The NBA - basketball talk

The one where they got Rasheed "Ball Don't Lie" Wallace? Yeah, that was a damn good move that got the Pistons the ring. (Also because Sheed is entertaining to watch; a power forward not named Nowitzki that can shoot the three and fade away?)

Don't worry, as long as Dumars can get a bunch of players to form a new championship-caliber nucleus and build off that, we'll see the Pistons go back to winning form.

As for the Bulls? Trade Boozer for Gasol already, keep Deng, work on Gibson until he's starter-caliber or better, and get Rose to take a few pages from John Stockton's book (and no, I don't mean the shorts).

edited 25th Jun '12 4:47:39 PM by Nitramy

Yeah, Sheed was the move. But note that the move before that was drafting Darko above Bosh and Wade, and the next major (bad) move after that was trading away Billups for Iverson.

"All Stock' had was Daisy Dukes and he's a legend..."

I do hope I've linked to this song before. Race and basketball. Shad's got some real rap. I need to make him a page here.

Your mother can't dunk...

I'd like Iverson to get his head together to maybe finish his career in the NBA. That would be a nice end to what is otherwise a career filled with wasted potential.

P.S. What do you think of Rose taking a more facilitative role in the offense next season? If the Bulls can get better scorers, it is possible. But then, he does an I Am Not Left-Handed when the team needs him, especially in the playoffs.

edited 25th Jun '12 7:12:49 PM by Nitramy

Nash to Raptors? So what will they do with Calderon? Nothing? LOL

Nash can find a better place than the (currently rebuilding) Raptors, IMO.

If we can develop a healthy team, Rose facilitating more would be nice, but not particularly healthy. My main concern with how the Bulls run the point guard position is the amount of time spent before a shot is released or a good look is even set up. We didn't get a great look at Watson this year, but John Lucas shot more than I would like, especially with bad opportunities, and both he and Mike James seemed to eat a lot of clock before potentially setting up something, even when they're down.

I would like Steve Nash as backup on the Bulls if he were interested, but it probably isn't in his best interests, and with when Rose comes back that could get ugly. He could also do well helping the Pistons rebuild, but again, why would he want to go there? It's one of the better "rebuilding" teams, but it's still rebuilding. He may want to come "home" to Dallas or a little further west to the Lakers if they decide to go small, and he'd do well either place, though I don't think Dallas will be a title contender for another couple years. Maybe the Spurs or Thunder if sixth man on a contender? I kind of see him staying in that area, but I haven't seen him actually play, so I don't recall how much of his 38 years are showing.

But, but, but, the Raptors have the Italian Nowitzki! lol

He ain't no Nowitzki until he drops twenty-foot one-legged fadeaways like layups, that's for sure.

Another funny John Stockton anecdote: When he was told that he was the last player who wore those short shorts, the team manager told him that he could adjust the length of his shorts.

Stockton's reply was an incredulous "You can do that?"

Bulls got Marquis Teague, their apparent replacement for Rose.

In the first round, Raptors got...another guard.

When we already have 3.

I knew that we wouldn't draft Drummond because we have Valcunias coming over but...Terrance Ross isn't a player that we should've drafted based on needs or superstar quality.

edited 29th Jun '12 12:18:22 AM by NoChorus

Eh, drafting for need doesn't always work out (see Cleveland this year).

And I expect one of the following teams to make the playoffs, and why they won't go beyond a 6th seed at best:

1. Minnesota Timberwolves (Rubio's game isn't predicated on athleticism, Love is a beast, but they need more size and quality at the wings. Getting Budinger is a good start though)
2. Milwaukee Bucks (They were going for a relatively strong performance after the trade deadline, even if people didn't think Jennings and Ellis, two volume scoring small guards, could coexist. Of course, their real problem is that they don't have a center apart from Dalembert, even if they have a bevy of rim-protecting bigs.)
3. Washington Wizards (A starting five of Wall/Beal/Ariza/Nene/Okafor is very good, and Beal especially gives them someone who can shoot. They have good depth with Seraphin/Booker/Vesely, but again they lack depth in the backcourt.)
4. New Orleans Hornets (Unibrow. Enough said. Only problem is that drafting Rivers means they have TWO ball-dominant guys, and even if Davis isn't getting a lot of touches the question is "who gets the ball in crunch time?")
5. Golden State Warriors (Starting five of Curry/Thompson/Barnes/Lee/Bogut is very good, and for the first time the Warriors have legit big men. The problem would be their guys, especially Bogut, staying healthy, which is why drafting Ezeli at 30 for injury insurance isn't a bad idea)
6. Toronto Raptors (With Valancunias coming over and them wooing Nash, I think they could finish around .500)

Teams not in the playoff mix anytime soon:

1. Phoenix Suns (The only difference Steve Nash returning or leaving will make is how many games do they win. Sure, grooming Kendall Marshall as his replacement would be nice, but their roster sucks apart from Marcin Gortat, and two aging guys in Grant Hill and Michael Redd)
2. Houston Rockets (Another year of having the 14th pick. Trading away your only other center for another draft pick. Having three draft picks but not picking a center. Stuck in mediocrity.)
3. Charlotte Bobcats (At best, they'll quadruple their win total... putting them at 28-54. Welp.)
4. Sacramento Kings (So much young talent, but not the chemistry or work ethic to back it up. Their most hard-working players are a guy they just drafted today and a 5'9" guy taken with the last pick last year)

I guess you have a point with drafting for need...then again, Cleveland is Cleveland...

Also, is it me, or did MKG look unhappy that he was drafted by the Bobcats?

I see a lot of playoff-contending teams after this draft. I'm reserving judgement on whether or not they're playoff-level until after I see them play.

I must say, though, I wouldn't mind seeing Detroit become a contender again. New York, Miami, Indiana, Boston and Chicago have already returned to the discussion, so I wouldn't mind seeing a rejuvenated Detroit.

It'd be nice to see Charlotte sneak in the playoffs or something.

Also, Stern should ship the Kings to Seattle already.

Yeah, it's not like people in Sacramento want them or anything.

How about the Clippers?

While I wouldn't call the Clippers "fans" a fanbase, at least not before this year, you shouldn't be so eager to take from someone.

Seattle has a WNBA team, right?

They should put together a different team if moving another team is not feasible.

What's wrong with that? They're Fakers fans before CP 3 arrived anyway, so there's nothing wrong there.

Speaking of the Clippers, Lamar Odom has returned to the team in a four-team trade. Utah receives Mo Williams, Dallas sends a draft pick and gains cash while Houston also receives a draft pick.

The Clippers get a big man who can shoot, Utah gets a veteran point guard, Dallas gets roster and cap space so they can woo Deron Williams, and Houston is being Houston.

Question from a non-US citizen and a very newbie-ish fan of basketball (thank the Slam Dunk anime for my interest): Is there any particular reason why every professional basketball team in the U.S. that I know of ^note Which, to be honest, are the only pro basketball teams that I ever know of. has its home city^note or state, in some cases, like the Golden State Warriors from California. included in its name? Is it an NBA rule, or simply an unwritten convention for the sake of distinguishing teams with otherwise similar names?

There are no otherwise similar names. In American sports, and professional sports on a national level as far as I'm aware, the teams have a team name (Bulls, Pistons, etc.), and operate out of a city and are thus referred to by their home too.

Compare the Premier League. Chelsea isn't from the City of Chelsea, but the part of London called Chelsea. Or Manchester's teams Manchester United and Manchester City. It's not compulsory, but it is customary as far as I'm aware.

College teams will be named after their school, same with high school and other schools. If you have a home, you're usually referred to by that home name. It's quite rare for a team to move, and if they do, they'll change their city name - The New Orleans Hornets used to be the Charlotte Hornets. Same Memphis (formerly Vancouver) Grizzlies. Note that this is the explanation for the "Lakers", who used to be in Minneapolis/St. Paul. Minnesota is known for its lakes. Some teams completely rebrand, like the Oklahoma City Thunder, formerly the Seattle Sonicsnote

Okay, has there been any NBA teams that more or less defied the traditional "home city/state (nick)name + team name" format?

Not that I know of, especially considering the hundreds of millions of dollars it takes for a major sports team to be in a city. If you pony up that much, you'll likely want your full name out there.

Didn't stop the San Francisco Warriors (formerly Philadelphia Warriors) from changing their name to Golden State^note nickname for the state of California Warriors, did it?