PSB's First Blargument

In case you weren't one of the five people who saw Brian and Patrick's initial "Re:" war, let me tell you that they went back and forth rebutting each other regarding Brian's trade machine post, wherein he proposed a 3-way trade that would send Shaq and Nash to Dallas, Kidd, Erick Dampier and Jameer Nelson to Phoenix and Jason Terry to Orlando. Well, I decided to condense their little sissyfight into one organized post. Incidentally, this sort of back-and-forth argument is something Patrick and I have wanted to start up for a while, so I figured I would start now. Based off of Brian's original post, I present to you, PSB's First Blargument!

Patrick

Dude, why in the world would the Suns make this trade? It would be a big, hearty "f-you" to the entire fan base, it would guarantee that they wouldn't contend for a title, and improves no part of the problems (inability to keep people out of the lane - Tony Parker killed them, not Duncan - and poor outside shooting) that led them to lose this year. For all my grousing about the Suns, they were Tim Duncan's only trey of the year away from being tied 2-2 going into game 5. A core of Nash (assuming he doesn't continue his regression, which is a big assumption), Amare, Shaq, Hill, Bell, Giricek, Diaw etc. is still good enough to compete out in the west. And, in regards to non-basketball performance issues, the ownership would have to be nuts to trade ticket and merchandise sellers Nash and Shaq for Jason "beats his wife with bricks" Kidd and Eric "man in a dress" Dampier. This trade turns the Suns into a 40, 45 win team, which in the ultra-competitive West may mean you're out of the dance. I'm not sold on Orlando making this trade either. Is 31 year old (when next year starts) Jason Terry at 9 million a year a better fit than 26 year old Jameer Nelson? The Magic just extended him, are they really going to trade him for a guy who could stagnate their entire offense and can't guard anybody? They have enough shooters (Turkoglu, Lewis). I enjoy the trade machine as much as the next guy, but Brian, enjoy it responsibly. Otherwise you're just that guy at the party who drinks half a bottle of Jameson's, breaks the stereo, gropes the co-eds and ends the night sleeping on the bathroom floor. And you don't want to be that guy. Trust me.

Read the headline. I said it "won't" happen. I agree the Suns don't make out well (though I figure there would be draft picks involved as well to sweeten the deal), but it's not totally ridiculous. Kidd's contract comes off the books a year before Shaq and Nash and Dampier is probably just as good as Shaq at this point. Yes they become less competitive, but the point is that they try to cut their losses and go for cap room and any decent young player they can get their hands on, rather than try in vain to compete for a title next year. After Kidd's contract is up, they'd have some cap room, or at least a big expiring contract to work with. Then they could rebuild around Stoudemire, Diaw, and Barbosa. I think Orlando makes the move as well. Whether or not they should is another story, since as you said, Nelson's a lot younger than Terry. But all they've done the last year or two is surround Dwight Howard with shooters, so I could see them adding Terry. If you've got a better way to improve the Suns, I'd like to hear it. I should at least get credit for trying. That's more than Steve Kerr will likely do, short of firing Mike D'Antoni, which would be a big mistake. I guess I'm saying that I'd rather be the guy who gropes co-eds in a drunken stupor than the guy who stands in the corner awkwardly and doesn't talk to anyone.

Brian

Patrick

Unfortunately, your response is so riddled with fallacies I simply couldn't let it go without further fisking. You: "I agree the Suns don't make out well (though I figure there would be draft picks involved as well to sweeten the deal), but it's not totally ridiculous." Me: Yes it is totally ridiculous. Jason Kidd, while a solid player, is simply not as good as Steve Nash. He is a better defender (though he, like Nash, has no chance against the PGs in the West) and a dramatically inferior offensive player. Nash averaged 17 ppg and 11 asst, shooting 50% from the floor, 47% from 3 and 90% from the line. Jason Kidd averaged 10 and 10, 82% from the line, 38% from 3 and 39% from the field. And that's just one piece: You: "...Dampier is probably just as good as Shaq at this point." Shaq this year (the worst of his career, where he played half the year fat, listless, and hurt): 13.6 ppg, 9.1 rbds, 1.4 blocks, 59% from the field. Erick "probably just as good as Shaq" Dampier: 6.1 ppg, 7.5 rbds, 1.5 blocks, 64% from the field (a mark significantly helped by the fact that he only touches the ball on the offensive end when he gets an offensive rebound). Let's extend that to the playoffs, where Shaq was, for long stretches, the best player on the floor for Phoenix: Shaq: 15.2 ppg, 9.2 boards, Dampier: 3.6 ppg, 4.2 boards. Come on. You: "Yes they become less competitive, but the point is that they try to cut their losses and go for cap room and any decent young player they can get their hands on." Me: Erick Dampier has three more years on his contract after this one, and in 2010-2011 will be making more than 13 million dollars. Steve Nash's contract is not guaranteed after next year, it is actually a team option for 2009-2010 at 13 million, and next year he brings in just over 12 million, or 9 million dollars less than Kidd. This trade will save the Suns 10 million in 2009-2010, yes, but in the process you're trading away two of the most popular players in the league, giving up on being competitive for the next three years, alienating a fan base and potentially a superstar. You: "If you've got a better way to improve the Suns, I'd like to hear it." Me: If things break right for the Suns, they are a title contender next year without doing anything. Your trade eliminates that possibility. If the Suns target a solid defensive guard with their exception, someone who can guard the opposing team's PG competently and shoot the three (Someone from Mickael Pietrus, Quinton "my first choice" Ross, Tony Allen, James Posey, Anthony Carter mold), and for once actually hold on to and use their own draft picks trade into the first round and target someone like Mario Chalmers (If only this team had actually used their own picks, imagine a team with Rondo backing up Nash and guarding the other teams best offensive guard), they'll be in great shape, as long as Nash holds up and Shaq continues playing motivated basketball. This team played stretches of excellent basketball last year, if they can sustain that into next season they're a definite contender. If they make that trade, they're an also-ran that isn't quite bad enough to get a high draft pick (which, knowing the owner, they'd just trade anyway). You are advocating illogical action under the false pretense that it's always better to do something than nothing. Extending our molestation metaphor far beyond its limits, you may rather be the drunken guy randomly groping co-eds, but in the morning you'll wake up with a hangover and a restraining order (see: no shot to win the title) and the guy in corner mustered up the guts to walk to visibly shaken molestee home and wind up with her number in the process. P.S. just to let you know, I started my initial rebuttal as a comment, the realized that A) it was getting too big and B) I should expose your ignorance as prominently as possible. And points for trying? What is this, the Chappaqua recreational basketball league for grades 4-6? Please.

There's an underlying point that should be made. Whether or not the trade I suggested is a viable option, what this comes down (or perhaps should come down to) is a debate over whether or not the Suns are a legitimate championship contender next year. You seem to think they are, but I'm curious as to what you're basing that logic on. Sure, if Duncan misses that three in Game 1 then it's a totally different series and maybe the Suns advance to the second round. But do you honestly think they were going all the way with this team? The Hornets would have flat out killed them in round two. They can't defend at all now that Marion is gone and it's only going to get worse. Nash is getting worse and Shaq is getting useless, and how much longer is Shaq even going to play? Not to mention they got a shockingly healthy season from Grant Hill... and they still finished with the 6 seed. Granted, the West was ridiculously competitive this year, but who is going to get worse besides the aging Suns? The Spurs might drop off a bit with old age, but people say that every year. The Mavs could get worse, but they finished below Phoenix anyway. The Hornets, Jazz, Rockets, and Lakers all stand to improve, and that's not even counting up-and-coming teams that missed the playoffs like the Blazers. And what do you mean "if things break right" the Suns are a title contender next year? "If things break right" doesn't mean anything. Maybe it works in college basketball or the NFL playoffs where it's single elimination and luck is a factor, but in seven game series, the best teams almost always win. The Suns can make excuses all they want that Duncan got lucky on his shot or whatever else, but if the Suns were so great, it wouldn't come down to that last shot. They would have maintained a lead. If you want to count on everything breaking right, then that's great, but odds are some things will break wrong in an average season. The Suns were exceptionally lucky this year and they still didn't get to the Finals. Not to mention they'll probably have a new coach next year because Steve Kerr needs somebody to take the fall after the Shaq trade. And you're right, it'd be just super if the Suns used their own draft picks, but they haven't and why would that change in the immediate future? And do you really think Mario Chalmers is the answer to anything but the trivia question "Name a black guy from Alaska besides Carlos Boozer?" If you want to believe that this Suns team can get it done, or that they're just a few pieces away, then that's a whole other story, but you need to back that up before telling me that my argument is that "it's better to do something than nothing." I'm not saying the Suns make my trade, I'm saying they need to make a trade and cut their losses, getting some value out of Nash and Shaq while they still can. And one more thing: I will not have you insulting the Chappaqua recreational basketball league for grades 4-6 (or CRBL as we call it). Just show some goddamn respect.

Brian

Patrick

Alright Brian, here's why I think the Suns have a shot (though I did already give some explanation of what meant when I said "if things break right" but clearly you can't be expected to read every sentence when you're too busy enjoying the scent of your own farts): Yes, the Suns were the 6 seed, as you so derogatorily pointed out earlier. They were also a 6 seed that finished 2 games back of the 1 seed and won 55 games, despite undergoing a huge transition in the middle of the season that changed everything about their style of play. Prior to the Shaq trade, against the 8 best teams in the west, they were a combined 5-10. After the trade, they were 7-8, but 6-3 in their last nine. Amare Stoudemire is still one of the most dynamic offensive weapons in the game (maybe he can develop some semblance of a 15 footer this offseason), and Steve Nash is still a top tier PG. Shaq, especially down the final stretch of the season, really took a liking to his new role, and gives the Suns a fantastic defensive rebounder and an above average defender in the low-post, as well as a guy you can throw the ball into in the half-court. They'll still have complementary weapons like Diaw, Barbosa, Hill, Bell, and a full season to accustom Gordon Giricek (an excellent shooter and underrated defender) to the offense. Adding a terrific perimeter defender like Quentin Ross would fill the team's one void and make them as dangerous as any team in the West. But fine, let's say you're right, and the Suns start off next year slow and out of it. Are you telling me the best the Suns can get for Steve Nash is Jason Kidd, Erick Dampier and Jameer Nelson? They should be shopping Nash to team on the brink of contention that's in desperate need of a PG. How about Nash to the Clippers for Shaun Livingston (they'll have to pick up his option), Corey Maggette and the Clips number 1 this year? Or, if it's a mid season pick, 2 number ones? Or Nash to Indiana for Mike Dunleavy Jr. and Danny Granger plus picks. Or Nash to Portland for Steve Blake, Travis Outlaw, Martell Webster and a pick. Or Nash to Toronto for Calderon (who would sign a new contract) and Bargnani. Or hell, why not Nash straight to Orlando for Nelson, Battie, Redick and a pick? Why help the Mavs? Any one of those trades gives the Suns a core of young players far superior to the trade you described. They should just let Shaq's contract run out, since, as you so presciently pointed out, Shaq's contract happens to end just in time for the Bosh, Melo, Wade, Lebron free agent class. Dampier's does not. The Suns clearly have the talent to make a run in the West next year, and while it's true that age may ravage them, they'd be better off trading Nash separately to a contender, holding onto Shaq and targeting one of the big 4 free agents after the 2009-2010 season. I'm sorry to have so thoroughly destroyed your on our well trafficked blog, but here at PSB, we value the truth above all else. Right Tom Selleck?

Always.

Tom Selleck

So there you have it, folks. Who won? I think it was mighty close, but, as always, Tom came out on top.

The Genesis of the Conspiracy of Mikes?

Note the child molestation at the 14 second mark.

A Megatrade That Won't Happen

Last night both the Phoenix Suns and the Dallas Mavericks were eliminated from the playoffs, both after making trades that were supposed to put them over the top. The results? Jason Kidd was torched by Chris Paul as the Mavs fell to New Orleans, and Shaquille O'Neal couldn't stop Tim Duncan (or even stop Duncan from slowing Amare Stoudemire) as the Spurs dropped the Suns. The Suns and Mavs only managed to win one playoff game apiece and both teams are now significantly worse off in the long run than they were before the trades.

So what happens now? Well, Avery Johnson was already shown the door in Dallas, despite doing nothing but win in the regular season, and rumor has it that Mike D'Antoni is next. Firing the coach might appease some fans, but will it get to the root of the problem? Probably not. The issue is personnel, not coaching.

With that in mind I began to peruse the ESPN Trade Machine, trying to figure out how to fix the Suns. It's quite clear that Shaq is no longer able to be a force, but he can still contribute (when healthy) for the right team. Meanwhile, as good as Steve Nash was this year, he's 34 and can't be expected to play at this level for much longer. If the Suns stand pat, they can only get worse, even if Stoudemire improves because of the evident decline of Shaq and the inevitable decline of Nash. So why not make a deal now? No one wants Shaq on his own, but perhaps he could be packaged with Nash. Deal the two of them and the Suns would still have Stoudemire, Leandro Barbosa, Boris Diaw, Grant Hill, and Raja Bell. That's not a bad core, and of course they'd also have whatever they got back in the deal.

Ah, but who to trade with? Who would want a pair of aging players with huge contracts? The Knicks were the logical choice, but sadly the Isiah Thomas era is no more. Even so, I initially tried to work out a deal with the Knicks where Stephon Marbury makes his not-so-triumphant return to Phoenix.

Here's the rundown: New York gets Steve Nash and Shaquille O'Neal, Phoenix gets Stephon Marbury, Eddy Curry, Nate Robinson, and David Lee.

Nash and O'Neal infuse new life into New York, even if it doesn't last long. But they come off the books in the same year, which happens to be one year before a certain LeBron James becomes a free agent. The Suns add Marbury's expiring deal (and perhaps a restraining order against him), Curry, so that Stoudemire can stay at power forward, and a pair of valuable young backups in Robinson and Lee.

Not a terrible deal for either team, but the problem (as usual) is Marbury. His contract may be terminated at the end of this year, so barring a sign-and-trade, this deal can't happen. Sorry Knicks fans. At least you might get D'Antoni.

Marbury aside, there's another problem with this deal. Adding Shaq does nothing for the Knicks if they have to play him alongside Zach Randolph. They'd have to find a taker for Randolph to make the deal work. The logical team to send him to is the Chicago Bulls, who haven't had a low-post scorer since Curry left. However, the Bulls don't quite have the contracts to make anything work on their own. So in come the Mavs.

Here's the four team trade that I worked out:
Phoenix gets Stephon Marbury, Erick Dampier, and Tyrus Thomas, Dallas gets Steve Nash, Eddy Curry, and Drew Gooden, New York gets Shaquille O'Neal and Jason Kidd, and Chicago gets Zach Randolph.

This would be fun. Nowitzki and Nash are reunited, plus Curry joins the fray, the Knicks get older but far more exciting with Kidd and Shaq, and the Bulls finally get the big man they've been looking for. Only one problem, the trade A) doesn't work because of Marbury and B) wouldn't work because the Suns don't get nearly enough.

This was the point where I nearly gave up. I was so close and yet so far. But then it hit me, screw the Knicks and Bulls. The Suns and Mavs have what it takes. Just send Shaq and Nash to Dallas and Kidd and Dampier to the Suns, except the numbers don't quite work. Then I found it, my savior, the Orlando Magic. Here's the final trade I worked out that won't, but should take place:


For those of you who can't read horribly blurry pictures, here's the trade:

Then Suns get Jason Kidd, Erick Dampier, and Jameer Nelson, the Mavs get Steve Nash, Shaquille O'Neal, and Tony Battie, and the Magic get Jason Terry.

Phoenix gets a still capable point guard, but one whose contract expires a year sooner, a decent center, and a point guard of the future in Nelson. Dallas gets Nash and Dirk back together, Shaq to man the middle, and Battie's soon-to-be-expiring deal. And Orlando gets a great shooting point guard in Terry.

Is it perfect? No. Will it happen? Probably not. But it would be fun. Well that was my Trade Machine adventure for the day. Let us know if you have a better idea.

Mike Conspiracy, Part 3

Thanks the help of Patrick's research, I believe we've discovered another clue in the case. After doing some more sleuthing, the crack team at PSB has tracked down the possible HQ of this potentially epic mystery. Google Search sums it up best...

An escort! What could this mean? And what else is on Golden Gate Ave? Stay tuned...

The Kentucky Derby is this weekend?

That's right, stunned sports fans, that most hallowed of sporting events involving tiny men with no athletic ability other than anorexia takes place this Saturday. As it is a gambler's paradise, I will now reveal to you my fool proof method for picking a superfecta or a machomagumba or whatever the hell it's called when you bet on which horses will finish 1-4.

First: Pick the horse with the coolest name. Some years this is easier than others (Fusaichi Pegasus made us all rich). I remember in 2002 there was a horse named "Request for Parole" which is just about the coolest name for a horse I can remember. I think he finished seventh. Parole denied.

This year's contenders: Big Truck, Anak Nakal, Court Vision, Cool Coal Man, Gayego

The winner: Big Truck

Court Vision is clever but a bit too self-aware, and I never like horse names that refer to other sports. Cool Coal Man sounds more like a Jazz musician than a Derby winner. Anak Nakal and Gayego are disturbingly sexual. Big Truck is straight forward, intimidating, and one of my nicknames with the ladies, which put it over the top, as it would were it one of my other nicknames with the ladies: "Commercial Break" or "Captain Nut Butter."

2nd: Horse with the name your girlfriend/wife/etc. is most likely to shout out during coitus

This year's contenders: Cowboy Cal, Monba, Big Brown, Anak Nakal

The winner (of 2nd place): Big Brown

Let's just say "Captain Nut Butter" has had his share of girlfriends with jungle fever. I didn't say the coitus had to be with you.

3rd: Any horse with any association with the name "Mike"

This year's contenders: Gayego (Jockey Mike Smith), Visionaire (Trainer Michael Matz)

The winner (of 3rd place): Gayego

The conspiracy of Mikes is too powerful to ignore.

4th: The favorite of the remaining horses (i.e. lowest odds)

The winner (of 4th place): Colonel John

There you have it. The sure fire way to score big cashmoney at the Derby. Understand these picks are all subjective to your own preferences, except that I am always right.

Mikes cont'd...

Foox, just a follow up. It's clear that San Francisco, that supposed bastion of liberal thought, is the biggest follower when it comes to the Mike Conspiracy, as all three top members of the 49ers staff are named Mike:

Head Coach: Mike Nolan
Ass't Head Coach/D-Coordinator: Mike Singletary
O-Coordinator: Mike Martz

Additionally, they employ RB Michael Robinson, S Michael Lewis, as well as Assistant Director of Pro personnel Mike Williams, and a cheerleader named Maki who may or may not have misspelled her own name to throw off PSB's crack investigative staff.

I Just Discovered a Conspiracy

While talking to Patrick about how everyone thinks he's 12 years old for his rather embarrassing post about Mike D'Antoni, I realized something rather disconcerting: there is an inordinate number of coaches in every sport with the first name Mike. The more Patrick and I listed, the scarier it got. Behold:

NFL
Mike Tomlin, Pittsburgh Steelers
Mike Holmgren, Seattle Seahawks
Mike Shanahan, Denver Broncos
Mike McCarthy, Green Bay Packers
Mike Nolan, San Francisco 49ers
Mike Martz, assistant on the 49ers
Mike Smith, Atlanta Falcons

NBA
Mike Brown, Cleveland Cavaliers
Mike Woodson, Atlanata Hawks
Mike D'Antoni, Phoenix Suns (come to the Knicks, Mike!)
Mike Dunleavy, Los Angeles Clippers

NHL
Mike Babcock, Detroit Red Wings
Mike Kitchen, St. Louis Blues
Michael Therrien, Pittsburgh Penguins... c'mon, that counts
Mike Keenan, Calgary Flames

MLB
Mike Scioscia, Los Angeles Angels

That's fifteen head coaches over four sports and one well-known assistant (Martz). Note also that the MLB only has one Mike. And that's just head coaches / managers -- who knows how many Mikes there are total if you count all assistants and specialty coaches. What does this conspiracy mean? Where does it lead? Who's behind this? Stay tuned as we dig deeper here at PSB.

Steve Kerr Breaks the News to Mike D'Antoni

Kerr's Assistant: Mr. Kerr, Mr. D'Antoni is here to see you.

Kerr (sniffing a big bouquet of flowers): Thanks, Ginger. Send him in.

D'Antoni (entering): Buon giorno!

Kerr: Hey Mike, thanks for coming in.

D'Antoni (holding two half-eaten slices of pizza): It's-a no problemo, a-mister-Steve.

Kerr: It's 7:30 in the morning. Isn't it a little early for pizza?

D'Antoni: It's-a never too early for-a pizza, a-mister-Steve.

Kerr: Right, well...Mike, I hate to break it to you, but we're going to go in a different direction for this coming season.

D'Antoni (With chewed pizza falling out of his mouth): Que?

Kerr: Yeah, we think you just didn't have enough fiery italian passion to get the job done.

D'Antoni: This-a is-a an-a outrage-a! Who-a has-a more pa-shee-oh-nay than-a me?


Mario: It's-a me! Mario!

D'Antoni: Him? You-a hired him?

Kerr: Yes, we think he's the guy who can get us over the hump next year.

Mario: Over-a-da-hump!

D'Antoni: But he has-a no-a basketball expertise-a! He's-a just a plumber!

Mario: I swim-a in dee poop!

Kerr: No, but he's got a lifetime of leadership experience and a superior mustache. And as we all know, our team's defensive intensity is based entirely on the impressiveness of the coach's mustache.

Mario: Mine-a curls up!

D'Antoni: A-mister-Steve, you are-a making a big-a mistake-a. You-a must-a know-a that-a whoever is-a coach next year will-a get an old-a, slow-a tired-a team-a who-a can't play-a defense-a. You-a should-a at least bring-a me back-a and fire me in-a January, so you will-a keep-a your-a job for longer.

Kerr: Thanks for your concern, Mike, but I'm looking to get fired. I'm just hoping Marv will take me back. Those were some sweet times. I miss the warmth.

Mario: You-a want-a warmth?
(He eats a flower on Steve Kerr's desk and tries to shoot a fireball but nothing comes.)

Kerr: Mario, what did I say about this?

Mario: Eating-a real flowers do not-a give you-a fireball powers. I'm-a sorry, I-a forgot. (Mario starts to stumble around) Mario not-a feel-a so good.

Kerr: That's because you ate a poisonous flower.

Mario: Oh-a no-a! (Mario keels over to the ground. He is dead.)

Kerr: Well crap, what am I gonna do now?

D'Antoni: I don't-a know, but-a I have-a to save-a dee princess-a! (He rips off his suit to reveal a pair of overalls underneath. He picks another flower off of Kerr's desk, eats it, and destroys the door to Kerr's office with a giant fireball.) It's-a me! D'Antoni!

Kerr: I wonder if Tom Selleck is available.

Tom Selleck: Always.

Larry Brown Heading to Carolina...No, Not That Carolina

Today the Charlotte Bobcats announced the hiring of new head coach Larry Brown. This is the ninth NBA coaching job for Brown, who is known as much for jumping from one team to another as he is for his stellar career.

When we last saw Brown (as a head coach, at least) he was with the New York Knicks in 2005-06. Showing about as poor judgment as one could imagine, he left the Eastern Conference Champion Detroit Pistons to try to resurrect the Knicks. Long story short, Brown's coaching talent was simply not enough to overcome Isiah Thomas' flair for constructing dysfunctional basketball teams (maybe "team" is too strong a word). And to think, he could have gone to the Cavs instead.

Now, after a few years off, he returns to his Carolina roots. Brown played point guard for Dean Smith at North Carolina and considered taking the reins at UNC before they settled on Roy Williams.

While Brown has bounced around quite a bit, it wouldn't be a shock to anyone if he quickly became the Bobcats' longest tenured coach. The standing record is three years (held by Bernie Bickerstaff), and this season's coach, Sam Vincent, was canned after his first season. Two head coaches in four years and zero winning seasons is not the kind of start the expansion team was looking for, but if anyone can turn it around, it's Brown. Aside from the Isiah-fied (is that a word? It should be) 2005-06 season, Brown has mastered the art of resurrecting franchises that were otherwise left for dead. The man got the Clippers to the playoffs? What more do you want?

So now that Brown has control over the Bobcats, what changes will he make? Let's go through the roster, player by player, and predict their futures with the organization, in order of their likelihood to get on the floor for Brown next year:

Gerald Wallace: No doubt Brown will love this guy. He plays hard on both ends of the floor every night and has been the #2 scorer on the team last year.

Emeka Okafor: A big man who struggles on offense but is great for defense and rebounding? Okafor is right up Brown's alley. He's a free agent, but the Bobcats will almost certainly bring him back, especially now.

Raymond Felton: He's still got some work to do, but his assist-to-turnover ratio has improved in each of his three seasons. Plus he's a UNC alum.

Jason Richardson: Brown probably wouldn't mind trading shot-happy J-Rich, but with his contract, he's probably stuck with him, like it or not. Besides, someone has to score, right?

Jared Dudley: We all know Brown hates young players, but how can he pass up on Dudley? He's coming off a productive rookie season, running on nothing but hard work and high basketball IQ.

Othella Harrington: A little high on the list? It probably should be, but Harrington is the kind of crusty vet that Brown covets over mere "prospects." What good is a prospect anyway? Brown's here to win!

Nazr Mohammed: Brown traded for his draft rights back in 1998, though a few years later he dealt Mohammed to the Hawks. Still, he's a center with championship experience.

Matt Carroll: He's a good shooter, but a lousy defender. That won't play well with Brown, but he'll still get some playing time, unless Brown can find a better replacement.

Sean May: The main reason he's this far down is because he's never been able to stay healthy. If he can, he'll get his share of minutes, as a solid big man and another UNC product.

Jermareo Davidson: The odds of a second-year player getting major minutes are slim, but he's signed for one more season and he's bound to get some minutes considering the inevitable Okafor and May injuries.

Derek Anderson: Brown loves those veterans. Anderson's a free agent, but Brown might just bring him back, if only so he can cut into Carroll's minutes.

Ryan Hollins: You can always use more big men, but Brown would rather sign a washed-up vet than play a youngster like Hollins.

Earl Boykins: Brown's had quite enough of shoot-first point guards, thanks.

And finally...

Adam Morrison: With his inefficient offense, disinterest in defense, and a molestache for the ages, he's just as likely to show up on To Catch a Predator with Chris Hansen as he is to crack Brown's rotation. If he plays at all, it will be due to either a lobotomy or heavy pressure from the front office.

Maybe tagging Morrison as a sexual predator is a bit unfair, but just look at him. If nothing else, he'd better get used to the phrase "Why don't you take a seat?"

What it Takes to Win in the NHL Today

This post is courtesy of Colby Katz-Lapides, our resident hockey guru.

Somewhere in this new era of fast-paced hockey where penalties are given out for what used to be considered good defense and sticking up for teammates, coaches and players alike seem have to forgotten Conn Smyth's famous credo: "If you can't beat 'em in the alley, you can't beat 'em on the ice." Even with the additional rules to open up the game and the undeniable advance in the skill of NHL players, this bit of advice holds just as true today as it did then.

Since the last hockey lock-out in 1994, along with a significant drop in hockey viewers we have seen a significant drop in hockey hits. Defenders were forced to change their game from physical to finesse, "goons" were forced to produce more with their sticks and less with their fists, and traditional "power-forward" type players slowly became a thing of the pass. The strategy of the game became more like basketball than hockey.

Now I like the rule changes. I think that it makes for much more exciting hockey, but do I think the coaches choice to move away from the physical game, even with the new rules, will help them win more games? Absolutely not – and the dudes from Anaheim who have last lifted the cup would agree.

The year after the lock-out was a strange one. The hockey world was bored as we watched a team that no one cared about beat a team that never should have been there in the Stanley Cup finals. Fighting majors reached an all-time low, and some of the leagues top-players fell to obscurity because of the forced change in their game. Games were decided by two factors: the goalie and the skill-depth of the roster.

Last year, the Anaheim Ducks were by no means the most skilled team in the NHL. They had the star power in Selanne, Niedermayer and Pronger, but past their top line the roster consisted of mostly players never-before heard of. However, the Ducks managed to take down The Detroit Red Wings and the Ottawa Senators, both of which had greater skill on their roster. The Detroit Red Wings, by all means, should have won the cup. What was the difference? Violence. The Ducks led the league by no close measure in fighting majors and accumulated a number of suspensions throughout the playoffs because of dirty play. Their roster was stacked with some of most feared players in the league (Parros, May, Thornton, the list goes on) and even the skill players were always ready to drop the gloves. Every series in their playoff run was won because the other team could no longer endure being on the ice with them. The Ducks found a niche that disappeared the year before, and they rode it home.

This years playoff, so far, has mostly gone to the better teams. Every team that won simply enough was just a much better team than their opponents. Teams like Calgary, Boston, and Anaheim were just too over matched for their physical domination to makeup the difference. One series, however, was turned by physical play alone. The Philadelphia Flyers have been detested around the league all year for their dirty play, and the playoffs didn't seem to slow them down. They took down the red hot Caps and now have a lead on the first seeded Habs because of physical intimidation. Philly was, aside from their physical play, the fourth least skilled team out of sixteen (next to Boston, Nashville, and perhaps Minnesota) but now there is a strong chance that we could see them in the Eastern Conference finals. Some teams get there because of a hot goalie or a dynamite roster. Philly has neither of these. They just beat the hell out of their opponents.

So where does this leave us? Physical teams succeed in the playoffs. Skill teams tend to get scared off. I believe that the league will turn back to dressing goons, allow their players to get instigator penalties and take runs at their opponents. If you can't beat the bullies, then you should join them.

Now watch Philly take Montreal in six and then scare the life out of Sydney Crosby.