Thanks for bothering to watch even a piece. Monday/Tuesday was Carnival which is a huge deal here (it really begins at the start of January). Anyway, that was a reasonably popular song this year. I'm not a fan of Carnival music (especially since the artists have been bitten by the autotune bug) but I found this particular track to be completely hilarious. Really, I giggled for the first dozen or so times I heard it. After that it became a bit of a guilty pleasure but don't tell anyone...

Re: the Nets runner-up team. I don't think anyone would call them a great team, but they're excellent evidence of how good J-Kidd was. Have a look at the rest of that roster. There are good players there who were All-Stars a couple of times (I think). However, none of them strike me as remotely close to great and it's a testament to Kidd that this team actually came that close to winning it all.



This shouldn't be that funny, but it's the most I've laughed all day. Guess it is that funny.



I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter for writing the above. The thing about Dirk is that he was always a great player. What I love about him is the way he stuck it out through heartbreak (unlike LBJ) and continued to work on finetuning his game. He probably would have made the HOF with his old style but he's become really great in the post, facing double teams and, especially, at the clutch. I've never seen any player hit more clutch shots than Dirk did during that whole 2011 playoff run. And that includes MJ (to be fair, MJ probably had to make less clutch shots. He did make them though).

That said, Timmay is the man. I think you're being too tough on him. As far as traditional PFs go, he's probably the best I've seen. If you could draft a young version of either player now, I'd pick Timmy first no matter what the circumstances were. Yes, the Lakers weren't at their best during the Spurs' golden years, but the West had good teams then. Dallas and Phoenix were 60+ win teams for a good while.

Regarding the Timmy-Dirk debate, Petey's right, fellas. And Phil, you're making a lot of good arguments, but the "perfect timing" one swings both ways: Dirk caught the Heat in their first (and maybe only beatable) year surrounded by a team who couldn't possibly have been better suited to help him and couldn't possibly have played better. Does that take away from him? Not really, or at least not any more or less than Timmy's "perfect" situation did.



Like Petey I think, and certainly Ed, my heart is with you. I like Dirk and the way he carries himself better. You're certainly right that some of Duncan's titles came in weak years (not that word some, though, and all that stands for). I don't think anything you say above is dishonest or trying to take a contrary position for it's own sake, but it is (as you said) based largely on feelings and on one playoff run. Doesn't he need to be the best player in the league more than one or two years to be the best of all-time at his position?

Also, way too little has been said about Timmy's defense, which less than 5 humans have ever been better at.

The East was weak, but it isn't like they didn't come out of a loaded Western conference all those years. I think it's kind of silly to only take into account who they played in the Finals and use that as evidence of them beating up on weaker teams. They were winning around 60 games a year in a loaded Western conference. Just because the second, third, and fourth best teams were out West with the Spurs doesn't mean they didn't have to go through some of them to win it all. Those titles weren't as easy to obtain as you'd like us to believe.

Also, that Pistons team they beat in the Finals? They were the defending champs. They ended the Lakers' run the year before by beating them in the Finals. They were no slouch of a team. Their lack of a marquee player doesn't hold as evidence of the Spurs beating a weak team.

Seriously, your argument is that they lucked their way into FOUR NBA titles! No joke. That's your argument. I feel like a fool for even defending my side.

Duncan needing help, or a core around him, to win a title isn't evidence of anything either. That's how just about every NBA title is won. Jordan had Pippen, Bird had McHale, Magic had Kareem and Worthy, Shaq had Kobe, Kobe had Gasol, Garnett and Pierce had each other (and Allen), Wade had Shaq, and Duncan had Parker and Ginobili. It's the blueprint for winning a title. You surround great players with other really good or great players. The Pistons in the 00s are the exception to the rule. Go back even further, and you'll see title teams have even more loaded rosters because the league hadn't expanded yet and free agency wasn't around. To try to discredit Duncan's titles based on who he played with ignores 30 years of league history where teams were built to win titles using that same strategy. By that logic Magic wasn't that great because he needed Kareem and Worthy to win multiple rings.

And if we're being really honest, look at the names on that list. If you ranked them in order of basketball ability, Parker and Ginobili, as much as I like both guys, would be at, or near, the bottom of that list, right?

As for the Dirk-Duncan debate, as with the rest of you guys, I'd love to put Dirk ahead of him. I just can't do it. The majority of the Spurs' dominance came when the Mavs were at their peak. The Spurs almost always got the best of them at that time. Dirk's amazing, once in a lifetime run last season, when most of his contemporaries were showing their age, isn't going to make me forget years and years of Dallas collapses, many of which came against Duncan's Spurs.

Well, hey, the Boston Celtics of old won a decade's worth of titles. Now, is that only an indicator of their quality, or is it partially a riposte to the quality of their league? Saying Duncan's reign was a fluke is obviously not in question, but Bird faced Magic, MJ faced Malone, Magic faced Bird (and eventually, Thomas and Jordan). Dirk faced two all-time greats at one time on the same team and out-performed both roundly. The Heat had assembled themselves into a powerhouse by the time they laced up for the Finals; they're probably more confident now, but they were roughly the same team this year as they were in the postseason, where they truly woke up. I don't buy your argument that Dirk's run had anything to do with luck. The odds were so stacked against him and the Mavs that it's amazing they were able to advance past the younger teams they faced - let alone win their last three series while only giving up five losses in that same time-span. It was truly a postseason worth of David and Goliath. Any other year, LeBron and the Heat steal a title. Not that year. And yet Duncan faced... Rip Hamilton, Richard Jefferson, Patrick Ewing (old, injured - actually, he didn't even play), and Bron & Ilgauskus? That is some weak competition right there.

As for the Pistons... They defeated the Lakers with Karl Malone (old), Gary Payton (old) and Kobe. Those Lakers were slouches. It was almost a parody of a team, and Malone and Payton injured themselves in terms of all-time greatness because, honestly, they didn't affect the title run almost at all. That was as weak a playoff match-up as any I've seen. The Pistons weren't a great team, never had even one great player, and ruled a placid East (and only temporarily). They only started to become prominent because the Nets had finally lost their luster (they had actually swept Detroit on the way to losing - more narrowly than people remember - to the Spurs a year or so before Detroit captured the title) and the Pacers, Celtics, Heat, and everyone else in the East were twiddling their thumbs with horribly unbalanced rosters and average win-loss records. The Pistons may have been the best East team of the last decade, I'll give - but only by horrible default. They were all pathetic in comparison to now. Dirk's Mavs came out of a West with a two-time defending champion, the surging Thunder, and then beat a Heat team which embarrassed the Celtics and Bulls (two team who routinely fared well against Western opponents as well as East). You don't have to say that Duncan's run was 'lucky', but he faced an East that, again, had no dimensions. The Eastern teams of the last few years (starting with Boston's ascent in 2008) has been on par with their Western counterparts, if not better. It's not key to explaining Duncan's title run, but it is undeniably important to consider. By ignoring that, you'd be ignoring every single one of the things we take for granted for having said about the East during the 2000-2007 seasons (and, as I remember, nobody here has any respect for any of those teams, Finals winners included). I don't think it's something that historians would gloss over, either, although even historical perspective is a a crap-shoot in some ways. I stand by my comment of Dirk, though as a PURE PF, Duncan would get my vote. The thing about Dirk is, even now, he's not a pure PF. Maybe it's a Bird-vs. Magic situation to even compare the two. Both of them get you a load of wins, although again, by flat logic, perhaps a guy like Duncan gets you more success - maybe, just like Johnson netted the Lakers more wins because he was simply more efficient and in a better position (as in, position position) to directly command his team's fortunes. In terms of linear logic, I get voting for Duncan. However, is it insignificant that the Spurs started to falter (and have done so each year unfailingly) in the playoffs when they adapted an approach that was oriented on 3-point shooting and tight D - like, say, the Mavs? Who do you want in *that* situation? I think that answer is probably just as clear. Dirk's chokes (or was it just the Mavs in general?) are well-recorded, but his persistence and durability have gained me perhaps some of the most respect for any athlete of his generation. How he's still playing, nevertheless at an All-Star level, simply stuns me. You honestly couldn't say the same for Duncan or KG for maybe the last three or four years, and they both basically netted All-Star votes on rep rather than solid numbers. I think Dirk's ability to weather the storm of the NBA, all while maintaining consistent success, is only second to Kobe (we're agreeing he is the best player of the past two generations, right?). You see Duncan's key to superiority being his four rings, but to me, Dirk got the monkey all the way off his back last Finals. I feel like it's more of a Peyton-Brady argument at this point than a bottom line statement, although I may be in the minority. I stand by my point, even if siding with Nosferatu is (inevitably) a deadly prospect.

P.S. And no, I'm not saying the Spurs 'lucked' their way into four titles. But measuring the circumstances of why they won is as important as revering those same titles. Certainly, Tom Brady can tell you what happens when your competition manages to catch up with you. The Spurs' lack of any playoff success (most ironically against Dallas most postseasons) after that run, when the league woke up and started to resemble greatness once again, is galling. You don't have to admit it. But it is. You'd agree that the league has improved. You'd agree that the East was no longer championship fodder for the West and that the conferences were and are even recently (the East probably has a higher ceiling now, actually). You'd agree that the influx of talent compared to then and now, is staggeringly favoring 'now'. And, call me a mind-reader, but I bet you'd agree that The Heat would beat any playoff contender in the East of the last decade, excluding possibly Boston in 2008 or 2010. So thus, I think the weight shifts quite a bit. You can insult my intelligence and say that I'm literally calling Duncan's run 'luck' (poor first statement aside, it was meant to spark the discussion, not be my final take) and cop out, but this argument deserves greater analysis than saying 4 is a bigger number than 1.

Good thing, because that's not my argument. At all. Did you even read what I wrote? Were you paying attention to this thread when that run was happening? If so, you'd know that I was falling all over myself to praise Dirk during that run and would realize how offbase this statement is.

I'll try again. Dirk had one incredible run. I loved that run, was rooting for it, and gave him all the props in the world during it. Still, that doesn't compare to 4 titles, many of which were won by going through Dirk's teams. You can try to twist it any way you want, but the fact is Duncan's Spurs won 4 titles while Dirk's Mavs were at their best. The Spurs lack of postseason success now has to do with age and injuries as much as it does with the rest of the league improving.

Also, I still think think you're focusing on who the Spurs played in the Finals and how weak the East was a bit too much. You're hanging on to this point, when the East's weakness has already been acknowledged and ignoring the West's strength. The Spurs get no credit for coming out of an historically loaded conference no less than 3 times? All that matters is that the teams they played in the Finals were weak Finals participants? You have blinders on, my friend. You tout the Mavs for all the teams they defeated on their run, and then only take into account who the Spurs played in the Finals. It's hypocritical and reveals a large amount of bias. You like Dirk better. Cool. So do I.

The West had at least 6 teams that were better than the East's best, and the Spurs were better than all of them. I think you're faulting them too much for something they can't control. Again, just because the best teams were out West doesn't mean the Spurs didn't have to beat them.



Come on. That's just ridiculous. I guess Shaq doesn't count? Those Lakers had won 3 of the past 4 titles when the Pistons beat them. The only year they didn't win? The Spurs beat them (and went on to win the title). You're acting like the entire league stunk in an effort to make the Spurs look bad. It makes it tough to take what you say seriously when you're willing to completely overlook the facts. That Lakers team was good. They won 56 games and beat some really good teams to make it to the Finals. The Pistons deserve credit for beating them.



I don't think that's what I've done at all. Insinuating that I have, again, is ignoring what I've written not only in this particular debate, but in this thread in general.

That said, 4 being bigger than 1 is the most important part of this argument. Winning is the goal, and you're faulting a team for accomplishing the highest goal they can accomplish. That's an inherently flawed approach.

No one disagrees with that. No one disagrees that the Mavs run last year was amazing, unlike anything we've seen in this league in our lifetimes (not saying it's the single greatest achievement, but nothing like that has happened). But it's amazing partially because we all know the Heat win that series 9 out of 10 times. This was the 10th, this was the magic one, this was the one where everything fell right. Dirk did everything he needed to do and more and put on as good a playoff performance as we've seen. If one year of that achieved a level of greatness that you believe surpasses the breadth of what Duncan did, that's fine. You can believe that and perhaps you're right. But you're being a tad (unintentionally) insulting by implying that we're all saying "BLAH 4 IS BIGGER THAN 1 BLAH BLAH" and not giving it greater analysis. That's not what's happening, many have brought up a variety of reasons that we believe Duncan's higher on the all-time list. The number of rings is a factor and it must be brought up, but it isn't the only factor by any means either and no one's saying that it is.

And yes, the Finals comp was not as good as the Heat. But as Petey pointed out, they were coming out of a tough conference every year to get to the Finals.


No one is saying the league was better when Duncan won his rings. But here's where the number 4 does matter in that it was not a one or two year thing. Every break with good management and teammates you can point out can be pointed out the same for Dirk last year. I don't think it takes anything away from either of them. And let's remember that Dirk is only two years younger and came into the league a year after Duncan -- he never took advantage of the weak league in that time. Now, Dirk's unquestionably a better player right now of course and is not done -- if he gets even one more ring (as his teams' best player)with the current makeup of the league, in my mind he probably does jump Duncan.



That's not an insignificant argument, but that's not an indictment against Duncan. I think that's a more significant argument to point out a flaw in Pop's ability to know when and how to adapt. How many teams have won a title in the last 15 years with 3-point shooting and tight-D as a style? The Mavs of course, and in some ways the '08 Celtics, and the Pistons more or less. It's certainly the way to win in college, but elite athleticism and talent is still what wins in the NBA. If the next few titles include some 3-point & D specialist teams, we'll see. This does go back to the fact that all-time great (traditional) big men, by the nature of how the NBA is played, guarantee you tons of regular season wins more than they guarantee you playoff success.

We're all capable of sounding condescending and silly, and no one wants this to get heated. I know you've said this, essentially, but to be totally clear: your case is that while linear logic insists that Duncan's higher on the all-time list and you don't deny that, but that you simply feel like Dirk is better and more valuable. I don't use the word "feel" to imply that there's no logic or stats to your case, but as you admitted the argument does require looking at things from a different perspective than we're used to. No one's saying all Championships are created equal, but 4 is indeed a big number.

I want to be very clear that I'm not by any means sure that you're wrong about Dirk being a better player. But it's the same type of case like saying that KG or Iverson are/were better than their peers who won more rings.



That's an excellent point. Were the Lakers disjointed and coming apart at the seams? No question. Did that affect their play? Perhaps. But that's a helluva long way from saying they were slouches.

These are the two points I think are most important if we're comparing Duncan and Dirk. I don't think it's fair to fault Duncan for leading his Spurs through a weak league when Dirk couldn't lead his Mavs through that same weak league. It isn't like those Mavs teams weren't capable. They just couldn't get it done. To hammer the point home, many times they couldn't get it done against those Spurs.

So, yes, Dirk's one title, when set against each of Duncan's titles individually, is more impressive. Of the 5 titles between them, Dirk's is the most impressive. I just don't think it makes up for the other 3 Duncan was able to get. And again, to hammer the point home, a few of Duncan's titles were won by beating Dirk's Mavs.

Finally, I'd like to say that I look at sports debates like I do actual sports. They are to be had, or played, passionately and intensely. It might get a little heated or tension-filled during the debate, or game, but no harm is meant. Phil's a good guy and even if this debate ends with us cursing each other's mothers, I'll still think the same.

Shaq was diminished, and hey, it was an even year (kidding!). They were quite arguably the weakest of every recent Lakers Finals team, maybe All-Time, and Shaq was already down the hill by then. The Shaq-Kobe duo was becoming less and less even (although Shaq still had the points edge), but Kobe hadn't yet seized control. Malone and Payton didn't help things out; they were far too old to be a major contributing factor. The engine of their success was still largely Shaq and Kobe, and by this time, Shaq was no longer an unstoppable monster and Kobe was becoming more and more ill-suited to being the Robin to his Batman.

There's no conspiracy, really; in sports, teams are either descending or ascending. The Lakers as the league knew them at the time were clearly descending. I suppose we can argue about the semantics of the merits of Detroit's ring, but I feel justified in calling them a weaker team, since essentially, they were barely the best team in a weak conference, and because they faced a gift team in the Lakers, who matched up with them perfectly and were a far cry from their prime as a championship caliber squad. It was also a year after San Antonio had won its first championship of the decade; more often than not, teams do not repeat in sports. San Antonio of 99'-07' is one of the only (to their credit) non-repeating champions who can still be considered dynasties. That meant, however, that every other year was an off year, and it really ended up being that way for them. The Lakers had to charge through Garnett and the T-Wolves to make that particular Finals; honestly, I'm not sure the Lakers had all that difficult of a road to the Finals that particular postseason, their amazing 0-2 comeback to San Antonio notwithstanding. I really don't think the Pistons could have encountered a friendlier match-up out of the playoff contenders that season. Sometimes that's how it is. I'll admit, I don't particularly like Detroit (their last few seasons have been a pleasure for me), but knowing firsthand from going to more than a few Nets games during their playoff prime, the Pistons were an occasionally inept, second-level version of the Spurs. I'll admit that I used to label San Antonio's method of winning as 'boring'; however, the Pistons were absolutely impossible to watch. They were like a French art-house film about how to paint properly under the guidance of God. The idea that there is a conspiracy ignores some of the most important facts of human nature - change and erosion. The Nets had unraveled during Detroit's ascent, and the Lakers were no longer the powerhouse that stomped the Nets and the Sixers years beforehand. The stage was pretty much set for Detroit to win, and they took full advantage to their (urgh) credit (urgh). The Pistons were trending up, the Lakers prevailed in the Western playoff race (they were by no means tearing up the competition), and Detroit was able to catch a dying champion while they themselves were enjoying their peak. Whether I'm using that to discredit them or not, that seems like a fair way of comprehending the match-up. I honestly feel exactly that way about that Finals matchup. Sometime the road to a title is easy, or simply more explainable, than others. And at the time, I was perceptive enough to know that the 2004 incarnation of the Lakers were doomed. And believe me, between Malone and Payton being ring-less and my kinda-hatred for Detroit, I dreaded that feeling, but it was very apparent.


Ah, have to go! I'll continue this later.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You've misquoted me here, buddy. Look back at the last page. Those are Phil's words, not mine. I prefer Dirk, that's true, but objectively Duncan is a better power forward. I'd take him over KG any day.

You dudes have otherwise done a fantastic job of hashing out the merits' of each, so I'll just leave it at the minor correction

Sincerely sorry, dude. I was going based off of your subscribing to Philius's newsletter comment and your general affection for Dirk; my "heart is with you" comment simply meant I think a few of us want Dirk to be the best because he's just such a likable dude. Very sorry about my poor word choice, I certainly have never believed that you think Dirk is better than Timmay.

So...is anyone going to watch the All-Star game? It won't even be on ABC! I've chosen the Oscars which makes me female, I think. Has there ever been this conflict before? It certainly isn't smart scheduling.

I switched across to see the last 1.1 seconds of the All-Star game. You'd think that LeBron James, with 38 points off of 15-23 shooting and 6-8 from downtown would be the one to take the last second three and go for the tie. Instead, he INBOUNDED the ball. And it wasn't even that great of a pass. Does he not even want to be on the court for big shots anymore?

Yeah it was lame...did you see the play before when the East had a chance to tie and Bron threw it to Griffin? Apparently he chokes in any close game now.

....which is kindof funny, but also kindof true, and it's what will decide the ring this year: The Heat will win if they put enough distance during each game between them and their opponent so that Bron doesn't have to bring it home in the 4th.

LeBron, funny and consistently easy as it may be to label him to a choke artist, did not choke. The man who choked the East's chances away was Dwayne Wade, who dropped a GIMME *under the basket* shot off of a perfect pass with the lead in reach with either a dunk or a layup. Instead, he fobbled the ball and dropped it out of bounds. It was possibly the single most egregious play of the game. Most of the reason the East were competitive was because of LeBron's unexpectedly amazing perimeter shooting in the fourth quarter. To blame LeBron for losing the game is pretty silly. I'm all for laughing at Bron's misfortunes, since he makes it worse on himself most of the time, but antagonizing him for a game where he delivered shot after shot (he was straight money in the fourth from the 3) colors you as ignorant. I'm standing up for Bron, and my eyes, by saying the message of your post (if you're not being sarcastic) is 100% baloney.

He did make his 3's in the 4th, I'll give him that, and yes I'm picking intentionally quite a bit and ignoring what he did when I say he choked. He did botch the pass at the end, though, which was just as baffling as Wade's missed layup, in my mind. But yeah I'm mostly kidding in regard to this game, though my overall point about his ability to be clutch in a game that matters (especially while playing from behind) still stands.

He didn't 'make' his 3's in the fourth, he DRAINED them (tied for the most in the All-Star game, period - and they weren't gimmes, either). I don't see how a desperation pass that got incidentally picked off with no offensive players in his field vision in general (there was almost nobody there) beats a Dwayne Wade missed bucket with a minute left that Igoudala could have knocked in one-handed. It was pretty much squarely D-Wade's fault that the West hung on. I know the negative sentiments directed nationally towards LeBron are justified, but I'm sure if you looked at it objectively, he didn't owe Team East anything. Be fair to the guy. The game couldn't have been more disparate early on and he almost single-handledly redeemed it and made it fun. If you want to hate a weak game, please pop in that 2011 Finals DVD (ooh boy), but the number one rule as basketball fan (imo) should be: Always respect a great game. He had one.

Arguing aside, it was an amazing All-Star game, though too bad people did the usual in ignoring Durant almost immediately. The only thing I hate (HATE) about this Lin praise is that it further displays how NY teams get undue over-exposure for performing competently (really, a team with THAT kind of depth is getting sympathy points for being under .500?), and how Durant will never get a fair shake. Not that it's Lin's fault - he would probably be my sixth-man if I was constructing a fantasy roster (no way he starts over Nash, CP3, or Rose), but Kevin Durant deserves reserved acclaim, the kind that gets dished out like an assist on the backboards for a slamma jamma (something that, ironically, his oft-maligned teammate Westbrook was deadly at last night). He is the real deal. LeBron's MVP is his to lose to either injury or sudden decline in performance, but if King James does fade, who better than Durant to save the day? Let's go ahead an assume Kobe doesn't even have an outside shot, CP3 gets his usual league-wide praise and 2 (tops) MVP votes, and Otis Smith buys votes for Dwight Howard to satiate D12's hunger for more Orlando-masochism (you could make an X-rated German art film about the dynamic between Dwight and the Magic, whip borrowed from The Passion of the Christ set), then it becomes pretty clear that Durant, on the league's best Western team and the only real title threat outside of Miami, will probably pull it off.

And for a word on Dwight to the Bulls - If this happens, no matter what the Bulls give up (short of Rose, and maybe Deng), go ahead and overturn my Finals predictions and put Chicago in unmovable pole position for a title for at least this season. It probably won't happen (and if it doesn't, Chicago is seriously in trouble of exiting in the Divisional or Conference rounds), but it's still a reasonable possibility, and Rose's recent comments about D12 only make it a little more horrifyingly real. Who touches a core of Howard and a (presumably healthy) Rose? Nobody.

Yes, he took over the game and made it closer and more exciting. Yes, he had a great game. But he's easily the most talented player in the game right now, perhaps the most gifted we've ever seen, so I don't think we need to give him that much props for doing exactly what he should do. He's the game's biggest star and should perform that way. But yes, this was a fantastic All-Star performance.

Until... that last play. Look, he's a fantastic passer, but that was a bad pass that he was not forced to throw. The bigger problem (as Melo and Kobe's facial expression towards him after that indicated) was that he wanted no part of that shot. Six seconds to go in a game where they'd been calling fouls and you're down two...take it to the damn rim, Bron. Or pull up for a 3 (where he was indeed hot) and try to win it. Yeah, he had a double team, but one of them was Melo so that hardly counts and they hadn't pressured him much when he passed. But he never considered taking that shot, and I have a problem with that.

But at what price? Rose + Howard is a great thought, but what happens to Chicago's depth if they have to give up Noah and Deng? Deng is the glue that holds Chicago together. When Rip gets healthy, and he will, I will take Chicago in 7 vs. Miami. In any case, I think it's a toss-up between the two for the Finals. Can't wait for the playoffs to start to see who faces OKC/SA/Dallas...

I actually would not use the word "choke" for what happened with Bron in the All-Star game. In my eyes, he shrank from the occasion. That's possibly worse. Let's recap:

1. He was, by far, the best player on the East roster that night
2. He was shooting the ball great
3. More importantly, he was shooting the 3 great, especially late in the game.

So...when your team is down by 3 with seconds remaining, you're the best player on your team and you've been nailing practically everything...what do you do? Don't you "ride the hot hand"? I'm not going to be one of those idiots who criticizes him for passing either. There were times in Cleveland, where he passed at the end to the open man and got criticized when they lost. Those were the right plays. This one was not. Hell, for the 1.1 second shot he inbounded the freaking ball. An inbound at that stage could potentially go to any of the four other players on the court. I'm not saying he has to take that shot, but at least put yourself out there and see if the ball comes to you. And...it's a damn exhibition game! Live a little. LBJ is the best player in the game, one of the greatest of all time and (to repeat) was the best player on the court and he had the hot hand. Don't shrink. Take the damn shot.



Damn. I just typed that rant above and then read Shade's post. He said what I wanted to, just in a coherent way



Good point. It would probably hurt them, short term, but I'd like to imagine that the Bulls would eventually get a bunch of decent vets who are looking for a championship coming at cut-rate prices to fill out the roster. What say you guys? Would you deal for Howard?

Like Ed, I watched the Oscars (and drank heavily) over the All-Star Game. I flipped back and forth some, but didn't watch too much. I don't have much of an opinion on Lebron taking or not taking that shot, since I didn't see it. I will say that I'm not going to kill a guy too much for what he does in an All-Star Game. I don't think anyone really went overboard, and the jabs at Bron were mostly jokes (and granted, it is pretty funny that a guy who's known to shrink from big moments did the same in a freaking All-Star Game), so there really isn't a whole lot to get worked up over.

Lebron is a lot like Tony Romo in how their reps are decided. Now, Romo isn't as good at football as Bron is at basketball, but both guys are at the point in their careers where they're going to be judged solely on how they perform in big moments. Some might call that unfair, but if you want to go down as one of the greats, you have to perform in those moments. Both guys have their fair share of times where they've choked or shrank away from the moment, so they're only going to lose that rep by coming up big in big games. They have to get that proverbial monkey off of their back. In other words, no matter how well they play in the regular season, nothing is going to change. It's postseason success or bust for both guys.



I say do it. As much as I like Noah as a player, Howard is a pretty significant upgrade over him. It's tough to say no to getting the best big man in the game. I would try to give up Boozer before Deng because Deng is better and the Bulls have Taj Gibson who can step in and fill Boozer's spot. The Magic shouldn't accept that deal, but they do have Otis Smith running the show and if they get desperate enough to trade Howard, they might agree to it.

Any time you give up multiple guys for one player you're going to lose some depth. The Bulls have a really good big man rotation right now (they go 4 deep), but getting Howard would improve that even if they gave up 2 big men. If they gave up Deng, things would get really interesting. I don't think they can beat Miami as is, and trading Deng would create an enormous whole on the wing. The matchup with the Heat would be one of mismatches. The Heat would be weak where the Bulls are strong and vice versa. It would come down to who could take advantage of those mismatches more - Rose and Howard or Bron and Wade.

If I'm Chicago I try to get Howard by giving up any combination of players and picks that doesn't involve Rose (obviously). I'd also try hard as hell to not give up Deng because he's the only guy on the roster capable of guarding Bron or Wade. That said, with Howard in the paint, Bron and Wade are automatically slowed down a bit. They'll have to rely a bit more on their jumpers and that's really the only hope of beating the Heat. Try to take advantage of a poor GM who's desperate to save face and virtually has to trade his superstar. If he won't budge, throw Deng in and build around Howard and Rose.