Murphy is frustrated with this team after the weeks he spent riding the pine.

* As for the Celtics draft pick at #55, I believe they’ll draft a foreign player and store him overseas for the next few years.

2011-12 Depth Chart:

PG: Rondo / West / Bradley

SG: Allen / Parker / Wafer

SF: Pierce / Howard

PF: Garnett / Green / Brown

C: O’Neal (Jermaine) / Przybilla / Krstic / Draft Pick #25

Bye Bye (guys not returning):

- Glen Davis – It’s time to let him go.  He’s had unlimited opportunities over the past four seasons, but he always lets the team down one way or another.  Mentally, I don’t believe he’ll ever be successful in the NBA; he’s too emotionally fragile.  Physically, he has limitations, such as speed and elevation.  I’ll miss the good-Big Baby (taking charges, hustling, taking charges), but I will gladly wave goodbye to the bad-Big Baby (18-ft jump shots, breaking his hand in a fight one week before the season starts, disappearing in the playoffs).  I’m frustrated just thinking about him.

- Sasha Pavlovic – He’ll miss his friend Krstic.

- Troy Murphy – He’s probably ruing the day he chose the Celtics over the Heat.

- Carlos Arroyo – He’s probably ruing the day the Heat cut him.

Wrap-Up:

There is little more any of us can do at this time but speculate.  This is going to be a roller coaster of an off-season with the new CBA.  Who knows what the league will look like next year.

So, let’s speculate.  With the team I constructed above, I envision another second round exit from the playoffs.  The Heat and Bulls are younger and more athletic, and will no doubt stack up as best they can.  And let’s not forget about the Knicks, Hawks, 76ers, and Magic, who all have a shot to make a push next season.  I’d be happy just to see the Celtics knock off the Heat before losing to another team, but I honestly cannot see that happening.  Jeff Green will be the major X factor next season.  If he can become the second or third leading scorer on the team, while playing above-average defense against the likes of Carmelo and LeBron, then I may be swayed into believing a championship run is in order, but if he continues to struggle with his confidence the team is doomed.  All the starters are a year older and need more rest, Rondo doesn’t seem likely to improve his shooting from the field or at the stripe, and Doc seems incapable of change.  Even if their defense stays at league-best level, they cannot compete offensively with certain playoff teams.

All in all, I don’t have much hope for the next few seasons.  Though it can be argued that the Celtics should have squeezed more than one championship out of the Big 3-era, it is an inescapable fact that injury, age, and offensive stagnation made sure that they did not.  With the Heat, Bulls, and Knicks on the inevitable upswing, the road to another championship is going to be near-impossible.  Can the current squad, made up of the Big 4 and complimentary players, do it?  Not likely.  Can Danny Ainge swing a trade or miracle signing that will allow the team to compete at a higher level?  Possibly, but also not likely.  To me the beginning of the end occurred in Utah on February 19, 2009, when KG pulled up limp with a strain in his right knee.  There was no doubt in my mind at the time that the Celtics were going to be back-to-back champions, with an outside shot at a three-peat.  Instead, we’ve had the past three playoff exits.

I’m not trying to be negative here.  I’m only being realistic.  It won’t be the 1990s all over again, but it won’t be 2008 either.

For past Celtics-related articles, click Celtics 2011, Celtics!, Reggie Lewis: 17 Years Ago…, One Win Shy, Celtic Pride, and Celtics v. Cavs: The Last Hurrah?.

Following up on my good showing last year, I am predicting this summer’s Top-20 films (May-August releases, domestic gross only).  Anything is possible considering Fast Five opened over the April 29th weekend with $86 million, making it the largest-ever opening for Universal Studios and the second-largest opening outside of summer (following only 2010’s Alice in Wonderland).  If Fast Five can do that kind of business in April, then I’m 90% certain the recession is over.

Here are my predictions (all $ amounts in millions):

1. Transformers: Dark of the Moon – $341
- The trailer has a lot of action and ever so many robots, so the teenagers will continue to pay up.  That being said, like other massive trilogies of this kind (think Pirates of the Caribbean, Shrek), I expect the third movie to gross less domestically than the sequel yet more than the original, as viewers realize that the second film never lived up to the promise of the first.  Also, there is a plethora of teenager-oriented sci-fi and adventure films opening this summer, and some moviegoers will be saving their dollars for specific ones.  If it defeats Harry Potter during the summer it will very likely win the year, as there isn’t a huge movie (think LOTR, Avatar) opening before year’s end.

2. Kung Fu Panda 2 – $327
- More exciting than Cars, with a more popular voice cast and equally impressive graphics, the Panda is back and prepared to deftly remove the money from your wallet.  With the original grossing $215 domestic in 2008, and DreamWorks’ own How to Train Your Dragon grossing $217 in 2010, I expect this sequel to surpass both as well as the original Shrek ($267), but it won’t reach Shrek 2 ($441).

3. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II – $303
- Deathly Hallows: Part I made $295 just last year (November release) and had almost no competition throughout the winter months.  This one should retain the entire audience from Part I and lure in a few other cinema-goers interested in seeing this series wrap up, but it has an awful lot of blockbuster competition during the summer.  It won’t be too big, as only the first and sixth movies grossed over $300 domestic ($317 and $301, respectively).

4. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides – $295
- This one’s a bit of a wild card, as the trilogy came to an ignominious close with the bloated  garbage pile that was At World’s End.  Is Disney pushing its luck with a fourth entry into this franchise?  With the cool characters (Sparrow and Barbossa) in tow, and a new director aboard (Rob Marshall of Chicago fame), I expect this one to breathe new life into the franchise, though I could be completely off, and audiences could stay away due to the salty taste in their mouth from the last go-round.  As it is, my prediction for domestic gross is $10 less than the original grossed.  The market may still be there, but the excitement has waned.

5. Cars 2 – $248
- The original Cars is middle-of-the-pack for domestic gross of Pixar films ($244), but the third-highest domestic gross of 2006.  It’s been five years.  Are kids/teens clamoring to see a Cars sequel?  I don’t think so.  Will families go simply because it’s a Pixar film?  Absolutely.  It will have competition, arriving in theaters sandwiched between Green Lantern and Transformers: Dark of the Moon, but I think it will have enough to rev into the top-5.

6. The Smurfs – $210
- Am I underselling or overselling this movie?  Alvin and the Chipmunks grossed $217 in 2007.  Its squeakquel grossed $219 in 2009.  Scooby-Doo grossed $153 in 2002, before 3-D and the corresponding ticket increase.  The Smurfs are equally as popular, if not more so.  After this movie arrives on July 29, not one more family movie arrives for weeks.  It will clean house before kids return to school.  What kind of world do we live in?

7. Green Lantern – $201
- The highest-grossing of the super hero movies this year?  I have it here, but I’m not so sure.  Between its mix of science fiction, action, and comedy, I believe it will surpass the serious Thor and the historical Captain America.  It could also bomb with an off-note performance by Ryan Reynolds and weaker-than-usual special effects.

8. The Hangover Part II – $187
- It figures to gross money, but R-rated comedy sequels don’t have a lengthy track record that can be studied, for not many R-rated comedies spawn sequels.  American Pie 2 out-grossed the original by $43.  Beverly Hills Cop II grossed $81 less than the original.  Scary Movie 2 grossed $86 less than the original, but Scary Movie 3 grossed $39 more than the sequel.  It’s difficult to compare the Judd Apatow comedies of the 2000s, since there are differing characters and plots; none of them have been direct sequels to earlier films.  As it is, The Hangover grossed $277 domestic in 2009, making it the highest-grossing R-rated comedy ever.  Much of its take was done on repeat business; people found it that funny.  If the sequel grosses over $153 it will become the highest-grossing R-rated comedy sequel ever (passing Beverly Hills Cop II).  Opening in May, it is the only big R-rated comedy released before July 8th’s Horrible Bosses.  Theaters will crack down on carding for this movie and many young fans will be forced to buy tickets to PG-13 fare and subsequently sneak in; this lost money will not be reflected in the movie’s gross.  I expect this sequel to have a huge opening weekend, but I don’t believe its repeat business will be as strong as the original’s.  This seems to be a case of been there, done that, which is one of the reasons most of the great comedies don’t get sequels; run-of-the-mill PG/PG-13 crap always does (Pink Panther, Meet the Parents, Cheaper by the Dozen…).

9. Cowboys & Aliens – $181
- I have a feeling it’s going to be very stupid, but it should have a teenage boy-infused large opening weekend going up against The Smurfs, and it doesn’t have any competition arriving in the weeks after its premiere, unless Rise of the Planet of the Apes surprises and over-performs.

10. Thor – $167
- It has a full two weeks before a competitive film opens, and it will clean up during that time, but once the summer weeks start rolling along this movie will disappear.  It is garnering fantastic reviews and may bring in the adult audience, which will boost its gross, but Thor is one of the least-known Marvel heroes, and his box office will surely reflect that.

11. Zookeeper – $157
- Kevin James + talking animals.  I don’t get it, but the producers of this movie do.  It is the only family-friendly, non-animated movie other than Mr. Popper’s Penguins (which opens against Green Lantern) to arrive this summer, and it does so on a weekend all to itself.  Somehow this movie is built to make big summer bucks, and without a competing Adam Sandler or Will Ferrell movie, it will do just that.

12. X-Men: First Class – $150
- Another wild card, as the X-Men films are not notoriously high-grossing affairs ($157, $214, $234, respectively, with the standalone Wolverine pulling in $179).  Additionally, this film doesn’t have the draw of Wolverine, Cyclops, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, or Halle Berry, and it is set during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  I have a feeling it will be the lowest-grossing of all the X-Men-related movies.

13. Captain America: The First Avenger – $137
- I enjoyed the trailer and am probably more interested in this movie than Thor or Green Lantern, but its historical setting and realistic connection to WWII will hurt its box office.  Thor promises magic and mystical gods.  Green Lantern excites with never-before-seen powers and otherworldly aliens.  Captain America has a WWII grunt fighting a deformed Nazi scientist.  It opens directly after Harry Potter and before Cowboys & Aliens; that’s a lot of competition.  I just don’t see this one exploding at the box office.  Also, director Joe Johnston doesn’t have a great box office track record; his highest-grossing film ever is Jurassic Park 3 ($181).  Captain America will be his second-highest.

14. Super 8 – $135
- I’m on the fence with the blockbuster power of Spielberg and Abrams, producer and director, respectively.  This could wind up being E.T. ($359) or Cloverfield ($80).  It’s such a mystery that I have no idea.  The question here is: “Which audience will show up?”  Kids?  Adults?  Teenage boys?  Couples?  Families?  Without knowing much about the film no one can say.  The marketing onslaught that will attack our country within the next few months will determine the outcome of this movie moreso than its June 10th release date.

15. Mr. Popper’s Penguins – $127
- Jim Carrey is still a big-enough star to open this movie, where he shares billing with a flock of penguins.  It may not be Liar, Liar, but it’s family-friendly and contains adorable penguins.  Still, it won’t have enough to take down Zookeeper, which contains talking animals.  If only these penguins could talk!  Also, it opens up against Green Lantern in the weekend before Cars 2.  The money has to be spread about somehow.

16. Monte Carlo – $92
- Young American girls need something to go see, and since Twilight: Whatever doesn’t come out until November, this will have to do.

17. Spy Kids 4: All the Time in the World – $88
- Why?  Because these movies make money.  I don’t know why.

18. Winnie the Pooh – $86
- The Winnie the Pooh brand has an amazing tradition, but how will a 2-D, hand-drawn animated feature withstand the onslaught of the digital 3-D craze?  Perhaps by opposing it.  It has a shot, but I think at year’s end it will be considered another nail in the coffin of 2-D animation.  And I think Disney knows this, as there are rumors that they are pulling out all the stops to produce a feature-length 2-D animated feature starring Mickey, Donald, and Goofy.  Think of it as an animated defibrillation.

19. Rise of the Planet of the Apes – $79
- I cannot see this being a breakout hit, though, for my money, it is an intriguing movie.  If the reviews are good, I’m in, but I’m more likely to spend my money on a sci-fi picture like this (if the reviews are good) than a superhero movie or talking animal picture.  But I’m not typical America.  Will typical America pay to see this?

20. The Help – $71
- This is a feel-good, heart-warming tale with a talented cast, based on a book with a large following.  It has a chance to become The Blind Side, but will more likely stay a small gem.

Not making the cut (but in the order I think they’ll land): Friends with Benefits, Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark, Horrible Bosses, Crazy, Stupid, Love, Bridesmaids, The Change Up, Larry Crowne, Bad Teacher, Final Destination 5, Something Borrowed, Fright Night, Conan the Barbarian, Apollo18, The Tree of Life, Priest, The Beaver.

Come this fall, I will recap this list.  Enjoy the movies!

The 2011 NBA Hall of Fame Class has been announced.  Two of the invitees are players that I placed in my “THANKS, BUT… (so close, but never quite made it)” category.

Dennis Rodman and Chris Mullin.

Here is what I wrote about each player just a few short months ago:

Dennis Rodman – He’s 21st on the all-time career rebounding list and 10th all-time on the career rebounds-per-game list.  For a man known primarily, almost solely, for rebounding, I expect more.  Though he’s up there with the best of the best, he is not a HOFer; his numbers don’t support it.  If he gets in it will be because he rides the coattails of Jordan and Pippen.

Chris Mullin – Also on this year’s selection list, Mullin was a hustling, bustling scorer with a tenacious drive, but he’s not a HOFer.  Sorry to say because I loved watching him play.

And my take today:

Rodman has slipped to 22nd on the all-time career rebounding list, as Tim Duncan passed him in the past few weeks.  He’s still 10th on the career rebounds-per-game list, but he’ll likely be passed by Dwight Howard.  That being said, I still do not believe Rodman warrants inclusion in the HOF.  As I alluded to in my initial article, he’s riding in on the coattails of Jordan and Pippen and, surprisingly, a long-lost love for the 80s Pistons.

Mullin did everything very well, but nothing truly great.  He was only a 5-time All Star.  He didn’t score 20,000 points for his career.  He didn’t average 20 points over his career.  I don’t understand why he was selected, other than name recognition (which I said plays a part).  But I didn’t think his name recognition was that great.  Now the only member of the 1992 Olympic Dream Team not in the HOF is Christian Laettner, and there will have to be a Presidential Order to get him in.

Those who didn’t make the cut:

Reggie Miller – In a baffling turn of events, a famous player with great career numbers and a hand in some of the game’s greatest moments was overlooked.  I had him in my “Near Lock” category and wrote the following a few months back: He’ll get selected in 2011.  His game speaks for itself (2nd all-time for 3-pt made) and he is a classic name in the history of the sport.  I hope Spike Lee attends his induction ceremony so Miller can choke him out.

Mark Jackson and Bernard King – I had them both on the outside, looking in, so I’m not surprised by their omission.

Don Nelson – What a shame. Perhaps the voters are waiting for him to retire… I don’t know. There is no good reason he isn’t in the HOF.

The entire 2011 NBA HOF Class (and my thoughts on their selection):

Dennis Rodman – see above

Chris Mullin – see above

Artis Gilmore (veteran) – If you include his time in the ABA (American Basketball Association), then he warrants selection.  But it begs the question: if he didn’t get in during his first twenty years of eligibility, why now?

Tom Sanders (veteran) – Same question as above.  Why now?  He’s getting in because he was on 8 championship teams with the likes of Bill Russell and Sam Jones.  But he’s 72 years old now.

Tex Winter (coach) – Good choice.  He created an offense (the Triangle) that has won 10+ championships.

Tara VanDerveer (coach) – She’s been coaching college ball for over 30 years and has two championships under her belt.

Herb Magee (coach) – He coaches a Division II team, but he has racked up the most victories (907) in the history of NCAA coaching.

Arvydas Sabonis (international player) – Had a stellar International career that didn’t translate to the NBA.  Hard for me to judge what he’s done abroad.

Teresa Edwards (female player) – She had a phenomenal collegiate career, but all but missed out on the WNBA.  It’s difficult to judge female basketball players, due to the relative newness of their professional league, so I’ll go with whatever the experts say.

Reece “Goose” Tatum (Harlem Globetrotter) – Difficult to judge the merits of a Harlem Globetrotter, but he did invent the ‘Sky Hook’.  He also died in 1967, which once again leads to the question above… Why now?

Visit here for my original article: http://www.edwardkasche.com/soitgoes/2011/02/nba-future-hofers/