The Pelicans had no draft picks but were able to snag 2nd round pick Russ Smith (2013 NCAA Champion at Louisville) from the Sixers for D-Leaguer Pierre Jackson. I like Smith (worth noting that he led the Vegas Summer League in APG, not bad for his first day on the job), I think he could be a solid backup PG for years to come. But as the Pelicans already have a logjam at the guard spot, not sure what they're planning on doing with him.
If you step back and squint, that Pelican starting five looks pretty good: Asik, Davis, Anderson, Evans, Holiday. But there's no depth behind them, unless you think Eric Gordon is actually going to earn his $14.8m paycheck this year (shake the magic 8-ball: Outlook not good). Or that Austin Rivers is going to live up to the #10 pick they spent on him, which may yet come to pass (every time I saw him play I thought he looked just fine but I think I'm alone in that opinion) but if not, then he's not really even worthwhile trade bait (wait, doesn't his dad run the Clippers now?). I'm pretty sure they've signed the undrafted Patric Young and he'll provide some toughness inside but not much else. Seriously, who are they bringing off the bench?
I wish I had more brilliant observations but beyond that starting five, there's not much to say. Unless they can trade Gordon for Kevin Love (ha!), I don't see how the Pelicans even come close to making the playoffs in the West. I'm not sure the disposition of their 2015 draft pick but my gut feeling is that they've already traded it (for Asik?) and with Gordon, Evans and Holiday all signed to big money next year, I don't see how they re-shuffle this deck. As a Wildcat fan it breaks my heart that the exquisite youth of Anthony Davis is gonna be wasted on a team that won't even sniff the playoffs (Demarcus Cousins, too! Man, some teams just don't deserve to have draft picks). Oh well, that starting five is good enough to make them watchable but I doubt they'll win many games.
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
NBA Draft Recap: Washington Wizards
The Wizards had only a single 2nd round pick which they flipped to the Lakers for the ever-present 'cash considerations'. The Wiz decided to skip the draft this year and went right to the free agency period. First, they extended coach Randy Wittman. Next, they re-signed Marcin Gortat at 5yrs/$60m, which I think is a little high but they needed to keep him; and as the cap rises over the next 5 years (a lock solid guarantee) this deal begins to look more palatable, especially since I think Gortat's got at least two productive years to come. They let go of Ariza (4yrs/$32m, heavily front loaded w/the Rockets) and replaced him with Paul Pierce (not sure the terms, I think it was 2 years), Dejuan Blair (3yrs/$6m, 3rd year team option) and Khris Humphries (3 yrs/$13.5m). Blair and Humphries are nice pickups, bolstering the rebounding and interior defense behind the injury-prone Nene; the Wizards front line is now a formidable one in the East, should bang well with the Pacers and Bulls. I anticipate Peirce will mesh with Wall (the consummate PG) but I wonder if he doesn't play a little too close to the basket (as opposed to Ariza, a full-time wing shooter). If Pierce transitions to a full-on 3-point gunner then lanes should remain unclogged for Wall and Beal.
Bigs off the bench are necessary and good but scoring off the bench can't be overlooked. Glen Rice Jr and Otto Porter need to take a step forward and if they can, then the scoring will show some depth too. And to that end Rice and Porter finished 3rd and 4th at the Vegas Summer League in FG attempts and were among the leaders in MPG, as well. Good to see those two get the featuring they are unlikely to see in the regular season. Wall and Beal are still young enough to expect some growth, too. If those four guys each grow in production and/or efficiency, then they go nicely with the veteran presence in the front court.
On paper I gotta say this looks like a team ready to blow up. In my experience at least one or two of the obvious calls of the off-season won't pan out but I'd say this squad is well-equipped to avoid failure. Injuries can knock off any team anywhere at any time but barring that I'd say the Wiz are set up to be pretty good. First and foremost, they play in the East. The Cavs are now a top 8 team, the Bulls are stronger than last year but no one else in the East looks any better (to me) than last year. Factor in the Heat taking a step back and the Pacers and Nets in flux, and the Wizards should easily improve on their 6th place finish this past season.
I thought the Wizards didn't play their best basketball until the end of the season and that was considering getting nothing at all out of the #3 pick in the draft, Otto Porter. But the rotation settled into place, the team gained some identity and they played hard night after night. They rolled the Bulls and that was no joke: the Wizards were flat out better than the Bulls. But they couldn't climb their way past the Pacers, though the Pacers were playing some of their worst basketball of the season at the time. The Wizards just didn't have enough veteran presence to power through the playoffs and now they've got it. Its not hard to imagine the Wizards finishing the season with a better record than the Cavs or the Pacers. With a 3 or even a 2 seed in the playoffs, the Wizards could do some real damage next year. Think this team can hang with the Cavs? I dunno. Maybe.
Remember when Lebron gave the Eye of the Tiger to Gilbert Arenas that one time? Mojo-ed him at the free throw line when Arenas had the serve on his racket. It was over for Arenas after that, he never had his hero moment and the playoffs were never in his grasp ever again. Wouldn't it be a hoot to see Pierce mojo Kyrie Irving out of playoff relevance? I'm not a fan of one or the other, per se, but still the thought crossed my mind.
Bigs off the bench are necessary and good but scoring off the bench can't be overlooked. Glen Rice Jr and Otto Porter need to take a step forward and if they can, then the scoring will show some depth too. And to that end Rice and Porter finished 3rd and 4th at the Vegas Summer League in FG attempts and were among the leaders in MPG, as well. Good to see those two get the featuring they are unlikely to see in the regular season. Wall and Beal are still young enough to expect some growth, too. If those four guys each grow in production and/or efficiency, then they go nicely with the veteran presence in the front court.
On paper I gotta say this looks like a team ready to blow up. In my experience at least one or two of the obvious calls of the off-season won't pan out but I'd say this squad is well-equipped to avoid failure. Injuries can knock off any team anywhere at any time but barring that I'd say the Wiz are set up to be pretty good. First and foremost, they play in the East. The Cavs are now a top 8 team, the Bulls are stronger than last year but no one else in the East looks any better (to me) than last year. Factor in the Heat taking a step back and the Pacers and Nets in flux, and the Wizards should easily improve on their 6th place finish this past season.
I thought the Wizards didn't play their best basketball until the end of the season and that was considering getting nothing at all out of the #3 pick in the draft, Otto Porter. But the rotation settled into place, the team gained some identity and they played hard night after night. They rolled the Bulls and that was no joke: the Wizards were flat out better than the Bulls. But they couldn't climb their way past the Pacers, though the Pacers were playing some of their worst basketball of the season at the time. The Wizards just didn't have enough veteran presence to power through the playoffs and now they've got it. Its not hard to imagine the Wizards finishing the season with a better record than the Cavs or the Pacers. With a 3 or even a 2 seed in the playoffs, the Wizards could do some real damage next year. Think this team can hang with the Cavs? I dunno. Maybe.
Remember when Lebron gave the Eye of the Tiger to Gilbert Arenas that one time? Mojo-ed him at the free throw line when Arenas had the serve on his racket. It was over for Arenas after that, he never had his hero moment and the playoffs were never in his grasp ever again. Wouldn't it be a hoot to see Pierce mojo Kyrie Irving out of playoff relevance? I'm not a fan of one or the other, per se, but still the thought crossed my mind.
General sorta update
We're in that weird period of summer where the big deals have (seemingly) already been made but next year's rosters haven't been cemented yet. The details of confirmed transactions are hard to track down and separating the rumors from what (I'm pretty sure) is true is not so easy (I'm getting old, man, and the drugs, too, yeah....drugs). So I'm not really sure what the teams have done even though I'm paying more attention than ever. Odd. I've got my general conceptions so I'm done waiting. Besides this is a blog, its not real.
Saturday, July 19, 2014
NBA Draft Recap: Philadelphia 76ers
Philly played the tanking game last year (and the year before now that I think of it) and were rewarded with the top prospect in the draft, Joel Embiid (dropped from #1 due to injury concerns); they were also able to nab the top European prospect, Dario Saric (and a future 1st and 2nd rounder out of Orlando). Their 2nd round is worth noting too: they picked up KJ McDaniels and Jeremi Grant (two well-regarded prospects who should each get some run this season), Pierre Jackson (D-League all-star they got for Russ Smith), Vasilije Micic (a Serbian PG to stash overseas), and pulled off a coupla deals that netted them Jordan McRae (uh...don't know who that is) and the ever-present 'cash considerations'. All in all, a nice haul that in its way is a showcase of just how deep the 2014 draft class is. But Embiid and Saric don't help them now, you say. Hey, tanking is what this squad is best at and since they keep getting rewarded for it, why not keep the train a-rollin'? It makes sense that after all their efforts to get high draft picks last year, all they end up with is bench support.
With a starting lineup that may well include Grant or McDaniels, they're still set up to be an interesting afterthought again this year. They have 2014's ROY in Michael Carter-Williams, a candidate for 2015's ROY (Nerlens Noel), while stashing 2016 ROY (Joel Embiid) and 2017 ROY (Dario Saric) candidates off to the side; their pipeline is in better shape than Pfizer (I could've made a Ukraine joke but even I'm not going there). But while all this talent brews, they'll be rolling into next season with Henry Sims, Pierre Jackson and Grant or McDaniels likely to play significant minutes. If any of those guys pan out, bonus; if not, the Sixers will again find themselves playing more ping pong than basketball. Like I said, why stop now? I can't fault them for sticking to a plan.
The supposition is that all these high draft picks will eventually turn into stars and have to get paid but the Sixers want to play it cheap for 1-2 more years before they start doling out the big paychecks. I've got one possible monkey wrench suggestion for the future plan: why not throw the big money at Eric Bledsoe? Bledsoe would be the crafty veteran, the offensive 1st option, the lightning rod that sets the tone for the youngsters. I think he fits well with MCW, should fit well with Nerlens and Thaddeus Young, and Embiid, Saric, et al, would grow with him. Personally, I think Bledsoe is the real deal, the next big thing, a for real baller that the Suns absolutely cannot afford to let go of (and I don't see how they do). He's perfect for the Sixers, so why not pitch 4 yrs/$64m at him and see what the Suns do; if nothing else you've screwed up the Suns chances to get Bledsoe for 5yrs/$60m (which is, I reckon, about what they want to pay). And since the Suns would likely match even the highest offer, the bid would most likely fail and the tanking plan would be vindicated. And if the Suns blink, the Sixers could afford him. Its a can't lose opportunity. Actually I'm surprised they haven't done it yet, I can't believe I'm the first guy to notice that the Sixers have plenty of cap space and a gaping hole on offense. (More people need to read my blog, I'm like a public service!)
Also, another harmless suggestion: since the Sixers' main focus for the next 2-3 years is coaching up Nerlens and Embiid, why not throw in Jan Vesely on a minimum contract? Unless they think Vesely absolutely cannot play or is a detriment to the locker room (or suffers nagging injuries that I don't know about), why not take a flyer on an intriguing talent farther along the learning curve at a discount price. Point him at Nerlens and say, 'Do that!' See if he can't become either a solid shot blocker in the mold of Nerlens or an offensive complement in the mold of Embiid. Once upon a time he was considered a top 5 prospect, either he's a straight-up bust (very possible) or he's ripe for a second chance. For a minimal investment, the Sixers might be able to coach up some trade value out of him or give their youngsters a valuable cautionary tale.
The Sixers are not a playoff team next year, even if Nerlens is ROY and MCW takes a leap forward, even if Embiid comes in and plays well, even if Jackson or Sims or Hollis Thompson have unexpected growth spurts. They just don't have the veteran depth to roll with the Hornets or Hawks, much less the big dogs (no, Eric Maynor and Jason Richardson are not good enough to make much of a difference). What they have is a moderately priced present and an eye on the future. They're built to be not very good while the waves of young talent ready themselves to hit the scene (and beware Sixer fans: they may be nothing more than future trade bait). So while any suggestions for improvement are going to fall on deaf ears, I really think Bledsoe fits them right now. He can be that nucleus guy the youth can coalesce around for the future and he's good enough to get the Sixers into the playoffs right away (it is the East, after all). And since they probably won't get him anyway, what do they have to lose? Though the Sixers aren't quite ready to open the bankbook just yet (they'll have to eventually, right?), he is the perfect guy for what they've got here and now. The Sixers are sneaky but I don't guess they're ready to make the other teams blink just yet.
With a starting lineup that may well include Grant or McDaniels, they're still set up to be an interesting afterthought again this year. They have 2014's ROY in Michael Carter-Williams, a candidate for 2015's ROY (Nerlens Noel), while stashing 2016 ROY (Joel Embiid) and 2017 ROY (Dario Saric) candidates off to the side; their pipeline is in better shape than Pfizer (I could've made a Ukraine joke but even I'm not going there). But while all this talent brews, they'll be rolling into next season with Henry Sims, Pierre Jackson and Grant or McDaniels likely to play significant minutes. If any of those guys pan out, bonus; if not, the Sixers will again find themselves playing more ping pong than basketball. Like I said, why stop now? I can't fault them for sticking to a plan.
The supposition is that all these high draft picks will eventually turn into stars and have to get paid but the Sixers want to play it cheap for 1-2 more years before they start doling out the big paychecks. I've got one possible monkey wrench suggestion for the future plan: why not throw the big money at Eric Bledsoe? Bledsoe would be the crafty veteran, the offensive 1st option, the lightning rod that sets the tone for the youngsters. I think he fits well with MCW, should fit well with Nerlens and Thaddeus Young, and Embiid, Saric, et al, would grow with him. Personally, I think Bledsoe is the real deal, the next big thing, a for real baller that the Suns absolutely cannot afford to let go of (and I don't see how they do). He's perfect for the Sixers, so why not pitch 4 yrs/$64m at him and see what the Suns do; if nothing else you've screwed up the Suns chances to get Bledsoe for 5yrs/$60m (which is, I reckon, about what they want to pay). And since the Suns would likely match even the highest offer, the bid would most likely fail and the tanking plan would be vindicated. And if the Suns blink, the Sixers could afford him. Its a can't lose opportunity. Actually I'm surprised they haven't done it yet, I can't believe I'm the first guy to notice that the Sixers have plenty of cap space and a gaping hole on offense. (More people need to read my blog, I'm like a public service!)
Also, another harmless suggestion: since the Sixers' main focus for the next 2-3 years is coaching up Nerlens and Embiid, why not throw in Jan Vesely on a minimum contract? Unless they think Vesely absolutely cannot play or is a detriment to the locker room (or suffers nagging injuries that I don't know about), why not take a flyer on an intriguing talent farther along the learning curve at a discount price. Point him at Nerlens and say, 'Do that!' See if he can't become either a solid shot blocker in the mold of Nerlens or an offensive complement in the mold of Embiid. Once upon a time he was considered a top 5 prospect, either he's a straight-up bust (very possible) or he's ripe for a second chance. For a minimal investment, the Sixers might be able to coach up some trade value out of him or give their youngsters a valuable cautionary tale.
The Sixers are not a playoff team next year, even if Nerlens is ROY and MCW takes a leap forward, even if Embiid comes in and plays well, even if Jackson or Sims or Hollis Thompson have unexpected growth spurts. They just don't have the veteran depth to roll with the Hornets or Hawks, much less the big dogs (no, Eric Maynor and Jason Richardson are not good enough to make much of a difference). What they have is a moderately priced present and an eye on the future. They're built to be not very good while the waves of young talent ready themselves to hit the scene (and beware Sixer fans: they may be nothing more than future trade bait). So while any suggestions for improvement are going to fall on deaf ears, I really think Bledsoe fits them right now. He can be that nucleus guy the youth can coalesce around for the future and he's good enough to get the Sixers into the playoffs right away (it is the East, after all). And since they probably won't get him anyway, what do they have to lose? Though the Sixers aren't quite ready to open the bankbook just yet (they'll have to eventually, right?), he is the perfect guy for what they've got here and now. The Sixers are sneaky but I don't guess they're ready to make the other teams blink just yet.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
NBA Draft Recap: Charlotte Hornets
The Hornets were able to catch the falling Noah Vonleh at #9 and got paid by the Heat to take PJ Hairston at #26. Adding Vonleh to that front line is a nice bonus (courtesy of the Detroit Pistons), I like his size and his baseline scoring should offset Big Al Jefferson nicely. PJ Hairston, on the other hand, is already in legal trouble and was a sketchy human being prior to the draft. Well, the Hornets were realistically just taking a flyer on him, maybe this is the incident that helps a young man get his act together and prosper within his opportunities; he's clearly got NBA skills, bringing him off the bench behind Kemba Walker looks like it could work.
The Hornets just added Lance Stephenson to that lineup and while they lost the under appreciated Josh McRoberts (along with the over appreciated Luke Ridnour and the looks-good-in-red Anthony Tolliver), they added two quality players (and one interesting question mark) to a growing team that made the playoffs last year (and got rolled in Lebron's farewell tour with the Heat). I think GM Michael Jordan's plan is to advance by getting better on the court as opposed to tanking for ping pong balls, and as far as that goes losing to the Heat was all part of the plan. But adding Stephenson and Vonleh really only slightly improves on the loss of McRoberts and only makes the Hornets marginally better.
Last year the Hornets were 7th in the East behind the Heat (not as good), Pacers (not as good), Bulls (better, and if healthier, much better), Raptors (pretty much the same squad), Nets (hmmm, not as good but not as bad...?), Wizards (better). The Hawks (8th) still have moves to make and a healthier Hawks are probably already better than the Hornets. So can the Hornets make the playoffs next year? Getting leapfrogged by the Cavs puts the squeeze on them and the Knicks could be better too. The idea was (I think) the Hornets would finish 5th or 6th this year, get blown out again in the playoffs, re-tool and come back hungry in 2015 with their eye on building toward a home court advantage in the playoffs. Now they need to keep their eyes on the Knicks and Nets and keep pace with those teams.
Does missing the playoffs really matter? If they were adding top lottery picks that'd be a reasonable trade-off but short of that, Jordan's slow and steady improvement doesn't look like its gonna work to me. This year will be about figuring out what they've got with Kemba Walker, adding a so-so lottery pick and being active in next year's free agent market (after shedding Bismack Biyombo and Gary Neal). I dunno. I don't think that will turn the head of Marc Gasol or any of the other big time guys that will be out there next year. Stephenson and Vonleh give them depth for the next coupla years but without that one big free agent signing (Carlos Boozer ain't it, folks) or a home run lottery pick, neither of which looks imminent, the Hornets will probably be treading water around the 8th spot for a couple more years.
The Hornets just added Lance Stephenson to that lineup and while they lost the under appreciated Josh McRoberts (along with the over appreciated Luke Ridnour and the looks-good-in-red Anthony Tolliver), they added two quality players (and one interesting question mark) to a growing team that made the playoffs last year (and got rolled in Lebron's farewell tour with the Heat). I think GM Michael Jordan's plan is to advance by getting better on the court as opposed to tanking for ping pong balls, and as far as that goes losing to the Heat was all part of the plan. But adding Stephenson and Vonleh really only slightly improves on the loss of McRoberts and only makes the Hornets marginally better.
Last year the Hornets were 7th in the East behind the Heat (not as good), Pacers (not as good), Bulls (better, and if healthier, much better), Raptors (pretty much the same squad), Nets (hmmm, not as good but not as bad...?), Wizards (better). The Hawks (8th) still have moves to make and a healthier Hawks are probably already better than the Hornets. So can the Hornets make the playoffs next year? Getting leapfrogged by the Cavs puts the squeeze on them and the Knicks could be better too. The idea was (I think) the Hornets would finish 5th or 6th this year, get blown out again in the playoffs, re-tool and come back hungry in 2015 with their eye on building toward a home court advantage in the playoffs. Now they need to keep their eyes on the Knicks and Nets and keep pace with those teams.
Does missing the playoffs really matter? If they were adding top lottery picks that'd be a reasonable trade-off but short of that, Jordan's slow and steady improvement doesn't look like its gonna work to me. This year will be about figuring out what they've got with Kemba Walker, adding a so-so lottery pick and being active in next year's free agent market (after shedding Bismack Biyombo and Gary Neal). I dunno. I don't think that will turn the head of Marc Gasol or any of the other big time guys that will be out there next year. Stephenson and Vonleh give them depth for the next coupla years but without that one big free agent signing (Carlos Boozer ain't it, folks) or a home run lottery pick, neither of which looks imminent, the Hornets will probably be treading water around the 8th spot for a couple more years.
Friday, July 11, 2014
The Decision 2.0
Still haven't seen the details on the deal (I was assuming max rising over 7 years? Sure, why not make the longest deal possible) but Lebron James is definitely heading back to Cleveland. In the end, even the pundits were proven right.
I still had my doubts right up til the end. That Lebron would use other teams or even his own as bargaining chips for the chattering media seemed reasonable to me; but the fact that he would use the Cavs that way didn't jive with my way of thinking. In that sense, it seems inevitable that he went back to Cleveland but it never seemed inevitable to me. 4 years ago, after Decision 1.0 I thought that they'd play out their 4 years deals, Wade would re-up, Lebron would go back to Cleveland and Boash would go the Lakers, and right up to their thumping at the hands of the Spurs I guess I still believed that model. The big 3 had a pretty sweet deal in Miami and only if Melo went to the Bulls could their possibly be any challenger in the East (no way Kevin Love just gets dumped and there's no other way to get him to the East). They had at least one more trip the Finals waiting for them (or maybe two...three...six). I figured Lebron and Bosh (and Melo) would re-up on 1-year deals and we'd do this all again next year.
The sticking point, it seems, was money. Lebron wants to maximize his earning power (I don't blame him) and that basically left the Cavs as the true option rather than the Heat. And those were the only two teams he was considering, the idea that he would go to the Clippers or Lakers or Mavs is ludicrous; Miami couldn't give him and Bosh (who wants to maximize his earning power (and I don't blame him either)) the big money, so Cleveland was the natural choice.
Now do the Cavs make the next big move and go for Kevin Love? Looks to me like Wiggins, Bennet and Thompson lines up perfectly salary-wise (though I reckon both teams would prefer Waiters to Thompson). I don't really see the need to do that deal though. I'd just as soon see Lebron with Wiggins and Bennet and Thompson/Waiters as Love. In basketball it is better to have one really good guy to 2-3 kinda good guys, I get that. But you still need to fill out your roster and 3 reasonably priced up and coming youngsters isn't bad to have either. And with Lebron and Kyrie already in place, I'd be inclined to keep the youngsters, let them develop and ride Lebron right back to the Finals. I'd just hold on to Wiggins, show him old vids of Scottie Pippen and say, 'Do this!'. If the Cavs could get Love without giving up Wiggins (say, Bennet, Waiters, Thompson, #1 picks 2015, 2018 and a boatload of #2 picks), I'd say do it but I don't see that as an option. With Lebron and Kyrie signed long term, Wiggins still on a rookie deal, the Cavs can afford to give up those future picks (they already unloaded 2016 with Jarret Jack). That said, I don't think they need Love; the team they have right now will easily get out of the East and really that's all you can prepare for, so I wouldn't monkey with this team. Let them grow together and let the necessary adjustments present themselves.
Do the Cavs bring in Mike Miller or Ray Allen? They could, I think they're affordable. But with Kyrie, Wiggins, Lebron and Waiters I don't see a lot of shots for Allen. Miller gives them some size and defensive toughness on top of a little 3 point shooting, so I think he fits a little better. But I don't think he makes and breaks the season or anything. Another of Lebron's soldiers, apparently, is Anderson Varejao, is he off the table as a trade asset? Does that make Thompson or Bennet more trade-able? Again, I think the roster they've got as of this moment is good enough to win the east. A little augmenting is nice but I think the big pieces are in place.
And are the Cavs now #1 in the East? If Bosh goes to Houston and Melo stays in New York, then absolutely they are. The Heat are guaranteed to be a shell of what they've been the last 4 years (and with Wade re-upping for, let's say 2yrs/$40m, they're a over-priced shell, at that), the Knicks can really only be Melo and nothing else, the Bulls will theoretically be better, the Raptors are nice but not overpowering, the Pacers are what they are (namely second best), the Magic and Sixers are a coupla years away from being anything challenging, the Wizards and Hornets are nice coming teams but they're not gonna overtake a Lebron-Kyrie-Wiggins squad. Only the Hawks strike me as a team that still has some moves to make to get better. So barring major injury, I'll take the Cavs coming out of the East next year. With or without Kevin Love.
I still had my doubts right up til the end. That Lebron would use other teams or even his own as bargaining chips for the chattering media seemed reasonable to me; but the fact that he would use the Cavs that way didn't jive with my way of thinking. In that sense, it seems inevitable that he went back to Cleveland but it never seemed inevitable to me. 4 years ago, after Decision 1.0 I thought that they'd play out their 4 years deals, Wade would re-up, Lebron would go back to Cleveland and Boash would go the Lakers, and right up to their thumping at the hands of the Spurs I guess I still believed that model. The big 3 had a pretty sweet deal in Miami and only if Melo went to the Bulls could their possibly be any challenger in the East (no way Kevin Love just gets dumped and there's no other way to get him to the East). They had at least one more trip the Finals waiting for them (or maybe two...three...six). I figured Lebron and Bosh (and Melo) would re-up on 1-year deals and we'd do this all again next year.
The sticking point, it seems, was money. Lebron wants to maximize his earning power (I don't blame him) and that basically left the Cavs as the true option rather than the Heat. And those were the only two teams he was considering, the idea that he would go to the Clippers or Lakers or Mavs is ludicrous; Miami couldn't give him and Bosh (who wants to maximize his earning power (and I don't blame him either)) the big money, so Cleveland was the natural choice.
Now do the Cavs make the next big move and go for Kevin Love? Looks to me like Wiggins, Bennet and Thompson lines up perfectly salary-wise (though I reckon both teams would prefer Waiters to Thompson). I don't really see the need to do that deal though. I'd just as soon see Lebron with Wiggins and Bennet and Thompson/Waiters as Love. In basketball it is better to have one really good guy to 2-3 kinda good guys, I get that. But you still need to fill out your roster and 3 reasonably priced up and coming youngsters isn't bad to have either. And with Lebron and Kyrie already in place, I'd be inclined to keep the youngsters, let them develop and ride Lebron right back to the Finals. I'd just hold on to Wiggins, show him old vids of Scottie Pippen and say, 'Do this!'. If the Cavs could get Love without giving up Wiggins (say, Bennet, Waiters, Thompson, #1 picks 2015, 2018 and a boatload of #2 picks), I'd say do it but I don't see that as an option. With Lebron and Kyrie signed long term, Wiggins still on a rookie deal, the Cavs can afford to give up those future picks (they already unloaded 2016 with Jarret Jack). That said, I don't think they need Love; the team they have right now will easily get out of the East and really that's all you can prepare for, so I wouldn't monkey with this team. Let them grow together and let the necessary adjustments present themselves.
Do the Cavs bring in Mike Miller or Ray Allen? They could, I think they're affordable. But with Kyrie, Wiggins, Lebron and Waiters I don't see a lot of shots for Allen. Miller gives them some size and defensive toughness on top of a little 3 point shooting, so I think he fits a little better. But I don't think he makes and breaks the season or anything. Another of Lebron's soldiers, apparently, is Anderson Varejao, is he off the table as a trade asset? Does that make Thompson or Bennet more trade-able? Again, I think the roster they've got as of this moment is good enough to win the east. A little augmenting is nice but I think the big pieces are in place.
And are the Cavs now #1 in the East? If Bosh goes to Houston and Melo stays in New York, then absolutely they are. The Heat are guaranteed to be a shell of what they've been the last 4 years (and with Wade re-upping for, let's say 2yrs/$40m, they're a over-priced shell, at that), the Knicks can really only be Melo and nothing else, the Bulls will theoretically be better, the Raptors are nice but not overpowering, the Pacers are what they are (namely second best), the Magic and Sixers are a coupla years away from being anything challenging, the Wizards and Hornets are nice coming teams but they're not gonna overtake a Lebron-Kyrie-Wiggins squad. Only the Hawks strike me as a team that still has some moves to make to get better. So barring major injury, I'll take the Cavs coming out of the East next year. With or without Kevin Love.
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
World Cup Rankings: 1-4
1. Germany -- Sure there's still a game left but even if Germany loses to Argentina, it'd still be an impressive enough loss to keep them ahead of Argentina in my book (did that make sense?). They played well against France, Algeria and USA (three squads that impressed me) and put utter beatdowns on Brazil and Portugal. I'm willing to overlook their lackluster effort against Ghana and I'd even overlook a loss to the great Messi. Germany has just been better than everyone else. I think they're playing better than Argentina, I think they are better than Argentina, I think they will be better than Argentina on Sunday and I suspect they'll stay better than Argentina over the next 2-4 years. Like Roger Federer in his prime, they're not unbeatable but you're surprised any time they lose.
2. Argentina -- They've had an amazing amount of 1-0 wins (Bosnia, Iran, Switzerland, Belgium) and scoreless draw with Netherlands, so you know that defense is getting it done. And Messi has gotten loose just enough to keep the wins coming. They've got a puncher's chance against Germany but I think the Germans are a better squad, deeper, more disciplined, just as focused as the Argentines right now. I kinda half-wanted to see them play Brazil in the 3rd place game but they earned a good win against the Netherlands, they're gonna give Germany all they can handle. But...will Messi be back in 2016? I doubt it, what will this team look like next time around? Obviously Argentina is one of the all-time great squads but when they fail to produce that one singular talent that elevates the team, they tend to flounder. What does the post-Messi look like?
3. Netherlands -- This is a veteran group and they're coming together well enough right now. They drubbed Spain, drubbed Australia (sorta), snuck past Chile, Mexico and Costa Rica, went to penalties against Messi, and they have a good chance to drop a beatdown on Brazil in their homeland. So, yeah, pretty good tournament for them. Too bad they couldn't solve Argentina's defense. And, like Argentina, I wonder how this team holds together going forward. Van Persie and Sneider both looked gassed today and Robben couldn't get it done by himself. The core is still there if they can pour in some fresh talent around them.
4. Colombia -- Impressive. No problems against Ivory Coast (Africa), Greece (Europe), Japan (Asia) or Uruguay (South America). Really deserved better against Brazil (I bet Colombia would've given Germany a game in the semi-finals). James Rodriguez was THE breakout star of this tournament and that is something to build on. If Brazil stays in disarray, Argentina suffer a post-Messi letdown, and Uruguay continues to search for talent, these could be heady days for Colombian soccer. (Yup, even though they lost I'm putting them higher than Brazil if for no other reason than Brazil deserves a downgrade based on that performance against Germany)
2. Argentina -- They've had an amazing amount of 1-0 wins (Bosnia, Iran, Switzerland, Belgium) and scoreless draw with Netherlands, so you know that defense is getting it done. And Messi has gotten loose just enough to keep the wins coming. They've got a puncher's chance against Germany but I think the Germans are a better squad, deeper, more disciplined, just as focused as the Argentines right now. I kinda half-wanted to see them play Brazil in the 3rd place game but they earned a good win against the Netherlands, they're gonna give Germany all they can handle. But...will Messi be back in 2016? I doubt it, what will this team look like next time around? Obviously Argentina is one of the all-time great squads but when they fail to produce that one singular talent that elevates the team, they tend to flounder. What does the post-Messi look like?
3. Netherlands -- This is a veteran group and they're coming together well enough right now. They drubbed Spain, drubbed Australia (sorta), snuck past Chile, Mexico and Costa Rica, went to penalties against Messi, and they have a good chance to drop a beatdown on Brazil in their homeland. So, yeah, pretty good tournament for them. Too bad they couldn't solve Argentina's defense. And, like Argentina, I wonder how this team holds together going forward. Van Persie and Sneider both looked gassed today and Robben couldn't get it done by himself. The core is still there if they can pour in some fresh talent around them.
4. Colombia -- Impressive. No problems against Ivory Coast (Africa), Greece (Europe), Japan (Asia) or Uruguay (South America). Really deserved better against Brazil (I bet Colombia would've given Germany a game in the semi-finals). James Rodriguez was THE breakout star of this tournament and that is something to build on. If Brazil stays in disarray, Argentina suffer a post-Messi letdown, and Uruguay continues to search for talent, these could be heady days for Colombian soccer. (Yup, even though they lost I'm putting them higher than Brazil if for no other reason than Brazil deserves a downgrade based on that performance against Germany)
World Cup Rankings: 5-8
5. France -- Beatdown Honduras, beatdown Switzerland, lackluster draw with Ecuador, beat Nigeria, gave Germany a tough match. Young and dangerous, not the peak of the Zidane/Henry years but better than the average French side from my youth. The ease with which they vanquished their group struck me as for real. Nigeria played them even for 70 minutes or so, but France wore them down and thumped them convincingly. As for the Germany match, neither team held the ball consistently and Germany's goal was just one of those Germany goals, not much you can do about it. I thought France played well, looked dangerous, looked good going forward.
6. Mexico -- Mexico has made the round of 16 in 7 of the last 8 Cups. That's impressive. Now they just have to figure how to win once they get there. Mexico is a conundrum: they play well against the Latin American giants but they are often neutralized by USA and European-style teams. I thought they played well against Brazil and the Netherlands and were better then Bosnia and Cameroon. Mexico deserved to be in this mix, this is not a fluke. But building on it and getting deeper into the tournament is their mission.
7. Brazil -- This squad kinda sucked, actually. Once you get past the thumping of Croatia (how would you like to play Brazil in Brazil on the opening day of the biggest event on the planet? Yeah, you might lose 3-1 too), and the beatdown of Cameroon (#30 on my list), Brazil failed to impress against Mexico or Chile and (I thought) got kinda lucky against Colombia. Take the lackluster performances and remove Neymar and Thiago Silva and they got exposed by Germany as weak in the front, out of shape in the mid, and clueless in the back. Man, they went out ugly--and they still have to play Netherlands! (If I were Scolari I'd empty out that bench, start 'em all, shake it up as much as possible, keep the stars from getting double-drilled and give the newbies a chance to shine out)
8. Algeria -- Looking back on it, Algeria was one of my favorite teams to watch in this Cup and one of the most interesting. They played well against Belgium but lost it in a bad flurry, whomped South Korea, scratched a draw from Russia, played Germany as hard for 90 minutes as anyone in this tournament. They played stifling D at times, attacking offense at times, and swaggered into the round of 16 with nothing to lose. I hope this Algeria team holds it together and comes back strong in 4 years.
6. Mexico -- Mexico has made the round of 16 in 7 of the last 8 Cups. That's impressive. Now they just have to figure how to win once they get there. Mexico is a conundrum: they play well against the Latin American giants but they are often neutralized by USA and European-style teams. I thought they played well against Brazil and the Netherlands and were better then Bosnia and Cameroon. Mexico deserved to be in this mix, this is not a fluke. But building on it and getting deeper into the tournament is their mission.
7. Brazil -- This squad kinda sucked, actually. Once you get past the thumping of Croatia (how would you like to play Brazil in Brazil on the opening day of the biggest event on the planet? Yeah, you might lose 3-1 too), and the beatdown of Cameroon (#30 on my list), Brazil failed to impress against Mexico or Chile and (I thought) got kinda lucky against Colombia. Take the lackluster performances and remove Neymar and Thiago Silva and they got exposed by Germany as weak in the front, out of shape in the mid, and clueless in the back. Man, they went out ugly--and they still have to play Netherlands! (If I were Scolari I'd empty out that bench, start 'em all, shake it up as much as possible, keep the stars from getting double-drilled and give the newbies a chance to shine out)
8. Algeria -- Looking back on it, Algeria was one of my favorite teams to watch in this Cup and one of the most interesting. They played well against Belgium but lost it in a bad flurry, whomped South Korea, scratched a draw from Russia, played Germany as hard for 90 minutes as anyone in this tournament. They played stifling D at times, attacking offense at times, and swaggered into the round of 16 with nothing to lose. I hope this Algeria team holds it together and comes back strong in 4 years.
World Cup Rankings: 9-12
9. Chile -- Whooped Australia, handled Spain, held their own against Netherlands and got an unlucky result against Brazil. Chile had a pretty good tournament. I'm curious to see how they do in the next Copa America. With Brazil waning, Argentina sure to have a post-Cup hangover, Chile and Colombia look primed to do some damage in the next few years.
10. Belgium -- They were okay, I guess. Did what they needed to do against Algeria, Russia, South Korea and USA, played pretty good against Argentina, can't call the tournament a failure. But considering the hype they came in with and all that firepower up front, they never really turned my head. They won, yeah, I get that, but I think their talent is either overrated or the system is not going to push them past their better competitors.
11. USA -- Lucky against Ghana, well enough against Portugal, game efforts against Germany and Belgium, I thought USA acquitted themselves well but really should've done better. The talent is starting to get there but Coach Klinsmann employed virtually no offensive strategy to speak of, which is unlike how USA played in qualifying. The possession up the middle game with Bradley-Jones-Dempsey is sorely lacking, while the speed up the wing seemed like a last resort. I dunno, I think this team is on the rise (still) and hopefully we'll find some offense in the next 4 years.
12. Costa Rica -- Put the wood to the real group of death (blew out Uruguay, beat Italy, hard won draw with England), skipped past Greece and played well against the Netherlands. Can't front on anything they did in this tournament, quarterfinals is a great accomplishment. But I'm more familiar with Costa Rica (CONCACAF), watched them for years. They have a savvy about them that often outplays their talent and they usually have good talent. That said, I've been watching USA and Mexico handle them for years so its hard for me to see this as anything other than a wonderful run for Costa Rica rather than a harbinger of future awesomeness. I think CONCACAF as a whole is improving and I'll take Costa Rica to grow with the group.
10. Belgium -- They were okay, I guess. Did what they needed to do against Algeria, Russia, South Korea and USA, played pretty good against Argentina, can't call the tournament a failure. But considering the hype they came in with and all that firepower up front, they never really turned my head. They won, yeah, I get that, but I think their talent is either overrated or the system is not going to push them past their better competitors.
11. USA -- Lucky against Ghana, well enough against Portugal, game efforts against Germany and Belgium, I thought USA acquitted themselves well but really should've done better. The talent is starting to get there but Coach Klinsmann employed virtually no offensive strategy to speak of, which is unlike how USA played in qualifying. The possession up the middle game with Bradley-Jones-Dempsey is sorely lacking, while the speed up the wing seemed like a last resort. I dunno, I think this team is on the rise (still) and hopefully we'll find some offense in the next 4 years.
12. Costa Rica -- Put the wood to the real group of death (blew out Uruguay, beat Italy, hard won draw with England), skipped past Greece and played well against the Netherlands. Can't front on anything they did in this tournament, quarterfinals is a great accomplishment. But I'm more familiar with Costa Rica (CONCACAF), watched them for years. They have a savvy about them that often outplays their talent and they usually have good talent. That said, I've been watching USA and Mexico handle them for years so its hard for me to see this as anything other than a wonderful run for Costa Rica rather than a harbinger of future awesomeness. I think CONCACAF as a whole is improving and I'll take Costa Rica to grow with the group.
World Cup Rankings: 13-16
13. Switzerland -- They got lucky against Ecuador, got drilled by France, whooped up on hapless Honduras and competed well against Argentina. Never been a fan of these guys but they are regular fixtures in the Cup, might as well get used to them. They play like geographically you would expect: general shape of Germany, try to move forward like France. Except they're not as good as either. I don't know if they ought to be better or if I'm just blind to their charms.
14. Greece -- Lucky against Ivory Coast, lucky against Japan, not at all lucky against Colombia or Costa Rica. I still haven't gotten used to Greece. I don't see how they keep moving forward. I don't see how they get better in the future.
15. Nigeria -- They played two disappointing games (a draw with Iran, a smackdown from France) and two kinda okay games (lucky win over Bosnia, fun loss to Argentina). The two 'better' games can't in my mind overtake the two lame ones. Disappointing show from Nigeria but the fact that they still made the round of 16 is telling: they're good enough to have expectations put on them but apparently not good enough to rise to those expectations....yet.
16. Uruguay -- Uruguay didn't show well. For one of the game's true giants, a final four participant last time around, they did not look dangerous with or without Suarez. They took advantage of weak England and Italy squads but getting drilled by Costa Rica was telling and their inability to get anything going against Colombia was too. Uruguay is not a good place right now but they are as resilient as anyone in world soccer and they did advance out of groups so I guess I can't put them too far off the pace.
14. Greece -- Lucky against Ivory Coast, lucky against Japan, not at all lucky against Colombia or Costa Rica. I still haven't gotten used to Greece. I don't see how they keep moving forward. I don't see how they get better in the future.
15. Nigeria -- They played two disappointing games (a draw with Iran, a smackdown from France) and two kinda okay games (lucky win over Bosnia, fun loss to Argentina). The two 'better' games can't in my mind overtake the two lame ones. Disappointing show from Nigeria but the fact that they still made the round of 16 is telling: they're good enough to have expectations put on them but apparently not good enough to rise to those expectations....yet.
16. Uruguay -- Uruguay didn't show well. For one of the game's true giants, a final four participant last time around, they did not look dangerous with or without Suarez. They took advantage of weak England and Italy squads but getting drilled by Costa Rica was telling and their inability to get anything going against Colombia was too. Uruguay is not a good place right now but they are as resilient as anyone in world soccer and they did advance out of groups so I guess I can't put them too far off the pace.
World Cup Rankings: Bottom 16
17. Spain -- Definitely on the way down. Man, Spain fell like the Miami Heat this year: they just woke up one day and realized they weren't champions any more. Spain dominated for 6 straight years on a ball control mid-field that was maybe the best that's ever been. Think about that: they weren't great scorers, they weren't great defenders, their games was to dribble the ball until the opponent had forgotten they were even playing soccer, and eventually Spain would pass the ball into the goal. Their one superpower was untouchable passing. And that vanished quickly in this tournament and after that they had nothing left. But just to counter-factualize: what if they played Australia first and then Netherlands last? Instead of opening with a beatdown from a familiar rival, they could've opened by delivering a beatdown on a farflung colleague...might've made all the difference for them. Oh well, we live in the universe where Spain got clocked on opening day. Veteran teams always last one Cup too long. Where do they go from here? I can't imagine they'll suck but they can't possibly be as good, so #17 in the world is probably a good place to put them (for now).
18. Bosnia-Herzegovina -- I was impressed with Bosnia's play against Messi (he only shook loose against them once), got unlucky against Nigeria (robbed on one end, then robbed on the other) and closed with a convincing W on Iran. All in all, they played well, didn't get the luck they needed but looked like a stout side for the most part.
19. Ivory Coast -- They got a bad beat against Greece (fair cop, though), blitzed Japan and floundered against Colombia (they made a lot of people look like flounderers). Not a great performance but they were okay with some star power. Not sure whether they're on the way up or down.
20. Croatia -- Good offense, played well against Brazil and Mexico, laid a beatdown on hapless Cameroon (I probably shouldn't be so impressed but I like when a team steps up and piles it on once in a while). My gut is they are a legit European side and will be back in the next Cup.
21. Italy -- This Italy side just never got any offense going. They still had the old time swagger and they weren't awful, just that Costa Rica came to play and the rest of the big dogs (why wasn't this the Group of Death?) stayed up on the porch. Italy can't possibly be this bad next time around. Even though this particular squad didn't bring it, realistically Italy is much higher than #21 in the world.
22. Portugal -- I dunno, man, outside of Ronaldo the team didn't look that dangerous to me. USA gave them two poor goals, Ghana did as well. Furthermore, they don't get Ronaldo the ball enough, they don't play like a team that likes each other and they're not getting any younger. Portugal is on the way down.
23. Ghana -- Couldn't really get a feel for this Ghana side. They outplayed USA and didn't get a result, outplayed Germany (probably Champions) but they didn't show up for Portugal. Lot of internal turmoil and while they had good looking talent, they never developed the proper team ethic. Africa is always fluid so maybe they'll be back next time, maybe not.
24. Russia -- Stood their ground on D pretty well but didn't hold the ball in midfield very well. Not much offense, not much team identity. They were in a soft group and couldn't find their way through it.
25. England -- Old, creaky. England always produces talent, they'll have new players next time around, might take a while to gel but I suspect by Euro 2020 they'll be one of the dangerous sides again.
26. South Korea -- South Korea is starting to pass the 'bus' test: when they get off the bus at the stadium, they look like for-real ballers. Big kids, good athletes, good discipline. But not yet enough talent. I think South Korea is a team that has steadily improved over the last 20 years and I think they will continue to improve and should dominate their region for a while. As South Korea becomes a regular at this tournament, we'll perhaps see an Asian-style truly develop.
27. Ecuador -- Bad loss to Switzerland, so-so win over Honduras, draw against a listless France. Not an impressive run. With Colombia and Chile looking pretty strong, not sure there's much room for Ecuador next time around.
28. Iran -- Iran is generally one of the powerhouses of the Middle East (or used to be before the Ayatollah arrived and banned anything that might be more popular them him) and the team has good shape, good discipline. But I'm not seeing the athletes or the gameplan that could deliver wins. Along with South Korea (and China, right? Doesn't Chine eventually have to get good at soccer?), I reckon Iran will be a regular fixture in the World Cup but they've got a ways to go to make the leap into contender.
29. Australia -- I dunno, man, I thought these guys sucked. They remind me of USA circa 1998 and that is not a good thing. The squad is a bunch of blocky white guys that play crunching defense but don't look capable of scoring (that said, Cahill's rocket against the Dutch was maybe the best goal of the whole shebang). They don't look strong at holding the ball or pressing forward. (Not sure the population of Australia or the layout of the nation-state allows for them to get any better at soccer (or basketball))
30. Cameroon -- Beatdown by Brazil, beatdown by Croatia, played well against Mexico. Not a good showing from Cameroon (though they did have at least one okay game against a good opponent). Again, Africa is very fluid, they are about 7-8 countries realistically vying for 3 spots. Maybe Cameroon pulls it together, maybe not. I didn't see much to build on.
31. Japan -- Apart from a 10 minute spurt early in their 1st game (against Ivory Coast), Japan basically never threatened at all. The D was okay, the shape and discipline is there. But I'm not seeing the athletes. (Can I make a suggestion, Japan? Study Mexico. Physically they're similar and their close-quarter ball handling is something Japan needs to make use of)
32. Honduras -- Pretty poor showing. Clobbered by France (I thought France was pretty good), run by Ecuador (competed as well as they could have, I guess) and drubbed by Switzerland (that should never happen to anyone).
Is this a proper ranking for International Soccer? Sure, why not? I mean obviously the small sample size doesn't really give much of an occasion for analysis but these games are the games countries are trying to win. These are the games that matter, the World Cup is the reason you want to rank teams. Is this perfect? No, but the most recent history is a reasonable place to start.
18. Bosnia-Herzegovina -- I was impressed with Bosnia's play against Messi (he only shook loose against them once), got unlucky against Nigeria (robbed on one end, then robbed on the other) and closed with a convincing W on Iran. All in all, they played well, didn't get the luck they needed but looked like a stout side for the most part.
19. Ivory Coast -- They got a bad beat against Greece (fair cop, though), blitzed Japan and floundered against Colombia (they made a lot of people look like flounderers). Not a great performance but they were okay with some star power. Not sure whether they're on the way up or down.
20. Croatia -- Good offense, played well against Brazil and Mexico, laid a beatdown on hapless Cameroon (I probably shouldn't be so impressed but I like when a team steps up and piles it on once in a while). My gut is they are a legit European side and will be back in the next Cup.
21. Italy -- This Italy side just never got any offense going. They still had the old time swagger and they weren't awful, just that Costa Rica came to play and the rest of the big dogs (why wasn't this the Group of Death?) stayed up on the porch. Italy can't possibly be this bad next time around. Even though this particular squad didn't bring it, realistically Italy is much higher than #21 in the world.
22. Portugal -- I dunno, man, outside of Ronaldo the team didn't look that dangerous to me. USA gave them two poor goals, Ghana did as well. Furthermore, they don't get Ronaldo the ball enough, they don't play like a team that likes each other and they're not getting any younger. Portugal is on the way down.
23. Ghana -- Couldn't really get a feel for this Ghana side. They outplayed USA and didn't get a result, outplayed Germany (probably Champions) but they didn't show up for Portugal. Lot of internal turmoil and while they had good looking talent, they never developed the proper team ethic. Africa is always fluid so maybe they'll be back next time, maybe not.
24. Russia -- Stood their ground on D pretty well but didn't hold the ball in midfield very well. Not much offense, not much team identity. They were in a soft group and couldn't find their way through it.
25. England -- Old, creaky. England always produces talent, they'll have new players next time around, might take a while to gel but I suspect by Euro 2020 they'll be one of the dangerous sides again.
26. South Korea -- South Korea is starting to pass the 'bus' test: when they get off the bus at the stadium, they look like for-real ballers. Big kids, good athletes, good discipline. But not yet enough talent. I think South Korea is a team that has steadily improved over the last 20 years and I think they will continue to improve and should dominate their region for a while. As South Korea becomes a regular at this tournament, we'll perhaps see an Asian-style truly develop.
27. Ecuador -- Bad loss to Switzerland, so-so win over Honduras, draw against a listless France. Not an impressive run. With Colombia and Chile looking pretty strong, not sure there's much room for Ecuador next time around.
28. Iran -- Iran is generally one of the powerhouses of the Middle East (or used to be before the Ayatollah arrived and banned anything that might be more popular them him) and the team has good shape, good discipline. But I'm not seeing the athletes or the gameplan that could deliver wins. Along with South Korea (and China, right? Doesn't Chine eventually have to get good at soccer?), I reckon Iran will be a regular fixture in the World Cup but they've got a ways to go to make the leap into contender.
29. Australia -- I dunno, man, I thought these guys sucked. They remind me of USA circa 1998 and that is not a good thing. The squad is a bunch of blocky white guys that play crunching defense but don't look capable of scoring (that said, Cahill's rocket against the Dutch was maybe the best goal of the whole shebang). They don't look strong at holding the ball or pressing forward. (Not sure the population of Australia or the layout of the nation-state allows for them to get any better at soccer (or basketball))
30. Cameroon -- Beatdown by Brazil, beatdown by Croatia, played well against Mexico. Not a good showing from Cameroon (though they did have at least one okay game against a good opponent). Again, Africa is very fluid, they are about 7-8 countries realistically vying for 3 spots. Maybe Cameroon pulls it together, maybe not. I didn't see much to build on.
31. Japan -- Apart from a 10 minute spurt early in their 1st game (against Ivory Coast), Japan basically never threatened at all. The D was okay, the shape and discipline is there. But I'm not seeing the athletes. (Can I make a suggestion, Japan? Study Mexico. Physically they're similar and their close-quarter ball handling is something Japan needs to make use of)
32. Honduras -- Pretty poor showing. Clobbered by France (I thought France was pretty good), run by Ecuador (competed as well as they could have, I guess) and drubbed by Switzerland (that should never happen to anyone).
Is this a proper ranking for International Soccer? Sure, why not? I mean obviously the small sample size doesn't really give much of an occasion for analysis but these games are the games countries are trying to win. These are the games that matter, the World Cup is the reason you want to rank teams. Is this perfect? No, but the most recent history is a reasonable place to start.
Monday, July 7, 2014
NBA Draft Recap: Boston Celtics
The Celtics had two desperate needs going into this off-season: they needed to get smarter and younger. Appropriately their two 1st round picks got them Marcus Smart and James Young. Given that the best player on the current roster (Rajon Rondo) is a PG, not sure why they drafted these two dudes, but oh well, talent is talent. And in the internet-world this signals the impeding trade of Rondo. Maybe. Maybe not.
That said, I'm going to jump right in by suggesting a coupla trades to Danny Ainge. 1) Rondo, Gerald Wallace, Joel Anthony to the Knicks for Amare Stoudemire, Iman Shumpert; and 2) Jeff Green to the Lakers straight up for Steve Nash. The Celtics would give up their best player (Rondo), their most useless player (Anthony), their least desirable contract (Wallace), and their most erratic player (Green) for 1 year of Nash and Stoudemire and the inside track on re-signing Iman Shumpert. The Knicks get out from under their least desirable contract and they'd get a PG that could play with Melo; the Lakers salvage an interesting prospect out of the disastrous Nash era. The Celtics would have a spine of toughness (Bradley, Bogans, Olynyk, Bass), good ball handling (Nash, Smart) and good scoring (Stoudemire, Young, Shumpert, Sullinger) in an equal package of youth and veteran smarts. While I wouldn't take this version of the Celtics to win a championship, they will be fun to watch with plenty of room to grow and maximum flexibility heading into next summer. And they'd forego the unnecessary angst of deciding on Rondo and Green, two guys they clearly have reservations about. Ideally Nash helps the youngsters grow on the court and is a vital cornerstone to the evolution of Brad Stevens; at worst, you got an expiring contract and watched a hall of famer flame out. I know it sounds weird but these two deals make the Celtics more dangerous, more interesting and more flexible.
Well...it'll never happen. But its more fun to speculate on what the Celtics could do than watch what they will do. If they don't trade Rondo now then either they let him walk next year or sign him for more than they want to; if they don't trade Green now, they'll have to endure another year of his mercurial play while getting in the way of Smart, Young and Sullinger. The Wallace deal looks less imposing as time marches on (not good but not a team killer) but he provides so little that he needs to be shipped out. Solving these three problems allows the Celtics to open up and embrace the future. And while they're waiting for the future to happen, why not get one last look at the ol' Nash-Stoudemire express? The true hoop fans of Beantown will respect that even if they know its just a one-year sideshow.
That said, I'm going to jump right in by suggesting a coupla trades to Danny Ainge. 1) Rondo, Gerald Wallace, Joel Anthony to the Knicks for Amare Stoudemire, Iman Shumpert; and 2) Jeff Green to the Lakers straight up for Steve Nash. The Celtics would give up their best player (Rondo), their most useless player (Anthony), their least desirable contract (Wallace), and their most erratic player (Green) for 1 year of Nash and Stoudemire and the inside track on re-signing Iman Shumpert. The Knicks get out from under their least desirable contract and they'd get a PG that could play with Melo; the Lakers salvage an interesting prospect out of the disastrous Nash era. The Celtics would have a spine of toughness (Bradley, Bogans, Olynyk, Bass), good ball handling (Nash, Smart) and good scoring (Stoudemire, Young, Shumpert, Sullinger) in an equal package of youth and veteran smarts. While I wouldn't take this version of the Celtics to win a championship, they will be fun to watch with plenty of room to grow and maximum flexibility heading into next summer. And they'd forego the unnecessary angst of deciding on Rondo and Green, two guys they clearly have reservations about. Ideally Nash helps the youngsters grow on the court and is a vital cornerstone to the evolution of Brad Stevens; at worst, you got an expiring contract and watched a hall of famer flame out. I know it sounds weird but these two deals make the Celtics more dangerous, more interesting and more flexible.
Well...it'll never happen. But its more fun to speculate on what the Celtics could do than watch what they will do. If they don't trade Rondo now then either they let him walk next year or sign him for more than they want to; if they don't trade Green now, they'll have to endure another year of his mercurial play while getting in the way of Smart, Young and Sullinger. The Wallace deal looks less imposing as time marches on (not good but not a team killer) but he provides so little that he needs to be shipped out. Solving these three problems allows the Celtics to open up and embrace the future. And while they're waiting for the future to happen, why not get one last look at the ol' Nash-Stoudemire express? The true hoop fans of Beantown will respect that even if they know its just a one-year sideshow.
Thursday, July 3, 2014
NBA Draft Recap: Phoenix Suns
The Suns used their three 1st round picks on TJ Warren, Tyler Ennis and Bogdan Bogdanovic. The Suns roster is already a list of trade bait and I'm guessing these guys are just to add to the list. Ennis in particular was a player a lot of teams were interested in and considering the Suns have Goran Dragic, are about to re-sign Eric Bledsoe, Archie Goodwin in waiting and Ish Smith on a favorable contract, I'm not sure what they need Ennis for; I think interest in him is too high to simply bring him off the bench. Warren, too, is a nice prospect but behind the PJ Tucker, Miles Plumlee and the Morris twins I don't see where Warren's playing time comes from. Bogdanovich, too, is a prospect others might want but in Phoenix he'll be stuck behind Gerald Green and the free-shooting of Bledsoe and Dragic. So let the Suns trade rumors swirl!
I'm guessing the Suns will definitely start next season with Eric Bledsoe. After that I'm not sure. Green and both Morris twins are set to expire next summer and Dragic has a player option, so I guess those guys are potentially trade-able; Alex Len never really got going last year, Miles Plumlee is perhaps at the peak of his value, the mercurial Gerald Green is a roll of the dice for anybody, add in Warren, Ennis and Bogdanovich and it seems certain the Suns will be busy this summer. The Morris twins are a conundrum: they play better together and a platoon of the two of them is intriguing but going forward they'd have to take low-level deals to stay together; if they're willing to do that, I reckon a number of teams would be interested in the tandem. The Pacers apparently want Dragic but unless they lure in a third team (Boston Celtics?), I don't see what they have to offer for him.
In short, beyond re-signing Bledsoe (the one untouchable on this roster), I have no idea what the Suns are going to do in the next few weeks. They've got enough cap space to think they could get a meeting with Lebron or Melo but I don't see either of those deals coming together; they were rumored to have interest in Pau Gasol last year, does that continue? Beyond those guys its hard to see who the Suns would want, they've got talent and depth at every position, what they need is a big time veteran to swagger around. Perhaps the upcoming summer league will give an indication of the Suns' plans: how Ennis, Warren, Goodwin, Bogdanovich and Len play could determine how much interest they get from the league...and their own team!
I'm guessing the Suns will definitely start next season with Eric Bledsoe. After that I'm not sure. Green and both Morris twins are set to expire next summer and Dragic has a player option, so I guess those guys are potentially trade-able; Alex Len never really got going last year, Miles Plumlee is perhaps at the peak of his value, the mercurial Gerald Green is a roll of the dice for anybody, add in Warren, Ennis and Bogdanovich and it seems certain the Suns will be busy this summer. The Morris twins are a conundrum: they play better together and a platoon of the two of them is intriguing but going forward they'd have to take low-level deals to stay together; if they're willing to do that, I reckon a number of teams would be interested in the tandem. The Pacers apparently want Dragic but unless they lure in a third team (Boston Celtics?), I don't see what they have to offer for him.
In short, beyond re-signing Bledsoe (the one untouchable on this roster), I have no idea what the Suns are going to do in the next few weeks. They've got enough cap space to think they could get a meeting with Lebron or Melo but I don't see either of those deals coming together; they were rumored to have interest in Pau Gasol last year, does that continue? Beyond those guys its hard to see who the Suns would want, they've got talent and depth at every position, what they need is a big time veteran to swagger around. Perhaps the upcoming summer league will give an indication of the Suns' plans: how Ennis, Warren, Goodwin, Bogdanovich and Len play could determine how much interest they get from the league...and their own team!
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
NBA Transactions (rumored and otherwise)
Since the action has already begun, thought it would be a good idea to check in on the announced moves so far.
The NETS traded Coach Jason Kidd for two 2nd round draft picks (2015, 2019) and hired Lionel Hollins today. Just between you and me, I'm not even sure what it is an NBA coach actually does; football, baseball, even NCAA basketball are coach's games, lots of hands-on stuff. But the NBA? I dunno, fiery speeches, heart-to-heart talks, some x' and o's (the on-court and ego-love kind)? Yeah, that doesn't really seem like so much. And, well, I guess the Nets valued Jason Kidd's contribution to two 2nd round draft picks, so I guess they agree with me. But gotta love the fact that this whole brouhaha supposedly arose because Kidd was jealous of the big money deal for first time coaches Steve Kerr and Derek Fisher and the Nets just gave Kidd's replacement waaaaaaay more than they were paying him. Ha! I betcha dollar the Nets trade both those picks for 'cash considerations'.
WIZARDS re-signed Morcin Gortat to 5 yr/$60m. I like Gortat, he fit nicely with the Wizards last year, a team that didn't get going til the end of the year. I didn't think they'd be able to afford Gortat and Ariza, I thought Gortat the more irreplaceable of the two, so I think they did well for themselves here. Does Gortat have 5 years left in him? Maybe. But $12m per is a reasonable figure. (Word is maybe they can have Ariza too, so do you bring them both back to see if this lineup can grow together or do you mix it up just for the sheer sake of mixing?)
PACERS sign CJ Miles for 4yrs/$18m (or thereabouts). Miles is fine for them, a nice piece of the bench. Supposedly they've offered Lance Stephenson 5yrs/$44m, which is more than I thought they'd be willing to spend. But adding Miles suggests they've got more than I realized. They also added Damjan Rudez, a European prospect (no idea who he is, sorry). The problem with the Pacers is they're just not as good as the Heat and they have very little roster flexibility. So they've got to hope that whatever Miami does it creates some weird mismatch the Pacers can exploit. I'm not guessing that's gonna happen but unless the Pacers pull off a trade (I don't see it) then adding Miles off the bench is as much upgrading as the Pacers can achieve. Well, if the Bulls can't make a move at least the Pacers should be runner-up in the East again.
Rumor is the WARRIORS have signed Shaun Livingston to the mid-level exception, which I think would be around $5m per year; haven't seen the details yet so I don't know the length. Is this a move to replace some production lost if Klay Thompson gets shipped out? It certainly seems like more than an adequate improvement on Steve Blake coming off the bench, but Blake didn't actually play much so what will Livingston do? I like Livingston and I think he fits the vibe of Golden State but with Klay and Harrison Barnes still around what is Livingston's role? I think I've hinted enough at the answer: Klay and Barnes are getting traded. In that case I think Steph Curry and Livingston can play together, a pair of combo guards available for kick-outs. But none of that other stuff has happened....yet. With Love and without Thompson and Barnes, I think I really like the addition of Livingston and whatever the years are the price is affordable. (Maybe a series of option years built in? I don't think there's a limit on years for an MLE but the price is a strictly graduated affair with no room for bonuses)
CAVS signed Kyrie Irving to a 5-year extension because...well, I mean....what else were they gonna do? They're not gonna trade him, he wouldn't sign for less money, so there you have it. Good move, Irving is not perfect but he's a baller and he's played his options well. You gots to pay him because he's in his gots-to-get-paid year. (The truly talented ones understand how this stuff works)
The MAGIC sign Ben Gordon to 2 yrs/$9m after waiving Jameer Nelson and Doron Lamb. I can see shipping out Afflalo for Evan Fournier on draft night, I can see letting go of Nelson after drafting Elfrid Peyton, I thought Lamb was cheap enough to keep but they've got enough good youth to develop. But Gordon? Man, this guy was overrated in his prime--and that was years ago! I don't get this one at all. I just don't see what Gordon provides. The money's not huge, fine, he's affordable but I think even at that price point they could've done better then Gordon. I just don't see what he provides: he's not gonna start or play big minutes, he's a notorious crabby locker room guy, he's been MIA that last coupla years on the court. I don't get it.
RAPTORS traded John Salmons and a 2015 2nd round pick to the HAWKS for Lou Williams and the rights to Lucas Nogueira. A minimal deal, they just swapped an expiring contract and a so-so prospect, the upside is entirely within the organization. Maybe Salmons gives the Hawks a little more size, maybe Williams gives the Raptors a a reliable backup or maybe they see something in Nogueira that the Hawks thought could be replaced by the #50 pick in next summer's draft. I dunno. None of these guys mean enough to me at this point to see their impact though I suspect Williams gets more playing time than Salmons (and don't be surprised to see the Raptors trade Nogueira down the line).
PISTONS declined the option of Chauncey Billups. Yeah they did. Why they gave him a 2year deal in the first place was bonkers--and they actually tried to play him at the beginning of last year! Dios mio. I liked the Pistons bringing in Josh Smith but I thought trading Knight for Jennings was a mistake and I thought bringing back Billups as anything other than an assistant coach was just silly. Well, apparently Stan Van didn't even want Chauncey as an asst.
SPURS sign Patty Mills to (something like) 3yrs/$12m. Good for the Spurs. I thought the Spurs would bring back Boris Diaw but let Mills go, just figured he was up for a bigger raise than they'd be willing to pay and he'd be off. Now the buzz is they're after Pau but they still gotta bring back Diaw. They already stomped everyone, but pay off the little guys and add Pau Gasol? Throw in a potato and you got yourself a stew!
CELTICS bring back Avery Bradley for 4yrs/$32m. I gotta admit: I didn't watch the Celtics much this year--only so much Khris Humphries a man can take. So this deal surprises me. My gut feeling is that $8m per is too much for Bradley, especially since they just drafted Young and Smart. Do they really need four more years of Bradley if they have those prospects waiting? I'm guessing they'd love to trade Rondo but who wants him?
RAPTORS re-sign Kyle Lowry for 4yrs/$48m. The sinking feeling that all the free agent talk is just some bluster before nothing happens is even sharper now since I assumed Lowry was out of there. I thought Lowry was probably the biggest piece out there in the free agent world but if he's heading back to Toronto then most of the pieces on the chessboard are probably staying put.
Rumors du jour: Cavs to max Gordon Hayward (I think Jazz would match), Pau to OKC (not bad, but Pau to the Spurs would be even juicier), Cavs/Nets are talking of a Jarret Jack for Marcus Thornton swap (the Nets are just trying to look busy and the Cavs are off-loading salary), Twitter-verse is calling the amnesty of Carlos Boozer a 'done deal' (and the internet is ALWAYS right!), Clippers are courting Ed Davis (eh, not the star power move they're probably looking for but I dunno, I guess he fits for them), Wizards are after Sefelosha (Sef did not look good in the playoffs last year, not sure what the Wizards are seeing in him), Josh Howard on the Pelicans summer league roster (wow, forgot about that guy, isn't he too old for the summer league?).
The NETS traded Coach Jason Kidd for two 2nd round draft picks (2015, 2019) and hired Lionel Hollins today. Just between you and me, I'm not even sure what it is an NBA coach actually does; football, baseball, even NCAA basketball are coach's games, lots of hands-on stuff. But the NBA? I dunno, fiery speeches, heart-to-heart talks, some x' and o's (the on-court and ego-love kind)? Yeah, that doesn't really seem like so much. And, well, I guess the Nets valued Jason Kidd's contribution to two 2nd round draft picks, so I guess they agree with me. But gotta love the fact that this whole brouhaha supposedly arose because Kidd was jealous of the big money deal for first time coaches Steve Kerr and Derek Fisher and the Nets just gave Kidd's replacement waaaaaaay more than they were paying him. Ha! I betcha dollar the Nets trade both those picks for 'cash considerations'.
WIZARDS re-signed Morcin Gortat to 5 yr/$60m. I like Gortat, he fit nicely with the Wizards last year, a team that didn't get going til the end of the year. I didn't think they'd be able to afford Gortat and Ariza, I thought Gortat the more irreplaceable of the two, so I think they did well for themselves here. Does Gortat have 5 years left in him? Maybe. But $12m per is a reasonable figure. (Word is maybe they can have Ariza too, so do you bring them both back to see if this lineup can grow together or do you mix it up just for the sheer sake of mixing?)
PACERS sign CJ Miles for 4yrs/$18m (or thereabouts). Miles is fine for them, a nice piece of the bench. Supposedly they've offered Lance Stephenson 5yrs/$44m, which is more than I thought they'd be willing to spend. But adding Miles suggests they've got more than I realized. They also added Damjan Rudez, a European prospect (no idea who he is, sorry). The problem with the Pacers is they're just not as good as the Heat and they have very little roster flexibility. So they've got to hope that whatever Miami does it creates some weird mismatch the Pacers can exploit. I'm not guessing that's gonna happen but unless the Pacers pull off a trade (I don't see it) then adding Miles off the bench is as much upgrading as the Pacers can achieve. Well, if the Bulls can't make a move at least the Pacers should be runner-up in the East again.
Rumor is the WARRIORS have signed Shaun Livingston to the mid-level exception, which I think would be around $5m per year; haven't seen the details yet so I don't know the length. Is this a move to replace some production lost if Klay Thompson gets shipped out? It certainly seems like more than an adequate improvement on Steve Blake coming off the bench, but Blake didn't actually play much so what will Livingston do? I like Livingston and I think he fits the vibe of Golden State but with Klay and Harrison Barnes still around what is Livingston's role? I think I've hinted enough at the answer: Klay and Barnes are getting traded. In that case I think Steph Curry and Livingston can play together, a pair of combo guards available for kick-outs. But none of that other stuff has happened....yet. With Love and without Thompson and Barnes, I think I really like the addition of Livingston and whatever the years are the price is affordable. (Maybe a series of option years built in? I don't think there's a limit on years for an MLE but the price is a strictly graduated affair with no room for bonuses)
CAVS signed Kyrie Irving to a 5-year extension because...well, I mean....what else were they gonna do? They're not gonna trade him, he wouldn't sign for less money, so there you have it. Good move, Irving is not perfect but he's a baller and he's played his options well. You gots to pay him because he's in his gots-to-get-paid year. (The truly talented ones understand how this stuff works)
The MAGIC sign Ben Gordon to 2 yrs/$9m after waiving Jameer Nelson and Doron Lamb. I can see shipping out Afflalo for Evan Fournier on draft night, I can see letting go of Nelson after drafting Elfrid Peyton, I thought Lamb was cheap enough to keep but they've got enough good youth to develop. But Gordon? Man, this guy was overrated in his prime--and that was years ago! I don't get this one at all. I just don't see what Gordon provides. The money's not huge, fine, he's affordable but I think even at that price point they could've done better then Gordon. I just don't see what he provides: he's not gonna start or play big minutes, he's a notorious crabby locker room guy, he's been MIA that last coupla years on the court. I don't get it.
RAPTORS traded John Salmons and a 2015 2nd round pick to the HAWKS for Lou Williams and the rights to Lucas Nogueira. A minimal deal, they just swapped an expiring contract and a so-so prospect, the upside is entirely within the organization. Maybe Salmons gives the Hawks a little more size, maybe Williams gives the Raptors a a reliable backup or maybe they see something in Nogueira that the Hawks thought could be replaced by the #50 pick in next summer's draft. I dunno. None of these guys mean enough to me at this point to see their impact though I suspect Williams gets more playing time than Salmons (and don't be surprised to see the Raptors trade Nogueira down the line).
PISTONS declined the option of Chauncey Billups. Yeah they did. Why they gave him a 2year deal in the first place was bonkers--and they actually tried to play him at the beginning of last year! Dios mio. I liked the Pistons bringing in Josh Smith but I thought trading Knight for Jennings was a mistake and I thought bringing back Billups as anything other than an assistant coach was just silly. Well, apparently Stan Van didn't even want Chauncey as an asst.
SPURS sign Patty Mills to (something like) 3yrs/$12m. Good for the Spurs. I thought the Spurs would bring back Boris Diaw but let Mills go, just figured he was up for a bigger raise than they'd be willing to pay and he'd be off. Now the buzz is they're after Pau but they still gotta bring back Diaw. They already stomped everyone, but pay off the little guys and add Pau Gasol? Throw in a potato and you got yourself a stew!
CELTICS bring back Avery Bradley for 4yrs/$32m. I gotta admit: I didn't watch the Celtics much this year--only so much Khris Humphries a man can take. So this deal surprises me. My gut feeling is that $8m per is too much for Bradley, especially since they just drafted Young and Smart. Do they really need four more years of Bradley if they have those prospects waiting? I'm guessing they'd love to trade Rondo but who wants him?
RAPTORS re-sign Kyle Lowry for 4yrs/$48m. The sinking feeling that all the free agent talk is just some bluster before nothing happens is even sharper now since I assumed Lowry was out of there. I thought Lowry was probably the biggest piece out there in the free agent world but if he's heading back to Toronto then most of the pieces on the chessboard are probably staying put.
Rumors du jour: Cavs to max Gordon Hayward (I think Jazz would match), Pau to OKC (not bad, but Pau to the Spurs would be even juicier), Cavs/Nets are talking of a Jarret Jack for Marcus Thornton swap (the Nets are just trying to look busy and the Cavs are off-loading salary), Twitter-verse is calling the amnesty of Carlos Boozer a 'done deal' (and the internet is ALWAYS right!), Clippers are courting Ed Davis (eh, not the star power move they're probably looking for but I dunno, I guess he fits for them), Wizards are after Sefelosha (Sef did not look good in the playoffs last year, not sure what the Wizards are seeing in him), Josh Howard on the Pelicans summer league roster (wow, forgot about that guy, isn't he too old for the summer league?).
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
World Cup quarterfinals
Brazil v. Colombia -- Brazil is the host, they are the #1 team, the favorite to win, they are everyone's favorite team (or second favorite). But outside of Neymar, this team doesn't have the magic of a usual Brazilian squad. They've done what they had to do so far and while they drubbed Croatia and Cameroon, against two Latin American opponents, Mexico and Chile, the Brazilians did not look dominant. They looked hesitant, they looked lucky, they looked shaky in the back. Colombia, on the other hand, is coming in playing well. Granted their 4 opponents (Japan, Greece, Ivory Coast, Uruguay) are not so impressive, Colombia have been better at both ends of the field in each game. Brazil is a routine opponent of Colombia and rather than being intimidated by the host country's gold and blues, I reckon these Colombians will see this as a flawed Brazilian team rather than a classic one. Also, just as a pet theory: in years past one would never bet against the host country but I think we're in a period where being the host is more of a pain in the ass than a leg up. I think the Brazilians are ripe for an upset and I think Colombia is the team to put it on them. I'll take Colombia 2-0.
Netherlands v. Costa Rica -- Netherlands destroyed Spain, floundered around with Australia and still easily beat them, dusted off a pretty good Chile side and got the lucky late break they needed against Mexico. In short: they're playing well and they're getting lucky. (Throw in that I think Brazil and Germany get taken out by somebody else and the Dutch are in the catbird's seat) Costa Rica beat Uruguay, beat Italy, tied England, squeaked past Greece. Seems like they've already played their best soccer and while I don't want to say they've overachieved, I will say they've achieved about as much as they're gonna. I think this is the easiest game to call, Netherlands 3-1.
France v Germany -- Germany reminds me of the San Antonio Spurs: they go out and do what they do and more often than not they win doing it. The Germans don't conform to you, they make whatever you're doing fit into whatever they were gonna do anyway. Germany's D has been okay (a little reliant on the keeper for my tastes), the mid-field has been typically stellar but upfront I'm not impressed with their scoring abilities. After an easy time of it against Portugal they've merely survived against Ghana, USA and Algeria. The Germans are always gonna be good, they're gonna hang around and beat you late if that's what they have to do. But I don't think France gives them the chance. France is young and loose, they're playing confidently right now and while I don't think they're unbeatable, I think they have more mojo than the Germans. I think France scores early, fluster the Germans for a while and make it stand up. I'll take France 1-0.
Argentina v Belgium -- While watching USA-Belgium today I kept thinking the longer this stays a 0-0 tie, the more I'm betting on Argentina. Argentina is actually been rather lackluster to this point but they've looked better, been more effective and all-round way more dangerous than what Belgium has looked like. USA's defense is legit, Tim Howard is a for-real baller. But Argentina will press Belgium way more than the Americans did and I don't think the Belgian counter-attack is where goals appear for them. Belgium has played Algeria, Russia, South Korea and USA and none of those squads have anything like the offensive capability of the Argentines. I think Argentina wins this 2-0.
Netherlands v. Costa Rica -- Netherlands destroyed Spain, floundered around with Australia and still easily beat them, dusted off a pretty good Chile side and got the lucky late break they needed against Mexico. In short: they're playing well and they're getting lucky. (Throw in that I think Brazil and Germany get taken out by somebody else and the Dutch are in the catbird's seat) Costa Rica beat Uruguay, beat Italy, tied England, squeaked past Greece. Seems like they've already played their best soccer and while I don't want to say they've overachieved, I will say they've achieved about as much as they're gonna. I think this is the easiest game to call, Netherlands 3-1.
France v Germany -- Germany reminds me of the San Antonio Spurs: they go out and do what they do and more often than not they win doing it. The Germans don't conform to you, they make whatever you're doing fit into whatever they were gonna do anyway. Germany's D has been okay (a little reliant on the keeper for my tastes), the mid-field has been typically stellar but upfront I'm not impressed with their scoring abilities. After an easy time of it against Portugal they've merely survived against Ghana, USA and Algeria. The Germans are always gonna be good, they're gonna hang around and beat you late if that's what they have to do. But I don't think France gives them the chance. France is young and loose, they're playing confidently right now and while I don't think they're unbeatable, I think they have more mojo than the Germans. I think France scores early, fluster the Germans for a while and make it stand up. I'll take France 1-0.
Argentina v Belgium -- While watching USA-Belgium today I kept thinking the longer this stays a 0-0 tie, the more I'm betting on Argentina. Argentina is actually been rather lackluster to this point but they've looked better, been more effective and all-round way more dangerous than what Belgium has looked like. USA's defense is legit, Tim Howard is a for-real baller. But Argentina will press Belgium way more than the Americans did and I don't think the Belgian counter-attack is where goals appear for them. Belgium has played Algeria, Russia, South Korea and USA and none of those squads have anything like the offensive capability of the Argentines. I think Argentina wins this 2-0.
Thoughts on Team USA
I think I believe something controversial: the problem with USA's soccer team right now is Jurgen Klinsmann. I think he had a poor tournament. Here's what it comes down: do you believe Klinsmann made the best he could of sub-standard talent or do you think he had enough talent and could've done better? I'm going with the latter.
I think I understand why Klinsmann left Donovan off the squad: he needed Donovan to be a nice supporting veteran to settle things down from time to time (a la Demarcus Beasley) but Donovan (a la Kobe) still thinks of himself as the star of the team and would thus be a divisive force within the locker room. That's fine, I get it. If Donovan is gonna act like your best player while actually being your 6th best player then that's a hassle for a coach (especially in soccer) because it takes time and effort away from the overall mission. I get it, that's fine. And when its all said and done it was Green and Brooks that scored the goals, so no guarantee at all that Donovan would've had that joy. I get it, that's fine. I'm not here to argue that USA failed to advance to the quarterfinals because they didn't have Donovan.
But, damn, I can't count all the times in 4 games when I thought, 'Sure would be nice to bring in Donovan right here.' He's not the best player on the team any more, he's not the focus, but, dude, he's still plenty good enough to be out there and even with him being a pain in the ass, he still could've helped a lot. How can you leave a guy off your roster that can help you even if he is a pain in the ass? Klinsmann clearly had no faith in his squad, all we did was play defense! There was no attack whatsoever, no consistency in possession, and in the last two games, it seemed to be the plan to just play forever until a draw happens. Donovan would've at least given the Americans some hope of possessing the ball upfront or shifting into a counter-attack. The Bradley-Jones-Dempsey combo was never in tune and not terribly effective.
I can understand going into a defensive shell against the onslaught of Belgium or even the timing of the German attack. But that was our posture against Ghana and Portugal, too. I mean, it wasn't merely a tactical move, it was the ONLY strategy that Klinsmann was ready to employ. Now, you tell me: how you gonna beat Germany or Belgium without scoring any goals? Not gonna happen. You feel more comfortable taking penalty kicks against Belgium? Why? That roster is filled with scorers! Every single Belgian player today took a shot! Each Belgian DEFENDER took at least two shots. Dude, it was target practice out there today for Belgium. And we withstood that for 90 minutes with, what seemed to me, no help from the coach.
Tim Howard was absolutely brilliant today. Beslor, Beasley and Gonzalez were all terrific too, top effort from all of those guys. But 30 more minutes of no American attack doomed that back line to give up 2 tough goals. Feel bad for Howard--that guy left it out there today and now he's hanging an L on his resume. Too bad. But Klinsmann did nothing to alleviate that. Indeed, he did everything to keep piling it on. I get that Howard is the best player and you want to feature your best player, but come on, man, you can't just beat a goalie like he's a Persian rug and expect that to hold up.
I have decided I don't like Jurgan Klinsmann and, more than that, I don't think he's a good fit going forward. What improvements will he bring about before 2016? What could he improve? What he needs is better talent, but I don't think he has any magic elixir for that, I think the American talent has been developing nicely for 20 years now. Go back and look at the 1994 team--we're light years ahead of that team! And I think the bulk of that development was before Klinsmann got here and its got its own momentum going forward that I would suggest has little or nothing to do with Jurgen Klinsmann. (Every time you see a story about concussions in the NFL, soccer and lacrosse are the big winners) If Klinsmann is trying to increase the talent pool, then how can he be so unforgiving to his top players? He wants better players but at some point he's got to have some player's-coach in him. And it appears he simply does not respect the American youngsters to score goals. And what's up with all the injuries? Altidore, Beslor and Johnson all pulled hammies? I'm calling out the coach.
I think I'm ready for Team USA to go out there and find a coach that sees good things in America's future instead of coach trying play soccer by stuffing 11 men into our own goal. I have no idea who that coach is. Is anyone interested in bringing back Bob Bradley or Bruce Arena? I dunno. Are there Europeans or South Americans or NCAA coaches that look at coaching USA as an interesting opportunity? I bet there are. I bet there are a lot of dudes that want this job. And I suggest we try one of 'em out.
I think I understand why Klinsmann left Donovan off the squad: he needed Donovan to be a nice supporting veteran to settle things down from time to time (a la Demarcus Beasley) but Donovan (a la Kobe) still thinks of himself as the star of the team and would thus be a divisive force within the locker room. That's fine, I get it. If Donovan is gonna act like your best player while actually being your 6th best player then that's a hassle for a coach (especially in soccer) because it takes time and effort away from the overall mission. I get it, that's fine. And when its all said and done it was Green and Brooks that scored the goals, so no guarantee at all that Donovan would've had that joy. I get it, that's fine. I'm not here to argue that USA failed to advance to the quarterfinals because they didn't have Donovan.
But, damn, I can't count all the times in 4 games when I thought, 'Sure would be nice to bring in Donovan right here.' He's not the best player on the team any more, he's not the focus, but, dude, he's still plenty good enough to be out there and even with him being a pain in the ass, he still could've helped a lot. How can you leave a guy off your roster that can help you even if he is a pain in the ass? Klinsmann clearly had no faith in his squad, all we did was play defense! There was no attack whatsoever, no consistency in possession, and in the last two games, it seemed to be the plan to just play forever until a draw happens. Donovan would've at least given the Americans some hope of possessing the ball upfront or shifting into a counter-attack. The Bradley-Jones-Dempsey combo was never in tune and not terribly effective.
I can understand going into a defensive shell against the onslaught of Belgium or even the timing of the German attack. But that was our posture against Ghana and Portugal, too. I mean, it wasn't merely a tactical move, it was the ONLY strategy that Klinsmann was ready to employ. Now, you tell me: how you gonna beat Germany or Belgium without scoring any goals? Not gonna happen. You feel more comfortable taking penalty kicks against Belgium? Why? That roster is filled with scorers! Every single Belgian player today took a shot! Each Belgian DEFENDER took at least two shots. Dude, it was target practice out there today for Belgium. And we withstood that for 90 minutes with, what seemed to me, no help from the coach.
Tim Howard was absolutely brilliant today. Beslor, Beasley and Gonzalez were all terrific too, top effort from all of those guys. But 30 more minutes of no American attack doomed that back line to give up 2 tough goals. Feel bad for Howard--that guy left it out there today and now he's hanging an L on his resume. Too bad. But Klinsmann did nothing to alleviate that. Indeed, he did everything to keep piling it on. I get that Howard is the best player and you want to feature your best player, but come on, man, you can't just beat a goalie like he's a Persian rug and expect that to hold up.
I have decided I don't like Jurgan Klinsmann and, more than that, I don't think he's a good fit going forward. What improvements will he bring about before 2016? What could he improve? What he needs is better talent, but I don't think he has any magic elixir for that, I think the American talent has been developing nicely for 20 years now. Go back and look at the 1994 team--we're light years ahead of that team! And I think the bulk of that development was before Klinsmann got here and its got its own momentum going forward that I would suggest has little or nothing to do with Jurgen Klinsmann. (Every time you see a story about concussions in the NFL, soccer and lacrosse are the big winners) If Klinsmann is trying to increase the talent pool, then how can he be so unforgiving to his top players? He wants better players but at some point he's got to have some player's-coach in him. And it appears he simply does not respect the American youngsters to score goals. And what's up with all the injuries? Altidore, Beslor and Johnson all pulled hammies? I'm calling out the coach.
NBA Draft Recap: LA Lakers
With the #7 pick, the Lakers selected Julius Randle of Kentucky. As a Wildcat fan here's my observations on Randle: he's a terrific rebounder, good size with a real nose for the ball, can be a great garbage man around the rim, gonna be a good #4 defender, but his offensive skills are only okay and will take a coupla years to get going. Can he play right away in the NBA? Yes. His size and instincts around the rim are legit and he'll compete on day one. Will he be a big star? Well, uh, I doubt it. 'Big star' nowadays means offensive filler-upper and I don't think Randle has those talents or at least won't develop those talents immediately. He's gonna be a good player, I am convinced, but can he remake a franchise...I am not convinced.
I can't recall a time when a major power team looked so vulnerable. The Yankees have had ups and downs but they've always had some weight to throw around; European soccer probably has an example or two, a team that used to be great that now everyone looks at like the Chicago Cubs. The Lakers have been great from the very beginning of the NBA, they've been at the top through every phase, every shift or metamorphosis of the league, rolling with great stars in the '50s, '60s, '70s, '80s, '90s and the aughts. But since the death of Dr. Buss the franchise has lost its moorings: couldn't keep Phil Jackson, couldn't keep Dwight Howard, couldn't get Chris Paul, stuck with an albatross named Kobe, haven't been able to coax Bosh, Westbrook or Love, lost all team definition with floundering coaching moves (Rudy T, Rmabis, D'antoni, Mike Brown, I'm assuming Byron Scott is next on the flounder pile), and all while the Clippers are ready to be re-born. The Lake show used to be the only game in town and suddenly they're playing second fiddle to the Clippers--the (say it like John Goodman in Revenge of the Nerds) Clippers! Hell, even the Kings are winning championships! The Lakers are on the precipice right now, it is very possible that 5 years we look at this team and say, 'What the hell happened to the Lakers? Remember when they were good every year? And, man, the Clippers just won their 4th banner, wow!'
Is Julius Randle gonna resurrect this team? No, but he's got a good strong back to build on. What kind of moves can the Lakers make? Can they get Melo and/or Lebron? No and no. No chance, no shot, they'd have to move heaven and earth and even then Kobe is still gonna want all the glory. No big time star in this league wants that thankless task. The cap-gurus say 'if Kobe just took less money, they could afford another star'--yeah, that's why he did NOT take less money! Kobe would rather be the captain of a sinking ship then first mate on the Space Shuttle. Kobe is perhaps the toughest, hardest working dude in all of sports, but he is so fuckin' deluded about the potential of his game that he honestly thinks he can win championships by himself. First off, that was NEVER true and secondly, with a blown-out Achilles and $23m price tag, there's no way the Lakers could be good next year. None chance.
So do they bite the bullet and just tank til Kobe finally, mercifully leaves them? No, that just ain't the Laker way. I expect they'll overpay for short contracts for a coupla years (a la the Dallas Mavericks since they won their title), and just hope that next summer they get to take another run at Lebron, Melo, Love and Durant. I think its a pipe dream but the Laker organization if clearly filled with pipe dreamers. Dr. Buss used to make those dreams happen. When they needed Kareem or Magic or Worthy or Shaq or Pau or whoever, Dr. Buss could pull those threads together. These Junior Busses aren't as talented at that (and I can't help wondering if the 6 heirs to the throne are all in agreement over the future of the franchise. I mean if the goddamn Clippers are worth $2b then maybe we've got to take a minute and figure out how much this franchise can fetch. 'But Daddy wanted us to keep the team!' 'Yeah, but Dad didn't realize the team was worth THREE BILLION DOLLARS! I mean, come on, sis!') and with their Arena roommates as the more attractive landing spot right now, the best they can do is dog paddle until Kobe retires. But again, that's not how they do things, so I assume they'll make unsuccessful runs at the brass ring and then sign the lesser brass for too much gold.
The big winner of this off-season is clearly going to be Luol Deng. I think he's a perfect fit for the Mavs, the Hawks, the Jazz, the Heat and the Lakers--and those are just the first 5 teams I thought of! Of those I think the Heat offer the least money/most upside while the Lakers offer the most money/least upside. If Deng is smart I'd suggest the Hawks as a place with real team upside and the Mavs as one of the few teams that actually have a shot at taking out the Spurs. But if Deng wants the money, he'll hang around and sign with the Lakers for something like 2 years/$32m, a deal he'll never get with Miami or Dallas. I suspect the Lakers will re-sign Pau Gasol for too much money (2 years/$24m) and then pretend like they wanted back all along (incidentally the way the Lakers have treated Pau over the years has been shameful: that guy loves the Laker life, has done all the little things and brought you championships, how about a little hint of respect for the guy?).
Other Laker targets: Lance Stephenson, Andre Drummond, maybe Gordon Hayward. I suspect they get none of those guys--if they wildly overpay for Lance maybe they lure him away from the Pacers, but I think Drummond and Hayward are not gonna happen. And the Lakers just don't have anything to trade except the corpse of Steve Nash but expiring contracts aren't as valuable in times when everyone has cut the cap to the bone to lure Melo and Lebron. So how do the Lakers turn their one asset into a worthwhile player? Can they trade Nash for Rajon Rondo, for example? I'm sure they'd love to but no, of course not, why would the Celtics do that? (Also, where else can Rondo play? Seriously, give me one team that actually NEEDS Rondo right now) They could get cute and bring back Ron Artest or Lamar Odom or even Antawn Jamison (hell, Robert Horry would be an upgrade for them). And even after vastly overpaying Lance Stephenson or Shaun Livingston or someone like that, what's gonna happen when Kobe can only play Dwyane Wade-type minutes while demanding Carmelo-type money? Dude...they're gonna suck next year. That's why they couldn't get Calipari: Cal knows no matter what happens that roster is a mess for at least two more years and the next guy's job is to get rid of Kobe--Cal doesn't need a headache like that (hell, they won't get Brian Shaw with that scenario).
The Lakers are dying, man. Like hair metal in '80s, it just feels like their time has passed. As long as Kobe is around, they cannot get any better. And by the time he leaves, the Clippers may be hanging banners in the Laker living room. *tsk, tsk* The times they are a-changing.
I can't recall a time when a major power team looked so vulnerable. The Yankees have had ups and downs but they've always had some weight to throw around; European soccer probably has an example or two, a team that used to be great that now everyone looks at like the Chicago Cubs. The Lakers have been great from the very beginning of the NBA, they've been at the top through every phase, every shift or metamorphosis of the league, rolling with great stars in the '50s, '60s, '70s, '80s, '90s and the aughts. But since the death of Dr. Buss the franchise has lost its moorings: couldn't keep Phil Jackson, couldn't keep Dwight Howard, couldn't get Chris Paul, stuck with an albatross named Kobe, haven't been able to coax Bosh, Westbrook or Love, lost all team definition with floundering coaching moves (Rudy T, Rmabis, D'antoni, Mike Brown, I'm assuming Byron Scott is next on the flounder pile), and all while the Clippers are ready to be re-born. The Lake show used to be the only game in town and suddenly they're playing second fiddle to the Clippers--the (say it like John Goodman in Revenge of the Nerds) Clippers! Hell, even the Kings are winning championships! The Lakers are on the precipice right now, it is very possible that 5 years we look at this team and say, 'What the hell happened to the Lakers? Remember when they were good every year? And, man, the Clippers just won their 4th banner, wow!'
Is Julius Randle gonna resurrect this team? No, but he's got a good strong back to build on. What kind of moves can the Lakers make? Can they get Melo and/or Lebron? No and no. No chance, no shot, they'd have to move heaven and earth and even then Kobe is still gonna want all the glory. No big time star in this league wants that thankless task. The cap-gurus say 'if Kobe just took less money, they could afford another star'--yeah, that's why he did NOT take less money! Kobe would rather be the captain of a sinking ship then first mate on the Space Shuttle. Kobe is perhaps the toughest, hardest working dude in all of sports, but he is so fuckin' deluded about the potential of his game that he honestly thinks he can win championships by himself. First off, that was NEVER true and secondly, with a blown-out Achilles and $23m price tag, there's no way the Lakers could be good next year. None chance.
So do they bite the bullet and just tank til Kobe finally, mercifully leaves them? No, that just ain't the Laker way. I expect they'll overpay for short contracts for a coupla years (a la the Dallas Mavericks since they won their title), and just hope that next summer they get to take another run at Lebron, Melo, Love and Durant. I think its a pipe dream but the Laker organization if clearly filled with pipe dreamers. Dr. Buss used to make those dreams happen. When they needed Kareem or Magic or Worthy or Shaq or Pau or whoever, Dr. Buss could pull those threads together. These Junior Busses aren't as talented at that (and I can't help wondering if the 6 heirs to the throne are all in agreement over the future of the franchise. I mean if the goddamn Clippers are worth $2b then maybe we've got to take a minute and figure out how much this franchise can fetch. 'But Daddy wanted us to keep the team!' 'Yeah, but Dad didn't realize the team was worth THREE BILLION DOLLARS! I mean, come on, sis!') and with their Arena roommates as the more attractive landing spot right now, the best they can do is dog paddle until Kobe retires. But again, that's not how they do things, so I assume they'll make unsuccessful runs at the brass ring and then sign the lesser brass for too much gold.
The big winner of this off-season is clearly going to be Luol Deng. I think he's a perfect fit for the Mavs, the Hawks, the Jazz, the Heat and the Lakers--and those are just the first 5 teams I thought of! Of those I think the Heat offer the least money/most upside while the Lakers offer the most money/least upside. If Deng is smart I'd suggest the Hawks as a place with real team upside and the Mavs as one of the few teams that actually have a shot at taking out the Spurs. But if Deng wants the money, he'll hang around and sign with the Lakers for something like 2 years/$32m, a deal he'll never get with Miami or Dallas. I suspect the Lakers will re-sign Pau Gasol for too much money (2 years/$24m) and then pretend like they wanted back all along (incidentally the way the Lakers have treated Pau over the years has been shameful: that guy loves the Laker life, has done all the little things and brought you championships, how about a little hint of respect for the guy?).
Other Laker targets: Lance Stephenson, Andre Drummond, maybe Gordon Hayward. I suspect they get none of those guys--if they wildly overpay for Lance maybe they lure him away from the Pacers, but I think Drummond and Hayward are not gonna happen. And the Lakers just don't have anything to trade except the corpse of Steve Nash but expiring contracts aren't as valuable in times when everyone has cut the cap to the bone to lure Melo and Lebron. So how do the Lakers turn their one asset into a worthwhile player? Can they trade Nash for Rajon Rondo, for example? I'm sure they'd love to but no, of course not, why would the Celtics do that? (Also, where else can Rondo play? Seriously, give me one team that actually NEEDS Rondo right now) They could get cute and bring back Ron Artest or Lamar Odom or even Antawn Jamison (hell, Robert Horry would be an upgrade for them). And even after vastly overpaying Lance Stephenson or Shaun Livingston or someone like that, what's gonna happen when Kobe can only play Dwyane Wade-type minutes while demanding Carmelo-type money? Dude...they're gonna suck next year. That's why they couldn't get Calipari: Cal knows no matter what happens that roster is a mess for at least two more years and the next guy's job is to get rid of Kobe--Cal doesn't need a headache like that (hell, they won't get Brian Shaw with that scenario).
The Lakers are dying, man. Like hair metal in '80s, it just feels like their time has passed. As long as Kobe is around, they cannot get any better. And by the time he leaves, the Clippers may be hanging banners in the Laker living room. *tsk, tsk* The times they are a-changing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
