Wednesday, June 24, 2009

22 comments 5 Things I Think I Think Peter King Has Not Thought Of: 50% Discount Edition

Get the title? Usually I do 10 things but today I really only have 5 things, so it is a 50% discount, which is usually a good thing, but here it means you get less of me typing, which depending on your point of view is a good or a bad thing. I am sort of excited for the NBA Draft because I get to see where all the college players I followed go in the draft, not to mention we get Bill's much anticipated (not at all) NBA Draft Diary, where he is going to do his best to not take a stand on a player in case that player becomes good or bad in the NBA. Let's do a brief review of some bad journalism and some things that I feel the need to comment upon...

1. I can't believe the Spurs got this deal done. It's insane. They gave up absolutely nothing and got a great player in return.

I actually believe Bill Simmons got this one right on his Twitter:

Statement just released by Milwaukee Bucks to their fans: "Dear fans, go eff yourselves. Die. We hate you. Go away."

This is one reason I have a problem getting into the NBA. The Bucks just made a trade that made absolutely no sense for them in regard to basketball, but it was just a financial move. I know teams in the NFL have to do things like this but they just release players to save money, it's almost worse to get shitty players in return. It's like they didn't just get rid of Jefferson but got players that are supposed to "replace" him and take up salary cap room on the roster. Yes, I realize this is how the NBA works, but I still think it sucks.

Milwaukee sent swingman Richard Jefferson to San Antonio on Tuesday for Bruce Bowen, Kurt Thomas and Fabricio Oberto, taking three aging bench players with expiring contracts to unload Jefferson and the $29.2 million owed in the final two years of his contract.

That pretty much sums it all up. Were the Bucks not aware that Jefferson was owed $29 million when they traded for him last year? Did they think the world would end or Jefferson would die and they would never have to pay this money? So why trade for him last year? It's not like they had a one year window at the NBA Finals.

"The trade we made today provides us with much needed options in both the short and long-term planning for our franchise," Bucks general manager John Hammond said in a statement.

I would love to know how this helps the short term planning for the franchise, other than saving money.

Also, I am aware Bill Simmons wanted to be the GM of the Bucks for this reason of ineptitude and no, I don't think he could do a better job.

"Sad to see RJ go. He was a fun guy to be around and could play. We are building for the future, slow and steady. Patience grasshopper," Bogut posted on Twitter.

Yes, they are building for the future by trading for three players older than the player they traded away...then trading one of the older players, Oberto, with a partially guaranteed contract next year for a backup PF. That's building for the future that only a guy like Michael Jordan could appreciate. In fact, I am surprised Jordan did not jump in and try to get Oberto for Okafor or something insane like that.

The deal actually might allow the Bucks to keep Ramon Sessions or Villanueva, since both are restricted free agents.

So in summation...This trade allowed the Bucks to build for the future by getting immediately older and allowing them to have salary cap space in the future to waste on their free agents that are not as good players as the player they traded away. I think I have it now. This makes me hate the NBA.

I am not even going to get into why the Pistons traded a young 22 year old PF for a 34 year old man who has an irregular heartbeat. I have never understood NBA trades. What happened to the days of Mark Aguirre for Adrian Dantley or Jeff Malone for Jeff Hornacek? You know, somewhat even trades that aren't basic salary dumps. I miss those. It makes me feel and act like a grumpy old man.

2. There was another trade in the NBA I don't really care about but I do care about the reaction of Bill Simmons to it. He has to be critical of everything the Timberwolves do to show that he would have been a better GM, but his criticism of them shows why I don't think he would be a great GM.

Here is the trade.

The Washington Wizards are close to a deal that would send the No. 5 pick in Thursday's draft, Oleksiy Pecherov, Etan Thomas and Darius Songaila to the Minnesota Timberwolves for Randy Foye and Mike Miller, a league source told ESPN The Magazine's Ric Bucher on Tuesday.

It's not a good trade for the Timberwolves really but they do get the #5 pick out of it. I am not judging whether this initial trade is good or not, I am seeing the trade and judging that it seems like the Wolves have an actual plan for the team. The Wolves now have the #5, #6, #18, and #28 picks in the first round of the draft.

Here is Bill's response on his Twitter:

Statement from Minnesota to its fans: "Good news! We have the No. 5 + 6 picks in a 4-player draft! Wait, where are you going?"

First off, there is no way Bill Simmons knows if this is a 4 person draft, he has gathered this knowledge from his "expert" friends he talked to. Again, Bill knows very little about the college basketball game and the players coming out of college, so there is no way he could know this. He could be guessing, but what he is really doing is just parrotting what people have told him. I am not saying this is a deep draft, but I think it is deeper than 4 people and time will prove me to be correct about this. This draft may not have bonafide stars in it but I don't think that makes it a weak draft. There are good players in there. Clearly Bill does disagree.

Bill's comment is very short sighted and that is why I don't think he would have made a good GM. I can show you why through the Wolves two options with these four 1st round picks:

1. The Wolves are a bad team and they need good basketball players. Having four picks in the first round gives them the chance to either grab two players in the top 6 of the draft that they want or having a player fall to them at #18 in the draft that can improve their team right now. Basically what I am saying is they are going to get four chances to improve a bad basketball team because of this trade. Bill is just assuming the Wolves are not going to be able to get one of the 4 "good" players in this draft at the #5 or #6 spot. One of those players could easily fall to them in one of those spots...or even two of those players could fall if the Timberwolves stay at their current spots in the first round.

We all saw what the Wolves were able to do last year with Randy Foye and Mike Miller on the team last year. That didn't work. I would think Bill would believe this was a smart move to get more picks for players and start to blow the team up a little bit. I don't know what else he would suggest the Wolves do, but I am sure it would involve 3 or 4 teams and be overly complicated and nearly impossible to pull off. I am sure the Wolves could have traded these two players to try and get an immediate impact player who is currently in the league but it seems like they did not want to go that route...they probably would have had to trade the #6 pick, which would leave them with no lottery selections, so I don't know how much that would have actually improved the team or a trade like this could have even been done. Time will see if they are correct.

So basically at the #5 and #6 spot the Wolves have a chance to get two quality players.

2. This is not the real reason Bill Simmons is short sighted though. I don't know how he can rip this trade, other than for the reasons he egotistically believes he could do a better job. The Wolves are clearly moving up in the draft to try and get one of the top 4 players in the draft, so they would in essence trade Mike Miller and Randy Foye for one of the impact players in the draft and still possibly be able to keep another first round pick. I don't see how this is a dumb move. Of course Bill didn't talk to his "expert" friends about this before he posted it on Twitter, he just started typing.

A source close to Minnesota told ESPN.com's Andy Katz that the Timberwolves aren't done. The Wolves now own Nos. 5, 6, 18 and 28 in the first round. A source said that the Timberwolves won't package Nos. 5 and 6 for No. 2, but they could offer the fifth and 18th picks for the second.

I would have to say that any trade that allows them to move up in the draft without blowing up the nucleus of the team (i.e. Al Jefferson and Kevin Love) is not a bad thing. I don't see how you can criticize them for having an actual plan in the draft, regardless of whether it works or not. At least the new GM is attempting to turn the team around. The Wolves are not a good team, they need to get rid of the players on their team and try to start over, this is them trying to do that. If they end up blowing the 5th pick in the draft or making another poor draft pick then they will end up looking stupid, I can accept that. But the Wolves are looking to trade up for an impact player, so Bill's criticism will not stand if they are able to do this.

I think Bill shows he would make a poor GM though when he criticizes a trade on his Twitter saying the Wolves are screwing over their fans by missing out on the 4 "good" players in the draft when that is EXACTLY who they are trying to move up and acquire. If he had said the Wolves have a massive hole in their backcourt, then he would be right, but he didn't say that. Not to mention, when you are as bad the Timberwolves have been, you have to try something different. Remember, the "what have we got to lose" theory? Chalk this move up to that.

Another issue is who are these 4 "good" players in the draft Bill refers to? We will probably never know and we won't know until three years from now when he can use hindsight to name those four people. Also, while I am just railing on Bill, whatever happened to all his "Ricky Rubio is going to be a great player" talk? It seems to have quieted down after he had unimpressive workouts and other "experts" seem to be down on him.

Bill knows more about the NBA than I do, but in this case I think he is wrong for criticizing the Wolves for making this trade. They have to blow the team up and try to move up and get quality players. I am not saying they will make good choices, I am saying they are at least putting themselves in a position to succeed. He should not let his bitterness at not getting the Wolves GM job color his opinions. The Timberwolves have put themselves in a good position for a change. Say they end up not trading the picks and get Flynn and Harden with two picks or Thabeet and Stephon Curry. Depending on how you feel about those players, that's not a bad thing.

3. Gary Parrish forecasted the busts and the successes in the draft. It sounds like fun so I thought I would make myself look like an ass and do it too.

(On a side note, why the hell are the Celtics trying to trade Rondo?)

Player most likely to be a star: Despite what you might've read on the night of the lottery, there isn't a single NBA franchise that would've taken anybody other than Blake Griffin with the top pick.

Memphis or Charlotte probably would have taken Thabeet or Rubio. Of course they don't count as NBA teams in my mind.

I have to cop out and say Blake Griffin is most likely to be a star. I am excited to see what he can do in the NBA.

Player most likely to be a bust: I've always found Austin Daye to be pleasant and wise...What if Daye is concerned that another so-so season (from a statistical standpoint, he didn't really improve from his freshman to sophomore year) will have NBA general managers more concerned about an average college career than his upside? If that's the case, this is a good move because somebody is going to draft Daye high, make him a millionaire and then ... sit him on the bench or send him to the NBDL

Austin Daye is too easy of an answer and he is not even going in the top 15. I would have to say the player most likely to be a bust based on that criteria is BJ Mullens. He didn't even play in college very much and when he did he was unimpressive. Utah will probably draft him since they seem to draft tall white guys a lot (I would list them but they are innumerable at this point) and he will end up doing nothing in the NBA.

A player taken in the top 10 who could be a bust is Jordan Hill. I just don't know how I feel about his NBA prospects since he doesn't have a great jump shot so he can't play the SF position and is too skinny to play the PF at this point. He could bulk up a little bit and be a decent starter on a bad team but I think he could also bust. I would say Thabeet but his defense should keep him around in the league for a while.

Player I like (but who scares me): Watch DeJuan Blair play, and you just know he's going to be a good NBA rebounder.

I want to say DeJuan Blair also, but agreeing is boring. I am going with Stephon Curry. I love his shot and I love everything about him, but I would also feel better if he was 6 foot 6 inches and could create his own shot a little better. He is a wonderful shooter but he also takes a lot of shots to get his shots and I am not sure he has the ability to create his own shot off the dribble or run the point efficiently in the NBA.

Safest pick in the draft (besides Blake Griffin): I'm not sure Stephen Curry will be an All-Star, but what I am certain of is that there's no way he'll be a bust or anything close to a bust. The Davidson star will be in the NBA for close to 15 years, and he'll create and make big shots along the way, just you watch.

Brandon Jennings. He put up decent numbers in Europe but I think he will be a good point guard in the NBA for 10 years. He may not be a star but I also don't think he will bust.

Riskiest (high) pick in the draft (besides Austin Daye): I was actually a fan of B.J. Mullens before he enrolled at Ohio State, but I became less of one when it was clear Thad Matta didn't believe playing him a lot was the key to winning.

I will go with Thabeet. He has no offensive game and can actually be pushed around by stronger players defensively and can be scored against when players take it right at him.

Player who will be taken too low: Brandon Jennings is slipping in most mock drafts, which suggests folks aren't sure he'll be a good pro.

Ty Lawson. You would think the best player on the NCAA Championship team would be drafted higher. Whoever gets him will be lucky to have him. I like him a lot.

Another player who will be taken too low: Jeff Teague.

Toney Douglas. Instant scoring off the bench. I also say Tyler Hansbrough. Sure you know what you are getting but that's not always a bad thing.

Yet another: Sam Young.

Terrence Williams.

Three likely second-round picks who will make a roster: I'll take Patrick Mills, Danny Green and Jodie Meeks.

Danny Green because he can do everything. I am going to go with two more guys who may not even get drafted. Jon Brockman because he plays bigger than he is and can rebound well. Dionte Christmas because he can shoot and he is not undersized at all for a SG. If he could play defense or went to a more popular school he would be taken earlier than the 2nd round.

In five years, the top five college players from this draft will be ...
1. Blake Griffin

2. DeMar DeRozan
3. Stephen Curry
4. Hasheem Thabeet
5. James Harden

1. Griffin
2. James Harden
3. Ricky Rubio
4. Ty Lawson
5. Stephon Curry

4. Gregg Doyel apparently hated Donald Fehr.

I haven't completely formulated an opinion on Fehr but salaries did sky rocket during his tenure and steroids also took over the game. I have to say those are two strong strikes against him. Sure they were not completely his fault, but they did happen on his watch. I have to say after reading Doyel's post and the article about Donald Fehr which Doyel linked, I agree with Gregg Doyel.

5. I was reading a discussion between a Yankees fan blog writer and a Braves fan blog writer and the Yankees fan blog writer said he would rather have Joba Chamberlain over Phillip Hughes, Jair Jurrjens, and Tommy Hanson. I am not a huge homer as everyone can probably tell, but I don't see how he would rather have Chamberlain, who no one can decide if he is a reliever or not, over Tommy Hanson. Chamberlain is a good starting pitcher but I don't know if he has quite the ceiling Hanson has. Sure, Hanson has barely played in the majors but it just doesn't make sense to me based on their potential. Nothing against Chamberlain but I think if he played anywhere else everyone would not have that strong of an opinion of him as a baseball player. That's just my opinion.

On to what I was really thinking...I was watching interleague play last night and I got my mind turned to the DH. I am a National League guy, so I prefer the way the NL plays baseball. I don't hate the DH but I don't like it. I consider the pitcher to be just another fielder, they just happen to pitch the ball and I think the pitcher should have to bat. I am sure having a DH makes the game more exciting for some people but I prefer not having the DH because I just don't get the logic of having a guy sit on the bench and only hit. Why can't there be someone who doesn't hit but just plays the field or a guy who doesn't bat but only runs for a certain player in the lineup if we also have the DH? That may be going a little overboard. I am not completely against it, but I consider the pitcher to be a baseball player as well and I think he should have to bat. What does everyone think about the DH?

22 comments:

RuleBook said...

I haven't completely formulated an opinion on Fehr but salaries did sky rocket during his tenure and steroids also took over the game. I have to say those are two strong strikes against him.

I usually avoid non-football related posts, but this stood out to me. A players' union rep's goal is primarily to do whatever is best for the players. I would argue the skyrocketing salaries is a very positive mark for Fehr. Granted, it may have taken several teams out of the competitive market, but Fehr's job was not to promote fairness, it was to get the best possible situation for the players, and these salaries show he was successful.

Bengoodfella said...

I say those are two strong strikes against Fehr because he did do his job well in getting the best possible situation for the players, but who really got hurt was the fans. Doyel mentioned this in his posting, where he said that the fans should not have a positive opinion of Fehr because he caused prices at the ball park to sky rocket in conjunction with the players sky rocketing salaries.

Granted, that was his job and in my mind he did his job on that end very well. From a fan's perspective that is a strike against him. Your argument is correct, I won't argue with it, but I will argue from a fan's perspective, the opinions on his tenure should be less positive based on this. The person who wrote that article Doyel was commenting on acted as if we should be thankful for him, when that may not be completely the case. He did his job well for the players but the fans got the worst end.

I hate agreeing with him, but Gregg Doyel said it a little more abrasively for me...

http://www.cbssports.com/columns/story/11884955

The Casey said...

The knock I keep hearing from ESPN analysts on Brandon Jennings is that he lacks leadership. He just went, at 18-19 years old, to a foreign country to play ball with grown men professionally, and he was just supposed to walk in and take over the franchise? That's a knock I don't get, and, really, you rarely get leadership from a rookie, even from the point. I think he's going to be a pretty good player.

Also, I caught the end of Rome Is Burning, Around the Horn, and PTI yesterday, and it seemed like NOBODY liked the Richard Jefferson trade for the Spurs. What?! I had to check the interweb to make sure they hadn't traded for Ronald Jefferson and I had misread. They gave up three part-time players for a SF who can score and rebouind, and isn't a terrible defender, and that's not good for them? They still have the mid-level exception and three second-round picks to pick up another big man. I think this was a great trade for them.

Also, I don't know if the Rondo-Allen for Hamilton-Prince-Stuckey trade would be as bad for the Celtics as everyone thinks. I think it makes them a much deeper team next season, and gives them another couple of bodies to throw at LBJ or Turkoglu/Lewis or Arenas/Miller/Butler/Foye (Yes, I think the Wiz will be a playoff team). Everybody was panning that trade, but I think the Celtics are looking at a limited window of contention, are need to try to win next year, not three or four years down the road.

The guy would rather have Joba over all three of Hughes, Jurrjens, and Hanson, or over any one of them? If he means all three, then he's a fool. Any one is debateable.

And, technincally, you could use the DH to get an extra fielder, if you let the pitcher hit for himself. If you had Rafael Belliard or someone at short you thought was a worse hitter then your pitcher, you could DH for him instead. But I agree with you. It seems like the pitchers are getting special treatment.

Bengoodfella said...

Lack of leadership would be a problem if he was 22-23 years old and he has a history of this problem in college, but Jennings doesn't have that history. I know he can be kind of mouthy but that is not a reason to not draft him.

I honestly love the Spurs trade for them. They gave up nothing and at least tried to give themselves a shot to milk another couple of years out of the core of the team.

I don't know how I feel about that trade for some reason. I just feel like it would make the Celtics deeper but not necessarily better. They do have a limited window of contention and I think trading Ray Allen is a serious proposition for them. I doubt they would want to re-sign him. I go to the Celtics SBN blog and some of the trade ideas are just sad...it's the typical rosterbation that goes on.

No, the guy would rather have Joba over one of the three other pitchers. It is pretty close to a toss up, but I think Chamberlain is a good pitcher, if not a little overrated at this point in his career. We don't know if he can be an effective starter for his entire career, and it looks like he is staying in that role. Otherwise it is able to be debated for sure, I would just take Hanson personally.

As far as the DH goes, I just don't like the idea of a guy whose only job is to hit. I don't hate the DH and don't think it should be gotten rid of in the American League, I just think that all the players on defense are players and should have to bat.

Fred Trigger said...

The recent rumor is Rondo and Scalebrine to memphis for rudy gay and Mike Conley.

Bengoodfella said...

Are you offering? Because I very well may be accepting. Remember, you don't need an elite PG to win a championship. It's Memphis, can't the Celtics get the 1st round pick off their hands also. It can be done, keep trying.

Fred Trigger said...

I'm surprised they couldnt get those two off their hands for Scal alone. Especially after that Gasol trade. I dont know that much about basketball, but even I knew that was a shitty trade for memphis.

But yeah, thats what the talk is right now.

Bengoodfella said...

I am not as down on Rondo and don't really know why they want to trade him but just from the looks I would do Gay and Conley for Rondo and Scalabrine. I would keep Rondo but that is probably just me.

Martin said...

I think people like or dislike the DH based on how they see it as a position. People who I know who like the DH say it's because they don't want to watch a pitcher, who normally sucks, try and hit. They want more offense.

I look at the DH as a refuge for people who suck defensively and are so bad that they would either not be on a roster, or would be a significant liability in the field. If they are going to hit, make them play on the field. I'm a NL kinda guy, so you can guess where my thoughts drift.

LOVE the Jefferson trade for the Spurs. Gives them an option for when Manu is hurt his 12 games a year, and allows them to bench his fragile butt for awhile and not worry about increased scoring. Gives them a great extra option to go on offense with Manu, Duncan, and Parker. When Mason is gonna be your 5th option on the team, you've made a really nice upgrade. The only thing I worry about the Spurs is that they are going to be small up front, which against the Lakers might kill them next year, and maybe even the Nuggets. This was a terriffic trade for the Spurs though, and anybody who thinks otherwise is really overrating guys who are gonna be cut and maybe available for the Spurs to resign.

Bengoodfella said...

I don't necessarily enjoy watching the pitcher hit either but to be honest I can put up with that simply because I consider the pitcher to be just another position on the field just like the 2B. It may not be a popular opinion, but it is mine.

I just don't prefer the DH because I just don't like the idea of a person in there to just hit. I don't think MLB should get rid of it or anything though.

I love this trade as well for the Spurs. In this worst case scenario they have Jefferson and he doesn't work out so they have an expiring contract in a year to trade. Not to mention they gave up nothing to get him. I am glad I am not a Bucks fan. I think the Spurs may have something up their sleeve in the draft or will do something in free agency as well.

Don't they still have the rights to Tiago Splitter? I wonder if he is ready to come to America and contribute. I think the Spurs will be fine and this was a great trade for them.

Jeremy Conlin said...

Something that has continued to piss me off:

People who say Ricky Rubio isn't NBA ready.

I mean, if that's the case, then that means that I dreamt the 2008 Olympic Gold Medal game after a three-day opium binge. Like, did we not see him hold his own against Deron Williams and Chris Paul (playing left-handed, mind you, because of his sprained right wrist)? Did we all just collectively make that up in our heads? I spent the last three weeks scouring the internet for Ricky Rubio tape, and and in those three weeks, I found a total of zero players in whatever European League he was in that could stay in front of him. Then compound that with the never-ending list of horrific defensive point guards (Nash, Kidd, Andre Miller, Beno Udrih, Mike Bibby, Chris Duhon, Steve Blake). Then compound that with the fact that he's a legit 6-5 with a 6-11 wingspan. Then compound all of those things with the fact that HE'S STILL ONLY 18 YEARS OLD. If he drops past #3, I'm mailing turd sandwiches to every GM who passed on him.

Let's ask the audience here. I'm setting two over/unders. What do you guys think?

Rubio's age for first all-star apperance: 22.5 (I say under)

Rubio's career all-star games: 6.5 (I say over)

ivn said...

picking nits: Ricky Rubio is not a college player (just on your list there)

I don't really see Blake Griffin as a slam-dunk star, though. I do think he'll be good but won't quite have the offense to take over the league. I can see him averaging 14 and 12, though. assuming the Clippers don't completely ruin him.

I can see the five best picks from this draft (down the road) being Rubio, Brandon Jennings, Lawson, Griffin, and Harden. if we have to limit it to college guys it'd be Lawson, Griffin, Harden, Terrence Williams, and maybe Jrue Holliday.

Green, Brockman, Dante Cunningham, and Darren Collison (if he falls that far) will make teams very happy in the second round.

ivn said...

also, David Eckstein just sailed a throw over the head of Adrian Gonzalez in the first inning of the M's/Pads game. can't blame him though, his arm has the grittiness of ten men.

Bengoodfella said...

Gosh, I don't want to pull a Joe Morgan here but I haven't seen that much of Rubio to really project effectively. Based on what I have read and assuming he goes to the Western Conference I am going to say over 6 All Star Games and first appearance below age 22. The only reason I say over 6.5 ASG is because I think he will make it before he is 22 and then he will get voted in on reputation a few times. Again, I know nothing though.

I think Blake Griffin is going to be a 18 and 8 guy, sort of a David West and since this draft doesn't have that many stars that is good enough for me.

I am an unabashed Lawson hater/lover. I have seen him play so many times and I am going to be shocked if he busts in the NBA. In the second round, you always have to watch out for those guys who played 4 years in college and scares the pro scouts because they know what they are getting. For some reason that bores some people.

This draft is not full of stars, I am not going to say that, but I really think there are some guys who are going to make an impact one way or another. I like a lot of the point guard in the draft.

Jrue Holliday scares me because I have no idea what to expect from him. He could bust or be one of the best in my mind. I haven't seen him enough at UCLA to say one way or another. I have seen BJ Mullens and if a team takes him in the first round, they won't like what they see.

Bengoodfella said...

I bet Eckstein heard we sponsored him. He was so pumped and that is why he threw the ball so hard.

ivn said...

unfortunately, Eckstein is just too scrappy to understand the concept of irony.

re: the Draft, going to school in WA I saw more Pac-10 basketball than anything else. Holliday was not a good fit for Howland's system so it might be better off that he bailed on school when he did. Brockman is short but but he doesn't get pushed around and is generally in the right spot around the basket. He'd make a rotation guy. Jordan Hill scares me because he has game but he could easily be a Gooden/Wilcox-style fuck-up.

also, Chase Budinger = the white Julian Wright. if someone grabs him in round 1 they get what they have coming to them.

Martin said...

Holiday isn't ready for the NBA. He might have talent, but he never dominated at UCLA. Not once did I watch a Pac-10 game and think he was the best player on the court. He absolutly needed to stay for another year, but he and his people had decided long ago he was a 1 and done. I think he's going to be a journeyman player at best.

If Rubio stays healthy I think he should be fine. He looked great in the Olympics. He's going to be better then Holiday, I'd bet hard American dollars on it.

Jeremy Conlin said...

See, I think Blake Griffin is too good to just be an 18-8 guy. People seem to forget this, but in the Elite 8 game against UNC, he pretty much took off his pants and took steaming dumps on Hansbrough and Ed Davis. In games that he played over 30 minutes, he only had 1 that he didn't get 10 boards. If you can rebound that easily in college, you can rebound easily in the pros. It's that simple. Absolute worst-case scenario, he's a rich man's David Lee.

I think where people consider this draft weak is the utter lack of depth. Just going back year-by-year, look at the number of guys that will probably make at least 2 All-Star games:

2008: Rose, Beasley, Mayo, Gordon, Lopez, Randolph (if they ever figure him out)

2007: Oden, Durant, Horford, Stuckey (maybe), Rudy Fernandez (maybe)

2006: Aldridge, Roy, Rudy Gay, Rondo

2005: Bogut (maybe), Paul, Williams, Bynum, Danny Granger, David Lee,

2004: Dwight Howard, Devin Harris, Andre Iguodala, Al Jefferson, Jameer Nelson,

2003: LeBron, Wade, Carmelo, Bosh, David West, Josh Howard

Now, this year, I see Blake Griffin and Rubio. And that's it. Would I bet my life on Stephen Curry or James Harden making two all-star games? Not in a million years. The absolute ceiling for "franchise players" in this draft is 2 (and to be completely honest, I'm not sure that Rubio is a franchise player). It's probably stronger than the abysmal 2000 draft, but I don't think it's as good as 2006, which was a pretty brutal one it it's own right.

AJ said...

Rudio, under 6.5 ASG's. Its either way over or way under in my mind...I'll take the under because He's gonna be drafted by a Western team, so if he can beat out Paul/Williams/and Parker for the next 10 years, then good...but I don't believe he will be better then those guys.

I think the Pistons laughed at Bostons offer, wow was that horrible for them. It sure is something when a team is shopping around a young "great" PG...hmmm kinda weird if you ask me.

I like the DH, but thats probably from growing up watching AL teams more then NL teams. I for one can't stand watching pitchers hit. Of course that can be said about watching some of the everyday hitters as well. I think its more of a NL area and AL area when finding out who likes the DH...I would assume most people growing up in a NL area hate the DH, and people growing up in an AL area like the DH.

Bengoodfella said...

Ivn, if Holliday was a bad fit for Howland's system then that might bode well for him in the pros. For his sake I hope you are right because he certainly did not look great when I watched him play. I think what you said about Brockman is true, though he is only 6 foot 7 inches he is not going to get bullied in the middle. Will he be a star, probably not, but he can rebound and provide a team some quality minutes in a couple years.

Jeremy, I haven't forgotten that Griffin took a dump on Ed Davis and Hansbrough, not at all. I think what makes me temper my expectations of him is that he just made everything look so easy at OU. I know that may not make sense but it just looked so easy I wonder what will happen when he hits better competition. I think he is a solid 18 and 8 guy at worst and I will agree with you and can easily see him hitting 10 RPG...I am just tempering my expectations of him.

This draft doesn't have the depth of other drafts in regard to starters and All Stars but I do think there are some good players in there that can become a key part of a rotation. I guess we will see in a few years.

A lot of Rubio's ASG appearances will depend on where he goes. I think he is going to the Western Conference and that's why I have him going over 6.5 ASG appearances. There are some good PG's out there but Rubio is still young and I think he will make a few appearances over a couple of those guys before all is said and done.

Rondo is supposed to have personality problems with Doc Rivers and when you have a coach as talented as Rivers you have to make sure you trade the player before you get rid of him as a coach. I guess that is the thinking. The Celtics are supposedly worried about what will happen when Rondo gets a ton of money, if he will be an ever bigger asshole.

AJ, you are right that it is pretty much going to fall along AL and NL lines but I just wanted to know what everyone thought. I don't have a strong preference and I don't like watching pitchers bat but I still prefer not having the DH.

AJ said...

Well I think pitchers should hit, however, I like having a DH for them as well...if that makes sense. Pitchers suck at hitting, except a few, and I'd rather watch a real hitter then someone going up there to bunt or strike out...but I also feel like if you are on the field, you should be hitting as well.

I think they want to trade Rondo for a few reasons...most of all is that he will never have a higher price then he does now. But I think they are asking way to much, and I think teams realize he just isnt worth it.

Bengoodfella said...

I don't like watching the hitters hit but I feel the same way you do about anyone on the field should hit as well. I guess that is why there is a different rule in each league. The best of both worlds.

The Celtics may be asking a bit much for Rondo, but I would take that Gay and Conley for Rondo and Scalabrine trade. I don't know if this would work under the cap but I would certainly also take Conley and the #2 for Rondo...of course Memphis would never do that. I don't have a super high opinion of Rondo but they seem determined to trade him.