Barkley's right: LeBron should be quiet

ON BASKETBALL

The Summer of 2010 remains a long way off. For instance, here are a few sports events that should happen before then:

The Detroit Lions will win a game. Maybe not multiple games, but a game. Hey, that's a start.

Roger Federer will break Pete Sampras' record of 14 grand-slam titles.

Tiger Woods will inch closer to breaking Jack Nicklaus' record of 18 major titles.

The Michigan basketball team will make its first NCAA Tournament since the long-ago year of 1998.

And on we go...

The point is that November 2008 is no time to be talking about that far-away summer. Not even the almighty LeBron James has that right — yes, even if he's asked that question by the oppressive New York media.

This is what James had to say when asked about the possibility of playing in a New York Knicks uniform after he becomes a free agent:

"I don't know if it's going to happen. But you have to stay open-minded if you're a Knicks fan."

Charles Barkley might have been a controversial player, but you could never doubt his loyalty to the team he was on. After James' visit to the Big Apple, the outspoken former All-Star gave James some sage advice (though he could have worded it more politically correct).

"If I was LeBron James, I would shut the hell up," Barkley said on Dan Patrick's radio show. "I'm a big LeBron fan. He's a stud. You gotta give him his props. I'm getting so annoyed he's talking about what he's going to do in two years. I think it's disrespectful to the game. I think it's disrespectful to the Cavaliers."

Barkley couldn't be more correct. And thankfully he spoke out, because we'll never hear a member of the Cleveland organization speak out against James — unless he kidnaps a cute kid or shoots himself in the leg, or something — because they don't want to do anything that will lower the probability of James re-signing with Cleveland in that much-talked-about summer.

To summarize, James has the Cavaliers hog-tied. He can do whatever he likes, within the law, and say whatever he wants. And hardly anyone in Cleveland will talk bad about him.

So how did James so eloquently respond to Barkley's comment?

"He's stupid. That's all I've got to say about that."

Nice and succinct. Hey, kind of like the answer James should have given when asked about the Summer of 2010.

Seriously. James is a smart man. He understands how the world works. He reads the news, knows what's being said, knows how certain comments are reacted to. So obviously he was aware of how his comments would be interpreted.

All he had to say was this (which, of course, is boring and typical, but also the right thing to say given the situation): "My focus right now is on the Cleveland Cavaliers. I'll deal with that decision when the time comes."

We hear smart athletes make similar statements all the time. Do we enjoy the non-answers to questions? Of course not — they're boring and don't tell us anything. But from the athletes' perspectives, they're doing what's right for their situations.

Now, the immediate impact of James' flirtation with the New York media hasn't seemed to affect his team. The Cavs are on a roll, having won all three games since their rout of the Knicks last Tuesday. While the players had to deal with questions about 2010 instead of their current dominant team, they haven't let the distraction affect their play.

Cleveland rested Monday night 14-3, three and a half games ahead of sagging Detroit in the Eastern Conference's Central Division. Its next game is a home rematch with the Knicks Wednesday night.

The Cavaliers are clearly the second-best team in the East behind the defending-champion Celtics. And last season's playoff series between the teams went to an epic seventh game, which Boston barely survived. So the difference between the squads isn't as big as some might make it out to be.

The point is that James is in a pretty good situation. It's not like he's part of a dysfunctional franchise run by idiots. This Cleveland team, with its current makeup, is capable of winning an NBA title. Sure, it'd help for James to have an All-Star sidekick such as Michael Redd.

But it's not like Cleveland did nothing during the offseason to help James' cause. The Cavs signed point guard Mo Williams, who is only the team's second-leading scorer and is dishing out 4.6 assists per game (also second on the team behind you-know-who).

James has nothing to complain about — except Cleveland's crappy weather — and to his credit, he has been very upbeat about the 2008-09 Cavaliers.

So why even think about 2010? Why look ahead at all. The opportunity that sits in front of James this season has to be as tantalizing as the thought of moving to New York in 2010:

James has a chance to lead the city arguably the most hungry for a major-sports title to a championship. By giving Cleveland a title, or sticking around and winning multiple trophies, James could be remembered as the single greatest athlete in the history of Cleveland.

If he goes to New York, he'll be fighting Ruth, Mantle, Gehrig, and company, and the handfuls of championships the various sports teams have captured. If he made the move and didn't win a title there, he'd be termed a failure. That wouldn't happen in Cleveland.

But that's James' decision to make ... in a year and a half.

Until then, he'd be smart to devote all his basketball attention to the great opportunity he has in Cleveland playing on one of the NBA's best teams in front of adoring sold-out crowds every night.

Live in the present, LeBron; the Summer of 2010 will be here soon enough.

Tiger's one little flaw

ON GOLF

I had this back-and-forth with the voice inside my head the other day:

Me: So, does Tiger Woods have any weaknesses?

Voice: How about his driving? Isn't it too inaccurate?

Me: Um, no. It's actually pretty good.

Voice: Oh, his putting. He doesn't have the touch of guys like "Lefty."

Me: Are you kidding me? Did you not see the 25-footer he dropped the other week to win that tournament?

Voice: Right, my bad (thinking) ... Well, Tiger sometimes swears on national TV?

Me: OK, enough. Argument's over. Tiger is perfect.

Actually, he isn't. You see, when he has to come from behind to win a major on the tournament's final day, Tiger Woods isn't very good.

I know, I know. I'm being picky. But it's true — Woods has never won one of the four majors when trailing entering Sunday. And it's not like he hasn't had plenty of opportunities. It seems like every year he's in one or two majors where he's just a few strokes back heading into Sunday.

Of course, many other players have never won a major despite being behind by just a few strokes heading into several Sundays. But Tiger Woods isn't just another guy; he needs to be held to a different standard.

It's not that Woods bombs on Sundays, either. He simply doesn't do enough to make up whatever gap exists between him and the leader(s). Take Sunday's round at the Masters:

Woods didn't play a terrible 18. For the most part, he hit the ball well, finding most fairways and reaching most greens in regulation. He didn't make any gigantic blunders, and after his birdie putt dropped on No. 18, he walked away with an even-par 72.

It really wasn't a bad round, but it seemed that way. That's because Woods began the day six strokes back of leader Trevor Immelman. The South African didn't play amazingly well Sunday and committed a normally unacceptable error when he plopped his tee shot on the par-3 16th into the water.

Immelman finished with a mediocre 3-over-par 75, but it was more than enough to defeat second-place Woods by three strokes.

Now, put Woods in Immelman's shoes. If the world's No. 1 player had began the day at 11 under par and shot his 72, he would have won by six strokes. People right now would be talking about his chances of winning all four majors. It would have been a typically steely final-round performance by the world's best athlete.

Nobody is better than Woods at holding onto a final-day lead. He is far too consistent and far too confident to let an advantage slip away. When he sees the finish line, he doesn't look in his rear-view mirror.

But when Woods begins the final 18 holes of a major behind, consistency isn't enough. Pars usually will not get him a Green Jacket. And the putts that usually fall for him suddenly fall short, suddenly rim out.

Such was the case Sunday, when Woods had tons of opportunities to put some serious pressure on Immelman. I'll skip the front nine and go right to the back. After a Tiger-esque birdie from around 493 feet on No. 11 moved him to 5 under, Woods started walking with a swagger. You could see that he believed he would win.

And sure enough, Woods made two superb shots on the par-5 13th to give himself a short putt for birdie. At the time, Immelman faced a long par putt on the 11th. At that moment, I was thinking what every other CBS viewer must have thought: "A two-shot swing for Tiger. Watch out, Trevor!"

However, the improbable happened. I can't remember which putt was shown first, but Tiger missed his 6- or 7-footer and Immelman knocked in what had to have been at least a 15-footer. Just like that, the lead stayed at five strokes.

The tournament was far from over, however. But Woods missed another short put on 14, this time giving him a bogey, and missed yet another short birdie putt on 16. At the time, the roll-by on the par 3 didn't seem to matter, but when Immelman made his only huge error on the same hole, I realized just how much Woods had blown the tournament.

Which isn't to take anything away from Immelman. He did what he had to do. Playing in gusty conditions, he made huge putt after huge putt and didn't give the competition a reason to believe he was slipping. He never let a bogey turn into two bogeys.

But Woods could have won Sunday — just like there are numerous other majors he could have come back to steal. Heck, he could have eclipsed Jack Nicklaus' record of 18 by now. But for some reason, Tiger is simply normal — just good, not great — when he isn't at the top of the leader board.

You could see the frustration on his face Sunday. With each missed putt, Woods' jaw muscles tightened. There was no swearing on camera or club-banging, but Woods was clearly upset with himself. He was obviously pressing, and when Woods does that, he loses the touch with his putter.

That's the game of golf for you. If you want to overcome a six-stroke deficit — or even a three-stroke deficit — you better make putts. You can hit the ball extremely well. You can reach all the greens in regulation. But if you don't roll in at least some of your putts, you're nothing special.

On Sunday at Augusta, Tiger Woods was normal. A good golfer who contended for a major championship but didn't stand out from his competitors. He hit some long drives. He made a long putt. He went home with a nice, fat paycheck.

Woods' round again proved just how difficult the game of golf is and how tough it is to win consistently against dozens of fellow competitors. It made Woods' streak of wins earlier this year look even more impressive, but it also made all the prognosticators who predicted Woods would win the Grand Slam look, well, silly.

Even Woods said a week ago that he didn't think winning all four majors in the same calendar year would be that difficult. He was wrong. As good as Woods is — yes, it's safe to call him the greatest of all time — he's never going to take the four big ones in the same year.

That would likely require Woods leading after three rounds in each of the tournaments, and I'm not going to attempt to figure out those odds.

One of these days, Woods will do it. He'll make enough putts to come back to win a major on a Sunday. It will happen. It's not like his confidence is lacking.

But for now, if you're searching for a FOTW (Flaw of Tiger Woods), look no further than what transpired Sunday at Augusta.

The world's greatest player had all the opportunities to make the rest of the golf world bow at his feet, but he didn't convert.

There's a tiny, little flaw for ya.