The Reggie Theus Era Begins (for me)

I attended my first Kings' game of the year last night and watched the Kings gift wrap a victory for the Nuggets. Despite the ending, I really like Reggie Theus. Some observations:

It was one game, but I cannot stand Mikki "Rabbit Ears" Moore. Sure, Moore is exactly what the Kings need, a shot blocking interior presence to complement Brad Miller. However, the guy needs to embrace his role as a banger and a scarpper and not overinflate his ability. Everytime he did not get the ball, he sulked. Then, wehn e did get the ball, he was erratic. There was a possession late in the game where he got the ball on the block. If he pivots to the basket, he finds Brad Miller, the Kings' best shooter, wide open in the opposite corner. Instead, he panics and throws the ball right back to Francisco Garcia who was not open. If you want to believe you're a great offensive player, make the play. Otherwise, shut up and rebound. At the beginning of the second half, during a free throw, a fan yelled, "Hey Moore, get a rebound." Moore looked into the stands and said "What was that?" The fan yelled again, "Get a rebound." Moore looked into the stands like he was ready to charge the fan. At the time, again in the second half, Moore had 2 rebounds. He also had a thunderous dunk in the third quarter. Of course, he celebrated while the Nuggets inbounded and ended with Anthony dunking while Moore was crossing half court.

Brad Miller looks like he is in the best shape since he joined the Kings. And, Theus seems to be embracing his strengths and ignoring his weaknesses. He is a great standstill shooter; he is not a post player. So, Theus gets him open outside jumpers. Miller is back to being productive, like he was when he was a complimentary player when he first arrived. And, with Moore here, I can re-direct my ire toward Moore and his numerous failings rather than continuing to harp on Miller's incredible lack of defense and inability to rebound outside his area. He was he is, which certainly is not worth what he is paid, but at least he is back to playing well and doing what he can do, which is a big improvement over the past two years.

Has a team's MVP ever been a player acquired in the middle of the season after another team discarded him? Because, Beno Udrih is a baller. Sure, he missed two big free throws. But, when the Kings needed a bucket, they ran a pick and pop to get Udrih a shot from the elbow. How many teams run plays for guys they picked up off the waiver wire? I always wanted the Kings to trade for Udrih. I don't know how a couple dozen teams managed to let him get cut and then failed to sign him. He's the back-up PG the Suns covet; the set-up man the Nuggets lack; the Cavs missing link; the type of guy who would make Durant better in Seattle. I never understood why Pop burried him in San Antonio, after almost favoring Udrih to parker during Udrih's rookie season. However, he is a starting PG in the NBA.

As for Ron Artest, he was arguably the best player on the floor and statistically had the best game. But, something just doesn't feel right. Maybe I am jaded after reading the report last week that Western Conference scout suggested that anytime a play is supposed to go away from him, he gets in the way and calls for the ball. But, watching him play, he does shoot a number of bad shots and definitely asks for the ball all the time. He's like the annoying teammate at the park who never passes, but never scores (except Artest shot the ball well last night).

Which, of course, leads to the question of what happens when Bibby returns? At this point, I'd take a 1st round pick and Jason Williams' expiring contract for Bibby. I'm happy with the Udrih/Garcia platoon at the point. The Kings definitely need to improve their talent level, but I don't know that Bibby makes them significantly better, especially with Bibby and Artest fighting for the ball and Moore moping when he doesn't get it.

As for the game, the radio people blamed it on tempo and free throws. Nobody mentioned the Kings real problem. Any time they had a perceived mis-match, like AI guarding John Salmons in the post, they tried to force the ball to the player. They stopped moving and made numerous ill-advised passes. And, almost ever time, these passes resulted in a turnover or a forced shot against the shot clock. The quicker player almost always got his hand on the ball and the Kings never managed to take advantage of its size advantage. However, in its efforts to isolate a player, it stopped moving, cutting and attacking, which is how they built the lead. That's how the Kings lost the game: they pissed away too many possessions trying to isolate players.

I like the way Theus coaches. He is always up and talking to players. He is lik a high school or college coach, which I think is a positive, especially with this team. The Kings play hard and mix up their zone and man defenses well. I enjoyed watching the Kings play. I think Theus was a very good hire, though I wonder if players will always respond to his type of coaching. If they do, he will get the Kings back into the mix.

I also noticed Tim Grgurich sitting almost on the floor talking to some of the younger players like Von Wafer and JR Smith through parts of thegame. I've never noticed a coach sitting near the end of the bench talking to the players as much as I did with Grg last night.

Bad Trades: Lakers vs. Kings

Marc Stein lists his top 5 bad trades in his Daily Dime column. In his honorable mention sits the Chris Webber to Philadelphia trade, which I lambasted as "the worst trade ever." At the time, nobody agreed with my assessment. As I said in a later column, the Webber trade officially ended Sacramento's run as one of the Western Conference's elite teams. Stein says:

Chris Webber going from Sacramento to Philadelphia one day earlier (along with Matt Barnes and Michael Bradley) for Kenny Thomas, Corliss Williamson and Brian Skinner...Geoff Petrie is still trying to rebuild Sacramento's kingdom almost three years after Webber was exiled.

What isn't mentioned in Stein's analysis is that Matt Barnes turned out to be the best player involved in the trade. At the time, I wrote:

While I'm a UCLA-homer, Matt Barnes might be the second best player in the trade because of his versatility, passing ability and outside shooting ability.

To quibble with Stein, I think the Lakers got more for Shaq than the Kings did for Webber. Sure, Shaq at the time was better than Webber at the time and the Heat won a championship with Shaq. However, acquiring Lamar Odom and Caron Butler is a pretty good package. Teams never, as Stein's article illustrates, get full value for a superstar. However, Butler and Odom are a great pair.

I like the Lakers' team now. I wrote an article earlier this year suggesting that if Kobe really is a superstar, the Lakers should be a top 5 Western Conference team and win a play-off series. As I wrote:

The Lakers lack a true 3rd weapon. Luke Walton is a valuable player at small forward, but he is not a weapon like Manu Ginobili, Ray Allen, Caron Butler or Shawn Marion. However, the Lakers possess astonishing depth in the post with a number of long, active players who can defend the basket and score in the pivot. Andrew Bynum drew the wrath of Kobe during the summer, but for a kid who just turned 20, he is talented, big and long. Few people seem to value Bynum as highly as I do, but I do not see why people are so enthusiastic about Oden, at 19, versus Bynum at 20. If Bynum played for a coach and with players who believed in his ability, I would argue he is every bit as good as Oden, and probably a better offensive player right now. For a 3rd or 4th weapon, a legitimate seven-footer with good hands and athleticism is a nice problem to have.

Well, what if the Lakers never traded for Kwame Brown and had Caron "Tough Juice" Butler? Bryant, Butler, Bynum and Odom is as talented as any team's top four players, when you take into account the versatility and the length. Other team's can argue their top four are as good (Pistons, Suns), but the Lakers would be as talented as any of them.

Since that is true, and the Kings gave away the top 2 players in the Webber deal and failed to acquire any salary cap relief, I believe the Lakers did better in their trade of Shaq than the Kings did in their trade of Webber.

How to be an NBA GM

It's not secret that the San Antonio Spurs and Detroit Pistons maintain their elite status because of their consistency, talent, hard work, effort and, of course, leadership from their management.

I have been busy, so I never mentioned the Nazr Mohammed for Primoc Brezec and Walter Hermann trade. Ironically, Nazr was featured in another trade which I applauded: the Spurs giving Malik Rose's bad contract to the Knicks (who else?) for Nazr. Now, Nazr has the bad contract that Detroit has done well to trade. Ironic.

I don't know what the Bobcats are thinking. If you gave me the choice of any of the three players, Nazr would probably be my third choice. He's a nice role player. However, Hermann can shoot and brings energy and Brezec is a poor man's Zydrunas Ilgaukas. (sorry about the spelling. I'm in a hurry with no time to look up names).

And, the Pistons save money. If I wan an NBA GM, and Joe Dumars or R.C. Buford proposed a trade or even agreed to a trade I proposed, I would think again. They make too many good moves which help maintain their organizations elite status.

If Hermann develops a little more Nocioni in his game, watch out. Joe Dumars is a lock for Executive of the Year when you combine this trade with the Jarvis Hayes signing. Every year, just when people think the Pistons are going to slip, Dumars keeps them at the top.

NBA on TV

I know ESPN and TNT put together their TV schedules before the season starts and cannot do anything about injuries or underperforming teams. I also know the perception that stars sell.

However, they need to do something about their scheduling. I am sick of watching the Miami Heat and Cleveland Cavaliers. Miami has to be one of the least entertaining teams in the entire league. I want to see the New Orleans Hornets. Last year, Toronto was almost never on TV even though they were on of the better teams in the Eastern Conference. Now, it's impossible to find a Hornets game, even though they have a great team and a dynamic, marketable star.

I still want to see the Raptors on TV more and would not mind a chance to watch Atlanta. Golden State is not on TV enough, though Chicago and the Spurs seem to be on every time I turn on the NBA. I like watching the Spurs, as they are a good team. But, I'd also appreciate some variety in the scheduling so I had more than one opportunity to see some of the league's other teams. Joe Johnson is one of my favorite players and Al Horford probably my favorite rookie, but they are never on TV. I have not had a chance to see Jamario Moon play, though I read about him constantly.

I guess I am tiring of the constant marketing of a few select stars and markets. I want to watch good, competitive, entertaining basketball. This year, so far, the Heat do not qualify on any of the three. Cleveland does not either; James typically has some entertaining moments, but Cleveland is one of the more boring teams to watch. Chicago is entertaining when they make shots, but if not, they are boring and bad and usually not competitive.

I think the NBA is more than New York, Chicago and Los Angeles and greater than Wade and James. It just often feels like the networks and the NBA do not believe it.

Paul Milsap and the Suns

While watching Phoenix play Utah last night (after watching Faber defend his belt), I kept thinking, over and over, that Paul Milsap, or a similar player, is exactly who the Suns need.

First, the Suns are not deep in the front court. Second, they have financial issues. Third, Boris Diaw is overpaid and does not necessarily add anything to the attack. I like him as a player to an extent, but think there are places (Houston with Adelman possibly) where he would be a better fit (hmm, Diaw for Scola?).

Milsap is a perfect complementary player. He is inexpensive, plays hard, rebounds, draws fouls, moves without the basketball and does not need plays to be run for him. Now, if he was three inches taller, he'd be an even better fit, but he also never would have lasted until the second round.

So, who might the Suns find in the second round who could be a Milsap like player? I have not see a great deal of college basketball player this year, but one name who would be around late in the second round is Lorenzo Mata-Real. He's active and 6'10. Unfortunately, he has terrible hands, unlike Milsap. USC's Taj Gibson and Memphis' Joey Dorsey strike me as similar players, though each has a chance of being drafted higher than the Suns' second round pick, even though I don't think either has the same work rate as Milsap.

Anyway, just a thought I had while watching the game.

Urijah Faber Defends His Title

Sacramento's own (well, Lincoln really) Urijah Faber defends his WEC World Championship Wednesday night on Versus. Just thought I'd link the articles I wrote about Faber and his gym last June.

The California Kid defended his title with a second round choke out.

So you want to play in Europe...

Jeremiah Boswell (a friend I met last spring in Atlanta and a former Columbia University player)is chronicling his experiences playing in Bulgaria. Here is his latest update though he has yet to get his visa approved so he can play in a game.

Dear ESPN: Meet Mr. Parker

I wrote about this a couple weeks ago, but last night, ESPN discussed the best PGs in the NBA. Steve Nash, of course, was mentioned first. Then, the ex-NBAers said they would put Deron Williams and Chris Paul ahead of Jason Kidd, right now.

It was decided, to an extent, that Williams is the best PG in the NBA going forward. I have no problem with that: I am a Williams' fan. I was one of the few who did not believe Utah made a mistake by taking Williams ahead of Paul.

However, fellas, there is another name that nobody mentioned. He's most famous for his wife and he has lots of jewelry. Not the bling-bling, but the rings every player covets (and not just Eva's wedding ring).

Yes, Tony Parker. I know he's French, so people automatically dismiss him for some reason, but all he does is win. I might not vote him #1, but I'd certainly enter his name in the discussion. I don't understand how he is constantly ignored by the entire media. Not one mention in the discussion?

College Football Mess

I watch a lot of college football. But, I don't think I have ever been this disinterested in the bowl pairings.

First, there are way too many bowl games. Why is football the only sport that rewards mediocrity to such an extent? Six wins and a .500 record gets you a bowl invitational somewhere. And, the reason we can't have a play-off is because we are worried about the students? So, rather than involve 16 schools in a play-off, nearly half the Division I programs go to bowl games?

Second, does anyone, for a second, believe that the winner of the Ohio State vs. LSU game is a true national champion? Says who? LSU was a bad Eric Ainge pass away from losing to Tennessee yesterday, but somehow that win was sooo convincing that they leapt Virginia Tech and Georgia in the polls?

Want to know the lesson Virginia Tech learned? Don't play a really good team who might beat you, even early in the season. After all, they were punished becasue they lost the opening game of the year at LSU. They avenged their other loss in the ACC Championship Game, yet LSU jumped over them in the polls because of the game which occurred in August.

Kansas, meanwhile, played one really good team and lost, yet they get to go to a BCS game, while Missouri, who beat Kansas and Illinois does not go to a BCS game.

Georgia is punished because they did not make the SEC Championship Game due to two early season losses, yet Ohio State is not punished for the lack of a Big 10 Championship Game.

All year, the Pac 10 was viewed as the best or second best league, yet only USC represents the Pac 10, while the Big 10, which was terrible this year, managed to get two teams. Arizona State lost to Oregon, who was easily a top 3 team before being ravaged with injuries, and USC, who many still believe is one of the top teams.

I don't know who belongs in the championship game. And, that's exactly the point. The championship is not decided on the field. It's decided by voters who set-up the match-ups and coaches who schedule few real games.

Look at women's basketball. Every week in the pre-season, there are two top five teams playing each other. Today it was Carolina against Tennessee. Tomorrow it is Rutgers against Maryland. They play tough schedules early so they can improve and prepare for the tournament.

College football lacks a lot of marquee match-ups. Teams are scared to lose because one loss usually means a lost opportunity to win a championship. Why play a top 5 team when you can pay a bottom tier team for a guaranteed win, especially when voters do not take into account the teams the top teams play out of conference? Ohio State never takes a risk, which is why they are always there at the end of the season. They play in a mediocre conference, play nobody out of conference (Youngstown State, Akron, Washington and Kent State) and are rewarded every year. Who is the best team Ohio State beat? Wisconsin? Illinois is the only other good team in the Big 10 and they lost to them and their most impressive non-conference win is against a lousy Washington team.

LSU plays in the SEC, which is a very good coference, and beat Virginia Tech. However, they also played Middle Tennessee, Tulane and Louisiana Tech. They lost to Arkansas, an average team, and Kentucky, a slightly better than average team (I watched Kentucky and Hawaii each play 3 times and I swear Hawaii has better players). So, they get rewarded for scheduling one real out of conference game and winning the best conference, even though they were far from dominating in their performance and lost their last regular season game.

Yet, those are the championship contenders. I'd like to argue for Georgia, but while they actually played BCS opponents in Oklahoma State and Georgia Tech (along with Troy), their really good wins are Auburn and Florida. USC's argument is hurt by the struggles of Notre Dame and Nebraska this year and scheduling Idaho is tough to defend. However, they lost to Stanford when Booty played with a broken finger and practically gave the game away and then to Oregon who was as good as any team in the nation when they played them. If they play Oregon after Dixon is injured or Stanford before Booty's injury, they probably are undefeated right now.

Truthfully, when Dixon was healthy, I thought Oregon was the best team I saw this year. When I saw LSU early in the season, I thought they were right there, but not as much at the end of the season. I thought USC was grossly overrated until the last two weeks and now think they are underrated. Georgia in its games against Florida and Auburn was the best team in the nation, but they had too much inconsistency.

So, what do you reward? Late season performance? Who you think is the best? Record?

If you argue for Ohio State because they only have one loss, what about Hawaii?
If you argue for LSU because you think they are the best, what about USC?
If you argue for Georgia based on late season performance, what about Oklahoma? USC? Virgina Tech?

Again, there is too much of an argument for their to be a real champion without a true play-off. Because, right now, in an eight team play-off, who would win? what would the oddsmakers say? Who would they put as the favorites if we threw Oklahoma, USC, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, LSU, Georgia, Hawaii and Ohio State into a single elimination tournament?

#1 Ohio State vs #8 Hawaii
#2 LSU vs #7 West Virginia
#3 USC vs #6 Virginia Tech
#4 Georgia vs #5 Oklahoma

Who wins? More importantly, is there anyone who cares more about the Meineke Car Bowl than seeing these games played out over the course of the next 3 weeks? Can you imagine an LSU vs USC match-up in the semi-finals? Georgia vs Oklahoma in the 1st Round? There is not a single bowl game that has better potential match-ups than the 1st Round games in this tournament.

But, sadly, for the "student's" sake, we have the bowl system which rewards mediocrity and decides its champion by a vote. Can you imagine if college basketball changed to a bowl system instead of March Madness? Why is college football the only sport in the dark ages?