The 1 Year Lottery Ticket

Billy Donovan is the new coach of the OKC Thunder.  Donovan grabbed the lottery ticket: he might win big or he might crinkle it up, toss it over his shoulder as he heads back to ivor-ier towers (how many years does Pitino have left in Lousville?).

Durant has 1 yr/$20.1m left on his contract.  If OKC wins a title, can he walk away?  If OKC doesn't get out of the West, can he stay?  Billy Donovan's mandate is clear: figure out how to keep Durant.  If winning a title is what it takes, then go win a title (if not, then just play hard and get his signature on this piece of paper).  The next priority is re-signing Westbrook (2 yrs/$34m) and then Ibaka (2 yrs/$24.6). Keep those guys and the Thunder will be relevant (not dominant...relevant) in the West for the foreseeable future.  That is a coaching job worth having.  But if you can't keep Durant, then Westbrook starts looking around, Ibaka gets jumpy and suddenly that Thunder bench becomes the source material of a Steinbeck novel.  Its worth remembering that Oklahoma inherited a championship contender with great stars, that's not the norm in the NBA.  If Donovan doesn't pull it off, OKC may never have a winning team again.  Harsh, but it really is that dire.  Keep these guys or perish.

Can the Thunder win the title next year?  Hey man, if Durant and Westbrook are both healthy, they can win a Superbowl, a Pulitzer Prize and like 3 or 4 daytime Emmys.  Not money in the bank, the West is tough and Kyrie-Lebron (and Love?) await after that, but Durant and Westbrook together can win many many games throughout the year and on into the playoffs (though they haven't done it since Harden left...), you definitely have to put the Thunder on the short list of teams that can win it all in 2015-16.

The Thunder roster next year is pretty well set with a few predictable moves: I think they want to keep Kanter, which I think seals the fate of Dion Waiters and Kyle Singler and probably necessitates moving Novak, Morrow, Lamb and/or Roberson.  They have the #14 pick in the draft so they'll be adding a fresh young body but probably no high profile free agents coming to town.  How does all that work?

Durant, Westbrook, Kanter, Ibaka becomes the core (perfect for any number of 5th options).  Adams and Collison will get steady big guy minutes.  I think they'll try to get regular rotation minutes out of McGary in a tandem with Perry Jones in small ball swing-type lineups.  DJ Augustin just had a fine veteran season and they'll look to get (occasionally heavy) injury time minutes at PG.  That's the 9-man rotation with room to add more.

I don't think they re-sign Kyle Singler; that position is already over-covered on the Thunder roster (and doesn't Singler fit perfect in Cleveland?).  Dion Waiters has a team option going into 1yr/$5.5m; in order to make room for Kanter, I expect the Thunder to decline that option and for Waiters to hit the market.  Not a comment on his game but his contract.  (I think his game is terrible)

Novak, Lamb, Morrow and Roberson are similar enough players that a coupla them should probably be moved; I think I'd keep Morrow and try to flip the other 3 for another veteran PG. Roberson has another team option year after next but Novak and Lamb are each expiring contracts; might the Sixers be interested in parting with a 2nd round pick (they have 5 this year) for Roberson's rookie deal and Novak's expiring (whom they could then cut)?  

The #14 pick will be in the range of a player like PG Jerian Grant (Notre Dame) or PF Frank Kaminsky (Wisconsin) but I wonder if SEC-tested Donovan sees F Bobby Portis (Arkansas) as a nice protege to Durant (he's not Durant but he at least has a similar kinda game).  (If PF Willie Cauley-Stein falls to #14, I assure you Billy Donovan will eagerly, greedily scoop him up)  The Thunder also have the #48 pick which could be used to stash a Euro player for the future or could net them one of Kentucky's Harrison twins (unfairly maligned IMHO: they're big, they can shoot, they can handle, they're fearless, they've had ups and downs, I think they're gonna be good pros and brilliant 2nd round bargains) or perhaps both if they can jettison a body or two for a 2nd round pick.

I suspect their roster is pretty well set.  I don't foresee any big name free agents moving to OKC because the money just isn't there right now.  I think they could use more backup PG and everyone always needs a backup PF/C but outside of re-signing Kanter, I don't expect any big moves. They've got some players they can package but they're really looking to jettison rather than bring back; if they could swap for 2nd rounders they'd probably live with that.

Okay, the lottery ticket kicks into effect right now.  Not sure if its a golden ticket but one year from now we should have a pretty good idea of whether Donovan gets to keep the chocolate factory or if he goes out Veruca Salt-style.

The Biggest Domino

Last summer, LaMarcus Aldridge chose not to sign an extension but we all went away with the feeling that re-upping with Portland this summer was pretty much a done deal.  It seemed such a foregone conclusion that no one (well, I didn't anyway) really considered Aldridge to be on the market.  But drop a coupla playoff games on the road, add just the slightest hint of doubt and the speculation runs rampant.  Suddenly Aldridge is the biggest domino out there and where he chooses to play will affect a great many rosters.  We all assumed he'd be a Blazer but almost every team in the league is now in play.

Celtics: Aldridge, one more frisky free agent, a solid supporting cast, 200 draft picks on the way, one of the best coaches in the business...the Celtics could compete in the East right away.  They can afford him, they can fit him in the cap, it could happen.

Nets: If Lopez opts out suddenly the Nets have $17m to spend.  But they wouldn't load in on another big money free agent after botching move after move for the last few years...you bet they would!  In the world of Big Apple sports the only way out of your money problem is to spend more money.  Ask the #1 Hawks how much they'd like to run into the Nets with Aldridge next year in the playoffs?  (I'm betting not so much)

Knicks: You kidding?  Match made in heaven: Melo, Aldridge, Okafor, Rondo, coupla more kooky free agents, you got a team that could hang in the East and even be fun to watch.

Raptors: If I'm Aldridge and I've got a hundred places to go, Toronto is #101 on my list.  That said, it looks like that Raptor roster is gonna get the blow up, they'll be making moves and might could have big money to throw around.  Toronto is a beautiful town, Kyle Lowry is a helluva player (when he feels like it) and depending on who survives the roster cut, there might be a nice supporting cast ready to go.  Don't see it happening but its possible which could make them at least a buzzable news diversion.

Cavs: If Love splits and they let Mozgov walk, there would be money for Aldridge to join in with Lebron and Kyrie.  That trio could work: just let Kyrie have his x amount of shots, feed Aldridge enough to keep him happy, Lebron could go back to leading the team in assists and trying to win Defensive Player of the Year.  (And I think John Calipari runs screaming out of Lexington to coach that team)

Bucks: Think about that: Aldridge, Jabari, Antetokounpo, Middleton, MCW as your starting five.  Not bad.  That team would score some serious points, they could compete with the Cavs.

Pacers: If Roy Hibbert walks, there could be room on the floor and salary cap.  Aldridge won 50 games a year with Lillard in the West, how could he do with Paul George in the East?

Wizards: The inside-outside combo they could build with Aldridge, Wall, Beal and Pierce (if Aldridge is there, I'd stick around if I were Pierce) would just be a gorgeous thing of beauty.  The Wizards probably can't pull off a deal like that but if they sneak into the conference finals, maybe catch the Bulls sneaking in from the other side, the Wizards are actually possible contenders in the East.  That's gotta look impressive to a guy looking for a place he can win right away.

Magic: Some pieces would have to get moved around but Orlando has a fine collection of young talent, one strong presence in the middle to control the offense will make them all better.  That team would be better than you think.

10 out of 15 teams from the East.  That's just the East!  West:

Wolves, Jazz: Like the Magic they've got collections of young up and coming talent, probably not enough to lure in Aldridge but plopping him into those lineups would make them vastly better.  And both could make the necessary roster adjustments.

Nuggets: Aldridge as the steady offense in the middle allows Faried and Nurkic to be the tough  complementary guys, keep Ty Lawson, bring in some shooting, throw in a potato and you got yourself a stew.  (Yeah, there's no reason on earth that Aldridge would leave Portland for Denver, I'm just illustrating how awesome he could be in so many different places)

Clippers: If DeAndre Jordan moves on (looking more and more like he might) then suddenly the Clippers have cap space to bring in that 3rd regular offensive option they've needed.  Think about that: CP3, Blake and Aldridge together?  The D wouldn't be as good but the offense wouldn't stagnate any more, they'd be better-equipped to outscore people.  Two weeks ago that wouldn't have even occurred to me, now I'm curious to see it happen.

Lakers: Plenty money, plenty of scoring (with or without Kobe), plenty of hype, plenty of love, plenty of glory.  What b-baller doesn't at some point dream of being the centerpiece for the LA Lakers (fast-break makers)?  One more year of headache and then the Lakers should be good again, does Aldridge want to endure Kobe's last tour on the hope the Buss kids know what they're doing?

Pelicans: Aldridge and Anthony Davis surrounded by an ocean of shooting guards?  Sure, sounds batter than AD and Omer Asik and an ocean of shooting guards.

Rockets, Mavs, Spurs: The teams that made all this speculation possible, apparently all three are very interested in Aldridge.  Imagine the Mavs snagging Aldridge and Deande Jordan.  The Spurs with Kawhi and Aldridge?  Rockets with Harden and Aldridge?

Blazers: ....Uh, LaMarcus...remember us?...We had a handshake deal last summer?  You didn't answer my text....just wondered if something was wrong...I made breakfast and here's a max contract...just gonna leave it over here on the desk...just sign it whenever...okay, well...cool.

Do you see what I'm saying: Aldridge can combo with so many other players, he fits so many situations!  How was it that nobody saw that until the Grizzlies started laying the beatdown to the Blaze?  20 teams out there just waiting for a crack at this guy.

The 10 teams not in on Aldridge are of a few different types: Grizzlies (Gasol), Warriors (Draymond), Hawks (Millsapp), Pistons (Drummond) have to re-sign their own guys first which pretty much takes them out of the running for Aldridge.  Likewise Bulls, Heat and Thunder already have the big-money part of their rosters accounted for.

The other teams not in on Aldridge are teams that really need to take a look in the mirror and think about how they're living life: Sixers (no, no, no, not ready to win games or spend money), Hornets (they best thing they got is Al Jefferson, not much for Aldridge to get excited about), Suns (doesn't fit anything in their roster or their general gameplan...that fact probably ought to be Phoenix's wakeup call), Kings (couldn't even bring myself to imagine a world where Aldridge chooses the Kings).

So where does he go?  I suspect he wants to stay in Portland but how much of the supporting cast does he get to keep (and how much does he want to keep)?  Aldridge is the heart and soul of the Blazers, what more does he expect to get somewhere else?  A better chance to win means skipping those West teams and heading East; more money means staying in Portland; being closer to his hometown would put him in the Southwest Division.  (He's been on Portlandia, for christ's sake!  He can't wear a Mavs jersey, that would be so weird!)

LaMarcus Aldridge is the perfect illustration of the modern NBA: he can go anywhere and be rich and famous and really good at basketball, the stars of the league are their own individual entities above and beyond the teams they play for, and endorsement deals and media appearances can be gotten anywhere just as easily in this fiber optic age.  Does he want to win games or is there some other route to his happiness?  I dunno.  The media has got his mind all messed up right now but in the end I'm guessing he stays in Portland.

Playoffs (so far)

East

Hawks 2-2 Nets
The Nets have made the playoffs 3 straight years with 3 different coaches and never once looked like the championship contender their goofy Russian owner thinks he has.  They have enough talent to sleepwalk into the playoffs in the East but not enough to really challenge.  The Hawks were a great regular season team: they roll into your town on a Tuesday night, you think no big deal its just the Hawks, then they whip the ball around like the Spurs and you just got an L.  That's not how the playoffs work.  Playing the same team over and over again exposes your weaknesses and the Hawks haven't played their best basketball in a coupla months now.  Can the Nets really pull this series out?  I don't think so but the Hawks have to go win some ballgames, the Nets won't give up that easy.  I think the home team holds serve, Hawks in 7.

Cavs over Celtics in 4
Got chippy in the end: Love injured in a scrum with Olynyk, JR Smith suspended two games after knocking Crowder upside his head.  For a sweep it came with a lot of drama, we'll see how long it holds (if Love leaves Cleveland and Crowder leaves Boston, does anyone remember the kooky end of this series?).  The Cavs played just hard enough to win four games, easy peasy....'cept they'll be without Love and Smith when the Bulls come to town.  Lebron and Kyrie is probably good enough to get out of the East but they'll definitely have to figure it out.  And right quick.

Bulls 3-2 Bucks
This series is going like I originally thought...sorta.  I thought the Bucks would come in feisty, the Bulls would start sludgy, Bucks would sneak games 2 and 3.  The Bulls, stung from the rebuke, rally for 3 straight, winning game 6 in Milwaukee.  That is where the series currently is but not precisely how I thought they'd get here.  Instead the Bulls handily took the first two at home, stole game 3 from the sloppy youngsters and haven't bothered to play hard since.  The Bucks have outplayed the Bulls for 2.9999 of the last 3 games.  I thought the Bulls would be challenged and have their come to Jesus moment, I thought it would be earlier but now I guess I'm thinking this is it.  I thought the Bucks would win one in Chicago, I thought the Bulls would win two in Milwaukee.  Think I'm on track after all.  I'll take the Bulls in game 6.

Wizards over Raptors in 4
Are the Wizards that good or the Raptors that bad?  The winner of the Hawks-Nets series will provide the answer to that.  This Wizard team can beat the Hawks, especially a Hawks team that plays timid on the road and is suffering through some injuries....we'll see if this Wizard team really is a thing or if the Raptors are just terrible...and have transferred their fool's gold curse to the Wizards.  (cue: thunder and cacophonous laughter)  Not ready to look ahead for the Wizards just yet.


West

Warriors over Pelicans in 4
Yeah, this one went exactly to the script: Warriors are awesome, Pelicans are young and far from awesome.  Warriors did the merciful thing and killed them quickly.  I imagine those Warriors guys living out in the woods right now chopping firewood, meditating, getting the proper chi for the next round.

Rockets 3-1 Mavs
I thought the Mavs could hang but they're in turmoil, Rockets are rolling.  That said, the Mavs have veteran grit and they can score, so they snatched game 4 at home.  Not a shock.  I expect the Rockets to finish them off in game 5.

Clippers 2-2 Spurs
Going 7.  Right now it looks to me like a trio of 2-game winning streaks: Clippers won 1, Spurs won 2, now time for the Clippers to win 2 then the Spurs'll win 2.  We'll see if that holds.  I'll take the Clippers in game 5.

Grizzlies 3-1 Blazers
The Blazers looked pretty horrible in the first two games in Memphis but I thought their shooting touch would return back in Portland.  It didn't and the Grizzlies took the 3-0 lead...but then they lost Conley (still not sure what's up with him).  I don't see the Blazers winning four straight against the Grizzlies but without Conley, the Grizzlies aren't exactly loaded with scoring depth.  Game 5 in Memphis should be a pretty good match, my gut is the Grizzlies win and finish the series but if the Blazers can pull it out, they could make a run at the vulnerable Grizzlies.

2014-15 NBA Rookie of the Year

21 rookies played 1000 minutes this year.  Here they are by age.

19: Wiggins (2k+) (Wolves), LaVine (Wolves), Exum (Jazz)
20: Payton (2k+) (Magic), Noel (2k+) (Sixers), Smart (Celtics), Grant (Sixers), Nurkic (Nuggets)
21: McDaniels (Sixers/Rockets), Sampson (Sixers), Stauskus (Kings)
22: Clarkson (Lakers), Hood (Jazz)
23: Mirotic (Bulls), Galloway (Knicks), Black (Rockets/Lakers), Napier (Heat)
24: Ennis (Heat)
25: Bogdanovic (Nets)
27: Ingles (Jazz)
28: Rudez (Pacers)

I'm a stickler for usage (Minutes Played, Minutes Per, Games Played).  Your three top candidates for Rookie of the Year (Wiggins, Noel, Payton) played the most minutes, I think that is no coincidence. For the MVP Award or 6th Man or even Coach, I think it is important to prize usage above all, efficiency next: we must respect the work performed and respect the surplus value of stars and players, to go beyond to the numbers to reward the intangibles of hard work.  Those awards are backward, not forward, looking.

But for Rookie of the Year I don't think it matters so much to compare the years they just had.  The other awards are about rigorously comparing the accumulated awesomeness of the past season to see who was the best.  But ROY should be about looking to the future, this is an award of future projection not past performance.

A pro pos: Andrew Wiggins clearly and easily had the finest year of any of this rookie class, there were other fine players but no rookie can honestly say they had as productive a year as Wiggins.  That said, Wiggins wasn't an all-star this year.  The Wolves were fun to watch but they're still looking to add another #1 pick to their roster.  They didn't win many games or come close to winning many games.  Wiggins, as good as he was, did little to move the needle for the Wolves team on the court.  Nor did he dominate all-star voting or receive any DPOY or MVP votes.  He had a fine season but for the purposes of ROY, it is more important to note that he had a promising season.  That is the ROY, no?  The most promising going forward, the top prospect of this class.  I anticipate Wiggins will win the award (probably by a ton) and I think that's a reasonable choice.

But in the world of promising, I can say I saw enough of Jabari Parker in 25 games to think that he could be (and I think will be) a better player than Wiggins.  I reckon Parker will get some 3rd place votes, I wouldn't be shocked or appalled to see him get 1st place votes, I think he earned a few even in a diminished season.  Wiggins had the better year, he played 50 more games than Parker and that's awesome, but the ROY isn't about productivity so far, it's about promise going forward.  I think Parker is every bit as promising going forward.

I suspect Julius Randle will hit the ground running next year and have a fine, perhaps even Wiggins-like, campaign.  (Damn, Julius had his rookie season just handed to him...no Nash, no Kobe, no Pau, no one else to shoot the ball, take over games and NO EXPECTATIONS at all.  He could've sucked and still been a hero.  Damn shame to see a young athlete in his prime spending time off the (court) especially when it was all laid out for him to just play basketball)  But he won't get to call himself a rookie next year (14 minutes played in 2014-15), so Randle is of this class.  Can we say that he is promising?  Yeah but 14 minutes isn't enough to really be certain.  Whereas I saw plenty of Jabari's minutes (probably watched damn near all of them, Bucks were my favorite League Pass before New Year's) to think he can play in this league and contribute to a good team.

Should Randle get votes?  I say no.  We saw none of Embiid (he'll be a ROY candidate next year) and while we may say he is promising, I have now seen Embiid's competition while seeing no more of Embiid.  I saw enough Parker to know that kid can play.  Randle, on the other hand, is basically no different in prospect-ness than Embiid: I still see him in his college uni, he is not yet a pro to me.

All that said...I can't take Parker as ROY.  I've got to go with Wiggins.  Not necessarily the all round best of this class at every phase of the game but in the discussion in all phases of the game.  My only knock on his numbers: his asst:to is actually pretty terrible.  You don't need big asst numbers from him but you're expecting the offense to run through him at all times, he's gonna get a lot of touches, he needs to become more sure with the ball.  His shooting will improve, his rebounding and defense will improve, his ball handling, his decision-making needs to improve; physically he showed he's got all the tools, its as sharp and lucky as he can make himself that will determine his relative awesomeness.

I will take Parker 2nd.  For all the reasons I kept hinting at above: he's got promise.  He can handle himself in the lane, he can score, he can rebound, good shot blocker, good on-ball defender, he's got size and speed and uniqueness to his game.  He didn't play as many minutes or have as productive a season as Wiggins or Payton or Noel but going forward, I am more comfortable saying that Parker will be a great player than I would be about, say, Payton or Noel.  I think all three will be fine players but Parker looks to have the highest ceiling.

I'll take Payton 3rd and Noel 4th.  My pre-season pick was that Payton and Noel would split the award (I couldn't choose, I assumed the world wouldn't be able to either).  My rationale was the same for both: they'd get plenty of playing time and they'd be able to play their own games, they wouldn't have to fit into some crazy scheme on the court (or some uncomfortable media narrative off the court).  I thought Payton and Noel would both be able to flourish by just playing basketball.  I was kinda right.  They both had fine rookie seasons in the roles I imagined for them.  They were productive and promising.  That said, I think Payton is a Rondo-style PG in an increasingly non-Rondo-friendly uiniverse, I hope he can pick up his FG%, 3p%, FT% and become a dangerous scorer in addition to his ball-movement skills.  We'll see if he can add dimensions to his game.  I thought Noel could be a DPOY-type player and I think we saw some of that this year.  He's a natural born shotblocker, an eraser in front of the rim, and a top notch rebounder, I questioned how much he would score and we can perhaps hope that he'll pick up his FT% and become a little more confident around the rim.  He's got the body, he had a fine rookie year, I think his defensive skills will make him a feared player (and coveted free agent) though I'm confident Wiggins and Jabari will be better scorers.

#5-#7: Smart (needs to improve his efficiency but so energetic, lightning rod, a hustler, teams need guys like that), LaVine (sloppy but that kid can play, highlight reel athletic, good ball handler, good passer, nice defender), Mirotic (not great at anything but pretty good at everything, confident shooter, variable on both ends of the court, teams needs guys like that).

#8: I'll take Randle.  In some sense what ROY is who's gonna have the best 2nd season?  Which guy shone out enough this year to make us think he's gonna be awesome next year?  Randle will always be compared to these guys and I think he'll have a Wiggins-like season next year for the Lakers (certain about one thing: the Lakers will be a vastly different team next year, not sure they'll be good but they'll be different), which would be pretty good.  I liked a lot of rookies but I think Randle's upside could still be pretty good.

After that I just had vague categories to put guys in.

Pretty sure they can play (not necessarily stars but they look to be good contributors, regular rotation guys who maybe could still blow up): Exum (Jazz), Clarkson (Lakers), Bogdanovic (Nets), McDaniels (Rockets), Galloway (Knicks), McGary (Thunder), Nurkic (Nuggets), Jerami Grant (Sixers), Napier (Heat),  Hood (Jazz), Aaron Gordon (Magic), Stauskus (Kings), Ennis (Heat), Ingles (Jazz), Rudez (Pacers), Tyler Johnson (Heat), Capela (Rockets), Payne (Wolves)

Maybe they can play, I dunno (some of these guys will catch on, some won't): Dinwiddie (Pistons), Lauvargne (Nuggets), Gary Harris (Nuggets), Young (Celtics), Wear (Knicks), Hairston (Hornets), Warren (Suns), Vonleh (Hornets), Brown (Nets), Millsap (Jazz), Aldemir (Sixers), McDermott (Bulls), Sampson (Sixers), Papanikolau (Rockets), Joe Harris (Cavs)

I have no idea (a lot of these guys will be out of the league 1 year from now, some of them will keep getting dem checks, some may even become fo-real-ass regular pro ballers...couldn't tell you which ones): Jefferson (Nets), Early (Knicks), Bairstow (Bulls), Adams (Grizzlies), Kirk (Cavs), Smith (Pelicans), Johnson (Rockets), Dawkins (Heat), Marble (Magic), Anderson (Spurs), Cherry (Cavs), Green (Nuggets), Gordon (Sixers), Whittington (Pacers), Robinson (Wolves), Stokes (Grizzlies), Zoran Dragic (Heat), Powell (Celtics), Moreland (Kings), Lucas (Grizzlies), Jerrett (Thunder), Wilcox (Clippers), O'Bryant (Bucks), Christopher (Jazz), McAdoo (Warriors), Green (Spurs), Drew (Sixers), Benimon (Jazz), Cooley (Jazz), Stockton (Kings), Cotton (Jazz), Frazier (Sixers), Bhullar (Kings), McNeal (Suns), David Wear (Kings), Kilpatrick (Wolves), Brown (Lakers)

Post-Season (so far)

East

Hawks up 2-0 on Nets
Yeah, this one's pretty much where it ought to be.  I can see the Nets taking Game 3 at home, they've got talent, there's just no cohesion, no urgency, no one steps up on that team.  But they're competitive and at home they should get enough of a boost to take at least one game at home, maybe both.  The Hawks are clearly the better team, the more driven team, the squad in rhythm, but I think the Nets can make them work for it.

Cavs up 3-0 on Celtics
Yeah, this one's pretty much where it ought to be.  The Celtics are playing hard, competing but even the Cavs on cruise control are a better team.  Right now the Cavs seem to be consciously trying to get K Love to play some offense and pleased as punch as the fine play of Tristan Thompson; Lebron and Kyrie are saving up the real play for the next round.  I go back and forth btw two scenarios for Game 4: Celtics play gutty and tough, steal one from the Cavs (a la the Sixers stealing a game off the Heat in 2011), the Cavs say all the right things about winning back at home or Lebron recognizes that the Celtics are up and coming, refuses to throw even a bone to the Celtic crowd and the Cavs are up by 20 going into the 4th; one of those (think I'm leaning to the latter, Lebron wants to get some villain back).  

Bulls up 3-0 on Bucks
Yeah, this one's pretty much where it ought to be.  The Bucks made 'em sweat last night and may well pull out Game 4, but that's as good as they're going to get.  Good effort from the Bucks, they should be better next year.  The Bulls are playing well, though I'm not sure the Cavs are quaking.  (I predicted the Bulls would pull together, go for the next gear and get past the Cavs....we'll see)

Wizards up 3-0 Raptors
Hmmmm, definitely this one would be more competitive.  Here's what I think I've realized about Kyle Lowry: when things are optimistic, he's great; when things are pessimistic, he's awful on and off the court.  The Raptors have a lot of nice players, just no identity or toughness.  The Wizards are the bizarro-Raptors: ditto the comment about Lowry but the Wizards are pulling it out, they're optimistic, they're rolling. They won a playoff series last year, looks like they'll sweep the Raptors out this year. I thought the Wizards would be a better regular season team than they were, didn't think they'd be as good a post-season team...I guess they continue to confound me.  They're a moody team.  I think they win Game 4.


West
Warriors up 3-0 on Pelicans
I was skeptical of the Pelicans even getting into the playoffs (they already traded away their pick so I guess it was playoffs or nothing all along), thought the Warriors would beat them so bad that even the playoff experience had the possibility of being acidic.  I think Game 3 is precisely what I envisioned: like most Americans I had long since stop paying attention to the game...then look up and see the Warriors are down by 3 with a minute to go.  Wtf?  Look, man, the Warriors score in bunches, they're a streak team, a rhythm team.  The Pelicans just didn't have enough to finish it out.  Can the Pelicans win Game 4?  No.  Why would they bother anyway?  A beating is coming, do you want it at home or back in Oakland?

Rockets up 3-0 on Mavs
Thought the Mavs would be more competitive but Tyson Chandler is all alone trying to stop the Smiff-Howard combo and Terrence Jones is unusually frisky against the Dirk-Amare platoon.  Even with Parsons and Rondo I don't think the Mavs can score enough or play enough D to hang.  James Harden hasn't even really heated up and the Rockets are whooshing the Mavs away.  I'd like to say that veteran savvy and grit could win the Mavs Game 4 but I just don't see it unless Harden, Howard and Smiff all take the day off.

Spurs up 2-1 on Clippers
Man, the Spurs just devoured the Clippers in Game 3!  Game 1 looks like the Spurs were just experimenting; Game 2 was the counter-attack; Game 3 was the clampdown.  I reckon Game 4 is gonna look like Game 3.  The Clippers will be fighting for their lives back home in Game 5.  Spurs are well-positioned to win it in 6.  The Clippers just don't have the variety of offense and if the Spurs in a smothering mode, it could get ugly.  This one's not over though, Griffin is dominating at the rim and Jordan is playing well inside, if Paul and Crawford shoot at a good percentage, they can win games.  This one's not over.

Grizzlies up 2-0 on Blazers
While I think the Grizzlies are the better team and they're playing better right now, I don't think they're unbeatable.  The Blazers are weaker without Wesley Matthews but once they get back home I think they can win games.  I still think this one goes seven games.

Defensive Player of the Year

Your 2014-15 NBA (insert sponsor)'s Defensive Player of the Year is Kawhi Leonard.  Draymond Green was a close 2nd place, Deandre Jordan a distant 3rd.  The others receiving 1st place votes: Anthony Davis, Rudy Gobert, Tony Allen, Tim Duncan.  I gotta say I don't agree.

Before looking over the players that got votes, think of some of the guys that received zero votes this year: Tyson Chandler, Klay Thompson, Giannis Antetokounpo, Dwight Howard, Omer Asik, John Henson, Kenneth Faried, Serge Ibaka, Jae Crowder, Michael Carter-Williams, Zach Randolph, Taj Gibson, Marcus Smart, KJ McDaniels being the first ones off the top of my head.  Some good defensive players in there that got no love whatsoever.

I watch a lot of basketball and I like digging into the numbers but I can't say I am any great judge of what makes a good defender. I'm pretty good about seeing the flow of team defense and play away from the action but, like most sports fans, I watch the ball too much for my own good.  Defensive statistics are a fairly new thing in basketball (baseball too) and so far they are minimal and vague; I'll just assume the algorithm that makes up the defensive ratings makes sense and is actually a worthwhile indicator (50/50 it isn't worthwhile and we're wasting our time looking a broken clock, just throwing that out there for those that presume numbers are necessarily meaningful).  But I can't make a reasonable case for any of those guys I named that received no votes (though my gut tells me they're all badasses).

The others that received votes: Andrew Bogut, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Jimmy Butler, Marc Gasol, Joakim Noah, Trevor Ariza, Lebron James, Patrick Beverley, Demarre Carrol, Chris Paul, Hassan Whiteside.  Another fine collection of players, I can't complain with the voting in general.

But of the top 7, look at where the rank in terms of Minutes Played: Jordan (7th), Green (31st), Davis (34th), Duncan (72nd), Gobert (79th), Leonard (102nd), Allen (166th).

I'm a believer in usage, guys contribute when they play, not when they don't (except for Dion Waiters, ha!).  To be a truly important, decisive, award-worthy player you've got to be in the top 60 in terms of usage.  Why 60?  30 teams, 2 players from each team would make a top 60 roughly.  You've gotta be one of the top two guys on your own team to really be considered a high level 'useful' player league-wide.  I don't mean to suggest that Duncan, Gobert, Kawhi or Allen are unworthy players, only that they shouldn't really qualify for consideration for all-season honors.  You've got to play to get consideration.  (Top 60 is just a guidepost, let's be generous and say top 100)

The narrative on Kawhi is that his return to the lineup was a catalyst for the Spurs season; okay, fine.  But his offense is just as important (probably more so) than his defense, so this narrative should be most effectively made toward the MVP award rather than the DPOY.  Is anyone going to give Kawhi a 1st place for MVP?  No, he didn't play enough games.  If he's not an MVP candidate why is he a DPOY candidate?  He's a great player, a decisive player, the best player on the team, but I can't say he gave the largest, most indelible contribution to his own team, so how can he be the best (anything) in the entire league?  He's a great defender but he didn't produce enough this season to earn this honor.  He's not even in the top 100 in Minutes Played, man, there are a lot of guys out there that have a better claim to this award and I think the writers (or whoever) have done Kawhi a disservice because Kawhi will get opportunities to win this award in the future because he's a great player with a great coach.  But this year he didn't deserve it.

My pre-season pick was Jordan and I'm impressed that he acquitted himself well on the court this year.  He was there night after night for a team that relied primarily on his defense.  (How can you put Kawhi ahead of that?)

Green was perhaps the Most Improved player in the league this year.  And his contribution to the team fit a specific need that kept the team rolling.  Green is a good offensive player but really it was his defense that kept the Warriors in place.  (Green played 15 more games and 300 more minutes than Kawhi and his team won 12 more games than the Spurs, how does someone vote for Kawhi instead?)

I'd take Green overall and Jordan 2nd.  Seems to me these guys are easily the two best choices, 3rd place is a distant drop though I'd say Davis, Paul, and Gobert would round out my top five.

Coach of the Year (update)

As I wrote just yesterday: either Brooks is blamed for everything and run out of town or the GM values stability and doubles down on the coach that KD and Westbrook have tolerated for the last few years.  If OKC thinks they can get a coach that Westbrook and KD will like better, I reckon Brooks is out; if they think another coach would just muck up the chemistry, then I reckon Brooks gets an extension. 

And we have our answer: Brooks is out in OKC.  Durant and Westbrook are certainly going to tantazlize any number of out of work coaches--even some of the ones with a job already.  But....the rest of the roster is so-so, seemingly inflexible, the West is brutal and it is very possible both of those guys are gone in two years.  Does John Calipari want this job?  (Sorry Cal is my default for all coaching maneuvers)  No.  Kentucky is better, more controllable, more predictable, greater potential for success (which in the long run means more money).  So who coaches the Thunder next year?

Kevin Ollie has already been whispered about.  Billy Donovan seems ready for a change of scenery, not sure he's a natural born NBA coach (uptight, self-absorbed screamer type).  Coach Thibs seems to have worn out his welcome in Chicago (though we'll see if a great playoff run gets him an extension). Dwayne Casey might be looking for a job if the Raptors get rolled by the Wiz.  Does Mark Jackson wanna come back and coach Durant and Westbrook?  Fred Hoiberg is the (theoretical) replacement for Thibs in Chicago but what if Thibs keeps his job?  Would Hoiberg wanna coach OKC?  Brian Shaw is out there, wasn't that long ago he was considered a golden child.  Larry Brown?  (I'm guessing all those guys would love this job and another half dozen others I haven't even thought of yet)

Where does Scott Brooks go?  I don't see him as a college guy, so let's look only to the league.  I think it takes him a while to get another head coaching gig but he's ideal for a bench coaching gig.   How about on Jason Kidd's bench in Milwaukee?  A squad loaded with up-and-comers, he could work those players, get the Kidd imprimatur (without being a threat to take Kidd's gig) for a coupla years then put his resume to work.  I think the Bucks will rise nicely in the East for the next 2-3 years, not a bad place to work.  Or perhaps a coupla years basking in the Flip-KG atmosphere in Minnesota.

Pointless Trade Idea

There looks to be a lot of free agent movement this summer.  This could lead to more sign-and-trade deals allowing players to maximize pay while teams maximize roster/cap flexibility.  An example.

Rajon Rondo clearly does not fit with the Mavs.  He expected to play hard this year (whether in Boston or elsewhere) and get a big money deal this off-season.  I don't think that big money deal is out there (even the Lakers, who are certainly foolhardy enough to give Rondo big money, may find even foolhardier options available) and there are frankly only a coupla places he could play even at so-so money.  So where does he get big money?  (He does not)  Where does he get to play big minutes?  (Not a lot of places)

Rondo could play with the Bulls.  And by that I mean he could play with Noah.  To my mind Noah is the one running that offense (a la Marc Gasol, Chris Webber, Sabonis), his hands are sure hands and having them on the ball never makes the coach sweat (this is a soccer quality or maybe hockey), running the offense through him might not be sexy but it will be efficient, clean and productive.  Rondo can play off of Noah, playing a 2-man game to set up Pao, D Rose, Butler, Mirotic (I think Dunleavy's gone next year).  Noah gets his settling touches, Rondo can dominate the ball without having to score, the other guys can set up and play off the ball just fine; Rondo fits the defensive scheme to a T (Rondo and Noah could be a wicked defensive duo).  The Bulls are the one place that I think Rondo can really be old time Rondo again and make a good team better.

But the Bulls don't have money to spend.  If they could jettison contracts, then Rondo becomes somewhat affordable (if he's willing to backload a deal, the Bulls could afford to overpay as the cap expands).  The way for Rondo to get to the Bulls (or any number of places) is much easier as a sign-and-trade than as a free agent signing.  The Mavs need bodies on their roster so a sign-and-trade could be advantageous for them.

How about this: Rondo re-signs for 1st year/$10m, that matches well with Taj Gibson (2 yrs/$8.5 next year) and Tony Snell (2 yrs/$1.5m next year).  Taj Gibson is falling through the cracks in Chicago (not unlike Omer Asik, Brad Miller, Ron Artest, Elton Brand, Tyson Chandler--Bulls got a history), but I think his poor man's Tyson Chandler routine fits with Coach Carlisle and that's not a bad deal over the next 2 years (with or without Tyson Chandler).  Snell is a backup but he's cheap enough to keep as a 3rd string guy, he'll get minutes (if he can get hot as a shooter he can be a star in Dallas).

Bulls get to bring in a star and let go of two guys that weren't gonna play anyway.  Can the Mavs leverage more from the Bulls for Rondo?  Probably but I wouldn't think the Bulls would be into getting gutted for Rondo.  Let's say the Bulls throw in a 2016 2nd round pick and a 2020 2nd round pick (protected).  Rondo for Taj, Snell and 2 2nd round draft picks?  I think Rondo works for the Bulls and the Mavs could use affordably priced bodies.

Keep an eye out for sign-and-trades this year within the usual free agent movement this summer.

Coach of the Year

Mike Budenholzer (Hawks) is your 2014-15 NBA (fill in sponsor) Coach of the Year.  Kerr (Warriors) was 2nd, followed by Jason Kidd (Bucks) and Brad Stevens (Celtics).  Budenholzer and Kerr were the clear top 2 choices, both teams vastly exceeded last year with minimal roster moves.  Perhaps its foolhardy to assume the coach gets all the credit...but that's how we do it.  Let's look over each team and how they were coached this year.

EAST
Hawks: The only real difference btw this year's squad and last year's squad is the return of Al Horford (a great season btw) and the exiles of Lou Williams (to Toronto), Adriean Payne (to Minnesota) and GM Danny Ferry (to wherever it is Danny Ferry hangs out).  The same team from last year grew together and got career years out of everybody.  Coach Bud deserve all the credit?  Yeah, sure, I guess.  Its a good roster all on the same page.  I love that with this Hawks team everyone shoots 3's, everyone!  That'll keep any defense off balance.  Budenholzer is a good coach, had a good year.

Cavs: Can Lebron win Coach of the Year?  He's the coach, right?  David Blatt flew in from a different world and before he could even hang up posters, his team was taken over by a ghost returned from Miami.  Hard to tell what Blatt's influence is.  My gut feeling is if Love stays, Blatt goes and vice versa.  Blatt doesn't get any of the credit if/when they win, we'll see how much of the blame comes to him if/when they lose.  Can't really tell if Blatt is a good coach or had a productive year.

Bulls: For years Coach Thibs has kept plucky youngsters overacheiving by being a rugged taskmaster and stressing team defense above all.  That style works for a while and then wears people out.  The buzz all year long (really going back a coupla years now) is that the franchise has wearied of Thibs and that he's probably on his way out (New Orleans?  OKC?  Would he be up for being an assistant in Cleveland to Coach Calipari?  Orlando might be the best spot for him).  All year long I've wondered why the Bulls weren't better: they got a great maturation year out of Butler, added an excellent year from Pau, got a strong rookie campaign from Mirotic, fir Dunleavy and Brooks back to their proper rotation spots, D Rose had a solid return season and while Taj Gibson kinda floundered, Doug McDermott never got in the game and D Rose was out of action for long chunks of the season, seems to me the Bulls should have improved more than they did.  Oh well, this team is solid enough that they cruised to 3rd place in the East without much effort, they were looking ahead to the playoffs anyway.  Coach Thibs didn't seem to have much impact on this team: a new and different squad somehow managed to play just like last year...that doesn't seem right at all...I'd say Thibodeau was playing for the playoffs all year long, if the Bulls come out of the East, then he will have shown himself to be Coach of the Year.  But for the regular season alone, Thibs isn't even in the conversation, I'd say.

Raptors: The Hawks brought back the same squad as last year and dominated the East.  The Raptors brought back the same squad and dominated the East...for a month or so.  Somewhere around Xmas time, the bloom came off the rose and even though they were all still having good years, the Raptors were not the steady regular season juggernaut team that the Hawks became.  So were the saving it for the playoffs?  Do the Raptors have another gear to get to?  Ehhh, I'm dubious.  I thought the Raptors would overacheive and as a result I thought Dwayne Casey would be a popular pick for Coach of the Year by this time.  4th place is nice but its not a sign of a great season.  Casey not in my top ten for Coach of the Year.

Wizards: Like the Raptors, I thought the Wizards would be a good regular season team that could be really dangerous come playoff time; and in that scenario, Randy Whittman would emerge a great candidate for Coach of the Year.  But the Wizards have mostly floundered along and the team itself seems raggedy and unbrotherly; whereas last year the Wizards were playing their best basketball going into the playoffs (where they easily smacked down the overacheiving Bulls), this year they seem spent and they haven't even started.  There could be a locker room cancer at work lowering the morale, but no one seems to fit that role.  Only conclusion: the coach is weak, nobody likes him, he doesn't know what he's doing, he's unable to provide cohesion for his squad.  Maybe details will emerge but until then the disappointing look and feel of this team falls squarely on the coach.  Whittman is not in my top 20.

Bucks: At the beginning of the year, Jason Kidd was one of the many question marks about the Bucks.  The Bucks were awful last year but not really that bad, that roster was more ready to compete than a #1 pick kinda team usually is, so I'm not surprised they were much better this year.  But the emergence of Antetokounpo, Middleton and Dudley, getting the most out of Knight, easing MCW into the framework, letting go of Larry Sanders, getting over the loss of Jabari, all examples of what a tumultuous year this was for the Bucks.  There was a lot going on there and they responded with their best finish in ages.  This is an obvious one: if Kidd was a bad coach, this year would've been a mess thus he must be a good coach because most things worked out pretty good.  Kidd is a top 5 choice for Coach of the Year.

Celtics: I thought the Celtics would be a dumpster fire this year.  Rondo and Green loomed over the team, neither promising a happy finish.  The team seemed primed for a tank job.  But Stevens is a hell of a coach, man.  He keeps them falling out of games, he keeps the team competitive.  Purging Rondo and Green was a boon for the team and giving Coach Stevens players like Isiah Thomas, Jae Crowder, Marcus Smart leads to hustle and productivity.  I like Stevens, he's the real star of the team, Stevens is the guy that'll lure free agents for the next few years.  The fact that a coach can will a bad team to be a pretty good (or at least 'promising') team is impressive.  Stevens is a top 5 choice for Coach of the Year.

Nets: The Nets have made the playoffs 3 straight years with 3 different coaches...yet we all know that the Nets suck, have for years, and will for years.  Shouldn't we think that Hollins did a good job of taking a low morale, low efficiency team and getting them into the playoffs.  Isn't that a Disney narrative there for us to latch on to?  Why aren't we latching on?  (Shouldn't we retroactively give Jason Kidd consideration for last year's Coach of the Year award?)  Sitting on my couch, looking over the box scores, that feels like a squad of guys getting paychecks instead playing basketball.  Hollins seems like one of those guys too.

Pacers: At the start of the year to me there were two ways the Pacers could go: flame out horribly and play for ping pong balls or they can buckle down, play with veteran intensity and figure out how to win games.  I figured they were more likely to go the former route rather than the latter because even buckling down and playing smart didn't look like it would generate enough offense to win games.  They struggled to score last year with Paul George and Lance Stephenson, I just assumed that without them there was not enough defense to counter that lack of offense.  But the Pacers really did compete night and night, held together, bunker-style, got a wildly underappreciated season out of Rodney Stuckey (my #2 choice for 6th Man of the Year), and held their identity right down to the final day of the season.  Hey, man, I'm impressed.  I credit Larry Bird for not panicking and Frank Vogel for keeping the guys playing professional basketball.  If they'd made the playoffs, Vogel would be in my top 5, but he's easily top 10.

Heat: The world waited breathlessly to see how Coach Spo would adjust to being Lebron-less.  They lost McRoberts early on, lost Bosh later on, Wade played his usual in and out of the lineup maneuver, and though they didn't really exploit Goran Dragin, they can herald the emergence of Hassan Whiteside and a promising rookie season from Shabazz Napier. Next year the Heat look like they should be pretty good (starting five: Dragic, Wade, McRoberts, Bosh, Whiteside), we'll get a better look at Coach Spo then.  This year Spoelstra did well to hold it together.  (I bet next year he'll get more votes for Coach of the Year)

Hornets: I wasn't sold on the Hornets last year, I thought losing McRoberts was going to hurt, wasn't too impressed with the signings of Marvin Williams and Lance Stephenson, not sure why I thought the team would improve.  They didn't improve, they were pretty bad really.  Kemba looks lost, Big Al did not repeat his prior good year, neither MKG nor Zeller took a step forward, Noah Vonleh did not shine out this year, Lance was a disaster, Marvin Williams was not a good signing.  I don't like anything about this team and while I think the GM is really the problem, I can't say as I have much faith in the coach either.  Coach ? is not in my top 20.

Pistons: Stan Van Gundy has tough task ahead of him.  Good year?  I dunno.  I don't know how we could know.  Detroit is a town that with an NBA legacy so you hope that school spirit can help the Pistons rise from the ashes.  But, man, that roster is a mess, it'll still be a mess next year, maybe in two years we'll see something out of the Pistons.  Stan Van a good coach?  I'd like to think so but not this year.

Magic: Here's what the Magic hoped to get out of this season: fine rookie seasons out of Gordon and Payton, good maturation years out of Oladipo, Harris and Vucevic, see if Harkless, Fournier are keepers, and hope the Frye, Ben Gordon, Ridenour signings look stupid.  Notice that making the playoffs was not one of the milestones Orlando even hoped to achieve this year.  Payton had a hell of a season and its clear he can play with Oladipo, Vucevic is a good candidate for Most Improved, Tobias Harris needs to be signed, Frye is okay (Gordon and Ridenour should both be put of my misery), Aaron Gordon had some injuries but seems like he's gonna be fine.  Harkless, Dedmon and Fournier look like keepers...so did the Magic have a bad season?  No.  They had a great season!  All of the above and they saved money and ended up with a top 5 pick!  Great season!  So how do we measure the contributions of the Vaughn/Borrego tandem?  I dunno.  But neither of those guys can finish in the top 20 can they?

Sixers: The Sixers are designed to lose games but bring young players along.  Coach Brown seems like he knows what he's doing, I hope that when they are finally capable of success that Brown is still there to get some of the spoils too.  How do you rank a coach like Brown?  Easily in my top 20, maybe my top 10.

Knicks: The Knicks are terrible, nothing but terrible, nothing good happened this year.  Don't want to blame new coach Derek Fisher but can't credit him with anything either.  Fisher is not in my top 20.

Coach of the Year (part 2)

West

Warriors: I had the Warriors improving this season but they exceeded my expectations by a long shot. With this team (unlike the Hawks) you can see changes from the previous years basically in the play of 3 dudes: Harrison Barnes, Draymond Green, Andre Iguodala.  Kerr used Barnes correctly, was able to convince Iguodala (and Lee) to take a lesser role, and oversaw the emergence of Green (personally, I think Green would've still been a badass under Mark Jackson, Kerr was lucky enough to be there when he blossomed).  Add in a typical maturation year from Thompson and a healthy year from Bogut, then Curry is allowed to just do what he does best: he's better at expanding a lead than hitting the last shot to win it (he's a piler-onner more than a rescuer).  Kerr streamlined the offense, tightened the defense, got the most out of his parts.  He'd be my choice for Coach of the Year.

Rockets: At the beginning of the year, Coach McHale was one of the popular choices for an early firing.  Nope.  2nd best record in the West, suck on that!  The James Harden show worked better than I thought it would, exceeded everyone's expectations (we'll see how far he can carry that in the playoffs).  How much credit does McHale deserve?  Well, he didn't screw it up.  He didn't get in the way but there's nothing I can really point to and say that's the McHale effect.  I don't know where to put McHale, top 20 I guess.

Clippers: I thought the Clippers would roll this year, not so much but they had a really good season, so can't complain.  The Clippers, though, have post-season expectation so for the regular season his coaching doesn't seem that integral.  That top 6 (CP3, Reddick, Barnes, Deandre, Blake and Jamal off the bench) is pretty great.  Man, after that though, oooooohhhh, doesn't look good.  You'd think the coach wold make the most out of that, right?  Then why does it look like Austin Rivers is gonna get the 7th most minutes played this post-season?  That top 6 can beat the Spurs, the next 4 will lose to the Spurs.  As the Spurs get into the bullpen, they'll score plenty.  (Weird: This series will go 7 games but I can see the first 6 games being blowouts, home team will crush for the first 6 games)  So how's the coach?  Doc the Coach is cursed by Doc the GM, the guy who still has Turkoglu, Big Baby and Austin (can we call him 'Little Baby'?) on the roster.  I dunno, finishing 3rd in the West doesn't seem like the correct place to judge his season.  Doc is in my top 20, maybe top 10.

Blazers: I expected the Blazers to falter this year as their starters logged more and more minutes (or got hurt).  I don't know much about Coach Stotts, I thought if the Blazers dipped in the table (out of the playoffs I thought), then Stotts could be sent packing.  Stotts seems like an integral part of the vibe but really this team goes as far as Lillard and Aldridge can carry them, not sure it matters who the coach is.  And since the coach's strategy is to continually use and abuse his starters, I figured maybe the Blazers would be better without him.  But they overachieved this year, easily made the playoffs even without Matthews.  Still, though, I don't know what to make of Stotts because I don't get the Blazers at all.

Grizzlies: As much as any team I can think of recently, it feels like the Grizz thrive on the relationships of the players more than the scheme on the court or even the roster construction.  When Gasol-Conley-Zebo-Allen are groovin' they can hang with anyone in the league; if any one of those guys is off, the Grizzly bench doesn't step up as much as need be.  I think the Grizzlies can win at home in the playoffs but I don't like them on the road.  The coach is the guy that needs to make the most of the non-core players.  Not sure Coach Joerger is that guy.  Joerger is probably top 20 but not top 10.

Spurs: I love Coach Popovich almost as much as I love basketball itself.  (John Lennon thought rock and roll could be called Chuck Berry, I think basketball can be called Coach Pop)  I thought the Spurs would hum through the regular season, cruise through the West, crush whoever in the Finals; the Spurs actually kinda sucked for the first 2 months, didn't really get right til the All-Star break, closed strong...but then curiously dropped the last game in New Orleans (one of the clearest conspiracy theory talking points of the entire season), fell from 2nd down to 6th.  The masterstroke move at the end of the year backfired and left them playing the Clippers, who can beat them.  So did Coach Pop have a good season?  If they beat the Pelicans, Pop gets serious Coach of the Year consideration; if they lose, how can you give Coach of the Year to the defending champion that finished 6th while enduring no great hardship?  Well he's still in my top 5.

Mavs: I thought the Mavs would improve this season up into the top 4 in the West; they seemed well on their way to doing that til they panic-moved for Rondo and shot their offense in the foot.  They still had enough talent, veteran grit and (yep) coaching smarts to secure a playoff spot in the West (against the potentially beatable Rockets).  Though he openly fought with his high profile contract year PG, I think Coach Carlisle did pretty well to keep the wheels from falling off.  The GM did him no favors this year and that has to factor in.  Carlisle definitely in my top 10.

Pelicans: The thought pre-season was suspicion that Monte Williams wasn't good enough to coach Anthony Davis and he'd probably be pushed aside for a more high profile candidate (Calipari, Thibodeau, Karl, Donovan, D'antoni, Mike Brown, Larry Brown is always just a phone call away (couldn't Ben Howland coach in the NBA?)) and that only making the playoffs could save his job...which is (theoretically) what happened.  I was of a different view: I thought Williams had a rapport with AD that would save his job, since the problem is the horrible roster construction rather than x's and o's.  I'm not sure any of the above is true.  I guess Williams stays, I don't think he's horrible but I don't think he's great either, and either way the horrible roster construction is what is bad about the team and Anthony Davis is all that is good...not really much for the coach to do.  Why fire the guy your star likes when the situation isn't really ready for a high profile coach anyway?  Williams is a middle of the pack coach (that's probably better than most people would rank him) and I reckon he's here to stay.

Thunder: I thought OKC would fall back this year and I predicted two scenarios: either Brooks is blamed for everything and run out of town or the GM values stability and doubles down on the coach that KD and Westbrook have tolerated for the last few years.  I am still convinced one of those things will happen, but I have no idea which one and I've never had any grasp on which will prevail.  If OKC thinks they can get a coach that Westbrook and KD will like better, I reckon Brooks is out; if they think another coach would just muck up the chemistry, then I reckon Brooks gets an extension.  I dunno.  Did Brooks have a good year?  Well I thought they made some great moves at the deadline but only Kanter really seemed to matter (and some are dubious of his positive impact), shouldn't the coach have made more of a difference?  Brooks is much maligned but I reckon he does just fine.  I'd make him top 20 just based on experience.

Suns: I drank the Suns kool-aid last year, thought the Suns would make the 3 PG thing work and cruise into the playoffs.  Nope.  None of that.  Not a terrible year but the unexpected improvement of the year before suggested a steeper upward curve than this past year bore out.  This season saw a lot more roster maneuvering than I would've thought (Dragic, Thomas, Plumlee, Ennis Tolliver got jettisoned), so all in all they've got the future laid out: maybe the Bledsoe-Knight combo can get it done, maybe not.  I guess I still gotta say Coach Hornacek had a decent year, top 20 easily.

Jazz: Coach Snyder did well.  The Jazz are one of those terminally young teams who are built on draft picks because no big NBA star wants to live in Salt Lake City.  The Stockton-Malone days are gone, they are now destined to be a feeder team that always has a nice young nucleus of players....that will all play better for other teams (the Donald Sterling Clippers, the Pittsburgh Pirates for two solid decades).  Their only chance is to draft well and shepherd them into solid NBA careers.  Kanter was the odd man out all along, once they finally got rid of him Gobert had room to grow.  Hayward, Favors had nice years, Exum had a good rookie campaign, they got good minutes from Ingles, Evans, Hood and Booker.  A lot of young talent without the veteran smarts to win big in the NBA but they can be competitive with good coaching.  I'd say that's where they are.  Snyder had a top 10 year.

Nuggets: At the start of the year Brian Shaw was a popular choice for getting fired during the year.  The Nuggets were not very good, weird injury problems, weird morale, Shaw got the axe.  His interim replacement (?) is well-respected and may well keep the job.  But the Nuggets are the Nuggets, man, they usually have good talent, sometimes they overachieve, sometimes they underachieve.  This year I can't say either of their coaches get too much from me.

Kings: Coach Malone got off to a great start this year...then Boogie get sick and Malone got fired.  Not sure why, never really sure about anything that happens in Sacramento (the NBA equivalent of Twin Peaks).  They went with (some guy) as an interim for a while, lost because the Kings were gonna lose anyway, then gave George Karl a dump truck full of money.  Karl had a seemingly good effect on McLemore, Gay and Stauskus but apparently not so much on Boogie.  Buzz is they'll be shopping Boogie in the off-season.  So how was Karl?  Well Malone actually won a few games with Boogie, Karl might get him shipped out of town.  Karl might be the right coach for the Kings next year but he didn't do much for them this year.

Lakers: Coach Scott's job is to stand there and remind everybody how good the Lakers usually are.  The roster will change quite a bit next year, maybe he'll have something to work with.  Maybe when the Lakers finally turn around Coach Scott will still be there to get some glory...maybe not.  He's collecting a paycheck.  Not in my top 20.


Wolves: Coach Flip is just there in case GM Flip turns out to be a genius.  Wiggins, LaVine and Payne are good looking rookies, Dieng and Muhammad are still young, I don't hate the Peckovic and Rubio contracts but they need to get veteran presence if they're paying top dollar for it.  They've got a lot of nice players, they'll be adding one more this year, (don't you think Kevin Martin would look good in Mavs uniform?), is Coach Flip a developer of talent?  We'll see.  How was his coaching performances?  I dunno.  Top 20 I guess, he kept his youth playing hard all year, that's good stuff.

6th Man of the Year

The voting is in: Lou Williams is the winner of the 6th Man of the Year.  I gotta say, I think he's not the best choice.

6th Man seems like it should about the guys that aren't regular starters but still play an integral role within a regular amount of playing time.  1700 Minutes Played and/or 75 Games played with less than 40 starts would seem to give a good collection of guys that played important roles this year without being starters.  But first let's look at the the guys who played a lot of games without playing a lot of minutes.  

Under 1700 Minutes Played, under 40 starts, over 80 games played: Nikola Mirotic, Jae Crowder, Luis Scola, Steve Blake, Kosta Koufos, Andre Miller

Under 1700 Minutes Played, under 40 starts, over 75 games played: Joe Ingles, Trevor Booker, Beno Udrih, Cory Joseph, Kevin Seraphin, Caron Butler, Shaun Livingston, Jason Terry, Dennis Schroeder, JJ Barea, Devin Harris, Austin Rivers, Anthony Tolliver, Marreese Speights, Rasual Butler, Brandon Wright, Kent Bazemore, Jonas Jerebko.

Anyone in those pools stand out as possible 6th Man of the Year winners?  No.  Those dudes all had good years, acquitted themselves admirably, earned their money, deserve to be patted on the back for living the dream of being pro ballers.  Some of those guys had upside years, some of those are guys collecting checks and chasing rings.  But none of those guys are in the running for this award.  

So who are the guys in the top tier?

At least 1700 Minutes Played, under 40 starts (33): Mario Chalmers, Josh Smith, Jarrett Jack, Dion Waiters, Tristan Thompson, Rudy Gobert, Patrick Patterson, Corey Brewer, Andre Iguodala, Marcus Morris, Marvin Williams, Lou Williams, Grievus Vasquez, Boris Diaw, Mo Williams, DJ Augustin, Jeremy Lin, Aaron Brooks, Rodney Stuckey, Shane Larkin, Bojan Bogdanovic, Ed Davis, Norris Cole, Marcus Smart, Anthony Morrow, Quincy Pondexter, Jason Smith, Hollis Thompson, Alan Anderson, Isiah Thomas, Jaryd Bayless, Jared Dudley, Jamal Crawford (1703 minutes, 4 starts).

Some just seem improbable right off the bat (16): Waiters (come on, man, Waiters?), Thompson (the Cavs were never livin' and dyin' off what Tristan was up to tonight), Marvin Williams (the fact that he wasn't the most disappointing Hornet acquisition is kinda startling), Vasquez (good player, good year, 3rd best Raptor), Diaw (the Spurs are their own special organism, Diaw is one piece of many pieces), Augustin (nice back up, decent season), Lin (could work in the right system, hasn't been in the right system in a while now), Brooks (his biggest contributions this season came logging minutes as a starter), Larkin (a so-so maturation year on a hideous team), Davis (not a bad player, not a bad season, a terrible terrible team), Thompson (kid is big and can rebound, he'll hang around for a while in this league), Cole (makes the most of his minutes), Morrow (makes the most of his minutes), Jason Smith (gotta admit: I don't know who this guy is, plays for the Knicks?), Bayless (kinda liked his D, I think he fits what they're doing there), Dudley (a nice bounce back year).

The next tier (7): Chalmers (under appreciated bench guy), Brewer (his hustle is indispensable at times but not the most efficient of players), Morris (a mediocre shooter still, though a competent swing forward), Mo Williams (less a difference maker off the bench as a classic journeyman guy just having a good season), Bogdanovic (fine rookie season, off the bench wing scorer), Anderson (that guy does more for the Nets than anyone notices), Smart (good rookie, high energy guy, his FG% dropped off, hopefully he can keep it up next year).

My top ten (6-10): Lou Williams (had a great bounceback year off the bench, brought energy, excitement, but not the most efficient guy, not the best at involving teammates, 2nd best Raptor), Quincy Pondexter (an under appreciated 3p threat off the bench for the Pelicans, who need anything they can get, good player seems to have found a place for himself), Jarrett Jack (biggest contribution was as a starter, old man still getting it done, he's a winner, man, has the intangibles), Josh Smith (played 83 games this year, 83!  To paraphrase Raymond Carver: 'He played 83 games...not all of them were good but there were 83 of them.'  Dude, got run out of town but kept working before, during and after, something about that is kinda after school special).

My top ten (2-5): Rodney Stuckey (dude pretty much dragged the Pacers to the playoffs all by himself, deserves some kudos), Jamal Crawford (he's always in the running for this because that's what his game is: offense off the bench), Patrick Patterson (man, his numbers are pretty impressive and he's an integral part of the squad, locked down for a coupla years, perfect role player for an up and coming team), Rudy Gobert (thunder off the bench, can't front on that, loved him last summer, good to see him blossom out from under the Kanter shadow).

My pick for 6th Man of the Year: Isiah Thomas (appeared in 67 games, started 1; 348 FTA 86%; 37% 3p%, 284:153 asst:to, gave the Celtics a 4th quarter threat they haven't had since Pierce left town, he was the player they wanted all along now on a reasonable contract, dude can be a Celtic legend if he wants).

Count Pointercount

Do you know who led the NBA in Games Played in 2014-15?  Josh Smith (played a pretty much unbeatable 83 games this year).  Surely its meaningful that the least efficient player in the history of basketball plays more basketball than just about every other person on planet Earth.  Paid by one team to leave and never come back, half-cursed by a second team paying him peanuts.  I think the lesson is: Cal Ripken Jr would've made a terrible basketball player.

Pointless Trade Idea

OKC signs Enes Kanter (something like 4 yrs/$52m, backloaded so the 1st year is around $10m).  They trade Kanter and Waiters (team option 1yr/$5m) to the Suns for the Morris twins ($8m + $5m next year) and Danny Granger (1 yr/$2.1m).

The Suns then flip Waiters, their 2015 1st rounder and 2016 1st rounder (top 10 protected) to the Hornets to move up in the draft and get Willie Cauley-Stein.

The Suns swap out the Morris twins for Kanter (better offensive player) and Cauley-Stein (better defensive player).  Bringing in Kanter and re-signing Knight would leave a little bit of cap room (could bring back Green or Wright or move on from both) and a core (Bledsoe, Knight, Tucker, Kanter, Len with Warren, Goodwin, Cauley-Stein off the bench) that would be set for a few years.  Not sure they'd win in the West but they'd be fun to watch.

OKC brings in stability in the rotation for the next coupla years in two swing forwards that should fit well with Durant, Westbrook, Ibaka and Adams.  They don't have to worry about overpaying Kanter and while Kanter is a superior offensive player, the Morris twins are better defenders and reasonable offensive replacements.  As for Danny Granger, Durant likes his veterans, maybe there's a place for him off the bench (or they could buy him out).  And they get to shed Dion Waiters, which is just a beautiful thing.

The Hornets move down in the draft but they pick up a scoring wing and a mid-teen pick in next year's draft.  Not great but not bad.  They could use Willie Cauley too but the Hornets need a new identity more than just another rookie.  (Also, not convinced that the Hornets know how to evaluate draft picks, their chances at #14 may be just as good as their chances at #8)  And, man, Waiters and Lance Stephenson on the same team?  Must-watch train wreck reality show, right there.

Basketball Nerd Blues

(Man, I didn't even see enough hockey this year to even pretend like I could do a playoff preview...damn shame)

Pointless Trade Idea

Knicks get Demarcus Cousins
Lakers get David Lee
Kings get Jordan Hill, Knicks 2015 1st round pick, Knicks 2015 2nd round pick
Warriors get 2015 2nd round pick from Lakers, 2016 2nd round pick from Knicks.

Would the Knicks give up their 1st round pick (potentially #1) and their 2nd round pick (#32) for Demarcus Cousins?  Fuck yeah, they would!  Everybody loves high 1st round picks but as much as I like the college talent this year, none of these guys are can't miss guys.  Cousins is already the most underappreciated player in the league and New York is exactly where he wants to be.  Would he thrive in the triangle offense?  I doubt it.  Would he thrive next to Melo?  Probably not.  Doesn't matter, Cousins can be the best player in the league and he's worth way more than that (but the Knicks don't have any more than that).

Would the Lakers give up 1yr/$9m Jordan Hill and a 2nd round pick for 1yr/$15.4m David Lee?  Sure, why not?  Lee is a better player, either way its only a one year commitment, and even if the Lakers can get Kevin Love, Lee is a better bench player than Hill.  They'd be taking more salary but the Lakers don't care about money.  I think Lee whether starting or not is a better asset for next year than Jordan Hill and a 2nd round pick doesn't seem like much to pay.

Would the Kings prefer Jordan Hill and the #1 pick to Cousins?  No but it seems like everything they've ever done for Cousins has failed.  The Kings are a natural born bunch of bunglers and having Cousins (the BEST contract in the league right now) is a waste of a good talent.  Would Hill and Okafor be better than Cousins?  Almost certainly not but it gives the Kings something to hold on to.

Would the Warriors be willing to give David Lee for a coupla 2nd round picks?  Yes.  They've got to re-sign Draymond Green and that means either Lee or Iguodala HAS to go.  They're not looking to get anything back, indeed, those 2nd round picks can be protected to amazing limits, the Warriors don't need anything back.

(Normally the contracts have to match to make a trade in the NBA but since draft picks are involved, because the Warriors want to subtract without adding back and because the Knicks have nothing beyond their #1 pick to offer, this deal could still work)

The Knicks would probably do that deal (Phil Jax wants veterans not rookies) but that #1 pick is pretty much their only movable asset, they need more than just Cousins and a #1 pick can maybe bring back two or three bodies rather than just one.  They might need volume to fill out their roster.

The Warriors would be more than happy to send Cousins to the East, pad the Laker salary and watch the Kings flounder with another heralded rookie.  They don't even need the picks back to make this work for them!

The Lakers....eh, this doesn't really solve any of their problems but its not a terrible move.  And getting Cousins shipped out of their division is probably worth it.

Looking back over this the Kings don't get nearly enough for Cousins but if Cousins really wants out, the team will probably have to eat some value to make it work.  Honestly for the next 2 years I'd rather Cousins on his current deal than just about anyone else in the league (including Okafor, Towns, or whoever) so the Kings are pretty much guaranteed to come up short in any deal for Cousins.  But if they can shake out the #1 pick and a good 2nd round pick and a nice young veteran, that's not a bad haul (though they can probably do better).

Playoff Predictions (West, 1st round)

WEST
Warriors over Pelicans in 4.  Normally I think its good for scrambling young squads to make the playoffs but somehow I think the Pelicans would've been better off just missing out.  I think they're about to get so roasted by the Warriors that it probably isn't worth the effort.  And (reportedly) making the playoffs saved the jobs of the GM and coach, both of whom should probably be fired.  And the roster still sucks going forward.  They're built on Anthony Davis and they've mortgaged the future to try and build around him...and they haven't done that.  They're a mediocre team and I don't think they'll be much better next year...after that its all up to Davis.  (What if New Orleans loses Anthony Davis and Drew Brees in the same year?  Lawd have mercy)  The Warriors are in one of the best grooves I've ever seen in the NBA and the Pelicans have nothing to stop them.  For the Pelicans to take even a single game I think it would require Davis having the game of his life AND someone else having the game of his life too!  Nah, I don't think that happens, the Warriors will pummel these guys.  (I'll take the Warriors to win the West)

Rockets over Mavs in 7.  The Mavs season got derailed by the Rondo trade.  They might've ended up with Knight and Kanter instead of Rondo and Amare, Goran Dragic was in play, Isiah Thomas, Josh Smith, there were other options out there but they panic-traded and got stuck with the booby prize.  The offense is still potent enough and the defense crafty enough to give the Rockets a run.  The Rockets go as far as James Harden carries them.  So are the Rockets too one-dimensional to win or are they so singularly effective as to be unbeatable?  Not sure.  I think the Mavs can push on the Rockets but I think Harden pulls it out in game 7.

Spurs over Clippers in 7.  I think Pop wanted to play the Clippers.  I think Pop thinks, 'Those guys can beat us, might as well play them first'.  If the Spurs are gonna lose, if Duncan and Ginobli ride off into the sunset (I think they come back one more year), might as well get the vacation started early.  Or the Spurs respect the opponent, get in line, and let Pop guide them back to the Finals.  Best 1st round series ever?  Both teams are playing the best ball right now, both teams are ready for the playoffs, each team can beat the other.  This is all good.  Can't wait, gonna watch every game,  I like the Spurs to not go out in the 1st round.  Game 7 is gonna be an all-time classic.

Grizzlies over Blazers in 6.  The Grizzlies usually fight injuries in the early part of the year and then get it going right around playoff time; this year, they dominated the West early and befell injuries to Conley and Allen in the last coupla months.  They're not playing their best ball even though there were stretches when they were the best team.  The Blazers are a mystery to me, I just don't see how they win so much.  I like to watch them, I get the badassness of Aldridge, Batum (when healthy) is one of my favorite players, Lillard is as cold-blooded as anyone in the league right now.  But it looks to me like they play too many minutes, there's not enough bench, they rely too much on a handful of guys overachieving, I'm mystified by their success in recent years.  And without Wesley Matthews or even Afflalo for the next few games, I just don't see how they score more than the Grizzlies.  In my narrative, the Grizzlies need to get together, need to knock down some outside shots and win tough games on the road, but I think they do it.  The Grizz take game 6 at home.

Playoff Predictions (East, 1st round)

EAST

Hawks over Nets in 6.  I like the Nets to give the Hawks a 1st round test with some veteran savvy and good luck.  The Hawks haven't played their best ball in a coupla months now, probably could use a good punch in the face to get going.  The Nets are terrible but they've got enough talent to give the Hawks pause.  I like the Nets to take one in Atlanta, then win game 3 to go up 2-1.  Then the Hawks get it together and bumrush past the Nets.

Cavs over Celtics in 4.  I thought the Celtics would be awful all season long, getting rid of Rondo and Green was the only move to make, picking up Isiah Thomas and another pile of draft picks was just a bonus.  Brad Stevens emerged as one of the great coaches in the game and he kept a mediocre crew of misfits on track to the playoffs.  I think a playoff appearance beats a late lottery pick every day of the week: young players need to get into the party, the fans and local media need to be involved, free agents need to have some faith in your squad, and the difference btw the #12 pick and the #19 pick is not a big deal.  That said, the Cavs have too much scoring for the Celtics to keep up.  I like Celtics to keep every game competitive into the 4th quarter, I just don't think they'll pull out even a single game.  Still an excellent season for the Celtics.

Bulls over Bucks in 6.  The Bucks lost more games last year than the Knicks have this year...wow...think about that for a second.  But that Bucks roster wasn't that bad, they just had a knack for giving away games.  They gave Antetokounpo plenty of time to play, picked up Jabari and Jason Kidd (perhaps the pleasant-est surprise of the season), and became a much better team by just not being so bad any more.  I like the direction of the franchise, I'm digging their vision of roster construction, good to see them in the post-season (though I'd love to see Jabari joining them).  The Bulls, on the other hand, vastly overacheived last year, added a ton of talent (Pau, Mirotic, welcomed back D Rose), and everything more or less worked...so why aren't the Bulls better?  All year long I've wondered why they aren't better.  The easy answer is the continuing in-and-out-ness of D Rose but to my mind that shouldn't even matter.  Based on what they did last year without him, seems like ANYTHING they get from Rose is a bonus.  Add in a solid season from Pau, a great maturation year from Jimmy Butler, a top notch rookie season from Mirotic, the steady play of Noah and Gibson, getting Dunleavy back to his proper place in the rotation, shouldn't that alone be better than the previous season?  Apparently not.  They had 3 fewer W's and finished the same place in the conference table.  Basketball, man... (The Bulls were my pre-season to win the East and I'm ready now to put them back in that place.  They have to pull it together, if they do I have no doubt they can beat anyone in the East...even the Cavs and Hawks.  I've got no real reason to think this will happen...but I do think it'll happen!  I like the Bulls to win the East)  The Bulls are better than the Bucks but not so much that they'll just roll through them.  I think the Bucks will kick the Bulls into gear.  I can see the Bucks taking one in Chicago, the Bulls coming back and winning two in Milwaukee.

Raptors over Wizards in 7.  I thought both of these squads would be better this year, thought both would be really solid regular season teams that would have to re-prove themselves come playoff time.  Well, one's gonna make the 2nd round and one ain't.  I'll take the Raptors to win in game 7, just because....I dunno....the Raptors lost game 7 at home last year, be rugged to see them lose back to back home 7's.

A Thought About John Calipari

Its that time of year when pundits and wags ponder which NBA city Calipari will parachute off to.  I've always been skeptical of Calipari going back to the NBA because he knows better than anyone how hard it is to win.  And at this point in his life I reckon Calipari would rather be a winner than just about anything else.  Furthermore, his skill set is better suited to college: he takes high school kids and he turns them into pros.  That's what he does, that's his thing.  I don't mean to suggest he'd be a terrible choice to coach the Knicks or Lakers or whoever the team d'jour, just that his skill set is in molding and shaping pros not dealing with the finished product.  (I do believe Cal would be interested in coaching USA if/when Coach K ever shuffles off, but that shouldn't interrupt Wildcat time)

At Kentucky Cal is free to control every minute of every day whereas in the pros he'd be well paid to be helpless.  The NBA can't guarantee success or control or glory.  All the NBA can provide is more money...I hate to be that guy but...Kentucky can come up with more money if that's all it is.  Kentucky is the perfect spot for Cal to hone his skills, pile up W's, maybe another championship or two (though beware Cats fans: he prizes high draft picks as much as if not more than banners), before he gets a plum gig at ESPN and basks in his Hall of Fame retirement.  The NBA is a hassle, winning is great but losing probably sucks pretty bad.  If the perfect NBA gig came along Cal would have to think it over, leverage the offer if nothing else, but even with the perfect gig it would be hard to leave UK (4 Finals Fours in 6 years, remember).  

Say the soon to be playoff-tested New Orleans Pelicans decide Monte Williams just isn't the guy to steward Anthony Davis going forward and fire him (very possible, maybe even likely, btw), who better to get the most out of AD than his old ball coach, Cal.  Would Cal jump at the job of well-paid mentor to the most exciting, arguably all-around best basketball player in the world?  No.  The rest of the roster is a mess and the Western Conference is murder, having the best player is a great advantage in basketball but it ain't everything.  And as long as the Pelicans are mired with the likes Evans (another Cal men-tee), Gordon (still the worst contract in the league), Holiday (nice player but oft-injured) and no draft picks coming, that gig would be a pain in the ass even with Anthony Davis on your roster. 

So even though it happens every year and will continue to happen, I don't see Cal leaving UK.  Unless...imagine this scenario: the Cavs make mincemeat of the Celtics, then get tested by the Bulls, they pull together, Love hits a few big shots, the Cavs breeze through the East, bond as a team Spur-style, then get waxed in the Finals.  The team needs a fall guy for losing in the Finals.  Not Lebron, not Kyrie, not Love (now an integral part of the offense and positive vibe, sticks around instead of bailing), not Varajao or Thompson or Mozgov.  Lebron says Blatt has to go.  Would that be a good spot for Cal?  Fuck yeah it would!

Lebron and Kyrie pretty much guarantee dominance in the East for the next 5-6 years (maybe not Jordan-Pippen dominance or even Lebron-Bosh-Wade dominance, probably more like a Chauncey-Tayshaun-Rasheed-Rip kinda dominance).  In the scenario above, Love sticks around and the three of them make it work, the rest of the cast is pretty well set with enough cap flexibility to stay frisky.  Dude that team is gonna crush in the East.  And all Cal has to do is show up to the press conferences.  As we all know Lebron is already the GM and head coach, Cal would basically just be a freelance media consultant to Lebron, more of an assistant to Lebron than a control freak kinda coach.  Love is key: without Love the roster is out of balance and while Lebron-Kyrie will be attractive to free agents, you never know who's gonna be available down the road.  Keeping Love as a successful part of the tandem is just too good to pass up.  Also, if Love splits, then he becomes the scapegoat and potentially buys Blatt another year to discover the best ways to remove thorns from Lebron's paws as a way of keeping himself useful.  

Lebron-Kyrie-Love coming together and ALMOST winning is the beauty scenario--and I would suggest truly the only scenario--that gets Cal back to the NBA.  Think about it: Lebron is Sinatra, Kyrie is Sammy D, Love is Peter Lawford, Cal slides right in as Dean Martin.  David Blatt is more of a Joey Bishop.  Cal would be the perfect foil for Lebron: the coach who would say all the right things and never get in the damn way.  Of course, the scenario above is really quite sensitive, a lot of things could conspire to bring back Blatt or drive away Love or otherwise muck up the perfect vibe Cal is seeking.  But if it came to pass and Cal thought he could go pro with a killer squad in the East, I reckon he might jump on that....and that might happen some time in late June.    

If Cal leaves will Kentucky be able to hold on to Cal's recruiting network?  And can UK pry Brad Stevens away from the Celtics?   Stevens is the only one who could follow Cal.