|
|
|
|
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: [OTP-May] Politico: Congressional baseball game, May 1, 1926 (4426 - 1:47am, May 25)Last: Jay ZNewsblog: OT: The Soccer Thread, May 2013 (1162 - 1:30am, May 25)Last: puckNewsblog: OMNICHATTER for May 24, 2013 (93 - 1:14am, May 25)Last: cardsfanboyNewsblog: Marchman: Why Even Have Baseball's Draft? (7 - 12:43am, May 25)Last: cardsfanboyNewsblog: Curtis Granderson has fractured left pinky finger (8 - 12:33am, May 25)Last: Cowboy PopupNewsblog: Paul Daugherty: Old-v-New schools of thought (30 - 12:28am, May 25)Last: Walt DavisNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread - May 2013 (1274 - 11:52pm, May 24)Last: Best Dressed Chicken in TownNewsblog: FanGraphs: Cameron: The 2013 Cubs: Better Than We Think (43 - 11:50pm, May 24)Last: Hack WilsonNewsblog: MLB: Don Sutton never shy about voicing his opinion (13 - 11:05pm, May 24)Last: Dr. VauxNewsblog: Tangotiger Blog: Ensberg and Tango speak on being locked-in (72 - 10:26pm, May 24)Last: Tom TNewsblog: LATimes: Microsoft unveils new Xbox One console (39 - 10:16pm, May 24)Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)Newsblog: OT: NHL is finally back thread (377 - 10:09pm, May 24)Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)Newsblog: Fox Sports: McLouth catch earns thrown beverage (13 - 9:42pm, May 24)Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)Newsblog: HHS: Autin: Miguel Cabrera to the max (32 - 8:17pm, May 24)Last: DavidFossNewsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 5-24-2013 (19 - 7:28pm, May 24)Last: bobm
|
|
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.
That conceded, Mike Brown didn't impress anyone once he had the job and again, has been characterized by Windhorst and the Kamenetzky Brothers as a nice, hard-working guy who seems to lack the personal gravitas and suppleness of mind needed to be a really good NBA head coach. Those guys are anything but stereotypical media headhunters; indeed, they are known for their even-handedness. Certainly Brown's hiring was greeted with skepticism by many, including me, and he was heavily criticized in both 2009 and 2010 for his role in Cleveland's playoff losses (including by guys here). Given the age of the core and Howard's contract status, fair or not, I can see why they made the move.
Granted, I still think the Lakers have more than enough talent to become a force as the season progresses. And I imagine D'Antoni has a rapport with Kobe and Howard through Team USA (not to mention Nash, obviously).
And for the record I think the Lakers were wise to move on from Brown. Honestly I think they should have let him go after last season (or maybe after the trades were made). Better now than later, IMHO.
You always impute such motivation. I've made clear why I hoped he fails, and it has nothing to do with "being outside the Lakers fanbase." I was just sick of his parasitism, as I called it. Like PJ, I'm happy it's D'Antoni. Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I liked Brown. There is no way 5 games is a fair shake, unless your team quit which has nothing to do with Brown, but the players and the possibility of adding someone they're more fond of (i.e., it's not about the coaching). How this didn't get worked out prior to the season is beyond me. But given the injuries, the lack of time on the court together, and so on, 1-4 couldn't possibly have surprised anyone. At this point, I AM rooting for this to backfire on the Lakers, and it's not b/c I don't like them. I do. Since the Knicks haven't mattered for over a decade, I'll take the Lakers hammering the Celtics everyday and twice on gameday. But they did Brown wrong and I hope Karma gets them.
As to the move itself, like I said on the previous page, either Jackson or D'Antoni would need to make adjustments. Since it's D'Antoni, some elements of SSOL will need to scrapped/de-emphasized since the Lakers lack speed and shooters. One plus to it is that it pretty much ensures that Nash will be maximized if and when he is able to get out on the floor.
As to #304, both sides will be spinning. I would guess that money was a factor; the Lakers still owe Mike Brown $11M. The Lakers' public spin will be that they don't think the personnel fits the Triangle and they will leak to their media guys, like Bresnahan, that Phil wanted a massive deal and to miss a bunch of road games, that they weren't sure that he still has the fire in the belly. Phil's side, including Jeannie, probably, will leak stuff like what you see above. I have no idea what the truth is; probably some of both.
The funny thing is that even if Old Man Buss made the call on this, it will be seen as a Jim Buss decision and puts the pressure right back on him. Everyone mostly stopped bittching about him after the Howard deal, as they should have. If the Lakers had brought Jackson back, they would have backed off of Jim Buss pretty much entirely: bringing in two stars and bringing Phil back--not much else he could do. Now, unless D'Antoni gets the team to the Finals (and some people will do it if he doesn't win the whole thing), people will be tossing out "what-ifs" about the ZenMaster.
I am fairly optimistic about the hire; I think D'Antoni is smart enough to adjust, and my gut, FWIW,(not much) was telling me that going back to the well on Jackson and the Triangle would not have worked out that well--that a third time was one time too many. I am not optimistic about the team, however. Howard is still outstanding, obviously, but he doesn't look quite right to me, (lacks the explosiveness and quickness in space--seems to favor the back at times) and the Lakers have other problems. We'll see.
Not sure exactly what you're referring to with this term, but as a Jackson nonfan* from waaaaay back (mainly over what seems to be his insistence on coaching only in more or less ideal settings, without having to do anything even approaching heavy lifting), I really like it.
If you have a newsletter, subscription information would be much appreciated.
*The fact that I share a birthday, minus a few years, with the guy is a possible indication of the existence of a divine, mischievous power. Not to mention John Franco & Rasheed Wallace. Lord.
A huge number of fans, probably a majority of NBA fans who are not Lakers fans, dislike the Lakers; that's a simple fact. It is probably more common in the West than in the East save for Boston fans, where, as is the case with you, the same stuff is often directed at the Celtics. It wasn't about you per se, but wanting the Lakers to lose, whatever the "motivation", puts you into a very large group.
As to Brown, the NBA is a tough business, and coaching the Lakers is, in its way, one of the toughest gigs there is. As a Laker blogger said, it wasn't just being 1-4--it was how the team looked doing it. The only win was against Detroit, which appears to be headed for a totally disastrous season. None of the other games was particularly competitive, and they had actually had everybody available for the Dallas game. The best team they played was probably the Clippers, who are good but not great, and on a night when the Clippers didn't play that well, the Lakers never, at any time, looked like they were going to win. Brown had MWP, Jamison, and Ebanks playing out of position and was refusing to play Meeks at all. It is not that these guys are much or any good, but Brown was not doing his job, which is to put them into position to succeed as well as they are able to based on their skills.
And, yes, actually, I think people were "surprised" at 1-4. Every team has injuries; look at Minnesota, or Dallas. I think 3-2 or even 2-3, with a narrow loss at Utah, might have gotten Brown to the current homestand, which is long and has several weak opponents. But four wire-to-wire schoolings by middle-of-the-pack or worse teams? Sources say that no team has ever started 1-4 and won the NBA title.
This point is way overplayed. He kept coaching (successfully) in Chicago after Jordan and then Grant left; he came back to the Lakers when the team was Kobe, Odom, and a pile of crap, and he visibly improved the team, particularly on defense, so he does do a little "heavy lifting." He was still there, and, again, had moved the team forward, when the Gasol deal took them to the next level. Krause wanted him out as much as he wanted out when Jordan retired and the Bulls blew it up. It was a two-way street.
As to taking over the Kobe/Shaq Lakers in 2000, what was he supposed to do? Any available NBA coach would have killed for that gig.
Jackson is a bit like Tony LaRussa. He is pompous and his rep is at times overblown. There are a lot of reasons to dislike the guy on a visceral level, but the record is outstanding and it is not just a product of the guys he coached. Jordan, Pippen, Shaq, and Kobe didn't win until Phil got there.
Also, something anyone who hates Phil should know about him: at his exit presser in 2011, the first question was, "What has made you so successful?" His answer was, "Talent. I have coached some of the greatest talent ever to play this game."
Agreed. I feel weird because I now wouldn't mind the Lakers winning the title and could see myself cheering for them over most of the rest of their conference. Ugh. With D'antoni at the helm the Lakers won't have to worry as much about their weak bench since he keeps his rotation so tight (though I suppose now you will have to worry more about old guys getting hurt/fatigued). The other thing is that while people harp on his defensive record, as a Knick fan I felt the biggest weakness D'antoni had was his ability to get into stupid feuds with potentially useful end of rotation players. Since the end of the Laker rotation is so bad, this will also not be as much of an issue I imagine. I'm curious to see if Kobe will adhere to the system or just break it like world renowned multiple MVP and repeat NBA champion superstar Carmelo Anthony did.
I agree with JC here, and 309 doesn't change that. I, for one, would have loved to see Phil coach again and would have rooted for him. I'd rather this Lakers team win a title than the Heat (obviously the Celtics, too, but that's not a concern this year...). OTOH, I totally agree with the gist of 310, even though I think Phil is clearly better than TLR and would temper the overblown part of the comment.
---
Any Wolves fans with anything to say about the Bulls/Wolves game Saturday? I barely watched, and didn't enjoy what I saw. Hinrich got hurt, so NateRob is starting at PG for the Bulls tonight against the C's. Yuck.
Why do people hate Nate so much? He's a useful guy.
BOTH of them? ;-)
Put me in the "I'm glad the Lakers went with D'Antoni instead" camp. It's frustrating to me that a team could have an all time great coach on speed dial to come bail them out whenever they're struggling. If they'd given the job to Phil, that would have been the 3rd time he'd done exactly that. And no other teams have that luxury.
I do think the "parasitism" term is a bit strong, though. I've always been curious to see what he could do with an average team too (though I guess we sorta saw that with the 2006-2007 Lakers, but they still had Kobe in his 81 point prime), but I have no problem conceding that Jackson is the best coach of my lifetime (and I say that as someone who would have Jerry Sloan's babies if it were physically possible). Phil is one of the few if not only coaches around nowadays who I think could make just as big an impact on a teams record/title chances as any star player this side of LeBron.
They're the same person.
What's the general view of Pat Riley and his legacy? I guess he's not on Jackson's level but he's not far behind. Right?
Doesn't matter anyway, because Dorell Wright and Evan Turner are going to be All-Stars.
I think I picked the Lakers to win it, but I'd say it goes MIA, LAL, OKC, in that order. Anyone else is less than 5% chance, at best and would need an injury or other unforeseen event to 2 of the first 3 teams, and would include SA, BOS, and if you had asked me 2 weeks ago I'd also have included the Bulls.
There's a not insignificant gap, IMO.
I know. Hence the winking smiley.
I'd put the list of true contenders this season at exactly those 3 teams and no others. Actually, most seasons have only 3-4 true contenders. I don't like to get cute and give teams like the Clippers or the Grizzlies (last season) an "outside" shot at winning. They just won't.
The Clippers might be really good, even with Griffin injured and playing well below his ability they are the only team to beat both the Spurs and Grizzlies. I think the most notable development for the Clippers so far is that Eric Bledsoe is maintaining his production from the playoffs, if he can do that all year, they are going to be really tough.
Hey, that's a bit harsh to Phil. Nobody forced the Lakers or Bulls to fire their previous coaches and hire him. Pat made the decision to 'retire' from coaching when things got bad, and then 'unretire' when the team was better, and fired Stan Van Gundy who he hired, and then 'retired' again when the team was bad. He doesn't get credit for not doing it twice.
I'd definitely rate Jackson above Riley.
I suppose I'd take 5% for the Spurs too. Memphis, no way. It's been, what, six games? If they are playing this well at midseason still, maybe they should be considered.
Barring any major injuries, there haven't been enough games yet to change one's mind about any team.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I believe in Memphis. Also, the Lakers have clear question marks about their age and health. Oklahoma City is playing without Harden this year, even if Martin has been solid so far.
I missed the fourth quarter when the Bulls started to kind of pull away (watching UW-Utah game, so if you're a Ute fan, Booey, uhh, I guess I have the upper hand). Up to that point, the Wolves were once again not able to defend the opposing PG. They're 4-2. The 2 losses were to the Bulls where NateRob killed them, and to the Raptros where Lowry killed them. In two of their wins, Deron Williams led the Nets to a 22 point lead before they collapsed, and George Hill had a season high in points to almost overcome an otherwise very good team performance by himself. When Ridnour and Pekovic are on the court together, they really struggle to defend PGs. They do not help much, Ridnour cannot stay in front of anyone, and Pekovic is more of a one-on-one guy than a help defender.
So for the Bulls game, it looked from the play by play that the Bulls made a run late after Robinson had done most of his damage, so that's not the whole story. It could be getting ugly because Barea, Roy, and Budinger (under the knife) have joined Rubio and Love in street clothes. That leaves Ridnour, Shved, and Lee in the backcourt, and that's it. It's going to be a rough stretch until mid-December when they start coming back.
----
D'antoni vs. Jackson- I am not going to like the Lakers either way. I like both of those guys as coaches, but I probably like Jackson a bit more because he's my top competition in the greatest living North Dakotan rankings. Jackson would probably help a little more. I will be interested to see how the offense adjusts with D'antoni, and maybe even more interested to see how they decide to play defense. Any word on who he will bring on his staff?
5 percent, sure. But do you really consider a 5% chance to be a legit contender? I don't.
As a Clippers fan, this is what gives me hope. OKC minus Harden just doesn't seem like the impossible beast. The conference favourite, sure, but I think there is a realistic possibility that the Spurs, Grizzlies or Clippers could beat them. Then Chris Bosh gets hurt or something and poof, surprise NBA champions.
Eh. During the rare seasons when I've followed college sports, it was always the Utes. But I admit I haven't paid much attention since the Keith Van Horn/Andre Miller days.
1998 was a tough year for Utah basketball fans with both the Utes and Jazz losing in the Finals. It's been 14 years, but the Wildcats and Bulls can still both go to hell. :-)
5 percent, sure. But do you really consider a 5% chance to be a legit contender? I don't.
As we discussed in the preseason, well, yes and no. I'd group the contenders into two tiers - the second tier being "teams who are unlikely to win but have at least a punchers chance if everything breaks their way".
I guess if one has Memphis in this second tier, we can agree to disagree - though I wouldn't let what has happened to open the season make me think they should be in that group if I didn't think it before the season.
The Clippers I will buy as a "puncher's chance" contender before I buy Memphis. Heck, I'd take the Bulls over Memphis too.
Well, the counterargument here is that it was the most successful year for "Utah basketball" in history.
Well, in my lifetime, anyway. I think the Utes did win an NCAA title sometime in the '40's and I know the Utah Stars won an ABA title in the '70's.
Edit: Yep, Utes won NCAA title in 1944 and NIT championship (whatever that is) in 1947. Stars won ABA title in 1971. Hooray for things that happened before I was born.
I was talking football for the UW-Utah game, but fair enough. I had a Utah Mountain Dew cap in 1998 so I would have won a jersey if they took the title. Very disappointing.
I didn't realize you could fill a Family Feud category with "The Worst Decisions Made By A Championship Contenter This Season".
D'oh! Even for someone who follows college sports as little as I do, I should've known that you were talking about football, being you know, football season and all. All I know about Utes football is that we had two undefeated seasons in the last decade back when we were playing in a conference that doesn't matter.
It was the year that brought Michael Doleac and Hanno Möttölä to national prominence. A year like none other.
LOL! I distinctly remember a play where they won on a tip in at the buzzer off of an inbounds pass. That might have been earlier when Van Horn was there. It also could have been Doleac. I think the takeaway from this discussion is that Rick Majerus was and is a heck of a coach.
Minnesota is without Love, Rubio, Barea, Budinger (torn meniscus, ugh), and probably Roy.
Dallas is without Nowitzki, Marion, and possibly Carter.
On the bright side, we're finally going to get to see that Shved-Mayo showdown we've all been waiting for.
but, getting to ~12-4 or 11-5 at the end of november shouldn't at all be an issue. they have games against milwaukee, detroit, toronto, cleveland, dallas, phoenix, and charlotte (and utah and OKC) leading into december, and even without bynum (and without brown, and without richardson), they should be able to power through that.
Yeah. He's one of those that makes me wonder why a great college coach couldn't be a great NBA coach. In his case, I think he just wasn't interested.
There's also a story of him having a team manager hold out a towel for him to *($# into during a practice or something, when he didn't want to stop and go to the bathroom.
Its not frustrating to me -- its just another inequality in a league full of inequalities. Some teams spend more money. Some teams have LeBron James. Some teams have terrible owners.
That, and I like to see greatness doing great things. Mostly players, but all-time great coaches like Jackson and Popovich are also enjoyable.
if you add phil jackson to that, they might be able to go head to head with the best in the west.
Those inequalities aren't all along the same lines. Terrible or cheap owners are the teams own fault and don't deserve any sympathy.
If Donald Sterling wasn't incredibly cheap and was only interested in headlines like Woody Johnson, he would totally fire VDN and spite hire Phil. And his team would get significantly better as a nice by-product. Good call.
I have never that I recall said that you actively dislike the Lakers. If I did, I was wrong. You are, like JC and many Eastern fans, much more anti-Celtic, but that doesn't change the truth of what I said about the Lakers. The Lakers are more or less the Yankees of the NBA these days. However, you are touchy about Jordan/Bulls and therefore about some Kobe stuff (one example--when Kobe scored 42 with the bad finger in CHI a couple of years ago, you said that he had to be "lying" about the injury). There are other examples that I could give. Like everybody else, you have your biases and you stick up for your guys. Those realities apply when you talk about the Lakers, and about Bryant.
---
It is hard to picture Phil working for Donald Sterling, and Donald Sterling paying for Phil, but if Phil really feels snubbed or whatever, then you never know, I suppose. That would be quite an angle for ESPN.
Lakers fans on the blog I hang out at are a little bummed but intrigued by D'Antoni. Part of that is that there was some bad blood between the teams and the two coaches during the SSOL era since the Suns took the Lakers out in the playoffs two straight years, and because Nash complained openly about the Gasol deal. As I said when the rumors started, picking D'Antoni over Jackson was really a way for Buss Jr to stick it to Phil, so some people are upset because they think this is a petty personal thing and that is why Phil is not the coach.
I would guess that Phoenix fans have some strange feelings about Nash and D'Antoni reuniting with the Lakers.
Start thinking about how small of a percentage each team has, though.
You can start at 50% for the West. The Spurs 5-10%. And I think Memphis, Clippers, and Denver are a combined 5-10%. Everyone else is a wild card few percent. It's hard for me to see OKC as some clearly better team than the Spurs, and give them a big boost. The Spurs were the best regular season team each of the last two years, and I don't see any reason why they're not well built for the post-season either if they're healthy. They did win 10 straight games in the playoffs last year. The Lakers are easy - if Dwight Howard isn't 100%, they're not winning the title. Period. And there seems to be some serious concern about that - generally, I'd expect a player with a back injury to be resting it instead of trying to play through it and potentially further injure it. They're both about 15%, which really isn't that different from where the Spurs are (unless you think the Spurs are exactly 5%, in which case I disagree.
I really think the West is extremely wide open over the last couple of years and that is why it's extremely difficult to predict any series. Dallas can sweep the Lakers because they catch fire from 3. San Antonio can lose to Memphis. Oklahoma City can send Dirk to the line 25 times a game.
As to Dallas, I think people simply underrated them (they were 2-7 or so IIRC without Nowitzki) some, and they also shot unusually well from 3 in many key post-season games.
San Antonio could be on a similar track this season.
The Bucks won by 9 on the road in a game, despite 23 turnovers and the Sixers shooting 10-24 from 3.
The Sixers are simply not a very good team without Bynum. Richardson looked fairly healthy. Hawesome update: 3-11. Holliday looked really good, despite having 8 turnovers. He was abusing Jennings and Udrih. On the flip side, Jennings went crazy. Monta Ellis is actually a fun player to root for. He may not be good at defense, but he does try. Evan Turner for the most part was a passenger in the game.
Dorrell Wright played pretty well. The Bucks are the better team.
1, evan turner and dorell wright combined for 22, 8, 5 assists, 4 steals, and a block. the bucks shot 50+% so there weren't a whole lot of defensive boards available. turner just wasn't very good, and wright didn't score a point in the 2nd half. they were a combined -33, and yeah, it felt that way,
2, dispencer hawesome update: 6 points, 5 rebounds and an assist on 3/11 shooting. i'd say that's a 5:95 hawesome:HAHAwes ratio.
3, jason richardson was the player of the game tonight. he was a +12 in 36 minutes, which means that in the 12 minutes when he wasn't on the floor, the sixers were outscored by 21. he had 20 points on 8/16 shooting, and i think he scored 10 of the sixers first 12 points, which was kind of important because milwaukee hit their first 9 shots. when the sixers were able to tighten the game up in the 3rd and 4th quarters, it was because richardson kept the bucks' lead to a manageable margin in the first quarter.
other randoms:
..jrue holiday still has the turnover thing going. he came into the game averaging ~5 turnovers per game, and today he had 8. that's not good, but he's also handling the ball a whole hell of a lot more than he has since was in highschool, so hopefully this is just a brief adjustment period, and he'll ratchet those down when games start to matter.
..the sixers played a lot of minutes with thad young at the 5 tonight, and i can't help but feel that that is not a good idea.
Epic game. Beware the 3 point machine that is Paul Millsap (3-4 this game, 8-12 so far this season).
Not good. But as I've said before, they were one of only two teams in the 20+ years that I've been following the NBA that wouldn't have been in my top 4 preseason picks (2004 Pistons are the other). If I'm wrong about this once a decade or so, I can live with that success rate.
Also, if I ranked every team from most likely to least likely to win the title, the Spurs would be my 4th pick, so they wouldn't really buck my success rate that much if they won. But yes, I think they probably have lower odds than the 4th best team would in most years.
I don't know how to look that up, but yeah, it seems that every 3 he makes is in crunch time of a close game. Love it.
Not quite as good as I would've guessed. 8/15 in 2011 though.
Edit: thanks Der K! That's more like it! :-)
Dammit, you cannot take this away from me. It was the Bulls both years. Bulls were one game better in 10-11 (and they split the season series) and they were tied last year, but Bulls won the only head to head matchup. In advanced stats, Bulls had the better SRS both years, too (although the Heat 1st in the league in 10-11 by this).
And the reason I'm still living in the past here is games like last night. The C's really exposed the Bulls' defense in the first half, and that started with Rondo on Robinson, and the Celtics did everything they could to get Boozer involved in the defensive play (screens mostly) and it consistently ended up with open shots. Bulls made a nice run late, but couldn't tie it because of missed FT's, horrible offense possessions (this is Teague's fault*) and defensive breakdowns that gave the C's like 3 dunks in the last minutes (2 oops to KG and one wide open one to Bass).
*So NateRob was closing games even when Hinrich was starting. Then NateRob starts because of the Hinrich injury, and Teague - who's only played in 2 previous games - plays almost the entire 4th quarter. WTF, Thibs? I am all for getting him experience, but he's not NBA ready yet, and if last night was him trying for a win - and I'd think a 3 point game with 5 mins left and one where Deng plays over 45 minutes definitely it - then playing Teague down the stretch, no matter how much Robinson was struggling, is just asking for a loss.
---
Back to the Spurs for a minute. I don't see why they're any better than either of the last 2 years. The best players are all older, and a big part of their regular season advantage is their depth - which is somewhat negated in the playoffs (as much as it pains me as a Bulls fan to admit that). I'm not sure any of their guys are elite anymore (Manu probably is, but the lack of minutes diminishes that somewhat). In fact, the more I think about it, the more I'm starting to think the Clippers are more likely to come out of a "open" West than the Spurs, just because of Paul and Griffin. It has been amazing to watch the Spurs transform into an elite offensive team, but I think a lot of that is helped by their bench and has hurt their defense at the same time.
I gather that the NIT was a much bigger deal than the NCAAs back then, actually. Up until, maybe, the early to mid-'50s, even.
I don't think the Spurs are better than last year, but I don't think they have to be in order to be legit contenders. The Spurs stomped the Clippers in the playoffs last year (after sweeping Utah). Duncan and Parker may not be elite but they're at least borderline all-stars. Neal, Danny Green, Leonard, and Splitter all took steps forward last season and look like they could do it again this year.
Having depth doesn't matter as much in the playoffs, but I don't think it matters as little as people seem to say either. Bench and role players are going to still be playing a lot of minutes for almost every team and it is important that those minutes are good. A big reason Miami lost 2 years ago in the Finals is because the role players sucked, and a big reason OKC lost last year is because everyone besides Durant and Westbrook struggled.
While it's hard for me to look past my fanboyism when it comes to the Jazz, I do think they should be an entertaining team to watch this season, even from an impartial POV. We've got a fun blend of exciting youngens and in prime vets, and while I don't expect them to win 50 games or make it past the first round, I'm sure gonna enjoy watching them try. I'm actually more excited about this season than I have been in years.
Booey, how do you feel about dealing with one or both of Milsap and Jefferson? As an unbiased fan of the game (and biased fantasy owner of Kanter and Favors in most of my leagues) I think I would want at least one of them gone since they're not going to be a part of the proverbial next great Jazz team. Might as well collect some assets for them while handing over FT jobs and greater opportunity for development to two extremely promising bigs.
As I think I'm learning the hard way, the role players are only playing that many minutes because the top players aren't or can't. As much as I like guys like Neal or Green, if they're playing minutes instead of Parker or Ginobli in the playoffs it's not a good thing. The Heat 2 years ago lost because of whatever happened to LeBron more than anything, and the Thunder lost last year for the same reason (LeBron). I don't think either occurrence is an argument in favor for any of the non top 3 teams this year; IOW, the Spurs or Bulls or whoever at their best aren't beating the Lakers or Thunder or Heat at their best. So in order for any other team to win, they need to beat at least 2 of those teams not at their best.
This is kind of the elephant in the room for Jazz fans this season; as much as I love Paul and Al - and my favorite lineup is when Corbin goes big with Favors/Millsap/Jefferson as the front line - it seems impossible that at least one of Millsap and Jefferson won't have to go soon. We've got too big of a logjam with bigs and Favors and Kanter definitely need more minutes to continue their development. Al and Paul are still probably our two best players now, but both have been the same guys for a few years now, so neither seems likely to take another step forward. They are what they are, and what they are isn't going to win you more than 45-50 games, tops. If Favors or Kanter have even an outside shot at being better than that (and I think Favors totally does), then you've got to take the chance.
If I had to pick, I'd rather Jefferson was sent packing than Millsap. Paul makes less money and he's been a Jazzman since the beginning, and I'm all for team/player loyalty. With Al gone, I'd move Favors into the starting lineup at center, and Kanter can get more minutes backing up both the C and PF positions. Millsap could even get some minutes at the 3 when Marvin Williams sits so Corbin could still run a big lineup at times with Favors/Millsap/Kanter as our front line.
My only concern is that we won't get equal value if we traded Jefferson. His defense is limited, obviously, but he's still one of the best offensive centers in the league (19.2 pts, 9.6 boards last year), and true back-to-the-basket post up centers like him just don't grow on trees anymore. Put him on a team like the Spurs or Celtics that have a big PF that can anchor the defense so Al doesn't have to, and I think he could be a very valuable player to a fringe contender. And we shouldn't give up someone like that for cheap. I'd like to see us use him as tradebait to improve our guardline, but only if we don't panic and jump at an inferior offer.
Even the best guys are only playing like 38-40 minutes a game. Yeah, that's a lot, but there's still about a quarter's worth of minutes going to backups for each of those positions, not to mention the other lesser starters many contenders have, and their backups.
And I don't, which is the heart of the discussion. It's also too early in the season for me to change my mind, also, although I'm not sure anything that's happened so far changes that (although it's closer than before the Harden trade, for sure). So I guess we pick this back up in April?
Phil has played this perfectly. I kind of get the feeling he didn't want to do it, but he asked for the moon, the stars, and part of the sun. Knowing full well, that if he didn't get it, the media would hammer the Lakers and not criticize him at all. Which is exactly whats happened
Talk about a move with repercussions.
Steve Blake will miss tonight's game against SA, so Morris starts at the 1. Also, the D'Antoni hire has started the Pau trade spec machine up again.
Nope, never clicked on the link and thought the caption sounded plausible. I guess I need to recalibrate my expectations from the Buss family.
I'm very disappointed that it wasn't real.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main