For some reason, I have been wrapped up in the Knicks/NBA off season, but now that it is the second half of the baseball season, focus shifts back to the Yanks. It has been a weird week for the Yankees and a lot of things come to mind.
*I feel bad about George Steinbrenner and Bob Shepard but neither one was by any means a shock to the system. Shepard was 99-years-old and in bad health. Steinbrenner had reportedly had a series of strokes over the last few years, was all but hidden away from public view and, by all accounts, was somewhat out of it when people saw him (Bill Madden, while promoting his George book recently, all but stated that, when Jeter and Girardi went to deliver the world series ring to Big Stein before opening day at the Stadium this year, he didn't even really know who they were).
I have no problem paying tribute to both men, especially Steinbrenner. He was one of the most dominate sports figures of the last 40 years and someone who has changed baseball, and sports in general, from his treatment of free agency as a tool to redefine ones team to his establishment of the YES Network.
However, it seems that there was little middle ground when it came to Steinbrenner. I read only a handful of columnists who got the balance of business and owner visionary and impulsive and sometimes cruel owner who, at times, did as much to undermine his own team as he ultimately did to establish it as the greatest sports franchise in the world.
And, the coverage on YES was just over the top. I wouldn't expect YES people to discuss Steinbrenner's bad side. He owned the network, his sons now own it, and a sense of diplomacy and even reverance was appropriate. Considering how open the YES Network has been in allowing different points of view about the team and ownership, especially with the likes of Mike Francesa on the air, you would afford them a little bias when it comes covering the death of their founder.
But, it is one thing to focus on the good aspects, quite another to distort the record. In praising The Boss, Yes Network personnel went too far. Michael Kay glossed over the fact that Steinbrenner had tried to trade Any Pettitte on numerous occassions and was willing to let Bernie Williams walk to the Boston Red Sox before being convinced to sign his star outfielder when discussing the relationship the two players had with the owner. The memorial also replayed a Yankeeography of Steinbrenner, where it mentioned that he had "stood behind his new manager (Joe Torre)" when tabloid papers questioned the move. Such a statement is ironic considering it is now well known that Steinbrenner traveled to former manager Buck Showalter's house after having let him go and hired Torre to see if Showalter would return. Considering that, if Showalter had said he would have had to fire Torre before the man ever took the field, it is hard to comprehend how anyone could, with a straight face, pretend that Steinbrenner had "stood by his new manager."
Like I said, no one is asking the YES Network to spend 45 minutes on Howie Spira, but disfiguring the facts to hide the truth behind the man is a blantant abdication of journalistic responsibilty.
*A friend of mine made a very good point last night after watching Nick Swisher line a single into right field to win the game in the ninth: it wasn't that long ago, probably less than 12 months actually, where, had there been an emotionally charged game, the importance obvious to all, on the line in the ninth, Derek Jeter would have lined a double into right-center to end the game. Last night, after Tampa reliver Dan Wheeler delivered two meatballs that Jeter fouled away, he struck out on a pitch in the dirt.
Jeter is having argueably the worst season of his professional career. He is batting .270, nearly 50 points lower than his career average. His home runs and RBI are about on target, but his OBP is a paltry .336, again about 50 points lower than average, and his SLG is holding at only .386, 70 points off his normal numbers.
Even more disturbing are his splits. Jeter started the year in usual fashion, with a .330 average in April. A late surge helped salvage Jeter's May, where he hit .280, but June saw his swoon continue hitting on .243. Things have gotten much worse in July, where he is batting only .178 and only has two multi-hit games the entire month.
To give you a sense of how bad this season has been so far, in 2004 when Jeter got off to his historically slow start and was hitting only .220 by the end of May, he was up to .281 by July 17 after a torrid June where he had hit .396, and all of his numbers were significantly higher. Jeter's July and August were average after that, but his September was fantastic and he finished with a .292 average and above average power numbers.
So far this year, a long streak of great hitting has been nonexistent and there is no burst of power, as there had been in 2004, to mitigate the slow start.
I don't know what to make of it at this point. On the positive side, 2004 showed that Jeter could suffer through inconsistency and still play to the back of his baseball card at the end of the year. Also, after a very mediocre 2008 campaign, when some began to question his status as an elite player, Jeter rattled off a 2009 season that was one of his career best. With half of July, and then two months of baseball to go after that, Jeter's numbers could be fairly even when all is said and done.
Yet, he is 36, has played in more games and put his body through more beatings than most because he has been in the playoffs all but one of his professional careers, and eventually ever player begins to show his age.
Jeter has earned the right to play until he wants to sit down, and has also earned the benefit of the doubt that he will turn it around. But, you would have to be blind not to be concerned about this slump and what it could mean for the Yankees. Jeter has always been extremely important to the Yankee offense. They are not the same without him producing. If he is now going to be a .270 hitter, that doesn't bode well for consistency against the better teams.
Here's to hoping the Captain still has it in him and that this is a hiccup.
*I, for one, am glad the Cliff Lee deal failed for two reasons: first, while I care little for the opinions of the Yankee-haters in this country, getting Lee would have been overkill the likes even a fan like me would have been hard pressed to defend. You can make an arguement the Yankees need a bullpen arm to bridge the gap to Mo. You could even make somewhat of an arguement for another bat to take on the DH role because it is hard to feel confident that Nick Johnson will be anything other than a spectator this season. But a rotation ace? The Yankees don't need him. Getting him simply would have incensed the entire league for nothing. I am all for the Yankees being the best they can, but it is better for baseball that some of the other great players play in a different market.
The second reason is Jesus Montero. This kid could be special. Taking a look at him in spring training told everything you needed to know. He could be Manny Ramirez. He could be Miguel Cabrera. He could be a homegrown slugger the likes of which the Yankees haven't produced on their own in years.
Sure, there are questions about his defense, but those question marks seem to always be raised by people with limited knowledge of his abilities. What the heck does Joel Sherman know about this kid behind the plate? How many Scranton games and, before that, Trenton games do you think Slimy Shermy took in the last two years? My guess would be under one.
Montero is 20-years-old. He is the full-time AAA catcher. He started off slowly and everyone seemed ready to say "goodbye" because he wasn't producing prodigeous numbers.
Yet, he is still batting .262 with 8 homers and 39 RBI and, in his last 10 games, he is batting .350 with very good power numbers. That's at AAA. That's at 20.
I don't think you give up on a kid like that, even for Lee. This team isn't getting any younger out in the field. Posada probably has, what, another year left? Jeter may already be slowing down. A-Rod should remain at the top of his game for at least a few more years, but he will begin to see a decline sooner rather than later as well.
The Yankees will get top quality out of Teixeira and Cano for years to come and I believe that Granderson will show himself to be a part of that younger core before the end of the year. But, they are going to need to bring along another big bat and Montero can be that guy to join with Cano and Tex to keep the potent lineup going for years.
*If Montero does become that kind of top offensive player, it will allow the Yankees to do what I believe they should: avoid going after Carl Crawford and hang on to Brett Gardner.
Crawford is the better player and he has the resume to indicate he is a consistent player rather than a flash in the pan. But, look at Gardner's numbers this year compared to Crawford:
Crawford - .322 11 50 ..380 .519 31BB 31SB 70 runs
Gardner - .307 5 29 .398 .412 39BB 25SB 57 runs
Crawford has the clear advantage when it comes to power, with more homers and a better SLG. Forget the RBI because Crawford hits at the top/middle of the lineup while Gardner is at the bottom. But, look at everything else. The batting average is about the same, Gardner has a better eye and better OBP, both guys are on pace to score over 100 runs, and both guys are about the same when it comes to stolen bases. Plus, this is Gardner's first full year in the majors and he is almost 3 years younger than Crawford.
As I stated above, Crawford is the better player, but the gap between the two is by no means as pronouced as their salary will be next year. Crawford will geta BIG contract. Gardner is making $452,000 this year.
For what the Yankees need, is Crawford enough of a lift to justify the money? Another team might need him as a table setter or as a three-hole hitter, but the Yankees don't need that. They need what Gardner brings.
I would prefer that, next year, Gardner be your left fielder and the Yanks focus on Lee, who might be more needed next season as Javier Vazquez will probably be allowed to leave via free agency and Andy Pettitte might retire.
Keep gritty, gutty Brett Gardner as a starter. He's younger, cheaper, and he might even have room to improve and close that gap between he and Crawford even more.
Saturday, July 17
Looking for leaders, not followers
On Saturday, Carmelo Anthony, the 26-year-old Brooklyn native and current Denver Nugget small forward, got married in NYC. Some usual suspects, including one Lebron James, showed up to take part in the festivities.
The New York Post had a few shots of the wedding, and the litany of stars that showed up.
A couple of thoughts came to mind.
First, Lebron evidently ignored all questions from reporters and all shouts, good or bad, from fans as he entered. The pictures shown of him tell the story. He looks a lot more like a guy that just got charged with a felony, rather than one "ready to make history" in South Beach.
It was somewhat amazing considering not just two days before Lebron had orchestrated his own media circus, all with the express intent of promoting himself. I guess, when you don't get to hand pick the people who will ask you questions and dictate terms, it isn't as interesting to deal with the media.
But, besides Lebron, the spectacle got me thinking.
Are there any leaders in the league anymore, or just followers?
We know Kobe Bryants not a follower, or any of the real Big Three in Boston. And, we know that Dwayne Wade was only taking people to his team, not following anyone to theirs.
But, who else?
Is Kevin Durant a guy who wants the attention, the bright lights and the big stage, and the responsibility of leading his team, and talented teammates, to a championship? How about Chris Paul? He was one of the guys who came in the car with Lebron to Melo's wedding. Does Paul look at the marriage of Wade, Lebron, and Bosh and think "all right, I am going to beat their asses when we play" or is he thinking "I wonder if there's a way they could clear some more cap space for me?"
Do you think Derrick Rose was itching to have Lebron or Wade come to Chicago to lead them to victory or do you think he was quietly sitting back stewing at the notion that anyone would have to come in and help "hold his hand" while leading him to the promise land?
And while neither guy has enough time in the league to warrant such questions, it will be interesting to see if Tyreke Evans and John Wall are basketball killers or simply pretenders.
That leaves Carmelo Anthony.
I have a feeling that Melo is the most lilkely player to be dealt this offseason, and the Knicks the most likely suitor.
It makes sense. The Nuggets are on the downward spiral. Two of their most important players - Chauncey Billups and Kenyon Martin - are on the wrong side of 30 and both have shown downward decline. They can both be productive players for a few more years, I'm sure, but not as the focus of the offense. The mix on the team has seemingly gone bad, with JR Smith and Carmelo exchanging jabs last year in the playoffs against Utah. Above all else, it is uncertain as to the future of George Karl, who is battling cancer, and it has to be a concern of Carmelo's that Karl will not return, or will for only a short time.
Plus, with Anthony coming up on free agency next year, and the Nuggets having just "witnessed" the spectacle of that process this year, it is doubtful they would want to go through something similar.
While they have insisted that they have no intention of trading their best player, if Melo continues to balk at their contract extension offer, wouldn't it be only smart for them to make a trade now and get something good back?
So let's say the basketball gods smile on New York after losing Lebron, and the Nuggets give Donnie Walsh a call to play a round of "let's make a deal." It would, no question, makes the Knicks one of the best teams in the East, but my question would be, is Carmelo a Kobe or is he a Lebron?
Like with Chris Paul, another extremely talented player who may be on the Knicks radar screen, the question remains, how does Carmelo look at what just happened in Miami? What was his response when he saw his buddy, Lebron, at his wedding? Did he ask about cap space on the Heat roster? Did he question what kinds of villas are available on the beach in Miami? Or, did he walk up to Lebron, pat him on the shoulder, congratulate him, and then say something to the effect of "but, if you guys see me in the playoffs, you're gonna be waiting for that ring a long time."
After the Lebron saga, that remains my biggest question about current athletes. If there was ever a player who should have been wired with the same Jordan, Bird, Magic, Russell, West kind of hardware, it should have been Lebron. He should have wanted to beat Wade's brains out, not run and follow him like a scared puppy. He should have watched Kobe in the finals, watched as the world debated whether he was the greatest Laker or not, and thought "I am gonna be in that kind of conversation one day." Instead, he chose some sort of frat party, South Beach free-for-all with his buddies, in his buddies town, on his buddies team, than carving out some sort of legacy.
Is Melo different? Is he a killer? Is he the guy who wants to build something special on his own or does he want to follow the crowd, look to share the responsibilty, deflect the blame, and ride a winning player's coattails to a ring?
It's hard to tell whether Anthony is a "big game" player or not. He has been in the playoffs every single year he has been in the league, getting knocked out in the first round in each of his first five years in the league. Last year, the Nuggets went all the way to the conference finals, getting knocked out by the Lakers. This year, it was another first-round knockout at the hands of the Jazz.
The results have not been great. However, the Nuggets have been sent home by the Lakers twice, and Melo has progressively gotten better in the playoff runs. It is also difficult to tell how good Carmelo could be considering he really only got help in the form of Kenyon Martin and Chauncey Billups two years ago while, before that, it had essentially been a one-man show for Melo.
Perhaps Anthony is a fader; a guy who shrinks away when the heat (no pun intended) is turned on. But, maybe he is a caged lion, waiting to get a chance to control his own destiny.
What I would want to know at this point, if I were the Nuggets or the Knicks, or even the Nets, is does Melo even want the responsibilty of finding that out? Is he ready for the challenge, or does he want to join Lebron and Dwayne in easy-ville.
I hope, for the league's sake, Melo is one of the guys who wants to establish his own legacy. I hope Durant and Paul and Wall and Evans and any of the other soon-to-be stars of the league do as well. I hope we get a time when rivalries are established, when players are less friendly and more competitive, and when "team" means more than three buddies playing alley oop for paychecks.
We'll see what the Knicks do in the coming months. What I want to see, what I want to hear from anyone at all, is for someone to stand up and say "oh, that's nice for the Heat. Now I'm going to go out there and beat the sh*t out of them."
Anyone ready to step up to the challenge?
The New York Post had a few shots of the wedding, and the litany of stars that showed up.
A couple of thoughts came to mind.
First, Lebron evidently ignored all questions from reporters and all shouts, good or bad, from fans as he entered. The pictures shown of him tell the story. He looks a lot more like a guy that just got charged with a felony, rather than one "ready to make history" in South Beach.
It was somewhat amazing considering not just two days before Lebron had orchestrated his own media circus, all with the express intent of promoting himself. I guess, when you don't get to hand pick the people who will ask you questions and dictate terms, it isn't as interesting to deal with the media.
But, besides Lebron, the spectacle got me thinking.
Are there any leaders in the league anymore, or just followers?
We know Kobe Bryants not a follower, or any of the real Big Three in Boston. And, we know that Dwayne Wade was only taking people to his team, not following anyone to theirs.
But, who else?
Is Kevin Durant a guy who wants the attention, the bright lights and the big stage, and the responsibility of leading his team, and talented teammates, to a championship? How about Chris Paul? He was one of the guys who came in the car with Lebron to Melo's wedding. Does Paul look at the marriage of Wade, Lebron, and Bosh and think "all right, I am going to beat their asses when we play" or is he thinking "I wonder if there's a way they could clear some more cap space for me?"
Do you think Derrick Rose was itching to have Lebron or Wade come to Chicago to lead them to victory or do you think he was quietly sitting back stewing at the notion that anyone would have to come in and help "hold his hand" while leading him to the promise land?
And while neither guy has enough time in the league to warrant such questions, it will be interesting to see if Tyreke Evans and John Wall are basketball killers or simply pretenders.
That leaves Carmelo Anthony.
I have a feeling that Melo is the most lilkely player to be dealt this offseason, and the Knicks the most likely suitor.
It makes sense. The Nuggets are on the downward spiral. Two of their most important players - Chauncey Billups and Kenyon Martin - are on the wrong side of 30 and both have shown downward decline. They can both be productive players for a few more years, I'm sure, but not as the focus of the offense. The mix on the team has seemingly gone bad, with JR Smith and Carmelo exchanging jabs last year in the playoffs against Utah. Above all else, it is uncertain as to the future of George Karl, who is battling cancer, and it has to be a concern of Carmelo's that Karl will not return, or will for only a short time.
Plus, with Anthony coming up on free agency next year, and the Nuggets having just "witnessed" the spectacle of that process this year, it is doubtful they would want to go through something similar.
While they have insisted that they have no intention of trading their best player, if Melo continues to balk at their contract extension offer, wouldn't it be only smart for them to make a trade now and get something good back?
So let's say the basketball gods smile on New York after losing Lebron, and the Nuggets give Donnie Walsh a call to play a round of "let's make a deal." It would, no question, makes the Knicks one of the best teams in the East, but my question would be, is Carmelo a Kobe or is he a Lebron?
Like with Chris Paul, another extremely talented player who may be on the Knicks radar screen, the question remains, how does Carmelo look at what just happened in Miami? What was his response when he saw his buddy, Lebron, at his wedding? Did he ask about cap space on the Heat roster? Did he question what kinds of villas are available on the beach in Miami? Or, did he walk up to Lebron, pat him on the shoulder, congratulate him, and then say something to the effect of "but, if you guys see me in the playoffs, you're gonna be waiting for that ring a long time."
After the Lebron saga, that remains my biggest question about current athletes. If there was ever a player who should have been wired with the same Jordan, Bird, Magic, Russell, West kind of hardware, it should have been Lebron. He should have wanted to beat Wade's brains out, not run and follow him like a scared puppy. He should have watched Kobe in the finals, watched as the world debated whether he was the greatest Laker or not, and thought "I am gonna be in that kind of conversation one day." Instead, he chose some sort of frat party, South Beach free-for-all with his buddies, in his buddies town, on his buddies team, than carving out some sort of legacy.
Is Melo different? Is he a killer? Is he the guy who wants to build something special on his own or does he want to follow the crowd, look to share the responsibilty, deflect the blame, and ride a winning player's coattails to a ring?
It's hard to tell whether Anthony is a "big game" player or not. He has been in the playoffs every single year he has been in the league, getting knocked out in the first round in each of his first five years in the league. Last year, the Nuggets went all the way to the conference finals, getting knocked out by the Lakers. This year, it was another first-round knockout at the hands of the Jazz.
The results have not been great. However, the Nuggets have been sent home by the Lakers twice, and Melo has progressively gotten better in the playoff runs. It is also difficult to tell how good Carmelo could be considering he really only got help in the form of Kenyon Martin and Chauncey Billups two years ago while, before that, it had essentially been a one-man show for Melo.
Perhaps Anthony is a fader; a guy who shrinks away when the heat (no pun intended) is turned on. But, maybe he is a caged lion, waiting to get a chance to control his own destiny.
What I would want to know at this point, if I were the Nuggets or the Knicks, or even the Nets, is does Melo even want the responsibilty of finding that out? Is he ready for the challenge, or does he want to join Lebron and Dwayne in easy-ville.
I hope, for the league's sake, Melo is one of the guys who wants to establish his own legacy. I hope Durant and Paul and Wall and Evans and any of the other soon-to-be stars of the league do as well. I hope we get a time when rivalries are established, when players are less friendly and more competitive, and when "team" means more than three buddies playing alley oop for paychecks.
We'll see what the Knicks do in the coming months. What I want to see, what I want to hear from anyone at all, is for someone to stand up and say "oh, that's nice for the Heat. Now I'm going to go out there and beat the sh*t out of them."
Anyone ready to step up to the challenge?
Monday, July 12
Gilbert played his own part in Lebron mess
I find Lebron James to be about as vile a testament to self-absorption and unprofessionalism as there possibly could be in our society.
His one-hour ESPN farce to announce where he was taking his “talents” showed him to be a 12-year-old boy in a 25-year-old man's body, and revealed the once revered athlete as nothing more than a egotist either unaware or uncaring of what his actions might do to others.
His refusal to take on the challenge of being the focal point of a championship run in Cleveland, New York, or Chicago show's him to be a basketball follower, ready to hand the responsibility of winning a ring to his friend Dwayne Wade. But, his decision to not even look his former employer, Dan Gilbert, in the eye to inform him he was leaving the Cavaliers after seven years where James was treated like a god, given every perk he could imagine, and paid hansomely for his services, reveals him to be a coward. The fact that he didn't even give the team a heads up before his “surprise” announcement and had a lacky hanger-on call Gilbert only minutes before announcing it live to the world, is further evidence that Bron Bron doesn't have the stomach to stand face to face with another man and deliver difficult news.
In response, Gilbert delivered what will go down in history as one of the most explosive rants against a former player. The message was so rambling, cutting from accusations against Lebron that he quit on games to calling down curses and hexes from the heavens, that it appeared at times to have been a stream-of-consciouness email that was never intended for the light of day. In fact, ESPN reporters were forced to do something they hadn't bothered with for more than a month: they confirmed the letter actually came from Gilbert before releasing its contents.
In one way, I understand and applaud Gilbert. That was a letter that represented Cleveland fans everywhere. Gilbert, the owner, said what his paying customers were feeling. As a football Giants fan, myself, the most encouraged I have been in my team was when, after last year's collapse at the end of the season, owner John Marra came out and essentially said “we will never see something like that happen again while I am here.” Too many owners check data sheets and bottom lines at the end of the season. It's why franchises like the Pittsburgh Pirates in baseball, or Detroit Lions in football, have wallowed in mediocrity for so long. Owners rarely show the type of emotion Gilbert did last week and when it is revealed that ownership cares as much about winning as the fans, it is heartening.
However, there is also a part of me that looks at Gilbert and wonders if he understands the part he may have played in what transpired last week.
From all accounts, Lebron James was essentially given free rein to do whatever it was he wanted to do while with the Cavs. He had little or no rules which had to be followed. Unqualified friends were given high-paying jobs within the organization, and other Lebron lackies were allowed to fly with the team, and live the NBA life, all to appease The King. While no specifics have been provided, it is believed that Lebron influenced player acquisitions, pushing for certain guys to be signed or even traded. That kind of ill-informed influence may have ended up putting the Cavs in a position where their roster was both shaky and inflexible, making winning a difficult proposition.
The more glaring problem is the attitude that was cultivated under Cavs management. By allowing Lebron to “rule the roost” it also allowed him to essentially remain perpetually a teenager. He was living his high-school life. No one was there to smack him on the hand and say “no.” If he wanted a new teammate, he got one. If he wanted a job for a buddy, they got one. If he wanted anything, Gilbert and the Cavs bent over themselves to make it happen.
While Gilbert might have thought such actions would engender loyalty or appreciation, all it did was empower Lebron to feel even more indispensible and entitled. Considering James had been handed everything he could want since his days in middle school, it didn't take much cow-cowing on the part of Gilbert to turn him into self-absorbed monster.
There's not a doubt in my mind that Gilbert would have had a better chance of keeping Lebron if he had played father rather than brown-nose friend. James has enough of those and could easily discard one and pick up another like he were going through Kleenex. If Gilbert had layed down the law, put some shackles on Lebron, brought in some respected veterans to show the “kid” right from wrong, and made it clear that greatness was inside Lebron, but with that came great responsibility, it seems far more likely he would have been showed a level of respect James, on his own, was incapable of showing.
Gilbert's letter, while striking a cord with so many that found the Lebron spectacle utterly distasteful, and while being thuroughly entertaining, also can't be taken that seriously. It reaks of a scorned lover, who showered praise and gifts upon their partner, only to find that person escaping to the arms of another.
Gilbert fed the Lebron ego. He catered to it. He never questioned it or tried to contain it for fear that any dissent would force James and his entourage out the door. Yet, after all that was handed to him, he still left because, just like it was with the Cavs, it was about James and no one else in the end.
Sunday, July 11
Two trade the Knicks should make
It seems all the focus has been on the Knicks either trading for or signing Carmelo Anthony the last few days in Knicks land, as the attention slowly moves from the 2010 free agent debacle to the future possibilities.
However, I would still prefer the Knicks trade for Chris Paul and I think it could be done.
Now, both the Nuggets and Hornets have said their top stars are off limits, however it may become very clear that neither team can surround their guys with the types of teams that will convince them to sign extensions in the next month to a year. The Hornets seem to be more cash strapped than the Nuggets, and Paul has been the more vocal about wanting to "see something" from his front office or possibly demanding a trade. Something just tells me that Paul might be the first one to make such a stink about leaving, the Hornets have no choice but to listen.
If that happened, here is what I would do:
I would trade Danillo Gallinari, Wilson Chandler, Anthony Randolph, and Eddy Curry for Chris Paul and Emeka Okafor. Money wise, the Knicks would be sending the Hornets about $18.6 million and getting back $26.3 million.
Why would the Hornets do this?
It gives them two very good young players in Gallinari and Randolph, but guys around 20-years-old who have a lot of upside, a solid young guy in Chandler, and the expiring contract of Eddy Curry. It gives them salary cap flexibility. They also have Darren Collison, who was sensational last year when Paul was out, so it would allow them to cushion the blow of losing Paul by promoting Collison as a possible star in his own right.
Why would the Knicks do this?
They get the best point guard in the league, when healthy. Under Mike D'Antoni, Paul could equal Steve Nash in terms of production and maturation. His numbers could be off the charts, and one could only salivate at the thought of Paul and Amare Stoudemire running the pick and roll to perfection game in and game out. Plus, it gives the Knicks their face of the organization. Paul, by all accounts, is a good guy with a killer desire to win and a tendency to get intimately involved with the community. You could plaster Paul's face all over the city and he would instantly become one of the biggest sports stars around.
You would also get a borderline all star in Okafor. I had thought Okafor would be a better player by this time, putting up Al Jefferson numbers of 20/10 on a regular basis, but, besides last year in New Orleans, he has been a 14/11 guy with two blocks a game. In D'Antoni's offense, Okafor wouldn't get a lot of looks, but he is a terrific rebounder, very good defender, and he can easily run the floor in a high-powered offense (he comes from Uconn, which was a transition-style offense in college, where he helped win a national title). He is also a great put-back offensive player and would probably average a double-double in a more up tempo offense.
Bringing in Paul would mean that newly-signed Raymond Felton wouldn't have a position (he doesn't shoot it well enough to play the two) so I would follow the Paul trade with this:
Trade Raymond Felton and Ronny Turiaf for Andre Igudola and Marreese Speights. Money wise, the Knicks would be sending $15.3 million to the 76ers and getting $13.8 million in return.
Why would the 76ers do this deal?
While the 76ers would be taking back more money then they would be sending, Felton's deal is only for two years so, in the long run, it would provide more cap flexibility as the Igudola contract is for, I believe, another four years. Plus, it would allow the 76ers to move everyone to their more obvious spots on the floor. Jrue Holiday, slated to be the point guard, is a more natural two, as is Igudola. This trade would allow the 76ers to play Felton at the point, Holiday at the two, and top draft pick Evan Turner at the three. Since Holiday and Turner are similar in style and size, they can move back and forth between the two and three, depending on matchups. It would also give them a tough, veteran center to play along side Elton Brand at power forward.
Why would the Knicks do this deal?
Felton becomes expendable once Paul joins the team. Turiaf is a nice fit for the Knicks but, with Okafor, the only thing the Knicks would need is a serviceable big man to spell him and, perhaps, play some power forward, which Speights would provide.
With Igudola, he was billed in Philly as the go-to option, but he hasn't shown the kind of consistency to do that. However, with the Knicks, he would slide in as the third option on the team, an athletic two-guard to complement Paul and Stoudemire. He is a slasher, is wonderful in the open, and would thrive in the run and gun style of D'Antoni.
Under this scenario, the Knicks would be a few hundred thousand beyond the salary cap, which could easily be maneuvered around by Walsh (a little cash sent here, there, and that should be fine). It would leave the bench suspect unless guys like Tony Douglas and Jerome Jordan showed they were top players, but the starting five would be Chris Paul (PG), Andre Igudola (SG), Keleena Azubuike (SF), Amare Stoudemire (PF), Emeka Okafor (C). Your bench would be Tony Douglas (PG), Bill Walker (SG/SF), Jerome Jordan (PF/C), Marreese Speights (PF/C), Andy Rautins (SG).
Like I said, the bench on that team is suspect, although I like what you saw from Douglas last year and Walker, both of whom could be major contributors. However, that starting five could be as explosive as any in the entire league, and I believe could challenge for a spot in the East Finals. You would worry a little about defense, although Igudola would be a terrific defender and Azubuike can be a top defender as well, but it would be hard to name teams better than that squad.
However, I would still prefer the Knicks trade for Chris Paul and I think it could be done.
Now, both the Nuggets and Hornets have said their top stars are off limits, however it may become very clear that neither team can surround their guys with the types of teams that will convince them to sign extensions in the next month to a year. The Hornets seem to be more cash strapped than the Nuggets, and Paul has been the more vocal about wanting to "see something" from his front office or possibly demanding a trade. Something just tells me that Paul might be the first one to make such a stink about leaving, the Hornets have no choice but to listen.
If that happened, here is what I would do:
I would trade Danillo Gallinari, Wilson Chandler, Anthony Randolph, and Eddy Curry for Chris Paul and Emeka Okafor. Money wise, the Knicks would be sending the Hornets about $18.6 million and getting back $26.3 million.
Why would the Hornets do this?
It gives them two very good young players in Gallinari and Randolph, but guys around 20-years-old who have a lot of upside, a solid young guy in Chandler, and the expiring contract of Eddy Curry. It gives them salary cap flexibility. They also have Darren Collison, who was sensational last year when Paul was out, so it would allow them to cushion the blow of losing Paul by promoting Collison as a possible star in his own right.
Why would the Knicks do this?
They get the best point guard in the league, when healthy. Under Mike D'Antoni, Paul could equal Steve Nash in terms of production and maturation. His numbers could be off the charts, and one could only salivate at the thought of Paul and Amare Stoudemire running the pick and roll to perfection game in and game out. Plus, it gives the Knicks their face of the organization. Paul, by all accounts, is a good guy with a killer desire to win and a tendency to get intimately involved with the community. You could plaster Paul's face all over the city and he would instantly become one of the biggest sports stars around.
You would also get a borderline all star in Okafor. I had thought Okafor would be a better player by this time, putting up Al Jefferson numbers of 20/10 on a regular basis, but, besides last year in New Orleans, he has been a 14/11 guy with two blocks a game. In D'Antoni's offense, Okafor wouldn't get a lot of looks, but he is a terrific rebounder, very good defender, and he can easily run the floor in a high-powered offense (he comes from Uconn, which was a transition-style offense in college, where he helped win a national title). He is also a great put-back offensive player and would probably average a double-double in a more up tempo offense.
Bringing in Paul would mean that newly-signed Raymond Felton wouldn't have a position (he doesn't shoot it well enough to play the two) so I would follow the Paul trade with this:
Trade Raymond Felton and Ronny Turiaf for Andre Igudola and Marreese Speights. Money wise, the Knicks would be sending $15.3 million to the 76ers and getting $13.8 million in return.
Why would the 76ers do this deal?
While the 76ers would be taking back more money then they would be sending, Felton's deal is only for two years so, in the long run, it would provide more cap flexibility as the Igudola contract is for, I believe, another four years. Plus, it would allow the 76ers to move everyone to their more obvious spots on the floor. Jrue Holiday, slated to be the point guard, is a more natural two, as is Igudola. This trade would allow the 76ers to play Felton at the point, Holiday at the two, and top draft pick Evan Turner at the three. Since Holiday and Turner are similar in style and size, they can move back and forth between the two and three, depending on matchups. It would also give them a tough, veteran center to play along side Elton Brand at power forward.
Why would the Knicks do this deal?
Felton becomes expendable once Paul joins the team. Turiaf is a nice fit for the Knicks but, with Okafor, the only thing the Knicks would need is a serviceable big man to spell him and, perhaps, play some power forward, which Speights would provide.
With Igudola, he was billed in Philly as the go-to option, but he hasn't shown the kind of consistency to do that. However, with the Knicks, he would slide in as the third option on the team, an athletic two-guard to complement Paul and Stoudemire. He is a slasher, is wonderful in the open, and would thrive in the run and gun style of D'Antoni.
Under this scenario, the Knicks would be a few hundred thousand beyond the salary cap, which could easily be maneuvered around by Walsh (a little cash sent here, there, and that should be fine). It would leave the bench suspect unless guys like Tony Douglas and Jerome Jordan showed they were top players, but the starting five would be Chris Paul (PG), Andre Igudola (SG), Keleena Azubuike (SF), Amare Stoudemire (PF), Emeka Okafor (C). Your bench would be Tony Douglas (PG), Bill Walker (SG/SF), Jerome Jordan (PF/C), Marreese Speights (PF/C), Andy Rautins (SG).
Like I said, the bench on that team is suspect, although I like what you saw from Douglas last year and Walker, both of whom could be major contributors. However, that starting five could be as explosive as any in the entire league, and I believe could challenge for a spot in the East Finals. You would worry a little about defense, although Igudola would be a terrific defender and Azubuike can be a top defender as well, but it would be hard to name teams better than that squad.
Saturday, July 10
Goodnight, NBA
Could there have been a worse couple of weeks for the NBA than what we just "witnessed"?
It sounds strange because, for the first time since Shaquille O'Neill decided to abandon Orlando for the Lakers, we were talking about The Association in the beginning of summer.
Usually, around this time of year, the NBA would be mentioned only as an afterthought, with the occassional trade news or extension announcement. Instead, from the end of the playoffs till now, it has been all NBA, and all free agency, all the time.
But, despite pithy cliched sayings to the contrary, not all publicity is good publicity.
In America today, it is fairly easy to single out the NFL as the most popular sport in the land. It is the nation's passion. It is an every-Sunday event in the fall and winter, and no other sport comes close to matching its interest at the national level.
Coming in a strong second is the nation's passtime. Baseball, despite the much talked about "competitive imbalance" generates interest at an astounding rate, especially in the nation's biggest markets and cities. Despite a lagging economy, ratings remain high, attendance has not bottomed out, and people still follow their teams every move.
The NBA has been wallowing in third place, a distant third, in terms of interest, for a long time.
The nation's overall apathy has been linked to several different factors over the years. Some claim that the departure of Michael Jordan, who took the baton of excellence from Larry Bird and Magic Johnson and kept the NBA interesting and provocative, set the league back and a lack of another "successor" to that excellence has made the sport less interesting. Others point to a more insidious reason, believeing that white America remains turned off to a sport that is dominated by African American players.
Whatever the reason, the NBA has remained a strong presence in American sports, and its top players have continued to be marketable and recognizable, but the sports overall popularity has trailed the other two leagues.
There has been great hope at the end of the tunnel, however.
The Lakers have remained a dominate force, employing, first, the charismatic big man Shaq and, now, the controversial yet splendidly talented Kobe Bryant. The Celtics pulled off one of the great double moves of all time, and paired Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett, and Paul Pierce together to form an incredible threesome that brought the stories Celtics team back to prominence. Oh, by the way, the Lakers and Celtics, by far the best rivalry in the NBA, have played against each other in two of the last three finals.
And then you had the new face of the NBA.
Lebron James was the basketball playing version of The Natural. His talents are off the charts. He is a 6'9" freight train with shooting touch and one of the great finishing moves the game has ever seen. There is both a grace and a brutality to his talent that makes him unique.
He also has been relatively free from controversy in his seven years in the league. Unlike Kobe Bryant, who appeared surly and selfish on the court, and had a dark allegation thrown at him off the court, James appeared to be the epitome of unselfish, team-first play on the court, a good teammate and model citizen off it. Add to that his "home town boy makes good" story and his supposed allegiance to Cleveland, a city that has known nothing but sports heartbreak, and it was easy to root for Lebron.
Though Kobe has proven time and time again that he, not Lebron, is the guy you want taking the last shot and playing in the big game, Lebron remained the most popular and well-liked, and ultimately marketable, player in the sport, and one of the most recognizable celebrity faces in the world.
That was yesterday.
Today, in the NBA, is very different. Lebron is no longer the face of the NBA so much as he is the villian. His decision, and more consequentially the process by which he came to his decision, has cast him as everything wrong with sports while, for so long, he was depicted as everything right with them. His playful attitude now, suddenly, seems self indulgent and borderline unprofessional.
Perhaps it was inevitable that, after choosing Miami over Cleveland, the negative stories would emerge. The Cavs painted Lebron as the "savior" and their near divine worship of his talents were punctuated by the semi-insulting "We Are All Witnesses" billboards that lined their city's skyline. So, when we hear that Lebron was a "quitter" or that his actions were always selfish and narcissistic, one has to wonder how much of the information is true and how much is sour grapes.
Yet, after the display of the last few weeks, it is difficult to give Lebron the benefit of the doubt. The stories of Lebron's influence on the Cavs decisions, and his insistence on special treatment for he and his friends, seem to fit nicely in the story we have watched unfold before us.
Whatever the case, no one is truly in a position to WANT to believe the best about Lebron now, anyway. So, the face of the NBA, the needed successor to Michael Jordan, both in wins and popularity has been more than stained: he has been utterly dismantled.
If you add to that the shaky performance of Dwayne Wade, who made the same comical tour of franchises, though it appears likely now that he had no intention of leaving Miami, introduced his family as an element in his decision making process, then seemed to forget all about that factor when resigning with Miami, and hired a documentary crew to follow he and Chris Bosh around as they made their "decision," and argueably the NBA's two most likeable stars presented themselves as the most egotistical of athletes the nation has ever seen.
There are obviously practical problems for the NBA latent in Lebron's decision.
The lack of James in Cleveland all but devastates the Cavaliers and basketball in that city, and nearly does the same in New York, the NBA's biggest and argueably most important market. It puts two of the top three or four players in the league on the same team. And, in a sport so completely dominated by stars, it pitches the balance of power substantially in one direction, and onto a team and a city that has little basketball tradition and a notoriously apathetic fanbase.
Some will say that this move is little different than the Yankees and their "all star at every position" philosophy in baseball, but the difference is pronounced. In baseball, the playoffs are a crapshoot every season. Being the best team guarantees nothing. Despite their talent, the Yankees or Red Sox or Rays or Phillies could easily be picked off by a "lesser" team, especially if they have top starting pitching and reliable bullpen guys.
In basketball, the better, more talented team almost always wins. That's why, in a league that has designed, both in terms of the draft and salary cap structure, to help small markets compete with big ones, there is little parity in terms of competition. While it is rare teams win back-to-back titles in baseball, and almost unheard of in football, basketball produces back-to-back champs on a fairly consistent basis. In the last 30 years, there have been 13 separate occassions where one team has one two or more straight titles, and, even more startling, in those 30 years only seven different teams have won titles.
Compare that to baseball where, in the past 30 years, 20 different teams have won, and it becomes clear that the best team, with the most talent, rarely loses in the NBA.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out, and if the Heat can turn a fantasy league lineup of three guys into an actual "team," but there is a good chance this group could dominate, and do so for a long time.
Considering the tarnish that is now on Wade and Lebron, how many people are going to care that the Heat are the beasts of the NBA in two years? No one outside of Miami, and that isn't exactly exciting news for David Stern.
Perhaps this lights a fire under certain teams. Maybe the Knicks, after licking their wounds from not getting Lebron, make a deal to bring in Chris Paul and build a team that can topple the Heat troika. Maybe Derrick Rose, sick of being referred to simply as a piece that would help James or Wade attain greatness, helps the Bulls mature into a juggernaut. Maybe the allure of playing in his hometown of Brooklyn entices Carmelo Anthony to join the Nets, with their cast of young players, and maybe the Celtics old guard has one more run in them and Kobe and the Lakers show that it takes more than just three guys to win.
Regardless, what has happened here will seriously dampen any momentum the league had obtained over the last few years, and it won't take long to notice. Stern and his minions might have been dancing over the extraordinary interest their league generated, but it will have been a very large price to pay.
If you want to know why, in three years, the NBA is talking about having to regenerate interest in its league, look to June 22-July 8 for the answer.
It sounds strange because, for the first time since Shaquille O'Neill decided to abandon Orlando for the Lakers, we were talking about The Association in the beginning of summer.
Usually, around this time of year, the NBA would be mentioned only as an afterthought, with the occassional trade news or extension announcement. Instead, from the end of the playoffs till now, it has been all NBA, and all free agency, all the time.
But, despite pithy cliched sayings to the contrary, not all publicity is good publicity.
In America today, it is fairly easy to single out the NFL as the most popular sport in the land. It is the nation's passion. It is an every-Sunday event in the fall and winter, and no other sport comes close to matching its interest at the national level.
Coming in a strong second is the nation's passtime. Baseball, despite the much talked about "competitive imbalance" generates interest at an astounding rate, especially in the nation's biggest markets and cities. Despite a lagging economy, ratings remain high, attendance has not bottomed out, and people still follow their teams every move.
The NBA has been wallowing in third place, a distant third, in terms of interest, for a long time.
The nation's overall apathy has been linked to several different factors over the years. Some claim that the departure of Michael Jordan, who took the baton of excellence from Larry Bird and Magic Johnson and kept the NBA interesting and provocative, set the league back and a lack of another "successor" to that excellence has made the sport less interesting. Others point to a more insidious reason, believeing that white America remains turned off to a sport that is dominated by African American players.
Whatever the reason, the NBA has remained a strong presence in American sports, and its top players have continued to be marketable and recognizable, but the sports overall popularity has trailed the other two leagues.
There has been great hope at the end of the tunnel, however.
The Lakers have remained a dominate force, employing, first, the charismatic big man Shaq and, now, the controversial yet splendidly talented Kobe Bryant. The Celtics pulled off one of the great double moves of all time, and paired Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett, and Paul Pierce together to form an incredible threesome that brought the stories Celtics team back to prominence. Oh, by the way, the Lakers and Celtics, by far the best rivalry in the NBA, have played against each other in two of the last three finals.
And then you had the new face of the NBA.
Lebron James was the basketball playing version of The Natural. His talents are off the charts. He is a 6'9" freight train with shooting touch and one of the great finishing moves the game has ever seen. There is both a grace and a brutality to his talent that makes him unique.
He also has been relatively free from controversy in his seven years in the league. Unlike Kobe Bryant, who appeared surly and selfish on the court, and had a dark allegation thrown at him off the court, James appeared to be the epitome of unselfish, team-first play on the court, a good teammate and model citizen off it. Add to that his "home town boy makes good" story and his supposed allegiance to Cleveland, a city that has known nothing but sports heartbreak, and it was easy to root for Lebron.
Though Kobe has proven time and time again that he, not Lebron, is the guy you want taking the last shot and playing in the big game, Lebron remained the most popular and well-liked, and ultimately marketable, player in the sport, and one of the most recognizable celebrity faces in the world.
That was yesterday.
Today, in the NBA, is very different. Lebron is no longer the face of the NBA so much as he is the villian. His decision, and more consequentially the process by which he came to his decision, has cast him as everything wrong with sports while, for so long, he was depicted as everything right with them. His playful attitude now, suddenly, seems self indulgent and borderline unprofessional.
Perhaps it was inevitable that, after choosing Miami over Cleveland, the negative stories would emerge. The Cavs painted Lebron as the "savior" and their near divine worship of his talents were punctuated by the semi-insulting "We Are All Witnesses" billboards that lined their city's skyline. So, when we hear that Lebron was a "quitter" or that his actions were always selfish and narcissistic, one has to wonder how much of the information is true and how much is sour grapes.
Yet, after the display of the last few weeks, it is difficult to give Lebron the benefit of the doubt. The stories of Lebron's influence on the Cavs decisions, and his insistence on special treatment for he and his friends, seem to fit nicely in the story we have watched unfold before us.
Whatever the case, no one is truly in a position to WANT to believe the best about Lebron now, anyway. So, the face of the NBA, the needed successor to Michael Jordan, both in wins and popularity has been more than stained: he has been utterly dismantled.
If you add to that the shaky performance of Dwayne Wade, who made the same comical tour of franchises, though it appears likely now that he had no intention of leaving Miami, introduced his family as an element in his decision making process, then seemed to forget all about that factor when resigning with Miami, and hired a documentary crew to follow he and Chris Bosh around as they made their "decision," and argueably the NBA's two most likeable stars presented themselves as the most egotistical of athletes the nation has ever seen.
There are obviously practical problems for the NBA latent in Lebron's decision.
The lack of James in Cleveland all but devastates the Cavaliers and basketball in that city, and nearly does the same in New York, the NBA's biggest and argueably most important market. It puts two of the top three or four players in the league on the same team. And, in a sport so completely dominated by stars, it pitches the balance of power substantially in one direction, and onto a team and a city that has little basketball tradition and a notoriously apathetic fanbase.
Some will say that this move is little different than the Yankees and their "all star at every position" philosophy in baseball, but the difference is pronounced. In baseball, the playoffs are a crapshoot every season. Being the best team guarantees nothing. Despite their talent, the Yankees or Red Sox or Rays or Phillies could easily be picked off by a "lesser" team, especially if they have top starting pitching and reliable bullpen guys.
In basketball, the better, more talented team almost always wins. That's why, in a league that has designed, both in terms of the draft and salary cap structure, to help small markets compete with big ones, there is little parity in terms of competition. While it is rare teams win back-to-back titles in baseball, and almost unheard of in football, basketball produces back-to-back champs on a fairly consistent basis. In the last 30 years, there have been 13 separate occassions where one team has one two or more straight titles, and, even more startling, in those 30 years only seven different teams have won titles.
Compare that to baseball where, in the past 30 years, 20 different teams have won, and it becomes clear that the best team, with the most talent, rarely loses in the NBA.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out, and if the Heat can turn a fantasy league lineup of three guys into an actual "team," but there is a good chance this group could dominate, and do so for a long time.
Considering the tarnish that is now on Wade and Lebron, how many people are going to care that the Heat are the beasts of the NBA in two years? No one outside of Miami, and that isn't exactly exciting news for David Stern.
Perhaps this lights a fire under certain teams. Maybe the Knicks, after licking their wounds from not getting Lebron, make a deal to bring in Chris Paul and build a team that can topple the Heat troika. Maybe Derrick Rose, sick of being referred to simply as a piece that would help James or Wade attain greatness, helps the Bulls mature into a juggernaut. Maybe the allure of playing in his hometown of Brooklyn entices Carmelo Anthony to join the Nets, with their cast of young players, and maybe the Celtics old guard has one more run in them and Kobe and the Lakers show that it takes more than just three guys to win.
Regardless, what has happened here will seriously dampen any momentum the league had obtained over the last few years, and it won't take long to notice. Stern and his minions might have been dancing over the extraordinary interest their league generated, but it will have been a very large price to pay.
If you want to know why, in three years, the NBA is talking about having to regenerate interest in its league, look to June 22-July 8 for the answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
