The WNBA maximum salary is $93,000. The #1 pick in the 2007 WNBA Draft would be guaranteed about $130,000 over 3 years.

In contrast, the #1 pick in the 2007 NBA Draft is guaranteed $8.05 million dollars over two years. That's $49,000 PER GAME.

This has nothing directly to do with gender and everything to do about vastly different economies (which *do* have something to do with gender)

The endpoint of the up-and-coming economy is the development of the leisure class.

"ZOMG the Japanese are going to take over the world while we Americans sit on our couches!" becomes "ZOMG the Indians are going to take over the world while we Americans and Japanese sit on our couches!" becomes "ZOMG the the Brazilians are going to take over the world while we Americans, Japanese, Indians and Chinese sit on our couches!"...

I'm not sure what happens once everyone has a couch. Probably http://achewood.com/index.php?date=04052006 just to bring Salon full circle.

The tanking at the bottom for a better shot at the Oden/Durant lottery picks has been a lot more obvious and going on a lot longer. Read some of the Sports Guy's columns the past couple of weeks.

If you're going to be that unreasonable, why not make it 27 batters on 27 pitches, all popping out to the pitcher? You still need the catcher's help if you're striking everyone out...

Earlier today I was wondering if Bush would be able to pass a freshman-level Constitutional Law class.

No players are singled out for their records in an era of widespread racism that kept most of the best players out of the game. So why are players singled out for their records in an era of widespread racism.

Eras change all the time in baseball. It just happens that sometimes "all-time" records fall in those eras. If a deadball era returned to baseball, and a starting pitcher produced a 0.98 ERA, would that be heralded as an all-time great performance, or taken in context of the era?

Barry Bonds is making a mockery of baseball this season with his performance. Either he didn't need PEDs to put up those numbers, or he's still on them, despite baseball's testing program. Either way, I bet he's enjoying it and I salute him.

The second "racism" in the opening paragraph should be replaced with "steroid use". Brain cramps for the loss.

Other than the fact that MLB has to approve all contracts.

The analogies to a deity were perhaps apt.

With respect to the business side of the league, David Stern is the NBA is David Stern. The league was reborn, wildly profitable, under his guidance.

The league lives by David Stern, and it may one day die by his solitary rule, but a bunch of people are going to make a ton of money along the way.

Tyson Chandler doesn't quite belong on that awful list. Age 24, 9.5ppg, 12.4rpg, and still developing.

Maybe not a great top 3 pick but also not an awful one.

When the President veto'ed the previous funding bill, wasn't he the one defunding the troops?

Why isn't Congress sending the President funding bill after funding bill with timelines until he realizes that is the only way for his war to be funded?

Can someone explain to me how Bush's veto of the first appropriations bill wasn't *his* de-funding of the war. Or rather, explain to me how Democrats were unable to frame the debate in that manner?

I don't understand how the man who took the only prominent negative action against troop funding remains blameless in the de-funding debate, especially when he has a 30% approval rating.

No one in the league would survive a flagrant foul against LeBron. You don't hurt the megastars.

That's also hard because LeBron James is 6'8", 240lbs. A little harder to knock him into the scorer's table.

Its not too surprising LeBron is getting that sort of treatment. Last year Dwayne Wade was shoving players out of the way as he drove to the basket, and getting fouls called on _them_.

The NBA has decided it likes superstars driving to the basket, even if it means "Jordan rules" or "Wade rules" or "LeBron rules". The NBA could hope for nothing more than a Jordan-esque reign from LeBron.

I have no doubt that David Stern has a spreadsheet somewhere that lists how much money the NBA loses if LeBron were to miss a season due to injury.

Oh god...that game.

I remember glancing at the screen, seeing the scores in the 50s, and wondering why someone was still in the game with 5 fouls and a good chunk of time left in the 3rd quarter.

Except it was the 4th quarter.

Unfortunately, what I think should be Congress's main reason for investigation seems to be completely ignored: What role did the owners and management have in the use of illegal drugs by its players?

Management involvement could range anywhere from complete ignorance (unlikely), to a blind eye (AA Manager: "Hey kid, you really bulked up over the winter! Great job!), to tacit encouragement (AA Manager: "Hey kid, you're gonna need a little more pop to make the show...talk to Steve the Trainer, he can probably help you out *wink*").

Baseball was profiting from the effects of steroid use, that much is clear. Were they de facto drug dealers? Where's the heat on the owners in all this?

Oh right. Its much more media (and contribution) friendly to grandstand about the players.

I have to wonder why players *haven't* attacked the owners on this one. It seems fairly clear.

What are the owners going to do? Blacklist the player? The last time they tried that, they lost badly (see Collusion). Though the Player's Union is weaker than it was then. Or is such a tactic too mediapathic for the player?