(originally published elsewhere) Cleveland committed their future to Kyrie Irving. They picked him first overall, gave him all the reins, and gave him all the plaudits. And yet now there are reports that they do not want to give him a maximum contract extension. Whether or not Irving is worth the maximum salary is not really relevant here. The point is loyalty, and, more importantly, the perception of loyalty. It is not automatically disloyal to offer less than the maximum salary in an extension to a player you (rightly) do not feel is worth it, but to the player and his powerful agent, it is perceived as so. Anything less than undivided love is insufficient love, because the assumption – fuelled by perception – is that undivided love is available elsewhere. If you show anything less than undivided love, you do not show sufficient loyalty. And NBA players are driven by loyalty. Offer them less than the maximum and they will point to all those beforehand in comparable situations who received it. Blake Griffin, for one, or fellow point guards Derrick Rose and John Wall (particularly Wall, who had a long way to go at the time he received his deal, moreso than Rose). It matters not if they are not worth the maximum – the assumption was always that they were going to get it, especially after picking him first overall, openly stating he is the future and the foundation, and when given that they are one of the few bright spots for the franchise in the last three moribund seasons. The fact that the last three years have been poor is partly Irving’s fault, of course, but that is not how this particular process works. It could, then, be a situation headed for a messy divorce. Especially if […]
Trevor Booker My early proclamations that Booker might be the next Paul Millsap were a bit premature, and overlooked the fact that Booker is about half the rebounder that Millsap is. Jumped the gun a bit there, I did. However, I remain confident in Booker’s abilities to contribute at the NBA level, despite his lack of size for the position. Boozer is athletic enough and has improved his face-up game, both the drive and the shot. He’ll have to be a small power forward, but he’s strong and athletic enough to do that. Eric Hayes Like his namesake Chuck, Eric Hayes is a master of the running layup. He will get free without the ball, cut to the basket and make the shot, in what commentators love to cite as a display of high IQ basketball. (They’re not wrong. It is.) Hayes is also a very good three point shooter, a decent defender, and was the solid all-around compliment to Grevis Vasquez’s wild ways. Those made him a great college player. But his significant physical disadvantages – a 6’4 shooting guard with mediocre foot speed and no leaping ability – will prevent any NBA allusions. Other than this one, of course. Lester Hudson Hudson made the Celtics roster out of training camp, but did not make it beyond the contract guarantee date with the team. However, he got his money anyway when the Grizzlies claimed him off waivers, and Hudson saw out the rest of the season there. The Grizzlies waived Hudson as well at the start of this month, and he’s now without a team. Hudson proved he could score in transition, but the rest of his game remains in question, particularly his skills in the half court. Abdulai Jalloh Jalloh is a Gambian/Ivory Coastian scoring guard, formerly of […]
Over the course of the last nine months, I have watched somewhere in the region of 700 NCAA games. I have done this partly because of a deep-rooted affinity for Jay Bilas, but also in anticipation of the NBA Draft. Draft Night ranks somewhere near Christmas Day and Metanoia Day1 as the best day of the year, and the only thing that can rival Draft Night for excitement is Draft Day. If you’re a basketball nerd, you will know why this is the most exciting thing ever. And if you’re not a basketball nerd, you should stop reading right now, because it only gets worse from here. Included in that 700 games are about 140 different teams. For reasons that perhaps a psychotherapist is better equipped to explain, it is my life’s pursuit to know about every player in male professional basketball.2 This is of course an impossible task, but if you can pigeon hole them early while they’re still amateurs, then you can get somewhere close to it. This, therefore, is where the NCAA proves invaluable. And given that you never know where the quality is going to come from, I tried to watch everyone. (Lafayette versus Lehigh was a particularly low point, as were the two Morgan State versus South Carolina State games. I think one would have sufficed there. And while I still have Yale vs Princeton stored up and ready to watch, I’m not sure I can manage it.) The reason I was able to watch all these games is because of the way ESPN have risen to power in the world of British basketball. For several months, ESPN was nothing but a competitively-priced amateur basketball cow. Multiple games a day, I imbibed that milk. Past drafts, and therefore past draft diaries, have not seen me […]
