Chris Holmes Online

I’m about to go on vacation for a week and I figured I might as well give readers something to chew on while I’m away. So here it is: Big Love.

HBO has been a cornerstone in my house for a while. They produce some of the best drama on television. Everyone knows about the Sopranos of course, but what most people may not know is that Six Feet Under and Deadwood have at times been even better than the network’s flagship franchise of Italian gansters.

Six Feet Under came to a (fitting) end last season, and HBO has replaced it with a new show called Big Love. It’s a brave, bold move in television history. Maybe the boldest move in mainstream television to date.

Big Love is a drama about Bill Henrickson (played by Bill Paxton), a polygamist in Utah, and his three wives. Bill is a successful business owner of a budding franchise of megastores (think WallMart). As Dooce points out in her blog the main characters are not practicing Mormons. The show makes sure to point that out early and often. They are polygamists from a fundamentalist group of Mormons located in a fictitious encampment named Juniper Creek, which earily and immediately reminds the viewer of Waco Texas.

That Bill and his wives are not practicing Mormons is not going to stop Mormons from hating the show however, because indirectly the show is very much about Mormanism. Polygamists are Mormons. The only thing that differentiates them from modern day Mormons is that they practice Polygamy, something the church no longer endorses (and only because the U.S. Government mandated they stop). One could argue that the polygamists are actually the true Mormons and that the modern day LDS folks are simply borrowing selected practices from their polygamist bretheren.

Polygamy is at the root of Mormanism. The religion was founded on it. I know this because I was, for a brief time in my life, a Mormon. I was baptised, went to church, read the Book of Mormon and prayed for guidance. I wasn’t born Mormon though. In fact, I wasn’t baptised until I was 18 years old. Like most kids that age without a strong spiritual guide in their life, I was seeking answers. My best friend was a Mormon and his family lived right next door. He may not know it, but he was someone I always looked up to even though he was younger than me. Dave is a great guy – a great person – and it was easy for me to make the connection between his religion and his persona. It wasn’t until much later in my life that I realized Dave’s religion didn’t have much to do with Dave being a great guy. Dave would have been a great human being if he was a born a Buddhist, Catholic, agnostic or aetheist. Dave’s spirit, his very being, would never have allowed him to be anything lessthan what he is. I know this because the opposite is true; because I’ve met Mormons who were the absolute slime of the Earth as human beings, and that tells me that religion does not make the man. You are who you are.

Back to the show though…

Big Love is bold television. It’s brave television. It’s got balls just for showing up to the dance. When I watched the first episode what struck me was the thought that even five years ago America wasn’t ready for this kind of TV. Polygamy is not a mainstream subject. It’s not even on most people’s radar. It’s a taboo practice that even the Mormon church, which is founded on it, tries to distance itself from at every turn. Dooce understands this very well, writing:

Mormons believe that polygamy will be practiced in the afterlife, and what I can’t help thinking is that when the civil right of marriage is ultimately extended to homosexuals and then to polygamists, why wouldn’t the Mormon Church start practicing it again? And when they do start practicing it again, how are the members of the church going to handle it? If Mormons truly believe their religion they have to believe that polygamy is their destiny, so why are they always trying to distance themselves from it? I think that many of them don’t want to ask themselves that question because they might be terrified of the answer: they aren’t okay with it.

In the second episode the directors deal with that sentiment directly when one of Bill’s daughters informs her inquisitive and judgemental Mormon friend that she, herself, doesn’t approve of Polygamy and that it is something between her dad and his wives, but not for her.

What makes this show great (and yes, it is a great show) is that one can immediately see how this could have easily turned bad in the hands of the wrong people. Polygamy is bad joke, yet it’s so taboo that not even the bravest comedian would attempt to touch it. Still, HBO bought into it and put it on TV, but they did so by doing what HBO does best – they got great folks to work on it and make it real. Big Love is not just a show about Polygamy, but a great show about relationships, religion and the pressure of having three spouses. It’s a drama in every sense of the word.

Think about this for a second: If you’re married then you know the pressure a relationship can put you under at certain times in your life. You know how hard it can be to manage the expectations of your spouse as well as your own ideas of what makes a successful relationship. You know how difficult it can be to deal with all the problems that couples manufacture during the course of a lifetime together. Then consider than half of marriages fail because two people can’t navigate the difficulties of their relationship.

Now multiply that by three and imagine how crazy that would be. That’s Big Love.

What has struck me the most about the show in the first few weeks is the absolute reality of it. It’s like watching a reality television show such as Big Brother, only better, because it’s written and directed by folks who actually know how to develop drama. These look, act and feel like real people that live next door. It amazes me that as absurd of a practice as Polygamy is, it does not detract from the quality of the show. I think it speaks volumes about the people doing Big Love that they can sell this without it seeming seedy or farcicil.

Regardless of how good the show is though, Mormons will hate it. They’ll hate it because it will remind them of their roots; of where they come from. A Polygamist founded the religion. That is inescapable fact. And if you go down that road, if you elect to acknowledge the Mormon religion’s polygamist roots, then you may find yourself digging up a whole host of other skeletons that you never wanted to see.

For me, truth became more important than dogma. I elected to dig up those skeletons, to unearth the truth. And once I saw it for myself I could no longer participate in the charade.

Big Love puts the shovel in every Mormon’s hands who watches it and begs them to dig. It even does some digging for them, a little kickstart. Having that shovel in their hand is going to make them squirm. It’s going to make them uncomfortable. It’s going to make them want to turn away and not look. It’s a lot easier to be a member of a righteous religion when you don’t have to acknowledge or debate the foundations of it.

Mormons will hate this show.

But that still doesn’t change the fact that it’s absolutely great TV.

It’s official. Steve Hutchinson, one of the best guards in the NFL (if not the best), is no longer a Seahawk. The ‘Hawks were denied by special master Stephen Burbank who ruled against Seattle in today. The Vikings had attached a ‘poison pill’ to their contract offer – a special condition that said if Hutchinson wasn’t the highest paid linemen on his team then his entire $45 million contract was guarenteed. In the NFL clubs hate to guarentee money because of the salary cap. Hutchinson wouldn’t have been the highest paid player on the Seahawks’ roster because left tackle Walter Jones has the highest salary, even after the offer the Vikings concocted. Minnesota didn’t have to worry about that clause because none of their own linemen have that high of a salary, so the ‘poison pill’ was a device created specifially to shaft Seattle.

And it worked.

I find the whole thing very disturbing, disappointing and underhanded. Oh, I’m sure Hutchinson’s agent, Tom Condon is slapping himself on the back right now with a hand the size of Texas for his ingenuity and creativity. But it still stinks. The contract the Vikings drew up wasn’t the same as the one the Seahawks had to match. The Vikings don’t have to guarentee Hutchinson’s contract because their offensive linemen aren’t highly paid. Seattle would have had to guarentee it because of Jones. Is that matching an offer? Is that fair? I don’t think so, no matter what the arbitrator says.

I’m disappointed in Hutchinson. There’s been reports on ESPN.com that he wanted out of Seattle and was upset that his contract didn’t get taken care of before the free agent signing period started. Yet when asked about it by USA Today, Condon denied that Hutchinson wanted out of Seattle, saying:

“Not at all. I think that there wasn’t any reason for him to leave Seattle.

I can understand if Hutchinson wanted to play closer to home. He is from the Michigan area and played for the Michgan Wolvereens. But so far I haven’t read a single report that confirms that as a reason for the move. Even worse – Hutchinson had to O.K. the deal the Vikings made him. He had to know about the ‘poison pill’ clause. That tells me he wanted to screw Seattle and had no intentions of returning.

As for the Vikings, that’s just a lousy way to get a player in free agency. It shows how low that club is willing to stoop to acquire talent. They couldn’t make the deal happen on the merits of their team, their franchise, their front office and the contract alone. No, they had to put a ‘poison pill’ clause into the offer to make it so distasteful to Seattle that they couldn’t afford to match it. Despicable.

And Seattle gets the Bonehead Front Office Move Of The Year Award for not putting the Franchise tag on Hutchinson to begin with. As John Clayton writes in his blog today:

The motto should be: When in doubt, franchise a guy or use a higher tender in restricted free agency. What the transition tag is in free agency is a hollow right of first refusal. Though it saves teams money under the cap because the cost is the average of the top 10 salaries (and not the top five) at the position, the headache and the aggravation isn’t worth the savings.

For $600,000 more of using the franchise tag versus the transition tag, the Seahawks wouldn’t be facing the pain of guaranteeing the richest deal for a guard in NFL history.

Seattle tried to be frugal and save $600,000 by placing the transition tag on Hutchinson. What it costs them was the best interior offensive linemen in the NFL. I love what Tim Ruskell has done to this team since he came on board last offseason, but this was the dumbest move ever. You have to slap the franchise tag on Hutchinson because it gives you two first round draft choices if a team wants to steal him away. Now, with the transition tag, Seattle gets nothing.

The consolation prize in all of this – the silver lining – might be Julian Peterson, who apparently is close to signing a huge deal with Seattle. Peterson has been the San Francisco 49ers best defensive player, although an achilles injury two seasons ago limited his play. He’s only 27 years old and many consider him to be one of the most dominating and atheletically gifted defenders in the game. The ‘Hawks make it sound like Peterson’s fully recovered now from all injuries and ready to return to his dominating form from three years ago. If he is, that would give Seattle a linebacking trio of Peterson, LeRoy Hill and Lofa Tatupu. Young, fast, atheletic. Suddenly the defensive front seven looks even better than last season, and we’re talking about a unit that finished the season #5 against the run and lead the league in sacks.

Still, while adding talented defenders is nice, it leaves a gaping hole on the left side of the offensive line. Shaun Alexander wants to hit 2,000 yards and 30 touchdowns, and Matt Hasselbeck needs time to throw. The offense only works with a line that can block and protect. John Clayton seems to think Seattle might go after Tom Ashworth of the New England Patriots.

Ok, but he’s no Steve Hutchinson.

Parting Shot: I could sit here and wish for Hutchinson to break his leg, but he gave us everything he had while he was in Seattle and for that I can’t wish ill of him, even if he wanted out and chose a really crappy way to make it happen. He didn’t do it alone – Seattle was stupid enough to not use the franchise tag. But I can wish ill on the Vikings, the team responsible for giving us the Love Cruise, the Whizzinator and Scalped Super Bowl Tickets. With any luck this franchise will be plagued by bad luck for the duration of Hutchinson’s contract.

I kind of believe in Karma. What comes around goes around. You shaft the Seahawks with a ‘poison pill’ clause and you do so at your own risk.

First, my apologies to anyone reading this blog for the lack of updates. I see my last post was two weeks ago. Pathetic considering all that is going on in the sports world. I’d love to get to the mountain of evidence that is piling up on Barry Bonds, exposing him for the cheater he truly is, or the host of stupid NFL Free Agent signings over the past week, or even the NCAA bracket (quite the scare last night for Gonzaga, no?). But for right now it’s time for a Seahawks update.

The Seattle Times is running a story this morning suggesting that Keyshawn Johnson, recently released from the Dallas Cowboys, is eyeing the ‘Hawks as a possible new home. Now, there was a time many seasons ago when such a thought would have made me rush to the men’s room and pray diligently to the porcelain Gods. But now the thought of Keyshawn wearing a Seahawks uniform makes me downright giddy.

Keyshawn has matured with time. Ten years in the league can do that to a guy. That’s probably why this is ringing in my head as something palatable. With the loss of Jurevicious (6′5″) the ‘Hawks could use another big, tall receiver. Keyshawn fits the bill perfectly. Plus, maybe more importantly, he’d fit well in the West Coast offense that Holmgren runs. Think about it – ever since Keyshawn came into the league folks have criticized him for a lack of speed and “big play” ability, saying he’s a #2 receiver and not a #1. But Keyshawn is ideally suited to be a receiver in the West Coast offense, which doesn’t ask it’s receivers to run 40-yard post patterns every other down. What they do ask their receivers to do is run crisp short and intermediate routes, create separation, use their big bodies and hands to catch the ball and then make plays after the catch. That’s Key’s speciality, much like Darrell Jackson and Bobby Engram.

And Keyshawn apparently is very open to the idea of playing in Seattle. The Seattle Times quotes him as saying:

Man, I think about [Seahawks quarterback] Matt Hasselbeck putting the ball between the 1 and the 9 on my jersey, and my heart starts racing.

Think about this four receiver set next year: Darrell Jackson and Keyshawn Johnson wide, and Bobby Engram and Peter Warrick in the slot. Who you going to stop?

I like this match. I thought losing Jurevicious during the opening stanza of free agency sucked (he did catch 10 touchdowns last season) but if Seattle could land Keyshawn then suddenly that loss doesn’t seem so bad. In fact, Keyshawn would be an upgrade.

Make it happen Tim Ruskell.

Hutchinson’s Contract Could Go To Arbitration

The contract offer to Steve Hutchinson by Minnesota has been intriguing and gut-wrenching at the same time. Gut-wrenching because I absolutely hate the thought of Seattle losing one of their best offensive linemen and going into the draft forced to find a replacement. Intriguing because of the way this is going to happen.

According to reports on ESPN.com and the Seattle Times, Minnesota’s offer sheet has a clause that specifies all $49 million of the contract is guarenteed if Hutchinson isn’t the highest paid linemen on the team. That clause was crafted carefully and skillfullly by the Vikings in order to prevent the Seahawks from matching it and thus retaining Hutchinson, because currently the highest paid linemen on the Seahawks’ roster is left tackle Walter Jones. It’s a neat trick by the Vikings. However, reports are surfacing that according to NFL rules a team only has to match principal clauses in the offer sheet. Which means the Seahawks could match the offer from the Vikings in dollar amount – excluding silly clauses – allowing them to retain one of their best players. In all likelyhood this whole thing could go to an arbitraitor to decide who gets to sign Hutchinson.

Bernard Resigns

Maybe the biggest free agent deal for Seattle wasn’t the huge, backloaded contract for Shaun Alexander, but this week’s resigning of Rocky Bernard. He lead the team in sacks this season with 8 1/2. That might not seem like a large number, but consider this: Bernard plays defensive tackle, not defensive end, so he doesn’t have the luxery of rushing on the outside edge, one-on-one against a tackle. He’s got to push his way up through the middle of the center and both guards. Plus, he played in four-tackle rotation, designed to keep guys fresh, but also preventing him from playing a lot of downs and thus missing some sack opportunities. On a team that lead the league in sacks Bernard was the best at getting to the quarterback. You just can’t afford to let those guys go. I thought he was the most important defensive signing that Seattle had to make happen during the free agency period. The fact that Ruskell and Co. got it done tells me a lot about this team. They understand who the important guys are and how to keep them around.

Peter Warrick Resigns: 1-Year Contract

I thought this was a great move by Seattle. Warrick is a younger Bobby Engram. Great in the slot. A former #1 draft choice I think Warrick still has his best days ahead of him if he gets put in the right position. Last year he got cut by the Bengals so late in the pre-season that he never had a chance to pickup Seattle’s offense completely, which prevented him from making any kidn of impact. Receivers need the mini-camps and training camp practices to get the timing down with their quarterback. I think having a full offseason in the Seahawks’ system will really benefit Warrick. I expect him to make an impact this year.

The 1-year deal is interesting. It shows some caution on the part of the Seahawks. Obviously they think there’s a chance Warrick could get hurt or just not produce, so they are hedging their bets with the contract. But if Warrick gets the offense and makes an impact look for Seattle to sign him to an extension next year and make him the replacement for aging Engram.

What’s Next?

Clearly the Free Agency period isn’t finished. Seattle has until Sunday to match Minnesota’s offer for Hutchinson and even then it could go to arbitration. There’s still Keyshawn to think about and the ‘Hawks have to find help at cornerback and linebacker. There’s a lot of big-name players still available and the Draft is more than a month away. Busy times ahead.

Overall I give the ‘Hawks a B-minus thus far. They get an A+ for resigning Alexander and keeping him in town. Retaining Bernard was a great move and signing Warrick could give them an explosive slot receiver if the best-case scenario plays out. But not slapping the Franchise tag on Hutchinson was a bad move, I think. Minnesota could pry him away and Seattle would get no draft picks in compensation, and that would suck. If they match the offer for Hutchinson and somehow get Keyshawn for a reasonable price, this is an A+ free agency period for the ‘Hawks.

The NFL was on the precipice of an uncapped year for 2007, but then at the 11th hour the NFLPA and the owners got together and extended the deadline 72 hours in an attempt to come together on an extension to the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Ok, fine. But that’s not the really big news.

The big news is that the brain cells of several people associated with the NFL (ESPN’s Chris Mortenson and SI.com’s Stephen Cannella to name two) have stopped functioning. Suddenly, they say, the thought of an NFL without a salary cap doesn’t sound so bad. Maybe it would make the game better.

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to recognize the problems with such thinking. Just a historian of sports leagues.

The biggest issue is that people don’t understand what makes the NFL, and the salary cap in particular, great. Folks think it is parity, but they are wrong. When I got to work this morning I flipped open a browser to read Stephen Cannella’s Rant, where he says:

Talent is diluted, and players are little more than interchangeable parts who can shift seamlessly from one team to another. There are too many franchises, and too few of them have a distinct personality, style or edge. The league likes to call that parity. I call it a league where everyone is equally mediocre.

Let’s dispell this myth of parity right now. Parity means equality. Flip open Dictionary.com and you’ll find the entry that reads: Functional equivalence, as in the weaponry or military strength of adversaries. The NFL – and all sports leagues for that matter – do not exist in a state of parity. They never have and they never will. By their very nature they can never exist in a state of parity because the relative strength of each team will never be equal. Someone is always going to be the better team on any given Sunday, either due to the talent level of the players, coaching, front office personnel, drafting skill, gameplans or X’ and O’s. One side is going to be better.

So let’s get this much straight: Parity is not why the NFL Salary Cap is a good thing.

The reason the NFL Salary Cap is a good for the game is because of equal opportunity. A level playing field. Read that again. Let it sink in for a moment.

Would you send a team onto the field with leather helments? How about with shoes that don’t have cleats? Would you use water instead of Gatoraid to hydrate your team?

It’s about a level playing field folks. It is about everyone having a chance to be successful. In a sports league teams should be able to compete for the championship. A Salary Cap allows for this to happen. Just check out the names of the teams competing for Super Bowls in the last decade: Atlanta, Tampa Bay, Seattle, Carolina. The Tampa Bay Bucs were a laughingstock franchise until the NFL implemented the salary cap. With the cap in place raw dollar power takes a backseat to other skills, like the ability to draft well. Finally, with a cap in place, the Bucs had a chance. Suddenly money wasn’t a concern – smart drafting and free agent acquisitions were.

The simple fact is that players and coaches make a huge difference in this league. The team with the better players and coaches usually wins. If they didn’t, talent wouldn’t matter, the draft would be irrelevant and salaries would be flat across the board. But talent does matter, and in a big way. Better players are rewarded with bigger contracts. And when that happens one team can be put at a competitive disadvantage. That is why the cap is necessary.

Money shouldn’t dictate a team’s destiny. It shouldn’t determine if they have a chance to win or lose. It should come down to the things that are sports-related, not money-related. Like how well a team drafts, how well they use their available resources (cap room), how they handle free-agency (overpay for a player?), the kind of player they bring to their team (value character over 40-yard-dash times?) and the coaches they hire. It shouldn’t come down to raw dollars.

Which brings me to Peter King’s column today, which has a lesser degree of absurdity to it, but he’s being absurd nonetheless:

To say that no salary cap would turn the NFL into a league of Yankees (Redskins, Patriots, Cowboys) and Devil Rays (Jaguars, Saints, Bengals) is preposterous. First of all, the Yankees spent $208 million on players last year and the Devil Rays $29 million. In the NFL, a lower-revenue team like Jacksonville is going to take in probably $170 million this year, with the Redskins raking in maybe $310 million. To think Jacksonville would spend $50 million on players and the Redskins $190 million is just idiocy. Won’t happen.

No Peter. As much as I admire and respect you as a sports journalist, your thinking is idiocy. Just look at what has happened in the NHL, MLB and the NBA when they didn’t have a salary cap. There is a pattern at work here and we’ve seen it in every league without a cap. Inevitibly the teams with the most money set the market value for player salaries and the smaller market franchises are then either forced to keep up by overpaying, or they have to let their players go. And if the overpaying continues you end up in a situation like the NHL, where salaries escalate to the point where franchises start to lose money.

You think $310 million and $170 million won’t create a gulf? It will. You’ve covered types like Daniel Snyder enough to know by now.

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Let’s cut to the heart of the matter. History is not on the side of the uncapped league. And neither are the fans. Fans don’t like seeing the Yankees buy up every good player, or watching their own pro sports team turn out to be nothing more than a farm for the bigger market clubs. Fans want to know that when the season begins their team has a legitimate chance to compete for a title. In no other sport is this more true than the NFL. When baseball, hockey or the NBA starts up everyone already knows the top few teams that have a legitimate shot to compete, and that the rest of the teams are simply on the schedule – nothing more. In the NFL though, everyone has a chance. Don’t believe me? Then ask the experts what record the Chicago Bears were supposed to have before the 2005 season started.

That’s the difference between a league with a true salary cap and one that doesn’t have it: hope.

In the NFL the salary cap provides a level playing field, and that creates hope. And that is why the NFL is the greatest league on Earth.

Growing up my best friend was a guy named Dave. He was my best friend mostly because of proximity – he and his family lived next door and they couldn’t avoid me. Dave would have been friends with whoever lived next door though, because that’s the kind of guy he is. Dave is likeable and he gets along with just about anyone. Easygoing is one way to describe him. A nice guy would be another. But whatever lable you try and pin on him what it all boils down to is this: Dave is a great human being. Kind, considerate, caring, thoughtful… You have to be a pretty big jerk for Dave to not like you. We don’t talk much now and we see each other less often, but I’m thankful for the time I had with him as a kid. Being able to call him a friend is one of the things about my youth that I cherish.

I get e-mail updates every few weeks from Dave and his wife, Angie, about their life together in Utah. The two of them were married several years ago and figured they’d live out their lives like most people, having children and sharing the love. Unfortunately, life has a twisted sense of humor. For whatever reason – call it fate, biology, “God’s plan” – the two of them can’t have children. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work. Good people are supposed to rewarded, I always believe. It doesn’t seem fair to me that Dave and Angie can’t have kids, but people who have no business being parents can pop babies out one after the other and collect their welfare checks without any trouble. I’m sure most folks can think of people who shouldn’t be procreating. Here are two great people with big hearts and they can’t produce their own little holy terrors. It’s a shame.

So, a couple years ago they decided to adopt, and they brought Jaycee into their home. Precocious, cute, fun, lovable – she’s just what they needed. There’s only one problem: she’s all alone in Dave and Angie’s house, with no siblings, and she’s getting smothered by her parent’s love.

Dave and Angie have a lot of love to give, and they’re hoping to adopt again. But a second adopted child is turning out to be nearly as elusive as the biological one. A few weeks ago I received an e-mail from Angie asking for help:

As you all know we are hoping to adopt again. We’ve been grateful for everyone’s prayers and support throughout our adoption journey. Many adoptive parents and children are connected through close associations. Because of this we would like to ask for your help. If you know of a birth mother who is thinking about placing her child for adoption, we would appreciate help in recommending us to the birth mother. If she is willing to consider us as adoptive parents, please contact us or have her contact our caseworker…

Dave and Angie have their adoption profile online here.

This blog gets a few hits. I figure with the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon in effect anything is possible. It can’t hurt to try. If you think you know someone who might be giving up a child for adoption, please contact me at cb.holmes@gmail.com and I’ll forward the info to Dave and Angie. I’d post their e-mail but I don’t feel like subjecting them to spam. Me – I can take it.