All Things NBA
 

Curses aren't real. Ask any Clipper fan. Amazing the amount of bad luck this team has. Blake Griffin hasn't even played a real game for them yet and is already out 6-8 weeks.

Season starts tonight. I'm looking forward to this one more than any season ever. The moves by the top teams are going to make this one very competitive. Assuming good health by everyone, the Lakers should win the West again but not in a runaway like last year. I think their toughest competition will come from Dallas and not San Antonio like most people think. Dallas was better than SA last year and I think Marion and that French rookie will make them even better. Of course SA will be tough but I'm not looking for teams like Denver and Portland to be as good as most people think. With a healthy Bynum, the Lakers kill Denver. Portland reminds me of their early 90's teams with a lot of talent but not the right fits and not a lot of discipline.

In the East, I think it's a two team race with Boston and Cleveland. Boston was better than Orlando last year but were missing their best player so they couldn't get it done. Now they have him back and with Rondo having more experience and having added Wallace, they have enough to get it done. Cleveland collapsed bad against the Magic but I think that experience is going to make LeBron hungrier and no matter what they get from Shaq, they still will be the biggest threat to Boston. I think these are the two best teams in the league.

James wins his second MVP award. Griffin wins the ROY award even though he's going to miss 6-8 weeks at the start. Wade will probably win another scoring title if he can stay healthy, which I think is only 50/50 to happen. Bynum makes the West all-star team.

(1)Lakers, (8)Clippers, Suns, Warriors, Kings
(3)Nuggets, (5)Blazers, (6)Jazz, Thunder, Wolves
(2)Mavs, (4)Spurs, (7)Hornets, Rockets, Grizzlies

(2)Celtics, (8)Sixers, Knicks, Raptors, Nets
(1)Cavs, (5)Pistons, (6)Bulls, Bucks, Pacers
(3)Magic, (4)Wizards, (7)Heat, Hawks, Bobcats

The only thing I really disagree with you about is that the Mavs will be better than the Spurs. The Spurs are fully healthy for the first time in years and I think they're gonna absolutely steamroll the SW division.

I watched the Mavs last Friday in the final pre-season game and of course Dirk is going to do his thing, the perimeter guys are solid but I can't figure out where Shawn Marion's going to fit, especially if Josh Howard gets healthy. I think they'll battle a bit and ultimately finish fourth or fifth in the west.

I totally agree on Denver coming back to earth. Bill Simmons' list of how George Karl teams did after good seasons was very telling.

NT

NTAMM-

You have to understand that KG is the biggest closet Mavs fan on any internet board. It pained him to have to rank them behind the Lakers. Every fiber of his being wants to believe that the addition of Shawn Maridone will propel this team past all of the other better teams in the west. Forget that:

-Jason Kidd is now at the age and speed where he can no longer effectively guard...ANYONE.

-Marion is past the point where he was amongst the most versatile defenders in the league and is now merely average to maybe above average.

-Dirk could never guard anyone anyway.

-Dampier is soft and weak and as always the mavs have no post defense.

-Jason Terry is a walking matchup problem that is now a one dimensional spot up shooter for all intents.

-Josh Howard is the only real player that they have thats still in his prime and he is busy getting stoned more often than not.

- they have no bench.

- they have no coach.


If you forget all of those things, they are the number 2 seed in the western conference.

Yeah, I'm going to have to go with the Mavs as the one glaring problem with those predictions. They might play in the 2-7 game, just not with home court advantage.

First Game:

DeJaun Blair - 14 points, 11 rebounds
Ty Lawson - 17 points, 6 assists, 4 rebounds

What is wrong with NBA GMs? These were the two non lottery guys in our draft discussions that virtually everyone agreed were going to be effective pros. Yet Lawson went 18th and Blair went 37th and teams allowed contenders to snatch them up. When are NBA GMs going to realize how valuable the sure thing is and stop reaching on these guys with tremendous upside potential? There is a reason the gap keeps widening between the have and have nots.

It might be a little early to declare these guys stars. On the teams they are on they are role players. On bad teams they may have been counted on to do more than they are capable of.

I'm not declaring these guys stars, what I'm saying is what everyone thought going in, that they would both be effective pros. Many of the guys taken above them will not be. We already know how good those two are from college though and NBA teams would much rather take guys with "upside potential" that have never displayed it like BJ Mullens than guys that are a known quantity like Blair.

I think you are generalizing too much. While I think Blair can be a NBA player, he is probably limited to being a role player. Same with Lawson. He is a great change of pace guy with young legs playing with a team that fits his style. Put him on a different situation where he is forced to play 32 min a game for a bad team and he probably shoots 38% from the field and has 5 turnovers a game. If a guy has a ceiling and you know it you cant take him too early and overpay him. I understand the counter is that you may wind up paying an unkown but a lot of these guys do make it. There are a hell of a lot of really good NBA players that played for less than primetime programs yet were drafted high ( not literally). Not to mention that a lot of GM's draft to need because they dont have a lot of time to get good.

Though there are some horrific organizations in the NBA that never seem to make the right move.

First it was the high schoolers and now it is the college guys. The NBA just doesn't get it. They got burned by so many "we draft Jermaine O'Neal out of high school, pay him for four years, and have him leave as a free agent and become a good player" moments that they had to force everyone into the NBA to not be able to draft high schoolers to protect them from their own idiocy. Yet amazingly, now they are doing the exact same thing with unproven college players. I'm not positive if you are just an NBA guy or if you watch a lot of college basketball but as a college basketball fan it isn't hard to find the guys that will translate to the pros and which won't. Anyone that watched college basketball games last year shouldn't be surprised that DeJuan Blair, Ty Lawson, and Steph Curry all had far better first games than Hasheem Thabeet, James Harden, and Tyreke Evans who were all taken before them. And Thabeet/Harden/Evans are the guys that will probably make it! It is the idiocy of the picks by the bad teams from 8 to 37 that makes you really question what these GMs are doing.

Scott dont you think that making judgements on players after one game is a bit premature?

Maybe those guys were more NBA ready because they played more but it is far too soon to declare any of them successes or busts.

Of course, you can't declare anything after one game. Like I said the 2nd to 4th picks will probably make it. I just can't believe the level of idiocy in the NBA that lets guys drop so far cause they have only shown they could be good NBA players instead of having shown nothing which could mean they could potentially be great or terrible. It is like if on every pick I offered you $12 or a random amount from $0 to $15 and everytime you went for the random amount. That seems to be the acceptable route for NBA GMs. I just find it very funny that Curry, Blair, and Lawson all had great first games despite being picked 6th, 17th, and 37th even though any college basketball fan could tell you those three were pretty much locks to be good pros but might not be great ones.

I just dont follow the logic that the 6th and 17th picks are so overlooked. if you go back through the last few years drafts, there are a lot of high pick misses but there are also very few later pick succeses.

And I think the guys you mentioned are more like $6 or 7 dollars on the scale.

Who should have taken Curry or Lawson tht passed? Dont forget Blair has a questionable knee.

Curry probably went exactly where he should have. Time will tell and his height may become a problem but Lawson looked the 2nd most NBA ready of anyone last year behind Griffin to me. I can't say he should have been #2 but I think he shouldn't have been much lower than #7.

As to Blair, he could be in a wheelchair and still grab more rebounds a game than BJ Mullens. San Antonio or Denver will win the NBA this year strictly because of the extra bench minutes that Blair/Lawson can give Duncan/Billups to keep them fresh for the playoffs. BJ Mullens will never match the double doubles by Blair through one game in his NBA career.

So now NBA GMS are supposed to structure their respective drafts based on how players will do...in their first game?????? This is a new level of silly.

So do we now ignore team need? Do we ignore potential? Do we ignore injury issues?

Do I think Lawson should have lasted to 17? No but at the same time, its not always about being "nba ready".

How about Danny Granger? Im sure he was at the top of your draft board in 2005 when he was drafted over more "nba ready" players like Hakim warrick and salim stoudamire.

NBA scouting is not perfect and just like every sport mistakes are made. How was JJ redick a lottery pick for instance? At the same time, lets wait three years before we start to declare the winners and losers in any draft.

Sniper, I agree with you 100% here. I would have taken guys like Curry and Lawson much higher than they went. There's no way in hell I would have taken Rubio higher than either one of them.

Anyway, at least for one night, the Mavs made me look like a genius. They beat the crap out of the Lakers in LA.

You'd trade for Zach Randolph too

56% shooting, 22.0 pts, 8.0 reb per game. In the win over Detroit, 13-21 for 30 points and seven boards. I'll take that kinda production anyday.

yeah, i guess we will just have to wait until Zbo pees on the scorers table.

The first week of the season is always a great time to be making declarations of success or failure.

Yeah, he might not keep this up. He's only done it for several years in the league. No reason to believe he can keep up this pace. Be realistic. Think whatever you want about him but one thing that nobody can deny is that the guy gives you points and rebounds at a rate that less than five men in the world can equal. It's not like I'm predicting that Brandon Jennings will average nine boards and assists a night for the season because of one game. I'm talking about a guy that's got a proven track record for several seasons with different teams playing under different systems.

I am not disagreeing. I think the guy is immensely talented. But...there is a huge price you pay when he is on your team. He kills chemistry if not in the locker room then certainly on the floor. But this has already been discussed ad naseum.

I have never been in an NBA locker room so i dont really pay too much attention to the off the court stuff because i really dont understand it. To me, its what you do on the court that counts. Thats why I would take a guy like Ron Artest any day of the week. Or Stephen Jackson. Zbo gets points and boards but invariably he will lose you games by doing something stupid or kill the clock and any type of ball movement by holding it too long in the post. Yeah, he will get you stats but your team will still lose. That track record is proven as well isnt it?

I'll never argue on his behalf as one of the smartest guys or best teammates. I also will never hold his team's records against him. He's played for some pretty horrible teams and I don't think anyone could have won with them. The Knicks, Clippers, and now Memphis? Jordan couldn't win with those teams.

Dont you think there is a reason why good teams have no interest in him?

Or that bad teams want to get rid of him...quickly! This is a 20/10 guy that can move a little and is still relatively young. Why do these teams just want to dump him?

We stay stuck on the same point. You guys want to keep harping on what kind of person and teammate he is. I've not disagreed with you. You want to keep harping in how he might effect team chemistry. I don't disagree with you. I do think that team chemistry is a very overrated thing. Shaq and Kobe didn't get along and it didn't hurt the Lakers. Notice how successful teams take chances on guys that supposedly hurt chemistry. The Bulls and Spurs both picked up Rodman. The Celtics sign Rasheed Wallace. The Lakers get Artest. The Patriots get Randy Moss. Instead of worrying about chemistry, the Yankees sign A-Rod and he plays the same position as the resident god Jeter.

But the difference is that those guys are all basically team players first, with the possible exception of ARod. If it is possible, his 20-10 is an empty number. Not to mention that he is completely useless as a defender because he puts zero effort into it. Sometimes we forget that basketball players spend an equal amount of time defending or in his case not defending. At the trade dealine there will be tons of interest in 2 Memphis players. Gasol and Gay. I'd be willing to bet that no contender will have the slightest interest in you know who.

It is entirely possible to put up a hollow 20-10. I've always thought that Garnett specialized in it and against the Lakers and Shaq, so did Chris Webber. I think that Randolph does it too. He doesn't have an impactful 20-10. I understand about the defensive end too but there's two ways to look at it. Because of his level of offensive production, you rarely will have him being outproduced on the other end. Where Randolph fails bad is as a help defender and a weak-side defender. Where he fails on the offensive end is with the ill-timed three or not hitting an open cutter for an easier shot. I don't think we are too far off in our opinion of him. There are other guys that will give you less production numbers wise that I'd take over him in a heartbeat. Lamar Odom comes to mind. But I also really appreciate his production and his consistency and would always take a guy like that on my team. Sometimes it's good to be able to know you can plug in a guy and count on 20-10 every night. Hollow or otherwise, there just aren't that many guys in the world that you can count on that from and to have done it for this long under this many different conditions, I totally respect that ability.

JJ Redick will have a breakout year if given the chance.

:$:

Depends on what you would define as a breakout year. So far though, it's looking like he will be a solid contributor to that team.

D Wade was :$: tonight

want to talk about hollow 20-10 guys?......I give you my personal favourite.....


CHRIS BOSH

It's always been my belief that somebody has to score...give a guy enough touches, run the ball through a guy enough times, focus the offense on the perceived star and voila....20-10.

He will not stay in Toronto after this year..(Thankfully)...and whomever pays max dollars for him in 2010-11, will discover he's...slow, cannot play defense and clogs up the lane.The true test to me has always been they way he has been defended. NBA coaches have never felt they needed to double team him. That to me speaks volumes.

Brandon Jennings, one of those "potential" guys who went 8 spots before Lawson and 27 spots before Blair, is averaging 22 ppg 5 assists and 4 rebounds while shooting 48% from the field and 50% from 3.

and 99 out of 100 people would still take him over Randolph