 |
| |
|
 |
 |
Big Apple shakeup is inevitable Posted: Friday January 18, 2002 2:33 PMUpdated: Friday January 18, 2002 4:28 PM
Sports Illustrated senior writer Jack McCallum will answer your NBA questions every week during the season. Click here to send him a question. What is the long-term solution for the Knicks? It's becoming obvious that they
can't keep both Allan Houston and Latrell Sprewell. What about a deal for
Rasheed Wallace or Chris Mihm? One thing is clear -- either Sprewell or Houston
must go, preferably the
latter.
Anthony, from what I'm hearing, the Knicks are among a half dozen teams that will almost certainly make a trade by the Feb. 21 deadline. I agree with you that dealing Houston would be preferable, but the consensus is that it will be Sprewell, mainly because his contract is more tradeable. I think the Rasheed Wallace thing could happen -- New York is in many ways the toughest city to play in, but also the best city in which to rehabilitate an image -- but it's becoming less likely because the Blazers are suddenly winning more and Wallace is clearly their best player. How long can the Knicks keep Don Chaney? Even though he isn't the whole
problem in New York, he is the first person that needs to be eliminated. His
style is all wrong and it doesn't seem as if these guys want to play for him. At
least Jeff Van Gundy had the Knicks a game above .500 when he
left.
Don Chaney is a good guy and a true pro but he is obviously a stopgap measure and will be gone by the end of the season, if not earlier. Van Gundy is a much better coach -- a coach who was, in my opinion, among the top four or five in the league. But the team had, to a certain extent, tuned him out. Remember how happy Houston and Marcus Camby were when Van Gundy left? They couldn't admit that they, not Van Gundy, were the problem. How can David Stern justify slapping a $500,000 fine on Mark Cuban for making
disrespectful remarks about the head of officials, but then turn around and only
penalize Shaq three games and $15,000 for punching Brad Miller? Stern is telling the
fans that it's OK to punch someone as long as you don't talk bad about
them.
I don't want to beat the Mark Cuban/David Stern thing to death, but it seems to
me that Stern should be embracing Cuban. The Mavs owner has taken a franchise
that was basically going nowhere and absolutely turned it around (with the help
of some players). In an era where anti-NBA sentiment has been at an all-time
high (at least during my lifetime), Cuban has brought excitement and family fun
back to Dallas. Perhaps Stern is miffed that Cuban has succeeded where the
commissioner has failed. David Stern has done so many great things for the
league, but he's tarnishing his reputation with his mishandling of the Cuban
situation.
To Ryan and Aram: I've said and written before that, in my opinion, the commissioner is making a huge mistake with these fines. Not only do they not make sense from a freedom of speech aspect, but Stern is now losing the public relations war. Fans forget the next day when a player or coach criticizes a referee, but the size of Cuban's fines are becoming a cause célèbre. The Mavs owner started out as a spoiled brat, but now, as Aram says, he's become kind of an enthusiastic, joyous martyr, particularly with his team playing well. One thing is for sure, though: David Stern doesn't like to lose. If Cuban keeps it up, my guess is that Stern will try to keep him away from the arena for a long time, and that could cause a real legal battle. The New Jersey Nets have improved so much from last season thanks to the
trade of Jason Kidd, but we haven't heard anything about the coaching of Byron
Scott. Doesn't he have anything to do with the Nets' success? Don't
forget about him when it's time to vote for Coach of the
Year.
You know, you're right. There has been so much attention given to Kidd that Byron's understated, steady hand has been overlooked. I'll remember it when Coach of the Year discussions begin. He, the Celtics' Jim O'Brien and the Timberwolves' Flip Saunders seem like excellent candidates at the moment. Your MVP picks seem
reasonable, but why does Kevin Garnett continually get snubbed? All he does is
average 20-plus points 10-plus rebounds and five-plus assists (something only
Larry Bird, Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robertson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Dr. J, and
Elgin Baylor have done in two or more seasons). Garnett also guards the
opposition's best player and gets no help in doing so, like Shaq, Tim Duncan,
etc. He's also a solid citizen away from the
court.
My top three MVP picks at the moment are: Kidd, Duncan and Garnett. Your case for Garnett is extremely solid. Everybody is talking about Golden State trading Marc Jackson. Are you hearing
any names that could be coming to Golden State, and what is realistic to expect
in return for Jackson? He's not an all-star, but he's bulky and has height.
Can't teach height.
The evaluation of Jackson is exactly what you say: He's not an all-star and I don't think anyone thinks his upside is way up. But he's solid and some teams would really like to have him. That's the problem, though: He doesn't seem quite worth giving up a real high-calibre player for and the Warriors can't give let him go for nothing. The Pacers would be a natural fit, for example, but the players on the block there -- Jalen Rose and Travis Best -- seem like too high a price. Al Harrington may be a match, but I think the Warriors are going to have a little trouble dealing Jackson. What is the problem with my team -- the Portland Trail Blazers? Is it
management? Ownership? Why can't they seem to get on
track?
My colleague, Jon Wertheim, did such a great job dissecting the problems of the Blazers a few weeks ago in Sports Illustrated that I would just suggest you read that story. When I was covering the league in the '80s and early' 90s Bob Whitsitt was a true whiz kid, a talent evaluator of the first rank and a smart man. I think he still is. But he forgot that chemistry counts. The Blazers put together a talented team with way too many volatile personalities. A GM who made the same moves as Bob would've been fired long ago. Is my hometown team, the 76ers, floundering because of their offseason moves
or are players who had offseason surgery still trying to get their game legs?
Are internal issues the public doesn't know about affecting the team? Last,
please help me understand why the players would wait so long after the season
ends to have surgery? It seems a bit selfish to
me.
In the case of Allen Iverson's surgery, yes, I think it was selfish. He didn't want to have it in the summer and mess up his offseason. Aaron McKie waited to go under the knife because he is in his free-agent year and, generally, free agents don't have surgery. That is reality even if we don't like it. Having said that, you know what? I think the Sixers are going to be OK. Their slow start was entirely predictable, given the injury situation and new faces. As of Thursday, Philadelphia has completed a West Coast road trip 3-4 and have won three in a row. I don't think Larry Brown and Allen will stay together forever, but I think they will make the playoffs and try to do some damage there. If the Sixers don't, or if they are a disappointing one-round-and-out, I think Larry will pack his bags again. What's a hometown Philly guy doing in Toronto, anyway? Sports Illustrated senior writer Jack McCallum will answer your NBA questions every week during the season. Click here to send him a question. |
