The Boston Celtics and the greater New England Area is pissed. Well, less pissed and moreso distraught and depressed. Ever since Basketball Jesus' back was one strong gust of wind away from being crippled, the aura of the Green has slowly and methodically been beaten into the ground. They suffered through the despair of Len Bias and Reggie Lewis. The 1990s featured a squad with the wildly underrated Paul Pierce and the wildly overrated Antoine Walker. P-Squared has suffered through stabbings in the physical form and from his own front office for not giving him his proper support. After a year of what seemed like systematic tanking was running rampant, the NBA and its resident dictator have given them the fantastic 5th pick of the draft.
Memphis? What is there to say about a team that lost its star player for half a year and then proceeded to underachieve the rest of the way? Basically, karma has its way of resurfacing, but that's a story for another day. Plain and simple, a squad featuring Gasol, Gay, Miller and Warrick should have been able to run the opposition into at least 10 more victories.
Then, we have the 7th pick of the 2007 NBA Draft, The Minnesota Timberwolves. Kevin Garnett is one more unforced tunrover from having an aneurysm. One more inept big man, ill adivsed shot, overhyped wingman and a Kevin McHale managerial decision from going from Boyz N Da Hood-Ice Cube to NWA-Ice Cube. If Joseph Sta...er, David Stern cared about the well-being of the NBA, he would have given the Timberwolves, no, he would have given Kevin Garnett the top 2 picks. At least if that were the scenario, we'd have the It Was A Good Day-Ice Cube, you know, mess around and get a triple double and just keep his emotions to himself. Instead, we will be treated to more nights of him pouring out his heart, soul, sweat, 25 and 15 only to have his team lose by 17. Oh, how the NBA should be scared. The man has an AK-47 and it is his tool.
Then we have Portland and Seattle. Yes Mr. Stern, you were able to have enough foresight to give the New York Knicks Patrick Ewing in 1985, but decided to give the two future marquee attractions of the NBA to two excessively rainy, foggy and otherwise boring cities. Seattle has Starbucks, and it now may have Kevin Durant. Nice one. Then we have the NBA's version of the Cincinatti Bengals. I suppose it's ok that they get Greg Oden. As LZ Granderson so eloquently stated, Greg Oden is the Lupe Fiasco to Portland's Dipset Byrd Gang. Perhaps an image overhaul is what the franchise needs.
Enough with the inane bantering, let's see how this year's Draft affects the 2008 season for the teams with the first 5 picks.
Portland: I know this is supposed to be objective, but the Trailblazers have quickly become a fantasy owner's dream. A solid do-it-all point guard in Jarrett Jack with Dickau launching treys from the bench. A very solid frontcourt with Aldridge and a Zach Randolph who played the second half of this season like a hybrid of the Reign Man and the playing weight of Sir Charles. With a very talented young core also including Webster and Roy, Greg Oden makes this squad very deep, very talented and very young.
Seattle: Kevin Durant will put up big numbers very early and very voluminously. What else is there to say, Ray Allen will get the ball and will get the ball to KD. Will this help Seattle in 08? Let's just say Bizzy Bone returning to Bone Thugs is more likely. I can't stress how displeased I am with Seattle landing Kevin Durant. Now they have the makings of a watered down early 90s Chicago Bulls team, you know, a good 2 with a really long and atheltic 3.
Atlanta: I hope they draft Yi Jian Lian just so they have can have 17 face-up forwards and no point guard. At the same time, Mike Conley looks like an awfully good pick. Sleeper pick that may work out for them: Brandan Wright. Wait scratch that, he's just a really long 4. Ok, maybe they should really draft Mike Conley.
Memphis: Boy did they get screwed. They didn't get the point guard they desperately needed, nor did they get the prototype 5. Maybe you can get Tywon Lawson next year. Or you can draft Acie Law IV. Sure you get another left handed point guard, but at least he's clutch and plays more D than Stoudamire.
Boston: Oh Boston...how you deserved better. But at least you get an assortment of bigs to choose from. There's Florida's Noah and Horford. Carolina's Wright. GTown's Hibbert. Perhaps it's time for Boston to take one more chance and draft China's Yi Jian Lian. 7 footer with stroke, handle and face up skills? Sign me up! Let's hope that if he wins an MVP, his team doesn't get knocked off by an 8 seed with a collection of super-talented inner city street ball kids.
This year's draft? Deep. Very Deep. Like pre-Heliocentric, the world is flat, and we're sailing into the Abyss deep. Is it as good as '03? Perhaps. Time will tell how good both the 03 and 07 drafts turn out. I will say this, if we ever get a draft that's even as close as the '84 draft, in just a four year span, the NBA is in good shape. Even if its commissioner is a crazy old dictator.
Before I sign off, I would like to thank Baron Davis and Stephen Jackson for making these Playoffs one of the most enjoyable to watch...at least for the first round. By the way, Stephen Jackson was unfairly villified the entire playoffs. B-Dizzle for President!
5.23.2007
5.20.2007
The Objective Fan's Manifesto
For a long time, I was bothered by the qualification of being called a sports fan. The average sports fan roots for the home team, or one affiliated through some form of history predicated geographically at some point in time. Other more casual fans often rooted for specific players, which would be fine in sports like tennis or golf, but it maybe difficult to root for a good player stuck on a bad team. In fact, having lived in New York City for the entirety of the Scott Layden regime as well as the even more infamous Isiah Thomas era, I have formed an understanding that rooting for a team seems more and more like rooting for a front office to be competent.
The whole concept of cheering for a team seems blind and in some cases, predicated on the concept of ignorance is bliss. It's become more and more obvious that the teams that fans worship are businesses. Almost all businesses are organized from the top-down, and it's stupid to think that rooting for a team is really about rooting for the name in the front of the jersey, rather than for the business decisions that end up affecting the resulting product. Take the Clippers of the NBA. Donald Sterling for a long time ran the Clippers like a business, more intent on making money than having a competitive team. It was obvious that he was more intent on taking advantage of players in their rookie contracts, fielding a marketable team, rather than keeping a core of veterans that can win. It's obvious that ownership dictates the makeup of the team. It's obvious that big market teams, like the Yankees or the Red Sox, are more likely to field a good team, simply because they can afford to. Teams are reflections of business decisions made by their owner and front office. One would be blindly ignorant if one didn't see that the Yankees or the Knicks are reflected by the attitudes of George Steinbrenner and Brian Cashman or James Dolan and Isiah Thomas. Rooting for a team and one might as well be rooting for a business to stay competitive.
It may be different in an older era, but not now. Up until a decade ago, it was very difficult to follow a team that wasn't from one's hometown. People could only follow their home team loyally because it was really the only team that they could consistently watch. Other than nationally televised games, people couldn't really watch anything else. Sure, one might be able to follow a team from box scores, but the essence of the game is lost. Now, there's League Pass, Sunday Ticket, and Extra Inning available on cable, satellite, and the Internet. It’s no longer impossible to follow other players and other teams.
Therefore, I propose a different model. For anyone who's a fan of a sport, I think it's hypocritical to cheer for one team, rather than for the progression of the sport. In this day and age, people get to know individual prospects way before they get into professional leagues. Exposure comes early, especially in a sport like basketball, where LeBron James became an All American in his sophomore year of high school, and O.J. Mayo had a Reebok endorsement since the 8th grade. If one becomes a fan of individual players before they enter the league, it would be a conflict of interest if that player ended up on a rival team to the fan's team. Similarly, if a fan dislikes a player since his youth, it’ll be tough to tolerate the team signing that player.
To correct that, I think it makes more sense to follow players, as fans can more readily identify with them. Also, and more importantly, fans should follow the progression of a sport. Writers like Michael Lewis have followed the evolution of the progression within sports, and it’s a much more refreshing and a better angle than following a team. That said, there has to be a concession that the most popular and marketable of these sports are team sports, and as such the team concept will always be put over the individual. However, I feel that to be a pure fan of a sport, it’s more important to follow an individual’s impact on the team, in the game, and the said player’s contribution to the progression of the sport, rather than to follow a team, which in many ways seems more like the following of a company, and its ability as management, to recognize value and talent.
The whole concept of cheering for a team seems blind and in some cases, predicated on the concept of ignorance is bliss. It's become more and more obvious that the teams that fans worship are businesses. Almost all businesses are organized from the top-down, and it's stupid to think that rooting for a team is really about rooting for the name in the front of the jersey, rather than for the business decisions that end up affecting the resulting product. Take the Clippers of the NBA. Donald Sterling for a long time ran the Clippers like a business, more intent on making money than having a competitive team. It was obvious that he was more intent on taking advantage of players in their rookie contracts, fielding a marketable team, rather than keeping a core of veterans that can win. It's obvious that ownership dictates the makeup of the team. It's obvious that big market teams, like the Yankees or the Red Sox, are more likely to field a good team, simply because they can afford to. Teams are reflections of business decisions made by their owner and front office. One would be blindly ignorant if one didn't see that the Yankees or the Knicks are reflected by the attitudes of George Steinbrenner and Brian Cashman or James Dolan and Isiah Thomas. Rooting for a team and one might as well be rooting for a business to stay competitive.
It may be different in an older era, but not now. Up until a decade ago, it was very difficult to follow a team that wasn't from one's hometown. People could only follow their home team loyally because it was really the only team that they could consistently watch. Other than nationally televised games, people couldn't really watch anything else. Sure, one might be able to follow a team from box scores, but the essence of the game is lost. Now, there's League Pass, Sunday Ticket, and Extra Inning available on cable, satellite, and the Internet. It’s no longer impossible to follow other players and other teams.
Therefore, I propose a different model. For anyone who's a fan of a sport, I think it's hypocritical to cheer for one team, rather than for the progression of the sport. In this day and age, people get to know individual prospects way before they get into professional leagues. Exposure comes early, especially in a sport like basketball, where LeBron James became an All American in his sophomore year of high school, and O.J. Mayo had a Reebok endorsement since the 8th grade. If one becomes a fan of individual players before they enter the league, it would be a conflict of interest if that player ended up on a rival team to the fan's team. Similarly, if a fan dislikes a player since his youth, it’ll be tough to tolerate the team signing that player.
To correct that, I think it makes more sense to follow players, as fans can more readily identify with them. Also, and more importantly, fans should follow the progression of a sport. Writers like Michael Lewis have followed the evolution of the progression within sports, and it’s a much more refreshing and a better angle than following a team. That said, there has to be a concession that the most popular and marketable of these sports are team sports, and as such the team concept will always be put over the individual. However, I feel that to be a pure fan of a sport, it’s more important to follow an individual’s impact on the team, in the game, and the said player’s contribution to the progression of the sport, rather than to follow a team, which in many ways seems more like the following of a company, and its ability as management, to recognize value and talent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)