Yup, Kendrick Perkins and Nate Robinson to OKC for Jeff Green and Nenad Kristic. One thing I've heard is that the Celtics were looking for another perimeter player with Marquis Daniels out (possibly to avoid strain on Pierce and Allen) I like Green and he's a fellow Hoya....but this deal seems like shit to me. We lost one of the NBA's better interior defenders and the C's center position is a pile of shit-flavored shit. Shaq is hurt, JO is mediocre when healthy, Davis is undersized, and Kristic can't defend to save his life. Green is ok, but worth losing that much defensively and the instant offense that Nate Robinson provides? Probably not.
I think the trade was a HUGE mistake on Boston's part. Perkins killed the Heat down low. Everybody is saying they are making moves to clear salary to pick up Troy Murphy once he is waived. As a Heat fan, I'll take Troy Murphy and Jeff Green over Perkins any day of the week.
An interesting move. Clearly, Boston's hope is that Shaq returns healthy for the play-offs, and that solid depth at forward was more important than the same at center. Clearly, this was more a move for countering the Bulls and Heat than it was against the Magic. Also, it bears mentioning that Perkins had a major injury and doesn't seem to be the shot-blocker he once was. I don't know whether this was the right deal or not, but determining that probably requires a very close examination of advanced stats, and some difficult assumptions and decisions. The instant reaction is to call it a bad trade, but I don't see it that way.
That was my thought too. It seems to be aimed at matching up well with the Heat at the expense of matching up well with the Magic.
Did you watch the game? I bet you saw the defense breakdown by Boozer. I'm pissed their road record sucks, and it pisses me off more knowing they can beat good teams and but lost to the Raptors.
Is JO ever healthy? Every time I hear he's hurt, I immediately think, "and in other news, the earth is round, the sky is blue, and the sun sets in the west." I'm assuming that they figure they did ok with Perkins out for the first few months, it's not that big of a deal. I hope that there's a time machine included in that deal to give us the 28 year old Shaq, because otherwise, this trade blows ass.
Simmons talks Carmelo, blockbuster trades in history, superstars leaving small markets, and how much of an asshole Donald Sterling is: <a class="postlink" href="http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/110225/part1&sportCat=nba" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... ortCat=nba</a> The last year or so, I've found myself ignoring Simmons' articles, but he makes some solid points here outlining how well the Knicks did for themselves. The only issue I take with his evaluation of the Melo trade is how much he downplays the abilities of Gallinari and Chandler, both of whom are legitimately good players who wouldn't surprise me if they each make a few All-Star games.
I agree; definitely one of Boston Billy's less dumb articles. His coverage of the Knicks trade was very good, although I personally disagree because of a few minor points. (I feel Felton for Billups was a downgrade, both short and long term) However, the following paragraph is so stupid, it made me laugh; I don't even know where to begin in dissecting all the stupid... I can bet you anything right now that neither of those guys will ever make an All-Star team. I feel as confident about that as I did when telling Clutch that JJ Hickson would not make the Eastern All-Star team this year.
Oh, I'm not saying it's a guarantee, by any means. Objectively speaking right now, they're less likely to become All-Stars than not. But given their potential and the progress those two have made over their respective (short) careers, I feel like 'never' is such a strong term. I wouldn't hold my breath for it to happen in the next few years, but keep in mind they're only 22 and 23. That being said, potential tends to mean a whole lot of nuffin' in this league. They could just as easily flare out and become quickly forgotten. But I've always liked Gallo's game, and am not willing to write him off so quickly. As for Felton, I agree that he'd have been a better option long-term than Billups, given Billups' age. But short-term, Billups could be better qualified to manage Anthony and Stoudemire, given all the skepticism surrounding their ability to play well together. Long-term, Felton is good and very fast, but as much as I like him, he's not irreplaceable. D'Antoni's system has made the likes of Felton and Duhon look like top-10 PGs, so it won't be that difficult to find a suitable replacement. There's also been speculation that his early play this season was the anomaly, while his recent regression is closer to his true caliber of play. If Simmons should have been accusing anyone of having their stats padded by D'Antoni's offense, it's Felton.
It's not a knock on Gallinari so much as it is an observation of the absurd talent level needed to become an All-Star these days. Think of the amazing players this year that didn't even make the team; Steve Nash, LaMarcus Aldridge, Rudy Gay, Zach Randolph...all guys who averaged insane stats for quality teams, and played outstanding in every game I watched them in. Is Gallo going to have a year in his career where he is better, or at least on the same level as all of those? I would say there's like a one percent chance. He will be a valuable starter for a number of years, but not that caliber of superstar. I disagree; I think Felton fits the system better, but it's certainly a debatable point. We'll see.
Could I ask what your particular issues with this particular paragraph are? I mean I'm no expert on the NBA at all yet even I only take missives like this as the baseless conjecture that it is. I certainly don't take it as definitive proclamations and I don't feel that it's being written from that perspective either. I read Simmons for entertainment and for some of the perspectives he has that are unique to his writing.
Sure. I just wasn't sure if anyone else would care enough to read it, because I could type out an entire article on the matter. There are two main problems with the paragraph; the specific players he uses, and his overarching argument about small-market teams. Let's start with the players. Using Duncan as an example is horrible; does Simmons really think he is wired anything like Anthony, LeBron, or even Kobe? This was not a guy who was a nationally recognized megastar ever since he was a teenager, like those guys. Duncan cares very little about the spotlight, and only about being around guys he is comfortable with. Besides, he LOVES San Antonio, something that couldn't be said about Melo in Denver or LeBron in Cleveland. However, using Stockton and Malone as an example is even worse, and shows a complete lack of understanding of either guy's personality. Stockton was painfully introverted; he HATED the spotlight. He hated it so much, that when the Miami Heat offered him a crazy, record contract for 8 figures a year in the 90s, playing with Mourning and Pat Riley, he turned them down without a second thought. Why? Way too much attention. As such, the Jazz were actually the perfect franchise for him, because he could play elite basketball with the minimum of national attention. Hell, we're talking about a guy SO reticent, that after his playing days were over, he immediately moved back to his small plot of land in Spokane, Washington. Zero interest in ever becoming a television analyst, coach, or GM. Comparing his situation to that of someone like Melo is so stupid it genuinely makes me laugh. But Malone is also a poor example. For those who don't follow Jazz, "Malone might leave Utah for a bigger franchise" and "Malone not happy with contract talks" was a CONSTANT storyline throughout his 20 years there. Hell, a 68 year-old Sloan probably wouldn't have had the energy to manage Karl back then anymore than he could deal with Deron Williams. In the end, it wasn't just the quality of the team around him (which frequently got bounched in the first or second round of the play-offs) that convinced him to stay, but Malone's personal friendship with Jerry Sloan and deceased former owner Larry Miller (an almost father and son relationship) that made him stay all those years. Not only that, but Malone also appreciated Salt Lake City the place more than most NBA superstars would; we're talking about a self-described "black redneck" who loved the great outdoors, mountain climbing, etc. As for current guys, moving into why the overarching message is wrong, I can buy the "team built around him sucked" excuse for LeBron, but I sure as hell can't for either Melo or Deron. Both guys played on perennial 50-55 win ballclubs, both made the Conference Finals, and had fellow All-Stars, or elite players on their rosters. (Chauncey Billups, Allan Iverson, Carlos Boozer, Al Jefferson, Kirilenko for a short while, Nene, Paul Millsap, Kenyon Martin for a short while) The city and franchise did everything they could for them, made consistently good moves, and put up with their mercurial attitudes. Outside of winning the fucking jackpot by sheer dumb luck and landing another amazing piece that would make them a championship, what the fuck does Boston Billy think those small-market teams could do? Nothing. And yes, things have changed. In the mid 80s, Ewing made history by signing for $2 million a year, the entire roster of the Pacers cost $6 million, and Larry H Miller bought the Utah Jazz for $14 million, which people thought was way too much. (Nowadays, the franchise is valued at $350 million) This was before the game became a global sport, and the amount a superstar could make in a big market, and enjoy his celebrity and fame tripled. Yes Billie, certain elite players forced their way out of smaller markets then too, but they were the exception, and were permanently vilified for it. Think of all the superstars on smaller franchises who DIDN'T force any exits, or leave in free agency; Moncrief, Gervin, David Thompson, Oscar Robertson, Moses Malone, etc. And keep in mind, these were not necessarily guys for whom loyalty meant a big deal; many were selfish egotists, and at least two guys I named are known of being coke fiends. ...So yeah, that's why Simmons' paragraph was freaking stupid.
"Tim Duncan to replace Yao Ming in the 2011 All-Star game" has to be the funniest headlines I've seen in American sports in a long, long time. The guys who get included and snubbed each year gets pretty pathetic.
Fan inclusion aside (which really, is just a popularity contest), I'm not aware of anyone who was "snubbed" this year. Personally, I think Aldridge and Randolph (both on play-off teams) should have made it over Love and Griffin (two lottery bound losers), but that's a debatable point based on my interpretation of what I see the All-Star game rewarding. (Team success) No one that wasn't included has an objective gripe over anyone who did among the coaches' choices.
Not to mention that back in the 80s, guys were much more likely to stay with one team their entire career. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Magic Johnson sign a 25 year, 25M contract with the Lakers at some point?
Oh, yes he did! (I think it might have been 20 years, but the point is the same; a life-time contract) And while I love, love Magic Johnson, and consider him the greatest player ever, and dislike Kobe and feel he is overrated...their mentalities weren't that different during their playing days. It's not like one guy was evil and the other is good, or any of that nonsense. Hell, Magic railroaded a coach out of town (Paul Westphal) in only his second season...right after winning a championship, and being named Finals MVP. What's changed is the mindset and economics of small market versus big market teams.
Pretty sure Larry Bird signed a contract after that paying him $1 a year more than Magic, too. I also think part of the problem is that salaries have gotten out of control. It's professional basketball for chrissakes, not like these guys are curing cancer. The salary vs. cap/luxury tax has gotten to the point where the teams that are competitive do so only by unloading shitty contracts on the "rebuilding" teams, or they pull similar scams like Keith Van Horn's signing a contract just to make the numbers work for the Jason Kidd trade. I blame all salary issues on Glenn "Big Dog" Robinson, by the way. I remember when he was drafted, had never played a professional basketball game, and was rumored to want a 13y/$100M deal. He ended up signing for less (10 years, $68M), but still, if he was getting paid that kind of money, what was Jordan worth? What were guys like Karl Malone or Patrick Ewing worth? After that, teams started throwing around huge contracts to scrubs, such as the Sonics signing Jim McIlvaine to a 5 year, 33.6M deal. It all went downhill after that. Personally, I think they should put in a hard cap with a "max percentage" kind of deal. For example, give each team a $60M hard cap and have it so no player can get more than 25% of it. If you sign 15 guys like most teams do, that comes out to an average of $4M per player, and the most any one player can make is $15M/yr. Personally, I think $15M is an insane amount of money to play 82 games of basketball a year, but something needs to be done to bring it back down to earth. In other news, the Celtics are playing the Clippers tonight. Thanks to Blake Griffin, this is the first time I think I've said, "I really want to see that Celtics-Clippers game" in... ever.
I understand some contracts are way out of wack, but at the same time Lebron and some of the other superstars are worth way more to the leauge then the contract they have signed, so I don't get how your max percentage contract would work. And then at the same time do you limit how much the owners/management/leauge can make off these players? I mean Jerry Reinsdorf(rich already) made an obscene amount of money off of Michael Jordan, while underpaying him for about 90% of the time they were together. I don't get how you can limit the earning capacity of superstar players, unless you do the same with ownership.
Cap ticket prices as well. Then, maybe fans can afford to go to games. Seriously, look at Celtic ticket prices sometime... I can't justify spending that kind of money to watch a game.
I know you were kidding, but that would essentially make the league unprofitable. And tgill is right; guys like Kobe and LeBron are obscenely underpaid by the normal metric. They bring in an estimated $80 million of additional revenue to the team, and get paid $20 a million in return. The guys who are overpaid are actually the middle range of players who make $4 million a year and might only bring in an additional $1 million in value. As mentioned earlier, I think a hard salary cap (make it high, even above luxury tax territory, like $75 million, but enough to discourage blatant out-spending) and a franchise tag, similar to the NFL, would help alleviate some of the problems we're presently witnessing.