Writers' Roundtable (cont.)

In taking on referees and opponents, Magic coach Stan Van Gundy may also be showing the kind of fight he wants to see from his team in the playoffs. Icon SMI

3. Stan Van Gundy has criticized everyone from the officials, to Shaq, to the Celtics for their concern over injuries, to the Knicks for not hiring Patrick Ewing. Is the Magic coach speaking the truth or are these just sour grapes?

Ian Thomsen: Who is the strong voice on that team? They don't have one. In some way he is letting everyone know that the Magic are going to demand respect, that they plan to go far this year and they don't mind making enemies along the way. They have a reputation around the league (based in no small part on being clobbered by the Pistons in recent years) for being a meek, finesse, three-point-shooting team, even though they're among the league leaders defensively. So I think Van Gundy is trying to set an aggressive example for his players heading into the playoffs by lashing out a little bit. It's not a major strategic move on his part, but it's a small step in transforming his team into a contender.

Jack McCallum: Coaches are quoted almost every day from the beginning of October until the end of the season, so it's unwise to toss all of those comments into one bag and proclaim it either "garbage" or "gold." Van Gundy went after the Celtics because he feels his team isn't getting its proper respect. That puts him in the company of -- let's see -- every other coach who ever lived, including Vince Lombardi. SVG went after the officials because that's what coaches do. He went after Shaq to protect his own player, Dwight Howard, and he went after the Knicks to protect his own assistant, Ewing. Yes, the comments about the Knicks' disrespecting Ewing were unfair. But you can't say the man isn't keeping things interesting in Orlando, where -- let's face it -- things just aren't that interesting. Now he'll come after me.

Chris Mannix: Reporters hate "coach-speak," which we loosely define as a laughable quote given just to prevent any bruised feelings. So why are we hating on Van Gundy for telling the truth? Sure, Van Gundy could be more careful with his words (Shaq was right -- he's not a flopper, though he did flop on that one play), but I like the coach's honesty. Is more attention given to the Celtics' injury woes than the Magic's? Yes. Do the Knicks patronize Ewing? I don't know about that, but as someone who has known Ewing for a few years, I respect his opinion.

Steve Aschburner: No problem with Van Gundy and whatever he's saying (can't claim to have absorbed it all). Still, his tone and timing were off in blaming the Knicks for honoring Ewing as a great alumnus even though they never interviewed him for coaching vacancies, and he easily could have let the "Shaq flopped" thing pass. Maybe he does feel a little overlooked, under-respected and defensive for his team. But Shaq brutalized him by hanging that "panic" label on Van Gundy, and he still seems like the wounded party from the Miami exit in 2005. Besides, in our business, if the players and the coaches aren't talking, then guys like us get stuck trying to make something out of nothing.

***

4. With about two weeks left in the regular season, which awards race is the toughest to handicap?

Ian Thomsen: Coach of the Year is always the hardest to pick. More than a dozen are worthy, from Mike Brown, Van Gundy, Rick Adelman, George Karl and Nate McMillan at the top; to usual suspects Doc Rivers, Phil Jackson, Gregg Popovich and Jerry Sloan; to the likes of Scott Skiles, Larry Brown and Mike D'Antoni, who have done a lot with a little. I'm leaning toward Mike Brown, but I never feel good about the coaches I leave off my ballot.

Jack McCallum: I wouldn't have said this a few weeks ago, but now I'm going with the MVP race. LeBron James, my pick all season, will still probably win. But how can any voter ignore the Hornets' Chris Paul and the Heat's Dwyane Wade? And that's not even bringing Kobe Bryant into the conversation. This MVP thing is really going to take some study, and at the end of the year we'll be tearing our hair out dealing with unanswerable questions such as, How much does a team's finish have to do with MVP?

Chris Mannix: I'm having real problems deciding the Defensive Player of the Year. If Kevin Garnett were healthy, it wouldn't be a contest. Garnett is such a great team defender and his leadership on that end makes Boston a scary defensive unit. But Garnett's injury problems in the second half make me think the award should go to a player who has produced night in, night out for the majority of the season. And that feeling is nudging me in the direction of the Magic's Howard. He has become a superb shot-blocker (3.0 per game) who, thanks to the Magic's smallish lineup, is completely responsible for controlling the defensive backboards (a league-best 673 defensive rebounds). And he has played in 70 of Orlando's 73 games this season. Tough call.

Steve Aschburner: Coach of the Year always is a mystery, and it arguably is the third biggest of the six big awards. When the Lakers' Jackson can win nine NBA titles but one COY award, when Sloan can win 1,135 games and change jobs once in forever, yet never win the honor, then something is off. The criteria change, the sentiments change and the tendency to reward those who boost their clubs from mediocre to good (but not great) is a standard that would cause an uproar in MVP balloting. This year, does Mike Brown get the nod for nailing down the top seed in Cleveland? What about Van Gundy, who had to change point guards in midstream? Karl might be doing his best and calmest work ever, and is overdo for some love here. But then, so is Sloan, who had better get a Paul Newman-like lifetime achievement Oscar soon. And here we are overlooking Jackson again. I have zero idea how this is going to go.