NBA 07/08 Season

[Big Willis 16]

Blazers TEN straight wins. Look for me on TV Christmas day as they go for the 11th.

[marc]

Originally Posted by Big Willis 16

Blazers TEN straight wins. Look for me on TV Christmas day as they go for the 11th.

That game lost a little luster for you when Oden went down, huh?

Should still be exciting, they have a great young team.

I've waived my boycott of the Sixers now that Billy King has been fired so I'll be in Philly the day after Xmas watching them take on the Heat.

[Lousghost]

The Pacers stink, so no, I'm not too enthused about this season.

[Big Willis 16]

Originally Posted by marc

That game lost a little luster for you when Oden went down, huh?

Should still be exciting, they have a great young team.

I've waived my boycott of the Sixers now that Billy King has been fired so I'll be in Philly the day after Xmas watching them take on the Heat.

The whole season ticket package lost luster.

It's slowly coming back.

[Big Willis 16]

Jazz trade Giricek and a conditional 1st for Kyle Korver.

This makes me excited.

[marc]

Originally Posted by Big Willis 16

Jazz trade Giricek and a conditional 1st for Kyle Korver.

This makes me excited.

Hopefully he helps Utah but I really can't believe they gave up a first rounder for him. Very streaky and the definition of a one-dimensional player. Also cleared some nice cap space for the Sixers.

The Jazz were definitely in need of a 3 point shooter though.

Would love to know what the restrictions on the pick are. I know it has to be made between 2009 and 2014 but there are some other various restrictions that weren't mentioned. I'd assume it's lottery protected.

[Big Hugg]

Chris Bosh wants your All-Star Vote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv7IZP7u9FE

I absolutely can not believe he did this.

[Jonzard]

This man leads all vote getters

[QuestGAV]

Originally Posted by Big Hugg

Chris Bosh wants your All-Star Vote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv7IZP7u9FE

I absolutely can not believe he did this.

That's hilarious.

[CMH]

Originally Posted by Jonzard

This man leads all vote getters

And he should.

He singlehandedly made the Celtics great. I don't care what anyone says but his defensive ability, offensive ability, and willingness to step down from the pedastal as "THE GUY" has helped tremendously.

He was the first to suggest that the team is still Pierce's. And he continues to suggest that they can not be good without all three and the other 9 on the court/bench.

For a guy that's taken a lot of heat for being too passive, he acted brilliantly in phasing himself into a local hero in Boston.

[CMH]

Scottie Pippen is expressing interest in coaching the Bulls.

Not sure if Paxson will seriously consider him (being that Cartwright didn't really work out) but I think it would be a good move.

Pippen will be well respected and he knows the game. How much worse can you really get anyway? Like he said, Skiles didn't have the greatest overall record with Chicago so what's Pip's disadvantage?

Of course, I'm crazy like that. I want Greg Anthony to coach the Knicks. I'm pretty sure I'm the only fan that's wanted that.

[Bryan Swartz]

He singlehandedly made the Celtics great.

He was the first to suggest that the team is still Pierce's. And he continues to suggest that they can not be good without all three and the other 9 on the court/bench.

These two things cannot both be true. If Garnett singlehandedly makes the Celtics great, then by definition they can still be good without the rest of the team.

I have a lot of respect for Garnett, and though he's a legitimate MVP candidate he is, like Steve Nash, over-rated. The most succinct measure of him was made, IMO, by of all people, Scottie Pippen.

"He's very productive but unproductive. He gets you all the stats you want, but at the end of the day his points don't have an impact on the game. He plays with a lot of energy and a lot of enthusiasm, but in the last five minutes of the game he ain't the same player as in the first five."

Garnett has demonstrated this by disappearing at the end of close games this year as well(Detroit, Cleveland, etc.) and as long as that's the case, he's at best no more important to the Celtics than Pierce is(who should be and probably eventually will become their go-to guy at the end of games, something they clearly haven't figured out yet).

[CMH]

Everyone just looks at his points and when he scores. I'm talking about his defense, too. He's affected that team.

I don't see why it matters if he scores late in a game. If he wasn't scoring early in the game then it wouldn't even matter what he did in the end. They have Pierce and Allen to go along with him.

And how does two games really say anything. The Celtics have lost just three games. Seems to me that he was around for all of those wins.

[Bryan Swartz]

I'm considering his defense and rebounding, which have had a major effect. If they hadn't, I wouldn't be saying he's just as important as Pierce is to the team.

It isn't just those two games -- those are the continuation of a pattern. Look at all his years in Minnesota, what he did in close games there. Look at his history in close playoff games. There's a pattern there. It's the pattern of a player who is an outstanding complementary player, but who is not a truly elite superstar. That doesn't mean he isn't a damn fine player and a damn fine person and a damn fine competitor. It does mean that he isn't likely to lead the Celtics to a championship. If they win one, it will be because somebody, most likely Pierce, is able to take over and make plays at the end of close games -- because Garnett has demonstrated that isn't his forte and it doesn't matter if Boston sets a record for regular-season point differential, they'll have at least a couple of playoff series where they have to win multiple close games to advance. That's when they prove their mettle ... or possibly fail to prove it.

[CMH]

Fair enough. He does have that history.

But I do remember people backing off of that when he had Sprewell and Cassel and the Wolves made it deep in the playoffs.

I think Garnett likes to have other guys he can count on. He's a great player but it's likely he hates being the only one to carry a team. And when the fourth comes around he probably hates knowing that it's all up to him or it's another loss.

When he had that weight off his shoulder, people forgot and apparently so did he. I think as he gets more comfortable we'll see Garnett step up late in the game. And if he doesn't, that's ok too. We all know that Pierce loves the fourth and being counted on to hit the big shot and I doubt Garnett will try to take that away from him.

[His Own Bad Self]

Originally Posted by Bryan Swartz

"He's very productive but unproductive. He gets you all the stats you want, but at the end of the day his points don't have an impact on the game. He plays with a lot of energy and a lot of enthusiasm, but in the last five minutes of the game he ain't the same player as in the first five."

With all due respect to Pippen, I don't see how the portion highlighted is anything but contradictory.

[Bryan Swartz]

Technically it is of course a contradiction -- obviously everything that happens in a game has an impact on the outcome. The point he was making is however not contradictory -- that a player can give you all the numbers in the world, but if his effectiveness disappears down the strech of close games, he's not nearly as valuable as his numbers might otherwhise indicate. Conversely, a player with lesser numbers might be worth more if they are the kind of player capable of taking over a game and willing their team to victory.

[His Own Bad Self]

Should only the best players be judged by their ability to "come through when it matters"? If a team is supposed to rely on only their best player in close/late situations, what are the other four guys doing out there, then? I'm reminded of all the heat LeBron James took for passing to Damon Jones in Game 1 of the EC Finals last year (IIRC). Why should he take heat for passing to an open shooter, even if he's the best player in the league? Is one player ever bigger than the team?

[Bryan Swartz]

The criticism of LeBron in that situation was misguided. When you have a star player who consistently doesn't come through late in games(not just last possession but often last few minutes), whether that's scoring themselves or getting someone else a good shot, it's a legitimate point to make. A team doesn't rely only on their best player -- but if that player is often in a position to make a play and often fails to do so, it certainly has a significant effect on their value given the number of close games that there are, particularly in the playoffs when it matters most.

[MorseMoose]

Garnett pimps.