 |
| |
|
 |
 |
Trade show Did the Bulls get a bum steer or a Rose of a deal?Posted: Friday February 22, 2002 12:34 PM
Sports Illustrated senior writer Jack McCallum will answer your NBA questions every week during the season. Click here to send him a question. While the Dallas Mavericks added two solid players in Nick Van Exel and Raef LaFrentz (along with Avery Johnson and Tariq Abdul-Wahad for Juwan Howard, Tim Hardaway, Donnell Harvey, cash and a first-round pick in the upcoming draft), let's not be so quick to proclaim the Mavs Western Conference champions. While they did make out better than the Nuggets -- who have now practically assured themselves of being the worst team in the league -- what Dallas needed was a nasty, garbage-type player, not two more shooters who demand the ball. You'll probably see Steve Nash and Van Exel together a lot in the backcourt; yeah, they'll have a real easy time stopping Kobe. LaFrentz solves Dallas' center problem, as long as he's not out on the perimeter elbowing Dirk Nowitzki out of the way to launch three-pointers. Now on to the mailbag... What were the Bulls thinking when they made that trade with the Pacers? I know
Jalen Rose is good, but he is also older than all of the players he was traded
for. Assuming Travis Best does not re-sign with Chicago this offseason, they
have essentially traded four of their starters for Rose. Horrible deal! What is
your take on the trade?
I wouldn't be so quick to denigrate it, Trevor. An old saying around the NBA -- well, maybe it's just what I think -- is that the best way to evaluate a trade is to figure out who the best player in the deal is and assume the team that acquired him came out on top. No matter how you cut it, Rose is the best player in that deal. From the Pacers' standpoint, the key is center Brad Miller , who enables Jermaine O'Neal to move to power forward. But does that match getting Rose? I don't think so. I think this was a step forward for the Bulls, regardless of what happens with Best. Jack, just read your
"No-win situation" column and I totally agree with you, especially the
"don't believe the last paragraph" statement. Do you think Phil
Jackson is making too many substitutions and not leaving in the hot player long
enough? Is that why the Lakers have had trouble holding a lead? Or does the team
just need to play
tougher?
Jeez, Angie, you're asking me to figure out the Lakers? And Phil? The Lakers are desperately trying to find out which combination of players can best back up Shaq and Kobe at crunch time come May and June. That's when you need something resembling a reliable seven- or eight-man rotation. This requires some experimentation. The key to the Lakers is not whether Jackson gives enough minutes to Lindsey Hunter or Mitch Richmond; it's whether Shaq's big toe is big trouble. The Lakers will win again, in my opinion, if the Big Two are healthy. Why aren't sportswriters talking about the poor officiating this year? Just
look at a tape of the Lakers-Celtics game from Tuesday night. Boston: 18-37 at
the line, Lakers: 15-19. Paul Pierce: 16-20 at the line, Kobe: 4-5. Objectively
review that game and tell me that there weren't eight men on the floor for
Boston and five for the Lakers. Also, why have a conference to decide if the
game was over before Kobe's shot? Did they have hidden TVs for the new NBA
instant replay? It is obvious that someone somewhere must have a vested interest
in affecting the outcome of Lakers' games. It is a sad day for basketball when
things like this happen so blatantly. David Stern can just look in the mirror
and see what needs fixing in the
NBA.
In Sports Illustrated's midseason report on the NBA, Jim, I did a short piece about officiating and how Mark Cuban, for all his ranting and raving, makes some good points. I didn't see the L.A.-Boston game, but there have been an unusual number of complaints about the officiating, and I think some offseason review will be in order. Loved your "No-win situation" column. It's one of the most
enjoyable and right-on articles I have read in a long time and I couldn't agree
more. I think the fact that every team is flawed will make the postseason much
more interesting. Many teams have a lot of talent to shine on any given night,
but not necessarily enough to steamroll through a series. I love it. Don't you
think this will make the playoffs more competitive and
entertaining?
I've spent a lot of time denigrating the Eastern Conference this year, Gary, but your point is right on. Look at the tightness of that conference. I'm not even sure the Nets will hold onto their lead. Even if you figure the East representative is doomed to failure, the race for those eight spots is going to be great with, I think, only the Hawks, Cavs, Bulls and Knicks out of it. And the West, 1 through 5 (and maybe 6, the way Utah is playing) is superbly balanced except for the Lakers' dominance when they're healthy. It's been a tough season for Pat Riley and the Miami Heat, capped by a 5-23
start. But it seems that they are back on track. Do the Heat have a good chance
to make the playoffs, and if so, can they repeat what the Knicks did in 1999
when they reached the NBA Finals as an eighth seed?
Man, I think you are way too optimistic. I don't think the Heat are going to make it, and they'll face serious rebuilding questions at the end of this season. In an answer about George
Karl and the Bucks, you said Karl was one of the five best coaches in the NBA.
Who are the five best, in your
opinion?
Phil Jackson, Flip Saunders, Larry Brown, Jerry Sloan and Karl. Lets see -- who have I screwed? Pat Riley, a Hall of Fame coach going through tough times. And Jim O'Brien , who is doing a great job with the Celts. How sad is it to see two legends of the game turn into the laughing stocks of
the league? It seems as if Patrick Ewing and Hakeem Olajuwon are staying around
to collect paychecks. Where is their pride? These guys are two of the 50
Greatest Players, but now they look like two punch-drunk boxers who have taken
too many blows. What ever happened to going out on top? Their time has passed
and these franchises should hire them as coaches if they want them around, not
as
players.
Damn, Matt. You sure you don't work for one of the New York tabloids? My friends and I have been arguing over this question ever since we were
freshmen in college, and now, four years later, we are about to graduate and
would like to settle this before we do. Who meant more to their sport in terms
of making it what it is today: Michael Jordan or Wayne
Gretzky?
Well, since you're asking someone who doesn't spend much time ice-watching, I'd have to say Michael. As bad as the NBA's problems might be (sinking viewership, some public relations disasters, a shaky fan base), hockey has never risen to anything more than a sidelight in the eyes of most Americans. Am I overstating that? Sports Illustrated senior writer Jack McCallum will answer your NBA questions every week during the season. Click here to send him a question. |
