Evan's Take

Stephen A Smith joined Skip Bayless for 1st and 10 on ESPN 1st Take this morning. I couldn't believe some of the positions he took (or the arguments he made in support of those positions), so I figured I should put in my two cents.

First up, "Will he (Joba) work as a starter?" Stephen A says "I doubt it." One of his arguments was that people study you more and become more familiar with you when you start than when you close or set-up for a closer. He also mentioned Joba's age (22) as a reason why it's not really a good idea.

I'm not sure I would have transitioned Joba right now. But, down the road, Joba should turn into a decent starter assuming he can improve his control a bit. Last year, he walked 2.25/9 innings. This year, he's close to 5 walks per 9. Along with putting additional batters on, that stat suggests that he's missing his spots more, which could be one reason his batting average against and ERA are up from last year, although they remain fairly low. Chamberlain's ran his fastball into the high 90's against the Blue Jays in his first start of the year and, generally, has electric stuff. And, he's only 22. As he's eased into his starting role this year, he'll increase his inning total over previous years without the strain of making 30+ starts in his first major league season. With his stuff, if he can improve his ability to hit his spots and develop into a pitcher who pitches to good contact and saves himself, rather than pitching away from contact and trying to strike everyone out, there is no reason to assume he won't work out as a starter.

Smith mentioned batters becoming familiar with him. Jake Peavy isn't hurt that much by hitters seeing him multiple times per game. He won't post a 0.38 ERA starting (that was his 2007 ERA). He should also work on a change-up to help him get easy outs early in counts. Plus, if he struggles with his control and his ability to go deep in games, he can always transition back to the bullpen.

Moving on, we're faced with the question "(Are the Mets the) Best team in the NL East with Pedro?" Stephen A Smith went beyond the NL East and said they're the team to beat in the NL. Smith said that Pedro would give them "two quality pitchers." Has Stephen A Smith not heard of John Maine (3.91 ERA in 2007, 3.62 ERA in 2008). In 2006, Pedro posted a 4.48 ERA in 23 starts for the Mets. In 2004 with Boston, he posted a 3.90 ERA in 33 starts.

It's hard to imagine Pedro will remain healthy, but even if he does the Phillies have to at least be co-favorites in the NL East because Ryan Howard is bound to come around after a slow start, Jimmy Rollins has missed 40% of the games, Brett Myers has been awful to start the season, and the Phillies still lead the Mets by 4.5 games. The Mets have aging players in LF (Alou) and at 1B (Delgado), as well as a major problem at the back end of the rotation with Oliver Perez and Mike Pelfrey. And, I have yet to mention the status of NY Mets Manager Willie Randolph.

If Pedro is healthy and can match Santana start for start, Martinez might save Randolph's job. But, what is a healthy Pedro going to give you these days?

Next up: "How much do you root for him (Kobe Bryant)?" On a scale from 0 - 10, Stephen A says a 10. Smith said "I love stars who never, ever, cheat us. When we walk into an arena you know they are giving it all they've got." Skip Bayless came back by bringing up the 1st half of game 1 against the Spurs - when Phil Jackson said something to the effect that Kobe was in the Bermuda Triangle rather than the sideline triangle in the first half - to refute Smith's statement quoted above. Smith essentially told Skip he didn't know anything and said Kobe was helping Phil Jackson let the other players work through adversity to grow as players.

Hmmm. Is Stephen A Smith forgetting the series against Phoenix when Kobe refused to shoot? While it worked out in game 1 against the Spurs, Kobe's quirky spurts in games don't always work out for the best. While Kobe seems to give it his all in the off-season to improve his game, that doesn't always translate to the floor. Personally, I thought Kobe was a lot better off the ball against the Spurs when he was working off screens to lose Bruce Bowen and hitting open jumpers than when he was dominating the ball trying to do everything himself. Kobe should have recognized what he was doing successfully and continue to do that. It will be interesting to see how Kobe reacts the next time his team isn't the best team in the NBA. Will he demand a trade and sulk during portions of games, or will he try to figure out the best way to help his team win?

Sticking with the NBA, we move to Kevin Garnett and the question: "Underrated or overrated?" Skip Bayless says overrated and Smith says neither. Smith argues that Garnett is a star not because he scores 20 a game, or because he pulls 11 boards a game, or even because he's consistently on the all-defense team, but because of his complete game. Skip appreciates Garnett's leadership but doesn't like that he can't be counted on in the clutch.

I'm not as critical of Garnett as Skip is, but I don't think Stephen A Smith is getting it. Kevin Garnett is long, athletic and skilled. He can handle the ball and shoot well for a guy his size. And, it seems like he can score whenever he wants, whether it be on the block or off the dribble with his dribble to the left then step back shot. But, it seems like Garnett is looking to pass at the end of games rather than attempt the big shot. That's why Garnett is slightly overrated as a superstar. On physical attributes and skills alone, you'd definitely take Garnett over Tim Duncan. If you're picking team's for the NBA Finals, would Garnett come off the board before Duncan? That's the aspect Smith is missing.

"Is Michael Curry the right move?" Does it matter who coaches the Pistons? Joe Dumars got rid of Rick Carlisle. Larry Brown won an NBA Championship with the Pistons then moved on to NY (that's bad). Now, Flip Saunders is gone. Most of the players have remained constant, with the exception of the substitution of Antonio McDyess for Ben Wallace. Does it matter who coaches this team? Joe Dumars screwed up by taking Darko Milicic when he had the #2 overall pick in the 2003 NBA Draft. That draft went downhill after pick #8, although David West and Boris Diaw were selected #18 and #21 and K Perkins, L Barbosa and J Howard went #27-#29. But, the only bust in the top 8 was Darko. While the Pistons didn't have a chance for LeBron, they passed up Carmelo, Chris Bosh, Dwayne Wade, Chris Kaman, TJ Ford (who has had injuries) and Kirk Hinrich. So, Dumars should shoulder some blame, although he's picked up productive players with later picks in recent years.

I don't know if Curry is the right move because I don't know if there is a right move. How long will Curry get along with the players if they don't respond to him, which seemed to be the problem with Flip? If Curry can get Rasheed to play hard and dominate - like he should - consistently and help Tayshaun Prince regain his confidence, then it will be a good move. But, brining in Curry isn't going to solve their problem that they don't have a consistent go-to scorer for end of the game situations.

Next, is it good that Terrell Owens "Gets big contract from Cowboys?" Skip is notorious for bashing TO. Stephen A went the other way in support of TO getting the contract. I'll agree with Smith, but he missed the point again. The reason it is good that TO gets the contract from the Cowboys is that his contract won't be a distraction this year. Everyone knows football contracts aren't like baseball and basketball contracts. His new contract is in-line with his current level of productivity and he seems to be behaving himself as a Cowboy. If he screws up in the future or his productivity slips, Jerry Jones can get rid of him or try to get him to take a pay reduction (yeah right). The end of the contract will, probably, coincide with his decline in ability because of his age, so it seems like it's a good deal for both sides right now.

Just one more question and it's "Who wins the NBA Finals?" Stephen A Smith took the Lakers and soon after my DVR cut off the recording, so I didn't get to hear Skip. His assertion was that Kobe is too good for the balance of the Celtics. Maybe. But, if Perkins and Garnett can keep Gasol, Odom and Co. from dominating the boards and the Celtics are able to get something out of Tony Allen and do a decent job on Kobe, they might have a shot. Plus, the Lakers don't have Lindsey Hunter to harass the back-up PG's for Boston, so that's good for the Celtics. Additionally, Lamar Odom won't have a decided athleticism advantage in this series like he did against the Spurs. And, how are the Lakers going to match up against both Pierce and Allen, who came around late in the series against Detroit. I guess the Lakers could go small with Kobe against Pierce and Vujacic on Allen. It seems like Pierce and Allen would both be bad match-ups for Vlad Radmanovich. I'm inclined to pick the Lakers, too, but I'll have a better feel for things after I see game 1 and see how the teams match-up as currently constituted - I'm not sure I saw either of the Lakers v. Celtics games this year and both of them occurred before Gasol was acquired by LA.