A big payday for McNabb

Good for Donovan McNabb for getting the payday he deserves.

ESPN’s Michael Smith is reporting that the Philadelphia Eagles have agreed to restructure McNabb’s contract, paying him $24.5 million during the final two years. He was supposed to make about $9 million this season and $10 for 2010. After the two years, McNabb, who is entering his 11th season with the team, will be a free agent and test the waters, although he said he'll be in Philadelphia "for years to come."

McNabb has been a player that can never seem to win with the media. Or in Philadelphia, for that matter. And I can’t figure out why. As a starter, he’s won 65 percent of his games (82-45-1), led the team to its first Super Bowl appearance since the Reagan administration and averaged 19.4 touchdowns and 9 interceptions in his 10 seasons.

Keep in mind that he’s done this with minimal talent around him. Sure, Brian Westbrook is a top-level back in the NFL, but when you have to rely on the likes of Hank Baskett and L.J. Smith to make plays, it can make things tough. Still, McNabb is a five-time Pro Bowler, and – starting on draft day in 1999, when he was booed after the Eagles picked him No. 2 overall – he’s never gotten the respect he deserves.

Fortunately, though, he got paid.

Sox vs. Yankees - let's get it on!

Yes, it’s early June but you have to be somewhat excited about the three-game set between the Yankees and Red Sox at Fenway. Like it should be, these teams are 1-2 in the division standings, and the three pitching matchups should make for good viewing.

Judging by those matchups, I like the Sox winning two of three (the first two) and taking a one-game lead into the weekend, when the teams start another round of interleague play.

Most experts will tell you these games don’t mean too much because there’s still plenty of season to be played. But if you don’t remember, the White Sox and Twins had to play a one-game playoff last year to decide the AL Central champion (won by the South Siders).

One more win for the Twins against the Sox during the regular season, and they would have clinched the division. Trust me, these games mean a lot.

Federer or Sampras?

Let the debate continue.

Now that Roger Federer has won his 14^th Grand Slam title, after beating Robin Soderling on Sunday in the French Open final, the discussion over the greatest men’s tennis player of all-time is beginning to peak.

Until recently, Pete Sampras, who also has 14 Slams, was regarded as the best there ever was.

Things have changed.

Federer is The Man.

Not only does he have those 14 Grand Slams, he has a career Grand Slam (winning each major at least once), something Sampras can’t claim. And Federer has the more complete game. Not to downplay Sampras’ game, but in his prime, he couldn’t do all the things Federer does on the court.

Sampras’ biggest weapon was his serve — both the speed and locations. What’s Federer’s strength? Sure, you could say it’s his forehand, but is his forehand that much better than his backhand, serves or volleys?

The guy doesn’t have a weakness.

And he beat Sampras in their only ATP meeting, in 2001 at Wimbledon, when Sampras was the four-time defending champion and Federer was two years away from his first Grand Slam title.

Obviously that isn’t much of a barometer of who is the better all-time player. The most common gage is Grand Slams. Each of them has 14.

But Federer’s not done. Not long after it was thought that he was done at 13, he reminded everyone that he’s still pretty damn good.

He’ll get to 15, and maybe 16 or 17. The Federer-Sampras debate won’t end there, but it’ll give Fed Heads like me more ammunition.