8 comments Bill Simmons Has a Friend Who Didn't Want Carmelo Anthony on the Lakers Team, So Obviously Most Lakers Fans Felt That Way

I wasn't going to originally cover Bill Simmons' column about Carmelo Anthony. I do try to limit the amount I write about Bill and I had just written another post written by him. Plus, I didn't take the time to read the Anthony article. It just seemed like another "deep thought" column about an NBA player that Bill seems to be trying to do more and more of lately. It was suggested on Twitter that I read it, so I did, and here we are. It's the typical Bill Simmons columns where he takes an opinion held by one person, extrapolates it to mean the opinion of others and then adds a little bit of his opinion disguised as a fact in order to prove his opinion correct. Few writers are as good as Bill Simmons in using his opinion to prove his own opinion as correct.

This wasn’t one of our happier years at the “You Can Absolutely Win a Title If Carmelo Anthony Is Your Best Player” Fan Club headquarters.

I didn't even know Bill was a member of this fan club. I can't recall him ever stating he was a member of this fan club either. Oh, and this column is titled "No Escape from New York." Get it? There was a movie called "Escape from New York."

Our man missed the 2014 playoffs in the rancid Eastern Conference, then received a rude comeuppance from his new Knicks boss, Phil Jackson, who lobbied him publicly to stick around at a discount price. The Bulls couldn’t carve out enough cap space for him. The Lakers couldn’t offer a good enough supporting cast. The Rockets never gained momentum, for whatever reason. Carmelo ended up re-signing for $122 million for five years, pretending that was the plan all along … even though it wasn’t.

Yeah, tough year. Carmelo had to walk away with $24.4 million per year and got to stay in one of the largest NBA markets. Fan club members should probably like that.

You know what really shocked me? Hearing Knicks fans and Lakers fans wonder whether it was a smart idea to splurge on Carmelo at all. Where are you REALLY going if he’s your best player?, they kept asking. 

What this translates to mean is, "I know a guy who is a Lakers fan and didn't want Carmelo to sign with the Lakers." Because we all know the opinion of Bill's friends are indicative of the larger population as well. I'm sure there are plenty of Lakers fans who didn't want the team to sign Carmelo, but to pretend the opinion of Bill's friends is representative of Lakers fans everywhere is silly.

Take my friend Lewis, a lifelong Southern California guy, one of those complicated superfans who’s nutty enough to grow a beard for the entire NHL playoffs, only he’s rational enough to freak out over Kobe’s cap-crippling two-year extension, but he’s also irrational enough to still believe the Lakers could eventually sign Kevin Love AND Kevin Durant. You can always count on him for a rationally irrational reaction, if that makes sense.

Very little of this stuff ever makes sense. But I'm sure Lewis is the perfect representation to base an entire premise around and then write an entire column based entirely on this premise. After all, beats working.

When news broke two weekends ago that the Lakers had become serious Carmelo contenders, I couldn’t wait for Lewis’s reaction.

And I can't wait to hear about Lewis's reaction. I hope Bill provides it word-for-word in text form so I get the full experience of Lewis's reaction. Also, it's obvious Lewis isn't famous because otherwise Bill would use his full name so that his readers knows he is friends with famous people. Jimmy Kimmel isn't "Jimmy," Adam Carolla isn't "Adam," and the examples could go on. As a general rule, Bill uses full names when it is someone the reader knows as a celebrity.

Instead, here’s the email exchange we had.

Me: Are u officially in Carmelo mode? Lewis: God no. Hope he goes to the Knicks.

HOW INSIGHTFUL! LAKERS FANS AS A WHOLE DON'T WANT CARMELO ANTHONY! QUICK, GET TO THE KEYBOARD AND WRITE AN ENTIRE COLUMN, BUT FIRST TRANSCRIBE THE ENTIRE EMAIL EXCHANGE.

Me: You don’t mean that. Lewis: It’s a bandaid on a broken arm. It locks them up with no flexibility for two years until Kobe goes.

He didn’t want Carmelo Anthony??? On the Lakers???

Putting more question marks at the end of a sentence isn't going to make it suddenly less true or even true when extrapolated to show how Lakers fans feel about Carmelo Anthony as a whole.

I surfed a few Lakers blogs and message boards and found similar ambivalence. Some fans wanted him, others didn’t understand the point.

The two most accurate opinions in order to get valid, well-reasoned opinions on a subject can always be found in two places.

1. The opinion of a friend.

2. The opinion expressed on message boards.

What could go wrong with making an assumption based on the comments from these two sources?

Many felt like the rationally irrational Lewis — they wanted the Lakers to land a top-five lottery pick (if it’s lower than that, it goes to Phoenix), wipe Nash’s expiring contract off their cap, then make a run at the Kevins (Love in 2015, Durant in 2016). That’s a smart plan, except (a) they could easily stink and STILL lose that 2015 lottery pick, (b) Love will probably get traded this season (and might like his new team), (c) nobody knows what Durant wants to do, and (d) nobody knows if the post–Dr. Buss Lakers are still a destination franchise.

I know if the post-Dr. Buss Lakers are still a destination franchise. They are. They are located in California, still have a rich history, have celebrities who go to the games, and will have Kobe (who isn't the same, but he still holds weight) on the roster for the next two years. I have to believe that it's Bill's distaste for the Lakers that causes him to doubt they are still a destination franchise.

And it’s not like the Lakers are loaded with assets; they have Julius Randle, the promise of future cap space, the allure of Los Angeles and that’s about it.

I mean, if a guy wants to come to Los Angeles that's about all he needs. There is space to sign other players and he can live in Los Angeles.

They owe Kobe $23.5 million this season and $25 million next season — nearly 40 percent of their cap — without even knowing if he can play at a high level anymore.

Then when the cap goes up in two years Kobe is gone and the Lakers have a ton of room to make moves. For now, they have a guy who is insanely competitive and draws eyes to the team. And no, I'm not talking about Swaggy P, but Kobe.

Knowing that, how could any Lakers fan not want one of the best scoring forwards in NBA history? 

I don't think there are a lot of Lakers fans who wouldn't want one of the best scoring forwards in NBA history on the team. I think your friend Lewis didn't want him on the team. 

Why weren’t Knicks fans freaking out that they might lose their franchise player for nothing? Why were so many Bulls fans (and I know three of them) saying things like “I’d love to get Melo, but I hate the thought of giving up Taj [Gibson] for him”?

Bill knows three Bulls fans. THREE! I'm not sure he's ever thought that perhaps his friends are stupid and irrational. That could never be true though, could it?

How did Carmelo Anthony, only 30 years old and still in his prime, become the NBA’s most underappreciated and misunderstood player?

Because the media has beaten the "Carmelo Anthony is a great player, but isn't a winner who can lead a team to the NBA title narrative" and many fans can start to think the same way due to the constant onslaught of this narrative. I'm probably slightly guilty of it too. I would like for Anthony to play for the Celtics though. Not sure I would mind that.

Again, the idea that Bill's friends may be irrational and hold a minority opinion simply doesn't occur to him. It couldn't be true. Bill is very smart and so therefore his friends are smart because they are associated with him.

Now comes the part where Bill starts handing out opinions like they are facts and then treats his opinion as fact. He tends to do this often.

The problems start here: Carmelo Anthony is definitely better than your typical All-Star, but he’s not quite a superstar. You know what that makes him? An almost-but-not-quite-superstar.

Oh, okay. I didn't realize this was an official thing. It's always fun how Bill's hand out opinions as facts and then uses those facts to support his argument. It's very stereotypical only-childish of him.

He’s not Leo DiCaprio or Will Smith — he can’t open a movie by himself. He’s more like Seth Rogen or Channing Tatum — he can open the right movie by himself. There’s a big difference.

The only difference is that Will Smith does completely different movies from Seth Rogen. This is an annoying comparison. It only clouds the issue and tries to cover for the fact Bill is throwing an opinion out there and tries to make it seem like it's a fact. Some people do consider Carmelo Anthony to be a superstar.

Here’s something I wrote on July 8, 2010, the day that LeBron took his talents to South Beach.

I need my NBA superstar to sell tickets, generate interest locally and nationally, single-handedly guarantee an average supporting cast 45-50 wins, and potentially be the best player on a Finals team if the other pieces are in place, which means only LeBron, Wade, Howard, Durant and Kobe qualify. There’s a level just a shade below (the Almost-But-Not-Quite-Superstar) with Steve Nash, Dirk Nowitzki, Carmelo Anthony, Brandon Roy, Chris Paul and Deron Williams. (Note: I think Derrick Rose gets there next season.) Then you have elite guys like Bosh, Pau Gasol and Amar’e Stoudemire who need good teammates to help them thrive … and if they don’t have them, you’re heading to the lottery. You know what we call these people? All-Stars.

 
Sorry, Portland fans — I made a mistake not telling you to take a deep breath before you read that paragraph.

Carmelo Anthony does sell tickets, generate interest locally and nationally, has taken an average supporting cast to 45-50 wins (as Bill will later prove in this column, so how he doesn't understand Carmelo meets this definition is ridiculous), and hasn't had a chance to be in the Finals because the other pieces haven't been in place. What's dumb is Bill will, again, prove in this very article that Anthony hasn't had the supporting cast to be in the Finals. So he has no chance of being a superstar according to Bill's criteria until his supporting cast improves. Carmelo has taken steps this offseason to not put himself in a better situation with better teammates. More importantly, this fourth criteria means a player can't be labeled a superstar based on a factor that is somewhat beyond his control. I don't know if that should reflect negatively on the player or not.

But exactly four years later, those levels look like this.

Superstars: LeBron, Durant.

Almost-But-Not-Quite-Superstars: Blake Griffin, Dwight Howard, Anthony Davis, Carmelo Anthony, Kevin Love, Chris Paul, Russell Westbrook, Paul George.

Again, this is an opinion based on criteria that Bill Simmons has thrown together. Bill is using his opinion (that there is a set criteria a player has to achieve to be named a superstar) and written this opinion in one of his columns as proof that his opinion of Carmelo Anthony as not a superstar is true. Am I the only that sees the insanity of this? Can't Bill see it?

"Oh, no Carmelo Anthony isn't a superstar because I created this criteria stating he isn't a superstar based on subjective measures which were opinion-based. So taking my opinion-created criteria and then matching it up with my current opinion that Carmelo Anthony isn't a superstar, you can see that I am right in believing Carmelo Anthony isn't a superstar. Also, nevermind if criteria #4 means no player who hasn't appeared in the NBA Finals can be a superstar and it's not based on anything the player has or has not done in order to be considered a superstar."

A few semi-stunned notes about that revised list.

You created the list based on your own criteria. How can you be stunned at the results, you ass monkey? HOW? It's your opinion!

"My own opinion, which I have no control over, shocks me!"

First, two true superstars is the NBA’s lowest number since 1979, the season before Bird and Magic showed up.

I give up. I'm not going to argue this shit. Bill is discussing this list like it's not a product of his ego-driven opinion and is instead the results of a 10 year study based on facts.

Second, Anthony Davis is our only superstar in waiting right now … well, unless you feel like bending the rules and counting Joel Embiid If He Stays Healthy or my illegitimate Australian son, Ben Simmons (a frighteningly gifted high schooler who looks like Benji Wilson 2.0).

Kevin Love is 25, Paul George is 24. It's not like they are old. Also, way for Bill to plug a "30 for 30" while trying to drop knowledge about high school basketball players he's only seen YouTube clips of.

Our 30 for 30 about Benji is streaming on Netflix. 

Of course it is, Bill. Your column is one big YouTube link and advertisement for other Grantland content.

Third, we’re in the middle of an under-30 talent boom that’s as loaded as any run since the early ’90s, and yet we dipped from 11 superstars and almost-but-not-quite-superstars in 2010 to 10 of those guys in 2014. Six dropped out and five jumped in, not including Rose, who briefly careered into the superstar group in 2011 and 2012.

Bill is apparently going to keep talking about this list as if it holds anything other than the results of four criteria he created purely through the use of his opinion. It takes a special kind of ego to believe your opinion is a fact and then base a defense of another opinion based on your previous opinion.

And fourth, Carmelo’s 2014 level was a tougher call than everyone else’s combined. After all, he’s made one conference finals and zero Finals. He’s never won more than 54 regular-season games or made an All-NBA first team, although he did finish third in 2013’s MVP voting (no small feat).

Yes, he did meet every arbitrary criteria on the list, except for the criteria required which he has only a limited amount of control over. That criteria is the pieces falling together on a Finals team with that player as the best on that Finals team. Outside of choosing a team with a great supporting cast already in place (which Anthony did seem to have the option of doing), he doesn't have a ton of control over his supporting cast once he chooses a team.

Most damning, Carmelo has lost nearly twice as many playoff games as he has won: 23 wins, 44 losses. You can’t even use the whole “Look, Carmelo can drag any mediocre team to 44 wins and the playoffs!” argument anymore — not after last season.

The Knicks weren't mediocre last year. They were worse than that. Raymond Felton was the starting point guard and J.R. Smith was the second-best player on the team. I'm not a big Carmelo Anthony fan, but he dragged them to 37 wins. Take Anthony off that roster and they are contending for the #1 overall pick.

So what’s left? Can’t we downgrade him to All-Star and be done with it? 

I don't know, Bill. It's your fucking list so do what you want. Me personally, I'm going to assume most fans of the Bulls, Lakers and Knicks wanted Carmelo Anthony to play for their team and feel good knowing this is probably true in the majority. After all, what if I have four friends that agree with my point of view?

For me, it keeps coming back to one question: Can you win the NBA championship if Carmelo Anthony is your best player?

The short answer: Yes.

You can.

Bill Simmons' opinion: You can win an NBA title with Carmelo Anthony as the best player on the team.

Bill Simmons' opinion: Carmelo Anthony isn't a superstar because he hasn't made an NBA Finals as the best player on that team.

So Anthony is a superstar once forces outside of his complete control come together. Bill thinks he's a superstar, but the criteria Bill created which he has no control over doesn't necessarily agree with Anthony being a superstar. In conclusion, I have a headache.

If you believe Carmelo can lead a championship team, you’re leaning heavily on that 2011 Mavs playbook — you’d need all the elements we just covered, and you’d need Carmelo to unleash a damned good Dirk impression.

Only one problem: Dirk was better than Carmelo is.

Oh no. What ever shall be done?

Dirk is one of the 20 best basketball players of all time by any calculation.

Absolutely not true. Here are some facts I just created to prove my opinion is correct. The criteria to be one of the 20 best basketball players of all-time are as follows:

1. Have won at least one NBA title.

2. Has either played for the Lakers, Heat or Celtics.

3. Is from the United States.

4. Thinks that English Muffins are the wimpy version of a bagel.

5. That is all.

So you can see that Dirk isn't even close to being one of the best basketball players of all-time because he fails on two criteria and I don't know what Dirk thinks of English Muffins, but I do know he is from Germany, so there's a good chance he doesn't appreciate bagels to the extent he should. As you can see, Dirk isn't one of the 20 best basketball players based on the set of facts I just created.

He won an MVP and a Finals MVP. He made four first-team All-NBA’s and five second-team All-NBA’s. He won 50-plus games for 11 straight years, topped 60 wins three times, made two Finals, beat LeBron and Wade in the Finals, and won a Game 7 in San Antonio during Duncan’s prime.

And we all know, "Having won a Game 7 in San Antonio during Duncan's prime" is the MOST IMPORTANT cherry-picked criteria of all. Not even LeBron James has done this. Michael Jordan didn't do it. Magic Johnson didn't do it.

Amazing but true: Dirk never played with a Hall of Famer in that Hall of Famer’s prime.

See, now this is a fact. See how that works, Bill? It's fine to base an opinion off this fact, because the fact isn't an opinion, but has concrete proof behind it. There is a basketball Hall of Fame and Dirk hasn't played with a Hall of Famer while in his prime. Baby steps...

Bill starts listing Dirk's statistics as he is prone to do in order to kill space. Dirk is great, I'll leave it at that.

That’s why I dislike comparing Carmelo and Dirk. But I keep coming back to these two playoff lines:
2011 Dirk (21 games): 27.7 ppg, 8.1 rpg, 2.5 apg, 49-46-94%, 8.9 FTA, 25.2 PER
 
2009 Melo (16 games): 27.2 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 4.1 apg, 45-36-83%, 9.0 FTA, 24.3 PER

Bill dislikes comparing Carmelo to Dirk, but he doesn't hate it enough to base his opinion that Carmelo can be the best player on an NBA title team on a direct comparison to Dirk's 2011 Mavs. Then Bill directly compares Carmelo and Dirk's playoff statistics to each other. But yeah, he dislikes that comparison.

The 2009 Nuggets were Carmelo’s best team; they fell to Kobe’s Lakers in Round 3 with a poor man’s version of the 2011 Mavs. George Karl wasn’t Carlisle. Nene and Kenyon Martin couldn’t protect the rim like Chandler. They didn’t have a perimeter defender anywhere close to Marion’s caliber. They couldn’t shoot 3s nearly as well (only 31 percent for that Lakers series). They relied way too heavily on J.R. Smith, who imploded against Kobe and got outscored 204 points to 76 points.

This is the same J.R. Smith who was the second-best player on the 2014 Knicks by the way.

Again, in all caps … THAT’S THE MOST TALENTED PROFESSIONAL BASKETBALL TEAM THAT CARMELO ANTHONY EVER PLAYED ON.
The second-best team? You might remember them self-destructing just 14 months ago — it was the 2013 Knicks squad that won 54 games in a lousy conference with Melo, a past-his-peak Chandler, J.R. Smith, Ray Felton, a washed-up K-Mart, Iman Shumpert, Chris Copeland, Pablo Prigioni, a hobbled Amar’e Stoudemire and the immortal Mike Woodson coaching.
Again, in all caps … THAT’S THE SECOND-MOST TALENTED PROFESSIONAL BASKETBALL TEAM THAT CARMELO ANTHONY EVER PLAYED ON.

Now take that team, add another year to Chandler, add Andrei Bargnani, add another 15 pounds to Felton, and take away Chris Copeland. That was the 2014 Knicks.

So could Carmelo morph into 2011 Dirk if you gave him the right situation? We don’t know because he’s never been in the right situation.

Which is why it is silly to announce Carmelo isn't a superstar based on criteria where he could only be a superstar by being in the right situation.

As a last gasp, they used the Lakers as negotiating leverage (you better sign-and-trade Melo to Chicago or you’ll lose him for nothing!), only Jackson smartly sniffed it out. That left Carmelo with three choices:

Choice No. 1: Grab $122 million over five years from New York, play with another inferior team, miss the Finals for his 12th straight season, and pin the rest of his prime — which he’s never getting back, by the way — on Jackson’s promise that “We’ll Have Gobs of Cap Space in the Summer of 2015!!!”

This, along with more first round draft picks, is the promise the Celtics have made to the entire fanbase while attempting to trade the only player on the team who could be considered a star. I feel this requires mentioning.

Choice No. 3: Sign a four-year deal in Chicago for less money (starting around $14-15 million), become the crunch-time guy for an absolutely loaded Bulls team, and answer every question anyone ever asked about him.

At the same time, I wanted to know once and for all. I wanted to know how good Carmelo Anthony is. Because, right now, I believe the following things:
1. He’s one of the best natural scorers I’ve ever seen.
 
2. He’s one of the NBA’s eight or nine best players and has been for some time.
 
3. He could win you a title on his version of the 2011 Mavs.

Again, those are just opinions.

So far this entire column, including the decision that Carmelo is not a superstar and the idea that Lakers fans didn't want to sign Carmelo, are opinions as well. They are proven correct mostly using more opinions.

But what am I about to present to you? All facts.

1. His best team ever was the 2009 Nuggets. (Covered above.)
2. His best teammates ever: Chauncey Billups (post-Detroit version), Allen Iverson (post-Philly version), Andre Miller, Marcus Camby, Amar’e Stoudemire (post-Phoenix version, right as his knees were going), Tyson Chandler (post-Dallas version), Kenyon Martin (post-Nets version), Nene (never an All-Star — not once) and the one and only J.R. Smith.

I'm not entirely sure Bill understands what an "opinion" is. I feel like Bill believes an opinion is a belief based on a future outcome and not a belief based on a prior outcome. While I can't argue necessarily with #1 and #2 above, they are both most certainly very close to be an opinion. Inarguable opinions, but opinions nonetheless.

4. He had only four teammates make an All-Star Game: Iverson (2007, 2008), Billups (2009, 2010), Amar’e (2011) and Chandler (2013).

That wasn't even the good All-Star version of those players either. Yuck.

5. He had five head coaches in 11 years: Jeff Bzdelik (never coached again),

Well, he was the head coach for the Wake Forest men's basketball team, but it's true he never did coach again. Bzdelik was the head coach, but mostly just managed the constant wave of transfers out of the Wake Forest program during his tenure.
 
Meanwhile, Dirk had three coaches in 15 years: Don Nelson (Hall of Famer), Avery Johnson (made a Finals and also won 67 games in a season) and Rick Carlisle (future Hall of Famer).

Wait, is this true? Rick Carlisle is a future Hall of Famer? I think he's a great coach, but a future Hall of Famer?

7. He suffered bad luck two different times — when an already loaded Pistons team unbelievably picked Darko over him in 2003, and when his agent didn’t follow LeBron’s and Wade’s lead by putting a three-year out into Melo’s first contract extension (with Denver). In the summer of 2010, Melo could have stolen Bosh’s spot in Miami or jumped to the up-and-coming Bulls, only he couldn’t get out of his deal for another year. Those were his two best chances to find a true contender. 0-for-2.

But alternatively, when he had the chance to take less money this past offseason and join the Bulls, a team that was a true contender, he chose to take the money in New York. Carmelo had a chance to find a true contender and his choice was get more money in New York with the Knicks. Bill can't lose sight of this.

9. Carmelo is averaging 25.3 points for his entire career. Only 13 players averaged at least 25 points, and only 10 have a higher average than Melo: Jordan (30.1), Wilt (30.1), LeBron (27.5), Durant (27.4), Elgin (27.4), West (27.0), Iverson (26.7), Pettit (26.4), Oscar (25.7) and Kobe (25.5). Yes, that’s a list with six Hall of Famers and four future Hall of Famers.

And most of these guys can be considered superstars too, which leads me to the dead horse I won't beat. Carmelo may not be a superstar, but he's got a lot going for him statistically that could lead a person in that direction. What he doesn't do is meet Bill's subjective criteria to be considered a superstar.

Then Bill compares Carmelo favorably to Dominique Wilkins, Paul Pierce, Adrian Dantley, and Bernard King. This, naturally, leads to a brief discussion of the Boston Celtics because Bernard King played well against the Celtics. This impresses Bill to no end.

Bernard doubled as the most frightening non-Jordan scorer I’ve ever seen in my life — he took the 1984 Celts to a Game 7 by himself, for God’s sake. My team threw Kevin McHale (the NBA’s best defender at the time) and Cedric Maxwell at him, with Bird helping and Robert Parish protecting the rim, and it just didn’t matter.

There is the brief discussion. This column wouldn't be complete without a small Celtics remembrance from the 1980's.

Carmelo? He’s 92 percent as frightening as 1984 Playoff Bernard was. 

Not 91% or 93%, but 92% as frightening as 1984 Playoff Bernard was. These are very specific statistics based on whatever number comes out of Bill's brain at the time. You want facts? There's your facts.

14. You realize that Carmelo is better right now than he’s ever been, right?
• Years 1-2: 20.9 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 43-30-79%, 17.2 PER, 35.7 mpg, 28.8 usage, .094 WS/48
 
• Years 3-9: 25.9 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 46-33-81%, 21.4 PER, 36.3 mpg, 32.0 usage, .140 WS/48
 
• Years 10-11: 28.0 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 45-39-84%, 24.6 PER, 37.9 mpg, 33.9 usage, .177 WS/48
As his offensive workload has increased, he’s figured out how to become even MORE efficient by expanding his shooting range to 25 feet … only he’s never stopped getting to the free throw line, either.

But again, don't consider him a superstar. He couldn't even take the Knicks to the playoffs this year. You like how Bill talks out of both sides of his mouth a little here? He says Carmelo is great and goes to great lengths to prove it, but he also makes sure he has a mention in this column that maybe Carmelo should be moved down into the All-Star ranking of Bill's arbitrary rankings.

So what’s left? Can’t we downgrade him to All-Star and be done with it? Isn’t 11 years enough time to know — to truly, unequivocally know — whether it’s with television shows, music groups, girlfriends, quarterbacks or basketball players?

So Bill is sort of covered no matter how Carmelo's career pans outs. He has said perhaps Carmelo should be downgraded to All-Star level and then goes on and on about how great of a player Carmelo still is. All bases are covered.

And you know what else? Carmelo never received enough credit for playing efficiently as a hybrid small forward/stretch 4, especially last season,

This from the guy who asks the open-ended question of whether Carmelo isn't even an almost-but-not-quite superstar, but instead is just an All-Star.

Everyone bitched about his “ball-stopping” — something of which he’s definitely been guilty, from time to time, over the past few years — but when your coach is in a basketball coma and your entire offense has degenerated into “throw the ball to Melo and he’ll have to create a shot,” what do you expect? Every opponent went into every Knicks game saying, “As long as we don’t let Carmelo kill us, we’re winning tonight.” And he still threw up 28 a night and played the most efficient basketball of his career. 

As I am prone to doing when reaching near the end of a Bill Simmons column, I have to ask, what was the point of this column? It's shockingly rambling, even for a Bill Simmons column, it doesn't appear to prove anything other than Carmelo Anthony is better than "we" think, and the basic premise (that Carmelo's potential will never be achieved because he chose to go back to New York rather than take a pay cut and go to Chicago) is only mentioned and never actually stated explicitly by Bill. So this column is rather indicative of Bill's worst rambling qualities.

If you think of him like a Hall of Fame wide receiver — say, Larry Fitzgerald — Carmelo’s career makes more sense. 

No, it doesn't. It makes more sense to simply state Carmelo never reached his potential because he never played on a team that allowed him to achieve his potential, rather than start using an overcomplicated analogy that says this same thing, only with more work involved to reach the conclusion.

Fitz tossed up monster stats with Kurt Warner throwing to him. Once the likes of John Skelton and Kevin Kolb started passing through his life, he wasn’t throwing up monster stats anymore. But nobody ever stopped believing Fitz was great.

Fitzgerald had 954 yards with Carson Palmer throwing him the football last year. Does Fitzgerald require a Hall of Fame quarterback to reach his potential or something?

We made excuses for him that weren’t even excuses.

"We" didn't make any excuses for Fitzgerald. Stop using "we" to indicate what "you" believe.

Why didn’t we ever feel sorry for Carmelo? It’s simple — he placed himself in this situation.

Oh, so that's why "we" didn't feel bad for Carmelo. I was wondering why "we" didn't feel bad for him. In this case, I didn't feel bad for Carmelo because he could have left this summer and chose not to. That's a lot of money to give up though and Phil Jackson isn't a tough guy to put some faith in.

There’s a good chance he will play his entire career, then retire, without ever finding the right team. Unless the Knicks miraculously strike oil next summer, his own version of the 2011 Mavericks can’t happen.

Another reference to that 2011 Mavericks team led by Dirk, the same reference and comparison that Bill dislikes so much and has made so often.

There was an alternate universe here — Chicago, for less money, for a chance to become Olympic Melo for nine months per year. He would have been flanked by Joakim Noah, Derrick Rose, Jimmy Butler, Doug McDermott, Nikola Mirotic, Kirk Hinrich and a top-five coach (Tom Thibodeau). He would have found his 2011 Mavs.

The comparison to Dirk again...by the way, that Bulls team is better than the 2011 Mavericks. This is especially true if Derrick Rose comes back healthy.

Thirty years from now, long after he has retired and hopefully spent his more than $300 million nest egg wisely, Carmelo will be sitting on the porch of one of his nine houses, nursing a drink, staring out at an ocean and thinking about the unknown. Should he have picked Chicago? How much money is enough money? What’s the price of peace? What would it have been worth to know — to really, truly know? Was he good enough? Could he have gotten there? Did he have it in him?

Or he will be sitting there thinking about all of the money he made playing basketball professionally and that's nice to have? He can also look at his Olympic Gold medals and know he won an NCAA Championship for Jim Boeheim as well. There are some things he can hang his hat on outside of deep thoughts about the price of peace.

Instead, he’ll have to settle for people like me: the ones maintaining that he WAS good enough, only it’s an opinion and not a fact.

Right. Much of this column was based on an opinion (like how many superstars are in the NBA) that Bill masquerades as facts.

In A Bronx Tale, Sonny famously tells Calogero that “the saddest thing in life is wasted talent.” Well, what happens if you didn’t waste your talent, but it kind of got wasted anyway?

But Anthony did waste his talent according to Bill. Twice Anthony had the chance to join a contending team with a stronger roster and both times he set it up to where he didn't up choosing this path. So Anthony did waste his talent in a way, and Bill even states that in this column. Anyway, speaking of wasted talent, this is the end of another Bill Simmons rambling column. 

2 comments William Rhoden Thinks Trading Carmelo Anthony for Kobe Bryant Would Bring the Knicks an NBA Title

The title there seems to about sum it all up pretty effectively. In fact, I probably don't even need to write anything else. William Rhoden thinks if the Knicks traded Carmelo Anthony for Kobe Bryant, with no further corresponding moves, then it would bring the Knicks an NBA Championship. That's it. I say good day.
...



...



...




...





...





...




Whoops, I forgot to link the column.




....



....



....



You know, I think I should write more (I bet pretty much everyone stopped reading by now...if so, the lesson is to not tempt your audience into not reading anymore) about this idea because Rhoden's reasoning desperately must be explained. Ideas like this don't just come along everyday.

The Knicks completed another disappointing season Wednesday night, beating the playoff-bound Toronto Raptors before a Madison Square Garden crowd that snacked on complimentary boxes of popcorn — a thank you from the organization to fans for enduring a 41st consecutive season without a championship.

Maybe Dan Shaughnessy can help the Knicks create a curse related to why the team can't win an NBA title so that he can in turn write a book about the curse in order to make money. This would lead to the Knicks breaking the curse, Dan making money, and everybody winning.

In the next few days, Jackson is expected to relieve Mike Woodson of his job as the Knicks’ coach, thus beginning what has become the most enjoyable time of year for Knicks fans: the season of blame and speculation.

I love that the Knicks are located in the media capital of the United States so every failure of the Knicks is treated as if other NBA teams don't have the same problems and panic-stricken fans that the Knicks have. Nope, I'm sure that's just the Knicks fans who enjoy a season of blame and speculation.

While fans in several other cities can anticipate deep playoff runs,

Depending on your definition of a "deep playoff run" then this means four teams can anticipate this happening while the rest of the NBA teams can speculate and blame all they want. Stop whining like the Knicks are in the minority in terms of making a deep playoff run this year.

Knicks fans entertain themselves with drama and debate: Who should be fired? Who should be traded? Who are the hot names to bring in?

Every fan base does this. I recognize this goes against the entitled attitude of some Knicks fans, that their struggles are not shared with other NBA teams, but every fan base does this. If you don't believe me, then check out Bleacher Report's team NBA pages. It's like an orgy of fan rosterbation.

There is something mystifying about a professional basketball team located in the world’s greatest city that for four decades has been unable to assemble a team capable of winning an N.B.A. championship.

Considering only 13 NBA teams have won an NBA title in the last four decades, I don't think it's that mystifying for me. It's not like every NBA team except the Knicks has won an NBA title in the last four decades.

As a coach, Jackson had two great players on nearly all of those championships teams: Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen with the Chicago Bulls, and Shaquille O’Neal and Kobe Bryant with the Los Angeles Lakers.

Jackson also had quite a few really good role players like Horace Grant, Toni Kukoc, Derek Fisher, Robert Horry, B.J. Armstrong, John Paxson, and Rick Fox. But hey, all you need is a great player or two and the NBA title is yours, right?

Now, in his first attempt to be a front-office executive, Jackson will need at least one player with an indomitable will to win, one capable of transforming the culture of an organization and a fan base that has become too accustomed to mediocrity and frustration.

Because trading for a 36 year old (which is Kobe's age at the beginning of next season) who is coming off a major injury and has a huge contract isn't setting the Knicks up for mediocrity and frustration. In fact, trading for Kobe Bryant would be a typical Knicks move. If Rhoden thinks it is mystifying that the Knicks haven't won a title in four decades, then he needs to look no further than this trade suggestion to understand as to why that may be. Taking on veterans with huge contracts or giving veterans huge contracts doesn't necessarily lead to an NBA title.

That player would be Bryant.

Jackson needs to talk Bryant into somehow joining him in New York for one last great mission in both of their careers: setting the table for the Knicks to win another championship.

Oh, I didn't know Kobe would be "setting the table" for another championship ("another" championship?...but it's been four decades and Rhoden is throwing "another" around like the Knicks have won a championship since the Beatles broke up) and not actually playing for the Knicks and leading them to a championship. That's totally different and much more vague. 

One way that can happen is for the Knicks to work out the trade of all trades — Bryant for Carmelo Anthony.

I'm not a big Carmelo fan, but Kobe Bryant is old and expensive. Carmelo will just be expensive. I wouldn't make this trade if I were the Knicks. 

There are all sorts of obstacles to this fantasy’s becoming a reality:

1. It's a bad idea. 

2. Carmelo Anthony is a free agent and you can't trade a free agent. So he would have to sign with the Knicks and then be open to being traded to the Lakers. It could happen I guess. 

3. Kobe would have to want to play for the Knicks. Why would he want to do that again?

I do enjoy how William Rhoden admits his idea that totally makes sense is a complete fantasy due to the unrealistic nature of his idea. 

the no-trade clause that Bryant has, the opt-out clause that will soon make Anthony a free agent, the huge amount of money that both players make, and the N.B.A.’s intricate salary-cap rules.

But otherwise, this is just a brilliant fucking idea on paper. The Knicks get older, get more expensive AND add a player to win in the short-term when the team isn't built to win in the short-term. 

I may be the only person on the planet who believes such a trade would be a key step toward bringing the Knicks a championship.

Perhaps that should tell William Rhoden something. Alas, it only reinforces his impression this trade must happen.

Knicks fans point out — emotionally, by the way — that Bryant is 35 and has a ton of N.B.A. mileage on him, and that he tore his Achilles’ tendon in 2013 and fractured his knee this season. His body has taken a beating, and Jackson would be gambling on Bryant’s recuperative powers.

These are all very, very, very, very, very legitimate concerns by the way. These aren't opinions on why a trade for Bryant would not be in the best interests of the Knicks, but are facts about why trading for Kobe Bryant seems like a bad, bad, bad idea. Kobe is old, expensive, and coming off a major injury. It's not that Kobe can't compete anymore, it's that why would the Knicks gamble on this happening? 

But Bryant’s will, his competitive spirit and his commitment to winning are like new, and they are what the Knicks need most.

Oh, well I completely disregarded Kobe's will and competitive spirit. Not to mention, his commitment to winning explains perfectly why he would be willing to go to an NBA team that hasn't won an NBA title since 1970. But back to that will and competitive spirit. That spirit can make Kobe's teammates around him better though, right? Kobe can win a title with the Knicks current roster? 

For the next two seasons at least (Bryant is signed through the summer of 2016), they need him to point the way. And that, he can still do.

Leadership by verbal abuse. The perfect recipe to turn the Knicks around. I also love the idea Bryant will "point the way." Pointing the way isn't going to make the teammates around him better. I'm sure Kobe "pointing the way" to J.R. Smith will encourage him to stop hoisting up three-point shots with no regard for moving the ball around. 

In Anthony, the Lakers would get a supreme building block. That organization has good karma, as Jackson might say,

Then why not keep the building block in New York? Maybe Anthony isn't as good at "pointing the way" as Kobe might be. After all, nothing says "smart organizational decision" like bringing in an aging shooting guard coming off major surgery who is going to make $48 million over the next two years. If that organization can trade "a supreme building block" w hen acquiring this aging shooting guard then that's all the more better.

Bryant admires Jackson, and Jackson is probably one of the few people capable of showing Bryant a vision of accomplishing something that even Jordan could not — reviving a second N.B.A. team.

Now were are getting to the "doesn't everyone want to play in New York?" section of the column which assumes every pro athlete wants to play in New York. Why wouldn't they? It's New York! It's better than anywhere else according to people who live in New York. 

If nothing else, Bryant might set the stage for a Kevin Durant era in New York,

Why would Kevin Durant want to play with Kobe Bryant again? Durant, if he leaves Oklahoma City, would be leaving a ball-hogging shooter. Why would he want to play in New York with an aging ball-hogging shooter? Also, couldn't the Knicks sign Durant without Kobe being on the roster? I think the Knicks could get Durant without Kobe around. After all, every NBA player wants to play in New York, right?

If Knicks fans need proof of how players can transform an organization, they need look no further than the Brooklyn Nets.

It seems this column is really about competing with the Nets. The Nets signed aging superstars so clearly that's what the Knicks should do as well. 

The Nets added two aging stars from the Boston Celtics — Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett — and saw a cultural shift slowly take place.

It also helped the Nets had Deron Williams and Joe Johnson on the roster, as well as had Shaun Livingston coming off the bench. But yeah, the situations are totally comparable. Pierce and Garnett had no major injuries they were recovering from, while Kobe is coming off major knee surgery and he will be playing with guys nowhere close to having the talent of Johnson and Williams. 

“Guys like that don’t accept teammates playing losing basketball or not taking things seriously,” said the Nets’ general manager, Billy King.

But Kobe can't make his teammates play basketball better by raising their skill level. He can't make them into something they are not.

So much time has passed since the Knicks last won a title that just about everyone associated with the team has forgotten what a championship looks like. Instead, the desire to win has been replaced by the collective satisfaction of sending coaches, players and executives to the gallows.

Kobe could bring a winning mentality to the team, but that winning mentality only can take a team so far. A winning mentality can't compensate for a lack of talent or bad coaching. 

James L. Dolan, the Knicks’ owner, encourages all this misdirected emotion through frenzies of misguided moves.

It's weird that Rhoden is saying this because I think trading Carmelo Anthony for Kobe Bryant would be a misguided move. 

Jackson’s stature is too great to be easily diminished by Dolan, but he needs a player of similar stature to push against the inertia that has built up over more than four decades.

Enter Bryant.

Unfortunately inertia also seems to be pushing Kobe more towards retirement and away from being the franchise player that William Rhoden believes him to be. 

In the end, the odds of this happening are tiny, or infinitesimal.

Probably because it's a bad idea and not in the long-term interests of the Knicks. Any player they can get in free agency can probably be had without Kobe Bryant on the roster. 

But as things stand now, those are about the same odds of the Knicks winning an N.B.A. championship anytime soon.

Given a choice, I’d bet on Bryant.

I wouldn't make this bet at all. If the Knicks traded for Kobe then they would have to make 2-3 other moves, because getting rid of Anthony to sign an aging, hobbled Kobe Bryant sounds like a terrible, terrible idea to me. 

7 comments Bill Simmons' "Fuck It, I Give Up on Writing Original Material So Here's a Mailbag" Volume 3; Bill's Convoluted Phil Jackson Conspiracy Theory

Bill Simmons taught us all how to tank in last week's mailbag that contained only one question. This week's mailbag contains more than one question, which is nice if it weren't a little sad that Bill's readers still write in to him because they view him as "the cool dad" who curses and talks about smoking pot. This week in his NBA mailbag Bill talks about Phil Jackson, "fixes" the NBA lottery (but not like David Stern "fixed" the lottery), and in a display of complete patheticism (I just made that word up) a reader wants to talk about a Bill Simmons sex tape. So that's creepy as shit.

Editor’s note: Every Wednesday from now until the final day of the regular season (April 16), I am cranking out an all-NBA mailbag for the Triangle with a 5,000-word limit. My only goal for this week: cranking something that doesn’t just degenerate into emails about Phil Jackson; Carmelo; James Dolan; the Knicks; or Jackson, Carmelo, Dolan and the Knicks.

If only you had control over things like this. If only.

Q: Shouldn’t your “Ten steps to tanking” (in last week’s mailbag) actually be steps 2 through 11? The real step one: make sure you have a first round pick in the year you’re tanking. KNICKS!!!
—Tim, Pasadena

Not really, because the Knicks aren't actually tanking. They are trying to win games and don't seem to succeed at doing so.

SG: I swear this won’t be a Knicks-only mailbag. But since we’re here, allow me to unveil my theory for everything that’s happening with Phil Jackson.

So Bill's goal was to not write a mailbag that degenerates into something about Phil Jackson and the Knicks. So naturally, the first chance he has he runs two emails about the Knicks (this answer above is the answer to the second question about the Knicks) and then discusses Phil Jackson and the Knicks at length. But of course.

So, here’s a 68-year-old guy with 13 rings. He’s one of the greatest coaches of all time, only he doesn’t want any part of the week-to-week grind of coaching.

After the Seattle gig vanished, Phil hoped to stay with the Lakers somehow. He’s engaged to the daughter of the late, great Jerry Buss, only her bumbling brother is running the franchise into the ground;

Perhaps this is overstating the case a little bit. The Lakers are never down for long. Regardless, Bill's theory is so batshit crazy....well, you will see.

Jackson needed to figure out how to pressure Jimmy Buss — a.k.a. Jimmy Boy — into giving him control of the Lakers and/or a lavish consulting gag. 

What happens next? He starts talking to Brooklyn about becoming a high-priced consultant and/or Billy King’s eventual replacement if Brooklyn bombs in Round 1. Famous music manager Irving Azoff (an A-list power broker) catches wind and alerts his embattled buddy James Dolan. You can’t let Jackson go to the Nets, he tells him. Here’s a good chance for you to swing New York toward your side again. More importantly, the Nets won’t get him.

So Phil Jackson may work for the Knicks front office because he was trying to pretend to work for the Nets front office but he really wants to work for the Los Angeles Lakers front office? He's taking a job he doesn't want because he was pretending to take another job he doesn't want in order to get a job he really does want? I know Bill struggles to get to the point sometimes, but this is pretty convoluted.

If Phil Jackson wanted to work for the Lakers why didn't he just have his agent leak out that he wants to work for the Lakers and not participate in all this nonsense that Bill suggests he would participate in order to work for the Lakers? It's not like if Phil Jackson wanted to work for the Lakers front office that the Lakers wouldn't at least hear him out or the public knowledge that's where Jackson wanted to work wouldn't have as much of an effect on Jimmy Buss as it does knowing Jackson was in talks to take a job with the Knicks would. There are easier ways to reach the outcome Bill believes Phil Jackson wanted to achieve. If Jackson wanted to pressure Jimmy Buss, he could have done so by leaking he wants a job with the Lakers if they would just give it to him.

Initially, Phil starts asking for crazy, outlandish stuff and makes a spirited run for the coaching spot of the Keep Getting Dem Checks All-Stars.

I want $13 million a year. I want to run the team from Los Angeles. I want final say on everything. I want to pursue Steve Kerr as next year’s coach.

Nice little plug for Bill's friend, Steve Kerr here. Very covert.

Now, Jackson’s wheels start turning. Could he turn things around in New York? What would this do for his legacy? He knows they don’t have first-round picks in 2014 and 2016, but they’ll have a slew of cap space once Amar’e-Bargnani-Chandler come off the books in 2015.

Just to help you understand how ridiculous this scenario Bill has concocted seems, Phil Jackson is only pretending to have interest in the Nets so the Lakers will get jealous and make him a part of their organization. But then Jackson pretends to have interest in the Knicks in order to drum up interest from the Lakers, decides he doesn't want the lavish consulting gig working for the Lakers but instead wants to be prominently involved with the Knicks rebuilding and completely forgets that he wanted a lavish job with the Lakers? So Jackson's intentions in showing interest in the Nets to get a cushy job with the Lakers results in Jackson getting a labor intensive job with the Knicks? That's one hell of a mind change there. Jackson ends up with a team he originally had no interest in, doing a job he had no interest in originally.

He knows superstar free agents like Durant, Westbrook and Love are coming down the pike. He knows there’s a puncher’s chance at LeBron. He knows he could manipulate these free agents just like Riley manipulated the Miami guys —

He could do this with the Lakers too.

play up the “mecca of basketball” thing; play up the history; play up MSG; play up the Biggest City in the World thing; play up the five generations of Knicks fans; play up the whole “if you win an NBA title here, that will mean more than anyone winning a title anywhere else” thing; go full-fledged Zen Master on them.

I recognize Bill hates the Lakers and has no perspective on them, but Jackson could play up the whole 16 NBA titles thing, play up the history, play up playing in Los Angeles where the weather is awesome, play up Shaq/Kobe/Magic/Worthy/Kareem/Wilt/Kaman (just wanted to see if you were paying attention), and play up "if you win an NBA title here then that means you are starting the next great dynasty" thing; go full-fledged Zen Master on them. The Lakers have the same stuff the Knicks have, just more championships.

And as he keeps thinking about it, he’s inadvertently talking himself into it. He knows Dolan is a horror show of a boss 90 percent of the time, but he also knows about Dolan’s unwavering loyalty to Isiah Thomas and Donnie Walsh — when you’re in with Dolan, you’re in all the way. 

Because the one thing Phil Jackson has always been worried about is trying to manage egos. I'm sure he's totally afraid he couldn't manage the ego of Jimmy Buss or Buss would fire him for doing a bad job. That would go over well.

And at some point, Jackson says to himself, Wow, if they’re gonna let me run the Knicks from Los Angeles, and I only have to come into New York twice a month, and I’m getting final say on everything, and I’m getting gratuitously overpaid … why wouldn’t I do this?

"Of course I originally had no interest in the Knicks and would rather run the Lakers from Los Angeles and I'm sure I could work a way to get final say on some things as well...why would I go through all of these hoops to land a job with the Lakers and then take a job with the Knicks?" 
 
The elephant in the room: Why would anyone think Phil Jackson — 69 in September, and not exactly known for his tireless work ethic during his last few Lakers years — is suddenly ready to outwork the Sam Prestis and Daryl Moreys and Rob Hennigans of the world? Could you see Phil hopping puddle jumpers from Kansas City to Oklahoma City in mid-January to scout lottery picks?

Sure, under Bill's theory Jackson wanted a lavish consulting gig with the Lakers and it doesn't make sense that Jackson used the Knicks to take on more responsibility than he originally wanted with the Lakers and he doesn't have the advantage of working for his girlfriend's brother, but this is a convoluted theory that takes up a lot of space in a mailbag...so that's really the most important thing in Bill's opinion. 

Would YOU want to work for James Dolan? How many times does a pipe dream actually work out? And can you really run a team from 3,000 miles away? Phil Jackson is grappling with all of these questions. 

There’s a reason the Knicks deal hasn’t been signed or announced: Either he’s waiting for Mikhail Prokhorov to trump the offer because Phil ultimately doesn’t want to work for Dolan, or he’s waiting for his brother-in-law to be to say, “Don’t go to New York, stay here, I’ll give you final say over Mitch.”

Maybe Phil Jackson would have accepted a job with the Lakers, but under Bill's theory Jackson wanted a lavish consulting gig, which doesn't seem on the same level as asking for final say on personnel matters over the Lakers GM. But hey, half-assed theories are fun, especially when the theory involves way more work and speculation required than Jackson simply telling Jimmy Buss, "I want to work for the Lakers. What position would you create for me?"

Anyway, that’s my theory. I know I’m right about the Seattle/Detroit/Milwaukee stuff and the Brooklyn/Azoff stuff, and I believe everything else is right, too. If he takes the Knicks job, I’d break down the motivation percentages like this: 50 percent shameless money grab/irresistible Godfather offer; 20 percent competitiveness/legacy grab; 20 percent affection for/appreciation of the Knicks brand; 10 percent missing the limelight/being relevant again.

There may be some part of this theory that is right. I don't think the part where Jackson wants a job with the Lakers and then tries to leverage the Nets, changes his mind and decides to leverage the Knicks, completely forgets about leveraging the Knicks for a job with the Lakers and then takes a job with the Knicks is correct though. It doesn't make sense based on the original outcome Bill claims Phil Jackson was trying to achieve.

Personally, I am 17 times more than dubious that a 68-year-old guy with no front-office experience whatsoever can save the Knicks from 3,000 miles away … while working for James Dolan, no less. Sounds like a recipe for disaster even if you’re the Zen Master. 

Better than going to the Lakers though, with Jimmy Buss running that team into the ground...well, at least until the Lakers land a couple big free agents and are back in the NBA Finals in two years.

Q: I’m already fearing what Grantland is going to become when you pass it along to your kids. After seeing the complete and total failing of legacy kids Dolan and Buss — and now we can add Josh Kroenke, too — why shouldn’t I be concerned?
—Gary, Indianapolis

Remember when Bill didn't want the mailbag to revolve around the Knicks and James Dolan? The first three questions Bill chose to answer are all about the Knicks and Dolan. 

SG: my son definitely fits that legacy-kid profile — as I wrote last week, he’s a huge pro wrestling fan with no concept of money who’s on pace to live at home until he’s 40. I think we have a new editor-in-chief for 2042! I can’t wait until he reinvents Grantland around slideshows.

See, now that's funny. Slideshows...

Q: Stop me when I get to a person who would have evaluated Milwaukee higher than you in his pre-season rankings …
Any basketball “expert”
Any basketball fan in America
Any basketball
The guy at Decca records who passed on the Beatles
Kahn
Grady Little in the 8th
Andy Reid in the last 5 minutes before the season started
James Dolan
The guy in the Donner party who said, “I think this weather will hold”
—Mark, Baltimore

SG: First of all, words hurt. Second of all, the East was definitely going to be atrocious, so I thought one “lottery team” might swerve the other way and improbably sneak into the playoffs. The five possibilities: Milwaukee, Philly, Boston, Toronto and Charlotte.

Okay, let's do a little math here to see how Bill is defending this decision to leave the Bucks out of the playoffs by claiming he thought they might make the playoffs. There are 15 teams in the Eastern Conference. 8 teams make the playoffs. Bill thinks 5 other teams could have snuck into the playoffs, so he only has 2 teams in the Eastern Conference who he thought could not sneak into the playoffs. Bill is basically defending his leaving the Bucks out of the playoffs by saying he thought 13 of the 15 teams could have made the Eastern Conference playoffs and he just picked the wrong team. Why didn't he just state every team in the Eastern Conference could make the playoffs so he could cover all of his bases?

Bill just can't say, "I was wrong," he has to think of a horseshit excuse for why he was wrong. In this case he's all like, "I thought the Bucks could have made the playoffs, but I just didn't pick them to make it." This means nothing because Bill stated every team but two Eastern Conference teams could have made the playoffs, which is pretty weak. He just doesn't want to be wrong and so he covers all of his bases except two. Just say you are wrong.

I just backed the wrong team — the Charlotte Hornbobnetcats would have been an even more ridiculous pick, and they’re headed for a 7-seed. Technically, my logic was sound! My exact words from the Bill & Jalen Bucks preview (13:15 mark) …

I like how Bill links the podcast as if saying 13 of the 15 teams in the Eastern Conference could make the playoffs isn't copping out completely. I'll state it here so everyone can be impressed with me, I think every team in the National League has a chance to make the playoffs this year. Now sit back and be impressed by me.

Q: The bucks are like that weird roommate that just wont leave, the guy on the couch in half-baked. No one knows why he lives here — we found him on Craigslist or something. He hogs the couch, makes our place reek, brings home monsters from the bar, leaves his bong on the bathroom. But we need the rent money so we don’t say shit. Same with the bucks. We need a 3rd team.
—Owen, Milwaukee

Owen, don't try to write like Bill Simmons. It's pathetic and unbecoming. Instead of spending 75 words describing something, just say what you mean.

Q: If DJ Augustin keeps playing at the level he’s playing now, and Derrick Rose never comes back to where he used to be, do you amnesty D-Rose? Think that might be why the Bulls haven’t amnestied Carlos Boozer yet?
—Sam, Oxford, Mississippi

SG: They can’t amnesty Rose because the Bulls signed that deal after the new CBA went into effect. But Rose’s situation reached “elephant in the room” status the moment Chicago unexpectedly resurrected its playoff hopes around Taj Gibson (making a mini leap), D.J. Augustin (super-belatedly looking like a lottery pick) and especially Joakim Noah (a first-team All-NBA candidate who suddenly turned into Bill Walton circa 1977).

The Bulls win a few games without him and all of a sudden it's time to get rid of Derrick Rose. Yeah, that makes sense to me. Also, D.J. Augustin is 26 years old and so far in his basketball career he has played for Rick Barnes, the Raptors, and the Bobcats for all but one season since he turned 18 years old. It's completely possible he's a good basketball player and no one knew because of the shit coaching and franchises he was surrounded by. I mean, when you play for Rick Barnes for two years that's already starting your NBA career in a hole. The only way it could get worse is to play for Scott Drew at Baylor. He singlehandedly kills the career of top high school prospects. Ask Perry Jones III and Isaiah Austin.

Q: If you’re an NBA GM, how much do Joel Embiid’s back issues scare you? Is he the next Dikembe Mutombo or Greg Oden?
—Mark Killian, Newton Centre, Massachusetts

SG: I don’t mess around with lower-back issues, herniated discs, surgically repaired knees, legs that aren’t the same size, slow-healing stress fractures or phrases like “getting a second opinion” when I’m thinking about taking a big guy first overall...I bet Embiid returns to Kansas next season. 

Why? So he can get Mitch McGary'd? Why would Embiid come back to Kansas next year when NBA teams clearly don't care about injury issues to big men (see: Noel, Nerlens) and he can get paid to rehab his injury? Has he learned nothing from Mitch McGary? McGary was nowhere close to a lottery pick for most of the season, had a great NCAA Tournament, and then stayed in school like an idiot. Now he's been injured all season and NBA teams are worried about his injury while also noticing he wasn't playing like a lottery pick for a large portion of the 2012-2013 season when he did play. Embiid should go pro as soon as possible.

Worst case scenario Embiid gets picked in the Top 10 (because he still will) and gets paid while never doing anything in the NBA. Best case scenario is he gets paid to rehab his injury and then is able to contribute for an NBA lottery team. If Embiid stays in college, the best case scenario is he plays healthy and like he played for most of this season then goes in the Top 3, while the worst case scenario is he stays injured or underperforms and gets McGary'd. No one wants to be McGary'd. Go to the NBA immediately.

Q: How about a rule that restricts one-and-done players to a five year rookie deal and anyone who stays in college two years or longer to get a 4 year rookie deal?
—Charles Smith, Brooklyn

SG: I like it!

Bill likes it, but because he has to be the smartest guy in the room at all times he has to top this idea. You are smart, Charles from Brooklyn, but Bill has to prove he is smarter.

I’d suggest this tweak: five-year rookie deals for one-and-done guys and under-20-year-olds; four-year rookie deals for two-and-done guys and 20-year-olds; and three-year rookie deals for everyone else. That would give prospects a real incentive to stay in school, right?

I don't think I hate this idea, but I would get rid of the 20-year old requirement and just stick with the length of the deal being dependent on how long the kid was in college. Otherwise, I think the NBA runs into issues such as:

1. Ben McLemore, was he a one-and-done or was he a two-and-done guy? The NCAA wouldn't allow him to play during the 2011-2012 season, so he left Kansas as a redshirt freshman. Does this mean he was one-and-done? Obviously McLemore would argue he is not a one-and-done to get the four-year deal, but he did leave school classified as a college freshman.

2. How will foreign players be classified? It's not fair if they get a three-year deal because they are over 21 and it's not fair if they come over at the age of 21 years old without playing a minute in college and have to accept a five year deal like they are a one-and-done. Theoretically this rule could cause college-bound players to play in Europe for a year professionally so they can sign a shorter rookie contract if foreign players aren't going to be held to the five year deal standard.

3. Even if the 20-year old standard is kept in the language foreign-born players are a problem. A foreign-born player could come to the United States at 21 years of age and get a three year deal despite never playing a minute in college.

4. Plus, the 20-year old standard would serve as a way to reward high school athletes who took longer to graduate or transferred schools a few times. Say a guy like Mason Plumlee plays one year at Duke and enters the NBA. This would classify him as getting a five year deal, right? Wrong, because Plumlee would have been 20 years old at that point, so he would get a four year deal.

Q: Trying to time this for next Wednesday’s NBA Bag — let’s say you are answering this on Tuesday night March 11. Who is the MVP right now at this very moment Simmons?
—Kent, Glendale, Arizona

SG: Durant by a hair. He’s playing for a 1-seed and averaging a 32-8-6 with 51-40-87 shooting splits and a 30.3 PER. It’s one of the greatest non-MJ/non-Wilt offensive seasons ever. This is NOT a 1993 Barkley/MJ or 1997 Malone/MJ situation — Durant is a better all-around player than Barkley and Malone, and LeBron isn’t quite MJ (it’s true). And yet, LeBron could absolutely pass him with a monster finish.

"Durant by a hair," but LeBron could pass him "with a monster finish." So, Durant is barely the MVP, but LeBron is going to have to have a fantastic finish to the season in order to pass Durant. It's all generalities, but I'm not sure this makes sense.

One of my dopier proposals: that the weight of the MVP trophy should vary depending on the impressiveness of the MVP season. So if Derrick Rose’s 2011 MVP was a 10-pound trophy, then Shaq’s 2000 MVP or MJ’s 1996 MVP were 40-pounders. I mention this only because you rarely see head-to-head 40-pound trophy seasons battling for the same MVP. 

Bill is right about this. It is a dopy idea. Who would judge the impressiveness of the MVP? It's too subjective to be considered a serious idea.

Q: Read your tanking piece. How would you fix the lottery Simmons? You never said what you would do. —Thomas B., Chicago
SG: It’s a two-part idea …

But it's only partially convoluted, so Bill doesn't consider it to be one of his better ideas.

1. Guarantee only the first seven playoff spots in each conference.
 
Everyone else gets thrown into a single-elimination, 16-team tournament (my old Entertaining As Hell Tournament idea) as the 14 playoff teams rest up. Your final two EAHT teams get 8-seeds, then play a “championship” game. The stakes? The winner gets the choice of which no. 1 seed to play in Round 1, as well as lottery eligibility for that year’s draft.

Okay, fix the lottery by allowing each team that is tanking (and teams would still tank) a chance to make the playoffs AND a chance at a lottery pick. How would this prevent the 76ers from putting a shit team on the court? They don't care to make the playoffs and know they will make the lottery no matter what happens. If they happen to win this tournament, then they get a lottery pick anyway.

2. Every lottery team gets the same odds for the first four picks.
 
We’re returning to the late 1980′s model — 14 lottery teams plus our EAHT winner get 1-in-15 odds for the no. 1 pick, 1-in-14 odds for no. 2, 1-in-13 odds for no. 3, and 1-in-12 odds for no. 4. After that, every subsequent pick goes by record (worst team picks fifth, etc). Would the 2014 Sixers commit self-sabotage if the end result was “You’ll embarrass yourself at the EAHT, and you’re only guaranteeing yourself no better than the no. 5 pick”? Maybe not.

The 76ers are supposedly tanking when they know they can guarantee themselves no better than the no. 4 pick, so what kind of difference would guaranteeing they could do no better than one pick back to no. 5 make? I don't think moving the pick back one spot is going to prevent teams who tank from tanking.

Last point (and I’ve made it before): It’s not the worst thing ever if a decent team wins the lottery. Was it bad when the Bulls got Derrick Rose, or the Magic teamed up Shaq and Penny Hardaway? If you’re making the case “Don’t we have the right to protect certain bumbling franchises from being stuck at the bottom year after year?” — I mean, isn’t that their own fault?

I understand what Bill is attempting to say here because there are teams that are terrible every year, but he fails to understand two things:

1. By not giving lottery picks to crappy teams, then he is increasing the odds these crappy teams will stay crappy and will be forced to look into free agency for impact players...which based on some of the decision making of these crappy teams, means they will get even crappier by handing out bad contracts.

2. Not every team in the lottery is a bad team that is bumbling and stuck at the bottom. The Thunder built their current team through the draft, the Bulls built their current team through the draft, and the Pacers built their current team through the draft. Granted, not all of these teams built their current team using only lottery picks, but there are not-crappy teams who are in the lottery. So it's a bad assumption to believe only bumbling teams are in the lottery from year-to-year. Some teams are able to build through the draft. I do get Bill's point, but wanted to mention there are exceptions.

I’ve joked before about being an NBA Republican, but seriously, why enable these losers? If you can’t produce a winning franchise, sell it to someone else. The league needs to stop protecting teams from themselves — we give them amnesties to make up for boneheaded roster moves, luxury tax money to reward them for being cheap, and better lottery odds to make up for being dumbasses.

I tend to agree with Bill on this. I don't want the NBA enabling terrible teams who can't produce a winner, but taking away lottery picks from these teams isn't the way to achieve the goal of putting a winner on the court.

If there’s a way to steal soccer’s relegation system — the top 26 teams stay in the league, the bottom four get relegated — I’m all for it. Could you “add” five European teams, beef up the D-League so it’s made up of five loaded D-League teams, then create a separate 14-team league that operates like a poor man’s NBA? It’s not the craziest idea in the world, right?

It's not crazy, but it's very complicated. This is also where Bill ignores the real world effects of this idea. No NBA owner is going to allow his team to be relegated and allow his team to be a part of a European and D-League-combined league. It's not happening. Terrible owners love money too and they aren't giving up money and fans coming to their games so the NBA can punish them for being a terrible owner.

Q: You’ve given names like Sorry for Jabari and Riggin for Wiggins for this year’s Tankapalooza. What would have been the best hypothetical tanking taglines for names of actual top historical NBA picks? My favorite historical ones are “F-ing Up Games For King James” and “Coward for Howard.”
—Justin, Indianapolis

SG: Thanks for ruining the last two hours of my life — I just went down a Basketball-Reference.com rabbit hole to come up with dumb phrases like “Tragic for Magic,” “Unworthy for Worthy” and “P.U.-ing for Ewing.” Your historical winner: Joe Smith in 1995 … that’s right, “Shitty for Smitty.” Unbeatable.

What a shock. Bill's idea is better than his reader's idea. Didn't see that coming. How about "Not Dandy for Olowakandi" or "Going Down for Brown." Maybe "Whiffin' for Griffin" or "Sucking for Duncan." Perhaps "Robbin' Fans for Robinson."

What am I thinking? Bill's ideas are always the best ideas.

SG: And on cue … they lose to OKC last night! I still like this Rockets team. Dwight looks like 88 percent of the old Dwight.

Funny how Bill wrote an entire column basically warning NBA teams to stay away from signing Howard, but then Bill's boy Daryl Morey signs Howard and Bill starts to think maybe signing Howard wasn't such a bad move. Funny how that works. Bill stating Howard is 88% of the old Dwight is essentially him saying he was (temporarily) wrong about Howard, make no mistake.

Harden nudged himself into the MVP Not Named Durant or LeBron race with his recent offensive explosion; I even saw him play defense two or three times. Chandler Parsons is gunning for a title, a new contract and the chance to redeem The Bachelor franchise after Juan Pablo nearly ruined it. Patrick “Red Bull” Beverley inspired a Grantland Appreciation Email Thread with me, Andrew Sharp and Chris Ryan just yesterday. Their supporting cast (Terrence Jones, Omer Asik, Jeremy Lin, etc.) isn’t terrible.

And remember the Rockets were one of those teams that Bill insists NBA teams should try to avoid being. Teams that are always in contention for the 8-seed and draft in the teens for a period of time. Somehow the Rockets managed to be close to playoff contention and still put together a good team. Yet, Bill doesn't acknowledge this exception to his theory.

Q: I watch and read everything from Grantland and I can see we are all struggling with your Kevin Durant nicknames … may I submit “The Slendertainer?” —Paul, Macau
SG: You cannot.

Then there are these times when Bill actually is more clever than his readers.

Q: What are your thoughts on the addition of a four-point line? —Cody, San Luis Obispo

SG: Only for the first three quarters, and only for half-court shots.

I'm very excited that Bill Simmons doesn't run the NBA or pretty much any other sport, because so many of his ideas turn the sport into a circus. He always has half-baked ideas that would turn a sport into something more like a game show than an athletic event. A four point line from half-court sounds great, but I can't imagine how this would work effectively and wouldn't change the sport of basketball for the worse.

Q: The NBA has to start over and you are building a team from scratch. Which power forward do you take to build this team around? Love 

Kevin Love...sorry, go ahead and finish. 

or Griffin?
—George B, London

SG: Let’s see one Kevin Love team finish over .500 before we compare him to the league’s no. 3 MVP choice and breakout superstar.

I don't think Kevin Love should be judged by how many times his team has finished above .500. It just seems unfair. Also, hasn't Bill spent many hours and words (including in this mailbag) about how the Timberwolves have screwed up the draft? So why judge Love based on the fact his GM makes terrible decisions? In fact, here is what Bill wrote in this very mailbag:

Here’s an idea: If you want to avoid the bottom, make better picks, make smarter trades and spend your cap money wisely. Minnesota had four top-six picks in three years and ended up with Jonny Flynn, Ricky Rubio, Wes Johnson and Derrick Williams. 

Then Bill began discussing how teams like the Timberwolves should not get a chance to draft in the lottery due the team not drafting well. But yeah, judge Love versus Griffin based entirely on the fact Love has crappy players around him while Griffin has Chris Paul, DeAndre Jordan, and Jamal Crawford surrounding him. I mean, come on, judge each of these power forwards on their ability. Don't judge them on the overall team around them. Bill has to be smarter than this.

Q: Do you remember Otto Porter? I’m generally concerned because he was drafted third overall. Is he still alive?!
—Danny D., Philly

SG: He’s actually still alive. I Googled it and everything. He’s played a whopping 254 minutes this season! Since 1990, only three top-three picks have played less than 500 minutes as rookies: Greg Oden (missed the year because of knee surgery), Darko Milicic (played 159 minutes for Detroit) and Otto Porter. To put that in perspective, Kwame Brown, Pervis Ellison and Hasheem Thabeet all passed the 800-minute mark as rookies. Even Anthony Bennett played 647 minutes before recently going down with a knee (h/t Al Michaels).

Porter has been a disappointment, but to be fair he practiced with the Wizards for the first time on November 24. So while pointing out injuries to Bennett and Oden, it must be pointed out that Porter has been injured and out of shape for most the year. I feel like this needs to be added.

Q: I just spent a few hours thinking of what the best title would be for your celebrity sex tape. My choice was “Yup, these Are My Testicles.” Any ideas?
—Jeremy Gurstel, Washington, D.C.

These are Bill's readers. They are so obsessed with him they imagine what they would call a sex tape featuring Bill. This reader is so fucking creepy he wants to talk about Bill's testicles on a sex tape. Bill's readers have an unhealthy obsession with him. It's pathetic.

SG: At least I’m not as weird as Jeremy Gurstel! Since we’re here, um … “Now I Can Grind in Peace”? “Dirty for Thirty”? “Yup, These Are My Liters”? Wait, why am I helping you?

Because you are somewhat excited about the fact your readers are such lemmings they want to see you star in a sex tape? It's a little endearing to you because it means you are popular enough for someone to think of a sex tape with you in it? It's all perverse to me.

Q: Three of my totally straight friends and I were trying to decide who the best-looking NBA player is. The four finalists were: Chris Paul, DJ Augustin, George Hill, and Courtney Lee. Next question: “Whom would you LEAST want your wife to sleep with?” Everybody changed their answers and the new finalists were Kendrick Perkins, Reggie Evans, Nikola Pekovic, and Blake Griffin. We all agreed Ibaka could not be considered for a reason that you once mentioned a few months ago. We took the following into account: ferocity, physique, consistency of effort, and crazy factor. So my question to you is, if you could guarantee your wife stayed away from one current NBA player who could toss her like uncooked pizza dough, who would it be (besides Ibaka)?
—Joey, Ann Arbor

I feel true sympathy for these people who write into Bill.

SG: I forwarded this email to my wife, if only to see if she’d laugh at the “uncooked pizza dough” joke. (She did.) Her response …
“Ibaka then JJ Redick then Blake. Why didn’t Redick make the list?”

Hilarious. So, until next week's mailbag where I presume Bill will have another convoluted theory or two and his readers will continue to be creepy in their worship of him. 

7 comments When Is Changing Your Favorite Team Acceptable?

The Grantland Staff had an article up recently about whether Knicks fans should be able to switch to the Brooklyn Nets as their favorite NBA team. This conversation was prompted (forced upon the Grantland staff because Bill Simmons thought it was a great idea since it was based on something he had Tweeted) by a Bill Simmons Tweet on this subject. Each staff member of Grantland gave their opinion, some of which were valuable and others were not so valuable. Chuck Klosterman gave his opinion on this subject (or by giving his opinion did he really not give an opinion at all, and what does this mean outside the realm of sports?), which is always (not) fun to read. Of the things that Grantland does well, I do sometimes enjoy these "Dumb Office Arguments" a lot. They give each writer on the site a way to give their point of view. Of course it also gives the writers a chance to navel-gaze, which some of them truly indeed love doing.

I don't know if it is an important question or not, but when is it acceptable to change sports teams like this? Are Knicks fans able to change teams to the Brooklyn Nets or are they stuck with the Knicks? Personally, I don't see a diehard Knicks fan changing over to becoming a Nets fan, nor do I see the draw of cheering for the Brooklyn Nets. Still, I'm sure it is tempting for some Knicks fans to cheer for the Nets now they are in Brooklyn.

Over the weekend, news broke that the New York Knicks were dragging their feet in matching the Houston Rockets' $25 million contract offer to point guard Jeremy Lin.

Apparently this was the last straw for Knicks fans everywhere. Sure, the team has tried to put a quality team on the floor and made the playoffs this year by spending millions of dollars on an injury-prone power forward and a small forward who wants to shoot the ball 25 times per game and doesn't seem to make his teammates better. The team has struggled in some ways for a decade now, but not re-signing Jeremy Lin was the last straw. It feels kind of dumb to me for Knicks fans to bail now, but maybe the draw of seeing another team in the area is enticing enough for allegiances to be switched.

Bill Simmons, posed the question: If the Knicks, following the apparent financial advice of Carmelo Anthony, turn their backs on the most exciting, well-liked player to rock blue and orange since [insert beloved Knicks player Sprewell, Starks, Ewing ... Renaldo Balkman], would New York fans be wise to turn their backs on the team and become fans of the other New York franchise, the Brooklyn Nets? Simmons certainly thought so.

Of course Bill Simmons would think so. I think we have learned over the decade of reading Bill's columns that he seems to desperately want to be a front-runner. He gave up on the Boston Bruins because they had bad ownership, only to come back to them now that they have become successful again. Even still, you get the feeling he could easily become an LA Kings fan. If the Celtics ever start to field a bad team on the court (or have "bad ownership," which basically means not putting an NBA Title worthy team on the court) Bill already has the Clippers lined up as his backup NBA team. Bill completely ignores the Red Sox now when writing his weekly column, simply because they aren't fielding a good enough team to merit a mention. It's because Bill has such high expectations, not because he is slowly becoming a front-runner, that merely contending for a playoff spot isn't enough anymore. So for a guy who likes all Boston-area teams (which are the teams he has liked for his entire life), he seems to have a wandering eye when it comes to being fans of these teams.

Another issue I have with Bill, and his insistence on saying Knicks fans should switch to being Brooklyn Nets fans, is at what point is Bill going to stop making every franchise tortured in some fashion? I was kidding in a previous post when I wrote Bill is going to have every NBA team as tortured in some fashion 20 years from now, but it feels like it will come true. At a certain point in the future Bill is going to make it seem like 50% of NBA franchises' fan base are tortured in some fashion. Few people like the Dolans, but every fan base has hard times or periods during a team's history he/she doesn't like. I'm not saying Knicks fans shouldn't bail for the Nets, but jumping ship simply because times are tough (The Knicks made the playoffs last year by the way) seems like the definition of a fair weather fan.

We asked several members of the Grantland family, some of whom count themselves as Knicks supporters, for a verdict.

They also asked Chuck Klosterman. Why? It doesn't matter really. His response to the question posed was very impressive though. Just ask him, he'll tell you.

Mark Lisanti

Under what should heretofore be referred to as the Lin-Dolan Clause of Desperate Fandom, a team switch should be allowed under extraordinary circumstances.

I'm pretty strict about whether a person can switch favorite teams or not. Generally, my answer is "no," that a person has to stick with a team. If I am going to make up some fake rule like Lisanti and Bill Simmons seem to do, I would say I have two (maybe three) rules for when a person can change favorite teams. I think it can happen when:

1. A team that competes with your current favorite team moves within your geographic area. For example, if I had switched to the Charlotte Hornets as my favorite NBA team (which I very nearly did, mostly because I was so young and impressionable at the time, but I managed to stay a Celtics fan) from the Boston Celtics then it could be understood. You can't switch back though and have to stay with that new team you have chosen. There shall be no dual fandom.

2. Your favorite team proves over a decade-long span they don't deserve your support. By this, I mean your favorite team hasn't either made the playoffs or has such bad ownership you choose to no longer support the team. By "bad ownership" I don't mean "your team isn't winning titles anymore, but is merely making the playoffs." Ownership has to clearly be screwing the team over to the point the team can't be competitive.

3. This one is a maybe. If your favorite team moves out of town. I live in North Carolina. If the Carolina Panthers moved to Los Angeles, then it could be understood why I am choosing a new team. To be honest, this idea is so unfathomable to me that I would switch I can't even imagine I wouldn't still be a fan of the new Los Angeles Panthers. This is a tough call because simply moving out of town in an age when a person can choose to see every game their favorite team plays on television doesn't seem entirely defensible. I guess it depends on how the team left town.

For example, if a Charlotte Hornets fan chooses not to be a New Orleans Hornets fan then I completely understand. George Shinn sucked and was a terrible owner. He left Charlotte and no one was said to see him go, though it would have been nice if he had not taken the Hornets with him. I would hope this hypothetical Hornets fan would eventually became a Bobcats fan though. Also, Sonics fans don't have to cheer for the Thunder. I'm torn, but I think in most situations if a team leaves town then the fans have a right to abandon that team.

Here, we have two: (1) a backbreaking, morale-obliterating move by an utterly incompetent owner who has zero regard for his fan constituency,

This is too vague. One bad move doesn't make it necessary for a person to choose a new favorite team. If one morale-obliterating move is all it takes for a fan to abandon a team, then he probably wasn't a serious fan in the first place.

(2) the arrival of another team within not only the immediate region, but the city borders.

I think the immediate region would suffice. Not many teams get another shot at a professional sports team after one has left. I can handle immediate region as being the criteria.

(And also, as long as we're on the subject, [3] the incompetent, suggestible owner is seemingly still under Rasputin-like sway of ousted managerial war criminal Isiah Thomas, who, we'll soon discover, has been adding ground glass to Dolan's smoothies as he tries to convince his mesmerized buddy to give him a controlling chunk of the team in the "statistically unlikely" event of "death by slow stomach bleeding.")

I can see why Mark Lisanti was hired by Bill Simmons. It seems Mark Lisanti wants to write exactly like Bill and the idea of having someone who wants to be him appealed to Bill so much he had to hire Lisanti...at least that's my takeaway from this passage.

Joe House

This is America.

It's Bill's buddy "House." He has a firm grasp on writing the obvious it seems.

For most sports fans in this great land, the question of what teams to root for — and where to spend fan dollars — is easy: Who are the locals?

Right for "most" sports fans it is easy. "Most" sports fans have professional teams in every sport right in that very state. This is so true, except for the fact it isn't true at all. So who do fans in Nebraska cheer for? How about the state of Tennessee? How easy is it to pick out your favorite baseball team if you live in Tennessee? What about Alabama, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico or Arkansas? How is it easy to pick out your favorite team when there isn't a local team? I completely disagree that "most" sports fans can just cheer for the local team.

You have to love the weird East Coast Bias of "House" who seems to believe every state of this great nation has professional sports teams in all four major sports readily available to them. "Most" people can't choose their favorite team in all four major sports just by seeing which teams are in the local area.

David Jacoby

Regardless of what some people believe (read: Bill), there are no rules for being a sports fan. You can be a fan of whatever team you want, whenever you want. The team you root for is a completely subjective concept, and there isn't some committee (read: Bill) that sets guidelines and allows you a window to make a switch. That is some bullshit.

Ok, well you are no fun. As much as I mock Bill Simmons for creating rules for everything, there are rules to being a sports fan. A person can't adopt the New York Giants prior to the 2008 season after dumping the Cincinnati Bengals as his/her favorite team and then start talking shit to a fan of the New York about Eli Manning having two rings. Waking up one day and deciding, "I don't like the look of this year's Saints team. I think I'm more of a Lions fan now because I like Calvin Johnson" is being a fair weather fan. These people are pieces of shit and should be stopped immediately. I hate the rules (in general) that Bill Simmons creates but few things are more annoying than team-jumping and fair weather fans.

If you're a Knicks fan and you want to root for the Nets, go right ahead. Who cares? That is what I will be doing.

Fine, switch. You will be considered a piece of shit and no one should take you seriously if Brook Lopez tears his ACL and Joe Johnson starts struggling and the Nets go 30-52 next year, while the Knicks happen to make the playoffs, and you jump right back on the Knicks' bandwagon.

Sean Fennessey

Imagine a man living in Oklahoma City.

I'm imagining him. He is tall, owns a farm and listens to country music, just like every other resident of Oklahoma does.

It's 2007. He is a lifelong Dallas Mavericks fan, a team that resides little more than 200 miles due south. He attends every home game, driving three and a half hours both ways to watch Dirk Nowitzki, Jason Terry, Josh Howard. The season is over. His team has just been eliminated from the NBA playoffs, a no. 1 seed humiliated by the exhilarating underdog Golden State Warriors.

Then this lifelong Dallas Mavericks fan can't jump back on the bandwagon after the Mavericks win the 2011 NBA Title. That much is clear. Also, if a lifelong fan of a team even thinks about switching teams because his favorite team had a disappointing playoff series then he isn't enough of a lifelong fan.

Seven weeks later, the Seattle SuperSonics draft a Texas Longhorn forward named Kevin Durant — the same Sonics that have been threatening to leave their native city. Oklahoma City is the rumored destination. The man starts to dream. His imagination wanders. One day, maybe I'll root for Kevin Durant. Soon, a team will be just minutes away. Season tickets will be cheaper. A fan base will be energized.

I would have no problem with this person switching, though I can't see why/how a lifelong Dallas Mavericks fan would do this. I don't take sports too seriously, but I couldn't switch from the Braves even if North Carolina got a professional baseball team. I just couldn't do it. So if this hypothetical Oklahoma City resident is a big Texas Longhorns fan, then I can see this move more. I think when a new team moves to a person's hometown, he/she has to make a decision which team to cheer for before the new season begins. He/she can't wait until after he/she sees how great Durant is to switch to the Thunder. Here I go making rules, but few things annoy me than me sticking by my teams through tough times and having to argue sports with a front-runner.

My point, and I agree with Bill Simmons on this, is New York Knicks fans should switch now and not wait until the beginning of the season. This is a tough switch to make. I'm not a Knicks fan, but seeing as how Bill has always been pro-if the owner doesn't put a great team on the court then a fan can switch teams, I see how he is in favor of this. Bill isn't all about sticking it through the tough years with his team, especially in the case of having a bad owner. Detroit Lions fans aren't impressed with Bill's stance.

Chuck Klosterman

I should link a picture of a man pleasuring himself since that seems to be most of what Chuck Klosterman's writing seems like it is to me, but this isn't that kind of blog, and I choose not to search for a picture of a man pleasuring himself. Let it be known though, that's what I think Chuck Klosterman's feels about his own writing.

At the professional level, you should always focus on whatever a team represents in the present tense: You should be motivated by the current roster, the current coaching staff, the current ownership, the uniforms they're presently wearing, the facility where the team plays, geography, and whatever bizarre interior drive dictates your self-created relationship with the franchise.

You should also be motivated by the food that is being served at the facility, what the parking situation at the venue is like, how many beers are on tap, whether halftime entertainment is worth watching or not, and whatever odd weird shit you enjoy about sports that Chuck Klosterman is too detached and clinical to understand which is why he gets paid to write for a site that features many articles about sports...because sports and the people who enjoy them are dumb, of course. Now let's leave Chuck alone so he can inspect whatever bizarre interior drive that dictates his self-created relationship with whatever band he has fallen in love with this week.


Honestly, if you truly love sports, you should fight the urge to root for anyone, ever. You should just appreciate the game itself.

Even more honestly, this is stupid. If you truly love sports then you do appreciate the game, but you would also naturally have a favorite team in that sport. I appreciate art. Is it weird that I have a favorite artist? I appreciate architecture. Would it be weird if I had a favorite architectural structure? Of course not. If you enjoy watching movies, wouldn't it be natural you have a favorite movie? The same principle applies here. Chuck Klosterman is too busy overthinking the issue to actually think about this. If you truly love a sport, it would make sense to have a favorite team. If I love watching the Olympics, it would make perfect sense if I had a very Olympian. You appreciate the game, but you also have a favorite athlete. It makes sense.


There are certain teams I always root for (and probably always will), and I will always feel stupid about it. It's a real weakness.

It's a true weakness. How dare a person cheer for a specific team in a sport he/she enjoys? It's madness to do this.


The word "fan" derives from the word "fanaticism," which is a bad thing.

This is why intellectuals should not be able to watch sports. Sports is an escape, while intellectuals, or pseudo-intellectuals as I would call Chuck Klosterman, aren't capable of seeing sports as an escape. They have to dissect it to search for some sort of hidden meaning or cause that probably isn't there in an effort to prove just how fucking smart they are and how dumb and irrational you are for liking sports. Sometimes I just want to scream really loudly for a player to run fast or tackle another player hard. I don't see it as a bad thing, even if the derivation of the word "fan" does seem like a bad thing to Klosterman.

Vaya con dios, in this case dios being Jay-Z. But there's no way I could do it myself. It's barely even crossed my mind. Maybe it's Stockholm Syndrome, or maybe it's just that I'm no longer living in Brooklyn, where the walking distance to the Barclays Center would be tantalizingly short and the lure intoxicatingly strong. Maybe I'm stubborn, or stupid, or both. But I'm sticking around. I'm going down with the ship, playing "Go New York, Go New York, Go" on a waterlogged and out-of-tune violin. I may be a bitter old biddy by the time the Knicks finally win a post-‘70s title; more likely, I'll be dead. But I just truly don't think I could ever imagine it any other way.

There we go. Great attitude. If she didn't write mostly about weddings, I would read something else Katie Baker has written.


Brian Phillips

I hate to make it sound like sports isn't the most important thing in the world or something,

You write for a sports site, it's okay to make it seem like sports are the most important thing in the world once or twice a month.


but ... do you like the Nets more than the Knicks? Would you maybe rather be a Nets fan than a Knicks fan? Then be a Nets fan.

That's what I don't get about this whole "Nets or Knicks?" discussion. Bill Simmons looks at it from the point of view of someone who wants to watch a winning team (which again, isn't shocking, since he seems to be a front-runner at heart), but if a person all of a sudden likes the Nets more than the Knicks then just be a Nets fan. If you still like the Knicks more, sit through the tough times and hope for good times ahead or just pay only slight attention to the Knicks if it is too painful to watch them play. If you are a fan (there's that terrible word again!) of the Knicks more than the Nets, then don't magically become a Nets fan because you are tired of cheering for the Knicks. How would it be possible for a Knicks fan to switch to cheering for the Nets if that Knicks fan doesn't like the Nets as much as he/she likes the Knicks?


Shane Ryan

Ditto the Giants — as wonderful as this year was, it will never compare to 2008. Duke's titles have been separated by about a decade each except for the ‘92 run, which was easily the least spectacular of the four.

Other than that being one of the best NCAA teams of all-time and it just so happened the '92 team played one of the best NCAA Tournament games of all-time against Kentucky...sure, the '92 team was the least spectacular. There were no non-spectacular Duke titles to me. I think it is crazy to say the '92 team was the least spectacular since it was the last time an NCAA men's basketball team won back-to-back NCAA titles (as commenter Steve pointed out, Florida won back-to-back titles in 2006 and 2007. I claim to be a college basketball fan and I missed this. Embarrassing. I will say I am not a fan of those two Florida teams so there is a chance I was blocking them out of my memory) and that was a loaded and dominant team. I loved watching that team.


So stick with it, fellow Knicks fans. Jeremy Lin is a passing fad, and that title is somewhere on the horizon, waiting for us in the fog. When it comes, you don't want to be the guy cheering for Brooklyn because you felt sorry for yourself.

Outside of completely annoying me by calling the '92 Duke team's run "easily" the least spectacular, which to me shows Shane Ryan needs his head examined, I agree. I wouldn't have a problem with Knicks fans becoming Nets fans, but to do so simply because the Knicks didn't sign Jeremy Lin and they don't like James Dolan right now seems a bit weak to me. It was just a year ago that Knicks fans had dreams of getting Chris Paul to play in New York and they were loving the day when they could try to get their own "Big Three" together.

Fine, choose to cheer for the Nets, but don't go back to the Knicks once the Nets start stinking again. That's mostly what I would request. The Nets have all five starters making at least $10 million. I didn't realize having Joe Johnson/Gerald Wallace/Brook Lopez on the same team made for such an attractive team.

Carles

If you are a Knicks fan who hasn't turned on your team already, you might as well wait until the third year of Jeremy Lin's contract to find out if he is a star or an oft-injured salary cap albatross who never matched his first-year production. Linsanity could end up being a cultural reference that is on the same level as Crystal Pepsi, pogs, or the Bash Brothers.

Exactly. This is my favorite take on this topic. What brought this issue up originally was a reaction to Jeremy Lin signing with the Rockets and the Knicks not matching the contract, then signing Raymond Felton. It's typical New York media-type overreaction to get all depressed because a guy who hasn't even played a full season in a Knicks uniform and doesn't even fit in with the current team (meaning Carmelo Anthony as the leader and top dog of this Knicks team) isn't being re-signed. Take a step away from the ledge. I think re-signing Lin would have been a good move, but don't get mad at the Dolans for not re-signing him, get mad at the Dolans for trading for Carmelo Anthony in an attempt to appease the Knicks' fans want for a superstar player on the roster, and then allowing Anthony to help chase Lin off. You wanted a superstar player, you got one.


The Brooklyn Nets are just as annoying as the Knicks when it comes to operating as a wannabe superstar destination that doesn't have enough flexibility to build a complete team, so Knicks fans might as well stay put and hope Amar'e finally has the career-ending injury that fulfills his destiny as the Most Injury-Prone Man Alive and wipes his contract off the books.

This needs to be a completely different question. Why are the Brooklyn Nets such an attractive team for Knicks fans? Other than the fact they are now located in New York state of course. The Nets have an owner who isn't exactly making astute trades (I can't believe the Nets took on Joe Johnson's contract) and I don't see re-signing Gerald Wallace and Brook Lopez as a huge step up. This Nets team seems like a 5th or 6th seed in the East at-best, at least to me. This is the team Knicks fans should want to switch to?


Brian Koppelman

The Dolans, even more than other owners, do not care about the fans, the legacy, the history, or anything, really, at all. James Dolan seems to me to be like "Wormtongue" from Lord of the Rings, and his father is Theoden, under a spell and powerless to even see what’s going on. But we, the fans, are not powerless. We can decide to recognize that the throne is, for all intents and purposes, empty. We can decide to recognize that the team we loved does not exist anymore. That it can never exist as long as the Dolans own it. We can decide to see the Knicks for what they actually are, not what we wish them to be, like the husband who realizes, finally, after everyone else has told him, that his wife is not only cheating, but poisoning his mac and cheese. I am done eating poisoned mac and cheese. And I am done with the New York Knicks. Let’s go, Brooklyn!

We will remember this in 2017 when the Knicks win an NBA Title and Brian Koppelman is writing a column about how great it felt to stick in there with the Knicks all these years. You can't undo a passage written like this.

Rafe Bartholomew

But basketball is different nowadays — it's so spread-out, the talent comes from all over. So I'm from the city that once produced the best basketball players on the planet, and the Knicks, whether they're a lottery team or NBA champions, aren't changing that.

Well, haven't you given yourself the false illusion of self-importance while living in the past. The fact the city of New York used to produce great talent seems to give Bartholomew a reason to get up in the morning. Chuck Klosterman would frown through his beard when he hears this type of statement.


I don't see why a person would choose to be a Nets fan unless he/she was really upset with the Dolan's ownership of the Knicks franchise and just can't stand it anymore. You have the next few months to switch to the Nets as your favorite team, but the grass isn't always greener, and don't come crawling back to the Knicks pretending you never left if the ship ever gets righted.