Interesting Times

Thrilling Lakers comeback, and Chicago beats the odds to win the lottery. I feel torn about these developments. My fundamental perspective as a fan is that of the hater who likes to see the mighty brought low. I bonded with Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, and Tony Parker when they crushed the Shaq-Kobe juggernaut in 2003. By 2008, San Antonio has arguably become the evil empire. But despite enormous success since 1999, San Antonio still doesn't really rank up their as an "elect" franchise like L.A. and it rankles to see a team become so good thanks to such a one-sided trade.

In the short-run perspective, in other words, the Spurs are the juggernaut possibly unseated by an upstart Laker franchise. But taking the longer view, the Lakers are still the juggernaut. Chicago winning the lottery, meanwhile, just reeks of rigging. Sure, why not send the number one draft pick to Chicago, all we need to do is tweak the raffle! Now of course last offseason it seemed like the Bulls were going to be good and then, inexplicably, all of their young players regressed instead of progressing. Consequently, the franchise is basically impossible to project.

Comments

Um. If the NBA wanted to rig the lottery, wouldn't they have made sure the Knicks got the 1st pick rather than Chicago?

Posted by Ron | May 22, 2008 10:07 AM

Ron, because they already did that for NY. It was Chicago's turn.

Posted by eriks | May 22, 2008 10:12 AM

whats an "elect"?

Posted by Beard | May 22, 2008 10:14 AM

How valuable is the number 1 pick in the draft anyway?

Posted by WillieStyle | May 22, 2008 10:15 AM

I think the Bulls were very silly to fire Scott Skiles. The slight upside to that decision is they tanked enough to miss the play-offs, and obviously that turned into a number 1 pick.

Ah well - the real question is who they're going to take: Rose? I kind of think he would be a better fit.

Also, I wonder who the Wizards will select? They could use a power forward who can play defense.

Posted by szr | May 22, 2008 10:16 AM

Derrick Rose headed to Chicago...I love it.

Posted by BLeigh | May 22, 2008 10:17 AM

The Bulls are going to screw it up by not taking the best player anyway. Though they'll still get a good one.

The Spurs are whiners and floppers, and they play ugly basketball. They need to lose for the good of the league.

Posted by Seitz | May 22, 2008 10:20 AM

The Bulls seem like a mess. Certainly the front office seems idiotic. I expect the Paxon to pick Rose, so I wouldn't sweat the rigging too much.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 22, 2008 10:22 AM

"San Antonio still doesn't really rank up their as an "elect" franchise like L.A"

wow. just.....wow.

Posted by sean | May 22, 2008 10:23 AM

The Spurs play one of the most boring type of games around. Time for new teams with more exciting styles to take the forefront. That's one reason why I was disappointed that New Orleans didn't finish off the Spurs.

As for the trade that brought Gasol to the Lakers...well, I can't blame the Lakers for taking that deal.

The Lakers will defeat the Spurs; like New Orleans, they are the better team. But Kobe has the playoff experience that Chris Paul lacked, and of course Phil Jackson has the coaching playoff experience that Byron Scott lacked. So the Lakers will not blow their chance against the Spurs like NO did.

Posted by cm | May 22, 2008 10:28 AM

How valuable is the number 1 pick in the draft anyway?

This isn't the NFL or MLB. The #1 pick in the NBA is huge. Certainly compared to 12th or whatever the Bulls were slated to get.

L.A. and it rankles to see a team become so good thanks to such a one-sided trade.

What about the process by which SA acquired Duncan? Not much different, and, frankly, pretty common in the history of great NBA teams.

Posted by mpowell | May 22, 2008 10:30 AM

Um. If the NBA wanted to rig the lottery, wouldn't they have made sure the Knicks got the 1st pick rather than Chicago?

Because NY is screwed for the foreseeable future whether or not they get Beasley/Rose.

How pissed is Mike D'Antoni right now?

Posted by right | May 22, 2008 10:47 AM

Really, does anyone watch the NBA? This is the championship tournament, right? There is absolutely no buzz in the office, not a peep. There is more talk about Yankees being at the same record now as this time last year and what would have happened to Joe Torre if he was still there. But NBA, no nothing, no bracket mania, no buzz, no talk, no team logo clothes, just silence...

Posted by George | May 22, 2008 10:50 AM

New Orleans was not the better team. They might have more talent, though I would dispute that. To call them the better team is just stupid.

The Spurs got Duncan because Robinson was hurt for basically the entire season of 1997 and so the Spurs were garbage. They had something like the third or fourth worst record in the league that year. They won the lottery and took the best player.

I don't begrudge the Lakers getting Pau in a steal, but I don't see how it is analogous to the Spurs getting Duncan.

Posted by Curtis | May 22, 2008 10:56 AM

Well, there were some questions about the length of Robinson inactivity and the Sean Elliot injury that year, Curtis.

Posted by Carlos | May 22, 2008 11:16 AM

The NBA playoffs just kill any sort of casual interest with their godawful length. (I would say the same of the season itself.) Of course, the preordained Lakers/Celtics final will breathe some life into the ratings this year, but in an average year (i.e., one in which the Spurs win the title), wouldn't a one-and-done Super Bowl-style championship game generate more interest than these seven-game hootenannies?

Posted by Zach | May 22, 2008 11:18 AM

cm, Byron Scott isn't lacking playoff experience. He doesn't have as much as Jackson, but few do.

Posted by eriks | May 22, 2008 11:29 AM

Curtis, the Spurs dynasty was built on a) winning the lottery once already to get Robinson, b) keeping injured stars out perhaps longer than necessary to improve their lottery chances in '97 and c) winning the '97 lottery despite not being the favorite to do so.

At least the Lakers had to have the matching salary available (Kwame et al) to get Gasol so they did SOMETHING non-luck related for that to happen.

The Spurs dynasty has been built largely on luck and opportunism. Sure, Popovich deserves credit for making the most of his good fortune, but if they don't win the Duncan lottery, San Antonio would most likely still be looking for its first championship. To be sure, given the disproportionate impact of elite players in the NBA, luck will always be a factor in building contenders.

Posted by Luck Luck Luck | May 22, 2008 11:40 AM

I know not everybody loves Chuck Klosterman, but I think he's 100% on when he says the sports media should quit talking about TV ratings. I like the NBA -- as long as teams aren't going bankrupt (and they're sure not), I don't give a shit how many other people like it.

Posted by too many steves | May 22, 2008 12:30 PM

TV ratings for playoff sports are all baloney, because most folks don't watch the playoffs alone, they watch it in groups, at bars, etc.

And if nobody watched, why would networks pay so much for the right to broadcast them? Follow the money.

As for the Lakers, they won a huge comeback because Kobe is the man, but they are still overrated and very, very flawed.

Sorry, but Farmar, Sasha, Vlad Rad, and Walton are just not big time playoff guys - they put zero fear in the opposition.

Fisher is old and no longer a defensive force, though he is a fine shooter now, but can't make his own shot and is a pretty easy cover.

Gasol and Odom are excellent offensive players, but on defense, they sort of suck. Gasol is just a non-entity on defense when forced to play one-on-one against a player his own size. Which of the rest of the playoffs means Tim Duncan, KG or Rasheed. All three of those guys eat Gasol's lunch. Odom "can be" good on D but usually isn't because he doesn't care much about it.

Kobe of course is the best player in the game.

But despite the great win last night, still don't see these guys getting past the Spurs, certainly not past the Celtics, who they will likely play.

LA just doesn't play any defense of any worth. They can score with anyone, but they can't count on Kobe carrying them like that all the time. Or Manu disappearing.

I like the Spurs in 7.

Posted by Eric Blair | May 22, 2008 1:04 PM

LA just doesn't play any defense of any worth.

Missed the last quarter, did you? Lakers in six.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 22, 2008 1:13 PM

Does anybody else think Jordan Farmar is better than Fisher? The Lakers made their big comeback with Farmar out there, and then Phil pulled him. Seems like that wouldn't be great for the kid's confidence.

As for the Lakers not playing any D, this year they allowed 105.5 points per 100 possessions, 5th in the league. I couldn't find the post-Pau numbers, though, so it's possible they could be worse.

Posted by too many steves | May 22, 2008 1:14 PM

I think the Lakers have much more trouble with the Spurs than they do the Pistons or the Celtics. The Pistons are just not that good. The Celtics should theoretically be good, but they had to go the distance against both Atlanta and Cleveland. Those 2 don't even make the playoffs in the West. Atlanta is simply a bad team. And the coaching was the problem, we all know this. Now you're going to match Doc Rivers up against Phil Jackson in the finals? Yeah, you can kiss that one goodbye, Boston.

I'm pretty sure its Spurs/Lakers for the title. Just like before. Amazing.

I don't begrudge the Lakers getting Pau in a steal, but I don't see how it is analogous to the Spurs getting Duncan.

Curtis, I pretty much agree with Luck here. I don't begrudge SA their success, either. But pairing Robinson and Duncan should not have happened. The Lakers were lucky that no other NBA team was smart enough to offer more than garbage for Gasol. The Lakers of the 80s were smart in that they picked up Worthy after winning a title b/c of an old draft pick trade deal. It happens, and I think MY is being silly complaining about it. (and ignoring NBA history)

Posted by mpowell | May 22, 2008 1:17 PM

I'm trying to do my part in rooting for the Lakers because I want the Lakers-Celtics final like everyone else. But it's hard for me to root against the Spurs, because they piss off all the right people and they expose a certain kind of hypocrisy (everyone whines that NBA teams don't play the right way, then they bitch even louder when a cohesive team that moves the ball, hits shots and plays hard on defense wins all the time).

But on the topic of the Lakers, I think it's a mistake to underestimate that supporting cast, particularly Vujacic. I don't begrudge them the one-sided trade either--what would be the point of that? Red Auerbach completely swindled other teams to create the Big Three in the '80s and that doesn't diminish their legacy. That's how it goes. You can't claim that victories somehow don't count because a team was lucky to land the players it has--those players ARE the team.

I think we're looking at compelling championship series on both sides and a potentially very compelling finals. Things are definitely looking up for the NBA with a huge infusion of talent in recent years and great improvements in the style of play, and if your office isn't buzzing then your office sucks.

Posted by Jake H. | May 22, 2008 1:52 PM

LA just doesn't play any defense of any worth. They can score with anyone, but they can't count on Kobe carrying them like that all the time. Or Manu disappearing.

I can't resist the desire to be a little snide here. They only need 3 more wins. So Kobe only needs to carry them maybe 1 or 2 more times. That's not too hard for him.

Posted by mpowell | May 22, 2008 2:09 PM

I can't resist the desire to be a little snide here.

You're not snide enough.

But it's hard for me to root against the Spurs, because they piss off all the right people and they expose a certain kind of hypocrisy (everyone whines that NBA teams don't play the right way, then they bitch even louder when a cohesive team that moves the ball, hits shots and plays hard on defense wins all the time).

I think you're confusing two different populations. The media loves to talk about the high-character Spurs who win the right way. Many of us think Duncan's a whiner, Manu's a flopper, Bowen is dirty, Parker looks French, and the Spurs as a team get the benefit of the doubt from the refs often enough to win a couple of playoff games. We don't like the Spurs precisely because there are people out there making the claims you note--claims which are largely true--without noting that Duncan's a whiner, etc. That's really not hypocrisy.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 22, 2008 3:18 PM

I really don't understand the mainstream NBA media's refusal to discuss how dirty the Spurs are. I've seen a couple of those sit-down interviews with Bruce Bowen, where he'll be asked, "people say you play dirty, what's your reply", but nobody ever shows him video of his obviously dirty plays and asks him to explain what the hell he was doing. I would pay good money to see that.

Robert Horry is a bigger disgrace than Bowen. If Bowen had to stop playing dirty, he'd still be a good defender and an almost-average NBA swingman. Robert Horry contributed absolutely nothing at this point in his career except for hurting people and starting fights.

Posted by too many steves | May 22, 2008 4:16 PM

Frankly it's too early to call the Gasol trade "one sided." The Shaq trade to Miami looked one sided too, yet a few years later it looks great for the Lakers -- effectively netting Gasol (Kwame came for Caron Butler, itself a bad trade gone good), Odom and Farmar plus the down year lottery pick that became Bynum.

Javaris Crittenden is a solid prospect who many Laker observers felt had a greater upside than Farmar. Marc Gasol was player of the week ten times this year in the Spanish League (Europe's best league) and would be a high lottery pick if he was in this year's draft. There are two future 1st round picks plus what they can net from Kwame's cap space. This trade may look very different in a few years.

Posted by Steve in Sacto | May 22, 2008 6:26 PM

I live in Los Angeles and am something of a Laker fan, so I'm far from an unbiased observer, but the thought of having to watch the Spurs play in the championship makes me want to drink a bottle of bleach. The Spurs are a team of considerable talent who happen to be about as interesting as watching paint dry. I was hoping the Hornets would make it to the Western Conference Finals -- I'd prefer the Lakers but a Hornets-Celtics match up would actually be pretty interesting.

Posted by GiantDuck | May 23, 2008 4:07 AM