Alabama, Alaska (Republicans only), American Samoa (Democrats only), Arkansas, Colorado (Democrats only), Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and Virginia will go the polls on Tuesday and this should be the knockout blow for those last few hanging-around candidates.
Democrats
Hillary Clinton easily won South Carolina and Nevada and looks to roll through Super Tuesday, after which Bernie Sanders will have nowhere left to go but home. Particularly in the southern states I expect Clinton to have an established base eager to show out for her, so is there enough of an established anti-Hillary base that Sanders can summon? I doubt it. Not liking Hillary is not the same as supporting Sanders. I suspect the support that Sanders has received so far is largely from folks that feel like they can always have Hillary, so they can ride Sanders until he falters and then shuffle over to the Hillary side. Sanders will take Vermont and possibly Massachusetts and maybe can shake out a last chunk of voters who feel Hillary isn't as Sanders-ish as they'd like. I expect Hillary to crush Sanders in most of the other states and that'll be the last we see of Sanders (except to stump for Clinton). (Weird prediction: I've got the strange feeling that Hillary will win in November and then serve only one term. I dunno why, just a feeling that the Dems will be back in Iowa in 2020, while Hillary is still in the White House)
Republicans
The Republican Party has been out of whack since 2000: the next guy in line at that time was John McCain but George W. Bush showed up with a famous name and a pile of money and he shoved his way to the top of the ladder; then as his de facto protege he chose Dick Cheney, a man too old to follow Bush, meaning that Bush upset the order and then guaranteed that the order would stay upset even after he left; McCain was too old to win by the time it was his turn to run; Republicans will some day look back on Mitt Romney and see the most perfect Republican ever built and think, 'Why didn't we vote for--oh, right, he's Mormon.' Bush could've let McCain have 2000 (where I think he would've lost to Al Gore) and then run in 2004 (where he may well have defeated Gore in the wake of 9/11) and then faced off with Hillary Clinton in 2008 (toss up depending on what the Middle East and economy would've been like at that time); then Mitt Romney would've had an incumbent support that may have looked past his Mormonism. But none of that happened and now the Republican Party is in total disarray. Throw in the death of Justice Scalia, a Senate built totally to obstruct, and the inability of governors like Scott Walker, John Kasich and Chris Christie to gain any traction (and whatever happened to Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal and Mitch Daniels?), and the Party is looking pretty bleak.
But, wait. Given that the Supreme Court has been controlled by Republicans since 1972 and has never overturned Roe v Wade, does it really matter that Scalia has passed? (If Hillary wins and a Democrat is added to the Court, look for Sotomayor to track to the middle and become the new Kennedy; just a theory) Given that the Republican House is now run by golden boy Paul Ryan and the Senate has Marco Rubio and Rand Paul as the potential emerging stars, Congress will still be firmly controlled by the Republicans through the next administration (I think). Throw in that this 2016 race will purge the party of Donald Trump, the Bush family name and Ted Cruz, I think the future is actually bright for the Republicans. Politics is always darkest before dawn: the party in power tends to fumble the ball right quick, power is elusive and the second place party is never too far from a power grab.
So what happens on Super Tuesday? I think Rubio will generally do better than Cruz, Kasich will have to drop out (and throw his support to Rubio), Ben Carson will go back to doing whatever it is Ben Carson does (and not endorse anyone). And I guess Trump will largely dominate. I have continually miscalculated the potential of Donald Trump because I just don't see where his support is coming from--and I still don't after all these months! The Tea Party crowd hates nothing more in this world than ObamaCare, which Trump supports; the 'establishment' doesn't want a billionaire interloper who isn't even a Republican; the middle class likes Trump's candor but they don't like what he says; the Christian crowd would rather see just about anyone else but Trump; the business crowd might not hate Trump but its hard to imagine they really like him; the intellectuals know that Trump has no grasp of procedure or the judiciary or foreign affairs or even the economy (dude, listen to Trump talk business...for a billionaire Wharton grad, he doesn't show any expertise of economic affairs). So who is it that likes this guy? I'm still not seeing it. And I can't help thinking that going head-to-head with Hillary Clinton will show her to be vastly more qualified for the job in a way that the electorate will have to acknowledge. I know there's a bandwagon mentality when a guy starts winning but, honestly, who is it that's voting for Trump?
After Trump with Cruz as his VP loses to Hillary, then Rubio and Ryan become the stars in Congress and lead the charge on Iowa in 2020, by which time Jeb Bush will be gone, Christie will be gone, Huckabee will be long gone, Trump will just be a vague nightmare memory, and Cruz will be nothing more than the next Santorum struggling to get 2% defending his title. And the Republican Party will be back to normal built on the still youthful Marco Rubio (not as white as Mitt Romney but much less Mormon) with Rand Paul, Paul Ryan and Scott Walker looking like wily veterans. Meanwhile the Democrats will be looking to aging Hillary Clinton and way past his prime Joe Biden and whatever new guy gets belched up in the next 3-4 years. Look for the Republicans to be strong again in 2020 and it could be a while before the Democrats have another worthwhile leader.
Monday, February 29, 2016
Warriors-Thunder
Believe the hype: that was the greatest regular season NBA game I've ever seen. Thunder were bringing it all night, thought they were generally the better team, they even crushed Curry's ankle...and they still couldn't beat the Warriors. Knew Curry was gonna hit that shot--you knew it, I knew it, the American people knew it. Before he even crossed mid-court, I was thinking, 'Get up on him! You know he's gonna pull up from deep!' All he needs is space, doesn't really matter where he is on the court. Man, the legend is growing and growing.
The Warriors have hit that point where its fun to watch them win and fun to watch them lose. Brazilian soccer, Tiger Woods, John McEnroe, (I can imagine John Wooden's Bruins being in there), and now, the Curry-Klay-Draymond Warriors: no matter what they do, its worth watching.
The Warriors have hit that point where its fun to watch them win and fun to watch them lose. Brazilian soccer, Tiger Woods, John McEnroe, (I can imagine John Wooden's Bruins being in there), and now, the Curry-Klay-Draymond Warriors: no matter what they do, its worth watching.
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Academy Awards
Oscars are here and its time to predict the winners. (Yeah, I'm writing this very late but I'm not paying any attention to the ceremony itself, so the predictions will be pure) For me the Oscars represent the end of the film season and like any event, they're fun to predict. Otherwise I don't really care who wins and like a regular season NFL between two uninteresting teams, I only care about the outcome, not the game itself. And though I'm picking the winners, I will be hedging my bets with some upset possibilities. (I'm skipping the shorts because I haven't seen them and even when I do see them, the ones I think ought to win never do (same reason I don't watch figure skating))
Best Doc -- Amy. I only saw two of the nominees and Amy seems to be the one with the most buzz.
Best Visual Effects -- Star Wars: The Force Awakens. I saw all five nominees and in terms of special effects, I think they are five fine choices for the award. Since Star Wars was shut out of the other sexy categories and since the original Lucas films set the standard in FX for the last 3 decades or so, I suspect Star Wars will win here.
Best Sound Editing -- Star Wars: The Force Awakens. (see above)
Best Sound Mixing -- Star Wars: The Force Awakens. I understand (I think) the difference between the two sound categories but I'd be willing to bet most Academy voters don't really care. And since the two sets of nominees are pretty similar, I suspect Star Wars takes them both. (Wouldn't be surprised to see Bridge of Spies win this)
Best Original Song -- Spectre. This is my least favorite category in the whole show. I'm not up on what the Academy thinks are good songs, nor do I care. The only film I saw in this category was Youth (my favorite film of the year, btw) and while I admired that song's complexity, it ain't exactly the most hummable thing I've heard in a while. I just chose the James Bond movie because...well, I don't know why.
Best Score -- Sicario. I don't tend to care about film scores: occasionally they're great, occasionally they're annoying but mostly, like a great bass player, I never notice them. My gut tells me that the Academy would love to give Ennio Morricone (The Hateful 8) the award but I have heard that on the ballots only the film itself is mentioned and I feel like there's an Academy backlash to Quentin Taratino (and I doubt too many voters actually sat through the film itself). I could see Star Wars or Bridge of Spies winning but I went with Sicario because it was one of my favorite scores of the year and I'm a little surprised to see it nominated. This category is strangely wide open this year. I could see any of the five winning.
Best Makeup/Hairstyling -- The Revenant. If anyone actually saw The 100 Year Old Man, I think they would quickly see that was one of the finest makeup jobs of the lest several years, but I'm suspecting the voters didn't see it. And Mad Max, great as it was, is a strange candidate for this one, so I think everyone goes for the movie they actually watched.
Best Costume Design -- The Danish Girl. I did not see The Danish Girl (Eddie Redmayne already creeps me out, watching him in a dress for two hours does not sound appealing at all), but since the plot revolves around clothing itself (specifically designed for the actor, no less), I'm guessing the voters will gravitate toward that title. Again, Mad Max: Fury Road and The Revenant are strange choices here--who the hell is watching Mad Max and thinking, 'Oooh, I'd look good in that!'?
Best Production Design -- Bridge of Spies. I think this was a film that everyone watched and kinda liked (but didn't love). This is the sort of award that voters will give to reward a film that will otherwise not get much love.
Best Editing -- Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Big action movies that everyone liked is always the front runner for editing, so Mad Max: Fury Road could win, as well. (Also, a story that revolves around crazy juxtapositions could win, a film like The Big Short could sneak this one)
Best Cinematography -- The Revenant. This one's a lock. Carol and Sicario both featured some very subtle and lovely camerawork but their reward is just get nominated. Mad Max: Fury Road was well done but some will think of that as an effects-driven picture and downgrade it. The Hateful 8 was mostly indoors and lovely as it was to look at, don't think I'd put in my top five this year and I suspect the voters won't either. Emmanuel Lubezki is the best in the business right now, I'd be kinda shocked if he doesn't win (again).
Best Foreign Film -- Son of Saul. This one feels close to a lock, too. This category usually has one film that has already come out (or is just about to) and four other movies no one's ever heard of. Theeb has some buzz and Son of Saul has its critics, but I suspect it'll win just in time for its nationwide roll out.
Best Animated Feature -- Inside Out. This was one of my favorite films this year and I'd be surprised if it didn't win. Its another crowd pleasing Pixar masterpiece, hard to imagine it not winning.
Best Adapted Screenplay -- Room. I don't think Room has a shot at Picture or Director but I think this is a movie everyone really respected: its a tough piece of work that pulls off some heavy, heavy (m'fuckin' heavy) stuff with ease. The Big Short or The Martian could win but I think they've got a better shot at stealing Best Picture, Brooklyn and Carol were lovely films that are getting rewarded with a nomination only.
Best Original Screenplay -- Spotlight. Tom McCarthy is one of the best screenwriters around today and this is a model of how you write a screenplay, kids: a ton of characters, a million little plot threads, a whodunnit-like collection of subplots and yet its all laid out before the viewer in an easily digestible manner. I think McCarthy would be better served if his scripts were directed by someone else. This is (IMHO) the best screenplay this year and I think the Academy will agree with me.
Best Director -- Innaritu (The Revenant). Yeah, he just won last year but he's really good at his job, he's snagged himself the best cinematographer in the business and this is a category where the Academy really wants to get it right. McCarthy is actually a pretty terrible director (this was the head scratching-est of all the nominations), indeed he keeps Spotlight from being a much better film. Abrahamson pulled off a real feat in Room but nobody knows who he is, so the nomination is his reward. While I think The Big Short could sneak up and grab Best Picture, I don't think McKay outmuscles Innaritu to get this award, so for McKay the nomination is a way of letting him know he can get A-Listers to be in his movies but I don't think he wins this year. Miller is a weird guy that makes weird movies but I could see him sneaking in and grabbing Best Director if the Academy is squeamish about going back-to-back with Innaritu. I'm not gonna call Innaritu a lock because I think Miller has a decent shot at winning but I don't think the other nominees do.
Okay, the acting categories. These are tough because you never know when the voters will choose their old friends or reach out to the newbies or actually reward the best (sometimes happens). I'll see if I can weave my way through.
Best Supporting Actress -- Kate Winslet (Steve Jobs). I know Alicia Vikander is the popular choice but she's too new, I feel like if the voters want an up-and-comer they would choose Rooney Mara instead because they already know her. If they want a glorious veteran whose never gotten her due, they'd reach for Leigh, but again I bet none of the voters watched that movie. McAdams is fine but nothing superlative in Spotlight, so I'm guessing she comes in a distant 5th in this category. Thus, the safe pick is Winslet: she's already won an Oscar before but no one hates her and she is really, really good in this performance. I can see Mara winning, but I just don't see Vikander taking this home even though she had a really good year.
Best Supporting Actor -- Mark Rylance (Bridge of Spies). Stallone is the popular choice and he's good in Creed (really good, dude) but Sly's career is entirely based on popularity overseas, not in USA. (Before The Expendables, what was his last hit in America? Think about that for a minute....he's big in Indonesia, he's big in Turkey, he's big in Egypt, he ain't big in America, dude, and he never was. Winning the Golden Globe is no indication that he'll win the Oscar) Creed is a touching and solid reboot of the Rocky franchise but giving Sly the award after not nominating anyone else would be awkward and weird. Like McAdams, Ruffalo is fine in Spotlight but it is the crisp clear screenplay that drives that movie, not any single performance. Bale is fine in The Big Short but I think that has a better chance of stealing Best Picture, so the smaller awards go elsewhere, I think. Hardy should win this award--I thought that was one of the single finest performances of the entire year--but I doubt it. Rylance is one of those unsung British badasses that has been around forever and never gotten his due and Bridge of Spies is a film everyone liked, I think Rylance takes it.
Best Actress -- Brie Larson (Room). She's been around longer than you probably realize, she's steadily working for the last few years, she's been rolling through the awards season and she's really good in an unlikely likable movie. This one seems close to a lock, too. Blanchett is fine but I think Carol gets shut out. Rampling is very good in 45 Years but, man, that film's a bummer and she's not great enough to overcome that. Lawrence is wildly popular in the Academy thus she's invited to the party even though her movie sucked. Ronan is a lovely young actress in a lovely little movie, she'll be back in the future but she won't win this year. Larson is the perfect mix of up and comer and veteran, she's been working steady and everyone respects her. And she's really good.
Best Actor -- Leonardo Dicaprio (The Revenant). Cranston is lovable and popular, that's why he got nominated but that's as far as that goes. Redmayne just won last year, two in a row is a bit too rarefied for him right now. Fassbender is (IMHO) the best actor in the world right now (not named Day-Lewis) and he'll have many more shots at winning a statue. I really wanted to go with Damon stealing this one but I don't see it; The Martian was a likable piece of entertainment but not much more than that and, like Fassbender, Damon will have more shots to win. Dicaprio has been set up as the winner for months now and while I'd like to go with an upset, I don't see it coming. But, personally, this performance is not in my top five (or ten for that matter) this year. He crawls around and slobbers a lot, Tom Hardy was waaaay more interesting in this film. But everyone's been waiting for him to win, so I guess its his year.
Best Picture -- The Big Short. I think people really liked Brooklyn, The Martian and Bridge of Spies and really admired Room and Spotlight but I don't think there's enough support for any of those films to win the big prize. I think people dug Mad Max: Fury Road but who's gonna vote for that to win Best Picture? Lord of the Rings won but that was the end of a trilogy that was well respected and made a gajillion dollars, Mad Max: Fury Road is that rare silly popcorn movie that was just so goddamn good at what it set out to do that even the critics dug it, but its not a prize-winner, know what I mean? I think The Revenant was set up early in the season as Dicaprio's big moment, as another work of genius from Innaritu & Lubezki, maybe even as Tom Hardy's coming out and while the box office was surprisingly boffo and the critical response was grand, I just don't see The Revenant as a Best Picture winner. Yes, it is a technical marvel but does anyone really like the movie? A guy gets left for dead, turns out he's not dead, tracks down other dude for revenge...that's it? I think people respect it and I think Lubezki, Innaritu and Dicaprio get their statues, but I don't think anyone really loves the movie and I don't think its gonna win. Personally I thought The Big Short kinda sucked, its not terribly effective at telling a story or explaining how things work but its exactly the kind of populist crowd pleasing pseudo-serious junk that the Academy loves: it thinks its telling a grand story (but it isn't), it thinks its thumbing its nose at the moneyed classes (the one that are cashing the checks from the success of this movie) and it thinks its really clever at explaining to the masses what's wrong with Donald Trump's America (utterly tone deaf on that level). But I think it wins the big prize.
Rundown of the winners: 4 each for The Revenant and Star Wars: The Force Awakens; 2 for Room and Bridge of Spies; 1 each for Amy, The Big Short, The Danish Girl, Inside Out, Sicario, Son of Saul, Spectre, Spotlight, Steve Jobs. I think this is one of those years where nothing really dominates and the love gets spread all over the place. We'll see.
Best Doc -- Amy. I only saw two of the nominees and Amy seems to be the one with the most buzz.
Best Visual Effects -- Star Wars: The Force Awakens. I saw all five nominees and in terms of special effects, I think they are five fine choices for the award. Since Star Wars was shut out of the other sexy categories and since the original Lucas films set the standard in FX for the last 3 decades or so, I suspect Star Wars will win here.
Best Sound Editing -- Star Wars: The Force Awakens. (see above)
Best Sound Mixing -- Star Wars: The Force Awakens. I understand (I think) the difference between the two sound categories but I'd be willing to bet most Academy voters don't really care. And since the two sets of nominees are pretty similar, I suspect Star Wars takes them both. (Wouldn't be surprised to see Bridge of Spies win this)
Best Original Song -- Spectre. This is my least favorite category in the whole show. I'm not up on what the Academy thinks are good songs, nor do I care. The only film I saw in this category was Youth (my favorite film of the year, btw) and while I admired that song's complexity, it ain't exactly the most hummable thing I've heard in a while. I just chose the James Bond movie because...well, I don't know why.
Best Score -- Sicario. I don't tend to care about film scores: occasionally they're great, occasionally they're annoying but mostly, like a great bass player, I never notice them. My gut tells me that the Academy would love to give Ennio Morricone (The Hateful 8) the award but I have heard that on the ballots only the film itself is mentioned and I feel like there's an Academy backlash to Quentin Taratino (and I doubt too many voters actually sat through the film itself). I could see Star Wars or Bridge of Spies winning but I went with Sicario because it was one of my favorite scores of the year and I'm a little surprised to see it nominated. This category is strangely wide open this year. I could see any of the five winning.
Best Makeup/Hairstyling -- The Revenant. If anyone actually saw The 100 Year Old Man, I think they would quickly see that was one of the finest makeup jobs of the lest several years, but I'm suspecting the voters didn't see it. And Mad Max, great as it was, is a strange candidate for this one, so I think everyone goes for the movie they actually watched.
Best Costume Design -- The Danish Girl. I did not see The Danish Girl (Eddie Redmayne already creeps me out, watching him in a dress for two hours does not sound appealing at all), but since the plot revolves around clothing itself (specifically designed for the actor, no less), I'm guessing the voters will gravitate toward that title. Again, Mad Max: Fury Road and The Revenant are strange choices here--who the hell is watching Mad Max and thinking, 'Oooh, I'd look good in that!'?
Best Production Design -- Bridge of Spies. I think this was a film that everyone watched and kinda liked (but didn't love). This is the sort of award that voters will give to reward a film that will otherwise not get much love.
Best Editing -- Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Big action movies that everyone liked is always the front runner for editing, so Mad Max: Fury Road could win, as well. (Also, a story that revolves around crazy juxtapositions could win, a film like The Big Short could sneak this one)
Best Cinematography -- The Revenant. This one's a lock. Carol and Sicario both featured some very subtle and lovely camerawork but their reward is just get nominated. Mad Max: Fury Road was well done but some will think of that as an effects-driven picture and downgrade it. The Hateful 8 was mostly indoors and lovely as it was to look at, don't think I'd put in my top five this year and I suspect the voters won't either. Emmanuel Lubezki is the best in the business right now, I'd be kinda shocked if he doesn't win (again).
Best Foreign Film -- Son of Saul. This one feels close to a lock, too. This category usually has one film that has already come out (or is just about to) and four other movies no one's ever heard of. Theeb has some buzz and Son of Saul has its critics, but I suspect it'll win just in time for its nationwide roll out.
Best Animated Feature -- Inside Out. This was one of my favorite films this year and I'd be surprised if it didn't win. Its another crowd pleasing Pixar masterpiece, hard to imagine it not winning.
Best Adapted Screenplay -- Room. I don't think Room has a shot at Picture or Director but I think this is a movie everyone really respected: its a tough piece of work that pulls off some heavy, heavy (m'fuckin' heavy) stuff with ease. The Big Short or The Martian could win but I think they've got a better shot at stealing Best Picture, Brooklyn and Carol were lovely films that are getting rewarded with a nomination only.
Best Original Screenplay -- Spotlight. Tom McCarthy is one of the best screenwriters around today and this is a model of how you write a screenplay, kids: a ton of characters, a million little plot threads, a whodunnit-like collection of subplots and yet its all laid out before the viewer in an easily digestible manner. I think McCarthy would be better served if his scripts were directed by someone else. This is (IMHO) the best screenplay this year and I think the Academy will agree with me.
Best Director -- Innaritu (The Revenant). Yeah, he just won last year but he's really good at his job, he's snagged himself the best cinematographer in the business and this is a category where the Academy really wants to get it right. McCarthy is actually a pretty terrible director (this was the head scratching-est of all the nominations), indeed he keeps Spotlight from being a much better film. Abrahamson pulled off a real feat in Room but nobody knows who he is, so the nomination is his reward. While I think The Big Short could sneak up and grab Best Picture, I don't think McKay outmuscles Innaritu to get this award, so for McKay the nomination is a way of letting him know he can get A-Listers to be in his movies but I don't think he wins this year. Miller is a weird guy that makes weird movies but I could see him sneaking in and grabbing Best Director if the Academy is squeamish about going back-to-back with Innaritu. I'm not gonna call Innaritu a lock because I think Miller has a decent shot at winning but I don't think the other nominees do.
Okay, the acting categories. These are tough because you never know when the voters will choose their old friends or reach out to the newbies or actually reward the best (sometimes happens). I'll see if I can weave my way through.
Best Supporting Actress -- Kate Winslet (Steve Jobs). I know Alicia Vikander is the popular choice but she's too new, I feel like if the voters want an up-and-comer they would choose Rooney Mara instead because they already know her. If they want a glorious veteran whose never gotten her due, they'd reach for Leigh, but again I bet none of the voters watched that movie. McAdams is fine but nothing superlative in Spotlight, so I'm guessing she comes in a distant 5th in this category. Thus, the safe pick is Winslet: she's already won an Oscar before but no one hates her and she is really, really good in this performance. I can see Mara winning, but I just don't see Vikander taking this home even though she had a really good year.
Best Supporting Actor -- Mark Rylance (Bridge of Spies). Stallone is the popular choice and he's good in Creed (really good, dude) but Sly's career is entirely based on popularity overseas, not in USA. (Before The Expendables, what was his last hit in America? Think about that for a minute....he's big in Indonesia, he's big in Turkey, he's big in Egypt, he ain't big in America, dude, and he never was. Winning the Golden Globe is no indication that he'll win the Oscar) Creed is a touching and solid reboot of the Rocky franchise but giving Sly the award after not nominating anyone else would be awkward and weird. Like McAdams, Ruffalo is fine in Spotlight but it is the crisp clear screenplay that drives that movie, not any single performance. Bale is fine in The Big Short but I think that has a better chance of stealing Best Picture, so the smaller awards go elsewhere, I think. Hardy should win this award--I thought that was one of the single finest performances of the entire year--but I doubt it. Rylance is one of those unsung British badasses that has been around forever and never gotten his due and Bridge of Spies is a film everyone liked, I think Rylance takes it.
Best Actress -- Brie Larson (Room). She's been around longer than you probably realize, she's steadily working for the last few years, she's been rolling through the awards season and she's really good in an unlikely likable movie. This one seems close to a lock, too. Blanchett is fine but I think Carol gets shut out. Rampling is very good in 45 Years but, man, that film's a bummer and she's not great enough to overcome that. Lawrence is wildly popular in the Academy thus she's invited to the party even though her movie sucked. Ronan is a lovely young actress in a lovely little movie, she'll be back in the future but she won't win this year. Larson is the perfect mix of up and comer and veteran, she's been working steady and everyone respects her. And she's really good.
Best Actor -- Leonardo Dicaprio (The Revenant). Cranston is lovable and popular, that's why he got nominated but that's as far as that goes. Redmayne just won last year, two in a row is a bit too rarefied for him right now. Fassbender is (IMHO) the best actor in the world right now (not named Day-Lewis) and he'll have many more shots at winning a statue. I really wanted to go with Damon stealing this one but I don't see it; The Martian was a likable piece of entertainment but not much more than that and, like Fassbender, Damon will have more shots to win. Dicaprio has been set up as the winner for months now and while I'd like to go with an upset, I don't see it coming. But, personally, this performance is not in my top five (or ten for that matter) this year. He crawls around and slobbers a lot, Tom Hardy was waaaay more interesting in this film. But everyone's been waiting for him to win, so I guess its his year.
Best Picture -- The Big Short. I think people really liked Brooklyn, The Martian and Bridge of Spies and really admired Room and Spotlight but I don't think there's enough support for any of those films to win the big prize. I think people dug Mad Max: Fury Road but who's gonna vote for that to win Best Picture? Lord of the Rings won but that was the end of a trilogy that was well respected and made a gajillion dollars, Mad Max: Fury Road is that rare silly popcorn movie that was just so goddamn good at what it set out to do that even the critics dug it, but its not a prize-winner, know what I mean? I think The Revenant was set up early in the season as Dicaprio's big moment, as another work of genius from Innaritu & Lubezki, maybe even as Tom Hardy's coming out and while the box office was surprisingly boffo and the critical response was grand, I just don't see The Revenant as a Best Picture winner. Yes, it is a technical marvel but does anyone really like the movie? A guy gets left for dead, turns out he's not dead, tracks down other dude for revenge...that's it? I think people respect it and I think Lubezki, Innaritu and Dicaprio get their statues, but I don't think anyone really loves the movie and I don't think its gonna win. Personally I thought The Big Short kinda sucked, its not terribly effective at telling a story or explaining how things work but its exactly the kind of populist crowd pleasing pseudo-serious junk that the Academy loves: it thinks its telling a grand story (but it isn't), it thinks its thumbing its nose at the moneyed classes (the one that are cashing the checks from the success of this movie) and it thinks its really clever at explaining to the masses what's wrong with Donald Trump's America (utterly tone deaf on that level). But I think it wins the big prize.
Rundown of the winners: 4 each for The Revenant and Star Wars: The Force Awakens; 2 for Room and Bridge of Spies; 1 each for Amy, The Big Short, The Danish Girl, Inside Out, Sicario, Son of Saul, Spectre, Spotlight, Steve Jobs. I think this is one of those years where nothing really dominates and the love gets spread all over the place. We'll see.
Thursday, February 18, 2016
Trade Deadline Re-cap
Gotta say right off: the Reddit NBA page was waaaaaaay more useful than NBA.com, an oversight for a league that ought to be setting the standard. Okay, the deals.
Pistons gets Tobias Harris; Magic get Brandon Jennings and Ersan Ilyasova
Pistons added to the long term core by bringing in a solid scorer in the SF position and all they gave up was the guy they were going to trade anyway (Jennings) and a nice vet who isn't really part of the long term (Ilyasova). StanVan pulled off a good one, I think. As for the Magic, they bring a crazy shoot-first PG (who will probably move on in the summer) and some nice veteran depth (to replace Channing Frye, as it turns out). The Magic signed Harris to a big time contract just last summer because, for whatever reason, free agents don't want to come to Orlando, so like the Jazz they have to give big money to whoever they've got right now. But they clearly had misgivings because a Jennings rental and a nice vet PF represent selling low to my mind. I think Harris is the best contract among the bunch and the Magic probably would've been better off holding on to him. We'll see.
Pistons get Donatas Motiejunas and Marcus Thornton; Rockets get Joel Anthony and a 2016 top 10 protected 1st round pick.
Frankly, I think Motiejunas is a badass player (when healthy) and Thornton is a solid vet off the bench and getting both for a 1st round pick isn't a bad move. The Pistons are now rolling with Jackson, KCP, Tobias, Morris, Drummond with Thornton, Motiejunas, Stanley Johnson, and Meeks off the bench. That should get them into the playoffs in the East, thus that 1st round pick wasn't so valuable anyway. Rockets get back into the 1st round (but if they're letting go of Motiejunas, Terrence Jones and giving no playing time to Dekker or Harrell, then who cares about their draft picks?) and a dumpable contract in Joel Anthony (who hasn't played for years in this league, keep getting them checks!). Pistons made two moves and got the better of both of them. Brought in Harris, Motiejunas and Thornton for Jennings, Ilyasova, Anthony and a so-so 1st round pick is a solid upgrade.
Grizzlies get PJ Hairston, Birdman Andersen, 2 Hornets 2nd rd picks, 2 Heat 2nd rd picks; Hornets get Courtney Lee; Heat get Brian Roberts
Hornets needed to bring in some perimeter offense to fill in for MKG to make a playoff push, not sure Lee is the thing that puts them over the top but getting rid of Hairston is probably worth it (although I suspect this move was meant to set up other moves that haven't yet happened). Heat dumped some salary...and that's all. Grizzlies bring in a bunch of 2nd round picks, move on from Lee, get an interesting young shooter in Hairston and some veteran toughness in Andersen. Grizzlies are tough and getting tough (notice I didn't say 'good and getting better').
Grizzlies get Lance Stephenson; Clippers get Jeff Green
The Clippers move a headcase for a rental on a guy who's good every once in a while. Jeff Green is at least a guy the Clippers can rely on to not be an idiot, though he's not actually any better than Stephenson. As for the Grizzlies...man, tough and getting tougher. Look at the roster: Zeebo, Birdman, Lance, Matt Barnes, and Tony Allen. Man, not gonna win a playoff series but they're gonna leave some bruises on whoever they play. And for Coach Joerger, in trying to save your job here's Lance and Hairston to help you out. Good luck with that.
Heat get a 2nd rd pick; Pelicans get Jarnell Stokes
I was impressed with Stokes in NCAA, maybe the Pelicans will finally give him a chance to play. (Doubt it, but maybe) With the health concerns of Chris Bosh, the Heat were probably hesitant to make a move at the deadline other than just dumping salary.
Cavs get Channing Frye; Magic get Jared Cunningham, Blazers 2nd rd pick (and a $7m or so trade exception); Blazers get Anderson Varejao, Cavs 1st rd pick
Cavs get rid of the awful Varejao contract and a not particularly valuable draft pick for Frye, a guy that can come off the bench and give them some good offense. The Magic ditch a veteran contract for the sheer sake of saving money--but why? Why are the making the Cavs stronger for cap space they don't even need anyway? Giving up Frye to make room for Aaron Gordon is fine but Frye is a valuable enough asset that they could've gotten more than a trade exception. I don't get it. As for the Blazers, Varejao's contract can be cast off in the summer (I think) and they get a free draft pick just for playing along. No worries for the Blazers.
Jazz get Shelvin Mack; Hawks get Kirk Hinrich; Bulls get Justin Holiday, Jazz 2nd rd pick
This is just a paper shuffling deal, I guess. The Jazz get a 3rd string PG, the Hawks get a 3rd string PG, the Bulls get a slight upgrade on a 2nd round pick. If the Hawks were going to move Teague, then bringing in Hinrich might make sense...but they didn't move Teague. If the Jazz were going to move Trey Burke then bringing in Mack might give some roster depth....but they didn't move Burke. If the Bulls wanna make a playoff run having a reliable backup PG might make sense...but they just gave away their 2nd string PG. Uhh, I don't get this deal at all now that I think of it.
Thunder get Randy Foye; Nuggets get DJ Augustin, Steve Novak, 2 2nd rd picks
The Thunder are really just looking to dump some salary and perhaps they like Foye a little better than Augustin or Novak. The Nuggets are taking back some salary (but both guys are free agents in the summer) and they get a coupla 2nd rounders for their troubles. Is Foye an upgrade for OKC? I guess, maybe. Foye's a better finisher than Augustin and a better ball handler than Novak and he costs half as much as the two of them put together. Hard to imagine this deal makes any difference in the long run.
Wizards get Markieff Morris; Suns get Khris Humphries, Dejaun Blair, 2016 1st rd pick
The Wizards get an interesting young PF, who may (or may not) fit in well with the Wizards going forward. The Suns get rid of a headache and bring in a decent 1st rd pick, a solid veteran in Humphries and an okay-when-he's-not-hurt veteran in Blair. For the Suns this is bittersweet: it feels like they could've done better for Markieff, but they definitely could've done worse. Humphries is an underappreciated player who should give the Suns some solid dirty work, Blair was once upon a time a Spur-killer (though its hard to imagine that matters any more), and that draft pick could turn out to be pretty good if the Wizards falter in their attempt to get into the playoffs. As for the Wizards, well, if Markieff plays, he'll be a nice tough young scorer to smoosh between Gortat and Beal; or maybe he'll be an unbearable pain in the ass. The Wizards have decided to roll the dice. We'll see.
Sixers gets Joel Anthony, 2nd round pick; Rockets get rights to a foreign player (Chukwudiebere, I presume?)
The Sixers are still available to hide the NBA's dead bodies. I assume Anthony will be bought out and I suspect that's the last we'll ever see of Joel Anthony (hey, he won a ring with the Heat and even had moments where he played, not bad for a dude that never played basketball before).
Blazers get Brian Roberts and Heat 2nd rd pick; Heat get....(uh, nothing I think)
Heat continue to dump salary, Blazers continue to absorb other peoples' garbage contracts for bonus 2nd round picks.
Pistons gets Tobias Harris; Magic get Brandon Jennings and Ersan Ilyasova
Pistons added to the long term core by bringing in a solid scorer in the SF position and all they gave up was the guy they were going to trade anyway (Jennings) and a nice vet who isn't really part of the long term (Ilyasova). StanVan pulled off a good one, I think. As for the Magic, they bring a crazy shoot-first PG (who will probably move on in the summer) and some nice veteran depth (to replace Channing Frye, as it turns out). The Magic signed Harris to a big time contract just last summer because, for whatever reason, free agents don't want to come to Orlando, so like the Jazz they have to give big money to whoever they've got right now. But they clearly had misgivings because a Jennings rental and a nice vet PF represent selling low to my mind. I think Harris is the best contract among the bunch and the Magic probably would've been better off holding on to him. We'll see.
Pistons get Donatas Motiejunas and Marcus Thornton; Rockets get Joel Anthony and a 2016 top 10 protected 1st round pick.
Frankly, I think Motiejunas is a badass player (when healthy) and Thornton is a solid vet off the bench and getting both for a 1st round pick isn't a bad move. The Pistons are now rolling with Jackson, KCP, Tobias, Morris, Drummond with Thornton, Motiejunas, Stanley Johnson, and Meeks off the bench. That should get them into the playoffs in the East, thus that 1st round pick wasn't so valuable anyway. Rockets get back into the 1st round (but if they're letting go of Motiejunas, Terrence Jones and giving no playing time to Dekker or Harrell, then who cares about their draft picks?) and a dumpable contract in Joel Anthony (who hasn't played for years in this league, keep getting them checks!). Pistons made two moves and got the better of both of them. Brought in Harris, Motiejunas and Thornton for Jennings, Ilyasova, Anthony and a so-so 1st round pick is a solid upgrade.
Grizzlies get PJ Hairston, Birdman Andersen, 2 Hornets 2nd rd picks, 2 Heat 2nd rd picks; Hornets get Courtney Lee; Heat get Brian Roberts
Hornets needed to bring in some perimeter offense to fill in for MKG to make a playoff push, not sure Lee is the thing that puts them over the top but getting rid of Hairston is probably worth it (although I suspect this move was meant to set up other moves that haven't yet happened). Heat dumped some salary...and that's all. Grizzlies bring in a bunch of 2nd round picks, move on from Lee, get an interesting young shooter in Hairston and some veteran toughness in Andersen. Grizzlies are tough and getting tough (notice I didn't say 'good and getting better').
Grizzlies get Lance Stephenson; Clippers get Jeff Green
The Clippers move a headcase for a rental on a guy who's good every once in a while. Jeff Green is at least a guy the Clippers can rely on to not be an idiot, though he's not actually any better than Stephenson. As for the Grizzlies...man, tough and getting tougher. Look at the roster: Zeebo, Birdman, Lance, Matt Barnes, and Tony Allen. Man, not gonna win a playoff series but they're gonna leave some bruises on whoever they play. And for Coach Joerger, in trying to save your job here's Lance and Hairston to help you out. Good luck with that.
Heat get a 2nd rd pick; Pelicans get Jarnell Stokes
I was impressed with Stokes in NCAA, maybe the Pelicans will finally give him a chance to play. (Doubt it, but maybe) With the health concerns of Chris Bosh, the Heat were probably hesitant to make a move at the deadline other than just dumping salary.
Cavs get Channing Frye; Magic get Jared Cunningham, Blazers 2nd rd pick (and a $7m or so trade exception); Blazers get Anderson Varejao, Cavs 1st rd pick
Cavs get rid of the awful Varejao contract and a not particularly valuable draft pick for Frye, a guy that can come off the bench and give them some good offense. The Magic ditch a veteran contract for the sheer sake of saving money--but why? Why are the making the Cavs stronger for cap space they don't even need anyway? Giving up Frye to make room for Aaron Gordon is fine but Frye is a valuable enough asset that they could've gotten more than a trade exception. I don't get it. As for the Blazers, Varejao's contract can be cast off in the summer (I think) and they get a free draft pick just for playing along. No worries for the Blazers.
Jazz get Shelvin Mack; Hawks get Kirk Hinrich; Bulls get Justin Holiday, Jazz 2nd rd pick
This is just a paper shuffling deal, I guess. The Jazz get a 3rd string PG, the Hawks get a 3rd string PG, the Bulls get a slight upgrade on a 2nd round pick. If the Hawks were going to move Teague, then bringing in Hinrich might make sense...but they didn't move Teague. If the Jazz were going to move Trey Burke then bringing in Mack might give some roster depth....but they didn't move Burke. If the Bulls wanna make a playoff run having a reliable backup PG might make sense...but they just gave away their 2nd string PG. Uhh, I don't get this deal at all now that I think of it.
Thunder get Randy Foye; Nuggets get DJ Augustin, Steve Novak, 2 2nd rd picks
The Thunder are really just looking to dump some salary and perhaps they like Foye a little better than Augustin or Novak. The Nuggets are taking back some salary (but both guys are free agents in the summer) and they get a coupla 2nd rounders for their troubles. Is Foye an upgrade for OKC? I guess, maybe. Foye's a better finisher than Augustin and a better ball handler than Novak and he costs half as much as the two of them put together. Hard to imagine this deal makes any difference in the long run.
Wizards get Markieff Morris; Suns get Khris Humphries, Dejaun Blair, 2016 1st rd pick
The Wizards get an interesting young PF, who may (or may not) fit in well with the Wizards going forward. The Suns get rid of a headache and bring in a decent 1st rd pick, a solid veteran in Humphries and an okay-when-he's-not-hurt veteran in Blair. For the Suns this is bittersweet: it feels like they could've done better for Markieff, but they definitely could've done worse. Humphries is an underappreciated player who should give the Suns some solid dirty work, Blair was once upon a time a Spur-killer (though its hard to imagine that matters any more), and that draft pick could turn out to be pretty good if the Wizards falter in their attempt to get into the playoffs. As for the Wizards, well, if Markieff plays, he'll be a nice tough young scorer to smoosh between Gortat and Beal; or maybe he'll be an unbearable pain in the ass. The Wizards have decided to roll the dice. We'll see.
Sixers gets Joel Anthony, 2nd round pick; Rockets get rights to a foreign player (Chukwudiebere, I presume?)
The Sixers are still available to hide the NBA's dead bodies. I assume Anthony will be bought out and I suspect that's the last we'll ever see of Joel Anthony (hey, he won a ring with the Heat and even had moments where he played, not bad for a dude that never played basketball before).
Blazers get Brian Roberts and Heat 2nd rd pick; Heat get....(uh, nothing I think)
Heat continue to dump salary, Blazers continue to absorb other peoples' garbage contracts for bonus 2nd round picks.
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
Pointless Trade Idea
Pelicans get Channing Frye (2yrs/$15.2m), Evan Fournier (1yr/$2.2m); Magic get Ryan Anderson (1yr/$8.5m), Kendrick Perkins (1yr/$1.5m). (NOTE: This deal makes no difference for this year, this is all about setting up the off-season)
The Pelicans bring back perimeter scoring with Fournier (whom they could re-sign this summer) and the original stretch four in Frye, who stretches the floor for either AD or Asik and has just one more very affordable year on his deal. Great deal for the Pelicans? No, but they're in danger of slipping into Sacramento territory where it just doesn't matter what they do, it'll turn bad. They have THE coveted player at the trade deadline in Anderson but there just aren't any good deals out there for him, so I think the Pelicans are better off trying out the solid vet Frye and giving an audition to the intriguing shooter Fournier.
Given that the Magic have ditched Tobias Harris (it was dump, man, dumping that contract is the only reason for them to take on Brandon Jennings), they could truly clear the books by moving Frye to make room for Aaron Gordon, as well. Fournier is not likely to be re-signed in the off-season, so sending him out for someone else's rental is just as well. Assuming the Magic would not re-sign Anderson or Perkins (or Jennings), they're young core would be Vucevic, Ilyasova, Gordon, Oladipo, Peyton (w/Hezonja and a 2016 lottery pick off the bench), leaving the Magic to be big time players in free agency (hello, Durantula? You wanna go to Disney World?).
(Or it could be that the Harris-for-Jennings move makes Peyton or Oladipo available. I wouldn't trade either of those guys but if the deal is right, it could happen)
The Pelicans bring back perimeter scoring with Fournier (whom they could re-sign this summer) and the original stretch four in Frye, who stretches the floor for either AD or Asik and has just one more very affordable year on his deal. Great deal for the Pelicans? No, but they're in danger of slipping into Sacramento territory where it just doesn't matter what they do, it'll turn bad. They have THE coveted player at the trade deadline in Anderson but there just aren't any good deals out there for him, so I think the Pelicans are better off trying out the solid vet Frye and giving an audition to the intriguing shooter Fournier.
Given that the Magic have ditched Tobias Harris (it was dump, man, dumping that contract is the only reason for them to take on Brandon Jennings), they could truly clear the books by moving Frye to make room for Aaron Gordon, as well. Fournier is not likely to be re-signed in the off-season, so sending him out for someone else's rental is just as well. Assuming the Magic would not re-sign Anderson or Perkins (or Jennings), they're young core would be Vucevic, Ilyasova, Gordon, Oladipo, Peyton (w/Hezonja and a 2016 lottery pick off the bench), leaving the Magic to be big time players in free agency (hello, Durantula? You wanna go to Disney World?).
(Or it could be that the Harris-for-Jennings move makes Peyton or Oladipo available. I wouldn't trade either of those guys but if the deal is right, it could happen)
Trade Deadline Memo to the T-Wolves
Listen to me, Minnesota: don't give up on Adrien Payne! I'm not saying he's the next Draymon Green--but he might be! I know you wanna get rid of Kevin Martin and maybe even Ricky Rubio but don't treat Payne like a throw-in. Payne and Bjelica are both solid ballers who fit well with the rest of your core and both can still blossom under good coaching (which neither have had yet in the NBA). Payne can be still good, yo. Don't give him away. That's all.
Thursday, February 11, 2016
NBA Pointless Trade Impossibilities
Trade deadline is looming and the rumors are flying. I still don't see the moves out there, there are plenty of players who might be available, but what are the chances they get moved?
David Lee (Celtics) -- Big ticket expiring contracts used to be all the rage but not this year, so in order for someone to pick up Lee's contract they have to get minutes out of him. Lee is a well-respected guy (nice fit for a young team) but his performance is rapidly deteriorating and there are precious few teams out there that could afford to have him play minutes. Even the Sixers, who have recently been amenable to being everybody's big ticket dumping ground (Keith Bogans, JaVale McGee, Danny Granger, among others) don't need the cap space and don't have the minutes for an aging below the rim power forward. Danny Ainge would love to move that big contract for a useful piece moving forward but I just don't see it happening.
Roy Hibbert (Lakers) -- Ditto. His contract is way too big for his performance and though it comes off the books in the summer, no one needs the cap space in a year when the cap is going up and everyone's already cleared room for a run at Durant anyway. Could the Lakers and Celtics swap these two? The Celtics could get more worthwhile minutes out of Hibbert than they could Lee (he'd be the rim protector they've long needed) but then again, so could the Lakers, so what's in it for them? Are the Celtics willing to pitch in one of their 400 draft picks for a slight temporary upgrade? I doubt it.
Dwight Howard (Rockets) -- With a player option for next year, he's effectively a free agent and would only be attractive to teams that think they could re-sign him. Hawks, Mavs, Nets might be the only real contenders for that. But the Nets don't have anyone that's terribly attractive (and the Nets need draft picks more than pricey veterans), the Mavs don't have the contracts to make a deal work (unless the Rockets wanted Chandler Parsons back, which I'm assuming they don't since they let him walk two years ago), which leaves the Hawks. But the Hawks would probably have to give up too much (think Horford, Teague and Korver or Sefolosha) to get a guy they might be able to sign in the summer. The trade rumblings suggest that Howard is available but I'm not seeing it.
Zach Randolph, Mike Conley, Jeff Green (Grizzlies) -- With Marc Gasol out, it would appear the Grizzlies are best off in tank mode for the rest of the year. Coach Joerger is not likely to return next year and Mike Conley will have many suitors beyond Memphis for his next contract, this looks like it could be the end to the grit and grind era in Memphis. Their contracts are very similar (all btw $9.8m and $9.0m this year) which makes them rather interchangeable in a trade scenario, but which would they rather keep (Randolph, Conley) and which would they rather swap (Green). Packaging two of those guys brings back a big ticket (who's out there?), all three is too much for a reasonable deal, any one of them is likely to bring back a similar situation. So how do they get a deal done?
Kevin Martin (Grizzlies) -- Aging scorer, signed back when the Wolves had nothing but has now outgrown his purpose in Minnesota. At $7m, he's a reasonably priced option off the bench for a playoff team but who do the Wolves want in return? Who is out there that matches their needs? I'm not seeing it. Can they get OKC to take him for Dion Waiters and Cameron Payne? I doubt it.
Nene Hilario (Wizards) -- Nene's one of those guys that's pretty good....when he's not hurt. He's older now, relatively healthy but probably only useful for limited minutes. Does he make anybody better for $13m? Not a bad player, not even a terrible contract, but not good enough to put in the work to bring him in.
Markieff Morris (Suns) -- Very reasonable contract ($8m), nice young player but...kind of a weirdo head case and inconsistent on the court. He wants to play with his brother which would make Detroit the only clear fit for him but the Pistons don't have the assets. Phoenix has to get rid of him (choking a teammate on the bench is just not cool, man, especially after the team already fired the coaching staff) but he's too valuable to just give away. (Man, the Suns front office has just f'ed up everything over the last 2-3 years) Does he go to Milwaukee for OJ Mayo? But then its on Milwaukee to go get Marcus Morris, right? Does John Henson and a 1st round draft pick get the Morris twins back together?
Hassan Whiteside (Heat) -- Probably the most puzzling asset out there: he's too cheap to trade and not reliable enough for anyone to desire his Bird rights. I think he and the Heat are stuck with each other: they can give him the most money but will they want to? He's so cheap, he has to be packaged with (presumably) Luol Deng just to get him up trade-ability. The Heat are a veteran outfit and as promising as Markieff Morris is, the idea that he's more valuable short or long term than Deng is debatable. Can the Heat pry Nicolas Batum out of Charlotte with these two? And would that be worth it anyway?
Ryan Anderson (Pelicans) -- This is the guy everybody wants. But how does the deal get done? How much are you willing to pay for a rental? When cap space isn't an issue, rentals become less attractive. There's only so much season left for a new guy to make an impact and if he's gone in the summer, then its almost not worth doing. Feels like Anderson could pretty much pick where he wants to play next year but he may as well just wait for the summer to make his decision. As much as everybody wants this guy, I don't see him getting moved (unless the Celtics or Grizzlies make some unbelievable offer).
Joakim Noah (Bulls) -- ....Would've been on this list if he hadn't had a season-ending ankle injury. That injury really throws the Bulls plans up in the air: they may have had a nice trade chip with Noah, but not they either have to move Pau Gasol or lose Noah in free agency (or lose both, which I think is what's gonna happen).
Greg Monroe (Bucks) -- Though he has was one of the most coveted free agents of last summer, it appears the Bucks are already ready to move on from that deal. He is pretty one dimensional but the contract isn't too bad (in a rising salary cap world, that is). Do they take David Lee and a draft pick from the Celtics? Are they willing to take on Hibbert? Monroe might not be the perfect fit but it feels like all they can get back for him now are expiring vets that leave them looking to start over in the summer. While I'm not a fan of Monroe's fit with the Bucks, they're a young team and I think holding them together is probably a better idea going forward that hitting the reset button so quickly.
Al Horford (Hawks) -- The Hawks seem ready to blow it up. It appears they hit their peak some time last year (I'd say around the all-star break) and this current squad needs to be rebuilt. But wait: while they're not likely to beat the Cavs, this iteration of the Hawks is still one of the better teams in the East. If peeling off the core players would make them better, I'd say go for it but I doubt it would. Personally I'd try to keep Horford and roll into next year with the same bunch of guys, keep the consistency and hope for the best (namely, a devastating injury to some other team). But the Celtics can offer draft picks, so I suspect they give away Horford to the Celtics for 'future considerations', which would probably drum them out of the playoffs in the East. If they move Horford, then they may as well move Teague and Korver too. (They're almost getting to the point where they have to make a move because the rumors must be unsettling on a team where the coach and the GM are the same guy: the GM isn't some guy in a suit that sends out mass emails, he's the coach they all talk to every day. That makes a difference)
Blake Griffin (Clippers) -- For Blake to get moved (is that even possible with him being injured right now?), it would have to be a blockbuster. I'm not seeing it. There are plenty of teams that would love to have Blake Griffin but for playoff teams now is a terrible time to do it and for non-playoff teams it would be probably distort their whole roster. Besides, the Clippers would be crazy to move him unless they were getting back at least a top 10 player in this league.
Tobias Harris (Magic) -- Like Greg Monroe, his contract is too big for anyone to take unless they were dumping garbage to get rid of him. For the Magic, they'd be better off holding on him and capturing his value on the court. Some cars are investments, some cars are only as valuable as far you can drive them. Harris and Monroe are in the latter camp: the value you derive from them is on the court, not on the trading block.
The Hawks and the Grizzlies are the two teams that look to be in fire sale mode, while the Celtics look like the team that might be willing to overpay just to buy something. There's lots of talk about lots of players and lots of teams looking to wheel and deal. But I'm just not seeing it. I suspect there will be some deals, a handful of tiny paper shuffling deals and there might even be a blockbuster or two, but either way I suspect the trades that happen will be shocking out of nowhere moves that leave the commentariat scratching their heads.
David Lee (Celtics) -- Big ticket expiring contracts used to be all the rage but not this year, so in order for someone to pick up Lee's contract they have to get minutes out of him. Lee is a well-respected guy (nice fit for a young team) but his performance is rapidly deteriorating and there are precious few teams out there that could afford to have him play minutes. Even the Sixers, who have recently been amenable to being everybody's big ticket dumping ground (Keith Bogans, JaVale McGee, Danny Granger, among others) don't need the cap space and don't have the minutes for an aging below the rim power forward. Danny Ainge would love to move that big contract for a useful piece moving forward but I just don't see it happening.
Roy Hibbert (Lakers) -- Ditto. His contract is way too big for his performance and though it comes off the books in the summer, no one needs the cap space in a year when the cap is going up and everyone's already cleared room for a run at Durant anyway. Could the Lakers and Celtics swap these two? The Celtics could get more worthwhile minutes out of Hibbert than they could Lee (he'd be the rim protector they've long needed) but then again, so could the Lakers, so what's in it for them? Are the Celtics willing to pitch in one of their 400 draft picks for a slight temporary upgrade? I doubt it.
Dwight Howard (Rockets) -- With a player option for next year, he's effectively a free agent and would only be attractive to teams that think they could re-sign him. Hawks, Mavs, Nets might be the only real contenders for that. But the Nets don't have anyone that's terribly attractive (and the Nets need draft picks more than pricey veterans), the Mavs don't have the contracts to make a deal work (unless the Rockets wanted Chandler Parsons back, which I'm assuming they don't since they let him walk two years ago), which leaves the Hawks. But the Hawks would probably have to give up too much (think Horford, Teague and Korver or Sefolosha) to get a guy they might be able to sign in the summer. The trade rumblings suggest that Howard is available but I'm not seeing it.
Zach Randolph, Mike Conley, Jeff Green (Grizzlies) -- With Marc Gasol out, it would appear the Grizzlies are best off in tank mode for the rest of the year. Coach Joerger is not likely to return next year and Mike Conley will have many suitors beyond Memphis for his next contract, this looks like it could be the end to the grit and grind era in Memphis. Their contracts are very similar (all btw $9.8m and $9.0m this year) which makes them rather interchangeable in a trade scenario, but which would they rather keep (Randolph, Conley) and which would they rather swap (Green). Packaging two of those guys brings back a big ticket (who's out there?), all three is too much for a reasonable deal, any one of them is likely to bring back a similar situation. So how do they get a deal done?
Kevin Martin (Grizzlies) -- Aging scorer, signed back when the Wolves had nothing but has now outgrown his purpose in Minnesota. At $7m, he's a reasonably priced option off the bench for a playoff team but who do the Wolves want in return? Who is out there that matches their needs? I'm not seeing it. Can they get OKC to take him for Dion Waiters and Cameron Payne? I doubt it.
Nene Hilario (Wizards) -- Nene's one of those guys that's pretty good....when he's not hurt. He's older now, relatively healthy but probably only useful for limited minutes. Does he make anybody better for $13m? Not a bad player, not even a terrible contract, but not good enough to put in the work to bring him in.
Markieff Morris (Suns) -- Very reasonable contract ($8m), nice young player but...kind of a weirdo head case and inconsistent on the court. He wants to play with his brother which would make Detroit the only clear fit for him but the Pistons don't have the assets. Phoenix has to get rid of him (choking a teammate on the bench is just not cool, man, especially after the team already fired the coaching staff) but he's too valuable to just give away. (Man, the Suns front office has just f'ed up everything over the last 2-3 years) Does he go to Milwaukee for OJ Mayo? But then its on Milwaukee to go get Marcus Morris, right? Does John Henson and a 1st round draft pick get the Morris twins back together?
Hassan Whiteside (Heat) -- Probably the most puzzling asset out there: he's too cheap to trade and not reliable enough for anyone to desire his Bird rights. I think he and the Heat are stuck with each other: they can give him the most money but will they want to? He's so cheap, he has to be packaged with (presumably) Luol Deng just to get him up trade-ability. The Heat are a veteran outfit and as promising as Markieff Morris is, the idea that he's more valuable short or long term than Deng is debatable. Can the Heat pry Nicolas Batum out of Charlotte with these two? And would that be worth it anyway?
Ryan Anderson (Pelicans) -- This is the guy everybody wants. But how does the deal get done? How much are you willing to pay for a rental? When cap space isn't an issue, rentals become less attractive. There's only so much season left for a new guy to make an impact and if he's gone in the summer, then its almost not worth doing. Feels like Anderson could pretty much pick where he wants to play next year but he may as well just wait for the summer to make his decision. As much as everybody wants this guy, I don't see him getting moved (unless the Celtics or Grizzlies make some unbelievable offer).
Joakim Noah (Bulls) -- ....Would've been on this list if he hadn't had a season-ending ankle injury. That injury really throws the Bulls plans up in the air: they may have had a nice trade chip with Noah, but not they either have to move Pau Gasol or lose Noah in free agency (or lose both, which I think is what's gonna happen).
Greg Monroe (Bucks) -- Though he has was one of the most coveted free agents of last summer, it appears the Bucks are already ready to move on from that deal. He is pretty one dimensional but the contract isn't too bad (in a rising salary cap world, that is). Do they take David Lee and a draft pick from the Celtics? Are they willing to take on Hibbert? Monroe might not be the perfect fit but it feels like all they can get back for him now are expiring vets that leave them looking to start over in the summer. While I'm not a fan of Monroe's fit with the Bucks, they're a young team and I think holding them together is probably a better idea going forward that hitting the reset button so quickly.
Al Horford (Hawks) -- The Hawks seem ready to blow it up. It appears they hit their peak some time last year (I'd say around the all-star break) and this current squad needs to be rebuilt. But wait: while they're not likely to beat the Cavs, this iteration of the Hawks is still one of the better teams in the East. If peeling off the core players would make them better, I'd say go for it but I doubt it would. Personally I'd try to keep Horford and roll into next year with the same bunch of guys, keep the consistency and hope for the best (namely, a devastating injury to some other team). But the Celtics can offer draft picks, so I suspect they give away Horford to the Celtics for 'future considerations', which would probably drum them out of the playoffs in the East. If they move Horford, then they may as well move Teague and Korver too. (They're almost getting to the point where they have to make a move because the rumors must be unsettling on a team where the coach and the GM are the same guy: the GM isn't some guy in a suit that sends out mass emails, he's the coach they all talk to every day. That makes a difference)
Blake Griffin (Clippers) -- For Blake to get moved (is that even possible with him being injured right now?), it would have to be a blockbuster. I'm not seeing it. There are plenty of teams that would love to have Blake Griffin but for playoff teams now is a terrible time to do it and for non-playoff teams it would be probably distort their whole roster. Besides, the Clippers would be crazy to move him unless they were getting back at least a top 10 player in this league.
Tobias Harris (Magic) -- Like Greg Monroe, his contract is too big for anyone to take unless they were dumping garbage to get rid of him. For the Magic, they'd be better off holding on him and capturing his value on the court. Some cars are investments, some cars are only as valuable as far you can drive them. Harris and Monroe are in the latter camp: the value you derive from them is on the court, not on the trading block.
The Hawks and the Grizzlies are the two teams that look to be in fire sale mode, while the Celtics look like the team that might be willing to overpay just to buy something. There's lots of talk about lots of players and lots of teams looking to wheel and deal. But I'm just not seeing it. I suspect there will be some deals, a handful of tiny paper shuffling deals and there might even be a blockbuster or two, but either way I suspect the trades that happen will be shocking out of nowhere moves that leave the commentariat scratching their heads.
Monday, February 8, 2016
Coach of the Year Update
Derek Fisher is now out of the race for Coach of the Year as he has been fired by the Knicks. He never seemed like the right guy to coach that team to begin with, so I guess I'm not surprised that he's no longer the coach, although I don't see any particular reason to fire him now. The rumor is the Knicks are hot on the trail of Luke Walton--and the next rumor is the Lakers are too (and that Byron Scott would sooner rather than later be removed from Coach of the Year contention). Walton's credentials are he won a bunch of games as the interim coach of the greatest team in league history; there's some value in that but I don't see anything about the Warriors' situation that corresponds to the Knicks or the Lakers.
Where does Fisher go from here? He's got no NCAA cred, I don't see him as a TV commentator any time soon, and he wasn't successful enough with the Knicks to move him higher on the depth chart above, say, Thibodeau or Mark Jackson or even D'Antoni. The creepy realization is he'd probably an assistant for Luke Walton if he ends up with the Lakers (any thought that Fisher could help lure Durant to the Lake Show?). Almost certainly his next job will be as an assistant coach somewhere in the NBA (maybe with the Pelicans or Thunder). I guess he could go to the Nets, but, man, who wants that heart burn? Might the Grizzlies be interested in him if they let of Joerger?
As for the Knicks, they'll have Kurt Rambis as the interim coach. And if they fail on their run at Walton, the job is supposedly all wrapped up and ready for Thibodeau. I'm lukewarm on Thibodeau for most jobs but I think this one would be a good fit. NYK needs some leadership, some direction, and Thibs would definitely bring that. (Hmmm, would NYK be interested in free agent-to-be Joakim Noah?)
Next up on the rumor mill: George Karl's days with the Kings appear to be numbered. And the Lakers are already apparently looking for Byron Scott's replacement (but then again I assume searching for his replacement began four seconds after introducing him as the coach).
Coach of the Year, as of right now, is still Popovich. Who else is even in the discussion? Dwayne Casey (Raptors)? Brad Stevens (Celtics)? How about Quin Snyder (Jazz)? Yeah, still clearly Popovich, don't ya think?
Where does Fisher go from here? He's got no NCAA cred, I don't see him as a TV commentator any time soon, and he wasn't successful enough with the Knicks to move him higher on the depth chart above, say, Thibodeau or Mark Jackson or even D'Antoni. The creepy realization is he'd probably an assistant for Luke Walton if he ends up with the Lakers (any thought that Fisher could help lure Durant to the Lake Show?). Almost certainly his next job will be as an assistant coach somewhere in the NBA (maybe with the Pelicans or Thunder). I guess he could go to the Nets, but, man, who wants that heart burn? Might the Grizzlies be interested in him if they let of Joerger?
As for the Knicks, they'll have Kurt Rambis as the interim coach. And if they fail on their run at Walton, the job is supposedly all wrapped up and ready for Thibodeau. I'm lukewarm on Thibodeau for most jobs but I think this one would be a good fit. NYK needs some leadership, some direction, and Thibs would definitely bring that. (Hmmm, would NYK be interested in free agent-to-be Joakim Noah?)
Next up on the rumor mill: George Karl's days with the Kings appear to be numbered. And the Lakers are already apparently looking for Byron Scott's replacement (but then again I assume searching for his replacement began four seconds after introducing him as the coach).
Coach of the Year, as of right now, is still Popovich. Who else is even in the discussion? Dwayne Casey (Raptors)? Brad Stevens (Celtics)? How about Quin Snyder (Jazz)? Yeah, still clearly Popovich, don't ya think?
Super Bowl Reaction
Vonn Miller was a monster! He was everywhere at once, in on every play it seemed like. He was without a doubt the MVP of this game.
Thought the Panthers got hosed on the replay call. Dude, the ball never touched the ground...how can it be a incomplete pass? What was incomplete about it? From all the various camera angles, it is clear that the ball never touched the ground...if it never touched the ground, how can you say the receiver didn't catch the ball? I didn't understand it at the time and I still don't now. It never touched the ground. (Of course, every Panther fan will forever remember that two plays later, Cam was sacked, stripped and the Bronco D scored the first TD of the game)
I thought the Panthers should've run Cam more often, surprised that they didn't. Not so much for the yardage, but just to mix up the game plan, put the Bronco defense in a different mind set. He's actually not a natural born runner, he's got the size and the talent but running is not his first instinct. But a designed run or two surely would've eked out a few more 1st downs and opened things up down field. I thought the relative conservativeness with Cam was a real missed opportunity. Especially since he really wasn't passing well at all. He looked better at the beginning of the 3rd quarter but otherwise he sailed a lot of passes ll night long, I guess the Bronco secondary was throwing off his normal looks.
I didn't mind Cam not going for that fumble. It looked to me like he didn't have the right angle on it and jumping in wouldn't have given him a good shot to get the ball. I was surprised he didn't jump in but even at the time it didn't look like necessarily the right play. But even right away I knew that play was gonna be one of the talking points of the Cam backlash.
Peyton Manning was pretty terrible, dog. But the Bronco D and special teams made all the difference. And Peyton was wise enough to let his teammates win the game. So...I dunno...good game for Peyton, huh? (12 straight 3-and-outs. 12! In a Super Bowl!)
As it got closer to game time I had talked myself out of a Panther blowout but I still thought the Panthers (re: Cam) would be good enough to pull it out. I kinda thought the way the Broncos won would be the way the Panthers won: score early, maintain a decent lead all the way through, survive the comeback attempt. I thought the Broncos would cover (+5.5) and I thought the game would be under (50), so I did pretty well.
Early early early prediction for next year: Bengals over Cowboys.
Since everyone did this to the Warriors last year, I thought I'd go ahead and put it to the Broncos: aren't they lucky that they didn't have to face the Bengals (genuinely solid AFC team this year, better than the Steelers), the Chiefs (division foe that already beat them once and should've beaten them twice) and the Seahawks (with a pass rush that almost certainly would've battered Manning as bad as the Broncos battered Cam)? Just sayin'. Bengals, Chiefs and Seahawks would've been a tougher road than what the Broncos got.
Thought the Panthers got hosed on the replay call. Dude, the ball never touched the ground...how can it be a incomplete pass? What was incomplete about it? From all the various camera angles, it is clear that the ball never touched the ground...if it never touched the ground, how can you say the receiver didn't catch the ball? I didn't understand it at the time and I still don't now. It never touched the ground. (Of course, every Panther fan will forever remember that two plays later, Cam was sacked, stripped and the Bronco D scored the first TD of the game)
I thought the Panthers should've run Cam more often, surprised that they didn't. Not so much for the yardage, but just to mix up the game plan, put the Bronco defense in a different mind set. He's actually not a natural born runner, he's got the size and the talent but running is not his first instinct. But a designed run or two surely would've eked out a few more 1st downs and opened things up down field. I thought the relative conservativeness with Cam was a real missed opportunity. Especially since he really wasn't passing well at all. He looked better at the beginning of the 3rd quarter but otherwise he sailed a lot of passes ll night long, I guess the Bronco secondary was throwing off his normal looks.
I didn't mind Cam not going for that fumble. It looked to me like he didn't have the right angle on it and jumping in wouldn't have given him a good shot to get the ball. I was surprised he didn't jump in but even at the time it didn't look like necessarily the right play. But even right away I knew that play was gonna be one of the talking points of the Cam backlash.
Peyton Manning was pretty terrible, dog. But the Bronco D and special teams made all the difference. And Peyton was wise enough to let his teammates win the game. So...I dunno...good game for Peyton, huh? (12 straight 3-and-outs. 12! In a Super Bowl!)
As it got closer to game time I had talked myself out of a Panther blowout but I still thought the Panthers (re: Cam) would be good enough to pull it out. I kinda thought the way the Broncos won would be the way the Panthers won: score early, maintain a decent lead all the way through, survive the comeback attempt. I thought the Broncos would cover (+5.5) and I thought the game would be under (50), so I did pretty well.
Early early early prediction for next year: Bengals over Cowboys.
Since everyone did this to the Warriors last year, I thought I'd go ahead and put it to the Broncos: aren't they lucky that they didn't have to face the Bengals (genuinely solid AFC team this year, better than the Steelers), the Chiefs (division foe that already beat them once and should've beaten them twice) and the Seahawks (with a pass rush that almost certainly would've battered Manning as bad as the Broncos battered Cam)? Just sayin'. Bengals, Chiefs and Seahawks would've been a tougher road than what the Broncos got.
New Hampshire Primary
Democrats
Sanders 56
Clinton 40
In Iowa Clinton's early lead evaporated on caucus night resulting in a dead heat that was claimed as a victory for underdog Sanders; I expect the opposite to happen in New Hampshire. In the Democratic ranks Clinton is respected, Sanders is admired. In New Hampshire I think 'electability' is a genuine concern and while New Hampshire Dems admire Sanders, I think they'll find Clinton more electable and when the time comes they'll move in her direction. Considering that Iowa and New Hampshire (and Vermont) are considered Sanders' best states, Hillary will take a draw in New Hampshire as a demonstrable sign that she is the real candidate and Sanders' Iowa showing was an outlier. If indeed that does come to pass then Sanders is pretty much done and its only a matter of time before he starts doing stump speeches in favor of Hillary. I'll say Sanders 51%, Clinton 48%.
Republicans
Trump 34
Rubio 13
Cruz 13
Kasich 10
Bush 10
Christie 5
Fiorina 4
Carson 3
Again, the 'electability' of Trump has to be on the minds of New Hampshire Republicans and in the case of Trump, only the slightest doubt is needed to choose someone else. Or vice versa: if you think Trump isn't electable, then why not show for another candidate who's just as unelectable? Trump's lead is probably too large too surmount at this point but if he wins with only, say, 25%, there are a wide swath of candidates who pronounce him a 'loser'. There are a lot of guys that can't wait to tell Trump that he's fired (already kinda feeling bad for that day Trump announces that he's out of the race). I think Trump gets 27%.
Rubio got dinged in the Republican debate according to media reports, but how voters will react to that isn't so easy to predict. Does Christie gain points for jumping on him? Or does Christie make everyone more sensitive to Christie's own repetitive speech? Honestly, accusing a politician of being repetitive is like complaining that Peyton Manning thanked his teammates after the big game: they're told what to say and how to say it, Christie and Rubio and Peyton Manning alike. It is the ultimate empty complaint and if that's the worst thing Rubio's got going for him, then, shit, man maybe he actually deserves to be president! Remember: New Hampshire features a close-up electorate and supposedly Rubio is quite likable in person, which combined with Cruz's general creepiness and Trump's unelectability, should work big in his favor. I say Rubio gets a solid 20%.
Cruz's showing in Iowa must be impressive to Republicans across the nation. But his subtle linkage with Trump is an impediment going forward. As Trump loses, I think Cruz loses. Cruz won't be able to woo those looking to jump off the Trump bandwagon and he won't rise above his current 13%.
Kasich has put his eggs in the New Hampshire basket and I suspect he gets a boost on election day. I think those looking to ditch Trump will reach for Kasich (if not Rubio). Kasich at this point is probably in line to be Rubio's VP, so going forward I expect Kasich and Rubio to form the reaction to Trump and Cruz. Kasich gets 15%, finishes 3rd and in that case he'll have to keep going.
I'm of the opinion that Bush has money, infrastructure and nothing better to do with his life. So win or lose in New Hampshire I think he keeps going and, again, he's got no other options in the political world. If folks find Trump and Kasich too unelectable, Cruz too creepy and Rubio not seasoned enough, then I think they reach for Bush. I expect Bush to get 12%, push Cruz for 4th place and pack his bags for South Carolina.
Christie got his highlight moment by picking on Rubio (a subtle sign that Rubio is the real frontrunner) but this is not much to build on. New Hampshire was supposed to be Christie's best chance to make a difference and pointing out that Rubio is in fact a politician doesn't seem like much of a star moment to me. Christie is only angling for a cabinet post and if he can't break 5% in New Hampshire than his year is done (til he gets hired to stump for someone else). I think Christie gets 5% and bows out before heading down South.
Fiorina got shafted in being dropped from the debate, I think that works in her favor. When Trump skips a debate, it's a slap in the face but when Fiorina wants in and can't get in, I think sympathy comes to her. Fiorina is here to raise her profile and to that extent, I don't think 'electability' is a consideration for her supporters. I think her 4% is solidly in her corner, I think she picks up another 1% peeling off of Trump. I say Fiorina gets 5%, virtual draw with Christie and heads back home (but as of right now, I fully expect to see her back in Iowa in 2020).
With Carson, I think 'electability' (or lack thereof) is a big consideration. He peaked in Iowa, 3 months before the caucus and I just can't see New Hampshire Republicans getting excited about him. I think he dips even further, gets 2% and the next we'll hear from him is when he writes a book about this election season. I doubt he comes back in 2020, unless he wants to get the Mike Huckabee treatment.
Sanders 56
Clinton 40
In Iowa Clinton's early lead evaporated on caucus night resulting in a dead heat that was claimed as a victory for underdog Sanders; I expect the opposite to happen in New Hampshire. In the Democratic ranks Clinton is respected, Sanders is admired. In New Hampshire I think 'electability' is a genuine concern and while New Hampshire Dems admire Sanders, I think they'll find Clinton more electable and when the time comes they'll move in her direction. Considering that Iowa and New Hampshire (and Vermont) are considered Sanders' best states, Hillary will take a draw in New Hampshire as a demonstrable sign that she is the real candidate and Sanders' Iowa showing was an outlier. If indeed that does come to pass then Sanders is pretty much done and its only a matter of time before he starts doing stump speeches in favor of Hillary. I'll say Sanders 51%, Clinton 48%.
Republicans
Trump 34
Rubio 13
Cruz 13
Kasich 10
Bush 10
Christie 5
Fiorina 4
Carson 3
Again, the 'electability' of Trump has to be on the minds of New Hampshire Republicans and in the case of Trump, only the slightest doubt is needed to choose someone else. Or vice versa: if you think Trump isn't electable, then why not show for another candidate who's just as unelectable? Trump's lead is probably too large too surmount at this point but if he wins with only, say, 25%, there are a wide swath of candidates who pronounce him a 'loser'. There are a lot of guys that can't wait to tell Trump that he's fired (already kinda feeling bad for that day Trump announces that he's out of the race). I think Trump gets 27%.
Rubio got dinged in the Republican debate according to media reports, but how voters will react to that isn't so easy to predict. Does Christie gain points for jumping on him? Or does Christie make everyone more sensitive to Christie's own repetitive speech? Honestly, accusing a politician of being repetitive is like complaining that Peyton Manning thanked his teammates after the big game: they're told what to say and how to say it, Christie and Rubio and Peyton Manning alike. It is the ultimate empty complaint and if that's the worst thing Rubio's got going for him, then, shit, man maybe he actually deserves to be president! Remember: New Hampshire features a close-up electorate and supposedly Rubio is quite likable in person, which combined with Cruz's general creepiness and Trump's unelectability, should work big in his favor. I say Rubio gets a solid 20%.
Cruz's showing in Iowa must be impressive to Republicans across the nation. But his subtle linkage with Trump is an impediment going forward. As Trump loses, I think Cruz loses. Cruz won't be able to woo those looking to jump off the Trump bandwagon and he won't rise above his current 13%.
Kasich has put his eggs in the New Hampshire basket and I suspect he gets a boost on election day. I think those looking to ditch Trump will reach for Kasich (if not Rubio). Kasich at this point is probably in line to be Rubio's VP, so going forward I expect Kasich and Rubio to form the reaction to Trump and Cruz. Kasich gets 15%, finishes 3rd and in that case he'll have to keep going.
I'm of the opinion that Bush has money, infrastructure and nothing better to do with his life. So win or lose in New Hampshire I think he keeps going and, again, he's got no other options in the political world. If folks find Trump and Kasich too unelectable, Cruz too creepy and Rubio not seasoned enough, then I think they reach for Bush. I expect Bush to get 12%, push Cruz for 4th place and pack his bags for South Carolina.
Christie got his highlight moment by picking on Rubio (a subtle sign that Rubio is the real frontrunner) but this is not much to build on. New Hampshire was supposed to be Christie's best chance to make a difference and pointing out that Rubio is in fact a politician doesn't seem like much of a star moment to me. Christie is only angling for a cabinet post and if he can't break 5% in New Hampshire than his year is done (til he gets hired to stump for someone else). I think Christie gets 5% and bows out before heading down South.
Fiorina got shafted in being dropped from the debate, I think that works in her favor. When Trump skips a debate, it's a slap in the face but when Fiorina wants in and can't get in, I think sympathy comes to her. Fiorina is here to raise her profile and to that extent, I don't think 'electability' is a consideration for her supporters. I think her 4% is solidly in her corner, I think she picks up another 1% peeling off of Trump. I say Fiorina gets 5%, virtual draw with Christie and heads back home (but as of right now, I fully expect to see her back in Iowa in 2020).
With Carson, I think 'electability' (or lack thereof) is a big consideration. He peaked in Iowa, 3 months before the caucus and I just can't see New Hampshire Republicans getting excited about him. I think he dips even further, gets 2% and the next we'll hear from him is when he writes a book about this election season. I doubt he comes back in 2020, unless he wants to get the Mike Huckabee treatment.
Sunday, February 7, 2016
Super Bowl Prediction
Okay, this is it. Last game. Sunday is just for spiritual reflection for the next 8 months...*sigh*
My initial thought, two weeks ago when this matchup was set, was that the Panthers have too much offense for the weak Bronco attack to keep up and this would probably be a blowout, definitely by the end of the 3rd quarter. But I'm having second thoughts. I can't help thinking that all the intangibles favor the Broncos and not the Panthers.
The Panthers have scored points at will this season and dominated teams at home. But the Broncos have the #1 defense and this is definitely not a home game. Also, while I don't expect the young-ish Panthers to be overwhelmed by the Super Bowl (indeed, I expect them to come out in full swagger), everything about this particular game will be different, there is no comfort level even if you're confident. The Panthers played in the 2nd worst division in the league this year and their non-conference opponents were the from the 1st worst division; their AFC games were the Eagles, Packers, Seahawks and Redskins, not bad but not great. So while they dominated, they didn't face a defense as good as the Broncos. And as good as their offense was, it was actually pretty streaky and quite capable of disappearing for long stretches of time.
The Broncos got gobsmacked by the Seahawks just two years ago and I suspect that's what some are expecting again tonight: Panthers laying the wood to poor hapless Peyton and winning 42-10. But that Seahawk defense was one of the best I've ever seen, whereas this Panther D, nice as it is, will be the 2nd best defense in this game. So that scenario doesn't play. Also the scenario of the Panther offense just bumrushing the end zone again and again...I'm not seeing it. The Broncos just worked Tom Brady and the Pats offensive attack and though Cam is more dynamic than Brady, the rest of the Panther offense isn't that much better than the Pats.
Look, Cam thoroughly desvered the MVP. I thought he was was the easy choice over Palmer, Brady and Rodgers. (A little surprised he also won Offensive Player of the Year--who was the last guy to win them both?) But that goes to underscore how NOT great the rest of the Panther offense it. They're all solid, don't get me wrong, but there aren't any unstoppable forces over there with Cam, no scary playmakers that'll go above and beyond. The Panther offense this year was all about Cam making it work for everybody else. The Bronco D really only has to take out one QB and they've shown they can do that. They just beat Brady and Roethlisberger, think they can't beat the guy that's never been to a Super Bowl before?
So am I saying the Broncos are gonna win? I dunno. The conundrum at the heart of this game is Peyton Manning. If Peyton is good, which he has not been all year long, then I would think the Broncos could win. But even in that there's a catch: classic badass Peyton Manning always kinda sucked in the big games! So even if old time Peyton appears, that might not be worth anything. I can't help thinking the Broncos are better with Brock Osweiler but he's not ready to win a Super Bowl and he's not the guy they're going with. This game...who would've think it...is all about Peyton Manning.
Which is why I think Cam Newton pulls it out. Right here, right now, Cam is the better player, the better playmaker and the better leader. (Cam is Namath, Peyton is Unitas)
I think both teams score on their opening drives and then its a slog after that. Over time I think the Panthers will score more points than the Broncos but it won't be easy and I don't see this game being a blowout. I'll say 7-7 after the 1st, Panthers up 13-10 at halftime, Panthers up 20-13 after the 3rd, Panthers win 26-23 after a furious 4th quarter (which is all anyone really wants). I think the Panthers lead pretty much the whole way but the Broncos remain in striking distance right to the end. Cam wins MVP.
My initial thought, two weeks ago when this matchup was set, was that the Panthers have too much offense for the weak Bronco attack to keep up and this would probably be a blowout, definitely by the end of the 3rd quarter. But I'm having second thoughts. I can't help thinking that all the intangibles favor the Broncos and not the Panthers.
The Panthers have scored points at will this season and dominated teams at home. But the Broncos have the #1 defense and this is definitely not a home game. Also, while I don't expect the young-ish Panthers to be overwhelmed by the Super Bowl (indeed, I expect them to come out in full swagger), everything about this particular game will be different, there is no comfort level even if you're confident. The Panthers played in the 2nd worst division in the league this year and their non-conference opponents were the from the 1st worst division; their AFC games were the Eagles, Packers, Seahawks and Redskins, not bad but not great. So while they dominated, they didn't face a defense as good as the Broncos. And as good as their offense was, it was actually pretty streaky and quite capable of disappearing for long stretches of time.
The Broncos got gobsmacked by the Seahawks just two years ago and I suspect that's what some are expecting again tonight: Panthers laying the wood to poor hapless Peyton and winning 42-10. But that Seahawk defense was one of the best I've ever seen, whereas this Panther D, nice as it is, will be the 2nd best defense in this game. So that scenario doesn't play. Also the scenario of the Panther offense just bumrushing the end zone again and again...I'm not seeing it. The Broncos just worked Tom Brady and the Pats offensive attack and though Cam is more dynamic than Brady, the rest of the Panther offense isn't that much better than the Pats.
Look, Cam thoroughly desvered the MVP. I thought he was was the easy choice over Palmer, Brady and Rodgers. (A little surprised he also won Offensive Player of the Year--who was the last guy to win them both?) But that goes to underscore how NOT great the rest of the Panther offense it. They're all solid, don't get me wrong, but there aren't any unstoppable forces over there with Cam, no scary playmakers that'll go above and beyond. The Panther offense this year was all about Cam making it work for everybody else. The Bronco D really only has to take out one QB and they've shown they can do that. They just beat Brady and Roethlisberger, think they can't beat the guy that's never been to a Super Bowl before?
So am I saying the Broncos are gonna win? I dunno. The conundrum at the heart of this game is Peyton Manning. If Peyton is good, which he has not been all year long, then I would think the Broncos could win. But even in that there's a catch: classic badass Peyton Manning always kinda sucked in the big games! So even if old time Peyton appears, that might not be worth anything. I can't help thinking the Broncos are better with Brock Osweiler but he's not ready to win a Super Bowl and he's not the guy they're going with. This game...who would've think it...is all about Peyton Manning.
Which is why I think Cam Newton pulls it out. Right here, right now, Cam is the better player, the better playmaker and the better leader. (Cam is Namath, Peyton is Unitas)
I think both teams score on their opening drives and then its a slog after that. Over time I think the Panthers will score more points than the Broncos but it won't be easy and I don't see this game being a blowout. I'll say 7-7 after the 1st, Panthers up 13-10 at halftime, Panthers up 20-13 after the 3rd, Panthers win 26-23 after a furious 4th quarter (which is all anyone really wants). I think the Panthers lead pretty much the whole way but the Broncos remain in striking distance right to the end. Cam wins MVP.
Friday, February 5, 2016
Iowa Caucus Results
Democrats
Clinton 49.9%
Sanders 49.6%
On the one hand a draw in Iowa is rather embarrassing for Hillary; on the other, this (and New Hampshire) are likely to be Sanders' most favorable states so a strong showing shouldn't be a shock. The Sanders camp is pleased with a draw--they never expected to be near Hillary, I reckon. But is this really a worthwhile result? Can he parlay being almost as good as Hillary in Iowa and New Hampshire into something meaningful across the rest of the country? I don't know if Sanders has the money or the infrastructure to make a deep run but I know Hillary does. I don't know if Sanders will make it to Super Tuesday but I know Hillary will. Sanders has to play this up for all its worth...because its only worth what he can convince people to believe. I think this only makes Hillary stronger, it gives her something to do until the Republicans figure out their end, it puts her in touch with the areas of the electorate she might've otherwise ignored, it forces her to dive into subjects she might yet be prepared for. I can't help thinking that a challenge is a blessing in disguise for Hillary. (Shame about old...what was his name? O'malley?)
Republicans
Cruz 27.7%
I said 27% and a 1st place finish, I did all right with that one. For the last coupla months Cruz's play has been to bang on Trump as a means of establishing himself and simultaneously establishing Trump so the two could pair up and ditch the rest of the phony (re: real) Republicans. But once Cruz surpasses Trump, he accidentally weakens them both: by aiming at Trump, Cruz could ignore the rest of the field and pretend to be above them, sequestering all the media buzz with those two at the top and leaving everyone else out. But that only works if Trump is #1 and Cruz #2. If Trump isn't #1 then he has no support at all and if Cruz is more than #2 the voters will start to get shaky. Now the door is open for Rubio to move past both of them and if Cruz can't stand alone then his political career is pretty much finished (he is a uniquely unpopular guy in the real world of politics). I'm not so sure the hardcore New Hampshire right wingers will take to Cruz the way Iowans did.
Trump 24.3%
I said 22% and a 3rd place finish, I wasn't too far off. Trump had the luxury of being the most famous guy in Iowa for about 6 months and that means something. Man, Iowa doesn't get to see Lebron or Aaron Rodgers, they don't get NASCAR races or a Jay Z/Beyonce tour. Even though they pride themselves on being politically level-headed, those folks are starved for entertainment and Trump gave them a buzz they don't normally get. Then the vote happened and the show closed after opening night. Can Trump recover in New Hampshire? I don't see it. I went to school with a woman from Nashua, NH and she assured me she'd never vote for anyone if she didn't shake his/her hand. Think about that: 'Sure, I've admired Hillary for decades, followed her career with pride, seen her speak numerous times but I never met her face to face, so....' Yeah, dude, that's how it works in New Hampshire! Is Trump gonna work that hard to woo New Hampshire and will NH be impressed by him? I think 'no' and 'no'. By the time Trump gets to the South, his momentum will be gone, he'll be an emperor with no clothes, the voters will have turned on him and the show will be shut down for good. But Trump gets to take his show to CNN or Bloomberg and preen himself as a guy that's actually involved, a guy whose opinion matters. That's as good as it gets for Trump, he can't do anything where he's not in control of everything. As for New Hampshire, I say he flails badly.
Rubio 23.1%
I had Rubio with 22%, sneaking ahead of Trump for 2nd place, I was close. Rubio is the guy that is supposed to be the Republican nominee but the Trump circus kept him out of the Iowa spotlight for months and Cruz was able to sneak past him. But Rubio still handily dispatched Bush, Christie, Paul and Kasich and that was the competition he was expecting. Iowa is a nice prize but not as necessary as politic-types would have you believe. Rubio's best bet at this point is to simply ignore Trump and direct all attention to Cruz, this will allow him to garner the support of the Bush, Christie and Kasich camps, which consolidates his power within the party. I think Rubio and Cruz finish neck and neck in New Hampshire.
Carson 9.3%
I said 9%, kinda nailed it. Carson seems like a nice guy, he's got something sorta like a vision of the world and I think his supporters really believe in him. But he's a normal citizen, not a political lifer, and the grinding scrutiny of the spotlight is withering him. Can he be a VP? I dunno, he's unique enough that he might not really bring anything to a ticket with Cruz or Rubio. He's got respect within the ranks so perhaps he can garner a cabinet post but where does he fit in? He can't get any of the real sexy spots (Defense, State, Treasury, AG), Veterans Affairs tends to go military, its not like he has Labor chops. That leaves Transportation or Interior and those are either places to bid time or to go to die, neither of which suits what he's got going on. I dunno, maybe he can run for Congress in 2018 or maybe he can be the in-house Republican on MSNBC. I can't see him venturing any further than New Hampshire into the primary season.
Paul 4.5%
I had Paul at 5% just ahead of Bush, I was pretty close. Paul has dropped out, I'm surprised he hung around Iowa as long as he did, hanging around til voting day only showed how little support he actually has. Not a career killer or anything, he can come back in 4 years and start all over. But not the boost he was seeking and certainly not enough to get him toe to toe with Hillary, which is all he's ever wanted. He's a Senator (one of my senators, in point of fact), which gives him time to mature and accrue power (being a Senator is death for a Democrat, what with piling up all that history, but for a Republican it's a career path). Trump stole his radical thunder and gave room to Cruz and Carson which pretty much doomed Paul. Perhaps by 2020 he'll be weird enough to be the weird guy in Iowa.
Bush 2.8%
Bush surely would've liked to do better in Iowa but I think he was always focusing on New Hampshire. The long (looooooooong) run up to Iowa this year allowed Trump to suck the oxygen out of the room, choking Bush (and Fiorina and Christie). But New Hampshire will be a sprint and Bush is probably still as well positioned there as anyone. Bush has no other political prospects than winning the full nomination (nobody wants Jeb Bush as their VP) and he should have the money and infrastructure to keep a race going. So until he just loses all interest in being out there, I expect Bush to make it to Florida, even if he gets trounced in New Hampshire. I expect Bush to show much better in NH, probably chipping into Ben Carson's support. And the folks that aren't sure about Rubio or might have been interested in Paul should fall to Bush.
Fiorina 1.9%
I had Fiorina at 2%, in keeping with the final Des Moines Register poll, and that proved accurate. Fiorina got bumped from the debate, which is a real blow to her campaign. I can understand Bush and Christie getting the invite over Fiorina but why Kasich? What's that dude for anyone lately? Its a shame because raising her profile is all she wants out of her time in New Hampshire and she's probably destined to fail on that. With a debate appearance she can maybe score a cabinet post or offer an interesting female option for a Rubio ticket, but without she's just not visible enough. I can't see her doing much better than in Iowa, where she had a much better chance to succeed.
Kasich 1.9%
I thought Kasich would do better in Iowa, I had him at 3% ahead of Fiorina and he didn't quite match her. So why does the spot in the New Hampshire debate and Fiorina doesn't? I don't see it. Kasich is reasonably thought of as a non-Bush, non-Cruz, non-Trump (and isn't Rand Paul either) that has more experience than Ben Carson. That's gotta be worth something, right? Yeah, I say its a great way to be Transportation Secretary! I would've thought he was better positioned in Iowa than in New Hampshire and he came in 8th, dude. I guess I have to assume he'll finish higher than Fiorina but I'm not sure why.
Huckabee 1.8%
Huckabee did a little better than the 1% I thought he'd get. But it wasn't enough to get him even to New Hampshire. Oh well, he'll just have to write Coulter-ish books for the rest of his life and remind people that he was almost famous for a while.
Christie 1.8%
Christie didn't get to 4% like I thought he would but he was never really built for the midwest. Christie's more of an East Coast guy and I expect him to get a little bump (not unlike Bush) heading into New Hampshire. I don't see him as a VP though if he shows well in New Hampshire and makes it into a few more debates, maybe he's in line for one of the sexy cabinet gigs. There's room enough for Christie to have a nice showing in NH.
Santorum 1.0%
He did poorly as I hoped he would. Good riddance, Santorum, you were my least favorite.
Gilmore 0% (12 votes)
I confess that I don't pay much attention to politics, indeed I've mostly ignored the Iowa nonsense for what seems like years now. But, man, I never heard of Jim Gilmore until his name appeared at the very bottom of the list of candidates. But I guess 12 people in Iowa liked him. If he was a quarterback that might be enough. I know nothing about the guy but I can't rule him out for a non-sexy cabinet post or a return to Iowa in 2020.
Clinton 49.9%
Sanders 49.6%
On the one hand a draw in Iowa is rather embarrassing for Hillary; on the other, this (and New Hampshire) are likely to be Sanders' most favorable states so a strong showing shouldn't be a shock. The Sanders camp is pleased with a draw--they never expected to be near Hillary, I reckon. But is this really a worthwhile result? Can he parlay being almost as good as Hillary in Iowa and New Hampshire into something meaningful across the rest of the country? I don't know if Sanders has the money or the infrastructure to make a deep run but I know Hillary does. I don't know if Sanders will make it to Super Tuesday but I know Hillary will. Sanders has to play this up for all its worth...because its only worth what he can convince people to believe. I think this only makes Hillary stronger, it gives her something to do until the Republicans figure out their end, it puts her in touch with the areas of the electorate she might've otherwise ignored, it forces her to dive into subjects she might yet be prepared for. I can't help thinking that a challenge is a blessing in disguise for Hillary. (Shame about old...what was his name? O'malley?)
Republicans
Cruz 27.7%
I said 27% and a 1st place finish, I did all right with that one. For the last coupla months Cruz's play has been to bang on Trump as a means of establishing himself and simultaneously establishing Trump so the two could pair up and ditch the rest of the phony (re: real) Republicans. But once Cruz surpasses Trump, he accidentally weakens them both: by aiming at Trump, Cruz could ignore the rest of the field and pretend to be above them, sequestering all the media buzz with those two at the top and leaving everyone else out. But that only works if Trump is #1 and Cruz #2. If Trump isn't #1 then he has no support at all and if Cruz is more than #2 the voters will start to get shaky. Now the door is open for Rubio to move past both of them and if Cruz can't stand alone then his political career is pretty much finished (he is a uniquely unpopular guy in the real world of politics). I'm not so sure the hardcore New Hampshire right wingers will take to Cruz the way Iowans did.
Trump 24.3%
I said 22% and a 3rd place finish, I wasn't too far off. Trump had the luxury of being the most famous guy in Iowa for about 6 months and that means something. Man, Iowa doesn't get to see Lebron or Aaron Rodgers, they don't get NASCAR races or a Jay Z/Beyonce tour. Even though they pride themselves on being politically level-headed, those folks are starved for entertainment and Trump gave them a buzz they don't normally get. Then the vote happened and the show closed after opening night. Can Trump recover in New Hampshire? I don't see it. I went to school with a woman from Nashua, NH and she assured me she'd never vote for anyone if she didn't shake his/her hand. Think about that: 'Sure, I've admired Hillary for decades, followed her career with pride, seen her speak numerous times but I never met her face to face, so....' Yeah, dude, that's how it works in New Hampshire! Is Trump gonna work that hard to woo New Hampshire and will NH be impressed by him? I think 'no' and 'no'. By the time Trump gets to the South, his momentum will be gone, he'll be an emperor with no clothes, the voters will have turned on him and the show will be shut down for good. But Trump gets to take his show to CNN or Bloomberg and preen himself as a guy that's actually involved, a guy whose opinion matters. That's as good as it gets for Trump, he can't do anything where he's not in control of everything. As for New Hampshire, I say he flails badly.
Rubio 23.1%
I had Rubio with 22%, sneaking ahead of Trump for 2nd place, I was close. Rubio is the guy that is supposed to be the Republican nominee but the Trump circus kept him out of the Iowa spotlight for months and Cruz was able to sneak past him. But Rubio still handily dispatched Bush, Christie, Paul and Kasich and that was the competition he was expecting. Iowa is a nice prize but not as necessary as politic-types would have you believe. Rubio's best bet at this point is to simply ignore Trump and direct all attention to Cruz, this will allow him to garner the support of the Bush, Christie and Kasich camps, which consolidates his power within the party. I think Rubio and Cruz finish neck and neck in New Hampshire.
Carson 9.3%
I said 9%, kinda nailed it. Carson seems like a nice guy, he's got something sorta like a vision of the world and I think his supporters really believe in him. But he's a normal citizen, not a political lifer, and the grinding scrutiny of the spotlight is withering him. Can he be a VP? I dunno, he's unique enough that he might not really bring anything to a ticket with Cruz or Rubio. He's got respect within the ranks so perhaps he can garner a cabinet post but where does he fit in? He can't get any of the real sexy spots (Defense, State, Treasury, AG), Veterans Affairs tends to go military, its not like he has Labor chops. That leaves Transportation or Interior and those are either places to bid time or to go to die, neither of which suits what he's got going on. I dunno, maybe he can run for Congress in 2018 or maybe he can be the in-house Republican on MSNBC. I can't see him venturing any further than New Hampshire into the primary season.
Paul 4.5%
I had Paul at 5% just ahead of Bush, I was pretty close. Paul has dropped out, I'm surprised he hung around Iowa as long as he did, hanging around til voting day only showed how little support he actually has. Not a career killer or anything, he can come back in 4 years and start all over. But not the boost he was seeking and certainly not enough to get him toe to toe with Hillary, which is all he's ever wanted. He's a Senator (one of my senators, in point of fact), which gives him time to mature and accrue power (being a Senator is death for a Democrat, what with piling up all that history, but for a Republican it's a career path). Trump stole his radical thunder and gave room to Cruz and Carson which pretty much doomed Paul. Perhaps by 2020 he'll be weird enough to be the weird guy in Iowa.
Bush 2.8%
Bush surely would've liked to do better in Iowa but I think he was always focusing on New Hampshire. The long (looooooooong) run up to Iowa this year allowed Trump to suck the oxygen out of the room, choking Bush (and Fiorina and Christie). But New Hampshire will be a sprint and Bush is probably still as well positioned there as anyone. Bush has no other political prospects than winning the full nomination (nobody wants Jeb Bush as their VP) and he should have the money and infrastructure to keep a race going. So until he just loses all interest in being out there, I expect Bush to make it to Florida, even if he gets trounced in New Hampshire. I expect Bush to show much better in NH, probably chipping into Ben Carson's support. And the folks that aren't sure about Rubio or might have been interested in Paul should fall to Bush.
Fiorina 1.9%
I had Fiorina at 2%, in keeping with the final Des Moines Register poll, and that proved accurate. Fiorina got bumped from the debate, which is a real blow to her campaign. I can understand Bush and Christie getting the invite over Fiorina but why Kasich? What's that dude for anyone lately? Its a shame because raising her profile is all she wants out of her time in New Hampshire and she's probably destined to fail on that. With a debate appearance she can maybe score a cabinet post or offer an interesting female option for a Rubio ticket, but without she's just not visible enough. I can't see her doing much better than in Iowa, where she had a much better chance to succeed.
Kasich 1.9%
I thought Kasich would do better in Iowa, I had him at 3% ahead of Fiorina and he didn't quite match her. So why does the spot in the New Hampshire debate and Fiorina doesn't? I don't see it. Kasich is reasonably thought of as a non-Bush, non-Cruz, non-Trump (and isn't Rand Paul either) that has more experience than Ben Carson. That's gotta be worth something, right? Yeah, I say its a great way to be Transportation Secretary! I would've thought he was better positioned in Iowa than in New Hampshire and he came in 8th, dude. I guess I have to assume he'll finish higher than Fiorina but I'm not sure why.
Huckabee 1.8%
Huckabee did a little better than the 1% I thought he'd get. But it wasn't enough to get him even to New Hampshire. Oh well, he'll just have to write Coulter-ish books for the rest of his life and remind people that he was almost famous for a while.
Christie 1.8%
Christie didn't get to 4% like I thought he would but he was never really built for the midwest. Christie's more of an East Coast guy and I expect him to get a little bump (not unlike Bush) heading into New Hampshire. I don't see him as a VP though if he shows well in New Hampshire and makes it into a few more debates, maybe he's in line for one of the sexy cabinet gigs. There's room enough for Christie to have a nice showing in NH.
Santorum 1.0%
He did poorly as I hoped he would. Good riddance, Santorum, you were my least favorite.
Gilmore 0% (12 votes)
I confess that I don't pay much attention to politics, indeed I've mostly ignored the Iowa nonsense for what seems like years now. But, man, I never heard of Jim Gilmore until his name appeared at the very bottom of the list of candidates. But I guess 12 people in Iowa liked him. If he was a quarterback that might be enough. I know nothing about the guy but I can't rule him out for a non-sexy cabinet post or a return to Iowa in 2020.
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
Pointless Trade Idea
Suns get Demarcus Cousins (3ys/$47.2m) and Kosta Koufos (4yrs/$33m; 4th year player option); Kings get Tyson Chandler (4yrs/$52m), Markieff Morris (4yrs/$32m), Archie Goodwin (2yrs/$3.2), 2 2016 1st rd picks (currently #4, #28).
The Kings then try to figure out how to get Marcus Morris away from Detroit (would that be worth Willie Cauley-Stein to them?), giving them a veteran core of Rondo, Gay, Chandler and the Morris twins to go with McLemore, the intriguing Goodwin and three 1st round picks this year. (The Suns currently have #34, if I'm the Kings I think I'd go ahead and take that one too) Sure, they'd rather have a nameable star for Cousins but this deal is a mix of solid vets and future potential. And, man, they're the Kings, it doesn't matter what they do, it'll be the wrong move.
Obviously the Suns are the big winner because they get the best player. This gives them a starting lineup next year of Bledsoe, Booker, Tucker, Warren and Cousins with Knight and Len coming off the bench. For next year, I'd bring back Teletovic and try to move Koufos. (I threw in Koufos because its the Kings' worst contract and it brings back Markieff; I don't dislike Koufos but I'm not crazy about that contract) This is an interesting core of young talent and definitely one that can lure in free agents.
Then the Suns call up John Calipari and offer him the house. I'm personally not a big fan of the GM/Coach combo but with the horrible moves the Suns front office has made in recent years, I think offering full power is probably a necessity. If the money is right, it all comes down to whether Cal really wants to be back in the pros because honestly that is as ideal a roster Cal could hope to have. (Hell, I think he should send Josh Harrelson, Deandre Liggins, Alex Poythress and the Harrison twins to summer league, bring in Chuck Hayes to shore up the end of the bench and is Terrence Jones gonna be available this summer?) Does Cal look at this lineup of his proteges and see a team he can work with or are these boys that have grown up without him? Do they respect him or is he a ghost from a different time and place? I dunno. But if the Suns front officer gets out of the way, I think full power with Cousins and Booker would get any coach's attention.
The Kings then try to figure out how to get Marcus Morris away from Detroit (would that be worth Willie Cauley-Stein to them?), giving them a veteran core of Rondo, Gay, Chandler and the Morris twins to go with McLemore, the intriguing Goodwin and three 1st round picks this year. (The Suns currently have #34, if I'm the Kings I think I'd go ahead and take that one too) Sure, they'd rather have a nameable star for Cousins but this deal is a mix of solid vets and future potential. And, man, they're the Kings, it doesn't matter what they do, it'll be the wrong move.
Then the Suns call up John Calipari and offer him the house. I'm personally not a big fan of the GM/Coach combo but with the horrible moves the Suns front office has made in recent years, I think offering full power is probably a necessity. If the money is right, it all comes down to whether Cal really wants to be back in the pros because honestly that is as ideal a roster Cal could hope to have. (Hell, I think he should send Josh Harrelson, Deandre Liggins, Alex Poythress and the Harrison twins to summer league, bring in Chuck Hayes to shore up the end of the bench and is Terrence Jones gonna be available this summer?) Does Cal look at this lineup of his proteges and see a team he can work with or are these boys that have grown up without him? Do they respect him or is he a ghost from a different time and place? I dunno. But if the Suns front officer gets out of the way, I think full power with Cousins and Booker would get any coach's attention.
Monday, February 1, 2016
NBA Coach of the Year Update
The Suns have dismissed Jeff Hornacek so he is now officially out of the running for Coach of the Year. Given the Suns' abysmal start, he would've needed an amazing 2nd half to get any COY consideration. Earl Watson has been named the Interim Coach. Will Watson retain the job into next year? I doubt it. I think Phoenix is a good spot for David Blatt and while I don't think the Suns will be in the running for Tom Thiboadeau or Mark Jackson, I suspect they'll get someone more high profile than Watson.
The Suns' next priority is moving Markieff Morris, which I suspect will happen by the trade deadline. What can they get for him? They don't really need another PG but that's never stopped them for adding superfluous PGs before. Markieff will undoubtedly want to go to Detroit who has Brandon Jennings, a very similarly priced asset, just waiting for his future to begin. Not at all a perfect match but the closeness of the salaries could bring a third team into the mix (Avery Bradley of the Celtics? Mike Conley of the Grizzlies?). We'll see.
Coach of the Year is still Popovich, even with the fact that the Spurs got pounded by the Warriors and the Cavs in rapid succession and that the Spurs are headed into the tough part of their schedule. That said, I still can't put anyone else ahead of him for now.
The Suns' next priority is moving Markieff Morris, which I suspect will happen by the trade deadline. What can they get for him? They don't really need another PG but that's never stopped them for adding superfluous PGs before. Markieff will undoubtedly want to go to Detroit who has Brandon Jennings, a very similarly priced asset, just waiting for his future to begin. Not at all a perfect match but the closeness of the salaries could bring a third team into the mix (Avery Bradley of the Celtics? Mike Conley of the Grizzlies?). We'll see.
Coach of the Year is still Popovich, even with the fact that the Spurs got pounded by the Warriors and the Cavs in rapid succession and that the Spurs are headed into the tough part of their schedule. That said, I still can't put anyone else ahead of him for now.
Pointless Trade Idea
Celtics get Jennings (1 yr/$8.3m), Bullock (2yrs/$2.5m); Pistons get Bradley (3 yrs/$24.8m), Young (2yrs/$3.5m; 3rd year team option).
Celtics get a shoot-happy PG that can close games and send Isiah Thomas back to his 6th Man role. Pistons get a defensive-minded SG as a counterpoint to Caldwell-Pope. Bullock and Young are just rookie contracts swaps to make the deal work, too early to tell whether either of them can play in the NBA. Jennings isn't really necessary in Detroit any more and Bradley seems unhappy in Boston. Each team would like to do better with these pieces but they could definitely do worse.
Yeah, not too sexy. Even though there's buzz about a lot of players being available and a lot of teams looking to make moves, I'm not seeing a lot of trades that make sense when I look at the numbers. Making cap space is not a priority this summer for anyone, which means there aren't any sellers, only buyers. I'm sure trades will be made but they will either be blockbusters or insignificant contract dumps. I dunno, we'll see.
Celtics get a shoot-happy PG that can close games and send Isiah Thomas back to his 6th Man role. Pistons get a defensive-minded SG as a counterpoint to Caldwell-Pope. Bullock and Young are just rookie contracts swaps to make the deal work, too early to tell whether either of them can play in the NBA. Jennings isn't really necessary in Detroit any more and Bradley seems unhappy in Boston. Each team would like to do better with these pieces but they could definitely do worse.
Yeah, not too sexy. Even though there's buzz about a lot of players being available and a lot of teams looking to make moves, I'm not seeing a lot of trades that make sense when I look at the numbers. Making cap space is not a priority this summer for anyone, which means there aren't any sellers, only buyers. I'm sure trades will be made but they will either be blockbusters or insignificant contract dumps. I dunno, we'll see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
