LLOYD CARR, HYPOCRITE

So I'm reading the blog of a fellow Wolverine http://mgoblog.blogspot.com/, and come across these quotes from Lloyd Carr (in response to night games and the addition of a 12th game on the schedule):

"Money … we need to make more money," Carr said, not disguising his sarcasm. "Let's play more games and let's make sure the players are available to play any time, any night, 24/7."

"I think we've gone down that road and there never will be a return unfortunately," Carr said. "I think the 12th game was just the first of what's going to be a continued growth…we're turning into a professional sport."

Well here's the thing Lloyd: it's always been a professional sport--as far as you're concerned anyway.

See, Lloyd Carr is a millionaire. Many times over. Many, many times over. Now I don't know where his (undoubtedly considerable) net worth puts him--other than "way the fuck above you", dear reader; but I do know making $1.4M a year puts you in the top 1/10 of 1% of earners in America. So what we have is an extraordinarily wealthy man bemoaning the greedy cesspool of capitalism run rampant that, you know, made him richer than 99.9% of the rest of the country.

So my question to Lloyd is this: If you're so upset about the amount of money NCAA football is collectively trying to make, then what is the "correct" amount of commercialism, what's the "correct" amount of revenue? Is it the amount where you get to make tens of millions of dollars in your career...and right there, hold it, stop! That's enough! Anything more than that is a moral outrage! It's sickening! We're turning into (snort)...a professional sport!

Yeah, "we" are.

(Aside: Hey, why do we even have professional coaches anyway? Why not have student volunteers? You know, the way we have student "volunteer" football players? It obviously would make for worse football (although perhaps not in Michigan's case), just like having student volunteer players makes for worse football, but at least that would restore the purity and amateurism Carr so obviously yearns for. Nah, on second thought, let's keep it the way it is: force young black guys to uphold the highest and noblest ideal in sports, if not all of life itself--amateurism--while old white guys get insanely rich).

I don't begrudge Lloyd Carr one dollar of what he's made (especially on Milton Friedman Day). You know me, I'm a big fan of unfettered capitalism. I'm going to buy a goddamn felt pennant with the words "UNFETTERED CAPITALISM" on it, that's how much of a fan I am. Good for him that he cashed in, good for him that he's richer than christ. I have no problem with that.

What I do have a problem with is a hypocrite like him crying about the greed, commercialism and big money in college football that he himself has profited off of so handsomely. He never had a problem in the world with any of that when he was getting his million dollar paychecks, but now that someone's asking him to play--shudder--a *night game*, well, let the sanctimonious moral outrage spew forth like so many USC touchdowns.

Look, if Lloyd wanted to coach football in a pure, pristine, amateur paradise, he always could have chosen to do that--there are many Division III colleges out there, community colleges, high schools, junior high schools, pee-wee leagues (where his soft zones might have a chance). Nobody's making any money there, nobody's a slave to the TV schedule, big donors aren't calling the shots in the football program, nobody's making a mockery out of the educational mission of the school--oh yeah, and the coach gets paid twenty grand a year...but with unlimited usage of the laundry facilities and one free dinner a week at the Applebee's over by the interstate.

Huh? What's that, Lloyd? Wha? You--you say you're fine where you are? You're good?

Yeah, I thought so. So SHUT THE FUCK UP about money ruining college football. It's astonishing that the only individual person making serious coin in college football--a head coach at Football Factory U.--thinks he has claim to the moral high ground with respect to college football becoming too money-driven. Now maybe there's a good point to be made there, but Lloyd Carr just isn't the one with the standing to make it. It'd be like Robert Nardelli going on the warpath about incompetent CEOs getting ridiculous golden parachutes.

AI & The Apprentice

DENVER

So Carmelo makes his debut with Iverson tonight in Denver, that place is gonna be rockin' and rollin'. They might need a feeling-out period, but they'll still probably crush the life out of the Grizz--especially if Memphis tries to run with 'em, as is their wont under new coach Tony Barone (why a low level mafioso from a horrible screenplay is running an NBA team, I couldn't tell you).

Just for the record, I think it will work out splendidly for Denver and make them a second-tier player in the playoffs along with San Antonio, LA, and Houston (with Phoenix and Dallas the clear cream of the crop). Again, it might take some time from them to get used to each other, the way T-Mac and Ming still don't mesh perfectly on the rare occasions they're both healthy, but I think the Nuggets will find a sweet groove within a month. I'm absolutely convinced Iverson can play (and is willing to play) a PG role on a good team, especially since he'll still put up points. The way they'll push the ball up the floor, there will be plenty of shots to go around. I'm looking for them to push 110 a night, with Carmelo in the high 20s and Iverson in the low-to-mid-20s with 8-9 assists per game.

QUICKIES

Congratulations to the New Jersey Nets for putting together a solid 8-2 run and giving the Atlantic Division it's first .500 team. But then Richard Jefferson announced he'd be getting ankle surgery and would miss a good chunk of time--so keep your fingers crossed, there's still a good chance we see a division winner with a losing record.

Brandon Roy is starting to show signs he's fully recovered from that early season foot injury, and has been playing really well, averaging a cool 17/5/3 in 11 January games, shooting .453 from the floor and an excellent .406 from three. He's also averaging 1.8 steals and coughing the ball up just 1.5 turnovers a night. Very solid rookie numbers. Keep this in mind fantasy players, every year there are 2-3 rookies who've done nothing special all year and then suddenly put together a solid finish--Deron Williams and Ray Felton come to mind from last year. Roy's just getting to that finishing kick a little earlier...and running away with rookie of the year.

Speaking of rookies who could come up big in the stretch run, Randy Foye got his first start with the suspensions of Ricky Davis and KG and responded with 25 points on 9-17 shooting, including 5-6 from three. He's been productive when he's gotten minutes, and his PT has been on the rise. In January, he's averaging a solid 12/4/3 in 28 minutes per.

With all their injuries, Milwaukee is a total mess right now, but they have to be ecstatic with Andrew Bogut's play recently. I'm still not sure he can ever be a superstar--I could be wrong--but he's establishing himself as a legitimate starting center in the league, and that's the first step. In 9 games in January, he's averaging 14 & 11 with 3 assists (he's an excellent passer for a big man), OK defensive numbers, and a shooting % of .573.


THE APPRENTICE

I don't know if you watch this show--congratulations if you don't, it's truly one of the stupidest things on TV. If they ever start making good network TV again, episodes of this show should be mailed out to every producer every year with a note saying "Never Again".

But I watch it. Naturally. If it's shit, I'm watching, it's as simple as that. I'd like to pretend I watch only to make fun of the spazzes, social misfits, drooling imbeciles, and uber-type-A douchebag tools--and that's truly most of it--but I do get into the competitiveness and the strategy and all that.

So last night they have to design a bus tour in Los Angeles, one of those 'homes of the stars' kinda things that nobody who isn't from rural Ohio would ever do in a million years. One team did a pretty good job, had the Laker Girls and all that (at only $85 an hour per girl; can you get them to clean your house & mow your lawn? Or service you? That's probably extra). Although they did have this loud, obnoxious, fugly Asian guy on the microphone instead of the smart, well-spoken, extremely hot brunette chick. Hey, everybody loves the loud, obnoxious Asian guy over the hot chick! Good move! But overall, a solid effort.

But the other team was a disaster from start to finish, the kind of trainwreck that makes reality TV worth watching.

First they couldn't figure out where the tour should run, and tried to decide by driving randomly around Hollywood and Beverly Hills (some of the worst traffic in the entire city). They were probably on the road for 5 hours before they realized, hey, Hollywood's a real shithole. Of course anyone in the city could've told them that.

And yet, that's what they ended up going with! There was a priceless scene where they're talking about "lifestyles of the rich and famous" or some shit, and they're driving by alleys and street corners where in a few hours, 16-year-old meth freaks are going to be doling out handjobs to movie executives for ten bucks a crack.

I honestly have no idea what their theme was; I think it was called something like "a day in the life of a celebrity" or something, but I didn't really see anything on the tour that fell under that description. Wait--there was one moment where they were passing by some hotel, and the guy playing tour guide enthusiastically tells the tourists that that's where John Belushi shot himself up with coke and heroin and OD'ed--and then the camera pans to the horrified faces of a bunch of parents with little kids. So I guess doing speedballs does fit under the description of "a day in the life of a celebrity". I mean, it would be if I were one.

So there's this boring-ass tour through scuzzy, bum-ridden streets lined with pawn shops, check-cashing places, Ye Old Adult Book Shoppe, liquor stores, and other assorted LA glamorousness...and if that's not enough, the microphone is letting loose with a constant stream of piercing feedback. You could see the people fucking praying it would just all be over soon. I felt genuine pity for them. Of course the team was too dumb to figure out you can just, you know, shout?--until the thing was half over (and these were like 90 minute tours! Who the hell wants to drive around LA for 90 minutes just to see where Bill Pullman lives?)

Classic reality television, classic "Apprentice" formula where you include a few normal people and then outnumber them with a bunch of pyschos, misanthropes and morons with various (and multiple) severe personality disorders, and then just let the chips fall where they may. Good times.

SEX AND THE BBC

(Note: I realize this has nothing to do with basketball; I may be trying to incorporate some non-NBA columns into the blog. Haven't decided if this is a permanent thing or not yet. I'll let you know.)

...I'm watching BBC America ("The Robinsons"--a lukewarm recommendation), and an ad comes on for text-messaging-sex. You text a message to a certain number and you get back sexually explicit messages.

Now phone sex is weird enough for me--I mean, between pornography and prostitution, I'd be pretty much set as a single guy--but I can at least see *some* value in it. Most men enjoy dirty talk from women, and contrary to what your typical stand-up comic has to say on the matter of phone sex, you can absolutely tell if a woman talking to you is young and thin just by her voice--she might be fugly in the face, but it's probably not some nasty-ass old skank whispering dirty nothings in your ear.

But texting? I can't see how you could possibly get off on that. And I haven't scouted it out, being more of a visual stimulee, but I have to imagine the internet is awash in erotic literature. So if that's your thing, you can get it for free.

Now here's the *really* fucked up thing: it costs two dollars--A MESSAGE. $2 a message! And it's text messaging, you don't exactly get a paragraph per message. So you're sitting there with your pud in your hand, going back and forth with what almost certainly is some hairy-ass sleezeball guy laughing at your patheticness, and you're coughing up a couple bucks every time you get back "I'm licking your ballsac, I'm putting lotion on your cock, I'm putting my finger up your ass".

That has to add up! So what, you're dropping $20-$30-$50 for this? For this lame-ass sexual experience? When in this glorious age of porn, we have available every jpeg, every mpeg, and (I'm sure) every mp3 that specifically addresses all of your most sick and perverse fetishes, with unlimited downloads for $10 a month?

So here are my questions:

WHO IS BUYING THIS? And how is this product generating repeat business once these dumbass losers see a $40 charge on their wireless bills? And how are they making enough money to advertise at all? And why are they advertising on BBC America?

Something doesn't add up here. Until you remember that 95% of people are stupid and 100% of men are fucked up sexually.

P.S. Speaking of TV recommendations, I have a strong one for you: "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia". It's a low-budget show on FX (channel 248 on DirecTV), starring three very talented young guys who write all the episodes. To date there have been two seasons, 6 episodes in 2005, and 6 more in 2006. The former episodes are pure gold, every single one of them a gem, some of the funniest shit I've seen on TV since "Arrested Development" got the axe.

In the 2006 season, they brought in Danny Devito for some star power (most likely necessary to stay on the air), and the show suffered a bit. No slight to Devito, who does a good job, but it's just a weird fit--the plot lines with him feel a little forced. But the 2006 season is still funny as hell. So check it out, they're currently playing reruns from both seasons. It's really a fantastic show, a rare funny, edgy and original comedy that stands out in a sea of mediocrity, below-averageness, downright crappiness, and Scrubs.

FRIDAY THOUGHTS

UTAH

It looks like Utah is falling back to earth, they're 4-6 in their last 10 and proving to be in a tier with the Lakers--and possibly San Antonio--below the true league heavyweights, Dallas and Phoenix.

Since their red hot 15-4 start, they've gone 10-10 over the last 20 to fall a half-game behind the Lakers for that all-important #4 seed in the Western Conference playoffs. And this despite the Lakers missing their second best player in Lamar Odom for the last couple of weeks. They're still not getting anything on the offensive end from Andrei Kirilenko, and the shooting guard spot has been a revolving door with Matt Harpring, Ronnie Brewer and Gordon Giricek failing to impress.

Still, this team isn't going away, they have a great frontline with Carlos Boozer and Mehmet Okur (playing some of the best basketball of his career lately), and Deron Williams is here to stay as one of the best PGs in the league. In 8 January games, Williams is averaging a cool 18 ppg and 9.6 apg, against only 2.1 turnovers per.

I think they're a lot like the Lakers--a very good, very young team starting to come together, but still probably a year or two away. Keep in mind that Okur, at just 27, is the old man among their core players. Boozer, Kirilenko, and Williams are all 25 or younger. The future's bright in Utah, so you Salt Lake Citians can raise a glass of ice cold milk in celebration!

LAKERS

I've talked about the Lakers a lot lately, so I'll keep this brief. Great, *great* win against San Antonio on the road, with Kobe playing just a brilliant game on both ends. I knew they'd get killed the next night in Dallas, it was just a perfect storm of a road game against a tough team, the 2nd game in a back-to-back, coming off an emotionally draining win--and Dick Bavetta officiating. The line was Dallas -10, and I didn't touch it; but then when I saw Bavetta was officiating, I literally sprinted to my computer to get on sportsbook.com, but couldn't get the bet down on Dallas in time.

Sure enough, Bavetta was in rare form, making a bunch of calls so bizarre even the team benefiting clearly didn't understand what they were for. Oh, moving pick? Really? Cool! And the Lakers struggle rebounding against Dallas even at the best of times--with both Lamar Odom and Kwame Brown out, and Bavetta letting guys climb each other's backs like they were clamoring for the final seat on the last 'copter out of Saigon, Dallas' offense boiled down to: "throw up shitty shot, crash the boards, get layup". And it worked.

Oh well, I'm stil damned happy with the way the Lakers are playing without Odom. Like the Jazz, they're still a year or two away from serious contention, but I still like them to play the Jazz or Spurs pretty much evenly, and to give the Suns and Mavs at least a tough series if it should come about.

HOUSTON

If there weren't enough monster teams in the West, well, here comes Houston. Before a recent hiccup, Houston posted a nice little 9-1 run. They're now at 25-15, just behind the Lakers and Jazz in the West. And they've done it without Yao Ming, their best player and the best center in the league by far. They have lost two in a row, but that was on the road to Dallas and home against Phoenix with Tracy McGrady sitting out and a starting lineup of Rafer Alston-Luther Head-Shane Battier-Juwan Howard-Dikembe Mutumbo. It's a miracle they only lost by 9.

You gotta give it up for coach Jeff Van Gundy. I hate his style of play, but the proof is in the pudding--they're winning games (in a tough conference, on the road) with their best player out and the their next best player gimpy.

Reasons for their success:

1. They play great defense for 48 minutes a night--they're leading the league in ppg allowed at 90.5 and FG% allowed at .420. I questioned the Battier/Rudy Gay trade at the time, but it's now obvious I was wrong; Battier is the perfect guy to plug into that Van Gundy system. He's a dedicated and versatile defender, and can shoot the three (integral to what Houston's doing on offense, with T-Mac driving and kicking out to perimeter shooters).

2. Speaking of McGrady, he was going gangbusters until that damn back pain flared up again (buddy, I hear ya). Before sitting out the last game, McGrady was averaging a ridiculous 30/6/7.5 in 8 January games. Like Kobe, he's finally figuring out that his ability to create for his teammates is one of his most valuable assets. Both of them can get any shot they want at any time--but Brian Cook, Smush Parker, Shane Battier, and Luther Head can't. So they need someone to drive, break down the D, and get them the ball where they can make a shot. If Kobe/T-Mac don't do that, they're making these guys completely worthless; when they do, they make them a valuable addition to the team. I'm not saying they should turn into Steve Nash, they should both be looking to score 25-30 a night--a bad shot for these guys really is sometimes better than a good shot for someone else--but getting other people involved makes for a better team. For once the TWMASWs (typical white middle-aged sportswriters) are spot on.

3. And I have to give it up for old man Mutombo, who's partying like it's 1999 out there. This dude is *40*--at least! He might be 45 for all we know! And he's going up against the likes of Amare, Marcus Camby, Andrew Bynum, Pau Gasol, and Jermaine O'Neal, all in the last couple of weeks. And all he's done in 9 January games is average 14 boards and 2 blocks in 32 minutes a night. That's astonishing. That's absolutely crazy. Kudos on the return, even if it's only a brief one, of Mount Mutombo. There's no way in hell this team would be doing what it's doing without him.

EASTERN CONFERENCE QUICKIES

1. Wow, the Cavs aren't impressive.

2. Wow, the Pistons suck without Chauncey Billups. If there was a doubt about whether they'd re-sign him or not, I think it's been answered. If they let Billups go, they might as well hold a fire sale for everyone but Prince, Maxiell, Delfino, Amir Johnson and start over from square one.

3. I'm happy Webber ended up with the Pistons, I think that's a good fit for him. I would've liked to have seen him on the Lakers, just for short term depth with Odom & Kwame out, but the Pistons need him more than LA does. He's a shell of his former self, obviously, but that might be enough to boost the already-solid Pistons over the rest of their crap-ass Eastern Conference competitors. Really, the conference is a total joke.

4. Watch out for Indiana. Sort of. I don't like the trade with Golden State because they added several millions of dollars to payroll and gave up the best player in the deal in Al Harrington, but a team with a frontcourt of Danny Granger-Troy Murphy-Jermaine O'Neal isn't half bad. They have almost no shooting (I'm aware Mike Dunleavy is now on the team; I stand by the opinion), and Jamal Tinsley has been pretty awful this year, but they still might have enough to compete in the East, especially since they have quite a bit of depth now--in addition to the guys mentioned above, they have Marquis Daniels and Jeff Foster, and made a couple of potentially nice pickups in the Warriors trade with Ike Diogu (who looks damn good every time I see him play) and the steady Keith McLeod. They're only just above .500 now, but they've played the highest percentage of games on the road of any team in the NBA other tha Philly.

THE PROBLEM WITH LEBRON

Trivia question: Who is the all-time leader in blocked shots, by a wide margin? (hint: they didn't start keeping the stat until 1974)

Before I get started here, I want to stipulate that Lebron James is awesome beyond all comprehension, he came into the league with probably the most hype of any athlete in the history of sports--and incredibly enough, he surpassed it. He's hands-down one of the very best players in the league and probably already one of the 25 or so best players of all time.

OK, I've acknowledged how great he is, so when I criticize, I'm only doing it in the context of how he stacks up against the true greats in the NBA.

'Nuff said. Here we go.

I see some Vince Carter in Lebron. No, that's not fair. I see some Kevin Garnett--LBJ plays hard, he's never just completely phoned it in the way Vince did in Toronto (I love how we suspend a guy for 20% of the season for throwing a punch in the heat of battle but Vince gets a pass for essentially throwing games).

Kevin Garnett is also a great, great player, a top 50 guy of all time, a fierce competitor who busts his ass for every minute of every game. But he can be, uh, passive at times. We all know it. I'm not talking about defense and rebounding, KG will *always* bring it in those departments. But look, he's a 6'11 guy who can shoot, handle, drive, and has great post moves--and has a career scoring average of a shade over 20 ppg.

Hey, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with scoring 20 points a game, not many guys average 20 for their career, but you always feel like with his ability, he could score more if he were just a little more proactive out there. He has a certain mindset you see in some great athletes where he just defers a little too much. Now there's nothing wrong with deferring sometimes, look at how much better the Lakers are when Kobe scores 27 vs. 35. Or just look at the greatness of Steve Nash. But when you play on a team with no other great players and you're "only" scoring 20 a game, well, maybe you need to be a bit more forceful. There's absolutely no physical reason Garnett couldn't score 25+, he just doesn' t have that Kobe/Bird/Jordan mindset where he knows he's the star, he knows the team lives or dies with him, and he knows he has to make things happen when nobody else has his shit going on.

For all the criticism Kobe gets (much of it deserved), some of the best games I've ever seen him play are ones where he completely forced the action and put up a lot of points on a lot of shots. Now there are times he's done that when it's been a horrible game, but I'm talking about games where he played it cool up until it was obvious that nobody else had anything working and the team just flat-out wasn't going to win if Kobe didn't ride in on his white horse and save the day, even if he wasn't really feeling it that night. Sometimes when that happens, he just can't shoot himself into a hot streak and the team loses. But sometimes he just forces the action, gets it going--or at least struggles through enough to put up points & keep the game close--and gives the team a shot at the end by sheer force of will.

Garnett doesn't do that. He scores a lot when he's feeling it, he doesn't when he's not--even if the team needs him to. Now I'm (*finally*) getting back around to Lebron. Now Lebron isn't exactly like Garnett, it's hard to criticize a 30+ ppg scorer for being too passive. And yet, he can be. At times. He's just so goddamned good, he can put up great numbers no matter how he plays it, active or passive. He's going to hit some ridiculous jumpers, he's going to get fouled, he's going to get rebounds and assists and steals and blocks and be generally awesome.

But I've seen some games of his recently where I felt there were situation like those Laker games mentioned above, when Kobe's supporting cast just doesn't have it that night (which, with the Cavs' crap supporting cast, is nearly every fucking game), and their best shot is for their superstar to get out of his funk and force the action--and LBJ just hasn't come through.

This game tonight was a great example. James had 34/6/6 on 15-28 shooting. Great game, right? 28 shots, hard to criticize him for being too passive, right? Well, a lot of that came in the fourth quarter with the team down 30, so the numbers aren't all they seem. In the 3rd quarter, with the team down but still with a reasonable shot at getting back in it, I felt like I was watching KG when the Cavs needed Kobe. It was honestly pretty astonishing how often he'd come down, pass off the ball, and just stand around on the perimeter. Every shot he took was a fallaway jumper, including a bunch of threes (seriously, what does anyone not named Dirk shoot on fallway threes, 15%). Here's a good stat--he took 28 shots and got to the line a whopping 2 times! I mean, that says it all right there. The Cavs might not have won the game, but they got *blown out* because James didn't play like a superstar when the team needed him to.

Now let's contrast with the other two best players in the league, Kobe and Wade. They both have their faults, but this--playing like a superstar when the team needs you to--ain't one of 'em. You never have to worry that Kobe or Wade is just going to disappear at a crucial time, to be shrinking violets standing in the corner like a Bostjan Nachbar waiting to toss up a prayer three when they should be taking the ball at the top of the key and going hellbent for the rim, over and over and over. I kept thinking how I wished the game were in Cleveland, where a booing crowd might have reawakened LBJ's fire.

To his credit, he didn't just give up once the blowout was a given (the way a Vince Carter would), he came back in the fourth quarter firing. I guess KG is the perfect comparison, a guy whose will to win you can never question. It's not about that, it's not that KG isn't taking the game over because he's feeling lazy or scared. He just doesn't have the Kobe/Bird/Jordan mindset where even if you're not feeling your absolute best on a given night, a superstar's job is to be a superstar. You don't have to force it when things are going well for your teammates; but when they're not, it's all on you. When James is on, there's no one better, including Wade and Kobe. But when he's not on, he takes a giant backseat to the other two. And that's important, because you're "not on" for a good percentage of the time, even when you're a mega-star like these three.

I mean, let's get some perspective here, Lebron just turned 22 a week ago, and he's unquestionably already one of the greatest players of our generation. I'm nitpicking more than anything here, I'm only saying he's passive *at times*. He frequently takes the game over, and he gets to the line as well as almost anyone. I just think (a) Wade and Kobe are slightly better players because of this little flaw, and (b) this has to be the next evolution of his game if he wants to get to the MJ level and make the Cavs a real contender. And I mean *NBA CHAMPIONSHIP* contender, not just being happy with winning the crap-ass Eastern Conference. We saw tonight that the East's best isn't anywhere even close to the West's. And it'll probably come, he's got plenty of time to develop that ability to shake off an off night and do his best to force it into being a 'good' one. That can come with maturity--but it is interesting that guys like Bird, Jordan, Kobe, and Wade clearly had that mindset from day one. I guess we'll see if we have the next MJ on our hands, or another Kevin Garnett.

TRIVIA ANSWER: Hakeem Olajuwon, by far over Dikembe Mutombo, who just surpassed Kareem for #2. Olajuwon had like four straight years with over 4 blocks per game, which is just sick.

BACK FROM VACATION

Remember, you heard this here first:

THE LOS ANGELES LAKERS ARE GOING TO WIN THE NBA CHAMPIONSHIP.

In 2009.

Seriously, this team probably doesn't have the consistency and defensive intensity to run with the big dogs in a 7-game playoff series this season, but man, the future's so bright, I gotta wear shades.

The Lakers are coming off a stirring victory over the red-hot Dallas Mavericks despite injuries to Robin-to-Kobe's-Batman Lamar Odom and starting center Kwame Brown--*and* despite being generally ROOKED by the officials (the last no-call when Smush Parker got Jason Terry's hand on the blocked shot being a very notable exception). I swear to god, if you get a reputation as a "defensive team", the refs take it as a license to let anything short of sexual penetration go. In a just universe, Devin Harris fouls out of every single game in about 7 minutes.

I think you have to give some mad props to Mitch Kupchak here, the GM of the Lakers. He's taken a hailstorm of shit for dismantling the championship group (even though he had Kobe pointing a gun to his head & forcing his hand on Shaq), but he's done as good a job rebuilding while capped out as you can possibly expect.

Sure, he got lucky as hell on Andrew Bynum, a rapidly arriving teenage center, but Kupchak was the one who had the balls to draft him while there were other, more established players still on the board. He'd have taken all the criticism if Bynum had flopped--which probably would've cost Kupchak his job--so he deserves all the praise now for finding that oh-so-rare potential franchise center. Bynum has a lot of work left to do (especially in terms of smart play & consistency), but he's got everything you want in a young big man--good footwork, outstanding hands, soft touch, shotblocking ability, and massive, massive size. By 2008-2009, I'm predicting he'll be holding court in the middle for a championship-caliber team and putting up 16 & 10 with a couple blocks a night...all at the age of 21.

(ASIDE: Call me crazy if you must, but here goes: there's not a chance in hell I'd trade Bynum for Greg Oden. No way. First of all, Bynum's only like three months older and, if they played, would abuse Oden like Oden's going to abuse Michigan's Courtney "The Giant Pussy" Sims (hey, maybe there are more creative nicknames, but none more accurate). Bynum would get 20 & 10 and block at least 5 of Oden's shots. Period. Now Oden has *loads* of potential, no doubt, but Bynum's just as big, just as athletic, and is already doing it on the NBA level. I think the chances of Oden being a flop are extremely small, but Bynum's chances are probably even less--because I've already seen he can really play at this level. Big Andrew's tearing apart DPOTY candidate Marcus Camby while Oden's struggling against the spastic frontline of the University of Illinois.)

Then you have the new-found *depth* on this team. You Pistons fans know what it's like to work with a very thin bench, and the Lakers have had one for years. It hurt them in the tail end of their championship run (I still shudder when I think about the phrase "and it looks like Samaki Walker is coming in for Shaq"), and it absolutely killed them in the last of the Shaq years and the aftermath. Now all of a sudden, Kupchak has added quality players in Vladimir Radmanovic, Maurice Evans (I don't know how the Pistons let this guy go away for the chump change he makes), Jordan Farmar (another great draft pick who I project to be starting in 2 years), and Ronny Turiaf. Add in Bynum, the suddenly decent Sasha Vujacic and lights-out shooter Brian Cook, and this is a team that goes 12 deep.

Again, I don't think they're quite ready yet--but nobody, and I mean *nobody*, is going to want a piece of this team in the playoffs--but if they can keep the core group of players together, I think they can make a run in 2008-2010. Dallas and Utah are in good shape to stay among the elites, but the Spurs can only go as far as an increasingly decrepit Tim Duncan can take them, and Nash is coming up on his 33rd birthday in February. They have a lot of young talent, but it remains to be seen whether their whole deal can work without its ringleader.

Meanwhile the Lakers in the spring of 2009 will be lining up with a 30-year-old Kobe, a 29-year-old Odom, Bynum and Farmar, and some combination of Radmanovic, Walton (he'll get a lot of interest around the league, but I don't see the Lakers letting him get away), Evans and Turiaf, and then a couple spare parts out of the Kwame/Smush/Vujacic/Cook group. You can't keep everyone, but they can afford to lose a couple of the lesser guys. If Bynum develops like I think he'll develop, that's a formidable group. Kudos to Mitch Kupchak on a fine rebuilding job.

Now on to non-Laker items...

Minnesota is surprsingly showing signs of life, as Randy Foye is finally getting some minutes; he's averaging 12 per game in just 23 minutes over his last 13 games, and shooting an excellent .466 from the floor. I told you this guy can play, Minnesota was nuts to chain him to the bench as long as they did. Minnesota has beaten San Antonio and Chicago in the last week or so, but blown games to Toronto and New Jersey. Weird team. They're still nothing special and have zero chance to get beyond the first round of the playoffs--if they even make it in--but their mini-resurgence (and Foye's improvement) may impact whether Garnett gets moved or not.

Here's my take on Iverson in Denver--I think it's going to work. I mean, not that they'll win a championship, I just don't think they're good enough to do that. But I think they'll be a much better team with Iverson than with Miller. I've watched several of their games since the trade, and I've been struck by several things. The first is the general awesomeness of Allen Iverson; he's still clearly one of the very best players in the league. Another is that I'm confident Iverson is capable of playing (and willing to play) a more traditional PG role. I mean, don't get me wrong, he'll still be scoring 20+ per night, but he's been really doing a great job with a facilitator role since he got to Denver, and those passes that are currently going to Yakhouba Diawara and Linas Kleiza will work out a lot better when they're going to Melo and JR Smith. I could be wrong, but I don't see AI having a problem deferring to Carmelo. There are still plenty of shots to go around, and Iverson will get his points one way or another. I think they'll be a really fun--and really *good*--team when everyone gets back, but unfortunately for them, the 5 best teams in basketball are in the Western Conference (Mavs, Suns, Spurs, Jazz, Lakers), so I don't think they can do much beyond the first round. But man, who's going to want to play Melo-AI for 7 games? What if it's Phoenix-Denver in the first round? It'll be like 1983 all over again, every game will be 130-125.

Hot players over the last month:

I said earlier that Gilbert Arenas was the greatest player in NBA history who wasn't one of the 10 best players in the league. I take it back--he's clearly one of the 10 best players in the league right now, and a legit MVP candidate. In the last month, he's averaging 35 points per game on .470+ shooting (including almost 40% on 8+ three attempts per game), and has led Washington to within 1 game of Southeast-divison-leading Orlando. They're coming off a bad loss to rapidly improving Toronto (getting Chris Bosh back will do that for you), but have beaten Phoenix and Orlando in recent weeks. Joining Arenas in his strong play have been Antawn Jamison (22 & 10 over the last month) and especially Caron Butler (25/8/5 on .544 shooting in a month-long coming out party). The Wizards still play no defense whatsoever, but the gunslinger trio might be enough to make them a contender in the crap-ass East.

How about Mike Miller? Getting back Pau Gasol--and losing coach Mike Fratello and his plodding, defensive-minded ways--has paid huge dividends for Miller, who's averaging 20/7/5 over the last month with a FG% over .500. He's also making 3.5 threes per game on well over 40% shooting.

Another guy coming on strong is Mo Williams, one of the catalysts along with Michael Redd of the recent Milwaukee run--they had won 7 of 8 to get over .500, but dropped back to back games against conference heavyweights Cleveland and Washington. Still, Williams is averaging 21/6/7 in the last month with 1.7 threes per, and shooting over .500 from the floor.

Andre Iguodala is profiting from Iverson's departure and the arrival of a true PG in Andre Miller, breaking out with 20/5/5 with a couple of steals over the last month, with a solid .482 FG%.

And lastly and leastly, a couple of the Celtics' kids are in the process of breaking out. Al Jefferson, finally getting heavy minutes when everyone knew he was the best big man they had, is averaging 16 & 11 with almost 2 blocks per in 17 games as a starter, and Tony Allen, an athletic 6'4 shooting guard out of Oklahoma State, is averaging 17/6/3 with over 2 steals per game the last month, and shooting .534 from the floor during that period. Jefferson's and Allen's surge isn't translating into wins for the hapless Celtics, but hey, when you suck, there's nothing better than finding out a couple of your young guys may be real players. I've also seen some intriguing things from the youngest of their young guys, 6'8 forward Gerald Green. He's very up and down, as you might imagine, but he just finished up a December where he averaged a solid 9.6 ppg in 20 minutes of play, shot .469 from the floor and a sparkling .447 from three on over 3 attempts per game. Not too shabby.