The Show.

I don't know what's going on right now, but the way it used to go in sports was something like this: a star player would get drafted/signed by a team, and the team would then proceed to build around that player. Once this happened, the team would grow, mature, and possibly become contenders, and from contention would potentially come a championship. That's the way it was.
Now, we have something different - particularly in the world of basketball - that goes a little bit like this: a star player will get drafted/signed by a team, and the team proceeds to build around that player. As this happens, the star player determines whether the team has a shot at contention or not. If the player believes they do have a shot, he'll most likely ask for better players around him. If the player does not believe his team has a shot at contention, he'll do what Chris Paul did just recently and ask to be traded so he can play alongside another superstar.

Does this seem wrong to anyone else?

I singled out Chris Paul only because this happened recently with him, but he's not the only one bailing on his squad for hopes of playing somewhere better. This seems to be happening a little too frequently in the NBA, and there's something unnatural about it all. When a team selects a franchise type player, they're offering more than a spot on the team and a contract. They're giving him their trust. They're putting their beliefs in him. They're saying, "We think you can give this team, and this city, what it has been striving for - a championship." And that's what this all comes down to. Winning championships. But isn't there a line that differentiates winning a championship from earning a championship? When LeBron James soiled what little legacy he had with "The Decision," it was clear that he was quitting on Cleveland because he knew he couldn't win there. Now, there's nothing wrong with going somewhere if you want to win, but LeBron's situation is slightly different. He left a team, which he turned into a contender, and a city that proclaimed him as a savior so he could join forces with other superstars. Now, the only reason he did this was so he could win championships, and the reason he wants to win championships is so he can be in the conversation when people talk about the best players in history. We all know, including LeBron, that he would never be in that conversation if he didn't win. Now he's going to a place where he will most likely win, but this takes us back to the difference between winning and earning a ring. Imagine what a story it would be if LeBron had won with the Cavs. If he, the hometown hero, brought that team up from the ashes and gave that city - probably the most championship-deprived city in the country - what they've wanted for so long. It would have been like a fairy tale. That story would be great, but that story no longer exists. The story now is of a player who manufactured a championship (or championships) which will cause his legacy to be tarnished. If that's what he wants to do then it's fine, but he can't expect to be in the same conversation as Michael Jordan, even if he does win 6.

It's as if players are picking teams when it should be the other way around. With this system, all the front office of a team needs to offer is a working printer and a pen so they can slap a big contract in front of a player. With players essentially coordinating their destinations with each other, a lot is taken away from the natural attainment of a player: the negotiations, the plea's, the cries for help that a team would normally have to display if they really wanted a player. Now, if a superstar wants to win, he doesn't have to carry a team and a city. He simply has to jump on a plane so he can share the load with other superstars.

When you look at the legacies of some of the greats - the Jordan's, Johnson's, the Russell's, the Bird's, the Bryant's - one of the best things about their legacies is that they were true franchise players. They stuck with their teams, through good and bad, and their legacies will live on with their team's colors forever. They carried their teams to the promised land with hard work. They wore their colors with pride because those colors were a part of who they were as players. No one looks at Jordan as a member of the Wizards, because he is and always will be a Chicago Bull. That's where his legacy was formed. People will see LeBron as a member of the Heat, but no one will forget how he failed as a Cavalier, and how he abandoned a team and a city for something he thought was better. He may be part of a winning legacy in Miami, but the legacy he left in Cleveland will never leave him.

With the recent re-signing of New Jersey Devils left winger Ilya Kovalchuk, questions regarding the abnormal length of hockey contracts seem to be rising. Kovalchuk signed a record setting 17 year deal - yes, 17 years - in which he'll earn $102 million. The length of this deal surpasses the previous NHL record of 15 years, which was set when the New York Islanders signed goalie Rick DiPietro in 2006. In sports we usually see a contract signed for somewhere between 1 to 5 years, but it has become prevelent in hockey for teams to sign players for (really) long-term contracts. So why is this happening?

Ever since the NHL implemented a salary cap, teams have experienced a major limit on what they can spend on contracts. The first year of the salary cap allowed teams $39 million in cap space, and the maximum amount a player could earn in a year was $7.8 million. This past season, the cap was around $56 million per team, and a player could earn $11.36 million. The principals of the salary cap are pretty basic, but we're seeing these long-term contracts defeat the purpose of the cap. If I'm a GM within the system that's now in place, I can say to a player, "I can't give you a 3 year deal for $50 million, but I can give you a 10 year deal for $90 million." Now on the flip side, if I'm a player and I hear that, which deal sounds better? Obviously the one that offers more money. We've seen these deals take place across the league in recent years. Here's a quick list of some of the recent long-term signings:

- Marian Hossa (Blackhawks) - 12 years, $63 million
- Henrik Zetterberg (Red Wings) - 12 years, $73 million
- Vincent Lecavalier (Lightning) - 11 years, $85 million
- Alex Ovechkin (Capitals) - 13 years, $124 million
- Mike Richards (Flyers) - 12 years, $69 million
- Ilya Kovalchuk (Devils) 17 years, $102 million

A big reason we're seeing this trend is that a long-term contract is a way to beat the salary cap. One of the biggest reasons a salary cap is instituted is to keep big market teams from essentially buying the players needed to become and stay dominant, but when teams are allowed to spread their spendings out over years and years a serious flaw is exposed. Of course, there is a lot of risk when it comes to these signings. Take Rick DiPietro. He signed a 15 year contract worth $68 million with the Islanders in 2006, but the decision for the Islanders go through with this signing is not panning out for them whatsoever. In the last 2 years DiPietro has played a combined 13 games due to injury. However, despite the risk of a player not reaching his potential for any number of reasons, the strategy of utilizing these long-term contracts makes sense from a financial stand point.

As teams continue to find ways to beat the salary cap, it becomes clear that the league needs to take action if they want to have a cap in place that is actually effective. The next step for the NHL should be to limit the number of years a team can sign a player for. In the NBA a team can sign a player for a maximum of 6 years, and this has made it so teams can't beat the cap by paying a player over an abnormaly long time . With a rule like this, not only would we see a salary cap that is much more effective, but we would also see free agents more frequently, thus leading to more oppurtunities for teams to improve, and if that happens, we'll see a better league all together.

After being subjected to the obnoxiously over-hyped display of big-headedness known as, "The Decision," sports fans will soon be forced to saddle up once again and prepare for another inevitably agonizing and drawn-out decision, because it's almost football season, which can only mean one thing: Brett Favre's retirement decision.

Now, if this decision process goes the way I think it will, it'll be a bit like this: speculation will arise about Brett's plans for next year (thanks to the unnecessary interest ESPN continually seems to have) and attention will be turned to Brett. Brett will then assure everyone that he hasn't made up his mind yet. Training camp will come along and everyone will say, "Uh oh, Brett Favre isn't at training camp, does this mean he's not playing this year?" Then, with very convenient timing, Brett will decide that he wants to play football again, and despite missing training camp the Vikings will welcome him back with open arms.

Sound familiar?

Ever since he originally "retired," it has become a pattern every year for Favre to pull something like this, and in the process he has become one of the most disliked athletes in all of sports. There was once an integrity to retiring where an athlete decided that he could no longer play a game for one reason or another, but now we see it being used as a reason to miss training camp. What Favre is doing is smart for him: he holds out until he misses training camp, and when he wants to come back he makes a team feel really lucky to have him, but as a fan I think what he's doing is wrong for many reasons, and when the day comes that he actually does retire, fans will sigh with relief rather than gasp with disbelief.

What's really hard about this situation as a fan though is that there are now two Brett Favre's - a then Brett Favre, and a now Brett Favre.

The then Brett Favre was an American hero. He was hard working. He was a warrior, and he did his work with a smile on his face. He was a leader and he was the guy you wanted on your team. He was the epitome of what American sports enthusiasts valued. Now, this isn't to say that he isn't those things today, but the now Brett Favre is hardly likable. He seems selfish and it's hard to root for him. I'm sure there are many Favre fans out there still, but I think I speak for many when I say Brett Favre ruined Brett Favre for me.
The truth of the situation is that Brett has taken football and made it about Brett. Now, instead of hearing about what teams are doing heading into training camp, we're hearing about what Brett Favre is doing heading into training camp. Instead of hearing how teams plan to improve during training camp, we're hearing about whether Brett Favre's body can withstand another NFL season. This is the way it has been in recent years, and it seems to be headed in the same direction for the foreseeable future.

So to all the sports fans out there who wish to stay informed, use this post as a warning to run for cover from the downfall of information and speculation that will inevitably rain upon your television's and radio's as Brett Favre once again takes over pre-season discussions. We've seen this charade before and the ending has been the same. I'm not saying that the same thing is going to happen, but I'd say the chances are pretty high.