Alex Smith Trade

According to multiple sources (Jay Glazer being the first), The Chiefs and 49ers have agreed to a trade involving Alex Smith. Since no trades can be official until the start of the league year (March 12), it's not a fully done deal, but so many people are reporting the details of the trade that it can't be pure speculation.

The trade boils down to this:

Kansas City gets	San Francisco gets
QB Alex Smith	KC 2013 2nd rounder (#34 overall)        KC 2014 conditional draft pick

According to San Jose Mercury News sports columnist, Tim Kawakami,

The 2014 pick moves from a 3rd rounder to 2nd rounder if Chiefs win a certain number of games, NFL source confirms
— Tim Kawakami (@timkawakami) February 27, 2013

Apparently the Chiefs hate the quarterbacks in the draft this year, maybe even more than the draft experts. There certainly isn't anyone in this draft to approach the three-headed monster from last year, and by all accounts the 2014 draft class is much stronger at QB as well.

So what are the Chiefs' options?

Option A: Use Matt Cassel/Brady Quinn/street free agent as your starter this year, build up the support structure around the QB position, and move to grab your guy in 2014.

There's only one problem with this plan, Chiefs fans will riot if they have to sit and watch the Matt Cassel/Brady Quinn show for another year.

Option B: Draft a quarterback with the #34 overall pick

If they don't like the quarterback class, they aren't using the #1 overall pick to take one, and the odds of solving their quarterback position with a late-round pick are not good. So let's say they use the #34 pick on a member of the 2013 draft class instead of on Alex Smith. Maybe they get lucky, but clearly the Chiefs don't believe this is likely.

The cons to spending this much draft capital on the position in 2013 is it makes it much harder to sell your fans or your owner on spending significant (probably more) draft capital in 2014 on the same position.

We'll call this the Blaine Gabbert effect. You pick Blaine Gabbert high in the 2011 draft and he looks terrible, but you can't very well admit to failing with the #10 pick in the draft just one year later. So you stick with Gabbert and miss out on Ryan Tannehill and Russell Wilson in 2012, among others.

Option C: Trade a 2013 2nd and a 2014 2nd or 3rd for Alex Smith

Okay, instead of drafting a QB at #34 you "draft" Alex Smith with that pick. The draft capital argument from option B still holds when it comes to 2014 (and actually, you've spent a 2014 pick on  Alex Smith as well).

Last year's #34 overall pick (Colby Fleener) had a 2012 cap hit of $971K. Let's add 10% and assume the #34 pick this year gets a cap hit of $1.07M. Alex Smith's cap hit this year will be $9.75M. Could Kansas City give him an extension to lower the 2013 cap hit? Sure, but then you haven't just invested draft capital, you've invested actual capital too, and you have just made it harder on yourself to move on if you like the 2014 rookie quarterback class.

The only reason giving up on Alex Smith after a year is better than giving up on [insert rookie QB here] after a year is you know what you're getting with Alex Smith, while the rookie has the potential to get better.

So this trade only makes sense if two assumptions are true:
1. The Chiefs don't believe in any of the 2013 rookie QBs (easy to believe)
2. The Chiefs believe they can contend with Alex Smith (For a playoff spot? Sure. for a Super Bowl? Heck no.)

With what we know about Alex Smith, I don't see how you can make the argument that he can lead a team to the promised land. Because of that, Kansas City gave up way too much in this trade.

The verdict: BIG win for the 49ers

Quick Hits

- Congratulations to FIFA for joining the latter stages of the 20th century. Yes, FIFA finally committed to goal-line technology for the 2014 World Cup.

It was probably inevitable that this would happen for 2014, given the famous goal from the 2010 World Cup that Frank Lampard will never get official credit for.



Even after this, FIFA and UEFA resisted embracing goal-line technology. FIFA simply stuck their heads in the sand, while UEFA instead embraced adding two officials to the end-lines to watch for plays like this. As Ukraine will tell you, it didn't work as planned:



On the plus side, with England involved in both of the above games, at least they weren't the victim of official idiocy both times.

- As a fan of Seattle's sports teams, but not much of an NBA fan, I've been reading with slight interest how the Sacramento Kings are owned by bankrupt fools who are looking to sell the team. Over the last month or two, an agreement seems to have been reached for the fools to sell the team to a group that would move the team to Seattle for next season.

It then surprised me to see that the Kings traded away a valuable asset (the 5th pick in the 2012 draft) for a bunch of stiffs. That doesn't seem like maximizing the value of the asset for the buyers.

- Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman is a tremendous player. He also talks...a lot. You may remember Sherman from one of his 8 interceptions from last season. Or you might remember him for this:



Anyway, Sherman has been making quite a bit of noise since the season ended about how he's better than Darrelle Revis. Revis was not amused.

- File this under PC-gone-amok (and I'm not talking about computers): University of North Dakota's men's basketball play-by-play announcer Paul Ralston was suspended for using the words "choke job" to describe the team's loss in a post-game interview with the coach. Bill Walton this this was a TERRRRRRRRRRR-IBLE decision by the school.

Quick Hits

- I love how ESPN has really thrown themselves into soccer coverage, especially with the last two World Cups, so I was somewhat distressed a few years ago when FIFA awarded the 2018 and 2022 World Cups to Fox Sports. I wasn't sure soccer would be in good hands with a new, relatively unknown quantity. I feel much better about the decision now, for two reasons:

1) Soccer is here to stay. Sure MLS may not draw well outside of Seattle, but top-level soccer? Networks can't get enough of it. Whether it's ESPN, Fox Sports, Fox Soccer, NBC Sports, there is plenty of great soccer out there. And ESPN has set the standard in terms of making the content available. No network can possibly bid on soccer packages and NOT make the game available. 10 years ago? Sure. But soccer is too big here now.

2) The one thing I didn't like about ESPN is how they wrote off an entire country of announcers for the 2010 World Cup. All of their play-by-play people were from across the pond. Not one play-by-play man was American. Now, I understand that British announcers are better versed in calling soccer than Americans. And ESPN had tried shoehorning an American baseball announcer (Dave O'Brien) into the role in 2006 and he was terrible. But there was no one in your American stable of announcers able to competently call soccer games?

Fox Soccer has chosen its voice for the 2018 World Cup. It's Gus Johnson, who called his first big-time soccer game this week (Real Madrid-Manchester United Champions League action). You may remember Gus from countless March Madness calls. Is he rough around the edges calling a soccer match? Sure. But as long as he buys in, and reports are he's doing exactly that, I'm looking forward to hearing him call a big US game in the 2018 World Cup. And I'm very glad Fox is grooming at least one American voice for its World Cup coverage.

- If you have some time, read this ESPN the Magazine story on Michael Jordan as he turns 50.

- The Oscar Pistorius story is baffling. It's terrible, and baffling. Pistorius was one of the non-American stories NBC latched onto because it was so inspirational. A double-amputee fighting his way into the Olympic races to run alongside Usain Bolt and everyone else. Apparently, and tragically, there seems to have been much more to this story than that.

CONCACAF Hexagonal, Match 1

Date	Home	Score (H)	Score (A)	Away	Hex Game
6-Feb	Honduras	2	1	United States	1
6-Feb	Mexico	0	0	Jamaica	1
6-Feb	Panama	2	2	Costa Rica	1

We are into the Hexagonal (final) round of CONCACAF qualifying. The United States struck first but fell to Honduras 2-1 in their first loss to Honduras in CONCACAF qualifying. In even more shocking news, Mexico was held to a scoreless draw at home against Jamaica. Rounding out the action, Panama saw its 2-0 lead evaporate as Costa Rica stormed back to salvage a 2-2 road tie.

I'd love to discuss the games (specifically Honduras-USA) here, but since beIn Sport owns the rights to all American away qualifying matches, and my cable carrier practically no one carries beIn Sport, watching 4 of the 10 qualifying matches isn't an option (why only 4? ESPN finally acquired the rights to Mexico-USA). Hooray for money over fans!

So instead of game recaps, let's do some Hexagonal math.

Regional heavyweights the USA and Mexico have to be disappointed with their first game results, but just how much hand wringing should each be doing? Let's start out by referring to a couple of tidbits in my Hexagonal preview:

• Since 1998 qualifying, it has taken an average of 15.75 points to finish in the top-3 and snag an automatic berth. 
• Since 1998 qualifying, it has taken an average of 20.75 points to win the group. 
• Winning all of your home games would net a team 15 points. Winning all home games and drawing all road games would net a team 20 points.

So to qualify for the World Cup, you should be shooting for 16 points, and to win the group, you need about 21. As noted above, merely winning all of your home games gets you to 15 points, while adding all draws on the road gets you to 20. This fits with the general coach- and player-speak of how you really want to win at home but getting a point (for a tie) on the road is a good result.

Below are the Hex standings after 1 game: I have added a Pts/15 column and Pts/20 column. The Pts/15 column is how many points the team can achieve by winning all of its remaining home games (factoring in the results from this week's games as well). The Pts/20 column shows how many points a team will earn by winning all of their remaining home games and drawing all of their remaining road games. 

Hex	GP	W	D	L	GD	GF	GA	Pnt	Pts/15	Pts/20
Honduras	1	1	0	0	1	2	1	3	15	20
Costa Rica	1	0	1	0	0	2	2	1	15	20
Jamaica	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	15	20
Mexico	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	13	18
Panama	1	0	1	0	0	2	2	1	13	18
United States	1	0	0	1	-1	1	2	0	15	19

By the Pts/15 and Pts/20 measure, Mexico and Panama look to have been hurt the most by these results despite the fact that only the US emerged from game 1 with no points. That's because Mexico and Panama lost out on 2 "expected points" by drawing, instead of winning, at home. The US, on the other hand, merely lost out on 1 "expected" point by losing instead of drawing on the road.

So is it really that simple? Is that how it works? 

Let's take a closer look at the 6 positions in the Hexagonal since 1998 (when the World Cup expanded from 24 to 32 teams, and the Hexagonal format was adopted for CONCACAF's final round of qualifying). 

Position	Home Results, GD	Away Results, GD
1st	12.5 Pts, +9.5	8.25 Pts, +1
2nd	13.25 Pts, +9.25	5.5 Pts, -0.75
3rd	11.75 Pts, +5.75	4 Pts, -4.5
4th	9.75 Pts, +3.5	4 Pts, -4.5
5th	7.75 Pts, +2	1.5 Pts, -7
6th	3.75 Pts, -3.5	1 Pts, -10.75

What we see is that there is a divide between the top-3 teams (automatic qualifiers) and the bottom-3 teams in the Hex: The qualifiers take care of business at home. More interesting is how so little separates the top 3 qualifiers when we look at home performance. We're looking at merely a 1.5 point difference between the three teams, and second place has actually out-pointed first place at home (more on this at a later date). 

How does this make any sense? Well, look at the away results. This is where the top team separates itself from the pack. 8 points works out to 2 wins and 2 ties. Basically, if you want to win the Hex, you achieve this by going on the road and losing a grand total of 1 game. The only year this wasn't true was 1998, and in that year group-winner Mexico went 1-4-0 on the road, not dropping a game (!) and netting 7 points.

So what does this mean for our teams after 1 game? Well, let's go back to what we learned by looking at 4 Hexagonals:

• You want to get wins at home, and winning all 5 games gets you 15 points. Historically, the best team in a hex year bags about 12-13 points at home, which works out to a 4-0-1 record. 
• Drawing on the road is a good result, and 5 (home) wins and 5 (away) draws is 20 points, and the winning hex team averages 20.75 points. However, since teams don't usually win all of their home games, the team that emerges atop the Hex usually bags a couple of road wins. 

So now let's look again: 

Every team, even Mexico and Panama, are still on track to earn the 12-13 points the top Hex team usually ends up with. Mexico and Panama simply have no margin for error if they want to reach that level. Similarly, the United States has no margin for error if they want to win the group, as, in order to get 8 road points, they need 2 wins and 2 ties in their remaining 4 road games. 

However, if we're merely looking at qualification, the burden lifts a bit from the US, as 4 points requires only a single win and a single draw on the road, meaning their margin for error is still considerable. However, Mexico and Panama still are a bit under the gun, as qualifying teams average at least 11.75 points at home, meaning they're still without any margin for error to hit that number. 

At first glance, the loss for the USA looks hurtful, but looking further at the numbers, it's actually Mexico and Panama who should be the "most" worried after game one of the Hex.

Next games are March 22nd and March 26th.