Maybe the title of this post is taking Ira Winderman's point of view a bit too extreme, but Ira doesn't like that all these NBA players are friends. He wants to see some rivalries, some fisticuffs and a good old fashioned cockfight. I don't necessarily see how there can't be rivalries and still have the players be friends. The Lakers-Pistons rivalry in the late 1980's and very early 1990's was pretty intense despite the fact Magic Johnson and Isiah Thomas got to first base with each other before the opening tip of an NBA Finals game. So a rivalry can still occur in a competitive fashion without each side hating each other. Still, it doesn't seem Winderman believes rivalries can exist without some sort of civil discord or lack of harmony between two team's players. Chris Paul is still mad at Pau Gasol for rubbing the top his head, so perhaps that pleases Ira Winderman.
Dwight Howard somehow now is friends with Stan Van Gundy
They are teaming up to help schools in Seminole County. Obviously helping out the Seminole County school system is much less important than maintaining a silly, immature player-coach rivalry when Van Gundy and Howard no longer have a player-coach relationship.
and hopes to eventually be remembered fondly in Orlando.
What a wimp! How dare Howard care about his legacy. Dwight Howard needs to form a rivalry with the entire Orlando Magic fan base. Perhaps send anthrax by mail to each Magic season ticket holder in a desperate attempt to keep the rivalry between he and the fan base going. After all, the Magic and Lakers are going to play two times this season and most likely not meet in the NBA Finals. So continuing a rivalry between a lottery team and an NBA Finals contender is going to be crucial to the long-term health of the NBA.
Dear Entire City of Orlando,
How does Dwight Howard's ass taste?
Signed,
Ira Winderman
LeBron James returned to Cleveland last season saying he would not rule out perhaps one day again playing for the Cavaliers.
Considering LeBron James is from Akron and lived in Ohio for his entire life until he left to play for the Miami Heat, I can see how maintaining a good relationship with fans in his home state would be important to him.
"Screw that," says Ira Winderman. Winderman thinks LeBron James needs to further alienate fans in his home state. Perhaps LeBron can invite Dan Gilbert over for a nice seafood dinner, drink some wine together by candlelight and then never call him again. That'll learn the Cleveland area not to mess with LeBron James.
Ray Allen took out a full-page ad in Boston to remind Celtics fans how much he cherishes their time together.
I think Ira Winderman is confusing athletes showing some class towards cities in which they used to play with athletes having rivalries with each other. There is a difference. These three athletes are trying to be classy when leaving a city, but it doesn't mean there isn't a Cavs-Heat rivalry or a Celtics-Heat rivalry. I fail to see how civility from athletes is a bad thing. I don't want to say "we all" bemoaned the NBA era in the late 90's and early 2000's when the NBA players (fairly or unfairly) seemed disconnected from the fans, but I think we are living in an era of the NBA where the players realize it is a business and they generally treat fans with respect in order to further their own brand. I believe NBA fans as a whole appreciate this type of behavior and know the players are friends off the court, but rivals on the court. I don't see it as a bad thing.
Know what the NBA needs just about now? Something along the lines of bounty-gate.
Absolutely. That's what I was just thinking. What the NBA needs about right now is for one team to intentionally try to injury members of another team for money. What could go wrong? What fair-minded sportswriter wouldn't long for athletes to intentionally injure each other in order to spice up a rivalry?
Because leagues are at their best when rivalries are pure, lines are drawn, when you’re either with us or against us.
And apparently a rivalry can't be started without members of two teams intentionally hurting each other. Does Ira Winderman remember this year's NBA Finals? The talk between Serge Ibaka and LeBron James? How about the rivalry between the Lakers and Clippers that seems to be developing? Not to mention with Ray Allen playing for the Heat, the Celtics and Heat matchups probably won't be the most friendly of games this year.
Rivalries happen organically. Something along the lines of bounty-gate is probably the worst way to start a rivalry.
but at a time when Kevin Durant is working out alongside LeBron, it does tend to take the edge of what the NBA once was,
Part of the reason Kevin Durant was working out alongside LeBron James is because they both played for the 2012 Olympic team. I wonder if Ira Winderman has an issue with players joining the Olympic team and playing together?
"They can't be on the same Olympic team! They are supposed to hate each other!"
It is true teams and players can still have rivalries on the court while being somewhat friendly off the court. Michael Jordan was friends with Magic Johnson off the court, but desperately wanted to beat him on the court. Rivalries can come from friendly competition and don't necessarily have to develop from one player on a certain team attempting to physically injure another player on another team.
During a recent community even in Boston, Celtics coach Doc Rivers urged
a singular approach for the coming season for his players: “I bring up
Miami every single day to them. I want them to hate them. I want them to
beat them. That’s gotta be our focus.”
Gee, that sort of sounds like a rivalry developing, no? I guess this isn't enough for one of the top teams in the Eastern Conference to be focused solely on beating the reigning Eastern Conference champion. Ira Winderman demands more dislike. Where are the knives at? Where is the frustration and anger that only violence on the court can solve? What ever happened to players clothes-lining each other and punching each other in the face? Kermit Washington, wherefore art thou?
Instead, we’re getting Hornets players working out alongside Spurs
players in San Antonio, open gyms around the NBA featuring visits by
opposing players,
Opposing players are visiting gyms around the NBA? My God, what's next? Secret friendship handshakes? Friendship rings? Blood vows to never hurt each other's feelings? The NBA is going to hell because the players don't hate each other and this means there is no way they can compete against each other...even though NBA players have been friends prior to this year and there have still been rivalries.
including one just the other day from Derek Fisher at the Lakers’ facility.
Derek Fisher of the Oklahoma City Thunder went to the Lakers facility? That's crazy. It's not like Fisher ever played for the Lakers over an extended period of time or has any friends on the team.
Perhaps the best way to ensure there are rivalries in the NBA is to say that no NBA players can ever be free agents or be traded. That way these players don't develop friends on other teams and decide to go back and visit these friends. NBA players would be drafted by one team and then forced to play for that one team over their entire career in order to avoid making friends on opposing teams. The future of the NBA is at stake and outside of a good bounty scandal this is our only hope.
To a degree, this is a global community the NBA has forged, a shared
bond of furthering the game, if not necessarily furthering rivalries.
Rivalries happen organically. It isn't something the NBA can cook up, throw together and watch happen, even as much as the NBA would probably be prone to do this. You can't make the Clippers and Lakers dislike each other, but a rivalry can develop if Pau Gasol insists on touching Chris Paul's head. See? Little shit like that starts a rivalry.
The Heat were fun last season because they were compelling. They might
have been more fun the season before, when they were loathed.
In certain circles the Heat are still going to be very much hated. It's clear the Celtics are using the Heat as the measuring stick for this season, so the games between those two teams could be fun to watch.
You may not condone what Greg Schiano pulled this week against the
Giants, but he made it clear this was not about winning friends.
On a similar note, what kind or rivalries did the bounty-scandal help start? Do the Saints have a new rivalry I am not aware of? At this point many fans don't like the Saints, but I wouldn't say the bounty scandal ignited a specific NFL rivalry between the Saints and another NFL team.
It was about competition, a line that sometimes gets blurred in today’s NBA.
It still is about competition and NBA players know how to compete while on the court but also not hate each other off the court. NBA players have come to know each other better because of the AAU circuit, but this doesn't mean the line of friendship or competition gets blurred. It simply means the players develop a relationship with each other prior to coming to the NBA, but it doesn't necessarily affect the competitive nature of the game.
Showing posts with label ira winderman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ira winderman. Show all posts
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
2 comments Versatility is Not a New Approach to Building a Team
Today, Ira Winderman asks the question of whether the Heat have built a new blueprint for future NBA teams by winning an NBA title with a versatile team. They have not built a new blueprint for the future, more than they have built a team which would take advantage of the versatility on the roster. I'm not sure the versatility the Heat showed in the playoffs is easy for other teams to replicate. Most NBA teams look for players that are versatile, that hasn't changed and will never change. That's why Magic Johnson was so great because he could play positions point guard through power forward (or even center in a pinch). Scottie Pippen could guard a point guard or a (smaller) power forward. Versatility is key to a team's success. Having the players and payroll structure the Heat have, they had the benefit of versatility and had to take advantage of this versatility to win games. Ira Winderman asks if other teams will try to replicate this success. The answer I give is teams were already trying to acquire versatile players for their roster. It's not an unconventional approach, it is an approach that requires the right type of players.
The NBA Finals are when the template going forward is set.
It's also when a team wins a title using one approach to basketball and less successful teams try to copy this approach. The template is only occasionally repeatable and changes what feels like every year. So the template to an NBA title is never set. Ever.
In recent years that generally has meant either you have to have a big man or you have to have a point guard.
Or you could be the 2011-12 Miami Heat.
If by saying "or you could be the 2011-12 Miami Heat" you mean "a team could have the best player in the NBA who is able to play point guard, shooting guard, small forward, and power forward thereby negating the need for a traditional point guard and his presence on the roster allows roster flexibility." Because that's what the Heat had.
Let's see other teams repeat this with great success. How about you have an All-Star power forward on the roster who is able to play center if necessary by dragging shot blocking centers who don't have much of an offensive game outside of the paint? Sounds great, but it only works well against teams who don't have a scoring threat the center position. How about finding the best player in the NBA who can play power forward and point guard. There's pretty just one of those.
See, the template can work well, but there are a ton of variables that decide the success of the template. Against Kevin Garnett or Roy Hibbert, the idea of Bosh at center didn't/doesn't work as well. Against Perkins/Ibaka? It works better.
Center? They played the season's closing stages without one, Chris Bosh ultimately manning the middle.
This isn't really new. Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett don't consider themselves centers and the Spurs and Boston won games this year with them at the center position. It's easy to have Bosh man the center position when the opposition doesn't have an offensively powerful center. Bosh can make the opposing center a liability on defense by pulling him out on the perimeter and doesn't have to worry as much about holding his own on defense.
Let's see how this strategy works if Bosh had to guard Duncan or Andrew Bynum.
Point guard? Well, you could call Mario Chalmers many things (and Lord knows most of the Heat players did in the midst of games, in most colorful terms), but true point guard is not one of them.
Again, this isn't a template the rest of the NBA can follow unless other NBA teams have found a way to clone LeBron James and his passing skills as a point forward. Both Wade and James can run the point. They are versatile and they aren't many guys like them. It's not a template any more than it shows how tough to defend the Heat can be.
you likely will hear a lot more of what already is emanating from those pre-draft war rooms, "Best player available."
Because that was the approach Pat Riley took in July 2010, when he famously paired LeBron James and Dwyane Wade, players with overlapping skill sets.
Bill Simmons column up where he explains Wade was at 70% during the Finals, which meant the skill sets of James/Wade didn't overlap as much and they weren't in each other's way at times. It makes a bit of sense. You can have players with overlapping skill sets as long as each player knows their role on the roster.
In the cookie-cutter world of center, power forward, small forward, shooting guard and point guard, the Heat rolled with a championship lineup so muddled that it was almost impossible to tell, well, who's on first.
This isn't a template though. The Heat were able to do this because of the matchup they had against the Thunder and because James is capable of guarding multiple positions at a high level. Every single team in the NBA wants to draft an elite player who can defend multiple positions. They don't come around very often.
The Heat had to role with this lineup because the payroll structure of the team was to where they couldn't go sign a "real" center or sign a "real" point guard. They had to go with the guys they had. There's a reason the Heat drafted Dexter Pittman, signed Eddy Curry and drafted Norris Cole. They wanted to find a fit for those positions. When those guys weren't the exact fit required in the NBA Finals, Spolestra and the Heat had to use the versatility of LeBron James to their advantage. The lineup was muddled out of necessity and because of the versatility of the roster.
For years, it had been so much about making pieces fit that the Thunder traded away part of their future for Kendrick Perkins,
Jeff Green wasn't part of the Thunder's future. There is a reason they traded him. The Thunder weren't looking for cookie-cutter players, but simply taking from their strength (scoring) to improve a weakness (play in the middle). I think if you could ask any Thunder fan or executive, they don't regret this trade.
even though Perkins hardly could find a place to fit in this championship series.
Let's remember we just found out Perkins was injured with a torn groin (or something similar that sounds equally as painful). Once the Heat moved to Bosh at center, it became a bad matchup for Perkins. So Perkins hardly finding a place to fit in one playoff series doesn't mean using a "real" center doesn't work as a way to win games, but it means the Heat were able to formulate a lineup which created matchup problems for Perkins.
It is why the Jordan Bulls never veered from the blueprints that force fed Bill Cartwright or Luc Longley into the mix.
That worked out pretty well for them, didn't it?
The Bulls needed a natural center in the lineup to play guys like Patrick Ewing. Horace Grant wasn't an effective center. Again, how did the Heat's muddled lineup work out against Kevin Garnett? Not that well if I recall and Hibbert gave them trouble (albeit without Bosh) in the round previous to that. For Bosh to play center, there has to be the right matchup for the Heat.
Why the Phil Jackson Lakers continually searched for answers at point guard, repeatedly settling for Derek Fisher.
That worked out pretty well for them, didn't it?
The Lakers didn't have a player who could bring the ball up the court and not dominate the ball. The Heat have Wade and James who are great passers and the Lakers didn't have that type of guy on the roster, so they had to have a natural point guard.
Because, as in baseball, the notion was you had to be strong up the middle.
And then Spoelstra deciding enough was enough, that after spending two years in search of a ring while cycling through the likes of Joel Anthony, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Erick Dampier and Ronny Turiaf, that Bosh, lean and lithe, was the best answer in the middle, if not the most muscled solution.
It worked well against the Thunder because they didn't have a strong offensive option in the middle. Ibaka can score, but he isn't strong offensively. Perkins is strong on the boards, but isn't an offensive threat. Not to mention, here is that name again, LeBron James can play power forward. This gave the Heat an option few other teams have and is why Bosh was successful at center.
Spoelstra decided that Chalmers was the best fit at point guard, even if not a fit at the position at all.
BECAUSE JAMES/WADE COULD ALSO PLAY POINT GUARD! It's not a revolution, but an exception to generally held rules. Chalmers could be a spot-up shooter and be aggressive on offense because he didn't have to worry about bringing the ball up the court and distributing. There still has to be a player on the court to bring the ball up the court.
If position mattered then the team that already had James, Wade, Mike Miller and James Jones would not have made Battier their prime offseason acquisition in the first place. But that's where all the free-agency money went.
Wrong. Miller and Jones are different players from Battier on the defensive side of the ball. Miller is in there for offense, while Battier's defensive versatility is what made his signing such a good move by the Heat. Position still mattered, which is why Jones didn't get many minutes during the Finals. Battier was versatile and was hitting his 3's, so that upped his value two-fold while on the court.
Battier from sixth man wingman to starting power forward.
Battier played power forward all through college. I realize it is college, but he has experience at the position and played the stretch-four position his entire senior year of college.
"Our versatility," Spoelstra explained, "while it may seem unconventional to some, we think it's one of our greatest strengths."
It is one of the Heat's strengths and is a unique strength that makes this "new" template very, very difficult to reproduce by other NBA teams. Not many teams have the ability to have such a versatile roster.
"When everybody notices where Shane Battier is when the ball is going in," Spoelstra said. "We notice everything else before that, his versatility. He allows us to play our roster the way we need to, and we weren't necessarily able to do that last year.
In retrospect, the Heat were lucky (and good) that they got a Finals matchup which allowed them to keep their hottest shooters out on the floor. They were lucky in that the Thunder didn't have a big man who was an offensive threat, the Heat were good enough to have the versatility to take advantage of their strengths and those, and they were lucky these versatile players had a great NBA Finals series.
But Battier as power-forward glue guy?
"I don't know," Spoelstra said. "We don't necessarily look at it that we're small. I know everybody calls it 'small ball.' We have two forwards, neither one of them is a power forward.
Arguable. LeBron is as big as a power forward and with his improved post up game he could pass as an NBA power forward.
The Thunder tried, and failed. The lane opened for LeBron. The perimeter opened for Battier, Chalmers, Miller and Jones. Perkins and Serge Ibaka no longer could simply stand tall in the paint, as they did against the Mavericks, Lakers and Spurs in the previous three rounds. Instead, they were sent in chase mode, unable to recover by the time LeBron was at the rim.
And that was a smart move by the Heat. This was a move that didn't work against the Pacers in the second round and didn't work against the Celtics in the Eastern Conference Finals. There isn't a blueprint that can be used. NBA teams have to adjust the matchups and strategy used depending on which opposing team they are going up against in a playoff series.
So other teams may not try to repeat what worked for the Heat this series. Depending on who (or if they even make it) the Heat play in the NBA Finals next year they may not even use this strategy of using James at power forward.
Granted, it is easier to play the versatility card when the versatility includes James, Wade and Bosh.
Apparently this isn't "granted" because Ira Winderman is acting as if the Heat have just revolutionized the NBA as a whole.
But Brooks had Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook and James Harden and never quite was able to create similar chaos, save for dramatic rallies in the first two games of the Finals.
These guys aren't as versatile. Westbrook, Durant and Harden can play the different spot at their respective position (power/small forward, point/shooting guard), but they can't cross over positions. Harden could play some small forward, but Westbrook can't be a forward and Durant can't be a guard or a center. James can play shooting guard or power forward. Bosh can play power forward or center. This opens things open for flexibility in other roster spots. When James moves to power forward, that means Battier can play small forward and because Wade can play point guard Mike Miller can also be in the game. The Thunder didn't have this type of flexibility.
Has Pat Riley developed a better way?
No. He has not developed a better way. He has developed an exception to the usual way.
Or does he simply have better players?
He has better players who are more versatile. The blueprint the Heat have laid out is only able to be replicated if a team has a roster of versatile players and a matchup that allows a team to take advantage of this versatility. Most NBA teams don't have a roster of 2 or more players who can guard multiple positions and zero NBA teams have LeBron James.
The NBA Finals are when the template going forward is set.
It's also when a team wins a title using one approach to basketball and less successful teams try to copy this approach. The template is only occasionally repeatable and changes what feels like every year. So the template to an NBA title is never set. Ever.
In recent years that generally has meant either you have to have a big man or you have to have a point guard.
Or you could be the 2011-12 Miami Heat.
If by saying "or you could be the 2011-12 Miami Heat" you mean "a team could have the best player in the NBA who is able to play point guard, shooting guard, small forward, and power forward thereby negating the need for a traditional point guard and his presence on the roster allows roster flexibility." Because that's what the Heat had.
Let's see other teams repeat this with great success. How about you have an All-Star power forward on the roster who is able to play center if necessary by dragging shot blocking centers who don't have much of an offensive game outside of the paint? Sounds great, but it only works well against teams who don't have a scoring threat the center position. How about finding the best player in the NBA who can play power forward and point guard. There's pretty just one of those.
See, the template can work well, but there are a ton of variables that decide the success of the template. Against Kevin Garnett or Roy Hibbert, the idea of Bosh at center didn't/doesn't work as well. Against Perkins/Ibaka? It works better.
Center? They played the season's closing stages without one, Chris Bosh ultimately manning the middle.
This isn't really new. Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett don't consider themselves centers and the Spurs and Boston won games this year with them at the center position. It's easy to have Bosh man the center position when the opposition doesn't have an offensively powerful center. Bosh can make the opposing center a liability on defense by pulling him out on the perimeter and doesn't have to worry as much about holding his own on defense.
Let's see how this strategy works if Bosh had to guard Duncan or Andrew Bynum.
Point guard? Well, you could call Mario Chalmers many things (and Lord knows most of the Heat players did in the midst of games, in most colorful terms), but true point guard is not one of them.
Again, this isn't a template the rest of the NBA can follow unless other NBA teams have found a way to clone LeBron James and his passing skills as a point forward. Both Wade and James can run the point. They are versatile and they aren't many guys like them. It's not a template any more than it shows how tough to defend the Heat can be.
you likely will hear a lot more of what already is emanating from those pre-draft war rooms, "Best player available."
Because that was the approach Pat Riley took in July 2010, when he famously paired LeBron James and Dwyane Wade, players with overlapping skill sets.
Bill Simmons column up where he explains Wade was at 70% during the Finals, which meant the skill sets of James/Wade didn't overlap as much and they weren't in each other's way at times. It makes a bit of sense. You can have players with overlapping skill sets as long as each player knows their role on the roster.
In the cookie-cutter world of center, power forward, small forward, shooting guard and point guard, the Heat rolled with a championship lineup so muddled that it was almost impossible to tell, well, who's on first.
This isn't a template though. The Heat were able to do this because of the matchup they had against the Thunder and because James is capable of guarding multiple positions at a high level. Every single team in the NBA wants to draft an elite player who can defend multiple positions. They don't come around very often.
The Heat had to role with this lineup because the payroll structure of the team was to where they couldn't go sign a "real" center or sign a "real" point guard. They had to go with the guys they had. There's a reason the Heat drafted Dexter Pittman, signed Eddy Curry and drafted Norris Cole. They wanted to find a fit for those positions. When those guys weren't the exact fit required in the NBA Finals, Spolestra and the Heat had to use the versatility of LeBron James to their advantage. The lineup was muddled out of necessity and because of the versatility of the roster.
For years, it had been so much about making pieces fit that the Thunder traded away part of their future for Kendrick Perkins,
Jeff Green wasn't part of the Thunder's future. There is a reason they traded him. The Thunder weren't looking for cookie-cutter players, but simply taking from their strength (scoring) to improve a weakness (play in the middle). I think if you could ask any Thunder fan or executive, they don't regret this trade.
even though Perkins hardly could find a place to fit in this championship series.
Let's remember we just found out Perkins was injured with a torn groin (or something similar that sounds equally as painful). Once the Heat moved to Bosh at center, it became a bad matchup for Perkins. So Perkins hardly finding a place to fit in one playoff series doesn't mean using a "real" center doesn't work as a way to win games, but it means the Heat were able to formulate a lineup which created matchup problems for Perkins.
It is why the Jordan Bulls never veered from the blueprints that force fed Bill Cartwright or Luc Longley into the mix.
That worked out pretty well for them, didn't it?
The Bulls needed a natural center in the lineup to play guys like Patrick Ewing. Horace Grant wasn't an effective center. Again, how did the Heat's muddled lineup work out against Kevin Garnett? Not that well if I recall and Hibbert gave them trouble (albeit without Bosh) in the round previous to that. For Bosh to play center, there has to be the right matchup for the Heat.
Why the Phil Jackson Lakers continually searched for answers at point guard, repeatedly settling for Derek Fisher.
That worked out pretty well for them, didn't it?
The Lakers didn't have a player who could bring the ball up the court and not dominate the ball. The Heat have Wade and James who are great passers and the Lakers didn't have that type of guy on the roster, so they had to have a natural point guard.
Because, as in baseball, the notion was you had to be strong up the middle.
Center and point guard.
And then this.
This is the exception, not the rule. Basketball hasn't changed drastically with the Heat winning the NBA Title.And then Spoelstra deciding enough was enough, that after spending two years in search of a ring while cycling through the likes of Joel Anthony, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Erick Dampier and Ronny Turiaf, that Bosh, lean and lithe, was the best answer in the middle, if not the most muscled solution.
It worked well against the Thunder because they didn't have a strong offensive option in the middle. Ibaka can score, but he isn't strong offensively. Perkins is strong on the boards, but isn't an offensive threat. Not to mention, here is that name again, LeBron James can play power forward. This gave the Heat an option few other teams have and is why Bosh was successful at center.
Spoelstra decided that Chalmers was the best fit at point guard, even if not a fit at the position at all.
BECAUSE JAMES/WADE COULD ALSO PLAY POINT GUARD! It's not a revolution, but an exception to generally held rules. Chalmers could be a spot-up shooter and be aggressive on offense because he didn't have to worry about bringing the ball up the court and distributing. There still has to be a player on the court to bring the ball up the court.
If position mattered then the team that already had James, Wade, Mike Miller and James Jones would not have made Battier their prime offseason acquisition in the first place. But that's where all the free-agency money went.
Wrong. Miller and Jones are different players from Battier on the defensive side of the ball. Miller is in there for offense, while Battier's defensive versatility is what made his signing such a good move by the Heat. Position still mattered, which is why Jones didn't get many minutes during the Finals. Battier was versatile and was hitting his 3's, so that upped his value two-fold while on the court.
Battier from sixth man wingman to starting power forward.
Battier played power forward all through college. I realize it is college, but he has experience at the position and played the stretch-four position his entire senior year of college.
"Our versatility," Spoelstra explained, "while it may seem unconventional to some, we think it's one of our greatest strengths."
It is one of the Heat's strengths and is a unique strength that makes this "new" template very, very difficult to reproduce by other NBA teams. Not many teams have the ability to have such a versatile roster.
"When everybody notices where Shane Battier is when the ball is going in," Spoelstra said. "We notice everything else before that, his versatility. He allows us to play our roster the way we need to, and we weren't necessarily able to do that last year.
"And so now we're able to play LeBron at several different positions, and same with Dwyane, and he kind of ties that all together."
So I would love to have it explained to me how this is the new blueprint for NBA teams to follow. All a team needs to do is find three players who can play multiple positions on offense and defense at a high level. Easy enough, right?In retrospect, the Heat were lucky (and good) that they got a Finals matchup which allowed them to keep their hottest shooters out on the floor. They were lucky in that the Thunder didn't have a big man who was an offensive threat, the Heat were good enough to have the versatility to take advantage of their strengths and those, and they were lucky these versatile players had a great NBA Finals series.
But Battier as power-forward glue guy?
Again, that's where the Heat, correctly, balked at getting caught up in delineations.
Again, this is the position Battier played through much of college. The NBA is different from college basketball, but Battier has guarded the power forward position before."I don't know," Spoelstra said. "We don't necessarily look at it that we're small. I know everybody calls it 'small ball.' We have two forwards, neither one of them is a power forward.
Arguable. LeBron is as big as a power forward and with his improved post up game he could pass as an NBA power forward.
The Thunder tried, and failed. The lane opened for LeBron. The perimeter opened for Battier, Chalmers, Miller and Jones. Perkins and Serge Ibaka no longer could simply stand tall in the paint, as they did against the Mavericks, Lakers and Spurs in the previous three rounds. Instead, they were sent in chase mode, unable to recover by the time LeBron was at the rim.
And that was a smart move by the Heat. This was a move that didn't work against the Pacers in the second round and didn't work against the Celtics in the Eastern Conference Finals. There isn't a blueprint that can be used. NBA teams have to adjust the matchups and strategy used depending on which opposing team they are going up against in a playoff series.
So other teams may not try to repeat what worked for the Heat this series. Depending on who (or if they even make it) the Heat play in the NBA Finals next year they may not even use this strategy of using James at power forward.
Granted, it is easier to play the versatility card when the versatility includes James, Wade and Bosh.
Apparently this isn't "granted" because Ira Winderman is acting as if the Heat have just revolutionized the NBA as a whole.
But Brooks had Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook and James Harden and never quite was able to create similar chaos, save for dramatic rallies in the first two games of the Finals.
These guys aren't as versatile. Westbrook, Durant and Harden can play the different spot at their respective position (power/small forward, point/shooting guard), but they can't cross over positions. Harden could play some small forward, but Westbrook can't be a forward and Durant can't be a guard or a center. James can play shooting guard or power forward. Bosh can play power forward or center. This opens things open for flexibility in other roster spots. When James moves to power forward, that means Battier can play small forward and because Wade can play point guard Mike Miller can also be in the game. The Thunder didn't have this type of flexibility.
Has Pat Riley developed a better way?
No. He has not developed a better way. He has developed an exception to the usual way.
Or does he simply have better players?
He has better players who are more versatile. The blueprint the Heat have laid out is only able to be replicated if a team has a roster of versatile players and a matchup that allows a team to take advantage of this versatility. Most NBA teams don't have a roster of 2 or more players who can guard multiple positions and zero NBA teams have LeBron James.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
2 comments Ira Winderman Says Instead of Blowing Up the Celtics, Why Not Trade a Bunch of Players?
Let's talk trades. The Boston Celtics are struggling (sort of...they are still in line for a playoff spot and the Knicks are struggling just as much) and they have a bunch of old players on their roster. This isn't something we didn't know going into this year. At some point, changes will have to be made. Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen are free agents after this year, so some major changes are coming. The question remains whether the Celtics should stay put or try to rebuild the team on the fly by trading Paul Pierce, Garnett, Allen or even Rajon Rondo (not likely).
Ira Winderman of NBC Sports believes the Boston Celtics shouldn't blow up the team, they should just trade 40% of the starters currently on the team. I'm not sure there is a difference. He wants to trade Garnett and Allen, but doesn't think this is blowing up the Celtics roster. I think trading away two of the four best players on the roster isn't too different from blowing up the team entirely. He believes the Celtics should not trade Pierce, yet because Garnett and Allen are free agents after this year, Pierce and his contract is probably the best one to trade if the Celtics really want to rebuild on the fly. What is weird is Winderman thinks the Celtics should use the Mavericks model in order to ensure success at rebuilding on the fly. It is weird because the Mavericks model was implemented this year and hasn't been shown to work effectively yet.
So I'm not sure the Celtics should model a non-rebuilding, non-blowing up of the team (while two trading important players) based on a unproven plan. Not to mention dangling Pierce in a trade doesn't mean you have to trade him. Personally, I think the Celtics shouldn't trade any of their best four players unless they get a trade offer they can't refuse.
In June, no sooner were the Heat defeated by the Mavericks in the NBA finals than the debate ensued about breaking up the Big Three.
This wasn't serious talk. It wasn't talk because the Big Three were getting old or were ineffective. The talk began because the issue was cap room for the Heat and the media needs to further controversial topics to fill columns and the airwaves. I don't recall these talks about breaking up Wade, James and Bosh as ever being serious.
Amid success in Dwyane Wade's absence in recent days, the volume has intensified on that one.
To the right of the column is an NBCSports podcast entitled "Are LeBron and the Heat better off without Wade?" Is Ira Winderman reporting on a story NBC Sports has helped create? To me, this discussion is the result of short-term, potentially non-sustainable success without Wade and a self-created media story. The media starts a discussion and then breathlessly reports on it. Basically, it is ESPN's entire reporting style.
In L.A., months after being blown out in the second round by the Mavericks, and little more than a season removed from consecutive titles, the Lakers first attempted to rip it apart in a bid for Chris Paul, then sold off Lamar Odom for pennies on the dollar to Dallas.
The Lakers sold Odom because he was unhappy and wanted a trade after finding out he was part of the failed Chris Paul trade discussions. I'm not sure this trade was of the Lakers choosing. Odom wanted out and the Lakers were looking to clear cap space in order to lure Dwight Howard to the Lakers. Notice who the Lakers traded Odom to. The Dallas Mavericks. So Winderman is essentially saying the Mavericks have a plan to take a step back to cut cap space for the future, while also being the beneficiary of a team cutting cap space for the future and taking on larger, non-expiring salaries.
And now the Celtics, a team that advanced to the 2010 NBA finals and might have made it back in 2011 with an ambulatory center, are threatening a core meltdown.
First, step back and consider whether we even would be debating the Celtics had Kendrick Perkins not been dealt to the Thunder last season (or at least had Jeff Green not been detected with a season-ending heart condition in the wake of the lockout).
Yes, we would. Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen would still be a year older and Jeff Green really isn't anything more than a borderline starter or key guy coming off the bench. A healthy Jeff Green would help and I still don't like the Perkins trade, but Perkins/Green's presence on the roster would not change much. The core problem with the Celtics, at least in my mind, which is their age and lack of bench depth would still be present with Kendrick Perkins on the roster. I think many people have turned Perkins into a cure-all player who in reality was important to the Celtics current roster, but doesn't necessarily have as much value once the needed roster changes happen. Perkins is a great fit for the Celtics when they have a defensive-minded, shot blocking power forward. It's a great role for him. He isn't a scorer and he isn't going to be any more than a team's fifth best starter.
For as ugly as it has gotten for Boston at the start this season, it would not nearly be as ugly if Perkins were there to ease the inside burden on Kevin Garnett, or if Green's versatility was in place to alleviate the scoring load on Paul Pierce or Ray Allen.
Of course, but that's why you have backups. The Celtics have half-assed backing up their center and wing positions over the past couple of years and so they are paying for it this year. Sure, they haven't had a ton of cap room,. A lack of cap room probably somewhat affected their chances at getting better players, but it left them in a position where they had to hurt one position (center) in order to reinforce another position (the backup wing spot) last season. Hence the Perkins-Green trade.
With Perkins or Green, we wouldn't be here, at this intersection of allowing it to play out and blowing it apart.
Yes, we would. Garnett and Allen would still be free agents and neither Perkins or Green are cornerstone franchise pieces. They are guys who fit a role well, but they need good players around them to fill that role.
Why deal Perkins, when a mega-bucks contract decision would have had to have been made with Green, anyway?
This is irrelevant, even if it is a good point. I don't think the Celtics should have traded Perkins last season either. The issue the Celtics are facing is whether to ride this team out with Garnett and Allen as potential free agents or try to get value for them now and hurt the team in the short-term. Pierce is also out there as trade bait because you never know what kind of offer you may get for him. Trading Garnett and Allen would be giving up on a #1-#4 playoff spot and essentially giving up on the year...no matter what Ira Winderman tells us.
Why lock Doc Rivers into a new, long-term deal if there was even an iota of a thought about rebuilding?
Because the Celtics ownership thinks he is a good coach?
And why continually dangle Rajon Rondo while he remains the lone youthful component that could be utilized as a foundation for rebuilding?
Again, to see what return could be had for Rondo. The same reason Pierce is being dangled. These are two valuable players with non-expiring contracts. If Chris Paul could have been had for Rondo, isn't that a trade worth making?
This is the NBA, where the last time the Celtics blew it up they went eight seasons, starting in 1994, with just one playoff victory. Not one series victory, but winning one playoff game over an eight-year span.
And why did the Celtics have to blow it up at that point and failed? Because they held on too long with their veteran players instead of trading them on the fly. Because their best young player died of a heart condition. So if this is an analogous situation, and Rondo doesn't have a heart condition, then perhaps learning from history would say trading key players while still getting value is the best move.
What is so funny is Winderman and I are arguing to the same conclusion. He says the Celtics shouldn't blow it up, which I agree with at this point, but he is arguing this based on also stating the Celtics should trade Garnett and Allen. I count this as blowing up the Celtics. So he is essentially advocating the 2011-2012 Celtics do the exact thing the Celtics should have done prior to 1994, but did not do. Winderman is using the Celtics failure to not blow up the roster prior to 1994 as reasoning for why they shouldn't blow up the team during 11-12. Yet, the 1994 season is a perfect reason why the Celtics should blow up the roster (meaning trade two of the best four players is "blowing the roster up," no matter what Ira Winderman says) this year.
The counterargument, the one being mulled these days by Ainge, is that the step back does not have to be one off a cliff, if it is taken with the proper foresight, that the NBA's new collective-bargaining agreement rewards teams who build cap stashes.
On the surface, that appears to be the approach being taken by Mark Cuban in Dallas, who despite winning the 2011 championship allowed Tyson Chandler, J.J. Barea and DeShawn Stevenson to walk in the offseason without compensation.
This approach has not been proven to work yet. Let's remember this. The Mavericks could use a tall center who can block shots and play defense. You know, like Tyson Chandler.
What is even more interesting is Winderman uses the Mavericks as a potential destination for Kevin Garnett. So while trading for Odom and Garnett by the Mavericks, and the trading of Garnett by the Celtics, would the Mavericks and Celtics really be using similar rebuilding philosophies?
But there is a difference here, a significant difference from the nuclear winter being forecast in Boston:
Nowitzki is 33; Pierce is 34. Dirk was MVP of the Finals last season; Pierce in 2008. Yes, Pierce's numbers have come down in recent seasons, but he still is a go-to scorer, a player capable of creating needed baskets in a league where such players simply have not come free other than during Pat Riley's one-time score in July 2010.
But for how much longer will Pierce be this guy? He is shooting 42% right now and may not be that go-to guy for much longer. I am not advocating the Celtics trade Pierce, but what if the Celtics manage to get a good haul for him? There's no harm in at least seeing what the market is like. This would never happen, but what if the Hornets offered (after February 12th of course) Chris Kaman and Eric Gordon for Paul Pierce and Avery Bradley? You just never know what trade opportunity may be available to improve the team in the long-term.
Then consider the state of the Eastern Conference. Considering Charlotte, Washington, Detroit, Cleveland, Toronto and New Jersey already have reservations at the lottery, it essentially would come down to beating out Milwaukee for the eighth seed. Even at Boston's current depths, that seems not only doable, but likely.
What would make sense is dangling the expiring contracts of Allen and Garnett to contenders who could ship back either prospects or else similar expiring contracts and draft picks.
This does make sense. As does dangling Pierce or Rondo to see what they could return. There is a deep NBA Draft coming up, so if Pierce could net a first round pick and a quality player why not look into that too? The mistake a lot of teams make while rebuilding on the fly is half-assing it. Trying to rebuild while also stay competitive, but not wanting to trade too many good players or listen to offers for certain players. I don't think the Celtics are doing that, which is why Pierce/Rondo have been on the table.
Allen to Chicago in a package for Omer Asik would be a win-win for each side, the Bulls getting a better-than-Rip Hamilton sidekick for Derrick Rose, while the Celtics get a taste of the future in the middle.
The issue with this trade is it would have to be Omer Asik and a combination of other players for Allen. If the Bulls traded Asik they would also have to throw in other guys to make the trade work and the Bulls don't have expiring contracts. So the Celtics wouldn't really be gaining cap room in the long-term, which I think is their intent. I'm not sure if these teams match up very well. Not to mention, why would the Celtics trade Allen to the team they may face in the first round of the NBA Playoffs?
As for Garnett, the $21 million salary is massive, but Cuban, of all people, has the pieces to potentially concoct something in return.
How would this trade be made without hurting the Mavericks though? They have expiring contracts in Jason Terry and Jason Kidd, but this would weaken the Mavericks this year without these two players. Terry and Kidd's expiring contracts are also of value to the Mavericks, as well as the Celtics. The players the Celtics would get in return would not have expiring contracts, which wouldn't help them build around Paul Pierce. If the Mavericks and Celtics have similar goals to clear cap space, maybe they aren't the best partners in a trade.
With Rondo and Pierce, Boston still would measure up ahead of the Bucks, and therefore still measure up for a playoff spot.
Trading Garnett and Allen would be blowing the Celtics up in some ways. The Celtics would be a lesser team and it would big roster upheaval. They have valuable contracts because they are expiring and can give the Celtics room to sign players in the offseason. Pierce and Rondo have expensive contracts that aren't expiring after this year, so I can see how the urge to dangle them would be there.
For now, Ainge needs to take a deep breath before blowing up anything in Boston.
And then after taking this deep breath Winderman thinks Ainge should trade the Celtics best perimeter shooter and rebounder.
With a subtle touch, the playoffs — as well as rapid regeneration — remain not only plausible but eminently possible.
This can happen by trading Pierce to a contender and then using the cap space from Garnett and Allen's expiring contracts to rebuild the team. I don't think the Celtics should make a move necessarily, but trading Allen and Garnett would be blowing up the team in essence. It would be conceding the Celtics are playing for a lower playoff spot. Trading these two players is anything but subtle.
Ira Winderman of NBC Sports believes the Boston Celtics shouldn't blow up the team, they should just trade 40% of the starters currently on the team. I'm not sure there is a difference. He wants to trade Garnett and Allen, but doesn't think this is blowing up the Celtics roster. I think trading away two of the four best players on the roster isn't too different from blowing up the team entirely. He believes the Celtics should not trade Pierce, yet because Garnett and Allen are free agents after this year, Pierce and his contract is probably the best one to trade if the Celtics really want to rebuild on the fly. What is weird is Winderman thinks the Celtics should use the Mavericks model in order to ensure success at rebuilding on the fly. It is weird because the Mavericks model was implemented this year and hasn't been shown to work effectively yet.
So I'm not sure the Celtics should model a non-rebuilding, non-blowing up of the team (while two trading important players) based on a unproven plan. Not to mention dangling Pierce in a trade doesn't mean you have to trade him. Personally, I think the Celtics shouldn't trade any of their best four players unless they get a trade offer they can't refuse.
In June, no sooner were the Heat defeated by the Mavericks in the NBA finals than the debate ensued about breaking up the Big Three.
This wasn't serious talk. It wasn't talk because the Big Three were getting old or were ineffective. The talk began because the issue was cap room for the Heat and the media needs to further controversial topics to fill columns and the airwaves. I don't recall these talks about breaking up Wade, James and Bosh as ever being serious.
Amid success in Dwyane Wade's absence in recent days, the volume has intensified on that one.
To the right of the column is an NBCSports podcast entitled "Are LeBron and the Heat better off without Wade?" Is Ira Winderman reporting on a story NBC Sports has helped create? To me, this discussion is the result of short-term, potentially non-sustainable success without Wade and a self-created media story. The media starts a discussion and then breathlessly reports on it. Basically, it is ESPN's entire reporting style.
In L.A., months after being blown out in the second round by the Mavericks, and little more than a season removed from consecutive titles, the Lakers first attempted to rip it apart in a bid for Chris Paul, then sold off Lamar Odom for pennies on the dollar to Dallas.
The Lakers sold Odom because he was unhappy and wanted a trade after finding out he was part of the failed Chris Paul trade discussions. I'm not sure this trade was of the Lakers choosing. Odom wanted out and the Lakers were looking to clear cap space in order to lure Dwight Howard to the Lakers. Notice who the Lakers traded Odom to. The Dallas Mavericks. So Winderman is essentially saying the Mavericks have a plan to take a step back to cut cap space for the future, while also being the beneficiary of a team cutting cap space for the future and taking on larger, non-expiring salaries.
And now the Celtics, a team that advanced to the 2010 NBA finals and might have made it back in 2011 with an ambulatory center, are threatening a core meltdown.
Uh ... um ... patience, anyone?
And what follows is Winderman saying the Celtics should trade Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen. I guess patience isn't the best move after all.First, step back and consider whether we even would be debating the Celtics had Kendrick Perkins not been dealt to the Thunder last season (or at least had Jeff Green not been detected with a season-ending heart condition in the wake of the lockout).
Yes, we would. Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen would still be a year older and Jeff Green really isn't anything more than a borderline starter or key guy coming off the bench. A healthy Jeff Green would help and I still don't like the Perkins trade, but Perkins/Green's presence on the roster would not change much. The core problem with the Celtics, at least in my mind, which is their age and lack of bench depth would still be present with Kendrick Perkins on the roster. I think many people have turned Perkins into a cure-all player who in reality was important to the Celtics current roster, but doesn't necessarily have as much value once the needed roster changes happen. Perkins is a great fit for the Celtics when they have a defensive-minded, shot blocking power forward. It's a great role for him. He isn't a scorer and he isn't going to be any more than a team's fifth best starter.
For as ugly as it has gotten for Boston at the start this season, it would not nearly be as ugly if Perkins were there to ease the inside burden on Kevin Garnett, or if Green's versatility was in place to alleviate the scoring load on Paul Pierce or Ray Allen.
Of course, but that's why you have backups. The Celtics have half-assed backing up their center and wing positions over the past couple of years and so they are paying for it this year. Sure, they haven't had a ton of cap room,. A lack of cap room probably somewhat affected their chances at getting better players, but it left them in a position where they had to hurt one position (center) in order to reinforce another position (the backup wing spot) last season. Hence the Perkins-Green trade.
With Perkins or Green, we wouldn't be here, at this intersection of allowing it to play out and blowing it apart.
Yes, we would. Garnett and Allen would still be free agents and neither Perkins or Green are cornerstone franchise pieces. They are guys who fit a role well, but they need good players around them to fill that role.
Why deal Perkins, when a mega-bucks contract decision would have had to have been made with Green, anyway?
This is irrelevant, even if it is a good point. I don't think the Celtics should have traded Perkins last season either. The issue the Celtics are facing is whether to ride this team out with Garnett and Allen as potential free agents or try to get value for them now and hurt the team in the short-term. Pierce is also out there as trade bait because you never know what kind of offer you may get for him. Trading Garnett and Allen would be giving up on a #1-#4 playoff spot and essentially giving up on the year...no matter what Ira Winderman tells us.
Why lock Doc Rivers into a new, long-term deal if there was even an iota of a thought about rebuilding?
Because the Celtics ownership thinks he is a good coach?
And why continually dangle Rajon Rondo while he remains the lone youthful component that could be utilized as a foundation for rebuilding?
Again, to see what return could be had for Rondo. The same reason Pierce is being dangled. These are two valuable players with non-expiring contracts. If Chris Paul could have been had for Rondo, isn't that a trade worth making?
This is the NBA, where the last time the Celtics blew it up they went eight seasons, starting in 1994, with just one playoff victory. Not one series victory, but winning one playoff game over an eight-year span.
And why did the Celtics have to blow it up at that point and failed? Because they held on too long with their veteran players instead of trading them on the fly. Because their best young player died of a heart condition. So if this is an analogous situation, and Rondo doesn't have a heart condition, then perhaps learning from history would say trading key players while still getting value is the best move.
What is so funny is Winderman and I are arguing to the same conclusion. He says the Celtics shouldn't blow it up, which I agree with at this point, but he is arguing this based on also stating the Celtics should trade Garnett and Allen. I count this as blowing up the Celtics. So he is essentially advocating the 2011-2012 Celtics do the exact thing the Celtics should have done prior to 1994, but did not do. Winderman is using the Celtics failure to not blow up the roster prior to 1994 as reasoning for why they shouldn't blow up the team during 11-12. Yet, the 1994 season is a perfect reason why the Celtics should blow up the roster (meaning trade two of the best four players is "blowing the roster up," no matter what Ira Winderman says) this year.
The counterargument, the one being mulled these days by Ainge, is that the step back does not have to be one off a cliff, if it is taken with the proper foresight, that the NBA's new collective-bargaining agreement rewards teams who build cap stashes.
On the surface, that appears to be the approach being taken by Mark Cuban in Dallas, who despite winning the 2011 championship allowed Tyson Chandler, J.J. Barea and DeShawn Stevenson to walk in the offseason without compensation.
This approach has not been proven to work yet. Let's remember this. The Mavericks could use a tall center who can block shots and play defense. You know, like Tyson Chandler.
What is even more interesting is Winderman uses the Mavericks as a potential destination for Kevin Garnett. So while trading for Odom and Garnett by the Mavericks, and the trading of Garnett by the Celtics, would the Mavericks and Celtics really be using similar rebuilding philosophies?
But there is a difference here, a significant difference from the nuclear winter being forecast in Boston:
Cuban's plan centers on reloading — perhaps with Deron Williams, perhaps with Dwight Howard — with Dirk Nowitzki still in place.
The equivalent in Boston would be doing the same with Pierce.
There is also one other significant difference. Dirk is still at the top of his game, while Pierce seems to be declining in some ways. I'm not saying the Celtics shouldn't build around Pierce, but seeing what he can return on a trade makes sense for the Celtics, while building around Dirk makes sense for the Mavericks.Nowitzki is 33; Pierce is 34. Dirk was MVP of the Finals last season; Pierce in 2008. Yes, Pierce's numbers have come down in recent seasons, but he still is a go-to scorer, a player capable of creating needed baskets in a league where such players simply have not come free other than during Pat Riley's one-time score in July 2010.
But for how much longer will Pierce be this guy? He is shooting 42% right now and may not be that go-to guy for much longer. I am not advocating the Celtics trade Pierce, but what if the Celtics manage to get a good haul for him? There's no harm in at least seeing what the market is like. This would never happen, but what if the Hornets offered (after February 12th of course) Chris Kaman and Eric Gordon for Paul Pierce and Avery Bradley? You just never know what trade opportunity may be available to improve the team in the long-term.
Then consider the state of the Eastern Conference. Considering Charlotte, Washington, Detroit, Cleveland, Toronto and New Jersey already have reservations at the lottery, it essentially would come down to beating out Milwaukee for the eighth seed. Even at Boston's current depths, that seems not only doable, but likely.
In fact, it would be achievable even in the midst of Ainge's restructuring, but not demolishing.
I think there is too much panic over the Celtics current state of affairs and regardless of how Winderman spins this, trading Garnett/Allen and accepting a #7 or #8 seed is giving up on this current year. I also like how trading Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett is seen as "restructuring." Trading 40% of your starters seems like a demolishing of sorts to me.What would make sense is dangling the expiring contracts of Allen and Garnett to contenders who could ship back either prospects or else similar expiring contracts and draft picks.
This does make sense. As does dangling Pierce or Rondo to see what they could return. There is a deep NBA Draft coming up, so if Pierce could net a first round pick and a quality player why not look into that too? The mistake a lot of teams make while rebuilding on the fly is half-assing it. Trying to rebuild while also stay competitive, but not wanting to trade too many good players or listen to offers for certain players. I don't think the Celtics are doing that, which is why Pierce/Rondo have been on the table.
Allen to Chicago in a package for Omer Asik would be a win-win for each side, the Bulls getting a better-than-Rip Hamilton sidekick for Derrick Rose, while the Celtics get a taste of the future in the middle.
The issue with this trade is it would have to be Omer Asik and a combination of other players for Allen. If the Bulls traded Asik they would also have to throw in other guys to make the trade work and the Bulls don't have expiring contracts. So the Celtics wouldn't really be gaining cap room in the long-term, which I think is their intent. I'm not sure if these teams match up very well. Not to mention, why would the Celtics trade Allen to the team they may face in the first round of the NBA Playoffs?
As for Garnett, the $21 million salary is massive, but Cuban, of all people, has the pieces to potentially concoct something in return.
How would this trade be made without hurting the Mavericks though? They have expiring contracts in Jason Terry and Jason Kidd, but this would weaken the Mavericks this year without these two players. Terry and Kidd's expiring contracts are also of value to the Mavericks, as well as the Celtics. The players the Celtics would get in return would not have expiring contracts, which wouldn't help them build around Paul Pierce. If the Mavericks and Celtics have similar goals to clear cap space, maybe they aren't the best partners in a trade.
With Rondo and Pierce, Boston still would measure up ahead of the Bucks, and therefore still measure up for a playoff spot.
Trading Garnett and Allen would be blowing the Celtics up in some ways. The Celtics would be a lesser team and it would big roster upheaval. They have valuable contracts because they are expiring and can give the Celtics room to sign players in the offseason. Pierce and Rondo have expensive contracts that aren't expiring after this year, so I can see how the urge to dangle them would be there.
For now, Ainge needs to take a deep breath before blowing up anything in Boston.
And then after taking this deep breath Winderman thinks Ainge should trade the Celtics best perimeter shooter and rebounder.
With a subtle touch, the playoffs — as well as rapid regeneration — remain not only plausible but eminently possible.
This can happen by trading Pierce to a contender and then using the cap space from Garnett and Allen's expiring contracts to rebuild the team. I don't think the Celtics should make a move necessarily, but trading Allen and Garnett would be blowing up the team in essence. It would be conceding the Celtics are playing for a lower playoff spot. Trading these two players is anything but subtle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)