Hawks Roster Starting to Take Form

With the recent acquisition of sharpshooting guard Kyle Korver from the Chicago Bulls, it looks like the Hawks roster is starting to take a more definitive shape for the 2012-13 season.

Before this trade was made, I will admit that I really had no idea what Danny Ferry's next move would be; he honestly could have done anything. He could have tried to make a blockbuster deal to acquire Dwight Howard, or perhaps have traded Josh Smith, signally the start of the rebuilding process.

But this trade for Korver, in my opinion, makes me think that the remains of the Hawks core pieces (Smoove, Zaza, Teague, and Horford) will all still be on the team when the start of the season arrives. Why? Because I believe that this will be the best set up for the Hawks on offense.

Think back: last year, the Hawks always seemed the most successful in the halfcourt when they were working out of the high post with either Josh or Joe Johnson. Those two would then either try to beat their defender, hoping to command a double team, which would then (hopefully) result in a carousel of passing to an open three point shooter. With the editions of rookie John Jenkins, whose shot is more pure than anything I have ever seen, Anthony Morrow, and Korver, this method of primary offense could been extremely successful. Of course, this did lead to a lot of JJ and Josh in isolation, which often resulted in a lot of awful looking possessions.While I'd prefer the pretty looking possessions, awful looking things are kind of a specialty of Atlanta.

Of course, with JJ being gone, two things will change: 1) there won't be plurality of plays where it seems like JJ is overdribbling to no success and 2) Horford will have to step up in his shot creating abilities. If Smoove and Al can work in the post to moderate success, then the team won't fall far from where it was last season. Of course, it could fail miserably, as the team could very easily miss JJ's shot creating ability, and will very obviously miss Marvin and Joe's defense on the wing. Either way, the team will either have a fun season before entering the 2013 offseason where there is SO MUCH CAP ROOM, or it will falter along the way, possibly trade away Smoove for pieces, and gather up a decent lottery pick before stumbling upon SO MUCH CAP ROOM!

There is still a hole at small forward, however. The team could conceivably start Korver or Morrow there, but only if it believes that defense is something that isn't worth playing. They could reach out to Tracy McGrady again, but I don't think T-Mac wants to play here after his woes with playing time last season. (and defense isn't exactly one of Tracy's best skills...) Grant Hill is still out on the market and is a player I would want, I don't believe the Hawks have the cap room to sign him or anyone else straight up. They've already used the MLE on Lou Williams, and still have the bi-annual exception to use. They could also do a sign-and-trade for a player, seeing how the Hawks have a $5 million trade exception from the Joe Johnson deal with the Nets. The exciting thing is that the team can use the whole TPE without worrying about the luxury tax line, meaning the Hawks might actually make use of it!

Other than a move for a small forward, I expect all roster moves to be quiet. The team might sign another guy who can play spot minutes in the frontcourt to spell the Josh/Al/Zaza/Ivan quartet, seeing how the best option after those four right now might be Johan Petro. (Ew) The team should be done with guards, as we have about 2320 of them under contract right now. Of course, Ferry could have something completely different up his sleeve that will make everything I just wrote completely invalid. WELP...

Hawks Draft Recap: John Jenkins?

With the 23rd pick in the NBA Draft a couple of days ago, the Hawks selected the sharpshooter guard John Jenkins from Vanderbilt.

I'm only half okay with this pick. Here's why:

Having drafted the next Willie Green, Hawks presumably no longer need the current one.
— John Hollinger (@johnhollinger) June 29, 2012

Of course, you'll always need a shooter who can come off the bench and hit some open shots. But as Bret LaGree pointed out on Hoopinion, an inexperienced player whose only strength is hitting spot-up jumpers isn't exactly someone who is going to thrive on the Hawks.

Personally, I would have preferred Tony Wroten, Quincy Miller, or Draymond Green at this pick. Perry Jones III wouldn't have been a terrible idea, either. Wroten could have made a nice backup PG to Teague, where (SHOCKINGLY!!) he could have gotten decent minutes.  Miller, Green, and Jones could have all been replacements/backups for Marvin, with Miller and PJ3 both possessing the ability to slide over to the four spot, if necessary.

It just seems that there was much more talent on the board, and the team decided to go with an uber-extreme safe pick; very un-Hawks like. Of course, if Jenkins manages to match Willie's top 10 3-point shooting performance from last season, I will have less of an issue with this.

How Space Jam Changed the Perception of Michael Jordan

When I was little, I loved two things pretty much above everything else: sports and cartoons. Naturally, when the two were combined, you weren't going to get my eyes unglued from the TV under any circumstance.

I still remember some of my favorite sports-cartoon episodes; Baseball Bugs, practically all of Rocket Power, and of course, the episode of Hey Arnold! were the 4th graders took on the 6th graders in a game of football.

Obviously, above all of those, was Space Jam.

I maintain the assertion that Space Jam is the greatest basketball movie ever made. It had Bugs Bunny and Michael Jordan playing basketball, Wayne Knight attempting to be athletic, and Bill Murray saving the day with the greatest bench performance in the history of the game.

As a youngin' at the time, I can honestly say that Space Jam is something that seriously piqued my interest in the sport, meaning I spent hours imitating Jordan on my hoop just like everyone else did.

Unfortunately, this same movie has also had an terrible side effect on many people my age who were little when they first saw the film: an irrational, god-like praise that's given to MJ every time his name comes up in a conversation.

This shouldn't be too unusual; Jordan's the greatest player of all-time! Of course he is going to be celebrated more than any other basketball player alive! However, I think some of this praise is infringing on the mythical realm, often forgetting the realities of Jordan's career.

For the first six years of MJ's career, he couldn't get over the hump. He was accused of being a selfish, arrogant, son-of-a-bitch, who just hogged the ball in an effort to historically pad his stats. In his seventh year, though, he, Scottie Pippen, and Horace Grant finally swept through the rival Pistons, and delivered the first of six championships to the city of Chicago. Over the course of those six trophies, some of those frowned upon adjectives started to fade away. The time he punched Steve Kerr in the face? No, that was just his determination to win! What about the time he stopped shooting and essentially quit on the time? Of course not, he was just trying to get his teammates involved!! I mean, look, he carried those Bulls teams all those years!

Enter LeBron James. The player who, for the first eight years of his career, failed to capture the crown jewel of all NBA players: a title. Like Jordan, LeBron had to share those same insults (arrogant, stat-padder, etc) that Jordan did before he got his ring. After the Decison, the scorn only became worse. Not only was he now the most arrogant player of all-time somehow, but now he had proven that he couldn't win by himself like Jordan did, and in fact, had become a sidekick! What a loser!!

Wait a minute, Jordan had this guy, though:

And this guy:

And this guy:

Meanwhile, in the city of Doom! (Cleveland)

AHHH!! *runs and hides*

So, how does all of this relate back to Space Jam?

In the movie, Jordan is essentially treated as a god. Not only is he the greatest in the real world, but he's so good that he can manipulate Looney Tune physics to score the halfcourt, game-winning dunk against a team of mutated aliens. Hell, he even hit a hole-in-one! He's just like Kim Jong-il! No wonder he's so popular in North Korea!

And do you remember that halftime speech? Please, MJ wouldn't have been the affectionate motivator like he's portrayed in the movie; he would have been at his team's throats! He would have screamed at Bugs, punched Daffy right in the beak, and likely would have reduced the Tasmanian Devil to tears.

However, he's the good guy obviously, and is portrayed as such. He saves the Looney Tunes, gets the player's talents back (did Shawn Bradley really have talent?), and returns to basketball in real life. All was well!

You know, except for reality.

Why do I think this is important? Every year, it seems that Jordan's legacy becomes greater and greater, defying the realities of how he actually played. I think Space Jam could be somewhat responsible for this. As I've already said, I think that movie was a huge influence on why I watch basketball today, and I think many others share that opinion. Being too young to witness Jordan's early playing days, we missed all of the pressure he endured before he captured that elusive ring. All we saw was Jordan at his best, all while saving the Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck from a gang of mutant-aliens on the side.

While it is natural for a sports figure to become more revered when he retires from the game, what Jordan's legacy has become isn't natural at all. Not so surprisingly, to me at least, this is also around the same time that those who grew up with Space Jam have started to come of age and get their opinions out in the air. Unfortunately, it seems like some of these people really seem to believe that MJ could have averaged 100 points for his career if it weren't for those pesky teammates and their stupid dog!

Anyways, let's hope that some of us learn that MJ really was human, and not some fictional cartoon character that could play every position at the same time...

BREAKING NEWS

The NBA isn't rigged; stop being so butthurt that your team lost.

Hawks Pick Up Larry Drew's Option, Send me into Fits of Rage

I've said several times that the Hawks should consider going a different direction in terms of coaching. However, against the advice of everyone that has any sort of knowledge of the game of the orange ball, the team has picked up Larry Drew's option for the 2012-2013 season.

I really don't get why I'm so shocked with this. This is the team that decided that the players were no longer responding to Woodson two years ago, fired him, and then promoted his assistant, who doesn't challenge his players like a real head coach should. (which has led to the wonderful nickname of "Uncle Larry") I don't think the organization got that, if you want to change the voice in the locker room, you can't just fire one guy and hand the microphone to the coach that the players like and have already been listening to for the past six years.

What I take from this is that the team is going to stand pat for one more year. Smoove isn't going to get traded, Joe isn't going to get amnestied, and Marvin is still going to suck. The owners will blame injuries for the reason the team stalled again last year, and likely give it one more go before Smoove's and Zaza's contracts expire at the end of the season. While I think that the players should be given another ride, I still firmly believe that this team would become so much better under a different coach. ( a Van Gundy could work) Of course, Dwane Casey and Avery Johnson could have worked, but the ownership decided that they were to difficult to get, and that they wanted too much money. *rolls eyes*

Of course, this decision also means more of this:

NEVER, EVER, EVER TRUST THE HAWKS

Hawks' Plans for the Offseason

Welp, the Hawks' season is now over (*cough* 2 and the ball *cough*), and have a lot of things to think about in the offseason. Here's what I think the team should consider.

First, I'll go ahead and say that they should not blow up the team. The only major move I would consider is trying to trick Otis Smith into somehow taking Joe's contract as a way to possibly appease Dwight Howard.  (which I don't think even Otis is that gullible) Otherwise, wait until the end of next season (when Zaza's and Smoove's contracts are up) before throwing TNT all over the place.

Which goes to my next point: don't trade Josh. You're not going to get equal value for him and a trade "just to make a trade" gets rid of your only marketable player, your best help defender, and probably your best facilitator. The jumpshots are getting more annoying every game (see the 20 foot fadeaway at the end of this game), but I still believe the right coach can fix this problem.

That leads to another thing: explore all possible options for the head coaching position. (SVG, obviously) Larry Drew's "motion offense" is a hell of a thing to watch... when the team is actually running it. At times this year, Drew has resorted to iso-Joe more than his predecessor did, which is amazing because Drew should know that's the main reason Woody was fired. Hell, at least Woody could control Smoove. (Am I starting to miss Woodson? Nah... maybe?)

Now, trying to keep the quality bench that the team had this year may be tricky; even though Kirk's contract comes off, the team still has $61 million invested in it's six core players for next year. My first move would be to offer Ivan Johnson a two year contract, either utilizing the mini-MLE or even going so far as to use the full-MLE under the Arenas Rule. A rotation of Smoove-Horford-Zaza-Ivan at the four and five positions isn't something that most teams could match. Next, I'd offer contracts to Willie Green, T-Mac (although he's probably on his way out of Atlanta), Pargo, and possibly Grant Hill. Getting two or three of these to sign would give the Hawks a 9-10 man rotation, which should be good enough during a normal season. Maybe try to bring Stackhouse back as an assistant coach.

Then, of course, there's the draft. Hawks have the 23rd or 24th pick. (I can't remember which one and I'm too lazy to look it up) Most fans seems to want point guard Tony Wroten Jr. at that spot, but I think the team could also go with small forward Draymond Green out of Michigan State. I think the pick depends on which players the team signs/resigns in free agency.

Well, until next year, Hawks. *breaks things*

No Smoove? Big Problem

What should they do if Josh can't play tonight?

Pray to every deity they can think of and offer up Marvin Williams as sacrifice. Yep, that should work.

In all seriousness, I'd like to see them experiment with a Teague/TMac/Joe/Marvin/Collins lineup, with Ivan providing the energy off the bench. Don't sit Teague and Joe at the same time, especially when the Celtics still have a majority of their starters in.

Also, let Jeff shoot the ball as many times as he wants. If Josh doesn't go, the only chance the Hawks have to win this game is if Teague goes off and plays like a top tier point guard.

Hawks-Celtics Game 2: Ultimate Test of "NTTH"

One of the more senior jokes in ESPN's Daily Dime Live is NTTH: Never Trust the Hawks. Well, it isn't really a joke; it's more of a law of life that must be upheld by all humanity, as dire results await those who oppose it.

However, there may finally be a chance for NTTH to shatter into little basketball pieces.

In this series against the Celtics, practically no one picked the Hawks. It was all about the Big 3 + Rondo, and whether or not they could possibly upset Chicago in then next round. Then, after Derrick Rose's tragic ACL injury, it because about a Miami-Boston Eastern Conference Finals.

ECF? The Celtics hadn't even played a game in the playoffs yet! And they didn't even have homecourt in the first round! Why is it that they had such a clear path to the conference finals? Well, obviously, because you couldn't trust that Hawks to utilize homecourt advantage. Compound that with both Zaza Pachulia and Al Horford, and it could appear as if it would be a walkover for the Celtics.

But, of course, you couldn't trust the Hawks to lose either, even with the clear disadvantages. So, appropriately, the Hawks won game one and had complete control for most of the game. And now, with Rondo suspended for game two due because of his chest bump, Atlanta has a decisive advantage over Boston and could take an important 2-0 in the series with a victory.

Naturally, this is the game they would usually discover a new way to lose. However, I actually have confidence that they will pull this one out and begin to quell NTTH for good. Seriously, stop laughing and here me out on this.

NTTH really reached its height in the two previous seasons. Two years ago, the three-seeded Hawks won 53 games, but even then still had problems handling teams like Golden State and Charlotte. Come playoff time, they struggled against an ailing Milwaukee team, then proceeded to get swept by the Magic in blowout fashion.

Exit Mike Woodson and enter Larry Drew. Of course, let's fire our head coach that makes the players battle with him and hire his assistant who is wanted by the players. The result? A reduction of nine wins to 44, a breakout of Josh Smith jumpers all over the court, and a continuation of the idea that Mike Bibby and Jamal Crawford were point guards. However, NTTH reversed in the playoffs, and the Hawks were able to get by the Magic in six, and take the Chicago Bulls to six behind Jeff Teague's breakout performance.

This year, NTTH has started to break down, even though the phrase had begun to rise in notoriety. Sure, the 3OT loss against Miami, who was playing without LeBron James and Dwyane Wade, is one of the most classic moments of this basketball law. Sure, the Hawks lost to Toronto at home when they were extremely shorthanded and playing with a group of D-Leaguers. However, despite that, what are the team's other severe deficiencies this season? The team went 40-26 without Horford for 55 games, without Joe Johnson and Zaza Pachulia for seven games a piece, and with Josh Smith deciding to continue his Reggie Miller jumpshooting impression. The bench is no longer a one man show and can actually make-up for one or two guys having an off game. This team has just seemed... different.

So, back to tonight's game two. The "underdog" Hawks have turned into the favorite after Rondo's suspension. Atlanta is at home, in Philips Arena, where they have never lost to the Celtics in the playoffs. Essentially, it's the perfect time to see whether or not the Hawks have truly started to grow into a team that can play with consistency, or one that is still marred by mental roadblocks.

Did I mention that winning this game could give the Hawks a track to their first Eastern Conference Finals appearance since... ever? Yeah, this is the perfect test.

Best NBA Commercials This Season

Over the course of the year, the NBA has made several great commercials, and NBA players have participated in their own marketing ventures. Here are the ones that I think are the best.

Kevin Durant, Sprint Commercial

KD hates Doodle Jump. You know why? Because you missed his game winner, obviously. Oh, and because he can't catch the guy.

The KobeSystem

What exactly is the KobeSystem? Is it just a shoe? Is it a provocative set of philosophical knowledge? Or is it the ability to successfully take on three defenders at the end of a game for the winning shot?

Okay, nevermind. It's not that last one.


I Think We Found Kyrie Irving

Go through your couch cushions right now and see what you can find. You'll likely find some paper scraps and four pennies. Mike Breen? He found Cavs rookie sensation Kyrie Irving, who had taken up residence in the RV's couch. Hey, maybe that's where LeBron was hiding in the 4th quarter of the Finals. (BOOM!)

Happy Together

I've always loved the big-head commercials, but this one might be the best, even if it's only for the end part with KG.

NBA Forever

This might be the greatest commercial ever. Seriously, the editing is fantastic, the effort into it is apparent, and it captures the full history of the NBA in two minutes of strung together clips. But seriously, adding Derrick Rose to the Jordan/Pippen Bulls? That's just not even close to being fair; that team never loses.

There are probably other great commercials that I'm missing because I've either forgotten them or haven't seen them due to TV market, etc. However, you know what commercial/marketing ploy might be the worst?

INSANITEAGUE?!?! COME ON, ATLANTA!! THIS IS WHY NO ONE TAKES US SERIOUSLY!! (well, that, and the bad drafting, idiotic ownership, poor attendance...)

Playoffs: First Day Analysis

Miami, Chicago, Orlando, and Oklahoma City all scored more points.

First Round Predictions

(KG is totally that guy who shouts "HOLD ME BACK!", but never has any intention to fight, right?)

I'm right, your wrong, and all of these are totally going to happen:

Bulls over Sixers in 5

Hawks over Celtics in 7 games and 3 fights

Heat over Knicks in 5

Pacers ROFL-stomping the Magic in 4

Spurs over Jazz in 6

Nuggets over Lakers in 7 (UPSET!!!)

Thunder over Mavs in 5

Grizzlies over Clippers in 7 (This is probably the best series in the first round)

My Award Winners

Here's how I would vote for this season's awards if I had a ballot. (And I should have a ballot!)

MVP: 1st: LeBron James, 2nd: Kevin Durant, 3rd: Chris Paul

DPoY: 1st: Tyson Chandler, 2nd: LeBron James, 3rd: Andre Iguodala

Rookie: 1st: Kyrie Irving, 2nd: Ricky Rubio, 3rd: Isaiah Thomas

Coach: 1st: Gregg Popvich, 2nd: Tom Thibideau, 3rd: Frank Vogel

6th Man: 1st: James Harden (This is a runaway, so who cares about 2nd and 3rd?)

MIP: 1st: Nikola Pekovic, 2nd: Ersan Ilyasova, 3rd: Jeremy Lin

The "I" in Team

The expression itself is timeless. "There's no I in team." It's been used for generations to admonish those who felt that they were above the collective. It's a phrase that has been embraced by fans who want to see the athletes on their favorite teams put the group above the individual.

Last year, Derrick Rose won the NBA Most Valuable Player award; and he was a worthy candidate, holding averages of 25 points and almost 8 assists, all while leading an NBA-best Bulls squad to a 62-20 record. All very impressive. Now, I'm not here to try to degrade Rose's season last year, as he was one of about four candidates (LeBron James, Kevin Durant, and Dwight Howard) who had a deserved claim to the award. Of course, there is no problem with him winning it. However, there is a problem with the method that some pundits used to determine the best candidate.

The argument? "Well, if you take player X off of team Y, then team Y would be a lottery team."

While the MVP award has no official criteria, this one that was devised may be the worst. Of course, some see the word "valuable" in the name of the award, and try to figure out the best way to equate value. This then turns into, "who is the most important to his team's success?" Finally, the fantastic idea of trying to predict how well a team would do without a player comes into fruition.

Her are the problems that I see with the argument: first, you can't predict how well a team will do without a player; basketball isn't played in a vacuum. You can't magically subtract/add/switch players and come up with a amethod to figure out what that team's record would be after the changes were made. I mean, people already have enough problems predicting a team's record, how would tinkering with the team's roster make it any easier? This is where Bill Simmons' now famous "Ewing Theory" comes in. Sometimes, teams play better without their best player because, well, that's just how unpredictable sports are. Who would have expected the Knicks to beat the Pacers in the '99 Eastern Conference Finals without Patrick Ewing? Or for a more recent example, who would have expected the Hawks to continue to play well without Al Horford? (Of course, you really never can trust the Hawks to day anything right)

If we were to apply that argument to what has happened this season, both Derrick Rose and Dwyane Wade would be considered as just average players, as their teams have been as good or even better when either was out of the lineup. Also using this magic formula, both Ricky Rubio and Steve Nash would be in contention for the award, as the Wolves have been absolutely awful since Ricky went down, and the Suns would have to replace Nash with either Shannon Brown or Sebastian Telfair; there is no way in hell that ends well.

The second point that I want to make about this is how it is absolutely team depreciative; basketball is a team sport. So, is your argument that to win the MVP, the rest of your teammates have to be a bunch of guys that are absolutely awful? If Kobe led a team of high-schoolers to 25 wins, should he win the MVP because he is obviously the most valuable player on his team? I mean, that team probably wouldn't win any games without him, so would that make his worth "25 wins"?

The best example of this is last year's award. Many people used the, "without Derrick Rose, the Bulls would be a lottery team" argument to validate his winning of the award. (which is really unfortunate, because this takes away from his own play, but whatever) Is that really fair to the rest of his teammates? Have we become so enamored with the individual player that we forget that Joakim Noah, Luol Deng, and Carlos Boozer are really good players? Of course, those three have helped disprove that themselves by posting wins with Rose being out of the lineup for a third of the season.

This segues into this year's MVP race, where LeBron is facing the criticism of "his teammates being too good." Is that a real criticism? Why should an individual award depend on a player's teammates? It makes even less sense when the argument is that Durant or Kobe should get the award over LeBron for that very reason. Did Russell Westbrook, James Harden, Pau Gasol, and Andrew Bynum (who are 13th, 28th, 31st, and 9th in PER, respectively) just morph into bad players because they may not be as good as the duo of Wade and Chris Bosh?

Of course, all this does is lead to the magical "RINGZZZ" argument, where a player is better than another based on how many championships that player's team has won. (So any player that ever won a ring is better than LeBron, Barkley, Malone, and Stockton combined, right? Thank God for Adam Morrison) Just to put this argument to rest, if even Jordan could not win a ring "by himself", why should we expect players of lesser skill to be able to accomplish the feat?

At least of the MVP award, this can be fixed. All the award needs is a defined criteria, preferably one that is "best player in the league for a certain year." At least then, it will be properly quantified as it should: as an individual award that has no regard for a team's play. Then we can all have the truly fun arguments about the award, like "Is LeBron better than Durant?" or "Is Kobe still that good?"

Maybe some day...

Hi There!

This is my new blog, The Churnover! Please read it, or at least click on it so I think people are reading it.

For your viewing pleasure, here's Anthony Davis in pterodactyl form.