The Olympic Debate

It started a couple of days ago when I commented on the Rasheed Wallace trade, and it will continue now. I'm gonna try and post on general NBA news as well as keeping it Bulls-centric. This is mainly because the Bulls are simply bad and uninteresting now, the other because I got things to say!!

Anyway, the past week has been filled with debate regarding the NBA's place in Olympic basketball. It was started by Pistons Coach Larry Brown (good to see him focuses while his team has lost 5 straight). He basically was moaning about Mavericks owner Mark Cuban's earlier comments openly questioning his players playing this summer.  Cuban had some snappy words in response:

"If things don't work out, a player gets injured or he doesn't like the way things are going, he can do what he has done everywhere else, just leave," Cuban wrote. "As the owner of the team, I can't do that. I am responsible to everyone in the organization, particularly the fans, who much prefer watching our best players, playing at the top of their game.

"Larry is a great coach, and that is exactly what he should stick to," Cuban said. "When he is responsible for a hundred million dollars or more in contracts, then I will respect his opinion on the subject."

This story has been beaten to death already by the painfully boring ESPN writers bloc,  but I'm going to weigh in on this.

This may be surprising to some (or not), but I wholeheartedly agree with Mark Cuban. I just find his arguments to carry much more practical implications than Brown's. Cuban's argument on the other hand is simple to grasp:  he doesn't want his multi-million dollar investments to get hurt, American or otherwise. Cuban's team is especially vulnerable since a player like Dirk Nowitzki or Steve Nash are the focal points of their respective national teams and can get worn down before the NBA training camp even starts.  The argument I hear from Brown's side is grasping at  intangible emotional arguments like patriotism ( to represent your country), or duty to (showcase the game globally). Being the cold-hearted man that I am, let me answer these:

• Nobody cares about the Olympics. Oh, you may think you do, but do you honestly care who wins? If the USA wins with stars, ho-hum. If they lose with less than stars like in the 2002 world championships, ho-hum they didn't have their best players. Some pundits claimed to be outraged after the American loss, but I found it to be a vocal minority. And the US team didn't lose because they weren't talented, they simply didn't have the time together that these international teams do. Now a complete all-star team with Shaq, KG, Duncan, et. al would have to practice for about 3 hours before they were ready, but say they do so and whomp up in Athens this summer. Would this cause celebration in the streets? I doubt it.

 

• There's no debate where the best basketball is played, its the NBA. Even if you do like watching international teams play to check out the foreign talent, the best are in or are soon to be coming to the league. The NBA title means more to a basketball fan than any international medal. There has been similar debate about a baseball world cup, with one of the common soundbytes reading "a true world series". This is total crap. Like baseball, the best players in basketball come to America to play in the NBA. That's where the best talent is, that's where the best teams are. The team that wins is the best in the world.

 

• There are better ways to promote the game. You say the dream team transformed international interest in basketball? Well I tend to agree with that, but its not as bad as Larry Brown's assertions that without the dream team the young ballers would be kicking a soccer ball instead. If you want to simply promote the game, make international competition promotional. Do a world tour with U.S. stars versus international stars. Little practice would be needed, and the games would be exhibition. International players wouldn't have to carry the physical load with star players by their side. And a tour that played in several cities instead of 1 Olympic tournament would do an even better job of promoting the game. Hell, bring the And1 mixtape guy to be on the microphone the whole time. ("OH BABY! PROFESSOR!")

 

• What to do with the Olympics then? I'm not saying that NBA players should be completely banned from competing. But if an owner wants to put a clause in a contract to forbid them from playing, the player can either sign the contract or not. It would be left up to the team and the player. If such a system were in place I feel that many players would choose guaranteed millions over playing in the Olympics. As stated earlier, what American basketball really needs is a team who practices together. Cuban's idea for a college-age squad of professionals is worth thinking about. I'm sure there are kids willing to play and make some money instead of being forced to go to communications and geography classes they don't care about. Perhaps it would be possible to have the best college prospects in the country join the squad as well (which would require some arm twisting of the NCAA). Its easy to forget that America still has the best overall talent pool in the world, so if they had enough time together they should match up with any in the world. And the Olympics could go back to featuring young talent in an amateurish setting, which isn't such a bad thing.

I assume that no changes will be made by 2004, so I will sit back and watch another true dream team dominate. And make no mistake, it will be fun to watch. But Mark Cuban has an argument that the league and USA basketball should truly consider. While its a fun idea to think of an American all-star squad being greased up and ready to dominate the world every 4 years, the practical consequences on the players' employers isn't worth the emotional benefits of cheering the red, white and blue.

I've Modified an Advent Calendar Corresponding to Feb 19th

Well, if its sacrilege to hold the NBA trading deadline in the same esteem as Christmas, then consider me out of the church. As it is right now, the trade winds are gathering strength by the day, and its fun to read columnists make half-hazard trade scenarios with no knowledge of the salary cap.

For the Bulls:
I've spent plenty of time in the past couple of weeks expressing my plans for Curry, Crawford and Chandler (summary: keep curry/chandler..deal crawford only for the right package). And it seems that Jay Mariotti has removed his face from Michael Jordan's rear long enough to make his rallying cry to GM John Paxson:

At the moment, some people are getting excited about him again because he has been avoiding drive-through lanes, responding to Scott Skiles' whip-cracking workouts and delivering impressive offensive stretches in recent games. But in my mind, any positive momentum only serves as another good reason to trade Curry, with hopes another team might relinquish a quality player and give the Bulls a chance to rejoin the NBA one of these decades.

I still think that Curry's value is in fact too low to be even thought of being tradeable. And perhaps its yet another tease, but this road trip makes me think that a half season and full offseason with Scott Skiles may finally unlock the mystery that is Eddy Curry. Kostas Bolos over at RealGM says it best:

And so if Skiles can transform Curry in particular in nine short weeks, just imagine what he can do with a full off-season and training camp under his belt. The Thornwood High School product is only beginning to carve his niche, and the sky remains the limit as far as his impact in the league. Curry is just beginning to scratch the surface of his vast potential.

So forget about him being showcased in any potential deals before Feb. 19. It just isn’t going to happen. Curry will be wearing white, red and black for the foreseeable future and beyond- as long as Paxson does not fall into the same trap that Mariotti has of wanting to win now just for the sake of getting into the post-season, instead of building a potential championship-winner.

Step back, see the big picture. There's nobody the Bulls can get for Curry that has a better shot of bringing the Bulls to title contention than Curry himself.

So now that Paxson himself has pretty much taken the 3 Cs off the market, there's lesser deals rumored involving Marcus Fizer either going to the Clippers for Keyon Dooling/Melvin Ely, or in a package to Detroit for Corliss Williamson.  While the idea of trading Marcus Fizer for Williamson (the rich man's Marcus Fizer) is interesting, his contract is too much for an undersized power forward who has few skills outside of scoring. I for one prefer the Clippers package.

Hawks/Blazers deal:
Rasheed Wallace was finally dealt today, going to the Atlanta with Wesley Person for Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Theo Ratliff, and Dan Dickau. As like most deals, this helps both teams, but I think is an absolute coup for the Hawks. After their ill-fated "playoff guarantee" team centered around an all-star frontcourt of Rahim, Ratliff and Glen Robinson, all 3 have been traded in one year for players who have expired contracts this summer (Terrell Brandon, acquired for Robinson, is expected to retire). Looking at their salaries, they'll have only 6 players under contract next year, and are now added to the list of the Clippers, Nuggets, Jazz and Suns of teams with the means to go after Kobe Bryant. Even if massive cap space can't lure a free agent, they can be major players simply by taking other teams' expensive contracts back in trades. From the Portland side, GM John Nash got exactly what he wanted, good character guys who will help them extend their playoff streak. And all 3 contracts acquired will expire after next season, which will make them very tradeable assets again. Or they can simply wait and have them come off the books (along with Dale Davis and Damon Stoudamire) next summer. 

Whew...remember when trades were about talent? me neither.

The 2 C's

That's right, its only 2. I can do without Jamal Crawford, and now I'm almost hoping he's moved before the trade deadline Feb. 19th. This is not even as much disappointment in his play, because his numbers are solid. He's proven he can score in this league, albeit not consistently. This basically stems from simply a desire to finally move on:

• Kirk Hinrich is the point guard of the future, and that seriously diminishes Crawford's value to the Bulls. A 6'6" point guard is more valuable than a 6'6" off guard. And other teams see Crawford as a point, which helps.
• That said, Crawford isn't a prototypical 2-guard. He can't take the punishment that a bigger guard can handle, which includes defending and attacking the basket. I want a bigger guard like Quentin Richardson.
• He's a restricted free agent after this season. That means that its extremely possible that he's gone in the summer with nothing in return. After hearing comments by both Crawford and GM John Paxson, it seems less and less likely that Crawford is going to get the contract extension he likes. As stated earlier, as a pg he'll be highly sought-after, and at a price the Bulls may not be willing to pay.

So I'm not hating on Crawford, but if the right deal comes along I am willing to stand behind Paxson. I'm sure that comforts him. Now the 2 big fellas are a different matter. Their value is low right now, and not worth trading. And maybe I'm being swayed by a recent string of good games, including last night's blowout win at Utah (the best of the year), but Eddy Curry really seems to play better when Tyson Chandler is around. And as much as people think a 'change of scenery' will help them, isn't it just as likely a summer under Scott Skiles will help them just as much? I'm willing to take that chance for yet another year of the twin towers.

In other news:

• The Tribune is reporting that the Bulls are interested in trading for and subsequently signing Brent Barry. His contract(that I believe Jerry Krause signed?) runs out after this year. He's a nice role player to have, but I don't think he'd be the right scoring 2-guard for the team to play alongside Hinrich. Better off getting a Marco Jaric type for less and get a real scoring threat on the wing somehow.
• Eddie Robinson is really playing well lately. Getting minutes after Kendall Gill went on the IR probably helped:

	G	MPG	FG%	PPG	PSA
Last 14 Games	14	23.6	0.512	9.9	1.059

            Not $6 million dollar good, but not bad.

West Coast Basketball

Which I suppose in the Bulls case means losing basketball. The losing has continued on the west coast road trip, dropping decisions against Golden State, Portland, and Seattle.3 teams that can actually be considered the lower class of the Western Conference. Although that means they'd probably be the 5th seed in the East.

The past couple games did mark the return of Tyson Chandler, and giving coach Skiles a full deck (unless you really miss Corie Blount) for the first time all season. While the games haven't produced results, its come to the point where any improvement is nice to see. And the Bulls offensively start to be playing better, with 95 points in Portland and 97 in Seattle. But just like their west coast counterparts the defense was nowhere to be found. Eddy Curry has been showing those teasing flashes of dominance lately, averaging 26 the past 2 games. He made a remarkable spin move to the basket against Seattle that was so impressive for a man his size. Its moments like that when I sit back and hope Paxson never trades him. But after failing to get rebounding position for 6 straight possessions, I'm willing to send him to the Magic for the rights to Stephen Hunter. But such is life for a Bulls fan. Every jaw-dropping Crawford drive (including ESPN's dunk of the night last night), every unblockable E-Rob jumper, and every shot altered by Chandler just makes it harder to watch the losses knowing how much talent really is there. Maybe giving Chandler time to play again with Curry for an extended period of time will help both twin towers grow and have a strong finish to the season. Oh wait, weren't we at this point last year?

On the trade front, I haven't come across anything beyond the Clippers rumors lately, but it was made official today that Jay Williams has been bought out of the remainder of his contract. The move does save the team some money, as he's getting only 3 million of what's left of his 16 million dollar rookie contract. If you remember Williams was in violation of his contract and could've simply had it terminated. The settlement was basically a PR move for the Bulls, and reportedly part of the deal is that the team will have first crack at resigning Williams if he can ever overcome his injuries. The timing of this settlement was to open up a roster spot for GM Jim Paxson, allowing him to take an extra player in a trade, or failing that someone off the NBDL scrap heap.

And as a closing note, I submit to you my observation during the game (it helps deal with the losing..) that Sonics underachieving center Calvin Booth looks like Presidential hopeful John Kerry.

   

 

Well...I see the resemblance.

Q-Tip

Looks like all that talk a few days ago about showing the Nuggets who's boss showed....well that the Nuggets were boss. The Bulls were rarely down by less than double digits the entire game. Eddy Curry had an interesting game, scoring 21 points, but only 2 rebounds. 2! Earl Boykins had 2, and he's 3 feet tall. But Eddy once again made some great moves inside, taking advantage of the smaller Nuggets defenders. But on the other side of the coin, Nene was able to bull-rush (no pun intended) Eddy and dunk over him on one occasion. Just the same old enigmatic Eddy.

But enough about the team on the floor, lets talk trade rumors! I already reported the talks between the Bulls and Clippers. But Chad Ford suggests a new wrinkle: (and no, Elton Brand isn't coming back)

The Bulls and Clippers began discussions about a week ago on a way to get big man Melvin Ely to Chicago. At the time, talk of a possible Marcus Fizer-for-Ely swap seemed to be about as far as either team was willing to go. The Clippers are trying to clear more cap room to make a run at Kobe Bryant, and getting Ely's contract ($1.7 million next year) off the books helped.

Since then, however, talk of a larger Bulls-Clippers swap has taken hold. Bulls GM John Paxson likes Clippers' combo guard Marko Jaric and has tried to get him worked into the deal. The Clippers are balking unless the Bulls throw in their combo guard, Jamal Crawford. That may be too much for Paxson to swallow. Paxson likes Jaric's tough defense and ability to play three positions on the floor, but Crawford is a high price to pay for Jaric. Clippers president Elgin Baylor likes Crawford's ability to run the point and scoring ability in the backcourt.

Can the two sides make a deal? If the Clippers were willing to substitute local product Quentin Richardson for Jaric, the Bulls would give up Crawford in a heartbeat. However, it's very unlikely that the Clippers would do that, even with the possibility of landing Kobe Bryant to replace Richardson this summer. More realistically, Ely, Jaric and Keyon Dooling for Fizer and Crawford works salary-wise and would address the needs of both clubs.

Its a fun to think that NBA GMs can be just like fantasy sports owners sometimes. "Ok, we have Ely for Fizer, throw in Jaric.....ok if Jaric's in you give us Crawford.....no if we're giving Crawford we need Richardson". If I were Paxson, I'd probably follow the same logic.

An interesting comparison is the one between Crawford and Richarson. They are both shooting guards (at least in the Bulls' eyes), and both were drafted the same year, so consequently will be restricted FAs this summer. Lets look at this years' stats:

	G	MPG	FG%	PPG	3PM	3PA	FTM	FTA	3P%	FT%	PSA
Crawford	44	34.7	0.394	16.9	87	265	98	116	0.328	0.845	0.979
Richardson	39	35.3	0.397	17.6	78	208	93	125	0.375	0.744	0.974

Now those are very similar numbers. But while the numbers are the same, one glaring difference is Crawford's love of the 3-pointer this year. He's on pace to set a Bulls record for attempts, and that is also exposing his reluctance to go to the basket, which has been the ire of Bulls fans all year. Richardson only has a few more attempts, but has played in fewer games. If you look at it in terms of playing time, Richardson averages about .7 more FTA per 48 minutes. Which I'm not sure is even significant. So from the looks of the stats, its hard to differentiate the two, but here is a stat that I like in Q's favor:

Crawford: 6-5 190lb
Richardson: 6-5 238lb

Richardson has that big 2-guard body, which I really like. Its easy to look at Jamal and understand why he doesn't like taking a beating when going to the basket, he's a big point guard, but a very thin 2.  Since point guard is the only position the Bulls have set, I would try to make a deal getting Q for Crawford as the principal players.

Naturally its easy to like other teams players better than your own, because all I see of the Clippers are highlights, and all I see of the Bulls is well....everything. So I'm way more familiar with Crawford's weaknesses than Richardson's. Perhaps some Clipper fans out there could help me out with telling things a stat line misses. While I've read that the Clippers want to re-sign Richardson (although I'm one of the few who actually believe they can get Kobe), they really need a point guard and many GMs think Jamal still has that capability. And for the Bulls, well I would just like to see Q as a true shooting guard playing alongside Kirk Hinrich for years to come.