Re: The Hornets

That was the most pathetic, embarassing display of professional basketball that I have ever witnessed.  Byron Scott is surely getting fired.  The bigger question to me is what happens to the makeup of the team this summer.  Here in Dallas, the Mavs are going to be big buyers this summer in the sense that they are willing to take on salary that other teams are looking to shed for economic reasons.  Basically, the Mavs want to take advantage of teams making economic decisions without regard to basketball consequences.  And the player they are rumored (at least locally) to want the most?  Chris Paul!  The offer would look something like this (from what I understand): Josh Howard, Erick Dampier, and Jerry Stackhouse (plus other spare parts to make next season's salaries match) for Chris Paul, Tyson Chandler, and Peja.  If the Mavs were really aggressive, they would add more players and take back James Posey as well.  Now, from a basketball standpoint, this trade is incredibly one-sided in the Mavericks favor.  But, from an economic standpoint, it would save the Hornets something like $100 million in years after the 2009-2010 season, after factoring in Paul's extension that he is due soon.  Even with these massive savings, I thought there is no way the Hornets would make that trade, and still believe so.  But, after last night's performance, I wouldn't put it past George Shinn to make this trade.  I just wouldn't.

 

Anyway, pure speculation, but that is immediately where my mind went about halfway through the second quarter of last night's "game."

 

As for the Nuggets, I think they are very good, but I also feel like the Hornets have totally fallen apart.  I want to see the Nuggets when they have faced some adversity.  I withhold judgment until then.

How do you lose a playoff game by 58 points?

If you're the Hornets, aren't you asking yourself this question this morning?

 

If you're Byron Scott, don't you feel like you should probably quit since you're getting fired?

 

If you're me, don't you regret picking the Hornets to win anything?

 

And are the Nuggets that good or the Hornets that irrelevant?

And the O-sack-po goes to...

The Washington Redskins. I didn't think he'd slip as far as 13. The Redskins just got a great player, despite "O-sack-po" being one of the most strained nicknames I've ever heard.

And damn the Broncos for drafting Knowshon Moreno, thus making him ineligible for my fantasy team due to Internal Rule 41.1(b)(3)(ii): "Never draft a Denver running back."

Atrocious

You tell me if moving down 12 spots in the draft to allow a team to select (what it believes is) a franchise quarterback is worth a 2nd rounder and three backups.

Awful.  I'm trying not to write only about the Browns but what Mangini is doing--signing/trading only for Jets players--appears nothing short of traitorous in Cleveland.  He should've stayed with the Jets.

It's official...

The Cleveland Browns have become the Cleveland Jets.  More hatred for ManKok in Cleveland will ensue.  The Browns trade down all the way from 5 to 17(!!!!!).  If the purchase price is anything less than a first rounder next year I will be furious.  Browns should also pick up a 2nd and/or 3rd rounder this year, especially since the Jets traded to get a QB in "Clean" Sanchez.

I'm OK with the Jets 1st, 2nd/3rd (fine with one but would prefer both) and then a 1st rounder.  Anything less and "Fire ManKok" signs will be put up throughout the city (which can only help deflate housing values here further).

KNEW IT!

Beware the Cleveland curse.  Curry to Seahawks at 4.

Now, if the Browns were wise, they'll at least take Michael Crabtree, the dynamic Texas Tech wideout.

The thing about the Browns is there isn't much positive sentiment for the Mangini-Kokinis regime that took over a few months back.  They've been excessively secretive, haven't made any splash in the FA market (despite Kokinis's alleged strengths as a personnel evaluator for free agents, not draftees).

So...let's assume the worst.  I think the Browns take "Clean" Sanchez, and Crabtree falls to the Raiders or Jaguars at 7/8.

The draft just got interesting

Watching it live, Chiefs just made their pick.

LOVE the selection of Tyson Jackson from LSU for the Chiefs.  For the Browns.  If I'm the Browns, I'm hoping that the Seahawks bite and take Mark "Clean" Sanchez and Curry drops to 5.

Of course, because it's Cleveland, I have to think Curry is going to the Seahawks at 4.  Possible trade by another team to pass the Browns.

And the main question for Tyson Jackson (per Steve Young): DOES HE LOVE THE FREAKING GAME?1?!?!?!

Matt Stafford at 1 has a real good chance to be the next Joey Harrington--but for $41 million guaranteed!  Kiper said he might not be a "Hall of Fame quarterback" but could be a "very good" quarterback.  Nice work!

Hatin' & Anticipatin'

Maybe today's kids are different. Maybe they prefer the new Star Wars trilogy, and maybe they think Jimmy Fallon is funny. If so, God help us. David Letterman (when he cared/cares), and Conan were/are funny. Jimmy Fallon is obnoxiously goofy and self-ingratiating. And what he's done to the Roots is just sad. I think I just might be—yes, I am—a hater. (Dons fedora.)

I'm also looking forward to the draft. It's kind of an odd event. There's a plethora of draft previews and predictions and discussions in the weeks leading up to it. Then we spend weeks afterward grading the draft, reassessing our fantasy football cheat sheets, etc. But the event itself commands only indirect attention—something to be done with a beer in hand and a bunch of open Safari tabs on screen. This is kind of like Lost or Heroes for me: I don't enjoy actually watching those shows, i.e., the experience of those shows (mediocre acting, visuals; little per-episode plot movement), but I'm interested in eventually reading their plot summaries on Wikipedia.

Anyway, save the drama for your mama—Detroit will take Stafford with the first pick. While I agree that Stafford is overrated, it's not surprising that he's in this position given his size and skill set. And like I said, this is a great situation for him—just not in terms of winning football games.

Being a college football fan first (as well as a Texas alum), I'm curious to see where the Big 12's major prospects, including a couple of cover boys, land. I'm looking for Josh Freeman to be this year's Brady Quinn.

Stafford/Draft

I saw Stafford break plates with passes (like Duck Hunt, with less duck and more dinner plate) on the Jimmy Fallon Show (clips of it--I promise I didn't watch it, although I bet Jimmy thought he was hilarious) and wasn't overly impressed with Stafford's demeanor, nor have I been throughout the last year when teams zeroed in on him as the best QB (and by proxy, the top pick).

That said it should be a fun draft today.  10 minutes in between picks in the first round (as opposed to 15 as it was in years past) should keep things rolling a bit, and maybe, just maybe, a historically indecisive team like the Vikings or Cowboys will miss its pick (and in the case of the former, I should say, miss its pick again--thanks for the memories, Bryant McKinnie).

Re: [Ignore The Chalk] For Edwards?

And kudos for spotting the (admittedly obvious, but still largely underrated) "character issues" bargain, Percy Harvin. This kid is going to be a star, and...well, let me just say there are "character issues," and there are Character Issues. Harvin only has the former.

 

Matt Stafford seems to be essentially the same player now that he was coming out of high school. Even so, it won't be hard to improve on 0-16. He was always going to go through rookie quarterback growing pains, but now he gets to do so with what has to be the bare minimum of accountability.

For Edwards?

Definitely no more than a second rounder if the report on ESPN is true that the Cards are now asking only for a second round pick for Boldin.

 

Kudos for nailing the Cardinals caving first.

For me there's no question

I take the 29th pick.  If you can get a first-rounder for Edwards, a guy who led the leagues in drops last year, who will be completely ineffective this year when teams double-cover him (being able to bring up the safety to pick him up deep every play is the biggest negative impact the loss of Winslow has on the team) and will then bolt for a ridiculous contract next year, you do it.

 

I've heard rumors of them asking for Mathias Kiwanuka AND a first-rounder.  Are you kidding?  TAKE THE FIRST ROUND PICK.  Read my lips--if he stays with the Browns this year, he a) won't make the pro bowl, b) won't get 1,000 yards receiving, and c) will promptly sign with another team after trashing Cleveland/its fans next year.

 

So--if I have the choice between a first round pick and nothing, I'll choose the first round pick.  Now, of course, they won't, because Boldin is a more attractive prospect and I bet the Cardinals are more likely to give on their demands than Mangini. 

 

And then, I swear, if the Browns draft Mark Sanchez from USC, I'll lose my mind.  Really?  On a team that is spending $10 million next year on Anderson and Quinn, you're going to further de-leverage Anderson and Quinn's trade value by getting a third unproven, expensive quarterback?  THAT's the solution?  Really?

 

I know, other than occasional rumors, there isn't any substantiation to this, but I thought I'd prepare you for the inevitable reaction. 

 

Ideal draft is--get Curry at 5, trade away Edwards for the 29th pick and select either Percy Harvin or the best USC LB available (or Laurinaitis if none are around), and then trade away Brady for whatever they can get (I've heard a first round pick but don't believe it) and take the best talent available.  Please, I'm begging you.

 

What would you trade to get Edwards?  Will he end up being traded?

 

And most importantly--does Matthew Stafford have a chance in this league, going to an 0-16 team with (again) a rookie coach?

Hey Will

 You're a Browns fan.  What would take from the Giants for Braylon Edwards?

Yeah it's still only one game

(And in the case of the Celtics-Bulls and Mavericks-Spurs, two.)  I'm not ready to give a pass to the Hawks as a tough opponent just because they beat up on (why isn't this said more?) what is effectively a one-man team in the Heat with Wade.  I imagine this series will predictably go to the home teams until game 7, which is when Wade makes the difference.

And don't underestimate the Celtics.  While the Magic's complete collapse (18-point lead at home?  win the game!) agains the 76ers is rooted in the Magic's history of underperformance (pre- and post-McGrady) in the playoffs, the Celtics demonstrated last year that they tend not to really care until someone makes them care.  The Bulls shouldn't have had a 5-point lead with 2:54 left in last night's game in Boston, but then again the Celtics at some point (collective consciousness theory here) realized that hey, we need to win this or we'll be down 2-0.

I suspect the Celtics-Magic series will be challenging because you have a team that doesn't initially care (Celtics) against a team without a proven winner (Magic), but the Celtics will use that heart to pull it out, and bring an interesting matchup against the Cavs in the Eastern Finals.

I also suspect Garnett will play in the Eastern Finals.  This seems too contrived, like Pierce's "injury" last year that required him to be carried off the court, put in a wheelchair, only to play three minutes later.  Garnett will romantically be likened to Willis Reed, the Boston media will eat it up, and the Cavs' biggest Eastern challenge will come from the "truly inspired" Celtics in a "feel-good" story.  Makes me kind of sick.

The other thing about not paying attention to the first game of a playoff series--and I think this should be directed at each of the Hawks, Bulls, 76ers, Mavericks and Rockets (only the Mavericks I picked to actually win the series)--is what I call the Allen Iverson Theory of Game Ones.  In Iverson's lone appearance in the finals in 2001 against the Spurs, the 76ers pulled out a fantastic win in game 1, an inspirational overtime win.  After the win, Iverson gave a press conference saying how much he felt the 76ers were disrespected, and how the 76ers were there to win, and could pull it out.

The Spurs then swept the next four games.  Whoops.

It has to be asked...

I know each playoff series has only had one game.  But is it too early to ask if the Cavs might get their toughest test before the Finals in the second round?

Lisa Simpson's Guide to the 2009 NBA Playoffs

This blog is called Ignore the Chalk. That is, ideally, "be aware of the chalk (Nuggets over Hornets, go to law school), but don't be afraid to diverge from the chalk when your instincts tell you otherwise (take the Hornets, become a street puppeteer)," as in Will's case. Not "ignore the sport so thoroughly that you have no idea what the 'chalk' is, what sport it refers to, or if it even refers to a sport," as in my case.

Round 1:

Cavs over Pistons in 5, because the Pistons are brave, but leaderless and subconsciously aware that they are on the losing side of history.

Celtics over Bulls in 6, because even without Kevin Garnett, the Celtics have heart, and everyone standing behind Derrick Rose is terrified.

Magic over Sixers in 4, because the Sixers' end-of-season home win against the Cavs wasn't a sign of momentum. It was a death rattle.

Heat over Hawks in 7, because each team will question themselves, but only the Heat will have Dwayne Wade to answer.

Lakers over Jazz in 5, because neither team's name applies to its respective hometown, and the Lakers are better.

Nuggets over Hornets in 5, because the chalk is the chalk for a reason.

Spurs over Mavs in 7, because the Spurs dynasty may be coming to an end, but the Mavs' legacy of underachievement lives on.

Blazers over Rockets in 7, because Greg Oden has the vigor of a 21-year-old, but the wisdom of a weather-beaten, world-weary 47-year-old.

Round 2:

Cavs over Heat in 7.

Celtics over Magic in 6.

Lakers over Blazers in 5.

Spurs over Nuggets in 6.

Conference Finals:

Cavs over Celtics in 6.

Lakers over Spurs in 6.

NBA Finals:

Cavs over Lakers in 7, because it is written.

NBA Playoff Picks - The 2009 Edition - Where the (L)Eeast Became the Most (Competitive)

The blog's new, but every year I make sure to scribble down my picks for the NBA Playoffs, although the bracket usually possesses (Warriors of 2007 aside) no real Cinderella mystique (frankly, the NCAA Tournament doesn't either, but at least there, there are underdogs who can win a round or two before they lose to the Usual Suspects).

 

Here the West actually has some of that NCAA Tournament feel--it's more wide open than it has been in years, but much like the Tourney, among teams that really don't have a shot against the Big Dog (guess who, but I'll save it for later in the post).  The East is incredibly competitive at the end of the bracket, though, with three first round matchups being competitive, the projected second round matchups being a hoot, and the Eastern finals having a good shot of going the distance. 

 

Ok, enough of a tease, let's get to the picks:

 

FIRST ROUND.

 

Western Conference

 

#1 Lakers vs. #8 Jazz - Lakers advance in 5 games.  (Or as we say, go with the chalk.)  I know much has been made of Deron Williams being good enough to keep this close, but the Jazz are a terrible road team this year (so they lose games 1, 2 and 5) and while their home crowd will be up for it, the Lakers are a 60-win team for a reason. 

 

#2 Nuggets vs. #7 Hornets - Hornets advance in 6.  (That's right...ignore the chalk.)  Big upset here because I don't trust 'Melo and while Billups' story (bringing the Nuggets back from collapse to emerge as the unlikely #2 seed) is endearing (especially since it involves the Pistons' demise) the Hornets proved to be a tough matchup for the Spurs last year and people forget that it's tough to win in New Orleans.  Chandler is playing banged up, yes, but Chris Paul's good enough that he knows how to get the most out of his players.  I see the Hornets picking up one of the first two in Denver, then winning both at home, losing in Denver, then winning at home.

 

#3 Spurs vs. #6 Mavericks - Mavs advance in 6.  (Ignore the chalk.)  It's not the end of a dynasty, necessarily (the Spurs have one more run left in them), it's that the Spurs are banged up.  I don't love the Mavericks but they have enough big-time scorers in Dirk and Jet to get it done.

 

#4 Blazers vs. #5 Rockets - Blazers advance in 7.  I refuse to pick the Rockets until they a) get rid of Tracy McGrady (he's still on the roster, even if he's not on the playoff roster) or b) Yao Ming.  While people are now officially overhyping the Blazers and Brandon Roy, the Blazers have enough talent (and no stench of prior failure) to get it done in 7.

 

(L)Eastern Conference

 

#1 Cavs vs. #8 Pistons -Cavs advance in 5.  I was tempted to go with a sweep here but there's too much history, and the Pistons' reliance on shooters (Hamilton and Rasheed) should pick them up game 3.  If they lose game 3, it's over in four.

 

#2 Celtics vs. #7 Bulls - Celtics advance in 6.  Bulls will shock the Celtics for one game at home, split games 3 and 4, Celts carry 5 and the momentum to win in 6.  I like Rose but don't really trust anyone else on the Bulls to come through in the clutch.  When Ben Gordon's your end of game scorer...ouch.  Plus the Celtics with a healthy Pierce and Allen are still a 50-win team.

 

#3 Magic vs. #6 Sixers - Magic advance in 5.  I lost all respect for the Sixers (it took a while) when they beat the 11th-15th men of the Cavaliers, but it took them overtime to do it.  While I distrust Dwight Howard's ability to take over games, he doesn't need to.  The Magic are better.  Same as Cavs-Pistons, Sixers either win game 3 or it's a sweep.

 

#4 Hawks vs. #5 Heat - Heat advance in 7.  The great "underestimated" series.  This is the Hawks team, a year older, that took the eventual champions to 7 games, albeit getting blown out in game 7.  The Heat are clearly not the Celtics defensively, but they do have a guy who bounced back from claims that he was the next Penny Hardaway (HOF first few years, then break down) and became the league's leading scorer and a Top 3 MVP guy.  While Atlanta doesn't seem to really care about the Hawks, or sports in general (if anything, it's a football town), they seemed to really get up for the playoffs last year.  I expect this year to be no different.

 

SECOND ROUND.

 

Western Conference

 

Lakers vs. Blazers - Lakers in 5.  I know everyone loves this matchup and thinks the Blazers will give the Lakers a scare, but I see Kobe taking that personally.  I don't think it'll be that close.

 

Mavericks vs. Hornets - Hornets in 7.  Here's the series to watch in the West, even if they're only competing for the rights to lose to the Lakers.  Paul will be the difference-maker, as I see the Hornets getting their groove back.

 

Eastern Conference

 

Cavs vs. Heat - Cavs in 7.  This series really scares me, because Wade and LeBron have had some epic battles.  This is the Cavs/Celtics from a year ago, where the Celts pulled it out in game 7.  But I'm not wholly surprised if the Heat figure things out.  I don't see Wade going quietly.

 

Celtics vs. Magic - Celtics in 6.  The Magic need to prove to me that Hedo and Rashard are healthy, and that they have someone capable of taking over games.  As it stands, Howard hasn't proven that yet and the Magic's last two dismissals from the playoffs have been unceremonious.   Even a depleted Celtics team has more heart at this point.

 

CONFERENCE FINALS.

 

Western Conference

 

Lakers versus Hornets - Lakers in 5.  Here's where the Hornets' shortcomings (health, depth) become obvious.  The Lakers just overpower them into the finals.

 

Eastern Conference

 

Cavs versus Celtics - Cavs in 6.  I think the Cavs retain home court advantage, winning all three at home, but fail to close it out until they visit Boston a third time.  That said, this prediction is what it is with, or without, Garnett.

 

FINALS.

 

Cavs versus Lakers - Cavs in 7.  I can't believe I'm doing it but I'm actually predicting my home town team will win a championship (and no, I've never done this before in my life, although I did predict the finals in 2007).  It'll be a heartbreaking series for both sides, but ultimately, I think the Lakers are going to prove a little quicker to give up than LeBron and the Cavs.

 

And if they win it all, as a lifelong Clevelander...wow.  I still can't imagine.

You want issues? You got issues.

(Yes, I'm aware I need to work on post titles.  This blog is like a sitcom...I hope it'll get better (before it gets cancelled)).

I honestly don't think the Spurs are much of a plot this year.  Their dyNasty arguably ended when they fell in the playoffs quietly last year to the Lakers.  Here you just have a Ginobili injury, and at that it's probably because he wore himself out in the Olympics.  Give them time.  The Spurs will be back. 

Love the Blazers though.  Who doesn't?  Although I have my doubts--and wonder if they'll end up being the Bulls of the West (bunch of young kids who are high draft picks with potential, but it never pans out)--it's the "youngest team" syndrome: people are fascinated by teams that haven't been there before.  Plus I think they'll make the second round (playoff preview hint).

So my top 3 non-Garnett storylines are coming soon.  Before that, quick tangent--Garnett isn't "officially" out yet, is he?  To me it sounds like the day progressed oddly--first, you hear about Doc Rivers saying Garnett isn't ready and he might not be ready this playoffs.  Then there are reports saying there's a "strong possibility" Garnett's not playing.  By 3pm Eastern, blogs everywhere are reporting he's out--for sure--for the playoffs.  Seems odd to me.  Ok, storylines:

1)  Orlando -- are they really different?  The Garnett thing is relevant because now the Team That Was Dismissed in favor of a Cavs-Celtics rematch now has a very legitimate shot at taking out the defending champs and giving the Cavs more than a scare in the Conference Finals.  Why hasn't this been discussed more yet?  Am I missing something?  The team almost won 60 games, without Jameer Nelson!  Amazing.

2)  Will the Lakers quit again?  I want a refund for Game 6 of the Finals last year, where the Lakers lost--in Los Angeles!--to a (fine, use the word "hungry" and "veterans" in the same sentence if you must) Celtics team by 39!!!!!!  And didn't really seem to care.  It's been stressed before that this loss demonstrates Kobe doesn't have Jordan's heart because there's no way, in those circumstances, Jordan would let his team lose.  But that's not the point to me.  The point is that this is essentially the same cast--and while, yes, Bynum's back, he's not a guy who has proven he's going to take over anything except the injured list--and they remember that loss.  I would.  Now, how they respond is the question.  They're going to have a game like that, and how they respond (if they have a chance to respond) is more likely to define Kobe's legacy than anything.

3)  I'm tempted to go with LeBron, but in my mind it's just too obvious (and honestly, that could well be the storyline every year until he gets old/goes bad, hopefully a long time from now).  So let's go with Pressure to Perform.  The way I see it there are three teams (other than Orlando) that really have to prove they can go to the Next Level--or there's a major risk of a huge overhaul.  Shockingly, they're all in the West:  Denver, Dallas and Houston.  Denver and Melo haven't gone anywhere.  They've been gifted with the #2 seed, but the Hornets (even with Chandler and Peja not at 100%, if they even play the whole series) there's a serious upset risk.  Billups has led the team in the right direction, but Melo hasn't gotten out of the first round yet.  Dallas came far too close and went from a deep, talented team to a team that's aging quickly, despite Dirk having a quiet/solid year.  And then Houston hasn't been able to get out of the first round since Hakeem left for Toronto/retirement.  Yao does his thing but it's never enough, and although they had an outside shot at a top-3 seed, now they find themselves without home court against a hungry team.  How many first round exits can a team endure?

You can't look at these playoffs consequentially.  Yes, the finals will be the Cavs/Celtics/Magic against the Lakers and everyone else is playing for third place at best.  But there are enough up and coming teams (Chicago, Atlanta, Portland) and enough near-death teams (Denver, Dallas, Houston) to make things interesting.

Re: Well done

Three biggest playoff subplots (non-Garnett injury):

 

1)  The total whackiness of the 2-7 matchups out West.  Like you said three potential upsets in the first round.  I too am excited to see the Blazers.  I think, right now, they are playing second best in the conference.

 

2)  LeBron's quest to win a title at age 24 without the most impressive supporting cast.  He certainly doesn't have a Gasol on his team, let alone Bynum and Odom.  As an aside, surely a title this year quiets some of the LeBron to New York talk.  I mean, if he is all about winning titles and he wins one this year, how could leaving to go to New York improve his chances?  But then again, the New York media is driving those stories and I doubt they stop even if the Cavs take the title.

 

3)  The end of the Spurs era.  I think this year is it.  They have had 10 straight 50 win seasons and four titles over the last decade.  Duncan is the best power forward ever.  They might extend that 50 win season streak a few more years, but I think they are done as a legit title contender without a drastic makeover.

 

That's it.  Your three?

Well done

You win the record on prediction speed (given that this was only finalized last night).  But I'm not reading until I make my own picks.  And at that, I promise it will be a pantheonic post, so what it lacks in speed it will make up for in sheer depth.

 

Well done also on the Cavs prediction.  I had them pegged for 58 wins at the beginning, but 66?  Ridiculous.  And throw out last night's game--I'll take going 39-2 any day of the week.

 

What are the biggest subplots of the playoffs?  First is obviously the Garnett injury, but I'm delighted at how the West matchups came out.  You have a real chance at three first-round upsets.  I can't wait to see the Blazers play.

Ok. I'll go first.

Playoff predictions.

 

Round 1:

Cavs over Pistons in 4.

Celts over Bulls in 7.

Magic over Sixers in 5.

Hawks over Heat in 7.

Lakers over Jazz in 5.

Nuggets over Hornets in 7.

Mavs over Spurs in 6.

Blazers over Rockets in 7.

 

Round 2:

Cavs over Hawks in 5.

Magic over Celts in 6.

Lakers over Blazers in 7.

Mavs over Nuggets in 6.

 

Conference Finals:

Cavs over Magic in 7.

Lakers over Mavs in 5.

 

The Finals:

Cavs over Lakers in 6.

The Western Conference

Will, you are dead on about the West.  Being in Dallas, I have followed this "race" quite closely.  Let's see what we have here:  Denver is probably the 2 seed after trading away Camby for nothing; San Antonio has a shot at the 3 seed without Ginoboli really playing this year and Duncan running around on bum knees; Houston is the other team with a good shot at the 3 seed without Tracy McGrady and their best player (Yao Ming) being spectacularly unspectacular; Portland (who should be the team to beat out West in future years) being considered by many to be the second best team in the conference with a bunch of guys who I'm not sure can legally drink alcohol; Dallas somehow remarkably with a shot at the 6 seed even though they have spent the past two seasons walking around, mumbling to themselves, and drooling after the Golden State humiliation; and the Hornets being the other team chasing the 6 seed, even though they didn't finish in the top 12 in the NBA in FG percentage, 3 point percentage, steals, rebounds, blocks, points scored, or assists.  How is this a great conference?  I actually think Dallas will get to the second round considering their play of late and the fact that it looks like Josh Howard is finally healthy.  The Mavs have no business getting into the second round of the playoffs, but it could happen.  And the really crazy thing?  They might win in the second round too!

 

Basically, I look at the Western Conference and I see the same thing that happened last year.  The Lakers are going to roll to the NBA Finals and look impressive doing it.  Then, the media will spend a week fawning over the Lake show and telling us how invinsible they are before a dominant defensive Eastern Conference team rips them apart.  Book it.  Oh, and the Cavs will be that East team.  My 65 win prediction was pretty damn good, wasn't it?

More hating on the Cutler trade and more (yes) basketball.

The trade still frustrates me. I think you're right that the value of a "proven QB coming into his prime" comes is probably closer to Cutler's value than what Cassel fetched.

1) Both players had their first and only pro bowl seasons in 2008.

2) Cutler's lifetime passer rating over three seasons (5 starts in 2006, 16 in 2007 and 16 in 2008) averages out to about an 88, with last season being his worst (albeit not statistically significant) at 86.0. 88's a solid but not great average. If we look solely at ratings, and believe Cutler won't improve significantly, we have a solid but not franchise quarterback. Yes, he threw for a ridiculous 4,500 yards last year but that was a function of a better offense than he'll have in Chicago, as well as a defense that wasted no time giving up points (28 per game, third worst--even worse than Kansas City), forcing the Broncos to rely more on the pass. Drew Brees he ain't.

3) By comparison, while Matt Cassell's 89.4 rating isn't significantly different (only 3700 yards passing but again the Patriots' defense wasn't a scythe, so Belichick didn't need to air it out as much), I can only give so much credence to the term "proven"--certainly not two first-round picks versus one second-rounder.

I find it depressing that a guy like Cutler yielded so much value in a trade. At the end of the day, it's an anomaly so I suppose it can be left at that. Although if anyone would like Derek Anderson, Browns "stud" QB, he can be had for two first-rounders. Anyone? Bueller?

Modifying the USTs makes sense, although I'd like to create sub-rules under this category to make things more confusing. So here we go:
1) Avoid mediocrity, inasmuch as it can be avoided - Nobody likes losers, everybody hates teams that get eliminated in the first round of the playoffs on a yearly basis.

Sub-Rule 1a) - The PJ Carlesimo Coach Corollary - don't hire mediocre coaches or fluke coaches.

Sub-Rule 1b) - The Phil Jackson Coach Corollary - hire only multiple-championship legends (unlikely) or take risks on supergenius assistants. Roll the dice.

2) The Jack Haley Rule - If you're going to acquire psychologically-risky players, you better get some backup.

On another note, NBA Playoffs begin this Saturday. Mike, let's make a gentleman's bet. Fill out a bracket, as will I, predicting a) the winner of each round and b) the number of games it takes (no credit for b) if you pick the right number of games but the wrong team). I have the horrible sense that there's not much more logic to NBA Playoff brackets than there is to the NCAA brackets--so here's the chance to prove it.

I don't watch basketball. (Is that a problem for a sports blogger?)

I don't think Cutler is intrinsically worth that much more than Cassel, but for what Cutler is purported to be--Proven Franchise Quarterback Coming into His Prime, essentially the primest of all NFL roster real estate--I'd expect the asking price to be closer to what was paid for Cutler than what was paid for Cassel. The key adjective here is "proven," and for most teams, Cassel's one season just wasn't enough. By contrast, the Broncos received two similar offers for Cutler from teams in situations similar to the Bears' (solid defenses and running games, questionable receivers).

Where the Bears dropped (fumbled?) the ball was in failing to capitalize on the facts that (1) the Broncos were going to trade Cutler no matter what and (2) the Broncos apparently saw significant value in Kyle Orton, or at least more than they saw in some other offerings. But hey, it's water over the dam. Time to find Cutler some receivers.

All of which brings me to the USTs. Reading proposed rules 1 and 1a together, I would redraft as, "Avoid mediocrity, inasmuch as it can be avoided." This is a nice philosophical touchstone, and presumably achieved primarily through the acquisition of either (1) proven talent or (2) potential talent (at the extremes, "break the bank" vs. "take a flyer").

The Bears' move falls into (extreme) category 1, and considering the nature of the position (central, potentially long-term), I can't fault them for it, my quibbling over the exact price notwithstanding.

I just. don't. get. the Nuggets. And Jay Cutler. And Denver.

I focus probably too much on the NBA, which means that the next few months (NFL draft aside) I'll probably emphasize 90% of my time/postson the NBA Playoffs (the other 10% will emphasize baseball, cheating in baseball, and football players getting arrested during the offseason).

Let me get to the point. The Western Conference is getting entirely too much respect. I can understand the praise lavished upon the "top 9" teams in the conference, as long as you completely ignore the bottom six teams. At least five--possibly six if Golden State chokes out three of its final four games--teams will finish with fewer than 30 wins! Compare this to one such team in the East (the Wizards, who are doing their best imitation of a West team, with 18 wins at this point).

And out of the top 9 teams Not Named the Lakers, the Nuggets look to emerge as the second seed with an amazing 55 wins. All for a team that traded Marcus Camby to the Clippers in exchange for a 2nd round pick while they were in cap-shedding mode. This is a team that relies on the increasingly shot-hungry Carmelo Anthony (driving less to the basket each game as he continues his quest to be the next Glenn Robinson) as its number 1 option. Credit to Chauncey Billups for improving the team more than Allen Iverson could (although Iverson would be one of the first to acknowledge scoring isn't as easy as it was when he was on the sunny side of 30 years of age), but are the Nuggets a team you would fear going into the playoffs, when Dahntay Jones is starting at shooting guard?

And while I'm bashing Denver sports teams/athletes, since when did Jay Cutler (now the Bears QB) become a franchise QB worth 2 first round picks and a third round pick? At the end of the day, is he THAT much better than Matt Cassel (who only garnered a 2nd round pick? Really?

GM Rules - The Dos and Don'ts of Running a Sports Franchise

I propose we make a list of "Unbreakable Sports Truths" (USTs) or some other variation. The premise is this: if you or I (or anyone we know who is an ally) ever becomes a GM of an NBA team (maybe NFL or college rules can be added as well), these are rules we will abide by. With that said I'll propose two rules to be added in this e-mail, but I really think it's worth keeping a list. This will be something we can verify in 5, 10, 20 years.

So, two rules (and a corollary):

1. The PJ Carlesimo Rule. You don't ever hire a coach who was fired from a middling team that failed to ever reach the conference finals. The history with this is solid. Look at every coach in the NBA, go down the list. Many of them fall into this category. The majority of them are middling to poor teams. And the good teams will be dragged down quickly--for example, Michael Curry will kill the Pistons by mid-next season, and trades will be a-coming, including Rip Hamilton.

1a. (Corollary, though maybe we split it out into its own rule.) The Phil Jackson Rule. You only hire coaches that are a) proven championship winners who left their prior teams on their terms or b) are completely unproven, genius assistants/other coaches with no prior NBA head coaching experience with a specific philosophy (offense or defense). I know this is complex but hear me out. First, championship winnerS is the emphasis. Do not hire Larry Brown or Doc Rivers to build up your franchise. You will regret it, they are anomalies, products of imploding Lakers' teams. Second, as to b), why hire Rick Carlisle or Rick Adelman and doom yourself to years of second-round or conference final elimination? Why not swing for the fences and pick a genius assistant that will be the next Phil Jackson? I know you're going to say, there are countless bodies of dead former assistants-turned-head coaches. But the only ones that are successful are ones with a philosophy. I don't mean the Porter/Skiles "tough guy" philosophy but guys who are offensive geniuses (D'Antoni who I think should have won with the Suns had Amare not been suspended) or defensive geniuses (dare I say it, Mike Brown or Tom Thibodeau). Why is this essential? "Tough guy" philosophies inevitably wear out, players tune out. But cultures stick for a long time, and are hard to wear off. Spurs and Lakers will be competitive for a long time because especially with the young guys, they totally buy into the system and unless a new coach comes along and screws it up, won't soon forget.

2. The Jack Haley Rule. If you're going to bring a certifiably psychologically unpredictable talent to your team, you need a Jack Haley personality. Rodman defines the rule. The kind of folksy guy who's harmless (and otherwise ineffective in pretty much anyway) but somehow catches the ear of the charismatic superstar. That's what Jack Haley was to Rodman--a guy who never played, who probably would faint if he ever went in for a tattoo, but somehow, Rodman trusted. Rodman was an effusive personality, but Haley "got him", admired him, respected him. We see that with Rick Adelman and Ron Artest for the Rockets. For a couple months we had that with TO and Romo in Dallas. You need these guys or the star will inevitably turn on you worse than Randy Orton turned on Triple H (WWE reference, but give me a break--Wrestlemania's coming up).

Keep it going.