Exile on Waveland

Pacers fan thrilled with the trade. They are gambling on Ford's heath, true. However, it's a low-risk, high-reward deal (though I also like it from Toronto's perspective): 1. Despite Ford's injury history, he has been healthier and played more games than O'Neal recently (Ford 55-72-75-51 to O'Neal's 44-51-69-42). Ford's health is actually an improvement over O'Neal's. 2. There is always the risk that Ford's next injury ends his career, but (i) I believe his contract is insured so that wouldn't cost the Pacers anything and (ii) I believe O'Neal's injuries are dehabilitating and put him squarely on the downside of his career. Ford is only 25 and could (hopefully) play the rest of his career with no indication of the seriousness of his spinal situation. O'Neal isn't likely to ever be the player he once was. 3. The Pacers desperately needed a point guard and Ford was sixth in the league in PER last year. He's not great, but he's good and a marked improvement. 4. On a team with severe PR problems, they replace a pouty, unlikeable player (Jamaal Tinsley -- who I'm sure will be dumped for anything, if possible) for an extremely likable guy in Ford. 5. O'Neal was due $44 million over the next two years and isn't going to earn that amount. Ford is due $25 million over three years. 5. Nesterovic is lumbering, but he is useful. His deal also comes off the books next year. 6. The 17th pick in the draft figures to be a player with some potential. My personal hopes include one of the Gordon-Bayless-Brook Lopez trio dropping to 11 (this scenario seems reasonable from most mock's I have seen, though perhaps too good to be true), and then taking either a Rush/Chalmers or the best big guy available depending on who they get at No. 11. Please stay away from big gambles at No. 11 (Randolph -- yuck; Jordan -- meh; Koufos -- like him fine at 17; etc). Gambling big at 17 is acceptable to me, even if it means Hibbert, Robin Lopez or some international player. They can, and should, do much better at 11.

I don't really think much of them.

Out of left field, yes, but I think Russell Westbrook and Anthony Randolph are easily the two most overrated players in the draft from what I've read. Randolph isn't terribly skilled and is insanely raw. I like Westbrook a bit more, but he wasn't terribly productive at UCLA (though they had a balanced, patient offensive I know) and only one good year. He's not a point guard at this point, though he can defend that position obviously. I wouldn't touch him in the top-5. Randolph seems like a typical late first-round gamble, but will probably go much higher.

He's on the Cubs?

Deutschland uber alles! (well, except for maybe the Dutch...)

I won't search through to find it, but earlier in this thread I said pretty self-assuredly that Sweden would advance. They're typically very predictable about that. I was wrong. The late loss to Spain hurt, and they've gotten old. A near total face-lift may be forthcoming for the Swedes.

It's basically the World Cup of Europe (though qualifying has been opened up to certain non-European sides like Israel and Kazakhstan). It's every four years. Teams qualify similar to what happens with the World Cup, there's an initial group stage, then the knockout rounds.

UNC isn't going to go undefeated. Get real.

quite the contrary this is the most I've looked forward to watching IU basketball in a long time, maybe ever we get it. :evil: yeah, not looking forward to this season, but i'm going to try to look at it as a season (or two) of basically exhibition games and not get too upset until Crean has a chance to bring in the players he wants. Really, we understand the guy doesn't like IU and is looking forward experiencing schadenfreude. Great, move on. I'm actually looking forward to IU's season. It may be ugly, but it will lack Mike Davis, Kelvin Sampson and the numbnuts that made up last year's team (save a couple). I'm expecting to enjoy a team that plays hard, results be damned.

Being that they will probably rest a lot of people, and Romania will be going all out its possible. They could go through with a draw and a draw between Italy and France. Portugal will rest players. Croatia will rest players. But will the Netherlands? They should, but don't be so sure. They are the Dutch, remember. Style is exceedingly important to them. Wow, have they looked impressive. Always have been my favorite team outside of the USMNT, and would love to see them take the trophy. We'll see though. Someone will ugly the game up and they'll lose in penalties, I'm sure. Thinking more about it, I think they would like to get Robben and van Persie some more minutes. Honestly the Dutch team is loaded with potential super subs like today. I think Kuyt will get the day off. It's too bad Babel is not available as well :-). Potential Final 4: Holland Spain Portugal Germany/Croatia The first 3 are an absolute coin flip right now. The last thing I want to see is a shootout for the Dutch, although they are very due. I love watching the Oranje take over the stadium too. I believe Croatia has already clinched Group B. It will be them or the winner of Czech Republic-Turkey in the semifinals and the winner of Portugal and (likely) Germany in the other. The Netherlands should make it that far; it's harder to say with Spain and the Group C runner-up.

Being that they will probably rest a lot of people, and Romania will be going all out its possible. They could go through with a draw and a draw between Italy and France. Portugal will rest players. Croatia will rest players. But will the Netherlands? They should, but don't be so sure. They are the Dutch, remember. Style is exceedingly important to them. Wow, have they looked impressive. Always have been my favorite team outside of the USMNT, and would love to see them take the trophy. We'll see though. Someone will ugly the game up and they'll lose in penalties, I'm sure.

Depending on the schedule, you could be right. If the schedule is like last year's I think IU will sneak into double digits. They are going to take some ugly, ugly losses.

Me too. Do you have a link on that? Never mind, found it: http://www.sportsline.com/nba/story/10860844 I won't say I believe the series was necessarily fixed, but it was pretty clear that someone (read: NBA, David Stern) wanted the Lakers to win that series. It was pathetic. Of course, that's an easy series for Donaghy to pick out to get some attention. It was completely officiated one-sided and people like us are close to believing a man with very little credibility.

Sweden will advance. They generally play very well in tournaments. While they typically don't fare as well in the knockout stages -- especially against top flight competition -- they rarely get upset and often play superior teams to draws.

The Dutch play wonderful football. Not surprising they've been my favorite international team, save the USMNT, since I was a kid. What a emphatic, surprising result that was.

Couldn't watch yesterday, can't wait until today's matches! Neither is particularly sexy, though the Germans and Polish do have a heated rivalry.

Now now, you (and wolf) weren't the only one(s). :pats self on back: True. Credit where credit is due. He's still an outstanding prospect, of course.

Hmmm. . . who said Beasley was somewhere between 6'7" and 6'8"? That would be me, earlier in this thread. He simply looked nowhere near the 6'9" or 6'10" he was listed at. Patting yourself on the back is fun.

I read the bold and immediately thought whaaaaaa??? They don't have a rookie in their rotation, and surely they aren't replacing one of their starters right now... What Steve was TRYING to say is that this is the 7th Cardinals rookie (position or pitcher) to make their debut this season. Way to just completely butcher the facts Steve. Maybe he uses "pitcher" to refer to any player the way some people use "Coke" to mean any soda. :DI've never heard anyone do this, ever. You've never been to Southern Indiana then. I do it; it may make no sense, but every soda is a Coke here (well, it's not that bad in Bloomington). It's not uncommon for a waiter-patron conversation to go: "I'll take a Coke." "What kind?" "Diet Mountain Dew."

10 rpg and 2 bpg in 25.2 mpg is being good at basketball. No, it's being a blunt instrument playing in Conference USA. Take out the Kansas game when he was in foul trouble all game and he averaged 10.4 rpg and 2.4 bpg in the NCAA tournament. He pulled down 15 in the Final Four game against Kevin Love. Earlier in the season he pulled down 13 and had 4 blocks against Roy Hibbert and Georgetown. Joey Dorsey is good at what he does, regardless of the competition he's playing against. Greg Oden says hi.

Yeah, his stance. That's the ticket.

This is the NBA. It's going to be LA-Boston. I'm stunned.

How much have you watched Rose play? I don't think you can make judgments about something like court vision unless you've watched him play extensively. why would you say this to me and not to someone who says he might have the best court vision of anyone they've ever seen? i mean, isn't that a bolder statement than "i wouldn't call his court vision a weakness but i don't think he's in the class of some of the best point guards in the league right now"? i hate having to defend my perceptions by boasting about who and what i've seen and how many times i've seen them in person, so i'm not going to do it here. but let's just say that i've followed derrick rose's career rather closely since before he had ever set foot in tennessee. I agree with your assessment on Rose's court vision. It's good, but I wouldn't necessarily say great. He's great at getting into the lane, but still better at creating for himself than others. He's not even in Kidd's league in this respect, but, then again, few ever have been. I really disagree with this. He does have great court vision, and at this point he's just as good at creating for teamates as he is for himself. If you watched this kid all year you'd see he almost always made the right pass. You're not going to rack up many assists in this Memphis offense because it's a dribble drive motion offense. Your options are either layups or 3's. I honestly don't get the Jason Kidd comparisons. Yes he might struggle from long range like Kidd, but if you watch him shoot, you see that he will eventually be a good jump shooter. First, it's pretty clear that I didn't compare Rose and Kidd in the manner you're suggesting. I don't consider them terribly similar players among point guards. Second, the Memphis offensive isn't terribly conducive to assists, as you said. However, that is mitigated by various factors: (1) Rose still had the ball in his hands a lot, (2) Memphis scored a lot of points (79.9 per game), (3) Rose was surrounded by various talented offensive players, and (4) Memphis played in a near-farcical league, Conference USA (the second best team was coached by Mike Davis). In the DDM/AASAA, Rose averaged 4.7 assists per game. Antonio Anderson averaged 3.4 (with a better assist to turnover ratio). Anderson averaged 3.6 last year. Two years ago, Darius Washington Jr. averaged 3.1 and Andre Allen 3.0. Rose assisted more than any of these players, but not to the level that one would expect for a supposed transcendent passer at point guard. Relative to his peers at Memphis, his performance was good, but not great, in this category. Carried forward, if Rose has the best court vision ever, he surely compares favorably to Jason Kidd, the recent gold standard of this skill. In two years at Cal, Kidd averaged 7.7 and 9.1 assists per game. That's remarkably better. Kidd is a better passer than Rose. (Cal wasn't as talented as Memphis overall, but Lamond Murray was a devastating scorer in college.) In conclusion, this isn't to denigrate Rose. For multiple reasons, with the information I have available, I would take Rose with the top pick. I believe he's the best player in this draft. He has few weaknesses -- the biggest, his shot, has more room for improvement than Kidd's ever did. He'll create well for teammates in the NBA, and average a lot of assists. I seriously doubt he goes down as the greatest passer in NBA history though.

How much have you watched Rose play? I don't think you can make judgments about something like court vision unless you've watched him play extensively. why would you say this to me and not to someone who says he might have the best court vision of anyone they've ever seen? i mean, isn't that a bolder statement than "i wouldn't call his court vision a weakness but i don't think he's in the class of some of the best point guards in the league right now"? i hate having to defend my perceptions by boasting about who and what i've seen and how many times i've seen them in person, so i'm not going to do it here. but let's just say that i've followed derrick rose's career rather closely since before he had ever set foot in tennessee. I agree with your assessment on Rose's court vision. It's good, but I wouldn't necessarily say great. He's great at getting into the lane, but still better at creating for himself than others. He's not even in Kidd's league in this respect, but, then again, few ever have been.

Beasley has never looked 6'10" to me; more like somewhere between 6'7" and 6'8".