I never watch the Oscars. Like an NBA All-Star Game (which I also never watch), it sounds like it'll be fun to get a bunch of stars together but mostly its boring. My interest is in the movies themselves, which is why I would rather watch a movie than the Oscars. But I am curious to see what won, so looking back over the winners: Roma won more than I thought it would as did Bohemian Rhapsody and Green Book, so those were the undercurrent films the Academy wanted to remember (I thought it would be Vice); and it was Green Book that snatched Best Picture rather than A Star is Born. I only got one of the four acting categories (and if I'd been watching, I probably would've switched back to Christian Bale after Bohemian Rhapsody took both the sound categories). A few of these I nailed, mostly I was wrong. Oh well.
Picture: Green Book
I dug Green Book and it is a worthy recipient. But I am surprised because I thought it was a little mainstream for the highbrows, a little cheesy for the masses, and the bit of negative criticism it received was right as the voting opened. But rather than a glum night, picking up Screenplay and Best Supporting Actor shows a deeper appreciation of this film than I thought was out there. I'm cool with this, Green Book was just outside my top ten (#12 actually), it was one of my more favorite movie going experiences this year, a surprisingly funny and resilient film. I suspected that something other than Roma, the odds-on favorites, would win (do you know how many foreign language films have won Best Picture? Not a lot), but if the Academy is going to reach for something (I thought they'd reach for A Star is Born), why not go with Bohemian Rhapsody? The amount of trophies it picked up is indicative of its underlying popularity, why not go ahead and give it the big prize? Instead, Green Book gives outsiders the chance to vent their frustrations on the perception of the film (that it is a milquetoast piece of feel-good fakery made by pseudo-right-wingers) rather than the actual film (which was actually quite enjoyable and in the end the most popular film within the Academy). This is a curiously Trump-y move by the Academy: the members get to burnish their politically correct bonafides while thumbing their nose at those that would question their choices. (Also, I haven't heard anyone say what they would've preferred instead of Green Book, I don't hear anyone say that Roma got robbed or Black Panther or Vice or Bohemian Rhapsody, just that Green Book is unacceptable)
Actor: Rami Malek (Bohemian Rhapsody)
I got this one right. Freddie Mercury is beloved, man, and by all accounts Malek nailed his look and passion, which are not easy to do. Four of the five nominees were from biopics (and Bradley Cooper was playing the 4th version of his character), so the popularity of the subject was destined to make a huge difference.
Actress: Olivia Colman (The Favourite)
I loved The Favourite (#3 in my top ten) and Colman is great in it. An interesting detail of the ensemble: any one of Colman, Emma Stone or Rachel Weisz could've been considered the lead with the other two being supporting. Colman was great (as were Weisz and Stone), I'm all in on this choice, but I am surprised they passed on Glenn Close.
Supporting Actor: Mahershala Ali (Green Book)
Another good choice. I thought he was a co-lead rather than a supporting, but the other relative nominees determine the categorization. Ali and Viggo made for a great pair and I thought the most laudable quality of the screenwriting was its ability to push the two together, then pull apart and back together with relative ease. The tension between the two never boiled over but it never went away and that push-and-pull is hard to pull off in the screenwriting and the chemistry of the actors. A little surprised they gave Ali his second Oscar in three years, thought this would go to one of the old-timers, but not a bad choice.
Supporting Actress: Regina King (If Beale Street Could Talk)
I'm okay with King here, she was good--indeed, I wanted more of her in the movie because what was there was only a hint of the family dynamic. I didn't dislike the performance but I would not have put her ahead of Amy Adams (thought she'd be part of the Vice onslaught) or the pair from The Favourite (a little surprised Colman won when neither of the supporters did).
Director: Alfonso Cuaron (Roma )
An excellent choice, Cuaron is truly one of the best in the game these days, good to see him getting the recognition. I thought Roma would be a bit of a disappointment on Oscar night but it did well.
Original Screenplay: Green Book (Nick Vallelonga, Brian Hayes Currie, Peter Farrelly)
I thought it was a good choice. The dialogue and the machinations are well-constructed, they give the actors and the director good stuff to work with. I'm pleased to see this was a little more well-regarded than I realized.
Adapted Screenplay: BlackKklansman (Charlie Wachtel, David Rabinowitz, Kevin Willmot, Spike Lee)
Meh. I'm not surprised this won but I don't think it's a good choice. If they just wanted to throw Spike an Oscar, I thought giving one to Terence Blanchard's score made more sense. In the wake of complaints that Green Book didn't deserve its awards, I would point out that this was a career award for Spike, not an acknowledgment that this was the best screenplay of the year...because it was not...not by a long shot...not in the top twenty....not at all worthy of this honor on its own. But congratulations, Spike.
Cinematography: Roma (Alfonso Cuaron)
Badass, man. To win Best Director and Best Cinematographer in the same year is baller. He deserved them both and especially this one. I'm a sucker for that sharp black and white and he does it well here.
Editing: Bohemian Rhapsody (John Ottman)
Ottman is also a composer making him the perfect choice to cut a music movie. I haven't seen this movie but this--rather than Vice--was the big winner tonight.
Production Design: Black Panther (Hannah Bechler, Jay Hart)
Okay, this doesn't strike me as the best candidate among the nominees, but it was a fine-looking film, a big hit and very easy on the eyes, so not a controversial choice.
Visual Effects: First Man (Paul Lambert, Ian Hunter, Tristan Myles, JD Schwam)
I got this one right. The action scenes of First Man are really marvelous, they have a style and feel that is quite unlike the action hero stuff we've been getting pounded with for the last decade. Everything here heightens tension in its editing, sound design and general visual look, and though the film was not bad, ultimately underrated (#13 for me), the way the action scenes mix with the period piece family stuff is a marvelous juxtaposition and that begins on the set. This was my first choice anyway, I'm glad to see the Academy agreed.
Costumes: Black Panther (Ruth E. Carter)
I had this one (though I thought I was picking an underdog). I watched this again recently and I was really struck by the sheer variety of styles and utilities of the costumes themselves and multiplicity of looks the actresses in particular got to show off. Superhero movies tend toward tights and capes but this one had a much wider palette making it a good choice.
Hair/Makeup: Vice
Yeah, the first step to Bale's transformation is in the hair and makeup, to perfect his look and to age him in character is really marvelous stuff. I had this one but this was just a toss-up (I could've said the same things about Mary Queen of Scots, where the two lead actresses have a lot of different looks and lighting schemes to work with).
Score: Black Panther (Ludwig Gorranson)
Uh...okay. I had this firmly in 5th place of the nominees. Not sure how you skip over a Terence Blanchard, a Wes Anderson, a Marc Shaiman musical starring Lin-Manuel Miranda and the sublime brilliance of If Beale Street Could Talk. I'm not down with this one, the Academy had a ton of better choices, not sure where this came from.
Song: A Star is Born ("Shallow")
Good song from a good musical-ish film, good performance from the non-actress lead, this was the clear choice. (But, again, I still can't get over how reviled A Star is Born was this season, I guess it just got swamped by Bohemian Rhapsody)
Sound Editing: Bohemian Rhapsody
Sound Mixing: Bohemian Rhapsody
Yeah, you knew it was on when this took both the sound categories. A Quiet Place and First Man were both overwhelming accomplishments of sound design but people vote for the movies they like and they liked this. The effect of splitting sound into two categories instead one is it allows for juggernauts to suddenly take over the show; Bohemian Rhapsody didn't exactly take over the night but the fans were given plenty to cheer for in a way that First Man, Vice and A Star is Born ended up not getting.
Doc: Free Solo
Little surprised RBG didn't win, though this looked like a fairly strong collection of choices. I'm not deep into this season's docs so I hesitate to discern the deeper motives of the Academy here.
Foreign: Roma
Excellent choice. My favorite film this year was a foreign film (the Brazilian film, Zama) but this was #4 in my top ten and as lovely-to-look-at as any film I saw all year. I thought it was a strong enough Best Picture candidate that it might split votes and lose this one--and I am a little surprised the Academy showed good love to Cold War and then didn't choose it for Best Foreign, it is a sexier, livelier, and almost as visually lovely film.
Animated: Spider Man Into the Spider Verse
Excellent choice. I am not a comic book guy nor am I a superhero guy, so I was not the ideal audience for a multiple Spider-Man adventure. All the more impressive then that I really did like it (#14) and appreciated the technical heights they reached (when I was actually pretty skeptical of that as self-congratulating puffery going in), it was ambitious and creative in a way that most superhero movies are not and really stood out from the other nominees.
To recap my picks: I was correct on Actor, Cinematography, Visual Effects, Costumes, Hair/Makeup, Song and Animated. I was totally wrong on my thought that Vice would be the surprise hit of the night, more or less missed on my thought that Roma would mostly strike out and I did not see the groundswell for Bohemian Rhapsody (though I don't see how it could've been the best choice in the sound categories). The only truly egregious award in my opinion is Best Score for Black Panther (though let me repeat: BlackKklansamn was absolutely not the best screenplay of the year). I had some okay moments here, but 7 out of 21 is not a particularly good job of reading the Academy this year. Oh well.
Wednesday, February 27, 2019
Sunday, February 24, 2019
2019 Academy Awards
End of the movie season, time to look back in award predictions form. For each category I've added my personal fave (which included more nominated films than I would've thought), as well as who I think will win.
Documentary
The only one of the nominees that I saw was RBG, which is much more about the phenomenon of Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a cultural icon than about the importance of her legal career (IMHO this doc actually diminishes her contributions to our current cultural landscape and does little to truly show what was important about her). So does the Academy reward the feel-good nature of the movie or realize that it's not particularly good? Hard to tell. The other nominees all sound interesting and I'd love to catch up with them and though each has its admirers, none were nearly as high profile as RBG. (My personal fave: Shirkers (I found it utterly fascinating. I'm a sucker for movies about movies because filmmakers have an insight to the making of movies that they don't have in, say, a critical appraisal of a supreme court justice's career; not sure why it didn't get a nomination)) My pick: RBG
Visual Effects
Feels like the big summer action flicks (Avengers: Infinity War, Ready Player One, Solo: A Star Wars Story) will cancel each other out though they each have the selling points: Avengers was the highest grossing/arguably most popular film of the year, RP1 was clever in its use of familiar imagery, Solo was an underappreciated adventure film that already seems due for a reappraisal. I didn't see Christopher Robin, not sure what that's bringing to the table, though the popular and critical buzz would suggest it is 5th out of these nominees. Though much was made of First Man's practical effects (suggesting more Cinematography and Editing), it feels like this is the proper place to reward what turned out to be an underrated movie. (My personal fave: First Man (Say what you will about the family elements of this biopic (which I found half well crafted, half heavy handed), the action scenes were riveting)) My pick: First Man
Sound Editing and Sound Mixing
Personally I think of these two categories as Sound Design, since each film only has one soundtrack. I don't know how to differentiate between these two awards--and since four of the five nominees in both are the same, it doesn't feel like the Academy does either. A Quiet Place had the most unique soundtrack of any film in years and since it is nominated for Editing and not Mixing, I'm guessing it will win the one it's up for. First Man had an amazing soundscape (Chazelle has the music of film well within his grasp, precisely why that dude's gonna be around for a while) and I suspect will win Mixing. Black Panther and Roma were both fine films but I didn't notice anything particularly above-and-beyond about the sound (I think I would've gone for Isle of Dogs and If Beale Street Could Talk here instead). A Star is Born and Bohemian Rhapsody are both music films and have their own unique challenges but seems like they'd cancel each other out. (My personal faves: First Man and A Quiet Place) This could be a telling moment for Roma, if its gonna have a big night it might nab one or both of these (Bohemian Rhapsody, too). My picks: A Quiet Place (for Editing) and First Man (for Mixing).
Original Song
Best Song, it seems to me, has more to do with the marketing of the film or even the credits of the film more than the film itself. Of these nominees only Mary Poppins Returns could rightly be called a Musical, so what does any particular song really have to do with anything? A Star is Born is at least about songwriters, so I guess I'd go with that. If you're looking for a long shot in your Oscar picks, keep an eye on Ballad of Buster Scruggs here. Why? Because Black Panther, RBG and A Star is Born came out early in the season and while Mary Poppins Returns wasn't a failure, it wasn't the mighty blockbuster it might have been; I'd bet that in the last coupla months more Academy voters watched Buster Scruggs than the other nominees. (Personal fave: none; but off the top of my head, Bad Times at the El Royale had a ton of lovely songs that were actually pivotal to the character development, though none were original, which just harkens back to my point that Hollywood doesn't make many musicals any more making this category anachronistic) My pick: A Star is Born
Score
This category is wide open. If Beale Street Could Talk garnered the most early praise for its score, Mary Poppins Returns is a full-on musical featuring some of the biggest musical talents in the biz, Isle of Dogs has a genuinely engaging score (and--there it is again--sound design), while BlackKklansman offers a good opportunity to reward the long, underappreciated film career of Terence Blanchard. I don't really know why Black Panther is here, the score is fine but I didn't find it particularly noteworthy, just a chance to pad the film's resume without giving it any sexier nominations, I suppose. Not sure how this one shakes out, the nominees are very distinct from each other, not merely in terms of the music itself but of the musicianship (hey, personalities matter and I have no idea which of these composers is the most well-liked/well-respected). (My personal fave: If Beale Street Could Talk, though I really admired the kinda-perfect score of the bizarre Estonian film, November) My pick: If Beale Street Could Talk (but I can see BlackKklansman winning if only because this is probably Spike Lee's most watched film by the Academy in many years and Blanchard does have a long glorious history in the film score world).
Makeup/Hair
Hmmm....does the Academy reward the audaciousness of putting disgusting pustules all over the beautiful Margot Robbie's face or Christian Bale for (reportedly) gluing his lips together to give him that perfect Dick Cheney look? I can't see this award going to a foreign film nobody saw no matter how great the makeup was--and supposedly Border is pretty great. Also, I can't help but point out how badly the world--not just me!--must've hated A Wrinkle in Time if it didn't get a nomination here. And I know there are only three nominations in this category but I would've given one to Uncle Drew, some phenomenal work in that movie. (My personal fave: The Favourite) My pick: toss-up....I'll go with Vice
Costumes
Another wide open category. Black Panther, as a super hero movie, seems like an odd choice here but the costumes are quite varied and kinda important to character development (probably not a criterion that goes into most voters' judgment, but always held a soft spot for me). Ballad of Buster Scruggs, too, as an anthology has a variety of different looks and needs from its costumes. Mary Queen of Scots and The Favourite are costume dramas of a similar time period (ehh, not really, but what's a hundred years or so?), and might overlap in the minds of some voters. Mary Poppins Returns, too, might overlap with The Favourite as the designer (Sandy Powell) is the same for both. I'm not sure what will win, but I am surprised there wasn't a nomination for Ocean's 8, where the wild and extravagant costumes are actually significant to the plot. Also, I'm a little tired of costume dramas getting all the love when a film like Mid-90's relied on costuming as much as any other movie I saw this year. (My personal fave: The Favourite--hell, Harley's wigs alone deserve their own award!) My pick: I'll say Black Panther (it will feel like a surprise if it wins but it really does possess a wide variety of interesting looks and when that movie got its pre-Awards second wind, I can see the costumes being much admired)
Production Design
This is one of those categories where I could be wildly misinterpreting what it is trying to represent. But of these nominees none were in my top five of production design (instead I had Isle of Dogs, Hotel Artemis, Zama, At Eternity's Gate, If Beale Street Could Talk) and while the nominees are all visually fine films, I attribute something other than Production Design in each case: Black Panther (special effects), First Man (editing and sound design), Roma (cinematography), The Favourite (costumes, cinematography) (never saw Mary Poppins Returns, though I suspect there I would champion choreography and special effects). Not that production design is absent in any of these films, it just doesn't strike me as the core element of success of any of these films. So what takes the Award? Normally I would say this is a cascade award rather than a stand-alone, so whichever film has the bigger night will win this so if Roma has a big night, it could scoop this one up but I think it'll go to a film that doesn't otherwise win anything. (My personal fave: Isle of Dogs, prompting the question: how do we evaluate the production design on animated films?) My pick: Mary Poppins Returns
Editing
This category is a headscratcher. Not only does it not have any of the films I thought featured praise-worthy editing (such as First Man, Searching, The Other Side of the Wind, Shirkers, The Rider, Black Panther, Isle of Dogs, Sorry to Bother You, At Eternity's Gate, Solo: A Star Wars Story, They Will Never Grow Old, The Front Runner), it actually has two nominees that I thought had some mediocre-at-best editing: BlackKklansman (I thought the KKK/Black Student Union sequence was more troubling than useful, the action scenes at the climax were clumsy and the tacked-on Charlottesville stuff was for political shock value, not for the betterment of the story being told in the film) and Vice (the movie is a collection of random scenes with no real purpose, I don't blame the editing but the editing isn't good enough to make something out of nothing). I liked Green Book but it wasn't because of the editing, which was rather ordinary and the editing in The Favourite is fine but not in my top ten. (I didn't see Bohemian Rhapsody, won't comment). So what is this Academy going for here? I dunno. (My personal fave: First Man) My pick: Vice
Cinematography
Feels like this one belongs to Roma. My controversial hot take of the upcoming Oscars: I think this is the only prize that Roma will win. The cinematography is utterly gorgeous (even though Cuaron was without his usual Hall of Fame camera man, Emmanuel Lubezki) but the film is slow paced, black and white, goes a long time before defining its story and is Netflix's first big score, all of which seem like they could be downers to most voters and though the film is much lauded, I suspect it has a lot more detractors than you realize. Throw in that its also nominated for Best Foreign, which I think splits its Best Picture chances and wins neither award, thus keeping it from having the big night everyone expects. This is the one prize the film absolutely positively clearly deserves, so I think everyone votes for it here, but I think all the other factors work against it in the other categories. We'll see. The other titles are all worthy nominees (I don't know Never Look Away but Caleb Deschanel has been doing good work for eons), but Cuaron by himself made a pretty god damn beautiful movie. (My personal fave: Roma) My pick: Roma
Foreign Film
The only two I saw were Roma (easily in my top ten) and Cold War (liked it, didn't love it), though I am familiar with the directors of the other films. As I just wrote above, I don't think Roma wins this. I can see Cold War winning or possibly Shoplifters, which was the big winner at Cannes this year. I just don't think Capernaum or Never Look Away will have enough support to get there, so do the voters go for the Eastern European torrid love story or the Japanese off-kilter family film? (My personal fave: Zama, a Brazilian film and my favorite film of the year). My pick: Cold War (I think the voters are gonna dig the look and feel of it and Cold War is black and white sexy jazz depressing while Roma is black and white dysfunctional family depressing)
Animated
I should start by saying that The Incredibles and Wreck-It Ralph were two of my favorite animated films of the last 20 years...and that their sequels were both major disappointments for me: uh....shouldn't it have been called Ralph Wrecks the Internet? Seems like some low-hanging fruit there; and honestly I kinda fucking hated Incredibles 2, a lifeless, brainless, soulless piece of crass contractual obligation. Isle of Dogs was a fine film, a brilliant achievement in one sense but kinda run of the mill Wes Anderson in another sense (and its release came with some grumpy politically correct controversy, too, has that already been forgotten?). I didn't see Mirai but I just don't see how it outshines the other nominees. Spider Man: Into the Spider-Verse was much ballyhooed for its unique visual look and though it took me a while to get into it, I understand the praise: it wanted to incorporate a number of different styles with in which required created its in overarching look to accommodate them all, impressive once it really sinks in. (My personal fave: Spider Man: Into the Spider-Verse) My pick: Spider Man: Into the Spider-Verse (for being innovative rather than being a sequel or simply an addition to an established oeuvre)
Original Screenplay
The critics revived interest in Paul Shrader's film First Reformed (considered "original" even though ten minutes in I was like, 'Oh yeah, this is Winter Light' (*)), though it kinda came and went without fanfare earlier in the year; it was the kind of movie that really divided people--you either loved that ending or you hated it (though somehow I remained rather lukewarm). Roma was a visual feast and while I appreciate the Screenplay nomination, I think this is a strange choice and one that I don't think will win. Green Book was an open-hearted crowd pleaser that even managed to outlast its critics (frankly, I thought the Shirley family's complaints were pretty minimal in the context of the movie itself), and while it could definitely win I can see the Academy thinking it wasn't edgy enough. The screenplay of The Favourite is the perfect vehicle for a trio of outstanding performances more than a stand alone piece of art, I can see the Academy thinking the actresses did all the heavy lifting. I thought Vice was not a very good movie to begin with but the gall of using a dead man to be the voice of conscious is pretty god damn presumptuous on the screenwriter's part and then Dick Cheney's monologue to the camera at the end completely deflated everything the film had been building (I am in the minority of finding the film as a major disappointment); that said I think the Academy finds it clever and 'speaking truth to power'. Gotta complain that Eighth Grade didn't get its obligatory nomination for Best Screenplay, it truly deserved a Best Actress nod, too, but to get shut out completely was the surprising snub of the season to me. (My personal fave: The Favourite) My pick: Vice
Adapted Screenplay
I watched all four versions of A Star is Born last year and I thought the 2018 version to be the 2nd best (the original still rules because all the remakes miss the point (**)). To take on such a venerable property is ballsy to begin with, then to cast a non-actress to star and a non-director to lead while forcing these two to write songs together makes this a much more accomplished picture than the recent buzz would seem to suggest. I liked If Beale Street Could Talk (Barry Jenkins will get more chances, this nomination just cements his status) and The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (since Woody Allen has finally been flushed out of the movie business, guess the Coens will get his annual nomination?) is fine but I don't see either of them as superior pieces of screenwriting. BlackKklansman was a so-so picture (am I the only one that noticed that?) with a third act that drifts all over in a most unsatisfying fashion. I didn't see Can You Ever Forgive Me. (My personal fave: Death of Stalin, one of the films of this season that I look forward to seeing again and again) My pick: Can You Ever Forgive Me (I've long been a Nicole Holofcener fan and this is her best chance to get some love, although Spike Lee could certainly win for the same reason)
Director
Alfonso Cuaron (Roma) is the obvious choice here and if you're seeing a Roma onslaught then he would definitely win; but I don't see the onslaught coming, I feel like Roma will have turned off as many people as it turned on. Pawel Pawlikowski (Cold War) is an interesting choice, he's done good work for a while now, but I don't think enough people saw this to earn him the trophy (the fact he got nominated at all is kinda cool). Spike Lee (BlackKklansman) has been around forever and this is his first nomination, I wouldn't be shocked if he won but I think the nomination is a make-up call not a sign of overwhelming support. Yorgos Lanthimos (The Favourite) is, I think, among the very best directors in the world right now, though his films are sometimes kinda hard to take making this nomination a bit of a shock to me; this year, though, he's put his own stamp on an accessible film and I think he's very deserving, but I'd be surprised if enough people truly appreciate the kind of director he is to give him this award. I personally thought nothing of the film Vice, but I think I'm very much in the minority and since this category is a bit of a clusterfuck (and since Cuaron has already won before), I think the Academy makes a bold move and goes with Adam McKay, a guy that has steadily built admirers in the industry over the years. (My personal fave: Yorgos Lanthimos (The Favourite). My pick: Adam McKay (Vice)
Actor
I was way out of step in this category, only Dafoe appeared in my top five. I admired the hell out of At Eternity's Gate and the way Willem Dafoe keeps finding new roles to give audacious performances is inspiring; too bad nobody saw the movie. Viggo and Ali made a good pair (another example of the need for an Ensemble Award) but the story itself was the star of the show and given the good dialogue, this does not strike me as a film driven by performances (indeed, I can imagine this film being just as beloved with two no-name actors). Cooper deserved to be nominated for Best Director but not for Best Actor; dude, he just mumbles and plays air guitar most of the time, a fine performance but not the centerpiece of the film itself nor one of the more notable performances of the year (I feel like Cooper pissed Hollywood off or something, I don't understand the Academy's reception to the film at all). When I first saw the trailer for Vice, I was blown away by Bale as Dick Cheney; unfortunately, the movie itself was no better than the trailer and I found Bale's performance rather tedious after two hours, watching him pull on the Dick Cheney fat suit didn't get deeper or more interesting over time. I didn't see Bohemian Rhapsody but I can certainly attest to the cult of Freddie Mercury that has arisen in the last decade or so and I'm not surprised the film was a big hit with the fans (and largely panned by the critics). Gotta complain: if you want to see a ballsy, invigorating performance from a guy that's giving you what no one else would give, check out Brady Jandreau in The Rider; which of these five actors could've played that part? None. (My personal fave: John C. Reilly (Stan & Ollie), an underappreciated film and, holy fuck, Reilly is fucking amazing!) My pick: Rami Malek (Bohemian Rhapsody) (are we seriously gonna let Dick Cheney beat out Freddie Mercury? Is that the America you want to live in?)
Actress
My two favorite female performances this season were Lady Gaga (A Star is Born) and Olivia Colman (The Favourite) and Yalitza Aparicio (Roma) was not far out of my top five. The other two films I didn't see. If A Star is Born was lining up as the big winner it feels like it ought to be then I'd say Gaga is a shoo-in to take the prize, but I think she's kinda alienated the Academy and as an outsider (sorta), I feel like the Academy is pulling away from her when they ought to be embracing her. Colman is an excellent choice but I think that film was such an ensemble that unless either Stone or Weisz won, too, I don't see Colman winning. Aparicio is phenomenal but this is one of those occasions where the nomination is the recognition, I'd be pretty shocked if she actually won. I didn't see Can You Ever Forgive Me and while folks love seeing a comic take a dramatic turn, this is another case where I think the nomination itself is the extent of the recognition McCarthy will receive. That leaves Glenn Close; I didn't see the film but she's long been pretty great, feels like this is her year for a lifetime achievement Oscar. Gotta complain that Elsie Fisher (Eighth Grade) was left out, she totally carried an unorthodox movie by a first-time director, she deserves to be here. (My personal fave: Lady Gaga (A Star is Born) My pick: Glenn Close (The Wife)
Supporting Actor
Okay this category has basically two different groups: high profile, working, in demand guys (Ali, Rockwell, Driver) and old favorites that you don't see much of any more (Grant, Elliott). I did not see Can You Ever Forgive Me but of the other four, none appeared in my top five for Supporting Actor. Isn't the whole point of Vice that George Bush was insignificant and not really in control? So why are you nominating the guy that played him in the movie--especially since he isn't even in it that much? Driver is a fine young actor, he'll definitely have chances to get back in the coming years, but in BlackKlansman he's basically just playing an ordinary cop in an ordinary cop film--Topher Grace is the high risk/low reward performance that has to be perfect in order to hold the film together--why didn't he get this nomination? Ali should've been considered a lead actor--yes, the film is the white guy's memoir and we see a little more of him but what we get from his scenes is merely to set him up in contrast to the black guy, thus both characters are indispensable to each other and they are twin leads, so this nomination isn't really ideal. Sam Elliot is a beloved character actor, been around forever and given many underappreciated performances but this isn't one of them; in A Star is Born his character is one note and repetitive and since he didn't go ten seconds in the movie without multiple F-bombs, the scene they'll have to show at the ceremony is his final scene with Cooper which is actually Cooper's scene. How you gonna give the award for a money shot scene that isn't even his? (My personal fave: Topher Grace (BlackKklansman), playing sublime evil and laughable buffoon simultaneously is virtually impossible and without him this movie doesn't work at all) My pick: Sam Elliott (A Star is Born) (I'm going the old favorite route and since Grant should've won the BAFTA, I figure Elliott wins the Oscar)
Supporting Actress
I was in line with this category as Adams (Vice) and Stone and Weisz from The Favourite were in my top five, too. The other two nominees, Regina King (If Beale Street Could Talk) and Marina de Tavira (Roma) were also fine choices. Stone and Weisz, both previous Oscar winners, feel like they'll split votes (this is the perfect argument for an Ensemble Award). The nomination for de Tavira is her recognition, I don't see how she wins. King was the popular choice in the critics' polls (I don't think I saw anyone other than her winning those) but the film had a mild overall reception and personally I don't think she had enough presence in the film outside a sequence late in the 3rd act to really compare with, say, Stone or Weisz. I thought Adams was the best part of Vice (or at least, she's the part that makes the movie make sense) and I think Vice is going to be the surprise winner this evening. (My personal fave: Amy Adams (Vice)) My pick: Amy Adams (Vice)
Best Picture
From the first moment I saw it in October, A Star is Born seemed like the obvious pick for Best Picture; but it went cold in the Golden Globes and doesn't seem to have the necessary buzz about it going into voting. I dunno why, seems like everything the Oscars is looking for: a woman's story, a time-honored remake, a bold musical, loving nods to LGBT and African-American communities, star-making performance in the lead, hugely successful soundtrack, directed by a popular actor, big box office--what more does Oscar want? Throw in that there's no clear usurper and it still seems plainly obvious to me that A Star is Born will win. Black Panther was a hugely popular film very very early in the season but cooled off and this nomination feels liked a tossed bone rather than a groundswell for re-appreciation. BlackKklansman is Spike Lee's first nominee for Best Picture, but that in and of itself doesn't seem like enough to win it a lot of votes (throw in that it's actually a fairly routine cop story, albeit with some twists, and it probably isn't even Spike's 10th best movie). Bohemian Rhapsody has a built in audience due to the staggering emergence of the cult of Freddie Mercury (a Reddit invention, as near as I can tell), and was well-liked by the masses though not by the critics; this doesn't feel like a Best Picture to me (but keep an eye on the Sound categories: if it wins there that could signal a big night). Green Book was a well-crafted crowd pleaser that emerged from Toronto (if you'll recall this won the audience award rather than the bigger-hyped First Man and A Star is Born), then fell upon some criticism; the nominations represent the bounce back from potential controversy but I'm not sure there's enough support going forward to win any awards. Roma is in a tricky place: as Netflix's first big time Oscar-bait title, it has suffered from being much-admired by the handful of people that saw it on the big screen, but a bit of a snooze to those who watched on Netflix; also, being a front runner for Best Picture might undermine it's chance of winning Best Foreign (and vice versa), so outside of Cinematography, I think it gets shut out. The Favourite was my personal favorite of these nominees and while it clearly has its admirers, I don't see it beating out the more high profile films in this category. Vice is an audacious movie, an inventive and ambitious movie but while I think it wins a pile of awards, giving it the top prize might feel like some kind of affirmation of Dick Cheney. My pick: as improbable as it feels, gotta go with A Star is Born (while this may seem out of left field, I think Bohemian Rhapsody is the other one that could win)
Recap
In looking back over this past season for this post, I found myself edging away from the conventional wisdom and seeing a variety of upsets/weird choices, instead. The Critics polls and Guild Awards were all over the place suggesting no single dominant film, so I don't think Roma steamrolls the competition. I think the post-Oscar buzz is going to be about the shock of how little Roma wins but over time people will look back and see the Cinematography prize and the other nominations and think that's about right. I think Vice is the one that people want to vote for but cautiously: I have it winning Editing, Supporting Actress, Original Screenplay, Director and Makeup but not winning Best Picture or Best Actor--which seems like the obvious choice--because the technical awards suggest a level of mastery of skewering Dick Cheney, while giving it Picture or Actor would feel like an affirmation of Dick Cheney (does that make sense?). I'm using the 1950 Oscars as my model, where All the King's Men won Picture, Actor and Supporting Actress but A Letter to Three Wives won Director and Screenplay: the Academy wanted to highlight an edgy hit movie driven by great performances while acknowledging that the quiet comedy/drama was actually a better movie. Giving Best Picture--and nothing else--to A Star is Born gives the historical impression that this was the dominant film of the season and by not girding it with technical awards, makes it feel like an empty hit movie rather than a superior production. And it keeps the Academy from going too far in a political (Vice) or politically correct (Roma or Green Book) direction.
I think Vice is going to be the surprise star of the night, Roma won't get much love and A Star is Born for Best Picture will be the talk of the town (for a week or so). That said, I'm probably wrong on all this and the oddsmakers that say Roma is a shoo-in to collect all the hardware will probably be proven right. We'll see.
Random open letter to the Academy
The controversy this year (well, the most recent controversy) was about the Awards show producers trying to force a number of the winners into the commercial breaks in a futile bid to shorten the running time of the TV broadcast. Academy members reacted with fury and rightly so: the whole point of the show is to honor people, so why are you dis-honoring them?
Here's a modest solution: divide the Oscars into three shows and own the whole weekend (NFL Draft style). Most of the technical awards are handed out the night before the Oscars, so expand that first night, which is crucial to industry insiders but less attractive for a mass audience. They can go hognutty with intricate distinctions of editing, sound editing, special effects, hair/makeup, musical composition, and other technical achievements on the first night. The second night could be all about genre distinction: foreign, doc, animated, here's where you could add the obligatory highest box office award, short films and even expand out for different types of dramas, comedies, actioners, etc. Then cut the mass market show down to the bare bones: Picture, Actors, Director, Screenplays, Cinematography, Visual Effects, Costume, Score, Editing, Art Design, Sound Design, (personally I couldn't care less about Best Song, but that's probably one of the more popular awards, so it would probably stay). Then encourage the various Guilds to schedule their awards in the week before the Oscars, so that the whole week is a full-on dedication to the year's films. Let the first two Oscar nights trickle upward to create more interest in the shorter, sweeter big night. And as for host, musical numbers, opening monologue--get rid of all of that crap! The regular people back home want the red carpet pre-game show and they want the big awards--and that's it! They don't care about the difference between sound mixing and sound editing, they don't see the short films so they don't care about them, most of the foreign titles aren't available until after the Oscars and the monologue and musical numbers are more likely to be alienating than memorable. Hollywood people can give themselves a whole raft of extra awards by adding two extra ceremonies, where they'll be free to wallow around in their own self-indulgence--and it can be put on pay-per-view or at least be more impactful on blogs, podcasts and social media.
This is a win-win: the TV audience just gets the meat instead of the fat while the Hollywood crowd gets to have all the fat they want. By spreading it out, the Academy gets to do more, create more buzz, own the whole weekend (or even the whole week), and still put out a shorter more concise ceremony with better ratings, pleasing for the casual fans and the hardcore insiders at the same time. Just a thought.
(*) Fwiw, I read the description of his next film, it's 7 Men from Now, an old Bud Boetticher film. Hey, if you're gonna rip off old movies, Bergman and Boetticher are good places to start.
(**) The original A Star is Born (1937) is about a girl that wants to be a star and a guy that desperately wants to maintain the stardom he used to have before he met this girl. But in the remakes the woman has to be dragged into the spotlight while the man is rather indifferent to the stardom he has or used to have (especially the Kris Kristofferson version--I never understood anything about what that character wanted). The original is a gritty cynical movie about the fake magic of Hollywood--amazing considering how early it was in the history of Hollywood! The remakes ignore how grubby the woman's desire for stardom is and downplay the man's devastating craving to retain relevance, tending to paint the woman as lucky (instead of ambitious) and the man as merely alcoholic (instead of heartbroken). The 2018 version is awkward in that it isn't portraying the dominant cultural expression of the time--dude, if the world's greatest Southern rock guitar player walked into a Brooklyn drag bar at 2am, are we really sure that anyone would know who he was? Really? I'll buy it for the sake of the movie but I'm not sure that's true at all. To me the one really stinging criticism of A Star is Born (2018) is that stardom is a different thing in the social media world than it was in Depression-era Hollywood (1937), the early days of television (1954) or the heyday of arena rock and FM radio (1976) and this film chooses to harken back rather than portray the world as it is now. Those versions all owned the world they lived in, this one merely suggests that it is possible that these people still exist.
Documentary
The only one of the nominees that I saw was RBG, which is much more about the phenomenon of Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a cultural icon than about the importance of her legal career (IMHO this doc actually diminishes her contributions to our current cultural landscape and does little to truly show what was important about her). So does the Academy reward the feel-good nature of the movie or realize that it's not particularly good? Hard to tell. The other nominees all sound interesting and I'd love to catch up with them and though each has its admirers, none were nearly as high profile as RBG. (My personal fave: Shirkers (I found it utterly fascinating. I'm a sucker for movies about movies because filmmakers have an insight to the making of movies that they don't have in, say, a critical appraisal of a supreme court justice's career; not sure why it didn't get a nomination)) My pick: RBG
Visual Effects
Feels like the big summer action flicks (Avengers: Infinity War, Ready Player One, Solo: A Star Wars Story) will cancel each other out though they each have the selling points: Avengers was the highest grossing/arguably most popular film of the year, RP1 was clever in its use of familiar imagery, Solo was an underappreciated adventure film that already seems due for a reappraisal. I didn't see Christopher Robin, not sure what that's bringing to the table, though the popular and critical buzz would suggest it is 5th out of these nominees. Though much was made of First Man's practical effects (suggesting more Cinematography and Editing), it feels like this is the proper place to reward what turned out to be an underrated movie. (My personal fave: First Man (Say what you will about the family elements of this biopic (which I found half well crafted, half heavy handed), the action scenes were riveting)) My pick: First Man
Sound Editing and Sound Mixing
Personally I think of these two categories as Sound Design, since each film only has one soundtrack. I don't know how to differentiate between these two awards--and since four of the five nominees in both are the same, it doesn't feel like the Academy does either. A Quiet Place had the most unique soundtrack of any film in years and since it is nominated for Editing and not Mixing, I'm guessing it will win the one it's up for. First Man had an amazing soundscape (Chazelle has the music of film well within his grasp, precisely why that dude's gonna be around for a while) and I suspect will win Mixing. Black Panther and Roma were both fine films but I didn't notice anything particularly above-and-beyond about the sound (I think I would've gone for Isle of Dogs and If Beale Street Could Talk here instead). A Star is Born and Bohemian Rhapsody are both music films and have their own unique challenges but seems like they'd cancel each other out. (My personal faves: First Man and A Quiet Place) This could be a telling moment for Roma, if its gonna have a big night it might nab one or both of these (Bohemian Rhapsody, too). My picks: A Quiet Place (for Editing) and First Man (for Mixing).
Original Song
Best Song, it seems to me, has more to do with the marketing of the film or even the credits of the film more than the film itself. Of these nominees only Mary Poppins Returns could rightly be called a Musical, so what does any particular song really have to do with anything? A Star is Born is at least about songwriters, so I guess I'd go with that. If you're looking for a long shot in your Oscar picks, keep an eye on Ballad of Buster Scruggs here. Why? Because Black Panther, RBG and A Star is Born came out early in the season and while Mary Poppins Returns wasn't a failure, it wasn't the mighty blockbuster it might have been; I'd bet that in the last coupla months more Academy voters watched Buster Scruggs than the other nominees. (Personal fave: none; but off the top of my head, Bad Times at the El Royale had a ton of lovely songs that were actually pivotal to the character development, though none were original, which just harkens back to my point that Hollywood doesn't make many musicals any more making this category anachronistic) My pick: A Star is Born
Score
This category is wide open. If Beale Street Could Talk garnered the most early praise for its score, Mary Poppins Returns is a full-on musical featuring some of the biggest musical talents in the biz, Isle of Dogs has a genuinely engaging score (and--there it is again--sound design), while BlackKklansman offers a good opportunity to reward the long, underappreciated film career of Terence Blanchard. I don't really know why Black Panther is here, the score is fine but I didn't find it particularly noteworthy, just a chance to pad the film's resume without giving it any sexier nominations, I suppose. Not sure how this one shakes out, the nominees are very distinct from each other, not merely in terms of the music itself but of the musicianship (hey, personalities matter and I have no idea which of these composers is the most well-liked/well-respected). (My personal fave: If Beale Street Could Talk, though I really admired the kinda-perfect score of the bizarre Estonian film, November) My pick: If Beale Street Could Talk (but I can see BlackKklansman winning if only because this is probably Spike Lee's most watched film by the Academy in many years and Blanchard does have a long glorious history in the film score world).
Makeup/Hair
Hmmm....does the Academy reward the audaciousness of putting disgusting pustules all over the beautiful Margot Robbie's face or Christian Bale for (reportedly) gluing his lips together to give him that perfect Dick Cheney look? I can't see this award going to a foreign film nobody saw no matter how great the makeup was--and supposedly Border is pretty great. Also, I can't help but point out how badly the world--not just me!--must've hated A Wrinkle in Time if it didn't get a nomination here. And I know there are only three nominations in this category but I would've given one to Uncle Drew, some phenomenal work in that movie. (My personal fave: The Favourite) My pick: toss-up....I'll go with Vice
Costumes
Another wide open category. Black Panther, as a super hero movie, seems like an odd choice here but the costumes are quite varied and kinda important to character development (probably not a criterion that goes into most voters' judgment, but always held a soft spot for me). Ballad of Buster Scruggs, too, as an anthology has a variety of different looks and needs from its costumes. Mary Queen of Scots and The Favourite are costume dramas of a similar time period (ehh, not really, but what's a hundred years or so?), and might overlap in the minds of some voters. Mary Poppins Returns, too, might overlap with The Favourite as the designer (Sandy Powell) is the same for both. I'm not sure what will win, but I am surprised there wasn't a nomination for Ocean's 8, where the wild and extravagant costumes are actually significant to the plot. Also, I'm a little tired of costume dramas getting all the love when a film like Mid-90's relied on costuming as much as any other movie I saw this year. (My personal fave: The Favourite--hell, Harley's wigs alone deserve their own award!) My pick: I'll say Black Panther (it will feel like a surprise if it wins but it really does possess a wide variety of interesting looks and when that movie got its pre-Awards second wind, I can see the costumes being much admired)
Production Design
This is one of those categories where I could be wildly misinterpreting what it is trying to represent. But of these nominees none were in my top five of production design (instead I had Isle of Dogs, Hotel Artemis, Zama, At Eternity's Gate, If Beale Street Could Talk) and while the nominees are all visually fine films, I attribute something other than Production Design in each case: Black Panther (special effects), First Man (editing and sound design), Roma (cinematography), The Favourite (costumes, cinematography) (never saw Mary Poppins Returns, though I suspect there I would champion choreography and special effects). Not that production design is absent in any of these films, it just doesn't strike me as the core element of success of any of these films. So what takes the Award? Normally I would say this is a cascade award rather than a stand-alone, so whichever film has the bigger night will win this so if Roma has a big night, it could scoop this one up but I think it'll go to a film that doesn't otherwise win anything. (My personal fave: Isle of Dogs, prompting the question: how do we evaluate the production design on animated films?) My pick: Mary Poppins Returns
Editing
This category is a headscratcher. Not only does it not have any of the films I thought featured praise-worthy editing (such as First Man, Searching, The Other Side of the Wind, Shirkers, The Rider, Black Panther, Isle of Dogs, Sorry to Bother You, At Eternity's Gate, Solo: A Star Wars Story, They Will Never Grow Old, The Front Runner), it actually has two nominees that I thought had some mediocre-at-best editing: BlackKklansman (I thought the KKK/Black Student Union sequence was more troubling than useful, the action scenes at the climax were clumsy and the tacked-on Charlottesville stuff was for political shock value, not for the betterment of the story being told in the film) and Vice (the movie is a collection of random scenes with no real purpose, I don't blame the editing but the editing isn't good enough to make something out of nothing). I liked Green Book but it wasn't because of the editing, which was rather ordinary and the editing in The Favourite is fine but not in my top ten. (I didn't see Bohemian Rhapsody, won't comment). So what is this Academy going for here? I dunno. (My personal fave: First Man) My pick: Vice
Cinematography
Feels like this one belongs to Roma. My controversial hot take of the upcoming Oscars: I think this is the only prize that Roma will win. The cinematography is utterly gorgeous (even though Cuaron was without his usual Hall of Fame camera man, Emmanuel Lubezki) but the film is slow paced, black and white, goes a long time before defining its story and is Netflix's first big score, all of which seem like they could be downers to most voters and though the film is much lauded, I suspect it has a lot more detractors than you realize. Throw in that its also nominated for Best Foreign, which I think splits its Best Picture chances and wins neither award, thus keeping it from having the big night everyone expects. This is the one prize the film absolutely positively clearly deserves, so I think everyone votes for it here, but I think all the other factors work against it in the other categories. We'll see. The other titles are all worthy nominees (I don't know Never Look Away but Caleb Deschanel has been doing good work for eons), but Cuaron by himself made a pretty god damn beautiful movie. (My personal fave: Roma) My pick: Roma
Foreign Film
The only two I saw were Roma (easily in my top ten) and Cold War (liked it, didn't love it), though I am familiar with the directors of the other films. As I just wrote above, I don't think Roma wins this. I can see Cold War winning or possibly Shoplifters, which was the big winner at Cannes this year. I just don't think Capernaum or Never Look Away will have enough support to get there, so do the voters go for the Eastern European torrid love story or the Japanese off-kilter family film? (My personal fave: Zama, a Brazilian film and my favorite film of the year). My pick: Cold War (I think the voters are gonna dig the look and feel of it and Cold War is black and white sexy jazz depressing while Roma is black and white dysfunctional family depressing)
Animated
I should start by saying that The Incredibles and Wreck-It Ralph were two of my favorite animated films of the last 20 years...and that their sequels were both major disappointments for me: uh....shouldn't it have been called Ralph Wrecks the Internet? Seems like some low-hanging fruit there; and honestly I kinda fucking hated Incredibles 2, a lifeless, brainless, soulless piece of crass contractual obligation. Isle of Dogs was a fine film, a brilliant achievement in one sense but kinda run of the mill Wes Anderson in another sense (and its release came with some grumpy politically correct controversy, too, has that already been forgotten?). I didn't see Mirai but I just don't see how it outshines the other nominees. Spider Man: Into the Spider-Verse was much ballyhooed for its unique visual look and though it took me a while to get into it, I understand the praise: it wanted to incorporate a number of different styles with in which required created its in overarching look to accommodate them all, impressive once it really sinks in. (My personal fave: Spider Man: Into the Spider-Verse) My pick: Spider Man: Into the Spider-Verse (for being innovative rather than being a sequel or simply an addition to an established oeuvre)
Original Screenplay
The critics revived interest in Paul Shrader's film First Reformed (considered "original" even though ten minutes in I was like, 'Oh yeah, this is Winter Light' (*)), though it kinda came and went without fanfare earlier in the year; it was the kind of movie that really divided people--you either loved that ending or you hated it (though somehow I remained rather lukewarm). Roma was a visual feast and while I appreciate the Screenplay nomination, I think this is a strange choice and one that I don't think will win. Green Book was an open-hearted crowd pleaser that even managed to outlast its critics (frankly, I thought the Shirley family's complaints were pretty minimal in the context of the movie itself), and while it could definitely win I can see the Academy thinking it wasn't edgy enough. The screenplay of The Favourite is the perfect vehicle for a trio of outstanding performances more than a stand alone piece of art, I can see the Academy thinking the actresses did all the heavy lifting. I thought Vice was not a very good movie to begin with but the gall of using a dead man to be the voice of conscious is pretty god damn presumptuous on the screenwriter's part and then Dick Cheney's monologue to the camera at the end completely deflated everything the film had been building (I am in the minority of finding the film as a major disappointment); that said I think the Academy finds it clever and 'speaking truth to power'. Gotta complain that Eighth Grade didn't get its obligatory nomination for Best Screenplay, it truly deserved a Best Actress nod, too, but to get shut out completely was the surprising snub of the season to me. (My personal fave: The Favourite) My pick: Vice
Adapted Screenplay
I watched all four versions of A Star is Born last year and I thought the 2018 version to be the 2nd best (the original still rules because all the remakes miss the point (**)). To take on such a venerable property is ballsy to begin with, then to cast a non-actress to star and a non-director to lead while forcing these two to write songs together makes this a much more accomplished picture than the recent buzz would seem to suggest. I liked If Beale Street Could Talk (Barry Jenkins will get more chances, this nomination just cements his status) and The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (since Woody Allen has finally been flushed out of the movie business, guess the Coens will get his annual nomination?) is fine but I don't see either of them as superior pieces of screenwriting. BlackKklansman was a so-so picture (am I the only one that noticed that?) with a third act that drifts all over in a most unsatisfying fashion. I didn't see Can You Ever Forgive Me. (My personal fave: Death of Stalin, one of the films of this season that I look forward to seeing again and again) My pick: Can You Ever Forgive Me (I've long been a Nicole Holofcener fan and this is her best chance to get some love, although Spike Lee could certainly win for the same reason)
Director
Alfonso Cuaron (Roma) is the obvious choice here and if you're seeing a Roma onslaught then he would definitely win; but I don't see the onslaught coming, I feel like Roma will have turned off as many people as it turned on. Pawel Pawlikowski (Cold War) is an interesting choice, he's done good work for a while now, but I don't think enough people saw this to earn him the trophy (the fact he got nominated at all is kinda cool). Spike Lee (BlackKklansman) has been around forever and this is his first nomination, I wouldn't be shocked if he won but I think the nomination is a make-up call not a sign of overwhelming support. Yorgos Lanthimos (The Favourite) is, I think, among the very best directors in the world right now, though his films are sometimes kinda hard to take making this nomination a bit of a shock to me; this year, though, he's put his own stamp on an accessible film and I think he's very deserving, but I'd be surprised if enough people truly appreciate the kind of director he is to give him this award. I personally thought nothing of the film Vice, but I think I'm very much in the minority and since this category is a bit of a clusterfuck (and since Cuaron has already won before), I think the Academy makes a bold move and goes with Adam McKay, a guy that has steadily built admirers in the industry over the years. (My personal fave: Yorgos Lanthimos (The Favourite). My pick: Adam McKay (Vice)
Actor
I was way out of step in this category, only Dafoe appeared in my top five. I admired the hell out of At Eternity's Gate and the way Willem Dafoe keeps finding new roles to give audacious performances is inspiring; too bad nobody saw the movie. Viggo and Ali made a good pair (another example of the need for an Ensemble Award) but the story itself was the star of the show and given the good dialogue, this does not strike me as a film driven by performances (indeed, I can imagine this film being just as beloved with two no-name actors). Cooper deserved to be nominated for Best Director but not for Best Actor; dude, he just mumbles and plays air guitar most of the time, a fine performance but not the centerpiece of the film itself nor one of the more notable performances of the year (I feel like Cooper pissed Hollywood off or something, I don't understand the Academy's reception to the film at all). When I first saw the trailer for Vice, I was blown away by Bale as Dick Cheney; unfortunately, the movie itself was no better than the trailer and I found Bale's performance rather tedious after two hours, watching him pull on the Dick Cheney fat suit didn't get deeper or more interesting over time. I didn't see Bohemian Rhapsody but I can certainly attest to the cult of Freddie Mercury that has arisen in the last decade or so and I'm not surprised the film was a big hit with the fans (and largely panned by the critics). Gotta complain: if you want to see a ballsy, invigorating performance from a guy that's giving you what no one else would give, check out Brady Jandreau in The Rider; which of these five actors could've played that part? None. (My personal fave: John C. Reilly (Stan & Ollie), an underappreciated film and, holy fuck, Reilly is fucking amazing!) My pick: Rami Malek (Bohemian Rhapsody) (are we seriously gonna let Dick Cheney beat out Freddie Mercury? Is that the America you want to live in?)
Actress
My two favorite female performances this season were Lady Gaga (A Star is Born) and Olivia Colman (The Favourite) and Yalitza Aparicio (Roma) was not far out of my top five. The other two films I didn't see. If A Star is Born was lining up as the big winner it feels like it ought to be then I'd say Gaga is a shoo-in to take the prize, but I think she's kinda alienated the Academy and as an outsider (sorta), I feel like the Academy is pulling away from her when they ought to be embracing her. Colman is an excellent choice but I think that film was such an ensemble that unless either Stone or Weisz won, too, I don't see Colman winning. Aparicio is phenomenal but this is one of those occasions where the nomination is the recognition, I'd be pretty shocked if she actually won. I didn't see Can You Ever Forgive Me and while folks love seeing a comic take a dramatic turn, this is another case where I think the nomination itself is the extent of the recognition McCarthy will receive. That leaves Glenn Close; I didn't see the film but she's long been pretty great, feels like this is her year for a lifetime achievement Oscar. Gotta complain that Elsie Fisher (Eighth Grade) was left out, she totally carried an unorthodox movie by a first-time director, she deserves to be here. (My personal fave: Lady Gaga (A Star is Born) My pick: Glenn Close (The Wife)
Supporting Actor
Okay this category has basically two different groups: high profile, working, in demand guys (Ali, Rockwell, Driver) and old favorites that you don't see much of any more (Grant, Elliott). I did not see Can You Ever Forgive Me but of the other four, none appeared in my top five for Supporting Actor. Isn't the whole point of Vice that George Bush was insignificant and not really in control? So why are you nominating the guy that played him in the movie--especially since he isn't even in it that much? Driver is a fine young actor, he'll definitely have chances to get back in the coming years, but in BlackKlansman he's basically just playing an ordinary cop in an ordinary cop film--Topher Grace is the high risk/low reward performance that has to be perfect in order to hold the film together--why didn't he get this nomination? Ali should've been considered a lead actor--yes, the film is the white guy's memoir and we see a little more of him but what we get from his scenes is merely to set him up in contrast to the black guy, thus both characters are indispensable to each other and they are twin leads, so this nomination isn't really ideal. Sam Elliot is a beloved character actor, been around forever and given many underappreciated performances but this isn't one of them; in A Star is Born his character is one note and repetitive and since he didn't go ten seconds in the movie without multiple F-bombs, the scene they'll have to show at the ceremony is his final scene with Cooper which is actually Cooper's scene. How you gonna give the award for a money shot scene that isn't even his? (My personal fave: Topher Grace (BlackKklansman), playing sublime evil and laughable buffoon simultaneously is virtually impossible and without him this movie doesn't work at all) My pick: Sam Elliott (A Star is Born) (I'm going the old favorite route and since Grant should've won the BAFTA, I figure Elliott wins the Oscar)
Supporting Actress
I was in line with this category as Adams (Vice) and Stone and Weisz from The Favourite were in my top five, too. The other two nominees, Regina King (If Beale Street Could Talk) and Marina de Tavira (Roma) were also fine choices. Stone and Weisz, both previous Oscar winners, feel like they'll split votes (this is the perfect argument for an Ensemble Award). The nomination for de Tavira is her recognition, I don't see how she wins. King was the popular choice in the critics' polls (I don't think I saw anyone other than her winning those) but the film had a mild overall reception and personally I don't think she had enough presence in the film outside a sequence late in the 3rd act to really compare with, say, Stone or Weisz. I thought Adams was the best part of Vice (or at least, she's the part that makes the movie make sense) and I think Vice is going to be the surprise winner this evening. (My personal fave: Amy Adams (Vice)) My pick: Amy Adams (Vice)
Best Picture
From the first moment I saw it in October, A Star is Born seemed like the obvious pick for Best Picture; but it went cold in the Golden Globes and doesn't seem to have the necessary buzz about it going into voting. I dunno why, seems like everything the Oscars is looking for: a woman's story, a time-honored remake, a bold musical, loving nods to LGBT and African-American communities, star-making performance in the lead, hugely successful soundtrack, directed by a popular actor, big box office--what more does Oscar want? Throw in that there's no clear usurper and it still seems plainly obvious to me that A Star is Born will win. Black Panther was a hugely popular film very very early in the season but cooled off and this nomination feels liked a tossed bone rather than a groundswell for re-appreciation. BlackKklansman is Spike Lee's first nominee for Best Picture, but that in and of itself doesn't seem like enough to win it a lot of votes (throw in that it's actually a fairly routine cop story, albeit with some twists, and it probably isn't even Spike's 10th best movie). Bohemian Rhapsody has a built in audience due to the staggering emergence of the cult of Freddie Mercury (a Reddit invention, as near as I can tell), and was well-liked by the masses though not by the critics; this doesn't feel like a Best Picture to me (but keep an eye on the Sound categories: if it wins there that could signal a big night). Green Book was a well-crafted crowd pleaser that emerged from Toronto (if you'll recall this won the audience award rather than the bigger-hyped First Man and A Star is Born), then fell upon some criticism; the nominations represent the bounce back from potential controversy but I'm not sure there's enough support going forward to win any awards. Roma is in a tricky place: as Netflix's first big time Oscar-bait title, it has suffered from being much-admired by the handful of people that saw it on the big screen, but a bit of a snooze to those who watched on Netflix; also, being a front runner for Best Picture might undermine it's chance of winning Best Foreign (and vice versa), so outside of Cinematography, I think it gets shut out. The Favourite was my personal favorite of these nominees and while it clearly has its admirers, I don't see it beating out the more high profile films in this category. Vice is an audacious movie, an inventive and ambitious movie but while I think it wins a pile of awards, giving it the top prize might feel like some kind of affirmation of Dick Cheney. My pick: as improbable as it feels, gotta go with A Star is Born (while this may seem out of left field, I think Bohemian Rhapsody is the other one that could win)
Recap
In looking back over this past season for this post, I found myself edging away from the conventional wisdom and seeing a variety of upsets/weird choices, instead. The Critics polls and Guild Awards were all over the place suggesting no single dominant film, so I don't think Roma steamrolls the competition. I think the post-Oscar buzz is going to be about the shock of how little Roma wins but over time people will look back and see the Cinematography prize and the other nominations and think that's about right. I think Vice is the one that people want to vote for but cautiously: I have it winning Editing, Supporting Actress, Original Screenplay, Director and Makeup but not winning Best Picture or Best Actor--which seems like the obvious choice--because the technical awards suggest a level of mastery of skewering Dick Cheney, while giving it Picture or Actor would feel like an affirmation of Dick Cheney (does that make sense?). I'm using the 1950 Oscars as my model, where All the King's Men won Picture, Actor and Supporting Actress but A Letter to Three Wives won Director and Screenplay: the Academy wanted to highlight an edgy hit movie driven by great performances while acknowledging that the quiet comedy/drama was actually a better movie. Giving Best Picture--and nothing else--to A Star is Born gives the historical impression that this was the dominant film of the season and by not girding it with technical awards, makes it feel like an empty hit movie rather than a superior production. And it keeps the Academy from going too far in a political (Vice) or politically correct (Roma or Green Book) direction.
I think Vice is going to be the surprise star of the night, Roma won't get much love and A Star is Born for Best Picture will be the talk of the town (for a week or so). That said, I'm probably wrong on all this and the oddsmakers that say Roma is a shoo-in to collect all the hardware will probably be proven right. We'll see.
Random open letter to the Academy
The controversy this year (well, the most recent controversy) was about the Awards show producers trying to force a number of the winners into the commercial breaks in a futile bid to shorten the running time of the TV broadcast. Academy members reacted with fury and rightly so: the whole point of the show is to honor people, so why are you dis-honoring them?
Here's a modest solution: divide the Oscars into three shows and own the whole weekend (NFL Draft style). Most of the technical awards are handed out the night before the Oscars, so expand that first night, which is crucial to industry insiders but less attractive for a mass audience. They can go hognutty with intricate distinctions of editing, sound editing, special effects, hair/makeup, musical composition, and other technical achievements on the first night. The second night could be all about genre distinction: foreign, doc, animated, here's where you could add the obligatory highest box office award, short films and even expand out for different types of dramas, comedies, actioners, etc. Then cut the mass market show down to the bare bones: Picture, Actors, Director, Screenplays, Cinematography, Visual Effects, Costume, Score, Editing, Art Design, Sound Design, (personally I couldn't care less about Best Song, but that's probably one of the more popular awards, so it would probably stay). Then encourage the various Guilds to schedule their awards in the week before the Oscars, so that the whole week is a full-on dedication to the year's films. Let the first two Oscar nights trickle upward to create more interest in the shorter, sweeter big night. And as for host, musical numbers, opening monologue--get rid of all of that crap! The regular people back home want the red carpet pre-game show and they want the big awards--and that's it! They don't care about the difference between sound mixing and sound editing, they don't see the short films so they don't care about them, most of the foreign titles aren't available until after the Oscars and the monologue and musical numbers are more likely to be alienating than memorable. Hollywood people can give themselves a whole raft of extra awards by adding two extra ceremonies, where they'll be free to wallow around in their own self-indulgence--and it can be put on pay-per-view or at least be more impactful on blogs, podcasts and social media.
This is a win-win: the TV audience just gets the meat instead of the fat while the Hollywood crowd gets to have all the fat they want. By spreading it out, the Academy gets to do more, create more buzz, own the whole weekend (or even the whole week), and still put out a shorter more concise ceremony with better ratings, pleasing for the casual fans and the hardcore insiders at the same time. Just a thought.
(*) Fwiw, I read the description of his next film, it's 7 Men from Now, an old Bud Boetticher film. Hey, if you're gonna rip off old movies, Bergman and Boetticher are good places to start.
(**) The original A Star is Born (1937) is about a girl that wants to be a star and a guy that desperately wants to maintain the stardom he used to have before he met this girl. But in the remakes the woman has to be dragged into the spotlight while the man is rather indifferent to the stardom he has or used to have (especially the Kris Kristofferson version--I never understood anything about what that character wanted). The original is a gritty cynical movie about the fake magic of Hollywood--amazing considering how early it was in the history of Hollywood! The remakes ignore how grubby the woman's desire for stardom is and downplay the man's devastating craving to retain relevance, tending to paint the woman as lucky (instead of ambitious) and the man as merely alcoholic (instead of heartbroken). The 2018 version is awkward in that it isn't portraying the dominant cultural expression of the time--dude, if the world's greatest Southern rock guitar player walked into a Brooklyn drag bar at 2am, are we really sure that anyone would know who he was? Really? I'll buy it for the sake of the movie but I'm not sure that's true at all. To me the one really stinging criticism of A Star is Born (2018) is that stardom is a different thing in the social media world than it was in Depression-era Hollywood (1937), the early days of television (1954) or the heyday of arena rock and FM radio (1976) and this film chooses to harken back rather than portray the world as it is now. Those versions all owned the world they lived in, this one merely suggests that it is possible that these people still exist.
Thursday, February 21, 2019
2018-19 Champions League (Round of 16)
1st Leg
Manchester United 0-2 Paris Saint-Germain
1st half felt like Man U had most of the momentum, attacked hard early on, but didn't overwhelm PSG; lot of yellow cards: ref might've been a little harsh, thought it was mostly just high intensity play, nothing too malicious (though Ashley Young was lucky not to get booted on a dangerous push in the back on Di Maria). 2nd half was more of the same but a perfect touch off a corner kick by Kimpembe in the 53rd minute gave PSG an all-important road goal, then they wisely kept up the attack just missing on another corner a few minutes later. Man U needs to take back the momentum now or they're gonna get run out of the stadium. And there it is: 60th minute Mbappe finishes on the breakaway and it feels like Manchester is cooked. Outside of Pogba (even he kinda disappeared in the 2nd half) and DeGea (some really marvelous saves, though the score sheet doesn't look to be in his favor), I just don't see much in this Manchester United side; the defense is okay but attack is badly lacking, a far cry from the 1990s teams that used to rumble over people Crimson Tide-like. Considering how little attack they had, seems really weird they waited til the 85th minute to bring Lukaku off the bench (he's a guy that requires a lot of service, you really have to build your attack around him rather than just plugging him in, but in a game like this I would've gone with him from the start). Ashley Young could've been red card-ed for his hit on DiMaria, instead he gets a second yellow for...well, I never figured out what it was for but looks like he'll be out of the return match. Pogba's hit was worth a second yellow, I guess, but man Man U's gonna be pretty thin when they head to Paris.
Roma 2-1 Porto
The 1st half of this game was all Roma, they seemed more likely to score and less likely to get scored on, felt like this would be a rout. But Porto held them for 70 minutes, starting to feel like Porto would escape with a scoreless draw. But Roma finally connected, then connected again soon after and all the momentum was back and it felt like they were gonna go into the second leg with a 2-0 thumping under the belt. But Porto snuck a late goal that could be kinda huge, a road goal feels like something of a reward for that first 70 minutes of withstanding the attack. We'll see it goes back in Portugal, but here Roma was clearly the better team.
Tottenham Hotspur 3-0 Borussia Dortmund
The 1st half struck me as mild and fairly even, with Dortmund looking like probably the more complete and dangerous team. Yeah, that ended at halftime. Tottenham scored right away (lovely finish off a lovely cross after the defense pushed forward but forgot to bring the ball with them), added another not long after (another lovely finish off another lovely cross, albeit this time in traffic with actual defense), and then piled on with a seeing-eye header off a corner kick. Dortmund is capable of piling up goals at home but they don't seem capable of scoring and playing defense at the same time, meaning that Tottenham is very much in the driver's seat for the second leg.
Ajax 1-2 Real Madrid
In the 1st half I was impressed with Ajax's attack, they controlled the ball, pushed forward with abandon and really kept Real out of the action. They had a goal (nice rebound finish off a blocked corner kick) taken away by replay: I dunno, man, could've gone either way, I mean there is contact with the keeper but the keeper wasn't gonna make that save, the contact was incidental. Scoreless draw at the half. Real asserted themselves better in the 2nd half culminating in a 60th minute goal: Vinicius did some beautiful work up the sideline, beating his defender, dragging the ball through the box sculpting the defense to his liking, then laying it off to Benzema for the finish, keeper couldn't do anything. After that it felt like Real had crushed the home crowd, Ajax's superior offense went from ambitious to desperate. But in the 75th minute Ajax capitalized on a bad giveaway in the Real backfield (sneaky good finish: set up on the right foot, instead he shoots with the left back to the near post, using the keeper's momentum against him). From then on Ajax returned to their good attack, taking advantage of the fact that Real had prematurely subbed Bale and Benzema and Vinicius,really felt like they might score again. Instead it was Real that snuck the game winner on a breakaway (perfect cross, perfect finish) in the 85th. Heart breaker for Ajax, they really dominated most of this game but they couldn't get it done. Considering how lackluster their offense was this is a great result for Real, two road goals and a W sets them up very well for the 2nd leg.
Lyon 0-0 Barcelona
Gotta say: one of the more action-packed (sorta) scoreless draws I've ever seen. Thought both teams had plenty of chances of to score (especially Barca) but nobody bothered to take a good shot in the whole game. Plenty of good offense unhampered by intrusive defense but shooters somehow managed to never get a good final touch. All in all, Lyon did well to escape without any damage, though it was clear they were the second best team in this game. Telling moment: not even three minutes in, Messi got free just outside the box and the defender pulled him down without hesitation, you knew right then it was gonna be a long day for Lyon.
Liverpool 0-0 Bayern Munich
Liverpool felt like the better side throughout, really dominated the offense in the 2nd half. But they never did score leaving Bayern (who looks strangely soft this year, like the whole team has a cold) in a pretty good spot going into the next leg.
Schalke 04 2-3 Manchester City
Boy, Schalke had a brutally bad brain fart on that first MC goal: a challenge at midfield left a Schalke player down but rather than play the ball out, it drifetd all the way back to the gaolie, who made a lazy pass that got picked and converted; sucks, but the goal was legit. Schalke was able to get two PK's before halftime (the first one was a tough call, I mean clear handball but no intent and I thought minimal effect, letter of the law but not the spirit kinda call; the second one, I dunno, it just looked a pack of dudes bashing into each other, not sure how you can foul on that, but oh well), looked to be sitting pretty. But Man City was just all-around the better team, tied it up on a brilliant free kick, took the lead soon after on a perfect reaction to searching long ball, keeper was cooked. Man, you take away two penalty kicks and Schalke flat out got slaughtered in this game. Not only did the lose but they gave up 3 away goals, which is going to require a massive effort to move on. Those Bundesliga teams are not looking good: in the case of Dortmund I wasn't sure if Tottenham was the stronger side or just had a better day, Bayern was not the stronger side and did well to escape with a scoreless draw, and Schalke was not the stronger side and did not have the better day, so they're pretty much cooked.
Atletico Madrid 2-0 Juventus
Home side Atletico added two late goals to make it look like a runaway and they deserved it, they were clearly the better side. That said, it took them a long time to finally get on the board (had one taken away by replay, good call, I didn't notice that foul before the shot either), felt like Juve might steal one or at least get a reasonable result. Atletico attacked better, generally defended better and throwing a coupla late ones into the net felt like the proper result.
2nd leg predictions
PSG (*) 2-1 Man U
Porto 0-1 Roma (*)
Borussia Dortmund 2-0 Tottenham (*)
Real Madrid (*) 3-1 Ajax
Barcelona (*) 3-0 Lyon
Bayern Munich (*) 1-0 Liverpool
Man City (*) 2-1 Schalke
Juventus 2-1 Atletico Madrid (*)
Manchester United 0-2 Paris Saint-Germain
1st half felt like Man U had most of the momentum, attacked hard early on, but didn't overwhelm PSG; lot of yellow cards: ref might've been a little harsh, thought it was mostly just high intensity play, nothing too malicious (though Ashley Young was lucky not to get booted on a dangerous push in the back on Di Maria). 2nd half was more of the same but a perfect touch off a corner kick by Kimpembe in the 53rd minute gave PSG an all-important road goal, then they wisely kept up the attack just missing on another corner a few minutes later. Man U needs to take back the momentum now or they're gonna get run out of the stadium. And there it is: 60th minute Mbappe finishes on the breakaway and it feels like Manchester is cooked. Outside of Pogba (even he kinda disappeared in the 2nd half) and DeGea (some really marvelous saves, though the score sheet doesn't look to be in his favor), I just don't see much in this Manchester United side; the defense is okay but attack is badly lacking, a far cry from the 1990s teams that used to rumble over people Crimson Tide-like. Considering how little attack they had, seems really weird they waited til the 85th minute to bring Lukaku off the bench (he's a guy that requires a lot of service, you really have to build your attack around him rather than just plugging him in, but in a game like this I would've gone with him from the start). Ashley Young could've been red card-ed for his hit on DiMaria, instead he gets a second yellow for...well, I never figured out what it was for but looks like he'll be out of the return match. Pogba's hit was worth a second yellow, I guess, but man Man U's gonna be pretty thin when they head to Paris.
Roma 2-1 Porto
The 1st half of this game was all Roma, they seemed more likely to score and less likely to get scored on, felt like this would be a rout. But Porto held them for 70 minutes, starting to feel like Porto would escape with a scoreless draw. But Roma finally connected, then connected again soon after and all the momentum was back and it felt like they were gonna go into the second leg with a 2-0 thumping under the belt. But Porto snuck a late goal that could be kinda huge, a road goal feels like something of a reward for that first 70 minutes of withstanding the attack. We'll see it goes back in Portugal, but here Roma was clearly the better team.
Tottenham Hotspur 3-0 Borussia Dortmund
The 1st half struck me as mild and fairly even, with Dortmund looking like probably the more complete and dangerous team. Yeah, that ended at halftime. Tottenham scored right away (lovely finish off a lovely cross after the defense pushed forward but forgot to bring the ball with them), added another not long after (another lovely finish off another lovely cross, albeit this time in traffic with actual defense), and then piled on with a seeing-eye header off a corner kick. Dortmund is capable of piling up goals at home but they don't seem capable of scoring and playing defense at the same time, meaning that Tottenham is very much in the driver's seat for the second leg.
Ajax 1-2 Real Madrid
In the 1st half I was impressed with Ajax's attack, they controlled the ball, pushed forward with abandon and really kept Real out of the action. They had a goal (nice rebound finish off a blocked corner kick) taken away by replay: I dunno, man, could've gone either way, I mean there is contact with the keeper but the keeper wasn't gonna make that save, the contact was incidental. Scoreless draw at the half. Real asserted themselves better in the 2nd half culminating in a 60th minute goal: Vinicius did some beautiful work up the sideline, beating his defender, dragging the ball through the box sculpting the defense to his liking, then laying it off to Benzema for the finish, keeper couldn't do anything. After that it felt like Real had crushed the home crowd, Ajax's superior offense went from ambitious to desperate. But in the 75th minute Ajax capitalized on a bad giveaway in the Real backfield (sneaky good finish: set up on the right foot, instead he shoots with the left back to the near post, using the keeper's momentum against him). From then on Ajax returned to their good attack, taking advantage of the fact that Real had prematurely subbed Bale and Benzema and Vinicius,really felt like they might score again. Instead it was Real that snuck the game winner on a breakaway (perfect cross, perfect finish) in the 85th. Heart breaker for Ajax, they really dominated most of this game but they couldn't get it done. Considering how lackluster their offense was this is a great result for Real, two road goals and a W sets them up very well for the 2nd leg.
Lyon 0-0 Barcelona
Gotta say: one of the more action-packed (sorta) scoreless draws I've ever seen. Thought both teams had plenty of chances of to score (especially Barca) but nobody bothered to take a good shot in the whole game. Plenty of good offense unhampered by intrusive defense but shooters somehow managed to never get a good final touch. All in all, Lyon did well to escape without any damage, though it was clear they were the second best team in this game. Telling moment: not even three minutes in, Messi got free just outside the box and the defender pulled him down without hesitation, you knew right then it was gonna be a long day for Lyon.
Liverpool 0-0 Bayern Munich
Liverpool felt like the better side throughout, really dominated the offense in the 2nd half. But they never did score leaving Bayern (who looks strangely soft this year, like the whole team has a cold) in a pretty good spot going into the next leg.
Schalke 04 2-3 Manchester City
Boy, Schalke had a brutally bad brain fart on that first MC goal: a challenge at midfield left a Schalke player down but rather than play the ball out, it drifetd all the way back to the gaolie, who made a lazy pass that got picked and converted; sucks, but the goal was legit. Schalke was able to get two PK's before halftime (the first one was a tough call, I mean clear handball but no intent and I thought minimal effect, letter of the law but not the spirit kinda call; the second one, I dunno, it just looked a pack of dudes bashing into each other, not sure how you can foul on that, but oh well), looked to be sitting pretty. But Man City was just all-around the better team, tied it up on a brilliant free kick, took the lead soon after on a perfect reaction to searching long ball, keeper was cooked. Man, you take away two penalty kicks and Schalke flat out got slaughtered in this game. Not only did the lose but they gave up 3 away goals, which is going to require a massive effort to move on. Those Bundesliga teams are not looking good: in the case of Dortmund I wasn't sure if Tottenham was the stronger side or just had a better day, Bayern was not the stronger side and did well to escape with a scoreless draw, and Schalke was not the stronger side and did not have the better day, so they're pretty much cooked.
Atletico Madrid 2-0 Juventus
Home side Atletico added two late goals to make it look like a runaway and they deserved it, they were clearly the better side. That said, it took them a long time to finally get on the board (had one taken away by replay, good call, I didn't notice that foul before the shot either), felt like Juve might steal one or at least get a reasonable result. Atletico attacked better, generally defended better and throwing a coupla late ones into the net felt like the proper result.
2nd leg predictions
PSG (*) 2-1 Man U
Porto 0-1 Roma (*)
Borussia Dortmund 2-0 Tottenham (*)
Real Madrid (*) 3-1 Ajax
Barcelona (*) 3-0 Lyon
Bayern Munich (*) 1-0 Liverpool
Man City (*) 2-1 Schalke
Juventus 2-1 Atletico Madrid (*)
Thursday, February 14, 2019
2018-19 NBA Bric-a-brac (Week 17)
Waivings
Mitch Creek (Nets), Shelvin Mack (Hawks), Zach Randolph (Mavs), Wade Baldwin (Pacers), Nik Stauskus (Pacers), Michael Beasley (Clippers), Henry Ellenson (Pistons), Alex Abrines (Thunder), John Jenkins (Wizards), Jeremy Lin (Hawks)
Kinda thought the Nets were high on Creek; wouldn't be surprised if he turns up on their Summer League team.
From the roster moves they made, I kinda thought the Hawks were going to keep Mack but I guess not.
Thought the Mavs might hold on to Zeebo for the end of the year. I reckon that's the last we'll see of him in this league. Dude had some really good years, especially with the grit-and-grind Grizzlies, he and Gasol were a fierce tandem for a while. Probably not a Hall of Famer but a really good player for a long time.
Baldwin is probably done in the NBA, I liked his chances coming out of NCAA, especially with the guard-poor Grizzlies but he just never caught on, I guess. He's still young enough to be back for Summer League but hard to imagine him on a roster next season.
Stauskus is one of those guys that's pretty effective in int'l play but never could carve out a space for himself in the league (a la JJ Reddick). He was drafted too high, boosted his paycheck but also warped the expectations. I can see him hanging around another year or two, he's not quite done.
Beasley just seems like a Detroit Piston, right? He can still be a useful vet for a team ready to make a late season push (but not a team that already has its ducks in a row).
Ellenson was a good looking prospect in his Team USA days but never made the leap to bigtime basketball. Now he's just another reminder of how awful Stan Van Gundy was at the draft.
I dunno what's up with Abrines, that was a weird story. He disappeared from the team for some kind of 'personal issue' that eventually led both sides to agree that waiving was the best option. Abrines is a nice 2nd string combo guard, definitely good enough to be in the league but not a big star by any measure, don't know if we'll learn what happened here, wouldn't be surprised to see him back next year or to see him return to Europe. Don't know.
I remember Jenkins at Vandy, nice player, don't remember him at all as a pro, no idea if he'll be back.
Lin is still a really good 2nd string PG and can be really helpful to good team (like, say, the Raptors).
Signings (for rest of the year)
Wayne Ellington (Pistons), Salah Mejri (Mavs), Wesley Matthews (Pacers), Nik Stauskus (Cavs), Enes Kanter (Blazers), Jeremy Lin (Raptors),
Yup, that's what the Pistons have needed all along: Wayne Ellington. Go ahead and pencil them into the playoffs, boys!
Mejri was waived and then immediately brought back--which I didn't think was legal. I'd be surprised to see him back next year, this summer will likely bring a major housecleaning in Dallas.
Matthews was having a nice year, he can give the Pacers some good perimeter defense. Don't forget: even without Oladipo, the Pacers are going to the playoffs, so they need to be ready for the long haul even if their chances of success have been massively curtailed. Matthews got run out of Dallas for roster manipulations, not because he's washed up, he's a good fit the Pacers.
The Cavs needed to get younger, cheaper and less burdened for the future and a 3 month rental of Stauskus (in place of the long-term money they were giving Kyle Korver) does all of that. The roster is so thin I expect Stauskus to play and if he's good, might even get a 1-year offer this summer.
Kanter should give the Blazers what they've been missing since Ed Davis bolted last summer: good around the basket, good offense to go with the attacking guards, good rebounder off the bench, etc. Personally, I still like Kanter in the right situation and this one seems pretty good.
The Raptors are built on their superior 2nd string and adding Lin is a great move for them (especially after losing Wright and Miles), I think he can play with or without Van Vleet.
Signings (multi-year deals)
Chris Boucher (Raptors), Malcolm Miller (Raptors), Edmund Sumner (Pacers), Bruno Caboclo (Grizzlies)
These moves are likely roster manipulations, though Caboclo looks to get serious minutes for the thin-rostered Grizzlies.
Signings (10 Day Contracts)
Corey Brewer (Kings), Isaiah Canaan (Wolves), John Jenkins (Knicks)
Brewer had moments with the Sixers, thought they'd keep him but they made moves to shore up the bench instead (Ennis, Scott, Boban, etc), leaving no room for him. I reckon he'll play some with the Kings, wouldn't be surprised to see them sign him for the rest of the season.
Canaan and Jenkins are reliable human beings that can fill out a roster, show up to practice, pack bags for road trips and collect paychecks--hey, the NBA needs a coupla dozen of those guys on call at all times. I doubt there's much playing time for either of them.
Claimed off waivers
Shelvin Mack (Hornets)
Haven't seen any word that the Hornets have signed Mack but they do control his rights for now.
Injuries
Fred Van Vleet (Raptors)
Van Vleet looks to be out for 3-4 weeks with a thumb injury. Looks like Jeremy Lin will be picking up those minutes.
Isiah Thomas (Nuggets)
Made his season debut the other day. Will his return be a boon or an albatross for the Nuggets rotation? The answer to that will tell you how far the Nuggets get in the post-season (and how ugly it looks when they finally bow out). The Nuggets already have a deep rotation of wing-scorers and playmakers, if Thomas is getting more than 10 minutes a game it'll be because he's his old unstoppable self.
Mitch Creek (Nets), Shelvin Mack (Hawks), Zach Randolph (Mavs), Wade Baldwin (Pacers), Nik Stauskus (Pacers), Michael Beasley (Clippers), Henry Ellenson (Pistons), Alex Abrines (Thunder), John Jenkins (Wizards), Jeremy Lin (Hawks)
Kinda thought the Nets were high on Creek; wouldn't be surprised if he turns up on their Summer League team.
From the roster moves they made, I kinda thought the Hawks were going to keep Mack but I guess not.
Thought the Mavs might hold on to Zeebo for the end of the year. I reckon that's the last we'll see of him in this league. Dude had some really good years, especially with the grit-and-grind Grizzlies, he and Gasol were a fierce tandem for a while. Probably not a Hall of Famer but a really good player for a long time.
Baldwin is probably done in the NBA, I liked his chances coming out of NCAA, especially with the guard-poor Grizzlies but he just never caught on, I guess. He's still young enough to be back for Summer League but hard to imagine him on a roster next season.
Stauskus is one of those guys that's pretty effective in int'l play but never could carve out a space for himself in the league (a la JJ Reddick). He was drafted too high, boosted his paycheck but also warped the expectations. I can see him hanging around another year or two, he's not quite done.
Beasley just seems like a Detroit Piston, right? He can still be a useful vet for a team ready to make a late season push (but not a team that already has its ducks in a row).
Ellenson was a good looking prospect in his Team USA days but never made the leap to bigtime basketball. Now he's just another reminder of how awful Stan Van Gundy was at the draft.
I dunno what's up with Abrines, that was a weird story. He disappeared from the team for some kind of 'personal issue' that eventually led both sides to agree that waiving was the best option. Abrines is a nice 2nd string combo guard, definitely good enough to be in the league but not a big star by any measure, don't know if we'll learn what happened here, wouldn't be surprised to see him back next year or to see him return to Europe. Don't know.
I remember Jenkins at Vandy, nice player, don't remember him at all as a pro, no idea if he'll be back.
Lin is still a really good 2nd string PG and can be really helpful to good team (like, say, the Raptors).
Signings (for rest of the year)
Wayne Ellington (Pistons), Salah Mejri (Mavs), Wesley Matthews (Pacers), Nik Stauskus (Cavs), Enes Kanter (Blazers), Jeremy Lin (Raptors),
Yup, that's what the Pistons have needed all along: Wayne Ellington. Go ahead and pencil them into the playoffs, boys!
Mejri was waived and then immediately brought back--which I didn't think was legal. I'd be surprised to see him back next year, this summer will likely bring a major housecleaning in Dallas.
Matthews was having a nice year, he can give the Pacers some good perimeter defense. Don't forget: even without Oladipo, the Pacers are going to the playoffs, so they need to be ready for the long haul even if their chances of success have been massively curtailed. Matthews got run out of Dallas for roster manipulations, not because he's washed up, he's a good fit the Pacers.
The Cavs needed to get younger, cheaper and less burdened for the future and a 3 month rental of Stauskus (in place of the long-term money they were giving Kyle Korver) does all of that. The roster is so thin I expect Stauskus to play and if he's good, might even get a 1-year offer this summer.
Kanter should give the Blazers what they've been missing since Ed Davis bolted last summer: good around the basket, good offense to go with the attacking guards, good rebounder off the bench, etc. Personally, I still like Kanter in the right situation and this one seems pretty good.
The Raptors are built on their superior 2nd string and adding Lin is a great move for them (especially after losing Wright and Miles), I think he can play with or without Van Vleet.
Signings (multi-year deals)
Chris Boucher (Raptors), Malcolm Miller (Raptors), Edmund Sumner (Pacers), Bruno Caboclo (Grizzlies)
These moves are likely roster manipulations, though Caboclo looks to get serious minutes for the thin-rostered Grizzlies.
Signings (10 Day Contracts)
Corey Brewer (Kings), Isaiah Canaan (Wolves), John Jenkins (Knicks)
Brewer had moments with the Sixers, thought they'd keep him but they made moves to shore up the bench instead (Ennis, Scott, Boban, etc), leaving no room for him. I reckon he'll play some with the Kings, wouldn't be surprised to see them sign him for the rest of the season.
Canaan and Jenkins are reliable human beings that can fill out a roster, show up to practice, pack bags for road trips and collect paychecks--hey, the NBA needs a coupla dozen of those guys on call at all times. I doubt there's much playing time for either of them.
Claimed off waivers
Shelvin Mack (Hornets)
Haven't seen any word that the Hornets have signed Mack but they do control his rights for now.
Injuries
Fred Van Vleet (Raptors)
Van Vleet looks to be out for 3-4 weeks with a thumb injury. Looks like Jeremy Lin will be picking up those minutes.
Isiah Thomas (Nuggets)
Made his season debut the other day. Will his return be a boon or an albatross for the Nuggets rotation? The answer to that will tell you how far the Nuggets get in the post-season (and how ugly it looks when they finally bow out). The Nuggets already have a deep rotation of wing-scorers and playmakers, if Thomas is getting more than 10 minutes a game it'll be because he's his old unstoppable self.
Tuesday, February 12, 2019
2018-19 Super Bowl
Pats 13-3 Rams
This will be remembered as the Super Bowl where nothing happened. The Pats moved the ball reasonably well but outside of their single late TD drive, they always managed to sputter. The Rams, on the other hand, never got any offense going at all. Brady and Goff's stats were eeirly similar considering that Brady kinda moved the ball whereas Goff went 3-and-out on virtually every drive. Belichik and Brady win another one, the torch has yet to be passed.
The fact that people were bored by spectacular defense calls attention to a weird anomaly of seeing football on TV: in football watching the ball means you miss the entire defense, you literally only get half the game. In basketball and hockey, you can generally see all the players at any given moment; in baseball and soccer, there's pretty much nothing to see away from the ball. But in football there's a lot of action the TV audience never gets to see. Really all you ever get to see is the QB, another factor in the QB being the most famous, highest paid player on each team. Yeah, this game was so unmemorable that pointless observations like this were more interesting to me that revisiting the game itself. I admire good defense, but football without offense gives the viewer a lot of time to kill.
The Pats are in that year-to-year mode and looking over that AFC East, unless there's big leaps forward by Josh Allen (I suppose it's possible) or Sam Darnold (doubt it, NYJ are born to suck), I gotta give the Pats at least one more year in the playoffs with a good shot at a bye in the first round. As for the Rams, there's more competition in the NFC and still a decent chance that Jimmy G and the Niners make a push and the Seahawks are still hanging around; Goff looked shaky in the last two games and Sean McVey is not quite right to put the other coaches out to pasture, but I like the Rams to be a factor in the post-season next year.
*sigh* I miss football.
This will be remembered as the Super Bowl where nothing happened. The Pats moved the ball reasonably well but outside of their single late TD drive, they always managed to sputter. The Rams, on the other hand, never got any offense going at all. Brady and Goff's stats were eeirly similar considering that Brady kinda moved the ball whereas Goff went 3-and-out on virtually every drive. Belichik and Brady win another one, the torch has yet to be passed.
The fact that people were bored by spectacular defense calls attention to a weird anomaly of seeing football on TV: in football watching the ball means you miss the entire defense, you literally only get half the game. In basketball and hockey, you can generally see all the players at any given moment; in baseball and soccer, there's pretty much nothing to see away from the ball. But in football there's a lot of action the TV audience never gets to see. Really all you ever get to see is the QB, another factor in the QB being the most famous, highest paid player on each team. Yeah, this game was so unmemorable that pointless observations like this were more interesting to me that revisiting the game itself. I admire good defense, but football without offense gives the viewer a lot of time to kill.
The Pats are in that year-to-year mode and looking over that AFC East, unless there's big leaps forward by Josh Allen (I suppose it's possible) or Sam Darnold (doubt it, NYJ are born to suck), I gotta give the Pats at least one more year in the playoffs with a good shot at a bye in the first round. As for the Rams, there's more competition in the NFC and still a decent chance that Jimmy G and the Niners make a push and the Seahawks are still hanging around; Goff looked shaky in the last two games and Sean McVey is not quite right to put the other coaches out to pasture, but I like the Rams to be a factor in the post-season next year.
*sigh* I miss football.
Friday, February 8, 2019
2018-19 NBA Trade Deadline (Teams)
Raptors
(In) Marc Gasol
(Out) CJ Miles, Jonas Valanciunas, Delon Wright, Greg Monroe, Malachi Richardson, 2021 2nd rd pick, 2024 2nd rd pick, the rights to Emir Preldzic
I dunno, man, does this really make them better? Yes, one great player is generally an upgrade on 3-4 rotation guys but the Raptors are kinda based on their superior 2nd string and at this point in the season it'll take a while to re-mold the 1st string to where they want to be, so when does this new look start to produce dividends? Hopefully by round one of the playoffs, I guess. I like Gasol and he does give them more dynamism down low than the underappreciated Valanciunas but I don't see these moves as necessary: it doesn't make re-signing Kawhi any easier this summer, unless Gasol opts out, so this new look is guaranteed not to last. They'll still need to add to the roster, too, so are they looking at, say, Markieff Morris?
Celtics
(Out) Jabari Bird
They stayed notably silent during the deadline. But moving on from Bird (whom they probably should've moved on from months ago), does give them room for a buy-out signing. So are they into Enes Kanter (good around the rim to go with their attacking guards)? Or Markieff Morris (is reuniting the twins a good thing or a disaster waiting to happen?)? Or Wesley Matthews (a little defensive toughness on the wing)? I dunno, but they've still got at least one more move to make.
Sixers
(In) Tobias Harris, Boban Marjanovic, Mike Scott, Jonathon Simmons, James Ennis, Thunder 2019 1st rd pick, 2019 2nd rd pick, 2022 2nd rd pick
(Out) Markelle Fultz, Landry Shamet, Wilson Chandler, Mike Muscala, Corey Brewer, Sixers 2020 1st rd pick (Top 14 protected), Heat 2021 1st rd pick, 2021 2nd rd pick (Rockets get 2021 2nd rd pick swap), Pistons 2022 2nd rd pick, Pistons 2023 2nd rd pick
Okay, this is the culmination of the process. Since they were shamed into firing Sam Hinkie, the Sixers have dealt away pretty much every bauble and bead that he amassed for them. And now, for better or worse, they have their team going forward: Simmons, Embiid, Butler, and Tobias Harris. Is that gonna work? Well, I guess we've got the rest of this season to find out. But for now they also have Mike Scott (feisty), James Ennis (good defender), Jonathon Simmons (could be really great off the bench) and Boban (always a crowd favorite) to thicken that bench. Still not sure this puts them ahead of the Raptors or Celtics but sure gives them a lot of bodies to throw at Giannis, right? This is a weird collection of talent, should be fun to watch for the rest of the season. (Still good enough next year? I'm dubious: the talent was already there last year and didn't win, this just looks like a really expensive train wreck to me; still don't think they're better than the Celtics going forward)
Nets
(In) 2021 2nd rd pick
They waived Greg Monroe, but why? They got something better on the roster? I guess it doesn't matter, just feels like they could've gotten minutes out of him.
Knicks
(In) DeAndre Jordan, Dennis Smith Jr. Mavs 2021 1st rd pick (top 10 protected), Mavs 2023 1st rd pick (top 10 protected)
(Out) Kristaps Porzingis, Trey Burke, Tim Hardaway Jr, Courtney Lee, Enes Kanter
This was all a prelude to July 1, 2019. If they end up with Durant, Kyrie and Zion, this will look brilliant. If not....oh well, they're the Knicks so it kinda doesn't matter.
Bucks
(In) Nikola Mirotic
(Out) Thon Maker
They moved on from an interesting project to a guy that can actually get buckets from the wing. Definitely helps them now. Not a huge upgrade but the Bucks are a more complete team without enduring much drama. Definitely one of the winner of this year's deadline.
Pacers
(In) Wade Baldwin, Nik Stauskus, 2021 2nd rd pick (*)
(Out) Ike Anigbogu, cash
They ended up with the much-coveted Baldwin and Stauskus, we'll see if that upgrades their bench. They're definitely not a contender without Oladipo, but they should still make the post-season, still a sizable lead on the Hornets/Heat/Pistons, so these moves are meant to keep the squad afloat without interrupting the off-season (when they're gonna have a shocking amount of money to spend) and, man, doesn't Tobias Harris seem like the perfect fit for them?
Pistons
(In) Thon Maker, Sviatoslav Mykhailiuk, 2021 2nd rd pick
(Out) Stanley Johnson, Reggie Bullock, 2019 2nd rd pick, two 2020 2nd rd picks, 2021 2d rd pick
Oy! These moves don't make them better now or later. Maker and Sy are two still interesting youngsters and that's better than the two vets they let go, but not necessarily worth giving up a boatload of 2nd rd picks. Gotta look busy, I guess.
Bulls
(In) Otto Porter, Timothy Luwawu-Cabarrot
(Out) Jabari Parker, Bobby Portis, 2023 2nd rd pick, 2020 2nd rd pick
They saw enough of Parker to know he wasn't the guy and, though I'm not a huge fan of Porter, he is an upgrade on Portis and worth building around, I suppose. Still time to see if Luwawu can be something in this league (never got a chance in Philly or OKC, but he should play in Chicago). I dunno, this is some deckchair shuffling right here: is the Porter-LaVine-Markkenen line scaring anyone in the East?
Cavs
(In) Marquesse Chriss, Brandon Knight, 2019 1st rd pick, 2022 2nd rd pick, 2021 2nd rd pick, 2023 2nd rd pick
Hornets
(None)
They were in on the Marc Gasol talk but none of it came to pass. Oh well, it'll be another year or two of salary cap hell before they can make any worthwhile moves. (Strange that Michael Jordan would overpay so many mediocre players, I figured he'd be a skinflint kinda GM, an 'ain't nobody worth that kinda money' kinda GM, instead he's flinging cash at a roster that isn't even guaranteed a playoff spot in the East)
Heat
(In) Ryan Anderson
(Out) Wayne Ellington, Tyler Johnson
This hardly solves Miami's problems. Not at all, in fact. Another year or two of overpriced mediocrity there.
Magic
(In) Markelle Fultz
(Out) Jonathon Simmons, 2019 1st rd pick, 2019 2nd rd pick
If Fultz finds his game, this will be more than worth it. Fultz still has a chance to be a difference-maker in the NBA, which is more than can be said for Simmons or that 2019 pick, so it's worth taking a flyer. If it doesn't work out, oh well, it's Orlando, it don't matter.
Wizards
(In) Jabari Parker, Bobby Portis, Wesley Johnson, 2023 2nd rd pick
(Out) Markieff Morris, Otto Porter, 2023 2nd rd pick,
Well they moved off Porter's money, next year they'll be able to stretch Mahinmi, cut Parker and then...oh wait, they'll still be brutally expensive and have no one on the roster (how can you be too expensive and have an empty cupboard?!?!). I dunno, man, I'm not seeing how this move really upgrades anything for the Wizards, at least Porter and Markieff could play.
Hawks
(In) Shelvin Mack
(Out) Tyler Dorsey, 2nd rd pick (top 55 protected)
Hawks bring back a reliable 2nd string PG and move on from a youngster who seem to decline in every stat after his rookie year. Minimal move but doesn't look like a bad one if they weren't feeling good about Dorsey's chances to develop. (Did they waive Mack?) I like what the Hawks got going, I would suggest laying low this summer (how about taking a run at Jonas Jerebko?), bringing in two more 1st rounders, then aiming for summer 2020 to make splashy move in free agency.
Nuggets
(none)
They got a good squad and they know it, no need to upset the locker room with needless drama. Wise move for a solid young team.
Thunder
(In) 2nd rd pick (top 55 protected)
(Out) Timothy Luwawu-Cabarrot
Moved on from TLC to clear up a roster spot for...they interested in bringing Kanter back? Surely they're not interested in bringing Melo back!
Blazers
(In) Rodney Hood, Skal Labissiere
(Out) Wade Baldwin, Nik Stauskus, Caleb Swanigan, 2021 2nd rd pick, 2023 2nd rd pick
Hood gives them a little pep off the bench, more so than Baldwin (they don't really need another ball handler anyway) or Stauskus (the poor man's JJ Reddick that never even became that good). In NCAA I really liked Swanigan's smarts (but not that non-athlete body), while I found Skal's game to be quite a bit less than advertised (#1 prospect out of high school??!? #1? No way, man, he struggled to get 10MPG at Kentucky, not worthy of a 1st round pick), he can run the floor and give you some minute each night. None of these moves are big winners for the Blazers but I guess they provide a little bit more depth.
Jazz
(none)
I'm sure they've got their eye on the waiver wire: Markieff Morris? Can they use Marcin Gortat?
Wolves
(none)
Hmmm, they've had enough drama this year, I reckon. Just mellow this season on down, get it back together in the summer.
Warriors
(none)
Moves made: zero. Moves needed: zero.
Clippers
(In) Wilson Chandler, Landry Shamet, JaMychel Green, Garrett Temple, Micheal Beasley, Ivica Zubac, Sixers 2020 1st rd pick (Top 14 protected), Heat 2021 1st rd pick (unprotected!!!), Pistons 2022 2nd rd pick, Pistons 2023 2nd rd pick
(Out) Tobias Harris, Boban Marjanovic, Mike Scott, Avery Bradley, Marcin Gortat, Milos Teodosic,
Dang, for all the talk about the new-look Sixers, it is the Clippers that most drastically remade their roster. To get two 1st rd picks (the 2021 Heat unprotected pick is arguably the most important piece of this entire deadline), two 2nd rd picks, Landry Shamet and Zubac (I'd keep him) to swap out a ton of dead money is really really really good stuff for the Clippers--way better than what the Knicks accomplished and they didn't have to give up Kristap Porzingis! I think the Clippers had the best trade deadline of anybody: doesn't make them better this year but gives them a lot of room to maneuver in the summer (and next summer!). A+!
Kings
(In) Harrison Barnes, Caleb Swanigan
(Out) Justin Jackson, Zach Randolph, Skal Labissiere, Ben McLemore
I like Barnes, I think he can be a nice addition for the Kings. And Swanigan makes them a little smarter, too. I kinda like these moves together: an active vet and a smart young bench guy to replace an aging vet and some young pieces that weren't gonna pan out. Subtle moves but good ones for the Kings.
Lakers
(In) Reggie Bullock, Mike Muscala,
(Out) Sviatoslav Mykhailiuk, Michael Beasley, Ivica Zubac, 2021 2nd rd pick
All that talk about Anthony Davis....and they ended up with nothing at the deadline. I like Bullock as much as the next guy but I'm not convinced he was wildly better than Mykhailiuk, why not just go for youthful exuberance instead of a mediocre vet (Lebron is just gonna grind down whoever is there anyway). And what was the upside of Muscala instead of just holding onto Zubac? Yeah, he's a raw but I kinda like Zubac (more than Muscala anyway). And if they needed to dump Beasley, why not just waive him? The Lakers are stupid rich and just keep thinking they'll buy their way out of problems instead of just learning how to do it right. Not a fan of any of these moves--their attempts to hijack the Pelicans were laughable and rude and killed their chances to make worthwhile moves at the deadline. Ha!
Suns
(In) Tyler Johnson
(Out) Ryan Anderson
One overexpensive baller for another. Not even sure that Johnson is a better fit than Anderson anyway. I don't get it.
Rockets
(In) Iman Shumpert, Sixers 2021 2nd rd pick (Rockets get 2021 2nd rd pick swap)
(Out) James Ennis, Marquesse Chriss, Brandon Knight, 2019 1st rd pick, 2020 2nd rd pick
Am I looking at this right? What did the Rockets get? They basically swapped Ennis for Shumpert (not a terrible move but not a clearly good one either) and dumped salary and picks. I guess its okay since they don't care about the draft but this doesn't do much for me.
Spurs
(none)
Any interest in Teodosic or Anigbogu or Brewer or Monroe? Didn't really need to make moves, they are what they are, they just need health and a little depth. (What is they nabbed Melo? Either a sneaky brilliant move or it would end up giving Popovic a stroke)
Mavs
(In) Kristaps Prozingis, Tim Hardaway Jr, Trey Burke, Courtney Lee, Zach Randolph, Justin Jackson
(Out) Harrison Barnes, Dennis Smith Jr, Wesley Matthews, DeAndre Jordan, Salah Mehri, 2021 1st rd pick, 2023 1st rd pick
Doesn't help them now but great move for next year. (I'd play Justin Jackson as much as possible down the stretch, see if he's worth keeping)
Pelicans
(In) Stanley Johnson, Jason Smith, 2019 2nd rd pick, two 2020 2nd rd picks, 2021 2d rd pick
(Out) Nikola Mirotic, Wesley Johnson
(Why did they cut Markieff Morris? Do they have something better there that I don't see?) I dunno, a pile of 2nd rd picks for Mirotic? Feels like they could've done better. The Pelicans are all about Anthony Davis, so these moves don't matter but still, could've done better.
Grizzlies
(In) CJ Miles, Jonas Valanciunas, Delon Wright, Avery Bradley, Tyler Dorsey, 2024 2nd rd pick
(Out) Marc Gasol, JaMychel Green, Garrett Temple, Shelvin Mack
This summer they stretch that horrendous Chandler Parsons contract, cast off Bradley and Valanciunas and I guess they're back in business with Conley and Jaren Jackson and a top 10 pick. Ehhh, that's the dream anyway. They didn't really get much younger in any of these deals, did they? Only slightly less expensive (but then it costs them they're favorite son and all that 'loyalty' that everyone seems to admire), I don't feel like these were the home run moves the Grizzlies needed.
(*) Check out Marty Leeunen's career stats, they're fascinating.
(In) Marc Gasol
(Out) CJ Miles, Jonas Valanciunas, Delon Wright, Greg Monroe, Malachi Richardson, 2021 2nd rd pick, 2024 2nd rd pick, the rights to Emir Preldzic
I dunno, man, does this really make them better? Yes, one great player is generally an upgrade on 3-4 rotation guys but the Raptors are kinda based on their superior 2nd string and at this point in the season it'll take a while to re-mold the 1st string to where they want to be, so when does this new look start to produce dividends? Hopefully by round one of the playoffs, I guess. I like Gasol and he does give them more dynamism down low than the underappreciated Valanciunas but I don't see these moves as necessary: it doesn't make re-signing Kawhi any easier this summer, unless Gasol opts out, so this new look is guaranteed not to last. They'll still need to add to the roster, too, so are they looking at, say, Markieff Morris?
Celtics
(Out) Jabari Bird
They stayed notably silent during the deadline. But moving on from Bird (whom they probably should've moved on from months ago), does give them room for a buy-out signing. So are they into Enes Kanter (good around the rim to go with their attacking guards)? Or Markieff Morris (is reuniting the twins a good thing or a disaster waiting to happen?)? Or Wesley Matthews (a little defensive toughness on the wing)? I dunno, but they've still got at least one more move to make.
Sixers
(In) Tobias Harris, Boban Marjanovic, Mike Scott, Jonathon Simmons, James Ennis, Thunder 2019 1st rd pick, 2019 2nd rd pick, 2022 2nd rd pick
(Out) Markelle Fultz, Landry Shamet, Wilson Chandler, Mike Muscala, Corey Brewer, Sixers 2020 1st rd pick (Top 14 protected), Heat 2021 1st rd pick, 2021 2nd rd pick (Rockets get 2021 2nd rd pick swap), Pistons 2022 2nd rd pick, Pistons 2023 2nd rd pick
Okay, this is the culmination of the process. Since they were shamed into firing Sam Hinkie, the Sixers have dealt away pretty much every bauble and bead that he amassed for them. And now, for better or worse, they have their team going forward: Simmons, Embiid, Butler, and Tobias Harris. Is that gonna work? Well, I guess we've got the rest of this season to find out. But for now they also have Mike Scott (feisty), James Ennis (good defender), Jonathon Simmons (could be really great off the bench) and Boban (always a crowd favorite) to thicken that bench. Still not sure this puts them ahead of the Raptors or Celtics but sure gives them a lot of bodies to throw at Giannis, right? This is a weird collection of talent, should be fun to watch for the rest of the season. (Still good enough next year? I'm dubious: the talent was already there last year and didn't win, this just looks like a really expensive train wreck to me; still don't think they're better than the Celtics going forward)
Nets
(In) 2021 2nd rd pick
They waived Greg Monroe, but why? They got something better on the roster? I guess it doesn't matter, just feels like they could've gotten minutes out of him.
Knicks
(In) DeAndre Jordan, Dennis Smith Jr. Mavs 2021 1st rd pick (top 10 protected), Mavs 2023 1st rd pick (top 10 protected)
(Out) Kristaps Porzingis, Trey Burke, Tim Hardaway Jr, Courtney Lee, Enes Kanter
This was all a prelude to July 1, 2019. If they end up with Durant, Kyrie and Zion, this will look brilliant. If not....oh well, they're the Knicks so it kinda doesn't matter.
Bucks
(In) Nikola Mirotic
(Out) Thon Maker
They moved on from an interesting project to a guy that can actually get buckets from the wing. Definitely helps them now. Not a huge upgrade but the Bucks are a more complete team without enduring much drama. Definitely one of the winner of this year's deadline.
Pacers
(In) Wade Baldwin, Nik Stauskus, 2021 2nd rd pick (*)
(Out) Ike Anigbogu, cash
They ended up with the much-coveted Baldwin and Stauskus, we'll see if that upgrades their bench. They're definitely not a contender without Oladipo, but they should still make the post-season, still a sizable lead on the Hornets/Heat/Pistons, so these moves are meant to keep the squad afloat without interrupting the off-season (when they're gonna have a shocking amount of money to spend) and, man, doesn't Tobias Harris seem like the perfect fit for them?
Pistons
(In) Thon Maker, Sviatoslav Mykhailiuk, 2021 2nd rd pick
(Out) Stanley Johnson, Reggie Bullock, 2019 2nd rd pick, two 2020 2nd rd picks, 2021 2d rd pick
Oy! These moves don't make them better now or later. Maker and Sy are two still interesting youngsters and that's better than the two vets they let go, but not necessarily worth giving up a boatload of 2nd rd picks. Gotta look busy, I guess.
Bulls
(In) Otto Porter, Timothy Luwawu-Cabarrot
(Out) Jabari Parker, Bobby Portis, 2023 2nd rd pick, 2020 2nd rd pick
They saw enough of Parker to know he wasn't the guy and, though I'm not a huge fan of Porter, he is an upgrade on Portis and worth building around, I suppose. Still time to see if Luwawu can be something in this league (never got a chance in Philly or OKC, but he should play in Chicago). I dunno, this is some deckchair shuffling right here: is the Porter-LaVine-Markkenen line scaring anyone in the East?
Cavs
(In) Marquesse Chriss, Brandon Knight, 2019 1st rd pick, 2022 2nd rd pick, 2021 2nd rd pick, 2023 2nd rd pick
(Out) Rodney Hood, Alec Burks, Kobi Simmons, 2021 2nd rd pick
Yeah, not sure I see the upside of these moves. They bring in a pile of draft picks (fool's gold if you don't know how to value them) for more salary. I don't see how this helps them now or going forward. Knight could give them minutes and Chriss is still young enough to look at but they don't help the Cavs next year. (And any trade deadline that goes by without getting rid of JR Smith is a thumbs down for the Cavs)Hornets
(None)
They were in on the Marc Gasol talk but none of it came to pass. Oh well, it'll be another year or two of salary cap hell before they can make any worthwhile moves. (Strange that Michael Jordan would overpay so many mediocre players, I figured he'd be a skinflint kinda GM, an 'ain't nobody worth that kinda money' kinda GM, instead he's flinging cash at a roster that isn't even guaranteed a playoff spot in the East)
Heat
(In) Ryan Anderson
(Out) Wayne Ellington, Tyler Johnson
This hardly solves Miami's problems. Not at all, in fact. Another year or two of overpriced mediocrity there.
Magic
(In) Markelle Fultz
(Out) Jonathon Simmons, 2019 1st rd pick, 2019 2nd rd pick
If Fultz finds his game, this will be more than worth it. Fultz still has a chance to be a difference-maker in the NBA, which is more than can be said for Simmons or that 2019 pick, so it's worth taking a flyer. If it doesn't work out, oh well, it's Orlando, it don't matter.
Wizards
(In) Jabari Parker, Bobby Portis, Wesley Johnson, 2023 2nd rd pick
(Out) Markieff Morris, Otto Porter, 2023 2nd rd pick,
Well they moved off Porter's money, next year they'll be able to stretch Mahinmi, cut Parker and then...oh wait, they'll still be brutally expensive and have no one on the roster (how can you be too expensive and have an empty cupboard?!?!). I dunno, man, I'm not seeing how this move really upgrades anything for the Wizards, at least Porter and Markieff could play.
Hawks
(In) Shelvin Mack
(Out) Tyler Dorsey, 2nd rd pick (top 55 protected)
Hawks bring back a reliable 2nd string PG and move on from a youngster who seem to decline in every stat after his rookie year. Minimal move but doesn't look like a bad one if they weren't feeling good about Dorsey's chances to develop. (Did they waive Mack?) I like what the Hawks got going, I would suggest laying low this summer (how about taking a run at Jonas Jerebko?), bringing in two more 1st rounders, then aiming for summer 2020 to make splashy move in free agency.
Nuggets
(none)
They got a good squad and they know it, no need to upset the locker room with needless drama. Wise move for a solid young team.
Thunder
(In) 2nd rd pick (top 55 protected)
(Out) Timothy Luwawu-Cabarrot
Moved on from TLC to clear up a roster spot for...they interested in bringing Kanter back? Surely they're not interested in bringing Melo back!
Blazers
(In) Rodney Hood, Skal Labissiere
(Out) Wade Baldwin, Nik Stauskus, Caleb Swanigan, 2021 2nd rd pick, 2023 2nd rd pick
Hood gives them a little pep off the bench, more so than Baldwin (they don't really need another ball handler anyway) or Stauskus (the poor man's JJ Reddick that never even became that good). In NCAA I really liked Swanigan's smarts (but not that non-athlete body), while I found Skal's game to be quite a bit less than advertised (#1 prospect out of high school??!? #1? No way, man, he struggled to get 10MPG at Kentucky, not worthy of a 1st round pick), he can run the floor and give you some minute each night. None of these moves are big winners for the Blazers but I guess they provide a little bit more depth.
Jazz
(none)
I'm sure they've got their eye on the waiver wire: Markieff Morris? Can they use Marcin Gortat?
Wolves
(none)
Hmmm, they've had enough drama this year, I reckon. Just mellow this season on down, get it back together in the summer.
Warriors
(none)
Moves made: zero. Moves needed: zero.
Clippers
(In) Wilson Chandler, Landry Shamet, JaMychel Green, Garrett Temple, Micheal Beasley, Ivica Zubac, Sixers 2020 1st rd pick (Top 14 protected), Heat 2021 1st rd pick (unprotected!!!), Pistons 2022 2nd rd pick, Pistons 2023 2nd rd pick
(Out) Tobias Harris, Boban Marjanovic, Mike Scott, Avery Bradley, Marcin Gortat, Milos Teodosic,
Dang, for all the talk about the new-look Sixers, it is the Clippers that most drastically remade their roster. To get two 1st rd picks (the 2021 Heat unprotected pick is arguably the most important piece of this entire deadline), two 2nd rd picks, Landry Shamet and Zubac (I'd keep him) to swap out a ton of dead money is really really really good stuff for the Clippers--way better than what the Knicks accomplished and they didn't have to give up Kristap Porzingis! I think the Clippers had the best trade deadline of anybody: doesn't make them better this year but gives them a lot of room to maneuver in the summer (and next summer!). A+!
Kings
(In) Harrison Barnes, Caleb Swanigan
(Out) Justin Jackson, Zach Randolph, Skal Labissiere, Ben McLemore
I like Barnes, I think he can be a nice addition for the Kings. And Swanigan makes them a little smarter, too. I kinda like these moves together: an active vet and a smart young bench guy to replace an aging vet and some young pieces that weren't gonna pan out. Subtle moves but good ones for the Kings.
Lakers
(In) Reggie Bullock, Mike Muscala,
(Out) Sviatoslav Mykhailiuk, Michael Beasley, Ivica Zubac, 2021 2nd rd pick
All that talk about Anthony Davis....and they ended up with nothing at the deadline. I like Bullock as much as the next guy but I'm not convinced he was wildly better than Mykhailiuk, why not just go for youthful exuberance instead of a mediocre vet (Lebron is just gonna grind down whoever is there anyway). And what was the upside of Muscala instead of just holding onto Zubac? Yeah, he's a raw but I kinda like Zubac (more than Muscala anyway). And if they needed to dump Beasley, why not just waive him? The Lakers are stupid rich and just keep thinking they'll buy their way out of problems instead of just learning how to do it right. Not a fan of any of these moves--their attempts to hijack the Pelicans were laughable and rude and killed their chances to make worthwhile moves at the deadline. Ha!
Suns
(In) Tyler Johnson
(Out) Ryan Anderson
One overexpensive baller for another. Not even sure that Johnson is a better fit than Anderson anyway. I don't get it.
Rockets
(In) Iman Shumpert, Sixers 2021 2nd rd pick (Rockets get 2021 2nd rd pick swap)
(Out) James Ennis, Marquesse Chriss, Brandon Knight, 2019 1st rd pick, 2020 2nd rd pick
Am I looking at this right? What did the Rockets get? They basically swapped Ennis for Shumpert (not a terrible move but not a clearly good one either) and dumped salary and picks. I guess its okay since they don't care about the draft but this doesn't do much for me.
Spurs
(none)
Any interest in Teodosic or Anigbogu or Brewer or Monroe? Didn't really need to make moves, they are what they are, they just need health and a little depth. (What is they nabbed Melo? Either a sneaky brilliant move or it would end up giving Popovic a stroke)
Mavs
(In) Kristaps Prozingis, Tim Hardaway Jr, Trey Burke, Courtney Lee, Zach Randolph, Justin Jackson
(Out) Harrison Barnes, Dennis Smith Jr, Wesley Matthews, DeAndre Jordan, Salah Mehri, 2021 1st rd pick, 2023 1st rd pick
Doesn't help them now but great move for next year. (I'd play Justin Jackson as much as possible down the stretch, see if he's worth keeping)
Pelicans
(In) Stanley Johnson, Jason Smith, 2019 2nd rd pick, two 2020 2nd rd picks, 2021 2d rd pick
(Out) Nikola Mirotic, Wesley Johnson
(Why did they cut Markieff Morris? Do they have something better there that I don't see?) I dunno, a pile of 2nd rd picks for Mirotic? Feels like they could've done better. The Pelicans are all about Anthony Davis, so these moves don't matter but still, could've done better.
Grizzlies
(In) CJ Miles, Jonas Valanciunas, Delon Wright, Avery Bradley, Tyler Dorsey, 2024 2nd rd pick
(Out) Marc Gasol, JaMychel Green, Garrett Temple, Shelvin Mack
This summer they stretch that horrendous Chandler Parsons contract, cast off Bradley and Valanciunas and I guess they're back in business with Conley and Jaren Jackson and a top 10 pick. Ehhh, that's the dream anyway. They didn't really get much younger in any of these deals, did they? Only slightly less expensive (but then it costs them they're favorite son and all that 'loyalty' that everyone seems to admire), I don't feel like these were the home run moves the Grizzlies needed.
(*) Check out Marty Leeunen's career stats, they're fascinating.
2018-19 NBA Trade Deadline (Transactions)
Trades
Bulls get Timothy Luwawu-Cabarrot, cash; Thunder get Bulls 2020 2nd rd pick (Top 55 protected)
Blazers get Rodney Hood; Cavs get Wade Baldwin, Nik Stauskus, 2021 2nd rd pick, 2023 2nd rd pick
Bulls get Otto Porter; Wizards get Jabari Parker, Bobby Portis, 2023 2nd rd pick (Top 36 protected)
Suns get Wayne Ellington, Tyler Johnson, cash; Heat get Ryan Anderson
Sixers get Malachi Richardson, the rights to Emir Preldzic, 2022 2nd rd pick; Raptors get cash
Lakers get Reggie Bullock; Pistons get Sviatoslav Mykhailiuk, 2021 2nd rd pick
Sixers get Tobias Harris, Boban Marjanovic, Mike Scott; Clippers get Wilson Chandler, Mike Muscala, Landry Shamet, Sixers 2020 1st rd pick (Top 14 protected), Heat 2021 1st rd pick (unprotected!!!), Pistons 2022 2nd rd pick, Pistons 2023 2nd rd pick
Kings get Harrison Barnes; Mavs get Justin Jackson, Zach Randolph
Wizards get Wesley Johnson; Pelicans get Markieff Morris, 2023 2nd rd pick, cash
Grizzlies get Avery Bradly; Clippers get JaMychel Green, Garrett Temple
Clippers get Micheal Beasley, Ivica Zubac; Lakers get Mike Muscala
Magic get Markelle Fultz; Sixers get Jonathon Simmons, Thunder 2019 1st rd pick, 2019 2nd rd pick
Nets get Greg Monroe, 2021 2nd rd pick; Raptors get cash
Raptors get Marc Gasol; Grizzles get CJ Miles, Jonas Valanciunas, Delon Wright, 2024 2nd rd pick
Kings get Caleb Swanigan; Blazers get Skal Labissiere
Sixers get James Ennis; Rockets get 2021 2nd rd pick (Rockets get 2021 2nd rd pick swap)
Hawks get Shelvin Mack; Grizzlies get Tyler Dorsey
Hawks get Jabari Bird; Celtics get 2nd rd pick (Top 55 protected)
Rockets get Iman Shumpert, Wade Baldwin, Nik Stauskus, 2021 2nd rd pick; Cavs get Marquesse Chriss, Brandon Knight, 2019 1st rd pick, 2022 2nd rd pick; Kings get Alec Burks, 2020 2nd rd pick
Pelicans get Stanley Johnson, Jason Smith, 2019 2nd rd pick, two 2020 2nd rd picks, 2021 2d rd pick; Pistons get Thon Maker; Bucks get Nikola Mirotic
Pacers get Wade Baldwin, Nik Stauskus, Marrty Leunen, 2021 2nd rd pick; Rockets get cash
Waivings
Carmelo Anthony (Bulls), Corey Brewer (Sixers), Kobi Simmons (Cavs), Omri Casspi (Grizzlies), Daniel Hamilton (Hawks), Markieff Morris (Pelicans), Ike Anigbogu (Pacers), Malachi Richardson (Sixers), Ben McLemore (Kings), Wayne Ellington (Suns), Wesley Matthews (Knicks), Greg Monroe (Nets), Milos Teodosic (Clippers), Marcin Gortat (Clippers), Enes Kanter (Knicks), Salah Mejri (Mavs), Jabari Bird (Hawks)
Bulls get Timothy Luwawu-Cabarrot, cash; Thunder get Bulls 2020 2nd rd pick (Top 55 protected)
Blazers get Rodney Hood; Cavs get Wade Baldwin, Nik Stauskus, 2021 2nd rd pick, 2023 2nd rd pick
Bulls get Otto Porter; Wizards get Jabari Parker, Bobby Portis, 2023 2nd rd pick (Top 36 protected)
Suns get Wayne Ellington, Tyler Johnson, cash; Heat get Ryan Anderson
Sixers get Malachi Richardson, the rights to Emir Preldzic, 2022 2nd rd pick; Raptors get cash
Lakers get Reggie Bullock; Pistons get Sviatoslav Mykhailiuk, 2021 2nd rd pick
Sixers get Tobias Harris, Boban Marjanovic, Mike Scott; Clippers get Wilson Chandler, Mike Muscala, Landry Shamet, Sixers 2020 1st rd pick (Top 14 protected), Heat 2021 1st rd pick (unprotected!!!), Pistons 2022 2nd rd pick, Pistons 2023 2nd rd pick
Kings get Harrison Barnes; Mavs get Justin Jackson, Zach Randolph
Wizards get Wesley Johnson; Pelicans get Markieff Morris, 2023 2nd rd pick, cash
Grizzlies get Avery Bradly; Clippers get JaMychel Green, Garrett Temple
Clippers get Micheal Beasley, Ivica Zubac; Lakers get Mike Muscala
Magic get Markelle Fultz; Sixers get Jonathon Simmons, Thunder 2019 1st rd pick, 2019 2nd rd pick
Nets get Greg Monroe, 2021 2nd rd pick; Raptors get cash
Raptors get Marc Gasol; Grizzles get CJ Miles, Jonas Valanciunas, Delon Wright, 2024 2nd rd pick
Kings get Caleb Swanigan; Blazers get Skal Labissiere
Sixers get James Ennis; Rockets get 2021 2nd rd pick (Rockets get 2021 2nd rd pick swap)
Hawks get Shelvin Mack; Grizzlies get Tyler Dorsey
Hawks get Jabari Bird; Celtics get 2nd rd pick (Top 55 protected)
Rockets get Iman Shumpert, Wade Baldwin, Nik Stauskus, 2021 2nd rd pick; Cavs get Marquesse Chriss, Brandon Knight, 2019 1st rd pick, 2022 2nd rd pick; Kings get Alec Burks, 2020 2nd rd pick
Pelicans get Stanley Johnson, Jason Smith, 2019 2nd rd pick, two 2020 2nd rd picks, 2021 2d rd pick; Pistons get Thon Maker; Bucks get Nikola Mirotic
Pacers get Wade Baldwin, Nik Stauskus, Marrty Leunen, 2021 2nd rd pick; Rockets get cash
Waivings
Carmelo Anthony (Bulls), Corey Brewer (Sixers), Kobi Simmons (Cavs), Omri Casspi (Grizzlies), Daniel Hamilton (Hawks), Markieff Morris (Pelicans), Ike Anigbogu (Pacers), Malachi Richardson (Sixers), Ben McLemore (Kings), Wayne Ellington (Suns), Wesley Matthews (Knicks), Greg Monroe (Nets), Milos Teodosic (Clippers), Marcin Gortat (Clippers), Enes Kanter (Knicks), Salah Mejri (Mavs), Jabari Bird (Hawks)
Sunday, February 3, 2019
2018-19 Super Bowl
NFC Conference Championship
Rams 26-23 (OT) Saints
Yes, this game will be remembered for the missed pass interference call near the Saints goal line around the 2 minute mark. But there were two other missed interference calls that people seem less pissed about: Saints on 3rd down early in the 4th quarter got jobbed on a missed call and the interception in OT was also interference (Brees got hit but the ball wasn't touched and no ref suggested that it was), which one was the worst? That said, the Saints also struggled to get FG's on their first two drives when they should've done better and with 5 minutes or so to go in the game they started inside their 50-yard line and went backwards instead of finishing off the game. So its not like the Saints offense machine was in perfect working order on this day. And I would submit that the Rams didn't have their best day either, so for the Saints to let this one get away from them is truly their own fault (though the refs will be the ones remembered). The Saints will still be good next year but considering their playoff performances of the last two years (and the fact that the Falcons and Panthers should be due for bounce-back seasons next year), its hard to imagine they come out of the NFC any time soon.
AFC Conference Championship
Pats 37-31 (OT) Chiefs
Weird game. The Chiefs did nothing--absolutely nothing!--in the 1st half and still should've won the game. Pats played a flawless opening half (minus an improbable Brady interception in the end zone, but even that was still a brilliant time-killing drive), and still had to scramble to stay in the game late. And even with the Chiefs' offensive dominance in the 2nd half, I still thought they left points on the table: dude, run Kelce one way, Hill the other, throw wherever the safety doesn't go--they could've done that all day. Passing to the RB's out of the backfield was another option they didn't figure out til too late. The Pats played well, not a surprise, but Brady threw two interceptions (a third was negated on an amazingly bone-headed defensive penalty) and the Pats D was seriously back-pedaling all through the 2nd half. But they won the toss in OT, never let Mahomes touch the ball and that was all it took. The Chiefs let this one get away from them, but they'll be back next year.
Super Bowl
Pats (-2.5) @ Rams (o/u 56.5)
This is as hard to figure as any game I've seen in a while. It feels like both teams have improbably overachieved to get to this point. The Pats are here every year, sure, but that doesn't mean the trophy automatically belongs to them; the Rams are here because they have solid talent all over the field but not much depth or ability to mix/match game plans. If the Rams play their best game, I think they'll win; but if they don't, I don't see how they recover and they could get ground up quickly. This game will be all about the lines: if the Pats O-line dominates, then the Pats will control the ball and run the clock; if the Rams O-line dominates, they'll pile on points and control the momentum. I feel like the Pats play better fast but here they'll need to play slow; the Rams play better when the offense is wide open but Belichik won't let them have everything.
The Pats are most susceptible to a strong pass rush and I'm betting the Rams D-line has success in slowing down the run and getting to Brady. As long as the Rams don't turn the ball over, I think they'll score consistently and keep the Pats off the ball. One quick prediction: the Pats are notorious for starting slow in Super Bowls but I bet they take the opening kick and start with a TD drive. But the Rams probably need to get punched in the face to get going, so even though I like the Pats to start fast, I think that ultimately works in the Rams' favor. I don't think the Rams will make the mistakes that the Falcons and Seahawks made, I think the Rams will be able to gain the lead and hold it.
I've been pretty awful picking games this post-season but I gotta take someone to win, so I'll take the Rams 30-24 (Rams and the under).
Rams 26-23 (OT) Saints
Yes, this game will be remembered for the missed pass interference call near the Saints goal line around the 2 minute mark. But there were two other missed interference calls that people seem less pissed about: Saints on 3rd down early in the 4th quarter got jobbed on a missed call and the interception in OT was also interference (Brees got hit but the ball wasn't touched and no ref suggested that it was), which one was the worst? That said, the Saints also struggled to get FG's on their first two drives when they should've done better and with 5 minutes or so to go in the game they started inside their 50-yard line and went backwards instead of finishing off the game. So its not like the Saints offense machine was in perfect working order on this day. And I would submit that the Rams didn't have their best day either, so for the Saints to let this one get away from them is truly their own fault (though the refs will be the ones remembered). The Saints will still be good next year but considering their playoff performances of the last two years (and the fact that the Falcons and Panthers should be due for bounce-back seasons next year), its hard to imagine they come out of the NFC any time soon.
AFC Conference Championship
Pats 37-31 (OT) Chiefs
Weird game. The Chiefs did nothing--absolutely nothing!--in the 1st half and still should've won the game. Pats played a flawless opening half (minus an improbable Brady interception in the end zone, but even that was still a brilliant time-killing drive), and still had to scramble to stay in the game late. And even with the Chiefs' offensive dominance in the 2nd half, I still thought they left points on the table: dude, run Kelce one way, Hill the other, throw wherever the safety doesn't go--they could've done that all day. Passing to the RB's out of the backfield was another option they didn't figure out til too late. The Pats played well, not a surprise, but Brady threw two interceptions (a third was negated on an amazingly bone-headed defensive penalty) and the Pats D was seriously back-pedaling all through the 2nd half. But they won the toss in OT, never let Mahomes touch the ball and that was all it took. The Chiefs let this one get away from them, but they'll be back next year.
Super Bowl
Pats (-2.5) @ Rams (o/u 56.5)
This is as hard to figure as any game I've seen in a while. It feels like both teams have improbably overachieved to get to this point. The Pats are here every year, sure, but that doesn't mean the trophy automatically belongs to them; the Rams are here because they have solid talent all over the field but not much depth or ability to mix/match game plans. If the Rams play their best game, I think they'll win; but if they don't, I don't see how they recover and they could get ground up quickly. This game will be all about the lines: if the Pats O-line dominates, then the Pats will control the ball and run the clock; if the Rams O-line dominates, they'll pile on points and control the momentum. I feel like the Pats play better fast but here they'll need to play slow; the Rams play better when the offense is wide open but Belichik won't let them have everything.
The Pats are most susceptible to a strong pass rush and I'm betting the Rams D-line has success in slowing down the run and getting to Brady. As long as the Rams don't turn the ball over, I think they'll score consistently and keep the Pats off the ball. One quick prediction: the Pats are notorious for starting slow in Super Bowls but I bet they take the opening kick and start with a TD drive. But the Rams probably need to get punched in the face to get going, so even though I like the Pats to start fast, I think that ultimately works in the Rams' favor. I don't think the Rams will make the mistakes that the Falcons and Seahawks made, I think the Rams will be able to gain the lead and hold it.
I've been pretty awful picking games this post-season but I gotta take someone to win, so I'll take the Rams 30-24 (Rams and the under).
2018-19 NBA Bric-a-brac (Week 15)
Trades
Bulls gets Carmelo Anthony, the rights to Jon Diebler, cash; Rockets gets the rights to Tadija Dragicevic
Bulls waived Melo immediately, this was just a chance to get him back out to the free agent market for...whoever might actually want him (can you see him on the Nets? Maybe the Clippers?). The teams wisely threw in some draft rights guys just to make it look like an actual trade happened and the Bulls got well paid to make Melo disappear from the memories of Rockets fans. (Haven't been able to confirm reports that heartbroken youths throughout Houston are burning their Jon Diebler jerseys)
Mavs get Kristaps Porzingis, Tim Hardaway Jr, Courtney Lee, Trey Burke; Knicks get Dennis Smith Jr., Wesley Matthews, DeAndre Jordan, two Mavs 1st rd picks (likely 2020, top 10 protected 2023)
Hmmmm.....okay. The Knicks dumped two of their three largest contracts and a PG that was never gonna hang to clear cap space for the summer and all it cost them was their best player, an intriguing youngster who could still become the best player in the game. They get a coupla vets that will be gone soon without any hope of contributing, a coupla vague 1st round picks (no reason to think those picks will be particularly good--especially considering how remarkably bad the Knicks have been at drafting over the years) and an intriguing young headcase that never fit in Dallas. Okay, so what do they have going forward? After they clear house they'll have a top 5 pick, a shit ton of money to spend and a batch of intriguing young talents (Dennis Smith, Kevin Knox, Alonzo Trier, Mitchell Robinson, Damyean Dotson, (their largest contract next year is currently Lance Thomas which is not guaranteed and I can see them trading Frank Nkilitina any day now (how about to the Hornets straight up for Frank Kaminsky?))). I can see them bringing back Noah Vonleh and Emmanual Mudiay (though not if they're expecting big raises) and maybe DeAndre Jordan (if he's up for a big ol' pay cut), to go with Durant and Kyrie (I mean....right?). Sure, that's a playoff team in the East but are they really better than the Celtics, Sixers, Raptors or Bucks? Ehhh, maybe, but these New York teams don't care about getting good, they only care about box office and TV ratings, which is driven by stars--even mediocre stars that don't contribute to a winning environment--more than a youth movement. Is this a good deal for the Knicks? Well...yeah, I'd say it is. The bottom line is the franchise is still in excellent shape even if the team on the court isn't actually any good....so why bother to be good when you're mostly rewarded for being controversial? (My dad's example: Ben Affleck can meticulously put together a masterpiece film that grosses $105m or he can toss off a dumb piece of shit in 1/10 of the time and effort that makes $104m at the box office. When quality doesn't make a difference to the audience, why should it matter to the producer?)
As for the Mavs, well this kinda tanks them for this year but sets them up well going forward. Their 1st rd pick this year is already promised to Atlanta, so this felt like a good chance for them to charge hard for the playoffs, go ahead and get the youngsters some post-season experience and get back in the habit of winning; they were probably planning on a deadline deal that would strengthen the roster for this year but when a deal for the future came along, they had to go for it (though wouldn't it be cool to see Dirk getting one last crack at the #1 Warriors as the #8 seed?). This deal doesn't make them wildly worse right away but it makes them different enough that I don't anticipate they'll make a playoff run (though if KP can play, I'd go ahead and play him--he's a Mav now, play him). So let's look ahead: feels like we've finally hit the end of the line for Dirk, Barea, Devin Harris, and Mejri, I don't see any reason to bring back Trey Burke and I can see them keeping Finney-Smith and Kleber at the bottom of the roster but not for big raises; they'll have to re-sign Porzingis but he's not in crazy-money territory til his next contract (they're getting him at just the right time). They'll have money in the summer, so who do they add in the summer? I don't see them being in on Klay Thompson (though he'd be a great fit), the buzz is that they'll be going after Nikola Vucevic (good call) and if I were them I'd take a run at Julius Randle (player option with the Pelicans) and see if they can get a deal with Ricky Rubio, after that they'd do well to round out the second string with guys like Jeremy Lin, Patrick Patterson, and/or Kentavious Caldwell-Pope. The squad is built around the Luke/Zingis combo now, packing defensive minded rebounders for Coach Carlisle to mold. It'll take a while and they're missing their next two 1st rd picks, but they'll wheel and deal and once they get the winning back, they'll be attractive to free agents.
Weird to say but I think I like this deal for both teams. Granted, it could go badly sideways for the Knicks but that's always true for them so it's an interesting gamble (also worth noting that Porzingis is whispered to be kind of an annoying dick in real life and seemingly injury-prone so it's not exactly money in the bank that he's a hall of famer). The Mavs have made a bold move and it's a good one.
Waivings
Cam Payne (Cavs), Quincy Acy (Suns), Stephan Hicks (Pacers)
Are the Pacers clearing space to take a run at someone?
Signings
Rockets sign Kenneth Faried (1yr/$?)
Dang, he's been great! Why wasn't he doing this for the Nets? Seems like they really could've used a rebound sucker-upper down low that can block shots and finish on the break.
Knicks sign Kadeem Allen (1yr/$?)
Had to fill the roster after that 4-for-3 trade. The upside: he'll get an NBA paycheck and some playing time for a very thin squad; downside: the Knicks aren't looking to win so if he's actually any good, he might get benched!
10-Day Contracts
Gary Payton Jr (Wizards), Bruno Caboclo (Grizzlies), Corey Brewer (Sixers), Mitch Creek (Nets), Kobi Simmons (Cavs), Emmanuel Terry (Suns), Isaiah Canaan (Wolves)
Still waiting for Brewer to make an impact with the Sixers but I reckon he will eventually (wonder why he's still on 10-days? Seems like they'd just up him for the rest of the season, right?).
Retirings
Pero Antic announced his retirement
I was ready to write something snarky, researched him to refresh my memory and--wait, oh shit, I loved that guy! Played with those really good Hawks teams a few years back, big sweaty European guy ran the floor better than you'd think, used to chuck 3's, kinda Nurkic-like but with more skill on the ball. Yeah, I remember that guy, I totally dug his game, wish he'd had more of an NBA career (seems like he should've been with either the Spurs or Jazz the last few years). This is why you do your research, kids, I was all ready to bag on a dude totally worthy of a toast (unlike, say, Jon Diebler, who I threw under the bus without hesitation).
Fined
Anthony Davis (Pelicans) $50k
Why? What did he do other than announce that he wouldn't be signing his extension next summer? Jimmy Butler actively, openly sabotaged the Wolves and sat out for weeks but gets no fine and the Knicks make a trade obviously (tamperingly obvious) meant to signal an aggressive push toward this summer's big free agents (ahem, Kyrie and Durant) but Davis simply does the polite thing of announcing his intentions ahead of time and he gets tagged? Makes no sense.
An odd observation on the Davis trade situation: The Pelicans will obviously be fielding trade offers but until they're ready to make a move, I think they just should play Davis like normal. They absolutely should NOT trade him until the end of the season and shouldn't necessarily trade him this summer. They still have another year to get the best deal and until then, they should treat Davis as they always have. (But wouldn't they risk him getting injured?) Yeah....so? (Duh, that would lower his trade value!) Oh really? Teams are not gonna want Anthony Davis any more if he gets hurt? I don't think an injury would make any difference at all to his overall value. (What if he gets a career-ending injury?) Well, that's what the Pelicans have lived with since the moment they drafted Davis, it isn't a function of trade demands.
Something everyone seems to be forgetting: the Pelicans don't want to trade Davis. If they play him and that lowers his value, then that max deal from the Pelicans looks even better, doesn't it? The Pelicans would be foolish to not gauge his trade value but they're not likely to find any package out there that would be better than Davis by himself (at max money), so they should just keep playing him like normal. Weird to say but if a calamity befalls Anthony Davis, that probably works for the Pelicans rather than against them.
Bulls gets Carmelo Anthony, the rights to Jon Diebler, cash; Rockets gets the rights to Tadija Dragicevic
Bulls waived Melo immediately, this was just a chance to get him back out to the free agent market for...whoever might actually want him (can you see him on the Nets? Maybe the Clippers?). The teams wisely threw in some draft rights guys just to make it look like an actual trade happened and the Bulls got well paid to make Melo disappear from the memories of Rockets fans. (Haven't been able to confirm reports that heartbroken youths throughout Houston are burning their Jon Diebler jerseys)
Mavs get Kristaps Porzingis, Tim Hardaway Jr, Courtney Lee, Trey Burke; Knicks get Dennis Smith Jr., Wesley Matthews, DeAndre Jordan, two Mavs 1st rd picks (likely 2020, top 10 protected 2023)
Hmmmm.....okay. The Knicks dumped two of their three largest contracts and a PG that was never gonna hang to clear cap space for the summer and all it cost them was their best player, an intriguing youngster who could still become the best player in the game. They get a coupla vets that will be gone soon without any hope of contributing, a coupla vague 1st round picks (no reason to think those picks will be particularly good--especially considering how remarkably bad the Knicks have been at drafting over the years) and an intriguing young headcase that never fit in Dallas. Okay, so what do they have going forward? After they clear house they'll have a top 5 pick, a shit ton of money to spend and a batch of intriguing young talents (Dennis Smith, Kevin Knox, Alonzo Trier, Mitchell Robinson, Damyean Dotson, (their largest contract next year is currently Lance Thomas which is not guaranteed and I can see them trading Frank Nkilitina any day now (how about to the Hornets straight up for Frank Kaminsky?))). I can see them bringing back Noah Vonleh and Emmanual Mudiay (though not if they're expecting big raises) and maybe DeAndre Jordan (if he's up for a big ol' pay cut), to go with Durant and Kyrie (I mean....right?). Sure, that's a playoff team in the East but are they really better than the Celtics, Sixers, Raptors or Bucks? Ehhh, maybe, but these New York teams don't care about getting good, they only care about box office and TV ratings, which is driven by stars--even mediocre stars that don't contribute to a winning environment--more than a youth movement. Is this a good deal for the Knicks? Well...yeah, I'd say it is. The bottom line is the franchise is still in excellent shape even if the team on the court isn't actually any good....so why bother to be good when you're mostly rewarded for being controversial? (My dad's example: Ben Affleck can meticulously put together a masterpiece film that grosses $105m or he can toss off a dumb piece of shit in 1/10 of the time and effort that makes $104m at the box office. When quality doesn't make a difference to the audience, why should it matter to the producer?)
As for the Mavs, well this kinda tanks them for this year but sets them up well going forward. Their 1st rd pick this year is already promised to Atlanta, so this felt like a good chance for them to charge hard for the playoffs, go ahead and get the youngsters some post-season experience and get back in the habit of winning; they were probably planning on a deadline deal that would strengthen the roster for this year but when a deal for the future came along, they had to go for it (though wouldn't it be cool to see Dirk getting one last crack at the #1 Warriors as the #8 seed?). This deal doesn't make them wildly worse right away but it makes them different enough that I don't anticipate they'll make a playoff run (though if KP can play, I'd go ahead and play him--he's a Mav now, play him). So let's look ahead: feels like we've finally hit the end of the line for Dirk, Barea, Devin Harris, and Mejri, I don't see any reason to bring back Trey Burke and I can see them keeping Finney-Smith and Kleber at the bottom of the roster but not for big raises; they'll have to re-sign Porzingis but he's not in crazy-money territory til his next contract (they're getting him at just the right time). They'll have money in the summer, so who do they add in the summer? I don't see them being in on Klay Thompson (though he'd be a great fit), the buzz is that they'll be going after Nikola Vucevic (good call) and if I were them I'd take a run at Julius Randle (player option with the Pelicans) and see if they can get a deal with Ricky Rubio, after that they'd do well to round out the second string with guys like Jeremy Lin, Patrick Patterson, and/or Kentavious Caldwell-Pope. The squad is built around the Luke/Zingis combo now, packing defensive minded rebounders for Coach Carlisle to mold. It'll take a while and they're missing their next two 1st rd picks, but they'll wheel and deal and once they get the winning back, they'll be attractive to free agents.
Weird to say but I think I like this deal for both teams. Granted, it could go badly sideways for the Knicks but that's always true for them so it's an interesting gamble (also worth noting that Porzingis is whispered to be kind of an annoying dick in real life and seemingly injury-prone so it's not exactly money in the bank that he's a hall of famer). The Mavs have made a bold move and it's a good one.
Waivings
Cam Payne (Cavs), Quincy Acy (Suns), Stephan Hicks (Pacers)
Are the Pacers clearing space to take a run at someone?
Signings
Rockets sign Kenneth Faried (1yr/$?)
Dang, he's been great! Why wasn't he doing this for the Nets? Seems like they really could've used a rebound sucker-upper down low that can block shots and finish on the break.
Knicks sign Kadeem Allen (1yr/$?)
Had to fill the roster after that 4-for-3 trade. The upside: he'll get an NBA paycheck and some playing time for a very thin squad; downside: the Knicks aren't looking to win so if he's actually any good, he might get benched!
10-Day Contracts
Gary Payton Jr (Wizards), Bruno Caboclo (Grizzlies), Corey Brewer (Sixers), Mitch Creek (Nets), Kobi Simmons (Cavs), Emmanuel Terry (Suns), Isaiah Canaan (Wolves)
Still waiting for Brewer to make an impact with the Sixers but I reckon he will eventually (wonder why he's still on 10-days? Seems like they'd just up him for the rest of the season, right?).
Retirings
Pero Antic announced his retirement
I was ready to write something snarky, researched him to refresh my memory and--wait, oh shit, I loved that guy! Played with those really good Hawks teams a few years back, big sweaty European guy ran the floor better than you'd think, used to chuck 3's, kinda Nurkic-like but with more skill on the ball. Yeah, I remember that guy, I totally dug his game, wish he'd had more of an NBA career (seems like he should've been with either the Spurs or Jazz the last few years). This is why you do your research, kids, I was all ready to bag on a dude totally worthy of a toast (unlike, say, Jon Diebler, who I threw under the bus without hesitation).
Fined
Anthony Davis (Pelicans) $50k
Why? What did he do other than announce that he wouldn't be signing his extension next summer? Jimmy Butler actively, openly sabotaged the Wolves and sat out for weeks but gets no fine and the Knicks make a trade obviously (tamperingly obvious) meant to signal an aggressive push toward this summer's big free agents (ahem, Kyrie and Durant) but Davis simply does the polite thing of announcing his intentions ahead of time and he gets tagged? Makes no sense.
An odd observation on the Davis trade situation: The Pelicans will obviously be fielding trade offers but until they're ready to make a move, I think they just should play Davis like normal. They absolutely should NOT trade him until the end of the season and shouldn't necessarily trade him this summer. They still have another year to get the best deal and until then, they should treat Davis as they always have. (But wouldn't they risk him getting injured?) Yeah....so? (Duh, that would lower his trade value!) Oh really? Teams are not gonna want Anthony Davis any more if he gets hurt? I don't think an injury would make any difference at all to his overall value. (What if he gets a career-ending injury?) Well, that's what the Pelicans have lived with since the moment they drafted Davis, it isn't a function of trade demands.
Something everyone seems to be forgetting: the Pelicans don't want to trade Davis. If they play him and that lowers his value, then that max deal from the Pelicans looks even better, doesn't it? The Pelicans would be foolish to not gauge his trade value but they're not likely to find any package out there that would be better than Davis by himself (at max money), so they should just keep playing him like normal. Weird to say but if a calamity befalls Anthony Davis, that probably works for the Pelicans rather than against them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
