The Kevin Sheehan Show - Redskins Won't Use Nuclear Option On Alex Smith

Episode Date: January 29, 2019

Kevin has the following news on Alex Smith to start the show--The Redskins won't use the "nuclear" option (cutting Smith and absorbing all of the cap hit in '19) on Alex Smith. They will consider restructuring his deal to push some of Smith's cap hit out into the future. Kevin has lots more on this situation. Thom joins the show with a Washington Post beef. Kevin and Thom discuss sports gambling, Bryce Harper, and Bradley Beal/1st rounder to New Orleans for Anthony Davis. Kevin finishes up with a Maryland-Northwestern pick. <p> </p><p>Learn more about your ad choices. Visit <a href="https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices">podcastchoices.com/adchoices</a></p> Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

You want it. You need it. It's what everyone's talking about. The Kevin Sheehan Show. Now here's Kevin. All right. I am here. Aaron is here. This show's presented by Window Nation. If you're in the market for Windows, call 86690 Nation or go to Windonation.com and tell them we told you to call. Tom's on vacation again. Must be nice. But he is going to call in here shortly. I have some Alex Smith news to start the show. Yesterday on the show, I referenced and discussed. J.P. Finley's story on NBC Sports Washington about the nuclear option for Alex Smith, which would be to cut him now, take a $50 million plus cap hit in 2019, and be free and clear of his deal and all the remaining guaranteed money with respect to the salary cap starting in 2020. I was told last night from a source that the Redskins are not even remotely considering this as an option. And in fact, they are more likely to restructure Alex Smith's deal, to push or spread out the guaranteed money remaining on his deal to later years in his contract or perhaps over a longer period of time with an extended contract, which would lessen the cap hit in the next few years. It would extend a significant portion of the remaining guaranteed money out into the future where the expectation is that the NFL salary cap is going to continue to grow. and on a per team basis, they would be able to, you know, make it less painful down the road,

taking the majority of the hit down the road. Also, it was pointed out to me that there could be an opportunity that's even better down the road with a potential lockout or a new CBA in 2021. Now, we know what happened the last time there was a lockout in 2011. That led to the salary cap penalty with what the Redskins tried to do, and I still have a problem with the league penalizing the Redskins for what they did in 2011. It was not, I didn't think the right thing. I thought the Redskins were screwed in that particular year. But anyway, they are not going to use the nuclear option of cutting Alex Smith

and taking all of the remaining guaranteed money of 50 million plus and pushing it into this year's salary cap. That's not happening. Also, the possibility of a post-June 1 cut or a June 1-D designation release, where they would be allowed to take the hit over two years, 2019 and 2020. I was told that's not happening either. Now, I learned a little bit about the reasons they're not going to use the nuclear option with Alex Smith, and there are three specific reasons that were highlighted for me, spelled out for me.

The first was this. The Redskins have not given up on Alex Smith for sometime late in 2019 and or 2020. They are still holding out hope that his crew, career isn't over. Now, as Ian Rappaport reported over the weekend, they are certainly beginning to plan as if they won't have him in 2019 or certainly the majority of 2019, but they haven't ruled it out completely. Reason number two for not using the nuclear option, and listen closely to this part, because I learned a little bit with this part. I didn't know that this was out there. There is an insurance premium the team took out on Alex Smith upon the signing of his

contract last year. That insurance premium can't be collected on until it's determined in more definitive fashion by the carrier that Smith's career is indeed over, finished, because of a catastrophic injury. The insurance policy was taken out on Smith for somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 to $15 million. And believe it or not, I was told that if they were to collect on the premium down the road, and it would only happen down the road, it's not going to happen now. amount of the insurance paid out could be applied to the NFL salary cap, to the Redskins cap number. Let me repeat that part.

The NFL allows teams to take out insurance policies for catastrophic career-ending injuries to big contract players, presumably. And if they collect on them, if it's determined that, yes, the injury caused a career to end, the team can use that to offset the cap hit. associated with the player's contract. Who knew? I didn't. The third and final reason the Redskins are not going to consider the nuclear option is the one that we guessed yesterday, Aaron, and that is, they think they're close.

They think they're close. To what exactly? Who knows? Bruce Allen said it last week. They think they're close to something. So cutting Alex Smith and taking all of the pain of the dead money in 2019 or spreading it out over two years, 2019 and 2020, if they were to release him with the June 1st designation, it would require them to cut players. It would require them to release players that they may not

want to release right now. And it would essentially render them impotent in free agency. They'd have no ability to maneuver in free agency. They think they're close. They think if they keep a few pieces, add a few pieces in free agency, and they get everybody but Smith off injured reserve. They can compete. For what? You may ask. I have no idea. The playoffs, I guess, is what they're thinking. Now, back to the restructuring and spreading the guaranteed money out to lessen the pain in 2019 and 2020 in particular. That is, and was told to me that that's more of a possibility than releasing him this year or post-June 1. But Alex Smith would have to agree to it.

And there may not be any incentive for him to do so. The idea, obviously, to spread the remaining guaranteed money out or push much of the guaranteed money into later years on his deal makes sense. All right. You know, extending the deal, having to give him more money to get him to do it. I don't know that that makes sense. but if you think you're close, you want to be able to do stuff in this offseason and next off season.

And then, you know, absorb the big dead money down the road when the cap is increased or there's a lockout year or a new CBA. So there you go. It doesn't surprise me. I didn't think that that was going to be an option. Although I was thinking about this last night or yesterday after the show, Aaron before I had this phone conversation yesterday. And I would personally consider the punting on 2019 option. I think that's the best option. I actually think there's a lot that makes sense

to it. It's really hard in the NFL to do it. I mean, Cleveland has sort of done it, you know, because the games themselves are close. The talent is close. Even if they were to get rid of all of their best players, it's not like they can't win four or five games and end up with the fifth overall pick next year. But anyway, I would personally consider it. I would personally consider punting on 2019. The team is not going to do that, as I've just mentioned. But consider the following. You know, if you took the Smith Payne now, you know, all 50 plus million of it in one year, and then you had to cut a bunch of players and even potentially trade a couple of players to get under the cap. You know, you cut Norman, you cut Zach Brown, you cut Mason Foster, you

cut Vernon Davis, you know, these are all, you know, resulting in significant salary cap savings. I'm forgetting a few, but you turn loose the guys that won't be here or won't be effective when you are presumably, theoretically, ready to win. I think I'd consider trading Ryan Carrigan and Trent Williams. Yes, I would. I don't. I don't. I don't. I don't. I don't. I don't. I want to lose Williams, but I can get a ton back for him right now. And if we're realistic and we're saying we're punting on 2019 and really 2021 would be the first year we expect to be competitive, if not 2022, well, Trent Williams is going to be 33, 34 years old at that point. And you can get real value for Trent now, perhaps a first, no worse than a second. And maybe a second plus

something else. But I think Trent Williams right now is one of the top three or four left tackles in the game. You don't think Minnesota might, I mean, Minnesota could deal a first for Trent Williams. Somebody that is in dire need of offensive linemen, of left

tackles, you could get value back for him. I think you could get something back for Carrigan too. You could start Colt McCoy or Josh Johnson, you know, if you can pay him a minimum deal. Let Jay Gruden coach the team to a 3 and 13 record, get a very high pick in the 2020 draft. You'd have a ton of cap space in 2020 and beyond. You'd have two more

drafts with additional picks via the trades. And by the way, those trades are for picks that you're not going to have to pay somebody immediately any more than a rookie salary. That's a strategy. Would it work? Well, you'd have to have competent people making the moves, evaluating, identifying, procuring the talent. And then the right coaching. staff to coach up the talent that you identify and procure. That's where this and any other plan tends to fall apart when talking about this organization. But in a more normal organization with the same set of challenges, the Redskins are facing right now with their roster, punting on 2019 and taking all the pain of the Alex Smith contract

in 2019, and making all the moves to acquire picks and create space for 2020 and beyond, it's not crazy to think that way. If Alex Smith were healthy and had played well this year, proving Bruce Allen right about trading for him and giving him a huge contract extension at 34 years old, you wouldn't be in this position. I will concede that point. I don't think you'd have a great football team. I don't think you'd have a contending football team, but you wouldn't be in the position they are in now. It's the play of the quarterback first. Let's not forget that. part, okay, that Alex Smith wasn't that great before the injury. It's the play of the quarterback before he got injured, and then the injury itself that put the team in a position where they

should consider punting on 2019, bailing on 2019, but they won't. They don't see it the same way. They see themselves as unlucky the last few years. We see them as lacking in competence, lacking in vision, lacking in all of the things that make up a good organization. They just see themselves as just brutally unlucky as it's with respect to the injuries that they've had. And my feeling, and it's a strong one, is that nobody will ever convince them otherwise. No one is ever going to be able to convince Dan Snyder or Bruce Allen that they haven't been doing great things the last few years to build a winner. and they've just gotten unlucky. So that's why they still think they are close,

and they think with, you know, the player, the coach likes, Colt McCoy, the player that played pretty well at the end of the year, Josh Johnson, and with all these players coming off injured reserve, and, you know, a cap hit that you were already counting on with Alex Smith and you're not going to replace him potentially. Maybe you draft a young quarterback. I said on the end of the podcast yesterday, my bold prediction is that they won't draft a quarterback.

I just think that it's too much of it in admission at that point. And they're so stubborn that everybody's telling them that they have to draft a quarterback, which is why they probably won't. Anyway, not trying to bury the lead there at the end. The information that I had is that the Redskins are not going to consider releasing Alex Smith to take all of the pain now or even spread out over the next two years. They are going to keep him and deal with him. it accordingly.

And the only change potentially would be to restructure his deal and push some of the pain of that contract out into the future when the salary cap is expected to increase as it always does in the NFL. And there may be more opportunities with a new CBA or a lockout in 2021. Now, here's a story. Redskins related. but changing the subject to this report from Alex Marvez earlier this morning or late last night, Aaron, I'm not sure when it came out, about Kevin O'Connell. And it wasn't necessarily about Kevin O'Connell.

It was that the Redskins are interviewing Ken Zampeze for their quarterbacks coach vacancy. This was the tweet from Alex Marvez. Alex Marvez is with, he's an NFL radio host now. He used to be a writer for various websites. I think Fox Sports for a while. But here was the tweet from late last night. Source tells me Ken Zampeze has interviewed for the Redskins quarterback's coaching vacancy. Now, I thought Kevin O'Connell was still the quarterback's coach.

I didn't realize there was a vacancy, and that's what set off a reaction from Redskins. skin fans. Like, was Kevin O'Connell leaving too? Zampizi, by the way, has been in Cincinnati and coached for Jay Gruden when Jay Gruden was in Cincinnati. John Kime followed up on the Alex Marvez report this morning, and Kime tweeted out, things I know on assistant coach's search. We'll be talking to others for quarterback coach. Ken Zampizzi, Ken Zampizi was one of them per Alex Marvez. Ikeliard and Randy Jordan will be back, not sure of Kevin O'Connell's role, told might help call plays. It's not been decided. If nothing else may be more help with ideas, et cetera. And then John followed that up with a

tweet that said, don't know about Matt Kavanaugh and don't know when any changes will be announced. This is interesting from a couple of perspectives. First of all, on John's first tweet, following up on the Alex Marvez report, I'm surprised that I can, Hilliards coming back. I know I haven't mentioned that. I've mentioned there are other assistant coaches, I think, you know, in addition to Callahan and the others that are already gone that I thought would potentially move on or be asked to move on. I am surprised that I killed, Hilliard's going to be back. It just says to me that they probably couldn't find someone else. I bet they looked for somebody else. Randy Jordan is one of their better position coaches. So I am absolutely not surprised that Randy Jordan is

going to be back. Now, the Kevin O'Connell situation, I have been told by several people over the years, including Cooley, that Kevin O'Connell's bright. He's good. He's respected. Kevin O'Connell's on the rise and that the organization doesn't want to lose them. So this to me, based on that, and I don't know anything definitively, this is all just gut feel. I don't think Kevin O'Connell's moving on. I think, if anything, Kevin O'Connell's on the verge of being elevated to potentially offensive coordinator, which would mean that Matt Kavanaugh, we would be looking at potentially moving on or perhaps he gets an elevated title. Remember, Bill Callahan's an assistant head coach of the offense and offensive line coach.

I mean, could Kavanaugh get an assistant head coach of the offense and offensive coordinator title? I don't know. But I think Kevin O'Connell, my gut feel on this would be that Kevin O'Connell's going to be elevated, that he's not moving on. They don't want him to move on. And he's under contract. I believe he's under contract. I don't know that for sure. Chris Russell actually, yesterday morning before all of this came out, had a report that there was a consideration that Kevin O'Connell would be helping calling place. Okay, there you go. I should have called Chris. I love Chris. That's good. So I would not be surprised if they were looking to give Kevin O'Connell more responsibility, not move on from him.

So that's my guess on this. We'll have to see what happens with Kavanaugh. That, to me, is the more interesting piece now. Now, the Zampi-Zeezy thing, if O'Connell's being elevated and you want a quarterback's coach, Jay's familiar with Zampi, he comes in. Now, the other part of the Zampezey thing is this. He's been coaching Andy Dalton for a few years. But for those of you that tweeted me this morning and said, do you think this means that Andy Dalton's a possibility?

I do not. I do not think that Andy Dalton's a possibility. I thought Andy Dalton was a possibility last year. But you can't afford Andy Dalton. You can't afford Andy Dalton with Alex Smith's deal. You can't afford a big, a high-priced quarterback. Right now, Andy Dalton is under contract for $16 million in base salary in 2019. I just pulled that up real quickly because I was about to say $14 million, but I wanted to be sure.

It's actually more than that. It's $16 million in 2019. His cap hit for the Bengals is $16.2. The Redskins can't afford that. Let's be real. Not only that, they'd have to trade for it. him. They'd have to trade for Dalton to get Dalton here. So I don't think that there's any tie to Dalton. That's my, I think that is even a more obvious takeaway than Kevin O'Connell's not

leaving. I just don't see them trading for Dalton. I would have, I mean, we talked about this. Dalton was at the top of my list last year if they weren't going to keep Kirk. I would have dealt for him in his contract, which is affordable. You know, like, and it's, it's, it's, it's, In 2018, his cap hit was 16-3, 16-2 and 19 and 17-7 in 2020. I would have given up a second and a fourth for Andy Dalton last year. I mean, certainly a third and a fourth. Absolutely would have given that up for Andy Dalton. I don't know, you know, Andy Dalton to me is another Alex Smith.

And if you want to throw Kirk Cousins into it, go ahead. I wouldn't, but not in J's system. I think Kirk's better than both of them in J system. But it's not going to happen. I don't think there's any tie to Andy Dalton there. And I think Kevin O'Connell's not going anywhere. Those are my guesses on those two stories. The other thing Redskins related I wanted to get to,

and I didn't yesterday for a couple of reasons, but I'm going to get to it today, is that the Redskins hired a tight ends coach over the weekend, a guy with, hey, shocker, Tampa Bay background. You know, he was in Tampa at one point. And I, you know, a lot of you felt the way I did, which is why wasn't Cooley considered for that gig? And why isn't Cooley going to be our tight ends coach? I feel the same way.

What do you want me to say? I think Chris Cooley, if he gets a coaching job, if that's what he wants to do, all right? And I think that's certainly among the things that he would like to do. I think it's probably the thing he would like to do. I think he would be a fast riser in any organization, certainly an organization that would be secure enough to allow somebody like Chris to rise. You know, Chris has mentioned this a million times before. He's highly intelligent.

He's really smart when it comes to football. And he's a great, great reader of people and personalities. I think he'd be a terrific coach. I think he'd be one of those coaches that would get a time. tight ends job or a QC job and then a position job and then he'd be an offensive coordinator within four years and a head coach within six or seven. Maybe not even that long. I do think that. I can't tell you why the Redskins didn't hire Chris Cooley as their tight ends coach. I'm not even going to really speculate on whether or not they were interested in Cooley. We know that there was a

report out there that they interviewed DeAngelo Hall for a position coach. There is no report out there that they've interviewed Cooley, but they know Cooley much better than DeAngelo Hall. So, you know, an actual formal interview may not have been necessary, but I can't answer for the organization or give you an answer as to why they wouldn't. I think they whiffed. I think they totally whiffed. And I, you know, I'm not objective when it comes to this because he's my, he's a friend of mine and we worked together for a couple of years and became good friends. So I think he'd be great. I think the Redskins whiffed by not, you know, considering him, you know, for that position and hiring him for that position. But you know what? For his sake, if he, if he were to land

somewhere else as a coach, and I hope he does, if that's what he seriously wants to do, it probably would work out better for him elsewhere anyway. Anyway, some of you wanted me to address that yesterday after the show that I didn't, and I just wanted to mention it. Yeah, I think that they should have hired Cooley. I do, but I don't know why they didn't. There was another report out there real quickly, too, that Ryan Tannahill could be a target for the Redskins.

I am not opposed to Ryan Tannahill for basically, you know, you know, an incentive-laden deal. A one-year cheap deal. If it worked out that way, that there wasn't a lot of interest from the rest of the league. I actually think Tannahills' strengths fit Jay Gruden's style. There's a lot of Alex Smith and Ryan Tannahill. You know, there is a lot of, you know,

what Jay Gruden probably wanted Alex Smith to be in Ryan Tannahill. So if you told me that we got to June and there was no market for Tannahill, they couldn't trade him, they cut him, there's no free agent signing. and Tannahill was looking to catch on and compete for a starting job with Colt McCoy on a one-year incentive-laden deal, I'd say absolutely do it. I don't know why anybody wouldn't in that particular circumstance. But I don't know that that will actually, I would imagine that Tannahill has,

I would think that any starting quarterback with a modicum of success, and Tannahill at times has looked capable of being a starting quarterback in the NFL, I think he'll get a shot somewhere and get a real contract somewhere. Anyway, let me tell you about Wind Donation, and then we'll get Tommy in here. Wind Donation is among the best companies in their space. They are the best in their space with two of the best entrepreneurs that I have ever met in my life in Harley and Aaron. They listen to the podcast all the time. They've been supporters of everything I've done on radio and now big supporters of the

podcast and I'm happy I'm happy that they are because I like Wind Donation a lot. They've installed Windows in my home twice over the last 10 years and it worked out really well for me. And here's the thing. It can work out well for you too, but you don't have to take a big risk to find out if it will work for you because it's a free estimate. If you call them up at 86690 Nation or you go to Window Nation.com and you tell them that I sent you, you'll get somebody to come out to your home and give you a free estimate.

home show season is getting started and the home show savings event from window nation is on turn your home into a show place window nation wants to bring the home show savings right to your door with free windows but you must hurry this offer end sunday call them today and mention home show promo you'll get two free windows for every two you buy by four get four free there is no limit plus for a limited time only you'll get zero percent financing for 18 months for a year and a half call today get educated on the newest models and latest innovations demonstrated right in the comfort of your own home, absolutely free. You'll get factory incentives, plus once a year home show discounts from the company that has installed over 450,000 windows in more than 80,000 homes, and as mentioned, including mine. So let's get the show on the road.

Now through Sunday, get two free windows for every two you buy, plus zero percent financing. Call wind donation today. certainly by the end of the week at 86690 Nation or go to windonation.com. That's 86690 Nation or windownation.com and tell them that I sent you. All right. Let's bring in Tommy who's on vacation again in Florida with his wife. And I hope you're having a nice relaxing time. And I'm glad you found it in you to give me a few minutes today on the podcast. How many vacations have you taken just over the last couple of months?

curious because I was trying to do the math in my head. You've been away at least twice, if not three times. And I'm not talking about for the tragic death of a friend of yours, the sister of a friend of yours. I'm talking about real vacation time. Listen, every day for me is a vacation, buddy. Every day is a holiday for Tommy Lavera. Every day that you're breathing and walking is a great day, right? That's right. You've taken a few vacations, though. I'm just pointing. pointing that out. Yeah, I know that. Okay. I get that. Are you enjoying this one? Yeah, it's pretty good so far. It spent, you know, three days in New Orleans. Right. And I tell, you know what, it's changed. I mean, it's not the same city in a lot of ways. Well, when was the last time you were

there? Well, you know, it's funny, because the last time I was there was 2012 for the Super Bowl. Yeah, I remember that one. But I was drunk most of it. time. So I didn't particularly notice how it changed post-Katrina. Like Bourbon Street, it's not even close to what it used to be. I mean, it used to be filled with great music clubs and stuff, and now it's basically a boardwalk. It is a boardwalk. I was down there a year ago or two years ago for two days, and it's definitely different. It's different in sort of the geography, too, to a certain degree. but it's still, it's still New Orleans. Yeah, look, there's lots of great, we went to a couple great music clubs.

One real old school music club saw this great band called the Soul Rebels, and we had some great meals in restaurants, although that's not, that's not as important to me as it was to my wife. but it was just, it's not the same city post-Katrina. I mean, there's still a lot of greatness in it, but it wasn't the same as my half a dozen other visits. And like I said, in 2012, I didn't notice. Did you stay in the French quarter? Yeah. Well, we stayed about two blocks off Canal Street. Got it.

Right near Decatur. Got it. You know, we hung out at Jackson. Square, walked along the Mississippi, went through the Garden District, did a lot of walking, road street cars. It was fun.

It's still a great city. And I'll tell you what else I noticed. There are three days. Not one hat, not one T-shirt, not one sign, not one evidence of existence that an NBA franchise is in that town. nothing. Well, maybe that's why Anthony Davis wants out.

Yes. It wouldn't surprise me because there was, I mean, you know, like in a souvenir shop, you see a Pelicans T-shirt or something? Nope. Nothing. Nowhere. Well, I mean, it's always been, it's a Saints town. It's an LSU football town. Those are the two things that matter to people who are from New Orleans, from any parish, as they say down there in New Orleans, is the Saints and LSU football. Those are the two things that matter. You're right, but to be totally invisible,

I mean, not to even see a billboard? Yeah. I saw more billboards complaining about the referee and the NFC championship game. Of course you did. Of course you did. All right, well, look, I wanted to start with you explaining, to me if you want to do this. We didn't talk about whether or not you wanted to do this.

Oh, I want to do it. Okay, so I, you, you sent me your column, and then I saw and retweeted a tweet about a story in the post that didn't give you credit for something. So this is becoming an epidemic on the Kevin Sheehan Show podcast, but I want you to walk me through it, please. Okay, this is a bit complicated, but I'm fine with my, position on this. I wrote a column two weeks ago. The first time it appeared anywhere about former Washington Nationals pitcher Micah Bowie, who's basically dying from a surgery that got botched,

a surgery related to injuries he suffered playing baseball, that damaged his lungs severely, and basically he is, his life is very precarious right now. And I wrote that column. And that's the first time it appeared anywhere in any publication. What, that he was ill? That he was ill, that he was dying, and that the union, the players union, who could help him, had turned down his request for disability. So I wrote that column and got a lot of response, tremendous amounts of response. So a week later, I woke up, and I've got all these emails and messages on Twitter from people saying,

the post just ripped you off. I mean, a bunch of them. You know, the post just ripped. So I went and looked and I saw the post had a big story about Mike Abouy. That was basically my story. Now, they went out to Colorado where he was seeing. doctors and interviewed him and took pictures of him and turned it into a big spread. But again, I found this out from other people who said that they basically ran your story.

They wrote the story that you did and didn't give you credit. So I raised a couple of questions to post sports on social media about it. meanwhile the overwhelming amount of people weighing in to post sports saying yeah this is a good story it was a good story when Tom Leverro wrote it the week earlier so the next day I tweeted out

when there was still no response no acknowledgement nothing as to what they did here I tweeted out how did the post find out about this story I said I guess ethics die in darkness too, you know, because they're saying is democracy dies in darkness. And I finally got a response from a couple of guys I know who worked there privately who told me

that they had been working on that story for a long time as well. And, you know, they were disappointed when they saw my column, but they didn't feel the need to acknowledge that it was published someplace else first, which I thought was arrogant and questionable ethics. Now, so I responded back to these guys. I said, I'm fine with what I did because they said, you're basically accusing Shining of, you know, ripping off your story. Wait, who wrote, Dave Shinen wrote the story. Dave Seinen wrote the story. Look, he's a friend of mine. I like him. And my point was, you know, let's hear what Post-Sport has to say because there's a lot that goes into a decision like that other than just the

reporter. There's invisible editors involved like I've told you about. And there's still never been any response about that. And their position is, well, it's not necessarily a breaking news story. No, it's not. But if it was obvious to so many people that you've got to at least mention some credit that this first appeared in the Washington Times, then you've made a mistake.

You've hurt your perception, and you come across as arrogant when you do that. And that's not good for our business. The question that I was going to ask you, you just answered, and that is, was your, I wanted to know the significance or the importance of making a distinction between a column and breaking news. You know, like your column, your column revealed news, but you weren't breaking news.

It wasn't breaking, it wasn't an event, it wasn't a transaction, it wasn't something like that. But it was the first time anyone read about a former Washington national player who's dying. But if you had been working on the same story and it came out in the post two days before your column was ready to go, would you have credited, what would you, how would you? would you have handled it? I would have said first appeared in the Washington Post. I absolutely would have credit. Look, in my column, I don't know how the post found out per se about Michael Bowie. I'm assuming they probably found out the same way I did from an author, a book author, who has taken up the cause of a group of players who he believes are getting screwed over by the players union for benefits. So he sent an email out to

who I'm assuming he probably sent the same email to the post a while back about Micah Booey's situation. That's how I found out about it. You know what? In my column, I give him credit. I give him credit that author for saying, this is how I first found out about Micah Booey's plight. So in my column, I give the guy credit who told me about him. Got it. Okay.

They didn't even do that. Well, I mean, they can debate it all they want. But all I know is that they were overwhelmed with responses from people who said, how can you not give the Times credit for publishing this same story a week earlier? I hear you. And I tell you why they don't. And you know why they don't do it, Kevin? Why?

Because if you do that, then it eliminates it as a contest entry. You can't enter it. And no one's going to give an award to a story that is reporting that basically says, you know, was first reported someplace else. Is Shining Story award worthy? Well, I don't, I'm sure they'll submit it. I'd be surprised if you wouldn't submit. How many stories do you submit a year?

Well, again, the paper submits them. Okay. You know, it's not even the reporter. It's the paper. It's a big thing for the editors. It's a big thing for the paper. So the paper submits entries for contests. And again, you put in there, you know, somebody else wrote about this first, you can't submit it for a contest entry.

So that's one of the reasons why they don't like doing it. But as you know, they don't like doing it generally. Yeah, I mean, you know what my, obviously you know what my personal experience is. Everything you said to me makes total sense. The one thing, and as you're going through this, obviously I'm thinking about my own experience. here recently. And my own experience recently was they did not credit me at all for the Josh Norman story that I had after the Saints game.

And as you know, I didn't make a big stink out of that because I just assumed, hell, it's a podcast. They didn't know that I had it. I didn't believe that they didn't know, but they certainly had plausible deniability. And so it was much different two weeks ago with the Bruce Allen thing because they called me before their story went out and acknowledged to me that they knew I had the story first and then didn't put credit me in their story. That to me was the one that really, you know this, we had this conversation. I don't know if we did it on the air. I did it on the air. I don't know if I did it

with you. I can't remember now. But that's the thing that threw me for a loop because I thought that that was unbelievably arrogant. And it was almost as if they were saying, you're a chump. We don't need to credit you. You know, and you know what that does to me. So, oh, yeah. And I told him, I told, I told, I told the reporter, Les Carpenter, I said, you shouldn't have called me. If you hadn't called me, I wouldn't have made any big deal about it. But since you've now acknowledged this, if it's not in there, I'm going to rip you because you'll deserve it. And he blamed it on his editors. And then you said, you tried to back me off the ledge, and you said, oh, these editors do it all the time. And I said, Well, that doesn't make it any better.

No, it doesn't make it any better. This is why, you know, this is why I don't, I don't, look, they all may feel that they're in the right, and that's fine. I just know that perception-wise, and in this business right now, without credibility so low, perception's important. It looked like they were basically, you know, giving me the high hat, as you might say, in Miller's Crossing. and again, you know, they may not have, they didn't find out about it from my column, but I reported, I mean, it was such an obvious, an obvious situation. I mean, it reeked, it called for acknowledgement that the story had just appeared a week earlier in whether they think so or not a competing paper in town. But look, the Post has always had an attitude, as long as I can remember that it's not news until it's in the Washington Post. All right.

Okay. I'm supportive of you. I think the case you made, it makes me believe that they should have acknowledged that this was first reported in your paper by you. I totally understand it. Their reaction, they couldn't have the same reaction to me. because it was breaking news, and they acknowledged that they knew that I broke the news. So they had to make it right, and by making it right, they put a one-liner at the end of their story, where, you know, no one gets to the end of the story anyway, so it really doesn't matter.

So that was awesome. But anyway, switching subjects. You, your column over the weekend was about the NFL gambling boom. And Arch Schlees, you know, the former Ohio State quarterback who had a massive problem, Arch Schleicester, many, many years ago. God, he was the first poster boy for, well, maybe Paul Horning was. Because Paul Horning was actually suspended. And Alex Carris.

And Alex Carris and Alex Carris in 63. Yeah. Right. But then Schleister was a, first of all, he was an extraordinary talent at quarterback at Ohio State. And, you know, those were the great Woody Hayes teams. And, you know, when he finished at Ohio State, he was still a big name, and he was trying to make his way in the NFL and other leagues and had a major, major gambling problem. And, you know, this is something that I mentioned yesterday on the show, Tommy, is that I, I'm not ready to make a massive deal out of this because I think that there's a lot of naivete and no one's doing this intentionally. I do feel that way.

So I'll rip Ted Leonis and his son, Zach, for basically promoting gambling, like pushing gambling like they're dope pushers, which it comes off to me as, because I know what will happen to people who bet. You know, I know they're not going to win in the long term. But I think it's more their naivete. They don't really, you know, they actually probably believe that, you know, if you crunch numbers long enough, you can take. the house down, like it's cards, like it's counting cards, which it isn't. Sports

betting is the opposite of counting cards. But anyway, tell everybody what you wrote about. Well, look, I've noticed for the past couple years, and it's really remarkable that radio wrote at the Super Bowl, a lot of it consists of players with damaged limbs, players suffering from, you know, early signs of dementia, players basically being interviewed on the radio at the NFL's biggest week-long media event about how the game has damaged them. I mean, you hear one after another of these players.

Now, maybe they're working for a pharmaceutical company or an orthopedic manufacturer or a nonprofit. And I've compared it to the tobacco industry parading cancer patients at a convention. It's a very strange dynamic. Right. And anyway, it speaks to the power of the NFL that they can just do this and let this happen. And nobody really noticed it.

Right. Yes. So, I mean, I said you're going to have a new line of victims soon to be added to this as legalized sports betting grows. And that's gambling victims. whether they're players or non-players. You're going to start seeing interviews in a couple years from people whose lives have been destroyed by sports betting, legalized sports betting. And look, I'm in favor of it.

I think the majority of people, significant majority of people, can handle it without it destroying their lives. But there's always going to be a price to pay among a small group of people. And I think that group is going to get bigger with legalized sports betting. That's all I'm pointing out. And I went back to, you know, Arch Schleister as, like you said, the poster boy for this.

He gets out of prison after serving a 10-year sentence for fraud. In two years, his lawyers are claiming he's got dementia as well. So, I mean, I mean, if he can walk and talk, he'll be on Press Row in 2021. Because he is everything, the whole enchilada, the brain damage and the brain damage and the gambling. I watched a movie over the weekend that I was told that I would love for, I don't know, a year now, and I never got around to watching it. Did you ever see Molly's game? No, I haven't, but I wanted to see it. It is great. Now, I don't know if everybody would enjoy it the way I did, and I think the way you would, but it is, first of all, Jessica Chastain, I mean, come on. I mean, good God. She's just,

She's perfect in every way imaginable, but she was awesome in this. It's a true story, you know, about this skier. Molly Bloom was Jeremy Bloom's sister. Jeremy Bloom was an Olympic skier and actually played in the NFL briefly with the Philadelphia Eagles. And his sister, older sister, was a competitive skier as well, had a career-ending injury, skiing accident, started to go to work for somebody in L.A. and ended up basically running high-stakes poker games in L.A. with like major movie stars and athletes and, you know, big-name people. And it turned into a phenomenal business because they tipped her and they tipped her big. And she was

making thousands of dollars a night managing this game. And to make a long story short, She lost the game and ended up going to New York and running a similar game. But then in that particular game, she started to take a rake. She took a Vig, you know, a fee, rather than just tips. And that made it illegal. And she didn't go to jail. The judge basically threw the thing out and gave her community service. But it's a phenomenal story of what she went through.

It includes, by the way, the Italian mob in New York and New Jersey. She had a gun put into her mouth in her apartment. She was beaten to a pulp by a mob figure. And it's just a great story, but I'm getting to why I just thought of this, and that is that a lot of the players, big name players, that she never revealed in her book, by the way, this was one of the things that she stood on the ground of, I'm not going to ruin other people's lives and name names.

But, you know, several, you know, of these people, you know, they had major gambling problems. And they lost more money than they could afford to lose regardless of how wealthy they were. Some of these games, you know, were played with millions of dollars at stake for a specific, you know, a specific hand. And one particular guy basically lost his hedge fund. Another guy basically put a gun in his mouth and killed himself. And this is the real side of sports gambling. Gambling in general, it's a disease. People have, gambling is an addiction, and people that can't handle it.

To your point, there are going to be three, four, five years from now, maybe not on Radio Row at the Super Bowl, but there's going to be book after book, story after story told about how the legalization of sports betting ruin my life. Yeah, it will. Look, again, I don't think, I mean, I'm in favor of legalized sports betting. I think, you know, the people who can handle it shouldn't be, I guess, you know, restricted from doing it because of the small segment that can't. But that small segment is going to get a little bit bigger over the next couple of years as it's easier and more publicized to legally bet sports. look if you don't go overboard you know and you stay medium as jim zorn said you can do a lot of things that aren't

great for your health you know if if you if you keep it medium um and to to your point this is another thing that most people will be fine with it as most people who have been doing it illegally have been fine with it but i have personal stories of good friends of mine um i mean i mean I'll tell you one right now. This is, you know, I don't think he listens to this podcast anymore, and I won't mention him by name. He'll know that I'm talking about him, but I haven't talked to him in years. But one of my really good friends freshman year at Maryland, he became a really good friend of mine. He was from a big northeast city, not this area.

And we became really good friends. And he was a massive sports fan. And really, it was my freshman year in college. where I got into betting. I mean, it was huge at Maryland, Tommy. You know, any big, any big university, you know, especially with, you know, Northeasterners involved with a lot of Jersey guys involved. Gambling ends up being a big part of, you know, if you're a sports fan and you're into that, it's, you know, it's available. And he and I were, I mean, we were, we got hooked early.

And I, you know, I always have felt that I've been able to handle it. I'm sure I'm one bad. you know, season away from losing it completely. And I'm always trying to keep a governor on, on it. And it's never gotten out of control. It did when I was younger. You know, there were, there were, there were moments when I was younger that I would love to have back and have some of that money back. But, you know, once I got married and started to have kids, it was done in a much more responsible way. But anyway, we got into our book for, you know, we were freshmen in college for a couple of thousand dollars which was you know an extraordinary amount of money you know we're betting on credit guys taking it from us we're acting like yeah no problem we got it and it was a

it was a it was a long basketball weekend i'll never forget it probably in late february march time frame and we were down to one day of being able to you know to play to try to get back to even And in fact, there was a great line in Molly's game where Jessica Chastain says, you know, one of her clients, one of her betters said, I just need another, you know, I just need another half million to try to get back to even. And the line, the line I'm going to paraphrase it, but because I don't remember it specifically, but it was those should be the words printed in every obit for, you know, a gambling addict is just give me another, you know, just give me a little bit more credit. it so I can get back to even because you're always trying to chase to get back to even. Well, that's why the Super Bowl is the worst because it's your last chance to chase your loss for football season. For football season, but most betters, serious bettors are betting college basketball all week long,

and the Super Bowl is nothing. You know, the Super Bowl is really a betting event for your average better, you know, your occasional better, not your addicted better. But anyway, to make a long story short, my friend and I, we got into it deep. And, you know, the calls were being made about you've got deadlines. And if we don't hear from you, you're going to be heard from us. And we, you know, because back then, Tommy, it was about you got muscled. I mean, there was legitimate muscle.

And I also, I mean, I've got another situation where I was actually offered to drive a car to St. Louis to a race. my gambling debt in college and I chose not to do that, which was probably a good choice. But anyway, I came up with half the money and my buddy disappeared. Freshman year in college. Actually, at that point, we were probably, yeah, it was freshman year, I think. He disappeared. And when I say disappeared, nowhere to be found. Gone from College Park. Checked out of classes, didn't come back. I did, I paid off his debt. I was able to, you know, borrow money and pay off his debt, paid the whole thing. And I didn't hear from him for nine years. Swear to God. Oh my God. I, I had reached out to, you know, his family. They didn't take my calls.

You know, he had clearly said if this guy calls, you know, because he, there was an embarrassment factor. And he called me out of the blue, like nine years later. I think it was nine years. It may have been like seven or eight somewhere in that neighborhood. And I'll never forget the call. It just started with, I'm sorry. It was him. He had gotten his life together.

He had gone back to school, you know, at a community college and then graduated from some other place. And he had his life, you know, back together. And he said, I, you know, we were young and stupid. And I, you know, it broke me. it broke me and I said to him, I go, dude, you were, you, you were one of my best friends. I, we would have figured it out. Like, you didn't take my calls, you know, and I wrote, and back then you would write letters, you know, I mean, I wrote a letter or two, like, don't worry about it. I just want to make sure you're okay, you know, I've, I've cleared it up.

It's not a big deal. If it takes you 10 years to pay me back, so be it. And, you know, and that, that's a God's honest, true story. And, It's interesting because it was not a long conversation, and it did not result, by the way, in him paying me back, which was interesting. But that's beside the point. There was an apology there, and we haven't spoken to him since that day. There was too much embarrassment and too much shame, I guess. And on that call, I said the same thing I had said seven, eight years earlier. know, life's too short. I mean, it's only, it's only money, you know, and really, when it came

down to it, you know, you realized eight, seven, eight, nine years later, it wasn't even a lot of money, but it was for us in the moment, you know, with, you know, and I was one of those people, I always had a job, you know, even in college, I always worked, I waited tables and, and did all that, and I always had a job, but, but, um, yeah, that was, uh, and I, still, and that, that's now 20-something years ago when he made that call. So I've never heard from him since. Have no idea. We had mutual friends, obviously, and they all lost touch with him, too.

But that's what gambling can do, boys and girls. Yes, it can. You know, that's what it can do. Be aware. Yes. And I think, you know, those stories are only going to, you're going to hear more of those stories in the next four or five years. Right, which is why, ultimately, to me, it just, with people who should know

better like owners of teams. It's just to those of us that know people who have suffered, know that you cannot win, that ultimately if you continue to wager and bet, you will lose. Almost

definitely you will lose. That's why it's so off-putting for me here. It pushed by, you know, a team owner. Like, hey, this is now all of the geek's opportunities to take the house down. No, actually, what the house can't wait for is for the geeks to bet.

They cannot wait for that. They will stand in line and fight each other to get that business. But anyway. Listen, I always had the idea. There's part of me that thinks that you shouldn't be allowed to advertise the lottery. You should be able to have the lottery. But to have commercial advertising to promote the lottery, I mean, it's basically you're trying to entice people to gamble.

That's what you're trying to do. Yes, that's true. I mean, people are addicted to games like, you know, they're addicted to lottery. They're addicted to slots, you know. They're addicted to the absolute 100% games of chance, where there is absolutely no introduction of any skill into it. Did you see 60 minutes on Sunday night? Just as an aside, you probably didn't on vacation, I'm assuming. No, I didn't.

So there was this story, some of you may have seen. And, you know, senior citizens usually watch 60. I know they did. That's probably the biggest part of their audience. But there was a really good story on this couple from Michigan. They're in their 70s now. They beat the lottery. They beat a specific game for seven years.

And the game was called a windfall game where it wasn't your typical lottery where, you know, the prize escalates. and it stays at a fixed number. The windfall games in Michigan, and they also had them in Massachusetts for a stretch in the early to late 2000s, where if the top prize wasn't won, it would filter down.

It would fall down into the other categories. So matching four numbers, matching three numbers, et cetera, would increase in value. And once that happened, the probability had changed. The odds had changed. changed in favor of the player that played enough, you know, if you played enough from an investment standpoint, you were guaranteed a payout. The story of it's fascinating, this older couple from a town

of 1,000 in Michigan, this guy was a mathematical whiz, and as he said, it wasn't even difficult math. It was, for the most part, basic odds and statistics, you know, mathematical probability stuff. It wasn't really difficult. This wasn't calculus seven, you know? And so he and his wife made $26 million beating this game in

Michigan and then in Massachusetts over a seven or eight year period. And only one other group had figured out the loophole in this game and was beating it to the same tune and that was a group of kids out of MIT.

Wow. Some undergrad at MIT figured out that this windfall game were the top prize value, if it doesn't, if it's not hit after a certain period of time, it funnels down. It gets spread out over the other, you know, match. You know, there's a match six, a match five, match four, match three on the lottery numbers. And they figured it out as well. And then Massachusetts, Michigan had shut it down after they figured it out and then Massachusetts shut it down as well. But it was totally legal what they were doing. But they were investing when this falldown happened of the dollars,

they would invest a half million to a million dollars in each one of those games and make a couple hundred thousand dollars per pop. It's crazy. It's a great story at 60 minutes. I'll have to go back and watch it. That took a lot of guts when you think about the first couple of times they did it. I'll bet you they were nervous. Well, he did it himself the first couple of times.

And the 60 Minutes guy that did the story, to be honest with you, He's not a regular, so I don't really, I didn't, I don't know who he is. But he asked him, he said, when did you tell your wife? And he said, after the first two, when I realized it would work. But this guy, you would love him. I mean, just total Midwestern, no personality, but he was awesome. Just to listen to him, just explain everything and talk about it as if it were no big deal at all. He raised a bunch of money from people in town locally.

He said, I'm going to help you guys make big money. is a lock. And apparently a lot of people thought he was nuts, but, you know, the people that invested in it, they made a ton of money as well. Actually, 60 Minutes had that story, and then they had the story of Howard Schultz and his potential presidential run as an independent in 2020. I don't know if you've been following that story at all. But the Democrats don't want him to run as an independent because it'll almost guarantee re-election for Trump if he runs as an independent. Yeah. Yes, I've been following that story.

What do you think of him, Schultz? What do I think of him? He's a Brooklyn guy. He's you. I think he makes a hell of a cup of coffee. I think he got it. Basically, look, he couldn't even, he couldn't run a basketball team. They wound up moving to Oklahoma City. All right. What else do you want to talk about? Because we really got sidetracked here today.

I wanted you to tell your story, but then we got so. Oh, Bryce Harper. What about these stories, and I don't know how much credibility any of these stories or rumors have about Philadelphia. But Aaron indicated to me before we called you that the odds on Philadelphia winning the World Series are shortening here, presumably on the expectation that they're on the verge of signing Bryce Harper. Yeah, well, apparently there was a Twitter account that was a phony Twitter account that kept feeding this notion. that Harper was close to signing with the Phillies, and Twitter just suspended that account because it was a phony account.

So we don't know how much that momentum has fueled the Bryce Harper speculation. So it's really, I mean, again, he could make a decision, have a decision announced by the time this podcast comes out. For all we know, there's just anticipation that something's going to happen today, but I don't know how real that is based on the phony Twitter account that fueled a lot of the interests in the first place. Again, common sense says to me that it's not going to be significantly more of an amount than what the nationals initially offered, Bryce, the $300 million offer. I don't think it's going to be a whole lot more. And if it's not, I just don't see how the nationals can't turn around and say, okay, we'll give you that.

stay home. I think the story of this whole thing with Harper and Machado has become, and maybe I am missing something or I wasn't following it closely enough. But to me, as a casual observer of baseball free agency, it is shocking that Harper and Machado haven't been signed yet. it is shocking about the numbers that are now being talked about. It's almost as if they completely overplayed their hand, and the market for them wasn't anywhere near what either one of them or their agents thought it would be. I mean, am I that far off? No, I think there's a lot of truth in that.

Look, we haven't had a free agent like Bryce Harper since A-Rod when he signed with the Texas Rangers years ago for $250 million, which was far more than anyone had ever signed with before. So a lot of people, including myself, thought we were watching another A-Rod situation. Somebody who would basically, you know, shoot the market, you know, just basically blow the market apart. But since then, we, and particularly in the last couple of years, this whole idea of payroll management has really become, in vogue with a lot of the front office in terms of, and particularly the geeks, you know, the numbers guys who basically, you know, don't get into the star power factor and really are not enamored with the star power of Bryce Harper and are only interested in putting together

a roster that they think gives them the best chance to win at the lowest cost. I mean, free agency used to dominate roster building. Now it's player development with low-cost free agents to supplement it. Now, the nationals signed, you know, right now, the nationals have signed the biggest free agent of the offseason in Corbyn, the pitcher. Nobody's got more money than him, and that was a good deal. But I think you're right. I think a lot of people thought that there'd be a much bigger market.

And it also speaks to the players' unions dissatisfaction, whether right or wrong, with the lack of money that's out there for a lot of their free agents. There's a lot of players still not signed out there just like last year, and it speaks to the trend of front office management. This is, again, this is why you're not going to have five months. million-dollar managers anymore because, you know, the numbers crunchers in the front office think they have the answer to everything. The thing that's missing, though, on this, I'll take Harper as an example, but I think it

applies to Machado as well, is that if there were an interested market of multiple teams, more than one team, it would have been done by now. I just, like, it's only logical to assume that if there were more than one team, or let's say certainly two or more teams that were interested in these players, somebody would have stepped to the plate and said, I'm not going to lose them. I want them that bad. And I think what this speaks to the time that's continuing to elapse here before assigning is that nobody's dying for either one of these guys. If somebody's, if somebody's, were truly dying for Bryce Harper or Manning Machado, a deal would have been done by now. You're right. You're right. You're right. Because I said at some point, somebody's going to say, we've got to have Bryce Harper and basically blow them away with an offer. And that doesn't seem to have happened. Right, because, I mean, unless Harper and Machado are just sitting back saying, we'll wait this thing out too to get our number, and we're okay if we don't get it because

we'll go sign a one-year deal and play somewhere else. I don't know. Maybe that's in play too, but especially Harper, because I can't speak to Machado as much. We thought this was going to be one of the biggest free agency chases of all time. And it's not been at all. It's been the opposite of that. And it's surprising to me, because there's got to be a lot of thought put into this that it's not just the money, it's the player. Like he's not a guaranteed, transcendent, contending, you know, plug them in and we're an immediate contender to win it all. They must not feel that way.

No one must feel that way. There's more questions about Machado because of his attitude than Bryce Harper. But look, Bryce Harper has not carried the nationals in their biggest moments in this postseason. His numbers in the postseason are pedestrian to poor. Well, they're better than most of his teammates, though, in the postseason. Well, I don't know if they are or not. I'd have to look at them. I'd have to look at it, too, but my memory is the San Francisco series.

I know that. But his batting average over the postseason play is like 223. That's all it is. In the postseason is 223? Yes, something like that. Have Aaron look it up. Have Aaron look it up. Tommy just give you a job.

It's something in that neighborhood. It just seems to me that whether it was the first year against the Cardinals or the Giants, that some of the bigger moments and the bigger at bats and the bigger delivery of clutch hits were Harper's. You're not wrong about the Giants. He was actually very good in the Giants series. He was. But 2-11, but 211 overall. What was he in the Cardinal series?

He had a couple home runs in that series, didn't he? Just one home run. He hit 1-30. He hit 1-30. And what did he hit in the Giant series? 294. With three home runs. Did anybody come close to him on his team of delivering like that against the Giants?

You'd have to look through every. You'd have to look. No, nobody did because they only scored nine runs. Like I've told you a thousand times. They scored nine runs in four games. The same amount of runs, the Giants scored. And you blame the series loss on pitching, if I recall. Redd don't actually hit well in that giant series as well.

But yes, Price Harper was far and away. He has not been. He hasn't been the guy who put the team on his shoulder in big moment. Nobody did. Did Jason Worth have a better? Was his statistics better postseason than Harper's over those same playoffs? They're going to have the Philly postseason stats as well in there. No, I'm talking about for the Cardinals, the Giants and the Cubs.

Giants, he was bad. I have the Giants up right now. He only got one hit in that whole giant series. Let me pull up. I had some big hits, obviously, in the St. Louis series. And in the Dodgers series, I think he had some big hits. All right. Postseason batting for, oh, they don't divide it by team.

Yeah, they don't divide it by team. He had 238 in the St. Louis series, 059 in the Giants series. He did hit 389 in the Dodgers series. Yeah, the Dodgers series was his. then 167. So he had the walk-off in game four against the Cardinals, and he had a big series against L.A. Yes.

Yeah. So that's all. I mean, I understand the questions about Bryce Harper. And now once this passes, everybody will be curious to see what happens if and when Mike Trout becomes a free agent, if that happens, because there's no questions about Mike Trout. He hasn't had a postseason opportunity. playing for the Angels, so we don't really know. But he is a level above Harper and Machado,

if there is a level above those two. I mean, you know, Mike Trout's undeniably the best player in baseball and has been for the last few years. Right. I don't have a sense of that. You would have a better sense, but based on just the, you know, a quick, you know, gut feel, the market for him is going to be much more intense. Right? I think most people believe he's a better player than either one of those two. It's just interesting. It's interesting that we're sitting here on January 29th, and Bryce Harper doesn't have a home. And if he ends up in Philadelphia, I love the Nats.

You know, I'm a big Harper fan. He's one of the reasons I got into it a lot over the last several years. I don't want to see him in Philadelphia. I prefer him to go to Los Angeles. But I'm not going to be, you know, do you think our, how will the fans react to him in Philadelphia when he comes back here, which he will, you know, nine times a year? 10 times a year, whatever it is. I think, you know, I don't know. I mean, because it's not, look, it, while it may be a fan base that has turned out to watch the team, it's not a particularly loyal or passionate fan base.

So I don't know if they'll get, you know, I don't know how angry they'll get. I think initially he'll probably get like the first time a warm reception. Then over the years, I think, you know, he may get lambasted by some of these fans. But again, it's not the Philly fan base. So any reaction is not going to be the same as it is in Philly one way or the other. So I just, I don't know what to read from the fan base. You said it yourself. It's not very passionate one way or the other.

I mean, they show up, but that's about it. All right. The last thing before I let you run, would you trade a first rounder and Bradley Beal to New Orleans for Anthony Davis? Absolutely. In a heartbeat. I would in a heartbeat. A heartbeat. In a heartbeat.

We're talking about one of the top five players in basketball who is going to be going into his prime years and may wind up being the best player in all of. basketball. Now that said, I wouldn't do any of that if that idiot was the general manager because he'd surround him with basically bums, gypsies, tramps and thieves, as Cher would say. Share would say, God, you're a big share fan, huh? And basically Anthony Davis's career would basically end like most careers do when they come to the wizards. Bradley Beale, according to CBS Sports.com, is not going to be. included in any trade that the Wizards make before the trade deadline. But Otto Porter apparently is still being considered as a potential trade piece before the trade deadline. Look, Anthony Davis

isn't going to sign a long-term deal here, more likely than not. So you can't trade for him. What are you trading for him for? For the rest of this year? Stupid. So that's not going to happen. He's going to end up in L.A. I talked about this a little bit yesterday, Tommy. There was a report from Brian Windhorst that the Knicks would be a place that Anthony Davis would sign long term with. I don't know why he would do that. But he's going to end up in L.A. That's where he wants to end up. That's where LeBron wants him to end up.

That's where their agent, their shared agent wants him to end up. New Orleans will get a boatload for it, and then we're going to spend all of April and May talking about whether or not the Lakers can get to the Western Conference finals and how they'll do against Golden State. and I would still say that Golden State would win that series in less than seven games, in five or six games, if that were to be the Western Conference Finals. And I'm not even sure that it would be necessarily. But they'd have a chance, they'd have a pretty good chance to get to the Western Conference Finals with Anthony Davis on that team.

Yeah, I would agree. And I've got to say, the thinking on Bradley Field, maybe it's because of John Wall being out. But earlier in the season, I had pretty good information that the plan was, was to move Kelly Ubre as soon as they could and then to move Bradley Beal at the trading deadline. That obviously has changed. Yeah, well, he's having a hell of a year right now, and they're actually playing much better. I mean, they're not a good team, but they're a potential playoff team in the East. But anyway, nobody's interested in that.

What else you got for me? Anything? I got nothing else, buddy. All right, so we'll talk Super Bowl on Thursday. That sounds like a good idea. When's that? When is that? Two days from now.

Are you going to still be in Florida? When do you come back? I come back Thursday night. Okay. So we can talk Thursday morning. Okay. And we'll do our Super Bowl picks then. Or you'll do yours then and I'll save mine for Friday.

All right. Have a good trip. All right. Thanks. Tommy, everybody, calling in from Destin, Florida. Beautiful Florida after spending a few days in New Orleans. The Kevin Sheehan Show podcast is presented by Wind Donation. tell people about it.

Also, if you're on iTunes or Apple Podcasts or any other platform that you might be using to listen to the podcast, subscribe. It's free to do it. It's better for us if you subscribe. Also, rate it and review it. If you've got time to do that, that helps us as well. We've been ranked really high

on the iTunes list for sports podcasts at various times, and what drives that typically is the way you rate it and review it and subscribe to it. So again, there's no cost to it. don't have to give up any information to do it. But if you have, you know, two minutes to do that at some point during the week, that really helps us. Subscribing just means you're going to have it pushed to you every day.

You're not going to have to go to iTunes or to your podcast icon to search for it and find it. It'll be there for you. And it's not taking up any room of significance. So that would help us if you could do that. I want to mention real quickly, launch workplaces in Bethesda. If you live in the Bethesda Chevy Chase Upper Northwest D.C. area and you don't want a long commute and it's too hard to get work done from home. Check out the new launch workplaces in Bethesda. That's where I've moved into and they've got flexible and affordable private office solutions so you can get work done.

It's a beautiful new space, fully furnished offices, conference rooms, co-working desks, high-speed internet, complimentary drinks, a cafe, free parking. There's nothing better than free parking and 24-7 access. more work done today by moving your office to launch workplaces. Call today for an exclusive free two-day trial. 240-86714 or launchworkplaces.com today. That's 240-86714 or launchworkplaces.com. Tell them that I told you to call and you'll get a two-free day trial if you want one. A few more things before we finish up today.

Maryland plays tonight. A lot of you followed up with me on my... discussion yesterday about what's most frustrating right now with this Maryland team for me anyway and it's just that I think they should be playing faster. I think the walk it up the court, you know, the rebound by Bruno, he seems to grab every rebound that's available and then handing it to Cowan and walking the ball up the court is just not what I would like to see, how I'd like to see him play. And they don't always play that way, but it's, you know, it's been much more of a grinded up team than I, a grind it out team, walk it up team, slow it down team,

than I would prefer. I think they've got the ability to play fast with their talent in depth. I think they've got the ability to press people with their talent in depth. A guy like Morsell and Sorrell Smith, some of that length, you know, defensively to pressure some of these teams, I think would help. I think they'd crush some people worse than they have. But, you know, they know their team much better. And their half-court offense has been much better and more consistent this year than it has in recent years because Bruno is such a good, you know, offense starter, whether it's at the high post or, you know, at the elbow or if it's in the low post, you know, they run decent half-court offense. I just think against lesser teams in particular,

and they are playing one tonight in Northwestern. Northwestern does not have Maryland's talent, nor does it have Maryland's depth. They are playing better. They're not a terrible team, and Illinois wasn't a terrible team. This is a team Northwestern that beat Indiana last week. They have, I think they've won two out of their last three Big Ten games. They really weren't close to Wisconsin on the road over the weekend. But this is a team that, you know, I think Maryland should win,

should beat by double digits at home in the first game with the students back. I'd like to see it. The line isn't encouraging for me. They're only a seven and a half point favorite tonight against Northwestern. And I think what people are recognizing, and it opened at 7 and 1 half 8, it's down to 7.

And I think what sharp money is starting to recognize is that, you know, Maryland isn't the type of team that's going to blow out a lot of teams with the way they play. They can win grind it out games, you know, 73, 63, 78, 74, you know, 70, I mean, it's not like they haven't scored a lot, but, you know, 64, 60 against Wisconsin.

They only scored 67 against Illinois. 55 against Michigan State. You know, the Ohio State game, they put a thumping on Ohio State in Columbus, which was nice to see. I'd like to see more 40-point-plus halves. I'd like to see more shot attempts. That's what I'd like to see. I'll be there tonight, despite the weather. And I don't know what the weather is going to be.

You're going to get snow this afternoon, and it's going to be bad for rush hour with dropping temperatures. How much an inch or two, if you were wondering. That could change between now and the times. that the weather actually starts. I'm recording this podcast, you know, mid-morning. So that's the weather report, too. What else did I have?

I had something else that I wanted to get to. Wizards play the Cavs tonight. These are the kind of games that they've got to win. If they're going to be in the postseason, and you really are concerned about that, these are the games they've got to win. They've got to beat the Cavs, you know, and make, you know, feast on teams that they're better than,

and they're actually better than the Cavaliers. Uh, that's it, I think. I didn't, you would mention something to me that I'm now forgetting. Kansas, Purdue, or I mean, not Kansas, Texas. Yeah, Kansas, Texas. I mentioned the Purdue line from Sunday. How about this one? How about the fact that Texas is 11 and 9? They're playing the 12th ranked team in the country. Kansas has, you know, they got beat by Kentucky the other day. They lost a game on the road at West Virginia, which was surprising because West Virginia is not that good. Texas is favored tonight. Texas has lost five of their last six games.

They are currently 11 and 9 overall, three and four in the conference, and they're favored tonight over Kansas. I would imagine, and I have not gotten any information on this because you just brought this to my attention a little while ago, but I will get information on this. I would imagine that Kansas is a heavy public,

betting public pick tonight. That's what I would get. I would guess that it's in the, that, you know, certainly two-thirds, potentially, if not three-quarters of the betting public tonight will be on the Jayhawks. Those that bet college basketball, getting points, getting a point in a half at Texas. Maryland's seven and a half. It's not going to surprise me if we end up with a 67-65 type of game. I think Maryland should win the game. I'd like to see them change their style, and I think they could win 82 to 68.

But it's probably going to be a 70 to 68, 68, 66, somewhere in that neighborhood. I think it's going to be a tight game. Hopefully people will make it out there. They had this issue, remember, a couple of weeks ago with bad weather for the Wisconsin game. You know, they had that issue with the crowd getting out there after that big storm that we had. And tonight could be a problem, but it won't be for the students, hopefully, who will make it out there for their first game of the Big Ten season. That's it. I'll have a lot more on the Super Bowl starting tomorrow,

and I'm still considering doing Super Bowl trivia. Maybe we'll do it tomorrow Thursday and Friday. Do you want to do it? Sure, we can do it. Okay, we'll do it tomorrow. We'll give out a phone number on Twitter, come up with a prize, and we'll do it tomorrow. What?

I won't be here tomorrow. Oh, you're not going to be here tomorrow. But Corvin will be here tomorrow. So we'll see if we can't pull it off tomorrow. Have a great day.