The NBA thread

[Stoney Mason]

Yeah the article is just really insulting. The whitlock one I'm talking about. (Reily writes such consistently stupid shit I just ignore him) And its not the first time I've felt that way about a Whitlock column. Because he's black he seems to think that gives him the right to say certain things that other people can't to be controversial even if they are stupid.

What does the bolded even mean?

The problems facing the NBA are not unique. The problems are just more acute in the NBA as opposed to the NFL and major league baseball.

It’s easiest to see the break from traditional sports values in the NBA. The embrace of rebellious, hip-hop music culture, which is in direct opposition to the patriotism associated with sports, and the devastation of college basketball because of early entrants into the NBA put pro basketball players at odds with their fan base.

American sports fans love basketball. It is our most beautiful and graceful game. They don’t like or respect the participants. The fans don’t believe the players share their values. Fans care about the teams. The players don’t.

This is a straight up black versus white issue. But instead he just treats it like yep. Something needs to be done to make these shifty negroes acceptable to white people in idaho.

Fuck him.

Even if the sentiment is true in a real talk sense at least acknowledge the reality of what is going on here.

Would it be acceptable to write that blacks don't like tennis because we don't like or respect the participants of that sport. Or that rebellious rock music makes black people not want to watch tennis? Is that really the level of analysis that should go into the question why don't black people as a group like tennis or golf?

[Smooth Groove]

(Reily writes such consistently stupid shit I just ignore him)

National Sportswriter of the Year 11 times

[Phoenix Dark]

sounds like the writers are mad their plan to give Steve Nash the MVP didn't produce a fresh crop of clean shaven white guys to take back the court

[Cormacaroni]

I just realized I could have rebuked the 'small teams are getting screwed' theory in 3 words - 'Oklahoma City Thunder'

Somehow, they have 2 All-Stars, a high playoff spot and are suddenly a championship contender. In fucking Oklahoma.

(probably because Durant and Westbrook are closet fans of both golf and Perry Como)

[Cormacaroni]

sounds like the writers are mad their plan to give Steve Nash the MVP didn't produce a fresh crop of clean shaven white guys to take back the court

Well, they got Blake Griffin, who is...I don't know what he is actually

[Stoney Mason]

The thing is I think there is a good intelligent conversation to be had about if the "era of the superteam" is a good thing for the league or not. I mean we had a mini-version of that debate in this thread when Lebron joined the Heat I remember. Some were pro it and some were against it.  I get why that's an interesting and relevant conversation to have. I just don't like it when writers don't use facts to discuss it or don't acknowledge that they aren't using logic and are completely speaking out of their ass with their personal preference. Also leave the borderline race argument of dissing people riding in their limos and caddy's while listening to rap music by the wayside please. 

[Mandark]

Man, that Reilly column is impressively dumb.  The franchise tag lets teams keep their best players and compete, leading to small-market champions like Indy and Green Bay?

*  Green Bay won a title because it let its franchise player go and drafted a good replacement.
*  The franchise tag is almost never used on Manning or Brady types, but on disgruntled pass rushers who want to leave.
*  If anything, the NFL's hard cap forces teams to give up key players, because it's impossible to pay market value for your team if they all get good.
*  The NBA has teams in Sacramento, Oklahoma City, San Antonio, Salt Lake City, Memphis, and Portland.  All small markets, none served by other sports, all teams that have made the playoffs in the last decade, and several which had some very good runs.


And that's just what's wrong with the part Smooth posted.

[Smooth Groove]

"very tall, very rich twenty-somethings" is basically code for black. Truly a disgusting article.  I wish someone prominent would call out Reilly.  

[Phoenix Dark]

"very tall, very rich twenty-somethings" is basically code for black. Truly a disgusting article.  I wish someone prominent would call out Reilly.  

Jason Whitlock perhaps

[Cormacaroni]

Watching Bulls - Heat now. It's interesting how the Bulls are so good without wildly impressive talent. Like Boston, it's just talent that fits well together, and whipped to a froth by Thibodeau. Should make for a very interesting series if they run into the Heat - it could well turn into a replay of Boston vs the Cavs last year. Plus they already seem to have some hate going, which is always good.

[Smooth Groove]

"you need the Wite-Out"

Did Reilly think that he was posting with his stormfront account instead?

[Cormacaroni]

Just noticed that LeBron did Wade's Two-Step on the last drive to tie it...don't think I've seen him do that before.

[Smooth Groove]

Lebron had an impressive reverse dunk tonight but it was ridiculous how easy he made it look. 

[T-Short]

Pistons couldn't get rid of Rip. huahua

Now the question is, will he continue to be benched

[Cormacaroni]

Lebron had an impressive reverse dunk tonight but it was ridiculous how easy he made it look. 

The last quarter of the All-Star game was also a reminder that he is in fact the baddest man on the planet, whoever wins the MVP or whoever scores the most points this season.

[Cormacaroni]

Pistons couldn't get rid of Rip. huahua

Now the question is, will he continue to be benched

The OJ Mayo non-trade was comedy too. How much longer is Rip's contract? They might just buy him out, freeing him to go to a contender on the cheap.

[Smooth Groove]

OJ Mayo's inferiority complex is only gonna get worse.  Next he'll be bragging to his teammates about his kindergarten exploits on a NERF hoop. 

[T-Short]

Pistons couldn't get rid of Rip. huahua

Now the question is, will he continue to be benched

The OJ Mayo non-trade was comedy too. How much longer is Rip's contract? They might just buy him out, freeing him to go to a contender on the cheap.

Rip has 2 years and $25 mill left. The deal that fell apart was a trade to the Cavs, but he didn't want the minutes, hehe

The Pistons and the Cleveland Cavaliers agreed to a trade that would have sent Richard Hamilton to the Cavaliers, but the deal fell apart when Hamilton and the Cavaliers could not agree to terms on a buyout, Yahoo! Sports reported.

The deal apparently would have had the Pistons sending Hamilton and a future first-round pick to the Cavaliers for a future second-round pick and a trade exception the Cavaliers currently hold. Basically, the Cavaliers would have been purchasing a first-round pick from the Pistons at the cost of whatever they were willing to pay Hamilton in a buyout.

edit: also this

Several reports have said the Boston Celtics would be interested in Hamilton should he receive a buyout from the Pistons, but that does not even seem to be a possibility until the Pistons are sold -- and might not be a possibility even then.

[Cormacaroni]

short version: Detroit won't be retiring his number anytime soon

[Smooth Groove]

Are the Pistons willing to do a straight up trade for Mike Miller?

[Phoenix Dark]

Joe Dumars should have been fired awhile ago.

[etiolate]

So players are gathering up in fashoinable markets and you're worried that articles about a MLB-like future is hidden racism?

[Stoney Mason]

EVERYONE WHO CLAIMS THE NBA IS BEING RUINED BECAUSE SUPERSTARS WANT TO CONTROL WHERE THEY PLAY: D-minus
What a lazy argument. Over the past six decades, the following players pushed their way from a worse situation to a (seemingly) better one either by trade or free agency: Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robertson, Shaquille O'Neal, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Moses Malone, Rick Barry, Charles Barkley, Scottie Pippen, Bill Walton, Kevin Garnett, Allen Iverson, Gary Payton, Ray Allen, Jason Kidd, Clyde Drexler ... should I keep going? Now this "phenomenon" is endangering the game???

As Kenny Smith said last night, "If [a small-market team] builds the right pieces around the right guy, he will stay." Period. Duncan stayed in San Antonio because it built the right team around him. Stockton and Malone stayed in Utah because they had each other. Durant will stay in Oklahoma City because of Westbrook and everyone else. LeBron left Cleveland mainly because it made bad trades and signed the wrong guys. And Utah never would have thought it might lose Deron Williams if it hadn't screwed up the roster around him. Besides, why is it such a bad thing to have six or seven loaded teams and six or seven terrible ones? Oh crap, I hate seeing the Finals with all these elite players! Give me a break.

And that's why I like Bill Simmons.

[Mandark]

So players are gathering up in fashoinable markets and you're worried that articles about a MLB-like future is hidden racism?

Reilly doesn't mention MLB anywhere in there.  I don't think Reilly's ever had a column like this about baseball.  He did a "10 things I'd do if I were commish" article for ESPN magazine and didn't mention a single thing about player distribution and movement.  So apparently he's not bugged by that situation.

Yet he writes a remarkably bitter column about Carmelo, criticizing players basically for 1) being young, 2) being rich, 3) socializing with each other, 4) deciding where they want to work.  I'm not gonna say the dude Is A Racist, but he's gone way beyond a rational basis for his complaints and he definitely has an ax to grind.  I think the consensus here is that Reilly is echoing Whitlock, but feels has to be more careful with his language cause he's white.

[Stoney Mason]

Should make for a very interesting series if they run into the Heat - it could well turn into a replay of Boston vs the Cavs last year.

While they would never admit it publicly that's got to be weighing in the back of the minds of Wade and Lebron. Despite all that talent the offense still just becomes 1 on 5 in crunch time. The drive at the end of the game where Rose dishes to Deng for the 3 to win the game is exactly the kind of play Miami struggles to create when it matters. And that Lebron 3 attempt is exactly the play they tend to end up settling for when it matters.  Now Miami can internally make all kinds of excuses. That it was a road game they barely lost. That Miller wasn't playing. That Bosh had a historically bad game, etc, etc. But the problem is no matter what they keep losing to Boston and Chicago because those teams actually play like a team.

[Mandark]

Yep, people will debate about whether the Yanks/Sox duopoly is good for the game, but they generally won't frame the issue as the fault of selfish, "conniving" players.

The funniest part of that Reilly article is when he complains about Chauncey Billups being included in the trade against his will.  He apparently wants a system in which players get to control where they play, but where players don't control where they play.

Presumably your freedom of movement would be determined by whether Mr. Rick Reilly believes you are mature enough and approves of your decision-making process.

[Phoenix Dark]

Agreed.  You simply don't get these kinds of articles talking about the MLB.  I don't remember this kind of hand wringing when Cliff Lee left the Rangers to create one of the most overloaded superteams of all time.

Real Talk

[etiolate]

People blame owners more in the MLB, well back when people actually cared about the league or thought it wasn't dying for sure, but I always included the players in the problem. They are hurting the game by chasing money and pennant teams. It kills the sense of competition and makes the league feel less legit. So for me, getting mad at the players is nothing new. I see an angry sentiment from people towards the players doing this in the NBA as just being the slow realization that started with baseball. That, oh wait, yes the players are involved in this thing that is kind of killing the draw of sports.

Also, in between the competitive collapse of baseball and the threat of it in the NBA, we've had the NFL go to a design that went towards teams protecting top players and being able to each build a team without fear of their pieces bailing on the team. This has helped the NFL become the #1 sport for America. Everybody cares about their team and season, and is invested through the season and into the playoffs.

As for Simmons:

Besides, why is it such a bad thing to have six or seven loaded teams and six or seven terrible ones? Oh crap, I hate seeing the Finals with all these elite players! Give me a break.

Because nobody cares about the outcome if they don't belong to the loaded team fanbase. Because the outcome seems pre-ordained and continually watching seems pointless. I might as well be watching a game that I've already read the final boxscore for, since I am only there to see a few highlights. Being a Kings fan, I've watched some superstar-less games with some bad teams playing the Kings. These games can end up entertaining because the outcome is really unknown. The final quarter isn't predictable and that is nice, being as the NBA has a ongoing legitimacy issue with the refs. Throwing haves and havenots on top of that would kill the league for me and others.

[Great Rumbler]

Besides, why is it such a bad thing to have six or seven loaded teams and six or seven terrible ones? Oh crap, I hate seeing the Finals with all these elite players! Give me a break.

When I read this line, I can't not hear it in Colin Cowherd's voice.

[Smooth Groove]

While I don't think Whitlock and Reilly are racist, they are carelessly propagating resentful sentiments that are deeply based on institutionalized racism.  This is not the first time that the NBA has been held to a higher standard.  For years, NBA players were portrayed as thugs simply for having tattoos and brash attitudes while NFL players escaped such stereotyping despite committing a much higher frequency of criminal acts.   It's very unlikely to be a mere coincidence that the league which has the highest percentage of black athletes, also generates the most vitriolic responses for stuff that are just as bad or worse in other leagues.

[Stoney Mason]

This has helped the NFL become the #1 sport for America.

The rest of the post is just opinion stuff which I disagree with but everybody is entitled to their opinion. There is no right or wrong about how somebody feels about player movement.

But it's not like the NFL just became the #1 sport in America. It's been the #1 sport in America for a very long time by a very large degree. And that's before parity became very common in the NFL. The Superbowl is a cultural touchstone. It draws big ratings no matter what. Just wanted to clarify since people tend to throw out that argument as if all the sports were equal a few years back and suddenly football got really popular all of a sudden. Basketball has always been up and down in popularity in this country. That has had very little to do with player free agent movement and much more to do with superstars garnering big interest. When somebody actually puts up some data that supports the argument that player movement has a very strong effect on the ratings or popularity of a sport I will agree with it. But the popularity of football in America as just a casual observation that football is really popular isn't that piece of data by itself.

[etiolate]

There certainly is a line of racism towards the hip-hop face of the NBA that comes squealing out of the press. They had a love hate/relationship with Iverson due to his image. His one finals years he was "reformed MVP AI" and they gave him love for winning, but as soon as the success left it went back to thug AI. Jason Williams got a lot of hate his first two years in the league by people who felt he was betraying his skin color by the way he played.

With this issue, my mind doesn't go straight towards racism because it is a legit issue on its own.

Stoney: you're right, it didn't just become #1, but I should say that the parity is why its distancing itself from the rest of the sports in terms of popularity and good-feelings

[Stoney Mason]

Stoney: you're right, it didn't just become #1, but I should say that the parity is why its distancing itself from the rest of the sports in terms of popularity and good-feelings

That's certainly an argument or discussion to have but personally I'm skeptical about that view and we'd have to agree on how to even measure such things. I would argue the two most popular points of the modern era NBA had less to do with parity and more to do with transcendent superstars or rivalries between superstars.

Ala Larry Bird. A player who was able to draw a lot of white fans back to the sport based on his skin color and how good he was. Couple that with a rivalry of the ages with Magic Johnson and you had big ratings.

Or Michael Jordan and the bulls. A player and team so dominate they crushed all opposition.

I don't believe there is enough data to say that extreme parity makes basketball more popular in America. And like I said how do we measure this? TV ratings? League Revenue? Popularity polls? Team value?

There is a good degree of parity in the NHL but I don't see a lot of people talking about how Hockey is sweeping the country in popularity at the moment.

I think parity driving popularity in the NFL is one of those things that people just say because it sounds "common-sensical" but I'm not sure I'm convinced that is the correct answer. 

[etiolate]

I run into fans of a lot of different NFL teams and they are excited for each season. I run into basketball fans who have stopped watching the NBA because their team lost so and so, or just fell off in relativity. If someone doesn't care about the NFL then it has to do with no actual interest in the sport. I run into basketball fans who have dropped the NBA because of legitimacy issues, and keep to NCAA. (which may have its own such issue) I stopped following baseball because the A's are a farm team.

I am not sure this is something you can measure, but not everything must be measured to be real. The NBA has had real popularity concerns post-Jordan, but thats because they tied everything to a super entity mascot and then the mascot left and people didn't know where to place their interest. Now they keep trying to sell new mascots but people may have wised up to that ploy. They don't believe in super-people-athletes anymore. So the struggling does exist. You may not want to accept an answer without data, but what you observe matters and I certainly observe these things often enough to give them credit.

[Smooth Groove]

Stoney: you're right, it didn't just become #1, but I should say that the parity is why its distancing itself from the rest of the sports in terms of popularity and good-feelings

That's certainly an argument or discussion to have but personally I'm skeptical about that view and we'd have to agree on how to even measure such things. I would argue the two most popular points of the modern era NBA had less to do with parity and more to do with transcendent superstars or rivalries between superstars.

Ala Larry Bird. A player who was able to draw a lot of white fans back to the sport based on his skin color and how good he was. Couple that with a rivalry of the ages with Magic Johnson and you had big ratings.

Or Michael Jordan and the bulls. A player and team so dominate they crushed all opposition.

I don't believe there is enough data to say that extreme parity makes basketball more popular in America. And like I said how do we measure this? TV ratings? League Revenue? Popularity polls? Team value?

There is a good degree of parity in the NHL but I don't see a lot of people talking about how Hockey is sweeping the country in popularity at the moment.

I think parity driving popularity in the NFL is one of those things that people just say because it sounds "common-sensical" but I'm not sure I'm convinced that is the correct answer. 

Good point.  Basketball (pro and amateur) doesn't have the highest ratings but it's highly probable that basketball is the most commonly played sport in America.  

[Stoney Mason]

I run into fans of a lot of different NFL teams and they are excited for each season. I run into basketball fans who have stopped watching the NBA because their team lost so and so, or just fell off in relativity. If someone doesn't care about the NFL then it has to do with no actual interest in the sport. I run into basketball fans who have dropped the NBA because of legitimacy issues, and keep to NCAA. (which may have its own such issue) I stopped following baseball because the A's are a farm team.

I am not sure this is something you can measure, but not everything must be measured to be real. The NBA has had real popularity concerns post-Jordan, but thats because they tied everything to a super entity mascot and then the mascot left and people didn't know where to place their interest. Now they keep trying to sell new mascots but people may have wised up to that ploy. They don't believe in super-people-athletes anymore. So the struggling does exist. You may not want to accept an answer without data, but what you observe matters and I certainly observe these things often enough to give them credit.

Like I said, I'm not sure I'm on either side of the debate at the moment. I think it is possible that parity may play some part in the popularity of the NFL even though its a very recent thing in the NFL which has been popular for a long time which is why I'm skeptical. I think they are lots of reasons why sports rise and fall in popularity in this country. I'm just saying based on anecdotal quick glances I need some data before I'm comfortable saying such things and immediately going to the sky is falling card. It's disappoints me that professionally paid writers who have the time and data to inform such a debate don't actually try very hard to do so. That's my problem with the Reily and Whitlock articles. Not that it can't be potentially correct. It's more that its strikes me as very lazy writing because they don't even do a good job of backing up their arguments other than I'm so mad at Lebron and the decision type arguing. I think we've had a better debate in this thread on the issue than paid professionals have.


Not to keep sucking on Simmons cock since I know he isn't very liked in this thread but I thought his writing on losing Perkins was very good today. It's sort of a balanced take on what a fan feels and also realizing how the real world operates and doing his job properly. It's doesn't strike me as naive or ranting like those other two pieces.

ending rant now.

Strategically, the trade made sense: The Celtics decided that the hole created by Perkins' departure (rebounding and interior defense) wasn't as important as the hole they needed to fill (perimeter scoring, perimeter defense, flexibility). The dirty little secret of the 2010-11 Celtics? They really missed … (wait for it) … Tony Allen.

That's right, Trick-Or-Treat Tony!

They actually missed his defense and athleticism. Marquis Daniels did a decent job filling the void, but once he got hurt, Paul Pierce became Boston's only perimeter player on the entire roster who could defend Carmelo Anthony (Round 1?) and LeBron James (Round 2?). You really want to rely on a 32-year-old with nearly 1,000 games on his odometer for four straight playoff rounds as your only small forward? That left Danny Ainge with two choices: overpay for a rental (Shane Battier, Jamario Moon, Mickael Pietrus, etc.) or fundamentally change his team.

Here's what he saw with Perkins: a 26-year-old with some miles (and multiple surgeries on his shoulders and knees) in line to make $10 million a year (a price the Celtics didn't want to pay), only they couldn't play him at crunch time because, between Rajon Rondo's fear of getting fouled and Perkins' lack of offense, that meant the Celtics were playing three-on-five offensively down the stretch. You can't win that way. That's why Glen Davis grabbed Perkins' crunch-time minutes against good teams.

And here's what Ainge saw with Green: only 24 years old, a phenomenal teammate by all accounts, someone who played out of position battling bigger players and never complained (not once). I remember looking up his stats a few weeks ago, when I was working on my trade-value column, and wondering whether his confidence was waning: He had been a 39 percent shooter on 3-pointers in 2008-09, but he dwindled to 30 percent this season. Ainge probably hopes that Green (A) will be better playing his natural position, (B) can swing from big forward to small forward depending on the matchups, and (C) can spell Pierce and Ray Allen even better than James Posey did three years ago. Against Golden State on Tuesday, the Celtics played Von Wafer, Robinson and Delonte West at the same time. That would work against LeBron or Carmelo? Please. With Orlando fading into obscurity, only the Lakers loomed as a playoff team that made you say, "We definitely need Perkins in that series." Was that enough of a reason to keep him around? You tell me.

If the Celtics had a glaring flaw these past two years, it was a lack of flexibility: They could never go small, only big, and they were entirely predictable at crunch time with Garnett, Davis, Pierce, Allen and Rondo (and Perkins almost always stuck on the bench). Green allows them to play small ball against athletic teams, protects them from Pierce getting into foul trouble and gives them another solid defender against LeBron and Carmelo. Make no mistake -- this was a gaping, bullet-sized hole that needed to be filled. But was that hole bigger than the one created by trading Perkins? He played Dwight Howard well; that's gone. He played Andrew Bynum well; that's gone. He supplied a toughness that's rarely seen in the league anymore; it remains to be seen whether Garnett can carry that torch alone. Actually, that's my biggest fear if we weren't putting a ton of eggs in the Shaq Basket (scary thought), banking on Jermaine O'Neal to crawl out of his grave (not likely), hoping for decent minutes from Nenad Krstic (yikes), praying for a Troy Murphy buyout (too bad it's not 2008) and maybe even banking on a Rasheed Wallace comeback (just shoot me).

Still, I believe Boston's perimeter hole was more glaring than the one Perkins just left … on paper. Remember, the Celtics were 33-10 this season without Perkins before the trade -- it's not as though he was irreplaceable. He made the first 42 minutes of every game easier; he didn't matter for the last six. If this were "Sliding Doors" and we could play the rest of the Celtics' season two ways -- one with Green, one with Perkins -- I'd bet anything that Green would log more crunch-time minutes than Perkins does. I liked the trade on paper. I really did. This team is better positioned to make the Finals now. On paper. On paper.

On paper.

And there's the rub. We don't play basketball on paper. I cared about this particular Celtics team more than any Celtics squad since Reggie Lewis was alive -- and that includes the 2008 title team -- mainly because the players enjoyed one another so much. I wasn't surprised to hear that Perkins cried for most of the day Thursday, that Boston's veterans were infuriated by the trade, that Rondo (Perk's best friend) was practically catatonic heading into Thursday night's game in Denver. These guys loved one another. As recently as last season, you couldn't have said that. But Shaq loosened everyone up; so did four full years of the core guys being together; so did Doc's belated maturation into an impactful coach (believe me, I'm as shocked as anyone); so did the contract extensions (Boston's four All-Stars are signed through at least 2012); so did the bonding experience of blowing Game 7 and having that purple confetti fall on their heads; so did the enduring belief that nobody had ever beaten them when they were healthy.

I attended Tuesday's game in Oakland and saw exactly what I expected to see: a well-rested, veteran team that knew it hadn't won there in six years and took care of business accordingly. In the first half, David Lee didn't like the way Perkins fouled him on a drive, whirled around and bumped Garnett and Perkins (standing next to each other) on his way to the line. Double technicals. I remember thinking, "Uh-oh -- no way we're losing now." Something like that happened frequently with these Celtics. They had become the modern-day version of the Bad Boy Pistons -- not the fighting, just the barking, woofing, shoving and general villainy -- with Perk and Garnett as Bill Laimbeer and Rick Mahorn. That was the team's identity, for better and worse. They knew who they were. I left Oakland thinking that we were headed for the Finals. We had "The Look," as Mike Lombardi calls it.

Less than 48 hours later, I found myself staring at an "FYI: Perk for Jeff Green" e-mail for two solid minutes. What?? I remember drafting Perk out of high school. I remember his being fat and awkward. I remember liking his mean streak that surfaced at the strangest times. I remember those flashes of potential as Perk banged the boards with Al Jefferson. I remember thinking we could count on him after the Garnett trade and not really knowing why. I remember watching that same ugly jump hook over and over again, hoping beyond hope that it might get better. I remember winning a title with him, and I remember losing a title without him. I remember seeing him warm up before opening night, a good two hours before the game, almost as though he didn't want the team to forget that he was coming back. Like every other Celtics fan, I watched him go from nothing to something. I certainly never imagined watching Perk play for another team.

My father was more crushed than me. He's been a season-ticket holder since 1973 and still attends 25 Celtics games per season. As he explained Thursday night, "I was invested in Perkins. I sit 15 feet from their bench -- I watched him grow up. I don't think sports is always about winning and losing. We might be better, but right now, I don't care. I liked the team we had. It doesn't feel right that he's not on this team."

See, you can't truly love a team until you've suffered with it. The 2008 title team always felt like a fantasy team that had been thrown together in some sort of euphoric basketball dream that wasn't quite real. Losing Garnett in 2009 (and eventually, the Orlando series) definitely hurt; blowing the 2010 title was 100 times worse. The agony of those last two games pushed our relationship with the team to an entirely different level. I still remember seeing Perkins rolling around in pain during Game 6 -- it happened about 20 feet away from me -- then the veterans watching him get helped off, his right leg dangling in the air, the life sinking from their bodies like Apollo watching Rocky wave him back to the corner. With a healthy 2011 Garnett in that Game 7, maybe we could have survived. Banged-up 2010 Garnett couldn't get it done. The trophy was sitting there, and we couldn't take it. A crestfallen Perkins spent the summer blaming himself, busted his butt to come back … and the Celtics dumped him a month after he returned. Claiming they couldn't afford him only made it worse: The kid signed a discount extension four years ago and outperformed it. They owed him.

Selfishly, I wanted one more chance with them: Garnett, Pierce, Allen, Rondo, Perkins, Baby and Doc, the only seven guys who mattered here. But that's the thing about sports -- "them" always seems to change when you least expect it. We traded Charlie Scott when I was in the second grade. We traded Danny Ainge when I was in college. Now Perkins. Those were the three most brutal Celtics deals of my lifetime. Each one hurt the same. Doesn't matter how old you are, where you are in your life, where you're living … there's no feeling quite like your favorite team trading someone you genuinely liked.

You might remember LeBron and Carmelo getting excoriated for stabbing their respective teams in the back. You want to know why they didn't care? Because, deep down, they know that teams don't care about players, either. They probably witnessed 20 variations of the Perkins trade during their first few years in the league. Hey, it's a business. Hey, that's just sports. Hey, trades come with the territory. Isn't loyalty a two-way street? When a team does what's best for itself, we call it smart. When a player does the same, we call him selfish. We never think about what a double standard it is.

I thought Perk deserved better than getting blindsided in Denver, then having to limp around with a sprained knee and pack his stuff with tears rolling down his face. Maybe I'm a sap. But that was our guy. Family. On the phone, my dad decided -- completely seriously -- that he would rather have lost the 2011 title with Perkins than have tried to win it without him. Why?

"Because he was truly part of our team," Dad said. "I don't want to root for laundry. I watched that guy for eight years. That should mean something. Continuity should mean something."

Within a few weeks, both of us will have talked ourselves into the Jeff Green era. That's what fans do. We take the hits, shake them off, keep coming back. The Celtics will morph into something slightly different: a little more athletic, a little more flexible, a little younger and, hopefully, almost as tough. Perkins will fly to Oklahoma City, live out of a hotel room, make new friends and try to help Durant and Russell Westbrook make the Finals. Maybe the Celtics will see him there. It won't feel weird at all, because that's the way professional sports work. We are rooting for laundry. Whether we want to admit it or not.

[Stoney Mason]

Like a Bosh part 2.


[youtube=560,345]][/youtube]


Highest rated comment.


"There are a lot of fake tough guys in this league and he's one of them"- Kevin Durant

[Cormacaroni]

Also from Simmons' column:

When New Orleans (owned and operated by the other 29 owners) traded Marcus Thornton for Carl Landry and absorbed $2.24 million of additional payroll, Cuban rightfully flipped out, wondering, "There's no way, with their payroll, having to dump salary before they were sold to us [NBA owners]; now they can take on more salary while they're losing money. That's just wrong every which way."

Translation: "I thought we took this team over so we could threaten the players' union this summer that we were gonna contract it! What the hell? Now we're shelling out MORE money! One twenty-ninth of $2.24 million is more than $115,000 -- that's money I could use to obscenely overpay Tyson Chandler this summer! Come on!"

This is fucking EXPLOSIVE and I can't believe I didn't realize it until he put it that way. This is a MAJOR transgression by Stern, at least equal to what happened to the Sonics. He needs to be called on it. That pro sports writers are ignoring this while writing the bullshit they are about uppity distinguished black fellows is why sports journalism is basically an oxymoron. Here we have a situation where only the clown (Simmons) can speak the truth.

[CajoleJuice]

Two superstars = loss to Cavs

[Cormacaroni]

Etoliate - no offense but you are gonna run into a lot of fans who feel losing teams are not fun to watch in Sacramento.

As I scan the League Pass offerings every day, it is true that I see a lot of match-ups like Kings-Wizards or Bucks-Pistons and just keep on scrolling because once I've seen those teams a couple of times each to confirm my suspicions, I effectively have no interest in seeing them again. What I am looking for is games like Celtics - Heat or Lakers - Magic, I admit it. For the League as a whole to be compelling is just to be able to offer a few matchups like that on a regular basis. And by that metric, this season is fucking KILLING IT. Let me repeat: KILLING IT. I can find 2 games I want to watch damn near every DAY, never mind on weekends. So I feel your pain, I sympathize for those in small markets who feel they have no chance of keeping talent, but really, it's not the system's fault. It's not the star's fault. It comes down to bad luck, bad management and bad ownership.

In your specific case, the Kings have been lucky as hell in the draft in recent years (Evans and Cousins consecutively? PLEASE. Give that to the Celtics and then we'd be talking about 'dominant teams'), so you can't complain about bad luck. The ownership is blatantly looking to relocate and is cutting payroll accordingly. So no stars are ever going to pick that as a trade destination - they don't even know where they'd be living in.

There is nothing intrinsically worse about the Kings' situation than say, that of the Spurs or the Jazz or the Thunder. It just hasn't been handled right. The Maloofs went all in in the Webber era but it didn't work out, and when they hit a bad patch financially, they stopped injecting money. Very simple path to the Kings being a shitty team for years from there. Stop spending and bad things inevitably follow (with the exception of deliberate bottoming-out efforts, but management has to be very careful to signal that to everyone involved so people know they will pick it up again when they get a chance to reload).

[Beezy]

Two superstars = loss to Cavs

Lakers also lost to them last week.

[Stoney Mason]

Two superstars = loss to Cavs

Lots of offense no defense. That has been and will be the knicks mantra for awhile.

It will take them the off-season to try to find somebody to help on defense. Also as good an offensive coach as D'Antoni is, he just doesn't take defense seriously which is why his teams are always this way. 

[ferrarimanf355]

I look forward to the Heat beating the Knicks today.

[Beezy]

I look forward to the Heat beating the Knicks today.

I wanted to see the old Knicks team play them one more time. The last game between them was close. Tonight is gonna be a disaster though.

[Cormacaroni]

Perhaps some of you guys who pay a little more attention to this stuff can enlighten me.  Is there a particular reason several people I have talked to lately have completely dismissed the Spurs chances.  Like even the chance that the spurs could reach the finals.  Is there an analyst behind this?  They can't give me any particular reason, but when I mention the Spurs they are totally down on them.

There are many irrational reasons, such as no-one having picked them before the season started, and their collective age (although it is only really Duncan and Manu who are 'old'). The one convincing reason is that they aren't all that good defensively yet, so you could be forgiven for thinking that they are winning so much in the regular season because of offense, mostly. As counter-intuitive as it is for a Popovich-coached Spurs team to have a bad rap defensively, there it is. They're a run-and-gun team now! It is quite bizarre, and very fun to watch.

[Mandark]

The Spurs margin of victory is apparently not as impressive as their record, so a lot of stat geeks might be pushing back too hard based on that.  Otherwise, I think it's the case of a team that hasn't done too well the last couple years, and whose improvements are too subtle (new offensive system, improved bench and role players) for people to think of them as being significantly improved.

If they had added a big name rather than Neal and Blair, a lot of folks would probably take their record more seriously.

[etiolate]

People were higher up on the Spurs last year because of the guys they got over the summer. This year those players are actually working out and everyone forgot about their hype last year.

[Cormacaroni]

wow, Tim Duncan just blocked Zach Randolph 3 times on the same play

old guys gettin' it done

[Cormacaroni]

The Spurs margin of victory is apparently not as impressive as their record, so a lot of stat geeks might be pushing back too hard based on that.  Otherwise, I think it's the case of a team that hasn't done too well the last couple years, and whose improvements are too subtle (new offensive system, improved bench and role players) for people to think of them as being significantly improved.

If they had added a big name rather than Neal and Blair, a lot of folks would probably take their record more seriously.

I think they did - Richard Jefferson. I realize this is year 2, but new players always suck the first year they go to the Spurs. This is the first year he knows what he's doing. Now he's taking different shots because that's what this offense gives him. He had to practice those in the offseason.

[Mandark]

Bingo, Cormac.  If they had made a big jump last season, there would be a lot of "Richard Jefferson has revitalized the Spurs!" cause a new player makes for an easy storyline (see: Mo Williams, 2008).  "Richard Jefferson is making better decisions, while role players are contributing somewhat more!" isn't as exciting a story, I guess.

[Stoney Mason]

Knicks beat the Heat. In Miami.


That's exactly the reason I would argue you make that trade. And they were down by like 15 early in the game.

Also I think its finally dawned on me. The heat are not going to win a title this year. That team just does not play right. Maybe something will change between now and the finals but that team is playing fundamentally wrong for an elite squad. Real Talk. 

[pilonv1]

Heat are pure trash. Cannot wait to get exposed during the playoffs.

[Beezy]

Mr. Big Shot

Heat

[Smooth Groove]

Knicks beat the Heat. In Miami.


That's exactly the reason I would argue you make that trade. And they were down by like 15 early in the game.

Also I think its finally dawned on me. The heat are not going to win a title this year. That team just does not play right. Maybe something will change between now and the finals but that team is playing fundamentally wrong for an elite squad. Real Talk. 

Main reason is that Mike Miller has been injured often and plays like a token white guy when he is available.

[Stoney Mason]

I'm just of the opinion that Spoelstra ain't gonna cut it. And that's nothing against the man. But there is a big problem because they often aren't running anything that looks like offensive sets to me beside iso, especially at the end of the game.

I think you need someone in there who can forcefully demand the respect of Lebron and Wade and say we are going to do things the proper way. He can't do that.  There is no excuse for that offense to look as bad as it does at the end of games.   

Somebody has to be freaking open to get good shots. Even if its role players. There is no way with Lebron James and Dwayne Wade on the court you should have to settle for 1 on 5 heroics nearly every time.

[Phoenix Dark]

Did anyone honestly think the Heat would win this year? Maybe next year or year after

[Stoney Mason]

While they weren't my betting favorite they weren't any less plausible than a lot of the usual suspects. Does anybody at this stage think the Lakers look like World Champs even though most people still think they will turn it on come the playoffs.

Or outside of the Celtics no team really leaps to the eye as championship quality at the moment in the East so the Heat in reality are as credible as any of those teams technically. The thing is if the Heat actually had a real offense in place, I think they would be as credible an option as the Celtics. But past the half point of the season, they still look like the same team that gets by on what they go by on earlier. I haven't seen the evolution of the offense I expected as the season went on. Lebron and Wade have gotten better. But the offense as a general unit has stagnated. And I didn't expect that even with scrubs. I thought Lebron and Wade would open up the offense for the other role players. Much like the rest of the Cavs suddenly looked much better playing with Lebron. That's not really happening with Miami. Which is a big problem.

[Cormacaroni]

I agree. They can be spectacular against teams they overpower from a talent perspective at 3 out of 5 positions. Against teams that play like a team with good talent spread over 5 positions, they suck, even though they are strong defensively. The Celtics have been licking their chops at the thought of exposing them in the playoffs all year, except whoops they did it already

btw, just found an awesome feature in Google Calendar - you can add the schedules of your favorite teams! And get text alerts to your phone! 'Other Calendars' -> 'Browse Interesting Calendars'

[Beezy]

They can be spectacular against teams they overpower from a talent perspective at 3 out of 5 positions. Against teams that play like a team with good talent spread over 5 positions, they suck, even though they are strong defensively.

Then why did they lose last night?

[CajoleJuice]

They can be spectacular against teams they overpower from a talent perspective at 3 out of 5 positions. Against teams that play like a team with good talent spread over 5 positions, they suck, even though they are strong defensively.

Then why did they lose last night?

Awesome game was awesome.