Messages

1

Fantasy NBA League / Re: 2011-2012 keepers

« on: December 13, 2011, 05:08:16 PM »

My keepers are Nowitzki and Wade.

2

NBA Discussion / Re: 2011-2012 Fantasy League Information

« on: December 13, 2011, 05:05:47 PM »

My keepers will be Wade and Nowitzki.

I will not be able to be at the draft;  I'll have to auto-draft.

3

NBA Discussion / Re: Debate point question

« on: July 15, 2011, 11:22:35 AM »

At this point in his career, please don't speak LeBron's name in the same breath as Kobe when it comes to clutch.  There is a HUGE difference between not demanding the ball and playing hot potato with when you actually get it. If you watched the 4th quarter of game 6 vs the Mavs, LeBron didn't just fade in the big moment, he ran away screaming.

I agree with your two teirs of "clutch". Horry is all-time clutch, as good as Jordan, when it came to that "moment" but not when it came to carrying a team in a big game ala Jordan. Although he came close that one year with the Spurs where he hit shot after shot, and not just spot ups, he actually drove to the rim ala his Rockets days.

I think the early-career LeBron goes in the same category as the early-career Kobe, with each of them doing what they do the rest of the game.  The noticeable difference is that Kobe grew out of his failures and into his successes, while as James has yet to do that.  The other noticeable difference is that Kobe's "failures" in his early career were at a smaller stage than LeBron's.

The equivalent I'd draw to LeBron right now is more along the lines of Julius Erving, minus his ABA days.  And Dirk Nowitzki prior to this year isn't a bad comparison, either.  Or Derrick Rose's college days.

4

NBA Discussion / Re: Debate point question

« on: July 14, 2011, 05:03:39 PM »

I think that the "situation/moment" aspect of "clutch" is crucial. I think it was Larry Bird who made a comment about anybody being able to make a shot, or 3 pointer, in the first 3 quarters of a game, what set certain players apart from the rest is their ability to hit those shots in the 4th. To take it a step further, I don't think players get to the level of being considered "clutch" unless they hit those shots in the playoffs, specifically in the Finals.  IMO that is a given, but I think most people take it to the level of it has to be a game winner, or the last shot taken by the winning team.  The .4 second example is perfect because nobody takes in to account the clutch shot TD made just before.  The shots that TD and Fisher made where more luck than clutch IMO, but both players have made clutch shots throughout their careers.

IMO most people confuse clutch with game winning or buzzer beater shots, its much more than that and a little more than a statistical analysis of shots made/missed in the closing minutes of close games.

There is that little something that players like Bird, Reggie, Cassell, Jordan, Kobe, and a few others have that demands they have the ball in their hands for that critical shot.

You combine opportunity, desire, and results together and you get "clutch". You don't get "clutch" without all 3 ingredients.

You don't need a clutch player to have a winning team but you need one to win titles.  Conversly, a cluch player alone doesn't guarantee a winning team let alone a championship.

My problem with your idea is that I don't think demanding the shot makes you "clutch," whereas I do think the ability to "rise to the occasion," even if you're not the #1 or #2 option *DOES* make you "clutch."  The example I would cite is Robert Horry.  No one can deny that he was clutch.  Yet he wasn't a demander - simply a person who perfromed when given the opportunity by his teammates.  Not being demanding may make him less of a superstar, but I don't think it makes him less "clutch."

Nor do I think you need to do it at every level in order to be "clutch," however, you should do it at the highest levels you arrive at.  My example here is Reggie Miller, who, in my opinion, is amont the two or three most "clutch" players that I've seen.  He never did it at the grand, "Finals" scale that, for example, Paxson or Kerr did.  But I'd call him far more "clutch" than Paxson or Kerr.

But I am starting to believe that there are two different levels of clutch.

The first level, the most commonly thought of one, is those players who, in big moments, make big plays, with the demands being placed on them to make big plays.  These are the people who don't necessarily hit the last-second shot, but who come up big, and usually in the closing minutes, of "the important games."  Notable about this level is that players from this level aren't just expected to hit the "big shot," but they're expected to have a "big game."  Names from this list include Jordan, Miller, Bird, Bryant, etc.

The second level are the players who make the single big play, at the moment the opportunity for their more limited, more singularly defined contribution.  These would be players like Robert Horry, or Steve Kerr, or John Paxson.

So, this leads me to question the idea of what we should call a player who shows up big in many situations, but not in the closing moments, or what we should call a player who pretty much has an awful "big game," but does close it out regularly.  And how should we account for notable stink bombs (e.g., Bryant's game 7 against Phoenix...can't remember the year) during big games?

I find all this interesting because I think we're eventually going to need a way to evaluate LeBron James.  He's had some spectacular performances, and some notable stink bombs.  LeBron's failures generally come across, though, as "coming up small in big games."  Let's say that he continues this trend, but manages to start "pulling it out by making the big play at the last moment."  Does that make him clutch?

And Kobe has had his share of stink bombs, too, - generally more of the "makes a bad mistake at a critical moment, but still has a good game" variety, although he's had his Game 7 vs. Phoenix stuff, too;  I don't think he's not "clutch." 

One thing we can see is that Kobe demands the ball in the closing minutes, whereas James doesn't.  Then again, is that just Kobe being Kobe and LeBron being LeBron, because generally speaking, Kobe *ALWAYS* demands the ball, whereas James generally DOESN'T - and I don't think *THAT* is being clutch/not clutch on either's part.  (It's just being selfish.)

And if we get into historical players - let's look at Russell.  He came up traditionally big in game 7's, but he wasn't the "last second shot" guy.  He never lost a Game 7.  (Even Jordan cannot say that.)  So why is Jordan looked at as infinitely more clutch than Russell?  (My answer is, "Because most people don't know their basketball history except from watching it on SportCenter.")  Is it somehow bad that Sam Jones takes the shot for the Celitcs, or Havlicek steals the ball?  Does that negate Russell's huge contribution?

I think there's something to explore here, but I'm having a real tough time getting a grip on what it is, and more importantly, how best to measure it.

5

NBA Discussion / Debate point question

« on: July 12, 2011, 04:28:19 PM »

Recently read a discussion article between two folks debating pro or con whether Kobe Bryant is a clutch shooter.  I find that argument pointless:  I don't think there's any question that Bryant is.  But it raises this question:

How do we define what is "clutch?"  Obviously, Derek Fisher's .4-second shot was clutch.  Equally obvious is Michael Jordan's shot over Craig Ehlo was clutch.  Which was "more" clutch?  How about Jordan's shot over Bryon Russell?  Was it more clutch than Fisher's?  After all - there was time on the clock after Jordan's - enough for Stockton to get up a ridiculously tough attempt.  If Stockton makes that, is Jordan less clutch?  So how do we define the ridiculously tough shot Duncan made before Derek Fisher's .4 second shot?

I've come to the conclusion that 1) end results matter, 2) clutch needs to be measured against expectation, 3) reputation - even if undeserved - counts.

In other words, there has to be something besides numbers in an evalutation of clutch.

And that leads to the next question:  how important is it to have an elite "clutch" kind of player?  Or are they so common that every team has one (or more)?  And if so, does that make it of less value?

6

NBA Discussion / Re: 2011-2012 without the NBA

« on: March 24, 2011, 05:04:32 PM »

It won't matter who is to blame.  It will AGAIN poison NBA fans against basketball, just when several new stars are starting to emerge and a few old ones are beginning to fade.  It will AGAIN result in "an asterisk championship."  It will dim the impact of the All-Star Game in the future - and the best All-Star weekend in pro sports - when it is forced to be cancelled.  It will re-inforce the "thug" image of the NBA.

Don't know if anyone has noticed, but there's a football lockout going on.  Labor unions are under fire in Wisconsin and several other states.  Any negatives coming from these conflicts will ALSO be applied to the NBAPA - whether fairly or unfairly.  Worse yet, if state budget deficits are fixed by de-unionization (I doubt it too, but I'm saying just suppose), the NBAPA will be seen as a failed idea by the fans - and will definitely be identified as "part of the problem."

Eventually, the players will cave in.  (After all, owners can own teams for 50 years - players play 7-to-12 and then they're done.)  The NBA will get most of what they want, with a few bones thrown to the players.  And the entire argument will make folks more willing to turn to look at the college game again. 

The winners?  Baseball and Hockey.  The losers?  The NFL, depending on how long the lockout lasts, and the NBA.  BIG wins for MLB and NHL if basketball *AND* football are BOTH sitting out at the same time.

A racial angle will be thrown into the mix.  The sport of basketball as a whole will be tarnished.  Players will be dismissed as cry-babies who only want to play with their friends while raking in ridiculous amounts of money.  The new face of the league will be LeBron James as a Cleveland Cavalier in game 5 against Boston, with a Miami plane ticket in his hand and money stuffed in his pockets under a banner reading "The Decision."

That's what *I* think is going to happen.

7

NBA Discussion / Re: Great NBA Moments?

« on: March 15, 2011, 01:30:26 PM »

I'm not necessarily going with "great" but "memorable."  Some of these are rather painful.

John Stockton records 11 assists and a steal in the fourth quarter to account for all 24 points against San Antonio in a tie game in the 1994 playoffs.

Bobby Jones block of Mark Landsberger's shot in the 1980 finals (Erving's up-and-under game).

Tayshaun Prince's block of Reggie Miller.

Hakeem Olajuwon chasing down and blocking Rod Strickland.

Kevin Johnson dunks on Olajuwon.

Magic Johnson's celebration of his first career win on a Kareem Abdul-Jabbar hook.

Magic Johnson and Jamaal Wilkes have big games in game 6, 1980 Finals.

Rookie Derek Harper runs out the clock in a tie game in the playoffs, allowing the Lakers back into the game.

Dallas drafts Detlef Schrempf, Uwe Blab, and Bill Wennington.  (Turned out to be Schrempf and 14 feet of bum.)  I was excited because I wanted Wennington in Dallas.

M.L. Carr waving the towel on the Boston bench.

Tim Duncan hits a critical big shot to give San An a lead - only to be outdone by Derek Fisher with .4 seconds on the clock.

Run-TMC - Hardaway, Richmond, and Mullin.

The Beef Brothers - McFilthy and McNasty - Jeff Ruland and Rick Mahorn in Washington.

Moses Malone's "Fo', Fo', Fo'" prediction.

Darrell Armstrong and the Orlando Magic that won 41 games and just missed the playoffs on the last day of the season - after the owner apologized to the fans prior to the season.  George Karl's statement about the team:  "They deserved to be in...but not in front of us (Milwaukee Bucks)."

Utah beats the Lakers in the playoffs - after Shaq gives all the Lakers a heart, and puts one on his shoe - "either you use yours, or I use mine."  Jeff Hornacek's comments on the series - "They complain about our illegal screens and we complain about their carrying the ball."

Philly and Boston get the number one and number two picks in the draft.  Philly trades theirs for Roy Hinson and Boston uses theirs on Len Bias - who promptly dies of a cocaine overdose.

College teammates (from North Carolina) Antawn Jamison and Vince Carter are traded for each other.

Charlotte trades Kendall Gill...prompting me to scream immediately how stupid it was...for Hersey Hawkins...prompting me to jump for joy at what a great deal it was.  Two years later, and no longer relevant to me, Charlotte trades Hersey Hawkins for Kendall Gill.

After a strong run to the 1986 Finals, the Houston backcourt is decimated by cocaine-related suspensions, taking out Lewis Lloyd, Mitchell Wiggins, and John Lucas.

Years and an Olympic Gold Medal after being drafted, Arvydas Sabonis joins the Portland TrailBlazers, and is voted the runner-up for Rookie Of The Year to Damon Stoudamire.

Lots of great memories.

8

NBA Discussion / Re: Spurs v Lakers

« on: February 04, 2011, 04:37:11 PM »

They let Camby go to make space for free agents....except no one wanted to goto Denver.  Even though they did show a winning environment by getting to the 2nd and 3rd round of the playoffs back to back years only losing to the eventual NBA champs.

They didn't get any cap space by dumping Camby, because they were alreay over the cap.  They got out of extra LUXURY TAX by dumping Camby.  Not the same thing.

Kleiza left to Greece to get more money.  With them being over the luxury tax they couldn't match what Greece offered him.  So yeah, they got nothing...BECAUSE HE WALKED.

They got nothing because they didn't match.  Kleiza was restricted.  They played it cheap, and I don't think you can do that as a small-market team.

Anthony wants out because he sees his buddies teaming up and hes envious.  Also his wife Lala is in the entertainment industry and is in New York or LA more than she is in Denver.

So why isn't he going to the Nets?  It's about more than location.

Can we please stop with San Antonio?  There is no other team, including the Lakers/Celtics, who have been able to maneuver their franchise quite like them.  No other small market team has been able to do what they do.  To act like it is easy to emulate is inaccurate and to me somewhat down plays just how great of a job they do.  If it was easy to mirror what the Spurs do wouldn't more teams be doing it?  And again, it is easier to do all this when you happen to draft the greatest power forward of all time.  No small feat and just as much luck as it is anything else.

You've got to copy the model of what works.  And, why didn't Minnesota employ this with Garnett?  Luck alone DOES NOT explain San An.  Competency does.

Relying on the stupidity of GM's like Wallace is no way to build a winning franchise.  Getting Kwame Brown for Caron Butler was *STUPID*.  It hurt Los Angeles and improved Washington.  It took something DRASTICALLY STUPID to save Los Angeles from it.  (And if you don't think it was stupid, those playoff defeats to Phoenix apparently didn't sink in.)

Actually, Caron was moved in part because they were stacked up at the same position.  Caron couldn't play the 4 but Lamar can and does.  The Lakers felt that Odom's versatility and rebounding prowess was more important than Caron's slashing ability.  At the time, the Lakers needed a big man, and they went after Kwame.  Clearly a bad choice in hindsight but to act like the deal was made with no thoughts?

I don't think it was stupid because I don't see how Caron Butler was going to get the Lakers past PHX.  He wasn't a top notch defender and his offensive game was streaky when he was in LA.  Also, I don't see how keeping Caron would address the obvious problem the Lakers had which was defending the pick and roll with the 1 and 4.  While getting Kwame didn't help that, keeping Caron wouldn't have made a difference either.

What does Odom have to do with anything?  He came with Caron.  Caron couldn't play 4, but he could play 3, and could do it far better than Luke Walton or Devean George.

The Kwame deal was a stupid deal on the part of the Lakers.  They traded away an All-Star, and got a nobody.  Had it not been for the kindness/idiocy of Memphis, they would have choked on that deal.

Where's Al Jeffereson in that?  Oh - that's right.  Garnett wears a ring, and the player you dealt him for had to be dumped.  And wasn't that 5th pick their own - because it's sure not Boston's?  And with this young core, where are they?  Basement of the West?  And this is what they aspire to?  They'd have been more relevant by keeping Kevin Garnett.

The traded off players they got from the Garnett trade to get that pick in 2009 which landed them Ricky Rubio.  You are thinking of the 2008 draft when they picked up Kevin Love in a swap for OJ Mayo.

You're right;  I am.  Who did they trade away, and whose pick did they get?

This young core doesn't play together because their distributor and one of the best PGs to come from Europe (same say better than a young Tony Parker) never came.  He stiffed the Wolves. 

Keeping Garnett?  HE WAS GOING TO WALK.

On the first point - why didn't he come?  Because the Wolves are a losing franchise.  On the second, why was he going to walk?  Because the Wolves are a losing franchise.

No argument that they go lucky getting Duncan.  But let's also not mistake that the "uniqueness" of the organization is why Duncan has role-players around him, instead of wasting away Duncan's talent.  They didn't trade away Robinson to save money like Denver did with Marcus Camby.

They didn't have to because they were able to draft European players.    They haven't been exactly great at attractive free agents from this country down there.  Jason Kidd didn't want to go down there even coming right off a title.  Teams here do that because they need to shed contracts to pay for the big names.  When your big names came drafted overseas the money factor is a lot different.

I think it is worth mentioning that when you bring a player in from another country and you make them feel at home in a foreign country they are more willing to stick it out with your franchise because the basis of American life is that.

Agreed - and all the more reason to point at Memphis as a failure.  The GM's currently rate JUAN CARLOS NAVARRO just behind Rubio as the best foreign player not in the NBA.  Memphis had him, and misused him.  Just one more indicator that part of what makes SA a winner is something organizationally.

The Lakers acquired Gasol because they got him for a bag of stale potato chips.  It wasn't a "we have to win now" thing.  It was a "you'd be stupid not to do this" deal.  Let's get that straight.

No, that is incorrect.  It was a 'we have to win now' thing because Andrew Bynum went down after a hot start in December and the team started to sputter.  Kobe started to complain that they were short handed in the front court.  That is when they went out to make the trade.  The trade didn't just pop up and they are like 'duh we would be stupid not to do this, glad you pointed it out Memphis!'  They had a need and they went out to seek a trade, not vice versa.

Sorry Joe, I live out here, I follow the Lakers very closely, I know exactly how this all went down.

Gasol was on the market for quite a while before that.  And it was Kobe's threats BEFORE the season that made it impending that the team listen during the season.  And most folks who live OUTSIDE of LA tend to think that the deal was INCREDIBLY one-sided to the point of ridiculous.  There's not a single person ANYWHERE that WOULDN'T have made that deal if they were LA....bunch of scrubs for an All-Star big man.  Yes, it happened when Bynum went down, but that deal was absolutely brain-dead for LA.  It's not like they went after Brendan Haywood or Samuel Dalembert or a warm body.  Chicago and others were in the market for Gasol, and it has been pointed out that other discussions for more value were out there at the time he was dealt.

The reason that they were looking, and not complacent, was because Bryant felt that Bynum had no shot - which is why he was upset that the Lakers didn't deal him and get Jason Kidd, if you'll recall.

First that was in the summer and that was Kobe Bryant's idea, not what the Lakers were looking to do.  Bynum had Jerry Buss' son in his corner as that was his pick and there was no talks of moving him among the people who make those decisions.

No, that wasn't Kobe's idea.  It was, at minimum, an unconfirmed rumor from the season prior that was pitched to Bryant, and drew a tirade about Bynum from Kobe.

Agreed.  Which is why you don't accept him in a deal for Carmelo Anthony if you're Denver.

Why not?  Artest + Bynum for a guy who is going to leave anyways?  They are on pace to get NOTHING when he leaves.  Not a pick, not a player, nothing.

Because Artest + Bynum is not worth the cap space.  Neither are integral players of a championship team - they're role-players that take you the rest of the way.  Artest's contract?  Sure.  Of course, you won't be able to keep him at that price.  Bynum?  No way.

So was Eddy Curry, at one point.  But it's fool's gold, and accepting such a player becomes an albatross to the cap flexibility needed to create a winner.

Eddy Curry has never shown what Bynum has on a consistent basis nor has he been a key contributor to an NBA title like Bynum.  You are severely down playing him for no apparent reason.  We are not talking about a guy who can't pay his rent on time and averages 4 rebounds a game.  We are talking about a 7 footer with legit post moves who was a key part of last years championship team.

The championship team, you're right about.  But Curry's 19.5/7.0 season is as good as anything Bynum has ever done.  And Bynum, in 6 seasons, hasn't shown a wonderful track record for health.  And this is what you're pawning off as value?

I may have lived close to Memphis Grizzlies at one point in my life, but I'm not their GM.

Chris Paul and Deron Williams will not be with their respective teams next time around.  If you're going to acquire players, acquire cap-friendly, young players - not cap-killing mediocre big men.

Why would Deron Williams leave Utah to goto Denver?  The situation is almost exactly the same in every which way you slice it.

If Deron was to leave to go somewhere I bet it would be to a team that has a big body that can help him similar to Carlos Boozer.  I think right about now he wishes he had another big man to take the scoring load off him.

Oh, I agree.  But he's not going anywhere to team up with Andrew Bynum.  Clear enough space to bring in both him and Dwight Howard, and now we're talking.

Nope.  Gives a different message - "We're not going to just give up.  We'll TRY to keep you.  We'll TRY to give you a winner."

Melo is not staying Joe.  I don't know how many times he has made it clear that he is not staying.  If he wanted to stay he would have signed the extension but he didn't.  If he wanted to stay he wouldn't tell the media he wanted to talk to New Jersey.  If he wanted to stay, he would say, I want to stay.  He hasn't and he isn't.

By not making moves it sends the message "We are in rebuilding mode, if you are looking to win now, this is not the place, but if you like skiing head on over!!"

Melo isn't staying *YET*.  He's still trying to get his own way.  When it will cost him $45 million or so to do it, let's see what he chooses.

Two cases:
1.  The big man is worthless.  (See Kwame Brown for Caron Butler.)
2.  The franchise is run by idiots.  (See Gasol for Javaris Crittendon, Love for Mayo, etc.)

1. One time in how many years?

2. Gasol for a 16 million dollar expiring contract, the rights to Marc Gasol, and Javaris Crittendon.  Not sure why you purposely left those two off.

1.  One EXAMPLE.  Other famous ones are Dennis Johnson for Rick Robey, pretty much ANYONE for Erick Dampier.  Can't remember who all was involved in the Jamison-to-Dallas deal, and I can't remember the name of the crippled center Dallas got, either.  Elden Campbell/Eddie Jones for Glen Rice.  Rice for Mourning. 

2.  For an expiring contract (translation:  no one), the rights to an unproven rookie, and the one player who was signed for more than a year.  Would have been better for Memphis if they'd have just given him to the Lakers.  And it wasn't just Gasol, either.  It was Gasol, plus pissing off your rookie over-seas player who just happens to be Gasol's best friend.  I stand by my initial point - the frachise is run by idiots.

Same two reasons as above.  If the offer is there to you, it's either not as good as it looks...or the GM you're dealing with is an idiot.  I think we can safely rule out the latter one when you're dealing with a franchise that's been in the last 3 Finals.

You don't trade Gasol for Anthony for any of the ideas listed above.
[/quote]

That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying if you're offered Bynum for Anthony, you don't do it, because one of the two reasons above (either the deal is not good for you, or the other GM is an idiot) is  the case.  And we know it's not because the other GM is an idiot.

 
Nope, not at all.  Getting nothing is preferable, because all you'll get is a rotten draft pick, a contract you don't want of a player you don't want, or a trade exception to use on another disgruntled player.  If you're going to re-build, you want flexibility.

These are all assumptions Joe.  You don't really know if a draft pick would be rotten or any players you go after are 'disgruntled'.  I don't think this is a fair argument at all.
[/quote]

A draft pick from a team that's a top 8 team AT ABSOLUTE WORST is a rotten draft pick.  Maybe there's value there, and maybe you get something better-than-mediocre.  But that's not the usual case.  And a team doesn't trade a franchise-type player (or close to franchise type player) for a trade exception or an expiring contract if the player isn't unhappy.  (Or, of course, the aforementioned "stupid exception.") 

Better to have all the more cap space rather than "just enough for one guy," as we saw this year in Miami.  Especially if you have a winning atmosphere in the clubhouse.

Like when Denver cleared out Marcus Camby and let Linus Kleiza walk to free cap space to go after another free agent for Melo and failed because Denver is not Miami?

Again, wrong.  No cap space in Denver...just luxury tax savings.

Potentially.  Last year, absolutely.  And that's one more reason to question the deal if LA offered it, because a contender doesn't offer a deal that HURTS their chances.

They do if they need to shake up the team that has become complacent.
[/quote]

...because we all know that a team that's favored by most to win the whole thing, is leading their division despite injury (to the player you're talking about trading for), and has been to the last three Finals has a complacency issue.  Please.  Only one team - San An - really presents a threat to the Lakers in terms of the West (too many injuries in Dallas), and only Miami, Boston, and Orlando (due to match-up issues) look like serious threats from the East.

The complacency and age things and all these controversies in LA (except potentially the Kobe/Gasol thing) are red herrings.  You know it;  I know it;  the world knows it.

Disagree.  They gain because there is a star to TEAM with Kobe Bryant.  Make no mistake - Kobe's not going anywhere.

Yes Kobe is going somewhere...retirement.  The guy is not going to be on this squad in 3 years and if he is it will be in a very very diminished role.

I don't buy that for a second.  In 3 years, Kobe will be coming up on 36.  His role will have been slightly reduced, but that's about it.

Utah - CORRECT!  That's why that team is quickly becoming irrelevant.

Cleveland - NOT CORRECT!  They traded away their player INSTEAD of letting him walk.  All they got were low draft picks - which means a chance to overpay a gamble player that likely won't help your team a whole lot.  That eats in to your cap space.

Um...Lebron walked.  He wasn't traded to Miami.

Better check your transactions.  LeBron was GOING to walk.  He ended up getting traded there.  And it would have been better for Cleveland (and the league), if Cleveland had made him go on his own.

I think it could be a potenitally bad move for LA, as well, but more from a team balance standpoint than a team talent standpoint.  Then again, it's easier to get someone like Dwight Howard if you offer Carmelo Anthony than if you offer Andrew Bynum - especially if Dwight Howard is threatening to walk away from where he is.  LA should adopt a "maintain winning environment" approach, and they traditionally have.  Any team that thinks they will get the better of a deal with the Lakers is kidding themselves while LA is winning.  Two teams got the better of a deal with LA - Miami in the Shaq deal, and Washington in the Butler deal.  One was predicated on the necessity of LA of making the deal.  The other was a mistake that nearly jeopardized the future by upsetting Kobe Bryant,and, that had Memphis not been fools, Los Angeles would have had to choke on.

Ron Artest + Bynum for Anthony?  What do you think of that?

On a side note, I enjoy this kind of debate quite a bit.  I took a little break from the board and kinda forgot that we have some interesting back and forths here at times.

Artest will be a player itching to get out of a MLE deal.  He'll gripe that he's underpaid, and he'll poison the Denver franchise.  Were it not Artest, but a similar talent without the headcase issue, plus tied up for a little longer, that might be passable.  But I'd want no part of Bynum's deal.

9

NBA Discussion / Re: LOL Kevin Love did not make the All Star team?

« on: February 04, 2011, 12:27:18 PM »

Love not making the All-Star game is next to criminal.  BUT - who are you actually going to drop from the West team?  Duncan, Nowitzki, Gasol, and Griffin all belong there.  The fans got to choose Durant and Anthony (Anthony looks to me to be the weakest choice).

Perhaps we need "merit" spots on the team, to have larger teams, with players playing fewer minutes.  Then again, I have no idea how to make that work.

10

NBA Discussion / Re: Give Advice to Player

« on: February 04, 2011, 12:14:14 PM »

Kobe Bryant:  Don't gripe about Gasol.  You personally are better with him than without him, and your TEAM is a WHOLE lot better with him that without him.  Don't think for a moment that he won't remember slights.  After all - YOU DID.

11

NBA Discussion / Re: Spurs v Lakers

« on: February 04, 2011, 12:11:09 PM »

1) A 7 foot big man with post moves is not easy to come by in this day and age

Agreed.  And any one that is made available should be suspect.

2) While I think 16 a year is too much for Bynum (What he would make next season) it is not as far off as you are out to make it.  The league salaries in general are inflated.  Jason Richardson and Kenyon Martin make around that much.  AK-47 and Gilbert Arenas make about the same.

...all of which are considered players who are overpaid.  In other words, it *IS* too much.

3) How is any deal involving Carmelo Anthony going to tell teams 'we can and will compete for a title' ?  Have you seen what has been laid out for him by others?    I think based on the idea that any deal right now is not worth it

Agreed.  Which is why they should make *NO* deal.

As for no star players taking them seriously, you need a solid big man to do well in this league.  That has been proven time and time again.  I think that Denver having a big man is more enticing to a star than any other position right now.

If the big man is Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett or Dirk Nowitzki or the like, then yes.  Let's not kid ourselves into thinking that Bynum is in that class.  He's closer to Erick Dampier, Tyson Chandler, and Samuel Dalembert - serviceable bigs, but nothing to write home about.  Let's not get too excited about a player who could be the next Eddy Curry.

When you dump top talent (and while I'd argue that's not what Anthony is, for this moment. let's assume he is) and you do not get top talent in return, you lose in terms of reputation in the league.

I think that is the last of their worries.  The top talent dumped them already.  The only way they could look worse is if he walks and they get nothing.  That is what I was trying to get at.

No, the team's reputation is paramount to maintaining the environment for signing potential players you want.  If Utah had dumped Stockton and Malone, they wouldn't have been able to get Boozer and Okur, which is part of what turned Utah around.  The Clippers have an attractive location, but a toxic atmosphere.  That toxic atmosphere is something you cannot allow your franchise to develop when you go into a rebuilding/retooling mode.  It can be fixed (see Mark Cuban's takeover in Dallas), but it's not easy.  Denver cannot afford to let themselves get there.

The Nets dumped their crew that went to the Finals - notably, Kidd - for "promising young talent" like Devin Harris.  Anthony won't sign with them, the Nets are no longer enamored with Harris, and Kidd's still crippling along strong in Dallas.  Dallas remained relevant, and New Jersey sank into the swamp.  (Or, perhaps, burned down, fell over, and then sank into the swamp.)  And it'll take some effort by the new owner to get them going strong enough to erase the mistake.

Part of that melt down had to do with a change in the front office as well, not to mention coaching problems.  It is not fair to try to say that their dash to get younger (which they weren't going to win with that team because it lacked a legit big man) was the sole reason it took a tumble.  It was quite a few things. 
[/quote]

There's a difference between "a tumble" and challenging for the worst record in history.  LA took "a tumble" when trading away Shaq.  "A tumble" can be recovered from reasonably easy.  A collapse - which is what New Jersey did, is entirely different.

Also, we need to take into consideration that Jason Kidd wasn't happy and did shop other teams.

So was Kobe Bryant.  Winning franchises take an unhappy player somewhat in stride, and continue working at trying to improve - not pacifying their superstar.

Memphis has, currently, a winning record.  How many free agents are lining up to go there?  None?  Why not?  Oh - because Memphis isn't serious about winning. 

No because Memphis is Memphis.  When they had Pau Gasol down there, people weren't flocking.  Don't tell me that they weren't trying to win with him and not making the playoffs.  Now that hes gone, same thing.  They have talent down there.  Rudy Gay is a solid basketball player.  OJ Mayo, when he tries, is a good offensive weapon. 

When Memphis had Gasol, people weren't flocking there, but they weren't going to avoid it if the owner opened his pocketbook, either.  It was a young team, and improving, until a Gasol injury, the loss of West, and the retirement of Brown.

But trading Gasol for a bag of stale potato chips didn't improve the team.  Now, they're outside the playoff picture looking in - EVEN WITH THE SO-CALLED IMPROVED TALENT.  And they're talking that they WON'T keep both Randolph and Marc Gasol this year.  Poison atmosphere.  Cheap owner.  See the Clippers.

Rudy Gay was just on the radio out here doing his 'all-star game voting push' on KLAC Fox Sports and admitted that there is nothing to do in Memphis other than 'raise a child'  It is not exactly a hot spot for 20-something year old millionaires.

He won't mind the scenery if he's playing in June.  I don't consider San An a cultural mecca.  Doesn't seem to slow them down.  Winning fixes boredom.

OKC has an awesome team and no one is beating down the doors to get down there either.

OKC is a relocated, failed team.  Give them three or four years of winning, good ownership, and people *WILL* go there.  Not the uber-stars - but the role-players they'll need to go with their uber-star (Durant).

Utah, despite a dumb contract to Kirilenko, did a better job recovering, even though it endured a few losing seasons, and *DIDN'T* trade away its superstars.

No they didn't trade away Deron but let us not act like Carlos Boozer was a sacred cow around there. 

I was referring to Stockton and Malone. 

Utah is about to go into the "poison atmosphere" group.  Since Larry H. Miller died, the team has gotten cheap - with cost-cutting moves like dumping Maynor and Brewer, letting Boozer go, etc.  Williams will bolt.  They're about to go into the tank.  You heard it here first.

San An surely could have gotten a good sidekick for Duncan by offering David Robinson to a competitor, right?  Instead, they ran him into the ground.  We've all see how poorly that worked by looking at the banners they fly there, haven't we?  Cultural mecca and major place that San Antonio is.

How does this apply to the Denver situation? Melo is going to walk.  It is not like David Robinson was going to walk.  I'd argue that David Robinson COULD have walked and the Spurs had a legit shot at rattling off a few titles.  If Melo walks Denver gets nothing and doesn't have much left behind. 

WINNING ENVIRONMENT.  Denver has let go of Marcus Camby (to the Clippers) for a bag of potato chips, Linus Kleiza for nothing, and what's-his-name mediocre 2-guard to Indiana.  That's two starters and a valuable bench player.  Denver's starting to reap what they've sown.  That's part of why Anthony wants out.  San An did it the right way.  Sean Elliott finished as a Spur.  They kept their role players, and kept their stars happy, and used their money wisely.  Denver could have been in that category.  Instead, they're squandering what they have.

Shaq and Kobe have a split, Lakers deal Shaq instead of letting Kobe walk, Shaq ends up being swaped with a player that gets Kwame Brown/his contract that landed Pau Gasol.  Perfect storm, of course, but the point that getting some piece that you maybe able to trade later for a better piece (or better fit) is better than nothing.

Relying on the stupidity of GM's like Wallace is no way to build a winning franchise.  Getting Kwame Brown for Caron Butler was *STUPID*.  It hurt Los Angeles and improved Washington.  It took something DRASTICALLY STUPID to save Los Angeles from it.  (And if you don't think it was stupid, those playoff defeats to Phoenix apparently didn't sink in.)

When the Timberwolves dealt Kevin Garnett, who was going to walk anyways, they ended up with a 5th pick in 2009 which was a talented point guard in Ricky Rubio.  Sadly he decided to throw a temper tantrum but Kevin Love, Ricky Rubio, Michael Beasley would be a solid young core.

Where's Al Jeffereson in that?  Oh - that's right.  Garnett wears a ring, and the player you dealt him for had to be dumped.  And wasn't that 5th pick their own - because it's sure not Boston's?  And with this young core, where are they?  Basement of the West?  And this is what they aspire to?  They'd have been more relevant by keeping Kevin Garnett.

San Antonio is a special franchise, probably the most unique small market team in terms of how the organization is ran and how they treat players.  They are an exception, not a rule.   Let's make no mistake though, had they not got lucky grabbing Duncan, they would be more Memphis Grizzlies than Los Angeles Lakers.

No argument that they go lucky getting Duncan.  But let's also not mistake that the "uniqueness" of the organization is why Duncan has role-players around him, instead of wasting away Duncan's talent.  They didn't trade away Robinson to save money like Denver did with Marcus Camby.

The Lakers acquired Gasol to win NOW.  Not because they knew Bynum had no shot.

The Lakers acquired Gasol because they got him for a bag of stale potato chips.  It wasn't a "we have to win now" thing.  It was a "you'd be stupid not to do this" deal.  Let's get that straight.

The reason that they were looking, and not complacent, was because Bryant felt that Bynum had no shot - which is why he was upset that the Lakers didn't deal him and get Jason Kidd, if you'll recall.

Now I am not going to argue that now he is a player you go all in on.  Clearly he isn't.

Agreed.  Which is why you don't accept him in a deal for Carmelo Anthony if you're Denver.

In a league strapped for 7 footers who can work in the post he is a good piece to add to your team.

So was Eddy Curry, at one point.  But it's fool's gold, and accepting such a player becomes an albatross to the cap flexibility needed to create a winner.

There are maybe 5 perimeter players better than Anthony when it comes to scoring and shooting down the stretch.  None of which are leaving contenders.  There is no player out there that they could get to completely rebuild their franchise.

Chris Paul and Deron Williams will not be with their respective teams next time around.  If you're going to acquire players, acquire cap-friendly, young players - not cap-killing mediocre big men.

Staying pat and collecting cap space sends the same message you were griping about above.  It tells players 'we cannot win currently and not in the immediate future because we are rebuilding for 3-4 years'

Nope.  Gives a different message - "We're not going to just give up.  We'll TRY to keep you.  We'll TRY to give you a winner."

If Anthony is all that good, then he's at least worth Gasol and a draft pick, right?  But everyone (except, perhaps, Memphis's GM) knows he's not worth that much.

When do people trade big men for smaller guys? 

Two cases:
1.  The big man is worthless.  (See Kwame Brown for Caron Butler.)
2.  The franchise is run by idiots.  (See Gasol for Javaris Crittendon, Love for Mayo, etc.)

In a league strapped for big men who can operate with their back to the basket (and shoot a jumper I might add) why would you trade a 7 footer for a perimeter player?

Same two reasons as above.  If the offer is there to you, it's either not as good as it looks...or the GM you're dealing with is an idiot.  I think we can safely rule out the latter one when you're dealing with a franchise that's been in the last 3 Finals.

  And if Denver cannot get appropriate value for him, they're better off *NOT* to take "the best offer we got," but to let Anthony walk, take the cap space, WITHOUT doing a sign-and-trade.  (The only thing a sign-and-trade gets you, when dealing with a team who's over the cap, is a rotten draft pick, and a contract you don't want of a player you don't want, and a trade exception you can use to get one player who doesn't want to come there but doesn't have any other choice in the matter.)

Getting nothing for him is worse than getting something for him.  Especially when half your team is aging and its a core that has made it to the western conference finals in the last couple years.

Nope, not at all.  Getting nothing is preferable, because all you'll get is a rotten draft pick, a contract you don't want of a player you don't want, or a trade exception to use on another disgruntled player.  If you're going to re-build, you want flexibility.

Cap Space is great if there are free agents coming up in the market.   Have you looked to see who is coming up for free agency?  The pickens are SLIM.  Plus, if they really wanted to make cap space, they have a number of expiring contracts coming up as it is.

Better to have all the more cap space rather than "just enough for one guy," as we saw this year in Miami.  Especially if you have a winning atmosphere in the clubhouse.

Trading Anthony for Bynum only benefits the Lakers in the short run (potentially, because I believe Bynum's size would be missed) and the Lakers in the long run.

It hurts the Lakers in the short run because their advantage over contenders is height.

Potentially.  Last year, absolutely.  And that's one more reason to question the deal if LA offered it, because a contender doesn't offer a deal that HURTS their chances.

They gain in the long run because there is a perimeter 'star' to take over for Kobe Bryant.

Disagree.  They gain because there is a star to TEAM with Kobe Bryant.  Make no mistake - Kobe's not going anywhere.

Teams that trade away their good players are teams that aren't getting better.  They should stop kidding themselves into believing that they are.

Teams that let their allstar players walk aren't getting better either (Utah, Cleveland)

Utah - CORRECT!  That's why that team is quickly becoming irrelevant.

Cleveland - NOT CORRECT!  They traded away their player INSTEAD of letting him walk.  All they got were low draft picks - which means a chance to overpay a gamble player that likely won't help your team a whole lot.  That eats in to your cap space.

Again, I don't think the Bynum/Melo deal is going to happen nor do I like it.  I was simply passing on information.

I think it could be a potenitally bad move for LA, as well, but more from a team balance standpoint than a team talent standpoint.  Then again, it's easier to get someone like Dwight Howard if you offer Carmelo Anthony than if you offer Andrew Bynum - especially if Dwight Howard is threatening to walk away from where he is.  LA should adopt a "maintain winning environment" approach, and they traditionally have.  Any team that thinks they will get the better of a deal with the Lakers is kidding themselves while LA is winning.  Two teams got the better of a deal with LA - Miami in the Shaq deal, and Washington in the Butler deal.  One was predicated on the necessity of LA of making the deal.  The other was a mistake that nearly jeopardized the future by upsetting Kobe Bryant,and, that had Memphis not been fools, Los Angeles would have had to choke on.

12

NBA Discussion / Re: What's up with the Jazz?

« on: February 03, 2011, 05:06:18 PM »

The Jazz are not what they were, and not with Williams hurting.  Jazz rebounding has been bad, by Jazz standards.  Our advantages over the Lakers have been trimmed to "Deron Willams, and that's it."  The Jazz worked hard at thinning out the roster (and payroll), and succeeded in turning the Jazz into a mediocre team.

The team competes hard, mostly because they've still got a coach who demands it in Sloan, but ultimately, it's a question of hard work getting them a bit of recognition early, with teams now preparing a little better for them, and a combination of team energy being overspent early and better preparation by opponents making it next to impossible to continue coming back on people.  Instead, we get behind, and it's a lot tougher to overcome that, now.

This should not be a surprise.

13

NBA Discussion / Re: End of Age Restriction

« on: February 03, 2011, 04:59:18 PM »

The reason the NBA wants the one year of college thing is simple - so that they can get a look and see just how good these players REALLY are before signing them to a contract.  Get it right, and you're Cleveland of the last few years;  get it wrong, and you're Washington.

14

NBA Discussion / Re: Spurs v Lakers

« on: February 03, 2011, 04:44:04 PM »

Looking at it from Denver's standpoint, getting an inflated contract at the cost of a superstar who won't sign with you is *NOT* a win.  It's not a "save-face."  It's not a "the best we could do."  IT'S A LOSS, plain and simple.  It's an admission that your team cannot and will not compete for the title, and that any star-level player should not take you seriously.

When you dump top talent (and while I'd argue that's not what Anthony is, for this moment. let's assume he is) and you do not get top talent in return, you lose in terms of reputation in the league.

The Nets dumped their crew that went to the Finals - notably, Kidd - for "promising young talent" like Devin Harris.  Anthony won't sign with them, the Nets are no longer enamored with Harris, and Kidd's still crippling along strong in Dallas.  Dallas remained relevant, and New Jersey sank into the swamp.  (Or, perhaps, burned down, fell over, and then sank into the swamp.)  And it'll take some effort by the new owner to get them going strong enough to erase the mistake.

Memphis has, currently, a winning record.  How many free agents are lining up to go there?  None?  Why not?  Oh - because Memphis isn't serious about winning.  Lottery picks a-plenty, and they're still an also-ran.  Why?  Because their ownership will blow up their roster, trade away their best players to competitive teams who are aspiring to actually go somewhere, and suffer in mediocrity until they get lucky with a draft pic, a rookie, etc., which will vault them up into "marginal playoff team" status just long enough to start the whole cycle over again.

Utah, despite a dumb contract to Kirilenko, did a better job recovering, even though it endured a few losing seasons, and *DIDN'T* trade away its superstars.

San An surely could have gotten a good sidekick for Duncan by offering David Robinson to a competitor, right?  Instead, they ran him into the ground.  We've all see how poorly that worked by looking at the banners they fly there, haven't we?  Cultural mecca and major place that San Antonio is.

Denver is going to be presented a couple of mediocre offers for Anthony.  The smart move is to take one which completely rebuilds your franchise, or to stay pat, collect the cap space, and start by going after players who are better than their contracts.  Bynum isn't anything like that.  If he were, LA wouldn't have needed to acquire Gasol.

If Anthony is all that good, then he's at least worth Gasol and a draft pick, right?  But everyone (except, perhaps, Memphis's GM) knows he's not worth that much.  And if Denver cannot get appropriate value for him, they're better off *NOT* to take "the best offer we got," but to let Anthony walk, take the cap space, WITHOUT doing a sign-and-trade.  (The only thing a sign-and-trade gets you, when dealing with a team who's over the cap, is a rotten draft pick, and a contract you don't want of a player you don't want, and a trade exception you can use to get one player who doesn't want to come there but doesn't have any other choice in the matter.)

Trading Anthony for Bynum only benefits the Lakers in the short run (potentially, because I believe Bynum's size would be missed) and the Lakers in the long run.

Teams that trade away their good players are teams that aren't getting better.  They should stop kidding themselves into believing that they are.

15

NBA Discussion / Re: Kobe Pelosi

« on: January 24, 2011, 04:30:45 PM »

TIE ME TO THE LAKERS JUST ONE MORE TIME - EVEN JUST INSINUATE IT IN ANY WAY, AS OBLIQUELY AS YOU THINK YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH - AND I'M ADDING YOU TO THE IGNORE LIST.

By all means lets compare that with Kwamster Browns Memphis Lakers career.

Warned, and ignored.  Now returning the favor. 

And for a trade that I got on both here and Fanhome and said was crap the moment it happened.  Just cost yourself an ally on one of your most important (and potentially valid) points.  Hope you're happy.