I’ve spent the last pair of weekends watching almost every hour of the NCAA tournament. The one described by a Mountain Dew-blooded Greg Anthony as “the year’s most insanely exciting four weeks of hoops” before explaining to you, lover of great things, how visiting the Facebook page of a company that makes phones and refrigerators could, like, totally take your March Madness experience to the next level.
If my stomach is capable of grimacing, it does so frequently at this time of year. I like the NCAA tournament. I wouldn’t characterize it in terms normally reserved for children’s toys and breakfast cereals, but it’s a source of enjoyment that occasionally solicits from me yelps of excitement that startle my cat. It’s a reasonably good level of basketball played for high stakes and an excellent appetizer for the NBA playoffs that follow about a month later. But phrases like “this remarkable group of youngsters,” the ads trying to “persuade” you that college athletes aren’t functionally retarded, the way commentators talk about “collegiate athletics” like Draymond Green is picking up where Plato left off in his quest for The Metaphysical Good: it’s rhetoric that descends from the same tree of logic that equates purity with virginity, virtue with beauty, and the 1950s with an idyllic America. It’s stupid, is what I mean. While watching the tournament, you occasionally encounter moments of glee of which only a 19 year-old is capable—the way the Louisville players were deliriously chirping and bouncing around after their comeback against Florida is a good example— but those moments don’t require narration. And besides, the sight of Dirk Nowitzki retreating to the locker room, overwhelmed with emotion after finally winning an NBA title was pretty touching, too.
The idea that college basketball is supremely entertaining because it’s untainted by—I dunno, whatever abstract evil sullies a man’s soul once he shakes David Stern’s hand—misses the point. I nodded along with Kenny Smith after CBS played a clip of an inconsolable Brian Conklin following Saint Louis’s season-ending loss against Michigan State. I’m paraphrasing here: “In the NBA, you can always put that jersey back on next year. In college, you only get four seasons, and then that thing goes in a closet or up in the rafters.” That’s one of the most compelling aspects of the tourney: there are seniors on these teams who will never play in the NBA or Europe. They’re moving on to become high school teachers and accountants after their team is eliminated. Their team’s tournament run composes the final basketball games they will play on a big stage. They’re playing to keep a crucial element of their identities alive for another 48 hours.
That’s the human drama of the NCAA tournament. The other thing that makes March great is the frenetic spectacle of the games themselves. A good tournament game spasms like a good NBA game doesn’t. In the NBA playoffs, the pace of play slows down, focus tightens, and supremacy is determined via seven-game wars of attrition. Some of the best NCAA games are fast, haphazard, and unceasingly kinetic. Like watching a gaggle of over-caffeinated squirrels chasing a windblow acorn. There’s a lot of stuff happening—three-pointers, fast breaks, turnovers, Frank Martin rupturing a capillary, piles of limbs on the hardwood—until out of the chaos emerges an ill-advised final shot—23 feet out off one leg? What the hell are you doing, you stupid kid?—that finds nylon. Your breath returns, and you wonder where the hell is Weber State, anyway? And when the game ends, the losing team returns to their locker room, not to retool and adjust, but to cry. It’s brief and visceral; its poignancy is in spangling moments, not sustained brilliance.
It’s fun, is what I mean. It offers to you what nearly any sport does: its own idiosyncrasies and two teams trying to dominate one another. I don’t know why it turns some NBA fans into anthropomorphic globs of bile. In the same way college basketball fans get sanctimonious about the intrinsic purity of the NCAA tourney, NBA purists come off as snobs who can’t deign to watch a sub-professional basketball game without taking a Silkwood shower afterward. My Twitter timeline two Friday afternoons ago was split between all-caps GLEEFUL NONSENSE about Norfolk State and NBA bloggers having a haughty condescension fit. Even the most adamant microbrew snob wouldn’t camp outside a liquor store and subject every patron who exited with a six-pack of PBR to a series of groans and insults, but Twitter allows us to pipe our most grating, acidic thought-gunk into people’s phones and laptops. I was alone, half-heartedly cleaning my apartment when I realized Whoa, Norfolk State could actually win this thing, and it was kind of soul-rendering to experience that final half-hour of GLEEFUL NONSENSE in concert with a handful of people I follow on Twitter. The detractors: what were they gaining from being disruptive other than an empty sense of superiority? Get down or get off the dance floor, dudes.
As is my wont, I take my experience with the NCAA tourney back to my NBA corner and begin to deconstruct it. I couldn’t watch Harrison Barnes’s last two outings without seeing a plummeting draft position above his head. My first reaction to Kyle O’Quinn was that he was a remarkable young man; my second reaction sparked a Google search to see where he was projected in the upcoming draft. In that sense, watching college basketball, for an NBA fan, is a bit like watching portions of a schematic fight itself. Did you know Kentucky’s roster consists of three Cavaliers? That’s the reality in my head, at least. If Michael Kidd-Gilchrist is wearing a Hornets jersey next season, I’ll feel like he has betrayed me.
The NCAA tournament is a lot of things that I’m not sure congeal into a whole. I think trying to make complete sense of March Madness—whether by marginalizing or extolling its virtues—is a fool’s errand. It’s more sensible to allow the tournament to be its fraught, fractured self. It’s hyperactive. It’s emotional. It’s an excuse for alumni to do that annoying alumni thing. It’s a Clark Kellog phrase-coining clinic. It’s a half-assed scouting expedition. (I’m completely smitten with Brad Beal after watching him play approximately 95 minutes of basketball.) This year, for me, it has been a convenient diversion from a Cavaliers team whose most pressing unanswered question is where they will finish in the lottery. Maybe high enough to put Brad Beal in a backcourt next to Kyrie Irving? I can dream. March is for dreams, too.
Bradley Beal seemed to disappear against Louisville, which was the first game I saw much of him in. not convinced he’s NBA starter material.
March Madness helped the cavs out a lot, particularly Kendall Marshall’s injury. I think we might have a good shot at Harrison Barnes assuming we don’t move up any further. Marshall’s injury showed that Barnes isn’t too good at creating his own shot, which wouldn’t be a problem since we have Kyrie. He still has the skills and potential to be an All Star. I’d definitely take him at #8 if he falls.
Also, assuming we don’t use our picks to trade up, Tyshaun Taylor from Kansas looks like he could be a nice early second round pick to try out for our back up PG spot. Good size at 6’3” and can score in bunches, and he’s starting to make better decisions with the ball. Super fast too. Currently ranked 41 on Chad Ford’s Big Board. What does everyone else think?
I want no part of Barnes, and don’t know how I’m the only one. Dude is mostly hype, has no first step, dissapears in big games, can’t create on his own, and can’t even create that effectively when he has a running mate (shoots an improved 44% this year and does nothing particularly well besides be tall for his position and get fouled while slashing, which is a good thing, but not worth going in the top 10 for) His college 3 is acceptable, nothing better, and will be harder in the pros. His defense is unremarkable from what I saw in the tournament. The man is purely a high school hype product. He may be a rotation NBA player, but he’ll never be a difference maker, and I wouldn’t be surprised with that attitude of his that he’ll ever accept his role and be a good team player off the bench.
NO BARNES PLEASE. Unless we can get him with the Lakers’ pick.
Jeremy Lamb Please. That is all.
At least we know that in 60 years people won’t confuse the 2000s as “idyllic america”.
So let’s take a look at a highly possible scenario. Draft day comes around and we have the #8 pick. We fail to trade up. MKG, McAdoo and Cody Zeller return to school. Anthony Davis, Beal, Robinson, Drummond, Barnes, Sullinger and Perry Jones are all off the board. Who do we go with? And why?
Jeremy Lamb is what I expect to hear, but he barely cracks the top 15 on most of the expert’s boards that I’ve seen. Is he worth taking at number 8 then? We should go Best Player Available at this stage in our growth.
Harrison Barnes will be Marvin Williams 2.0.
Jeremy Lamb is a super-smooth, long and lanky freak. He has shown flashes of the pure shooting abilities you want at the 2 guard spot, and also glimpses of the athleticism to rise up and “throw the hammer down” on unbeknownst defenders.
Not until UConn lost in the 1st round of the tourney and Florida went to the elite 8 was Brad Beal ranked so high and Lamb so low. Overrating tournament performances happens every year. Beal is definitely the stronger and more aggressive of the two, but I would be very happy to land Lamb.
With that being said, I’d take a risky risk on Drummond if he’s available at our pick. Plenty of wing talent later in this draft as backup.
Matthew, No doubt. But I think Lamb will be a better player than Barnes as he is not a product of hype, and actually hits a good percentage of his shots and is a long and pesky defender. To be quite honest I haven’t seen either play too much, I just know that nothing outside of the name “Harrison Barnes” impresses me too much about the kid.
I actually Like Tyler Zeller a lot, and think Sully will be a pretty good pro. If sully is the best player, do we take ANOTHER power forward? Honestly it might not be terrible, he can at least hit a jumper consistently and D-board, might actually pair well playing down low with TT/verajoa, but I don’t know what we’d do against Dwight or decent 7 footers.
And we’d have to give up on the idea of getting that “True” center, but we might be better for it. Against teams not named Lakers or Magic (or whatever team gets dwight) I think our young front-court would pair up well. Actually, quite well, as they are both good defensively (sullinger doesn’t put up a ton of stats, but anchors one of the best defenses in College basketball as an undersized center) and Sully D-boards and scores with post moves and jump shots, TT O-boards and scores slashing and on putbacks, and Andy is Andy. Only problem is it gets clunky when sullinger brings it in too deep. Oh well, we probably won’t find out cause Sully is slipping down draft boards cause he’s not explosive, just like enes kanter and louis scola, and a lot of other effective big men who don’t have his touch.
As for drafting point guards late, I’d much rather see the Cavs stockpile role players at other positions. I think the D-League is going to be the feeder system for backup point guards. Most of the best players you can get in the D-League are shorter guys who dominate the ball. What you can’t get in the D-League are quality foreigners, upperclassmen with size and a skill (Danny Green, Chandler Parsons, John Luer, DeJuan Wagner), and projects with upside (Sam Young). Everything else one can get in the D-League. However, the one probable exception is the uber-quick short guy like Patrick Mills or Isiah Thomas (who I’d call projects with upside).
Also, here’s a great article on tanking. It describes a lot of why I hate the draft lottery: it takes away all the incentive to win.
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/39318/tanking-is-the-tip-of-the-iceberg
MKG Is coming out. So, Matthew, you’re off there.
http://espn.go.com/nba/draft2012/story/_/id/7723624/2012-nba-draft-kentucky-wildcats-michael-kidd-gilchrist-enter-draft-source-says
I’m beginning I think my posts detailing why Henson would be a decent pick for the Cavs only appear to me. No one on here ever mentions him or my posts on him. All this despite Draftexpress having him as a top 10 pick all year. Curious, to say the least…
Hoopsdogg, thanks for posting that article. It pretty much perfectly articulates my problem with the mindset that we HAVE to lose to become a winner.
Right now I don’t think any of us are in a position to make a call on how hard Grant works or how good of a GM he really is. That being said, I keep fearing that we’re going to turn into a Kings’ type team that keeps tanking in hopes of snagging that other great player.
This is why I’ve pretty much rooted for Ws all season long. There is talent to be had EVERYWHERE in the draft – position means substantially less than the guy making the decisions.
Henson! Agree, KJ, too many people are willing to reach for a wing. We should absolutely take a big if that’s the best talent available. We’ve got (hopefully) 2 bigs, neither of whom is a great scorer. If the best available is a wing, that’s fine. If it’s Henson, I’d still be happy with that. We can work to swing a trade for scoring wing later, or perhaps find gold with our Laker’s pick (I still think it’s possible ATL and PHI pass LA, making it #22 instead of #24).
Right now the only position off limits, at least in my mind, is PG. If we’re faced with the option to draft a top tier talent at SG, SF, PF, or C, we absolutely have to do it.
the article articulates the problem, yet proposes no solution, nor refutes that it is a winning strategy in the long term. If you constantly make boneheaded decisions, ala the Bobcats or Kings it won’t work out, duh, but if you make smart decisions and just suck it up for a year or two and otherwise make smart decisions and have a schedule it can/does work.
I can see taking issue with the system, but since its in place we may as well use it to our advantage. What is the proposed alternative, small market teams should just always suck? I prefer the current format. And I don’t think Grant is a poor GM as he keeps making smart long term decisions (mo williams is now Kyrie, and a player who was walking is now a first round draft pick in this talented draft class)
@Matt, thanks for sticking up for Grant. I’ve heard some people give him some flack and I don’t really understand it. Since inheriting the post Lebron mess, he flipped Mo Williams (a second tier player on his best day) for the first overall draft pick, found gold with Gee in the D League, Traded the Kings a player who is no longer on their roster for a rotation player and top 15 pick, picked ESPN’s redrafted #1 and #2 pick at the #1 and #4 spot (despite a lot of people insisting we take Derrick Williams and this site’s love affair with Big V), traded a player that the Lake show could have just signed in the offseason (and wouldn’t have signed with us) to them for a legitimate assets (do NOT forget about the pick swap next year, it will be clutch) and maintained enough cap flexibility (AJ off the books this year, Walton off next year) that if we hit on all these picks we have we can lock up the important guys.
I’d say the guy is killing it right now.
Every draft is all about making the right choice regardless of where you pick. Having the top choice gives you the greatest opportunity to get the greatest asset. IF we end up with a pick around #5 versus #8, then we can significantly upgrade the team IF we pick correctly and not just making the best out of the 8th spot because the best players are gone. Common sense I know, but a simple fact that must be considered before looking at teams that consistantly pick poorly and suggesting the draft order doesn’t matter. Draft order is very important and nobody should ever think otherwise.
There are certain guys like Drummond who will be picked more for ‘potential’ than actually accomplishing much. Barnes is a guy who was great in HS but has been inconsistant in college and has not improved since last year which could be a sign that he’s already reached his ceiling. So, these are two guys that I think may end up being ‘bust’ in the league if picked in top 5.
MKG, Beal, Lamb, all guys that have played there way into the lottery and each have skillsets that are likely to improve over time. Deciding who will be the best of the 3 as a pro is difficult.
McAdoo and Rivers are guys that could end up out of the top 10 (depending on which board) that could easily become ROY candidates. It’s easy to knock either guy and talk about what they don’t have, but when your dad played so long and so well and can continue to provide additional expert coaching/training in the off-season that’s more suited to the professional game rather than the college game, these guys could be even better than teams think and teams that pass on them can really regret it.
I think players like Leonard, Zeller, even Davis and Robinson (all bigs) will be exactly what they are now but at the professional level. Anytime a player is said to need to get stronger or bigger or put on more muscle to be a good/great NBA player, then I doubt they’ll ever be stars. The best PFs and C’s either have great size or strength coming into the league, I don’t think many of them gain it while in the league. Nor do I think athletic and fast bigs make it to the star level without the size/strength aspect. So these guys I see being productive and having solid careers, but not superstars. I think one of the reasons that Drummond looks so promising is that he already has an NBA body & strength while these other guys don’t.
Drafts are tough and take a lot of luck and scouting. Player talent and size can be measured reasonably well, but their instinct for the game and desire etc. These intangibles is what sepearates many of the lottery picks from stars and bust.
I’m not sure two drafts could do enough to help this team. What a sorry bunch.
I don’t see the point in taking Henson. We already have TT, and from what (admittedly little) I have seen from Henson, he just seems like a taller, older version of TT. What’s the point of having two underweight, offensively challenged PFs on the same team? As long as TT is still on the team, I’d rather pair him with a big who can knock down a 15 foot jumper, like Zeller, Leonard, or even Sullinger.
Looking at net PER on 82games.com, it shows that SG and SF are our relatively weakest positions. SF is obvious but I found it a little surprising that SG was worse than C considering most of the year involved starting guys like Erden, Hollins, and Thompson. So hopefully there’s a wing player the front office is confident can be a difference maker for the team.
@Matt – that article was terrible. It tried to make a point: Tanking = bad because you reward teams for losing. Yet it then proved that teams that are bad stay bad because of bad management (so why does it even matter if you were tanking or not) and then proceeds to make the it seem like high round draft picks are so freaking valuable before leaving you with the unspoken knowledge that the same few teams win every year in the NBA anyways. Pretty blatant example that blogging is just often about ranting and throwing some stats/analogies in to sound convincing. I was convinced of NOTHING from that article.
THe one thing that the article did a good job of explaining was that the line between winner and loser is razor thin.
Lets say this year our top two picks turn into draft busts (no reason to believe this, just saying…) With our roster situated as is, we’re looking at an absolutely abysmal season, and another in the lottery.
Now, if whoever we end up with the next year doesn’t turn out to be a star, we’ve started a cycle of losing that’s VERY hard to break. I’m not sure how you guys can look at this roster and be psyched for the future – we have exactly two known assets that have serious upside, and one that is in its prime. The rest of our roster is comprised of guys who can only be 6th or SUBSTANTIALLY worse on any roster. Unless we get some absolutely fantastic talent in this draft, things aren’t going to be a heck of a lot better for a while.
I have faith in Grant – as I said before there’s no reason to believe he isn’t anything but the best. But just because we think he’s good doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be hesitant to wish for tanking. If things don’t turn out as planned next year, we may be left having to wish for tanking AGAIN. And that’s never, ever, ever, ever, EVER a good thing, as the article so clearly stated.
Mallory, you also seem to forget that Gee is probably better than starters on real contenders (i’d take him over Metta at this point or chalmers) and that we have Cap space to spare. Yes, we only have 3 guys that should be above average starters on our roster right now, and If we bust on our draft picks we’ll suck. That is true for every single small market team, so I don’t know what you want us to do about it. If you make poor decisions, you will suck. Grant hasn’t shown a tendency to do this so stop being paranoid, it does no good. Whether we tank or play our ass off into the 8th spot, if we make bad decisions, we’ll go nowhere.
That article didn’t clearly state its never a good idea to wish for tanking (as it clearly stated tanking on purpose two years in a row worked out FABULOUSLY for OKC). It said its never ever ever a good thing to repeatedly make horrible roster decisions, and whined that he didn’t like the system rewarding teams for sucking (which he clearly agreed it does, and tanking has benefits when your GM isn’t a bonehead)
“Now, if whoever we end up with the next year doesn’t turn out to be a star, we’ve started a cycle of losing that’s VERY hard to break.”
This just isn’t true. The teams that suck forever draft mediocre to poor years on end (we’ve already drafted fabulously, breaking the cycle) and, as the article so clearly states, usually compound that with terrible roster decisions. One bad draft class, while certainly a set back, doesn’t doom us into the Charlotte bobcats, and even if it did, what does being paranoid about it do? You’d rather we freak out and trade for known assets? Worked out real well for all those teams who traded for vets mentioned in the article. Free Agents and Traded players turn out to be busts almost as much as 1st round draft picks, and kill your cap a whole lot more. If you are afraid of the draft, you are afraid of the only source of top end talent and bargain contracts that Cleveland has access to.
Again, people who haven’t seen Henson play seem to think he is like TT. He is not. Again, physically he is Davis. Exactly. Ad he has a nice jump hook an a decent face-up jumper that will only get better. There is absolutely no reason he and TT couldn’t thrive on the court together. We need more bigs. Why people seem to think we don’t is beyond me. U can find a SG/SF nearly anywhere. Gimme Irving with quality bugs and everything else will take care of itself. Also, I wish people would stop going on about either Zeller. Neither is as long or as athletic as Henson. We need that…