| |
 If I were in charge...
Posted: Thursday April 15, 1999 12:49 PM
Got an NBA question for Phil Taylor? Click here. It's time to change some rules. I was in Utah last Monday when Karl Malone learned he had been suspended for a game after throwing a "punch" at Houston's Othella Harrington the day before. The Mailman was truly shocked by the suspension, and I can't blame him. There's no way he should have been suspended. Malone just swung his arm to free himself from Harrington, who had grabbed Malone's shirt to keep from getting beaten downcourt, but the rules say that any punch warrants an automatic one-game suspension. If I were commissioner, that's one of the first rules I'd rewrite. I understand the rationale for severely punishing any thrown punch, regardless of whether or not it connects. NBA players are too big and strong to allow them to start launching haymakers at each other. Anyone who remembers how Kermit Washington rearranged Rudy Tomjanovich 's face with one quick pop in 1977 knows this. But the definition of a punch has to be refined. It's not hard to tell the difference between clenching a fist to throw a shot that is meant to harm and swatting at a pesky opponent. The rule as it's written leaves very little room for discretion and common sense. Next, I'd get rid of the rule that says leaving the bench during a fight is an automatic suspension. This one has come into play in at least three playoff series in recent years. Anyone who leaves the bench to take even a step onto the court gets the next game off, which is just plain silly. It's like sending a jaywalker to the penitentiary. Amend the rule to say that any bench player who comes on the court and in any way becomes involved in an altercation is subject to automatic suspension. Again, let's think common sense. And finally, something has to be done about the late-game timeouts. There's nothing worse than getting into clutch time in an exciting, close game, and then having the coaches stop the action every three seconds. I'd put in a rule that limits teams to only two 20-second timeouts in the last two minutes of the fourth quarter, and after a timeout I'd make it illegal for either team to call another one until at least 30 seconds of playing time had elapsed. Why drain the drama out of the game just when it's coming to the climax? These are the best players in the world; let them do their thing when the game is on the line. If a coach needs to call a play, let him call it on the fly. Or better yet, let the players decide the game. They should know what the coach wants. Isn't that what practices are for? Commissioner Stern , if you're out there, you can reach me by clicking here. So can the rest of you. Let me know what you think. Now let's delve into the 'Bag.
Could you please explain how the Clippers can get squashed by Portland
at home one night, then the next upend the best team in the league -- in
its own house! Is it parity? Is it that the difference between a team with
28 wins and a team with five isn't as great as it seems? I look to you for
illumination on this perplexing problem. There are some questions for which even we here at the 'Bag have no answers, Craig. Needless to say, I think overconfidence on the part of the Blazers is the short answer, although a lot of coaches and players around the league have told me that they're impressed with how, despite their record, the Clippers give an honest effort almost every night. Unfortunately, the Clips stink, so an honest effort isn't enough most nights, unless the opponent goes to sleep, which brings us back to the Blazers, who absolutely dismembered the Lakers a few nights after falling to the Clippers. How could that happen? Just one of life's mysteries.
For most of the last decade, the NBA has had a very unusual formula of
how to win a league title: have Michael Jordan on your
team. (In MJ's two "off" years, it was "Have Hakeen Olajuwon
on your team.") With MJ out of the league and the title up for grabs,
what is the new (and far more realistic) formula for going deep in the
playoffs? Is it as simple as Utah's execution of the pick and roll? Is it
Miami's top-notch defense? Is it having one player carry the team on his
back (like Jordan and Dream)? What characteristics does it take to win the
NBA title in the post-Jordan NBA? Is there one in particular? I think the two main qualities have to do with fourth-quarter execution: 1) Can you get late-game defensive stops when you need them? Teams like Miami, Indiana and Utah have proven that they can. 2) Do you have a player or a play that is an almost-sure thing to get you a bucket or a foul on key possessions? Guess what? We're talking about the Jazz, with the John Stockton -Malone pick and roll; the Heat, with Tim Hardaway ; and the Pacers, with Reggie Miller . That's why I think those three teams are head-and-shoulders above everyone else, regardless of regular-season records, and I think the Stockton-Malone combo is a touch more reliable than Hardaway or Miller. Over the last six minutes of a game, the Jazz are the best team in the league, both offensively and defensively. That, more than anything, is what's going to win them the title. Take that prediction to the bank. Did I mention that I picked UConn over Duke?
What is the situation with Charles Oakley in
Toronto? Here in Toronto, all we have been hearing is that Oakley was
insulted with the Raptors' initial offer of $12 million over three years.
Will it take the maximum salary allowed under the cap to keep Oakley in
Toronto? If the money is not there, would he rather play for a winner for
far less money (i.e., the Lakers and their $2 million cap exception)? At his age and with the wear and tear on his body, I don't think Oakley can command the maximum from anyone, but it might take something closer to $18 million over three years to keep him. Despite his rep as a blue-collar worker, which he has certainly earned, Oak cares about the cash, a lot. If the Raptors offer him significantly more than, say, the Lakers, he'll stay in Toronto, no matter what he says publicly. Remember, Oakley was finally supposed to hit the jackpot with a $10 million balloon payment this year, but the lockout wiped out about half of that. He'll be looking to recoup some of that loss this offseason. If the money's close, he'll go to a contender, but the Raps can keep him if they're willing to dig deep enough.
In Sweden we feel that the Celtics have a pretty decent lineup and one
hell of a coach. Why are they so bad? The Celtics have a lot of problems. The main one is that Kenny Anderson just isn't the right point guard for Rick Pitino's system. Pitino needs players who are top-notch defenders, and Anderson not only has never been very good defensively, he doesn't seem interested in getting better. Then you have Antoine Walker , who just doesn't have the attitude that a good team needs its best player to have. Walker is too concerned with being treated like a star and not concerned enough with playing like one. The Celts are probably going to have to live with Walker, but if I were Pitino I'd deal Anderson as fast as possible. That would be a start, but the Celtics have a long way to go. If his system has any chance to work, Pitino has to have players who completely believe in it, and right now, he doesn't have that.
Last summer Jerry Krause hinted that he was planning on signing many of
this year's free agents, and the ones he had in mind were particularly from
the draft class of '96. However, now that Stephon Marbury, Allen Iverson, Ray Allen, Antoine
Walker and all the other marquee players from that draft have already
signed, what other players are left? What is Krause going to do now that it
seems his plan has backfired? I don't think even Krause knows what he's going to do. He has no tradeable players and not much of a free-agent market. I think they'll go hard after Penny Hardaway , who will be a free agent, but even if they get him, Hardaway isn't enough to even turn the Bulls into a playoff contender. Krause's fatal mistake was that he didn't anticipate the lockout leading to new rules that would convince all the best young free agents to stay with their teams. I think the Bulls will be paying the price for that miscalculation for a long time.
Allen Iverson is a good player and Larry Brown is a good coach. If Larry
Brown can't handle Iverson, who will be gone first? And can anyone coach
Iverson? I think Brown would be the first one out of town, not because he'd be fired but because he'd be so frustrated he would leave on his own. I don't think either one of them is going anywhere just yet, though. Brown and Iverson may just have one of those long love-hate relationships, like the one George Karl and Gary Payton had in Seattle. As for trading Iverson, he is too special a talent to give up on, and Brown realizes that. No one is going to change Iverson. No one is going to turn him into a completely responsible, mature player or person. But Iverson respects Brown as much as he's going to respect any coach, and I think it would be a mistake for the Sixers to bring someone else in.
Do you think that Elton Brand is ready for the NBA after two seasons at
Duke? And how will his size, or lack thereof, affect him in the draft?
Brand is ready. Or as ready as you need to be these days. I'd like to see a little more of his perimeter game, but he's big enough to play power forward in the NBA and he has the low-post moves to be successful. The thing that got my attention was a play in the UConn game in which Brand knocked a ball loose, then flew down the court to fill the lane on a fast break. I didn't know he could run the floor like that. I can't say he's making a bad decision; I think he's pretty well equipped to be successful as a pro. Got an NBA question for Phil Taylor? Click here.
| |||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 1999 CNN/SI. A Time Warner Company. Terms under which this service is provided to you.
| |||||||||||||||||
