Five columns I won't be writing in August

Vick, Lions spell Bad Newz for opponents
"They've seemed to be world apart, separated by geography and circumstance. But in reality, Michael Vick and the Detroit Lions had more in common than you might have thought.

The city of Detroit suffered through some of its hardest times in the past year. The auto industry stood on the brink, and the economy plunged the city into a level of darkness some thought it would never get out of. Unemployment rates went sky high, and families were wondering whether or not Mom and Dad would still be able to put food on the table.

Vick went through some of his toughest times in the past year. Working for pennies a day in prison, he hardly had enough money to buy a lap dance at the strip club upon release. He often questioned whether he could ever have a lavish lifestyle again.

But fate brought these two together: a city who went through economic disaster, and a quarterback whose struggles equaled those of his new town's."

Red Sox turn 'fair trades' off, officially acquire everybody
"It's a well-known fact that in certain baseball video games, if the 'fair trade' option is turned off, the user can trade for any high-profile player in the league, just so long as the positions match.

A lesser-known secret it that this also exists in real-life MLB, and the Red Sox found the button.

But just because Boston has acquired Adam LaRoche, Matt Holiday, Roy Halladay, Chase Utley, Tim Lincecum, Joe Mauer, Albert Pujols, Justin Verlander, Ichiro and Evan Longoria, don't think they're done quite yet."

Brett Favre stays quietly retired
"As he watched ESPN's latest news cycle roll by, Brett Favre realized there was a chance that there might not be any mention of him at all during the preseason. So he decided to bust out the big guns: he whispered to Peter King that he was 'possibly considering thinking about becoming interested in playing for the Bears.'

And just like that, off we went again on the Favre carousel."

Pendergraph, or Pendergraft?
"OK, Kevin Pritchard screwed up. Anyone can make mistakes. My question is, can we please move on from it?

On draft night 2009, Pritchard wanted to select Arizona State forward Jeff Pendergraph with the Blazers' pick in the second round. But a week later, at the practice facility, instead of a bruising, towering forward, in walks a nondescript, short redhead.

Apparently, Pritchard mispelled Pendergraph's name on his draft selection sheet, and accidentally took former Gonzaga forward David Pendergraft.

But is this really such a bad move? We've seen how Brian Scalabrine contributed to the 2008 NBA champion Boston Celtics, maybe Pendergraft can give the Blazers the same thing.

Personally, I think Pritchard may have actually planned it all along."

Ken Griffey Jr. named to 2003 steroids list
(Like I said, these are columns I won't be writing)

Yet another steroids column, yet another plea for perspective

I am sick of writing columns about steroids.

I've been doing it at least once a year since my junior year of high school. There always seems to be a "new" breaking story about how so-and-so used steroids, or how someone was accused by another player, or how someone got suspended for an undisclosed substance. And every time, it brings on an onslaught of the same, tired columns from writers around the country, myself included.

Now, the news is that Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz both tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs in 2003. That's the same test that Alex Rodriguez and Sammy Sosa tested positive in. Oh, and in case you forgot, that test was supposed to be anonymous.

Steroids weren't totally outlawed in 2003; the testing was supposed to be an anonymous gauge on how widespread the use was, in order to determine the right course of action.

But instead of focusing on the real issue at hand, once again the media starts up the witch hunt, as if something that happened six years ago has any relevance today.

No, the real issue is the fact that Major League Baseball is willing to put more credence in six-year-old test results than to face the problem in the present.

Yes, six years ago certain players tested positive for PEDs.

...so what?

How is that even important? They were using substances that weren't yet banned, and before strict testing policies even took place. Under the rules of the time, they weren't cheating.

Here's what's not being asked: did these same players test positive after 2003, when the substances were banned and stricter testing policies were enacted? That's what's really important - whether they broke the rules after the rules were created. Making criminals out of players for using steroids before steroids were banned makes about as much sense as putting a prohibition-era bootlegger behind bars in 2009.

The past is the past. Why crucify these players now?

Meanwhile, "lawyers with knowledge of the tests" continue to leak the results to the media every few months, thereby assuring a regular media frenzy. Why are no media outlets holding these sources accountable for these leaks? Last I checked, those results were supposed to be anonymous.

If the media wanted to tell the right story, they should be following up these leaks with stories on how these results got out in the first place, how the Players' Union is reacting, and who these people are who keep revealing this sensitive information. Those stories would actually be relevent for people to know.

But stories like that would put an end to these steroid leaks, and therefore slow down sales and page hits. It's not worth it for the media outlets to expose their sources for the sake of truth, because then the sensational, money-making stories would stop.

If only some media outlet would have the guts to dig for the truth in this story. If only some magazine or newspaper or blog would do what was necessary to ensure the story was fair and accurate.

Maybe then we would have a steroids column that actually meant something.

Settling the debate once and for all with fictional sports teams

One of my favorite Web sites is What If Sports, where you can pick any team from any year in any of the major sports and pit them against each other in a simulated matchup.

You can send out the Murderer's Row 1927 Yankees against the 2001 Detroit Tigers and see just how one-sided the score will be. You can match Shaq's 2000 Lakers championship team against the 1996, 72-win Chicago Bulls. Any team, any era, and you can see how it would all play out with a generated play-by-play and box score.

I recently had the 1991 Portland Trail Blazers face off against the 2000 Los Angeles Lakers, at the Staples Center, in order to see if the most talented Blazer team of all-time could get revenge on the heartbreak Portland suffered from the 2000 Western Conference Finals.

Final Score: Blazers 112, Lakers 109.

The Blazers trailed heading into the 4th quarter, got got a balanced attack from Terry Porter, Cliff Robinson, and Danny Ainge to pull out the win. Seven Blazers scored in double figures, led by Porter's 23 points.

But as fun as the site is, I wanted to take it a step further. Sure, it's exciting to take classic teams from different eras and see how they'd perform against one another, but most of the science behind the concept is only based on statistics. I want to create a sports simulation that is based solely on pure speculation. No hard facts, no stat sheets, no PER.

Impossible to do with sports teams, you say? I totally agree. That's why we cut out the "factual" aspects of sports and go straight to the only avenue that will work: movie sports teams.

Welcome to the World Championships of Fictional Sports Teams!

We're going to take the teams from various movies and have them face off. Let's see the Indians from "Major League" go up against the Angels from "Angels in the Outfield," with or without divine intervention. How about Nick Nolte's "Blue Chips" against the Whoopi Goldberg-coached Knicks from "Eddie?" The cocaine-addicted Sharks from "Any Given Sunday" vs the Convicts from the original "Longest Yard?"

And the best part of all? It's anyone's game. There are no real stats to fall back on, only generalized ideas of how well certain players would have done in that season, based on what was said in the movie. There's no historical data, only arguments from each fan based on any wild speculation.

For example, you could reasonably infer that Pedro Ceranno hit 40 home runs, but also struck out 170 times, and had an awful on-base percentage. You could also venture a guess that Teen Wolf had to average nearly 50 points a game to keep his team in contention, based on the lack of talent showcased around him in the movie.

So here's the plan:
1. We're going to create three divisions (baseball, basketball, and football) and send out eight teams in each bracket.
2. Once those teams are matched up, it will be based on reader arguments whether or not the team will advance.
3. Again, the arguments can come from anywhere; maybe God abandons the Angels right before the big game, forcing them to use their own talent (and again, you must argue as to why it will happen).
4. The most compelling/entertaining/highest number or reader arguments one way or another will help the tea advance to the next round. It isn't enough to just vote one way or another, you have to say why.
5. As wild as the arguments can be, they must also be based on what can be seen in the movie. Roy Hobbs was a great hitter, but he never seemed to have any help in the lineup. The T.C. Williams Titans from "Remember the Titans" never ran the ball. Ever. Things like that need to be factored in.
6. Standard rules of the sports apply. If the team was known for cheating, the refs will see it. Sorry Toon Squad, you risk fouling out if you drop too many anvils.
7. Unless a very strong argument is made, teams from TV shows and books will not be considered.
8. Also, please limit the choices to fictional teams that were made up for the movie. The only exception is in the football bracket, because most of the best football movies were based on real teams. So Pride of the Yankees is out, but Friday Night Lights is OK.

Before the brackets can be made, we need to settle on the teams involved. Feel free to e-mail me your suggestions (stevensandberg@hotmail.com), along with arguments as to why they should be included. Don't just send me names of movies, I've already done enough research like that. Send me your team, plus some sort of analysis as to what makes them run, their strengths and weaknesses, and any wild card aspects.

Once the brackets are made, we'll run the tournament! Baseball will be first, followed by basketball and football. But it starts with you. Again, send me your suggestions of teams to include in each bracket, and we can go from there.

I'll see if I can arrange Bob Costas and Ranch Wilder to host the opening ceremonies.

In which we surgically weld Steve Blake and Andre Miller into one decent point guard

With the Blazers' recent signing of Andre Miller, I caught up with The Ex-Call Taker's Kevin O'Brien and suggested that the Blazers cybernetically combine Miller and incumbent point guard Steve Blake into one competent point guard.

"Andre Blake? Sounds like an English soccer star," he said. "Steve Miller? Sounds like a white comedian."

(That's why I love the guy.)

Sure, it was a joke, but both Miller and Blake have traits that, if they were combined, would equal the perfect point guard for the Blazers. Blake is a great shooter who can knock down the open 3-pointer, and can run the pick and roll. Miller is bigger, can rebound, and works well in the paint either posting up opposing guards or creating in traffic.

Instead, we're left with the reality - the two men are separate, each with their own pros and cons attached. Now the question is how to make it work.

Miller, for all his skills, needs to have the ball in his hands to contribute, because he's an awful 3-point shooter. The problem is, the Blazers already have a player who excels at having the ball in his hands, and his name is Brandon Roy (perhaps you've heard of him). Roy is not a spot up shooter, he makes his money by driving to the hoop and working off the dribble.

But Blake also has some glaring weaknesses exposed this season. He's about as flimsy as a paper clip, and can't drive to the rim without seeing visions of terrible hospital bills. That means that Roy is the only Blazer starter who is able to drive to the hoop, with the rest of the team standing on the perimeter watching, Blake included. Teams capitalize on this, which forces too many forced shots on the part of Portland. And of course, Blake also plays defense like a screen door. JJ Barea was even making him look foolish.

Yikes.

So yes, there are kinks to be worked out, but I still like the Miller signing. He's one of the smartest point guards in the league, and the Blazers got him on the cheap. He's had experience running the show in systems that have already featured talented scoring swingmen (Carmelo Anthony, Andre Iguodala) and has proven he can contribute without needing to shoot from the outside. Best of all, Miller likes to run, which works well with a young team that struggled in the halfcourt as much as the Blazers did.

Blake, in turn, would be a great backup. Providing the second unit with an experienced guard who can get the ball to the right places, and a steady hand to keep things from coming apart.

Of course, if the option arose, I would be all for the experimental surgery to combine Miller and Blake into the ultimate Blazer point guard. If the technology is available, we must seek it out!

Although, knowing my luck, what we'll be left with could be a slow, aging point guard who has the green light to shoot 3's but can't make any, has the body to post up but is scared to, and plays defense like kid wearing jeans in a pickup game.

Ok, on second thought...

OK, let's try this again

Andre Miller is a Portland Trail Blazer.

"Good signing, significant move, hitting on 16, blah blah blah," I'm just praying that this doesn't turn out like when I wrote the column on Hedo Turkoglu signing with the Blazers. I hope that the mere posting of this doesn't mean Miller will come out and announce that he's actually signing a 5-year deal with the Vermont Frost Heaves of the ABA.

How the 05-06 Blazers got me through college

The 2005-2006 Portland Trail Blazers were bad.

Really bad.

They finished with a league-worst record of 21-61. The Rose Garden was like a morgue, with the team dead last in attendance. The roster was littered with forgettable players like Sergei Monia, Brian Skinner, and Juan Dixon. They were lit up by Minnesota's Richie Frahm for 18 points in the first game of the season. Charles Smith was actually thought to be a good option as a starting shooting guard.

Yeah, that bad.

Most other fans have forgotten that team long ago, and with good reason. But that year, the 2005-06 Trail Blazers meant more to me personally than many teams before or since.

Let me explain.

In the fall of 2005, I had just arrived to Gonzaga University to start my freshman year of college. Everything that was happening at the time was new to me. I had never been away from home before, especially 350 miles away. I had left behind my family and friends. And my girlfriend and I were attempting a long-distance relationship. I didn't know the town of Spokane, I didn't know the people at Gonzaga, and yet here I was, thrust into college and forced to survive.

Needless to say, I was scared, and I was miserable.

Those first couple of months were the hardest of my life. Homework was piling up. My roommate and I weren't exactly friends. I was missing home terribly. I missed my girl. At times I considered transferring to a school closer to home, but I knew how much harder that would be on me academically and decided to stay at GU. Still, things were hard.

And then basketball season started.

I found myself needing an escape from my predicament, and it came in the form of the 2005-06 Portland Trail Blazers. I scoured the Internet for Blazers news. I made Mike Barrett's blog a regular destination. I searched box scores, read recaps and previews, and found myself engrossed in the team.

Before the first game of the season, I discovered a "listen live" link online, and after that I listened to every Blazer game I could. The volume wasn't very loud, and I had no speakers, so I plugged in some headphones and pressed them against my ears to hear Brian Wheeler call the action. Every so often, the audio would suddenly cut out at a crucial point, and I would scramble to refresh the page so I wouldn't miss anything.

Every game, I could feel myself in the Rose Garden, watching the Blazers. I cheered for every clutch 3-pointer from Steve Blake. I could feel the blocked shots from Joel Przybilla. I crossed my fingers for every Zach Randolph 20-footer.

They were my team. My Blazers.

Every negative feeling that I had at the beginning of that academic year went away when I sat down at my computer to listen to the Blazers play. For a couple hours, my thoughts weren't on homesickness or classwork, they were on whether Darius Miles could keep up his hot streak, or which point guard should be starting.

The losses piled up, but that didn't matter to me. It was more about the feelings I had from following my hometown team despite the geography between us. The Blazers were my link to something normal, something familiar, while I was in an ufamiliar envrionment.

And as the year progressed, things started to change. As the Blazers kept me going, they also allowed me to ease into the new world I was in. I found a group of friends down the hall of my dorm, and the five of us remain friends to this day. I got involved in the campus TV station and newspaper. Suddenly things weren't so hard anymore, as I began to find my place at Gonzaga. And as the Blazers' season ended in April, I was just beginning my new life at GU.

But I still think that it was the '05-'06 Blazers who helped me through it. When things were tough, or when it felt like I was in over my head, the Blazers were there to help keep my spirits up. Yes, they lost a lot of games, but I had so much fun that season cheering them on. The team was filled with young players, rookies, and nobodies, and they were having a tough time on the court, but I felt a connection to them because of that. We were both going through tough times, but we were going through them together.

With all the success and growth the Blazers have had the past three years, it's easy to forget just how far they've come. But for me, they were the team that got me through my freshman year of college, and I'll never forget them for that.

The 2005-2006 Blazers lost 61 games and were the worst team in the league. But to me at the time, they were the greatest team in the world.

It's hard to root for the Cubs (but not just for the obvious reasons)

(Quick note before we get started: I was doing a Google Image search for Alfonso Soriano to head this column. I typed in the word "Alfonso" and Soriano's name came up second in the list of suggestions. The top one: Alfonso Ribeiro. Yes, Carlton from The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air is the most popular Alfonso on Google. Moving on...)

Having been a Cubs fan for my entire life, I've gotten used to certain things from them.

There's always going to be losing, and some seasons the team will be downright awful. You don't enjoy it, but you do expect it, so that softens a little of the blow. It's during those seasons that you sit back, watch the games on WGN and think "wait til next year."

There's also always going to be a season here and there where the Cubs suddenly get hot, win the Division, and cruise to the playoffs before blowing it. It's always a heartbreaking loss in which the team suddenly falls apart and cant hit anything, but that regular season dominance captivated you and keeps you coming back for more.

For my entire life as a Cubs fan, it's been these two types of seasons year after year. 2003 was a great run until the heartbreak in the NLCS. 1999 and 2000 were dismal years. Throughout, it's always been one of the two types of seasons.

But this year has proven to be the most frustrating of all.

The Cubs aren't bad this year, but they aren't very good, either. At 48-45, they aren't having a tremendously successful season, and yet as it stands right now they are only two games back of the NL Central-leading Cardinals.

The plate production has been abysmal. They're 28th in the MLB in batting average (.247), 27th in hits, and 25th in RBIs. And yet, the pitching has been solid. They're sixth in ERA (3.80), second in strikeouts (710), and third in opponent batting average (.243).

Milton Bradley was an awful free agent signing, and his antics haven't helped the Cubs. Alfonso Soriano has been a $17 million question mark, driving fans crazy with his inconsistency. But Ryan Theriot has been solid at the top of the order, and Derek Lee has rebounded into a nice season.

It's been a decidedly middle-of-the-road season, and it leaves me wondering how I should feel about it.

Yes, I'm happy that the Cubs are in the hunt for the division lead, but the Central is bad this year. Yes, Soriano has hit 16 home runs, but he's also struck out a team-high 88 times (though 85 games!).

This has been the hardest season of all to root for the Cubs, simply because of the glaring mediocrity of the team. There hasn't been any clear cut moment where the Cubs have looked like they can get hot, but they haven't been bad enough to make you check out of this season and wait til next year. They're playing at just the right level to leave you at a frustrated middle ground - you never get too excited or too bummed out by anything.

You don't want to root for a team that's played as poorly as the Cubs have, but you don't want to be too hard on them either, because they're still in it.

How do you even approach a season like this?

How are you supposed to react when your starting pitchers are a combined 26-22 and still pitching is considered your strong suit? What do you do when you see the Cubs and Cards in a race backwards, seeing which team will lose itself out of contention first?

This is the type of season no fans wants to endure. You check the standings every day, and there hasn't seemed to have been changes since May for the Cubs. You could've stopped watching the Cubs after the first month-and-a-half and still not not missed anything since then. "They're still just three games over .500?"

That's been the frustrating thing about this season - no matter the situation, there always seems to be a factor that brings the Cubs back to equilibrium, keeping them hovering in that mediocre limbo. It's rough as a fan, because it makes you just want to scream at them "if you want to be winners, fine. If you want to be losers, that's your decision. BUT JUST PICK ONE!"

There have always been two kinds of Cubs seasons. The good ones get you excited for an improbable playoff run. The bad ones leave you feeling drained but looking forward to next year.

And then there's seasons like 2009, which don't make you feel much of anything.

How the Veterans Wheelchair Games saved a life

What an amazing week in Spokane working for the National Veterans Wheelchair games. If you ever wanted to know just how important the games are, view the above video of an interview with "Rollin" Joe Velasquez after he won the gold medal in table tennis. This made the whole week.

The entire event was incredible. There were great games, dominating performances, colorful characters and inspiring stories like Joe's. If you haven't already, please go visit Xable.com, where you can view game videos, recaps, interviews and highlights from the entire week.

Being around these veteran athletes, witnessing their triumphs and learning their stories, made me better for the experience. Never in my life had I ever been involved in an event like that, and I feel humbled and honored to have been able to work with a great Xable crew in order to tell these people's stories.

Each competitor was more than just an athlete; they were also veterans who served their country. They may have had different injuries or ability levels, but all of them recognized the spirit of these games: camaraderie, friendly competition, and a common bond.

Even guys like Paul Schulte, a superstar wheelchair basketball player who was simply serving as a volunteer at the games, knew just how important the games were:



It was an experience that benefited everyone involved. The overall essence of the games may have been about more than sports, but it was through sports that allowed that essence to come alive. This past week was an example of how sports can bring people together, and make people accomplish things they would have never thought possible.

What we'll be missing from Patty Mills

Blazer's Edge reported earlier today that Patty Mills broke his foot in practice, and will miss the entire summer league. It's yet another setback for Mills, the dynamic point guard out of St. Mary's who I thought was the steal of the NBA Draft.

Physically, Mills never did look like much - 6-0, 180 lbs. - but the guy could score like you wouldn't believe, and in his two years in the WCC he helped turn the conference around, and proved it was more than just "Gonzaga and everyone else."

In his freshman season in 2008, Mills averaged 14 points per game and helped guide St. Mary's to an NCAA tournament bid. Later that summer, Mills had a breakout performance with Australia in the Beijing Olympics, averaging a team-high 14.2 points off the bench in six games.

He carried his success over into the 08-09 season with St. Mary's, and led them to an 18-1 start and a national ranking. On Jan. 29, he ventured into the Kennel at Gonzaga, and found himself in a breakout game. Mills hit six 3-pointers in the first half, seemingly from all angles. There seemed to be no stopping him. Gonzaga, usually so confident on their home floor, suddenly had an uneasy feeling in their stomach. Only the best players make conference powerhouses tremble like that. His performances leading up to halftime of that game were what cemented his place on the national stage.

But late in the first half, Mills fell to the ground while jostling with Jeremy Paro. Mills stuck out his hand to break his fall - but what he broke, was his shooting wrist. Mills wouldn't return for that game, or the nine others after that. By the time he rushed back for the WCC tournament, it was clear his hand wasn't ready. He shot a combined 5 for 28 in the conference tournament, with the Gaels eventually losing to the Zags in the championship game.

There were flashes of his talent after that - 27 points against Washington State and 23 points against Davidson in the NIT, but his shooting percentage and ballhandling ability suffered.

But my view of Patty Mills was limited because of my ties to Gonzaga. For a more in-depth view, I turned to my good friend Bryan Navarro, a member of St. Mary's Gaelvision TV network who covered St. Mary's at the WCC Tournament:

"Patty Mills put Saint Mary's on the collegiate basketball radar in his two-year tenure. Now that he's leaving, it's difficult to believe that we'll remain there.

Of the three active Australians on the 07-08 St. Mary's team, Patty seemed the least impressive. Maybe it's because he didn't draw attention to himself the way the others did. At MidKnight Madness, the annual start of season rally, he didn't do anything remarkable as most of the other ballers do. Around campus he didn't tower over students or have to duck under door frames to enter classrooms (Omar Samhan). He looked like an average 5-foot 10-inch kid with a slightly muscular build and a goofy smile.

...As a sophomore, Mills' game got better.

Patty's sophomore year started with the brilliance everyone now expected of him. His world-class experience gave him an unprecedented edge over other players and used it to lead.

One of the best memories Patty provided last year was hitting a go-ahead three against Santa Clara with only two seconds left. Obviously he was the go-to guy but somehow got open anyway and launched a teardrop that hung forever before falling through the back of rim.

...The other best Patty moment of the year was his entrance at the 18-minute mark of the WCC Tourney game against Portland. In classic form, Mills went coast-to-coast, drove hard, laid the ball of the glass, made the bucket, drew a foul, and ended up sliding around the floor.

...I understand that this was a relatively weak draft and Mills could've become a better pick because of that void. And if this year taught Gaels one thing, its that injuries can happen to anyone at anytime. Another serious injury and Mills falls out of draft conversation completely.

That said, Mills had a lot to gain from returning to Moraga for another year. With Diamon Simpson graduating, Mills would have been the go-to scorer (if he wasn't already). He would start every single game. He would also leave a better last impression after having lack luster post-injury stats.

Mills' strengths (speed, control, ability to create and finish shots) could have been slightly improved, but what really needed development is his transition to playing his uptempo transition game to a set-up offense. Too many times has he tried to slalom around players near the key and tossed up a shot that rims out.

But every now and then that shot falls in and gets McKeon Pavillion roaring.

That's what you get with Patty Mills."

Mills has tons of talent. He's a great, determined scorer, a good ballhandler, and he's quick. He carried that St. Mary's team to the heights they achieved. Ask anyone who watched a WCC game the past two years, without Mills, the Gaels would've just been another fledgling team in a mid-major conference. His wrist injury is what made him slip in the NBA draft, but I think Portland got a steal with him at no. 55.

But now, with a broken foot, the future looks hazy for Mills' NBA chances.

Still, Mills is a warrior, and a winner. He proved that through his two years of college and in the Olympics. You'd have to think someone like him can find a home in the NBA when he comes back from this injury. We've seen too much talent from him to think otherwise. The Blazers might never get a chance to know what they're going to miss from Mills, but maybe somewhere down the road, he gets another shot to show what he can do.

'Til then, we'll always have Moraga.

Behind the mic at the National Veterans Wheelchair Games

Next week, I will be returning to Spokane, where I will be doing play-by-play at the National Veterans Wheelchair games for xAble.com.

I've called my fair share of sporting events before, but never anything like this, and I'm approaching this opportunity with nervousness and excitement. Never in my life have I ever called any wheelchair sports, let alone watch any for an extended period of time. Practically all of my experience with wheelchair sports came from watching a documentary on the 2008 Paralympics.

So when I learned that I had the gig, I immediately thought about how I would have to change my style in order to make it fit within the context of a world of sports that is entirely new to me. These are mostly athletes with spinal cord injuries who served in the armed forces overseas, a far cry from the usual athletes I covered at Gonzaga - big-name men's basketball players and women's basketball players with torn ACLs.

How was I supposed to tailor my announcing style? Do I dial it back? Do I have to be careful about what I say?

But in the end, I decided not to change a thing.

I plan on calling these games exactly as I would call it for any other sport. A play-by-play announcer's goal is to tell a compelling story, no matter what sport it is. He is supposed to make the viewer feel the excitement of the game, so even non-fans can feel the weight of the moment.

The competitors in next week's NVWG are athletes, and deserve to have the excitement of their games expressed to the fans.

I was initially approaching my task from the wrong perspective, viewing the athletes as being somehow different and therefore needed a different announcing treatment. I was wrong to look at it that way, and in my preparation I've come to realize that it's no different from anything else I've called.

The games may have different rules, but the thrills of victory are the same. The equipment may be different, but it doesn't affect the goals it's being used for. And the backstories of the athletes may be different, but that only means I'll be using information of someone's military service and achievements in past games instead of someone's Division I stats.

It's going to be new, and different, and a hell of a lot of fun.

If anything is going to change, it's going to be how I view and honor athletes. We always build our athletes up to be heroes, but it is the people involved with these games that are the heroes. They served their country and are now using their disability to inspire themselves and others.

I encourage you to go to xAble.com next week and watch the action. Starting on Monday, July 13, xAble.com will be airing most of the events from the week's games, with fellow Gonzaga Broadcasting alum Ben Pearson and I splitting play-by-play duties. The work will probably keep me from posting any new columns, but follow me on Twitter for any updates.

And finally, if you're in Spokane next week, take the day and go see the games. It's going to be a great week.

The case for the Blazers staying put

With NBA free agent signings now official, it's becoming clear which teams have gotten better, worse, or are standing still. But as this years free agency has shown us, simply signing free agents doesn't equate to a team getting better.

For example, the Lakers got better be replacing Trevor Ariza with Ron Artest in a simple upgrade. Meanwhile, the Clippers got better by trading away Zach Randolph, an example of addition by subtraction (and on the flip side of that deal, Memphis is now worse off with Randolph taking shots away from Rudy Gay and OJ Mayo). Toronto paid more than $50 million for Hedo Turkoglu, but had to renounce 14 players to do it (bad move). And the Pistons signed Ben Gordon, Charlie Villanueva, and possibly Big Baby Davis, and transformed from a bad team to an average team.

And in the middle of all of this is the Portland Trail Blazers, who are still yet to make a move in free agency this offseason.

The only actions the Blazers have taken part in was a courtship of Turkoglu (who they seemingly had, until he bolted for more money in Toronto). Other than that, things have been very quiet on the Blazers' front.

So what now? Well, you have to look at the facts; you have to weigh the Blazers' performance and future against the current free agent moves being made by other teams.

And in reality, the thing the Blazers should do now...

...is nothing.

The Blazers have one of the youngest, most talented teams in the league; a team that will only get better so long as the core is intact. Just look at the past 3 seasons - the Blazers were the worst team in the league in 2005-06, with only 21 wins. Yet since then, the Blazers have improved their win total to 32, then 41, and finally 54 wins last season with a playoff berth. All of that was done by creating a core of young players and letting them develop their talents together.

Why ruin a good thing?

The uneasiness about the Blazers taking this route comes from the uncertainty it brings. It's very rare that an NBA team slowly builds itself into a contender, developing young talent while biding their time before the success arrives. Aside from the San Antonio Spurs, it's an uncommon practice, as most other teams choose to make a big trade or throw money at a marquee free agent in order to quickly change their fortunes. Every year, several different NBA teams acquire a big-name player in the hopes that he will put them into the finals. But really, it only works for two teams every year, with most of those big free agent moves not working out.

The Blazers are in largely uncharted territory, but based on the path they've been traveling on so far, it seems to be the correct course heading.

What the Blazers shouldn't do is look at their lack of free agent moves and panic. Just because other teams are loading up on free agents doesn't mean that they have made themselves better that what the Blazers currently have. Teams are grabbing up anything they can just so they can say they didn't pass up on a sale. But the Blazers already own enough good pieces, and don't need to spend any more on stuff they don't need.

Yes, I was a proponent of signing Turkoglu, but that was because I was more of a proponent of the Blazers signing a piece that could help them, as Turkoglu could. With Hedo off the market, the Blazers shouldn't suddenly lose track of their goal to sign a missing piece in order to sign someone they don't necessarily need.

If there is a free agent out there that make the Blazers better, then they should obviously sign them. But don't sign somebody simply because everyone else is doing it. If everyone else paid $50 million for Chris "Birdman" Anderson, would you do it?

The Blazers should take what they have, realize the potential this team has, and stand pat. Rather than throw millions of dollars at Andre Miller or Brandon Bass, let's focus that money on contract extensions for Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge. Let's see just how much better Rudy Fernandez, Nicolas Batum and Jerryd Bayless can be in their sophomore season. Let's see if Martell Webster can come back from his foot injury and start bombing 3's again. And let's see if Greg Oden becomes the center Blazers fans hope he can be.

The Blazers have done nothing but improve for the past three years, so let's see if the trend continues in year 4. If things go stagnant, they can always go after the big names in the 2010 free agent crop. But for right now, let's see how much better this team can be. Don't mess up the chemistry and talent you have right now in a meaningless attempt to "keep up" with teams that aren't necessarily ahead in the race.

It hasn't been done much before, and it's an uncertain future, but sometimes the biggest rewards are won by taking the road less traveled. That mindset is what defines Portland's basketball team:

Trail Blazers.

Struggling for words on Steve McNair

This past 4th of July weekend, I went out of town to my family's vacation house near Stevenson, WA. As a result, I had no phone reception, no TV, no Internet, and practically no contact with the outside world. Usually, it's always fun to come back into town and see what messages/news I missed, which tend to be only unimportant voicemails or a obscure free agent signing.

What I didn't expect to get upon returning to cell phone reception on Monday was a text message from my friend Anthony sent a day earlier: "Dude! Steve McNair got shot to death!"

There are certain sports figures so notorious that any strange or shocking news about them wouldn't surprise anyone. Steve McNair wasn't on that list. He was a successful MVP quarterback whose career was riddled with injuries, but he never was the subject of much controversy. He quietly went about his business and had a long and productive career.

So to find out that, at 36, he had been murdered, came as a complete shock.

Like any other major sports star's death, the media coverage followed a certain path. There were the initial reports, followed by updates from police as the investigation continued. There were reactions from former coaches and teammates, and sentimental looks back on his career as analysts talked highly of his playing ability.

But after only a few days, the story seemed to have run its course. Sportscenter now led with baseball highlights instead of the McNair story. Sports sections in newspapers pushed the story inside to page D5. Outside the Lines was doing puff pieces on Manny Ramirez's hometown. After the initial wave of news to this story, there wasn't much beyond that.

Last night I was listening to a sports talk radio show, and the host mentioned that, as a radio host, he viewed the McNair death partly as "here's our news story for the next few weeks." He said that while TV simply reports, radio is a medium solely dedicated to discussion, and that the discussion could continue indefinitely on radio. He then proceeded to rehash the same topics that had been beaten into the ground since McNair's death: His toughness, his legacy, and the updates on the investigation.

But this is what happens in the media when a man who had been free on controversy dies.

McNair wasn't a polarizing figure, he wasn't vehemently hated or involved in off-field antics. He was just a good football player who died tragically, and in the media's eyes, sometimes that just isn't as sexy to report on. Media outlets are doing the honorable thing by replaying his highlights and commenting on the great football player that he was, but there's only so much time you can devote solely to that before producers think the story's been told. So after just a few days of this, the media is finding that now, they have to let it go.

With a controversial superstar, the coverage would be endless. Maybe the athlete was once arrested for drugs, maybe he was a clubhouse cancer, or maybe he was vilified by fans for one reason or another. In those cases, coverage of their untimely death would go on for weeks, because after the initial report and reaction, the airwaves and pages would be filled with life lessons learned from his death, and the effect his poor decisions had on him and others.

But in the case of Steve McNair, there are no morals to be learned, or lessons his death can teach us, because his public life was not filled with warning signs or bad choices.

For once, a superstar athlete's death isn't being over-saturated with coverage and messaged. The media is finding out how hard it is to create controversy or unnecessary hype out of more than what the story really is: a tragic death of a good athlete. So, faced with this realization, the media is doing something new: letting a highly publicized story naturally play itself out. There's no speculation of a "secret life of Steve McNair" or the hounding of family members. There is simply a celebration of his life, before eventually letting go.

When a controversial athlete dies, there's no limit to the rampant analysis that permeates the airwaves regarding his life and death.

But when someone like Steve McNair dies, suddenly no one has anything more to say. Which is the way it should be.

"Sources" ruin it for everyone

Earlier today, I read on ESPN that Hedo Turkoglu had agreed to a free agent contract with the Portland Trail Blazers. The ESPN article reportedly got the information from "sources."

After reading this news, which had supposedly been confirmed, I wrote a column about what Turkoglu brings to the Blazers, and what the gamble will mean for the Blazers future.

The time spent on that column, apparently, was all for nothing.

ESPN is now reporting that Turkoglu has ended negotiations with the Blazers. Again, the article cites "sources." The sources aren't named, nor are they identified as being close to the team, the league, or the planet earth. They are simply "sources."

That sort of lazy reporting, spreading false information by not confirming the reports, is an insult to readers and the profession of journalism.

Now, I understand that, in the grand scheme of things, the mis-reporting of a basketball free agent signing is not the end of the world (and I admit to being mad about writing a whole column that is now worthless), but this does bring to light some of the problems with reporting using unnamed sources. I fully understand that journalism is a deadline-driven business where timing is everything and the pressure to break a story is high. But that doesn't excuse reporting something false.

They teach you in journalism classes that all stories need to be confirmed by two sources close to the story. The "closeness" factor is extremely important. If an NBA team signs a free agent, the people who can confirm a story are people high up in the organization who had or saw direct contact with the decision. The receptionist, or an intern cannot confirm the story, because they might not know all the facts. IN the case of the Turkoglu/Blazers story, the "sources" cited didn't know what they were talking about.

I know that journalists will always need unnamed sources if they want to report certain stories. People and organizations are always so desperate to control the flow of information that they will reject comment on a story and instruct other employees to do the same. Sometimes, it is necessary to have someone confirm a story off the record, simply to get the truth out.

But a level of professionalism must be kept, and that means that the use of unnamed sources must not run so rampant that the wrong facts are reported. I understand employees don't want to lose their jobs, so if they must go off the record, the journalist must give the readers something in order to save face: the areas or departments the sources work in, or how high up in the organization they serve. That way, if something wrong does come out, we know where the misinformation is coming from.

It's either that, or wait until you can confirm the story with 100 percent certainty. That might help.

When I was working for the Gonzaga Bulletin newspaper, a breaking story arose right before a deadline. Apparently, a student had been hiding explosive materials in his dorm room, and may have been responsible for a Molotov cocktail found in a parking lot. The Bulletin reporters called anyone close to the investigation, went to a press conference, and even went to the dorm hall in question. The reporters wrote their story based on the information given to them by authorities, specifically citing where they had received their information.

But much of that information turned out to be false. Rather than dismiss this, the Bulletin acknowledged its mistakes, and continued to report the story as it unfolded, citing the sources of new information and explicitly explaining where the incorrect information came from.

That experience proved to be a lesson for all of us on staff - that if we were clear with the readers in our reporting, we remain truthful and credible in the eyes of our readers and the subject of our stories.

But when reporters get lazy, the publishing of mis-information spirals out of control to the point that everyone else follows your lead.

Just because you cite new "sources" after learning of your blunder or re-write your lede after following the blunders of others doesn't make up for bad reporting. If you break the story, you're responsible for what happens if you get it wrong.

Readers deserve better. Fans deserve better. Journalism deserves better.

(And you made me waste a whole afternoon writing that column. Damn it.)

Blazers hope Turkoglu brings a payoff

ESPN is reporting that the Blazers and Hedo Turkoglu have agreed on a deal that will bring the 30-year-old forward to Portland. Turkoglu was looking for a five year deal worth roughly $50 million, and all accounts are saying that the deal with the Blazers will probably be for that amount.

The Blazers had been looking for a veteran. They got one. They were looking for experience. They got it. They were looking for someone to take the scoring load off Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge. Check.

The Blazers got their big-name free agent. Now they need to hope for a payout.

Throughout the entire courtship process the Blazers have had with Turkoglu, I've been surprised at how polarizing of a figure he has been. Not necessarily because of his play on the court, but because of the proposed contract, and whether Turkoglu is worth it.

It's reportedly a five year deal. That's betting a lot on him staying effective for five years. Is a 32-34-year old Turkoglu worth more to the Blazers than developing players like Martell Webster, Travis Outlaw, or Nicolas Batum? If that's the case, the Blazers need to win soon, or else it will all be for nothing.

Patience had been thrown out the window. The Blazers no longer want to sit and wait for the team to get better on it's own anymore. This move was designed to help the Blazers now.

It's a gamble. The Blazers had grown accustomed to beating the odds in recent years with the continued progress of a young team. But this is the first time in recent memory that they're taking such a risk. Kevin Pritchard, Nate McMillan, and company have won with small wagers the past few years, now they're pushing their chips to the center of the table and betting big.

Some call it gutsy. Some gasp. Some call it stupid. And some are thinking "let it ride."

Like all good bets, it's being made after carefully considering the odds and the opponents. The West is still getting tougher, with the Spurs landing Richard Jefferson and the Lakers adding Ron Artest. The Blazers knew they needed to get better, and finally took at look at their roster and their needs in order to decide what necessary steps needed to be taken. Ultimately, Turkoglu was the pick.

General consensus among fans and media is that the Blazers are paying too much, and I happen to agree. Five years and $50 million seems too high for a 30-year-old player with career averages of 12 points, 3 assists, and 4 rebounds per game. It's a huge risk, but the Blazers knew they needed to do something to stay in the game, and weighed the pros and cons.

He averaged nearly 17 points per game, but what about that 41 percent shooting? At 6-10 and 220, he's hard to match up against, but can he tell the difference now between a good opportunity and a forced shot? Can Roy and Aldridge coexist with him?

In the end, Portland knew what they were getting: another piece to the championship puzzle. Let's look at Turkoglu for what he is: a shooter/scorer who can also post up and put the ball on the floor. His 6-10 frame means he can play 3 positions, and he just helped the Magic get to the NBA finals. He's not a superstar, or a dynamic point forward who will facilitate the offense (Point forward? He's not Scottie Pippen. Pip looked graceful and smooth when he handled the ball. Turkoglu's main strategy when handling the ball is to use his size and back it down the court before handing off to someone else in the halfcourt).

Yes they're overpaying for just a piece, but a team on the rise like the Blazers is only a piece away from serious contention. This isn't like the Blazers are going to the roulette table and betting it all on 15, instead, it's like a single hand of blackjack. The Lakers have been winning big all all night, and have a 7 showing. The Blazers have been slowly accumulating chips and now hold a 16. If the Blazers want to play it safe, they should stay, because the odds are against them that the card they'll get is a card they need. But there's a chance the Lakers could be holding a 17, and be in prime position to win. The Blazers need to hit, and take the big risk.

Turkoglu is the Blazers hitting on 16.

The bet may pay off, it may not. That's the chance you take on a gamble like this. The only thing left is to see how it all plays out.

And even if it doesn't work, the Blazers can always go back to the ATM with Paul Allen's PIN number.

A new view from the cheap seats

Excuse me for getting a little nostalgic today, but it's with big excitement that I learned that the guy who gave me my start as a sportswriter just got back in the game.

Let me take you back a few years, to Portland's Franklin High School in 2004. I was but a junior, and a lowly young writer for the Franklin Post, making my living off articles about bell schedule changes.

The man in charge was Geoff Ziemer, editor-in-chief. He also wrote a monthly sports column called the "2-2 Splitter." He was writing about the things I wanted to write about: The Blazers, baseball, the Oregon Ducks. And what made his column so good was that it was so anti-column - he didn't try to riddle it with messages or stir up unneeded controversy, his were columns about supporting the Blazers, or calling on the student body to be pumped up for a football game against our rivals. He just wrote from the mindset of a hardcore, knowledgeable sports fan.

Then in February 2004, the Blazers traded Rasheed Wallace, and, on a whim, I wrote my own column saying goodbye to the volatile yet talented star. I submitted it to Geoff, and being the Rasheed fan he is, he decided to publish it. After that, he gave me the reins as the sports columnist for the remainder of the year, and the rest, for me, is history.

Well, after a long hiatus in which he spent his years at the University of Oregon still passionate about his hometown teams, Geoff is back. He just started up his own Web site, The 300-Level, dedicated to following and analyzing the Blazers. His main page, The Z Post, is written as if it went straight from his thoughts to the page. So please, go check it out.

And for you Eugene-natives, you might already be familiar with his music. I recommend "Hip-Hop Journalism," a song dedicated to Oregonian sports columnist John Canzano.