I'm cranky tonight. Let's just get that out there now. I was all set to watch Game 2 of the Hornets/Spurs series tonight. Really, I was looking forward to it. I was looking forward to David West, the underrated All-star of underrated all-stars torching the Spurs yet again. Was looking forward to Chris Paul doing things we've never seen a six foot point guard do (Even though Paul will go down as a better player in history that Deron Williams, I will forever be ok with Utah taking Williams in 2005 3rd instead of Paul because he fits their system, which is exactly what they said on draft day. And he does. The Bucks and Hawks taking Andrew Bogut and Marvin Williams ahead of both? Yeah not so much). I was just plain fired up to see the Spurs lose. I really was. But instead, three Canadian "sports" networks were treating me to WWE rastlin', Sportscentre (misspelled intentionally. Isn't that just dumb? Everyone knows it's "er".) was showing two hours of hockey highlights, and then was heading right to poker. And Sportsnet? Are you ready for this? A Canadian metric ghetto gangster raptastic show...ABOUT THE FREAKING NBA!?!?!? I can just see the genius at Sportsnet now "Hmmmm... so you're telling me we could actually show an NBA playoff game...or a ghetto gangster POS show ABOUT the NBA? Well hell, of course we'll show the ghetto gangster raptastic show! I love that one! Why would anybody want to watch the actual games?" I hate Canada.
By the way, they sure did show the Pistons/Magic game earlier though. Thanks for that. Nobody outside of Detwah or Orlando cares about that series. It's over already. Orlando will win game three because Detwah is already looking ahead to the conference Finals, and maybe they'll sneak out game four because the Pistons still won't care, but I can tell you right now the Pistons win it. I don't need to watch it, although the Dwight Howard dunk over Jason Maxiell (to show you how little I care about this series, I'm not even looking up his name to spell it right. Deal with it. I said I was cranky. Now get me a kokanee!) in the third quarter was nice. Did you see it? The one where Howard grabs an offensive board, he and Maxiel go back up at the same time, except Howard goes two feet higher and 200 times faster AND WITH TWO HANDS and thumps one on poor Maxiel? I'm enjoying the Dwight Howard Era. Not as much as I would have enjoyed the freaking Hornets/Spurs game, but still.
So anyway, before I got distracted with my hatred for Canada and it's gawd-awful pathetic excuses for sports channels, I was going to rant about Kobe Bryant getting the MVP award. It's not that Kobe's not a great player, and it's not that he wasn't in the top five finalists for the award. It's just that the voters, aka sportswriters, gave him this award not so much for what he did this year, but because he's a great player and has never won an MVP. They felt bad because they realize that Kobe should have won in 2006 instead of Steve Nash, so this year? Might as well the hell not!
Look, call me crazy, and many have, but I like for my MVP awards to be NOT be influenced by votes for the award from past years. This is what drove me most crazy about "Steve Nash 2-time MVP!" He was not the most valuable player in the league either of the years he won it, but he WAS the MVP the year after when he should have won it! Why didn't he? Because the voters didn't want to give him three straight MVP's because of the company it would put him in! Really? So because you guys screwed up the vote the past two year's let's NOT give it to him when he most deserves it? Awesome. Great thinking. Makes a lot of sense.
ANYWAY, Kobe was certainly one of the five best players this season, as he led his team to the best record in a ridiculously deep Western Conference while averaging 28.3 points, 6.3 boards, and 5.4 assists per game. Pretty impressive numbers really, until we consider two things: 1) his culmaltive numbers the last three seasons were better and b) his teammates were a helluva lot better! OF COURSE his team did better when they fleece Memphis for Pau Gasol, Andrew Bynum, at least until he got hurt, morphed into an all-star caliber big man, and their young bench finally started to develop. Kobe's numbers weren't as good as the past two or three years, but because his teammates finally started playing better and his GM fleeced the Grizz for an all-star power forward, that makes Kobe the MVP? Really?
Then there's the idea of how he compares to his competition this season. ESPN.com's John Hollinger has come up with a stat called PER, which takes all the positive things you can do on a basketball court and divides them by all the negative things you can do and puts it into one number. As he himself says, this should not be considered the be-all, end-all of basketball stats, but it's certainly a damn good measurement of a player's abilities. The number one "PER rating" in the league this year (by the way, a PER of 15 is considered league average)? Lebron (PER of 29.23). Second? Chris Paul (28.39). Kobe was eighth (24.31), ranking behind Amare Stoudamire (27.61), KG (25.30), Dirk Diggler (24.66), and two Spurs Timmy Duncan (24.41) and Manu GINOBILI (sorry channeling my inner Charles Barkley there. Manu's per was 24.34).
Again, this is not the all-encompassing stat, but it's certainly a good barometer for where he ranks among his peers, and this says he was eighth. While I don't think he was eighth in the MVP race, he certainly was a long ways from first. Looking at the other guys on the list, Manu and TD cancel each other out, since both were undervalued and overlooked on yet another good Spurs team. The Diggler's Mavs team struggled to make the playoffs, and there's no way Amare gets a look at MVP when a)he plays with Nash and b) his big numbers didn't come until after the Shaq trade. So that leaves us with four guys: Kobe, LBJ, CP3, and KG.
KG's case is very similar to Kobe's. His individual numbers weren't as good as past seasons, but his teammates were much better. Garnett was deserving of the Defensive Player of the Year award, and I have no doubts he was a gigantic emotional presence on that team, but he missed too much time and to me was no more valuable that Paul Pierce. Lebron is quite simply the best player on the planet. He average 30 points, eight boards and seven assists a game. Good lord stop and look at those numbers. LOOK AT THOSE!! While Lebron never developed into the "more athletic version of Magic Johnson" that I hoped he'd become, that's still damn impressive. Beyond it really. His team, on the other hand, was and is awful. Getting them to fourth place, even in the crappy Eastern Conference, still counts as a great accomplishment in my books. If you gave Lebron the MVP for this year, I would have no problems with it whatsoever. He's the best player in the league, and if it wasn't for him, Cleveland could have quite easily been the worst team this year.
However, if I had an MVP vote (because of all the moving around I think it got lost in the mail. Then again when the Canadian postal system works by strapping your mail onto the back of a beaver and telling it "go on! Find Jeff! Go on! Find his igloo village!" well it's probably not the moving around), it would go to Chris Paul. If Paul played in New York, LA, Boston, Chicago, or anywhere else but Toronto or Memphis, he'd be the MVP in a landslide. His numbers (21.1 pts, 11.6 assts and 2.7 stls- both of which led the league- and a 4.61/1 assist-to-turnover ratio) stand alone as impressive. As Hollinger's PER stat shows, his cumulative totals were the second best in the NBA behind LBJ. His team went from 39 wins a year ago to 56 this year, good for second spot in the West. And unlike Kobe or KG, CP3 had the same core of players this year as last. While 100% of that success cannot be given to Paul, I would say he's responsible for a much larger amount of that than anyone else on the Hornets. Add it all up, and Chris Paul should be your 2007-08 MVP instead of Kobe.
But hey, look on the bright side: next season, or the year after, when the voters realized they should have given it to Paul this season, then CP3 can be given a "Lifetime Achievement" Award too!
Monday, May 05, 2008
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Rounding Up the NBA's First Round
So whatever happened to the all-world all-time greatest playoffs ever we were supposed to get in the Western Conference? Eight teams, all of whom won at least 50 games, were separated by just seven wins. Seven. The ESPN.com panel o' experts are 10 gentlemen who write about The http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifAssociation for a living, and know what they're talking about. They, and me, and everyone else, expected an epic: instead, we got domination. While nobody picked the Nuggets to upset the Lakers, I don't think anybody picked LA to sweep either. New Orleans in five over Dallas? Not only did nobody pick that, six of ten panelists picked Dallas to win the series! San Antonio over Phoenix in 5? Seven of 10 picked Phoenix to win the series, and the three who picked San Antonio had them in six or seven games. The Utah/Houston series is the only one going according to plan, as everyone but Jalen Rose (who said Jazz in five) picked Utah to win in six or seven.
10 experts, and like everyone else, they were way off on the first round out West. My question is: should we have seen this coming? Should we have known from the way the regular season shook out that things would be so one-sided? I just don't see how. Yes Denver was dysfunctional, and Phoenix just never looked like Phoenix, and Dallas looked...well ok the Dallas loss we should have seen coming. But the other two? Hard to say.
For me, the biggest shocker, or at least most impressive showing so far had to be from LA. It's pretty obvious now that as talented as the Nuggets were, the pieces just didn't fit. Still, this team won 50 games in the regular season, the most ever for an 8 seed. To put that in perspective, they would have been a 3 seed in the East. They have two of the league's top scorers in Carmelo Anthony and Allen Iverson (show of hands, who thought AI's old team would last longer in the playoffs than his current team? Anyone? Yeah me neither), a defensive player of the year finalist in Marcus Camby, an outside gunner and slasher in JR Smith, and some good role guys like Eduardo Najera and Something-or-Other-Kleiza. This is a good team. They did not luck their way to 50 wins. In the East they would be right there in the conversation with Detroit and Boston. Out here? THEY GOT SWEPT. I'm trying to show you how impressive this is. It's not that I thought Denver was better than the Lakers, just that this should have been a tough series: it wasn't. LA's average margin of victory in the first three games was almost 16 points. And even the fourth game, which the Lakers only won by seven, was never really in doubt. Be afraid of LA. Be very afraid. They're just getting warmed up, and poor Utah doesn't stand a chance in the next round. Kobe could average 40 unless Andrei Kirilenko has an all-decade type performance defensively.
San Antonio showed they have plenty left, and if we don't get a Lakers-Spurs conference finals I'll be surprised. That said, the Hornets are for real, and Chris Paul will not only be a handful, but New Orleans has plenty of athletic bigs to send at Tim Duncan. Should be a long series- then again, we thought that in the first round too.
My one and only comment about the East so far:
Scary: In the five games against the Raps Dwight Howard AVERAGED 22.6 pts, 18.2 rbs, and 3.8 blks.
Scarier: Dwight Howard has no post moves. None. Have you seen him in the low post? He turns and dunks or turns and lays it in every time, and yet he still averaged 22 a night in the playoffs. Can you imagine what the young man is going to do when he develops a turn-around jumper or god forbid a hook shot? Scary, scary, SCARY!
10 experts, and like everyone else, they were way off on the first round out West. My question is: should we have seen this coming? Should we have known from the way the regular season shook out that things would be so one-sided? I just don't see how. Yes Denver was dysfunctional, and Phoenix just never looked like Phoenix, and Dallas looked...well ok the Dallas loss we should have seen coming. But the other two? Hard to say.
For me, the biggest shocker, or at least most impressive showing so far had to be from LA. It's pretty obvious now that as talented as the Nuggets were, the pieces just didn't fit. Still, this team won 50 games in the regular season, the most ever for an 8 seed. To put that in perspective, they would have been a 3 seed in the East. They have two of the league's top scorers in Carmelo Anthony and Allen Iverson (show of hands, who thought AI's old team would last longer in the playoffs than his current team? Anyone? Yeah me neither), a defensive player of the year finalist in Marcus Camby, an outside gunner and slasher in JR Smith, and some good role guys like Eduardo Najera and Something-or-Other-Kleiza. This is a good team. They did not luck their way to 50 wins. In the East they would be right there in the conversation with Detroit and Boston. Out here? THEY GOT SWEPT. I'm trying to show you how impressive this is. It's not that I thought Denver was better than the Lakers, just that this should have been a tough series: it wasn't. LA's average margin of victory in the first three games was almost 16 points. And even the fourth game, which the Lakers only won by seven, was never really in doubt. Be afraid of LA. Be very afraid. They're just getting warmed up, and poor Utah doesn't stand a chance in the next round. Kobe could average 40 unless Andrei Kirilenko has an all-decade type performance defensively.
San Antonio showed they have plenty left, and if we don't get a Lakers-Spurs conference finals I'll be surprised. That said, the Hornets are for real, and Chris Paul will not only be a handful, but New Orleans has plenty of athletic bigs to send at Tim Duncan. Should be a long series- then again, we thought that in the first round too.
My one and only comment about the East so far:
Scary: In the five games against the Raps Dwight Howard AVERAGED 22.6 pts, 18.2 rbs, and 3.8 blks.
Scarier: Dwight Howard has no post moves. None. Have you seen him in the low post? He turns and dunks or turns and lays it in every time, and yet he still averaged 22 a night in the playoffs. Can you imagine what the young man is going to do when he develops a turn-around jumper or god forbid a hook shot? Scary, scary, SCARY!
Monday, April 28, 2008
The Monday (Draft) Musings
Thoughts and comments from an uneducated Canadian who just wasn't that fired up for the draft this year...
VIKINGS
* While I think your Minnesota Vikings overpaid in trade for Chefs DE Jared Allen, giving up their first rounder (17 overall) and two thirds, they did get a 26 year old impact pass rusher in his prime. It's a big risk, also considering that every player in the past five years who led the league in sacks had less the following year, but in this "win-now" culture we're in, getting Allen on the field will make them much better for 2008 than any of the three picks they gave up would have made them. And I could care less about how much they're paying him. NFL contracts are fairy tales, absolute shams. They're basically year-to-year, and while he's getting a bunch of money guaranteed, Minnesota can still get out of it if needed down the road. I like that Ziggy is willing to pay big to help them win.
* Hated the 2nd round pick of safety Tyrell Johnson of Arkansas State at first. Safety? This is the biggest need on the team? With GLARING holes at WR and QB, and needing depth and perhaps a starter on the OL, they take a SAFETY? Jer talked me off the ledge, saying it was a solid pick in a spot where they'll need to replace Darren Sharper soon. I then read today that SI's Peter King loved the pick, saying Johnson was the draft's best safety and should have gone in the first round. So good value there I guess. But my draft man-crush, Texas WR Limas Sweed, was still on the board, and I still think would have been a better pick.
* On the other hand, I LOVE the JD Booty pick in the 5th round. Love it. He's the opposite of T-Jack, which I think is great. While Jackson is all arm and athleticism and untapped potential, Booty is accurate, poised, and ready-made for the West Coast Offense. It's not that I want Jackson to fail- I don't- but Booty is the perfect guy to bring in behind him if he fails.
* Not that I know anything about anything, but I know next to nothing about the Vikes late round picks. However, from everything I've heard and read Florida State defensive tackle Letroy Guion, Notre Dame center John Sullivan and Jackson State receiver Jaymar Johnson were all good late round gambles, especially Sullivan, who was the top rated center entering the season, but his stock slipped because Notre Dame sucked. Could be Birk's replacement down the line.
EVERYBODY ELSE
* Can we stop worrying about the egos of current players and how they're going to handle their teams drafting of players in the top rounds at their position? I'm sorry, is this the NFL, or Jerry Springer? If your team drafts a kid in the first or second round at your position, instead of whining and crying about it to the media like NY Jets TE Chris Baker (to which you're probably saying "who?" My thoughts exactly), why not FIGHT FOR YOUR FREAKING JOB?!?!? It's not just Baker, and seems to happen every year. Get over yourself.
It's especially true of quarterbacks, and I'm becoming more and more convinced that if you've got a young QB who's not performing, draft one high to light a fire under his ass. Worked in San Diego when Drew Brees was awful for his first three seasons. The Chargers then took Phil Rivers fourth, and Brees suddenly got it and turned into a Pro Bowl player (of course the Charge made the wrong choice and should have kept Brees but that's not the point). Last year, Cleveland had a glut of underwhelming QB options, so they gave up a king's ransom to nab Notre Dame starlet Brady Quinn. What happens? Derek Anderson, a 6th round pick on his second team, morphs into a Pro Bowl QB. So to those who were "shocked" at the Packers taking Louisville pivot Brian Brohm in the second round because they're worried about the mental and emotional stability of Aaron Rodgers I say to you: shut the front door. Brohm, who would have been a top 10 pick last year had he come out as a junior, returned to school, performed well, but his team stunk so therefore his stock dropped. So the Pack took a wise gamble on a guy (can't call him a kid. He and Matt Ryan both look like they're at least 30. They make Greg Oden look young) who could very well end up being the best QB of this draft, and sooner rather than later. If it fires up Aaron Rodgers and turns him into a Pro Bowl QB, then having a promising understudy in Brohm is either great insurance or great trade bait, but a nice problem to have. If Rodgers wilts, then now you know he was never The Guy and Brohm has a chance to step in. Apparently this makes way too much sense to some people.
* Other than that, I just wasn't real fired up for this draft. No superstars, no big names, especially at the top, and with the Vikes having no first rounder, it made it harder for me to be excited. Will say, for what it's worth, I liked the Fins taking Michigan OT Jake Long #1 overall. Tackles are always the safest bet high in a draft. Yes, there's always the possibility of a Tony Mandarich, but the flameout rate with O tackles is much, much, MUCH lower than any other position. And in a draft where there was no clear cut top player, it made even more sense.
* Finally, I'm not going to link to it because it's Insider content, but ESPN.com's Scouts Inc. guys analyzed all the picks, and I was just floored but how negative they were about EVERYBODY. Seriously, every analysis started with what said player COULDN'T do. He's not fast enough, he's not fluid, he's not explosive, he doesn't throw the deep ball well. And then towards the end would be the "However..." and they'd mention that hey maybe he's not the worst player to ever be drafted. Maybe. Maybe it's me, but if I'm evaluating players for a team, I want to tell my boss what guys CAN do. Look at the f'ing coaches tape and tell me what the guy CAN do. Who the hell goes into an interview and assesses what they CAN'T do?!?!? This is my biggest peeve about the whole draft process is players get poked and prodded and overanalyzed so much that when draft day comes all we can talk about is what they're not. They take the prototypical player for the position (who doesn't exist) and then downgrade from there. Why not look at a player's body of work ON THE FREAKING FIELD (don't even get me started about the combine. What a complete waste of time that is) and go with what he did well and from that decide if he can help you or not? I also love when they say "well he didn't play against very good competition." Really genius? IT"S COLLEGE FOOTBALL! It's all he had to go up against. What's going to be a better barometer of how good a guy's going to be? His college football career, or how he does at the combine running wind sprints and lifting weights? Drives me freaking nuts!
VIKINGS
* While I think your Minnesota Vikings overpaid in trade for Chefs DE Jared Allen, giving up their first rounder (17 overall) and two thirds, they did get a 26 year old impact pass rusher in his prime. It's a big risk, also considering that every player in the past five years who led the league in sacks had less the following year, but in this "win-now" culture we're in, getting Allen on the field will make them much better for 2008 than any of the three picks they gave up would have made them. And I could care less about how much they're paying him. NFL contracts are fairy tales, absolute shams. They're basically year-to-year, and while he's getting a bunch of money guaranteed, Minnesota can still get out of it if needed down the road. I like that Ziggy is willing to pay big to help them win.
* Hated the 2nd round pick of safety Tyrell Johnson of Arkansas State at first. Safety? This is the biggest need on the team? With GLARING holes at WR and QB, and needing depth and perhaps a starter on the OL, they take a SAFETY? Jer talked me off the ledge, saying it was a solid pick in a spot where they'll need to replace Darren Sharper soon. I then read today that SI's Peter King loved the pick, saying Johnson was the draft's best safety and should have gone in the first round. So good value there I guess. But my draft man-crush, Texas WR Limas Sweed, was still on the board, and I still think would have been a better pick.
* On the other hand, I LOVE the JD Booty pick in the 5th round. Love it. He's the opposite of T-Jack, which I think is great. While Jackson is all arm and athleticism and untapped potential, Booty is accurate, poised, and ready-made for the West Coast Offense. It's not that I want Jackson to fail- I don't- but Booty is the perfect guy to bring in behind him if he fails.
* Not that I know anything about anything, but I know next to nothing about the Vikes late round picks. However, from everything I've heard and read Florida State defensive tackle Letroy Guion, Notre Dame center John Sullivan and Jackson State receiver Jaymar Johnson were all good late round gambles, especially Sullivan, who was the top rated center entering the season, but his stock slipped because Notre Dame sucked. Could be Birk's replacement down the line.
EVERYBODY ELSE
* Can we stop worrying about the egos of current players and how they're going to handle their teams drafting of players in the top rounds at their position? I'm sorry, is this the NFL, or Jerry Springer? If your team drafts a kid in the first or second round at your position, instead of whining and crying about it to the media like NY Jets TE Chris Baker (to which you're probably saying "who?" My thoughts exactly), why not FIGHT FOR YOUR FREAKING JOB?!?!? It's not just Baker, and seems to happen every year. Get over yourself.
It's especially true of quarterbacks, and I'm becoming more and more convinced that if you've got a young QB who's not performing, draft one high to light a fire under his ass. Worked in San Diego when Drew Brees was awful for his first three seasons. The Chargers then took Phil Rivers fourth, and Brees suddenly got it and turned into a Pro Bowl player (of course the Charge made the wrong choice and should have kept Brees but that's not the point). Last year, Cleveland had a glut of underwhelming QB options, so they gave up a king's ransom to nab Notre Dame starlet Brady Quinn. What happens? Derek Anderson, a 6th round pick on his second team, morphs into a Pro Bowl QB. So to those who were "shocked" at the Packers taking Louisville pivot Brian Brohm in the second round because they're worried about the mental and emotional stability of Aaron Rodgers I say to you: shut the front door. Brohm, who would have been a top 10 pick last year had he come out as a junior, returned to school, performed well, but his team stunk so therefore his stock dropped. So the Pack took a wise gamble on a guy (can't call him a kid. He and Matt Ryan both look like they're at least 30. They make Greg Oden look young) who could very well end up being the best QB of this draft, and sooner rather than later. If it fires up Aaron Rodgers and turns him into a Pro Bowl QB, then having a promising understudy in Brohm is either great insurance or great trade bait, but a nice problem to have. If Rodgers wilts, then now you know he was never The Guy and Brohm has a chance to step in. Apparently this makes way too much sense to some people.
* Other than that, I just wasn't real fired up for this draft. No superstars, no big names, especially at the top, and with the Vikes having no first rounder, it made it harder for me to be excited. Will say, for what it's worth, I liked the Fins taking Michigan OT Jake Long #1 overall. Tackles are always the safest bet high in a draft. Yes, there's always the possibility of a Tony Mandarich, but the flameout rate with O tackles is much, much, MUCH lower than any other position. And in a draft where there was no clear cut top player, it made even more sense.
* Finally, I'm not going to link to it because it's Insider content, but ESPN.com's Scouts Inc. guys analyzed all the picks, and I was just floored but how negative they were about EVERYBODY. Seriously, every analysis started with what said player COULDN'T do. He's not fast enough, he's not fluid, he's not explosive, he doesn't throw the deep ball well. And then towards the end would be the "However..." and they'd mention that hey maybe he's not the worst player to ever be drafted. Maybe. Maybe it's me, but if I'm evaluating players for a team, I want to tell my boss what guys CAN do. Look at the f'ing coaches tape and tell me what the guy CAN do. Who the hell goes into an interview and assesses what they CAN'T do?!?!? This is my biggest peeve about the whole draft process is players get poked and prodded and overanalyzed so much that when draft day comes all we can talk about is what they're not. They take the prototypical player for the position (who doesn't exist) and then downgrade from there. Why not look at a player's body of work ON THE FREAKING FIELD (don't even get me started about the combine. What a complete waste of time that is) and go with what he did well and from that decide if he can help you or not? I also love when they say "well he didn't play against very good competition." Really genius? IT"S COLLEGE FOOTBALL! It's all he had to go up against. What's going to be a better barometer of how good a guy's going to be? His college football career, or how he does at the combine running wind sprints and lifting weights? Drives me freaking nuts!
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
New Amsterdam
As I flip between the Suns/Spurs (I hate San Antonio. But damn they're still good) and Flames/Sharks, I came across this article from one of the two Vancouver dailies, and just had to share. Last Sunday, as you probably know, was April 20th, or International 4/20 day. It's a day where potheads worldwide get together and do what they do every other day: smoke pot. Here in BC it's supposed to be illegal to smoke pot, especially in the middle of downtown Vancouver. As the article there states, over 10,000 people held a "4/20 Rally" where they all smoked dope in public, surrounded by police. Guess how many people were arrested? Zero.
Vancouver police Const. Tim Fanning said officers attended the rally to ensure public safety.
"I don't think anybody in this city would think it would be reasonable to go in and arrest 6,000 to 12,000 people who are smoking pot," the (police) spokesman said.
Asked if police inaction against pot-law protesters meant people are free to smoke pot in public in Vancouver, (Vancouver police Const. Tim) Fanning said police enforce the law when drug use occurs around schools and playgrounds, causes disorder or interferes with other people's lawful enjoyment of public or private spaces.
These guys would love Vancouver.
Vancouver police Const. Tim Fanning said officers attended the rally to ensure public safety.
"I don't think anybody in this city would think it would be reasonable to go in and arrest 6,000 to 12,000 people who are smoking pot," the (police) spokesman said.
Asked if police inaction against pot-law protesters meant people are free to smoke pot in public in Vancouver, (Vancouver police Const. Tim) Fanning said police enforce the law when drug use occurs around schools and playgrounds, causes disorder or interferes with other people's lawful enjoyment of public or private spaces.
These guys would love Vancouver.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
The Monday Musings...On a Sunday
* Yes I'm starting The Musings with hockey. NHL Playoff Hockey. In the past, I've told anyone and everyone that was not a hockey fan to watch the playoffs. Just one game. Just one third period of a close game, and you would see the greatness of hockey. Watching the first round series so far, I have realized the problem with this thinking. It's not that the hockey hasn't been great so far (well unless you're a Wild fan: sorry about that). In fact, just about every series has been compelling and well played. The Caps/Flyers tilts have been my favorite so far, as two of the leagues youngest teams have squared off in as entertaining a series as I've seen in years. The pace has been VERY fast, with a lot of odd man rushes, and there's been hits galore. It seems like every time a guy has a puck and gets rid of it in his own end, he gets creamed into the boards. It's been the perfect blend of speed, agility and physicality that the game can be at its peak. If you can't watch this series and be enthralled with the game, you should hang your head in shame.
So what's the problem? The 80 freaking regular season games that come before the playoffs, that's what! I love the GAME of hockey, but cannot be bothered to watch regular season games. And keep in mind I live in one of the top two or three most NHL hockey-crazed markets in the world (For the record, Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal are the top 3. It's not that The Wild aren't supported well or Minnesotans don't love their team, it's just that the Wild are WAY down the pecking order for sports in the Twin Cities. The Canucks, Canadiens and the f$&*ing Maple Leafs are not just front page of the sports, their front page news anytime all the time). The Canucks themselves are an awfully boring team to watch, but it's not just them: the pace of regular season games compared to the playoffs is night and day difference. It's slower, clogged, and almost TOO physical (too much clutching and grabbing). The playoffs are a brand new Mustang while the regular season is like an 82 Chevy Suburban with an engine that's spewing oil out the exhaust.
The thing that bothers me is I don't have a clue how to fix it. While changing the rules (bigger nets, smaller goalie equipment, larger rinks?) could make the regular season better, we are clearly seeing that when teams, coaches and players are motivated to play the game the right way, that it CAN be played the right way with the current rules. So I don't get it. I guess I'll recommend that if you want to see some awesome hockey, watch the playoffs: but then don't turn a hockey game back on until next April.
* The NBA playoffs are already a day old, but there's my quick "day old preview":
I really want a Lakers/Celtics finals. I do. This would be awesome. While I think the Celtics have a REALLY good chance of getting there (John HOllinger, who I definitely have a man-crush on for his vast NBA knowledge as well as he concrete and rational way of using stats to back up his opinions, says the Celtics are way better than people think, and will cruise to the Finals. I hope he's right), I'm more worried about the LAkers. It's not that they're not good, but how amazing is it that their first round opponent, Denver, won 50 FREAKING GAMES?!?!? While it would be an upset if the Lakers lost, there's no way you could call it monumental when LA only won seven more games than Denver. I think everybody but Houston and Denver have a legit shot at getting to the Finals. After watching San Antonio survive Phoenix in double OT yesterday, I have a bad feeling the Spurs aren't quite done yet, and the Suns might be. Too quick to jump to conclusions? Maybe. But watching that game yesterday, the Spurs always had someone to take and make the big shots, whereas the Suns had trouble getting easy baskets down the stretch. They just don't have one guy who own his man and score at will. That will be a factor.
Anyway, here's my picks/hopes:
WEST
LA over Denver in 5
Utah over Houston in 5
San Antonio over Phoenix in 6
New Orleans over Dallas in 5
LA beats Utah in 7
San Antonio beats New Orleans in 6
LA over San Antonio in 7
EAST
Honestly, does anybody care what happens out there, just as long as the Celtics win the conference? Didn't think so.
Celts over Hawks in 4,
Cavs over Wiz in 6
Pistons over 76ers in 4
Magic over Raptors in 5
Celts beat Cavs in 5 (the refs- I MEAN- Lebron steals at least one game)
Pistons beat Magic in 7 (Dwight Howard becomes a household name)
Celts over Pistons in 5
Celts beat Lakers in 6
So what's the problem? The 80 freaking regular season games that come before the playoffs, that's what! I love the GAME of hockey, but cannot be bothered to watch regular season games. And keep in mind I live in one of the top two or three most NHL hockey-crazed markets in the world (For the record, Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal are the top 3. It's not that The Wild aren't supported well or Minnesotans don't love their team, it's just that the Wild are WAY down the pecking order for sports in the Twin Cities. The Canucks, Canadiens and the f$&*ing Maple Leafs are not just front page of the sports, their front page news anytime all the time). The Canucks themselves are an awfully boring team to watch, but it's not just them: the pace of regular season games compared to the playoffs is night and day difference. It's slower, clogged, and almost TOO physical (too much clutching and grabbing). The playoffs are a brand new Mustang while the regular season is like an 82 Chevy Suburban with an engine that's spewing oil out the exhaust.
The thing that bothers me is I don't have a clue how to fix it. While changing the rules (bigger nets, smaller goalie equipment, larger rinks?) could make the regular season better, we are clearly seeing that when teams, coaches and players are motivated to play the game the right way, that it CAN be played the right way with the current rules. So I don't get it. I guess I'll recommend that if you want to see some awesome hockey, watch the playoffs: but then don't turn a hockey game back on until next April.
* The NBA playoffs are already a day old, but there's my quick "day old preview":
I really want a Lakers/Celtics finals. I do. This would be awesome. While I think the Celtics have a REALLY good chance of getting there (John HOllinger, who I definitely have a man-crush on for his vast NBA knowledge as well as he concrete and rational way of using stats to back up his opinions, says the Celtics are way better than people think, and will cruise to the Finals. I hope he's right), I'm more worried about the LAkers. It's not that they're not good, but how amazing is it that their first round opponent, Denver, won 50 FREAKING GAMES?!?!? While it would be an upset if the Lakers lost, there's no way you could call it monumental when LA only won seven more games than Denver. I think everybody but Houston and Denver have a legit shot at getting to the Finals. After watching San Antonio survive Phoenix in double OT yesterday, I have a bad feeling the Spurs aren't quite done yet, and the Suns might be. Too quick to jump to conclusions? Maybe. But watching that game yesterday, the Spurs always had someone to take and make the big shots, whereas the Suns had trouble getting easy baskets down the stretch. They just don't have one guy who own his man and score at will. That will be a factor.
Anyway, here's my picks/hopes:
WEST
LA over Denver in 5
Utah over Houston in 5
San Antonio over Phoenix in 6
New Orleans over Dallas in 5
LA beats Utah in 7
San Antonio beats New Orleans in 6
LA over San Antonio in 7
EAST
Honestly, does anybody care what happens out there, just as long as the Celtics win the conference? Didn't think so.
Celts over Hawks in 4,
Cavs over Wiz in 6
Pistons over 76ers in 4
Magic over Raptors in 5
Celts beat Cavs in 5 (the refs- I MEAN- Lebron steals at least one game)
Pistons beat Magic in 7 (Dwight Howard becomes a household name)
Celts over Pistons in 5
Celts beat Lakers in 6
Monday, April 07, 2008
The Monday Musings
A few thoughts before Memphis takes Kansas out behind the woodshed tonight...
* Hey let's all make a big deal about Tigers freshman guard Derrick Rose, who SHOULD be the #1 pick in this June's NBA draft, missing a media session because of a stomach ache caused by eating too many gummy worms and candy. I don't know about you, but I ALWAYS ate healthy foods when I was 19, and still do to this day...or wait, no I ate horrible amounts of horrible food at horrible hours when I was 19. And 20. And 21...you get the idea. He's a college freshman, away from home for the first time, and away from mom's cooking for the first time. If the worst thing he does this season is eat too much junk food, I'd feel pretty good about if I were any NBA team with the first pick this June. Of course too much will be made of this, as well as the "fact" you just "can't" take a point guard not named Magic Johnson with the first pick. Yes I'm going to beat this to death until June's draft, and yes you're probably going to get sick of it.
* Speaking of June's draft, the NBA is going to have to come up with a new way to prevent teams from tanking to improve their draft position, because for a second straight year, at least one team is openly tanking. Last year it was the Boston Celtics and Memphis Grizzlies, whose starters magically came down with mysterious ailments that sidelined them for the last month of the season, forcing the teams to play their bench and pull people out of the stands to fill out the roster. This year it's the Miami Heat, who first shelved Dwyane Wade for the year, and now its forward Shawn Marion who's done for the season with a foot ailment of some sort. A really severe case of athlete's foot, or maybe one of those bad blisters you get from a pair of new shoes? Anyway, there's no way Marion, who over the past five years has been a real iron man by averaging 80 games a year, can play through this one. So their two best players are "out" and since beating the hapless Bucks (who aren't tanking, but are just this terrible) March 24th, the Heat have lost seven straight, six by double digits. If A-hole Stern is serious about the integrity of his league- well other than allowing a carpet-bagging redneck friend to steal a basketball team from the good people of Seattle who have supported the league for 41 years- then he's going to have to come up with something else besides the draft lottery to stop teams from tanking games. Not that I have any sympathy for the mostly bandwagon fans of Miami who live by the beach in gorgeous weather every day, but wouldn't you be a little ticked if you were paying good money to watch a team who didn't try? The Wolves are bad but at least they're trying right? Anyway, this is going longer than I planned and is an argument for another day. One thing I AM interested in is the following: the Grizz and Celts ended up with the worst possible picks they could have last year. I want to see if the Heat, who appear to be the only team openly tanking this season, end up having the same thing happen to them on ping-pong-ball-day. I mean of course it would just be, you know, coincidence because David Stern would never rig a draft to prove a point...or give the Knicks Patrick Ewing...or Michael Jordan the first pick when he was in Washington while giving the Bulls the worst possible pick they could have gotten...all just coincidence. Anyway, something to ponder.
* Don't look now but some baseball fans are in a PANIC!!!!!!! after one, count them, ONE week of baseball. ONE. Nothing like an extremely small sample size here people. Yup, the Orioles (this will not continue long) and Royals (this could- not like "World Series contender" could, but "definitely hang around .500 and make a run at the wild card" kind of could) are tops in the AL while the Florida Marlins (fiesty) and the St. Louis Cardinals (never underestimate the power of Tony LaRussa's tinted glasses. They are a baseball power unto itself, full of reverance, power, and strang wonders! Wait where was I?) lead the NL. Ben Broussard and something called Xavier Nady lead the league in homers while AJ Pierzynski (who's more annoying? AJ or Hawk Harrelson? Wait this is like the would you rather question when it's "would you rather_________ or watch the WNBA?" It's always the WNBA just as it's always Hawk Harrelson! No broadcaster is worse! Noone is more annoying! Nobody is more of a homer! Nobody makes me want to stab my eye out with a pen more! Fine, you know what? I'm throwing it down right here, right now: would you rather listen to a game called by Hawk Harrelson, or watch a WNBA game?" You have to choose one. And if you choose option c, which is "I'd rather burn in hell", just remember that under that option that while said burning is occurring, you also have to watch a WNBA game called by Hawk Harrelson. So whatever you do, don't choose c) and Jason Kendall lead their respective leagues in batting average. People, it's the first week of the season. Calm the $%&* down! This happens every year. Give it a month or two before you start heading for the ledge- well unless you're a fan of Minnesota, Seattle, San Fran or Houston, in which case, start thinking about football season.
* Or the NHL playoffs!! That's right, if you're one of the seven lucky homes in the United States that have access to some cable channel called Versus, then starting Wednesday night you too can enjoy the thrills and excitement that is Stanley Cup playoff action!! Ok seriously the NHL playoffs are always great, and the overtime games are some of the best in sports. That should be fun. I will spare you my rant on the Canucks missing the playoffs (long story short: they over-achieved last year, and this year's finish is much more indicative of their true talent level. They're not very good. They're goalie's the best in the league, their D is solid, and their forwards might be the worst in the league. Also they're boring as hell to watch. Trade the Sedins NOW before you have to pay $6 million a year each to be 2nd line players who disappear in the playoffs- just like most European forwards, and invest in good North American players who actually grow up dreaming of winning the Stanley Cup. Just a thought), and despite them not being in it, there's still plenty of intrigue. Well actually for me just with two teams: the Caps and Pens. Alex Ovechkin is the exception to the "Euros never show up in the playoffs" rule and is the best player in the league right now. If starting a franchise, he's my #1 choice. I would love, love, LOVE to see a Pens/Caps 2nd round series. It's about all I'm hoping for other than some good overall playoff hockey.
* If you're sincerely interested about the NHL playoffs, and want to listen to some guys who actually know what they're talking about, go on I-Tunes and search "Coast to Coast NHL Hockey" for the Coast to Coast NHL Hockey podcast. They're 6 guys I went to BCIT with who do a great job, really know their stuff, and they get good hockey media people from across Canada on the show. Check it out.
OK done with hockey talk, I promise. Enjoy the National Final tonight. Let's hope Kansas can make a game of it.
* Hey let's all make a big deal about Tigers freshman guard Derrick Rose, who SHOULD be the #1 pick in this June's NBA draft, missing a media session because of a stomach ache caused by eating too many gummy worms and candy. I don't know about you, but I ALWAYS ate healthy foods when I was 19, and still do to this day...or wait, no I ate horrible amounts of horrible food at horrible hours when I was 19. And 20. And 21...you get the idea. He's a college freshman, away from home for the first time, and away from mom's cooking for the first time. If the worst thing he does this season is eat too much junk food, I'd feel pretty good about if I were any NBA team with the first pick this June. Of course too much will be made of this, as well as the "fact" you just "can't" take a point guard not named Magic Johnson with the first pick. Yes I'm going to beat this to death until June's draft, and yes you're probably going to get sick of it.
* Speaking of June's draft, the NBA is going to have to come up with a new way to prevent teams from tanking to improve their draft position, because for a second straight year, at least one team is openly tanking. Last year it was the Boston Celtics and Memphis Grizzlies, whose starters magically came down with mysterious ailments that sidelined them for the last month of the season, forcing the teams to play their bench and pull people out of the stands to fill out the roster. This year it's the Miami Heat, who first shelved Dwyane Wade for the year, and now its forward Shawn Marion who's done for the season with a foot ailment of some sort. A really severe case of athlete's foot, or maybe one of those bad blisters you get from a pair of new shoes? Anyway, there's no way Marion, who over the past five years has been a real iron man by averaging 80 games a year, can play through this one. So their two best players are "out" and since beating the hapless Bucks (who aren't tanking, but are just this terrible) March 24th, the Heat have lost seven straight, six by double digits. If A-hole Stern is serious about the integrity of his league- well other than allowing a carpet-bagging redneck friend to steal a basketball team from the good people of Seattle who have supported the league for 41 years- then he's going to have to come up with something else besides the draft lottery to stop teams from tanking games. Not that I have any sympathy for the mostly bandwagon fans of Miami who live by the beach in gorgeous weather every day, but wouldn't you be a little ticked if you were paying good money to watch a team who didn't try? The Wolves are bad but at least they're trying right? Anyway, this is going longer than I planned and is an argument for another day. One thing I AM interested in is the following: the Grizz and Celts ended up with the worst possible picks they could have last year. I want to see if the Heat, who appear to be the only team openly tanking this season, end up having the same thing happen to them on ping-pong-ball-day. I mean of course it would just be, you know, coincidence because David Stern would never rig a draft to prove a point...or give the Knicks Patrick Ewing...or Michael Jordan the first pick when he was in Washington while giving the Bulls the worst possible pick they could have gotten...all just coincidence. Anyway, something to ponder.
* Don't look now but some baseball fans are in a PANIC!!!!!!! after one, count them, ONE week of baseball. ONE. Nothing like an extremely small sample size here people. Yup, the Orioles (this will not continue long) and Royals (this could- not like "World Series contender" could, but "definitely hang around .500 and make a run at the wild card" kind of could) are tops in the AL while the Florida Marlins (fiesty) and the St. Louis Cardinals (never underestimate the power of Tony LaRussa's tinted glasses. They are a baseball power unto itself, full of reverance, power, and strang wonders! Wait where was I?) lead the NL. Ben Broussard and something called Xavier Nady lead the league in homers while AJ Pierzynski (who's more annoying? AJ or Hawk Harrelson? Wait this is like the would you rather question when it's "would you rather_________ or watch the WNBA?" It's always the WNBA just as it's always Hawk Harrelson! No broadcaster is worse! Noone is more annoying! Nobody is more of a homer! Nobody makes me want to stab my eye out with a pen more! Fine, you know what? I'm throwing it down right here, right now: would you rather listen to a game called by Hawk Harrelson, or watch a WNBA game?" You have to choose one. And if you choose option c, which is "I'd rather burn in hell", just remember that under that option that while said burning is occurring, you also have to watch a WNBA game called by Hawk Harrelson. So whatever you do, don't choose c) and Jason Kendall lead their respective leagues in batting average. People, it's the first week of the season. Calm the $%&* down! This happens every year. Give it a month or two before you start heading for the ledge- well unless you're a fan of Minnesota, Seattle, San Fran or Houston, in which case, start thinking about football season.
* Or the NHL playoffs!! That's right, if you're one of the seven lucky homes in the United States that have access to some cable channel called Versus, then starting Wednesday night you too can enjoy the thrills and excitement that is Stanley Cup playoff action!! Ok seriously the NHL playoffs are always great, and the overtime games are some of the best in sports. That should be fun. I will spare you my rant on the Canucks missing the playoffs (long story short: they over-achieved last year, and this year's finish is much more indicative of their true talent level. They're not very good. They're goalie's the best in the league, their D is solid, and their forwards might be the worst in the league. Also they're boring as hell to watch. Trade the Sedins NOW before you have to pay $6 million a year each to be 2nd line players who disappear in the playoffs- just like most European forwards, and invest in good North American players who actually grow up dreaming of winning the Stanley Cup. Just a thought), and despite them not being in it, there's still plenty of intrigue. Well actually for me just with two teams: the Caps and Pens. Alex Ovechkin is the exception to the "Euros never show up in the playoffs" rule and is the best player in the league right now. If starting a franchise, he's my #1 choice. I would love, love, LOVE to see a Pens/Caps 2nd round series. It's about all I'm hoping for other than some good overall playoff hockey.
* If you're sincerely interested about the NHL playoffs, and want to listen to some guys who actually know what they're talking about, go on I-Tunes and search "Coast to Coast NHL Hockey" for the Coast to Coast NHL Hockey podcast. They're 6 guys I went to BCIT with who do a great job, really know their stuff, and they get good hockey media people from across Canada on the show. Check it out.
OK done with hockey talk, I promise. Enjoy the National Final tonight. Let's hope Kansas can make a game of it.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Final Four Musings: Memphis 78 UCLA 63
Well my final of UCLA/North Carolina is going down in flames as we speak. Memphis dominated the Bruins earlier, and now Kansas is taking it to a level beyond domination as they're up 31-10 on Carolina midway through the first half. Some thoughts on the second half of the first game (I was looking for apartments during the first half).
* I had only seen Memphis play once before the Tourney, in their only loss of the season to Tennessee. In that game, while the Tigers certainly looked athletic and plenty talented, they didn't look any better than Tennessee, and ended up losing because of their free throw shooting. My thinking heading into the tourney was that yes, the Tigers are freakishly athletic and pretty damn talented, but they would eventually run into someone else who was just as good, and then Memphis dismal free throw shooting would do them in. Well after five tourney games, it hasn't happened yet. At this point I'm wondering how many NBA teams would give this group a run.
****
With 7:32 left in the first half, Billy Packer has just declared the Kansas/Carolina game over. 38-10 Rock Chalk Jayhawks. Kinda hard to argue with Billy right now.
****
During the first weekend of the tourney, I saw an interview with Memphis coach John Calipari, and of course they asked his team's free throw shooting. His answer? That when the time came, they'd shoot it well. He believed his kids had good form, and when the time came, they'd get it done. I laughed out loud when I heard that, wondering how a coach who had accomplished as much could be so naive. If your kids can't shoot free throws all year, why in the hell would they just suddenly get better? And if they could, wouldn't this mean they weren't trying all year? No matter how you looked at it, this looked like a dumb statement.
Of course, now I'm the one looking dumb. Memphis shot 20-23 from the stripe today, good for 87%. I guess Coach Cal knows his team a little better than I do. I still don't like what that says that his kids CAN shoot free throws well and don't all year, but considering they're in the title game Monday night and are definitely the team to beat, I guess it doesn't matter much, does it?
* UCLA is a damn good basketball team, and well deserving of their seed and their spot in the Final Four: but they got outworked and outplayed badly today. Memphis was AT LEAST 15 points better today, at least in the second half. Defensively they could not contain Derrick Rose or Chris Douglas-Roberts, and they could not get a rebound. Didn't it seem like Memphis was getting second, third and fourth opportunities on offense? It also seemed like Memphis was getting a lot of easy baskets, or were at least getting to the rim much more often than the Bruins.
When the Bruins got on offense, they had to work really, REALLY hard just to get a shot off, and it always seemed like they had to settle for outside jumpers. Not only that, but watching the highlights after the game, whenever UCLA put up an outside jumper, there were ALWAYS three or four white shirts under the basket, while Love was usually the only blue shirt anywhere near the bucket. For the game Memphis outrebounded UCLA 42-35, and only 14-12 on the offensive glass, but I'd love to see the second half numbers, because it looked much more lopsided than that.
* After hearing the hype all season about the freshman Rose, I just hadn't seen what all the fuss was about. Well I'm a believer after today's game. He finished with 25 points, nine boards (four offensive), four assists and was 11-12 from the free throw line. And maybe most impressive: In 37 minutes, while playing at a furious pace, he had just one turnover, which wasn't even his fault. The turnover he was given was the gorgeous lob pass to Joey Dorsey with five minutes left in the second half. He couldn't have run up and PLACED the ball at a better position around the rim and yet Dorsey, who seems to have decent hands, just plain dropped it on the way up. Anyway, if Rose doesn't go #1 overall in the NBA draft in June, the team who passes on him better have a damn good reason. And it better be more than "well nobody ever takes a point guard number one overall." This is the same thinking that dropped Chris Paul to fifth while Andrew Bogut and Marvin Williams went first and second overall. Rose will make someone look very foolish if they pass on him too.
* Chris Douglas-Roberts has one ugly game. He looks like he should be playing in an over-40 men's league at the Y. How many dirty, greasy, old-man moves did he have in that ball game? How many ugly shots did he hoist up at odd angles that found their way in? And yet at the end of the game, he finishes with a game-high 28 points. And what's more, as a first team All-American, he's been doing this all year. He'll probably go late in the first round or sometime in the second, getting passed over for guys with more "upside" but he could be a a crafty scorer of the bench for a good team.
* I know Joey Dorsey's only offensive move is dunking (and that's when he actually catches the lob passes), but I'd take him on my team anytime. 15 boards (six offensive), two blocks, a steal, and zero turnovers? At 6-9 and 265 pounds, he'll also get passed over on most draft boards for guy with more "upside" but could he, or could he not, develop into another Ben Wallace?
* Who's going to be a bigger bust: that stupid Speed Racer movie they've shown 9,457 commercials for, or Bruins guard Darren Collison? Collison, who's been trying to prove he's an NBA point guard, finished with two points, four boards, four assists and two steals, but also had five turnovers and fouled out. He couldn't get a decent shot off all day, and what's worse, he couldn't find any for his teammates either. And defensively, Rose, Douglas-Roberts, and Antonio Anderson absolutely owned him. Whichever guy he picked up, they'd make sure to take advantage. You can stick a fork in Collison's pro prospects after today's game.
Well Carolina is trying to make a game of it, but still down a ways 44-27 at the half, they've got a long way to go to prevent a Kansas/Memphis final. We shall see.
* I had only seen Memphis play once before the Tourney, in their only loss of the season to Tennessee. In that game, while the Tigers certainly looked athletic and plenty talented, they didn't look any better than Tennessee, and ended up losing because of their free throw shooting. My thinking heading into the tourney was that yes, the Tigers are freakishly athletic and pretty damn talented, but they would eventually run into someone else who was just as good, and then Memphis dismal free throw shooting would do them in. Well after five tourney games, it hasn't happened yet. At this point I'm wondering how many NBA teams would give this group a run.
****
With 7:32 left in the first half, Billy Packer has just declared the Kansas/Carolina game over. 38-10 Rock Chalk Jayhawks. Kinda hard to argue with Billy right now.
****
During the first weekend of the tourney, I saw an interview with Memphis coach John Calipari, and of course they asked his team's free throw shooting. His answer? That when the time came, they'd shoot it well. He believed his kids had good form, and when the time came, they'd get it done. I laughed out loud when I heard that, wondering how a coach who had accomplished as much could be so naive. If your kids can't shoot free throws all year, why in the hell would they just suddenly get better? And if they could, wouldn't this mean they weren't trying all year? No matter how you looked at it, this looked like a dumb statement.
Of course, now I'm the one looking dumb. Memphis shot 20-23 from the stripe today, good for 87%. I guess Coach Cal knows his team a little better than I do. I still don't like what that says that his kids CAN shoot free throws well and don't all year, but considering they're in the title game Monday night and are definitely the team to beat, I guess it doesn't matter much, does it?
* UCLA is a damn good basketball team, and well deserving of their seed and their spot in the Final Four: but they got outworked and outplayed badly today. Memphis was AT LEAST 15 points better today, at least in the second half. Defensively they could not contain Derrick Rose or Chris Douglas-Roberts, and they could not get a rebound. Didn't it seem like Memphis was getting second, third and fourth opportunities on offense? It also seemed like Memphis was getting a lot of easy baskets, or were at least getting to the rim much more often than the Bruins.
When the Bruins got on offense, they had to work really, REALLY hard just to get a shot off, and it always seemed like they had to settle for outside jumpers. Not only that, but watching the highlights after the game, whenever UCLA put up an outside jumper, there were ALWAYS three or four white shirts under the basket, while Love was usually the only blue shirt anywhere near the bucket. For the game Memphis outrebounded UCLA 42-35, and only 14-12 on the offensive glass, but I'd love to see the second half numbers, because it looked much more lopsided than that.
* After hearing the hype all season about the freshman Rose, I just hadn't seen what all the fuss was about. Well I'm a believer after today's game. He finished with 25 points, nine boards (four offensive), four assists and was 11-12 from the free throw line. And maybe most impressive: In 37 minutes, while playing at a furious pace, he had just one turnover, which wasn't even his fault. The turnover he was given was the gorgeous lob pass to Joey Dorsey with five minutes left in the second half. He couldn't have run up and PLACED the ball at a better position around the rim and yet Dorsey, who seems to have decent hands, just plain dropped it on the way up. Anyway, if Rose doesn't go #1 overall in the NBA draft in June, the team who passes on him better have a damn good reason. And it better be more than "well nobody ever takes a point guard number one overall." This is the same thinking that dropped Chris Paul to fifth while Andrew Bogut and Marvin Williams went first and second overall. Rose will make someone look very foolish if they pass on him too.
* Chris Douglas-Roberts has one ugly game. He looks like he should be playing in an over-40 men's league at the Y. How many dirty, greasy, old-man moves did he have in that ball game? How many ugly shots did he hoist up at odd angles that found their way in? And yet at the end of the game, he finishes with a game-high 28 points. And what's more, as a first team All-American, he's been doing this all year. He'll probably go late in the first round or sometime in the second, getting passed over for guys with more "upside" but he could be a a crafty scorer of the bench for a good team.
* I know Joey Dorsey's only offensive move is dunking (and that's when he actually catches the lob passes), but I'd take him on my team anytime. 15 boards (six offensive), two blocks, a steal, and zero turnovers? At 6-9 and 265 pounds, he'll also get passed over on most draft boards for guy with more "upside" but could he, or could he not, develop into another Ben Wallace?
* Who's going to be a bigger bust: that stupid Speed Racer movie they've shown 9,457 commercials for, or Bruins guard Darren Collison? Collison, who's been trying to prove he's an NBA point guard, finished with two points, four boards, four assists and two steals, but also had five turnovers and fouled out. He couldn't get a decent shot off all day, and what's worse, he couldn't find any for his teammates either. And defensively, Rose, Douglas-Roberts, and Antonio Anderson absolutely owned him. Whichever guy he picked up, they'd make sure to take advantage. You can stick a fork in Collison's pro prospects after today's game.
Well Carolina is trying to make a game of it, but still down a ways 44-27 at the half, they've got a long way to go to prevent a Kansas/Memphis final. We shall see.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
NBA Odds & Ends
Biggest news today is that the Knicks have hired Indiana Pacers CEO Donnie Walsh to try and fix the colossal mess that Isiah Thomas has made of the League's Most Important Franchise. Besides getting one the NBA's best GM's (yes the Pacers suck right now, but before the Brawl at the Palace the Pacers might have been the league's best team, and I seem to remember the team being pretty damn good in the Reggie Miller/Rik Smits Era in the 1990's), according to the story "the Knicks yielded to Walsh's wishes on several key terms regarding authority and autonomy" that they had not given to past GM's like Isiah. While owner Jimmy Dolan, who like Glen Taylor in Minnesota should be held as responsible for his team's disaster as the man he lets run the team, will still probably be far too involved, at least relenting some control to Walsh shows he realizes there's a problem here, and he's going about a different way to fix it than just giving Isiah extensions and expecting different results.
Much has been made already about whether Isiah will stay on as coach, and you know what? It's completely irrelevant. I'm sure Knick fans would like to be rid of Isiah as a way of cleansing the franchise of five years of awful, but NBA head coaches have the least effect on their team's outcome of any professional sport. While they can make minor differences, they're basically glorified baby sitters. I've been saying it for as long as Jer and I have had this website, but the inmates run the asylum in the NBA. If you have good players and leaders, you're going to win a lot. That coach might make the difference in a few key moments, but overall it's about the players on the floor.
So whether Isiah stays or goes as coach is irrelevant: the only thing that matters is that a) he's never allowed to make a personel decision again, and b) Walsh can give them enough cap room in the summer of 2010 to make a run at Lebron, DWade, or Chris Bosh. That's it. Do those two things and they'll be fine. Not that clearing that cap space will be easy, but it can be done. According to hoopshype for the 2010-2011 season the Knicks currently have $27.5 million in guaranteed money committed to Zach Randolph and Jamal Crawford, and have team or qualifying offers totaling $7.75 million available to Renaldo Balkman (keep him), Wilson Chandler (nope), and Mardy Collins (ditto). So that's roughly $36 million against a possible $55 million cap number. That right there is pretty nice, but there's two big issues to add to it: David Lee (who I'd keep) and Nate Robinson (who I wouldn't) will be free agents the summer before, so decisions will have to be made on both. The other much bigger issue is two underachieving players with gigantic player options for the summer of 2010 who would be stupid not to exercise them: Eddy Curry ($17.333 million! MILLION!) and Jared Jeffries ($6.9 MILLION!!!). So those guys would obviously push the Knicks right back into Luxury Tax land if they're still on the roster. So Walsh's big job will be trying to get rid of those two and/or Randolph and/or Crawford or all of the above. Good luck to Walsh, but at least the Knicks finally have the right guy to do it.
********
While the sky was falling for the rest of the province as they were watching the Canucks blow their playoff hopes against the Colorado Avalanche, I was watching the Nuggets improve theirs against the Suns. If you're at all interested in pro hoops, the Western Conference playoffs have to make you giddy. It's going to be ridiculously good. However, I STILL believe the league needs to grow some cahones, and seed the playoffs 1-16 regardless of conference. Some of the arguments against this include "people like it the way it is" (if by "people" you mean owners of crappy Eastern Conference teams that have no business being in the playoffs but will get in because there's only three good teams out there), we want to build rivalries (this doesn't make sense to anyone), "look how exciting the Western Conference will be!" (while true it would be even MORE exciting if the nine teams in the west who will win 50 games would all get in), or "This just makes far too much sense." (Ok that's really an argument against it, but I haven't heard a good one to dispel this myself).
A-Hole Stern claims that the league is cyclical, and that when the Jordan Bulls dominated in the 90's the East had better teams. One, I checked wikipedia and this is simply not true. While the Bulls were obviously superior to everyone, the West, in most years of that decade, still had more good teams. And since Jordan's retirement, which was full on 10 YEARS AGO, the West has dominated. It hasn't been close. And if you look at the current rosters, it's not changing anytime soon.
My question to you is: which would you prefer? Under the current system, Dallas, Denver or Golden State will miss the playoffs despite winning 50 games, which by the way, would put them possibly as high as THIRD and no worse than FOURTH in the East (not to mention Portland, who at 2 games above .500 right now could be as high as fifth seed in the East!). Or, if we dared to get crazy and take a chance-take a chance-take a chance-chance we could seed it the following way (we'll give the top team in each conference the top 2 seeds):
1. Boston (59-15) vs. 16. Toronto (38-36)
2. New Orleans (51-22) vs. 15. Washington (38-36)
3. Detroit (53-21) vs. 14. Portland (38-36)
4. San Antonio (52-23) vs. 13. Cleveland (41-33)
5. LA Lakers (50-24) vs. 12. Golden State (45-29)
6. Phoenix (50-25) vs. 11. Denver (46-29)
7. Houston (49-25) vs. 10. Dallas (46-28)
8. Utah (49-26) vs. 9. Orlando (47-28)
Any questions? You're telling me there's not plenty of excitement and intrigue with those matchups? Maybe it's just me, but I just happen to be a big fan of the 16 best teams making the playoffs. Call me crazy.
Much has been made already about whether Isiah will stay on as coach, and you know what? It's completely irrelevant. I'm sure Knick fans would like to be rid of Isiah as a way of cleansing the franchise of five years of awful, but NBA head coaches have the least effect on their team's outcome of any professional sport. While they can make minor differences, they're basically glorified baby sitters. I've been saying it for as long as Jer and I have had this website, but the inmates run the asylum in the NBA. If you have good players and leaders, you're going to win a lot. That coach might make the difference in a few key moments, but overall it's about the players on the floor.
So whether Isiah stays or goes as coach is irrelevant: the only thing that matters is that a) he's never allowed to make a personel decision again, and b) Walsh can give them enough cap room in the summer of 2010 to make a run at Lebron, DWade, or Chris Bosh. That's it. Do those two things and they'll be fine. Not that clearing that cap space will be easy, but it can be done. According to hoopshype for the 2010-2011 season the Knicks currently have $27.5 million in guaranteed money committed to Zach Randolph and Jamal Crawford, and have team or qualifying offers totaling $7.75 million available to Renaldo Balkman (keep him), Wilson Chandler (nope), and Mardy Collins (ditto). So that's roughly $36 million against a possible $55 million cap number. That right there is pretty nice, but there's two big issues to add to it: David Lee (who I'd keep) and Nate Robinson (who I wouldn't) will be free agents the summer before, so decisions will have to be made on both. The other much bigger issue is two underachieving players with gigantic player options for the summer of 2010 who would be stupid not to exercise them: Eddy Curry ($17.333 million! MILLION!) and Jared Jeffries ($6.9 MILLION!!!). So those guys would obviously push the Knicks right back into Luxury Tax land if they're still on the roster. So Walsh's big job will be trying to get rid of those two and/or Randolph and/or Crawford or all of the above. Good luck to Walsh, but at least the Knicks finally have the right guy to do it.
********
While the sky was falling for the rest of the province as they were watching the Canucks blow their playoff hopes against the Colorado Avalanche, I was watching the Nuggets improve theirs against the Suns. If you're at all interested in pro hoops, the Western Conference playoffs have to make you giddy. It's going to be ridiculously good. However, I STILL believe the league needs to grow some cahones, and seed the playoffs 1-16 regardless of conference. Some of the arguments against this include "people like it the way it is" (if by "people" you mean owners of crappy Eastern Conference teams that have no business being in the playoffs but will get in because there's only three good teams out there), we want to build rivalries (this doesn't make sense to anyone), "look how exciting the Western Conference will be!" (while true it would be even MORE exciting if the nine teams in the west who will win 50 games would all get in), or "This just makes far too much sense." (Ok that's really an argument against it, but I haven't heard a good one to dispel this myself).
A-Hole Stern claims that the league is cyclical, and that when the Jordan Bulls dominated in the 90's the East had better teams. One, I checked wikipedia and this is simply not true. While the Bulls were obviously superior to everyone, the West, in most years of that decade, still had more good teams. And since Jordan's retirement, which was full on 10 YEARS AGO, the West has dominated. It hasn't been close. And if you look at the current rosters, it's not changing anytime soon.
My question to you is: which would you prefer? Under the current system, Dallas, Denver or Golden State will miss the playoffs despite winning 50 games, which by the way, would put them possibly as high as THIRD and no worse than FOURTH in the East (not to mention Portland, who at 2 games above .500 right now could be as high as fifth seed in the East!). Or, if we dared to get crazy and take a chance-take a chance-take a chance-chance we could seed it the following way (we'll give the top team in each conference the top 2 seeds):
1. Boston (59-15) vs. 16. Toronto (38-36)
2. New Orleans (51-22) vs. 15. Washington (38-36)
3. Detroit (53-21) vs. 14. Portland (38-36)
4. San Antonio (52-23) vs. 13. Cleveland (41-33)
5. LA Lakers (50-24) vs. 12. Golden State (45-29)
6. Phoenix (50-25) vs. 11. Denver (46-29)
7. Houston (49-25) vs. 10. Dallas (46-28)
8. Utah (49-26) vs. 9. Orlando (47-28)
Any questions? You're telling me there's not plenty of excitement and intrigue with those matchups? Maybe it's just me, but I just happen to be a big fan of the 16 best teams making the playoffs. Call me crazy.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Baseball's Back Baby!!!!
(I'll get to the Final Four later in the week, but I will say this could be the best Final Four ever. There's not only four number one seeds, but after watching every game these last four days, they were clearly the best teams- although Davidson and Stephen Curry? Wow. Just wow. Without even realizing it I stood up out of my chair every time Curry put up a three because I was expecting it to go in. Just electric. He will be missed but there's some great hoops to come.)
Monday is one of the best sports days of the year, right up there with the opening Thursday and Friday of March Madness. When I rule the world these WILL be national holidays, since every guy is trying to skip work to watch. Well except for Canada- while their March Madness coverage has been excellent, let's just say the opening day baseball coverage is lacking. Severely. 14 games tomorrow, and guess how many are being broadcasted by any one of the THREE Canadian sports networks? If you guessed ZERO, well then you are correct. What are they showing instead? Curling, poker, MMA, and the Canucks game. I wish I were kidding.
Despite this, I'm still really excited for Opening Day (and by the way, we're pretending the season didn't start a week ago with a couple of games in Japan. Because if that happened it would be nothing short of retarded. No sport in their right mind would pull such a stunt- well except hockey if it still existed), and thought I should put up a mini-preview in its honor. Since I tend to rip others for their picks, I might as well man up and give mine.
WARNING: I did not put a lot of thought, research or time into this!!
AL
EAST
1. Boston
2. New York*
3. Tampa Bay
4. Toronto
9,483. Baltimore
* Wild Card. They damn well better with a $200 million payroll.
Not really going out on a limb here, but the Sox look to be the best team in the division, and the Yankees are the Yankees and will figure out a way. I'm really, really, REALLY bullish about Tampa Bay. They will be in the wild card hunt well into August, and if their bullpen doesn't explode (their one real weakness right now), into September too. Like the football team in that town did years ago, the "Rays" will go from punchline to front-of-the line starting next year. They're very well run and are absolutely LOADED with good young talent. Beware the Rays. I feel the same way about the Blue Jays as I do about any other Toronto team, so my opinion of them is far from rational, but let's be honest: anyone from outside of Toronto takes one look at that team and says "wow, those guys blow." And Baltimore will be the worst team in baseball.
CENTRAL
1. Detwah
2. Chicago
3. Cleveland
4. Minnesota
5. Kansas City
The Tiggers are my pick to win the whole thing. The bullpen is an issue, but it's also the easiest of any area to fix. Solid starters and the scariest offense we've seen in a long time. It's not that I love the White Sox, it's that I think Cleveland won't be as good as expected. They had a LOT go right last year (well besides Travis Hafner), and a repeat of that will be tough (sketchy pen, Hafner won't rebound back to his old self, and who's playing corner OF or 3rd?). I also think the Sox could bounce back, and be better than people think. There's ALWAYS at least one team who's much better, and one who's much worse than people think. These are my two in the AL I guess. The Twins? Wow. It hurts. Some good young talent but they're going to fall a ways I think. Better than the Royals, but not much better. And 2009 the Royals might be better. Twins Fever! Catch it! Seriously though, because they still have Mauer, Morneau, Cuddy, Nathan, and a stable of decent starters, they'll be ok, but there's just so many questions. And their infield other than Morneausy? Are you serious? I LOVE the Adam Everett signing because although he's one of the worst hitters in baseball, he's one of the best defenders. But since you're going to get nothing out of Everett at the plate, you need more offense in the lineup and the Twins don't have any. Whoever plays second will be the worst second baseman in the AL (I will wait for you to look it up if you want, or you can just trust me), and Mike Lamb is damn close to the worst at third. Hey look on the bright side Twins fans: at least you're paying for a brand new ballpark so your owner can REDUCE his payroll! Um let's just move on.
WEST
1. Orange County Angels
2. Seattle
3. Oakland
4. Texas
Not a good division, especially with the injury issues the Halos are having now with Escobar AND Lackey. Still I don't think Seattle is better, and Texas and Oakland are both rebuilding, although both will be better than expected. Not a good division. Be glad you don't have to watch anybody out here.
NATIONAL LEAGUE
EAST
1. Mets
2. Atlanta
3. Philadelphia
4. Florida
5. Warshington Nayshunuls
You can't not pick the Mets with Johan there. While they're not a perfect team, all of their issues are managable. Hotlanta's kind of a bandwagon pick, but I'm making it. Pitching will keep the Phils from the playoffs, Florida is getting good again but not that good and hey at least Warshington gets to play in a shiny new ballpark (did anybody watch the Sunday night game? Did the park look good? Because none of the 3 "Sports" networks carried that game either.)
CENTRAL
1. Milwaukee
2. Chicago*
3. Cincinnati
4. St Louis
5. Pittsburgh
6. Houston
How do we have six teams in this division and only four in the AL West? A bunch of freaking geniuses running baseball right now. Anywho, yes I love the Brew Crew IF stud pitcher Yolani Gallardo comes back healthy and soon from injury (he's supposed to be back by late April). You haven't heard of him but you will. Their rotation is solid, they have enough arms in the pen if Gagne falters (I believe he'll be ok- not Dodgers days of old Ok but not "gasoline on a fire" like he was with the Red Sox either), and their lineup could be downright scary. I'm bullish on Ricky Weeks finally figuring things out, think Billy Hall will regain a bit of his stroke back at third, and LOVE the Mike Cameron signing. Defensively, Cameron in center (one of the best defenders in baseball) + Hall at 3B + Ryan Braun in left (not great but not gawd-awful like he was at third) will make a YUGE difference for them. You've probably heard plenty about the Cubbies already, and while I like them enough to grab the wild card, not quite enough to win the division. Cincy's looking pesky with better pitching than they've had in a long time (not saying much I know), and a solid order. Defense? Not so much, but playing in that small park if the ball actually stays in the yard guys don't have to run very far to get to it. With the Cards, Bucs and Stros? Flip a coin. They'll all be varying shades of unwatchable.
WEST
1. Los Angeles
2. German for a Whale's V&*^%a
3. Colorado
4. Arizona
8,473. San Francisco
I really like the Dodgers- like "could go to the World Series" kind of like. Tons of pitching depth, great pen, decent defense, and an offense with potential. While Jeff Kent is in decline and NO-MAH is d-o-n-e, they've got plenty of other bats and some good young kids. Also look for bounce-back years from Raffy Furcal and Andruw Jones. San Diego (founded by the German's in 1904) is a real sleeper. If they can get any offense at all, they could be tough. The Rocks return to earth a bit, and the D-Backs, well, I just never understood what made them good last year. Seriously, look at their lineup: what the deuce? THAT's the offense of a playoff team? Really? On what planet? I mean, I know the National League is the inferior league right now, but come on! I've seen "experts" picking them to win the division again because of how well they did last year AND now they have Dan Haren. Ok, fine their 1-2 punch in the rotation is awesome- BUT THE REST OF THEIR TEAM SUCKS!!!! I don't get it. The Giants will battle the O's for the worst team in the history of the universe.
MVP
AL: Miggy Cabrera, 3B, Tiggers
NL: Prince Fielder, 1B, Brewers
CY YOUNG:
AL: KING FELIX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Just kidding, it's Justin Verlander of the Tiggers)
NL: Johan Santana, Mets
Monday is one of the best sports days of the year, right up there with the opening Thursday and Friday of March Madness. When I rule the world these WILL be national holidays, since every guy is trying to skip work to watch. Well except for Canada- while their March Madness coverage has been excellent, let's just say the opening day baseball coverage is lacking. Severely. 14 games tomorrow, and guess how many are being broadcasted by any one of the THREE Canadian sports networks? If you guessed ZERO, well then you are correct. What are they showing instead? Curling, poker, MMA, and the Canucks game. I wish I were kidding.
Despite this, I'm still really excited for Opening Day (and by the way, we're pretending the season didn't start a week ago with a couple of games in Japan. Because if that happened it would be nothing short of retarded. No sport in their right mind would pull such a stunt- well except hockey if it still existed), and thought I should put up a mini-preview in its honor. Since I tend to rip others for their picks, I might as well man up and give mine.
WARNING: I did not put a lot of thought, research or time into this!!
AL
EAST
1. Boston
2. New York*
3. Tampa Bay
4. Toronto
9,483. Baltimore
* Wild Card. They damn well better with a $200 million payroll.
Not really going out on a limb here, but the Sox look to be the best team in the division, and the Yankees are the Yankees and will figure out a way. I'm really, really, REALLY bullish about Tampa Bay. They will be in the wild card hunt well into August, and if their bullpen doesn't explode (their one real weakness right now), into September too. Like the football team in that town did years ago, the "Rays" will go from punchline to front-of-the line starting next year. They're very well run and are absolutely LOADED with good young talent. Beware the Rays. I feel the same way about the Blue Jays as I do about any other Toronto team, so my opinion of them is far from rational, but let's be honest: anyone from outside of Toronto takes one look at that team and says "wow, those guys blow." And Baltimore will be the worst team in baseball.
CENTRAL
1. Detwah
2. Chicago
3. Cleveland
4. Minnesota
5. Kansas City
The Tiggers are my pick to win the whole thing. The bullpen is an issue, but it's also the easiest of any area to fix. Solid starters and the scariest offense we've seen in a long time. It's not that I love the White Sox, it's that I think Cleveland won't be as good as expected. They had a LOT go right last year (well besides Travis Hafner), and a repeat of that will be tough (sketchy pen, Hafner won't rebound back to his old self, and who's playing corner OF or 3rd?). I also think the Sox could bounce back, and be better than people think. There's ALWAYS at least one team who's much better, and one who's much worse than people think. These are my two in the AL I guess. The Twins? Wow. It hurts. Some good young talent but they're going to fall a ways I think. Better than the Royals, but not much better. And 2009 the Royals might be better. Twins Fever! Catch it! Seriously though, because they still have Mauer, Morneau, Cuddy, Nathan, and a stable of decent starters, they'll be ok, but there's just so many questions. And their infield other than Morneausy? Are you serious? I LOVE the Adam Everett signing because although he's one of the worst hitters in baseball, he's one of the best defenders. But since you're going to get nothing out of Everett at the plate, you need more offense in the lineup and the Twins don't have any. Whoever plays second will be the worst second baseman in the AL (I will wait for you to look it up if you want, or you can just trust me), and Mike Lamb is damn close to the worst at third. Hey look on the bright side Twins fans: at least you're paying for a brand new ballpark so your owner can REDUCE his payroll! Um let's just move on.
WEST
1. Orange County Angels
2. Seattle
3. Oakland
4. Texas
Not a good division, especially with the injury issues the Halos are having now with Escobar AND Lackey. Still I don't think Seattle is better, and Texas and Oakland are both rebuilding, although both will be better than expected. Not a good division. Be glad you don't have to watch anybody out here.
NATIONAL LEAGUE
EAST
1. Mets
2. Atlanta
3. Philadelphia
4. Florida
5. Warshington Nayshunuls
You can't not pick the Mets with Johan there. While they're not a perfect team, all of their issues are managable. Hotlanta's kind of a bandwagon pick, but I'm making it. Pitching will keep the Phils from the playoffs, Florida is getting good again but not that good and hey at least Warshington gets to play in a shiny new ballpark (did anybody watch the Sunday night game? Did the park look good? Because none of the 3 "Sports" networks carried that game either.)
CENTRAL
1. Milwaukee
2. Chicago*
3. Cincinnati
4. St Louis
5. Pittsburgh
6. Houston
How do we have six teams in this division and only four in the AL West? A bunch of freaking geniuses running baseball right now. Anywho, yes I love the Brew Crew IF stud pitcher Yolani Gallardo comes back healthy and soon from injury (he's supposed to be back by late April). You haven't heard of him but you will. Their rotation is solid, they have enough arms in the pen if Gagne falters (I believe he'll be ok- not Dodgers days of old Ok but not "gasoline on a fire" like he was with the Red Sox either), and their lineup could be downright scary. I'm bullish on Ricky Weeks finally figuring things out, think Billy Hall will regain a bit of his stroke back at third, and LOVE the Mike Cameron signing. Defensively, Cameron in center (one of the best defenders in baseball) + Hall at 3B + Ryan Braun in left (not great but not gawd-awful like he was at third) will make a YUGE difference for them. You've probably heard plenty about the Cubbies already, and while I like them enough to grab the wild card, not quite enough to win the division. Cincy's looking pesky with better pitching than they've had in a long time (not saying much I know), and a solid order. Defense? Not so much, but playing in that small park if the ball actually stays in the yard guys don't have to run very far to get to it. With the Cards, Bucs and Stros? Flip a coin. They'll all be varying shades of unwatchable.
WEST
1. Los Angeles
2. German for a Whale's V&*^%a
3. Colorado
4. Arizona
8,473. San Francisco
I really like the Dodgers- like "could go to the World Series" kind of like. Tons of pitching depth, great pen, decent defense, and an offense with potential. While Jeff Kent is in decline and NO-MAH is d-o-n-e, they've got plenty of other bats and some good young kids. Also look for bounce-back years from Raffy Furcal and Andruw Jones. San Diego (founded by the German's in 1904) is a real sleeper. If they can get any offense at all, they could be tough. The Rocks return to earth a bit, and the D-Backs, well, I just never understood what made them good last year. Seriously, look at their lineup: what the deuce? THAT's the offense of a playoff team? Really? On what planet? I mean, I know the National League is the inferior league right now, but come on! I've seen "experts" picking them to win the division again because of how well they did last year AND now they have Dan Haren. Ok, fine their 1-2 punch in the rotation is awesome- BUT THE REST OF THEIR TEAM SUCKS!!!! I don't get it. The Giants will battle the O's for the worst team in the history of the universe.
MVP
AL: Miggy Cabrera, 3B, Tiggers
NL: Prince Fielder, 1B, Brewers
CY YOUNG:
AL: KING FELIX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Just kidding, it's Justin Verlander of the Tiggers)
NL: Johan Santana, Mets
Friday, March 28, 2008
All-Americans
No, not high school or college, but I'm thinking about NBA All-Americans. It's weird timing with the tourney going and all, but after reading John Hollinger's now annual list of the Top 30 Foreign Players in the NBA (although this is "Insider" content, as of right now it's a free read for everybody), I felt compelled to put together a list of the top 12 American players that would square off against this team (although I am fully American, kindly insert joke here about how I'm a Canadian living in Canada composing an American team. Thank you). If you can't read his article, Hollinger (whose work I love- can't stress that enough) includes guys like Tim Duncan (Virgin Islands), Al Horford (Dominican Republic), Raja Bell (Virgin Islands), and Wally Szczerbiak (yes that same Wally World. Did you know he was born in Spain? Me neither) because they were all foreign born even though most people, including myself, would consider them American players. For the sake of argument, and for this post, we'll keep them on Hollinger's list.
While he puts them in a list, I thought it'd be fun (because I'm a nerd like that) to give a starting five and seven bench guys for both squads. I'm only making one change to Hollinger's list by excluding Zydrunas Ilgauskas (who he ranks 9th) because I just don't feel he's one of the top 12 Euros (while I know there's a more correct term, and that players like Nash and Ginobili and Yao are not technically Euros, let's be honest: they're all Euros). Before I get to that, what stands out to me is that there's not a lot of young blood on the Euro team. Not many young guys banging on the door of the top 12. Of the 30 listed there's only five (and this includes Horford, who I don't consider foreign) who are 24 or under. Remember a few years ago with Darko and the flood of foreign players that were going to take over the NBA? Yeah that didn't happen. When we get closer to the draft I'm putting up the biggest post I've ever done on why you should never ever draft a white center, domestic or foreign, in the first round under any circumstances. Seriously, never. Ever. Anyway, in researching that I was amazed at how few foreign guys have actually panned out. For awhile there I think everybody was scared to death to miss the Next Dirk, but the failure rate for the Foreign guys has been so high it looks like GM's are more than willing to take that risk again.
ANYWAY here's the Euro Team from Hollinger's list:
Starting Five
C Yao Ming, 27, Rockets, China
PF Tim Duncan, 31, Spurs, Virgin Islands
SF Dirk Nowitzki, 29, Mavs, Germany (Can you believe he's only 29?)
SG Manu Ginobili, 30, Spurs, Argentina
PG Steve Nash, 34, Suns, South Africa (now Canadian)
Um wow. That's a helluva starting five right there. Not an athletic group, but great players and a lot of good ol' fashioned fundamentals.
Bench (this is in order of who's coming off the bench first):
PF Pau Gasol, 27, Lakers, Spain
PG Tony Parker, 25, Spurs, France
PG Jose Calderon, 26, Raptors, Spain
SF Luol Deng, 24, Bulls, Sudan
SF Hedo Turkoglu, 29, Magic, Turkey
PF Andrei Kirilenko, 27, Jazz, Russia
C Andris Biedrins, 21, Warriors, Latvia
Drops off pretty fast after Parker, doesn't it? Some good players but no real big stars after that. While Kirilenko's had a couple of rough years and Biedrins is young, I'd still take those two over Big Z and anybody else available.
AMERICAN TEAM
Starting Five
C Dwight, Howard, 22, Magic
PF Kevin Garnett, 31, Celtics
SF Lebron James, 23, Cavs
SG Kobe Bryant, 29, Lakers (like Dirk it's hard to believe he's not even 30)
PG Chris Paul, 22, Hornets
As good as the Euro's starting five is, this one blows it away. Howard's an absolute beast, and while you could debate putting Amare Stoudemire over Garnett, KG's leadership and willingness to share make him perfect for this lineup. King James, Black Mamba and CP3 are simply the three best players in the league right now.
BENCH
PF Amare Stoudemire, 25, Suns
SG Dwyane Wade, 26, Heat
SF Carmelo Anthony, 23, Nuggets (not a misprint: he's really only 23. Wow)
PG Baron Davis, 28, Warriors (another shocker for me)
PG Deron Williams, 23, Jazz
C Marcus Camby, 34, Nuggets
C Shaquille O'Neal, 36, Heat
You cannot argue the first two, but there's plenty of debate after Amare and DWade.
OK I'm going to have to devote an entire paragraph to Dwade. This started as a quick bracket comment but needs much more than that. So what happened to Wade? It was just two years ago he was in the conversation with Bronbron and Kobe for the best player on the planet. Now? Definitely not. This is a hypothetical team, and if he's 100% healthy I'd definitely take him, but if he plays in the Olympics this summer he's certifiably insane. Crazy. If he cares at all about his career he needs to skip it because his health has become a major major issue. Looking at his bio, in his five years in the league he's only played in at least 75 games twice, played only 61 his first year, and in the past two he's only played in 51 apiece. That's alarming right there. The Heat shut him down to get him fully healthy for next year (and also to get better draft positioning for Mike Beasley or Derrick Rose), and next year will be a YUGE one to determine if he's going to continue on the path to be one of the all-time greats, or become one of those Bernard King/Shawn Kemp/Chris Webber types who had a few unreal years but couldn't put a hall-of-fame career together. The knock on Wade when he was drafted was whether his smaller frame (only 6'4) would be able to handle his kamikaze-style of attacking the basket. After absorbing nine million hard fouls (he's shot a mind-boggling 2879 free throws in just five years) on his way to the basket, he's clearly taking a beating, and his body is not holding up well. Can he learn to pull up for the mid-range jumper or do a better job of avoiding contact? If he wants a long career, he's going to have to.
This is also a good time to point out how ridiculously good and tough Allen Iverson is considering he's built like a kicker (6'0, 165 lbs), yet drives to the basket hard all the time, and is in his ELEVENTH SEASON averaging almost 70 games a year, over 40 minutes a night, and is still scoring in the mid 20's and averaging over 7 assists. Wow. Still, I wouldn't put him on the team because he wouldn't be one of my first three or four guys off the bench, and would worry about how he'd handle a reduced role. It was him or Baron Davis for that spot, and I'd rather have Baron right now. I actually debated having Baron at all, but he's playing SO well this year, he has to be there (and he's only 28? Seriously? Wasn't he at UCLA with Tyus Edney, the O'Bannon brothers, Toby Bailey, Don McLean and Tracy Murray. Apparently it just seems that way). After that Melo provides instant offense off the bench as a swing man, and Deron Williams is a great backup true point.
Camby? So underrated and so good for this team. Second in the league in rebounding and first in blocks by almost a full block per game, and in the last five years he's been healthy, averaging double digits boards and 3 blocks a game. I don't think he's ever shaken the frail injury-prone tag he rightly got stuck with early in his career, but he has not been that guy in awhile. He'd be perfect for this team as he doesn't have to score to be effective or happy.
And finally for the 12th man- I thought about Mark Madsen to wave a towel and give awkward high-fives, but after seeing what Shaq's done for the chemistry in Phoenix, he gets my vote. He'd be great for team morale, and I THINK would accept a role of playing in short spurts. Plus he seems like a guy who really likes beating up and dunking on Euros. So if he'd accept the role, he's in.
So there's my team, and I'm stressing TEAM here as Camby and Shaq aren't the 11th or 12th best American players available. But to make the best team to win, this is my group.
While he puts them in a list, I thought it'd be fun (because I'm a nerd like that) to give a starting five and seven bench guys for both squads. I'm only making one change to Hollinger's list by excluding Zydrunas Ilgauskas (who he ranks 9th) because I just don't feel he's one of the top 12 Euros (while I know there's a more correct term, and that players like Nash and Ginobili and Yao are not technically Euros, let's be honest: they're all Euros). Before I get to that, what stands out to me is that there's not a lot of young blood on the Euro team. Not many young guys banging on the door of the top 12. Of the 30 listed there's only five (and this includes Horford, who I don't consider foreign) who are 24 or under. Remember a few years ago with Darko and the flood of foreign players that were going to take over the NBA? Yeah that didn't happen. When we get closer to the draft I'm putting up the biggest post I've ever done on why you should never ever draft a white center, domestic or foreign, in the first round under any circumstances. Seriously, never. Ever. Anyway, in researching that I was amazed at how few foreign guys have actually panned out. For awhile there I think everybody was scared to death to miss the Next Dirk, but the failure rate for the Foreign guys has been so high it looks like GM's are more than willing to take that risk again.
ANYWAY here's the Euro Team from Hollinger's list:
Starting Five
C Yao Ming, 27, Rockets, China
PF Tim Duncan, 31, Spurs, Virgin Islands
SF Dirk Nowitzki, 29, Mavs, Germany (Can you believe he's only 29?)
SG Manu Ginobili, 30, Spurs, Argentina
PG Steve Nash, 34, Suns, South Africa (now Canadian)
Um wow. That's a helluva starting five right there. Not an athletic group, but great players and a lot of good ol' fashioned fundamentals.
Bench (this is in order of who's coming off the bench first):
PF Pau Gasol, 27, Lakers, Spain
PG Tony Parker, 25, Spurs, France
PG Jose Calderon, 26, Raptors, Spain
SF Luol Deng, 24, Bulls, Sudan
SF Hedo Turkoglu, 29, Magic, Turkey
PF Andrei Kirilenko, 27, Jazz, Russia
C Andris Biedrins, 21, Warriors, Latvia
Drops off pretty fast after Parker, doesn't it? Some good players but no real big stars after that. While Kirilenko's had a couple of rough years and Biedrins is young, I'd still take those two over Big Z and anybody else available.
AMERICAN TEAM
Starting Five
C Dwight, Howard, 22, Magic
PF Kevin Garnett, 31, Celtics
SF Lebron James, 23, Cavs
SG Kobe Bryant, 29, Lakers (like Dirk it's hard to believe he's not even 30)
PG Chris Paul, 22, Hornets
As good as the Euro's starting five is, this one blows it away. Howard's an absolute beast, and while you could debate putting Amare Stoudemire over Garnett, KG's leadership and willingness to share make him perfect for this lineup. King James, Black Mamba and CP3 are simply the three best players in the league right now.
BENCH
PF Amare Stoudemire, 25, Suns
SG Dwyane Wade, 26, Heat
SF Carmelo Anthony, 23, Nuggets (not a misprint: he's really only 23. Wow)
PG Baron Davis, 28, Warriors (another shocker for me)
PG Deron Williams, 23, Jazz
C Marcus Camby, 34, Nuggets
C Shaquille O'Neal, 36, Heat
You cannot argue the first two, but there's plenty of debate after Amare and DWade.
OK I'm going to have to devote an entire paragraph to Dwade. This started as a quick bracket comment but needs much more than that. So what happened to Wade? It was just two years ago he was in the conversation with Bronbron and Kobe for the best player on the planet. Now? Definitely not. This is a hypothetical team, and if he's 100% healthy I'd definitely take him, but if he plays in the Olympics this summer he's certifiably insane. Crazy. If he cares at all about his career he needs to skip it because his health has become a major major issue. Looking at his bio, in his five years in the league he's only played in at least 75 games twice, played only 61 his first year, and in the past two he's only played in 51 apiece. That's alarming right there. The Heat shut him down to get him fully healthy for next year (and also to get better draft positioning for Mike Beasley or Derrick Rose), and next year will be a YUGE one to determine if he's going to continue on the path to be one of the all-time greats, or become one of those Bernard King/Shawn Kemp/Chris Webber types who had a few unreal years but couldn't put a hall-of-fame career together. The knock on Wade when he was drafted was whether his smaller frame (only 6'4) would be able to handle his kamikaze-style of attacking the basket. After absorbing nine million hard fouls (he's shot a mind-boggling 2879 free throws in just five years) on his way to the basket, he's clearly taking a beating, and his body is not holding up well. Can he learn to pull up for the mid-range jumper or do a better job of avoiding contact? If he wants a long career, he's going to have to.
This is also a good time to point out how ridiculously good and tough Allen Iverson is considering he's built like a kicker (6'0, 165 lbs), yet drives to the basket hard all the time, and is in his ELEVENTH SEASON averaging almost 70 games a year, over 40 minutes a night, and is still scoring in the mid 20's and averaging over 7 assists. Wow. Still, I wouldn't put him on the team because he wouldn't be one of my first three or four guys off the bench, and would worry about how he'd handle a reduced role. It was him or Baron Davis for that spot, and I'd rather have Baron right now. I actually debated having Baron at all, but he's playing SO well this year, he has to be there (and he's only 28? Seriously? Wasn't he at UCLA with Tyus Edney, the O'Bannon brothers, Toby Bailey, Don McLean and Tracy Murray. Apparently it just seems that way). After that Melo provides instant offense off the bench as a swing man, and Deron Williams is a great backup true point.
Camby? So underrated and so good for this team. Second in the league in rebounding and first in blocks by almost a full block per game, and in the last five years he's been healthy, averaging double digits boards and 3 blocks a game. I don't think he's ever shaken the frail injury-prone tag he rightly got stuck with early in his career, but he has not been that guy in awhile. He'd be perfect for this team as he doesn't have to score to be effective or happy.
And finally for the 12th man- I thought about Mark Madsen to wave a towel and give awkward high-fives, but after seeing what Shaq's done for the chemistry in Phoenix, he gets my vote. He'd be great for team morale, and I THINK would accept a role of playing in short spurts. Plus he seems like a guy who really likes beating up and dunking on Euros. So if he'd accept the role, he's in.
So there's my team, and I'm stressing TEAM here as Camby and Shaq aren't the 11th or 12th best American players available. But to make the best team to win, this is my group.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Oh There's the Upsets!
So how's your bracket looking on the the third day? (Notice I didn't say "brackets" since I not only believe but know that the correct and true way is to fill out ONE bracket and then submit that ONE same bracket for every pool you are in. People who fill out a different bracket with different results in different pools, I mean, what does that prove? How hard is that? That's like taking a multiple choice final exam but instead of submitting one test you submit ten, all with different answers, and you tell the prof "whichever one of these ten gets the most right answers is the one you'll take." It's ridiculous, and it's wrong. Just plain wrong!). Speaking of wrong, so far I have picked 10 wrong games out of the first 32, putting me at the bottom of most of my pools. Already I'm kicking myself for changing my answers before submitting them (Again with the multiple choice exam example, you should always go with your first instincts if you're not sure), and for not following a reminder I made for myself last year: don't pick too many upsets. I don't know about you, but when filling out my bracket I always get the feeling that there'll be upsets galore, but with the exception of the crazy George Mason Tourney a few years back, there's never as many as you think.
As we all know, there's ALWAYS at least one 12 over 5 upset, and there seems to be a 13 over 4 as well as an 11 beating a 6. Knowing this, I didn't like any real upset possibilities in the 5/12 matches, and picked the wrong one (Temple over Michigan State). For the 4/13 games, I originally had, and I swear it, Siena beating Vandy. Vandy had struggled down the stretch and Siena seemed fiesty, but then I started reading about how Vandy has the SEC player of the year and blah blah blah and changed it Wednesday night. Deciding that i still needed a 13 over 4 I dumbly took Winthrop over Washington State.
I did not pick an 11 to beat a 6, so I missed K-State over USC. I thought USC was too hyped and was surprised to see some "experts" picking them to the Elite 8 or Final Four, but I at least thought they'd beat K-State. Nope. With the 7/10 games I, like seemingly the rest of the world, picked Davidson over Gonzaga, but missed WVU over Arizona (I thought Arizona had too much talent to lose in the 1st round, but I suppose that's why they were a 10 seed in the first place), and had St Mary's beating Miami. Again, too many upset picks!! I did get three of the four 8/9 games, missing A&M over BYU.
Two of my Sweet 16 teams are gone (Clemson and Drake), but still have my Elite 8 intact: Carolina over Tennessee, Kansas over Bucky Badger (watching Wisconsin play basketball should replace the death penalty. Make a tape of murderers being forced to watch Badger hoops, like Alex in "A Clockwork Orange", and I guarantee murder rates would drop dramatically. Seriously while I greatly respect the Badgers and the program they've built, and in no way am I being sarcastic about my respect for them, watching them play makes LISTENING or HEARING paint dry seem exciting. Yet as ugly and boring and slow as they play, they still took the Big 10 regular season and tourney titles, so that's why I have them in the Elite 8. They will bore you to death), Texas over Pitt (Memphis' woeful free throw shooting will come back to haunt them, although as somebody pointed out Pitt does well in the Big East tourney EVERY year and then flames out in the big dance. Frick I'm an idiot!), and UCLA over Duke (who is trailing by 7 to West Virginia right now. Good gosh I would love to see the damn Dookies lose here. Why do I ever pick them out of the first weekend when they are probably my least favorite team on earth? Mental note for next year: don't pick Duke out of the first weekend! Noted. Thanks brain).
I picked UCLA over Carolina in the finals because I think Carolina is loaded and can play any style of basketball...until they play UCLA apparently. I don't know, I didn't like taking the top-seeded Tar Heels even though it made the most sense. So I went with UCLA because it felt right, and then I saw the Sports Guy made the same pick and knew I was screwed. But hey, I was picking to my picks!!- Well except for Siena over Vandy...long story short, as Jack Nicholson says in A Few Good Men "you want me in your bracket pool! You NEED me in your bracket pool!" I mean with reasoning like this, who wouldn't want me in their pool? Enjoy the rest of the weekend everybody, and happy Easter!
As we all know, there's ALWAYS at least one 12 over 5 upset, and there seems to be a 13 over 4 as well as an 11 beating a 6. Knowing this, I didn't like any real upset possibilities in the 5/12 matches, and picked the wrong one (Temple over Michigan State). For the 4/13 games, I originally had, and I swear it, Siena beating Vandy. Vandy had struggled down the stretch and Siena seemed fiesty, but then I started reading about how Vandy has the SEC player of the year and blah blah blah and changed it Wednesday night. Deciding that i still needed a 13 over 4 I dumbly took Winthrop over Washington State.
I did not pick an 11 to beat a 6, so I missed K-State over USC. I thought USC was too hyped and was surprised to see some "experts" picking them to the Elite 8 or Final Four, but I at least thought they'd beat K-State. Nope. With the 7/10 games I, like seemingly the rest of the world, picked Davidson over Gonzaga, but missed WVU over Arizona (I thought Arizona had too much talent to lose in the 1st round, but I suppose that's why they were a 10 seed in the first place), and had St Mary's beating Miami. Again, too many upset picks!! I did get three of the four 8/9 games, missing A&M over BYU.
Two of my Sweet 16 teams are gone (Clemson and Drake), but still have my Elite 8 intact: Carolina over Tennessee, Kansas over Bucky Badger (watching Wisconsin play basketball should replace the death penalty. Make a tape of murderers being forced to watch Badger hoops, like Alex in "A Clockwork Orange", and I guarantee murder rates would drop dramatically. Seriously while I greatly respect the Badgers and the program they've built, and in no way am I being sarcastic about my respect for them, watching them play makes LISTENING or HEARING paint dry seem exciting. Yet as ugly and boring and slow as they play, they still took the Big 10 regular season and tourney titles, so that's why I have them in the Elite 8. They will bore you to death), Texas over Pitt (Memphis' woeful free throw shooting will come back to haunt them, although as somebody pointed out Pitt does well in the Big East tourney EVERY year and then flames out in the big dance. Frick I'm an idiot!), and UCLA over Duke (who is trailing by 7 to West Virginia right now. Good gosh I would love to see the damn Dookies lose here. Why do I ever pick them out of the first weekend when they are probably my least favorite team on earth? Mental note for next year: don't pick Duke out of the first weekend! Noted. Thanks brain).
I picked UCLA over Carolina in the finals because I think Carolina is loaded and can play any style of basketball...until they play UCLA apparently. I don't know, I didn't like taking the top-seeded Tar Heels even though it made the most sense. So I went with UCLA because it felt right, and then I saw the Sports Guy made the same pick and knew I was screwed. But hey, I was picking to my picks!!- Well except for Siena over Vandy...long story short, as Jack Nicholson says in A Few Good Men "you want me in your bracket pool! You NEED me in your bracket pool!" I mean with reasoning like this, who wouldn't want me in their pool? Enjoy the rest of the weekend everybody, and happy Easter!
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
The Day the (Polka) Music Died
The world has officially ended in Wisconsin. Judgement Day is upon the fine folks of the cheese state. The collective will to live has been taken from them, as they sing Bye Bye Mr. American Pie: Brett Favre officially announced his retirement today. Governor Jim Doyle has sent everyone home to mourn in their own way (i.e. liquor stores across the state will be sold out any minute now), and flags are flying at half mast. The Man that every Packer man and woman wants and every Wisconsin man and woman wants to be has left them for good, riding off into the sunset on his garden tractor, never to take the hallowed frozen tundra of Lambeau Field again.
This child (assuming life goes on in Wisconsin) will grow up in a Cheesehead world without Favre, without #4, without the guy who just loved playing the game. This lil' tyke will never get to hear announcers on every network fall all over themselves to applaud, praise, and practically make out with Favre every chance they get as they continually call him "Brett" like they're his best friend.
So if you live anywhere near the state of Wisconsin, stay away. Stay FAR away. Anyone daring to enter does so at their own peril, as Scony's statewide will be operating heavy machinery and driving motor vehicles at a time when they should be doing neither. God help you if you live in Wisconsin. Trying to get out of there will be like a scene from Escape from New York.
This man was just trying to escape the reality of Life Without Brett, and really who could blame him? While the last 17 Years of Brett has been bliss for the green and gold, let us not forget in between the glory days of the Packers that ended with a Super Bowl in Vince Lombardi's last game in 1967 and Favre's first in 1992 were dark days, and they are upon Packer fans again.
So just lock up your family, hide in the basement, and secure your rations of Old Mil, brats, and Wisconsin cheese. Everything will be ok...well at least until Packer fans realize that THIS man is your new starting quarterback:
We as Vikings fans say good luck with that.
This child (assuming life goes on in Wisconsin) will grow up in a Cheesehead world without Favre, without #4, without the guy who just loved playing the game. This lil' tyke will never get to hear announcers on every network fall all over themselves to applaud, praise, and practically make out with Favre every chance they get as they continually call him "Brett" like they're his best friend.So if you live anywhere near the state of Wisconsin, stay away. Stay FAR away. Anyone daring to enter does so at their own peril, as Scony's statewide will be operating heavy machinery and driving motor vehicles at a time when they should be doing neither. God help you if you live in Wisconsin. Trying to get out of there will be like a scene from Escape from New York.
This man was just trying to escape the reality of Life Without Brett, and really who could blame him? While the last 17 Years of Brett has been bliss for the green and gold, let us not forget in between the glory days of the Packers that ended with a Super Bowl in Vince Lombardi's last game in 1967 and Favre's first in 1992 were dark days, and they are upon Packer fans again.So just lock up your family, hide in the basement, and secure your rations of Old Mil, brats, and Wisconsin cheese. Everything will be ok...well at least until Packer fans realize that THIS man is your new starting quarterback:
We as Vikings fans say good luck with that.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Seattle Supersonics: Gone but not Forgotten
On Wednesday, ESPN.com's the Sports Guy Bill Simmons asked for Seattle Supersonics fans emails about their anger, frustration, and sadness about losing the team to a bunch of rednecks from Oklahoma. Yesterday, less than 24 hours later, he got them. Simmons received about 3000 of them, and it made quite a statement. I didn't get one sent to him, but decided to submit the following today anyway...
Bill,
So I was all set to write you yesterday, when I see 3000 distraught Sonics fans already beat me to it. Wow. Now THAT's a response! Although you'll probably never read this, I wanted to add two quick things that I didn't see in the mailbag (and this is also therapeutic):
(For the record, I fell in love with the Supes in 1990, when the Bulls were in Vancouver to play an exhibition game against Seattle. While I was there to see MJ, I came away talking about rookie Gary Payton, who wore #2 with a high flat-top, and led everybody in scoring and trash talk. I also found out who Shawn Kemp was- who became, and still is, my favorite NBA player of all-time- who at the time was a 20 year old 2nd year power forward who wore #40 and had 6 dunks in the game. I've been a Sonics fan ever since)
One is that while the hottest places in hell should be reserved for David Stern and Howard Schultz, I don't blame Clay Bennett. He and his redneck buddies had a brand new arena with no tenant and wanted to bring a pro sports team to their town. They looked for a team they could move, whiny cry-baby coffee bitch Schultz sold them the Supes, and now Stern is allowing them to leave. The fact Bennett is moving the team should rate about the same on a level of surprise as OJ Simpson ranks on the Vengeance Scale when he says he's trying to find the real killer. We knew this was coming.
The man who doesn't get enough blame however is former GM Wally Walker. You've probably heard this before, but the Jim Mcilvaine signing is what triggered this whole mess. Kemp was the best power forward in the league at the time (yes I'm biased and hate Karl Malone, but Kemp was the 2nd best player in the '96 Finals after MJ), but Walker refused to talk extension. Instead, he gave a seven year $33.6 million contract to Mcilvaine, who had done nothing with the Bullets, and did nothing in Seattle.
It upset Kemp, he forced the worst 3-team trade in history, and the Sonics were never the same. Kemp's career went in the tank, Schultz eventually takes over and runs GP out of town, fan interest sinks, Schultz throws a hissy fit and sells to The Rednecks, and now the Supes are leaving.
Those early-mid 90's teams were my favorite I've ever cheered for (although considering my other teams are the Mariners, Vikings, Canucks, and UW Huskies, I suppose that's not saying much). I hope the city at least keeps the name and colors, and that Kevin Durant bolts for free agency ASAP.
thanks for listening to all of us Bill,
Jeff
I don't expect people outside of the Pacific Northwest to really understand or care. Although I'd like people to, it's human nature to feel like "that's too bad but it won't happen to us." As much as I hate David Stern for being such a cold-hearted SOB, I also understand why he's taking this stand: if he caves now, any owner in his league, and really that of any of the other pro leagues, will have a tough time getting citizens to pay for their new arenas and ballparks and stadiums. Minnesotans just paid for the vast majority of a new Twins ballpark only to watch the team let Torii Hunter and Johan Santana walk because they say they couldn't afford them. This from Carl Pohlad, one of the three wealthiest owners in baseball. Folks in Seattle paid for new baseball and football stadiums when their teams threatened to leave, and help pay for the renovation of Key Arena in 1995. Now they're being told they have need a new one?
As a fan, this is all depressing and disgusting at the same time. Being a sports fan is about the most illogical and irrational thing you can do. You give a ton of investment in time, money, and emotion, and the owners and players are the ones who reap the benefits. Our payoff is a championship, which for my aforementioned teams, has been 30 years and counting waiting for one. I would love to know if the Green Bay Packers model of fan ownership can work in the NBA. We know it's worked in soccer, as fans recently purchased a second division English football club, and now fans of world power Liverpool want to do the same. Could fans of the NBA, major league baseball, or the place it's needed more than any other, for the six NHL hockey teams in Canada, do the same? This article in Time magazine doesn't answer the question, but at least asks it. With fan ownership your time, money, and emotion invested would actually make a difference, as your voice would be heard and your dollars spent on the team would actually be a real life investment. Not to mention with fan ownership, the team would never be able to leave because you wouldn't buy it a new stadium.
It would be the one way for fans, who foot the bill for the billion-dollar pro sports business, to take some control back. It's not often I want to emulate Cheeseheads, but in this case, I would love if the green and gold of the Sonics could be like the green and gold of Packers.
Bill,
So I was all set to write you yesterday, when I see 3000 distraught Sonics fans already beat me to it. Wow. Now THAT's a response! Although you'll probably never read this, I wanted to add two quick things that I didn't see in the mailbag (and this is also therapeutic):
(For the record, I fell in love with the Supes in 1990, when the Bulls were in Vancouver to play an exhibition game against Seattle. While I was there to see MJ, I came away talking about rookie Gary Payton, who wore #2 with a high flat-top, and led everybody in scoring and trash talk. I also found out who Shawn Kemp was- who became, and still is, my favorite NBA player of all-time- who at the time was a 20 year old 2nd year power forward who wore #40 and had 6 dunks in the game. I've been a Sonics fan ever since)
One is that while the hottest places in hell should be reserved for David Stern and Howard Schultz, I don't blame Clay Bennett. He and his redneck buddies had a brand new arena with no tenant and wanted to bring a pro sports team to their town. They looked for a team they could move, whiny cry-baby coffee bitch Schultz sold them the Supes, and now Stern is allowing them to leave. The fact Bennett is moving the team should rate about the same on a level of surprise as OJ Simpson ranks on the Vengeance Scale when he says he's trying to find the real killer. We knew this was coming.
The man who doesn't get enough blame however is former GM Wally Walker. You've probably heard this before, but the Jim Mcilvaine signing is what triggered this whole mess. Kemp was the best power forward in the league at the time (yes I'm biased and hate Karl Malone, but Kemp was the 2nd best player in the '96 Finals after MJ), but Walker refused to talk extension. Instead, he gave a seven year $33.6 million contract to Mcilvaine, who had done nothing with the Bullets, and did nothing in Seattle.
It upset Kemp, he forced the worst 3-team trade in history, and the Sonics were never the same. Kemp's career went in the tank, Schultz eventually takes over and runs GP out of town, fan interest sinks, Schultz throws a hissy fit and sells to The Rednecks, and now the Supes are leaving.
Those early-mid 90's teams were my favorite I've ever cheered for (although considering my other teams are the Mariners, Vikings, Canucks, and UW Huskies, I suppose that's not saying much). I hope the city at least keeps the name and colors, and that Kevin Durant bolts for free agency ASAP.
thanks for listening to all of us Bill,
Jeff
I don't expect people outside of the Pacific Northwest to really understand or care. Although I'd like people to, it's human nature to feel like "that's too bad but it won't happen to us." As much as I hate David Stern for being such a cold-hearted SOB, I also understand why he's taking this stand: if he caves now, any owner in his league, and really that of any of the other pro leagues, will have a tough time getting citizens to pay for their new arenas and ballparks and stadiums. Minnesotans just paid for the vast majority of a new Twins ballpark only to watch the team let Torii Hunter and Johan Santana walk because they say they couldn't afford them. This from Carl Pohlad, one of the three wealthiest owners in baseball. Folks in Seattle paid for new baseball and football stadiums when their teams threatened to leave, and help pay for the renovation of Key Arena in 1995. Now they're being told they have need a new one?
As a fan, this is all depressing and disgusting at the same time. Being a sports fan is about the most illogical and irrational thing you can do. You give a ton of investment in time, money, and emotion, and the owners and players are the ones who reap the benefits. Our payoff is a championship, which for my aforementioned teams, has been 30 years and counting waiting for one. I would love to know if the Green Bay Packers model of fan ownership can work in the NBA. We know it's worked in soccer, as fans recently purchased a second division English football club, and now fans of world power Liverpool want to do the same. Could fans of the NBA, major league baseball, or the place it's needed more than any other, for the six NHL hockey teams in Canada, do the same? This article in Time magazine doesn't answer the question, but at least asks it. With fan ownership your time, money, and emotion invested would actually make a difference, as your voice would be heard and your dollars spent on the team would actually be a real life investment. Not to mention with fan ownership, the team would never be able to leave because you wouldn't buy it a new stadium.
It would be the one way for fans, who foot the bill for the billion-dollar pro sports business, to take some control back. It's not often I want to emulate Cheeseheads, but in this case, I would love if the green and gold of the Sonics could be like the green and gold of Packers.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Troy Williamson: Gone but Not Forgotten
If a picture's worth 1000 words, then I guess I can stop typing right here. The Troy Williamson era is officially over in Minnesota. Yes, yesterday the Vikes dealt the 7th overall pick from the 2005 draft, and the last remaining player that was involved in that awesome Randy Moss deal, to the Jacksonville Jaguars for a 6th round pick in the upcoming draft. This picture, taken from that same Strib story, really says it all for a guy who was incredibly fast, but just had no idea how to catch a football, especially on deep routes, which is supposed to be his specialty. This was a key drop in a game against Denver last year where he was WIDE OPEN! That's generally when most of his drops came, when he was streaking down field, a good five yards past the defenders. A good throw would be made, and Williamson would act like he was blindfolded. I remember a catch that hit him in the back of the head, and another that bounced right off the facemask. He couldn't locate the deep ball if you gave him Google maps.
It's of course fitting that the Jags get Williamson, since Mike Tice, the coach who drafted him, is employed there now. Williamson is a great example of why you shouldn't put too much stock in the combine workouts. He was a mediocre college receiver who ran some crazy 40 time at the combine (a 4.3 something or other), and despite his lack of on-field success, Tice was so blown away he had to draft him with the 7th overall pick. Actually when you look at that entire 2005 draft, which was awful, it shows that Tice shouldn't have been allowed to evaluate talent, let alone coach it.
Anyway, I'm not entirely sure what the Jags think they're going to do with Williamson. It's one thing when a receiver has concentration issues, but it's another when the guy just cannot react to the football when it's in the air. Last I checked, that's not really something you can learn. Oh well, a 6th round pick isn't much, but it's better than nothing.
********
On the free agent front, the Panthers signed free agent wide receiver Mushin Muhammad, who was arguably the best receiver available in a weak class. I had read the Vikes were interested, but it makes since for Muhammad to return to the one place he had a lot of success before departing for big free agent dough with the Bears.
Still on the market are names like Jerry Porter, Bernard Berrian, and Marty Booker, and I'd love to see the Vikes sign at least two of those guys. There's plenty of spots available and if we're to believe Rick Spielman when he says Minnesota will be aggressive in spending the almost $30 million they'll have under the cap, then we'd better see at least either Porter or Berrian in purple next year. I'd also like to see them take a run at former 1st rounder DE Justin Smith and S Adieu Williams, both from Cincinnati. Yes, the Bungles D has been pretty awful the last couple of years, but if the price isn't too high, they'd be good gambles to take, and would give the Vikes more flexibility in the draft, especially with their 1st pick at #17.
WR, DE, and S are definitely their 3 big need areas (I would argue QB but the Vikes seem to disagree. After cutting Kelly Holcumb it looks as though they'll add another veteran, but probably just for depth and not so much to push Tavaris Jackson. David Carr anyone?), and it'd be nice to shore up a few of those areas so you can either take the best player available at 17, or trade down. Personally if they keep the pick I'd love to see them take Oklahoma WR Malcolm Kelly (who probably won't be there) or Texas WR Limas Sweed, who's a bit of a sleeper because he's a big-time athlete, and produced when they threw him the ball, but was hurt for part of last year.
I want no part of Cal's Desean Jackson, no matter how fast he ran at the combine. He's 169 pounds and last year, with a veteran team around him, he should have been a Heisman contender. Instead, he was disappointing at best, and will be lucky to be anything more than a #3 WR and return man in the NFL. Not a bad guy to gamble on in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th, but not in the first round.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
I Hate the NBA
Hi there. Me again. How'd you celebrate NHL Trade Deadline Day? The three sports networks here in Canada were kind enough to break from their 24 hour poker, Mixed martial arts, fake wrestling, and all-Toronto sports coverage to have live coverage that started at 5 am this morning and is still going. And Canadians are glued to their television sets. In the States? Most people don't even know what professional hockey is, let alone that the deadline is today. I wonder if it's getting a mention on KFAN today or in the local papers? Anyway, good work by the NHL to continue to reject teams moving back to Canada and keep putting them in hockey hotbeds like Houston, Las Vegas, and Kansas City. Really NHL expansion in the USA hasn't work at all, but let's keep trying it. Great idea. Gary Bettman is a genius!
Starting off with a tangent there, so let's get to the NBA. I hate it because I hate Commish Don God Father David Stern for allowing a bunch of rednecks from Oklahoma to steal the Sonics from the good people of Seattle who for some strange reason don't want to pay for a new stadium that was just renovated 12 years ago. Stern is doing NOTHING about it, and in fact, seems more likely to speeding up the project (I'll stop ranting on this since it changes nothing, but if you're from Minnesota, just think of how mad you were when Norm Green stole the Stars from you folks. That's where I'm at with the Sonics). Anyway, despite this, I can't help but follow the NBA again. I know I know I KNOW!!! I posted on here before Christmas how I had stopped following it and didn't miss it. It was true at the time, but I forgot how dead February is for sports. Plus, as the Sports Guy has pointed out, the No Balls Association finally grew a pair with some huge deals the last few months.
The last two- the Dallas deal for Jason Kidd and the Cavs/Bulls/Sonics swapperoo- were really funny to me. I can sum up the Dallas deal in one word: PANIC!!!!! Let's have a little fun with numbers, shall we? Let's compare two point guards, and you tell me who'd you rather have if you're running a basketball team:
PER PPG APG TO/G FG% REB MIN AGE SALARY SALARY 2009
Player A 18.59 14.4 5.3 2.4 .483 2.3 30.4 24 $4 mill $8 mill
Player B 16.33 11.1 10.5 4.3 .406 6.8 36.3 34 $20mill $21mill
If you exclude their ages and salaries, it's pretty even right? Player A has a better PER (which means he's more effective in his time on the floor), and scores a little more while shooting a better percentage. Player B gets twice the assists, but also has almost double the turnovers of player A, and is not a good shooter. While I wouldn't fault you for wanting player B, when you factor in the age and salary differences, would you in a million years trade player A straight up for player B? Of course not. Neither did the Dallas Mavericks. Instead they traded Devin Harris, who is player A, two solid players, cap fodder and two 1st round picks to the Nets for Jason Kidd, who's player B, and two throw-in players.
Honest to God, how does this improve the Mavs? They're not only overpaying Kidd in salary but also in players and depth, and Kidd just doesn't make them that much better than Harris did. There's just no way. Not to mention that they had to give up Desagna Diop, who is developing into a solid low-post player and who was the only real defensive presence they had in the paint (last I checked there's a couple two-three good posts in the western conference). Wonderful. You've basically dealt for what Jason Kidd was two or three years ago, but now you're saddled with a player who's declining and makes about $40 MILLION OVER THE NEXT TWO SEASONS!!!! Good luck with that Mark Cuban!
What really makes this funny to me though is WHY Dallas made this deal. Last season, the Mavs finished the regular season with an NBA best 67-15 record- and then lost in the first round to the 8th seeded Golden State Warriors. Granted, the W's were quite possibly the worst possible matchup for Dallas outside of the Spurs or Suns, but this was still the best team in the NBA against a team that just squeaked into the playoffs. It was the first time an 8 had beaten a 1 in a best-of-seven. Clearly, you would think this would be a signal to the Mavs that changes needed to be made, that as good as they were in the regular season, this was not a championship team. Blow it up! Make changes! Try something different! And what did they do last summer? NOTHING! That's right the Mavs looked at their embarrassing first round exit and, like the rest of the No Balls Association, did absolutely nothing.
The result? More of the same. A so-so first half of the season where they were clearly (at least to those outside of Big D) not only not the best team in the Western Conference, they would be fighting just to make the playoffs. Still? Nothing done. Then the Lakers fleeced Memphis for Gasol, forcing the Suns hit the panic button themselves by thinking Shaq was a good idea (3 games with Shaq- 2 losses and an AVERAGE of 107.6 points against in the 3 games. Shaq was supposed to help defensively? Whoopsy poopsy!). So the Mavs, in turn, hit their own PANIC!!!!! button and overpaid for Kidd. I don’t know much, but I do know the Mavs are not winning the NBA title with Jason Kidd. Hell at this point they'll be lucky to make the playoffs as they're currently in 6th place, but only 4.5 games ahead of 9th place Denver (you know what's crazy? We could have a 50 win team miss the playoffs in the West, and yet we'll be lucky to get 5 teams with a winning record in the East. Hey David Stern- good idea to not want to tweak the playoff system. That's working out well. Way better to have three gawd-awful teams make the playoffs and have a 50 team in the West miss out. Really, who wants to see the 16 best teams in the playoffs? It's crazy talk!)
Then there was the Cleveland/Chicago/Seattle "Holy %^&$ We Need to Make A Trade but We Can't Get Anybody Good So Let's Just Swap Our Crappy Players to Make it Look Like We're Trying!" trade (and yes that was the longest name for any trade in history. It is now unofficially official). I love how scribes and media folks out East are trying to make this look like a great trade for Cleveland. Really? Explain that to me. Yes, they got rid of Larry Hughes horrible HORRIBLE contract, but what did you get back? A slightly less horrible HORRIBLE contract in Ben Wallace when you already have Anderson Varajeo doing exactly the same thing for way less money. Great move. You give up Drew Gooden, who was a solid scoring presence, so now you're stuck with player a big white Euro Center who doesn't fit your style of play, or two power forwards who can rebound and play defense but can't score to save their lives. Awesome. Start printing those championship t-shirts!
Of course, they also got Wally World, and you know my thoughts on the most overrated all-star of the past 20 years (you also know that I once compared Adam Morrison to World and concluded that Morrison would be a much better player. We know how that's turned out so far). He was nothing more than a 3rd or 4th option in his prime, and I'm not sure he even does that now. He stills shoots a decent outside shot, but can't defend, rebound, dribble, or pass. Other than that he's pretty good. Well worth the $12 million Cleveland is paying him.
Delonte West? Yawn. Cleveland basically shipped out some role players and got some slightly cheaper slightly more valuable role players in return, and we're supposed to believe this is a championship team? Let me double check this...hang on...just a minute... yup a team with a super duper uber star and a bunch of role players has never won an NBA title. Never. And you know what? As amazing as Lebron is, the Cavs are not going to be the team to break the mold. So this trade was much ado about nothing.
For the Bulls? This just means that at the next Paxson family Christmas dinner Jim (who tried his best to run the Cavs into the ground before Danny Ferry took over) can now sit back at the grownups table, because his brother John is proving just as incompetent at running an NBA team. John did a super swell job of stockpiling assets and putting the pieces together to get a true super start. He had chances at KG, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Allen Iverson, Kobe, Jason Kidd, and Pau Gasol. Who did he end up getting? Drew Gooden and Larry Hughes everybody! Viva la Bulls! Long live Chicago! Forget MJ and Scottie and Phil, the Bulls are back baby!!!!
The Sonics continued to clear cap space and grease the wheels for their move out of town by making the team as cheap and unwatchable as possible. Just what David Stern is looking to promote!
So in summary, I just used 1600 words to say I hate David Stern, but I can't help but follow his league. I'm ornery, sarcastic, and I'm back.
Starting off with a tangent there, so let's get to the NBA. I hate it because I hate Commish Don God Father David Stern for allowing a bunch of rednecks from Oklahoma to steal the Sonics from the good people of Seattle who for some strange reason don't want to pay for a new stadium that was just renovated 12 years ago. Stern is doing NOTHING about it, and in fact, seems more likely to speeding up the project (I'll stop ranting on this since it changes nothing, but if you're from Minnesota, just think of how mad you were when Norm Green stole the Stars from you folks. That's where I'm at with the Sonics). Anyway, despite this, I can't help but follow the NBA again. I know I know I KNOW!!! I posted on here before Christmas how I had stopped following it and didn't miss it. It was true at the time, but I forgot how dead February is for sports. Plus, as the Sports Guy has pointed out, the No Balls Association finally grew a pair with some huge deals the last few months.
The last two- the Dallas deal for Jason Kidd and the Cavs/Bulls/Sonics swapperoo- were really funny to me. I can sum up the Dallas deal in one word: PANIC!!!!! Let's have a little fun with numbers, shall we? Let's compare two point guards, and you tell me who'd you rather have if you're running a basketball team:
PER PPG APG TO/G FG% REB MIN AGE SALARY SALARY 2009
Player A 18.59 14.4 5.3 2.4 .483 2.3 30.4 24 $4 mill $8 mill
Player B 16.33 11.1 10.5 4.3 .406 6.8 36.3 34 $20mill $21mill
If you exclude their ages and salaries, it's pretty even right? Player A has a better PER (which means he's more effective in his time on the floor), and scores a little more while shooting a better percentage. Player B gets twice the assists, but also has almost double the turnovers of player A, and is not a good shooter. While I wouldn't fault you for wanting player B, when you factor in the age and salary differences, would you in a million years trade player A straight up for player B? Of course not. Neither did the Dallas Mavericks. Instead they traded Devin Harris, who is player A, two solid players, cap fodder and two 1st round picks to the Nets for Jason Kidd, who's player B, and two throw-in players.
Honest to God, how does this improve the Mavs? They're not only overpaying Kidd in salary but also in players and depth, and Kidd just doesn't make them that much better than Harris did. There's just no way. Not to mention that they had to give up Desagna Diop, who is developing into a solid low-post player and who was the only real defensive presence they had in the paint (last I checked there's a couple two-three good posts in the western conference). Wonderful. You've basically dealt for what Jason Kidd was two or three years ago, but now you're saddled with a player who's declining and makes about $40 MILLION OVER THE NEXT TWO SEASONS!!!! Good luck with that Mark Cuban!
What really makes this funny to me though is WHY Dallas made this deal. Last season, the Mavs finished the regular season with an NBA best 67-15 record- and then lost in the first round to the 8th seeded Golden State Warriors. Granted, the W's were quite possibly the worst possible matchup for Dallas outside of the Spurs or Suns, but this was still the best team in the NBA against a team that just squeaked into the playoffs. It was the first time an 8 had beaten a 1 in a best-of-seven. Clearly, you would think this would be a signal to the Mavs that changes needed to be made, that as good as they were in the regular season, this was not a championship team. Blow it up! Make changes! Try something different! And what did they do last summer? NOTHING! That's right the Mavs looked at their embarrassing first round exit and, like the rest of the No Balls Association, did absolutely nothing.
The result? More of the same. A so-so first half of the season where they were clearly (at least to those outside of Big D) not only not the best team in the Western Conference, they would be fighting just to make the playoffs. Still? Nothing done. Then the Lakers fleeced Memphis for Gasol, forcing the Suns hit the panic button themselves by thinking Shaq was a good idea (3 games with Shaq- 2 losses and an AVERAGE of 107.6 points against in the 3 games. Shaq was supposed to help defensively? Whoopsy poopsy!). So the Mavs, in turn, hit their own PANIC!!!!! button and overpaid for Kidd. I don’t know much, but I do know the Mavs are not winning the NBA title with Jason Kidd. Hell at this point they'll be lucky to make the playoffs as they're currently in 6th place, but only 4.5 games ahead of 9th place Denver (you know what's crazy? We could have a 50 win team miss the playoffs in the West, and yet we'll be lucky to get 5 teams with a winning record in the East. Hey David Stern- good idea to not want to tweak the playoff system. That's working out well. Way better to have three gawd-awful teams make the playoffs and have a 50 team in the West miss out. Really, who wants to see the 16 best teams in the playoffs? It's crazy talk!)
Then there was the Cleveland/Chicago/Seattle "Holy %^&$ We Need to Make A Trade but We Can't Get Anybody Good So Let's Just Swap Our Crappy Players to Make it Look Like We're Trying!" trade (and yes that was the longest name for any trade in history. It is now unofficially official). I love how scribes and media folks out East are trying to make this look like a great trade for Cleveland. Really? Explain that to me. Yes, they got rid of Larry Hughes horrible HORRIBLE contract, but what did you get back? A slightly less horrible HORRIBLE contract in Ben Wallace when you already have Anderson Varajeo doing exactly the same thing for way less money. Great move. You give up Drew Gooden, who was a solid scoring presence, so now you're stuck with player a big white Euro Center who doesn't fit your style of play, or two power forwards who can rebound and play defense but can't score to save their lives. Awesome. Start printing those championship t-shirts!
Of course, they also got Wally World, and you know my thoughts on the most overrated all-star of the past 20 years (you also know that I once compared Adam Morrison to World and concluded that Morrison would be a much better player. We know how that's turned out so far). He was nothing more than a 3rd or 4th option in his prime, and I'm not sure he even does that now. He stills shoots a decent outside shot, but can't defend, rebound, dribble, or pass. Other than that he's pretty good. Well worth the $12 million Cleveland is paying him.
Delonte West? Yawn. Cleveland basically shipped out some role players and got some slightly cheaper slightly more valuable role players in return, and we're supposed to believe this is a championship team? Let me double check this...hang on...just a minute... yup a team with a super duper uber star and a bunch of role players has never won an NBA title. Never. And you know what? As amazing as Lebron is, the Cavs are not going to be the team to break the mold. So this trade was much ado about nothing.
For the Bulls? This just means that at the next Paxson family Christmas dinner Jim (who tried his best to run the Cavs into the ground before Danny Ferry took over) can now sit back at the grownups table, because his brother John is proving just as incompetent at running an NBA team. John did a super swell job of stockpiling assets and putting the pieces together to get a true super start. He had chances at KG, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Allen Iverson, Kobe, Jason Kidd, and Pau Gasol. Who did he end up getting? Drew Gooden and Larry Hughes everybody! Viva la Bulls! Long live Chicago! Forget MJ and Scottie and Phil, the Bulls are back baby!!!!
The Sonics continued to clear cap space and grease the wheels for their move out of town by making the team as cheap and unwatchable as possible. Just what David Stern is looking to promote!
So in summary, I just used 1600 words to say I hate David Stern, but I can't help but follow his league. I'm ornery, sarcastic, and I'm back.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Sick and Tired of being Sick and Tired
I've had the flu for a solid week now, and it's just not good times. I actually got well enough to work Friday and Saturday, and then this thing came back with a vengeance by Saturday night. I'm so hopped on medication I thought I already posted about the Gasol and Shaq trades...until I checked the site and realized I hadn't. Did I dream that?
First off, I know I said a couple of months ago I was done with the NBA and wasn't paying attention. Two things about that: one, I forgot what a bad sports month February is. I mean really, after the Super Bowl, it's like six straight weeks of basketball and hockey (or if you're in the States just basketball) until March Madness starts. There's nothing else to talk about. Since they refuse to give us ESPN or a Fox Sports affiliate (honestly the Canadian standards or something or other says you can't get an American station if there's a Canadian equivalent. Well we don't have an equivalent to either of those channels here: yes, we have three sports networks, but they all show hockey, curling, poker, and talking heads who talk about hockey and the stupid Maple Leafs. God forbid we'd be allowed Fox Sports Seattle or something so I could watch a few college basketball games or another baseball team besides the Blue Jays), it's pretty much impossible to follow college basketball here. I tried looking on ESPN.com on their bubble watch feature, and I have no idea who any of these teams or players are this year. Apparently Memphis is really good and the Dukies are good despite playing a lot of white guys, and Carolina and UCLA are pretty good. Other than that? No idea. Drake or Butler or somebody like that is a "lock" for the postseason, while schools I've actually heard of are not. I give up. My NCAA bracket pool will be picked blindfolded this year, which means I'll probably have as good or better a chance as I've had in years past where I thought I knew what I was doing.
ANYWAY what was I talking about again? Right, the NBA trades. First Mitch Kupchak goes from being one of the worst GM's in the league (he traded Shaq for nothing, then dealt Caron Butler for Kwame Brown- whoopsy poopsy!- and did so little to help Kobe he was publicly demanding a trade) to one of the best with one trade. The Gasol trade was a heist, a grand larceny. They didn't lose any of their TOP 10 PLAYERS in this deal, and they get a low-post scorer who looks perfect for the triangle offense. If Andrew Bynum comes back anywhere close to 100% before the playoffs, this is hands down the team to beat. Unbelievable.
It should also be Exhibit A in why salary caps are just a bad idea. First, there's so few GM's who actually know how to properly use the cap, it puts most teams at a disadvantage even if your GM isn't named Kevin McHale. Second, as this trade shows, it doesn't allow bad teams to get better, it just makes them much worse. Young guys make nothing, star players make a lot, and middle-of-the-pack players are way overpaid. So if you're Memphis and you want to trade Gasol, your best VALUE would be some solid young players. An all-star caliber player like Gasol for a couple of good young players would be equal VALUE-- but with the salary cap, those guys are worth about 10-20% of Gasol, so then you have to throw in the over paid guys like Kwame and the retired Aaron McKie (how'd you like to be Aaron McKie? You're so washed up you're not even in the league, but then the phone rings and it's your agent saying "Um Aaron? The Lakers want to pay you $5 million so they can trade you to the Grizzlies...no, no they don't expect you to play...yes, it's guaranteed money...yes you'll be able to continue to sit around and do nothing and get paid for it. Is that ok with you?"). It just doesn't allow teams to get full value, or really anything close to it, for good players.
Then there was the Shaq trade. That's the biggest "No F***ing WAY!!!" trade I can remember in any sport in a long, long time. Come to think of it, I can't think of one more shocking or baffling. It scores a perfect 10 on the Ron Burgandy "Brian, That doesn't even make sense" scale. Not only does Shaq seem to be the exact opposite of what Phoenix needs on the court, but there would seem to have been better deals and better value out there for a player as good as Shawn Marion. But what about the money part of it? Not only does The Diesel have $40 million GUARANTEED coming to him in the next few years, but this puts the Suns over the cap, something they've been so unwilling to do that they've been auctioning off draft picks in the last few years, and gave Seattle TWO #1 draft picks just to take Kurt Thomas' contract off their hands- even though Thomas was the only player they had who could defend in the paint. Going well over the salary cap made sense if they were getting Kevin Garnett, but Shaq? He's old, on a steep decline, and he's been hurt for good stretches of the last couple of years.
But you know what? The folks in Phoenix seem really, truly, genuinely excited and optimistic about this trade. Despite what the stats say about this trade, the Suns seem to think the chemistry of it will be the shakeup they need, and that if Shaq can give them good minutes in the post, they're going to be dangerous. I also heard Shaq refer to his going to Phoenix as "The Amare Stoudamire" project. He made a similar statement when he got dealt to Miami that he was going to help Dwayne Wade win a title, and he was true to his word. He said similar things when he got to LA about making the Lakers champs with Kobe. Again, true to his word. As crazy and unrealistic as it seems right now, maybe all Shaq needed was some motivation, a chip on his shoulder (honestly, have you seen one person who likes this trade for Phoenix?), somebody to mentor in Amare, and a change in scenery. Maybe this isn't so crazy. Of course also having the best point guard in the planet in Steve Nash, as well as some cagey vets like Grant Hill and Raja Bell don't hurt either. Maybe this just could work. A Phoenix/LA confernce finals? How fun would that be?
First off, I know I said a couple of months ago I was done with the NBA and wasn't paying attention. Two things about that: one, I forgot what a bad sports month February is. I mean really, after the Super Bowl, it's like six straight weeks of basketball and hockey (or if you're in the States just basketball) until March Madness starts. There's nothing else to talk about. Since they refuse to give us ESPN or a Fox Sports affiliate (honestly the Canadian standards or something or other says you can't get an American station if there's a Canadian equivalent. Well we don't have an equivalent to either of those channels here: yes, we have three sports networks, but they all show hockey, curling, poker, and talking heads who talk about hockey and the stupid Maple Leafs. God forbid we'd be allowed Fox Sports Seattle or something so I could watch a few college basketball games or another baseball team besides the Blue Jays), it's pretty much impossible to follow college basketball here. I tried looking on ESPN.com on their bubble watch feature, and I have no idea who any of these teams or players are this year. Apparently Memphis is really good and the Dukies are good despite playing a lot of white guys, and Carolina and UCLA are pretty good. Other than that? No idea. Drake or Butler or somebody like that is a "lock" for the postseason, while schools I've actually heard of are not. I give up. My NCAA bracket pool will be picked blindfolded this year, which means I'll probably have as good or better a chance as I've had in years past where I thought I knew what I was doing.
ANYWAY what was I talking about again? Right, the NBA trades. First Mitch Kupchak goes from being one of the worst GM's in the league (he traded Shaq for nothing, then dealt Caron Butler for Kwame Brown- whoopsy poopsy!- and did so little to help Kobe he was publicly demanding a trade) to one of the best with one trade. The Gasol trade was a heist, a grand larceny. They didn't lose any of their TOP 10 PLAYERS in this deal, and they get a low-post scorer who looks perfect for the triangle offense. If Andrew Bynum comes back anywhere close to 100% before the playoffs, this is hands down the team to beat. Unbelievable.
It should also be Exhibit A in why salary caps are just a bad idea. First, there's so few GM's who actually know how to properly use the cap, it puts most teams at a disadvantage even if your GM isn't named Kevin McHale. Second, as this trade shows, it doesn't allow bad teams to get better, it just makes them much worse. Young guys make nothing, star players make a lot, and middle-of-the-pack players are way overpaid. So if you're Memphis and you want to trade Gasol, your best VALUE would be some solid young players. An all-star caliber player like Gasol for a couple of good young players would be equal VALUE-- but with the salary cap, those guys are worth about 10-20% of Gasol, so then you have to throw in the over paid guys like Kwame and the retired Aaron McKie (how'd you like to be Aaron McKie? You're so washed up you're not even in the league, but then the phone rings and it's your agent saying "Um Aaron? The Lakers want to pay you $5 million so they can trade you to the Grizzlies...no, no they don't expect you to play...yes, it's guaranteed money...yes you'll be able to continue to sit around and do nothing and get paid for it. Is that ok with you?"). It just doesn't allow teams to get full value, or really anything close to it, for good players.
Then there was the Shaq trade. That's the biggest "No F***ing WAY!!!" trade I can remember in any sport in a long, long time. Come to think of it, I can't think of one more shocking or baffling. It scores a perfect 10 on the Ron Burgandy "Brian, That doesn't even make sense" scale. Not only does Shaq seem to be the exact opposite of what Phoenix needs on the court, but there would seem to have been better deals and better value out there for a player as good as Shawn Marion. But what about the money part of it? Not only does The Diesel have $40 million GUARANTEED coming to him in the next few years, but this puts the Suns over the cap, something they've been so unwilling to do that they've been auctioning off draft picks in the last few years, and gave Seattle TWO #1 draft picks just to take Kurt Thomas' contract off their hands- even though Thomas was the only player they had who could defend in the paint. Going well over the salary cap made sense if they were getting Kevin Garnett, but Shaq? He's old, on a steep decline, and he's been hurt for good stretches of the last couple of years.
But you know what? The folks in Phoenix seem really, truly, genuinely excited and optimistic about this trade. Despite what the stats say about this trade, the Suns seem to think the chemistry of it will be the shakeup they need, and that if Shaq can give them good minutes in the post, they're going to be dangerous. I also heard Shaq refer to his going to Phoenix as "The Amare Stoudamire" project. He made a similar statement when he got dealt to Miami that he was going to help Dwayne Wade win a title, and he was true to his word. He said similar things when he got to LA about making the Lakers champs with Kobe. Again, true to his word. As crazy and unrealistic as it seems right now, maybe all Shaq needed was some motivation, a chip on his shoulder (honestly, have you seen one person who likes this trade for Phoenix?), somebody to mentor in Amare, and a change in scenery. Maybe this isn't so crazy. Of course also having the best point guard in the planet in Steve Nash, as well as some cagey vets like Grant Hill and Raja Bell don't hurt either. Maybe this just could work. A Phoenix/LA confernce finals? How fun would that be?
Sunday, February 03, 2008
A Super Super Bowl
Well I thoroughly enjoyed that. I know it was low scoring, but frankly I loved the chess match between the Pats O and Giants D. Eli Manning was outstanding, especially that last drive, but the Giants defensive line was the difference in the game. Three things off the top:
1) I haven't seen much at all made yet of Pats coach Bill Belichek's decision to go for it on 4th & 13 from the Giants 31. That's a 48 yard field goal attempt, and if don't trust you kicker to make a 48 yarder, why is he on your team? 48 yards is not a chip shot, but it's not like it's a 58 yarder either. That should be a makeable kick for any kicker in the NFL. If there's something I'm missing or a rationale that explains this that I can't see, please, enlighten me. The Pats lost by three, and they passed on a potential field goal needing 13 yards for the first down. Absolutely baffling to me.
2) Plaxico Burress should be commended for playing on a bad ankle all season, and giving his all in this game. But he should NOT be commended for his "Guarantee" that the Giants would win. Back when Joe Willie Namath made "THE Guarantee" in Super Bowl III it was a big deal because nobody made comments like that at the time. Namath staked his reputation on that game, and he certainly wouldn't be a hall-of-famer without that monumental upset. But today, guarantees are a joke. Nobody takes them seriously. Plax had nothing at stake if his prediction was wrong. His team was a huge underdog, so if they lost, well hey they were supposed to. A guarantee needs to be backed by something, there needs to be a consequence or payment made if it falls through. If Burress had said he'd donate his game check to charity if they lost, then that's a guarantee. But just saying his team would win? Worthless.
3) It's bad enough when Congress gets involved with steroids in baseball, but now Arlen Specter wants to reopen "SpyGate"? Call my cynical or a bad person, but I could care less if the Patriots cheated this season or against the Rams when they won their first Super Bowl, or anytime before or since. It's like stealing signs in baseball- people get mad when somebody gets caught, but everybody does it. I just don't get riled up about this at all, and really hope it goes away, especially now that New England lost.
Ok, back to the game. Seriously, despite the low scoring battle for the first three quarters, I just loved watching NY's defense giving Tom Brady and the Pats the business. Their strategy was obviously to double Moss and then pressure Brady like crazy. It's not rocket science- I'm pretty sure everybody that's played them since week 1 knew this was the way to slow them down, it's just there's not many teams that can get that kind of pressure with just their front four. Really impressive.
I'm wondering a few things about the Patriots offense too:
1) was Brady's ankle hurting him more than he let on? Because the few times he actually had time to throw deep to Moss (not counting the end of the game), his throws were way off. Maybe he was just rattled a bit because he hadn't faced pressure all season, but it just didn't look right.
2) Where was Ben Watson all night? I'm guessing that after the first quarter siege on Brady the Pats started going max protect by leaving a tight end into block, but wouldn't you still think they'd try to get Watson, who's one of the best pass-catching tight ends in the game, open on shorter routes or hot routes?
3) Why didn't New England run more on their last drive, especially once they got in the red zone and knew they'd have more time? I know they were running more of a hurry-up to try and tire out the Giants defenders, but once they were safely into scoring territory with that much time left, why not run and take some time off?
4) How in the hell did Miami let Wes Welker go for a second round pick? Wow. So shifty and effective over the middle, he was Brady's safety valve all night. One of the guys I was watching the game with who knows football thought that the Giants were giving the Pats Welker all night on the short stuff in order to take away Moss and pressure Brady. So Welker's numbers may have been inflated because that's where the Giants D was funneling BRady to go, but he still made some great catches.
I can't think of much else, other than I need to go watch the Super Bowl ads again. Some really good ones, yet I can't think of many off the top. Anyway, congrats to the Giants who were definitely the best team (if Steve Smith doesn't give that one interception away, the Giants could have been rolling even earlier), and showed it's not about who's playing the best at the beginning or the middle of the season, but who's peaking at the end.
1) I haven't seen much at all made yet of Pats coach Bill Belichek's decision to go for it on 4th & 13 from the Giants 31. That's a 48 yard field goal attempt, and if don't trust you kicker to make a 48 yarder, why is he on your team? 48 yards is not a chip shot, but it's not like it's a 58 yarder either. That should be a makeable kick for any kicker in the NFL. If there's something I'm missing or a rationale that explains this that I can't see, please, enlighten me. The Pats lost by three, and they passed on a potential field goal needing 13 yards for the first down. Absolutely baffling to me.
2) Plaxico Burress should be commended for playing on a bad ankle all season, and giving his all in this game. But he should NOT be commended for his "Guarantee" that the Giants would win. Back when Joe Willie Namath made "THE Guarantee" in Super Bowl III it was a big deal because nobody made comments like that at the time. Namath staked his reputation on that game, and he certainly wouldn't be a hall-of-famer without that monumental upset. But today, guarantees are a joke. Nobody takes them seriously. Plax had nothing at stake if his prediction was wrong. His team was a huge underdog, so if they lost, well hey they were supposed to. A guarantee needs to be backed by something, there needs to be a consequence or payment made if it falls through. If Burress had said he'd donate his game check to charity if they lost, then that's a guarantee. But just saying his team would win? Worthless.
3) It's bad enough when Congress gets involved with steroids in baseball, but now Arlen Specter wants to reopen "SpyGate"? Call my cynical or a bad person, but I could care less if the Patriots cheated this season or against the Rams when they won their first Super Bowl, or anytime before or since. It's like stealing signs in baseball- people get mad when somebody gets caught, but everybody does it. I just don't get riled up about this at all, and really hope it goes away, especially now that New England lost.
Ok, back to the game. Seriously, despite the low scoring battle for the first three quarters, I just loved watching NY's defense giving Tom Brady and the Pats the business. Their strategy was obviously to double Moss and then pressure Brady like crazy. It's not rocket science- I'm pretty sure everybody that's played them since week 1 knew this was the way to slow them down, it's just there's not many teams that can get that kind of pressure with just their front four. Really impressive.
I'm wondering a few things about the Patriots offense too:
1) was Brady's ankle hurting him more than he let on? Because the few times he actually had time to throw deep to Moss (not counting the end of the game), his throws were way off. Maybe he was just rattled a bit because he hadn't faced pressure all season, but it just didn't look right.
2) Where was Ben Watson all night? I'm guessing that after the first quarter siege on Brady the Pats started going max protect by leaving a tight end into block, but wouldn't you still think they'd try to get Watson, who's one of the best pass-catching tight ends in the game, open on shorter routes or hot routes?
3) Why didn't New England run more on their last drive, especially once they got in the red zone and knew they'd have more time? I know they were running more of a hurry-up to try and tire out the Giants defenders, but once they were safely into scoring territory with that much time left, why not run and take some time off?
4) How in the hell did Miami let Wes Welker go for a second round pick? Wow. So shifty and effective over the middle, he was Brady's safety valve all night. One of the guys I was watching the game with who knows football thought that the Giants were giving the Pats Welker all night on the short stuff in order to take away Moss and pressure Brady. So Welker's numbers may have been inflated because that's where the Giants D was funneling BRady to go, but he still made some great catches.
I can't think of much else, other than I need to go watch the Super Bowl ads again. Some really good ones, yet I can't think of many off the top. Anyway, congrats to the Giants who were definitely the best team (if Steve Smith doesn't give that one interception away, the Giants could have been rolling even earlier), and showed it's not about who's playing the best at the beginning or the middle of the season, but who's peaking at the end.
Friday, February 01, 2008
Minnesota Jer Speaks
Editor's Note: I've been asking Jeremy to guest post on here whenever he feels like it. After yet another superstar left Minnesota for pennies on the dollar, only comments from "Minnesota Jer" seemed appropriate. And here they are...
To steal a bit from Dan "The Common Man" Cole... let's play a little bit of "Gone, but not Forgotten."
David Ortiz... gone, but not forgotten.
Randy Moss... gone, but not forgotten.
Glen Mason.... gone... nevermind.
Kevin Garnett... gone, but not forgotten.
Torii Hunter... gone, but not forgotten.
Johan Santana... gone, but not forgotten.
See a trend here?
Look, I'm not going to use this space to talk about the fact that the Twins didn't get as much value for Johan as they could have. I think plenty has been made of that opinion, and frankly, I'm of the opinion that we would have been having that same discussion no matter what deal the Twins had made for Johan. The fact is, in trading a HUGE name, like a Johan Santana, you can almost never get full value in return. In addition to that, it's not even worth talking about now, since we won't know if these guys are going to be worth a dang for 4-5 years, minimum.
What I want to talk about is the emotional part of being a Minnesota sports fan. This is something that I am well-qualified to speak about because, as Jeff will attest to, I am an over-emotional, blindly loyal fan of Minnesota sports, and I don't make any apologies for my emotional, and sometimes irrational, stance on these issues.
So I'll just come right out and say it... it's starting to hurt. It's starting to hurt that we are always the market that is losing the big name guy, and getting 30 no-namers in return. I've said it before, but Kevin Garnett was my favorite athlete of all time, and whoever was second (I couldn't even tell you who) wasn't anywhere close. I think that Kevin Garnett embodies everything that is right, and could be right, about sports. Loyal, hard-working, respectful of the sport, respectful of those who came before him and respectful of the fans. It was ridiculously hard for me to see KG get dealt to Boston. Still, as big of a fan of his that I am, and knowing how he was treated here in Minnesota, I was happy to see him get his shot at a ring.
Am I still a KG fan? Absolutely. But can I call him my favorite player, when he plays for a non-Minnesota team. I know there are a lot of people who will read this who will think that I'm crazy... but I just don't know if I can.
Having said that, just who IS my favorite athlete these days. As I survey the Minnesota sports landscape... there ain't much left. It isn't that there aren't options for good players... but all of the truly great players, who have been battle tested over years, just aren't there. There is definitely potential for guys like Morneau, Maurer, Al Jefferson, Chad Greenway, etc... but the jury is still out on all of these guys because they are young.
In the end, I'm going to have to get used to the fact that I live in fly-over country, a small-mid-market that just can't afford to keep the big names. I'm going to need to learn to latch onto these guys early and hope that they are loyal to Minnesota.
KG was loyal as long as he possibly could be, and nobody can blame him for where he ended up. Heck, who could blame any of them. If the local club isn't going to pay them, somebody else will, right? And in the end, that's the lesson... these games, and yes, they are games... are still all about the almighty dollar.
To steal a bit from Dan "The Common Man" Cole... let's play a little bit of "Gone, but not Forgotten."
David Ortiz... gone, but not forgotten.
Randy Moss... gone, but not forgotten.
Glen Mason.... gone... nevermind.
Kevin Garnett... gone, but not forgotten.
Torii Hunter... gone, but not forgotten.
Johan Santana... gone, but not forgotten.
See a trend here?
Look, I'm not going to use this space to talk about the fact that the Twins didn't get as much value for Johan as they could have. I think plenty has been made of that opinion, and frankly, I'm of the opinion that we would have been having that same discussion no matter what deal the Twins had made for Johan. The fact is, in trading a HUGE name, like a Johan Santana, you can almost never get full value in return. In addition to that, it's not even worth talking about now, since we won't know if these guys are going to be worth a dang for 4-5 years, minimum.
What I want to talk about is the emotional part of being a Minnesota sports fan. This is something that I am well-qualified to speak about because, as Jeff will attest to, I am an over-emotional, blindly loyal fan of Minnesota sports, and I don't make any apologies for my emotional, and sometimes irrational, stance on these issues.
So I'll just come right out and say it... it's starting to hurt. It's starting to hurt that we are always the market that is losing the big name guy, and getting 30 no-namers in return. I've said it before, but Kevin Garnett was my favorite athlete of all time, and whoever was second (I couldn't even tell you who) wasn't anywhere close. I think that Kevin Garnett embodies everything that is right, and could be right, about sports. Loyal, hard-working, respectful of the sport, respectful of those who came before him and respectful of the fans. It was ridiculously hard for me to see KG get dealt to Boston. Still, as big of a fan of his that I am, and knowing how he was treated here in Minnesota, I was happy to see him get his shot at a ring.
Am I still a KG fan? Absolutely. But can I call him my favorite player, when he plays for a non-Minnesota team. I know there are a lot of people who will read this who will think that I'm crazy... but I just don't know if I can.
Having said that, just who IS my favorite athlete these days. As I survey the Minnesota sports landscape... there ain't much left. It isn't that there aren't options for good players... but all of the truly great players, who have been battle tested over years, just aren't there. There is definitely potential for guys like Morneau, Maurer, Al Jefferson, Chad Greenway, etc... but the jury is still out on all of these guys because they are young.
In the end, I'm going to have to get used to the fact that I live in fly-over country, a small-mid-market that just can't afford to keep the big names. I'm going to need to learn to latch onto these guys early and hope that they are loyal to Minnesota.
KG was loyal as long as he possibly could be, and nobody can blame him for where he ended up. Heck, who could blame any of them. If the local club isn't going to pay them, somebody else will, right? And in the end, that's the lesson... these games, and yes, they are games... are still all about the almighty dollar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
