Channing Frye's blog

Is worth visiting at least once.

I prayed to God for a miracle and what happened? Free internet in the PDX airport. The time blew by. I looked at all the funny videos from the letter-opening bunny to the daily condensed soup, which I recommend for everyone to watch — it’s hilarious.

I get on the plane sit in my nice comfortable 1st class seat and to my dismay the “bubble gut monster” arose his bubbly badness inside my stomach. What I mean is that I had to lay down a huge fart. If we were outside in the woods or maybe at an all-guys party I would have tore a hole in the universe but I had to hold it. Too many people too soon and I knew it was gonna smell.

Et cetera.

All I ask for from NBA players is a semblance of personality. It's a small ask, yet one often unfulfilled by people professionally trained to be dull and boring. A small bit of personality goes a long way, particularly if you aren't very good. If you're likeable as a person, then by proxy you're more likeable as a player. This theory worked on me for Paul Shirley, Scot Pollard, Mark Pope, Andrew Bogut, Rod Benson, Yao Ming, Jalen Rose, Rasheed Wallace, Jonny Gomes, and even Ron Artest. In my book, you gain invauable bonus points for just not being dull. (Let it be known, though, that you will also lose said points for all animal cruelty charges accrued. So that definitely counts against Ron.)

Similarly, if you're completely humourless, the chances are that I won't even try to enjoy watching you play. This is why I'm always quick to defoul Josh Smith, try to avoid Cavaliers games, and why the Derrick Rose era doesn't hearten me as much as it should. (Michael Beasley is entertaining, and he's good. Let it be known that I wanted him, while also remembering that my opinion on draftees ain't worth a damn thing.)

So every time I learn of an NBA player showing signs of a personality without a hint of remorse, I'm all for you. Well done, Mr Frye. Keep writing and not being Josh Smith.

(By the way, the above "personality = good" theory doesn't particularly apply to Gilbert Arenas. He's just interfering. Points gained for trying, points lost for being annoying.)

Derrick Rose, as seen by someone who's never seen him

So the Chicago Bulls won the lottery. Hooray! Insert a Youtube video of a girl pulling a happy face while 'Surfin' Bird' by The Trashmen plays alongside her. Dance accordingly. Woop with joy. And stuff like that.

So apparently, we're (read: they're) now choosing between two players called Derrick Rose and Michael Beasley. Great.

So anyway. I don't watch NCAA basketball, because it's not on the telly. I also never read up on draftees, because I don't like to regurgitate other people's opinions. (Everyone else can do that, so I let everyone else do it.) This changed a bit, though, when they won the lottery.

So I've been doing the tiniest amount of research. And from what I can gather, Derrick Rose may or may not have good court vision due to his head coach running a system that doesn't feature a traditional point guard much, didn't score a whole lot due to a 'stacked' team, isn't a good shooter, and can't finish with his left hand.

So I ask you: what am I missing that makes this guy a number 1 pick? Why would a coach have a supposed surefire superstar and potential number 1 overall pick, and not tailor the offense to suit his strengths? Why would a potential number 1 pick, whose strength is supposedly his scoring, be outscored by his inferior, we're-not'going-to-be-drafted-number-one-overall-to-be-honest teammates?

So what have I missed?

(So Taguchi.)

(So Safan.)