I thought UFC's debut on national television was a success. The production aspects of the show were spectacular. The set looked great and I thought Curt Menefee, Dana White, and Brock Lesnar did a great job with their pre-fight and post-fight commentary. The show had a pretty good flow for only broadcasting one fight. As far as the fight goes, it went almost exactly as the experts predicted. Unfortunately, I thought it was a little disappointing though. With Velasquez being out for over a year and Dos Santos claiming to be less than 100%, neither guy seemed to be at the top of their game. It wasn't terrible, but it was far from what I think they would deliver if they were both 100%. On a normal night, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. But I think the fighters being less than 100% was exacerbated by the fact that it was the only fight on the broadcast. If the show had been a half-hour longer, allowing the Guida-Henderson fight to be air on television, I think the show would've felt much stronger. It's one thing for the fight to not deliver the quality expected. It's another for it to happen as the only fight airing on TV.
But that's what happens in unscripted sports. Not every fight delivers every time out. The important thing for the UFC is that they delivered on the things they could control. The production was great, they crowned a new heavyweight champion, and they promoted their next two big heavyweight fights (Lesnar-Overeem and the winner taking on JDS). Which is why I consider the show a success, in spite of the fight not being as good as it would be under different circumstances. I look forward to the day Velasquez and Dos Santos cross paths again and I look forward to many more UFC broadcasts on Fox.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Velasquez the underdog?
I was reading Sherdog’s “Pros Pick” article for tonight’s heavyweight title fight between Cain Velasquez and Junior Dos Santos and I was surprised to see that 12 experts picked Dos Santos to win, while only 4 picked Velasquez. I wonder why they favor Dos Santos so much. He didn’t finish Roy Nelson or Shane Carwin, what makes them think he’ll finish Velasquez? Do they think he has a weak chin? If memory serves, he did get a little rocked in his fight with Cheick Kongo, but he seems to have a pretty good chin. Besides, Carwin got a little rocked in his fight with Gonzaga and he wasn’t finished by JDS.
Or is it because Cain hasn’t fought in over a year? Are they banking on Cain having ring rust? Because if Cain’s cardio is close to normal, and Dos Santos can’t finish him before the championship rounds, then this fight is Cain’s to lose. Basically, Dos Santos has to do what he couldn't do to Carwin or Nelson or he's in big trouble. I’m not saying JDS doesn’t have a shot, but I’m surprised he’s the favorite. Regardless, these guys are the two best heavyweights in the world and it doesn’t matter to me who wins. Should be an excellent fight. It's about time the UFC debuts on national television!
Saturday, September 17, 2011
NFL ramblings
Vernon Davis' fantasy value:
I was listening to a fantasy football podcast from ESPN and a remark was made about not being that high on Vernon Davis because he has Alex Smith throwing to him. In the last two years, Davis has put up 1,879 yards and 20 TDs. And who was his quarterback for 20 of those 32 games? Oh that’s right, Alex Smith. Then again, Alex is entering his seventh year in the league. You’re usually a worse quarterback in your seventh year than in your fifth or sixth, right? Especially if you’ve replaced the worst head coach in the league, who knew nothing about offense, with an offensive minded coach. And if you’ve added another weapon on offense, in the form of Braylon Edwards, that opposing defenses have to account for. But yeah, this year Alex is really going to have a negative effect on Vernon.
Arizona's preseason ranking:
Most preseason rankings had the Arizona Cardinals finishing in second place in the NFC West. Unless Kevin Kolb is the second coming of Kurt Warner (which I’m going to guess he’s not), how do they foresee that happening? Since Arizona last won the division, they’ve lost Warner, Anquan Boldin, Antrel Rolle, Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie, Karlos Dansby, Tim Hightower and Steve Breaston. They’ve added Kevin Kolb, Kerry Rhodes, Joey Porter, and Patrick Peterson. Kolb, Rhodes and Porter are downgrades from Warner, Rolle, and Dansby and Peterson’s just a rookie. Now, I’m not saying it’s impossible that Arizona finishes in second. But if you’re just looking at their team on paper, how on earth do you project them to do well? Their roster looks seriously downgraded from their previous playoff teams. And while they beat Carolina, they also gave up almost 500 yards to them. Anything can happen, but I just don’t get why people think Kevin Kolb makes up for all the other roster changes.
Peyton Manning's value:
I was listening to Mike & Mike last week and they talked about what kind of effect that Manning being out for the year would have on the Colts. They mentioned that it would have a more drastic effect on the team than the one Brady had when he missed the whole year. That parlayed into saying that Manning is more valuable than Brady. The problem I have with using this scenario as a comparison between Manning and Brady is that it’s not really about them. It’s about their back-ups. The man who stepped in for Brady that year was Matt Cassel. The man who will step in for Manning is Kerry Collins. One, it turns out, is a starting caliber quarterback who had been in the system for three years prior. The other is a just-retired player who has been in the system for three weeks. You don’t use the drop-off from Manning to Collins or Curtis Painter with Brady’s drop-off to Cassel to compare Manning and Brady's value to each other. That isn’t a commendation of Manning. It’s an indictment of his back-up. The true value of Manning and Brady should be done by comparing Manning and Brady. Not by comparing how the Patriots do with Cassel versus how the Colts do with Collins/Painter. Saying Manning is more valuable because his back-up is of less quality is meaningless. The Colts are worse off than the Patriots because they have a worse back-up quarterback. Not because they have a better starting quarterback.
Manning's injury may be Luck-y:
With news that Peyton Manning had a third neck surgery, people have suggested he just shut it down for the year. Not only would that be the best thing for him, but it could benefit the team long-term if it put them in a position to draft Andrew Luck. I hope that doesn’t happen. Since they’ve had Peyton, they’ve put no time into developing a backup quarterback. If that backfires on them while Peyton’s out, they deserve that. You can’t put all your eggs in one basket and not expect disaster when that basket breaks. But if that were to land them the best QB prospect out there, because it happened to be the year Luck was coming out, that would just be ridiculous. The best QB in the draft should go to the team that needs it in the near future. A team with a starting quarterback of Manning’s caliber should have to develop a quarterback that could eventually take over. Just like the Patriots did with Cassel and are doing with Mallet while they still have Brady, what the Packers did with Rodgers while they had Favre, and even what the Eagles did with Kolb while they had McNabb. Not have one fall in their lap while their star quarterback is injured.
On a positive football related note, the NFL had a very strong opening weekend. Not just in quality, but record breaking as well. Rodgers and Brees set a record for each having 300+ yards and 3 TDs with no interceptions during the same game on opening weekend. Ted Ginn Jr. became the first player to return a kickoff and a punt for a touchdown in the first game of the year. Cam Newton threw for 400+ yards, the most by a rookie in his first game. Sebastian Janikowski tied the NFL record with a 63-yard field goal. Dallas lost for the first time in history when leading by 14+ points in the 4th quarter, bringing their overall record to 241-1-1. Brady threw for 500+ yards, which is a team record. There's definitely worse ways to kick off a new season than with half a dozen historic happenings. Should be a good year.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
NFL Predictions
For fun, I thought I'd make some predictions about the NFL season. Here are my guesses on who will make the playoffs, who will advance to the Super Bowl, and who will win MVP.
Playoff Teams:
I think the AFC playoff teams are the easiest to predict, as it will look pretty similar to last year, with the Patriots, Steelers, Jets, and Ravens all returning. The only differences I see are the Chargers and Texans replacing the Chiefs and Colts. With Marcus McNeill and Vincent Jackson not holding out this year and the possibility that Ryan Mathews stays healthy, the Chargers offense could be even more explosive than last year. And the defense should stay solid, if not improve, with the additions of Takeo Spikes, Travis LaBoy, and Bob Sanders. I think the Texans have a couple things going for them. One is that Peyton Manning may miss a couple games (or more), presumably removing the Colts from their usual playoff spot. The other is that their defense should be improved, with the signing of Johnathan Joseph and the hiring of Wade Phillips as defensive coordinator. With the regression of the Colts and the strengthening of their defense, Houston should walkaway with the division.
Like the AFC, I see four NFC teams returning to the playoffs from last year: the Falcons, Eagles, Packers, and Saints. The most obvious newcomer to the playoffs this year should be the Rams. The Seahawks QB situation appears to be abysmal. The Niners have a new coaching staff. The Cardinals have upgraded the QB position. However, they're now without Hightower, Breaston, Rodgers-Cromartie, and Joey Porter's a year older. I think the worst case scenario for the Rams is that they end up tied with the Niners going into their week 17 match-up. And since that game is in St. Louis, it's safe to assume that they advance to playoffs even in their worst case scenario.
The final NFC playoff team is trickier to predict. I think Chicago and Tampa probably take a step back, I think the Lions are probably a year away from the playoffs and the Giants look decimated by injuries. Contrary to most people's opinion, I actually think the Vikings have a shot. They no longer have drama surrounding the head coach and I think McNabb is an upgrade over Favre. He had a decent season in Washington, which he should be able to outperform that with the likes of Peterson, Harvin, Schiancoe and Jenkins surrounding him. The question for the Vikings is whether or not their defense will slip, with the subtractions of Pat Williams and Ray Edwards. The other candidate to make the playoffs is the Cowboys. Their offense should improve, if Romo can stay healthy. And while I don't trust their defense, it's not like there's much room to regress. I think the Vikings will be better than people think, but Dallas has an easier schedule (and probably even division, at this point). So I'm going with the Cowboys to make the playoffs.
Super Bowl picks:
I think the Rams and Ravens are long shots and I don't think the Cowboys or Texans will have good enough defenses to make it to the Super Bowl. That leaves the Packers, Steelers, Eagles, Falcons, Saints, Patriots, Jets, and Chargers. Most teams don't make it to the Super Bowl two years in a row, so it would be tough to pick the Packers or Steelers. The Eagles are the most talented team in the league. In a normal year, they'd be a near lock to make the Super Bowl. But with limited time to jell, it's hard to pick them. The Falcons are a very good team. They would probably be my favorite to win the NFC, if it weren't for the Saints. Not only are the Saints a very good team, but they're two years removed from the Super Bowl (so no hangover) and they have the most continuity and stability in the league. Which, following a lockout, historically bodes well for not only a Super Bowl appearance, but a win as well. Who do the Saints play? I think it comes down to the Patriots, the Jets, and the darkhorse Chargers. The Patriots are supremely talented, but their last two playoff appearances have been shaky. The Jets have been to the AFC Championship game two years in a row, but they're starting to feel like the team that gets really close without ever getting over the hump. Therefore, I'll pick the Chargers to make a surprise Super Bowl appearance. I might as well pick an underdog, since the Saints seem like the safest pick in football. Regardless of who comes out of the AFC, I think the Saints will win the Super Bowl.
Final rankings for Super Bowl Favorites: Saints, Falcons, Eagles, Packers, Cowboys, Rams for the NFC and Chargers, Patriots, Jets, Steelers, Texans, and Ravens for the AFC.
MVP:
I sort of feel like it's Michael Vick's award to lose. But while that may give him a head start, I think it also leaves little room for error. So I'm guessing that it comes down to Philip Rivers or Matt Schaub. Both could have monster years. Will Schaub benefit from the narrative of taking his team from third place to first place? Or will he suffer from the possible narrative that it took a Peyton Manning neck injury for the Texans to make the playoffs? I went into this thinking it would be the former, and that I'd pick Schaub, but I'm going to guess that Manning's storyline will compete for attention with Schaub's production. So I'm going with Philip Rivers to be the MVP.
No matter how right or wrong my predictions end up, it should be an exciting year of football.
Playoff Teams:
I think the AFC playoff teams are the easiest to predict, as it will look pretty similar to last year, with the Patriots, Steelers, Jets, and Ravens all returning. The only differences I see are the Chargers and Texans replacing the Chiefs and Colts. With Marcus McNeill and Vincent Jackson not holding out this year and the possibility that Ryan Mathews stays healthy, the Chargers offense could be even more explosive than last year. And the defense should stay solid, if not improve, with the additions of Takeo Spikes, Travis LaBoy, and Bob Sanders. I think the Texans have a couple things going for them. One is that Peyton Manning may miss a couple games (or more), presumably removing the Colts from their usual playoff spot. The other is that their defense should be improved, with the signing of Johnathan Joseph and the hiring of Wade Phillips as defensive coordinator. With the regression of the Colts and the strengthening of their defense, Houston should walkaway with the division.
Like the AFC, I see four NFC teams returning to the playoffs from last year: the Falcons, Eagles, Packers, and Saints. The most obvious newcomer to the playoffs this year should be the Rams. The Seahawks QB situation appears to be abysmal. The Niners have a new coaching staff. The Cardinals have upgraded the QB position. However, they're now without Hightower, Breaston, Rodgers-Cromartie, and Joey Porter's a year older. I think the worst case scenario for the Rams is that they end up tied with the Niners going into their week 17 match-up. And since that game is in St. Louis, it's safe to assume that they advance to playoffs even in their worst case scenario.
The final NFC playoff team is trickier to predict. I think Chicago and Tampa probably take a step back, I think the Lions are probably a year away from the playoffs and the Giants look decimated by injuries. Contrary to most people's opinion, I actually think the Vikings have a shot. They no longer have drama surrounding the head coach and I think McNabb is an upgrade over Favre. He had a decent season in Washington, which he should be able to outperform that with the likes of Peterson, Harvin, Schiancoe and Jenkins surrounding him. The question for the Vikings is whether or not their defense will slip, with the subtractions of Pat Williams and Ray Edwards. The other candidate to make the playoffs is the Cowboys. Their offense should improve, if Romo can stay healthy. And while I don't trust their defense, it's not like there's much room to regress. I think the Vikings will be better than people think, but Dallas has an easier schedule (and probably even division, at this point). So I'm going with the Cowboys to make the playoffs.
Super Bowl picks:
I think the Rams and Ravens are long shots and I don't think the Cowboys or Texans will have good enough defenses to make it to the Super Bowl. That leaves the Packers, Steelers, Eagles, Falcons, Saints, Patriots, Jets, and Chargers. Most teams don't make it to the Super Bowl two years in a row, so it would be tough to pick the Packers or Steelers. The Eagles are the most talented team in the league. In a normal year, they'd be a near lock to make the Super Bowl. But with limited time to jell, it's hard to pick them. The Falcons are a very good team. They would probably be my favorite to win the NFC, if it weren't for the Saints. Not only are the Saints a very good team, but they're two years removed from the Super Bowl (so no hangover) and they have the most continuity and stability in the league. Which, following a lockout, historically bodes well for not only a Super Bowl appearance, but a win as well. Who do the Saints play? I think it comes down to the Patriots, the Jets, and the darkhorse Chargers. The Patriots are supremely talented, but their last two playoff appearances have been shaky. The Jets have been to the AFC Championship game two years in a row, but they're starting to feel like the team that gets really close without ever getting over the hump. Therefore, I'll pick the Chargers to make a surprise Super Bowl appearance. I might as well pick an underdog, since the Saints seem like the safest pick in football. Regardless of who comes out of the AFC, I think the Saints will win the Super Bowl.
Final rankings for Super Bowl Favorites: Saints, Falcons, Eagles, Packers, Cowboys, Rams for the NFC and Chargers, Patriots, Jets, Steelers, Texans, and Ravens for the AFC.
MVP:
I sort of feel like it's Michael Vick's award to lose. But while that may give him a head start, I think it also leaves little room for error. So I'm guessing that it comes down to Philip Rivers or Matt Schaub. Both could have monster years. Will Schaub benefit from the narrative of taking his team from third place to first place? Or will he suffer from the possible narrative that it took a Peyton Manning neck injury for the Texans to make the playoffs? I went into this thinking it would be the former, and that I'd pick Schaub, but I'm going to guess that Manning's storyline will compete for attention with Schaub's production. So I'm going with Philip Rivers to be the MVP.
No matter how right or wrong my predictions end up, it should be an exciting year of football.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Contract Disputes: Loyalty or Business?
Due to a labor dispute, it's been awhile since I've posted anything. That's right, I was holding out for more money. Okay that's not true, but it seems to be a common occurrence these days in the world of sports. Following a lockout filled summer (one big contract dispute), there's been individual contract disputes with some players. Probably the most publicized contract dispute, currently going on in the NFL, is Chris Johnson's. Personally, I've never been a fan of contract disputes. I think my perception of them has always been that they only happen out of greed. These guys make millions of dollars. Why do they need to holdout for more money?
But then there's the current situation with Frank Gore. He wants a contract extension before the start of the season. Instead of viewing a potential contract extension as a reward for being one of the best RBs in franchise history, I've read comments from fans saying it that would be a bad business decision. Since he's not likely to produce at a high level for more than two years, they feel that the Niners should just let him walk at the end of the year. It's just business.
Just business? Those fans may say it's just business now, but what if Gore had a contract dispute three or four years ago? Would it have been just business then as well? Last year, Vincent Jackson's holdout lasted long into the season. Was that just business? Or what if Chris Johnson's holdout leads to him missing games this year? Would that be considered just business? Or is it just business because Gore is on the back end of his career?
It seems like fans have contradictory opinions on contract disputes. If a player is in their prime, people may question their loyalty to the team or think they're greedy. But if a player is past their prime, then it's just business. In reality, contract negotiations either involve loyalty or they don't. It's irrelevant where a player is at in their career.
Now this isn't to say that loyalty should trump business entirely. Teams shouldn't hand out ridiculous contracts just to keep a player. But if someone looks at the Gore situation and the idea of loyalty doesn't enter the conversation, then it shouldn't when Chris Johnson or any other players holds out for money. If you expect the players to show loyalty to their teams, then you should expect the teams to reciprocate that loyalty. But if you don't get mad when teams treat the players in a business manner, then you can't get mad when the players do the same. You either expect loyalty or you don't. You either view it as "just business" or you don't.
But you can't expect the owners to treat the players like a business and expect loyalty in return.
But then there's the current situation with Frank Gore. He wants a contract extension before the start of the season. Instead of viewing a potential contract extension as a reward for being one of the best RBs in franchise history, I've read comments from fans saying it that would be a bad business decision. Since he's not likely to produce at a high level for more than two years, they feel that the Niners should just let him walk at the end of the year. It's just business.
Just business? Those fans may say it's just business now, but what if Gore had a contract dispute three or four years ago? Would it have been just business then as well? Last year, Vincent Jackson's holdout lasted long into the season. Was that just business? Or what if Chris Johnson's holdout leads to him missing games this year? Would that be considered just business? Or is it just business because Gore is on the back end of his career?
It seems like fans have contradictory opinions on contract disputes. If a player is in their prime, people may question their loyalty to the team or think they're greedy. But if a player is past their prime, then it's just business. In reality, contract negotiations either involve loyalty or they don't. It's irrelevant where a player is at in their career.
Now this isn't to say that loyalty should trump business entirely. Teams shouldn't hand out ridiculous contracts just to keep a player. But if someone looks at the Gore situation and the idea of loyalty doesn't enter the conversation, then it shouldn't when Chris Johnson or any other players holds out for money. If you expect the players to show loyalty to their teams, then you should expect the teams to reciprocate that loyalty. But if you don't get mad when teams treat the players in a business manner, then you can't get mad when the players do the same. You either expect loyalty or you don't. You either view it as "just business" or you don't.
But you can't expect the owners to treat the players like a business and expect loyalty in return.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Greater Yankee: Jeter or Rivera?
A couple months ago, ESPN New York put together a list of the "50 Greatest Yankees". What caught my eye was the rankings of Jeter and Rivera. Jeter was ranked 7th and Rivera was ranked 5th. Rivera over Jeter? That struck me as odd. How can a guy who plays a fraction of games be greater than a guy who plays full games on a regular basis? Jeter has played 2,358 games in pinstripes. Rivera has played in 1,183 innings. Jeter's played twice as many games as Rivera's played innings. Not only does Jeter play more, but he also contributes on both sides of the ball. He's won five gold gloves and his career BA is .312. Jeter's four hits away from being the first Yankee to have 3,000 hits and he's fifteen away from being in the top 25 of all-time.
The case for Rivera is that he's the greatest closer of all-time. While that's certainly true, closers aren't as valuable as they're perceived to be. According to Joe Posnanski, teams haven't been more successful with the modern idea of a closer than they were before. He writes, "Teams held 95.5% of their ninth-inning leads in 2010. Teams held 95.5% of their ninth-inning leads in 1952." That's not to say Rivera doesn't make a difference. Since he joined the Yankees, they have held a lead "97.3% of the time when they lead going into the ninth inning." So he does make a difference, but how much of a difference? If 97.3 is probably the best (or close to it), and 95.5 is the average, that would mean the worst team holds the lead about 93.7 percent of the time. It's definitely a difference, but is it really enough of a difference to say he's greater than Jeter?
I would say no. One guy brings value to the offense and defense for the entire game. The other guy brings value to the defense for one, maybe two, innings. The difference in value is evident in their Wins Above Replacement, with Jeter having 70 and Rivera having 54.4. This isn't to say that Rivera isn't one of the best Yankees of all-time. I just don't see how he can be greater than an all-time great that plays day in and day out. Would you rather have a HOF shortstop and an All-Star closer or a All-Star shortshop and a HOF closer? I'd choose the former.
I'd rather have greatness everyday than greatness occasionally.
The case for Rivera is that he's the greatest closer of all-time. While that's certainly true, closers aren't as valuable as they're perceived to be. According to Joe Posnanski, teams haven't been more successful with the modern idea of a closer than they were before. He writes, "Teams held 95.5% of their ninth-inning leads in 2010. Teams held 95.5% of their ninth-inning leads in 1952." That's not to say Rivera doesn't make a difference. Since he joined the Yankees, they have held a lead "97.3% of the time when they lead going into the ninth inning." So he does make a difference, but how much of a difference? If 97.3 is probably the best (or close to it), and 95.5 is the average, that would mean the worst team holds the lead about 93.7 percent of the time. It's definitely a difference, but is it really enough of a difference to say he's greater than Jeter?
I would say no. One guy brings value to the offense and defense for the entire game. The other guy brings value to the defense for one, maybe two, innings. The difference in value is evident in their Wins Above Replacement, with Jeter having 70 and Rivera having 54.4. This isn't to say that Rivera isn't one of the best Yankees of all-time. I just don't see how he can be greater than an all-time great that plays day in and day out. Would you rather have a HOF shortstop and an All-Star closer or a All-Star shortshop and a HOF closer? I'd choose the former.
I'd rather have greatness everyday than greatness occasionally.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
NBA: Looking Forward
After a fantastic season, the NBA now finds itself in an unfortunate situation: a lockout. I'm not going to discuss the specifics of the lockout (there's plenty of articles around that can do that). All I'll say is that it needs to be resolved before the start of the season and the league needs more revenue sharing. I'm not just saying it needs to be resolved before the start of the season because I want to watch basketball. It needs to be resolved before the start of the season because if the league cancels games next year, they could very well undercut all the momentum they built this past season. And it would be a shame for the league to take a huge hit while it's rising in popularity. As far as revenue sharing goes, I think the league needs more of it because a well-managed small market team shouldn't have less financial flexibility than a big market team that's horribly managed. The current system basically punishes small market teams that do too well at drafting and assembling teams. Oklahoma City should be able to afford keeping Durant, Westbrook, Ibaka, Harden etc. at their market value. The same goes for Memphis. As a basketball fan, I would love to see Memphis be able to keep Randolph, Gasol, Gay, Mayo, Conley, Allen, Arthur, Vazquez and Battier. That's a championship caliber team that should be able to remain intact. If the Lakers or Knicks would be able to afford keeping that team together, then Memphis should be able to as well. Bigger payroll flexibility should be the result of quality draft picks and good management, not market size. Personally, I'd prefer if the teams with the highest payrolls were the teams that were built organically (like Memphis and OKC).
Another big thing that could make the NBA even more enjoyable next season is less foul calls. After the horrendous flopping by Wade in LeBron in the third and fourth game of the Finals (which I previously wrote about), the refs refrained from blowing their whistle on every hint of contact during the final two games. Somewhat surprisingly, the games were noticeably better when the refs let them play. I wasn't surprised that the games were better with less foul calls, I was surprised by how much better they were. It made a huge difference in the quality and flow of the game. Now I understand the league's desire to keep things in control and civilized on the court, but that doesn't mean the refs need to blow their whistle on every smidgen of contact. If the league cracked down on flopping and the refs weren't so whistle happy, the quality of the games would improve tenfold.
In addition to the practical things listed above, I also have a wish list of players I'd like to see moved around that I think would make the league better. But before listing those, I'd like to address some trades that did happen before the lockout.
J.J. Hickson to Sacramento- This was a surprising trade. I assumed that Cleveland didn't draft Derrick Williams because of they already had Hickson, then they go and trade him for Omri Casspi. I'm not really sure why Cleveland made this trade, but it could be a really big steal for Sacramento. I think Hickson and Cousins could be a really formidable frontcourt duo for years to come.
George Hill to Indiana- I like this move for the Pacers. Hill is a good (presumable) replacement for Ford, not to mention he's younger and cheaper. The main piece given up by Indiana was Kawhi Leonard. Leonard is probably more useful backing up Jefferson than he would be backing up Granger, so I think it was a good trade for both parties.
Rudy Fernandez to Dallas, Andre Miller to Denver, Raymond Felton to Portland- This was a fantastic trade. Fernandez should fit in perfectly with Dallas. He's a good shooter that I think could be very productive in Dallas' offense. Miller is a good pickup for Denver. Instead of having both Lawson and Felton in their primes, they get a veteran who's better suited to be a backup. And Miller should be a good locker room leader as well. Finally, I think Portland gets the best pickup of all with Felton. Portland needed to get younger at the point and Felton is a quality player in his prime. Portland now only has one guy on their roster over the age of 30. I really hope Roy and Oden can stay healthy and contribute next season, because I think that would make Portland a title contender. Felton, Matthews, Wallace, Aldridge, Oden, Mills, Roy, Batum and Camby is a very good rotation.
Now next season is already in position to be really good, but I thought it would be fun to explore some roster moves that I think would make it even better. Some are dream scenarios and some are more practical that I think should happen:
Aaron Brooks to the Lakers- Most people think the Lakers need a big overhaul to return to contention. I think they'll be fine with a longer offseason and a renewed motivation. The one area of their roster that they could address is the point guard position. I think Aaron Brooks would inject some athleticism to the team that's in serious need of it, especially at the point. This is a practical suggestion, but one unlikely to happen with Blake on the roster.
Kevin Love to the Heat- This is the most unlikely scenario of all. Part of me is resistant to Love leaving, because he's a franchise player that's only 22. Minnesota can still build around him; it's not like he's rotting away there yet. But the other part of me is thinking about how perfect Love is for Miami. He's a fantastic rebounder and is the best outlet passer in basketball. He's the perfect player to spark Miami's fast breaks. Also, he doesn't need the ball in his hands, like Bosh does, to be effective on offense. Instead, he's a great 3-pt shooter that would stretch the floor. If Love were to go to Miami, I'd like to see Bosh go to Milwaukee. I think he would form a nice trio with Jennings and Bogut. As much as I wouldn't want to see Love end up in Miami (making them deadly), it would be fascinating to witness such an explosive team.
Kevin Martin to Chicago- Chicago needs a second scorer and Martin would fill that role nicely. Instead of wasting his prime on a team that's rebuilding, it would be better if he were able to contribute to a contender. Since this is unlikely to happen, and might cost the Bulls to give up too much, the more realistic scenario I'd like to see is Marcus Thornton going to Chicago. He's a RFA with the Kings, so Chicago would only have to offer a good amount of money - and not have to part with valuable players - to bring him in. Thornton is starter quality and could be the secondary scorer Chicago is lacking. Maybe Chicago can't win a title with Boozer as its second scorer, but I think they could with him as their third or fourth scorer (behind Rose, Thornton and maybe Deng). I'd rather see Thornton be a starter on the Bulls than to presumably come off the bench behind Evans in Sacramento.
Marcin Gortat to New York- Gortat's a quality center that isn't as valuable to a sliding Suns team as he would be to a rising Knicks team. I think he'd fit nicely with Stoudemire. He would provide good interior defense and wouldn't clash with Amar'e on offense. He'd definitely be an upgrade over Turiaf and I think a Billups-Fields-Anthony-Stoudemire-Gortat starting lineup would actually be able to win a playoff game.
Al Jefferson to Boston- This is the trade I'm least confident in how successful it would be. But I think Jefferson could provide a scoring presence down low that Boston is lacking and, at the very least, would be an upgrade over the geriatric centers they had last year. I'm not sure that Jefferson is Utah's franchise center of the future (especially now that Williams is gone), so I don't think they'd be losing a critical piece. It would also be interesting to see Jefferson return to the team that drafted him.
Chris Paul to Orlando- This one comes with a prerequisite: that Chris Paul will leaving New Orleans. I don't want to steal Paul from the Hornets; but if he's going to leave anyway, I'd like to see him end up in Orlando. Why? Because it gives Howard the All-Star sidekick he needs to win a championship. Paul's a great 3-pt shooter (which is practically a necessity in Orlando's offense) and I think a Paul-Howard pick and roll would be the lethal. I think it would be the best big man-guard combo since Stockton and Malone. Another addition I'd like to see is Grant Hill joining the Magic. He's a good defender and 3-pt shooter, and it would be good to see him return to the team where he missed so much of his career. Paul and Hill would be defensive upgrades over Nelson and Turkoglu. I'd like to Richardson returned, albeit at a cheaper price, because I think a Paul-Richardson-Hill-Anderson-Howard lineup would be championship caliber. And how good would the ECF be with that team against a Chalmers-Wade-LeBron-Love-Anthony lineup? If Orlando's dream scenario and Miami's dream scenario both came to fruition, I think "where amazing happens" would actually be an understatement.
Unfortunately, most of those are unlikely to happen. I wish they would, because I think they would make those teams better without really hurting the teams giving up players (with exception of Minnesota and New Orleans, which is why I'd only do those assuming that the future of those teams with Paul and Love were bleak). And no, I'm not just favoring big market contenders. I didn't suggest anything for small market contenders like Portland, Memphis, or OKC because I think they already have championship caliber teams. The trades I listed above address weaknesses. I don't think Portland, Memphis, or OKC have any (assuming Roy and Oden can stay healthy, Gay doesn't have to be traded, and Durant establishes himself as the leader of his team). If those teams stay the way they are, the league cracked down on flopping, officials called less fouls, the league increased revenue sharing to keep small market teams (like Memphis) in tact, Chicago got a quality shooting guard, Boston and New York got quality centers, the Lakers played motivated, and Dallas re-signed their FAs, the league would be so much better next season.
Whenever that will be.
Another big thing that could make the NBA even more enjoyable next season is less foul calls. After the horrendous flopping by Wade in LeBron in the third and fourth game of the Finals (which I previously wrote about), the refs refrained from blowing their whistle on every hint of contact during the final two games. Somewhat surprisingly, the games were noticeably better when the refs let them play. I wasn't surprised that the games were better with less foul calls, I was surprised by how much better they were. It made a huge difference in the quality and flow of the game. Now I understand the league's desire to keep things in control and civilized on the court, but that doesn't mean the refs need to blow their whistle on every smidgen of contact. If the league cracked down on flopping and the refs weren't so whistle happy, the quality of the games would improve tenfold.
In addition to the practical things listed above, I also have a wish list of players I'd like to see moved around that I think would make the league better. But before listing those, I'd like to address some trades that did happen before the lockout.
J.J. Hickson to Sacramento- This was a surprising trade. I assumed that Cleveland didn't draft Derrick Williams because of they already had Hickson, then they go and trade him for Omri Casspi. I'm not really sure why Cleveland made this trade, but it could be a really big steal for Sacramento. I think Hickson and Cousins could be a really formidable frontcourt duo for years to come.
George Hill to Indiana- I like this move for the Pacers. Hill is a good (presumable) replacement for Ford, not to mention he's younger and cheaper. The main piece given up by Indiana was Kawhi Leonard. Leonard is probably more useful backing up Jefferson than he would be backing up Granger, so I think it was a good trade for both parties.
Rudy Fernandez to Dallas, Andre Miller to Denver, Raymond Felton to Portland- This was a fantastic trade. Fernandez should fit in perfectly with Dallas. He's a good shooter that I think could be very productive in Dallas' offense. Miller is a good pickup for Denver. Instead of having both Lawson and Felton in their primes, they get a veteran who's better suited to be a backup. And Miller should be a good locker room leader as well. Finally, I think Portland gets the best pickup of all with Felton. Portland needed to get younger at the point and Felton is a quality player in his prime. Portland now only has one guy on their roster over the age of 30. I really hope Roy and Oden can stay healthy and contribute next season, because I think that would make Portland a title contender. Felton, Matthews, Wallace, Aldridge, Oden, Mills, Roy, Batum and Camby is a very good rotation.
Now next season is already in position to be really good, but I thought it would be fun to explore some roster moves that I think would make it even better. Some are dream scenarios and some are more practical that I think should happen:
Aaron Brooks to the Lakers- Most people think the Lakers need a big overhaul to return to contention. I think they'll be fine with a longer offseason and a renewed motivation. The one area of their roster that they could address is the point guard position. I think Aaron Brooks would inject some athleticism to the team that's in serious need of it, especially at the point. This is a practical suggestion, but one unlikely to happen with Blake on the roster.
Kevin Love to the Heat- This is the most unlikely scenario of all. Part of me is resistant to Love leaving, because he's a franchise player that's only 22. Minnesota can still build around him; it's not like he's rotting away there yet. But the other part of me is thinking about how perfect Love is for Miami. He's a fantastic rebounder and is the best outlet passer in basketball. He's the perfect player to spark Miami's fast breaks. Also, he doesn't need the ball in his hands, like Bosh does, to be effective on offense. Instead, he's a great 3-pt shooter that would stretch the floor. If Love were to go to Miami, I'd like to see Bosh go to Milwaukee. I think he would form a nice trio with Jennings and Bogut. As much as I wouldn't want to see Love end up in Miami (making them deadly), it would be fascinating to witness such an explosive team.
Kevin Martin to Chicago- Chicago needs a second scorer and Martin would fill that role nicely. Instead of wasting his prime on a team that's rebuilding, it would be better if he were able to contribute to a contender. Since this is unlikely to happen, and might cost the Bulls to give up too much, the more realistic scenario I'd like to see is Marcus Thornton going to Chicago. He's a RFA with the Kings, so Chicago would only have to offer a good amount of money - and not have to part with valuable players - to bring him in. Thornton is starter quality and could be the secondary scorer Chicago is lacking. Maybe Chicago can't win a title with Boozer as its second scorer, but I think they could with him as their third or fourth scorer (behind Rose, Thornton and maybe Deng). I'd rather see Thornton be a starter on the Bulls than to presumably come off the bench behind Evans in Sacramento.
Marcin Gortat to New York- Gortat's a quality center that isn't as valuable to a sliding Suns team as he would be to a rising Knicks team. I think he'd fit nicely with Stoudemire. He would provide good interior defense and wouldn't clash with Amar'e on offense. He'd definitely be an upgrade over Turiaf and I think a Billups-Fields-Anthony-Stoudemire-Gortat starting lineup would actually be able to win a playoff game.
Al Jefferson to Boston- This is the trade I'm least confident in how successful it would be. But I think Jefferson could provide a scoring presence down low that Boston is lacking and, at the very least, would be an upgrade over the geriatric centers they had last year. I'm not sure that Jefferson is Utah's franchise center of the future (especially now that Williams is gone), so I don't think they'd be losing a critical piece. It would also be interesting to see Jefferson return to the team that drafted him.
Chris Paul to Orlando- This one comes with a prerequisite: that Chris Paul will leaving New Orleans. I don't want to steal Paul from the Hornets; but if he's going to leave anyway, I'd like to see him end up in Orlando. Why? Because it gives Howard the All-Star sidekick he needs to win a championship. Paul's a great 3-pt shooter (which is practically a necessity in Orlando's offense) and I think a Paul-Howard pick and roll would be the lethal. I think it would be the best big man-guard combo since Stockton and Malone. Another addition I'd like to see is Grant Hill joining the Magic. He's a good defender and 3-pt shooter, and it would be good to see him return to the team where he missed so much of his career. Paul and Hill would be defensive upgrades over Nelson and Turkoglu. I'd like to Richardson returned, albeit at a cheaper price, because I think a Paul-Richardson-Hill-Anderson-Howard lineup would be championship caliber. And how good would the ECF be with that team against a Chalmers-Wade-LeBron-Love-Anthony lineup? If Orlando's dream scenario and Miami's dream scenario both came to fruition, I think "where amazing happens" would actually be an understatement.
Unfortunately, most of those are unlikely to happen. I wish they would, because I think they would make those teams better without really hurting the teams giving up players (with exception of Minnesota and New Orleans, which is why I'd only do those assuming that the future of those teams with Paul and Love were bleak). And no, I'm not just favoring big market contenders. I didn't suggest anything for small market contenders like Portland, Memphis, or OKC because I think they already have championship caliber teams. The trades I listed above address weaknesses. I don't think Portland, Memphis, or OKC have any (assuming Roy and Oden can stay healthy, Gay doesn't have to be traded, and Durant establishes himself as the leader of his team). If those teams stay the way they are, the league cracked down on flopping, officials called less fouls, the league increased revenue sharing to keep small market teams (like Memphis) in tact, Chicago got a quality shooting guard, Boston and New York got quality centers, the Lakers played motivated, and Dallas re-signed their FAs, the league would be so much better next season.
Whenever that will be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)