Gilbert Arenas plays well in Magic loss to Hawks: Were you rooting for him?
by Mike Prada on Apr 25, 2011 7:00 AM EDT
in Agent Zeroisms
Email
PrintLast night, Gilbert Arenas scored 20 points in 22 minutes in the Magic's 88-85 Game 4 loss to the Hawks. He came in early in the third quarter and really filled it up, driving to the basket and covering on layups in a way we haven't seen him do all season. Alas, the Magic lost, because Stan Van Gundy called the final play for Hedo Turkoglu instead, but it was still a great performance by Arenas in a season where he's had very few.
I don't know how many of you watched the game, since it was on Easter Sunday night. But if you followed me or any other blogger-types on Twitter, you witnessed a lot of cheerleading for Arenas. The thing I always have to keep in mind is that Arenas is the blogosphere's original gem, so we're a bit biased. Also, I think my fondness for Arenas is well-documented in the annuals of Bullets Forever history. Therefore, I'm writing this post now because I'm curious if any of you all had the same reaction as me watching that game.
The thing is, I'm asking this question because Arenas is very much an outsider to me now. I think it's become clear that Ernie Grunfeld and the rest of the management team knew they had to deal him. I think it's becoming clear they knew he just didn't have anything close to what we thought he may have had left. I also think it's pretty clear that, even though Rashard Lewis has his own issues, the Magic ended up on the short end of that trade. A lot of my rooting interest with Arenas disappeared at the end of our Arenas Tribute day.
But I'll admit that it has resurfaced at times this year, none moreso than last night. I really wanted Arenas to lead the Magic to victory, and I can't help but admit that. My question is: was anyone else watching that game feeling the same thing?
273 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Honestly
I thought they were gonna go to Gil on the last play. But, lo and behold, Hedo gets the ball, dribbles off his knee, somehow gets a decent look, and bricks it. Would have been great to see Gil, if just for one game, be the hero once again.
We're the fans at the phone booth screaming, "BOOOOOOOOOOKER" until Flip gets a clue.
by HailEarlBorgans on Apr 25, 2011 7:05 AM EDT reply actions
I was cheering for him
Contrary to public opinion, I think he has a lot left in the tank, but I think that Stan van isn’t really interested in getting it out. Van Gundy didn’t want him.
I also think that if the Magic don’t win it all this year, Stan van is gone, and Gilbert is a centerpiece of that team next year.
Horrible, selfish shot at the end by Turk. With a wide open Arenas right there.
Once you fumble the ball you need to consider other options besides forcing a shot.
Time to start stacking our chips for that Dwight lottery...
oh and Gil with the LWPs..nice
I was rooting for him
But I always wondered why he didn’t take the ball to basket more like that. I think that his jump shot has been awful this year, but he also settles for too many. The best games he has had this year, he has taken it strong to the basket. He is strong and creative enough to be an effective driver. If he commits himself to taking the ball to the basket more, he’s still got something left. I think changing his game like that will eventually put him ahead of Jameer Nelson. By the way, he played some good defense too.
by ThePGPhenomenon on Apr 25, 2011 8:13 AM EDT reply actions
Its a combination of things
First, he’s lost some of his quickness from the knee. Second, he wasn’t getting the foul calls he used to get. Third, without a jumper, his driving lanes aren’t nearly as open.
by jones-y on Apr 25, 2011 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Absolutely
I was rooting for him big time. I also noticed how he was desperately calling for the ball after Hedo lost it. I’m sure he was going to drill it from 40 ft. it really brought back memories of the old days. I kind of felt bad for him though because you could somehow see that he was unhappy…
by rayallenisaballer on Apr 25, 2011 8:36 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
Arenas said
he felt like an outsider here this year… Well, if he thought he was an outsider here, I wonder what he feels like in Orlando. For him to be the guy with the hot hand and not get the play drawn up for him, nor get the ball passed to him when he had space shows he’s not the man for Orlando any more than he was for us this year, actually much less.
I wish he would’ve gotten the last shot, but selfishly, I want the Magic to lose this series bad so that Howard decides to leave. I really think (or hope) that if we draft well and save our bucks, we could entice Howard to come here and join Wall to build a Franchise.
I'm all for pursuing Dwight
But even if we don’t get him, the demise of Orlando helps clear our ascension in our division and the Eastern Conference.
after being in a spot with no state income tax I doubt Howard’s about to go some place with one. That’s a lot of lost money. I think only teams in states without an income tax got a chance. I don’t know how their salaries are looking, but can’t imagine Mark Cuban not going all in for Howard.
Howard would leave by a sign-and-trade...
Similar to what Carmello did…. so he can get the maximum dollars… If he just leaves as a free agent, he gets less….
That means that teams with lots of “assets”, cap room and young talent will have the best shot at trading for Howard. (unless Howard pulls a ‘Melo’, and demands to be traded to only one place)….
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
State income tax? You really think these guys are going to sign into a less good situation to save 5-10%?
And if I’m not mistaken state taxes are deductible from federal tax anyway.
No, the income tax thing is a red herring for a player like Howard.
well….we know players will leave to make 5-10% more off the top. So yes, absolutely they will sign away to save 5-10% off the bottom. but it is not the only consideration.
my real question to you is why would it be a less good situation? Even if Dallas gives up most of their young players, Nowitzki and Howard would probably win it. Their skills really complement each other. And then they would reload around Howard as Bibby, et al. retire. One thing Dallas offers…their owner has a track record of caring and willingness to be creative and spend to win.
I think even with Wall, we are at least a major player who would not be traded away from really being in the mix. If we had Wall, Barnes, and Howard, that would be a nice core to build around! Dallas has the depth in talent to pull off a trade. But Im not sure Howard is leaving. He may, but he is more grounded than LeBron.
Ironiically, LeBron needs to learn how to play off the ball!
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions
DHoward is kind of a cheeseball
who seems to absolutely love being in front of cameras and in the spotlight. Do Dallas or DC offer that?
dallas offers cameras only if he were on the cowboys
Washington will offer more analytical scrutiny because we’re a political city first.
Getting dwight to take his talents to dc if it ever happened is the equivalent of a dan snyder move to me and we’ll get a guy who won’t fit into our culture.
by thewiz06 on Apr 25, 2011 11:28 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Scary
"I'll be lounging on the couch, just chillin in my snuggie, klick to MTV so they can teach my how to douggie" (Buno Mars, The lazy song)
by Dutch Hoopfan on Apr 25, 2011 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions
I was not referring to Dallas specifically, but rather the concept that a guy like Howard who makes 17 million or so per year in salary plus probably another 10 million in endorsements is going to let 1 million weigh in on his decision about where to sign.
I agree it could be a factor for players who make less, but I don’t think max type players are going to let it bother them.
After all, why are so many good players signing in places like California (10%), and New York (9%)
endorsements- that;s why they are in LA and NYC.
I think people are really discounting Orlando’s abilitiy to resign him. First, there will be a new CBA which will have some form of tighter cap. Second, most of their contracts roll off within a year of DH resigning except Hedo which has one more year. And Arenas…but i can really seeing Arenas renegotiating his contract and spreading out the last year over three or four to earn a little more money and finish off his career with DH in Orlando. Especially, if it helps keep Dwight in place. I think Gil will renegotiate if it secures Dwight like Richard Jefferson did in San Antonio. Something like $30-35mm over 4-5 years could do it. Ironically, I really expect DH to stay put with a big commitment from Orlando to do better. He isn’t unhappy. He wants better help. And Orlando is in position to give him that.
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions
but dallas does have the resources, track record and commitment to give him an offer to seriously consider
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions
I am not arguing that he won't stay.
I’m just saying that state tax is a red herring as a factor.
Plenty of the top players outside of NY and LA get big endorsement money. It’s the slightly lesser players who do well in those cities.
and i dont want to argue too much that he is not leaving lol. i think he is less out the door than other people. i am not a big fan of the all the best players end up in the same 4-5 markets. it really lessens my interest in the nba- especially for the regular season. otherwise, i will just start tuning in when the conference finals start
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions
He wants better help. And Orlando is in position to give him that.
But that’s the thing, I don’t really think they are. At least not before his opt-out opportunity in offseason 2012.
Richardson’s contract comes off the books, but they’re still over the cap ($48m combined for GA, DH, and HT), so they can’t really sign any significant FAs, they don’t have anything desirable left to trade (aside from Nelson and a bunch of 3pt specialists…), and they won’t find much help in the draft, being a perennial playoff team.
why do you say that? why are you so sure he is gone without it?
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Because Orlando's got a massive payroll and very little means to improve
by Mike Prada on Apr 25, 2011 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
but that massive payroll rolls off after his opt out year. you have hedo for one year at 12mm. and gil for one year at 20mm. but as i mentioned, i really see gilbert renegotiating in that situation. you prob have hedo for one year at 12mm and gil for several years around 7mm.
so i dont think it is as massive and damaging as you portrayed
is a franchise tag something realistic coming out of this cba?
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions
but that massive payroll rolls off after his opt out year.
Which means that there’s a 3-4 year window before they can significantly improve. Why would he wait around when he can skip town and make the finals immediately?
If Gil does decide to renegotiate (he is the type to do something like that, so I definitely see your point.), it would probably be with the understanding that he’s a HUGE part of the team going forward, which would also mean that Stan van is gone (he doesn’t want GA) and Nelson probably is too. So again, why would he stick around when the team is in such chaos and flux?
As of right now, you can't renegotiate guaranteed contracts
And I see no way Arenas opts out considering the way his game is falling off a cliff.
There’s also Duhon and Q-Rich, plus Jameer and Bass have player options and J.J. is partially guaranteed. If they extend J-Rich, that adds to it, plus draft picks.
by Mike Prada on Apr 25, 2011 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Richard Jefferson-like
It’ll be like that. Where there was no “negotiations” but things magically worked out….. Otis Smith and Gilbert Arenas are friends. I would not be surprised to see it happen.
This rule should probably be revised. Especially if there is a hard salary cap in place, it’s important for teams to be able to restructure contracts.
i agree on that…i REALLY see arenas restructuring- less per year for more years….especially if it keeps howard. there are so many good reasons for him to do so. …now if howard bolts, then i dont know it will happen. i tend to think it wont.
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions
ok…correct me if i am wrong. the next nba season is 2011/2012. dwight howard is under contract period.
2012/2013- DH can opt out. this is the year he can move barring a trade previously.
in 12/13, arenas has a player option. he can opt out and sign a new contract. instead of the 42mm over 2 years he is under contract to make, he can do 57mm over 5 year. pick up three more years at 5mm with the chance to play with DH and finish his career there. that frees up 8mm per year. richard jefferson did something similar.
in 12/13, reddick, nelson, earl clark and bass are all on their last year- 21mm in contracts…they area all trade candidates or they roll freeing up the 21mm in 13/14
in 13/14, hedo is in his last year- 12mm (insane) and so is QRich (4mm) those contracts can be traded or let expire
so since DH can not even leave before the 2012/2013- it is the first year to consider.
2012 is year zero- redo gilbert- free up 8mm
2013 is year 1- free up 21mm (plus another 8 from gilbert totals 29mm!
2014 is year 2- free up 16mm (but you will be committed to Gil for 12mm for three more years)…so net 4mm freed up
Dwight might easily leave orlando. my point is that to me it is not as obvious he will. and i definitely do not believe they are in cap hell when he can opt out. they are in cap hell today…and the light at the end of the tunnel is near when he can leave. the majority of contracts roll off after that first year. and the others roll off the second year. but as many have pointed out, it may be too little too late by then
i think otis smith panicked and made one too many bad trades. he never should have taken back turkoglu at 12mm per season for four more years. VC was off the books after this season! and they just have too many of the wrong players surrounding DH. i am less convinced he will stay after going thru this exercise lol i am not sure who they could get for nelson, reddick, et al, but they arent going to win with them. their only chance might be to go all in and trade em
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions
right so 2012/2013 is year zero. regardless, it is a tall order any way you slice it. i was sure lebron was leaving. i was sure on bosh and stoudemare. i was pretty sure on carmelo. i am less sure on dwight. right now, but i would not be surprised either way. i dont think we can land him so i prefer he stays in orlando.
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 9:20 PM EDT up reply actions
right…there is not much they can do before howard can opt out. trade nelson and renegotiate gilbert. that is about it. he can opt out for the 2012/2013 season. orlando is still pretty committed that season, but their flexibility increases starting the next year. that is also the same year that is the final year in gil’s contract. if they keep howard, i forsee gilbert signing an extension prior. instead of 20mm that last year, it will be like 7mm on a multiyear extension.
but i think dwight is making more than a one year decision so he may overlook that first year noose if he likes their commitment and direction. the biggest choice they have facing him is jason richardson- thats a 14mm contract rolling off this year.
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions
the problem is they've had their chances and it hasnt worked.
If/when they go out in the 1st round this year, it will be everybody’s fault except Howard’s. They look like a lotto team without him.
“But just trust us Dwight, this time Otis will make the right moves!”
Why would he believe that? And if you fire Otis, what track record will the next guy have of making good moves?
He gone! (imho)
and you are right. and if he leaves i agree that is why it happened. the franchise is in a pickle for sure. they need to figure out what they need to do to keep him.
losing to atlanta this year will really hurt their chances to resign him i feel
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions
there is a reason why there is a millionaire row of athletes, celebrities and such in FL. no state income tax which of course means no county income tax and your primary home cannot be taken away from you if you go bankrupt if i remember correctly.
yes…and the divorce laws are generably favorable..unless you are tiger woods and are publicly dating porn stars lol
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions
dwight likes his porn stars too apparently.
but 1)who doesnt I suppose and 2)plenty of those in LA too
I dont know…even with the Magic losing I am seeing Dwight more and more as a really singular player in the league. He’;s what, 25? Situation just screams LA to me play alongside a 32yr old Kobe with Stern’s approval
Dwight to LA is completely just too logical not to happen.
And makes me want to throw up.
My god, we should fill a plane full of pissed off Orlandans to go riot in LA. First Shaq then Dwight? Makes me want to quit watching the NBA.
Me too.
I’m about fed up with a 6 team league.
Amen!
I don’t care what ratings say: it’s a better league when more teams are competitive.
From the District of Columbia, home of the hyperbolic paraboloid transitional floating zone defense.
by mr. 91 on Apr 25, 2011 12:53 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I have no problem with LA/BOS (Patriots/Steelers) being perennial contenders.
The problem is that there is no variation in the 4-5 teams behind them that are also truly in contention.
What needs to happen (and part of the reason the NFL is way more popular), is that teams like this year’s Indiana or NO (Jets, Packers) need to have a real chance to win, and they need to break through and win some. That would grow the fan base in places outside of the major markets, and in the long run would increase ratings, earnings and profits.
I concede that a part of the reason is the playoff format (any given sunday vs. 7 game series), but the biggest cause of the NFL’s parity IMO is the talent distribution. The league really needs to get more competitive.
Exactly.
I think the issue is that the rise to (and fall from) true contention is really a 5-7 year process (unless you’re extremely lucky). And that anything other than superhuman patience and perfect management/execution of that process spells doom and a need to start over. Which leads to a bunch of middling (or worse: perpetually rebuilding) teams…
There really needs to be a way for players to move more freely, there needs to be a way for teams to partially mitigate bad contracts, and the need to trade talent for reasons other than the talent itself needs to be eliminated.
Unlike the NFL . . .
it seems like the NBA depends on the luck of the draw.
e.g. One player in one draft — usually a top 5 player in a great draft year — can build a foundation for the next 5 to 6 years. If a team has the misfortune of landing in the lottery in a bad draft, then it means more pain. In the NFL the draft can still be a success even if the top selection falls short of expectations, because of the fact that there are 22 other starters (and a host of other reserves and specialists plus special teams).
Scheduling is also a big factor in the NFL (e.g. bad teams get weak schedules, in the NBA the schedules don’t change as much).
A hard cap could increase parity and partially guaranteed contracts are part of the formula in terms of creating more parity too — teams won’t have their hands tied for years with an ill-advised contract extension or free agent signing.
The effect of those new rules though might limit the movement of elite players. You’d need to eliminate the Bird rule and you’d have to limit the use of a franchise player tag to just one season.
The quickest and easiest way to improve parity is to start eliminating franchises. That way there’s more talent left for the remaining teams.
I wouldn’t want things to go that way, because over time I think the NBA talent pool will increase thanks to the international popularity of the game.
I’d rather tinker around the edges with the hard cap and partially guaranteed contracts. As a side note, if the league goes that way it needs to increase revenue sharing with the players to off-set the impact of artificially low base salaries.
Depends on the context . . .
In the context of eliminating franchises, I see it as tinkering around the edges (e.g. hard cap equals a much less extreme proposition than eliminating franchises).
From the players perspective a hard cap could be a significant change — it depends on whether there’s change to the revenue sharing formula (e.g. if the players are compensated for the hard cap in some other way by getting a higher percentage of TV deals or a cut of local deals and gate receipts, the net compensation might balance out). Of course right now there’s no talk of balancing things out, so for the players the changes represent a big lose-lose proposition.
From the perspective of league competitiveness, I agree, it’s much more than tinkering around the edges. A hard cap would level the playing field for teams for smaller market teams. It probably will increase the popularity of the league and grow the fan base.
is there really a CAP in the NFL?
To a certain extent, of course there is….but on the other hand it’s clear an owner that wants to overpay a bunch of “stars” can do so. I cant recall the Redskins EVER not signing a player due to CAP reasons. They often used money as an excuse…but then turned around and spent more on some aging stooge that passed Snyder’s “name recognition” test.
Point being….even with a supposed hard CAP, owners that want to spend in the NBA will be able to. Guys like Cuban and Prokorov are not going to allow a system that takes away their biggest advantage- vast financial resources and willingness to use them
Partially guaranteed contracts . . .
in the NFL make a big difference.
e.g. The signing bonus counts against the cap if a player gets cut, but the team won’t have to pay out the base salary in each year.
As I understand it:
Player A gets a $60 million contract over 5 years. He gets $10 million up front as a signing bonus (the guaranteed portion) with a base salary of $10 million a year.
The $10 million bonus gets divided by 5 equaling $2 million a year. So if the player plays out the contract without getting cut, the team has a $12 million hit to the salary cap each year. If the team cuts the player after two years, the salary cap hit is $12 in year 1 and 2, and only $2 million in 3, 4, and 5. The team only pays out $30 million to the player out of the $60 million contract.
Teams will find creative ways to use extra revenue, but in the case of the Redskins no one works the NFL salary cap better than they do when it comes to free agency; and yet for all the money that they burn, it still equals mediocrity in the best years. Maybe that’s a quirk of the NFL.
The big thing is that the partially guaranteed contracts would benefit small market teams in a big way. A high revenue, high profit team can eat the loss of a dud contract these days and even exceed the cap and pay a luxury tax, but some of the smaller market teams are basically hamstrung by dud contracts that they can’t unload.
that is incorrect. if a player is cut before the end of his contract…whatever signing bonus that was received but not yet earned is pushed forward for a one-time hit. depending on the date of the cut, that one time hit would be either this season or the next.
so in your example- 60mm incl 10mm bonus over 5 years
yr1- 12mm
yr2- 12mm
cut
yr 3- 6mm (10mm bonus – 4mm accrued already)….so 6mm hit even though he is not on the roster
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Good correction . . .
In the NFL technically the team could push the release date to after June 1 of year 3.
By doing this, they’d only be on the hook for $2 million in year 3 (for cap purposes).
Then in year 4 they’d get hit with the remaining $4 million left out of the signing bonus calculation.
The larger point still stands though — partially guaranteed contracts give teams a lot more flexibility and would give small market teams the ability to take on larger player salaries with the option of early termination if they made an ill-advised signing.
yes…absolutely
at the end of the day, it is a cultural mindset and the current commissioner could care less about parity.
i think his big dream would be to move the 25 franchises outside the largest markets into the 25 largest markets worldwide and have a true worldwide league.
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 9:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Also
The owners want to impose a hard cap and simultaneously dramatically lessen the cut the players get of basketball-related revenue – I think it’s 57% now, and the owners want to cut that to 43%.
wow that could be a big differemce. it would depend on what is counted as revenue. i think right now they get 57% but it does not include everything.
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions
over time I think the NBA talent pool will increase thanks to the international popularity of the game.
That’s already happened. The level of (domestic and international) talent has already increased. The problem is (and has been) the concentration of that talent on the top 6-8 teams.
I’ll agree that one player makes a much more significant difference in the NBA than he does in the NFL. I’ll also agree that scheduling is a big part of the parity. But I’ll leave off with my opinion that its not the elite players we (or the NBA) want skipping from team to team. Its the 2nd, 3rd and 4th best players that need to move around.
I also think contraction is a huge mistake. Not so much tangibly as psychologically. Its a big fat indicator that the league isn’t doing well, and that offsets the benefit of having more talent available to the remaining teams (given that the best of that talent is inevitably going to end up in the usual locations.
Could you expound on the ‘artificially low base salaries’? A hard cap would of course decrease the amount of money that’s available to players, but the players currently get 57% of the revenue. I personally could care less how that money is divided up (and I’m pro-labor in every arena (no pun) except sports), but the reality is that if the league wants to survive, not to mention thrive, the players’ piece of the pie is going to need to get smaller.
The impact of the hard cap . . .
As far as “artificially low base salaries” go: The “natural” salary rate is what happens when there is no cap. The teams with the biggest revenue flow can outbid everyone else — even taking a luxury cap into account.
What happens under the hard cap is that the hard cap would be set at a level that is below what the top market teams are willing and able to pay players. The net impact is that you have the same number of players, but less revenue to spend on player salaries than you would otherwise have.
e.g. the hard cap isn’t going to be set at a level that only the big market teams can afford. It’ll be set below that leve.
The net effect is that there would be lower base salaries across the league. It might hit some players harder than others — depends on how the scale within the hard cap gets structured.
The Washington Post had a good story on this subject yesterday.
As I understand it, right now the league shares revenue with the players from national TV deals only. Unlike the NFL, the NBA also has local broadcasting rights with the revenue going exclusively to the ownership. Unlike the NFL, the NBA owners also get to pocket all of the gate receipts.
Billy Hunter the NBA Player Association Chief said: "They want to move to an NFL model as it relates to a hard cap, but they do not want to adopt an NFL revenue sharing model."
I figure if you are going to ask for concessions from the players which benefit competitiveness and the league’s popularity, at least give the players a significant share of the upside from the new system. The owners position seems to be: We want to change the rules in a way that increases the popularity of the league, and on top of this we want to capture not only 100 percent of the new revenue generated by the new model, we also want to claw-back wage increases that you’ve gained in the last set of bargaining negotiations.
there are a lot of wrong assumptions being bandied about in all that.
the players currently get 57% of the revenue.
simplistically, this is correct. and they have a luxury tax and player escrow to make sure that is the case.
so this line is completely incorrect:
The net impact is that you have the same number of players, but less revenue to spend on player salaries than you would otherwise have.
because at the end of the day, all player salaries will total about 57% of revenues (roughly)
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions
No
Again, the NBA owners also want to cut back how much of basketball revenue the players get.
by Mike Prada on Apr 25, 2011 6:29 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
that is different. i rebutted the assertion that a salary cap shrinks the salary pie- which it does not under the current CBA which defines the pie as a percent of revenue.
there is a lot of wiggle room in all this. there is the percentage of revenue in addition to what revenue is counted and not counted.
i am not familiar with what they really want to do. Although I believe that they really wanted to do something to mitigate the effect of large, guaranteed contracts that turn toxic and kills franchises for years.
i imagine they are also more susceptible than other pro leagues to turns in the economy because they dont have the tv contracts others have. and i would suggest to them they figure out what the nba needs to look like to get them!
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions
of course not. did someone suggest that?
but you would be correct in recognizing that many rules in the CBA are in place to protect the owners from themselves.
so they might approach it from the angle of reducing the max length of a contract, which is what they did last go around. you might see it reduced further.
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 9:46 PM EDT up reply actions
oh definitely…i dont think many are signed known to be toxic. some we can see as clearly over committing to a player. most clubs build up toxicity through multiple signings- aka orlando
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 11:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Not as I understand it . . .
e.g. in 2002-2003 player salary and benefits exceeded 65 percent of league revenue in the BRI (Basketball Related Income) calculation.
The net result was that a portion of the player funds put into escrow were kicked back to the league owners, BUT ON TOP OF THIS teams that were over the luxury tax threshold paid a penalty to off-set the difference, because the escrow money was off by nearly $100 million. The luxury tax came out of the “offending” owners pockets — not out of player compensation that year.
In other words, thanks to the soft cap in 2002-2003 players received roughly 60 percent of BRI — even after forfeiture of the money left in escrow.
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap99.htm#2
(see #14 and #15.)
With a hard cap this would probably never happen unless there was a major contraction in league revenue. So even if you stick with a 57 percent rule, the elimination of the luxury tax threshold means that any overage would likely come out of player compensation — you’d never have a situation where an oeverage in excess of escrow was covered entirely by the owners.
i dont know what the real goal is. but you can always structure it in a way that meets that goal.
for example- want player salaries to be a specific % of revenue. that is easy to structure. that is what they have now.
want a hard cap- that is easy to structure too!
want both- a hard cap that insures that a certain percentage of revenues is paid out to players. that can be done too, but it is more complicated to implement
the problem is what we hear is the goal often really isnt the goal. this much we know…both sides will do very well for themselves. and the side with the most leverage will do better.
i dont believe any of it has to do with improving the product for fans. it is all about improving the bottom line for the interested parties. so i really dont care what they decide. i know i have more interest when the league is more competitive. my personal range of interest could vary from actively following the regular season to tuning in only for the playoffs. it’s their league and their job how to keep me most interested. i have other sports knocking on my door for my attention from oct to jun each year too!
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 9:58 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the owners goal . . .
is pretty clear.
They want to collect more of the profits — A LOT more.
The players obviously don’t want to give up anything.
I can see a strong case for a hard cap on its own merits (e.g. the fan’s perspective — especially from the perspective of a fan of a franchise that’s struggled historically). As you point out it could be done in such a way that it doesn’t hurt player salaries too badly. One way would be to enlarge the revenue pool so that a lower adjustment includes local TV contracts and local promotional deals (very unlikely to happen, but a smaller share of a larger pool of money could still equal what the players currently receive).
If parity increases the popularity of the sport above what it would otherwise be, then that can make the financial issues moot too. Of course, the players aren’t going to take promises of league growth in exchange for cuts in pay today.
Unfortunately, the owners position is: We want more of the profits today, tomorrow, and forever. Even if you (the players) make accommodations that make the league more competitive, we are going to ensure that you receive a smaller share of that revenue. Maybe in ten to twenty years you (the players) can earn what you made in 2010-2011. Meanwhile we (the owners) will be rolling in billions upon billions of dollars in cash.
That’s a mighty bitter pill for the players to swallow. At the end of the day, you get what you’re willing to fight for. Both sides realize this.
right…and i think the turning point came when players reached the point through years of large contracts that they could challenge ownership for control of the club. when a chris webber says hey mr maloof brothers, sell me part of your interest, i think the owners started pulling back and thought to themself, maybe some of these guys make too much. it’s one thing if bird or jordan can buy a team, it is another when a player who never won a championship or changed the game is in a position to do so. thats my opinion. i dont know how true it is. but i would not be surprised to learn there is some truth to it.
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 11:40 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
similar to the NFL in that
it appears the owners feel they game the players (NFL) too good a deal last time through and want to take back ground
the owners are making money
if they werent, they’d open their books.
In the case of the NBA . . .
they did.
Of course the owners and the players reps interpret those numbers differently.
I suspect the truth is that the overwhelming majority of teams are turning a profit. If you really got down to it too, it might be one of those cases where owners represent a fictional loss on the team balance sheet simply for tax purposes.
the claimed loss is total bs
Owners in both sports look at the supposed market of the team and claim they are losing money based on not a high enough return on the asset. So for instance, the Skins are worth about $1bill supposedly, so Snyder would look at the money he made and say “that’s only a 5% return on $1billion, I could make more putting that billion elsewhere so I am losing money”
But the truth is there arent people lined up to write billion dollar checks to buy these teams and more importantly the owners arent leveraged to a billion on the teams. I was surprised and impressed when Cuban laid that one out so succinctly.
These guys are billionaires who make money hand over fist and they arent losing money on these teams. It’s a almost total sham to extract more money from the players whom they now feel got a too good deal last time.
totally agree. i think the owners should focus their efforts on showcasing a more consistent product during the regular season and get a real tv deal (i love TNT but they arent where the big money lies). it is a crime that they can not get all their playoff games televised without a league supported network. the big money is in the tv deals and they should tweak the product in such a way that gets them more consistent and higher tv revenues
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 11:43 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't really think that's right
The Turner and ESPN deals are pretty big moneymakers. If you look at the landscape of modern media you’ll realize that places like TNT are big and the big 4 networks are shrinking.
The NFL with 16 games per team per year, almost all of which are on Sunday during the day, is perfectly set up to be televised on network TV (and really most of the games are local telecasts). None of the other major N American sports are set up that way.
Sports is big, but still a niche. There is no way that a network is going to devote a night to a sport. Even MNFootball is on cable these days.
Essentially I think the NBA is not going to do much better than their current TV deals.
by MR on Apr 26, 2011 6:41 AM EDT up reply actions
i disagree they cant do better. the nba could play on sunday afternoons from Feb-Jun (the back half of the season).
more importantly, the NFL does not do regional deals. The do a national deal with regional coverage so the greater good wins over a local favorite. they rake in $4bb per season by not dividing up their interests, including $2bb per year for SNF, MNF, and the draft coverage by ESPN.
The NBA does regional deals and each team keeps the revenue they can generate. they make $930mm doing it this way. national deals and revenue sharing would give them more bargaining power and not dilute their value the way they do now.
they find league wide bargaining in their favor for everything else, so i dont buy it would not be in their best interest in the highest revenue matter. i dont think the owners are willing to share their revenues; that is what holds them back.
by les boulez bomber on Apr 26, 2011 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions
I get what you’re saying. But I think it may not be appropriate to compare the NFL and NBA in this way. NFL teams play one game a week at a pretty regular time. I don’t think people are going to stay home on a Sunday afternoon to watch their local NBA team play one of 82 games. I also don’t see a network bumping any programming for a local NBA game.
and i would simply respond that is where the money lies. so if that were the goal, then it behooves the owners/league to speak to the networks to see how the product needs to be tweaked to get there.
hence, my earlier suggestion to shorten the season and make the regular season more meaningful. i dont know what it would have to look like to generate a bigger contract. but i believe basketball in this country has a lot of support and something could be worked out.
college basketball receives 771mm per year for a three week tournament. so to suggest to me that the best pro basketball can do is 930mm per year for a 36 week season plus playoffs does not fly with me…imho
by les boulez bomber on Apr 26, 2011 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions
i disagree they cant do better. the nba could play on sunday afternoons from Feb-Jun (the back half of the season).
They do. On ABC.
my bigger point…
college basketball receives 771mm per year for a three week tournament. so to suggest to me that the best pro basketball can do is 930mm per year for a 36 week season plus playoffs does not fly with me…imho
by les boulez bomber on Apr 26, 2011 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions
they could probably do no regular season tv and do a thirty team single elimination tournament in april and be paid more than 930mm for the broadcast rights
by les boulez bomber on Apr 26, 2011 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions
especially if they held it in february
by les boulez bomber on Apr 26, 2011 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions
and i am only half joking! lol
i do think they can do better then 900mm per year in tv. whether those necessary changes would result in more overall profit i dont know. but these leagues are run by lawyers and i bet a true businessman at the helm would offer owners more profitibility
by les boulez bomber on Apr 26, 2011 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions
franchise values keep going up …they are making more money than previously
it is really that simple. the league can front out whatever they want. it can be interpreted any way you want. but the bottom line, someone who is buying the franchise is seeing all the real numbers
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 10:01 PM EDT up reply actions
and they are paying more for that revenue stream
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 10:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Think that's right . . .
some of this is just greedy owners wanting more because they think right now they can claw back more.
One of the arguments that I’ve heard in the case of the NFL is that owners think that taxpayers are going to be less likely to foot the bill for new stadiums, so they want the players to foot the bill for the new stadiums instead.
In both sports, the owners are trying to guarantee themselves a level of profit, which in the world of business is an absurdity. It’s even crazier than that actually — they want to not only guarantee profitability, but guarantee a certain profit level. Even if the franchise only earns 1 percent in a year that can still equal tens of millions of dollars and in a lot of cases and that’s going into just a few pockets. Greater profitability also means that when the owners cash out and sell their teams they can collect an even sweeter pay-day. Greed knows no limit.
you are exactly right…the nfl lockout is about financing billion dollar stadiums for teams that play 10 times a year in those stadiums, plus playoffs.
like they say, avarice is the root of all evil lol
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
well…i think they need to do more than tinker around the edges. the suggestions you made are a start. the season needs to be shortened and cut out the back to backs so they make the season more meaningful.
it is a big problem and should be a big concern. the NFL, MLB, and even NHL now have national tv contracts with the major networks. basketball the sport is not #4 in this country- no way.
but if it continues moving in the direction they are heading…there wont be a real reason for an AVERAGE fan to watch an NBA game until the playoffs begin.
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions
i mean who cares if u win the lottery and get the best player in the league if he is just going to end up in NY/CHI/LA/DALLAS/MIA/BOS when his 4-5 year initial contract is up and he is ready to start really competing for a championship
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions
There is no way they shorten the season.
Therefore back to backs stay too.
And if next season is shortened by lockout but ultimately saved you should expect back to back to back games.
by MR on Apr 25, 2011 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions
i should clarify it is back to back games in different cities
i dont think they are contemplating shortening the season either. i think they should though. when you play 82 games and the worse teams finish 20 games back from the lowest playoff spot (and 40 games from the top), the season is too long for the parity in the league
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions
yes- 100% agree
i liked the old 3-5-7 game playoff format (1st rd, 2nd rd, 3+ rds) =)
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions
I thought it was 5-7-7-7
Don’t ever remember a three game series. But then again, I came of age (to remember this stuff) when Magic and Bird were at their peak and Detroit’s bad boys were the ‘new’ rage.
By the way, I didn’t know Kareem was one of the first superstars to request a trade out of a small market to NY/LA. Wilt retires, a year of suckitude, and then Kareem… A formula is born…
Although Abdul-Jabbar always spoke well of Milwaukee and its fans, he said that being in the Midwest did not fit his cultural needs and requested a trade to either New York or Los Angeles in October 1974.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kareem_Abdul-Jabbar
you might be right jones-y
but i like the idea of 3-5-7…it gives some chance of an upset. ..which the NBA hates but i think makes the league more interesting
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions
the 2-3-2 Finals format is just awful
really destroys the lower seed’s chance
that was the point. it is also why all series are 7 games. the NBA does not want upsets. it wants the favored teams in the favored cities to play for the championships every year.
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions
it was the heyday…after a couple of playoff upsets..the league started steering the structure to avoid them- longer series, the 2-3-2 format which all but guarantees the higher seed wins if they can steal a game on the road. (it used to be 2-2-1-1-1)
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 11:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I thought that was changed because of long hauls from the east to west coasts every other day.
If it were really a conspiracy to help the higher seed then they’d institute it in all of the rounds, no?
That said, I do hate the 2-3-2.
by MR on Apr 26, 2011 6:44 AM EDT up reply actions
they make the schedule…allow an extra day for travel then if that is a concern…it only applies for games 5-6-7 if they even occurr.
by les boulez bomber on Apr 26, 2011 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions
My guess would be that they don’t want to add that extra day because it may disrupt the momentum of the TV schedule. Also the entourage that travels from city to city is much more than it used to be.
Not good reasons, but I suspect that is the reasoning.
you may be right but i will point out that the average series is probably around 5-6 games. they all dont go to 7…we know that to be true. if you are talking a 6 game series on average, you are adding one extra trip. so i really do not think that is the reason. if they wanted to cut costs, they would have stuck with a three or five game series in the earlier rounds, like they used to have
by les boulez bomber on Apr 26, 2011 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions
it's sickening at times
and when you look at the totality of what goes on (bulls win lotto with 1% chance, Cs get KG etc, Gasul for Kwame, gambling refs, ETC ETC)….can’t laugh at folks who say it’s all rigged
it could happen but LA would be trading away their strength. Kobe is getting up there. they would probably lose Odom and Bynum. LA needs to look for Kobe’s replacement at this point, not build around him…imho!
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions
But it wouldn't be building, as much as it would be extending his window
I’d lose Odom and Bynum for Howard in a heartbeat.
They still need to start looking for another superstar (or another strategy to stay atop the NBA), but Kobe’s still got at least 4 effective seasons left.
ok…but he is under contract for three. so lets look three years out. if they keep gasol then in three years…
kobe makes 30mm!
pao and dwight 20mm
so thats 70mm in three players!
do u really think that is likely to happen? it seems to me LA picked its route. and the easier path is to simply insert Kobe’s replacement and keep that front court in place
but yes…i would take DH over odom and bynum too! Id take him over anyone in the league if i was building a roster.
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions
that last sentence is the kicker
Gasol has proven he isnt a franchise player and it looks unlikely Bynum is either. Kobe’s replacement needs to be THAT guy….so getting Howard is finding Kobe’s replacement
ok i buy that….i guess i felt dallas could put together a better group of players to offer because Bynum and Odom have their contracts up the following year.
Dallas and LAL are in a position to make a run for him. It’s a shame though, if he leaves, it really is self inflicted from Orlando’s perspective. maybe their best bet is to bring in a superstar GM if one is available?
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions
I see a Bynum for Howard trade in all of this
Bynum and a 1st round plus whatever and I see Howard saying okay. There will
still be Bryant and Gasol. Orlando can pay far less for Bynum than Howard. I can also see LA trying to move Gasol and going after Griffen to put Griffen and Howard together. I can see Orlando wanting to cut payroll and I can see Griffen limiting his time with the Clippers because the Clippers never accomplish much. A few playoff appearances.
by hambonejackson on Apr 25, 2011 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions
bynum would have to sign an extension first. i think it would take more than just bynum though.
griffen is another matter. as bad as the clip franchise has been…they have never had a superstar potential like they do with griffen. he is under contract for a long time right now. and they have jordan which they will probably resign cheap. they also have aminu and bledsoe. so that is a young core that could be playing deep in the playoffs when griffens contract is ending.
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Really?
We still gotta go through Atlanta and Miami.
Chicago and Indiana is scrappy tough! If Indiana gets better PG play- a real floor leader that could settle that team down late in the 4th…they sweep Chi
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions
Arenas needs to take over....
…if Orlando is going to win the series. No more pussy footing with Van Gundy. Similar to what Roy did with Portland over the weekend. Let the offense revolve around Gilbert and the defense revolve aroung Dwight.
Unfortunately, traditional coaches such as Van Gundy (and Flip) won’t let that happen.
Nevertheless, Boston will beat Miami, so I’ll be happy.
i hope so…I dont think BOS can win it without Perkins, but they do match up better with Miami than most teams.
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions
We all should know by now that the only thing that can stop Gil
is that space between his ears. I think at least 50% of Gil’s problems this year arose from his attempts to fit in and defer to others. It is/was an admirable attempt — to give Wall space to run the team, and to let a successful Orlando team continue to do its thing, with Gil as just a minor facilitator. I thought when he was benched in Game 3 that Gil might have thought, “F this. Time for the Takeover — Orlando version!” I thought that would occur next season after a summer of frantic workouts, not the next game.
Gil needs to be Gil. Unleash the Hibachi.
When Gil was in his prime . . .
he could get away with it, because he was on more nights than he was off (and he was the best player on a slightly-above-average team). The problem was that the team’s fortunes every night hinged on Gil — he could single-handedly save or sink the team.
That recipe worked in the regular season, but it was never going to be a recipe for championship level basketball. At this stage in his career, he’s got to pick his spots well. I agree that part of it is a problem in his head, part of it is that it’s incredibly hard at this point in his career to evolve his playing style to fit his team and his physical ability.
i agree with everything you said except how hard it is for him to transition his game because he is physically being forced to transition. he is still strong. and he is opening up his team mates and passing well. he is running the offense in a controlled manner. he needs more confidence in his shots. jameer nelson looked so small trying to defend, but he could get to the basket and passes ok. the difference i see is gilbert is making smarter passes- timed better
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions
Absolutely.
It was the game I was most in to during the playoffs – all because Gil was in and fired up.
The Washington Wizards: providing career scoring nights for unknown opposing bench players since 2004.
Of course I was rooting for Agent Zero
I enjoyed watching Gilbert play like he used to..attacking the basket, hitting jumpers, going coast to coast like he did on one play. He’s only 29, and still has a lot left in the tank. I was hoping that Stan would have given him the green light to shoot the three. He would’ve made it.
Rooting for Gil & the Hawks
He looked like the old Gilbert.
Fun to watch.
Wonder if he’s gonna get more PT now?
Some very good playoff games so far.
Looking forward to Celts & Heat (if they can get by the 76’ers).
Always rooting for Agent Zero
I didn’t like Arenas when he first came to DC. I thought he was just a flashy ballhog. But I grew to love his underdog persona, the off the cuff (and off the wall) comments, the fact he worked his ass off. And I’ll always root for him, no matter what he’s got in the tank.
I cheer for Gil for the same reasons I always did
There has always been so many Gil haters. I want to see him prove em wrong. Gil was my first favorite basketball player, and the first jersey I ever bought. I cheer for the underdog and Gil was always kind of that, and now more than ever.
Screw rational basketball analysis. I <3 Jordan Crawford.
Stress fractures are inevitable when you kick as much ass as Trevor Booker does.
by returnofswagger on Apr 25, 2011 10:10 AM EDT reply actions
Arenas is on the wrong team
Van Gundy doesn’t understand how to get the most from his players. He’s got the most physically dominant center in the league, and yet, he’s struggling to get past the Hawks. Gil would do better on any number of teams.
Go Gil!
Its not that Stan van doesn't know how to get the most from Gil (he's certainly done that with Jameer, Turk, Gortat, Pietrus, etc.).
Its that Stan van isn’t interested in trying. To be honest, it would probably have been too much of a makeover to fully incorporate Gil at midseason and expect it all to come together by playoff time.
If Stan van is there next year (which I think is doubtful, unless Orlando magically wins it all), then look out for a trade involving Jameer Nelson at some point before next all star break. Otis is going to get his way, and Gil is going to be a large part of Orlando, one way or another.
regardless, i dont think orlando will win with their dwight on the inside and a bunch of three point shooters on the perimeter game plan.
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah their team is horribly constructed
Their front line is Dwight Howard and… Dwight Howard. But I do think they’re in the middle of a transition. They need Orton and Anderson to grow up quick, or they need to find some size in a trade. They need to have another good inside scoring option, defender, and rebounder.
Aside from size and balance, they’re also in terrible need of perimeter defense. To me, they should’ve kept Pietrus and Gortat, and just let Carter walk this offseason; that was the horrible trade.
agreed…carter was a bonehead trade in itself. they were nuts to make that one. it’s like amateur hour with otis smith bringing in washed up vet after another on high priced contracts.
arenas i understand because there is a little bit of a relationship there- even with howard…but carter, lewis, hedo 2…its a comedy of errors
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions
It really is...
Its rather parallel to the Cleveland/LeBron debacle, if you ask me.
The Carter trade wasn't bad
They gave up nobody important.
I think Otis’ biggest issue is overpaying for role players.
i respectfully disagree. they signed a has been player who was no where near worth the $17mm per season he was being paid. that is a huge opportunity cost.
they gave up rafer and alston, who were both in the last year of their contracts. and courtney lee who was on a rookie contract is is giving houston 20mins a game, 8 pts off the bench and costs them 1mm.
so for a team that is suffering from financial inflexibility- i think it is easily a 20mm flub. carter stunk and still stinks. and it was a wasted 17mm per season
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions
No it's not
They didn’t sign him – they added one year of salary and turned Lee into Ryan Anderson, which is a net positive.
The December trades are more questionable.
you lost me somehow…i understand the other players
carter was brought onto that time for 17mm a season, right? and the major trade pieces were two expiring contracts?
any way i look at it, carter was not close to being a 17mm player- not before he was traded or while he was there. so that money presented a huge opportunity cost. they could have signed a player or two who would really contribute.
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Carter's contract was one year longer than the two guys they sent out
And they were already over the cap, so they couldn’t have taken the $17 million they allocated to Carter and spent it on anyone else.
Also, Carter was coming off one of the best seasons of his career.
but i do agree that smith has a major problem over paying role players. i think he signs them to keep dwight happy, but he doesnt realize it prevents him from really keeping dwight happy. i think EG suffers from the same affliction
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions
I disagree.
They gave up Gortat and Pietrus in that trade. Right now they are about to lose to ATL because they have no size aside from Howard (he can’t even come out of the game), and they have poor perimeter defense.
If it was me, I keep Carter (and thus Gortat and Pietrus) and let him walk this offseason. That team breezes past ATL in my opinion. Pietrus shuts JJohnson and/or JCrwaford down, and Gortat kills ATL’s backup bigs and keeps Howard fresh.
Maybe but that's separate from the December trades
I’m talking about the move on draft day in 2009, not the December trades.
On the December trades: I think Otis didn’t think they’d win a title anyway and decided that he didn’t want to just sit around as his team declined. I think he overdid it, but I respect that point of view. He wasn’t afraid.
The bigger issue is him overpaying all his role players to get him into that spot in the first place.
Oh I see.
You’re talking about the trade to acquire Carter. bomber and I were talking about trading away Carter to bring in Turkoglu (another washed up vet on a high priced contract).
Otis has signed a bunch of bad role player contracts, so we agree there…
i think by and large, we all agree
bad trades
bad signings
the wrong players
the perfect storm
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions
yes- trading for carter and trading him away at the end i think were bad moves.
i think their offense is really a major culprit in this atlanta series. they built their team up on perimeter jump shooting…and it doesnt win. they go cold and lose games.
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Not really though
Otis loves Jameer more than anyone on that team not named Dwight. He balked on dealing him when he was playing badly three years ago.
And everyone on that team would throw a fit. Jameer is their emotional leader.
by Mike Prada on Apr 26, 2011 12:52 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
i think jameer was mentioned because he is viewed as one the only trade chip left to improve the team.
what would you do if you were otis and trying to resign DH…at this point?
by les boulez bomber on Apr 26, 2011 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions
Jameer is the only trade chip left is one reason I thunk it up.
the second being the possibility that Otis loves Gil more than Jameer. The third being the fact that moving Jameer is the best way to get Gil on the court, thus maximizing that $80m investment.
If it was me, I’d express a vision, formulate a plan, project the roster out a few years, and start executing immediately. Oh, and fire the coach. In other words, the New Orleans strategy (minus the new GM). May not work, but the alternative is proven not to work.
i think that is the best idea too!
do you have an idea what the plan would entail?
by les boulez bomber on Apr 26, 2011 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions
I haven't a clue...
they’re in a bind, because they’ve been executing the Cleveland strategy, and its almost too late to change course…
But I’d start with not trading for any more expensive, over the hill veterans, I’d treat the ones I do have like porcelain dolls (paper cut? take a game off…), I’d give Gilbert a clearly defined role as a perimeter shot creator for 15mpg and backup PG/facilitator for another 10mpg, and I’d put Daniel Orton and Earl Clark on the fastest development track possible. Aside from that, they’re really really hamstrung, as far as making roster moves goes.
they have 14mm rolling off with j richardson’s contract. what do you think is the best way for them to spend it? (im sure that they are not crazy to do so, but they really have little choice at this point. so play GM for fun)
by les boulez bomber on Apr 26, 2011 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions
that is what they should do, imho. Arenas is not the old Arenas. But I noticed in the couple mins he did play in the earlier games, the offense runs better with him. Gil can still get players open and he passes well. DH suggested in an interview last night that Gil is holding himself back mentally- afraid of missing shots, etc.
Hedo should have passed. That was a bone head play on his part not to make that pass. And it was a bonehead decision not to run the play for Gil- he was the hottest perimeter shooter on the team last night— which might not have said much but it was true, Everyone else was ice cold- like 1 for 18 frozen
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions
50/50
I was simultaneously glad we dumped him, and happy he was playing well for once.
I guess I’m like most folks. Happy for the memories this guy gave us, but happier that he’s off our roster and we’re moving on without him.
by averagebro on Apr 25, 2011 10:15 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
I'm with you!
I am glad we traded him but I can’t help but wish him the best. I am forever grateful for the excitment he brought to DC (the good things). It was really great to see him play well in the playoffs – even to get some PT in the playoffs and I would have loved to see him hit the game winning shot.
I believe that the Magic are done and Altanta will be moving on to the next round.
Long-Time Wizard Fan
Not gonna lie
I’m kind of numb to Gil at this point.
From the District of Columbia, home of the hyperbolic paraboloid transitional floating zone defense.
I don't carry any water for Arenas, but I'm rooting for him. And for the Magic as the least bad option.
Arenas has plenty left in the tank. Orlando just isn’t using him right. That last play was terrible. Hopefully this game gets him more of a chance for minutes.
I will say that Arenas’ points seemed to come on the drive, he was just as cold as the rest of the team from outside. So I don’t think the play should necessarily have been called for him. But once it broke down….
he made six in a row at one point during the fourth- from all over the court including a three. They aren’t in that game without him.
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions
I must have missed that three.
I didn’t see all of the 4th, but what I was was him going to the basket.
i really think the offense flows better. yes, he was driving. but without him, the offense is stand around the perimeter and pass or kick it into dwight. nelson drives but he doesnt seem to be able to make the same passes gil can make. gil is controlled, and he is clearly not explosive. but players are giving him space, maybe bec he is still strong.
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions
and hedo is not the same player that took them to the finals a couple years back. he looks slower and more out of control to me.
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions
I get a funny feeling we could see Phil Jackson
come to Orlando after taking a year off. He likes to go hunt down the dominant player and win a few championships. Although their cap situation makes the a tough destination for a final piece. Gil would probably like that if he still has a bit in the tank.
I also wouldn’t be surprised if Jackson wound up in Miami.
Orlando is in too tight a bind for Jackson.
I think OKC or Miami would be more likely. He doesn’t want a challenge. Just the glory.
Anyway, I think he’s done.
by MR on Apr 25, 2011 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Coaching Kobe, and MJ . . .
and Shaq — managing those huge egos — isn’t a challenge?
Jackson doesn’t avoid all challenges. He avoids a certain kind of challenge.
Agreed that LAL 2011 is probably the last stop for him.
Did you see that "Kobe doing work" documentary?
I’m not sure Jackson is coaching the team, Kobe calls the shots just as MJ did in Chicago. Not that Phil isnt a great coach, but he’s not Pops IMHO
Not yet . . .
but thanks for the recommendation — I’ve put it on my to see-list.
The Pops v. Jackson comparison is a tough one.
If I was building a team from scratch, I’d want Pops over PJ. But if I had a team with a prima dona star(s), I’d want PJ over Pops.
e.g. Who had the most success with Dennis Rodman? Pops couldn’t (and wouldn’t) accommodate the talent and baggage of a player like Rodman; PJ somehow was able to negotiate with Rodman’s inner-demons and get some productive basketball out of him.
Either way you can’t go wrong. Both are great coaches. Pops gets some additional consideration because he is also a great player-personnel director. On the other hand, PJ had to coach players that someone else selected. Who had the harder job as a coach?
or was it really MJ that got the most out Rodman?
I think Jordan made comments to that effect when he signed, something like ’he’ll do what we want or he’s gone’ to paraphrase. Cant quite recall tho
It is an interesting comparison, gotta wonder how Pops would handle MJ, Kobe, Shaq given they are all players that needed to be acknowledged as the Top Dog unlike Timmy who Pops could scream at thus making a massive point with rest of roster.
When Jackson left for LA . . .
where did Rodman go?
I’m sure that MJ commanded Rodman’s respect. But in terms of dealing with NBA egos and helping players achieve success as teams Jackson is at the top of the list.
and Shaq — managing those huge egos — isn’t a challenge?
Jackson doesn’t avoid all challenges. He avoids a certain kind of challenge.
I guess, in a way. But the janitor has a challenge too. As do the chearleaders.
As I’ve said before, I think Jackson is the most over-rated coach in the history of pro sports.
by MR on Apr 25, 2011 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Agree that everyone has challenges . . .
As far as PJ goes, the debate is endless. Amongst his peers and the players though, there’s obviously a lot less uncertainty about his place in the game.
Yes, he’s coached the greatest of the great, but so did others, and they had less success.
In the case of Jordan he inherited a great player, but he also took that player’s incredible ability and put it in a system that won multiple championships (most of the people who have attempted to the triangle offense in the NBA have failed miserably). In the case of the Lakers, Kobe was not a great player when PJ took over the job. He became a great player while PJ was the coach.
I’m not really sure what overrated means. Overrated relative to whom? Rudy Tomjanovich, Mike Fratello, Hubie Brown?
How many championships did Shaq and Kobe win in LA without PJ?
How many championships has Jackson won without one (or two) of the top 10 players in NBA history?
by MR on Apr 25, 2011 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions
To play devil's advocate
How many championships have those top one/two players won without Phil Jackson?
I understand your point but in there are two extremes:
1) Jackson is great only because he had 2 great players
…or…
2) Those 2 great players are great only because they had Phil Jackson
It seems that you are all the way at point (1). But think of all the things that have to go right to win ONE ring- he has 11 (and counting). Personally, I think it is totally off to say that he is the most overrated coach in sports.
No one can say with a straight face that MJ & Kobe wouldn’t be great without Phil Jackson…but it’s not like those players carried those teams through the playoffs with straight sweeps. There were plenty of game 7s and games that were battles, and only a great coach comes through that many times.
11 Rings! That is eleven times as many as the entire Wizards organization!!!
by HIBACHI GOLD on Apr 25, 2011 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm not sure MJ ever faced a Game7
maybe just one…..he was THAT dominant and imho Phil road his coattails, which isnt to say Phil is not a great coach, just that that Bulls dynasty was all about His Airness
I can't argue with MJ creating those dynasties
I mean, I love Jordan, so I won’t ever say anything that discredits him.
I guess my point was that even with MJ, Pippen, etc, Phil Jackson still got SIX rings with them. 6! I don’t care who is on your team, 6 wins is incredible.
Could Eddie Jordan do that? Flip Saunders?
I just think it is crazy to hear that Phil Jackson is an average coach that lucked into extraordinary players. They all made eachother great.
by HIBACHI GOLD on Apr 25, 2011 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Put Jackson on any of the current NBA playoff teams and I believe that team would do no better than under their own current coach.
Put any of the current playoff team’s coach on the bench of any of Jackson’s championship winning teams and I think they still win a ring.
Furthermore I think if Jackson’s first coaching stint was with a bad team then he would have zero rings. I think he commanded the respect and attention of players because of his early success, which was largely due to the players.
by MR on Apr 25, 2011 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions
This is where we will have to agree to disagree
Of course, if you put Phil Jackson on a team right now, they wouldn’t do any better.
But if you put PJ as the coach of any playoff team since the beginning of the season, I think they would do much better.
The whole job of a coach is to get the best out of his players. That is some incredible luck to have two of the top ten players (3 in the top 50). He gets the absolute best out of his best players, and then orchestrates a team to play their best around them.
Can you honestly see Eddie Jordan winning two three peats with MJ back then?
by HIBACHI GOLD on Apr 25, 2011 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Eddie Jordan is not in the playoffs.
You think Jim O’Brien couldn’t win a ring with Kobe and Shaq? MJ, Pippen, Rodman etc?
by MR on Apr 25, 2011 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions
a ring
Of course. But 11 rings?
Do you think Eric Spoelstra could win 1 ring with Kobe and Pau?
by HIBACHI GOLD on Apr 25, 2011 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Phil Jackson has had extreme success coaching in the NBA for over 20 years. Looking at his body of work is simply incredible.
To me, 20+ years is not an outlier, it is a trend.
However, I think we will have to agree to disagree (I doubt either one of us is budging). I can understand how you have made this opinion, even if I don’t agree.
by HIBACHI GOLD on Apr 25, 2011 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions
No way he wins 57 games . . .
in the western conference this year. Not with this Lakers team. Even if you give the guy a one year pass to implement his own system, odds are you don’t get better results.
Spoelstra’s had a hard enough time getting buy-in from his current roster in Miami. It’s not a given that he’d be able to earn Kobe’s respect and trust the way that Jackson has.
Phil carries Kobe's water.
Do you ever see Kobe’s comments? He makes it crystal clear that Phil does what he wants. Obviously Kobe is an egomaniac (why not) who may exaggerate, but there have been no shortage of instances where Kobe talks about how Phil sees the game the same way he does and accepts his decisions.
Managing oversized egos . . .
is part of what it takes to be an NBA coach.
If the players want to take the credit, so be it. The bottom line is: What does it take to win?
Kobe didn’t exactly tear things up when Jackson retired the first time and called him “uncoachable”. The fact that Kobe wanted Jackson back is a statement unto itself.
Triangle offense . . .
I could see Jackson having success with Miami, Dallas, or OKC. He always wanted to coach Jason Kidd. It might take him a couple seasons to put the triangle offense in place, but he could find success with it.
It’s probably true that Jackson would struggle in a place like Minnesota — as Rambis has.
But the triangle offense isn’t incidentally to MJ and Kobe’s success. When it’s well-executed with the right personnel it’s very hard to defend. Not everyone can make it work. In fact, most coaches haven’t, can’t, and won’t even attempt it, because they either don’t understand the system, or they don’t know how to coach it.
The triangle is Tex.
Of course Jackson is the head coach so he should get some credit, but really you have to give the real credit to the guy who installed the system.
by MR on Apr 25, 2011 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions
So Tex is the greatest . . .
coach of all time?
Maybe one of the great assistants — his NBA induction is a result of his performance — but the skills that make a great assistant, or a great college coach aren’t necessarily the same skills that make a great head NBA coach.
Why didn’t anyone hire Tex away as a head coach? How many championships did Tex win with his two seasons in Houston?
triangle is a gimmick
in that it’s not some hyper-cerebral system that only the genius of Phil Jackson can impart properly. It’s a system that has had amazing success…..when run by the most talented team in the league.
It's had success when executed . . .
by great players. A lot of this is due to the fact that 99 percent of the challenge with great players is getting them open looks. Getting spacing and open shots may be a “gimmick,” but for most coaches that’s a big part of the challenge.
Still, most coaches don’t bother with the system even when they have talented players. A few other coaches have attempted the system at the pro level, but without much success.
or they have a really good point guard
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions
That always helps . . .
if you don’t have a great point guard though, how do you create open looks for a talented SG or SF?
the triangle offense helps teams without a good point guard create offense. not that there arent good point guards on teams running it, im saying that was the purpose behind the offense. ….ball movement creates spacing and open looks
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Even last night . . .
the play they drew up for Gasol to pull the LAL within 2 was genius. The better team won in the end, but you can’t be great every night.
He’s a great coach.
Is he the greatest coach, or is he just in the top 5? That’s a debate we can have.
Do we discount Pat Riley’s success because he had Magic, Worthy, and Kareem in LA, and Shaq and D-Wade in Miami? Do we discount Red Auerbach’s performance because he coached 3 future Hall of Famers?
Is it Larry Brown because of his NCAA championship and NBA championship, or the fact that he won a single NBA championship with a team that didn’t have a top 10 player? Is it Chuck Daly?
At a certain point it gets to be ridiculous. I don’t know if Phil Jackson is the greatest NBA coach ever, but he’s definitely a great coach.
Maybe a person discounts the fact that he has the highest winning percentage of any Hall of Fame coach, or the fact that he’s never had a losing season. Maybe that’s mostly dumb-luck based on the fact that he’s been fortunate enough to coach great players at or near their prime. but I think that’s selling the guy short.
He’s overrated against what standard? Is he really just an average coach who happened to go to 13 NBA championship games in 19 years (and win 11 of them)?
At the end of the day the players do the hard work and execute a game plan or don’t, but based on that standard coaching is irrelevant. There is no such thing as a great coach, or even a bad coach if it’s all on the players.
He’s overrated against what standard?
Is he really just an average coach who happened to go to 13 NBA championship games in 19 years (and win 11 of them)?
Yes.
by MR on Apr 25, 2011 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Somehow I don't think . . .
his peers in the profession or the players who played with and against him would agree. But you’re definitely entitled to your own opinion.
Some people consider him the greatest coach of all time.
I consider him in the top 10 of current coaches.
On a strictly X and O level he is probably well below that.
by MR on Apr 25, 2011 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions
I'll always side with the winner.
Its hard to argue with results. Everything else is conjecture.
by jones-y on Apr 25, 2011 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
At least you're ranking him "above average" . . .
now.
At last check the league has 30 teams. That puts him in the top-third of current coaches, not an average coach.
Are you sure you didn’t mean to write the 15th best coach in the league right now?
Would he have done a better job with this year's Wiz than Flip did?
If so, to what extent in your opinion?
Phil’s teams have been so talented and so good it’s tough to get a measure on him. What was his best season as a coach? I wouldnt say the 72 win season because of the sheer force of MJs will upon the league at that time. Was it getting the MJ-less Bulls to the Conf Finals? Something else?
no one ever seems to give enough credit for not messing something up. sure, phil has had incomparable talent afforded him….he also did not mess it up. too many coaches would tinker with things to the point they would not win.
orlando is a perfect example…dwight howard and you are struggling to win a playoff series…seriously???
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Probably not . . .
If Jackson had been less selective and less fortunate, he would obviously have a lower career winning percentage.
I think Flip, for example, is a very good coach who has the challenge of coaching a young, inexperienced team that’s short on talent.
Do I think Kobe would respond to Flip the same way that he has done for Jackson? No I don’t. Jackson has a talent for managing high maintenance talent. That’s part of what makes him a great coach. That doesn’t mean that he’s the ideal coach for every situation. In some situations the teams are going to stink regardless of who coaches them. For a young team, you at least want a coach who will help a team develop good habits and grow into a team that can win. Maybe a great coach in one area isn’t so good in that other area. With Jackson we’ll never know for sure — although in the case of Kobe — Jackson’s presence probably has helped Kobe go from just a good player to a great one. In MJ’s case, he was already a great player, but Jackson helped to find a way to make him into a better team player, and team success followed.
An interesting counterfactual would have been to look at Jackson coaching the Jazz or the Knicks in the 1990s instead of the Bulls. Unfortunately, we can never know for certain, but my sense is that Jackson probably would have won fewer titles over the decade, but those other organizations would have won more than they actually did.
When did I call him average? I was just agreeing with you.
by MR on Apr 25, 2011 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions
12:13 PM comment . . .
“Is he really just an average coach . . .?”
Answer: Yes.
You are being overly pedantic because you disagree with me.
“He’s just an average guy” does not mean you take a sum valuation of all the “guys” in the world and divide by the number of “guys” in the world.
by MR on Apr 25, 2011 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions
I disagree . . .
with sloppy reasoning.
Jackson is “overrated relative to the number of rings he has” is a debatable proposition.
Jackson is “just average amongst active NBA coaches; meaning that he’s the 10th best” is just silly.
IF it were announced that Phil Jackson was coming to Washington for the opportunity to coach John Wall to a championship, would you feel happy, sad, or average?
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Why?
If its only about the players who cares who coaches this team? Lets get great players and bring back Eddie Jordan. He knows his x’s and o’s. If Wall is destined to win championships then we should not worry who the head coach is. Any half assed NBA head coach can win championships if they have the players. Should be a piece of cake. SVG should have waltzed Miami in to a ring. I don’t even know why Riley ever took over. Must have been some ego thing.
by hambonejackson on Apr 25, 2011 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Must have been some ego thing.
You accidentally said something true through your sarcasm.
by MR on Apr 25, 2011 9:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Somewhat happy . . .
There are health issues surrounding Jackson, so that creates a lot of uncertainty.
Jackson would make it much easier to attract high profile free agents; he would have instant credibility with the players; he would love coaching John Wall. He’s said a lot of good things about Nick Young too. Booker would probably be a type of player that he would work with.
McGee and Blatche would drive him completely nuts to the point of insanity. At which point the thought experiment ends.
I’ve been happy with Flip as a coach. He has a proven track record with the rebuild in Minnesota and I think he could be good with Wall. As far as the Wizards organization goes, I don’t have many complaints right now. They clearly need to upgrade their talent through the next couple drafts, but they took some steps in the right direction this year. I don’t know if Flip will be the coach to take the team far into the playoffs, but if he’s around in a couple years, he definitely will have earned that right.
Not only do I think of Flip as one of the best basketball coaches around
He and Grunfeld make a nice team together. I am not sure if that would be the case with Jackson. I don’t think Grunfeld really liked working with Jordan. I think they had competing visions of the team. Where as with Flip, they are on the same page.
by hambonejackson on Apr 25, 2011 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Phil would love to come here
but only after Javale has won consecutive defensive MVPs and Wall is on his 3rd all-nba first team selection
And we went to the EC finals and lost in game 7.
Phil would be just the guy to take over at that point.
by MR on Apr 25, 2011 9:16 PM EDT up reply actions
So he should have only won . . .
how many rings?
How many of those rings are flukes?
How many more rings would another coach in his place have won?
This is a pretty hilarious counter-factual.
Perhaps you dont understand what I am saying.
With rings as a standard, he’s the greatest coach that ever lived (basically). In reality, he’s not anywhere near that (imo)
I can agree with that
Rings don’t mean everything in a debate like this…else Robert Horry > Jordan.
But you have to take it into account
by HIBACHI GOLD on Apr 25, 2011 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'll give this much . . .
it’s an open debate whether he is the “greatest coach”.
Is he necessarily better than Pops, or Chuck Daly based on the ring count alone? No, I agree rings aren’t the only measure. Neither is winning percentage.
If we’re talking about the top 10 greatest NBA coaches though, you can’t have an honest debate without throwing the name Phil Jackson in the hat. That puts him in elite company.
If I had a team with a uber-talented prima dona star I’d probably want Jackson to manage the ego. Even if I just had an uber-talented team like OKC, I’d probably be very happy with Jackson as the head coach. If I had a team with blue-collar players who loved to play tough defense, I’d probably go for someone like Daly. If I needed to rebuild a team from scratch I’d probably go for Pops.
If none of those options were available, a little further down the active coaching list, I might look at Flip Saunders. You could definitely do much worse
by Vegas010 on Apr 25, 2011 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Jackson always manages to keep his teams playing at a high level.
They are always a play off team even when they are not winning championships. He knows how to keep players motivated and focused. He knows how to use role players. He makes players better. Just because a team has a young Bryant or MJ doesn’t mean championships will follow. How much of it is the player and how much is it the development of that player because of the coach? Early development of players has a lot to do with the coach and Jackson is very good at creating a Jordan and Bryant. These players are not raised in a vacuum. They buy in to Jackson and Jackson leads them to the promised land. They don’t argue with him. They do what he tells them to do and it works. Over and Over again.
by hambonejackson on Apr 25, 2011 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Jordan was dumping 63 on Bird and Mchale
years before Jackson arrived. Jackson did not make MJ a better player, he was just there as MJ evolved. Eddie Jordan would have coached MJ the same way.
The thing that impresses me most about Phil Jackson
is that he three-peat’ed without a single dominant big man. Three rings in a row with nothing more than decent big men. That’s remarkable, Jordan or no Jordan.
That said, this debate is nice and academic (remove players x, y, and z, give his teams to coach a, b and c, have him coach teams l, m, and n, etc.) but the man has 11 rings. He gets my vote.
by jones-y on Apr 25, 2011 11:24 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
thats how good jordan and pippen were together…they only needed a solid PF and big but average center. it will be hard to dupicate- wade and lebron are the closest so far. but bosh is much better offensively than anything chi rolled out. and they still wont win until lebron learns to play off the ball…imho
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 11:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Right . . .
and even with his amazing performance, the Bulls were swept by the Celtics in 3 games.
Just goes to show that the greatest player will lose to a great team — unless that great player is part of a great team.
No one player can do it by himself. Even with the new talent that the team later added, it takes more than one player to carry the load.
I can’t think of any great teams that carried an inept, or even just average coach to a win in the Finals. Maybe they exist, but none come to mind.
Barry Switzer in the NFL.
cant think of any nba ones
by DCrez on Apr 25, 2011 11:29 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
lol touche! yeah- not in the nba.
wilt might have been the only player that could do it on his own. but i really do not know who he had with him the year he won. but the man averaged 50 points and 25 rebounds for a full season and still did not win it. i cant imagine a more dominant effort which proves your point. the year he did win, he went for 25 and 25- so he must have had help!
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I saw that discussion on TNT too
Phil Jackson has used that defense for most of his career. I don’t completely agree with it, but I understand his belief. He’d rather have the perimeter player make a jump shot than make it easier for a big man to have points in the paints.
PGs have had great series against the Lakers. Mike Bibby should really send a thank you card to Shaq and Phil Jackson every year when his investment statements come in the mail. I think the Lakers/Phil’s success makes the defensive decision justifiable.
(However, we should probably put an asterisk on the Lakers’s win against the Kings in 2002.)
Always like to see Gil play well.
And I think he has more left in the tank than Rashard, though clearly that’s not what the trade was about.
he still cheats horribly on defense though lol it would be nice to see him play within himself. he is def more modest and team oriented right now. if he can pick up a little more confidence in himself, they can go far with him
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 11:29 AM EDT reply actions
You bet I was rooting for Gil....
I still think he could be the X factor in a memorable Magic comeback this series… if Van Gundy lets him be
i think he is their only chance to come back
by les boulez bomber on Apr 25, 2011 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Had to root for Gil
Despite the horribleness at the end here, Gil gave us a lot, and was a clutch, fun guy for whom to root. His knee still bothers him, but last night when hit the three, and when he had those great drives, it looked like the old Gil. I think he will play well for Orlando next year and will actually focus on defense, which he can play very well when he cares about it.
My first reaction . . .
after Gil’s dropped an air-ball out of the sky on his first attempt was: “I’m glad he’s not on our team anymore”.
But when he sunk the 3-pointer to tie the game, of course you had to take your hat off to the guy. It was good to see a little of the old Gil. Nothing better than a come-back story.
As long as that comeback story involves set-backs whenever he plays the Wizards, it’s a story that I’ll enjoy following.
I want Gil and Kirk to do well
and it doesn’t matter to me who wins the series, but I think Orlando will lose this one.
I was definitely pulling for him. I thought that going to Hedo for the last play was beyond idiotic. Gil was balling last night and it brought back memories of the good ol’ days. He deserved to take that shot. By the way, does anybody else think Jameer Nelson is severely overrated?
I think he's properly rated, he's a top ten PG in my opinion.
But I do think that Stan van overvalues him…
by jones-y on Apr 25, 2011 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Wasnt this supposed to be about Gilbert?
Mention one trade possibility and the whole thread goes off in a completely different direction.
Check out my thoughts on Gilbert Arenas under the FanPost seciton…The Ballad of Gilbert Arenas
I still root for Gilbert
He was the best player we had since the Unseld/Hayes era, and I really was hoping he could win the game for Orlando. It’s been kind of depressing up until last night to see our former hero play so poorly.
Part of Pech's Posse since 2007.
by OleksiyPecherovsHomeboy on Apr 25, 2011 2:37 PM EDT reply actions
Glimpse of the old Gil
Saw him get to the rim, power through contact, get the bucket and the foul. And then nail a 3. I think it’s a mirage. No way is he really back
Gil got old quick due to injury
But even us old guys have days when the stars align and we slept on the right side of the bed….can turn it on for a few hours just like back in “the day.” Probably a mirage for Gil, but damn I’d love to see him be back
by DCrez on Apr 25, 2011 9:28 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
Related FanPosts on Bullets Forever
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Behind the Box Score, where the Miami Heat are moving on to the conference finals
- Kevin Durant is tired of hearing about the Spurs
- The 10-man rotation, starring your Indiana Pacers
- Blake Griffin highlights, ‘NBA Jam’-style (VIDEO)
- Finally, Shelvin Mack and Robert Pack have a dance dedicated to them (VIDEO)
