Mike James, still disgruntled

SLAM caught up with Mike James, and he still seems upset with his Wizards experience this year.

about 2 years ago Mike Prada 12 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

He wrote a book?!?

Well, I guess he had the time…

by Pryme on Apr 28, 2010 7:03 PM EDT reply actions

eeewww lol

by eltacoman on Apr 28, 2010 7:16 PM EDT reply actions

Wow, he’s still on the team?

by Hog's Bacon on Apr 28, 2010 10:47 PM EDT reply actions

No, he got bought out in March

BF on Twitter I BF on Facebook.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Apr 28, 2010 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions

A few reactions

1. The article says, “If you want to know what makes Mike James tick…” Why would I want to know what makes James tick?

2. James was puzzled about why he wasn’t playing. Easy answer: Because he sucks. He had a few decent years earlier in his career, and one very good year. That “very good” year was 2005-2006. He hasn’t been worth a damn in 3 years. His career scoring average is the height irrelevance — his offensive ratings the past 3 seasons have been (in order) 93, 99 and 76 pts produced per 100 possessions. League average during that period has been about 107.

3. The guy seems to be borderline delusional. He SAYS all these teams wanted him. The fact is that none of them signed him.

4. He indicates that he’d like to finish his career in Europe after 2 more years in the NBA. Just a wild guess, but his “four year” plan probably should focus on 4 more years in Europe.

5. Asked about having a “good enough name in front offices” he says he’s respected in the league. But, this is the same guy that Byron Scott loathed and refused to play. This is the guy who was so reviled by the Rockets that Houston refused to take on his salary in trade scenarios even if it involved an immediate buyout and he would never actually be with the team. This is the guy who had problems getting along with coaches at nearly every stop in his career.

6. He was “hurt” that the team played Livingston ahead of him at the end of the season. Hmm. James is short and old, has a questionable attitude and sucks. Livingston is tall, young, has a great attitude, and is actually pretty good. I wonder which one should play.

by TheSecretWeapon on Apr 29, 2010 9:55 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Amen!

by qthaballa on Apr 29, 2010 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions

JAMES

WELL, no matter what, he show in hell should have played before LITTLE PEOPLE.

straight talk

by Mae.jude@yahoo.com on Apr 29, 2010 11:05 AM EDT reply actions

Mike James, still disgruntled

You spelled “disgrunted” wrong in the title :).

by hotplate on Apr 29, 2010 1:00 PM EDT reply actions

i miss regular old gruntled mike james

"how ironic - you came here with a mouse in a bottle, now YOU are the mouse in the bottle" - B.M. Smith

by little stevie colter on Apr 29, 2010 1:06 PM EDT reply actions

Me too

Mike, you’ll be missed, we really care about you.

by qthaballa on Apr 29, 2010 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions

i actually think Mike had a legitimate complaint

the guy came into training camp having stayed in shape and worked hard to try and get back into the rotation, and flip basically didn’t give him a chance at all.

i mean, if deshawn stevenson is allowed to get playing time, why couldn’t mike james?

by Marine4Life51 on May 1, 2010 1:00 AM EDT reply actions

Coming to camp in shape is bare minimum. Stevenson could get some playing time because he has decent size and he plays defense. James was short, old, inefficient on the offensive end, and a poor defender. Not playing him was/is entirely defensible. James’s best argument in favor of playing him was that the team was terrible, and probably wouldn’t be any worse if they played him. That’s a pretty weak argument, in my opinion.

by TheSecretWeapon on May 11, 2010 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions