Yes, He does. Unconditionally.

I have always told myself that I would not post on social media about hot button topics that are going on in society and across the political landscape in our country. But lately there’s been a conviction in my heart regarding the thousands of Syrian refugees that many political leaders in our country want to turn their backs on.

Just so I don’t turn any readers off from my previous sentence, I want to be clear that there is a secular argument for not allowing Syrian refugees that has some merit. My focus in this post is not a secular argument. I will briefly touch on a few points.

As the retired Marine Phil Klay put it, “The Marine hymn claims that Marines are the ‘first to fight for right and freedom and to keep our honor clean.’ You’re not supposed to risk your life just for the physical safety of American citizens. You’re supposed to risk your life for American ideals as well.” Well said.

Also, I want to be clear. I am not saying I believe we should swing the door wide open to the United States and let anyone come in with no vetting… In fact, no one is saying that. The process to check a refugee is a rigorous method that includes 13-steps before anyone even steps foot on US soil. Some of those steps include background cross checking with Homeland Security, the FBI, CIA and international agencies.  This is extremely important.

Okay, that’s the last I’ll speak towards the secular side to this issue. I want to speak to a stance on this issue that runs much deeper to me, and hopefully runs much deeper to you if you’re also a Christian. If you’re not a Christian, please keep reading anyway. I hope and pray that this explanation can give you some insight into what the heart of a Christian is like, filled with God’s love and with the hope of spreading the Good News of the Gospel.

I read an article that was unbelievably eloquent and accurate when articulating the question we, as Christians, should be asking with the possibility of 10,000 Syrian refugees coming to the United States. The question is not “Should we let them in?” The question is, “What is God up to?”

I know many people that have saved up and raised money for two, three, four years or more so they can go on mission trips across the globe. I know people who are currently in the process of raising funds just for the opportunity to travel across the world to love on people and possibly get the chance to share Jesus. Now all of a sudden, with the atrocities and the evil that is taking place in the world, there are 10,000 people who could come directly to us.

Man does evil. God uses it for good. (Genesis 50:20)

What better way to show the love of God, than to show love and compassion to people who may not look like us, think like us, believe like us or people that don’t have the means of repaying us for our kindness and mercy. Because let’s be clear, Jesus doesn’t call us to only love our own people. That’s easy. Everyone does that.

“If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others?” – Jesus in Matthew 5:46-47

By the way, tax collectors in Biblical times were thought of as basically scum of the earth.

Jesus doesn’t call us to love people when it’s easy.

Jesus calls us to love people when it’s hard.

Jesus calls us to love people when they don’t look like us.

Jesus calls us to love people when they don’t believe like us.

Jesus calls us to love people EVEN WHEN WE’RE SCARED.

Hear me on this:

Darkness cannot grow on its own. Darkness only grows when light diminishes. Don’t let fear grow hate. Instead, let your love shine through fear.

I can’t think of a better way to put the love of Jesus on display than to show compassion for people even when they look different, think differently, believe differently and even though our own fear is involved.

In my experience and talking with people from all different walks of life, change occurs through love. People who have been raised Muslim their entire lives are not going to come to Jesus because we quote Bible verses at them from the other side of the world. But there’s a chance that we can stir their hearts by showing them an unconditional compassion and love.

Why should we do that? Because that’s what God did for us first. He loved us unconditionally.

We didn’t believe in Him. We didn’t live for Him. We were selfish and conceited. And despite us turning our backs on God, He died for us and saved us (Romans 5:8).

So let me tell you something that I believe is absolutely true… God loves you.

Whether you are straight laced or rough around the edges… God loves you.

Whether you never take a sip of alcohol in your life or you’re an alcoholic… God loves you.

Whether you are straight or gay… God loves you.

Whether you are a Christian or a Muslim… God loves you.

No matter who you are, what you believe or what you’ve done… God wants your heart.

Please don’t miss this call to share the love of God with people. Because if we do miss this opportunity, we’re not missing the chance to spread the Good News just one time, we’re missing 10,000 times.

If you’re a Christian, I hope you’ll answer the call to love when it’s hard.

If you’re not a Christian, I hope this gives you some insight into the way that Jesus calls us to love people even though we as humans have the unfortunate habit of screwing up perfect love when we try to act it out. If you’re curious about Jesus, ask someone all the questions you have. They may not be able to answer them all, but it’s a start.

But here’s one question you don’t have to ask… Does God love me?

No matter who you are. No matter what you’ve done. No matter what you believe. No matter what part of the world you are from. I know His answer.

Does God love you?

Yes, He does. Unconditionally.

It's Not that Big a Deal

By the time you read this, the Hall of Fame balloting will likely have already been released. Names like Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez and John Smoltz will likely have led the pack and deservingly so. Some of the biggest questions remain with names like Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds. Don’t let the title of this blog fool you. As most of you know, I am extremely outspoken about my stance that Clemens, Bonds and all heavy steroid users should be kept out of the Hall of Fame. But as I have continued to think over names like Clemens, Bonds and other standouts in the Steroid Era of baseball, I have come to realize that my approach towards this issue has been misguided… The approaches to most people’s arguments have also been misguided or at least the approaches of many have used improper priorities.

My argument for the longest time has been based on the premise that not only did steroids push athletes to a Hall of Fame level, but these users were master cheaters who have compromised the integrity of the game (or at least the integrity of the game’s records). While I still believe that argument holds true, an argument strictly focusing on baseball misses the true impact of the discussion. That may sound counterintuitive, but stick with me.

Since the beginning of the Steroid Era, a consistent message has been sent: Taking steroids is not that big a deal.

I use passive voice in that statement (“has been sent”) because the message has been sent by several different groups and several different people over the years. When steroids made their uprising in baseball through the 90s, Major League Baseball, coaches and players turned blind eyes to the use of illegal drugs. Let me go ahead and put this out there now… The argument that players should not be punished or held accountable because Major League Baseball did nothing about the rampant use of drugs is completely erroneous.

Let’s say I rob a convenience store with two cops inside. While I take the money, the cops see me but turn the other way. The store owner goes to the police chief and tells him what happened. The police chief does not punish the cops who were in the store. Just because those cops (eye witnesses) are not punished does not mean that I should not be held accountable. I still committed a crime. I still broke the law. This is not an “if a tree falls in the forest with no one around” argument. Wrong is wrong, illegal is illegal regardless of punishment.

Okay, back to the message being sent. The MLB, coaches and players by not speaking out about baseball’s problem during the heart of the steroid era sent a clear and concise message: taking steroids is not that big a deal.

As time went on, baseball started to climb its way back onto the sports map in the United States. Commissioner Bud Selig then started to “crack down” on steroids in baseball. While I applaud Commissioner Selig for starting the conversation on steroids and starting a protocol to punish players, MLB’s drug policy is not enough.

Before we get to the second manner in which the same message is sent, let’s discuss some of the basics of baseball’s drug policy. First offense/positive test is a 50-game suspension. Second offense is a 100-game suspension. I’m going to stop right there. A 50-game suspension is an absolute JOKE. For sake of your time, I won’t go through the details of the monetary benefits to taking steroids. If you want a more in depth look go to my previous blog “Staying Clean” and do a control-F for Melky Cabrera.

My main point? The benefits of taking steroids can and have been up to $12 million a year while the risk is being suspended less than one-third of the season. Not to mention, players can play in the minor leagues while they are suspended on the Major League level for drugs. It’s a joke. The risk is far outweighed by the reward, outweighed by millions of dollars. Players test positive and release calloused statements likely written by their agents or PR specialists. Even some apologies which bring tears to the players’ eyes don’t feel genuine. They apologize to fans then go home and count their millions.

So once again, Major League Baseball, due to its “slap on the wrist” approach to punishing steroid users, and players with their insincere apologies, send the same message: taking steroids is not that big a deal.

And here we are today. A day which is unique. Unique because the power to send a message no longer lays in the hands of Major League Baseball or coaches or players. The power of the message lays in the hands of the baseball writers who vote for the Hall of Fame.

If the writers vote in guys like Bonds and Clemens, the message will remain the same. Taking steroids is not that big a deal. But the writers can change that message that has been sent for over 20 years. They can keep users out of the Hall and tell us that taking steroids IS a big deal.

But in order to understand the impact, we have to take a look at who receives that message. Let me be clear, I’m not worried about the message going to players in the MLB or casual fans or even baseball purists. I’m worried about the message that is received by kids.

If the writers vote in the Bonds and Clemens of the world, our kids will hear a loud and clear message across the board: You can lie, cheat, break the rules, put your body at risk and even be caught doing all of that, but still make millions of dollars, gain fame and then enter into the most prestigious of groups despite not doing what’s right. And the kicker, you’ll never truly be held accountable.

What reason would a high school kid trying to go pro have to NOT take steroids? Or a college kid? Or a minor leaguer who is trying to stay afloat in the ultra-competitive world of professional baseball? For over two decades, kids have not been deterred from taking steroids by any message the MLB has sent. In fact, I would argue that kids have been encouraged to use steroids by the lack of a stance against performance enhancing drugs. Or at least any kind of serious stance.

It’s true that if Bonds and Clemens are not inducted, the greatest players during the Steroid Era will not be in the Hall of Fame. But let’s not act like keeping players out of the Hall erases them from history. People will still talk about those players and the unbelievable numbers they totaled. Their stories are not erased. They are still a part of baseball history, but they don’t have to be in the Hall of Fame.

I write this blog as a young adult who is starting to mature. I write this blog as a young adult who one day wants to have a family. One day I hope I can proudly explain to my son why players who have some of the best numbers in history are not in the Hall of Fame. I can explain that it’s not always about the result. I can explain that at some point, we all will be held accountable for our wrongdoings. I can explain to my son why he shouldn’t take steroids. I hope the writers will allow me to teach my future child that lesson.

But if the writers do induct Bonds and Clemens, my kid can counter with this… “But Dad, look at the money they made and all their accomplishments. I mean, they’re in the Hall of Fame! Look at history. Taking steroids… IT’S NOT THAT BIG A DEAL.”

STAYING CLEAN

As many of you know, I have an extremely outspoken and opinionated position on the topic of steroids/performance enhancing drugs and Major League Baseball’s Hall of Fame. Steroids and the Hall of Fame combine to create a controversial (as controversial as sports issues are) issue that strikes close to home with me. Baseball has been one of my biggest passions since I was little and the Hall of Fame is like sacred ground to any baseball-lover… And I would like to keep that ground sacred.

I recently read an article, linked by USA Today, which outlined four reasons steroid users should be included in the Hall of Fame… The article, written by Ted Berg (@ogtedberg), was creatively titled “4 Reasons the Baseball Hall of Fame should include steroid users.” Strike one Ted. Spice up the title. Before Ted goes into describing his four reasons, he tries to quiet the outrage which I’m sure some readers had when reading the title (this is a polarizing issue when it comes to baseball fans).

I have already described that this issues hits close to home, but let me assure you that I have taken emotion out of reasoning for not wanting steroid users in the Hall of Fame.

And as for Ted’s four reasons… Imagine the Oakland Raiders’ defense dropping back in a zone against the Denver Broncos. Peyton drops back and picks it a part. Well sit back and get ready for me to find the soft spots and holes in Ted’s defense.

As mentioned, before Ted gets into his reasons he makes a few statements to try to quiet the rioters. In doing so, he opens up a few opportunities for me to describe fundamental parts of my argument. Ted believes Major League Baseball should eliminate the character clause in Hall of Fame voting. According to the official definition of the requirements, “Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team on which the player played.” Let me say this up front, I AM NOT QUESTIONING OR ATTACKING STEROID USERS CHARACTER. I do not automatically assume that every person who uses steroids is a miserable human being. We’ll get into why later.

Secondly, Ted accuses fans of being angry people who believe “Cooperstown has no room for cheaters.” Another major point in my argument, people who use steroids are not petty cheaters. They’re more than that.

Take two made up people: Anthony and Michael. Now, Anthony steals a Snickers bar from a local convenience store and gets caught. Michael robs a bank and steals a car, also gets caught. Is the punishment for Antony going to be the same as Michael’s punishment? NO!! Of course not! Anthony’s lute totals about $2.14 with tax while Michael is dealing with a felony. Steroid users are MASTER CHEATERS not just cheaters.

Consider those few points, Peyton calling a few audibles to run through that Oakland defense. Not it’s time to pick apart the zone…

Before I get in too deep with this argument, please feel free to read Ted’s article by clicking this link: http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/12/baseball-hall-of-fame-steroids-bonds-clemens-piazza-bagwell/#sthash.H6AXi1z2.uxfs

Ted’s first reason: End the Witch Hunt

To be honest, there’s no real concise point Ted makes here. It’s more like an overarching topic, but I’ll highlight a few of his points. Ted says that Hall of Fame voting is a “murky mess of moral judgements, finger-pointing and baseless speculation.” To start I’ll repeat myself, I am not challenging steroid-users’ character (you’ll have to wait until the end for me to fully explain that… TEASER!). As far as “finger-pointing and baseless speculation”… click this link to see my response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Yx0iKKi5xM

Baseless speculation!? Let’s take the Big 3 of steroid users: Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Alex Rodriguez. All three have been PROVEN to have taken steroids. Bonds took the argument that he unknowingly took steroids… Really? I take decent care of myself and I would know if I was taking some kind of illegal substance. A professional athlete who probably has four dietitians with him every time he orders at a restaurant didn’t know he took steroids? Come on, bro (Bryce Harper voice). Keeping steroid users out of the Hall of Fame is hardly a witch hunt.

Ted goes on to say there’s no doubt there are some players who have not been caught using steroids but undoubtedly use performance enhancing drugs. What will we do when these players make it to the Hall of Fame? To fully respond to that, I will have to know what players he is talking about. So Ted, if you read this let me know.

But for sake of argument let’s say there is a player who definitely used but it was never fully proven, what do we do? In most situations, the terms would be guilty until proven innocent. That being said, remember that the Hall of Fame is sacred ground. The burden of proof is not on the voters. It’s on the potential inductee. In other words, if there is reasonable doubt or even substantial doubt that a player used steroids: HE AIN’T GETTIN’ IN! This is sacred ground people! I don’t want someone in sacred ground that “maybe didn’t take steroids.” I want people in there that definitely did not take steroids! It’s not a witch hunt. It’s an effort to keep a sacred place pure.

Looked off the safety, completed a pass for a 30-yard gain… One of Ted’s reasons down.

Reason two, steroid users should get into the HOF (according to Ted): It will save the Hall of Fame

In 2013, there was only one player inducted into the Hall of Fame: Deacon White. Never heard of him? There’s a reason. He played from 1870 to 1891. That was it. If that’s not shocking in itself, listen to some of the names that were left out of the Hall: Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro. Sensing a trend? Steroid users. Now there were also names like Craig Biggio, Fred McGriff and Dale Murphy left out that I don’t agree with. BUT, as far as the users, bravo voting committee!

By the way, if you don’t know who votes for Hall of Fame inductees, it’s mostly sports writers who have been writing for at least ten years (I was wondering why my application kept getting denied).

In the article, Ted articulates that only one man getting voted into the Hall “can’t be good for the town or the museum.” Actually Ted, it’s a great thing! But that’s the fundamental difference in my and Ted’s views. But then Ted goes on in THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE to say, “The Hall of Fame is our greatest shrine to our best thing.” Finally, something we can agree on! Ted says greatest shrine to our best thing; I say sacred ground. So why would we want to allow something that has the potential to tarnish that sacred ground? (Letting users in the Hall).

Ted then says, “As fans who grew up loving the game in the late 1990s and early 2000s mature and start families, how many will rush to bring their kids to see a Hall of Fame that excludes their own childhood heroes?”

Let me break this down… first of all, I am the exact person that Ted is referencing. Grew up and fell in love with the game in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Secondly, Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa are hardly my childhood heroes (Doug Funny can never be dethroned in that category… he’s such a great guy). But even though their not my heroes, I get Ted’s point. And to answer his question, I WILL RUSH TO TAKE MY KIDS TO THE HALL OF FAME because it is still PURE. If roid-heads get in, then I won’t want to visit the Hall of Fame because it would be terrible to see sacred ground without its purity.

Ted’s next point is by far my favorite in his entire article. Hands down! Before I relay it to you, I want you to know that I’m really not a jerk. But if you come at me with some nonsensical ignorance, I’m going to toss back a heavy dose of sarcasm. I’m going to paste in the paragraph with Ted’s point. The capitalization is my doing for emphasis…

People sometimes ask, “How am I supposed to explain to my kid that Barry Bonds made the Hall of Fame even though he took steroids?” But that actually takes, like, 20 seconds: “The Hall of Fame honors great players, son, not great men. Barry Bonds might have been a jerk, and he was WILLING TO BREAK THE LAW TO BE BETTER AT BASEBALL. BUT MAN, COULD THAT GUY HIT.”

Put your sarcasm goggles on please… Ted! You’re absolutely right! I have been flipped on this issue. I don’t know what I was thinking. That’s exactly what I will tell my kid! So then, my kid will go on and think, “hey I’m going to go steal a bunch of money from a bunch of different people! Yeah, I’ll be breaking the law but I’ll be rich! And who knows maybe they’ll make a plaque for me if I get really good at stealing!” Thanks for that piece of philosophical gold Ted!

Okay, sarcasm goggles off… I’m not equating taking steroids to robbing banks but you get my point. Bonds cheated big time! Was he great at launching baseballs? Absolutely. But that doesn’t change the fact that he cheated to get as good as he was.

Quick aside… Barry Bonds is a unique case because I fully believe that without steroids, he still would have put up Hall of Fame numbers. Bonds could do it all as a scrawny kid. I do NOT believe he would have broken Hank Aaron’s record (I still call Hank the Homerun King) or put up the ridiculous numbers without steroids. I’ll get more in depth on that later.

Outside of keeping the Hall of Fame pure, think about the message that baseball (voters) will be sending by voting in PED-users. Do we really want to say that "cheating is wrong but it can still make you great?" That's the message we send if proven steroid users enter into the Hall. Or do we want to say, "You may have accomplished some great feats, but you cheated to the extreme, so you will not be recognized as one of our 'greatest'?" The world is materialistic enough already. Let's not continue the message that the end justifies the means. 

To get back to Ted’s point: saving the Hall of Fame. That’s exactly what I want to do, but by keeping sacred ground sacred and making sure steroids users don’t get in.

Raiders drop back in Cover 3, Peyton hits Welker with a corner out… 25 yard gain.

Ted’s third point: Recognizing Humanity

This is the part where my mind wants to explode because people want to compare two completely different issues.

Ted says that we screw up all the time. “Hall of Famers are no different.” Ted says Gaylord Perry doctored baseballs which is absolutely true. For those of you who don’t know, “doctoring” a baseball is scuffing the ball, spitting on it or putting some foreign substance on the ball. Without getting in a physics explanation (which I am completely underqualified to do), basically a baseball is a rounded surface with small interruptions as the laces. But when you “doctor” the baseball, the surface is no longer flat which makes the ball move in sometimes unexpected directions. Is that “cheating.” Yes. Did the spitball make Perry a Hall of Famer? Heck no! Plus, did he throw a spitball every time? I highly doubt it. But when’s the last time you think Barry Bonds went to the plate and thought to himself, “Hey, I’m NOT going to be on steroids during this at-bat.” Come on Ted!

Many people (including Ted) will make the argument that the use of “greenies” was rampant in Major League Baseball. Again, I’m going to spare you the chemistry and biology behind greenies, but a greenie is an amphetamine. It’s a stimulant that speeds up the heart rate. Many people who have ADHD or narcolepsy use amphetamines. In fact, I have a close friend who takes a medicine (legally of course) similar to what we are talking about. My friend (will call him Craig) and I discussed the steroid topic before and I mentioned greenies. Craig gave me a great insight into what they do.

Craig and I both played baseball at Carson-Newman. A college baseball schedule is comprised of about 50 to 60 games, usually four or five per week. Late in the season when we were playing our third game in two days, we were tired. We had to physically and mentally fight fatigue. According to Craig, if he waited to take his medicine until right before the game, he would feel energized and focused throughout the game. Better than he would have if he did not take his medicine.

Craig was a two-time all conference player for us. I never made all-conference.

Craig took meds like greenies. I did not.

Was he such a great player because of the meds? OF COURSE NOT! Craig made all-conference and I didn’t because he was a way better player than me. I was average at best. Craig was an excellent hitter with or without his medication!

If a Hall of Fame baseball player took greenies at some point in his career, he would have been a Hall of Fame player even if he did not take greenies. A player who took steroids may have put up Hall of Fame numbers but the roids boosted him tremendously. The Hall of Fame-talent was not there initially.

Now, I already know what you’re thinking. “There’s no quantifiable evidence that steroids make you better.” Actually….

In 1980, there were 3,087 home runs hit in Major League Baseball. In 2000, there were 5,693 home runs hit, almost double the number from 20 years ago. It’s true that guys naturally got stronger while parks got smaller, but let’s not bury our heads in the sand. There were almost 3,000 more home runs hit in the heart of the steroid era than there were 20 years prior. You want quantifiability? (I think that’s a word). You got it. Now someone please send me a spike in power numbers when greenies were being used.

Using greenies and using steroids is not the same thing. Just listen to the descriptive and more scientific names of the drugs. Stimulants or HUMAN GROWTH HORMONE. It’s not hard to see that one has a much bigger affect than the other. And by the way, Craig agrees with me on the matter of greenies versus roids.

Let’s go back to our two thieves Anthony and Michael. Anthony steals a Snickers bar, gets caught and gets slapped on the wrist because... well... it's a Snickers bar. The candy theft won't exactly shift the economic landscape of a store. Michael on the other hand robs a bank, gets caught and gets thrown in prison. Later in life, Anthony and Michael run for political office. News comes out that they have thievery in their pasts. 

The public hears about Anthony and the Snickers bar. They laugh. They hear about Michael and the bank. They are furious and he gets no votes.

You get my point. Are Michael and Anthony both thieves? Yes. But Michael’s thievery made much more of an impact, just like players who used greenies and steroids are technically both cheaters. But the steroids make a HUGE impact.

This leads me swiftly into my next point. And I make my point by bringing up an argument of Ted’s. He references Ty Cobb and how he climbed into the stands to beat up a man with no hands. I don’t know if that’s true, but just that there is a rumor or story that Cobb did beat up a handless man, lends itself to say Ty Cobb was as mean as they came. I do know that he used to sharpen his cleats to hurt players sliding into second. This guy was awful… at being a nice person but amazing at baseball. If Cobb was still alive, would I want to hang out with him? Not a chance? I would be scared that he would get mad and punch me or stab me with his sharpened spikes. Would I induct him into the Hall of Fame… again? Yes sir I would!

Again, it goes back to a sliding scale (that I believe the majority would be in agreement with me). Mean and selfish is not on the same level as immoral or unethical. 

Mean = Ty Cobb
Unethical = steroid users

And oh yeah… Peyton up top for another 20-yard gain.

Ted says (his 4^th point) that the Hall is to: Celebrate Great Players

Ted says that everyone was on PEDs in the steroid era. It was roid-head against roid-head. They played in a time where no one did anything about it.

Ted, you’re absolutely right. Earlier I said we shouldn’t stick our heads in the sand but that is exactly what Major League Baseball did during the steroid era. Everyone knew what was going on but no one did anything to stop it. MLB officials, players and coaches all knew it was wrong. But even with that knowledge, the prevalence of turning a blind eye does not make taking steroids right.

Just because no one does anything about it, does not justify the act. Let’s go back in history. There was a time in this country where owning another human being was legal. Did almost everyone own slaves? If you could afford it, yes. Was it right? No.

Just to be clear, I'm not equating using steroids, to owning slaves. Sounds obvious but I know there is someone who would think that.

Every steroid user is not a miserable human being with poor character, but they did make the wrong choice. Before I tell you why I don’t dub PED-users as terrible people, let me finish up the rebuttals of Ted’s article.

Ted says that all of Bonds’ 762 home runs still counts and we still celebrate the championships teams won with steroid-users on the rosters. My response to that and to PED-users… You can have your records. You can have your championships and stats.

BUT STEROID USERS, YOU WILL NOT TOUCH THE HALL OF FAME.

Did a ball go off Bonds’ bat and over the fence 762 times? Yes it did. No arguing that. You can have your record and no astrix needed, but you won’t sniff the Hall of Fame. That’s sacred ground.

We can celebrate players all we want. But the Hall of Fame is a different kind of celebrating. And to the casual baseball fan, this may not make sense.

Think of it this way. Lots of us grew up going to our grandparents houses. And we were allowed to roam all around the house knocking over things and making a mess. I mean they're our grandparents. They would let us get away with anything. But there was always this one room in my grandparents house that I was not allowed to go in. One room that was not allowed to be dirtied or even altered in any way. It was sacred.

That’s the Hall of Fame. You can dirty the rest of the house and have your records. But that one room is Staying Clean.

Peyton to Welker for the touchdown…

*******

Now that I have finished picking apart that defense, a few more explanations...

I promised I would describe why I don’t harshly question the character of steroid users. Let me start by saying, I’m speaking about the average user. Guys like Ryan Braun who constantly lied to the fans, to teammates and to friends will not get my empathy. You can’t combine all those lies and deceits and say, “I made a mistake.” No, a mistake is forgetting to make reservations on your anniversary - the punishment is probably more severe than Braun’s - not taking roids and lying to everyone about it for three years.

Anyway, here is why I can understand why guys take steroids. The reward far outweighs the risk. What’s the reward? Millions of dollars and the chance to set your family and your children for life. What’s the risk? A suspension and your reputation is tarnished. And the kicker, the suspension is only for 50 games! Are you kidding me? And oh yeah, that’s 50 games but you can still play in the minors during the suspension. That’s a joke. Excuse the straight forward language but GROW SOME, MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL! The MLB turned the other way for years about steroids and they say they are getting serious. And to their credit, they’re starting to. But a 50 game suspension for the first offense is not stopping anyone!

Look at Melky Cabrera. He started his career with the Yankees. In four years with New York and one with the Braves, Cabrera hit about .270. Solid but not great. Next year he hits .305 and a career-high 18 home runs with the Royals. Following year with the Giants (the year he was the All Star Game MVP) he hits .346! Then gets busted for steroids. In 2009 (his last year with the Yankees), Cabrera was paid $1.4 million. In 2012, when Cabrera was on roids and putting up MVP-like numbers he was getting paid $6 million. If Melky would have continued on without getting caught and putting up drug-aided numbers, he would have gotten paid like an MVP and cashed in anywhere from 12 to 16 million a year on the low end. I won’t ask what you would do, but all I’m saying is that it would be hard for me to turn down the opportunity to make that kind of glue and the opportunity to make sure that my family did not have to worry about any kind of financial issues when the risk is getting suspended for ONLY 50 GAMES.

Step it up a notch MLB. Get really serious about cracking down on PEDs.

And finally, I end with an idea. One of the best arguments about allowing steroids users into the Hall of Fame was briefly mentioned by Ted in his article. Try to find Mike Greenberg of Mike and Mike in the Morning. His articulation of this argument is phenomenal. The argument is that the Hall of Fame is for the best players of each period, and the Steroid Era, although dark and tarnished, was an era of the game that had dominating players.

Here is my answer to that but the idea is in the beta stages of development. Create a room in the Hall of Fame. A room that is dark, no AC or heat (whichever would be worse in Cooperstown), has a musty smell to it, maybe put a toilet right in the middle of the room but don’t ever clean it. And have plaques but not plaques like the rest of the Hall but plaques made of cheap printer paper and crayon. And that can be the steroid users section of the Hall of Fame.

And I would never go in it. Because I’m all about Staying Clean.

ARGUING WITH THE BEST

Twitter has undoubtedly changed the way news spreads across the world. I first learn about nearly every major sports or world news story through twitter. Many critics of this newer version of social media have learned the value of “tweeting” and have changed their views to now embrace that stupid blue bird. I can’t even remember how I learned about major stories before I started using Twitter! Did I really wait for those single, weekly visits to CNN.com or ESPN.com? Surely, I didn’t wait for the six o’clock news or Sportscenter to learn all the breaking news in the world!

Twitter has revolutionized the way the media spreads information. But the list of Twitter’s capabilities and uses extends much further than uses of the media. You can follow your favorite celebrities with hopes of gaining insight as to what they are like off the field, court, stage, etc. The more “followers” you gain, the easier you can promote a blog like this one or some kind of promotion from work. You can receive inspirational quotes or Bible verses several times a day. With the newest version of Twitter, not only can you use direct links to the latest news story, but you are one click away from looking at what other people have tweeted about that particular story. And yes, if you’re that guy or that girl, you can tweet about what you had for lunch and how stoked you are about the CSI rerun that’s on TV (don’t be ashamed. I’ve done it).

The more I use Twitter, the more I enjoy its nuances from other social media. But the other day I learned by far the most engaging and unique capability that Twitter has the potential to bring to its users.

Twitter can allow you to have a CONVERSATION with celebrities that you admire.

Okay, here’s the situation.

Yesterday morning, I was looking through Twitter on my phone like I normally do countless times throughout the day. I saw a tweet from my favorite baseball writer/reporter, Buster Olney.

Buster Olney’s Original Tweet: Character clause is in MVP voting, too "...general character, disposition, loyalty and effort..." So if HOF voters use it, why not in MVP?

Recently, news stories surfaced that Milwaukee Brewers outfielder and 2011 NL MVP Ryan Braun tested positive for performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). According to some reports, Braun’s testosterone level was twice as high as the HIGHEST test ever recorded since that type of drug testing started in baseball.

I have a strong opinion in regard to PEDs, baseball awards, and the baseball Hall of Fame (HOF) so I decided to tweet back at Buster. I do not tweet at celebrities very often but occasionally I will with no expectation of a response. The following is what I tweeted to Buster Olney:

Me in response to Buster: Awards/Records are already tarnished. HOF is still sacred. No members of HOF have used steroids.

After I sent the tweet, I jumped in the shower in preparation to start my day. When I got out of the shower, I checked my phone and saw I had a message from twitter with the name “Buster” in it. I assumed someone had retweeted what I said or messaged me back and included Buster Olney’s twitter handle in the message. When I looked closer, I realized that the Senior Baseball Writer for ESPN Magazine and my favorite baseball writer, Buster Olney had tweeted me back!

I have never witnessed a 15-year old girl see Justin Bieber for the first time, but I imagine my reaction to Buster Olney tweeting me back was similar to that girl catching her first glimpse of Bieber.

I was so ecstatic that Buster Olney tweeted me back that it took me a few minutes to come back down to earth and get into argue mode. Little did I know that those first two tweets would turn into a discussion with Buster Olney that spanned over an hour and include over 20 tweets.

The following is the actual conversation I had with Buster Olney via Twitter. I have not edited or changed ANY of our tweets in ANY way.

(PEDs = Performance Enhancing Drugs. HOF = Hall of Fame)

Buster: You say no members of the Hall of Fame have used PEDs? Please present your proof.

Me: No HOFer has EVER tested positive for PEDs. Burden of proof is in revealing guilt.

Buster: OK, I'll flip it back to you: Has Roger Clemens tested positive? McGwire? Do you have an MLB positive test for Bonds?

Me: McGwire admitted guilt. Bonds admitted use of PEDs but said he was unaware it was illegal substance. By HOF standards- guilty

Me: jury ruled mistrial with Clemens. The evidence is enough for HOF to rule him guilty.

Buster: You say a mistrial is evidence of guilt? Really? So why hasn't Clemens been sentenced to jail?

Me: HOF vote is similar but not same as court of law. Reasonable doubt makes no difference. ANY doubt- then he's not a HOF.

Buster: So what about the HOFers who've admitted or been shown to use amphetamines throughout their careers?

Me: What HOFer has admitted that? If they have admitted, then take them out of HOF. Like I said HOF is sacred, pure, spotless

Buster: You say the Hall of Fame is spotless, pure? Have you read about Ty Cobb? Tris Speaker? Gaylord Perry breaking rules? Etc.?

Buster: Go back and read books/articles about HOFers from 1950-2000; you will find many references to their use of amphetamines.

Me: "speed" wont make you a HOF. Drugs that make pple bigger-stronger-faster is an issue. Adderall is an amphetamine. Not an issue

Buster: So let me get this straight: You are saying 'speed' is not a performance-enhancer, and is pure, as far as HOF is concerned?

Me: Speed will not make a good player great or a great player a HOFer. Bonds/McGwire type drugs took them to a new/unseen level.

Buster: If speed/ amphetamines ok for hall of famers, in your eyes, why are they now banned in virtually every sport?

Me: what were rules against them AT THE TIME? Can't punish someone for a new rule 20-30 years after the fact.

Buster: You just stepped into it: what were rules during McGwire's career?

Me: Specifically- I would have to research. McGwire admitted to using ILLEGAL steroids according to reports.

Buster: Besides, your premise is HOF is pure, clean; are you sticking with that, despite speed use, Cobb, Perry, etc.?

Me: Yes to my original premise. Speed not going to create a HOFer. Breaking rules like Cobb/Perry not going to create a HOF

Buster: And current HOFers have admitted amphetamine use that was illegal.

Me: To quote...well you: "please present your proof."

Me: amphetamines not banned in baseball until 2005. Players before ban cant be punished for something that was legal at the time.

Me: It was an honor/pleasure discussing this @Buster_ESPN. If you need me for Baseball Tonight or Sportscenter, you know my twitter handle :)

That was the discussion. I have never smiled the entire time I argued with someone until that Twitter, back-and-forth with Buster Olney. I feel like I put him in check-mate when I asked him to provide proof that current Hall of Famers have admitted to using illegal amphetamines that were illegal at the time of their use. I’ll admit, Buster may have more important things to do than argue with some guy on twitter so he couldn’t continue with the discussion.

That being said, I still feel like I won the argument. Because of my victory, I also feel that I am deserving of a “follow” from Buster Olney. I tweeted a message asking everyone to ask Buster to follow me, but my plan has not yet resulted in a celebrity follow.

If you have read the argument and believe I was victorious or at least had the upper hand, do me a favor and tweet @Buster_ESPN and ask him to follow @aaron_vargas.

Here's what I want you to take away from my story: if you don’t have Twitter, you should get an account. If you have Twitter, don’t be shy about tweeting at your favorite celebrities when you have something intelligent to say, because you never know when you’ll end up ARGUING WITH THE BEST.

THE "MAN" IN MANNING

You would be hard pressed to watch a sports talk show or listen to sports talk radio without hearing an NFL topic that is continuing to rise up and spark heated discussion: Peyton Manning. The former University of Tennessee standout had neck surgery prior to the 2011 season and has failed to play a single game for the Colts this year (I know you know this, I’m just setting things up). Subsequently, “struggling” isn’t quite a strong enough adjective to describe the Colts’ winless season thus far. But the painfully terrible 2011 season has the potential to create an incredibly positive outcome in Indianapolis… if the Colts use it correctly.

The Indianapolis Colts and Miami Dolphins are the only two winless teams left in the NFL. Since the Colts and Dolphins do not play each other at any point this season, neither team has shown any signs that they’ll be able to finish the season with a tally in the win column. The good part about being so laughably bad is that the worst team in the NFL will get the first pick in the NFL draft, and this is not one of the years with a watered down draft class especially with the availability of Stanford quarterback Andrew Luck (arguably the best college quarterback prospect in 20 years). ESPN has entitled the Colts and Dolphin’s “lose-win” situation as the “Suck-for-Luck” Sweepstakes.

Let’s just assume the Indianapolis Colts do “suck” enough to draft Andrew Luck. Here’s where the heated debate comes in. What do the Colts do with both Andrew Luck and Peyton Manning? I’m going to save you some time and NOT list every single choice the Colts have in this situation. Today I heard one of the Colts’ possible choices talked about on both Sportsnation and on Sportscenter. Collin Cowherd (Sportsnation) and Herm Edwards (Sportscenter) both said the COLTS SHOULD DRAFT ANDREW LUCK AND TRADE PEYTON MANNING. Now both Cowherd and Edwards are intelligent, credible ESPN personalities so after I thought long and hard about these two’s opinion to trade Peyton Manning, I finally came to the logical conclusion for their statements; Cowherd and Edwards were belligerently drunk and obviously have a drinking problem that can only be solved with extensive rehab and Jesus.

In all seriousness, trading away a lock for the Hall of Fame like Peyton Manning is an unnecessary and desperate risk that the Colts do not need to take. Now let me admit something before I get into the thick of my argument. I do not know the extent of Peyton’s neck injury (for the rest of this blog, I am going to refer to him as “Peyton” because like all 20 plus-year Tennesseans, I believe I am on a first name basis with Peyton Manning). The Colts may know something about Peyton’s neck injury that tells them he is going to have physical limitations that will not allow him to compete at the same level. Peyton has had three neck surgeries in the last 18 months, so the long-term damage his injury and surgeries have done may be more serious than anyone in the public actually knows. For the sake of my argumentative victory, let’s assume that Peyton will not have any extremely negative affects from surgery and he will be the same quarterback that picks apart opposing defenses.

There are two enormously overwhelming reasons the Colts SHOULD NOT trade Peyton if they draft Andrew Luck: 1. Predicting the potential of collegiate players, ESPECIALLY QUARTERBACKS, is an inexact science 2. Peyton has not only proved he is a winner, but he has proved he is one of the top quarterbacks to ever play the game.

I will begin with the inexact science of projecting the professional abilities of a college quarterback. Let’s take a look at the number one overall picks in the NFL draft the last 20 years. I am only choosing to look at the last 20 years because the NFL has evolved so much, especially the past 10 years. More and more teams are moving to the “pass heavy, throw the football 50 or more times a game” plan. Teams like the Patriots, Saints, and Colts (when they have Peyton) use short passes, screens, and draw plays as a running game as apposed to pounding the ball up the middle with a big, physical back. Why is this important? Because a Super Bowl-caliber quarterback can no longer throw the ball 20 times a game, hope for no turnovers, and expect to win a championship. The burden placed on an NFL quarterback in today’s game is ENORMOUS!

So, back to the NFL draft the last 20 years. In the last 20 NFL drafts, there have been 11 quarterbacks taken first overall.

2011 – Cam Newtong

2010 – Sam Bradford

2009 – Matthew Stafford

2007 – MYSTERY MAN (I’ll get to him later)

2005 – Alex Smith

2004 – Eli Manning

2003 – Carson Palmer

2002 – David Carr

2001 – Mike Vick

1998 – Peyton Manning

1993 – Drew Bledsoe

Only two of those 11 have led their teams to a Super Bowl victory. Ironically enough both of those quarterbacks have the last name of “Manning.” Eli Manning (drafted in 2004) led the New York Giants to a championship in Super Bowl XLII (versus Patriots) and Peyton Manning (drafted in 1998) led the Colts to a victory in Super Bowl XLI (versus Bears). Drew Bledsoe (drafted first overall in 1993) won a Super Bowl with the Patriots in 2001, but he was not the starter for the majority of the season due to injury. Some other guy named Brady took over and led the team under center.

Now agreeably, you can’t determine a quarterback’s greatness solely on the number of championships he has won. I believe the number of championships won is a huge factor in that argument but that’s a discussion for another time. I’ll also admit that Newton, Bradford, and Stafford are way too young to determine their impact on the NFL, so let’s dig a little bit deeper into these 11 first overall picks. All the players on the list above, from Cam Newton to Peyton Manning are at an age where they should still be in the NFL barring catastrophic injury (Bledsoe ran out of gas in his playing career, retiring after the 2006 season). Out of the ten “should-be-active” quarterbacks taken first overall the last 20 years, three are not starters (MYSTERY MAN, Carr, and Palmer). I’m not counting Palmer as a starter because the Bengals basically disowned the guy and Palmer threw three interceptions in his first game as a Raider.

Now let’s look at the seven quarterbacks who are starters in the NFL.

I have already mentioned that both Mannings have won a Super Bowl so both the Giants and Colts are happy with their picks.

Newton is looking like he has the tools to become very good and he’s going to run the offense in Charlotte for many years to come (he has been playing for money for years so there’s no added pressure there). Sorry Jimmy Clausen.

Stafford has helped put the Lions back on the map. Nice pick Detroit.

Sam Bradford has been out for a couple weeks with an ankle injury, but I have to say I have not been impressed with his performances. I feel comfortable saying I’m not the only one who is not very optimistic about Bradford becoming a star.

Michael Vick is by far one of the most athletic and exciting players to ever play the game of football. Despite his overwhelming athleticism, the inability to read a defense has proved to be detrimental to his ability to lead a team to the dominance of a Patriots or Colts (with Peyton). Not to mention he was drafted by the Falcons not the Eagles, but it’s not really Atlanta’s fault Vick went to prison. The jury is still out on how great Mike Vick is going to be.

Alex Smith by any old quarterback’s standard is an average to slightly above average quarterback. But let’s be honest, you can’t judge a first overall pick by any old quarterback’s standards. First overall pick’s are expected to lead teams to championships. In Smith’s career, he averages 174.9 yards per game and he has thrown 60 TDs and 55 INTs. By a first overall pick’s standards, Alex Smith is not a very good quarterback.

In review, out of the ten “should-be-active” quarterbacks who were taken first overall in the last 20 years, two have one Super Bowls (Manning and Manning), two are going to be extremely good quarterbacks (Newton and Stafford), two we are not yet sure on (Vick and Bradford), two are bad quarterbacks (Palmer and Carr), and that leaves one: the MYSTERY MAN.

This guy is in a class of his own. He is not on the same level as any of the quarterbacks I have talked about so far. If you know football and the NFL draft you know the guy I’m talking about. I am about to say a name that should TERRIFY the Colts whenever they start thinking about drafting Luck and trading Peyton. I am about to drop a bomb in this argument: JAMARCUS RUSSELL…. BOOM!

I wish I could cue a video montage of Russell’s deplorable NFL career with intense music in the background. I would then show video of his amazing career at LSU with happy music and abruptly switch back to intense music and Russell throwing interceptions and fumbling in the NFL (I do have lots of free time now so stay tuned. I may consider making that video).

I am not going to mention in detail Ryan Leaf, who may be a bigger bust than Russell. Leaf was not a first overall pick. I am going to stick to my guns and only discuss Jamarcus Russell who was picked first overall by the Oakland Raiders in 2007.

First let’s go to the happy times in Russell’s playing career when he was quarterbacking at LSU. He won the starting job as a sophomore in Baton Rouge. His first year as a starter, Russell threw for 2,443 yards, 15 TDs, and completed 60% of his passes. Numbers were solid, but not great, yet Russell’s size (6’5” 265 lbs) and arm strength still had scouts and LSU fans interested. Russell’s junior season he threw for 3,129 yards, 28 TDs, and only 8 INTs. Russell also led the Bayou Bengals to a 41-14 Sugar Bowl whipping of Notre Dame, where Russell took home MVP honors. That December, Russell chose to forgo his last year at LSU and enter into the NFL draft.

Scouts were drooling over this big guy’s size and arm strength. ESPN football analyst John Clayton was quoted as saying that Russell’s size and strength were “hard to pass up on at number one [overall pick in the draft].” The Raiders did not pass up the opportunity to draft Russell and four years later, they probably wish they had passed him up.

In the equivalent of about 2 seasons (31 games), Russell’s numbers as the quarterback for the Oakland Raiders are horrendous. He only completed 52 percent of his passes, threw only 18 TDs while throwing 24 INTs which drops his career passer rating to a 65.2 (those of you who are not familiar with passer ratings, 65 is not good. Scratch that. 65 is terrible!) In 2009, Russell threw only 3 TDs and 11 INTs while putting together a passer rating of 50 (the worst passer rating for an NFL starter in over ten years).

Now, I don’t mention Jamarcus Russell to make fun of him (well, maybe I do a little. Especially because he held out prior to his first year as a Raider and then went on to put together the pitiful numbers I just showed you. I really dislike players who hold out and then can’t show out. Cough, cough… Chris Johnson… cough. But anyway, the point I am trying to make is that no matter how smart a team’s scouts are, no matter how advanced the physical tests and analysis is on a player, you simply cannot predict with all certainty the ability of a collegiate player when he comes to the NFL. The National Football League is a completely different animal than college football.

In 2004, you may remember reading or hearing about a story of a man named Ashley Revell. Mr. Revell was a 32-year-old man who spent all the money he had ($135,300) on a game of roulette. If you are not familiar with roulette, it is a simple game. There is a metal ball that you spin around on a wheel, which is divided by small spaces of red or black with different numbers. You bet on a color or number or both and if the ball lands in the area you bet on, you win money depending on the odds. Mr. Revell bet ALL of his money that the ball would land on a red space. And it did. Mr. Revell walked away with double the money he came into the game with.

Betting all of your money on red or black in a game of roulette is similar to drafting a quarterback first overall. It’s a coin flip. You just do not know how good the quarterback is going to be. You just do not know if you’re going to walk away with double your money or empty pockets and a very awkward conversation with your wife. If the Colts are to draft Andrew Luck and trade Peyton, it would not be like betting all your money on red in roulette. It would be dumber. Why? BECAUSE YOU HAVE PEYTON MANNING!

The Colts drafting Luck and trading Manning would be like a millionaire defense attorney betting all the money he had on a game of roulette to try to double his fortune. YOU’RE ALREADY A MILLIONAIRE! WHY DO YOU WANT MORE MONEY! It would be like a man with a model as a wife, looking over at a SUPER-model and being like “wow, she’s gorgeous. Maybe I should marry her instead.” YOU ALREADY HAVE A GORGEOUS WIFE! THIS SUPER MODEL MAY BE ATTRACTIVE BUT SHE MAY BE IMPOSSIBLE TO LIVE WITH! WHAT ARE YOU THINKING!?

I do not understand why people believe the Colts should trade away a proven champion and risk drafting Luck. Yes, Peyton is on the tail end of his career, BUT he’s still good. Yes, the Colts need help on the defensive side of the ball, BUT not at the expense of Peyton Manning. Defensive coordinators are TERRIFIED of playing Peyton Manning. You may hear them on the interviews the week before where they say some clichéd response like, “Well Peyton’s a great quarterback and we’re excited to face that challenge. We’re gonna work hard this week and see what we can do.” BULL! Defensive coordinators are not excited to face the challenge of Peyton Manning. The entire week leading up to a game against a Peyton-led Indianapolis Colts team, defensive coordinators wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat as the terrifying echo of Peyton barking audibles disappears into the night!

Okay, that’s enough with the emotional outbursts. Allow me to get back to logic. One of the huge arguments in getting rid of or trading Manning is that the Colts need some serious help on defense. This is true. Here is something that is also true, the Colts ALWAYS need help on defense. The Colts have eight of last year’s eleven starters on defense. It’s not exactly a completely new squad. Here’s what the Colts don’t have. They don’t have Peyton Manning using every second of the play clock and controlling the football for 40 minutes a game. On average this season, the Colts opposition has the football for ten more minutes than Indy does (Colts- 24:54, Opposition- 35.05). If you look at previous seasons, the Colts time of possession is actually fairly even, but the point is the Colts defense has to be on the field for five more minutes of game time than usual per game. Not to mention the added pressure the defense has this year the entire time they are on the field because they know the offense is not going to be able to score or comeback and win a football game.

Peyton Manning is by far the most important piece to any team in the NFL. Want me to prove it? The best three quarterbacks in the game are commonly said to be Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and Drew Brees. In 2008, Tom Brady was lost at the start of the Patriots season with a knee injury. Matt Cassell stepped in and won eleven games with the Pats, narrowly missing out on the playoffs (New England finished 11-4). Granted, Matt Cassell is better than Curtis Painter and an aged Kerry Collins but the Patriots won ELEVEN games. The Colts will be lucky to win ONE game without Peyton Manning. I would argue that Brees is close to as important to the Saints as Peyton is to the Colts. If Brees got hurt, the Saints would struggle with as much as that game plan is built to throw the ball and not play defense.

So what am I proposing? The Colts should pass up one of the best quarterback prospects the last 20 years? Absolutely not. Draft Andrew Luck, because he will have one of the best quarterback coaches, maybe in the history of the NFL. Draft Luck. Keep Peyton. Peyton doesn’t even have to go far out of his way to help teach Luck. As long as the kid stays attached to the hip of Peyton, and watches what he does, looks at the film that Peyton studies, he is going to become a much better quarterback and learn aspects and techniques of the game that no one else could teach him.

If this type of scenario sounds familiar, you are probably thinking of 2005 when the Green Bay Packers drafted Aaron Rodgers in the first round despite still having the iron man Brett Favre. Three seasons after Rodgers was drafted, Favre left Green Bay and started his saga. Despite my dislike for the way that Favre went back and forth with several teams, he could still play into his forties and he’s an amazing athlete and football player. Although Favre was slinging the football around the field for other teams, Rodgers and the Packers won a Super Bowl last year.

Some people believe Peyton would not take kindly to the Colts drafting Luck. Some people believe Peyton would demand a trade if the Colts draft the stud out of Stanford. Here’s what some people do not understand. Peyton Manning is not like you or me. If the company that you or I work for, hired a younger person as a back up for us, we would quickly feel uncomfortable and request a transfer if possible. Peyton is one of the best quarterbacks to ever play. He’s not going to run out of Indianapolis with his tail between his legs because some young superstar comes riding into town. If I had to guess, if the Colts do draft Andrew Luck, this will be Peyton’s mindset, “Wow. Guys in the front office are spending a lot of money on a SECOND STRING quarterback.” Peyton is the Colts quarterback. That will not have an immediate change if they draft Luck.

Here’s something we can all agree on. No player likes to leave his team or leave the game before he is ready. That is going to happen to Peyton Manning. His neck injury, while I do not believe will take huge affect in the next two or three years, I do believe the surgeries and neck problems will shorten his career. Around the time when Peyton slows to the point where he cannot compete at the same level or it is too dangerous to compete at the same level, will be the same time when Andrew Luck will be ready to take the wheel and steer his own ship.

Here’s what I want you to take away from this blog. Don’t try to double your money in a game of roulette when you already have enough to live comfortably. Don’t go looking for a more beautiful wife when you already have a gorgeous one that you love. And don’t trade away one of the best quarterbacks to ever play the game in hopes that a 22-year-old kid can lead your team to a Super Bowl.

Draft Luck. Keep Peyton. Because Peyton puts THE “MAN” IN MANNING.