You all have probably felt the void. The patron saint of Bottom of the Barrel, David Eckstein, currently doesn't have a job playing professional baseball. As the ex-co-owner of David Eckstein's Baseball-Reference page, we need to keep David in our thoughts at this time. It doesn't appear he is struggling emotionally, but I think he's just keeping on a scrappy face for us. As Mike DiGiovanna tells us Eckstein isn't retired, but has made a decision not to play baseball at this point. Then DiGiovanna goes Eckstein-crazy over David Eckstein's massive amount of grit and starts writing gibberish.
I do realize my Twitter page says I am the proud co-owner of David Eckstein's Baseball-Reference page, and I don't plan to update it. I figure if Eckstein can continuously live off his 2006 World Series MVP award and "helping" the Angels win the 2002 World Series I can live off once co-owning his Baseball-Reference page. Let's see what's new in Scrappy McFuckstein's world.
David Eckstein is not playing baseball, but the scrappy 36-year-old infielder
It's like a disease or a reflex. Whenever a sportswriter says "David Eckstein," the word "scrappy" has to appear somewhere in the sentence. Actually, it is just lazy writing to fall back on a description like that since simply saying "....not playing baseball, but the 36-year-old infielder..." would suffice.
who helped the Angels win the 2002 World Series and won World Series most-valuable-player honors with the St. Louis Cardinals in 2006 has not officially retired.
It's always awkward when a player hasn't officially retired and he doesn't currently have a job with a team yet. At a certain point, you need to save face and just officially retire, because very few things are sadder than a player who can't get a job with a professional team but insists he hasn't retired. I would probably rather see a player get a job with another team and struggle than a player who insists he isn't retired, but can't seem to find a job. At some point, this refusal to submit to reality leads a player to Japan, Russia or another country to play professionally in another league.
What's sadder to think about in these two situations:
-Stephon Marbury retires when getting no interest from NBA teams and goes about his life.
-Stephon Marbury doesn't retire and is now playing for the Foshan Dralions in China.
Personally, I think combined with his bizarre offseason webcam antics last year, it is more sad Marbury is playing in China. Think about how you felt when you learned Allen Iverson was going to play basketball in Turkey. Personally, I was sad.
I'm not sad about Eckstein not currently having a job, simply because it prevents the media from shoving the typical "scrappy, plays the game right, and he hustles" storylines down my throat. Apparently, even when Eckstein isn't officially retired, we still get the same stories about him, so maybe there is no avoiding this crap.
Nor has the game retired him, like it has so many veterans who simply fade away.
Wow, this is uncomfortable. Yeah...it has. If no MLB teams want to pay him to play for them in a capacity Eckstein believes he deserves, he may still have the game running through his grit-based veins, but the game doesn't appear to want him at this time.
Eckstein, who played the 2009 and 2010 seasons with the San Diego Padres, got an offer to sign with a club four weeks ago and turned it down.
I can understand that decision though, look what club offered to sign Eckstein.
David Eckstein wants you to know Rancho San Diego Little League, David Eckstein won't just sign with any team. Quit offering him the position to compete at shortstop on the 11-12 team. Little Jimmy Morell will move to second base from shortstop if you want David Eckstein on your team because an ex-World Series MVP won't compete with anyone for a starting job.
He said he received more offers — including major league deals —last winter than he ever has a free agent but has spent the last few months working for his wife,
This is getting even more sad. When a player has to explain, that yes, he is receiving offers from Major League teams, and yes, he wants to continue to play baseball it tells me two things:
1. The player is getting offered a minor league deal.
2. Eckstein's ego believes he deserves more than a minor league deal. So assuming this is correct, I am supposed to feel sympathy and be able to relate to a baseball player who miscalculates his own current skill set? No thanks, I won't do that.
So I am sad that Eckstein, a guy who claims to only think about the team and just loves to play the game of baseball, has too much ego to accept a lesser role on a team.
and not diving around infields and driving up pitch counts.
And OPSing 0.647 last year, while getting on-base at a 0.321, which is the lowest percentage of his career.
"I made a decision not to play," said Eckstein, who was in Angel Stadium on Wednesday to visit his brother Rick, the Nationals' batting coach.
Are there any physical reasons? "No," Eckstein said.
Gritty. Hustling. Eckstein.
Asked whether he hoped to play again, Eckstein, who also visited Manager Mike Scioscia and several players in the Angels clubhouse, shrugged his shoulders.
"As soon as some team panics because of a lack of infield depth and chooses to give me a Major League deal to where my ego is satisfied, I will play again. Mainly it is just about what I believe myself to be worth, not what my actual worth may be. Have I ever mentioned I have read all the press about how awesome I am and I believe it all?"
"It totally has to be the right situation, but when you say that, it's like you're disrespecting the clubs that have talked to you," Eckstein said.
You certainly sound like a bit of a diva who doesn't want to compete for a job or take a minor league deal because you are "too good for that" or don't perceive that as your current value. Of course, this is David Eckstein, so he would NEVER be guilty of doing this because we've been told for years just how perfect and unselfish he truly is.
Much of David Eckstein's value goes well beyond statistics —
And here we go with this crap again...
I have always found it interesting many of the same people who defend David Eckstein against the ire of the grit-hating public are also people who love the intangibles of a player, but these people also don't enjoy going beyond basic statistics to evaluate a player. Maybe I'm stereotyping here, but that's the way I feel. It is the use of statistics when it goes to prove a point these people want to prove. Statistics show that Player X is better than Player Y when determining the Cy Young/MVP, which is why wins and RBI's aren't misleading numbers. This is while Player Z may only have 35 RBI's, but his value can't be measured in statistics because it isn't convenient for the point trying to be proven.
When it is convenient to see CC Sabathia has 21 wins and Felix Hernandez has 13 wins that's when the statistics speak for themselves, but once a player seems to exhibit some sort of scrappiness then the statistics no longer speak for what that player provides to a team and that player has intangibles.
So basically, if Felix Hernandez was a short (most likely) white pitcher who "got the most out of his ability" then everyone would have supported him to win the Cy Young last year. Unfortunately, only intelligent people supported and helped him win the Cy Young.
his grit and desire,
No other players care as much as David Eckstein cares. It's an intangible he has which can't be measured, but is measured to be more than anyone else currently playing baseball.
his knowledge of and instincts for the game,
"He does what it takes to win."
his willingness to sacrifice himself for the good of the team by advancing runners with ground-ball outs.
Listen here people! David Eckstein is not afraid to get a ground ball out. While Rickie Weeks is trying to get a base hit to selfishly get himself on-base, David Eckstein cares more about the team than himself and doesn't care if he gets on-base as long as the runners advance. Trying to get a base hit to advance the runners is selfish, getting out to advance the runners helps the team in a way trying to selfishly get on-base doesn't.
It appeared several teams focused on Eckstein's statistics, which are not overwhelming — he had a .280 average, .345 on-base percentage and 1,414 hits in 10 big league seasons —
What? Why would a team focus on a player's statistics when paying him to play baseball? Albert Pujols is a great baseball player, but the smart teams won't focus on this when he becomes a free agent and will focus on the delicious chocolate chip pancakes he makes in the clubhouse before games. THAT'S the real value to the team, breakfast creations, not his selfish insistence on getting on-base at the expense of the team. These are the intangibles that make Albert Pujols worth millions, not getting all over-focused on his statistics.
Given the choice between signing Rickie Weeks to play second base and signing David Eckstein, the stupid teams would choose Weeks based on the simple premise he is actually very good at his job and is the better baseball player. The smart teams don't focus on statistics and choose Eckstein because you can't measure his value with a tangible benefit, but you measure his value using only non-existent measurements called intangibles.
and not his overall value.
Did David Eckstein pay Mike DiGiovanna to write this column? No sportswriter worth a crap would actually write teams pay too much attention to a player's statistics and not the player's "overall value." Aren't statistics part of a player's overall value? How can any person with a straight face truly believe Eckstein has more grit and desire than another player? Eckstein seems to be trying really hard because he is so damn small and he seriously has the weakest throwing arm I've ever seen on a grown man.
If Eckstein had so much grit and desire why doesn't he grit it out and desire to play professional baseball in situation he doesn't feel is ideal? What kind of leader, who claims he loves the game of baseball so much it hasn't left him, avoids any situation he feels isn't good enough for him to play baseball? A real leader would accept a job that pays him to play baseball, because he loves the game so much, and then use his leadership abilities to help the team out. A player who was really willing to sacrifice himself for the betterment of the team would accept a situation that isn't "right" if it makes the team better. Eckstein doesn't seem to want to do any of these things.
"I think in this game you get to a point where you know what you can do, and you want to be in a situation where people believe in you," Rick Eckstein said.
Translation: Eckstein wants either (a) a Major League contract, not a minor league contract and/or (b) an opportunity to start for a MLB team. It isn't selfish to want this, but it is also hard to believe if Eckstein is truly holding out for this then he is as selfless and team-oriented as we are made to believe. If Eckstein's skill set was as great as we are led to believe and he only cares about the team as much as we are led to believe, then I would think any opportunity he received to play in the majors would be welcome.
"David has been a great attribute to baseball for 10 years. He brings a certain element to every team he's been a part of, and at some point, what he brings, people don't see it as a value. So, he's decided [he won't play]."
This scrappy, hustling, team-oriented-only guy is taking his ball and going home because teams don't see just how fucking great he is. Sounds pretty selfish and not selfless doesn't it?
Does Rick Eckstein, who seven months ago donated a kidney to another Eckstein brother, Kenny, think David will play again?
"If the right situation presents itself, absolutely," he said.
Rick sounds about as insufferable as I imagine David Eckstein truly may be.
"David knows who he is. It's that simple."
Here's a startling revelation. We know who David Eckstein is as well. He is a career .280/.345/.355 hitter with a career OPS+ of 83 and WAR of 21.2 for his career.
Eckstein, the clutchiest of postseason players, also has a .278/.345/.335 line in the postseason. If this performance could be measured by statistics, which I am constantly told it can't, I would say he is about as good in the postseason as he is in the regular season.
It seems the rest of the majors know who David Eckstein is as well, and based on this knowledge, it may explain why a major league contract or starting job isn't being handed to a declining 36 year old second baseman. I think the problem is that David Eckstein and those around him can't accept who Eckstein is. It certainly seems that way.
I hope this is the last David Eckstein "hustle, grit, scrappy, intangibles, the statistics don't matter" piece I ever read. I doubt it though.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Friday, July 8, 2011
14 comments Dan Shaughnessy Goes Full Douche-tastic, Reminds Us How Awesome Boston Is
Dan Shaughnessy has basically written an entire column for CNNSI.com that talks about how great Boston sports have been over the last decade. He's right. Boston sports teams have won quite a few championships, including one in hockey, which counts as a major sport again to Dan now that the Boston Bruins have a quality team. There is no point to this article, other than to remind us all that Boston sports have been dominant of late. There is no insight, other than the fact Dan Shaughnessy is as unlikeable as his columns make him seem, and there is certainly no point to this article. But yet, the article was written anyway for no apparent reason.
I'm going to go ahead and put the "a lot of cursing" label on this post because I can only answer a column with no inherent value with retorts and words with no inherent value.
The rest of the country must be sick of us in Boston.
Not really. I'm sick of pathetic Boston-related writers making every single thing about their Boston-area teams. I'm not sure if you have heard or not, but MLB had a bad year last year, this just happened to coincide with the Red Sox not making the playoffs. Also, hockey is big again, which just happens to coincide with the Bruins being a competitive team again. It's crazy how this works.
We have all the champions. We have all the trophies.
I think "all" is overstating it a bit. I'm picking nits, but it isn't like any team other than the Bruins have won a championship in the last two years. The Celtics haven't won a championship since 2008, the Red Sox haven't won since 2007, and the Patriots haven't won since 2005. So only one major trophy currently resides in Boston. So saying Boston has "all" the trophies is inaccurate. They've won quite a few recently, but it isn't like any other major trophy resides in Boston right now.
And yes, I realize I just set Boston up for 4 championships in the next calendar year. Your welcome Boston. I have just given you 4 championships in the next year by writing this post.
Sorry. No brag, just fact.
No, it is bragging because this isn't a fact. A fact would mean the Boston-area teams have ALL of the trophies, which is not true. Only one Boston team in major sports (and hockey is a major sport in Boston now because the Bruins won the Stanley Cup) has a championship trophy right now. So talking about how many trophies your city has is accurate, but saying the city has "all" of the trophies is factually inaccurate, which means this article is probably just Dan bragging.
The Boston Bruins won the Stanley Cup in Vancouver last week, completing Boston's Grand Slam of North American sports. In seven years.
So what's your point? That's great for the city of Boston. What's the point of all this? Boston has had a great run. Dan is a sportswriter, it is his job to write about sports in the city of Boston, not gloat. Yet, gloat he does...in his own insufferable way.
No city has ever sprayed so much Champagne in so few seasons. Overall, it's seven championships since February 2002.
I am WAY too lazy to determine if this is the most champagne sprayed in so few seasons, but I am going out on a limb and say this is not true, though I have no proof.
Also, don't you love how the dates Dan is using change based on what statistic he is trying to brag about? Just a few sentences ago, it was a span of seven years he was using as the Grand Slam of majors and now he is going back to 2002 to talk about how awesome Boston sports have been since then. He doesn't want to go back in time too far back from 2002 though. Then his data doesn't look quite as good.
Sounds like Dan is more of a fan than a journalist, doesn't it?
Our confetti is knee deep. The tires on our parade Duck Boats are balding.
As is the player's hair on your basketball team! Rim shot! The Celtics are old!
From Brady to Big Papi to the Big Ticket to Big Z. We are the champions.
I hope someone puts laxatives in Dan's coffee. This isn't journalism, this is a 24 year old fan bragging about his favorite team's exploits. So why did CNNSI.com allow this to be printed? What is gained from reading this?
There's never been anything like it. Want a little perspective? Try this: our local team with the longest championship drought is now the New England Patriots. They haven't won a Lombardi trophy since way back in 2005. What's wrong with those slackers?
I get it! It's a joke. Funny!
How does Dan get to write? Who reads what he writes and says, "Holy shit, that's some top notch journalism right there." Yet, he gets to write for a local newspaper AND a national sports site. Life isn't fair.
Here's another nugget: our four championship coaches are still in office -- hoodie Bill Belichick, Terry Francona, Doc Rivers and Claude Julien. This has never happened anywhere.
Well that's because, as Dan stated earlier, few teams have won four titles in four sports over a short time span. It's impressive. So in such a short span of time I wouldn't expect the head coach or manager of a successful team to change.
A club of four. All champs. All still in power.
Your perm. Still has. All of its original bounce.
They support one another. Francona wore a Bruins jersey to his pregame press conference when the Milwaukee Brewers came to Fenway last Friday.
When Francona was on a long road trip on the West Coast, Bill Belichick offered to go Francona's house and have sex with his wife. No big deal to him. He'll do what it takes. These four guys will do ANYTHING for each other...except Francona, Belichick and Julien still refuse to hold a conversation with Austin Rivers even though Doc Rivers insist they try. That kid just seems like an asshole to them.
Francona was unable to attend any Bruins playoff games because he's in season. But Rivers went to the Garden, conceded he knows little about hockey, then said he was impressed by the beer consumption of the Hub Hockey Krishnas.
Not only is Boston the greatest city of champions if you count the last 7-9 years and don't include any other time span, their fans drink more beer than any other fans because they care more about their team.
Belichick, meanwhile, was a regular on Causeway Street, appeared on the JumboTron, and was honored as "Bruins Fan of the Game'' during the Eastern Conference Final against Tampa Bay.
An honor I am sure he earned by standing up all game and vocally cheering the Bruins team very loudly and not simply because he is the head coach of the NFL team in town and the person who runs the JumboTron felt like highlighting that Bill Belichick was at the hockey game.
In our town, the Bruins' championship quest most closely resembled the Red Sox's biblical journey to the World Series title in 2004.
The Bruins winning the Stanley Cup doesn't resemble the Red Sox journey at all. Also, I just re-read the Bible and nowhere in there can I find anything about the Red Sox winning a World Series in 2007. I guess that wasn't a very special team. Leviticus 16:2 does say Jesus was a huge Patriots fan though and I am pretty sure Paul wrote a letter about the Red Sox run to the World Series title in 2004 at some point...but nothing about the Red Sox winning the World Series.
The Sox hadn't won in 86 years, the Bruins 39 years. There was a full eclipse of the moon on the night of both team's clinchers.
Here's another coincidence. The same hack writer, we'll call him Shan Danaughnessy, wrote about both of these title victories! Then, as described in the Bible, this writer shall talk about this 2004 Red Sox World Series win until all patience with him has run out among the people of the lands, at which point he will be banished into the desert.
The Sox of '04 were recovering from the hideous ALCS loss to the Yankees in Game 7 of 2003. Grady Little forgot to pull Pedro Martinez
He "forgot" to pull Pedro Martinez? Was he ordering a pizza or something? It isn't like Little just absentmindedly didn't take Martinez out of the game because he was busy, he made a concerted decision to leave Pedro in the game.
Also, why does Dan Shaughnessy recap the Red Sox 2004 World Series win in every single article he writes? Nobody is buying your stupid books anymore Dan, no matter how hard you try.
and the Sox blew a 5-2 lead in the eighth, then lost when Aaron Boone homered in the 11th.
Aaron Boone then blew out his ACL over the summer, which wasn't an accident, but willed to happen by Red Sox Nation. They have that power you know.
In 2010, the Bruins led the Philadelphia Flyers, three-games-to-zero, then lost four straight. In Game 7 at home, the B's led 3-0, but lost, 4-3. It was bad.
Oh I get it. The similarity in the 2004 Red Sox team and the 2011 Bruins team is the 2003 Red Sox lost Game 7, while the 2010 Bruins team blew a 3-0 deficit. That's pretty much the same thing. THEN the next year, in an eerie similarity between these two teams, the 2004 Red Sox came back from a 3-0 deficit, while the Bruins won the Stanley Cup in a Game 7. It's like these two teams were destined to play in the same city. THEN, in an even more eerie coincidence, both the 2004 Red Sox and 2011 Bruins had players with facial hair on their roster. This was destiny as well.
The Sox of '04 trailed the Yankees three-games-to-zero, then came back and won. The Bruins of '11 lost their first two games (both at home) of the first round series against Montreal, then won. They trailed the heavily-favored Canucks two-games-to-zero in the Cup final, then won.
I guess Dan Shaughnessy figures if CNNSI.com is going to let him write an entire article being an unsufferable douchebag and brag about how great Boston sports are, and we all know he will talk about the 2004 Red Sox team, he may as well sttttttttttttrrrrrrrrrrrrretch to get a comparison between the 2004 Red Sox and the 2011 Bruins. I'm just surprised he didn't tie this into the 2008 Celtics somehow.
Good times never seemed so good.
That's from "Sweet Caroline!" The Red Sox play that song at their home games! Now, all Dan has to do is make up a fake curse in an effort to sell books and he can call it a day.
Not to rub it in, but things are looking pretty good for the future, too.
Absolutely. This doesn't sound like bragging at all, nor is discussing how great the future looks for the Boston-area teams rubbing anything in. This is a sportswriter writing this by the way. Not a fan of the Boston-area teams, but a sportswriter. Just thought I would clear up the confusion I was personally having in case someone else was confused too. Even most Boston sports team-based blogs don't have this much homer-ism and bravado contained in them.
Despite a slow start, the Red Sox have the best record in the American League and look like favorites to win the whole thing for the third time since 2004.
Favorites as determined by Dan Shaughnessy. My "favorite" at this point is still the Philadelphia Phillies, they have the best record in the American and National League.
I know if he could read what I just wrote, Dan Shaughnessy would say, "The National what?" He thinks to win the World Series you just have to beat the Yankees in the playoffs.
The Patriots are coming off a 14-2 campaign, have a raft of draft picks, and figure to benefit from the lockout because of the brilliance of the Belichick system.
The Bruins have a young roster, a lot of signed players and room under the cap.
"A young roster, a lot of signed players, and room under the cap." Let's not get too specific here, Dan.
The Bruins had the 11th (or 15th depending on what you believe) oldest team in the NHL this year. They appear to be 23rd in cap space. I don't know much about hockey, but I get the feeling Dan doesn't either.
At this hour, the Celtics are probably the longest shots to get back to the championship circle. But they still have three Hall of Famers, plus an All-Star point guard in Rajon Rondo.
They have three Hall of Famers who are considered Hall of Famers right now because (a) they are older and (b) they are declining...the Celtics have no real center, and they play in the Eastern Conference which has two teams clearly on the rise (Chicago and Miami). So I am not sure the Celtics are on the rise nor does saying how many Hall of Famers prove much but to show how good these players on Celtics used to be, but may not be in the future.
It's been difficult to explain this to New England youngsters who have never had to wait. A teenager in Greater Boston knows only championships.
10 years ago Dan Shaughnessy bitched about how cursed the Boston-area was, now he is bitching they have too many championships and "the kids" don't know what it is like to have failure.
There's no Curse of the Bambino,
There never was. You made it up to sell books.
no pathetic Patriots of the 1990s,
They only made ONE Super Bowl. How pathetic!
no 22-year Celtic drought.
A 22 year drought? How were there not mass suicides in the Boston area? What human being could survive going 22 years without a championship from an NBA team?
The dark days of Butch Hobson, Rod Rust, Rick Pitino and Dave Lewis are far behind us. Today it's all sellouts, balloons and parades.
"Us." I think this is a case where a writer over-identifies with the teams he is writing about.
Truly, we're feeling a little guilty about all this success.
I mean this in the nicest possible way, but you can shove this sentence up your ass. Yes, shove this non-tangible object up your ass. Sure, it may seem impossible, but not as impossible as being a Boston sports fan in the 90's!
Our hearts bleed for folks in Cleveland, who haven't won anything since ... 1964. Ouch.
In your face Cleveland! Dan will patronize you with how much success "his" teams have had compared to yours.
Why should we have so much when some have so little?
Why did this article get written? What purpose did it serve?
Congratulations Dan Shaughnessy! You have written the least substantive article for the year 2011 so far...and that's saying a lot.
I'm going to go ahead and put the "a lot of cursing" label on this post because I can only answer a column with no inherent value with retorts and words with no inherent value.
The rest of the country must be sick of us in Boston.
Not really. I'm sick of pathetic Boston-related writers making every single thing about their Boston-area teams. I'm not sure if you have heard or not, but MLB had a bad year last year, this just happened to coincide with the Red Sox not making the playoffs. Also, hockey is big again, which just happens to coincide with the Bruins being a competitive team again. It's crazy how this works.
We have all the champions. We have all the trophies.
I think "all" is overstating it a bit. I'm picking nits, but it isn't like any team other than the Bruins have won a championship in the last two years. The Celtics haven't won a championship since 2008, the Red Sox haven't won since 2007, and the Patriots haven't won since 2005. So only one major trophy currently resides in Boston. So saying Boston has "all" the trophies is inaccurate. They've won quite a few recently, but it isn't like any other major trophy resides in Boston right now.
And yes, I realize I just set Boston up for 4 championships in the next calendar year. Your welcome Boston. I have just given you 4 championships in the next year by writing this post.
Sorry. No brag, just fact.
No, it is bragging because this isn't a fact. A fact would mean the Boston-area teams have ALL of the trophies, which is not true. Only one Boston team in major sports (and hockey is a major sport in Boston now because the Bruins won the Stanley Cup) has a championship trophy right now. So talking about how many trophies your city has is accurate, but saying the city has "all" of the trophies is factually inaccurate, which means this article is probably just Dan bragging.
The Boston Bruins won the Stanley Cup in Vancouver last week, completing Boston's Grand Slam of North American sports. In seven years.
So what's your point? That's great for the city of Boston. What's the point of all this? Boston has had a great run. Dan is a sportswriter, it is his job to write about sports in the city of Boston, not gloat. Yet, gloat he does...in his own insufferable way.
No city has ever sprayed so much Champagne in so few seasons. Overall, it's seven championships since February 2002.
I am WAY too lazy to determine if this is the most champagne sprayed in so few seasons, but I am going out on a limb and say this is not true, though I have no proof.
Also, don't you love how the dates Dan is using change based on what statistic he is trying to brag about? Just a few sentences ago, it was a span of seven years he was using as the Grand Slam of majors and now he is going back to 2002 to talk about how awesome Boston sports have been since then. He doesn't want to go back in time too far back from 2002 though. Then his data doesn't look quite as good.
Sounds like Dan is more of a fan than a journalist, doesn't it?
Our confetti is knee deep. The tires on our parade Duck Boats are balding.
As is the player's hair on your basketball team! Rim shot! The Celtics are old!
From Brady to Big Papi to the Big Ticket to Big Z. We are the champions.
I hope someone puts laxatives in Dan's coffee. This isn't journalism, this is a 24 year old fan bragging about his favorite team's exploits. So why did CNNSI.com allow this to be printed? What is gained from reading this?
There's never been anything like it. Want a little perspective? Try this: our local team with the longest championship drought is now the New England Patriots. They haven't won a Lombardi trophy since way back in 2005. What's wrong with those slackers?
I get it! It's a joke. Funny!
How does Dan get to write? Who reads what he writes and says, "Holy shit, that's some top notch journalism right there." Yet, he gets to write for a local newspaper AND a national sports site. Life isn't fair.
Here's another nugget: our four championship coaches are still in office -- hoodie Bill Belichick, Terry Francona, Doc Rivers and Claude Julien. This has never happened anywhere.
Well that's because, as Dan stated earlier, few teams have won four titles in four sports over a short time span. It's impressive. So in such a short span of time I wouldn't expect the head coach or manager of a successful team to change.
A club of four. All champs. All still in power.
Your perm. Still has. All of its original bounce.
They support one another. Francona wore a Bruins jersey to his pregame press conference when the Milwaukee Brewers came to Fenway last Friday.
When Francona was on a long road trip on the West Coast, Bill Belichick offered to go Francona's house and have sex with his wife. No big deal to him. He'll do what it takes. These four guys will do ANYTHING for each other...except Francona, Belichick and Julien still refuse to hold a conversation with Austin Rivers even though Doc Rivers insist they try. That kid just seems like an asshole to them.
Francona was unable to attend any Bruins playoff games because he's in season. But Rivers went to the Garden, conceded he knows little about hockey, then said he was impressed by the beer consumption of the Hub Hockey Krishnas.
Not only is Boston the greatest city of champions if you count the last 7-9 years and don't include any other time span, their fans drink more beer than any other fans because they care more about their team.
Belichick, meanwhile, was a regular on Causeway Street, appeared on the JumboTron, and was honored as "Bruins Fan of the Game'' during the Eastern Conference Final against Tampa Bay.
An honor I am sure he earned by standing up all game and vocally cheering the Bruins team very loudly and not simply because he is the head coach of the NFL team in town and the person who runs the JumboTron felt like highlighting that Bill Belichick was at the hockey game.
In our town, the Bruins' championship quest most closely resembled the Red Sox's biblical journey to the World Series title in 2004.
The Bruins winning the Stanley Cup doesn't resemble the Red Sox journey at all. Also, I just re-read the Bible and nowhere in there can I find anything about the Red Sox winning a World Series in 2007. I guess that wasn't a very special team. Leviticus 16:2 does say Jesus was a huge Patriots fan though and I am pretty sure Paul wrote a letter about the Red Sox run to the World Series title in 2004 at some point...but nothing about the Red Sox winning the World Series.
The Sox hadn't won in 86 years, the Bruins 39 years. There was a full eclipse of the moon on the night of both team's clinchers.
Here's another coincidence. The same hack writer, we'll call him Shan Danaughnessy, wrote about both of these title victories! Then, as described in the Bible, this writer shall talk about this 2004 Red Sox World Series win until all patience with him has run out among the people of the lands, at which point he will be banished into the desert.
The Sox of '04 were recovering from the hideous ALCS loss to the Yankees in Game 7 of 2003. Grady Little forgot to pull Pedro Martinez
He "forgot" to pull Pedro Martinez? Was he ordering a pizza or something? It isn't like Little just absentmindedly didn't take Martinez out of the game because he was busy, he made a concerted decision to leave Pedro in the game.
Also, why does Dan Shaughnessy recap the Red Sox 2004 World Series win in every single article he writes? Nobody is buying your stupid books anymore Dan, no matter how hard you try.
and the Sox blew a 5-2 lead in the eighth, then lost when Aaron Boone homered in the 11th.
Aaron Boone then blew out his ACL over the summer, which wasn't an accident, but willed to happen by Red Sox Nation. They have that power you know.
In 2010, the Bruins led the Philadelphia Flyers, three-games-to-zero, then lost four straight. In Game 7 at home, the B's led 3-0, but lost, 4-3. It was bad.
Oh I get it. The similarity in the 2004 Red Sox team and the 2011 Bruins team is the 2003 Red Sox lost Game 7, while the 2010 Bruins team blew a 3-0 deficit. That's pretty much the same thing. THEN the next year, in an eerie similarity between these two teams, the 2004 Red Sox came back from a 3-0 deficit, while the Bruins won the Stanley Cup in a Game 7. It's like these two teams were destined to play in the same city. THEN, in an even more eerie coincidence, both the 2004 Red Sox and 2011 Bruins had players with facial hair on their roster. This was destiny as well.
The Sox of '04 trailed the Yankees three-games-to-zero, then came back and won. The Bruins of '11 lost their first two games (both at home) of the first round series against Montreal, then won. They trailed the heavily-favored Canucks two-games-to-zero in the Cup final, then won.
I guess Dan Shaughnessy figures if CNNSI.com is going to let him write an entire article being an unsufferable douchebag and brag about how great Boston sports are, and we all know he will talk about the 2004 Red Sox team, he may as well sttttttttttttrrrrrrrrrrrrretch to get a comparison between the 2004 Red Sox and the 2011 Bruins. I'm just surprised he didn't tie this into the 2008 Celtics somehow.
Good times never seemed so good.
That's from "Sweet Caroline!" The Red Sox play that song at their home games! Now, all Dan has to do is make up a fake curse in an effort to sell books and he can call it a day.
Not to rub it in, but things are looking pretty good for the future, too.
Absolutely. This doesn't sound like bragging at all, nor is discussing how great the future looks for the Boston-area teams rubbing anything in. This is a sportswriter writing this by the way. Not a fan of the Boston-area teams, but a sportswriter. Just thought I would clear up the confusion I was personally having in case someone else was confused too. Even most Boston sports team-based blogs don't have this much homer-ism and bravado contained in them.
Despite a slow start, the Red Sox have the best record in the American League and look like favorites to win the whole thing for the third time since 2004.
Favorites as determined by Dan Shaughnessy. My "favorite" at this point is still the Philadelphia Phillies, they have the best record in the American and National League.
I know if he could read what I just wrote, Dan Shaughnessy would say, "The National what?" He thinks to win the World Series you just have to beat the Yankees in the playoffs.
The Patriots are coming off a 14-2 campaign, have a raft of draft picks, and figure to benefit from the lockout because of the brilliance of the Belichick system.
The Bruins have a young roster, a lot of signed players and room under the cap.
"A young roster, a lot of signed players, and room under the cap." Let's not get too specific here, Dan.
The Bruins had the 11th (or 15th depending on what you believe) oldest team in the NHL this year. They appear to be 23rd in cap space. I don't know much about hockey, but I get the feeling Dan doesn't either.
At this hour, the Celtics are probably the longest shots to get back to the championship circle. But they still have three Hall of Famers, plus an All-Star point guard in Rajon Rondo.
They have three Hall of Famers who are considered Hall of Famers right now because (a) they are older and (b) they are declining...the Celtics have no real center, and they play in the Eastern Conference which has two teams clearly on the rise (Chicago and Miami). So I am not sure the Celtics are on the rise nor does saying how many Hall of Famers prove much but to show how good these players on Celtics used to be, but may not be in the future.
It's been difficult to explain this to New England youngsters who have never had to wait. A teenager in Greater Boston knows only championships.
10 years ago Dan Shaughnessy bitched about how cursed the Boston-area was, now he is bitching they have too many championships and "the kids" don't know what it is like to have failure.
There's no Curse of the Bambino,
There never was. You made it up to sell books.
no pathetic Patriots of the 1990s,
They only made ONE Super Bowl. How pathetic!
no 22-year Celtic drought.
A 22 year drought? How were there not mass suicides in the Boston area? What human being could survive going 22 years without a championship from an NBA team?
The dark days of Butch Hobson, Rod Rust, Rick Pitino and Dave Lewis are far behind us. Today it's all sellouts, balloons and parades.
"Us." I think this is a case where a writer over-identifies with the teams he is writing about.
Truly, we're feeling a little guilty about all this success.
I mean this in the nicest possible way, but you can shove this sentence up your ass. Yes, shove this non-tangible object up your ass. Sure, it may seem impossible, but not as impossible as being a Boston sports fan in the 90's!
Our hearts bleed for folks in Cleveland, who haven't won anything since ... 1964. Ouch.
In your face Cleveland! Dan will patronize you with how much success "his" teams have had compared to yours.
Why should we have so much when some have so little?
Why did this article get written? What purpose did it serve?
Congratulations Dan Shaughnessy! You have written the least substantive article for the year 2011 so far...and that's saying a lot.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
4 comments Murray Chass Points Out More Things Sean Forman and Bud Selig Are Doing Wrong
Murray Chass loves to criticize Bud Selig on his non-blog. Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily like Bud Selig and I don't know if I believe he has done a fantastic job as the commissioner of baseball. Still, Murray mostly criticizes Bud Selig at every opportunity simply because Selig succeeded (and Murray thinks pushed out, which may be true) Fay Vincent. See, Murray loves Fay Vincent. Like in a scary way. Like if Murray writes a non-blog posting, it will mention Fay Vincent 75% of the time. Murray references Fay Vincent and the things Fay Vincent says as if Murray were the younger brother who really respects and looks up to his older brother...played here by Fay Vincent. So today, Murray points out where Fay Vincent was right and why Sean Forman should stick to VORP and all those numbers that are trying to control the minds of baseball players.
Sometimes you have to feel sorry for Bud Selig, just as you would for a child who watches other kids in the neighborhood playing with toys or games he wants but his parents won’t let him have.
This is as opposed to feeling sorry for Fay Vincent who isn't allowed outside to play, but fondly looks out his window at the children playing and then whispers things that should be changed about the games being played outside in the ears of the boys who are allowed to play outside. This is all a desperate attempt to stay relevant.
For example, Selig, the baseball commissioner, always wanted a payroll cap and in his zeal to get it, he was a pivotal participant in the ouster of his predecessor, Fay Vincent,
Which Murray Chass only mentions in nearly every non-blog posting.
But Selig failed to get the payroll cap the other professional team leagues had.
He was also responsible for the Steroid Era and personally injecting steroids into Alex Rodriguez and Roger Clemens' ass. Murray has no proof of this, but Fay Vincent definitely has his suspicions he would like Murray to pass on. Bud Selig is just one big failure. That's the moral of the story. Well the other moral is the same guy who said the following about MLB owners, Fay Vincent, should still be the commissioner in the eyes of Murray Chass:
"George Steinbrenner was a real problem in baseball, and I think Mark Cuban is a real problem in basketball," Vincent said in part (as reported by the Dallas Morning News).
More currently, Selig wants a hard-slotting system that would reduce the bonuses for players selected in the annual amateur draft, but he faces another fight to get it.
Which is an understandable issue from both sides. The owners want slotting to save themselves (hopefully) some money and the players/agents don't want slotting because they want to be able to get as much money as possible from being drafted by a team in the draft. Naturally in Murray Chass' eyes, because Bud Selig wants slotting this is a terrible, terrible idea.
Speaking at Major League Baseball’s draft earlier this week, Selig said, “The clubs have voted, the GMs have voted, and everybody’s for slotting.”
The commissioner, however, is a little ahead of himself on two counts. First, everyone in M.L.B. does not favor a hard-slotting system.
The Boston Red Sox have expressed opposition to it,
So there is one team against slotting. I guess this isn't really "everybody," but one team out of 30 teams doesn't seem like slotting is an overly unpopular idea. Anytime owners can think of a way to save money and keep money away from the players they tend to do it.
and if the Red Sox are against it, you can bet the New York Yankees are, too.
You can bet the Yankees are against it...I guess. I know the Red Sox and the Yankees have similar likes and dislikes (they are frenemies in that way), but I wouldn't say just because the Red Sox don't like slotting the Yankees hold the same opinion. Let's assume this is true though. So with the Red Sox and the Yankees against slotting, should the debate stop there? It isn't unanimous to go to a slotting system, but we know for sure one team is against it and Murray is just speculating another team is against a slotting system. Still, that is only two teams out of 30 teams that are against slotting.
Second, everybody is not for such a system. The commissioner might have meant everybody on management’s side, which a spokesman said he did, but the fact that the union opposes the idea makes for significant opposition that Selig cannot ignore.
Did Murray really need a spokesman to clarify Selig's quote? It is clear from his quote Selig wasn't saying the union was on-board with this slotting system. Selig was speaking for his side of the bargaining table. I bet Fay Vincent could get a slotting system to be instituted AND he would have gotten steroids out of baseball in just a few short days.
In a hard-slotting system, the league sets a maximum signing bonus for each position in the top rounds of the draft. A team can negotiate a lower bonus – unlikely – but not a higher one.
I don't know how I feel about slotting. I think slotting is somewhat stupid and goes against the free market practices I prefer to see in sports. On the other hand, I think leagues like the NFL do need some sort of slotting system or at least a rookie wage cap, which isn't really an issue in MLB. So I am torn. On one hand, the fact a team may pass up a superior player to the one they would normally pick because he will require a large signing bonus annoys me because I feel like teams should do what they can to win games. On the other hand, teams do have budgetary constraints and I understand those constraints. Not every team is flush with money and they deserve a chance to be competitive. Now, should the fact some teams have budgetary constraints while others don't mean there should a more level playing field? I'm not so sure.
The person who would probably be most affected by such a system is Scott Boras, the high-profile agent who often represents many of the top draft choices and has made millions of dollars in agent fees.
Fay Vincent would never let Scott Boras ruin baseball like Bud Selig has.
I called Boras to get his reaction to a hard-slotting system and reached him on his cell phone. But I apparently caught him off guard; he must have been expecting someone else.
Boras doesn’t like me – my questions over the years apparently have been too tough for his liking,
Or he could just not like you. Murray doesn't seem like the type of guy that is easily likeable.
But Boras did not prove to be a man of his word. Not surprisingly, he did not call me back. (UPDATE: Boras did call back two days later after this column was posted.)
Given:
1. Murray Chass called Scott Boras for a reason, to get his opinion on slotting,
2. Scott Boras called him back eventually,
3. Murray Chass took the time to update his non-blog with the information Boras called him back,
4. Why don't we know the answer as to what Boras thinks about draft slotting?
A lesser writer would have updated Boras' response to draft slotting in the column, since that was the entire reason for calling Boras in the first place. But not Murray Chass, he doesn't need to update us on what Scott Boras actually said about draft slotting. He'll leave that to our imagination to figure out for ourselves. God knows my only real concern was whether Boras called Murray back or not, so I am glad he updated us with that information.
In researching the subject of slotting, I came across an article by Sean Forman, the editor of Baseball-reference.com, who makes a mistake common to observers who don’t understand the union’s thinking.
Maybe I am overly sensitive, but I like how Murray, who currently has no connection to baseball other than the fact he used to have a connection to baseball and probably still has sources, refers to Forman as an "observer" who doesn't understand the union's thinking. It seems a bit condescending to me. Sean Forman is a member of the Baseball Writers of Association, so while he hasn't been around as long as Murray Chass has been, he isn't quite an outsider anymore.
The union, Forman wrote last August,
Yet again, Murray Chass quotes Sean Forman without actually linking the article that Forman wrote. This is just a common courtesy because pretty much any quote can be taken out of context without the full article. I would think an experienced newspaper guy like Murray Chass would realize this, but I guess as a lowly blogger I don't know very much about citing sources and giving credit to authors for work I quote should be no big deal.
“does not and can not care one iota for players not on the 40-man and does not in any way shape or form represent them. They are the major league baseball players association. Their responsibility is to guys who have made (or will soon) make the show – full stop. “As such, they would love hard slotting (assuming it isn’t a backdoor to the cap) that frees up money for major league vets, and they would love the removal of FA compensation, which only increases the value of existing major league free agents.”
I will disagree with Sean Forman on this issue. I think the union does care about players that aren't currently in the majors...to an extent. I don't think the union would ever agree to hard slotting (without a concession from the owners as well) simply because of the perception it takes away money from soon-to-be major league baseball players. So their stand would be they would be against hard slotting, though I am sure a part of the union also realizes if hard slotting did end up happening then it would free up money for veteran players. Still, the perception that it takes money out of younger player's pockets is a perception that would cause the player's union to not back hard slotting in the draft.
Of course I am actually an outsider, so maybe Sean Forman knows something I don't. I would agree the union wouldn't mind the removal of free agent compensation because it takes away the cost of some teams signing free agents. Though I can't say for sure I believe a lot of teams pay attention to what draft pick they will have to give up in order to sign a free agent, so there is that issue as well. Many teams if they want a player, I would guess they generally don't worry too much about the draft pick they will forfeit.
Forman, whose expertise is in statistics like WAR and VORP, strayed into unfamiliar territory,
Saying Forman has expertise in statistics like WAR and VORP and ignoring his other knowledge shows Murray has now strayed into unfamiliar territory himself.
failed to see the connection between slotting and capping and demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of how the union overlooks no player, no matter where he plays.
Which is why teams aren't able to manipulate a minor league player's service time in order to get more years out of that player before he hits free agency and arbitration? So as long as we don't count the minor league players who have their service time manipulated (and this is an ethical problem on the part of clubs like Murray argues), then the union does look out for every player, no matter where he plays...as long as he plays in the majors.
So I find it a bit interesting Murray Chass, long a proponent of teams not manipulating their minor league player's service time, would say unequivocally the union overlooks no player, no matter where he plays. I say it is interesting because Murray talks about an issue, service time manipulation, quite frequently. The union doesn't seem to be looking out for all players in that instance.
The union apparently is even prepared to agree to a change in the draft rules that would allow teams to trade draft choices as teams can do in other sports.
I think this is a great idea. I have never completely understood why teams can't trade draft picks in baseball. Teams should be able to trade picks that aren't supplemental draft picks. I think this would make the draft and trade deadline slightly more exciting. When a team is discussing a trade with another team and they can't match up with the prospects a team wants, perhaps a team would be able to use a draft pick to get the trade through. This idea excites me.
It also brings up a ton of fun scenarios about what a draft pick is worth. Joba Chamberlain? Is he worth a 2nd or 3rd round pick? Are draft picks more or less valuable because MLB has a minor league system and many times picks are used to replenish the farm system or provide organizational depth?Overall, I think trading draft picks is a good idea.
Of course the issue with trading draft picks also runs head-on into the issue of a rookie cap. For example, the Pittsburgh Pirates could trade Andrew McCutchen for a 1st and 2nd round pick to the Dodgers. What if the Dodgers have a bad year and they end up picking 11th, which is now Pittsburgh's pick, and the Pirates pick 2nd in the draft? At that point, with no rookie cap the Pirates could end up paying big money to two draft picks. Of course this could happen in today's draft as well if the Pirates pass on the 10th pick the year before, so that's why I'm not sure it is a huge issue. I want teams to be able to trade draft picks. That's my conclusion.
The owners, however, have long opposed the proposal to trade draft choices.
Which I don't understand. I would think teams trading for players at the trade deadline would rather give away a pick rather than giving away a minor league player who is somewhat proven. I would think in some cases a team trading a player at the trade deadline wouldn't mind having more picks in the draft, as long as they have confidence in their ability to select in the draft of course.
It would be great fun for picks to be traded. Imagine the offers the Nationals could have gotten for Bryce Harper or Stephen Strasburg over the last two years. The Nationals wouldn't have to make the trade, but I am sure it would have been interesting to see other teams make offers to the Nationals for these two players.
He didn’t spell out any possible plan, but it only makes sense that for the owners to agree to the trade of draft choices, they would require the union to make one and possibly two concessions.
One would be the hard-slotting system. The other would be an international draft, covering players around the world who always have been signed as unrestricted free agents.
Part of me understands the need for an international draft and a part of me does not. The NBA puts international players in the normal NBA Draft, why can't MLB do the same? If MLB is going to dedicate itself to having an international draft, why not put these players in the MLB draft? Are they afraid these foreign-born players would take draft slots away from high school and college players? That sounds kind of stupid, so I would doubt that. Yes, an international draft would increase the number of rounds in the MLB Draft. Maybe the draft could go 5-10 rounds more or so.
One of the criticism of the international draft is this...if there is going to be a draft that involves international players then certain teams are going to have a competitive advantage over other teams. Some MLB teams have a large presence in Latin American countries and would have the funding to do more in-depth scouting and study of international players. Would an international draft make the rich teams become even richer? I don't think so. Right now, the rich teams should pretty much have their pick of international players and I don't find this to be the case, so I don't know if the advantages of more funds to scout international players in an international draft would cause one team to have a huge advantage over another.
Besides the union’s opposition to it, an international draft would have to overcome the geopolitical obstacle of opposition from the countries whose young players it would affect.
I think this could be worked out on a case-by-case basis. This is part of the reason I think a separate draft for international players isn't the best idea. Perhaps MLB would be better off to have the MLB draft and international draft combined into one. Granted, some of the international players may not be amateurs, but that's the case for international players in the NBA Draft as well and I don't think it has caused huge issues.
With the relationship between the union and the commissioner’s office at its friendliest ever, it’s possible that the two sides could compromise on two or all three of the draft issues.
It's kind of interesting the NFL, which pretty much prints money because business is booming, doesn't currently have the union and commissioner's office getting along, while MLB has the union and commissioner's office getting along well and supposedly MLB is declining in popularity. I'm not sure what this tells me, but I think it is interesting.
“I expect the union would look unkindly on the hard slot and the international draft
Because the union cares about every player no matter where he plays...got that Sean Forman? If you read enough of Murray Chass' columns and sit down with Fay Vincent long enough, maybe you will learn something.
Sometimes you have to feel sorry for Bud Selig, just as you would for a child who watches other kids in the neighborhood playing with toys or games he wants but his parents won’t let him have.
This is as opposed to feeling sorry for Fay Vincent who isn't allowed outside to play, but fondly looks out his window at the children playing and then whispers things that should be changed about the games being played outside in the ears of the boys who are allowed to play outside. This is all a desperate attempt to stay relevant.
For example, Selig, the baseball commissioner, always wanted a payroll cap and in his zeal to get it, he was a pivotal participant in the ouster of his predecessor, Fay Vincent,
Which Murray Chass only mentions in nearly every non-blog posting.
But Selig failed to get the payroll cap the other professional team leagues had.
He was also responsible for the Steroid Era and personally injecting steroids into Alex Rodriguez and Roger Clemens' ass. Murray has no proof of this, but Fay Vincent definitely has his suspicions he would like Murray to pass on. Bud Selig is just one big failure. That's the moral of the story. Well the other moral is the same guy who said the following about MLB owners, Fay Vincent, should still be the commissioner in the eyes of Murray Chass:
"George Steinbrenner was a real problem in baseball, and I think Mark Cuban is a real problem in basketball," Vincent said in part (as reported by the Dallas Morning News).
"... I mean, winning is not everything, and I'm afraid for some of these owners they get so carried away with winning they believe that's the objective."
I hate it when owners get so carried away with winning. The best owners in sports are those who don't give a shit about winning...wait, no, that's some of the WORST owners in sports that don't care about winning and care more about turning a profit.More currently, Selig wants a hard-slotting system that would reduce the bonuses for players selected in the annual amateur draft, but he faces another fight to get it.
Which is an understandable issue from both sides. The owners want slotting to save themselves (hopefully) some money and the players/agents don't want slotting because they want to be able to get as much money as possible from being drafted by a team in the draft. Naturally in Murray Chass' eyes, because Bud Selig wants slotting this is a terrible, terrible idea.
Speaking at Major League Baseball’s draft earlier this week, Selig said, “The clubs have voted, the GMs have voted, and everybody’s for slotting.”
The commissioner, however, is a little ahead of himself on two counts. First, everyone in M.L.B. does not favor a hard-slotting system.
The Boston Red Sox have expressed opposition to it,
So there is one team against slotting. I guess this isn't really "everybody," but one team out of 30 teams doesn't seem like slotting is an overly unpopular idea. Anytime owners can think of a way to save money and keep money away from the players they tend to do it.
and if the Red Sox are against it, you can bet the New York Yankees are, too.
You can bet the Yankees are against it...I guess. I know the Red Sox and the Yankees have similar likes and dislikes (they are frenemies in that way), but I wouldn't say just because the Red Sox don't like slotting the Yankees hold the same opinion. Let's assume this is true though. So with the Red Sox and the Yankees against slotting, should the debate stop there? It isn't unanimous to go to a slotting system, but we know for sure one team is against it and Murray is just speculating another team is against a slotting system. Still, that is only two teams out of 30 teams that are against slotting.
Second, everybody is not for such a system. The commissioner might have meant everybody on management’s side, which a spokesman said he did, but the fact that the union opposes the idea makes for significant opposition that Selig cannot ignore.
Did Murray really need a spokesman to clarify Selig's quote? It is clear from his quote Selig wasn't saying the union was on-board with this slotting system. Selig was speaking for his side of the bargaining table. I bet Fay Vincent could get a slotting system to be instituted AND he would have gotten steroids out of baseball in just a few short days.
In a hard-slotting system, the league sets a maximum signing bonus for each position in the top rounds of the draft. A team can negotiate a lower bonus – unlikely – but not a higher one.
I don't know how I feel about slotting. I think slotting is somewhat stupid and goes against the free market practices I prefer to see in sports. On the other hand, I think leagues like the NFL do need some sort of slotting system or at least a rookie wage cap, which isn't really an issue in MLB. So I am torn. On one hand, the fact a team may pass up a superior player to the one they would normally pick because he will require a large signing bonus annoys me because I feel like teams should do what they can to win games. On the other hand, teams do have budgetary constraints and I understand those constraints. Not every team is flush with money and they deserve a chance to be competitive. Now, should the fact some teams have budgetary constraints while others don't mean there should a more level playing field? I'm not so sure.
The person who would probably be most affected by such a system is Scott Boras, the high-profile agent who often represents many of the top draft choices and has made millions of dollars in agent fees.
Fay Vincent would never let Scott Boras ruin baseball like Bud Selig has.
I called Boras to get his reaction to a hard-slotting system and reached him on his cell phone. But I apparently caught him off guard; he must have been expecting someone else.
Boras doesn’t like me – my questions over the years apparently have been too tough for his liking,
Or he could just not like you. Murray doesn't seem like the type of guy that is easily likeable.
But Boras did not prove to be a man of his word. Not surprisingly, he did not call me back. (UPDATE: Boras did call back two days later after this column was posted.)
Given:
1. Murray Chass called Scott Boras for a reason, to get his opinion on slotting,
2. Scott Boras called him back eventually,
3. Murray Chass took the time to update his non-blog with the information Boras called him back,
4. Why don't we know the answer as to what Boras thinks about draft slotting?
A lesser writer would have updated Boras' response to draft slotting in the column, since that was the entire reason for calling Boras in the first place. But not Murray Chass, he doesn't need to update us on what Scott Boras actually said about draft slotting. He'll leave that to our imagination to figure out for ourselves. God knows my only real concern was whether Boras called Murray back or not, so I am glad he updated us with that information.
In researching the subject of slotting, I came across an article by Sean Forman, the editor of Baseball-reference.com, who makes a mistake common to observers who don’t understand the union’s thinking.
Maybe I am overly sensitive, but I like how Murray, who currently has no connection to baseball other than the fact he used to have a connection to baseball and probably still has sources, refers to Forman as an "observer" who doesn't understand the union's thinking. It seems a bit condescending to me. Sean Forman is a member of the Baseball Writers of Association, so while he hasn't been around as long as Murray Chass has been, he isn't quite an outsider anymore.
The union, Forman wrote last August,
Yet again, Murray Chass quotes Sean Forman without actually linking the article that Forman wrote. This is just a common courtesy because pretty much any quote can be taken out of context without the full article. I would think an experienced newspaper guy like Murray Chass would realize this, but I guess as a lowly blogger I don't know very much about citing sources and giving credit to authors for work I quote should be no big deal.
“does not and can not care one iota for players not on the 40-man and does not in any way shape or form represent them. They are the major league baseball players association. Their responsibility is to guys who have made (or will soon) make the show – full stop. “As such, they would love hard slotting (assuming it isn’t a backdoor to the cap) that frees up money for major league vets, and they would love the removal of FA compensation, which only increases the value of existing major league free agents.”
I will disagree with Sean Forman on this issue. I think the union does care about players that aren't currently in the majors...to an extent. I don't think the union would ever agree to hard slotting (without a concession from the owners as well) simply because of the perception it takes away money from soon-to-be major league baseball players. So their stand would be they would be against hard slotting, though I am sure a part of the union also realizes if hard slotting did end up happening then it would free up money for veteran players. Still, the perception that it takes money out of younger player's pockets is a perception that would cause the player's union to not back hard slotting in the draft.
Of course I am actually an outsider, so maybe Sean Forman knows something I don't. I would agree the union wouldn't mind the removal of free agent compensation because it takes away the cost of some teams signing free agents. Though I can't say for sure I believe a lot of teams pay attention to what draft pick they will have to give up in order to sign a free agent, so there is that issue as well. Many teams if they want a player, I would guess they generally don't worry too much about the draft pick they will forfeit.
Forman, whose expertise is in statistics like WAR and VORP, strayed into unfamiliar territory,
Saying Forman has expertise in statistics like WAR and VORP and ignoring his other knowledge shows Murray has now strayed into unfamiliar territory himself.
failed to see the connection between slotting and capping and demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of how the union overlooks no player, no matter where he plays.
Which is why teams aren't able to manipulate a minor league player's service time in order to get more years out of that player before he hits free agency and arbitration? So as long as we don't count the minor league players who have their service time manipulated (and this is an ethical problem on the part of clubs like Murray argues), then the union does look out for every player, no matter where he plays...as long as he plays in the majors.
So I find it a bit interesting Murray Chass, long a proponent of teams not manipulating their minor league player's service time, would say unequivocally the union overlooks no player, no matter where he plays. I say it is interesting because Murray talks about an issue, service time manipulation, quite frequently. The union doesn't seem to be looking out for all players in that instance.
The union apparently is even prepared to agree to a change in the draft rules that would allow teams to trade draft choices as teams can do in other sports.
I think this is a great idea. I have never completely understood why teams can't trade draft picks in baseball. Teams should be able to trade picks that aren't supplemental draft picks. I think this would make the draft and trade deadline slightly more exciting. When a team is discussing a trade with another team and they can't match up with the prospects a team wants, perhaps a team would be able to use a draft pick to get the trade through. This idea excites me.
It also brings up a ton of fun scenarios about what a draft pick is worth. Joba Chamberlain? Is he worth a 2nd or 3rd round pick? Are draft picks more or less valuable because MLB has a minor league system and many times picks are used to replenish the farm system or provide organizational depth?Overall, I think trading draft picks is a good idea.
Of course the issue with trading draft picks also runs head-on into the issue of a rookie cap. For example, the Pittsburgh Pirates could trade Andrew McCutchen for a 1st and 2nd round pick to the Dodgers. What if the Dodgers have a bad year and they end up picking 11th, which is now Pittsburgh's pick, and the Pirates pick 2nd in the draft? At that point, with no rookie cap the Pirates could end up paying big money to two draft picks. Of course this could happen in today's draft as well if the Pirates pass on the 10th pick the year before, so that's why I'm not sure it is a huge issue. I want teams to be able to trade draft picks. That's my conclusion.
The owners, however, have long opposed the proposal to trade draft choices.
Which I don't understand. I would think teams trading for players at the trade deadline would rather give away a pick rather than giving away a minor league player who is somewhat proven. I would think in some cases a team trading a player at the trade deadline wouldn't mind having more picks in the draft, as long as they have confidence in their ability to select in the draft of course.
It would be great fun for picks to be traded. Imagine the offers the Nationals could have gotten for Bryce Harper or Stephen Strasburg over the last two years. The Nationals wouldn't have to make the trade, but I am sure it would have been interesting to see other teams make offers to the Nationals for these two players.
He didn’t spell out any possible plan, but it only makes sense that for the owners to agree to the trade of draft choices, they would require the union to make one and possibly two concessions.
One would be the hard-slotting system. The other would be an international draft, covering players around the world who always have been signed as unrestricted free agents.
Part of me understands the need for an international draft and a part of me does not. The NBA puts international players in the normal NBA Draft, why can't MLB do the same? If MLB is going to dedicate itself to having an international draft, why not put these players in the MLB draft? Are they afraid these foreign-born players would take draft slots away from high school and college players? That sounds kind of stupid, so I would doubt that. Yes, an international draft would increase the number of rounds in the MLB Draft. Maybe the draft could go 5-10 rounds more or so.
One of the criticism of the international draft is this...if there is going to be a draft that involves international players then certain teams are going to have a competitive advantage over other teams. Some MLB teams have a large presence in Latin American countries and would have the funding to do more in-depth scouting and study of international players. Would an international draft make the rich teams become even richer? I don't think so. Right now, the rich teams should pretty much have their pick of international players and I don't find this to be the case, so I don't know if the advantages of more funds to scout international players in an international draft would cause one team to have a huge advantage over another.
Besides the union’s opposition to it, an international draft would have to overcome the geopolitical obstacle of opposition from the countries whose young players it would affect.
I think this could be worked out on a case-by-case basis. This is part of the reason I think a separate draft for international players isn't the best idea. Perhaps MLB would be better off to have the MLB draft and international draft combined into one. Granted, some of the international players may not be amateurs, but that's the case for international players in the NBA Draft as well and I don't think it has caused huge issues.
With the relationship between the union and the commissioner’s office at its friendliest ever, it’s possible that the two sides could compromise on two or all three of the draft issues.
It's kind of interesting the NFL, which pretty much prints money because business is booming, doesn't currently have the union and commissioner's office getting along, while MLB has the union and commissioner's office getting along well and supposedly MLB is declining in popularity. I'm not sure what this tells me, but I think it is interesting.
“I expect the union would look unkindly on the hard slot and the international draft
Because the union cares about every player no matter where he plays...got that Sean Forman? If you read enough of Murray Chass' columns and sit down with Fay Vincent long enough, maybe you will learn something.
Monday, July 4, 2011
7 comments Bill Simmons Still Under the Impression We Care About the Jokes His Friends Say
Bill Simmons has completed his 15th draft diary, or as he wrote it, this was Draft Diary XV. The roman numerals make it seem more like an event. Unfortunately, this year Bill's friends Jacoby and some other guys tagged along in the diary and said things Bill perceived to be funny. So he shares this with us based on his continuously misguided thinking that because we like his writing, we give a shit about his life and what jokes his friends say.
On a side note, Bill's friend and alleged comedian, Adam Carolla was on "The Real Housewives of California (I think) aftershow the other night. (My wife watches that crap, so that's how I know this, in case anyone was wondering) Anyway, that's the joke. Adam Carolla was on the aftershow of a reality television program featuring wealthy Botoxed women who primarily drink and fight with other for no particular reason and he took part in a $10,000 Pyramid rip-off game show featuring the housewives of the various Bravo "Real Housewives" shows. That's what it has come to for Adam. I knew there was a reason Bill had quit name-dropping Carolla lately and had mostly named dropped Jimmy Kimmel. Adam may not be famous enough for Bill anymore.
Anyway, here's a draft diary. I warn you, there are jokes by Bill's friends in this diary, but I will skip over most of them because nothing is less funny than to tell your audience jokes you and your friends were saying to each other at a particular moment...ok, maybe something is less funny, but it doesn't feel that way right now. Second-hand jokes between friends aren't normally funny to the audience having to hear them.
Here's all you need to know about the 2011 NBA draft: it was held in Newark, N.J.; its consensus first pick played 303 total minutes of college basketball;
Utterly irrelevant. The NBA used to draft players who had played 0 minutes of college basketball. So trying to say Kyrie Irving is unproven or we don't know much about him because he played so little (due to injury) in college is stupid for two reasons:
1. Players used to be drafted #1 overall with zero games of college experience. Most of the best players in the NBA had very little college experience.
2. Even players with four years of college experience still aren't sure things and have question marks about their game. So it doesn't really matter how many minutes a player may play in college, the NBA is still projecting that player's ability to play in the NBA.
its most exciting player projects to be a rich man's JJ Barea;
Otherwise known as "an NBA starter," especially since Jimmer Fredette is much bigger than JJ Barea. Extra non-credit points go to Bill Simmons for comparing two players that are built completely differently.
and my father (normally a draft junkie) was left so uninspired by this year's draft pool that he skipped the first 90 minutes of the telecast to have dinner with his wife.
Oh well, you buried the lede Bill! I didn't know your father didn't watch the draft. Well then clearly if your father, a widely-known and well-respected professional NBA scout, didn't watch the draft, then this 2011 draft wasn't for shit.
Footnote alert coming! Yes, on Grantland, Bill Simmons has footnotes. I have no idea how to note this, so I will put them in parenthesis.
My dad after telling me that: "Wait, you can't put that in your column!" OK.
Even as a 40 year old, Bill Simmons is rebelling against his father! If Bill had done this type of thing as a child, I am sure his father would have punished him by sending him to a lower class private school.
7:30 p.m. ET -- We're coming to you live from the New and Improved Man Cave! I'm joined by some pretzels, some lukewarm Bud Lights and my buddies Wildes and Jacoby,
I've already forgotten the names of Bill's friends. You will want to forget their names too, because somewhere in his exceptional writing career Bill Simmons didn't get the memo that nobody wants a run-down of all the funny things you and your friends said. It's funny to you because you know these people and had the conversation. We don't know them, therefore we don't care. Shut up and write something clever.
and a parlay with Jimmer Fredette being picked in the lottery and two or fewer Kansas guys being drafted (+110 odds).
There's no way in hell two or fewer Kansas guys were going to be drafted. Someone was taking Josh Selby.
When you're gambling on an NBA draft, you know it needs some help.
I've always hated how Bill defines something based on his personal behavior towards that something. Bill Simmons has a complete selfish and tunnel point of view of the world. Bill tends to defines an event, or pretty much anything, based on how it affected him and how he reacted to it. We all tend to judge an event based on our own perception of said event, but I feel like Bill is more dedicated to it than most. So because Bill is gambling on the draft, that means the draft needs help.
Hey, is it a bad sign that Kyrie Irving and Derrick Williams both have a "Crap, I think I'm a good player, but even I'm not sure I should be the first pick in a draft" look on their faces?
Bashing the draft every year seems to be a Bill Simmons tradition. I can't wait until next year when he watches college basketball for three weeks in March and then pretends he has all of the prospects pegged. I'm never forgetting his "Cole Aldrich is better than Ed Davis and should be a lottery pick" comment from last year on Twitter. Never.
Yes, I am a college basketball snob. I hate it when people like Bill Simmons watch three weeks of the NCAA Tournament and think that's all the information they need. I can't decide if Bill will rave about next year's draft or not. Part of me thinks he will because it will be a good draft and the other part of me thinks he won't in case he is wrong about some of the prospects.
7:39 -- Our no. 1 pick? Yup … Kyrie Irving. You know, because any time you can grab a freshman point guard who missed two-thirds of the season when you have $20 million of point guards on your roster, you have to do it.
Because it makes a ton of sense to pass over Irving because you already have Baron Davis and Ramon Sessions? Is this really the logic Bill is trying to use?
We'll see how this goes: I see him settling somewhere between an extremely poor man's Chris Paul and a rich man's Mike Conley.
These parameters are very, very thin. Actually, I think this would be the same player. A rich man's Mike Conley IS an extremely poor man's Chris Paul.
One thing I don't understand: Why does everyone keep saying this month that you "need" a good point guard to win?
Yeah, I don't get why people create fake arguments about how "people" are saying you need a great point guard to win just to refute it in a column. Why do sportswriters make up fake arguments in an effort to disagree with the fake argument?
No one said the Cavs "need" a good point guard to win, it has been said they need to take what they consider to be the best player available. They think they did that by drafting Kyrie Irving.
A quick recap of Kahn's 24 months in charge: his Timberwolves lost 132 of 164 games; he used the fifth and sixth picks in the 2009 draft to take a Spanish guard who couldn't come over for two years and a point guard who bombed so badly that he's probably getting traded tonight;
Later in this very same draft diary, in typical Bill Simmons "I will hedge so that way I don't make a prediction that is wrong because I absolutely refuse to be wrong about anything or else my ego may finally realize I am not 100% right about every little thing" fashion, Bill will say he can see Jonny Flynn breaking out in Houston or benefiting from being away from the Timberwolves. Then Bill refers to Chauncey Billups as a young point guard who needed a change of scenery to flourish.
See, Bill never actually says anything, but he says enough to where he can take credit for one thing or the other. We will see this again. Bill can say, "I said Jonny Flynn bombed" and then mock David Kahn for drafting a player who bombed. AND he can say "I didn't say Jonny Flynn was a bad player" because he can see Flynn breaking out in Houston after leaving Minnesota. So there's no way he was wrong about anything. If Flynn plays well, then Bill could see that coming, if Flynn continues to bomb, then David Kahn is an idiot. I know it isn't the purpose of Bill Simmons' writing to make predictions, but he often makes statements in a way he can't be wrong in making that statement and I believe this is because he can not fathom the idea of being wrong because it won't make him seem as smart as he seems to believe he is.
So then Bill goes on about how bad David Kahn is...but then he hedges in a footnote in case Kahn ever turns his shit around. In a non-coincidence, guess who appeared on Bill's podcast on Monday? David Kahn.
If you're defending Kahn, it should go like this: he's willing to admit when he's wrong and fix it (like firing Rambis or trading Flynn); he DID land Rubio; he DID bottom out (which is what every noncontender should do, it's the only way to get better); and he DID build a decent core of Love, Rubio, Williams and Johnson. His big "vision" wasn't much different than what Sam Presti did with Seattle/OKC … it was just a little rockier.
Notice how Bill says Kahn fixed Minnesota by trading Flynn. I really hope everyone gets what I'm trying to say. Bill spends inordinate amounts of time bashing David Kahn. He continues bashing David Kahn in this draft diary, but then sets up a scenario where Kahn is turning the Wolves around in some ways. This is just a simple case of playing the middle. Bill wants to be able to continue bashing Kahn, but he doesn't want his loyal subordin---fans to think he was wrong about something. So either way the Kahn Era goes, Bill is ready.
Kudos to Kahn for not overthinking things and grabbing Williams, who just inspired Wildes, Jacoby and me to figure out the hierarchy of congratulatory hugs right after someone gets picked.
Just for reference, again, I will be skipping most of the jokes these guys make. I really don't care what they said.
7:55 -- Bilas mentions that Fran Fraschilla has likened Jonas Valanciunas to a "poor man's Pau Gasol" and adds, "That's pretty high praise." It is?
Yeah, it sort of is.
Since when is calling someone a "poor man's" anything praise?
Says the guy who just said Kyrie Irving could be a poor man's Chris Paul and make two All-Star teams. If that doesn't sound like some sort of faint praise then I don't know what to say at this point. Making an All-Star team is good, right?
And isn't that insulting to Marc Gasol, the original Poor Man's Pau Gasol? Or did he vacate that title after his sterling 2010 playoffs?
I'm pretty sure Bill means the 2011 playoffs.
7:56 -- Curveball from the Cavs at no. 4: They take Tristan Thompson..."He just needs to learn how to play and how to score," Bilas says. I think I need more from my fourth pick than that sentence.
Thompson is 20 years old. Bilas meant Thompson had to learn to play and score in the NBA. It was a poor choice of words probably, but I don't know if Bill should completely judge Thompson based on what Jay Bilas thinks of Tristan Thompson. Of course, Bill will still make complete judgments based on one man's opinion since it helps to prove his own opinion.
Weird choice. Or, this draft is horrible.
Because a draft is automatically horrible if a "weird" choice is made or if a team makes a bad choice. That's why the 2003 draft was so bad, because Darko was chosen over Carmelo Anthony, Chris Bosh and Dwayne Wade. Inexplicable or weird choices never happen in a good draft.
Actually, Bill is the one who labeled the Thompson choice as "weird" and then uses his own opinion as evidence of his opinion this draft is terrible. Bill Simmons is consistently good at making up criteria based on his own opinion in order to support a conclusion he wants to come to.
Wildes thought Valanciunas was right on the Interpreter Cusp — he knew just enough English that he didn't need one, but he probably should have gotten one, anyway.
He starts his career with a memorable highlight: Right after the pick, he just about open-mouth kisses his smoking hot European girlfriend as the crowd cheers lustily. That leads to this exchange:
I can't imagine a scenario where this exchange was worthy of inclusion in Bill's draft diary.
8:13 -- That reminds me … our past five picks were Enes, Tristan, Jonas, Jan and Bismack. What the hell is happening right now?
Foreigners! They have such crazy names!
8:18 -- The Pistons just lucked out: Brandon Knight at no. 8? Really?
Yes, Seth Meyers...really!
I like this pick: smart kid, good character, good pedigree, talented …
These attributes also perfectly describe Kyrie Irving, which means Bill will immediately say...
he might end up being better than Irving for all we know.
For all we know this could happen. For all we know, Brandon Knight could also be worse than Kyrie Irving. Knight could also never play another game of basketball due to a new religion he has converted to that doesn't allow him to get near any round objects. WE DON'T KNOW! That's Bill's sense after this draft. We just don't know what will happen. Was that really Jan Vesely or just a guy who looked like Jan Vesely? There's no way to say. Is David Stern a robot? We can't tell. Brandon Knight may end up being the best player in this draft. Who knows?
I'm glad Bill is here to tell us we don't know what will happen in the future with these players.
8:20 -- Random question: What would happen if Detroit re-signed Rodney Stuckey, then started Knight and Stuckey together?
Then the Pistons would have two combo guards on the roster. Oh wait, this was the beginning of a supposedly funny riff, wasn't it? Let's see how that would go...
If you start two combo guards, does that equal one point guard and one shooting guard? I say it does; Jacoby thinks it cancels each other out; Wildes solves it by saying, "If you have two Arnold Palmers, that doesn't mean you have one iced tea and one lemonade, it means you have two Arnold Palmers."
What does Hench think? I refuse to read anymore of this diary until I know what Hench thinks. I would ask what Bill's dad thinks about this, but he isn't watching the draft this year, which is Clue #1 this draft sucks. Clue #2? All the damn foreigners getting picked.
I'm feel confident in saying the weak set up for this weak conversation that was supposed to be intriguing was all a failure.
8:29 -- Ladies and gentleman, it's Jimmer Time! Sacramento just grabbed him with the 10th pick. I see him becoming a more consistently explosive version of JJ Barea, only with deeper range.
I'm not sure I have heard the Jimmer-JJ Barea comparison. Let's compare.
JJ Barea: 6 feet tall, 175 pounds, undrafted out of college, natural point guard.
Jimmer Fredette: 6 feet 2 inches tall, 195 pounds, 10th pick in the 2011 NBA Draft, decorated college player, not a natural point guard.
Of course they are both white, so maybe that counts for something. Otherwise, I'm not sure I see the comparison.
Although teaming Jimmer (a black hole in college) with Tyreke Evans (a black hole in the pros) makes me a little nervous. Can the usage rate of two guys add up to higher than 100 percent?
Inside joke for the stat nerds.
See, Bill Simmons is a stat nerd...unless it doesn't fit what he is trying to prove, in which case the stats don't prove what he wants to be proven, so then the stats are misleading. Look no further for proof of this in the post I linked. Bill says Derrick Rose has to be seen to be believed and the stats don't do him justice, but he uses those same misleading stats to put Wade on 1st team All-NBA over Kobe Bryant.
Wildes: "I'd watch a 24/7 on the making of a 24/7."
Jacoby: "I'd watch any 24/7. Anything. ANYTHING."
Me: "You'd watch a 24/7 on a WNBA team?"
Jacoby (after a pause): "Almost anything."
Haha! Women's basketball sucks! If anyone is looking for why Bill's gig writing for Jimmy Kimmel may have been short, look no further than what Bill believes is a funny exchange.
How has Kawhi Leonard not been taken yet? What am I missing?
Well Bill, you're missing the ability to self-evaluate, original material that made your early career such a joy, a coherent direction where you want your career to go (is Bill an author, columnist, executive producer, editor, or does he want to move over into just being a celebrity?), and the humility/lack of ego where your writing used to be about the subject not how clever you can be. You used to have all this, which made your writing exceptional.
Maybe I misunderstood the question's context...
8:48 -- Wildes thinks there's a poster of Danny DeVito in Twins in Phoenix's front office.
Bill felt the need to share this with us. Someone is very impressed with how clever their friends are.
Stu's running out of Stidbits, he just told the guys that Smith has a tattoo of his father's face on his arm. We might have to start drinking a little more heavily soon.
This is relevant because Smith's father, Derek Smith played in the NBA, and is now dead. See, this is the NBA Draft and Nolan Smith's father played in the NBA...and Nolan Smith just got drafted to play in the NBA. It may not be interesting, but it certainly relevant without drinking needing to be involved.
Did Kahn just give up on Flynn after two years? You bet he did. For the record, if you're stuck in the triangle with a revolving door of bad teammates and a bad coach for two years, how do we know if you're a good point guard?
So now Bill has the perspective Kahn gave up on Jonny Flynn and we don't really know if he is a good point guard or not. I think that's the moral of this draft diary. We don't know. That's the other moral of this draft diary. What I do know is earlier in this draft diary Bill said Kahn "fixed" the Timberwolves by trading Flynn.
Here is the second part of Bill hedging on Jonny Flynn. In the second part of his draft diary we don't have a clue if Flynn is a good point guard or not, but earlier in the diary Bill said the following two things:
he used the fifth and sixth picks in the 2009 draft to take a Spanish guard who couldn't come over for two years and a point guard who bombed so badly that he's probably getting traded tonight;
That point guard who bombed is Flynn.
Then, Bill said Kahn may have gotten things right by saying...
If you're defending Kahn, it should go like this: he's willing to admit when he's wrong and fix it (like firing Rambis or trading Flynn);
So what we have learned, other than nothing, is David Kahn screwed up by drafting Jonny Flynn, made a good move by trading Jonny Flynn, but screwed up because he didn't put enough good players around Jonny Flynn, yet somehow Kahn managed to put a good core together,
and he DID build a decent core of Love, Rubio, Williams and Johnson.
which is a core Flynn played with this past year (or 1/2 of these players...I guess we are just assming Rubio and Williams are going to be part of a good core). So basically Bill is pretty much just full of shit. He's played this Flynn issue nearly every single way. Flynn sucks as a point guard, Kahn did a smart thing in trading him, there weren't enough good players around Flynn, the Wolves had a decent core (or 1/2 of a core) this past year, Flynn may just need a change of scenery, and Kahn screwed up by trading him. I think every angle is covered at this point. The bottom line, at some point Bill will be right in his opinion on Jonny Flynn.
"I like the concept of picking for other teams," Jacoby says. "It's like buying a lap dance for one of your buddies." Wildes and I immediately greet that joke with Van Gundy-esque "I'm not selling that crap" death stares.
Yeah, right. They both laughed hysterically. We know they did. I guess Bill couldn't end this article without at least one strip club/pornstar reference.
Last thought: Whenever NBA TV runs old drafts in the week leading up to the latest one, I see the year in the TV Guide listing and a memory trigger comes to mind: something like, "Oh yeah, 1998, that's the year everyone kept passing on Dirk and Pierce,"
I know Dirk and Pierce outperformed the players in front of them, but it is a bit of an exaggeration to say players that went 9th and 10th in the draft (and Dallas picked Robert Traylor at #6 and then traded for Dirk, so it may be fair to see if the trade didn't happen Dallas would have taken Dirk at #6) got passed over by "everyone." I'm nitpicking, but this is an exaggeration.
or "Crap, that's the Bias draft, I'm changing the channel immediately."
Because Len Bias died before he could begin his Hall of Fame career with the Boston Celtics. This was bound to happen. The Celtics would have 37 NBA Titles right now if they just weren't so cursed. In case anyone forgot, Len Bias died before he played a game for Boston and he was going to be a Top 50 NBA player of all-time. Every Celtics fan is glad to remind you of this every single year when the NBA Draft comes along.
I have a feeling we'll remember the 2011 draft as the Foreigner Draft. And I have a feeling I will change the channel.
This is the last sentence in a paragraph that is supposed to have some sort of sentimentality or deep thought behind it. Like Bill was putting this draft in some sort of perspective it doesn't quite deserve yet.
I haven't hated Simmons' work recently, but when doing the draft diary it may be best to leave off the jokes and he and his friends make. Bill seems to mistake our interest in his writing in our interest in him as a person.
On a side note, Bill's friend and alleged comedian, Adam Carolla was on "The Real Housewives of California (I think) aftershow the other night. (My wife watches that crap, so that's how I know this, in case anyone was wondering) Anyway, that's the joke. Adam Carolla was on the aftershow of a reality television program featuring wealthy Botoxed women who primarily drink and fight with other for no particular reason and he took part in a $10,000 Pyramid rip-off game show featuring the housewives of the various Bravo "Real Housewives" shows. That's what it has come to for Adam. I knew there was a reason Bill had quit name-dropping Carolla lately and had mostly named dropped Jimmy Kimmel. Adam may not be famous enough for Bill anymore.
Anyway, here's a draft diary. I warn you, there are jokes by Bill's friends in this diary, but I will skip over most of them because nothing is less funny than to tell your audience jokes you and your friends were saying to each other at a particular moment...ok, maybe something is less funny, but it doesn't feel that way right now. Second-hand jokes between friends aren't normally funny to the audience having to hear them.
Here's all you need to know about the 2011 NBA draft: it was held in Newark, N.J.; its consensus first pick played 303 total minutes of college basketball;
Utterly irrelevant. The NBA used to draft players who had played 0 minutes of college basketball. So trying to say Kyrie Irving is unproven or we don't know much about him because he played so little (due to injury) in college is stupid for two reasons:
1. Players used to be drafted #1 overall with zero games of college experience. Most of the best players in the NBA had very little college experience.
2. Even players with four years of college experience still aren't sure things and have question marks about their game. So it doesn't really matter how many minutes a player may play in college, the NBA is still projecting that player's ability to play in the NBA.
its most exciting player projects to be a rich man's JJ Barea;
Otherwise known as "an NBA starter," especially since Jimmer Fredette is much bigger than JJ Barea. Extra non-credit points go to Bill Simmons for comparing two players that are built completely differently.
and my father (normally a draft junkie) was left so uninspired by this year's draft pool that he skipped the first 90 minutes of the telecast to have dinner with his wife.
Oh well, you buried the lede Bill! I didn't know your father didn't watch the draft. Well then clearly if your father, a widely-known and well-respected professional NBA scout, didn't watch the draft, then this 2011 draft wasn't for shit.
Footnote alert coming! Yes, on Grantland, Bill Simmons has footnotes. I have no idea how to note this, so I will put them in parenthesis.
My dad after telling me that: "Wait, you can't put that in your column!" OK.
Even as a 40 year old, Bill Simmons is rebelling against his father! If Bill had done this type of thing as a child, I am sure his father would have punished him by sending him to a lower class private school.
7:30 p.m. ET -- We're coming to you live from the New and Improved Man Cave! I'm joined by some pretzels, some lukewarm Bud Lights and my buddies Wildes and Jacoby,
I've already forgotten the names of Bill's friends. You will want to forget their names too, because somewhere in his exceptional writing career Bill Simmons didn't get the memo that nobody wants a run-down of all the funny things you and your friends said. It's funny to you because you know these people and had the conversation. We don't know them, therefore we don't care. Shut up and write something clever.
and a parlay with Jimmer Fredette being picked in the lottery and two or fewer Kansas guys being drafted (+110 odds).
There's no way in hell two or fewer Kansas guys were going to be drafted. Someone was taking Josh Selby.
When you're gambling on an NBA draft, you know it needs some help.
I've always hated how Bill defines something based on his personal behavior towards that something. Bill Simmons has a complete selfish and tunnel point of view of the world. Bill tends to defines an event, or pretty much anything, based on how it affected him and how he reacted to it. We all tend to judge an event based on our own perception of said event, but I feel like Bill is more dedicated to it than most. So because Bill is gambling on the draft, that means the draft needs help.
Hey, is it a bad sign that Kyrie Irving and Derrick Williams both have a "Crap, I think I'm a good player, but even I'm not sure I should be the first pick in a draft" look on their faces?
Bashing the draft every year seems to be a Bill Simmons tradition. I can't wait until next year when he watches college basketball for three weeks in March and then pretends he has all of the prospects pegged. I'm never forgetting his "Cole Aldrich is better than Ed Davis and should be a lottery pick" comment from last year on Twitter. Never.
Yes, I am a college basketball snob. I hate it when people like Bill Simmons watch three weeks of the NCAA Tournament and think that's all the information they need. I can't decide if Bill will rave about next year's draft or not. Part of me thinks he will because it will be a good draft and the other part of me thinks he won't in case he is wrong about some of the prospects.
7:39 -- Our no. 1 pick? Yup … Kyrie Irving. You know, because any time you can grab a freshman point guard who missed two-thirds of the season when you have $20 million of point guards on your roster, you have to do it.
Because it makes a ton of sense to pass over Irving because you already have Baron Davis and Ramon Sessions? Is this really the logic Bill is trying to use?
We'll see how this goes: I see him settling somewhere between an extremely poor man's Chris Paul and a rich man's Mike Conley.
These parameters are very, very thin. Actually, I think this would be the same player. A rich man's Mike Conley IS an extremely poor man's Chris Paul.
One thing I don't understand: Why does everyone keep saying this month that you "need" a good point guard to win?
Yeah, I don't get why people create fake arguments about how "people" are saying you need a great point guard to win just to refute it in a column. Why do sportswriters make up fake arguments in an effort to disagree with the fake argument?
No one said the Cavs "need" a good point guard to win, it has been said they need to take what they consider to be the best player available. They think they did that by drafting Kyrie Irving.
A quick recap of Kahn's 24 months in charge: his Timberwolves lost 132 of 164 games; he used the fifth and sixth picks in the 2009 draft to take a Spanish guard who couldn't come over for two years and a point guard who bombed so badly that he's probably getting traded tonight;
Later in this very same draft diary, in typical Bill Simmons "I will hedge so that way I don't make a prediction that is wrong because I absolutely refuse to be wrong about anything or else my ego may finally realize I am not 100% right about every little thing" fashion, Bill will say he can see Jonny Flynn breaking out in Houston or benefiting from being away from the Timberwolves. Then Bill refers to Chauncey Billups as a young point guard who needed a change of scenery to flourish.
See, Bill never actually says anything, but he says enough to where he can take credit for one thing or the other. We will see this again. Bill can say, "I said Jonny Flynn bombed" and then mock David Kahn for drafting a player who bombed. AND he can say "I didn't say Jonny Flynn was a bad player" because he can see Flynn breaking out in Houston after leaving Minnesota. So there's no way he was wrong about anything. If Flynn plays well, then Bill could see that coming, if Flynn continues to bomb, then David Kahn is an idiot. I know it isn't the purpose of Bill Simmons' writing to make predictions, but he often makes statements in a way he can't be wrong in making that statement and I believe this is because he can not fathom the idea of being wrong because it won't make him seem as smart as he seems to believe he is.
So then Bill goes on about how bad David Kahn is...but then he hedges in a footnote in case Kahn ever turns his shit around. In a non-coincidence, guess who appeared on Bill's podcast on Monday? David Kahn.
If you're defending Kahn, it should go like this: he's willing to admit when he's wrong and fix it (like firing Rambis or trading Flynn); he DID land Rubio; he DID bottom out (which is what every noncontender should do, it's the only way to get better); and he DID build a decent core of Love, Rubio, Williams and Johnson. His big "vision" wasn't much different than what Sam Presti did with Seattle/OKC … it was just a little rockier.
Notice how Bill says Kahn fixed Minnesota by trading Flynn. I really hope everyone gets what I'm trying to say. Bill spends inordinate amounts of time bashing David Kahn. He continues bashing David Kahn in this draft diary, but then sets up a scenario where Kahn is turning the Wolves around in some ways. This is just a simple case of playing the middle. Bill wants to be able to continue bashing Kahn, but he doesn't want his loyal subordin---fans to think he was wrong about something. So either way the Kahn Era goes, Bill is ready.
Kudos to Kahn for not overthinking things and grabbing Williams, who just inspired Wildes, Jacoby and me to figure out the hierarchy of congratulatory hugs right after someone gets picked.
Just for reference, again, I will be skipping most of the jokes these guys make. I really don't care what they said.
7:55 -- Bilas mentions that Fran Fraschilla has likened Jonas Valanciunas to a "poor man's Pau Gasol" and adds, "That's pretty high praise." It is?
Yeah, it sort of is.
Since when is calling someone a "poor man's" anything praise?
Says the guy who just said Kyrie Irving could be a poor man's Chris Paul and make two All-Star teams. If that doesn't sound like some sort of faint praise then I don't know what to say at this point. Making an All-Star team is good, right?
And isn't that insulting to Marc Gasol, the original Poor Man's Pau Gasol? Or did he vacate that title after his sterling 2010 playoffs?
I'm pretty sure Bill means the 2011 playoffs.
7:56 -- Curveball from the Cavs at no. 4: They take Tristan Thompson..."He just needs to learn how to play and how to score," Bilas says. I think I need more from my fourth pick than that sentence.
Thompson is 20 years old. Bilas meant Thompson had to learn to play and score in the NBA. It was a poor choice of words probably, but I don't know if Bill should completely judge Thompson based on what Jay Bilas thinks of Tristan Thompson. Of course, Bill will still make complete judgments based on one man's opinion since it helps to prove his own opinion.
Weird choice. Or, this draft is horrible.
Because a draft is automatically horrible if a "weird" choice is made or if a team makes a bad choice. That's why the 2003 draft was so bad, because Darko was chosen over Carmelo Anthony, Chris Bosh and Dwayne Wade. Inexplicable or weird choices never happen in a good draft.
Actually, Bill is the one who labeled the Thompson choice as "weird" and then uses his own opinion as evidence of his opinion this draft is terrible. Bill Simmons is consistently good at making up criteria based on his own opinion in order to support a conclusion he wants to come to.
Wildes thought Valanciunas was right on the Interpreter Cusp — he knew just enough English that he didn't need one, but he probably should have gotten one, anyway.
"The interpreter never hurts," Wildes says sagely. "You're always gonna sound smart talking in your own language." Unless you're Brett Favre.
Wildes did say that "sagely." Also, what a weird and out of left field Brett Favre reference. It just feels out of place...and we all know I love a good Brett Favre joke, so I am not opposed to any form of Brett Favre mocking.He starts his career with a memorable highlight: Right after the pick, he just about open-mouth kisses his smoking hot European girlfriend as the crowd cheers lustily. That leads to this exchange:
Wildes: "I hope that's not his sister."
Me: "No, that was his girlfriend, there was practically tongue."
Jacoby: "Yeah, I think she was marking her territory. Like a dog marking a tree!"
I can't imagine a scenario where this exchange was worthy of inclusion in Bill's draft diary.
8:13 -- That reminds me … our past five picks were Enes, Tristan, Jonas, Jan and Bismack. What the hell is happening right now?
Foreigners! They have such crazy names!
8:18 -- The Pistons just lucked out: Brandon Knight at no. 8? Really?
Yes, Seth Meyers...really!
I like this pick: smart kid, good character, good pedigree, talented …
These attributes also perfectly describe Kyrie Irving, which means Bill will immediately say...
he might end up being better than Irving for all we know.
For all we know this could happen. For all we know, Brandon Knight could also be worse than Kyrie Irving. Knight could also never play another game of basketball due to a new religion he has converted to that doesn't allow him to get near any round objects. WE DON'T KNOW! That's Bill's sense after this draft. We just don't know what will happen. Was that really Jan Vesely or just a guy who looked like Jan Vesely? There's no way to say. Is David Stern a robot? We can't tell. Brandon Knight may end up being the best player in this draft. Who knows?
I'm glad Bill is here to tell us we don't know what will happen in the future with these players.
8:20 -- Random question: What would happen if Detroit re-signed Rodney Stuckey, then started Knight and Stuckey together?
Then the Pistons would have two combo guards on the roster. Oh wait, this was the beginning of a supposedly funny riff, wasn't it? Let's see how that would go...
If you start two combo guards, does that equal one point guard and one shooting guard? I say it does; Jacoby thinks it cancels each other out; Wildes solves it by saying, "If you have two Arnold Palmers, that doesn't mean you have one iced tea and one lemonade, it means you have two Arnold Palmers."
What does Hench think? I refuse to read anymore of this diary until I know what Hench thinks. I would ask what Bill's dad thinks about this, but he isn't watching the draft this year, which is Clue #1 this draft sucks. Clue #2? All the damn foreigners getting picked.
I'm feel confident in saying the weak set up for this weak conversation that was supposed to be intriguing was all a failure.
8:29 -- Ladies and gentleman, it's Jimmer Time! Sacramento just grabbed him with the 10th pick. I see him becoming a more consistently explosive version of JJ Barea, only with deeper range.
I'm not sure I have heard the Jimmer-JJ Barea comparison. Let's compare.
JJ Barea: 6 feet tall, 175 pounds, undrafted out of college, natural point guard.
Jimmer Fredette: 6 feet 2 inches tall, 195 pounds, 10th pick in the 2011 NBA Draft, decorated college player, not a natural point guard.
Of course they are both white, so maybe that counts for something. Otherwise, I'm not sure I see the comparison.
Although teaming Jimmer (a black hole in college) with Tyreke Evans (a black hole in the pros) makes me a little nervous. Can the usage rate of two guys add up to higher than 100 percent?
Inside joke for the stat nerds.
See, Bill Simmons is a stat nerd...unless it doesn't fit what he is trying to prove, in which case the stats don't prove what he wants to be proven, so then the stats are misleading. Look no further for proof of this in the post I linked. Bill says Derrick Rose has to be seen to be believed and the stats don't do him justice, but he uses those same misleading stats to put Wade on 1st team All-NBA over Kobe Bryant.
Wildes: "I'd watch a 24/7 on the making of a 24/7."
Jacoby: "I'd watch any 24/7. Anything. ANYTHING."
Me: "You'd watch a 24/7 on a WNBA team?"
Jacoby (after a pause): "Almost anything."
Haha! Women's basketball sucks! If anyone is looking for why Bill's gig writing for Jimmy Kimmel may have been short, look no further than what Bill believes is a funny exchange.
How has Kawhi Leonard not been taken yet? What am I missing?
Well Bill, you're missing the ability to self-evaluate, original material that made your early career such a joy, a coherent direction where you want your career to go (is Bill an author, columnist, executive producer, editor, or does he want to move over into just being a celebrity?), and the humility/lack of ego where your writing used to be about the subject not how clever you can be. You used to have all this, which made your writing exceptional.
Maybe I misunderstood the question's context...
8:48 -- Wildes thinks there's a poster of Danny DeVito in Twins in Phoenix's front office.
Bill felt the need to share this with us. Someone is very impressed with how clever their friends are.
Stu's running out of Stidbits, he just told the guys that Smith has a tattoo of his father's face on his arm. We might have to start drinking a little more heavily soon.
This is relevant because Smith's father, Derek Smith played in the NBA, and is now dead. See, this is the NBA Draft and Nolan Smith's father played in the NBA...and Nolan Smith just got drafted to play in the NBA. It may not be interesting, but it certainly relevant without drinking needing to be involved.
Did Kahn just give up on Flynn after two years? You bet he did. For the record, if you're stuck in the triangle with a revolving door of bad teammates and a bad coach for two years, how do we know if you're a good point guard?
So now Bill has the perspective Kahn gave up on Jonny Flynn and we don't really know if he is a good point guard or not. I think that's the moral of this draft diary. We don't know. That's the other moral of this draft diary. What I do know is earlier in this draft diary Bill said Kahn "fixed" the Timberwolves by trading Flynn.
Here is the second part of Bill hedging on Jonny Flynn. In the second part of his draft diary we don't have a clue if Flynn is a good point guard or not, but earlier in the diary Bill said the following two things:
he used the fifth and sixth picks in the 2009 draft to take a Spanish guard who couldn't come over for two years and a point guard who bombed so badly that he's probably getting traded tonight;
That point guard who bombed is Flynn.
Then, Bill said Kahn may have gotten things right by saying...
If you're defending Kahn, it should go like this: he's willing to admit when he's wrong and fix it (like firing Rambis or trading Flynn);
So what we have learned, other than nothing, is David Kahn screwed up by drafting Jonny Flynn, made a good move by trading Jonny Flynn, but screwed up because he didn't put enough good players around Jonny Flynn, yet somehow Kahn managed to put a good core together,
and he DID build a decent core of Love, Rubio, Williams and Johnson.
which is a core Flynn played with this past year (or 1/2 of these players...I guess we are just assming Rubio and Williams are going to be part of a good core). So basically Bill is pretty much just full of shit. He's played this Flynn issue nearly every single way. Flynn sucks as a point guard, Kahn did a smart thing in trading him, there weren't enough good players around Flynn, the Wolves had a decent core (or 1/2 of a core) this past year, Flynn may just need a change of scenery, and Kahn screwed up by trading him. I think every angle is covered at this point. The bottom line, at some point Bill will be right in his opinion on Jonny Flynn.
"I like the concept of picking for other teams," Jacoby says. "It's like buying a lap dance for one of your buddies." Wildes and I immediately greet that joke with Van Gundy-esque "I'm not selling that crap" death stares.
Yeah, right. They both laughed hysterically. We know they did. I guess Bill couldn't end this article without at least one strip club/pornstar reference.
Last thought: Whenever NBA TV runs old drafts in the week leading up to the latest one, I see the year in the TV Guide listing and a memory trigger comes to mind: something like, "Oh yeah, 1998, that's the year everyone kept passing on Dirk and Pierce,"
I know Dirk and Pierce outperformed the players in front of them, but it is a bit of an exaggeration to say players that went 9th and 10th in the draft (and Dallas picked Robert Traylor at #6 and then traded for Dirk, so it may be fair to see if the trade didn't happen Dallas would have taken Dirk at #6) got passed over by "everyone." I'm nitpicking, but this is an exaggeration.
or "Crap, that's the Bias draft, I'm changing the channel immediately."
Because Len Bias died before he could begin his Hall of Fame career with the Boston Celtics. This was bound to happen. The Celtics would have 37 NBA Titles right now if they just weren't so cursed. In case anyone forgot, Len Bias died before he played a game for Boston and he was going to be a Top 50 NBA player of all-time. Every Celtics fan is glad to remind you of this every single year when the NBA Draft comes along.
I have a feeling we'll remember the 2011 draft as the Foreigner Draft. And I have a feeling I will change the channel.
This is the last sentence in a paragraph that is supposed to have some sort of sentimentality or deep thought behind it. Like Bill was putting this draft in some sort of perspective it doesn't quite deserve yet.
I haven't hated Simmons' work recently, but when doing the draft diary it may be best to leave off the jokes and he and his friends make. Bill seems to mistake our interest in his writing in our interest in him as a person.
Friday, July 1, 2011
7 comments 2011 NBA Draft Grades
It's that time again! The time no one was looking forward to. The 2011 NBA Draft has concluded and it is time for me to grade each team (as soon as I understand all the trades that happened...there was a 30 minute span where I thought Kemba Walker went to Sacramento) on a scale of 0-10. "0" will be the lowest ranking and a "10" is the highest. As always, my rankings will be arbitrary in that they are merely my own opinion. Feel free to agree, disagree, or call me an idiot. I'll start in alphabetical order with the NBA teams.
You know, I still can't say I hate this draft. There aren't a lot of top-tier stars, but I believe there will be some contributors to teams in this draft. Still, the fact many of the top projected picks stayed in college hurt the 2011 NBA Draft. Next year's draft plays out to be ridiculous. I just wonder how many players on the 2012 NCAA Champion UNC Tar Heels will go to the NBA. It wouldn't shock me to see as many as 5 guys go early to the NBA from that team.
Atlanta Hawks
The Hawks had one pick and took Keith Benson. I actually like this pick because it is hard to find an experienced big man in the middle of the second round. Will he ever start in the NBA? Probably not, but he still has been productive in college, which is more than some of the guys drafted could say for themselves. I have a feeling if Benson was named Keif Bfjanko and was from Nigeria where he put up 8.6 ppg 2.2 bpg and 4.5 rpg as a 20 year old he would have been a late first round pick. It's hard to find big guys and though Benson is "soft" it wasn't a terrible pick at this stage for the Hawks. They could have screwed this pick up and taken a guy with "potential," which is roughly translated to "we haven't seen him play much, but he sure looks like he can play doesn't he?"
Grade: 6
Boston Celtics
Apparently the Celtics only scouted Purdue players for this draft, because they took two of them in JaJuan Johnson and E'Twaun Moore. I'm torn on Johnson because I wish the Celtics could have turned that pick into a physical big man or drafted a more physical big man in this spot. Johnson has improved every year at Purdue and if he gets a little big stronger than I think it was a great pick. Still, the Celtics need more strength inside and I'm not sure Johnson is that guy right now. A lot of people like the E'Twaun Moore pick, and I do as well. He has a ceiling, but most second round picks either have not proven themselves or have a ceiling. I think he'll end up being a better player than Johnson for the Celtics simply because he's a better backup shooting guard than the Celtics have on their roster right now.
Grade: 7
Charlotte Bobcats
The Bobcats made some trades and got Corey Maggette out of the deal. If his last stint in North Carolina is any indication, he will leave the state after a year and piss everyone off in the process. Still, the Bobcats saved money and got a decent player in return. So not a bad trade. Bismack Biyombo is the type of pick I traditionally just hate. He really hasn't done much other than show he has the potential to do something and he has no offensive game at this point. Throw in the fact he may not even be 18 years old and the Bobcats may have gotten themselves a 21 year old project. The Bobcats will appreciate his defense, but if he can't score he won't be too much use to them since they need players who can score as well. I like the Kemba Walker pick, just from the standpoint he will provide scoring and he is the type of leader the Bobcats need right now. That was a good move. What's really, really irritating for me is the Bobcats picked a power forward/center who has offensive potential, Jeremy Tyler, and just needs some coaching and they traded him for money. Apparently centers who can actually score are just too easy to find, yet the Bobcats felt they needed a defensive specialist at the #7 pick.
Grade: 3
Chicago Bulls
I may be misremembering a bit, but didn't the Bulls need a guard who can score last year? Wasn't that the indication after the series against the Heat where Derrick Rose was the only swingman who could put the ball in the basket? So why did they trade a guy who could provide this for them, Norris Cole, for a player who may not make it to America this upcoming year, Nikola Mirotic? I know he has gotten high grades from those who know foreign basketball, but the Bulls are contending now. Yes, the Bulls have a bright future as well, but they now have to find a shooting guard in free agency...whenever that may happen, if it happens. I can't believe the Bulls couldn't have used Norris Cole on the roster. I find it hard to believe. Maybe I'll look stupid in 2 years when Mirotic comes over and makes Carlos Boozer more expendable than he may already seem. Jimmy Butler is a good pick for the Bulls. He may end up getting the LeBron James assignment, so welcome to the league kid. He plays defense, which is nice, but I would have loved to see the Bulls do something at the shooting guard position. Maybe that's what free agency is for.
Grade: 5
Cleveland Cavaliers
Irving or Williams had to be the first pick. Irving was the pick and I think he is a great leader and teammate. Cleveland will love him. I like Tristan Thompson, but I don't know if I like him for Cleveland. They have JJ Hickson there already. I know there is always room for more big men, but at the #4 spot in the draft I would have liked to see Cleveland pick a different position, like center. I am also a little amazed the Cavs are at the point where they can sell away high second round picks like they had at #32. Apparently the lure of getting the Magic's second round picks, which will probably be in the mid-40's at the lowest was too great. I guess Shelvin Mack or Tyler Honeycutt are wing players that aren't needed on the Cavs roster. I didn't realize Alonzo Gee and Anthony Parker were that irreplaceable. Later in the draft the Cavs chose to go overseas with a pick rather than take a chance on a wing player who could help them eventually or even actually play in the United States at some point. It wasn't a disaster draft, but I am not sold. I think a draft of Irving, Valanciunas, Honeycutt, and Scottie Hopson would have impacted the mediocrity on the roster too much. We can't have that.
Grade: 4
Dallas Mavericks
The Mavericks have to win now. Keeping Jordan Crawford wouldn't have been a bad deal, but they got Rudy Fernandez in return? Nice move. There was no player in this spot who could provide what Fernandez can provide and it covers a need the Mavericks have. I would have loved to see other teams (Boston) do the same type thing with their pick.
Grade: 9
Denver Nuggets
It was clear from the beginning of the Carmelo Anthony trade last year that Raymond Felton probably wasn't going to be in Denver for a long time. So the Nuggets did trade him and managed to get Andre Miller and Jordan Crawford in return for Felton. Not a bad deal. I generally hate discussing potential, but Crawford has what I would "realistic" potential. This means basically he has potential based on the real numbers he has put up previously, but he hasn't hit his ceiling. Whereas Biyombo just has "potential" because other than a few times, he hasn't shown he can be an NBA player. So I think given a year or two Crawford will be a contributor to the Nuggets. I really like the drafting of Faried. You know he won't be an All-Star, but you also know he will rebound and given an effort on the court. You can teach rebounding, but Faried seems to also have a sixth sense on how to rebound and he has rebounded well against high competition (when he played this competition) in college. I think the Nuggets are on the right track...though they seem to be missing that star player.
Grade: 8
Detroit Pistons
First off, I really like Brandon Knight. Every year I seem to pick a point guard in the draft I really like (last year it was Eric Bledsoe) that seems to not be a Top 10 pick. Knight ended up being a Top 10 pick, so he was highly thought of by others. This is a great pick by the Pistons. Yes they needed a big man, but Knight is a point guard who can score. He's like Rodney Stuckey, except better. I don't as much know about Kyle Singler in the second round. I like Singler, but he is better used as a glue guy on a good team, not as a borderline starter on a bad team. He can't create his own shot well, though he doesn't really do anything poorly. I would have gone with a player with a higher ceiling in this spot personally. It is still the early second round so there were a couple of those guys available (Jordan Williams, Tyler Honeycutt, Trey Thompkins). I'm not a huge Vernon Macklin fan. I feel like the Pistons could have done better.
This brings me to Stuart Scott saying a few nights ago at the draft, "Joe Dumars is well-respected around the league as a GM, so people pay attention when he drafts," (or he said something like that). I didn't realize it was 2005.
Golden State Warriors
I think I would have felt better about the Warriors choosing Klay Thompson if Monta Ellis had already gotten traded. At this point though, he is still on the roster so Thompson is a shooter who doesn't play great defense behind another shooter who doesn't play great defense. I like this pick more when Ellis is gone. Defense is overrated I guess. As I said earlier, I like the Jeremy Tyler pick. He may never make it in the NBA, but he as good of a chance as any other big man drafted in the second round. Charles Jenkins will raise the team's IQ, but I wish he had gone to a different team where he could have made a bigger impact. I'm afraid he won't get a chance with the Warriors because of their guard depth.
Grade: 3 (If Ellis stays)
Houston Rockets
Sometimes I think Daryl Morey enjoys the trading aspect of being a GM more than he actually enjoys trading to build a better team. It's just a feeling I get, but I've heard from Bill Simmons that Morey is a genius, so I'll continue to believe this. Marcus Morris is a power forward, which is only interesting because so are Luis Scola and Patrick Patterson, and they are already on the Rockets roster. Maybe there is a trade coming up soon. It seems the Rockets drafted Flynn so they could get rid of Brad Miller's contract and trade Flynn again. Donatas Motiejunas can play center in a pinch, but he fits best at power forward...which is a spot the Rockets had covered decently before they drafted a power forward with their other first round pick. Maybe the Rockets think Motiejunas can play center and I am just stupid. I like Chandler Parsons, but I'm not sure where he fits in with the Rockets if Marcus Morris plays SF and the Rockets already have Chase Budinger.
Grade: 3
Indiana Pacers
The Pacers decided to trade their two draft picks and some guy from the 2005 draft who they have the rights to for George Hill. It's probably a good move for them. George Hill is a proven player and he can be a backup to Darren Collison and even play along with Collison. It's a good move by the Pacers to get a proven player in exchange for non-proven players. I wouldn't say the Pacers are in "win-now" mode, but I guess they didn't want to wait on a drafted player to develop.
Grade: 7
Los Angeles Clippers
The Clippers were able to take Kyrie Irvin---wait, nevermind...let's start over. The Clippers had two second round picks and they didn't do a terrible job on 50% of them. They took two players from Georgia (the university, not the country) and neither of them will probably make a huge impact in the NBA, but Trey Thompkins has the best chance to do so. He provides a good backup to Blake Griffin and also still has some potential to improve. Travis Leslie is worth a risk at this point, but he's a great athlete who just happens to also play basketball. The Clippers may be better off just hiring him as a coach and then televising the dunk contests between he and Blake Griffin. I'm not impressed with Leslie, let's say that. He should have stayed at Georgia for a few more years.
Grade: 6
Los Angeles Lakers
Darius Morris was a great choice for the Lakers. Coming into the draft, I think the Lakers needed to draft a point guard and Morris was a great choice in the second round. I also really like Goudelock as well. He can straight shoot the ball, but he is also a point guard. Now, if the Lakers can find a way to combine Goudelock and Morris into one point guard they will have found the exact guy they need. Then the Lakers drafted Ater Majok, who is a bit of a stretch at this point, but they drafted him based on potential anyway. So no one pays attention to the fact it was a wasted pick because he has "potential." Still, good move in picking up the two point guards, though I don't know how both of them fit on the roster...so maybe it wasn't such a great move.
Grade: 4
Memphis Grizzlies
The Grizzlies had one draft pick and they chose Josh Selby in the second round. Did the Grizzlies really need Selby after re-signing Mike Conley Jr and drafting Greivis Vasquez last year? Probably not, but at the very worst he is a guy who doesn't make the roster, at best they have a shoot-first combo guard who has a ton of ability and really hasn't figured out how to harness it. Points go to the Grizzlies for having a player drop to them and then selecting the player.
Grade: 6
Miami Heat
The Heat, as well documented, don't have a ton of chances to improve their team with the lack of cap room and draft picks they have. They needed another point guard on the roster to replace the corpse of Mike Bibby. Really, the Heat need a point guard who can shoot and score some points as LeBron and Wade drive to the basket and draw defenders. Norris Cole can really score, in fact I think the Bulls should have kept their pick and chosen Cole, but I"m not sure he is an NBA point guard. Still, he can score and it was worth moving up three spots to grab him. He won't be a superstar, but I think he can find a role on the Heat team.
Grade: 8
Milwaukee Bucks
I like the Bucks made a trade that saved them money and they managed to get two quality NBA prospects in return. Tobias Harris is the definition of a raw player, but I don't believe he is quite the tweener he is being made up to be. He definitely has some power forward and small forward skills, but I think he is a small forward. Harris, provided he gets playing time, has great potential and the Bucks could have done a lot worse than they did at #19 in the first round. Jon Leuer, though it has been covered sufficiently, isn't the most athletic guy in the world. Still, coming off the bench it never hurts to have a tall guy who can shoot and rebound...which I think he can do better than he is given credit for. The Bucks benefited from the fact Leuer doesn't have "potential," but I can see him sticking around in Milwaukee.
Grade: 9
Minnesota Timberwolves
I think it may just be knee-jerk reaction, but I don't like the Wolves draft. I really, really like the drafting of Derrick Williams, though I think it would be great if they, and I know this sounds crazy, leverage the fact they have two other players that play the same position as Derrick Williams and make a trade of one of those players that (gasps) improves the team in another area. Williams deserves minutes because he could be the best player in this draft, so I would like to have seen the Wolves open up more minutes for him. I do really like Malcolm Lee in theory, mostly because he is willing to play defense, but I am not sure a guy who underachieved his entire career in college can step it up in the NBA. Also, the Wolves drafted a middle-aged man or something (actually he was 26) because they didn't do enough research to know his age. That sounds about right. That is something the Timberwolves would do.
Grade: 2 (not based on the players, based on drafting Williams and him having to fight with Beasley and Randolph for minutes...you know they won't give him minutes with those two guys on the roster)
New Jersey Nets
I think the Celtics possibly should have kept Marshon Brooks, but the Nets benefited from the Celtics wanting JuJuan Johnson. Brooks appears to be a great scorer and will work well for the Nets off the bench. There's nothing wrong with drafting a guy in the mid-first round who can score. I don't know much about Bojan Bogdanovic, but his name sounds like the restaurant Bojangles and I really like Bojangles after I have been out drinking. I believe Jordan Williams has a chance to stick around. The other side of this is he's a guy who may have weight problems and flame out of the NBA, but he's worth a shot because he can play in the post and rebound. Maybe he will stay on the team long enough to teach Brook Lopez to rebound. Part of me loves Jordan Williams' future in the NBA.
Grade: 6
New Orleans Hornets
The Hornets needed to try and do something to keep Chris Paul around. They didn't have much ammo to do this with, but they decided not drafting a player to improve the team was the best route to go. I guess drafting Josh Selby or, you know, an actual basketball player was too risky of a venture. I hope they got a lot of money from the Knicks. Hey Chris Paul, you may want to leave New Orleans after this year, but you can leave knowing the Hornets are now $250,000 richer. The joke is on you. Enjoy New York.
Grade: 0
New York Knicks
The Knicks wanted a defensive guy in the draft, so they took the second best one available. That would be Iman Shumpert, who would have been a better choice had they not drafted him and drafted Chris Singleton instead. I will hold out hope for Shumpert being that he played for Paul Hewitt, who pretty much just seemed to let his players do whatever the hell they want. I actually don't hate Shumpert as much as some other draft graders do, because he is very athletic and a good defender, but I don't know if he will fit in with the Knicks as well as some other players available would. Josh Harrellson helped Kentucky beat UNC, so I won't say anything bad about him...but I am not sure he should have been drafted.
Grade: 3
Oklahoma City Thunder
I think Reggie Jackson was a very underrated player. He was the best or second-best player in the ACC for a good amount of time last year. The Thunder don't seem to have a hell of a lot of room in their rotation for Jackson. He will backup Maynor and can probably play shooting guard as well. There was some criticism the Thunder didn't have enough scoring and Jackson can definitely get to the basket and score. It's not like they reached based on his talent and they fixed what they perceived to be a need, even if they fixed it with a position that didn't seem to be a need position.
Grade: 9
Orlando Magic
I don't know if the Magic are in a position to try and keep Dwight Howard around by making trades or through free agency, specifically since the move to bring Hedo and Gilbert Arenas in took up cap room. The Magic got Justin Harper so very cheap, and I am still not sure why the Cavs didn't keep the pick. Harper won't be a star, but I think he was a good pick in exchange for two second round picks. DeAndre Liggins is a great defender and maybe if he plays offense well enough to stick on the roster then it won't be four guys and a Howard on defense. I see Liggins possibly as a Bruce Bowen-type guy in the future.
Grade: 6
Philadelphia 76ers
I'm surprised the Sixers didn't draft a small forward since that's what they seem to enjoy doing. I'm kidding of course. I do like the Nikola Vucevic pick, though I can't help but wonder if he is Jason Smith all over again (I have to compare them since they are both white and play the same position). Lavoy Allen can end up being the 8th or 9th guy off the bench. It is not like the Sixers needed another small forward, so I can't say I like, but also can't blame for these picks. So going with size wasn't a bad idea for the Sixers. I probably would have liked for them to draft Kenneth Faried over Vucevic though.
Grade: 5
Phoenix Suns
The Suns seem to enjoy taking the perceived-to-be weaker brother in the NBA Draft and they did it again. I'm not a huge Markieff Morris fan. Morris is a tough guy inside and can shoot the mid-range jump shoot fairly well. He may not be the scorer-type player the Suns may have wanted/needed, but we wouldn't want to draft a player that would take away minutes from Vince Carter.
Grade: 2
Portland Trailblazers
Nolan Smith is the type of player that will probably never be a starter in the NBA, but they needed a point guard and Smith can play point guard...sort of. He has leadership qualities and intangibles. Not sure how much that translates to the actual playing of the game of basketball on a higher level. On a different note, I will get to see Nolan Smith and Raymond Felton play together, which is not something I've wanted to ever see. Like when I had to see Tyler Hansbrough get a chest bump from Dahaunty Jones in the playoffs this year. It made me shudder. Jon Diebler was the second round pick of the Blazers and he is a really good shooter. Can he make the Blazers team? That remains to be seen, but I am not so sure he has the all-around game to make it.
Grade: 2
Sacramento Kings
Jimmer! The Kings were the lucky team to draft Jimmer Fredette. Now I wonder if they see him as a point guard and will Evans at shooting guard? Either way, both players like to have the ball in their hands, so I hope that doesn't create trouble for the Kings. Fredette will definitely put asses in the seats in Sacramento, which will be nice. I like the choice of Tyler Honeycutt in the second round. He isn't ready to play now, but in 1-2 years I think he could end up being a starter for the Kings. Isiah Thomas is undersized, but knowing what I have read about him he will probably use being picked so late as a source of motivation. I can envision him being guarded in practice and destroying whoever is guarding him and then gaining minutes in games based on that. Thomas may not be an NBA-starter point guard, but I'm surprised he was taken this low. He could be an Aaron Brooks-type player for the Kings, so it was a good pick.
Grade: 8
San Antonio Spurs
I have traditionally thought the Spurs knew what they were doing in the NBA Draft. I haven't loved Kawhi Leonard, but in the right situation I think he could be a really good player. My issue lies in this...the Spurs traded George Hill, not Tony Parker, so they are clearly still trying to win now. If they are trying to win now, why did they take 3 of 4 picks that are essentially investments in the future? Not that it is a huge deal if these players work out, but Tim Duncan needs help now and the Spurs took a long view. 35% of me thinks they should have traded Parker and just started the rebuilding process on the fly. Leonard was a good player to get in return for George Hill, as he could be a starter in a year. I know very little about the foreign players except, and stop me if you have heard this, they have potential and aren't ready to play quite yet. This Spurs draft goes up a couple points for the selection of Cory Joseph. I saw a game in high school where Joseph outplayed Kyrie Irving and I think he got lost in the shuffle a bit at Texas this year. I like this pick for three years from now.
Speaking of which, I know Texas went 28-8 this year, but they had three guys drafted in the first round. They still have talent on the roster, why didn't they go further than they did in the NCAA Tournament? I question Rick Barnes' coaching ability quite often.
Grade: 8 (but not graded as high in regarding to helping this year's team)
Toronto Raptors
I know very little about Jonas Valanciunas. I follow college basketball, but haven't quite gotten into overseas basketball as much. At this point in the draft, there weren't too many America-born players with drafting. Valanciunas is projected to be a true center and given the other option of trading back in the draft and missing the chance to draft an impact player, the Raptors took Valanciunas. If he pans out, the Raptors will have a very intriguing frontcourt with Davis, Valanciunas, and Bargnani. Really, the biggest positive out of this is that Bargnani can play his more natural game (hopefully), which doesn't include playing in the paint all that much. The only issue I have with this pick is it probably won't make a huge difference in the short term, but the Raptors probably aren't thinking short term anyway.
Grade: 6
Utah Jazz
The Jazz had a couple of needs coming into the draft. Arguably, they could have chosen a point guard, but they really needed a center and a wing guy. They were fortunate in that two quality players at these two positions were available in the draft. Kanter is the best center in the draft, though I wonder if taking a year off from competitive play (other than practice) will set him back at all. I think if he had played at Kentucky this past year he may have ended up being the #1 overall pick. Alec Burks can score and get to the basket. As mentioned several times on this blog, the knock against him is he doesn't shoot the three point shot well. Not that I would compare him to Dwyane Wade, but that was a knock on Wade coming out of college too. Burks is still only 19 years old, so he has room to grow and could easily develop a good three point shot with enough hard work. The Jazz had a great draft.
Grade: 9
Washington Wizards
I really like the Wizards draft as well. Even though I don't personally know much about Vesely because I haven't seen him play much, it certainly seems like he could be on the receiving end of John Wall alley-oops in the very near future. At the least, the Wizards got more exciting. I personally really like Chris Singleton. He was miscast at Florida State and asked to do too much offensively, but he is a really defensive weapon. He is big enough to guard a small forward and quick enough to guard most point guards and shooting guards. He could play his way into the Wizards starting lineup just through his defense. What's equally important is I do believe he can play offensive basketball as well, but he will never be more than a #4 scorer (at the maximum) on an NBA team. He was asked to do too much at Florida State. The Wizards also gave John Wall a backup in Shelvin Mack, who will never be a star, but seems like one of those steady players championship teams always end up having. Perhaps this grade is high, but I like this draft.
Grade: 9
Feel free to agree or disagree and call me a moron, and even worse, in the comments if you would like.
You know, I still can't say I hate this draft. There aren't a lot of top-tier stars, but I believe there will be some contributors to teams in this draft. Still, the fact many of the top projected picks stayed in college hurt the 2011 NBA Draft. Next year's draft plays out to be ridiculous. I just wonder how many players on the 2012 NCAA Champion UNC Tar Heels will go to the NBA. It wouldn't shock me to see as many as 5 guys go early to the NBA from that team.
Atlanta Hawks
The Hawks had one pick and took Keith Benson. I actually like this pick because it is hard to find an experienced big man in the middle of the second round. Will he ever start in the NBA? Probably not, but he still has been productive in college, which is more than some of the guys drafted could say for themselves. I have a feeling if Benson was named Keif Bfjanko and was from Nigeria where he put up 8.6 ppg 2.2 bpg and 4.5 rpg as a 20 year old he would have been a late first round pick. It's hard to find big guys and though Benson is "soft" it wasn't a terrible pick at this stage for the Hawks. They could have screwed this pick up and taken a guy with "potential," which is roughly translated to "we haven't seen him play much, but he sure looks like he can play doesn't he?"
Grade: 6
Boston Celtics
Apparently the Celtics only scouted Purdue players for this draft, because they took two of them in JaJuan Johnson and E'Twaun Moore. I'm torn on Johnson because I wish the Celtics could have turned that pick into a physical big man or drafted a more physical big man in this spot. Johnson has improved every year at Purdue and if he gets a little big stronger than I think it was a great pick. Still, the Celtics need more strength inside and I'm not sure Johnson is that guy right now. A lot of people like the E'Twaun Moore pick, and I do as well. He has a ceiling, but most second round picks either have not proven themselves or have a ceiling. I think he'll end up being a better player than Johnson for the Celtics simply because he's a better backup shooting guard than the Celtics have on their roster right now.
Grade: 7
Charlotte Bobcats
The Bobcats made some trades and got Corey Maggette out of the deal. If his last stint in North Carolina is any indication, he will leave the state after a year and piss everyone off in the process. Still, the Bobcats saved money and got a decent player in return. So not a bad trade. Bismack Biyombo is the type of pick I traditionally just hate. He really hasn't done much other than show he has the potential to do something and he has no offensive game at this point. Throw in the fact he may not even be 18 years old and the Bobcats may have gotten themselves a 21 year old project. The Bobcats will appreciate his defense, but if he can't score he won't be too much use to them since they need players who can score as well. I like the Kemba Walker pick, just from the standpoint he will provide scoring and he is the type of leader the Bobcats need right now. That was a good move. What's really, really irritating for me is the Bobcats picked a power forward/center who has offensive potential, Jeremy Tyler, and just needs some coaching and they traded him for money. Apparently centers who can actually score are just too easy to find, yet the Bobcats felt they needed a defensive specialist at the #7 pick.
Grade: 3
Chicago Bulls
I may be misremembering a bit, but didn't the Bulls need a guard who can score last year? Wasn't that the indication after the series against the Heat where Derrick Rose was the only swingman who could put the ball in the basket? So why did they trade a guy who could provide this for them, Norris Cole, for a player who may not make it to America this upcoming year, Nikola Mirotic? I know he has gotten high grades from those who know foreign basketball, but the Bulls are contending now. Yes, the Bulls have a bright future as well, but they now have to find a shooting guard in free agency...whenever that may happen, if it happens. I can't believe the Bulls couldn't have used Norris Cole on the roster. I find it hard to believe. Maybe I'll look stupid in 2 years when Mirotic comes over and makes Carlos Boozer more expendable than he may already seem. Jimmy Butler is a good pick for the Bulls. He may end up getting the LeBron James assignment, so welcome to the league kid. He plays defense, which is nice, but I would have loved to see the Bulls do something at the shooting guard position. Maybe that's what free agency is for.
Grade: 5
Cleveland Cavaliers
Irving or Williams had to be the first pick. Irving was the pick and I think he is a great leader and teammate. Cleveland will love him. I like Tristan Thompson, but I don't know if I like him for Cleveland. They have JJ Hickson there already. I know there is always room for more big men, but at the #4 spot in the draft I would have liked to see Cleveland pick a different position, like center. I am also a little amazed the Cavs are at the point where they can sell away high second round picks like they had at #32. Apparently the lure of getting the Magic's second round picks, which will probably be in the mid-40's at the lowest was too great. I guess Shelvin Mack or Tyler Honeycutt are wing players that aren't needed on the Cavs roster. I didn't realize Alonzo Gee and Anthony Parker were that irreplaceable. Later in the draft the Cavs chose to go overseas with a pick rather than take a chance on a wing player who could help them eventually or even actually play in the United States at some point. It wasn't a disaster draft, but I am not sold. I think a draft of Irving, Valanciunas, Honeycutt, and Scottie Hopson would have impacted the mediocrity on the roster too much. We can't have that.
Grade: 4
Dallas Mavericks
The Mavericks have to win now. Keeping Jordan Crawford wouldn't have been a bad deal, but they got Rudy Fernandez in return? Nice move. There was no player in this spot who could provide what Fernandez can provide and it covers a need the Mavericks have. I would have loved to see other teams (Boston) do the same type thing with their pick.
Grade: 9
Denver Nuggets
It was clear from the beginning of the Carmelo Anthony trade last year that Raymond Felton probably wasn't going to be in Denver for a long time. So the Nuggets did trade him and managed to get Andre Miller and Jordan Crawford in return for Felton. Not a bad deal. I generally hate discussing potential, but Crawford has what I would "realistic" potential. This means basically he has potential based on the real numbers he has put up previously, but he hasn't hit his ceiling. Whereas Biyombo just has "potential" because other than a few times, he hasn't shown he can be an NBA player. So I think given a year or two Crawford will be a contributor to the Nuggets. I really like the drafting of Faried. You know he won't be an All-Star, but you also know he will rebound and given an effort on the court. You can teach rebounding, but Faried seems to also have a sixth sense on how to rebound and he has rebounded well against high competition (when he played this competition) in college. I think the Nuggets are on the right track...though they seem to be missing that star player.
Grade: 8
Detroit Pistons
First off, I really like Brandon Knight. Every year I seem to pick a point guard in the draft I really like (last year it was Eric Bledsoe) that seems to not be a Top 10 pick. Knight ended up being a Top 10 pick, so he was highly thought of by others. This is a great pick by the Pistons. Yes they needed a big man, but Knight is a point guard who can score. He's like Rodney Stuckey, except better. I don't as much know about Kyle Singler in the second round. I like Singler, but he is better used as a glue guy on a good team, not as a borderline starter on a bad team. He can't create his own shot well, though he doesn't really do anything poorly. I would have gone with a player with a higher ceiling in this spot personally. It is still the early second round so there were a couple of those guys available (Jordan Williams, Tyler Honeycutt, Trey Thompkins). I'm not a huge Vernon Macklin fan. I feel like the Pistons could have done better.
This brings me to Stuart Scott saying a few nights ago at the draft, "Joe Dumars is well-respected around the league as a GM, so people pay attention when he drafts," (or he said something like that). I didn't realize it was 2005.
Golden State Warriors
I think I would have felt better about the Warriors choosing Klay Thompson if Monta Ellis had already gotten traded. At this point though, he is still on the roster so Thompson is a shooter who doesn't play great defense behind another shooter who doesn't play great defense. I like this pick more when Ellis is gone. Defense is overrated I guess. As I said earlier, I like the Jeremy Tyler pick. He may never make it in the NBA, but he as good of a chance as any other big man drafted in the second round. Charles Jenkins will raise the team's IQ, but I wish he had gone to a different team where he could have made a bigger impact. I'm afraid he won't get a chance with the Warriors because of their guard depth.
Grade: 3 (If Ellis stays)
Houston Rockets
Sometimes I think Daryl Morey enjoys the trading aspect of being a GM more than he actually enjoys trading to build a better team. It's just a feeling I get, but I've heard from Bill Simmons that Morey is a genius, so I'll continue to believe this. Marcus Morris is a power forward, which is only interesting because so are Luis Scola and Patrick Patterson, and they are already on the Rockets roster. Maybe there is a trade coming up soon. It seems the Rockets drafted Flynn so they could get rid of Brad Miller's contract and trade Flynn again. Donatas Motiejunas can play center in a pinch, but he fits best at power forward...which is a spot the Rockets had covered decently before they drafted a power forward with their other first round pick. Maybe the Rockets think Motiejunas can play center and I am just stupid. I like Chandler Parsons, but I'm not sure where he fits in with the Rockets if Marcus Morris plays SF and the Rockets already have Chase Budinger.
Grade: 3
Indiana Pacers
The Pacers decided to trade their two draft picks and some guy from the 2005 draft who they have the rights to for George Hill. It's probably a good move for them. George Hill is a proven player and he can be a backup to Darren Collison and even play along with Collison. It's a good move by the Pacers to get a proven player in exchange for non-proven players. I wouldn't say the Pacers are in "win-now" mode, but I guess they didn't want to wait on a drafted player to develop.
Grade: 7
Los Angeles Clippers
The Clippers were able to take Kyrie Irvin---wait, nevermind...let's start over. The Clippers had two second round picks and they didn't do a terrible job on 50% of them. They took two players from Georgia (the university, not the country) and neither of them will probably make a huge impact in the NBA, but Trey Thompkins has the best chance to do so. He provides a good backup to Blake Griffin and also still has some potential to improve. Travis Leslie is worth a risk at this point, but he's a great athlete who just happens to also play basketball. The Clippers may be better off just hiring him as a coach and then televising the dunk contests between he and Blake Griffin. I'm not impressed with Leslie, let's say that. He should have stayed at Georgia for a few more years.
Grade: 6
Los Angeles Lakers
Darius Morris was a great choice for the Lakers. Coming into the draft, I think the Lakers needed to draft a point guard and Morris was a great choice in the second round. I also really like Goudelock as well. He can straight shoot the ball, but he is also a point guard. Now, if the Lakers can find a way to combine Goudelock and Morris into one point guard they will have found the exact guy they need. Then the Lakers drafted Ater Majok, who is a bit of a stretch at this point, but they drafted him based on potential anyway. So no one pays attention to the fact it was a wasted pick because he has "potential." Still, good move in picking up the two point guards, though I don't know how both of them fit on the roster...so maybe it wasn't such a great move.
Grade: 4
Memphis Grizzlies
The Grizzlies had one draft pick and they chose Josh Selby in the second round. Did the Grizzlies really need Selby after re-signing Mike Conley Jr and drafting Greivis Vasquez last year? Probably not, but at the very worst he is a guy who doesn't make the roster, at best they have a shoot-first combo guard who has a ton of ability and really hasn't figured out how to harness it. Points go to the Grizzlies for having a player drop to them and then selecting the player.
Grade: 6
Miami Heat
The Heat, as well documented, don't have a ton of chances to improve their team with the lack of cap room and draft picks they have. They needed another point guard on the roster to replace the corpse of Mike Bibby. Really, the Heat need a point guard who can shoot and score some points as LeBron and Wade drive to the basket and draw defenders. Norris Cole can really score, in fact I think the Bulls should have kept their pick and chosen Cole, but I"m not sure he is an NBA point guard. Still, he can score and it was worth moving up three spots to grab him. He won't be a superstar, but I think he can find a role on the Heat team.
Grade: 8
Milwaukee Bucks
I like the Bucks made a trade that saved them money and they managed to get two quality NBA prospects in return. Tobias Harris is the definition of a raw player, but I don't believe he is quite the tweener he is being made up to be. He definitely has some power forward and small forward skills, but I think he is a small forward. Harris, provided he gets playing time, has great potential and the Bucks could have done a lot worse than they did at #19 in the first round. Jon Leuer, though it has been covered sufficiently, isn't the most athletic guy in the world. Still, coming off the bench it never hurts to have a tall guy who can shoot and rebound...which I think he can do better than he is given credit for. The Bucks benefited from the fact Leuer doesn't have "potential," but I can see him sticking around in Milwaukee.
Grade: 9
Minnesota Timberwolves
I think it may just be knee-jerk reaction, but I don't like the Wolves draft. I really, really like the drafting of Derrick Williams, though I think it would be great if they, and I know this sounds crazy, leverage the fact they have two other players that play the same position as Derrick Williams and make a trade of one of those players that (gasps) improves the team in another area. Williams deserves minutes because he could be the best player in this draft, so I would like to have seen the Wolves open up more minutes for him. I do really like Malcolm Lee in theory, mostly because he is willing to play defense, but I am not sure a guy who underachieved his entire career in college can step it up in the NBA. Also, the Wolves drafted a middle-aged man or something (actually he was 26) because they didn't do enough research to know his age. That sounds about right. That is something the Timberwolves would do.
Grade: 2 (not based on the players, based on drafting Williams and him having to fight with Beasley and Randolph for minutes...you know they won't give him minutes with those two guys on the roster)
New Jersey Nets
I think the Celtics possibly should have kept Marshon Brooks, but the Nets benefited from the Celtics wanting JuJuan Johnson. Brooks appears to be a great scorer and will work well for the Nets off the bench. There's nothing wrong with drafting a guy in the mid-first round who can score. I don't know much about Bojan Bogdanovic, but his name sounds like the restaurant Bojangles and I really like Bojangles after I have been out drinking. I believe Jordan Williams has a chance to stick around. The other side of this is he's a guy who may have weight problems and flame out of the NBA, but he's worth a shot because he can play in the post and rebound. Maybe he will stay on the team long enough to teach Brook Lopez to rebound. Part of me loves Jordan Williams' future in the NBA.
Grade: 6
New Orleans Hornets
The Hornets needed to try and do something to keep Chris Paul around. They didn't have much ammo to do this with, but they decided not drafting a player to improve the team was the best route to go. I guess drafting Josh Selby or, you know, an actual basketball player was too risky of a venture. I hope they got a lot of money from the Knicks. Hey Chris Paul, you may want to leave New Orleans after this year, but you can leave knowing the Hornets are now $250,000 richer. The joke is on you. Enjoy New York.
Grade: 0
New York Knicks
The Knicks wanted a defensive guy in the draft, so they took the second best one available. That would be Iman Shumpert, who would have been a better choice had they not drafted him and drafted Chris Singleton instead. I will hold out hope for Shumpert being that he played for Paul Hewitt, who pretty much just seemed to let his players do whatever the hell they want. I actually don't hate Shumpert as much as some other draft graders do, because he is very athletic and a good defender, but I don't know if he will fit in with the Knicks as well as some other players available would. Josh Harrellson helped Kentucky beat UNC, so I won't say anything bad about him...but I am not sure he should have been drafted.
Grade: 3
Oklahoma City Thunder
I think Reggie Jackson was a very underrated player. He was the best or second-best player in the ACC for a good amount of time last year. The Thunder don't seem to have a hell of a lot of room in their rotation for Jackson. He will backup Maynor and can probably play shooting guard as well. There was some criticism the Thunder didn't have enough scoring and Jackson can definitely get to the basket and score. It's not like they reached based on his talent and they fixed what they perceived to be a need, even if they fixed it with a position that didn't seem to be a need position.
Grade: 9
Orlando Magic
I don't know if the Magic are in a position to try and keep Dwight Howard around by making trades or through free agency, specifically since the move to bring Hedo and Gilbert Arenas in took up cap room. The Magic got Justin Harper so very cheap, and I am still not sure why the Cavs didn't keep the pick. Harper won't be a star, but I think he was a good pick in exchange for two second round picks. DeAndre Liggins is a great defender and maybe if he plays offense well enough to stick on the roster then it won't be four guys and a Howard on defense. I see Liggins possibly as a Bruce Bowen-type guy in the future.
Grade: 6
Philadelphia 76ers
I'm surprised the Sixers didn't draft a small forward since that's what they seem to enjoy doing. I'm kidding of course. I do like the Nikola Vucevic pick, though I can't help but wonder if he is Jason Smith all over again (I have to compare them since they are both white and play the same position). Lavoy Allen can end up being the 8th or 9th guy off the bench. It is not like the Sixers needed another small forward, so I can't say I like, but also can't blame for these picks. So going with size wasn't a bad idea for the Sixers. I probably would have liked for them to draft Kenneth Faried over Vucevic though.
Grade: 5
Phoenix Suns
The Suns seem to enjoy taking the perceived-to-be weaker brother in the NBA Draft and they did it again. I'm not a huge Markieff Morris fan. Morris is a tough guy inside and can shoot the mid-range jump shoot fairly well. He may not be the scorer-type player the Suns may have wanted/needed, but we wouldn't want to draft a player that would take away minutes from Vince Carter.
Grade: 2
Portland Trailblazers
Nolan Smith is the type of player that will probably never be a starter in the NBA, but they needed a point guard and Smith can play point guard...sort of. He has leadership qualities and intangibles. Not sure how much that translates to the actual playing of the game of basketball on a higher level. On a different note, I will get to see Nolan Smith and Raymond Felton play together, which is not something I've wanted to ever see. Like when I had to see Tyler Hansbrough get a chest bump from Dahaunty Jones in the playoffs this year. It made me shudder. Jon Diebler was the second round pick of the Blazers and he is a really good shooter. Can he make the Blazers team? That remains to be seen, but I am not so sure he has the all-around game to make it.
Grade: 2
Sacramento Kings
Jimmer! The Kings were the lucky team to draft Jimmer Fredette. Now I wonder if they see him as a point guard and will Evans at shooting guard? Either way, both players like to have the ball in their hands, so I hope that doesn't create trouble for the Kings. Fredette will definitely put asses in the seats in Sacramento, which will be nice. I like the choice of Tyler Honeycutt in the second round. He isn't ready to play now, but in 1-2 years I think he could end up being a starter for the Kings. Isiah Thomas is undersized, but knowing what I have read about him he will probably use being picked so late as a source of motivation. I can envision him being guarded in practice and destroying whoever is guarding him and then gaining minutes in games based on that. Thomas may not be an NBA-starter point guard, but I'm surprised he was taken this low. He could be an Aaron Brooks-type player for the Kings, so it was a good pick.
Grade: 8
San Antonio Spurs
I have traditionally thought the Spurs knew what they were doing in the NBA Draft. I haven't loved Kawhi Leonard, but in the right situation I think he could be a really good player. My issue lies in this...the Spurs traded George Hill, not Tony Parker, so they are clearly still trying to win now. If they are trying to win now, why did they take 3 of 4 picks that are essentially investments in the future? Not that it is a huge deal if these players work out, but Tim Duncan needs help now and the Spurs took a long view. 35% of me thinks they should have traded Parker and just started the rebuilding process on the fly. Leonard was a good player to get in return for George Hill, as he could be a starter in a year. I know very little about the foreign players except, and stop me if you have heard this, they have potential and aren't ready to play quite yet. This Spurs draft goes up a couple points for the selection of Cory Joseph. I saw a game in high school where Joseph outplayed Kyrie Irving and I think he got lost in the shuffle a bit at Texas this year. I like this pick for three years from now.
Speaking of which, I know Texas went 28-8 this year, but they had three guys drafted in the first round. They still have talent on the roster, why didn't they go further than they did in the NCAA Tournament? I question Rick Barnes' coaching ability quite often.
Grade: 8 (but not graded as high in regarding to helping this year's team)
Toronto Raptors
I know very little about Jonas Valanciunas. I follow college basketball, but haven't quite gotten into overseas basketball as much. At this point in the draft, there weren't too many America-born players with drafting. Valanciunas is projected to be a true center and given the other option of trading back in the draft and missing the chance to draft an impact player, the Raptors took Valanciunas. If he pans out, the Raptors will have a very intriguing frontcourt with Davis, Valanciunas, and Bargnani. Really, the biggest positive out of this is that Bargnani can play his more natural game (hopefully), which doesn't include playing in the paint all that much. The only issue I have with this pick is it probably won't make a huge difference in the short term, but the Raptors probably aren't thinking short term anyway.
Grade: 6
Utah Jazz
The Jazz had a couple of needs coming into the draft. Arguably, they could have chosen a point guard, but they really needed a center and a wing guy. They were fortunate in that two quality players at these two positions were available in the draft. Kanter is the best center in the draft, though I wonder if taking a year off from competitive play (other than practice) will set him back at all. I think if he had played at Kentucky this past year he may have ended up being the #1 overall pick. Alec Burks can score and get to the basket. As mentioned several times on this blog, the knock against him is he doesn't shoot the three point shot well. Not that I would compare him to Dwyane Wade, but that was a knock on Wade coming out of college too. Burks is still only 19 years old, so he has room to grow and could easily develop a good three point shot with enough hard work. The Jazz had a great draft.
Grade: 9
Washington Wizards
I really like the Wizards draft as well. Even though I don't personally know much about Vesely because I haven't seen him play much, it certainly seems like he could be on the receiving end of John Wall alley-oops in the very near future. At the least, the Wizards got more exciting. I personally really like Chris Singleton. He was miscast at Florida State and asked to do too much offensively, but he is a really defensive weapon. He is big enough to guard a small forward and quick enough to guard most point guards and shooting guards. He could play his way into the Wizards starting lineup just through his defense. What's equally important is I do believe he can play offensive basketball as well, but he will never be more than a #4 scorer (at the maximum) on an NBA team. He was asked to do too much at Florida State. The Wizards also gave John Wall a backup in Shelvin Mack, who will never be a star, but seems like one of those steady players championship teams always end up having. Perhaps this grade is high, but I like this draft.
Grade: 9
Feel free to agree or disagree and call me a moron, and even worse, in the comments if you would like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)