8 comments Bill Simmons' "Fuck It, I Give Up on Writing Original Material So Here's a Mailbag" Volume 5: Bill Fixes the NBA Playoffs

Bill Simmons took a week off from the difficult activity of publishing other people's emails and adding comments below them, then didn't put his as-promised Wednesday mailbag until Friday. It's almost like he's putting it off. The guy simply doesn't want to write anymore, why can't he get his readers to understand this? So in his fifth installment of an NBA mailbag Bill fixes the NBA Playoffs, since he's the only one (obviously) qualified to take on an activity such as this. Really, Bill's mailbag is just an excuse to talk about a topic that doesn't require a full column and then kill some space with a few emails from his readers.

I didn’t write an NBA Bag on Thursday because I knew David Letterman was stepping down. I wrote an NBA Bag because I’ve been doing mailbags ever since I started writing this column in 1997 … and only because I loved Letterman’s “Viewer Mail” gimmick.

So is Bill saying he was going to, but did not, post a mailbag on Thursday due to knowing that David Letterman was stepping down? If so, Bill is swinging his dick around bragging he knew Letterman was going to step down before the general public knew, since Bill would have written the mailbag before the public knew Letterman was stepping down. Bill probably knew through Jimmy Kimmel, because he and Kimmel are totally friends. Did you know Bill used to write for Jimmy Kimmel's show? It's true and he knows Jimmy Kimmel. Want Bill to call Kimmel to prove he knows him? Bill will do it.

I also like how Bill didn't do any work out of respect for David Letterman. It sounds like an excuse to wait another day to be lazy and not write a mailbag.

So thanks for that, and thanks for everything else, David Letterman. If you hadn’t passed through my life in my formative years, I’d probably be doing something else for a living. And I like doing this.

He did it for you, Bill. It was all for you.

As always, these are actual emails from actual readers.

Of course they are, Bill. Of course they are.

Bill prints three emails first that scold him for taking longer than a two week break from writing an NBA mailbag with the curse words or vulgar words deleted. It's funny Bill does this because the word "fuck" is used on Grantland, but he excises a less vulgar word from the emails in this case for effect. Check it out...

Q: WHERE IS THE BASKETALL MAILBAG [DELETED]
—Ric D, Brooklyn

I'm assuming the word deleted is either "shithead" or "asshole," both words I don't think there would be a problem posting on Grantland since I'm pretty sure they post the word "fuck." Maybe the word used was a creative word I had never heard before that's worse than "fuck."

Q: Hey [deleted], it’s April 3rd now and we’ve all gone over weeks without an NBA bag. It’s bad enough you skipped last week (for the Action Hero column), but now you can’t follow through on a promise for one on the 2nd? Yup, that’s our Simmons.
—Nathan, Lewiston

Okay, maybe "dipshit" is the word deleted, but either way, I think it's a word that Grantland could use on their site.

SG: Fine, fine. I won’t make the mistake of pushing Wednesday’s NBA Bag to Friday ever again. Heard you loud and clear. Look at all these deleteds! I don’t want to be known as a [deleted] finger-popping [deleted] [deleted] anymore. I’ll even throw in an extra thousand words free of charge.

How about starting to care about what you write again, not mailing in columns, and stop becoming a parody of what you once were? I would settle for that.

Q: Did you see Mark Cuban fire shots at NFL’s possibly expanding 18-game schedule? Would the NBA would ever go nuclear and attack the NFL over concussions? Ads showing NFL players laying on the field unconscious with tag lines like “The NBA, our players actually remember their careers” and “The NBA, watch the top athletes in the world — guilt free.” 

Right, because NBA players remember this career in between the smoky haze of all the pot they smoke in between games. Not that NFL players don't do it, but there are accounts of NBA players playing games stoned. I don't think the NBA has room to throw stones in this glass house. The NFL could also quite simply politely point out more people watch the NFL than the NBA.

SG: Kudos to Nick for coming up with my favorite idea of 2014 — the NBA spending $25 million on attack ads specifically to wound the NFL’s credibility and give the NBA a competitive advantage. But why stop at concussions and 18-game schedules? I’d throw in stuff like, “The NBA, Where We Don’t Replace Our Refs For 25 Percent Of The Season With Random Dudes Off The Street,”

The NFL could then counter with, "The NBA, Where the Outcome of the Game is Decided By Whichever Official Has the Most Money on That Night's Game" or "The NBA, Where the Officiating is---Nothing to See Here, There's No More Officials Gambling on Games and Please Ignore All of the Playoff Games That Say Differently."

and, “The NBA, Where Our Players Don’t End Up Committing Crimes Every Other Week.”

"But Only Because There's Fewer of Us Per Team As Compared to the NFL."

Can all the Talented Weirdos Who Make Elaborately Weird YouTube Clips make attack ads and put “GRANTLAND NBA/NFL ATTACK ADS” in the subject heading so we can binge-watch them? Also, even if it’s beefing down, why can’t we go after baseball, too?

Because this gimmick is getting old quickly. Also, I love how Bill orders his Simmonsites to go to YouTube and create these videos and then he'll feature them in the next mailbag. It's the typical thing Bill does where he reminds himself of his relevance by ordering his Simmonites to do something, and they do it which massages his ego, while the Simmonsites have a great time trying to get Bill to acknowledge their video and justify their existence.

Q: Something we’re not talking about with Miggy Cabrera’s contract extension: Mike Ilitch is 85 years old. What does he care? He’s going to be dead by the time this goes bad. So what’s the age limit for owners, so we can’t have some octogenerian shouting “YOLO” and signing another Anna Nicole Smith contract?
—Ian, New York

Okay, who is "we" in this situation? I ask because I have read multiple articles mentioning Ilitch is 85 years old and wants a title before he dies, so he doesn't care as much about the back end of that Cabrera contract.

Q: Is Joakim Noah the first “Point Center” in NBA history?
—Ed C., Chicago

Bill uses this useless and innocuous question to write a paragraph about how impressive Bill Russell was. Not that Bill takes any chance he can get to bring up his Celtics of course.

Q: On the list of fake injuries that helped a team lose games over the final stretch of the season for lottery purposes, where does Pau Gasol’s vertigo rank?
—Ethan, Goleta

SG: Come on, that’s a real injury! Who would ever make up “vertigo” as a reason to sit your best player? Even Sam Hinkie wouldn’t have thought of that. You should look at this another way: It’s a fact that Kobe Bryant could have returned five or six weeks ago, only the Lakers decided they’d be better off holding him out until next season — even if it meant costing him about 600 points that he needs toward Kareem’s scoring record. You gotta love the NBA, a league with a lottery system so screwed up that even Kobe — the most maniacally competitive player since Jordan — looks at the big picture and says, “You’re right, I shouldn’t play.”

The NBA isn't the only league where a team will hold out a player so he can be fully healthy for next year rather than risk that player suffering a re-injury playing during a lost year. NFL teams will often put a player on IR when that player could conceivably come back late during the season. So while Kobe is very competitive, it's not a result of the NBA's lottery system that Kobe is sitting out, but it's a result of the Lakers not wanting him to re-injure himself during a lost year. This decision isn't exclusive to just the NBA either.

Q: Have we ever seen a “superstar” player have his on-court production affected by his off-court antics more negatively than Paul George, at least in this era?

SG: I’m answering only because my readers keep asking if the off-court stuff affected George (and, by extension, the Pacers).

Bill feels the need to remind his readers that he is an expert whose opinion on this subject has been highly sought after by his readers. He has many leather-bound books and his house smells of rich mahogany.

George’s 2013 hot streak (October 29 through December 31, 30 games): 23.8 PPG, 47% FG, 40% 3FG, 86% FT, 17.3 FGA, 6.6 3FGA, 5.8 FTA. And it happened: We thought, PAUL GEORGE IS MAKING THE LEAP!!!!!!

As always, when Bill is wrong it becomes "we" thought Paul George was making the leap. If Bill had predicted that Paul George would come back to Earth at that point he would say "he" thought George would eventually regress to his career statistics. "We" thought something when Bill is wrong, "he" knew something was true when Bill is right.

From an eye-test standpoint, I thought George exhibited unusual confidence those first two months, taking and making hands-in-the-face, off-balance 3s right out of the Durant/Carmelo/T-Mac/Old-School Vince superstar playbook. But are we sure that’s who he is?

This sentence is a good example of what I'm talking about. When Bill is analyzing George's confidence it's "I thought" and then in the very next sentence when Bill is wrong it turns into "are we sure that's who he is?," where Bill goes from "I" to "we" in a matter of two sentences. It not-so-coincidentally happens to occur when Bill goes from being correct to being wrong.

What if there’s still another offensive leap for the 23-year-old George to make, only he’s one or two seasons away from making it?

I don't know, great point Bill. MAYBE THIS 23-YEAR-OLD ATHLETE ISN'T A FINISHED PRODUCT YET? I thought George was a finished product but then it turns out we were wrong and a 23-year-old still has room for growth.

George’s closest style dopplegänger is T-Mac, also a streaky scorer, but a more talented offensive player who got to the line whenever he wanted. George isn’t there yet. He’s a work in progress. And lately, he’s fallen into some bad habits — see Zach Lowe’s Indiana piece today — that have undeniably stilted his progress.

What a coincidence. The most popular writer on Grantland and the editor-in-chief of the site answers a question in his mailbag that allows him to also link a column appearing on Grantland that very day. Great synergy here.

If I could create a pie chart of percentages explaining Indy’s pseudo-collapse, here’s what it would look like.

Not to be picky, but Bill never actually shows the pie chart and lists the percentages. Listing percentages without an actual pie chart isn't a pie chart of percentages, it's just listing percentages. 

The Collective Slump (10%)

Identity Loss (25%)

And also — the concept of “handling success and being out front the right way” is a great one. Wasn’t that what derailed the mid-2000s Pistons? They won in 2004 and made the 2005 Finals because of defense, teamwork and consistency. When the ’06 Pistons ripped off that 37-5 start and sent four players to the All-Star Game, it was the worst thing that happened to them. They arrogantly developed an on/off switch that doomed them. Could that be happening here?

Bill thinks this is exactly what's happening here. At least until he is proven wrong and then "we" were wrong about the Pacers problems and their resemblance to the problems of the '06 Pistons.

The Chemistry Thing (40%)

I’m the same guy who wrote a 700-page NBA book about the secret of basketball not having anything to do with basketball.

Around 100 of those pages consisted mainly of comparisons between women and pornstars and other misogyny, to the point the secret of basketball was that all women are evil whores who should always be compared to those women who have sex on camera for money whenever possible.  

So now you have 25 percent of your team playing for new deals, a star who’s getting prematurely compared to LeBron and Durant, a defensive anchor who thinks he’s Bill Russell, Lance thinking he’s an All-Star headed for a meaty extension, and a subtle behind-the-scenes chemistry downgrade from Granger to Turner/Bynum. 

Ever want to know the difference in studio analysts like Bill Simmons who always change their opinion in retrospect (and pretend they didn't) and a guy like Zach Lowe who actually knows and understands basketball so his opinion is based on actual knowledge and not talking points? The ability to have foresight. From the trade deadline chat between Bill and Zach Lowe:

Please remember that Bill is currently giving his readers a semi-lecture about Evan Turner not being a good locker room guy and how trading Danny Granger messed up the Pacers locker room. Not shockingly, that's not the opinion Bill held at the time of the trade, but he would rather us forget that and focus on the lecture he is trying to give his readers right now in this mailbag about the very-important chemistry downgrade from Granger to Turner.

Zach Lowe (3:52 EST) Put broadly: Turner is just not that good an NBA player, and the things he does well require him having the basketball. Well, Lance Stephenson has already turned into the ball-handling captain of the second unit, even pushing C.J. Watson, a nominal point guard, mostly off the ball. Stephenson’s a good enough 3-point shooter to spot up around Turner-centric plays, but that would represent a large rejiggering of Indy’s second-unit offense late in the game. Turner isn’t providing much spacing as a spot-up guy around Stephenson, and he’s probably a defensive downgrade even from a hobbled Granger. And those bench units have survived based upon very stingy defense.

Bill Simmons (4:04 EST)
I concede all of those points. But Granger looks done to me – we just watched a 24-game sample size of someone who couldn’t shoot anymore and lost his brakes. You lose your brakes in the NBA, you’re done.

I made fun of this "lose your brakes" comment, mostly because it completely deserved to be mocked. Notice while Bill currently uses his extraordinary ability of hindsight to point out 40% of the Pacers problem is bad chemistry, he didn't once mention chemistry when the Turner-Granger trade went down. Again, Bill is a talking head. Zach Lowe is not. Bill's job in his columns is to say interesting things, Zach Lowe's job is to analyze basketball and show the reader what he perceives the truth as being based on the research he has done.

Turner offers the following things: creates his own shot, played in big games (college and pro)

Not to pat myself on the back too hard, but I pointed out it sounds like Bill is making things up in place of analysis.

a little fearless (irrationally so), can play either guard position, provides an extra set of young legs … oh, and remember his 26-point game on Opening Night when Philly shocked the defending champs? I’d rather take my chances with Turner than Granger in Round 3.

Bill would rather have Turner over Granger in the playoffs in February, but now that's it is April, Bill wants his readers to know that the chemistry difference in trading Granger for Turner was large. It's funny what knowledge Bill can claim to have known once he is able to use hindsight. It's also no shock that Bill doesn't even mention he liked the trade for the Pacers. He would most rather his readers focus on reading the lecture about team chemistry that Bill is giving in this mailbag. Ignore that Bill was wrong, focus on how smart he is a few months down the road from this trade.

Lance Has This (25%)

I’m going mostly eye test here. Admittedly dangerous.

This must be as opposed to the hardcore analysis that Bill was doing prior when making up arbitrary percentages for a pie chart that doesn't exist.

But in my early ESPN.com days, I always joked that Tim Wakefield was the Steve Sanders of the Red Sox — in other words, you loved having him around, but you never wanted him involved in crucial plots. If you modernized that joke for 2014, you’d say that Lance Stephenson is the Saul Goodman of the Pacers — you love having him around, but you never wanted him involved in crucial plots.

Or as a normal human being who is capable of just saying something without using 20 too many words might put it, Stephenson is one step above a role player and you don't want him to be the guy you count on to be the best player on the floor at a crucial time.

Now, you can flip this the other way and say, “The 2003 Spurs won a title partly because Stephen Jackson had the balls to occasionally say, ‘I GOT THIS!’” His swagger (I hate that word, but still) 

Bill hates the word, but he just voluntarily used it.

really helped them. This is 100 percent true. It’s also 100 percent true that San Antonio allowed Captain Jack to leave that summer, and that they never acquired another “I GOT THIS!” guy.

The Spurs never acquired another "I GOT THIS!" guy most likely because this type of person doesn't necessarily exist except in the mind of Bill when he wants to make up attributes for NBA players when he needs to prove a point. It also helps that an "I GOT THIS!" guy would need the ball to "get this" and while Lance Stephenson can bring the ball up the court, the Spurs had Tony Parker handling the ball, which means Parker could stop one guy on the Spurs team shooting the ball excessively in situations where he shouldn't be.

To be fair, second-half swoons don’t necessarily mean you’re finished. (The 1995 Rockets or 2010 Celtics, anyone?) And 49 of the last 60 Finals teams (dating back to 1984) had a top-two record in their conference, so history sides with Indy regrouping here. But when you’re built unconventionally — winning with defense, chemistry, depth and unselfishness, but without an elite offensive player — it’s tough to say “They’ll be fine” when their four biggest strengths vanished. And we DO have a precedent for the swoon to keep going — in Indiana, no less. Remember when the Pacers went into the 2003 All-Star break with the East’s best record, peaked at 37-15 … then belly-flopped to an 11-19 finish and got stunned by Boston in Round 1?

Bill is deftly playing both sides of the issue so that when the Pacers tank in the playoffs he can say he saw it coming or when they beat the Heat and make the NBA Finals he can say these second-half swoons happen. I'm sure at that point Bill will point to his February chat with Zach Lowe to say he told us all that he would take Turner over Granger in Round 3. This information is only useful when it makes Bill look good. 

So, this isn’t a media-created story line just because it’s March and we’re bored.

Not that Bill needs an editor or anything, but this mailbag was published in April. So it's April, not March. Clearly Bill wrote this mailbag in March and was just too lazy to change this date around. This further confuses me as to why he didn't publish the mailbag on the same day Letterman announced he was stepping down, assuming the mailbag was already written. I know, I know, it doesn't really matter.

Now? I could absolutely see Brooklyn or Chicago toppling Indy in a Round 2 rock fight. It’s in play. Stay tuned.

Oh, we will stay tuned Bill. We will find out if you were right about the Pacers or if "we" were wrong about them.

Q: Could you see Kevin Ollie being the next coach of the Thunder if they crash and burn in the playoffs? In your podcast with Kevin “The Servant” Durant, he spoke very highly of Ollie as a leader.
—Ricardo, McAllen, TX

SG: Had the same thought as I watched Ollie coach his ass off last weekend, 

Ricardo from McAllen, Texas every original and creative thought you've had before isn't original or creative because Bill has already thought of it. He's smarter than you. Don't you know that's the point of these mailbags? So Bill can one-up his readers' ideas?

then abandoned that thought last night when I remembered that OKC can still make the 2014 Finals because they’re such a horrendous matchup for the Spurs. (Then again, that’s the coolest thing about the 2014 playoffs — there’s a little rock-paper-scissors action going on. Everyone has someone they don’t want to play.)

So the Thunder may or may not beat the Spurs, but the larger point is that Bill thought of Kevin Ollie as the Thunder's coach WAY before you did, Ricardo.

Now, I can’t see the Thunder changing coaches unless they get bounced in Round 1. Not because they’d be unhappy with Scott Brooks, but because they’re too friggin’ cheap to pay two coaches. But Ollie is a super-intriguing name to file away, especially if OKC doesn’t win the title in 2014 or 2015 and wants to avoid “The Decision II” (Durant in 2016).

And of course the Thunder won't be too cheap to pay two coaches if they get bounced in Round 1? So maybe the Thunder aren't cheap, they just don't think it's worth replacing their head coach unless given a very good reason to do so.

Q: If your Celtics don’t win the lottery and have the 5-8 pick who would you not want the Celtics to take? Being a Timberwolves fan, I’m praying the Lakers don’t take Aaron Gordon. Super athletic but can’t shoot at all.
—Tommy H. Mankato, MN

This is a boring question, but of course it only exists because Bill has to talk some about the Celtics. He can't write an entire NBA column or NBA mailbag without mentioning the Celtics at least 3-4 times. He is the Boston Sports Guy after all.

SG: My top six right now, at this very moment and not counting the 730 other times I’ll change my mind before June:

So basically, whichever way the wind is blowing next week will be the direction Bill goes. These are the things that happen when you pretend to watch college basketball and don't really watch college basketball. You become a slave to a prospect's stock going up or down on a daily basis due to your own inability to have an informed opinion on that prospect.

(1) Andrew Wiggins, (2) Jabari Parker, (3) Joel Embiid,

Really? Bill wants the Celtics to take a seven-footer with a bad back? Look for him to change his mind about Embiid closer to the draft.

After that, I’d be depressed that the Celtics didn’t get a top-six pick. And we disagree on Gordon — he’s Shawn Marion 2.0 with a dash of Blake and a dash of Kirilenko thrown in. I came around on Gordon the more I watched him.

What Bill really means is he enjoyed watching Aaron Gordon in the NCAA Tournament. I don't know. I like Gordon and I'd like to see him play with Rondo, but he's a little boom-bust for me. Of course, at worst I think Gordon is a very athletic guy who can rebound and that's not such a bad thing.

Q: I’m ready for your annual trade value column. This is where you’re going to explain why Goran Dragic and his cap friendly salary and slashing style are more valuable than Damian Lillard and his eventual max contract and poor percentage at the rim. I’m going to get mad because Damian is my guy and I’ll think you’re an idiot. Then I’ll come to grips with the fact that you’re right, I’m a homer, and watching my Blazers crawl to the finish line while the Suns seem to not go away only verifies your point. I suppose that’s why you’re a necessary evil. I don’t have to like it though.
—Jake, Gold Beach, OR

SG: That was this month’s winner of the Backhanded Compliment Award.

This is also a good example of Bill including a mailbag question that makes him seem smarter than he really is. This is also an example of Bill wanting his readers to know that he's considered an expert on something as subjective as a player's trade value...and really isn't Bill an expert mostly regarding subjective things? He's good at making things up that help to prove a point he wants to make. This Simmonsite refers to Bill as a "necessary evil" as if he is often correct about things that fans don't want him to be correct about. What's ignored is how often Bill can be wrong.

I don’t know when we’re seeing the annual Trade Value Column — if I wrote it right now, I’d end up putting Anthony Davis first, second and third. Might be better off waiting until the summer when I can’t overreact to everything. I love overreacting. It’s one of my weaknesses.

Another of Bill's weaknesses is pointing out when you are correct and ignoring the times when he has been incorrect, while using the times he has been correct as evidence a theory he is working on will also be correct.

Q: LeBron is currently 10/1 for MVP betting. Talk me out of this. —Sean, Dublin
SG: One second.

You know Bill, you don't have to answer a question that you aren't prepared to answer. You control the questions you answer in a mailbag.

Q: Who is the next NBA MVP not named Durant or LeBron? I suspect it’s Anthony Davis. He can dominate on both ends of the floor in a LeBron-esque manner, and is barely 21. Does he have the potential to carry a Pelicans team of the mid/late 2010s (with an inevitably weak supporting cast) the way LeBron did on the Cavs a decade earlier?
—James Newmyer, Prague

SG: Absolutely. Zach Lowe covered it on Tuesday. Davis is the safest bet. 

It's interesting to me how often Bill links a Zach Lowe column. It's almost like he hired Zach Lowe as a way of making himself sound more intelligent about the NBA. What I mean by that is Bill can pick Zach Lowe's brain at any point he wants and so Lowe's presence on the Grantland staff means Bill can use the knowledge Lowe has passed on in his own analysis of the NBA. It's a sort of brilliance-by-association, where Bill is associated with Zach Lowe and perceived in some way as being as smart as Lowe about the NBA. He references a Zach Lowe column 3-4 times in this mailbag and this isn't the only time Zach Lowe's name has appeared frequently in something Bill has written for Grantland.

But let’s be clear — LeBron and Durant are owning the rest of this decade. Durant is JUST hitting the beginning of his prime, at age 25, and coming off this insane three-month stretch after Christmas (from 12/27 through 3/25):

42 Games, 39.3 MPG, 35.0 PPG, 7.4 RPG, 6.1 APG, 52% FG, 40% 3FG, 86% FT

I sucked it up and looked through every conceivable three-month stretch of Larry Legend’s career — he never caught fire like THAT. 

And of course there is no other NBA player that can be used in this comparison, seeing as he is the best NBA player of all-time and all. I've always loved Larry Bird, but Bill Simmons seems to use Bird as the baseline for way too many comparisons.

Not even during the last three months of the ’85 season, when the Legend basically averaged a 31-11-7 in the 50-40-90 range, with at least four or five buzzer-beaters and the famous 60-point game against the Hawks in New Orleans. By the way? He’s the greatest forward of all time.

I mean, the greatest forward of all-time? That's a different argument.

But to answer James’s question, the Brow is definitely the first pick. I’d also throw Blake Griffin, Steph Curry and Thon Maker in there.

This is the heartiest of LOL's for Bill including Thon Maker in this discussion. I see Bill has fired up the YouTube videos again and is buying into hype just like he did with Ricky Rubio before he violently threw himself off the Rubio train when reality didn't match the YouTube videos. Bill's trying to act like he's all plugged-into high school recruiting and throwing Thon Maker out there in the discussion. What a poseur. The best part is that Bill couldn't be more douche-like about being on the Thon Maker bandwagon.

Thon Maker? Thon Maker.

Maker looks great on the YouTube videos. Once he goes to Kentucky, then to the NBA and only becomes a pretty good player, at that point Bill will throw himself off the Maker bandwagon as if he wasn't even on it in the first place.

Q:
Player A: 21.6 ppg, 6.4 APG, 41.7 fg%, 32.4 3-point%
Player B: 21.3 ppg, 8.9 APG, 42.8 fg%, 33.5 3-point%
Player C: 21.1 ppg, 6.2 APG, 42.8 fg%, 36.6 3-point%

Player A is Steve Francis Year 3.
Player B is Stephon Marbury Year 3.
Player C is Kyrie Irving Year 3.

—Kyle B., Indy

Q: Look at this.

Player A: 20.7 ppg, 6.4 apg, 1.3 spg, 3 tpg, 45.3 fg%, 35.4% 3fg.
Player B: 21.1 ppg, 6.3 apg, 3.6 rpg, 1.4 spg, 2.7 tpg, 42.8 fg%, 36.6 3fg%.

Player A is Isaiah Thomas. Player B is Kyrie Irving.

—Aamir Shakir, San Francisco

And of course Bill won't let these two guys have the best scary Kyrie Irving comparison. Remember, Bill has to be the smartest, most clever guy in the room at all times. So he has to top these comparisons. His ego can't allow someone to be smarter than him.

SG: My counter to Kyle and Aamir …

Player A: 21.1 ppg, 6.3 apg, 3.6 rpg, 43.1 FG%, 36.6 3FG%, 20.1 PER
Player B: 21.3 ppg, 6.9 apg, 3.3 rpg, 43.8 FG%, 29.1 3FG%, 21.6 PER
Player A? Kyrie. Player B? Devin Harris in 2009.

(YES! I just won the “Who Could Freak Cleveland Fans Out The Most With a Blind Player Comparison To Kyrie Irving” Contest!!!)

I wouldn't even need to read ahead to correctly predict Bill would try to top the comparisons these two readers had. Bill even proclaims himself the winner, though I have to honestly say comparing Irving to Francis and Marbury should be scarier to Cavs fans since they got huge contracts and were seen as malcontents while having these huge contracts. At least Devin Harris didn't seem to carry a bad attitude around with his contract. But Bill is the judge of this contest and I wouldn't expect him to admit he's not the most clever guy in the room, so proclaiming himself the winner isn't unforeseen.

Q: Could you please make sure that near the end of the NBA season you tease us with a breakdown of what your Entertaining-as-Hell Tournament would look like?
—Scott Scattergood, Korea

Sucking up to Bill by reminding him of how good his ideas are seems like the best way to get Bill to answer a mailbag question.

SG: When the 2014 Suns can miss the playoffs and the Knicks can make it, we’re fundamentally doing something wrong. When the Sixers can blow 26 straight games, then win at home to break the streak as their mortified fans don’t know whether to cheer or cry, we’re fundamentally doing something wrong. When the 2014 Hawks say, We’d rather fall into the lottery than make the playoffs, we’re doing something fundamentally wrong.

This isn't the first NBA year these things have happened. Teams have tanked before and teams that don't "deserve" to make the playoffs make the playoffs. I'm not sure why this year is suddenly Bill's breaking point except for the fact he is running out of column ideas and has resorted to beating the problem of NBA teams tanking into the ground as a result.

First-Round Winners: No. 1 Memphis over no. 16 Milwaukee (“Welcome to Tru TV!”) … no. 2 Phoenix over no. 15 Philly (Sam Hinkie: “Hey, Thad and MCW, it’s OK to try in this one”) … no. 3 Minnesota over no. 14 Orlando (yes, ’Sota could absolutely blow this game) … no. 13 Boston over no. 4 Denver (OUR FIRST UPSET! LET’S GO CELTS! HERE WE GO GREEN!!!!!!!)

For once, I wish Bill wouldn't be a homer...even if he's being a hypothetical homer.

And also, Kobe could have returned a month ago, only it made little sense for him to risk his aging body on a lottery team. But if he could win three win-or-go-homes to make the playoffs? That dude is coming back.

Maybe Kobe would come back. I don't have the ability to read minds like Bill does so I can't say for sure Kobe would come back, but it still seems silly to risk further injury for the privilege of losing to the #1 seed in the West in the playoffs.

Second-Round Winners (re-seeding): No. 13 Boston over no. 1 Memphis (MASSIVE UPSET! BRAD STEVENS LOVES TOURNAMENTS!!!!! RONDO WITH A 17-19-16!!!!!!) … just kidding, no. 1 Memphis over no. 13 Boston (golf clap for the C’s) … no. 2 Suns over no. 11 Lakers (final score: 129-125, and I gotta admit, I came damned close to picking Kobe, Nash and Vertigo Pau)

This tournament does sound entertaining. I will admit that. I do like how it blatantly steals from the conference tournament setup in college basketball that gives teams automatic bids into the NCAA Tournament. Bill is too prideful to admit he's completely stealing this idea, but he is.

Lingering second-round thoughts: I really, really, really, really, really enjoyed pretending to watch all of those games. Look at what we accomplished already. We convinced Kobe to come back.

I realize this is a hypothetical, but I'm still not sure Kobe would come back just for the chance to play the #1 seed in the Western Conference IF the Lakers managed to win this tournament for the 8th seed in the West.

The more I think about it, the more I think (a) the EAHT should end after three rounds (it doesn’t make sense to have a championship game), and (b) we should just dump conferences and go with an NBA Sweet 16 for the actual playoffs (like Kirk Goldsberry posted two weeks ago).

See? Bill uses the other NBA writers at Grantland to make himself seem smarter as a result of his affiliation with them. Bill's ego even makes the hire of intelligent NBA writers in some way about him and improving the columns he writes. I guess there's nothing wrong with surrounding yourself with talented people as long as you don't try to claim their ideas. Here, he uses Kirk Goldsberry's idea and (here's a shock) thinks of one that is supposed to be smarter than Goldsberry's simply because Bill is the one who thought of it.

Why not open the door for a late-peaking team? Why avoid a scenario in which someone like Kobe says, “You know what? I’m coming back,” instead of, “There’s no reason for me to come back”?

Boy, Bill is really riding this whole "Kobe comes back for the playoffs in this scenario" thing isn't he?

How would the EAHT affect tanking? I’m throwing out my fourth different idea for this one … what if we blew up the lottery format and reinvented it with three tiers:

Worst Six Teams: 9 percent chance of winning
Worst Teams 7 through 12: 4 percent chance of winning
Worst Teams 13 through 16: 2 percent chance of winning

Wait, that’s only 86 percent. Hmmmmmmm … let’s give each of the 14 playoff teams 1 percent odds. That’s right, we’re putting everyone in! TRY TANKING NOW!!!

Teams that tank will still know they have a good chance of getting a Top-5 draft pick. And also, the NBA is the only major sport that has a lottery system where the worst team in the sport doesn't automatically get the #1 overall pick, yet Bill continuously acts like the NBA has some system that rewards terribly run teams and no other sport has this problem. It's not true. The NBA is the only league that doesn't automatically guarantee the worst team the #1 overall pick.

We run the lottery for the first four picks, then the draft goes in reverse order of record from the fifth pick on. You really think Philly is casually blowing 26 straight under this revamped system?

As I said in a previous discussion about this topic, the 76ers are tanking now when they are only guaranteed the #4 overall pick. I'm not sure moving that pick back to the guaranteed #5 overall pick will make a lot of difference overall. It's only moving the worst-case scenario back one pick. I'm not sure that's enough to deter teams from tanking and moving payroll off the roster in order to lose games in the short term and (hopefully) win games in the long term.

Oh, and Adam Silver? You’re shopping your next slew of media rights packages right now to ESPN/ABC, Turner, Fox and everyone else, right? And you’re thinking about adding a third package that includes a Saturday-night regular-season bundle, right? Wouldn’t it make the most sense to combine that bundle with the Entertaining As Hell Tournament into a third, mack-daddy package? Conceivably, Disney would pay more for the same deal it already has; same for Turner and its current deal; then a third party comes in (Fox Sports? NBC? Maybe even … gulp … Google or Apple TV?) and grabs those Saturday-night games and the Entertaining As Hell Tournament? 

Bill just fixed the playoffs for us and thinks he stopped NBA teams from ever tanking again by moving the worst-case scenario for a team's lottery pick back by one whole pick. We should thank him.

And yes, Thon Maker. Remember that name until Bill doesn't want you to remember it anymore because it will remind you that he jumped on a high school player's bandwagon based on YouTube videos. 

6 comments Chuck Klosterman Decides Everything Involving Sports is Pointless, So He Doesn't Even Understand Why He is Writing This Column

Maybe Chuck Klosterman is too smart for me. I have a small ego and can accept that maybe his writing is above my head. I don't think that's the case (this is the part where Chuck Klosterman, were he in my position, would write 1000 words on whether the fact I don't think this is the case that he is smarter than I am shows I have a large ego), so I will work under that assumption. Chuck reflects on the incident of David Stern fining the Spurs $250,000 and wonders, naturally, if sports really matter. Chuck tends to do this circular, navel-gazing type wondering about sports quite often. Whether it is suggesting rule changes he thinks aren't good or wondering what our dislike for Chris Johnson says about us. Now Chuck uses the $250,000 fine enforced on the Spurs as a way of determining exactly why sports matter. It seems Chuck likes to over-think issues whenever possible.

Spurs coach Gregg Popovich elected to not dress four of his best players (Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, and Danny Green) so that they could rest their legs at the end of a four-game, five-night road trip. This outraged NBA commissioner David Stern, who fined the club $250,000 for committing a "disservice to the league and our fans."

This statement isn't of itself stupid, but if you are me and want to create a straw man argument saying if David Stern really cared about the league and the fans he wouldn't have simply swept the Tim Donaghy mess under the rug by finding him to be the lone gunman and insisting there was nothing else to be seen here, then you find the idea of Stern giving a shit about "the league and our fans" as fairly ironic. This is the commissioner who has presided over an era of officiating where, at best, important NBA playoff games were decided by poor officiating, and at worst, he presided over an era with a conspiracy by officials to fix certain playoff games.

The NBA is a league where one official (Joey Crawford) can clearly have a bias against one team/player, while also having pleaded guilty to falsely stating his income on his taxes from 1991-1993. Crawford resigned immediately after pleading guilty in 1998 and David Stern then reinstated him in 1999, with Crawford never missing a single game. People make mistakes, but mistakes over a three year span? An NBA official Crawford gets reinstated as soon as he possibly can for lying to the IRS, but the Spurs are committing a disservice to the fans by benching their older star players as they see fit. Would it have been a disservice to the league to not immediately re-hire Crawford?

The NBA is also a league where another official's name has somewhat become synonymous with him getting assigned to a game when the NBA has a certain outcome they want reached (Dick Bavetta). The fact Tim Donaghy stated another official on the crew for Game 6 of the Western Conference Finals had a reason for wanting the Lakers to beat the Kings, and Bavetta was a part of that crew, along with being on the crew for quite a few other NBA games with questionable officiating, doesn't bother Stern at all. Nothing to see here. Donaghy was the lone gunman and sweeping this under the rug wasn't a disservice to the league and the fans, but Gregg Popovich has ruined the NBA's fake good name by daring to rest his players and ruining the competitive nature of a certain game.

You get my point and I could go on. David Stern pretending to give a shit about the fans is hilarious to me. If he gave a shit about the fans he would explain his decisions with more than a statement and a brisk walk back to his ivory tower.

The initial debate was straightforward: Is it acceptable for the commissioner to penalize a coach for not playing the players fans want to see?

I wouldn't like it if I was attending an NBA game to see the Spurs' stars play, but I fully understand Gregg Popovich's reasoning for benching Duncan, Ginobili, Green, and Parker.

These smaller, less important debates focused on the following: 

1. Should it matter that Popovich is the most respected coach in the league (and therefore warrants special treatment)?

No.

2. Would it have made a difference if the Spurs had still won the game (which they almost did)?

No, but it goes to show the competitive nature of the game wasn't negatively affected by the absence of the Spurs' star players.

3. Is the NBA schedule too taxing?

Sometimes.

4. Is Stern unnecessarily draconian?

Yes. He is a good example of a commissioner who believes he is above the game and also believes only he knows what is good for the NBA. So any decision he makes is a blessed decision and the right one.

5. Was Popovich consciously trying to poke the bear?

Who cares? It's his team and his right. If David Stern really cared about the fans and the league he wouldn't block trades. If Stern also wants to get involved with personnel moves, then he needs to get involved with personnel moves and begin to tell NBA owners which players they can or can not sign, as well as tell NBA owners how to run their team. He can't pick and choose when to do this. If the Warriors are making moves that hurt their team and therefore the NBA and Warriors fans, Stern has to stop those moves. I'm not advocating Stern do this, merely stating he can't pick and choose when to break out with the "disservice to the league and fans" argument simply when it is convenient for him to do so.

6. Would this have been less problematic if Popovich had warned the league of his decision in advance?

He shouldn't have to warn the league.

7. Did ticket buyers in Miami deserve a refund?

No. They have Wade, James, and Bosh. They shouldn't come to the game to see the Spurs stars anyway.

8. What responsibility does Popovich have to TNT (the network that broadcast the game and potentially lost viewers because of who wasn't playing)?

Some, but he has a bigger responsibility to his team.

9. How is this different from teams who tank games at the end of the year in order to qualify for the draft lottery?

Completely different. The Spurs are still trying to stay competitive and win games.

In fact, I suspect those minor issues were mostly being analyzed as a way to avoid the deeper question this conflict demands, simply because the answer is too big to reasonably confront.

As always with Chuck Klosterman, it can't be a simple discussion. There ALWAYS is a deeper issue that only he is smart enough to manufacture---I mean discover and then he will write a column about this issue.

The question is this: What are we really doing here?

Oh God, really? It's like Chuck can't help but navel-gaze. Chuck probably takes a piss and wonders what this piss means in the grand scheme of things. Did he just flush the toilet selfishly taking water away from someone else? Could he have pissed three times today instead of four times? What does the fact he pissed three times instead of four times say about him as a person? If Chuck is really selfish in how he goes to the bathroom then how come going to the bathroom made him feel better? Is Chuck not supposed to feel better because it may be selfish to people he has never met?

What I'm asking is, "When a dilapidated version of the Spurs plays the Heat in late November, what is actually at stake?"

A victory? A game to put on a SportsCenter graphic in June when the Spurs and Heat meet in the NBA Finals that shows the team's record against each other this year?

I'm wondering about the central purpose of pro sports, and how much of that purpose is directly tied to entertainment.

Some people watch sports because they like the competition and entertainment factor. It's entertaining to me when my team wins.

In order for a Spurs-Heat game to be entertaining, it has to be competitive; in order for the game to be competitive, the outcome has to matter; in order for a regular-season game in November to mean anything, the outcome of the NBA title has to mean a lot. And if we're going to accept the premise that the outcome of the NBA Finals is authentically important (and that who wins the title truly matters), then this whole experience needs to be more than casual entertainment.

See, when I do my Chuck Klosterman "piss parody" I'm not too far off. 

This is fairly typical Klosterman schtick. He takes something sports-related and then creates a bunch of questions out of it. At some point, a reader may actually think there is a discussion or a point being made when Chuck is really just churning ideas through his brain. This game is entertaining because sports are entertaining. This game could be entertaining without being competitive, depending on your point of view. Chuck is looking at this from a neutral point of view. As a Heat/Spurs fan, this game would be entertaining even if it weren't competitive.

Popovich is a beloved, admired coach who appears actively unconcerned with the entertainment requirements of basketball (which is how most serious fans would insist they want him to behave). He's exclusively concerned with real competition over the long term, particularly in the month of June; everything else is a distraction. Stern's essential rebuttal is that pro basketball only exists because pro basketball is fun to watch (and if you ignore its entertainment import, the rest of this will all disappear).

Chuck is clouding the issue. Popovich is concerned with running his team, while Stern wants a good product on the court. I get that. The issue is being clouded because Chuck is making these two positions be at cross-purposes when they possibly may not be. Perhaps a person finds basketball to be inherently entertaining, so regardless of the competitive aspect a person finds the game fun to watch. There aren't necessarily two competing visions present. Popovich could be unconcerned with entertainment, but the game still be entertaining, therefore meeting Stern's purpose.

What is present is David Stern overreaching because he is insecure about the product on the court. Stern believes the NBA has to be a superstar-driven league and fans won't show up if there aren't superstars on the court. I can see this view in this specific situation if this game didn't take place in Miami where the best player in the NBA was on the court.

That dissonance between Popovich and Stern is what forces my question.

Haha...this question isn't even being posed by Chuck. This question is forced to be asked.

If what makes sports entertaining is the degree to which the games matter, should we value competition above all other factors, even if doing so occasionally makes things less entertaining? 

There you go assuming. What makes sports entertaining isn't necessarily the degree to which the games matter. Sports can be entertaining simply because you like watching two teams play. I haven't (this is embarrassing and sad) missed a Duke basketball game in about 10 years and I have missed two Carolina Panthers games throughout the franchise's (short) history. There have been some bad games in there that weren't competitive, but I was still entertained. The sport itself can inherently be entertaining. So a competitive game in a sport I like is entertaining, even if the game doesn't matter, and very rarely will valuing the competition of a game make the game less entertaining.

This AT&T commercial never ceases to disturb me (which, I will grant, is mostly my own fault). We see a high school football player involved with a marginally crazy play during practice, captured on the phone of an anonymous peer who likes to invent unoriginal catchphrases. The footage goes viral and the player becomes famous — so famous that he gets recruited by Oklahoma football coach Bob Stoops,

It's a commercial and not in any way reflective of real life nor should this commercial cause an internal debate any more than the DirectTV commercials should make us wonder if that passive-aggressive married couple are really commenting on modern married life.

I hate this commercial. It's glib and insidious. However, I only hate it because it's fiction.

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnd we are off topic now.

If a real kid got a scholarship to Oklahoma because of this kind of scenario, I would be charmed. Anytime a real athlete's individual performance outshines the unsophisticated concept of winning or losing, I inevitably love it. His or her motives are almost an afterthought. I only find it troubling when the scenario is fake. 

Are the odds that Chuck Klosterman sees a therapist an even 100% or do you think it is as low as 99%?

Fiction is always more real to me.

Which probably explains why Chuck takes real life events and then creates fictional problems or quandaries (or at the least problems that are fictional in that no one else worries about them other than Chuck) to discuss in relation to these events. Fiction is more real to him, so creating issues that may arise around real life events seems like a natural part of his writing.

Just before Thanksgiving, a Division III basketball player for Grinnell College scored 138 points in one game. The player, Jack Taylor, went 52-of-108 from the field; the rest of his team spent the entire game relentlessly feeding him the ball so that he could launch trey after trey after trey (their next-highest scorer had 13 points)...When I read about this game the next day, I was ecstatic. I've often wondered how many points a basketball player could score if that was the only goal,

So would David Stern fine an NBA team for doing this same thing Grinnell College did? It takes the competitive nature out of the game, but at the same time makes the game exciting, so I would guess Stern would not fine an NBA team for doing this. More importantly (to me), I find the idea of how many points a basketball player could score if that was his only goal as a boring question. Who cares? This seems like the pinnacle of taking a basketball game and turning it into a sideshow. It's just not my thing.

It was totally fascinating, but nothing more. Personally, I'd be happy if this became a trend in the low end of Division III basketball. I'd like to see a space race to 200 points.

I don't get how Chuck Klosterman (of course this is the same guy who thinks we treat Chris Johnson poorly by expecting him to live up to the expectations that Chris Johnson himself set) can think one player attempting to score 200 points in a game should be a trend. This is the pinnacle of team basketball turning into a one-person sport and attempting to remove the competitive aspect from a team game.

I don't see why it would have been better for Grinnell and Faith Baptist to play a 54-51 game that would be totally lost to history.

I don't think this performance was an abomination or anything of the like, and while a 54-51 game would be less historic, if this type of game planning for one player to score over 100 points occurred on a regular basis it would take some of the fun out of watching those games for me.

What if I saw a commercial in which a basketball team sacrificed every traditional, competitive impulse so that one kid could score every single point, and this was celebrated as a brilliant way to demonstrate the power of a 4G network? I'm sure I would hate it. And I would hate it because it would force me to consider what I'm supposed to like about sports, as opposed to just watching the games and feeling good.

The conclusion Chuck comes to is always about him. It's like he takes his own personal demons out on sports. Our feelings about sports have to be complicated because Chuck's feelings about sports are complicated.

Perhaps you think this is an imaginary problem. Perhaps you say, "Just don't worry about it and the problem will disappear."

This is the part where Chuck may just be smarter than I am. I don't understand what the problem truly is. Sports are entertaining, some games are competitive, other games are not competitive, and David Stern shouldn't tell an NBA team how to use their personnel. We all move on.

Right now, in pro football, there is strong statistical evidence that insists teams should punt less on fourth down (even if it's fourth-and-4 and they're at midfield).

As a footnote, Chuck writes: 

However, isn't part of the reason the numbers suggest going for it on fourth down at least partially because almost no one regularly does so? Statistics aren't predictive; they can only show us what happened in the past. So if going for it on fourth-and-4 at midfield is still a relative rarity, isn't the available data for its rate of success questionable? And isn't it buoyed by the specific situations in which it occurs? I mean, what kind of team tends to go for it on fourth-and-4 from midfield? It generally seems like it's teams who are desperate (and sometimes facing a prevent defense) or teams who feel confident that they have the personnel and the play-calling acumen to succeed (most notably the Patriots). But let's say every team started doing this, all the time (which appears to be what the stat-heads want). Won't the base rate drastically change in potentially unexpected ways? 

I wouldn't say I agree with these points, but I do wonder what would happen if every team started going for it on fourth down in this situation. I can see how the results would change in unexpected ways. Regardless, I am being strong and avoiding Chuck's rabbit hole. Back to his navel-gazing...

But if you're one who believes that this axiom must be embraced for its mathematical veracity, it probably means the reason you're watching football is because you really care about the outcome. 

But if you're the one who wants your team to go for it on fourth down then you are watching football because you care about the outcome of your team's game anyway. Maybe I'm different. I don't watch a game and want the Steelers to go for it on fourth down in a situation like this. I don't give a shit what the Steelers do. I only care about axiom's like "go for it on fourth down" as it relates to my team. I could be in the minority, but I suspect I'm not. This is where Chuck is missing the boat. He is taking the analytical view of going for it on fourth down and confusing it with the fan's view of going for it on fourth down. The fan's view is most fans don't solidly believe in one axiom and watch NFL games to make sure all NFL teams follow these axioms. Some do, but in watching a game between two teams a football fan doesn't cheer for then the actual competition is why that football fan is watching the game. These football fans don't care about the outcome, they just want to see a good game. If a football fan is watching a game involving a team they do cheer for, then naturally the outcome is what the fan cares about and going for it/not going for it on fourth down affects this outcome. So that would be why a football fan would care about the axiom of going for it on fourth-and-4 at midfield, because it affects the outcome of a game that fan cares about. Otherwise if the football fan doesn't have a preferred team in the game, then I would think that fan would care more about a competitive game.

It means you believe that the most important thing about a football game is who wins and who loses, which is fine. Except that it makes the whole endeavor vaguely pointless and a little sad.

Again, it depends on the game being watched. If I am watching Maryland-Georgetown play college basketball I want to see a good game. If am watching Duke-Georgetown I care about seeing a competitive game where Duke wins. Watching sports isn't always outcome-based, even though Chuck Klosterman finds it more convenient to assume all sports fans watch sports in this way.

For sports to matter at all, they have to matter more than that; they have to offer more cultural weight than merely deciding if Team A is better than Team B. If they don't, we're collectively making a terrible investment of our time, money, and emotion.

I sincerely have no fucking clue what Chuck is talking about. I don't get why sports have to offer more cultural weight than merely deciding if Team A is better than Team B. Sports are entertainment and a diversion. They don't have to have more cultural impact than a movie or any other form of entertainment has to have a cultural impact. If a person likes this entertainment based on who wins the game than this isn't a terrible investment of time, money, and emotion because that person was entertained. The goal was achieved.

What matters is not the outcome of Miami–San Antonio, but how important that outcome was to begin with.

It was a regular season game. Heat and Spurs fans cared because they want their team to win as many games as possible in order to make the playoffs. The outcome matters in terms of how many wins the Spurs/Heat have at the end of the year and how important the outcome was is irrelevant. People watch sports, they don't care to figure out why they like sports. Why must Chuck always know "why?"

So within this debacle, who was justified? Who was on the right side?

Why does it matter who was justified? Why is there a "right side" on this issue? Doesn't the idea Chuck is looking for who is "right" when there isn't a certain right or wrong contribute to his own hopeless nature of trying to quantify those things which can't be quantified?

My natural, non-thinking inclination is to side with Gregg Popovich...I am emotionally motivated to side with him, because his position makes it seem like sports are more important than the people watching them on TV (which is what I want to feel).

I am really glad this is all cleared up, because I gave two flying fucks to read 1000 words on which side Chuck Klosterman was on and why he was on that side. Chuck thinks it is somewhat sad and pointless for people to watch sporting events merely to find out who wins and loses, but to watch sporting events to find out who is "right" regarding a specific situation isn't sad or pointless...even though it is impossible to know exactly whether Stern or Popovich are truly right.

Yet — in my head — I know that David Stern is right.

His edicts are sometimes infuriating, but they're always enforced for the same motive.

Ego? His love of power?

He always sees the biggest possible picture. Stern holds an inflexible vision of how the NBA should operate, and he's never wavered.

This unwavering vision hasn't always helped the NBA or done anything to dispel the impression Stern is a dictator who will use his authority to turn the NBA into what he wants it to be, even if it means meddling in the affairs of teams and creating the competitive balance he wants to see in the NBA. The NBA is Stern's puppet and he doesn't mind if you see the strings attached. He probably prefers that actually. It gives his ego a boost. He denies trades, he sweeps officiating scandals under the rug, all while allowing terrible owners free reign as long as they kiss the ring.

The NBA will always provide the illusion of competitiveness, which fans will unconsciously accept as viable entertainment. If you turn on an NBA game, you will see the game you expect (and will be able to pretend that it's exactly the game you desire).

We are all sheep according to Chuck Klosterman. 

You will get what you think you want, and any question over what that should (or should not) be will not factor into the equation. And if it does, somebody will get fined $250,000.

So that's what's really going on here.

I'm so confused. This seems to have been a clusterfuck of words to me.

Chuck starts out deciding the conflict between Popovich and Stern isn't about sitting out the Spurs starters being benched, instead he says it's about what is entertainment versus what is competition. This leads to a discussion about how Chuck hates commercials, but if those commercials happened in real life then he would like them. Which leads back into a discussion of competition versus entertainment where Chuck decides a game isn't entertaining if the game is not competitive, but if you watch a game for the competition then that is sad and vaguely pointless. Sports fans only want to watch a game if it is a competitive entertaining game, but to want to watch a competitive game and care about the outcome is pointless. This would make sports pointless, which they clearly aren't since they entertain millions of fans. This leads to Chuck wondering if teams really should go for it on fourth down more often, but also wondering why fans care if teams go for it on fourth down more often. Then Chuck asks why the Spurs-Heat game was important at all and why we even care who won the game. Finally, we get to the final conclusion David Stern was in the right because he needs to keep up the illusion of competitive basketball, which Chuck thinks is pointless to care about anyway unless he doesn't like competition in basketball and enjoys it when basketball consists primarily one player trying to score as many points as possible. This would be something worth watching in Chuck's opinion, even though it removes part of the competitive nature of the sport out of the equation, which he claims is why basketball fans watch the sport.

I need a Valium.

2 comments There is No NBA Lottery Conspiracy, But It's David Stern's Fault Some Think There Is

Lately one of the two things that have annoyed me the most are those with the idea of an NBA lottery conspiracy and fans (ahem, Bill Simmons) excessively whining about bad officiating that cost a team wins in the playoffs. I know there have been bad calls in the playoffs, but these bad calls usually end up going both ways. There has always been a star system in the NBA and that isn't changing anytime soon, but at some point nearly every team benefits from this star system. In the case of the lottery, I just find it hard to believe there is an NBA lottery conspiracy. If there was, Tim Duncan/Greg Oden would have ended up in Boston either of the two seasons the Celtics were odds-on favorites to get the #1 overall pick or the Sonics would have been giving the #1 pick when they moved to Oklahoma City. Not to mention, Anthony Davis to New Orleans would be such an obvious conspiracy I'm not even sure it could count as a conspiracy anymore than a gift from the NBA to the city of New Orleans. The NBA can't be that stupid as to have such an obvious conspiracy would they? Today, David Steele covers the Hornets great luck since the nixed Chris Paul trade.

Has there ever been a bigger trade in the history of American sports that never actually happened?

Yes, there probably has been a bigger trade that never happened. The Yankees were rumored to trade Mariano Rivera in the mid-90's for David Wells. Of course Rivera wasn't a Hall of Famer at that point. Barry Bonds was talked about going to Atlanta in 1992 and Randy Johnson was almost a Blue Jay in 1993.

Here are some other NBA trades that never happened.

Here are some more trades that didn't happen.

Well, rumor has it that decades ago, the Yankees almost swapped Joe DiMaggio for Ted Williams, so it’s a pretty high bar.

Yes, that would probably end up being the biggest trade that never happened. Two Hall of Famers traded for each other has to be high at the top of this list. I thought this article was about NBA conspiracies and not epic trades?

Did they know for sure back in December that by not being allowed to trade Chris Paul to the Lakers, they’d end up essentially trading him for Anthony Davis?

Inconceivable.

I didn't like that David Stern rejected the Rockets-Lakers-Hornets trade, but still I don't completely understand this conspiracy. Let me see if I get how this conspiracy went down. The NBA told the Hornets they were rejecting a trade that would send Paul to the Lakers and accepted a trade that would send Paul to the Clippers. In return, the Hornets would receive the #1 overall pick in the upcoming NBA Draft. So the assumption is the NBA knew the package from the Clippers couldn't help the Hornets make the playoffs, while they weren't so sure the package from the Rockets couldn't manage to help the Hornets stumble into the playoffs. So by accepting a lesser package, and in coordination with the eventual sale of the team to Tom Benson (and the league knew about this sale when rejecting the trade), the Hornets would get the #1 overall pick. The NBA knew this #1 overall pick would be a franchise player and so this was going to be a great benefit to the Hornets organization. Do I have that right? I think so.

Applications skyrocketed Wednesday night, when the balls bounced New Orleans’ way, moved them up from fourth to first

That's another one of my issues. They went from fourth to first. That's not a huge leap. I could probably buy the conspiracy more if the Hornets had a 1%-2% chance of getting the pick, but they had relatively good odds to land the #1 overall pick. Not to mention, this is a loaded draft so even at the #4 spot the Hornets could get a potential impact player.

I will say this doesn't appear to look good for David Stern. He has put himself in this position by owning the Hornets and not allowing the Chris Paul trade to the Lakers to go through. So while I don't believe there is a conspiracy, I can see how those who love conspiracies can see one. David Stern hasn't exactly done a great job of making it look like he isn't pulling strings behind the scenes. Of course, being the egomaniac that he is, David Stern probably enjoys the fact people believe there is a conspiracy. He's bizarre in that way.

and steered Davis, the lone consensus franchise player,

We all know how David Steele feels about Anthony Davis, but I'm not sure he is a consensus franchise player. Yes, he's a great defender, but we've seen players come out of college that are great college defenders before and this hasn't translated well to the NBA. So I don't believe Davis is a consensus franchise player. Of course I also believe there are 2-3 other potential franchise players in this draft, along with 3-4 guys who could make a few All-Star teams and the Bobcats are still in good shape if (and that's a big "if") they do their scouting homework. So my opinion may mean nothing to anyone.

Of course, it’s highly unlikely that it happens if the league-operated Hornets, with no clear ownership candidate in sight, end up with Luis Scola, Kevin Martin, Goran Dragic and a content Lamar Odom (yes, that’s a stretch, in hindsight) instead of the package of youth, friendly contracts and picks that made them lottery contenders instead of playoff contenders.

So the NBA decided rather than give the Hornets a team which can compete now, they would rather take the chance there is a franchise player coming out of the NBA Draft (remember, it was December when this trade was rejected and Anthony Davis had just started his college career) and they would give the Hornets this pick? This seems like a lot of speculation on the part of the NBA. I would think the conspiracy would move towards helping the Hornets compete now, rather than potentially compete down the road. The Hornets had options with the original Lakers-Hornets-Rockets trade could have at worst moved Scola/Martin for a draft pick to make the team even younger. I guess I don't get it. Is building a team around Anthony Davis better than having Scola/Martin/Dragic/Odom? In the long-term, quite possibly, but in the short-term having Scola/Martin/Dragic/Odom would do more to get a buyer for the team because the team would be more successful. Maybe I'm thinking about this wrong. I think the contracts of Scola/Martin would give the team flexibility to make further moves or just compete with the current team. So I don't know if I'm even buying the intelligence of the conspiracy.

When Stern said at the time of the eventual Paul deal to the Clippers, “I knew we were doing the best thing for New Orleans, and that was my job,” it rubbed everybody wrong then. It makes sense now.

It doesn't really make sense to me. David Stern had no idea who would declare for the NBA Draft in December, so he would have no idea what players would be available. Yes, it looked like a loaded draft, but a conspiracy to give them the #1 overall pick doesn't make sense to me in connection to the Chris Paul trade. There was definitely motivation by David Stern to give the Hornets two draft picks in or close to the lottery, but probably not a motivation to ensure they got the #1 overall pick.

Let’s not be Pollyanna-ish and act as if this isn’t a godsend for the NBA, the Hornets, new owner Tom Benson and a very strong basketball operation that worked miracles the past couple of years under nightmarish conditions.

Ok. Let's not do this. Let's do act like Anthony Davis is 19 years old, has a limited offensive game and hasn't played a minute in the NBA yet. Let's just automatically anoint him a franchise player right now.

More like real freaky. Here are some of the implications:

Paul ended up with the Clippers instead of the Lakers; the Clippers became a playoff team, and the Lakers failed to become a championship contender.

I don't see what this has to do with this lottery conspiracy, but maybe that's just me. I never agreed with Stern stepping into the Rockets-Lakers-Hornets trade, but I think he was just being the typical overbearing asshole that he is. I'm not sure he had bad intentions or had a larger conspiracy at play. I think this is just a coincidence that Stern could have avoided but chose not to.

There's no guarantee the Lakers would have been a championship contender with Chris Paul on the roster. Yes, they look a lot stronger on paper, but they would have been without Pau Gasol in the middle with Andrew Bynum. There is some assuming in saying the Lakers would have been able to beat the Thunder with Paul on the roster.

Devoid of the boost of talent, the Hornets, of course, missed the playoffs. But because Williams and the rest of the organization refused to tank (while Cleveland was “careful” with Kyrie Irving’s minutes down the stretch), the two teams tied in the standings. The Cavaliers won the coin toss and got the third pick, which wasn’t the one that leaped to the top.

Eric Gordon was injured nearly all season. He would have given the Hornets a nice boost of talent if he were injured. I don't know if Eric Gordon being injured all year was a part of the conspiracy that existed to make sure the Hornets get the #1 overall pick. Gordon would have helped the Hornets win more games. Did the NBA make sure Gordon stayed injured so the Hornets could lose more games? It's a conspiracy!

The pick they received in the Paul trade, a three-way that included Minnesota, wound up 10th overall. Unlucky break for the Timberwolves, since their own hopes for this season were torn along with Ricky Rubio’s ACL in March. Not unlucky for the Hornets, though.

No, it is all a part of the conspiracy though. The same league that can't always get a competent set of officials together in the playoffs is capable of putting together a vast conspiracy that started in December and ended with the draft lottery in May.

By the Hornets leapfrogging the Bobcats, the Michael Jordan-led franchise did not get the benefit of trashing their own season and finishing with the worst win percentage in NBA history. On the bright side, it gives Jordan a chance to botch the first, second and third overall choices in a span of just 12 years, as rare a feat as his six Finals MVP awards.

If Michael Jordan paid attention to what people wrote about him, cared what people thought about how he runs the Bobcats, or could be pulled off the golf course...then this comment would have really irritated him. This comment would probably have irritated him so much he would revise his Hall of Fame speech to include David Steele on his litany of people who did him wrong.

Stern gets to hear another intense burst of accusations that his league is crooked, always a fun topic for him.

I sometimes believe talking about accusations the league is crooked is a fun topic for Stern. Again, while I don't believe there was a conspiracy, it also doesn't seem like Stern did much to put himself in a situation where there wasn't a conflict of interest. He put himself in a tough position when the NBA owned the Hornets and then seemed to decide what trades the Hornets were and were not able to accept. Stern set him up for allegations of a conspiracy and doesn't seem to give a shit about accusations of a conspiracy.

It’s beyond insulting to even have to defend him and the league against such charges, and always has been.

It really isn't insulting at all to defend the commissioner from charges like this. Fans have a right to be suspicious. The NBA seems to have had an officiating problem in the past, in the present and in the future. While I don't believe it necessarily affects the outcome of games, the officiating becomes too much of an issue in the playoffs. This officiating issue is exacerbated by the Tim Donaghy situation a few years ago that David Stern dismissed with a simple wave of his hand, even when Donaghy stated other officials probably took part in placing bets on games. Nothing to see here, move along.

Throw in the conspiracies about the Knicks getting the #1 overall pick in 1985 to draft Patrick Ewing and other fishy stuff like the rejected Lakers-Rockets-Hornets trade and you can't blame a person for believing the NBA has conspiracies in place. I'm not sure of the correct way to disprove there aren't conspiracies in the NBA, but I do believe the way David Stern goes about it, hiding behind his curtain and insisting there is nothing to see here may not be the most efficient way of going about it.

So it isn't insulting to defend Stern against these accusations. He could do things to show the public they are crazy, conspiracy-loving idiots (which is probably true) by televising the ping-pong balls being pulled for the NBA lottery or even showing up for the draft lottery. He could state publicly he is going to take a hard look at the officiating in the NBA, which he won't do because that would be admitting there may be a problem. Stern prefers to sit high in his tower and allow the theories of conspiracies and criticism of him to accumulate. He's above all of it of course.

I don't think there is an overwhelming issue with the officiating in the NBA. There are fishy calls in the NBA like in any other sport. Unfortunately the poor officiating combined with other issues where it looks like the NBA has meddled with part of the game (the NBA draft lottery, potential trades being rejected) makes it look like there is a devious plan that David Stern has in place. So he has brought this upon himself in my opinion and it isn't insulting to him to insinuate there is a conspiracy. It's almost like he wants you to believe there is a conspiracy.

Nevertheless, as solid as his position as best commissioner ever still is,

Sorry, I'm not buying David Stern as the best commissioner ever. David Steele has dipped into some bad drugs if he believes this.

even he couldn’t have foreseen all of this:

The history of a franchise, a city, an All-Star player and a can’t-miss prospect altered forever by Stern just saying “no.”

Please...David Stern absolutely could have foreseen this. He chose to block a trade when the NBA owned a franchise involved in the trade because he didn't think it was in the best interests of the team. This trade gave the Hornets younger players who didn't give them as good of a chance to compete during the 2011-2012 season. Stern specifically chose to allow the Hornets to accept a trade that didn't give the Hornets a strong short-term opportunity to compete. There's no way Stern could have foreseen the Hornets would struggle and could end up with the #1 overall pick? This never crossed his mind that his meddling could look even worse down the road if the Hornets have a bad season and end up with a high draft pick because they got less proven and experienced players in the Chris Paul trade? I don't believe this.

Most anybody in Stern's position would have concerns about how the rejection of the Hornets-Rockets-Lakers would be seen and how it would cause ripples in the NBA and among NBA fans down the road. David Stern just didn't care. I think that fact he didn't care says more about him as a commissioner than it says about a conspiracy to give the Hornets the #1 overall pick.

3 comments Yea, About That Trade...

At this point, most everyone has heard about the Chris Paul trade to the Los Angeles Lakers being rescinded, vetoed, canceled or not approved. Whatever happened and whatever you want to call it. Now we've had a few days to cool down and let the thrashing of David Stern and the NBA subside a bit from the mainstream media, I thought I would look at the trade a bit. If anyone isn't aware this is a summary of what happened.

The three teams are currently working on a new deal which they hope will meet the approval of the NBA and the other owners. Hopefully they haven't agreed to a new deal by the team I have posted this, but that's the risk I take in not writing a knee-jerk reaction column on Friday. One of the biggest lessons we can learn from this is the only group of people who thought the lockout would change everything were the owners. Fans knew owners would still be greedy, would still spend money on players in a bad way (Caron Butler 3 years $24 million to block Al-Farouq Aminu from ever getting good minutes), and superstar players are going to end up playing for the teams they want to play for. I can't blame some of the owners for wanting to keep superstars out of large markets. This seems like something small market owners would see as beneficial to their team. My problem lies in the NBA's complicity with this goal. I am not sure the NBA should in any way have a say on what team a player should end up playing.

There are quite a few issues present here. The main issue I see as present is the NBA should never own an NBA team. I understand how the NBA ended up with control of the Hornets (thanks again for nothing George Shinn...even being absent from the NBA you manage to help screw something NBA-related up), but it simply doesn't make sense for the NBA to own a team that makes up a part of that association. It's a clear conflict of interest when the NBA has to look at what is best for the NBA and best for the Hornets. Those two positions can't always be reconciled easily. This is one of those times. Fully knowing this doesn't make sense and the obvious conflicts it causes, it is clear nothing was discussed among the owners about what would happen in a situation where the Hornets wanted to trade a player. How frustrating.

This lack of foresight helped cause this situation in my opinion. It is not like the Hornets or Chris Paul just sprung a trade demand on the NBA. It has been clear for a while now Paul wasn't going to sign with the Hornets after this season or he wanted to be traded. The Carmelo Anthony situation in Denver last year should have started discussions among the NBA with the Hornets on what would happen if the Hornets tried to trade Paul to receive some value for him. Quite frankly, at some point this conflict of interest where NBA owners are also owners of the Hornets needed to be clarified and discussed prior to an actual trade going down. It's a terrible lack of foresight that unfortunately isn't only limited to the NBA, but seems to be prevalent of late in the NBA.

What concerns me the most is what David Stern and the owners were trying to accomplish with blocking this trade...other than maintaining their own power of course. This trade veto (we will call it that) wasn't about whether the trade was fair or not, which it undoubtedly was fair. I would even argue the Lakers didn't even get the best end of the deal and the trade could help set the Hornets up to possibly contend for a playoff spot, while ensuring future flexibility. I don't believe this was unrealistic. They got some good pieces (older pieces, granted) which could be used to keep together for a year or two or these pieces could be traded to a contender later in the year NBA year. We'll get to more of that in a minute. This trade veto was about other owners not liking that Chris Paul was going to the Lakers, a large market team, and they felt it violated the principles of the "focus on the small market" CBA the owners had agreed to. What's interesting to me is the owners are the only ones who looked at the new CBA as a way of preventing superstar players from going to large markets. I think everyone else reasonably knew this trend wasn't going to just stop based on a new CBA. Chris Paul isn't going to suddenly love New Orleans because of the new CBA and Dwight Howard isn't going to want to play for the Magic due to the new CBA. The rules may have changed a bit, but I don't know if you can change the player's wishes for their playing career with a new bargaining agreement. I get the feeling part of the owner's minds thought the landscape of the NBA would change drastically and I'm not sure that is realistic.

The owners thought they as owners of NBA teams could continue to do what was best for their teams, but the players may not do what they considered best for them as players.

When Dan Gilbert writes a letter wanting the trade vetoed, he was doing what was best for his team now and in the future. He didn't care about the Hornets or how this trade affected them. That's how it should be, so I while will call him a jackass, I would expect him to do what is best for the Cleveland Cavaliers. I don't believe David Stern and the NBA should be doing what is best for one team at the expense of another team in this circumstance. This letter from Gilbert also shows how the NBA owners are refusing to face reality. Realistically, most players want to go to large markets. Holding players back from doing that or creating a bullshit reason to veto a trade isn't going to stop that from happening. Chris Paul is going to leave in free agency and the Hornets may get nothing for him after this season is complete if a trade isn't completed prior to that point.

Gilbert, who is still stinging from losing LeBron James if I had to guess, even wrote some revisionist history in his letter:

When the Lakers got Pau Gasol (at the time considered an extremely lopsided trade) they took on tens of millions in additional salary and luxury tax and they gave up a number of prospects (one in Marc Gasol who may become a max-salary player).

This is crap. At the time of the Pau Gasol trade it was seen as a heist for the Lakers and Marc Gasol was a player acquired based on potential and the Grizzlies were only getting his draft rights. It was considered a heist for the Lakers and regardless of what Marc Gasol turned into during 2010-2011 the trade was seen as a heist at the time. What the trade eventually was seen as is irrelevant because AT THE TIME OF THE TRADE Marc Gasol was a simple throw-in for the Grizzlies. Gilbert is misleadingly comparing a trade being evaluated three years after the trade to the initial reaction to the Paul trade. If the Pau Gasol trade happened in 2011, it would have been vetoed by the owners just like this Paul trade was vetoed.

Gilbert finishes by saying "I don't see how we can allow this trade to happen." I do. It was a fair trade and simply because you don't like a large market team received a superstar from a small market team in a trade doesn't make the trade any less fair. I don't particularly like the Lakers, in fact I really don't like them. The Lakers don't sit back and wait for something to happen and hope to God it all works out for them. They are aggressive and make moves to improve the team. The current climate of the NBA is that players want to go to large market teams. I'm not upset the Lakers don't get Paul. I am upset the NBA owners were able to take advantage of a huge conflict of interest and turn it to their advantage in some vain attempt to level the playing field. Do you know what really levels the playing field? Smart personnel decision-making and putting a good team around your star players to entice them not to leave. Ask the Oklahoma City Thunder or the San Antonio Spurs. I'm not convince the Paul trade (without a Dwight Howard trade to the Lakers following) would have improved the team that much. The Lakers would have been an improved team, but I think to be on par with the elite teams in the Western Conference they would have needed Howard along with Paul.

Dan Gilbert and the NBA owners want a level playing field. Are they really that naive to believe when they signed the CBA it would help level the playing field? All of a sudden star players would want to go to small-er market teams like the Cavaliers and play for an organization that kept LeBron James happy by surrounding him with a washed-up Shaq, Mo Williams, and Antawn Jamison? I have nothing against the Cavs and I am not completely happy about the migration of superstar players to large market teams. It's the state of the NBA. Regardless of what you thought about "The Decision," what was really keeping LeBron in Cleveland besides goodwill towards the Cavs? If Dan Gilbert wants to level the playing field, draft well and put a good team on the court. Let the Lakers tie tons of money into Chris Paul and Dwight Howard and build a quality team in Cleveland through the draft and smart trades.

It frustrates me the NBA owners can use a conflict of interest in owning the Hornets to (try and) change the balance of the league the way they would like because they don't want the Lakers, Rockets and Hornets to make a trade that will change the balance of the league in a way they don't like. Their attitude is if the NBA is going to have a change in balance, it won't be natural, but forced upon the players. Yeah, that will work. All that's left now is figure out a way to eliminate free agency, because Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, and Deron Williams are gone from their respective teams once they hit free agency if they don't want to be there. I think this is a fact of NBA life right now the owners can't get around. Of course, there is a part of me that doesn't completely blame the owners. They are only going to do what they can get away with doing.

Now for David Stern. In my perfect world, Stern would read Gilbert's letter and say, "I get it. This isn't the balanced marketplace you were looking for when agreeing to the CBA. I don't like the implications of this trade, but we can't use the advantage contained in the NBA's ownership of the Hornets to dictate where players go. We can, but we shouldn't."

Of course, that is my perfect world reaction by Stern and it may not realistic. By agreeing to block or veto this trade, David Stern has made it clear he works for the owners (which he does) and that overrides what is best for the NBA. There can be an argument made by some the Paul trade isn't good for the NBA because the rich (Lakers) get richer, but I think this is short-sighted. This trade was also about the Hornets getting value for their best player and avoiding a season-long issue. No one forced each respective team to make the trade. I believe what is best for the NBA is for David Stern to not step in and block a trade he doesn't like. If the NBA is going to have an obvious conflict of interest in owning the Hornets, the least they could is not flaunt this conflict of interest.

David Stern and the owners aren't ruining the NBA. They are opening the NBA up to lawsuits and terrible PR for a league that doesn't need terrible PR right now. I dislike this move on so many levels. I don't like the NBA, even though they "own" the Hornets, to block any trade the Hornets are trying to make. I think the NBA should be an owner in name-only and allow Hornets GM Dell Demps to make trades as he sees fit. I dislike the move because the NBA not only blocked a trade, but they blocked a trade that would have improved the Hornets and sent a player to a large market team the NBA didn't want to go to a large market team. They acted as if they have or should have control over where a player goes. The NBA is concerned with a level playing field and if there isn't a level playing field, dammit, they will create one.

One of the most interesting parts of this story to me is whether Chris Paul has legal recourse or not. I really doubt Chris Paul will sue the NBA, but at this point there isn't any way the NBA can allow Paul to be traded. I know there are rumors the Rockets, Lakers and Hornets are going to reconfigure the trade. I am a bit torn on this. I don't want the implication being the NBA gets to decide the terms of the "perfect" deal for Chris Paul. For me, the damage has been done. Any trade that is made at this point for Paul makes it seem like the NBA is dictating to Dell Demps where Hornets players can go. I realize the NBA owns the Hornets, but the conflict the NBA has by owning the Hornets while also having a long-term vision for where superstars should play, makes me think they should allow Dell Demps to trade players as he sees fit.

Any Chris Paul trade would be seen as the NBA manipulating where its star players play basketball. A part of me thinks at this point as long as the NBA owns the team, Chris Paul should stay a Hornet, but I know if a good trade is proposed and the league approves the trade it should probably go through. Of course, what if Paul never gets traded? This brings up the question of whether Paul has any recourse to recover lost money had the trade gone through or not. I don't believe it will ever come to this, but Paul could seek legal recourse. So by adhering to the owner's wishes, David Stern has possibly ensured Paul wouldn't get traded and the Hornets may not get value for him.

As far as the trade goes, I think it was a pretty fair trade. The Big Lead asked if this was the best trade being offered and it may not have been. The speculated Clippers trade could have improved the Hornets in the short-term, but again, this is only a speculated trade and I'm not sure if this offer is true or not. Let's look at the trade we know would have been made and how it would have affected the Hornets (I will cut and paste from the Big Lead article since they have all the information I care about right there and did a great job of getting the information together):

Kevin Martin, age 28: $12,019,840 this year; $12,939,675 in 2012-2013

Luis Scola, age 31: $8,591,793 this year; $9,408,207 in 2012-2013; $10,224,622 in 2013-2014; $11,041,037 in 2014-2015

Lamar Odom, age 32: $8,900,000 this year; team option for $8,200,000 in 2012-2013

Goran Dragic, age 25: $2.1 million this year, then he’s a free agent

1st round draft pick in 2012 from Houston (It is the Knicks pick...but it is also a loaded draft, so even a #18-26 pick wouldn't be a terrible pick)

This trade was a pretty good haul for the Hornets. They need players and they need quality players. Dragic is a good backup point guard, Lamar Odom, Luis Scola and Kevin Martin are quality basketball players. So the Hornets could have put this team on the court and felt good about the team they had. Is it a Chris Paul-led team? Absolutely not, but it makes them competitive. The trade for Odom, Dragic, Martin, and Scola would put the Hornets in a better long-term position than having Paul on the roster and chance he could leave as a free agent.

Another advantage is any of these players could have been moved to a contender for an expiring contract and/or picks. This would help the Hornets free up more cap room to sign players and allow them a chance to start to build through the draft. There are several (presumed) contenders that wouldn't mind having either Martin, Scola or Odom on the roster. So after being put in a bad situation, the Hornets would have made out pretty good in this trade.

The Hornets were in a no-win situation with a point guard that didn't want to be in New Orleans and was going to be a free agent after this season. Rather than spend the season pretending Paul may re-sign with the team, they went ahead and made a trade which allowed them to go into camp with most of the team they know will be on the court this year. Could the Hornets hypothetically get a better deal later in the season? Perhaps, but they don't want to be stuck in a situation where they have Paul leaving in a trade hanging over the team during the year.

The Hornets are now back in a no-win situation. I can't see how Chris Paul gets traded to another team that isn't the Lakers and they stuck with him on the roster, while fully knowing he doesn't want to be there. If Paul gets traded to another team that isn't the Lakers, I can't imagine what the Lakers would do. That would be the NBA manipulating the place where a superstar lands through a trade. Of course, Paul is a free agent after the season, so if he didn't like the team he was traded to then he would be a free agent after this season. What's worse, is the Hornets now look at a realistic scenario of losing Chris Paul and not getting much back in return if he doesn't get traded. By trying to protect small-market teams, the NBA would actually end up hurting a small market team. The Hornets would then be in a situation much like the Cavs were when they lost LeBron James, just without the Clippers around to hand them the #1 overall pick.

What's funny, at least to me, is I don't know if this trade would have made the Lakers better. Gasol and Odom aren't players on par with Chris Paul, but they are also players who have height and played an important role for the Lakers over the past couple of years. Absent, the Lakers getting Dwight Howard (who seems to want to go to New Jersey), the Lakers would then be counting on Andrew Bynum as their center and would lose the flexibility of having Odom on the roster to play every position known to man.

Take a look at the Lakers roster. The present day makeup of the roster, does that seem to you like a team that is ready to dominate the NBA in 2012? Had the trade gone through the starting lineup would be:

Chris Paul
Kobe Bryant
Ron Artest
????
Andrew Bynum

The bench would look like:

Derek Fisher
Steve Blake
Matt Barnes
Luke Walton
Derrick Caracter
Devin Ebanks

Is that a title team? I'm not sure it is. The Western Conference is still going to be a tough conference this year. Bynum is a question mark, Kobe Bryant has a lot of mileage on his legs, and even Paul has had injury issues over the last couple of seasons. This Lakers team with Paul at point guard would be a very good team and I am sure the fact the Lakers would save money in the long-term didn't make the other team owners very happy. Obviously if the Lakers traded for Dwight Howard then they would be an improved team with Howard over Bynum in the lineup.

I don't know where the NBA and David Stern can go from here. They have painted themselves in a corner in a way. If New Orleans, Los Angeles and Houston can't re-work the deal to make it more amenable to the other owners then I don't see a situation where Chris Paul should be traded without the Hornets having a permanent owner. Actually, it would probably irritate me even more if the three teams had to re-work the deal to get the satisfaction of the other owners. I realize the NBA owns the Hornets, but the idea other NBA teams have to approve a deal one of their competing NBA teams is making rubs me the wrong way.

It is not in the best interests of the Hornets or the NBA to keep Chris Paul on the Hornets team this year. Now Lamar Odom, Pau Gasol, and every other player involved in this trade know they are on the trade block and probably aren't very happy. At the very least it will make for an awkward training camp. Granted, we all know the NBA is a business, but it won't decrease the amount of unhappiness or awkwardness felt by some of the players involved in the trade. This could happen with any nixed or aborted trade, but the problem is all sides had agreed to this trade and then the NBA owners threw a hissy fit that a large market team was picking up a star point guard.

It's understandable the frustrations of the owners to see star players go to large market teams, but they also need to understand NBA players are going to eventually play in the city they want to play in. If Chris Paul doesn't play in Los Angeles this year, if he really wants to play there next year, a way to make this happen will occur. Restricting player movement is a noble goal in the eyes of the owners, but it is also an unrealistic goal. The best thing NBA owners can do is accept they can't rig the system and restrict player movement when they see it as unfavorable to their team. I put a lot of the blame with David Stern, who took a heavy-handed approach and combined it with taking advantage of a clear conflict of interest to adhere to the owner's wishes. Stern must have thought if he can't force players to play in a small market, he will take advantage of the NBA's ownership of the Hornets to muck up a trade which would have helped all teams involved.

That is what I think is so ironic in the result. The NBA owners and David Stern wanted to help small market teams compete in the NBA and give the illusion of a level playing field. By doing this they possibly have handcuffed a small market team (the Hornets) and possibly ensured the Hornets will get little in return for Chris Paul. The NBA is more concerned with keeping the illusion of both large and small teams being as attractive to superstars than they are with allowing NBA teams to make trades seen as improving the team. The NBA owners should work as hard at putting a quality product on the court for their respective teams as they do in restricting the movement of players who will eventually end up in a large market anyway.