2013 NBA Playoffs Thread

[MHSL82]

As much as I dislike Kevin Garnett for his trash talk and attitude (not my style), I am now rooting for the Celtics to win this series...

2013 NBA playoffs -- Mike Woodson 'upset' New York Knicks wore all black to mimic funeral against Boston Celtics

I'm reminded of when the Jazz were trailing I think the Sonics 3-0 or 3-1 and a local Jazz writer said the Jazz would win when pigs could fly. The Jazz forced Game 7 but lost. I was so upset - more because of the article than us not making the Finals.

Being really young at that point, I felt challenged. I mean, I wasn't personally challenged, as I couldn't do anything to help the Jazz win besides ice the floor or put glass over the Sonics rim or move the team to Oklahoma City or food-poison Jordan (Kemp, too) or crash their plane or kidnap all their children and Stern with the ransom being a Sonic loss to the Jazz or tie their shoelaces all together so they'd have to forfeit the game by not getting to the court on time (or play in their slippery socks - no borrowing or buying new shoes!) or Kerrigan them or inject undetectable steroids into the Jazz players secretly (even unknown to them) or ask strangers on a train about their mom's child-raising experiences that prompts enlightenment of said person's mom's breast-milking habits during conception periods or removing the opponents basket altogether or removing the opponent's coach George Karl style (I actually like him as a coach and wish no one sickness, so just a joke) or breaking the scoreboard or hypnotizing the scorekeepers to award the Jazz more points or bribing the Tim Donaghy's or paying all the reporters to report that the Jazz won to the point everyone, including David Stern and the Sonics, believed we did. Other than that, there was nothing I could do. I'm only human... yes, I am not a robot!

 

[nuraman00]

Why would you kidnap Stern? He was a Jazz fan.

 

[MHSL82]

San Antonio Spurs vs. Golden State Warriors - Recap - May 12, 2013 - ESPN

This series is pretty cool, both have a solid win and both have taken an OT game. I hope Golden State wins Game 5 because I feel San Antonio will win Game 6 - whether that's a series tying or series winning game depends on Game 5. Game 7 will be good to watch - I would give the edge to San Antonio, both for home court and experience. Age has an effect but I don't think it would determine Game 7, necessarily. This series could be 3-1 to either team.

 

[nuraman00]

San Antonio Spurs vs. Golden State Warriors - Recap - May 12, 2013 - ESPN

This series is pretty cool, both have a solid win and both have taken an OT game. I hope Golden State wins Game 5 because I feel San Antonio will win Game 6 - whether that's a series tying or series winning game depends on Game 5. Game 7 will be good to watch - I would give the edge to San Antonio, both for home court and experience. Age has an effect but I don't think it would determine Game 7, necessarily. This series could be 3-1 to either team.

Thanks.

 

[nuraman00]

Kevin (NYC)


Good or bad move, Knicks letting Lin go and having Felton run the point? You think Lin could have brought the knicks this far?

Kevin Pelton
(3:54 PM)


I don't think so, no. Felton has been terrific in the playoffs. The argument for Lin is that he's younger and can still develop, whereas Felton is what he is.

 

[nuraman00]

...

 

[MHSL82]

Kevin (NYC)


Good or bad move, Knicks letting Lin go and having Felton run the point? You think Lin could have brought the knicks this far?

Kevin Pelton
(3:54 PM)


I don't think so, no. Felton has been terrific in the playoffs. The argument for Lin is that he's younger and can still develop, whereas Felton is what he is.

Even though the bold is in support of Lin (a favorite of mine) and semi-against Felton (overall Felton is supported, but the bold is not), I hate this type of talk. Anyone can develop and get better, past what people "think" is their "ceiling." Now, most don't, but this idea that one is who he is, bugs me.

Off topic, I wish the Jazz had drafted Chandler Parsons instead of the Rockets doing so. We do have Hayward, though, but I'd like both. (I don't remember when both were drafted, but not really referring to the draft.)

 

[nuraman00]

"It's not time to do that yet," Gasol said firmly. "To me it's not time to congratulate everybody.

"I'm a big Quentin Tarantino fan. There's this line [in 'Pulp Fiction'] from Wolf -- which I can't say in front of you guys -- when they [finish] cleaning the car up. He says, 'Let's not do that yet.'

"We're still in the process. We're still not there yet."

 

[MHSL82]

Nuraman, to me, it's clear that OKC couldn't have paid Harden what he would demand for a long term contract. He'd walk after the contract, no trade compensation. But it's also clear that he did add a lot for their team and this was their window (not saying the window is now shut). Do you think not trading him and letting him walk would be worth a shot at winning the title this year (before this loss)? Do you think there was no shot at beating the Heat either way so take the trade compensation and if so, should that ever factor in a GM of a top team's mind?

Obviously, they didn't anticipate the Westbrook injury. They might have won (at least this series) if he had played. Obviously, they felt that the team with Westbrook and without Harden was good enough to get there. My question is, should they have anticipated either of these things not going their way? (Anticipate that any more than a loss by a team with both Westbrook and Harden?) Didn't Westbrook have an injury before? Couldn't an injury to any of their main guys derail their chances like Westbrook did? Do you keep Harden as insurance? Squeeze all you can out of the orange before letting it go?

I know there's a chance that both Westbrook and Harden would get injured, making the title and trade value lost terrible for them. Hypothetically speaking, before the season started, if you knew any of the players on the team could get injured, including Harden himself, and you knew that there was no way to win if anyone got injured if you didn't have Harden, would you make the trade? Long-term over short term? Or short term and deal with it later (kind of like Riley has done in the past with the Heat - see Shaq). Is their window long enough, with Durant, that it's better to take the trade, take your chances, build for future years (trying to extend the window)? This is my choice, just was wondering if a title is so rare that you should take your shot like a paranoid man.

I'm assuming they had a year left on the deal. If not, this is moot.

 

[MHSL82]

"It's not time to do that yet," Gasol said firmly. "To me it's not time to congratulate everybody.

"I'm a big Quentin Tarantino fan. There's this line [in 'Pulp Fiction'] from Wolf -- which I can't say in front of you guys -- when they [finish] cleaning the car up. He says, 'Let's not do that yet.'

"We're still in the process. We're still not there yet."

Taking the chicken out of the oven? Painting his house? Taking out the trash?

 

[nuraman00]

Nuraman, to me, it's clear that OKC couldn't have paid Harden what he would demand for a long term contract. He'd walk after the contract, no trade compensation. But it's also clear that he did add a lot for their team and this was their window (not saying the window is now shut). Do you think not trading him and letting him walk would be worth a shot at winning the title this year (before this loss)? Do you think there was no shot at beating the Heat either way so take the trade compensation and if so, should that ever factor in a GM of a top team's mind?

Obviously, they didn't anticipate the Westbrook injury. They might have won (at least this series) if he had played. Obviously, they felt that the team with Westbrook and without Harden was good enough to get there. My question is, should they have anticipated either of these things not going their way? (Anticipate that any more than a loss by a team with both Westbrook and Harden?) Didn't Westbrook have an injury before? Couldn't an injury to any of their main guys derail their chances like Westbrook did? Do you keep Harden as insurance? Squeeze all you can out of the orange before letting it go?

I know there's a chance that both Westbrook and Harden would get injured, making the title and trade value lost terrible for them. Hypothetically speaking, before the season started, if you knew any of the players on the team could get injured, including Harden himself, and you knew that there was no way to win if anyone got injured if you didn't have Harden, would you make the trade? Long-term over short term? Or short term and deal with it later (kind of like Riley has done in the past with the Heat - see Shaq). Is their window long enough, with Durant, that it's better to take the trade, take your chances, build for future years (trying to extend the window)? This is my choice, just was wondering if a title is so rare that you should take your shot like a paranoid man.

I'm assuming they had a year left on the deal. If not, this is moot.

1. OKC could have paid Harden what he'd demand for a long term contract. They were only a little bit apart in negotiations. With the revenue the Thunder generate by their playoffs runs every year, it makes up for what the difference in negotiations are.

Also, remember, you don't pay players during the playoffs. The players get playoffs shares. For examples, here was the breakdown from 2006:

NBA Players paid extra money for advancing in playoffs


NBA Playoff Money Payments Pool
NBA teams receive bonuses for winning the championship, finishing at certain playoff seeds, and for other accompliments. These are the NBA playoffs pool breakdowns for 2006:

Best Record in NBA: $288,421
Best Record in Conference, $252,369 each: $504,737
Second Best Record in Conference, $202,842 each: $405,684
Third Best Record in Conference, $151,421 each: $302,842
Fourth Best Record in Conference, $119,000 each: $238,000
Fifth Best record in Conference, $99,158 each: $198,316
Sixth Best Record in Conference, $67,632 each: $135,263

Teams Participating in First Round, $149,243 each: $2,387,895
Teams Participating in Conference Semifinals, $177,579 each: $1,420,632
Teams Participating in Conference Finals, $293,447 each: $1,173,789

Losing Team, NBA Finals: $1,173,474
Winning Team, NBA Finals: $1,770,947
Total Playoff Pool (2006): $10,000,000

2. They could have done a sign-and-trade for him after he hit RFA. This is another common practice when a team doesn't want to pay a player what he's seeking. For example, the Nets got 3 1st round draft picks when they signed-and-traded Kenyon Martin, who was a RFA, in 2004.

3. How do you not know that Westbrook has never missed a game in his career? Not NBA, not college, not high school. You should know stats like that, or that Andre Miller has only missed 4 games in his career. You should know who some of the healthiest players in the NBA are.



4. I don't think it would have mattered if they had Harden or Kevin Martin. As a 3rd option, Harden's role is less, so he has less impact on the game. Sure, Harden could have a series where he's the 2nd best or best player in a series. But I'm just looking at what his normal responsibility has been the past few years, and his minutes, including the playoffs.

They lost the Memphis series because of their frontcourt, and because Memphis has the # 1 defense in the league, and because Memphis doesn't turn it over (* cough most past Jazz teams *), and because the Thunder do turn it over. Memphis was one of the best teams in the regular season at protecting the ball, and it held true in the playoffs, with them only turning it over on 10.0 % of possessions.

The Thunder thrive on turnovers, but their halfcourt offense isn't as good when they can't get some. I haven't liked Brooks coaching for most of his tenure. I don't even think he did anything that well last year, it's just that OKC's game was better than the Spurs last year. There weren't major adjustments.

Also, with the way Memphis has wing defenders, I don't think having another wing player for OKC would have helped. They needed to fight fire with fire. Get bigs to match Memphis' bigs.

5. The NBA playoffs are tough because there's 4 rounds. It's not too hard to lose unexpectedly in one of the rounds.

Using a non-Jazz example, the Pistons made the CF 6 straight years from 2003-2008, but only made 21 NBA Finals, and 1 championship. Not a good ratio, even for a healthy, stable core.

6. If they thought Harden was so good that they needed to capitalize now, then resign him.

If they thought he was replaceable (kind of like how Lin was replaceable with Felton for 1/2 the cost, only on a basketball level), then maintain that flexibility and get that replacement player when you can. (Trades, FA, or draft).

Last year, there were many predictions that we'd see the Heat-Thunder Finals matchup for years. I didn't think so, just because things happen. It's hard to get back to the NBA Finals. Other teams improve, while the Finalists sometimes get stagnant or worse.

I think they should have kept Harden if they were going to also play him big minutes. They played him 31 minutes the last few years. They're not getting as much out of him as they can. Yes, some of that is because they need Sefolosha too. So it's hard to give everyone minutes.

But the way I see it is that you can get a decent player (like Kevin Martin, IMO) for 31 minutes, and not see much difference. If you want to play Harden a lot, then his value will show more. But you also have to consider whether that's good for the rest of the team. They've had a certain rotation, and certain schemes. Will incorporating Harden more mess that up?

Also, injuries are part of the game. Every year, important players get injured. I can't remember the last time that weren't any injuries to important players in the playoffs. Maybe you'd have to go back to the 90s.

A team has to have its other guys step up.


So basically, I don't know how important another wing players is, I thought their weakness was in their frontcourt. Sefolosha, Durant, Reggie Jackson played pretty well at times, but the Thunder frontcourt couldn't score on the Grizzlies. They weren't tough enough. I don't know if a wing player would have helped. Maybe.

 

[nuraman00]

Taking the chicken out of the oven? Painting his house? Taking out the trash?

I've only seen the movie once, so I'm not familiar with Pulp Fiction quotes.

Are those all lines from the movies?

 

[MHSL82]

I've only seen the movie once, so I'm not familiar with Pulp Fiction quotes.

Are those all lines from the movies?

I don't think I have ever seen the whole movie, not even over time. Just made thier up because I didn't know what Gasol was referring to and didn't have time to google it. Actually, I had time but I don't really care about Gasol either way, to be honest. To be dishonest and contradictory (respectively), he's my davorire player and I like many other players a lot more.

 

[nuraman00]

I don't think I have ever seen the whole movie, not even over time. Just made thier up because I didn't know what Gasol was referring to and didn't have time to google it. Actually, I had time but I don't really care about Gasol either way, to be honest. To be dishonest and contradictory (respectively), he's my davorire player and I like many other players a lot more.

Is that because you don't care about players that are good defenders, if they don't play for the Jazz?

 

[MHSL82]

Is that because you don't care about players that are good defenders, if they don't play for the Jazz?

It's mainly because I thought the Lakers did not give adequate compensation for Gasol. Now that his brother is playing well, it's better, but Jerry West still loves the Lakers. Yes, I know, Jerry West was no longer with the team.

I know this is blasphemy but I don't care about individual defense, in general. If Stockton weren't leading in steals, I'd care even less. I focus more on the team in total, but I don't mean team defense (like weak/strong side help), just accumulation of all layers on a team.

 

[nuraman00]

It's mainly because I thought the Lakers did not give adequate compensation for Gasol. Now that his brother is playing well, it's better, but Jerry West still loves the Lakers. Yes, I know, Jerry West was no longer with the team.

I thought the compensation was fine. It's a salary dump, something that happens all the time when teams want to rebuild. Rather than be a $66M payroll with a team that can't win a playoffs game, and not make the playoffs some years, they thought it was better to build through cheaper players, like draft picks (Conley Jr. and Marc and Gay), then when the timing was right, made their trade for a better talent (Randolph).

It's no different from:

* Denver dumping Camby to the Clippers for 2nd round draft pick. Denver had a large payroll, and decided they needed to find cheaper alternatives. They eventually replaced Camby's role with Chris Andersen. Camby went to teams that had lesser payrolls (Clippers, Trail Blazers), and could afford to keep him. And I think Andersen did a good job, on a near-minimum contract, for a few years.

* New Orleans trading Baron Davis for Speedy Claxton and Dale Davis in 2005. New Orleans had an expensive player, and weren't even making the playoffs. Time to rebuild through the draft (what became Chris Paul), and reallocate their cap space.

* Detroit doing a salary dump with Billups for Iverson. Detroit had made 6 straight CFs, but hadn't gone to the NBA Finals since 2005, and seem overmatched (or gotten upset) by better teams. Time to break up the core and rebuild. Now, it wasn't a good idea to use their freed up cap space on Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva, but slashing payroll and building around cheaper players is the right idea.


So with Memphis having a luxury tax caliber payroll, and not even being any good, it was time to try and field a more balanced team. They couldn't get any better than they were being over the cap and some years over the luxury tax, with Pau on the roster. So they go cheaper for a while with the aforementioned players on rookie contracts, and wait while their bad contracts are off the books.

Memphis wasn't trying to win now, but try and get the rebuilding started, and compete with other lottery teams. They made it back to the playoffs in reasonable time.

It's sort of the same situation the Jazz are in. They can't keep this roster with expensive players, that aren't good enough to win anything, not even a series. The only difference is that instead of salary dumping a player, they'll probably let some salary leave (Jefferson and/or Millsap), then rebuild around players on rookie contracts who are about as good (Kanter, Favors).

Having the cap space eventually to use their money more wisely on FAs and resources is the "compensation". Getting stuck as a yearly 35-46 win team that's unable to get better, actually does other teams a greater service, since it allows them to pass these peaked teams by.

I evaluate trades relative to the rest of the league. The Grizzlies weren't competing with the Lakers back then, they were competing with all of the lottery teams like Minnesota, Seattle, Sacramento, Clippers, New Jersey, New York, Milwaukee, Charlotte, Miami, Chicago. Since their goal was rebuilding, I compare them with other rebuilding teams, not with the teams they directly traded with, since they had different goals.

Since then, only Miami and Seattle (OKC) have had more success, and I'd put them on par with Chicago for playoffs success. So they've still gotten ahead of most of those other teams, and rebuilt faster. Minnesota, Sacramento, Milwaukee, Charlotte are still toiling. New Jersey (Brooklyn) and New York haven't done anything either. Teams like Utah, Denver, and Atlanta have done nothing in that span either, with respect to the playoffs.

I said these things at the time the trade was made, and whether Marc panned out or not wasn't the point (as I didn't predict this kind of success back then). I thought it was a good step in rebuilding their team, and was waiting to see what additional moves they'd make with their freed up salary. If they did a Joe Dumars and signed Gordon and Villanueva, then it was a badly executed plan. If their draft picks panned out (Gay, Conley Jr., Mayo), all of whom did, then it was a step in the right direction. They followed that up with signing Tony Allen to a 3 year deal, and got a bit lucky that Marc was at least a rotation player, and made a good trade for Randolph.

Their payroll this year? 62,366,642 , about $4M then their "can't-win-a-playoffs game" roster from 2004-2006, and cheaper than their "can't-make-the-playoffs" teams the subsequent 1.5 years.

Those teams had horrible contracts, like $15.6M for Eddie Jones, $5.4M for Brian Cardinal, $7.6M for Mike Miller (can't stay healthy), $5.4 M for Stromile Swift (arguably the biggest bust from 2000, in terms of potential, to reality). Excluding Mike Miller (because at least he could play a little), that's $26.4M in dead money (Jones, Cardinal, Swift).

I look at their "dead money" now (players who suck or can't play), and it's only about $2.9M for Austin Daye, and $119K for Keyon Dooling. Not many mistake contracts.

You can't have mistake contracts, or maybe 1 at most, when trying to win a championship.

Memphis could have done better though, by packaging Pau with one of their bad contracts. That's usually the goal in these salary dumps. It's not so much about getting back, but about clearing up space.

 

[nuraman00]

I know this is blasphemy but I don't care about individual defense, in general. If Stockton weren't leading in steals, I'd care even less. I focus more on the team in total, but I don't mean team defense (like weak/strong side help), just accumulation of all layers on a team.

According to you, do "layers of a team" consist of team defense?

What are the layers, according to you?

 

[nuraman00]

And where do you rank "stopping the other team" in terms of priority?

 

[MHSL82]

And where do you rank "stopping the other team" in terms of priority?

It's number one, I'm just not interested in it, especially the individual player's stats or play (save Stockton's steals). I'm not that sophisticated, especially on defense.

 

[MHSL82]

The NBA assumes the Memphis-San Antonio series will be longer than the Miami-Indiana series, so they have the Grizzlies-Spurs play two games first. Or do they just want to give the Spurs more time to rest up if they get finished early? Hmmm... it is an odd year. (I don't think anyone's beating the Heat without a major injury to LeBron and less so Wade.