9 comments Seinfeld: The Greatest Authority on the NBA Draft

“Seinfeld” is a rite of passage. If you care about the minutiae, the subliminal daily events that subconsciously alter your mood, you care about Seinfeld. It teaches you that you’re not alone. It teaches you that big salads are clutch and marine biology is a risky, but beneficial pretend-profession. It comforts you knowing that everyone has a Lloyd Braun, the friend who was always better. If George Costanza can bring together his passion for food, TV and sex into a misguided amalgamation of pleasure, then so can I. Except my weapons of choice are “Seinfeld” and the NBA Draft. The show has taught me many things. Most importantly, there’s one incontrovertible and fundamental principle: “Seinfeld” applies to every aspect of life. And when I say every, I mean it.

To that end, I looked to Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld’s brainchild to help untangle the mess that is the 2011 NBA Draft. After careful research, here are the episodes that most precisely illustrate the attitudes, games and perceptions of this year’s prospects.

Kyrie Irving – “The Tape” (Season 3): The relatively unquestioned No. 1 prospect in this year’s class is shrouded in a veil of mystery. Kind of like the sex recording Elaine secretly made for Jerry during this episode. When George finds out that the tape was Elaine’s sexual creation, he cannot control his attraction to her. Even though he’s only heard a brief preview of her sexual powers, he’s nonetheless uncontrollably enamored.

This is our relationship with Kyrie Irving. His freshman season at Duke provided a mere glimpse into the breadth of his talents, but we’re hooked. We’re gaga over his potential despite his limited exposure. Maybe Elaine could rock George’s world in bed, and maybe Kyrie Irving could take the NBA by storm. We just don’t know. But we’re willing to dream, even if those dreams may border on inappropriate.

Derrick Williams – “The Foundation” (Season 8): Williams came onto the scene this year with a bang – a deep NCAA tourney run, a revamped three point shot and an improving offensive and defensive arsenal. A man among boys, if you will. Kind of like Kramer dominating kids in Karate and convincing Elaine that it was a good idea to put the “urban sombrero” on the cover of J. Peterman’s magazine.

Williams may have been able to master collegiate competition, but an improved opponent may spell his demise. Kramer’s karate conquests eventually got beat him up in an alley by kids and Elaine’s urban sombrero failed miserably. If Williams isn’t careful, he could suffer the same fate.

Brandon Knight – “The Pledge Drive” (Season 6): Although Knight broke out in the tourney, our draft experts put it well: he “has barely scratched the surface of his ceiling.” Same with Jerry’s grandma’s birthday checks. When Kramer convinces Jerry to cash years of $10 birthday checks, Jerry reluctantly agrees. The money would be beneficial, and it would be living up to his grandmother’s expectations.

Of course Jerry’s grandma goes missing and the checks bounce, but that’s besides the point. If the team that drafts Knight has a full bank account and is ready to harness his potential, the Knight checks won’t bounce and he’ll live up to his team’s expectations. If not, he’ll go missing like Jerry’s grandma and may never reappear in the NBA.

Enes Kanter – “The Implant” (Season 4): Despite his dominating Nike Hoops Summit performance, Kanter is a relative unknown. In short, it’s hard to know if the package is for real. Elaine has the same doubts about Jerry’s girlfriends breasts, which she claims are implants.

Of all the prospects in this draft, Kanter is the biggest boom or bust out there because the truth is that no one really knows if the packaging matches the goods. He’s physically gorgeous and well-rounded. To Jerry’s surprise and frustration, his former girlfriend is for real in every way. Whoever takes Kanter can only hope that it works out just as well.

Kemba Walker – “The Mango” (Season 5): He’s the consummate winner, the ultimate performer in the clutch, and the kind of kid who’s going to bring the right attitude to your franchise. For teams toiling in the realm of constant losing, Walker may just be that missing piece to jump start everything. That’s what George is missing in his relationship with his girlfriend Karen.

It started out well – great dinners, conversation, and of course, sex. But then something happened, and George was stuck in an irreversible state of confidence loss. This ultimately led to erectile dysfunction and the need for a quick solution. It turns out that a mango from Joe’s fruit store was that cure. That, in short, is Kemba Walker. He’s a spark plug. He’s someone that will reverse the fortunes of your franchise simply by nibbling on the fruits of his labor. While he may not bring an NBA title, he’s sure to guide you in the right direction.

Jan Vesely – “The Beard” (Season 6): Without a doubt he’s a freakish athlete with loads of potential. The kind of guy with whom a long-term relationship can prove extremely fruitful. Elaine wants to date such a man; unfortunately, he’s gay. But Elaine is not deterred, and hatches a plan to get him to “switch teams.” In a shocking turn of events, Elaine fulfills her wishes and experiences the full benefits of converting her mark (sex and shopping). But the success is short-lived because the boyfriend isn’t totally comfortable in his new role.

If the team that drafts Vesely tries to turn him into something he’s not, they may have initial success. But the key to his development will be allowing him to thrive in what he does best – running the floor, finishing strong and defending multiple positions. So stay away from conversion and let destiny run its course.

Kahwi Leonard – “The Bizzaro Jerry” (Season 8): On the physical level, he’s an ideal prospect. But while’s he’s a talented player, nothing in particular stands out about his game. Just that he’s quality prospect with freakishly large hands. And that’s probably how Jerry would describe his date, Jillian. In fact, that’s exactly how he describes her: “man hands.” There’s no doubt that she’s attractive – George even uses a picture of her to gain entry to a secret club, pretending that she’s his ex-wife Susan – but she’s not outstanding in any particular way. Well, excluding her gigantic and absurdly strong hands. Good thing that’s a positive in the NBA.

Bismack Biyombo – “The Bottle Deposit” (Season 7): His workouts are pretty terrible. His skills are well below par. Yet when push comes to shove and 5 players are pitted against 5 players on the hardwood, Biyombo gets the job done. And ultimately, that’s all that matters. Workouts, scouting reports and previous stats only tell part of the story.

When Mr. Wilhelm at the Yankees assigns George a project, George doesn’t quite hear what the assignment is. In his futile attempt to put the pieces together, nothing materializes. Yet miraculously, the job gets done. No thanks to George, of course, but George takes the praise. Ultimately that is Biyombo in a nutshell. I can’t explain it, I can’t describe it. He just happens, and his teams usually win.

Jonas Valanciunas – “The Pool Guy” (Season 7): Even Valanciunas has admitted that his skill level isn’t very high. But that doesn’t stop him from coupling his 6-11 frame and 7-6 wingspan with an unrelenting motor and willingness to pick up the scraps. That is, do whatever it takes to win.

The pool guy who tries to befriend Jerry at the gym is no different. Despite Jerry’s best efforts to express his unwillingness to become friends, the pool guy is not deterred. Even though he may clean up the mess of others, he has high aspirations and a positive attitude. These same qualities may bring Valanciunas the success that the pool guy could never seem to find.

Alec Burks – “The Secretary” (Season 6): He’s a scorer, through and through. Although he flew somewhat under the radar for the majority of his collegiate career, he’s on the big stage now with nowhere to hide. In the NBA, he might even exceed expectations, but Burks is the most decipherable prospect around: great scorer, little else.

When George hires a new secretary during his tenure at the Yankees, he initially claims that he just wants someone attractive. It turns that he hires Ada, a highly efficient, although not particularly attractive secretary. In just a few days, she proves to be so skilled at her job that George sleeps with her and offers her a raise (she ends up making more money than him). Maybe Burks will end up making more than his future backcourt mate. Maybe a team will accidentally overpay for his offensive services (see Johnson, Joe.) But most likely he’ll do his job and turn into an efficient role player. A secretary, of sorts.

9 comments Buzz Bissinger Wants To Know Why Everyone's Hating On LeBron James?

Buzz Bissinger just doesn't get why no one seems to like LeBron James right now. He seems to believe many people are reveling in the Heat's loss NBA Finals to the Dallas Mavericks and blaming James for the loss. Well it's true, many are. It may not be right, especially to ignore the Mavericks great play and defense that led to them winning the NBA title, but some of the blame can be put on James. There are people who dislike LeBron James for a variety of reasons, the least of which are they negatively view "The Decision" and his perceived inability to embrace the spotlight in big games.

I haven't ever really liked James simply because he plays on teams that are rivals to my favorite teams and I think he is a bit of a phony. The reason other people are hard on James is he calls himself "King James," he wears a wristband that says "King James" on it, so he sets the expectation he will be great on the court. When he isn't, some people take pride in watching him fail. For a few years James wanted Cleveland to get him more help in the form of quality players and then he goes down to Miami as the help to join up with two other quality players and can't win a championship on his first try. That's one of the reasons LeBron is so disliked right now, but Buzz still doesn't get this.

I was listening to the press conference of Miami Heat coach Erik Spoelstra Sunday night after the team’s humiliating loss to the Dallas Mavericks in the National Basketball Association finals. I knew of the media’s perverse obsession not only with the dismal play of LeBron James but also with James himself.

Buzz "knew" of the media's perverse obsession with the dismal (LeBron really didn't play dismal) play of James. As a member of the media, Buzz was able to intuitively know about this perverse obsession the media has with James firsthand. Those crazy media members! Buzz is too good to play to this obsession the media has...or is he?

Buzz writes for "The Daily Beast" about once a week or once every other week. This column is the third time Buzz has written about LeBron James since March 11 and this encompasses 10 total columns over this span. So it seems Buzz either enjoys the pageviews LeBron James gives him or he has a small obsession with LeBron as well.

What's even better is on March 11, 2011 Buzz wrote a column titled "King James Can't Handle the Pressure." So at that point, it seems Buzz was one of the journalists writing about how King James was playing poorly (or at the Heat were) and he was one of the journalists obsessed with James' dismal play. Here we are now though, with Buzz wondering why everyone is commenting on James' performance and hating on him. Apparently Buzz saying LeBron can't handle the pressure was just motivating James and not criticizing him. See, Buzz was trying to make LeBron be a better person, not criticizing LeBron unfairly like all the other perverse obsessed journalists are. At least I am guessing that's how Buzz sees it or he had forgotten he wrote that March 11 column.

I still thought the first question at least would have something to do with the Mavericks and how well they had played.

These are questions asked by the media directed towards the Heat head coach remember. Not the Mavericks head coach. The media isn't there to hear from the losing team about how well the Mavericks played, but Spoelstra's thoughts on the performance of the best player on his team...the same team that was favored to win the NBA Finals and the same team that was assembled to win an NBA title in their first year together. So I think questions about LeBron James directed to Erik Spoelstra should be somewhat expected.

The first question was about James. The second question was about James. The third question was about James, all of them in the same vein of what went wrong with him and why had he been so lousy in the Heat’s six-game losing effort.

Yes, the media is obsessed with James' performance. Considering the fact LeBron James made a huge public display of going to Miami and trying to win championships, the fact he didn't win a championship is a big story. More importantly, it is a big story that was created, developed, and nurtured by LeBron James (or his handlers) since July of last year. So as much as I think the media overhypes nearly everything, it isn't like James is an innocent bystander in all of this. He made a huge public show of going to Miami, predicted multiple championships and then didn't seem to step his game up to win the first of those championships.

It was like that all through the finals for James, constant and withering criticism of his play, constant dissection of every comment and every body movement. Anthony Weiner’s sexting? James made him do it.

Yes, poor LeBron James should be a martyr for putting himself directly in the spotlight as wanting to win multiple championships with the Heat and then not delivering on the specific thing he had put himself in the spotlight for. This is what I am always complaining about. An athlete/public figure wants all of the public adoration when it is convenient to further their career, but they want privacy and the public to go away when it no longer fits their agenda. James can't shrink into the background when the time comes to win the title he came to Miami to win and expect no criticism.

Now I do think the James criticism is overboard at this point. James didn't play quite as poorly as many made him out to play and the Heat probably will win the NBA title next year. So it isn't like this was a one year thing where the Heat will/should be broken up. To lack the understanding of why the criticism is overboard is being intentionally blind to the truth...that LeBron James has craved and looked for the spotlight his entire career. It has made him millions of dollars and now the spotlight isn't in his favor, but this doesn't mean some of the criticism should halt.

Starvation. Drought. War.

James. James. James.

Let's cut back on the martyrdom for a guy who Nike used in an advertising campaign to make the Cleveland fans "Witnesses." It is hard to feel bad for a guy who is portrayed as a deity-type figure.

He truly is the most hated athlete in all of sports.

No, he's not. I personally still hate Brett Favre way, way more. Favre was on SportsCenter the other night because he was throwing a football with little kids. Apparently this is news. He needs to go the hell away.

Did you see that smile? What about the way he bent down to tie his shoelace? And how about guzzling from the water bottle during a timeout as if he was the only one who was thirsty? What a selfish bastard.

(Bengoodfella gives Buzz Bissinger five minutes to calm down and stop stomping his feet on the ground in a childish manner)

Yes, the criticism is overboard. Exaggerating the way the criticism has gone overboard serves no purpose. You won't ever see me write that LeBron James is done from an endorsement point of view, the Heat should break up their team or LeBron "doesn't know how to win," because that's stupid. But, with great power comes great responsibility (not to go "Spiderman" on you), so with the power LeBron had to have everyone interested in him going to Miami he also had a responsibility to follow through on what he promised. He just wasn't able to do that this year. There is an overabundance of criticism and criticism that is probably a little harsh, but when you paint yourself as a savior this criticism is going to come when you don't execute the savior role well.

The rats ate up every crumb, regardless of the significance. The goal was to maliciously condemn him, and to that extent the media rats got their wish:

This coming from the guy who wrote an article earlier this year titled, "King James Can't Handle the Pressure."

How about some quotes from this article. Remember, Buzz isn't condemning LeBron here, not at all. This isn't Buzz with what he calls in this article "a perverse obsession with the dismal play of James," because Buzz doesn't have to play by the rules he himself sets up.

The result is a player who is psychologically soft, not a leader, still a cut-up kid masked by the physical maturity of his body, always placed on a pedestal by his coaches and teammates even when he deserves to be knocked off and dressed down and told that he has the stuff of a loser, not a winner.

If James was crying after the loss to the Bulls, it may well stem from a creeping fear that he cannot be counted on when it counts the most.

As for being a team leader, the very notion is a joke. James doesn’t have the presence; his affect is flat and dull, eager to avoid confrontation because of a difficult childhood in the Akron projects in which his only goal was to stay away from trouble.

The team was lousy when he got there in 2003. There were no expectations upon him; even as the team got better and better there were still no expectations upon him. It was a perfect situation for him, an excuse in every pocket of his finely tailored trousers—

This is the defining season of LeBron James. He must deliver an NBA championship. It is his eighth year and his career pivots on a pyramid. Jordan won in his eighth season. Magic Johnson won in his first. Larry Bird won in his second. They had the cast they needed and so does James. The trouser pockets are empty of excuses.

the more it seems likely that King James will never be the king of anything except the court and castle of adulation.

Buzz spends an entire column criticizing LeBron James for nearly the exact same things, and in nearly the exact same way, Buzz is criticizing other people for saying about LeBron in this column. Feel free to go to the March 11 column and see I didn't cherry pick quotes. I left some quotes out. It's pure hypocrisy.

He is Public Enemy No. 1 of the tear-down culture in which human foible, unintentional mistakes, and boneheaded stupidity are not allowed. There used to be a period of grace. But not anymore. One gutter ball and you’re out.

Read those above quotes again. If you don't find hypocrisy in what Buzz wrote in March and what he is writing now, then you need to read the quotes yet again. This is pure "Do as I say, not as I do" writing.

But the vitriol, the spewing hatred spit out with such gleeful self-satisfaction by commentator after commentator, has sunk to a new level of nuclear negativity.

To an extent, I do agree. Adrian Wojnarowski seems to really enjoy putting LeBron down, but I am sure there are also good arguments for how LeBron is now becoming a victim of the media attention he has always adored and created for himself.

Why is he hated more than Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, who was accused of sexual assault and is considered a stone-cold jerk by most players in the National Football League?

He's not really. Let's not confuse "hate" with "really enjoying his failure." I don't hate LeBron James the way I hate other athletes. Do I enjoy LeBron's failure more than I do most athletes? Yes, I do. Not because I hate LeBron James, but (he is a rival of my favorite team as well) because he, Wade, and Bosh made a big show of coming to Miami to win championships because LeBron felt he didn't have enough help around him in Cleveland. So do I enjoy him not winning a title when he has enough help from his supporting cast? Yes, I do.

What I enjoy more is it then turned out he was the one who seemed to rely on his supporting cast (by passing the ball in the fourth quarter and seemingly not outplaying Dirk) rather than step up and take over the game. LeBron didn't play terribly, so anyone who says he did is wrong. He did seem to pass the ball to his teammates or pull away from taking over the game in spots where we expected him to not pull away. He didn't step up and be great when he had in the past indicated he would step up if he just had the supporting cast on his team to help him get to the point where he could be great. I think that is the source of much of the discussion on James.

He wanted to play with teammates who could help him get him to the Finals so he could take over the game. His greatness seemed to be wasted among teammates who couldn't help him get to the big game in Cleveland. LeBron just needed to get there with teammates that could support his quest and didn't rely on him to do everything in the big game. Then it turned out when he got to the big game he didn't step his game up as we expected him to. It appears LeBron wanted to be a great player among other great players rather than the best player on a great team.

Yes, we all know that James left Cleveland without grace or class. Yes, we know that the Heat, in some ridiculous version of a Las Vegas floor show, had the big three of James, Dwyane Wade, and Chris Bosh greeting Miami fans in a raucous pep rally as if they had already won the championship before the season had even started.

Both of these things can't just be glossed over. This was all a part of the build-up to what was going to be a championship team. Much of the reason LeBron is taking criticism is because he hyped up his signing with the Heat so much. He didn't have to have a special on ESPN about his decision to go to Miami and he didn't have to attend the Heat pep rally. But he did. It made him look like a conquering hero before he had done the required conquering.

On the other hand, James wanted to go to the place where he thought he had the best chance of winning. Where should he have gone? The Golden State Warriors? Why stay in Cleveland?

No one is criticizing the move. It is the way the move was done and really no one should care about that anymore. It's old news.

In baseball, players do that all the time in free agency, and no one makes a peep about disloyalty. Has there been any sustained criticism of Albert Pujols for not signing with the St. Louis Cardinals, where he has played his entire career?

Albert Pujols still plays for the Cardinals and hasn't joined another team in free agency yet. That's a major difference in these two situations. They aren't even comparable.

Should pitcher C.C. Sabathia have stayed with the Cleveland Indians because it would have been a really nice thing to do for the city?

Again, Buzz Bissinger must have some mental deficiency where his brain doesn't understand the correct way to make comparisons. Sabathia was TRADED from the Indians to the Brewers, he did not just sign with the Yankees after leaving the Indians. It is likely Sabathia would not have signed with the Indians, but for the sake of comparison to LeBron James this is a bad comparison.

Baseball free agents are almost always looking for millions more.

Except for Cliff Lee, who was the best pitcher on the free agent market this past offseason and turned down more money to play in Philadelphia.

The book I co-wrote with James, Shooting Stars, did not do particularly well. Maybe the fault was in the execution. Maybe the theme, about James and the four friends he befriended who all played together at St. Vincent-St. Mary high school in Akron, just wasn’t sexy enough.

Perhaps people don't like you and don't want to read books you co-write.

He wasn’t the one who called himself “The Chosen One.” The moniker was bestowed on him by Sports Illustrated when the magazine did a cover story on him as a junior in high school.

Of course LeBron James was FORCED to do the cover of Sports Illustrated, right? He had no choice in the matter is what Buzz wants you to believe. LeBron did what every high school athlete would do and agreed to it. It isn't like he didn't have a choice in the matter though. He could have declined.

He wasn’t the one who forced ESPN to show several of his games live on national television his senior year.

LeBron is the one who has a "King James" bracelet though. He never did anything to dissuade the media and public from thinking he was anything more than the greatest player on the planet.

He wasn’t the one who created a constant media circus.

This is absolutely untrue. LeBron has allowed the constant media circus to be all around him. He made a public spectacle of his free agency, he did nothing to dissuade Heats fans he was their savior by tempering championship expectations, when LeBron played for the Cavs he signed off on a "We are Witnesses" ad campaign that was essentially a tribute to his greatness, and he has made nearly his entire career of being called "King James." It's even his fucking Twitter handle. So James had trumped up his greatness his entire career, so what follows is the media circus.

Fans were lying in wait for James to come into the NBA with the patina of being the greatest ever when he had not played a single game. Instead James pleasantly surprised everybody with the Cleveland Cavaliers.

So if at that point everybody loved LeBron James. It is obvious he was loved at one point in his career. What could have happened since 2003 that would make people feel differently about him? I would partially explain the public feeling differently about him because the public is pretty fickle on how they feel about athletes and I would also partially explain the public's feelings on LeBron James by the actions he has taken since 2003. So as much as Buzz Bissinger would like to pretend it isn't true, LeBron's own actions have shaped public perception.

He was approachable and humble while proud as any successful person in life must be.

I am sure he was approachable to sportswriters or for any other media member who could help hm become more popular and wealthy. As I have stated, LeBron craved and wanted the attention early in his career because it served his purposes. This makes him the exact same as nearly every other athlete by the way. James wanted to be the most known and successful basketball player and athlete on the planet, so now he is becoming exactly that. There is a negative side to being this well known and popular and that is the criticism an athlete receives when things go wrong.

Still, I doubt he was approachable by the general public, even when he was just breaking into the NBA.

But I think that the fundamentally decent essence of LeBron James is still there. Is he more guarded? Who wouldn’t be, given the avalanche of negative publicity he has gotten this season?

Poor LeBron. He wouldn't have wanted the publicity if he knew it wouldn't be all positive publicity.

Did it affect his play during the finals? Of course. Shutting out the constant noise of hatred is impossible.

I really don't believe it is hatred. Is it criticism of his play in the NBA Finals based on the spectacle that he (or his camp) caused? Yes, it is. Again, LeBron created this constant noise himself. He made a huge public spectacle of the move to Miami and he guaranteed multiple championships. To an extent some criticism and joy at the Heat failing to win a title is understandable. He put himself on the pedestal and we are more than willing to knock him down.

Through all of this talk about LeBron James not stepping up it seems to have been forgotten the Mavericks played well enough to win the NBA title. They did a good job of defending LeBron and frankly they deserved to win the series.

In the tear-down culture in which we engorge ourselves like ticks bloated on blood, I guess he truly is the King.

I guess we could say, as Buzz did previously, LeBron James just couldn't handle the pressure.

The criticism of LeBron has reached a boiling point, I don't know if I would disagree with that. It doesn't take much work to figure out exactly why this criticism is coming the way of LeBron. Is it too much? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean some of the criticism or feelings about LeBron aren't somewhat justified.

5 comments BotB Podcast #20

Something doesn't feel right about posting a podcast on a Monday. Then again, we had one of our more interesting discussions to date. The reason? John Steigerwald, the man who seemed to blame Bryan Stow for the beating he took at the hands of crazy Dodgers' fans, emailed Bengoodfella in response to BGF's breakdown of his article.

Other topics include the brand of Skip Bayless, the lack of a comments feature on Grantland and the Knicks' lack of trade assets.

2 comments Beyond Criticism

And into some alternate dimension.

Fucking LMAO

0 comments More Crazy Bleacher Report Trade Ideas

I think I have fallen in love with a sports site. That site is Bleacher Report. I never really considered it a sports site until I realized it gets a ton of traffic and there is just some really comical stuff on that site. It is probably my temporary love, so I am going to keep rolling with it for the time being. My favorite part about the site is the hypothetical trades some of the authors throw out. We all remember the epic Andre Ethier hypothetical trade article that was posted. It doesn't end there. It is as if the writers at Bleacher Report assume the General Manager of MLB teams are as stupid and reactionary as they are as fans of these teams.

So there was another funny trade proposal article from Bleacher Report. The title is "Buster Posey Broken Leg: Will This Spark Giants to Trade for Jose Reyes?" Reyes has been linked to the Giants, at least by the media, but the Giants should probably worry first about getting a catcher to replace Posey, then worry about upgrading the shortstop position. Otherwise, the Giants will trade one position of weakness for another. Reyes has been linked to the Giants, so the idea isn't crazy necessarily, but there is more information beyond just the title and that's the problem. There is also a trade proposal.

I guess the best news about this article is that, contrary to what we usually see on Bleacher Report, it is not a slideshow.

With the Giants looking to repeat their World Series Championship performance from last season, they will need to make some sort of move to replace Posey.

This normally would be the part where I would rub Murray Chass' nose in it that Posey is lost for the season, so this injury is a good reason why teams keep players in the minors to get full service time out of them. Because shit happens...and yes, it does suck for the player. I would also talk about how the Giants "lack of integrity" helped them out because Giants fans are able to see Posey for one more year because the Giants waited a few months in 2010 to call Posey up to the majors. I would also discuss how this is the second player, along with Stephen Strasburg, who was kept in the minors a little longer from the 2010 season and then that player suffered a major injury which would keep him out an extended period of time. Finally, then I would say injuries can't be predicted, but now the Giants and Nationals have extra time with important players before they hit free agency or arbitration because both teams waited two months to call these players up.

But I won't say any of that.

This is not something that will be easy to do, as Posey was a big threat in the middle of the Giants' lineup. There is one player who will almost definitely be available on the trade market that the Giants could try to trade for.

This person is Jose Reyes. So Reyes, a shorstop and a guy best used as a lead off hitter, will be the big threat in the middle of the lineup to replace Buster Posey, who is a catcher? Reyes isn't quite known as being the power hitter that Posey is and he certainly isn't a catcher. So the Giants may trade for Reyes, but not specifically to replace Posey, because Reyes can't replace his power nor play Posey's position.

While he does not have the power that Posey does, Reyes is a dynamic threat that would greatly improve the Giants' offense.

Yes, he would greatly improve the Giants offense. Posey's power, ability to play catcher and his work with the pitching staff can not be replaced though. I just don't exactly see now that Posey is injured why this means a trade for Reyes should occur. Reyes doesn't really fix too many things the Giants will miss by not having Posey, because he is a completely different player from Posey.

The need for a shortstop on the Giants roster is still a separate need for a catcher, even now that Posey is injured. The Giants probably need an upgrade at both positions.

The Giants already had a need for a shortstop, and Reyes is a big improvement over current Giants shortstops Mike Fontenot and Miguel Tejada.

There are shortstops currently retired or in the Giants minor league system that could be upgrades over Fontenot or Tejada. This isn't a tough level to reach.

He would provide a spark at the top of the Giants lineup and would help offset the Giants' loss of Posey.

You know, except for the fact the Giants still wouldn't have a quality catcher. Maybe the umpire will throw the ball back to the pitcher for the Giants and they can just play without a catcher. If the Giants should make a move at all, it needs to be for a catcher, and then a move for a shortstop. I think they are two completely separate needs. As good as Reyes is, I don't see him offsetting the loss of Buster Posey directly.

The Mets have a chance to take advantage of this injury.

Here comes the crazy trade proposal. Now please know the guy writing this column, Robert Knapel, appears to be a diehard Mets fan. So you know the trade proposal forthcoming is completely biased and unrealistic. He just assumes Brian Sabean is stupid enough to panic and make an idiotic trade because that's what he wants to believe, since it would benefit his favorite team.

The Giants will be in a bit of a short-term panic, and they might be willing to overpay for Reyes.

I love unrealistic rosterbation!

I know it sounds great to think the Giants will panic, but if you sit down and think about Brian Sabean then you know he doesn't panic. He signed Miguel Tejada to play shortstop this offseason . I would have been in a panic immediately after paying Miguel Tejada to play for my team. The Giants, and Sabean, won the World Series last year by building an offense with a veteran lineup that didn't seem to be able to hit well enough on paper to succeed in the playoffs. Sabean didn't panic and it worked out for him. A lesser GM would have seen he had traded or signed 21 outfielders near the trade deadline (just a guess...I know he traded for or signed Cody Ross, Pat Burrell and Jose Guillen) all of whom didn't seem initially to be a huge answer to the Giants offensive problems and gone into a panic he had not done enough to upgrade the offense. I know I probably would. Not Brian Sabean. So I don't think he will panic this year either with the injury to Posey.

Brandon Belt, who may have been off-limits beforehand, could be dealt to the Mets for Reyes.

This is a crazy trade proposal for two reasons:

1. The Giants are probably not terribly eager to trade their best prospect and a MLB-ready player in order to get Jose Reyes as a one year rental, after which he will become a free agent. Thinking the Giants would trade a young, team-controlled, left-handed hitter for a one-year rental is just not realistic.

2. Far be it for me to bring this up, but Brandon Belt is a first baseman. He has played some outfield in the minors, but he is probably best served at first base. Don't the Mets already have a young, left-handed first baseman? Ike Davis, maybe? So why the fuck why they trade for ANOTHER first baseman? To put him out of his natural position in the outfield?

Zach Wheeler and Madison Bumgarner are two other players that could also be moved.

Any player COULD be moved. In reality, it won't happen. I can see Knapel did the typical "look at another team's farm system and then pick one of the top prospects" method of designing a trade and that's how he came up with Zach Wheeler's name. Wheeler is the Giants top pitching prospect and top prospect overall after Brandon Belt. Given the success the Giants have had with developing pitching, what on Earth could make someone think the Giants would trade their top pitching prospect for a player that may end up being a one-year rental?

I've said it before, it is not acceptable to just pick the top prospect in another team's system and just assume a team will trade that player. For this to be realistic you have to look at the team's history and see if it makes sense based on their needs. It doesn't make sense when you look at the Giants recent history.

The same thing goes for Madison Bumgarner. There's no chance, even as poorly as some of his numbers look like this year, that the Giants would trade a 21 year old left-handed pitcher who has proven he can pitch at the major league level for a shortstop that is going to probably be a one-year rental. Reyes wants to his the free agent market and he is going to have bidders. I am not sure the Giants could or would match another team's offer. So the odds of Reyes staying in San Francisco or signing with them before the season is over is not good. Knowing how the Giants do their business, this just isn't a realistic trade.

As we have seen with Kendrys Morales, a broken bone could cause Posey to miss more than just this season. On top of the broken leg, Posey also has severely sprained ligaments in his ankle. This could lead to a very long recovery process.

Which is why trading for a player who has one year left on his contract makes sense? Which is why trading a good young hitter (Belt) who has shown he can come close to Posey's production (at least in the minors) is a good idea? Is there not going to be a 2012 baseball season and no one has told me yet?

I like Jose Reyes and I think he will be a valuable addition to a team that trades for him. He's young and is the type of hitter that is hard to find in baseball. I don't see too many teams trading upper-tier MLB-ready players or their top prospect for him. This doesn't seem like it would happen.

Jose Reyes is a free agent this off-season, but if the Giants acquire him, they could lock him up to a long-term deal.

They could lock him up to a long-term deal. Or they could not lock him up to a long-term deal. It's a risk that is factored into the trade.

The Giants could also sign Jose Reyes to a long-term deal when he becomes a free agent after this season, which is something they would have to do anyway to justify trading Bumgarner, Belt or Wheeler for Reyes.

This would certainly serve as insurance if Posey has to miss part or all of next season.

Because nothing says "insurance" like spending $14-$16 million on a player. The last time the Giants spent that much money on a player, they spent it on Barry Zito. Think they mostly regret that decision? Not that the Zito contract would cause the Giants to not sign another player for a ton of money, but you don't sign a guy to a long-term, expensive deal as insurance in case another player doesn't come back soon enough from injury. Well, some teams may, but I don't think the Giants would.

If Posey is healthy, the Giants' lineup becomes much more intimidating to opposing pitchers with Reyes hitting in front of Posey.

That would be intimidating. So rather than trading for Jose Reyes, should the Giants just try to sign him after this season? It seems to make more sense since Reyes probably would not be able to hit in front of Buster Posey this year due to Posey's injury.

I think I just got confused. So is the point to trade for Reyes so he can "replace" Posey's production? Or is the point to trade for Reyes so he can be re-signed to hit in front of Posey? Or is it both? If it is both, then why don't the Giants just keep their best prospects and sign Reyes, as they would have to do anyway, after this season? He would replace Posey's production until Posey is 100% and they get to keep their prospects. Does that make too much sense?

4 comments 5 Reasons Why I loved the 2010-2011 NBA Season

The link to Dime for the article is here. Can't plagiarize myself, you know?

I’ve never been one for wearing gear on the court. I’m not a good enough basketball player. The NBA is a different story. If you’re a rotation player, you’ve secured an inalienable right to wear whatever you want. But unless it’s a brace, there’s really no point other than style. Take headbands, for instance. LeBron James wears one. So does Jason Terry – and his is slightly off center (someone should really tell him). Neither of them have enough hair to warrant their apparel, but they definitely have enough swag (at least LeBron used to). There’s no doubt that donning the gear is an understandable sentiment – I consider myself a Nike ID guru. Unfortunately I can only break out my kicks in summer leagues or the fabled New York City street courts. But I hope, I dream. I envision myself hoisting the Larry O’Brien Trophy in my New York Knicks uniform. Wearing number 11, of course. And an orange sweatband below my left elbow. The moment would be just right, with all the miniscule pieces of my fantasy aligned just so.
But I digress. Even though my NBA career never materialized in the way that I imagined (fine, it never got started), I still hold on. It’s why I take enormous pride in the 3-1 record I compiled playing pick-up last week with fellow Dimers. I have to displace my passion, my anger and my limited stamina in other areas and take the victories where I can get them; like pick-up basketball, or when the train arrives directly after I walk into the subway station. Or my continuing odyssey to become the No. 1 FIFA 2011 player on Xbox Live in the United States - I’m currently at No. 277. (I’m Pyrrhus1289 if you dare to challenge me.) Or when the sandwich artist (that has to be a top 10 job title, right?) at Subway places just the right amount of buffalo sauce on my sub.

That’s why I loved this past NBA season. The big storylines were intriguing, frustrating, vindicating and palpable. Every time questions found an answer, four more questions would emerge. It was like I had been sucked into “Lost” all over again. But every NBA season has its headline drama that propels the season forward. 2010-2011 had something more. And it wasn’t the Miami Heat or Derrick Rose, but tiny splices of moments – small victories. It had just the right amount of buffalo sauce. So when I looked back on the season on the train this morning, I combed through my mental library that archived these snapshots. Here are a few of them that stuck out the most.

Frank Vogel - The world is better now that Vogel will most likely take the Pacers gig on a non-interim basis. Under his regime, Jeff Foster and Josh McRoberts patrolled the paint Kevin McHale-style, i.e. with no regard for human life whatsoever. No mercy, no easy buckets. There weren’t any intricate coaching schemes, mixing and matching of lineups, or brilliant maneuvers. It was play basketball, be physical. We often hear coaches preach that players need to play every possession, but the Pacers were the only team that actually lived up to the mantra.

The Kim Kardashian Effect – If you’re a professional athlete and you’re looking to improve your game, date Kim Kardashian. Just don’t break up with her, because she’ll break your heart and cause your career to go south. Just take a look at the history:

1. Reggie Bush – The New Orleans Saints’ running back dated the reality TV star from 2007-2010, during which time he somewhat ripped off the “bust” label stapled to his forehead. Not to mention the Super Bowl Ring he picked up in February of 2010. But then they split, and Bush cemented his heartbreak with a broken leg in Week 3 of the following season, followed by having to return his Heisman Trophy and USC disowning him.
2. Miles Austin – The Dallas Cowboys’ wide receiver hopped aboard the Kardashian train during the summer of 2010 and the first two weeks of the following season. Those first two weeks got him off to a hot start, as he racked up an impressive 20 catches for 188 yards and a TD. But then they broke up, and Austin tumbled, recording seven two-catch games in the following 15 weeks.

3. Kris Humphries – He’s really got it going on. Dating Kim Kardashian, averaging a double-double for the season, and looking at a healthy next contract. If he and Kardashian split, expect Dwight Howard to sign with the Nets, Humphries’ minutes to get slashed in half and Lamar Odom to unintentionally tear his ACL in an alarming yet sadistically satisfying twist of irony.

Reaffirmation of the Atlanta Zone – By definition, this refers to teams perennially chained to a No. 3, 4, 5 or 6 seed. More importantly, they’re handcuffed to the second tier of NBA teams without the possibility of parole. Atlanta’s first contract with Joe Johnson welcomed them to this much-maligned zone, but their most recent deal with him put the nail in the coffin. No team will ever win with Joe Johnson as its main star. I don’t care who you put around him.
The Memphis Grizzlies followed suit by committing to Zach Randolph and Rudy Gay for the long term. You’d think that teams would have learned after the Rashard Lewis fiasco, but no. The NBA has proven that you win with a bunch of B+/A- stars, or one A+ star and a bunch of solid B role players.

And now the Knicks are dangerously close to joining the ranks. Carmelo and Amar’e are pretty on paper, but that’s about it. Any time you flirt with the C and D range as your main rotation guys, you’ll be in a world of hurt. Anthony Carter should never be leading the comeback charge in the regular season, let alone an elimination playoff game.

The Weakening of the Western Conference - We can praise Rick Carlisle, Dirk Nowitzki and the Dallas Mavericks’ team chemistry all we want, but their NBA title was nothing less than shocking. I mean, the Mavericks? The same team everyone and their mother picked against in the 1st round? The same team whose average age is 67? Don’t get me wrong – they deserved the title. But a repeat? Doubtful. Then again, I have no idea who the favorite is for next year. Every team has got a major issue. The Lakers lost Phil Jackson. Dallas is old. San Antonio is older. The Thunder will be immobilized until Scottie Brooks hands off the point guard duties to James Harden. The Denver Nuggets have too many rotations players and tattoos to avoid internal turmoil. The Portland Trailblazers have too many injuries and too much front office instability. Memphis, well they’re a frustrating anomaly. Like the guy on the street court who looks awful, yet inexplicably puts the ball in the basket more often than not.
The point is that the Western Conference playoffs were unbelievable this year, and there’s no dynasty in sight. Which means that we’re looking at multiple years of entertaining unpredictability.

The Dismantling of the Utah Jazz – Jerry Sloan, Deron Williams and a winning record all disappeared from Utah quicker than a Mark Jackson outro. (Fine. It was slower.) But it was the best thing to happen to the Jazz since the end of the Malone era? Why? They were in the Atlanta zone. Deron Williams and Al Jefferson/Carlos Boozer were not the solution. Maybe if they added one more piece, but what free agent is signing with Utah? (Cut to Jazz fans crying and nodding at the same time). It’s really a shame, because Salt Lake City is one of the most underrated fan bases. They’re intense bordering on rabid, which is always intimidating and influencing the outcome of games at EnergySolutions Arena. But pity won’t draw free agents out west. Their best move was to cut ties with anything related to the old regime and start over. We always seem to forget it, but the goal is an NBA championship, not the playoffs.

13 comments Rick Telander Thinks the NBA's Rim Height Should Change

Rick Telander thinks the NBA should raise the rims to a level where players have fewer opportunities and ability to dunk the basketball. Because Rick Telander hates Jay Mariotti and wasn't shy about saying it, he should have a lifetime pass on this blog. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a lifetime pass on this blog, so that poses a bit of a problem. Rick feels it is time to change this "arbitrary" rim height the NBA uses. I feel he should probably watch high school basketball if he doesn't like dunking.

It’s time to raise the basketball rims.

I can say a lot of things about Rick Telander, but he does not bury the lead. He gets right to the point of what he is writing about.

Ten feet, 6 inches would be a reasonable height,

Reasonable being defined as "completely arbitrary." Remember this, because my "arbitrary" comment will make more sense here in a minute. I think ten feet is a reasonable height simply because it has worked for many decades now and there isn't a compelling reason to change it. If the point is to prevent players from dunking the basketball, I don't know if six inches will do the trick or not.

a half foot above the current rim, although I’d let you make an argument for 10-4 or even 10-8.

So four inches would make a difference in the height of the rim in order to fix the fictional problem of too many players being able to dunk the basketball? Or is it 8 inches that will fix this fictional problem? Maybe when criticizing the current rim height for being "arbitrary" and saying it should be raised it is better to not think of arbitrary rim heights as part of the solution to the problem.

Why?

Or as I said when I read this column, "Why?????????????????"

Because the current 10-foot rim, which has been at that arbitrary height ever since James Naismith nailed a peach basket

Here are some other arbitrary measurements used in sports that don't need to be changed and have worked out well. Yet they could be changed, but not necessarily for the better:

-100 yards on an NFL football field. We don't use the metric system in America. Plus, there are too many touchdowns in football. Let's move the field to 350 feet.

-60 feet 6 inches to the pitcher's mound. Pitchers and hitters are stronger now. Surely this creates a problem of some sort.

-The distance of the fences in a team's home park. They are all different! How is that fair?

-How big the baseball/football/soccer ball/basketball is. We have college baseball players playing with aluminum bats and MLB players playing with wooden bats. It's just straight madness.

-Nearly every measurement in every sport (3pt line, free throw line, 10 yards to a first down) is from an arbitrary distance of some sort.

My point is that most rules or measurements outlining the field of play are arbitrary in sports. That doesn't mean they can't change or shouldn't change, but calling the ten foot basket "arbitrary" is a bit deceiving.

Well, the rim hasn’t moved, but the forest around it has.

"These here players are being groomed and bred to learn to dunk that there basketball. It ain't right and it ruins the game!"

And that forest has become more specialized than ever.

He's talking to you China. Stop producing test-tube babies for the sole purpose of dunking on American-born players in the NBA.

That is, the rim’s accessibility to all the freakishly tall men and jumping phenoms has made it into something not even close to what Naismith had in mind.

So James Naismith had in mind the idea of short, white guys with little athletic ability shooting the ball? He should be proud of the WNBA. Maybe this should be incorporated into the WNBA's motto.

"The WNBA: Basketball as Dr. James Naismith intended"

It is not a bad thing that freakish athletes have turned the game of basketball into a more athletic sporting event. The fact this happened is pretty much the reason why the NBA took off in popularity a few decades ago. It became more exciting to watch. So Naismith's vision probably sucked if he didn't like or want this type of thing to happen.

We don’t need to honor that inventive man by adhering to all his wishes — ol’ Doc didn’t think about backboards, goaltending or even dribbling at the start —

So we should adhere to what James Naismith wanted, unless we don't want to do that, in which case it is fine to switch up the game for the benefit of the game? Great, more exciting basketball is basketball where there is dunking, so the rims should stay at a level where NBA athletes can dunk, but it isn't overly simple. This level is achieved by keeping the rim at ten feet. I'm glad we solved this.

The rim was supposed to be something that was essentially out of reach, at which players shot the ball, not jammed it through from above.

Things change. There wasn't supposed to be dribbling, backboards, or even an entire league dedicated to the sport that would make millions upon millions of dollars in revenue. Simply because Dr. James Naismith didn't envision it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be a part of modern basketball. Rick Telander admitted this as much the sentence above this one when talking about the changes made to Naismith's game.

Indeed, a 10-6 rim would no more stop jams than lowering the pitcher’s mound in baseball stopped no-hitters.

So the rim height should be lowered because it wouldn't make a difference? So why not just leave the rim height where it currently is at. Dunks are good for the NBA.

It would just make such displays a little more, shall we say . . . special?

A dunk is still special. The fact more players can dunk now than could in the early 1900's doesn't mean the setup in the early 1900's was a better setup. Dunks never get old.

For evidence of game evolution, check out the action photo of Kevin Durant in last week’s Sports Illustrated. The Thunder forward’s head is about at rim level, he is perhaps three feet from the basket, he is being fouled by an opponent who is way below him, his right arm is fully extended, and his right hand is about to cram the ball through the rim from at least 18 inches above it.

I guess this one picture is the only evidence needed to lower the rim height. Kevin Durant is 6 foot 11 inches (I am convinced he is an inch taller than that), his wingspan is very long as well, and he is one of the best basketball players in the NBA. So he is a guy who wouldn't have a hard time dunking because he is so tall and has such a large wingspan. There aren't a hell of a lot of guys with his build currently playing in the NBA.

This evidence would be much more compelling to me if Jason Terry or a small forward who wasn't as tall was high above the rim and easily dunking the ball. As it stands, I would expect a young, long, tall player like Durant to do this. Can Russell Westbrook or James Harden do the same thing? Probably not, so it isn't like Durant is just one of many on his team who can sky above the rim.

There are now street-ball games where the guys have raised the rims to as high as 12 feet, just to make dunking more interesting.

As I always say, if it is happening in street-ball then the NBA should immediately copy it.

The street-ball guys have raised the rims to 12 feet to make dunking more interesting, not necessarily to improve the actual game of basketball being played, which when I last checked was the sport being played. So while street-ball games have moved the rims up, I don't know if this would translate to a better game when it comes to organized basketball. There is a lot shit that goes on in street-ball which wouldn't translate well to the NBA, like the fact players don't get called for a "carry" or "palm" of the ball, sometimes they just hold the ball in their hand and run to the basket in street-ball.

But even if every player on the floor during NBA games can dunk with ease, which is often the case

This is not true. Most players on the floor can probably dunk a basketball, but that doesn't mean it is does with ease. Most NBA players are tall and athletic, so it shouldn't be shocking many of them can dunk a basketball, but that doesn't mean they do it with ease.

(except when J.J. Barrea is out there), there is still such clutter above the rim that close-in shots become almost impossible.

I have never experienced this problem. Perhaps this is a column written by a bitter Chicago sportswriter that the high-flying Heat beat the Bulls in the Eastern Conference Finals? I'm just guessing really.

There was a failed movement back in the late 1960s to raise the rim, largely because basketball seers could not fathom the future of the game with giants such as Lew Alcindor coming along.

And yet, the giants that came along while the NBA rim was at a height of ten feet didn't do anything to negatively impact the NBA game and the sport actually became more popular as the players got taller and more athletic. So the fear the basketball seers had in the giants ruining the game never did come to fruition. If anything, these players made the game of basketball more exciting and fun to follow.

‘‘In the early 1930s,’’ the legendary Kansas coach Phog Allen said years ago, ‘‘I foresaw that the influx into the game of more and more big men would ultimately make a travesty of basketball.

So it's been nearly 80 years and this hasn't come true yet. But it sure sounds really super-duper scary doesn't it?

Actually, I had a 7-footer in 1927. I was convinced that eventually 12-foot baskets would be necessary.’’

Again, it has been nearly 80 years and this hasn't quite come true yet. I'm not saying it wouldn't come true at some point, but the current game of basketball doesn't suffer from too many dunks in my opinion.

But in periodic exhibition games played with 12-foot baskets, smaller men have shot almost as well as they did on 10-foot baskets, and big guys couldn’t block everything that came their way.

Normally I would ask for some type of reference to see this is true or some sort of proof, any kind of proof, but I know I won't get any. So the comment "smaller men have shot almost as well as they did on 10-foot baskets" means nothing to me. There is no proof given this comment has any credibility and considering Telander is arguing for the rims to be raised, he has incentive to exaggerate a bit on this claim.

Said former University of Tennessee center and longtime Bulls center Tom Boerwinkle after playing a preseason college game in 1967 on 12-foot baskets: ‘‘Usually I block six or eight shots a game, but I didn’t have a chance tonight because of the higher arc.’’

I can't help but laugh at this. Tom "The Liar" Boerwinkle says he blocked 6 or 8 shots per game in college preseason games. I guess we will have to trust him on this because the NCAA didn't start counting blocks as a statistic until the 1985-1986 season. So we'll have to take his word for it.

We could also use his NBA career statistics to see how good of a shot blocker Boerwinkle was in order to see if his claim from college could be true. He had 138 total career blocks in 10 NBA seasons. He blocked 0.5 shots per game. It seems possibly he could have blocked a ton of shots in college, but that skill didn't translate to the NBA. Of course, this is a guy who played on a ten foot rim in the NBA and didn't seem able to just block shots at will, so his saying he didn't have a chance on the larger baskets doesn't mean much to me.

This helps me prove a ten-foot rim in the NBA should not be changed because a player who was dominant at blocking shots in college wasn't as dominant in the NBA. In the NBA, the players are so athletic, being tall doesn't mean you are automatically a great shot blocker or rebounder. The 10-foot rim was an issue against lesser competition, but it evened out when the competition's ability got better.

Another of the reasons it does not mean much to me is that Boerwinkle was one of the giants that Phog Allen was so worried about hurting the game. It seems like while playing on a ten foot rim in the NBA, Boerwinkle didn't have an easy time of blocking shots, his being a "giant" didn't have a negative effect on the game of basketball. An NBA game is different from playing a college preseason game and the fact Boerwinkle supposedly blocked 6-8 shots per game in college and then couldn't even muster 1 block per game during any season in his NBA career shows this. For me, Boerwinkle's statement is more reason why the NBA should not raise the rims, specifically based on supposed events that happened playing against lesser competition.

I started to think seriously about rim-raising after 6-3 Bulls guard Derrick Rose repeatedly was unable to shoot close to the basket against the Miami Heat because there simply was not enough glass above the rim to angle in a shot above supreme athletes such as Chris Bosh, LeBron James and Dwyane Wade.

So because Derrick Rose couldn't get to the rim the entire game of basketball should be adjusted so that he can get to the basket easier? I hate to break it to Rick Telander, but raising the rims by any amount isn't going to cause LeBron James or Dwayne Wade to be less athletic, nor will it help Rose get to the basket when being guarded by an equally athletic, taller player like James.

I have to say, I love his reasoning the rules should be changed because Derrick Rose couldn't get to the basket. Clearly, this means the NBA should change their rules around to accommodate Rose.

It came to a head when I saw the Dallas Mavericks’ 6-2 Jason Terry dunk on the massive, 6-8 James in the first game of the NBA Finals. The ball went through, but Terry was nearly killed by the arrogant collision with James.

So two examples, both examples involving LeBron James...maybe we should just outlaw LeBron James from playing defense or accept he is a good defender and a hell of an athlete rather than change the NBA game around. Or would that be too easy?

So earlier in the column Rick Telander complained it is too easy for players to dunk in the NBA, but now he is complaining Jason Terry didn't have an easy time dunking the ball because LeBron James was in his way. So dunking is too easy in the NBA and that's why the rims should be raised, except when dunking isn't too easy and that's why the rims should be raised?

When 5-9 Nate Robinson can make monstrous slams,

Did no one care when Spud Webb could dunk? How come the giants and the athleticism of Webb wasn't ruining the game? Probably because Telander's team, the Chicago Bulls, had their own high-flying player (Michael Jordan) who could make monstrous slams. Clearly, the NBA had no need to raise the rims at that point, that's just silly to think.

and 6-10 Blake Griffin can jump over automobiles and lions, raising the rim to 10-6 would help all.

Blake Griffin could still dunk at that level. Not sure it would do much but arbitrarily change the height of the rim.

I fear the power-leaping Griffin might someday destroy himself by hitting his head on the backboard, which hangs down far below the rim.

This is a fear we all don't share.

If the height is not changed, some incredible athlete is going to be able to block 15-foot jumpers, before their descent, from five feet away.

I'm not so great at physics, but I am pretty sure this is impossible unless the player shooting the ball throws the ball directly parallel to the height he jumped and doesn't put any arc on the ball for a player to block the shot from 5 feet away. So while it is really interesting to think of this happening, I am not sure this would happen more than once. I would imagine a shooter has to shoot the ball at least 12-13 feet in the air or so to make a basket so the person jumping would have to time it right and get his hand in the air about 12-13 feet from 5 feet away from the player. This type of thing doesn't feel likely to become a problem.

All sports tinker with their rules and dimensions. Heck, football once didn’t have the forward pass.

The changes need to make sense. This doesn't.

Raising the rim will help stop the football-like wrestling underneath and the clubbing that goes on when men drive.

Rick Telander does realize even if the rim is raised there will be still be wrestling underneath the basket because there will still be rebounds, right? If anything, I think the wrestling would get worse because players no longer had to worry about jumping high enough to affect the rebound coming off the rim. Players could jump up with impunity and not have to worry about colliding with the rim either.

I don't think the clubbing when players drive would stop either. Players could still make a layup and would jump high in the air to get the ball in the basket, so the defensive player would still have a chance to club him.

Though...imagine a guy trying a put-back dunk on a 12-foot basket and missing the basket completely. Being able to see a video of this would make it almost worth it to have a taller rim.

It will bring back more skilled shooting.

This is pure speculation. A taller goal may bring back more skilled shooting or it may just bring more outside shooting. Seriously, the NBA doesn't need to turn into the WNBA where only a few select players are capable of highlight-making dunks or plays around the rim. The NBA has a few problems, but I don't see the height of the rim as one of them. Not to sound derogatory, but I think if you want a picture of what the NBA would be like with a 11 or 12-foot rim, then take a look at the WNBA and then decide if you like what you see.

Don’t fix it if it ain’t broke, you say?

I say better to adjust it before it blows up.

Which, as detailed well by Rick Telander here, people like Phog Allen have been predicting the game would blow up for 80 years now. It hasn't happened, even with taller and more athletic players playing in the NBA. So the fears of the NBA being "blown up" isn't any closer to realization than it was 30 years ago, no matter what Rick Telander wants you to think.

And if you want to talk about a four-point shot, I’m ready.

Because the one thing that can help more skilled shooting is to offer a 35-foot four-point shot. Josh Smith's outside field goal percentage would dip to around 25% if this happened.