Random Rumblings: April 28th

Why the tape is not enough

Tonight is the NFL Draft and arguably the two best players on tape won't be taken early. One won't be taken at all, not just in tonight's first round but at any point in the next three days. Why? Injuries.

Notre Dame's Jaylon Smith had the best tape of any prospect according to multiple analysts, yet he likely won't be taken at all. The defensive standout tore his knee ligaments in the Fiesta Bowl and he's at risk to never play football again because of nerve damage in his leg. UCLA's Myles Jack will play football next year. The question is how long after that as he has a degenerative issue in his knee.

Jack made interesting comments yesterday about his knee, saying that he doesn't know how long he'll be able to play. He said that anything over three years is average anyway, so who knows what the future holds for any player. While all of what he said is technically true, he did himself no favors in being honest. Teams don't spend first round picks for average.

The larger point here though is the justification for teams putting in massive amounts of homework into drafting players. They're about to make multimillion dollar investments into these guys, so every piece of information is useful.

What's interesting is the difference between the extensive homework teams do on rookies versus the quick decisions made on free agents, who cost significantly more money. The difference in the two situations? Leverage.

A player essentially has to play where he's drafted. In free agency, especially with the best players, the player has options. Instead of convincing teams to pick him, it's the teams convincing the player that they're the right place to be and that convincing is both literal in conversational terms and financial. The more you want a player, the more money you give him.

If Jack's knee holds up for a decade and he plays at a high level, people will look back and scream about how he was the best player on tape and lament not taking him. However if he's out of the league in three years, the team that did take that risk will be mocked for selecting a player with such an obvious downside. Teams can't win unless they're the one that was right. The narrative plays the result. The reality? The projection business is hard and every situation is different. Some decision makers have the license to take risks. Some don't. Some do have that right, but probably shouldn't.

The only sure thing is that if anyone tells you they know exactly how a player is going to turn out, they're telling you they can do the impossible.

Yeah, that was a foul

The Hornets took a 3-2 lead over the Heat last night in a controversial Game 5. There were some bad calls both ways, but a blatant missed foul late has everyone's attention. Goran Dragic shot a three from the corner which was blocked by Kemba Walker. Dwyane Wade got the rebound and attacked the basket where he was rudely greeted by Cody Zeller. The Hornets forward crashed into Wade and no whistle blew. It was a foul. There is no debate.

The verticality rule is explained in this video. It's pretty simple. If you jump straight up and down, it's not a foul. If you jump horizontally and make contact, it's a foul. This was a foul.

It's frustrating and disappointing that a game's outcome can so heavily be influenced by someone not on one of the teams so blatantly not doing their jobs correctly. Refereeing is really, really hard. It's a thankless job that only comes up when something is wrong. Guess that's why we're talking about it.

Some will talk about "human error" being a part of the game, but the only errors that should exist in an ideal world would be made by those affiliated with the teams. If a player misses an open shot, that's the game. If a coach makes a poor strategy decision, that's less fun than seeing the players decide the game, but that's sports. A referee? Give me the robots!

The rules are the rules. Enforce them. And to anyone who thinks that wasn't a foul, learn the rules. There is no intelligent argument here. Just learn the rule.

Tirico

Mike Tirico is leaving ESPN for NBC, which is a monumental move in the media world. Tirico has been at ESPN for 25 years and is the signature voice for the network. You probably knew all that. What you might not know is what it's like to have experience with Mike personally. That is just as big of a treat as it is listening to him call a game.

We've spent short amounts of time together on multiple occasions thanks to our mutual love for our alma mater. Mike is as proud of a Syracuse alum as there is and still dedicates a lot of time (and likely money) to the broadcast program.

Every time I see Mike, he makes me feel like an old friend that he's known for years. He has that special ability to make anyone feel important. He's invested in how you're doing. For someone who is a titan of our industry, he's incredibly human.

That humility is also what makes him so great on the air. He's smarter than all of us. Nobody knows more about more stuff than Mike. He covers NBA basketball, college basketball, NFL football, golf and tennis and I swear he knows each rulebook better than some of the officials in those sports. It's absolutely astounding. Yet, he delivers that information in a way that doesn't scream "look at me and how smart I am." He's just brilliant.

His role at NBC could eventually evolve into calling the NFL's premier weekly game (Sunday Night Football), the Super Bowl every three years and hosting the Olympics. He'll be calling the biggest events in sports and he's more than ready. I also expect him to be a part of the Kentucky Derby broadcast.

Back in 2012, we had Mike on my college radio show and I asked him about his bucket list. He said he'd gotten to do, or at least see, pretty much every event he could have dreamed of except two. One was the Indianapolis 500. The other was the Kentucky Derby. Both happen during the NBA playoffs, something Mike's giving up in the move from ESPN to NBC as the peacock network doesn't have any NBA rights and won't for the foreseeable future. The Indy 500 is on ABC, so he won't be able to call that although he could attend. The Derby however is on NBC, so expect him to have some role in that broadcast if his bucket list hasn't changed.

Reads of the Day:

Lions LB Deandre Levy with a powerful, necessary and potent piece on sexual assault prevention: http://www.theplayerstribune.com/deandre-levy-sexual-assault-awareness/

The MMQB's Andrew Brandt takes us inside an NFL war-room on draft day: http://mmqb.si.com/2014/05/07/nfl-draft-war-rooms

ESPNLA's Arash Markazi on Doc Rivers, including some powerful quotes from his son and player Austin: http://espn.go.com/blog/los-angeles/clippers/post/_/id/8096/doc-rivers-stays-strong-in-eye-of-clippers-storm

4-27 Hoffman Show: McNally, MacMahon and more

In the first edition of the new podcast format, I talk about the reaction to #MoreThanMean and Bomani Jones' thoughts on that subject. Plus, I talk with Brian McNally (106.7 The Fan, DC) on the Redskins recent moves and draft plans and Tim MacMahon (ESPN Dallas) on the end of the Mavs season. Lastly, I explain why Malachai Richardson should leave Syracuse and tell the tale of a two sport Sunday in New York.

For name ideas for the podcast, tweet me! Email works too. Carrier pigeons are no longer accepted. Sorry for any inconvenience.

Random Rumblings: April 26th

After a weekend in New York, the blog returns for NFL Draft week and some interesting turns in the NBA Playoffs. "Reads of the day" will also be different today. No reading involved! The four hour bus ride back from NYC lead to some great podcast listening, so I'll give you those instead. To the blog:

Don't Poke The Bear

Mavs owner Mark Cuban is really, really smart. Sometimes really, really smart people do really, really dumb things. Mark Cuban did a really, really dumb thing before Game 5 of Mavs-Thunder on Monday night.

Cuban said that Kevin Durant was the only superstar on Oklahoma City's roster. Asked about Russell Westbrook, Cuban said he's just an all-star, not a superstar. Westbrook proceeded to go score 38 points as the Thunder ended the Mavericks season.

Cuban's comments didn't make any sense on a number of levels. First, they were blatantly wrong. Westbrook set an NBA record with 18 triple-doubles this year. The Thunder were 18-0 in those games, meaning he wasn't out there collecting empty stats. He's a force of nature that defies science in how hard he plays every night. His intensity and passion are palpable. He's a more than occasional pain in the ass for the media, but there is no denying his greatness as a player.

So while Cuban was wrong and may have fired up Westbrook if the comments got back to him before tipoff (the Mavs seemed to try to get under Westbrook's skin all series), there are larger implications at play as evidenced by Kevin Durant's post-game press conference.

Thunder's Kevin Durant responds to Mavericks owner Mark Cuban saying Russell Westbrook isn't a "superstar" pic.twitter.com/6jPw9WktV0

— Ben Golliver (@BenGolliver) April 26, 2016

Durant is a free agent this summer. Westbrook is one next year. The Mavericks have consistently put themselves in a position to land big free agents, but have never reeled one in. Why would an owner, who is consistently mentioned as a major positive of the franchise (and is one of the very best in sports), put himself in a position where he could hurt his team? It seems short sighted and self-defeating. Even if the Mavericks consider Westbrook less than Durant from a scouting standpoint, there's no reason to publicly say that. Instead, you do what Rick Carlisle did after the game, which is to overly emphasize the greatness of both players.

I'll never complain about honesty from someone we cover as a collective media, but this one just doesn't make sense. There's a part of me that wonders what Cuban's motivation was and if there is some ulterior motive. Cuban's way smarter than me. He's a genius on many levels, so I'd be naive to just assume that I've got all of this figured out without at least acknowledging he might have some grand plan here. The question is if that plan exists and if it is ill-advised.

From my seat, it seems like it is. There seems to be no benefit. The Mavericks will certainly try and get in a room with Durant this summer. We'll see if they get a visit with one of the league's premier superstar after their owner diminished his friend, who is also in that class.

The Injury Bug Bites Twice (UPDATE: Three Times)

The NBA Playoffs were likely to play out in a rather direct fashion if everyone stayed healthy. The Cavaliers would face some challenge along the way to winning the Eastern Conference where they would lose to the Warriors, who would be pushed on some level (possibly to a decisive seven games) by the Spurs on their way to winning the west. However fast-forwarding is not allowed and the "if everyone stayed healthy part" is always a long shot. This is why they play the games.

Steph Curry hurt his ankle in Game 1 and had the entire NBA holding its collective breath after falling in Game 4 of the Warriors opening round series. The MVP has a grade 1 knee sprain and is out at least two weeks. In the regular season, that means a set amount of games. In the playoffs, that's a giant TBD.

This is where one injury affects another. The Clippers were having a hard enough time with the Blazers with Chris Paul and will likely now be without him. The star point guard broke his hand Monday night as the Blazers tied their series at 2-2. The winner of that series faces the Warriors, who will presumably close out the Rockets in Game 5 tonight at Oracle Arena. While Golden State isn't going to root for another team to suffer a key injury, they're undoubtedly rooting for that series to go as long as possible. The more time the series needs, the fewer games Curry misses while his knee heels.

While you make think the Warriors would be just fine without Curry, the numbers say otherwise. The Warriors were more than 1,000 points better than their opponents this year. They were also outscored with him on the bench for the second straight year.

	2014-15	2015-16
Curry On-Court	+920	+1022
Curry Off-Court	-92	-140

It's astounding that team that won 73 games and outscored opponents by more than 10 points per game could possibly have a player it couldn't live without, but it seems the Warriors are in that position with Curry.  It's worth pointing out that Dryamond Green actually had a bigger plus and lower minus in his splits than Curry, although with the two playing a high percentage of their minutes together, it's impossible to separate who is responsible at what percentage. Clearly Curry is massively important and it'll be tough for the Warriors to beat whoever is next without him. Perhaps the Paul injury will extend the Blazers-Clippers series just enough that Golden State won't have to worry about playing without Curry for more than a game or two, both of which would come at home.

Update at 5:04 PM EST on Tuesday: Clippers forward Blake Griffin will miss the rest of the playoffs with a quad injury. Paul is officially listed as out indefinitely.

The Clippers with Griffin, but no Paul were still formidable. Griffin's good enough to run a highly effective offense through, at least against the Blazers. The Warriors might've been a different story because Griffin would be guarded by Green, but the Clippers could (and have before) figured out how to score without Paul. Now, beating the Blazers is not only going to be difficult, I'm predicting it won't happen. I just don't see how they guard Damien Lillard or score enough to win. Injuries are a part of sports. The absolute worst part of sports.

Don't Read, Just Listen

As mentioned, here are the podcasts I enjoyed on the bus ride from NYC to DC.

Clippers guard J.J. Redick has done an exceptional job with his podcast. I enjoyed his chat with Late Late Show Producer Ben Winston. The two somewhat interviewed each other, providing some cool insight into both the entertainment and sports worlds: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/vertical-podcast-jj-redick/id1078782233?mt=2&i=367039936

Redick also had Packers QB Aaron Rodgers. The two comparing notes was really insightful. I especially enjoyed Rodgers comfort with his own greatness. He skipped the fake humbleness that a lot of athletes indulge in, acknowledging his high level of play comes from a place of extreme preparation: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/vertical-podcast-jj-redick/id1078782233?mt=2&i=367472055

The same can be said for ESPN analyst Louis Riddick. Listening him talk to Sports Illustrated's Richard Deitsch on both football and media was really interesting and entertaining: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/si-media-podcast-richard-deitsch/id997819235?mt=2&i=367080648

What is success? (NBA edition)

I saw a tweet this week that spawned a thought. The thought is more a philosophical question that can be applied to literally any situation in life, but we'll mostly stick to sports. What is success?

The tweet came from a Mavericks fan to my former colleague Chuck Cooperstein, the Mavs play by play man. The pessimistic fan asked "what's the point of making the playoff? They're going to lose in the first round."

Allow me to answer: you make the playoffs. 

On the surface, this seems like quite the logical thing than anybody with even a minute understanding of sports should be able to figure out, but defining success in sports is far from simple. For some teams success means winning a lot. For some teams it's winning some. For some teams it's not winning at all. It's complicated. It's nuanced. And at this time of the year, it's particularly in focus for the NBA.

For the Mavericks, making the playoffs is a remarkable success. Dallas thought they had made a key addition in DeAndre Jordan last summer before the Clippers center changed his mind and decided to return to Los Angeles. That left the Mavericks with newly signed Wes Matthews coming off an achilles injury, Chandler Parsons coming off knee surgery and Dirk Nowitzki somehow still being a very good player despite being 482 years old in NBA years. Instead of being a legitimate threat to get to the 2nd round of the playoffs, the Mavs were stuck being good enough to have no shot at keeping their draft pick, which had to fall in the top 7 to not be sent to Boston to complete the Rajon Rondo trade.

Since being bad didn't have any benefit, why not see how good you can be? Despite battling injuries all year, they made the playoffs again. That should be celebrated. That's an accomplishment. That's success.

For the Warriors, making the playoffs is nothing special. Their goals are different. They're only goal is a championship. That was until they got off to the best start in NBA history and all of a sudden, the record for most wins in regular season history was on the table.

Success is a moving target, in life and in sports. When someone reaches a goal, they set a new one. When circumstances change, goals change. Rarely do plans actually work out exactly as someone lays them out. For the Warriors, the goal didn't change. They just added a new one.

The NBA's regular season is long. It starts in October and ends in April. Sometime in November or December, everyone realized the Warriors had a chance at 73 regular season wins because they hadn't lost yet and the wins were starting to stack up. At that point their season became a really long family vacation. You can't wait to leave, but by the end, even if you know you'll look back fondly, it's just time to go home.

That's where the Warriors are now. They're clearly exhausted, scraping together wins against teams they literally beat by 50 earlier in the season. They've also lost twice at home, something they didn't do all year until last weekend. The goal of championship is still at the top of their list, but along the way they'd love to get to 73. They've got two more wins to go. If they don't get it, it's nearly impossible to say that the regular season hasn't been successful. They've already assured themselves one of the two winningest regular seasons in the history of the sport. Of course that's successful, even if they don't reach their goal of breaking the record.

For the Warriors, success depends on their first goal. They must win another championship. Falling short of that is a failure by anyone's standard based on what Golden State has accomplished and what they're capable of. The funny thing about success being a moving target, is it often moves back to where it started. While the focus is on the regular season record, the determination of success hasn't moved one bit for Steph Curry and co.

That concept of moving goals and moving success brings us to the other end of the NBA spectrum: the 76ers. Sam Hinkie resigned from his front office position this week as Philadelphia continued to bring in other people around him. Hinkie wrote in his resignation letter that the changing dynamic didn't leave him in a position that he felt he could make the best decisions for the team.

Hinkie's plan to rebuild the 76ers was much maligned, but it was also misunderstood. The biggest misunderstanding was his definition of success.

Winning in the NBA actually isn't that hard. Winning championships is nearly impossible. The margin between a good team like the Mavericks and a championship team like the Warriors is massive. Hinkie wanted to build a championship team.

In order to do that, he gutted the roster and maximized his means of acquiring a star player (which you need at least one of, if not two to win a title) via the draft. In the meantime, he didn't care about how his team did. He knew he needed that player.

Upon his resignation (which wasn't forced by ownership directly, although the moves they made around him were the reasons he resigned), many analysts brought up teams like Orlando and Denver to say "you don't have to be so extreme to rebuild" as the Sixers have been the last three years.

Orlando and Denver have acquired some nice pieces. None of those pieces are the championship piece that Hinkie wanted. Sure, they've got better rosters and if they can either pick a winner later in the draft, get lucky and win the lottery or acquire a superstar player via trade or free agency, the superior roster helps them be in a position to win faster. With Orlando, this is even feasible as they've been a free agent destination in the past. With Denver? They better hope for the luck option.

Meanwhile the Sixers have the highest odds ever at the number one pick and might wind up with two picks in the top 5 this season. Every plan involving a lottery and talent evaluation also involves substantial luck. Why not give yourself the maximum chances to get lucky?

That's not to say Hinkie was perfect and didn't make some mistakes. He could've potentially had better players already with better scouting. He underestimated the human side of player development in having no veteran presence in his locker room. However his long-term plan often came under attack for the wrong reasons.

People failed to understand his definition of success. He didn't want to his team to be good. He wanted them to be great. He knew that would take time. He ran out of time.

Success is a funny thing. It can be defined by a person for themselves. It can be defined by others. It can be defined by precedent and history. It can be defined by smashing precedent and making history. It can be clearly defined. It can be misunderstood. All of those things are no more easily found than in pro sports at a season's end.

4-26 Mavs Magazine

Seg 1: Where Rondo Went Wrong
Seg 2: Mike Meltser, SportsRadio 610 Houston
Seg 3: The Problem With Rebuilding
Seg 4: Free Agency Questions

4-18 Mavs Magazine

The playoffs are here!



OPEN - "A Season of Change"
2:20 - Three Things I'm Looking For
11:30 - Chuck Cooperstein, Voice of the Mavs
26:00 - Amin Elhassan, ESPN NBA Front Office Insider
36:13 - Tim MacMahon, ESPN.com Mavs Reporter
46:24 - Calvin Watkins, ESPN.com Rockets Reporter
56:30 - Mike Tirico, ESPN
1:12:46 - Closing Thoughts

2-22 Mavs Magazine

Seg 1 - Amar'e Stoudemire - Why did he sit? What's he add? Stories with Amin Elhassan
Seg 2 - Robin Lundberg
Seg 3 - Trade Deadline Recap
Seg 4 - Did the Mavs move too early on Rondo?

1-25 Mavs Magazine

Seg 1 - Rick Carlisle gets defensive
Seg 2 - Kevin Pelton, ESPN.com
Seg 3 - ESPN's Amin Elhassan on Carlisle
Seg 4 - Elhassan on Rondo, Ellis and more

1-4 Mavs Magazine

1-4 Mavs Magazine

Seg 1 - Rondo the adrenaline junkie
Seg 2 - Kevin Arnovitz on Mavs
Seg 3 - Kevin Arnovitz on the NBA
Seg 4 - Notebook

11-16 Mavs Magazine: Donnie Nelson, Kevin Pelton and more

11-16 Mavs Magazine

Seg 1: Donnie Nelson in studio on Dirk
Seg 2: Donnie Nelson in studio on the future of the Mavs
Seg 3: Kevin Pelton, ESPN.com
Seg 4: Notebook: Replay problems, bouncing back and the 76ers aren't THAT bad!

The Actual Future of American Soccer

As I drove home this afternoon, the words in my head were coming out of my speakers. Jorge Sedano was talking on SVP and Russillo about where we are and where we're going with soccer in America. The day after USA's loss in the World Cup, that was the lead on most talk shows in America. Most of the takes quite frankly had nothing to with the future of American soccer. They had to do with how much the given host didn't care.

To those people, there is nothing those of us who do care can do. I categorize myself in the "care" group not because I have some lifelong love affair with soccer. Nor do I get up on weekend mornings and watch European soccer (yet). However it's the number one sport in the world and it's undeniably growing in this country and I'd very much like to see where it goes.


Podcast: ESPN NBA Insider and lifelong soccer fan Amin Elhassan and I discuss the future of American soccer.

Many of the "get off my lawn" types who are poo-poo'ing the USA's result in the World Cup and screaming how much they don't care point to the passionate soccer crowd who's been telling them soccer is coming for 25 years. Two things:

1) There is no worse way to express how little you care than talking about a topic non-stop. If you don't care, then don't care. Just stop talking.

2) Soccer is here.

It is not dominating. It won't take over the NFL. However the NHL and depending on who you ask, even Major League Baseball might soon fall behind nationwide interest in soccer. There are definitely pockets of the country where it already has and those pockets might be expanding. There are statistics that say soccer is more popular amongst teenagers than baseball, as tweeter Bobby alludes to here:

@craighoffman this is the part that is overlooked. The 12-24 demo is watching more than ever and it will show over the next 15/20 years.
— Bobby Perry (@BddoyPerry74) July 2, 2014

Amongst my generation, which will soon be the money generation every company in this country is after, soccer is apart of our sporting culture. It just has an odd place. MLS's following is growing at a very solid, but not rapid pace. The morning EPL games are watched by a higher percentage of people than you'd think, but a 7:30 am start on the east coast means 4:30 am out west, so how many people are watching those games live? However the national teams (yes teams, women included) are must-watch television.

For the women it's really Olympics and World Cup only, but you could easily make the argument that the single biggest star in American soccer is Alex Morgan. It's harder to make that argument the day after Tim Howard reached American legend status, but Morgan's in more ads in this country year round than anybody on the men's national team.

When the men play though, no matter the meaning of the game, people are watching. Not the record numbers that ESPN garnered during the world cup, but people nonetheless. It's taken awhile, but soccer is here.

The "it's taken awhile" part is what the problem is for some. They refuse to recognize the revolution because it didn't happen overnight. Maybe revolution isn't even the right word. These things take time and that's exactly what Sedano eloquently expressed today and as my friend John Nolan poignantly points out here:

@craighoffman Yep. Really, it makes sense. Drastic, cultural change takes decades. (See: History.)
— John Nolan (@John_G_Nolan) July 3, 2014

So what now?

The Olympics are the next major tournament, but Olympic soccer is tricky and that's hard for the American sports fan to understand, especially post-dream team era. It's primarily an under-23 tournament (each team gets a few players over that age limit) so many of the names the average fan just learned won't be present for it. Most world soccer powers don't have stellar records. That said, many of the young guns who made an impact will. Deandre Yedlin was electrifying. He's 20. Julian Green's first touch was a goal that gave the US last minute hope. He's 19. The list goes on, and a big time American run could be a huge next step in part because most American's don't understand and quite frankly don't care about the U-23 implications.

Looking at the bigger picture though, there is a major problem for soccer in America that is worthy of discussion. In fact it should be at the center of discussion. It's going to take a person with much more knowledge than me to figure out the solution, but when I solicited tweets on the purposely generic topic of "the future of American soccer," it was one of the first responses I got from my co-worker Tyler Sloan.

@craighoffman Can soccer grow here when the best leagues & players are in Europe? Fans here can go to NFL NBA MLB NHL games & see the best.
— Tyler Sloan (@tsloan_17) July 2, 2014

What is best for the US National Team and what is best for MLS are in direct conflict.

Jurgen Klinsmann has said time and time again that he wants his players playing in Europe against the best competition. The reason is simple. There's no better way to get better. However the best Americans playing in Europe means the MLS is a minor league, even if it is AAA.

The ideal solution is that the world's best (American born or otherwise) flood MLS and it becomes another top tier league along with the English Premiere League, Spain's La Liga, Germany's Bundesliga and Italy's Serie A.

I think the best bet for that to happen is to start by convincing the best South American players that the US is a better stop for them than Europe. Right now those players are going to Europe. If you can convince say, Colombia's James Rodriguez (currently playing in France) that he doesn't need to switch hemispheres, we can get somewhere.

Clearly the best solution long term for American soccer is for the American league to be top notch. It's the first step in the cycle that ends with the USA being a world soccer power. A better American league leads to more American interest which leads to more of our best athletes choosing soccer. More of our best athletes choosing soccer means we're better at soccer. Duh.

Us being better at soccer means we have a better league and the cycle continues until good becomes great and we go from "can compete with anyone on a given night" to "expect to win."

The question to which I don't have the answer is how do we get there? Is the best short term step for our best to be playing against the better competition in Europe? When does the switch then happen where they need to come back to America?

Reality of life also enters the conversation. Clint Dempsey was a legitimately good player in the EPL for years before deciding to come back to the states and play for Seattle. Klinsmann wasn't happy about his decision, and understandably so. In a piece for ESPN, Dempsey explained the move had a lot to do with wanting to raise his family in the United States. That's hard logic to argue.

I don't know what the solution is, but I do know this is the conversation that smart people should be having. Whether or not there's interest and "does soccer matter?" isn't.

That conversation is pointless. As self-important as we think we are in the media, we're reliant on what fans want. We don't control the conversation. They do. We talk about what fans want. We don't talk about Lebron James, Johnny Manziel and other stars every day because we want to. We do it because research tells us that when we do, you watch and listen.

So if soccer numbers continue to rise and interest continues to grow, it becomes a part of the discussion more than once every four years. The conversation will shift from whether people are interested to actual discussion of what's going on like other sports.

Soccer isn't going to be #1 anytime soon and probably won't be in my lifetime, but that's okay. Only one thing can be number one. Do we talk about basketball like we currently talk about soccer because it's not football? Of course not. The goal shouldn't be domination. It should be participation, as in being a part of the regular conversation.

The game's growth is undeniable. We need patience though, and in the current microwave society, we have none of it. So instead we get people screaming how much they don't care and that that soccer will never matter and blah blah blah.

One of the other questions that does have merit is will this change anything in the short term? Can MLS and soccer in general get a boost from this World Cup? People asked the same question about the women's game after the 2011 World Cup. The WPS had historic attendance that summer. And then folded.

This is different though, as the infrastructure of the men's game worldwide as sturdy as could be. I know personally I will watch more. I've used this World Cup to learn more about the biggest stars in the game and I fully plan on watching them when they return to their clubs. I'll be more inclined to watch an MLS game and will certainly tune in for the weekend morning EPL matches. Will that win my TV over a basketball or football game? No, but that doesn't mean there hasn't been progress.

Patience, like soccer is something we're not great at in this country. Unlike patience though, at least soccer is trending in the right direction.

How The Mavs Lose the Big Free Agent and Win Free Agency

Half of the teams in the 2014 NBA Draft had eyes elsewhere as they made their selections. The Chicago Bulls traded their two picks for one pick to save cap space. To their credit, they also added a much needed piece in Doug McDermott to a team that desperately needs to add offense. Houston took a draft-and-stash guy in Clint Capela to keep extra cap space clear. The Knicks-Mavericks trade was Carmelo motivated in some way on both sides. Miami traded up for Shabazz Napier in part because LeBron likes him. 

The draft was just step one of these recruiting and cap motivated moves, yet all but two teams are making them in vain. Carmelo and LeBron can only play for one team a piece. 

So what to do if you don't get either of them? Let's call it Plan B.

However before Plan B, we first have to go back and examine the progression of Plan A.

People bashing the "hope plan" because the Mavs still have financial flexibility just don't understand the NBA in 2014. Were the Mavs supposed to have signed Vince Carter to a longer deal? I think when a guy's been hurt frequently during his career and he's going to be 37 when the deal ends, you did a good job. Dirk was signed for as long as he could have been. They timed Marion to end at the same time. That's not some pipe dream hope plan. That's really smart planning.

Then what? Is a team in a big market with great ownership, good players and an eye on a championship supposed to not take a swipe at the best players in the league? No. That'd be epically stupid. The key is to plan if you don't get them, but not trying to acquire them would be fireable offense.

So what's the plan when LeBron goes back to Miami and Carmelo goes to Chicago? Back to Plan B.

There are a lot of quality players who are being tossed around as guys who need to be moved for teams to create max cap space. Let's use Chicago as an example. They'll likely need to dump Mike Dunleavy and his $3 million dollar salary to create room for Carmelo. $3 million for a smart shooter who understands how to play and is good for 15-20 minutes a night? Sign me up!

What about bigger fish though? Oh sorry I forgot that term is despised in Dallas. Let's try "all-star caliber player." 

What if Golden State pulls a miracle and lands LeBron/Melo after completing the Kevin Love trade. In order to pull that off they need to dump Andre Iguadala. Forget signing free agent Luol Deng. I'll take Iguadala. That's probably your best case scenario. There are steps in-between too. If teams are going to salary dump good players, take the good players. Deandre Jordan is being floated out there if the Clippers make a run at LeBron. 

Plan B is simply this: use the cap space reserved for LeBron and Carmelo on multiple players that fit. The Mavs did this last year and made their team markedly better. The difference this year is that there are going to be bargains available as other teams scramble as opposed to signing "leftovers" like Samuel Dalembert. Granted, Monta Ellis fell into this category last year wound up being an incredible bargain, but he was a special case as he was considered damaged goods leaving Milwaukee.

The other thing to look for is restricted free agents. The Rockets likely have a handshake deal with Chandler Parsons that allows them to keep max cap space while he remains unsigned. When they chose not to pick up his option, he stays on their salary cap at the number that would have been so that the team retains his Bird Rights, allowing them to sign him going over the salary cap. Since Parsons was a former second round pick still on his rookie deal, that number is incredibly small. All Parsons has to do is not sign an offer sheet elsewhere, because that large number would replace his cap hold then until the Rockets make a decision on him. So how does that effect the Mavs?

If you're Dallas, wouldn't you offer Parsons a little more than he's probably worth and see if Parsons messes with the Rockets? His agent might push him to. Arn Tellum did this with Brook Lopez a few years ago as the Nets were trying to land Dwight as discussed in this podcast with ESPN's Brian Windhorst and Grantland's Zach Lowe. If Parsons accepts the Mavericks offer sheet, the Rockets then have to basically pick between losing Parsons or giving up their pursuit of Melo. If they give up on Parsons, the Mavs add a really good young player. If the Rockets give up their pursuit of Melo, that's one less team the Mavs have to compete with for him. Since the Mavs are highly unlikely to land Anthony, giving up their own pursuit of him isn't really giving up anything.

The point of all of this is the Mavericks have a ton of options. Clearly number one is to land Carmelo or LeBron, but if they don't, they could make some moves that make this off-season anything but a failure and they could do it by taking advantage of other teams who don't plan quite as well.

Why The 76ers Plan Isn't About Losing

The 76ers Plan: "Don't be good, be great"

The jokes flew Thursday night as the Philadelphia 76ers picked Joel Embiid at number three and Dario Saric at number ten in the 2014 NBA Draft. Embiid is a 7-foot center out of Kansas who has drawn comparisons to Hakeem Olojuwan. Saric was the best European player in the draft and many think he could be one of the top 3 players in this draft when it's all said and done. Seems smart, right?

So why the jokes? Neither player will play this season. Saric won't even be in the United States. He just signed a new deal with his Turkish League team that not only will keep him away this year, but the next year as well. Embiid has a broken navicular bone in his foot, an injury that has crippled more than a few big men over the years. It is highly unlikely he plays this season. 

So the worst team in the league had two picks in the top 10 and took two guys who won't play this year. And it was absolutely the right thing to do.

There is no one in the draft that could make the Sixers remotely competitive this upcoming season. That includes Andrew Wiggins and Jabari Parker who came off the board before Philly was on the clock at number three. In fact the only way the Sixers win anything next year is if LeBron likes he has an irrational love of cheesesteaks. However the Sixers brass has figured out what the rest of the league either refuses to acknowledge or is scared to: there is no point in being on the upper echelon of terrible.

With that knowledge in mind, the Sixers moved to the next step of their plan which was to aim as high as possible when they are ready to be good.

The NBA is the ultimate star driven league. You can make the playoffs without a superstar, but your'e not winning a championship without one. It's happened once since 1980 and that was a 2004 Pistons team that started 5 all-star caliber players in the primes of their careers in the absence of one of the league's best players. Not exactly a bunch of bums. The Sixers know they need stars, so they've drafted guys with the highest upside possible, no matter their floor.

It started last year with Nerlens Noel. He was coming off a torn ACL and didn't play all of last season, but in the worst draft in over a decade, why not take a player with the potential to be one of the best rim protectors in the league? They struck again at #11 with Michael Carter-Williams, a 6'6" point guard with loads of raw skill and a killer instinct. He was raw, but he turned into the rookie of the year (not something to brag heavily about in that rookie class, but something nonetheless). 

That brings us to Thursday where they took Embiid and Saric. If Embiid gets healthy, his unquestioned best case scenario is hall of fame center who plays both ends of the court in a dominant fashion. Talk about a high ceiling. Saric is a very skilled offensive player who makes plays for himself and others. He's not a great defender but on a team with Embiid, Carter-Williams and Noel that shouldn't be a problem. The Sixers also took high upside guys in the 2nd round including Jerami Grant, Carter-Williams teammate at Syracuse who would've been a lottery pick in many drafts with his elite athleticism and KJ McDaniels, a hyper athletic forward out of Clemson who could be a defensive stopper for years to come. They also took a few more European "draft-and-stash" players who they hope will develop into something in the future.

Of course it could all go wrong and in the short term, it's pretty brutal for the fan base. The team they put on the floor I'm not entirely sure could beat some of the all-time great college teams because it included guys who just weren't NBA players. In order to have a shot at the best talent, you have to be really bad and the Sixers took being really bad really seriously.

Long term, Carter-Williams could be soured by all the losing in the short term, develop bad habits and leave Philadelphia to try and reclaim his career. Noel and Embiid could have injury problems or just never be the same players. Saric could decide to stay Europe longer than expected and throw the timing of the whole plan off. There are possibilities in between too, but the Sixers have given themselves a chance.

Few organizations have the patience to do what Philadelphia is doing, but they're doing it right. They know they're not going to be good, so why try to be mediocre? Give yourself the best chance possible to great. That involves multiple shots at getting elite players which means being as bad as possible a few times, and more importantly swinging for the fences on draft picks. They've swung. Come back in three years and let's see if they've made contact.

Other Notes:

The Top - Congrats Cleveland!! You didn't eff it up! The Cavaliers got the player that best fits them, wants to be there and has been thought to be the best prospect in this draft for three years. Clearly the trade for Aaron Afflalo, the number four and number twelve picks was never on the table because there's no way in hell Orlando trades Afflalo for Evan Fournier and a 2nd rounder when they could've gotten #1. In hindsight for Cleveland if they wanted Embiid, that worked out because he wouldn't have been there. Which leads us to...

Things I like

I love what Orlando wound up doing at number four. They add Aaron Gordon there and Eflrid Payton at number ten (via trade with Philadelphia for Saric) to last year's first rounder Victor Oladipo and they're gonna be terrifying defensively if still together in a few years. I don't know how they score outside of transition but good luck scoring on them. I know a lot of Magic fans wanted Dante Exum, but if they now have a terrific base to build around.

My favorite draft of the night was the Celtics. Boston got Marcus Smart, which allows them to eventually trade Rajon Rondo after Smart learns the tricks of the trade from him, and then stole James Young at 17. Opposing point guards are going to hate playing the Celtics. The worst defender you might see all night is Rondo. Smart and Avery Bradley both need to become better shooters if they Celtics are going to win big with them as a backcourt, but they're going to be sensational defensively. Young has every raw skill you want and will get better in Boston under Brad Stevens.

The Bulls got a shooter and cleared cap space. Every bit of cap space is critical in the pursuit of Carmelo Anthony, but even if they don't get him they made their team better.

I liked what a lot of teams did which is kinda the point. It was hard to screw up last night because there were so many options both in players and trades. If you couldn't get what you reasonably wanted, you probably shouldn't have a GM job.

Things I don't like:

The Thunder were one of two teams where I went "what the hell are you doing?" Mitch McGary is a top 10 pick last year, a lottery pick this year if not for injury. That said, they passed on guys who can start for them this year and provide shooting where they DESPERATELY need it in favor of him. Why not draft PJ Hairston? He's their starting two-gaurd next year. Without question. So is Rodney Hood. At best McGary is a backup for Ibaka and Steven Adams. I guess they have Jeremy Lamb, but they still tons more shooting. Fisher's gone. And they were playing Derek freaking Fisher.

The other was the Raptors. When they selected Bruno Caboclo the universal "wtf?" was loud and in unison. Apparently they feared he'd be gone at 37 when they came around again so they took him at 20. ESPN's Fran Fraschilla said on the telecast "he's two years away from being two years away." Well then if someone wants to take him, go right ahead. They must REALLY like him. It's the ultimate upside pick. Maybe Raptors GM Masai Ujiri knows something we all don't. It wouldn't be the first time. However the value they go seemed to be terrible so no matter how good the pick is, it doesn't make sense that they wouldn't trade back at least a few spots. 

The Mavs traded both of their picks to the Knicks in the Tyson Chandler deal. The first pick turned into Cleanthony Early who could've been the backup small forward last year as an upgrade over Jae Crowder. I knew I didn't like those picks being in that trade.

On To Free Agency

Free Agency is going to be absolute madness. Look forward to it. Tomorrow I'll post on how the Mavs can take advantage of teams who are big game hunting. Until then, tweet your thoughts on this column to me @craighoffman and if you liked it, share it with a friend. Thanks for reading and check back tomorrow.

One Last Thing - Kevin Durant

Every Saturday at 4:50 pm, I share "One Last Thing" on Hoffman and Platt. It's an essay on a topic that caught my eye during the week. This week I chose to shine a unique light on Kevin Durant coming off one of the best months in NBA history. Listen to Hoffman and Platt Saturdays at 2 pm on 103.3 FM ESPN.

Towards the start of the season, I said the gap between LeBron James as the best player in the world and Kevin Durant as the 2nd best was wider than that between Durant and Paul George, who I consider the 3rd best player. I was wrong. I was really really wrong.

The evolution of Kevin Durant's game is staggering and James is having his relative worst year in a long time (read: still better than basically everyone, but not as good as previous years), in large part because he's conserving energy for May and June. But this is more about Durant. Many players get better, but the elite get better at what they're good at and add different facets. This is what has made James the player he is. Not only has he become a better shooter from all areas, but he's added a post-game and worked on his left hand and become the best defender in the league.

Durant's worked out with James in the off-seasons, but being by greatness doesn't guarantee it. Whatever the reason, Durant has added too, taking advantage of a thought impossible skill set and maybe maximizing it. I say maybe because the thought that he could be much better is absolutely terrifying.

People don't realize how big Kevin Durant is. At All-Star Weekend a few years back, he and Chris Bosh were walking down a hallway as the collective media who saw them suddenly realized Durant was taller. He's every bit of 6'11" playing the small forward position meaning he's always got the height advantage. This means, especially with his lightning quick release, that he's always shooting into clean airspace. He's got an unobstructed view of the hoop as he shoots. It's the same thing helps Dirk Nowitzki as a shooter. It's also going to help Andrew Wiggins when he gets into the NBA because he gets off the floor so quickly on his jumper.

Durant's always been a shooter though and what's made him make that leap is Durant's progression as a ballhandler. Big guys don't dribble because science says they shouldn't. The taller you are, the farther the ball has to travel from your hand to the floor. That's more space and time for a defender to steal the ball. This is why guards are always taught to keep a low dribble. Despite being nearly seven feet tall, Durant's arms are so long he can keep that low dribble. He's also worked and worked in the off-seasons to speed up his dribble, eliminating that time for defenders to swipe the ball.

The long arms also make his crossover possibly the most lethal move in the NBA. You want to reach? Go ahead. His arms are longer than yours and you can't reach that far. A defender assumes if a player extends the ball that far in one direction, he's going that way. And then Durant with one swipe comes back. The defender leans. Durant has space. He also has two or three more of his at least 30 points.

Or maybe he drives, gets into the lane and dishes to a wide open teammate. During his January for the ages, he averaged 6 assists per game. He's averaging almost eight rebounds per game on the season. He's very much a plus defender on one of the best defensive teams in the league. He's a complete player and this is the fun time to remind you that he's only 25.

Wednesday night, Durant and James dueled. It was the opposite of what many probably expected. James outscored Durant while Durant's team ran away with the win on Miami's home court. In the end, James is still the better player when it's time to turn it on, but the gap has closed considerably and Durant is absolutely the MVP so far this year.

If you didn't get a chance to watch him in the last month, you missed out. He's always up to the moment and whether it's dueling with Steph Curry or dancing 1-on-1 versus LeBron, Durant was full of them in January. His streak of twelve straight 30 point games ended Friday night in Brooklyn because he didn't play fourth quarter. If you've missed out though, it's not the end of the world. Again. He's only 25. This could just be a start.

1-25 Hoffman and Platt

Jeff and I are live today at 2 pm CST on 103.3 FM in Dallas and online here. Follow along on twitter @craighoffman and @jeffplatt. We'll also be taking a lot of calls today at 855-787-1033. Here's what we're doing:

2:00 - Mavs: recapping a disappointing roadtrip

2:15 - Josh Brent discussion

2:30 - Trey Wingo, ESPN's NFL Live 

2:45 - Best of 6 Pack

3:00 - Let’s Fix The Mavs: Call us with your reasonable Mavericks solutions at 855-787-1033

3:15 - Do the Cowboys have a new playcaller?

3:30 - Josh Brent: your thoughts at 855-787-1033

3:45 - Does the NBA play too many games? Read Henry Abbot's article we'll discuss here.

4:00 - Cowboys: Recapping a week of perplexing comments at the Senior Bowl

4:15 - Talk To Me: You call. We answer. And that's about it. 855-787-1033

4:30 - More Mavs discussion and our NBA Power Rankings.

4:45 - One Last Thing - How to actually advance the racial discussion in America

We hope you'll join us!

Random Rumblings - 4/5/13

I can't remember a Final Four week quite like this. Normally we spend the entire week breaking down the games and learning the stories of the players, or if you follow the sport hearing the same stories you've heard all year be told all over again. This week the talk about the games had been at a minimum thanks to two bombshell stories in college hoops.

Mike Rice out at Rutgers

The video of now former Rutgers coach Mike Rice throwing basketballs at his players and verbally abusing them is horrifying on many levels. Let's strip away the context for a moment. What on earth possesses you to think that's an acceptable way to treat another human being? Sports are emotional and when the testosterone gets flowing, there's no limit to stupidity however that's no excuse for how he acted. Add back in the context that a college coach should be a leader of young men and a positive influence and it becomes more disgusting.

A name that's not being brought up in this situation is Tyler Clementi. "Who?" you ask. Clementi was the gay Rutgers student who committed suicide after being bullied. This was a chance for Rutgers to prove they're serious about anti-bullying and anti-homophobic words and actions and they screwed the pooch royally by not firing Rice immediately the first time around. The fact that it took for the video becoming public for Rice to lose his job more than justifies everyone involved in that initial decision being shown the door with him.

For more reaction on the Rice situation here's CitrusTV's Kevin Barry and Chris Lewis from Atlanta:




Pac-12 Officiating

The other controversy is over Pac-12 supervisor of officials Ed Rush making comments that potentially changed Arizona's season. Rush told officials that if they T'd up Wildcats coach Sean Miller, they'd be rewarded. He said he was joking. Many in the room said they didn't think he was. What Rush doesn't seem to understand is that perception is reality and there's no doubt his words effected the officials on the court who must stay in his good graces to get the best games. By many accounts Rush is a bully. Also worth noting:

Ed Rush ran NBA officiating during some of the most dubiously reffed NBA playoff games ever (1998-2003). And now... cbsprt.co/Yrsvae
— Bill Simmons (@BillSimmons) April 1, 2013

Rush resigned but I don't think this story is over yet.

The Injury

Everyone now knows who Kevin Ware is, the Louisville guard suffered a gruesome broken leg against Duke. A few things.

1) The replay shouldn't be shown on television ever. There's zero reason to show it. I'm one of those people who gets queazy and squeamish with injuries like that and I saw it live. I was petrified of going on the internet all week for fear someone would post it. There's no reason to show it at all. If someone wants to see it for whatever reason they can find it online. Simply saying "his leg snapped" is enough for the story.

2) For as bad as this injury looked, it's actually "not that bad" when you look at the long term prognosis. Easy for me to say. Doctors say Ware's injury (a compound fracture) should heal completely somewhere between 6 months and a year. Since it was a clean break (actually breaks), they stick a rod in his leg and reset the bone. It heals back and he rehabs and he goes. There's no lingering effects unlike when you're talking about ligaments and such in the joints.

3) Louisville is making shirts for this weekend at the players request to honor Ware. They are selling them. This is making a lot of people mad. I'm not one of them. The university waived all royalties which I actually think was too much. Louisville is paying Ware's medical bills so if they make a little coin off the injury then fine. Adidas is making the shirts so they deserve to get their cut just like any other shirt. In fact this isn't unprecedented territory as similar campaigns have been done for Adidas pro athletes Derrick Rose and Robert Griffin III. The only B.S. part of this to me is that Ware won't make anything and can't thanks to the NCAA. If I was a Cardinal fan, I'd want to buy this shirt so I have zero problem with its existence. It's just a shame that Ware won't see a cut of it directly.

4) By Louisville waiving the royalty, they are acknowledging the shirt is in honor of Ware. This likely will show up in the O'Bannon vs NCAA lawsuit about the NCAA benefitting of using player likenesses to make money. It should. Amateurism is a sham. The system is dying. Hopefully it kicks the bucket soon.

5) For more on how Louisville has handled the Ware injury, here's Kevin Barry in Atlanta:


Can we just play ball?

Based on all of what's above, you'd think this would be about all the superflous crap that's happened this week and has distracted and detracted from the games. It's not. It's about my experience at the Thunder/Spurs game Thursday night.

From the opening tap to the final buzzer, with the exception of free throws, there was noise in that arena. I'm not talking about the tremendous fans who love their team with a fierce loyalty like few fanbases in the NBA. No, I'm talking about the constant sound effects, manufactured cheers and music that were literally non-stop during the game. It was almost unbearable. You know what makes the "de-fense" chant cool? When it happens organically. When the home team needs a big stop and the crowd unites as one to root on their team. You know when it's not cool? Every single possession.

I don't know who decided in the course of NBA history that a giving a soundboard to someone and saying "if this isn't playing sound, you're fired" was a good idea, but that person isn't my favorite. You know what sounds I want to hear at a basketball game? The ball. Sneakers. Players. Coaches. Fans. That's about it. Notice how referees are not included.

Sunday night is ladies night

I've told you all year how great the UConn vs Notre Dame rivalry is and they play again for a fourth time in the Final Four Sunday night. This is your final reminder to watch it. 8:30 est on ESPN.

Fake Trade That Will Never Happen But Should

The NBA's trade deadline is today at 3 pm and I have a deal that I love the more I think about, but it will simply never happen. Why? It makes too much sense. And one of the players involved wouldn't waive his no-trade clauses but it would never get to that point because there's just zero chance of the GM's coming together to make it happen. But it should. Because it would make all three teams better. Holy blockbuster here's the deal and yes, the salaries work:

Lakers get:
G Rajon Rondo (BOS)
F Jeff Green (BOS)
F Lamar Odom (LAC)

Celtics get:
C Dwight Howard (LAL)
G Steve Nash (LAL)
G Eric Bledsoe (LAC)

Clippers get:
F Kevin Garnett (BOS)

That's it. That's the trade. Every name you've heard from these teams in trade rumors (plus Nash and Odom) all for each other and somehow with all the zillions of trade restrictions in the NBA, it actually works. Here are the positives and negatives for all involved.

Lakers

The first and biggest mental hurdle of this trade is the Lakers willingness to trade Howard. They insist they're not. I've long said they should and this deal in particular makes sense for multiple reasons. The reason you keep Howard is he gives you a next superstar after Kobe Bryant retires. By getting Rondo, you get that and you do so at a position of need. While Nash has been alright offensively this year, he's never been a great defensive player. Rondo is better than Nash at both ends at this point in their careers and in the point guard heavy western conference, having a stopper at that position is essential.

Unlike Howard, he has the competitive drive to keep up with Bryant and while "every night Rondo" is different than "national TV Rondo" he never fails to show up for big games and that would resonate with Bryant. Now for the thing you didn't think of.

If the Lakers keep Howard, they have to fire Mike D'Antoni for reasons well documented (they hate each other). D'Antoni's on a multi-year deal. The Lakers are still paying Mike Brown. They'd have to hire a new coach (and would flirt with the uber-expensive Phil Jackson). That's a whole lot of money. So who could possibly run Mikey D's system?

What is needed is a younger Steve Nash. I pass-first point guard with an outstanding handle who looks to pass first but can also score. Also known as Rajon Rondo. Nash was/is a much better shooter than Rondo (understatement) but Rondo puts pressure on a defense much like Nash did which opens the passing angles that pick-and-rolled Nash to two MVP trophies. By also adding Green, the Lakers get younger and more athletic at the four spot. Green's a stretch four too which is essential to D'Antoni's system. Pau Gasol shifts to center. Earl Clark and Green play the four or Green can play some at the three for the most athletic lineup the Lakers have had in years. Bada boom. Bada bing. You don't have to fire D'Antoni and the only financial hell you're in is your luxury tax instead of players and coaches dismembering the Buss family bank account.

Is it a perfect, fool-proof plan? Of course not. Rondo and Bryant could butt heads as to who's the alpha-male much like Rondo has with Pierce. Unlike with Pierce, Rondo would lose this battle and who knows how he would handle it. Rondo could also look at all the other guys who think D'Antoni is clueless, not listen to him and not come close to the production Nash enjoyed in Phoenix. While Rondo can lock in defensively, he likes to gamble much like Bryant which could cause very inconsistent defensive play and Gasol isn't exactly an elite rim protector like Bryant used to have with Bynum/younger Gasol/Odom or Rondo has had in KG.

If my options are "keep malcontent Howard and either have to fire a coach/lose him for nothing this summer" or "guarantee something to build around, not have Russell Westbrook, Tony Parker and Chris Paul dribble in circles around me in the playoffs and get the added bonus of not kill my finances," I'll take the latter. Does it wave the white flag on this season cause Rondo's hurt? Probably, but the Lakers are about titles and if you think this team is winning a title this year, you haven't been paying attention.

Celtics

The Celtics are willing to trade Rondo in part because they realize their window is closing as fast as the Lakers is with Bryant. They weren't very good this year with Rondo and are playing better now without him (hooray ball movement!) but in the playoffs they'll miss him if they don't make a move. Unlike the Lakers who are trying to compete in the point-guard heavy west with the Spurs, Thunder and Clippers, the C's have one opponent in mind: Miami. What's the way everyone thinks is best to beat Miami? Size.

By bringing in Howard, Boston at worst stays neutral or more likely upgrades defensively over KG depending on Dwight's back. Maybe not competing with Green for minutes re-inspires Brandon Bass and you don't wind up missing Green at all and it also creates an interesting backcourt dynamic. Courtney Lee moves to the bench and you start Nash with Avery Bradley. It's a small backcourt but who has two supreme offensive guards? Milwaukee, who's trying to trade one. So no one and it's not a problem. Bradley guards the more explosive offensive guard (Wade, Raymond Felton/JR Smith, Paul George, etc) while Nash can stand in the corner with Ronnie Brewer and Mario Chalmers. I love Mario as a spot up guy, but if the offense is being run through him and not Wade/LeBron, advantage not Miami.

Lee then comes in with Jason Terry who can spark the second unit (again thinking the "new role, stop playing like garbage" theory here) while Lee can be your traditional pressure the ball 94 feet backup point guard.

You miss the leadership of KG but gain a lot of it back in Nash. There's potential tension between Pierce and Howard but if you convince Dwight that Pierce is a billiondy times better version of Hedo Turkoglu whom he took to The Finals in '09 maybe they play nice. Also, Doc Rivers isn't exactly Mike D'Antoni at managing egos. Which is a good thing.

Clippers

If the Clippers make it out of the west and meet Miami in The Finals, do you feel good about their chances? As we saw last year with OKC and really Miami before that, there's a process in the NBA and you have to learn to win. This group of Clippers is just too young and outside of Chris Paul and Chauncey Billups, them coming up short on a big stage wouldn't be shocking. Enter KG.

While it would no doubt still be Paul's team, Garnett would provide some experience amongst the bigs and his presence might do even more in the long-term development of Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan (who I managed to keep in LA doing this deal) than help LA this season. From a basketball standpoint, he also provides them stability in late game situations. Right now you're scared to play Jordan or Blake, nevertheless both, late in games because each is a horrific free throw shooter. Add in the fact that neither is an elite defender and the decision to play Garnett over one of them is easy.

While no one's talking about it, Dwight Howard isn't the only superstar in LA with an expiring contract. Paul's deal is up when the season ends as well and it makes sense that maximizing this year's playoff run maximizes the chances Paul resigns. While you give up uber potential in Bledsoe, you've got plenty of guard depth and he's a backup guard. Is he one of the best backup guards in the league? Yes, but he's a backup guard. This logic also applies to Lamar Odom who might actually be the deal breaker (see below).

Why it doesn't happen

Nash signed in LA this summer so that he could be close to his kids in Phoenix. While he doesn't have a no-trade clause, the Lakers aren't trading him even though this move makes a ton of sense as it would be a horrible look for the organization. That kind of classlessness could set off Kobe too and how the Lakers come off after the passing of Dr. Jerry Buss is important. Garnett does have a no-trade clause and has said he's not going anywhere unless the Celtics trade Pierce, which they wouldn't do because in this scenario they're still going for it this year, just without Garnett.

Odom is the interesting piece. I had to throw him in for salary purposes but that's actually the closest thing to a deal breaker in this whole thing because trading him away takes away such a unique piece of the Clippers bench, their biggest strength and gives more to the Lakers who lack it, making one of your rivals stronger. The argument to do it anyway is Garnett is an upgrade on Odom on both ends, Jordan becomes a bench player because KG takes his starting spot and to hell with the Lakers because you think you're the better team and can beat them.

You could also do this trade subbing Jordan for Odom. The salaries still work and the Clippers keep an experienced piece in Odom while giving up a guy who still has a lot of potential and is definitely getting better in Jordan. You're basically sacrificing future for present. While the thought of another young, athletic piece for the Lakers is exciting if they keep D'Antoni, the chance to re-unite Bryant, Gasol and Odom along with the fact that Odom's on a one-year deal is probably more appealing to the Lakers. Either way, I'd pull the trigger if I'm any of these teams.

The reality is this trade will never ever be discussed nevertheless happen. If it were somehow to make it to the right desks though, who (besides Garnett), says no?

One and done with it

Nearly everyone hates the one and done rule in college hoops. All year we've heard that it's hurt the quality of play in college basketball because there is very limited top-flight talent. That's true. While there have been an inordinate amount thrilling finishes that can be chalked up to this newfound parity, close games don't equate to good basketball. There is no better example than the 5 OT Louisville vs Notre Dame classic from Saturday night. The first 39 minutes were garbage and the overtimes weren't exactly well played despite the undeniable drama.

Now people are upset with the one and done rule for a different reason after Kentucky freshman Nerlens Noel tore his ACL Tuesday night in Florida. The projected #1 pick is out for the season and his status as the #1 pick is more than up in the air. The result is people saying that the NBA is wrong for not letting Noel and others go straight to the league from high school like they used to be able to. "The NBA is preventing them from making a living." 

First and foremost this statement is patently false. The NBA is preventing players like Noel who think they're ready to make the jump to pro ball from going to the NBA, not from making a living playing basketball. Brandon Jennings didn't want to play college basketball and he went to Italy for a year before entering the NBA Draft. He still was a lottery pick when his time came to shake David Stern's hand.

Secondly, the NBA has every right to do this, just like any other company in any other industry. Chances are if you're reading this you're not an NBA player so think of whatever industry you're in. I'll use my industry for comparison's sake and me as a specific example.

The NBA is a business, just like yours

By the time I was completing my junior year in college, I was ready to be a professional radio host. In fact, I was probably better than at least half of the hosts on stations nationwide. However without my degree, I wasn't deemed ready and in fact I would have been deemed a liability having not yet taken a media law class.

If some station had taken a chance on me, there was super potential. Not being in school and getting reps daily, I could have focused solely on my craft (some would argue I did this anyway and to hell with my schoolwork...hi mom!) and grown at a much faster rate than I was. As long as I avoided getting the station sued, it could have easily been a worthwhile investment. It would have been a risk for me not having a degree to fall back on (although, unlike a basketball player my degree would have been in my industry, not something else) but the general accepted standard of broadcast journalism is you have a degree and are of a certain age before you start working as a professional.

Even now, as I'm on the job hunt again, networks like ESPN and CBS have determined that I'm not ready for that stage yet. I don't have the experience. I'm not old enough. I haven't seen enough.

So why is the NBA, the highest level of professional basketball that exists, any different? It's not. Which is why the one and done rule is stupid. It should be two years, when kids have really had a chance to develop, get some bumps and bruises in the college game (or overseas) and are mature enough to handle the independence of NBA life.

The correct rebuttal against this argument is not "LeBron James was ready for the NBA." The correct rebuttal is "if ESPN thought you were ready, they could hire you while the NBA couldn't hire Nerlens Noel." I understand that and fully acknowledge that many high school players have gone on to great NBA careers. From KG to Kobe to Lebron, the examples are there and of course there are also the examples guys who have been mediocre (Sebastian Telfair) or worse (Ndubi Ebi anyone?).

So why is the rule fair? Sports owners have long proven they can't help themselves when it comes to potential. No matter how a CBA is written, owners will find ways to hand out stupid contracts. Why did NBA owners push so hard for shorter contracts in the last negotiations? Because that way when they handed out stupid contracts, they would only kill their franchises for a half a decade instead of a full one. Hell, they had the amnesty clause so they could get out of a bad contract entirely (at least in terms of the salary cap) because there were so many they had already given out.

The Proof

The more time there is to evaluate a player, the less mistakes you'll make so the one and done rule serves as a safety net for the NBA to make more educated investments. Don't believe me? Here are the #1 overall picks since 2007 when the rule took hold: Greg Oden, Derrick Rose, Blake Griffin, John Wall, Kyrie Irving and Anthony Davis. The only bust? Oden who's bust is totally injury related and 1000% magnified by the fact that the guy picked after him was Kevin Durant.

The honest truth is, there have been very few high school guys who have been ready for the NBA. Plenty have had great careers, but with the exception of LeBron, most weren't ready to contribute right away. Making a James go to school for a year and risking they get hurt happens far less than a Kwame Brown coming through where you don't really know what you're getting into.

Want further proof? Fab Melo would have been a top 10 if not top 5 pick purely on potential coming out of school. Scouts needed one year at Syracuse to see he wasn't ready. The same with Dion Waiters whose years under Jim Boeheim helped him come into the NBA ready to contribute and likely on a better career trajectory than if he hadn't been straightened out on the hill. 

Would these two have been better off toiling away on an NBA bench or playing college ball? Unquestionably the latter. While it may have cost them two years of salary, going to school was better for both of their careers and that has nothing to do with their education. This means you can skip the Fab Melo jokes.

Players Play, Owners Own

At the end of the day, it's the owners’ league and they get to make the rules. The players can fight for their rights, but what qualifies you to work is something set by the employer in any industry. It's why the 19-year-old age limit exists and why David Stern wants it upped to 20. Believe it or not, there's a massive jump from playing 20 games against dudes many of whom I could run with in high school to 82 against the best in the world.

Do I feel bad for Noel? Of course. By nearly any account he’s a great kid and there’s a chance he just lost a few million. However this doesn’t make me mad at the NBA for not letting him play. While this overall argument is admittedly up for debate, “who are we made at?” when it comes to Noel shouldn’t be.

We should be mad at the NCAA – the organization that allowed the stanchion Noel ran into to be so close to the court and isn’t paying him a dime. This of course is despite the millions of dollars he’ll make for Kentucky and the “non-profit organization” that they are.

As for Noel, he should quit Kentucky’s team and hire an agent today. There are no rules prohibiting him from rehabbing at Kentucky if he’s not a part of the team and since he’s not going to put on a Wildcat uniform again, he might as well get the best treatment and advice he can. Sound wrong? Feel wrong? If David Stern had his way, that wouldn’t be an option because Noel would be back next year and couldn’t give up his eligibility.

In the end, it's a really dicey issue because athletes have such a limited window for maximizing their earning potential. There's a very strong argument to be made for letting a high school kid make the jump because cutting a year or two off his NBA career means cutting a significant percentage off his max earning potential. Cutting a year off a 10-year career is 10%. That's a lot.

However the NBA is making major investments in these players and they have every right to set the minimum working requirements for their company. It's the elite of the elite. They should have standards.

Now getting mad at the NCAA? I'm all for that.