Page 885 of 2957

C’s in trouble without Perkins?

Neil Paine of Basketball Reference thinks so…

We can really illustrate Perkins’ hidden importance by looking at the Plus/Minus numbers. When Perkins was on the court for Boston this season, the Celtics outscored their opponents by 7.2 points per 100 possessions; when he wasn’t playing, that number was only +0.2, a difference of -7 pts/100 poss.

Meanwhile, Perkins’ Game 7 replacements, Rasheed Wallace and Glen Davis, don’t fare nearly as well by the WOWOY metrics. Despite Davis’ heroics in Game 4, he and Wallace have been Boston’s two worst players by net on/off rating during the playoffs. Wallace has been particularly toxic for the Celtics all season — the team played 5 pts/100 poss. worse when he was on the floor, as evidenced by his recurring appearance in the Celts’ worst lineup combinations. Davis & Wallace look better by the 4-year WOWOY regression (Davis is +1.36, Wallace is +0.47), but neither has the ability to positively impact the game the way Perkins does. Without his presence, and playing on the road (home teams win Game 7 80% of the time), the Celtics appear to be in dire straits tonight.

Numbers aside, I tend to agree with Paine from a qualitative point of view. Kendrick Perkins is a really good post defender, better than Rasheed Wallace and much better than Glenn Davis. He is not the offensive player that either of those guys are, but when you’re part of a unit that includes the Big 3 and Rajon Rondo, you don’t have to be.

Wallace has played some good post defense in these playoffs, but he tends to get into foul trouble, and that’s bad news for tonight, when the Celtics are so painfully thin on the front line. His three point range can stretch the defense, but he’s shooting 26% in the Finals and 35% in the postseason, so it’s not like his defender can’t help off of him. The Celtics need a 15/10 kind of a night from ‘Sheed if they hope to win Game 7.

If he gets into early foul trouble and Boston is forced to play Shelden Williams major minutes, the Celtics will be in major trouble.


Photo from fOTOGLIF

76ers ship Dalembert to Sacramento

Per ESPN…

The Philadelphia 76ers have agreed to swap Samuel Dalembert to the Sacramento Kings for Andres Nocioni and Spencer Hawes, two league sources told ESPN.com.

…the real ramifications may come during the draft. The Sixers have been deciding between Evan Turner and Derrick Favors with the No. 2 pick. While Sixers general manager Ed Stefanski is a Turner fan, new coach Doug Collins is high on Favors. With Dalembert gone and Nocioni in, it could push them in the direction of Favors.

For the Kings, this could also change their draft equation. The team has been looking at drafting DeMarcus Cousins and Greg Monroe, both centers. With this deal, it could allow them to address another need at the three. The Kings have been high on both Al-Farouq Aminu and Gordon Hayward.

This could alter the draft plans of these two teams, but it shouldn’t. The players involved in the trade — Dalembert, Nocioni, Hawes — are all fringe starters at best, so teams shouldn’t be making draft plans around their arrivals or departures. For example, now that Dalembert is no longer in Philly, it’s not a reason to draft Derrick Favors over Evan Turner. If the Sixers want to go with Favors, they should be because they think he’ll ultimately be the best player in the long run, not because they now have a hole to fill.

The same goes for the Kings. Dalembert is a so-so center in the final year of his contract. Sacramento shouldn’t pass on DeMarcus Cousins because they now have Dalembert on the roster. That wouldn’t make any sense since Dalembert is not an impact player and may not even be around to start the 2011-12 season.

This move will give the Kings an additional $10.7 M in cap space next summer, or approximately $36 million total (minus the salary of their 2010 draft pick). So the Kings will be players again in 2011 free agency assuming they don’t spend all of their cap space over the next month.


Photo from fOTOGLIF

Darrelle Revis, you can’t be serious.

Newsday’s Bob Glauber reports that the Jets are willing to give Darrelle Revis the biggest contract ever for a defensive back (one that will approach $100 million), but apparently the corner is holding firm in his demands that he wants a contract that exceeds the Raiders’ Nnamdi Asomugha.

He can’t be that greedy, can he? Tell me that nobody is that greedy. Are you telling me that Revis wouldn’t want to make $12 million annually for the next nine years because Asomugha makes over $15 million a year? He has that much of an ego that he’d pass that up?

No, I refuse to believe that. I refuse to believe that Revis would turn down a $100 million contract because he cares more about being the highest paid cornerback in the league. I refuse to believe that he cares more about the moniker have being the highest paid NFL corner than he does about winning Super Bowls or seeing his teammates (i.e. Nick Mangold) get new contracts as well.

Revis should be reminded that he still has three more years left on his current contract. The Jets don’t have to offer him anything and he’d still be obligated to honor his current deal. If they wanted to offer him a ham sandwich and a cold glass of milk, he should be grateful.

I hope nobody thinks that highly of themselves that they would turn down the opportunity to make $100 million.


Photo from fOTOGLIF

Tom Izzo debates a reporter at a press conference

Tom Izzo and reporter Lynn Henning get into a spirited discussion about the media’s response to Izzo’s flirtation with the Cleveland Cavaliers.

Both guys bring up good points, but I especially like Henning’s point about how the silence from MSU and from Izzo’s camp is not going to stop the speculation about Izzo’s future. If Izzo is upset about the misinformation that’s floating around out there, then he needs to set the record straight. If he’s hoping that people are going to stop talking about the situation while he ponders his decision in absolute silence, he’s going to be waiting a long time.

NFL, union clearly have their priorities mixed up

According to ESPN.com, the NFL and union officials are discussing the possibility of adding two games to the regular season.

Teams still would play a total of 20 exhibition games under the proposal. The league would go from four in the preseason and 16 in the regular season to two and 18.

“This is an idea that is really gaining momentum, particularly with the owners,” Green Bay Packers president Mark Murphy said during a conference call.

“Part of it is really providing more value to our fans,” Murphy said. “The quality of our preseason has really deteriorated over time.”

Hey, that’s great. We’ll all enjoy those two extra games if there’s even a freaking season next year.

I find it a little disturbing that the NFL and union are meeting to discuss whether or not to add extra games to the regular season schedule, but aren’t spending that time working on a new collective bargaining agreement so we have a season in 2011. All fans here about is how there is a threat of a lockout looming and these two clowns are wasting time discussing something that won’t even matter if there’s no season. I’d like to think that Roger Goodell would prioritize league matters a little better than this.

Of course, if the two sides are talking about this, maybe they are close to striking a new deal. Because it would be completely and utterly useless to discuss something like this without knowing whether or not there will be football in 2011, right?…Right?…Right?!


Photo from fOTOGLIF

« Older posts Newer posts »