There is not much in this world I love more than The League. I like the fact that I can breathe, that I live in America, that I have an amazing dog, that whenever I walk into a room I immediately become the smartest person in that room, and I love pizza. But more than all those things, I love the NBA. My childhood consists of Michael Jordan, NBA on NBC and Ahmad Rashad. I am by no means a perfectionist nor do I consider myself a critical person, but when something that I love so dear has such egregious flaws, I can't help but feel frustrated. I do not understand the blind worship that people with access and a voice have given David Stern since MJ retired from the Bulls. The league I love so dear is still great, but the thing is, it could be so much better. When running for president in 2000, Bill Bradley had a great saying that "You need to fix the roof when it is sunny outside". David Stern could have fixed his league back during the Jordan years, or even during the Lakers' run, but he didn't. Instead, he sat idly by and watched as the Spurs and Pistons became the dominant franchises, and no one cares. Now, the League is in crises mode. And I thank Tim Donaghy because maybe, just maybe, he persuades Stern to wake up and either step down, or, recognize that the League has tremendous problems which need to be solved.
If I were advising the Commissioner, this is what I would propose:
*(Captain Obvious) improve the refereeing; contract outside help via other leagues, consultants, even fans. Stern became so obsessed with Cuban that he failed to recognize that Cuban spoke for many hardcore fans, not just in the city of Dallas. Dwyane Wade in the 2006 Finals was one of the most despicable performances in sports history. You should not/cannot be rewarded for jumping in the air, flayling your arms, and then falling down.
*fine players for flopping. People often argue for technical fouls to be called when a player flops. However, this is ridiculous, as referees have proven that they cannot distinguish between flop and legitimate contact, and therefore, the game stinks. Also, there should not be rules against flopping, as, in theory, if a player flops, and does not get bailed out, all he is doing is hurting his team by putting himself out of position. Flops are insanely easy to distinguish when viewed in slow motion. Every game, the League should review the tape, and then fine certain players for flopping. This way, the refs would not get blamed, and eventually, players would care to much about their lighter wallet to ever pull the stunt again.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
The Perfect (but likely bad) NBA Team
Hassan Adams was released over the weekend by the New Jersey Nets in order to free up cap space to avoid the luxury tax (even though he was only scheduled to make a whopping $800,000 next year, where as Bernard Robinson and Antoine Wright will be making more). I have been a big fan of Hassan Adams for a long time. When he was in high school, he was extensively profiled by ESPN (along with Evan deadbeat Burns), and then went to play for Lute Olsen at Arizona. His most memorable game was in the Elite 8 against Daron Williams and Arizona in 2005. Although people mostly remember Arizona's implosion in the closing minutes, Hassan Adams almost single handily won them the game. He was then taken late in the second round by the Nets in the 2006 Draft (after graduating). Most importantly though, through extensive coverage of his life since he was 17, at absolutely no point was there any hint that Hassan Adams was anything but a happy, intelligent, good-natured human being that just loved the game of basketball.
So, he has been released by the New Jersey Nets. Now, if you were Sacramento, Indiana, Minnesota, Philadelphia, New York or Memphis, teams with over-the-hill players who are going nowhere next year and everybody knows it, is there any risk to picking up Hassan Adams? Of course not, but, unfortunately, as has been reiterated ad infinitum by Bill Simmons, NBA GM's are a bunch of morons. If I ran any one of those teams, I would blow up the team, replace them with talented but underrated young players that were good guys who worked hard, and we would be competitive every night. We would likely lose more than we won, but, we would always be fun to watch.
Take Sacramento for example. The Kings used to represent everything that was good about basketball. They have since fallen on hard times. Their roster consists of Kevin Martin (seems like a very good guy in addition to a pretty darn good team player), Mike Bibby (still has a few very good years in him, especially if his team ever made the playoffs), Ron Artest (never had anything good in him, but other GM's think he not only used to, but currently does, which is really all that matters), Brad Miller (who has nothing in him, and it seems as though everyone knows it), Kenny Thomas, the recently signed and already overpaid Mikki Moore, and, of course, the biggest natural loser not named Keith Van Horn or Drew Bledsoe, Shareef Abdur-Rahim. Now, what if tomorrow they signed Hassan Adams. Then traded Mike Bibby to Cleveland in exchange for Shannon Brown and Anderson Varejau. Then they traded Ron Artest to the Rockets in exchange for Aaron Brooks and next years first round pick. That would leave the Kings with the following rotation:
PG: Aaron Brooks
SG: Shannon Brown
SF: Kevin Martin
PF: Anderson Varejau
C: Spencer Hawes
6: Hassan Adams
This team would likely go 20-62, with zero arrests, 100% effort all the time, and would make people proud to be Sacramento Kings fans. Other than Martin, at least one other player would break out and average 20 points for them (of course, it won't be Varejau because he can't score, and it won't be Hawes because, well, hes white). They would then wind up with multiple first round picks in next years draft and be drmatically under the cap to add a player here and there.
My point is that NBA GM's need to be realistic. For example, the Indiana Pacers are never going to win a title with Jermaine O'neal. He makes too much money, holds the ball in the low post for too long, and I cannot remember him every scoring a basket in his career. If your going to lose, its always better to lose with likable, hard-working young players that make about as much as the fans sitting courtside than it is with established overpaid players who are resented by everyone when the team is losing.
So, he has been released by the New Jersey Nets. Now, if you were Sacramento, Indiana, Minnesota, Philadelphia, New York or Memphis, teams with over-the-hill players who are going nowhere next year and everybody knows it, is there any risk to picking up Hassan Adams? Of course not, but, unfortunately, as has been reiterated ad infinitum by Bill Simmons, NBA GM's are a bunch of morons. If I ran any one of those teams, I would blow up the team, replace them with talented but underrated young players that were good guys who worked hard, and we would be competitive every night. We would likely lose more than we won, but, we would always be fun to watch.
Take Sacramento for example. The Kings used to represent everything that was good about basketball. They have since fallen on hard times. Their roster consists of Kevin Martin (seems like a very good guy in addition to a pretty darn good team player), Mike Bibby (still has a few very good years in him, especially if his team ever made the playoffs), Ron Artest (never had anything good in him, but other GM's think he not only used to, but currently does, which is really all that matters), Brad Miller (who has nothing in him, and it seems as though everyone knows it), Kenny Thomas, the recently signed and already overpaid Mikki Moore, and, of course, the biggest natural loser not named Keith Van Horn or Drew Bledsoe, Shareef Abdur-Rahim. Now, what if tomorrow they signed Hassan Adams. Then traded Mike Bibby to Cleveland in exchange for Shannon Brown and Anderson Varejau. Then they traded Ron Artest to the Rockets in exchange for Aaron Brooks and next years first round pick. That would leave the Kings with the following rotation:
PG: Aaron Brooks
SG: Shannon Brown
SF: Kevin Martin
PF: Anderson Varejau
C: Spencer Hawes
6: Hassan Adams
This team would likely go 20-62, with zero arrests, 100% effort all the time, and would make people proud to be Sacramento Kings fans. Other than Martin, at least one other player would break out and average 20 points for them (of course, it won't be Varejau because he can't score, and it won't be Hawes because, well, hes white). They would then wind up with multiple first round picks in next years draft and be drmatically under the cap to add a player here and there.
My point is that NBA GM's need to be realistic. For example, the Indiana Pacers are never going to win a title with Jermaine O'neal. He makes too much money, holds the ball in the low post for too long, and I cannot remember him every scoring a basket in his career. If your going to lose, its always better to lose with likable, hard-working young players that make about as much as the fans sitting courtside than it is with established overpaid players who are resented by everyone when the team is losing.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Go Dog Go, Cat in the Hat and other Masterpieces of American Literature
I just got back from a trip to Borders book store. I purchased four books: When Genius Failed, A People's History, Tipping Point and Undercover Economist (which I had actually never heard of, but it came free as part of a Buy 2 Get 1 Free Deal). I am currently finishing up Den of Thieves, which is very good, just a little long and at times hard to follow since there are so many freaking people involved. For those of you who don't know, Den of Thieves is an account of the insider trading cases that occurred in the late 1980's. The most famous of course is Michael Milken, who amassed a fortune with his junk bond creativity (which seems perfectly legal as far as I can tell, its just extremely risky), but then used his connections to learn of impending deals, and then traded on that inside information and also sold his information to other big-name clients. Milken was sentenced to ten years in prison, but only served two. He was sentenced by Reagan appointee Judge Kimba Wood. She was later was nominated for AG by Clinton. Rupert Murdoch, one of Milken's largest clients, got wind of Wood's nomination and instructed his New York Post staff to do some dirt digging. It was discovered that Wood had previously hired illegal immigrants to work as nannies, and, even though she had filed the appropriate paperwork and not broken the law, the Post engaged in a mass character assassination against Clinton's nominee, forcing her to withdraw her nomination. So yeah, lets hope Murdoch doesn't buy the Wall Street Journal.
Rudolph Giuliani, who was then the U.S. Attorney for New York, with jurisdiction over Wall Street, is profiled extensively in the book. Apparently he was a media whore, the LaVar Arrington of politics if you will. He used the notoriety of the Milken case to gain the GOP nomination for Mayor of New York in 1989 (losing). He hung tough, and the rest is history. Interesting though, that Milken wound up serving less than two years, and was still a billionaire upon his release. So, all and all, he wound up earning $2 Billion in exchange for less than two years in prison. Not a bad deal. I wonder how much time Bodie Broadus or Omar Little would get if they walked in and stole $2 Billion from the Federal Reserve. I am guessing they would get more than two years. Just a hunch.
Anyway, as for the current books, I am really excited about When Genius Failed. I am hoping that it clears up a lot of confusion I have over hedge funds, the floating Baht and the Asian financial crisis of 1997, and the regulation of securities in general.
As for the other books, we shall see. I have a feeling I am going to really like Tipping Point, but since I've already seen the Brian Lamb interview, and read so much about the book, I will get bored fairly quickly and never finish it. Hopefully Undercover Economist is practical and reasonable, and not merely a sensationalist pessimistic critique of the dismal science that argues that every poor person will die miserable due to a rigged system.
The wild card of the bunch is a People's History by Howard Zinn. The book comes highly recommended by my friend Will Hunting, but I am a little worried that the book overemphasizes class struggle and romanticizes the victims of rich white male dominance to such a degree that it may become cliched. The problem with books like that in today's society is that anyone with any intelligence whatsoever recognizes the dark side of America's founders, and we no longer need to be convinced that racism, sexism, and flat out evil existed among America's elite. But, American history is what it is. Hopefully though, the book gives greater support to an across-the-board estate and inheritance tax, something which I strongly support. We shall see.
Please leave me some book recommendations in the comments section. Thanks.
Rudolph Giuliani, who was then the U.S. Attorney for New York, with jurisdiction over Wall Street, is profiled extensively in the book. Apparently he was a media whore, the LaVar Arrington of politics if you will. He used the notoriety of the Milken case to gain the GOP nomination for Mayor of New York in 1989 (losing). He hung tough, and the rest is history. Interesting though, that Milken wound up serving less than two years, and was still a billionaire upon his release. So, all and all, he wound up earning $2 Billion in exchange for less than two years in prison. Not a bad deal. I wonder how much time Bodie Broadus or Omar Little would get if they walked in and stole $2 Billion from the Federal Reserve. I am guessing they would get more than two years. Just a hunch.
Anyway, as for the current books, I am really excited about When Genius Failed. I am hoping that it clears up a lot of confusion I have over hedge funds, the floating Baht and the Asian financial crisis of 1997, and the regulation of securities in general.
As for the other books, we shall see. I have a feeling I am going to really like Tipping Point, but since I've already seen the Brian Lamb interview, and read so much about the book, I will get bored fairly quickly and never finish it. Hopefully Undercover Economist is practical and reasonable, and not merely a sensationalist pessimistic critique of the dismal science that argues that every poor person will die miserable due to a rigged system.
The wild card of the bunch is a People's History by Howard Zinn. The book comes highly recommended by my friend Will Hunting, but I am a little worried that the book overemphasizes class struggle and romanticizes the victims of rich white male dominance to such a degree that it may become cliched. The problem with books like that in today's society is that anyone with any intelligence whatsoever recognizes the dark side of America's founders, and we no longer need to be convinced that racism, sexism, and flat out evil existed among America's elite. But, American history is what it is. Hopefully though, the book gives greater support to an across-the-board estate and inheritance tax, something which I strongly support. We shall see.
Please leave me some book recommendations in the comments section. Thanks.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Money & Politics
In the latest issue of the New Republic, a liberal political news magazine, there is an article on the disaster that is "McCain in '08". Basically, the article explains how McCain, who was once championed as the moderate Republican who was not a tool of the religious right, has lost any and all sense of direction, and is currently polling 4th among Republicans in California (conservatives who support gay rights, are pro-Choice, don't own a gun, and believe in the crackpot liberal communist theory of Global Warming). While the article all but nails down McCain's coffin, what is really noteworthy of the article is its depiction of the almost parasitic relationship between politics and money. Politicians need money to run ads, to get votes, and annoy people, and tell lies about each other, and appeal to the lowest common denominator of American society, and win the election, and then throw a party for their contributors, where they will ask for more money so that they can run ads four years from now and tell more lies in order to throw another party. Ironically, it appears as though McCain's most noteworthy legislative accomplishment, the commendable but inadequate McCain-Feingold Bill , will be what kills his last hope for the White House.
The infamous organization Democracy Matters, along with numerous other grassroots organizations, have organized a movement for publicly financed elections. Essentially, the movement calls for a $6 a person tax every year to fund federal elections, giving members of the two major parties an equal share of the money to use for campaign expenditures. Inevitable problems lie regarding third party candidates and independents, as well as the fact that federal financing of elections does not necessarily rid of the irritations that campaigns bring. But still, money is too serious a threat to democracy to allow for the status quo to continue.
Another idea that I first read about in an article published by the TMQ (Gregg Easterbrook) of ESPN and Brookings Institute, is to dramatically increase the salaries of Congressman, say, from $165,200 (or slightly less than three times the salary of the average American worker), to about $1 Million. Then, pass radical legislation prohibiting any and all forms of contributions to Congressmen. The theory posits that this would attract more qualified people to the realm of politics (the Mark Cubans, Henry Paulsons and Michael Bloombergs of the world), who would not be tempted by the allure of money, and hopefully, we would wind up with an overall decrease in government spending, and a drastic decrease in pork barrel spending since Congressmen would no longer feel pressured to deliver desirable legislation for their campaign contributors.
Of course, all of this debate surrounding campaign finance reform is irrelevant as long as the Supreme Court continues to consider limitations on money as being unconstitutional limitations on an individuals freedom of speech (Buckley v. Valeo). People that know me well know that I am a big supporter of the Supreme Court. As in other cases, the Supreme Court's position is easy to understand. Why should citizen involvement in government be considered a bad thing? In the end, the blame lies with greedy and corrupt Congressmen. I never understood why the media vilified Jack Abramoff to such a degree, when really, all he was doing was buying a Congress that was for sale. If you know that a Congressman will pass legislation that will greatly boost your business if you give him a few thousand dollars to get him elected, would anyone else honestly say they wouldn't have acted the same way? Oh well, I guess the blame shouldn't lie with Congress, but rather with us, ridiculously stupid Americans who elect corrupt Congressman.
The infamous organization Democracy Matters, along with numerous other grassroots organizations, have organized a movement for publicly financed elections. Essentially, the movement calls for a $6 a person tax every year to fund federal elections, giving members of the two major parties an equal share of the money to use for campaign expenditures. Inevitable problems lie regarding third party candidates and independents, as well as the fact that federal financing of elections does not necessarily rid of the irritations that campaigns bring. But still, money is too serious a threat to democracy to allow for the status quo to continue.
Another idea that I first read about in an article published by the TMQ (Gregg Easterbrook) of ESPN and Brookings Institute, is to dramatically increase the salaries of Congressman, say, from $165,200 (or slightly less than three times the salary of the average American worker), to about $1 Million. Then, pass radical legislation prohibiting any and all forms of contributions to Congressmen. The theory posits that this would attract more qualified people to the realm of politics (the Mark Cubans, Henry Paulsons and Michael Bloombergs of the world), who would not be tempted by the allure of money, and hopefully, we would wind up with an overall decrease in government spending, and a drastic decrease in pork barrel spending since Congressmen would no longer feel pressured to deliver desirable legislation for their campaign contributors.
Of course, all of this debate surrounding campaign finance reform is irrelevant as long as the Supreme Court continues to consider limitations on money as being unconstitutional limitations on an individuals freedom of speech (Buckley v. Valeo). People that know me well know that I am a big supporter of the Supreme Court. As in other cases, the Supreme Court's position is easy to understand. Why should citizen involvement in government be considered a bad thing? In the end, the blame lies with greedy and corrupt Congressmen. I never understood why the media vilified Jack Abramoff to such a degree, when really, all he was doing was buying a Congress that was for sale. If you know that a Congressman will pass legislation that will greatly boost your business if you give him a few thousand dollars to get him elected, would anyone else honestly say they wouldn't have acted the same way? Oh well, I guess the blame shouldn't lie with Congress, but rather with us, ridiculously stupid Americans who elect corrupt Congressman.
Venus Williams
Older sister Venus won her fourth Wimbledon title on Saturday, easily defeating [Insert random European name here]. I am always partial to athletes who challenge the establishment and take alternative paths to greatness. I don't know anything about women's tennis, but I have heard that players fizz out a young age, so we need to be cherish every glorious moment my older sisters have over the coming years, for you never know when childbirth may strike.
People are constantly labeling Venus and Serena as drama queens, which they probably are. However, if they really were the prima donnas that everyone says they are, don't you think there would occasionally be family conflict which the media would turn into the Shaq/Kobe, TO/McNabb circus? I do not believe I have ever heard of any dispute between the two. Credit has to go to Venus. She is the older sister, and entered the mainstream sports world with considerable hype in the in late 1990's. But when her younger sister dominated the sport at the start of the decade, not once was their any hint of jeolousy or resentment from Venus. She could have easily become the Billy Ripken to Serena's Cal. She didnt. In all honesty, Venus and Serena seem to be less dramatic than most women I have met. So maybe its not that they are drama queens, but rather, that the other women on the tennis tour are actually men. GO VENUS!
This is an op-ed in the London Times written by the Champion herself. She demonstrates how equal pay can be achieved without the involvement of government. Although this is an unusual case, I truly believe that eventually all discrimination in pay will be resolved in a similar fashion. Instead of having the government come in and mandate it (which creates resentment, backlash and unintended consequences that ultimately hurt the benefiting party), discrepencies in pay will be resolved simply by the MAN handing out the paycheck realizing that it is in HIS best interest to reward his employees equally.
Here is also an interesting article written by Jemele Hill. It is about Althea Gibson, the first black woman to win Wimbledon. Hill has been on the ESPN Page 2 staff for about six months now. I have probably read half of her columns. She is not bad. I find her a lot more interesting than Sally Jenkins of the Washington Post (who in addition to being ridiculously boring is insanely stupid). It seems as though Hill and LZ Granderson have morphed into a better version of Jason Whitlock, in order to balance the crazy rhetoric of the god-awful Scoop Jackson.
People are constantly labeling Venus and Serena as drama queens, which they probably are. However, if they really were the prima donnas that everyone says they are, don't you think there would occasionally be family conflict which the media would turn into the Shaq/Kobe, TO/McNabb circus? I do not believe I have ever heard of any dispute between the two. Credit has to go to Venus. She is the older sister, and entered the mainstream sports world with considerable hype in the in late 1990's. But when her younger sister dominated the sport at the start of the decade, not once was their any hint of jeolousy or resentment from Venus. She could have easily become the Billy Ripken to Serena's Cal. She didnt. In all honesty, Venus and Serena seem to be less dramatic than most women I have met. So maybe its not that they are drama queens, but rather, that the other women on the tennis tour are actually men. GO VENUS!
This is an op-ed in the London Times written by the Champion herself. She demonstrates how equal pay can be achieved without the involvement of government. Although this is an unusual case, I truly believe that eventually all discrimination in pay will be resolved in a similar fashion. Instead of having the government come in and mandate it (which creates resentment, backlash and unintended consequences that ultimately hurt the benefiting party), discrepencies in pay will be resolved simply by the MAN handing out the paycheck realizing that it is in HIS best interest to reward his employees equally.
Here is also an interesting article written by Jemele Hill. It is about Althea Gibson, the first black woman to win Wimbledon. Hill has been on the ESPN Page 2 staff for about six months now. I have probably read half of her columns. She is not bad. I find her a lot more interesting than Sally Jenkins of the Washington Post (who in addition to being ridiculously boring is insanely stupid). It seems as though Hill and LZ Granderson have morphed into a better version of Jason Whitlock, in order to balance the crazy rhetoric of the god-awful Scoop Jackson.
Friday, July 6, 2007
KKR and Russia's New Wealth
I recently read the book "Barbarians at the Gate", which I think is the best book I have ever read. It is the true story of the merger of RJ Reynolds Tobacco and Nabisco Foods, and how the public company was then taken private by the firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. What I think the book does a fabulous job of doing is showing how most people in the financial and corporate world have emotions and understand the consequences of their actions, and are not merely faceless businessmen. The book does a good job of showing how there are no "bad guys", no Monty Burns', but rather, just smart people trying to outsmart one another. Anyway, here is an interesting article on Henry Kravis the self-made billionaire who founded KKR back in the 70's (you have to have a washingtonpost.com or slate.com account to read the link; they are both free, and I highly recommend getting them). If the book is a good representation, I have to say he seems like a really good guy.
Here is also an interesting article from Washington Post on the new wealth in Russia. One of my favorite stories is the one of Ronald Reagan showing Boris Yeltsin (then Mayor of Moscow I believe)around Washington DC in the late 1980's. Reagan commented to his staff that maybe Yeltsin, who was a reformer in the Soviet Union pushing for liberalization of the economy and advocate of glasnost, may not have been the American ally the conservative administration was hoping for, as he seemed indifferent to the National Monument and the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials. Then, on their way back to the White House, they passed a local grocery store and Yeltsin walked in and started to cry. He was astonished at how easy it was for Americans to get food. Anyway, I am no fan of communism. But this article reminds me of something Milton Friedman said recently. I am paraphrasing and babbling, but basically he said something like "For decades I advocated and advised developing nations to liberalize, liberalize, liberalize, and when your done liberalizing, then you can liberalize some more. Looking back, we should have established the rule of law first, then liberalize". Corruption is really the killer, which is why the commuted sentence of Scooter Libby, the Justice Department debacle, and the joke that is/was Tom DeLay and ARMPAC bothers me so much. (FYI, and I am shocked that this was not reported on more, but David Iglesias, the US Attorney for New Mexico who was fired by the Justice Department to make way for more lawyers from Regent University, one of the worst law schools in the country, is actually the lawyer in the GITMO case which was the inspiration for Aaron Sorkin's play and then the movie A Few Good Men).
Here is also an interesting article from Washington Post on the new wealth in Russia. One of my favorite stories is the one of Ronald Reagan showing Boris Yeltsin (then Mayor of Moscow I believe)around Washington DC in the late 1980's. Reagan commented to his staff that maybe Yeltsin, who was a reformer in the Soviet Union pushing for liberalization of the economy and advocate of glasnost, may not have been the American ally the conservative administration was hoping for, as he seemed indifferent to the National Monument and the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials. Then, on their way back to the White House, they passed a local grocery store and Yeltsin walked in and started to cry. He was astonished at how easy it was for Americans to get food. Anyway, I am no fan of communism. But this article reminds me of something Milton Friedman said recently. I am paraphrasing and babbling, but basically he said something like "For decades I advocated and advised developing nations to liberalize, liberalize, liberalize, and when your done liberalizing, then you can liberalize some more. Looking back, we should have established the rule of law first, then liberalize". Corruption is really the killer, which is why the commuted sentence of Scooter Libby, the Justice Department debacle, and the joke that is/was Tom DeLay and ARMPAC bothers me so much. (FYI, and I am shocked that this was not reported on more, but David Iglesias, the US Attorney for New Mexico who was fired by the Justice Department to make way for more lawyers from Regent University, one of the worst law schools in the country, is actually the lawyer in the GITMO case which was the inspiration for Aaron Sorkin's play and then the movie A Few Good Men).
Charlotte Bobcats
It is unfortunate that the Bobcats did not extend Gerald Wallace's contract before the season, because now if they want to keep him, they will have to massively overpay. If Rashard Lewis gets 75$-85$ million, then I imagine Wallace's agent will be asking at least 50$ million, and someone will no doubt pay it. I actually really really like Gerald Wallace. Even as a rookie on the Kings I remember him always playing hard and making things happen. Look at his numbers this season; 18 pts, 7 reb, and 2 steals. Most impressive though is his FG%, which is over 50%. When you are the leading scorer on a very bad team, you tend to shoot in the low 40's. But Wallace, who really has no outside game, shot 50% (Contrast that to Josh Smith's 44%). That means he recognizes his limitations and understands his game, and could get at least 15 a game for any team in the league. However, that is not worth killing your salary cap for a second tier player. I think the Magic would have been much better off with G Wallace than Rashard Lewis, but what do I know, I'm only an expert at everything.
If the Bobcats do end up keeping Gerald Wallace, I believe they can be very, very solid next season. As much as I criticized Raymond Felton in college, it was never that I thought he was awful, but rather, I didn't think he was as amazing as everyone said he was (and I proved to be right), However, hes still fast, unselfish, and most importantly, a very good guy. Their new coach is Sam Vincent (WHO? He is as "Ann as the nose on plains face" to me), but my guess is that he will try to be Suns-esque. Look at this lineup, your telling me they can't win some games:
PG: Felton
SG: J Richardson
SF: Adam Morrison
PF: Gerald Wallace
C: Emeka Okafor
6th: Matt Carroll (who they just resigned at a bargain of 3.5$ million a year, for a guy who I guarantee averages double figures next season)
7th: Walter Herrmann
8th: Sean May
If the Bobcats do end up keeping Gerald Wallace, I believe they can be very, very solid next season. As much as I criticized Raymond Felton in college, it was never that I thought he was awful, but rather, I didn't think he was as amazing as everyone said he was (and I proved to be right), However, hes still fast, unselfish, and most importantly, a very good guy. Their new coach is Sam Vincent (WHO? He is as "Ann as the nose on plains face" to me), but my guess is that he will try to be Suns-esque. Look at this lineup, your telling me they can't win some games:
PG: Felton
SG: J Richardson
SF: Adam Morrison
PF: Gerald Wallace
C: Emeka Okafor
6th: Matt Carroll (who they just resigned at a bargain of 3.5$ million a year, for a guy who I guarantee averages double figures next season)
7th: Walter Herrmann
8th: Sean May
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Miami Part 2
While in Miami we attended a Marlins-Braves game. I wore my Miguel Cabrera shirt and we sat behind home plate in the surprisingly gorgeous Dolphins Stadium. At a typical Nats-Braves games at RFK, I would say that 20% of the crowd are Braves fans. In Miami, it was even more dramatic, with at least 30% of the crowd being Atlanta fans. It is hard to believe, seeing as how whenever you turn to TBS in the summer, Turner Field appears to be 80% empty. I'd day that only the Yankees, Red Sox and Cubs travel better than the Braves. In all fairness though, it is understandable how the Braves travel so well, given that 80% of the population of Atlanta lives in mobile homes.
Anyway, I actually witnessed a great game. Pitching for the Marlins was Byung-Hyun Kim (Yes, the Ex-Closer for the Diamondbacks), and for the Braves was Tim Hudson. Kim pitched a solid 6 innings, and left the game with a 2-1 lead. After a myriad of no name relievers, Armando Benitez came into pitch for the Marlins and I knew we were doomed. I barely follow baseball, but I remember the 95-98 Orioles very well, as they were the first team I followed. And Benitez represents everything I hate about baseball. There is no reason, NONE, for him to be in the Major Leagues. He managed to blow 13 save opportunities in a single 5 game ALCS against the Yankees in 96, and then broke his own record by blowing 145 save opportunities in the the 6 game 97 ALCS against the Indians. He has never done anything good. Yet here we are, ten years later, and he is still pitching, making millions of dollars a year, living in a giant mansion with great cars and a beautiful wife, and blowing save opportunities. Needles to say, he gave up 5 runs (thereabout, I stopped keeping count), and the Marlins lost 6-5.
The problem with baseball is that there are too many bad players. Too many teams=too many bad players. Not that basketball is free from this problem, but basketball you only play 5 players, so no one can really see how bad Shavlik Randolph, Shelden Williams and JJ Reddick really are.
Anyway, I actually witnessed a great game. Pitching for the Marlins was Byung-Hyun Kim (Yes, the Ex-Closer for the Diamondbacks), and for the Braves was Tim Hudson. Kim pitched a solid 6 innings, and left the game with a 2-1 lead. After a myriad of no name relievers, Armando Benitez came into pitch for the Marlins and I knew we were doomed. I barely follow baseball, but I remember the 95-98 Orioles very well, as they were the first team I followed. And Benitez represents everything I hate about baseball. There is no reason, NONE, for him to be in the Major Leagues. He managed to blow 13 save opportunities in a single 5 game ALCS against the Yankees in 96, and then broke his own record by blowing 145 save opportunities in the the 6 game 97 ALCS against the Indians. He has never done anything good. Yet here we are, ten years later, and he is still pitching, making millions of dollars a year, living in a giant mansion with great cars and a beautiful wife, and blowing save opportunities. Needles to say, he gave up 5 runs (thereabout, I stopped keeping count), and the Marlins lost 6-5.
The problem with baseball is that there are too many bad players. Too many teams=too many bad players. Not that basketball is free from this problem, but basketball you only play 5 players, so no one can really see how bad Shavlik Randolph, Shelden Williams and JJ Reddick really are.
MIAMI Part 1
I spent the weekend and the 4th with my family in Miami. Someone much much smarter than me needs to do a study on how the metropolitan area of Miami functions. It challenges everything I understand about capitalism. There are only 4 Fortune 500 Companies headquartered in Miami , which places it just ahead of Buffalo and after Omaha. Yet, the city is only outdone by New York and Chicago with regards to condo sales, and in one stroll down Collins Avenue in South Beach you are likely to see more Ferraris, Bentleys, and Aston Martins than you would see in all of Fairfax County. Basically, you have this gorgeous city with the nicest beaches in North America, some of the most luxurious homes and cars on the planet, but no one works. People either go to the beach everyday, or sit inside in the air conditioning. It is baffling. The easy answer is that the homes and cars belong to rappers and athletes, and the condos belong to old people that fly south for the winter from New York (ala the Constanzas and Seinfelds). Although highly unlikely to play such a dramatic role, even if it were the case, then what do the Cubans and Haitians do?
Speaking of Cubans, I am always fascinated when I talk to people who were directly affected by Communsim. Most Americans were indirectly affected by Communism through the ridiculous Red Scare, the legendary Cuban Missile Crisis and of course the horrific Vietnam War. However, few Americans were directly threatened by Communist ideology, rather, merely, it was American insecurity towards its existence. I bring this up because in the new Michael Moore film Sicko , he heads to Cuba to portray the greatness that is the Cuban Health Care System. Unfortunately for Mr. Moore and others who enjoy being contrarians so much that they endorse the likes of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, the city of Miami is full of people who understand the true realities of communist regimes. And no, Cuba is not the medical utopia he portrays it to be. Even the liberal New Yorker Magazine is highly critical of the film and Moores romantic portrayal of the dictators benevolence. I am by no means endorsing our current health care system which has failed miserably (40+ Million Americans uninsured is absolutely ridiculous), however, there are better ways to approach the subject than to sail to Cuba.
It is discomforting to know that many liberals still see Communism and Castro as a preferable alternative to the Bush administration. While that is a topic for another day, it is worth noting that in the past 2 months I have spoked to a Cuban, a Nicaraguan, a Czech and a Romanian, all of whom were born at the time their country was under Communist rule. Not only did all four of their families have to risk their lives to emigrate, but all of them spoke of Communism with such disdain that I immediately felt bashful for bringing it up.
Speaking of Cubans, I am always fascinated when I talk to people who were directly affected by Communsim. Most Americans were indirectly affected by Communism through the ridiculous Red Scare, the legendary Cuban Missile Crisis and of course the horrific Vietnam War. However, few Americans were directly threatened by Communist ideology, rather, merely, it was American insecurity towards its existence. I bring this up because in the new Michael Moore film Sicko , he heads to Cuba to portray the greatness that is the Cuban Health Care System. Unfortunately for Mr. Moore and others who enjoy being contrarians so much that they endorse the likes of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, the city of Miami is full of people who understand the true realities of communist regimes. And no, Cuba is not the medical utopia he portrays it to be. Even the liberal New Yorker Magazine is highly critical of the film and Moores romantic portrayal of the dictators benevolence. I am by no means endorsing our current health care system which has failed miserably (40+ Million Americans uninsured is absolutely ridiculous), however, there are better ways to approach the subject than to sail to Cuba.
It is discomforting to know that many liberals still see Communism and Castro as a preferable alternative to the Bush administration. While that is a topic for another day, it is worth noting that in the past 2 months I have spoked to a Cuban, a Nicaraguan, a Czech and a Romanian, all of whom were born at the time their country was under Communist rule. Not only did all four of their families have to risk their lives to emigrate, but all of them spoke of Communism with such disdain that I immediately felt bashful for bringing it up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)