Let's face it: just about 90% of the teams in the NBA suck. Even teams like the Oklahoma City Thunder, with the Jordan-in-the-making Kevin Durant, will never win anything. No, the NBA is really a three-team league. And those four teams are the Boston Celtics, the Los Angeles Lakers, the Orlando Magic, and the Miami Heat.
These four teams get it. What I mean is that they understand that you need more than one star to make things click. By my count, the Celtics have at least four legitimate stars (Garnett, Allen, Pierce, Rondo), the Lakers have three-and-a-half (Bryant, Gasol, Bynum, Artest), and the Heat and the Magic each have three (Heat: Wade, Bosh, James; Magic: Howard, Lewis, Carter). But really, only two of these teams have any shot of making the Finals: the Lakers and the Celtics. There are plenty of reasons why.
Reason #1: Nobody in the NBA can guard Rajon Rondo - In his ridiculous TV special, LeBron James dropped Rondo's name as a type of player he'd like to play with: a point guard capable of getting him the ball and creating his own shot when the other options don't pan out. James was confident that Mario Chalmers can fill that role. The only problem is, Mario Chalmers is not Rajon Rondo, and Rondo is on the Boston Celtics, not the Miami Heat. And it's going to be a long season in Miami if they're going to wait for Chalmers to somehow become Rondo. Not going to happen.
Reason #2: Nobody in the West can guard Pau Gasol - This is incredibly important. With big men Stoudemire and Boozer leaving for greener pastures in the East (New York and Chicago, respectively), the crop of talented big men in the West is depleted. The only guys who even have a chance of keeping Gasol under 20 points a game are Minnesota's Kevin Love, Memphis' Zach Randolph, David Lee of the Warriors, Dirk Nowitzki of the Mavs, Al Jefferson of the Jazz, Tim Duncan of the Spurs, and the young front line on the Sacramento Kings. That leaves the Suns, the Clippers, the Thunder, the Rockets, the Nuggets, and the Hornets without answers. The Lakers can't exactly take it easy against those six teams, but they don't have to be as diversified in their attacks to win.
Reason #3: LeBron James doesn't know how to win a game in the final two minutes - There's only so much you can blame on former Cavs coach Mike Brown and GM Danny Ferry for the lack of a Cavs title. Yes, Brown made head-scratching substitutions and never allowed his team to create a flow when it mattered. Yes, he was probably the worst coach of a good team. And you can lay blame on Ferry for not surrounding LeBron with top-flight talent. I remember a number of people telling me how good Mo Williams was though I never saw it nor bought it. But the Cavs lived and died by LeBron James. And to his credit, he was probably the single-best player in the game for the past few years. But that doesn't excuse him not being able to hit free throws when they mattered. Nor does it excuse the fact that he couldn't deliver consistently in the playoffs. I don't see him maturing on the Heat. I see him not understanding why every play doesn't revolve around him.
Reason #4: Chris Bosh is in for a rude wake-up - Bosh started last season as a monster, crashing the boards and leading the offense for the Raptors. Then he got hurt, and for the rest of the season he was above-average, not spectacular. Not a particularly stellar season, especially since he did not make the players around him better; Toronto finished near the bottom of the East. That in and of itself is not all that interesting. What's interesting about it is that Antawn Jamison, a similar player to Bosh, was traded to the Cavs at last year's deadline and did not make the team all that much better, even though he was a legitimate star teaming up with LeBron James. So, if history proves correct, then that's two out of the Heat's three stars who don't make their teammates better. I see Bosh ending up as a high-profile role player: a big guy who will have to accept that his job is crashing the boards for put-backs and kicking it out to Wade and James for jumpers.
Reason #5: The NBA and its referees love Kobe Bryant and the Lakers - I don't see why this is so hard to believe. The NBA, for all it's fanfare about each team having a shot at the title, is superstar-centric. If your team has a superstar, calls will go your way and you're probably going to win. Here's a list of undeniable superstars:
1. Kobe Bryant, Lakers
2. Kevin Durant, Thunder
3. LeBron James, Heat
4. Dwyane Wade, Heat
5. Steve Nash, Suns
6. Dirk Nowitzki, Mavs
7. Carmelo Anthony, Nuggets
8. Derrick Rose, Bulls
9. Chris Paul, Hornets
10. Paul Pierce, Celtics
11. Pau Gasol, Lakers
12. Tim Duncan, Spurs
13. Dwight Howard, Magic
14. Kevin Garnett, Celtics
16. Deron Williams, Jazz
Notice how there's no one on there from about 20 teams? Yeah, those 20 teams aren't going to make it very far in the playoffs, if they make it at all.
Reason #6: The Celtics are talented from the top guy down to the tenth man - This is important because the Heat aren't. Let's take a look at their rosters side by side:
Celtics
1. Paul Pierce, F
2. Rajon Rondo, G
3. Kevin Garnett, F
4. Ray Allen, G
5. Kendrick Perkins, C (INJ)
6. Glen Davis, F
7. Jermaine O'Neal, F/C
8. Nate Robinson, G
9. Shaquille O'Neal, C
10. Marquis Daniels, G
11. Avery Bradley, G
12. Semih Erden, C
Heat
1. Dwyane Wade, G
1a. LeBron James, F
3. Chris Bosh, F
4. Mike Miller, G/F
5. Mario Chalmers, G
6. Udonis Haslem, F
7. Carlos Arroyo, G
8. Joel Anthony, C
9. Eddie House, G
10. Juwan Howard, F
11. Zydrunas Ilgauskas, C
12. Dexter Pittman, C
The Celtics don't have a #1 and #1a, like the Heat. What the Celtics have is roster cohesion. Believe me, the other nine guys on the Heat know that they are there to get Bosh, James, and Wade the ball and get out of the way. But what happens when Bosh is on the bench with four fouls, James is having an off-night and Wade is hurt? Is there enough chemistry on the floor for Arroyo to start chucking up shots?
---
Jeff Van Gundy famously predicted that the Miami Heat will shatter the Chicago Bulls' single-season record of 72 wins, and they very well could, simply because about 90% of the NBA sucks right now. Here's a list of the teams they can beat handily:
Los Angeles Clippers
New Orleans Hornets
New York Knicks
New Jersey Nets
Philadelphia 76ers
Washington Wizards
Cleveland Cavaliers
Minnesota Timberwolves
Milwaukee Bucks
Detroit Pistons
Memphis Grizzlies
Indiana Pacers
Houston Rockets (without Yao)
Phoenix Suns
Sacramento Kings
{That's about half the league right there, so a guaranteed 36 wins and one or two losses. This next group is harder to beat:
Golden State Warriors
Chicago Bulls
Denver Nuggets
Oklahoma City Thunder
Atlanta Hawks
Dallas Mavericks
San Antonio Spurs
The Heat will probably get about nine wins here, with seven losses. As for the elite teams:
Los Angeles Lakers
Boston Celtics
Orlando Magic
These are more evenly matched, and I see the Heat finishing with a middling record against these three, so three wins against three losses.
I just don't see the Heat as world-beaters. They're going to be very, very good because other teams won't know how to prepare, at least at the beginning of the season. I'm guessing they'll win close to 60-63 games.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
How I See the NBA Off-Season Playing Out
The only person who knows what LeBron wants to do is LeBron. I'm guessing he will allow himself to be wooed by Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Miami, New Jersey, New York and Washington. He won't want to play for the Clippers, for a lot of reasons (no. 1 being the bat-shit crazy owner, and no. 2 that he'd be second fiddle to Kobe in LA).
I also see him ending up with a team like the Celtics or Atlanta, teams that already have the pieces in place to win and the pieces to do a sign and trade with Cleveland.
Whichever team he decides is the best fit, the remaining free agents will fall in once he makes a decision. So, if he waits til September to make a decision, some guys will get screwed (like Bosh, Boozer, Nowitzki, Rudy Gay, D-Wade, Joe Johnson). I think the likelihood of James and another max player ending up on the same team is low, simply because these free agents are not at the point in their careers where they'd be willing to be the second banana. It's one thing for LeBron to give Kobe a run for his spotlight in LA, but another thing entirely to share the spotlight on the same team.
There's really no way this would happen, but let's say that the Celtics do somehow land the big fish. Who would they trade? ESPN.com's trade machine isn't a good buoy because it's based entirely on the money working out, not common sense. Ray Allen would be a good trade piece, as would young guys like Tony Allen, Nate Robinson and Big Baby Davis. Then you'd have a starting five of Perkins/Garnett/James/Pierce/Rondo. The starters would have to score 75+ points every game, because the team would have no bench after Rasheed Wallace. The key would be that LeBron, Rondo and Perkins would terrorize the Eastern Conference for the next five years.
If, much more likely, LeBron goes to the Knicks, and Wade goes to the Nets, the Atlantic Division will be enjoyable to watch, with more than half of the teams capable of posting winning records (yes: Celtics, Knicks, Nets; no: Toronto, Philadelphia).
The "LeBron Stays in Cleveland" scenario gained steam yesterday with the Cavs firing Mike Brown, the winner of the Worst Coach of a Good Team award nearly three years running. With Brown out of the picture, does Avery Johnson or someone like Stan Van Gundy drop what they're doing and woo LeBron to stay?
And speaking of free agent coaches, if Doc Rivers voluntarily ends his tenure in Boston and assistant Thibodeau gets a head coaching gig somewhere else, how many minutes pass before Ainge is on the phone to Kevin McHale?
I also see him ending up with a team like the Celtics or Atlanta, teams that already have the pieces in place to win and the pieces to do a sign and trade with Cleveland.
Whichever team he decides is the best fit, the remaining free agents will fall in once he makes a decision. So, if he waits til September to make a decision, some guys will get screwed (like Bosh, Boozer, Nowitzki, Rudy Gay, D-Wade, Joe Johnson). I think the likelihood of James and another max player ending up on the same team is low, simply because these free agents are not at the point in their careers where they'd be willing to be the second banana. It's one thing for LeBron to give Kobe a run for his spotlight in LA, but another thing entirely to share the spotlight on the same team.
There's really no way this would happen, but let's say that the Celtics do somehow land the big fish. Who would they trade? ESPN.com's trade machine isn't a good buoy because it's based entirely on the money working out, not common sense. Ray Allen would be a good trade piece, as would young guys like Tony Allen, Nate Robinson and Big Baby Davis. Then you'd have a starting five of Perkins/Garnett/James/Pierce/Rondo. The starters would have to score 75+ points every game, because the team would have no bench after Rasheed Wallace. The key would be that LeBron, Rondo and Perkins would terrorize the Eastern Conference for the next five years.
If, much more likely, LeBron goes to the Knicks, and Wade goes to the Nets, the Atlantic Division will be enjoyable to watch, with more than half of the teams capable of posting winning records (yes: Celtics, Knicks, Nets; no: Toronto, Philadelphia).
The "LeBron Stays in Cleveland" scenario gained steam yesterday with the Cavs firing Mike Brown, the winner of the Worst Coach of a Good Team award nearly three years running. With Brown out of the picture, does Avery Johnson or someone like Stan Van Gundy drop what they're doing and woo LeBron to stay?
And speaking of free agent coaches, if Doc Rivers voluntarily ends his tenure in Boston and assistant Thibodeau gets a head coaching gig somewhere else, how many minutes pass before Ainge is on the phone to Kevin McHale?
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Why the Cavs Will Lose: The Magical Disappearance of Antawn Jamison
If you look at the history of the NBA, the truly elite teams had more than one superstar on their roster. The Celtics of the 1950s and 1960s are great examples, as are the Knick teams of the early 1970s, the 76er teams of the early 1980s, the Laker and Celtic teams of the mid-1980s, the Piston teams of the early 1990s, the Bulls teams of the 1990s, and the Laker teams of the early 2000s. Conversely, the teams that fell short routinely had a weaker lineup.
I bring this up because not only am I fascinated with the Empty Numbers Theory (something I made up), but I'm convinced that this year's Cleveland Cavaliers team is not an elite team and, as currently assembled, has no shot of winning this or any championship.
First, the Empty Numbers Theory: A good or even great player on a weak team will put up inflated statistics simply because there's no one else on the team to do it. Even bad teams put up 70 - 100 points a game, and those points have to come from somewhere. Performing well on a bad team can have two results: either the player accepts it and plays to pad his stats, or he becomes so motivated to win that he lobbies hard to change his situation.
(The opposite of the Empty Numbers Theory is the Dwight Howard Effect – mediocre players who put up inflated statistics on great teams because of a once-in-a-generation type of teammate (for example, the presence of Dwight Howard on Hedo Turkoglu's stats).)
League history is littered with stars putting up empty numbers on bad and mediocre teams. A great current example of this is Antawn Jamison. When he was on the Wizards, he averaged over 20 points a game for five years. But how many games did those Wizard teams win? Over the five-year period, Jamison's Wizards squads put up a high yearly win total of 45 games (2004-2005), and a low of 19 (2008-2009).
We all know what happens when a Dwight Howard Effect player moves to a situation where he's more of a focus (see Turkoglu on the Raptors), but what about when an Empty Numbers guy joins a good team?
I think it goes back to that player's mindset: he either is playing for the stats or is playing to win. I don't know how Jamison approaches the game, but because he hasn't really shown himself in this Cavaliers/Celtics series, I would have to say he hasn't changed his mindset from his bad-team days and is playing for the stats. And that will cripple the Cavaliers' chances of beating the Celtics.
Now, about this year's Cavalier team. The big problem is that they are built around LeBron James. This in and of itself is not a problem; James is a bona fide superstar. If the team wasn't built around his game, heads would roll.
But there are problems with his game that he hasn't addressed, ones that hold him back from establishing himself as a winner in a league that desperately wants him to be a winner. For one, he disappears when his team is down (unlike Dwyane Wade). Second, he isn't automatic from the free-throw line (unlike Kobe or Durant). Third, his presence on the floor doesn't make his teammates better (unlike Dwight Howard). LeBron James is mortal, and that really hurts his current team – and, unless he improves his game, any future team he's on.
Which comes back to my original point: teams need more than one superstar to be elite. Look at the great teammates: Cousy, Sharman, Jones and Russell; West, Baylor and Chamberlain; Frazier, Bradley and Reed; Kobe and Shaq; Jordan and Pippen; Bird, McHale, Parish and Dennis Johnson; Magic, Kareem and Worthy; Hakeem and Drexler; Garnett, Pierce, Allen and Rondo. James and ... who?
I bring this up because not only am I fascinated with the Empty Numbers Theory (something I made up), but I'm convinced that this year's Cleveland Cavaliers team is not an elite team and, as currently assembled, has no shot of winning this or any championship.
First, the Empty Numbers Theory: A good or even great player on a weak team will put up inflated statistics simply because there's no one else on the team to do it. Even bad teams put up 70 - 100 points a game, and those points have to come from somewhere. Performing well on a bad team can have two results: either the player accepts it and plays to pad his stats, or he becomes so motivated to win that he lobbies hard to change his situation.
(The opposite of the Empty Numbers Theory is the Dwight Howard Effect – mediocre players who put up inflated statistics on great teams because of a once-in-a-generation type of teammate (for example, the presence of Dwight Howard on Hedo Turkoglu's stats).)
League history is littered with stars putting up empty numbers on bad and mediocre teams. A great current example of this is Antawn Jamison. When he was on the Wizards, he averaged over 20 points a game for five years. But how many games did those Wizard teams win? Over the five-year period, Jamison's Wizards squads put up a high yearly win total of 45 games (2004-2005), and a low of 19 (2008-2009).
We all know what happens when a Dwight Howard Effect player moves to a situation where he's more of a focus (see Turkoglu on the Raptors), but what about when an Empty Numbers guy joins a good team?
I think it goes back to that player's mindset: he either is playing for the stats or is playing to win. I don't know how Jamison approaches the game, but because he hasn't really shown himself in this Cavaliers/Celtics series, I would have to say he hasn't changed his mindset from his bad-team days and is playing for the stats. And that will cripple the Cavaliers' chances of beating the Celtics.
Now, about this year's Cavalier team. The big problem is that they are built around LeBron James. This in and of itself is not a problem; James is a bona fide superstar. If the team wasn't built around his game, heads would roll.
But there are problems with his game that he hasn't addressed, ones that hold him back from establishing himself as a winner in a league that desperately wants him to be a winner. For one, he disappears when his team is down (unlike Dwyane Wade). Second, he isn't automatic from the free-throw line (unlike Kobe or Durant). Third, his presence on the floor doesn't make his teammates better (unlike Dwight Howard). LeBron James is mortal, and that really hurts his current team – and, unless he improves his game, any future team he's on.
Which comes back to my original point: teams need more than one superstar to be elite. Look at the great teammates: Cousy, Sharman, Jones and Russell; West, Baylor and Chamberlain; Frazier, Bradley and Reed; Kobe and Shaq; Jordan and Pippen; Bird, McHale, Parish and Dennis Johnson; Magic, Kareem and Worthy; Hakeem and Drexler; Garnett, Pierce, Allen and Rondo. James and ... who?
Friday, November 6, 2009
That box of eels got me thinking
I've been thinking a lot lately about timing. Not the art of it in a comedic sense, but in terms of the right time. The right time to get the band back together. The right time to take the wash to the laundromat. The right time to start blogging about baseball cards again.
It's that last one that keeps haunting me. And the funny thing is, though I think of it a lot, I can't seem to get words to page on any topic related to baseball cards. This may change; I haven't written anything of consequence in months, maybe even a year. But maybe it's passed, the right time, that is. Maybe the time for writing about baseball cards was years in the past. Maybe it's the right time to do something else.
Back in around 2003 or 2004, I got the idea to make a coffee table book of my collection of souvenir postcard folders. I even went to the special collections room at the Boston Public Library in Copley Square to view the Tichnor Brothers collection of original art and postcards. I was going to write a brief history of souvenir postcard folders as an essay, and slap it in front of the endless color plates of the coffee table book. My interest eventually waned in the project, and I never got it together.
I have a massive collection of souvenir postcard folders; it's one I'm most proud of. Maybe there's still something in there. And when the timing's right...
It's that last one that keeps haunting me. And the funny thing is, though I think of it a lot, I can't seem to get words to page on any topic related to baseball cards. This may change; I haven't written anything of consequence in months, maybe even a year. But maybe it's passed, the right time, that is. Maybe the time for writing about baseball cards was years in the past. Maybe it's the right time to do something else.
Back in around 2003 or 2004, I got the idea to make a coffee table book of my collection of souvenir postcard folders. I even went to the special collections room at the Boston Public Library in Copley Square to view the Tichnor Brothers collection of original art and postcards. I was going to write a brief history of souvenir postcard folders as an essay, and slap it in front of the endless color plates of the coffee table book. My interest eventually waned in the project, and I never got it together.
I have a massive collection of souvenir postcard folders; it's one I'm most proud of. Maybe there's still something in there. And when the timing's right...
The perpetual brand
I'm in the group (and it's probably a pretty small group) who believes that it's not the end of the world for businesses to end. Take the Montreal Expos, for example. It was sad to see the Expos brand die, but it wasn't the end of the world. In fact, I think it would be a good thing for brands to self-destruct after 35-40 years. It would create room in the marketplace for completely new ideas and competition.
I dislike the New York Yankees, partly for their arrogance; partly their collection of high-priced talent. But I mostly dislike them because their brand is ubiquitous. I wouldn't mind seeing the New York Yankee brand dissolve and a different one take its place. The same goes for Coca Cola or any other number of world-stretching brands. Are we so naive to believe that a brand shouldn't have an end date? That it should be perpetual?
I dislike the New York Yankees, partly for their arrogance; partly their collection of high-priced talent. But I mostly dislike them because their brand is ubiquitous. I wouldn't mind seeing the New York Yankee brand dissolve and a different one take its place. The same goes for Coca Cola or any other number of world-stretching brands. Are we so naive to believe that a brand shouldn't have an end date? That it should be perpetual?
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Fixing the NBA
It's obvious, and anyone watching the snooze-tastic Finals coulda told you: The NBA is suffering. No, I'm not talking about the insufferable trio of Mike Breen, Mark Jackson, and Jeff Van Gundy; they tried their damnedest to inject life into each painful game. I'm talking about the league itself.
The NBA is bloated and I think I know how to fix it. What I'm about to propose may come across as drastic, but I'm a guy who likes his basketball lean and mean. I can't stand watching games where teams are interchangeable. LeBron James can't carry a team to the Finals on his own, but in a league with 30 teams, that's really the only way it will happen.
Unless we contract the NBA. It needs to happen. And the funny thing is, by removing teams and moving others, the league comes out stronger, just like it deserves to be.
I'm envisioning a 20-team league. Ten teams per conference. Here's how they would break down:
Eastern Conference
Boston Celtics
New York Knicks
Chicago Bulls
Detroit Pistons
Philadelphia 76ers
Atlanta Hawks
Orlando Magic
Washington Wizards
Cleveland Cavaliers
St. Louis Spirit (expansion)
Western Conference
Los Angeles Lakers
Oakland Warriors
Portland Trail Blazers
San Antonio Spurs
Houston Rockets
Phoenix Suns
Utah Jazz
Denver Nuggets
New Orleans Hornets
Seattle Supersonics (expansion)
This re-alignment would dissolve 12 teams (New Jersey, Miami, Toronto, Indiana, Charlotte, Milwaukee, LA Clippers, Sacramento, Dallas, Oklahoma City, Minnesota, Memphis). The players on those dissolved teams would be pooled for the expansion draft. The leftover players (about 115 players) would be free agents. This contraction would also rid David Stern of Mark Cuban, which is an added bonus for the league.
With two expansion team rosters to fill, there would be just enough talented players to make Seattle and St. Louis immediately competitive, elevating the quality of play throughout the league.
Top 24 Players Entering Expansion Draft
1. Dwyane Wade G
2. Chris Bosh F
3. Dirk Nowitzki F
4. Kevin Durant G
5. Devin Harris G
6. Josh Howard F
7. Jason Kidd G
8. Al Jefferson FC
9. Jeff Green F
10. Jermaine O'Neal FC
11. OJ Mayo G
12. Vince Carter G
13. Rudy Gay F
14. Gerald Wallace F
15. Raymond Felton G
16. Jason Terry G
17. Jose Calderon G
18. Shawn Marion F
19. Andrea Bargnani
20. Danny Granger G
21. Michael Redd G
22. Richard Jefferson F
23. Kevin Martin G
24. Baron Davis G
Maybe what makes more sense is that after the first 16 picks or so, all the other non-playoff teams from the year before would participate in the draft.
The reason that this thought comes up is that the playoffs felt like a slog this year, especially the Finals. Kobe gonna win another Championship? Who cares? The guy is despicable off the court. Plus, it seemed that Hedo Turkoglu was purposefully tanking on defense. And the whole thing with Rafer Alston making veiled threats over Jameer Nelson's playing time. Everything after the Celtics/Bulls series left a bad taste.
The NBA used to be exciting. Contraction would create super-teams. What's wrong with that?
The NBA is bloated and I think I know how to fix it. What I'm about to propose may come across as drastic, but I'm a guy who likes his basketball lean and mean. I can't stand watching games where teams are interchangeable. LeBron James can't carry a team to the Finals on his own, but in a league with 30 teams, that's really the only way it will happen.
Unless we contract the NBA. It needs to happen. And the funny thing is, by removing teams and moving others, the league comes out stronger, just like it deserves to be.
I'm envisioning a 20-team league. Ten teams per conference. Here's how they would break down:
Eastern Conference
Boston Celtics
New York Knicks
Chicago Bulls
Detroit Pistons
Philadelphia 76ers
Atlanta Hawks
Orlando Magic
Washington Wizards
Cleveland Cavaliers
St. Louis Spirit (expansion)
Western Conference
Los Angeles Lakers
Oakland Warriors
Portland Trail Blazers
San Antonio Spurs
Houston Rockets
Phoenix Suns
Utah Jazz
Denver Nuggets
New Orleans Hornets
Seattle Supersonics (expansion)
This re-alignment would dissolve 12 teams (New Jersey, Miami, Toronto, Indiana, Charlotte, Milwaukee, LA Clippers, Sacramento, Dallas, Oklahoma City, Minnesota, Memphis). The players on those dissolved teams would be pooled for the expansion draft. The leftover players (about 115 players) would be free agents. This contraction would also rid David Stern of Mark Cuban, which is an added bonus for the league.
With two expansion team rosters to fill, there would be just enough talented players to make Seattle and St. Louis immediately competitive, elevating the quality of play throughout the league.
Top 24 Players Entering Expansion Draft
1. Dwyane Wade G
2. Chris Bosh F
3. Dirk Nowitzki F
4. Kevin Durant G
5. Devin Harris G
6. Josh Howard F
7. Jason Kidd G
8. Al Jefferson FC
9. Jeff Green F
10. Jermaine O'Neal FC
11. OJ Mayo G
12. Vince Carter G
13. Rudy Gay F
14. Gerald Wallace F
15. Raymond Felton G
16. Jason Terry G
17. Jose Calderon G
18. Shawn Marion F
19. Andrea Bargnani
20. Danny Granger G
21. Michael Redd G
22. Richard Jefferson F
23. Kevin Martin G
24. Baron Davis G
Maybe what makes more sense is that after the first 16 picks or so, all the other non-playoff teams from the year before would participate in the draft.
The reason that this thought comes up is that the playoffs felt like a slog this year, especially the Finals. Kobe gonna win another Championship? Who cares? The guy is despicable off the court. Plus, it seemed that Hedo Turkoglu was purposefully tanking on defense. And the whole thing with Rafer Alston making veiled threats over Jameer Nelson's playing time. Everything after the Celtics/Bulls series left a bad taste.
The NBA used to be exciting. Contraction would create super-teams. What's wrong with that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)