USA Soccer made news this week but suddenly cutting ties with coach Jurgen Klinsmann and bringing back previous USA coach Bruce Arena. I applaud both moves: the first was long overdue, the second is the right move right now
I understand the initial interest in Klinsmann but I never understood the continued interest. He's been showing for a long time that he's not the right coach for this program. Honestly the fact that he came in 3rd with Germany in 2006 was kinda suspect to me. He looked like a guy that could motivational speeches but wasn't gonna be much of a tactician. And that's what he was at USA: in all the time he's been here, he's never had a coherent game plan and he's never shown any acumen at adjusting at halftime, and he's kind of a petulant punk-ass at the post-game presser. He just yells at players and throws them under the bus, I thought that act was tired a long time ago.
I understood the commitment it took to bring him in--and he was a good get for USA Soccer at the time--but that was sunk cost. I would've canned him after the 2014 World Cup. I was not moved by USA's performance and specifically I blamed Klinsmann for not making the most of the talent he had. He just looks at these players and thinks, 'They're not German, they can't be any good.' He doesn't know how to coach them (probably because he's just not a very good coach) and he should've been gone before the 2015 Gold Cup or the 2016 Copa America, neither of which were grand successes, I would've canned him after each of those tourneys too.
Is Bruce Arena the right guy? Short term: yes; long term: probably not. What USA needs right now is a sturdy hand that's gonna tell everybody what to do and then mold a game plan that utilizes each player's strengths, which is something Klinsmann never showed any aptitude for. Things aren't good but it isn't yet dire, we just need to straighten up and play right and we'll be fine. I think Arena can do that and I can't think of anyone else who could. Far from thinking of Arena as a hack or a retread I'd say he's the #1 contender. He's as worthy of the job as anyone in the world. He needs to get this team into the Cup and get them to play with some gusto while they're there. Klinsmann wasn't gonna get that but I think there are coaches that could get that of this USA team. All a matter of economy of scale: Klinsmann doesn't see enough talent, plenty of coaches see more talent than they've ever had before.
Arena is the man for now, is he the guy for the future? Probably not. I'm ready to go back to Europe. Klinsmann was a dud but there are plenty of Europeans that could elevate this squad, don't let Klinsmann spoil that. And don't let the Klinsmann episode make you think that are a ton of Americans ready for this job, Arena is one of the few. (I could be talked into Jason Kries but I haven't been yet)
My vote for next coach is Didier Deschamps. After 2018 he and France will likely be ready to part ways: the World Cup cycle is so long and over so suddenly, that hardly anyone lasts for two Cups. Either a coach does great and gets a better job or he does terrible and gets fired. So don't be surprised if Deschamps is job hunting in a coupla years. Would he want the USA gig? I have no idea. Are there better candidates? Surely they are, I just don't know them. Deschamps may be a ridiculous suggestion but Team USA could use some ridiculous. If Gulati wins re-election (I believe he's still unopposed), he'd probably have the mandate for one last crazy move. Maybe it's a do-able thing. Sounds good to me anyway.
Incidentally, I think Arena will accomplish the task of settling USA down and getting some W's. I am confident that actually we have more talent than we've ever had and Arena will recognize that and guide them wisely. He'll also be a prickly pear that rubs the media the wrong way and wins him no friends outside of the locker room....and will eventually cost him in the locker room too. I don't think he lasts longer than 2018 but I think til then he'll put on a good show, he'll get 'em playing like they ought to and we'll be primed for a nice Cup. And good riddance to Klinsmann; honestly I wouldn't be surprised if he never coach again, the England job was open twice this summer and he couldn't move the needle there. So where does he go? I'm guessing either he gets paid by Sky Sports or maybe BBC (his English is excellent) or else he just moves off to play golf for the rest of his life or something.
USA is moving in the right direction again. Time to make USA great again!
Sunday, November 27, 2016
Thursday, November 10, 2016
AFC (Week Nine)
Pats -- The offense is still the best in the business. Defense is okay but not too many teams are gonna outscore 'em.
Raiders -- The funnest team around, so even though they don't have the backbone of a solid winner, I'm still rooting for them. The offense is really good and the defense is getting there.
Steelers -- Yeah, they're stumbling but Big Ben over the top will beat most everyone they play. Really kinda mediocre but they got street smarts and plenty of offensive weapons.
Broncos, Chiefs -- Not sure which is better (or maybe it's worse). Chiefs are a solid grinding team that will outwork most teams on the field. The Broncos have a knockout pass rush and pretty good offense. Neither seems like a world beater but both will be a tough out down the line.
Bengals -- Like the Cards, I think the Bengals peaked last year and instead of hitting the ground running, they're making up lost ground. I think the Cards are still good enough to squeak into the playoffs but I don't see either side of the ball being good often enough to go deep.
Dolphins -- Perhaps it's premature to put them up this high but I'm starting to believe that pass rush and that running game could really do damage. They've got the good they just need the consistency (ugh, am I really betting on Tannehill?).
Chargers -- Like the Saints, they can sling it around and run up the score and the D even has moments, too. On good days they'll sting people but they also look plenty capable of botching easy ones.
Ravens -- D is still really good but, man, I think the offense is kinda terrible. They keep games close but after all these years I'm still not into Flacco: he's not a closer and a team with this kind of defense desperately needs a closer. They could be good enough to win games but I'm just not feeling it.
Bills -- They're feisty, they've got decent talent on both sides of the ball but they're just too sloppy and inconsistent be anything more than a spoiler.
Texans -- I guess they'll win the division but they are so uninspiring.
Colts -- They've got Andrew Luck and not much else. But the competition is pretty soft and the Colts might still pull it out but can you see them beating anyone in the playoffs? I don't.
Titans, Jags -- Sometimes they're okay, sometimes they're terrible. I'm never really sure what makes them what each week.
Jets -- Doesn't the coach look like he's experimenting out there? He's not trying to lose but he doesn't seem all that eager to win, he's just casually trying stuff out there to see what works, he's game planning for next year after they find themselves a new QB.
Browns -- They're plucky, they try hard, they'll win one of these days.
Raiders -- The funnest team around, so even though they don't have the backbone of a solid winner, I'm still rooting for them. The offense is really good and the defense is getting there.
Steelers -- Yeah, they're stumbling but Big Ben over the top will beat most everyone they play. Really kinda mediocre but they got street smarts and plenty of offensive weapons.
Broncos, Chiefs -- Not sure which is better (or maybe it's worse). Chiefs are a solid grinding team that will outwork most teams on the field. The Broncos have a knockout pass rush and pretty good offense. Neither seems like a world beater but both will be a tough out down the line.
Bengals -- Like the Cards, I think the Bengals peaked last year and instead of hitting the ground running, they're making up lost ground. I think the Cards are still good enough to squeak into the playoffs but I don't see either side of the ball being good often enough to go deep.
Dolphins -- Perhaps it's premature to put them up this high but I'm starting to believe that pass rush and that running game could really do damage. They've got the good they just need the consistency (ugh, am I really betting on Tannehill?).
Chargers -- Like the Saints, they can sling it around and run up the score and the D even has moments, too. On good days they'll sting people but they also look plenty capable of botching easy ones.
Ravens -- D is still really good but, man, I think the offense is kinda terrible. They keep games close but after all these years I'm still not into Flacco: he's not a closer and a team with this kind of defense desperately needs a closer. They could be good enough to win games but I'm just not feeling it.
Bills -- They're feisty, they've got decent talent on both sides of the ball but they're just too sloppy and inconsistent be anything more than a spoiler.
Texans -- I guess they'll win the division but they are so uninspiring.
Colts -- They've got Andrew Luck and not much else. But the competition is pretty soft and the Colts might still pull it out but can you see them beating anyone in the playoffs? I don't.
Titans, Jags -- Sometimes they're okay, sometimes they're terrible. I'm never really sure what makes them what each week.
Jets -- Doesn't the coach look like he's experimenting out there? He's not trying to lose but he doesn't seem all that eager to win, he's just casually trying stuff out there to see what works, he's game planning for next year after they find themselves a new QB.
Browns -- They're plucky, they try hard, they'll win one of these days.
NFC (Week Nine)
Cowboys -- The 'Boys are still the class of the NFC, the running game is mighty, the rookie QB is still getting the job done and that defense is surprisingly effective. They are the most complete team in the NFC and if they can avoid QB squabbles (don't be surprised if Romo has a hero moment at some point), they can go to the Super Bowl.
Falcons -- The offense is still on fire and the defense is good enough. The Panthers and Saints are playing better but I think the Falcons still have a good grasp on the division. The defense is getting better and I think they can outscore conference opponents in the playoffs.
Seahawks -- Clearly a step slower then previous years but the D is still good, Russell Wilson is still quite capable and I think veteran smarts will play a role. They've been sloppy on the sidelines but I can't imagine that will keep the Seahawks from getting deep in the playoffs.
Packers -- I dunno, they still have Aaron Rodgers and the expectation of success. I think the D is kinda terrible and Rodgers' supporting cast has all fallen off the last few years. But I'm not seeing any real juggernauts in the NFC, so I reckon they'll have their shot in the post-season.
Vikings -- The D has taken a step back from its early season dominance and the offense has too. In September they looked solid from top to bottom, now they seem kinda rickety. I'm betting that there's still enough there to resurrect by season's end.
Saints -- I never would've thought I'd say this but the Saints look dangerous enough to win games. They remind me of the Steve Nash Suns: non-stop offense that leaves gaps in the defense that makes for entertaining games. Come playoff time, the Saints will be the 2nd best team on the field regardless of their opponent but, man, Brees can still sling it and hang numbers. Still dangerous.
Cards -- Like the Bengals, I think the Cards peaked last year and instead of hitting the ground running, they're making up lost ground. I think the Cards are still good enough to squeak into the playoffs but I don't see either side of the ball being good enough often enough to go deep.
Redskins -- I dunno, they're occasionally good. They have some talent but not enough, they're not good but they're not bad either. On a good day they could pull an upset and on a bad day they could get stomped badly.
Eagles -- I look the rookie QB, I like the attitude but I don't like their chances to win a lot of games. I feel like they've overachieved already and while the kid is good, I still feel like this year's success will only screw up next year's path to improvement.
Panthers -- They should've been better but after a horrible start it feels like they're starting to get it together. They crushed people last year, I knew they wouldn't be that good but I thought they'd matter in the NFC. There's still enough time that I guess to play spoiler but I don't see them making the playoffs.
Rams, Giants, Lions -- The mediocre pile. Every once in a while they look good (or like they might be good). But just as often they look terrible.
Bucs -- Yeah, even though they're not all that good, it still feels like they should be better. Maybe next year.
Bears -- They're feisty but they're not any good.
Niners -- The Niners, man, shit...it was just yesterday that they looked like they were gonna dominate for years to come. Now they suck so bad....uh, yeah...they just suck. Not sure what else to say.
Falcons -- The offense is still on fire and the defense is good enough. The Panthers and Saints are playing better but I think the Falcons still have a good grasp on the division. The defense is getting better and I think they can outscore conference opponents in the playoffs.
Seahawks -- Clearly a step slower then previous years but the D is still good, Russell Wilson is still quite capable and I think veteran smarts will play a role. They've been sloppy on the sidelines but I can't imagine that will keep the Seahawks from getting deep in the playoffs.
Packers -- I dunno, they still have Aaron Rodgers and the expectation of success. I think the D is kinda terrible and Rodgers' supporting cast has all fallen off the last few years. But I'm not seeing any real juggernauts in the NFC, so I reckon they'll have their shot in the post-season.
Vikings -- The D has taken a step back from its early season dominance and the offense has too. In September they looked solid from top to bottom, now they seem kinda rickety. I'm betting that there's still enough there to resurrect by season's end.
Saints -- I never would've thought I'd say this but the Saints look dangerous enough to win games. They remind me of the Steve Nash Suns: non-stop offense that leaves gaps in the defense that makes for entertaining games. Come playoff time, the Saints will be the 2nd best team on the field regardless of their opponent but, man, Brees can still sling it and hang numbers. Still dangerous.
Cards -- Like the Bengals, I think the Cards peaked last year and instead of hitting the ground running, they're making up lost ground. I think the Cards are still good enough to squeak into the playoffs but I don't see either side of the ball being good enough often enough to go deep.
Redskins -- I dunno, they're occasionally good. They have some talent but not enough, they're not good but they're not bad either. On a good day they could pull an upset and on a bad day they could get stomped badly.
Eagles -- I look the rookie QB, I like the attitude but I don't like their chances to win a lot of games. I feel like they've overachieved already and while the kid is good, I still feel like this year's success will only screw up next year's path to improvement.
Panthers -- They should've been better but after a horrible start it feels like they're starting to get it together. They crushed people last year, I knew they wouldn't be that good but I thought they'd matter in the NFC. There's still enough time that I guess to play spoiler but I don't see them making the playoffs.
Rams, Giants, Lions -- The mediocre pile. Every once in a while they look good (or like they might be good). But just as often they look terrible.
Bucs -- Yeah, even though they're not all that good, it still feels like they should be better. Maybe next year.
Bears -- They're feisty but they're not any good.
Niners -- The Niners, man, shit...it was just yesterday that they looked like they were gonna dominate for years to come. Now they suck so bad....uh, yeah...they just suck. Not sure what else to say.
Monday, November 7, 2016
2016 US Elections
I'm a student of American history but not a political person. Indeed, I think politics is wildly overrated and we'd all be better off just ignoring it. But this year I was kinda fascinated by the rise of Bernie Sanders and the lingering odor that is Donald Trump. This year's race had some excitement to it...which faded for me about ten minutes into the first debate, which I found to be even more anti-climatic than the third Dark Knight movie. Just wanted to take a second to make one last prediction.
I think Hillary Clinton wins by a sizable margin. I have no interest in picking out each state and nailing down a specific electoral vote count so I'll stay fairly general. Normally the Achilles' heel of the Democrats is that their most enthusiastic supporters within the culture are not the most vigilant when it comes to actually voting. No love for the party, just the after-party. But this time around I think Trump will inspire the liberal hordes to rise up and vote. I think they'll turn out not for Hillary but against Trump (hey, that counts, too). I suspect the race is called well before the west coast polls close and that there's never really any doubt that Hilary wins. Just for trivial value I'll take Evan McMullin to win Utah.
But I think they'll have minimal effect on the down ballot races. I'll take the Republicans to easily hold the House (which I don't think is a bold prediction) and to narrowly hold the Senate (most popular commentators are saying it'll be 50-50 giving the White House the tiebreaker). I think the buzz is that if Hillary wins, Obama will immediately rescind the nomination of Merrick Garland (kinda of a shame, I think I really like him) meaning we won't have a proper 9-person court until shortly before the end of the term. And since this campaign has featured zilch discussion of actual policy, I have no idea who Clinton would nominate, even though that's gonna be the first thing she does.
All I know is I'm ready for this to be over. I hate elections, I find they bring out all the worst in the American people and absolutely none of the best. So by Wednesday at least there is the hope that as a a people we can be good again (though hopefully not great).
I think Hillary Clinton wins by a sizable margin. I have no interest in picking out each state and nailing down a specific electoral vote count so I'll stay fairly general. Normally the Achilles' heel of the Democrats is that their most enthusiastic supporters within the culture are not the most vigilant when it comes to actually voting. No love for the party, just the after-party. But this time around I think Trump will inspire the liberal hordes to rise up and vote. I think they'll turn out not for Hillary but against Trump (hey, that counts, too). I suspect the race is called well before the west coast polls close and that there's never really any doubt that Hilary wins. Just for trivial value I'll take Evan McMullin to win Utah.
But I think they'll have minimal effect on the down ballot races. I'll take the Republicans to easily hold the House (which I don't think is a bold prediction) and to narrowly hold the Senate (most popular commentators are saying it'll be 50-50 giving the White House the tiebreaker). I think the buzz is that if Hillary wins, Obama will immediately rescind the nomination of Merrick Garland (kinda of a shame, I think I really like him) meaning we won't have a proper 9-person court until shortly before the end of the term. And since this campaign has featured zilch discussion of actual policy, I have no idea who Clinton would nominate, even though that's gonna be the first thing she does.
All I know is I'm ready for this to be over. I hate elections, I find they bring out all the worst in the American people and absolutely none of the best. So by Wednesday at least there is the hope that as a a people we can be good again (though hopefully not great).
Thursday, November 3, 2016
World Series
Fuck, what a game! What a series! I love baseball and when it shines out this good, it's such a pleasure to witness. That said, as an Indians fan I wish it had turned out different. Rain delay in the 9th inning....
Look, the Cubs were the best team all year long, no doubt. And after watching the Indians all year long, I loved the team, loved the pitching, loved the coach, loved the vibe, but not until they went up on the Blue Jays did I think they would even make the World Series much less win it. So as a Tribe fan, I'm cool. We had a great year and while the title was palpable, every baseball fan knows that it ain't over til its over. The tricky part as a general baseball fan is knowing all along that the Cubs will be back next year while the Indians will be in the mix in the AL but are by no means a guarantee, so for all the angst of the Cubs fans, they're gonna be dominate the NL for the foreseeable future, they'll have chances to break the curse while us Indians fans needed to hit the mark as soon as possible.
Good year for the Cubs, congrats. After Rajai Davis hit that homer, I really thought all the momentum was going back to Cleveland and the Indians would finish it off. But the baseball gods were rooting for the Cubs. That rain delay...
I think the Cubs should invite Bartman to throw out the first pitch on opening day. He's a legit Cubs fan and to suffer that level of sadness to be associated with the Cubs curse is a unimaginable level of trauma. The curse is over, the championship is won, bringing out Bartman to put the curse to rest is not merely a nice thing to do, it is a necessary thing to do. The Cubs will be good for a while, it is imperative to put the losing past behind them. And to restore a true Cubs fan to his rightful place is the perfect way to do it. It should happen and I think it will. Welcome back to Chicago, Mr. Bartman, the first pitch is yours.
Look, the Cubs were the best team all year long, no doubt. And after watching the Indians all year long, I loved the team, loved the pitching, loved the coach, loved the vibe, but not until they went up on the Blue Jays did I think they would even make the World Series much less win it. So as a Tribe fan, I'm cool. We had a great year and while the title was palpable, every baseball fan knows that it ain't over til its over. The tricky part as a general baseball fan is knowing all along that the Cubs will be back next year while the Indians will be in the mix in the AL but are by no means a guarantee, so for all the angst of the Cubs fans, they're gonna be dominate the NL for the foreseeable future, they'll have chances to break the curse while us Indians fans needed to hit the mark as soon as possible.
Good year for the Cubs, congrats. After Rajai Davis hit that homer, I really thought all the momentum was going back to Cleveland and the Indians would finish it off. But the baseball gods were rooting for the Cubs. That rain delay...
I think the Cubs should invite Bartman to throw out the first pitch on opening day. He's a legit Cubs fan and to suffer that level of sadness to be associated with the Cubs curse is a unimaginable level of trauma. The curse is over, the championship is won, bringing out Bartman to put the curse to rest is not merely a nice thing to do, it is a necessary thing to do. The Cubs will be good for a while, it is imperative to put the losing past behind them. And to restore a true Cubs fan to his rightful place is the perfect way to do it. It should happen and I think it will. Welcome back to Chicago, Mr. Bartman, the first pitch is yours.
Monday, October 31, 2016
World Series (After 5 Games)
When the Indians went up 3-1 on the Cubs I could taste it. But I remember the last time the Indians went up 3-1 in the playoffs (Coach Francona does, too, he was the coach of the Red Sox who came back and won), and it went something like this: I knew Josh Beckett was gonna be untouchable in Game Five (he was), I knew Curt Schilling was gonna be tough in Game Six (he was) and I knew Dice-K was not gonna be an easy out in Game Seven (I was right again). I knew the Indian pitching wasn't as good and the hitting was going to disappear...and it did.
Let's look at this time around: Cubs weren't going quietly in Game Four (they did not), Arrieta will be a beast in Game Five (girl, you know it's true) and in Game Seven Hendricks is gonna want payback for the W he wasn't able to lock down in his very impressive Game Three. Series ain't over, Indians fans. To get that ring we gotta go get that last game. And doing it in Cleveland is not going to be any easier than doing it in Chicago. An ominous observation for these young-and-coming Cubs: Wrigley Field in late October does not look like an environment conducive to left handed power hitting. The Cubs are set to dominate for the next coupla years but their homefield may not be an advantage in the coming Fall Classics. (Also, never really noticed before but, man, Wrigley Field looks like a fuckin' dump! Those brick walls, those narrow dugouts, and you know the parts you don't see can't be any better) The upside for the Cubs though is I think they're better off trying to win in Cleveland than in Chicago.
I picked the Indians in 7 at the beginning and I think I'm gonna stick with that. I think Arrieta has one more masterful game in him that the Indians won't be able to overcome (after which both teams will be 2-1 on the road). And then I'll take Kluber over Hendricks in Game Seven. The Cubs' bats have been pretty soft so far and I think the Indians can make that continue for two more games. The Indians have outscored the Cubs 17-10 so far and 6 of the Cubs' 10 runs came in just two innings, in the other 42 innings they've scored just 4 runs. I think the Indians can make that work.
I really admire these Cubs but I really love these Indians. I think the Cubs push the Indians to the brink but I'll stick with the Tribe to finish 'em off. (Indeed, look for the Indians to win big in Game Seven, just a hunch)
Let's look at this time around: Cubs weren't going quietly in Game Four (they did not), Arrieta will be a beast in Game Five (girl, you know it's true) and in Game Seven Hendricks is gonna want payback for the W he wasn't able to lock down in his very impressive Game Three. Series ain't over, Indians fans. To get that ring we gotta go get that last game. And doing it in Cleveland is not going to be any easier than doing it in Chicago. An ominous observation for these young-and-coming Cubs: Wrigley Field in late October does not look like an environment conducive to left handed power hitting. The Cubs are set to dominate for the next coupla years but their homefield may not be an advantage in the coming Fall Classics. (Also, never really noticed before but, man, Wrigley Field looks like a fuckin' dump! Those brick walls, those narrow dugouts, and you know the parts you don't see can't be any better) The upside for the Cubs though is I think they're better off trying to win in Cleveland than in Chicago.
I picked the Indians in 7 at the beginning and I think I'm gonna stick with that. I think Arrieta has one more masterful game in him that the Indians won't be able to overcome (after which both teams will be 2-1 on the road). And then I'll take Kluber over Hendricks in Game Seven. The Cubs' bats have been pretty soft so far and I think the Indians can make that continue for two more games. The Indians have outscored the Cubs 17-10 so far and 6 of the Cubs' 10 runs came in just two innings, in the other 42 innings they've scored just 4 runs. I think the Indians can make that work.
I really admire these Cubs but I really love these Indians. I think the Cubs push the Indians to the brink but I'll stick with the Tribe to finish 'em off. (Indeed, look for the Indians to win big in Game Seven, just a hunch)
Sunday, October 23, 2016
World Series
I love baseball, have my whole life. But I hate cable TV so I haven't watched much baseball over the years. Last year I started watching the MLB free game of the day, a great way to get a random look around the league. I was doing the free style this year when I got an offer to get the rest of the season for a paltry sum, which I jumped on hard. The downside of that was I didn't get the wide look at the league that I did the previous year; the upside was I watched a ton of my beloved Cleveland Indians. I gotta say: I love this team. This is a fun team to watch, they battle, they're clever players, Terry Francona is the man (he won me over two years ago, when he led a really green bunch of bananas into the post-season), and these guys all love each other (a quality palpable in baseball more than any of the other sports). I thought this team was good but flawed, hard working but not necessarily the more talented team night in/night out.
The Cubs, on the other hand, caught my eye last year while pummeling the Cards in the playoffs. They faltered against the Mets but that's okay, they're a young team that was already ahead of schedule. You could tell that 2016 was gonna be their year. They avoided the pitfalls, sidestepped all the tragedies (curses and whatnot), and dominated the NL like they should've. Winning the division was a big step, getting through the playoffs and winning the pennant was another step. Are they ready to win the World Series? They are still a young team ahead of schedule.
The Indians play hard every night and make the most of their opportunities. The starting pitching was dominant all season long but now injuries have thinned that depth; fortunately, the bullpen that gave me heartburn all year long has been re-designed and has been the MVP of the team so far in the post-season. The Indians are lovely mix of youth and veterans, they could use more pop in the lineup but they steal bases at a high rate, the defense is above average and Francona is a masterful button-pusher. And, again, these guys really love each other, a chaotic force that makes a good team great.
The Cubs are young and talented at every position, they're the better team on the field every night. The starting pitching was solid, the bullpen too. Not a lot of veteran presence on this squad, they're really young all over. They kinda love each other but mostly they're young and goofy and don't know anything but success, so they trust each other. These guys are a Richard Linklater cast of characters out there having fun and winning because they don't know how to lose. And their coach, Joe Madden, is also a master motivator and tactician (and went head-to-head with Francona for years in the AL East).
Who's gonna make the mistakes? That's what this series is all about. Indians mistakes: giving up home runs, running into outs, hitting into double plays, missing the scoring opportunities. Cubs mistakes: errors, hesitating on the base paths, pitchers getting dribbed and drabbed into giving up big innings. Could go either way.
The Indians are hard working consistent team, they have bad nights but they bounce back quickly (because they love each other). The Cubs are just damn good, they have bad nights but they're damn good and they expect to be damn good more often than not. Indians pitching at its best is, I think, better than the Cubs; if the Indian pitchers are dealing, the Cubs might evaporate. The Cubs have more talent, the Indians have more savvy. I really think these teams match up well and this will be a good series. Obviously as an Indians fan I'd prefer the Cubs lose but as a general baseball fan, I'd love to see the Cubs win (curious to see what that looks like honestly). I'm really looking forward to this, I can't lose!
I think it goes 7 games. First thought: the Cubs are cool customers, they'll be fine in game 7 while the veteran Indians will get over anxious and bunge up. Second thought: reverse that. The Cubs youngsters will feel the pressure of the coming expectations weigh on them while the Indians vets will feel the joy of house money and play loose and zen like. Yeah, I'm biased, I'm going with the latter. I'll take the Indians in 7.
The Cubs, on the other hand, caught my eye last year while pummeling the Cards in the playoffs. They faltered against the Mets but that's okay, they're a young team that was already ahead of schedule. You could tell that 2016 was gonna be their year. They avoided the pitfalls, sidestepped all the tragedies (curses and whatnot), and dominated the NL like they should've. Winning the division was a big step, getting through the playoffs and winning the pennant was another step. Are they ready to win the World Series? They are still a young team ahead of schedule.
The Indians play hard every night and make the most of their opportunities. The starting pitching was dominant all season long but now injuries have thinned that depth; fortunately, the bullpen that gave me heartburn all year long has been re-designed and has been the MVP of the team so far in the post-season. The Indians are lovely mix of youth and veterans, they could use more pop in the lineup but they steal bases at a high rate, the defense is above average and Francona is a masterful button-pusher. And, again, these guys really love each other, a chaotic force that makes a good team great.
The Cubs are young and talented at every position, they're the better team on the field every night. The starting pitching was solid, the bullpen too. Not a lot of veteran presence on this squad, they're really young all over. They kinda love each other but mostly they're young and goofy and don't know anything but success, so they trust each other. These guys are a Richard Linklater cast of characters out there having fun and winning because they don't know how to lose. And their coach, Joe Madden, is also a master motivator and tactician (and went head-to-head with Francona for years in the AL East).
Who's gonna make the mistakes? That's what this series is all about. Indians mistakes: giving up home runs, running into outs, hitting into double plays, missing the scoring opportunities. Cubs mistakes: errors, hesitating on the base paths, pitchers getting dribbed and drabbed into giving up big innings. Could go either way.
The Indians are hard working consistent team, they have bad nights but they bounce back quickly (because they love each other). The Cubs are just damn good, they have bad nights but they're damn good and they expect to be damn good more often than not. Indians pitching at its best is, I think, better than the Cubs; if the Indian pitchers are dealing, the Cubs might evaporate. The Cubs have more talent, the Indians have more savvy. I really think these teams match up well and this will be a good series. Obviously as an Indians fan I'd prefer the Cubs lose but as a general baseball fan, I'd love to see the Cubs win (curious to see what that looks like honestly). I'm really looking forward to this, I can't lose!
I think it goes 7 games. First thought: the Cubs are cool customers, they'll be fine in game 7 while the veteran Indians will get over anxious and bunge up. Second thought: reverse that. The Cubs youngsters will feel the pressure of the coming expectations weigh on them while the Indians vets will feel the joy of house money and play loose and zen like. Yeah, I'm biased, I'm going with the latter. I'll take the Indians in 7.
NBA Pre-Season Predictions
Cavs (64 wins) Warriors (70)
Celtics (52) Spurs (61)
Pacers (49) Clippers (53)
Raptors (47) Rockets (50)
Hawks (44) Jazz (44)
Wizards (44) Thunder (42)
Hornets (44) Grizzlies (42)
Pistons (42) Blazers (41)
Knicks (41) Wolves (41)
Bucks (34) Pelicans (38)
Magic (34) Mavs (33)
Bulls (32) Kings (31)
Heat (28) Nuggets (26)
Sixers (23) Lakers (25)
Nets (14) Suns (25)
Cavs over Pistons; Warriors over Blazers
Celtics over Hornets; Spurs over Grizzlies
Pacers over Wizards; Clippers over Thunder
Hawks over Raptors; Rockets over Jazz
Cavs overs Hawks; Warriors over Rockets (gonna be a killer game 7!)
Pacers over Celtics; Clippers over Spurs (gonna be a killer game 7!)
Cavs over Pacers; Warriors over Clippers (oh damn, gonna be a killer game 7!)
Warriors over Cavs in 5
MVP: Paul George (Pacers)
Coach of the Year: Brad Stevens (Celtics)
Rookie of the Year: Buddy Hield (Pelicans)
6th Man: Monta Ellis (Pacers)
Most Improved: Aaron Gordon (Magic)
Celtics (52) Spurs (61)
Pacers (49) Clippers (53)
Raptors (47) Rockets (50)
Hawks (44) Jazz (44)
Wizards (44) Thunder (42)
Hornets (44) Grizzlies (42)
Pistons (42) Blazers (41)
Knicks (41) Wolves (41)
Bucks (34) Pelicans (38)
Magic (34) Mavs (33)
Bulls (32) Kings (31)
Heat (28) Nuggets (26)
Sixers (23) Lakers (25)
Nets (14) Suns (25)
Cavs over Pistons; Warriors over Blazers
Celtics over Hornets; Spurs over Grizzlies
Pacers over Wizards; Clippers over Thunder
Hawks over Raptors; Rockets over Jazz
Cavs overs Hawks; Warriors over Rockets (gonna be a killer game 7!)
Pacers over Celtics; Clippers over Spurs (gonna be a killer game 7!)
Cavs over Pacers; Warriors over Clippers (oh damn, gonna be a killer game 7!)
Warriors over Cavs in 5
MVP: Paul George (Pacers)
Coach of the Year: Brad Stevens (Celtics)
Rookie of the Year: Buddy Hield (Pelicans)
6th Man: Monta Ellis (Pacers)
Most Improved: Aaron Gordon (Magic)
Sunday, October 9, 2016
NFL Week Four (NFC)
After four weeks it's time to reevaluate how the NFL looks.
My newly re-jiggered playoff picture: Panthers over Cowboys, Packers over Falcons; Seahawks over Packers, Vikings over Panthers; Seahawks over Vikings.
Cowboys (9-7) -- Without Romo the Cowboys were left with a rookie QB to lead them. My initial thought was they struggle for a while then pull it together when Romo returned; but Dak Prescott has been pretty good and it looks like Romo will return to a strong squad hungry for a playoff run. Or...maybe not. Now it feels to me that they'll succeed just fine with Dak and be ready for a string of injuries and setbacks when Romo returns. I'm not saying the Cowboys are worse than I thought but I'm not saying they're better either. They're strangely just about the same. I still like them to win 9 games and the division.
Giants (8-8) -- The Giants are ruled by the Eli Principle: Eli makes bad teams good and good teams bad. So are the Giants good enough to sabotaged by Eli or poor enough to be elevated by him? Ehh, I think this year is kind of a wash. The D line isn't bad, I like receivers but the rest of the team is kinda middling. I think Eli won't have that much to say about how far this team goes. They're not bad, they'll hang around and wait for the Cowboys to blow it but I think they're a middle of the road team in the end. 8 wins and no playoffs.
Eagles (7-9) -- Everyone loves Carson Wentz and I don't disagree, the kid looks like he knows what he doing out there. But I'm afraid his success will only screw up the rebuilding process (like when the Niners brought in Mariucci to take the fall after Siefert only for Jeff Garcia to shock the hell out of everyone). The Eagles were supposed to be mailing it in this season (the Hinkie Effect) but the rook is actually pretty good, which will only drop the draft position and distort next year's schedule. Fortunately I don't think he's gonna be good this year. The Eagles have gotten off to a great start but I suspect that'll come back to earth after the league has more video of the new QB. The Eagles look like a 7 win team to me.
Redskins (6-10) -- The Redskins are the Buffalo Bills, aren't they? Born to be 6-10: not good enough for the playoffs, not bad enough for a top draft pick. Just right there in the middle, year after year. Likewise, they're stuck in the middle with Kirk Cousins: he won't be back next year because if he's good, he'll split and if he's bad they won't want him. An odd situation for a QB. This team has its moments but it already feels like they're just playing out the string til next year.
Vikings (12-4) -- In my pre-pre-season preidctions I had the Vikings going 0-16. On second thought I decided that not only were they not a historically bad team but they were actually probably pretty good. Now that I've seen that D for 4 weeks, I think they might be the best team in the league. That D is scary and the offense (even w/out Adrian Peterson) is patient, nimbly picking their spots and even the special teams looks capable of timely big play or two. Kinda love the coach, Sam Bradford is doing what you need a QB to do and that D line is probably the best in the league. I like them to win 12 games and the division (and be a tough out in the playoffs).
Packers (10-6) -- After all these years with Aaron Rodgers, the Packers still have no offensive identity, isn't that weird? I know what I'm getting with Brady or Roethlisberger or even Andy Dalton. But with the Packers its still just Rodgers running for his life and getting lucky enough to make the playoffs. The D is fine but nothing superlative, the special teams, too, is middle of the road, the O line isn't great and the skill players are so-so. Rodgers really is a badass, he's been carrying this team and I guess he will again. I still like them to make playoffs with 10 wins.
Lions (4-12) -- The Lions are the bizarro Titans: the Titans are plucky and will play hard enough to keep them in games despite their mediocre talent while the Lions have a weird sense of veteran entitlement and will probably play themselves out of games that they ought to be in. Stafford has moments of badass-ery and then throws 3 straight picks. Everything about the team is utterly mediocre but good enough to maybe sneak some W's at the end of the year if Stafford can get hot. (Can't believe I'm saying this but I can see the Lions being next year's pre-season dark horse darling) 4 wins sounds about right: they're about a notch below the Bills and Redskins.
Bears (3-13) -- Man, I think the Bears are terrible. I wasn't expecting them to be good this year but I thought middle of the road and they are not that, they're over in the ditch. I don't see this team wins at all, they're playing for a draft pick already.
Falcons (10-6) -- The Falcons in the Matty Ryan years have consistently been a tease: keep waiting for that offense to take off and it never does. This year it has. The D is not very good (though are showing signs of improvement) but Ryan and Julio Jones have that attack humming. With their division rivals all disappointing expectations so far, it feels like the Falcons are on the right path. I'm only giving them 10 wins though it feels like they ought to move, right? I gotta feeling they give away games late in the season and back into the playoffs.
Panthers (9-7) -- Last year the Panthers pummeled everyone (until the Super Bowl) and while we all knew they weren't gonna be that good again, I expected them to be among the best in the NFC. But so far they seem to have regressed all over the field: the pass D isn't getting as many stops and Cam is looking decidedly human so far. I think they'll pull it together but I'm guessing it'll be too late and they fall short of the playoffs. I still like them to get 9 wins and sneak a wild card.
Bucs (6-10) -- Yes, I fell for the Buc hype again this season. I thought the D would regain classic form, Jamies would take a big step up and they'd ride a mediocre strength of schedule into the playoffs. Not so much. They've got decent talent on both sides of the ball which only means we'll be falling for the hype again next year. The good news is they're not a retread 6-10 (like the Redskins), they're an up-and-coming 6-10 (like the Titans). The bad news is they ain't making the playoffs this year (and we were all fools for thinking they could).
Saints (5-11) -- Do these guys even care any more? Brees is still good enough to muscle a few W's off teams that don't bring their best game but if the opponent shows out strong, the Saints don't have much of a shot at a win. Sad but true: Brees isn't the problem but the solution only comes when he leaves.
Seahawks (12-4) -- The offensive line has been shaky so far this year but that feels like a problem that can be corrected. Otherwise, I think they're looking pretty good on both sides of the ball and by the end of the year could be a real juggernaut heading into the playoffs. I think they easily take the division and get 12 wins.
Cards (9-7) -- I thought the Cards were really impressive last year (until that egg they laid in the NFC Championship) and it felt like they would have another strong year. But, like the Bengals, they seem like a team that peaked last year and missed their opportunity. Carson Palmer looks done and the rest of the squad is not bad but seems on the way down. I bet they'll be streaky for the rest of the year, a handful of a solid weeks followed by a handful of puzzling losses. I'll give 'em 9 wins just because they were so fun to watch last year.
Rams (8-8) -- Perfect Jeff Fisher 8-8 team. Great D line but nothing else ever comes together. They have moments of dominating defense that'll win a few games but the offense just seems like a project. Good enough to get to 8 wins, I guess.
Niners (3-13) -- Yeech, these guys are terrible. God, it wasn't that long ago that were talented and deep at every position and now they're just awful. (Hmm, could Kentucky pry Chip Kelly away from San Fran after one horrible year? Just a thought)
My newly re-jiggered playoff picture: Panthers over Cowboys, Packers over Falcons; Seahawks over Packers, Vikings over Panthers; Seahawks over Vikings.
Thursday, October 6, 2016
NFL Week Four (AFC)
In the pre-season I made team by team projections. Then I second guessed myself. Now we've seen four weeks of football and its time for a proper power ranking. Since my interest is largely self-referential, I'll look at each team through the prism of my previous projections of them. Where was I right? Where was I wrong?
Patriots -- I had them winning 12 games this year...yeah, I was right. Even with that unusual loss at home to Buffalo, they're still 3-1 without Brady or Gronk in a division that looks so so soft. The D is a little unpredictable, but at their best they look pretty damn good. Hard to imagine the Pats not making the playoffs in the AFC, clearly they're still the face to win that division and wouldn't be shocked if they went undefeated for the rest of the year.
Dolphins -- I initially picked the DOlphins to win 7 games, then reconsidered them up to 9. Ehhhh, that D line is a one of the best in the league but nothing else about the team is particularly noteworthy. That said, right around 8 wins doesn't seem inconceivable considering that their D looks better than Buffalo or NYJ and their QB, while underwhelming, doesn't look to be a crippling drawback (as seems possible for their division foes). I think I still like the Dolphins to finished 2nd in the East, though I don't see them competing for a Wild Card.
Bills -- The Bills have some potential upside (interesting weapons on offense that have yet to gel) but debilitating downside, too (flaky pass defense, a coach permanently on the hot seat, an offense that could turn to mush at a moment's notice). The thing about this team is they'll have some great games and they'll have some truly awful games, making them either the most exciting 6-10 team ever or the shakiest 11-5 team ever. I think they're closer to the 6-10 team.
Jets -- I wasn't won over by the emergency signing of Ryan Fitzpatrick, dubious about the signing of Matt Forte, no idea about the coach, no real impression of the D or the skill players on offense. Okay: I really like that D line and the receiving corps has good variation and depth. That's it. If Fitzpatrick gets it together, the Jets can win some games but unless he does (and I doubt he will) the Jets are the classic 5-11 kinda squad.
Bengals -- I watched the Bengals a lot last year and I was impressed. But rather than keeping that vibe going, it increasingly looks like they had their chance last year and missed it. The offense isn't as crisp as last year, the D isn't as strong. They don't suck but they are decidedly 2nd tier in the AFC rather than being the pick to go to the Super Bowl (as they were for me in pre-season). I still think they're a playoff team but I don't think they're as consistently good as the Steelers. I expect them to compete with the AFC West leftovers for a playoff spot and I think they'll take one. But they'll ride into the post-season as a Wild Card rather than a division winner. Bengals are a solid 10-6 team.
Steelers -- The D is still a work in progress and the offense is kinda one-dimensional. However, that one dimension is maybe the best in the league. Ben over the top to those receivers followed by doses of underneath to RBs in the flat is pretty tough to stop. There are pass rushes that can interrupt that and there are offenses that could maybe match the attack, but week in/week out the Steelers are gonna be one of the better teams in the league. I'll take them to go 12-4.
Ravens -- I had the Ravens winning 3 games. They've already won 3 games (squeakers over the Bills, Browns and Jags), seems like they're gonna be awesome, right? Ehhh, I'm not sold. Flacco is firmly on the high side of mediocre: better than middle of the road but not much. The D doesn't suck but doesn't make plays, the O line is suspect and the skill players are not ideal. Okay, this team is already better than I thought they'd be and they'll probably win a few more squeakers (they'll win the types of games the Chargers are losing) but I don't see them winning much more than that. Ravens 6-10.
Browns -- I had the Browns winning 2 games because...well...even the crappiest teams usually win 2 games. The Browns are probably the crappiest team. So I'll stick with 2-14 for the Browns.
Texans -- I had the Texans winning 9 games and their division. Strangely enough even though they've lost JJ Watt for the year and Brock Osweiler is not terribly impressive at QB, even though the Texans are clearly not as good as I thought they could be, I still think they win 9 games and the division. That division stinks and the Texans feel like the least stinky, so I'm sticking with what I thought before.
Jags -- The Jags were one of everyone's favorite dark horse team in pre-season and I kinda got swept up in that. The Jags have sucked for a while now and though they look better than they have in a while, they still don't seem dangerous at all. I thought they'd win 8 games and maybe be a spoiler team and while they're not that good, they look like the kinda team that could sneak some W's late in the season. I'll take them to win 7 games.
Colts -- Andrew Luck is truly one of the best QBs in the league but, my god, the rest of the team is awful. Frank Gore is still surprisingly effective but the O line is abysmal, the receivers are disappointing, the special teams has no magic and the D is one of the worst in the league. And, just to pile on, I think their coach is pretty terrible. But they still have Luck so I'll give them 5 wins.
Titans -- The Titans are plucky, not good but they'll work hard and sneak some wins that they shouldn't get. But they'll lose more than they win and occasionally just look awful. They look like a classic 6-10 team.
Raiders -- I thought the Raiders would bust out, taking steps forward on both sides of the ball. Well, they have moments of bust out but just as often play the youngsters they are. I think they're gonna be pretty good but the lack of veteran presence is gonna fail them a few times this year, while youthful exuberance will only help them once or twice. I still like the Raiders to take a Wild Card and win 10 games.
Chiefs -- I thought the Chiefs would build on last year's improvement and firmly take a Wild Card spot. But so far they don't look quite as good as last year, they can beat bad teams but I'm not sure they can hang with good ones. I think they go 9-6 and miss the playoffs.
Broncos -- I thought the Broncos would miss Jackson and Trevathan on D and struggle at the QB spot on offense and take a serious step back. Nope. That D is every bit as fierce as last year (Von Miller looks ready to jump from Super Bowl MVP to League MVP). And I've been impressed with both of their young QBs, Simien and Lynch both look capable of being goo enough. The running game is solid, the special teams are solid, the overall vibe is exactly where it ought to be. The Broncos are much better than I would've thought. I like them to win the west and go 12-4.
I've shuffled the rankings but I'm still in on 5 (Pats, Bengals, Steelers, Texans, Raiders) of my 6 playoff projections with the Broncos supplanting the Chiefs. So to re-prosecute the playoff projections: Steelers over Raiders, Bengals over Texans; Pats over Bengals, Steelers over Broncos; Steelers over Pats for the AFC final.
Patriots -- I had them winning 12 games this year...yeah, I was right. Even with that unusual loss at home to Buffalo, they're still 3-1 without Brady or Gronk in a division that looks so so soft. The D is a little unpredictable, but at their best they look pretty damn good. Hard to imagine the Pats not making the playoffs in the AFC, clearly they're still the face to win that division and wouldn't be shocked if they went undefeated for the rest of the year.
Dolphins -- I initially picked the DOlphins to win 7 games, then reconsidered them up to 9. Ehhhh, that D line is a one of the best in the league but nothing else about the team is particularly noteworthy. That said, right around 8 wins doesn't seem inconceivable considering that their D looks better than Buffalo or NYJ and their QB, while underwhelming, doesn't look to be a crippling drawback (as seems possible for their division foes). I think I still like the Dolphins to finished 2nd in the East, though I don't see them competing for a Wild Card.
Bills -- The Bills have some potential upside (interesting weapons on offense that have yet to gel) but debilitating downside, too (flaky pass defense, a coach permanently on the hot seat, an offense that could turn to mush at a moment's notice). The thing about this team is they'll have some great games and they'll have some truly awful games, making them either the most exciting 6-10 team ever or the shakiest 11-5 team ever. I think they're closer to the 6-10 team.
Jets -- I wasn't won over by the emergency signing of Ryan Fitzpatrick, dubious about the signing of Matt Forte, no idea about the coach, no real impression of the D or the skill players on offense. Okay: I really like that D line and the receiving corps has good variation and depth. That's it. If Fitzpatrick gets it together, the Jets can win some games but unless he does (and I doubt he will) the Jets are the classic 5-11 kinda squad.
Bengals -- I watched the Bengals a lot last year and I was impressed. But rather than keeping that vibe going, it increasingly looks like they had their chance last year and missed it. The offense isn't as crisp as last year, the D isn't as strong. They don't suck but they are decidedly 2nd tier in the AFC rather than being the pick to go to the Super Bowl (as they were for me in pre-season). I still think they're a playoff team but I don't think they're as consistently good as the Steelers. I expect them to compete with the AFC West leftovers for a playoff spot and I think they'll take one. But they'll ride into the post-season as a Wild Card rather than a division winner. Bengals are a solid 10-6 team.
Steelers -- The D is still a work in progress and the offense is kinda one-dimensional. However, that one dimension is maybe the best in the league. Ben over the top to those receivers followed by doses of underneath to RBs in the flat is pretty tough to stop. There are pass rushes that can interrupt that and there are offenses that could maybe match the attack, but week in/week out the Steelers are gonna be one of the better teams in the league. I'll take them to go 12-4.
Ravens -- I had the Ravens winning 3 games. They've already won 3 games (squeakers over the Bills, Browns and Jags), seems like they're gonna be awesome, right? Ehhh, I'm not sold. Flacco is firmly on the high side of mediocre: better than middle of the road but not much. The D doesn't suck but doesn't make plays, the O line is suspect and the skill players are not ideal. Okay, this team is already better than I thought they'd be and they'll probably win a few more squeakers (they'll win the types of games the Chargers are losing) but I don't see them winning much more than that. Ravens 6-10.
Browns -- I had the Browns winning 2 games because...well...even the crappiest teams usually win 2 games. The Browns are probably the crappiest team. So I'll stick with 2-14 for the Browns.
Texans -- I had the Texans winning 9 games and their division. Strangely enough even though they've lost JJ Watt for the year and Brock Osweiler is not terribly impressive at QB, even though the Texans are clearly not as good as I thought they could be, I still think they win 9 games and the division. That division stinks and the Texans feel like the least stinky, so I'm sticking with what I thought before.
Jags -- The Jags were one of everyone's favorite dark horse team in pre-season and I kinda got swept up in that. The Jags have sucked for a while now and though they look better than they have in a while, they still don't seem dangerous at all. I thought they'd win 8 games and maybe be a spoiler team and while they're not that good, they look like the kinda team that could sneak some W's late in the season. I'll take them to win 7 games.
Colts -- Andrew Luck is truly one of the best QBs in the league but, my god, the rest of the team is awful. Frank Gore is still surprisingly effective but the O line is abysmal, the receivers are disappointing, the special teams has no magic and the D is one of the worst in the league. And, just to pile on, I think their coach is pretty terrible. But they still have Luck so I'll give them 5 wins.
Titans -- The Titans are plucky, not good but they'll work hard and sneak some wins that they shouldn't get. But they'll lose more than they win and occasionally just look awful. They look like a classic 6-10 team.
Raiders -- I thought the Raiders would bust out, taking steps forward on both sides of the ball. Well, they have moments of bust out but just as often play the youngsters they are. I think they're gonna be pretty good but the lack of veteran presence is gonna fail them a few times this year, while youthful exuberance will only help them once or twice. I still like the Raiders to take a Wild Card and win 10 games.
Chiefs -- I thought the Chiefs would build on last year's improvement and firmly take a Wild Card spot. But so far they don't look quite as good as last year, they can beat bad teams but I'm not sure they can hang with good ones. I think they go 9-6 and miss the playoffs.
Broncos -- I thought the Broncos would miss Jackson and Trevathan on D and struggle at the QB spot on offense and take a serious step back. Nope. That D is every bit as fierce as last year (Von Miller looks ready to jump from Super Bowl MVP to League MVP). And I've been impressed with both of their young QBs, Simien and Lynch both look capable of being goo enough. The running game is solid, the special teams are solid, the overall vibe is exactly where it ought to be. The Broncos are much better than I would've thought. I like them to win the west and go 12-4.
I've shuffled the rankings but I'm still in on 5 (Pats, Bengals, Steelers, Texans, Raiders) of my 6 playoff projections with the Broncos supplanting the Chiefs. So to re-prosecute the playoff projections: Steelers over Raiders, Bengals over Texans; Pats over Bengals, Steelers over Broncos; Steelers over Pats for the AFC final.
Wednesday, October 5, 2016
Vin Scully Eulogizing Jose Fernandez
Vin Scully was a guy that talked for a living. Not an easy task but he was a master of keeping the conversation going all by himself. Listen to this story he tells about the tragically departed Jose Fernandez. A cool little anecdote that he effortlessly weaves into the game. Scully was a badass and even in his 80's still brought a palpable magic that doesn't exist in other sports. The Dodgers won't be as good without him but they'll keep going. That's just how baseball works: sometimes the participants grow old before our eyes, sometimes they don't, but the game never stops.
MLB Playoffs
In July I assessed the MLB landscape and decided that the AL division winners would be the Rangers (right), Royals (wrong), Blue Jays (wrong but they got in) with the Indians and Red Sox in the play-in game (both won their division, so I was kinda close). I got 4 out of the 5 playoff teams and in my defense the Royals had one nice run late summer but it wasn't enough while the Orioles surprised me with their resilience.
At the time I took the Indians over the Red Sox and the Blue Jays over the Rangers...so...uhhh, I guess I'll stick with those picks. I'll take the Blue Jays over the Indians for the AL pennant.
In the NL I had the division winners as Nats (right), Cubs (duh, obviously right), Giants (wrong but they got in) with the Mets (right) and Pirates (not even close) in the play-in game. I thought the Pirates had the easiest part of their schedule in the second half but they just never got any momentum going this year, while the Dodgers kinda easily won their division though they seemed uniquely out of sorts all year long.
I had the Cubs hammering the (winner of the play-in game, for now I'll say Mets over Giants) and I'll stay with that. On the other side I took the Nats over (replace Giants with Dodgers) and I'll stand by that one too. I had the Cubs over the Nats and that still seems like the match we'll all been waiting for.
My pre-season pick was Cubs over Blue Jays. My mid-season pick was Cubs over Blue Jays. I don't see any reason to change my pick now. The Blue Jays haven't been as good as they should have all year long but now is the time that matters; they're already in the heads of the Rangers (should be a great series) and by then they'll be rolling and I think they'll get the better of the Indians (or Red Sox, for that matter). The Cubs have been great all year (as was clearly obvious they would be since last year's drubbing of the Cards in the division series) and I really don't see anyone in the NL beating them. The Cubs are going to the World Series. The Blue Jays will be battle tested by then and not afraid of anyone, but I think the Cubs got that thing...you know? That thing.
Cubs over Blue Jays in 6.
At the time I took the Indians over the Red Sox and the Blue Jays over the Rangers...so...uhhh, I guess I'll stick with those picks. I'll take the Blue Jays over the Indians for the AL pennant.
In the NL I had the division winners as Nats (right), Cubs (duh, obviously right), Giants (wrong but they got in) with the Mets (right) and Pirates (not even close) in the play-in game. I thought the Pirates had the easiest part of their schedule in the second half but they just never got any momentum going this year, while the Dodgers kinda easily won their division though they seemed uniquely out of sorts all year long.
I had the Cubs hammering the (winner of the play-in game, for now I'll say Mets over Giants) and I'll stay with that. On the other side I took the Nats over (replace Giants with Dodgers) and I'll stand by that one too. I had the Cubs over the Nats and that still seems like the match we'll all been waiting for.
My pre-season pick was Cubs over Blue Jays. My mid-season pick was Cubs over Blue Jays. I don't see any reason to change my pick now. The Blue Jays haven't been as good as they should have all year long but now is the time that matters; they're already in the heads of the Rangers (should be a great series) and by then they'll be rolling and I think they'll get the better of the Indians (or Red Sox, for that matter). The Cubs have been great all year (as was clearly obvious they would be since last year's drubbing of the Cards in the division series) and I really don't see anyone in the NL beating them. The Cubs are going to the World Series. The Blue Jays will be battle tested by then and not afraid of anyone, but I think the Cubs got that thing...you know? That thing.
Cubs over Blue Jays in 6.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Sports Bric-a-brac
Kevin Garnett has officially retired. I thought Garnett had one more year of player-coach left in him, guiding a young Wolves team toward the future, getting back together with his one time mentor, Coach Thibodeau. Uh, apparently not. I assume that Thibs wasn't eager for KG's tutelage, wasn't eager to have KG hanging around and being a distraction, wasn't eager to have another voice besides his own--why else would Garnett leave? I'm torn: Garnett has been done for a while now but I was impressed with his veteran leadership last year and though I wasn't a fan of Coach Mitchell last year I thought he and KG had a great rapport with the team and keeping them both around in some capacity would have been a good move for the franchise. But once the reins got handed to Thibs, Thibs' first move was redecorating. Thibs is a rugged taskmaster and a bloodthirsty tyrant and while he's indisputably a great coach, I still think this young team needs some tenderness as opposed to an iron hand. Okay, well, the iron hand is fully in command, and apparently KG wasn't welcomed back. Garnett was one of the best I ever saw, toiled for years for crappy teams in Minnesota, finally got his glory with the Celtics, but that brief period was over a long time ago. Garnett is the kind of personality that can do whatever he wants....except play one more year for the Wolves. 1st ballot Hall of Famer, no doubt.
Chris Bosh is apparently done in Miami (and likely the NBA). Bosh's blood clots have returned and it seems that the Miami Heat have no interest in trying to bring Bosh back to basketball. Bosh wants to play, even going so far as firing his agent, but if win-at-all-costs Pat Riley wants no part of him, then who would? Bosh was a great player who never really even peaked. 1st ballot Hall of Famer, in my opinion. Contractual obligation makes him unlikely to get a chance to play at all this year. But perhaps he comes back next summer and tries to find a suitor (but I don't like his chances to ever play again).
Miami Marlins SP Jose Fernandez was killed in a boating accident over the weekend. There are a lot of baseball players in the world and when a young passes away (not an uncommon thing), we get the typical round of shoots and shames and then we get back to business. But this one's different. Fernandez is one of the best young pitchers in the game: 1st round pick, Rookie of the Year, 2-time All Star, top five in Cy Young voting in his 1st year (and probably again in his 4th). The dude was a legit star and still ascending. Damn shame to see him go (and I don't look forward to the sordid details of his death, which are surely still on the way). Tough blow for the Marlins and another blow for South Florida sports.
Hillary debates Trump. Honestly I found this to be a real disappointment. Reminded me of that Saints-Giants game from last week: felt like it was gonna be a shootout, both teams up and down the field, lots of points on the board...instead a 16-13 snoozefest. Yeah, that was the 1st debate. I watched because hey, man, say what you will about Trump, he's a showman, he's a wild card and seeing him and Hillary on the stage together sounded like it could be some fun. Instead of the shootout we got the predictable snoozefest: Trump had some highs and lows, Hillary really had neither but in the end they both did what they've been doing for the last year. Trump hammered a coupla points well but floundered around on the points beyond his grasp; Hillary's job was to not look like a crazy person and, well, she succeeded. No notable drama, no substance, no one got served, which bodes well for Hillary. I suspect the next round of polls will show a drop for Trump while Hillary holds position, maybe even gets a little bounce. (A modest plea: having a debate with any moderator other than Brian Lamb is like having a Super Bowl with college referees)
Sam Allardyce out as England's manager. Allardyce just took his 'dream job' about six weeks ago, win his 1st and only match, but has already been terminated after a newspaper sting operation purports to show him circumventing rules to manipulate player movement. Uhhh, I dunno, I don't see any crime here. Sure, he kinda looks like a boastful, obnoxious jackass but I certainly don't see any criminal activity and everything he does actually do is nothing more entrapment. A bunch of reporters claimed to be Asian businessmen interested in paying Allardyce to give a series of speeches for a shit ton of money. Happens all the time, what's the big deal? He talks to the reporters about how to get in on player movement by bribing agents to convince players and managers to make certain moves. Okay, unethical if he ever actually did anything. But not illegal and in this context just philosophical talk. There's no corresponding moves that indicate a pattern of illegal behavior and, again, this is all just entrapment, none of this actually happened, nor did Allardyce try to make anything happen. I don't know how libel laws work in the UK but if I were Allardyce I'd lawyer the fuck up and sue everyone I could. It'd probably take a few years but I suspect he'd get paid off in the long run. And since his career looks to be over, its not like he's got something better to do. Personally I'm rooting for him, sure he's a jackass but he got a raw deal.
Chris Bosh is apparently done in Miami (and likely the NBA). Bosh's blood clots have returned and it seems that the Miami Heat have no interest in trying to bring Bosh back to basketball. Bosh wants to play, even going so far as firing his agent, but if win-at-all-costs Pat Riley wants no part of him, then who would? Bosh was a great player who never really even peaked. 1st ballot Hall of Famer, in my opinion. Contractual obligation makes him unlikely to get a chance to play at all this year. But perhaps he comes back next summer and tries to find a suitor (but I don't like his chances to ever play again).
Miami Marlins SP Jose Fernandez was killed in a boating accident over the weekend. There are a lot of baseball players in the world and when a young passes away (not an uncommon thing), we get the typical round of shoots and shames and then we get back to business. But this one's different. Fernandez is one of the best young pitchers in the game: 1st round pick, Rookie of the Year, 2-time All Star, top five in Cy Young voting in his 1st year (and probably again in his 4th). The dude was a legit star and still ascending. Damn shame to see him go (and I don't look forward to the sordid details of his death, which are surely still on the way). Tough blow for the Marlins and another blow for South Florida sports.
Hillary debates Trump. Honestly I found this to be a real disappointment. Reminded me of that Saints-Giants game from last week: felt like it was gonna be a shootout, both teams up and down the field, lots of points on the board...instead a 16-13 snoozefest. Yeah, that was the 1st debate. I watched because hey, man, say what you will about Trump, he's a showman, he's a wild card and seeing him and Hillary on the stage together sounded like it could be some fun. Instead of the shootout we got the predictable snoozefest: Trump had some highs and lows, Hillary really had neither but in the end they both did what they've been doing for the last year. Trump hammered a coupla points well but floundered around on the points beyond his grasp; Hillary's job was to not look like a crazy person and, well, she succeeded. No notable drama, no substance, no one got served, which bodes well for Hillary. I suspect the next round of polls will show a drop for Trump while Hillary holds position, maybe even gets a little bounce. (A modest plea: having a debate with any moderator other than Brian Lamb is like having a Super Bowl with college referees)
Sam Allardyce out as England's manager. Allardyce just took his 'dream job' about six weeks ago, win his 1st and only match, but has already been terminated after a newspaper sting operation purports to show him circumventing rules to manipulate player movement. Uhhh, I dunno, I don't see any crime here. Sure, he kinda looks like a boastful, obnoxious jackass but I certainly don't see any criminal activity and everything he does actually do is nothing more entrapment. A bunch of reporters claimed to be Asian businessmen interested in paying Allardyce to give a series of speeches for a shit ton of money. Happens all the time, what's the big deal? He talks to the reporters about how to get in on player movement by bribing agents to convince players and managers to make certain moves. Okay, unethical if he ever actually did anything. But not illegal and in this context just philosophical talk. There's no corresponding moves that indicate a pattern of illegal behavior and, again, this is all just entrapment, none of this actually happened, nor did Allardyce try to make anything happen. I don't know how libel laws work in the UK but if I were Allardyce I'd lawyer the fuck up and sue everyone I could. It'd probably take a few years but I suspect he'd get paid off in the long run. And since his career looks to be over, its not like he's got something better to do. Personally I'm rooting for him, sure he's a jackass but he got a raw deal.
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
US Open
Kerber over Pliskova. It felt early on like Kerber was gonna run Pliskova out of the stadium, then Pliskova got it together and felt like she was gonna get it done. But Kerber had a solid push at the end of the 3rd set to take the championship. Pretty good final, went back and forth. The semis were the only other women's matches I watched this year: Kerber whooping unranked Wozniacki; and Pliskova over Serena (like Duke basketball, always a pleasure to watch Serena lose). Kerber looks good but not unbeatable, it's a good time for women's tennis.
Wawrinka over Djokovic. Oh, good stuff! Wawrinka dropped his opening serve, looked real nervous early on and it felt like Djokovic was gonna steam roll him. Djokovic had two walkovers leading up to this so he was fresh while Wawrinka had gut check matches against Nishikori and Del Potro (he played hard but I reckon that's the last we'll ever see of Del Potro) in the quarters and semis. (I'd like to go back and see Djokovic's match with Monfils in the semis, apparently Monfils was fucking with him pretty hard) I guess being tested worked in his favor. Wawrinka was able to get his break back, then crumbled in the tie break. But he was able to take the 2nd and then outlasted Djok in a marathon 3rd set and I knew it was over. I missed the 4th set, Djok had a controversial medical delay but Wawrinka seemed cool with it. Good match, good win for Wawrinka.
Wawrinka over Djokovic. Oh, good stuff! Wawrinka dropped his opening serve, looked real nervous early on and it felt like Djokovic was gonna steam roll him. Djokovic had two walkovers leading up to this so he was fresh while Wawrinka had gut check matches against Nishikori and Del Potro (he played hard but I reckon that's the last we'll ever see of Del Potro) in the quarters and semis. (I'd like to go back and see Djokovic's match with Monfils in the semis, apparently Monfils was fucking with him pretty hard) I guess being tested worked in his favor. Wawrinka was able to get his break back, then crumbled in the tie break. But he was able to take the 2nd and then outlasted Djok in a marathon 3rd set and I knew it was over. I missed the 4th set, Djok had a controversial medical delay but Wawrinka seemed cool with it. Good match, good win for Wawrinka.
Monday, September 5, 2016
Thoughts About Retirement
This past NBA season was all about Kobe's last hurrah. Kind of a joke but the Lakers had nothing else going on anyway (and were playing to save their top 3 protected draft pick), so letting Kobe run roughshod of everyone one last time seemed fitting. Also fitting was that Tim Duncan did not give us a farewell tour, choosing to ride off into the sunset by issuing a minimal press release in August. Personally I thought Duncan had one year left in him, I thought his decline last year had more to do with changes in Spurs personnel than in his deterioration, but I can't say I'm surprised he decided to move on or that he treated his retirement like an afterthought. Kobe is perhaps the most self-important athlete of my lifetime (at least I'm sure he wouldn't appreciate anyone else being suggested for that title!) and watching him chuck 3 pointers at an embarrassing rate was predictable. Going for 60 in his final game was probably predictable: no one else had anything play for and if Kobe had gone 3-35, 6 turnovers, no assists or rebounds, well...that would've been every bit as fun to watch, so might as well keep feeding the guy who has never fed anyone else in his life. Who was the better NBA player all in all? I'll take Duncan. He was a quiet badass whereas Kobe was the ultimate attention hog. Both had top flight careers so frankly choosing your favorite personality is as good a tiebreaker as any.
Alex Rodriguez, one of the greatest baseball players of all time (whether you like it or not), was summarily drummed out of the Yankee lineup about a month ago and while no one would be shocked if he turned up on a spring training roster next year, his career is pretty much done. 697 home runs, only three other dudes in the history of the game hit that many, clearly ARod was one of the greats, right? Why does everybody hate ARod? He's a cheesy guy that needs to be loved (like Kobe) but is a rather low key personality that doesn't want to do stuff just to be liked (like Duncan). He's not an abrasive personality, he's not a shameless self-promoter, he doesn't endorse every product that comes down the pike, his private life is not something I know anything about, and, yes, he was busted for steroids but a) I couldn't care less and b) so was every other good player of his generation. So why does everybody hate ARod? I dunno but I will say when the career highlights were mentioned, I must confess I totally forgot he won 2 MVPs with the Yankees. I barely remember him with the Yankees though that was the bulk of his career. ARod is a guy that I tuned out so long ago that I didn't remember most of his best moments. Honestly, baseball is still in the steroid phase where its trying to undermine itself and demean its own stars for no real reason. ARod is going to be the face of the self-loathing period longer than the rest. I think he's a pretty good TV personality, we'll see how that changes the perceptions of his career over the next 20-30 years.
Michael Phelps won 14 more gold medals this summer in Rio and capped another brilliant Olympic run by announcing his retirement (for the 3rd time if I'm not mistaken). Yes, he's getting older, and, yes, he's already won 80 (roughly) gold medals, so maybe he's had his fill of guts and glory. But I gotta ask: why should he retire? He swims. That's the best exercise your body can get, why would he stop doing that? Why would his game deteriorate? Allen Iverson took a lot of abuse, you knew he'd wind down eventually; Deion Sanders had the best first step in the history of football and once that left him, you'd knew his game would suffer; Rafael Nadal throws everything he's got into returning every ball, you know these hard courts are going to shred his knees and ankles; even Tiger Woods played a game of repetitive motions that could lead to all kinds of nagging injuries. But why would Phelps ever deteriorate? He doesn't face defenders trying to physically stop him, there aren't any kooky herky jerky motions that might lead to muscle deficiencies or injuries, his body can still grow stronger (or at least not get weaker) for another decade or so (damn, he's not that old). I can understand that kids will come along and be better than him, than can happen. But I think he can still be better than what he's done so far, so why not keep coming back?
Meanwhile, Tim Tebow is trying to play baseball after many years of NOT trying to play football. The guy who never really had a career--and yet never went away--is still trying to be something he's not. And what of Serena Williams? She's at that point where the up-and-comers of women's tennis are lining up to lay beat downs on her, how much of that do you think she'll endure? I suspect her retirement will come quickly and out of the blue probably in the next year.
I'm gonna miss Duncan. I guess I'll even miss Kobe. I'd already forgotten ARod before he left, I never thought twice about Tebow and honestly Serena is probably my all-time least favorite athlete. But I got a feeling Phelps will be back again (and again and again).
Alex Rodriguez, one of the greatest baseball players of all time (whether you like it or not), was summarily drummed out of the Yankee lineup about a month ago and while no one would be shocked if he turned up on a spring training roster next year, his career is pretty much done. 697 home runs, only three other dudes in the history of the game hit that many, clearly ARod was one of the greats, right? Why does everybody hate ARod? He's a cheesy guy that needs to be loved (like Kobe) but is a rather low key personality that doesn't want to do stuff just to be liked (like Duncan). He's not an abrasive personality, he's not a shameless self-promoter, he doesn't endorse every product that comes down the pike, his private life is not something I know anything about, and, yes, he was busted for steroids but a) I couldn't care less and b) so was every other good player of his generation. So why does everybody hate ARod? I dunno but I will say when the career highlights were mentioned, I must confess I totally forgot he won 2 MVPs with the Yankees. I barely remember him with the Yankees though that was the bulk of his career. ARod is a guy that I tuned out so long ago that I didn't remember most of his best moments. Honestly, baseball is still in the steroid phase where its trying to undermine itself and demean its own stars for no real reason. ARod is going to be the face of the self-loathing period longer than the rest. I think he's a pretty good TV personality, we'll see how that changes the perceptions of his career over the next 20-30 years.
Michael Phelps won 14 more gold medals this summer in Rio and capped another brilliant Olympic run by announcing his retirement (for the 3rd time if I'm not mistaken). Yes, he's getting older, and, yes, he's already won 80 (roughly) gold medals, so maybe he's had his fill of guts and glory. But I gotta ask: why should he retire? He swims. That's the best exercise your body can get, why would he stop doing that? Why would his game deteriorate? Allen Iverson took a lot of abuse, you knew he'd wind down eventually; Deion Sanders had the best first step in the history of football and once that left him, you'd knew his game would suffer; Rafael Nadal throws everything he's got into returning every ball, you know these hard courts are going to shred his knees and ankles; even Tiger Woods played a game of repetitive motions that could lead to all kinds of nagging injuries. But why would Phelps ever deteriorate? He doesn't face defenders trying to physically stop him, there aren't any kooky herky jerky motions that might lead to muscle deficiencies or injuries, his body can still grow stronger (or at least not get weaker) for another decade or so (damn, he's not that old). I can understand that kids will come along and be better than him, than can happen. But I think he can still be better than what he's done so far, so why not keep coming back?
Meanwhile, Tim Tebow is trying to play baseball after many years of NOT trying to play football. The guy who never really had a career--and yet never went away--is still trying to be something he's not. And what of Serena Williams? She's at that point where the up-and-comers of women's tennis are lining up to lay beat downs on her, how much of that do you think she'll endure? I suspect her retirement will come quickly and out of the blue probably in the next year.
I'm gonna miss Duncan. I guess I'll even miss Kobe. I'd already forgotten ARod before he left, I never thought twice about Tebow and honestly Serena is probably my all-time least favorite athlete. But I got a feeling Phelps will be back again (and again and again).
Sunday, September 4, 2016
NFL Preview
I love football, always have. But I don't have nearly the depth of knowledge in football that I do in basketball or baseball and I have no idea how to predict a future season. By the end of the year I'll have interesting observations to make but in summer time, this is all from the gut stuff. I've been listening to various 'experts' during their previews and all I can think is, 'Dude, it's all about injuries. How da F do you know who's gonna get hurt?'
I looked over this year's NFL schedule and picked a winner for each game. I didn't consider spreads although I did try to throw in an occasional situational upset. Of course, this does not (cannot!) take into account who won't be playing week to week. This exercise tends to ignore the middle: I usually end up with too many great teams and too many awful teams. I do have 11 double digit winning teams and only 6 teams with 4 or fewer wins. Yeah, nothing about that seems accurate. But this is just a start. This is what I came up with:
(15 wins)
Packers
(13 wins)
Bengals, Raiders, Cards
(12 wins)
Pats, Chiefs, Panthers
(11 wins)
Texans, Bucs, Seahawks
(10 wins)
Steelers
(9 wins)
Colts, Cowboys, Giants
(8 wins)
Broncos, Rams
(7 wins)
Bills, Dolphins, Bears, Lions, Falcons
(6 wins)
Titans, Chargers, Eagles, Redskins
(5 wins)
Niners
(4 wins)
Jets, Jags
(3 wins)
Browns, Ravens, Saints
(0 wins)
Vikings
Just based on this, who seems overrated and who seems underrated?
Okay, start at the bottom: very unlikely the Vikings win ZERO games. They won their division last year and still feature a solid defensive line and one of the great running backs of all time. I did this game-picking exercise before they traded for Sam Bradford, but frankly I still wildly underrated before they got an NFL QB (and I should say, I still kinda like Bradford, needs a lot of help from his O line but if they can keep him upright, he should be really good for them). So why did I have them so low? I dunno, they just never seemed like the better team in any single match. Looking back at it, more likely the Vikings win 8 or 9 games and compete for a wild card (and that I've probably overrated the Lions and Bears). I'll say Vikings go 8-8.
The Ravens were decimated by injuries last year and can't really be as bad as they were...but I still don't care for their roster and there's a decent chance they get decimated by injuries again (it is football, after all). So I'll stand by the 3-13 record for the Ravens.
Yeah, I think the Browns could be truly awful this year. In fact, I'm surprised I gave them 3 wins. The good teams are entirely unpredictable but the bad teams announce themselves ahead of time. The Browns are relying on the resurgence of RG3 and...uh....does not bode well for them, methinks. I assume they're gearing up for the draft by now. I'll go 2-14 for the Browns.
The Saints also feel like an easy call as a bad team. They're getting older and more expensive and they're in a division with the defending conference champs (Panthers), an up and coming tough D squad (Bucs) and a slightly younger clone with a hungry new coach (Falcons). None of that is promising for the Saints. I'll stick with 3-13 for the Saints.
The Jets were not good last year and don't seem any better to me. 4-12 sounds about right for the Jets.
The Jags are one that I'm wrong about. The Jags have been monumentally bad for the last few years but they do seem like they're moving in the right direction. I think their division is soft (I think I've overrated the Texans and Colts) and if that D can stand up, I think the Jags could be a real surprise in the AFC. I think they can stay in the mix for that division right up through December. I'll go 9-7 on the Jags.
The Niners are another one I think I'm wrong about. It was only 3 years ago that the Niners were talented, young and deep at every position, looked like they were going to dominate the NFC West for years to come. Man, all of that is loooooooonnnngggg gone! How on earth do they win 5 games? No, no, no, I am not buying Blaine Gabbert at QB, not buying Chip Kelly in his 1st year, not buying their D line or running game. I'll say 3-13 for the Niners.
The Titans should be fun to watch but I'm not sure they win too many games this year. Indeed, I think 6 wins is probably an overshot. I'll go 5-11 for the Titans.
Last year the Chargers (like the Ravens) were a solid veteran team that couldn't withstand all the injuries. But, man, Phillip Rivers is still really good, he keeps them in games they have no business competing in, he truly is Dan Fouts 2.0. That said, I still think the team is in disarray, they'll be one of those teams that wins game they oughta lose and lose games they oughta win. If you're into gambling, stay away from the Chargers! I'll stick with 6-10 because...I dunno....sounds about right.
I gave the Eagles 6 wins but looking back on it, I don't know why. I think this first post-Chip year could be disastrous: no running game, rookie QB, so-so defense. I'll go 3-13 for the Eagles.
I don't know about the Redskins. Kinda depends on Tony Romo really: if he's healthy the Cowboys could be really really good, if not the Redskins could still be in the hunt by the end of the year. I'll go 8-8 for the Redskins though it could be much higher or much lower.
As I said above, since I wildly downgraded the Vikings in my initial look, it seems like the Bears and Lions are both overrated in my predictions. I think the Lions could get an eye-opening year out of Matt Stafford (make or break season for him) but I don't like the defense. The Bears have been up and down over the years, I suspect they'll be down this year. I'll say 5-11 for the Lions, 6-10 for the Bears.
Brady and Belichick have so dominated the AFC East for as long as anyone can remember that the Bills and Dolphins (and NYJ, too) are in a permanent spin cycle. In most years the Bills have widest variance: if it all comes together they could be really good, but unless it all comes together they could be really bad. But this year I think that team is the Dolphins: front 7 of that defense looks mighty and if Tannehill can finally become something, the Dolphins could surprise people. While the Bills D has been steadily declining under Rex Ryan and the offense is still based on longshots. I'll got 5-11 for the Bills and 9-7 for the Dolphins.
The Falcons have been not-as-good-as-they-ought-to-be for like a decade now. With the Panthers looking solid and the Bucs on the rise, it doesn't feel like the Falcons break out of their mediocrity this year. I think 7-9 sounds about right for the Falcons.
The Broncos are the defending Super Bowl champs. They won last year with a fierce pass rush and the veteran savvy of Peyton Manning. The defense has taken a step back and while the QB situation doesn't seem like a huge step back, it doesn't feel like a huge step forward either. I just don't see how they could possibly be as good this year. I think there are some serious comers in that division, I'll stick with 8-8 for the Broncos.
The Rams will go 8-8. Yeah, rookie QB, new stadium, no real upgrade on the offense, but the pass rush is so good and Jeff Fisher is the ultimate 8-8 coach. Yeah, I'll stick with it.
The Colts have Andrew Luck, one of the bestest QBs in the business....and nothing else. I think they've been living off a sub-par division for years and I don't think that's gonna work for them this year. Not sure why I gave them 9 wins. I'll go 7-9 for the Colts.
The Giants are led by Eli Manning, a QB who has a knack for making bad teams good and good teams bad. By giving them 9 wins, I think I'm suggesting they're a bad team that will be elevated by Eli. I dunno...I think I'll stick with that. 9-7 for the Giants.
The Cowboys season is all about Tony Romo. The running game should be dominant, the defense should be better than ya think, if they can survive til Romo comes back, I think the Cowboys could run away with the division in December. I'll stick with 9-7 (and a home playoff game) for the Cowboys.
The Steelers for years have been a team that just chugs along, there's not always great but they're never bad and if some other team flubs it late, the Steelers are usually there to snatch an extra win or two. That said, it feels like there's been a steady erosion over the last few years. But I think the Ravens and Browns are still gonna be terrible, which can only benefit the Steelers. I'll back off a bit and say 9-7 for the Steelers.
I think I overrated the Texans. 11 wins seems kinda high for a team with a banged up defense and a brand new (largely untested) QB. And while their division isn't great, I think the Titans and Jags are on the rise and the Colts still have one of the best QBs in the league. I'll stick by the Texans winning the division but I'll knock them back to 9-7.
Yeah....the Bucs....every year somebody overrates the Bucs. I'll be that guy. I think the D is killer, I think Winston has a bust out season and the Bucs take advantage of minimal expectations. Bucs go 11-5.
It seems like the Seahawks should be on the way down but I don't think so. Every year that D is stout, the QB is top notch and they just find a way to win. I'll stick with the Seahawks going 11-5.
The Pats will be without Tom Brady for the first 4 games of the season. I say they 3-1 without him, 9-3 with him. Yeah, that sounds about right. Pats go 12-4.
I thought the Chiefs were playing really good football by the end last year. Alex Smith is not the most exciting QB but when you're going for continuity, he's the man. I like the Chiefs to build on last year and usurp the Broncos. That said, 13 wins sounds like a lot, don't it? I'll say the Chiefs go 11-5, still comfortable make the playoffs.
The Panthers rolled through the NFL last year (til the Super Bowl, of course) and while it seems inconceivable they can be that good again, they do look good enough to win 12 games and take their division. Panthers go 12-4.
I thought the Bengals were the best team in the AFC last year, still not sure how they lost to the Steelers in the playoffs but I thought they would've beaten the Broncos and the Pats and I still think that. I like the Bengals to hold it all together and go 13-3.
The Raiders are on the right track, one of those teams that should be exciting to watch even if they're losing. If it all comes together, they might just dominate for stretches of the season. 13 wins seems ludicrous...yeah, it does...but I'll stick with it.
The Cards flailed badly in the playoffs last year but, man, that D is so strong and I think Carson Palmer has one more good year left in him (though I don't see many more than that). I think the Seahawks will be good and the Rams are never an easy out, but I like the Cards to stay strong enough to go 12-4.
No way the Packers win 15 games, right? Right. But I think their division is soft so I'll still take them to go 13-3.
Okay, I made a few changes (which probably don't add up but who cares?) but my playoff picks are all still the same. So here's my playoff rundown:
AFC
Chiefs over Texans; Pats over Steelers
Bengals over Chiefs; Pats over Raiders
Bengals over Pats
NFC
Seahawks over Panthers; Bucs over Cowboys
Packers over Bucs; Seahawks over Cards
Packers over Seahawks
I'll take the Packers over the Bengals in the Super Bowl. All right, future has been predicted, no need for newspapers ever again.
But for real, here's some serious punditry for you: football is all about injuries. Basically all I'm saying above is if the Packers and Bengals can overcome the injuries they will surely have, then I think they have the best chances to make it to the Super Bowl. I could be wrong but ain't nobody else gonna be right either because the injuries are entirely unknowable. All I know is: it's good to have football back.
I looked over this year's NFL schedule and picked a winner for each game. I didn't consider spreads although I did try to throw in an occasional situational upset. Of course, this does not (cannot!) take into account who won't be playing week to week. This exercise tends to ignore the middle: I usually end up with too many great teams and too many awful teams. I do have 11 double digit winning teams and only 6 teams with 4 or fewer wins. Yeah, nothing about that seems accurate. But this is just a start. This is what I came up with:
(15 wins)
Packers
(13 wins)
Bengals, Raiders, Cards
(12 wins)
Pats, Chiefs, Panthers
(11 wins)
Texans, Bucs, Seahawks
(10 wins)
Steelers
(9 wins)
Colts, Cowboys, Giants
(8 wins)
Broncos, Rams
(7 wins)
Bills, Dolphins, Bears, Lions, Falcons
(6 wins)
Titans, Chargers, Eagles, Redskins
(5 wins)
Niners
(4 wins)
Jets, Jags
(3 wins)
Browns, Ravens, Saints
(0 wins)
Vikings
Just based on this, who seems overrated and who seems underrated?
Okay, start at the bottom: very unlikely the Vikings win ZERO games. They won their division last year and still feature a solid defensive line and one of the great running backs of all time. I did this game-picking exercise before they traded for Sam Bradford, but frankly I still wildly underrated before they got an NFL QB (and I should say, I still kinda like Bradford, needs a lot of help from his O line but if they can keep him upright, he should be really good for them). So why did I have them so low? I dunno, they just never seemed like the better team in any single match. Looking back at it, more likely the Vikings win 8 or 9 games and compete for a wild card (and that I've probably overrated the Lions and Bears). I'll say Vikings go 8-8.
The Ravens were decimated by injuries last year and can't really be as bad as they were...but I still don't care for their roster and there's a decent chance they get decimated by injuries again (it is football, after all). So I'll stand by the 3-13 record for the Ravens.
Yeah, I think the Browns could be truly awful this year. In fact, I'm surprised I gave them 3 wins. The good teams are entirely unpredictable but the bad teams announce themselves ahead of time. The Browns are relying on the resurgence of RG3 and...uh....does not bode well for them, methinks. I assume they're gearing up for the draft by now. I'll go 2-14 for the Browns.
The Saints also feel like an easy call as a bad team. They're getting older and more expensive and they're in a division with the defending conference champs (Panthers), an up and coming tough D squad (Bucs) and a slightly younger clone with a hungry new coach (Falcons). None of that is promising for the Saints. I'll stick with 3-13 for the Saints.
The Jets were not good last year and don't seem any better to me. 4-12 sounds about right for the Jets.
The Jags are one that I'm wrong about. The Jags have been monumentally bad for the last few years but they do seem like they're moving in the right direction. I think their division is soft (I think I've overrated the Texans and Colts) and if that D can stand up, I think the Jags could be a real surprise in the AFC. I think they can stay in the mix for that division right up through December. I'll go 9-7 on the Jags.
The Niners are another one I think I'm wrong about. It was only 3 years ago that the Niners were talented, young and deep at every position, looked like they were going to dominate the NFC West for years to come. Man, all of that is loooooooonnnngggg gone! How on earth do they win 5 games? No, no, no, I am not buying Blaine Gabbert at QB, not buying Chip Kelly in his 1st year, not buying their D line or running game. I'll say 3-13 for the Niners.
The Titans should be fun to watch but I'm not sure they win too many games this year. Indeed, I think 6 wins is probably an overshot. I'll go 5-11 for the Titans.
Last year the Chargers (like the Ravens) were a solid veteran team that couldn't withstand all the injuries. But, man, Phillip Rivers is still really good, he keeps them in games they have no business competing in, he truly is Dan Fouts 2.0. That said, I still think the team is in disarray, they'll be one of those teams that wins game they oughta lose and lose games they oughta win. If you're into gambling, stay away from the Chargers! I'll stick with 6-10 because...I dunno....sounds about right.
I gave the Eagles 6 wins but looking back on it, I don't know why. I think this first post-Chip year could be disastrous: no running game, rookie QB, so-so defense. I'll go 3-13 for the Eagles.
I don't know about the Redskins. Kinda depends on Tony Romo really: if he's healthy the Cowboys could be really really good, if not the Redskins could still be in the hunt by the end of the year. I'll go 8-8 for the Redskins though it could be much higher or much lower.
As I said above, since I wildly downgraded the Vikings in my initial look, it seems like the Bears and Lions are both overrated in my predictions. I think the Lions could get an eye-opening year out of Matt Stafford (make or break season for him) but I don't like the defense. The Bears have been up and down over the years, I suspect they'll be down this year. I'll say 5-11 for the Lions, 6-10 for the Bears.
Brady and Belichick have so dominated the AFC East for as long as anyone can remember that the Bills and Dolphins (and NYJ, too) are in a permanent spin cycle. In most years the Bills have widest variance: if it all comes together they could be really good, but unless it all comes together they could be really bad. But this year I think that team is the Dolphins: front 7 of that defense looks mighty and if Tannehill can finally become something, the Dolphins could surprise people. While the Bills D has been steadily declining under Rex Ryan and the offense is still based on longshots. I'll got 5-11 for the Bills and 9-7 for the Dolphins.
The Falcons have been not-as-good-as-they-ought-to-be for like a decade now. With the Panthers looking solid and the Bucs on the rise, it doesn't feel like the Falcons break out of their mediocrity this year. I think 7-9 sounds about right for the Falcons.
The Broncos are the defending Super Bowl champs. They won last year with a fierce pass rush and the veteran savvy of Peyton Manning. The defense has taken a step back and while the QB situation doesn't seem like a huge step back, it doesn't feel like a huge step forward either. I just don't see how they could possibly be as good this year. I think there are some serious comers in that division, I'll stick with 8-8 for the Broncos.
The Rams will go 8-8. Yeah, rookie QB, new stadium, no real upgrade on the offense, but the pass rush is so good and Jeff Fisher is the ultimate 8-8 coach. Yeah, I'll stick with it.
The Colts have Andrew Luck, one of the bestest QBs in the business....and nothing else. I think they've been living off a sub-par division for years and I don't think that's gonna work for them this year. Not sure why I gave them 9 wins. I'll go 7-9 for the Colts.
The Giants are led by Eli Manning, a QB who has a knack for making bad teams good and good teams bad. By giving them 9 wins, I think I'm suggesting they're a bad team that will be elevated by Eli. I dunno...I think I'll stick with that. 9-7 for the Giants.
The Cowboys season is all about Tony Romo. The running game should be dominant, the defense should be better than ya think, if they can survive til Romo comes back, I think the Cowboys could run away with the division in December. I'll stick with 9-7 (and a home playoff game) for the Cowboys.
The Steelers for years have been a team that just chugs along, there's not always great but they're never bad and if some other team flubs it late, the Steelers are usually there to snatch an extra win or two. That said, it feels like there's been a steady erosion over the last few years. But I think the Ravens and Browns are still gonna be terrible, which can only benefit the Steelers. I'll back off a bit and say 9-7 for the Steelers.
I think I overrated the Texans. 11 wins seems kinda high for a team with a banged up defense and a brand new (largely untested) QB. And while their division isn't great, I think the Titans and Jags are on the rise and the Colts still have one of the best QBs in the league. I'll stick by the Texans winning the division but I'll knock them back to 9-7.
Yeah....the Bucs....every year somebody overrates the Bucs. I'll be that guy. I think the D is killer, I think Winston has a bust out season and the Bucs take advantage of minimal expectations. Bucs go 11-5.
It seems like the Seahawks should be on the way down but I don't think so. Every year that D is stout, the QB is top notch and they just find a way to win. I'll stick with the Seahawks going 11-5.
The Pats will be without Tom Brady for the first 4 games of the season. I say they 3-1 without him, 9-3 with him. Yeah, that sounds about right. Pats go 12-4.
I thought the Chiefs were playing really good football by the end last year. Alex Smith is not the most exciting QB but when you're going for continuity, he's the man. I like the Chiefs to build on last year and usurp the Broncos. That said, 13 wins sounds like a lot, don't it? I'll say the Chiefs go 11-5, still comfortable make the playoffs.
The Panthers rolled through the NFL last year (til the Super Bowl, of course) and while it seems inconceivable they can be that good again, they do look good enough to win 12 games and take their division. Panthers go 12-4.
I thought the Bengals were the best team in the AFC last year, still not sure how they lost to the Steelers in the playoffs but I thought they would've beaten the Broncos and the Pats and I still think that. I like the Bengals to hold it all together and go 13-3.
The Raiders are on the right track, one of those teams that should be exciting to watch even if they're losing. If it all comes together, they might just dominate for stretches of the season. 13 wins seems ludicrous...yeah, it does...but I'll stick with it.
The Cards flailed badly in the playoffs last year but, man, that D is so strong and I think Carson Palmer has one more good year left in him (though I don't see many more than that). I think the Seahawks will be good and the Rams are never an easy out, but I like the Cards to stay strong enough to go 12-4.
No way the Packers win 15 games, right? Right. But I think their division is soft so I'll still take them to go 13-3.
Okay, I made a few changes (which probably don't add up but who cares?) but my playoff picks are all still the same. So here's my playoff rundown:
AFC
Chiefs over Texans; Pats over Steelers
Bengals over Chiefs; Pats over Raiders
Bengals over Pats
NFC
Seahawks over Panthers; Bucs over Cowboys
Packers over Bucs; Seahawks over Cards
Packers over Seahawks
I'll take the Packers over the Bengals in the Super Bowl. All right, future has been predicted, no need for newspapers ever again.
But for real, here's some serious punditry for you: football is all about injuries. Basically all I'm saying above is if the Packers and Bengals can overcome the injuries they will surely have, then I think they have the best chances to make it to the Super Bowl. I could be wrong but ain't nobody else gonna be right either because the injuries are entirely unknowable. All I know is: it's good to have football back.
Friday, September 2, 2016
Philadelphia 76ers (so far)
This is the season the Sixers (and their fans) have been waiting for years now. They've got a ton of young (unproven) talent and plenty of space for next year. They should still suck pretty bad this year but, unlike previous seasons, they will at least be exciting and/or competitive and they should be well situated to make a for-real splash next summer.
They lost (uh....does it matter who they lost?) Isiah Canaan (Bulls), Elton Brand (Croatia), Christian Wood (Hornets), Ish Smith (Pistons), Kendall Marshall (Jazz), Carl Landry (waived), Sasha Kaun and Tibor Pleiss (both traded for and already waived). Personally I liked Christian Wood (but the Sixers have plenty of young big men) and Ish Smith (but he doesn't give them enough to re-sign him long term) and I think Tibor can be a worthwhile big man in the NBA (hmm, isn't he made for the Mavs?). But really none of these losses are worth thinking twice about going forward.
They added #1 pick Ben Simmons, Timothe Luwawu (#24), Furkan Korkmaz (#26) on draft night, added Jerryd Bayless (3yrs/$27m), Gerald Henderson (2yrs/$18m), Sergio Rodriguez (1yr/$8m) in free agency and they'll be rolling out 2014 draftees Joel Embiid and Dario Saric. Simmons will be a ball dominant forward (sliding McConnell into the 2nd string PG spot that he is perfect for), I suspect Luwawu and Korkmaz will be heading back to Europe for a year and Rodriguez is just a one shot deal.
PG Bayless, SG Henderson, SF Simmons, PF Okafor, C Noel with Rodriguez, McConnell, Stauskus, Thompson, Grant, Covington, Holmes, Embiid off the bench. That's not bad, still a lot of green bananas but the Sixers at least have themselves a bunch. They won't make the playoffs but they'll have another top ten pick (probably two depending on the Lakers) and plenty of flexibility for next summer. 2017-18 is still setting up to be the bust out for Philly but this season will be an exciting one for this team. Already looking forward to watching the youth movement.
They lost (uh....does it matter who they lost?) Isiah Canaan (Bulls), Elton Brand (Croatia), Christian Wood (Hornets), Ish Smith (Pistons), Kendall Marshall (Jazz), Carl Landry (waived), Sasha Kaun and Tibor Pleiss (both traded for and already waived). Personally I liked Christian Wood (but the Sixers have plenty of young big men) and Ish Smith (but he doesn't give them enough to re-sign him long term) and I think Tibor can be a worthwhile big man in the NBA (hmm, isn't he made for the Mavs?). But really none of these losses are worth thinking twice about going forward.
They added #1 pick Ben Simmons, Timothe Luwawu (#24), Furkan Korkmaz (#26) on draft night, added Jerryd Bayless (3yrs/$27m), Gerald Henderson (2yrs/$18m), Sergio Rodriguez (1yr/$8m) in free agency and they'll be rolling out 2014 draftees Joel Embiid and Dario Saric. Simmons will be a ball dominant forward (sliding McConnell into the 2nd string PG spot that he is perfect for), I suspect Luwawu and Korkmaz will be heading back to Europe for a year and Rodriguez is just a one shot deal.
PG Bayless, SG Henderson, SF Simmons, PF Okafor, C Noel with Rodriguez, McConnell, Stauskus, Thompson, Grant, Covington, Holmes, Embiid off the bench. That's not bad, still a lot of green bananas but the Sixers at least have themselves a bunch. They won't make the playoffs but they'll have another top ten pick (probably two depending on the Lakers) and plenty of flexibility for next summer. 2017-18 is still setting up to be the bust out for Philly but this season will be an exciting one for this team. Already looking forward to watching the youth movement.
Thursday, September 1, 2016
Orlando Magic (so far)
For the last coupla years the Magic have been one of my favorite teams to watch (I'm a sucker for youth movements). This summer saw a re-shaping of the entire roster, shipping out much of the promising youth in favor of veterans. As a watcher I've lost interest but has the team improved?
They let go of Brandon Jennings (Knicks), Joe Harris (Nets), Dewayne Dedmon (Spurs), Jason Smith (Wizards), Andrew Nicholson (Wizards), Ersan Ilyasova (Thunder), Victor Oladipo (Thunder), Shabazz Napier (Blazers), and Devyn Marble (Clippers). Jennings was never meant to last in Orlando, Harris is a minimal commodity, Dedmon is nice but not irreplaceable, Smith is....who is he?, I like Nicholson and thought he could've helped this team for the long term, Ilyasova was always just a chess piece for the Magic, Oladipo isn't the bust-out star the Magic were hoping for but he was certainly good enough to earn another contract from Orlando, Napier is probably my least favorite in the entire league, Marble is a bottom of the roster guy. Okay, maybe that's not so bad.
They made all the deletions to make room for DJ Augustin (4yrs/$29m), Jeff Green (1yr/$15m), Bismack Biyombo (4yrs/$72m), Serge Ibaka (free agent next summer), CJ Wilcox, Stephen Zimmerman (41st pick) and they re-signed Evan Fournier (5yrs/$85m). Augustin is a reliable backup PG, Green is an occasionally explosive scorer, Biyombo is an athletic rebounder down low, Ibaka has one year to provide wing scoring and good D, Wilcox will take Napier's spot at the end of the bench, Zimmerman is a nice 2nd round pickup, and giving Fournier a ton of money was the smartest thing they've done in a while.
Considering how little they received for Mo Harkless, Tobias Harris, Kyle O'Quinn, Channing Frye and Victor Oladipo, we shouldn't be surprised that the Magic have moved two of their most recent draft picks: #11 (Damontis Sabonis) to the Thunder and #47 (Jake Layman) to the Blazers. The youth movement is officially over, the sad retread of aging vets is here. Are they better? Ehh, maybe. But they're certainly not any more interesting, nor do they appear secure for the future. How do these pieces fit together? Does Hezonja play PG? Does Ibaka play PF? Do Vucevic and Biyombo play together?
Starting five: PG Payton, SG Fournier, SF Gordon, PF Ibaka, C Vucevic with Hezonja, Augustin, Wilcox, Green, Biyombo, and Zimmerman off the bench. Not a bad collection of talent and they do have Coach Vogel to put it all together. But everything about their moves over the last coupla years indicates a team that doesn't know what it wants to do. They're tired of building for the future but they don't have enough right now to be players. I don't see them getting to the 8th spot in the East and given their penchant for giving up on previous moves, I wouldn't be surprised to see Ibaka, Vucevic and/or Green get moved at the trade deadline. If that is the case, hopefully it's because they have a reason to do so.
They let go of Brandon Jennings (Knicks), Joe Harris (Nets), Dewayne Dedmon (Spurs), Jason Smith (Wizards), Andrew Nicholson (Wizards), Ersan Ilyasova (Thunder), Victor Oladipo (Thunder), Shabazz Napier (Blazers), and Devyn Marble (Clippers). Jennings was never meant to last in Orlando, Harris is a minimal commodity, Dedmon is nice but not irreplaceable, Smith is....who is he?, I like Nicholson and thought he could've helped this team for the long term, Ilyasova was always just a chess piece for the Magic, Oladipo isn't the bust-out star the Magic were hoping for but he was certainly good enough to earn another contract from Orlando, Napier is probably my least favorite in the entire league, Marble is a bottom of the roster guy. Okay, maybe that's not so bad.
They made all the deletions to make room for DJ Augustin (4yrs/$29m), Jeff Green (1yr/$15m), Bismack Biyombo (4yrs/$72m), Serge Ibaka (free agent next summer), CJ Wilcox, Stephen Zimmerman (41st pick) and they re-signed Evan Fournier (5yrs/$85m). Augustin is a reliable backup PG, Green is an occasionally explosive scorer, Biyombo is an athletic rebounder down low, Ibaka has one year to provide wing scoring and good D, Wilcox will take Napier's spot at the end of the bench, Zimmerman is a nice 2nd round pickup, and giving Fournier a ton of money was the smartest thing they've done in a while.
Considering how little they received for Mo Harkless, Tobias Harris, Kyle O'Quinn, Channing Frye and Victor Oladipo, we shouldn't be surprised that the Magic have moved two of their most recent draft picks: #11 (Damontis Sabonis) to the Thunder and #47 (Jake Layman) to the Blazers. The youth movement is officially over, the sad retread of aging vets is here. Are they better? Ehh, maybe. But they're certainly not any more interesting, nor do they appear secure for the future. How do these pieces fit together? Does Hezonja play PG? Does Ibaka play PF? Do Vucevic and Biyombo play together?
Starting five: PG Payton, SG Fournier, SF Gordon, PF Ibaka, C Vucevic with Hezonja, Augustin, Wilcox, Green, Biyombo, and Zimmerman off the bench. Not a bad collection of talent and they do have Coach Vogel to put it all together. But everything about their moves over the last coupla years indicates a team that doesn't know what it wants to do. They're tired of building for the future but they don't have enough right now to be players. I don't see them getting to the 8th spot in the East and given their penchant for giving up on previous moves, I wouldn't be surprised to see Ibaka, Vucevic and/or Green get moved at the trade deadline. If that is the case, hopefully it's because they have a reason to do so.
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
Washington Wizards (so far)
The Wizards made minimal moves last summer and followed that with a disappointing campaign where they failed to make the playoffs. This summer was another fairly quiet one, will that be good enough to get back into the top eight in the East?
The first step of this off-season was bringing back Bradley Beal (5yrs/$120m). They went on to add Ian Mahinmi (4yrs/$24m), Jason Smith (3yrs/$16m), Andrew Nicholson (4yrs/$26m), Trey Burke (for a 2nd rd pick), all veterans since they had no draft picks this year. They let go of Ramon Sessions (Hornets), Garrett Temple (Kings), Nene Hilario (Rockets) and Jared Dudley (Suns).
It doesn't feel like they lost much: Sessions is a nice backup PG, Dudley is a nice 3-point shooter, Temple is...I don't know Temple and Nene's best years were certainly behind him. Nothing that seems irreplaceable. Burke will take up the 2nd string PG minutes (not a bad fit, he's still young and hungry enough to be worthy of this kind of opportunity), Mahinmi replaces Nene (not as good as Nene at his peak, but played with some fire in the playoffs last year, seems like a nice veteran pickup down low), while Smith and Nicholson add size and rebounding at reasonable prices. The new isn't overwhelming but the old wasn't either. But then there was a late summer wild card: Tomas Satoransky, an intriguing Euro-vet most recently of Barcelona. He could be Ichiro, could Hideki Irabu, we just don't know. But its a great move for the Wizards, low risk, high reward, though it may take a while for him to find his groove in the NBA.
Starting five: PG Wall, SG Beal, SF Porter, PF Markieff, C Gortat with Burke, Satoransky, Oubre, Nicholson, Ochefu, Smith off the bench. Hard to tell if they're better. In 2013-14 and 2014-15, the Wizards made the 2nd round of the playoffs but deep down we all know they overachieved; then last year they failed to make the playoffs, but we all know they were better than that. So how good are they? I have no idea. My guess is Wall, Beal and Porter take a step forward allowing Oubre and Satoransky to make worthwhile contributions. If Markieff, Gortat, Nicholson and Mahinmi just do what they need to do, I think the Wizards could be 4th or 5th in the East. Realistically they're probably gonna struggle to get back to the post-season but I think they make it.
The first step of this off-season was bringing back Bradley Beal (5yrs/$120m). They went on to add Ian Mahinmi (4yrs/$24m), Jason Smith (3yrs/$16m), Andrew Nicholson (4yrs/$26m), Trey Burke (for a 2nd rd pick), all veterans since they had no draft picks this year. They let go of Ramon Sessions (Hornets), Garrett Temple (Kings), Nene Hilario (Rockets) and Jared Dudley (Suns).
It doesn't feel like they lost much: Sessions is a nice backup PG, Dudley is a nice 3-point shooter, Temple is...I don't know Temple and Nene's best years were certainly behind him. Nothing that seems irreplaceable. Burke will take up the 2nd string PG minutes (not a bad fit, he's still young and hungry enough to be worthy of this kind of opportunity), Mahinmi replaces Nene (not as good as Nene at his peak, but played with some fire in the playoffs last year, seems like a nice veteran pickup down low), while Smith and Nicholson add size and rebounding at reasonable prices. The new isn't overwhelming but the old wasn't either. But then there was a late summer wild card: Tomas Satoransky, an intriguing Euro-vet most recently of Barcelona. He could be Ichiro, could Hideki Irabu, we just don't know. But its a great move for the Wizards, low risk, high reward, though it may take a while for him to find his groove in the NBA.
Starting five: PG Wall, SG Beal, SF Porter, PF Markieff, C Gortat with Burke, Satoransky, Oubre, Nicholson, Ochefu, Smith off the bench. Hard to tell if they're better. In 2013-14 and 2014-15, the Wizards made the 2nd round of the playoffs but deep down we all know they overachieved; then last year they failed to make the playoffs, but we all know they were better than that. So how good are they? I have no idea. My guess is Wall, Beal and Porter take a step forward allowing Oubre and Satoransky to make worthwhile contributions. If Markieff, Gortat, Nicholson and Mahinmi just do what they need to do, I think the Wizards could be 4th or 5th in the East. Realistically they're probably gonna struggle to get back to the post-season but I think they make it.
Monday, August 8, 2016
Chicago Bulls (so far)
The Bulls suited up 16 players throughout the 2015-16 season: Jimmy Butler, Gasol (GONE), Rose (GONE), Taj Gibson, Doug McDermott, Nikola Mirotic, Tony Snell, Moore (GONE), Brooks (GONE), Bobby Portis, Dunleavy (GONE), Noah (GONE), Hinrich (GONE), Holiday (GONE), Cristiano Felicio, Bairstow (GONE). I haven't seen a purge like this since Purge 3!
Lost: Pau Gasol (Spurs), Derrick Rose (Knicks), Joakim Noah (Knicks), Cameron Bairstow (Pistons), Mike Dunleavy (Cavs), Aaron Brooks (Pacers), E'Twaun Moore (Pelicans), Justin Holiday (Knicks)
Signed Dwyane Wade (2yrs/$47m), Rajon Rondo (2yrs/$28m) and Isiah Canaan (2yrs/$2.2m). Traded for Robin Lopez, Jerian Grant. And they drafted Denzel Valentine (#14), Paul Zipser (#48).
For the last few years I've been a Bulls apologist. They had so much talent, such depth and yet they underachieved because none of the pieces fit together. Moving on from Derrick Rose and Joakim Noah signaled a shift away from aging veterans who were too expensive for their production...and then they signed Rajon Rondo and Dwyane Wade...wtf? Jimmy Butler must wake up screaming every night. Coach Hoiberg, too, must be wondering what he's gotten himself into. And as much as I've been an apologist for them recently, I'm going hard in the opposite direction now: I think the Bulls will be absolutely awful next year! Awful. I don't see how any of this fits together.
Starting five....I dunno...I guess: PG Rondo, SG Wade, SF Butler, PF Mirotic, C Lopez with Snell, Grant, Valentine, Canaan, McDermott, Portis, Felicio and Gibson off the bench. I could live with either Rondo or Wade but the two of them together is a mystery: 1) they'll suck together and 2) they're just interrupting the youth movement. You're training the youngsters in entirely the wrong way and you're not going to win in the meantime. Grease fire, just nothing but terrible. The only hope is Rondo and Wade both get hurt and sit out for long stretches of time. The Bulls would still be sub-standard but at least they'd be moving in some direction.
Signed Dwyane Wade (2yrs/$47m), Rajon Rondo (2yrs/$28m) and Isiah Canaan (2yrs/$2.2m). Traded for Robin Lopez, Jerian Grant. And they drafted Denzel Valentine (#14), Paul Zipser (#48).
For the last few years I've been a Bulls apologist. They had so much talent, such depth and yet they underachieved because none of the pieces fit together. Moving on from Derrick Rose and Joakim Noah signaled a shift away from aging veterans who were too expensive for their production...and then they signed Rajon Rondo and Dwyane Wade...wtf? Jimmy Butler must wake up screaming every night. Coach Hoiberg, too, must be wondering what he's gotten himself into. And as much as I've been an apologist for them recently, I'm going hard in the opposite direction now: I think the Bulls will be absolutely awful next year! Awful. I don't see how any of this fits together.
Starting five....I dunno...I guess: PG Rondo, SG Wade, SF Butler, PF Mirotic, C Lopez with Snell, Grant, Valentine, Canaan, McDermott, Portis, Felicio and Gibson off the bench. I could live with either Rondo or Wade but the two of them together is a mystery: 1) they'll suck together and 2) they're just interrupting the youth movement. You're training the youngsters in entirely the wrong way and you're not going to win in the meantime. Grease fire, just nothing but terrible. The only hope is Rondo and Wade both get hurt and sit out for long stretches of time. The Bulls would still be sub-standard but at least they'd be moving in some direction.
Detroit Pistons (so far)
The Pistons worked their way into the playoffs last year, earning the honor to be rolled by the Cavs on their way to the trophy. Hey, every step is a step up, right?
The summer was built around re-signing their big man Andre Drummond (5yrs/$130m) and reshaping the supporting cast around him. They brought in Ish Smith (3yrs/$18m) for backup PG, Jon Leuer (4yrs/$42m) for some Zeller-ish-ness off the bench, Ray McCallum (not sure the terms) for some garbage time minutes and Boban Marjanovic (3yrs/$21m) to spell Drummond. They also drafted Henry Ellenson (#18), Michael Gbinje (#49) and Daniel Hamilton (#56), but I would expect those three to take merely baby steps in getting into the rotation. Personally I like Ish Smith and he strikes me as the poor man's Reggie Jax, making him a good selection for his backup. Leuer and Ellenson should bring good energy off the bench, McCallum and Gbinje should provide decent second string scoring and Boban will be a fan favorite right away. No big moves in there but no bad ones, I'd say.
They moved on from Jodie Meeks (Magic), Anthony Tolliver (Kings) and swapped Spencer Dinwiddie for Cameron Bairstow, whom they immediately cut (and went back to Australia, if I'm not mistaken). None of those moves would could possible be considered devastating but Tolliver did play meaningful minutes last season.
The starting five looks pretty much the same as last year: PG Jackson, SG Caldwell-Pope, SF Harris, PF Morris, C Drummond with Smith, Gbinje, McCallum, Bullock, Johnson, Ellenson, Baynes and Boban off the bench. Last year saw a nice build in the Stan Van project, next year looks to improve a little more. Not a slam dunk playoff team but I expect them to be there by the end of the year and to be a tough out in the post-season.
The summer was built around re-signing their big man Andre Drummond (5yrs/$130m) and reshaping the supporting cast around him. They brought in Ish Smith (3yrs/$18m) for backup PG, Jon Leuer (4yrs/$42m) for some Zeller-ish-ness off the bench, Ray McCallum (not sure the terms) for some garbage time minutes and Boban Marjanovic (3yrs/$21m) to spell Drummond. They also drafted Henry Ellenson (#18), Michael Gbinje (#49) and Daniel Hamilton (#56), but I would expect those three to take merely baby steps in getting into the rotation. Personally I like Ish Smith and he strikes me as the poor man's Reggie Jax, making him a good selection for his backup. Leuer and Ellenson should bring good energy off the bench, McCallum and Gbinje should provide decent second string scoring and Boban will be a fan favorite right away. No big moves in there but no bad ones, I'd say.
They moved on from Jodie Meeks (Magic), Anthony Tolliver (Kings) and swapped Spencer Dinwiddie for Cameron Bairstow, whom they immediately cut (and went back to Australia, if I'm not mistaken). None of those moves would could possible be considered devastating but Tolliver did play meaningful minutes last season.
The starting five looks pretty much the same as last year: PG Jackson, SG Caldwell-Pope, SF Harris, PF Morris, C Drummond with Smith, Gbinje, McCallum, Bullock, Johnson, Ellenson, Baynes and Boban off the bench. Last year saw a nice build in the Stan Van project, next year looks to improve a little more. Not a slam dunk playoff team but I expect them to be there by the end of the year and to be a tough out in the post-season.
Friday, August 5, 2016
Westbrook Re-signs with OKC
I knew there would be (at least) one more Westbrook-related story coming out of OKC this summer. Either he would be traded or he would sign an extension, one or the other had to happen. Westbrook answered the OKC prayers and signed a 3yr/$85m extension that comes with a raise for this coming year and a player option in the 3rd year. He could still be traded but I think the Thunder would rather add to their newly re-signed PG rather than look to the post-Westbrook future.
There are still a handful of NBA players rumored to be on the trade block, can any be brought to OKC? Greg Monroe (Bucks) is not an upgrade over Kanter, Rudy Gay (Kings) is not a good fit salary-wise, Eric Bledsoe (Suns) is a bit redundant with Westbrook, and Jahlil Okafor (Sixers) doesn't add enough to the Thunder offense (or much at all to the defense).
However, Blake Griffin (Clippers) would be intriguing alongside Westbrook and has a salary very close to Kanter's. Will that happen? It could. Griffin is set to make $20.1m this year with an early termination option (of $24.2m) in the following year. With salaries skyrocketing this summer, it is likely that Griffin will opt out next summer in hopes of getting a raise whether he is still with the Clippers or in a new city. I'm not sure but I suspect the Thunder would be more than happy to give Griffin a raise next summer (whereas the Clippers might not able to considering Chris Paul also has an ETO next summer). The Thunder have Enes Kanter at $17.1m and locked in for two more years, which could be attractive to the Clippers. Kanter is not as good as Griffin in general but Kanter is an excellent scorer around the rim and I think would fit between Chris Paul and Deandre Jordan just fine. And though his contract seemed exorbitant last summer, it'll look like a bargain next summer.
A straight up Griffin for Kanter deal doesn't seem so sexy but tacking on Ilyasova or Oladipo becomes cost prohibitive. And frankly offensively the Clippers would be fine with Kanter, he would save them a coupla bucks and leave them with a $3m trade exception that might come in handy in February. Like I said, it doesn't seem so sexy but I think its actually a pretty good deal for both teams. And I think it could happen. We'll see in the next 6 weeks or so.
Indiana Pacers (so far)
The Pacers went the makeover route this summer. GM Larry Bird clearly just didn't feel like Coach Vogel was worth a raise, so he let him walk and replaced him with Nate MacMillan, which looks like a step down to my eye. Also they shipped out PG George Hill in favor of PG Jeff Teague (not a step down but definitely a step sidewise), let Ian Mahinmi (Wizards) and Jordan Hill (Wolves) go and don't seem likely to retain Chase Budinger or Ty Lawson. A new coach, a new PG and a shakeup in the supporting cast, not insignificant moves.
In addition to adding Teague, they also brought in Thaddeus Young (in exchange for the #20 pick), Al Jefferson (3yrs/$30m), Aaron Brooks (1yr/$2,5m) and drafted Georges Niang (#50) (though I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't make the team this fall). Finally, they retained Solomon Hill (4yrs/$52m).
This lineup looks pretty strange to me. They feature a ton of combo guards (Teague, Ellis, Stuckey, Brooks) making it difficult to put together a starting five. Do they play Teague and Monta Ellis together? They have to, don't they? Okay, the starting five looks like: PG Teague, SG Ellis, SF George, PF Young, C Turner with Stuckey, Brooks, Miles, Robinson, Evans, Christmas, Allen and Jefferson off the bench. Good depth but a weird collection of players.
Seems to me the upside the Pacers are hoping for is the development of Myles Turner: if he becomes the Lamarcus Aldridge clone he can be, then this lineup should be pretty good, not dissimilar to what the Pelicans have been trying (and failed) to surround Anthony Davis with over the last few years. If Turner is a top flight finisher then Paul George, Jeff Teague and Monta Ellis become arguably the best supporting cast in the league. But...wait...does that make sense? Monta Ellis doesn't seem like a second banana but ideally he'd be 3rd or 4th on this team. That feels like a disaster waiting to happen.
And what does Coach MacMillan add to all of this? Is he a developer? A tactician? I always thought of him as an ego-soother and that might be just what this team needs. Strange to say but MacMillan might be a better fit for this roster than Vogel (who I think is one of the finest coaches in the league). If this team gels they can be really good; if not, they could be a catastrophe. (Feels like Ellis and/or Teague could be trade bait by February)
In addition to adding Teague, they also brought in Thaddeus Young (in exchange for the #20 pick), Al Jefferson (3yrs/$30m), Aaron Brooks (1yr/$2,5m) and drafted Georges Niang (#50) (though I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't make the team this fall). Finally, they retained Solomon Hill (4yrs/$52m).
This lineup looks pretty strange to me. They feature a ton of combo guards (Teague, Ellis, Stuckey, Brooks) making it difficult to put together a starting five. Do they play Teague and Monta Ellis together? They have to, don't they? Okay, the starting five looks like: PG Teague, SG Ellis, SF George, PF Young, C Turner with Stuckey, Brooks, Miles, Robinson, Evans, Christmas, Allen and Jefferson off the bench. Good depth but a weird collection of players.
Seems to me the upside the Pacers are hoping for is the development of Myles Turner: if he becomes the Lamarcus Aldridge clone he can be, then this lineup should be pretty good, not dissimilar to what the Pelicans have been trying (and failed) to surround Anthony Davis with over the last few years. If Turner is a top flight finisher then Paul George, Jeff Teague and Monta Ellis become arguably the best supporting cast in the league. But...wait...does that make sense? Monta Ellis doesn't seem like a second banana but ideally he'd be 3rd or 4th on this team. That feels like a disaster waiting to happen.
And what does Coach MacMillan add to all of this? Is he a developer? A tactician? I always thought of him as an ego-soother and that might be just what this team needs. Strange to say but MacMillan might be a better fit for this roster than Vogel (who I think is one of the finest coaches in the league). If this team gels they can be really good; if not, they could be a catastrophe. (Feels like Ellis and/or Teague could be trade bait by February)
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
Saturday, July 30, 2016
Charlotte Hornets (so far)
The Hornets returned to the playoffs last year after enduring a disappointing campaign in 2014-15. They lost a lot over the summer, can they make it back to the top 8 in the East?
They let go of Jeremy Lin (Nets), Al Jefferson (Pacers), Courtney Lee (Knicks), Troy Daniels (traded to Grizzlies for undisclosed terms). I thought Lin was great for them in the playoffs, brought a tenacity off the bench that was unexpected and brilliant, you just knew he was opting out of his $2m deal with how he went at the Heat. Jefferson was the hero of their previous playoff appearance (one of my favorite players of 2013-14 season), and was still a reasonably productive player but was clearly not part of their plan going forward. Lee came over from the Grizzlies during the year and played well off the bench for the Hornets, another eye-opening performance against the Heat. Realistically these guys were bench players but they were the core of the bench for the Hornets, rebuilding the second string is cheaper but chemistry issues come to the fore. They'll need new reliable veterans to replace the old reliables that moved on.
To that end they added Roy Hibbert (1yr/$5m), Ramon Sessions (2yrs/$12,5m), Christian Wood (2yrs/min) and traded for Marco Belinelli (only 1 year left on his deal, cost them the #22 pick). Ehhhh....okay, I guess. There was a time--not that long ago--that Hibbert was one of the top rim protecting big men in the league, if the Hornets can get him back to that then his minimal paycheck will be one of the bargains of the summer. Sessions is a waterbug-type off the bench, not a bad player, should be a good fit on a team like the Hornets where he'll get regular minutes but won't ever have to do too much. I thought Christian Wood was one of the standouts of 2016 Summer League: moved well, good instincts with the ball, looked like a wicked shot blocker, definitely not a stiff out there; since the Hornets forsook this year's draft, Wood is basically their only youngster to work with. I think they chose wisely, should make a nice platoon mate with Hibbert. Belinelli is on those guys that brings real value for a good team, are the Hornets good enough for his contribution to matter? Not sure. He's not a dynamic scorer, just a long range 3-baller, he's not a replacement for Lee or even Lin so much as a new direction. If he gets hot he can score but I'm skeptical to his overall impact.
The Hornets were able to retain Nicolas Batum (5yrs/$150m), Brian Roberts (1yr/min) and Marvin Williams (4yrs/$55m). They opened up the checkbook for Batum and I say it had to be done: Batum might not be worth $30m/year but he would've been in demand by pretty much every team in the league, the Hornets had to pay him to keep him. (Personally Batum is one of my very favorite players, when he's healthy he does everything well and impacts the game all over the place, a great player) Williams had a nice year but I'm dubious of his overall worth; there is something to be said for continuity, I reckon. Roberts is another low price for continuity off the bench. Also, worth remembering that Michael Kidd-Gilchrist basically did not play at all last season, so they'll be adding him back into the mix.
Their starting five looks like: PG Walker, SG Kidd-Gilchrist, SF Batum, PF Williams, C Zeller with Roberts, Sessions, Belinelli, Lamb, Kaminsky, Hibbert off the bench. Not sure there's enough scoring there to make a dent in the East. Kemba is an unconscious shooter but MKG is not a scorer, Lamb is fragile and Belinelli needs a lot of service. Looks like the big guys (Williams, Zeller, Kaminsky) need to bring buckets and that seems a weird way to go. Last year they were in the logjam at 4th place but I don't see them competing that high next year.
They let go of Jeremy Lin (Nets), Al Jefferson (Pacers), Courtney Lee (Knicks), Troy Daniels (traded to Grizzlies for undisclosed terms). I thought Lin was great for them in the playoffs, brought a tenacity off the bench that was unexpected and brilliant, you just knew he was opting out of his $2m deal with how he went at the Heat. Jefferson was the hero of their previous playoff appearance (one of my favorite players of 2013-14 season), and was still a reasonably productive player but was clearly not part of their plan going forward. Lee came over from the Grizzlies during the year and played well off the bench for the Hornets, another eye-opening performance against the Heat. Realistically these guys were bench players but they were the core of the bench for the Hornets, rebuilding the second string is cheaper but chemistry issues come to the fore. They'll need new reliable veterans to replace the old reliables that moved on.
To that end they added Roy Hibbert (1yr/$5m), Ramon Sessions (2yrs/$12,5m), Christian Wood (2yrs/min) and traded for Marco Belinelli (only 1 year left on his deal, cost them the #22 pick). Ehhhh....okay, I guess. There was a time--not that long ago--that Hibbert was one of the top rim protecting big men in the league, if the Hornets can get him back to that then his minimal paycheck will be one of the bargains of the summer. Sessions is a waterbug-type off the bench, not a bad player, should be a good fit on a team like the Hornets where he'll get regular minutes but won't ever have to do too much. I thought Christian Wood was one of the standouts of 2016 Summer League: moved well, good instincts with the ball, looked like a wicked shot blocker, definitely not a stiff out there; since the Hornets forsook this year's draft, Wood is basically their only youngster to work with. I think they chose wisely, should make a nice platoon mate with Hibbert. Belinelli is on those guys that brings real value for a good team, are the Hornets good enough for his contribution to matter? Not sure. He's not a dynamic scorer, just a long range 3-baller, he's not a replacement for Lee or even Lin so much as a new direction. If he gets hot he can score but I'm skeptical to his overall impact.
The Hornets were able to retain Nicolas Batum (5yrs/$150m), Brian Roberts (1yr/min) and Marvin Williams (4yrs/$55m). They opened up the checkbook for Batum and I say it had to be done: Batum might not be worth $30m/year but he would've been in demand by pretty much every team in the league, the Hornets had to pay him to keep him. (Personally Batum is one of my very favorite players, when he's healthy he does everything well and impacts the game all over the place, a great player) Williams had a nice year but I'm dubious of his overall worth; there is something to be said for continuity, I reckon. Roberts is another low price for continuity off the bench. Also, worth remembering that Michael Kidd-Gilchrist basically did not play at all last season, so they'll be adding him back into the mix.
Their starting five looks like: PG Walker, SG Kidd-Gilchrist, SF Batum, PF Williams, C Zeller with Roberts, Sessions, Belinelli, Lamb, Kaminsky, Hibbert off the bench. Not sure there's enough scoring there to make a dent in the East. Kemba is an unconscious shooter but MKG is not a scorer, Lamb is fragile and Belinelli needs a lot of service. Looks like the big guys (Williams, Zeller, Kaminsky) need to bring buckets and that seems a weird way to go. Last year they were in the logjam at 4th place but I don't see them competing that high next year.
Monday, July 25, 2016
Miami Heat (so far)
The Heat added Wayne Ellington (2yrs/$12m), Derrick Williams (1yr/$5m), Willie Reed (2yrs/?), James Johnson (1yr/$4m), re-signed Udonis Haslem (1yr/$4m), Tyler Johnson (4yrs/$50m) and Hassan Whiteside (4yrs/$98m) and traded for Luke Babbitt (in exchange for a 2018 2nd rd draft pick and cash).
They lost Dwyane Wade (Bulls), Joe Johnson (Jazz), Gerald Green (Celtics) and Luol Deng (Lakers) and rumors are still swirling around the future health of Chris Bosh. Hmmmm, seems like they lost a lot more than they gained. When you look back at all the production they let go this summer, was it really that important to keep Hassan Whiteside? I like him as much as the next guy but he's hardly a big man that can carry a team by himself.
The starting five: C Whiteside, PF Bosh (?), SF Winslow, SG Richardson, PG Dragic with Reed, Haslem, McRoberts, Williams, Johnson, and Ellington off the bench. Ugh! If Bosh can't play, this team is a disaster--and an overpriced disaster at that! They can't be done making moves. Ty Lawson, Dion Waiters, Kevin Martin, Steve Blake, Donatas Motiejunas, Alan Anderson...not that any of those guys are a good fit for this team...are still out there. This is not a playoff team right now. A team that looked to be the natural opponent for the Cavs has completely melted away and now looks to be a lottery team.
EDIT: From my blog to Pat Riley's ears: the Heat signed Dion Waiters just a few hours after I posted this. Conflicting reports on whether it was 1 year or 2 but either way the Heat needed some kind of wing scoring.
They lost Dwyane Wade (Bulls), Joe Johnson (Jazz), Gerald Green (Celtics) and Luol Deng (Lakers) and rumors are still swirling around the future health of Chris Bosh. Hmmmm, seems like they lost a lot more than they gained. When you look back at all the production they let go this summer, was it really that important to keep Hassan Whiteside? I like him as much as the next guy but he's hardly a big man that can carry a team by himself.
The starting five: C Whiteside, PF Bosh (?), SF Winslow, SG Richardson, PG Dragic with Reed, Haslem, McRoberts, Williams, Johnson, and Ellington off the bench. Ugh! If Bosh can't play, this team is a disaster--and an overpriced disaster at that! They can't be done making moves. Ty Lawson, Dion Waiters, Kevin Martin, Steve Blake, Donatas Motiejunas, Alan Anderson...not that any of those guys are a good fit for this team...are still out there. This is not a playoff team right now. A team that looked to be the natural opponent for the Cavs has completely melted away and now looks to be a lottery team.
EDIT: From my blog to Pat Riley's ears: the Heat signed Dion Waiters just a few hours after I posted this. Conflicting reports on whether it was 1 year or 2 but either way the Heat needed some kind of wing scoring.
Toronto Raptors (so far)
The Raptors re-signed DeMar DeRozan (5yrs/$145m) and added Jared Sullinger (1yr/$5m) and pn draft night picked up Jakob Poetl (#9) and Pascal Siakam (#27). They lost Bismack Biyombo (Magic), James Johnson (Heat) and Luis Scola (Nets). Not a lot to talk about there.
Johnson is a savvy veteran who is really fun to watch but doesn't play a lot of minutes. Scola, too, only added minimal veteran minutes and disappeared completely in the playoffs. Sullinger doesn't exactly replace either of those guys but he should match their minutes. I figured DeRozan was off to sunnier shores (southern Cali shores to be precise) but he chose the snowy tundra instead; DeRozan is one of those in-between stars: he occasionally dominates and looks silky smooth out there but just as often disappears and contributes not much at all, one could easily see the Raptors as lucky to keep him and just as easily see them as cursed by his payday. We'll see.
The Raptors starting five for next year should be something like: C Valenciunas, PF Carroll, SF Ross, SG DeRozan, PG Lowry with Noquiera, Caboclo, Patterson, Poetl, Sullinger, Powell, Siakam and Joseph off the bench. That's still a nice squad, still won't beat Lebron, but should be in the top four in the East.
Johnson is a savvy veteran who is really fun to watch but doesn't play a lot of minutes. Scola, too, only added minimal veteran minutes and disappeared completely in the playoffs. Sullinger doesn't exactly replace either of those guys but he should match their minutes. I figured DeRozan was off to sunnier shores (southern Cali shores to be precise) but he chose the snowy tundra instead; DeRozan is one of those in-between stars: he occasionally dominates and looks silky smooth out there but just as often disappears and contributes not much at all, one could easily see the Raptors as lucky to keep him and just as easily see them as cursed by his payday. We'll see.
The Raptors starting five for next year should be something like: C Valenciunas, PF Carroll, SF Ross, SG DeRozan, PG Lowry with Noquiera, Caboclo, Patterson, Poetl, Sullinger, Powell, Siakam and Joseph off the bench. That's still a nice squad, still won't beat Lebron, but should be in the top four in the East.
Atlanta Hawks (so far)
The Hawks have undergone some changes this summer: they lost Al Horford (Celtics) and traded away Jeff Teague (Pacers), two of the cornerstones of their starting lineups for the last few years. But they added Dwight Howard (3yrs/$70m), Jarret Jack (1yr/min), re-signed Kent Bazemore (4yrs/$70m) and Kris Humphries (1yr/$4m) and drafted Taurean Prince (#12), DeAndre Bembry (#21) and Isaia Cordinier (#44)(who will be playing in Europe next year, if I'm not mistaken). (I swear I thought I read that they re-signed Mike Muscala but I've found no one to back me up on that, so I guess I made it up)
Two years ago the Hawks gelled and had a dominant stretch though the month of January which they rode to the #1 seed in the East. They got clowned by the Cavs in the conference finals and returned last year with the same team that was good but didn't sneak up on anyone (and who also got clowned by the Cavs in the playoffs). I guess they thought it was shake up time. Personally I like Jeff Teague, I think he can be a leader for a really good team (indeed, that is what I thought we all saw for the last two years) and I also like Al Horford, a dynamic center who has injury problems but it is a solid player and citizen most of the time. Flip side: I am not a fan of Dennis Schroder (over dribbles, doesn't attack consistently enough for my tastes considering he is such a poor 3 point shooter and so-so FT shooter) or Dwight Howard (still a solid rebounder and defender but after all these years in the league is still a project on offense and an annoyingly clueless celebrity presence). Throw in that they let Demarre Carroll walk last summer but decided to give Kent Bazemore a bunch of money this summer and I'm not seeing this team as improved.
The starting five: C Howard, PF Millsap, SF Bazemore, SG Korver, PG Shroder with Tavares, Splitter, Scott, Humphries, Sefelosha, Prince, Bembry, Holiday and Jack off the bench. I liked Bembry's performance in Summer League but its hard to imagine he'll contribute right away. This team should still be solid but I don't see them being better next year: Tavares, Shroder, Prince and Bembry are on a learning curve, Korver, Jack, Humphries and Sefelosha are getting older, Howard is a still a project, Scott is under legal scrutiny. That leaves a lot for Millsap to carry. I can't see them finishing higher than 5th in the East.
Two years ago the Hawks gelled and had a dominant stretch though the month of January which they rode to the #1 seed in the East. They got clowned by the Cavs in the conference finals and returned last year with the same team that was good but didn't sneak up on anyone (and who also got clowned by the Cavs in the playoffs). I guess they thought it was shake up time. Personally I like Jeff Teague, I think he can be a leader for a really good team (indeed, that is what I thought we all saw for the last two years) and I also like Al Horford, a dynamic center who has injury problems but it is a solid player and citizen most of the time. Flip side: I am not a fan of Dennis Schroder (over dribbles, doesn't attack consistently enough for my tastes considering he is such a poor 3 point shooter and so-so FT shooter) or Dwight Howard (still a solid rebounder and defender but after all these years in the league is still a project on offense and an annoyingly clueless celebrity presence). Throw in that they let Demarre Carroll walk last summer but decided to give Kent Bazemore a bunch of money this summer and I'm not seeing this team as improved.
The starting five: C Howard, PF Millsap, SF Bazemore, SG Korver, PG Shroder with Tavares, Splitter, Scott, Humphries, Sefelosha, Prince, Bembry, Holiday and Jack off the bench. I liked Bembry's performance in Summer League but its hard to imagine he'll contribute right away. This team should still be solid but I don't see them being better next year: Tavares, Shroder, Prince and Bembry are on a learning curve, Korver, Jack, Humphries and Sefelosha are getting older, Howard is a still a project, Scott is under legal scrutiny. That leaves a lot for Millsap to carry. I can't see them finishing higher than 5th in the East.
Cleveland Cavaliers (so far)
The Cavs have yet to sign their big free agent (Lebron James) but I have no doubt they will get that done when the time is right. Ditto with JR Smith, who is still out there un-signed but I expect he'll be in a Cavs uni next fall. They re-signed Mo Williams (1yr/$2.2m) and Richard Jefferson (2yrs/$5m), traded for Mike Dunleavy (and swapping rights for foreign draft picks), signed Chris Andersen (1yr/min) and picked up Kay Felder (#54) on draft night from the Hawks. They traded away Matthew Dellavedova (to Bucks) and lost Tomofey Mozgov (Lakers). As I said, I expect them to re-sign Lebron and I reckon they'll pick up Jordan McRae as well (unless there is some other move out there to make).
Losing Dellavedova and Mozgov don't seem like big losses but they did play minutes (and both provided a huge lift 2 years in the playoffs). Andersen and Dunleavy don't seem like replacements although they are fine veterans who will do their parts on the margin.
The Cavs seem ready to return with pretty much the same team next year. If Kyrie and Tristan Thompson make the slightest of improvements and Kevin Love insinuates himself a little deeper into the rotation, the Cavs should be just fine, maybe even better. A lot of Eastern Conference teams have improved but I expect the Cavs to go deep in the playoffs. (Beating the Warriors again will be a tougher challenge, though)
Losing Dellavedova and Mozgov don't seem like big losses but they did play minutes (and both provided a huge lift 2 years in the playoffs). Andersen and Dunleavy don't seem like replacements although they are fine veterans who will do their parts on the margin.
The Cavs seem ready to return with pretty much the same team next year. If Kyrie and Tristan Thompson make the slightest of improvements and Kevin Love insinuates himself a little deeper into the rotation, the Cavs should be just fine, maybe even better. A lot of Eastern Conference teams have improved but I expect the Cavs to go deep in the playoffs. (Beating the Warriors again will be a tougher challenge, though)
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
LA Lakers (so far)
The post-Kobe era has officially begun with the signings of Luol Deng (4yrs/$72m) and Timofey Mozgov (4yrs/$64m). They re-signed Jordan Clarkson (4yrs/$50m), Tarik Black (2yrs/$13m), Marcelo Huertas (2yrs/$?). They traded for Jose Calderon (and a coupla 2nd rd picks).And draft night netted them Brandom Ingram (#2) and Ivica Zubac (#32). I like all these moves.
They let go of Roy Hibbert (Hornets), Brandon Bass (still unsigned, could be back with the Lakers), Kobe Bryant (retired; I imagine him on the phone with Pat Riley saying, '2 years, $40 million? Yeah, I can do that'), Metta World Peace (retired; no peace for the world any more). I like all these moves. I'd get rid of Nick Young as fast as possible and I'd be shopping Lou Williams.
Not saying the Lakers are gonna be a contender over night but I think they're moving in the right direction. Re-signing Clarkson was top priority and I think its a good deal. Luol Deng is one of those guys that could've signed with any team in the league and though he's getting older and slower, the Lakers are lucky to have a solid reliable vet like Deng. People scoffed at the Mozgov deal but he's good rebounder and is dying to show the world he can still play ball, I think he's a vast improvement over Hibbert for the same money, not that bad a deal. Black is a nice youngster who has survived a coupla years of Laker madness, good to see him get a shot at continuing on. Huertas and Calderon are still good players, fewer minutes left in 'em but they're perfect for spelling Russell and Clarkson. I think Ingram will take a year or two but once he finds his stroke, I think he's gonna be a hell of a scorer. I have no idea about Zubac but apparently he wants to play right away, I love the enthusiasm, throw him in there.
The Lakers will be figuring out some things over the next year or two. They've got a raft of young talent there and by next summer, they'll be wooing big time free agents again (how about Serge and Westbrook getting back together in LA?). It'll be a long year but the fans will have something to cheer for and they'll have their moments. I don't see them in the playoffs but their top 3 protected 1st round draft pick will definitely be going to Philly.
They let go of Roy Hibbert (Hornets), Brandon Bass (still unsigned, could be back with the Lakers), Kobe Bryant (retired; I imagine him on the phone with Pat Riley saying, '2 years, $40 million? Yeah, I can do that'), Metta World Peace (retired; no peace for the world any more). I like all these moves. I'd get rid of Nick Young as fast as possible and I'd be shopping Lou Williams.
Not saying the Lakers are gonna be a contender over night but I think they're moving in the right direction. Re-signing Clarkson was top priority and I think its a good deal. Luol Deng is one of those guys that could've signed with any team in the league and though he's getting older and slower, the Lakers are lucky to have a solid reliable vet like Deng. People scoffed at the Mozgov deal but he's good rebounder and is dying to show the world he can still play ball, I think he's a vast improvement over Hibbert for the same money, not that bad a deal. Black is a nice youngster who has survived a coupla years of Laker madness, good to see him get a shot at continuing on. Huertas and Calderon are still good players, fewer minutes left in 'em but they're perfect for spelling Russell and Clarkson. I think Ingram will take a year or two but once he finds his stroke, I think he's gonna be a hell of a scorer. I have no idea about Zubac but apparently he wants to play right away, I love the enthusiasm, throw him in there.
The Lakers will be figuring out some things over the next year or two. They've got a raft of young talent there and by next summer, they'll be wooing big time free agents again (how about Serge and Westbrook getting back together in LA?). It'll be a long year but the fans will have something to cheer for and they'll have their moments. I don't see them in the playoffs but their top 3 protected 1st round draft pick will definitely be going to Philly.
New Orleans Pelicans (so far)
The Pelicans in an a addition-by-subtraction mode: they let go of Ryan Anderson (Rockets), Eric Gordon (Rockets), James Ennis (Grizzlies), Bryce Dejean-Jones passed away, traded Luke Babbit (Heat), I don't think they'll be retaining Norris Cole or Kendrick Perkins (I mean, he'll be with the Warriors, right?) and those all seem like positive steps for the Pelicans. Now if they could just get rid of Tyreke Evans, the summer would be complete. They wanted to surround Anthony Davis with veterans and they did that, now let's see if they try surrounding him with hungry youngsters instead.
They added E'Twaun Moore (4yrs/$34m), Langston Galloway (2yrs/$6m) and retained Tim Frazier (2yrs/$4.1m), while adding Buddy Hield (#6), Cheick Diallo (#33) on draft day. If the Pelicans were already a playoff team just looking to bolster their bench, these would all be great moves. The Pelicans need more than that but have had trouble matching the right veteran talent together, so the time has come to coach up these prospects and make it work. If everyone is reliably solid and Davis has a great year, the Pelicans might get back into the playoffs. They've got a ways to go but not impossible.
Starting five: PG Holiday, SG Hield, SF Evans, PF Davis, C Asik with Galloway, Moore, Frazier, Diallo, Pondexter, Ajinca off the bench (they're gonna regret waiving Jarnell Stokes).
I dunno, that's not a good looking lineup to me. The Pelicans are still paying for overreaching on vets to play with Davis, which has screwed their drafts over the last few years and forced them into bad deals (they still owe Asik $40m, I mean who is he? Timofey Mozgov?). I believe in Coach Gentry and I believe in Anthony Davis and I'm a big fan of Buddy Hield but even in a tank-fest West, I still don't see the Pelicans making the post-season. They need some surprise performances (think Hield for ROY and Galloway for Most Improved) and something in return for Tyreke in order to get near 8th in the West.
They added E'Twaun Moore (4yrs/$34m), Langston Galloway (2yrs/$6m) and retained Tim Frazier (2yrs/$4.1m), while adding Buddy Hield (#6), Cheick Diallo (#33) on draft day. If the Pelicans were already a playoff team just looking to bolster their bench, these would all be great moves. The Pelicans need more than that but have had trouble matching the right veteran talent together, so the time has come to coach up these prospects and make it work. If everyone is reliably solid and Davis has a great year, the Pelicans might get back into the playoffs. They've got a ways to go but not impossible.
Starting five: PG Holiday, SG Hield, SF Evans, PF Davis, C Asik with Galloway, Moore, Frazier, Diallo, Pondexter, Ajinca off the bench (they're gonna regret waiving Jarnell Stokes).
I dunno, that's not a good looking lineup to me. The Pelicans are still paying for overreaching on vets to play with Davis, which has screwed their drafts over the last few years and forced them into bad deals (they still owe Asik $40m, I mean who is he? Timofey Mozgov?). I believe in Coach Gentry and I believe in Anthony Davis and I'm a big fan of Buddy Hield but even in a tank-fest West, I still don't see the Pelicans making the post-season. They need some surprise performances (think Hield for ROY and Galloway for Most Improved) and something in return for Tyreke in order to get near 8th in the West.
Sacramento Kings (so far)
Added Aron Aflalo (2yrs/$25m), Matt Barnes (2ys/$12m), Anthony Tolliver (2yrs/$16m), Garret Temple (3yrs/$24m) and retained Caron Butler (1yr/$1.5m). Drafted Georgios Papagiannis (#13), Malachi Richardson (#22), Skal Labisserie (#28), Isaiah Cousins (#59). Aflalo gives them wing scoring and perimeter defense in an affordable veteran package (feel like Aflalo could've done better or at least gotten the same deal with a better team). Barnes is a useful wild card on a good team, but he's just waste of space on a bad team. Tolliver can hit corner 3's. Temple is...uh....who is he? Papagiannis is one of those prospects that only appeared on anyone's radar at the last minute making him a virtual unknown. Richardson had a nice tournament run for a freshman on a so-so Syracuce team. Skal was a disappointment at Kentucky (on his way to being a disappointment in the NBA).
From last year they've lost Rajon Rondo (to Bulls), traded Marco Belinelli (to Hornets), James Anderson (to a Turkish team, I believe), Seth Curry (to Mavs), Quincy Acy (currently unsigned, could be back in a Sac uni), Wayne Ellington (to Heat). Rondo was never a good fit for Sacramento (or anyone, really), so not a big loss. Belinelli was not a good fit. Anderson was not a good player. Seth Curry is gonna be everyone's favorite mascot for the next few years, an in demand roster filler for years to come. Acy and Ellington are pro basketball players...and no one can take that away from them.
Their Summer League team features some interesting prospects: Arturas Gudaitis, Luka Mitrovic, Jarrod Uthoof have all had some acclaim over the last coupla drafts, Sacramento is as good a place as any for them to debut. And the current rumor is they're shopping Rudy Gay. And some good news: Darren Collison plead not guilty in his domestic abuse case.
Starting five: PG Collison, SG McLemore, SF Gay, PF Cauley-Stein, C Cousins with Richardson (as backup PG?), Aflalo, Barnes, Tolliver, Temple, Butler, Gudaitis, Papagionnas, Labisserie off the bench. They're trying to suck, right? What else could be going on here? Man, I don't see how they win any games at all with that lineup. Cousins sinks further into ignominy until he can finally get to a real NBA city. Brutal.
From last year they've lost Rajon Rondo (to Bulls), traded Marco Belinelli (to Hornets), James Anderson (to a Turkish team, I believe), Seth Curry (to Mavs), Quincy Acy (currently unsigned, could be back in a Sac uni), Wayne Ellington (to Heat). Rondo was never a good fit for Sacramento (or anyone, really), so not a big loss. Belinelli was not a good fit. Anderson was not a good player. Seth Curry is gonna be everyone's favorite mascot for the next few years, an in demand roster filler for years to come. Acy and Ellington are pro basketball players...and no one can take that away from them.
Their Summer League team features some interesting prospects: Arturas Gudaitis, Luka Mitrovic, Jarrod Uthoof have all had some acclaim over the last coupla drafts, Sacramento is as good a place as any for them to debut. And the current rumor is they're shopping Rudy Gay. And some good news: Darren Collison plead not guilty in his domestic abuse case.
Starting five: PG Collison, SG McLemore, SF Gay, PF Cauley-Stein, C Cousins with Richardson (as backup PG?), Aflalo, Barnes, Tolliver, Temple, Butler, Gudaitis, Papagionnas, Labisserie off the bench. They're trying to suck, right? What else could be going on here? Man, I don't see how they win any games at all with that lineup. Cousins sinks further into ignominy until he can finally get to a real NBA city. Brutal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
