Stars vs. Role Players at the Orlando Pre-Draft Camp

Henry Abbot of True Hoop wrote today:

Weird, huh? You practically have to be a star to make the NBA. But then once you get there, the star jobs are almost all filled, so in most cases you then have to learn to be a role player. (No wonder so many NBA players are grumpy.)

Wouldn't it be smarter to develop, nurture, and evaluate who will make the best role players?

When the NBDL expanded, I approached new NBDL owner David Kahn and asked for a job. Several times. My friend in Ft. Worth and I had a plan we wished to present, but he was never inclined to listen and he said he did not have a budget for the position I suggested, even though I never once asked for a dime.

Anyway, the plan was to develop role players. An NBDL team, I imagine, has the most value if it sends the most players to the NBA. First, it keeps the NBA happy. Second, it allows fans to see NBA players before they make the NBA. Players in the NBDL do not get called up to the NBA to be stars; they need to fill roles. The idea was to enhance players' opportunity to make an NBA roster by embracing roles rather than chasing stardom.

I have written about this a couple times in regards to Team USA. I really want Team USA to have at least one player who gets cut seemingly every year, but still manages to contribute. Someone like Darrel Armstrong, Devin Brown, Matt Barnes, Juan Dixon.

Why do so many "stars" not make it in the NBA? Because they only know how to be stars. The entire youth system is star-driven and all our attention (and coaching) is centered on stars from the time kids are 9-years-old. So, they don't know how not be a star. This is a major flaw with Team USA, as James, Wade, Anthony, etc. do not know what to do without the ball in their hands. I want Team USA to pick a star (Anthony, Wade, Bryant), surround him with some borderline stars (Billups, Bosh, Dwight Howard, Josh Howard, Deron Williams, etc.) add some potential stars who understand how to play (Kevin Martin, David Lee, Anthony Parker, Kevin Durant) and some undrafted/second round "fighter" types with something to prove (Bowen, Barnes, Brown, Dixon). That would be how I compiled Team USA, if anyone bothered to ask.

As for developing role players, is it any wonder so many players like Bruce Bowen make it? Every team needs one or two. They just won't draft him because it fails to excite the fans. So, these guys have to earn their way into the league through training camp or the minors while guys like Eddie Griffen and Ndubi Ebi rot on the bench with guaranteed contracts.

I have said for two years that Arron Afflalo will not be a first round pick, but I guarantee he makes somebody's team (well, I changed my tone in my mock draft just because I think Detroit, Utah or San Antonio gets smart). I'm confident DJ Strawberry will go undrafted, but be in the league within a year.

Teams will fall in love with the upside of someone else and ignore the missing piece to the puzzle. The smart teams (aka Pistons and Spurs) are the teams who manage to find these players at the beginning of their career when they are fighting for the chance (Stephen Jackson, Devin Brown, Bruce Bowen) or at the end of their career when others have given up on them to a certain extent (Lyndsey Hunter, Jacque Vaughn, Robert Horry, Antonio McDyess, Dale Davis).

The players in Orlando need to realize they are role players. I wrote a newsletter a couple weeks ago about ignoring weaknesses and stengthening strengths. Someone like Demetrius Nichols, who may make the league because of his shooting, needs to be an exceptional shooter; not an above average shooter and an above average ball handler. Strawberry needs to be an exceptional on-ball defender. Dashaun Wood needs to be exceptional running a team as a back-up PG. Role players are basically players who have one NBA skill. The stars are players who have the whole package. Rather than trying to show NBA personnel that they have all-around game, these players need to illustrate that they definitely have one NBA skill.

If you shoot like Jason Kapono or Kyle Korver, you can make a team. If you defend like Raja Bell or Bruce Bowen, you can make a team. If you rebound like Ben Wallace, you can make a team. Once you get the chance, then you worry about expanding your game to earn more playing time: Bell and Bowen perfected their stand-still shooting ability to earn starter minutes. Once Strawberry or Afflalo make a roster, that is their next step to earn significant playing time. But, they will make a team because of their on-ball defense, not their well-roundedness.

2007 NBA Draft Preview

Oden or Durant? That question will dominate the conversation for the next month. However, there are other questions to be answered. For instance, is Nick Young possible Dwyane Wade next? Or, maybe Rodney Stuckey? Is Yi Jianlian as good as the experts suggest or are they just infatuated with another seven-footer with a handle? Why don't more people love Corey Brewer and Al Horford? Is Joakim Noah overrated or underrated?

Here is my first mock draft. My original had Roy Hibbert to the Bulls, and his decision to return to Georgetown certainly changed things. Now, I think the Bulls trade the pick. That's just one of the scenarios which could change everything. But, for now, this is my mock draft (of course, I had a though last night that maybe Phoenix will draft Taurean Green to be the back-up PG and Chris Richard as its back-up big man/defender, even though neither are supposed to be first round selections. Just a thought which occurred to me).

Two deals I'd like to see:

San Antonio trades the rights to Luis Scola to Chicago for the #9 pick. Chicago needs an interior scorer and there likely will not be one available at #9. The Bulls do not need to get any younger. San Antonio needs to get younger and does not have a roster need for Scola. It makes a lot of sense. San Antonio drafts Jeff Green to replace Robert Horry's high post PF role and also add more depth at the 3, while Chicago gets an interior scorer and another reason to keep Andres Nocioni. This trade makes far too much sense for it to happen.

Phoenix trades one of its two first round picks to Orlando for Travis Diener. Phoenix has no room for two first-rounders and will probably sell one like last year or draft an International player to stash. Neither provides the Suns with a back-up for Steve Nash. Orlando lacks a 1st Round pick in this draft and has two competent point guards in Carlos Arroyo and Jameer Nelson. With one of the Suns' picks, the Magic would be able to find some help on the perimeter, especially with the likelihood that Grant Hill may retire or play elsewhere. A player like Fresno State' Dominic McGuire, Arizona's Marcus Williams, Vanderbilt's Derrick Byars, UCLA's Arron Afflalo, Italy's Marco Belinelli or Rice's Morris Almond would add size and versatility on the wing to replace Hill and team with Reddick, Turkuglo and Ariza on the wing.

UCLA wins 100th National Championship

UCLA won its 100th NCAA National Championship Sunday with its three-peat NCAA Championship in women's water polo. And, in the celebration, the OC Register decided to bash the Bruins' accomplishment.

Jeff Miller, some hack from the OC, trashed the Bruins in his column with an amateur article one expects from a freshman writing for the Daily Trojan.

Impressive, 100 championships certainly are. That's a nice round number. Then again, so is zero — the roundest of them all, in fact — and also the total number of football championships won by the Bruins since 1955.

Yes, avraging almost two national championships a year for half of a century is rather than impressive, considering there are more than 200 NCAA Division I programs who have never, ever won multiple national championships in any year.

Isn't that the real way colleges are compared on the sports pages, by who beat who on Saturday and who outranked who on Sunday?

Yes, forget the games the the sports who have true play-offs: real sports are decided by sportswriters voting for the home team, right Jeff? Why bother with play-offs when we can debate who is better based on arbitrary rankings. That's true athletic competition: compiling a full-proof resume to put in front of the pundits and arm chair quarterbacks, not preparing a team for the title run. Why even play the games? Let's just let the voters decide who should win every year in every sport!!

The is the old argument: sure, the NCAA sponsors 25 sports, but only one really matters, right? Why are people so obsessed with football? In many ways, football is the least important sport, as it is only played in the United States (unless you count the dubious NFL Europe or the Canadian Football League). I know, for many universities, spring football is the second biggest sport on campus. Does that make it an example of athletic excellence? Is Harvard considered the nation's top academic university because it has one excellent department?

True. So what if the water polo team Sunday received a plain brown plaque instead of a shiny crystal trophy? Finishing No. 1 is still finishing No. 1, even if presented with an award that, based on appearance, could be from a rotary club.

Is this guy 10-years-old? Who cares what the trophy looks like? It just ends up on a shelf anyway. Do you think the players value a national championship any less because of the size of the trophy? Who cares? People in the OC really are as shallow as they say.

The Bruins have been more successful than any other school in sports that don't make headlines or money.

Like men's basketball, I suppose, since UCLA has more NCAA Championships than any other men's basketball program. What sport do Americans play more, football or soccer? football or volleyball? UCLA may not dominate football, but UCLA has several soccer, volleyball and softball championships, among the more popular youth sports.

(Quick aside for perspective: Among the prominent people to attend UCLA have been Carol Burnett, Rob Reiner and Mayor Antonio Villaraigrosa.

Really? Arthur Ashe, Ralphe Bunche, Francis Ford Coppola, Jim Morrison, John Williams, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Jackie Robinson did not make the list of most prominent people to attend UCLA?

The Bruins sit atop standings difficult to properly appreciate. A list of top 10 anything in NCAA sports history that doesn't include Notre Dame, Florida or Cal, Ohio State, Oklahoma or Alabama?

So, just because a program has an illustrious football team, even if they have not been good in the last decade, we should assume they are a great athletic program? Why not wonder about Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina or Duke? And how did Cal get on the list? Cal is associated more with liberals and hippies than it is with athletic prowess.

Some schools invest all its resources in football. Some invest in all its programs. Some are happy to be successful in football and do not really care about the rest of its programs. UCLA excels across the board.

Mr. Miller, enjoy the video. "A trophy can be made just about anywhere. But there is one place where champions are made. 100 NCAA Championships! Beeeatch.

The NBA Season is Dead to Me

For the last couple of weeks, I had the feeling something was missing from the play-offs. They just did not seem as intense as years passed (well, my childhood). I had two explanations: (1) I'm older and fading into the "it was better in the good old days" category (though I don't really believe this one because I tend to think the NBA game is more exciting now than for most of my childhood, at least the post-"Showtime Era") or (2) There are no fights.

Now, I'm not looking for another player to run into the stands or anything like hockey. However, I kind of miss the days when a little scuffle and a hard foul happened every single play-off game.

David Stern has so effectively limited fighting in NBA arenas that I actually miss it. And, finally when a little of the intensity was back in the game and there was something to get excited about, Stern suspends Stoudemire and Diaw.

The NBA season is officially over for me. I don't care anymore. I'm not going to defend the league to its naysayers anymore. No more NBA is better than college basketball articles. I did not miss the NBA Finals at all last year when I was in Europe for a basketball camp and I cannot imagine that I will miss them this year.

I just spent an hour arguing with a friend that the NBA play-offs were exciting. And, now I feel like I lied.

In an attempt to win more and more fans, I fear the NBA is going to lose its hardcore fans, like myself, because of what I call the Black Eyed Peas Effect:

The fear is what I call the Black Eyed Peas Effect. BEP was a great hip-hop group when they started; then, they added Fergie and made some pop hits and now they sell more and more, but the music, to a hip hop fan, sucks. The difference between will.i.am singing with the Pussycat Dolls and the latest BEP music is slim.

The BEP Effect basically describes what MacKenzie writes. A band struggles while making great, original music. Then, the band finds a legion of supporters and tastes a small amount of fame and fortune. Then, with its fans firmly behind it, it makes a record that goes further towards the middle, trying to draw more and more fans outside its true base; BEP fans bought its third album because of its first two, but it went more towards pop, drawing a much greater audience; every album is more and more pop, alienating its small, original core audience, while drawing a great amount of new fans. Unfortunately, moving towards the middle, that is less creative and less original, typically means an inferior product, though one that appeals to a much wider audience.

So, the NBA, in its effort to widen its scope, have gone so far to eliminate fighting, a rather natural action when considering the desired intensity and physical contact involved in basketball, that they have suspended two players for rushing toward one of their own, a very natural reaction. Sure, Stern sends a harsh message. Good for him. But, to me, a coach, player and fan, he sends an equally harsh message: (1) We need to tone down the intensity so nothing gets outof hand and (2) We don't care about having an epic series if it means turning our heads when someone breaks the letter, but not the spirit of the law. When NBA rules get inthe way of NBA intensity and great play-off basketball, its time for me to tune out. I can only hope more people feel cheated and turn off their sets to send a Stern message.

Note: I saw this link from Steve Kerr's article on True Hoop. If we are going by the letter of the rules, where are the Spurs' suspensions?

However, if the league decides to suspend Diaw and Stoudemire, it may have to suspend Tim Duncan and Bruce Bowen as well.

In a play that went entirely unnoticed until well after the game was over, both Duncan and Bowen actually left San Antonio's bench early in the second quarter after Francisco Elson and James Jones were entangled. Replays clearly show Duncan walking several steps onto the court as Elson and Jones appeared to be ready to get into it. Bowen then followed Duncan onto the floor, grabbed him and led him back to the bench. If the league does indeed follow the letter of the law, both Spurs players would also be suspended for Game 5.

The Warriors in the Play-offs

Apparently writing that Golden State plays "bad" basketball is the most offensive post I have ever made in the 325+ posts on this site, at least when judged by comments.

However, while they are still playing, I had to make a couple points:

1. Most people write about their offense. It is their defense which is far more impressive, and not just the way Stephon Jackson defended Dirk Nowitski. They play with unmatched intensity and effort on the defensive end. Nothing they do is fundamentally correct, but they get hands on a lot of balls and otherwise disrupt two very efficient offensive teams. They've managed to shoot a ridiculous percentage from three-point range in their play-off wins, but their defense has been even more impressive and interesting to watch.

2. Their offense is simple. All year, TV people mentioned the name Vance Walberg during college and NBA games, especially Memphis University and Denver Nuggets. Walberg is the current Pepperdine University coach who runs the AASAA offense (attack, attack, skip, attack, attack). Denver was supposed to run some of his principles this year and Memphis supposedly runs his system. However, nobody runs a variation of his style like the Warriors. I don't know if Nelson spoke to Walberg as well, but the 1v1 drive and kick offense with the shallow cuts after the pass and the post on the weak side is very similar to Walberg's offense, as well as the system I have run with AAU teams and a pro team in Europe.

3. Before I wrote that Golden State plays bad basketball (again, nothing about their excitement level), I applauded the Warriors for showing the importance of talent and the logic in playing a team's five best players, not the five players who best fit a traditional line-up.

4. After the Pacers/Warriors trade, I wrote:

This is a roster made for an open court, up tempo scoring fest. If I'm a Warriors fan who believes in Don Nelson, I am very happy with the deal.

5. In December, before the trade, I wrote about Matt Barnes and his value, especially on the Warriors:

First, if Matt Barnes ever has to make another team as an unsigned free agent, it absolutely illustrates every flaw with the NBA and its management...every time he gets a chance, he plays well. At some point, it's not a fluke. He really is a player...every time he has played, he has produced, whether in garbage minutes or as an emergency starter. It's disappointing that NBA execs, every year, gamble on high-priced "potential" like Darius Miles, Jerome James, etc. rather than accepting a player like Barnes as a true NBA player who has his flaws, but more than makes up for it. He was the Warriors' best player last night, directing the team like a captain, not a guy who came to camp as a roster-filler.

Matt Barnes is a perfect "poor man's" Shawn Marion as an undersized power forward who can handle, pass, finish and shoot the three. More than any other Warrior, he is ideal for an up tempo team.

6. In December, after watching the Warriors play once, I suggested the need for a trade:

I wrote in the fall that I did not understand the Nuggets moving to a Phoenix Suns-like system with its current personnel (6 PFs and 1 SG). After watching the Warriors, it's the same thing. It hurts to have Monta Ellis injured and unavailable, Anthony Roberson too, but with Adonal Foyle, Troy Murphy, Patrick O'Bryant and Ike Diogu on the bench, they lack depth on perimeter...Maybe it's unfair to judge without Monta Ellis, but of all the teams looking to deal, Golden State whould be at the top of the list trying to unload Murphy or Diogu for another wing or better shooter; heck, they could use a guy like Francisco Garcia who gets spotty minutes for the Kings, but who fits in an uptempo style and makes shots.

Or, even better, unload Murphy and Diogu and get three shooters (Harrington, Jackson and Jasikevicious).

So, Warrior fans, I am not anti-Golden State. I've pretty much been accurate all season, from questioning the original roster, to proposing a trade, to recognizing Barnes value to championing the Warriors playing talent, not positions. Just wanted to point it out before the season ends.

Deron Williams

I am a big Deron Williams fan. I am one of the few who, at the time, believed Utah made the correct decision for its team when it drafted Williams over Chris Paul. Paul is a more exciting, better 1v1 player, but I love Williams consistency, size, toughness and smarts. You can argue either one, and be equally correct, but I really like Williams.

And, the play-offs are a great illustration. Unfortunately, I am watching a different play-offs than most. Everyone, it seems, believes Williams is a Baron Davis-like player because neither is the typical cut NBA player and they have similar size. I just don't see it. Williams is athletic, but Davis' explosiveness is in the top 2% of the NBA (ask AK47). And, Williams is already a better shooter and decision-maker (Davis spent years settling for the three-point shot while shooting around 30%).

The other popular comparison is Jason Kidd, again, because of size. However, I see different players. Williams is a better shooter, while Kidd is much faster with the basketball and uses his body around the basket much better. Kidd, we forget, is a great back to the basket player, a little like Mark Jackson (the former Knick PG and current ABC analyst, not the current Hornet).

While nobody wants to say it, I see Deron Williams as possibly the next Steve Nash. He has the same shot off the dribble when using the high or side pick and he manages to find the open man. He's a pass-first PG who scores, unlike Davis who has traditionally been more Marbury than Nash. Williams obviously has more to learn before being put in a category with Kidd or Nash (or even Davis with as well as he has played in the play-offs).

However, if Sloan allows Williams Stockton-like freedom, he could be the "Next Nash" the way we have been searching, unsuccessfully, for the "Next MJ" for a dozen years. He'll never be an exact replica, and their bodies are obviously different, but in terms of shooting, decision-making, passing, etc., I see as much Nash in Williams game as I do Davis or Kidd. Namely, I see a player who could be a 90-50-40 shooter (FT, FG, 3pt) and average double-digit assists with minimal turnovers while controlling the entire game from the PG position.

A Genuine NBA Question

In the 2002-2004 years, the media seemed slanted against Sacramento and Dallas. These were the two entertaining, unconvential teams, yet most writers and all the former NBA players and coaches criticized their style of play and openly rooted for the Lakers, Spurs or Pistons.

Now, in an almost complete reversal, EVERYONE has jumped on the Phoenix Suns and Golden State Warriors bandwagon.

In 2003, I wrote an article titled, "Why basketball fans should root for the Kings." In 2006, I wrote almost an identical blog post about the Suns.

What happened in the last four years to make an up-tempo style of play fashionable again?

Dallas had Steve Nash running the pick and roll with Don Nelson as its coach, and TV people tripped over each other trying to criticize them. Now, Don Nelson is the most popular coach going and Steve Nash is everyone's favorite point guard, if not player. Analysts talk about the passing or Boris Diaw; the Kings had Chris Webber and Vlade Divac.

Sacramento and Dallas played one of the best series of the decade, and all the TV personalities did was complain about the defense (I wrote a column about the University of Arizona vs. Notre Dame NCAA Tournament game as well as the Sac vs. Dallas series and asked why people hate offense). Now, bloggers everywhere cannot get enough of the Warriors running down court and jacking threes like they are playing at the park.

What happened in the last four years to change everyone's perceptions?

Sports Writers should like Sports

Sports writers often annoy me because they too often become jaded toward the sports they cover. I think, for this reason, sports writers should have term limits. They have the greatest job, watching and talking about sports for a living, and they take it for granted to such an extent that they start to dislike sports. It is for this reason that I prefer bloggers, as I have written before (sorry, too lazy to link to my old posts).

Take Bomani Jones. He looks young enough in his picture, but he does not really like basketball. Yet, he gets to write columns about basketball for espn.

Today he wrote:

Bron Bron's the only high-watt superstar left. Tim Duncan's got lots of rings and Steve Nash has a couple of MVPs, but both are more impressive than exciting. They're great, but not one-name, can't-miss fare. Other than LeBron, there's no player so singular that people will tune in just to watch him.

Really? Have you turned on the TV? Or, are espn employees prohibited from watching TNT? For anyone who loves basketball, Steve Nash is an absolute treat. What's not to like? He passes, he scores, he makes unbelievably tough shots, he's fundamentally sound. I think his greatness is lost on a non-basketball person like Jones, who apparently only "gets" the WOW factor. The single NBA player who gets basketball coaches excited is Steve Nash. He's far more entertaining than TMac, Kobe or Kevin Durant.

Have you watched Baron Davis' magic in the play-offs? Carlos Boozer's brilliance? Tim Duncan's precision? Stephen Jackson's defense on Nowitski? Jason Kidd's triple-doubles? There's plenty of star power alive in the play-offs.

The teams aren't looking so great, either. What compelling story line is left in these playoffs? Even though the Suns looked great in beating the Spurs by 20 Tuesday night, the Spurs-Suns series will feel like a rerun until Phoenix can win a game in San Antonio. And does anyone outside of Utah really care if Jerry Sloan goes back to the Finals?

What? Again, go cover baseball. These play-offs are over your basketball head. I would love to see Jerry Sloan go back to the Finals. With everyone wrapped up with the Warriors and Suns, people have missed the Jazz. The Utah vs. Houston series was epic, with Carlos Boozer establishing himself as one of the elite power forwards in the game.

The Jazz and Warriors have played an epic two games. And, as much as we love the Suns because of their fan friendly style of play and the Warriors for their excitement, the Jazz play fantastic basketball. They move the ball, they hit threes, they post up. They are the epitome of good basketball. AK47 is back from the living dead and swatting shots like Kerri Walsh on the beach and Deron Williams is running the show like a Steve Nash protege in a bigger, more athletic body. Come on, Derek Fisher flies cross country after his daughter has surgery to remove a tumor and hits a big three and you feel nothing? Are you human?

LeBron James has played an injury-depleted Wizards. He has played one good game in the play-offs. And, Jones only cares about King James, like some kind of groupie.

Some suggest the play-offs are boring. I can't remember a more interesting play-off season this decade. Think about it: the Suns pace and fun style of play versus the grit and determination of the Spurs; the aggressive, trapping defense and three-point bananza of the Warriors versus the offensive efficiency and power of the Jazz; the Ben Wallace series, with Detroit's defenders and solid fundamental basketball against the small ball Bulls and their dribble weave offense; and, finally, the least compelling series, LeBron James and co. versus Jason Kidd and co.

Who's the favorite? I picked the Spurs to win before the play-offs started, but, really, would it surprise anyone if any of five or six teams won it all? The Warriors already dispatched the best regular season team; the Suns and Spurs are obvious threats; the Jazz look as good as anyone; the Pistons are a logical choice; the Bulls, if they can beat Detroit, maybe. New Jersey or Cleveland would be long shots, but the Nets still have their big three and Jason Kidd at the top of his game and Cleveland has James and a tough defense. When was the last time so many teams playing so many different styles had a serious chance to win the championship?

And, officials are evern calling traveling violations! What's not to like?

Sure, there are skeptics and people who generally just want to hate the NBA because of the millions they make. It is unfortunate when these people make their living writing about sports, and the NBA in particular. There are hundreds of talented bloggers who would likely love the opportunity to cover basketball for espn. Instead, we get Bomani Jones.

Edit: OTOH, Henry Abbott from True Hoop exudes enthusiasm for the NBA when he writes. He is the type of writer who should write about the NBA (I'm not saying everything has to be annoyingly positive, Abbott questions the officiating, and that we shouldn't point out its worts; instead, I simply do not believe writers should be apathetic toward well-played basketball).

Moneyball, NBA Style

ESPN promoted the Detroit v. Chicago series as a referendum on Ben Wallace. After two games (both at home), Joe Dumars looks like a genius. However, I think the argument is different; it's not about Ben Wallace, but about NBA contracts in general.

When Steve Nash entered free agency, he was 30+ years old with a history of injuries and a chronic back problem which forces him to lie on his back when he is not playing. Mark Cuban balked at paying him a five-year deal, which seemed like a smart financial move at the time. Nobody anticipated Nash moving to Phoenix and putting together arguably the best three-year stretch of any PG (certainly any 30+ year old PG).

When Ben Wallace entered free agency last year as an over 30 big man with limited offensive skills, Detroit balked at the length of his deal and the price Chicago was willing to pay.

In each case, the player had played on deals which underpaid them for their productivity. They had earned a bigger payday. The contributions of Wallace helping the Pistons win a championship and Nash to revitalize the moribund Dallas franchise cannot be overstated. And, while playing in their primes, they were underpaid. It seems only fair that they are compensated with their last contracts.

But, that is exactly the problem. With the length of NBA contracts, very few players are paid what they are worth. Deron Williams is grossly underpaid right now, as he is on his rookie deal. Shaq is grossly overpaid, as he is on his "lifetime achievement" contract.

The Sacramento Kings rewarded Brad Miller and Mike Bibby with big contracts during the Kings glory days or 2001-2004. Now, each appears to be past his prime. Miller was already an unathletic big man in a game quickly shifting to emphasize quickness, and now he battles plantar fasciitis. Bibby carries too much weight, has lost some of his quickness and shows a completely indifference toward defense. Yet, the Kings owe the duo $25 million+ over each of the next three seasons. $25 million+ for two past their prime players.

Bibby and Miller signed their deasl while in the middle of their prime years, their mid to late thirties. However, with the way contracts are structured, with percentage increases on an annual basis, a player who has a reasonable,if expensive contract during his prime has several year at a higher rate when he is past his prime.

Let's say a player's prime lasts three years. If he signs a seven year deal, even if it is signed just as he is entering his prime, he plays four years when he is past his prime, but making more money than when he was in his prime and considerably more money than when he was approaching his prime.

This summer, Chauncey Billups will be an interesting test case. Billups has played the last several seasons at an elite level. One assumes he has been at his peak for the past couple years. And, during this time, he has been grossly underpaid, considering his on court value. He is one of the top three PGs in the league, and the one with a championship ring, yet he's been making middle of the pack pay.

So, he deserves a big payday. He has earned a big payday. However, the responsible question, since one is given a contract for the future, not the past, is: Will he continue to play at the same level and for how long? Will Billups be like Nash and Kidd who seem to improve even as they reach their mid-thirties? Or is he starting the descent of his career, where he remains productive, but maybe not worth $10million+ per season?

Is Detroit better off re-signing Billups and hoping his career path resembles that of Nash and Kidd or trading him right now, at the height of his market value, to acquire young talents with reasonable contracts who are nearing their respective peaks? With the lack of great free agents on the market, Detroit could name their price to any number of teams who would jump at the chance to acquire Billups and worry about the end of his deal later (Dallas, Houston, Denver, Orlando, Miami, Los Angeles Lakers, etc.).

Let's say Billups has two more years at his peak and then a gradual decline. And, let's say he signs a six-year contract which starts at $12 million dollars. When he is 36 years old, will he be worth $15 million per season? At 36, and being paid $15 million per season, will he be better than a package of Andrew Bynum and Jordan Farmar playing in their peaks?

That's the NBA dilemma now. Cuban guessed wrong on Nash. I think Dumars guessed right on Wallace (though Paxson did not necessarily guess wrong, though he is still one player away. However, he did need veteran leadership). The length of deals means almost nobody is paid what they are worth. And, missing on one player with a max deal can cripple a franchise financially; just look at the fall of the Sacramento Kings who rewarded its stars with deals that now, a couple years in, look terrible fiscally and in terms of performance.

An NBA GM must be able to evaluate his personnel and determine who is still reaching his peak, how long he will stay at his peak and will his decline be gradual or precipitous. And, this is the area where the great teams (Spurs, Pistons) excel. Smart GMs buy low and sell high and do not allow emotions to hand out "lifetime achievement" contracts which cripple a franchise fiscally and eliminate financial flexibility.

More Mavs vs. Warriors Fallout

In my post where I wrote that the Warriors play bad basketball, one of the main points is that we emphasize postseason success too much and ignore regular season success. On almost every web site, writers are predicting that Mark Cuban will make significant changes to the Mavericks or suggesting that significant changes are necessary. They won 67 games. Which is a truer measure of a team's worth, 82 games or six? The Mavs are not a perfect team; however, I don't know if one disappointing series is enough to blow up a team that nearly won a championship the previous season. I think it's disappointing when a postseason disappointment completely overshadows a great regular season.

On another note, I wrote that one reason I wanted to see the Warriors win is because of the way the media annointed Avery Johnson as a genius after one season, while also stomping on the memory of Don Nelson and everything he did for the franchise.

I found an old post on the subject. In it, I criticize Chris Mannix and his glorifying Johnson at Nelson's expense. In my post, I write:

An example of my frustration is a column by Chris Mannix of Cnnsi proclaiming Avery Johnson to be the "little genius." The problem is Mannix starts with his answer and manipulates the statistics to fit his agenda, rather than allowing the statistics to tell the story or lead to the conclusion; this is one reason I prefer bloggers, many of whom are stat geeks who follow the stats almost too religiously, rather than using stats to support their own biased viewpoint.

I end with the following:

Maybe Johnson did change things in Dallas and maybe he is single-handedly responsible for winning a Western Conference Championship. However, the facts presented do very little to support this, as Johnson took over a team already on the cusp on the Finals. Of course, he deserves credit there, too, as he was a member of Nelson's bench, but to herald Johnson and totally disregard Nelson is ignoring the facts and manipulating others to prove one's own agenda.

Is Johnson still the "little genius?" Is Nelson still incapable of teaching defense? Johnson is obviously still a very good coach. However, Nelson's role in the success of the Dallas franchise cannot be overstated, like his role in the rejuvenation of the Golden State Warriors. I think fans and the media are far too quick to turn on a coach or proclaim a coach a genius. It's a player's game. NBA coaches are important, especially in the play-offs, but players win games and too much credit and blame is given to coaches.

NBA Early Entry Debate

Bomani Jones warns college underclassmen about the perils of the NBA draft and uses Arkansas' Scotty Thurman as his example in his ESPN column. NBA early entrants are scrutinized more than any other sport. Every year, a responsible journalist tells the story of a player who entered the draft and never fulfilled his promise as an NBA player.

But, that's life. Literally hundreds of high school and college baseball players will enter the Major League Baseball draft this June and never play an inning of MLB. Dozens of football players who were drafted last weekend in the biggest non-event in sports will not make an NFL roster. But, for some reason, journalists care more about basketball players. I really think people's obsession with college basketball affects their judgement on these issues; basketball is the only sport where the college game is even close to or more popular than the professional game. College stars are on television so much, people feel like they know them, like they can offer advice. Nobody knows who the top college baseball players are and few people know the top football prospects after the top 10-20 prospects. But, with the exception of the international players and maybe one surprise pick (Rodney Stuckey from Eastern Washington), the casual fan knows the players being drafted near the end of the first round, the players like Aaron Afflalo, Alando Tucker, Nick Fazekas, Derrick Byars, etc.

An NFL draftee who does not make a roster can try-out for the Arena Football League. A baseball player who is drafted may get a signing bonus, but he has years of minimum wage work at the lower levels before he reaches a big payday in the Majors. A basketball player who is not drafted or is cut from an NBA team has options around the world, from the NBDL, CBA, IBL, etc. that are similar to the minors or AFL or overseas, where a college star can make very, very good money in the right situation.

So, what is the worry? Aaron Afflalo is a similar study to Scotty Thurman. He is a First Team All-American with back to back trips to the Final Four who is a borderline (and to many a doubtful) First Round selection. So, he should return to school, right? Maybe. But, if playing in the NBA is his dream, why discourage it? Next year's draft appears to be even more guard-heavy, meaning his chances to be drafted next year will not be any higher. And, what could he possibly do at the college level to prove he can play? He hit game winning shots, led his team and was considered among the toughest defenders in the country? What would one more year of college do, except possibly expose some flaws and hurt his prospects, much like a final season at Florida has done for Joakim Noah, who has fallen from a consensus #1 pick last year to a late lottery pick this year?

Are we worried about Afflalo's education? I never understand this. When I was 18, I graduated from high school and went overseas as an exchange student. My friends could not believe I did not want to go to college. All I said was, "colleges will still be there when I get back." If Afflalo does not make an NBA team, and chooses not to pursue an NBDL or European contract, he can return to school. Sure, he would not have a scholarship, but that just means he would be like 97% of the student population. Is that a terrible thing? So, maybe he has to swallow his pride and work at the food court to pay for his books or maybe take a job officiating intramural basketball; that's life. But, it does not mean the education and degree are not still there for a former player to pursue.

And, what about the other options, like playing in Europe? As one who has lived abroad on several occasions, playing abroad is every bit the educational experience of a senior year of classes. "Thurman played in Greece, Italy, Lebanon, Cyprus, Yugoslavia and Jordan." Talk about life experience. On off days, one could visit Greek ruins one year and Italian churches and art in another season. A first hand look at Middle Eastern politics in Lebanon and Jordan and a better understanding of the war that tore apart Yugoslavia. These are lessons you don't learn in the classroom.

I learned more about Ancient Greece and King Alexander from running a couple weeks of camps in Northern Greece than I did in all my years in school. I learned about the war in Yugoslavia from some kids I coached when I was an exchange student. I learned about apartheid from the parents of some kids I coached while doing a clinic in South Africa. Sure, my classes may have glossed over the subjects, but the experience, the hands-on learning was far more valuable than any class.

So, why are we concerned that "bubblicious prospects like Virginia's Sean Singletary and Ohio State's Daequan Cook" put their names in the draft? If they don't make the NBA, they can get an education, and a nice paycheck, abroad or they can decide to go back to school as just another student. A "bad" decision does not ruin one's life, like some may suggest. Even Scotty Thurman seems happy with his "bad" decision: "It was tough when I didn't get drafted, but after playing overseas and seeing so many things, I am content with my life in general," he said.

The Problem with Golden State

Eveyone is drinking the Nellie Juice. I admit, I want to see Golden State win, mainly because I'm tired of seeing Mark Cuban's mug on TV so much and I think Nellie was disrespected in Dallas, especially when "golden boy" Avery Johnson made the Finals last season.

However, Golden State presents two problems:

1. Sacramento Buyer's Remorse. Someone in the Sacramento Bee, usually Ailene Voison, cannot make it through an NBA column without mentioning that Nelson wanted to coach the Kings this year. And, these writers appear to believe that if you move Nelson to the Kings' bench, all problems would be solved and the Kings would be battling the #1 seed in a tight, contested series (oops, isn't that what got Adelman fired?).

However, nobody mentions the real difference between this year's Warriors and this year's Kings. It is easy to look at the two coaches, since they are both new. However, what is overlooked locally is Chris Mullin's willingness to pull the trigger on a blockbuster deal, while the Maloofs killed a Sacramento blockbuster.

Basically, that makes Golden State this year's Sacramento, as the Kings made the deal for Artest and fought down the stretch to make the play-offs and nearly upset the Spurs. Will Golden State make a similar mistake and not re-sign Matt Barnes, arguably the Warriors second best play-off performer so far, like the Kings did last summer when they allowed Bonzi Wells to get away?

When the Warriors season was on the brink, Mullin did something about it. He acquired players who fit Nellie's personality. When the Kings' struggled, Petrie reportedly tried to do the same, ridding the team of Bibby's non-defense and personality conflict with Artest, but the Maloofs refused to make a trade with the Lakers. One can only hope that if the Lakers are willing to part with Bynum and Farmar for Bibby, the Maloofs will okay the trade and allow Petrie to re-build the franchise like he did when he acquired Divac, Stojakovic and Webber in a matter of months. Add a PF in the draft and a young starting five of Farmar, Garcia, Martin, (Horford, Noah, Green, Thorton) and Bynum would be an exciting team to get behind.

But, instead of criticizing the Maloofs (its like they own the paper), Bee writers daydream about the Nellie Kings. Only, Mussleman played the same type of line-up toward the end of the season (Garcia, Salmons, Martin, Artest, Williamson) and Kings' fans booed and yelled at the team to slow down and run plays. The difference between a Nellie Kings team and a Nellie Warriors team is a healthy, hungry Baron Davis. In an up-tempo, free-for-all, there is no more explosive PG in the NBA today. I cannot imagine Mike Bibby having the same effect; Bibby is a perfect PG, if you look past the defensive deficiencies, for the Kings' high post offense or even a Triangle offense or to play alongside a star like he would in Houston, Los Angeles, Indiana (kind of) or San Antonio. But, he is not Baron Davis-like in a Warriors-like environment. So, without BDiddy, there is no guarantee Nellie's magic would have worked in Sacramento any better than Mussleman's preparation, unless, of course, the Maloofs were prepared to acquire the players he wanted to play his style (which, of course, is the antithesis of what they wanted, since they publicly stated they fired Adelman to hire a more defensive-minded coach).

2. The Warriors play bad basketball. Sure, it's fun to watch in spurts when they are playing well, because theyplay like my friends and I play at the park, hugging the three-point line and jacking at all costs rather than risk injury getting hacked on the way to the hoop. But, they are not the Suns. Each plays at a quick tempo, but the Suns are efficient. They take good shots. They space the floor well. They move the ball. They rarely commit turnovers. The Suns are very much a traditional, pick-and-roll team with a once a decade playmaker in the perfect situation and a slightly faster tempo. The difference between the Jazz of Stockton and Malone and the Suns of Nash and Stoudemire is Sloan's tough guy persona vs. D'Antoni's easy going manner. Sloan would not stand for giving up a lay-up, while D'Antoni would rather stay out of the bonus and keep the tempo high. But, in terms of execution, they are very similar, though the rule changes (no zone defense violations) changed the dynamics and made the Suns' outside shooters more valuable.

The Warriors, otoh, play bad basketball. They take bad shots and make bad turnovers. When they are playing well, it's fun to watch and everyone starts to drink the Kool-Aid. But, when they are not hitting shots, they are a sloppy, bad basketball team. Now, I like Nellie because he is willing to be a contrarian and every league needs that. And, he makes due with what he has, which is a small, fairly athletic, above average shooting team with no offensive post players. So, I enjoy the success he is having with his team. However, I do not think the Warriors and Suns should be lumped together as examples of anything because they are far different teams.

The Warriors 3-2 lead only obscures this fact. However, they had to go 10-1 down the stretch to squeak into the play-offs. The other problem if the Warriors win the series tonight is that we are overly obsessed with the play-offs and ignore regular season success, which should be more meaningful. The Warriors, for more than 2/3 of the season, were not very good. Of course they had injuries and a big trade and a new coach, but they were not a good basketball team. And, the Mavericks, for 95% of the season, were the best team. But, five games obscures that. And makes Nellie a genius again. Weird.

So, I am hoping the Warriors win. But, if more people keep drinking the Nellie juice, I amy hope for a Rockets/Jazz sweep in the next round, just to being basketball back to its proper perspective.