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.

Recently, as I scrolled through ESPN.com, I stumbled upon an article by Buster Olney about who he thinks are the 15 most irreplaceable players in baseball. Unfortunately, I was not able to see the list because you have to be an ESPN "Insider," to see it (and to no surprise, all it takes to be an insider is about 7 bucks a month.) So I thought to myself, instead of paying ESPN to see this list, why not make my own? After all, I think my list may be a little different than Buster's (for example, I'm only going to put the top 12, not 15), although I guess I'll never know how differnt our list's will be unless I become an exclusive insider.

Now, when I'm talking irreplaceable, I'm talking about guys who are leaders and producers - guys who, if I were a GM, I would never think about trading. I realize that this list will be disagreed with, and it may even infuriate people, but that's what makes it fun, right? One last point about the list: some may notice that no starting pitchers are on the list. This is because a starting pitcher is literally replaced every game, and no matter how good a starting pitcher may be for a game, he is inevitably replaceable. For each player I'll provide a few key stats, (and now keep in mind these stats don't count for everything) so without further ado, THE LIST:



Albert Pujols
- 30+ home runs in first 9 seasons in the league.
- Career average of .332
- .322 postseason average
- 5 Silver Slugger awards
- 3 NL MVP awards
- 100+ RBI's every year in the league







Joe Mauer
- Career average: .325
- Batted .365 in 2009
- 2 Gold Glove awards
- 3 Silver Slugger awards
- 2009 AL MVP
- *Minnesota product - hometown hero!*







Derek Jeter
- 5 World Series rings.
- Career average: .316
- 4 Gold Gloves
- 4 Silver Slugger Awards
- In 138 postseason games: 55 home runs, .313 average.







Ichiro Suzuki
- Career average: .333
- Gold Glover award every year since 2001
- 2001 AL MVP
- Averages 1.4 hits a game in his career








Mariano Rivera
- Inning to hit ratio: 1/0.76
- Inning to home run ratio: 18/1
- Over 1000 strikeouts in less than 1150 innings pitched
- 5 AL Relief Man awards







Ryan Howard
- Averages 48 home runs a year
- Averages 148 RBI's a year
- 2006 NL MVP
- Averages 104 runs a year








Ryan Braun
- Averages 37 home runs a year
- Averages 119 RBI's a year
- 2 Silver Slugger awards
- 26 years old







Evan Longoria
- Averages 33 home runs a year
- Averages 115 RBI's a year
- 1 Gold Glove award
- 1 Silver Slugger award
- 24 years old







Hanley Ramirez
- Career average: .314
- Averages 27 home runs a year
- 2 Silver Slugger awards
- Averages 42 stolen bases a year
- 26 years old







Miguel Cabrera
- Currently batting .337
- Career average: .313
- Averages 33 home runs a years
- Averages 119 RBI's a year
- 2 Silver Slugger awards
- Currently leads AL in home runs (20) and RBI's (68)







Chase Utley
- Career average: .294
- Averages 105 RBI's a year
- 4 Silver Slugger awards
- Averages 110 runs a year
- Averages 29 home runs a year







Vladimir Guerrero
- Career average: .322
- Current average of .336
- Averages 36 home runs a year
- Averages 117 RBI's a year
- 4 Silver Slugger awards
- 2004 AL MVP

This week we saw attention breifly divert from South Africa as the longest tennis match in history spanned over a 3 day period. In a first round match at Wimbeldon, John Isner defeated Nicholas Mahut after a match that lasted for over 11 hours. This, in the midst of the World Cup, the proclaimed biggest event in all of sports, grabbed the attention of the sports world. But why? It was only a first round match, so the implications were minimal, right? While this may be true, it's the idea of the competition that made it so appealing, so exciting. We saw two men who refused to budge, playing longer than anyone ever had so they could win, despite it being just a first round match. On the flip side, we've seen a World Cup filled with equality, not victory. In round play alone there were 14 draws. I know that at the end of the day the teams with the most points get into the next round, but should a team like the US really get in after winning only one game? I think it's great that they got in, but they got in because of the way the system is set up, and it's clear to see that the system is seriously flawed. The World Cup is one of, if not the, biggest event in all of sports, yet we're not seeing the true nature of sport when we watch it. The idea of a sport is to determine who is the best, and we saw a tennis match this week that reaffirmed the importance of that determination.

In the World Cup's round of 16 and beyond there are no ties, but rather shootouts. In fact, the final of the 2006 World Cup was decided by a shootout. Does this not seem right to anyone else? After two teams battle for weeks to get to the final, in arguably the biggest event in all of sports, should the outcome really come down to one shooter and a goalie? I don't think it's fair to the teams or the fans to have it come down to that, and I think the only way you can determine a champion is to simply play the game.

Of course, the World Cup is still a great event with all the ties, but why not play it out? At the 90th minute, why not play sudden death to get a winner? I understand that it's hard to score, but doesn't that make it more exciting? I think the World Cup could appeal to a lot more people, especially here in the US, if there weren't as many draws - it could turn indifference into passion. So even though soccer is in the spotlight right now, maybe it should take a peek out to learn about how to make the sport even better.

It's funny how a player's value can sometimes show when he's not on the playing field. Jimmy Rollins has been out of the Phillie's line-up since May 22nd with a strained right calf, and coincidentally, the team has struggled mightily since then. The Phillies are 6-15 since that date, one of their worst droughts in recent history. Over the past 30 days, the Phillies' average has been .223. That's the worst in all of baseball. That's right. Dead last. Keep in mind this is a team who has been known for having one of the best line-ups in baseball over the past couple years. However, this line-up, which has been so dominant over the last few years, is just not the same, and many tribute it to Rollins' absence. This absence is clearly bad for the Phillies, but for Rollins, it could be a blessing in disguise.

In 12 games this year Rollins hit .341 with 10 walks. The three-time Gold Glover and 2007 NL MVP has a career batting average of .275, but his true value may have been overlooked until now. Without Rollins the Phillies lose a leadoff man who can reach base and still be a threat. Rollins gives the Phillies speed on the bases, and he's a threat to pitchers no matter where he is on the field. So as Phillies fans sit and watch a Rollins-less line-up, an appreciation is mounting for the true value Rollins brings to this club - value that may earn him a lot of money come contract time.

Rollins is currently in the fifth year of a five year, $40 million contract. The Phillies exercised a team option for 2011 this past December. He's earning a big time salary now, but if the Phillies were to come out of this slump upon J-Roll's return, then what? There's no doubt that he gives this line-up life, and if they got back to their old form - the form they were in before he got hurt - it would speak volumes to the value he offers. Additionally, Rollins would have tons of leverage heading into contract negotiations, and he could take those negotiations just about anywhere in the league. Imagine for a second his agent negotiating a new contract, and simply saying, "see what happens when he's not in the line-up?"

With the Phillies recent re-signing of Ryan Howard, who signed for $125 million over five years, and the possibility of the team re-signing Jayson Werth, it is conceivable that Rollins may want to go somewhere that will pay him top dollar. It will take time to see what happens, but since Rollins has been out the Phillies have slumped to third in their division. There's still a lot of baseball left to be played this season, and it's clear that J-Roll's absence isn't the cause of all the Phillies' struggles, but what's also clear is that this line-up isn't the same without him, and as the Phillies sink downward, Rollins' image is floating up.

Over the years hockey has slowly been pushed down the totem pole of the professional sports ranks in the United States. TV ratings and attendance have been low while audience apathy has been up. However, the year that hockey has had could change that. This year two major events - the Olympics, and the NHL Playoffs - renewed feelings of excitement, pride, and passion towards the sport that was all but disregarded in the US. The only question is, were these events enough to make the excitement they produced last?

With the Olympics we saw a perfect script. The underdog US team, who wasn't even considered a top 3 contender, up against the powerhouse that is Team Canada for the ultimate prize. Two teams, two bitter rivals, battling for the gold, and just when people thought it couldn't get any better, it did when the game went into overtime and was won by none other than the man with the fairytale career, Sidney Crosby. This scenario could not have been more perfect for the game of hockey. The world saw exactly what it wanted to see, and this match up even peaked interest in the States which is exactly what the sport needs. In Canada, it wouldn't matter if Belarus were playing Latvia in the finals - they would still watch it. In the US, however, the case is slightly different. For the US to be interested they have to be involved, and because of this it's easy to see why it was so crucial for hockey that the US get into the finals. Even the fact that the US lost makes it even more favorable for the sport in my opinion. This way, instead of America assuming a typical cocky attitude about their team, they're hungry to win, and this should make hockey very appealing and exciting for Americans in the next Winter Olympics.

Following suit with the Olympics, the NHL Playoffs were extremely exciting this year. We saw four game 7's, a #8 seed beat a #1 seed in the first round, a team come back from an 0-3 series deficit, and an all-American final that didn't include the Red Wings or Penguins. This year's Cup Final was an historic one for the NHL as they got their highest TV ratings in 36 years. It's evident why this Final was appealing to Americans - two big-market cities, both with long Stanley Cup droughts, that were hard-working, physical, and evenly-matched teams. The series was close too, as four of the six games were decided by one goal, and two of those four games were in OT.

This kind of hockey is exactly what the sport needs to survive, and eventually thrive. For hockey to make a comeback and escape the depths of sports obscurity the US must have attentive and involved fans. Without a strong following from a US audience, the sport could crumble and be an afterthought. Luckily, hockey created some serious momentum this year. Many people who were not fans became "on the fence" fans, and many fans who were "on the fence" about hockey before this season crossed over and became legitimate fans. The key now is for the NHL to find a way to get fans over and away from this metaphorical fence.
The NHL has to take action and be proactive to carry their recent success and make it long-lasting, and now is the time to do it because it's as good a time as they've ever had.

With the multitude of issues in the sports world it's at times difficult to talk about everything, and even when you do it's exhausting. So, with that in mind, today will be the first ever, "Around the Horn" post. It'll be a monthlyish post where I select an issue from each major sport and briefly dissect and potentially come up with a solution to said issues. So, for this first installment, our issues from our four major sports are:

- Hockey: Jeremy Roenick Crying
- Football: USC's Violations and Punishments
- Baseball: Perfect Game Blunder
- Basketball: The Cloud of Free Agency


Issue #1 - Jeremy Roenick Crying

This may not be hockey's biggest issue at the moment, but it is an issue nonetheless. At the conclusion of the Stanley Cup Finals, as the Chicago Blackhawks emotionally hoisted the Stanley Cup for the first time in 49 years, emotions were also running high in NBC's analyst booth, leading to the following:



Are you kidding me!? If there's no crying in BASEBALL, how can there be crying in HOCKEY!? It bothers me that this happened because despite his stint in Chicago, Roenick also played in Philly. As an analyst he's supposed to be objective but here he is going on about, "the Chicago Blackhawks, man." When he's behind the booth he needs to be objective, other than that he can cry all he wants.


Issue #2 - USC Violations and Punishments

The NCAA has decided to step in and punish USC after it was discovered that certain players had accepted money, among other things, while still at school. The funny thing about this though is that the 3 central figures in this issue - Reggie Bush, OJ Mayo, and Pete Carroll - are all safely residing outside the not-so-long-reaching arms of the NCAA. Yes, they've taken away some wins, but at the end of the day the people who are mainly being punished are the ones who had nothing to do with the incident. Think of the juniors and seniors in USC's football program. They've paid their dues for years and now they won't have the chance to win a bowl game as leaders of their team because of how the NCAA has handled this situation. Also, if the NCAA is going to bust players and programs for accepting money, maybe they should open their eyes next NFL Draft when all the first round picks are walking up to the stage with $10,000 watches, diamond earings and $3,000 suits. How'd they get those? Allowance money?


Issue #3 - Perfect Game Blunder

This story has been beaten to death, and rightfully so, but I think two important things stand out:
1) The League made the right decision not giving Galarraga a perfect game. Yes, everyone wanted to see him get the perfect game because everyone knows he deserved it, but if you reverse that call you have to put into question every missed call baseball has ever had, big or small. I don't think you can jeopordize the integrity of the game like that, because the human element is part of the game after all. If that was the first out of the game would people have the same reaction? Of course not, and you can't react a certain way because of the circumstance, which in this case just happened to be an amazing individual feat.
2) The reaction of Jim Joyce was perfect. He admitted he was wrong countless times, and it's hard to be mad at the guy because of how sincere and genuine he was. In fact, I feel worse for Joyce than I do for Galarraga. Hopefully athletes who screw up in the future can learn from this guy and admit when they're wrong, rather than blaming others or avoiding consequences.

Issue #4: NBA Free Agency

The vast cloud of free agency has overshadowed this years NBA Playoffs, (which isn't too hard to do considering the overall excitement of this year's playoffs) and unfortunately this cloud seems to be turing into a thunderstorm. The national media has presented every possible scenario of where these free agents could go, constantly breaking down and analyzing each one as if the media is in the front office negotiating. At times it seems like they make stories and rumors up just to maintain any grasp they may have on their audience. I have a hard time regarding any opinions I hear because no one knows, and it doesn't make much sense to me to talk about it until these players are actually signed. At the present moment the NBA Finals are under way and all attention should be directed there, however the minds of analysts continue to stay on these situations that will not be resolved until July, so I suggest we wait to see what happens and then discuss it.

At the conclusion of every NHL hockey season the Stanley Cup is ceremoniously handed from the league's commissioner to the captain of the winning team, and this exchange is considered sacred. The championship team watches as their leader accepts one of the most cherished and sought-after items in all of sports. Once the captain accepts the Cup, he will inevitably raise it triumphantly over his head and then lower is so he can kiss its body, which is littered with the names of every person who has ever had the pleasure of hoisting it. As this takes place, one of the most important moments and hockey and perhaps one of the most underrated events in sports takes place: the passing of the Cup. This first exchange, beginning with the captain, is in no way random - it's a selective choice made by the teams leader, and it is intended to be an honor. To have the Cup passed to you first means being one of the most monumental, respected, and important figures on your team. The sequence in which the Cup is passed is in many ways a sort of pecking order in which those who have earned the right to touch the Cup first will. Many times we see the Cup go to a long time veteran who has gone a whole career without winning a Cup. We saw this in 2001 when Ray Borque won his first Cup as a member of the Colorado Avalanche after 22 years in the league. So as we reach the end of this year's Stanley Cup Final round, the question has to be asked: Who gets the cup first? Normally, the first people you look at are the assistant captains. The Blackhawks' A's are Duncan Keith and Patrick Sharp and the A's for the Flyers are Chris Pronger, Jeff Carter, Simon Gagne and Kimmo Timmonen.

If the Blackhawks win I think it would make most sense for the trophy to go to Duncan Keith first - hes been nominated for a Norris Trophy this year as the league's best defenseman and he has been one of the most reliable players on the Blackhawks' roster this year. At this point in the playoffs he has 16 points in 21 games played, and during the playoffs he has averaged 28 minutes a game. If it doesn't go to Keith it'll most likely go to Sharp, but it'd be very surprising if that were the case.

For the Flyers, it seems that no player has been more feared, dominant, or respected than Chris Pronger. He's playing 29 minutes a game and has been an absolute force on the blue line. The Flyers have depended on him to shut down opposing teams' top guns through the entire playoffs and he has met the task. His competitiveness and toughness have made it extremely difficult on opponents to get in and around the net, which is a big reason why the Flyers are giving up less than 2.6 goals a game in the playoffs. Of course, Pronger has already won a Cup and if it were to go to another assistant captain who doesn't have a Cup, I'd pick Kimmo Timonen.

Of course, one of the great stories of this year's playoffs have been the Flyers' Ian Laperriere. He is a hero in Philadelphia. The fan's love this guy, and he is one of the most respected players in the whole league. People would love to see the Cup go to him, especially after all he has sacrificed for this team. The guy doesn't wear an A on his jersey but he plays like he wears a C. Despite not being an actual captain, he's considered a leader by anyone who has ever seen him play, and it would be awesome to see the Cup go to him.

The best part of this whole process to me is the fact that everyone is regarded. It doesn't matter if you were the best player on the team or the worst because you, in some way, contributed to the feat of winning the Cup, and that's what this tradition is all about. So as we watch the series come to a close we'll soon watch the camaraderie of the winning team as they share what they all earned together.

I feel like there's a big flaw in baseball's All-Star voting system. Every season, as we get closer and closer to the Midsumemr Classic, we see fans scramble to get as many players from their team in as possible. Of course at first glance this seems like the right thing to do, because after all, the All-Star Game is for the fans as well as the players. The reason I have a problem with it though is because in baseball the All Star game actually means something, which is a another issue all in itself, but we'll just stick with the voting issue today.

Keeping in mind that the MLB All-Star Game counts for something - the league that wins receives home field advantage in the World Series - presents a serious problem when it comes to the voting system of the game itself. If I'm a fan of an NL team, I want the NL to win so in the case that my team makes it to the World Series, they'll have home field advantage. So, wouldn't it make sense for me to vote for AL players who are perhaps not deserving, thus allowing my team a better chance to win? Now, I'm not one to actually do this - I rarely vote at all because of my opposition to the system - but you have to believe that there are people out there that will do this as an attempt to unlevel the playing field, which isn't fair to the players. Does anyone remember the 2007 NHL All-Star voting campaign? The same, "fan-only" voting system that is employed in the MLB also exists in the NHL, and in 2007 a sort of, "ballot box stuffing" incident occurred in which Rory Fitzpatrick - a Vancouver Canucks defenseman with 1 point in 22 games - was in second place for votes amongst West Coast defensemen when the preliminary votes were announced. This sort of thing isn't right for a number of reasons. For one, Fitzpatrick wasn't deserving of an All-Star spot, yet his campaign could have worked because the system is flawed. Luckily, Fitzpatrick was not named to the All-Star Game, but it's easy to see that fan-only votes can result in undeserving players being selected, and when this happens it's unfair to the players who deserve it. It's a big deal for a player to make an All-Star Game if hes paid his dues, and to have it spoiled because of a flaw in the system isn't fair.

Another issue with baseball's All-Star Game voting is this whole, "player campaigning" disgrace. In baseball's current voting system there is a one-player fan-vote after the 33-man roster is selected. Last year Shane Victorino was one of the five NL players up for this final spot, and a frenzy amongst Phillies fans ensued. Whether or not Victorino was deserving of the final spot was disregarded because the fans only cared about getting as many players from their team in as possible. Now I'm not criticizing Phillies fans because this happens with nearly every team, but in the current system all it comes down to is the pride of a fan, and with that he'll vote in a player based on the jersey he wears, as opposed to the numbers he produces.

Of course people are going to argue that the All Star Game is about what the fans want to see, and I agree that they should have a say, but shouldn't fans get the best game possible? One of two solutions would best solve that problem: 1) Limit fan voting to 1 vote instead of 25. That way, a fan has to weigh his choices a little more, and he can only vote for his favorites once. 2) Make it a "funnel" vote, for lack of a better term, in which the fans select say the top 5 at each position, then the managers and/or players and/or owners vote amongst those 5 for the starters. This way you have the fans voting in their favorites while the ultimate selection is left to those who know the game best, which in turn will lead to the best game possible.

Fans should certainly have a say in who gets to play in an All Star Game, but when the game actually counts for something the stakes are a little higher, and when this is the case it should be done right, and a popularity contest is not the right way to do it. Of course, if Major League Baseball wasn't dumb enough to actually make the All-Star Game count for something as big as the World Series, we wouldn't have this mess, but like I said before, that is another issue for another time.