Take a look at Al Jefferson's highlights. He's an absolute beast on the low block. Even against some of the most respected defensive players/coaches/teams, they still double team him immediately when on the block.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcT7JTmPPrk
Just saying...the guy can play. I believe Jerry Sloan's system is built perfectly for the guy, and his skills complement those of Milsap and Okur very well. Okur can play on the perimeter in a big lineup, with Jefferson on the low block demanding a double team. Milsap will work the high post very well, while Jefferson the low block.
His best move you'll come to love. It's a quick one dribble causing the defender to slide their feet, then going into the defenders chest, creating space even against the best of defenders knocking them off balance, and then rising and finishing over the top of them with a dunk, or a quick jumphook once the defender anticipates the contact. He has excellent secondary moves out of this low block series of moves as well. In the highlight video you'll see him do this against Yao Ming, Nene Hilario, Andrew Bynum, Kevin Garnett, Pau Gasol, Joakim Noah, and others.
They say "he's not a winner". Remember, Kevin Garnett didn't win on that Minnesota team, and Paul Pierce didn't win on that Boston team either. Both teams were downright bad. Let's see what he can do with an all-pro PG and supporting cast.
Don't rule out Matthews either. Long-term a strong argument could be made for him. Next year AK is gone. A backcourt trio of Matthews, Miles and GoHay is pretty great. People say that Matthews is a dime a dozen guy, and the Jazz can replace him. I respectfully disagree. The Jazz have been searching for a Bruce Bowen type player since Flyin Bryan Russell left. They've tried a ton of guys, and Matthews fit the need perfectly. Looking at this year, it doesn't make a ton of sense. Looking beyond this year, it does make sense...and it makes AK's valuable expiring contract more expendable midseason if they decide to take that route.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Denver Implosion?
It sounds like there is some real problems brewing in the Denver locker room. No doubt you've read that many of the nuggets players have turned against Chauncey Billups of late. ESPN, SI and other national NBA news sources have written that Nugget players almost take offense to Billups trying to be their "leader". Billups seems to have lost the respect of his teammates. Certainly, last night didn't help. Besides the fact that Billups missed three 3-point shots in the final minute, and split a crucial pair of free throws despite being a career 90% FT shooter, the final play of the game that Dantley drew up was for Lawson to get the ball and push as fast as he could, then kick to a teammate. Billups' response? "There's no way I wasn't going to get the ball in my hands that last play. In that situation, you put the ball in the hands of your best player and let him go." The result was a running high arcing jumper that bounced off the rim and really never had a chance. Later, Billups' tone changed a bit when he claimed that he didn't know the play was drawn up to go to Lawson. Maybe he wasn't listening. In any case, all scenarios point to more trouble inside the Nuggets lockerroom than the general public is seeing.
I like our chances in game 3. My only concern is the stink Denver is making over Miles and Matthews "grabbing, pulling and pushing" Carmelo Anthony as soon as he crosses half court. If those guys get in foul trouble, it could be precarious. Nonetheless, I like our chances.
I like our chances in game 3. My only concern is the stink Denver is making over Miles and Matthews "grabbing, pulling and pushing" Carmelo Anthony as soon as he crosses half court. If those guys get in foul trouble, it could be precarious. Nonetheless, I like our chances.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
So Long, NCAA Tournament of 64. Welcome, 96 team NCAA Tournament?
The NCAA extended its annual basketball tournament to a field of 64 teams in 1995. Since that time, no changes have been made to what many believe is the greatest event in all of sports (excluding the expansion to 65 teams which is simply not worthy of mention).
NCAA executives are meeting this week to discuss the possibility likelihood of expansion.
The proposed format for the new mega-tournament is 96 teams, an increase of 31 teams. Seeds 1-8 in each region would receive first-round byes. The remaining teams would form the opening round of competition, seeded 1-16, with familiar seeding matchups being played (it’s easier to think of the bottom 16 beeing seeded 1-16 than 9-24). Winners from the opening round would advance to play the waiting seeds of 1-8. Essentially, NCAA execs want to combine the NIT with the NCAA tournament, to form the new mega-tournament.
[Flash Forward to selection Sunday 2011]
“In the East bracket, Southern division, Atlanta region, the boys from Jackson State will receive the 24th seed”.
And many teams felt it was demeaning to be named the 16th seed.
Initial feedback to expansion ideas are hugely negative from the general public, with nearly 90% of fans opposed to expansion. NCAA coaches appear to be somewhat split on the concept.
Why mess with a good thing? Well, the NCAA did feel it was necessary to change One Shining Moment this year, another decision that did not go over well.
Initially, my own thoughts on the subject were extremely negative, borderline violent. March is the greatest month of the year for a basketball fan, and recently it seems to be the only month of the year for College Basketball to get any significant attention from the general public. I set out determined to prove to myself how ridiculous expansion would be…what I found however was mixed results.
DISCLAIMER: I am an avid basketball fan, and will watch most anything the NCAA throws in front of me come March (NIT or NCAA). The casual fan who watches only the opening days of the NCAA tournament to see how their brackets are doing may see things differently.
I’ve taken the liberty of manually compiling a mock bracket for a 96 team NCAA tournament. You can also find a mock bracket with team logos here: http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/13165827?tag=coverlist_active;coverlist_footer. Unfortunately there are so many teams, it seems half of the logos are not recognizable to even a familiar eye.
In seeding these brackets, I used seeds 1-12 from the traditional bracket (the last at-large bids were seeded 12). Then seeds 13-16 were thrown in depending on how close teams were to earning at large bids.
{SEE TRADITIONAL BRACKET ONLINE}
{SEE MOCK BRACKET OF 96 TEAMS} - If you are having trouble viewing this bracket, email me at thesaltpalace@gmail.com or bsutefan@hotmail.com and I can email you the brackets with team names written out.
Initial thoughts based when comparing to traditional 64 team bracket:
- Seeds 1-4: More difficult to advance due to higher quality first round opponents
- Seeds 5-8: Easier to advance. What was normally an even matchup (7 vs 10, 6 vs 11, 8 vs 9, or even 5 vs 12), now has a higher seeded team with fresh legs playing against a team that played 2 days prior. The difference between an 8 and a 9 seed becomes ENORMOUSLY important.
- Seeds 9-12: Harder to advance beyond 64. Playing on tired legs may prove to be too much to ask from a team that must exert all energy to overcome an NCAA regular. Underdogs would also lose preparation time in putting together the perfect game plan for a first round upset.
- Seeds 13-16: Actually proves to be much better for these teams. Historically, you 1 out of 16 games featuring these teams may advance per year. 2010 was the exception to the rule. These teams would now be playing an NIT team for the right to move on to the round of 64…a feat seemingly much more possible than Arkansas Pine-Bluff knocking off Kentucky.
Having seen what the 2010 NCAA tournament would have looked like, suspicion and uncertainty may be creeping into your mind. In fairness to the NCAA, let us offer some pros and cons to both sides of the discussion.
Pro: A 96 team tournament theoretically would provide additional financial benefit in a difficult economy.
Con: An entire industry of bracketology and NCAA tournament challenges would diminish and potentially disappear. Filling out a 96 team bracket would be more of a task than most people are willing to tackle.
Pro: A 96 team tournament would be more inclusive to bubble teams.
Con: A “diluted” pool of teams would lose the interest of the common casual basketball fan.
Pro: By including more teams in a 96 team field, less coaches would be fired as a result of missing the NCAA tournament 2 out of 3 years.
Con: If a coach cannot get his team into a 96 team field, maybe he deserves to be fired…or at least this is what schools and fans may use as logic when termination of coaches shoots through the roof.
Pro: A 96 team field may provide better matchups in the round of 64
Con: A 96 team tournament may eliminate the small dog vs big dog contests, which is essentially at the heart of current NCAA tournament success.
Pro: More games = more viewers = more money
Con: Tougher matchups for higher seeded teams (1-4) means more early exits. Historically, when higher seeded teams don’t advance, viewership and TV ratings for late round games suffer.
Pro: All Conferences send their regular season championship to the Big Big Dance, even if they lose in their Conference Tournament (2 teams might get in)
Con: Conference Tournaments may lose interest, which is why Athletics Directors and Conference Commissioners are opposing the expansion idea.
Another Con: Some conferences don’t have a conference tournament simply to ensure the best team from their conference gets their lone bid. Will these conferences now add a conference tournament simply to get a chance at a second team in the field? Multiple small conferences with 2 bids each may further dilute the 96 team field…a concern that is already widely shared.
Pro: Big Conference teams that face hugely difficult competition week in, week out, will no longer be punished for being in a big conference (when they are likely better than many of the 15 and 16 seeds). These bubble teams from big conferences will also get into the tournament.
Con: A 96 team tournament will further promote big conference dominance (when college basketball was recently trending towards parity). Sure, more top seeded teams will lose in the rounds of 64 and 32, but teams seeded 9 or below will struggle much much more to reach the round formerly known as the Sweet 16.
Pro: All matchups will be between more evenly matched teams. Examples: Arkansas Pine-Bluff vs Louisville for the right to play 8 seeded Cal, and North Carolina vs William & Mary (both in NIT) for the right to play top seeded Duke. Duke vs UNC in the round of 64 would be a much better game to watch than Duke vs Ark P-B.
Con: All school and coaching records would become greatly contaminated. Take Dave Rose (Head Coach at BYU) for example. Dave Rose has an NCAA coaching record of 1-4, losing some tough first round matchups as an 8 seed, 9 seed, and losing a second round matchup vs #2 seeded Kansas State in 2010. Compare Dave Rose’s coaching resume to that of George Ivory of Arkansas Pine-Bluff (I don’t mean to keep picking on Ark PB, it is just happening). Ivory won the worthless play-in game in 2010 between the #64 and #65 ranked teams only to be annihilated by Duke in the round of 64. Ivory’s coaching record is 1-1. Each of these play-in games would count toward the record books for NCAA tournament victories/losses. The record books would either be thrown away or fully marked with asterisks.
I’m sure there are many more pros and cons that I am missing. But the bottom line is this. The NCAA tournament of 64 teams is the greatest event in all of sports. Expansion to 96 teams is not a good idea. The impact will be negative, and will be felt more in 10 years when the tournament is fighting for relevancy, than in 2012 when fans are interested to see how the tournament will shake down.
Prior to doing this research I was 100% against expansion. Now, I’m 60-40 against it…and I’m an avid basketball fan. Reality is the NCAA will probably keep my interest. But as for bracket challenges, and viewership from the casual observer, the NCAA shouldn’t count on much support.
NCAA executives are meeting this week to discuss the possibility likelihood of expansion.
The proposed format for the new mega-tournament is 96 teams, an increase of 31 teams. Seeds 1-8 in each region would receive first-round byes. The remaining teams would form the opening round of competition, seeded 1-16, with familiar seeding matchups being played (it’s easier to think of the bottom 16 beeing seeded 1-16 than 9-24). Winners from the opening round would advance to play the waiting seeds of 1-8. Essentially, NCAA execs want to combine the NIT with the NCAA tournament, to form the new mega-tournament.
[Flash Forward to selection Sunday 2011]
“In the East bracket, Southern division, Atlanta region, the boys from Jackson State will receive the 24th seed”.
And many teams felt it was demeaning to be named the 16th seed.
Initial feedback to expansion ideas are hugely negative from the general public, with nearly 90% of fans opposed to expansion. NCAA coaches appear to be somewhat split on the concept.
Why mess with a good thing? Well, the NCAA did feel it was necessary to change One Shining Moment this year, another decision that did not go over well.
Initially, my own thoughts on the subject were extremely negative, borderline violent. March is the greatest month of the year for a basketball fan, and recently it seems to be the only month of the year for College Basketball to get any significant attention from the general public. I set out determined to prove to myself how ridiculous expansion would be…what I found however was mixed results.
DISCLAIMER: I am an avid basketball fan, and will watch most anything the NCAA throws in front of me come March (NIT or NCAA). The casual fan who watches only the opening days of the NCAA tournament to see how their brackets are doing may see things differently.
I’ve taken the liberty of manually compiling a mock bracket for a 96 team NCAA tournament. You can also find a mock bracket with team logos here: http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/13165827?tag=coverlist_active;coverlist_footer. Unfortunately there are so many teams, it seems half of the logos are not recognizable to even a familiar eye.
In seeding these brackets, I used seeds 1-12 from the traditional bracket (the last at-large bids were seeded 12). Then seeds 13-16 were thrown in depending on how close teams were to earning at large bids.
{SEE TRADITIONAL BRACKET ONLINE}
{SEE MOCK BRACKET OF 96 TEAMS} - If you are having trouble viewing this bracket, email me at thesaltpalace@gmail.com or bsutefan@hotmail.com and I can email you the brackets with team names written out.
Initial thoughts based when comparing to traditional 64 team bracket:
- Seeds 1-4: More difficult to advance due to higher quality first round opponents
- Seeds 5-8: Easier to advance. What was normally an even matchup (7 vs 10, 6 vs 11, 8 vs 9, or even 5 vs 12), now has a higher seeded team with fresh legs playing against a team that played 2 days prior. The difference between an 8 and a 9 seed becomes ENORMOUSLY important.
- Seeds 9-12: Harder to advance beyond 64. Playing on tired legs may prove to be too much to ask from a team that must exert all energy to overcome an NCAA regular. Underdogs would also lose preparation time in putting together the perfect game plan for a first round upset.
- Seeds 13-16: Actually proves to be much better for these teams. Historically, you 1 out of 16 games featuring these teams may advance per year. 2010 was the exception to the rule. These teams would now be playing an NIT team for the right to move on to the round of 64…a feat seemingly much more possible than Arkansas Pine-Bluff knocking off Kentucky.
Having seen what the 2010 NCAA tournament would have looked like, suspicion and uncertainty may be creeping into your mind. In fairness to the NCAA, let us offer some pros and cons to both sides of the discussion.
Pro: A 96 team tournament theoretically would provide additional financial benefit in a difficult economy.
Con: An entire industry of bracketology and NCAA tournament challenges would diminish and potentially disappear. Filling out a 96 team bracket would be more of a task than most people are willing to tackle.
Pro: A 96 team tournament would be more inclusive to bubble teams.
Con: A “diluted” pool of teams would lose the interest of the common casual basketball fan.
Pro: By including more teams in a 96 team field, less coaches would be fired as a result of missing the NCAA tournament 2 out of 3 years.
Con: If a coach cannot get his team into a 96 team field, maybe he deserves to be fired…or at least this is what schools and fans may use as logic when termination of coaches shoots through the roof.
Pro: A 96 team field may provide better matchups in the round of 64
Con: A 96 team tournament may eliminate the small dog vs big dog contests, which is essentially at the heart of current NCAA tournament success.
Pro: More games = more viewers = more money
Con: Tougher matchups for higher seeded teams (1-4) means more early exits. Historically, when higher seeded teams don’t advance, viewership and TV ratings for late round games suffer.
Pro: All Conferences send their regular season championship to the Big Big Dance, even if they lose in their Conference Tournament (2 teams might get in)
Con: Conference Tournaments may lose interest, which is why Athletics Directors and Conference Commissioners are opposing the expansion idea.
Another Con: Some conferences don’t have a conference tournament simply to ensure the best team from their conference gets their lone bid. Will these conferences now add a conference tournament simply to get a chance at a second team in the field? Multiple small conferences with 2 bids each may further dilute the 96 team field…a concern that is already widely shared.
Pro: Big Conference teams that face hugely difficult competition week in, week out, will no longer be punished for being in a big conference (when they are likely better than many of the 15 and 16 seeds). These bubble teams from big conferences will also get into the tournament.
Con: A 96 team tournament will further promote big conference dominance (when college basketball was recently trending towards parity). Sure, more top seeded teams will lose in the rounds of 64 and 32, but teams seeded 9 or below will struggle much much more to reach the round formerly known as the Sweet 16.
Pro: All matchups will be between more evenly matched teams. Examples: Arkansas Pine-Bluff vs Louisville for the right to play 8 seeded Cal, and North Carolina vs William & Mary (both in NIT) for the right to play top seeded Duke. Duke vs UNC in the round of 64 would be a much better game to watch than Duke vs Ark P-B.
Con: All school and coaching records would become greatly contaminated. Take Dave Rose (Head Coach at BYU) for example. Dave Rose has an NCAA coaching record of 1-4, losing some tough first round matchups as an 8 seed, 9 seed, and losing a second round matchup vs #2 seeded Kansas State in 2010. Compare Dave Rose’s coaching resume to that of George Ivory of Arkansas Pine-Bluff (I don’t mean to keep picking on Ark PB, it is just happening). Ivory won the worthless play-in game in 2010 between the #64 and #65 ranked teams only to be annihilated by Duke in the round of 64. Ivory’s coaching record is 1-1. Each of these play-in games would count toward the record books for NCAA tournament victories/losses. The record books would either be thrown away or fully marked with asterisks.
I’m sure there are many more pros and cons that I am missing. But the bottom line is this. The NCAA tournament of 64 teams is the greatest event in all of sports. Expansion to 96 teams is not a good idea. The impact will be negative, and will be felt more in 10 years when the tournament is fighting for relevancy, than in 2012 when fans are interested to see how the tournament will shake down.
Prior to doing this research I was 100% against expansion. Now, I’m 60-40 against it…and I’m an avid basketball fan. Reality is the NCAA will probably keep my interest. But as for bracket challenges, and viewership from the casual observer, the NCAA shouldn’t count on much support.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Summer of 2010 - DANGER! STAY AWAY!
The Summer of 2010 will be the most anticipated free agency period in the history of the NBA. Superstars like LeBron James, Chris Bosh, Dwayne Wade, Joe Johnson, Amare Stoudemire, and Carlos Boozer are among the summer’s premier players available. Anticipating the possibility of adding an Elite level player, it seems half of the league has cleared enough space to at least make a run at one or more of these players. More teams are also expected to clear space before the free agency period by releasing players, buying out contracts, and completing draft day trades (player for pick). The Draft is held in June, Free Agency opens in July.
Here is a list of teams who have made themselves players in the sweepstakes:
Room for 2 max players:
Miami Heat
New York Knicks
Room for 1 max player:
New Jersey Nets
Chicago Bulls
Washington Wizards
Sacramento Kings
Los Angeles Clippers
Minnesota Timberwolves
Everything seems to be lining up for some teams to cash in on premiere talent that isn’t normally available via free agency right? WRONG! In reality, 2 or 3 teams MIGHT cash in and score big. The rest of the teams mentioned above will be in scramble mode. I believe the exact opposite of many of the General Managers in the NBA. I would absolutely avoiding this summer’s free agent market. Here’s why:
1. Overpaying to fill a roster
Let me throw the following scenario out on the table:
- LeBron James wins an NBA championship in Cleveland, and re-signs with the Cavs
- Dwayne Wade re-signs with the Heat
- Chris Bosh signs with the Miami Heat
Under this scenario there would be 8 teams remaining with max money to spend on non-max free agents. In 2009, Ben Gordon, Charlie Villanueva and other cashed in on a very poor free agent market when they were deemed (the best players available). Ask Detroit how this has worked out for them.
2. Restricted Free Agents
I’m going to take my scenario one step further now. Everything above has taken place, along with the next signings:
- Amare Stoudemire signs with the New York Knicks
- Carlos Boozer signs with the Chicago Bulls
- Joe Johnson resigns with the Atlanta Hawks
Now there are 7 teams still left with max money to spend, without any max quality players left. I think it is safe to assume that nobody is going to give David Lee max money just because they can, but when teams clean house to make themselves players in this market, there is a sense of obligation to use that cap space on the best players available. Take for example Rudy Gay and Luis Scola. Both are very good players, and may be considered among the best remaining players available. Both however are restricted free agents in 2010. Would the Clippers offer Rudy Gay $13M a year to fill their need for a SF? They overpaid for Baron Davis. Would New Jersey pay Louis Scola $14M a year because they are the worst team in the history of the NBA and can’t do nothing?
I predict a bidding war over these second and third tier players…especially with the Restricted Free Agents. Watch for teams to make horrid offers out of desperation for guys like Rudy Gay, Luis Scola, etc. (see Washington, New York, and New Jersey)
3. Collective Bargaining Agreement
Adding more fuel to the fire. Max contract amounts are sure to come down with this next collective bargaining agreement, and duration will shorten as well. What that means is that players like Rudy Gay, Luis Scola, David Lee (the overpaid from 2010 FAs) will be on a similar pay scale to teams with cap space in 2-3 years. Let’s say the Nuggets re-sign Carmelo Anthony in 2011 for the new max contract at $15 (the same salary that Rudy Gay ends up at with the Clippers). The Clippers will be trying to play on the same playing field as the Nuggets, with their new highest paid players being paid the same amount (Anthony and Gay). Under this scenario, the Clippers would be in the cellar for another 10 years before they get another chance to get out.
In conclusion, I predict the summer of 2010 to be the defining summer of the next decade. Whoever lands LeBron will be a big winner, and if Miami can lure another max quality player to pair with DWade, they will be a big winner. The rest will lose out big time over the next decade.
Rather than investing in the 2010 sweepstakes, teams should be investing in future drafts (cheap talent will be a necessity under the new CBA). Teams with max space available, and no real shot at Wade or LeBron should pull out of the sweepstakes by signing 1 or 2 year contracts, and tackle the beast in a 2013 under a much friendlier collective bargaining agreement…Which I want to add, positions the Jazz perfectly for the next decade.
Here is a list of teams who have made themselves players in the sweepstakes:
Room for 2 max players:
Miami Heat
New York Knicks
Room for 1 max player:
New Jersey Nets
Chicago Bulls
Washington Wizards
Sacramento Kings
Los Angeles Clippers
Minnesota Timberwolves
Everything seems to be lining up for some teams to cash in on premiere talent that isn’t normally available via free agency right? WRONG! In reality, 2 or 3 teams MIGHT cash in and score big. The rest of the teams mentioned above will be in scramble mode. I believe the exact opposite of many of the General Managers in the NBA. I would absolutely avoiding this summer’s free agent market. Here’s why:
1. Overpaying to fill a roster
Let me throw the following scenario out on the table:
- LeBron James wins an NBA championship in Cleveland, and re-signs with the Cavs
- Dwayne Wade re-signs with the Heat
- Chris Bosh signs with the Miami Heat
Under this scenario there would be 8 teams remaining with max money to spend on non-max free agents. In 2009, Ben Gordon, Charlie Villanueva and other cashed in on a very poor free agent market when they were deemed (the best players available). Ask Detroit how this has worked out for them.
2. Restricted Free Agents
I’m going to take my scenario one step further now. Everything above has taken place, along with the next signings:
- Amare Stoudemire signs with the New York Knicks
- Carlos Boozer signs with the Chicago Bulls
- Joe Johnson resigns with the Atlanta Hawks
Now there are 7 teams still left with max money to spend, without any max quality players left. I think it is safe to assume that nobody is going to give David Lee max money just because they can, but when teams clean house to make themselves players in this market, there is a sense of obligation to use that cap space on the best players available. Take for example Rudy Gay and Luis Scola. Both are very good players, and may be considered among the best remaining players available. Both however are restricted free agents in 2010. Would the Clippers offer Rudy Gay $13M a year to fill their need for a SF? They overpaid for Baron Davis. Would New Jersey pay Louis Scola $14M a year because they are the worst team in the history of the NBA and can’t do nothing?
I predict a bidding war over these second and third tier players…especially with the Restricted Free Agents. Watch for teams to make horrid offers out of desperation for guys like Rudy Gay, Luis Scola, etc. (see Washington, New York, and New Jersey)
3. Collective Bargaining Agreement
Adding more fuel to the fire. Max contract amounts are sure to come down with this next collective bargaining agreement, and duration will shorten as well. What that means is that players like Rudy Gay, Luis Scola, David Lee (the overpaid from 2010 FAs) will be on a similar pay scale to teams with cap space in 2-3 years. Let’s say the Nuggets re-sign Carmelo Anthony in 2011 for the new max contract at $15 (the same salary that Rudy Gay ends up at with the Clippers). The Clippers will be trying to play on the same playing field as the Nuggets, with their new highest paid players being paid the same amount (Anthony and Gay). Under this scenario, the Clippers would be in the cellar for another 10 years before they get another chance to get out.
In conclusion, I predict the summer of 2010 to be the defining summer of the next decade. Whoever lands LeBron will be a big winner, and if Miami can lure another max quality player to pair with DWade, they will be a big winner. The rest will lose out big time over the next decade.
Rather than investing in the 2010 sweepstakes, teams should be investing in future drafts (cheap talent will be a necessity under the new CBA). Teams with max space available, and no real shot at Wade or LeBron should pull out of the sweepstakes by signing 1 or 2 year contracts, and tackle the beast in a 2013 under a much friendlier collective bargaining agreement…Which I want to add, positions the Jazz perfectly for the next decade.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Facing a slippery sloap
Problems:
1 – Leadership – Lack toughness, Poor road performance, and bad losses to bad teams
2 – Defensive strength – inability to win games when FG% is low, poor transition defense, and poor interior shot blocking
3 – Offensive woes – High differential between FG at home and road, inconsistent production outside top two scorers, lack second playmaker allowing teams to double team Williams.
4 – Financial Problems – High salaries, not performing to contract
Diagnosis:
The major money players on this team are going to be those at whom the primary analysis is placed.
Andrei Kirilenko
Deron Williams
Carlos Boozer
Mehmet Okur
While there are other players contributing to the success or lack of success of the team, it’s hard to complain about CJ Miles (example) when he only makes $3.5 million, while Andrei Kirilenko (example) is worth the equivalent of 5 CJ Miles.
Andrei Kirilenko:
AK is unquestionably the source of the problem on this team…not because of his lack of offensive production, but rather because of the financial burden he places on the team. $17M for AK causes financial strain, causing each player to be under a heavy microscope. If this team did not have AK’s salary on the books this year, the Jazz would currently be $12M under the salary cap. Rather than be talking about a Carlos Boozer for garbage trade, the Jazz brass would be positioned as one of very few teams with the cap space to absorb salary from a team looking to drop a high paid but high producing player (Like Michael Redd and the Bucks for example). But no use crying over spilled milk. AK is what he is, and the only question the Jazz have is how to rid themselves of his contract. They have 3 options; 1-Trade him this year for expiring contracts, 2-Trade him next year as an expiring contract and steal a long-term piece away from a desperate team (see Jazz and Boozer), or 3-Let his contract run out in 2 years and let yourself benefit from his contract coming off of the books.
Deron Williams:
DWill has been struggling of late, and as such has been the focus of much criticism, primarily toward his defense and turnovers. Looking back on DWill’s career, turnovers have been most apparent either when the team was injury strapped, or in a scoring slump. Take your pick, but DWill is clearly trying to overcompensate for his team and forcing the issue. Either way, the outcome is not great. Defensively DWill has looked strong at times, and downright awful at other times. But that’s the reality of the NBA; NBA players for the most part should be able to create or get to the hoop in a one-on-one situation. College coaches design plays to get layups or open jumpshots (Jerry Sloan also). NBA coaches design plays to get players in one-on-one situations, and let the players do the rest (Jim Boylen also…why is this backward?). I would argue that any NBA point guard or wing defender outside of the absolute elite defenders cannot defend a quick penetrating guard without an inside presence to intimidate and/or force the player to settle for outside jumpshots. While DWill is not exempt from criticism, 95% of NBA players would look bad in his shoes (Ronnie Price looks downright awful at times defensively as well, and he’s been known as a defensive hustle player by many NBA scouts). Perhaps the defensive criticism should be redirected elsewhere?
Carlos Boozer:
It pains me to say this, but Boozer has been the Jazz most consistent performer this season. Without his scoring and rebounding, I dare say the Jazz would be looking at a top 10 lottery pick (even with Millsap as a fill in). Now reality is Boozer is a very good player, not quite elite, but near the border. I’m sure if the Jazz were in a financially appropriate position (thank you AK), the Jazz would have extended Boozer’s contract long ago, and this whole drama would never have happened. Unfortunately money speaks loudly to Boozer, and he will be gone after this year. So, the Jazz have two options with Boozer; 1-Trade him and get something in return for him…can you really just let a player this good get away? Or 2- Take the extra money from his expiring contract and save for better times. The second option will keep you in the playoff hunt, but the first pretty much assures you a lottery selection. It’s the classic question of whether it is better to have a very good Boozer for 1 year, or 2 very average players for 3 years? Here’s another question to ponder…would Boozer really look as bad defensively if he were next to a defensive big man who took the tough defensive assignments each night and covered for mistakes when needed?
Mehmet Okur:
If you refer back to my original opinions on why this team is struggling so greatly (see “Problems”), Mehmet Okur’s name should appear next to many of these. Memo has an absolutely awful differential between home and road shooting percentages…which is more disturbing as he is now the “veteran” player on this team. Granted he is a good teammate and community member, but he is below average defensively, and a 1 trick pony offensively. Basically he’s on your team because his 1 trick is so unique…however that 1 trick only shows up in Salt Lake, and rarely on the road. His extension may also prove to be the next crippling move by the Jazz.
2010-11 Season Outlook:
Right now, the Jazz are looking at 8 players under contract (counting the Knicks pick the Jazz own in the draft, and their own pick that is lottery protected). The Jazz are also currently about $700k under the luxury tax. This means the Jazz need to find a way to replace the key players departing (Boozer, Korver, Matthews), while only having the NBA minimum/veteran’s exception to offer…AND they are still paying taxes on that team, which if you ask me looks very, very, very average. The Miller family has always said they would be willing to pay short-term luxury taxes if it brought success on the court, but would they be willing to pay those taxes for an average player?
What the Jazz should do:
Boozer - Prior to researching the luxury tax (which I haven’t mentioned is dropping by approximately $8.5M next season), I thought the Jazz would be stable financially if Boozer walked. I find this is not true. The Jazz MUST make a move this season, if only for next season. That move may be Boozer in exchange for some younger players and expiring contracts, but those young players will likely be available by Free Agent during the summer of madness anyway. The Jazz should seek to re-sign Boozer first, and unfortunately, if they are unsuccessful in doing so, the Jazz should simply let his contract expire at the end of the year. No Boozer trade for the Jazz. Sorry.
Okur – I firmly believe that if you remove contracts from consideration, and simply look at the Jazz roster and depth chart, Mehmet Okur will be the player that would be moved. He is simply the primary cause of poor production from a leadership standpoint (team veteran), from a road production standpoint (biggest differential between home and road FG% from contributing players), and from a defensive standpoint (he makes every player on the floor worse defensively, despite making a better effort this year). However, his contract is not very movable right now, and he will likely stay put. The Jazz will probably seek answers to my diagnosed problems from other incoming players not currently on the roster.
Kirilenko – The Jazz should move Kirilenko. I know he is arguably the best defensive player on the team, but he cripples the team financially…next year moreso than this year. I’ve always sworn that the Jazz should keep Kirilenko for 1 more year, then trade him as an expiring contract. That would be the only way the Jazz got equal (likely better) value for Kirilenko in a trade. The Jazz should trade Kirilenko for an aging leader, and expiring contracts. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Jazz had to give up a young asset in the trade to get somebody to take him. Unfortunately that may be someone like Matthews, Brewer or Miles. Trading Kirilenko is the only way the Jazz MIGHT become competitive again next year…and it might be the only way the Jazz get any chance of re-signing Boozer for next year.
Go Jazz!
1 – Leadership – Lack toughness, Poor road performance, and bad losses to bad teams
2 – Defensive strength – inability to win games when FG% is low, poor transition defense, and poor interior shot blocking
3 – Offensive woes – High differential between FG at home and road, inconsistent production outside top two scorers, lack second playmaker allowing teams to double team Williams.
4 – Financial Problems – High salaries, not performing to contract
Diagnosis:
The major money players on this team are going to be those at whom the primary analysis is placed.
Andrei Kirilenko
Deron Williams
Carlos Boozer
Mehmet Okur
While there are other players contributing to the success or lack of success of the team, it’s hard to complain about CJ Miles (example) when he only makes $3.5 million, while Andrei Kirilenko (example) is worth the equivalent of 5 CJ Miles.
Andrei Kirilenko:
AK is unquestionably the source of the problem on this team…not because of his lack of offensive production, but rather because of the financial burden he places on the team. $17M for AK causes financial strain, causing each player to be under a heavy microscope. If this team did not have AK’s salary on the books this year, the Jazz would currently be $12M under the salary cap. Rather than be talking about a Carlos Boozer for garbage trade, the Jazz brass would be positioned as one of very few teams with the cap space to absorb salary from a team looking to drop a high paid but high producing player (Like Michael Redd and the Bucks for example). But no use crying over spilled milk. AK is what he is, and the only question the Jazz have is how to rid themselves of his contract. They have 3 options; 1-Trade him this year for expiring contracts, 2-Trade him next year as an expiring contract and steal a long-term piece away from a desperate team (see Jazz and Boozer), or 3-Let his contract run out in 2 years and let yourself benefit from his contract coming off of the books.
Deron Williams:
DWill has been struggling of late, and as such has been the focus of much criticism, primarily toward his defense and turnovers. Looking back on DWill’s career, turnovers have been most apparent either when the team was injury strapped, or in a scoring slump. Take your pick, but DWill is clearly trying to overcompensate for his team and forcing the issue. Either way, the outcome is not great. Defensively DWill has looked strong at times, and downright awful at other times. But that’s the reality of the NBA; NBA players for the most part should be able to create or get to the hoop in a one-on-one situation. College coaches design plays to get layups or open jumpshots (Jerry Sloan also). NBA coaches design plays to get players in one-on-one situations, and let the players do the rest (Jim Boylen also…why is this backward?). I would argue that any NBA point guard or wing defender outside of the absolute elite defenders cannot defend a quick penetrating guard without an inside presence to intimidate and/or force the player to settle for outside jumpshots. While DWill is not exempt from criticism, 95% of NBA players would look bad in his shoes (Ronnie Price looks downright awful at times defensively as well, and he’s been known as a defensive hustle player by many NBA scouts). Perhaps the defensive criticism should be redirected elsewhere?
Carlos Boozer:
It pains me to say this, but Boozer has been the Jazz most consistent performer this season. Without his scoring and rebounding, I dare say the Jazz would be looking at a top 10 lottery pick (even with Millsap as a fill in). Now reality is Boozer is a very good player, not quite elite, but near the border. I’m sure if the Jazz were in a financially appropriate position (thank you AK), the Jazz would have extended Boozer’s contract long ago, and this whole drama would never have happened. Unfortunately money speaks loudly to Boozer, and he will be gone after this year. So, the Jazz have two options with Boozer; 1-Trade him and get something in return for him…can you really just let a player this good get away? Or 2- Take the extra money from his expiring contract and save for better times. The second option will keep you in the playoff hunt, but the first pretty much assures you a lottery selection. It’s the classic question of whether it is better to have a very good Boozer for 1 year, or 2 very average players for 3 years? Here’s another question to ponder…would Boozer really look as bad defensively if he were next to a defensive big man who took the tough defensive assignments each night and covered for mistakes when needed?
Mehmet Okur:
If you refer back to my original opinions on why this team is struggling so greatly (see “Problems”), Mehmet Okur’s name should appear next to many of these. Memo has an absolutely awful differential between home and road shooting percentages…which is more disturbing as he is now the “veteran” player on this team. Granted he is a good teammate and community member, but he is below average defensively, and a 1 trick pony offensively. Basically he’s on your team because his 1 trick is so unique…however that 1 trick only shows up in Salt Lake, and rarely on the road. His extension may also prove to be the next crippling move by the Jazz.
2010-11 Season Outlook:
Right now, the Jazz are looking at 8 players under contract (counting the Knicks pick the Jazz own in the draft, and their own pick that is lottery protected). The Jazz are also currently about $700k under the luxury tax. This means the Jazz need to find a way to replace the key players departing (Boozer, Korver, Matthews), while only having the NBA minimum/veteran’s exception to offer…AND they are still paying taxes on that team, which if you ask me looks very, very, very average. The Miller family has always said they would be willing to pay short-term luxury taxes if it brought success on the court, but would they be willing to pay those taxes for an average player?
What the Jazz should do:
Boozer - Prior to researching the luxury tax (which I haven’t mentioned is dropping by approximately $8.5M next season), I thought the Jazz would be stable financially if Boozer walked. I find this is not true. The Jazz MUST make a move this season, if only for next season. That move may be Boozer in exchange for some younger players and expiring contracts, but those young players will likely be available by Free Agent during the summer of madness anyway. The Jazz should seek to re-sign Boozer first, and unfortunately, if they are unsuccessful in doing so, the Jazz should simply let his contract expire at the end of the year. No Boozer trade for the Jazz. Sorry.
Okur – I firmly believe that if you remove contracts from consideration, and simply look at the Jazz roster and depth chart, Mehmet Okur will be the player that would be moved. He is simply the primary cause of poor production from a leadership standpoint (team veteran), from a road production standpoint (biggest differential between home and road FG% from contributing players), and from a defensive standpoint (he makes every player on the floor worse defensively, despite making a better effort this year). However, his contract is not very movable right now, and he will likely stay put. The Jazz will probably seek answers to my diagnosed problems from other incoming players not currently on the roster.
Kirilenko – The Jazz should move Kirilenko. I know he is arguably the best defensive player on the team, but he cripples the team financially…next year moreso than this year. I’ve always sworn that the Jazz should keep Kirilenko for 1 more year, then trade him as an expiring contract. That would be the only way the Jazz got equal (likely better) value for Kirilenko in a trade. The Jazz should trade Kirilenko for an aging leader, and expiring contracts. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Jazz had to give up a young asset in the trade to get somebody to take him. Unfortunately that may be someone like Matthews, Brewer or Miles. Trading Kirilenko is the only way the Jazz MIGHT become competitive again next year…and it might be the only way the Jazz get any chance of re-signing Boozer for next year.
Go Jazz!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
