Monday, October 31, 2005

NBA Awards Predictions

LeBron James - Cleveland Cavaliers
Alright, now for my much awaited NBA Preview. I'll start out with my awards picks.

MVP-Wow. This is tough. Who could have seen Steve Nash coming last year? This year appears to be as much of a crapshoot as last. Most league obsrevers are picking Tim Duncan. Why? Because their bandwagon hopping bastards and they have no brain of their own. History has shown that unless a player is spectacularly successful both individually and team-wise, most players win the award once and the media feels like they've given them their due and don't need to praise the player further. The case of Shaquille O'neal proves this theory best. For a five or six year stretch between 1997-2003, Shaquille O'neal was by far the absolute best player in the entire league. He was better than Jordan in 1998 (although Jordan's win was understandable), better than Karl Malone in the lockout year, then he finally won in 2000, was better than Iverson in 2001, and better than Tim Duncan in 2002. And it's not as if O'neal was putting up monster numbers on bad teams, either. The Lakers won 61 games in 1998, and tied for the best record in the league in '99. Then, of course, he won the title three straight years. But due to the bizzare and entirely untrue rationalization that Shaq was good just because he's big, the media refused to give him his proper respect. This is a guy who should have at least three MVPs and is in my opinion the second greatest player of all time, and if it weren't for injuries, might be considered the greatest of all time because he would have about 5-6 championships (last year with Miami included). So back to my point, I highly doubt that Tim Duncan will win the MVP again because once the Spurs finish off yet another 55-60 win season and lose in the Playoffs, the media will realize just how overrated the Spurs offseason was and not give Duncan his due. Therefore, I have to go with the best player on what will be the most improved team in the league, LeBron James. James could have made a legitimate case for the award last year, had it not been for his team's unfortunate collapse, and front-office blunders. The Cavs might just be the best team in the East and maybe the entire league, although I don't have the balls to just come flat-out and say it.

Rookie of the Year-Awards rarely have anything to do with who actually deserves the award, but rather who most outplayed expectations. This is why Amare Stoudemire won in 2003 (although he is now clearly the best player), and this is why Emeka Okafor won last year. This is also why Steve Nash won MVP last year. It should have been clear to anyone who even took a cursory look at the statistics that LeBron James, Kevin Garnett, and even Amare Stoudemireoutplayed Nash, but no one expected the team to improve that greatly with him on it. So this year I'm going to go with Charlie Villanueva. The Raptors were roundly blasted for taking Villanueva because he played the same position as the "franchise player" Chris Bosh, and because of supposed "attitude" problems. Never mind that no one had any evidence to back up that claim, but the fact that he didn't live up to the media's expectations of him during college was held against him, and not against the people who had unreasonable expectations in the first place. The reason he had such high expectations is because he was considered one of the best if not the best player in his high school class. This is part of the reason I'm picking him: In college he had to play behind Emeka Okafor and then next to Josh Boone, who is widely considered to be top-5 draft pick next June. The other reason, and the most important, is because of the awesome preseason he had. I know the games don't count, but he had everyone buzzing and recently popped up in articles in SLAM and on SI.com after proving everyone wrong. Talent doesn't necessarily need a postion, and I expect Villanueva to play wll no matter wher he fits in on Toronto's frontline. I'm rooting for him.

Defensive POY-If the media doesn't buy the Kool-Aid on Ron Artest's comeback, and as long as Andrei Kirilenko stays healthy, Kirilenko should win. He is an unbelievable athlete but has played for a largely anonymous team, doesn't put up amazing numbers in the glamour statistics (points, assists) and was frequently injured last year. That didn't stop him from leading the league in blocks per game, and also putting up a ton of steals with his freakishly long arms. There's not much else to say except that he's an execllent help defender and is a team player. Jerry Sloan is reportedly unhappy with his effort during preseason but he can't possibly be stupid enough to limit this guy's minutes. His defense alone makes him one of the top 15 players in the league, and that's no joke. He is one of the most unique players of all time.

Most Improved Player-This one is almost impossible to predict. You can kind of tell which players played well last season in limited minutes, but you never know if it's just a tease because of a small sample size. If I had to guess, I'd go with Stromile Swift. Unfortunately for him, he didn't develop fast enough to keep Pau Gasol from taking the starter's job from him in his second season, but for the last few years has been the best backup power forward in the league. He had an off-year shooting-wise, but with Tracy McGrady and Yao Ming taking most of the attention away from him in Houston and with a solid 35-40 minutes a night, his shooting percentage should improve greatly and he will likely average a double-double, leading to the inevitable story line about how "Stromile Swift has made all the difference" in the Rockets rise to a western power.

Sixth Man-Coming in a close second for best backup power forward in the league, Donyell Marshall might have the distinction of being the most underrated player in the NBA. He got to start a little last year, but will definitely be coming off the bench in Cleveland behind Drew Gooden, and Cleveland's "surprise" ascension to Eastern elite, will bring him long overdue acclaim, with the combination of his threes and superb rebounding being essential to Cleveland's success.

Coach of the Year-This award often goes hand-in-hand with the MVP, so I'll go with Mike Brown in Cleveland. I don't know much about him except that he used to be an assistant with San Antonio and is defense-oriented (I'm really sick of that cliche. Sorry) Cleveland will be the first team since the 2001 Sixers to pull of the MVP, Sixth-Man, Coach of the Year trifecta

Scoring-LeBron James-The time is now
Rebounding-Kevin Garnett-It's not like Minnesota has any other rebounders.
Assists-Steve Nash-No one else even touches the ball unless they're shooting
Blocks-Andrei Kirilenko-No reason to think otherwise
Steals-LeBron James-GOAT at 20?!?!

Sunday, October 30, 2005

The only Power Rankings that matter...mine!

Dallas Mavericks

Here are my so-called Power Rankings. While I think these things are dumb (what effect will thay have on the season anyway?) I thought I should give an abbreviated look at what I feel will happen in the upcoming season, just in case you care and also so I'm on record later as being a genius. So here goes.

1. Dallas-A quiet offseason for once, they now have a true leader and go-to guy, plus chemistry.
2. San Antonio-Offseason moves were overrated, as is their entire team.
3. Miami-Team to beat in the East until proven otherwise.
4. Houston-Caught fire at the end of last year; would make a serious run if not for the NBA's idiotic playoff format.
5. Cleveland-Y'all ready for this...dun dun dun. Should stay atop the East for next decade.
6. Detroit-Flip not known for great playoff success, plus they still don't have a bench.
7. Indiana-I'll believe these guys are contenders when I see it.
8. New Jersey-Kidd worked magic before. If he has anything left after surgery, he will again.
9. Sacramento-Oh, how the mighty have fallen. They should still be pretty good, though.
10. Minnesota-Dire predictions are way off base. They still have KG! Hello!
11. Denver-They'll have one good run before George Karl works his team-ruining "magic"
12. Philadelphia-Solid nucleus for once and finally a coach Iverson respects.
13. Seattle-McMillan was an underrated loss, but most of the team is still the same. Just keep hitting those threes.
14. Phoenix-If you thought the injury to Amare was bad, look at their bench. Yikes!
15. Golden State-Everything depends on Baron Davis' health. If he's hurt, they're 25th.
16. Chicago- One year wonders might just make it two.
17. Milwaukee-Magloire trade makes the Bucks the biggest question mark in the league
18. Utah-Full years from Kirilenko and Boozer plus competent play from Williams might sneak them into the playoffs.
19. Orlando-It's all on Howard now. If he becomes elite, Magic could make playoffs.
20. L.A. Lakers-Aaron (bleeping) Mckie? A starter? Sorry, there's just not enough talent.
21. Washington-With no Hughes and Arenas' injury history, one-year wonders won't make it two.
22. Memphis-No more playoffs for these guys for a long time.
23. New York-Once again, I'll believe it when I see it.
24. L.A. Clippers-Starting five ain't bad, but the bench is. Besides, this is the Clippers.
25. Boston-This team is just a little too young to do much this year.
26. Portland-This team has some talent and a good coach, but no chemistry.
27. Charlotte-As long as the effort is still there they should beat out Atlanta again.
28. Toronto- They lost to a team from another country, how are they gonna win in the NBA?
29. Atlanta-Damon Jones, Earl Watson, Brevin Knight, and Jason Hart were all on the market, and they took Joe Johnson.
30. New Orleans/Oklahoma City-This is just pathetic.

ESPN is back making terrible picks again

Mark Blount
"I suck! But not according to ESPN!"

When I got my issue of ESPN the Magazine the other day, my first thought was YAY! Now I'll be able to make my weekly ESPN bashing quota. I immediately flipped to the NBA preview section and it turns out the guys really outdid themselves this year with their terrible picks, whetehr it be Greg Anthony picking the 76ers to win the Atlantic over New Jersey, Matt Winer (who?) picking Jermaine O'Neal to be MVP, to Stephen A. Smith...everything. All of the guys took the predictable route by picking San Antonio to win the West and three out of four taking the Heat in the East (Matt Winer (who?) took Indiana). I won't argue too hard with those two as champs.

Ok, I thought, this is pretty good ammo, but the Team Previews with player ratings wre so unspeakably awful that there is no way I could rebut them point-by-point. They apparently picked an astrologer (I'm not kidding) to give insight into each team, which was actually fairly entertaining, but they often completely contradicted what the previews actually said. Again, too numerous to rebut. But it was the absolutely stupid player ratings that really got to me. I'm going to keep this brief:

ESPN ranked each projected starter and each team's bench on a scale of 1-10, with ten being the best. Mark Blount got a seven. Yes, that Mark Blount. According to ESPN, Mark Blount is better than the following players:

Mike Miller, P.J. Brown, Chris Paul, Darius Miles, Juan Dixon, Sebastian Telfair, Josh Smith, Zaza Pachulia, Primoz Brezec, Michael Sweetney, Luol Deng, Desmond Mason, Andrew Bogut, T.J. Ford, Morris Peterson, and Mike James.

I rest my case. But hey, if it wasn't for ESPN, I'd have almost nothing to write about.

Thanks for sucking, Green Bay Packers!

I repeat: thanks for sucking, guys.

photo
"I wish my team didn't suck!"

I meant to post this yesterday, but I just wanted to point out that for the first time I can remember, a Bucks story (the Jamaal Magloire trade) got lead billing on the evening sportscast during football season. Then I watched again the next day and the Bucks got the lead story again! Alas, on the third day the lead story was about the Wisconsin Badgers, but at least it wasn't the Packers! I'm writing this right after Brett Favre just threw his third interception with the Packers down 14-7. I can only hope this means more coverage for the Bucks, Panthers, Golden Eagles, Admirals, Badgers, Wave, Wave United and every other sports team from Wisconsin that ever fet slighted by the bulk of the evening newscasts being devoted to yet another blown coverage by Ahmad Carrol, Mark Roman or (fill in any Packers defensive player here). I like Brett Favre, but for the rest of you, keep it up suckers!

YAY!

More thoughts on the Mason trade

Desmond MasonI'm sure you are all sick and tired of my complaining about this trade and I am too but I just can't seem to let it go right now, and neither can the media, specifically the Milwaukee paper. Today they ran two columns on the trade by Michael Hunt and some other guy. Hunt esentially said that, yes Harris is a snake but that's the nature of the game and the trade should not be judged on the way it went down but by its long-term success. I agree. I've already acknowledged that Magloire is a good player, possibly better than Mason. The price of Mase and an unprotected first-rounder was probably too high for a guy who had an awful, injury-plagued season last year and who's "all-star" title is very dubious given the quality of the competiton at the center spot in the East when he was selected. However, the way the trade happened is what I take issue with, and it was a very similar situation to what happened in Seattle with Mase. Mason understood that the Bucks appeared to be headed in a different direction with the signing of Bobby Simmons, a more pure small forward and a better defender, asked to be traded, and then was turned down. Not only that, but he was forced to suffer through this whole charade throughout training camp that the Bucks were going to play small ball and go with him Bobby, and Redd in the starting lineup at the same time. Michael Hunt acknowledges that Larry Harris is an "unabashed self-promoter," and rather unclassy, much unlike his father's reign in Milwaukee, and with that I could not agree more. Hunt says the trade should be measured in wins and losses, but I think there is also room for personal criticism of Harris here considering the way he handled Terry Porter's firing.

The other guy who wrote a column on the trade takes a much harsher view towards Mason, saying that since a similar thing happened to Mase before, he shouldn't have been surprised. Well, there is certainly reason to be surprised when the owner, coach, and GM of the team tells you there is no way you're going to be traded, treats you like a starter throughout camp, and then decides to trade you based on an internet rumor Harris saw at Hoopshype.com. He also says, essentially, that all GMs are the same; if Harris is a snake, all GMs are, if Harris is a liar, than all GMs are. How the hell does this excuse what happened here? I think we can all agree that there are some significant ethics issues is Washington D.C. right now, but that doesn't mean that gives everyone a free pass to start taking bribes. This is known as the extremely childish argument "But everyone else is doing it!" Then he repeats the cliche I hate most about basketball: it's a business. This argument also came up with the case of the newly implemented dress-code. Enron was a business, and so was TYCO and every other major corporate scandalized Wall street company. Call me a starry-eyed idealist, but I think businesses should have at least a basic code of ethics, and as it applies to basketball, having the common decency not to lie to someone's face about the prospects of being traded and at least being able to say "I don't know what your future is with this organization."

Bottom line, of course we should judge this trade on its merits on the basketball court, but that doesn't excuse snakish behavior. I really hope this is the last time I have to talk about this but I doubt it.

Saturday, October 29, 2005

Thoughts on Sheryl Swoopes...

After reading the Sheryl Swoopes coming out article, yes, I was fairly surprised. Not just because she was married (to a man) and had a son, but also because she claimed that she "chose" to be gay. I find this hard to believe quite frankly, (oh no, I'm starting to sound like Screamin' A. Smith!) because I don't believe that you can choose to be gay, regardless of what Sheryl Swoopes says. I know it's a bit pretentious to say that I know what her specific situation is, which I don't, but I couldn't help getting the sense that she was still a little confused about how exactly she came to this point in her life. She said she "didn't do this to be a hero" and I agree. Most people, regardless of how tolerant you or I are toward gay people, are still pretty homophobic in this country, and more people will probably look down on her with scorn than will think she's a hero. But just the way she described growing up, always wanting to play with her brothers in what seemed like a pretty macho sibling rivalry, never wanting to act as other girls acted, the fact that her mother was and is a very Christian person. All this leads me to think that all these years she was just repressing who she really was in order to appease her family for fear that they wouldn't love her. It was nice to hear that they still do, even though her mother came off as sounding a little disappointed, yet resigned. (She supposedly said "I figured" when Swoopes told her.) It's no secret that there are many lesbians in the WNBA: Teresa Wetherspoon has long been open about it. The surprising thing is that though women can still feel ashamed even with all the openly gay teammates around them. The best thing to come out of this was that Swoopes's sponsors and the commissioner of the WNBA both came out and said essentially "no big deal." Hopefully this will help other women be honest and open about themselves. Make no mistake however, we are still a long looooong way from having any professional male athlete come out during his playing career. The most prominent male athlete to come out so far is that Samoan offensive-lineman who used to play for the Packers (Esera Tuaolo), but he came out well after he was done playing.

...And the state of the WNBA

WNBA fansTalking about Sheryl Swoopes also made me start thinking about the WNBA and to a lesser extent the state of all women's professional sports, specifically Jean Van de Velde's recent statement that he would try to qualify for the Women's British Open, because, according to him, if the women get to play on the "men's" tour, men should get to play on the women's tour.

Let's start for the WNBA first. It's no secret why the WNBA is stagnating and not showing any growth. It is plain and simple an inferior product. To expect someone to pay to see an inferior product is just arrogant and off-putting. There is no athleticism in the game and no defense, just poor offense. (Please don't take this to be a defense of the style of play in the NBA, though.) There are constantly loose balls and turnovers (in the WNBA) and lane penetration is never stopped. The shooting is also terrible. This brings up my second point:

Why would a league that wants to be taken seriously as a basketball league use a smaller ball? When women play tennis, they don't give them smaller balls. When women play golf, sure they shorten the course a little bit, but Annika Sorenstam and Michelle Wie have shown that they are more than capable of playing from the men's tees, and they don't use the whiffle golf balls that you use in gym class. they use real golf clubs and real golf balls. Why would you give women a smaller ball? I've played many girls on the playground using normal men's basketballs and they don't complain. In fact, a lot of them kick guys' butts. The smaller ball is harder to shoot no matter what size your hands are because it comes off your hands at a different velocity and therefore comes at the rim from different angles. Shaq has huge hands compared to the men's ball and this is why he is such a poor free-throw shooter. Everyone has different sized hands and you can't just adjust the size of the ball for everyone. It seens to me that giving the girls smaller balls is more sexist than saying the WNBA sucks. Let them play with real basketballs. What's next, lowering the rim three feet so that they can dunk? Come on!

Thirdy, the league has serious marketing issues, and just because of the number of openly gay athletes (remember, homosexuality in America today is still a pretty controversial topic). You have to watch a lot of unathletic, unexciting women pound on each other, and then the commercials come and it's for things like tampons. No self-respecting man would ever subject himself to that. Men make up the vast majority of sports fans and bringing them in has to be a priority, and you won't do it with the kind of league sponsors the WNBA has. Men will watch women's sports, which bring me to my fourth point:

There is a market for women's sports, and it's not just with women. Men watch women's tennis and women's golf and more importantly they will watch women's college basketball if it's their alma mater. Criticize the NCAA all you want but they have an excellent playoff system. Single elimination, winner takes all, is the most exciting playoff format there is, and that's why football and college basketball are the two favorite sports in America. The NBA and baseball seasons are far too long to have the entire season come down to just one game, but football and college basketball seasons are short, and so are their playoffs. This is what the league needs to do to spice up interest. No more best-of-three or best-of-five game series. The season of the WNBA is about as short as the college basketball season, so there's no reason you can't have this system of playoffs. There are also other ways of improving the quality of the competition and the biggest most important way is...

STOP EXPANDING!!! The worst thing you could do to a league that already has an inferior quality of play is to thin out the talent pool. It might work for major sports like football, baseball, or basketball, but it just kills niche-leagues like the NHL and the WNBA. In the WNBA there are what, twelve, sixteen teams? There should be no more than eight teams, all on the East Coast. Why the east coast? Because that's where most of the major women's college teams are: UConn, Rutgers, Duke, Tennessee, North Carolina (with the exception of Stanford). This is exactly how the NBA started. It eliminates a lot of the cost of traveling and you already have a built-in fanbase. In essence, you're just creating a professional extension of the colege game. Once again, this is exactly how the NBA game started. Once your league is relatively stable, then you can slowly expand. And even when you do, there's no guarantee that it's going to work. It still hasn't really worked out in cities like New Orleans, Vancouver/Memphis and Tampa Bay for those other leagues.

Finally, this would help create an emotional connection with the players on the floor. This is the best way to get people to watch. I have no problem watching high school girls sports because I know who the girls are personally and I actually care who wins. This should be the ultimate goal of the WNBA, get people to care who wins. It's not enough to rely on people's pride in their city's name, as the aforementioned expansion cities show. People criticize the NBA for marketing players and not teams, anfd this is a legitimate criticism because it is a major sports, but niche-sports rely on personalities to get audiences. Tiger Woods brought new fans to golf, Michele Wie and Annika Sorenstam brought new fans to women's golf, the Williams sisters and Maria Sharapova brought new fans to women's tennis. You need to market personalities in a league like this. The WNBA can survive and be financially viable without being a charity-case as it is right now.

As far as Jean Van de Velde's comments, as many people have pointed out, it's not the "men's" tour, moron, it's the best-in-the-world tour. If a woman is one of the best in the world, she should be allowed to go on the best-in-the-world tour. It's not the "men's" NBA, it's the NBA, and if Candace Parker or whoever is good enough to play there, more power to them. Frankly, I think we'll see a woman in the NBA before we see a woman president.

Second thoughts on Bogut bashing

Since I only started this blog yesterday, many of my readers (ha!) have no idea of my opinions on Andrew Bogut. All summer I've been getting on the Bucks for picking the "great white dope" and I've also referred to him several times as "Blow-gut." Well in light of the Bucks recent trade for Jamaal Magloire and the Bucks most recent exhibition game, I've softened a little.

I was already feeling bad for him because the Bucks just happened to be unlucky enough to win the #1 pick in a year where no one deserved it. My idea was just to have the draft start at #3 and continue on from there because no one deserved to be called "#1." Bogut looked pretty soft in summer-league games and Marvin Williams still kind of looks like Al Harrington to me: decent at a lot of things but never going to be great at anything. Overall this was looking like the worst draft since 2000 because the best player in that year's draft was selected 45th, the one and only Michael Redd.

After the Bucks most recent exhibition game, though, Bogut might have changed my mind. Yes its weak competition and so-on and so-forth, but Bogut put up some great numbers against Marcus Camby, Nene and the gang from Denver: 17 points, 8 rebounds on 7-10 shooting. Way to go big guy! Although I still think the (as-of-now injured) Dan Gadzuric should be starting-afterall, when he played more than 30 minutes a game last year he averaged 14.1 points, 12.8 rebounds, and posted the Bucks first 20-20 game for the Bucks in seven years (his limited minutes were part of the reason I supported the firing of Terry Porter)- Bogut definitely looks less like the flat-out bust I thought he would be (think Bill Wennington), and more like a solid backup, if not a reasonably qualified starter.

Mason trade update

Well, it turns out that Desmond Mason asked for a trade during the summer because he felt uneasy about the way the Bucks were moving in the off season, i.e. signing a "replacement" in Bobby Simmons. He asked Larry Harris for a trade, and after initially agreeing to try to help facilitate that, Mase was called in by owner Senator Herb Kohl and coach Terry Stotts and was told that under no circumstances would he be traded and he was a big part of the Bucks future. This is also what Mase was told in Seattle before he was traded to Milwaukee along with Gary Payton in exchange for Ray Allen. He let the issue drop until he found out about the trade by phone from Larry Harris.

See, this is why I gave the Bucks a 1 for "does not apply at all" on the ESPN sportsnation poll for "honesty of management." Once again, best of luck Mase.

Friday, October 28, 2005

Bucks re-aquire Anthony Mason!!

Click to enlarge

Ok, so Jamaal Magloire is not Anthony Mason, but you have to admit, this has some major parallels. Here's my question:

Why do the Bucks always trade the players who want to be in Milwaukee?

First Scott Williams (screw that Eastern Conference finals crap!), then Glen Robinson (ok, so this trade worked out better than anyone could have expected), then Ray Allen (how could Payton possibly turn down $14 million and all the strip club visits he wants?), and now this. I'm not saying Magloire isn't talented, (in fact, he is probably better than Mase, at least on paper), I'm just saying he doen't fit chemistry-wise. And get this, the Milwaukee Urinal-Sentinnal is coming out with a Bucks preview section on Tuesday that asks on its cover "Do the Bucks have the right chemistry?" Needless to say they came up with this before the Bucks decided to trade their second best player, and one who was the most active in the community. I was willing to give Larry Harris a mulligan on the awful botched firing of Terry Porter because I like Terry Stotts, but this definitively proves that Larry Harris really is, as Mason put it "a snake in the grass." Larry has unquestionable talents as a talent evaluator (Brian Skinner, Damon Jones, Zaza Pachulia, Mo Williams, all were his doing), but he needs to take a lesson from D-Mase in character and integrity. Apparently Larry got it from his dad, Del Harris, who was generous to take the time out of his schedule to coach a bunch of Chinese Communist zealots (and that includes Yao) and support the evil Chinese government by coaching their basketball team in the Olympics. (Seriously, what was that all about? Do you have no conscience at all? No self-respecting athlete or human being should support the economy of that country by participating in the Olympics there.) I won't boo Magloire (at least until he turns into Jason Caffey), but if I ever see Larry Harris up on the big screen I'll definitely be the loudest one.

Bottom line, we should never have drafted Bogut. It wasn't Larry's fault that the year we happen to get the first choice, there was no one in the draft worthy of it. It wasn't Larry's fault that Shareef Abdur-Rahim turned down $20 million more than any other team was offering and guaranteed 40 minutes a night (I didn't know that Milwaukee was so bad that you would turn down both of those things and would rather live in New Jersey-yuck!- or Sacramento. Isn't Sacramento just Milwaukee-West with a whole lot more cows?) To Harris' credit, Magloire is relatively cheap and young, but it is Harris' fault when he starts complaining halfway through the season about not getting enough touches (like he did in New Orleans) and demands to be traded to Toronto (as he did in New Orleans).

The Urinal did have a great article today on what a great guy Mason was, getting involved in the Milwaukee community and even-gasp-making Milwaukee his year round home. What a shame it is that he has to get traded to the most pathetic team in the league, while Michael Redd, who Mason is just as good as, gets 90 million dollars and gets called a franchise player.

D-Mase! You will be missed!


Paul Silas Has No Brain


In the Journal today, they pointed out that just-hired ESPN analyst and former Hornets and Cavaliers coach Paul Silas called the Bucks' trade of Desmond Mason for Jamaal Magloire a "no-brainer.":

"When you can get a Jamaal Magloire for a Desmond Mason, that's a no brainer."

Well, "Coach" Silas, it's also a no-brainer that if you have a Baron Davis, a David Wesley, a Jamal Mashburn, a P.J. Brown, a Elden Campbell, a Courtney Alexander, a Jerome Moiso, and a Jamaal Magloire, you should have been able to win the Eastern Conference title in '00, '01, '02, and '03, in the super-weak East of those years. It's also a no-brainer that if you have a Lebron James on your team you should be able to win enough games to not get fired.

I guess that means you have less than no brain.

Which explains why ESPN hired you.