User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6826 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I don't think anyone is saying that it's "outrageous to think it's possible that Minnesota could be better than any of those teams." I even said that a case could be made to that effect. But until Rubio and Roy are out there and showing that they are OK, I think the odds are against it.
Finally, I don't really think that the Clippers, Denver, and Memphis are what I would call "contenders." I simply think that the odds at this point are that they will win more games this year than Minnesota will. For the kind of hardcore geeks who post here, Minnesota is probably about the most interesting team in the NBA. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they will be better than teams like Memphis or Utah that will have more or less the same guys that they have had and do not have two guys as snazzy as Love and Rubio.
If Rubio and Roy both stay on the floor and play well, Minnesota can certainly have a very good team. But those are pretty big ifs.
Good point. I refuse to click on the link, and am glad he's no longer on the Bulls even though I did find him quite entertaining.
I think it would be pretty outrageous for Minnesota to have a better record than San Antonio and Memphis.
Add Denver, and I think I'm in agreement.
It's kinda like predicting the Jazz will be a middle of the pack playoff team by assuming that Favors will be an all star PF this season. It could happen...but it probably won't. Sometimes it takes a few years for really young players to develop. I don't see either Favors or Rubio quite getting there yet this coming season.
The difference, of course, is that the Wolves already have one All-Star/franchise player, unlike the Jazz. Also, for me, it's not so much Rubio's development as it's his recovery and how that impact his development.
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/49171/does-andre-iguodala-make-the-nuggets-contenders
Denver has an exciting and interesting team, but IMO the piece reads more like something from an overly enthusiastic Nuggets blog than it does analysis, and it reminds me of why I don't think much of Beckley Mason's work. Certainly Denver could finish 4th or 3rd if the Clippers and Lakers have injury issues. YMMV in terms of reaction to the tone.
Right, and I agree that the Wolves have more long term potential to be a serious contender than the Jazz, or even the Grizz and Nuggs because of the Love factor. He's easily better than anyone on those teams. But some people talk about the Wolves as though they have TWO players in Love and Rubio that are better than anyone on those teams, and I just don't think that's true. At least not by next season. All 3 of those teams have players who figure to be as good or better than Rubio next year. Maybe in a few years they'll have a better argument.
I don't think staying healthy is all Rubio needs to do to lift the Wolves above the other fringe playoff teams. He needs to get a lot better, too.
They are like the Lakers in some respects, in that they have a lot of possible variance, due to age and health concerns. They will be counting on Paul and Griffin, who have some issues with health, and they need strong contributions from Hill, Billups, and Odom. So, no, it is not unreasonable to predict that Denver will be better than the Clippers will.
But the NBA remains a superstars' league--that is why James, Howard, and Paul changing teams was a such a big deal and why Howard and Paul's dual FA status will be the dominant NBA story next July.
Also, Mason seems to assume that Denver's guys will all get better since they are "25 or younger." Some of them will, but I doubt all of them will, and even if they do, none of them is going to be a Top 10 guy. Mason obviously really likes Denver, which is fine, but that is a different thing than analysis. I am generally suspicious of supposed analyses that talk a lot about the "culture" on a team--reminds me of David Cameron and the 6thbest org dust-up.
I didn't mean it like that, I meant in terms of their seeding for this upcoming season.
Depending on how you rate his defense, he might be pretty close this already. The Wolves allowed around 7 points less per 48 with Rubio on the floor last year. This value is probably a little high due to small size, but given his strong defensive track record in Spain (defensive player of the year as a teenager), I don't think it outrageous to suggest he might already be close to an elite defender (possibly at two positions), which combined with his elite passing and above average rebounding makes him extremely valuable even if his scoring is weak.
I know. That last line wasn't just in response to your post. I think people in general have been overrating Rubio. He wasn't a star last year, and I'd be a bit surprised if he made it there this year, healthy or not. Projections about his long term potential shouldn't really factor into the discussion for how good the Wolves are going to be THIS season. Posts like this, for example:
Apologies in advance, Robin, if I misread this post. It sounded to me like you were saying that Utah/Memphis (and you could put Denver in here too) doesn't have any players the caliber of Love AND Rubio. Agree WRT Love. Disagree with Rubio. I think all 3 of those teams have at least 2 or 3 guys in his class or better.
The Clippers ceiling is higher than that. Their record last year when Billups was healthy was very good. If Odom plays anything at all like he did with the Lakers, he'll be a huge upgrade over Martin and Evans. Hill even old is much better backup SF than Gomes or someone Nick Young or Foye out of position. Griffin still has a lot room to improve. If playoff Eric Bledsoe is anything close to being for real that would be a huge upgrade. If everything falls exactly right for the Clippers, they will be very good, but they have a ton of variance and uncertainty in how they will do.
It's too bad they wasted their MLE on Crawford, who don't think does much anything for them, do you really want him jacking up shots on a team with Griffin and Paul.
I think his use of "snazzy" gives away that he's talking, at least in part, about their aesthetics/appeal/entertainment value.
I considered that as well. My bad if aesthetics was the main meaning behind that line. I don't think Rubio will be a star yet, but I agree that he's "snazzy" to watch.
And I think I'm more looking forward to seeing how everything works out with Minny this season than with any team other than the Jazz. Love deserves to play for a winning team. AK has always been a favorite of mine and I'd love it if he still had something left in the tank. A Roy comeback would be a nice story.
Memphis played without Randolph much of the year, and Randolph is a hell of a lot better than Billups. I believe they also had to give extended burn to clowns like Speights because Arthur was hurt. I just don't see any justifiable reason to say that the Clippers have a better ceiling than Memphis.
Also, is there honestly any reason to expect Odom to play like his old self?
Cuz Paul and Griffin are BOTH better than anyone on the Grizz, and teams with true superstars seem to have a higher ceiling than those that don't.
That said, I still don't see a big win difference between the two for next season. See Wolves/Jazz discussion, add an extra 6-8 wins apiece, and that's what we're likely looking at WRT Clips and Grizz.
Well, if the Lakers and/or Spurs have injury-age issues, and everything breaks right for the Clippers, sure. But with the competitive ecology of the West, the Clippers could have a really great year and finish 4th at about 50-32.
After OKC and SAS, who had the third best point differential in the West last year?
is that really the world we're living in now? i cannot believe the nets have instantly gone from trivial afterthought to a glamor franchise that's mentioned to be on par with the lakers, knicks, heat, and bulls.
Probably just a function of Miami being a place you'd love to be in for the winter, but not so much for the summer.
It appears that's the case right now. That might wear off after a year or two. Building on AROM's point, I think outside of the Lakers, it's cyclical which teams are considered the glamor team - maybe the "it" team is a better way of putting it; the Celtics probably belong there, the Knicks have had their share of down times, and the Heat are new. I would also question whether or not the Bulls really belong in that group.
Moving from East Rutherford (or wherever the Nets used to play) to Brooklyn really will make a big difference, I suspect.
Yeah, but considering how consistently awful they've been the last decade or so, they still get way more than their fair share of publicity. A team with a similar 10 year record in a non bling city would barely ever even draw a mention in a MSM article.
This was probably true before the Jordan years, but I think now that simply being associated with MJ will always make the Bulls one of the more glamorous teams. In an 8 year span they won more titles than any NBA team other than the Celtics and Lakers have in their entire franchise history.
What I don't get is how Atlanta isn't there yet. It just can't be fan apathy.
No, remember that the entire point of the quoted article is that Orlando is not one of these special "glamour" teams that players want to play for. Also since Dwight Howard himself apparently didn't confer any glamour to the organization, it can't be that the special glamour status of Miami comes from LeBron's presence. I guess it's entirely due to the proximity of one particular beach resort.
Does anyone like Atlanta? It's not just the NBA, it's not glamorous for any sport or seen/perceived as a top US city by most people AFAICT.
No, remember that the entire point of the quoted article is that Orlando is not one of these special "glamour" teams that players want to play for. Also since Dwight Howard himself apparently didn't confer any glamour to the organization, it can't be that the special glamour status of Miami comes from LeBron's presence. I guess it's entirely due to the proximity of one particular beach resort.
Orlando was glamorous enough for Hill and McGrady, and not Shaq or Howard.
This was probably true before the Jordan years, but I think now that simply being associated with MJ will always make the Bulls one of the more glamorous teams. In an 8 year span they won more titles than any NBA team other than the Celtics and Lakers have in their entire franchise history.
You're mixing some of the other small/large market discussion into this, IMO. This cache hasn't helped the Bulls attract FAs or trade targets though, and that's what I meant. I still don't see anyone that's treated Chicago like a destination or made it their goal to come here (maybe Rip).
As to the "glamour" question, as we discussed earlier, it is a lot of things, but more or less breaks down to brand/tradition/track record, market size/bling, and weather.
It doesn't have the same effect on baseball players as it does on basketball players. So I'll stick with my winter sport/summer sport explanation.
Baseball players like Florida quite a bit - in the off season.
I know Boozer has been a disappointment to Bulls fans, but I think he was considered a pretty big name when he signed with Chicago. He made 2 AS teams with the Jazz just a few years earlier (2007, 2008) and wouldn't have been a bad choice in 2010, either.
What about Rodman? I don't remember the circumstances that led to him ending up on the Bulls, but he was a pretty big name too.
A lot of NBA players like Atlanta ... but it's hard to underestimate the fan apathy - does any NBA club have a fanbase that cares less, relative to performance?
Did they ever really try? (this isn't sarcasm, I honestly don't remember). Bulls have been pretty smart the past few decades picking great players in the draft and building teams around them (Jordan, Pippen, Rose, Noah). Maybe they haven't pushed as hard for big FA's as some other teams cuz they haven't really had to to be contenders (or again, maybe they have and I just wasn't paying attention).
Would bringing in another big star on the Jordan Bulls have created some sort of ego clash? Would it even have been worth it to management to risk messing with their already championship dynamic, or to pay that much extra payroll when the team was already winning a bunch of titles as is?
I think NBA players love Atlanta, especially when they are the away team. Its got very good nightlife (especially if you have money), has good weather during the winter and according to Wikipedia, "the city has long been known as a center of African American political power, education, and culture." It doesn't suit my tastes (mainly because of the airport and sprawl) but I think it would fit a lot of NBA player's lifestyles.
He wasn't their's or anyone's first choice. He was 3rd just on the PF FA pecking order that offseason. Yes, he's a FA get, but considering how that class went and the fact that the Bulls were really aiming for LeBron, Wade, or Bosh ahead of him, it's tough to sell that as evidence that Chicago is a destination team/city. Then again, they did get to sit down with those other guys and plenty of other teams didn't.
So it's all relative, I guess.
IMO, the Lakers are at the top of the pile, then you have another tier down that usually includes the Knicks and Celtics but has at one time or another included Miami, Orlando, Dallas, and now Brooklyn, then the next level down are the teams that we all think should be higher but aren't like Chicago, Philly, possibly Atlanta, maybe Phoenix, could include the Clippers and then there's the rest.
What about Rodman? I don't remember the circumstances that led to him ending up on the Bulls, but he was a pretty big name too.
He was a bit of a ring chaser, and also he scared off a lot of other teams for being seen as a distraction/problem. His name (or brand or reputation or whathaveyou) didn't exactly translate into NBA teams clamoring for him.
---
A lot of my specific feelings about this go back to the FA summer of 2000 when the Bulls whiffed badly on everyone (Hill, McGrady, Duncan) and then 2010 and now the Howard stuff - with him, it used to confuse or frustrate me that he had no interest in the Bulls. The Bulls should appeal to players more than they do in reality.
Chicago is a very interesting and cool city, but it is not NY and it's cold as hell.
Back in 2000, the Bulls had a bad team. As I have said many, many times, one thing everybody forgets about Shaq's coming to LA was that the Lakers had gone 53-29 the year before. Duncan was part of a winning program and has a deep bond with Popovich. James, Wade and Bosh wanted to be on the same team. These things still come down to the individuals to a large degree. Hill and McGrady--not sure there, so you may have something. But with Nash, for example, it is not as if he set out "to be a Laker." He wanted to be near his kids and the Lakers have an old but still good team that needed a guy to play the point. Perfect fit. If the Lakers had gotten Paul last year, Nash might well be a Clipper now.
Howard I will give you to an extent. I initially scoffed at the shoe thing but that may have been a factor. But I still think a lot of it is that Paul and Williams are his buddies and Rose isn't--Rose is the "next generation" in NBA terms. The teams on Howard's list were the teams Williams was already on, the team trying to get Paul, and the team in Williams' home town. When Paul got traded to the Clippers, Howard said he would be OK there. He and Paul have now set it up so they will both hit FA at the same time, and while everyone is assuming that Howard will stay with the Lakers, it is easy enough to see him not liking Brown, not getting along with Kobe, the Lakers losing in the playoffs,and his deciding to go to Dallas with CP3.
And, of course, Rose, a Chicago guy, re-upped at the first opportunity, and if he had been drafted by another team might well have become a Bull some day.
The Bulls traded Will Perdue for him. Not sure if that answers your question.
I had forgotten how good Ceballos was at at his peak. He had 22 PER and 60% TS that season.
Vlade Divac I think gets underrated sometimes, obviously he was superfluous after Shaq was brought in, but the first few years after the trade he was better than very young Kobe, the Hornets improved by 13 wins his first season there. He wasn't ever really an NBA superstar, but was a very good center for a long time.
One thing though; in the same sense that the Boozer Plan B (or C or D) signing and the Rodman "we're one of the few franchises stable enough to handle this nutjob" signing aren't necessarily evidence that the Bulls are a destination city, I think the 2000 and 2010 offseasons aren't necessarily evidence that they're not. In 2000 the Bulls were just two years removed from their last MJ/Pip title, and following up those two as the teams new franchise player would have been a daunting task with high fan expectations that a lot of FA's might not have been ready for. I know I wouldn't have wanted to have to try and follow Jordan. And in 2010, there's a lot of speculation that LeBron/Wade/Bosh really had already decided what they were going to do well beforehand and every other team including the Bulls and Knicks might have never really been in the running to begin with.
That is completely crazy. Kirilenko, Budinger, Roy and Shved should be about a million time better than Beasley, Wes Johnson, Wayne Ellington and Anthony Tolliver. Their wings were just shockingly terrible last year.
As for Ceballos, I love the guy when he's not near Havasu, but it was once said of him (paraphrasing badly): "if the other team's offense is a fire, he's gasoline."
STEAGLES--
Look at the upside: it means the people at Bynum's presser are thinking Finals showdown vs. the Evil Purple-and-Gold Empire.
Beckley Mason has a piece up on Bynum and double-teams at TrueHoop. I won't link it because I didn't think it was that great, but you might want to check it out.
Don't flatter yourself, Laker fan. The "Beat LA" chant was obviously a reference to the Clippers. :)
PG- Hill, Augustin
SG- George, Stephenson
SF- Granger, Green
PF- West, Hansbrough
C- Hibbert, Mahinmi
That team was up 2-1 on Miami (granted, shorthanded) and seems to have improved since transitioning away from Collison as the PG. West is the only obvious candidate for regression, and he is buttressed by George as an even more likely breakout candidate. Stephenson, Green, and Mahinmi also have varying degrees of upside. They have a good coach, a smart (even if tumultuous) front office, a good home court with great fans, and do not appear to have any cohesiveness issues. I think they will be my pick for second in the east. I doubt Boston will push much in mid-season; they have a practice of preferring to be healthy for the playoffs. I think they are clearly deeper than NY or BK without much difference on the front line. Those two are top-heavy teams, but how much better is Anthony/Chandler/Amare or Williams/Johnson/Wallace than Granger/Hibbert/West? Not much, and George could surge into that trio and make it even more muddled.
Look at the upside: it means the people at Bynum's presser are thinking Finals showdown vs. the Evil Purple-and-Gold Empire.
It also apparently means that, among diehard Sixers fans, STEAGLES is eminently reasonable and moderate.
Rodman was a big name, but not necessarily in a good way. Everyone recognized that he was good at basketball, but I don't think very many teams were willing to put up with the baggage.
This seems to be the consensus, but Hill isn't a true PG and Collison did have several big games for them in the playoffs. I'm also not sold on Augustin - he seems better suited to be a backup, but I'm not sure he's any good at all. I wouldn't be surprised to see Hibbert take a step back, and Granger will turn 30 during the season. I'm a huge George fan, but if he doesn't break out I'm not sure how good they really will be. OTOH, they're going to beat up on their division, and they are set up as a really good regular season team so I wouldn't argue predicting them for the #2 overall seed (I may have done that too, but can't remember).
I would argue that outside of George and now Plumlee (who isn't going to see many minutes), they are not a very athletic team, so that part of the Denver comparison wouldn't work.
Chicago is a very interesting and cool city, but it is not NY and it's cold as hell.
Exactly. It's funny how there are so many fewer marquee cities when it comes to basketball than baseball, hockey or football.
And, of course, Rose, a Chicago guy, re-upped at the first opportunity, and if he had been drafted by another team might well have become a Bull some day.
Good point. But there are plenty of Chicago guys who also haven't shown any real interest in coming back - KG, Wade, etc. Just like Howard hasn't shown any real interest in going home to Atlanta.
One thing though; in the same sense that the Boozer Plan B (or C or D) signing and the Rodman "we're one of the few franchises stable enough to handle this nutjob" signing aren't necessarily evidence that the Bulls are a destination city, I think the 2000 and 2010 offseasons aren't necessarily evidence that they're not.
Agree, I'm just saying that unfortunately there's *no* evidence that the Bulls are a destination city/team.
San Antonio was really burnt out on Rodman when they traded him away, if I recall correctly. If there was a single season that contributed the most to Rodman's reputation of being crazy, it was the final season with the Spurs.
But the other side is I do believe--I could be wrong!--that Atlanta is seen as maybe the most desirable city in America for black professionals. The Capital of Black America talk is probably overdone, but still I think it's a place that is much desirable among well-educated black people than among well-educated whites. The number of black professionals in NYC who are willing to move to Atlanta seems, anecdotally, so much higher than the number of white professionals.
You would think that would translate to popularity among NBA players, of all people, but maybe their interest is really in celebrity culture, where NY, LA, and Miami are obviously and always will be in a different league.
EDIT: In terms of puzzling through the desirability of ATL I don't think the fan apathy can be underrated. Or the fact that, as we've mentioned in these sorts of discussions in the past, it's not like these guys necessarily always have to live wherever their "home" team is.
Incidentally, though I root for Atlanta teams pretty much across the board, I have no desire to live there.
Your definitely right. I was one of the black professionals (went to Morehouse and stayed for over a decade), though I left a little over 3 years ago. I didn't like living there as much as many of my friends, but it is a place that has always had a strong middle/upper class black community since the civil rights era. So, despite being surrounded by less welcoming areas in Georgia, Atlanta companies executive ranks are about as diverse as you'll see anywhere in the country. The hidden secret is that a really high percentage of NFL/NBA player of note has a home there. I'm not the networking type, but I have a lot of friends who are and I've bumped into almost entire NBA team rosters while living there.
That's weird since Pippen was in 2k12.
And by all accounts, he could use any money he can get.
I like thinking that Pippen is the Sprewell of Sports video games, holding out for more money until the executives finally said FU we'll just put Grant Hill on the video game and act like you never happened.
It's very possible that's exactly it. Then again, maybe I shouldn't have said that.
Couldn't they just create some fake character to replace him using a different name and likeness but his same stats? I had some old NBA video game back in the early 90's - I don't even remember its name or what system it was for - that couldn't get an agreement with Jordan or Bird, so they had players with no pictures named Guard Bulls and Forward Celtics that had their exact stats instead.
I'd rather they do something like this. The Dream Team just ain't the same if they left Pip off entirely.
I would say, based on the number of rappers courtside, there's definite a celebrity culture in Atlanta too. Like 2072, I think it's mostly a Hawks-specific issue. It would be interesting to see what would happen if they got a celebrity face of the franchise as part of a new ownership group, a la Jay-Z's role in Brooklyn as discussed in the NYT today.
Right before I left ATL, they were actually trying to do a little of that. Lil' John (I'm guessing that he might be a little obscure), Usher, Ludacris and a few members of the Atlanta hip-hop/r&b were basically given free court level seats and a bunch of other perks to show up for games regularly. It's worked at the edges, but I'd say that the Atlanta community just doesn't embrace the Hawks like the Falcons or Braves. But they've never really embraced Georgia or GT (to a lesser extent) basketball, so I do think that Atlanta overall isn't really a basketball city for some reason.
Sure, but NY and LA and MIA, will, as noted, always be in a different league. Celebs following the Lakers goes back to the very early days of the franchise in LA, when Doris Day, Peter Falk, and James Garner were big fans in the early and mid-60s. Same for the Knicks, I assume. Some players don't care about that, but for those who do, it might be a pretty big draw. I expect that Dwight Howard is the type of guy who will get a big charge out of Denzel Washington and Leonardo DiCaprio being in the stands at his Lakers debut and getting a chance to gladhand with them.
The "celebrity culture" line is very perceptive. IMO big-time NBA guys are celebs more than they are "black professionals."
What?
(sorry)
Gerald Green is as well.
Never commented on this at the time, but the Ferry interview linked up top is pretty good.
I know the Suns have a great training staff, but Jermaine O'Neal? And to get O'Neal, some minor roster trimming:
This is reductionist and levels even beyond JO', but I like the idea of Oden going to Phoenix once he's "healthy".
Maybe the training staff requested a new project now that Nash and Hill have left town. You don't want their skills to get rusty.
Which team went 8-0 v. the East playoff teams last year?
(beating each team once)
also disqualified on that basis are golden state and utah.
But, since I already screwed up the question,
San Antonio lost at least 1, Miami
Utah lost at least 2, NY and Indiana
Golden State lost to Indiana and Philly
I'm going to guess Houston since I know they faced a short-handed Miami team and fell apart down the stretch when they would have mostly been playing West teams.
- Doug Collins, Philadelphia 76ers coach
Definitely true; it's a college football town where people watch the Braves to pass the time until next CFB season.
And even then, the Braves fan are notoriously for not selling out flipping playoff games.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main