10 Reasons to Wear Your Letterman Jacket After High School

10. Free entrance to the homecoming football game

_

9. You can cut in line at any fast food restaurant without opposition

_

8. Adds credibility to any "when I was in high school" story

_

7. Guaranteed top-3 pick in any pickup game chosen by captains

6. It will have only cost you $5 per year if you wear it for forty years

_

5. The rising cost of movie tickets won't impact you -- you'll still qualify for the student rate

_

4. Your parents may forget that you should have moved out by now

_

3. Everyday photo ops will turn out as classy as your senior pictures

_

2. You'll never have to bring a printed resume to job interviews -- it's already on your back

_

1. Hitting on high school chicks won't look as creepy to unknowing bystanders

10 Reasons to Hate the San Antonio Spurs

10. Manu Ginobili's flopping

9. Fabricio Oberto's flopping

8. Robert Horry's flagrant fouls

7. Tim Duncan's wide-eyed, elbows cocked, basketball clenched whining after every call/no-call involving him in the post

6. The ten minutes devoted to praising how fundamentally sound Tim Duncan is in every Spurs vs. anyone broadcast

5. The five minutes devoted to reminding us how "underrated" and "overlooked" the Spurs' dynasty has been in every Spurs vs. anyone broadcast

4. Tim Duncan's oversized shirts in post-game press conferences

3. The always stretched-out neck of Tony Parker's jersey


2. Bruce Bowen

1. The Riverwalk being San Antonio's #1 tourist attraction

Honorable Mention: Jacque Vaughn's jump shot, the ugliest uniforms in pro sports, the Spurs fan who calls in to national radio shows, Tony Parker trying to rap

B-Dizzle to LA???!?

Not gonna lie, I'm a huge Baron Davis fan. He's definitely one of my 5 favorite players in the league right now. I've got mixed emotions about his pending departure from the Bay.

On one hand, I'm pretty sad to see him go. He personified that fun-n-gun style. He made basketball interesting in a great basketball city that had been dormant for about 10 years. To be quite honest, I don't know how Golden State is going to recover. Monta Ellis can't play the 1 full-time. Stephen Jackson might spontaneously combust on the court without Davis' (the only Warrior Jackson respected) calming presence telling him to chill out. Golden State just went from a team that could compete on any given night to a team that will be lucky to win 30 games.

On the other hand, I'm pumped to see what the new-look Clippers will be able to accomplish. If they re-sign Brand (which they probably will), we could see a starting lineup of Davis, Eric Gordon, Al Thornton, Brand, and Chris Kaman. That lineup could be pretty scary. It could be the right balance of veteran leadership and youth. If Dunleavy lets them loose, they could put up some big numbers next year.

Could we see an LA-LA playoff matchup next season?

Draft Grades -- Eastern Conference

Here are my unqualified draft grades for all the Eastern Conference teams...

Chicago: B-
Whenever you pick at #1, you inevitably end up picking who everyone else tells you to pick. It's just too big of a risk as a GM to take a shot in the dark with so many chips on the table. That said, Rose was clearly the best prospect in this draft. Hinrich was miserable last season and isn't strong enough to fit into the Bulls' "hard hat" system. Rose is strong, quick, and gets it. Their second-round pick of Sonny Weems is a bit curious... aren't they already LOADED at guard? He may not even make their active roster. I thought they should have used the pick to get a raw big man (anyone would be an upgrade to Aaron Gray as a backup) or better yet -- use it on a foreign player who could stay overseas and develop for a few years.

Miami: C
Beasley was clearly the second-best player in the draft -- so you can't really fault them for this pick. However, I think it could be problematic to have a self-proclaimed socialite living under the bright lights of Miami. They then proceeded to take another undersized power forward in the second round (Darnell Jackson), which makes less sense given the fact they already have Udonis Haslem. I can't believe they didn't use either pick to get a point guard or a center.

New York: B-
I like the Gallinari pick, as I think he will end up having a good NBA career. The Knicks have needs at virtually every position, but I would have preferred seeing them draft a point guard to ensure Marbury's tenure would be coming to a close.

Milwaukee: D
I had mixed feelings about the Jefferson trade. Yi showed some flashes in his first season in the U.S., and they used a high lottery pick on him just a year ago. Seems a little premature to be dumping him, regardless of the fact Jefferson has proven to be a 20ppg scorer in the league. If they are so high on Jefferson, why did they use both of their picks on small forwards?? I'm baffled.

Charlotte: C-
I'm starting to look like a pessimist here, but I don't get this pick, either. I'm not sold on Felton being unable to succeed as a starting NBA point guard. If they plan on sliding him to the 2, they would have the shortest backcourt in the league with Felton (6'1?) and Augustin (5'10). Curious. As much as I dislike Brook Lopez, he would have been a much more logical choice here. Okafor could have slid to the 4 and their starting lineup would have been decent by next season. I've lost all hope in Michael Jordan as a front office decision-maker.

New Jersey: A
I spoke above about how I disliked the Jefferson-Yi trade for Milwaukee. Not surprisingly, I liked the trade for NJ. It was evident that Carter and/or Jefferson would be dealt soon, and they got a promising young player in return. I think the New York area will be a much better spot for Yi from a marketing standpoint, as well. There is no question they can capitalize on that gigantic Chinese population given there are only 2 relevant Chinese players in the league. As for the draft, New Jersey got a good deal in Lopez at #10, and scored one of the most underrated prospects in the draft late in the first round (Anderson). I LOVED the CDR pick at #40. He is going to be a legitimate scorer in the NBA, and Carter is probably on his way out the door.

Indiana: C-
What is Larry Bird thinking? He has two positions filled by promising players (2 & 3) in Granger & Dunleavy. Apparently he isn't aware of this, as he traded his lottery pick for Rush, who will play 2/3 in the NBA. They will undoubtedly be loaded at the wings, but after trading O'Neal they are left with a front court of Troy Murphy & Jeff Foster. Sorry, but I don't see that being the recipe for anything better than a first round playoff exit.

Philadelphia: B+
Speights was a great pick. He is a tremendously gifted athletically and will fit in perfectly with the Sixers' raw, young, roster that loves to run the floor.

Toronto: C+
While I think Hibbert was undervalued in this draft, I don't see him fitting into their style of play. It is no secret that Colangelo likes to put together teams that run, run, run. Hibbert doesn't have the foot speed to play in that kind of system. I think he would have been a better fit for a grind it out type of team (say, Miami or San Antonio).

Washington: B
JaVale McGee was a solid pick at #18. He could have easily been a late lottery selection, so I'm happy if I'm Washington. I like his length and athleticism in the Wizards' system -- he just needs to put on a few pounds. It will only be a couple years before he is supplanting Haywood in the starting lineup.

Cleveland: C+
J.J. Hickson was a decent pickup at #19. I wish they would have dealt this pick for a decent veteran high-post scorer, but Hickson is already a better scoring option than Ben Wallace. He's got potential, time will tell if he will turn into a viable option in the NBA.

Orlando: B
Outside of the 4-spot, Orlando needed most help at the wings (as a third wing option after Lewis & Turkoglu). I think Courtney Lee has the potential to fill that void. Given Turkoglu's emergence last season, the Magic have the ability to ease Lee into the rotation. I like this pick.

Detroit: C+
With Sheed on the last legs of his career, Detroit clearly needs to find a big man. While I like Deron Washington's athleticism, they already have an athletic energy guy in Maxiell. I'm not one to question Dumars after proving to be a savvy decision-maker (see Rodney Stuckey last draft), so I won't be too critical of their 08 draft management, but I would have used my pick(s) differently. I probably would have used #29 on the potential upside of DeAndre Jordan (and not dealt him to Seattle as they did with their #29 pick, D.J. White).

Boston: B+
I liked the Giddens pick at #30 and liked the trade for Bill Walker even better. Even though they are stacked at the 2 & 3 with Pierce & Allen, Boston is aging quickly and will benefit greatly from these two young, athletic wings.

Atlanta: B
Atlanta didn't do anything on draft night, and it was the right move. The last thing they need is to get younger.

Draft Grades - Western Conference

Here's my take on how all the teams in the West fared on Thursday:

Minnesota: A-
McHale made no bones about his "love" for Love. There was some talk that he might take him with #3, but for the first time in his tenure as GM, McHale outsmarted someone. He managed to get Love and a perenially underrated Mike Miller. In the process, he also dumped an unhappy Marco Jaric. I think Miller will provide the perfect veteran leadership and an all-around game that any team would love to have. Love will spread the defense and give Jefferson room to operate under the basket. Picking Nikola Pekovic was smart, as well. Many scouts think he is a top-15 talent, and he probably dropped to the second round simply because he won't be coming to the U.S. for a few years. With a roster that is already loaded with young talent, it may be best in the long run that they don't have another young player on the roster next season, anyways.

Seattle: C-
I liked Bayless at #4 and thought he would have been a better fit in Seattle than Westbrook. Bayless is a much more proficient scorer and would have taken more pressure off Durant on the offensive end. Their other 5 picks were okay at best. I really expected more out of Seattle with all of the picks they had on their hands.

Memphis: B-
I thought they should have held onto Love. Instead, they dumped their second-best player (Miller) and added a fourth point guard and a shooting guard. Now Memphis could potentially be stacked at the guard spots in a few years (Conley, Mayo, Gay), but have virtually nothing underneath. I do think Mayo is going to be special, but I really thought Memphis would have targeted a big man to keep. Apparently they are happy with keeping Darko & Kwame in their rotation (if not starting). The best they can hope for in a few years with this roster is the modern day version of the 2004 New Jersey Nets (Carter, Kidd, Jefferson). Silver lining: they got Darrell Arthur, who could have easily been a lottery pick.

LA Clippers: B+
Gordon was a good pickup, although I think Bayless would have been a better pick for LA at this slot. He can play both guards, and with Maggette probably leaving, they will need help at both guard positions (they don't have a decent healthy point guard, either). Gordon won't be playing any point, but I do think he will help them tremendously in the scoring department. What bumped up their grade in my opinion was the steal of DeAndre Jordan in the second round. I still can't believe he fell so far, and with Brand and Kaman holding the fort down low, the Clippers have the ability to be patient in Jordan's development. Solid day overall.

Sacramento: D
Wow, Jason Thompson at #12? I don't think anyone saw that one coming. They do need help at the 4, but this was a major stretch in my opinion. I would have easily selected Arthur if they were looking for a 4. Patrick Ewing, Jr. probably will never amount to anything in the NBA, so the Kings best hope is that someone will fall in love with his name and make a foolish trade for him. The one silver lining for me was the pick of Singletary -- I like his game and the Kings needed help at that position. Problem is, he will probably never be a quality starter in the NBA.

Portland: A
I probably shouldn't be shocked that Pritchard stole a high-quality talent like Bayless, but I am. In the process, Portland also dumped one of its mediocre point guards in Jack and got a tough young player in Diogu. In my eyes, they got the 4th best player in the draft with the 13th pick. Oh yeah, PG is the position they needed the most help. Even better. About the only flaw I saw in the Blazers' decision-making was trading away Arthur, but the local paper up here had Pritchard singing the praises of Batum -- and I agree that he could become a solid NBA player. A point that has been somewhat overlooked is the 3 future second-round picks Portland traded for. These could be valuable assets to use as part of future multi-player deals. Best draft-day management of any team.

Golden State: D
I feel like I'm experiencing deja vu. Didn't the Warriors use lottery picks on speculative big men in each of the past 2 drafts? Now they draft Randolph, who in my opinion was the most overrated player in the entire draft. Why make that pick when they already have Biedrins and a young Brandan Wright down low? It baffles me and lets me know that Don Nelson has nothing to do with the decision-making on draft day. I would have thought they would have targeted a guard given Baron Davis' & Stephen Jackson's probable departures in the near future? So what did they do in the second round? Pick another power forward. I'm stunned.

Phoenix: C-
Brook Lopez doesn't even have the semblance of an offensive game, and he is a painful show to watch on the court. Obviously, Kerr is overcompensating for the Suns' lack of defense by trying to get a defense-only player here. I could be wrong, but it doesn't make much sense to me to shift the entire personality of a franchise that has been consistently winning 50+ games a season.

Utah: B
Kuofos was a great pick at #23. He gives them size & outside shooting ability from the Center position. He'll be able to spell an often out-of-shape Mehmet Okur in a few years. I don't know much about Tomic, but at #44 this was a very low-risk pick. Apparently the Jazz thought about taking him at #23, so the fact they were able to nab him this late was a well-calculated risk.

Houston: C
They should have kept Batum with this pick. They could have also nabbed DeAndre Jordan, who would have had time to grow playing behind Yao. Leunen was a decent pick at #54, but in my eyes is a Steve Novak clone -- whom Houston already has.

San Antonio: B
The video I saw of George Hill made him out to be a pretty solid, yet undersized combo guard. Watching the draft, they mentioned he had a 6'7 wingspan which could turn him into a good defender. I think he'll be a solid upgrade to Vaughn as Parker's backup by year 2. I really liked the pick of James Gist at #57. He was a productive player in one of CBB's best conferences (ACC) and is an athletic specimen. On an aging Spurs roster, he could be a valuable energy guy off the bench.

New Orleans: B
No players to show for this draft, which is fine given they have a young & talented roster with no gaping holes that need to be filled immediately.

Dallas: C
Dallas does need help at the guard positions, but I don't think Shon Foster is the answer. Since they didn't have a first-round pick, there wasn't much hope that a solid guard would still be available at #51, but I like Joe Crawford better.

LA Lakers: B
Joe Crawford was a pretty good pickup at #58, given the slim pickings at that stage of the draft. The Lakers could use him in a few years with Fisher near retirement and Kobe needing a sub (every once in a great while). Crawford is a hard-nosed player. As this was their only pick in the draft, that's all I've got.

Denver: C
They didn't have any picks and made no moves in this year's draft. While they are great on paper, the culture of that franchise is miserable. It could still happen, but I'd trade away one of their pre-madonna stars before the season starts to shake things up a bit. Time will tell.


Coming Soon: Draft grades for all Eastern Conference teams

Just for Fun

I took an art class as a college elective and decided I would draw a bunch of nba players for my final project. I forgot how much I liked doing it until last night when out of boredom I decided to pick up the pencil. As a tribute to my hometown Blazers, this is what I came up with:


I'm certainly no pro and I won't be quitting my day job any time soon, but it's fun nonetheless. Rather than loading this website with more images than it can handle, I started another blog with some of my older drawings (from that art project). If you wanna check it out, here's the link: playersinpencil.blogspot.com

Why not send the NBA's best team to the Olympics?

Quite frankly, I'm concerned for this summer's Team U.S.A. Based upon Colangelo & Co's selections, it is quite obvious that they completely abandoned building the best "chemistry" team and instead offered invitations to the best available players, regardless of position. This is going to put our country's team into a precarious position in the International competition. We have learned three things from our recent international basketball failures: 1) to win the international game, you need shooters, 2) to win the international game, you need need to have players who can defend multiple positions (pick & roll defense) and 3) the foreign teams have better chemistry and continuity. I just don't see the 2008 U.S. roster meeting these needs.

I read a good post (http://highfivehoopschool.blogspot.com/2008/06/my-team-usa.html) that got me thinking. Most people who are skeptical about this summer's roster have ideas about how to construct the ideal roster for international competition. Most of these skeptics have ideas about which individual players would be the perfect "pieces" for our roster. "You need a shooter, a rangy defender, a strong rebounder, a power forward who can stretch the defense", etc. More often than not, these pieces are from multiple teams. I'd like to put a new spin on a possible solution to the U.S.'s shortcomings in international basketball: put the best NBA team in the Olympics.

I'll start my argument by saying that I realize there are a few obvious problems with my proposal. The first problem is that it would be very difficult to choose the "best" team to represent our country in the games. The second problem is that most NBA rosters are loaded with international talent that couldn't compete for the U.S. Lastly, this solution could create substantial discontent amongst NBA fans who would be unwilling to support a team they were used to rooting against (e.g. Kings fans would have a hard time supporting the Lakers). For sake of argument, however, let's pretend these issues didn't exist. Just bear with me as I make my case.

As I stated in the first paragraph, foreign rosters seem to have much better chemistry and continuity than the U.S. team does. What better way to ensure chemistry/continuity than to field a team that plays together all year long? The current roster has a plethora of "star" players who are not used to sharing the spotlight. NBA teams have all year, if not several years, to learn & understand their players' roles. The successful ones have very clearly defined roles, and execute these roles beautifully. Even if the perfect balance of players was put together (from multiple teams), these players would only have a few months (or less) to get accustomed to playing with each other. This isn't enough time to build great chemistry and for players to fully understand their places on the court.

While the international playing field is leveling out, it is still extremely obvious that the best overall talent exists in the U.S. How else do you explain the fact that far more than 50% of the players in the best league in the world (NBA) are American-born? I don't doubt other countries are catching up -- and fast -- but it will take years for another country to pass the U.S. in overall basketball talent. Basketball is still a relatively young sport in most foreign societies. I have to believe that the best teams in the best league could also be the best teams in an international competition.

Rather than labor to find the perfect mix, why not send a pre-assembled, battle-tested, proven NBA squad to the Olympics? Two teams come to mind: the Pistons and the Celtics. These teams have succeeded in the NBA & have predominantly American-born rosters. They have the "shooters," the "rebounders," the "versatile defenders" and the "hustle guys" that the U.S. has lacked in recent international competitions. They know how to play together & they know how to win.

I know many people believe that my proposal would negate our talent advantage. I disagree. I've gotta believe even role players for the Celtics or Pistons would be stars overseas. Isn't Carlos Arroyo (an NBA bench warmer) always considered one of the more valuable players in international competitions? Need I say more?

Do I believe this will ever be employed by the U.S.? No way. It would be far too difficult to pick which team would represent the league without awarding the pass on an objective basis, say, to the most recent NBA Champion. The problem with that system would be when a team like the Spurs wins and half of its players cannot compete for the U.S. This year (and 2004, coincidently), I believe my system would have worked beautifully. I truly believe the U.S. Celtics would win gold this year and the 2004 U.S. Pistons would have won Gold, as well. Our current squad, however, may have its hands full in Beijing...

Thoughts???