Gotta throw in a few points here: Totally agree on the above assessment of Dallas. They've got some guys who are up there in age, but like Boston, the talent trumps it. Dirk is an absolute monster, and it'll be great seeing him in the HoF someday. As a person from Akron born in 1984 watching another person from Akron born in 1984 get booed and jeered at the Q, it absolutely warmed my heart. Oddly enough (and this is a bit shocking considering how easily we turn on sports figures), NE Ohio is still militantly behind Dan Gilbert. Looking back, he was always an owner who was willing to spend, whether it's picking up Shaq or installing new water fountains and renovating bathrooms in the arena. Danny Ferry did a hell of a job as a GM, with the Wallace-Sczerbiak-West-Smith trade to getting Mo to getting Jamison for basically nothing with Z's sign-and-trade. To say that the front office did a poor job putting solid pieces around LeBron is borderline retarded. You don't put up the most wins in the league two years in a row with a shitty team. However, you don't win championships with a coach whose sole job seems to be keeping his star happy. Mo Williams' two-year choke performance was equally disgusting. I'd have given anything for Byron Scott to have headed the team last year instead of the bastard child of Al Roker and Mr. Potatohead. /endcavsrant I'm anxious to see Milwaukee in full form by next year. The Redd/Jennings/Bogut/Gooden/Maggette core with Skiles coaching has the potential to be pretty damn good, though injuries seem to be their constant downfall. And speaking of which, anyone see the New York Times piece on Brandon Roy's downfall? Definitely puts the Blazers' frustrating situation perfectly into perspective.
Are you kidding me? The same GM who idiotically signed Larry Hughes' crippled body, Donyell Marshall's corpse, and Damon Jones to giant contracts worth something like $140 million total in the 2005 offseason, killing the team's cap room and future prospects? That might be the single worst offseason of NBA contracts EVER. The same idiot who didn't deal Sczerbiak's contract prior to the 2009 play-offs for someone like a Shaq to guard Dwight Howard, then did it 4 months later, after they lost to Orlando in the Conference Finals? "Hell of a job" is right; he was one of the most atrocious GMs in the league, and was far more responsible for Cleveland not winning a championship than Mike Brown ever was. Listen, I get that LBJ's petulant insistence that the Cavs win instantly didn't make it any easier, and pushed him further into "horrible decision" territory. But that's the same thing Riley had to deal with Wade in Miami, and look at what he churned out. Gooden and Maggette are washed up and crappy, dude. Redd, as much as I love him, is essentially retired after a slew of major injuries that have killed his career and forced him to miss several complete seasons. Compared to him, Brandon Roy is in perfect physical shape. Bogut is a very good center, and right now, Jennings is a decent starting point guard who doesn't help his team with his offensive ineffeciency, (even factoring in 3 pointers and trips to the line, 18.3 ppg on 16 FGA is pretty bad) is an excellent defender, and a mediocre distributor with a poor assist to turnover ratio. (Barely above 2 to 1, one of the worst in the league for starting points) I expect him to improve, but realistically, Milwaukee's roster lacks skill and talent. When Ilyasova is arguably your third best player, there is a major problem. Link?
The article is pretty embellished; no one was seriously considering Roy for MVP during the 2008-2009 season, and Portland did not have the league's best offense, statistically or visually. Nevertheless, Roy was a top 15 player at that point, and seemed like a perennial All-star. Still, it's not like this should have been news for the Blazers; it's the same reason Roy fell to them at the fifth overall pick to begin with, and why giving him a giant contract seemed so risky at the time. In other news, any thoughts on this article about a possible lockout? Personally, I think the Player's Association is fucking insane. The players make 57 percent of basketball revenue right now. That's an incredible number; keep in mind that for the NFL, that figure is only 47 percent. At the same time, 20 franchises lost a combined $380 million during the past season. And that was just last year, before the abysmal attendance numbers at NBA games so far this season. Clearly, the minimum amount that an NBA team is forced to spend on contracts needs to be lowered, as does the salary cap. And with a single contract gutting a team for years if the player suffers injury, getting rid of fully guaranteed contracts seems reasonable, too. And of course, if they decide to strike, only the players will suffer. Too many of them live paycheck to paycheck, are burning through money like it's going out of style, and will be dead broke in a year's time. Meanwhile, the owners will be happy to go through a year where they don't lose $20+ million on a business venture.
Has there ever been a year where two of the four major American sports leagues strike at the same time? The NFL and NBA both being locked out might force me to actually accomplish something worthwhile with my time. I don't like that prospect.
I honestly do not want to think or talk about any of these lockouts. As much as it hurts me to say this: I'm with Shegirl on this with the complete denial approach. After I write this post, I'll deny I even wrote it and my account was hacked. My only thoughts and concerns with the organizations is the math. 30 teams losing a combined 380 million. Now, I KNOW this isn't an even loss across all teams, but its 12.9 million per team. I'm going to guess a +/- 30 million for certain teams. Let's put the loss at 20 million. The thing that gets me coming from a marketing/advertising background, most teams make that simply with endorsements. Things that pop-up across the ticker, signs in the stadium, joint advertising deals, announcements during the games and all sponsorships. I'm not even talking about television deals, food concessions, ticket sales, merchandise sales, etc. I know there is the overhead, the cost of the players, the profit sharing and all of that. I say all of that to say the biggest problem with the PA is that the teams refuse to say how much money they've made, they just keep saying how much they've lost. Now if they've collectively made 10 billion, and lost 382, who cares? The recession has hit everyone. Business people could be making 400% profit, and if it falls to 390% they act like the world is coming to an end. ...Wait? There isn't going to be a lockout, ever. Basketball forever!
No dude, it's 20 teams that lost a combined 380 million. The rest roughly broke even or made a profit. (The Lakers were the big winners) This loss includes whatever they get with endorsements, concessions, etc. And yes, of course things like ticket deals, television, and merchandise are included in total revenue. (Aren't those the obvious, main elements of revenue?) Considering that in addition to player salaries, each team employs dozens (if not hundreds) of other employees for often huge wages (everyone from the GM (costs a few million a year) and coach (ditto) to the marketing people, physical trainers (expensive), ushers, and security guards), and even with a tax break, have to pay a considerable amount for the lease of the building from the city. (Which Forbes only includes in their "debt" assessment for each franchise) Don't forget the renovations and maintenance of the arena, their workout facilities, the cost of the private airplane, the per diem everyone receives, etc. It's a tremendous fortune. These articles are about past seasons, (not the 2009-2010 one) but check out Forbes for this; <a class="postlink" href="http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/32/basketball-values-09_NBA-Team-Valuations_Rank.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/32/bas ... _Rank.html</a> <a class="postlink" href="http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/09/nba-basketball-valuations-business-sports-basketball-values-09-intro.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/09/nba-ba ... intro.html</a> (Headline- "The NBA had a tough 2008-09 season. This one could be even worse."...if only they knew how awful 2010-2011 has been so far) <a class="postlink" href="http://www.forbes.com/2007/12/06/business-basketball-nba-biz-07nba-cz_kb_mo_cs_1206nbaintro.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.forbes.com/2007/12/06/busine ... intro.html</a> Forbes has a good estimate in those links above, (by the way, players are paid even more than 57 percent in salary and the rest is played in escrow, but the excess is partly covered by the owners themselves!), and it matches what the owners claim. I honestly see no reason to doubt that, especially considering that things like ticket sales, television contracts, and merchandise sales are all public knowledge, and the overwhelming bulk of their revenue. What do you mean? Do you know the difference between "revenue" and "profit"? Profit is revenue minus costs. For most franchises, that figure is negative; they're losing money. And by the way, total revenue from everything were less than $3.8 billion in 2009-2010. Player salaries were $2.3 billion during that same stretch. It's pretty obvious by this statement that you've never worked in business. Things are legitimately disastrous right now, and giant corporate losses, huge lay-offs, closing down of sites and buildings, etc. are a common occurrence.
Wait, what are you talking about? Lockout? No way...(I didn't read any of the articles, and I'm bad at math but what I've read earlier before entering full denial is that the biggest point of contention is that the PA doesn't care about the estimates want real numbers from the teams, which they refuse to give.) Bulls vs. Lakers tonight. Interesting article from Mike Wilbon today talking about how Kobe is looking at Derrick Rose as the next guy because of their (and Jordan's) hatred of losing. Carlos Boozer officially arrived and is playing well, Noah is getting back into the grove, and having Gibson come off the bench definitely will help the game stay consistent. They lost by 7 points without Boozer. I'm hoping the Bulls can pull out a win on this one, especially since the Lakers just eeked out a win against the Clippers.
So, uhh...how 'bout them Knicks? They've somehow managed a 6-game win streak, and won 11 of their last 12. Granted, they've beat only 1 team with a winning record in those 12 games, but I'll take what I can get. This is their first 6-game streak since January of 2006. That's almost 5 years. Compared to the Isiah years, this feels like a playoff contender. They've got a lot left to prove, especially with their schedule through the end of December, but I can't remember the last time the Knicks were 5 games over .500.
They refuse to give them for a variety of reasons, but look at those Forbes estimates if you're interested about the subject; they're all very close (to within 5 percent) to the true figures, especially since most revenue streams are public knowledge. And they might lose by more than 7 points with Boozer. Pau Gasol has owned him for the past few years even when Boozer was in better shape than he is now, and sadly, most of what Booz gets you on the offensive end he gives upon defense. He might score 25, but if his own man gets 23, that's a small victory, right? There's a reason the Jazz are better this year with the Millsap/Jefferson combo, despite Jefferson's shooting struggles while learning the flex offense. I'm just happy for Ray Ray. Love that guy, and it's nice to finally see him on a relevant, winning team, playing as brilliantly as he has always been capable of.
I couldn't agree more. His numbers are up across almost the entire board. He's currently on career-highs in FG%, FT%, steals, rebounds, points, and assists. 37.7% from beyond the arc is nothing to sneeze at, either. Being a UNC fan, I'm glad to see this guy getting his due. I remember on draft day the commentators said Charlotte mad a terrible reach for him at #5 simply because they were in dire need of a point and Paul/Williams were already off the board.
I seem to recall that, although it always puzzled me. Paul was considered the best of the trio, but it was highly debated who was better between Felton and Williams. Personally, I thought Felton was going to become a better pro (and actually, throughout college, he was the better player), and remember being real upset when the Jazz drafted Deron Williams. Of course, Deron lost like 20 pounds, showed a tireless work ethic, transformed himself into a scary offensive weapon in addition to a great passer, and has steadily improved his defense over the last few seasons. Playing for Jerry Sloan helped too, and right now, he is legitimately the best point guard in the league. However, Felton played for a lousy offense in Charlotte that had few options, didn't allow him to use his best abilities, and had a revolving door of coaches that didn't run a good system for point guards to begin with. He still put up decent numbers, but wasn't considered one of the better PGs in the league. In New York, he finally has a legitimate interior scorer and a system that allows him to take advantage of his speed and athleticism. Obviously, he's improved his shooting the last couple of seasons too, but the new team and offense helps.
Good win by the Bulls last night, although it didn't have much to do with Boozer (10 points, 11 rebounds, 0 steals/blocks), who was once again owned while defending both Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom, the only starters on the Lakers with good games. (Gasol had 21 points, 8 rebounds, 4 blocks, and Lamar had 18 points, 8 rebounds, 2 blocks) Still, Rose is a legitimate superstar, and the Bulls have tremendous depth, with a starter and seventh man on the Jazz last year, Korver and Brewer, contributing to a very strong bench. Taj Gibson looks strong from what I have seen of him, too. They're an average offensive team right now, but with their defense and rebounding, plus Rose, they can give anyone in the East a tough series, Boston and Miami included. By the way, the Jazz played their best game of the season last night, scoring 117 points against the top defense in the league (Orlando). When CJ Miles, their sixth man and main scoring shooting guard is hitting from three-point range, and they're not getting fucked by the refs, the Jazz are practically unbeatable. Unfortunately, Miles is only accurate about once every three games. Last night though, he had 26 points in 21 minutes. Oh, and the Heat looked flat-out excellent against the Warriors, two nights after their dominant win on the road against the Jazz. They are getting out in transition more often, and Spoelstra has wisely decided to play James by himself and then Wade by himself for longer stretches of the game. The Warriors aren't a top team, but they were playing well, and then, the Heat just steamrolled them in the third. James Jones never seems to have a bad game for them, either; he is one of the more reliable corner three-point shooters in the league. For all the people talking shit about them, Miami a respectable 16-8 right nows, play in a poor division, will get either the number one or two spot in the top-heavy, still-crappy East. They will be favorites against every team except for Boston. Finally, while I like Bill Simmons' columns, he was a complete buffoon/clown commentating on the Miami game. The only upside was Mark Jackson subtly making fun of him.
I'm pretty sure Simmons was playing a buffoon a little, and ESPN failed with matching him with Mark Jackson. He's a goofy guy unless he gets focused and is trying to make a legitimate point. It should have been Stan in that booth, it would have reached maximum hilarity. Surprised Mark was making fun on him, did he get his "Mama there goes that man!" line in this game? I make bets with friends on if he's going to say that any game he's calling.
Definitely...but he failed. He was not funny, and sounded like a bald-faced idiot. Even worse, instead of focusing on the game, Simmons kept rambling on in his whiny, annoying voice, and interrupted Mark Jackson when he was making an interesting point. Holy fuck was he awful. I actually muted the game on a few occasions, which I didn't even do for the games Bob Costas used to call. (Worst play-by-play guy ever) He had two good rips on Bill Simmons when I wasn't tuning BS out; Simmons is going on and on about how Golden State coach Keith Smart is interviewed after his team is down 20, and obviously has nothing to say. "Mark, if you were a coach, would you respond to an interview in that situation? Wouldn't you just blow her off?" "I would ABSOLUTELY do the interview. Because, Bill, you have to be a professional." Also, Simmons said that Kevin Garnett should be a MVP candidate this year. (Insane, possibly even dumber than him ranking Havliceck the 13th greatest player ever (higher than Kobe before the Lakers won in 2010), Cousy much higher than Stockton, Russell over Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Sam Jones ahead of George Gervin, or any number of other terrific examples of Celtics homerism) "I know you think I'm a homer..." "Bill, I don't even think Garnett thinks he's an MVP candidate. Rondo is the best player and leader of that team. Garnett is probably watching his television right now, and he can't even believe you just said that..." "Well, I just thought that defense was important. Guess I was wrong?" (Sarcastic tone) "Well how about this, Bill? Why don't you consider Tim Duncan an MVP candidate? The Spurs have been even better, and he is the anchor for that defense." (GREAT counter-point) "Well, I don't. His offensive stats aren't as good". Checking the stats, Duncan is averaging 13.6 ppg, 9 rpg, 3.2 apg, 1.8 bpg, 0.8 spg on 48.8% FG, and Garnett has 15.5 ppg, 9.7 rpg, 2.3 apg, 0.8 bpg, 1.5 spg on 54% FG. Very slightly better stats for Garnett, but it's essentially the same, even on the offensive side (one fewer apg for Garnett), and it's completely identical when you realize he plays 3.5 more minutes per game than Duncan does. Bill Simmons writes amusing, thoughtful columns; it's his niche. However, his writing is mediocre in book form, and holy fuck, does his commentating suck. And of course, when he argues basketball with someone like Mark Jackson, an intelligent ex-player, he gets flat-out embarrassed. Focus- The Dallas-Utah game yesterday was incredible. It was 29-4 Mavs to start, and then it was tied at 88-88. The Mavericks were consistently amazing from three-point range; they were 14 of 26 for the game, and scrub DeShawn Stevenson was 5-7, including a crazy, falling down, off the backboard, four bounce three which was one of the most unlikely shots I have seen this season. Deron Williams absolutely carried the Jazz during the entire comeback, and was single-handedly dismantling the Mavericks. He was completely unstoppable, and the Mavericks were playing great defense the whole time, draped all over him. He finished with 34 points on 12-22 shooting, but watching it, the performance was even more impressive. Absolutely the best point guard in the league right now. However, in the fourth quarter, as it looked the game might slip away, Nowitzki took over. He simply couldn't miss. He made 18 footers look like lay-ups. No one could do anything against him. He is shooting better than he ever has in his career this season, all the way out to three point range (3 of 4), and when his defender is too close, he is taking him strong to the basket or drawing the foul. He has always been an amazing player, but this might be Nowitzki's best season, and he's shooting an ungodly 57% from the field. At this point, he's the MVP. Great game, and I'm even more impressed by the Mavericks. Rick Carlisle has done a terrific job getting the team to play good defense.
KIMaster, just listened to my lord and savior (a little sarcasm) Bill Simmon's podcast and he brought up the Garnett for MVP thing and Ric Bucher agreed with him because they started discussing intangibles and defense. Something about the guy that goes in to do what has to be done for the team to win, other teammates see that and focus because they know they cannot complain about little shit. Like Kobe did in the Olympics, a guy who is nothing but an offensive force stopped and said "I'm going to facilitate and lock down whoever I'm guarding so the team can win." Bill went on to amend and say "If not the MVP, the Most Important Player." and Bucher and that House character agreed. I agree with his point there. Simmon's does lean towards being a homer, but I can't subscribe to him falling in head over heels like that without giving him some more explanation. In other news, Boozer is playing like a god...and Joakim Noah decides he needs hand surgery. Out for 10 weeks and I'm leaning towards a slight depressing. This means NBA 2k11 is going to prevent me from playing with him and kill two aspects of my life. Son of a bitch.
Unless I misread this, are you implying that Kobe ordinarily doesn't showcase his defensive skills? Child, please. Simmons' explanation is bullshit. I'm basing this off your retelling of it, since I didn't personally listen to his podcast. Saying "his leadership inspires his teammates to do better" is like saying "scoring more points than the other team enhances our odds of winning." If it's all about his intangibles and what he does as a leader, he'd have 15 MVPs right now. There's more to consider than simply, "Oh, he's very passionate about the game." Bill has no business injecting his thoughts into conversations that involve anything from New England, because he's shown us time and again that he can't be impartial. In other news, how about Amare's 3-pointer at the end of last night's game? Even if it didn't count, it was impressive to see him hit from long range on a catch-and-shoot. Had there been an additional 0.4 seconds on the clock, that would be on SportsCenter's Top 10. Also, Gallo discusses last night's game. He's impressed me ever since he's been drafted, and he's very mature for a guy who's only 22. If NY finds a way to trade for Melo, I really hope they don't include Gallinari in the deal. I'd like to see them package Chandler, Randolph, Fields/Douglas, and a 1st-round pick, but I doubt there's a chance they could make that trade and still keep Gallinari.
Dude, I am an enormous Kevin Garnett fan. I have loved him ever since his first season on the Timberwolves. He has been one of my 2-3 favorite players in the league for the last 15 years. Anyone who seriously thinks Garnett is an MVP candidate should be banned for life from writing about basketball on SBnation, let alone ESPN. I can't even begin to describe how dumb that is. I'll refer back to Mark Jackson's objection; Garnett's numbers, defensive impact, and "intangibles" are virtually the exact same as Tim Duncan's, except San Antonio is a slightly better team, and Garnett plays 3.5 more minutes per game. So why isn't Duncan an MVP candidate by that logic? I simply don't understand how a rational human being can watch Garnett, Stoudemire, Nowitzki, and Gasol this year and come to the conclusion that KG is even remotely on the level of the other three. Kobe Bryant is having a weak year by his standards, and I HATE the guy, but even he is a hundred times the MVP candidate Garnett is. Garnett isn't even the best player on his team. Rajon Rondo is. In fact, I'm not even sure if he's clearly the number two guy on his own team; that might be Pierce. And Ray Allen is comparable, too. I listened to that podcast, too; none of those guys are anything more than educated fans, and in House's case, even that much isn't true. (He says at least 3 things per podcast which show he doesn't pay any more attention to the NBA than glancing at box scores and news stories for 10 minutes night) While he hates certain teams for non-basketball reasons (like the Utah Jazz) and has a superficial understanding of many parts of basketball, Bucher is probably the smartest of the trio...which is pathetic. They occasionally make decent, if obvious points, but none of them are experts. You forget this is the same guy that ranked Havliceck the 13th greatest player ever, Sam Jones ahead of George Gervin, Russell ahead of Abdul-Jabbar, and Cousy far ahead of Stockton. Saying he "leans towards being a homer" is like saying Tiger Woods "leans towards ex-marital affairs". A lot of what Bill writes and says are the ramblings of a total moron. It's a bit early to tell. The guy is still the monster rebounder and devastating interior scorer he was in Utah, but his passing has regressed, and his defense is worse than ever. He's going to have a terrific regular season statistically, and the Bulls can cover for his defensive shortcomings against most teams, but the test is going to come against a good playoff team. How well will he do against Garnett and even Bosh? Will he be able to help out against a Dwight Howard?
Yeah, I don't have a defense for most of the above. But the point about Kobe was that most offensive forces, even the ones with defensive capabilities, don't usually give up half their game and is okay with it. Disregard his usual defensive output, the fact he gave up his scoring is what he was trying to say. I think Boozer can hold his own against Bosh, especially since he's still not getting in to the rim. I don't think Howard is an issue only because by the time it matters, he'll be worn down from carrying his entire team. I've seen a few sports writers discuss this, but now with Bosh not being the best guy on the shitty team, is he really that good? Is he a superstar? Can he be the guy when/if Wade or James can't get it done? I feel like Boozer wins that match-up season prime 8/10 times. I could be wrong, but I forget Bosh is even on Miami half the time watching those games.
When Toronto played Utah during the last 6 seasons, and Boozer went up against Bosh, Bosh would win that match-up handily. A few times, when Boozer played particularly well, they were even. Chris Bosh is far too tall and athletic for Boozer to guard, especially considering how useless he normally is on that end. Bosh is a poor defender too, but his length and shot-blocking make it harder for Boozer to get his.