 |
| |
|
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Fits like a glove? If the Bucks can mesh on the floor, Payton deal is a stealPosted: Friday February 21, 2003 1:38 PM
Click here to send a question to Jack McCallum's mailbag. Jack, don't you think the Bucks stole Gary Payton from the Sonics? Break down this trade and tell me what Seattle was thinking. If Desmond Mason wasn't included in the deal, I could maybe see what Seattle was trying to do, but getting Payton and Mason was a steal for Milwaukee.
The only way the deal makes sense for Seattle is if you think of it this way: The Sonics were going to lose Payton -- perhaps the NBA's most underrated player of the last decade -- without getting anything for him because they felt they wouldn't be able to match his salary demands when his contract ran out at the end of the season. So, Seattle acquired Ray Allen, who not too long ago appeared to be one of the brightest stars in the NBA galaxy. The Sonics have had a tempestuous time with Payton at the helm, and in Allen they get the classic good citizen, and one of the first players chosen to represent the U.S. in Greece in the 2004 Athens Olympics. Kevin Ollie and Ronald Murray are more or less throw-ins in the deal. The Bucks' great move here, as you indicate, was adding Desmond Mason. One could argue that Payton for Allen could've been a straight-up deal, except for the seven-year difference in age. (Payton is 34; Allen is 27.) The Bucks simply weren't going to pull the trigger without Mason in the package. So, yes, I agree that Milwaukee got the best of the trade, particularly since it becomes an instant contender in the weaker Eastern Conference. (It's not as if acquiring Allen guarantees Seattle a spot in the Western Conference playoffs.) But here's one thing I wonder: Can Payton co-exist with Sam Cassell, another feisty point guard who likes the ball? Jack, what was your take on the Memphis-Orlando deal? Do you think the Grizzlies gave up on Drew Gooden too fast? It seems the Grizzlies have an overabundance of big men, no?
That deal surprised me as much as any that was made. Jerry West fell in love with Gooden early, then everybody did. Something must've happened to cause West to fall out of love with him, some fatal flaw he felt couldn't be fixed. One thing I just don't feel qualified to do is evaluate talent better than West, so I'll just have to wait and see and prepare to be surprised if Gooden develops into a top player for the Magic. Perhaps, ultimately, West and Hubie Brown felt that Gooden wouldn't develop with another inside-outside big man, Pau Gasol, on the floor, so they went after a jump-shooter in Mike Miller. Doesn't unloading Gooden and getting Miller, a perimeter player, take care of your concern about an overabundance of big men? I can't argue with your choice of Kobe Bryant for MVP, but I think you dismissed Tracy McGrady too quickly. Grant Hill has barely played this year and the Magic have hung around. And if you want to compare stats, McGrady is right there with Kobe. Let me ask you this question: If you follow your Ernie Banks rule, and the Lakers don't make the playoffs, who is your MVP?
I have to be honest with you. Until Kobe had that 52-point game against Houston Tuesday, I was going to say my vote, at this point, goes to Kevin Garnett. I felt even better the following night when limpy and gimpy Kobe torched Utah for 40 points. See, you can't look at this as dismissing somebody. You can only select one player, right? It wouldn't be anything against McGrady if I picked someone else. You throw all the factors together and see what you feel, and, generally, what I feel is that Orlando is not quite high enough in the standings for McGrady to get my vote. Why didn't you consider Kevin Garnett's lack of supporting cast in determining his greatness? For example, James Worthy played with Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Scottie Pippen played with Michael Jordan, Tim Duncan has David Robinson and Dirk Nowitzki has Michael Finley and Steve Nash? Garnett hasn't had anyone to help him out.
Into every story, Steve, one can rarely fit every single consideration. Supporting cast was a consideration with K.G., particularly since, unlike Nowitzki and Karl Malone, Garnett has not played with that type of reliable point guard. I enjoyed reading your column about K.G. and agree with much of what you wrote -- he's a great player and a great guy, but he certainly gets more than his fair share of criticism for his team's lack of success. However, one thing I've always attributed this to is his big contract. I'm not an expert on the cap, but I would imagine that his salary severely prohibits the T-Wolves' ability to go after quality support players who will help K.G. get to the next level. Do you agree that part of the reason he can't escape the first round is his astronomical paycheck?
As the years go on, Craig, K.G.'s jaw-dropping $126 million contract, which did stun the NBA world, isn't going to look that bad. What it did cost Minnesota was Stephon Marbury, who couldn't get Garnett's money and did, in fact, feel slighted. The acquisition of Terrell Brandon was supposed to make up for the loss of Marbury, but injuries have all but made him irrelevant. So, I can't blame K.G. I always remember something said by Red Auerbach, the most conservative old-school guy I can think of. Red said: "You can't overpay a great player. You can only overpay everybody else." While watching all the Jordan hoopla during All-Star Weekend, I started thinking about how his dominance in basketball got started. When do you think Jordan earned the title "The Greatest Player of All Time"? I would say it was after he beat Portland for his second consecutive title in '92. It was around then that he was unanimously hailed as the greatest ever (and deservedly so).
That is one great moniker. Tolu Thomas. Sounds like a point guard for the University of Hawaii. Anyway, for all the publicity and Air Jordan commercials and Nike adulation, Jordan spent the first six years of his career trying to prove he wasn't a high-wire lounge act. The criticism he received didn't match the acclaim but, boy, he heard his share of it. Once Jordan reached the pinnacle, though, he just refused to give it up. Every year he got better. He developed the fallaway, turned himself into the league's best defensive player, built up his strength to the point that that he was, pound-for-pound, the strongest player in the NBA, not just the best. I'll tell you when I realized how good he was. When that first Dream Team was assembled in '92, I followed them through practices, qualifying tournaments and the Olympics in Barcelona. Jordan wasn't just the best player on the team; he was the best by a lot, and everybody who was around agreed. I wonder why you didn't mention Kevin McHale in your recent column about Kevin Garnett and the greatest forwards of all time? I think McHale was one of the top 20 players of all time. He could defend small forwards, big forwards and centers. Remember, he was All-Defense several times in his career. He was almost impossible to stop in the low post. And he won three rings.
The human mind is a strange thing, Vic. Kevin is one of my all-time favorite guys, someone I always enjoy talking to, someone I've stayed in touch with. Yet, I forgot him. It's my mistake of the year. My only explanation is that maybe it's a Larry Bird thing. You talk about Larry and tend to push everyone else to the background. But McHale belongs on the list. I have to disagree with what you wrote about the Blazers eventually imploding. This is no longer an issue, because they have already imploded this year, and have played well in spite of it. Various players are complaining about playing time, Rasheed Wallace has blown up repeatedly, and several players have had well-publicized brushes with the law, but the Blazers continue to win. That says something about the great job Mo Cheeks is doing.
I agree about Cheeks, and have never said anything other than that he is a candidate for Coach of the Year. But implosion no longer an issue? Dave, Dave, I disagree. The playoffs are a great time for implosion. Who's career has been a bigger disappointment: Grant Hill, Penny Hardaway or Vince Carter? Vince still has time to rebound, but isn't what's happened to Hill and Hardaway just sad?
Kyle, you may have heard that Hill has had a few injury problems. Such as he's been on crutches most of the last two years and is heading there again. Vince has also been injured, and we'll get to see what he's made of over the next couple of seasons. So, of your list, I'm going with Penny. It's seems that except for Yao Ming, interest in the NBA is down this year. However, I think with the Lakers struggling, it's one of the more exciting seasons in recent memory. Nobody has a clue who will be playing in the Finals, let alone winning the title. Do you agree?
A Sports Illustrated poll that appeared in the Feb. 10 issue revealed interest in the league is down. I can't say whether it's any worse or better than in the recent past. I do know that, to a certain extent, the NBA only conjures up maximum interest during the playoffs. Pitchers and catchers report to Florida and Arizona, where they do nothing but stretch and cover first base for a week or so, and they get more media attention than regular season NBA games. Having said that, I agree with you. The East has three legit contenders in Indy, Jersey and Detroit, and now, perhaps, Milwaukee. The West is great, the saga of the Lakers has been fascinating, the MVP race has a half dozen candidates, and Yao and Amare Stoudemire are two terrific rookies. Sports Illustrated senior writer Jack McCallum will answer your NBA questions every week during the season. Click here to send him a question.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
