2010-11 NBA Season

[Rockstar Matt]

Anyone else remember when the Hawks were good?

Sure do. 1969-70. Walt Bellamy, Lou Hudson, Butch Beard, Joe Caldwell... Lost to the Lakers in the conference finals... Man those were the days.

Seriously though, and back to today... Did anyone else watch the Suns and Lakers Tuesday night? That Suns team just would not quit. Good game.

Yeah, I watched it. If it weren't for Laker mistakes, we would have blown them out. I dunno why, but everytime we play the Suns all defense goes out the window. Plus, we sure missed Bynum. Can't wait to have him back against the Clips.

On another note, Memphis beat Boston which means if the playoffs started now, Lakers would have home-court over them, which is huge, obviously.

[knnhrvy16]

Well, I think it's safe to say that the Jazz are pretty much as done as a well barbecued steak. This road trip has absolutely killed them. I'm alright with it though I guess, the brightside is that we'll likely have two lottery picks, thanks to New Jersey. Hopefully the Jazz can take this opportunity to get some great talent (or trade one of the picks for talent), and add to a team that I think, in due time, can really contend down the road. Maybe that's a little too much optimism, but Hayward is showing alot of promise, as well as fellow rookies Evans and Favors, and Al Jefferson has been hitting beast mode lately. If we can get some good talent from the draft, plus a (finally) healthy squad, Jefferson picking up where he leaves off, and the young'uns continuing to grow (Hayward especially), the Jazz can be much better next year. Plus, hopefully by then, all of this year's drama will be in the past and wont haunt them so much anymore, like it has now.

It's been a wacky and wild year for the Jazz and us Jazz fans, with Sloan and D-Will leaving and all. But, all you can do is move on and hope for the best next year.

[The_Admiral]

Pacers beat the Bobcats and the Kings beat the Bucks, so gird your loins for Tyler Hansbrough's playoff debut. Ugh.

And the Grizzlies beat the Celtics! Bulls are in first for now, and the feel-good Grizzlies have a two-game cushion for 8th place.

Big NBA night. Big NBA season. This is the most exciting season since, what would you guys say? 2004? 2004 was pretty huge.

[Saintsfan]

Anyone else remember when the Hawks were good?

The Hawks and the Knicks have been really disapointing lately, Mike D'antoni's offense only strategy doesn't work when you play zero defense and cannot score on offense.

I like how you made a post about the Hawks into a post about the Knicks. This is why you get under peoples skins.

In other news, I'm officially gettibg behind George Karl for Coach of the Year.

[TrueYankee26]

Knicks officially SUCK til they get up off their es and play defense.

[Lights Out]

Blake Griffin got his first career triple double (33 points, 17 rebounds, 10 assists) against the Wizards last night.

[Saintsfan]

Blake Griffin got his first career triple double (33 points, 17 rebounds, 10 assists) against the Wizards last night.

That was sounding quite impressive until the third last word there!

[NJTank]

Nobody Everybody Beats the Wiz

[DustDevil61]

Well, I think it's safe to say that the Jazz are pretty much as done as a well barbecued steak. This road trip has absolutely killed them. I'm alright with it though I guess, the brightside is that we'll likely have two lottery picks, thanks to New Jersey. Hopefully the Jazz can take this opportunity to get some great talent (or trade one of the picks for talent), and add to a team that I think, in due time, can really contend down the road. Maybe that's a little too much optimism, but Hayward is showing alot of promise, as well as fellow rookies Evans and Favors, and Al Jefferson has been hitting beast mode lately. If we can get some good talent from the draft, plus a (finally) healthy squad, Jefferson picking up where he leaves off, and the young'uns continuing to grow (Hayward especially), the Jazz can be much better next year. Plus, hopefully by then, all of this year's drama will be in the past and wont haunt them so much anymore, like it has now.

It's been a wacky and wild year for the Jazz and us Jazz fans, with Sloan and D-Will leaving and all. But, all you can do is move on and hope for the best next year.

But hey, a steak is a steak, right?

Don't forget; the Jazz were the #9 seed as late as this weekend. Yes, these 3 losses (HOU, MEM, OKC) pretty much killed the Jazz's hopes of 2011 postseason play. That's with injuries and a team that still needs to get acclimated to each other after all the happenings in February.

Next year (if it happens) should be a lot better, if only for the fact that the baggage of Sloan retiring and trading D-Will will be left at the gates of this season's end. The players will have had some time to get healthy and in better shape, and Coach Corbin will have more time to get his system more established. I'm not convinced that next year will be a purely rebuilding year; like you said, there's a lot of young talent on this team, with Favors, Hayward, Evans, and the two picks. Even Jefferson has plenty of years ahead of him (he's only 25, you know). So, I could see Utah getting into the 2012 Playoffs as a mid to lower seed.

The Jazz might end up losing (or trading) another familiar face, such as Andrei Kirilenko, Paul Millsap, or CJ Miles. With Favors' potential, would the Jazz want to move him up to starter next year and try to get another 2-Guard through a trade, or kind of go about this the same way they did with Millsap and Boozer a year or two ago and keep multiple big guys? Someone's mentioned Millsap to Portland for Matthews, though I'm not sure how the money end of things work out. I don't want to see any of those guys (Millsap, AK, or even Miles) leave, but it always helps for the heads up, no? You also have the salary room that any of those players' departures would bring, which, even with a lower salary cap, could end up benefiting the Jazz (on the court) long-term.

Either way, I'm just about ready to see the season end. The good thing is is that all these moves that have happened are made with the future in mind.

[loogodude90]

That Wiz-Clips game was a great game. I had this sinking feeling that the Wizards were going to find a way to lose though. It's just their way. Not to take anything away from the Clips, they hit some big shots. But I've learned as a Wizards fan to just expect mental mistakes.

[TrueYankee26]

Nobody Everybody Beats the Wiz

Speaking of, man I miss that store

[rams80]

To Chakfu the insane Celtics fan.

OK, you seem to forget that in addition to getting a decent, not great player in Jefferson (and I cannot cease to emphasize this enough) they also got 4 other players, the sum total of which once you factored in contracts and playing ability netted as a pretty sizable minus rather than a plus. So to review based on your algebra-Boston gets a future hall of famer and clears the cap decks to further improve their roster. Minnesota gets 1 starter and 4 pieces of crap, and oh yeah, say goodbye to salary space. Yeah, that's fair and clever. Minnesota showed a 10 game dropoff from their last year with Garnett after the trade. If this was an equitable trade, Minnesota wouldn't have ing flatlined as a franchise. Just admit it you fleeced McHale.

Short version. You could have tossed in early-90s Michael Jordan for the Al Jefferson portion of the package and that still would have been an unbalanced franchise-killing fleecing of the Timberwolves organization.

[Lights Out]

I mean, really. Sorry chakfu, but the only difference between the two trades was that the Lakers made one and the Celtics made the other. If anything, the Celtics trade was more imbalanced, since the Grizzlies are back to being somewhat competitive.

[gingerbreadmann]

So anyway, for people who think the NBA regular season is worthless, check out how the Bulls and Celtics have been playing hard--and for good reason--to capture the sweetest plum that is the East's 1 seed. Let's rattle off what's at stake here:

1) Getting the 1 seed sets up a first round against what will likely be the only sub-.500 team in the postseason, probably the crappy Pacers, but possibly the crappier Bucks or Bobcats. Settling for #2 draws the overachieving wildcard Knicks or 76ers, who, though certainly in no position to knock off the Bulls or Celtics in the grand scheme of things, could certainly make things take longer than they need to, possibly playing the '09 Bulls to this year's Bulls' or Celtics', ...umm, '09 Celtics (minus the whole "missing their HOF-bound best player" thing that allowed the Bulls to hang tough).

2) The difference between 1 and 2 is the difference between getting past the winner of Chicago/Boston-Miami and getting past Chicago/Boston AND Miami. Instead, it's a second round against what's left of what should be a slog of an Atlanta-Orlando series. Huge difference.

3) At the pace both teams are on, whoever finishes first in the East will probably have home court in the Finals over anyone but the Spurs. Both teams are juggernauts at home, the Bulls even more so.

So yeah, these games matter. I like when things aren't a crapshoot.

To #1, that happened to the '08 Celtics twice (Hawks and Cavs took them to 7 games), and it didn't much matter in the end. #2 I can't dispute. #3 seems irrelevant since the playoffs would decide which one of them gets home court over anyone but the Spurs. If one falls off this pace, no, but it doesn't take much to stay on this pace.

Look, I'm not out to disprove the entire value of the regular season. It matters. Home court matters, and getting easier playoff opponents matters, especially when the East has three elite teams. I'm pissed that the Celtics lost to the Grizzlies at home; shouldn't ever happen (although I don't think they were tanking it). Getting the 1 seed is definitely an important goal.

It's just not as important as being healthy, ready, and totally prepared for the playoffs. It's not even really a dilemma for the Bulls, but for Boston, trotting out Shaq at "84.2381%" health, or whatever precise decimal he rattled off, just to win a few more games in the regular season and clinch the 1 seed is just stupid. Having everyone at full strength and comfort will overcome any marginal defecit you have when you are the 2 instead of the 1. Hopefully this tactic doesn't cost too many games, but even so (last year's Celtics), it's not ever going to automatically kill you.

To Chakfu the insane Celtics fan.

OK, you seem to forget that in addition to getting a decent, not great player in Jefferson (and I cannot cease to emphasize this enough) they also got 4 other players, the sum total of which once you factored in contracts and playing ability netted as a pretty sizable minus rather than a plus. So to review based on your algebra-Boston gets a future hall of famer and clears the cap decks to further improve their roster. Minnesota gets 1 starter and 4 pieces of crap, and oh yeah, say goodbye to salary space. Yeah, that's fair and clever. Minnesota showed a 10 game dropoff from their last year with Garnett after the trade. If this was an equitable trade, Minnesota wouldn't have ing flatlined as a franchise. Just admit it you fleeced McHale.

Short version. You could have tossed in early-90s Michael Jordan for the Al Jefferson portion of the package and that still would have been an unbalanced franchise-killing fleecing of the Timberwolves organization.

I don't much care which trade was less bull , since they were both kinda bull , but how was getting all the non-Jefferson portion a salary increase? Theo Ratliff? I can't seem to find the numbers, but KG made/makes a ton of dough and those guys were pretty much all on rookie contracts. It may well have been, but that seems hard to believe.

Fleeced McHale? No. I think he is in love with the Celtics.

If anything, the Celtics trade was more imbalanced, since the Grizzlies are back to being somewhat competitive.

Is that serious logic? David Kahn loves you.

[Lights Out]

Yes, that is serious logic. The Grizzlies are back in the playoff hunt only a couple years after their joke of a trade with the Lakers. The Timberwolves aren't even close to competing. Therefore, the Celtics' trade had more damaging effects on their trade partner than the Lakers' trade had on theirs. It's not that hard to understand.

[IceCap]

Sports are cyclical. Sooner or later both the Lakers and Celtics will suck. Hell, even the Yankees had their down years.

[Saintsfan]

Sports are cyclical. Sooner or later both the Lakers and Celtics will suck. Hell, even the Yankees had their down years.

Wasn't that long ago that the Celtics had been sucking for a long time (as far as that franchise is concerned at least).

Personally I don't think its inevitable that either the Celtics or Lakers will become properly bad. The Lakers have seldom been really bad over the last 30 or so years, the Celtics had a poor run, based on under investement. But they are two sets of fans and investors that won't accept being poor for any length of time.

I have wondered, as an example, if it was say the Grizzlies putting the Garnett and Allen deal together, whether that would have been possible? Is/was the fact that the Celtics have a tradition a thing for players going to that franchise?

[Lights Out]

Sports are cyclical. Sooner or later both the Lakers and Celtics will suck.

Are you new to this whole NBA thing? No sport is less cyclical than the NBA.

[srj34]

Yeah, Boston did have about a 20-year rough patch. But the Lakers have only missed the playoffs four times in their history.

[NJTank]

Yes, that is serious logic. The Grizzlies are back in the playoff hunt only a couple years after their joke of a trade with the Lakers. The Timberwolves aren't even close to competing. Therefore, the Celtics' trade had more damaging effects on their trade partner than the Lakers' trade had on theirs. It's not that hard to understand.

Actually that was Kevin McHale and his shrewed management that hurt the T-Puppies.