The Assassination Of Devean George By The Coward Donnie Nelson

February 13th, 2008. Wednesday. Raining.

The Dallas Mavericks are tootling along with a 34-17 record. They're pretty good, and perhaps they know it, because they're suddenly overwhelmed with the urge to do something stupid.

A veteran team with only one good young player decides on a plan to get older and worse. The Mavericks decide that Jason Kidd is a significant upgrade over Devin Harris, and work out a variety of scenarios that see them trade Devin and two future first round draft picks for Kidd. They're wrong, but they work hard at it anyway, determined to obtain a player that puts them further away from the hump that they're already sliding away from. Two years ago, it would have been a steal. But not now.

Eventually, they stumble upon a scenario that both they and the Nets can agree upon. Dallas agrees to trade Harris, the picks, cash, DeSagana Diop, Maurice Ager, Jerry Stackhouse and Devean George to the Nets in exchange for Kidd and Malik Allen. The fillers are largely meaningless; outside of Harris, only Diop is a significant player for the Mavericks, and even then he sucks more ass than most people care to acknowledge. The core of the deal is Harris for Kidd, and both teams seem pretty happy with that. The fundamental pieces are together, peripherals of the long-awaited deal are finally in place, and everyone's a winner. (Except Dallas.)

Things then get a bit weird. Through a hitherto little-known technicality, one of the least important components of the deal - backup forward George - has the power to veto the trade. George re-signed with the Mavericks in the previous offseason to a one year contract, and Dallas will have early Bird rights on him when his contract expires. However, if George gets traded, the recipient team will lose his Bird rights if they trade for him, which reduces George's chances of getting handily paid next season. [Let's pretend for a minute that such chances existed.] I don't really understand the purpose of the rule, but it exists, and it applies to Devean. As a result, players on one year contracts who will have early or full Bird rights at the season's end are given the right to veto any trades that they may be in, so that they aren't powerless to prevent having their Bird rights taken away from them. And that's the power George wields.

The rule wasn't really written for situations like this. I'm not really sure who it does apply to, really, but it definitely wasn't for this reason. Yet it applies anyway, and therefore, to a chorus of anger and giggles, George exercises his right to veto the trade and emphatically pisses on Mark Cuban's strawberries for at least 72 hours.

Vetoing the trade doesn't endear George to the Mavericks fans. They boo him lustily, already aggrieved by his crapness and his club's weird affection for him. It also doesn't help that he plays 33 minutes later that same night, and scores 0 points on 11 shots. But technically and morally, he did no wrong. He did what he had to do, and looked for himself. He merely made some people look bad while doing it.

(It also doesn't really hold up the Mavericks, who rework the trade later in the week anyway, substituting Stackhouse and George for Keith Van Horn and Trenton Hassell. With Antoine Wright also coming back in the reworked version, it's a better deal anyway. But I digress.)

---

Fast forward to this month.

George saw out the season with the Mavericks, sucked horribly, yet re-signed with the team for two more guaranteed years anyway. The inexplicable love that Donnie Nelson and Devean George feel for each other can never be topped, or properly understood. But it's about to change when Nelson tries to trade George again. And this time, he succeeds.

Two weeks ago, George was traded to the Raptors as a peripheral part of the Shawn Marion deal. Along with Antoine Wright, he went to Toronto as the afterthought backups to the also-acquired Hidayet Turkoglu, a move which showed the Raptors putting on a fine demonstration of creative financing, if not a good idea of how to build a team. (And if you don't think there's not an I-TOLD-YOU-SO post coming on that subject, then you're very much mistaken.) However, as far as Devean George was concerned, there was another caveat.

Now, it's possible that they are not vengeance-driven horrible bastards. It's possible that they just did this without considering the possible side effects down the road. But here's the thing; when re-signing George this past summer to a two year $3.2 million contract that paid $1.6 million in both seasons, Nelson and Cuban added a somewhat rare clause to the contract that called for George to get a $200,000 bonus if the Mavericks win a certain number of games this season. I don't know what the threshold was, but I'm guessing it was 50 wins, since that's what they won last season (such predictions are calculated during the moratorium using the team's record from the previous season as the basis). Since the Mavericks can be realistically expected to achieve that next year, George had himself a $200,000 bonus.

But then he was traded to the Raptors. They didn't win 50 games last year, and thus the CBA cannot consider them likely to do it this year either. As a result, George loses $200,000. And though he's subsequently been traded to the Golden State Warriors in a shameful deal for Marco Belinelli, the same applies; George has lost his bonus.

Revenge.

Of course, the fact that the Mavericks had given George a combined $5,943,370 to play with them over the last three seasons means the last laugh is still firmly on them. Their inability to realise that they were paying to retain a man with scoring the scoring efficiency of Willie Green, the rebounding of Jason Collins and the oft-misrepresented defense of Andres Nocioni means that they're the real victims here, the victims of their own silliness. But, still. Vengeance is sweet.



(EDIT: It's been brought to my attention that they above is too confusing. Fair enough. Here's the gist of it, reworded; based on last year's win total, the Mavericks were expected to win 50 games. As a result, George's cap number was raised to $1.8 million. Now that he's a Warriors, it's been knocked down to $1.6 million again. But George was only going to be paid $1.6 million UNTIL the 50 wins happened, at which point he'd get the bonus. The basic point remains, though; by not now being a Mav, George loses $200,000. That is all.)

Summer signings, round 6

- So, in the last post, I talk about how the Boston Celtics free agents aren't expected back. I wasn't speculating or breaking news, merely regurgitating the news offered up by various Celtics beat writers. What then immediately happens? Eddie House and Tony Allen re-sign. Ter-bloody-riffic. Can't I be allowed to self-own without the assistance of others? I say enough dumb shit of my own to kick my own arse many times over. I don't need the incisive input of others to further drag me down, too. Dammit. The lesson, as ever: screw Danny Ainge.

- Speaking of the Celtics, they were also reported to be in the running for Golden State Warriors free agent forward, Matt Barnes. But Barnes has apparently (and I'm using that word at all times now) committed to sign with the Phoenix Suns for the minimum. How the hell did that happen? How did a decent player go for the minimum, when we're still only in the first month of free agency, a month that has seen inferior and comparable players go for the full mid level exception? How have Matt Barnes and his agent not managed to turn his career resurgence into a single multi-year contract yet? How did Steve Kerr manage to pull off such a good move? And why couldn't the Celtics wade in with at least their bi-annual exception? The lesson, as ever: screw Danny Ainge.

(Note: Rumour has it that the Celtics are pursuing Dallas Mavericks forward Devean George, who isn't expected to re-sign with Dallas for obvious reasons. (Also note: for those unaware of the obvious reasons, here they are: 1) Devean George is a bit crap, and 2) Devean George vetoed the original Jason Kidd deal, which, while rather inconsequential in the end, was definitely a bit embarassing. Double bracket.) George isn't a bad backup plan for the Celtics, despite me just calling him "a bit crap". But I still don't see why you wouldn't offer offer just a teeeeeny bit more for Matt Barnes, luxury tax ramifications be damned. You just won a title, for God's sake. Why such tight purse strings?)

- Josh Childress has balls of steel. Depending on who you believe, it's all but a done deal that Childress is going to sign with Olympiakos in Greece, in what is either the biggest deal ever signed by a European team, or close to it. There are people scattered all around the internet who can write, will write, and who are writiing considerably longer articles about what this move will mean for the long term future of the NBA, and particularly the perils and pitfalls of restricted free agency, something which I personally hope dies a miserable death. (Through a combination of the draft, restricted free agency, and being traded, some NBA players can go their whole careers without ever being able to choose their place of employment. How is that fair, even with the massive salaries that they get?) I, however, can't be bothered. But I will commend Childress for his testicular fortitude - trapped in a situation without any real leverage, he managed to find some, a victory for humanity and oppression everywhere. And for Europe, obviously. (By the way, for those who love to say things like "Childress won't fit in in Europe because he's not a very good shooter".....there's more to European basketball than shooting, you know.)

- Nets forward Bostjan Nachbar has also gone to Europe, signing with Dynamo Moscow (that's in Moscow) for three years. The weird pile-on effect from the Childress move is the subsequent over-analysis of the decision for every player who signs in Europe, such as Nachbar and Carlos Delfino. Suddenly, every European signing is symbolic of the demise of the strength of the dollar, or of a systematic failure of the NBA machine. But caught up in that overexuberance are two key oversights:

1) Nachbar and Delfino both started out in European leagues, so going back there isn't all that alien of a concept.

2) They are average NBA players at best. Average to fringe NBA players have occasionally signed in Europe for a while now. It is a direct by-product of the NBA teams signing and drafting so much European talent for themselves - there are only 450 spots in the NBA for about 600 deemed to be worthwhile players, and so some people are going to lose out.

Things are changing, but Bostjan Nachbar isn't a symptom. But, hey, don't let that stop you from overthinking it if you want.


- Primoz Brezec of the Toronto Raptors also signed in Europe, for Lottomatica Roma of Italy. But no one cares about that.

- In a shock NBA-to-NBA transaction, the Orlando Magic signed and traded Keyon Dooling to the Nets, in exchange for nothing significant at all. This represents the first bit of profitable Creative Financing™ of Magic GM Otis Smith's career, so maybe he's learning. As for the Nets, they now have 18 players under contract, but I'm sure that they can find it within themselves to cut Maurice Ager and Keith Van Horn. It is, however, the final nail in the coffin for my Andres Nocioni trade idea. Damn shame.

- Finally, I can bring you big news of two further European signings. Tamar Slay signed with Avellino in Italy, and Boise State's finest Matt Nelson signed with Mahatman Gandia in Spain's lower leagues. This interested me unil I realised that Boise State's finest Matt Nelson was not THE Matt Nelson. I know you feel that pain.

GregOstertagsHairline.com: the NBA website that answers the question that not a single person cared enough to ask.

Why John Freakin' Stockton Was So Freakin' Fantastic

A conversation with a friend about the awesomeness/awfulness of DeSagana Diop - and you can probably guess which side of the fence I am on regarding that - led to me to write about how great John Stockton is.

Come re-live that fun journey with me.



I try and keep an open mind on certain basketball philosophies. There are some players out there whose worth on the court is so mysterious that you really have to question their very presence on it, and yet, for whatever reason, they remain out there. A lot of them get regular rotation minutes. Some of them get regular rotation minutes on decent or good teams. And I always endeavour to understand why.

As an example, for many years, Jason Collins started on the New Jersey Nets. Not only did he start, but he would also play over twenty minutes a game (up to the tune of 31.8 in 2004/05). A quick glance at his statistics, though, makes you wonder why the hell this was. Collins has never shot over 43% in a season, which must be pretty dumbfoundingly difficult to do as a 7 footer, especially an athletic 7 footer with Jason Kidd as your point guard. (Even Michael Ruffin managed this once, and he did it armed with Bryce Drew leading the breaks. Bryce effing Drew.) Collins also has a rebounding average worse than Eddy Curry's, with a career average of a tumultuous 8.8 boards per 48 minutes. And worst of all was his PER, which last year was a can't-even-think-of-an-adjective-shit-enough-for-it 3.3. (Only this year, when it hit 3.1, did the Nets think "hmmm, maybe we could find a player with a more positive impact on the game if we try". Impressively, they did.)

I listened to arguments as to why Collins merited the court time that he got. On a good team, he would play more than half the game, despite seemingly not doing a single thing well. I watched closely and tried to figure out what it was that he was good at, and I listened to people paid to be flattering about him (i.e. Iain Eagle) try and polish this turd as shiny as it could get. I could see that Collins was a versatile defensive player, big and strong enough to defend the tough post players, but also fleet footed and agile enough to stay in front of the quicker tall forwards as they made their way to the basket. I also understood that he was Jesus Collins, Lord Of The Handoff (giggidy), and that while he couldn't grab any rebounds of his own, he cleared out the lane well enough while boxing out for guards to come in and sweep rebounds off of the floor. (See?!? Kidd owes all those rebounds to Collins! And his rebounding during tenures on previous teams were just lucky.) I also accepted the argument that maybe Nets head coach Lawrence Frank had a raging man-boner for him and just couldn't let it subside, for this argument is often applicable to NBA coaches. (See also: Chris Duhon with Jim Boylan, Lindsey Hunter with Flip Saunders, and Orien Greene with anybody to have ever coached him.)

I considered it all. And then I disregarded it all. This was because - and let's be honest here - Jason Collins was (is) a massive huge great big fat negative of a basketball player. There's no point in being a little things player if you can't do any of the big things well. And anyway, shouldn't "little things" players be able to shoot above 50% from the free throw line?

(Oh and by the way, how in the hell did Collins go from a near-80% shooter to below the Wallace Line in 4 short years? What changed? How do certain players - usually big men - manage to get so bad from the line so easily as they approach their prime years? See also: Magloire, Jamaal)

A similar situation occurs with DeSagana Diop. For whatever reason - and this has become much more prevalent since he was traded away - columnists and idiots alike would eulogise The Diop as if he were some kind of integral piece to the Mavericks championship puzzle, ignoring for a moment the fact that the Mavericks didn't actually have a championship puzzle (but that's a rant for another day). Indeed, Karate Diop is better than Jason Collins, which makes the situation slightly less deplorable. And Lasagna did give the Mavericks a skill with his rudimentary shot blocking that they otherwised lacked outside of the misshapen marvel that is Rick Dampier.

[Please feel free to look elsewhere while I burn through my own supply of extremely bad self devised DeSagana Diop nicknames. I'll get over it soon.]

But overall, DeSagana Diop was not, is not, and will probably never be a good basketball player. He used to be abhorrent, so his status as a reasonable to crappy backup centre is an improvement, yet this alone does not make him good.

This was the hard line stance that I took in our conversation, and prepared to back up my claim by using a piece of trivia that I last used in March 2006, about how Diop was on course to spend the most full seasons in the NBA of any player to average less than 2 points per game for his career (and "full seasons" is a key distinction there). However, to use this piece of trivia, I had to check that it was still true.

Sadly, it wasn't. A recent offensive explosion and the subsequent giddying heights of three points per game with the Mavericks this season have boosted Garnerchop to a career average of 2.1 points per game (or that's it was at the time of writing - if he's been on a scoring rampage since then, adjust accordingly), which undermined my premise and made me feel rather empty inside. How could I talk about Daisy Gardener being one of the worst offensive players of all time when he averages quite such a tremendous amount of points? I felt like such a twat.

Still, not one to be outdone, I rebounded (unlike Jason Collins), and offered up something new in my constant quest to win petty arguments with uninteresting trivia. While looking up Jop's career points average, I also happened to notice that his career high in points in a single game is a fantastic 10 points, achieved 4 times, 2 of which came this season. (Michael Ruffin has a career high of 14, for those keeping score at home, and you've probably noticed by now that I like to use The Muffin as my barometer when it comes to mentioning historically bad offensive players. His profile explains this in more depth.)

Those 4 explosive outings came in 409 career games. How can a man not score more than 10 points in 409 games? How is that possible? Wouldn't you do it by accident one day? At one point, wouldn't your teammates decide that enough is enough and conspire to give you enough touches to crack that elusive 11 point barrier? (And these things do happen, if your team is bad enough. See Mark Madsen's seven three point attempts in a single game in the most disgustingly shameless piece of tanking in NBA history.)

Seemingly, his teammates haven't ever thought of this. So if the Nets fall out of the playoff race this season, on purpose or otherwise, then we need to push this agenda forward. Let's get Diop to 20. In fact, 15 will do. Someone start a t-shirt campaign.



Anyway, this piece of fascinating Senegalese trivia led me on to another related one.

In 1504 career games, John Stockton never once grabbed at least 10 rebounds in a regular season game. Stockton also never had ten steals in a game either, meaning that ne never achieved a triple double, which is pretty astonishing for a man who averaged a double double over 19 seasons and 1504 games. (Note - he did once have a triple double in a playoff game, but it pisses on my chips a little to mention that, so pretend that it didn't happen.)

This discovery, which is surely a harder feat to not-achieve than Diop's points total, led me into an exploration of the man and the legend that was John Freakin' Stockton, and led me to compile this concise but considerable list of reasons quite why he was brilliant.


REASON NUMBER 1: John Freakin' Stockton played 1504 games in 19 NBA seasons, and for those doing the maths at home, this means that he only missed 22 games in his entire career. He had perfect attendance records in 17 of his 19 seasons, playing all 82 games in 16, all 50 games in the strike shortened 1998-99 season, a mere 78 in 1989-1990, and a pathetically dismal 64 games in 1997-1998. For the sake of reference, Marcus Camby has cracked the 64 game barrier only three times in 12 years, and has never played more than 72.

REASON NUMBER 2: John Freakin' Stockton played 1504 games and never grabbed 10 rebounds in a game. (The lesson here, as should be obvious - if you aggressively pursue rebounds, you'll shorten your career. So things are looking up for Jason Collins already.)

REASON NUMBER 3: John Freakin' Stockton just let it go.



Stockton played until he was 41 years old, and inevitably towards the end of his career he had a few years in which his performance slowly trailed off. But right up to and including his final season, Stockton continued to perform at a high level, starting for a Utah Jazz team that he led to a 47-35 record and the playoffs, all while averaging as-near-as-is 11 points, 8 assists and 2 steals a game. He also shot .483 that season, which is absolutely remarkable when you consider that this was 2003 that we are talking about, a season that did not favour shooting percentages.

But when faced with the decline of both his own skills and the Jazz's short term future, Stockton chose to walk away while he was still near the top of his game. This may seem like a normal or sensible thing to do, but recent precedent shows it to not be so normal after all.



So far in this 2007 season (including preseason and offseason), assorted stars of varying pedigree have either expressed an interest in returning to play one more season, or have actually done so. Allan Houston re-signed briefly with the New York Knicks before being waived in preseason in favour of Fred Jones. Chris Webber couldn't keep away and signed with the Golden State Warriors. Reggie Miller and the Boston Celtics had a brief two way flirtation before Reggie decided against un-retiring to play for only the second team of his NBA career. And Gary Payton's agent also contacted the Celtics, asking if they would return his love and affection and signing him for one more half season. (They didn't.)


Now forgive me for being a bit cynical here, as it's all I know. But why oh why might Payton want to do this?

Possible reasons:

a) He thinks he's still got it.
b) He's run out of money.
c) He wants to win an NBA title, and thinks he can get one with only the token gesture of suiting up every now and then.


If it's point A, then he's very, very wrong.

If it's point B, then he's going to have to make lifestyle changes to make the prorated veteran's minimum into an amount he can live comfortably off until his NBA pension is due.

And if it's point C, then he's pathetic.


Unfortunately, it's probably point C. And, in Gary Payton's case, it's an even more pathetic gesture than usual. For you see, Gary Payton has now achieved the almost-unachievable: he's now done this coattail riding act with three different teams. I can't think of any other instance in which that has happened, and frankly nor would I want to.

To make matters worse, Payton already has a ring from doing this, when he won with Miami back in 2005/06. So why's he hanging out desperately trying to win a ring, when he's already got one? Where's the pride in coattailing two of them, or does he feel ashamed by his first one and needs a second to restore pride? I can't see either scenario being all that profitable to his soul. And you know Gary Payton's got soul.


I don't have a problem with players that latch on with contending teams for less money than they could have gotten elsewhere, just to try and win a championship. That's not a problem with me. As any NBA "pundit" or "expert" will tell you - and I use that term very loosely - it's "all about" the rings. That is certainly the argument used to demean most players without them (or even those with them, if you're Kobe Bryant), and the alternative is to do what Reggie Miller did and stick around with a team that has no chance of winning the title just because you'll get more money that way. This is hardly a more dignified way to see out the end your career, even if it does lead to people praising you for your "loyalty", even if they misinterpret your loyalty to the chequebook as being your loyalty to a franchise.

Karl Malone, for example, played it just about right - he turned down the huge amounts of money and pleas of loyalty offered by Utah to go and spend two years for far less money trying to win a title with the L.A. Lakers. But once this bid failed, he took off. He did not go to another team elsewhere. Not again. Malone took his shot, missed, realised that his skills and health were on the way out, and threw in the towel once and for all. This was an impressive feat, especially given that he was within touching distance of one of the NBA's untouchable records - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's all time points scored record.

But this isn't really about the rings. Instead, it is about the good or great players just going away and not bothering us any more, in general.



When he retired as a player, Reggie Miller went on to become a TV personality. An annoying one. So did Jon Barry. So did Magic Johnson. So did Kendall Gill, Steve Smith, Greg Anthony, Mark Jackson, Scott Williams, and a good many other players. And almost universally, they are bad at it. There must be a reason why this is. Maybe it's stubbornness and the interference of their long-term memory on their cognitive capacity. But they just are bad at it, for whatever reason. Only a few shine in this broadcasters role, and most of those shine more for their entertainment value more than their actual ability to analyse.

Some former players go into coaching, irrespective of their abilities in this area. They can't live their lives as young up-and-coming basketball players any more, so they make sure that they are around to watch those of others develop. (It's either coaching, or a cameo in a Spike Lee movie.) Almost universally they are bad at this, too. For the most part, the better the player, the worse the coach or general manager they make. (There are some exceptions, such as Joe Dumars. But for every Joe Dumars, there's three or four Kevin McHale's.)

Worse still, some of the game's true all time greats hang around awkwardly at events such as All Star weekend, demonstrating their complete lack of touch with the modern NBA game, and occasionally making matters even worse by taking the court and proving that they aren't in any way the player that they used to be. It's deflating to watch, and should be made illegal. (There's potential for a second t-shirt campaign here.)



But John Stockton doesn't do any of this.

John Stockton just played until he shouldn't, and then took off. He didn't swan out, interfere with things that weren't his business to interfere with, or humiliate himself at All-Star weekends. He followed his career's path until he reached the end, and then he left.

And that's why he'll always be John Freakin' Stockton.